ML19352A720
| ML19352A720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8104170482 | |
| Download: ML19352A720 (107) | |
Text
BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD 2
3 IN RE:
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS
)
Docket Numbers TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR33, )
50-259 OLA 4
DPR52 and DPR68 50-260 OLA 5
50-296 OLA 6
7 Huntsville Public Librdry 10S Fountain Circle 8
Huntsville, AL 35801 9
April 10, 1981 9:30 a.m.
10 BEFORE:
HON. HERBERT GROSSMAN, ESQ.
13 Board Chairman
{#
Washington, D.C.,
20555 14 HON. ELIZABETH JOHNSON 15 Nuclear Member Washington, D.C., 20555 16 HON. QUENTIN STOBER 17 Environmental Member Washington, D.C., 20555 18 19 APPEARANCES:
20 FOR THE AGENCY:
21 WALTER LAROCHE, ESQ.
22 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 23 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 24 DON BUSTION, ESQ.
Advisor 25 Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 V
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 33601 f/daf/1 d
2 1
FOR THE PETITIONERS:
s 2
LEROY ELLIS, ESQ.
421 Charlotte Avenue 3
Nashville, Tennessee 37219 4
ROBERT PYLE, ESQ.
4220 Nolensville Road 5
Nashville, Tennessee 37211 6
FOR THE COMMISSION:
7 JESSICA LAVERTY, ESQ.
Staff Counsel a
Washington, D.C.
20555 9
PETER LOYSEN t
Technical Advisor 10 Washington, D.C.
20555 11 12 LIMITED APPEAIULNCES:
13 JEANNINE HONICKER C#
14 DEBBIE HAVAS 15 ALBERT BATES 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-3 V
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 33401 w
r l
3 s
1 EESSEESIEEE 2
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The special pre-hearing conference 4
in the matter of the application of the Tennessee Valley 5
Authority for amendments to its operating licenses is now 6
convened.
7 These applications for amendments concern operating 3
licenses DPR33, DPRS2 and DPR68,.and they are sought to 9
permit Tennessee Valley Authority to store on site low-level jo radioactive waste generated over a 5-year period from the 11 operation of the facilities.
12 Before we get into the ~ substance of the conference, I 13 do want to change one procedural matter.
In our order we
( 'e 14 indicated that no limited appearance statements would be 15 entertained, and I understand that perhaps no one availed 16 himself of the opportunity to prepare a statement.
Because 17 it does not appear as though this conference will take that 18 long a time, we will entertain 5-minute limited appearance 19
' statements if anyone cares to prepare any sometime later 20 j this morning.
21 Mr. Paul Hamilton, who is the panel technician and is 22 standing at the doorway, Mr. Hamilton, if you will, take 23 names if anyone cares to read a limited appearance statement.
24 To begin with I would like to indicate to those who 25 are not aware of NRC procedures, that in matters of health i l V
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALA&AMA 33401 I
.-.--c
T 1.. _ _
4 I
and safety and environmental matters there are generally 2
three-member boards appointed to consider the matters,which 3
consists of an attorney,who is the chairman of the board 4
and two technical people, scientists, usually an environ-5 mental scientist and a nuclear scientist.
I would like to 6
introduce the individual members of the board at this 7
point.
3 On my right is Judge Elizabeth John' son, who is our.
9 nuclear member.
She has a Bachelor of Science from Western 10 Kentucky University, a Master of Science from Vanderbilt.
11 University.. She has a background as a researcher, physicist 12 and subsequently an engineer with Union Carbide Corporation.
13 She is presently employed as an engineer with the Oak Ridge 14 National Laboratories.
She is a member of a number of 15 professional societies, and has authored a number of reports 16 from the Oakridge National Laboratories.
She is presently 17 with the Instrumentation and Control Division of the 18 Advanced Nuclear Measurement Group at Oak. Ridge.
19 On my left is Judge Quentin Stober, who is our 20 environmental member.
He has a Bachelor of Science and a 21 Master of Science from Montana State University in the field 22 of Fish and Wildlife Management, and a Ph.D. from Montana 23 State University in Aquatic Zoology.
He had been employed 24 as an aquatic biologist with the U.S. Public Health Service, 25 and then became an assistant professor, associate professor V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATIA. ALASAMA 3340s
t 5
c t
I and a full professor in the Fisheries Research Instutute of 2
the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.
He is 3
a member of numerous honorary and scientific societies, and 4
has published over 35 different technical reports dealing 5
with reservoir fisheries and nuclear power environmental 6
matters and a number of other realted matters.
7 My name is Herbert Grossman.
I have a Bachelor of Arts 8
from Cornell University, 3 Bachelor of Laws from Columbia 9
University and a Master in Laws from Georgetown University.
10 Prior to becoming a full-time member of this panel, which I 11 am currently, I had been a trial attorney for over 15 years 12 with the U.S. Department of Justice.
I have been a full-13 time member for the past 2 years.
14 Judge Johnson and Judge Stover are part-time members of 15 the panel.
16 I would like at this point for the parties or coun w l 17 representing them to introduce themselves, beginning on my 18 left.
