ML19225A056
| ML19225A056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Sterling, 05000484, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1979 |
| From: | Bordenick B, Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907180188 | |
| Download: ML19225A056 (29) | |
Text
TT9A 6/14/79 y
MM?ANLW l/
cs2 S
3 37B P UflITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION op4' s
S BEFORE THE AT0"IC SAFETY AND LICENSI'lG ADPEAL 90ARDS
~
In the
- tatters of
)
)
i PHIL ADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPA'lY et al.
)
Docket flos. 50-277 (Peach Botton Atonic Power Station,
)
50-278 Units 2 -d 3)
)
^
)
)
METROPOLITAN F)ISON COMPA'lY et al.
)
Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Itli.d fluclear Station,
)
Unit !!o. 2)
)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AMD GAS CO.
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
50-355 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
- !0RTHEPN STATES PCWER COMPANY et al.
)
Docket No. ST'l 50-484 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
)
)
)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Occket No. STN 50 485 CORPORATION et al.
)
(Sterling Power Project,
)
Muclear Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' JOINT MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF RADON ISSUES Introduction The procedural background of the " radon" issue involved in the captioned proceedings, and applicable to this Staff response, is set forth in ALAB-540 issued by the Aopeal Boards on April 25, 1979.
There the 4 peal Boards granted the parties until "ay 25, 1979, for the filing of notions for
/:
7907180188 zao a T /
, sumary disoosition (Slip op, at p. 11).1/
In addition, ALG-540 (at slip.
00., p.12) orovided "[t] hat the staff nay file its can motion, join in the motions of either side, or otheraise respond as it deems aporopriate." Da "ay 25, 1979, the Staff filed a '10 tion for Sumnary Disposition as to !nter-9/
venors' alleged deficiencies (in the Perkinst record) numbers 9 and 10.
Licensees in the captioned proceeding; likewise tinely filed a Joint 'fotion for Summary Disposition (motion) as to all the outstanding asserted defi-ciencies.
The licensees' notion is accompanied by a Statement cf "aterial Facts as to Which [ licensees assert] There is no Genuine Issue to 5e Heard (Statenent of "aterial Facts), a Brief in Support of Joint '4 tion for Sum-0 mary Desposition (Brief), and the Affidavit of Dr. Morton I. Goldnan.1/ The Staff, for the reasons ;at forth below, succorts licensees' notion as to four asserted alleged deficiencies,S/ ut opposes, either totally or con-b ditionally, the licensees' motion as to the balance of the alleged-deficiencies.
-1/
See 10 C. F R. 5 2. 729.
_2_/
See Dume Fewer Concany (Per.ns Station, Units 1, ? and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87 (July 11, 1978).
3/
Dr. Goldman das a witness for Duke Power Company in the oerkins ore-ceediag.
See also cara.1 of Dr. Goldnan's Af fidavit filed in these proceedings.
( A statenent of Dr. Goldman's professional cualifications is attactieo as Exhibit "A" to his Affidavit.)
b Staff's 'iotion for Sumary Disoosition includes two of the alleged deficiencies (9 and 20) which are suoported by the Staff in this response.
7-J 'i 9-2(j,7
, The Policies Underlying Sunnary Discosition Before addressing the specifics of the licensees' notion, Staff believes that a general discussion vi the colicies which underly sunnary disposition considered against the context of these unique proceedings, as recards the
" radon" issue, nay be helpful.
It is clear that the policies underlying su-' nary disposition and the Appeal Boards' responsibilities to focus these proceedings on natters in controversy require that the Appeal 90ards consider the licensees' motion so that the proceedings will not be delayed by consideration of inaporopriate issues.
The basic purpose of sunmary disposition is to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Roston Edison Concany (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-191, 7 AEC J! 7, alS (1974).
Unnecessary litigation is, of course, a serious concern. The Commission has stated that it is concerned not only with its obligatiun tu the segment of the public narticipating in licensing pecceedings but also with its responsibility to the general public--a responsibility to arrive at sound decisions, wnether favorable or unfavorable to any particular party, in a tirely fashion.
The Conmission expressly recognizes the positive necessity for expediting the decisionnaking process and avoiding undue delays.
)/O
/,
7_
C D. b'
_4-Statement o' Consideration, Restructuring of Facility License Application Review and Hearing Processes, 37 Fed. Rec.15127 (July 28,1972).
Comnission Board's have a responsibility to assure that the issues being litigated are genuine.
In a series of opinions, Appeals Soards have addressed the respecsibilities of licensing boards to evaluate che nerits of contentions at different points in the hearing process.
It has been held that although a Board is not to address the merits of a contcntion in deciding whether it meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. ? 2.714 to fom the basis for inter /ention, it should satisfy itself that a contention presents a genuine issue before allowing it to become an issue in a hearing.
Thus, the Appeal Board has stated:
[T]he contention is adequate to entitle [the petitioner] to inter /ene in the proceeding.
It remains for hin to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, which has been convened to conduct the hearing, that a genuine issue actually exists.
If the Board is not so satisfied, it may sunmarily dispe of the contenticci on the basis of the pleadings.
10 CFR ! 2.749.
'orthern States Pcwer Colt 2 (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 214 In the sane ve'n, the Appeal Board has stated:
[I]t [the Licensing Board] nust be satisfied, with respect to each contention which the petitioner seeks to litigate, that a genuine issue in fact exists.
Any contention which cn orelini-nary exanination does not survive the application of that standard is to be excluded fron consideration at the evidentiary hearing.
N
[j}
, Duauesne Licht Comoany, et al.
(Beavey '/ alley Power Station, Unit No.1)
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973).
The Appeal Board has also vted that:
Before connencing any evidentiary hearing, a licensing board must, Jf course, cass upon the sufficiency of everv contention contained in an intervention petition which has been previously granted. And, as stressed in Beaver '/ alley 1, suora, PAI-73-4 at o. 245, the board is to exclude from consideration at that hearing any contention which does not present a genuine issue aopropriate for resolution in the proceeding.
Stated othenvise, the hearing is not to enbrace a contention which either (1) as presented, fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 2.71 A; or (2) can be sunnarily rejected on the merits under the provi-sions of Section 2.749 of the Rules of Dractice.
[ footnote omitted]
!1ississiooi Dower and Licht Comoany (Grand Gulf 'luclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 A"C 423, 424-25 (1973).
Based on the special circunstances which obtain as to the " radon" issue in these proceedings, the Staff basically takes three positions below:
1) that sunmary disposition should be granted with respect to certain defi-ciencies because there is ao basis in law or fact for Intervenors' asser-tions; 2) sunmary disposition as to certain other assertions may be appro-priate but Intervenors shou'd be given an ooportunity to develop their assertions given the specia' circunstances of these proceedings; and 3) sumary disposition is not approoriate with respect to the renaining alleged deficiencies because of the availability of new data or information which has developed since compilation of the Perkins record.
3 /[ O t,0 7-
. The Alleged Deficiencies in the Perkins Record Set out below, either individually or in groups, is the Staff's position with regard to licensees' notion for sunnary disposition as to 23 alleged deficiencies in the Perkins record asserted by Intervenors.E Alleoed deficiency no.j, The thrust of alleget deficiency No.1 is that the environnental assessment for Sterlino and Tyrone (and presurably the other reactors which are involved in these proceedings) cannot be completed antil inquiry is made into the actual nines which Nill produce their uranium.1/ The Staff supports licen-sees' notion for suanary disposition as to this iten and concurs in '" 1-6 of licensees' Statement of Material Facts and 3-7 of Dr. Goldnan's affidavit.
In addition, the Staff sets forth the following in further support of the Licensees' notion as to Item 1.
1/
Intervenors ori'ginally asserted 26 such alleged deficiencies. The Appeal Scards in ALAB-540 found itens 8,19, and 25 were beyond the scope of these preceedings.
Accordingly, those itens were not included in the licensees' notion and are, of course, not addressed in this Staff filing.
1/
The Staff does not dispute anything in the introductory renarks made by the Inter /enor in asserted deficiency flo.1.
Nh
?? f
%/
, As noted in Staff's "otion for Summary Disposition filed on 'tay 25, 1979, a review of the records in Sterlina and Tyrone fails to disclose any testi-nony regarding the source of fuel for either reactor. That such information is absent f~n the records of those proceedings is not surprising in view of Union Electric Canoany (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-347, 4 NRC 216, 220-2'3 (1976).
In that case it was held that applicants are not required to identify their source of fuel in order to obtain construction permits.
Even if licensees had contracts in hand, the mines which will pro-duce the uraniun to fuel these reactors 5,10, 20 or 30 years from now aay not new be in existence.
Thus, it would be virtually inpossible for the Staff, or anyone else, to cresertly determine, on a nine-by-mine basis, what the radon release would be from the specific mines that will or night oroduce uraniun for Sterlino or Tyrone, or any other reactor, in the future.
This fact has been recognized and addressed by the Conmission in the Notice of Procosed Rule '1aking on the Envirnmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 3 7 Fed. Peo. 24191-24193 where it was stated, i_n_ part, that f
_n There are in the United States well over 100 nuclear power reactors in operation, under construction, or on order, and in addition, three commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities have received operating licenses or are under construction. The existence of a uranium mine or mill, uranium hexafluoride plant, enrichnent facility, fuel fabrication plant, fuel reprocessing plant, or ultinate waste depository does not depend upon the licensing of any one nuclear pcwer reactor, nor does the cold or irradiated fuel or waste from any one reactor make more than fractional contribution, if any, M the effects of such activities or 'acilities.
Uraniu, mining and milling, uraniun hexafluoride production, isotopic enrichment, and fuel fabrication will contribute fuel to many nuclear reactors and the effects associated
. with fuel reprocessing 3 " waste disposal will be those asso iated not olily wit- 'uclear power reactors now ooera'1ng or under construction, but also with those that t re planned for the future.
There does not aooear to be_ ny way to ascertain with any decree of certainty which the uraniun nines or nills, uraniun hexafluoride olants..sotopic enrichment facilities, and fuel fabrication olants n existence or to be coerated in the future will contrib.te tuel to a aiven nuclear omier reactor, or wnich of the s arious fuel reprocessing plants or commercial burial grounds now in existence or to be constructed from time to time will receive irradiated fuel or wastes fron any given nuclear oower reactor.
(Emphasis added.)
Since the nines that will or may produce the uraniun for Sterlina and Tyrone, and the other reactors involved in thes 2 proceedings, cannot now be identified, what the Staff attenpted to do 'i Derkins is to predict, in a generic nanner, what the radon release rate will be from the uranium nining industry as a whole and to apportion this release to individual reactors on the basis of the quantity of radon released from nining the amount of uranium ore needed to produce one annual fuel requirenent ( AFR).
While the Staff has no objectiori to further cross-questioning by Intervenors of Staff witnesses who appeared at perkins regarding their generic calcula-tions,1 the Staff suoports li:ensees' motion as regards the conclusion 1/
If such questioning occurs, the Staff, of course, reserves its right to object, inter alia, to the form, content or scope of any such question.
Likewise, such a reservation would be applicable to other areas of this response where the Staff has indicated that it would not be inappropriate to permit furtner questioning Lj intervenors or to grant then an opportunity to present for the record add 4,ional written (or verbal in the case of rebuttal) testimony.
c'/j"%
9 that further inquiry into the actual mines that may produce the uraniun for the reactors in question would be fruitless and is unnecessary as a nat-ter of law.
Alleaed deficiency no. 2 Licensees at pages 3 4 of their Brief assert that sumary disposition as to this iten should be granted, as a natter of law, because 1) it is beyond the Appeal Board's jurisdiction in Sterlina and 2) because the " contention" is untirely.
The Staff opposes the licensees motion as to this iten which involves the amount of are needed to produce one AFR.
With respect to point 1) above, the licenseas' assertions, as to the Appeal Board's jurisdiction in the Sterlina proceeding, overlook the fact that the Appeal Soards have been treating the " radon" issues on a generic basis.1/
Thus, the anount of ore needed to produce one AFR if appropriate for consid-eration in one case is appropriate for consisideration in all pending cases before the Appeal Boards.
Regarding licensees' point 2) above,
l the Acceal Board cases upon which licensees rely involve tireliness of " contentions" and are inapplicable to 1/
See Pn11adelonia Electric Comoany et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3) et al., ALAB-546 (slip opinion) (May 8, 1979).
There the Appeal boards denied Applicants' (in those proceedings) joint notion for reconsideration of ALAB-540 to the extent that it consolidated their cases with others for purposes of considering the
" radon" issue.
3,; o
, v,i L I
't
. the situation now before the Acpeal loards.
The " contentions" involved in those cases were advanced under 10 CFR 2.714 In the unusual circunstances of the proceedings now under consideration, Intervenors have in fact tinely raised alleged deficiencies as to a record conpiled in a proceeding (Perkins) to which they were not parties.
In the Staff's view Intervenors have followed the procedures set down by the Aapeal Boards in an attenpt to give Intervenors their " day in court" regarding the Perkins record.
' fore importantly, the Staff believes it is fair to assune that Intervenors would have pursued the subject matter of the alleged deficiency in question had they been parties to the Perkins proceeding.
Accordingly, Staff will be prepared to provide testimony which fully responds to the asserted defi-ciencies in iten 2.
We believe that Intervenors should have an opportunity to cross exanine Staff witnesses regarding that testinony.
Licensees' notion as to alleged deficiency no. 2 should be denied.
Alleaed deficiency nos. 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24 and 26.
As to the above enunerated asserted deficiencies, the Staff dces not dispute any porticn of the licensees' Stutenent of Material Facts or Dr. Goldman's affidavit ahich relate to the above items. However, we note for the Appeal Boar s' information, and as we previously related to Intervenors in Sterlina 7
r
-)'
- l. [' -
durin;r infornal discovery, that Staff and/or its consultants have, since compilation of the Perkins record, obtained new data and/or information relative to the subject matters of the alleged deficiencies in question.
