ML20196K877

Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Informs That Orange County Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation in Proceeding

ML20196K877
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/05/1999
From:	Curran D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20196K880	List: ML20196K877 ML20196K886 ML20196K904
References
CON-#299-20214 99-762-02-LA, 99-762-2-LA, LA, NUDOCS 9904080103
Download: ML20196K877 (42)

Text

-.

. ~ . , . .

N

- i 1)* 00CKETED U'iHRC A ril 5 1999

$ AIR -7 P3 :26 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ch

~'

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD R -

ADJt. -

In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ) Docket No. 50-400 -LA (Shearon Harris Nuclear ) ASLBP No. 99-762-02-LA l l

Power Plant) )

) l ORANGE COUNTY'S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO INTERVENE I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b)(1) and the Licensing Board's Initial Prehearing Order of February 24,1999, Orange County hereby supplements its request for hearing and petition to intervene by filing its contentions in the above-captioned license amendment proceeding. Orange County's contentions challenge the adequacy of the application submitted by Carolina Power & Light Co. ("CP&L"), which seeks leave for expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant. The contentions also challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") Staffs failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in considering the application.

Orange County's contentions are based on the Ikense amendment application and related documents. The application, which was submitted to the NRC on December 23,1998, consists of a letter plus nine " Enclosures."' The contentions are also based on the NRC Staff's proposed No 1 Enclosure 7 is a nonproprietary version of Enclosure 6, which contains technical information supporting the license application. Although Orange County has obtained a copy of the proprietary information in Enclosure 6, none of the contentions in this pleading rely on 9904000103 990405 \

PDR ADOCK 05000400 i,?.... PDR

.. - - . . 3

o 5

2 Significant Hazards detemiination, which was published in the Federal Register on January 13, l 1999,64 Fed. Reg. 2,237 (" Federal Register Notice"). Other documents relied on by Orange L

. County are referenced in each specific contention.

The contentions are supported by the Declaration of Dr. Gordon Thompson (April 5, 1999) (" Thompson Declaration), which is attached as Exhibit 1.- In addition, the contentions are i

supported by two other documents previously prepared by Dr. Thompson: a February 12,1999, l Declaration of Dr. Gordon Thompson, which was submitted in support of Orange County's comments on the NRC's proposed No Significant Hazards determination (" Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration," attached as Exhibit 2 to this pleading); and a report entitled

" Risks and Alternative Options Associated with Spent Fuel Storage at the Shearon Harris Nnlear Power Plant"(" Thompson Report," attached as Exhibit 3). Finally, Contention 3 (Inadequate Quality Assurance) is also suppoded by the Declaration of David A. Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists, Conceming Technical Issues and Safety Matters Involved in the Harris Nuclear Plant License Amendment for Spent Fuel Storage (March 31,1999) ("Lochbaum Declaration," attached as Exhibit 4. Mr. Lochbaum's Declaration also supports those portions of Contentions 4 and 5 which relate to risks posed by quality assurance problems at Harris.

f l

proprietary information.

3 II. STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS The standard for admissibility of contentions is set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b)(i)-(iii).

As summarized by the Licensing Board in Private FuelStorage, LL.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,178 (1998):

For a proffered legal or factual contention to be admissible, it must be pled with specificity. In addition, the contention's sponsor must provide (1) a brief explanation of the bases for the contention; (2) a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that will be relied on to prove the contention, together with the source references that will be relied on to establish those facts or opinion; and (3) sufficient information to show there is a genuine dispute with the applicant on a material issue oflaw or fact, which must include (2) references to the specific portions of the application (including the accompanying environmental and safety reports) that are disputed and the supporting reasons for the dispute, or (b) the identification of any purported failure of the application to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law and reasons supporting the deficiency allegation.

In evaluating whether this standard is satisfied, the Licensing Board may not reach the merits of a contention, as partier should not be required to prove their contentions before they are admitted to the proceeding. Sierra Club v. NRC,862 F.2d 222,228 (9* Cir.1988). ,

III. CONTENTIONS i I

As directed by the Licensing Board in its Initial Prehearing Order, Orange County has divided its contentions into three groups: Technical, Environmental, and Miscellaneous (although there are no miscellaneous contentions at present.) These contentions are supported i

by the Thompson Declaration (Exhibit 1), the Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration i

(Exhibit 2), and the Thompson Report (Exhibit 3). Dr. Thompson, a physicist with extensive l experience in nuclear safety matters, is the Executive Director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies. Contention 3 (Inadequate Quality Assurance), and those aspects of NEPA Contentions 4 and 5 which are related to quality assurance, are also supported by the Lochbaum l

'l

4 Declaration (Exhibit 4). Mr. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is also highly experienced in nuclear safety matters. In confonnance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b)(2)(ii), the assertions in each contention regarding noncompliance with NRC safety requirements and/or NEPA constitute a summary of the facts and professional opinions to which Dr. Thompson and/or Mr. Lochbaum would testify in a hearing, and the documents identified in the contentions and/or expert declarations constitute the sources and documents on which they would rely.'

GROUP I: TECHNICAL CONTENTIONS Contention 1: Inadequate Emergency Core Cooling and Residual Heat Removal In order to cool spem fuel storage pools C and D, CP&L proposes to rely on the Unit 1 Component Cooling Water ("CCW") system, coupled with administrative measures to ensure that the heat load from the pools does not overtax the CCW system. CP&L's reliance on the Unit 1 CCW system and administrative measures for cooling spent fuel storage pools C and D will unduly compromise the effectiverss of the residual heat removal ("RHR") system and the Emergency Core Cooling System ("ECCS") for the Shearon Harris plant, such that the plant will not comply with Criteria 34 and 35 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

Basis: GDC 34 and 35 establish the NRC's basic requirements for residual heat removal 2 Orange County notes that with the exception of the Thompson and Lochbaum Declarations and the excerpts of an Energy Information Administration report referenced in Contention 6, which are attached; and the Krass report referenced in Contention 4 (not attached),

all of the documents on which it relies are published by the NRC, and therefore are available to the Board and parties. Therefore, it has not attached copies of the & cum.:nts. If the Board or parties wish to obtain a copy of the Krass report or have any difficulty obaining other documents, Orange County will provide copics.

E - - )

5 and emergency core cooling capability. GDC 34 requires that:

A system to remove residual heat shall be provided. The system safety function shall be to transfer fission product decay heat and other residual heat from the reactor core at 2 rate such that specified acceptable fuel design limits and the design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded.

Suitable redundancy in components and features, and suitable interconnections, leak detection, and isolation capabilities shall be provided to assure that for onsite electric power system operation (assuming offsite power is not available) and for offsite electric power system operation (assuming on-site power is not available) the s<.em safety function can be accomplished, assuming a single failure.

GDC 35 requires that:

A system to provide abundant emergency core . soling shall be provided. The system safety function shall be to transfer heat from the reactor core following any loss of reactor coolant at a rate such that (1) fuel and clad damage that could interfere with continued effective core cooling is prevented and (2) clad metal-water reaction is limited to ne'gligible amounts.

GDC 35 also has identical language to GDC 34, requiring that:

Suitable redundancy in components and features, and suitable interconnections, leak detection, and isolation capabilities shall be provided to assure that for onsite electric power system operation (assuming offsite power is not available) and for offsite electric

- power system operation (assuming on-site power is not available) the system safety function can be accomplished, assuming a single failure.

In order to cool pools C and D during the recirculation phase of a design-basis loss 4f-coolant accident ("LOCA") event at the Harris reactor, CP&L may be obhged to require its operators to divert some CCW system flow from the RHR heat exchangers.' This design modification raises issues regarding CP&L's compliance with GDC 34 and GDC 35 because, during the recirculation phase of a LOCA, operation of the RHR system is essential to keeping the reactor core and containment in a safe condition.

CP&L's exploitation of the margin in the CCW system is deemed by CP&L and NRC to 3 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 9.

