ML20028E141

Revised Contentions,Superseding Contentions in 821022 Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028E141
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	01/19/1983
From:	Jay Dougherty CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LOUISA COUNTY, DOUGHERTY, J.B.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OLA-2, NUDOCS 8301210023
Download: ML20028E141 (7)

Text

hy' .

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U k' '

)

13 Jg 19 P254 In the Matter of )

) -

'. ' 35 c. -

~

) '

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) '%

)

(North Anna Power Sta., Units 1 and 2) )

Docket Nos. 50-33 8 OLA-2

, ), 50-339 OLA-2 (Proposed Amendment to Operating License )

to Permit Increase in Spent Fuel Storage )

Capacity) )

)

CITIZENS' REVISED CONTENTIONS  !

The following is a list of the contentions that Con-

~

cerned Citizens of Louisa County (" Citizens") intends to advance in the above-captioned proceeding. Each conten-tion is followed by a summary of the factual basis for it. Those contentions that were listed in Citizens' Pe-titios.n for Leave to Intervene, filed October, 22, 1982, should be disregarded henceforth, as they are superceded by those contentions listed herein.

Citizens has secured the assistance of two experts in the field of spent fuel transportation and storage:

Mr. Lindsay Audin of Ossining, NY, and Dr. Marvin Res-nikoff, of New York City. Both have written and spoken 8301210023 830119 PDR ADOCK 05000338 C PDR

-1 - - - , - -

hI

-2 '

. . _ Together they have prepared an in-depth study of the .

economic, safety, environmental, and other aspects of spent fuel transportation and storage. This study will be published in book form in March, 1983. They have assisted counsel in the preparation of contentions, and intend to present testimony in support thereof.

1. The proposed license amendment constitutes a major federal action significantly affecting the human environ-ment, and thus may not be granted prior to the prepara-tion of an environmental impact statement. .

Citizens contends that for purposes of the environ-mental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 84321 et seq., the environmental im-pacts of the proposed license amendment cannot be evaluated apart from the environmental impacts of the Surry-to-North Anna spent fuel transshipment proposal which is being ad-dressed in the companion licensing proceeding. The modifica-tion of the North Anna spent fuel pool was proposed within weeks of the transshipment scheme and is obviously designed to accomodate the 500 fuel assemblies that VEPCO intends to remove from the Surry spent fuel pool. Actions that are related in this vt: cannot be " segmented" for purposes of NEPA review. See W. Rodgers, Environmental Law 97.9 at 789

}

f (1977). Therefore, the environmental effects of the spent

'~

fuel pool modification must be summed with the effects of -

the transshipment proposal. As discussed below, the effects of this proposal are themselves "significant."

The transportation of spent fuel by truck creates a risk of accidents caosing tremendous human health and environmental damage. Although the NRC has promulgated standards, 10 C.F.R. Pt. 71 App. B, governing spent fuel cask safety, these standards would not prevent serious consequenced in the event of an accident. Moreover, these standards are outdated and unreliable.

The 30-foot drop standard corresponds to the im-pact that would be sustained in a 30-m.p.h. collision.

Since, however, there is no reason to believe that VEPCO's spent fuel trucks will travel at less than 55-60 m.p.h., an accident exceeding NRC criteria is quite possible. Studies show that if a spent fuel cask were to strike a bridge abutment sideways at no more than 12.5 m.p.h., the cask cavity could be expected to rupture. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, ,,

An Assessment of the Risk of Transportina Spent Nuclear Fuel by Truck, PNL-2588 (Nov. 1978) at 6-4.

Further, NRC fire standards are inadequate. More than 1.5% of all highway accidents involve fires. PNL- l 2588, supra. Many commonly transported substances, e.g.,

diesel fuel, burn at a temperature higher that the NRC's Indeed, design basis fire temperature of 1,450 degrees.

l .

y many substances, e.g., propane, burn at 4000 degrees or higher. Moreover, highway fires in rural areas can be expected to burn for more than the NRC standard of 30 minutes. Many transportation-related fires burn for hours or days. An 1,850 degree-fire which burns for only 30 minutes can cause failure in valves essential to cask integrity.