19 MR. LAROCHE:
My name is Walter LaRoche.
I'm an 20 attorney for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
I'm licensed 2T to practice before the Supreme Court of the State of 22 Tennessco.
With me this morning is Don Bustion, who is i
23 licensed to practice before the Supreme Court of the State of 24 Texas and is licensed to practice in the District of 25 Columbia.
~5-
,)
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALASAMA 3M05
-. _. _ _ _ _., _ _. _ _ _ _ ~ _, - _. _. _ _,
6 C.
I JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Would you please spell your names 2
for the court reporter.
3 MR. LAROCHE:
L-A-capital R-O-C-H-E; B-U-S-T-I-0-N.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Next table.
5 MR. ELLIS:
Im Leroy Ellis.
'" hat 's L-E-R-O-Y 6
E-L-L-I-S.
I'm one of the attorneys for the petitioners 7
seeking to intervene in these proceedings.
I'm a member of 8
the Supreme Court Bar of the State of Tennessee, and a 9
practicing attorney in Nashville, Tennessee.
10 MR. PYLE:
I'm Robert Pyle, P-Y-L-E.
I'm also 1 11 practicing attorney from Nashville, Tennessee, admitted to 12 the Bar of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
13 MS. LAVERTY:
I'm Jessica Laverty, staff counsel,
(,/
14 a member of the Virginia Bar.
On my right is the project 15 manager for TVA's proposal, Peter Loysen.
Laverty is 16 L-A-V-E-R-T-Y; Loysen is L-O-Y-S-E-N.
37 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'd like now to review the I8 chronology of events in this proceeding.
Apparently, on 19 March 17th the TVA received a 2-year license to store low-20 level wasta on site.
On July 31st of 1980 TVA' filed license 21 amendment applications in order to store low-level waste for 22 the lives of the facilities.
On November 17th, 1980 that l
23 July 31, 1980 application or applications were amended to 24 provide for only a 5-year term of storage of that low-level 25 waste.
' %.)
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALAAAMA Meet
T. _ _. _ _.
7 1
By notice in the Federal Register, dated December lith, 2
1980, the NRC puclished the notice indicating that the 3
license amendments had been applied for and permitted;
.4 petitions to intervene to be filed by January 12th, 1981.
5 By that date six separate petitions in identical wording 6
with, I believe, 19 names were filed.
These petitions to 7
intervene were opposed by the TVA on the grounds that the 8
petitioners lacked standing to intervene.- The staff did 9
not oppose those petitions on the grounds of lack of 10 standing, but merely reserved its position as to the 11 sufficiency of the petitions, awaiting at least one valid 12 contention, which is requirement of the NRC.
13 By notice in the Federal Register on February 3rd, 1981, k'#
14 this board was constituted to pass on the petitions and then 15 to consider further matters in the proceeding if the 16 petitions were determined to be sufficient to confer standing 17 on the petitioners.
18 By order dated March 10th, 1981, we set this pre-hearing 19 conference for the purpose of considering the petitions, 20 the standing of the petitioners, specific issues in the case, 21 and further scheduling if those petitions are deemed to be 22 acceptable.
23 By document dated March 26th, 1981, the petitioners 24 filed a joint amendment and supplement to the original 25 petitions, raising four separate contentions. V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALASAMA 33401
8 1
And I might say at this point, Mr. Ellis, that we were 2
not served with that amended and supple = ental petition, and 3
that service of all documents should be made on people on 4
the service list and not merely the other parties in the i
proceeding.
6 Did you care to say something, Mr. Ellis?
7 MR. ELLIS:
No, sir.
I just apologize if that was 8
not done.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We only asked for and received to the supplemental petitions yesterday, and we would have had 11 a lot more time to consider them had we received them in 12 normal course.
13 The TVA opposed the contentions as being insufficient s
f
~j 14 and otherwise inadmissible, and the NRC staff agreed to the 15 admissibility of one of the contentions, but requested that 16 the board consider immediately summary disposition motions 17 with regard to that contention and deny the admissibility of II the other three contentions.
19 I believe I've stated correctly the chronology of events.
20 If any of the parties or petitioners believe that there was 21 some error in that, I would like to be corrected at this 22 point.
23 I would also, as a preliminary matter, indicate that 7'
the.N-=.rd has not received scme documents that it would like.
25 The two license amendments, that of July 31, 1980, and the a NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATL1. ALA&AMA 3) del
4 9
C-I November 17, 1980 amendment.
It would also desire to have 2
the TVA's environmental assessment, and I would ask the 3
staff attorney to please supply us with that.
4 MS. LAVERTY:
Fine.
You wanted the two amendments 3
and the TVA environmental assessment, right?
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
7 I would like first to discuss the issue of standing, 8
whi'ch was challenged by TVA when the original petition was 9
filed, and, apparently, on the grounds that none of the 10 petitioners reside close enough to the facility to have any 11 posibility of injury from the matter before the board at 12 this time.
And I would like first to ask Mr. Ellis exactly 13 f-how far the closest petitioners reside.
