ML20024D601

Response Opposing Util 830708 Motion for Reconsideration of Conservation Council of North Carolina Contention 4 & Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort Contention 9.Contentions Properly Admitted

ML20024D601
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/29/1983
From:	Carey Read CHAPEL HILL ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP EFFORT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20024D600	List: ML20024D599 ML20024D601
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308050313
Download: ML20024D601 (4)

Text

e

~

o N x q,. .

Nic" c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9- A p*

41983 > q

' NUCLEAR ' REGULATORY COMMISSION o,ne, WaNIf&su. ,,.

% e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAHD ~

Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of 1 Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

i f

RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS 8 " MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.

ATION OF CCNC CONTENTION 4 AND CHANGE CONENTION 9 AND APPLICANTS 8 RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR..."

On July 8, 1983 Applicants served their motion for recon-sideration and urged dismissal of CHANGE /ELP Contention 9, among '

other relief. Intervenor CHANGE /ELP hereby responds in opposi ,

tion to the motion. Interrenor asks that the Board excuse the delay in submitting this response; Daniel F. Read of CHANGE, (

who has been primarily responsible for part.4.cipation in the proceedin6, has only on July 27 finished taking the North Carolina Ear Examination after intensive study, and asks that the delay occurring as a result be considered excuseable by the Board.

Anolicants' motion should be denied

.- As discussed in the joint (with CCNC) "Brief Concerning Soent Fuel Transshipment" (Aug. 4, 1982), CHANGE believes that the sort of plans considered for transshipment and interim storage of Robinson /Erunswick spent fuel are not properly in-cludeable in the Summary Table S 4. Applicants. contend that it the ultimate destination of the spent fue'l.is irrelevant .

in applying Table S-4; CHA11GE does not dispute this. A single 8300050313 830729 PDR ADOCK 05000400

,_.G. _. ._ PDR . _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Page 2 shipment from a reactor to federal repository would also be prop-erly within the scope of Table S 4. However, Applicants' conten-tion that transhipment,- and interim - storace for indefinite periods at other reactors is also included in the scope of Table S 4 goes too far. Taken to its lo5i cal conclusion, it would mean that as long as no one transshipment were extraordinarily long, spent fuel could be shuffled about from reactor to reactor any number of times prior to final disposal without further consider-ation of the environmental consequences. There is no mention of this sort of nuclear spent fuel "shell game" in either the pre-amble or the body of 10 C.F.R. 51.20(g).

But for the proposed license activities, i.e. , the operation of the Harris plant, transshipment of spent fuel into this area would not take place. Applicants assert that the effects of trans-O portation have already been taken into account in the individual Brunswick and Robinson licenses;.while the transshipment from Frunswick and/or Robinson does not apprec_iably lengthen the over-

'~

all distance travelled by the spent fuel, it does unavoidably ne-cessitate an extra trip for the fuel, with the attendant addition-al security ar"angements, extra loading and unloading, extra sets of potentially unreliable drivers, extra checks of casks and safety equipment, extra checks of transit routes, potential re-exposure of transit routes, and re-exposure to interdiction b!- hostile groups. As the NRC itse beseshipmentsareeachsubjectto substantial uncertainty with respect to ability to predict and contain attacks and/or accidents, see 45 Fed. Rec. 37402-3 (1980).

But the Applicantd poisition apparently is that by promising to keep effects within Table S 4, they will have satisified these l concerns.

Table S 4 and 51.20(g) are not difficult to read and under-

,- stand: applicants nay either state that transportation will be within the scope of the table, or provide a full description and detailed analysis. The scope of the table is also fairly clear, see CFAUGE/CCNC Brief at 5-9 it is not a general license far the repeated shipment of fuel from place to place, or for the shipment of spent fuel generally, as apparently Applicants propose. Appli-cants cite the Board's tentative position that some multiple of the Table might be appropriate, Motion at 9, but 51.20(g) does

Pa6e 3 not mention multiples or how such multiplication is to te accomplished.' Nor have- 2pplicants provided any suggestions as to how that might be accomplished. CHANGE submits that this is because the rule is fairly. clear in its. intent: and the pro-posed activity clearly does not fall within its scope; absent some description of how the Table S 4 values are to be multiplied, the rule's mandate should be followed.

The Staff's Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not -

offer any analysis whatsoever of the effects of spent fuel trans-shipment and storage at Harris, and in fact does not mention the Brunswick and Robinson' fuel at all (at least not as far as CHANGE is able to find). NEPA does not require the federal gov-ernment to replow ground or to undo what has been done--but it j does require the government to consider the alternatives to each 4

action it takes or licenses. By simply recitind Table S 4 as the effects, without even bothering to explain the amount of fuel transported, the Staff has abdicated this role. Under this approach, the fuel could be shuffled ,about indefinitely, as lonz as no in-dividual serment of the shufflinz was overly long or hazardous, and the environmental consequences of gypsy spent fuel would be not subject to consideration in any forum.

Applicants and Staff apparently agree that transhipment

! will only result in de minimis effects: yet the Commission it-self has expressed substantial concern over the uncertainties inherent in such shipment. Applicants will also be carrying some half-billion dollars' worth.of insurance to protect against de minimis effects, a somewhat incongruous position. Given the potential for serious environmental and social conseuqences,

~

CHANGE believes that NEPA consideration of alternatives is

- certainly in order. CHANGE notes that other actions, such as steam generator repair (Point Beach) or regulation writing (low level waste licensing) have been considered worthy of ceparate

! environmental impact statements, despite the obviously smaller risk of major releases to the environment or exposure of major population centers. In this context, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask for compliance with thd obvious intent of the. regulations i as rert of an overall consideration of environmental effects.

Page &

Finally, the question arises "Why is this motion being mn.de now?" The Staff has not changed its position at all since the conference last July, and the EIS has been available for several months. Although, as an intervenor with meager resources, CHANGE is hardly in a position to. insist on the letter of the law with respect to time requirements and filing deadlines, it does seem that the motion is rather tardy. One hopes that it was not mere-ly in response to the discovery requests (CHAGNS) and contentions (Eddleman) which were served shortly before it, after Applicants had had ample time to make their motion to reconsider.

CHANGE respectfully requests that the motion be denied and that the Applicants be instructed to respond to its discovery filing forthwith.

He , ctfully eubmitted,

-de d Daniel F. Read CHANGE /ELP

- 5707 waycross Street Raleigh, UC 27606 This day of b W , 1983 J

o B

9