ML20236E075
| ML20236E075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1987 |
| From: | Preston M GRUENEICH, D.M. (FORMERLY GRUENEICH & LOWRY), Sierra Club |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4694 OLA, NUDOCS 8710290053 | |
| Download: ML20236E075 (62) | |
Text
- . ..
3
{
. vi 4 00CKETED USNRC.
TI (ET 27 41 :25 t 0FFICr 0F HURMAAY.
DOCMfilNG & SElWICE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRANCH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD' InLthe Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-275.and 50-323 - Odd l
)
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY )
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear' Power )
Plant, Units 1 and,2) )
')'
-SIERRA CLUB'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF LICENSING BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 ORDER AND SEPTEMBER 11, 1987 INITIAL DECISION
.l 3
)
i I
- j. Dated: October 26, 1987 Dian M. Grueneich i Marcia Preston LAW OFFICE OF DIAN M. GRUENEICH 380 Hayes Street, Suite 4 l San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 861-6930 8710290053 871026 7 #
PDR ADOCK 05000275-9 I O PDR- 1
\
3
g _ -- .
...r.. -
y' V >
m
? t - _f.
p-;ll. _
) i
- );.Q f ,_ ' s O
- ,, yg g. 2 L. ..
IU , s ,j .,f f
, s
[4l-,
g / ,.
. (l" ?.'s ,.,.
'L-g .
.a . y
!;, f- '
TABLE OF' CONTENTS e. .
y" . .3
- e v ,f Pa3_e,
,}
- 7[
- F .
f ;, .
p; .;fI '? ~
. INTRODUCTION' 'l- i --
';. _ ij
$f,;' ;' , .
.J af '
, - A.' Procedural History , . l' 1 v.
o
,t g.7., O'
/'a [#) .
'U . II. , ARGUMENT-7, 5l
[ A. The Sierra Q.1ub Zircalloy Cladding.
) f 5 Contention,Ebould~Have Been Admitted-q ., , .: r:
1.;The'4 Contention Contained a,Y' 6 Sufficiently Specific Basis
- 2. The Requirements for Admission '14' as a Late Filed Contention .3 Have Been' Met B. An:EIS is Required for This License -17 Amendment >
'C. The Licensing' Board's R9jection of
. ' 24 Contention I(B)(7)_-Was_ Incorrect.
~
III. THE' LICENSING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF.THE OLA'S 26 u.
FAILS TO PROTECT THE FUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY "
.- s' IV.- CONCLUSION- 26
/
F ,
s
- ; y I e 3 s)
J j
i j s s !
>1 \
I g
l
- _ _ - . _ _ _ - . _ . - - .t b
,7 ;.
7------------
i ,
j y .+ .;
w .' \ ; ' ' am $
r _* {J y .g\:
1 ,, l _
'l .,, %
.\,'
TABLE OF' AUTHORITIES ,, i, \, ) ', ' G, 'ta$
y, Pase )
si . '{ .
1- 1
[ yt ';
CASES: ( d
/
-\ s .\ !
l Gulf States Utilities Co., 6 NRC 760, 772 (ALAB-444, 6, 14 1977) y "
,.,t >]
s
( 'I Mississippi Power and Lifht Co., ' 6 AEC 423 (ALAB-130, .ia-
. 7 .
1973) st i s
Natural': Resources Defense Council,'Inc. v. Morton, 458 -)
,t 20 3 F.2d 827-(D.C. Cir. 1972) j',.4 !
, y San-Luis Obsipo Mother for Peace.v. NRC, 751 F.2d'12S7, '
20 .I '
1303 (D.C. Cir. 1984), aff'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (1986),
cert < denied,, U.S. , 107 S.Ct. 330 (1986) .
, ' ' ij\
San Luis Obs'ipo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 2, 24 .;., h (9th Cir. 1986)- ,
,a 1J ,
Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 21 ,3 t, !;
1984) i 4 j1 )
Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 971-974 (5th Cir. 21 ' l 3 y 1983) -i
(
.] 1 j Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1974) 18, 23 N
^
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Corp., 26 NRC 18, 19 Nl (ALAB-869) issued July 21, 1987 r <i 1
}
\
STATUTES:
\'
Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2239 et oeq. 5, 2,ti , j 26 o, !
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, ~ 5,M'[
42 U.S.C. S 4321 et seq. s ,
42 U.S.C. S 4332 (2)(c) ,
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. S 10101 ' 5,'-
26 ,
et seq. j 1
42 U.S.C. S 10152(1) Q, 26 l i
)
FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
l.
10 CFR S 2. 714( a )( 1 ) 4, ?A , 17 9< .k, j j
t ,
ii s
's 5'
- t a . . ' ,
4_. .e sf O
1 i"
. ) j: &ihW; 'A?i N ..
-4 .
f -
- >' ~.
'y ?
,a
-t" 1
. $ ,- - , ,t. .3 ,
- s ,. . s. . - ,e l.. l? i. ,iy _ / % g- .i- 4. l % y u 10 CFR S. 2g %
..t 762(bl)ta ~ - jUM)1.
7:- .,
~.y 1
!@ &;h .--
%(40hCFR S;1b0h.2h?(1986) 'b; 21
,1 v. . m. L t - ., . s ,
y i o .p.j:<1 n T ,,
J;.\
~ (o 1.f s
- ' pv p~ ' ' )A,O. Turi;P.}d.
gj :
4'N ~
u.y _~ M.
w
-*' ', L g., 6,
. Berj$hd Design Basis . Accidents in' Spent' Fuel Pools-f passim
. , '(Generic Issue 82),.. January 19874/'
- Nv% .,
- h A 3hbard Notifii.(gation'("BN")87-01hJanuary 29,-1987:
. . .) 'st
. 's - _ ,
2'
. Board Notification- ( '.'BN" ) ' 87-03, March 27, I.987 ' 14 , 15L
. .q ,
I N ;
~
<g M , ?: ' , , s t
'i ' 5 g,.os y. j.J- -
- 3, 1
,;- s. .f 'i ,
ill J. ] , .%
1.
. [' i m1
.t
,s 3
+,
'l
' v.
'./';r.
.y '
$. -- (g,ff 7 7g s ,
g 4
+
__. 4 t,'
'g-k .f s
i .y L j 'l ,
%9 i l3 s
(
.(y.
,1
.. /
I.
i
- (
- c
( '- ) ;f
'i s-
-L' e
l '
. Vy t
,i' '
' M. , k
. f'
[5 ,
' ./ 3 l
A
-.' '\ j l .iii r ( .
- _1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r_ - ~. _
~(~ 4 : . i '
6.
.s I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant-to 10 CFR S 2'. 762( b), the Sierra Club files this!
brief'in.. support of its September 24, 1907. appeal from the Atomic
]
LSafety ' and Licensing Board's (" Licensing' Board") September - 2,
-i l1987' order and September.11, 1987 initial decision in the above-
. referenced proceeding.1 The' operating license amendments (OLAs) at issue in this proceeding stem from-PG&E's requestLfor authorization to rerack
' the .Diablo Canyon Units 1 and ~ 2 ' spent fuel . pools in a high !
density configuration that would increase the number cof fuel l 1
4 ,
assembly. storage' locations from 270 to 1324 for each unit.
'A. Procedural History j
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") previously issued 1
On October 20, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. ( "NRC" ) made public a supplemental Environmental Assessment
("EA") and an accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact
- ("FONSI"), both- dated October 15, 1987, in connection with its issuance,
- also on October 20, 1987, . of the operating license j amendments ("OLAs") at issue in this proceeding.
Fed. Reg. '
(October 20, 1987). (Supplemental EA and FONSI attached as Exhibit A) . These documents did ~ not - cure the defects in the NRC'sLearlier actions.
The cursory examination.of the Zircaloy cladding fire issue contained . in the supplemental EA does not
' resolve the questions raised by the Sierra Club. See Exhibit.A, ,
- p. 7. Rather, this treatment only further emphasizes the need to i admit the issue as a' contention so that it can be fully examined.
The NRC's issuance of the OLAs was based in large part on the
' initial decision challenged on this appeal, as well as on the j newly-issued supplemental EA and accompanying reaffirmation of ;
the NRC's FONSI determination. (See October 20, 1987 Cover Letter and accompanying OLAs, attached as Exhibit B). The Sierra Club's previous submittals have focused on the inadequacy of the original EA and FONSI. Since the supplemental EA and FONSI are also inadequate under NEPA, they cannot serve as a basis for the
- lasuance of the OLAs and are challenged by the Sierra Club insofar as they purport to do so. The issuance of the OLAs is also. challenged as illegal since the NRC did not comply with NEPA prior to their issuance.
1
- o. . -
v ,,. .
l 4.5 the requested OLAs on May 30,-1986,-and simultaneously issued a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"), based [upon a May 21, 1986 Environmental Assessment ("EA"). The~ Sierra Club requested a stay and a hearing, and filed several contentions. Because the {
NRC refused to stay the OLAs, interveners Sierra Club and Mothers for Peace 2 appealed to the U.S. Ninth' Circuit Court of Appeals !
1 and were granted a stay-and an order requiring the NRC'to hold public hearings prior to the issuance ' of the OLAs. San Luis.
Obispo Mothers'for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d-1268 (9th Cir. 1986).
i When the proceeding was remanded to.the NRC, the' Licensing Board scheduled hearings for March, 1987, and ' admitted four of the Sierra Club's earlier-filed contentions. The hearings were postponed, at the request of the NRC staff, when a review of the seismic analysis, on which the initial issuance of the OLAs was j based, raised questions which the NRC recognized as relevant and material to the Sierra Club's contention regarding rack-to-rack interactions. Board' Notification ("BN") 87-01, January 29, 1987.
The hearings were eventually held in June, 1986, at Avila Beach, !
California. The Sierra Club presented testimony showing the' 1
failure of the OLAs to meet federal statutory and regulatory 1
requirements and the resulting threat to the public health and )
l safety. Despite this testimony, the Licensing Board's September 11, 1987 initial decision denied all four of the Sierra Club's 1
admitted contentions. 3 On June 16, 1987, at the beginning of the hearings scheduled 2 Mothers for Peace have since withdrawn from the proceeding.
2 i
4 s
.l to address the previously-admitted contentions, the Sierra Club i
moved to admit a contention concerning the consequences of loss of coolant accidents for plants with spent fuel pools utilizing a high density configuration such as that proposed by PG&E for Diablo Canyon ( " Contention" ) . 3 The motion also requested that the Board dismiss the prior Finding of No Significant Impact ]
("FONSI") and order that an Environmental Impact Statement
("EIS") be prepared for the modification of spent fuel facilities at Diablo Canyon. A basis for the motion was the January 1987 i
report entitled "Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools (Generic Issue 82)" issued by Brookhaven National Laborat-i ory ("BNL Report"), a copy of which had only recently been made-available to the Sierra Club.4 The Licensing Board directed the Sierra Club to submit its motion in writing, and the NRC staff and PG&E both responded to the motion in written briefs. The Licensing Board denied the Sierra Club's motion to admit the 3
The specific wording of the contention Sierra Club moved to have admitted is as follows:
The proposed action significantly increases the consequences of loss of cooling accidents in that a loss of water in the spent fuel pools could lead to spontaneous ignition of zircalloy cladding of the fuel elements in the high density configuration with significant releases of radiation.
'At the time the Sierra Club made its original motion, the report was in draft form. As pointed out be the Licensing Board,
"[f]or purposes of this decision, the final report does not differ significantly from the draft report." September 2, 1987 Order, at 2, n.1. All references herein to the BNL Report are to the draft Report. j i
3 I
i
_]
4
)
- - )
I q
~
l Content-ion in its September 2, 1987 order (" Order").5 The. Order -
also stated that no' additional environmental documentation would 4
be required, . thereby. denying the Sierra Club's request for an EIS.;
On September 24, 1987, the Sierra Club filed an appeal of.
