ML20245D248

Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. NRC Must Consider Provision in Rule to Permit Indiscriminate Storage of Spent Fuel at Reactors

ML20245D248
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry, 05000000
Issue date:	06/16/1989
From:	Williams J OHIO, STATE OF
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-54FR19379, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-72 54FR19379-00099, 54FR19379-99, NUDOCS 8906270028
Download: ML20245D248 (4)

Text

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

s *a .) .

[/Q ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT -

2825 WEST GRANVILLE ROAD 00LEEiE0 N

( COLUMSUS. OHIO 43236-2712

' ~ '89 JLN 19 'P4 :06 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AGOH-EM June-16, 1989 Om:T E Mi - '

00CKE We ^ Wi.

Nu M:~

(Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary 1.. 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory: Commission f 'Attns. . Docketing'and Service Branch Washington D._C. 20555

Dear-Mr. Chilk:

.. The State of Ohio wishes to comment on the proposal to a end

-the NRC regulation 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 which pertain o l storage of spent fuel in dry casks at nuclear-reactor sites.

The State of Ohio questions the advisability of. permitting d y l cask storageJat nuclear reactor sites. At a minimum,-a thorough ~

site' review must be conducted. _There are.many factors which could

' influence-thetlocation of the dry cask storage area at_the. site.

Among.these'are distance.from public access such as roadways or beach'areast. geographical or topographicalJconfiguration of.the

. site.regarding marshes,' drainage areas or sloped terrain; and, actual size-of the. nuclear ~ reactor acreage.to permit such storage. . .It is. felt that NRC should develop firm criteria for the cask sites;and require a site specific review which would be available for comment. This would serve the best-interests of the utility, the NRC,. State and local government and the public concerning-the storage concept.

The NRC-must reconsider the provision in the proposed rule to j

-permit indiscriminate storage of spent fuel at a nuclear reactor 'I site which has been generated at other sites. While 10 CPR 50 permits transfer of such-fuel, there should be a restriction to permit only the transfer of fuel from plant to plant within a utility-owned group of plants. In Ohio, Centerior Energy plants Davis-Besse and Perry,-could make such-transfers, but the. transfer of fuel'from Con-Edison or Virginia Power or other utilities should be prohibited. The increase in public risk and safeguards for transport of such fuels is not worth the benefit when local storage can be achieved. The procedure to amend a license to accept transfer and storage of fuel from another state not within a power conglomerate must inclu6e the ability.of State and local government to intervene if desired in the license amendment process. ,

8906270028 890616 PDR PR f

50 54FR19379 PDR {r PocoV "

1 The proposed rule stipulates that the power reactor licensee L

would have to notify the NRC before storing spent fuel lin dry casks and register each cask. To insure.that the emergency response activities and for proper inclusion into emergency planning, the utility must be required to. notify State and local governments simultaneously with the NRC when storage is begun and to further provide information as to the number of casks used, their location, and the specific information contained in a site review. ,

Spent fuel should be stored in the fuel storage pool for a minimum of five years prior to. dry cask storage. Such a provision would place considerably less thermal stress on the storage casks.

It is noted that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is not required. In the opinion of the State, such an omission is not responsive to environmental protection and cuts short the input felt necessary in cooperative safety activities between utility, government and the public. This is not meant to deny the utility the right to storage process and concept.

.A review of the emergency plan and the radiation control program prior to the implementation of the storage of dry spent fuel is exceptional foresight. However, the requirement should be expanded to insure that modification to the emergency plan or radiation control program must be coordinated with the State and local government who are partners with the utility in the emergency planning. effort.

In Section 72.230 of the proposed rule, it is strongly recommended that the language be changed to reflect the condition that an application for approval of a storage cask for spent fuel will be made available to the public. Notice of this application should be printed in the Federal Register. Application by vendors of reapproval likewise should receive-the public comment. In fact, public hearings on this rulemaking and dry cask storage and approval process we believe to be in the best interest of all concerned.

The safeguards system for the existing site cannot be considered adequate for the additional burden of dry cask storage. Unless a utility commits to the location of dry cask storage adjacent to the reactor building, the existing safeguards can be compromised. The Davis-Besse site, for example, has ample space inside the site boundary. However, a sludge pit is designed for operation and the spacious area otherwise available is outside of the heavily-guarded approaches to the reactor building. For persons entering the personal search, escorted access and close-in i

areas, a guard facility is near the reactor complex. This design would not provide safeguards to a dry cask storage-located beyond the controlled area; for-example, near the meteorological tower.

As a minimum, both from a safeguards standpoint and a radiation safety aspect, any dry cask storage areas should be located greater than 100 meters f rom the nearest public access - (roadway, park, beach, etc.) well within the site boundary fence and in a surveillance area. Further, it is strongly recommended that a minimal cover structure be placed over the casks. This structure could be in the form of a metal building which would protect the casks from deterioration by exposure to elements, offer some containment capability and possibly frustrate potential sabotage intentions.

A radiological monitoring plan must be prescribed for the storage yards. This plan would be part of the radiation safety and emergency plan.

The utility must be required to present a plan for on-going.

inspection of the casks in the storage area to insure account-ability and cask integrity. Testing procedures for leakage should be well-written and documented both for the NRC and State radio-logical health personnel.

The practice of permitting a cask vendor to not seek reapproval of the cask after a 20-year period seems fragile and irresponsible. Vendors who seek to market such items need to make the beginning commitment to seek reapproval before an initial approval is given. Therefore, a non-discretionary provision should be inserted into.the rule prohibiting cask vendors from not seeking reapproval and/or a penalty system should be developed for not seeking reapproval. This penalty would, in monetary terms, pay for the removal of casks from service and the associated costs of transferring the spent fuel. This action will preclude these costs from being passed on to the rate-payer for lack of commitment of a cask vendor.

l Extreme caution should be used when standards for design are approved for storage casks versus those casks which are used for highway / rail transportation. Exact parameters must be known relative to the design of casks which will permit the transporta-tion of the dry storage casks to any future site designed by DOE and approved by NRC for monitored retrievable storage. In this same regard, the entire long-term spent. fuel storage concept must receive more than passing emphasis by the entire-federal community. The proposal for intermediate storage facilities to be available was short-sighted at best. The target date which was established in NWPA of 1982 was not sufficiently fixed or advanced to permit storage of the current inventory of spent fuel in the j over 100 nuclear power plants in operation. Continual lack of ' '

vision will only exacerbate the present problem and will lead to more- and perhaps lesser quality storage solutions such as dry cask storage.

j

Through our sincere concern for safety and welfare of the public and. economical operation of the current nuclear power structure, we have presented these comments. The State of Ohio looks forward to the NRC response and enclosure of comments into the rule.

Thank'you for the opportunity to comment.

, Sincerely,

-&f 8-_-

JAMES R.-WILLIAMS State Liaison Officer to U.S. NRC JRW: liv I

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _