ML19325D988
| ML19325D988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1989 |
| From: | Skolnick F SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9335 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8910310078 | |
| Download: ML19325D988 (8) | |
Text
L IUITED STATCS OF AFERICA
!AICIIAR REGUIATORY Cott41SSION
- :'M,,..N i
BEFORE 'nE ATOMIC FAFCIY AND LICENSI!C APPEAL BOARD 89 OCT 23 P4 $
h In' the !tstter of
)
General Public Utilities t)xicar
)
D eket # 50-320 OIA Corporation,et al ASLBP tb.87-554-otA
)
[
1hrec !4ile Island Nuclear Station.
(Accident Generated Water) l tinit 2
)
October 20,1989 Joint Intervenors' Responce to NRC Staf f's Response to Appeal Board Order Cn Septm ber 11,1989 the NRC staff published a Federal Register !btice (54 1R.37517-18) entitled,"GPU lixlear Corporation,Enviromental Assessnent and Finding of tb Significant Impact". One week later,the NRC staff published 54 FR 3S469) providing notification that GPLH was granted an a:tendnent to their license to dispose of 2.3 million gallons of radioactive water by 1
evaporation and release of hazardous substarres into the air.
J On Septm ber 13,1989,the Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASIAB) ordered the NRC scaff to explain the Septanber 11 Notice. 7he NRC staff responded to the ASIAB's order on September 29,1989. The ASIAB had granted Intervenor's notion to respond to NRC staff's response.
Intervenor hereby submits the response to NRC staff's Response to tim Appeal Board's Order.
Intervenor will denonstrate that the NRC staff's response is ir. adequate and that the Enviromental Assessnent of the changes in GPUN's proposal is inadequate and untinely.
Respectfully Submitted,
)
8910310070 091020
[C-t\\ C.LD PDR ADOCK 05000320 0
PDR '
W Frances Skolnick 9
p
I Prior to the Envirorwntal Asscssnent and the publication in 54 FR 37517-18, Septcuber 11.1989,the tac had not evaluated the impact which the change t
in GPUN's propasal would have on the cost tenefit analysis of that proposal and the required ecmparison with the cost tenefit analysis of alternatives.
i 1he Enviromental Assesscent of this change is inadequate.
It was undertaken outside of the adjueicatory setting in spite of the public's keen interest and participation in this issue.
It was undertaken outride of the adjudicat.ory sotting even though it was relevant t.o issues acknitted by the Board for 1
31tigat. ion,and even though the Board had ruled in January 1988 that,
"..w conclude that during the adjudicatory process it nust to established on the record before us that the cost benefit analysis for the design systru of the proposed evaporator neets the ALARA standard."
timorandm: and Order (titorializing Spial Prehearing ConferenceiRulings on ContentionsiScheduling)at 6 tbt only is tk Assesscent inadequato but in addition,the Staff wrongfully claims that, "The principal alternative to the Licensee's current proposal would be the Licensee's original proposal..."
54 FR 37517 There are an additional eight alternatives to the Licensce's proposal which wre evaluated within the Eniromental Impact Statenent,Suppleatnt #2(EIS !2) and found by the IEC staff to to acceptable alternatives for disposal of the radioactive water.
The change in GPUN's proposal needs to be further evaluated because of its greater potential to hann the public and the workers,and the greater potential risk in transporting the ic11etized waste.
1/ Intervenor had suhnitted the following material issue of fact in support of Contention 3 which was actnitted for litigation, The source tenns of the N.M is even core relevant in light of the feet that water going into the evaporator in Batch cycle %ould deviate even nore frcn the cone-listed in Table 2.2,1brog 0683,..... A11 the above (kmnstrate that the !EC has based dose claculations on inadequate data.
- batch cycle is the tenu used for the operation of the system in a closed cycle which would be required if the radioactive water is not pretreated to " base case" levels by Epicor/SDSidiscussed on following pages).
1
?.
The change in GIUN's propas:1 crises frcn the use of the ev:porator to romve radioquelides and chemicals frcn the watar b3 fore its release to the air, instead cf using the two systars krmn es Epicor/SDS to remve tha radionuclidea cn1 chamirals.