The Staff will be prepared to prefile additional direct testinony which addresses the new data and/or infornation.
In the Staff's view, because of the unique circunstances present in these proceedings, it is important that the record, as regards the itens in question, 5e updated through additional Staff testinony.1/
Alleaed deficiency no. A Subject to the discussion in the concluding paragraph of this portion of the Staff's response which addresses alleged deficiency No.
4, the Staff succorts licensees' motion.
'e also concur in "! 12-17 of licensees' Statenent of
'iaterial Facts and V 8-10 of Dr. Goldnan's affidavit.
Additionally, the 1/
ine draft GEIS on milling was published by the Staff in April 1979.
Interin reports on research programs to determine radon released from underground and open pit nines have also been published by tne Staff.
In addition, an analysis of the new radon information by Staff con-sultants working to update the environrental survey of the entire fuel cycle is being published.
The above docunents are identified as:
NUREG-0511 " Draft Generic Environnental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Uranium ' tilling" 1UREG/CR-0627 " Radon Emissions in Ventilated Air Exhausted fron Underground ? tines" NdREG/CR-0623 " Prediction of the New Radon Enission fron a Model Open Pit Uranium 'line" NUREG/CR-0805 " Source Terns for Radon Deleases for Uraniun Mining and 'iilling" D
b 4 ')
L
. Staff offers the following in support or licenaees' notion as to this iten which involves Staff testimony presented at P9rkins.
The assertions by Intervenors in this iten are apparently based on a nis-understanding or missreading of the Perkins record.
The Intervenors are correct in their observation that there was little or no reliable infornation available at the time of the Perkins hearing upon which to base estinates of the radon release from coen pit mines. However, there are several instances in the Perkins record where Staff witness Ralph Wilde expressed his professional opinion, as an expert witness, that the radon release fron an active open pit nine would probably not be aporeciably different from the radon relecie from an active underground nine having a similar ore production rate.
The brief computation that 'ir. Wilde cerfor ed during the Derkins hearing was for the long term radon reledse fron an unreclained cpen pit nine after nining operations had ceased. The question, as posed by Derkins Licensing Board ember Dr. Walter Jordan af ter considerable discussion regarding nine reclamation, was as follows (Page 2350 of the Derkins record):
Let's nake an assunption that--I will laave you with a question which you can ponder on during lunch for a little bit.
Let's nake the assumption that the pits are to be left open and consider the amount of radon coming out of the pit as compared, as you suggested, and your suggestion is a very good one, as compared to that coning out from the tailings oiles which is presumably the richer cre.
k
??
. Then can't you almost invariably argue that even in the worst situa-tion the amount from the pits would be less than fron the tailings pile? Now I'n not going to ask you for an answer to that right now.
I will ask for an answer to that when we come back fron lunch.
The discussion of 'ir. Wilde's calculation for the long tern release from an unreclained open pit nine and the assumptions that he used for that calculation appear on pages 2610 to 2513 of the Perkins transcript. The assumption that he nade regarding the area of the nine was not a " completely arbi trary choice. " To the contrary, that 3ssunction was his professional judgment, unchallenged on the Perkins record, based on years of experience in the uranium miring and nilling industry of what the size of an open pit nine would be at the completion of active nining for a given ore production rate. The raden release rate that "r. Wilde calculated was 100 Curies of radon per year per AR from an unreclaimed open pit nine after the ore had been removed.
Later in the Perkins reccrd (Tr. page 263n and 290), Dr. Goldnan presented the results of a sinilar calculation that he had nade for long tern radon release fron unreclained open pit nines using a sonewhat different apcroach.
Dr. Goldman reported his results as, "The values I would provide as bounding values are in the range of one to two hundred curies per year (per VR)."
Intervenors characterize the Perkins Licensing Board as beir:g "somewhat skeptical about 'ir. Wilde's calculction since in paragraph 13 of the Perkins Partial Initial decision the rate of emission fron open pit aines was dcubled 349 278
. to 200 curies /yr/AFR." Frcm a careful reading of paragrachs 12 and 13 of the Perkins Partial Initial Decision, the Staff would be most hesitant in ascribing any degree of skepticism to the Licensing Board when they chose to assur.e that the release rate from unreclaimed open oit mines could be as high as 200 Ci/yr/AFR.
It appears to Staff that the Derkins Licensing Board was attempting to place a conservati e upoer bound on this estinate and simply chose the higher value from two independent calculations that were in general agreement with each other.