{
tho' Order and initial decision, together,with a Request for Stay l ;
of the initial decision. The. Appeal Board denied this stay re-quest on October. 8,-1987.6' On October 19, 1987, the NRC issued a i
supplemental EA, which was published in the Federal Register the next ' day.7 The Sierra Club then filed a Request for Stay with the ' full Commission, on October 20, 1987. On this same day,-
NRC's staff counsel informed the Sierra Club's representative by telephone'that the OLAs would be issued by the close of business..
5 The Sierra Club argued below that the Contention came within the ambit of other contentions it had raised earlier, and, in the alternative, that the Contention met the criteria for admission of a late-filed contention pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714(-
a)(1). Because the Licensing Board based its ruling on its decision that the Sierra Club had not shown: (1) that a suffi- !
cient nexus exists between its proposed Contention and the BNL Report; (2) that the Contention comes within the penumbra of already. admitted contentions; nor -- ( 3 ) that an EIS is required, the Licensing Board did not reach the question of whether the Sierra Club had made a sufficient showing with respect to the !
requirements for a -late-filed contention. Because the Sierra Club believes that this Board should overturn the Licensing Board's decision, a showing is also made here regarding the.
requirements of 10 CFR 2. 714 ( a ) ( 1 ) . See Section II.A.2, infra.
6 At the same time, the Appeal Board dissolved an interim stay it had 1ssued on September 25, 1987.
7 While the earlier decisions in this proceeding should stand or fall on the basis of the original EA, this supplemental EA does not cure the defects of the NRC's earlier noncompliance with NEPA because it, too, fails to meet the requirements of that statute, as explained infra.
4
Therefore, the Sierra Club also asked that the Commission decide whether to grant the requested stay by October 26, 1987 in order to provide the Sierra Club time to seek an emergency judicial stay in the event that the Commission denied the stay request.
On October 23, 1987, counsel for the - NRC informed the Sierra Club's representative that the Commission had decided to deny the stay request.
II. ARGUMENT The Sierra Club has made the necessary showing for the admission of its Contention regarding the possibility of a Zircaloy cladding fire, as well as for the grantir J of its motion that the NRC staff be directed to prepare an EIS for the proposed reracking of Diablo Canyon. Moreover, nothing in the supplemen-tal EA or the accompanying FONSI cures the defects the Sierra l Club has identified with the NRC's actions under NEPA. The i Licensing Board also erred by not finding in favor of the Sierra Club's Contention I(B)( 7 ); by not doing so, the NRC has approved i the OLAs despite significant risks to the public health and safety which may result. In summary, the NRC's September 2, 1987 order and its September 11, 1987 initial decision permitting issuance of the OLAs violate three federal statutes: the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 4321 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2239 et seq.; and the Nuclear i
Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. S S 10101, 10152(1). ;
A. The Sierra Club's Zircaloy Cladding Contention Should Have Been Admitted 1
5 l
------I e
6 1.. The Contention Contained a Sufficiently_
Specific Basis The Licensing Board rejected the Zircaloy cladding conten-tion (" Contention") on the grounds that Sierra Club had not established a sufficient basis for its admission, supposedly because of a' lack of a nexus between the_BNL Report and the OLAs.
The Licensing Board's ruling recognizes that a " generic" issue properly forms the basis of a contention if a nexus is establis-hed between- the generic issue and the license application (or i
amendment) in question. Order, at 6. Gulf States Utilities Co.,.6 NRC 760, 772 (ALAB-444, 1977). The Sierra Club disagrees with the Licensing Board's ruling that it did not show an adequate nexus. This Appeal Board " agree [d] with the Sierra Club that, at least as articulated by the Licensing Board, the conclusion below on the nexus question is of dubious correct-ness." October 8, 1987 Order (ALAB-877), at 9 (emphasis added).
The. Appeal Board indicated, in its rejection of the Sierra l
Club's - stay request, that it was not yet convinced _ that the '
Sierra Club had met the basis and specificity requirements for admission of a contention. Id. at 9, and n. 21. The Appeal Board based its denial of the stay request on its view that the I
Sierra Club must show that a reasonable possibility of a cladding j l
fire would exist at Diablo Canyon if the reracking were allowed, l I
and that Sierra Club had not made such a showing. Id. at 9.
Since the Appeal Board's ruling on the stay request has provided )
some insight into its initial views on the merits, this brief will focus on those views in order to take advantage of the 6
f L
.: s ks' t:
further narrowing of the issues in dispute which this allows.8' I The BNL Report idenclfies the storage of recently discharged
' nuclear. fuel in high density spent fuel storage racks as creating.
j 'a' significant increase in the risk of a catastrophic Zircaloy
' fire. BNL Report at S-6. The resulting increase in health risks-is also.much greater, especially in the case of a pressurized 1 water reactor ("PWR"). Id. at S-6. The Report concludes that the risk. potential.of beyond design.bssis accidents in spent fuel pools la equivalent to present risk estimates for core melt accidents, _ while in some respects a spent fuel pool accident could be much worse than a reactor core melt accident. 'I d . at S-
- 6. .
-l The-degree of risk found in this assessment is much greater than that previously ' associated with- accidents in spent fuel pools. For instance, an earlier NRC document concluded that such risks were " extremely small in comparison with accidents as-sociated with the reactor core." BNL Report at S-1, referring to
~ Reactor Safety Study. This earlier study ~ did not take into' account the possibility of a Zircaloy . fire in the event of a complete drainage of water from the pool. BNL Report at S-1.9 The BNL Report analyzes-seven scenarios that could lead to such an accident. The Appeal Board itself stated that the likelihood 8
II.B, This comment is also relevant to the discussion in part )
infra, which deals with the NEPA issue, since the Appeal '
Board's that statute, comments relate directly to the agency's duties under l i
'Thus, before the issuance of the BNL Report, the necessary specificity to support the Sierra Club's Contention was not available, j 7 1 l
l
4 of just one of these scenarios coming to pass at the surrogate j
. plants 'used for the study, i that of a cask drop leading to a J l
significant loss of pool water, is 3 chances in 100,000 per reactor year. October 8, 1987 Order at 9-10. Based on these figures, a similar risk basis at Diablo Canyon would lead to a' f probability of 6 chances in 100,000 years of operation, since there are two spent fuel pools at the plant. Over a _ plant j lifetime of thirty years, these probabilities are equivalent to one accident per 500 yearr. of operation. Given this liklihood that such an event will occur, the accident cannot be consio'ered remote or speculative.
Not all nuclear power plants utilize high density storage racks. Such racks are not presently in use at Diablo Canyon; PG&E seeks to install them through this license amendment. The '
fuel storage facilities proposed for Diablo Canyon would store freshly discharged fuel in high density racks that are the same type of racks analyzed in the BNL Report. Ferguson Affidavit, attached to the Sierra Club's Motion to Include Issues Raised in Generic Issue 82,'below as exh. 2. Two of the Report's authors specifically recommend against the storage of spent fuel in the manner PGGE seeks to institute at Diablo Canyon. BNL Report, Appendix B. These facts alone provide a nexus between the instant license amendment proceeding and the BNL Report.
The Appeal Board, In denying the Sierra Club's stay request, stated that it did not view the recommendation as being prompted by a belief on the part of the two authors that the use of the 8
L
high density racks to store recently-removed spent fuel would cause an-undue threat to the public health and safety. October 8,-1987 Order, at n. 24. However, this statement is simply an assertion, unsupported by reference to the authors' own views. A
.more reasonable assumption would be that the authors did view the disclosures of the report as representing a significant risk, and that this prompted them to make the recommendatoin.
In addition, there are other aspects of the BNL' Report which connect it more specifically with Diablo Canyon. The Report provides' evidence of a much greater health risk resulting from a spent- fuel pool fa11ure in the case of a pressurized water reactor, PWR, BNL Report at S-6; both the units at Diablo Canyon are PWRs.
Also, of the several accident-initiating events postulated in the Report, structural failure of the spent fuel pool due to seismic events is considered to be ~ a dominant cause of such failures. Id. at S-4. Diablo Canyon has an unusually high risk l
of-undergoing a severe seismic event due to its location close-to l an active fault zone. Given Diablo Canyon's location, the known likelihood of a seismic hazard materia 11 zing at the facility is expected to be greater than the same likelihood at an average, or
" generic" plant.10 These factors combine to create a specific nexus between the BNL Report and the instant proceeding which can 10 The Appeal Board itself stated that "it is common knowle-dge that the Diablo Canyon facility is located in a more seismi-cally active area than is either Ginna or Millstone." October 8, 1987 Order, at p. 11.
9 i
s s
serve as a. proper basis for admitting the Sierra Club's Conten-tion'.
Furthermore, the reasons . given by the Licensing Board . for
-its decision regarding the nexus issue are inadequate. The September 2, 1987 ruling criticizes the Sierra Club for - not offering data comparing the PWR studied -in the BNL . Report' i
and Diablo Canyon. Memorandum and Order, at 11. This basis for the i ruling represents an 1 permissible attempt.by the Licensing Board to decide the admissibility of a contention based on the underly- f
' ing merits of the contention.
Mississippi Power and Light Co.,
1 6
l AEC 423 (ALAB-130, 1973). The data referred to by the Licensing Board 'is the type of- information a party may want to seek in
-discovery or may want to introduce at a hearing on the msrits of i l.
.a contention such as that here offered. However, the Contention put forth by was specific enough to be admitted.
I The ruling below also stated that the BNL Report contains d several " caveats," and then goes on to quote the Report as )
l follows: !
...These estimated risks (of health consequences) are comparable to the estimated risk posed by severe core damage accidents and appear to warrant further atten-tion. However, the uncertainty in this estimate is larger (areater than a factor of 10) and plant specific features may change the results considerably.
Preventive and mitigative measures have been evaluated qualitatively. It is suggested that for plants with similar risk potential to the two surrogate plants, the one measure which is likely to be effective in reducing risk is utilization of low density storage racks for recently discharged fuel. However, before such preventive measures are implemented a complete plant specific risk assessment for pool related accidents should be performed including a structured 10 l
I l
l L__-_----__-____--_____-__-
tg ;g ,
1 l
Ii fragility analysis of the pool itself. ){
Order at 8 (quoting BNL Report, p. iii)(emphasis added) .
l The important point'with respect.to the quoted material'is )
.that, . with. full knowledge of these statements, two of the authors
- ]
-still recommend that spent fuel- not=be stored in high density racks until it has been stored-for two or more years in the old i style, low-density' racks.
i BNL Report, Appendix B. The fact j that the authors. call for a plant specific risk assessment is'not
-surprising, given the nature of the' Report.
Since two of the authors recommended against the storage of freshly discharged fuel into high density racks as proposed at Diablo Canyon in spite of the other cautions as to the accuracy of their work and the need for site-specific data, their "cavea- i ts" ~ do not provide a' basis for excluding the Contention. By citing the unusually strong recommendation against the use of high density-racks contained in the Report, the Sierra Club has established a sufficient nexus between the Report and the present licensing amendments.
The Sierra Club is aware that Generic Issue 82 has not yet been reduced to a regulation in Title 10 of the Code of Federal ,
Regulations. See Order at 8. However, the Board's statement that "the BNL Report is but the latest in this ongoing series of studies" seriously misses the significance of the Report. The Report, for the first time, has quantified the hazards associated ,
with the cladding fire danger at plants like Diablo Canyon and
.has made specific recommendations to mitigate those hazards. It 11 1
clearly establishes the nexus between the generic potential- for -
Zircaloy fires and the danger to existing PWRs posed by this problem. Although the NRC.has yet to adopt a specific regulation to deal with this issue, it has clearly been established by the authors of the Report that Zircaloy fires represent a real and present danger to the public health and safety at plants using high density spent fuel racks. By calling attention to these facts, the Sierra Club has fulfilled the nexus requirements of Gulf States.
The Board claims that "the Sierra Club's proposed contention assumes a total loss of coolant in the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools without specifying any accident scenario that would cause
.that loss." Order at 10. The Contention deals only with complete water loss since that is the scenario evaluated by the BNL Report. The hazards relating to partially drained pools have yet to be addressed, although there is some evidence that they may be significant. BNL Report, at 2-15.
