ML19289F085
| ML19289F085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289F083 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906010331 | |
| Download: ML19289F085 (20) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
( Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS N0 GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD NRDC Contention 1 Spent Fuel Storage, Intent To Prepare Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel.
(Commission Statement).
1.
The Commission found that:
While the Commission believes, as earlier indicated, that the matter of spent fuel storage capacity can adequately be addressed on a case-by-case basis within the context of individual licensing reviews, it also believes that, from the standpoint of longer range policy, this matter can profitably be examined in a broader context.
It views the preparation of the generic environmental impact statement as a suitable venicle for such an examination.
(40 Fed. Reg. 42801. 4 075).
2.
The C r~ a; o found that:
ir the tvent that a particular on-site spent fuel pool shn,Ad become filled, and no alternative form cf spent fuel storage could be found, the reactor would eventually 7006010 M L, 2235 Ib9
_2 be forced to shut down
.d " store" the last spent fuel in the reactor pressure vessel.
While no serious adverse consequences to the public health and safety, tiie common defense and security, or the environment would likely result, the reactor shutdown would, of course, remove the plant from service, and this in turn could adversely affect the electric utility's ability to meet electrical enercy needs, or force the utility to operate other plants that are less economical to operate or which have greater environmental impact, and thereby adversely affect the public interest.
40 Fed. Reg. 42801,(1975).
3.
The Commission found that:
There appear to be a number of possible alternatives for increasing spent fuel storage capacity including, a-'ong other things, increasing the storage capacity at present reactor sites, and construction of independent spent fuel storage facilities.
The shortage of spent fuel storage capacity will occur at individual reactors, and the Commission could adequately address the issues involved on a case-by-case basis within the context of individual licensing reviews. Ibid.
4.
The Commission found that:
Indeed, the Commission has not, to date, found it necessary, in the discharge of its licensing and related regulatory functions, to develop any overall program of action to deal with the problem.
The Commission does, however, have the discretion to deal with issues cI this type on a generic basis through the exercise of its rulemaking authority and/or the issuance of a " generic" environmental impact statement.
Rulemaking proceeding and/or the issuance of a generic environmental impact statement might, as appropriate sarve as the conduit for the promulgation of more aefinitive criteria regarding size and design of spent fuel pools and/or the licensing of independent spent fuel storage 2235 170
. facilities, and for consideration of possible revision of the fuel cycle environmental impacts set forth in 10 CFR 551.20(e) in light of additional spent fuel storage and attendant transportation. Also, the possible implications of increased spent fuel storage on the options available for immediate and long-term storage of nuclear waste materials could profitably be examined within this context.
Ibid.
5.
The Commission found that:
While the Commission believes, as earlier indicated, that the matter of spent fuel storage capacity can adequately be addressed on a case-by-case basis within the context of the individual licensing reviews, it also believes that from the standpoint of longer range policy, this matter can profitably be examined in a broader context. It views the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement as a suitable vehicle for sucn an examination. Ibid.
- 6. The Commission gave notice that a generic environmental impact statenent on the handling and storage of spent lightwater power reactor fuel would be prepared by the Commission.
The Commission indicated that such statement would focus on the time period between then, which was 1975, and the mid-1980s and would address inter alia:
1.
The magnitude of the possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity; 2.
The alternatives for dealing with the problem, including but not limited to, (a) permitting the expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at power reactors; (b) permitting the expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at reprocessing plants; (c) licensing of independent spent fuel storage facilities; (d) storage of spent fuel from one or more reactors at the storage pools of other reactors; (e) ordering that generation of spent fuel (reactor operations) be stopped or restrictad.
2235 171
3 3.
A cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives listed in (2), along with any other reasonably feasible alternatives, including (a) impacts on public health and safety and the common defense and security; (b) environmental, social and economic costs and benefits; (c) commitments of resources; (d) implications regarding options available for the intermediate and long-term storage of nuclear waste materials; (e) relationship between local short-term uses of the environmental long-term productivity.
4.
The impacts of possible additional transportation of spent fuel that may be required should one or more of the alternatives be adopted.
5.
More definitive stancards and criteria to govern the licensing of one or more of the alternatives for dealing with the problem and; 6.
Possible amendments to 10 CFR 551.20(e). 40 Fed.
Reg. 42801 (1975).
7.
The Commission found that there should be no such general deferral af licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity, including such actions as the issuance of operating licensing amendments to permit increases in the storage capacity of reactor spent fuel pools or reprocessing plant spent fuel storage pools, or the licensing of independent spent fuel storage facilities, pending completion of the generic environmental impact statement.
40 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975).
2235 172
a 3 8.
The Commission found that the related licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity, including such actions as the issuance of operating license amendments to permit increases in the storage capacity of reactor spent fuel pools, or reprocessing plant spent fuel storage pools, or the licensing of independent spent fuel storage facilities may continue during the period required for preparation of the generic environmental impact statement, subject to certain conditions. 40 Fed. Reg. 42801.
9.
The Commission found that the five factors would be applied, weighed, and balanced within the context of environmental impact state-ments or environmental impact appraisals in reaching licensing determina-tions with respect to a particular related licensing action since the Commission's general conclusions with respect to five factors it set forth may not fit the factual circumstances of a particular licensing action proposed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity during the period required for preparation of the generic statement. Ibid.
- 10. The Commission's conclusion that it would not deter related licensing actions to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity was based on consideration of the following five specific factors:
2235 173
. (1)
It is likely that each individual licensing action of this type would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing action of this type; (2)
It is not likely that the taking of any particular licensing action of this type during the time frame under consideration would constitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual licensing action of this type; (3)
It is likely that any environmental impacts associated with any individual licensing action of this type would be such that they could adequately be addressed within the context of the individual license application without overlooking any cumulative environmental impacts; (4)
It is likely that any technical issues that may arise in the course of a review of an individual license application can be resolved within that context; and (5) A deferral or severe restriction on licensing actions of this type would result in substantial harm to the public interest. Ibid.
11.
The action to trans-ship Oconee spent fuel for storage at McGuire of 300 spent fuel assemblies of 270-day old fuel is a useful and valuable alternative to resolve the licensee's anticipated shortfall of spent fuel pool capacity at the Oconee facility.
(Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) page 59.)
2235 174
. 12. The use, value or usefulness of the proposed activity to store Oconee fuel at McGuire is independent of the use of other licensing actions of similar type that could be used to solve the shortfall of Oconee spent fuel storage capacity.
(Roberts and Spitalny Affidavit.)
- 13. That 1s, based on predicted fuel burnup rates at Oconee by mid-1979 to early 1980, spent fuel will have to be shipped offsite in order to maintain a reserve for retaining a full-core discharge capability.
EIA, page 1.
- 14. Approval of the pending application for re-racking at Oconee, (dated February 2,1979), if approved before June,1979, (see the transmittal letter from Duke Power Company dated February 2,1979 which submitted an application to modify the Oconee spent fuel pool) would provide, with existing capacity at the site, sufficient spent fuel storage space to discharge the spent fuel generated by the Oconee reactors through June,1983, based on the current Duke Power Company discharge schedule for Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, assuming that one full-core discharge capability for all three reactor: is not retained.
"flRC Staff Response to flatural Resources Defense Council Request to Applicant and Staff for Admissions" April 17, 1979, p. 1).
15.
If Staff keeps its present schedule for completion of its review of the Applicant's re-racking proposal, the Staff review would be completed prior to June 8, 1979.
Ibid.
2235 175
. 16. Operation of the Oconee reactors without a full core discharge capability does not endanger the health and safety of the public or workers or cause substantial adverse environmental impact.
Staff response of April 17, 1979, p. 2 to NRDC's request for admissions of April 2,1979.
17.
It would appear that re-racking of the Oconee spent fuel racks will not cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public or workers, and will not cause substantial adverse environmental impacts although the final conclusion cannot be made pending completion of the Staff's environ-mental and health and safety review of Duke Power Company's licensing request of February 7, 1979.
However, even if the re-racking proposal of Duke Power Company is granted, trans-shipment of Oconee spent fuel for storage in the Unit 1 spent fuel pool at the McGuire facility has a utility that is independent of the utility of the re-racking proposal.
Staff Response of April 17, 1979 to NRDC's request for admissions of April 2, 1979.
- 18. Assuming a full core discharge, even if the re-racking proposal is granted, trans-shipment of Oconee spent fuel for storage in the Unit 1 McGuire spent fuel pool at the McGuire facility is still a viable option to resolve the Oconee spent fuel pool capacity shorgage problem. Spitalny and Roberts Affidavit; EIA, pp. 49-50.
19.
The Commission's decision not to defer actions to ameleriote a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity, including such interim discovery actions as proposed by Duke Power Company, was based on the Commission's 2235 176
.. consideration that utilities had planned for and designed a full core discharge capability (FCR) in construction and operation of their reactors.
40 Fed Reg. 42801 (1975).
- 20. There is no regulatory or statutory requireme t or other requirement by the NRC Staff which requires a full-core discharge although the NRC Staff as a matter of policy favors such design by utility operators of nuclear rower plants because of the flexibility it gives for operation of reactors in preparation of or repair and inspection of reactor facilities when necessary. Carter Affidavit.
21.
The proposal to store Oconee fuel at McGuire has an independent utility of its own to resolve the Oconee spent fuel shortage. Spitalny and Roberts Affidavit.
22.
The proposed action to transport Oconee fuel for storage at McGuire does not tend to signficantly foreclose other alternatives available with respect to resolving the short-fall of spent fuel storage capacity at the Oconee facility site. Applicant's response to NRDC's interrogatories of March 27, 1979, pages 6-10; Spitalny and Roberts Affidavit; EIA, pp.
49-50, 61-62.
- 23. The proposed action to trans-ship Oconee nuclear fuel to McGuire to resolve the Oconee facility spent fuel storage capacity short-fall has not tended to significantly foreclose other actions of a similar type to solve Oconee's spent fuel pool shortage capacity short-fall problem.
Applicant's response of March 27, 1979 to NRDC interrogatories of March 8 1979-2235 177
. 24. Duke Power Company has applied fer a re-racking proposal to resolve the same problem and is in the process of considering all other reasonable and feasible similar actions with respect to the Oconee spent fuel storage capacity shortage.
Spitalny and Roberts Affidavits; Applicants answers of Natural Resources Defense Council Interrogatories of March 8, 1979.
Applicant's response No.1 and Applicant's response No. 2 of April 17, 1979 to NRDC's request for admissions of April 2, 1979.
25.
It is likely that any technical issues that may arise in the course of the continuing review of Applicant's proposal to transship Oconee fuel for storage in the McGuire spent fuel pool can be resolved within that context.
Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related to spent fuel storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station - Unit 1, Spent Fuel Pool, Duke Power Company, January 1979, Docket No. 60-2623, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards; EIA, p. 64.
