ML20035B544
| ML20035B544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1993 |
| From: | Mcgranery J ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCES CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, MCGRANERY, J.P., JR. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13782 DCOM, NUDOCS 9304020133 | |
| Download: ML20035B544 (12) | |
Text
..
l f
4
['l + -
1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+93 W' ' 3 P / :i 3 2
Before The Atomic Safety And Licensina Board
) Docket No. 50-312-DCOM In the Matter of
)
) (Decommissioning Order)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District )
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
)
ECO'S CONTENTION ON LICENSEE'S PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PLAN Pursuant to the Commission's Memorandum and Order in Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-3 (at 33), 37 NRC (March 3, 1993)
(" Slip Op.") and 10 CFR S 2.714 (b) (2) (1992), the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization ("ECO")
hereby submits its contention with respect to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") proposed Decommissioning Funding Plan.
ECO contends that SMUD's proposed Decommissioning Funding Plan is inadequate as a matter of fact and of law as detailed below not only (a) because the funding plan is inadequate to meet the cost targets expressed, but also (b) because SMUD lacks the resources to meet those targets, (c) because the mechanism of public and Nuclear and Regulatory Commission ("NRC") review only once'every five years fails to 0$Ko$o$$$gy PDR d
adequately protect the health and safety of the public by failing to alert the NRC Staff and the public to growth in cost estimates and/or slippages in decommissioning funding in a timely manner, and (d) because the funding target itself is grossly underestinated due, among other things, to inadequate estinates of the technical issues to be faced and the technical and-manpower resources that will be demanded during the decommissioning task.
A brief explanation-of the bases of this contention'are I
stated below.
See 10 CFR 52.714 (b) (2) (i) (1992).
Also, a concise statement of the alleged facts and/or expert opinion, which support this contention and on which ECO intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing, are provided below together with references to those specific sources and documents of which ECO is aware and on which ECO intends to rely to t
establish those facts.
Egg 10 CFR 5 2.714 (b) (2) (ii) (1992).
In particular, ECO states that it will rely on the expert opinions of Dr. A. David Rossin and/or David R. Crespo to support ECO's contention.
10 CFR 5 2.714 (b) (2) (ii) (1992).
Summaries of the qualifications of these experts have previously been provided to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by affidavit and a fuller presentation of their expertise will be provided at the hearing.
ECO's brief explanation of the bases of its contention including the alleged facts and/or expert opinion, which support the contention, is as follows:
1.
SMUD will not be able to continue its commitment to the Decommissioning Funding Plan because among other things,
' its long-tern debt is increasing at the rate of 8.8% per year.
i See Note 3 to SMUD 1991 Financial Statements.
And SMUD's dependence on purchased power has almost doubled from 4.308 Billion KWH in 1988 to 7.968 Billion KWH in 1991.
1991 SMUD Annual Report at 14.
This dependence on others for the power supply of the citizens of SMUD creates great uncertainties of t
confidence in the firmness, the availability, and the cost of that power.
SMUD's current avoidance of rate increases through the issuance of long-term bonds (about $150 Million in 1991 alone) not only violates the principle that the beneficiaries of l
Rancho Seco should pay the cost of decommissioning to the extent possible, but it will eventually create a tidal wave of debt severely threatening the viability of the funding plan.
2.
SMUD's estimate of the total cost for decommissioning (approximately $318.8 Million in 1991 dollars
[
including $38 Million for minimum site restoration) is unreliable
}
because it was premised on an original estimate of the cost of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI") of between $13.7 and $15.8 Million in 1991 dollars.
1991 SMUD Notes to Financial Statements at Note 1; DAGM/NUC 91-137 (October 4, i
1991) enclosure at LA-3.
However, that design has been withdrawn and no new design and accompanying cost estimate supported by actual contract pricing is available.
3.
The SMUD estimate of the cost of decommissioning was also premised upon approval of the decommissioning plan by "mid-1992" and therefore is inadequate because such approval was T
l r not forthcoming.
Note 5 to SKUD 1991 Notes to Financial Statements.
Such mis-estimates of planning also are evidence of SMUD's poor management qualifications for the project, which further cast out on the adequacy of the decommissioning cost estimates submitted by SMUD.
4.
The fact that SMUD had to increase decommissioning liability cost estimates by $75.4 Million in 1991 alone reflects not only on the management competence of SMUD but also dictates that there should be at least a semi-annual report by SMUD to the NRC, which would be made publicly available and would address revisions in the milestones for decommissioning and related work i
(2.g., the ISFSI), SMUD's progress in meeting planed milestones, related changes in cost estimates and contributions to the decommissioning fund, the status of the total of the fund as compared to planned growth, and any actions taken or to be taken by SMUD to make up then current shortfalls in the decommissioning funding effort.
SMUD 1993 Notes to Financial Statements at Note 5.
5.
A significant portion of SKUD's plans to provide for savings to pay for the decommissioning funding program is premised on the savings projected to be achieved through SKUD's l
Conservation and Load Management Programs.
