ML20148Q989

Order (Denying Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order).* Licensee 880119 Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order Denied.Served on 880129

ML20148Q989
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/28/1988
From:	Bright G, Paris O, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
CON-#188-5434 87-554-04-OLA, 87-554-4-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8802020021
Download: ML20148Q989 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

', 5 YBV A

t 00(K{50 9 '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'88 JAN 29 P3 :09 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: ?o:x u ,.r g,:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Or, Oscar H. Paris Glenn O. Bright , , , , ,,,,

MRVED JAN'2 919M

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-320-OLA

) (Disposal of Accident-GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLfAR ) Generated Water)

CORPORATION, et al.

)

(ASLBP No. 87-554-04-OLA)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) Janua ry 28, 1988

)

ORDER (Denying Licensee's Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order)

On January 5,1988, this Board issued its Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special Prehearine Conference; Ruling on Contentions; Scheduling) (unpublished), in which certain contentions of Three Mile Island Alert and Susquehanna Valley Alliance (Joint Intervenors) were

! admitted as issues in controversy, Joint Intervenors were admitted as a party, and the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania was admitted as an interested state, and a schedule was set forth. On January 19, 1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU or Licensee) filed Licensee's Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order, pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.751a(d).

GPU does not seek a stay of the order or ask that the Board reverse its rulings on the admissibility of contentions. However, ticensee does 2002020021 880128 PDR ADOCK 05000320 G PDR t 0

a 4-3-

Hearing restricts this Board to an assessment of whether or not one or more acceptable disposal methods exist and that it is the Commission itself which will thereafter decide which disposal method will be used.

We agree with Licensee's first argument to the extent that it states that evidence on whether the design system of the V.%osed evaporator will meet the ALARA standard does not fall within the scope of Joint Intervenors' admitted Contention 1. However, tht.t part of the Board's statement in the Memorandum and Order at 6, n. 4 as reproduced above is not directed to Joint Intervenors' Contention 1. The confusion arises because of Staff's letter of December 29, 1987 wherein, after discussing what Joint Intervenors appeared to assert in relying on York Committee for a Safe Environtrent v. USNRC, 527 F2d 812 (0.C. Cir. 1975),

the Staff stated at page 3:

The Staff would also note the admitted contention should, however, reflect that the amendment under consideration would only delete the prohibition in the plant's Technical Specifications on disposal of the accident-generated water

("AGW"). See Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment ti Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Prior Hearing, 52 Fed. Reg. 28626 (July 31, 1987).

Consistent with the amendment requested, it is not necessary for the Licensee to have yet submitted to the Staff a specific design for the proposed evaporator. The Staff would expect that submittal to be made following Commission authorization of the deletion of the prohibition.

The Staff will review the specific system design for acceptability and to determine that its . anticipated environmental impacts fall within the scope of those estimated in the PEIS, Supp!ement No. 2. As part of that review, the Staff will determine, in accordance with Appendix 1, 611.0, whether any modifications to the specific system would result in cost-beneficial reductions in dose.

P e

2 request that the Board clarify its special prehearing conference order with respect to the Board's jurisdiction, the scope of the proceeding, and the Board's role vis-a-vis the Staff and the Commission.

p v , , ..Specif.ically, GPU objects to the following statement of the Board in the January 5 Memorandum and Order:

For some reason, the Staff apparently t'elieves that the Commission only authorized this Board to consider whether or not the ptchibition in the technical specifications against disposal of AGW should be deleted and that, once the deletion of the prohibition has been authorized and after the Staff has reviewed the (as yet to be submitted) specific design system for the evaporator, the Staff on its own will determine whether that specific design system's anticipated environmental impacts fail within the scope of those estimated in the PEIS, Supplement No. 2. We disagree. Had the Comission intended to restrict our jurisdiction in any manner it would have so stated and it would not have issued a Notice of Opportunity For A Prior Hearing (emphasis added.) Thus we conclude that during the adjudicatory process it must be established on the record before us that the cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA standard.

Memorandum and Order at 6, n. 4.

GPU argues that evidence on whether the design system of the proposed evaporator will meet the ALARA standard does not fall within the scope of admitted Contention 1 and therefore the Board has improperly raised a sua sponte issue in the absence of Comission approval. GPU also argues that the Notice of Opportunity for Prior Contention 1, in substance, alleges that the ALARA principle has not been complied with because the selected open cycle evaporation method would release all of the tritium and a quantity of radionuclides whereas other methods would not release all the radioactivity.

