ML20009H065
| ML20009H065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | Ahrens P, Brown R, Tierney J MAINE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009H060 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8108050407 | |
| Download: ML20009H065 (13) | |
Text
W July 27, 1981 9
Sk f-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6-JUL 291981 > 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
-.M.
C'..i i ci t.~e Secretary D:xt:. g & Senice Y
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFE'2Y AND LICENSING BOARD EQ%he N
In the Matter of
)
I Docket No. 50-309-OLA MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Compaction)
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station)
)
CONTENTIONS OF STATE OF MAINE The State of Maine has petitioned to intervene before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714, in opposition to the application by Maine Yankee Atomic Power l
Company
(" applicant" or " Maine Yankee") to expand its spent fuel l
pool storage capacity.
The applicant, in submittals dated September L
l 18, 1979 and September 29, 1980, has proposed an amendment to its operating license to permit expansion of its spent fuel storage capacity by mea,ns of (1) pin compaction, (2) reracking, and (3) utilization of the spent fuel pool cask laydown area.
The State seeks to intervene in opposition to the application because of its concerns, on behalf of the citizens of the State of Maine, about the safety, health and environmental implications of the l
proposed license.unendment for the citizens of the State.
The. existing spent fuel pool was designed for the temporary l
storage of 318 fuel assemblies.
Room was thereby provided for 8108050407 810727 l
PDR ADOCK 05000309 l
G PDR
c.
. spent fuel storage'twithout any reserve for a full core dischargel for 5 years, from the 1972 start-up of the facility through 1976.
In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC " ) approved a request by Maine Yankee to rerack'the fuel assemblics in the pool
~
closer together and thus increase the capacity of the spent fuel pool to 953 assemblies.
Again without any full core discharge reserve, this increased storage capacity for another 11 years through 1987.
The applicant now seeks to increase the storage to 2551 assemblies, which will enable it to store fuel in the pool, without ever changing the outer dimensions of the pool, for the full projected 35 year life of the reactor, or until the year 2007, with 'ru) indication that the spent fuel will ever be stored anywhere else after then.
In addition, the proposed pin compaction has never been approved for any commercial nuclear facility by the NRC.
RESERVATIONS The State of Maine respectfully reserves the right to amend its contentionE because the list of contentions is based in part on documents which may be superseded, modified or supplemented, In particular, the NRC staff has not yet prepared the Safety Evaluation Report or its evaluation of the environmental impact of the applicant's proposal.
Further, the applicant has not yet submitted all information concerning the proposed modifications requested from the NRC staff.
Until these documents are flied, or i
i
I t other modifications are made to the record, the State of Maine reserves its right to amend its contentions.
CONTENTIDNS In accordance with 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(b), the State of Maine hereby submits its list of contentions which it seeks to have litigated when the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board considers the proposed licenso amendments.
1.
THE LICENSE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT ARE MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS WHICE, UNDER THE NATIONAL l
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 AND THE NRC REGULA-TIONS, REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
In the absence of a license amendment, Maine Yankee would be required to cease operations in 1987, the limit of its presently licensed spent fuel storage capacity.
The proposed license amend-ments would permit Maine Yankee to continue operations until 2007, the proposed lifetime of the plant, by expanding the storage
~
capacity of the spent fuel pool.
The pool, originally designed to temporarily hold 318 assemblies, is now being proposed to store a 35-year accumulation of 2551 assemblies, with no indica-tion that the spent fuel will ever be stored anywhere else.
The proposed methods, individually and in combination to increase the storage capacity are major federal actions significantly affecting the qual.ity of the human environment for the reasons set forth below.
+.T T-w
-m-w y--
.n-p w
w w
.. a.
The proposed raracking is a major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment because this method of expansion of spent fuel storage significantly increases both the probability and the consequences of an accident leading to a release of radiation or radioactive material into the environment from the spent fuel pool following a total or partial loss of coolant at the spent fuel pool.
The mechanisms pursuant to which such an accident'would occur include, but are not limited to, a reactor accident preventing access to the spent fuel pool and other accidents directly impacting the spent fuel pool, such as a breach of the pool container.
b.
The proposed pin compaction should not be allowed until its environmental effects are at least fully identified and evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement.-
In particular, pin compaction was not described or analyzed in the " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," NUREG-0575 (August, 1979).
It should be noted that the proposed pin compaction has never been approved by the NRC for a commercial nuclear facility.
c.
An Environmental Impact Statement is also required because the proposed pin compaction significantly increases both the probability and the consequences of an accident leading to a release of radiation or radioactive material to the environment from the spent fuel pool following a total or partial loss of coolant at the spent fuel pool.
~
d.
The proposed use of the spent fuel cask laydown area is a major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment because it will prevent or impede the removal of spent fuel from the existing pool for purposes of adopting more environmentally protective and safer alternative storage methods, both on-site and of f-site, during the lifetime of the plant and also upon the cessation of commercial operations of the plant.
e.
An Environmental Impact Statement is required in that there never has been such a statement prepared which identifies and evaluates the risks associated with a total or partial loss of coolant at the existing spent fuel pool leading to the release of radiation or radioactive material to the environment.