V M
MR. ELLIS:
I can't answer thr.t, not with that 15 degree of precision.
They ara in the range of 30 miles.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, I was going to ask that.
37 A 30-mile estimate made by TVA appears to be correct?
18 MR. ELLIS:
- Yes, I'
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, with regard to that range of
(
20 approximately 30 miles, does the TVA centend that there is 21 something different with regard to low-level waste stored 22 on the facility grounds, than with something like spent fuel pool?
MR. LAROCHE:
Well, I've prepared a little discussion this morning, which our position is a little bit
' V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALASAMA 33401
10 1
more than just the difference in the nature of the material 2
stored.
3 The problem with the contention of the petition, insofar 4
as standing is concerned, goes a little beyond that.
But 5
to respond to your question directly, because of the curie 6
content of this-low-level radwaste, on the order of about 7
1,000 curies per year.
When you compare that to the curie 8
content or a spent fuel pool expansion question or of a 9
nuclear plant construction, when you're talking about ten in 10 the sixth and ten in the seventh curies in the inventory, 11 it's really so negligible, that there has tc be something.
12 The presumption of living within 30 miles of the site means 13 that there is some type of injury that might occur, I don't 14 think that presumption occurs when the inventory is so small.
15 I would like the chance sometime this morning to address 16 the whole problem of standing, and I would do that when you 37 desire.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, is the magnitude of the W
exposure something that the board ought to consider?
Doesn't i
20 that appear to be some factual matter that should be taken 21 into account in determining whether there is any harmful 22 exposure as a final determination, but not something that 23 ought to be considered when we're dealing witli standing?
2#
MR. LAROCHE:
Well, the magnitude is something that 25 is in the record in terms of the application, and there v
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUL ALASAMA 35401
11 j
are figures given in there on the curie content of the 2
inventory.
Part of the problem is a lack of specificity on how certain interests would be affected and in what way they 3
4 would be affected.
And the presumption that living close to 5
a facility means you don't have to be as specific I don't 6
think arises in this situation where the radioactive content 7
of the materials is so much lower than the whole plan itself.
8 That is part of the problem.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Does the staff have any comment to' 10 make on that, Ms. Laverty?
11 MS. LAVERTY:
Yes.
Certain factors have been 12 recognized by the Commission as demonstrating sufficient 13 interest to satisfy the interest requirements of the c
('
14 Commission rules.
The standard in terms of a power reactor 15 has always been that a petitioner lives within the geographi-16 cal zone which might be affected by normal or accidental 17 release of fission products from the facility in question.
18 The staff has some sympathy with applicant's argument because 19 what needs to be looked at is the facility in question here.
20 The facility in question here is a concrete waste 21 storage building which is'significantly different from a 22 power reactor and has significantly smaller radioactive 23 inventory and also is a passive structure.
It does not have 24 the potential for heat and pressure generation.
25 So that in terms of analyzing standing, you are, indeed,
- V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALARAMA 35401
- - =
12 1
looking at the facility in question which does pose a lesser 2
threat.
The staff does not, however, have'another standard' 3
that it would propose.
It does think it is something that 4
the board should consider in analyzing standing.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Isn't is possible, though, that 6
with some problem developing with the reactor that the 7
inventory of low-level waste could be scattered and is 8
perhaps a consideration in determining whether an applicatior 9
for a spent fuel pool expansion could be subject to oppositic n 10 by persons who could he damaged by release of that inventory?
11 MS. LAVERTY:
As you know, this is the first such 12 proposal that the staff has received.
And at least in the 13 staff's view at this point, storage appears to be fairly
("
14 separate from reactor operation.
So you do raise a valid 15 point.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Ellis, would you care to 17 comment?
18 MR. ELLIS:
My primary comment has already been 19 made.
The low curie count, of course, assumes the normal 20 cperation with no unusual occurrances.
There's no way to 21 avoid getting into what I think is the most contested issue 22 in these petitions; that is, the p'etitioners' position that 23 the basic defect with this application is its failure to 24 take into account the total waste management program at 25 Browns Ferry.
And instead to segment it, bring it out V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA JJ408
m..
13 1
piecemeal in such a way that each stage in the total nuclear
~
2 cycle adds a little bit to the background radiation,and each 3
new incremental impact can be looked at narrowly without 4
taking into account the rest of the program..
5 The figures that Mr. LaRoche--well, Mr. LaRoche did no*-
6 talk about figures so I shouldn't quote him as saying--as 7
referring to figures.
Implicit in what he says is that he 8
is referring to five years of storage in these heavy 9
concrete modules without taking into account the total waste 10 management program for the Browns Ferry plant, which we 11 believe, based on the material that we have seen, includes 12 the volume reduction.
The volume reduction includes the 13 incineration.
And the incineration is the heart of what
(
14 our clients fear and have concern about.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, now, are you relying for 16 your standing on the fact that incineration must be 17 considered an integral part of the plan or do you also 18 contend that you have standing just looking at the storage 19 for five years of low-level waste?
