ML20129K128
| ML20129K128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1985 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129K121 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-1, NUDOCS 8507230413 | |
| Download: ML20129K128 (15) | |
Text
n o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B'ARD 22 Pj:jp 0
8,. Hem: r, In the Matter of
)
L,W G.-
'f
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 OLA-1
)
50-339 OLA-1 (North Anna Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Receipt of Spent Fuel)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM 0F AN INITIAL DECISION I.
BACKGROUND M 1.
On July 13, 1982, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPC0 or Licensee) filed an application for an amendment to Operating Licenses NPF-4 and NPF-7 for the North Anna Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would add license conditions to the North Anna Unit 1 and Unit 2 existing licenses to allow the receipt and storage of 500 spent fuel assemblies from Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.
See 47 Fed. Reg. 41892 (September 22,1982). This proceeding was designated Case "0LA-1".
In another proceeding, designated "0LA-2", VEPC0 sought authority to expand the fuel storage capacity for North Anna Units 1 and 2.
See 47 Fed. Reg. 41893(September 22, 1982). M
.y The Staff has carefully reviewed the Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Consistent with the Board's directive the Staff has "wherever possible, incorporate [d] by reference the Licensee's proposed findings." Tr. 363. Wherever the Licensee's proposed findings have been adopted with some modifications, insertion of new language is underlined and the deletion of language is1.dentifiedby[ brackets].
y This pro'ceeding was dismissed by Board order dated October 15, 1984, aff'd.,VirginiaElectricandPowerCompany(NorthAnnaPowerSta-tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-790, 20 NRC 1450, 1454 (1984).
8507230413 85071e K 05000338 G
. 2.
Pursuant to the September 22, 1982 Federal Register notices con-cerning the proposed amendments Concerned Citizens of Louisa County (CCLC) and the County of Louisa, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Louisa, Virginia (Louisa County) sought intervention in both proceedings.
3.
A joint special prehearing conference was held on February 16, 1983.
However, by agreement of counsel and Board directive oral argument was not heard on the contentions.
4.
By Order of June 10, 1983, the Board ruled that it has jurisdiction to consider health and safety impacts of transshipment of Surry spent fuel to North Anna as well as reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of such transshipment. 3/ Before ruling cn any contentions the Board elected to await the issuance of the Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal, which the Board noted could serve as basis for assertion of new contentions. U 5.
By Order of May 22, 1984, the Board granted Louisa County's request for withdrawal from the OLA-1 and OLA-2 proceedings.
6.
On July 3,1984, the Staff issued its Proposed Findings of No Significant Impact, the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Safety Evaluation (SE) related to increasing spent fuel storage at North Anna Units 1 and 2, and the transshipment and receipt of Surry 1 and 2 spent fuel at North Anna.
7.
On July 30, 1984, CCLC submitted five contentions relating to Case OLA-1 and three contentions relating to Case OLA-2.
After the Licensee and 3/
Memorandum of June 10,1983 (slip op, at 4, 6). The Licensee's Motion for Directed Certification regarding the Board's jurisdiction over " health" and " safety" impacts of the proposed transshipment was denied by the Appeal Board.
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371, 379 (1983)...
y Memorandum of June 10,1983 (slip op, at 7).
. the Staff filed responses, a supplemental special prehearing conference was held on September 7, 1984. Because CCLC orally argued in general with respect to its contentions that Table S-4, relied upon by the Staff in the EA, was inapplicable; the Board,'y Order of September 13, 1984, requested that counsel b
submit briefs as to whether there have been any licensing board, appeal board, Commission and federal court rulings on the question of whether Table S-4 applies only in construction permit proceedings or whether Table S-4 is appli-cable also in operating license amendment cases.
Counsel simultaneously filed briefs on October 21, 1984, and thereafter simultaneously filed reply briefs.
8.
By Order dated October 15, 1984, in Case OLA-1, the Board recast three of CCLC contentions into a single Consolidated Contention 1. E None of CCLC's contentions asserted in the OLA-2 Case were admitted.
Accordingly, 5/
As admitted Consolidated Contention 1 stated:
The Staff's Environmental Assessment is inadequate and an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
The bases for this contention are two-fold.