Jinally, the Intervenors have attemoted to use selected information from the Sweetwater DES to calculate a sc-called annual radon release rate from the Sweetwater mine. Their calculation yields a different result from that or ' he Sta ff.
As a result of this apparent discrepar.cy, the Intervenors make the allegation that, "This is another exanple of the actual facts deviating from the Staff's assunptions regarding radon emissions." This allegation is without substance.
The Staff's.alculation provided the Derkins Licensing Board with an estinate of the long tern release of radon from an unreclained open ait mine after mining operations had been completed.
This issue was not addressed in the Sweetwater DES.1_/ The annual cadon release rate given in Table G-1.2. of the Sweetwater DES is for the release of radon during active mining operations.
Further, that release rate, 6090 curies per year, is not an " actual fact."
It is, rather, a calculated estimate since the Sweetwater mine was not in operation at the time the DES was issued.
L Nor is it addressed in the FES which was issued in December,1978.
349 279
-IF-While the Staff is currently unaware of what athematical calculations the Intervenors went through to arrive at their annual radon release for the Sweetwater nine of 250 curieslyr/AFR, it is clear that their calculation could not have yielded a value which can be compared to the referenced calculation from the ' Jerkins record.
The data required for such a calcu-lation is sinply not available in the Sweetwater DES.
Accordingly, the Staff supports licensees notion as to this iten subject to granting Intervenors an cpportunity to further cross-question 'ir. Wilde on his direct testinony in Perkins, confined to the scope of the alleged defi-ciency in question and/or to have an opportunity to proffer rebuttal testi-nony to 'ir. Wilde's testinony at Perkins which is relevant tc 'lleged defi-ciency no. 4 alleaed deficiency no. 5
'4itn respect to this iten, involving radon emissions from open pit mines, the Staff does not dispute " 18-20 of licensees' Statement of Material Facts or rf 11-12 of Dr. Goldman's affidavit. We believe that the Statement of
'iaterial Facts and affidavit demonstrate that there is no merit to Inter-venors' assertion that the Congressional testinony indicates that the over-burden exceeds the volume of the nine. However, it is the Staff's /iew that the other points asserted by Intervenors in the deficiency raise new matters not addressed fully in the Perkins record and that the licensees' otion 349 280
. should, therefore, be denied. The Staff is prepared to prefile direct testi-nony which addresses this new naterial.
Alleaed deficiencies nos. 9 and 20.
These deficiencies assert that there is a possibility that foreign uraniun nay be used to power either Sterlina or Tyrone.
Because of this possibility, Intervenors say the Appeal Boards should bear evidence concerning radon emis; ions fron foreign nining and milling of uraniun.
On May 25, 1975, the Staff filed a motion for surnary disposition of Items 9 and 20.
For the reasons set out in the Staff's notion, we likewise concur in the licensees notion as to item 9 and 20. These itens should be suamarily disposed of by the Apceal 3 cards.
Alleced deficiency nos.10,12,14,17 and 21.
The Staff does not directly dispute or take issue with anything in licensees Statement of Material Facts or Dr. Goldnan's affidavit which relate to these asserted deficiencies. However, in v;en 0; we fact that Intervenors state that they are preparea to present testimony on the points raised in these itens and were unable to do so at the Perkins hearing, since they were not a carty to that proceeding, the Staff views licensees' motion as to these itens as prenature at this time.
Accordindly, the licensees' notion in these regards should be denied without prejudice to renewal at such time k
2h!
. as Intervenors have trefiled the testinony which they have indicated they are preparea to present.1/ In the event such testinony is not timely filed by Intervences, the Staff would support the licensees notion provided it i; renewed in its present forn.
Alleced deficiency no. 11.
In this alleged deficiency Intervenors' assert that
"...it is necessary to deternine the precise mill from which uranium will be obtained so that an accurate emanating power can be used".
The Staff concurs in 59 33-35 of licensees Statement of Material Facts and er 17-19 of Dr. Gold an;s affidavit.
In addition, the Staff's discussion above, as to alleged deficiency no.1 involving nines, is equally applicable to alleged deficiency no.11.
Accordingly, the Staff supports licensees notion as to this iten. The Staff, however, would have no objection to further or followup cross-questioning of Staff witnesses who appeared at Derkins by these Intervenors regarding
-1/
Itens 10,17 and 21 specifically state that Intervenors are orepared to file testimony.
Itens 12 and 11 are silent as to whether Intervenors are prepared to prefile the testinony in question.
The Staff's posi-tien is predicated on the assunction that Intervenors likewise oropose to p 3sent testimony cn itens 12 and 14 If the Staff's assumption in this regard is erroneous, and the Intervenors do not proffer testimony, the Staff would support licensees notion as to those two itens.
