ML20093N256

Informs That Util & NRC Intend to File Response to Objectionable Contentions by 840817,based on Discussions W/ Parties

ML20093N256
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	07/30/1984
From:	Jay Dougherty CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LOUISA COUNTY, DOUGHERTY, J.B.
To:	Ferguson G, Kline J, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OLA-1, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8408010250
Download: ML20093N256 (10)

Text

y

• s .

G4s W. '3b-337 6LR I p .3 9 .... g 7 JAMES B. DOUGHERTY ,

ATTORNEY AT LAW  :

J -33h , Ob/

56 -339 OLP - V "r July 30, 1984 04 J'l 2I P2:53 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 In the Matter of VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-338/339 OIA-1 and OLA-2

Dear Administrative Judges:

Pursuant to the Board's directive, counsel for the parties have met twice to discuss the contentions put forward by my client, Con-cerned Citizens of Louisa County, in light of the environmental and safety analyses published by the Staff on July 3. The discussions, which were frank and productive, led to changes in the wording of the bases for several of the concentions, and to the dropping of one contention concerning emergency planning. In addition, a single new contention has been added (with regard to both OLA-1 and OLA-2) con-cerning alleged deficiencies in the Staff's environmental assessment.

The complete list of current contentions is attached as Attachment 1.

Because VEPCO and the NRC Staff, however, continue to have objec-tions to - s'ome of the contentions, it was not possible to reach agreemeent as to their admissibility. Accordingly, those parties intend to file responses to the contentions on or before August 17.

The parties agreed to begin informal discovery effective immedi-ately.

Sincerely, 8408010250 840730 PDR ADOCK 05 COO 338 0 PDR

_ James B. Dougherty Attachment cc

parties Counsel for Concerned Citizens of Louisa County 3045 PORTER ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008 202/362-7158 w

1

/

x-ATTACHMENT 1

- I 9 THIRD DRAFT OF CONTENTIONS OLA - 1

1. The proposed license amendment constitutes a major federal action significantly af f ecting the human environment, and thus may not be granted prior to the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

r' Basis:

The transportation of spent fuel by truck creates a risk of accidents causing tremendous human health and environmental dam-age. Studies show that if a spent fuel cask were to strike a bridge abutment sideways at no mo re than 12.5 m.p.h., the cask cavity could be expected to rupture < Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Spent Nuclear F u e l b_y T r u c k , PNL-25 8 8 (Nov. 1978) at 6-4. This could result in continuous releases of radioactive water and steam.

Resnikoff, The Next Nuclear Gamble, (1983)(hereinaf ter cited as Resnikoff) at 259. Accicents at higher speeds are much more likely, and would likely result in significant damage to spent fuel assemblies and substantial releases of radioactive mater-ials. ,

In a hypothetical but credible truck accident postulated by Citizens' consultant to occur in a rural area, radioactive mater-f ials would likely be deposited on agricultural lands, leading to

the ingestion of such materials by humans through the consumption of meats, grains, and dairy products. More than 50% of the affected population could contract cancer as a result. Resnikorf

~

at 276. In addition, farmland in the area would have to be removed or plowed under to a great depth, dramatically reducing the productivity and thus the value of the land. I d. at 277.

~

s. 1 i

)

s l

l l

Other environmental costs associated with the proposed license amendment include the risk of sabotage, the effects of which would be amparable to those of a serious transportation accident. In addition, the possibility of error by VEPCO em-ployees when performing such tasks as sealing the shipping casks creates additional risks. Because of all of these risks, the proposed license amendment will give rise to significant environ-mental effects.

2. VEPCO has not shown that the shipping casks to be used to transport Surry spent fuel to North Anna meet NRC standards.

