ML20045A672
| ML20045A672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1993 |
| From: | Rogers J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045A662 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 9306110184 | |
| Download: ML20045A672 (17) | |
Text
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ^
'IU #
g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
Boston Edison Company ) Docket No. 50-293
)
(Filgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE WITH RESPECT TO THE PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ITS OPERATING LICENSE INCREASING ALLOWED FUEL ASSEMBLY STORAGE CELLS I. Introduction On April 30, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or
" Commission") issued public notice of an operating license amendment request by the Boston Edison Company (" Boston Edison" or
" Company"), for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ("PNPS"), which would increase the number of allowed fuel assembly storage cells from 2,320 to 3,859, change the maximum loads allowed to travel over the spent fuel assemblies from 1,000 lbs. to 2,000 lbs., and change the limiting characteristics of assemblies to be stored in the spent fuel. 58 Fed. Reg. 26171 (April 30, 1993).
Pursuant to section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. G 2239(a), Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger hereby requests an adjudicatory hearing on the proposed license amendment and further petitions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. G 2.714 and S 2.715 (c) for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
1 9306110184 930602 gDR ADOCK 05000293 PDR
Service of all documents in this proceeding should be addressed to:
Joseph W. Rogers Regulated Industries Division Public Protection Bureau 131 Tremont St. 3rd Floor Doston, MA 02111 (617) 727-2200 II. Massachusetts Attorney General's Right Under the Act to be Made a Party to the Proceeding Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C., provides that:
In any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any person as a party to such a proceeding.
"[T]he Commission has held that contemporaneous judicial standards of standing are controlling. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Nuclear Power Station), LDP-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 89 (1990). The issue is whether (1) the action being challenged ,
could cause " injury-in-f act" to the petitioner, and (2) such injury is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. Id.
The Attorney General meets the Commission's requirements for asserting standing to intervene. The Attorney General seeks to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. PNPS is located in the Commonwealth on the shore of the Cape Cod Bay. Several Massachusetts 2
l i
I communities are located within ten miles of the PNPS (the plume exposure emergency planning zone), and a large portion of the Commonwealth, including the Boston metropolitan area, lies within l l
fifty miles of the site (the ingestion exposure emergency planning zone). The proposed increase in the allowed fuel assembly storage cells has a potentially significant effect on the environment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and on the health, welfare, and saf ety of its people. Any order permitting the requested amendment would have a direct and an indirect ef fect on Massachusetts and its citizenry. The Massachusetts Attorney General has previously been found to have standing to intervene in a similar case involving Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
LDP-87-7, 25 NRC 116 (1987); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) LDP-87-17, 25 NRC 838 (1987).
l Attorney General Harshbarger is also an elected representative of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Therefore the Attorney General also has a right to participate in this proceeding as a representative of an interested State pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.715(c).
III. Aspects of the Proceeding On Which Attorney General Wishes To Intervene NRC regulations require the petitioner to set forth "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F.R. 5 3
i
l 2.714 (a) (2) . "[A] petitioner may satisfy this requirement by identifying general potential effects of the licensing action or j areas of concern that are within the scope of matters that may be considered in the proceeding." vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i
Corporation, supra, 31 NRC at 89.
The Attorney General has several concerns about the effects of the proposed license amendment. These involve: ;
l i
(1) The proposed elimination of the spent fuel storage / cask loading area from spent fuel pool.
(2) The failure of Boston Edison to consider alternatives to adding spent fuel racks in a timely f ashion is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") . A more timely evaluation would have permitted implementation of an alternative (dry storage) which is environmentally preferable (less risk due to severe spent fuel pool accidents) and more cost effective in the long term.
(3) Boston Edison's cost-benefit analysis of alternatives is inadequate for a variety of reasons, but primarily because it fails to consider long-term costs of spent fuel management options in violation of NEPA.