T - - - ' - -

- -----------l

6 constitute an "unreviewed safety question".' CP&L's analysis has detennined that the proposed addition of pools C and D to the burden of the CCW system "may reduce the margin of safety" at Harris.5 The NRC Staff has also observed that the " dynamic modeling used [by CP&L] in the thennal-hydraulic analyses identified a decrease in the minimum required CCW system flow rate to the residual heat removal heat exchangers.'" CP&L asserts, however, that if certain administrative measures are taken, the CCW system has an adequate margin that can be exploited for the purpose of cooling pools C and D.7 According to CP&L's license amendment application, the bounding heat load from the fuel in pools C and D will be 15.6 million BTU / hour.' At present, the CCW system cannot absorb this additional heat load. Thus, CP&L noposes to include in the Technical Specifications for Harris an interim provision that the heat load m pools C 1ad D will not be allowed to exceed 1.0 million BTU / hour.' CP&L claims that' an additional heat load of 1.0 million BTU / hour can be accommodated by the CCW system, and that the fuel to be placed in pools C and D will not create a heat load exceeding 1.0 million BTU / hour through 2001.

CP&L claims to have justified the safety of the proposed design change in an "Unreviewed Safety Question Analysis," which is summarized in Enclosure 9 to the license amendment application. Enclosure 9 purports to demonstrate that an additional load of 1.0 million BTU / hour is within the marginal capacity of the CCW system. The description in 4 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 9; Federal Register Notice at 2237-2241.

5 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 9 at 2.

6 Federal Register Notice,64 Fed. Reg. at 2,237, 7 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 9.

8 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 7 at 5-16.

9 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 5.

10 As discussed below, CP&L intends to perform a CCW system upgrade and plant power uprate in the year 2002. However, this is not part of the license amendment application.

L ,

F , )

)

)

7 Enclosure 9, however, raises more questions than it answers about the adequacy of CP&L's proposed administrative measures to ensure effective residual heat removal and " abundant" emergency core cooling, as required by GDCs 34 and 35. There are at least six significant and I

relevant issues bearing on CP&L's compliance with GDCs 34 and 35 that remain unaddressed in Enclosure 9.

First, design information in the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") for the Harris plant suggests that accommodating a design-basis LOCA will already exploit the margin of the ]

l CCW system, without any additional load from pools C and D. The CCW system has two heat 1 exchangers, each with a design heat transfer rate of 50 million BTU / hour." During the recirculation phase of a design-basis LOCA, the estimated maximum heat load on the CCW system is 160 million BTU / hour.i2 This heat load substantially exceeds the heat transfer rate of 100 million BTU / hour which would be provided by the two CCW system heat exchangers operating together at their design level.

Second, Enclosure 9 does not address the time depender.ce of the CCW system heat load during a design-basis LOCA. During a LOCA, the heat load on the CCW system from the RHR L system will change over time. Analysis must demonstrate that the CCW system has sufficient margin to accommodate both the RHR system and fuel pool heat loads over time, during the

'LOCA event and subsequently.

Third, Enclosure 9 fails to address the sensitivity of CCW and RHR system perfonnance to factors that may degrade performance from nominal levels. Relevant factors include heat 11 Harris FSAR, Table 9.2.2-1, Amendment No. 27.

12According to the Harris FSAR, Table 9.2.1-3, Amendment No.15, the estimated maximum heat load to be extracted from the CCW system by the service water (SW) system, during a design-basis LOCA, is 160 million BTU / hour.

]

F .

I 8

exchanger fouling and plugging. When the available margin in a heat transfer system is limited, as is clearly the case for the CCW system, performance-degrading factors must be carefully

(

t considered and the related analytic assumptionsjustified. CP&L itself has previously recognized j that exploitation of the margin in the CCW system could involve changes in design assumptions l that include fouling factors and tube plugging limits, but CP&L fails to address this issue in i Enclosure 9."

Fourth, CP&L fails to address the potential for failure of administrative measures, such j

that the heat load in pools C and D will exceed 1.0 million BTU / hour. The heat load in these pools is not limited by physical processes, and could be exceeded as a result of human errors.

The potential for such errors must be carefully considered because the available margit in the CCW system is limited.

Fifth, Enclosure 9 does not address the po:ential for increased operator error associated with the need for the CCW system to meet the cooling loads of pools C and D while also serving other essential safety functions. The operators' burden of observation, decision-making and action would be increased by the use of the CCW system to cool pools C ind D, thereby increasing the potential for operator error. The potential for operator error would already be relatively high during a LOCA event, which would be a stressful event for operators. It would be further increased if, during this event, the operators were required to divert some CCW system 1

)

flow from the RHR heat exchangers in order to meet the cooling needs of pools C and D, as is proposed by CP&L.

l 13 See viewgraphs attached to Memorandum from NRC Staff re: Summary of Meeting with the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) (March 11,1998) ("CP&L Viewgraphs"). The NRC I Memorandum is provided as Attachment C to the Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to these contentions. l l

v 9

Finally, CP&L does not address the ability of the onsite and offsite electrical power systems to support residual heat removal, emergency core cooling and other essential safety functions during an accident while also meeting the additional burden of cooling spent fuel pools C and D. CP&L proposes to use the existing electrical systems of Harris Unit 1 to supply electricity to the cooling systems ofpools C and D, but has provided no analysis to indicate that the available margin in the Unit 1 electrical systems, with or without offsite power, is adequate to meet the needs of pools C and D while also supporting residual heat removal, emergency core cooling and other essential safety functions.

The CP&L Viewgraphs, presented at a March 3,1998, meeting with the NRC, show that CP&L has considered and rejected or postponed measures that could bring CP&L into compliance with GDC 34 and 35. The Viewgraphs show that during CP&Ils planning for the l activation of pools C and D, the company considered the construction of an independent system l

l to cool these pools. Within~ that option, CP&L considered the further possibility ofproviding dedicated emergency diesel generators to meet the electrical needs of pools C and D if normal electricity supply were unavailable. Construction of an independent cooling system for pools C and D, supported by dedicated emergency diesel generators, could provide the level of safety that was associated with the original design concept for Harris. However, CP&L has not proceeded with this option.

The CP&L Viewgraphs also show that CP&L contemplates a future upgrade of the CCW system, so that this system can accommodate an additional heat load of 15.6 million BTU / hour from pools C and D. This contemplated upgrade is not described in the present license amendment application. Apparently, CP&L intends to perform the upgrade of the CCW system concurrent with a power uprate for the Unit I reactor, A 4.5 percent power uprate of the reactor l

l i

i~ .. .- .

W 10 will be associated with steam generator replacement, and will take effect in about 2002. About two years later, there will be a further power uprate of 1.5 percent. CP&L projects that the CCW system heat load, including the reactor power uprate and the ongoing use of pools C and D, will substantially exceed the capability of the present CCW system. CP&L has made no commitment to undertake a CCW system upgrade, however; and even if this upgrade is implemented, it will not have been accomplished by the time the proposed installation of fuel racks in pools C and D takes place. In the absence of either an independent cooling system for pools C and D or a sufficient upgrade of CCW capability, the proposed license amendment application fails to satisfy GDC's 34 and 35.

Contention 2: Inadequate Criticality Prevention Storage of pressurized water reactor ("PWR") spent fuel in pools C and D at the Harris i

plant, in the manner proposed in CP&L's license amendment application, would violate Criterion l

62 of the General Design Criteria ("GDC") set forth in Part 50, Appendix A. GDC 62 requires l

that: " Criticality in the fuel storage and handling system shall be prevented by physical systems )

l or processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations." In violation of GDC 62, CP&L proposes to prevent criticality of PWR fuel in pools C and D by employing administrative measures which limit the combination of bumup and enrichment for PWR fuel assemblies that are placed in those pools. This proposed reliance on administrative measures rather than physical systems or processes is inconsistent with GDC 62.

Basis: Under the design currently used in Harris pools A and B, CP&L uses two physical measures to prevent criticality of PWR fuel: maintaining a certain physical distance between fuel assemblies; and surrounding each fuel assembly with a neutron-absorbing material.

