ML20024B711
| ML20024B711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1983 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024B704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307110264 | |
| Download: ML20024B711 (16) | |
Text
^
^
. e,;...., ~.
?
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF MOTION FCn
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF DES CONTENTION 19 I.
INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff moves the Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.749 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, for sumary disposition in its favor of DES Contention 19. This contention states that:
Failure to evaluate the environmental costs of operation of Catawba as a storage facility for spent fuel from other Duke facilities compromises the validity of the favorable cost-benefit balance struck at the construction permit phase of this proceeding. Since the CP stage hearing, Duke Power has considerably expanded the Catawba spent fuel pool capacity and provided for denser storage of irradiated fuel. FSAR Table 1.2.2-1.
Applicants intend to use Catawba for storage of irradiated fuel from the McGuire and Oconee nuclear facilities of Duke Power Company. FSAR 9.1.2.4; OL Application, pp. 11-12.
As grounds for its motion, the Staff asserts that the attached affidavit of J. S. Boegli, E. F. Branagan, and R. J. Serbu, together with other papers filed in this proceeding, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to DES Contention 19 and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a metter of law.
8307110264 830708 PDR ADDCK 05000413 Q
II. DISCUSSION A.
Commission Standards for Summary Disposition The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that summary disposition of any matter involved in an operating license proceeding shall be granted if the moving papers, together with the other papers filed in the proceeding, show that there is no genuine issue as to any reterial fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
10CFR2.749(d). The use of summary disposition has been encouraged by the Commission and the Appeal Board to avoid unnecessary hearings on contentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the rxistence of a genuine issue of material fact.
E.jt., Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981); Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 550-551 (1980); and Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973); aff'd, ijd., CLI-73-12, i
6 AEC 241, 242 (1973); aff'd sub nom, BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C.
1 i
Cir. 1974). A material fact is one that may affect the outcome of the litigation. Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Management Co., 553 F.2d620,624(9thCir.1977).
l When a motion for summary disposition is made and supported by i
affidayit, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere l
allegations or denials of his answer but must set forth specific facts such as would be admissible in evidence that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. 10 CFR 2.749(b). All material facts l
t
-.::.:;.=
l q
. i set forth in the statement of material facts required to be served by the wving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of material facts required to be served by the opposing party. 10CFR2.749(a). Any answers supporting or opposing a motion
~
for summary disposition must be served within twenty (20) days after service of motion.
Id.
If no answer properly showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is filed, the decision sought by the moving party, if properly supported, shall be rendered. 10CFR2.749(b).
B.
The Staff's Affidavit and. Statement of Material Facts Fully Support Summary Disposition on DES Contention 19 When the Licensing Board admitted DES Contention 19 on February 25, 1983, the Board interpreted the contention as addressing whether the Staff had _ properly evaluated the environmental impacts of routine radioactive releases resulting from the receipt and storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel during normal operations. Memorandum and Order, February 25, 1983, i
at 9.
The Staff's obligation to fully consider such impacts is derived from,10 CFR Section 51.23(c) and the National Environmental Policy Act of1969,asamended,Section102(2)(C). The Licensing Board specifically excluded from the scope of the contention the environmental effects of j
severe accidents, unless Intervenors were to first demonstrate "that l
severe accidents are credible in the spent fuel pool designed for Catawba."
Id.
Inasmuch as Intervenors have made no attempt to demonstrate that such accidents in the Catawba spent fuel pool are credible, DES Contention 19 is necessarily limited to the environmental impacts from routine releases during nonnal operation of the spent fuel storage l
L
4 4.
facility (SFSF) resulting from the proposal to store Oconee and McGuire spentfuelatCatawba.E The Staff found the environmental impact from all routine operations at Catawba.to be very small. Affidavit, 1 5; FES.
Section 5.9.3, and, Appendix D.
The Staff's affidavit details the findings of the FES and describes the method of analysis 'used in order to demonstrate that the environmental impacts which may be associated with
- routine spent fuel storage and handling operations, including storage and handling of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel at Catawba, are likewise very small. Affiavit, 1 5, g seq.
