ML20138P604

Response to ASLB Ruling Re Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 Re Groundwater.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20138P604
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/15/1985
From:	Johnson T CAMPAIGN FOR PROSPEROUS GEORGIA (EDUCATIONAL)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138P596	List: ML20138P594 ML20138P604
References
OL, NUDOCS 8512260188
Download: ML20138P604 (12)

Text

r g -

s;

.. December 15, 1985 DOCHETED-U9tRC

, United States of America

- Nuclear Regulatory-Commission

' ' L 3 SECnntJ. '

oW !. 59yrrf, 2-: , . .f a in the Matter of Georgia Power Ccapany, et.al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units =1 and 2) ; Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL), 50-425

'(OL)'

" Analysis of the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board's November 12, 1985 Memorandum And Order (Rulino On Motion For Summary Disposition Of

.Contentlon 7 res' Groundwater Contaminatlon)

The intervenors did not file a motion to strike because the

-Applicants' were arguing-their case through the mails. Because of the

-complexity of this issue, and because both Applicants and the ASLB board have had difficulty understanding some.of the issues raised by Intervenors, Intervenors want to argue their case in front of both the Applicant's and the ASLB board where confusion can be more easily resolved rather than trying to do so through the mails. Intervenors feel that sufficient information had been supplied to the Atcaic

-Safety And Licensing Board (ASLB) to make a determination on whether or not the groundwater contention entoto merited genuine issues of material fact to be heard in an open forum before the ASLB.

Nonetheless, the ASLB granted part of the. Applicants' request although the ASLB' board agreed genuine issues do exist with the goundwater contention. This analysis will review seriatim the dispositions by the ASLB board of the Intervenors' allegations on the groundwater 8512260188 851220 PDR ADOCK 05000424 Q PDR .

f: p '

f aj -

- b q

fcontention._

g

4 . ~

Sr-90 contamination of aroundwater at VEGP LThe ASLB board and the Applicants misconstrued this allegation. This

_ part_of-the' allegation stated :

The 1971 groundwater chemical analysis should be updated. It has been.found that Sr-90 contamination in the VEGP... area , likely

~due to SRP. releases, is significant (cf FES). There is the possibility that other released chemicals may have changed the 1971; datum.

'Both'th'e-ASLB board and Applicants were unable to find reference'to

'Sr-90 contamination in the VEGP groundwater in the FES and therefore dismissed -the contention out of hand. But, Intervenors did not state

'there was Sr-90 contamination of the groundwater in the VEGP area.

~

.Intervenors stated that Sr-90 contamination in the VEGP area was ,

significant, and'that this was discussed in the FES (cf. FES, Appendix A, pp'.91-92'; the NRC response in the FES ,pp. 9-27,28, did not address the WFL-19 comment .concerning significant Sr-90 in milk in the VEGP area either).

' Simply put, using Dupont SRP and EPA data, there exists a significant

' ~ difference in concentrations of Sr-90 found in milk in the UEGP area ,

compared to what both the EPA and the SRP claim should be in the VEGP area due'to nuclear weapons fallout and thus do to chance. Numerous EPA'and SRP sources attest to the confounding of SRP released Sr-90 by 1

l l

yy ,,

=

(w , .m9

• uy :Yb' un ~ L W. ,

'u  ;

i '

c. 4 , s

.i_ uj ,

~

.w

, [' ; Y ifalloutl'?theselare referenced in'thelfirst FES' citation above.18ut

1. F F rio'nefoi j these: sources,l both, EPA and ;SRP,f analyzed "thk Sr-90 data' using t m + .. . : ..

. J , statistical ~~inferenceC Thusjfor$the most part", the: EPA and SRP-

~ s; - ,

g L i

conc 1'usionsLin these sources were: speculative. Using'_ statistical N

~

l' [ inference,Jaisignificant'd'ifference'was found to exist.( t(12)=2.48,p E

le s thani.05). ,

,o

< I) s L ' E Wl'th I t' biing; firm 1y established that Sr-90 contamination in - the SRP

-area;is significant,.especially.in the VEGP. area where the highest 1 readings ;were. found, and since the-SRP emits Sr-90, .the_ -source of the

~

Sr-90 becomes i.mportant. The.SRP predictions'of Sr-90 maximum k- Jconcentrations,fdue t'o-airborne releases, at its plant boundary are orders.of magnitude below the concentrations'found in. milk in' the VEGP area'(e.g;, DPST-82-1054, p. 2-5 (1982); 00E/EIS-0.108, p.5-52-(1984);

JEPA 520/5-84-012 (1984)).'Considering that the SRP is a source of Sr-90:(e.g.,.,ERDA-1537, p. A-26),,that-the SRP has had a consistent t historyfof'.' underestimating environmental parameters and impacts (e.g.,

ERDA-1537', p.III-20; vs. DOE /ER-0225, pp. D-38,41), i t is possible to s conclude that the.Sr-90' milk contamination in the VEGP area is likely-q due to many-yearsio'f SRP releases.