11 The PWR fuel assemblies in pools A and B are 10.5 inches apart center-to-center, and the fuel racks contain neutron-absorbing material 0.075 inches in thickness with a boron (B-10) content of 0.02 gram per square cm."

CP&L proposes to amend the Harris Technical Specifications (" Tech Specs") to allow storage of PWR spent fuel in pools C and D in high-den ity non-flux trap style racks." The PWR racks proposed for pools C and D would allow closer placement of spent fuel assemblies than in pools A and B. Under the design proposed by CP&L, the center-center distance between PWR fuel assemblies in pools C and D would be 9.017 inches. The PWR racks proposed for l pools C and D would contain neutron-absorbing material 0.098 inches in thickness with a boron (B-10) content of 0.03 gram per square cm. Because of the reduced center-center distance in j pools C and D, there would be a higher potential for criticality than in pools A and B, despite the presence of neutron-absorbing material. i In order to protect against a criticality accident, CP&L proposes administrative measures that would limit the combination of burnup and enrichment of the PWR spent fuel in pools C and I

D to an " acceptable range." The range of acceptable burnup and enrichment values is shown in I

Figure 5.6.1 of Enclosure 5. According to CP&L: "The burnup criteria will be implemented by appropriate administrative pmcedures to ensure verified burnup as specified in the proposed Regulatory Guide 1.13, Revision 2, prior to fuel transfer into Spent Fuel Pools C or D."" CP&L further states that: " Strict administrative controls will prevent an unacceptable assembly, as determined by the acceptance criteria stated in Section 4.2, from being transferred to Harris Pools

'14 Harris FSAR, Table 9.1.1-1, Amendment No.14.

15 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 5 at 5-7.

16 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 7, Revision 3, at 4-6. Revision 3 of Enclosure 7 was servoi on Orange County by letter dated March 17,1999.

O 12

'C and D.""

The General Design Criteria in Appendix A to Part 50 constitute some of the most fundamental design requirements for maintaining safety in nuclear power plants. In order to protect against criticality accidents, GDC 62 is quite clear that any measures relied on must be -

physical rather than administrative. There is no room in the criterion for flexibility or exception.

Thus, the administrative measures proposed by CP&L must be rejected as unlawful under GDC 62.

CP&L claims to rely on Draft Regulatory Guide 1.13, Proposed Revision 2 to Reg.

Guide 1.13, Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis (December 1981), for the acceptability of administrative measures to prevent criticality. However, a Regulatory Guide, "still less" a draft regulatory guide, does not constitute a regulation. Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne Ei.fichment Center), LBP-91-41,34 NRC 332,354 (1991). Such documents"are useful as gui es, t but " insofar as the adjudicatory process is concerned, they represent the opinions of one of the parties to that process and as such cannot be viewed as necessarily controlling." Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-13,3 NRC 425,432 (1976). Therefore, a Reg. Guide cannot be relied on to modify or circumvent the requirements ofduly promulgated regulations like the General Design Criteria.

In any event, Draft Reg. Guide 1.13 does not support the administrative measures proposed by CP&L.: Although Appendix A contains some language implying that the design of spent fuel ; acks against criticality can take credit for bumup (pages 1.13-13,14,15), other parts of the Draft Reg. Guide clearly proscribe such activity. For instance, at page 1.13-9, the Draft 17 Lie se Amendment Application, Enclosure 7, Revision 3, at 4-4.

18 Id. at 4-17.

2

13 Reg. Guide states that:

At all locations in the LWR spent fuel storage facility where spent fuel is handled or stored, the nuclear criticality safety analysis should demonstrate that criticality could nol occur without at least two unlikely, independent, and concuning failures or operating limit violations.

(emphasis in original). CP&L's proposed administrative controls on criticality would not satisfy

' this requirement because only one failure or violation, namely placement in the racks of PWR fuel not within the " acceptable range" of burnup, could cause criticality. Note that

" misplacement of a spent fuel assembly" is identified in the Draft Reg. Guide as one of nine

" credible normal and abnormal operating occurrences.""

A Regulatory Guide is a guidance document, which cannot be interpreted in a manner that contradicts the plain language of the regulations. Because the language at page 1.13-9 is consistent with GDC 62, it overrides any implication in Appendix A that administrative measures for controlling criticality are acceptable. Thus, CP&L's proposed administrative measures for controlling criticality would not be permitted by the Draft Reg. Guide.

Contention 3: Inadequate Quality Assunm '

' CP&L's proposal to provide cooling of pools C and D by relying upon the use of previously completed portions of the Unit 2 Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System ("FPCCS")

and the Unit 2 Component Cooling Water System (CCWS) does not satisfy the quality assurance criteria of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B. In particular, CP&L fails to satisfy Criterion XIII, regarding Handling, Storage and Shipping, because it has not demonstrated that the piping and equipment have been stored and preserved since the time of completion in a manner that prevents 19Id. at 1.13-9.

20 In addition to the Thompson Declaration, this contention is also supported by the Lochbaum Declaration (Exhibit 4).

E .

1 1

l 14 damage or deterioration. CP&L also fails to satisfy Criterion XVI, regarding Corrective Action, because it has failed to show that it has instituted appropriate measures to correct any damage or deterioration that has occurred since the piping and equipment were installed. In addition, CP&L fails to satisfy Criterion XVII, regarding Quality Assurance Records, because it has not kept records needed to show that all applicable quality assurance requirements are satisfied.

Moreover, the " Alternative Plan" submitted by CP&L with its license amendment application fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a for an exception to these requirements.

Finally, CP&L's proposal to postpone inspection of embedded portions of previously completed the piping until after issuance of the license amendment must be rejected as insufficient to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a. The inspection proposed by CP&L is necessary to its showing under S 50.55a that the altemative proposed by the licensee would provide "an acceptable level of quality and safety." This showing must be made before the license amendment is issued, not afterwards.

In making this contention, Orange County notes that the exact scope of piping and l

equipment for which CP&L lacks QA documentation remains unclear. CP&L implies, but does i i

not explicitly confirm, that the missing records pertain to piping but not to equipment such as l heat exchangers. CP&L's Alternative Plan addresses only piping, but CP&L has not confirmed that all of the missing records pertain to piping rather than equipment. Thus, this contention addresses the lack of adequate quality assurance for both piping and equipment.

Basis: Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 specifies three quality assurance criteria that are relevant to CP&L's proposed use of previously completed portions of Hm ris Unit 2 cooling l

l systems. Criterion XIII requires that:

Measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning and

r l

15 preservation ofmaterial and equipment in accordance with work and inspection instructions to prevent damage or deterioration. When necessary for particular products, special protective environments, such as inert gas atmosphere, specific moisture content i levels and temperature levels shall be specified and provided.

Criterion XVI requires that:

Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as

. failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant -

conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

Criterion XVII requires that:

l Suffic'ent records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.

The records shall include at least the following: Operating logs and the results of reviews, inspections, tests, audits, monitoring of work performance, and materials analyses. The records shall also include closely related data such as qualifications of personnel, procedures, and equipment._ Inspection and tests records shall, as a minimum, identify the inspector or data recorder, the type of observation, the results, the acceptability, and the action taken in connection with any deficiencies noted. Records l shall be identifiable and retrievable. Consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, the applicant shall establish requirements conceming record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility.

CP&L proposes to provide cooling and cleanup services to poolr C and D through use of a FPCCS which will employ previously completed piping and equipment ( , c.t originally intended to be part of the FPCCS associated with Harris Unit 2. The previously completed equipment will include heat exchr.ngers, pumps, filters and strainers.28 The previously completed I

L piping will include all of the embedded and most of the exposed portion of the ASME Section III i

piping associated with the Unit 2 FPCCS.22 CP&L proposes to extract heat from the heat exchangers of the FPCCS for pools C and D by use of the Unit 1 CCWS. Connection of the Unit 1 CCWS to the FPCCS for pools C and D 2[ License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 2. l 22 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 2.

=

16

' will involve use ofpreviously completed portions of the Unit 2 CCWS. The Unit 2 CCWS was never completed, but portions ofit are available to establish a connection between the Unit 1 CCWS and the FPCCS for pools C and D, and CP&L proposes to use these portions to establish such a connection.