The Report, on page 2-29, clearly identifies seven scenarios for water loss in PWRs. At the present time, no one has iden-tified which of these scenarios may be most significant for Diablo Canyon. However, the scenarios studied for the surrogate PWR in the Report are clearly potential scenarios for failure at Diablo Canyon. That is, after all, the value of the " surrogate".
Moreover, it has already been pointed out that the Report's l
identification of seismic-hazard uncertainty as one of the two main causes of the uncertainty of health risks provides part of 12 1
e i ;
the specific nexus between the Report and this proceeding, given i
Diablo Canyon's location. Thus, Diablo Canyon has a uniquely high risk of undergoing one of the identified causes of a potential loss of coolant accident. Therefore the Report, as cited by the Sierra Club, adequately establishes the required nexus, and raises enough of a concern about the possibility of such an accident at Diablo Canyon to meet the threshold test of whether the issue should be admitted as a contention.
The Board's quote of the Report regarding previous water loss incidentsi1 is irrelevant given the method used in the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) procedure. In addition, the Board's technical discussion of the Ginna and Diablo Canyon plants ignores the BNL analysis altogether. Order at 10 and 11.
In its PRA for the Ginna PWR surrogate plant, the BNL authors made use of an appropriate " fragility curve" representing the strength of a spent fuel structure. However, the curve was based on the strength of the reactor building at the Oyster Creek plant and a shear wall at the Zion plant. BNL Report, at 2-9.
Data for Ginna was unavailable. Thus the Board's arguments regarding the ages of Ginna and Diablo Canyon miss the mark. In addition, these arguments represent a further attempt by the Board to judge the merits of the Contention, rather than its admissibility.
11 The Licensing Board notes that, "while there have been incidents, 'there is no case on record of a significant loss of water inventory from a domestic, commercial spent fuel pool.'"
Order at 10 (quoting BNL Report, at S-2).
13
4
..The Board cites a number of qualifying statemen'ts in the Report, which i t' claims " warn (s) against drawing specific conclusions' as to individual reactors...".- Order at 11. g However,'some of these qualifications are necessary because of l l
theLfeatures of PRAs in general. Indeed, the PRA is intended to provide some measure of quantification for precisely those situations- in which here are large uncertainties; therefore, these ' uncertainties must be recognized. Still, the PRA is thought to be the state of the art in safety analysis, even though it must rely on simplifying assumptions, estimates of event frequencies and hazards, and data from generic facilities.
Based on the PRA, the BNL Report has clearly identified a significant safety issue for the reracking at Diablo Canyon.
- 2. The Requirements For Admission As A Late-Filed .{
Contention Have Been Met The Sierra Club has established that the contention applies to the facility at issue and should be admitted. Sierra Club also meets the requirements for filing a late-filed contention, as set forth in 10 CFR S2.714(a)(1). This section requires the balancing of considerations, including good cause for failure to file on time, other means to protect the intervenor's interest, assistance in developing a sound record, and whether the proceed- '
ing will be broadened or delayed.
First, the Sierra Club had good cause for filing when it did in that it had not previously received a copy of the Report. On March 27, 1987, the NRC staff issued Board Notification 87-05
(" Board Notification") regarding the BNL Report. The Board 14
r-Notification was not accompanied by the Report itself. The Board Notification contained the misleading statement that the "the draft report does not pertain directly to currently ongoing licensing efforts for spent fuel pool expansion amendment l l
requests by utilities ' including hearings. " See Board Notifica-tion, attached to BNL Report. Neither the Sierra Club, its l counsel, nor several other parties on the Diablo Canyon Service list received copies of the Report until a party on the service !
list, Nancy Culver, requested that the NRC send her a copy after reading about the Report in a local newspaper.12 See Affidavits i
of Dr. Richard Ferguson, Nancy Culver, and Sandra Silver, as well '
'as the declaration of Edwin F. Lowry, attached to Sierra Club's Motion below.
It is unreasonable to expect the Sierra Club to have raised Generic Issue 82 in the current proceeding on the basis of the Board Notification alone, since the notification denies the pertinence of the issue.13 The Sierra Club brought the matter ;
i before the Licensing Board within one week of receiving the Report. Declaration of E.F. Lowry, attached to Motion below. ;
This constitutes timely notice, i
i la It should be noted that the San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune, not a party to the case, also on the service
( list, did not receive a copy of the Report either. See Exhibit 1, attached to the Sierra Club's Motion to Include Issues Raised !
in Generic Issue 82, below. i 13 Prior to the Board Notification regarding the Report, no j mention had been made of the potential for fuel cladding fires in '
any of the documents relating to the Diablo Canyon reracking.
The . absence of any mention in these documents formed the backdrop in which the Board Notification was read and interpreted. j 15 4
______ - _ _ A
.s Second, the Sierra Club has no means of protecting its interests regarding the cladding fires hazards at Diablo ( anyon other than to raise the issue in the current proceeding. The NRC has argued that the resolution of Generic Issue 82 should be left to "further reviews associated with the licensing of the spent fuel pool amendment at Diablo Canyon." Diablo Hearing Tran-script, June 16, 1987, p. 158, line 6. At this point, the OLAs have been issued. The original EA and FONSI issued more than a year ago did not mention the issue of fuel cladding fires. The only additional " review" performed by the NRC staff has been the !
supplemental EA and FONSI. They do not refer to the BNL Report at all. See Exhibit A. Nor does the cursory discussion of the Zircaloy cladding issue contained in those documents justify the issuance of the OLAs. Third, *: h e Sierra Club is assisting in making whole the public rec.ord on this issue. As the only remaining intervenor, the Sierra Club has raised substantive issues regarding the proposed reracking which would I j
not otherwise have been made part of the public record, thus i
{
furthering the development of a sound record on the safety of the proposed action.
Fourth, the NRC NEPA documents compiled in May of 1986 did not discuss the hazards of cladding fires in high density racks.
If the Licensing Board had admitted the Contention when it was first raised by the Sierra Club, the necessary proceedings would l
be well underway by now. Moreover, protection of human health .
1 and safety and of the environment are of paramount concern. The f
1 l
16 l
reracking should not be allowed to proceed while significant concerns of this nature remain unaddressed.
On balance, the Sierra Club has fulfilled its responsibili-ties under 10 CFR S 2.71 .14 B. An EIS Is Required For This License Amendment The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires all foderal agencies to prepare an EIS analyzing possible environ-mental effects before undertaking any major federal action that may significantly affect the environment. 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2)(c). In addition to the EIS requirement, NEPA S 102(2)(e) requires agencies to " study, develon, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available recources."
The Sierra Club's motion included a request that the Licensing Board direct preparation of an EIS concerning the possibility of and impact of Zircaloy cladding fires at the Diablo Canyon facility.15 This portion of the motion was also 14 Alternately, in its original contentions Sierra Club stated that the reports available to the public failed to consider the " effects of the possible loss of pool cooling capacity on the spent fuel assemblies." Sierra Club Contention I(A)(3), ALSBP No 86-523-03-LA Order June 27, 1986. This contention was not admitted by the Board for lack of specificity, but clearly relates to the hazards such as cladding fires in high density racks. The Brookhaven Report now supplies the specificity which the Board found lacking earlier and which the Club had no way of knowing at the time the contention was written.
I C' f4In August of 1979, the NRC generated a generic EIS which was not, among other things, based on a high density rack configura-tion of the type now proposed. This document was then relied on in both the May 29, 1986 Environmental Ausessment ("EA") and the 17
t based on the BNL Report, which provided previously unavailable evidence of significant impacts on the human environment.16 The Licensing Board rejected Sierra Club's NEPA claim, l stating that its determination that no nexus had been shown between the BNL Report ' and the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools also led it to conclude that no EIS was required. Order at 14.
The Licensing Board relies on the recently-issued case of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp, 26 NRC _ (ALAB-869, . issued July 21, 1987), apparently reading that case to mean that Sierra Club's request for an EIS must fail because it is based on a "beyond des 1gn basis" accident. scenario. Order at 13-14.
Sierra Club believes that it has shown a sufficient nexus between the BNL Report and th6 Diablo Canyon license amendment procedure, as elaborated above.1' This nexus is created by: 1) the fact that exactly the same type of fuel storage racks are at issue; 2) the increased risk identified in the BNL Report for PWRs (which Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 are); and 3) the in-May 30, 1986 Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"). The supplemental EA attempted to justify the use of this document, which is now eight years old, by stating that the NRC staff has assured itself current.
that the information relied on in the EIS is still Exhibit A, at p.6. NEPA is designed to ensure the public's access to information and its ability to review an agency's environmental decisions. Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir. 1974). The statement that the staff is satisfied fulfills neither of these purposes and provides no basis for a review of the staff's judgment.
16 See pp. 13-14, supra. The NRC's supplemental EA states that in the event of a zircaloy cladding fire, "the environmental impacts could be significa n. t " Exhibit A, at p. 7.
17 See, supra, pp. 3-7.
i 18 l
l i
i
__ _ ___________ i
l creased seismic hazard risk evident for any plant located near a maj or fault zone and the relation of this fact the Report's 1 conclusions.
i In addition, the Licensing Board misapplies the Vermont Yankee decision. In that case, the Appeals Board merely ruled that the specific accident scenario at issue there was too remote !
and speculative to trigger the requirement that an EIS be performed. The opinis.. reconfirms the agency's long-standing policy of considering the need to prepare an EIS on a case-by-case basis. Vermont Yankee, at 23, 26, citing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2),
24 NRC 1,12, rev'd on other grounds sub. nom., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986).
Therefore, Vermont Yankee does not dictate the result in the instant case, where Sierra Club has shown specific factors linking the BNL Report to the Diablo Canyon spent fuel reracking proposal that make the likelihood of a Zircaloy cladding fire at 3 the Diablo Canyon plant more than a " remote and speculative"
)
event.
Furthermore, even if the Licensing Board were correct in its reading of the Vermont Yankee case, it would be impermissible as i
a matter of NEPA law simply to exclude all accidents labelled "beyond design basis" from the requirement that an EIS be prepared on the grounds that such accidents are, by definition,
" remote and speculative" events. I i
NEPA does relieve agencies of the duty to consider " remote l' 19 1 3
l
i t
and speculative" events; the determination of what constitutes a
" remote and speculative" event is governed by a rule of reason.
l Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972). However, the governing Council on Environ-mental Quality, ("CEQ") regulations and relevant case law make clear that an event is not remote and speculative merely because there is a low probability that it will occur. All " reasonably foreseeable" significant adverse impacts must be analyzed, including " impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low." 40 CFR S 1502.22 <
(1986). In San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1984), aff'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (1986),
cert. denied, U.S. , 107 S.Ct. 330 (1986), the D.C.
Circuit stated:
[w]here uncertainty exists as to either probability or consequences, however, a worst case analysis is mandatory if proposed action.
the agency decides to proceed with its Most notably (and most controver-sially), the regulation requires such an analysis even where the probability of an impact is assumed to be very small.
Although the Court held that the requirement did not apply in that case because the EIS at issue there was filed significantly before the effective date of the requirement,18 the Court recog-nized the obligation of agencies to analyze impacts even when the probability of an occurrence is slight. This decision is in 18 This time bar does not apply in the instant case because no EIS has ever been done on the reracking of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools. The BNL Report makes clear that the high density configuration reracking involves risks which have never been taken into account before. BNL Report at S-1.
20
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ 'j
keeping with rulings by other Circuits on this issue.1' Save Our Ecosystems v.
Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984) (spraying of herbicides enjoined until worst case analysis of impacts com-pleted) .and; , Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 971-974 (5th Cir. 1983)(agency's duty to analyze hypothesis of a massive oil.
spill not excused by mere fact such a spill was remote or-unlikely).
