ML20199D724
| ML20199D724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1999 |
| From: | Williams B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199D707 | List: |
| References | |
| 98-752-02-LR, 98-752-2-LR, LR, NUDOCS 9901200186 | |
| Download: ML20199D724 (6) | |
Text
}I '
g.... i e ~ <,
^
(7 *
., DOCKETED )
USHRC t :
l * -
99 JAN 19 NO M l t
l 4.a c
- Chamoga River Watershed Coalidhg e It O. Box 2006 o Clayh>n, GA 30526 (706) 782-6097 o F.u (706) 782 6098 l crwc@ acme Israin.com I BEFORE Tile UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: I Shirley Ann Jackson, Chair Nils J. Diaz !
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Greta J. Dieus f
Jeffrey S. Merrifield t
) i in the Matter of ) i
) i Duke Energy Corporation ) Docket Nos. 50-269/270/287-LR I
) ASLB No. 98-752-02-LR l License Renewal Application for ) ;
Oconce Nuclear Station, Units I,2 & 3 )
)
- I January 14,1999 CIIA'ITOOGA RIVER WATERSilED COALITION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF ORDER I l DENYING INTERVENTION PETITION AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING l
Petitioner Chattooga River Watershed Coalition (representing Buzz Williams, member and Executive Director of the organization, and members W. S. lxsan and William Clay) hereby submits their briefin support of their notice of appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Memorandum and Order of December 30,1998, denying Petitioncis' intervention petition and dismissing this proceeding.
BACKGROUND l On September 8.1998, members of the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition (named above and
) hereinafter collectively referred to as " Petitioners" and "CRWC") filed a timely request for intenention in Duke Energy Corporation's (" Duke" and the " Applicant") application to extend the license of their Oconce l
Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3, for an additional 20 years (" application"). Subsequently, Petitioners augmented their initial Sep;cmber 8th filing with timely filings on September 30,1998. October 30,1998, and December 9,1998. On December 30,1998, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board sencd a Memorandum and Order (LDP 98-33) alTirming the Petitioners' standing, but denying Petitioners' intervention petition and dismissing this proceeding. The Petitioners hereby reaffirm and include in this appeal their grounds for intervention in the above captioned p.oceedings, which have been set forth 9901200186 990114 EDR ADOCK 05000269 i G PDR L
- V, ,
presiously in the filings identified above. For the reasons discussed below as well as those stated in previous filings, the CRWC holds that their petition to intervene has merit and should be granted.
DISCUSSION
- 1. The CRWC's Petition to Intervene Should Be Granted A. Requests for Additional Information Support CRWC's First Contention Contention #1: As a matter oflaw and fact Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License for Oconce Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3 is incomplete, and should be withdrawn and/or summarily dismissed.
The CRWC appeals the ASLB's ruling (denying the admissibility of this contention) on the basis that the numeNus Requests for Additional Information (RAls) submitted by Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (NRC) to Duke regarding the subject application are prima facie esidence supporting CRWC's first contention that the application is incomplete. The simpic and clear logic supporting this contention is that if the application were complete, then the NRC staff would not need to solicit follow-up information. Further, the Petitioners sssert that the extensive supplemental submittals by Duke will faahaa'ly alter the original submittal by introducing new and very important scientific and technical facts. Hus, it is obsiously unfair to the Petitioners and unreasonable for the NRC to mandate that the CRWC file contentions and prepare to litigate on an application that is incomplete, and as such, fails to proside the Petitioners with a comprehensive factual record. Indeed, even the NRC staffis requesting major clarification of critical sections of the application's contents, and requests for the application's expected contents that are missing. Said contents are " critical" as they provide the basis for reaching a determination on the reasonably foreseeable ability of the Oconee Nuclear Station to operate safely for the duration of the proposed renewal period.
The NRC counsel as well as the ASLB have focused their rebuttal of the Petitioners' first contention on the basis that " contentions regarding the adequacy of stafTs review of a license application are inadmissible in licensing hearings" (p.10, LBP 98-33). This argument fails to recognize that it is the specific contents of the staffs review completed to date that supports the basis for Petitioners first contention. The Petitioners are not contesting the RAls, or the adquacy of the staffs review, ladced, the Petitioners respect the NRC staffs technical and scientific analysis of the application. In addition, the NRC is the leading federal agency in these matters, whose actions are funded by the Petitioners' tax dollars. While Petitioners have learned a great deal about the scientific and technical issues associated with the application, it is not possible for Petitioners to become experts with regard to these issues within the adjudicatory time frame dictated by the Commission.
