ML20150D165
| ML20150D165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812050054 | |
| Download: ML20150D165 (7) | |
Text
_
O F
FRC PUBLIC DOCIDENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11/9/78 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD n
r,r[
6 In the Matter of yd, g > d 3 !
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50 -
C 50-30 F#
99s ". ' p (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2)
%,, s..o, f NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN OF THE PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF STATE OF ILLIN0IS During October, 1978 attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company (Applicant),
State of Illinois' Office of the Attorney General (Intervenor), and NRC Staff met to negotiate contentions in the captioned matter. As a result of these meetings, Intervenor submitted 16 proposed contentions, on November 1, 1978.
By agreement of all parties, written briefs urging admission or rejec-
~
tion of these contentions were to be filed simultaneously on or before 1/
~
November 9, 1978.
For the reasons set forth below, NRC Staff opposes the admission of Contentions 2, 6A, 60, and 16. For the balance of the 16 proposed contentions, the NRC Staff believes that they satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 as to being valid contentions.
Contention 2 Illinois' proposed Contention 2 reads as follows:
Approval of the amendment request would be contrary to the NRC policy position on spent fuel storage which prohibits non-emergency licensing of any existing storage facility prior to the adoption of an official long range yolicy regarding the n.
1/
The contentions so' identified for possible briefing were Nos. 2, 6A, 60, 9, 15 and 16.
NRC Staff understands at this time that proposed Corttention '3 has been withdrawn.
p 7812050n W
i i
- [
permanent storage of spent fuel.
See " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," 40 F.R. 42801, September 14, 1975.
'A.
There is no emergency need to rerack as the existing storage pool contains more spaces than is necessary to accommodate full core discharge.
B.
The existing pool is able to accommodate normal refueling discharges until 1981, therefore failure to grant the application at this time poses no threat of imminent shut down of the facility.
NRC Staff submits that the NRC policy position set forth in the above document in no way prohibits "non-emergency licensing" of storage facilities.
In fact, the Commission concluded therein that there should be no general deferral pending the generic statement's completion, and provided for case-by-case licensing determinations during the interim period.
(See the second page of this document, which is attached hereto as Appendix A.)
i The asserted contention raises not an evidentiary issue but a legal issue; namely, whether governing Commission regulations, policy statements and decisionsest'ablish a requirement limiting spent fuel storage pool expansion to instances of emergency only.
Intervenor should be provided the opportunity to present legal argument on this issue, to which the Staff will of course respond, before the assertions of fact concerning whether or not there 1: an emergency need to rerack may be admitted as factual issues in controversy, Contention 6A Illinois' proposed Contention 6A reads as follows:
There has been insufficient development of all credible accident scenarios, i
A.
The nuclear design criteria calculations for abnormal conditions are based solely on single operator error.
\\
. 1 NRC Staff submits that the above contention lacks the specificity required for admission here, as the contention's present wording makes response l
virtually impossible.
In any event, there has been no showing of relevance to the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool (as opposed to nuclear reactor operation in general), which is the limited issue cognizable in this proceeding.
Contention 6D Illinois' proposed Contention 60 reads as follows:
There has been insufficient development of all credible accident scenarios.
D.
There is no discussion of credible accidents not directly caused by the proposed pool modification which could occur during the installation of the new spent fuel i
storage racks. There is no discussion of the corrective measures necessary to be taken should such accidents occur.
Examples of credible accidents include:
1.
pool overflow 2.
pipe breaks causing leaking or spraying of irradiated water 3.
accidents involving failure of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Systems.
NRC Staff submits that this contention is totally irrelevant to the proposed SFP modification at issue here.
Indeed, Illinois states that such accidents are "not directly caused by the proposed pool modification." Unless there is some showing that such events are in any way affected by the expansion which is the subject of the license amendment, they should not be admitted.
l
_4 Contention 16 Illinois' proposed Contention 16 reads as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not include anti-sabotage and security plans; therefore there is no assurance that adequate protections has been developed.
NRC Staff believes that this contention is too vague to be admitted.
It is unclear whether:
(1) it asserts that there is no security plan, in fact, which covers the areas wnc-e the fuel is to be stored; (2) it asserts that the expansion requires some security protection over and above the present plan to satisfy the Commission's regulations; or (3) it asserts that the increased spent fuel requires additional security features not included in the present plan, thus presenting a challenge to the Comission's regulations.
i For this reason it should not be admitted, unless clarified in a manner which does not pose a challenge to Comission regulations.
Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, NRC Staff opposes the admission of Illinois' proposed Contentions 2, 6A, 6D, and 16.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Q Richard J. God ard Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this.9th day of November, 1978.
-y--
APPENDIX A
.Qd, mainmr marginal heensed.stcrace ca.
Persora plar.nh:g to conduct commer-pacity which tr,ay be able to accommo-cid reprocening ef spent rc:W.or fucis date the fuel d!Acharces from some prcvided ruLc!cnt storage capaci*y for reactnrs; any increases planned at these the tpent furls et their fr.c!!!ttes to allcw plants may not be suCcient for intstry some operational ficxibility. Typictdly, in the future. Consequently, there is the i
space has been provided or planned for possibility of a future shortags in 11-several Fpent fuel core reloads Three censed spent fuel capacity regardless of commercial reprocessing plants ha e the outcome of the proceedings on the been planned for cperation in the United May 8th notice.
States. The ordy such p; ant that has The Commission has not promulgated actually operated. Nu. lea-Fuel Services any regulation which specines a given (NFS) plant at %'est Vahey, New York, size for on-site reactor spent fuel pools; was shut down in 1972 for extensive however, proposals by reactor licensees alterations and.expan:lon, There is a to signincantly change the manner of pending proceeding before the Nuclear spent fuil stcrage or spent fuel pool stre Regulatory Cornmission (Commission) would be subject to licensing review by on NFS's application for a permit to the Commission. In the event that &
C0nstruct thcce alterations and expan-particular on site spent fuel pool should sion (docket no. 50-201), The second become filled, and no alternative form plant, General T,ectric Comnany's Mid-west Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, Il-of spent fuel storage could be found,
!!nois, has never operated and is in a. the reactor would be eventually forced -
decommissioned condition. The third to shut down and " store" the last spent plant, Allied General Nuclear Services *. reactor fueJ in the reactor pressure ves-(AGNS) proposed plant in Barnwell, scl. Wh!!e no serious adverse conse.
Sour.h Carolina, is under construction quences to the public health and safety, anriis the subject of pending proceedings the co:nmon defense ano security, or before the Commission regarding the the environment would likely result, the continuntion, mocification or suspension. reactor shutdown would, of course, re-of the construction permit from an en-move the plant from service, and this in fironmental protection standpoint, and turn could adsersely.aSect the eIectric the possible issuance of an operating 11 utility's ability to meet electrical energy cense (docket no. 60-02), as well as a needs, or force the utility to operate other related matter (docket no. 70-1709). '
plants that areless economical to operr.te or which have rrester environmental !=.
On May 8,1975, the Nuclear Regula-pact, and thereby adversely afect the tory Commission published a notice in the FEDERAt. Rtctstra setting forth its pub!1c interest.
There appear to be a* number of pos-provisional views that, subject to con-sible altamat!ves for increasing spent sideration of comments, (1) a cost-benefit analysis of alternative safeguards fuel storage capacity including, among 40 FR 42801 other thincs, increasing the storage ca-programs should be prepared and set Pubbhed 9/16/75 forth in draf t and final environmental pacity at present reactor sites, n.nd con-struction of independent spent fuel impact statements before a Commission SPENT FUEL., STORAGE decision la reached on wide-scale use of storage facilities. The shortage of spent intent To Prepare Generic Environmental mixed oxide (recycle pluton! urn) fuels fuel storage capacity will occur at indl.
vidual reactors, and the Commission Impact Statement on Handling and in light water nuclear power reactors, Storage of Spent Light Water Power Re-(2) there should be no additionallicenses could adequately address the 'ssues in-volved on a case-by-case basis wnhin actor Fuel granted for use of mixed oxide fuel in From the early days of the nuclear light water nuclear power reactors ex-the context of individual !! censing. re.
power industry in this country, electric cept for experimental purposes, (3) with views. Indeed, t.he Com:nissicn has n0t, utilities planning to construct and oper-respect to light water nuclear power to date, found it necessary, in the dis-Ate light water nuclear power reactors reactor fuel cycle activities which depend charge of its licensing and related regu-conternplated that the used or spent fuel for their justification on vide-scale use latcry functions, to develop any overall discharged fom the reactors would be of mixed oxide fuel in light water nu-prograrn of action to deal with the prob-lem.The Commission does, however,have chemically reprocessed to recover the clear power reactors, there should be no remaining quantitles of nssile and fer-additional licenses granted which would the discretion to deal with issues of this tile miterials (uranium and plutonium), foreclose future safeguards options or type on a generic basis through the ex-and that the materials so recovered result in unnecessary "grandfathering=
etc.ise of !ts rulemakirs authority and/
would be recycled back into ffesh reactor and (4) the granting of licenses would or the issuance of a " generic" environ-fuel. It was contemplated by the nuclear not be precluded for fuel cycle activities mental impact statement. Rulemak.=g Industry that spent fuel would be dis-for experimental and/or technical feasi-proceedings and/or the issuance of a charged periodically from operating re.
