ML20024C962

Response Opposing Rockford League of Women Voters Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Liquid Pathway. Proposed Findings Misstate Record.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20024C962
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/18/1983
From:	Furse M, Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307210236
Download: ML20024C962 (8)

Text

-.

~

'b,

' Dated 7/18/83 -

'/

-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

i El NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JUL 2 0 983 > 21 !

l 7-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD " 'j.'($.I (+?-

/f l

. M

- (p In The Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 OL

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 & 2) )

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE LEAGUE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

> OF LAW REGARDING LIQUID PATHWAY As authorized by the Stipulation between all parties to this proceeding dated August 18, 1982, Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") files this reply to the Rockford League of Women Voters' ("Intervenor") Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Liquid Pathway.

1. Intervenor's Site Characterization Intervenor's Proposed Findings 4 through 11 misstate the record with respect to the proper characterization of.

the Byron site geology and hydrogeology. Many of the " facts" proposed by the Intervenor are misleading-to various degrees.

In'Intervenor Proposed Findings _5 and 6, Intervenor

. states =that the bedrock underlying the Byron' site is extremely fractured near the surface ~and that the top of the ground-water table is in this' area of the bedrock.- These findings when read together with findings 7-11 suggest that contaminant

~

8307210236 830718 b PDR ADOCK 05000454 A - .-. _

PDR- .

a travel times will be influenced by these characteristics.

However, the uncontradicted testimony establishes that at the Byron site the most highly fractured portion of the bedrock has been excavated, and, more importantly, that radioactive contamination under the postulated acc idents would enter the acquifer at approximately 62 to 70 feet from (Applicant the surface, well below the groundwater table.

Proposed Finding 328; Lahti, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 4, ff. Tr. 6750.)

Intervenor Proposed Finding 7 states that the fracturing in the Galena-Platteville dolomites is regional l

in nature. The Applicant does not dispute this assertion.

however, that the l

Proposed Finding 7 goes on to state, regional fracturing raises a serious threat to the health j

and safety of the public, given the occurrence of a serious accident. Even given the regional nature of the fracturing, 1/ In fact, the l

' this assertion plainly does not follow.-

travel times calculated by the Applicant and the NRC Staff l

l l

assumed regional fracturing. (Holish, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 7, 8, 16-18, ff. Tr. 6750; Codell, Staley, NRC Staff Prepared Testimony at 11, 12, ff. Tr. 6649.) In addition, the accidents postulated and analyzed by the Applicant (the BRH tank rupture and the core melt release) assumed regional fracturing. (Id. Lahti, Applicant's Pre-pared Testimony at 5, ff. Tr. 6750.) The consequences of

-1/

It should also be noted that this " fact" is proposed without. record support.

the BRH tank rupture were found not to endanger the health and safety of the public, and the environmental risks from a core melt release were found to be acceptably small. (Appli-cant Proposed Findings 341-344, 345-361.)

Intervenor Proposed Finding 9 is misleading. This Proposed Finding asserts, among other things, that at this time it is not possible to say that there is not a continuous joint running from the site to the Rock River. The testimony of both the Applicant and the NRC Staff is miscited in support.

The testimony of Applicant's witness, fairly read, is clearly to the contrary. At Tr. 6767, the page cited by Intervenor, Mr. Holish testified as follows:

O But you cannot say there is not a continuous joint running from this site to the river, can you?

A I cannot say that, on the basis of physically seeing the actual joint, but, however, my engineering judgment and the interpretation of the data that we have collected so far would lead me to believe that the joints are discontinuous, especially from the mapping that has been done.

The citation to the NRC Staff's testimony, Tr. 6711, con-

-tains no reference to continuous jointing. To the contrary, the NRC Staff elsewhere testified unambiguously that the results of Applicant's investigation show that continuous fractures or joints do not run from the site to the Rock River. (Staley, NRC Staff Prepared Testimony at 14, ff. tr.

6649; Staley, Tr. 6655.)

I -

Intervenor Proposed Findings 10 and 11, taken together, constitute a mischaracterization of the testimony of Dr. Bernard ~ Wood, who testified for the Intervenor.

2 Intervenors imply that Dr. Wood's method / for characterizing the bedrock underlying the Byron site assumes that the rock formation contains joints at irregular intervals. The record does not support this interpretation. Dr. Wood

• advocated the_use of tracer studies and fissure modeling because the fractures were in his opinion continuous, not because they were irregularly spaced. (Wood, Tr. 6893-6900, 6918-6919; Wood, Intervenors' Prepared Testimony at 5, ff.