(4) Under existing circumstances, the residual heat removal (RHR) system can be aligned to provide supplemental cooling to the spent fuel pool water under emergency conditions. Under 4
the terms of the proposed license amendment, augmented spent fuel pool cooling using the RHR system will be recuired - it is not merely an option. The use of the RHR system to cool I
l the spent fuel pool violate both NRC regulations and the l
Pilgrim Technical Specifications which require that both trains of the RHR system to be available for reactor (for low l pressure coolant injection, shutdown decay heat removal, containment spray, etc.).
i I
(5) Adding additional spent fuel to the spent fuel pool increases the risks posed by spent fuel pool severe accidents j since, at the very least, the consequences of such accidents will be increased.
5
WHEREFORE Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger requests:
I.
An adjudicatory hearing on the proposed license amendment and; S 2.714 and S Leave to intervene pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
II.
2.715 (c);
III. For such further relief as is just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, SCOTT HARSHBARGER ATTORNEY GENE by: (
Jes pyp . Roge E' ard G. Boh n A sistant Attorneys General Regulated Industries Division Public Protection Bureau 131 Tremont St. 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 (617) 727-2200 Dated: May 27, 1993 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING,y) BOARD-_.,5
- c. n . a
)
In the Matter of )
)
Boston Edison Company ) Docket No. 50-293
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Pover Station) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing pleadings to which this certificate is attached were served by Federal Express or first-class mail or the parties listed below on this date.
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash:.ngton, D.C. 20555 W. S. Stowe, Esq.
Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street - 36th Floor Boston, MA 02199 Office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
/
'o e W. Rop'rs si tant ARorney General Dated: May 27, 1993
F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.m -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' --.d
)
In the Matter of )
)
Boston Edison Company ) Docket No. 50-293
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION I. Introduction On April 30, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or
" Commission") issued public notice of an operating license amendment request by the Boston Edison Company (" Boston Edison" or
" Company"), for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ("PNPS" or
" Pilgrim"), which would increase the number of allowed fuel assembly storage cells from 2,320 to 3,859, change the maximum loads allowed to travel over the spent fuel assemblies from 1,000 lbs, to 2,000 lbs., and change the limiting characteristics of assemblies to be stored in the spent fuel. 58 Fed. Reg. 26171 (April 30, 1993). The NRC proposes to make a determination of no significant hazards consideration regarding the proposed license amendment.
The Massachusetts Attorney General (" Attorney General")
opposes the proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
1
_~. _ _ -
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Pilgrim spent fuel pool is presently licensed for 2,320 storage cells which were installed in the pool in 1985. Boston Edison proposes to utilize the open space available in the fuel pool for spent fuel storage by adding six additional storage racks .
containing a total of 1,526 storage cells. This will increase the tota) Ltorage capacity of the Pilgrim pool to 3,859 cells and will extend the full core reserve capacit'/ to the end of the plant's licensed life (year 2012).
The proposed operating license amendment is to allow an additional six racks, however, Boston Edison's current intention is to install only two racks that will increase the installed storage capacity of the fuel pool by 558 cells to a total of 2,878 storage cells. The additional four racks will be installed at some future undisclosed time.
III. THE PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT POSES SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2239 sets forth the hearing framework for nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") may not issue an operating license amendment before granting a public hearing unless it determines that the proposed amendment poses "no significant hazards consideration." Such a deternination can be made only when the amendment does not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the 2
. .= , . -. -
4 probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92.
B. The Proposed License Amendment Raises Significant Hazards Considerations The circumstances of this case raise significant hazards considerations.
