ML20065P885
| ML20065P885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1982 |
| From: | Coleman J BEVERIDGE, FAIRBANKS & DIAMOND, LOUISA COUNTY, VA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210260373 | |
| Download: ML20065P885 (15) | |
Text
0 9(
> DOCKETED US??C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '82 00T 25 N0:41
....;g In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-338 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC ) 50-339 AND POWER COMPANY )
) License Nos. NPF-4
) NPF-7 (Proposed Amendment to Operating License to Permit Expansion of Spent Fuel Pool Storage Capacity)
COUNTY OF LOUISA, VIRGINIA, AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOUISA, VIRGINIA PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE This is a petition for leave to intervene filed on behalf of the County of Louisa, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Louis,a, Virginia ("the County" or "Louisa County")
withrespecttoalicenseamendmentproposedbhVirginiaElectric and Power Company ("Vepco") to permit the expansion of fuel s storage capacity for North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2 f rom 966 to 1737 fuel assemblies and identify a new nominal center-to-center spacing between fuel assemblies of 10-9/16 inches. The County is also seeking to participate in two other related matters before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commi s sion" ) . First, the County has filed a petition to inter-vene in proceedings concerning Vepco's application for amendments to the North Anna operating licenses to permit receipt and storars at North Anna of spent fuel used at Surry Power Station Units No. 1 and 2. Second, Louisa County has petitioned the B2 O fo O
95D3 l
hi I 8
Commission to institute proceedings to revoke its approval of routes proposed by Vepco for transshipment of spent fuel from i
Surry to North Anna.
Interest of the Petitioners The North Anna Power Station is located in Louisa County, i Virginia. The Board of Supervisors of Louisa County is respon-sible for protecting the well-being of the inhabitants, property
. and environment of Louisa County and therefore has an interest in
, ensuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission carefully review i
the economic, health and safety, and environmental consequences ;
i
- of the proposed expansion of the North Anna spent fuel pool.
Because the North Anna Power Station is located in Louisa County, it is the citizens of the County who will experience moot directly bany adverse economic, health and safety, or environmental conne-quences flowing from a Commission decision to allow expansion.of I
the North Anna pool or storage of Surry spent fuel at North Anna.
I Louisa County is also interested in the proposed license amendment because it is clear from materials / sebmitted by Vepco to the Commission that expansion of the North Anna pool is but i one step in a larger Vepco plan to deal with its asserted spent i
fuel problems at the Surry Power Station. In this regard, Vepco has already filed an application to permit receipt and storage of i
1/ _S e e , e.g., A Summary of Information In Support of Increasing the Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 (August 1982) [ hereinafter Increased Storage Capacity _
Summary).
l
W Surry spent fuel at the North Anna Power Station. Because of Petitioners' concern about the adverse economic consequences to the County of any plans for storing spent fuel at North Anna that was not used at North Anna, the Board of Supervisors enacted the Louisa County Spent Fuel Ordinance 2,/ on December 18, 1978. The same concern, along with health and safety and environmental concerns, has led the County to seek leave to intervene in this proceeding to ensure ' m;* the Commission fulfills its statutory duty to conduct a full and careful review of Vepco's spent fuel storage plan.
It should be noted that to the extent that the North Anna spent fuel pool is expanded to facilitate receipt and storage of Surry spent fuel at North Anna, the Vepco plan necessarily entails the shipment of spent fuel from Surry to North Anna. The
-2/ It shall be unlawful for any person, partner-ship, corporation or any other entity to' store or maintain in Louisa County any spent nuclear fuel or any other waste radioactive materials of similar qualities, except such materials as may result from nuclear fuel being used in Louisa County.
Anyone violating or causing anyone to violate this ordinance shall be fined not more than
$1,000.00; and each day that any such viola- ,
tion continues shall be a separate offense.
If any phrase, riause, sentence, part or portion of this ardinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by any valid judgment or decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, portions or parts of this ordinance.
1 .