No factual basis yet exists which can be used to establish ;
tne exact probability of a Zircaloy cladding fire resulting in a radioactive release from Diablo Canyon.20 However, the BNL Report provides the necessary basis to require that the Conten-tion regarding such an accident be admitted. The probability of just one of the accident scenarios considered in the Report (that of a cask drop resulting in a significant loss of pool waterfd) was found to be 3 in 100,000. Appeal Board's October 8, 1987 1'While these cases were filed before the nomenclature of
" worst case" has been deleted from the relevant CEO rules, the requirement that low probability events which may have catastro-phic consequences be analyzed remains. 40 C.F.R. S 12502.22 (1986).
2 oOne major shortcoming in the NRC's NEPA documents is the lack of site-specific information. This is not surprising, given the agency's reliance upon an outdated, generic EIS. For example, the supplemental EA admits the non site-specific nature t of its analysis, stating that "[the] lack of site-specific discussion of terrestrial and radiological impacts is due t the fact that causes for such impacts are not associated with rerack1ng and operation of the high density pools." Exhibit A, at p. 6. Since the BNL Report establishes seismic events as a cause of loss of coolant accidents, and since Diablo Canyon is located in a seismically active area, the supplemental EA is inadequate because it fails.to analyze the greater likelihood of terrestrial and radiological impacts arising from the proposed j reracking at Diablo Canyon.
l 21
.g.
Order, at'10. In a plant such as Diablo Canyon, with two spent fuel. pools, a similar risk basis would be equivalent to a chance of 6 in'100,000 years of operation. Over a thirty year' lifetime, this would result in a risk of one such accident every 500 years.
While Diablo Canyon's location in a seismically active area may result in an increase'in such risks, even the risk derived from the PRA is sufficient to establish that a Zircaloy cladding fire is not a remote and speculative event.
The agency cannot rely on a policy statement as a stand-in for the development of a factual record on the question of how "remate and speculative" an event is. There is no basis under NEPA for ruling out consideration of events which may affect the need to prepare an EIS merely by labelling them "beyond-design-basis." The Licensing Board's conclusion to the contrary is arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by evidence in the record. It assumes facts (e.g. the " improbability of a beyond-
' design-basis accident") without specific factual findings to suppeet them.
Moreover, the phrase " design basis accident" is of quest- I lonable meaning in the present proceeding, where the OLAs at issue will result in a dramatically different amount of fuel being stored than was anticipated when the facility was designed-21 The Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools were designed on the basis 21 The Licensing Board stated that the "Diablo Canyon plant l~ was designed to store spent fuel for a nominal period of one year i
and then ship the fuel offsite for reprocessing or disposal." {
Initial Decision, at p. 35.
22
.n 4-('
of 270 fuel assembly locations. PG&E proposes to increase the number of these location by almost five times the original design
. basis, without changing: the pool size, the spent fuel cooling equipment, or other related systems. Thus, the proposed' amendment results . in . a spent fuel storage system which is beyond the.
original design basis of the plant. Yet this alone cannot remove the change from the mandates of NEPA.
The EA and supplemental EA are also inadequate under NEPA for . their failure to adequately consider alternatives. The EA simply asserts that other alternatives -- including transshipment to another reactor, federal off-site storage, " dry casks" and "no project" -- are not feasible, without providing adequate suppor-ting data or analysis to justify this conclusion. The EA ignores on-site storage alternatives such as those recommended in the BNL Report. -The supplemental EA adds nothing to the inadequate !
discussion of alternatives contained in the original EA (Exhibit i
A, at p. 5) and does not even mention the BNL Report or its
{
findings.
The agency's existing documents also fail to meet NEPA's l mandate the environmental consequences of a proposed action be fully disclosed to the public. To allow the reracking to proceed without providing such information deprives the public of the !
full disclosure of the project's consequences and alternatives to l;
which it is entitled under NEPA. Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 !
F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir. 1974(.
l Last year, the Sierra Club (and Mothers for Peace) appealed 1
23 i
1
s.
this proceeding to the Ninth Circuit, where they argued, inter alia, that the NRC had violated NEPA. The Court decided the case on other grounds but did state:
With respect to petitioners' NEPA claims, however, we note that the site specific environmental assessment was based on a seven year old generic environmental assessment and that no worst case analysis, 40 C.F.R. S 1502.22, appears to have been conducted. We strongly suggest that any doubt concerning the need to supple-ment the NEPA documents be resolved in favor of additional documentation. !
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir. 1986). The supplemental EA prepared by the NRC staff fails to remedy the earlier shortcomings of the agency's NEPA documents. The regulations and cases dealing with low probabil-ity risks and scientific uncertainty require that an EIS be done !
for the Diablo Canyon reracking, as requested by the Sierra Club.
The agency must also consider alternatives and provide full disclosure to the public. A full and complete EIS would meet all of these requirements.
C. The Licensing Board's Rejection of Contention I(B)(7)
Was Incorrect The Sierra Club's Contention I( B )( 7 ) provides as follows:
It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the
[ applicant's] Reports fail to inclu( consideration of relevant conditions, phenomena and alternatives necessary for independent verification of claims made l in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed ;
reracking with public health and safety, and the environment, and with federal law.
! In particular, the Reports fail to consider:
- 7) alternative on-site storage facilities including:
24 i
l j i
u________ _ _ _ _ l
l'
.It f k'.- , , ,
-[
-yy v t (i) construction of.new or additional storage
' facilities ~and/oi; (11) acquisition of. modular or. mobile-spent nuclear
- fuel storage equipment,: including spent nuclear' j
. fuel storage casks; The. Sierra" Club-presented expert testimony' showing thatLthe'
- consideration given ' these ; alternatives by the applicant was not-
- adequate to; protect.the public. health and. safety. PG&E asserted. I that it had considered two alternatives and that neither would provide ? any : additional _ safety for spent fuel _ storage than that
. provided by.the. proposed reracking. .However, this assertion was not' supported . by = l specific factual information; nor was the Licensing Board's ' adoption ~ of this assertion in its initial-
' decision. Initial decision, at p. 32. The applicant's' review of alternatives was nct adequate to determine whether or not safer alternatives exitt. Thus, the record does not provide an adequate basis for comparison and does not provide f actual
- support for the conclusion that the public health and safety is-sufficiently protected by allowing the reracking to occur.
Furthermore, the BNL Report provides evidence of the lack of safety involved in the reracking and two of its authors recommend
- a. safer alternative -- storing the newly discharged fuel in low-density racks. This is further evidence that the Sierra Club was in' stating that the applicant's own review of alternatives was
< inadequate. The applicant provided no evidence that this
-alternative was reviewed, or shown not to be safer. The NRC's
[ : reliance upon these Reports in its issuance of the OLAs endangers the'public health and safety, in violation of the Atomic Energy 25 L
b-
Q ,,;.<(.
p
- ?~
_;' +h hi V
'.),.
9o
. i1 ') ,',. t Gj> e 6 " ' , ~y ' '
,f
'y
. ., ? -
il } ;
Act and the Nuclear, ;;..
Waste Policy Act.'(see infra., section?III). ,
'+
III.
R The Licensing'Boary(ricalth Protect the- Public and Safetv"+rlh[ Approval of the OLAs Fai p , ', i*
~
s
- g. , ; , y3 The ' Atomic Energy. Act, ' 42. U.S . S 2239--et' seq., requires- g the - NRC to . assure that nuclear plants' will' operate without-endangering ~ the. public, health and safety. h he Nuclear Waste- '
f Po'licy Act, 42 U.S C. funm S~',10101,/.
j 10152(1)&(prohibits the'NRC
+
.f I authorizing - expansion 'of' on-site, spent ' / fuel facilities unlegs ,
.., .,a ;,
such action , is consistent with dhe prote'ction bf' e the , public ?
s health and safety.
? ,t,.
.The BNL[ Report 's implications for safety at. Diablo Canyon' establish that the public health and safety may be u,nreasorIably _
i imperiled if b e OLAs'are authorized. The Sa'erra Clu6 sought to establish this threat through' 'its Contention regarding.She BNL
-Report and .the consequences of a loss/r of coolant accident at ij j !,
Diablo Canyon.
The Sierra
. . v Club airo provided evidence of . ,th,e
.. i t failure to protect the hublic health and safety in its'analyshs ,
.U..
rj of-the applicant's review of alte: natives. The applicant falled ,<
to provide an adequate review, relying instead on unsupported ~
o . i n' assertions . regarding the safety of alternatives versus' tpat of ,"
/ b
'the proposed OLAS. Both the failure of the Licensting Bc}mrp to o ,
admit the Sistra
,3.'
Club's late-filed Contention and they ack of '
3
- record support for its ruling against Coluention I(B)(7), provide is o
a basis for a ruling that the public health and safety has not 4 <
been protected. ,,,'
IV. CONCLDit$0N ,
I
The ' Sierra ClubL has shown that its contention regarding i 26 p
,1 1
..t ii
,p
/
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ) __ __ e -
... ], t
,' ' k .
k l.'" *
.~c o n t a i n e d . t h e requisite specificity to ' be Zircaloy<cladding I T
admitted to.this proceeding,.and that it~ meets;the cri.teria for a r
.g'.
late-flied contention. The Sierra Club has also' shown . that an '
-EIS is. require'd for the ' proposed reracking it Diablo ' Canyon.
Finally, ' the Sierra Club has shown that the i.icensing Board-incorrectly rejected contention ~ I(B)(7), and that its rulings 1
1 3
'have failed to adequately protect the public. 'This Appeal Board N s Wj < .i should rule accordingly, forallofthereasonsjhereinstate'c}.} t
^
Dated: October 26,.1987 Respectfully subhtitted, '
f l u, s .,-t ,l .1 -
LAW OFFICE OF DIAN M. DRUEISICH } [};/g '[; l
, i , .. <
g
,i e i . /j. !
/ . + l By- , < < m
) ! ,4:
Marcia Preston .i q1vj}
t
!i ' .,N !
"r
. 2; e v ,
,, 4 ,!
.( \ 1 1,
6J
% l
\ '-
I q
~
I r
l "f r l l
t ;
i
% ?
.\ h i . ,,
a '
I (!
.t-
.j ]
> j s
?9 Y \,
^ %,
Q' l 27 '
1 l ,',
t s
\ ', . 1 l
1 4 (/ c 4
[. 3
y,, <
, a y-7
^
- y'V i
.e y - , .. ~ , , , ,
+4 .("
e, 7 11 j t .<
2, \~
z g
6# atCo f
'o, UMTcD sT ATEs - , 2( () !
[ ' . 'g ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHWC TON, D. C. 20555 OCT 19 y i y 3 ,-l 'l
[,fv// - October 15, 1987 l9f_ l ~d'. ._ g l C6' Docket /(os.! h%, 275.
(dend50-323 9 Y)
N . M r.' Ods[Shyfer,~VicePresident Huclear Power Generation v5 '
r c/o Nuc nar Power Genqration, licensing ?<
Pacific Gas and E hetric Company
'77 Beale Street ' loom 1451 '"
s 4 .; ;.
y San Francisco, California 94106
1 Q { par 6 Mr. Shiffer: e NBJECT: SUP?LEMENT TO THE SAFETf EVAL.UATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
- f. - biABLO/ CANYON RERAC6,j;
. v .\ ;
Enclosed for yoecJinformationa is a Supplement to the Safety Evaluation and j
+ Environmental Assessment providing our evaluatio3 of wet reracking' aspects and ;
Boraflex for the spent fuel pool expansion:for Diablo Canyon,-Units 1 and 2. j in addition, in accordance with the Opinion of September 11, 1986.by the U.S. j Court of Appe jls for the Ninth Circuit, we' have given further consideration to the applicabMity of the generic environmental impact statement and the need i for analyv.ti severe accidents.
yo v Based on.c9eireview and evadshun of the information provided by you, we have
~
concluded that no furthgr Manges to the Technical. Specifications as contained in Amendment Nos. 8 a n 6 to the'Dlablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 licenses are required for. the'speci fsel pool expansions. The effectiveness of these l amendments wf 7,1 be tk subject of future amendments to the Diablo Canyon l operating licenses. I !