Rus, it is completely reasonable, and is the Petitioners right as taxpayers and concerned citizens, to access the complete assembly of technical and scientific facts produced by the NRC staff. The Petitioners hold that the uncompleted staff review olniously undercuts the Petitioners resiew of the application, placmg Petitioners at a disadvantage by depriving them of access to the NRC staffs technical and scientific numment of the application, which is currently being expressed in ongoing RAls. For these reasons, the CRWC has requested that the application be withdrawn and/or dismissed. Further, Petitioners have also requested that the adjudicatory facet of these relicensing pra-liaac be revised, and rescheduled at such a time as the dialog between NRC and Duke results in an application that is complete (that is, the RAls have been resolved) and fully docketed for public review.
A revised schedule such as this would allow all parties to this procreding equal reference to a mmplete and f final record of the scientific and technical issues relevant to the application. As it stands now, the schedule of dates for litigating contentions in the above-captioned proceedings is inherently premature, because critical information regarding unresohed safety concerns is outstanding. This missing information has direct bearing on the establishment of a factual record, which is essential in determining the reasonably foreseeable ability of the Oconce Nuclear Station to operate safely during the proposed 20-year extension ofits operating period. Since the absence of this information renders portions of the application incomplete, the current l , ,
application cannot serve as a complete document from which to identify potential contentions. Due to the 0 *
- I 2
- \
large volume of RAls that speak to areas of the application needing more information, the current application provides an inadequate basis for the Petitioners' comprehensive evaluation of material issues oflaw and fact, and from this evaluation process, to determine grounds to frame contentions, if warranted. (Acknowledging this disadvantage, the Petitioners have nevertheless identified arei structured their contentions within this biased framework.)
The Applicant's responses to many of the RAls are pending. We expect that the responses shall be subjected to anoder round of NRC staff review. In defense ofits ruling (denying petition to intervene), the ASLB states that after the NRC staff completes this review, the Petitioners would be " free to intervene and file late contentions" (p.10, LBP-98-33). Petitioners assert that tids procedure clearly indicates the presence of a fundamental prejudice agamst the Petitioners, because at that time any contention would be tagged with the stigma of being " late." la sum, by adhering to the current, expedited adjudication regime, this hearing process cannot serve the public interest, since the projected resolution ofimportant safety issues is timed to occur well after the established timeline for opportunitics to resolve these issues through timely adjudicatory proceedings.
l
\ l l Thus, in addition to withdrawing and/or dismissing the application until such a time as the dialog between l
l NRC and Duke results in an application that is complete, Pctitioners have requested that the time period for timely filings should be extended until at least 90 days after Duke's final submittal of supplemental information. This would enable the Petitioners to review a comprehensive record of all of the NRC's RAls and the Applicant's responses, and then, if warranted, set forth contentions based on the best scientific information available and designed to express the public's interest of ensuring adequate protection of their ,
health and safety. As the ASLB aptly notes, they are bound by a Commission directive that mandates they l decide "on intervention petitions and admissibility of contentions affecting the public health and safety almost three decades into the future" (p. 24, LBP-98-33). Surely, decisions of this magnitude that are tied to a distant time must be supported by a complete scientific and technical record that is also available for public review. This record has yet to emerge.
B. Requests for Additional Information Support CRWC's Second Contention Contention #2:
As a matter oflaw and fact, Duke Energy Corporation's Application for Renewed Operating License for Oconec Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 does not meet the aging management and other safety-related requirements mandated by law and NRC regulations, and therefore should be withdrawn and/or summarily l dismissed.
In the CRWC's Deamber 9,1998 filing Petitioners cited the language in a number of RAl's that olniously describes specific inadequacies and problems with the application's proposed aging ===Semant programs for critical nuclear reactor components and systems, if unresolved, these problems and inadequacies could result in a major radiological accident. For instance, regarding reinforud concrete elements, including the reactor building internal structures, the NRC staff questions " ..why cracking is not treated as an applicable aging effect" (RAI #3.7,7-4). Clearly, there exists a fundamental. void in the application's' charge to identify and describe an aging management program for managing cracking of reinformd concrete elements. RAI
- 3.5.3-2 states: ' Thermal fatigue has not been identified as an applicable aging effect for the components of the Containment Heat Removal System.. " Clearly, there exists a faada-tal void in the rpplication's charge to identify and describe an aging management program for the effects of thermal fatigue on the Containment ticat Removal System. RAI # 3.4.5-2 (b), which pertains to the reactor vessel, questions the aging management review program for the lower mntrol rod drive mechanism service support structure, noting: "However, the B&WOG has decided to exclude them from the scope of topical report BAW-2251.
