ML20206P701
| ML20206P701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1986 |
| From: | Bright G, Cotter B, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CONSUMERS ORGANIZED FOR DEFENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, Sierra Club |
| References | |
| CON-#386-758 86-523-03-LA, 86-523-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8607020219 | |
| Download: ML20206P701 (47) | |
Text
h 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C019tISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ((0 Before Administrative Judges: .h g B. Paul Cotter, Jr. , Chairman 72 73 Glenn 0. Bright g-Dr. Jerry Harbour g p,,
)
SERVED JUN361986 In the Matter ot: ) Docket Nos. 50-275-0LA
) and 50-323-OLA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
) (ASLBPNo. 86-523-03-LA)
(DiabloCanyonNuclearPowerPlant, )
Units 1 and 2) ) June 27, 1986
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum rules on the admissibility of contentions considered at a prehearing conference in the captioned proceeding held pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7bla (1986) and this Board's orders dated March 28 and April 29, 1986. The conference took place on May 13, 1986 in Avila Beach, California and addressed the admissibility of contentions filed by the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety (C0 DES), and the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter (Sierra Club).
In this memorandum, we find that each of the Petitioners has filed at least one admissible contention. Accordingly, we admit CODES, the g[0$$$$ $ [
i 4
Mothers for Peace, and the Sierra Club as parties to this proceeding, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.714 (1986).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The proceeding arises out of petitions to intervene in the application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) for a-license amendment to increase the spent fuel pool storage capacity for Units 1 and 2 at the Diablo Canyon site.1 The reactors are located in San Luis Obispo County in central California. The notice of opportunity for hearing, 51 Fed. M . 1451 (1986), provided in pertinent part that:
The amendments would authorize the licensee to increase the Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pool storage capacity from 270 to 1324 storage locations for each unit. The proposed expansion is to be achic ..d by reracking the spent fuel pools with a combination of poisoned racks and nonpoisoned racks in a two-region arrangement.
Initial objections to standing filed by Licensee and the NRC Statf were resolved by Petitioners' responses. Accordingly, all Petitioners were found to have standing at the outset of the May 13, 1986 prehearing 1
On May 30, 1986, the Staff, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92 (1986), made a no significant hazards consideration finding and issued the license amendment at issue herein. Both the Appeal Board and this Board denied motions to stay the issuance filed June 17, 1986 by Mothers for Peace and the Sierra Club because the matter was under the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission has set a briefing schedule. Movants have also filed a motion for stay in the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
conference subject to filing an admissible contention. Tr. 8.2 Staff Response, pp. 2-4.3
' CODES filed 16 contentions, the Mothers for Peace filed 11 contentions, and the Sierra Club filed four contentions with multiple ;
subparts. Some of each party's contentions overlapped others to some degree. For convenience those overlapping contentions are dealt with together at various points herein.
III. CRITERIA FOR ADMITTING CONTENTIONS The admissibility of contentions to this proceeding is governed by a fully articulated body of case law. In deciding whether the criteria for admitting contentions are met, it is not the function of a Presiding Officer to reach the merits of the proposed issue. Mississippi Power andLightCo.,6AEC423,426(ALAB-130,1973); Philadelphia Electric
_Co., 8 AEC 13, 20 (ALAB-216, 1974). The requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714
" Intervention," are met if, inter alia, a petitioner states the bases of the contention proffered with reasonable specificity, but whether or not 2
All transcript citations are to the transcript of the prehearing conference held May 13, 1986, in Avila Beach, California.
" Response of the NRC Staff to the Amended Petitions for Leave to Intervene filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety and the Sierra Club,"
dated May 9, 1986.
O the contention is true is left to litigation on the merits in the proceeding. A party may move for summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.794 if it believes it can readily disprove a contention otherwise admissible on its face. Houston Lighting and Power Co., 11 NRC 542, 548,550(ALAB-590,1980); Alabama Power Co. , 7 AEC 210, 216 (ALAB-183, b
1974); Duquesne Light Co., 6 AEC 243, 244 (ALAB-109, 1973). Reasonable specificity requires that a complaint include a reasonably specific articulation of its rationale. Carolina Power & Light Co., 16 NRC 2069, 2070-2071(LBP-82-119A,1982). But it is not essential that pleadings or complaints be technically perfect. Houston Lighting and Power Co., 9 NRC 644, 650 (ALAB-549, 1979). Finally, a complaint about a matter not covered by a specific NRC rule need only allege that the matter poses a significant safety problem. Duke Power Co., 16 NRC 1937, 1946 (LBP-82-116,1982).
Moreover, petitions drawn by counsel experienced in NRC practice can reasonably be required to exhibit a high degree of specificity, but l
Presiding Officers are to be lenient in judging the sufficiency of intervention petitions submitted by counsel new to the field. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 1 NRC 559, 576-77 (ALAB-279, 1975). The degree of specificity with which the basis for a ccaplaint must be alleged initially involves the exercise of judgment on a case-by-case basis.
Philadelphia Electric Co. , 8 AEC 13 (ALAB-216,1974). In the exercise of this judgment, it is appropriate to keep in mind the purpose of the
s
-S-basis-for-contention requirement as set forth by the Appeal Board in the 4 Philadelphia Electric Co. case:
A purpose of the basis-for-contention requirement in Section 2.714 is to help assure at the pleading stage that the hearing process is not improperly invoked. For example, a licensing proceeding before this agency is plainly not the proper forum for an attack on. applicable statutory requirements or for challenges to the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process. Another purpose is to help assure that other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they'will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose. Still another purpose is to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular proceeding. ...
At the very least, for purposes of intervention a petition must be adequate to show that it applies to the facility at bar and that there has been sufficient foundation assigned for it to warrant further exploration. (Footnotes omitted).
I i
i Id. at 20-21.
IV. RULINGS ON CONTENTIONS A. Contentions of Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety (CODES) i CODES petitioned to intervene in this proceeding by letter dated February 12, 1986 and filed an amended petition dated April 26, 1986.
i Contentions in the latter filing are addressed here, seriatim.