We haVe'also en'loled c a Notice of Supplement to Environmental Assessment and finding of NA Significar>t impact. This notice is being i forvarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
- i Sincerely, t
o k ,~
$ G l JCharles M. Trammell, Project Manager l Project Directorate V ;
3 TV f Division of Reactor Pro.iects-III, IV, V
'f ,
and Special Projects
Enclosures:
- 1. Supplement th the Safety Evaluations and Environmental Assessment 4 s 7 S .EXHSj_TJ A cc: See next page i 7 , s
- I.
it; 1
.1
'.9
- r l
3 L'
Pacific Gas :and Electric Company -3 Diablo Canyon Spent ~ fuel Pool Proceeding-
- CC: . .
Mr!' Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety-and Licensing' Board
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington,'DC 20555 Or. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 I
B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Administrative Judge-Atotric Safety and Licensing Board-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC ~20555 Alan. S. Rosenthal, Chainnan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -1
' Washington, D.C. '20555 Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission .;
Washington. D.C. 20555 ,
Howard A.- Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 '
\
,+: 1
'b- .. j
'* . j i
i i
1 SUPPLEMENT TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING T0 THE RERACKING OF THE SPENT FUEL POOLS AT THE DIABLO~ CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0.'0PR-80 l
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR-82 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 1
DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323 OCTOBER 15, 1987
_________E____ _ - _ - -
<g;.
.t.
i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.- INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND- 1
- 2. WET RERACKING ASPECTS 2 2.1 Rack Removal and Installation 2 2.2 Radiation Protection and ALARA Considerations 3 2.3 Accidents 3 2.4 Environmental Impacts 4 2.5 ' . Al ternatives 'S
- 3. BORAFLEX NEUTRON ABSORBING MATERIAL 5
- 4. GENERIC FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6 i
1
- 5. SEVERE ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS 7 I
- 6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 7 i
- 7. CONTRIBUTORS 8 i- I
- 8. REFERENCES 9
. q
- 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND l The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), licensee for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, requested, by letter dated October 30, 1985 (Ref.1), an amendment to the operating license for each unit that would authorize an expansion of the capacity of each of the two spent fuel pools from 270 fuel elenients to 132a fuel elements. The staff reviewed and evaluated the amendment i request, and on May 30, 1986, issued Amendment No. 8 and No. 6 to the Unit 1 and Unit 2 operating licenses DPR-80 and OPR-82, respectively. These amendments, which were supported by the staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) and Environmental Assessment (EA), made appropriate changes to the Technical Specifications (Refs. ? I and 3, respectively) . Based on the staff's final detennination that the action involved no significant hazards consideration, the amendments became inwediately ef fec tive .
I Thereaf ter, in September 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ;
ruled on a petition for review jointly filed by the Sierra Club and San Luis
~
Obispo Mothers for Peace, holding that the NRC improperly determined that the 4
. license amendments sought involved no significant hazards consideration (Ref. 4). !
As a consequence, the effectiveness of the amendments was stayed by the Court until the completion of the requested NRC hearing.
In order to comply with the Court's holding, while, at the same time providing for the continued operation of the facility, the licensee removed the new, high density racks which had been installed in Unit 1, reinstalled the original racks and placed the spent fuel from the Unit I first refueling into the original racks.
The new high density racks had not been installed in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool.
The Unit 2 original racks are, as in Unit 1, being used to store the spent fuel offloaded from Unit 2 from the first refueling. Because of the foregoing, the reracking of Unit 1 and Unit ? with the new, high density racks will now have to be performed in a wet and radioactively contaminated environment rather than in ;
a dry and uncontaminated environment. The license amendment application (Ref.1) !
provided little infonnation concerning installation of the high density racks in a wet environment, noting the licensee's preference to undertake the effort in dry, uncontaminated pools. Accordingly, the staff's Safety Evaluation and <
Environmental Assessnunt did not address the fonner.
This Supplement provides the staff evaluation of wet reracking aspects, Boraflex neutron absorbing material, and further discussions on certain aspects of the Environmental Assessment in response to the Opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, in particular, that the staff's site specific envimnmental assessment was based on a seven year old generic environmental assessment and that no " worst case" analysis, in accordance with 40 CFR Section 1502.22 (Ref.17), appeared to have been conducted. The wet reracking aspects are discussed in Section 2 of this report and include installation i
procedures, radiation protection, accidents, radioactive waste, enytronmental consequences and alternatives to wet reracking. The staff's evaluation of Boraflex neutron absorbing material is contained in Section 3. Further discussion regarding the Environmental Assessnent and documentation on the adequacy of a previous generic environmental assessment and on the need for a "werst case" analysis are addressed in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
, .i . +
[
L i
- 22. WET RERACKING ASPECTS ,
I As discussed 'in Section 1, the issuance of the license ' amendments fEr the y
expanded . spent fuel pools and the supporting Safety Evaluation and
' Environmental Assessment by the: staff (Refs. 2 and 3) were- based on the.
]
assumption that the..reracking ' process, that' is, the removal of. the original:
racks and installation'of the new racks, would take place 1n a dry and ,
~
unc' contaminated environment. Since. the' spent fuel pool reracking for both. Units must now be perfonned in a wet and.possibly contaminated environment, the '
1 staff has re-reviewed and re-evaluated those' aspects that are different and
'of significance.regarding.the reracking process.' They include the following
. aspects previously. discussed in the EA and SER:
0 occupational exposure EA Section 3.2; Installation of racks and load handling. SER Section 5;
, Radiation, protection and ALARA considerations, SER Section 8; Reracking installation, SER Section 12 Item 7.
The . staff evaluation for each of these aspects .is pmvided in the .following !
sections of this report. -The staff.also has considered if the' wet' reracking involves any alternative action other than those previously evaluated, as discussed in Section 2.5 below. The staff review and evaluation of the wet
. reracking included requests - for additional' information to the licensee (Refs. 5 and 6), a meeting with the licensee on January 22,1987 (Ref. 7) and additional infonnation provided by the licensee (Refs. 8' and'Ref. 9). .j The wet reracking does not change any of the other matters previously evaluated in the staff's' Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment, and
' furthennore, does not require any other changes to the Technical Specifications 1
'than were' included in Amendme?t Nos. 8 and 6 for Units l'and'2, respectively. ~i 2.1 Rack Removal And Installation In Section 2 of its SE (Ref. 2) the staff had concluded that the installation in a dry and uncontaminated condition will not result in an accident with the i potential release ~ of radioactivity. The staff requested additional infonnation 5 on the rack removal and installation aspect for a wet and contaminated condition
'(Refs. 5 and 6), discussed this matter with the licensee in a meeting on Janua ry 22,1987 (Ref. 7) and the licensee provided further information ;
.(Refs. 8 and 9).
In the February 2,1907 submittal (Ref. 9) the licensee stated that procedures will be developed for the removal of the original racks and the installation l t
of the new, high density racks. These procedures will include requirements for handling heavy loads, radiation protection, tool control and appropriate g special lifting devices. Further, the special lifting devices and 6verhead
~
L crane that will be used to remove the existing, low density spent fuel racks ~
l and install the new, high density racks will be tested and inspected in accordance with the mquirements of ANSI B30.9-1971 and ANSI B.30.2.0-1976, i respectively. Additionally, the crane operators have been trained in accordance with ANSI B.30.2.0-1976.
6-
.= l
.' .i 1
-l 3-The handling.of both the original and the new racks is governed by criteria for the handling of heavy loads, as prescribed in NUREG-0612 " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" (Ref.10). These activities will be performed consistent with the licensee's previous commitments to the'NUREG-Of42 guidelines.
In the staff's Safety Evaluation Report Supplement Hos. 27 and 31 SSER-27 and SSER-31, respectively (Refs.11 and 12) the staf f concluded that the licensee's program for the Diablo Canyon olent for the control of heavy loads complies with the guidelines of NUREG-0612. This conclusion remains unchanged. The aspects I of a potential accident involving spent fuel during the reracking operations l is discussed in Section 2.3 below. l 2.2 Radiation Protection and ALARA Considerations The staff evaluation for radiation protection and ALARA considerations was previously provided in Section 8 of its Safety Evaluation (Ref. 2) for the dry and uncontaminated condition. Additional information for the wet and contaminated condition has been provided by the licensee (Refs. 8 and 9).
Underwater lighting and TV monitoring will facilitate diver and installation l operations. Diver exclusion zones around spent fuel will be established and diver decontamination crews' will be provided to ensure exposures are within the limits specified by 10 CFR Part 20 and meet ALARA Guidelines. Spent fuel stored in original or new racks will be moved to positions furthest away fmm where divers are performing rerack operations. Diving operations will not be pennitted during fuel handling operations. The effect on occupational exposure for the wet rerack is estimated to be 9.7 man-rem with a maximum individual' dose of 1.1 rem. This exposure is approximately 3% of the plant yearly cumulative dose.
Regarding the disposal of the original racks, previously discussed in Section 5 and Section 8 of the SE, the licensee will decontaminate the racks in the cask washdown area following their removal from the spent fuel pool. Original racks that are sufficiently decontaminated will be disposed of as scrap. The ,
disposal of contaminated materials and equipment will be in accordance with i plant procedures for radioactive waste. Any additional solid waste requiring )
land burial is not expected to be significant and therefore not an environmental i burden. This aspect is also discussed in Section 2.4 of this report.
2.3 Accidents.
In Section 12 of the SE the staff presented its evaluation of postulated i accidents, including an accident during the reracking operations. Because the )
reracking was expected to be perfonned prior to the first refueling and {
therefore in a dry and uncontaminated condition, the staff concluded that the l pmbability of an accident involving the release of radioactivity and its l consequences were insignificant. The staff has reviewed the additional j information provided by the licensee with respect to the reracking in a wet l and contaminated condition. Movement of original and new spent fuel racks '
during the reracking operation will be perfonned only without fuel assemblies ;
in the racks. The spent fuel assemblies will be positioned well away from the ;
area where spent fuel rack movement is being conducted. Appropriate procedures and rack transport methods will be developed and adhered to in order to control the movement' of the spent fuel racks and to preclude the accidental dropping, !
1
l i
(
1 tipping, or swinging of a spent fuel ick into an adjacent rack in which spent fuel assemblies have been loaded. Safe load paths will be de ignated to preclude the carrying of heavy loads over racks containing spent fuel. The re fo re , q collisions with spent fuel stored in racks during the original rack-removal and new rack installation phase is not considered credible. Based on its review of the information provided by the licensee, the staff has detennined that an original or new spent fuel rack will not collide with any spent fuel assemblies.
The staff also concludes that the consequences of the other accidents previously i evaluated in Section 12 of the SE, including the spent fuel handling accident, ,
also addressed in Section 9 of the SE, are not affected by the wet reracking and, therefore, the consequences do not change.
The staff concludes that the method for removal of the original spent fuel ;
racks and for the installation of the new, high density racks, as proposed by the licensee, provide reasonable assurance that the reracking will not result in an accident with a potential for the release of significant amounts of radioactivity or with a potential for criticality. !
n 2.4 Environmental Impacts The non-radiological environmental impacts of dry reracking were previously addressed in Section 4 of the Environmental Assessment (Ref. 3). The non-radiological environmental impacts of wet reracking are the same as for dry re racking. The non-radiological environmental effects of the reracking operation itself and of operating the reracked pools are insignificant.
