ML20054H576
| ML20054H576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1982 |
| From: | Finamore B, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054H568 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206240215 | |
| Download: ML20054H576 (22) | |
Text
.
1 June 18, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Marshall E.
Miller, Chairman Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Cade t H.
Hand, Jr.
)
In the Matter of
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-537 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clincn River Breeder Reactor Plant)
)),
RESPONSE OF INTERVENORS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
AND THE SIERRA CLUB TO NRC STAFF SECOND ROUND OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.7406, and in accordance with the Board's Prehearing Conference Order (Schedule) of Feb. 11, 1982, Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club, hereby respond to NRC Staf f Second Round of Interrogatories and Requests for Admisaitns, dated June 3, 1982.
8206240215 B20618 PDR ADOCK 05000537 g
O. Admissions Generally Related to All Contentions G-1.
The CRBR site consists of 1,364 Jand acres on a peninsula formed by a meander of the Clinch River.
G-2.
The CRBR plant structures will be located at a grade elevation of 815 f eet above MSL, or about 75 feet above the normal Clinch River Jevel of 711 f eet above MSL.
G-3.
The CRBR proposed exclusion area will include the site property and portions of the Clinch River which are adjacent to the site, less 112 acres along the northern boundary which have been set aside for an industrial park.
G-4.
The minimum exclusion area boundary distance is approximately 670 meters (2,200 feet), as measured from the containment building southkest to the nearest point on the exclusion area boundary.
G-5.
No public highways or railroads traverse the proposed exclusion area.
RESPONSE
G-1.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny tnese thru statements.
Intervenors have no independent knowledge G-5.
of the truth or falsity of these statements other than the fact that they may correspond with information provided in the PSAR, ER, and FES.
l
. Admissions on Contention 7(c) 7(c)-1.
Other than wind speed, inversion conditions, population density, and co-location of CRBR with nuclear fyel cycle, and weapons processing fcilities, there are no other environmental and safety characteristics which constitute " site selection criteria," and therefore be used in identifying and evaluating alternate sites.
RES PONSE 7(c)-1.
Intervenors deny this statement.
All reasonably identifiable benefits and costs must be considered, e.g., economic and endangered s,pecies considerations.
Staff and Applicants list oth'er of these criteria in toe FES and ER.
i 7(c)-2.
Otner tnan the sites specifically identified by Intervenors in Contention 7(c), and TVA sites where LWR units have been cancelled or deferred, there are no other alternative sites which Intervenors contend e
must be evaluated.
RES PONSE 7(c)-2.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Intervenors also believe the WPPSS-4 site should be evaluated.
. 7 (c) -3.
TVA has not cancelled, but ratner has deferred construction of LWR units at its Ha rtsville and Yellow Creek sites.
RES PONS E 7(c)-3.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny tnis statema.-t, since Intervenors do not have current knowledge of TVA views on tnese sites.
7(c)-4.
Tne Nevada Test Site is less f avorable than the CRBR site, with regard to the following environmental and safety criteria:
(1) Estimated.75g design ' requirement for seismic ground motion at the Nevada Test Site, compared with a. 2 59 design requir,ement f or CRBR.
(2) Limited g roundwate r in ' Nevada.
(3) Close proximity to the U.S. Ai r Force Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range.
(4) Close proximity to current facilities and sites for resea rch, development, and testing of nuclear weapons.
RES PONSE 7(c)-4.
Intervenors admit this statement.
7(c)-5.
To date, no Federally recognized endangered or threatened species are known to be on the CRBR site, or in the site vicinity.
(
i RES PONSE 7(c)-5.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
Intervenors have not conducted an endangered species analysis of the CR8R site vicinity.
Intervenors believe there is evidence that endangered mussels may be present in the vicinity.
7 (c) - 6.
CRBR operation at full power will require 8 c.f.s. of water, which will be supplied by the Clinch River.
7 (c) - 7.
The annual average flow of Clinch River is 5380 c.f.s.
at the CRBR site.
7(c)-8.
8 c.f.s. of water represents _.2 percent _of _the annual average flow for Clinch River.,
7(c)-9.
Nearly all monthly discn$rges' f rom the Melton Hill Dam exceed 1000 c.f.s.,
except for periods of no flow.
7(c)-10. Periods of no flow nave not exceeded 24 days.
7(c)-ll. The Clincn River has experienced approximately 17 days per year of no flow in the vicinity of the CRBR site.
7 ( c ) -12. The CRBR intake structure will not be located in a stretch of Clinch River that is uniquely important for the spawning or early life history of any fish.