1 i
l i
4 CODES Contention 1:
Adequate consideration has not been given to alternatives to reracking the spent fuel ponds at Diablo Canyon. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, January 7,1983, the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide interim storage of spent nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors that cannot reasonably provide adequate storage capacity at the sites of such reactors when needed to assure the continued, orderly operation of such reactors (emph.added). PG&E and its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Energy Trust (P.E.T.) have a contract with the Department of Energy for storage of high level radioactive waste at this time.
The Licensee opposed this contention on the ground that it was a non-specific conclusion of law, not a contention. Tr. 134-35. Staff agrees with Licensee and opposes admission on the additional ground that the asserted leg.1 basis does not support the contention. The Staff points out that Section 111(a)(5) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) makes the utilities responsible for the interim storage of spent fuel until a Federal repository is available. Further, the NWPA provides for limited Federal interim storage of spent fuel only upon a determination that the utility cannot [ reasonably] provide its own storage through the use of storage alternatives such as expansion of existing spent fuel storage tacilities. Tr. 135; Staff Response, pp. 15-16.
l l
l
_7 While the first sentence of Contention 1 reads much like parts of other contentions4 accepted for litigation, the asserted basis here does not support the contention. Apparently, CODES' logic ficws from the conclusion that Licensee is unable to reasonably provide adequate additional storage of spent fuel by reracking the fuel pools (Tr. 133-34); this, however, presumes the outcome of this proceeding.
The possible relevance of any contract that the Licensee and/or its subsidiary, Pacitic Energy Trust, may have with the Department of Energy for storage of high level waste to the issue of consideration of alternatives to reracking has not been shown. On the basis of the
~
foregoing, CODES Contention 1 is rejected as lacking basis.
CODES Contentions 2 and 3 Because both of these contentions relate to the potential outcome of the long-term seismic reevaluation program,5 they are addressed together. They are:
- 2. It is unreasonable and premature to consider the spent fuel pool's seismic design, as modified by the proposal, 4
Mothers for Peace Contention 1 and basis item 7 of Sierra Club Contention I(B), infra.
5 These contentions raise the same issue raised in Mothers for Peace Contention 7, infra.
l adequate when the long term seismic program (a licensing condition) is to be completed in 1988, 2 years from now.
- 3. By ordering the long term seismic program study, the Commission has indicated that there are unanswered questions and possible seismic hazards that must be investigated.
Licensee and Staff both object to admission of CODES Contentions 2 and 3 because the seismic design issues for Diablo Canyon, including the seismic design bases, have been exhaustively litigated in the operating license hearings, and their resolution has been approved by the Commission. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ,13 NRC 903 (ALAB-644,1981);
S. J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, letter to the parties dated March 18, 1982. Staff Response at 16-17 and, by reference, at 11-12; Tr. 140-46. We agree.
Petitioner provides no basis to support an assertion that the spent fuel pool reracking should require a different seismic design basis different from that for the plant itself other than the provisions of the long term seismic reevaluation program contained in a license condition. Thus the challenge to the seismic design presupposes a particular outcome for the long term seismic program without any apparent reason. Consequently, CODES Contentions 2 and 3 are rejected for lack of adequate basis for litigation. Cf. Mothers for Peace Contention 7, infra.
CODES Contention 4:
No site in California is being considered for a permanent waste repository for high-level radioactive waste partly because of the seismic conditions. It is unreasonable to extend the storage capacity of spent fuel pools for the same reasons.
At oral argument CODES indicated that its concern in this contention is the length of time spent fuel would be held in the expanded pools. CODES stated that initially the public was advised that spent fuel would reside in the pools for five months and then be transferred to a permanent repository. CODES then argued that the fuel could reside in the pools for 22 years with the possibility that residence would be extended to another 30 years for a total of 52 years storage in the pools. Tr. 148-149. Finally, CODES apparently reasoned that because no permanent repository site is being considered in California, allegedly because the proper seismic conditions cannot be found anywhere in the state, therefore it is unreasonable to store spent fuel in the pools for a period as long as 52 years.
In its written response, Staff finds the logic of CODES reasoning faulty and states that CODES has failed to show any connection between the rationale for selecting a permanent repository and the rationale for permitting or denying expansion of the spent fuel pools. We agree with both of Staff's positions and find the contention inadmissible for additional reasons as well.
The safety considerations in building a permanent geologic repository and a spent fuel pool differ substantially. The permanent repository must be built within a geologic formation that must be determined to be stable for thousands of years. A spent fuel pool is built cg1 a geologic formation and must be safe for as long as several decades. Thus, the engineering criteria, including seismic forces, governing construction of an above ground spent fuel pool are not the same as those governing construction of a permanent repository. The two types of facilities are simply not comparable, nor has CODES made any showing of how they might be.
In approving the operating license for Diablo Canyon, the Commission determined that the seismic design was adequate to withstand the largest forces that could be expected to impact on the plant and its spent fuel pools. The fact that the Commission conditioned the license by requiring continuing monitoring of seismic activity and evaluation of the seismic design in light of that monitoring can best be described as an act of prudence. That decision in itself is not new evidence or information. Absent such new information (and CODES has offered none) there are no grounds for questioning the original Commission decision that the plant, including the spent fuel pools, is seismically safe for the period of the license.
This board cannot speculate as to possible future events. Thus, we i cannot assume that the license applied for might be extended in the
t future. We must evaluate the license application according to its terms. Even, assuming for the sake of argument, that we could accept as a fact that the spent fuel would be stored for a period of time as much as 30 years beyond the period applied for in the license, CODES has offered no reason why such a hypothetical additional period of storage would be unsafe. We note that the Commission has already ruled that there will be no significant environmental impact from storing spent fuel in facilities such as the one at issue "for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses ... ." 10 CFR
$51.23(a)(1986).
Finally, we note that a program is underway to build a national i
permanent repository which is scheduled to become operational by 1998 under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Pub.L.97-425, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et. seq. Although the three possible sites for that repository are not in California, high level waste from the spent fuel pools at issue here would be eligible for transfer to that repository when available.
For all the foregoing reasons, CODES Contention 4 is denied.
CODES Contentions 5 through 11:
These seven contentions are closely interrelated. Contentions 5 and 11 allege that increased radioactive contamination and loss of I
l l
l __ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. , _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _
sr l a i .