In EJS #2,the hPC asstrrnd that the levela cf a:tivity in the water [irict to entering the evaporator would be achieved by use of the Epicor/SDS. 1kse systems ware approved by the hPC in 1979/1980 as the means to decontainate the weter and make it safe for disposal.
In evaluating the cost,and public and worker exposure,the hPC used the operational experience of Epicor/SDS to determim the average concentration of radionuclides and chemicals in the water.
The NPC designated this water as " Base Case"1cvel(Els #2, Tabic 2.2.
On September 11,1989,the hPC published its evaluation of a proposal to dispose of water which wenld not contain " base case" levels. The characteristics of that water have never been presented to the public or their officials.
If Epicor/SDS are not used to decontaminate the water which ecxms frcn the reactor coolant system (approxinntely 40% of the total inventury of 2.3 million gallons) and water which presently covers the trolted fuel in the reactor core,it is obvious that the water going into the evaporator for treatnent and ultinate release through the vaporizer has a higher radiological and chemical content than that evaluated within the EIS (2.
Herre the data used to calculate worker and public expasure to releases and potential haz.ards in the EIS #2 is obsolete. The hPC does not discuss this information in the Envircrnental Assesment and its potential effect on exposure to the warkers and the public during operations and possible accidents.
Nowhere in their response to the Poard's order does the hPC explain why they waited until after the adjudicatory proceedings to evaluate the change in GIUN's proposal. The hPC staff states that its consideration of the enviromental impacts of the proposed trodifications in GPUN's proposal"wre already in the hearing record" (Posponse to ASIAB Order at 2).
It is significant that the staff did not provide a refercrce page for such consideration.
In truth the NRC did not objectively evaluate this change and there is no place to which they may refer in the record.
In their response to the ASIAB's Order,the NRC staff state that the use of the evap3rator to decontaminate the water was first described in the original GIUN of July 31,1986 and in the Preliminary System Ibscription(PSD) suinitted by GPUN in february 1988. (Intervenor is not able to find any such discussion within GIUN's proposal) 1Ne discussion in the PSD does not provide any data demnstrating the radioactive content of the water as it enters the evaporator without prior treatmnt by Epicor/SDS.
3
)
The use of pelletization of cvapor: tor bottans is nentioned in one senterre i
in the referetre given by the bmC staff in their response to the Board (EIS #2.A28).
1here is no discussion of pelletization of the solids collected fram the liquid waste deconttrninated by the evaporator alone and not vit.h prior Epicor/SDS treatwnt.
Use of pelletization is considered in PSD(p.12),hoever, again,there isi no referetre l
to the fact that the solids will contain those radionuclides and chemicals previously assmed to be in the liners fran Epicor/SDS.
Unhelievably,the lmC staff states that the use of the evaporator for pretreatnent of the water, "was extensively explored duri2g discovery" (Posponse at 4)
This so-called " extensive exploration" amints to one question by a non-technical citizen intervenor to GPUN. The NkC staff remained silent. While the bHC
(
staff alleges that they krew of the matters which involved the change in GPUN's proposal as early as July 1986,they responded to Intervenor's interrogaton, Provide doctraentation and water sannle analysis to indicate that all the AGW will be processed >y Epicor/SDS to provide the results indicated by GIU1 listed in Table 2.2,EIS 6/87....
as follows, The Licensee's July 31,1986 proposal to dispose of AGW indicated that AGW will be processed by Epicor/SDS prior to evaporation.
hTC staff Ibsponses to Interrogatories fran SVA/1HIA.2.22.88 khile the hTC maintains that they knew all along Llut the evaporator would protreat the water,why did they not evaluate this part of the proposal before September 11,1989?
The !mC has known that the public was concerned about this aspect of GPUN's proposal.
In February 1989,the chainnan of the Citizens' Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Unit 2(a tac appointed body which holds public metings on clean-up at Unit 2 and voted against evaporation) asked GIU1 if they would use the evaporator to decontaminate the water instead of Epicor/SDS. GIU1 lud responded that they did not intend to use the evaporator in place of Epicor/SDS.
