ML20040G296
| ML20040G296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1982 |
| From: | Rawson R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8202120128 | |
| Download: ML20040G296 (14) | |
Text
i l
4111Y2,, x o
'N UNITED STATES OF Af1 ERICA
}
s - c[ ', -
E'p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
l e
BEFORE THE AT0111C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7-k[.
-Q^ ' ')
7s 4~,
s In the Matter of
)
)
ps s
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
.G ' li
)
50-455 0.L.
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO DAARE/ SAFE'S FIRST ROUND OF INTERR0GATORIES PERTAINING TO DES DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff hereby responds to Intervenor DAARE/ SAFE's interrogatories pertaining to the Staff's Draft Enviromental Statement.
The Staff notes that it is under no obligation to respond since DAARE/ SAFE fias not complied with 10 CFR $ 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
That section of the regulations requires that interrogatories to the Staff be filed with the presiding officer, who may require answers from the Staff after finding that answers are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers are not obtainable from any other source.
In the interest of expediting this proceeding, however, the Staff voluntarily provides this response. The Staff reserves its right to require that future discovery requests to it be submitted in compliance with 10 CFR
$ 2.720(h)(2)(fi).
The Staff further notes that these interrogatories were not served by DAARE/ SAFE in time to require a response prior to the February 5, 1982 daadline for DES discovery established by the Licensing Board in its Revised Schedule of September 9,1981.
Under Commission rules, even if 10 CFR s 2.740b applied to these interrogatories directed to the reic:".23 OnIGIEL 8202120128 820210 PDR ADOCK 050004S4
~
M Jf O
r.DR
l l
. Staff (which it does not,10 CFR 5 2.740b, n.4) responses would be due nineteen days after service.1/ Since DAARE/ SAFE served its interrogatories on January 20, 1982,2/ responses would not be due until after the February 5 deadline for the completion of discovery on the DES.
The filing of these responses within the time otherwise alotted by Commission rules should not be construed as a waiver of the Staff's right to insist on strict conpliance with the schedule for remaining discovery in this proceeding.
The Staff's answers and objections to DAARE/ SAFE's DES interrogatories follow.
Professional qualifications and affidavits of the Staff personnel responsible for the answers given are attached.
The Staff moves for a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR 66 2.740(c)(1),(4) with respect to those interrogatories to which objections are provided.
The grounds for the protective order sought are stated in each objection.
1/
Under 10 CFR 9 2.740b, fourteen days are provided for filing of answers and objections to interrogatories.
Since service in this instance was by normal U.S. mail, an additional five days are added to the reply period under 10 CFR 5 2.710.
-2/
The interrogatories received by the Staff did not include a certificate of service and were not recieved by the Staff until January 28, 1982.
Accordingly, the Staff's responses are filed within Taurteen days of the date of receipt, i.e., February 11.
Additionally, though DAARE/ SAFE has captioned its interrogatories as the "first round" of discovery on the DES, the time for further discovery on the DES has elapsed.
l m
I
. II. OBJECTIONS TO INTERR0GATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The Staff objects to the following interrogatories and requests a protective order, pursuant to 10 CFR 55 2.740(c)(1), (4), directing that responses to these interrogatnries need not be filed.
A.
Interrogatory No. 3 "In section 2 of the Byron DES, a ' conservative' estimate of growth of demand for Com-Ed electricity is stated as 2.4 percent a year.
In the latest rate increase requested by Com-Ed they indicate the demand as growing by 2 percent per year.
Please explain the discrepency. How is this difference going to effect the figures cited in Table 2.6? If, in fact, there is a decrease in demand by 1.6 percent, how will this effect the figures of Table 2.6?"
Interr ogatory No. 4 "In section 3, Alternatives, conservation was not even considered.
Is there a reason for such an action?"
Interrogatory No. 5 "If Com-Ed were to embark on a vigorous campaign to encourage conservation among its customers, are there any forecasts as to the savings in electricity generated and costs? Please explain,"
The Staff objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that they do not relate to a matter in cnntroversy and seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See 10 CFR 5 2.740(b)(1).
No admitted DAARE/ SAFE contention deals with the subject of need for power, energy conservation or other alternatives to the operation of the Byron facility.
To the contrary, DAARE/ SAFE Contention 5, which attempted to raise the subject of demand for electricity and need for power in this proceeding, was denied admission.