First, the Environmental Assessment, in relying upon the inappli-cable values in Table S-4, did not evaluate the proba-bility and consequences of accidents occurring during the transportation of spent fuel casks from the Surry Station to the North Anna Station or which might be occasioned by acts of sabotage or by error of Appli-cant's employees in preparing the casks for shipment.
Second, contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E), consideration was not given to the alternative method of constructing a dry cask storage facility at the Surry Station which is feasible, can be effected in a timely manner, is the lesst expen-sive and safest method for at least 50 years, and can be used on or offsite.
CCLC.'s other two contentions, numbered 2 and 4 were withdrawn.
Contenti.on 2 was withdrawn at the September 7, 1984, Supplemental Special Prehearing Conference (Tr. 129) and Contention 4 was with-drawn by let-ter dated January 16, 1985.
. CCLC's petition for leave to intervene in that case was denied and there being no other intervenors Case OLA-2 was dismissed. E 9.
In a letter dated Ncvember 16, 1984, the parties requested that, pursuant to Q 2.749, the Board should proceed to rule on the issue of the applicability of Table S-4 as posed in CCLC's Consolidated Contention 1, and that the Board treat the previous submissions as being motions for partial summary disposition.
- 10. By Memorandum and Order of January 7,1985 the Board concluded as a matter of law that the Staff's EA properly relied upon the values in Table S-4.
Accordingly, the Board granted the Licensee's and the Staff's motions for partial summary disposition and denied CCLC's motion for partial summary disposition. Accordingly, CCLC's Consolidated Contention 1 reads as follows:
The Staff's Environmental Assessment is inadequate and an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
The bases for this contention are two-fold.
First, the Environmental Assessment, did not evaluate the proba-bility and consequences of accidents occurring during the transportation of spent fuel casks from the Surry Station to the North Anna Station or which might be occasioned by acts of sabotage or by error of Appli-cant's employees in preparing the casks for shipment.
Second, contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E), consideration was not given to the alternative method of constructing a dry cask storage facility at the Surry Station which is feasible, can be effected in a timely manner, is the least expen-sive and safest method for at least 50 years, and can be used on or offsite.
6/
By Memorandum and Order dated November 20, 1984, the Appeal Board dismisse.d CCLC's appeal of the Board's October 15, 1984 order.
Virginia-Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-790, 20 NRC 1450, 54 (1984).
. II.
CCLC CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION 1 The three aspects of CCLC Consolidated Contention 1 relating to sabotage, employee error and the alternative of constructing a dry cask storage faci-lity at Surry are each ad' ressed below.
d
- 11. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact i 4.
A.
Sabotage
- 12. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 15.
1.
Threat of Sabotage
- 13. The Licensee's witness testified that hijacking or sabotage of a spent fuel shipment has been virtually non existent.
Jefferson, ff. Tr. 326, at 9; see also Staff Ex. 2, at p. 4-3.
- 14. The Staff witnesses, William R. Lahs, Jr. and Carl B. Sawyer, testi-fied that the Staff regularly consults with law enforcement agencies and intelligence gathering agencies to obtain their views concerning the possible existence of adversary groups interested in sabotage of nuclear activities.
None of the information the Staff collected confirms the presence of an identi-fiable threat to domestic spent fuel shipments.
Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 8.
- 15. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 517-11.
2.
Probability of Success
- 16. ~The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact T 12.
- 17. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 13 as modified.
13.
As discussed below, see Proposed Findings 45 and 61, infra, the TN-8L cask is designed to maintain radiation shielding in the fact of severe accident conditions, Jefferson, ff. Tr. 326, at 6, which include conditions
. produced by certain accident-like events staged by sabo-tsurs. Lahs, et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 6 [at 7]. A combi-nation of steel shells and radiation shields [makes] enables the cask to withstand accident-like events caused by sabo-tage and attack by small arms or conventional explosives.