I coolant could result from inadequate or faulty procedures and training and their implementation (Contentions 7, 8 and 10) combining with human 4
error during normal or emergency operations (Contentions 6 and 9l, The i
contentions read as follows:
^
- 5. lhe additional spent fuel rods in the reracked spent fuel pools would increase radioactive contamination in an accident involving the fuel pools.
I
- 6. Human error and its possible consequences in the operation of the reracked spent fuel pools have not been adequately considered.
- 7. Inadequate and/or faulty procedures combined with operator and technician errors has [sicJ not been. adequately considered.
! 8. The adequacy of procedures, technical specifications, administrative controls and their implementation and training j has [ sic] not been considered adequately.
4
) 9. The possibility of faulty reasoning and inappropriate deviation from procedures during an emergency or accident has ,
l not been adequately considered.
- 10. The consequences of poor communications between site personnel and NRC personnel contributing to the severity of an emergency or accident involving the reracked spent fuel pools has not been given adequate consideration.
- 11. Adequate consideration of the loss of spent fuel cooling has not been considered for the reracked fuel pools.
At oral argument these contentions became intertwined with the i
j seismic concerns described above, but CODES was unable to articulate how procedures during normal or emergency operations were deficient. CODES cited the generalized concern of preventing human error and referred to l
at least one general case study. Tr. 162-164.
I
. -- -__..,,_ -- ..---- - - , =_ _ - - , . - - , - -
Staff and Licensee oppose the contentions on the grounds of lack of specificity. They cite CODES' failure to identify any particular procedure or state how such a procedure might be inadequate. They take the same position with respect to each of the contentions and assert that they do not have sufficient notice of the generalized deficiency alleged in each contention to defend against any contention. They rely on Philadelphia Electric Co., 8 AEC 13 (ALAB-216, 1964), Staff Response, pp. 17-20. Tr. 163-166. The Philadelphia Electric case (Peach Bottom) held that a proffered contention must be rejected where "it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable". Id., 8 AEC at 21.
Human error, adequacy of training, poor communications, and failure to follow established procedures are generic concerns in any human endeavor. All or any of these deficiencies can lead to harmful consequences. However, a contention is required to furnish specific bases for finding that such deficiencies could arise. The CODES contentions fail to particularize how such failures might occur in the operation of the spent fuel pools at issue here. The application contains a fairly detailed description of the operation of the spent fuel pool. CODES has pointed to nothing which would lead a reasonable mind to inquire further; there is no nexus between any specified fact or circumstance and the conclusory claim in Contention 5 of increased radioactivity or in Contention 11 of loss of spent fuel cooling.
Accordingly, we find that Contentions 5 through 11 must be rejected.
l
CODES Contention 12:
The lack of resolution and action on critical issues being investigated by the Office of Investigation (0I) and Office of Inspection and Auditor (0IA), issues which are directly related to the Significant Hazard Issue of the fuel pools reracking application have not been given any consideration.
CODES argues that the Office of Investigation and the Office of Inspector and Auditor are in the midst of investigating critical issues concerning significant hazards and have not resolved them, nor has action been taken on those that have been resolved. CODES concedes that the unresolved matters under investigation are still no more than allegations. CODES refers to the investigation of some 1,700 allegations filed with the Commission during various stages of the operating license proceeding for Diablo Canyon. Tr. 175-178, 180-181.
Staff responds that the contention should be rejected for vagueness. Staff Response, pp. 20-21. Staff argues that CODES fails to particularize with respect to any allegation and fails to show "any relationship between those matters which may be under consideration by 01 and OIA and the spent fuel pool amendment being requested by PG&E."
Staff Response, p. 21.
At oral argument Staff stated that the unresolved issues still under investigation relate to personnel practices and not to technical
t issues. Tr. 178 and 179. Licensee concurs with Staff's position. Tr.
179-180, 182.
i We must agree with Licensee and Staft. The mere fact that otherwise unidentified allegations are under investigation by two Commission offices does not constitute a particularized issue for litigation in this proceeding. Cf,. Louisiana Power & Light Co. , 23 NRC 1, 5 (CLI-86-1, 1986). The allegations themselves are not identified and, even if they were, they would not constitute anything this Board can take cognizance of until some preliminary determination can be made or evidence proffered of their truth or falsity. This contention must be rejected for vagueness.
CODES Contention 13:
The views of the population surrounding Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant concerning the storage of high level radioactive waste have not been considered. This is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, i
The issue raised by this contention, based on a provision in Section 132 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10152, is
! essentially the same as that raised in Sierra Club Contention III(A),
addressed below and is rejected for the same reasons given there.
} ,
1 s
9
)
CODES Contention 14:
The uncertainties as to how long high level radioactive waste would be stored at the proposed Diablo Canyon facility, neutron embrittlement and other metallurgical deterioration and environmental stresses to the structural integrity of the spent fuel ponds have not been adequately analyzed and determined.
Neither Staff nor Licensee object to the admission of this contention if it is limited to the storage period authorized by the application. The expiration date for the license amendment for Unit 1 is April, 2008, and for Unit 2 is December, 2010. Statf Response,
- p. 22 Tr. 183-185, 190-191. This Board has no authority to look beyond the license amendment application that is before us. We cannot speculate on events that might occur in the future. We note that if Licensee were to request any extension of the storage time that is authorized by this application, the license would have to be amended and, under the present regime, a hearing would be offered.
The Board finds adequate basis and specificity in Contention 14, as j limited to the storage period applied for, and it is admitted for hearing.
CODES Contention 15:
I
, The Licensee has not demonstrated the existence nor
! implementation of a detailed quality assurance program which
l would effectively detect and prevent defective work by contractors and vendors involved with the proposed spent fuel
+
pool reracking.
At oral argument CODES expressed its concern that the application appeared to address quality control during construction in very general
~'
terms. Thus, CODES argues the application is deficient for failure to assure that Licensee's quality assurance programs will satisfy the quality assurance program requirements. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B (1986).
Staff and Licensee oppose the contention.on the grounds that Section 10 of Licensee's September 19, 1985 report entitled, "Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, Pacific Gas and 4
Electric Co.", satisfies the Part 50 quality assurance program requirement. Statt Response, p.'22; Tr. 191-192. In addition, Licensee argues that the contention is an attack on a Commission decision which found that Licensee's program satisfied the Part 50, Appendix B requirement. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 19 NRC 571 (ALAB-763, 1984).
1 This contention may be based on a misunderstanding. Chapter 10 does not set forth Licensee's entire quality assurance program but
- rather incorporates it by reference. That program, applicable to the application at issue here, has been found to satisfy Part 50 requirements by the Appeal Board decision cited above, and cannot be 4
relitigated in this proceeding. CODES Contention 15 is denied.
d
l
\
CODES Contention 16:
The contentions submitted above do meet the three standards (Fed. Reg., Vol. 51, No. 44, Thurs March 6, 1986, Rules &
Regulations, p. 7754) for a Significant Hazards Determination on the spent fuel pool reracking at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Staff opposes this contention on the ground that it is an assertion and not a contention. Staff Response, p. 23. At oral argument, CODES agreed with Staff's characterization and effectively withdrew the contention. Tr. 195-196. We agree with the parties' characterization.
The " contention" will not be admitted.
B. Contentions of the Sierra Club The Sierra Club filed its contentions in a submittal dated April 24,1986. They are addressed below.
Sierra Club Contention I(A):
The Sierra Club contends that the report submitted to the i Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and other communications between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the NRC which are available to the public on the same subject (the Reports) fail to contain certain relevant data necessary for independent verification of the claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment.
In particular, the Reports fail to contain data regarding:
l
.- . - =-. .- . . - -_. . - - . _ . . .
j
- 1) the mass of a spent fuel assembly and masses of the 7
loaded spent fuel racks (racks);
- 2) the spring constants used for the nonlinear springs (gap elements)'to model the behavior of the racks (see ed ., p. 6-10ff of the Report);
- 3) the expected velocity and displacement of the spent fuel pools (pools) as a function of time in three dimensions during the postulated Hosgri earthquake (PHE);
- 4) the expected maximum velocity and displacement of the racks obtained from the computer modelling of rack behavior during the PHE;
. 5) the kinetic coefficients of friction appropriate for i estimating the frictional forces between the pool floor liner and the racks when sliding of the racks occurs; and
{
- 6) the dimensions and configuration of rack "H."
Additional data may be needed to verify claims made in the Reports.
1 The Licensee cpposes admission of this contention first on the l ground that they read it as saying that the reracking report fails to contain certain relevant data necessary to enable the Sierra Club, rather than the Staff, to make its independent evaluation,6 and, second, on the ground that much, or all, of the information is in the public i record. Tr. 16, 70-71, 75-77 (Norton).
l l
O I Clearly, the Staff is obligated to make its evaluations based upon materials that are publicly available, and such materials should be available to the Sierra Club or any other member of the public.
20-The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention provided it
. is limited to the bases and particulars, items 1 through 6, supra,
- specified in the Intervenor's filing. Staff Response at 24.
Additionally, the Staff's lack of objection is based on its understanding that the Sierra Club assertion is that the NRC will not be able to conduct its independent verification of the reracking proposal absent the information set forth. Ijf.; Tr. 71,11.12-25 (McGurren; incorrectly attributed to Dr. Ferguson); see also Tr. 79,1. 21, eti seq.
l The Board agrees with the Staff that Sierra Club Contention 1(A),
limited to the six basis specifications provided therewith, is admissible. We add that the contention, as worded, goes to the availability of the data cited, not its accuracy or adequacy. Further, both the Licensee and the Staff agreed to assist the Sierra Club in identifying and locating the assertedly absent data. Tr. 76, 11. 19-23; Tr. 77-78. The Board directed that this be done within thirty days following the prehearing conference. Tr. 78-79.
I Sierra Club Contention I(A) is admitted for litigation. The interested parties are urged to attempt to settle this issue informally.
Accordingly, Licensee, Staff, and the Sierra Club are directed, on or before August 18, 1986, to file a joint report in writing with the Board i
on the status of their progress toward settlement negotiations.
i i
i 1
____..-.__r.,,. ,_
__r.. ,_,_,m -
,__m______._m _ _ . , . , _ ._. -,
Sierra Club Contention I(B)
This contention is similar to I(A) in that it alleges failure to e consider certain relevant conditions, phenomena and alternatives necessary for independent verification of claims in the documents supplied by the Licensee to the NRC Staff. It reads:
It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fail to include consideration of certain relevant conditions, phenomena and alternatives necessary for independent verification of claims made 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:
- 1) collisions between racks and pool walls and collisions of various types involving groups of racks
- sliding in contact with each other during the PHE;
- 2) the resonant behavior of the spent fuel assemblies in the racks in response to the PHE and the consequences of such behavior;
- 3) the effects of the possible loss of pool cooling capacity on the spent fuel assemblies;
- 4) the statistical nature of potential failure of the large number of spent fuel storage system components during the PHE;
- 5) the consequences of possible failure of welds, materials, or structural elements of spent fuel storage system components during the PHE;
~
- 6) the comparison of the proposed spent fuel storage system with other such systems at other reactor sites having less severe seismic design criteria;
- 7) alternative on-site stcrage facilities including:
(i) construction of new or additional storage facilities and/or; (ii) acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment, including spent nuclear fuel storage casks;
- 8) the use of anchors, braces, or other structural members to prevent rack motion and subsequent damage during the PHt;
- 9) the use of "boraflex" neutron absorbing material for all spent fuel racks; and
- 10) the structural integrity of the pool following collisions of the racks with the pool walls as described in(I)(B)(1)above.
Additional information may be needed to verify claims made in the reports.
The Licensee objects to admission of this contention, except basis 7, on the grounds that: (1) there is no legal basis for the assertion that the Intervenor has to be able to make an independent verification; and (2) certain of the basis specifications either duplicate those in other contentions to which no party opposes admission, or they lack legal authority. Tr. 88-90, 93-94,98-100, 102-103(Norton). See fn. 6, supra.
The Staff does not oppose admission of this contention with respect to basis specifications 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, recognizing basis specification 7 as a separate environmental issue; i.e., consideration of alternatives to expanding the spent fuel pool. Staff Response at 26-27.
The Staff opposes basis item 3 since it believes that the Petitioner has failed to state any basis for loss of pool cooling capacity. The Staff views basis item 4 on statistical analysis as being so vague that the parties do not know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose. Staff cites Philadelphia Electric g.,8AEC13,20(ALAB-216,1974). Because Petitioner has not set forth the requisite basis or specificity to indicate how comparison of the proposed design with spent fuel pool designs at other reactor sites is necessary to the Staff's verification, the Staff also opposed basis item 6. Staff Response at 26-27..
