ML20038A434
| ML20038A434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/03/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-CA, TASK-SE SECY-A-80-167, NUDOCS 8110300100 | |
| Download: ML20038A434 (23) | |
Text
--
w uNnto trArts NUCLEAR REGULATORY commits;ON j
~ ~
~
ADJUDICATORY ITEM
~
SECV-A-80-167 j
November 3, 1980 l
COMMISSIONER ACTI.ON The Commissioners For
- James A..Pitzgerald From
Assi's' tant General Counsel",,
REVIEW OF ALAB-616 (In the Matter of Commonwealth
Subject:
Edison Company)
Facility:
Zion Station, Units 1 and 2 To inform the Commission of an Appeal Board 53
Purpose:
decision, review of which has not_been sought,
]l
~~
{and which, in our opinion, Review Time Expires:
November 17, 1980, as extended.
By Order dated February 14, 1980, the Licensing Discus sion_:
Board authorized approval of the utility's applica-tion to enlarge the storage capacity of the spent fuel paol at its Zion Station facility subject to specified conditions and in consideration of certain commitments made by the applicant.
LBP-80-7, 11 i
NRC 245 (1980).
These commitments included i
(1) initiation of a corrosion surveillance program, (2) conduct of tests to determine whether fuel 1
assemblies could be safely inserted into the racks,
and (3) verification of sufficient boral plates t.:
preclude the occurrence of criticality in the spent fuel pool.
On appeal, the State of Illinois, inter-l o
venor at the application proceeding, asserted six errors on the part of the Licensing Board.
For the i reasons set forth below, the Appeal Board affirmed. l First, Illinois challenged as unsupported by the j f p%
f acts the Licensing Board's finding that the risk i l of corrosion in the fuel racks was minimal and that adequate steps to guard against it were being
=-
taken.
The Appeal Board found that * [t]he Licensing l Board examined the problem in detail."
Slip op. at i 2.
It determined that the State's argument was l
predicated upon a misconception of the nature of Informatica in this reard was dieted g
act:
V loot, OGC, 43224 in accordante with the Freedom of Information Act, exempticas j F0I A-91-W4 g
2 the applicant's evidentiary burden.
The applicant, in the Appeal Board's view, was obligated to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
" reasonable assurances" that the public health, safety and environmental concerns were protected.
We concur.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 3), CLI-75-14, 2 NRC 835, 8 39 fn. 8 (1974).
In reviewing the record under this standard, the, Appeal Board found the Licensing Board's findiniJ on thf a ' issue supp ported by "the overwhelming' weight 'of' the credible evidence in the record."
Slip op at 3.
Second, Illinois argued that the Licensing Board erred in failing to raise the applicant's commit-ments to the level of " technical specifications".
As a result, the commitments were merely voluntary and unenforceable.
The Appeal Board noted that the generic issue of what should be included in licensee's technical specifications is now before athe Commission in a proposed rulemaking proceeding.
(45 Fed. Reg. 45916 (July 8, 1980))
While agreeing with the Licensing Board that the effects of corrosion and the objects of the surveillance and testing commitments were not of the gravity and immediacy which the Appeal Board found necessary in Trojan */ to mandate inclusion in a licensee's technical pecifications, the Appeal Board sought
~
to dispose of the issues of permanence and enforce-abiliuy by incorporating by referenes, into..its_
Order the applicant's commitments.
gy,i Third, the State challenged as contrary to the f acts the Licensing Board's finding that no reason-able basis existed to conclude that a loss of spent fuel pool water might be allowed to occur through n eg le ct.
The State, however, failed to point to (Trojan Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263
- /
Portland General Electric Co.
the Appeal Board concluded, 9 NRC at 273, that
~
(1979).
- Here,
" technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters...
deemed necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situ-ation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety ( footnote omitted)."
3 The any facts overlooked by the Licensing Board.
Appeal Board assumed that the State was relying on a statement by one of its witnesses which specu-lated that " pool water might be allowed to boil away 'under a major accident scenario or simply through neglect'."