Before CP&L's proposed use of previously completed piping and equipment can be deemed compatible with the quality assurance criteria of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B, three conditions must be satisfied. First, records must be available, as specified in Appendix B, 4 Criterion XVII, to show that the piping and equipment satisfied all applicable quality assurance requirements when it was completed. Second, the piping and equipment must have been stored and preserved since the time ofits completion in the manner specified in Criterion XIII, with accompanying records as specified in Criterion XVII, to ensure that it meets the standards of quality set by Appendix B. Third, measures for corrective action, as specified in Criterion XVI, must have been in effect between the time when the piping and equipment was completed and l the time when this piping and equipment is incorporated into new constmetion in a manner that l

l satisfies Appendix B.

i CP&L states that some quality assurance records for the previo*; sly completed piping and equipment were " inadvertently discarded" in September 1993.24 As discus-d above, it is not claar whether the components for which documentation was lost consists only of piping, or also includes some equipment. For those components for which quality assurance documentation no longer exists, its is clear that Criterion XVII is not satisfied.

CP&L proposes a "10CFR50.55a Alternative Plan" to demonstrate that the previously completed piping was "constmeted to the appropriate level of quality and safety and in compliance with construction code requirements."25 However, CP&L's license amendment application is silent about the storage and preservation of previously completed piping and 23 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 6.

24 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 11.

25 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 11.

V s e

17 equipment between December 1983, when Unit 2 was cancelled, and the present. Thus, there is no evidence in the application that Criteria XIII and XVI have been satisfied during this period, with accompanying records as specified in Criterion XVII.

This is not a mere formality, but a potential safety issue. When piping and equipment remain unused for long periods, they can suffer degradation which impairs their ability to perform their function, with potential adverse effects on safety. As described in the attached Lochbaum Declaration, this can present an undue challenge to safety systems. The potential fouling and/or degradation of piping in nuclear power plant cooling systems has also been the subject of several NRC notices to licensees, alerting them to " problems which can occur if equipment is improperly stored or laid up during construction or extended plant outages." See Information Notice No. 85-56, " Inadequate Environmental Control for Components and Systems in Extended Storage or Layup"(July 15,1985). See also Information Notice No. 85-30, "Microbiologically Induced Corrosion of Containment Service Water System" (April 19,1985);

NRC Information Notice No. 94-38, "Results of a Special NRC Inspection at Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Following a Rupture of Service Water Inside Contahner t" (May 27, .

1994); NRC Inspection Procedure 92050, " Review of Quality Assurance for Ex? ended Constmetion Delay."'

CP&L's Alternative Analysis does not describe any program for maintaining the idle piping in good condition over the intervening years between construction and implementation of the proposed license amendment; nor has it described a program for identifying and remediating potential corrosion and fouling. In the absence of such information, the Alternative Analysis is inadequate to satisfy 10 C.F.R. 50.55a or Appendix B to Part 50.

CP&L's Alternative Plan is also deficient because a significant portion of the previously completed piping is embedded in concrete, with the result that inspection is now difficult or impossible. According to CP&L, quality assurance records are missing for 40 large bore piping 26 Lochbaum Declaration, par. I1.

l 18 field welds, of which 37 welds are in the Unit 2 FPCCS piping, with 15 of those 37 welds being embedded in concrete.2' At the time of construction, quality assurance procedures called for non- l l

destructive examination ("NDE") of these welds, involving access to the pipe exterior.

According to EP&L, "Obviously, this level of NDE cannot be reperfonned on the field welds j 1

embedded in concrete. . . "

CP&L has contracted with a vendor to provide remote camera inspection of" greater than one third" of the embedded field welds.2: Remote camera inspection can provide only limited information about weld quality, and cannot provide the level of quality assurance that is available from NDE. Thus, inspection to the original standard cannot be provided for any of the embedded field wells, and as many as two thirds of these welds will receive no inspection of any kind.

Moreover, the remote camera inspection is scheduled to occur during the modification of pools C and D, when pool levels are lowered and welded piping blanks are removed.2' Presumably, this will not occur until after the license amendment is granted. The requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a must be met upon licensing, however, not deferred until aftenvards. The results of the remote camera inspection are not likely to yield clear "yes" or "no" answers regarding weld .

l quality or whether significant degradation or fouling has occurred. The interpretation of these results, and whether they satisfy section 50.55a, must be subject to questioning in this proceeding.

Moreover, CP&L's approach for the two-thirds of the embedded welds that will receive no inspection is inadequate to provide the level of quality and safety required by section 50.55a.

CP&L attempts, through the assembling of circumstantial evidence, to confirm that the welds 1

i 27 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 5.

28 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 7.

29Id.

L

19

- were actually inspected." This is not an adequate substitute for actual documented evidence that inspections were conducted and the welds found to be in acceptable condition. The rationale is additionally objectionable if the actual inspections on the one-third of the welds that p_an receive a limited inspection are postponed. In summary, it is completely unsupportable to accept this aspect of the Altemative Plan in a licensing decision, without requiring that available concrete information that could shed light on its reliability be provided.

GROUP II: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS Contention 4: Proposed License Amendment Not Exempt From NEPA CP&L errs in claiming that the proposed license amendment is exempt from NEPA under 10 C.F.R. 6 51.22.

Basis: In its " Environmental Evaluation," Enclosure 3 to the license amendment application, CP&L asserts that the proposed license amendment was evaluated against the NRC's criteria in 10 C.F.R. $ 51.22 for a categorical exclusion from preparation of an EIS. Although CP&L does not identify the particular categorical exclusion in 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22 that it relies on, it provides an analysis which compares the proposed design and projected impacts to the original design and impacts that were reviewed in the original licensing proceeding for Shearon Hards.

As discussed below in Section A, CP&L's assertions regarding the insignificance of the proposed changes to the Shearon Harris design are without merit. Moreover, as discussed in Section B below, assuming that CP&L intended to justify the categorical exclusion under 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22(b)(9), the applicable standard, the proposed license amendment does not satisfy that standard.

30 License Amendment Application, Enclosure 8 at 10.

r-l l

20 A. CP&L's Analysis According to CP&L, spent fuel pools C and D will be:

similar in design with that originally conceived and approved for construction for this portion of the Harris plant. All four pools were included in the original four unit design of the Harris Nuclear Plant, and the completion and operation of these pools continued to be reflected in plant license documentation up to and including the issuance of the operating license for Units 1 & 2 (ref. NUREG-1038, dated Nov.1983) and the associated environmental report (ref. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Report, Amendment 5, dated Dec.1982). The most notable difference between the previously licensed and currently proposed designs is that, rather than having a separate operating unit to provide auxiliaries such as CCW for cooling and RWST for makeup, the current design will utilize Unit I facilities for those functions. Nonetheless, the design of the fuel pools themselves, including cooling and cleanup systems, will be essentially the same as that previously reviewed, and the differences which do exist between the current design and that originally licensed are not of a scope or nature as to have a significant bearing on environmental impact.

Enclosure 3 at 1.

CP&L seriously understates the differences between the design of pools C and D and the original Harris design. The differences are significant, including the sharing of the Unit 1 CCW system and its electrical support systems, the introduction of administrative measures to control the heat load on the CCW, the substitution of administrative measures for physical systems in preventing criticality, and the reliance on piping and equipment which may be degraded and for which no quality assurance documentation exists. Finally, CP&L proposes to double the inventory of spent fuel whose safety is to be guaranteed by these questionable design changes, thus doubling the consequences of any accident that may occur.

1. Cooling design As discussed in Contention 1 above, the original Harris design called for the use of the l

Unit 2 CCW system to provide cooling water to spent fuel pools C and D. However, Unit 2 was never built. Thus, CP&L proposes to use Unit I safety systems to ensure adequate cooling of

21 pools C and D. These systems include the CCW system and its electricity supply, including backup diesel generators. This is a significant difference from the original Shearon Harris design, which raises serious questions regarding CP&L's compliance with NRC General Design Criteria for emergency core cooling systems and residual heat removal. See Contention 1, which is adopted and incorporated by reference herein.