W __ . _ . _ _ . - . - - . . . . . . . . .
u \
Comrission, without.providing affected parties any notice or opportunity to comment, issued an order July 28, 1982 approving transshipment routes proposed by Vepco on July 13, 1982. All the routes approved by the Commission pass through and terminate in Louisa County, and therefore Petitioners have an interest in ensuring that the Commission adequately consider the health, safety and environmental consequences of the proposed transshipment. Because Petitioners do not believe such a review has been conducted, Petitioners have already filed, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206, a request that the Commission institute proceedings to revoke the Commission's approval of the routes proposed by Vepco for transshipment of Surry spent fuel t'o North Anna.
Louisa County therefore has an interest in all three aspects of Vepco's current plan for dealing with the shortage of storage capacity at Surry, namely, expansion of North Anna's spent fuel pool storage capacity, shipment of spent fuel from Surry to North Anna, and storage of Surry spent fuel at North Anna.
How Petitioners' Interest Will Be Affected The purpose of the proposed license amendment is to permit the installation of neutron absorber spent fuel racks in the North Anna pool, thereby increasing the pool's capacity from 966 to 1737 spent fuel assemblies. The proposed action, along with the related actions noted above, could adversely affect Louisa County in several ways. First, whether or not the Commission
_4_
approves Vepco's transshipment plans, approval of Vepco's expan-sion request would mean that a pool initially designed and licensed to store 400 spent fuel assemblies for only a few years, would now be utilized to store more than four times the number of fuel assemblies initially planned and at far closer configura-tions than originally planned, for longer periods of time than originally planned. Any adverse environmental or health and safety impacts flowing from a Commission decision to approve Vepco's pool expansion plan would necessarily be felt most strongly by the citizens of Louisa County. Second, transshipment of spent fuel involves health, safety and environmental risks which, should the risks become realities, could have adverse consequences for the citizens of Louisa County. Third, use of the storage capacity at North Anna to house Surry spent fuel will reduce space available for storage of North Anna spent fuel, thus foreshortening the operating lives of North Anna 1 and 2. Any premature shutdown of North Anna 1 and 2 could cause environmen-tal impacts within Louisa County that have not been addressed heretofore.
Of additional concern is a plan described in a Vepco brochure, Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Vepco's Solution (February 1982). That publication indicates that the planned expans' ion of the North Anna pool and the related shipment o'f Surry spent fuel to North Anna is but the first step in a " longer-term interim" plan to store virtually all of Vepco's spent fuel from both Surry and North Anna in Louisa County. As the Vepco brochure explains:
. , c-
y i The second phase of this option is to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool now being designed for North Anna Unit 3, Vepco's fifth nuclear unit which now is under construction.
This will not solve our immediate problem at Surry because the newly-expanded pool will not be completed until 1989. However, it will meet our longer-term interim storage needs by providing adequate spent fuel storage capacity for the entire operating lives of all five of our nuclear units, or until a Federal reposi-tory for high-level nuclear waste becomes available. The estimated cost for this expan-sion is about $43 million.
Interim Storage at 10-11.
The possibility of Louisa County's becoming the storage center for all of Vepco's reactors for their " entire operating lives" raises serious economic, health and safety, and environ-mental questions. First, the use of North Anna as Vepco's primary fuel storage site would undermine Louisa County's efforts to attract other, non-nuclear industry. Second, it could degrade h
the quality of Louisa County's recreational features and would seriously diminish the County's appeal to campere and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts who now make a substantial contribution to the County's economic well-being. Third, North Anna's transformation into a storage center could affect the psychological well-being of Louisa County citizens.
Moreover, approval now of expansion of North Anna's pool and transshipment of Surry spent. fuel to North Anna effectively de-
~
I creases Vepco's incentive to find a long-term cost-effective, environmentally sound method of dealing with Surry's asserted l spent fuel problems. Twice before Vepco has sought and obtained NRC approval to expand its spent fuel storage capacity: the o
e Surry pool was expanded in 1978 (from 464 to 1044 assemblies),
the North Anna pool in 1979 (from 400 to 966 fuel assemblies).
In each case the proposed expansion was presented as a stopgap measure, necessary only for the near-term until a reprocessing capability was developed or a permanent repository for the storage of nuclear wastes was established.