bility' purposes, generic environmentalimpact statement might, as appropriate, serve as the con-actors, stored ta onsite fuel storage pools In light of the status of th'e three text for the promuls&Uon of more de.
for a period of time to permit decay of planned commercial reprocessing plants finitive criterja regarding size and de--
radioactive materials contained within tn the United States, as outlined above, sign of spent fuel poc!s and/or the 11 the fuel and to cool, and periodically the earliest that spent fuel reprocessing Censing of independent spent fuel storage t
ahlpped odsite for reprocessing. Typical-could begin on a commercial basis,if au-f ac1Mes, and for cusWeadon of pos.
ly, space-cas provided in onsite storage thorized, would be late 1976. This as-8Me revisie of the fuel cycle enF_ en-pools for 'about one and one-third nu-surnes that the pending licensing mental impacts set forth in 10 CFR clear reactor cores. Assuming a f our year proceedings are completed and !! censes 9 51.20(e) in bght of additional spent fuel reactor fuel reload cycle, such onsite issued by this date However, the spent storage and attendant transportMica, storage pools were planned to hold an fuel pools at a n'unber of reactors may Also the possible implications of in-average of one year's discharge with suf-soon be filled, and still other reactors creased spent fuel storage on the options ficient remaining capacity to hold a com-will have their pools filled before the end available for intermediate and long term plete core should unloading of all of the of 1978. Accordingly, even if !!mited re-storage of nuclear waste materials could fuel ! rom the reactor be necessary of processing should begin in late 1976, there prontably be examined within tlu,s i
cestrable because of ope. rational dit:!cul-would stul be a ahortage in spent fuel C0"t* 81-ties. Under normal operaung conditions. storage capacity, e group of WM organWns
. an average of five years' discharge could The existing pools at the GE and
" "#"I be accommodated before the pools were NFS reprocessmg plants have some re-
g Sierra Club snd I'usin~
'*1 for the "l % Cc,mm!:9cn la alto i..cn < :.ref ul ecpacity during this interim pimd Public Intere"tl has Ic:x.C t!.e Cr.-
contdcrawn to the mmmon whether woWd tre recompanied by 09 env;ren-miss!6n to prepare e centrg u:"trenme.1-licensing actiont intaded te ameliorate mentalimpact statement (10 CTR 151.5.
hl impact statement en the handUng and a p.astble shortacc of went iuti etorage (at ) or I:npact appratral (20 CFR i 51.5 -
storage of spent reactor fuc', :.n; relateu caj acity, hicluding such acti:ns as the (c)) tailored to the f acts of the. case.
' matters Getter lo L. V. O r:Jck fr m trusnee of operatmc IIcense amend-Since the Ccmmlulon's general concht-
' Anthony Z. Roisman. dated %y 20.1975, ments to permit ancicases in the storage sforu w!th respect to the Sve factors, as
' copy on nie at the Comm!::lon's Pubtle capacity of reactor rpent fuel poc!s or ret forth above, may not at the fact' al Document Room,1717 H Street, NW.,
repi ocessing p; ant rp(nt luel storage c!reumstances of particularlicensing ec.
Washington, D C.)
pools, or the Ucecsing of tudependent tions, the Ave f actors 301 be applied, spent fuel storage facilities, should be weighed and balanced within the con-While the Commissien bc :cves, as ear,
'liet~1ndicated, that the matter of spent deferred pending compis tion of the ge-text of these statements or appraisais in neric environmenta imoact statement, reaching licensing dete*minations.
fuel storage capacity can adequately be Such a deferral was requested in the addressed on a case by-case basis within letter on behalf of Natural Resourom the context of individoal licensing re.
yters, it also be!! eves 'that, from the Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Busi-nessmen for the Pub.ic Interest noted standpoint of longer range policy, this matter can proStably be examined in a above. In considering this rnatter, the Commission had two basic otQectives in broader context. It views the preparation of a generic environmental hnpact state.