Slip op. at 9-10.
The Appeal Board concluded that "there is no support for the apparently offhand suggestion of the State's witness that applicant's employees might irrespon-sibly walk away. from the. reactor or carelessly Slip op. at overlook a boi. ling' spent-fuel pool."
The Appeal Board concluded that the Licensing 10.
Board evaluated the State's speculations and accorded them the considerations they deserved.
Fourth, Illinois argued that the record failed to establish adequate access to manual sources of makeup water in the case of a severe accident resulting in high amounts of radiation and a malfunction of the automatic makeup water systems.
The Appeal Board found the Licensing Board's finding of adequate access was supported by uncon-tradicted testimony establishing access to manual sources of makeup water even in the event of an The Appeal Board accident described by the State.
concluded that "the State's position is... not well-taken."
Slip op. at 12.
the State argued that the Licensing Board
- Fifth, improperly excluded the testimony of one of its Mr. Cleary's testimer witnesses, a Mr. Cleary.
was of fered on the issue whether the facility' a emergency plan needed modification as a result of spent fuel pool.
On voir dire, an enlargement of the Mr. Cleary did not represent that he was prepared to address the specific question at issue.
The Appeal Board concluded that Mr. Cleary's testimony was properly excluded as irrelevant to the issues before the Licensing Board.
Finally, the State asserted that the Licensing Board erred in failing to require groundwater monitoring The Appeal Board, while at the Zion facility.
questioning the Licensing Board's implied criticism of existing groundwater monitoring at the Zion f acility, agreed that this issue was not before the Consequently, the Licensing Board's failure Board.
to issue an order requiring such monitoring could not constitute error.
..._ _.. :..... _ _ _..k 4
~
T In our view,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l
/
[j';-
Recommendation _:
A L,~
- 9. y_ R ames A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
ALAB-616 Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.11onday, Ncvember 17, 1980.
Conmission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted'to the CommissionersIf NLT November 10, 1980, with an infornation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and cocment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be-apprised of when cornents may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Commission Staff Offices Secretariat
ilIEff 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
p m
.e-
,@g
}
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
[
k Richard S. Salzman, Chairman 4
d Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W. Reed Johnson O
4
./
In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-295
)
50-304 (Zion, Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Storage Pool Modification I
Assistant Attolneys General Susan N. Sekuler and Anne K.
Markey, Chicago, Illinois (Attorney General Scott with them on the brief), for the State of Illinois, intervenor.
Messrs. Michael I. Miller and Philip P. Steptoe, Chicago, Illinois, for the Commonwealth Edison Company, applicant.
Mr. Richard J. Goddard (Mr. Steven C. Goldberg with him on the brief) for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
DECISION October 2, 1980
( ALAB-616)
Introduction.
Commonwealth Edison's application to enlarge the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool at its nuclear gen-erating station in Zion, Illinoi's, was referred in due course to a public hearing before a Licensing Board.
The State of Illdnois intervened in the proceeding and opposed the application.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Board authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to grant the utility's application subject to specified conditions.
LBP-80-7, 11 NRC 245 (19 80).
x
Now before us is the State's " appeal.
It challenges a number of the Board's factual findings and legal rulings; we examine each in turn.
1.
Corros ion _.
A principal issue in the proceeding below was whether the new fuel racks the applicant proposed to install
. ~..
'" might eventually c'orrode, and av. ell, possibly causing used
~...
fuel elements to stick as they are being inserted or withdrawn.
This could create a situation that might allow radioactivity to escape to the environment.
The Licensing Board exanined the problem in detail.
For reasons spelled out clearly and thoroughly in a well-annotated opinion, the Board found the risk involved miniral and adequate steps being taken to guard against it.
11 NRC at 268-78.
Illinois challenges these findings. Its brief, however, contains no serious attempt to show either that the record was inadequate to support them or that the Board misunderstood or The crux ignored evidence pointing to a different conclusion.
The State of Illinois' argument is legal rather than factual.
contends that the findings are flawed because they do not rest on proof "that swelling of the racks, due to corrosion, was a
.Brief at 1.)