} fj O LNLq9
/
. the subject matter of alleged deficiency no.11 on condition that Inter-venors provide an advance soecification of questions or areas they wish to pursue as to this area.O Alleaed deficiency no.13.
The Staff concurs generally with c5 39-41 of licensees Staterent of '4aterial Fact as regards the subject matters contained in this alleged deficiency.
However, the Staff also reads the asserted alle% deficiency as an indica-tion that Intervenors have additionsi questi.
to propound to Staff witnesses in order to clarify the Perkins record.
If the Staff's reading is correct, we would make witnesses available for further questioning af ter Intervenors specify the precise portions of the Perkin; record, related to this alleged deficiency, as to which they wish to pursue questioning.
In the event Intervenors indicate they have no further questions, the Staff would support licensees' notion as to this item.
1/
Ine Staff believes the proviso here and in other cortions of this response that Inter /enors provide advance scecification is in accord sith the Supreme Cnurt's statenent in its '/ernant Yankee decision that:
[w]hile it is true that NEDA places upon an agency the obliga-tion to consider every significant aspect of the environmental imoact of the proposed action, it is still incumbent upon inter-venors who wish to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and contentions.
'lermont Yankee v. ?iRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 552 (1978).
b$'l
}3 i
Alleged deficiency no. 15.
This asserted deficiency involves radon emissions which will result fron
- he process of " heap leaching".
The asserted deficiency concludes that
"[i]f heap leaching nills are a possible source of urinium for Sterlina and Tyrone, an investigation into the possible emissions from such nills nust be conducted".
Since we have already established that the source of uranium for Sterlina, Tvrone, and the other reactors is unknown, and that the identity of such sources (mines or mills) need not be a part of t"e record, Callaway, ALA3-347, suora, the Staff supnorts licensees' notion as to this item. The discussion as to generic considerations, as opposed to a nine-by-nine (or mill-by-nill) or site specific consideration in response to alleged deficiencies nos. I and 11 is also aoplicable here.
The Staff supports licensees' notion as to alleged deficiency no.15.
Alleced deficiency no.16.
The Staff does not dispute paragraph 47 of licensees' Statement of "aterial Facts as to asserted deficiency no.16.
However, we note that this para-graph is a staterent oi law and not of fact.
additionally, while we do not, cer s_e, dis?ute the discussicn at pages 6-7 of the licensees' Brief, e
we do find that it is largely irrelevant to tre thrust of Intervenors alleged deficiency no.16.
That alleged deficiency states tnat a Federal bNl
?0 fh
, Register notice published on April 26,1978, "... suggests concern on the part of the NRC as to the environmental review procedures used in Agree-ment States and the capability of such States to insure the isolation and stabilization of tailings." The Staff is prepared to submit supplemental testinony in these proceedings by G. Wayne Kerr (who testified for the Staff at thJ Perkins hearing).
'ir. Kerr who is the Assistant Director for State Agreements, Office of State Programs, will state his ooinion as to why Inter-venors' assertion as to NRC " concern" is without substance.
In the Staff's view, however, given the context of these croceedings as discussed above, the bases for 'tr. Kerr's opinion would be a prope subject for cross-exanination and/or rebuttal testimony Sy Intervenors (and/or licensees).
Accordingly, the Staff opposes the licensees' motion as to iten 16.
Alleced deficiency no. 18.
This alleged deficiency asserts that the Staff should address the exposure pathway of underground burial of mill tailings (a method which is under :en-sideration by the Staff).
While the Staff concurs in EP 51-52 of licensees' Statement of Material Facts and 5 21 of Dr. Goldman's affidavit, se are also prepared to give Intervenors the benefit of the doubt regarding whecher they would have pursued this line of inquiry on the Parkins record had they been parties to that proceeding.
Accordingly, if Intervenors will specify, in advance,
. the types of questions they desire to propound, Staff will respond to such questions at a hearing on the record.
In the event Intervenors fail to respond to the Staff's invitation, if adooted by the Appeal Boards, the Staff wculd support the licensees' notion as to alleged deficiency no.13.1/
The "de nininis" Issue.
With regard to the "de mininis" issue, licensees reference orevious filings in support of their notion for summary disposition (notion at page 2).
The Staff supports licensees notion, as to the "de mininis" issue for the reasons previously set forth by us in our "...Pesponse to ALAB-509" filed on April 11,1979 (see particularly po. 5-12).
Conclusion For the reasons advanced above, the Staff supports, in part, and opposes, in part, either outright or conditionally, licensees' motion for Sumnary 1/
As oointed out by Dr. Goldman at ' 24 of his affidavit, it is question-able to the Staff as to whether this alleged deficiency is relo int to this proceeding. This is because the alleged deficiency deals with possible exposure of persons to radium-226 and not raden-222.