2. Design for criticality prevention As discussed in Contention 2 above, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, the current Harris design relies on physical measures to prevent criticality: spacing between spent fuel assemblies, and neutron-absorbing material surrounding the fuel assemblies.

In sharp contrast to the cuirent design, CP&L proposes to decrease the spacing between spent

' fuel assemblies, and substitute administrative measures to ensure that criticality is prevented.

This not only violates GDC 62, but also increases the potential for a criticality accident.

3. Reliance on piping and equipment without QA documentation Another major difference between the current Harris design and the proposed design is that CP&L intends to rely on coolant piping and equipment for which no quality assurance documentation exists. Moreover, CP&L has provided no evidence that it has maintained the piping and equipment in a mamer to safeguard against fouling and deterioration. See Contention 3, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.

4. Significant increase in inventory of radioactive material Under the current license, CP&L has a total of 1,128 PWR spaces and 2,541 BWR spaces in pools A and B. Thompson Report, Table A-11. The proposed license amendment would permit 1,952 PWR spaces and 2,763 BWR spaces, for a total of 4,715 spaces. This would roughly double the storage capacity at Harris. Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration, u

22 par. 44. In fact, if the license amendment is granted, the Shearon Hanis plant would become the largest spent fuel storage facility east of the Mississippi River. This, also, is a major design difference between the original Harris design and the proposed design.

B.- Noncompliance with 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22(b)(9)

Neither CP&L nor the NRC Staff addresses the applicability of 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22(b)(9),

which appears to be the only applicable provision that might exempt CP&L from NEPA's requirements. In fact, although the NRC is ultimately responsible for compliance with NEPA, the NRC's Federal Register Notice proposing the license amendment makes no representations at all regarding compliance with NEPA.

- Section .51.22(b)(9) permits the Staff to forego preparation of an EIS "with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in part 20" of NRC regulations, if, inter alia, the amendment " involves no significant hazards l consideration." Although the Staff did not address this regulation specifically, it did conclude in i

the Federal Register Notice that the proposed amendment poses no significant hazards l

considerations. 64 Fed. Reg. at 2,237-2,240. Because the Staff's no significant hazards I

detennination is relevant to whether CP&L's license amendment application is exempt from NEPA,it is addressed herein.

I The NRC standard for making a No Significant Hazards determination is found in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.92, which provides that the NRC may find that a license amendment poses no I

significant hazards considerations ifit would not:

- (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or  ;

- (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

23

, As discussed in the Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration, none of these criteria is satisfied by the proposed license amendment.

1., Significant Increase in Probability of an Accident Previously Evatusted l

In the Federal Register Notice, the Staff concludes that operation of the Harris facility in accordance with the proposed license amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. 64 Fed. Reg. at 2,238. According to the Staff a previous analysis concerning expansion of pool storage capacity at Harris analyzed the following

! accident scenarios:

i

a. A spent fuel assembly drop in a Spent Fuel Pool.

b. Loss ofSpent Fuel cooling flow.

l c. A seismic event.

I

d. Misloaded fuel assembly.

Id. The StafTeoncludes that because there will be no significant increase in the probability of any of these accidents, "there is be no significant increase in the probability of an accident." Id.

As discussed in Contentions 1,2, and 3, and in the Thompson No Significant Hazards l l

Declarati.m, this claim is incorrect, for several reasons. First, the Staff fails to consider the  ;

I increased probability of a fuel handling accident. Activation of pools C and D will roughly

- double the total number of fuel handling operations to be conducted at Harris. Assuming that the general nature of fuel handling operations continues as before, the probability of a fuel assembly drop or misloaded fuel assembly, integrated over the entire period of the Harris operating license, willincrease significantly, by a factor of two. If probability is integrated over the remaining period of the Harris operating license, rather than over its total duration, then activation of pools C and D will more than double the probability of a fuel assembly drop or a misloaded fuel assembly. A criticality accident could be caused by mistoading of fuel assemblies in pools C and l

i

F.

l 24 D, as described in Contention 2.

The Staff also ignores the fact that there has been no previous analysis of the effects on l . the probability of a reactor accident caused by CP&L's reliance on Unit I safety systems to cool pools C and D. Activation of pools C and D will add to the CCW heat load of the existing _

Harris systems. Although CP&L and the NRC assert that the CCWS has sufficient capacity to handle the additional load, they concede that the additional heat load reduces the margin of safety in the CCWS. Moreover, CP&L can only stay within the safety margin by taking administrative measures to ensure that the heat burden of the spent fuel pools will not exceed a certain level.

Sec Contention 1. CP&L's reliance on administrative measures to ensure that loads on the CCWS fall within the safety margin significantly reduces the reliability of the CCWS. If CP&L were to make an administrative error and the heat in the spent fuel pool consequently exceeded the limit, the CCWS could not be relied on to perform its safety function for either the reactor or

- the spent fuel pools. The decreased reliability of the CCWS is compounded by the fact that CP&L proposes to rely on coolant piping for which the documentation of compliance with NRC quality assurance requirements does not exist.

Activation of pools C and D will also add to the electric load, including the load carried by the electric system for normal operations and the backup electricity supply provided by Unit 1 diesel generators. If the spent fuel pooling system overtaxes the electrical system, it could result in either a reactor or spent fuel pool accident. The probability of failure of the Unit I electric supply as a result of the addition of pools C and D to the system has not been evaluated in any previous analysis, nor is it even addressed in CP&L's license amendment application or the Federal Register notice.

Finally, the addition of pools C and D to the Unit 1 safety systems will add to the burden l  ;

i I

l L _

O i

l 25 l of work on the Unit 1 operators, thus increasing the probability ofhuman error Again, these l

l effects are not addressed in any previous analysis.

Taken together, the effects identified above may either eliminate or significantly l decrease the margin of safety at the Harris reactor. The effect would be to substantially increase the probability of a severe reactor accident involving the offsite release of radiation from the <

reactor core. If the CCWS cooling capacity is inadequate, or ifits function is intermpted by a j

!- loss of electrical power, it could lead to a severe reactor accident and a consequent release from the core.

The signi5cance of CP&L's proposed design changes to the evaluation of severe reactor

accidents is borne out by previous risk studies done by CP&L and the NRC Staff. CP&L and the -

Staff have performed three severe reactor accident studies regarding the Harris plant. The first severe reactor accident analysis is reported in NUREG-0972, the Final Environmental Statement

("FES") for the licensing of the plant. In conformance with the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement,50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (August 8,1985), Generic Letter 88-20 (November 23, l

l 1988), and Generic Letter 88-20 Supp. 4 (June 28,1991) ("Supp. 4"), CP&L later performed two j additional severe accident analyses for the Shearon Harris plant: an Individual Plant Examination l

l ("IPE") in August of 1993, and an Individual Plant Examination of Extemal Events ("lPEEE") in l

June of 1995. According to Supp. 4, the purposes ofIPEs and IPEEEs include: (1) to gain a

! i qualitative understanding of the overall likelihood of core damage and radioactive material  ;

i release; and (2) if necessary, to reduce the overall likelihood of core damage and radioactive material releases by modifying hardware and procedures that would help prevent or mitigate severe accidents.

Both the FES and the IPE address accidents involving the reactor. For the set of reactor 1

2 f.

26 accidents postulated in the FES, the FES states that,"[a]ssuming protective actions are taken, the i

1 risk to the environment as a result of accidents is of the same order of magnitude as the ri k from normal operation, although accidents have a potential for early fatalities and economic costs not

. associated with normal operation." Id. at 5-85.

According to the IPE performed by CP&L, the frequency of severe core damage at a

Harris is 7 x 10-5 er p reactor-year. This must be considered a " point" estimate, because the Harris IPE does not provide an uncertainty band or probability density function. The IPE for

. Harris also identified a set of potential accident sequences that are associated with significant releases of radioactive material to the atmosphere, in six release categories. The IPE predicts that accident sequences involving a LOCA will account for 40 percent of Harris' core damage frequency, while sequences involving' station blackout (loss of electrical power) will account for 26 percent of the core damage frequency. The 40 percent contribution of LOCAs to core damage frequency is due to LOCAs with injection failure (17 percent) and LOCAs with recirculation

' failure (23 percent).