DAARE/ SAFE is not entitled to conduct discovery on every subject
. discussed in the DES; Commission rules limit discovery to matters in controversy in this proceeding.
10 CFR 6 2.740(b)(1). Accordingly, these interrogatories are beyond the scope of proper discovery in this proceeding, do not seek to obtain information on matters which are relevant to issues in this proceeding, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Staff, therefore, requests that the Licensing Board issue a protective order, pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.740(c), directing that a response to these interrogatories need not be filed.
B.
Interrogatory No. 6 "In filing the DES, was there any one major problem that concerned the Staff? Did the Staff have any question of the validity or reason to question the statistics that Com-Ed provided? Are all staff members that worked on the DES (or reviewed it) perfectly satisfied with the product? Were there'any dissenting viewpoints expressed by Staff?"
Response to Interrogatory No. 6 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and imprecise. The " statistics" referenced therein are unspecified. Under any reasonable construction, the interrogatory is further objectionable on the grounds that it does not directly relate to a matter in controversy and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See 10 CFR 9 2.740(b)(1).
r
. For the above reasons, the Staff requests that the Licensing Board issue a protective order, pursuant to 10 CFR f 2.740(c), directing that a response to this interrogatory need not be filed.
Regarding the last question in this interrogatory, the NRC has an established procedure by which any member of the Staff may document a differing professional opinion to any agency action or decision. See NRC Manual Chapter 4125. No differing professional opinion has been documented in this case.
C.
Interrogatory No. 7 "Will a study be initiated on the psychological effects on the surrounding population if and when the Byron Nuclear Power Station is turned on? How would such a study be implemented?"
Response to Interrogatory No. 7 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it does not relate to a matter in controversy and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See 10 CFR 6 2.740(b)(1). The subject of psychological stress is not involved in this proceeding. No DAARE/ SAFE contention, admitted or rejected, raised the subject of psychological stress. Accordingly, Interrogatory No. 7 does not relate to a matter in controversy and is beyond the proper scope of discovery in this proceeding. The Staff, therefore, requests that the Licensing Board issue a protettive order, pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.740(1), directing that a response to this interrogatory need not be filed.
l
. D.
Summary Request for Relief For the reasons given in the Staff's responses to Interrogatories 3 through 7, the Staff objects to those interrogatories and moves that a protective order be entered precluding discovery into the matters raised therein.
III. RESPONSES TO INTERR0GATORIES TO WHICH THE STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION Interrogatory No. 1 "Will the operation of the Byron Nuclear Power Station add to or increase the exposure level to individuals of radioactive materials emitted cumulatively from Com-Ed's other nuclear power stations?
If so, by how much?"
Response to Interrogatory No.1 As part of its requirements to assess the environmental impact of nuclear-powered electric generating facilities, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission routinely determines the potential maximum radiation doses to individual members of the general public living within an 80-km (50 mile) radius of the facility as discussed in the Draft Environmental Statement (NUREG-0848, Appendix C). Table C.7 in the DES compares the calculated dose commitment to a maximally-exposed individual and the general public from Byron plant operation with the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Experience with operating nuclear power stations has demonstrated (a) that radiation doses decrease with distance from the facility due to the effects of dilution in increasing volumes of air and water; and (b) that a member of the public who is exposed to radioactivity at or near the
. maximum calculated levels (which are generally well below the allowable limits) from a liquid pathway, such as ingestion of water, is very unlikely to receive the maximum calculated dose from a gaseous pathway, e.g., inhalation.
All other nuclear power facilities are required to meet the same dose design objectives as the Byron facility, and in fact de so with maximum doses which are generally comparable to those at Byron (i.e.,
much less than the Appendix I design objectives shown in Table C.7).
There are no other nuclear power facilities within 50 miles of Byron (the nearest is Quad Cities, located about 55 miles WSW).
For the Byron facility the maximum potential doses were calculated at a distance of 1.5 miles for gaseous effluents, and at a distance of 0.25 miles for liquid effluents.
The actual doses to a member of the public will in all likelihood be much smaller than the values calculated for the hypothetical maximum exposed individual, and the values continue to decrease with increasing distance from the facility.
Since this is true for all nuclear power facilities, any doses from one facility, when added to those from any other facility, will be much less than the Appendix I design objectives, and in all probability much less than the maximum individual doses calculated for Byron, and shown in Table C.7.