- 26. Within the context of the proposal to transship Oconee spent fuel to McGuire for storage to resolve the anticipated Oconee spent fuel storage capacity short-fall, a deferral or sever restriction on this licensing action would result in substantial harm to the public interest.
EIA, pp.
29-59, page 64; EIA, Table 10-1, p. 5.
Applicant's response dated March 27, 1979, at page 11 to NRDC's interrogatories of March 8, 1979.
2235 178
. 27.
The proposed program to handle the shortage of spent fuel storage space as set forth in NRDC's contention refers to the overall Commission program to consider the overall spent fuel storage problem pursuant to its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement.
NRDC response of April 16, 1979, at 5-6 to Applicant's interrogatories of March 28,1979; NRDC Responses 12-15 to Applicant's interrogatories of March 28, 1979; NRDC Responses at p. 8, NRDC responses 27-30; 34 (p. 10);
responses 27-30; response 34, page 10; 42-43 (p. 11) to Applicant's interrogatories of March 28, 1979; NRDC responses pp. 1-3 to Staff interrogatories of flarch 23, 1979.
28.
The proposed action to transship Oconee fuel may or may not bias the
" final decision" on whether to approve "the program"; the " program" as defined by Intervenor is an overall national proposed program to handle the nationwide shortage of spent fuel storage space by shipping and storing spent fuel away from the reactor where it was generated and refers to the DOE program to deal with the national spent fuel storage problem.
Intervenor's responses of April 16, 1979 to Applicant's interrogatories of March 28, 1979.
The proposed activity will not foreclose interim alternatives 2235 179
, to resolve spent fuel storage capacity shortages because the Commission has already determined that reactor licensing in individual cases can proceed if the five factors it specified are considered. 42 Fed. R_eq.
42801 (1975), EIA, pp. 61-65.
- 29. The proposed action to transship and store Oconee fuel at McGuire is as a matter of Commission policy not to be deferred until completion of the generic statement on interim actions to resolve spent fuel capaicty shorgage problems by the Department of Energy. Commission Statement 42 Fed. Reg. 42801 (1975).
Contention No. 2 1.
The proposed action is not a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
EIA, page 59; EIA, page 65.
2.
The Environmental Impact Appraisal in support of the decision that there is no significant effects on the human environment was based upon consideration of the impacts of transportation of spent fuel fr~" Oconae to McGuire and storage of the Oconee fuel at McGuire in existing facilities, taking into account ongoing construction of the McGuire unit.
EIA.
3.
There will be no measurable environmental impact on the ecology as a result of storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire.
EIA, p. 10.
4.
The meteorology of the region is not expected to have an adverse impact on the proposed action.
EIA, p. 10.
No sites of archeological 2235 180
s significance have been identified within the site occupied by McGuire Nuclear Station. The transshipment of Oconee spent fuel will not impact on historic sites.
EIA pp. 10-11.
5.
Average background radiation dose equivalents for North Carolina is approximately 100 mrem /yr EIA, p. 11.
6.
There will be no significant exposure of construction workers at Unit 2 from storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire Unit 1.
- EIA,
- p. 22.
Radiological envi:onmental impacts of the storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire from liquid and solid waste necessary for routine operations are so small as to be negligible.
EIA,Section 5.1,pages 23-25.
7.
The non-radiological impacts from therm 1 waste disposal from routine operations during storage of spent fuel from Oconee at McGuire are so small as to be negligible or insignificant.
EIA,Section 5.2, pages 27 through 29.
8.
With respect to the environmental impacts from the transportation of the fuel from Oconee for storage in the McGuire spent fuel pool, the radiological impacts on the public or workers are so small as to be negligible in the context of NEPA.
EIA, Section 5.3 and 5.4, pages 29-32.
and 5.4, pages 29-32.
Spitalny Affidavit re:
NRDC Contention 2; Nehemias Affidavit; Parsont Affidavit.
9.
Non-radiological impacts of transportation storage of spent fuel at McGuire are negligible.
EIA, p. 32.
- 10. Although it is unlikely any accident would occur during trans-portation and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire, accidents were postulated and evaluated.
EIA, 33.
2235 181
. 11. With respect to accidents, including transportation accidents and poesible facility accidents, the effects of such accidents postulated to occur but which are not likely to occur on construction workers and the public are insignificant.
EIA 33-43.
There will be no detectable radiological impacts from the proposed action based on the Staff's accident analysis in the EIA.
EIA 42-43.
- 12. The decay period specified for the Oconee fuel prior to its shipment to McGuire of 300 fuel assemblies cooled for 270 days results in negligible impacts and complies with ALARA regulations 10 CFR Part 20.
EIA 45-46. Spitalny Affidavit re:
NRDC Contention 2; Parsont Affidavit; Nehemias Affidavit.
2235 182
. Contention 4 1.
The transportation and storage of Oconee spent nuclear fuel from Oconee to the McGuire Unit I spent fuel pool is spent fuel which will be placed in the Oconee spent fuel pool and allowed to age until it is 270-day-old before it is transported to McGuire.
EIA Section 5.0, pages 23-32.
2.
The radiological impacts of routine operations from transportation of 270-day-old spent nuclear fuel and storage at McGuire will be small when campared to impacts associated with other spent fuel shipments, which are already calculated to be very small. EIA, pages 25-27. Spitalny Affidavit re: NRDC Contention No. 2; Parsont Affidavit; Nehemias Affidavit.
3.
The radiological impacts of routine operations associated with transport and storage of 270-day-old spent Oconee nuclear fuel at McGuire will be incignificant.
Ibid; and EIA, pp. 25-27.
4.
The radiological impacts of routine operations associated with transportation and storage of 270-day-old spent nuclear Oconee fuel at McGuire of from 60-120 man-rems when compared with the regional population dose due to natural background of 1.6xlG man-rem /yr are negligibly small.
Ibid; and EIA, page 26.
5.
The radiological impacts of the transportation and storage of spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire assuming 270-day-old spent nuclear fuel result in insignificant impacts on the drivers.
EIA pages 29 and 30; Spitalny Affidavit re: NRDC Contention 2; Nehemias Affidavit; Parsont Affidavit.
6.
The radiological impacts of the transportation of 270-day-old nuclear Oconee fuel on the public are negligibly small and, therefore, 2235 183
. insignificant.
EIA, pp. 30-32; Spitalny and Roberts Affidavit; Spitalny Affidavit re: NRDC Contention 2; Parsont Affidavit; Nehemias Affidavit.
7.
An accident analysis was conducted on the transportation of 270-day-old Oconee spent fuel and storage at McGuire.
EIA, p. 33.
8.
Although it is unlikely that any of the accidents considered would occur, evaluation of postulated accidents in the EIA ruled out any adverse effects from the worst case analysis that could occur.
- EIA, pp. 33-34.
9.
The effects that must be considered from an extra severe accident involving dose effects considered by the Staff are cancers that may result from external, whole body exposures and exposure from radioactive materials deposited in lung, bone, thyroid, and other organs; and genetic effects, reflected in future generations, due to esposure of the germ cells.
EIA 42-43.
- 10. With respect to effects on the public from accidents postulated in the EIA by the Staff during transportation of 270-day-old Oconee spent fuel, a maximum individual dose and the upperbound population dose resulting from the proposed action are fractions of the doses individuals and the population receive from naturally occurring radiation, and, there-fore, are insignificant or negligibly small.
EIA 43.
- 11. At the level of exposure under consideration for the transportation of 300 assemblies of 270-day-old Oconee spent fuel, the postulated health effects (based on the BEIR linear dose response model) would be less in quantity and no different in kind from the postulated health effects resulting from natural background radiation, and, therefore, are negligibly small or insignificant.
EIA, Spitalny Affidavit re:
NRDC Contention 2; Parsont Affidavit, Nehemias Affidavit.
2235 184
, 12.
The decay period of 270 days for Oconee spent nuclear fuel prior to shipment is adequate for operational considerations and also complies with ALARA regulations (10 CFR Part 20).
Nehemias Affidavit.
- 13. The proposed transshipment of Oconee spent nuclear fuel to McGuire Nuclear Station for Storage will involve some exposure but so negligible as not to be unreasonable effects from radiation exposure to the public and to werker5 involved in the transshipment. Nehemias Affidavit.
14.
Radiation doses to the public and to the workers resulting from transshipment to the McGuire Station estimated in the Environmental Impact Appraisal would be completely avoided by the proposed expansion of the fuel storage capacity at Ocanee.
However, expanding the storage capacity of the present spent fuel pool at Oconee would also involve radiation exposures of equivalent magnitude principally to the workers involved in the proposed plan modifications although these exposures would also be minimal.
Nehemias Affidavit.
15.
Re-racking operations in prior spent nuclear fuel pool modifi-cations indicate that such re-racking operations have cost an average of about 10 man-rems to the workers involved.
Nehemias Affidavit.
16.
The highest cumulative occupational dose from spent fuel pool modifications involving re-racking operations to date has been about 20-man-rems. Nehemias Affidavit.
2235 185
I
. 17. There is no basis for concluding that either transshipment of 300 assemblies of 270-day-old Oconee spent nuclear fuel to the McGuire Station or re-racking the present spent fuel pool at Oconee is clearly to be preferred or that any significant dose saving would be expected to result from the selection of either one since the total man-rem doses projected to result from the two actions being considered would generally be comparable and both or negligibly small or insignificant.
Nehemias Affidavit.
- 18. Constructing an additional spent fuel pool at Oconee would still require transfer of spent fuel to and from shipping casks, and transshipment of the fuel affected, although the distance of the shipment would be minor.
However, the net effect would be a very minor reduction in overall radiation dose to workers.
Nehemias Affidavit.
- 19. The addition of a one-time soe of 2-20-man-rems for Oconee spent fuel transfer of 300 assemblies of 270-day-old fuel either for transshipment to the McGuire Station or re-racking the present spent fuel pool at Oconee do not significantly affect the balance made in the context of accepting the occupational doses incurred during operation of the plant when compared with the average occupational dose exposure per plant from operation.
- 20. On a risk-cost-benefit analysis basis or on an ALARA basis, residual health risks from radiation exposure will not vary from back-ground radiation exposure and, therefore, are negligibly small or 2235 186
.3 in5ignificant. Therefore, there are no major costs from the proposed action to transport 300 fuel assemblies 270-day-old Oconee spent nuclear fuel. Spitalny Affidavit re:
NRDC Contention 2; Nehemias Affidavit; Parsont Affidavit.
There are no major costs to workers from the proposed action to ship the 300 assemblies 270-day-old Oconee spent nuclear fuel that would tip the balance against the proposed action frora the standpoint of residual health risk exposure.