As discussed in the Thompson Report at B-5, the NRC has compiled and compared IPE j findings for all US commercial nuclear reactors. Reported core damage frequencies tend to be significantly higher for PWRs than for boiling-water reactors ("BWRs"). Reported core damage frequencies tend to be higher for 3-loop Westinghouse (W-3) PWRs than for 2-loop and 4-loop Westinghouse PWRs and PWRs made by Combustion Engineering (CE) and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W). Id.. The Harris reactor is a 3-loop Westinghouse PWR. From its compilation ofIPE

- findings, the NRC concluded that sequences involving LOCAs (especially LOCAs with 31 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1560, Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance ( 3 vols) (December 1997).

r i

27 recirculation failure) and station blackout are major contributors to estimated core damage frequency at 3-loop Westinghouse PWRs. Thompson Report at B-5. This conclusion is consistent with the Hanis IPE findings outlined above. The NRC noted that the 3-loop West nghouse PWRs exhibit a relatively high dependence of front-line safety systems on service water (SW), component cooling water (CCW) and heating, ventilating & air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

The various factors described above, taken together, reasonably could be found to result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident at Shearon Harris. Therefore, they should have been evaluated in determining whether the proposed license amendment poses no significant hazards, such that it should be exempted from the requirements of NEPA. Orange County notes in this regard that it has not performed an analysis to quantify the extent by which the probability of an accident at the Harris reactor would be increased by activation of pools C and D. That is not Orange County's responsibility. It is the burden of the applicant and the NRC Staff to demonstrate that they have given reasonable consideration to factors that could significantly increase the probability of an accident at Shearon Harris, and evaluate whether that probability is in fact significant.

2. Significant Increase in Consequences of Accident Previously Evaluated The Staffis also incorrect in stating that the consequences of previously evaluated accidents will not increase. 64 Fed. Reg. at 2,238. According to the Staff:

The consequences of the previously postulated scenarios for an accidental drop of a fuel assembly in the Spent Fuel Pool have been re-evaluated for the proposed change. The results show that such (sic] the postulated accident of a fuel assembly striking the top of the storage racks will not diston the racks sufficiently to impair their functionality.

Id. Therefore, the Staff concludes that "the consequences of a loss of Spent Fuel Pool cooling

n ,

28  ;

have been evaluated and found to have no increase." Id. l The Staff fails to rt . 4ize that a previously considered severe reactor accident may also affect the spent fuel pools, thus leading to a release from the pools. As discussed in Appendix C of the Thompson Report, severe accidents associated with the Harris IPE's six release categories  !

would, if tlicy occurred at Harris Unit 1, almost certainly lead to a consequent severe accident affecting the spent fuel pc6 at the Harris plant, including pools C and D if these were in use. A severe accident at the Harris reactor, accompanied by containraent failure or bypass, would prevent access to the spent fuel pools by plant personnel, and thus prevent them from cooling or replenishing the water in the pools. Id. at C-5. The fuel would be partially or completely uncovered within a period of perhaps ten days. If accident response efforts involved adding water to the pools after the fuel had been completely uncovered, they would run the risk of exacerbating the accident by inhibiting convective circulation of air in the pools.22 Id. at C-5, D-1 - D-10.

As discussed above in Contention 4, the proposed amendment would roughly double the inventory of spent fuel assemblies stored in the Shetron Harris spent fuel pools. This could have the potential of doubling the release of radioactivity from the pools in the event of a severe accident. Accordingly, the consequences of a previously considered accident would be significantly increased by the proposed license amendment.

The radioisotope cesium-137 is one important indicator of the hazard potential posed by a nuclear facility. This isotope has a half-life of 30 years, emits ir: tense gamma radiation, and is released comparatively readily during severe accidents. The 1986 Chernobyl accident released 32 To the extent that this scenario involves issues not previously considered, it is also discussed in vibsection 3 below.

I .

29 about 90,000 TBq (27 kg) of cesium-137 to the atmosphere, which accounted for most of the offsite radiation exposure attributable to that accident. Official estimates indicate that this exposure will cause 50-100 thousand extra cancer fatalities worldwide over the next 70 years."

Using the rule of thumb that a PWR assembly contains four times as much cesium-137 as a BWR assembly, if both have been discharged for an equal period, pools C and D could hold about 150% more cesium-137 than can be stored under the current design. See Thompson Report at 9-10, A A-7, Appendix E, for fmther discussion of ths Harris cesium inventory and impacts of a release.

Severe accidents could affect some or all of the Harris pools. Thus, the potential doubling of radioactivity in the pools could significantly increase the consequences of such accidents.

3. Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident 1

Under its regulations, the NRC may not make a no significant hazard determinations ifit finds that a proposed license amendment would create even thepossibility of a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated. The Staff may not rationalize the amendment by addressing the merits of how likely the accident is to occur. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace

v. U.S. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9' Cir.1986).

According to the Federal Register notice, the only kind of accident that might conceivab:y be considered new is the accidental drop of a fuel rack; but that accident was already considered in relation to pool B. 64 Fed. Reg. at 2,239. Thus, the Staff concludes that the proposed license amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 33 Allan S Krass, Consequences of the CNemobyl Accident (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Resource and Security Studies, December 1991).

30 accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The Staff's conclusion is incorrect, in a number of respects. First, the introduction of administrative measures to maintain heat loads and bumup levels below certain levels creates new opportunities for accidents caused by human error, which have not previously been considered for the Harris plant. The reliance on piping and equipment for which quality assurance has not been adequately documented, and whose quality may not be capable of verification, also creates the potential for new accidents not previously considered.

Moreover, although severe reactor accidents have previously been considered for the Harris plant, it does not appear that consideration has ever been given to the potential for a severe reactor accident to cause a severe spent fuel pool accident in the event that personnel are unable to gain access to the plant following a reactor accident in order to restore pool cooling and pmvide water makeup. Sec discussion in subsection 2 above. The Staff also ignores the fact that neither CP&L nor the NRC Staff has ever performed an evaluation of severe spent fuel pool accidents at Harris, including fuel heat-up caused by partial uncovering of the fuel. See Thompson Report, Appendix D.

Moreover, the NRC Staff has never performed an adequate evaluation of the potential for severe pool accidents at any plant. Since the early 1980's, the EIS's for the licensing of all U.S.

nuclear plants have considered the potential for severe accidents. This consideratic n has been based on the findings of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400). The Reactor Safety Study's consideration of spent fuel pool accidents, and the NRC's subsequent re-consideration of such accidents, have been summarized by the NRC as follows:

"The risk of beyond design basis accidents in spent fuel storage pools was examined in WASH-1400. It was concluded that these risks were orders of magnitude below those involving the reactor core because of the simplicity of the spent fuel storage pool design:

31 (1) the coolant is at atmospheric pressure, (2) the spent fuel is always suberitical and the heat source is low, (3) there is no piping which can drain the pool and (4) there are no anticipated operational transients that could interrupt cooling or cause criticality.

The reasons for the re-examination of spent fuel storage pool accidents are twofold. First, spent fuel is being stored instead of reprocessed. This has led to the expansion of onsite fuel storage by means of high density storage racks, which results in a larger inventory of fission products, in the pool, a greater heat load on the pool cooling system, and less distance between adjacent fuel assemblies. Second, some laboratory studies have provided evidence of the possibility of fire propagation between assemblies in an air .

cooled environment. Together, these two reasons provide the basis for an accident scenario which was not previously considered.""

Despite this recognition that pool accidents represent a new, credible accident scenario, the NRC Staff has never given pool accidents the level of analysis that has been given to reactor accidents

! through WASH-1400, NUREG-1150, EIS's, and IPE's. Scc Thompson Report, Appendix B, 1

An appropriate level of analysis of severe pool accidents would apply PRA techniques to estimate the potential for water loss from pools, as described in Appendix C of the Thompson Report. It would consider the potential for pool-reactor accident interactions, as outlined on page B-7 of the Thompson Report. It would examine the potential for exothermic reactions, doing so i in the manner specified in Appendix D of the Thompson Report.