3%
a
[k &
d
, 't l -
3
- 7't ?,' % i h
't ll:
(l
- 4) ;
~
/
~;3 9
i
'A 1
P,
)
The Staff witnesses testified that studies have indicated 7x that it will require skillful use of exalosives by persons
'f
- ,with knowleopof bcth explosives and slipping cask design parameters tq potentially achieve a release of radioactive material. Lvirtually impenetrable, except through the use V
of explosives by one knowledgeable in both explosives and
~
5 case desis,n.] M. at 7.
if, The Licensea's )f tness testified that the regulations contained 9
18.
l 6
j g
in 10 C.F.R. Part 71'specify,that thq task must be designed to survive a s
f set of engineering 'critdria sp,ecified irathe regulations as " hypothetical,
-l t
(f accident conditio.ns." These design criteria encompass impact, puncture,
.I s
fire and intersion and, by inference, such'other phenomena as crushing a
s 3and tumbling. Jeffer n, ff. Tr. 326, at 6.
\\<
'a
- 19. The Licensee's witness also testified that while this cask has never 7*
been subjected to actual test conditions, calculations contained in the Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) indicate that the cask can survive, with-out loss of shielding, the pegt.lattry reqdrements contained in the 10 C.F.R. Part 71 hypothetical; accident conditions. While it might suffer some cosmetic damage in an accid'ent (such as the bending of fins) the cask is capable of sur-viving the; prescribed accident conditions with nc structural damage. M.at8.
- 20. The Staff t.dopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact TT 14-18.
1 t
.i.
- 21. The Staff ddopts Licendee's Propssd Finding of Fact 119 as j+
i -
'I modified.
- 19. The first of these would be extremely difficult, dangerous and time-consuming.
Id. at 11; Jefferson, ff.
/
TTr. 326, at 19. As previously iiidicated, the cask is desighed t3 sr vive severe accident-like events.
See Finding 13[7T, supra. Thus, the saboteurs might attempt
\\ }.?
to disassembla the cask mechanically.
Lahs et al., ff.
N!'
Tr. 346, at 10-il.
P4rformance of this task would be V
's
'. difficult for deveral reasons.
See Jefferson, ff.
I 7d. 326, at 19.
In tN first place, the 37 ton cask is a
ggi j
"dssMnedforverticalunicidingbutrestshorizontally Q'
i
'/ / / on the truck.
I t'. - The saboteur must either have access
./
to a 50-ton crane or its equivalent ir. order to erect
't
.e l'y
(
f
/
e w
)
{ a,'
s a
=
r.
. the cask or face the problems of removing the cover from the horizontal cask. H.
- 22. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact it 20-24.
- 23. The Staff-adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 25 as modified.
25.. The most effective means available to breach the casks is the use of explosives.
However, release of spent fuel would require skillful use of explosives.
Labs, et al., ff. 346, at 12. At the request of the Department of Energy (00E), Sandia National Laboratories examined possible attack methodologies and concluded that conical-shaped charges, while requiring some skill, would be the most effective means available, id. at 13, andcouldcauseapenetrationofthecask,if
- 24. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 26.
3.
Consequences of a Successful Sabotage 25.
Even assuming a successful sabotage, the consequences of such sabotage within the Commonwealth of Virginia upon the TN-8L would be minimal in terms of public health.
(Jefferson, ff Tr. 326 at 30; See also Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 17).
- 26. Assuming that sabotage is attempted and is successful, the consequences of such sabotage depends upon a number of factors, including the population density, the amount of radioactive material released, the amount of released material that is in respirable form, and the meteoro-logical conditions.
Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 13, 14).
- 27. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 51 27-29.
28.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 30 as modified.
- 30. The Sandia Study indicated that less than 34 grams
..of respirable material would be released; the Battelle program indicated a release of less than 18 grams. M.
at 15. NRC considers the Sandia Study release results to be higher than releases would be under uncontrolled circumstances. The Sandia Study established that in 3
, highly populated area such as New York City the release of this material would result in no early fatalities and an average of four latent cancer fatalities.
Id. at 15.
The Battelle program indicated that in a highly populated area such as New York City there would be no early fatali-ties and less than one latent cancer fatality.
Id.
Early fatalities are defined as those occurring Ethin one year after exposure to the radioactive material.
Licensee Ex. 3 at 93.
Early latent cancer fatalities occur at any time after the initial exposure and are the result of that exposure.
Id. These fatalities include early fatalities.
Jeffersoii, ff. Tr. 326, at 28. When the maximum value is acsigned to each factor in the calculation, the maximum effect would be three early fatalities and fourteen latent cancers. Jefferson, ff.