Exposure to workers is not a major cost because worker exposure will not result in effects that can be differentiated from the effects of exposure to workers either on a somatic basis or a genetic basis from background radiation dose exposure.
Parsont Affidavit; Nehemias Affidavit.
Contention 5 1.
The one-core discharge capacity standard is not a necessary standard for either environmental or health and safety reasons. Natural Resources Defense Council Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories dated April 16,1979; Carter Affidavit.
Response of the Staff of April 17, 1979 at p. 2 to NRDC's request for admissions of April 2,1979; Response of Applicant of April 17,1979, at p. 2 to NRDC's request for admissions of April 2,1979.
2.
There is no Corrmission regulatory requirement that utilities maintain a 1-core discharge capacity reserve.
Carter Affidavit, p. 1.
The Commission's policy statement with respect to its decision not to defer individual licensing actions to ameliorate the shortfall of spent 2235 187
C
. fuel storage capacity was based in part on its acknowledgment and con-sideration of the fact that some utility companies plan and design for a full-core discharge capability in order to give them a flexibility of operation as a management perogative.
Commission Statement, 42 Fed _. Ren.
42801 (1975).
3.
On a cost-benefit basis holding full-core discharge capability available as long as feasibly possible, as a management operating parameter, far out-weighs the environmental or econor..ic costs of transportation and shipment of 270-day-old spent Oconee fuel offsite to the McGuire facility.
EIA, Table 10-1, p. 58.
8 4.
Reactor shutdowns would cost approximately $10 per year. This cost includes the cost of maintaining the plant in standby condition and buying alternative power. This would result in reduced environmental impacts. However, as a negative benefit there would be no production of electrical energy.
EIA, Table 10-1, p. 58.
2235 188
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM 1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station
)
Affidavit of Brett S. Spitalny and John P. Roberts 1.
Our names are Brett S. Spitalny and John P. Roberts. We have prepared statements of professional qualifications which are attached to this af fidavit.
2.
This affidavit addresses Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Contention 1 which reads as follows:
1.
The proposed action is a step in the proposed program to handle the shortage of spent fuel storage space by shipping and storing spent fuel away from the reactor where it was generated. The proposed action has no independent value in solving the spent fuel storage problem and is inherently premised on the near-term construction of an interim away-from-reactor storage facility. The proposed action, if taken, will bias the final decision on whether to approve the program by foreciosing at-reactors options at both Oconee and McGuire. The proposed action is therefore inconsistent with the conditions 1 and 2 laid down by the NRC in promul-gating the criteria for approval of interim spent fuel storage.
(40 Fed. Reg. 42801). Thus, the proposed action cannot be acted pon until completion of impact statements on the proposed program now being conducted by DOE (Storage of U.S. Spent Power Reactor Fuel (00E/EIS-0015-D)
August 1978, and Supplement, December 1978; Storage of Foreign Spent Power Reactor Fuel (00E/EIS-0040-D) December 1978; Preliminary Estimates of the Charge for Spent-Fuel Storage and Disposal Services (DOE /ET-0055) July (Oraf t 1978; Charge for Spent Fuel Storage (D0E/EIS-0041-D) December 1978; and NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0404)).
2235 189
_2-In addressing this contention, our response does not include consideration of the proposed program (identified as a DOE initiative) cited in the contention, or any national policy which may or may not be developed by the Federal Government. Our response rather follows the decision of the Commission that licensing actions such as the proposed be considered on a case by case basis on their individual merits.
[ Spent Fuel Storage, Intent to Prepare Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, (40 Fed. M. 42801; September 16, 1975) (Commission Statement)] We adopt as part of the basis for our affidavit the analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) (December 1978).
Proceeding on this basis we examined whether the action considered has independent utility pursuant to Factor 1 of the Commission Statement.
The Commission's statement of Factor 1 is:
"It is likely that each individual licensing action of this type would have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions of this type."
Of the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 are presently going to an 18 month fuel cycle, while Unit 3 will remain on an annual cycle.
Units 1 and 2 will be discharging fuel assemblies at the rate of 72 every 18 months; and Unit 3 at the rate of 56 assemblies every 12 months.
The amount of space presently remaining in the reactor basins at Oconee will provide storage for 209 assemblies, Post irradiation examination (PIE) equipment and piping is installed in the Oconee 1 and 2 basin 2235 190
. occupying the equivalent of 51 assemblies of this available space.
Therefore, after the Oconee 3 discharge in May 1979, the facility will operate with 158 readily available spaces. A full core load at each of the Oconee Units is equal to 177 assemblies.
If for some reason, conditions dictated an unplanned core off-load, the " PIE" equipment could be removed to accommodate the discharge. This option, however, will be eliminated at the time of the next scheduled discharge in November, 1979. At the conclusion of that refueling, only 141 locations will exist, including those presently allocated for the " PIE" equipment.
The transfer of 300 assemblies as proposed in this licensing action would alleviate the immediate shortfall of storage capacity at Ocenee.
This action requires no other action on the part of the applicant either prior to or subsequent to transfer of the Oconee spent fuel to storage at McGuire to ensure its utility,.nor do other licensing applications need to be made to ensure such utility. This action would provide 2-t/3 years of continued operation of the plants, and subsequent continued electrical power generation. Thus, this action, stand alone, has an independent utility regardless of any other actions of this type that toe applicant may or may not pursue to provide additional future alleviation of storage capacity shortfall.
This conten*1on continues to suggest that this action is inconsistent with the Comissior's second factor That factor reads:
2235 191 J
t
, "It is not likely that the taking of any particular licensing action of this type during the time frame under consideration would constitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other individual licensing action of this type."
With respect to the proposed licensing action, we have considered commitment of both material and nonmaterial resources, and our analysis is based on the fact that impacts from the proposed action are negligibly small, and, therefore insignificant (EIA, p. 59). The material resources considered are those to be utilized to ship Oconee spent fuel to McGuire.
The nonmaterial resources are primarily the labor and talent needed to accomplish the proposed action and the available storage capacity which exists in the McGuire Unit 1 basin. Since the spent fuel storage capacity of the Duke system provides for sufficient total capacity to the mid-1990's, there does not appear a potential for impact on the capacity to provide for storage of McGuire spent fuel from this action. Additionally, a suitable spent fuel cask is available to the applicant.
Hence, these resources were considered to be nonmaterial in nature.
The only consumable material resource would be that of the diesel fuel used during the 340 mile round trip for each spent fuel assembly.
Use of the amount of diesel fuel is really inconsequential when considering the,roposed action or any other action to alleviate the spent fuel storage problem. The proposed action in simple terms is movement of spent fuel and storage in available space. Thus, it does not involve commitment of resources such as men and materials, and use of space and environmental resources (air, 2235 192
. aquatic, and terrestrial resources); expensive equipment modifications; or construction and operation of. fixed based facilities as do other suggested options. Thus, the proposed action is unique in the physical sense in that it would commit little, if any, material resources to a commitment that cannot be reversed.
The Oconee spent fuel can always be moved at a later time from the available McGuire space if such a decision requires it.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of these factors, the proposed transshipment action does not constitute a commitment of resources that would tend to significantly foreclose other actions to ameliorate Duke Power Company's spent fuel storage space shortage at the Oconee facility.
The staff has concluded in the Evironmental Impact Appraisal that this action has no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
In conclusion, the implementation of this action does not foreclose the applicant from installing additior,al storage capacity at Oconee, which on February 2,1979, Duke applied for, nor does this action foreclose Duke from other alternative actions involving transfer of either the spent fuel involved in this action or other Oconee spent 2235 193
s
. fuel to additional storage capacity as it may become available at Oconee or elsewhere.
Consequently, we conclude that this action is in accordance with the Commission's second factor.
Although this contention raises questions concerning only factors 1 and 2 of the Coanission's notice (40 FR 42801), the Commission requires the staff to consider all five factors in examining license acticas of this type.
The Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) addresses all of the five factors. The Staff has applied, balanced, and weighed all of these factors (EIA pp 61-64) and has determined that the proposed license amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
As a result of this consideration of the five factors and this determination, the Staff has concluded that this is an appropriate action and should be allowed to proceed.
I hereby certify that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beiief, b 3.3 @<./u.
Brett S. Spita9ny~
D JJ Subscribed and sworn to
/
John'P. Rbberts before me this //7// day of May,1979
%kA ticrary Publi 2235 194
- L m.
,, an
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOHN P. ROBERTS My name is John P. Roberts.
I am Section Leader for Spent Fuel Storage Installations in the Fuel Reprocessing and Recycie 3 ranch in the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission.
I have been employed as a project manager for spent fuel storage licensing with title of Process Licensing Engineer since November 1976 and assumed the responsibility of section leader in October 1977.
I am presently project manager for the Stone and Webster proposed spent fuel storage standard design review as well as project manager for the generic environmental impact statement on the Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel.
I have been employed by the fluclear Regulatory Commission since December 1974 (when it was the Atomic Energy Commission).
I was initially employed as a Criticality and Shielding Engineer to evaluate the safety of packaging designs for shipment of fuel and other radioactive materials.
In October 1975 I was assigned to assist in the preparation of the Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel (GESMO). My duties included preparing an Integrated Environmental Impact Table for the nuclear fuel cycle and testifying in the GESMO proceedings.
Subsequently I was assigned to the Task Force for the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Pportions of the LWR Fuel Cycle performing similar work.
Before joining the Commission I was employed by Harry Diamond Laboratories as a research physicist (nuclear) and then as a nuclear engineer perform-ing radiation transport and effects studies from 1966-1974 wi th two years off for graduate study at the Catholic University of America.
From the Catholic University I received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineer-ing degree (cum laude) in 1962 and a Master of Nuclear Science and Engineering Degree in 1965. While an undergraduate I was employed as an Engineering Aid at David Taylor Model Sasin (now U.S. Naval Ship 2235 195
-2_
Research and Development Center) in the summers of 1960 and 1961.
I returned as an Electronics Engineer in the Sumer of 1962.
I served as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Catholic University, Nuclear Science and Engineering Division from 1962 to 1963 and in the Summer of 1963 was employed as an Electronic: Engineer at the U.S. Army Nuclear Power Field Office at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
2235 196
v s
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS BRETT S. SPITALNY I have been employed as a Process Licensing Engineer by the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission since January 1978.
This position is in the Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch of the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety of the Office of fluclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
This branch is responsible for licensing actions for irradiated fuels including licensing facilities for spent reactor fuel storage, facilities for spent fuel processing, and facilities for processing of materials recovered from spent fuel.
I am the NRC Project Manager for the Duke Pcwer Company proposal of transporting spent fuel, and in this capacity am directly responsible for the health, safety and environmental reviews of this action. My responsibilities also includa that of environmental project manager for 1.Se proposed expansion and license renewal of General Electric's Morris Operation Fuel Storage Facility.