identify which aging effects are applicable to these components and describe your aging management program for these components in the license renewal application." Clearly, there exists a fundamental void in
- the application's charge to identify and describe an aging management program for the lower control rod i drive mechanism service support structure. RAI #'s 3.4.5-4 and 3.4.5-5 also address the reactor vessel .~ '
I:
components and pertain, respectively, to the reactor vessel flow stabilizers and the austenitic stainless steel
. /
3
- s l
wcld cladding in reactor vessel forgings. Both of these RAls request that an aging management program be prosided for these components, whose functions are inextricably linked to the " integrity of the reactor vessel."
l Clearly, there exists a fundamental void in the application's charge to identify and describe an aging l management program for the reactor vessel flow stabilizers and the austenitic stainless steel weld cladding in l reactor vessel forgings.
As noted in the Petitioners December 9,1998 filing, the RAls persist in identifying broad deficiencies in the application's aging management programs. For example, RAI #4.3.9-2 states: "The Reactor Building Spray System inspection will be completed by February 6,2013 (the end of the initial license of Oconce Unit 1).
The staff finds this date to be unacceptable without additional information. Prmide ajustification for not completing the inspection activitics at the time of application. Along with yourjustification, describe the methodology, identify any applicable acceptance criteria, identify planned corrective actions, and proside a l schedule for implementation." In addition, General Question G-2 states: " Sections 4.3.2,4.3.3 and 4.3.8 all l describe new one time inspection programs to verify the presence or absence of various degradation mechanisms specific to certain components. These sections all deal with time dependent mechanisms.
However, given that Oconce has been operating for approximately 24 years, discuss the rationale for delaying these inspections to the time p:riod between the issuance of a license extension and the expiration of the existing license. The staff recognizes the financial constraints in the utility business, however, given some of the mechanisms specified, it is not clear why some programs are not advanced in schedule.. "
Unfortunately, the ASLB's recent ruling (LBP-98-33) totally misinterpreted the Petitioners' reference to the "one time ins'pection programs" (LBP-98-33 at p.13). Regarding these inspection programs, the Petitioners' point is the same that, at a later date, was expressed in the RAl's General Question G-2 (please see above).
Petitioners asserted that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to delay these inspections to the time period between the issuance of a license extension and the expiration of the existing license. The ASLB also neglected to discuss the specific points included with the Petitioners' December 9th filing, where language was cited from the RAl's contents (and repeated, in part, above). The ASLB simply reiterated the NRC counsel's hasty and superficial analysis of the points raised in the Petitioners argument. The Petitioners assert that the language they cited from a number of RAls obviously evidence credible safety significance, as well as show how the Oconce application is materially incomplete because of RAI matters. The material issues of fact c!carly exh a ni have been identified by the Petitioners, who also utiliax! the expertise of the NRC's technical staff. - .tiermore, ace the current application fails to provide the aforementioned information, Petitioners specific contentions on, for example, the Applicant's aging management program for managing cracking of reinforced concrete elements, would have to be based on an application and factual record that is incomplete at this time. Thus, since many of the application's most important aging management programs are presently undetermined, as reiterated above, Petitioners again request that the application be withdrawn and/or summarily dismissed until such a time as these programs are clearly defined.
C. Duke Energy Corporation's Application Fails to Comply With Current Requirements of 10 C. F.
R. Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).
Contention #4:
The Petitioners submit that the specific issue of the storage of spent fuel and other radioactive substances on the site of the Ooonee Nuclear Station must be addressed in these proceedings. In addition, the status and capacity of the current spent fuel storage facility must be disclosed and addressed The tansport of radioactive material to other locations, if and when storage capacity is exceeded, must be disclosed and l addressed. The real and potential availability and viability of other High Ixvel Waste storage sites must be l disclosed and addressed The Petitioners, in this filing, again point out that the Applicant explicitly states, " Duke has not addressed the existing requirements of Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) in this Emironmental Report" (vol. 4, p.4-55).