mind on the one hand, the generic im-lment as a suitable vehicic for such an pact statement should not serve as a jus-tiacation for a falt accompil; on the exarninallon. Notice is hereby given that A generic envirmnmental impact r, tate, other hand, the pub!!c interest consid-
.suent on the hand!!ng and stcrage of erations associated with such a deferral spent light water sower reactor fuels will should be carefully weighed. The Com.
mission has concluded that there should be prepared by the Comm!ssion. The statement will focus on the time period be no such general deferral, and that between now and the mid 1380's and win these related lleensing actions may con.
address:
tinue during the period required for (1) The magnitude of the possible preparation of the generic statement.
shortage of spent fuel stortye capacity; subject to certain conditions in reach-(2) The alternatives for deal.ng with ing this conclusion, the Commission has
~
considered the following specine f actors:
the problem, including, but not neces, (1) It Js Jfkcly that each individual 11 sarily Umited to:
(a) Permitting the expanslon of spent censing action of this type would have a utulty that is independent of the utility fuel storage capacity at power reactors; (b) Permitting the expansion of spent 0f other licensing actions of this type;
- (2) It is not likely that the taking of fuel storage capacity at reprocessing any particular Ucensing action of this plants; (c) Licensing of Independent spent type during the time frame under con-sideration would conttitute a commit. -
fuel storage facilltf es:
ment of resources that would tend to
- (d) storort of spent fuel from one or more reactors at the storage pools of signifcantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other in.
other reactors; (e) Ordering that generation of spent dividuallicensing actica of this,typel fuel (reactor operation) be stopped or (3) It 311kely that any environmental festricted; impacts associated with any individual Cl) A cost'-beneSt analysis of the al.
licensing action of this type would be
,ternatives listed An (2), a]ong with any such that they could adequately be ad-otner. reasonably feasmle alternatives, dressed within the conte.xt of the indi-including:
vidual license application without over-(a) Impacts on pubtle health and looking any. cumulative environmental safety and the common defense and impacts; security; (4) It is Mkely that any technicel th) Environmental, social, and eco-
!ssues thnt may arise in the course of a Domic costs and benents; review of an individual license applica.
(c) Commitments of resources; tion can be resolved within that con.
(d) Implications regarding options text: and available for the intermediate and long-(5) A deferral or severe restriction on term storige of nuclear waste materials; licensing actions of thts type would re-(e) Relationship between local short. sult in substantial harm to the public term uses of the environment and long.
interest, As indicated, such a restriction terut productivity; or delertal could result in r actor shut-(4) The impacts of possible additaonal downs as exssting spent fuel pools become transportation of spent fuel that may UU'd It Dow appeats that the spent be required should one or more of the fuel pools of as many as ten reactors alternatives be adopted; could be fUled by mid 1078. These ten reactors represent a total of about 6 mH-
'45) More de3nithe standards and cri-C Wwatts,of, electrical energy gen.
teria to goeert the licenatng of one or erating capacity. The temoval of these more of the alternatives for denung with,
from serdee could reduce the
$he. problem; and reactors, seme marsms to a pomt where es (6) Possible amendments to' 10 CFTt re le service would be in jeopardy, or I D 0(e)*
force the utilities to rely more heavily on If approphate,rulemaking proceedings less economleal or more polluting forms on Items (5) and (6) listed abose, or on of generat;en that would impose eco-other 1ssues related to the handling and nemic pennities on consumers and in.
storage of spent reactor iuel, wiu be ini-crease environmentalimpacts.
tlated on or about that time of issuance The Commission expects that any 11-of the draft generic environmental im*
censing action intended to amehorate a pact statement.
possible shortage of spent fuel storage
(
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD In the Matter 'of' COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-295
)
50-304 (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
.~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I hereby cartify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE-ADMISSION OF CERTAIN OF THE PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF STATE OF.ILLIN0IS,"
l in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail cystem, this 9th day of November, 1978:
~'"
- Edward Luton, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. D. C. '20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 s
Dr. Linda.W. Little
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal j
Research Triangle Institute Board Panel P.O. Box 12194 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Research Triangle Park. N. Carolina 27709 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick
- Docketing and Service Section 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Washington, D. C.
20555 John W. Rowe, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale Orie First National P1aza Chicago, Illinois 60690 Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Russell. R. Eggert, Esq..
Assistant Attorney General l
Environmental Control Division
.188' West Randolph Street, Suite 2315 g /g,
'./A(,c)
~
~---
Chicago, Illinois 60601 RiIhardJ.Godd d Counsel for NR Staff 1