Prior to my assignment at NRC, I was employed by the Department of the Navy.
My affiliation with the Navy for 31/2 years was separated into two major capacities.
From November 1976 until January 1978, while located with the Naval Ship Engineering Center 2235 197
8
.,. in Washington, D. C., I was employed as a General Engineer for a maintenance and reliability group for the extended operation of Polaris / Poseidon SSBN Nuclear Submarines.
Responsibilities included evaluating system performance and response to maintenance and testing.
The ultimate goal was to improve system reliability and extend the operating cycle of the systems and subsequently the ships.
From 1974 until October 1976, I was employed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard as a Mechanical Engineer in the Nuclear Production Department.
I was assigned as a Nuclear Ship Superintendent.
Responsibilif.ies included scheduling, authorizing and overseeing all nuclear production on the overhaul of the ships.
I became qualified to work on SSN 637 class nuclear submarines, and CVN-68 class nuclear aircraf t carriers.
This position required extensive training on Westinghouse and General Electric design (submarine) reactor power plants, and Westinghouse (carrier) plants. Qualifications also included successful completion of the eight week U. S. Navy Nuclear Ship Superintendent School at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.
I was also assigned the man-rem reduction program for Norfolk Naval Shipyard under direct control from Naval Reactors.
Prior to joining the Department of the Navy, I was employed by Cessna Aircraft Company through 1973 and 1974.
I was employed as a Structural Engineer, and analyzed T-37 aircraf t for structural damage and fatigue.
2235 198
- .. ', I received a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering Degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in 1973 and have done graduate work in Business Administration and Thermal Engineering at Wichita State University and Old Dominion University.
2235 199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
Affidavit of Brett S. Spitalny I, Brett S. Spitalny, being duly sworn to depose and state:
1.
I am the Project Manager for the McGuire/0conee spent fuel transportation and storage proposal, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
2.
I have prepared a staterrent of professional qualifications which is attached to this affidavit.
3.
This affidavit addresses Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Contention 2 which reads as follows:
The proposed action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and cannot be acted upon until preparation of a final environmental impact statement.
The contention suggests that the staff should have prepared an Envir onmental Impact Statement in lieu of an Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA).
The nat val Resources Defense Council (NRDC) bases for this state-ment is that the proposed action is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The contention does not 2235 200
s suggest, however, those areas of concern in which the EIA falls short of its intent, i.e., of evaluating the proposed action to allow a deternina-tion to be made with respect to significant impacts, if any, of the proposed action.
Resolution of NRDC contention 2, therefore, is necessarily dependent directly on the resolution of NRDC contentions 3, 4, 5 and 6. (See NRDC response of April 16, 1979, P. 14, to applicant's interrogatory No. 51 of March 28, 1979.) My affidavit and the affidavits of R. Daniel Glenn, Dr. M. Parsont, Dr. J Nehemias and T. Jerrell Carter as well as the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) (December,1978) show that (1) the environmental impacts are negligibly small, and, therefore insignificant, and (2) there are no preferred alternatives to the applicant's request to ship Oconee spent fuel to McGuire for storage if alternatives to the propcsed action are evaluated.
I adopt the material set forth in the EIA pertinent to the NRDC contentions 3, 4, 5 and 6* as part of ny testimony and affidavit in this case.
Although Duke Power Company has applied for an amendment to modify the Oconee spent fuel capacity by reracking, nodification of the existing Oconee spent fuel pools to provide additional storage capacity is less preferred on an economic basis. Modification of the Oconee pool is roughly comparable to the request to transship Oconee fuel to McGuire
- The motion for snnary disposition is not being sought with respect to contention 6.
Further explanation will be supplied at the upcoming hearing, reaffirming the staff's conclusion in the EIA that related impacts are not significant.
2235 201
. with respect to normal radiation exposure, although neither activity has other than a negligibly small environmental impact including the impacts of radiation dose.
Transshipment and storage of Oconee fuel at McGuire has negligible or no measureable environmental impacts, and certainly no significant environmental impacts.
As the NRC Project Manager of this licensing action, I have directed and taken part in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) in support of the staff's negative declaration (43 FR 61057).
The staff's EIA has considered all facts that are material to this issue and concludes there are no significant impacts from the proposed action.
I have prepared testimony with respect to NRDC Contention 3, alternatives and CESG Contention 1, alternatives. My affidavits, those of other staff affiants which I have examined, and the EIA clearly demon-strate that the proposed action will result in negligibly small and, therefore, insignificant impacts with respect to air, aquatic, and terrestrial environs.
Impacts from occupational exposure and the dose to the general public are negligibly small and therefore, insignificant.
The affidavits of Messrs. Hodge, Glenn and Lake confirm that the burden of radiation dose as a result of routine and non-routine operations (CESG and CA Contention 2) are also negligibly small, and, therefore, insignificant.
2235 202
. In addition, the flatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in its response to discovery requests of the staff and of the applicant, has failed to point cut substantively where the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) is in error, or if those impacts noted in the EIA are other than negligibly small, and, therefore, insignificant.
Based on my analysis, which has considered the EIA and the evidence offered in evaluation of the factors described in NRDC Contentions 3, 4, 5 and 6, I have determined with respect to ?!RDC Contention 2 that the environ-mental impacts from the proposed action will be insignificant and, therefore, constitutes an insignificant effect on the quality of the human environment.
I hereby certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my belief.
A.ett T M;
Brett S, Spitalny Subscribed and sworn to before me this //7d day of May, 1979
/
[4(C (d&v 2235 203 Notary Public My Commission expires Ou /h /, /4 P,2_.
,'/
{'
)a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF BRETT S. SPITALNY AND R. DANIEL GLENN This affidavit addresses Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Contention 3c and 3d which read as follows:
NRDC 3.
The following alternatives to the proposed action have not been adequately considered:
c.
There are no technological or economic disadvantaaes to expanding spent fuel pool capacity at Oconee if it is assumed that all Oconee spent fuel will be stored there until it is shipped to a legally approved permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes.
This option will reduce the risks of routine, accidental and intentional (sabotage) releases of radioactivity during transportation.
d.
Applicant has not fully utilized all of the potential it has to compact spent fuel in existing pools at Oconee and has not provided adequate justification for the assertion that storage expansion at Oconee Unit 1 and 2 is not viable.
The contention suggests that the storage of spent fuel at the Oconee site should be retained at that site until such time that it may be shipped to a " legally approved permanent storage facility 2235 204
. for nuclear wastes." The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has defined the solution to the spent fuel storage problem as;
"... having storage space sufficient to receive all spent fuel to be generated by the reactor (in this case Oconee) between now a d when the spent fuel can be disposed of in a permanent repository."
NRDC continued -
"The earliest date for such a repository is, in our judgement, not until the mid to late 1990's."
(See NRDC response to staff's interrogatory 1B-3 dated April 11,1973.)
For the purpose of this contention, the staff has assumed that a legally approved permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes will not be available until 1995.
The contention has clearly drawn a connection between the interim storage of spent fuel, and its final disposition. The Commission, on the other hand, in its statement of July 5, 1977 (42 FR 34391) in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petition for rule making stated:
"There is, we believe, a clear distinction between permanent disposal of wastes and their interim storage. The Comission must be assured that wastes generated by licensed power reactors can be safely handled and stored as they are generated."
Consideration of NRDC's proposal to enable the Oconee facility to store spent fuel until 1995 would require specific events to take place.
NRDC has proposed that Duke modify the Oconee spent fuel pools with neutron absorbing materials to allow for the high density compaction of 2235 205
. spent fuel assemblies (poison racks). (See NRDC April ll,1979 response to staff's interrogatory No. 3-E dated March 23,1979) This action would provide ample time to construct an additional pool or Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Oconee site. To provide the applicant with ample time to rerack, NRDC has proposed imposing a license condition on the applicant. This condition would require Oconee to use a portion or all of their full core reserve (FCR) which is presently being maintained at the facility by Duke Power Company as a management operating perogative. The Commission does not require utilities to maintain an FCR, although the NRC staff favors this practice (see the related affidavit of T. Jerrell Carter, and discussion below).
The plan presented by NRDC is viable. Additionally, it is indeed technologically and economically feasible.
Looking at the options suggested by NRDC a little closer, however, reveals a few details which should not be overlooked. There are presently six vendors of neutron absorbing (poison) racks with a normal lead time ranging from eight to twelve months (from the time of contractual agreement is made). The cost of these racks also vary, although experience has indicated that they average from $2000 to $3000 per assembly (1978 dollars). These costs do not reflect the costs necessary for modifications to the cooling system which would also be required.
This cost is in addition to the cost which has already been expended by 2235 206
, Duke for tne acquisition of high density stainless steel racks. These stainless steel racks contracted through Combustion Engineering have already been designed, analyzed and are presently being delivered to the Oconee site.
Assuming, that Duke pursues the acquisition of poison racks, the poison racks would not be received at the Oconee site in time to allow for installation prior to loss of Oconee's full core reserve. (See Applicant response dated March 27, 1979 to NRDC interrogatory 10, dated March 8, 1979.)
In addition, with the pools full or nearly full, fuel would have to be shipped offsite to provide enough room for workers to install these racks.
Aside from the problem of ample working space, the proposed use of the FCR warrants careful consideration. The staff's general policy position with respect to the maintenance of a full core reserve is addressed in the affidavit of T. Jerrell Carter, Jr. (NRDC Contention 5). The associated costs of the loss of an FCR should additionally be addressed.
The extended shutdown of a reactor as a result of the need to unload a core, in terms of lost electrical output is extremely costly.
Experience has shown that shutting down a plant for even one day is less desirab.
than pursuing other alternatives. This presupposes that (1) another alterna-tive exists, and (2) the environmental impacts are not significant and do not pose any undue risk to the health and safety of the public. (See EIA Table 10-1, P. 58 and T. Jerrell Carter affidavit.)
2235 207
, Actual costs incurred resulting from shutdown have been recently extimated by the applicant to range from $165,000 to $250,000 per day for one Oconee unit.
(See applicant's response dated March 27,1979 to NROC interrogatory No.11, dated March 8,1979.
Experience has shown that this estimate is on the low end of the scale which ranges upward to approximately $500,000 per day.
Applicants, as stated in the Commission's Standard Review Plan (NUREG 75/087), are to provide their design basis for the capacity of their spent fuel pools prior to the construction of their facilities.
As discussed in the staff's testimony for NRDC Contention 5, (T. Jerrell Carter affidavit), the standard design philosophy has been to design a pool capable of holding the amount of fuel equivalent to the number of spent fuel assemblies unloaded from the core, during the refueling cycle, plus the fuel contained in a full core load, (e.g.,1-1/3 core for a single unit plant and 1-2/3 core for a dual unit facility).
