ML19323G601
| ML19323G601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1980 |
| From: | Steptoe P ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006060357 | |
| Download: ML19323G601 (2) | |
Text
=
9 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE CCLWSELORS AT LAW ONC FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA FORiva$ECOND FLOOR CMsCAGO,lLLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONC 312-955-7500 TELEX
- 2-5288 WASHINGTON OFFICE tOS
.F STRE ET N. W.
W A SHIN GTON, D. C. 20 0 3 e 202-833 9730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-295
)
50-304 cv (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2) 4 Proposed Amendments to
)
DOCKETED Increase Spent Fuel Storage
)
II USNRC Capacity (43 F.R.
30938)
)
MAY 21 Igg >
\\q\\
Cffice ci the Secretatt5 Docketing & Service
\\ [o May 12, 1980 8m~-5
\\
e
Dear Board Members:
m
_s Enclosed is a letter from Catherine Quigg to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation which requests a stay in this Zion spent fuel pool proceeding.
Although denominated as a petition under 10 CFR S2.206, Licensee believes the letter is more properly treated an amicus curiae brief in this appeal.
See Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Units, 1, 2 and 3) CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 177 (1975) ; Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit 2), ALAB-369, 5 NRC 129 (1977).
The assertions made in Miss Quigg's petition are inaccurate.
The Licensing Board did give serious considera-tion to the possibility of a loss of water accident occurring in the Zion spent fuel pool.
The Licensing Board found that there are adequate design and engineered safety features incorporated into the Zion Station spent fuel pool to pre-clude the possibility of such an accident.
Initial Decision at 42-45, 84-86.
Similarly, the Licensing Board gave serious g 6
\\
s006060K7 6
May 12, 1980 Page Two consideration to the effects of the increased fuel burnup tests being conducted with respect to four spent fuel assemblies in the Zion spent fuel pool.
Initial Decision at 90-92.
In fact, the "information received from the NRC.
subsequent to the NRC's favorable ruling on Commonwealth Edison's request," 44 Fed. Reg. 16504, upon which Ms. Quigg relies was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1978, not on March 19, 1980 and therefore was available at the hearing.
The NRC's safety evaluation report and environmental impact appraisal relating to the high burnup program for Zion were introduced into evidence as Staff Ex. 2.
See Tr. 1800-1815.
Respectf Aly s bm f d,
j m,
Philip P. Steptoe OneoftheAttorndys
.l for Commonwealth Edison Company J
CC:
Service List Ms. Catherine Quigg E
~
DA':58 Ap ril 17, 1980
. - :0 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. ** clear Regulatory Concission W
Washington, DC 20"55 t
Domd FRCM:
Catherine quigg, research director
/
NC Pollution & Invironnetal Probles, Inc.
,H P.O. Sox 309, Palatine, IL 6C067
!.mY 2 4. G80 > C (3 U 30 M h
Office ci the<catry
/
-5 Docket j50-295, 0-304 RE:
\\
0;&U::3&#CC '
Ercrcli '
7 6
Co
-, i~:s a
=
3
)
f-
~
Under Section 2 206 of the Code of Pederal Regulations, the = embers el '
1 7
Pollution & D:rironsmtal Problems, Inc. (PEP), request the U.S. Nuclear i
Regulato ry Osc=ission (NRC) to 4--di= tely suspend the license issued
?obruary 28, 1980 by the NRC to Coc=onwealt h Edien to rerack and compact l,{.
its spet fuel pool at the Zion Nuclear Station to 2,112 spent fuel assemblies.
We asic that the licmse to rarack to stayed until the evidence curretly being presented at the salem, New Jsraer spent fuel intervention has been exacined by an NRC review board for its applicability to the Zion spat fuel case. %st~to take this action at this ti=e could result in serious and irrerersible harm to the citizes of northern Illicois and their environnent.
The fallowing cententiona mnatitute :..a hasia far PEP's petitiens 1.
During the public hearings into the Zion spent fuel pool increase, th Atomic hf ecy & Licensing Boa:d (A3LB).made known to all parties that it did not consider a lo as of water accident or lo se of cooling water accidet in the Zion spat fuel pool to be a seriou s matter with consequences affecting the public. The Board, therefore, made its detersintion to increase the Zion pool's capacity withsut sericus or sufficier:t consideration of the serious hazard s inrolved in these potential accidets. It did not itself raise the question of these accidents or their consequences.
W!EREAC:
In the hearings into the spent fuel increase at the Sales Nuclear Station in Salem, New Jersey (Docicet $50-272), subsequent to the Zion hearing, the A3L3, itself, mised the following questione s
a) To what ext a did the accidet at Three Mile Island afft a the spet fuel pool at that site?
b) In the erst of a gro ss 20 ss of water from the
% 03 I
gent fuel storage pool at bleio-1, what would 5
be the difference in ecusequeces betwee ths ee occasioned by the pool with expanded. storage Il proposed by the Licensee and ths e occasioned e
by the preset pool?
In raising these questien, the AGL3 has give credibility to a reactor u
accidet or loss of cooling accident in a pet fuel pool and has undertake a serious deter.dnation of the consequences of such accidente.
kt te gem nbSL hq) Q
-88***so
Pago Two 2
Infor=ation resair ed from the NRC dated Me.reh 13, 1960 and pub 11ebed in the Federal Register March 19,19/.:0 (44FR165CA), sheequent +4 the NRC' s f avorable ruling on Com::enwealth Edison's request, reveals that the 5 0
- ay, in the future, allow utilities to go to fuel burn =p s as high as 25-60,0CC MWIVM:U. No eviron= ental i= pact study has been prepared on the eff ects of high burnup on fuel integrity in pool watar storage or the increased fission gas releases anticipated in spent fuel poole with high burnup spent fuel. The lack of adequate documented or er;,erimental research on this subject was apparmt at the Zion hearings.
