ML20070L492

Exceptions to 821103 Partial Initial Decision

ML20070L492
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	12/27/1982
From:	Groesch G JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8301030142
Download: ML20070L492 (8)

Text

%- o

.y' , ,

i

t. ,

l U' . -  ;

\'  :

- A..s .

,. UNITED'. r STATES OF. AMERICM,,w * .- - .j.,,QED.

. f.%lrt 8.,Q.1

, m NUCLEARtREGULATORY'+ COMMISSION-

., . . " .2ic r n -

ATOMIG[ SAFETY lAND)LICEN p Gl.gp'P gL39 w 46

^ ~

1, , .'

.,)_

In*the! Matter of 9 , ji s ,, c .;

' ' . ,i c,%gs.Um.7 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT ) FDocket 50-382 (Waterford Steam Electric Station,") .Decem h p ,,1982 .

- Unit #3) s

)

3

~'

,  ;- 1 q ., s ,

JOINT INTERVENOR'.S' EXCEPTIONS n, TO PARTIAL INITIAL' DECISION:OF NOVEMBERi3,.1982 y

' i

,, . UNCONT. ESTEDIISSUES -

,7 +

~ A. Unresolved Generic' Safety Issues

~

~

-,, ,r.

-1. . The Board erred inkfinding',ll' of' the:13' unresol, red generic ,

~

- - , safety'issuesitoIhave'a reasonable' assurance.that the-facility couldlbe operated;before.these issues were resolved without undue ' risk to the health' and safety of the public (PID, p.5).

2. The-Board. erred'in finding that'they cannot substitute Jtheir judgement.forbthat'of:the staff on the issue of SHUT-e

,DOWN' HEAT DECAY. REMOVAL'(A-45) (PID, p. 10).

~ 9;.3. The'Boardlerredfin finding that an attempt on'their part ltoobtain[the'evidencehnecessarytoresolve'thisissuewould u

be violativelof' Commission mandates and issuances (PID, p.5).

4, ,

., ~4.)The Board'erredlin not obtaining evidence and seeking ~to adequately resolve ~the issue of Emergency Core Coolant (ECC)

~

4 e

-r ~ 0 ' linadequacy'found. 'in Board Notification 82-12 (pp.7&8 of Attachment III; Rownsome and Murphy).

l 4 [, s@@ (,L ,,q U ,'

l[t fN -

5. The Board erred in' finding that SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF

-Q$ EQUIPMENT l A-46) is inapplicable'as an unresolved generic

~

tv safety issue ~in the instant case (PID,~p.ll)' . ,

'e n 4

av 6. The Board erred in'failing to impress on the Staff its 88 o< inadequate performance'in the area of~ SHUTDOWN HEAT DECAY

@@ REMOVAL (PID, p. 10). . ,

7. The Board erred 'in 'its administrative and judicial function I by accepting a~ justification "with great reluctance" and "of which we are personally skeptical" for A-45(PID, p.10) ,

- 'DS03

~Qg w n.

.. a ..

gp o' 74 p t- <

'K; t bi*

O', e

(' . . * ,

^

If . -

fr j.E ' ' CONTENTIONS g- ,

J' s, .

Joint Intervenors'icontention 17/26(1) and (2) ire discussed in PID Findings of Fact?7 thru 98 (FF) and Joint Intervenors' * ,;

f[ Proposed- Findings.of ' Fact 1. thru 26 (PF) .

c-Joint Intervenors exceptions to. Contention 17/26(1) and(2),

3p are as follows: ' _ /c

8. The Board erred.in classifying the four 'ommissions'

's p outlined by the Joint'Intervenors in their Memorandum on - ,

Contention 17/26(1) and -(2) as relating to 17/26 (1)(b)

. exclusively (PID, p. 13; footnote 13).

' 9. The Board erred in relying on the unsupported opinion -

of Civil Defense Director Lucas that few people would refuse to evacuate (FF 15). .l

10. The Board erred in finding that there would be 'no diversion ^ ,

-' of Parish resources'for' dealing with people who refuse to j evacuate (FF 15).

11. The Board erred in not allowing a direct question by Joint Intervenors on the amount of Parish resources to be used to extricate people who refuse to evacuate (Transcript (TR) 2724--18) .

12. The Board erred in'not allowing Joint Intervenors to question the evacuation officials about the consequences ,

of severe accidents at Waterford III][Tr. 2190--17;2236 -15; 2253--14;2253--18;2276--932279--14;2279--25;2279--10;2280--15; I 2280--25;2710--12]

13. The Board erred'in using the concept of post-hearing

, verification and predictive findings to deny Joint Intervenors their right of due, process concerning the following litigable

~

issues:

a. siren warning' system ,

I b. agreements with surrounding parishes for buses,' ambulances,

• and vans.

c. installation of communication systems

' d. all implementing procedures

'. e. evacuation tests t . .

