ML20079J216

Comments on Transshipment of Spent Fuel from Oconee & McGuire for Storage at Catawba.Table S-4 Inapplicable. Contentions Des 10 & Des 19 Should Be Admitted

ML20079J216
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/20/1982
From:	Guild R CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8212280138
Download: ML20079J216 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________

l UNITED STATE OF AMERICA totKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONLi"PC l

n BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENRNG oc au<- ROA@ N0 57 In the Matter of jgg.

)  ;

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ~~

) DockASI $.50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) December 20, 1982 PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CAROLINA ENVIRONtENTAL j STUDY GROUP COMMENTS ON ,

TRANSHIPMENT OF SPENT FUEL FROM (

OCONEE AND licGUIRE FOR STORAGE AT CATAWBA l i

! In its Memorandum and Order on July 8,1982, this Board ruled on a number of Intervenor contentions regarding Duke's proposed transhipment of spent reactor fuel from its five other nuclear units for interim storage at Ca tawba. Based on the parties' responses to Board questions posed in its' March 5,1982 Order, it admitted that portion of Palmetto 16 regarding safety of storage of irradiated fuel assemblies from other Duke facilities at l

Catawba, Id . at p.8, and reached the conclusion that:

Al though, as the parties' submissions show, this Board lacks jurisdiction over shipment of spent fuel from other Duke facil ities, we must consider the environmental impacts associated with its transport to, and storage at Catawba.

Id., at p.6. The Board directed Palmetto Alliance to "resubmi t" its cos t-benefi t contention 15 regarding transport and storage of non-Catawba spent fuel " based on the OL Environmental Statement, when issued." Id., at p.7.

~'

~r212280138 ' 021220 ~~' ,

, PDR ADOCK 05000413 '

O PDR _

~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e

. ~

In its Supplement to Petitions to Intervene Regarding Draft Environmental Statement filed September 22, 1982, Palmetto and CESG submitted contentions, DES 10 and 19 challenging the adequacy of the NRC Staff analysis of the environmental impacts of Duke's transhipment and storage plan.

Following the second preparing conference both the Applicants and Staff sought and were granted the opportunity to make further filings on this

~

subjec't so as' to clarify their respective positions concerning the applicability of the provisions of 10 CFR Section 51.20 (g) and Summary Table S-4 in establishing the environmental effects of much transportation in licensing this nuclear power reactor. The Board has deferred ruling on these contentions pending consideration of much submissionsl. Upon telephoned request of December 9,1982, the Board Chairman granted these Intervenors an extension of time until this date to file their comments on this question.

In its Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Catawba

! Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0921 (August 1982) the NRC Staff evaluates environmental impacts of the Transportation of Radioactive Materials, as follows:

The transportation of " cold" (unirradiated) nuclear fuel to the reactor, of spent irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing . plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to waste burial grounds is considered in the 10 CFR 51.20. The contribution of the environmental such transportation to the environmental effects of costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor is set forth in Summary Table S-4 from 10 CFR 51.20 (emphasis supplied)

_Id. , 5.9.3.1.2 The Staff Adds:

The transhipment of spent fuel between Ocanee, McGuire, and Catawba is

e j 9 discussed in Appendix G.

_Id.,

Appendix G, " Environmental Impact Appraisal of Transhipment of Spent Fuel From Oconee and McGuire to Catawba Nuclear Station" purports to be a site specific analysis of the radiological and other impacts of this proposed transhipment over and above the transportation impacts associated wiht Catawba operation alone as are claimed to be modeled by Summary Table S-4. While the Staff references WASH-1238, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of-Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," December 1972, as well as the " Environmental Impact Appraisal Related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool ," ,

prepared in the materials license amendment proceeding, Docket No. 70-2523 (December 1978), for much of its negative impact conclusion, it does not purport to rely on 10 CFR 51-20 (g) or Summary Table S-4 as establishing the environmental impact of this activity, and properly so, for S-4 is by its own tenns inapplicable to the additional spent reactor fuel transhipment which will result from approval of the licenses sought by the Applicants here. It is the adequacy of the NRC Staff's NEPA analysis of the costs, benefits, and mitigating alternatives with respect to this transhipment and interim storage which Palmetto and CESG place in issue by their DES contentions 10 and 19.

In its Statement of Position on Draft Environmental Statement Contentions of October 4,1982, the NRC Staff nowhere asserts the applicability of Summary Table S-4 to the Oconee and McGuire transhipment to Catawba, but oppose admission of DES Contentions 10 and 19 as lacking required " basis" on their factual merits, Id. , at pp 12 and 23-24.

They respond in part to Intervenors

criticism of their failure to analyze the need for and benefit from the proposal by a commitment:

Though not specifically required in NRC environmental appraisals, the Staff will address the need for transhipment and the benefits to be derived therefrom, in the FES.

--Id. , at p. 23 While Intervenors maintain that the alleged deficiencies 'in the NRC Staff l ~

1 environmental analysis of the Oconee and McGuire transhipment and storage plan j are the proper subject for litigation in this proceeding, we do agree that the 1 -

Staff's restricted use of Summary Table S-4 in the DES solely to model transportation related effects of Catawba operation alone represents the j l

limits of the Tabl e's application. Intervenors urge that independent i

environmental analysis of the additional transportation impacts of Oconee and 1

McGuire transportation, albeit free from the defects continued in the DES Appendix G, would result in the rejection of the plan urged by Applicants in favor of less costly available alternatives.

Finally, the Board once asked the logical question "why Table S-4 values i would not adequately describe the environmental effects" of this spent fuel transhipment irrespective of the Table's scope limitation to the reprocessing facility destination. July 8,1982, Board Order at p.6. The full factual underpinnings for Table S-4 remain umavailable to Intervenors who were compelled to rely then on the express limitations on the scope of the rule stated at 10 CFR 51.20 (g). However, it now is clear that the intended scope of the rul e is limited to the normal transportation of fuel and waste associated with one nuclear power reactor assumed to reflect 60 spent fuel shipments per year. Such 60 shipments of spent fuel would be associated with

operation of each of 2 Catawba units by themselves.

By letter of November 2,1982, Duke explains that its transhipment plans reflect up to 300 shipments per year or 60 each from five Oconee and McGuire units, presumably in addition to the assumed shipments of the same spent fuel from the interim storage site to the reprocessor or disposal facility. Duke assures us, "that any such shipments will be made so that their environmental

^

~

~

impact's will be encompassed within the values' contained in Table S-4 (10 CFR Part 51 ) ." Such pronouncements may sound reassuring, but on its face Summary Table S-4 can only describe the impact of normal transportation associated with one reactor not five or seven, as here. Summary Table S-4 clearly does not apply to the Oconee and McGuire-to-Catawba transhipments and the Intervenors respectively urge that their contentions DES 10 and 19 be admitted for ligitation in this proceeding.

December 20, 1982 Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group fi e ley Pla C arlo te, N 820 T 8 Roqert 3u1T U Post Office Box 12097 Charleston, SC 29412 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance <