ML20078B977

Response Opposing NRC 830913 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Lg Hulman.Affiant Revised Testimony Incorrect,Misleading & Irrelevant.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078B977
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	09/26/1983
From:	Finamore B FINAMORE, B.A., National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8309270338
Download: ML20078B977 (8)

Text

- - _

O 8

f t

DOCKETED USNRC BEFORE THE UNITED STATES . . .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '83 $g g ojg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFFILE or SECRETAp Before Administrative Judges 00CdEil4G & SEPvici Marshall E. Miller, Chairman RA CH Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED GTATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket No. 50-537-CP i

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

NRDC RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF LEWIS G. HULMAN NRDC and the Sierra Club make the following comments in response to to "NRC Staff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Lewis G. Hulman," dated September 13, 1983.

The Staff has offered Mr. Hulman's testimony (Tr. 8505-8509) as supplemented in his Affidavit of September 13, 1983, to support the Staf f's claim that NRDC's estimates of the consequences of HCDAs I

are without support in the record; NRDC's first order approximations or ' adjustments,'

for meteorological factors, to Applicants' and Staff's dose calculations, are simply incorrect and that

[a]s NRDC concedes, changing the 300 rem dose guideline value to account for infant exposure or the Marshall Islands data would constitute a challenge to the Commission's regulations.

Exh 125 at 4, TR 7656; 10 C.F.R. 2.758; S W Hulman, TR 8505. As to basing dose G

DR DO O O O 37 PDR 3 m -

i calculations on infants, 10 C.F.R. Part 100 .

refers to TID-14844 for guidance concerning such calculations, and that guidance, which j the Staf f has consistently followed, is based upon adults. A W Strawbridge, TR 7715; S W Hulman, TR 8504.

NRC Staff's Revised Proposed Opinion, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Construction Permit), Sept. 13, 1983, pp. F-86 - F-89, footnotes omitted.

The Staff has misinterpreted the Limited Appearance Statement of Dr. Thomas B. Cochran Regarding Issues Raised in the Construction Permit Proceeding (July 8, 1983) ("NRDC's limited appearance statement"), and consequently Mr. Hulman's revised testimony is in part incorcect, in part misleading, and fails to support Staff's Revised Proposed Findings of Fact.

First, it should be understood that one of the purposes of the NRDC limited appearance statement was to update, on the basis of new data from the Staff, the calculations presented by the Intervenors in the LWA proceeding with regard to the radiological consequences of a CDA and the implications this has for (a) whether the CDA should be within the DBA envelope, and (b) whether the site is suitable under 10 CFR Part 100 requirements.

Second, contrary to Mr. Hulman's revised testimony and Staff's Revised Proposed Finding of Fact #102, NRDC is not challenging Commission regulations. Rather, NRDC is challenging the Staff's use of the adult thyroid as the critical organ when judging whether potential exposures are in excess of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.

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

]

When 10 CFR Part 100 was implemented, and when TID-14844 was .

written, experts did not realize that the infant thyroid was more sensitive than the adult thyroid (i.e., would receive a higher dose than the adult thyroid for inhaled iodine), and there were no infant or child thyroid models in use. Since the early 1960s, the sensitivity of infant thyroids to inhaled radiciodine has become apparent. Every agency of the federal government, including EPA, DOE, and the Commission, recognize this. The Commission calculates the dose to infants or children as well as adults to determine the dose to the maximally exposed individual, with respect to compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I, and NEPA. While Mr. Hulman takes the position that it has not been the Staf f's practice to examine the infant thyroid in accident analyses when it is the critical organ, the Staf f's failure to examine the infant thyroid in this case reflects a failure of the NRC's Accident Analysis Branch (which Mr. Hulman directs) to conform to appropriate and accepted health physics practices.

Third, Mr. Hulman completely misses the point of NRDC's limited appearance statement when he concludes, "Dr. Cochran disagrees. His argument seems to be that you should use the same assumptions that you use for design basis accidents" (TR 8506).