14. The Board erred in not allowing cross-examination con-it.% '

lp.. t. -

Tj ~ .

.Dp

't s

K: .

I.y cerning the present command structure and its possible conflicts ,;

b of' interest [Tr.-2966--15&l6;2_962 thru'2966; 2234]. ,

.jg

15. The Board erred inifailing,to require Potassium.iodid.e (KI) to r k q

m

,.jj; l be available for distribution to school children in the event sheltering is recommended'or the evacuation'is delayed. " ,,;pa

[ 16. The Board erred in giving weight to a mathematical evacuation .;g e-model that excluded many groups of individuals (FF 11).

2 r.ccf 9

17. The Board erred in failing tofconsider that the parish evacuation 'yJ jg.

~

officials had never informed the' FEMA' officials of their requests for additional roads (Tr. 2875 thru 2877).  %@

18.The Board erred in not' requiring an expert to be available ,

hh to sponsor the licensee's siren system study (Tr. 2345--5) , jg

19. The Board erred in failing to consider that the FEMA experts  ??1 never visited the siren location (Tr. 2879), y

20. The Board erred in not allowing the Joint Intervenors to JXJ

. question state officials on the adequacy of the phone system Sk,b during a crisis (Tr. 2820). ,I

U

21. The Board erred in failing to consider that CD Director ')fd

~:s Lucas testified that he would recommend evacuation only on the advice of the licensee without an independent assessment from .#E the state (Tr. 2954), ;F' '

e

22. The Board erred in not allowing Joint Intervenors to probe  :

CD Director Madore's doubts about NUREG-0654(Tr. 2572--2). ,'?

23. The Board erred in failing- to consider that CD Director .%,

g <'

Madere had grave doubts about NUREG-0654. (Tr. 2570--3&4).

24. The Board failed to consider that the licensee and the state -,

have substantial differences concerning protective action recommen-fy,-

dations for pregnant women and children (Tr. 3107--llthru13) /i!

(Tr. 3141--14).

25. The Board erred in failing to consider that Lucas and Madere 1 made uncontadicted statements that increased numbers of auto- - -

mobile collisions would result from an e racuation (Tr. 2840 thru 2843).

1. 26. The Board erred in failing to consider that witness Twine

',;c disagreed (without contradicting) with Lucas and Madere's assertion

- that increased numbers of accidents.would occur and planned rescue vehicles for'the lesser number of accidents (Tr. 3003) ,W-.. -

g in the ETE. <

1

-s- o gjM-

1. \.

.J n'

a

. ux e -

./ ..

~

~

~ 27. The Board erred in not allowing Joint Intervenors to pursue

- a line of' questioning relative to the ' hysteria' question con-C cerning the ' evacuation shadow bhenomenon' (Tr. 2920--9).

28. The. Board erred'in failing to require more than one method

, of evacuating St'.JJohn and St. Charles parishes. Instead, they baldly. assert that the two risk parishes could and would determine to. evacuate in.various directions other than stricly east and

< west depending upon conditions without the barest plan for doing so.

29. The Board erred in not considering that The initial linkage and transmittal of information concerning an accident must come from utility employees (FF 42)..

30. The Board erred in failing to question the necessity for a representative of the utility to be present at the EOC in the risk parishes. (FF 47).

31. The Board erred in denying Joint Intervenors.the'right' to i question the state and parish evacuation officials .on. their familiarity with the radioactive materials potentially released from nuclear power plants (2282--16;2237--20;2237--22).

32. The' Board' erred in not allowing Joint Intervenors the opportunity to clarify whtt-level of emergency response is necessary to

?,f forcibly remove people from their homes .

q, '33.;The Board erred in denying Joint Intervenors Motion (Cross-

Motion).of September 29, .1982(Memorandum and Order, October 18, ,

, _ 1982).s e '

34.;The Board' erred'in granting the-Applicant's motion of September

? 23,: 1982 l(Memorandum and Order, . October 18, 1982). .

'2' '35.?The' Board' erred inl limiting .the' Joint-Intervenors Request for the Production ' and ' Copying. of hDocuments' to (simply. " correspondence" r ,

(Memorandum fand; ,. -

Order','.

October I18',11982, p. r 4, -footnote '4) .

36.iThe' Board' erred?in>not[ allowing" Joint-Intervenor's(request

>  ;< v for. documents' relating?toithe Indian Point' evacuation-proceeding ,'

(Memonandum and ' Order, October ?l8,111982) . ' ,

37. The Board erred in' granting Aoplicant's motion for reconsid-eration of its PID-(Nov.-3,.1982)'in respect-to allowing letters of agreements with agencies or political subdivisions of the support parishes (Memorandum and Order, December 14, 1982, p. 7).