Egg g.g. SMUD 1991 Load Forecast (April 30, 1991) at 13.
The unreliability of that premise casts doubt on SMUD's Decommissioning Funding Program.
1 For example, as of April 30, 1991, SMUD predicted that its 1
Conservation and Load Management Programs would enable it to
- shave peak load to 2,000 MW during 1991.
Id2 In fact, the peak l
load during 1991 was 2,171 MW, or 8.55% above the tarcet.
If j
SMUD's estimates can be so fcr wrong in the same year they are j
made, the NRC can have no confidence in its long-term estimates over the next IB vears.
SMUD should be required to submit a i
Decommissioning Funding Plan based on conservative, rather than optimistic, estimates of the savings that SMUD will be able to achieve in other areas.
l 6.
SMUD's Decommissioning Plan (including the ISFSI),
decommissioning cost estimate, and the associated Decommissioning Funding Plan do not make adequate provision for physical and personnel security measures to give reasonable assurance of the health and security of ECO's members or the general public.
In order to verify the adequacy / inadequacy of SMUD's physical and personnel security measures and their associated cost and funding i
1 provisions between now and the completion of decommissioning and the shipment of fuel off-site and in order to frame appropriate i
and specific contention on those issues, ECO hereby seeks access I
to such physical and personnel security =easures but, in the i
interin, states that SMUD's reduction of physical security I
~
{
measures and especially its elimination of the NRC required i
fitness-for-duty program par gg significantly compromises the integrity and adequacy of the site security plan and thus significantly and unacceptably increases the risk of radiological injury to ECO's members in violation of the Atomic Energy Act and f
the NRC's implementing regulations.
- Egg, g.g.,
0AGM/NUC 92-160
?
(July 27, 1992).
Also, Egg " Vulnerability of the Nation's Electric Systems to Multi-Site Terrorist Attack", Hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (June 28, 1990) ; NUREG-0414, Safeguarding a Domestic Mixed-Oxide Industry Against a Hypothetical Sub-national Threat (May 1978).
The need to carefully assess the adequacy of
[
i security at Rancho Seco is only emphasized by the fact that the
+
NRC is currently being urged by Congress to reconsider a proposal to require vehicle barriers at reactors at an estimated cost of
$100-200,000.
Eeg Letter from Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and others to the NRC Chairman (dated March 3, 1993).
The security arrangements should also be examined in light of the Commission's decision on the recommendations for changes to the NRC's regulatory security requirements.
Egg Memorandum for the NRC Executive Director of Operations from the Secretary of the Commission,
Subject:
Design Basis Threat (March 1, 1993).
In these respects, the SMUD elimination of the
{
fitness-for-duty program is of special concern since in a March 19, 1993 hearing before the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear i
Regulation of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public t
Works, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council emphasized the importance of the fitness-for-duty program to the overall l
P adequacy of U.S.
nuclear plant security.
Statemer.t of Joe F.
Colvin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Management i
and Resources Council at 8-9.
Further, the adequacy of SKUD's f
physical security planning should be examined in light of the 1
, i results of the NRC's incident investigation team analysis of the recent TMI intrusion event when that report becomes available in the near future.
7.
Insofar as SMUD's estimated decommissioning cost, and hence the Decommissioning Funding Program, are premised upon the approval of the further amendment to proposed Amendment No.
186 transmitted by DAGM/NUC 92-261 (January 19, 1993), ECO contends that that further proposed amendment would cause the on-i site and corporate organizational staff to be inadequate to l
protect the public health and safety and protect the common r
defence and security constitutes an impermissible reduction in personnel with no cognisable benefits to the licensee or the i
general public is total without regulatory justification in its safety analysis and is impermissible premised on the " permanently defueled condition" which is currently subject to challenge in the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
8.
SMUD has failed to include adequate funds in its decommissioning cost estimate and hence has failed to provide an adequate Decommissioning Funding Plan for measures to identify
}
all on-site areas containing radioactivity.
See DAGM/NUC 92-198 (August 6, 1992) at response to Question 2(c), where SMUD fails i
to provide a detailed justifications for areas not meeting the i
relevant guidance without response to these issues.
Neither ECO nor the Commission can have assurance that SMUD's Decommissioning i
Plan is in compliance with the relevant guidance in NUREG/CR-0130 and/or NUREG-0586 relating to the need for a full description of
! SMUD's plan to perform a comprehensive cleanup and decontamination to remove loose surface radioactive i
contamination, to stabilize the remaining radioactive
[
contamination, to prevent its migration, and in the case of i
facilities containing significant amounts of radioactive contamination to erect adequate barriers to prevent unauthorized access and to prevent the migration of radioactive contamination.
9.
The SMUD cost estimate and hence its i
Decommissioning Funding Plan is inadequate in failing to provide an adequate technical basis for SMUD's assumption that there will j
be only a single airborne pathway for the release of i
radioactivity.
Egg DAGM/NUC 92-198 August 6, 1992) at Response I
4.
SMUD's proposed plan also lacks any provision for measures to i
address the potential for releases in the context of accident or terrorism scenarios.
141 f
i 10.
SMUD's Decommissioning Plan and related cost
[
estimate and funding plan are inadequate for determining the i
radionuclide inventory and levels in the spent fuel sludge.
Egg DAGM/NUC 92-211 (August 31, 1992) at Response 2.
These technical inadequacies severely question the adequacy of the financial planning for the required radioactive decontamination.
For i
example, a key SMUD assumption is that "the crud is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the bottom on the entire SFP.
l Idz Not only does SMUD fail to provide any technical j
justification for this extraordinarily optimistic assumption, but l
such an assumption is both counterintuitive and highly unlikely f
r 1
, in view of the fact the SFP is rectangular, its bottom has multiple elevations, and the eddies of water around the spent fuel racks themselves as a result of inflow and outflow would naturally cause a non-uniform distribution of the crud over the bottom.
Likewise, there are no technical basec provided for SMUD's dose estimates, nor does SMUD address the cost implications of variations in its estimates of the number of filters needed.
Idi 11.
There can be no confidence in the SMUD I
Decommissioning Funding Plan because SMUD has failed to provide a long-tern Utility District overall financing plan including planned rate increases to provide simultaneously for replacement power for Rancho Seco, new growth in demand, scenarios where electric deuand will grow more than normal (for example, through the electrification of transportation as foreseen in the 1991 SMUD Annual Report at 8), the continued failure of its Conservation and Load Management Programs, and other relevant contingencies.
12.
The cost of decommissioning and hence the need for decommissioning funding are also inadequate since they are premised on inadequate technical specification bases for the spent fuel pool level and spent fuel pool temperature.
DAGM/NUC 92-223 (September 23, 1992).
Those bases incongruously assume that spent fuel pool cooling would be lost while one spent fuel /radwaste area exhaust fan would remain running.
Of course, loss of power could disable both simultaneously.
The bases are l
t
t
~
i >
also inadequate because they do not consider rate of temperature
[
t rise without cooling and without the fan.
They do not consider i
evaporation under those circumstances.
They do not consider time of year in the postulated accident.
They do not consider how water inventory losses from the spent fuel pool would be made up l
t in the event of the loss of electricity.
They do not address the availability of on-site power or for how many hours such on-site power would remain available as a function of the machinery and/or of available fuel.
They do not address the period of time it would take for the spent fuel pool water to reach the boiling point under the foregoing conditions or the consequences of such failures.
These unexamined and unprovided for risks must be addressed to protect the health and safety of ECO's members and the general public.
Until the cost of the technical measures necessary to address these risks are determined and included, i
there can be no assurance of the adequacy of the decommissioning cost estimate nor the resulting decommissioning funding plan.
l 13.
The Decommissioning Funding plan was premised, among other things, on growth through interest earnings at rates l
that are now unrealistically high.
Until SMUD provides for the funding plan to consider interest growth at now current rates and i
makes provision for even perhaps lower rates of interest growth, there can be no assurance that the decommissioning funding plan is adequate.
I 14.
In Response 1 transmitted by DAGM/NUC 92-198 (August 6, 1992), SMUD admits that it may have to store the spent
~
1 I
' fuel in the spent fuel pool instead of closing the spent fuel i
pool in 1998.
If this contingency occurs, SMUD states that it would incur an annual cost of $8 Million in 1991 dollars from 1999 thicugh 200C.
This would be a total of $80 Million in 1991 dollars.
SMUD merely says that it will review its decommission i
cost annually and revise the annual contribution to the t
I Decommission Trust Fund every five years.
ECO contends that this cavalier acknowledgment of a probable 25% increase in' Decommissioning cost requires a more sober effort at i
Decommissioning Funding Planning.
Further, ECO notes that there is no engineering or cost analysis to justify the estimate and that, given the delays in the doe spent fuel disposed program, planning should extend beyond 2,008.
Until these issues are addressed in adequate detail, the Decommissioning Funding Plan cannot be deemed adequate.
t Respectfully submitted, j
[i March 22, 1993
,v wY J9 es P. McGranery, Jp/p S'Ite 500 V
1255 Twenty-Third St.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for Environmental and Resources Conservation i
Organization 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
) Docket No. 5,Og322-DCOMr 4 :13 on a In the Matter of
)
9
) (Decommissioning Order)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District )
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
I i
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that one copy of Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization's Petition for ECO'S Contention On Licensee's Proposed Decommissioning Funding Plan of the Prehearing conference is being served upon the following by i
first-class mail, postage prepaid (as indicated below) on this 22nd day of March, 1993:
i s
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Thomas A.
Baxter, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel David R. Lewis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Commission Trowbrige Washington, D.C.
20555 2300 N Street, N.W.
I Washington, D.C.
20037 JpesP.McGranery, 1
l i