20 MR. ELLIS:
We think that our clients have standing 21 based upon the allegations in their original petitions which 22 identified t.5eir place of residence and their place of 23 activity, their consumption of food,which is grown in 24 proximity to the plant, consumption of water from the water 25 supplies that could be affected by releases from the plant. J NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 33401
..m
14
/
1 When I say plant, perhaps I should say from the storage 2
system.
So,no, I am not willing to say we hang on the con-3 tention that the total waste management program should be l
4 considered in determining their standing.
5 I think their standing can stand on the case law that 6
has approved standing to intervene on residence and activity 7
within at least 40 miles, and I think in some cases, perhaps, 8
more than 40 miles from a plant.
9 But the issue of incineration and other volume reduction 10 plans, I will leave it as a makeweight.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
hell, Mr. Ellis, I appreciate the I
12 fact that standing and scope may not be synonymous, though, 13 reading some recent opinions, I am not sure that that is a k~/
14 universally shared dichotomy.
And I can well appreciate 15 that you do say that petitioners may suffer injury.
In fact, 16 considering the, full term of reactor life for storage of 17 low-level wastes or the incineration of part of what you 18 consider the comprehensive plan, but I do want to tie you 19 down on whether you can contend that there would be a 20 possibility of injury in fact merely looking at a five-year 21 storage of low-level waste.
22 And I suppose you might have some scenario in mind, but 23 if you do, I would appreciate your telling me what at this 24 point.
You may confer anytime you want.
25 MR. ELLIS:
If you will, just a moment? V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. AI.ARAMA 33404
--j 15 1
MR. LAROCHE:
While they are talking, if I could 2
just address a couple of issues?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, no.
I think we all want to 4
hear what is going to be said.
3 (Off record) 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Ellis?
7 MR. ELLIS:
Yes.
We are not prepared to go beyond 8
what is already,what's already been submitted to the board 9
in connection with this application as far as stating harm in and injury that our clients might suffer from my routine 11 releases from the waste storage over a period.of five years.
l 12 The TVA-I think 'it's in the environmental assessment 13 that accompanied their application--makes references to 14 leakage into the water system and to accidental fire and 15 other accidents permitting a certain amount of releases into 16 the environment from the--just from the storage facility.
17 I am not in a position to give the board any contention as 18 to the extent of any injury that our clients might feel would 19 be suffered as a result of those normal routine releases to 20 the environment.
21 We have not in our amended contentions filed any con-21 tentions dealing with sabotage or other kind of disaster 23 which would possibly cause a major dispersal of the stored 24 waste into the environment, although I think it can be seen 25 how that type of event would change the injury circumstance v NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE oncAnm. ALABAMA MM
i 16 e
I considerably.
2 So I think we stand on the fact of routine releases from 3
normal occurrences plus the accidental releases which TVA 4
has postulated and the proximity of our clients to the 5
plant,from as to their residence and their normal activities 6
and the source of their food and drinking water and the a.ir.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
The board doesn't intend 8
to imply that you must raise a contention which alleges inju2y 9
in fact from the five-year storage--
10 MR. ELLIS:
I know.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-in order to fall within the.
12 standing, and I want to make that clear.
But nevertheleas, 13 in order to have standing based only on that five-year 14 storage, you must in the board's opinion at this point 15 indicate some way in which you might be harmed by that.
16 That's without considering any further elements of what you 17 contend may be a comprehensive plan.
I just want to draw 18 that out at the conference, and apparently you have given 19 some scenario which may suffice for standing, notwithstanding 20 you don't rely on any contentions related to that.
I would 21 like to have any further comments by Ms. Laverty on that, if 4
22 she has any.
23 MS. LAVERTY:
I really have no further comments.
24 They can establish standing without having specific 25 contentions be the grounds for an allegation of standing. V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 35401
... ~
~
= ~....
17 r
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. LaRoche?
2 MR. LAROCHE:
Well, I have a couple of things.
3 First, Mr. Ellis talked about piecamealing this.
The simple 4
answer to that is if additional _ things are proposed, they 5
will be evaluated in the context of the whole plan as it 6
exists then, not singularly until it is complete.
7 The board may be under a misconception of where this
.8 low-level storage facility is located.
You talked about 9
something from the plant maybe causing a dispersal of the 10 inver. tory in the low-level storage facility.
It is located 11 approximately'1000 meters away from the plant.
It is not 12 located within the plant itself.
I just wanted to point 13 that out to you.
~
14 And finally, I take it that Mr. Ellis,in order to 13 establish standing,must allege a perceptible harm in fact, 16 not that he can just imagi.se circumstances in which his 17 clients' interest might possibly be affected.
The Supreme 18 Court stated that in the Scrap decision fairly strongly.
19 Of course, that is applicable to this proceeding by the 20 Pebble Springs decision of the Commission.
21 A licensing board has discussed 'the allegations similar 22 to the ones that these petitioners have made and said, "It 23 is not enough simply to call out neighboring waters, air 24 and agricultural products and to allege that these elements 5
of the environment might or will be adversely affected to l V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALASAMA 3360s
~
18 1
some undefined extent in some undetermined manner by the 2
expansion of the waste storage (and in that case it was the 3
spent fuel pool capacity).