The Oconee station consists of 3 reactors. Two reactors share one pool and the third reactor has a seoarate pool. The shared pool has an original capacity slightly greater than 12/3 cores and the single unit pool had a capacity slightly less 1 1/3 cores.
(See Duke Power Company application to rerack Oconee 1 and 2 pool dated February 2,1979.)
The design of the Oconee pools has been addressed in the Final Safety Analysis Report for Oconee Nuclear Stations 1, 2 and 3.
The design basis has already been approved and the Oconee hearings have been concluded.
2235 208
, A positive cost-benefit analysis has been shown providing a need for the electrical production of the facility. Thus, these factors are taken as a given in my analysis.
On four separate occasions, the Oconee units have experienced unplanned full core off-loads. Although future full core discharges are not anticipated, the occurrence cannot bei precluded.
There is only one full core reserve maintained at the Oconee facility although Oconee has three units.
In conclusion, jeopardizing the full core reserve, and subsequently the operation of the Oconee units is not warranted if other alternatives exist in which the environmental impacts are of equal or less magnitude.
Again overlooking the above described considerations and continuing assuming that Duke is able to acquire and install poison racks, the Oconee facility would be able to handle routine spent fuel discharges until 1987.
During the interim, until 1987, Duke would necessarily have to obtain additional storage space by construction of an additional pool or indepen-dent storage facility of sufficient size on the Oconee site or at some other site. This separate storage facility would allow Oconee to have sufficient storage capacity through 1995. At that time the permanent storage facility is assumed to be available.
The construction of a new pool or independent storage facility must be handled as a separate licensing action, and as previously addressed by the staff's EIA is costly. Moreover, the environmental impacts to the air, 2235 209
. aquatic and terrestrial environment resulting from construction of such a facility are assumed to be of greater significance although an assessment of such impacts from an ISFSI was not required for purposes of the analysis in this case.
Recent studies by utilities and confirmed by the DOE have indicated that costs for constructing a facility of this type range upward to approxi-mately $30,000 per assembly. Such an expense does not seem to warrant consideration, in light of the expense already incurred by Duke enlarging its pools at other facilities.
In response to interrogatories from the applicant, NRDC has quoted portions of the DOE report on " Preliminary Estimates of the Charge for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal Services," DOE /ET-0055 which states:
"There is considerable DOE interest in minimizing AFR storage requirements and shipments by encouraging the use of at-reactor storage by further densification and/or expansion.
It is assumed that there would be economic and other advantages to the utilities of keeping their spent fuel at their own reactor sites rather than shipping it to interim AFR storage basins."
NRDC has failed to include the preceeding paragraph on page 3 which states:
"Many utilities are expanding their storage basin capacities through reracking for compactness. Others are transferring fuel from one basin to another within their own system.
New nuclear power plants are being built with larger and more compact basins. While increased storage basin capacities will provide relief for a number of nuclear power plants, some plants still face the prospect of inadequate basin capacity for annual fuel discharge.
If this happens, the reactors must shut down."
2235 210
, The referenced document does not state the DOE is encouraging only the use of at-reactor storage of spent fuel generated at that reactor, but rather that the utility keep control of spent fuel within its system through the use of the storage capabilities of the entire system. DOE indicates this would include among other things, transshipment of spent fuel from one basin to another within a utility's own system.
DOE is encouraging the utilities to consider the use of Federally sponsored AFR's only after all available storage space within the utility has been utilized.
The applicant may be able to solve their spent fuel storage problem by increasing the onsite storage capacity at all of its reactor facilities in what it terms a cost effective manner.
Their action presently includes the use of non-poison high density storage racks in all spent fuel storage basins whether at reactors now in use, under construction, or planned.
In addition, the applicant through this action is requesting approval to transship spent fuel from Oconee to McGuire.
Further, the applicant in its request for an operating license for the Catawba Station, has requested approval to store spent fuel generated at Oconee and McGuire at the Catawba Nuclear Station. The basins at Catawba have been specifically designed with excess capacity to allow for the storage of this fuel.
The applicant's commitment to nuclear power coupled with the number of reactors projected to be on line by 1993 places the applicant in a unique position available to very few utilities.
This position allows them to become independent and self-sufficient in terms of spent fuel storage 2235 211
.. capacity in that they are capable of transfers within their own system.
Additionally, Duke is in a position to evaluate all other options avail-able to their facilities, such as reracking, expansion of spent fuel pools during construction, or the construction of an ISFSI. The present planned storage capacities at Duke's facilities and their estimated date of comercial operation are presented in the following table.
The existing scheduled storage capacity is capable of storing spent fuel generated by Duke's system until 1995. The options open to the applicant could extend this date to beyond the year 2000.
Such options remain available for consideration of the need for additional spent fuel storage space.
Date of Commercial Present (Planned)
Station Operation Storage Capacity Oconee Unit 1 and 2 73/74 336 (750)
Unit 3 1974 474 McGuire Unit 1 04/80 (500)
Unit 2 04/82 (500)
Catawba Unit 1 07/81 (1418)
Unit 2 01/83 (1418)
Cherokee Unit 1 01/85 (693)
Unit 2 01/87 (693)
Unit 3 01/89 (693)
Perkins Unit 1 01/90 (693)
Unit 2 07/91 (693)
Unit 3 01/93 (693) 2235 212
.. The use of poison racks and the construction of a new facility to make Oconee independent in terms of spent fuel storage capacity would leave the applicant with two solutions to the same problem [i.e., (1) total capacity presently within their system, and (2) excess capacity at Oconee.]
This cannot be considered cost effective.
Other expenses at Oconee include the application for a license amendment to rerack the basin serving Oconee Units 1 and 2 with its associated costs and the purchase of high density stainless steel racks.
A decision on the license amendment is estimated by the Commission in early June. A decision to negate the transshipment action and require the use of poison racks at Oconee would have as an added cost those costs already incurred in procuring and licensing non-poison racks.
Another consideration in the use of poison racks is the time delay required for licensing and procurement of these racks.
This has typically taken one year for procurement, licensing and installation. This time constraint would delay completion of the Oconee reracking action until mid-1980.
In May,1980, all usable storage locations at Oconee would be utilized leaving no space for relocation of spent fuel assemblies during reracking.
Reracking with poison racks in 1980 would require the trans-shipment of spent fuel assemblies to an alternate site, to allow working space for reracking.
2235 213
The impacts of this transshipment would be of the magnitude requested in the subject licensing action to transship and store 300-270 day old spent fuel assemblies at McGuire. Therefore, environmental impacts of accommodating reracking with poison racks will be at least equivalent to those of the subject transshipment licensing action, which we have concluded will be negligibly small, and therefore insignificant.
(B. Spitalny affidavit)
With regard to the risks of transshipment, the staff's affidavits
[ Carolina Environmental Study Group / Carolina Action (CESG-CA contention 2)]
and the EIA conclude the risks will be negligibly small and, therefore result in insignificant impacts. The installation of poison racks in Oconee s spent fuel basin does not preclude the transshipment of fuel to McGuire.
Therefore, either proposal results in comparable risks and, in relative environmental impacts which are insignificant.
In summary, generally, the use of poison racks is a technologically, economically and environmentally sound alternative, as is the use of stainless steel high density racks.
However, the use of this alternative technology would not be the most cost-effective means of resolving Duke's immediate spent fuel storage problem.
Additionally, where it is found that the impacts of a proposed action (transshipment) are insignificant, and the associated risks are also found to be insignificant, the staff does not intervene in the selection of an option, in which the decision is normally made by the management of a utility.
2235 214
,. However, if the staff is required to consider the choice of alternatives available to Duke Power, due to the time required to install poison racks, and the shortfall of their capability to carry Oconee to 1995, which would subsequently require the additional measure of constructing a new spent fuel storage facility, the use of poison racks is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed action. Additionally, the fact that a technologically feasible, economically inexpensive, and environmentally insignificant alternative does exist makes the proposed action the best one.
We hereby certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
- 8. 3 0XM Brett S. Spitalny L
\\
R. Daniel Glenn Subscribed and sworn to W
before me this /I '-day of May,1979
/L L a C b_
O' Notary Public My Commission expires: 2ecic t /, / 9 f)
,i g
UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR RE3ULATCRY CCFMISSICN SEFCRE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENS!NG 3 CARD In the 9tter of
)
)
CUKE POWER CCMPANY
)
)
(Amencment to 'iaterials
)
Cocket No.,s-2623 License 3:.M-1173 for Cc: nee
)
Nuclear Staticn Scent Fuel
)
Transportaticn and Storage
)
at McGuire Nuclear Staticn)
)
AFFICA'/IT CF CR. JCHN V. NEHEMIAS I, Jr. John 1. Nehemias, being duly sworn, do depose and state:
1.
I am a Senior Health Physicist in the Division of Site Safety and Environ. mental Analysis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission (NRC).
2.
I have prepared a statenent of professicnal qualifications which is attached to this affidavit.
3.
This affidavit accresses in part, Natural Rescurces Defense Ccuncil Contention 4(a).
I hereby certify that the above statenents are true and accurate to the best of my knowletge and :elief.
\\.-~r~ / li" Dr. John V. Menemias Sc scribed and suorn ::
tefore me this/, dav Of 2235 216
~
" 2. /, 19 N.
w
/
^
..d v l q ary aci c
/ ' h. ' 'r w m,_..,. s
' 4 J '- ~.
.1 o-
- ( V
Centention 4(a):
ALARA can be achieved by cn-site expansien of scent fuel pcci stcrage capacity at Ccenee, including building another spent fuel pool.
This contenticn addressus tne fact that the pro;osed transshipment of Ccoree spent nuclear fuel to "cGuire ';uclear Station for storage will involve scme radiaticn ex;csure to the public and to ucrkers involved in the ' cansshipment.
Intervenor's point is tnat these raciation ex;csures c:uld te entirely eliminated by simply expanding the spent fuel s:crage ca:acity at Cconee, either by re-racking the present spent fuel 2001 to permit s:crage of a 1arger number of fuel elements, or by building another spent fuel pcci at Cconee.
We unders and that re-racking the present spent fuel pool at Cccnee would provide cnly encugn additicnal fuel stcrage capacity to acccmodate about two jears' sup0ly of spent fuel. At cr before that time, additional spent fuel storage capacity would be recuired, either by building ancther spent fuel pool at Cconee, or by trans-shiccing tne spent fuel, utilizing available space at cGuire.
Thus, re-rac'<ing the cresent s;ent fuel pool at Cconee wculd delay only sligntly the necessity to transfer spent fuel to another location, and sculo not eliminate that necessity.
(a) Re-racking the cresent Cconee scent fuel cool Experience aith price one-time fuel col modificaticns of this <inc indicates that sucn re-racking cperaticns nave 2235 217
caused an averaga of about 3 man-rems to the s:oriars invn'..".