- Thus, in the Staff's view, any specification of questions should be accon-panied by a further statenent fron Intervenors as to how questions relating to the alleged deficiency would be relevant to these proceed-ings (and/or would have been properly propounded at Perkins had Inter-venors been a carty to that proceeding).
'j /j U L0b 1-
/
. Dispositico as to 21 alleged deficiencias in the Perkin record advanced by the Intervenors in these proceedings.
Respectfully subnitted, W~ N 3ernard 'i. Bordenick Counsel fer 'IRC Staff
. bm
/
Stephe H. Lewis Counsal for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda,?'aryland this 14th day of June,1979.
0 J4) l8/
. UNITED STA~ES OF AMERICA f:UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD _S In the Matters of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAfiY, et al.
)
Docket fios. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
50-278 Units 2 and 3)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY, et al.
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Docket No. 50-320 Unit 2)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
50-355 Units 1 and 2)
)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. STN 50-484 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORP., et al.)
(Sterling Power Project, Nuclear
)
Docket No. STN 50-485 Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' JOINT MOTION FOR SUWARY DISPOSITION OF RADON ISSUES" dated June 1(
1979 in the captioned proceedings nave been serv 2d on the following persons.
Those whose addresses are at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co r:ission have been served by the NRC internal mail system and others have been served by ceposit in the U.S. mail. One copy has been served on each person even thougn his or her name apcears on more than one service list.
In addition to copies served on Atomic Safety and Licensing Soard md Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board members identified on tne service list, 5 copies have been crovided to the e.tomic Safety and Licensing lard Panei, and 20 copies have ceen provided to tF Atomic Safety anc Licens6ng Appeal Board Panel.
M (30
'dernard M. Borcenick '
Counsel for NRC Staff N9 288
In the Matter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTR!C COMPAliY Docket ?!os. 50-277
)
50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
Michael C. Farrar, Esq., Chairman Eugene J. Bradley,'Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Com any Appeal Board 2301 t'arket Street U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Comission PhilaQlphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Washington, D.C.
2055r Tray B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Dr. John H. Buck _
Conner, Moore and Corber Atomic Safety and L.ans mq 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue,Ti.W.
Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20006 U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Raymund L. Hovis, Esq.
Stack and Leader Dr. W. Reed Johnson 35 South Cuke Street Ato:.ic Safety and Licensing York, Pennsylvania 17401 Appeal Board U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission W. W. Anderson,'Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice Edward G. Bauar, Jr., Esq.
Capitol Annex Vice President and General Counsel Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Philadelphia Electric Ccapany 1000 Chestnut Street Myron Bloom, Esq.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Atomic Safety and Licensin9 Region III, Curtis Building Appeal Scard Panel 6th and Walnut Streets U.S. l:uclear Regulatory Comissicn Philadelpnia, Pennsylvania 19106 Washington, D.C.
20555 Karin Carter, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensin9 Department of Environmental Resources Board Panel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission 505 Fxecutive House Washington, D.C.
20555 Harr.;urg, Pennsylvania 17120 Docketing and Service John B. Griffith, Esc.
Office of the Secretary Special Assistant Attorney General U.S. tiuclear Regulator;/ Comission Tawes State Office Building (C-4)
~
Washington, D.C.
205" Annapolis, "aryland 21401 7
/
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITA:1 EDISOfi CC?iPM1Y, ET _AL.
)
Docket tio. 50-320 (Three Mile Island tiuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chai rman*
Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Citizens for a Safe Environment Board 433 Orlando Avenue U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Ccamission State College, PA 16801 Washington, DC 20555 Karin W. Carter, Assistant Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
- Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of Enforcement Board Dept. of Envi ror enta l Resources U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Commission 709 dealth and Melfare Building Washington, DC 2C555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq., Member
- George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Shaw, Pittman, Fotts Board
& Trowbridge U.S. I!uclear Rego atory Ccmmission 1800 M Street, fl.W.
~
Washington, DC 20J55 Washington, DC 20036 Edaard Luton, Esq., Cha i rman*
Ms. Judith H. Johnsrud Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 433 Criando Avenue U.S. ?!uclear Regulatory Ccmmission State College, PA 16301 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. f;uclear Regulatory Commission U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Ernest 0. Salo Panel (5)*
Professor, Fisheries Research U.S. t;uclear Regulatory Ccmmission Ins ti tute, WH-10 Washington, DC 20555 College of Fisheries University of Washington Docketing and Service Section (4)*
Seattle, WA 98195 Office of the Secretary U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 349 290
In the "atter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-354 AND
)
50-355 ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC CCMPANY
)
(Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John R. Lamarsh Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
- 68 North Chatsworth Avenue Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Larchmont, "ew York 10538 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ifr. Ernest E. Hill Washington, D. C.