A severe pool accident is not a remote and speculative event. Its lower bound of probability is set by the probability of a severe reactor accident with containment failure or bypass, because such an accident would almost certainly lead to a pool accident, as explained above. A severe reactor accident with containment failure or bypass is recognized as a credible event by the NRC for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts in EIS's, as well as requiring emergency planning for the ten and fifty mile Emergency Planning Zones around nuclear plants. In addition, licensees are obligated to perform IPE's to examine the site-specific 34 E.D.Throm, NUREG-1353, Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 82,

W .

32

. potential for accidents of this type.

A severe pool accident could occur at Hanris in its present design configuration. The 1

probability of a pool accident could be increased by CP&L's proposed activation of pools C and l - D because that activation would increase the probability of a reactor accident, as discussed

, above. In addition, the consequences of a pool accident would increase because of the greater inventory of radioactivity. Thus, the possibility exists of a class of severe pool accident l

scenarios that have not been previously evaluated, either generically or for the Hanis site. The potential and nature of this class of accidents could be examined by the use of PRA techniques l that have been developed to examine severe reactor accidents.

The increased inventory of spent fuel at the Harris plant also significantly increases the

. opportunities for sabotage during transportation, handling, and storage of the sprut fuel. While 1

the NRC has previously declared that it is unable to make a meaningful assessment of the risks of' sabotage, this evaluation was made many years ago. See Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719,741-42 (3"' Cir.1989). Events of recent years have demonstrated that sabotage is a reasonably foreseeable and significant threat whose risks must be addressed in an EIS, whether or not those risks can be quantified. These events include the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the February 1993 intrusion into the Three Mile Island site, in which the intruder crashed his station wagon through the security gate and rammed it under a partly opened door in the turbine building; the 1995 bombing of the Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City; the plot to bomb the United Nations Building, FBI oflices in New York City, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, and the George Washington Bridge; the 1995 release of SARIN, a nerve gas in the Tokyo subway; and the 1998 "Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools" at ES-1 (April 1989).

1

33 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. See also Thompson Report at B-4 (mock raids on U.S. nuclear plants have succeeded in at least 14 of 57 instanos since 1991).

The fact that the risk of sabotage may not be casily quantifiable is not an excuse for failing to address it in an EIS. As provided in the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA,40 C.F.R. S 1502.22, the agency must make an attempt to evaluate reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects, if the costs of obtaining the i

infonnation are not exorbitant. Even if the costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant, the agency must acknowledge that the information is unavailable, make a statement of the relevance of the information to the evaluation ofimpacts in the EIS, summarize existing relevant and l

1 l credible scientific evidence, and provide the agency's evaluation of the impacts based on ,

r 1 l

l generally accepted theoretical approaches or research methods. See also 10 C.F.R. S 51.71 ("To the extent that there are important qualitative considerations ci factors that cannot be quantified, these considerations or factors will be discussed in qualitative terms.").

i In considering the environmental impacts of sabotage, it is particularly important to consider SAMDAs which could mitigate the impacts of sabotage. Using dry cask storage would substantially reduce the vr erability of the Harris / Brunswick / Robinson spent fuel to acts of sabotage or terrorism. As discussed at page 12 of the Thompson Report, sabotage / terrorism events at a dry cask storage installation could release only a small fraction of the radioactive material that could be released from the Harris spent fuel pools. It is much easier to drain a spent fuel pool and cause an accident than it is to penetrate and release the radioactive contents of dry casks holding the same amount of spent fuel.

4. Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety.

The Staff's conclusion that the operation under the license amendment would not involve

34 a reduction in a safety margin is without merit. The information provided in the license amendment application clearly demonstrates that the plant's safety margin would be significantly reduced by the proposed license amendment. As discussed in the Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration,Section I, activation of pools C and D will create an additional heat load on the existing CCW system. CP&L proposes to meet this load in the short temi by exploiting the margin in the CCW system. The safety margin will be reduced even further if, during a LOCA, the operators must divert CCW flow from the RHR system cooling to the spent fuel pools. This willincrease stress on the operators and create opportunities for human error. Thus, the reduction in the CCW safety margin caused by the increased heat load is significant. Certainly, the NIC has provided no reason to conclude that it is not significant. Moreover, as pools C and D tecome filled and the reactor receives a power uprate, the load on the CCW system will increase further.

CP&L ofrers no assurance that the present margin of safety will be restored by upgrading the CCW system to accommodate these burdens.

The Staff also fails to address the impact on the margin of safety caused by CP&L's 1

proposal to use a cooling system for pools C and D using piping that will not satisfy ASME code requirements. See Contention 3 and Thompson No Significant Hazards Declaration, pars. 23 l and 50. As Dr. Thompson observes, this action could potentially cause a significant reduction in l

margins of safety for pool cooling. CP&L's Alternative Plan has not been subjected to any 1

public scrutiny or rigorous review. It deserves, at the least, thorough consideration at a licensing hearing before the license amendment is issued. i The margin of safety is also affected by CP&L's proposal to provide electrical service to pools C and D from the existing Unit I system, which includes the Unit I dedicated emergency diesel generators. These diesel generators already serve the safety systems in Unit I and spent

35 )

fuel storage pools A and B. By adding pools C and D to the load carried by the Unit I diesel generators, CP&L would add stress on the diesel generators and on the plant operators in the event of a loss of offsite power. These effects could significantly reduce the margin of safety at I

the Harris reactor and the fuel pools. The additional strain on the emergency diesel generators is not described either in the Federal Register notice or in CP&L's license amendment application.

Contention 5: EnvironmentalImpact Statement Required T .: proposed license amendment is not supported by an Environmental Impact Statement

("EIS"), in violation of NEPA and NRC's implementing regulations. An EIS should examine l

the effects of the proposed license amendment on the probability and consequences of accidents at the Harris plant. As required by NEPA and Commission policy, it should also examine the costs and benefits of the proposed action in comparison to various alternatives, including Severe l

l Accident Design Mitigation Alternatives and the altemative of dry cask storage.

Basis: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS before undertaking any major federal action which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. S 4332(C). The NRC's implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. 6 51.20(a) also require the NRC to prepare an EIS for any licensing or regulatory action which "is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Where aspects of the proposed action are addressed by a previously prepared EIS, an new EIS must be issued if there remains

" major federal action" to occur, and if there is new information showing that the remaining action will affect the quality of the human environment "in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered." Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council,490 U.S. 360,374 (1989). See also 10 C.F.R. 9 51.92(a), which requires supplementation where the

36 l proposed action has not been completed, if: "(1) there are substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concems; or (2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concems and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts." Although 9 51.92 technically does not apply here, where the action proposed in the original Shearon Harris EIS has already been taken, the criteria provide applicable guidance for these circumstances.

The factual basis for this contention is provided in Contention 4, which is adopted and

incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Contention 4, CP&L proposes to make significant changes to the Harris design, which were not previously evaluated in any safety or environmental review. Moreover, these design changes are likely to have a significant effect on l

both the probability and the consequences of an accident at the Harris plant. Previous severe accident analyses have shown that LOCA and loss of power accidents are significant contributors j to accident risk at Harris, thus making it imperative to inquire into the effect of the proposed

design changes on the risks of accidents at Harris.

l Moreover, as discussed in Contention 4, a significant potential for severe pool accidents exists and has not been previously considered, either in specific reference to Harris or i generically. This potential could be examined by the extension of PRA tv.niques that have l

been used to consider reactor accidents, with findings incorporated in EIS's.

i

! . An EIS must also examine the costs and benefits of the proposed action, and compare them to other reasonable alternatives.10 C.F.R. 9 51.71. In particular, the EIS must consider such reasonably available altematives as dry cask storage, for which CP&L already has an

. application pending for the Brunswick plant (see Contention 6). In addition, the EIS must consider Severe Accident Design Mitigation Altematives, such as dry cask stora, .; low-density

{.

