ML19345G589
| ML19345G589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1981 |
| From: | Baxter T SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G586 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104070566 | |
| Download: ML19345G589 (9) | |
Text
,
l March 24, 1981 6~i3>>
p.-Ng,,
. N '#
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N '
".. # 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lt m ]..g * ' '
T.
g; BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ', \\
~
?J
,~
In the Matter of UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Decket No. STN 50-483 OL
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
i APPLICANT'S RESPCNSE TO CONTENTION 2 PROPOSED BY JOINT INTERVENORS In this Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Requests for Hearing, Petitions for Intervention and Order of Special Prehearing Conference), February 5, 1981, the Board granted tdua request - for hearing and joint petition for leave to inter-vene under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 of:
Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis Region; Miasourians for Safe Energy; and Crawdad Alliance (hereaf ter ' Joint Intervenors").
The Board has not yet ruled upon the admission for adjudication of aay of Joint Intervenors' proposed contentions, which are set forth in their " Amended and Supplemental Joint Petition to Intervene,"
l March 6, 1981.
Applicant Union Electric Company herein sets forth'its response to Joint Intervenors' Contention 2, which is entitled " Inadequate Environmental Protection from Radio-active Releases."
Contention 2,.which is found at pages 12 through 15 of the amended joint petition, contains what Applicant. views
~
to be a number of discrete allegations --- all of which relate to radioactive releases.
Because our position differs.from
>810.4 0 7056 (o
. one allegation to the next, Applicant here responds separately to each of the subparts of Contention 2.
Applicant's position t
is stated below immediately following the quoted portion of the contention which is being addressed.
The Applicant cannot provide reasonable assurance that the Callaway Plant will be operated in compliance with applicable environmental standards for radiation; in the absence of such assurance the operation of the plant would clearly be unsafe and unlawful.
Environmental Protection Agency environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle, 40 CFR Part i
190, provide in part that planned releases of radio-active materials to the general environment from the uranium fuel cycle, including operations of electrical generating facilities, shall not cause an annual dose equivalent in excess of 25 millirems to the whole body to any member of the public.
Union Electric Company plans to discharge into the environment, both air and water, certain quanti-ties of. radioactive materials as part of the routine operation of the plant.
For example, U.E. estimates it will discharge annually 410 curies of tritium into the Missouri River and 1000 curies of tritium into j.
the air.
~(See, SNUPPS FSAR Table 11.1-2).
In addition, U.E. estimates the annual release of.16 curies of corrosion, activation and fission products into the Missouri River and 2330 curies of noble gases and more than 8 curies of halogens, carbon-14 and other corrosion, activation and fission products into the~ atmosphere.
Id.
Dissolved and entrained noble gases will also Ee released to the river.
Due to the following circumstances, among others, Intervenors contend that the Applicant cannot assure compliance with the 25 millirem' standard.
Applicant views these first four paragraphs to be merely an introduction to the more specific allegations which follow.
While some background information is provided, the only allegation contained-in these paragraphs is the general statement that " Applicant cannot provide reasonable assurance 5
+
e-f
--e*"
y
--,...w..-,
. that the Callaway Plant will be operared in compliance with applicable environmental standards for radiation."
This state-ment is not sufficiently specific to stand on its own as a contention and, in Applicant's view, it is unnecessary in light of the more specific allegations in the remainder of Contention 2.
This introduction, however, is important in that it identifies what Joint Intervenors apparently believe is the applicable environmental standard against which the remainder of Contention 2 is to be litigated.
Applicant submits that Joint Intervenors have selected an inappropriate standard for consideration in this proceeding.
Joint Intervenors cite regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
Part 190, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
These standards, according to EPA, specify the levels below which normal operations of the uranium fuel cycle are determined to be environmentally acceptable.
The authority to regul' ate fuel cycle facilities under these standards resides in the NRC, or, in some cases, the States, under agreements with the NRC.
42 Fed. Reg. 2858 (1977) (EPA preamble accompanying publica-tion of the final urule).
l i
When EPA proposed ~these standards for public comment
'in 1975, it stated as follows:
. the Agency has carefully examined the guidance
..for design _ objectives and limiting conditions for operation of' light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors as set forth recently 'by the. NRC in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
It is the view of the Agency that this guidance for reactors will provide an appropriate
t and satisfactory implementation of these proposed environmental radiation standards for the uranium fuel cycle with respect to light-water-cooled nuclear reactors utilizing uranium fuel.
The various monitoring and reporting procedures required kv ~ka AEC in the pasc and supplemented by Append 1-pected to provide continuing information. _.ic_ent to determine that these standards are being satisfied during the course of normal operations of the fuel cycle.
40 Fed. Reg. 23420, 23423 (1975).
This position was confirmed by EPA -when it puolished 40 C.F.R. Part 190 in final form:
the NRC has recently issued a revised set of regulatory guides for light-water-cooled reactors which' implement their announced intent to use the most realistic models available when adequate exnerimental data exist to permit a prudent and scientific ~ determination.
These models are in-tended for use in implementing the recently-issued Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, which defines design and operating criteria for single reactor units.
EPA has examined Appendix '. and the accompanying regulatory guides and agrees that they provide tdun basis for realistic implementation of these standards for single reactor units.
The existence of these~ requirements, coupled with the realization that. most existing reactor licenses are for no more than one or two units on a site, makes it unnecessary, in the Agency's judgment,- to reexamine the license conditions of these licensees for compatibility with these standards, unless the nearest neighboring site covered by this standard is within ten miles.
In
?
these latter cases small adjustments may be necessary.
However, 'in the vast majority of situations, the sum
~
of -allfreasonably postulable contributions from sources other than the i= mediate site will be small compared to these standards and should be ' ignored in assessing compliance.
It would not be reasonable to attempt to~ incorporate into compliance assessment doses which are small fractions of the uncertainties associated with the' determination of ' doses from the primary source
,=
of exposure.
The Agency'has also concluded that, except under. highly improbable circumstances,-conformance to 5~
these criteria should provide reasonable assurance of compliance with these standards for up'to five units-onLa site.
This conclusion is based, among other con-siderations, upon realistic consideration of anticipated site sizes-and'the relative location!of individual units,
-as;well as the stochastic: nature of effluent releases.
O
~
t
I.
~
- 42 Fed. Reg. 2858 (1977).
In short, NRC's regulations governing radioactive discharges from the normal operation of nuclear power reactors at a single site have been found by EPA to be an adequate implementation of 40 C.F.R Part 190.
If Joint Intervenors wish to contest, in this forum, the adequacy of NRC's regu-lations implementing the EPA standard, they may do so only at the Commission's direction pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 The other course available is to seek rulemaking from the Commission.
Joint Intervenors are free, of course, to contend that the Callaway Plant will not meet applicable NRC regu-lations.
Accordingly, the introduction to Contention 2 should be amended to state that Applicant cannot, assure compliance with one or more NRC regulations on radioactive discharges (e.g.,
10 C.F.R. Part 20, S 50.34a, 5 50.36a, Appendix I to Part 50) for the following specific reasons.
2.A.
The Applicant has not adequately assessed and cannot accurately predict the amount of dis-charge rate of the radioactive pollutants to be released, or the amount of dilution to be afforded by the Missouri River, which provides iirinking water for. downstream communities including the City of St. Charles and St. Louis City and County.
Anticipated wat'er diversion projects in the Mis-souri: River watershed and conditions'of drought and freezing.(ice-jams) would lower the amount of dilution water available and this could raise the concentration of radioactive material in the river to higher levels than calculated by U.E.
2.B.
The-Applicant completely ignores the potential impact of its radioactive releases on drinking water.
The. Applicant's~ analysis of the liquid pathway dosage
. includes only fish caught within.05 miles downstream from the discharge pipe and shoreline recreation activities.
(See, FSAR Site Addendum, Table 11.2-4).
