ML20042C294

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Ninth Request for Admissions.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20042C294
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 03/29/1982
From: Dickson P, Piper H
JOINT APPLICANTS - CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR
To:
National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club
Shared Package
ML20042C295 List:
References
NUDOCS 8203310176
Download: ML20042C294 (24)
v • d • e


Text

,!

C) 3/29/82 o

+

p

'l'"TED

< STATES OF AMERICA 22 MiQ 29 pA224 NOCLhAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DWMY )

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-537 3 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) 9 / ~ cb i

) N (Clinch River Breeder Reactor .9 ,, 9 Plant) ) ~ F5.U N, 9 6 jan309F $

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.

q, gr.#sigj.((

p; f

AND THE SIERRA CLUB NINTH %g/

REQUEST TO APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSIONS  %

, sd Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.742, and in accordance with the Board's Prehearing Conference Order of February 11, 1982, the Department of Energy and Project Management Corporation, acting for themselves and on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (the Applicants), hereby submit their Responses to Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club, Ninth Request to Appli-cants for Admissions, dated March 18, 1982. /

  • / The Applicants' March 29, 1982 Mo: ion for a Protective Order objected to and sought relief from Admissions III 1-24; and IV (Contentions 10(a) and 17) 1 - 10.

8203310176 820329 di PDR ADOCK 05000537 N I Q PDR .7f$  !

i

I. Contention 2

1. The assumed frequency of anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) accidents in LWR's is less than once in a thousand reactor years.

The Applicants cannot truthfully admit or deny this for the reason that the Applicants have not performed calculations to determine the frequency of anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) accidents in LWRS. The Applicants admit that the following statement is included in the supplementary information of the NRC proposed rule on standards for the reduction of risk from anticipated transients without SCRAM (ATWS) events for light water-cooled nuclear power plants (Federal Register, Vol. 46 No. 226, page 57522, Nov. 24, 1981):

This experience suggests that the frequency of ATWS accidents is less than or of the order of once in a thousand reactor years.

2. The assumed frequency of anticipated j transient without scram (ATWS) accidents in LWR's is on the order of once in a thousand reactor years.

The Applicants cannot truthfully admit or deny this for the reasons that the applicants have not performed calculations to determine the frequency of anticipated

3-transient without scram (ATWS) accidents in LWRS. The Applicants admit that the following statement is l included in the supplementary information of the NRC [

proposed rule on standards for the reduction of risk from anticipated transients without SCRAM (ATWS) events for light water-cooled nuclear power plants (Federal Register, Vol. 46 No. 226, page 57522, Nov. 24,1981):

This experience suggests that the fre-quency of ATWS accidents is less than or of the order of once in a thousand reactor years.

3. With LWR's, there have been several observed precursor events, i.e., faults detected that ,

could have given rise to ATWS events.

The Applicants cannot truthfully admit or deny this for the reason that the Applicants have not performed evaluations to specifically determine if LWR experience shows faults detected which could have given rise to ATWS events. The Applicants admit that the statement is included in the supplementary information of the NRC proposed rule on standards for the reduction of risk from anticipated transeints without SCRAM (ATWS) events for light water cooled nuclear power plants (Federal Register, Vol. 46 No. 226, Page 57522, Nov. 24,1981) .

4. The fact that there have been several observed precursor events that could have given rise to ATWS events suggests that the frequency of ATWS accidents, although less than once in a thousand reactor years, may not be very much lese.

The Applicants cannot truthfully admit or deny this for the reasons that the Applicants have not performed calculations to determine the frequency of anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) accidents in LWRS. The Applicants admit that the statement is included in the supplementary information of the NRC proposed rule on standards for the reduction of risk from anticipated transients without SCRAM (ATUS) events for light water-cooled nuclear power plants (Federal Register, Vol. 46 No. 226, page 57522, Nov. 24,1981) .

5. There is insufficient actuarial experience with LMFBR's to reasonably indicate that the probability of an ATWS event in the CRBR is less than that in an LWR.

The Applicants deny this statement. There is an exten-sive base of LMFBR design, construction, and operating experience which has been developed over the last 34 years, both in the U.S. and in other countries, which

is available for use in the safety evaluation of CRBRP technology.

6. It would be imprudent to assume for purposes of designing the CRBR to cope with accidents that the probability of an ATWS event in 'the CRBR is less than the probability of an ATWS event in an LWR.