Stated another way, Illinois
(
null proposition."
asserts that "[t]he Applicant did not meet itr burden to show conclusively that swelling would not occur or that its plan to
, (Brief at 4.)
alleviate swelling was final and effective."
i The State misconceives the nature of the applicant's evi-It was not obliged to meet an absolute stan-dentiary burden.
dard but to provide " reasonable assurance" that public health, safety and environmental concerns were. protected, and to de::en-strate-that assurance "by a preponderance of the evidence." 1 This standard is set by the Administrative Procedure Act which 2/
governs Commission adjudicatory hearings.
We have reviewed the evidence before the Licensing Board in the light of that standard.
The Board's resolution of the corrosion point reflects not merely the preponderance but the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence in the record on The reasoning and the basis for the Board's con-the question.
clusions are fully elucidated in its decision; nothing would be Accordingly, we affirm this point gained by our restating them.
j/
on the opinion below.
L Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian point Station, 1/
CLI-7 5-14, 2 NRC 835, 839 fn. 8 (1975), expres-Unit No. 3),
sly affirming on this point. ALAB-188, 7 AEC 323, 356-57 (1974), and ALAB-287, 2 NRC 379, 387 (1975).
82231; Duke Power Co. (Catawba Station, Units 2/
See 42 U.S.C.
1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 39 7, 405 fn. 19 (197 6).
We often review the evidentiary basis for our rulings on 3/
technical issues even when they coincide with those of the
~~
When, however, that Board's analysis of the Board below.
evidence and the reasons for its findings are well displayed, there is no occasion for such duplication, as is here the case, i
4 2.
Failure to impose " Technical Specifications."
During the course of the proceeding the applicant made a number of commitments.
Among other things, it agreed to undertake a corrosion surveillance program, to test whether the fuel assem-blies can be safely inserted in the racks and.to verify that the tubes and racks contain sufficient boral-PIates' to pieclude the occurrence of criticality in the spent fuel pool.
The 4/
~
Board's opinion re flects those commitments.
The State argues that the applicant's commitments are insufficient to protect the public health and safety.
According to Illinois, they are " voluntary" and " unenforceable."
Pointing to 10 C.F. R. 550.59, the State argues that a licensee may termi-nate such commitments at will without advance notice to the staff.
So long as the change does not affect technical specifications or involve an unreviewed safety question, the State asserts, the licensee's only obligation under the regulations is to maintain a record of the change available for NRC inspection.
In contrast,
" technical specifications" are part of the license itself.
These may not be disregarded or changed by the licensee without the staf f's consent and severe sanctions may be imposed for their violation.
42 U.S.C. 62232(a); 10 C.F.R. 3850.36 and 50.100.
Illineis contends that the Board erred in not raising the appli-cant's commitments to the level of technical specifications.
4/
See 11 NRC at 277, 280-82, and 295-96, where the nature and
- .
- rpose of these commitments are fully explained.
What matters should and should not be made " technical specifications" is not entirely free from doubt.
We traced the history of this requirement in our recent Trojan decision (which also concerned,an application to expand the storage capacity of
- a. spent. fuel pool) from its statutory origin through successive Commission implementing regulations and the ~ staf f's regulatory -
guides.---5/ It is sufficient to note here our conclusion in Trojan that, while technical specifications may be required in connection with the operation of a spent fuel pool (9 NRC at 273),
there is neither a statutory nor a regula-tory requirement that every operational detail set forth in an applicant's safety analysis report (or equivalent) be subject to a techni-cal specification, to be included in the li-cense as a absolute condition of operation which is legally binding upon the licensee unless and until changed with specific Commis-sion approval.
Rather, as best we can discern it, the contemplation of both the Act and the regulations is that technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the i= position of rigid conditions or limitations upon reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or event giving rise to an
~~~
immediate threat to the public health and
'T~"~~~
safety. (Emphasis added;. footnote omittad.)