During the prehearing conference it was established that while the Sierra Club believes that it should have sufficient information from the i
l Licensee's application and associated documents to pertorm verifying calculations independently, their contention includes the allegation that the Staff is unable to make its required findings without the information asserted to be missing. Tr. 88, at lines 5-19.
i i
L
i With the exception of basis item 7 on alternatives, Sierra Club Contention I(B), like I(A), is concerned with specific aspects of the seismic design of the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool.
j Basis items I(B)1 and I(B)5 are duplicated in, or at least subsumed by, parts of Sierra Club Contention II(A); i.e., by basis items II(A)1 and l II(A)3,respectively. Thus there is no need to litigate separately the alleged absence of information cited in Contention I(B) where such 1
information whicn has a substantive bearing on issues in Contention II(A) will be heard. See, infra, Sierra Club Contention II(A).
As to item I(B)3 concerning the possible loss of pool cooling capacity on the spent fuel assemblies, the Board can find no specificity in the stated bases, nor in the supporting statements of Dr. Ferguson (Tr. 85, 89) as to how the Sierra Club relates the postulated loss of cooling capacity to an earthquake or other causative action.
Accordingly, we reject Sierra Club's basis specification 3 of Contention
! I(A) as lacking requisite specificity.
4 Basis item 4 of Contention I(B) as written is similarly bare of any specificity as to how the statistical nature of potential failure ot
! system components during an earthquake presents a sufficient legal or factual basis for litigation. At the prehearing conference, l
Dr. Ferguson explained the petitioner's concern with adequate factual specificity, at least as far as the numerous pedestals which support the fuel racks are concerned. Tr. 90-92. However, the balance of f
l l
petitioner's explanation (Tr. 93-95) failed to provide any regulatory authority requiring such a statistical analysis in seismic design, only the belief that the deterministically derived resistance "does not seem to be the way the standard engineering practice would proceed when you have that kind of problem". Tr. 95. In the absence of appropriate legal basis or a specific safety concern, item 4 of Sierra Club Contention I(B) merely represents petitioner's view of what policy or procedure ought to be and is not admissible.
Basis specification 6 of Contention I(B) similarly fails to provide requisite specificity or legal or factual basis to warrant its admission. The factual basis relied on was an assumption that a standard or off-the-shelt fuel rack design was being utilized and Petitioner questioned how it may have been adapted to specific conditions at this site. Tr. 95-99. The manner in which the fuel racks have been designed to acconinodate seismic requirements for the Diablo Canyon site are addressed to a large extent in Sierra Club Contention II(A) and (B) to which there is no objection. No legal requirement for comparing the design at this site with the design of spent fuel pools at other sites having less severe seismic design criteria was 91 yen; hence +
basis item 6 of Contention I(B) is rejected.
l
~
i Basis item 10 of this contention, like basis items 1 and 5, is redundant with other contentions. There is no need to litigate
- . separately the alleged absence of information and the substantive issues t
. l l
l on postulated seismic effects; i.e., postulated impact or collision effects during strong earthquake shaking. The Board finds that it is more appropriate to litigate the effects upon the integrity of the fuel pool walls along with effects on the fuel racks that allegedly result from impact of the racks with the walls. Accordingly, the words "and pool walls" are added to the end of Sierra Club Contention II(A)3, infra, to encompass the issue contained in basis item 10 of Contention I(B).
In sumary, Sierra Club Contention I(B) is admitted as limited to basis items 2, 7, 8 and 9. Basis item 7 on alternatives to fuel pool rerackira presents an environmental issue, the requirement for which is set forth in 10 CFR 9 51.30(a)(1)(11),7 and raises an issue similar to that raised in Mothers for Peace Contention 1. However we will not address consolidation of different parties' issues in this Order. Basis items 1, 5 and 10 of Contention I(B) are subsumed by basis items 1 and 3 (the latter as amended herein) of Sierra Club Contention II(A). Basis items 3, 4, and 6 of Contention I(B) are rejected as not meeting the basis and specificity requirements of 10 CFR Q 2.714(b) (1986).
7 The alternatives specified in Sierra Club Contention I(B)7 are the same as those set out in 10 CFR 6 53.13(c)(2) and (3) and in Section 135(b)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The regulation and statute cited describe the conditions under which the Secretary of Energy will contract with a utility that does not have adequate spent fuel storage space on site and (Footnote Continued) l
Sierra Club Contention II It is the contention af the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and
' safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:
A) during the PHE [ postulated Hosgri earthauake], collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:
- 1) impact forces on the racks significantly larger thar, those estimated in the reports;
- 2) impact forces on the racks significantly larger than those expected to damage the racks;
- 3) significant permanent deformation and other damage to the racks;
- 4) reduction of the spacings between fuel assemblies;
- 5) increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient k(eff) above 0.95;
- 6) release of large quantities of heat and radiation;
- 7) radioactive contamination of the nuclear power plant and its employees above the levels permitted by federal regulations;
- 8) radioactive contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations; and
- 9) radioactive contamination of humans and other living things in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations.
(FootnoteContinued) cannot obtain it from any other non-federal source. These provisions are not applicable to this proceeding.
B) during the PHE, collisions between groups of racks with each other and/or with the pool walls are expected to occur with results similar to those described in II(A) above.
Neither the Licensee nor the Staff opposed admission of this contention. Staff Response at 27-29; Tr. 105. The Staff, however, conditioned its lack of opposition upon its characterization of the contention, which summarized the allegations. Tr. 28-29.
We agree that the Staff's characterization is a fair one that presents the issues the Sierra Club can litigate. However, we will not rephrase the contention except to add the words "and pool walls" to the end of basis item 3. The phrase is added to encompass specifically the aspects of basis item 10 of Sierra Club Contention I(B), supra, that the Board finds more appropriate to address he-e. The similar inclusion of basis items I(B)1 and I(B)S, supra, in II(A)1 and II(A)3 here does not require amended wording.
I Sierra Club Contention II, as amended by the Board, is accepted.
