ML19273C045
| ML19273C045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1979 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906180803 | |
| Download: ML19273C045 (4) | |
Text
.,
.1 NRC ?flBLIC D00UhsgE ROOM na p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
//
g$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dcp,5
<3
[ kk,$ p;*j C
BEFORE THE ATOFIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cp.
6 g
)
cc In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
)
)
STN 50-593
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
May 18, 1979 Station, Units 4 and 5)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER At the special prehearing conference on February 21, 1979, in the above-identified proceeding, the Licensing Board ruled that Intervenor Larry Bard's contention relating to transportation of hazardous materials raised in the Second Amendment of his Petition for Leave to Intervene dated September 11, 1978, was not admissible as drafted. The Intervenor was granted leave to file an amended contention regarding transportation of radioactive materials on or before March 5,1979.
Under covering letter dated March 1,1979, Mr. Bard has submitted a " Third Amendment" setting forth three contentions regarding transportation of radioactive materials. Joint Applicants and the NRC Staff both have filed responses opposing the admission of the amended contentions as issues in contro-versy.
In the first of the amended contentions, the Intervenor alleges that the specifications for scent fuel containers cited in Section 3.3.2 2353 122 790eig o {g]
Q
{
4
, of Joint Applicants' Environmental Report do not adequately account for transportation hazards in Arizona. As a basis for this contention, Mr.
Bard states that the Southern Pacific Railroad routes running both east and west from Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station include oridges with greater than a 30-foot drop to the ground and that the Southern Pacific Railroad is the only rail transportation available.
Regulaticns covering the packaging and transportation of radio-active materials are set forth in 10 CFR Part 71. The environmental im-pact of the transportation of spent fuel is governed by 10 CFR 9 51.20 which includes a table identified as Table S-4 which provides numerical values for the asaironmental effects of transportation of spent fuel under both normal and accident conditions.
The first amended contention which in essence asserts that a spent fuel shipping cask is incapable of withstanding a drop of greater than 30 feet appears to stem from Intervenor's understanding of the hypotheti-cal accident conditions referenced in Section 3.8.2 of the Environmental Report and set forth in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 71. The Board notes, however, that the free drop test is only one of the several tests described in Appendix B which are applied sequentially to demonstrate that a spent fuel cask an survive potential accidents without a breach of its struc-tural integrity. Moreover, the distance of 30 feet specified in the free drop test is only one of the several conditions imcosed during that 2353 123
2 particular test.
There is therefore no basis for Intervenor's assumption that if a spent fuel cask drops a distance of greater than 30 feet it will suffer structural failure.
As for 'the environmental consequences of the release of radio-activity resulting from a transportation accident, the Board notes that such releases are taken into account in 10 CFR 551.20(g), Table S-4.
The Board is required to apply the values in that table in analyzing the costs and benefits for this application for construction permits.
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 and Part 51 are binding upon the Board and the parties to this licensing proceeding.
Consequently, Intervenor's first amended contention represents a challenge to the adequacy of the regulations. As the Board advised Mr. Bard when ruling that his original contention on the transportation of hazardous materials was inadmissible, such a challenge may not be entertained by the Board absent the filing of a petition demonstrating special circum-stances which would permit such a challenge [10 CFR 52.758(b)].O Inter-venor has failed to comply with the provisions of 10 CFR 52.758 and make a showing of special circumstances which would permit a challenge to the regulations. Accordingly, the first amended contention is inadmissible.
Y ranscript of Special Prehearing Conference, at 65-68 (February 21, T
1979).
2353 124
, Intervenor's second and third amended contentions consist of generalized statements of opinion expressing the view that the subjects of transportation and disposal of radioactive materials "should remain open for critical analysis" before the Licensing Board.
Such statements fail to meet the specificity requirement of 10 CFR 2.714 and are not suitable for admission as issues in controversy in thic proceedi.g.
Accordingly, the second and third amended contentions of Intervenor's
" Third Amendment" are rejected.
Comissioner Victor Gilinsky and Dr. Quentin J. Stober, members of this Board, join in this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d
Rdtert M.. azo,' Chaityn Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of May,1979.
-