How the expansion of the spent 4
fuel capacity might or will bring about environmental 5
contamination and the extent of such contamination deserves 6
to be described with particularity.
General allegations of 7
cause and effect relationships without meaningful support, 8
supporting allegations and specific facts establishing a 9
reasonable nexus between cause on one hand and effect on the 10 other,are insufficient to support a petition for leave to 11 intervene."
That is the Northander (phonetically) decision.
12 It's 9 NRC 361, pages 363 and 364.
13 Also, I want to point out an appeal board decision in C
14 Allens Creek said, "To be surespersons who live in close 15 proximity to a reactor site are presumed to have a cognizable 16 interest."
They are talking about a plant in that case, not 17 a low-level storage facility.
18 They go on to add, however, "But there is no like I9 presumption that every individual so situated could deem 20 himself potentially grieved by the outcome of the proceeding, 21 an essential ingredient of standing.
Some may and some may not.
Because of this consideration, the petitioner or 23 organization did not and could not content itself with the simple assertion that it had members living in the shadow 24 of the facility in question." a NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUL ALABAMA 33401
19 C
1 The board goes on to point out that "To establish 2
standing, an allegation which explicitly identifies the 3
nature of the invasion of the personal interest which might 4
flow from the proposed licensing action is required."
5 Our position is tliere is simply nothing in the petition 6
in this proceeding which indicates how an injury to health 7
and property interest could occur.
Without some additional 8
explanation from the petitioners, it is not reasonable to drav 9
a conclusion that because they live between 20 and 30 miles 10 away or further, that some injury is going to occur.
11 I guess to summarize our position on standing, it's 12 simply that the petitioners have a clear obligation to 13 allege how air and water and agricultural contamination could 14 occur from the storage of low-level material for five years 15 and how it could reasonably be expected to affect their 16 clients--or them-since they live, really, what we feel to 17 be fairly far away from the site.
This they have not done, 18 and we contend that on this basis the petition to intervene 19 shuuld be denied.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Ellis?
21 MR. ELLIS:
Two things and I will stop.
Getting l
22 back to the unusua? occurrences.
We would ask TVA whether 23 these modules have been designed to withstand tornado-force j
24 winds.
Environmental assessment, I believe, or--it's one of 25 the documents which I have gotten which purportedly was
_19_
v.
l i
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE oscAnm. AMBAMA W OR
^
n-..
l to l
1 filed with the application.
I can't--Anyway, it relates that 2
the design basis wind is a 95 mile an hour wind.
People who 3
live in this area can tell the board that there have been in 4
recent years an extremely severe tornado within closer 5
proximity.. to-this plant than, I believe, even our clients' 6
residences.
If not, then, closer then in the same general 7
area.
8 The potential for damage from a tornado creates risks 9
that are not related at all to the proximity of the storage 10 modules to the reactor island or the other parts of the 11 nuclear plant.
12 Now, responding to what our petitioners have alleged, 13 it's not in extreme detail.
But they have alleged that they 14 are dependent on drinking water, water for household purposes 15 the source for which may be affected by the proceeding.
16 They are dependent upon milk, meat, food and so forth grown 17 and raised in close proximity to the Browns Ferry plant which 18 may be affected.
They own property which is subject to 19 damage or loss in value.
20 They have alleged--and this is in their original 21 petition--that an order granting the license amendments may 22 increase the health and safety risks to the petitioners by 23 increasing the on-site radioactive inventory, increasing 24 the risk of radioactive contamination to the petitioners or 25 their descendants.
They are allegations of the types of i
,- V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALARAMA 33401
21 o
1 injuries that the petitioners contend can result from the 2
license being granted.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, not having read the license 4
amendment applications, I don't know whether there is 5
contained in that any statement to the effect that permitting 6
these amendments would better facilitate the operatiens of 7
the facilities.
Eut whether or not that is contained in 8
the license amendments, isn't this amendment designed to 9
facilitate better operations of the power reactors on site, 10 and thereby any question of the--any challenge to the 11 license amendments would confer standing.on those p.ersons 12 who might be affected by the operations of the reactors?
13 Any comment on that?
n 14 MR. LAROCHE:
Let me address one thing about the 15 tornado first.
The facility is designed to meet essentially 16 the.same design criteria with regard to tornado winds as 17 the plant itself.
I'll give two factors in tornado winds:
18 one is translational speed and one is some other speed.
19 And I don't know exactly what those numbers are, but they 20 are similar to the nuclear plant; 300 miles an hour winds, 21 something like that.
So they are designed for the same type 22 of tornado winds as the plant.
Let's get that straight.
23 Now, the purpose of the 5-year facilities is to store 24 low-level waste generated at the nuclear plant; that's 25 correct.
And its purpose is to store them for a period of v 4
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE oscATUR. A1.ABAMA 3Mel
22 c
1 time in which further options for disposal can be developed, 2
either by TVA or states in the area or perhaps an opening 3
up of Barnwell again, so that all of the material can be 4
disposed of.
And simply, the purpose is to be able to 5
give us some time to work with the low-level 'rachrasta 6
.that is being generated at the facility at the present time.