Why.'is. this of . concern? The SRP releases not only Sr-90 but many-other

~ radionuclides'and nonradioactive effluents as well (e.g.,

- .DPST-82-1054)..The Sr-90 may be considered a signature. At the SRP, m'

, groun'dwater. contamination due to background tritium under the

, 1 radioactive' waste burial grounds, about 1 mile upwind from the

" airborne release stacks in the H-Area, has been attributed to H-Area release _ stacks releasing tritium. Airborne released tritium effluents r

- , _ _ , , , _m...._.-.... . , , , m. _ . . _ . . . . . _ , , , _ . . . . - . - , , . . _~,-

y; .

r

==; _

r, L ' , M( . ,._ _

, ~ *l \'{y

' l _; [- '

c; .o , -/ .' -

1* -l n

~

i jareidepositedkon/thesurfaceof:the'burialgrounds,washedintothe- -

6]&~p/Tssilwhenditical'ns,Jt' hen _ percolated'downwardsto~the' groundwater

~

Mm,

.L.

"c: ly i..belowitandithen intercepted bri background monitoring wells (cf. the

<SRP Annual ~Well:Nonitoring Reports by;Fenimore,. Radionuclides In 643G

, e -

7 Groundwater- .1973-76?, November ~23,-1977, p.2). A' clear path of

.y

~

'airbornefreleases,_. deposition,-and subsequent.goundwater accumulation.

jhas been1 established'atLthe'SRP. The_same pattern and causal'

!; relationship;should be?found in the VEGP. area as a result =of SRP release's.LSinceEthe'only, chemical datum for the groundwater under VEGP Lwas established in 1971,;and since.the SRP makes'significant airborne releases;each year, and since'Sr-90:has been found to be significantly. _

?. higher.inLconcentrations within milk-in the VEGP area, it would appear

. .to be impoitant' to re-estabiish a new datum for the groundwater.

Otherwise,fsubsequent monitoring data may be: confounded.

jg 7 . ,

There is'another concern. Groundwater under VEGP has been accepted as

~

1-a formal: contention.' Groundwater contamination is a complex sub, lect, onelnot' easy.to ' understand or. predict. However, it doesn't appear to 4 be part of the scientific method to dismiss arguments because the

comments are_ vague,_or not understandable, especially when it is an e

g easy. matter to contact those making the arguments. The ASLB and a

i Applicants tend to suggest that some of these scientific arguments can ibe. legally., acceptable or.not. While that may be so, i t must be clearly

-funderstood that the spread of contamination in the aquifers below VEGP

_ < .i '

. cannot bt prevented by decree, by legal resolution, or by formal Fenvironmental. statements. The most prosperous course, it would seem, mis _to: resolve issues that may appear to be vague, especially when Epossible and when.to'the advantage of all parties.

w" .s---..g - .,.,m..-e.ma--,~, +=ng-N ap 't *

- py^, yera y c- y--t'-y- -yv- r#--p Wy (- ry-*+e w- --gr-es-a+.6

, gs

~

t .4 u> ,

l Statistical Analy' sis of Hydroloolcal Data Intervenorst stated that.the groundwater data had not been studied (with scientificLinference methods. Applicants and the ASLB board agreed that~this data had not been' statistically treated, but both f

- ' stated that intervenors have not found flaws in the conclusions based

~

on that data. Intervenors were not planning to look for statistical errors, but for errors in process. This the Intervenors have found.

Statistical treatment on the groundwater data should include a sensitivity analysis and an estimate of the range of error that exists

'in the collected data. VEGP groundwater data should be compared to normalized groundwater data from national groundwater monitoring' data from nuclear reactors.'No data base is error free, but the amount of

~

error. should be quantified, a datum established and updated when found

~

incorrect. For example, an uncertainty analysis on the groundwater Ttravel time may have. resolved some of the issues in this area. The ASLB board has agreed that uncertainty exists in some of the VEGP data. A statistical treatment would quantify this uncertainty.

Intervenors were not looking for flaws in the groundwater data using statistical treatments, per se, but in the planning process. It appears both were'found.

