ML20005B935
| ML20005B935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Semmel H ANTIOCH SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109160143 | |
| Download: ML20005B935 (8) | |
Text
.
s*
p J,D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA F 1 s
g*I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J~
l.
91 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
UEP 1519815
)
qQlat Cl u.s.o.mu m
)
poawJanou In the Matter of
)
Q
).
%/
/
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No '
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
.~ slon)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
)
)
)
o ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENO E
},
{3 CliRISTA-MARI A, JIM MILLS AND Sgp1014/ A sng JOANNE BIER 2h
~
OR ALTERNATIVELY
\\
Se 4,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL
- ,ce S
CONTENTIONS 1)
=
Intervenors hereby file additional contentions as of right pursuant to the Order Following Special Prehearing Conference dated January 17, 1980 as amended by order of June 16, 1951.
Because Intervenors anticipate motions by licensee or staff asserting that some contentions are not within the intention of the Order of January 17, 1980, Intervenors hereby 61so move for leave to file as an additional contention any contention which this Board may determine is technically beyond the intended scope of said Order.
Each of the conteiztiens raises a legitimate question relating to the health and safety of the public.
As Chairman Gorssman E tated during the Special Prehearing Conference (Tr. 195-96).
"Let me say this: any time during the proceeding that you discover a safety question that cught to be addressed, you certainly <>ught to apply to the Board, and I can' t see that we would ever deny a request if there is a legitimate sa:?ety question."
s'h h0%
8109160143 810904 PDR ADOCK 05000155 G
"u-o CONTENTIONS 1-1.
The additional emissions of Iodine-129 and Krypton-85 that will result from handling and storage of additional spent fuel is inimical to the public health and safety.
1-2.
In addition, the failure of licensee to calculate such additional emissions precludes a finding that the proposed amendment is not inimical to public health and safety.
2-1.
The failure of the licensee to encapsulate all defective spent fuel elements before placing them in the spent fuel pool is inimical to the public health and safety.
2-2.
Alternatively, if the license andendment is approved, a condition should require such encapsulation.
3-1.
The application fails to provide that (a) all fuel transfer operations be conducted with the containment isolated, (b) the iso-lation must be intersperced with breaks during which no fuel transfer operations are conducted so that containment may be vented to allow dissipation of humidity and airborn concentrations of radiation and (c ) the containment should be isolated as a precaution against faulty isolation equipment coupled with fuel handling accidents which would release unacceptable levels of radiation to the enviornment.
For each of these reasons, the expansion is inimical to the public health and safety.
3-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is approved, conditions requiring the above should be imposed.
3 4-1.
Because of problems associated with radioactive crud being added to the pool from the moving of stored fuel elements and the washing down of the old racks, contamination levels may not be kept within limits in the pool area.
Therefore, before work begins licensee should measure and recoil ambient radiation levels around the pool.
Af ter the replacement of the storage racks and the fuel elements currently stored in them, the licensee shall again measure the radiation lev.els around the pool, monitoring such levels and operating the cleanup system until levels return to those typical before the rack modification was begun.
No further activities which q
would then increase the radioactive content of the pool (such as refueling) shall be carried out until the levels return to those typical of the period before the modification.
Failure of the
, application to so provide is inimical to the public health and safety.
4-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is approved, conditions requiring the above should be imposed.
5-1.
The application does not provide for shipment of the old i
spent fuel storage racks whole in large crates rather than cut up into smaller pieces and is therefore inimical to public health and safety.
5-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is approved, conditions requiring shipment whole should be imposed.
6-1.
The application does not limit quantity or heights of loads which are carried over the spent fuel pool so as to preclude impact energies in excess of 240,000 in-lb. and is inimical to public health and safety.
i
~
'G-6-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is approved, conditions requiring such limits should be imposed.
7-1.
The absence of a pool cover to preclude heavy object drops and cask tipping accidents is inimical to public. health and safety.
7-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is approved, a condition requiring a pool cover should be imposed.
8-1.
The application is hundcal to public health and safety because it does not provide that:
the pool shall be borated to 2,v00 ppm during the removal and insta!.lation of the racks and until completion of rack replacement to pre-clude criticality due to overturned racks and consequent spilled fuel elements, or due to the dropping of racks on one another.
8-2.
Alternatively, if the license amendment is granted, a conditon reguring such location should be imposed.
9-1.
The application cannot be approved because no assessment of alternatives has been made as required by Section 102(2) (E) of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) including the assessment of whether there is any need for power.
For examp7.e, licensee itself has stated in an application to the Michigan Public Service Commission requesting a rate increase, that there has been a decline in demand for power,and Big Rock Point produces only one 1
percent of licensee's power.