7 Right now Barnwell is the only place we can take the 8
material, and the allocation that we have is less than what 9
is being generated.
10
-That is the purpose of the facility.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But indirectly, then, wouldn't 12 that permit the facility to operate, having a place to 13 store its low-level waste?
G 14 MR. LAROCHE:
That's correct.
But a number of 15 decisions have discussed whether or not a license amendment 16 brings up the whole question of a power plant continued 17 operation, such as considerations of alternatives to the 18 plant, such as shutting down the plant.
And there's no II need to re-evaluate the continued plant operation, if you 20 were not to grant the amendment.
And I'll cite for that 21 proposition ALAV.531, which is Portland Electric, the Trojan 22 Case, 9 NRC 263 at page 270~to 271.
That was a spent fual 23 modification.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But now, sir, was that involving 25 a question of standing, or was that really a matter that
' V NORTH AI.ABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 3M01
23 m
1 might be considered by the board?
2 MR. LAROCHE:
That was a matter that might be 3
considered by the board.
But there has to be some logical 4
connection.between standing and injury, and the issues to 5
be raised.
I quote you some cases on that:
Worth vs.
6 Seldin and a number of other Supreme Court cases.
It says 7
you just can't have standing in one area and then talk 8
about something totally unrelated to your standing.
9 So if you were not permitted by the Commission rules 10 into getting into the continued operation of the Browns 11 Ferry Nuclear Plant, which you are not permitted by ALAV 531 12 to do, it's obvious that does not give a grounds for 13 standing.
So I don't think that's an adequate basis for O
I4 standing.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Does anyone have anything further 16 on that particular topic?
I7 Well, now, let's consider the other point raised by 18 petitioners, that part of the comprehensive plan includes not only storage, perhaps, for the full term of operation 20 of the facility, but incineration.
21 Now, assuming for the moment that the board were to 22 consider incineration as part of the comprehensive plan, 23 would, then, the petitioners have standing to petition to 24 intervene in these proceedings?
25 MR. LAROCHE:
I'm not sure I quite understand your.
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUL ALABAMA 33601
24 1
question.
Are you asking if incineration were an issue to s.
2
~be raised, would that allow standing?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, would that be any potential 4
injury in fact-to petitioners residing within a 30-mile 1
5 radius of the plant?
6 MR. LAROCHE:
My first response is that incineration 7
is not an issue, and our brief addresses that.
8 Our second response is that the curie content is not 9
going to change by incineration: it will not be increased 10 by incineration We're talking about 10,000 curies a year.
11 I can give you the precise numbers.
That's not going to 12 change by incineration, so I don't believe that.would 13 change the basis for standing.
(#
14 I think it's much clearer that when it's just simply 15 storing it, that there is no basis for standing.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, does the staff have a 17 position with regard to that?
18 MS. LAVERTY:
Well, let me back up.
The staff is 19 not prepared, unfortunately, to address and to cite cases 20 for the distinction between standing and scopa.
- However, 21 the staff is not aware that it is quite as tightly connected 22 as applicant has indicated.
23 The staff believes that the board stated it more 24 accurately earlier, that the petitioners can allege 25 standing based on proximity to the plant, based on being
.- v NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE uncAnm. AI.ASAMA m et
25 b
1 affected by the facility; and then allege a contention, 2
which in this specific factual instance,I believe a kind of 3
NEPA or legal issue, it doesn't seem to be tied to the basis 4
for their allegation of standing.
That was my other point.
5 But I have-just forgotten what the most recently 6
stated was--Oh, I know, whether or not incineration was I
7 going to effect the curie amount; and', also, whether or not a
petitioners need incineration to be considered in the 9
present proposal in order to be able to assert standing.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, the question really is not 11 whether or not they need to rely on that for standing, but 12 whether any ambiguities that the staff may have f.elt existed 13 with regard to standing, if incineration is not considered m(#
14 part of the plan, would vanish when we are including 15 incineration as part of the plan. Would the staff have a 16 definite position as to standing under those circumstances?
17 MS. LAVERTY:
Well, going back to what petitioners 18 initially alleged in their original petition, they asserted 19 that the radioactive inventory on site would be increa'ed s
20 by this proposal and that there would be an increased risk 21 of radioactive contamination.
And it is the staff's belief 22 that under the 5-year proposal, which the staff believes is 23 the subject of this proceeding, that they have met the 24 standing requirement.
25 The only thing that the staff is sympathetic to is this ~b NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALARAMA JM04
26
<~
t'-
1 question of geographical proximity, and where does one draw 2
the line.
I can't give you numbers, but I do sympathize 3
with the fact that is a very different facility from a 4
power reactor; and thus, perhaps a greater geographical 5
area is more appropriate for a power reactor than for a 6
low-level waste storage facility.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think we're satisified that we 8
have heard a full discourse on the standing question, unless
[
9 one of the parties cares to add anything to what's already 10 been said.