A hypothetical accident scenario analyzed by our experts for other purposes involves a single truck cask which is involved in an accident in a rural area. They predict impacts including hundreds of cancer deaths per year for several years following the accident, and economic damage-ranging in the tens to hundreds of mil-lions of dollars. Whether impacts of this magnitude can be expected should one of VEPCO's shipments become in-volved in an accident has not yet been determined, but it is safe to say that roughly comparable results are probable.

Other environmental costs associated with the pro-posed license amendment include the risk of sabotage, the effects of which would be comp, arable to those of a serious traffic accident. In addition, the possibility of error by VEPCO employees when performing such tasks as sealing the shipping casks creates additional risks.

Because of all of these risks, the proposed license amendment involves sign'ificant environmental effects.

N ..

2. Neither Applicant nor NRC Staff has adequately con-sidered the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage facility at the Surry station.

The use of shippin.g-type casks for* indefinite storage of spent fuel has been shown to be feasible. In the opinion of Mr. Audin and Dr. Resnikoff, dry cask storage methods are among the cheapest and safest of all spent fuel storage i methods, including pool storage. Dry cask storage may well be safe and reliable for up to 50 years or more. In ad-dition to its economic and environmental advantages, dry cask storage provides a capability for on-site as well as off-site transportation of spent fuel. E.R.

Johnson Associates, Inc., A Preliminary Assessment of Alternative Methods for the Storage of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, (Nov. 1981) at 4-1. And in this case the construction of the dry cask storage facility at the Surry station would eliminate the need to transport spent fuel off-site. .,

VEPCO has already applied to the NRC for authority to construct such a facility at Surry. It cannot be determined at this time how long the NRC review process will take. But even if.the facility cannot be completed for several years, the safe operation of VEPCO's reactors will not be threatened. VEPCO claims that it is threat-

/

l ened with the loss of full core discharge ( " FCD") capa-bility at the Surry spent fuel pool. in 1984, and with the shutdown of one of the Surry units in 1987. These dates can be deferred substantially .

First, VEPCO can install three spent fuel racks in the cask lay-down area in the Surry pool. In an internal VEPCO memorandum in Citizens' posse ssion, this alternative is held out as presenting no probl ems from a technical standpoint. It is said to defer the loss of FCD capability by "at least two years. " Another memo in Cit izens ' posses-sion suggests that FCD capability can be extended by at least a another year by repla cing the stainless steel ra &s now in the Surry pool with new, lighter ra cks equipped with i neutron-absorbing materials. And, if necessary, a limited number of spent fuel assemblies could be shipped from Surry to North Anna, so that the dry cask storage facility could be completed before a full transshipment program becomes necessary. Since FCD capability is not essential to safety, see Department of Energy, U.S. Spent Fuel Policy, Storage l

of U.S. Spent Power Reactor Fuel vol. 2 (May 1980) at 11-12, dry cask storage remains an attractive option even if it can't be implemented until roughly 1990.

Respectfully submitted, CMn h

&mes B. DobghertV Dated this 19th day of January, 1983 Counsel for Citizens 3045 Porter St., NW Washington, D.C. 20008 (202)362-7158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ::t 1.EJET .

In the Matter of ) '83 JA" 19 P2 S

)

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) htc.,- : ..:[!((Eh ICE

) U (North Anna Power Sta. , Units 1 and 2) )

Docket Nos.NCH50-338 OLA-2

). 50-339 OLA-2 (Proposed Amendment to Operating License )

to Permit Increase in Spent Fuel Storage )

Capacity) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of the foregoing CITIZENS' AMENDED CONTENTIONS were served this 19th day of January, 1983, by deposit in U.S. Mail, First Class, upon the fol-lowing:

Michael Maupin, Esq. Marshall Coleman, Esq.

Hunton & Williams Beveridge & Diamond Box 1535 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, D.C. 20036 Daniel T. Swanson, Esq. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board '*

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline ~

Administrative Judge Dr. George A. Fergu. son U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative.'Jndge Washington, D.C. 20555 School of Engineering Howard University 2300 5th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059

- Ov.

M m 'e s B . Doughdrty

-