(Transcript of Citizen Advisory neeting held in Harrisburg, February 1989 at 35-36)
Indeed,during the adjudicatory hearings Intervenor had asked GPUN abmt the use of the evaporator in lieu of Epicor/SDS and GPUN witness had rmponded, It will be an operational decision after we have received the mencbent.
(Tr.522)
Clearly the public have been excluded fran any detennination atout this changed proposal. GPUN's proposal has been a noving target during these prceeedings.
4
WV' t.
'Ihe NRC staff state that rp issues were litigated which explicitly challenged the neans of pretreatent. Intervenor's attempts to have this issue litigated were thwarted by the staff and GPUN,and no assistance was provided by tim Board,
,t As shown on page 2 of this paper,Intervenor had submitted a material issue of fact relevant to this issue before us today and which as NRC admits,was not litigated.
3 l
Poth the Board and NRC staff chose to ignore this issue even though later, the f
NRC saw it worthy of an Enviromental Assessaent and notice of publication in tle j
Federal Pogister Notice,and even though during the hearings the hHC admitted that it would have been more appropriate to have had a different starting point for the cost benefit analysis of GPUN's proposal as it was now being presented (Tr 787)
The NRC never sutuitted a revised cost / benefit analysis in spite of infonnation raised by Intervenor during cross-examination of CPUN's witness.
For example,when Intervenor questioned GPUN about the availability of data which reflected the radiological and chemical content of the water going into the evaporator without prior Epicor/SDS treatment,GPUN's witmss responded, I
There is m colmn(of data) I suppose in this table (Tr.489) later when Intervenor asked Mr Tarpinian if they allowed tine,which would affect the cost of the proposal) for a certain % of the water being decontaminated by the evaporator,GPUN witness responded by saying, Not specifically,no.
(Tr 507)
Even tsards the end of the hearing when Intervenor attempted to draw the Board's attention to this important issue,the Board ruled that it was only relevant if E
Intervenor could shm that the infcrmation she had was in the nature of a surprise.
The Ibard ignored the NRC staff's responsibliity in this mat.tnr(Tr 1512-1516) t The NRC staff in their response to the Board's Order states that the Ibard
' discussed the use of the evaporator to pretreat the water instead of Epicor/SDS in its Final Initial [beision on pages 145-148. Howver,the Ibard does not -
specifically address the important change in GPUN's proposal.
Rather the Poard discusses releases fmn the vaporizer after "flase Case" levels are achieved. The Ibard neit.her made a ecuparison of the systems available to pretreat the water,nor did the Board ensure that use of the evaporator to treat the water,instead of use of Epicor/SDS,was ALARA.
2/ NRC Response to ASIAB's Order at 4(Q.3) 5
e It is noteworthy that in evaluating systems to decontaminate the radioactive I
water at 1MI follo.'ing the accident,the IGC noted, The eva p ration and condensation system was rejected on the grounds of the long lead time (at least 6 mnths) which would to needed to make it availabic and the emparative unreliability of such a systan being inoperable approxinately 30% of the tim and the e
t resulting maintenance would ircrease occupational radiation exposure, tRC Staff Issues Enviromental Assessnent of Decontmd.nating IMI Waste, Mailed August 14,1979.
In t. heir response to the Baard's Order,the hPC staff suggest that the Board and staff concur in their evaluation of risk associated with Clui's proposal (Response at 6,Q.7).
A review of LBP-89-7,29 NRC at 147,148 shows that the Baard relied on the Licensee's evaluation of risk. The risks evaluated by the Licensee do not pertain to the change in the Licenme's propasal.
For example,the accident risk associated with the spill of a 500,000 gallon tank of " Base Case" level water would not to the smo as a spill from a tank containing water which had not received prior treatunt by Epicor/SDS since that water would contain mre radioactivity and chemicals. Fbrthernere,as indicated above,the workers will be nere at risk fmn an accident during operation and maintenance of the evaporator.
Since the p110ts formd will contain the radioactivity and chemicals fmn the water treated by the evaporator the workers will le acre at risk fran an accident while operating that sytem and the possiblity of higher exposure fran dust emanating fram the system.