11 MR. ELLIS:
On your question about whether l
12 inclusion of the total waste management program would 13 change the conditions as to our standing,_the.. curie count 14 on site may not change, but the releases will change, and 15 it will be a whole new ballgame if they begin burning it.
l 16 That's in response to Mr. LaRoche's comment, which, if I 17 understand him, implies that it still wouldn't make any 18 difference because it is going to be the same amount of l
19 low-level radioactive waste on site and the curie count 20 won't change; that's true.
But it's going to be in a 21 different place.
It's going up the smokestack.
And in 22 that is the contention which would be a factual
- part, 23 dispute, I know, as to how much is going out the stack and 24 j
how much is going to be caught by the filters and so on.
25 But our clients are prepared to present a case that the
- \\/
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALARAMA 33401
b P
27 C
I releases to the community will change drastically with 2
incineration.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'll rephrase my question 4
to the staff Rather than ambiguities, do your sympathies 5
vanish if we can postulate as one of the issues in the case what is alleged to be the comprehensive plan, including the 7
incineration?
And I understand it's very difficult for you a
to assume'something that you may challenge.
But for 9
purposes of discussing standing, if we were to assume, 10 possibly contrary to the staff position, that incineration 11 is part of the comprehensive plan that we uust consider.,
12 would you have any sympathy for the challenge by TVA to 13 standing because, as I understand it, the content of the Id waste is not sufficient to indicate possible injury in fact 15 to petitioners?
I0 MS. LAVERTY:
May I have just one moment?
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
(Off record)
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
To make it easier for the staff, 0
why don't we just, rathat than pin the staff down on 21 hypotheticals that it may not desire to accept, let me just 22 ask whether the amount of curies makes any difference with 23 regard to the issue of injury in fact for purposes of 24 standing?
25 MS. LAVERTY:
I believe that is true.
I believe
{ NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATtR. ALABAMA 33401
g g p T -.:
=[
1 28 e
1 that the nature of the facility here, a passive structure 2
with a significantly lower radioactive inventory than a 3
power reactor, I.think that that should be a component of 4
the judgment on standing; because when the Commission has 5
before admitted people in power reactor cases and has based 6
it on geographical proximity, they have hinge' d that-the 7
rational underlined that admission, is the possibility of 8
normal and accidental releases from the plant.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Exceeding certain standards, or 10 just that there might be releases; that's what I'm trying 11 to get at now.
Does the curie content matter in determining 12 whether there is standing?
Is there some line in which we 13 can say there can't be injury in fact, because the curie
,,b 14 content is below a certain level?
15 MS. LAVERTY:
No.
That's why the staff is not 16 prepared to give you a number or a figure.
You have to 17 evaluate the entire facility.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. LaRoche.
19 MP.. LAROCHE:
The purpose of the 30-mile or 50-mile 20 or 40-mile, whatever number you want to use, is a presumption 21 that there is going to be injury.
With that presumption 22 the petitioners don't have to be as specific as to what 23 injury is going to occur and how it's going to occur.
2#
Our argument is not that injury might not occur in 30 25 miles, because that's for you to decide, whether that would V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA 3340n
~..
29 1
occur, and that's sufficient for standing; but it's they who 2
have an obligation to indicate how it will occur with some 3
specificity, because they do not have the presumption that 4
it occurs from living close to the plant site.
That's my 5
point with the 30-mile rule, is that the presumption which 6
would normally be in their favor for being 30 miles away 7
is not there, and so, therefore, they have an obligation to 8
be a little bit more specific,in fairness to everybody, as 9
to how they can be injured.
Simply saying there's going to 10 be water pollution, there's going to be air. pollution, the 11 food is going to be contaminated,and that might somehow 12 affect us is not enough.
They've got to be more detailed.
13 That's where the 30-mile rule breaks down.
I4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Does anyone have anything further 15 with regard to standing?
Back on the question about the curies, I7 and I was stating that the releases into the environment--
18 I think I should have said that it's the man rems that are I'
the critical considerations, not the curies.
As long as the stuff stays in a good, solid concrete storage receptacle, 21 with no accidents that cause any problem, and as long as you're looking at something that only has to stay there for 23 5 years and is never opened up and transported to the 24 incinerator, the situation is much safer from the standpoint 25 of the human environment; and it does change when you look
^ V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALABAMA M401
, _.. _ _ _ _.. ~. _ _., _... _. _ _.. _... _ _, _.
=.
l l
30 g
1 at the total program in a time frame, which necessitates 2
the removal of the waste from the storage containers.
3 The only other thing, Mr. LaRoche raises an interesting 4
argument on the presumption anci the basis for the presumption 5
and the differences in applying it either to a construction 6
permit or an operating license proceeding.
We have get to 7
stand on what we've done, but I think that his objections could probably be met by amendments which specify the 9
activities of some of these petitioners in the area closer 10 to the plant than their actual place of residence.
11 The theory behind the applicant's objections to 12 standing had really escaped me until this discussion, and I 13 have not researched it.
I have really not thought about 14 whether the cases that I've seen involving the distance 15 have involved any amendments to an operating license.
I 16 think they have typicallycome up on the construction phase 17 or the initial operating license.
I'm not aware of any 18 cases that have really gone into that issue and discussed 19 it.
