ML19325E006
| ML19325E006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1989 |
| From: | Baxter T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9342 ALAB-819, CLI-86-05, CLI-86-5, OLA, NUDOCS 8910310182 | |
| Download: ML19325E006 (11) | |
Text
m L
(3 October 20,(198.9 o
?
i M-c
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- e9 DCT 23 P4 :36 i
BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALYOARD i
In the Matter of
)
[
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA
)
(Disposal of Accident-l (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water) f Station, Unit 2)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFF'S SEPTEMBER 29. 1989 RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER On September 11, 1989, the NRC Staff published in the Fed-eral Register an Environmental Assessment relating to the pro-posal of GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) to evaporate accident-generated water-(AGW) at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (THI-2).
54 Ped. Reg. 37,517.
The Environmental Assessment stated that sub-sequent to the issuance of Final Supplement No. 2 to the Program-matic Environmental Impact Statement on the THI-2 cleanup, GPUN 6
had modifled its plans for pretreatment and for the packaging and shipment of the evaporator bottoms.
In particular, the Assess-f
~
ment addressedi'(2.) the option of using the evaporator in a l
closed-cyclo configuration to pre-process.AGW; and (2) the ship-o L
ment of evaporator cottoms in a dried pelletized vaste form l
rather thcn as bottoms solidified with cement.
The Environment:1 Assessment reviewed these modifications and concluded that the
" current proposal" would result in certain reduced impacts, that G9103202B2 092020
{DR ADOCK 05000320 PDR
b i
I e
there are no significant envitonmental effects associated with j
the proposal, an,d that there is no need to supplement the PEIS.
i t
1 in an order' dated Septenber 13, 1989, the Appeal Board asked the Staff a number of questions relating to the Environmental Assessment, including when was GPUN's " current proposal" submit-ted, and was the " current proposal" litigated below.
The NRC Staff filed its ".
. Response to Appeal board Order," on September 29, 1989.
In an order issued October 6, 1989. the
[
s Appeal Board provided all parties with the opportunity to reply to the Staff's response on or before october 20, 1989.
As reported by the Staff and discussed below, both the option of using the evaporator to pretreat AGW and the methods to package and ship dried bottoms were fully disclosed and considered throughout the h4aring and before.
The Use of the Evaporator to Pretreat AGW GPUN's July 1986 proposal for the disposal of AGW, which L
evaluated evaporation and two other alternatives, assumed as a starting point for the evaluation that the levels of radionuclides in the AGW would be certain levels reasonably achievable 6y t'he routine, demineralizer-system processing that 1
is a part of GPUN's recovery operations.
The July 1986 proposal l
l nevertheless noted that GPUN intended to procure an evaporator that could be operated in both an open and closed-cycle fashion l
in order to have the flexibility to use the evaporator not only l
1
- l
r--
q for the disposal of AGW but also for the processing and deboration of AG,W tp support decontamination activities.
GI ' (,
Disposal of TMI-2'. Water (July 1986) at 29.
Supplement 2 to the DEIS addressed GPUN's evaporation pro-posal.
There, the NRC Staff utilized the radionuclide levels in i
processed AGW as the starting point for its evaluation of evapo-ration.
The NRC's PEIS considered the possibility of using the evaporator in a closed-cycle configuration to pre-process the AGW, but concluded that quantitative evaluation of this variant j
was unnecessary.
Egg PEIS Supp. No. 2 (Staff Ex. 1) at 3.36.
The option of using the evaporator in a closed-cycle config-uration to pretreat AGW was reasserted by GPUN early in this pro-l ceeding.
GPUN fully described the option in the Preliminary Sys-l l
t tem Description provided to the parties and the Licensing Board on February 17, 1988, during the discovery phase of the proceed-l ing.
It was the subject of an interrogatory by Joint Intervenors
{
to which Licensee responded in some detail.
Licensee's Answers l
L to SVA/TMIA's Second Set of Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear (March
[
30, 1988) at 15-16.
It was described in detail by Licensee dur-1 ing Summary Disposition.
Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposi-
[
tion of Contentions ob (In Part), 4c, and 4d, Affidavit of David l
l, R. Buchanan (Contentions 4b in part, 4c and 4d) (May 9, 1988).
Finally, it was. included in Licensee Testimony of David R.
l Buchanan (Tr. 457-59) and Licensee's Exhibit 1.
l i.
l '
__ =
During the hearing, Joint Intervenors explored whether the use of the evaporator to pre-process AGW would affect the envi-ronmental evaluation of GPUN's propesal and Joint Intervenors' alternative.