7(c)-13. There will be minor and largely undetectable impacts to Clinen River and Watts Bar. Lake fisheries due to impingement or entrainment.
t 2
1 i ;
q 7 (c) -14. The vegetational association present at the CRBR site i
does not represent a unique type relative to the a
associations occurring on land in the vicinity of the-site.
RES PONSE t.
7 (c) -6.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny these thru statements, since Intervenors have not conducted any 7(c)-14.
analysis to confirm or dispute these statements.
Admissions on Contention 5 5 ( a ) -1.
Other than wind speed and inversion conditions, there l
are no other meteorological f ac, tors or parameters that Intervenors believe must be u'tilized in evaluating site meteorology.
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) -1.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Intervenors believe f
the best meteorological models should be used and i
conservatively applied by Applicants and Staff.
These models include additional f actors and parameters, including horizontal and vertical standard deviations of the plume, distance f rom point of release to receptor, a nd frequency of precipitation.
See generally Regulato ry Guide 1.14 5.
l I
. 5 (a) - 2.
Other than Section 9.2 of the CRBR FES, and an October 31, l974 letter from Richard P.
Denise to Peter S. Van Nort, the Intervenors do not have any basis for their contention tnat sites other than Clinch River have more favorable wind speed and inversion characteristics.
RES PONSE 5 (a) -2.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Section 11.3. 2 o f the ER, Staff's updated answers to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories to Staf f, and Letter from John R.
Longenecker to Paul S.
C hec k, Fe b.
12, 1982
(" Response to Request f or Alternative Sites Information") also provide data, supporting Intervenors' contention.
5 (a) -3.
Otner tnan wind speed and inversion conditions, there are no other meteorological disadvantages of the Clinch River site.
RES PONS E 5 (a) -3.
Intervenors cannot admit or deny this statement, since it implies that one must compare individual meteorological parameters for alternative sites rather than comparing tne doses to the surrounding populations.
Intervenors' claim is that due to unfavoraole meteorology tne radiation exposures for the Clinch River site are less favorable than at other sites.
. 5 (a) -4.
Other than population density, there are no disadvantageous population characteristics associated witn the CRBR site.
RES PONS E 5 (a) -4.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Other cnaracteristics include population density as it relates to meteorological conditions, e.g.,
wind speed and direction, and the distance to the exclusion area border and the low population zone border.
5 (a; -5.
In 1980, the 10 mile radial population f rom CRBR was 52,040.
RESPONSE
5 (a) -5.
Intervenors admit tnat this s'tatement appears in Applicants' Environmental Report.
5 (a) -6.
In 1980, the 50 mile radial population f rom CRBR was 830,840.
l RES PONSE 5 (a) -6.
Intervenors admit that this statement appears in Applicants' Environmental Report.
5 ( a ) - 7.
Tne wind speed and wind direction information presented in Figures 2.3-7 and 8, of Amendment 65 of the CRBR PSAR a re representative of the Clinch River site.
}
l
. RES PONSE 5 (a) -7.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Intervenors admit, however, that wind speed and wind direction information is presented in PSAR Figure 2.3-7 for the "f all period," presumably in the period Feb. 17, 1977, through Feb. 16, 1978; and in Figure 2.3-8 for the period Feb. 17, 1977 tnrough Feb. 16, 1978.
Applicants present no evidence to suggest that these fall or 1-year data are representative of the Clinch River site.
5 (a ) -8.
Tne information presented in Table 5 of NRC's Updated Answers to Intervenors' Ninth S,et of Interrogatories to the NRC S taf f, which inclu' des the Design Basis X/Q values for LWR sites, is correct.
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) - 8.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this I
statement.
Intervenors have not completed their analysis of this Table.
5 (a) - 9.
The information presented in Table 1 of NRC's Updated Answers to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff, wnich includes Design Basis X/Q values for the CRBR site, is correct and conservative.
. = -
3 RES PONSE 5 (a ) -9.
Intervenors deny tnis statement.
Tnis information is demonstrably non-conservative -when compared against Table IV of tne March 1977 Staf f Site Suitability Report for CR8R.
These values are non-conservative by at least a factor of 1.35 to 2.0.
5 ( a ) -10. The Design Basis X/Q value at the FFTF exclusion ~
distance of 2400 meters is 1.4 x 10-4 seconds per cubic meter, as stated in NRC's Answer to Interrogatory 2 of the Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories.
RESPONSE
5 ( a ) - 10. Intervenors admit tnat Staf f ' reported this value in NRC's Answer to Interrogatory 2 of Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories and that it may be valid.