Tr. 326, at 28.
29.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed findit, uf Fact 1 31.
30.
The Board agrees with witnesses of the "
duff and the Licensee that the probability and consequences of acts of u stege against transpor-tation of spent fuel casks from the Surry Station to the North Anna Station are small and were adequately considered by the NRC staff.
Lahs et al.,
ff. Tr. 346, at 17; Jefferson, ff. Tr. 326, at 30; Staff Ex. 2 at pp. 4-3 through 4-4.
31.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 32.
B.
Human Error 1.
Table S-4
~
32.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 11 33-44.
2.
Cask Description
- 33. The Staff adopts Licensee's oposed Findings of Fact 11 45-51.
3.
Safety-Related Design Features
- 34. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 11 52-61.
"4.~.. Cask Handling Procedures 35.
The Staff-adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 11 62-72.
[
. C.
The Dry Cask Storage Alternative 1.
Need for Additional Spent Fuel Storage Space 36.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact it 73-83.
~
2.
Dry Cask Storage 37.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 11 84, 85.
38.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 86 as modified.
86.
In October 1982, the Licensee submitted to NRC a license application under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 for a dry cask storage facility at the Surry Power Station.
Id.
at 7.
The facility would consist of concrete pads aiki security facilities, which would be built by the Licensee, and dry storage casks, which the Licensee would purchase from one or more cask vendors.
-Id.
The NRC Staff issued its Environmental Assessment for the proposed dry cask storage facility on April 12, 1985.
Id.; Lahs et al.,
ff. Tr. 346, at 23; see Staff Ex. 3. ~The conclusions embodied in that document are described below. With respect to the public health and safety aspects of the application, [the Licensee has answered most of the questions received from NRC, and NRC estimated during the hearing that its review of the application might be completed during the late spring of 1985.
Tr. 350.] a Staff witness, John P. Roberts testified that by lett'er of March 15, 1984 the Licensee informed the NRC of its selection of the GNS Castor V type cask as the first to be considered for evaluation.
Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 22.
The Licensee's witness testified that the application in-coroorates by reference the topical report for the Castor V cas < and that the Licensee has answered all review ques-tions exce)t for those set forth in a March 7, 1985 request f rom the N RC.
Smith (I) ff. Tr. 247, at 7.
The Staff witness further testified that the Licensee must still resubmit the dry cask safety analysis report incor3 orating the Castor V topical report.
Roberts, Tr. 351.
T1e Staff also testified that until the Staff completes its review and Commission approval is obtained it cannot be con-sidered a viable alternative.
Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346 at 21, Roberts, Tr. 348; see also Smith ff. Tr. 220 at 18.
The Staff testified that completion of its safety review could take " roughly" a month.
Tr. 350-51. On April 10, 1985, the Licensee requested permission from NRC to bsgin construction of the dry cask facility at Surry.
Smith (I), ff. Tr. 247, at 7.
The Licensee estimates that approximately 10 months will be required to build the dry cask facility.
Id. The testimony revealed that
. if the Licensee were to receive an early construction authorization from NRC, construction could begin as early as June 1985.
Id. at 8.
In that event, the dry cask facility could bli ready for operation as soon as April 1986.
Id.
If, on the other hand, the early con-struction autliorization were denied and issuance of the license occurred, for example, in September, the facility would not be ready until August 1986.
_I d.
- 39. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact it 87, 88.
- 40. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact t 89 as modified.
~
- 89. At the time of the hearing DOE was scheduled to begin receiving Surry spent fuel for storage in the already-delivered cask in July 1985.
Id. at 10. These shipments were expected to take about two months.
Id.
If this program was completed on schedule, the numbiiiF of assemblies that would have to have been removed from the Surry spent fuel pool prior to the July 5, 1986, outage at Surry Unit I would have been reduced by 21 assemblies, leaving 34 assemblies to be removed in order to [ reserve]
preserve full core [ preserve] reserve after that outage.
Id.
Shipment of spent fuel for the next cask, consisting
'oT 24 assemblies, was scheduled to begin in October 1985 and to require about two months.
Id.
Successful com-pletion of this portion of the program would leave the Licensee ten spaces short of full core reserve after the 1986 Surry Unit I refueling period.
Id.
If another cask were delivered, as planned, in FliFruary 1986, ship-ment of 24 additional assemblies could begin in March or l
April of that year.
Id. Thus, if all three of these I
shipping campaigns we7E carried out more or less on schedule, full core reserve would be assured, without any shipments to North Anna, for the period immediately l
following the Surry Unit 1 outage and until the Octo-ber 17, 1986, outage at Surry Unit 2.
Id. at 11; see Tr. 258.
Even so, an additional 46 assiEblies wouT F have to be removed from the Surry pool before the l
October 17, 1986, Surry Unit 2 outage.
SeeSmith(I),
ff. Tr. 247, at App. 2.
Of course, if the Surry dry cask facility were licensed by NRC and completed in early-to-mid 1986, it could be used to avoid the loss of full core reserve during the October 17,1986, Surry Unit 2 outage and thereafter.
See Proposed Finding 86, supra.
41.
The. Staff edopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 90.
E
. 42. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 191 as
- modifiec, 91.
In addition, 6 111(a)(5) of NWPA, 42 U.S.C.
610151(a)(1) (1982), explicitly makes utilities pri-marily responsible for interim storage of their spent nuclear fuel until a Federal repository is available.
The Act provides for limited Federal interim storage for utilities, but only if they are unable to provide their own storage through the use of transshipment, dry cask storage or new fuel pools.
42 U.S.C. 6 10155(b)(1)(A),
(B) 1982).
Indeed, utilities are required by 10 C.F.R. Part 53, if they are to quaiify to use Federal interim storage, to demonstrate to NRC that they have " diligently" pursued these options.
Id. at 18, 19.
In the event that both dry cask storaW and transshipment were un-available, the Licensee might have to apply for Federal interim storage.
Id. at 19.
The Licensee could qualify for Federal interim storage only if it could show that it had diligently pursued the authorization for receipt and storage of Surry fuel at North Anna that it seeks in this proceeding. Thus, given its shortage of spent fuel storage space at Surry, Licensee has little choice but to seek the authorization that is the subject of this proceeding.
43.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 11 92-93.
3.
Comparative Costs
- 44. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact 51 94-99.
4.
Comparative Environmental Effects
- 45. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 100.
46.
The Staff's environmental assessment for the transshipment of Surry spent fuel to North Anna states that alternatives to the proposed action are
. discussed in the Commission's Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel issued in August 1979(FGEIS).
Staff Ex. 1 at 2.
47.
The FGEIS was the response of the NRC Staff to a Commission direc-tion to prepare a generic environmental impact statement which analyzes alter-natives for the handling and storage of spent light water reactor fuel. (Id.).
. 48. The storage of spent fuel is considered to be interim storage until such time as the issue of permanent disposal is resolved and implemented.
(Id.).
- 49. The finding of the FGEIS is that the environmental impact costs of interim storage are essentially negligible, regardless of the alternative storage method.
(Id..at3).
50.
The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1102 as modified.
102. [Nevertheless, t] The record before us in this proceeding adequately aiialyzes the environmental impli-cations of the dry cask alternative. As we pointed out in Proposed Finding 86, above, the Staff published on April 12, 1985 an Environmental Assessment of the Licen-see's proposal to construct a dry storage cask facility at its Surry Power Station (the Surry EA).
See Staff-Ex. 3.
The Surry EA examines a wide-range of alternatives.
See id. at 8-14.
It includes a description of the pro-See id. at 29] 28-36.
posed Surry dry cask facility.It analyzes the impacts of constructTon on l
terrestrial resources, on water use and resources, on air quality and on noise levels.
See id. at 39-40. The Surry EA also examines the expected opeIational effects of the facility including those due to direct radiation, to radioactivity releases in gaseous effluents and to radioactivity releases in liquid effluents.
See id. at 41-51.
It analyzes off-site dose commitments to Tiidivi-duals and to the nearby population, as well as collective occupational dose commitments.
See id. at 42-44. The Surry EA reviews the potential enviroiimental effects of accidents and the potential for sabotage attacks on the facility.