The analysis of environmental impacts from storage operations in the SFSF was based on the conservative assumption that the SFSF was full at design capacity at all times, with approximately M 7 assembly 1/
In its May 2, 1983 responses to Applicants' interrogatories on DES Contentions 11, 17 and 19, at page 13, Palmetto Alliance acknowledged it was not prepared to demonstrate the credibility of severe accidents in the SFSF:
- 15. Have you performed any analyses which demonstrate the credibility of the severe accident (s) referenced in response to Interrogatory 13?.If so, provide such analyses or other supporting documentation.
No.
In light of Palmetto's failure to satisfy the Board's condition for litigating impacts of scrame accidents within the contention, it is clearly insufficient for Palmetto and CESG to state, as they have to Interrogatory 4 of Applicants' May 18, 1983 Follow-up Interrogatories on DES Contention 19:
' Palmetto Alliance and CESG's contentions go beyond whether or not routine releases of radiation from Oconee and McGuire fuels have been considered.
In so far as we understand this question we believe it has been answered elsewhere. Please clarify.
.. positions allotted to fuel at least 5 years out-of-core, which would be the age of any Oconee or McGuire fuel stored at Catawba. Affidavit, 1_8.
Due to the similarity between Oconee and McGuire fuel, on tLa one hand, and Catawba fuel, on the other, the storage of Oconee and McGuire fuel assemblies, rather than Catawba assemblies 'in the allotted spaces
~
does not affect the calculation of routine releases. Affidavit, 1 8.
The affidavit fully discusses the environmental impact attributable to all spent fuel storage operations, including the anticipated storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel. Calculations were made to detemine the amounts of. fission products transferred to the pool water from surface material corrosion and cladding defects; however, the closed SFSF cleanup system essentially prevents any liquid effluent releases to the environment, and results in no measurable release of noble gases in plant effluent.
.Using computer models, and based on annual average releases from the auxiliary building stack, the Staff conservatively estimated that maximum routine releases of Kr-85, the only significant noble gas nuclide attributable to long tem storage of spent fuel, would be less than 1 Ci/ year. Affidavit,
-1 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16. The environmental effect of disposal of solid waste is accounted for by the generic values in Table S-3,-10 CFR Section l
51.20; nevertheless, the Staff conservatively assumed routine operation l
of the spent ~ fuel cleanup system would produce approximately 0.6 Ci/ year and wastes generated by the Oconee and McGuire fuel would produce another similar-amount. Affidavit 1 15. With respect to both solid waste and gaseous effluents, however, the calculated releases for all routine spent fuel pool storage operations would be insignificant in relation to the l
.~ -..-... - -. - --- -
a F-values calculated for all routine operations at Catawba. Affidavit, 1 5, 15, 16, 17., The resulting dose to total body and skin of a maximally exposed individual is estimated to be much less than 0.1 millirem per year. The dose to the total body of the population within 50 miles of the plant is estimated to be lees than 0.1 man-rem / year. These values are insignificant compared to hackground radiation. Affidavit, 1 18.
The environmental impacts on Catawba workers resulting from the proposed receipt and storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel was also evaluated by the Staff. Affidavit, 1 19.- With respect to occupational doses due to storage operations, the five-year old spent fuel frcm Oconee and McGuire would not transfer detectable amounts of fission products to the pool water and would not be a contributor to occupational dose. Affidavit, 1 21.
In addition, the Staff has reviewed Applicants' calculations and commitments with respect to assuring that all spent fuel remains under a minimum shielo of 10 to 12 feet of pool water, the minimum amount of shielding needed to assure that Staff guidelines with respect to direct radiation from stored fuel assemblies will be met. Affidavit, 1 22, 23. Since Applicant's commitments and the Staff's evaluation of l
the dose rate from the fuel assemblies were based on a full pool 'of l
recently discharged fuel, these dose calculations are more than sufficient to account for the small contribution to dose of any fuel assemblies from Oconee and McGuire, which would be at least five years out-of-core.