The Applicants deny this statement.

7. Most studies of the likely causes of serious ,

accidents conclude through probabilistic risk analysis that over 50% of the risk is asso-ciated with human failure to perform as ,

intended. This observation includes human '

l errors in design and construction, in main- '

I tenance and testing during operation', and, of course, mistakes by operators in response to l unusual occurrences.

The Applicants cannot truthfully admit or deny this statement for the reason that there is no specificity regarding the terms "most studies," "likely causes,"

" serious accidents,"'and " risks." Absent a definition of what studies, what constitutes likely causes, what i

serious accidents are, and what risk is, there is no meaningful response that can be given.

l l

l

8. The NRC has concluded that the reliability of current light water reactor protection

~

systems has not been demonstrated to be adequate and most likely is not adequate.

The Applicants deny this as stated. The Applicants admit that this statement is contained in the descrip-tive material on the first NRC-proposed rule (the Staff rule) which is one of the three alternatives that the Commission is considering for amending its regulations regarding ATWS. (Federal Register, Vol. 46 No. 226, page 57523, Nov. 24, 1981).

II. Contention 3

1. Reasonable assurance that a proposed site is a suitable location for a reactor of the general size and type proposed by Applicants requires a determination of an exclusion area and a low population zone as defined in 10

, CFR S 100.3.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this state-ment since the statement does not call for an admission as to ,smy relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the regulations speak for themselves.

I

2. Determination of an exclusion area requires calculations of dosages to the whole body and selected organs from an assumed radioactive release, i.e., a source term.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this state-ment since the statement does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusions on which the regulations speak for themselves.

3. The source term assumed in a site suitability assessroant must, in terms of its potential health hazard, not be exceeded by the release from any accident considered credible.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as statement since the statement does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusions on which the applicable regula-tions speak for themselves.

4. For purposes of assessing the suitability of l

the Clinch River site with reasonable assur- i 1

l ance, accidents involving the disruption of the reactor core caused in part by failure to

8-scram the reactor must be considered credible.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicants deny that accidents involving disruption of the reactor core caused in part by failure to scram-'

the reactor must be considered credible.

5 For purposes of assessing the suitability of t.he Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, it is inappropriate to use the source term used for purposes of assessing the suitability of a light water reactor site.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal

9-conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicants otherwise deny this statement for the reason that the use of the NRC Staff recommended source term is conservative for the CRBRP.

6. For purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, it is inappropriate to use the source term used for purposes of assessing the suitability of a light water reactor site because of significant differences in designs and potential accident scenarios.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of l assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicants otherwise deny this statement for the reason that the use of the NRC Staff recommended source term is conservative for the CRBRP.

{

7. For purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, the health risks associated with absorbed dose to lung from postulated radio-active releases (i.e., the source term) exceed the health risks associated with absorbed doses to the whole body or thyroids.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as t'o any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicant cannot truthfully admit or deny that the health risks associated with absorbed dose to lung from postulated radioactive releases (i.e., the source term) exceed the health risks associated with the absorbed to the whole body or thyroids for the reason that there is no specificity regarding the terms used. Absent a ,

definition of what health risks, what postulated radioactive releases, what doses, and what comparative standard to use, there is no meaningful response which can be given.

l

8. For purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, the health risks associated with absorbed dose to bone from postulated radio-active releases (i.e., the source term) exceed the health risks associated with absorbed doses to the whole body or thyroids.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicant cannot truthfully admit or deny that the health risks associated with absorbed dose to bone from postulated radioactive releases (i.e., the source term) exceed the health risks associated with the absorbed to the whole body or thyroids for the reason that there is no specificity regarding the terms used. Absent a definition of what health risks, what postulated radio-active releases, what doses, and what comparative ,

1 standard to use, there is no meaningful response which can be given.

1

9. For purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, the health risks associated with absorbed dose to lung from postulated radio-active releases (i.e., the source term) are likely to exceed the health risks associated with absorbed doses to the whole body or thyroids.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as stated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak .

for themselves.