See id. at 45, 56-58. The analysis concludes that no sigiiiTiciint construction impacts are anticipated, that the radiological impacts from liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation will fall within the scope of the impacts evaluated for reactor operations that were assessed in the Surry Units 1 and 2 Final Environmental Impact Statements, that the radiological impacts due to potential accidents are only a small fraction of acceptable limits, and that no significant non-radiological impacts are expected during operation.
See id. at 60-61.
The document's ultimate conclusion is thatThe dry cask facility at Surry will not signifi-
.cantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Sde.id. at-61-62.
There is no evidence whatever in the recoTd to call into question any of the Staff's conclu-sions, end we adopt those conclusions as our own.
s
. 51. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 103.
5.
Use of Resources
- 52. The Staff adopts Licensee's Proposed Finding of Fact 1104 as modified.
104. The proposed action will not involve any noteworthy conflict in the use of resources such as lead, steel, copper, resin, cement, labor vehicles and casks.
Lahs et al., ff. Tr. 346, at 24-27; Tr. 349. Presumably, CCLC will contend that there is an unresolved conflict l
over the " resource" represented by the remaining storage
~
space at North Anna.
See Tr. 259.
Even if the space is viewed as a " resource" within the meaning of i 102(2)(E) of NEPA, however, we find no " unresolved conflict" over the use of the space. On the contrary, as Mr. Smith testi-fied for the Licensee, any North Anna space preempted by Surry fuel can be replaced when needed either by consoli-dating fuel in the North Anna pool or by installing dry
~
casks at North Anna.
Smith (I), ff. Tr. 247, at 14. More-over, the Surry fuel could be removed from its original resting place in the North Anna pool and either consoli-dated or put in dry casks at North Anna in the future if that should be deemed necessary.
CCLC has introduced no testimony that suggests an unresolved conflict over the use of the North Anna space, and we conclude that none exists.
III.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In reaching this decision, the Board has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in the entire record in this proceeding with regard to the transshipment of Surry spent fuel from Surry to North Anna and the storage of this fuel at North Anna. Based upon a review of that record and foregoing findings of fact, which are supported by a reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, the Board, with respect to the issues and con-troversy before us concludes that:
(1).the probability and consequences of accidents occurring during' transportation of spent fuel casks from Surry Station to North Anna Station which might be occasioned by acts of sabotage or employee error have been adequately analyzed and found to be negligible and in light of such probability and
O
, consequences the requested license amendment will not signi-ficantly affect the quality of the human environment.
(2) the issuance of the licensing amendment would not "sig-nificantly affect the quality of the human environment" and, will not, therefore require the preparation of an environmen-tal impact statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
(3) the potential of accidents during transshipment of spent fuel caused by human error is reflected in the values of Table S-4,10 C.F.R. 5 51.52, and need not be reexamined in this proceeding.
(4) there is no need to study, develop, and describe alterna-tives to the transshipment proposal and storage action pursu-ant to NEFA Section 102(2)(E), 42 USC 4332(2)(E), since the proposed action does not involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.
(5) in light of Conclusions 2 and 4, the Staff was not required to include in its Environmental Assessment a discussion of alternatives to the Licensee's proposed action.
(6) the dry cask alternative has received adequate considera-tion in this proceeding.
(7) the appropriate course of action from an environmental standpoint is the issuance of the requested amendment.
IV. ORDER It is Ordered, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, and regulations of the l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized to issue to the Licensee, Virginia Electric and Power Company and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, an amendment to their North Anna Units 1 and 2 operating Licensees (NPF-4 and NPF-7) to permit the receipt and storage of 500 spent fuel assemblies from the Surry Power Station, Units 1 aEd'2.(Docket Nos. 50-338/339OLA-1).
P,
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.764, this authorization will become effective immediately upon issuance. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice this decision will constitute the final decision of the Commission forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.762 or the Com-mission directs otherwise.
(Seealso 10 C.F.R. 96 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786).
Any party may take an appeal from this decision by filing a notice o,f appeal within ten (10) days after service of this decision.
Each appellant must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty (30) days after the period has expired for filing andserviceofthebriefsofallappellants,(forty (40)daysinthecase of the Staff), a party who is not an appellant may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal of any other party. A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief regardless of the number of appellant's briefs filed.
(See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762(c)).
Respectfully submitted,
(/
Henry
. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of July, 1985.
f ae e
..