I'd be glad to look for them.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Ellis, I don't know how long 21 we want to wait for amendments.
If you have some informa-22 l
tion that you haven't brought before the board at this time 23 that supports your position on standing, I think you ought 24 to bring it before the board right now.
I'm not aware of 25 any requirement that yqu nust have affidavits, or anything else
< V NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. ALASAMA 35404
31 I
that swears to the veracity,that must be examined at some 2
later point.
I think you can just state simply'for the 3
record what the circunstances are.
4 MR. ELLIS:
Can you give us two minutes to confer?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, sir.
6 MR. LAROCHE:
Maybe it would be good to take a 7
five-minute break?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don't we take a 10-minute 9
recess.
10 (Recess) 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The special pre-hearing conference 12 is now reconvened.
To facilitate matters, perhaps we will 13 take the limited appearance statement--we have one--and g.
14 permit counsel to continue to confer if they desire while 15 the limited appearance is being read or the statement is 16 being made.
17 The one limited appearance is Jeannine Honicker.
Would 18 she like to--
19 MS. HONICKER:
May I come to the podium?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, you may.
21 MS. HONICKER:
For the record, I am Jeannine 22 Honicker from Nashville, Tennessee.
j 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could you give us your full f
address, please.
24 25 MS. HONICKER:. Yes.
362 Binkley Drive, Nashville, '
v NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. N 33401 l
32 1
Perhaps I should give you some background on me 2
since everybody else gave some background on themselves.
3 I tried to intervene against the Watts Bar plant at the 4
operating stage after having been an intervenor at Hartsville.
5 I was stopped for this very reason.
They said that I did not j
6 live close enough, that I was not a lawyer or a technician; 7
therefore, I could not add anything to the record.
8 It's strange now that the rules are being changed, and I
9 the ' safety evaluation reports and the supplements thereto 10 are going to be considered as part of the operating license, 11 because when I tried to intervene, there had not even been 12 a safety evaluation report.
13 What I was trying to say is that I believe in the process 7,
V 14 I believe that you people are doing what you are being paid 15 to do and that is to protect the health and safety of the 16 people.
That you are not paid to make sure that a nuclear 17 plant that the people didn't want and don't need continues I8 f
operating.
Maybe I believe too much in the goodness of II people.
But I believe that that is what the NRC was 20 created for.
If, in fact, it is only to keep the nuclear 21 plants running, then we don't need you.
We don't need to 22 pay a penny to keep them running because they can do that 23 very well without the help of the taxpayers paying the NRC 24 and the licensing board.
25 I brought this box up because I want to show it to you. -v NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE oscana. AL.ABAMA m o!
33 1
I want to tell you a time frame on it.
2 On January the 13th I wrote this handwritten request to 3
TVA.
It was received--this is a copy of the one that they 4
got--it was received in the information office on January 5
the 16th.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I' asked for 6
all letters, correspondence and contracts on TVA's low-level 7
waste program.
8 Do you know when I got this?
Last night at 7:00.
- Now, 9
how can the intervenors be expected to provide substantial 10 facts when the information that TVA has is withheld from 11 them?
12 Now, they have tried to do it.
I have worked with them 13 all the way through.
TVA knew that we wanted this for this 14 meeting.
In this material, there is a document dated March 15 the 10th, which was prior to the final date for them to file 16 contentions.
They had the material together on March the 10th.
17 But they didn't release it.
18 Let me read--since I only had this since 7:00 last night, 19 of course, it's been impossible for me to go through all of 20 it.
I have a few things that I think are important for this 21 board to know.
22 JUDCE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me just a minute.
Just to 23 clarify the record, when you are referring to having received 24 this, you are referring to a carton box full of documents, is that correct, so the court reporter can indicate--
l,
NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUE. ALABAMA 33401
34 r
1 MS. HONICKER:
With thousands of pages of documents 2
from the TVA that I got last night at 7:00 that was released 3
to my son,who picked it up in Knoxville sometime after noon 4
yesterday and hand delivered it to me.
That's how I happen
'5 to have it,because I live in Nashville, and it was released 6
around noon yesterday.
7 As I say, I have only had time just briefly to go 8
through it; but there is one document here that I think is 9
so important that I am delighted to have an' opportunity to 10 read this into the record.
11 I quote, "I would like to discuss with you.
Don't we 12 have a question from Mr. Stone related to this matter which i
13 Dillworth has written to Mills asking that our analysis not
(",
14 be used.
We need ' prompt' reply to this memo, emphasizing 15 our justificatien for our numbers since he implied that our 16 evaluation is not supportable."
17 Now, what does that tell you?
IB It tells me that you can't trust TVA's figures.
What 19 they have done,from what I have seen,is that they have taken 20 the allowable arount according to the regulations, and they 21 have used that as the amount that they say is going to be 22 released.
23 thw, we are here because we want the truth.
None of us 24 are being paid.
We are losing money.
We are here truly in 25 the public interest.
And in the public interest, I ask that v i
4 NORTH ALABAMA REPORTING SERVICE DECATUR. AI.AAAMA 33401
--. - _