Radiological environmental impacts of dry reracking were previously i addressed in Section 3.0 of the Environrnental Assessment. The dry reracking operation would not have involved radioactive materials and operation of the reracked pools would not significantly increase the radiological environmental impacts. Radiological environmental impacts of wet reracking are addressed in Section 2.2 of this Supplement. Two additional, potential sources of environmental consequences were identified by the licensee for wet reracking. The consequences of an recident during the reracking operations having offsite consequences were found to be enveloped by the fuel handling accident previously evaluated in Section 9 of the Safety Evaluation (Ref. 2). Another potential source of environmental consequences is the generation of radioactively contaminated wastes. The exact amount of radioactive waste which will be generated during reracking is not known at this time. It will partially depend on the extent to which the original racks can be decontaminated. If none of the racks can be i decontaminated a conservative upper bound of the amount would be less than half the uncompacted volume of the racks , that is , approximately 9,000 cubic l feet per pool (Ref. 8). Because the radioactive waste from wet reracking will be '
packaged, transported, and disposed of in a manner consistent with NRC regulations, there will be no significant radiological impact on the environrnent. This waste consists primarily of those original spent fuel racks which cannot be-decontaminated.
It also includes potential additional filters and other disposable material !
generated during the wet reracking operations. This aspect is also addressed in Section 2.2 of this report.
.s
]
l l
i 2.5 Alternatives Alternatives to the reracking of the spent fuel pools were previously considered in Section 1.3 of the Environmental Assessment (Ref. 3). The six a.tternatives considered were found to be inferior to the licensee's proposed dry reracking.
These alternatives have been re-examined in comparison to wet reracking.
These same alternatives were found not to off er an environmental advantage over the wet rerack proposal. Because the impact of wet reracking on the natural and man-made environment is not significant the burden to look for 4 environmentally superior alternatives and to examine relative costs is eliminated. l Nevertheless, the staff examined the relative economic advantage of wet reracking. ;
The licensee estimates that the wet reracking effort will cost $13 million for l each unit. This is $6 million per unit more than for the previously expected dry reracking. For a pool fully loaded with 1324 assemblies, this results in a cost of about $21 per kg of storage capacity in 1987 dollars for the wet reracking. This is still considerably less expensive than building new, additional storage facilities either on site or away from the site. Costs associated with reracking' relative to new storage were explored in an IAEA Advisory Group / Specialist Meeting, (Ref.13). Capital costs for reracking were in the range of $5 per kg to $15 per kg, whereas capital costs for new fuel pools for a two reactor site were $52 per kg, all in 1980 dollars. The staf f concludes that the wet reracking cost of $21 per kg (1987 dollars) is comparable to the 55 to $15 per kg (1980 dollars) and is significantly lower than the cost for new fuel pools.
l
- 3. BORAFLEX NEUTRON ABSORBING MATERIAL l
By letter dated May 5,1987, Commonwealth Edison filed a report with the NRC !
regarding gaps measured in Boraflex, the neutron absorbing material used in the j high-density fuel storage racks for the Quad Cities Station. Since the j Boraflex material is also proposed to be used in the Region 1 racks at Diablo Canyon, the NRC staff issued a letter to PG&E dated June 2, 1987 (Ref. 19) i enclosing the report and requesting additional infonnation.
Boraflex is a trade name for a boron carbide dispersion in a rubber-like j matrix material (elastomeric silicone) manufactured by Bisco Products, Inc.
The Boraflex is manufactured in long sheets which are placed on the outside of storage cells to absorb neutrons and thereby lower the effective ,
multiplication factor (keff)* ,
Gaps were found in some of the Boraflex sheets et Quad Cities, occurring in !
the upper two-thirds of the cell length. The aveage gap was li inches, with !
the largest 4 inches. The problems found at Ouad C; ties were also the j subject of an NRC Infonnation Notice No. 87-43, " Gaps in Neutron-Absorbing l Material in High-Density Spent Fuel Storage Racks", dated September 8,1987. i l
The request for additional infonnation for Diablo Canyon was focused on the acceptability of the Boraflex material application at Diablo Canyon. l' surveillance procedures, and possible corrective actions if needed.
)
l In its response dated August 4,1987 (Ref. 20), PG&E stated that it does not '
expect the Quad Cities problem to occur at Diablo Canyon, citing design differences. Nevertheless, PG&E will monitor ongoing industry programs to 3 evaluate the nature and consequences of Boraflex shrinkage. Further, PG&E r comitted to institute a surveillance program to monitor for possible long-tenn
.s 6-degradation to ensure that k does not exceed the Technical Specification upper limit of 0.95. In supht of that program, PG&E will perfom an initial baseline neutron blackness test to both confirm the unifonn presenceof l Boraflex and to provide a data point for future reference. '
We have reviewed the surveillance program established by PG&E and have j concluded that it should be effective in detecting possible Boraflex 1 degradation before it should become a problem. Should significant degradation
~
occur, the staff will require that additional blackness tests on full-length panels be conducted to establish the full extent of actual degradation in the racks.
4 GEt'ERIC FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <
s in its decision, the United States Court of Appeals observed that "...the site-specific environmental assessment was based on a seven year old generic environmental assessment...", apparently referring to NUREG-0575, the Final Generic Environmental .
Impact Statement (Ref.14), implying, without specifying any particular area of j deficiency, that neither site-specific nor current infonnation was considered in j the Environmental Assessment (Ref. 3). The continuing validity and site-specific j applicability of the conclusions in the NUREG-0575 have been confinned in the i Environmental Assessments for the Surry and the H 8. Robinson Plants independent !
spent fuel storage installations (Refs.15 and 16, respectively), and again in the Environmental Assessment for the proposed reracking of the Diablo Canyon Plant spent fuel pools. Both site-specific and current infonnation have been considered in these Environmental Assessments.
3 In the context of reracking, the only potential Diablo Canyon site-specific impacts are those associated with the increase in waste heat; other impacts are generic ]
a in nature. Thus, the staff detennined in its Environmental Assessment for the !
Diablo Canyon Plant, that "the increase in waste heat from the additional storage of spent fuel will have a negligible effect on the Pacific Ocean water temperature r near the discharge." The lack of site-specific discussion of terrestrial and radiological impacts is due to the fact that causes for such impacts are not associated with reracking and operation of the high density pools. In addition, 3 in the absence of significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, an environmental impact statement (as opposed to an environmental assessment) need not be prepared and the burden of looking for environmentally superior alternatives is eliminated. However, due to the interest in possible alternatives to reracking )
a discussion of alternatives was provided in the Environmental Assessment which l sumnurized some of the significant problems associated with each.
With respect to the currency of the infonnation relied upon, the discussion in ,
I the Environmental Assessment does take into account information more recent than NUREG-0575, for example, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Environmental Assessments for the Surry and H 8. Robinson Plants independent spent fuel storage installations, prepared as part of the staff's licensing review and issued in April 1985 and March 1986, respectively (Refs. 15 and 16).
Furthemore, to the extent that the reliance was placed on NUREG-0575, the staff has examined that data and assured itself that the information is still current.
e a:
.i i
i
. 7 q
- 5. SEVERE ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS i in its decision, the Court of' Appeals also observed that no " worst case" i analysis appears to- have been conducted for the spent fuel pool expansion at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. As required by 40 CFR 1502.22(b) (Ref.17), a
" worst case" analysis in an environmental impact statement was to be performed 3 when information concerning significant adverse impacts relevant to full consideration of a proposed. action.was not known. In 1986, this regulation was amended to delete.the requirement for a " worst case" analysis and a requirement was substituted that an impact statement include, subject to the rule of reason, consideration of the " reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts" of .
an action (Ref.18). ]
The staf f, in its Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment (Ref. Pa) .has addressed both the safety and environmental . aspects of a fuel handling accident, i an event which bounds the potential adverse consequences of accidents attributable J to operation of- a spent fuel pool with high density racks, irrespective o' whether the installation of the high density racks was accomplished in a dry,
-uncontamina ted ~or a wet, contaminated pool environment, A fuel handling accident may be viewed as a " reasonably foreseeable" design basis event which the pool and its associated structures, systems and components (includim the racks) are designed and constructed to prevent. The environmental impacts of this accident were found not .to be significant.
In keeping with 40.CFR 1502.22(b), the staff has considered accidents whose consequences might exceed a fuel handling accident, that is, beyond design basis events. Such occurrences include a criticality accident and a zircaloy clad fire caused by overheating due to a loss of spent fuel pool cooling caused by a pool failure. Compliance with General Design Criteria 61, " Fuel Storage i and Handling and Radioactivity Control" and ti2, " Prevention of Criticality in Fuel Storage and Handling" of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, and adherence to approved industry codes and standards as set forth in the licensee's rerack application (which includes compliance with certain design and construction criteria contained'in the Final Safety Analysis Report) provides assurance that such events are of very low probability by ensuring that pool and rack integrity and pool cooling capability are maintained. Acceptance criteria for the General Design Criteria consider all reasonably foreseeable events. For example, in this case, criticality is prevented by providing very strong racks which will maintain the proper spacing between fuel assemblies; the spent fuel pool walls are made of reinforced concrete about six feet thick, rendering pool wall failure a very unlikely event.
In both situations, the environmental impacts could be significant; however, neither of these events is considered to be within the rule of reason, that is, they are not reasonably foreseeable events, in light of the design of the
- spent fuel pools and racks. Therefore, further discussion of their impacts i is not warranted and the staff continues to conclude that the reasonably
}- foreseeable impacts attributable to the proposed action are not significant l and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
6 SUMMRY AND CONCLUSIONS l l The staff has reviewed and evaluated the reracking aspects associated with a wet and contaminated condition for Units I and 2 and the gaps reported in the ,
- . Boraflex neutron absorbing material. The sta f f effort was based on 1 l information provided by the licensee in submittals and during the January 22 j 1 nem w.~ w, ~a.n - a. an --sx- . >
)
'j x 1:
1 l
.!. ' The removal'of the original spent fuel racks and the installation
.of the. new, high density racks will be perfonned using. qualified and tested equipment and in accordance with procedures to provide reasonable assurance that an accident with L potential for the .
i release of a significant amount of radioactivity or for' criticality !
will. not occur. :
- 2. Radiation protection and ALARA considerations have been taken and will be implemented to minimize personnel exposures.
- 3. The disposal of the oriainal racks does not involve new or unique techniques with respect to the handling, decontamination and ultinate disposal.
4 There will be no non-radiological impacts. The radiological impacts remain enveloped' by the consequences of the fuel handling accident previously evaluated for the spent fuel pool expansion. There will be no significant ;
impact to the environment from any waste disposal associated.with the wet
=
rerac king. ;
- 5. None of the alternatives previously evaluated by.the staff is superior. to wet reracking.
- 6. The comitments' for surveillance and other actions contained in PG&E's letter of August 4,1987 regarding Boraflex should be effective in detecting Boraflex degradation should it occur.
The staff concludes that the proposed reracking of the Diablo Canyon Units 1 ;
and 2 spent fuel pools in a wet and contaminated condition is acceptable.
The staff has given further consideration, as suggested by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to the adequacy of the generic environmental impact statement and to the need for a " worst case" analysis with respect to its Environmental Assessment of May 21, 1986 for the spent fuel pool expansion.
The staff concludes that the consideration of more recent infortnation does not change its conclusion regarding the environmental impact statement and that even though a " worst case" analysis is not required, the potential adverse consequences of either a wet or dry reracking operation are bounded by the staff's fuel handling accident analysis.
- 7. CONTRIBUTORS This report was prepared by the staff of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Individuals participating in the preparation are:
Donald Cleary Robert Fell Hans Schierling --
Amar,iit Singh Charles Trantnell James Wing
44 i
,t l
j l
- 8. REFEREt!CES
- 1. - PG&E-Letter DCL 85-333, October 30, 1985 from D. A. Brand (PG&E) to H. R. Denton, Sub.iect: License Amendment Reouest 85-13, Reracking of Spent fuel Pools.'
- 2a. . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission letter from H. Schierling (NRC) to J. D. Shiffer (PG&E) dated May 30, 1986, transmitting Safety Evaluation, Notice, and Amendment No. 8 to Facility Operating License DPR-80, Diablo ;
Canyon Unit 1, Docket No. 50-275, and Amendment No. 6 to Facility Operating !
License DPR-82, Diablo Canyon Unit 2, Docket f!o. 50-323. i 26 Federal Pegister Notice, Vol . 51. No.117, 72251, dated June 18, 1986.