The estinate of risk associated with transportation of the waste is similar11y inadequato because the risks evaluated by GPUN,the Board,and subsequently the hmC staff following the hearings do not take into account that the waste formed as a result of using the evaporator instead of Epicor/SDS will have a hig;her radiological and chnmical content.
Lbring discovery,1ntervonor had asked GIUi If the evaporator is used instead of the ion exchange state how nuch waste would be cktvoloped for these certain voltnes of water,and what would be the radiological and non-radiological content of this waste.
GIV' responded.
....Up to 90%of the waste might be Class B,the second Icvel of waste fann classification.
Licensee's Answrs to SVA/IMIA's Second Set cf Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear turch 30,1988.
6
m.
Pell:tiz: tion of the waste forned by GPUN proposal,while requiring less
,shitments, imposes a greater radiological risk to the public and the workers during transport >1 tion when campared to solidification of the waste prior to transportation,and of course nuch higher risk if the waste was stored on site.
l C0tCLUSION I
The NRC has avoided explaining why the public was excluded fram providing input to their consideration of the changes in GPUN's proposal. 7he NRC staff has taken upon thuselves to evaluate changes in a proposal which was the subject of adjudicatory proceedings and which the Board had very c1carly established was to le shown to be AIARA within the adjudicatory setting.
The NRC has tried in vain to show that the change in GPUN's proposal was inadequately discussed prior to the granting of the arndmnt. However,the record shows that the NRC has done everything possible to avoid public consideration of this vital change in disposing of 2.3 million gallons of radioactive water.
In essence,when GPUN applied for an amende nt to dispose of the water it i
was sssuwd that the water contained certain amunts of radionuclides and chemicals. Presently,it is clear that GPUN has not only achieved approval l
frm the NRC to dispose of the water,but in addition, approval to treat the water to make it safe for disposal. Their proposal to use the evaporator is contrary to the NRC's Order that Epicor/SDS would be used to make the water l
safe for disposal. Use of the evaporator to treat the water by the evaporator l
makes these systems redundant which is contrary to the Pesource Conservation Act.
A table of data portraying the radiological and chamicel charaetoristics of I
the water going into the evaporator without Epicor/SDS treatrent has not teen i
provided during the building of this record. The public is therefore excluded frm the decision making process,to which they are guaranteed by law.in r
detemining whether or not GPUN's proposal is the preferred alternative in the disposal of 2.3 million gallons of water.
t 7
}"
CERTIFICATC OF SERVICC f
i
'Ihis is to ecrtify that copies of SVA/mIA's Response to h'RC's Response to the Appaal Board's Order has tven served upon the parties listed telok9 OCT 23 P4 $5 by prepaid first class mil on Cetoler 20,1989.
.g
':.av l
- hn stina N L'ohl, Chairnotti
$tcphen H Lewt5, Esq Atenn<. Sof etu and Office of the General Counsel Lic ensing,'.ppeci 00 erd U.S Nutleer Regulatory Commission i
U $ H F. C Weshington, D C. 20555 W m ongton D C 20555 homes C. Moore Ms Vere Stuchinski t
Atomic Sofety eM Three Mile Islerd Aler',
' ::+'.mu Axe Betro 315 F,ett<:r Street Vi h R C.
Horritteurg, P A 17102 Wesningt on, D.C 20555 Hcword A Wilbtr Richer 0 P. Hether Atomic Sefety end Dept of Environmental Resources t.icensing Appeel Doerd 505 Executive House U.5.NR.C.
Herrisburg, PA 17120 Weshington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Lee Thorts Three Mlle lstend
'0 * * ^'
.leenup Project Shew, Pittmen, Potts 6 Trowbridge P.O. Box 311 2300 N. Street, NY
^
Weshm9 ton. D #
20037 Midoletown, PA 17057 AdjuGicolory file ASLB Penel Doctet U s ttR C.
Wethington, D.C. 20555 Docketing & Services Branch Surettry of the Commission tJ $ N F: C Washington, D C. 20555 R Rogen, Director licensing and Nucleer Safety Frances Skolnick THI 2 Midol e h%..,.., a 765L
-