CCNCIU3ICN In view of these co=pelling argu=ents concerning =atters overlooked, ignored.
or disregarded by the A3L3 looking in+a the Zicn opent fuel increase and compaction, E appeals to the NRC to i==ediately seped the license of Edison to increar; and ecmpact spent fuel at the Zion Nuclear Station pending a thorough reties of tu evidece presented during the NRO-ASL3 inquiry into Publio Sezvice Electric and Gas Company's request for compaction at the Salem, New Jersey nuclear station, particularly as it applies 'A the Zion spent fuel pool.
The ASL3 at klen has announced its intcations to seriously consider the i= pact of a serious accident in an adjacet nuclear reactor on the spat fuel pool and the consequences of a lo as of water or lo se of cooling accident in a Icir-volume, non-compact sp et fuel pool as contrasted with a high-volume, cocpact spent fuel pool. It is obvious that all the answers on spent fuel storage are not in yet.
The citizens of northam Illinois and their representatives, who so over-whelmingly opposed the Zion spet fuel incree se, deserve the same consideration of serious accidet asneequencos as the residents of Salem, New Jersey.
A ta=porary suspesion of Edison's license to rerack =ay hve long torn beneficial off ects on the health and satety of all Illinois residsted if tht time is used to consider new infor=ation raised at Salem.
Finally, we beliers, the Zica license sh2uld be sspended, pending the
_i cc::cletion of a full evirennetal impact statement on high bur =up cuelear fuel in spent fuel storage pools. Fuel bumup is one of the ::o st i= portent considerations in teter-%g spent fuel pool thermal heat and radiation output, major factc.r3 in a loss of water accident in the pool. It :ney also be a deter =ining factor in the long torn integrity of the spet fuel in water storage. The A3LB's decision to rerack Zion should be hased on an informed judgemet in this matter, since a nationwide applicatian of high buri:np in ec=:sercial lightwater nuclear reactor s. appears imminent.
Ei5 i
(
t
\\
i:q,f
" (,*i-
,.T' g.M
,.g. a. -
- c,.
p \\ lW
'; ' p -
D. UNITED STATES OF A!!ERICANUCLEAR HIGUL CO.'.. ISSION
.5 P
f'
\\
- i.l c0y<.,g C
, (.3
.. s *.i. '.' - l. -
8go i
o A'IV111C SAFETY AND'.:1;ICENSING BOARD S
r 5 g 'r C G
~
w.ca -
g3 9
GaN. M itilhollin, Esq., Chairman p
1
'Dr. ' ames C. la mb, III g
frederick J. Shon 0
ff t
N
~
In the Statter of
)
)
Dockct No. 50-272 PUBLIC SSRVICE ELECTRIC &
)
. (Proposed Issuance of Amendment
~
GAS CollPANY
)
to Facility Operating License
)
No. DPR-70)
(Salem Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING (feoruary n, 1bov)
An evidentiary hearing by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard will be held in the above-captioned proceeding on Ap'ril 22, 19S0 a t 9 :30 A.51. in Courtroom 3, Salem County Courthouse, 92 11arket Street, Salem, New Jersey.
The parties shall address the f c,11owing question:
In the event of a gross' loss of water from the spent fuel storage pool.at Salem 1, what would be the difference in consequences between those occasioned by the pool with the expanded storage proposed by the Licensee and thos 2 occasioned by the present pool?
Testimony, in addition to that p'reviously filed on an earlier formulation of this question, shall be filed by liarch 24, 1990, and objections to all testimony shall be filed in writing l
by April 4, 1980.
SO ORDERED l
FOR TiiE A70!.!IC SAFFTY AND
' hp J LICENSING BOARD N$$n3??89 8a/ /fYs.$4 Gafy/ L. :.a.lliollin, Casirman
. j '. c.
.O D: ted a t Bethesda,11aryland n u mf rekatut-n Lqsh6_
80RYd's} & orndJM ud O :TW o y ):~.e b ro a r y 2 X ) / 9 % O
~
I 11 -
Objections to One of the Questions Posed by the Doard on April 18. 1979 On April 18, 1979 the Board posed threo questions to the Staff.
They were as follows:
1.
To what extent did the accident at Three Mile Is land affect the spent fuel pool at tha t site?
2.
If there had been an explosion or " meltdown" at Three Mile Island, what effect would that have had upon the spent fuel pool?
To what extent would it have mattered how much spent fuel was present at the pool?
3.
If an accident such as the one at Three Mile Island occurred a t Salem, to what extent would the accident affect the spent fuel pool?
If an explosion or
" meltdown" occurred at Salem, to what extent would that affect the spent fuel pool?
To what extent would it have mattered how much spent fuel was present at the pool at Salem?
The Board agreed to withdraw question number 3 as unnecessary after a telephone conf erence call with the parties on April 19, 1979.
We held evidentiary hearings on question 1 and the first sentence of question 3 on July 11, 1979.
We now take up the Sta f f 's objection to the second and third sentences. o'f question 3.
~
The Staff's objection proceeds from the theory that the type of pos tula ted accident to which these sentences refer. is a " Class 9" accident, and that the Commission's policy is that such accidents are not to be considered in individual licensing proceedings.
A Class 9 accident has been described as follows:
The occurrences 1
4 Y- '
e --
~
postulated succ.
those postulatet :
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT I
Entire document previously entered into system under:
nuo goo 3130toI G
cy~c h
h/>h[/J 3 (h 3 $ E No. of pages:
.