An objective of NRDC's limited appearance statement was to show that using " realistic" assumptions, analogous to the assumptions used in environmental impact statements, the probability of doses exceeding 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines values

_4-from a CDA at CRBR was greater than 10-6 per year, the stated ,

objective in the 1977 FES at p. 7-2 -- an objective that was not altered with publication of the FSFES in 1982. Actually, for external events, the Standard Review Plan, Section 2.2.3, requires that realistic estimates of exposures not exceed 10 CFR 100 guidelinas 10-7 per year, and the probability of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of 10-6 per year is permitted only when making conservative calculations.

To test Whether doses exceed 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines with a probability greater than 10-6 (or 10-7) per year, one can treat the question in terms of a joint probability, i.e., whether Pg

• P B > 10-6/yr where Pg = Probability of a CDA PB = Probability of doses e.:ceeding 10 CFR 100 given a CDA.

In NRDC's limited appearance statement, we started with Staff and Applicants' independent estimates that the probability of a CDA was 10-4 per year, i.e., P g = 10-4 The remaining question, given a CDA, is whether the probability of exposures exceeding 10 CFR 100 is greater than 1 in 100. In NRDC's limited appearance statement, we simply argued that, if one assumes a 50% X/O and calculates an adult thyroid dose of 192 rem, the probability is greater than one in 100 that the meteorology will be such that the 300 rem adult thyroid dose is exceeded. Consequently, a CDA should be a DBA for CRBR. NRDC further argued that the infant thyroid dose should be treated as the critical organ -- the FES and the Standard Review Plan do not

-5 I

say " children don't count." If the infant thyroid is examined, ,

then the probability of exceeding 300 rem to the thyroid, given a CDA at CRBR,is greater than 50%.

Mr. Hulman's efforts to explain whether 95% (or 5%) X/O means meteorology that is found not to be exceede9 5% of the time or 0.5% of the time (TR 8509) is interesting and informative, but completely beside the point.

Respectfully submitted,

]:= _ == 1" -

BafHara A. Finamore S. Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense Council 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-8210 Attorneys for Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council and

, Sierra Club Dated: September 26, 1983

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -

I hereby certify that copies of NRDC RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF LEWIS G.

HULMAN were served this 26th day of September 1983 by hand

• or by first class mail upon:

• Marshall E. Miller, Esq.

Chairman Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway, 4th floor Bethesda, MD 20014

• Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway, 4th floor Bethesda, MD 20014

• Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Stuart Treby, Esq.

Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

Elaine I. Chan, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road l Bethesda, MD 20014

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW, Room 1121 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1717 H Street, NW, Room 1121

! Washington, D.C. 20555 l

• Indicates hand delivery.

Certificate of Service - 2

• Docketing & Service Section .

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW, Room 1121 Washington, D.C. 20555 ( 3 copies )

• R. Tenney Johnson, Esq.

Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr. , Es q.

William D. Luck, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Rm. 6A245 Washington, D.C. 20585

• George L. Edgar, Esq.

Irvin N. Shapell, Esq.

Thomas A. Schmut z, Esq.

Gregg A. Day, Esq.

Frank K. Peterson, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. , Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California F.O. Box 247 West Side Road Bodega Bay, CA 94923 (Federal Express Mail)

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.

Lewis E. Wallace, Esq.

l James F. Burger, Esq.

! W. Walker LaRoche, Esq.

I Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 William M. Leech, Jr., Esq.,

Attorney General William B. Hubbard, Es q. ,

Chief Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Pearigen, Esq.

State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37219

Certificate of Service - 3 Lawson McGhee Public Library .

500 West Church Street Knoxville, TN 37219 William E. Lantrip, Esq.

City Attorney Municipal Building P.O. %i Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, TN 37748 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, TN 32219 1

Bfrbara A. Finamore i

l i

.- _ _ _ . - _ _ _