L 3a. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Letter dated May 21, 1986 from H.
Schierling (NRC) to J. D. Shif fer (PG&E),
Subject:
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact - Spent Fuel Pool Expansion, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. .
3b. Federal Register Not' .. Vol. 51, No. 103, 19430, dated May 29, 1986.
- 4. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "0 PINION", dated ,
September 11, 1986 [799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986) and 804 F.2d 523-(9th '
Cir. 1986)]. j
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Letter dated November 24 1986, from H. Schierling (NRC) to J. D. Shiffer (PG&E),
Subject:
Diablo Canyon l Spent Fuel Pool Reracking - Request for Additional Information, j s
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Letter dated January 15, 1986, from H. Schierling (NRCl to J, D. Shiffer (PG&E),
Subject:
Request for Additional Infonnation on Wet Reracking.
- 7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Heeting Sumary dated January 28, 1987 ;
by H. Schierling (NRC),
Subject:
Meeting Sumary - Wet Reracking of "
. Spent fuel Pools, January 22, 1987.
- 8. PG&E Letter DCL 86-360, December 18, 1986, from J. O. Shiffer (PG&E) to S. A. Varga (NRC),
Subject:
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. Additional Infonnation on Spent Fuel pool Reracking.
- 9. PG&E Letter DCL 87-018, February 2,1987, from J. D. Shiffer,
Subject:
Olablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, Request for Additional [nfonnation on Wet !
Reracking.
- 10. .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Report NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy
' Loads at Nuclear Power Plants, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity 4 A-6." July 1980. ~'
4
- 11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, " Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2." NUREG-0675, Supplement No. ?7, July 1984. '
.s.
?. ,
- 12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, " Safety Evaluation of the Diablo
' Canyon Nuclear .PowerLStation, Units l' and 2," NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 31, April 1985.
- 13. U.S. Department 'of Energy, DOE-SR-0009 (UC-85) , '" Spent Fuel St'orage Alternative," Proceedings of an !AEA Advisory Group / Specialist Meetino, Las Vegas,-Nevada, USA, November 17-21, 1980.
- 14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report NUREG-0575, " Final Generic .
Environmental impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light i Water Power Reactor Fuel," Volumes 1, 2 and 3, August 1979. l s
- 15. .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent i Fuel . Storage . Installation, Letter from.L. C. Rouse -(NRC) to W. L. Stewart ]'
(Virginia Electric-Power Company), dated April- 12, 1985.
- 16. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the H. B. Robinson: Independent Spent' i Fuel Storage Installation," Docket No. 50-261, Carolina Power and Light !
Company, March 1986. '
- 17. Code of Federal. Regulations, 40 CFR, Section 1502.22 (1985). J
'18. Federal Register Notice, Volume 51, No. 80, 15618, dated April 25, 1986. i
- 19. NRC letter dated June 2 '1987 from C. M. Tranne11 (NRC) to J. D. Shiffer- ;
(PG&E),
Subject:
Request for Additional Information re: Boraflex.
f20. PG&E letter DCL 87-100, August 4,1987 from J. D. Shiffer (PG&E) to I NRC,
Subject:
PGAE's response to NRC staff request for additional :
0 informa tion on Bora flex. ;
l 1
I
r
, .0 L 9 -. ..v.
7590-01 ..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tellSSION .
PACIFIC GAS AFD ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO C_A,NYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 00CKET N05. 50-275 AND 50-323 NOTICE OF SUPPLEt'ENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission (the Cormnission) has issued a Supplement to its original Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
-Significant impact . issued on May 21, 1986 and published in the Federal ' Register on May 29, 1986 (SI FR 19430) regarding proposed amendments to the operating licenses authorizing modifications to the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools. The modifications would increase the capacity of each pool from 270 fuel assemblies to' 1324 fuel assemblies.
Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action is an amendment to the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 to authorize increased storage capacity of spent fuel by the installation of storage racks with closer ;
spacing. The Supplement addresses the environmental impacts of conducting the conversion to the new spent fuel storage racks with spent fuel now stored in each spent fuel pool, which now are full of borated water (" wet reracking").
-The original environmental assessment did not address this matter since the
~
conversion was originally planned before the first refueling of each unit and therefore could be performed in dry, empty spent fuel pools.
- e. ,
I In addition, the supplement explains how the Final Generic Environmental
. !mpact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water PowerReactor Fuel (NUREG-0575, August 1979) was relied upon in the staff's original ,
site-specific environmental assessment. The supplement also briefly discusses !
severe beyond-design-basis accidents. Both of these discussions are in i response to.coments made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and the Sierra Club vs. NRC, 799 F.2d l
1268 (9th Cir. 1986).
Sumary of Environmental Assessment: With respect to the matters discussed j i
above, non-radiological environmental impacts due to the " wet reracking" are the same as those due to " dry" reracking, i.e., there are no additional I l
environmental Limpacts.due to this change, and the impacts are insignificant. J As for radiological environmental impacts, the consequences of fuel. damage i
during the wet reracking are enveloped by the standard fuel handling accident j previously evaluated. The wet reracking would generate additional
)
8 contaminated waste, but its disposal would not create a significant )
I radiological impact on the environment. The previous analyses of six alternatives is not impacted by the change to wet reracking; the alternatives considered continue to be inferior to reracking.
The supplement confirms the continued validity of the generic environmental impact statement and its site-specific applicability to recent
]
environmental assessments at Surry, Robinson, and Diablo Canyon, l Beyond-design-basis accidents, such as a criticality accident and a_
i i
zircalloy cladding fire caused by overheating due to a loss of pool water caused by pool failure, are very low probability accidents and are not viewed as reasonably forseeable events. Therefore, further discussion of their
-impacts is not required or presented.
I 4
,,.4*t {
- 's s ;
g -
~ Finding of, No Significant Impact: The Comission has reviewed the proposed
, changes.and other matters discussed above relative to the requirements set forth in 10'CFR 51. Based upon'the supplement to the environmental
' assessment, the Comission, continues to conclude that there are no significant radiological or.non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
and that the proposed license amendments will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the Comission reaff> re its l
. determination, pursuant to' 10 CFR 51.31, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the Environmental' Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact dated May 21, 1987'and related Notice published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1986 (51 FR 19430) and references cited therein, and (?) Supplement to the Safety Evaluation and the Environmental Assessment dated October 15,1987 and references cited therein.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, l l'
and at the California Polytechnic State University Library, Government Document and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 15th day of October,1987.
FOR THE HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- h. 11 '
Charles M. Tramell, Project Manager o Project Directorate V --
Division of Reactor Projects-III IV, V and Special Projects
____J-__________--__ _
__ _-_- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
R
' ^
OCT.20 '87 16:38 HRC NE55 AGE CENTER BETHE5DA MD P.001
/"
UNITED STATES i
! %*t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
o I
- ! w As+emo ton, o. c. zosse
\,
e....
/ October 20, 1987 Docket hos.: 50-27s and 50-323 EXHlBITd (3 1
Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific' Gas and Liectric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
l
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS (TAC NO.S. 64470 AND 64471)
Pursuant to the enclosed Initial Decision dated September 11, 1987 of the umission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, we have issued the enclosed Amendment No. 22 to Facility Operating License No. OPR-80 and Amendment No. El to Facility Operating License No. OPR-82 for the Otablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, respectively. The amendments consist of a new license condition in further response to your application dated October 30, 1985 (LAR 85-13), as supplemented.
lhese amendments authorize PG&E to rerack the spent fuel pools and reinstate the effectiveness which were issued on of MayAmendment 30, 1986. No. 8 (Unit 1) and Amendment No. 6 (Unit 2)
The effectiveness of these amendments was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit until the completion of a prior NRC hearing, which has now been completed and an Initial Decision issued.
The amendments allow the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity for each spent fuel pool from 270 spaces to 1324 spaces. The amendments also provide for storage in the present racks or the new racks (or both) until the installation of the new racks is complete.
NRC's evaluation of the safety and environmental aspects of these amendments is contained in the following documents: (1) Environmental Assessment by the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Expansion of the Spent fuel Pools dated May 21, 1986, and related Notice of issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact published in the Fe_dera_1 Register on May 29, 1986 (51 FR 19430); (2) Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Reracking of the May 30,Fuel Spent 1986Pools at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, published on with the issuance of Amendments No. 8 and 6 to licenses No.
OPR-80 and OPR-82, respectively; (3) the enclosed initial Decision; and (4)
NRC's Supplement to the Safety Evaluation and the Environmental Assessment dated October 15, 1987 and related Notice of Supplement to Environmental Assessment and finding of No Significant Impact published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1987 (52 FR 38977).
i OCT.20 '87 16:39 HRC ME55fiGE CENTER BETHESDR MD P.002- l
. L ..
-l
~?-'
A copy of the Notice of Issuance related to this action which is being filed !
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication is also enclosed. !
Sincerely, C M m. fa d Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Project Directorate V- :,
Division of Reactor Projects - III, !
IV, Y and Special Projects !
i
Enclosures:
- 1. Initial Decision i
- 2. Amendment No. 22 to OPR-80 ;
- 3. Amendment No. 21 to OPR-82 i
- 4. Notice of issuance cc w/ enclosures:
See next page t l
l l
2
1 i(i i
OCT.'20 '87 16~:39 HRC'ME55fiGE CEtlTER BETHE5DR MD P.003-i Mr. J.. D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Cc: i
' Richard F. L'ocke, Esq. NRC Resident inspector Pacific Gas & Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear ver Plant
. __. Post Office Box 7442 c/& U.S. Nuclear Regula ry Comission San Francisco, California 94120 P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Janice E. Kerr, Esq. 5 California Public Utilities Comission Mr. Dick Blakenburg 350 McAllister Street Editor & Co-Publisher San Francisco, California 94102 South County Publishing Company P. O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande. California 93420 Ms. Sandra A- Silver.
660 Granite Creek Road Bruce Norton, Esq.
-Santa Cruz, California 95065 c/o Richard F. Locke Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mr. W. C. Gangloff Post Office Box 7442 9 San Francisco, California 94120 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230 Dr. R. B. Ferguson Sierra Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route Managing Editor '
San Luis Cbispo County Telegram Creston. California 93432 Tribune ,
1321 Johnson Avenue Chairman P. O. Box'112 San Luis Obispo County Board of San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Supervisors 4 Room 220 '
County Courthouse Annex j San Luis Obispo California 93401 '
Mr. Leland M. Gustafson, Manager Federal Relations i
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Director 1726 M Street N. W. Energy Facilities Siting Division Washington, DC 20036-4502 Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comission 1516 9th Street I Sacramento, California 95814 !
Dian H. Grueneich, Esq.
Edwin F. Lowry. Esq. Ms. Jacquelyn Wheeler I Grueneich & Lowry !
3B0 Hayes Street 2455 Leona Street !
Suite 4 San Luis Obispo. California 93400 l San Francisco, California 94102 l
J
-4 OCT~.20~'87 16:40 NRC l1E55 AGE CENTER BETHESDA (1D P. 004-Pacific Gas & Electric Company Diablo Canyon cC:
Ms. Laurie McDermott, Coordinator Hs. Nancy Culver Consumers Organized for Defense 192 Luneta Street of Environmental Safety. .
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 731 Pacific Street Suite 42 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 President Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief California Public Utilities Radiological Heal Comission State Department o$h Branch California State Building f Health 350 McAllister Street Services San Francisco, California 94102 714 P Street, Office Building #8 Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Administnetor, Region Y Michael H. Strumasser, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Reguhtory Comnission Special Assistant Attorney General 1450 Maria Lane State of California 4 Department of Justice Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CalWornia 94596 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 l '
1 i
OCT.20 '87 16:40 tlRC RESSAGE CEt4TER BETHE50R t1D P.'005 r
1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon
- Spent Fuel Pool Proceeding {'
CC; Mr. Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge
._ _ Atomic._ Safety and, Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board <
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 29555 B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chainnan Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ;
Washington DC 24555 Alan S. Rosenthal. Chainnan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. D.C. '20555 1' Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regu k tory Cosmission )'
Washington. 0.C. (20555 !
l i
f i
\
_ _ _ _ _ _ -. - --_ ____ __- _ _O
.0CT.20 '87.16:41 IIRC MESSAGE CEllTER BETHESDA MD P 006 q[- h>*l UNITED STATES S 'o NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i t.