Sierra Club Contention III:
The Sierra Club contends that:
A) no attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the population surrounding the reactors at Diablo Canyon concerning the proposed spent fuel storage facilities and that the proposed reracking is probably inconsistent with these views;'and that
B) as discussed in Sec. II above, the proposed reracking is incor.sistent with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment; and that C) existing storage facilities at Diablo Canyon will be effectively used to the maximum extent practical within the next few years; and that i
D) adequate storage capacity at Diablo Canyon cannot reasonably be providecf to assure the continued, orderly operation of the reactors.
The Licensee opposes admission of this contention on several grounds. Licensee views part (B) as duplicative of Contention II, supra, and parts (C) and (D) as statements, not contentions; hence lacking any specificity. Tr. 109-10 . As to part (A), Licensee's position is that the Notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments on the proposed determination of no significant hazards, 51 Fed. Reg. 1451, 1455, January 13, 1986, along with the Board's statement in the notice of the prehearing conference concerning future limited appearance statements (Board Order Designating Location of Prehearing Conference, issued April 29,1986), provide sufficient opportunity to obtain the public's views on the storage of spent fuel at this site. Tr. 116-18.
The Staff does not view any of the four items raised in this contention as related to the scope of this proceeding; i.e., determining whether or not the proposed reracking is consistent with protection of public health and safety and the environment. Tr. 108-09, 121. The Staff also interprets the provision of an opportunity for the hybrid s
hearing process in this proceeding as one means of efficiently addressing pertinent aspects of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Tr. 113-14.
We find that none of the four items raised in this contention is admissible under 10 CFR S 2.714(b). Item (B) duplicates Sierra Club Contention II, supra, and items (C) and (D) are devoid of specificity and thus fail to present issues that are cognizable within the scope of this proceeding. Item (A) also raises no issue within the scope of this proceeding. Petitioner based its concerns on its reading of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, apparently Sections 131(a)(3) and 132.8 J
8 These sections provide in pertinent part:
Subtitle B--Interim Storage Program Findings and Purposes Sec. 131.(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that-- ,.
(1) the persons owning and operating civilian nuclear power reactors have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from such reactors, by maximizing, to the extent practical, the effective use of existing storage facilities at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor, and by adding new onsite storage capacity in a timely manner where practical; (3) the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide, in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle, not more than 1,900 metric tons of capacity for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors t;.at cannot reasonably (Footnote Continued)
m w ,
Petitioner reasons that if on-site spent fuel storage were found not to be reasonable, then the federal government has the responsibility to remove it and put it into Federal interim storage (see NWPA, s 131(a)(3)). Criteria for what is reasonable, under Petitioner's interpretation, are to be found in the five " consistency" factors of section132,oneofwhichis"(5)theviewsofthepopulation surrounding such reactor." Tr. 105-08. Petitioner's reasoning is flawed, and the sections are not applicable to this proceeding in the manner Petitioner suggests.
The logic of the two sections presupposes several steps. Section 131 of the NWPA prescribes four steps as conditions to Federal interim (FootnoteContinued) provide adequate storage capacity at the sites of such reactors when needed to assure the continued, orderly operation of such reactors.
Available Capacity for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Sec. 132. The Secretary, the Consnission, and other authorized Federal officials shall each take such actions as such official considers necessary to encourage and expedite the effective use of available storage, and necessary additional storage, at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor consistent with--
(1) the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment;
- 2) economic considerations;
- 3) continued operation of such reactor;
- 4) any applicable provisions of law; and (5) the views of the population surrounding such reactor.
o 1
I storage of spent fuel: (1) that a utility has taken steps to maximize and then expand on site spent fuel storage facilities; (2) that the utility has filled its existing and expanded storage capacity; (3) that the utility can no longer reasonably store additional spent fuel on site; and (4) that then the Federal Government will furnish no more than 1,900 metric tons of interim storage to the utility for its overflow.
We note that the Federal government does not now have a facility that would accept the spent fuel overflow contemplated in Step 4.
The second part of the Interim Storage Program is discussed in Section 132. Cognizant Federal officials are to actively encourage utilities to use and add spent fuel storage. Congress was concerned, in passing the NWPA that utilities were not pursuing expansion of spent fuel storage capacity aggressively enough. See H.R. Rep. No.97-491, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 384 (1982), reprinted in 1982, U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad. News, 3792, 3803-04. Licensee is acting consistently with Section 132 in applying for the license amendment at issue here.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a full-blown program for obtaining "the views of the population surrounding such reactors" noted in Section 132. This administrative proceeding and the limited appearance statements authorized under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.715(a) (1986) are l but two of the mechanisms established for that purpose. The five factors listed in Section 132 are factors Federal officials (in this case the Commission) are to take into account when they act "to l
l l
l
encourage and expedite the effective use of available storage and necessary additional storage at the site ...." The "public views" factor goes then to the Congressional program of encouraging on site interim storage, not to the question whether the public health and safety and the environment are protected by the terms of any license.
In fact the latter is another of the five factors in section 132, and that factor is addressed through that portion of the regulatory scheme which governs all spent tuel pool expansions. In light of the very existence of the instant proceeding as well as the thrust and purpose of sections 131 and 132 of the NWPA, Item A of Contention II can not be admitted as a contention in this proceeding.
Sierra Club Contention IV In light of the foregoing, it is the contention of the Sierra Club that:
i A) the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide sufficient capacity for interim storage of spent fuel from Diablo Canyon; and that B) the Federal Government is required by law to offer to enter into contracts with PG&E for purposes of providing storage capacity for spent fuel produced at Diablo Canyon.
Licensee opposes admission on the ground that this contention is a conclusion of law and not a contention. Licensee also argues that the Petitioner's oral pleading (Tr.121-25) indicates that the thrust of the contention is contained in Contention II. Tr. 125-26.
l The Staff agreed with the Licensee in opposing admission of this contention arguing that the Sierra Club has not satisfied the basis and specificity requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714. Tr. 126; Staff Response at 30.
In his pleading in support of this proffered contention, Dr. terguson indicates that it is based on Petitioner's reading of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and, as in Contention III, again relies on
" reasonableness." Tr. 121-25. In this case Petitioner believes that it is not reasonable to store high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel) so near an earthquake fault; hence the Licensee or the Coninission should invoke Section 131 of the Act to obtain Federal storage of the spent fuel.