- 1. Proposed Elimination of Cask Loading Area From Spent ruel Pool Approval of the amendment will eliminate che spent fuel storage / cask loading area from the spent fuel pool. The proposed license amendment would result in the placement of a spent fuel storage rack in a location in the spent fuel pool which is currently dedicated to spent fuel cask loading, leaving Ito other space in the spent fuel pool for this purpose. The storage rack I
proposed for this space by Boston Edison should not be installed j i
since their are feasible alternatives which will more cost i l
effective and safer, i.e. dry-cask storage. Sufficient room for j l
cask loading must be maintained in the spent fuel pool as a prudent l l
safety precaution against the potential need to unload the spent l fuel pool in the event of an emergency. i l
i 3
i
- 2. Failure to Consider Alternatives in a Timely Fashion Boston Edison has failed to consider alternatives to adding spent fuel racks in a timely fashion in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). PNPS's need for additional stcrage facilities was predictable.1 By waiting until 1993 to file a license amendment request for installation of additional spent fuel storage racks in the existing spent fuel pool, Boston Edison has effectively foreclosed all other options since there is not sufficient time to implement any other option except to shut down the plant. Plant shutdown solely on the basis of inadequate spent fuel storage capability is not environmentally acceptable due to the economic and environmental impacts of the alternative of adding additional racks. By delaying taking action to reasonably ensure itself of adequate spent fuel storage capability (including full core discharge capability and adequate storage to accommodate the ,
full licensed period of operation), Boston Edison has effectively contravened a basic purpose of NEPA and has attempted to guarantee that its choice of spent fuel management methods is approved regardless of its merits.
'A BNL study of spent fuel pool severe accidents published in March 1989, almost four years before this license amendment application, concluded that the Pilgrim spent fuel pool would be filled in 1993. See J.H. Jo, et al., Value/ Impact Analyses of )
Accident Preventive and Mitiaative Options for Spent Fuel Pools, j Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-5281, prepared for the -)
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j Commission, March 1989 at 21. j l
4
- 3. Failure to Consider Long-Term Costs Boston Edison has failed to consider long-term costs of spent fuel management options. The Department of Energy's (DOE) current schedule for accepting title to spent fuel is the year 2010.
Pilgrim will cease operation in 2012 under its current operating .
license. Boston Edison's current plan, as set forth in its 1991 Decommissioning Study (NES Report 83A5879, Rev.0, December 1991) envisions removal of all spent fuel within two years of final shutdown (i.e. by 2014). Given that spent fuel will be taken by DOE on a priority basis based on discharge date from the reactor, and given that spent fuel from Pilgrim will be competing with more than 110 other plants, it is all but impossible for this schedule to be met.
Boston Edison's own consultants (Nuclear Energy Services) estimate that maintaining the spent fuel pool as a storage location after plant shutdown will cost slightly over $80 million for two years, or about $40 million per year in 1991 dollars. Clearly some wet pool storage will be necessary since the fuel cannot be placed in dry storage until it has decayed for a minimum of one year.
F However, any period of storage substantially longer than one year will rapidly overcome the short-term cost advantage attributed to pool storage by Boston Edison. The Company estimates the cost of adding additional racks at $5 million, and the cost of dry storage at somewhat over $13 million. The asserted cost dif ferential of $8 million is easily overcome by the annual $40 million cost of maintaining pool storage after plant shutdown.
5
- 4. Use of RHR System for Spent Fuel Pool Cooling As currently designed, the residual heat removal (RHR) system can be used to supplement the spent fuel pool cooling system (SFPCS) in an emergency. The RHR system is required by the Pilgrim license and by NRC regulations (principally the General Design Criteria of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50) to be available for the reactor to perform low pressure coolant injection (the same pumps are used for LPCI and RHR purposes), shutdown cooling, containment spray, and containment heat removal purposes.
The proposed amendment would alter the circumstances surrounding the use of the RHR system for spent fuel pool cooling from being an emergency backup to one which is recuired to be used due to the extra heat load associated with the additional spent fuel which would be allowed to be stored in the pool if the license amendment request is granted. Using the RHR on a regular basis to cool the spent fuel pool reduces its availability and reliability for reactor cooling purposes.