Additionally, in NUREG-0543, " Methods for Demonstrating Compliance with the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190)," it is shown that there is reasonable assurance that sites with up to four operating reactors, having releases within Appendix I design objectives, are also in conformance with 40 CFR Part 190, which limits individual doses to 25 mrem or less to the total body and/or any organ (except the thyroid, which must be limited to 75 mrem or less) over any 12 consecutive months.
. 4 Interrogatory No. 2 "The DES states that there exists an apparently efficient system for the monitoring of fish taken from the Rock River.
Could an equally efficient system be estabished to monitor human births? Could such a system be established to draw a' baseline of the health of' people 'in the surrounding area:
the births, deaths, cancers, birth defects, infant deaths, etc., before the plant is turned on, then monitoring of the population to determine any changes (especially in relation to releases of radiation from the plant). Has there _ever been any consideration of such a plan? How would such a plan be proposed and implemented?"
Response to Interrogatory No. 2 1
It is not clear from the interrogatory what " existing" fish nonitoring system is referred to.
In any event, it is not considered feasible to monitor human births and the general population in order to detect epidemiological changes such as birth defects, cancer, and deaths which could be attributed to radiation releases from the Byron Station.
Radiation doses due to operation of the two-unit Byron facility are projected to be much lower than dosas received from natural background radiation and, in fact, well below the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Further, nuclear power reactors are designed to operate in such a manner that the resulting offsite doses are much lower than the annual limits set by 40 CFR Part 190 (no more than 25 mrem to the total body and/or any organ except the thyroid, which must be limited to no more than 75 mrem) and even the higher of these 40 CFR 190 limits is l
less than the annual dose received from natural background in Illinois.
Against this background radiation, the discrete health effects attributable to plant operation are virtually indistinguishable. A discussion of the projected health effects to the general public from operation of the Byron facility is contained in Section 5.9.3.2 of the DES.
. Interrogatory No. 8
" List all conditions under which the early notification system would be used. What is the average number of times such an early warning system has been used with other nuclear power stations?"
Response to Interrogatory No. 8 The early notification system would be used under the following conditions:
a.
Following declaration by the licensee of a Site Area Emergency, if sheltering near the site is deemed advisable (NUREG-0654, Appendix 1);
b.
Following declaration by the licensee of a General Emergency (NUREG-0654, Appendix 1);
c.
On an annual basis during the emergency preparedness exercise, to test the public notification system as required by NRC regulations (10 CFR 50 Appendix E, Part IV, F);
d.
At other times to verify the operation of one or more units of the system (growl tests) or in conjunction with fires or other emergency situations if specific units of the system are used for those purposes (NUREG-0654, Appendix'3).
10 -
- 5 The NRC has no statistical data on the average numberLof times the early' warning system has been used since the date requirement for demonstrated.
operability for such a system, originally July 1, 1981 (10 CFR Part 50, q Appendix E, at IV,.D.3), was extended to February 1,1982 by a modifica-i tion to the regulations (46 FR 63031, December 30,1981).
4 Respectfully submitted, s
Af-2
~~
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of February,1982 4
I t
)
4
--ww~
w.<y, m.
e
-e
--.e er,----,m------e
---.--e---
s.-(
]1 -
AFFIRMATI0h 0F PREPARATION I, Richerd K. Struckmeyer, being duly sworn, state that ~I was-responsible for preparing the foregoing response to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2.
That response is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
W
(/.
I Sworn to gnd signed before me this /b N day of February,1982.
l s
'f tAshnu 4.l k o
~
\\
Wotary Publyt
//
My commission expires:
/, / M N s
F
/
I, C. Richard Van Niel, being duly shorn, state that I'was -
~
responsible for preparing the foregoing rtsponse to Interrogatory No. 8.
That response is true and correct to the tres,t of my knowledge, t,
Sworn to and signed before me
.this Qf L day of Februaryg 1982 ll':.2[a '?h R.Rn Notary Public j}
m.
My' commission expires: Odi. /
c gg
/f U
()
em.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Dr. R. K. Struckmeyer My name is Richard K. Struckmeyer.
I am an Environmental Analyst employed by the Radiological Assessment Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
I am responsible for reviewing and evaluating the radiological impacts on the environment from proposed and existing nuclear power plants, and review of utilities' emergency plans with regard to their effectiveness for offsite dose a s sessment.