The highest canulative occusational dosa from such operaticns has been 20 ca,-roms, which :as incurred during the nodification of the so?,t fu21 ncol at Maddam 1ece.
See attached Table I.
No public exposure should resul t.
~
Cuke Power has estinated, we believe conservatively, that occupational doses during modification of the spent fuel
?ool at Oconee would be 125 man-rems.
Based on experience with similar rodifi:ations at other plants, :e 1;ould excect that actual doses nay be sonauhat lower.
'le have requested the applicant to prepare a more realistic i
estimate, and to orovide additional information about how dose rates and occupaticnal doses will be kept as Ice as is reasor, ably achiavable. ( AL.13A)
It seems reasonable to assure that the likely cc:upational radiation exposure frca tha re-racking oceratica at 0:cnee
'.!ould be in the range of 20 to 30 nan-rem 3.
(b)
Trans shi ment of Oconee scant fuel to c3.uire The radiation deses to the ;ubli: resultino fr:n the transshi-e.t to cluire are esti ated ir the Envirc re-tal
- 7 pact t-raisal to ;e 0.1 an-rem.
This rela'. <ely -in:r 2235 218
i s
portion of the total dose could be elininated by construc-tion of a new spent fuel pool at Oconee.
The principal radiation dose resulting from this trans-shipment, however, would be delivered to ', crkers, and is estimated at 16 ran-rams to drivers for 200 shipments.
In addition, occupaticnal dose which would not be eliminated by cnnstruction of a new spent fuel pcol at Oconee, results frcn activities related to transfer of the spent fuel into a shipping cask, movement of the cask frcm the spent fuel pool to the new location, and transfer fr:m the shipaing cask to the new storage facility.
It seans reasonable to assume that the likely occupaticral radiation exposure from transshi; rent to 'ocGuir would be in the range of 20 to 30 ran-rems.
(c)
Construction of a new scent fuel ocol at Oc: nee The actual activities involved in ccnstructicn of a new spent fuel pool a>. Cconee.iould not involve any radiatien exposure to the public, or to the personnel involved.
M wever, 'then the new spent fuel pool has been cens tracted, as in the casa of transshi: ent to "cGuire, fuel tran;f ar
.cuid still be required.
The spent f;el.:uld have to ';e trans[e. red, one fuel assa-bly at a ti e, f ecm t' e axisting 2235 219
-4 spent fuel pool into a shipping cask, moved in the cask from the spent fuel pool to the n, location, and transferred from the shipning cask to the ns.- storage facility.
These activities will involve radiation exposures to the personnel taking part in the transfers.
Although no estimate of the potential total Jose from these operations has been provided, it seems reascnable to assume that such doses will also be in the rance of 20 to 30 ran-rems.
The total ran-rem doses projected to result frca the three actions being considered are estimated to be in the same general dose rance.
~
Therefore, there would be no basis for concluding tha t any of the three is clearly to be preferred frca the point of view of radiation risk, nor that any significant dose saving would be exnected to result frca the selection of any one of the three.
We ccrclude that the exposures likely to resul t from the transship-ment of Cconee spent fuel to McGuire, as described by the a?plicant, woule be ALARA.
Each aspect of the proposed actions have been considered from the point o' view of keeping radiation exposures AL:11, eliminating unnecessa 'y exposures, and taking all reas: cable
- r
- cauti:ns to reduce ex;;ssres.
'2 ha.e transmitted to the amp'icint -jditional eq;es:s for inf:r ati:n cn the ;-:;csed 2235 220
_5 re-racking of the spent fuel pool at Occnee, in ceder for us to be able to reacn the conclusion that it t;c aculd be ccnsistent.iith ALARA consideraticos.
Similarly, if the a:plicant pro: ses to construct a new spent fuel st: rage facility at Ccenee, ne will review any such application with regard to ALARA consideraticns.
While the NRC has not issued specific guidance related to ALARA ccnsideraticns involved witn fuel stcrage or transfer, ne nave issued Regulatory Guides 3.3, "Information Relevant to Ensuring That Cccupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear P:wer Stations Will 3e As Low As !s Reasonably Achievable," and 1.5, "Ocerating Philcsa:hy fcr Maintaining Occupational Radiaticn As Law as Is Reascnably Achievable." These guides spell cut our ;LaRA philosoony and describe the ALARA approach to reducticn of expcsures. These considecaticns have been applied in cur review of the apolicant's proposals regarding spent fuel transfer and storage at Occree and McGuire.
I hereby cert;fy that tne above statements are true and correct ::
the best of my kncwlecge and belief.
\\
l' jQ M~
- r.
ann s. Nene:13s x
Subscribed an: sacen to before e this, > day cf "ay, : m.
2235 221 i
/
.e.
< __ i
/'
s '... -
ic(arf duOil; y
/,. ' n. w.-,. ; A
-- W" Cet-L.
SC l' j
InI( p a1
%s
$, kca yr a
a d
f e
Wi p
p sr c h e
a s
~v l
u -
l d
e n
t nr e-e o
n uro ah t n t
a f ec l se/
d ao a
r t
etl r e rc r
o d
i s
uf i
, u oca v
l e
e na n,f p
o et er sr5 n s a sh F
t t
a a
h r h
e2 e u o/
r H
t b iwh a2 s e/
m m
t t t r ur d r
/
i/
of 0 h
m r
i c e
wr m
k gr u0 d
fus n
sl 'r ' -
c a mt k 0 t ah a r c im5 5
e 7
h c1 c c/g r e0 a n0 s
a a oR n v2t a4 u
a R - c Rl Ii J
a l'.
T w
k e
e m
m m
e e
m e
2 n
r
- c f
e nr r.
u r
r a -
s r ((, r /
mn n
n n
h n o
o a
a.
a t a p
n r.
u ' p0 s
m a
s a
n s
r b",1 E
a e
8 0
s8 2
e 2
p 1
S pl t 3 N
ia/
O s
I r
s s
e T
te s
s e
s s
s e
A ia e
e l
nl l
l C
fi A n
l n
I a
i i
n F
c a
i k
a t
a S
t t
t I
a S
H S
D
-S r
O n
o-r M
i f e
.l 4
s o / /
s o
t f a ol
. 6
/
u c
l f a s
1 1
.a t
L a
a oj s a so) c 5 o1 s
5 O
r o
t ]
a ps 1 t 3 o
s ans
" wsu 5 / /
m u
4 O
u rf 3it D
n iN 1
3 P
6d(
4 1
9
~3 L
t c s e 0
' - e
- u s_
E s ' r r rr e
0d U
r r
F e
e
- t. n r " on e n l
s 1 ef
. t u
pul a p
r
< t f e
- d tf J F s 5
r or l
18 i "'
p v
a n
o e
aa u
e e
v mt T
a a
o l
1 d#
s1 w1 p
h N
i W
a i
is d
0t 4C 6 49 27 4T 6
6 E
S d3)
T 2sy a
P 1
1 1
1 eb o
n -
e#
n
,n ai e
p o
r i
E d
gn p
di o
ca t
eu no i 9 et V
ag n
c m tid h "
v a e
I e
l n
w sI oc ic e
a F
pd o i w o e, d nl.
s E' mi c
Jk S eo s e f
w l
c s
n ek n
t 5 si t
v P_
w a
t R
f d
r d e n
t d
't ab n
o F
in ed odl O
on e"
no d
'd a
ni l
e v e t n uie mI em e
t l h ot eot e
m v
e t re e
net n a wr lb eg o
v h l A
uul p
sh o
eI n
d T
iof ei tur 1 N lei 7
n 7 e
t D
.l w_
i i swa 1 I 9d 2
~5 t
k n
~6 nc r
6 $
i A
/w
'0
.d i
o>t 2
2 u 3
n 2 Nt a
aY F
o t
l d.
O ey/ e d
ieR ut d
e E
i z
L cva 3
5 2
i 1
1 aot 1
9
/
r O
t 1
B npc i 4 5
6 o2 B
68 A
ea rnI
/
1 5
u1 T
/
/
/
h/
7
/
p C
(<
8 0
?
t1 0
,6 T_
S 3
1
~3 V
2 2
a 1
n 5
r e
io e_
L
/ /1 E 3
335 y
g 1
n
- 1 tf a 4
4 a
/ /. / /
s rr aor r
n r
o
C'"5 G
E" f H5 o.
a e
)3 e v u
t y
t * "
Ba D
S F" I 1
1
) 1 9
. !$%4 g
l n
o
_ f e
es s
i 5
_ on uel ie l
ssI t 3 o
e l
f io l
u m. i. '
2 *
- e. i tn 1
e n u" 1 /
s hs 0
- l. o n a "
s.
t
" 0 t.. l'
!s.
f 2
f o
e e
r I 3 5 "
1 u. i a s
s e I
- - - " c t f e
T4 n
e 1
t
.st sd 123 l t ic eo i
e 9
- 2 u
2 3 p 1
tt tY c
- 9. A es t
t.
_ ai l
t t i.
at 6 JN2 g a.
r d
r 6 o
' e i/
u r 3
9 l.
y
'n/
l ls f
9 St i
h i
a t 3 2
0 r -
~
- i. -
_ e e u e e
2 k r e
u r
r n
'2 1/
e b
s l
))
)
e
/
L (I
- e. d le g
I) r
( r 0 W
l n
i.
( r 5 u9 i
n M
e C
u 1
a o 7
.Rt 6 f
c gt 9 3 n
dt 19
. nW ( 9 5 Ol l 1
ra
~i 0
ut la 1
7 n uc nP 41 1
J i
t as i
4 i ra o
ii l
F G
C l
Y U('J. FN )N P
4
. h.
O John V. tiehemias PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Radiological Assessment Branch Qivision of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis I am a Senior Health Physicist in the Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Site Safety and Envircnmental Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
My formal education consists of study in Physics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where I received a B.S. in 1943 and at Columbia University where I received an A.M. in 1949.
I received a Ph.D. in Environmental Health (Radiological) frca the University of Michigan in 1960.
Before joining AEC/NRC, I served three years at Brookhaven National Laboratory as a health physicist, six years at the University of Michigan as health physicist and assistant director of a radiation effects laboratory, and three years as Director of Radioicgical Health Surveys for the National Sanitation Foundation.
In the latter position, I
/,
designed, organized, and directed the environmentai survey for the Enrico Fermi nuclear plant.
I joined the AEC in September 1960, as a health physicist in the Office of Health and Safety. My princip&l duties there related to development of radiation protection standards. With the two excepticns noted belew, I have continued with AEC (and NRC) since that time. My principal responsibility was in the development of Standards until September 1974; during most of those years I served as a branch chief-through several name changes and reorganizations-most recently as Chief, Occupational Health Standards 3 ranch, March 1972 to September 1974.
Since September 1974, I have served as Senior health physicist in the Radiological Assessment Branch.