Vepco candidly concedes that the segments of its plan cur-rently before the Commission offer, at best, only an " interim solution" to the spent fuel dilemma. The realistic prospect, then, is that--if Vepco's current proposal is approved--in a few years Vepco will appear once again before the Commission with another segment, another " interim solution." To the extent the Commission approves a series of interim solutions, however, it ratifies a piecemeal approach to a problem that will not go away and effectively forecloses a comprehensive solution to the spent fuel storage problems faced by Vepco and every other utility with nuclear power plants. Th'e inevitable result of proceeding ad hoc, is that Louisa County will one day find itself saddled with envi-l ronmental, health and safety and economic consequences never even evaluated by this Commission, thus undermining Louisa County's interest in an environmentally-acceptable long-term solution.
I .
! Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As To Which Intervention Is Sought Commission approval of the proposed spent fuel pool expansion requires a finding that the licensing action will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of
L I the public. 10 C.F.R { 50.57(a)(6). Moreover, the Commission must satisfy itself that the proposed action conforms to the stan-dards for protection against radiation (10 C.F.R. Part 20) as well as the Commission's obligations under the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969 (10 C.F.R. Part 51). 10 C.F.R. $ 50.40.
Petitioners are interested in all aspects of the proceeding insofar as they relate to the economic, health and safety, and environmental impacts of the proposed action on the citizens of Louisa County. The County's overriding concern is to ensure that the Commission review Vepco's plan comprehensively, rather than adopt Vepco's segmented presentation as the framework for its evaluation and decisionmaking. Vepco's presentation, by treating pool expansion as a discrete issue separate from storage of Surry fuel at North Anna and by excluding consideration of transshipment land the planned expansion of the North Anna 3 pool, virtually ignores the cumulative impacts of the total plan.3/ This seg-mented approach, however, is ill-suited to Commission decision-making, especially in considering NEPA issues. In particular, Louisa County makes the following contentions:
3/ For example, Vepco's assertion that receipt and storage at North Anna of Surry spent fuel assemblies has " independent utility" is patently absurd. Summary of Information In Support of the Storage of Surry Spent Fuel at North Anna Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (July 1982) [ hereinafter Storage of Surry Fuel Summary] at 76. Rather, the plan's utility is dependent on shipment from Surry to North Anna and expansion of the North Anna 1 and 2 pool capacity so there %s space to house the assemblies
" received and stored."
_ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - . __-__________m_______________.m. _ _ _ _ _m._ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ . . - .__m___.____-___.m_m._--_-______._-___m._ _-__.___-___mm.____m____ w
9
- 1. Vepco's analysis of the environmental impact is insufficient to support its conclusion that the
" proposed action will not signficantly affect the quality of the human environment"d/ because it fails to consider a) the environmental consequences to Louisa l
County if additional storage facilities and/or l reprocessing capabilities are not available when the expanded pool is fillcd in 1993, thus forcing the premature shutdown of North Anna 1 and 2; b) the environmental impact on Louisa County if, at the end of North Anna's licensed operating
, life, no permanent solution (i.e., either reprocessing or permanent storage) is on-line for handling the spent fuel stored at North Anna; or c) the environmental impact on Louisa County if North Anna becomes the " longer-term interim" utorage site for spent fuel from all of Vepco's reactors.
l 2. Vepco's environmental analysis is inadequate'because it focuses narrowly on the expansion of the pool and fails to consider the other integral elements 4/ Increased Storage Capacity Summary at 99.
, I of Vepco's plan--receipt and storage at North Anna of spent fuel originating at another reactor, spent fuel shipments through Louisa County for storage at Nort.h Anna, and expansion of the North Anna 3 pool.
These consequences include, inter alia, the impact on the County's economic vitality and the physical and psychological health of its citizenry resulting from widespread perceptions that Louisa County will become Vepco's dumping ground for spent fuel.
- 3. Vepco's conclusion that expansion of the spent fuel pool is "necessary to maintain the capabilty of a full core discharge and to assure adequate' storage space for normal refuelings at North Anna Power Station through 1998,"5/ based as it is on a rejec-D tion of alternatives Vepco discusses, is illog-ical.
a) Vepco rejects the dry cask option because
" licensing uncertainties . . . [make] it . . .
f less certain"N/ that dry cask could be on line l
l in time to meet North Anna's storage needs.