F ,

37 pool storage; installation of an independent cooling system for pools C and D (considered but apparently rejected by CP&L; see Contention 1); earlier upgrade of the CCW system; and installation of safety grade equipment for restoring cooling and water makeup to the spent fuel pools in the event of a severe reactor accident that prevents access to the pools. Consideration of SAMDAs is required in a NEPA analysis for an initial licensing decision, Limerick Ecology d

Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 736-741 (3 Cir.1989), and therefore must necessarily be required in any EIS prepared for this license amendment.

Contention 6: Scope of EIS Should Include Brunswick and Robinson Storage The EIS for the piuposed license amendment should include within its scope the storage l

I of spent fuel from the Brunswick an.i Robinson nuclear power plants.

Basis: As recognized in Vcrmont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vennont Yankee I Nuclear Power Station), LBP-88-19,28 NRC 145 (1988), there is no independent utility to the racking of a spent fuel pool: the only reason for the application is to permit the expansion of spent fuel storage at the plant. Here, the purpose of the proposed expansion is not only to store spent fuel generated by Harris, but also to accommodate fuel from Brunswick and Robinson.

Indeed CP&L has a global plan for storage of spent fuel from its three North Carolina reactors, including the option of dry cask storage at Brunswick. In 1989, CP&L applied for an 1

ISFSI license for Brunswick. License Application Under 10 C.F.R. Part 72. A review of the i correspondence indexed by the NRC Public Document Room does not show that this application was ever withdrawn; and therefore it appears that the application is still pending. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration also reports that "The ISFSI at the 3 l

Brunswick plant will be used only as a backup if shipping of spent nuclear fuel to the Hanis l l

J l

1 J

38 plant i.s prohibited."" Thus, although the dry cask storage option exists and has been partially developed, it has been given no serious consideration.

Contention 7: Even if no EIS required, Environmental Assessment Required Even if the Licensing Board finds that no EIS is required, it must order the preparation of an EA.

Basis: As the Licensing Board ruled in Vermont Yankee, LBP-87-17, an agency's evaluation of alternatives "is governed by two sections of NEPA,99102(2)(C ) and 102(2)(E),

42 U.S.C. SS 4332(2)(C ) and 4332(2)(E). The former section is applicable only when an EIS is required; the latter applies whether or not an EIS is prepared." 25 NRC at 858. As discussed in Contention 4, the proposed license amendment is not exempt from NEPA. Orange County believes that an EIS is required, because the proposed license amendment poses significant risks that have not previously bec., considered by the NRC or CP&L. Even if no EIS is required, however, the NRC must still prepare an EIA that evaluates " unresolved conflicts concerning attemative uses of available resources," as required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. Here, there I

are significant unresolved conflicts regarding the appropriate use of space and resources for the storage of spent fuel generated by the Harris, Brunswick, and Robinson nuclear plants. Dry cask storage clearly is an option, and in fact CP&L has applied for an ISFSI license for Brunswick.

Orange County believes that dry cask storage, potentially combined with low density pool storage, is far and away the wisest use of resources, achieving the greatest minimization of risk to ,

l public health and safety. An EA should be prepared which examines the proposed action in 35 EIA Report, SR/CNEAF/96-01," Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges from U.S. Reactors,1994" at 46-47 (February 1996). A copy of the relevant pages is attached as Exhibit 5.

l

I -

\

39 comparison to this altemative, as well as Severe Accident Design Mitigation Alternatives.

l l

Contention 8: Discretionary EIS Warranted Even if the Licensing Board determines that an EIS is not required under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. 6 51.20(a), the Board should nevertheless require an EIS as an exercise ofits discretion, as permitted by 10 C.F.R. SS 51.20(b)(14) and 51.22(b).

Basis: NRC regulations in 10 C.F.R. SS 51.20(b)(14) and 51.22(b) provide for the preparation of an EIS where, upon its own initiative or request from any party, the Commission finds that "special circumstances" exist. Special circumstances " include the circumstances where the proposed action involves unresolved conflicts conceming attemative uses of available resources within the meaning of section 102(2)(E) of NEPA."

Orange County submits that this case presents such "special circumstances," generally arising from the fact that the proposed expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at the Harris plant is part of a larger plan by CP&L for the management of spent fuel generated by three different reat ' ors: Harris, Robinson, and Brunswick. Even if the Licensing Board finds that no EIS is required here, the NRC should nevertheless prepare an EIS in its discretion, in order to ,

i evaluate unresolved conflicts conceming the use of available resources in for management of spent fuel from CP&L's three reactors.

As recognized in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear l 1

Power Station), ;P-88-19,28 NRC 145 (1988), there is no independent utility to the racking of i

a spent fuel pool: the only reason for the application is to permit the expansion of spent fuel l storage at the plant. Here, the purpose of the proposed expansion is not only to store spent fuel i

generated by Harris, but also to accommodate fuel from Brunswick and Robinson. The record l

40 shows no evaluation by the NRC of the need for additional storage capacity at any of the three plants, or whether CP&L's proposal constitutes the wisest use of available resources to meet the n ed. As discussed above in Contention 5, it is clear that there is space at the Brunswick plant for dry cask storage, and that CP&L contemplates dry cask storage there ifits proposal for wet storage at Harris fails. Thus, although the dry cask storage option exists and has been partially developed, it has been given no serious consideration.

If the pmposed license amendment is approved, Shearon Harris will become the largest spent fuel storage facility east of the Mississippi River. As discussed above in Contention 4, the invento:y ofcesium-137 in the Harris spent fuel pools will be greatly increased, thus greatly increasing the consequences of reasonably foreseeable severe accidents. The decisions of whether to use wet or dry storage at Harris, and whether to ship fuel or leave it onsite at Brunswick and Robinson, should not be based on wleker shipments to Hanis are prohibited, but on which storage alternative is most cost-beneficial, taking into account both environmental and economic considerations. Orange County submits dry cask storage is a far wiser use of resources from an environmental viewpoint, because it does not entail the risks of a loss of coolant from the spent fuel pools. Moreover, CP&L's proposal to consolidate spent fuel from Harris, Brunswick, and Robinson into high density racked pools at one site significantly increases the risk posed by wet storage.

Orange County strongly disputes CP&L's choices regarding the allocation of resources for continued spent fuel storage for its three North Carolina reactors. In light of this conflict regarding the use of available resources, Orange County requests the preparation of an EIS for storage of spent fuel from the Harris, Bmnswick, and Robinson nuclear plants.

Another compelling reason to prepare an EIS for CP&L's spent fuel management

41 proposal is to address the apparent conflict between the CP&L proposal and NRC's Waste Confidence decision. NRC regulations at 10 C.F.R. 9 51.23 encode the Commission's " Waste Confidence" determination that, inter alia,:

There is reasonable assurance that at last one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.

In contradiction of this finding, the CP&L license amendment application gives, as the rationale for the requested spent fuel pool storage capacity expansion, the fact that " DOE spent fuel storage facilities are not available and are not expected to be availablefor theforeseeable future." License Application, Enclosure 1 at 1 (emphasis added). Having made a determination that a repository will be available during the next quarter-century, the NRC should evaluate the apparent conflict with CP&L's determination that the resource will be unavailable. It should be noted in this regard that the Commission has been quite strict in forbidding state and local govemments and intervenor groups from challenging its determination that a repository will be available in the next quarter century. See, e.g., Private FuelStorage, LL C. , supra, LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 241; Vermont Yankee, supra, LBP-87-17,25 NRC at 853-54. The Commission must 3 be equally strict in enforcing this decision against licensees. The Commission should not less unexamined a licensee decision to make major changes to its spent fuel storage program, whi -

that decision is based on a lack of confidence in the Waste Confidence rulemaking.

I i

I

)

l i

42 IV. CONCLUSION -

For the foregoing reasons, Orange County's contentions should be admitted for litigation in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, ne Curran -

HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX: 202/328-6918 e-mail: Deunan@harmoncurran.com April 5,1999 l

I

.