Groundwater contamination plumes are known not to travel as a discrete whole,'but as a distribution modeled by distribution moments. There are'other' reasons to use statistical and probabilistic treatments of

- hydrologic data. From Viessman, Knapp, Lewis, and Harbaugh (

Introduction to Hydrolooy (2nd ed.) ,1977, pp.157,201) :

l

.__m________.________________- ___

ey- _

- . 1 9

i

-A,s Many hydrologic; processes are so complex that they can be interpreted and. explained only in a probabilistic sense.

r_ -

Hydrologic events appear as uncertainties of nature and are the f

. 1resul t, It must be assumed, of an underlying process with random

-or: stochastic components. The 'information to investigate these processes is contained in records of hydrologic observations.

Methods of' statistical analysis provide ways to reduce and summarize observed data, to present'information in precise and meaningful form, to determine the underlying characteristics of

'the observed phenomena, and to make predictions concerning future-

. behavior...

probability and statistical

. . .appi l ca t i ons ( to) . . .canplex hydrologic processes often require knowledge of the joint

-distribution of several random variables and consideration of the correlation between them. Dependence of sequential events in a -

time series is also an important concept in hydrology. Methods of analysis can be extended... over both space and time...With the development of electronic computers, these methods and techniques have become a valuable element in planning and design.

From Meyer ( introductory Probability and Statistical Acolications

,1970, p.3),

For . . .probabilistic. . .or. . . stochastic model(s , these phenomena do)...not lend itself to a deterministic. approach. A probabilistic model describes the situation more accurately.

- n~ gg-fin alletter report from Dupont in :1981 (Letter R. Maher, Dupont, to

,7

. sT.B.Hindman,jDOE-SR, Issues Pertinent to the Lono-Term Operation of the Burl'al-Ground , June 30,-;1981, p.'25, 26), a discription of Econtaminant. flow in the groundwater at SRP is of a distribution:

Tritium will continue to move out of the burial. ground at an average flow velocity of 30-50 feet / year. The leading edge of the

. activi ty is moving 3-10 times f aster. . .

In. summary, scientific inference would quantify the amount of error that exists in the VEGP hydrologic data. If anything, in conclusions by VEGP on groundwater travel -time, in its conclusions on the mari, in

-its. conclusions on the direction of groundwater flow, VEGP has demonstrate'd that an uncertainty in the data exists.

a.

Effect of Settlement on the Marl Applicants and the ASLB board have misunderstood this part of the ,

contention by Intervenors. Both stated they did not understand

" differential flow rates of the grouted wells underlying the (VEGP) facility." An explanation follows. The wells underneath VEGP have supposedly been grouted with an acceptable method (Intervenors have questioned this method before; e.g., cf. the Bechtel report Geotechnical Verification Work Report of Results , August 1985, Geologic Drill Log, Hole No. 904: The amount of cement injected into the. hole to grout the well was 28 cu yd compared to a drilled-out volume of 46.8 cu yds, leaving a difference of 18.8 cu yds.) Assuming the grouted wells under the VEGP power block are one complete solid ,

l L.

-g

s.

-then,as.the' power block settles, those grouted wells directly under 7the block will be punched downward at;a one-to-one' rate, a rate that may be different (" differential") for the marl'. Applicants have concluded that the' marl'is impermeable,.but have not shown whether the Jmatl ,ls' incompressible, or whether the marl will deform downward at the same rate as.the grouted wells'. The grouted wells are likely less compressible in a vertica1' direction than the more elastic marl. As these grouted wells settle, driven by.the weight of the power block atop them, 'they act like spikes. With plastic defor'mation of the marl, it_'is possible' that the bottom of the grouted wells may separate and

' core out'at the bottom of the marl. If.so, the integrity of the marl would be dimenished.

There are'other concerns with this issue. Will the power block L

' -settlement resume with water withdrawl over the years? The Savannah River Plant credits the contamination of the Tuscaloosa aquifer under the SRP to deterioration of production well casings. What is the possibility of' grouting. deterioration under the VEGP? Applicants have not given sufficient assurance that this will not become a pathway for contamination.~ Settlement under the VEGP powerblock has been described

'as plastic deformation, but Applicant did not describe the marl deformation boundary at the points of furtherest deformation on the

- surface of the marl and downwards through the mar 1.

Leakaoe of' Radioactive water from Auxiliary Buildino Intervenors do not disagree with Applicants and the ASLB board that water would seep into the building from outside through a fracture.

p P

aThe highest levels of contamination recorded under the-SRP and in the t'

p' lTuscaloosaiaquifer-occurred-under:a' spent' solvent holdup tank (e.g.,

1Steele,_(Technical Summary'of'the A/M Area Groundwater Remedial Action

. Procram ,'ca.1984, SRP report, pp. 7,10; DPST-83-829, pp. 6-12,13,

'79). Theltank.was not shown'by SRP to have failed, only leaked for

.many. years. ~In addi tion, even- if water only inflows from a fracture in the building, a concentration gradient will_ occur,_and it is possible that contamination will escape. Intervenors believe this to be a

~

viable issue.'