Since that opinion was handed down (and imnediately prior to oral argument in this case) the Commission hr.s published S/
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979).
I
- 6/that it is considering establishing a new standard for
~
notice deternining which safety requirements must be reflected in tech-7/
nical specifications and which should be placed in other categories 7 In its notice, the Commission expressed concern that the increased volume of technical speci-
~~
fications may be decreasi.ng the effectiveness of these specifications to focus the attention
~
of licensees on matters of more immediate in-
~
portance to safe operation of the facility._8/
We were unaware of this notice at the tine of the argu-6/
Regrettably, neither the staf f -- which should
~
ment.
have known of it -- nor any of the other parties called our attention to it.
45916 (July 8, 1980).
We furnished the par-4 5 Fed. Reg.
7/
ties copies of this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the suggestion that they might care to comment to the Commission on the proposal.
8/
45 Fed. Reg. at 45917.
The Commission elaborated that point with the further observation that (ibid. ) :
~
While each of the requirements in today's technical specifications plays.a role in pro-tecting public health 'and safety, some require-ments have greater immediate importance -than --.
others in that they relate more directly to facility operation.
These are the reqdirements that pertain to items which the facility operator must be aware of a6d which he must control to To a operate the f acility in a safe funner.
large extent, the relative importance of these as distinguished from those re-requirements, lated to long term effects or concerns, has been diminished by the increase in the total volume of technical specification requirements.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
l
.f that the ef-We agree with the Board below (11 NRC at 277) fects of corrosion and the objects of the testing and surveil-i lance programs in question are not of the gravity and immediacy alluded to in Trojan that calls for translation from commitments Nothing in the Commission's proposal
-to technical specifications.
On the contrary, we think for rulemaking suggests otherwise.
to that these matters are clearly not of "immediate importance believes l
the safe operation of the f acility" that the Commission should be incorporated into operating licenses.
The This does not mean the State's concerns are frivolous.
slow action of corrosion and a gradual loss of neutron-absorbent How-material can present serious problems if left unchecked.
j i
ever, Illinois' fears -- that the commitments to guard aga nst ff noti-these possibilities might be withdrawn without prior sta fication or approval and that the means for enforcing them are inadequate -- can be allayed without freighting the applicant's (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
Moreover, the increased volume and detail oftec 2/
crease in the number of proposed change requests that must be processed, has increased the paper-work burden for both licensees and the NRC staff.
This is because s =50.36 requires that technical specifications be included in each operating of its importance to safety, must be processed For changes involving as a license amendment.
matters of lesser importance to safety, the pro-c increased paperwork has had no significant bene-fit with regard to protecting the public health and safety.
i
. The applicant license with additional technical specifications.
)
has pledged to the staf f, to the Licensing Board and to this Board not to change or drop those commitments without prior it has expressly acknowledged that those prom-staff approval; ises were made to obta b favorable action on the proposal now before us.
(App. Tr. 60.)
We perceive no reason why that pledge should not be formally incorporated in our own order in this case, which is of course enforceable to the same extent as 9/ This disposition settles the perma-a Co renission decision.
nence ar.d enforceability of the applicant's commitments without trampling on any party's rights and without having to predict
~
We have the outcome of the anticipated rulemaking proceeding.
neither the prescience nor the predeliction to attempt the lat-The course we have chosen avoids the need to ter endeavor.
venture into those difficult and uncharted waters.
Negligent loss of water from the spent fuel' pool. Should 3.
il.ing,
the Iquid in which they are immersed be lost through bo I
evaporation or other means, the fuel assembliis~ stored In the pool would heat up rapidly and, interv5nors suggested, this We do not imply that we have cause to believe that the c.pplicant would not abide by its commitments; we simply 9/
take up applicant's proposal in the spirit in which itWe are confide sas made.
See App. Tr. 60.
further guidance from us, the staff will be able to ecord the commitments thus embodied so that its inspec-cut tors can insure compliance.
~ ~. ~
i 1
_9 l
See 11 could lead to potentially serious consequences.
NRC at 266-67.