Affidavit, 1 23.
Occupational exposures due to normal spent fuel handling as well as the additional spent fuel handling attributable to the proposed receipt and storage of Oconee and McGuire fuel was also evaluated by the Staff.
4
Affidavit, 1 24. While worker doses from such additional handling increase the overall average total body dose from 3.0 person-rems per year to 11.7 person-rems per year (assuming 300 transhipments per year), this dose is still very small compared to the total occupational dose, estimated at 960 person-rems per year, for the entire Catawba fadility.
_I.d,.
d Inasmuch as the attached Affidavit, Statement of Material Facts, the FES,' and other papers filed in this proceeding, have fully evaluated the environmental impacts of all spent fuel storage and handling operations at Catawba, with particular attention to the proposed storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel, and found such impacts not to be significant, the Staff believes that there is no material fact genuinely to be heard as to such impacts. Moreover, since the Staff has fully satisfied its duty to consider and balance the environmental effects of this aspect of the facility, and, "to the fu;sest extent practicable, qtantify the various factors considered," 10 CFR Section 51.23(c), and NEPA(Section102(2)(C)),theStaffisentitledtoadecisioninits favor as a matter of law.
III. CONCLUSION The Staff's motion for sumary disposition of DES Contention 19 should be granted and DES Contention 19 should be dismissed.
Resp tfully submitted, s ME eorge. Jo son Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesd Maryland this /g day o
, 1983 a,
- -.~.:-.--...
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD 1.
In admitting DES contention 19, the Licensing Board stated that the primary focus of DES 19 would be on the environmental effects of routine releases from such [0conee and McGuire] transshipped fuel during normal operations." Memorandum and Order, February 25, 1983, at 9.
2.
In the FES, the Staff analyzed the environmental costs attributable l
to the storage of spent fuel, including spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire, by examination of the major environmental pathways of exposure
'of humans. Affidavit,1 5.
3.
Tables D.1 and D.4 of the FES included releases from spent fuel from Catawba and the spent fuel expected to be stored at Catawba from Oconee and McGuire. Affidavit, 1 5.
l.
l l
4.
The releases of radioactive materials from fuel stored in the Catawba Spent Fuel Storage Facility (SFSF) were determined by the Staff i
. _ _ _. _. _... _. - _. ~ _ _ _.,. -. _ ~., _,, _ _, _ _. - _ _ _. _,, _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
,. ~.. - _.,., - _, _. _ _ _
..u. g. =.
i 2-to.be smal1~ fractions of the total releases from nornal operations of the entire facility. Affidavit,l'5.
- 5.
Dose commitments to a maximally exposed individual and to the population from operating Catawba, provided in Tables D.6, D.7, and D.8 of the FES, included exposure to releases from the storage at Catawba of spent fuel from Catawba, Oconee, and McGuire. Affidavit, 1 5.
6.
Estimates of dose to workers from nornal handling of spent fuel casks from Oconee and McGuire were evaluated at Section 5.9.3.1.2 of the FES (p.5-19). Affidavit, 1 5.
7.
The estimated doses to individual members of the public and to the general population from exposure to effluents from the SFSF were determined by the Staff in its review to be very small fractions of the estimated doses from exposure to all effluents. Affidavit, 1 5.
1 4
8.
The estimated doses to it.dividual members of the public and to the general population from exposure to all effluents from the facility were very small fractions of the annual doses from exposure to background radiation. Affidavit,1 5.
9.
. Rou. tine releases of radicactivity for each unit of the Catawba facility were determined based upon the assumption that the spent fuel storage facility (SFSF) was full at its design capacity of 1418 fuel 4
-em
,-r-g,e---
.r--r.
e q
-e,,--
-n p,
-w--,-,.
---n-,
ee-
--e-ww
,-a--.--~w-
- - -e-- ~ -
,-----,v--
- --e
.... =.
