ML19332A086
| ML19332A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Beshear S, Martin D KENTUCKY, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009100595 | |
| Download: ML19332A086 (10) | |
Text
/".
~
/'
LO (o
4 g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g
?
SEp
~
g
{.
0//l egfg A}
BEFORE THE M.g g b
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OU Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U
Dr. Frank F.
Hooper D
C Glenn O. Bright In the Matter of -
)
~
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
) Docket No. 50-358-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station)
KENTUCKY'S OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS The Licensing Board in its order dated July 14, 1980, invited comment on the pending motion for summary dispns! tion of Contention 5 in light of tLe Commission's final interim rule concerning physical protection requirements for trans-portation of spent fuel published June 3, 1980.
The Common-wealth did not receive a copy of this order until August 4, 1980, and did not receive relevant material requested frcm the. Staff on August 7, 1980, until August 27, 1980.
Con-sequently, the Commonwealth submits these comments subsequent to the date set out in the Board's July 14th order, as authorized by the Board Chairman by telephone.on August 13, 1980.
The Commonwealth does not believe that Applicants have sustained their burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to summary DS03 e009100@D 3,,
l N:
dic'ocition no c matter of Icw.
The contention in que= tion f.:.
p h
states:
r There are no plans to provide knowledge and w
training of the populace in communities p
through which radioactive materials will be f
transported sufficient to allow them to be able to cope with transportation accidents.
g 7
In its order of August 15, 1979, which chiefly concerned D
delivery of unirradiated fuel to the site,- the Board dis-
{
~
posed of.this contention as to unirradiated fuel, and stated it expressed no opinion on the contention as to spent fuel.
f In its July 14, 1980 order the board expressed the tentative i
i view that there is no requirement or warrant for providing i
knowledge and training of the general populace in~ communities through which spent fuel is transported, and invited comment in light of the new interim ruit.
The point of departure in analyzing the pending motion for summary disposition is the requirement of 10 C.F.R. 50.57 (a) (3) that before an operating license is issued the Board must find that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the'public, and the requirement of 50.57 (a) (6) that issuance of the license will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public.
The Board cannot make such a finding with respect to contention 5 based on the present record, for the reasons set out below.
Contention 5 is difficult to deal with because it involves an incomplete portion of the so-called nuclear fuel
?
l cycle.
The AEC launched the commercial nuclear reactor program with numerous glib assumptions, including an assump-tion that nuclear waste generated by such plants would be safely disposed of.
Twenty years later, no solution to the waste disposal problem is in sight, and the plutonium recycle option is foreclosed for nonproliferation reasons.. Conse-quently, spent f,uel storage capacity at existing" plants is being exhausted and utilities are reracking spent fuel storage pools to increase storage capacity.1 Meanwhile, the Commission, in response to Minnesota v. NRC and NECNP v. NRC, is conducting a rulemaking on whether or not it is confident that means of disposing of high level wastes will exist in the year 2007 and whether such wastes can be safely stored until disposed of.
Under these circumstances, it is hardly
~
surprising that the applicants have no idea where they will ship spent fuel when their storage pool reaches capacity in 1989.
What is surprising is that the Commission could for so long continue to license new plants in spite of NEPA and NRC's obligation to protect public health and safety, while making no progress on the back end of the " fuel cycle".
Minnesota v. NRC may indicate that this practice is nearing its end.
Contention 5 should be fairly construed to ccver po-tential accidental and intentional releases of radioactive material, as public health and safety are equally sensitive 1The fact that Zimmer can only operate for eight years until running out of storage space for spent fuel would seem to impact on financial qualifications, another issue in this proceeding.
3
to both types of releases.
The significance of the final interimLrule~concerning physical protection requirements for
- spent fuel ~ shipments is that it demonstrates recognition by the Commission that the possibility of sabotage is signi-ficant enough both in consequences and likelihood to require preventive measures.
The rule concerns-methods such as armed escorts chiefly aimed at prever. ting hijacking.
The rule contair.s nothing aimed at mitigating the effects of radiological releases, whether accidental or intentional, but instead is purely prophylactic.
Ifoneassbes,asthe new rule does, that a group may exist that is committed to attempt such a serious terrorist enterprise as the sabotage of spent fuel, it seems only prudent to assume that such a r
I committed and resourceful terrorist group may be successful in accomplishing such a heinous act-in spite of armed escorts and other measures contained in the new rule, such as through use of high explosives.
Since the new rule does not address response to successful sabotage, yet assumes that such a credible threat exists, it appears that licensing boards may i
and indeed should address the measures needed to mitigate the effect of successful sabotage in order to make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 50. 57 (a) (3) and (a) (6).
similarly, the possibility of accidental releases from i
spent fuel shipments cannot be-dismissed completely.
NUREG i
0194, February, 1977, states that the design criteria for l
4 l
g
,c
-,--g-.
,_,s
_---,,-,.,m
,,7
~
cp;nt fuel en:ke includs a tharmal test of 1475' for thirty minutes.
Rail accidents can readily be postulated in which a' spent fuel container may be exposed to a hazardous mate-rials fire for much lo.nger than thirty minutes.
Such fires are often lef t burning until all the hazardous material is consumed.
Thus, it may be quite possible for spent fuel containers to be exposed to events more severe th.an their design basis.
Additionally, the nuclear industry does not always meet des"ign specifications in the manufacture and operation of equipment.
For example, Nuclear Fuel Services in April, 1979 had all NFS-4 fuel casks suspended from service due to warpage and bowing of the casks.
These defects were apparently not discovered during NRC inspection of the casks.
Circumstances such as these indicate that the 90ssibility of radiological accidents cannot be discounted and that measures to respond to such incidents are required to adequately protect public health and safety.