S l w Asm so ros. o. c. 2065a a
PACIFIC GAS A_NO EL s'RIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-275 i
AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 22 License No OPR-80
- 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has found that:
i A. The application for amendment by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (the licensee) dated October 30, 1985, as supplemented, j compiles with the standards and requirements of the Atemic Energy '
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; i B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, !
the pr$ visions of tie Act, and the regulations of the comission; l C.
There by thi is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized and sa(ety f of the public, and (11) that such activities will beamendmen conduckd in compliance with the Commission's regulations; ;
D.
The issuance of this amenhnt will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; a and ,
i E. I The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part {
51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements j have been satisfied. ;
I l
L i
_ - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - b
- r i OCT.20 '87.16:41 tlRC t1E55 AGE CEt1TER BETHESDA l1D P.007 i
2 2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by the addition of new paragraph 2.C.(11) to Facility Operating License No. DPR-80 to read as follows: i Ill) b ent Fuel Pool Modification The licensee is authorized to modify the spent fuel pool as described in the application dated October 30, 1985 (lap 85-13) as supplemented. Amendment No. 8 issued on May 30, 1986 and stayed ,
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pending completion of NRC hearings is hereby reinstated. l' Prior to final conversion to the modified rack design, fuel may be
.in Teci as needed, in either the modified storage racks described stored, mical Specification S.6.1.1 nr in the unmodified storage racks Jor nominal both) which are designed and shall be maintained with a placed in21-inch center-to-center the storage racks. distance between fuel assemblies l 3.
This license amendment becomes effective at the date of its issuance.
FOR THE NUC1. EAR REGULATORY COPHISSION
, George)d Knighton, ctor Project irectorate Y j l
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Date of Issuance: October 20, 1987 l
l 1
l l l
l l
l 1 l E_____________._
_ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --~--- - -
4:
OCT.20 '87 16: 42 HRC ME55fiGE CENTER BETHE5Dfi ND P.008
,pa% _
h
[(
UNITED STATES h,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g :l wasmscros. o c rosss l \.'..../
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCRET NO. 50-323 ANENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE knendment No. 21 License No. OPR-82 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Com.iission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (the lucensee) dated October 30, 1985, as supplemented, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; 8.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by thia amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and sanety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comnission's regulations; D.
The issslance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defensa and and security or to the health and safety of the public; E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFP Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ ~
OCT.20 '8716:43 l1RC f1E55 AGE CEl4TER BETHESDA f10 P.009 t ,
l
-?- i 1
2.
Accordingly, the if cense is amended by the addition of new paragraph 2.C.(11) to Facility Operating License No. OPR-8? is hereby amened to read as follows: 4 (11) Spent Fuel Pool Modification The licensee is authorized to modify the spent fuel pool as described in the application dated October 30, 1985 (LAR 85-13) as supplemented. Amendment No. 6 issued on May 30, 1986 and stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pending completion of NRC hearings is hereby reinstated. t i
Prior to final conversion to the modtfied rack design, fuel may be i stored, in Tec as needed, in either the modified storage racks described racks ical Specification 5.6.1.1 or in the unmodiffed storage nomina or both) which are designed and shall be maintained with a 21-inch placed in the storagecenter-to-center racks. distance between fuel assemblies '
3.
This license amendment becomes effective at the date of its issuance. !
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I c dd/fd deorge W. Knighton, Di n..
ctor !
Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - !!!, i t
IV. Y and Special Projects Date of Issuance: October 20, 1987 :
l ,
e
'i o
4, 1)U I .~B) f 0/ ~16Y4T'ilMC 11t%B6E tttnEK Ut i HLWH hv ., F.U10 el' s
):l
- w, t 'I , '- W 759(!-01 ,
q ?;)
e it t
'NUCt. EAR REGULATORYiCCFMI55!ON ,
-PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTHl_C COMPANY ,/
.) -
a D!ABLO CANYON NUCLEAR WER PLANT DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-3P3 HOTICE OF ISSUANC_E OF AMENDN_ENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING' LICENSE.
' )
/ -
i 0
(, ,
y; ,j
'A Ibo U.S. NJclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has,Tpursua.nt to i s .
the Initial Decisien of its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated <
/
September 11, 1987, issue ( Amendment No. 22 to facility Operating License'No.s ,
2 DPR-80.Ind Amendmeet No. 21 to facility Operating License No. DPR-82 issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which revised the licenses and appended Technical Specifications for operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 9 )
Plant Unit Nos.1 anc' 2, respectively, located in San Luis Opishc County.
l California. The geradments are effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendments authorize the licensee to modify the spent fuel pools to increase the storate capacity of each from 270 fuel assemblies to 1324 fuel assemblies.
\
The Initial Decision is subject to review by the Atomic Safety and .3 Licensing Appeal Beard prior to its becoming f tt:al. Any decision or action
'taksa t'y the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in connection with th e !
i-Initial Decision may be reviewed by the Comission. .
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and
' requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the f Commhston's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in j 10 CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the license amendments.
p
. 7 ...
'.iO[ <\. , j i
OCT.20 '87'16: 44 itRC (1E55 AGE CEt1TER BETHESDA (1D ,
Y P.0lb,i- r
} .9, 2
1 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to facility Operating Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration and '
"\' 9 1
'pdrtunity for !
'J , A a Hearing was published in the _ Federal _ Recister on January 13, 1986 (51 FR 1451).
Comments and petitions for leave to intervene were filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, the Santa. Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Consumers ,I J\
Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety. 3 o
On May 30, 1986, after the ' petitions to intervene had been filed,the NRC ' '
staff made a finding of "r.o significant hazards consideration". BasedonthaI O c
wy; finding, NRC approved the ' license amendments and made them insnediately ( I b'
- (
-effective. San Luis Obispo Nothers for Peace and the Sierra Club appealc st respect to the admitted contentions of the Sierra Club, other petitioners y/
having withdrawn from the proceeding. Subsequently, the above-referenced /
Initial Decision was issued on September 11, 1987. *
~
The hearing having been held and decided, and all other safety anc' environmental reviews having been completed, these amendments reauthorir.e the 4 original amendnents issued on May 30, 1986. i For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for atendments dated October 30,1985,(2) Amendments No. 8 and 6 to kicense
\ '
Nos. OPR-80 and OPR-82, respectively (issued on May 30,1986),(3) Aret.donts
g.'
W~ _
-)
F OCT.2087 16:44 ilRC f1E55 AGE CEllTER BETHE5DR f1D. P.012 -
L '
i l.
c
') :ts vg
,w- , y i i NT 22 and 21 to License Nos. OPR-80 and OPR-82 respectively (issued or Thh' Octobe'r 20,1987)/f 4f-the Comission's related Safety Evaluation dated
- q(k Vy
.g_ ~
q oMay30,1986.h,5);ti Comissiods' Environtrental Assessment and Finding 4f No dh an >
s 4 SignificantImpactdabedMay 21,1986,(6) NRC's Supplement to the Safety x
Evaluation and the Environmental Assessment, dated October 15,,1987, and (7)theInitialDecisionoftheAtomicS,afetyandLicensingBoIrdI$ted September 11, 1987. +
d o All of these< items are'available
,,.- , j public inspection.a't the 4
Comission's Public Document Room, .1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20555 and:au the Califom Polytichr#f State University Library, Government '
7 Document and Naps Dapartment, San Luis Obispo, California 53407. A single s.
copy of items l'2) through (7) may be obtained upon request addressed to the 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
i Y Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 20th day c/co stdber,1987.
. g2 9 g J-p (g ,y , FOR THE NUCLEAq REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
',)
@i, /77.
Charles M. Tramell, Project Manager M
Project Directorate V s
Division of Reactor Projects - !!!,
' N ,
i 3
('
!Y, V 'and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- /
y I
)
c i n ;, ,.'
l
.4 I
( l l l 1-ls 1 4 -
f,
)
( l j L----_z---_--_----- >
4 !
o-PROOF OF SERVICE
.I, Sheila ' Purcell, declare that on October 26, 1987, 1 deposited copies of the attached Sierra Club's Brief in Support of )
Appeal of Licensing Board's September 2, 1987 Order and September 1 11, 1987 Initial Decision in the United States mail with postage thereon fully pr'epaid and addressed to the parties listed below:
Dr.' Jerry Harbour- Mr. Leland M. Gustafson, l Administrative. Judge Federal Relations Manager Atomic' Safety & Licensing' Board Pacific' Gas & Electric Co.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 1726 "M" Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20555 !
Washington, D.C. 20036-4502 ;
Glenn O. Bright Richard F. Locke, Esq.*
i
' Administrative Judge ~ Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
' Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 77 Beale Street JU.S.. Nuclear Regulatory'Comm. San Francisco, CA 94105 Washington, D.C. 20555 t
Mr. Gordon A. Silver Benj amin Vogler, Esq. Ms. Sandra A. Silver l Office of the General Counsel 660 Granite Creek Road i j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm, Santa Cruz, CA 95065 Washington, D.C. 20555 l Ms. Laurie McDermott,
. Atomic Safety & Licensing f Coordinator ;
Board Panel C.O.D.E.S.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 731 Pacific Street, Suite 42
(
' Washington, D.C. 20555 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Mrs. Jacquelyn Wheeler Administrative Judge 3033 Barranca Court Atomic Safety & Licensing Board San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. R.B. Ferguson Sierra Club / Santa Lucia Chapter Atomic Safety & Licensing Rocky Canyon Star Route Appeal Panel (5 copies) Creston, CA 93432 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street Bruce Norton, Esq.* San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale Street Managing Editor San. Francisco, CA 94105 S.L.O. Telegram-Tribune P.O. Box 112 R. Blankenburg/W. Sorayan San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 South County Publishing Company P.O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 I am, and was at the time of the service of the attached paper, over the age of 18 and not a party to the proceeding.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
< ___ _ _k ul/ 4 Mf - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)*- DOCMETED *
, USNRC N N} .'}f PROOF OF SERVICE yYKE %MTARt I, Sheila Purcell, declare that on October 2 hd$f. I deposited copies of the attached Sierra Club's Brief in Support of Appeal of Licensing Board's September 2, 1987 Order and September 11, 1987 Initial Decision in the United States mail with postage R thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed below:
l Dr. Jerry Harbour Mr. Leland M. Gustafson, Administrative Judge Federal Relations Manager Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 1726 "M" Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036-4502 Glenn O. Bright Richard F. Locke, Esq.*
Administrative Judge Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 77 Beale Street i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. San Francisco, CA 94105 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Benjamin Vogler, Esq. Ms. Sandra A. Silver Office of the General Counsel 660 Granite Creek Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormn. Santa Cruz, CA 95065 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Laurie McDermott, Atomic Safety & Licensing Coordinator ;
Board Panel C.O.D.E.S. i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 731. Pacific Street, Suite 42 Washington, D.C. 20555 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Mrs. Jacquelyn Wheeler Administrative Judge 3033 Barranca Court Atomic Safety & Licensing Board San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. R.B. Ferguson Sierra Club / Santa Lucia Chapter Atomic Safety & Licensing Rocky Canyon Star Route Appeal Panel (5 copies) Creston, CA 93432 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street Bruce Norton, Esq.* San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Pacific das & Electric Company 77 Beale Street Managing Editor San Francisco, CA 94105 S.L.O. Telegram-Tribune P.O. Box 112 R. Blankenburg/W. Soroyan San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 i South County Publishing Company l P.O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 t
I am, and was at the time of the service of the attached j paper, over the age of 18 and not a party to the proceeding. ;
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is j true and correct. j
- hand delivered L (L& Rwe//
Sheila Purcell i