-Hazardous Chemical Wastes Intervenors argue-that the potential for groundwater contamination of

the; aquifers at VEGP to'be as. viable an issue as the possibility of

~^ ' radioactive-contamination. The groundwater contamination at the SRP has been by both radioactive and hazardous chemicals. The VEGP

_ groundwater monitoring program should include monitoring for all

~c hemical effluents.

o; Contamination of Crataceous Aauffer at SRP ASL8 alledges'that Intervenors stated that groundwater contamination at SRP resulted from leaks out of a holding tank. That is so, but not

the only source of contamination. The areal extent of the groundwater contamination'in 1983 was in the hundreds of acres. Contamination

.under theftank'is the highest recorded at SRP (e.g., DPST-83-829, p.6-12,13,79), but it occurred under the M-Area basin, and since the

basin overflowed, and since the sewar lines leaked, percolation

,  %. - a rt -

-4 ,

L

~

ddenward occurred over a large areal' extent also.

pr. , 8 - 'r' I)A source on the storage tank for spent solvents is noted above. On-other' matters, there is some confusion on the HLW tank releases with releases from'other. areas on the SRP. The HLW tanks are located in the

- 200 area at SRP, and the known Tuscaloosa aquifer contamination has

- occurred in M-Area, a si.gnificant distance away, but still on the SRP

' site.-

Groundwater Travel Time The outcrop at the SRP did not. occur early solely because of the

~

shortene'd flowpath due to erosion. It occurred primarily because of erroneous conclusions ~ based on average groundwater flowrates. The original flowpath was about 1700 to 2600 f t and the erosion' was about '

.900 ft (ERDA-1537,p.11-116; DP-1638, p.10). Assuming that erosion was the' only factor, eroding.900 of 1700 should reduce the old estimated

. travel time for.the' groundwater first outcrop of tritium to 35 years from 70 years (ERDA-1537,p. II-116). However tritium effluent at the outcrop was first discovered in 1978, one year after ERDA-1537 was published wherein it was stated that no significant outcrop would occur until the 70th year; it could have occurred sooner than 1978, but that was the year it was discovered ( Lawless, Savannah River Plant (SRP) Burial Ground Buildino 643-G Manacement Aooraisal Report

- (BGAR) Aooralsed June 2-13. 1980 , November 1, 1982, pp.12-13).

. Further, and conclusively, even with the 900 ft erosion repaired, SRP predicted the re-emergence of the tritium in a subsequent outcrop p

within one year ( Lawless, BGAR , 1982, p. 11). This does not support e

'?;; A((' ^ .f , y ;.

+ In ' u . c ', , 4

• '- e+

,6 ;Q:c - , ..;

,4 .:

YAphlican.ts.contentionsongroun&atertravel=. time.

' ~'

c

~

DThe groundwater estimatesused;by SRP was-in error. Appilcants have-Tused-a:similar method at the VEGP, a' method subject'to error; That-is

[,7 -the main ~ point.oh DP-1438. By'using'.a 'three-dimensional.model'for=

groundwater: flow, a calculation of 17 years for' an outcrop was found,

'in1close agreement lto'what'~has been observed. Flow rates varied-in Irelation; to changing' gradients. This may account in part for the icalcu ated differences from observed rates. .

9 h

.I ,

O 4.

$ d l.

Y.. :

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gg g g

~

• In the- Matter of : )

)

-GEORGIA POWER CO., et al. ) Docket Nos. 5d852405a00-425?2

)

'(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, cFF;ct u RakiM r

-Units 1.and 2) -

00CKEImG A SERm

, BRANCH

[ ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is-to certify that copies of the foregoing Intervenors' response to the ASLB's Ruling on Motion-for. Summary Disposition of Contention 7 and the related cover letter were served by hand or by deposit with the U. S. Postal Service in the City of Atlanta with first class postage attached to be delivered to the following service list'this 20th day of December,1985.

TT Joh(son SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Lic:nsing Board ' Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington,.D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Docketing and' Service Section.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Secretary

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.' 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Bernard M. Bordenick, esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission _ Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Ruble A. Thomas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Southern. Company Services, Inc.

Washington,_D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Bruce Churchill, esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Bradley Jones, esq.

1800 M Street, N.W. Regional Counsel, U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20036 101 Marietta Street, Ste. 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 James Joiner, esq.

Troutman, Sanders, Potts & Trowbridge The Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303