For the foregoing reasons, both individuall'y and collectively, an Environmental Impact Statement, prepared pursuant to Section 10 2 (2) (.C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
('"NEPA"1 and Part 51 of the NRC's Regulations, is required for the. proposed pool modifications.
2.
THE PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENTS, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN COMBINATION, SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THEY UNRFASON-ABLY AND UNNECESSARILY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
l The. proposed reracking unreasonably and unnecessarily a.
i endangers the public health and safety by increasing both the probability-and th'e consequences of an accident at the spent v
---.w.
. fuel pool involving the total or partial loss of coolant at the pool, leading to a release of radiation or radioactive material into the environment.
The mechanisms pursuant to which such an accident would occur include, but are not limited to, a reactor accident preventing access to the spent fuel pool and other accidents directly impacting the spent fuel pool, such as a breach of the spent fuel pool itself.
b.
The proposed pin compaction has never before been approved by the NRC and should not be approved in accordance with Maine Yankee's application until demonstrated to be safe.
c.
In addition the proposed pin compaction unreasonably and
. unnecessarily endangers the public health and safety by increasing both the probability and the consequences of an accident at the spent fuel pool involving a total or partial loss of coolant, leading to a release of radiation er radioactive material into i
the environment.
l d.
The proposed use of the cask laydown area unreasonably and unnecessarily endanger.= the public health and safety because
.it prevents or impedes future uses of more environmentally protec-tive and safer alternative storage methods, both on-site and off-site, during the lifetime of the plant and also upon cessation of commercial operations of the plant.
3.
THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE WASTE CONFIDENCE PROCEEDINGS.
l l
l a.
The applicant proposes license amendments which would I
result in increased storage of spent fuel at Maine Yankee without i
l l
7-t any consideration of the environmental or the public health and safety implications of the long-term or permanent storage of the increased spent fuel to be stored at Maine Yankee as a result of the license amendment.
b.
Both.NEPA-and the Atomi'c Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA" )
require consideration to be given to such implications as they specifically-af fect Maina Yankee, c.
To the extent that the so-called " waste confidence" rule-making hearings being conducted pursuant to the notice published in 44 F.R.
61372 Coctober 25, 19791 generically fulfill the obligations of NEPA and the AEA, Maine Yank.ee's application may not be approved until the completion of such hearings.
d.
To proceed prior to the completion of the waste confidence proceedings is unnecessary because Maine Yankee can continue
~
operations without the proposed expansion until 1987.
It would result in irrevocable commitments with regard to the long-term and permanent disposal of-spent fuel at Maine Yankee and would preclude a site-specific evaluation of any possible rule resulting
- from the waste confidence hearings that contemplates permanent storage on-site a t Maine Yankee.
4.
ALTERNATIVELY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC itEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF THE SPENT FUEL PROPOSED TO BE STORED ?.T MAINE YANKEE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Both NEPA and the AEA require consideration of the environmental and the public health and safety implications of the long-term or p
my
s r
w-
---v.
er w
-w-v-
-w w
e y-
. ]
permanc.nt storage of the increased spent fuel to be stored at Maine Yankee as a result of the proposed license amendment.
There-fore, if the proposed amendments are not deferred until completion of general proceedings considering such issues, such implications g-must be considered in these proceedings.
l 5.
' THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENTS.
Neither the applicant nor the staff has adequately analyzed the environmental or pu5lic health and safety implications of one or more of the following alternatives to the proposed license amendments, the adoption of which would avoid or reduce the threats to the public health and safety and environmental implications that are addressed by the contentions herein.
Alternatives which should be analyzed include:
a.
the use of alternate on-site passive storage methods, including dry storage in casks, vaults, caissons, and concrete l
cannisters, either alone or within concrete buildings.
f b.
constrdction of a new spent fuel pool on-site which is functionally independent of and physically separate from the reactor and the existing spent fuel pool; transshipment of spent fuel for storage away from the c.
I reactor site to an existing storage area, such as at another nuclear power facility, a commercial spent fuel storage facility or a governmental spent fuel storage facility; e
y s
- p
,4
l 9
t d.
development of a new, awayefrom-reactor storage facility by the applicant, either alone or in conjunction with other interested parties, including the federal government; e.
use of alternate nuclear fuel or burn-up procedures so as to reduce the amount of spent fuel generated.
6.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DDiONSTRATED ANY CURRENT NEED FOR APPROVAL OF ALL PARTS OF ITS LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST.
a.
The applicant has requested permission for pin compaction, reracking and utilization of the cask laydown area.
Approval of pin compaction alone would increase storage capacity from 953 assemblies to 1,545 assemblies and allow regular refueling l
Lwithout full core reservel until.1996.
Approval of rcracking alone would increase storage capacity from 953 assemblies to i
1,500 assemblies and allow regular refueling (without full core i
reservel until 1995.
Utilization of the cask laydown area would add capacity for 121 assemblies but potentially would eliminate any area in the pool to insert a cask for removal of the spent fu el. -
l b.