The Applicant cannot truthfully admit or deny that the health risks associated with absorbed dose to lung from postulated radioactive releases (i.e., the source term) are likely to exceed the health risks associated with the absorbed to the whole body or thyroids for the reason that there is no specificity.regarding the terms used. Absent a definition of what health risks, what postulated radioactive releases, what doses, and what comparative standard to use, there is no meaningful response which can be given.

l i

10. For purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance, the health risks associated with absorbed dose to bone from postulated radio-active releases (i.e., the source term) are likely to exceed the health risks associated with absorbed doses to the whole body or thyroids.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this as s.tated to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of assessing the suitability of the Clinch River site with reasonable assurance" does not call for an admission as to any relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for themselves.

The Applicant cannot truthfully admit or deny that the health risks associated with absorbed dose to bone from postulated radioactive releases (i.e., the source term) are likely to exceed the health risks associated with the-absorbed to the whole body or thyroids for the reason that there is no specificity regarding the terms used. Absent a definition of what health risks, what postulated radioactive releases, what doses, and what l

)

f

. i comparative standard to use, there is no meaningful response which can be given.

IV. Contention 8b

1. Almost without exception, detectable mutations have been found to be mildly or strongly deleterious in their effects. (See The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Academy Press, 1980) (BEIR III), p. 79.)

The Applicants admit this statement. The statement is very similar to NRDC's Request for Admission on Con-tention 8a, Nos. 21 and 27 in Docket No. 50-537 (September 16, 1976). However, the statement now describes the mutations as " detectable," in contrast to

" induced" in the earlier statement. This now excludes non-detectable mutations, i.e., those with neutral effects.

2. In every species studied by geneticists, the overwhelming majority of mutations that have effects large enough to be readily observed are deleterious. (See The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Academy Press, Nov. 1972) (BEIR I), p. 49.)

The Applicants admit this statement.

/
3. Because radiation-induced transmitted genetic effects have not been unequivocably demons-trated in man, and because of the likelihood that adequate information will not soon be forthcoming, estimation of genetic risk must be based on laboratory animal data. (See BEIR III, supra, pp. 4-5; 73.)

The Applicants admit that there has been no unequivocal J denonstration of radiation-induced transmitted genetic effects in man and that examination should be based largely on laboratory animal data. However, human data have been used for estimation of genetic effects resulting from gross chromosomal aberrations (BEIR III, page 5).

4. Any increase in the mutation rate is likely l to be harmful to future generations. (See BEIR III, supra, p. 80.)

The Applicants deny this statement as it applies to overall mutation rate. The statement was made at a time when the mutations studied, as dictated by the 1

techniques available, were readily-detected and usually deleterious. More recent techniques involving bio-chemical analysis indicate that many. mutations induced are likely to have no detrimental effect to future generations.

l

5. While genetic risk to humans is based largely on animal studies, for purposes of licensing the Clinch River Reactor, one should assume that any increase in the human mutation rate will be harmful to future generations.

The Applicants can neither admit nor deny this state-ment to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of licensing the Clinch River Reactor" is not a relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for them-selves. The Aplicants admit that it is prudent to a'ssume that any increase in the human mutation rate will be harmful to future generations.

6. For purposes of licensing the Clinch River Reactor, at low levels of exposure one should assume that the effect of radiation in producing either (1) those genetic disorders which depend on changes in individual genes (gene mutations or small deletions), or (2) those which depend on changes in chromosomes, either in the total number or in the genes arrangement (chromosomal aberrations) will be proportional to dose.

The Applicants can neither admit nor' deny this state-ment to the extent that the phrase "for purposes of

'l licensing the Clinch River Reactor" is not a relevant matter of fact, but calls for a legal conclusion on which the applicable regulations speak for them-selves. The Applicants admit that it is prudent to make the assumptions set forth in the statement. How-ever, in making estimates based on proportionality, the BEIR III Committee introduced a dose-reduction factor based on the fact that the 1 rem dose used in their

+

calculations was the dose over one generation, i.e., at a very low dose rate.

7. It is reasonable to assume that the estimated relative mutation risk for humans exposed to continuous exposure over a large number of generations is 0.02-0.004 per rem (or a doubling dose of 50-250 rems). (See BEIR III, supra. p. 96.)

The Applicants admit this statement.

8. An exposure of one rem received in each generation is estimated to result at genetic , -

t equilibrium in an increase of 60-1100 serious genetic disorders per million live-born offspring. (See BEIR III, supra, pp. 5, 96.)

The Applicants admit this statement. However, the frequency of 60-1100 serious genetic disorders must be 1

1 4

l l

, taken in the context of the current incidence for such disorders of 107,000 per million liveborn.