Joint Intervenors questioned whether occupational exposure would be increased.
Licensee's witnesses explairied that the occupational exposure estimates could not be affected by batch-cycle operation.
Licensee's estimate cf 23 person-rem is based on the maximum leae rate Licensee would permit and is higher than would result from the maximum concentration of AGW that would be processed through the evaporator.
Tr. 496, 513-14 (Tarpinian).
Also in response to Joint Inta venors' cross-exami-nation, Licensee's witnesses testified that the use of the evapo-rator to pre-process AGW would create no additional vaste.
Tr.
502, 504, 529-30 (Buchanan).
The Licensing Board's decision on Licensee's proposal addresses the option of using the evaporator in a closed-cycle configuration to precess AGW, as presente Licensee's testimony.
LBP-89-7, 25 N.R.C.
138, 146-47 (1.
Packacing of Evaporator Bottoms GPUN's July 1986 propnsal assumed for purposes of evaluatio:
that the evaporator bottoms would be solidified with a cement binder prior to shipment, in order to immobilize free-standing liquids.
GPUN, Disposal of TMI-2 Water (July 1986) at 28.
The NRC Staff utilized this assumption in the draft PEIS Supplement No.
2.
In written :omments on the draft PEIS Supplement No.
2, - - - - - - - -. _ _ - -,...,.. - -.,,
,n
t t
GPUN informed the Staff that the evaporator bottoms might be in the form of a dr.y powder, in which case solidification would not 4
4 be required, and'the dry waste would be packaged in drums.
Let-ter from Fi StAnderfer to M. Mast.ik (Mtrch 17, 1987).
The NRC L
Staff included this letter as part of its. Final PEIS Supplement
[
No. 2.
PEIS Supp. No. 2 at A.28.
l By.the time the adjudicatory proceeding commenced, GPUN had a
progressed toward the selection of a particular evaporator.
t design.
On February 17, 1988, GPUN provided the Licensing Board and the parties with a Preliminary System Description which included a blender / dryer to eliminate liquid and three options' for packaging the dried bottoms, including a pelletizer.
Prelim-inary Description (Rev. O, Feb. 16, 1988) at 12.
Further, in response to Joint Intervenors' interrogatories, GPUN' stated that L
the' blender / dryer and packaging features of the evaporator system
~
obviated the solidification of the bottoms with cement as assumed in the July 1986 Report, and that no cement binder would ba used.
Licenseu's Answers to SVA/ THIA's Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear 1
Corporation (Feb. 19, 1988) at 32-35-(Responses to Interrogato-
, ries.S46, S47, S(8 and S49).
In follow-up interrogatories, Joint Intervenors falsed no further questions relating to the packaging of dried cottoms.
l l.
The use of the blender / dryer and packaging options was again L
reflected in Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Alter-i natives (Contentions 1, 2, 3 and 8), May 16, 1988 (Joint L-1 1 l l7 o
E
. c
t Affidavit at 15).
Licensee provided dose and accident assess-l ments based on the packaging and shipment of dried evaporator
- l bottoms.
Joint intervenors raised no issue with respect to this aspee'. of Lice ~n'see's motion.
The NRC Staff supported Licensee's motion.
The NRC Staff af fiant noted that solidification was no longer r.ecessary, and that the current options would result in significantly less t
+
burial volume and less risk of traffic accidents and fatalities j
- tan was estimated in PEIS Supplement No. 2.
NRC Staff Response in Support of the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition (June 23, 1988),. Affidavit of Linda F. Munson at 5-6.
In the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order ruling on the summary disposition l
motions, the Licensing Board granted Licensee's motion with respect to all issues except whether Licensee's proposal was obviously superior to the no-action alternative.
The waste form of the evaporator bottoms was not specified as an issue.
133 t
LBP-88-23, 28 N.R.C.
178, 183-201, 225-32 (1988).
On October l'_, 1988, GPUN pre-filed as a proposed exhibit GPUN's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the Processed Water
' Disposal System (Oct. 10, 1988).
Licensee Ex. 1.
Page 9 of the TER described.the blender / dryer and the packaging system (the pellati
-) that would be utilized.
GPUN also submitted Licensee's Testimony of William W. Weaver on Accident Risks (Con-tention 2'), which assessed the risk connected with the shipment of evaporator bottoms.