Petitioners assert that the irgulations governing this requirement are unchanged. The NRC's proposed new rule has not been published in the Federal Register. If and when it's published, there is no guarantee that the '
j proposal to change the HLW rule will proceed unimpeded. HLW management and transportation is a e :
1 .
l 4
..c*
. , s i
l controversial issue, and it is reasonabic to expect opposition to downgrading this issue to a " generic" consideration. If challenged through litigation, it is reasonable to predict that the NRC's projected timeline for changing the HLW management and transportation rule would be delayed, or thwarted altogether Thus, the Petitioners hold that existing regulations, w hich mandate that Duke Energy Corporatign's application I disclose their plan for management and transportation of HLW, should be followed. Petitioners urge the Commissioners to uphold their agency's stated charge of adhering to their Principles of Good Regulation, which says that " regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with written regulations."
in consideration of 10 C.F.R. section 2.788, the Petitioners' interests of protecting and promoting the natural ccological integrity of the Chattooga River watershed would be irreparably damaged, should a major radiological accident occur as a result of the applicant neglecting to determine and follow an approved plan for the management and transportation of Oconce Nuclear Station's repository of HLW, as required by law.
Certainly, the public interest is best served by the requisite examination and disclosure of the Applicant's plans to safely manage and transport HLW, as required by existing law, r.ot a law that may or may not be codified at some point in the future. Therefore, the Petitioners have requested that the above-captioned proceedings be stayed, until such a time as Duke Energy Corporation complies with 10 C. F. R. Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) in their application. Current law requires the disclosure of a plan for management and I transportation of HLW. This plan is not included in the applicant's current Environmental Report.
It is both reasonable, timely and appropriate that the HLW issue be addressed Indeed, in a recent letter to the NRC Chair (dated December 17,1998) from Senators Hollings and Thurmond, and Representatives Spence, Graham, Sanford, Spratt and Clyburn (the entire South Carolina congressional defcgation), these Members of Congress state: " Spent fuel management should be a significant musideration in any environmental review of nuclear facilities." Further, they state: "We believe that the NRC should be able to express confidence in the [ repository] program and that it should be considered under Oconce's site specific evaluation."
Obviously, Petitioners concern about the HLW issue (as summarized in Petitioners' fourth contention) is reaffirmed by this letter.
Regarding Contention 4, a supplemental issue is the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision. In the 1980s, the NRC issued the first Waste Confidence Decision (see www.nre nov/SECY/smi/homeoanc/hlw.html it has periodically reviewed and re-issued that decision with minor revisions. Basically, the NRC concluded that it had reasonable confidence that Department of Energy (DOE) would provide an ultimate repository for high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) and that this waste could be safely stored at reactor sites for 30 years after cessation of reactor operation, at which time the spent fuel would be transported to,the DOE repository. The Waste Confidence Decision appears to be challenged, if not mmpromised, by the license renewal of Oconce, or other nuclear plants, in the following ways. 1) Current legislation limits the capacity of Yucca Mountain to 70,000 metric tons of high level waste. While some nuclear plants have shut down before the end of their 40-year lifetimes, thus providing margin to the 70,000 ceiling, it seems reasonable to conclude that additional 20 years of reactor operation--and spent fuel generation--could at some point challenge the limit. 2) Problems have been experienced with onsite storage of spent fuel since the initial Waste Confidence Decision was issued. At the Point Beach plant in 19%, a dry cask containing spent fuel experienced an explosion as its lid was being welded on (see www.nre nov /NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1997/in97051.txt). At another plant, a dry storage cask was found to have faulty welds after it was fully loaded (see www.ntc. gov /NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1997/in97051.txt). Obviously, this cask needs to be unloaded and the spent fuel moved to a good cask; however, the cask cannot be unloaded. Among the concerns is as water is put back into the dry cask, the 700F spent fuel cladding will rapidly boil the water and produce a steam explosion. 3) DOE's original target date of January 31,1998, for the HLW repository was missed. De curant date is somewhere around the year 2010, at the earliest. To date, the Yucca Mountain site has not been approved. If ongoing testing concludes that the site cannot be used, the 2010 date will slip well out into the future. For these reasons, the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision appears suspect and Petitioners assert that this matter should be addressed during relicensing, especially since Petitioners' Contention 4 raises this
, issue.
..a.
l - .
? .
- i
.4c' 5
l
1
. . 6 '
. . . l l
1 ,
CONCLUSION Given the importance of public participation in this proceeding, a timely resolution of the matters set forth above is in the public interest. Thus, the Commission should grant this petition for review. In this regard, the NRC must ensure that this proceeding is conducted consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and tic published regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission should remand the ASLB's Memorandum and Order (LBP 33), and consider this case for proceedings related to a proper disposition of the Petitionen contentions.
i I
l Respectfully submitted, 23g W11 - '
Buz2 Williams, Executive Director Chattooga River Watershed Coalition !
l W. S. Lesan
( William Clay l
I I
l l
I 1 6 l