ML20098F940

Reply to Concerned Citizens of Louisa County Brief on Table S-4 Issues.Evaluation of Environ Effects of Spent Fuel Shipments Would Result in Negligible Finding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20098F940
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	10/01/1984
From:	Maupin M VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
References
CON-#484-233 OLA-1, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8410030565
Download: ML20098F940 (13)

Text

., ,. . . .- - . _ - -- . .,

a-n -

Dgg%er.1,1984 UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIgIET -3 A11 :06 BEFORE THE ATOMIC

• SAFETY AND LICENSING BdKR6f(S[ddj,i

• vo"" BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

-VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-338/339-OLA-1 COMPANY. ) -OLA-2

(' . .

)

j (North Anna Power Station, )

!~ -Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S REPI.Y TO CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LOUISA COUNTY'S BRIEF ON TABLE S-4 ISSUES The Applicant, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco) , has set out its aronment-in-chief in the Response

l. it filed on September 20, 1984. All that is necessary.here  !

i is to set out what appear to be the main points of the l >

! argument put forth by Concerned Citizens of Louisa County i

(CCLC) and make a brief comment on each.

j 1. CCLC argues that. Table S-4 may not be used by the Staff in an environmental assessment because Part 51 does not explicitly say that it may. Put another way, CCLC says l- that the Staff is forbidden to use Table S-4 even when all  ;

of the S 51.52 parameters are met. There are three i

answers. First, the critical consid<2 ration is not that S 51.30, which prescribes the centent of environmental assessments, does not explicitly mandate the use of Table S-4; it is that neither S 51.30, nor any other provision of l Oshh PDR r

-b W

7 f"

, y

. q Part 51, explicitly. forbids the use of Table S-4. In the absence of an explicit prohibition, the Board should be guided by the Commission's Statement of Considerations, 40 Fed. Reg. 1005 - (January 6, 1975), which contains no

' indication that the Staff 11s to make the arbitrary distinction between environmental impact statements and i

environmental assessments that CCLC advocates. Second, CCLC now concedes that the Staff may be permitted to use Table S-4 in certain operating license proceedings, Concerned' l Citizens of Louisa County's Brief on Table S-4 Issues (CCLC -

j- Brie f) , at 11. Thus, the argument it makes here produces an absurd result: ' The Staff may use the generic "short cut" provided by Table S-4 in a proceeding where significant environmental effects are presumed to be in-volved and the preparation of an environmental impact statement is therefore required. But the Staff must do an entirely original, site-specific environmental review in a proceeding where no significant environmental effects appear to exist and an environmental assessment is done.

l

_ The Commission could not have intended such a wasteful result. Third, contrary to CCLC's position, a literal raading of Part 51 does authorize the use of Table S-4 in this case. Section 51.30, which briefly sets out the L

requirements for environmental assessments, requires a brief discussion of "the environmental inpacts of the

o proposed action . . ." (emphasis 'added) . Sec-tion 51.52 (a) (6) says that Table S-4 sets forth "the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor . . ." (emphasis added). In short,

what is explicitly required to be " discussed" in the environmental assessment is explicitly set forth in Table S-4. Thus, the Commission's obvious wishes, common sense l and the language of Part 51 all refute CCLC's position.

2. CCLC argues that Table S-4 may never be used by the Staff in its evaluation of a proposed operating license l amendment. Again, the argument produces an absurd result.

t CCLC would now concede that if Vepco were seeking an l

l operating license for North Anna and wished to include in l that license the right to receive and store Surry fuel, the use of Table S-4 by the Staff would be appropriate. CCLC's position would mean, however, that if Vepco waited until the issuance of its operating license and promptly there-after sought an amendment authorizing the receipt of Surry fuel at North Anna, the Staff could under no circumstances use Table S-4 to evaluate the environmental impacts of the i

l shipmants fr:m Surry to North Anna. It is not surplising i

that CCLC has not identified one rational objective that would be served by its e.pproach, which is se plainly at

, odds with the Commission's objective in adopting Table S-4.

l

0-s

3. CCLC argues that Table S-4 is merely a component to be plugged into a cost-benefit analysis and not a substitute for a narrative analysis of the underlying environmental effects of transportation. Again, to use the literal approach to Part 51 that CCLC embraces, nothing on the face of Part 51 indicates that Table S-4 is merely an element of a 7st-benefit analysis. On the contrary, as l

has been indicated, S 51.52 (a) (6) says that Table S-4 sets forth the " environmental impacts" of transportation. And, after all, it is " environmental impacts" that an envi-l ronmental assessment is supposed to discuss. Second, con-I- trary to CCLC's bald assertion, Table S-4 is not merely a substitute for narrative analysis. The narrative analysis

- a comprehensive one - is included in WASH-1238, the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To And From Nuclear Power Plants, which is the document identifying the impacts set out in Table S-4.

4. CCLC appears to take comfort in the fact that the l

Staff did not apply Table S-4 in the Oconee-to-McGuire I

case. Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License I SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear i I

l Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station) , ALAB-651, I l

j l

! 14 NRC 307 (1981). Vepco does not know why the Staff did

! not apply Table S-4 in that proceeding, but we have two i

i observations. First, the Oconee-to-McGuire proposal did

J 3

not fall within the assumptions that underlay Table S-4.

The proposal contemplated 300 spent fuel shipments. The shipments were to be made in a single year. Duke Power Co.

(Oconee/McGuire), LBP-80-28, 12 NRC 459, 489 (1980). The underlying environmental analysis for Table S-4, however, anticipates 60 shipments per year per unit. WASH-1238 at l

20. Since Oconee is a three-unit station, id. at 463, the proposal involved 100 shipments per reactor per year, exceeding the assumption underlying Table S-4 by 67%.

Second, it is not Vepco's position that the Staff is required to use Table S-4 in a proceeding such as this one; Vepco's position is that the Staff is permitted to use l l

Table S-4 in the environmental assessment where the l l

parameters'are met, and common sense dictates that it do so here.

5. CCLC raises once more an argument that we had thought was adequately answered at the prehearing conference, namely that the fuel to be shipped by Vepco may exceed an average irradiation level of 33,000 MWD /MTU.

CCLC again cites page 23 of the Staff's Environmental Assessment and argues that "a factual dispute over this issue may arise in the future." As we took pains to point out at the prehearing conference, the burn-up rate of

( s6,000 MWD /MTU set out at page 23 of the Environmental Assessment is the assumed burn-up for North Anna fuel, none l

, I

? j' L. . .

of which is going to be shipped from Surry. Moreover, no

. factual dispute over the Surry burn-up level is likely to arise. We say this because Vepco will not ship fuel exceeding an average irradiation level of 33,000 MWD /MTU.

Vepco has represented that fact to NRC in response to a question submitted to it by the Staff, and copies of the question and Vepco's commitment, dated September 13, 1983, are attached to this Reply as Attachment A.

6. Finally, CCLC resurrects a concern about the

" risk of sabotage or diversion" at the end of its Brief.

CCLC Brief at 18. Vepco, of course, has acknowledged from the outset that the risk of sabotage of spent fuel shipments was not considered in the formulation of Table S-4. Our arguments about Table S-4 do not involve sabotage. They are directed at CCLC's Contention 1, to the extent it involves the risks of accidents and human error, and to CCLC's Contention 5, to the extent it alleges that the environmental assessment does not evaluate either the risks or the consequences of accidents. In short, CCLC's odd reference to sabotage has nothing to do with Table S-4 and thus nothing to do with the issues being briefed.

Since CCLC has raised the matter, however, we should reemphasize what we said in our Response to the Contentions of Concerned Citizens of Louisa County, namely that CCLC l

I has set out nothing approaching an adequate basis for a contention involving sabotage. We also remind the Board of CCLC's representation at the prehearing conference that:

We're not saying that the risk of sabotage is so great that this stuff should not be shipped, and we don't intend to litigate sabotage tully.

We have not come up with a scenario in which the Red Brigade or someone captures a truck and opens it and what not, because we don't think that this is necessary. . (Tr. 106).

7. We leave the Board with this thought: The en-vironmental effects of spent fuel shipments from the Surry Power Station have now been dealt with twice, in each case on a basis independent of the other. They were revaluated first on a site-specific basis in connection with the issuance of the Surry operating licenses. They have now been dealt with by the Staff through the use of Table S-4.

To require that they be evaluated yet a third time - an evaluation that would surely result in another finding that the environmental effects of such shipments will be negligible - would produce precisely the result the Commission sought to avoid when it promulgated Table S-4.