,J .

Joint Intervenors- exceptions to contention 8/9:

38. The Board erred in considering the synergistic effects of l carcinogens with the entimated emi ssions from Waterford III .

rather than emissions allowable under'the license.- (Tr. 461,p.13

&l4, Tr. 735, p. 10-15) (FF 107-111)

39. The Board erred in relying upon Dr. Goldman's testimony con-cerning the DiPaoli study (Tr. 735--10pFF 107-111).

40.The Board erred in relying upon the biased testimony of pro-fessional witnesses whose financial interests are aligned with the nuclear industry (tr. 461--13&143 735--10thru15 942-9453 3 987; and 3656 and 3657) rather than the unbiased expert test-imony of Drs. Campbell, Pandit, Johnson, and Bross who have no pecuniary interest in the advance nor demise of nuclear power (FF 107-111).

41. The Board erred in relying upon Dr. Goldman's evasive. con-tradictory testimony concerning synergism which was unsupported

-by any credible evidence (FF 107-108).

42.The Board erred in relying upon the lay testimony of Dr Fabrikant concerning synergism. (ff 107-108; Tr. 3656-3657)

43. The Board erred in permitting Dr. -Fabrikant to testify as an expert concerning epidemiology and Dr. Bross' testimony.

44. The Board erred in finding that Fabrikant was an expert in epidemiology.

45. The Board erred in permitting Dr. Fabrikant to testify con-cerning Dr. Bross' beliefs and mental impressions.

-46.~The Board erred in placing the burden upon Joint Intervenors to prove the existence of synergistic effects from estimated levels of radiation from Waterford III (FF 107-108)

47. The Board erred in failing to consider unrebutted credible evidence concerning the nature and limitations of cancer re-search by placing the burden upon Joint Intervenors to prove I the existence of studies showing synergism between estimated low-level emissions levels from Waterford III and chemical car-cinogens(tr. 988).

48. The Board erred in placing the burden upon Joint Intervenors to prove the existence of ~ scientific evidence providing an j adequate basis for extrapolation from synergistic effects at l high doses to doses estimated from Waterford III (FF 108).

l 49. The Board's finding that there was no existing scientific evidence presented to the Board that provided an adequate basis for extrapolating from synergistic effects at high dose to doses estimated from Waterford III is false and unsupported.

50. The Board erred at FF 108 in failing to apply the method-l l

report to synergism between ology of the BEIR I, II, and. III chemical carcinogens and ionizing radiation.

to

51. The Board erred in finding that levels of radioactivity operat' ion are a be released by Waterford III during routine sn.al l fraction of the doses individuals'will receive from back-ground exposure (tr. 879,880) (FF 109) . expert failing to consider relevant

52. The Board erred in testimony of Dr. Epstein proffered by Joint Intervenors via a telephone deposition or via sponsorship by Dr. Johnson or Bross.

(tr. 363-365)

53. The Board -erred in ruling that Dr. Epstein's testimony could not be introduced and sponsored by Dr. Johnson or Dr.

Bross without granting Joint Intervenors an opportunity to lay of such testimony by direct a predicate for the introduction

. testimony of Dr. Johnson or Brass (tr. 365).

~

dep-

54. The Board erred in ruling that logistics of telephone ositions are ' Just too impossible' . (tr.363-365).

55. The Board erred in ruling that Epstein's telephone deposit-ion would not be permitted because it is important that ' expert subjects must be seen by f witnesses' dealing with ' technical the Board. (tr. 365) .

56. The Board's finding (FF100)that staff and Applicant's pro-is not supported by the Jections agreed within narrow limits evidence (tr. 773-775). to strike The Board erred in denying Joint Intervenors motion the testimony of Dr. Branagan (tr. 763).

o 57. The Board erred in denying Joint Intervenors motion to changes in Branagan's testimony (tr. 793) strike i

58. The Board erred in permitting staff attorneys to not advise Joint Intervenors and the Board of false sworn testimony (tr.780 l ,

781) l

59. The Board erred in granting credence to the non-expert test-many of Applicant witness Kenning concerning measurements of l radiation levels (tr. 472) 6060. The Board erred in crediting the ter,timony of Maurn who is dep-biased in favor of the nuclear industry ar.d economically endent upon it (tr. 488,503).

which was

61. The Board erred in relying upon the Gale Code developed by the nuclear industry (tr. 491) and testify dose

62. The Board erred in permitting Mauro to testified at an release calculations when he has never operating license hearing (tr. 518) and has never confirmed emissions (tr. 311) at any operating plant.

The Board erred in crediting Mauro's testimony and allowing 63.

1

.. - , _ ~_.