That argument assumes the answer to the question before us, namely whether the public health and safety will be adequately protected under the license amendment applied for.
We find Petitioner's arguments to be conclusions that do not satisfy the specificity requirements of 10 CFR Q 2.714 for admissibility of a contention. Nothing litigable is provided, and the contention is denied.
C. Contentions of the Mothers for Peace Mothers for Peace filed their contentions in a submittal dated April 22, 1986.
<\
l l
l Mothers for Peace Contention 1:
The Licensee has not adequately considered alternatives to the proposed reracking of the spent fuel pools. In particular, because of the increased danger posed by the close proximity of the Hosgri fault, alternatives should be considered. Some alternatives include:
- a. The contracting out or trans-shipment of sgget fuel for storage at a government owned spent fuel facility;
- b. Derating the facility or reducing the plant output and thereby reducing the generation of spent fuel,
- c. Closing or shutting down the facilities.
Neither Staff nor Licensee object to the admission of the contention as it is written. Tr. 16-18. The Board has no objection to its admission. The contention is therefore accepted for litigation.
Mothers for Peace Contention 2:
The Licensee failed to evaluate the overall cost (in terms of both health effects and potential associated medical costs) associated with the additional exposures of the plant personnel to increased radioactivity levels due to the increased spent fuel storage.
Neither Staff nor Licensee object to the admission of the contention, with the understanding that it is restricted to normal operation of the facility. Tr. 21-22. The Board finds that the contention is admissible for litigation with that restriction.
1 l
1 Mothers for Peace Contention 3:
No analysis has been made of the overall costs (in terms of both health effects and potential associated medical costs associated with the additional exposures of persons off the Diablo Canyon site to increased radioactivity levels due to the increased spent fuel storage.
Neither Staff nor Licensee object to the admission of the contention, as written, with the understanding that it is restricted to normal operation of the facility. Tr. 22. The contention is accepted for litigation with that restriction.
Mothers for Peace Contention 4:
The expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity will have a significant affect [sicJ on the quality of the human environment and therefore requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
The relevant regulations concerning necessary documents to be submitted in this proceeding are found in 10 CFR Part 51. Section 51.20 thereof sets forth the criteria for an identification of licensing and regulatcry actions requiring environmental impact statements. On its face the instant amendment meets none of these criteria and would thus be governed by 651.21, which requires the preparation of an environmental assessment, which has been prepared and disseminated to the participants in this case.
O The Mothers for Peace contend that the granting of the proposed license amendment would constitute a major Federal action, which would require the preparation of an EIS. However, no basis for such an action is advanced in their contention with sufticient specificity to be litigated. The broad statement of a significant effect on the quality of human environment is totally insufficient. The contention is denied.
Mothers for Peace Contention 5:
Applicant's proposal does not ensure that spent fuel pool conditions will be maintained within regulatory or design limits in the event of a Class 9 accident or other extreme accident in the main reactor. The Licensee has not shown that in such cases the electrical systems, cooling systems and plant personnel will function sufficiently well to ensure continued safe operation of the spent fuel pools.
Licensing Boards are enjoined from acting on proposals concerning
" Class 9" accidents in operating reactors absent new and significant safety information. 50 Fed. Reg. 32,144,32,144-45(August 8,1985).
No such information has been offered. Thus, the contention must be denied.
Mothers for Peace Contention 6:
i The application for reracking is premature in that no need for
! the immediate expansion has been shown. Licensee will have no need for the increased storage capacity for the next 4 years.
l l
l
\.
The Board is not aware of any regulation or policy statement by the Commission that requires a showing of immediate need in a proposal for fuel pool reracking,and the Petitioner has cited none. The intent of Sections 131 and 132 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, discussed above, appears to encourage advance planning and work in this area. See also10CFR2.1101(1986). Licensee argues that reracking at this time, while the pool is not contaminated with spent fuel assemblies, would result in less employee exposure to radiation. Tr. 35-36. The contention is denied for lack of factual or legal basis.
Mothers for Peace Contention 7:
The NRC has ordered PG&E to conduct a long-term seismic program and submit the results of the study to the Commission by 1988. In view of the fact that the study is still in the early planning stages, any seismic analyses done on the spent fuel pools as well as on the racks are inadequate. It also makes consideration of reracking premature, and woefully inadequate.
The seismic issue at Diablo Canyon has been exhaustively litigated in the operating license hearings, and its resolution has been approved by the Commission. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ,13 NRC 903, 966 (ALAB-644,1981); S. J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, letter to I the parties dated March 18, 1982. This Board has no power to consider this matter absent a specific indication of adverse effects on the health and safety of the public. We find none. The contention is therefore denied. See also CODES Contentions 2 and 3, supra.
O
- Mothers for Peace Contention 8:
- The Licensee has not adequately considered or analyzed the long term health, safety and environmental effects of the proposed reracking with respect to such periods of time over which the spent fuel pool is likely to be used beyond the expiration of Applicant's operating license.
The Comission has considered the long-term effects of the storage of spent fuel and has found that there is reasonable assurance that, if necessary, "[spentj fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of that reactor's operating license at that reactor's spent fuel storage basin ..." Ruling on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemaking), CLI-84-15, 20 NRC288,293(1984); see also 10 CFR 9 51.23(a) (1986) and the discussion of CODES Contention 4, above. In light of the Commission's determination and the regulation, which are binding upon the Board, we find that the contention is not a proper matter for adjudication, and it is therefore rejected.
Mothers for Peace Contention 9:
The Licensee has not shown that people could safely be evacuated in the event of a simultaneous earthquake and accident at Diablo Canyon's spent fuel pools. Current evacuation times are inadequate to preserve the health and safety given the increased quantity of radiation that would
. occur with a spent fuel pool storage expansion.
As both Staff and Licensee point out (Tr. p. 57), this issue of the coincidence of a major accident and an earthquake has been considered in this case before, and was found by the Commission to be so highly improbable that it does not require consideration in the Commission's regulations. The Commission's decision has been upheld by the courts.
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 760 F.2d 1320, aff'd. en banc.
No. 84-1410, slip op. at 5 (D.C. Cir. April 25,1986). In view of this, the contention must be rejected.
