ML20052H013
| ML20052H013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Bradley Jones, Mizuno G, Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052G984 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205190251 | |
| Download: ML20052H013 (13) | |
Text
s t
4/30/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of i
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket No. 50-537 i
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) i NRC STAFF'S UPDATED ANSWERS TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB REQUEST TO APPLICANTS AND STAFF FOR ADMISSIONS DATED JULY 28, 1976 In accordance with the Licensing Board's Prehearing Conference Order
! ~
of February 11, 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) hereby updates its previous responses to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and the Sierra Club Request for Admissions filed on July 28, 1976.
Attached hereto are the Staff's answers to NRDC's and the Sierra Club's request for admissions, together with the affidavits of those individuals who participated in answering the request for admissions.3/
In the April 14, 1982 Order Following Conference with Parties, the Licensing Board renumbered NPDC's contentions. When an old contention number appears in the request for admission or answer, the new contention number will be indicated in parentheses.
1/
The affidavits of Mr. Bender, Mr. Nehemias, Mr. Branagan, and Mr. Lowenberg are unsigned. However, a copy of their signed and notarized affidavits will be filed shortly.
8205190251 820430 PDR ADOCK 05000537 O
f.
Respectfully submitted, Daniel T. Swanson Counsel f NRC Staff s
L. s g 4
Bradley W. Jones Counsel for NRC Sta f
.h-_'^
Geary S.
izuno Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of April,1982.
i j
k k
i i
I I
l
?
r i
l t
I NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO NRDC'S AND THE SIERRA CLUB'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS The NRC Staff has determined that previous responses to request for admissions #1, #2, #4 through #10, #11, #12, #13, #15, #17 through #22 and #24 through #32 concerning Contention 7 (renumbered as 11) are still applicable and need no updating.
Even though admissions #1-#5 address the LFMBR fuel cycle, in replying to the admissions the Staff addressed each admission as though it referred to the CRBR fuel cycle.
With regard to Contention 8a (renumbered as 11), the NRC Staff made the determination that previous responses to request for admissions #1,
- 2, and #4 through #20 are still applicable and need no updating.
Pertaining to Contention 8c (renumbered as 11), the NRC Staff decided that previous responses to request for admissions #1, #2, #4, #6 and #7 are still applicable and need no updating, j
Contention 7 (renumbered as 11)
Statement 3 Aerosols of mixed-oxide LMFBR fuel will be inhaled by workers in various stages of the LMFBR fuel cycle.
Response
The Staff does not admit that aerosols of mixed oxide LMFBR fuel will be inhaled by workers during normal operations in any stage of the LMFBR fuel cycle.
i Statement 11 Tamplin and Cochran's hot particle corrollary as stated in No.10 above does not contain a reference to, and is not based on, the existence of a particular susceptable type of tissue in the lung (Cf. Coments by MRDC on the NRC's Denial of Petition for Rule Making [ Docket No.PRM-20-5]).
Response
The Staff denies this statement.
Statement 14 A plutonium particle deposited in the palmar tissue of a machinist produced a lesion.
(See lushbaugh and Langham, ref. 17, F.R. g, op cit.)
Response
The referenced document has not yet been reviewed by the Staff.
However, the Staff is presently in the process of obtaining a copy of this document. The Staff is unable to admit or deny this statement until it reviews the referenced report.
Statement 16 The histological descriptiont of these lesions are suggestive of an incipient carcinogenic response.
Response
The Staff admits this statement.
Statement 23 The particle size distribution in the lung of case 7-138 as measured by McInroy and co-workers is more relevant to the " hot particle" distri-bution in the lung than the lymph node data.
, Response The Staff admits this statement.
Statement 33 Some animal experiments when analyzed on the basis of tumors per nanocurie or tumors per absorbed dose (tumors / rad) suggest that non-uniform exposure carries a higher risk than uniform exposure.
t
Response
The Staff admits this statement.
Contention 8a (renumbered as 11)
Statement 3 l
i Radiation is known to induce cancer in humans.
Response
The Staff admits this statement to the extent that an increased incidence in cancers has been observed in humans exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation. However, the NRC Staff is not aware of any studies that have established that there is no safe level of radiation. As a conservative and prudent assumption, it has been assumed that no amount of radiation is safe. While the relationship between ionizing radiation l
dose and biological effects among humans is not precisely known for all l
levels of radiation, the principal uncertainty exists at very low dose levels where natural sources of radiation (cosmic and terrestrial) and the variations in these sources are comparable to the doses being evaluated.
Contention 8c (renumbered as 11)
Etatement 1 The present ICRP and NCRP values of organ burden (qf ) and body 9
burde,. (q) and maximum permissible air concentration (MPC7 and (MPC) werecalculatedonthebasisofuniformdistributionofth6radionuclTdes in the critical body organ (e.g., uniform disposition in the skeleton) and irradition only from the deposits of the radionuclide within the oraar.
Response
The Staff admits this statement with regarded to dose conversion factors and MPCs that were derived from ICRP Publication II. However, a different methodology was used in developing annnual lim'its for intakes at radionuclides by workers in ICRP Publication 30. See response to III Contention 8, #8.
Statement 3 239 The present practice is to calculate the dose from Pu to the entire skeleton, and apply an N-factor (=5) to the absorbed dose (rad) as well as the usual Q factor (=10) for4-radiation in obtaining estimates of the dose equivalent (ren).
Response
The Staff admits this statement in regard to dose conversion factors derived from ICRP Publication II. However, the dose conversion factors for inhalation and ingestion of Pu-239 that are contained in ICRP Publi-cation 30 are not based on an n-factor of 5 or a Quality Factor of 10.