20555 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California
~
Richard S. Sal: man, Esq.*
P. O. Box C08, L 123 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Livermore, California 94550 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Conner, Mccre & Corber Suite 1050 Edward Luton, Esq., Chaicman*
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C.
20555 F. Michael Parkowski, Esq.
Peter Buchsbaum, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Robert Westreich, Esq.
Tatnall Building Department of the Public Dover, Delaware 19901 Advocate Division of Public !nterest lir. David A. Caccia Advocacy P..D.
12 520 East State Street Box 70-A Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Sewell, New Jersey 08080 Jf/
L'i e
. Hope Creek, Units 1 and 2 Dr. Paul Mecray, Jr.
Mark L. First, Esq.
Suite 303 Deputy Attorney General Cooper River Parkway West State of New Jersey
" orth Park Drive 36 West State Street Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Atomic Safety and Licencing Board William Horner, Esq.
Panel
- 67 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccroission Salem, New Jersey 08079 Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Public Service Electric and Panel (5)*
Gas Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccr.missicn 80 Park Place Washington, D. C.
20555 Newark, New Jersey Docketing and Service Section (3)
Ms. Judith H. Johnsrud Office of the Secretary 433 Orlanda Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Washington, D. C.
20555 Samuel J. Chilk (12)*
Secretary of the Cctaission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
c,a
In the Matter of
)
)
fiORTHEP:t STATES PCWER COMPANY
)
(MIt;NESOTA) AND ':CRTHEO STATES
)
Docket No. STN 50-484 POWER COMPANY (WISCONSIN)
)
)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
)
Richard S. Salzman, Esq., Chaiman Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Ocearography Appeal Board University of Washington U S. fluclear Regulatory Ccraission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoTaission Appeal Board Uashing.nn, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gerald Charnoff, Esc.
Shaw, oittman, Potts & Trov. bridge Dr. W. Reed Johnscn 1800 treet, N.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20046 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jocelyn F 01scn, Fsq, Washington, D.C.
20555 Minnesota Pollutien Control Agency 1935 W. County Road, B2 Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Roseville,."innesota 55113 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard U.S. ';uclear Re3ulatory Comnission M. Edward Gold Washington, D.C.
20355 6id-13th Street "encmenie, Wisconsin 54751 Richard Ihrig, Esq.
4C0 Exch2n;e Buildino 4th and Center Barbara J. Willard, Esq.
Public Service Concission Winona, Minnesota 55987 of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Bldg.
Mr. Tom Galazen 4802 Sheboygan Avenue g,p, 7 Box 64 Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 54839 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. fluclear Regulatory Cc.raission Michael J. Cain, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Bureau of Legal Services Department of Natural Resources Atomic Safety and Licensing Box 7921 Appeal Poard Panel Madison, Wisconsin 53707 U. S. Nuclear Regula'ory Ccmmission Mr. Stanlev Cider c/o Durand' Postmaster Docketing and Service Section Tyrone, Wisconsin 54736 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ff0 MQ3
In the Matter of
)
ROCHESTER GAS AliD ELECTRIC Docket tio. ST i 50-485 CORPORATIO:1, ET _AL.
)
)
(Sterling Power Project
)
fiuclear Unit tio.1)
)
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Acceal Board Department of Oceanography U.S. fluclear Regulatory Cc=ission University of Washington Washington, DC 20555 Seattle, ',-lashington 93195 f,r. John H. Buck *
~
~
Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Soard Atomic Safety and Licensing Soard U.S. fluclear Regulatory Cc=ission U.S. tiuclear Reguiatory Comission Washington, CC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
- Lex K. Larson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and L':.ensing Acpeal Board 1333 tiew Hampshire Ave., ii.W. #1100 U.S. fluclear Regula cory Cc=ission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20555 Dirk S. Adams, Esq.
Edward Luton, Esq.
- Attorney for ::ovant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Commission Ecolooy Action of Oswego Office and P.O. Address Washington, DC 20555 1600 First Federal Piaza Roches ter, tiY 14614 Box 94 Atomic Safe +y and Licensing Oswego, flew York 13126 Board Panei
- U.S. fluclear Regulatory Ccmission Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 fiew York State Energy Office Swan Street Building, Core 1 Atomic Safety ana Licensing Second Floor, Emoire State Plaza Appeal Board
- Albany,Tiew York 12223 U.S. ?!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, CC 20555 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Docketing and Service Section
- 1800 M Street, :1.W.
Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20036 U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, CC 20555 Ms. Sharon "crey RD 3 Oswego,!!ew York 13126 il
-i /f /
',) Q ji L /t
.