My principal function is the review of power reactor applications, both at the construction permit and operating license stage, to determine the adequacy of pecposed occupaticnal radiation protection programs and the related efforts proposed to assure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained as icw as is reascnably achievable.
2235 223
L.-
O~
From June 1963 to September 1965, I took a leave of absence feca AEC and served as principal member of the Cccupational Safety and Health Division of the International Labor Cffice in Geneva, Switaerland.
My work was principally in the development of international standards.
In December 1971. I was transferred to the Criteria and Standards Division, EPA, serving as Chief, Criteria and Standards Branch, until my return to AEC in March 1972.
I have published about 40 technical articles in professional journals and other publications in the general areas of low-lavel counting, environment 1 monitoring, radiation effects on biological systens, and control of occupational radiation exposure.
I have been a Certified Health Physicist since 1960, and am a Charter member of the Health Physics Society and of the Saltimore-Washington Chapter.
2235 224 t
0 9
M
\\
g-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
Docket No. 70-2623 SNM-1173 for Oconee Nuclear
)
Station Spent Fuel Transportation
)
and Storage at McGuire Nuclear
)
Station
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. MICHAEL A. PARSONT 2235 225
1 1
AFFI_'AVIT OF DR. MICHAEL A. PARSONT My name is Michael A. Parsont.
I am Chief of the Radiological Health Standards Branch of the NRC Office of Standards Development.
As part of my duties in this position I am responsible for directing an NRC program to evaluate and assess the radiological health impacts to the public from NRC proposed and licensed facilities. A copy of my Professional Qualifications is attached.
My affidavit responds to Petitioner's contention 4 Part b. which refers to residual health risks from the dose resulting from transshipment of spent fuel from the Oconee facility as major costs tipping the balance against the proposal to transship and store Oconee spent nuclear fuel in the McGuire, Unit i spent fuel pool.
Contention 4 is as follows:
The proposed action increases the exposure to radiation of workers and the general public beyond what is ALARA.
a.
ALARA can be achieved by on-site expansion of spent fuel storage capacity at Oconee, including building another spent fuel pool.
b.
The residual health risks which remain even if the present NRC regulations on exposures to workers are met are major costs of the proposed action which tip the bal&nce against the proposed action (Tr.77-85).
In the context of my testimony, Residual Health Risks from exposure to ionizing radiation are genetic risks and may be expressed in subsequent generations as congenital abnormalities, constitutional and degenerative diseases and overall ill-health (other illnesses having 2235 226
, some degree of genetic determination).
In addition, the cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is of concern to Petiticner.
My response to this part of Contention 4 is based on the following considerations:
1.
Somatic risks (i.e. the risk of cancer) and a significant portion of the genetic risks of health effects from ionizing radiation are directly and linearly proportional to radiation dose and dose rate.
2.
There are 2 viable options, both of which will be taken, for Duke Power Company to resolve its immediate shortfall in spent fuel storage capacity--these being the expansion of storage capacity of Oconee Units 1 and 2 Spent fuel pool by re-racking and at other nuclear stations owned by Duke Power.
I have estimated the genetic effects for the range of doses involved in the 2 options for resolving the Oconee spent fuel storage capacity shortage based on the 1972 National Academy of Science Report of the Comittee on the Biological Effects of Ionizina Radiation, BEIR.I)
(The recently published update of the BEIR Comittee, BEIR-III,2) presents information on genetic effects which does not significantly differ from the 1972 BEIR Report.)
I have estimated risk to cancer from BEIR-III data because it represents more recent considerations of radiation effects.
1)Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D. C. November 1972.
- 2) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations.
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizfng Radiations, National Academy of Sciences--National Research Council, Washington, D. C.
1979.
2235 227
, The range of doses used in my calculation of the genetic effects is based on several considerations as follows:
- 1. The upper end of the range of population dose is based on estimates of the applicant. This was presented as 150 person-rem in Table 10-1 of the Environmental Impact Analysis for expanison of the Oconee spent fuel storage pool capacity by re-racking.
This estimate was subsequently reesti:nted at 125 person-rem.
- 2. Mr. Glen of Battelle Northwest Laboratories estimates that re-racking could start at about 60 person-rem but would unlikely range upward to 150 person-rem.
- 3. Dr. Nehemias states that, based on actual experience, re-racking dose would be closer to 20 person-rem.
- 4. The applicant's reestimated re-racking dose and the population dose from transshipment (120 person-rem) are effectively the same from the standpoint of effects.
Therefore, the range of doses from the 2 options extend from 20-150 person-rem based on whichever information is accepted.
In addition, for perspective, these doses are quite small (.004%.03%) compared to the expected normal operation occupational exposure at Oconee 1, 2 and 3 over the assumed 30 year facility lifetime.
The estimated genetic effects from BEIR ) and from the re-racking and I
transshipment options are presented in Tables I and II, respectively.
The range of doses brackets the dose estimates given above.
Although there is general agreement that a significant proportion of somatic and genetic health risks are directly proportional to the magnitude of the radiation dose, there is controversy over the magnitude of the dose-effect response at low-radiation dose and dose rate. This controversy is based on the results of studies of various exposed populations. These studies report that exposure to low-level radiation 2235 228
B
_ may be about an order of magnitude (about 10 times) more effective in producing health effects than the estimates given in the BEIR Report.l)
Applying the factor of 10 to the estimates of genetic effects given in Table II results in a maximum equilibrium estimate of 0.3 effects.
In my opinion, because of the small number of genetic effects, even if the BEIR estimates were low, this action does not represent a major genetic health cost.
Although contention 4 does not specifically refer to somatic effects, I have calculated the range of total and fatal cancers which might result from the options considered.
I have used the risk estimate presented in BEIR-III which are summarized in Table III.
The estimates for the option are given in Table IV.
For a single exposure the maximum estimate of total cancers, assuming BEIR-III was low by a factor of 10, would be 0.8, and the estimate for fatal ' cancers would be 0.2.
2235 229
Table I.
ESTIMATED GENETIC EFFECTS Disease Classification Natural Ef fec t per 106 live Estimated Risk O
Incid births al of 5 rem per per 106 person-rem (c)
(per10gnce live generation (b) births) m m
First Generatio Equilibrium First Generation Equilibrium N N
Dominant diseases 10,000 50 to 500 250 to 2500 6 to 60 30 to 300 Chromosomal and relatively very slow relatively very slow recessive diseases 10,000 slight increase slight increase Congenital anomalies 15,000 Anomalies expressed later 10,000 5 to 500 50 to 5000 0.6 to 60 6 to 600 Constitutional and 15,000 degenerative diseases iluman Illness having genetic component 0.25 to 250 0.03 to 30 TOTAL 60,000 60 to 1000 300 to 7750 7 to 120 36 to 930 Risk per 106 people 1,200(d)/ year Geometric fiean 29 183
( ) From the 1972 BEIR ReportE able 4 p. 57.
The iluman Illness entries (.005x50 and.05x5000) and new totals are T
my estimations.
(b) A generation is assumed to be 30 years.
(c) Risk per 106 person-rem = (cases /106 live births) x (30 years /5 rem) x (4 x 106 live births / year per 2 x 108 people) = 0.12 x cases /106 live births.
(d) Cases /106 live births x (4 x 106 live births per year / 2 x 108 peopje),
Table II. GEtlETIC EFFECTS COMPARIS0tl FOR TWO OPTI0tlS Dose Genetic Effects Total Genetic Option 1/
( Pers_on-rem)
First Generation Effects at Equilibrium 1
20-150 0.0006
.004 0.004 - 0.03 2
120 0.003 0.02 1/ Option 1 is reracking at Oconee.
Option 2 is transshipraent to McGuire.
2235 231
~
~
TABLE III Co=parative Lifeti=e Cancer Risk Esti=ates for the General Population fro = Exposures to Low-Dose, Low-LET Radiation, Single Exposure
- and Continuous Exposure **, Both Sexes Co=bined a/
Source of Continuous Estimates Single Exposure exposure (per =illion population exposed per rad)
BEIR 1979 Incidence Relative Risk 636-1031 592-946 Absolute Risk 268-399 (525)b 254-373 (490)t Mortality Relative Risk 177-353 150-293 Absolute Risk 70-124 (157)b 68-119 (141)b BEIR 1972 Factors **
Mortality Relative Risk 621 568 Absolute Risk 117 (270)b 115 (255)b UNSCEAR 1977 Mortality 100 100
- The BEIR 1979 single-exposure esti= ate was based on a 10-tad dose and was divided by 10 for co=parison with the other values; the estimate for con-tinuous expcsure is based on a lifetime exposure of 1 rad / year.
- BEIR.1972 post-natal, age-specific risk factors used with 1969-1971 life-tables, with plateau extending throughout the years of life re=aining after irradiation, esti= ate (b) in the 1972 BEIR Report.
The average age of the 1969-1971 life-tables is older than that of the 1957 U.S. population used in the 1972 BEIR report.
For this reason, the numLers obtained here for continuous exposure are larger, on a per rad basis, than those obtainable from Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the 1972 BEIR report.
a_/ aken from BEIR-III, Table 5, p.342 T
Geometric Mean (my addition) 2235 232
Table IV. CANCER CASE COMPARIS0N FOR TWO OPTIONS (Single Exposure)
Dose Total Option 1/
(Person-rem)
Incidence Fatal 1
20 - 150
.01
.08
.003
.02 2
120
.06
.0002 M0ption 1 is reracking at Oconee.
Option 2 is transshipment to McGuire.
2235 233
I hereby certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
b Dr. Michael A. 'Farsont Subscribed and sworn to before me this lith day of May,1979, aK
_Not ry Public
~
My Commission Expires:
jf /9fg, 2235 234
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS of Dr. Michael A. Parsont My name is Michael A. Parsont, I am Chief, of the Radiological Health Standards Branch in the Office of Standards Development of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.
I have served in this position since November 1978.
In this capacity, I supervise and direct the activities of six staff professionals in areas concerning the determination of health risks and effect from exposure to ionizing radiation, radStion epidemiology and regulation of the use of medical devices and pharmaceuticals containing radioactivity.
In addition I am responsible for developing radiological health standards and guides and for the evaluation and assessment of the radiobiological health impacts on the public from proposed and licensed facilities.
Such efforts include the determination of relationships between low-level radiation exposure and health effects from direct radiation and radioactive materials emitted from planned or existing nuclear facilities and from the medical use of radioactive materials.
I am also responsible for directing, coordinating and evaluating technical support research performed by national laboratories and industrial contractors to establish the bases for regulations, standards and guides.
I serve as an advisor and coordinator in~ radiobiology for technical assistance contracts.
I represent the NRC at international symposia, and other meetings in areas of radiological impact assessment.