5 (a ) -l l. Tne Design Basis X/Q values at the FFTF low population 4
l zone distance of 7200 meters a re (a) 2.7 x 10-5 at 0-8 hours; (b) 1.4 x 10~5 a t 8-24 hours; (c) 6.9 x 10-6 a t 1-4 days; a nd (d) 3.0 x 10-6 a t 4 -30 days, in seconds per cubic meter, as stated in NRC's-Answer to Interrogatory 2 of the Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories.
r
a AJ
. RESPONSE 5 (a ) -ll.
Intervenors admit that Staf f reported these ' values in NRC's Answer to Interrogatory 2 of Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories and that they may be valid.
5 ( a) -12. Design Basis X/Q values at a 670 meter exclusion zone boundary for the Summer, Ha rtsvi lle, and Watts Bar reactor plants (which were deemed to be licensable by J
the NRC), a re approximately the same as that f or the CRBR 670 meter exclusion zone boundary.
RES PONS E 5 ( a ) -12.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
Intervenors have no,t completed.their comparison of these values f o'r the indicated sites.
5(a)-13. Design Basis X/Q values at CRBR are at the same order of magnitude, and often are approximately the same as the Design Basis X/Q values for the following LWR sites in tne general region which were deemed to be licensable by tne NRC:
Yellow Creek, Phipps Bend, Catawba, and Sequoyah.
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) -13.
Intervenors can neither admit not deny this statement.
Intervenors have not completed their comparison of these v-lues for the indicated sites.
. 5 ( a) -14. The Applicants' onsite meteorological measurements program meets or exceeds the Staff's requirements set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs" (Februa ry 1972).
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) -14.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
Intervenors have not yet completed their analysis of Applicants' onsite meteorological measurements program.
5(a)-15. The nearest population center, as that term is defined
.. _ __ i n 10 CPR Pa rt 100, is Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) -15. Intervenors admit enis statem'ent.
5 (a ) -16.
The population center distance, based on the actual population distribution of 27,552 in l980, is 7 miles north-northeast of the CRBR.
This is g reate r than the minimum population center distance, as that term is defined in 10 CFR Part 100.
RES PONS E 5 (a) -16.
Intervenors deny this statement.
Intervenors do not agree with Applicants regarding the appropriate definition of the low copulation zone.
Intervenors also deny that the nearest boundary of a densely populated center (i.e.,
Oak Ridge, TN) is 7 miles.
I
. 5 (a ) -17. Regulatory Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plant," (August 1979) sets forth the NRC Staf f's criteria for calculating appropriate meteorological atmospheric dilution f actors (X/Q) for use in determining the consequences of potential accidental releases.
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) -17.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
Regulatory Guide 1.145 speaks for itself.
5 ( a ) -18.
X/Q values for the CRBR were calculated by the Staf f in accordance with tne criteria,and methodologies set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.l'45.
5 ( a) -19. The Staff performed two probabilistic analyses of CRBR site meteorological data for the period 2-17-1977 to 2-17-1978, with wind speed and direction data collected at tne 33 foot level and temperature dif ference data collected at the 33 and 200 foot levels on tne permanent CRBR tower.
5 (a) -2 0. The first probabilistic analysis performed by tne Staff for CRBR developed short term (up to 30 days)
X/Q values for eaco of te 16 cardinal point sectors tnat is not exceeded more than.5% of the total time.
The hignest X/Q value for the 16 sectors is defined by tne Staff as the " maximum sector X/Q value."
i f
. 5(a)-21. The sec9nd probabilistic analysis performed by the Staff developed a short-term (up to 30 days) X/Q value for the overall CRBR site that is not exceeded more than 5% of the total time.
This X/Q value is defined by the Staff as the "overall site X/Q value."
5(a)-22. In tne analysis referred to in Admission 5 (a) -21, the Staf f used a direction dependent atmospheric dispersion model with enhanced lateral dispersion during neutral and stable atmospheric conditions accompanied by low wind speeds.
5 (a) -2 3. Tne lateral dispersion factors used in the Staff's analyses were based on dif fusion studies performed at several locations including tne, CRBR site.
RESPONSE
5 (a) -18.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny these thru statements.
Intervenors admit, however, that Staff 5 (a ) -23.
claims its calculations are in accordance with the stated approach.
1 1
5 (a) -2 4. Tne Staf f's evaluation of the consequences of design basis accidental releases were based on the more conservative maximum sector X/Q value.
RESPONSE
5 (a ) - 2 4.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
Intervenors do not agree that Staff used appropriately conservative X/Q values in their calculations.
~
)
i i 5(a)-2 5. Tne Staff's metnodology for determining design basis me teo ro log y, as described in Admissions 5(a)-17 tnrough 24 is site-specific for the CRBR and is conservative.
)
RES PONSE 5 ( a ) - 2 5.
Intervenors deny tnis statement.