Respectfully submitted, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY By /s/ Michael W. Maupin Michael W. Maupin, Counsel l

l

F 4

Of Counsel Michael'W. Maupin Marcia R. Gelman HUNTON & WILLIAMS P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dated: October 1, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served Applicant's Reply to Concerned Citizens of Louisa County's Brief on Table S-4 Issues upon each of the persons named below by depositing a copy in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed to him at the address set out with his name:

C Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief Docketing and Service Section Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University ,

2300 5th Street '

Washington, D.C. 20059

6 s

Henry J. McGurren, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James B. Dougherty, Esq.

3045 Porter Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20008 .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 By /s/ Michael W. Maupin Michael W. Maupin, Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company Dated: October 1, 1984

(

i I

l

. . . - . .. - -- - -. . _ . - . . . ~ - - . _ - . .- -

a Attachment A l l 3 s._. s.- M v i .- .r- . .-

0 09N 4A4 ,M '

Y%I 4 %g 3 ADDITIONAL, INFORMATION_NEEDED_

~

Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch 1.

Please provide the calculated burnup (equilibrium core) of North Anna -

and Surry fuel. in rnegawatt-days per metric ton of uranium.

\

2.

Please provide the following: i 1

a.

Weight of urantum per fuel assembly. in kg.

b.

Number of fuel assemblies in core,

c. Number of fuel assemblies vernoved per reload at equilibrium cycle.

3. Please provide an estimate of the weight. compacted volume. and radio-activity (curie content) of the racks to be rernoved. cut-up, and dfsposed of as solid radioactive waste.

i l

l l

---, .-- - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - ,,__--.-,--,,.___,,,_,,--,,,,,,,--,.,,mnm,,-,n g__-_- - -

I m

VrmorwxA Ex.ncranc Ann Powzu COMPANT ExcxxowzhVamoxxxA asa61 l i

v.I..s m ane w=D =U. september 13, 1983

- Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 456 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PSE/HSM:jdm:0004N Attn: Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Docket Nos. 50-338 Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 50-339 Division of Licensing License Nos. NPF-4 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission NPF-7  !

Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROPOSED OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT NPF-4 AND NPF-7 )

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 He have reviewed your letter of July 25, 1983 in which you requested additional information on the Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity Expansion. (8 questions) In addition to these questions, we have recently received on an informal basis additional questions from the Auxiliary Systems Branch (13), I the Materials & Qualifications Branch (2), the Core Performance Branch (1),

the Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch (1), and the Radiological Assessment Branch (3).

The eight questions in your letter of July 25, 1983 will be labeled A.1 throu;h A.8. The thirteen questions from the Auxiliary Systems Branch will be labeled B.1 through B.13. The two questions from the Materials &

Qualifications Branch will be labeled C.1 and C.2. The question from the Radiological Assessment Branch will be labeled D.I. The three questions from the Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch have been previously answered and forwarded to you by our letter dated June 16, 1983, Serial No. 4508.

The answers to the above questions are enclosed herein with the exception of the following: A.4, A.6, B.2, B.4, 8.7, C.1, and E.3. These remaining questions will be answered by October 1, 1983.

If you require further information on this matter, we would be pleased to meet with your staff at their earliest convenience.

Very truly yours, H. L. Stewart  !

cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Mr. M. B. Shymlock Regional Administrator NRC Resident Inspector Region II North Anna Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303

bc: R. H. Leasburg y M. L. Smith N 4 0

4 W. C. Spencer H. S. McKay J. W. Waddill W. R. Cartwright i J. C. Harris, Jr.

A. Fraley

\

.3 4i p .

E. R. Smith

M. L. Bowling, J. Jr.M. g/ ravis43 J. H. Leberstien TQL ik /S.) -

. E. W. Harrell IF-51.2

NRC Letter File

J9L4 ' M Central Files il6lO GOV 02-54-03-02-01 l

i l

e

.- _ _.__-..__ _ ., _ ._ _.,_ _ _ __ _._ __ , _ , _ __ ____1

2 m

Question E.1:

Please provide the calculated burnup (equilibrium core) of North Anna and Surry fuel, in megawatt - days per metric ton of uranium.

An.swer:

The Surry and North Anna equilibrium reload cores are being designed now for an average discharge burnup of approximately 36.000 MWD /MTU. However, it should be noted that the average burnup of the 500 Surry fuel assemblies which are to be stored at North Anna will be less than 33,000 MWD /MTU.  ;

1 ,

^

l jdu/0004N/24

_ _ __.. _ .. _ _