10 C.F.R. SS 71.35 and 71.36 require that all casks used for spent fuel shipments meet specific standards set out in Pt. 71 App. A and B. Noncompliance with these standards creates a great risk of harm to the public health and safety. If a noncomplying cask were involved in a highway accident it would be quite pos-sible that the cask would rupture following impact or exposure to fire. Serious damage to the fuel rods within the cask would be likely. Thus, a large fraction of the volatile radionuclides within the fuel rods would be released to the ambient air, causing hundreds or thousands of cancers and deaths and giving rise to great environmental damage.

e The document (" Spent Fuel. Storage") that was submitted to the NRC by VEPCO in support of its license amendment application indicates,only the "[t] he spent fuel cask used will have been approved and certified by NRC." Sec. 5.0 at 50 (emphasis'added).

Compliance with the applicable standards must be shown before the license amendment' can be issued.

5

~

r, 0 <

y .

3. -Neither VEPCO nor the NRC Staff has adequately considered the ~ alternative cf constructing a dry cask storage f acility at the Surry station.

- B a s'is :

'Theuuse of shipping-type casks-for surface storage of spent fuel ' has been ~ shown ~ to- be feasible. In the opinion of Citizens'

-consultant,- dry cask storage methods are among the least expen-

.sive and safest spent fuel storage methods, including pool stor-age. Dry;c4tk storage may well be safe and reliable for up to 50 years or more.- In addition to its economic and environmental s ' -advantages, dry cask storage provides a capability for on-site as well as of f-site ' transportation of spent fuel. E.R. Johnson

. Associates, Inc., A Preliminary Assessment of Alternative Methods ifor the Storage of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, (Nov. 1981) at

, 4-1. And.in this case the construction of a dry cask storage

' facility at_the Surry station-would eliminate the need to trans-

-port spent. fuel;off-site.

I In -1982 VEPCO' applied to' the NRC for authority to construct such a f acility at Surry. It cannot be determined at this time howLiong the NRC review process will take.

~

But even if the f acility cannot be completed for several years, the safe oper- -

-ation of VEPCO's reactors will not be threatened. VEPCO claims that'it is ' threatened with the loss of full core reserve (" FCR")

capability at. the Surry spent fuel pool in 1986, and the with the g shutdcwn of the two Surry. units in 1986 and 1988. These dates Lean: be deferred =1ong enough to utilize the dry cask alternative.

First, VEPCO can install. three _ spent fuel racks in the cask

-lay-down area-in the Surry spent fuel pool. In an internal VEPCO a memorandum in Citizens' possession, this alternative is held out

, as- presenting no problems f rom a technical standpoint. It is

'said to defer the ' loss of FCR by "at least two years." Another memo -in Citizens' possession suggests that loss of FCR can be .

extended by'at least anothar year'by' replacing the stainless

' steel racks now in the Surry spent fuel pool with new, lighter racks equipped with neutron-absorbing materials. Loss of FCR can-also be deferred by a nearly-completed plan to ship. Surry spent

T .

e J'{/

fuel 'to a Department of Energy storage f acility in the western

United States.- And, if necessary, a limited number of spent fuel assemblies could be shipped f rom Surry to North Anna, so that the

- dry ' cask : storage facility could be completed before a full trans-

' shipment program becomes necessary.

(4. VEPCO has.not-shown that its physical protection system satisfies NRC regulatory requirements.

L 10 ' C.F.R.

S 73.37 provides that VEPCO, if it is to ship s' pent f uel- f rom Surry +' North Anna, must implement a security

- program meeting a number of specific requirements. Compliance

< with. these . requirements is essential if the risks to the public health-and safety are to be minimized. However, all of the information - concerning such security measures has been deleted

-f rom' the available documentation on ' file at the NRC's public document room.