..u..w..=..
assemblies, with approximately 967 fuel assemblies five years out-of-core. Affidavit, 1 8.
4
- 10. Applicants have proposed to store spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire at' Catawba which would be at least five yea'rs out-of-core. Affidavit, 1 8.
- 11. Oconee and McGuire spent fuel assemblies were considered by the Staff to be equivalent after five years out-of-core due to their similar size, materials, fuel content, burnup rate, and fission product inventory.
Affidavit, 1 8.
- 12. Therefore storage of spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire which is at least five years out-of-core does not alter the calculation of routine releases from the SFSF. Affidavit, 1 8.
- 13. The Staff reviewed the mechanisms by which volatile and non-volatile radioactive materials are released into the spent fuel pool water.
l Affidavit,1 9.
l.
- 14. During movement and storage of fuel assemblies, both volatile and l
non-volatile fission products are transferred to the SFSF pool water
(
fr'om the surfaces of the fuel assemblies or from defects in fuel assembly cladding. Affidavit, 1 9.
4-
- 15. However, after five years' storage, there is little contamination of the SFSF from material on the surface of such fuel assemblies.
Affidavit, 1 9.
4
- 16. After five years out-of-core the contributfon of radioactive
~
materials due to defects on fuel cladding would be undetectable.
l Affidavit, 1 10, 13.
- 17. Similarly, with respect to volatile fission products, after four to six months out-of-core, there is no significant release of volatile fissions products from fuel assemblies. Affidavit, 1 11, 13.
- 18. The only significant noble gas nuclide attributable to long term fuel assembly storage would be Kr-85, which is at undetectable concentrations in the plant effluent after two years out-of-core.
Affidavit, 1 11.
- 19. oAs a result, the proposal for storage of Oconee and McGuire fuel in the SFSF does not result in significant amounts of radioactive materials being routinely transferred to the pool water. Affidavit, 1 9, 10, 11, 13.
- 20. In any event, there are estimated to be essentially no liquid releases from the SFSF, since it is a closed recirculation treatment system. Affidavit, 1 14.
Pr T-3-
w e,ke f
-,y-
- 21. Radioactive materials removed from the water by filters and exchanggmediaarecollectedassolidwasteanddisposalofoff-site.
Affidavit, 1 12, 15.
- 22. Disposal of such solid wastes is accounted'for by the generic values in Table S-3,10 CFR Section 51.20. Affidavit, 1 15; FES, Table 5.4, p. 5-70.
- 23. Even though Oconee and McGuire fuel storage would not release l
significant amounts of radioactive materials, the Staff assumed conservatively that solid waste generated by such storage would increase by six cubic-feet per year (per unit). This amount is estimated to be less than 0.1% of the total solid waste volume shipped from each Catawba unit in a year, and introduces no environmental impact not otherwise considered in the FES. Affidavit, 1 15.
l
- 14. Similarly, radioactive materials in gaseous effluents from the SFSF
.are collected by the fuel building ventilation system, treated by filters and absorbers for particulate and radiciodine removal (if any),
monitored and released to the atmosphere. Affidavit,1 12.
- 25. The Staff estimcted that there would be no measureable releases of l
nob.le gases in the plant effluent. Us1ng computer models, the Staff detennined that the annual average release of Kr-85 from the auxiliary building stack, which would include any release from the SFSF, would be less than 1 Ci/yr averaged over the 30 year operational life of l
t_
the plant, assuming the SFSF to be less than full some of this time.
Affidavit,1 16; Table D.I., FES.
E i
- 26. The Staff conservatively estimated that with the SFSF full all the time, the maximum routine releasa of Kr-85 'would be less than 1 Ci/ year, or no more than Os5% of the total annual release of Kr-85 from either unit. Affidavit, 1 16,
- 27. Based on the conservative estimate of less than 1 curie per year per unit of Kr-85, the Staff estimated doses to the total body and skin of a maximally exposed individual to be much less than 0.1 millirem per year. Affidavit, 1 17.