From September 1972 until November 1978 I served as a radiobiologist and an environmental scientist on the staffs of the Office of Standards Develop-ment and Nuclear Reactor Regulation, respectively.
In these positions I performed evaluations of the health effects of ionizing radiation; prepared the Radiological Assessment and Radiological Monitoring Sections of Environmental Impact Statements; and performed numerous studies related to the impact of NRC proposed and licensed facilities on the environment.
I received a B.S. in Public Health from the University of California at Los Angeles (1955), a M.S. in Radiology from Colorado State University (1962) and a Ph.D. in Radiation Biology from Colorado State University (1967).
I completed additional undergraduate studies in genetics and endocrinology at the University of California, Berkeley and graduate studies in Sanitation Engineering and Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, respectively.
I have more than 13 years of professional experience in Public Health, Radiation Biology, Environmental Sciences, research evaluation and coordination and standards development.
This experience was gained at the Alameda County Health Department, Alameda, California; Sandia Labora-tories, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Aerospace Nuclear Safety); NUS Corporation, Rockville, Maryland (Environmental Studies); and the AEC-NRC.
2235 235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-ll73 for Oconee Nuclear
)
Station Spent Fuel Transportation
)
and Storage at McGuire Nuclear
)
Station
)
AFFIDAVIT OF T. JERRELL CARTER, JR.
I, T. Jerrell Carter, Jr., being duly sworn, do depose and state:
1.
I am a Technical Assistant in the Division of Operating Reactors, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC).
2.
I have prepared a statement of professional qualifications which is attached to this affidavit.
3.
This affidavit address inpart, Natural Resources Defense Council Contention 5.
2235 236
Contention #5 Applicant overstates the need for action at this time by using the one-core discharge capacity reserve standard as if it were a requirement where in fact it is not a requirement of NRC regulations.
(a) Either Applicant should be bound to comply with the one-core discharge capacity standard [as a license condition] or it should have to demonstrate on a cost / benefit basis that holding that capability is more valuable than the costs of shipment off-site of one core of spent fuel (Tr.85-127).
There is no regulatory requirement for any particular spent fuel storage capacity nor is the regulatory staff aware of any compelling safety basis for requiring maintenance of a full core discharge capability.
The lack of a spent fuel storage capability can be costly in terms of extended reactor outage time, however, the benefits from prudent reactor plant design, in availability of the facility and reduction of man-rem exposures for inspections and repairs, are self evident. Therefore, the licensing staff plans to continue its past practice of pointing out these benefits to applicants and licensees. This testimony is based in part on general conclusions reached as a result of numerous spent fuel storage reviews and associated evaluations of alternatives.
The specific alternatives and conclusions relative to the proposed shipment of spent fuel from the Oconee station to McGuire will be covered by others.
Historically, power reactor facilities have been designed and built with storage pools for irradiated fuel assemblies that could store the-fuel discharged during the refueling, plus some additional space.
2235 237
~
Contention 5 cont'd Generally, utilities have followed the practice of providing additional space for a full core, so that if a need to unload the core should occur, space would be available to permit immeuiate unloading. The staff has endorsed and encouraged this design philosophy. Our present practice, as described in the Standard Review Plan is to require applicants to state the basis for the spent fuel storage capacity provided in the design.
(The Standard Review Plan is guidance for the staff which presents a well defined base for reviewers and a statement of regulatory policy.) For example, the safety analysis reports for some recent light water reactor applications state that the storage space provided is consistent with the maximum number of spent fuel assemblies unloaded from the core, during the refueling cycle, plus the fuel contained in a full core load (e.g.,
1-1/3 core for a single unit plant and 1-2/3 core for a dual uait facility).
The staff believes the above is an appropriate basis for selecting design storage capacity, and has informed applicants to this effect, but we have no guides or regulations that require any specific basis for selecting design capacity.
The Oconee station consists of 3 reactors. Two reactors share one pool and the third reactor has a separate pool.
The shared pool had an original capacity slightly greater than 12/3 cores and single unit pool had a capacity slightly less than 1 1/2 cores. This was consistent with the then pi evailing design practice. Since then the license has 2235 238
Contention #5 cont'd requested and received approval to increase the storage capacity of the single unit pool to about 2.7 cores. Therefore the license has a total station storage capacity for the three units of about 4.5 cores.
Presently there is available storage for 265 fuel assemblies; each of the three units has a core that consists of 177 fuel assemblies.
The staff has previously (1975) considered the possible need for establishing requirements for design capacity of spent fuel storage pools and for the maintenance of available space sufficient to permit storage of a full reactor core in the event the need should arise to unload the reactor (full core reserve). The staff considered various postulated situations that illustrate the benefits of being able to completely unload the reactor, such as the need to perform repairs or modifications (e.g. repair pipe cracks or replace steam generator tubes) or to reduce the accumulated man-rem dose to workers during certain maintenance or inspection activities ( e.g. inspect the reactor belt-line welds or reactor fuel).
In all cases, however, the conditions that might require unloading the core could be permitted to exist and the unloading put off or delayed until space was made available by shipping stored fuel to some other location.
No postulated event or safety consideration required immediate core unloading. The core cooling system with its redundancy and the 2235 239
Contention #5 cont'd reactor vessel with its integrity provide assurance that the reactor vessel is a safe location in which to keep fuel already in the core for an indefinite period, following shutdown of the reactor.
None of the postulated situations presented any compelling safety basis for requiring maintenance of a full core reserve; however, lack of such capability can be costly in terms of extended outage time. The benefits from prudent design, in availability of the facility and reduction of man-rem exposures for inspections and repairs, are self evident. Therefore, the licensing staff points out these benefits to applicants and licensees, but has not established a basis for imposing a requirement to maintain full core reserve fuel storage capability.
Licensees recognize the benefits of being able to unload the reactor but not all licensees have taken steps to assure that a full core reserve is available.
Possibly because there is no requirement for a particular spent fuel storage capability, the steps taken by licensees have not all been the same.
In the past some utilities requested increases in storage capacity of only a fraction of a core although most requested increases were for more than one core of storage capability.. Today only 2 reactor stations, with one or more reactors, are operating without a full core reserve (FCR).
But during the past four years, numerous other stations also have operated without a FCR. These actions show that not all licensees believe that full core reserve is necessary.
2235 240
Contention #5 cont'd The contention, simply stated, would require a licensee to demonstrate that it is better to rely on a full core storage capability than to rely on shipment of spent fuel.
Fuel may have to be discharged from the reactor to permit reactor vessel inspections or certain repairs.
The contention presupposes that shipment of spent fuel to another location is a viable option.
In the particular case involving Duke Power, the McGuire spent fuel storage pool does exist and it could be used to receive spent fuel from the Oconee station.
In most proposals reviewed to date the option of shipping spent fuel between reactor sites did not exist; therefore, increasing the on-site storage pool capacity was the proposed option.
(The NRC assess-ment of case specific alternatives available to Duke Power is discussed in the Environmental Impact Appraisal and Staff affidavits with respect to Natural Resources Defense Council Contention No. 3 on Alternatives and Carolina Environmental Study Group and Carolina Action Contention No.1.)
Assessments of cost benefit for those proposals that have been approved to date show that shutting down the plant is less desirable than either increasing on-site storage capability or shipping spent fuel to another reactor pool with space.
The Commission stated on September 10, 1975, in the Federal Register that approvals for pool modifications can be granted, pending issuance of the generic environmental impact statment, provided that they are consistent with consideration of five specific factors. One of the 2235 241
Contention #5 factors specifically covers the need for the increased storage capabili ty.
It and other factors have been considered in an Environ-mental Impact Appraisal issued by the NRC in support of every licensing action on a storage pool modification. We have approved on a case-by-case basis, approximately 40 proposals to increase on-site spent fuel storage capacity.
In these cases it was found that the cost associated with the reactor being unable to operate for a short time because of a lack of storage capability is far greater than either increasing on-site sto: age capability or shipping fuel to another site for storage if it were available.
NRC has been authorizing on-site spent fuel storage expansive well before the necessity to preclude a reactor shutdown. Our reasons include:
(1) modifications to increase spent fuel storage capability can be done with less personnel exposure to radiation when the pool has no spent fuel in it or less than a full complement of spent fuel and (2) regardless of the amount of storage available the added storage capability will not be used until the need for storage exists - storage capability does not cause a utility to generate either a larger quantity of spent fuel or spent fcel at a faster rate just to fill the pool. Modifications to on-site pool storage capability can be most easily done before spent fuel has been discharged from the reactor to the pool.
All work can be done with the pool dry since water does not need to be in the pool.
2235 242
Contention #5.
When spent fuel is in the pool, water is required for shielding and cooling.
Keeping the amount of spent fuel in the pool to a minimum reduces the radiation field strength and increases the distance between the workers and the spent fuel.
It may also reduce the amount of fuel handling, simplify the modification procedures and thereby minimize the time that personnel are exposed.
Thus, although there is no regulatory requirement for any particular spent fuel storage capacity, providing increased storage capability does not increase the rate at which spent fuel is discharged from the reactor to the pool, but will instead provide the licensee with operational flexibility which the NRC staff encourages. NRC will review each proposed option and give approval, when necesary and appropriate.
I hereby certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
r
((f.> < YI y
/
T /,/errell Carter, Jr.
~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this / c day of
/g
, 1979.
35 243 C
//
)
J s
(I UA.h l?L f/
\\ & j_,,, <, J 2 lio.ta r Public q., *y, u.
ed
,)
0,,,,.. o. s
~
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF T. JERRELL CARTER, JR.
I serve as technical expert in the nuclear engineering field as advisor and assistant to the Assistant Director for Engineering and Proj ects, Division of Operating Reactors.
I coordinate technical reviews within the division. As such I have been involved with spent fuel storage increases since 1975.
I have authored a paper on spent fuel storage given at the 9th Annual National Conference on Radiation Control in 1977 and another updated paper to be given to the June 1979 Meeting of the American Nuclear Society.
I have also participated in a joint NRC/IAEA Seminar on Spent Fuel Storage in 1978.
Prior to coming to the Commission in 1969, I was with Atomics International in California for 11 years.
I worked as a process design engineer for a power reactor. As such I performed safety studies in support of a Safety Analysis Report, evaluated system designs and prepared system design discriptions and equipment specifica-tions.
I also designed and specified equipment for experimental loops installed in domestic and Canadian reactors.
I assisted loop operation and evaluated the performance.
In addition, two years were spent at a reactor site during preoperational testing and initial operation of a power reactor.
I was responsible for evaluating system performance and designing modifications that would improve performance.
Included were spent fuel storage pool systems including water purification.
2235 244
. I received a Bachelor of Arts from Amherst College and a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Massachusetts Insititute of Technology in 1957 and a Master of Science in Chemical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. My master's degree included work at the MIT Practice School in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Nuclear Engineering in the State of California.
2235 245
.