Statement 5 224 There is a greater incidence of bone sarcoma in humans gected with Ra from a given total dose of radiation when the span of Ra injections is increased.
, i
Response
The Staff admits this statement (e.g., see BEIR III pp. 413-414).
i Statement 8 The value gjg =0.04 makes use of an N-factor of 5 for the q
o<-radiation of Pu and othero(-emitting radionuclides in the skeleton.
Response
The Staff admits that ICRP Publication II (see p. 82) contains a value for the maximam permissible burden (i.e., q) of soluble Pu-239 in bone of 0.04 aC1.
The Staff notes that ICRP Publication II (p. 12) l s
contains the following statement.
i "The relative damage factor, n, in the formula for effective energy,
- &E F (R8E)4 n is taken as one provided (a) the parent element of the 44 4
chain considered is an isotope of radium, or (b) if the energy com-ponent considered originates as X-or.<,-radiation. The relative damage factor is taken at 5 in all other cases..."
(See response to #3).
Statement 9 radionuclides (e.g.,2ggtherelatvieriskfromggneseeking,o(-emitting N is intended to 2
Pu) in comparison with Ra on the basis of absorbed dose (i.e., on a per rad basis.)
Response
The Staff admits this statement. (See response to #3).
i Statement 10 The appropraite value of N for dogs is about 15.
[ Mays, Charles '4.,
" Estimated Risk from 239 Pu to Human Bone, Liver and Lung," Preprint from IAEA Symposium, Biological Effects of Low Level Radiation, Chicago, Ill.,
3-7 Nov. 1975.]
l l
l
8-
Response
The Staff admits this statement.
Statement 11 239 Accepting the value of 15, the q value for Pu should be corrected by a factor of 5/15 or 1/3.
Response
The Staff admits this statement.
Statement 12 The surface to volume radio for the trabecular bone of the dog is about twice that for man.
Statement 13 239 23fhesemeamountof Pu in man would have twice the concentration of Pu near the trabecular surfaces as that in the dog.
Statement 14 239 Accepting the value of twice the concentration of Pu}gmannear 2
the trabecular surfaces as that in the dog, the q value for Pu should be further corrected by a factor of 1/2.
Statement 15 The rate of turnover (burial) by apposition of new bone of the deposits of 4 emitting radionuclides on trabecular surfaces is probably about 10 times that in the dog of that in man.
Statement 16 Accepting this higher rate of turnover in the dog, the q value for 239Pu should be further corrected by a factor of 1/10.
Statement 17 Studies of Metivier, et al, on the sygival time of baboons relative to the dog for various concentrations of Pu in the lungs suggest that the baboon is about 4 times as radiosensitive as the dog.
' Statement 18 l
Assuming this same ratio (4 to 1) would apply for bone burden of 239 l
Puandthattgggradiosensitivities of the baboon and man are the same, the q value for Pu should be further corrected by a factor of 1/4.
l Statement 19 l
2ge four correction factors above show (a) an overall reduggon in q l
for Pu of 1/240, and (b) that a body burdeE2gf 0.04 u Ci of Pu is 240 times more carcinogenic than 0.1 u C1 of Ra.
l Response To Statements #12 through #19 The documents referenced in the Staff's previous responses (undated) have not been currently reviewed by the Staff. The Staff is presently attempting to obtain copies of these documents. The Staff cannot confirm or alter the previous Staff responses until it reviews these documents.
e i
m c
w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ltMISSION BEFORE THE AT0f1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the itatter of
)
)
Of!!TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor
)
Plant)
AFFIDAVIT OF HOMER LOWENBERG I, Homer Lowenberg, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Chief Engineer, Office of Nuclear flaterial Safety and Safeguards.
2.
I am duly authorized to participate in answering the Requests for Admissions pertairir.g to Contention 7 #1 through #5 and I hereby certify that the answers given are true to the bcst of my knowledge.
HOMER LOWEf4 BERG Subscribed and sworn to before ne this day of April, 1982.
Notary Public My Connission expires:
l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPAF.TMENT OF ENERGY
)
Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )
AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD F. BRANAGAN, JR.
I, Edward F. Branagan, Jr., being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Radiological Physicist, Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
2.
I am duly authorized to participate in answering the July 28, 1976 Requests for Admissions pertaining to contention 7 (renumbered as 11)
- 6 through #33; pertaining to contention 8a (renumbered as 11) #1 through #4, #6 through #10, #12, #13, #15 and #17 through #20; pertaining to contention 8c (renumbered as 11) #1 through #19 and I hereby certify that the answers given are true to the best of my knowledge.
EDWARD F. BRANAGAN, JR.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of April,1982.
NUIARY PUBLIC My Commission expires:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
Doc;et No. 50-537 PROJECT l1ANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN V. NEHEMIAS I, John V. Nehemias, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Senior Health Physicist, Radiological Assessment Branch,' Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
2.
I am duly authorized to participate in answering the July 28, 1976 Requests for Admissions pertaining to Contention 8a (renumbered as 11)
- 1, #2, #13 through #16, #19 and #20 and I hereby certify that the answers given are true to the best of my knowledge.
==
John V. Nehemias Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of April,1982.
Notary Public My Commission expires:
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL BENDER I, Michael Bender, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a Consultant through a contract between the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office, NRC, and Brookhaven National Laboratories.
2.
I am employed by the Brookhaven National Laboratories as a Senior Scientist in the Medical Department.
3.
I am duly authorized to participate in answering the July 28, 1976
. Request for Admissions pertaining to Contention 8a (renumbered as 11)
- 4,(5,#6,#8,#9,#11,#12,#15,#16 and #17 and I hereby certify that the answers given are true to the best of my knowledge.
MICHAEL BENDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of April, 1982.
Notary Public My Commission expires:
,