In addition, the Pilgrim updated FSAR current states that the spent fuel pool water temperature can be maintained at or below 125 degrees F. with the existing configuration. If the license amendment request is approved, the temperature limit will have to i
be increased to 142 degrees F. following a normal refueling, and i this is with both trains of the SFPCS operating. If one train of !
the SFPCS fails, or if a full core discharge occurs, the RHR system will have to be used in an enhanced spent fuel pool cooling mode to i prevent the boiling of the spent fuel pool water. In the extreme 6
i
case of Cycle 19 conditions and a full core discharge, a loss of spent fuel pool cooling will result in pool boiling within 6.41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br />. Considering the mean time to repair RHR pumps or diesel generators (of the order of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or significantly more), it is unlikely that boiling can be avoided.
- 5. Spent Fuel Severe Accidents Severe accidents involving spent fuel pools are possible due to loss of pool inventory or loss of heat removal. Such accidents have been studied and evaluated in some detail in a number of NRC-sponsored reports (NUREG/CR-4982, NUREG-1353, NUREG/CR-5281, AND NUREG/CR-5176), including the potential for spent fuel pool fire.
i This amendment presents significant hazards considerations in the most fundamental way. Nearly doubling the total stored quantity of long-lived spent fuel radionuclides in the spent fuel cannot help but to increase the consequences of hypothetical spent fuel pool accidents. Moreover, the impact is enhanced because the additional spent fuel rods which would be stored in the spent fuel pool under the proposed license amendment are higher in enrichment than the spent fuel discharged as a result of earlier plant operation and these fuel rods are used to higher burnups than the previously discharged fuel. Both f actors increase the radionuclide loading on a per rod or per assembly basis.
Since no plant-specific analysis of spent fuel pool accident risks is currently available, and. expert judgment (unsupported by detailed studies) regarding risk issues has been shown to be 7
unreliable, the Commission has no basis for an assertion that the risks of spent fuel pool accidents are low. Indeed, in the only existing study of such accidents (for Vernont Yankee Nuclear Power station), their probability approaches that of reactor accidents (within a factor of ten), and the consequences of spent fuel pool accidents can be much more significant than reactor accidents due to the much greater quantity of radioactive cesium and strontium isotopes available for release in a spent fuel pool accident as ,
compared with a reactor accident.
Risk comparisons of spent fuel pool storage, reactor operation, and dry storage are also illuminating. An EPRI study of spent fuel storage risks, indicated that pool storage posed significantly more risk than dry storage concepts. See, NUS corporation, Review of nroposed Drv-Storace Concepts Usina Probabilistic Risk Assessment, EPRI NP-3365, February 1984, page S-3, which indicates a margin of a factor of 100 to 1,000 or more at varying consequence levels.
8
l CONCLUSION Boston Edison has failed to demonstrate that the proposed j license acendment involves no significant hazards considerations; !
in fact, on its face, it would significantly increase the risk to !
public health and safety posed by operation of the PNPS.
Accordingly the Attorney General requests that the NRC reverse its proposed finding of no significant hazards considerations, and order a prior hearing on the proposed license amendment.
Respectfully submitted, SCOTT HARSHBARGER ATTORNEY GENE
~
by: . . / #
o egd W. Rog "s ward G. Bo en ssistant Attorneys General Regulated Industries Division Public Protection Bureau 131 Tremont St. 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 (617) 727-2200 Dated: May 27, 1993 I
1 9
)
1
. i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. ,.. r, .v .. ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BU,ARD a r . 14 i
)
In the Matter of ) '
)
Boston Edison Company ) Docket No. 50-293
)
! (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
)
l 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing pleadings to which this certificate is attached were served by Federal Express or first-class mail on the parties listed below on this date. !
l Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the General Counsel q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. S. Stowe, Esq.
Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street - 36th Floor Boston, MA 02199 Office of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 l
Joep/W. Roggs sigtant At 4 rney General 1
l Dated: May 27, 1993 10
. _ . . . . . . . . _. . . ___.__