The focus of Contention 5 therefore should be whether there is adequate assurance that measures needed to protect public health and safety from radiological incidents con-cerning spent fuel will be in place when such shipments from Zimmer take place.
The Commonwealth is not aware of any studies or other basis for concluding that training of the general populace would be necessary or desirable in coping with transportation accidents.
However, certain segments of the populace, such as disaster response teams, hospitals equipped with decontamination facilities, and law enfcrcement 5
=
1 e
cgcncica ccpnble of impicmsnting cvecuation, chould ba required i
to be in a position to respond to radiological incidents before spent fuel shipments are permitted, as such capabilities are necessary to adequately protect public health and safety.
Since applicants cannot control the availability of such services themselves, and since they have no idea as to the destinations or routes for spent fuel,'and since there is a nationwide pattern of inadequate response capability even for fixed nuclear facilities, it will be impossible for the applicants to demonstrate that adequate measures will be in place to respond to radiological incidents invoEOing the transportation of spent fuel from the Zimmer f acility.
Applicants expect these shipments to begin in 1989.
Appli-cants'. response, p. 8, August 11, 1980.
The NRC Staff response that they will simply not license a shipment u'nless safeguards regulations of Part 73 are met is no answer to the problem because these requirements only address measures to impede terrorist attacks.
Part 73 does nothing to mitigate the consequences of radiological re-leases.
Moreover, assuming requirements to mitigate the consequences of radiological incidents are fashioned either by the Board or by regulation, the failure to comply with such requirements or with existing 10 C.F.R. Part 73 re-quirements and' the resulting refusal to permit shipment of spent fuel would mean that spent fuel would remain on the Zimmer site for an extended period of time not contemplated 6
W
in the design of the facility.
'Accordingly, the' question of safe shipment of spent fuel cannot be put off until a license for shipment is sought unless the consequence of refus'al to issue such a license is considered prior to the issuance'of an operating. license.
That consequence is long-term storage of spent fuel at ' the Zimmer facility, perhaps beyond the term of the facility-license.
Such long-term stdrage should be examined for.its impact on public health and safety under Part 50.
The Board could perhaps also raise this issue under Part 51'sua sponte, as the original NEPA review must have erroneously assumed the availability of off-site storage, disposal or reprocessing facilities.
The Board has also requested comment on the more limited question as to whether there is a procedure by which compliance with Part 73 can be questioned prior to shipment taking place.
10 C.F.R. 50.57, as discussed above, allows the Board to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that Part 73 will be complied with in the future, as the issuance of an operating license irrevocably creates a need to ship spent fuel in compliance with Part 73.
CONCLUSION Applicants have the burden of proof on all issues in an operating license proceeding.
Applicants have not sustained 1
their burden of proof on their motion for summary disposition of Contention 5.
In order to do so, applicants would have to prove that there is.no dispute as to any material fact t
I 7
9 O
and thnt'cc o mattcr cf law thera is no nasd for emargrney response' plans for accidental or intentiona1' radiological releases involving spent fuel.
In the alternative, appli-cants could show that adequate emergency response plans will be in place when spent fuel shipments are scheduled to take place.
Such' a showing is based on so many unknowns that it 1
i appears to be impossible.
The third alternative is that applicants may try to show that spent fuel may be kept in-definitely at the site until a destination and emergency response plan for transportation of spent fuel are in exis-tence, and that there is reasonable assurance that such a destination w.11 exist.
None of these showings have been made by applicants.
The Commission's new interim rule on physical protection of spent fuel demonstrates that sabotage merits an emergency planning response.
The possibility of severe transportation accidants leads to the same conclusion.
There is no reason for NRC to repeat its mistakes with emer-gency planning for fixed nuclear facilities when addressing transportation questions.
Consequently, the motion for summary disposition should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, STEVEN L. BESHEAR ATTO EY GENERAL BY: Day 1 K. Martin Acting Director Division of Environmental Law 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-3594 4
.....J e M Wa*"
- **'~*:,'.'"'--
U.
a
f v
w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ %
nT=
S LWIRO
$"5 5
sep 4 '
+
&T In the Matter of
)
)
7/
D Seoudmy E:
CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC
) DocRet No. 50-356-kWu s
==
)
N
)
4 (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station )
M5
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'27:
I hereby certify that copies of " Kentucky's Opposition To Summary-Disposition of Contentions, dated September 4, 1980, in the captioned matter, were served upon the following
=
by deposit in the United States mail this 4th day of September,
~=
1980:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Timothy S. Hogan,.Tr., Chairman Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Board of Commissioners Atomic Safety and Licensing 50 Market Street Board Clermont County U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Batavia, Ohio 45103 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles A.
Barth, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atomic Safety and Director Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 William J. Moran, Esq.
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Cincinnati Gas & Electric Appeal Board Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post Office Box 960 Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Washington, D.C.
20555 P
I
=~
n=2
Mr. Chase R. Stephens Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
Docketing and Service Branch Attorney at Law Office of the Secretary 3454 Cornell Place i
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 i-Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.
William Peter Heile, Esq.
Clermont County Community Council Assistant City Solicitor Box 181 Box 214 Batavia, Ohio 45103 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Robert A. Jones Mrs. Mary Reder Prosecuting Attorney of Box 270 Clermont County, Ohio Route 2 154 Main Street California, Kentucky 41007 Batavia, Ohio 45103 Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
Troy B. Conner, Esq.
Attorney at Law Conner, Moore and Corber 200 Main Street 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Batavia, Ohio 45103 Washington, D.C.
20006
/2
/
A1 David'K. Martin S
e e
W G
e
...