The Environmental Assessment- prepared by the NRC Staf f is

~

25.

inadequate in the following respects:

i

. .(a) Lit does' not. evaluate the risks of accidents (including sabotage) involving Surry - North Anna shipments;

~

c9 (b) it does not evaluate - the consequences of credible

. . acci4ents- involving Sutry - North Anna shipments; (c)- iti does not evaluate the alternative of constructing a

. dry cask' storage facility at the Surry station. -

k

-Basis:

-The Environmen'tal Assessment pr'epared by the NRC Staf f in

[

connection with the proposed ' license amendment admittedly con-

!tains ino " site-specific" discussion or analyris of the environ-

. mental ef fects of: the amendment.. Instead, the document simply I

y L 4 I

. . , , a, -n, ,,,,,--rne---, -ne.----,-.---,~--.. - - . . , - . - , , - . - - ~ - - - ,

~

.1 . n

. v. .

[0 :

f A

[ Lmental'ef fects of the amendment. Instead, the document simply discusses the . relation ' of the amendment to the " parameters"

. contained in Table S-4 of 10 C . F . R. 51.52. It does not even N incorporate- by reference the environmental analyses contained in the environmental -impact statements prepared in connection with

licensing : of the Surry reactors. Citizens ' contends that Table S-4 is - inapplicable to the proposed license amendment. Even if it

were not, . some discussion of the environmental and human health effects :of the amendment would nevertheless be required.

Nowhere, including the environmental impact statements pre-pared in. connection-with the licensing of Surry, has the NRC

.Staf f considered-- the possible ef fects of spent fuel shipments on

~

(Louisa County and its residents. The Surry EISs, for example,

. address only the ef fects of shipping spent fuel south, to South Carolina,:and otherwise contain'an antiquated and inadequate discussion of the risks of spent f uel shipments. And the Envi-

.ronmental-Assessment nowhere states that the proposed shipments might hurt people, or that it might adversely affect the environ-ment.- Nor 'does it attempt to quantify or describe those environ-mental.. risks and effects.

Further, the Environmental Assessment does not' mention the alternative of . constructing a dry cask storage f acility at Surry.

The ' merits of -this alternative were identified in contention 2 "above, and the discussion of the basis for that contention is

-incorporated .herein.

n-S 4

. .,.-rm r - -.v. ,-- 3_we,,.- , . - ~ ,, ._,,w,--,w,,vw.,,-.w,,-w-. ,..m,_y,%--ww.-,+-m---w.,yw. .-.,.-,w,,,,,,,g..-y

~

OLA-2

1. The proposed license amendment constitutes a major federal action significantly af fecting the human environment, and thus may not be granted prior to the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Basis:

Citizens contends that for purposes of the environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act

("NEPA"), the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment cannot be evaluated apart from the environmental im-pacts- of the Surry-to-North Anna spent f uel transshipment pro-posal which is being addressed in the companion licensing proce-eding. The modification of the North Anna spent fuel pool is designed to accomodate the 500 fuel assemblies that VEPCO intends to 'r emove - f r'om the Surry spent fuel pool. Actions that are related in this way .cannot be " segmented" for purposes of the environmental review required by NEPA. Therefore, in evaluating the significance of the . two proposed actions, the ef fects of the srent fuel pool modification must be summed with the effects of ts.c spenc fuel transshipment proposal. As discussed below, the ef fects of the transshipment are themselves "significant."

The transportation of spent fuel by truck creates a risk of accidents causing tremendous human health and environmental dam-

. age. Studles 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. Battelle Pacific Northwest Nuclear Puel g Truck, PNL-2588 (Nov.1978) at 6-4. This could result in continuous releases of radioactive water and steam.

-Resnikoff, The Next Nuclear Gamble, (1983)(hereinaf ter cited as Resnikof f) ~ at 259. Accidents at higher speeds are much more likely,- and would likely result in significant damage to spent fuel ' assemblies and substantial releases of radioactive mater-ials.

In a hypothetical but credible truck accident postulated by Citizens' consultant to occur in a rural area, radioactive mater-ials would likely be deposited on agricultural lands, leading to the ingestion of such materials by humans through the consumption of meats, grains, and dairy products. More than 50% of the

af fected population could contract cancer as a result. Resnikoff at 276. In addition ~, farmland in the area would have to be removed or plowed under to a great depth, d ramatically reducing the productivity and thus the -value of the land. Id. at 277.

Other- environmental costs associated with the proposed license amendment include the risk of sabotage, the ef fects of which would be comparable to those of a serious transportation accident. In addition, the possibility of error by VEPCO em-ployees when performing such tasks as sealing the shipping casks creates additional risks. Becaus,e of all of these risks, the proposed license amendment will give rise to significant environ-mental effects.

2. Neither VEPCO nor the NRC Staf f has adequately considered the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage facility at the surry-station.

Basis:

The use of shipping-type casks for surface storage of spent fuel has been shown to be feasible. In the opinion of Citizens' consultant, dry cask storage methods are among the least expen-sive and safest spent fuel storage methods, including pool stor-age. ' Dry cask storage may well be safe and reliable for up to 50

' years or more. In addition 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 a dry cask storage f acility at the Surry station would eliminate the need to trans-port spent fuel off-site.

1. . ~

2 In 1982 VEPCO applied to the NRC for authority to construct such a f acility at Surry. It cannot be determined at this time how long the NRC review process will take. But even if the f acility cannot be completed for several years, the safe oper-ation of VEPCO's reactors will not be threatened. VEPCO claims that it is threatened with the loss of full core reserve ("FCR")

capability _at the surry spent fuel pool in 1986, and the with the shutdown of the two Surry units in 1986 and 1988. These dates can be deferred long enough to-utilize the dry cask alternative.

First, VEPCO can install three spent f uel racks in the cask lay-down area in the surry spent fuel pool. In an internal VEPCO memorandum in Citizens' -' possession, this alternative is held out as presenting no problems f rom a technical standpoint. It is said to defer the loss of FCR by "at least two years." Another

' memo in Citizens' possession suggests that loss of FCR can be

-extended by at least another year by replacing the stainless steel racks now in the Surry spent fuel pool with new, lighter racks -equipped with neutron-absorbing materials. Loss of FCR can also be deferred by a nearly-completed plan to ship Surry spent fuel to a Department of Energy storage f acility in the western

-United States. And, if necessary, a limited number of spent fuel assemblies could be shipped f rom Surry to North Anna, so that the dry _ cask storage facility could be completed before a full trans-shipment program becomes necessary.

L-3.. The Invironmental Assessment prepared by the NRC Staf f is inadequate in the following respects:

(a) it does not-evaluate the risks of accidents (including sabotage) involving Surry - North Anna shipments; (b) it does not evaluate the consequences of credible accidents involving Surry - North Anna shipments; (c) 'it does not evaluate the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage facility at the Surry station.

c

. ~ . . . _ . . . _ , _ . . .

. ,/

• Basis:

The Environmental Assessment prepared by the NRC Staf f in connection with the proposed license amendment admittedly con-tains no " site-specific" discussion or analysis of the environ-

- mental ef fects of the amendment. Instead, the document simply discusses the relation of the amendment to the " parameters" contained in Table S-4 of 10 C.F.R. 51.52. It does not even incorporate by reference the environmental analyses contained in the environmental impact s'.atements prepared in connection with licensing of the Surry reactors. Citizens contends that Table S-4 is inapplicable to the proposed license amendment. Even if it were not, some discussion of the environmental and human health ef fects of the amendment would neve'rtheless be required. .

Nowhere, including the environmental impact statements pre-pared in connection with the licensing of Surry, has the NRC Staff considered the possible effects of spent fuel shipments on Louisa County and its residents. The Surry EIss, for example, address only the ef fects of shipping spent f uel south, to South Carolina, and otherwise contain an antiquatad and inadequate discussion of the risks of spent f uel shipments. And the Envi-conmental Assessment nowhere states that the propose 6 shipments might hurt people, or that it might adversely affect the environ-ment. Nor does it attempt to quantify or describe those environ-mental risks and effects.

Further, the Environmental Assessment does not mention the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage facility at Surry.

The merits of this alternative were identified in contention 2 above, and the discussion of the basis for that contention is incorporated herein.

_