ML18085A216

Exceptions & Appeal from ASLB 801027 Initial Decision. Exclusion of as Benjamin of Sandia Labs Testimony Is Arbitrary Due to Relevant Evidence Re Oxidation That Could Propagate to Older Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML18085A216
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	11/04/1980
From:	Valore C LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK, NJ
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8011140101
Download: ML18085A216 (6)

Text

,_;*

{

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f'.~U~L~~R REGULATORY COMMISSION

• '1j - -*

ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS IN THE MATTER OF Docket No. 50-272 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC INTERVENOR, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

& GAS COMPANY, et al ALLOWAYS CREEK'S EXCEPTIONS AND APPEAL (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) * ( 10 CFR 2 . 7 6 2)

The Township of Lower Alloways Creek (TOLAC) is an intervenor on the above proceedings and the Initial Decision was prepared on October 27, 1980, docketed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 28, 1980 and received by the Attorney for TOLAC on October 31, 1980.

TOLAC hereby excepts to the decision and appeals to the Commission and the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Boards pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786 and 2.762.

The Intervenor - Appellant, TOLAC, excepts as follows:

1. The Atomic Safety & Licensing Board committed factual and legal error in rejecting the testimony of Dr. Allan S. Benjamin of Sandia Laboratories that further analysis could predict more precisely whether oxidation could propagate to older fuel and that calculations for such analysis could be performed. (Initial Decision, page 39, line 1: Tr. 1483). Intervenor - Appellant, TOLAC made a motion that the.

additional analysis should be performed and the motion was denied by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. (Tr. 1493, line 4) 80 11140

s;sc'J( G-1"1 7" I

__J*

This constitutes reversible error as denial of such motion was against the weight of the evidence, the exclusion of relevant evidence involving the safety and health of the public, relevant evidence in respect to Intervenor - Appellant TOLAC's contention

1. 1, and was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

2. The conclusion that the consequences of a gross loss of water accident in the spent fuel pool would not be greater in the proposed storage configuration as contrasted with the original design was in error both factually and legally. (Initial Decision, page 39, line 14). This was against the weight of the evidence and the testimony of Dr. Richard E. Webb and Dr. George Luchak. The finding was arbitrary,

.capricious and unreasonable.

3. The Initial Decision was in error both factually and legally in finding that the proposed increase in spent fuel storage capacity at Salem Unit #1 will not significantly increase the impact on the human environment in the event of a loss of water accident.

(Initial Decision, page 25, line 17). This finding was against the weight of the evidence and the testimony offered by Dr. Richard E. Webb and Dr. George Luchak. This finding was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

4. The Initial Decision is in error in respect to paragraph 68 on page 44, to wit:

There is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the requested amendment to the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public.

This finding is against the weight of the evidence and testimony offered by Dr. Richard E. Webb and Dr. George Luchak and is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

5. It was legal error to find that the granting of the license would not be a major commission action and therefore there would be no requirement for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 USC, §4321, et seq. Reliance upon the Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal and the Final Generic Environmental Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, NUREG-0575 - August, 1979, was factual and legal error. The NRC and the Atomic Safety & Licensing

.Board in this case has ignored the requirements of NEPA, §102 (2) (c) (v),

42 U.S.C. §4332 (2) (c) (v), in respect to permitting the expansion of spent fuel pools to permit long term storage of spent fuel at-reactor sites. This has been accomplished by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~oing an environmental analysis pursuant to 10 CFR, Part 51, 40 CFR, 1500.6 and 40 CFR, 42.801. This environmental analysis falls short of the requirements of NEPA which would require an environmental impact statement and public participation.

The Final Generic Environmental Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, NUREG-0575, is in no way compliance with NEPA in respect to discussing irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which should receive detailed analysis under NEPA. The pending Proposed Rulemaking (Waste Confidence Rulemaking (PR-50, 51 - 44 FR 61372) is merely indicative of the gap that has occurred in respect to the mandates of NEPA. The underlying assumption in the proposed rulemaking procedure is that there are no environmental impacts or problems associated with the storage of spent fuel at the reactor site during the licensing period of the reactor.

The only question raised is whether the storage of the spent fuel beyond the licensing period.of the reactor can be accomplished safely until disposal is available. Decisions to permit expansion of spent fuel pools which creates large amounts of nuclear waste which do require isolation from the environment are an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which should receive detailed analysis under NEPA.

The NRC should face up to the legal responsibility of preparing a specific generic environmental impact statement which would

deal with the at-reactor storage of spent fuel which is taking place throughout the United States and will continue to take place for Eometime into the future, or alternatively to prepare specific environmental impact statements in regard to each licensed reactor where expanded fuel storage is taking place.

/;

CARL_,,(f. ALORE Speeial Nuclear Counsel for the Township of Lower Alloways Creek November 4, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY &' LTCENSING APPEAL BOARDS IN THE MATTER OF Docket No. 50-272 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC

& GAS COMPANY'* et al CERTIFICATION OF MAILING (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit #1)

I hereby certify that the enclosed Township of Lower Alloways Creek's Exceptions and Appe~l of the Initial Decision rendered by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board in th~ above captioned matter was mailed this 4th *day of November, 1980 by deposit in the United States Mail, Northfield, N.J., Post Office, to the persons indicated on the attached mailing list.

November 4, 1980

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.

Regulatory Conu~ission Public Service Electric & Gas c o.

Washington, .D.C. 20555 80 Park Place Attention: .Docketing & Newark, N.J., 07101 Service Section Sandra T. Ayres, Esa.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Boards Department of the Public Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co;runission State of New Jersey Washington, D.C. 20555 520 East State Street Trenton, N.J., 08625 Gary L. Milhollin, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Richard M. Hluchan, Esq.

1815 Jefferson Street Deputy Attorney General Madison, Wisconsin, 53711 Department of Law & Public Safety State of New Jersey Dr. James C. Lamb, III, 36 West State Street Member, Atomic Safety & Licensing Trenton, N.J., 08625 Board 313 W.oodhaven Road June D. MacArtor, Esq.

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Deputy Attorney General State of Delaware Frederick J. Shon, Member Tatnall Building, P.O. Box 1401 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Dover, Delaware, 19901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission Washington, D.C., 20555 Janice E. Moore, Esq.

Off ice of the Executive Legal Directt Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Corrunission Conner & .Moore Washington, D~C., 2055§ 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Coleman, Jr.

Suite 1050 35 "Ku Drive Washington, D.C., 20006 Pennsville, N.J., 08070