After noting (among other things) the agreement of the State's own witness that three to six days at a minimum would be available in which additional water could be added to the pool, to. prevent this occurrence, as well as the witness' concession that adequate supplies of " makeup water" are avail-able at the site for this purpose, the Board found "no reason-
. that such an accident might be allowed to able basis occur through neglect."
11 NRC at 267.
Illinois excepted to that finding.
According to the State, it fails to " confront the facts on wliich appellant relies and the legal inferences those facts suggest," citing 395 F.2d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir.1968).
Un-Wingo v. Washington, fortunately, we are not told what "f acts" the Board overlooked.
Although required to specify "the precise portion of the record (10 C.F.R.
relied upon in support of the assertion of error" 52.762 (a)), Illinois ' brief on this' point is devoid of refer-ences to the record.
We assume that the state is relying on Dr. Resnikoff, one of its witnesses, because his prepared tes-timony recited that the pool water might be allowed to boil In response to a question posed by the Board itself re-1_0/
garding the loss of pool water as a result of severe Icakage, evidence was presented which led that Board to that the design features of the pool find, in addition, should preclude the possibility of a severe drainage accident in the fuel pool.
11 NRC at 287-88.
y r--.
,., o
away "under a major accident scenario or simply through no-glect."~~11/ At the hearing, this witness expanded on what he meant.
He explained that "if you simply turn off the cooling system.
. and walk away,." an accident could follow in about 12/
ten days but acknowledged on cross-examination that this
~
would require some " major disruption in '6ur society" in the 13/
nature of an act of God or war.
A major societal disruption,
~~
however, is not the equivalent of " neglect"; responsibilities 14/
for the former lie elsewhere than on the applicant.
We have discovered no other indication in the record about how the pool water might boil away through inattention and Illinois points to none.
In short, there is no support for the apparently offhand suggestion of the State 's witness that applicant's employees might irresponsibly walk away from the reactor or carelessly overlook a boiling spent fuel pool.
In these circumstances, the
is indeed apt.
The Supreme Court cogently observed in that 1978 11 /
Tr. fol.1528 at pp.1, 3, 19-20.
12/
Tr. 1560-61.
1_3_/
Tr. 1562.
j 14 /
See, Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission, 400 F.2d 778 TDTC. Cir.19 68 ).
d.
decision that (435 U.S. 519, 553-54) :
[A]dministrative proceedings should not be a game or a forum to engage in unjustified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscore reference to matters that "ought to be" con-sidered and then, after failing to do more to bring the matter to the agency's attention, seeking to have that agency determination vacated on the ground that the agency failed to consider matters "forcefullyJpresented.**
The Licensing Board gave the speculations of Illinois' witness appropriate consideration.
Access to " makeup water" in the event of a severe 4.
Illinois next asserts that there is no " factual accident.
where evidence to show that in the event of a severe accident, high amounts of radiation are present and the existing auto-mated makeup water systems malfunction, it can assure adequate access to manual sources of makeup water to preclude any danger to the public health and safety. "
(Brief at 17.)
The Licensing Placing reliance on uncontradicted tes-Board did not agree.
timony from witnesses before it, the Board below found that
[T]he pumps and heat exchangers of the spent fuel pool cooling system and the controls to the makeup water supply. are located in a room in the fuel building which has walls and ceil-ing of concrete.
Such equipment and controls are accessible under any circumstances (even if one of the reactors should experience a through a railroad trackway entrance to LOCA) the fuel building, and this could be done without going past the spent fuel pool.
11 NRC at 265 (record citations omitted).
~ _.. _ _..
The testimony cited supports that fi.nding; the State Neither does it attempt to points to no contrary evidence.
show that the Board relied upon witnesses who were unqualified The State's position is thus not well-taken.
or unknowledgeable.
5.
Exclusion of the testieny of Peter Cleary.
(a)
In addition to matters the intervenors put in contest, the Licensing Board raised issues of its own.
Among them was Board Question 4 (b), which inquired :
As a result of the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool and the proposed operation of the Station with increased spent fuel stor-age capacity, will it be necessary to 66dlfy the Physical Security Plan, Safeguards Contin-gency Plan, or the Emergency Plan for the Sta-tion? M/
The State of Illinois offered the prepared written testimony of Peter Gabriel Cleary in response to the Board's question.
(Tr.
1582.)
Af ter examining Mr. Cleary on voire dire (Tr. 1582-1601),
the applicant (with the staf f's support) moved to exclude his testirony and the accompanying exhibits.
As grounds for doing so, the parties argued that the proposed testimony was irrelevant as well as that the witness lacked expertise and his testirany objectionable hearsay.
(Tr. 159 3-9 4 ; 1600-01. )
The Board granted the motion on the first ground, explicitly ruling that Mr. Cleary's testimony did not address the question asked.
(Tr. 1610-11).
L 15/
11 NRC at 283.
4,
on appeal, the State attempts to demonstrate that Mr. Cleary was indeed an expert and that his testimony was not barred by the hearsay rule.
(Br. 18-21, 23. )
We need not and do not reach those questions because the Licensing Board was plainly right in excluding his evidence as irrelevant.
As the Board correctly perceived, its jurisdiction was 16/
limited by the Commission's notice of hearing.
' That juris-diction extended only to issues fairly raised by the applica-tion to codify the spent fuel pool, the sole matter which the 17/
Commission had placed before it.
This was why Board Question 4 (b) was drawn narrowly and sought evidence only about whether the Zion facility's emergency plan needed to be changed "as a result of the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool and the proposed operation of the Station with increased spent fuel storage capacity."
The Board was not empowered to reconsider whether the Zion f acility should have been licensed to operate in the first instance, or whether the amergency plan approved 18/
in conjunction with that license was generally in need of revision ~
16/
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316 3 NRC 167, 170-71 (19 76).
~-
17/
See, 43 Fed. Reg. 30938 (July 18, 1978) (Notice of Oppor-tunity for Hearing).
~
18/
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 fn. 6 (1979).
~-
Mr. Cleary's proposed testimony, however, addressed ohly those broad issues and ignored the narrow one posited by Board Question (Indeed, on voire dire, I!.r. Cleary virtually disclaimed 4 (b).
Tr. 1594-99.)
His evidence knowing anything about the latter.
was therefore irrelevant and the Board did not err in exc'luding it for that reason.
The State's of fer of proof, made in: mediately following the rejection of Mr. Cleary's testimony, in no way undercuts that The of fer took the form of counsel's elicitation from ruling.
Mr. Cleary of the gist of the evidence he would have given, had he been allowed to testify.
The Board had just explained that his testimony was being excluded for failure to address Board Question 4 (b) and counsel was not interrupted in maklag the offer of proof.
Nevertheless, Mr. Cleary was not asked to address how or why the emergency plan needed modification because the storage pool capacity was being enlarged, nor did he repre-L sent that he was prepared to do so.
(Tr. 1611-16.)
Illinois' brief on appeal similarly makes no claim that Mr. Cleary's evidence would have answered the Board's specific it too confirms that he was only going to question.
- Rather, explore broad questions about the adequacy of the existing emergency plan.
(Brief at 22.)
But those were not at issue in the hearing and the Board below was not only authorized but l
10 C.F.R. 82. 757 (b) ;
expected to keep out unrelated evidence.
5 U.S.C. 8556(d).
Mr. Cleary's testimony was therefore properly excluded as irrelevant.
Illinois also contends that the Board erred in find-(b)-
ing no need to change the emergency plan because of the proposed license arendment.
It position rests entirely on the alle,ga-tion (Br. 24) that "the State had no opportunity to comment on the record on problems that exist in the emergency plan."- But that position is without support in light of our ruling uphold-The State had ample ing the exclusion of Mr. Cleary's testimony.
opportunity to address the adequacy of the plan insofar as it was in issue, but it failed to do so.
6.
The need for groundwater monitoring.