The Environmental Impact Assessment is deficient in numerous ways, including with'.sut limitation its statement that the costs of the no-need for power alternative are l
l l
.x.
the costs of shutting down the plant.
Shut-down costs must be in-curred sooner or later, even if the spent fuel pool is expanded.
This shut down costs are unrelated to the no need for power alternative.
Costs for this alternative are in fact minimal, basicallythesecurityandmaintenancecostsforthehenyears of operation the proposed amendment permits, and even then only if plant is currently operating without loss.
10-1.
By increasing on-site storage of spent fuel, the enlargement of the spent fuel pool would increase the danger to public health and safety of an accident involving tornado or tur-bine missiles impacting the spent fuel pool.
The pool as modified will not withstand such accidents within the limits set in NRC regulations.
11-1.
NEPA S102 (2) (C) requires an Environmental Impact Statement on the environmental impacts of the spent fuel pool expansion.
11-2.
NEPA S102 (2) (C) requires an Environmental Impact Statement on te additional plant operation which will be made possible by the expansion of the spent fuel pool.
12-1.
If a steam explosion or a melt-down occurred at Big Rock Point, the radiological consequences of an expanded spent fuel would be greater than at present and inimical to the health and safety of the public.
12-2.
If a steam explosion occurred in which spent fuel is expelled through the containment, the increased quantity of spent fuel increases the damage to the health and safety of the public.
ve.
13-1.
Big Rock Point does not have alternative sources of power in the event its primary power source fails.
Such failure would render inoperative safety equipment in the expanded spent fuel pool including, without limitation, the cooling system, to the detriment of the health and safety of the public. '-
14-1.
Since the spent fuel pool at Big Rock Point is not borated, any accident, including, tornado missle, earthquake or earthquake missile, tipping of a cask into the pool, or drop of a heavy object into the pool which could result in a denser con-figuration of the fuel assemblies thereby makes criticality excursions more likely if additional fuel is stored in denser configurations thmiit is presently stored.
The exparsion is therefore inimical to the health and safety of the public.
~
15-1.
The additional spent fuel will increase the heat dis-charged into Lake Michigan, creating an unacceptable thermal impact, a deleberious imbalance of ecosystems in the area of Lake Michigan and a danger to the health and safety of the public.
16-1.
The existence of additional plutonum enriched spent fuel on site will increase leakage or di' harge of radioactive matter to the detriment of thehealth and safety of the public.
17-1.
Big Rock Point has not been seismically qualified and does not meet NRC seismic standards.
No license amendement may l
be approved for a plant which does not meet NRC standards.-
17-2.
Big Rock Point has not been seismically qualified and does not meet NRC seismic qualifications.
In the event of an earth-quake, an increase in the quantity of spent fuel on site increases the possibility of a melt down and the dangers to the health and safety of the public from a release of radioactive water or materials.
18-1.
The opplication is deficient because it does not dis-close or address the problems arising from expansion of the spent fuel pool and the construction and operation of a rad-wast facility licensea proposes to build at Big Rock Point.
18-2.
The increase in on site radioactive material from the expansion of the spent fuel pool and the proposed rad-waste facility is inimical to the health and safety of the public.
18-3.
The purpose of expansion of the spent fuel pool is to provide storage space for spent fuel from other nuclear facilities of licensee andnuclear wastes from other organizations.
Big Rock Point has not been licensed for such storage purposes.
Therefore the application should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Clinical Interns:
HERBERT SEMMEL Attorney for Intervenors Scott Warner Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier Stephen Smith Antioch School of Law 1624 Crescent Pl., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 265-9500 ext. 240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing additional Contentions and alternative Motion for Leave to File Additional Contentions were served upon the persons named in the attached list by depositing copies in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 4th day of September, 1981.
NERBERT SEM!iEL i
At: a c Safety and Licensing Jeesph Galic, Enquire E:ard PancI Isha, Linec3n and Beale 3
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1120 Connecticutt' Ave, N.W.
Cor.
ssien Suisc 325 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Philip P.
Steptoe, Esquire Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Isham, Lincoln and Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing
.One First National Plaza Board Panel suite 4200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chicago, Illinois 60603 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory DgjketingandServiceSection Commission O.. ice of the Secretary Washington D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commis s ion Mr. Fredrick J. Shon Washingten, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel John O'Neill, II Reute 2, Bcx 44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Maple City, MI 49664 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Janice E.
Meere, Esq.
Ccunsel for NEO Staff U.S. Nuclea r Re gulctory
~
Cer.ission Uashington, D.C.
20555 Jchn A. Leithauser Energy Rescurces Group General Delivery Levering, MI 49755
-__