4
- 28. This dose of less than 0.1' millirem per year is not significant when i
compared to the approximately 100 millirem / year an individual receives from natural background radiation. Affidavit, 1 17.
l
- 29. The total body dose to the' estimated population within a 50 miles l
radiusofCatawba(estimatedtobeabout1.7millionpersonsinthe
-year 2000) due to normal operation of the SFSF, assuming McGuire and Oconee fuel assemblies are stored there, is estimated to be i
less than 0.1 man-rem / year. This is a very small fraction of the annual dose of about 160,000 person-rems that this population would receive from natural background radiation. Affidavit, 1 18.
....~-
- 31. The Staff therefore concludes that normal operations of the SFSF, including the proposed storage of Oconee ar.J McGuire fuel, will not have any significant impact on exposures offsite. Affidavit, 1 18.
- 32. The Staff concluded, in the SER, Section 12.5, that "no significant additional occupational doses should result from storage of additional spent fuel
-at Catawba, since direct doses from stored fuel provide only a fractional contribution to spent fuel pool area dose rates, in comparison to radioactivity in pool water." Affidavit, 1 19, 22.
- 33. This fractional contribution attributable to the fuel assemblies themselves is based on the shielding effect of the pool water, which Staff guidelines recommend to be kept as low as reasonably achievable below 2.5 mrem /hr, a rate achievable with a minimum of 10 to 12 feet of water over the fuel in storage, to which Applicants have committed
.themselves.- Affidavit, 1 22, 23.
- 34. ' Dose rates at the surface of spent fuel pools are principally due to the presence of contaminants transferred to the pool water, as l
l described in paragraphs 13-18 above. Affidavit, 1 21.
L i
- 35.. Since spent fuel stored over five years does not transfer detectable amounts of radioactive material to the pool water, the Oconee and l
McGuire fuel assemblies to be stored at Catawba would not significantly contribute to contamination of the Catawba SFSF pool water or to 1
occupational doses. Affidavit, 1 13, 21, 22.
1 l
- 36. Nonnal fuel handling operations in the fuel handling building are i
expected to result in an average total body dose of about 1.5 person-rems per year per unit. Affidavit, 1 24.
- 37. Additional handling of spent fuel from Ocon'ee and McGuire is estimated to result in a total body dose to workers of 0.029 person-rem per spent fuel shipment, or 8.7 person-rems per year for the maximum number of shipments proposed -- 300. Affidavit, 1 24.
- 38. Thus the total yearly occupational dose attributable to all anticipated fuel handling operations ((1.5)(2) + 8.7 = 11.7) is a small fraction of the total occupational dose for the Catawba facility (480 x 2 = 960). Affidavit, 1 24.
39.
In sumary, the environmental impact of storing spent fuel at Catawba has been fully evaluated. This evaluation included the operation of the Catawba SFSF as a storage facility for spent fuel
'from Oconee and McGuire. Affidavit, 1 25.
- 40. The conclusions of the Staff's evaluation are as follows:
(a) The releases of radioactive material from fuel stored at l
Catawba, including fuel from Oconee and McGuire, are estimated to i
be.very small fractions of the total releases from nonnal operations at Catawba.
(b) The Catawba effluent treatment systems as now designed and built are capable of controlling effluent releases, including l
i
., ~. -. - _, _ _ _ _, - -.
1 1
releases from stored spent fuel from Oconee and McGuire, to meet the dose-design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
(c) The doses to individual members of the public and the general population exposed to effluents from fuel stored at Catawba are very small fractions of the annual doses fEom background radiation.
(d) Occupational doses attributable to spent fuel storage and handling operations, including handling and storage of spent fuel received from Oconee and McGuire are a small fraction of the total worker dose for the Catawba facility.
(e) As a result, the proposd operation of the Catawba SFSF has been fully evaluated, to include receipt and storage of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel, and found to have a small impact on the environment. Affidavit,1 26.
.