(a)
Although the parties had asked to withdraw the issue, the Licensing Board on its own initiative retained in the proceeding the question whether the proposed pool modifications required groundwater in the vicinity to be monitored f$r radioactive contamination.
Af ter receiving and reviewing evidence on the 11 NRC at 29 2.
the Board concluded that 'the proposed modification
- question,
[of the spent fuel storage pool capacity] will not in itself increase the environmental impact of the (Zion]-Station."
Id.
at 294.
l
The Licensing Board explicitly recognized that the general need for groundwater monitoring " involves matters beyond the scope of this proceeding."
Id. at 293.
The Board nevertheless obs~erved in its opinion that the plant is inside the Zion city limits, fronts on Lake Michigan, and is proximate to a popular beachfront park and indicated concern that groundwater at the Zion facility was not now being monitored.
The Board noted that a current staf f regulatory guide (No. 3.44 at 82.5) points out the importance of doing so in the vicinity of spent fuel storage pools.
Id. at 293-94.
Illinois does not take specific issue with the finding (b) that the fuel pool modifications do not themselves increase the risk of groundwater contamination.
Rather, the State asserts that groundwater monitoring at Zion is generally necessary "to protect the public health and safety" and that the Licensing Board erred in not requiring it.
(Br. 25-26).
Although the L
State points to no evidence that supports its assertion, we reviewed the record bearing on the question anyway.
We agree with the Licensing Board that expanding the storage capacityL9/
of the spent fuel pool will not increase the risk of leakage.
Leakage through the pool liner is caught by channels that 19/
pipe it to collecting tanks for reprocessing as liquid
~-
Tram, Tr. fol 564 at p. 10.
A sampling test radwaste.
conducted during the hearings determined the total daily 11 NRC at 289 and leakage amounted to roughly one quart.
Tr. 588-89, 1921-23, 1926-29.
1
We also concur with that Board that the general necessity for groundwater monitoring was not before it in this hearing and therefore it did not err in declining to order the applicant 20/
to undertake such a program.'"-
With all deference, however, we cannot endorse the Board's implied criticism of the current status of groundwater monitoring.
The subject of underwater ground flow was previously explored in the environmental proceedings leading to licensing the f acility, where it was noted that drainage from the site is directly into 21/
The lake water has been and is now being 22/
monitored for radioactive contaminants.
Nothing in this record 20/
See point 5, supra, p.
12.
~~21/
See e a., the Final Environmental Statement (December 197 2) at p. II-5.
That Statement notes in EII.E.2 that "The geological structure in northeastern Illinois provides for an eastward flow of groundwater down-dip along the bedding plane tilt.
The Zion area Lacks regions of complex faulting which would tend to modify the direction of flow."
The sub-ject was also reconsidered when, at the applicant's request, the staff amended the technical specifications to eliminate the requirement for radiological monitoring of wells on the (landward) side of the plant.
No unusual levels of west radioactivity had been recorded in these samples from 1970 when monitoring was initiated until 1977 when it was discon-tinued (Tr. 1008-11).
22/
Applicant is continuing its program of monitoring the water Dr. John C. Golden testified that, under of Lake Michigan.
~~
a program in operation since 1970, the applicant " routinely monitors on a weekly basis all public water intakes in the area of the plant from Kenosha on the north to Lake Forest on the south side."
Tr. 1012-13.
- _ =.
.=.
I
. )
suggests that the current program inadequately protects the l
If Illinois has evidenc_e_ that indi-public health and safety.
cates otherwise -- and we note again that the State was pre-pared to drop the matter entirely earlier in the proceeding --
it should be brought directly to the attention of the' Director He has both the authority and nf Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
the responsibility to order the groundwater at Zion monitored, See 10 C.F.R. 82.206.
We il a need for doing so is shown.
i have no reason to believe that the Director will shirk his re-sponsibilities in the face of evidence calling for such a step to be taken.
(Cf., Illinois' Brief at 25-26).
6 Affirmed.
i It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l
l>>>
w a
Barbara A. Tompkins' Secretary to the Appeal Board 1
o
?
t i
._