9. It is reasonable to assume that the BEIR III estimate of 60-1100 cases per million live births for 1 rem per person per generation underestimates the total of all genetic and chromosomal diseases or defects and that the number of cases may be in the range of 191 to more than 20,000. (See John W. Gofman, Radiation and Human Health, Sierra Club Books, 1981, p. 849.)

The Aplicants deny this statement. The frequencies estimated by BEIR III, based on available knowledge, include a maximal estimate (1150) and not an under-estimate.

10. It is reasonable to assume that in the first generation one rem of parental exposure before conception throughout the general population will result in an increase of 5-65 additional serious genetic disorders per million live-born offspring. (See BEIR III, supra, p. 97.)

The Applicants admit this statement, but as in 8, desire, that the frequency of 5-65 additional serious genetic disorders per million liveborn offspring (as

. _ 19 _

the result of I rem of parental exposure throughout the population) be taken in the context of the current incidence of 10,000 per million liveborn offspring.

11. It is reasonable to assume that the BEIR III estimate of 5-65 additional cases of serious genetic disorders underestimates the total of all genetic and chromosomal diseases or defects and that the number of cases may be as much as 20 times higher. (See Gofman, supra, p. 849.)

The Applicants deny this statement. The estimates of 65 additional cases of serious genetic disorders was a maximal estimate, based on available data, and not an underestimate.

12. Some experts in radiation health effects research believe that BEIR III underestimates the genetic risks associated with radiation exposure. (See Gofman, supra, p. 849.)

The Applicants admit that this is Dr. Gofman's opinion. The Applicants otherwise deny this statement.

?

UNITE 6 STATES OF AMER'ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

l DOCKET NO. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) .

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

AFFIDAVIT OF Dr. Paul W. Dickson, Jr.

being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. That he is employed as Technical Director, CRBRP ,

Advanced Reactors Division - Oak Ridge Site and that he is duly authorized to answer admissions numbered I (1-8) and II (1-10) in the Ninth Set.

2. That the above-mentioned and attached ancwers are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

6 f_ _;w 4 % k .

A SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to beforo me this #1 Y-day of FAN , 1982.

?> <

~

A6 -

f1AlfL_ _

Notarfu Public '

My commission expires My Commist?cn Edrcc A-W! 23.1224_.

l l

l

U.lilE: AATES OF AMRILA NUCLEAR REGUl.ATORY CONI!SSION

  • In the matter of -

llI U. 5. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT -ll ADMINISTRATION

/

l DOCKET NO. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and l} ,

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY lil AFFIDAVIT OF HENRY 8. PIPER Henry 8. Piper, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. That he is employed as Chief of the Licensing Branch of the CRBRP/PO. and that he is duly authorized to execute the responses on behalf of the Applicants to the NRDC's krch 18, 1982, request to the I

Applicants for admission concerning Contention 8b. -

2. That the above-mentioned and attached responses to NRDC's request for admissions are true and correct to the best of his knowl-edge and belief.

2v. ,

.ArAs- a _, sMj

[hB pe$

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 1.9 day of b , 1'982.. , ,

s-  ;

f)4 .

  • W _ _ _ ..,.

Nqtkry Public ..' -

My Comission Empires '

M/Co ;,ht.:.n T.f.-, ,s,c,11g),jgg.g  ;

w*_--

l

.a

. l i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery or first-class mail to the following:

      • Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P. O. Fox 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923

      • Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atoraic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 ,
  • Daniel Swanson, Esquire
  • Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies)

l l l l -2_ l l

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel  !

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

  • Docketing & Service Section 1 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. ??545 (3 copies)

William M. Leech, Jr., e~r.orney General William B. Hubbard, Cnief Deputy Attorney General Lee Breckenridge, Assistant Attorney General' State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies)

Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C. 20006

?

Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esq.

Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge Municipal Building P. O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S. W.

Room 6-B-256, Forrestal Building Washington, D. C. 20585 (2 copies)

    • Eldon V. C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N. W., Suite 805 Washington, D. C. 20036 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Mis ^ ^ -

se<frge L. Edgar Attorney for Project Management Corporation DATED: March 29, 1982

  • / Denotes hand delivery to 1717 "H" Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
    • / Denotes hand delivery to indicated address.
      • / Denotes hand delivery to 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Md.

l l

l

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20042C294&oldid=2569464"