Mothers for Peace Contention 10:
The Licensee has not analyzed nor considered the consequences 3
of an accidental impact from an aborted, misfired, misguided or exploded missile launched from the Vandenberg missile range. Vandenberg is a major launch facility for the U.S. Air Force, and soon will become a prime launching facility for NASA. Accidental explosions have been occurring with increased frequency.
I This contention was previously litigated in this case and was found
- to be of little concern. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,10 NRC 453, 461 (LBP-79-26,19/9). The Board finds that there is insufficient basis presented by Intervenors to further consider this matter. The contention is therefore rejected.
_ _ _ _ . _ , _ , _ - - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _____..__..______.7 -_ - . - . ,
O Mothers for Peace Contention 11:
In light of increased terrorist activities, the Licensee has not adequately analyzed nor considered the consequences of sabotage of the spent fuel facilities. The possibility of increased harm due to sabotage of the spent fuel pools will necessitate increased security measures over and above current forces.
The contention basically questions the adequacy of the security system in place at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. This matter has been litigated at length by the Appeal Board, and the security system was found to be satisfactory. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
14NRC629(ALAB-653,1981). The Board finds that there is insufficient basis set forth in the contention for further consideration of this matter. The contention is therefore rejected.
In that this memorandum and order grants petitions for leave to intervene, it is appealable by any party other than petitioners on the question of whether the petitions should have been wholly denied. 10 CFR2.714a(c)(1986).
l
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 27th day of June,1986, ORDERED
- 1. That CODES Contention 14 is admitted, as amended, and all remaining contentions are denied;
- 2. That Mothers for Peace contentions 1, 2, and 3 are admitted, as amended, and all remaining conter.tions are denied;
- 3. That Sierra Club contentions I(A) and I(B), and II(A) and II(B), as amended by the Board, are admitted, and all remaining contentions are denied;
! 4. That the contentions admitted in paragraphs 1 to 3 above, as limited, are restated in Appendix A hereto which is incorporated herein by reference; and l
~ _
- 5. That any party desiring to invoke the hybrid hearing
, procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.1101 et_ seq. (1986) shall, on or before July 14, 1986, file with this Board a written request including a proposed procedural schedule.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD B. Paul Cotter, Jf./ Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
& a Bua Glenn O. Bright g ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D #
i " Jerry / Harbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
- Bethesda, Maryland.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0PtilSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr. , Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA
) and 50-323-0LA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
) (ASLBP No. 86-523-03-LA)
(DiabloCanyonNuclearPowerPlant, Units 1 and 2) June 27, 1986 APPENDIX A The contentions, as admitted by the attached Memorandum and Order, are as follows:
I. Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety:
- 14. Neutron embrittlement and other metallurcical deterioration and environmental stresses to the struct 11 integrity of the spent fuel ponds have not been adequately analyzed and determined for the period of the license.
II. Mothers for Peace:
1
- 1. The Applicant has not adequately considered alternatives to
' the proposed reracking of the spent fuel pools. In particular, because of the increased danger posed by the close
, proximity of the Hosgri fault, alternatives should be considered. Some alternatives include:
- a. lhe contracting out or trans-shipment of spent fuel for storage at a government owned spent fuel facility; I
- b. Derating the facility or reducing the plant output and thereby reducing the generation of spent fuel.
- c. Closing or shutting down the facilities.
- 2. The Applicant failed to evaluate the overall cost (in terms of both health effects and potential associated medical costs) associated with the additional exposures of the plant personnel during normal operation to increased radioactivity levels due to the increased spent fuel storage.
- 3. No analysis has been made of the overall costs (in terms of both health effects and potential associated medical costs associated with the additional exposures of persons off the Diablo Canyon site to increased radioactivity levels during normal operation due to the increased spent fuel storage.
III. The Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter I(A). It is the contention of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter (Sierra Club), that the report submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and other comunications between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the NRC which are available to the public on the same subject (the Reports) fail to contain certain relevant data necessary for independent verification of the claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment.
In particular, the Reports fail to contain data regarding: .
- 1) the mass of a spent fuel assembly and masses of the loaded spent fuel racks (racks);
- 2) the sprin (gap elements)g constants to model usedoffor the behavior thethe racksnonlinear (see springs e.g., p. 6-10ff of the Report);
- 3) the expected velocity and displacement of the spent fuel pools (pools) as a function of time in three dimensions during the postulated Hosgri earthquake (PHE);
r 3-
- 4) the expected maximum velocity and displacement of the racks obtained from the computer modelling of rack behavior during the PHE;
- 5) the kinetic coefficients of friction appropriate for estimating the frictional forces between the pool floor liner and the racks when sliding of the racks occurs; and
- 6) the dimensions and configuration of rack "H".
I(B). It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fail to include consideration of certain relevant conditions, phenomena and alternatives necessary for independent verification of claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with public health end safety, and the environment, and with federal law.
In particular, the Reports fail to consider:
- 2) the resonant behavior of the spent fuel assemblies in the racks in response to the PHE and the consequences of such behavior;
- 7) alternative on-site storage facilities including:
(1) construction of new or additional storage facilities and/or; (ii) acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment, including spent nuclear fuel storage casks;
- 8) the use of anchors, braces, or other structural members to prevent rack motion and subsequent damage during the PHE;
- 9) the use of "boraflex" neutron absorbing material for all spent fuel racks.
II. It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:
l A) during the PHE, collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:
l i
i i
- ,- - _ . , - . - - . . . - - - - . , . . - - - - . - - - , , . - . - , - . - , ,,,.,,,-_,,n_, , - - - - - - . - , - , - - - - - . , - - - , , , ,
l
- 1) impact forces on the racks significantly l larger than those estimated in the reports;
- 2) impact forces on the racks significantly larger than those expected to damage the racks;
- 3) significant permanent deformation and other damage to the racks and pool walls;
- 4) reduction of the spacings between fuel assemblies;
- 5) increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient k(eff) above 0.95;
- 6) release of large quantities of heat and radiation;
- 7) radioactive contamination of the nuclear power plant and its employees above the levels permitted by federal regulations;
- 8) radioactive contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations; and
- 9) radioactive contamination of humans and i
other living things in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations.
B) during the PHE, collisions between groups of racks with each other and/or with the pool walls are expected to occur with results similar to those described in II(A) above.
_