2.C.
Adsorption and absorption of some radionuclides in sediment and the potential resuspension of these materials in the event of dredging or flooding could lead to high levels of contamination.
Applicant has no objection to the admission for adjudication of the above three paragraphs of Contention 2.
2.D.
Because the Applicant cannot accurately predict radioactive releases it cannot accurately predict the potential _ bioconcentration of radionuclides in fish.
This paragraph contains two distinct allegations, neither of which is sufficiently specific to qualify as an acceptable contention.
2.E.
Furthermore, Union Electric Co. is unable to predict accurately the dispersion of radioactive materials released into the air from the Callaway Plant or the fallout rate of such materials.
This paragraph requires supplementation to clert the Board and the parties of the reason or reasons why Appli-cant is unable to make accurate predictions.
Unless it is so supplemented, the contention is not sufficiently specific.
L E
2.F.
We contend there will be inadequate monitoring of the release of tritium, noble gases, alpha emitters l'
and other radioactive materials and particularly when L
in quantities below the level of detection of com-l mercial monitoring. equipment or during accidental releases.
Applicant would not object to the admission of this paragraph as a contention if it were bounded by deletion of the L
words1"and particularly."
W y
v w
w e
w y -
. 2.G.
Planned releases of radioactive materials from three nuclear reactors upwind and upstream frcm the Callaway Plant on the Missouri River may also impact upon the local residents.
Residents of Metropolitan St. Louis may also be affected by gaseous emissions from a uranium fuel fabrication plant in Hematite, Missouri, 32 miles south of St. Louis.
Applicant reads this paragraph as an attempt by Joint Intervenors to challenge compliance with the EPA standard.
For the reasons set forth above in our response to the introductory paragraphs, Applicant objects to the admission of this paragraph as a contention.
2.H.
U.E.'s estimates of annual emissions do not take into account releases from the spent fuel pool, increased releases as the plant gets older and leakier (e.g.,
from steam generator tube deteriorat' ion) and releases from decontamination and decomissioning procedures.
Applicant has no objection to the admission of this
. sentence as a contention.
2.I.
In addition,-U.E. does not admit to the potential release of some of the major fission products, e.g.,
cerium-144 and technetium-99, and some of the major activation and corrosion products, such as neptunium-239 and nicket-63.
Applicant would not object to the admission'of this sentence as a contention if it were amended to read as follows:
" Applicant does not consider the potential release of the fol-
~
-lowing major fission products:
cerium-144 and. technetium-99; and of the following major' activation and corrosion products:
neptunium-239 and nickel-63.
12.J.
~ Unresolved. safety issues, such as fuel rod
- cladding failures and steam generator tube and
~
support plate failures, contribute to the Appli-cant'sfinability'to assure compliance with the EPA standard.
. Applicant objects to the admission of this sentence as a contention for the reasons advanced above on other portions of Contention 2 which address the EPA standard.
In addition, it should be noted that the EPA standard, 40 C.F.R. Part 190, explicitly applies to normal plant operations and not to accident conditions.
2.K.
Finally, the health effects of low-level radia-tion, and of tritium in particular, are presently being reassessed by the scientific community.
Evi-dence suggests that the NRC's Maximum Permissible Concentrations, of 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, would lead to greater risk to the public than previously assumed.
It serves little purpose to address the health effects of the Part 20 limits when spplicant is required to install equipment to limit radioaccive effluents to the "as low as reasonably achievable" guidelines in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
The Co= mission has held that the health effects of plant operation in compliance with Appendix I may be liti-gated in individual licensing proceedings, although it advised boards to take official notice of certain facts and not to adjudicate the issue on a clean slate.
Public Service Comoany of Oklahoma, (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-31, 12 N.R.C.
264 at 266, 277 (1980).
If Joint Intervenors wish to raise such issues, however, their allegations should be
... specific.
In its present form, this paragraph of Contention 2 should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Thomas A.
Baxter Counsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1090 Dated:
March 24, 1981