Tr. 6879.)

In, conclusion, Intervenor Proposed Findings 4 through 11 are.not supported by the record.

2. Applicant's Site Characterization Intervenor Proposed Findings 13 through 17 consti-tute an attack on the Applicant's Byron site investigation.

These findings are not supported by the record.

In Finding 13 it is asserted that Applicant was

. unable to state.how many of the'154 core borings _ intersected joint: fractures. In-fact, Lawrence Holish testified that, on the basis of his examination of the drilling lobes and observation of theLcores, probably every single boring intersected a joint fracture. (Holish, Tr. 6751. )

l

-2/-

'Although not. described, this' method apparently involves

- a tracer' and modeling study,: proposed- by Dr. Wood. in

-his prepared testimony'and the: subject ofLextensive cross-examination. .-(Wood, Intervenors' Prepared Testi-mony'at-8, ff. Tr. 6879; Wood, Tr.16919-6922.')

I l

Intervenor Proposed Finding 15 correctly states that Applicant has not performed a tracer study of contaminant migration from the Byron site to the Rock River. A tracer study is lengthy, difficult, and not well known by many engineers. (Holish, Tr. 6768, 6842, 6920.) In view of the adequacy of the Byron site investigation, such a study is simply not warranted. (Applicant Proposed Findings 317, 318.)

Intervenor Proposed Finding 17 incorrectly implies that, due to a possible factor of ten difference between effective porosity as calculated using the approach of D. T. Snow and that determined from in situ water pressure test and geophysical data, Applicant's final conclusion as to contaminant velocity is ten times too slow. At Tr. 6775, the page following that cited by Intervenor, counsel for Intervenor asked Applicant's witness that very question, i.e., could contaminant velocities as finally determined by Applicant be ten times too slow. The answer was "no."

Moreover, the Snow analysis was not used to evaluate design basis accident scenarios. It was one of two distinct methods employed to evaluate the hydrogeologic aspects of a postulated core melt release. Since the Snow analysis was designed for a kind of bedrock different than'that beneath the Byron l

site, the Snow analysis was used by Applicant only as a basis of comparison to determine the effects of aperture size and fracture size. (Holish, Tr. 6775; Holish, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 25-26, ff. Tr. 6750.)

Intervenor's attempt in Findings 13 through 17 to

, cast doubt upon the credibility of the Byron site investi-gation performed by the Applicant is without merit.

In view of the foregoing discussion, Applicant respectfully requests that Intervenor's proposed findings and conclusions on this contention not be adopted by the Board.

Respectfully submitted,

.jp 3 po ,

^

' .j z ! aj - I j' ';'

Joseph Gallo

~~

h. ,t M.

Mirk C. Furse Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company Joseph Gallo Mark C. Furse ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 5200 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 OL

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 & 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company, certifies that he filed the original and two copies of the attached " Applicant's Reply to the League's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Liquid Pathway" with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served a copy of the same on each of the persons at the addresses shown on the attached service ,

list. Service on the Secretary and all parties, unless otherwise indicated, was made by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 18th day of July, 1983.

E'2 //f?

One of the Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago,. Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 m

h p .--

e-SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Mr. Ivan W. Smith Secretary Administrative Judge and Chairman ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Atomic Safety and Licensing Service Section Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Betty Johnson Dr. Richard F'.' Cole 1907 Stratford Lane Atomic Safety and Licensing Rockford, Illinois 61107 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Diane Chavez Washington, D.C. 20555 SAFE 326 North Avon Street Atomic Safety and Licensing' Rockford, Illinois 61103 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Bruce von Zellen Washington, D.C. 20555 Department of Biological Sciences Northern Illinois University Chief Hearing Counsel' DeKalb, Illinois 60115 Office of the Executive Legal. Director Joseph Gallo, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isi.am, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Washington, D.C. 20036 Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Jane Whicher BPI HMr. Steven C. Goldberg Suite 1300

-Ms. Mitzi A'. Young 109 N. Dearborn Office of the Executive Legal . Chicago, Illinois 60602 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Ms. Patricia Morrison Washington, D.C.. 20555 5568 Thunderidge Drive Rockford, Illinois 61107 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board Panel Mr. David Thomas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 77 South Wacker Drive-Washington, D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60621 Mr. Richard J. Rawson Office of the Executive-Legal Director-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

_ l