Intervenors do not l
i celieve Staff 's methodology is suf ficiently conservative.
i.
4 5 ( b) -1.
The radial distance between the CRBR reactor core and the furthest point on the Y-12 site is approximately 9 miles.
RES PONSE
^
is correct plus or 5(b)-1.
Intervenors admit tnis distance minus 1 mile.
Admissions on Contention 8 8-1.
Applicants have discussed decommissioning and dismantling l
in Amendment X of the Environmental Report- ("ER") for CRBR, dated Decembe r - 19 81.
RES PONS E 4
8-1.
Intervenors-admit this statement.
. 8-2.
At tne end of the CRBR operating life, Ni-59 will be present in quantities equal to one (1) percent of the quantities of Ni-63.
RESPONSE
8-2.
Intervenors can neither admit not deny tnis statement, ou t Intervenors admit tnat, if measurements are in microcuries per cuoic centimeter, this statement is consistent witn Applicants' analysis in Table 4 of Applicants' Second Updated Response to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories.
8-3.
The Staf f's position with regard to compliance with 10 CFR Pa rts 20 and 50, Aopendix I in, the decommissioning of nuclear reactors is contained in' NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86.
RES PONSE 8-3.
Intervenors can neither admit nor deny this statement.
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 speaks for itself.
8-4.
Taole 1 of Applicants' Second Updated Resoonse to Intervenor s ' Ninth Set of Inter rogatories, April 3 0, 1982
(" Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Inter rogato rie s"), accurately presents the components, material types and RDT standards for the current CRBR f
design.
4
- 8-5.
Table 2 of the Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the chemical composition of permanent steel components for the current CR8R design.
8-6.
Table 3 of the Appilcants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the chemical composition of the primary shield for the current CRBR design.
8-7 Table 4 of the Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the principal activation products in permanent steel components.
8-8.
Taole 5 of the Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the principal activation products in the dRBR ' primary shield.
8-9.
Table 6 of the Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the neutron flux and fluence at the CR8R reactor vessel inner surface at core midplane elevation.
8-10. Table 7 of the Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Ninth Set of Interrogatories accurately presents the neutron
~
flux and fluence at the CRBR primary concrete shield at core midplane elevation.
RES PONSE 8-4.
Intervenors have not completed their analysis of thru Applicants' Updates to Intervenors' Nintn Set of 8-10.
Interrogatories.
.-_. =.
18-
)
8-11. The half-lives for the following radionuclides are correctly stated:
1 a.
Nickel-59 80,000 years be Nickel-63 100 years c.
Niobium-94 20,000 years-d.
Cobalt-60 5.2 years
RESPONSE
8-11. Intervenors admit this statement.
e i
I t
/
3 1
i i
i
}
i t
v wer
,--n-,-w.,,-ng-+-r p..m m
-m=,--,-n c-v - - -,
e, ww->,s-
,.~-+
-e n
,,--wwo
~.w,,w--.w,. - - -,
,m, nm-
~ n-e
\\
to l Respectfully submitted, C
2A-.-.
Barbara A.
Finamore S. Jacob Scherr.
1725 I Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202)223-8210 bI<u
$4f Ellyn RT Weiss
(
Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20006 (202)833-9070 4
Attorneys for Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club Dated:
June 18, 1982 l
t i
k I1 g
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of RESPONSE OF INTERVENORS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB TO APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES DATED JUNE 4, 1982 and RESPONSE OF INTERVENORS NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB TO NRC STAFF SECOND ROUND OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS were served this 18th day of June, 1982 on the following:
- Marshall E.
Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (2 copies)
- Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Daniel Swanson, Esquire Stuart Treby, Esquire Bradley W.
Jones, Esquire Office Of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (3 copies) i
.,4 V
2-
- R.
Tenney Johnson, Esquire Leon Silverstrom, Esquire Warren E.
Bergoholz, Jr., Esquire Michael D. Oldak, Esquire L.
Dow Davis, Esquire Office of General Counsel U.S.
Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave.,
S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20585
- George L.
Edgar, Esquire Irvin N.
Shapell, Esquire Thomas A.
Schmutz, Esquire Gregg A.
Day, Esquire Frank K. Peterson, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr.
Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Herbert S.
Sanger, Jr., Esquire Le wis E. Wallace, Esquire James F.
Burger, Esquire W. Walker LaRoche, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William M. L e'e c h, Jr., Esquire Attorney General William B.
Hubbard, Esquire Chief Deputy Attorney General Lee Breckenridge, Esquire Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General l
450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219
r-77 4
f Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E.
Lantrip, Esquire City Attorney Municipal Building P.O.
Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 32219 s
M'1w
.VJrra w tw r
Barbara A.
Finamore h
-- -