Yet, Vepco states that North Anna will not lose full core discharge capability until l
1989,2/ and, in the documents submitted with l
l l 5/ Id. at 99.
6/ Id. at 18.
2/ ld. at 4.
I
a its application to receive and store Surry fuel at North Anna, " estimates that the design, licensing, and construction of this type of facility [ dry cask] would take approximately 3-5 years. "S/ Thus, even by Vepco's pessimistic estimates, dry cask would be available by 1987--two years before the projected loss of full core discharge capability at North Anna.
b) Vepco's other reason for rejecting dry cask is economic. In the support document for its pool expansion amendment, Vepco estimates that it would cost "$19 million in 1982 dollars to
, store 771 spent fuel assemblies (the proposed increase for North Anna 1 and 2),"2/ yet the document supporting storage of Surry fuel at North' Anna estimates that it would cost "$18 million in 1982 dollars to store [500 assem-blies]."10/ Aside from the obviously casual way in which Vepco carried out this ' economic analysis' underlying its conclusion that " dry cask is inferior to the proposed action'. . .
8/ Storage of Surry Fuel Summary at 18.
9/ Increased Storage Capacity Summary at 18.
10/ Storage of Surry Fuel Summary at 17.
O V
in economic terms,"11! the analysis is skewed because (1) dry cask does not require an advance commitment to store a specific number of assemblies, and therefore would enable Vepco to read its capital expenditures over a longer period of time; (2) disassembly and decontamination costs, which did not enter Vepco's calculus, will be significantly decreased through utilization of dry cask storage, and (3) shipment and permanent disposal costs will be substantially diminished, a factor conspicuously omitted from Vepco's calculations.
c) Vepco's blithe dismissall / of shipment to a foreign reprocessing center as an alternative is unpersuasive in view of the fact that as recently as September 3, 1982, Mr. John Marcum of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy stated publicly that there are no impediments to American utilities contracting to have spent fuel reprocessed in foreign plants.13/
11/ Increased Storage Capacity Summary at 18.
12/ "Under current administration policies, such distribution would almost definitely be considered inimical to the [ common defense and security of the] United States." Id. at 19.
13/ " Bring Back Buy-Back," Nuclear News 61-62, October 1982.
D
+
- 4. Vepco's analysis is insufficient to support a conclusion that approval of the license amendment will not be inimical to public health and safety because it fails to consider the health and safety implications of Surry-to-North Anna transshipment--
a necessary element of Vepco's overall plan to expand the North Anna pool and use it to store Surry spent fuel.
- 5. Vepco's assertion that " measures will be taken"1A/
to minimize personnel exposure to radiation is insufficient to support a finding that the stan-dards in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 will be met.
- 6. Vepco's analysis of potential accidents after the pool.is expanded is insufficient to support a finding that the license amendment is not inimical to the public health and safety.
The preceding paragraphs note just some of the issues that require airing prior to a Commission decision on Vepco's proposal.
Other health and safety and environmental issues Petitioners desires to litigate, and Petitioners' specific contentions with regard to each, and the bases for each contention, will be submitted for Commission consideration in the Supplement to Petition to Intervene required by 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b).
14/ Increased Storage Capacity Summary at 86.
P Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully request:
(1) that this petition for leave to intervene be granted; (2) that the Commission consolidate into one proceeding its consideration vf each of the elements of Vepco's plan--i.e., expansion of the North Anna 1 and 2 pool, shipment of Surry spent fuel to North Anna, receipt and storage of Surry spent fuel at North Anna, and expansion of the North Anna 3 pool; and (3) that a hearing be held on Vepco's application for license amendments and the related transshipment plan. -
Respectfully submitted,
. Marshall Coleman ristopher H. Buckley Jr.
Cynthia A. Lewis Robert Brager Virginia S. Albrecht Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 828-0200 Attorneys for Petitionars
/~
Of Counsel:
Richard W. Arnold County Attorney Courthouse Square Main Street Louisa, Virginia 23093 (703) 967-1650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 22, 1982, I caused a copy of the foregoing Petition to Intervene to be served upon each of the persons listed below by mailing a copy thereof first class postage prepaid to:
Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 MD J. Marshall Coleman bjd4:vepco3 69
(
-