A 4

Hearing restricts this Board to an assessment of whether or not one or more acceptable disposal methods exist and that it is the Commission itself which will thereafter decide which disposal method will be used.

We agree with Licensee's first argument to the extent that it states that evidence on whether the design system of the proposed evaporator will meet the ALARA standard does not fall within the scope of Joint Intervenors' admitted Centention 1. However, that part of the Board's statement in the Memorandum and Order at 6, n. 4 as reproduced above is not directed to Joint Intervenors' Contention 1. The confusion arises because of Staff's letter of December 29, 1987 wherein, after discussing what Joint Intervenors appeared to assert in relying on York Committee for a Safe Environment v. USNRC, 527 F2d 812 (0.C. Cir. 1975),

the Staff stated at page 3:

The Staff would also note the admitted contention should, however, reflect that the amendment under consideration would only delete the prohibition in the plant's Technical Specifications on disposal of the accident-generated water

("AGW"). See Notice of Consideration of Issuance of l Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity i for Prior Hearing, 52 Fed. Reg. 28626 (July 31, 1987).

l Consistent with the amendment requested, it is not necessary for the Licensee to have yet submitted to the l

Staff a specific design for the proposed evaporator. The i Staff would expect that submittal to be made following I Commission authorization of the deletion of the prohibition.

l The Staff will review the specific system design for acceptability and to determine that its . anticipated environmental impacts fall within the scope of those estimated in the PEIS, Supplement No. 2. As part of that review, the Staff will determine, in accordance with Appendix 1, 5 II.D. whether any modifications to the specific system would result in cost-beneficial reductions in dose.

l I

t 4

The Board viewed this statement as setting forth the Staff's overall position, not limited to Contention 1, that the Commission had restricted our jurisdiction solely to deciding whether the prohibition in the technical specifications against disposal of accident-generated water should be deleted. We disagreed with the Staff's overall position and accordingly concluded "that during the adjudicatory process it must be established on the record before us that the cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA standard" (Memorandum and Order at 6, n. 4). As an adjudicatory board, we do not advise the Staff and the Licensee either precisely when evidence must be introduced, or with respect to which contention it should be offered. Obviously, however, as we pointed out in our Memorandum and Order, Joint Intervenors' Contention 4 addresses the operation of the evaporator. The issues admitted under Contention 4 question whether the evaporator can adequately filter out radionuclides and chemicals, whether its monitoring and safety systems are adequate, and whether it can process 20 gallons / minutes without jeopardizing the public health and safety. Clearly Contention 4 contests the design of the evaporator. Thus, evidence on the evaporator's design obviously ouoht to be introduced at the time Contention 4 is litigated.

With respect to the Licensee's second argument, a fair reading of the Notice of Opportunity for Prior Hearing shows that the Commission, having received the Licensee's proposal to evaporate the accident-generated water by forced heating, empowered this Board to decide whether said proposal should be authorized. We do not agree with

s 5-the Licensee's strained argument (Objection at p. 6) that, in adverting to the April 27, 1981 Policy Statement in the Notice of Opportunity for Prior Hearing, the Comission evidenced that it (or the Staff), outside the adjudicatory process, would determine whether to approve the instant proposal for disposition of the accident-generated water. In adverting to the 1981 Policy Statement, the Comission was merely indicating that it would follow its procedures -- i.e. upon its receipt of a proposal for disposition of accident-generated water, upon a request for a hearipp, and if intervening parties and their contentions were admitted, the Comission would, via the adjudicatory process, determine whether to approve the proposal. The Notice proceeded to specify the procedures to be followed. See also the Commission's subsequent Order of December 3, 1987 (unpublished) wherein it again specified, as well as implemented,

! the procedures to be followed with respect to GPU's application for a l

license amendment for disposal of accident-generated water.

Since it is clear that this Board has not raised a sua sponte issue and that the Comission has empowered us to decide whether to authorize Licensee's proposal to evaporate the accident-generated water by forced l

l

t f

heating, the Licensee's objection to the special prehearing conference order is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J. W (b W 6,Chaitman ADMINISTRATI JUDGE W

Oscar H. Paris

. 0W ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE A h ' A)

Glenn O. Bright ef ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ,

'l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of January, 1988.

l t

i

. -_ . _ , . .