Approval of both reracking and pin compaction, rather than approval of one or the other, unnecessarily and unreasonably I
endangers the environment and the public health and safety because it forecloses Maine Yankee from adopting the alternatives formu-lated by the NRC in its waste confidence proceeding (or other proceedingl or other storage methods demonstrated to be more pro-tective of the environment and the public health and safety.
i
0-
. 7.
THE APPLICANT 13AS FAILED TO SUPPORT ADEQUATELY ITS BELIEF THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL NOT LEAD TO CRITICALITY IN THE SPENT FUEL' POOL.
~
The applicant has failed to consider the potential for criticality attributable to the_ proposed spent fuel pool modi-fications arising from rack design errors, fabrication errors, seismic disturbances, corrosion, swelling of the rack walls, and dropping of heavy objects, such as a cask, into the spent fuel pool.
Further, the applicant has failed to consider the effect on thermohydraulic behavior, ventilation of the air within the spent fuel building and water filtration in the event that criticality is reached in the spent fuel storage pool.
8.
THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT RACK AND COMPACTED BUNDLE DESIGN TO SUPPORT A FINDII?G THAT THE PROPOSED h0DIFICATION WILL NOT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
l l
The applicant has not yet submitted the complete proposed i
rack and compacted bundle design for either the reracking or pin compaction proposals.
It has not yet provided sufficient infor-mation, including its quality control and quality assurance programs, to determine the potential for design error, fabrication error, corrosion, fuel leakage, swelling of the rack walls, local boiling, damage by dropping of heavy objects and criticality.
The applicant also has not yet considered the potential impact of the proposed license mnendments on the requirements for thermohl raulic behavior, d
seismic disturbances, ventilation of the air within the spent fuel building and water filtration.
l l
i
~
11-i t
9.
THE APPLICANT HAS yAILED TO ADEQUATELY IDENTITY, DESCRIBE OR ANALYZE THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES IT INTENDS TO USE TO i
IMPLEMENT EACE OF ITS PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.
a.
The procedures which should be so identified, described and analyzed include the specific technical methods it intends to use to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool, for both'reracking f
and pin consolidation, as well as its plans for the hiring, test-ing, training and supervision of the personnel involved in the
]
modifications.
The applicant has not yet specified in sufficient detail its quality control and quality assurance programs.
The applicant also has not provided for sufficient radiation monitor-ing.
Increased monitoring and alarm systems are required in order to protect persons from radiation doses in excess of standards.
b.
Unless and until the applicant identifies, describes and
[
analyzes such modification procedures and increased radiation protection, the Board is unable to make the required finding that the proposal by Maine Yankee will not endanger the public health and safety and will comply with all applicable regulations, including
, those relating to standards for protection against radiation hazards, 10.
TEE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT CONTAIN ADEQUATE MONITORING PROCEDURES.
The applicant has failed to address adequately what monitor-ing equipment it intends to use, including the specific means by which it will measure increased air emissions because of the expanded capability; the means by which.it will monitor corrosion 6
y 9
-e,y,,-
= -., - - -.. - -
,-->----,,f.-
_,_,,gv g.m--e,.--y
--a
,.w,-.
.v..,-,
,,~.,,,,,,-,,.,,,,..r-ye-,.
i
. )
of the new racks or modified assemblies; and the means by which i
it will detect changes in neutron absorption.
11.
THE APPLICANT HAS FATTIn TO CONSIDER FULLY THE PROBABILITY AND CONSEQUENCES OF ACCIDENT SCENARIOS WHICH MAY OCCUR DURING THE PROCESS OF MODIFYING THE SPENT FUEL POOL AND l
AFTER THE SPENT FUEL POOL. HAS BEEN MODIFIED.
l Postulated accidents previously considered in the Final Safety Analysis Report, Safety Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the original operating license will be increased in Iv:obability and consequence as a result of the proposed modifica-tions.
Such increased risks, both during the proposed modifications and af ter the modifications have been implemented, have not yet been adequately identified, described and analyzed by the applicant.
12.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GENERIC UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUES AFFECT THE PROPOSED POOb MODIFICATION.
The applicant has not.ddressed generic unresolved safety issues directly affecting the spent fuel pool or, through an accident in the reacter core, indirectly affecting the pool, or otherwise affecting the pool, including the following unresolved generic safety issues listed in the so-called " Aqua
o
' t Book," " Unresolved Safety Issues Summary" (NUREG-0606, Vol. 3 No.
2, May 15, 1981); A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-17, A-24, A-40, A-43, A-44, A-45, A-46, A-47 and A-48.
Dated:
July 27, 1981.
\\
<c.
(,--
J S E.
TIERNEY I '
ttorney Ge 1 of the State o:l.aine
' VW RUFUQ E.' ' BROWN Deputy Attorney General of the State of Maine h blo 5
PHILIP $HRENS Assistant Attorney General of the State of Maine Department of the Attorney General State House - Station 6 Augusta, Maine 04333 Telephone No.:
(207) 289-3661
.J
_y---
--,i--,-
.n-g-,.
e.-mgr-
-m-y---
-. - - - - -- - -