I received a B.S. degree in Physics from Bowling. Green University in 1970, and 4
M.S. and Ph.D degrees in Bionucleanics from.Purdue University in 1972 and 1976, respectively.
I have five Iyears,of ' professional experience in health physics and environmental assessment.
From February,1977, to April,1978, I was employed by Ebasco Services, Inc., where my major responsibilities concerned dose calculations, specification of health physics instrumentation, and recommendation of in-plant radiological monitoring instrumentation.
For the next three years,,until March. of 1981, I i
- h. eld a position' as a health physicist' with' the U.'S. ' Environmental Protection ' "
Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. My duties included' assessment of potential radiation doses due to hypothetical releases from a model high-level radioactive waste repository and preparation of guidance on offsite emergency instrumentation for assessment of radiological impacts of nuclear incidents.
Since joining the-staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in March of this year, I have had responsibilities in three major areas:
dose assessment calculations, analysis 'of radiological impacts of both operating and proposed nuclear power plants on the environment, and evaluation of sections of energency plans pertaining to offsite radiologicci impacts.
I am a member of Sigma Xi (Research Society of !! orth America) and the Health Physics Society.
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I' C. RICHARD VAN HIEL Organization:
Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection & Enforcement, NRC-
Title:
Section Leader Education:
B.S. Mechanical Engineering, U. of Rochester, 1955 1980-1981 Section Leader, Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch Provides technical direction and reviews work of assigned personnel, plans and coordinates the emergency preparedness. evaluation of assigned reactor facilities -
to ensure compliance with. regulations. Coordinates and provides technical-assistance for various generic problems, provides guidance and assigns per-sonnel to conduct technical review of documents and licensing activities.
Represents the Commission at meetings with utility applicants and licensees, and with'other <;overnmental agencies. Prepares responses to congressional and public inquiries.
Serves as Acting Branch Chief, which. designated. (NRC) 1979-1980 Project Manager - State liaison.:
Responsible for obtaining concurrence for number of States with operating nuclear power plants but with no NRC concurrence. Met.with State and local officials,.,
a wr coordinated review efforts of the Federal interagency regional advisory committees.
Coordinated concurrence program with the new Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Represented the Commission at meetings with licensees, State and loccl governments.
y (NRC) 1971-1979 Senior Reactor Safety Egineer Reviewed sections of preliminary.an~ - final safety analysis' reports for nuclear d
power plants in areas of licensee competence, organization and staff adequacy, emergency planning, industrial security programs, training and testing associated with initial plant startup. Reviewed and prepared standards and guides relating to operational and industrial safety. Participated in public hearings on reactor licensing proceedings as an expert staff witness.
(AEC/NRC) 1968-1971 Reactor Safety Specialist Assisted in planning, promoting, and coordinating health ~and'safetyjaspects of AEC-owned nuclear reactors; developed guides, policies, and procedures for AEC field office surveillance of'AEC-owned reactors; conducted appraisals of AEC field office reactor safety and emergency preparedness activities; evaluated AEC contractor nuclear safety activities; prepared safety guides,' codes and standards.
(AEC) i 1959-1968 Engineer / Shift Supervisor Monitored the operation of production. reactors, prepared ~ procedures for equipment checkout and operation, and reviewed and revised existing operating procedures and safety rules.
Supervised the operation of a nuclear production reactor, l
assigned and directed reactor and auxiliary operators, took emergency action I
when required, analyzed malfunctions and authorized repair of equipment and instrum'entation, updated existing emergency procedures, and revised building and equipment safety and criticality rules.
(E.I.duPont) 1955-1959 Activ.e duty, U. S. Navy I
s,
i-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
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPCNSE TO DAARE/ SAFE'S FIRST ROUND OF INTERROGATORIES PERTTINING TO DES DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER",
dated February 10, 1982 in the above captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit ~in the United. States mail., first; class, or as c' i.ndicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal nail system, or as indicated by a double asterisk through deposit by Federal Express, this 10th day of February,1982:
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Administrative Judge 1907 Stratford Lane Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
(
DeKalb, Illinois 60015
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge
- Atomic Safety and L'icensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Board Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603
'* Docketing and Service Section Myron M. Cherry, E.a.
Office of the Secretary of-the Commission Cherry & Flynn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 3700 Washington, DC 20555 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement M ;[, / d g
799 Roosevelt Road Richptd J. Rawson Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Counsel for NRC Staff
.-.