Tr. 473-82.
r 5,
.n..
bp l
?
I 6'
During the hearing, Joint Intervenors asked no questions and raised no issue,concerning the waste form of the evaporator bot-4 toms.
In proposedsfindings, Joint Inter"enors explicitly acknowledged.the waste packaging system as a part of Licensee's evaporatur proposal, but raised no challenge or issue with respect thereto.
Egg SVA/ THIA's Proposed Findings of Fact and I
Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Proposed Decision (Dec. 30, 1988) (PF 1 on Licensee's Proposal).
The Licensing Board subse-i quently rendered its decision based on Licensee's proposal and assessment of occupational and accident risks.
LBP-89,, 29 N.R.C. 138, 145-48 (1989).
No issue regarding the vaste form of the evaporator bottoms, or eny aspects of the environmental eval-untion relating t'o waste form, have been raised on appeal.
Conclusion t
As is evident from the discussion above, and from the docu-ments in the record, there has been no recent or unexplained change in:GPUN's proposal.
The possibility that it would be unnecessary to add cement to the evaporator bottoms was communi-cated to.the NRC Staff prior to the issuance of Final PEIS Sup-plement No.,2,',ind the intended use of a blender / dryer and pelletizer was fully disclosed threughout the adjudicatory pro-ceeding and formed an integral part of the record of decision.
Similarly, the' option of using the evaporator it. a closed-cycle configuration to process AGW was clluded to in GPUN's July 1986,
}fi
y s
e-Report, was considered (though not quantitatively) in the PEIS Supplement No. 2, an.d was fully ~ disclosed, explored, and consid-ered 4,n the adjudicatory proceeding.
In sum,:all aspects of Licensee's proposal are fully reflected and considered in the adjudicatory record and the Licensing Board's decision, which supplement the PEIS.
Philadel-ohia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-819,'22 N.R.C. 681, 704-07 (1985), aff'd in cart and review otherwisedeckined,CLI-86-5,23N.P.C.125(1986).
For this reasen, the Environmental Assessment was not really necer,sary.
Respectfully submitted, 1
Thomas A.
Baxter, P.C.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Wash.7 gton, D.C.
20037 7
(202) 663-8090 Counsel for Licensee Dated:
October 20, 1989 g.
s 081 tab 5413.89 1 e
n
r7
'6 IUf;kU1 y
October 20, 1989""
i
'69 OCT 23 P4 :36 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFi' sJCn:. 4 _ & : c, i. r BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
- t GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA' f
(Disposal of Accident-t (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2)
)
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Responce to the NRC Staff's September 29, 1989 Response to Appeal Board
. Order," dated October 20, 1989, were served upon the parties identified on the attached Service List by deposit i n the U.S.
Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 20th day of October, L
- 1989, 1
l 1,
&: u i
Thomas A.
Baxter, P.C.
i 4
L l
t l
l a.
w wmew-r
-w w
-w
<--e m-s 9'-
~ $'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,., / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l i'LJ
.8EFORE THE ATOMtC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPFAL BOARD
!F j
i In the Matter of
)
)
l GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA l-
)
(Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2)
)
t SERVICE LIST Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nucleac Regulatory' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission washington, D.C. 20555 Washington,.D.C. 20555 l
Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire i
Cnristine N. Kohl, Esquire Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the General Counsel
~
Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nucitar Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission.
Washington,'D.C. 20555 Docketing and Services Branch Secretary of the Commission Mr. Howard A. Wilber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Adjudicatory File Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, Washington, D.C. 20555 Panel Docket U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board Panel Richard P. Mather, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of Environmental i
Commission Resources Washington, D.C. 20555 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 505 Executive House Mr. Glenn O. Bright Harrisburg, PennLylvania 17120 Atomic Safety and 'iceno no Board Panel Ms. Frances Skolnick U.S. Nuclear Re,
.c 4 2079 New Danville Pike Commission Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 Washingter, D.C h a
)
p.,-
,.y i
- 1.,
d:
s' p'_
i n
1
- 0 Ms. Vera'L. Stuchinski 3
315 Peffor Str,tet3' 1
a l
R-Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Mr. Lee H.'>Thenus-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 311 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 i
1 t
_ l
't 6
iE
'l-
- (*
P 4
i
+
{,,
Z
's 6
g e
h
' {'
f 1
.b s
s m
m
. -