A' e him to testify as an expert and health effects of estimate-releases when he has never taken a biology course (tr. 481),did not include chemical exposures in estimates of health effects (tr. 527) to maximally expsed individuals, took no account of the existing cancer rate in Louisiana (tr. 530) and his calc-ations for radiation intake for maximally exposed infants O-1 do not include eating radioactive vegetables.-

64. The Board erred in crediting Hamilton's testimony when Hamilton's employer received 66% of its funds from the DOE which is charged with promoting nuclear power (tr.533), has alwayn testified on behalf of utilities at licensing hearings, and displayed selective amnesia under cross-examination (tr. 537 4 and 544).

6565. The Board erred in relying upon the testimony of Hamilton who attempted to mislead the Board by selectively recalling his past services for the nuclear industry.

66. The Board erred in crediting and relying upon the inaccurate l and falso testimony of Hamilton concerning the amount of radiation which will be emitted from Waterford III and absorbed by the maximally exposed individual as a percentage of back-ground radiation (tr. 715-717)

67. The Board erred in crediting Hamilton's inaccurate and false testimony concerning his criticism of Dr. Maurice Gottlieb's studies (tr. 652-672)

68. The Board erred in allowing Hamilton who is not qualified to state the risk to the Louisiana public from drinking water

69. The Board erred in crediting Hamilton's baseless statement concerning the upper limits of synergism.

70. The Board erred in failing to coincide the expert unrebutted testimony of Dr.. Carl Johnson that LP&L has poorly evaluated the most important pathways of exposure to radiation. -

71. The Board erred (FF 103-105) in .failing to coincide unrebutted expert testimony of Dr. Velma Campbell concerning the burden of carcinogens in Louisiana and the linkage between Louisiana's carcinogens and Louisiana's high cancer rate.

72. The Board erred (FF 103-105) in failing to consider unrebutted Joint Intervenors exhibits 1 thru 27, concerning the burden of carcinogens in Louisiana's environment and its high cancer rate.

73. The Board erred in striking the word 'high' from Dr. Velma Campbell's unrebutted expert testimony concerning La.'s high cancer rate.

74. The Board erred in excluding .all non-witness authored medical references.

75. The Board erred in failing to consider the expert unrebutted

- - - ._ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ .~.

F

74. - .

( $w ?

b:

.S m

d y[ testimony of Dr. Carl Johnson that actual emissions of nuclear 7p f power plants exceed predicted releases including predicted Qd releases from Waterford III (tr. 1902,1903,1907)

'U 76. The Board erred in 'giving sufficient weight to the c/ unrebutted expert testimony of Dr[ Brass concerning genetic

, Y;h degradation of cancer and supporting material contained in '

I l Appendix IV, the Greensto'ck and Ruddock article.

77. The Board failed to consider the unrebutted. expert g

testimony of Dr. Bross concerning the effects of l ow-l evel radi-ation and unrebutted evidence in Appendix V, p. 425 of Allen

, Brodsky's article.

• 78. The Board failed to consider expert unrebutted evidence contained in articles by Upton, Wilson, Stannard, and the expert l

unrebutted evidence of testimony of Dr. Irwin Bross regarding the increased sensitivity of children, infants, and fetuses to j radiation.

l

79. The Board failed to consider the expert unrebutted testimony of Dr. Bross concerning the synergistic effects of low level radiation and the cumulative health and genetic efects of rad-iation and chemical exposures.

, 80. The Board failed to consider the unrebutted. expert testimony 1

of Dr. Bross regarding the parallels between river systems in the Soviet Union and the lower Mississippi and the unrebutted expert evidence contained in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1980 publication by C. Davis and M. Feshbach.

81. The Board failed to consider the expert unrebutted testimony of Dr. Bross and Dr. Pandit concerning the parallels between Love Canal and the lower Mississippi.

82. The Board erred in failing to consider the expert unrebutted testimony of Dr. Bross 'concerning enhancement of radiation effects by chemical agents in the Waterford III area and the failure of regulatory mechanisms. to protect the public in South Louisiana.

83. The Board erred in failing to consider Dr. Bross' expert unrebutted testimony concerning the inadequacy of the ' average' dose adopted by Applicant. (tr. 1372-1375)

84. The Board failed to consider the expert unrebutted evidence of the synergistic model contained in Dipaola's study , mis-represented by Dr. Goldman at tr. 970.

85. The Board failed to consider the expert testimony of Dr.

Bross and Dr. Johnson concerning the bias and incompetence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (tr. 1372,1902,1903).

86. The Board failed to consider the testimony concerning dis-trust of the NRC, the ASLB, and state and local officials con-tained in the numerous statements of the limitef appearers.

7 ,

- si y (i

! f.., j ,

r y, ,??I Gont g / L . C's yy j\ l be T i nTO r y car., c;-