ML20154E325
| ML20154E325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1988 |
| From: | Doris Lewis GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154E212 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8805200177 | |
| Download: ML20154E325 (15) | |
Text
p f'
Cwcia twc May 16, 19 Orf n:. n a a, <
00Cnii A c. W l'.I.
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA
)
(Disposal of Accident (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2)
)
LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION Sd I. Introduction Licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 and the Board's Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1988, for summary dis-position in Licensee's favor of Contention 5d.
Contention 5d was introduced into this proceeding by the Susquehanna Valley Alli-ance and Three Mile Island Alert ("Joint Intervenors") and al-leges that the effects of tritium and alpha emitters such as transuranics have not been considered.
As grounds for its mo-tion, Licensee asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect tc this contention, and that Licensee is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
8805200177 000516 PDR ADOCK 0500 0
i.
I i
i The motion is supported by:
l
}
1.
"Licensee's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disp ~.',':'," cated May 9, 1988; i
2.
"Licensee's Statement of Material Facts as to Which
}
There is No' Genuine Issue to be Heard (Contention 5d);
j 1
3.
"Aftidavit of Kerry L. Harner (Contention 5d)";
l 4.
"Affidavit of Dr. Gary G.
Baker (Contention 5d)"; and 5.
"Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling (Contention 5d)."
I Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of April 15, I
I' t
1988, the Joint Intervenors and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may file an answer to this motion by no later than thirty-five-
[
(35) days after service of the motion.
t II. Procedural Backcround i
j v
The contention addressed in this motion states as follows:
5d.
(Licensee and the NRC) have underestimated the effects of tritium and alpha emitting radionuclides on human beings.
The alpha emitters such as plutonium 238 and other transuranic elements which are present in the water vere virtually ignored in the 1987 EIS.
They were not examined i
for their chemical and biological characteristics in spite i
i of their well-known toxicity, i
I Amendments to Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene for Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and Three Mile Island Alert f
1
+
(TMIA), Nov. 20, 1987, at 6.
This contention was admitted by the i
I Board in its Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special
[
l
~
Prehearing Conference; Ruling on Contentions; Scheduling),
f Jan. 5, 1988, at 16-17.
L k ;
I
-i With respect to tritium, the Licensing Board admitted Con-l tention 5d on the basis of Joint Intervenors' statements at the j
i prehearing conference that the biological and carcinogenic ef-
]
L fects had not been explained.
Id., citing Tr. 41, 43.. At the i
prehearing conference, Joint Intervenors asserted that there is i
no safe threshhold for tritium and that evidence of doses of
[
t tritium being detrimental to human beings, particularly to fe-I i
c tuses, had been ignored.
Similarly, the Licensing Board admitted l
r the portion of Contention 5d on alpha emitting transuranics, on
(
the basis of the Joint Intervenors' statement at the prehearing i
conference that while transuranic elements were mentioned in the i
final EIS, their biological consequences were "virtually ig-I i
i
]
nored."
id., citing Tr. 41, 42.
Discovery on this and other admitted contentions commenced l
l on January 5, 1988 and was completed on March 15, 1988.
During
)
l i
this period, Joint Intervenors submitted two sets of discovery j
P i
requests to Licensee and two sets of discovery requests to the a
l NRC Staff, to which Licensee and the NRC Staff responded.1!
In I
r 4
j 1/
SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories and Request _for Production of
}
Documents to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Feb. 8, 1988);
i SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments to GPU Nuclear Corporation (Feb. 8, 1988); Licensee's An-i svers to SVA/ THIA's Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear Corporation
(
(Feb. 19, 1988); Licensee Response to SVA/TM!A's Request for Pro-
}
duction of Documents (Feb. 22, 1988); NRC Staff Response to In-terrogatories from TMIA/SVA (Feb. 22, 1988); SVA/1MIA's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the NRC Staff (March 15, 1988); Licensee's Ansvers to SVA/TM!A's Second Set of Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear (March 30, 2.988);
i NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Interrogatories from TMIA/SVA
)
)
(April 4, 1988).
I J
i 3
3 I
O 1
o i
particular, Joint Intervenors requested and vere provided consid-erable information concerning the radiological analyses and eval-uations of accident generated water sources.
For example, at Joint Intervenors' request, Licensee made available to Joint In-tervenors all sampling data generated after Licensee's July 1986 proposal.
III. Applicable Lav Contention 5d stems from Joint Intervenors' dissatisfaction with the discussion of tritium and transuranics in the Pro-gramatic Environment Impact Statement (PEIS) Supplement No. 2 l
(NUREG-0683).
In the PEIS, the NRC addressed both tritium and transuranics.
In section 2.2.1, the NRC Staff described the chemical and radiological characteristics of tritium, the in-terraction of tritium with biological systems (including incorpo-ration into organic ccmpounds and the biological half-life asso-ciated with this and other compartments), and environmental concentrations of tritium.
In Table 2.2, the NRC Staff quan-tified transuranics which had not been detected by Licensee's alpha spectroscopy of accident generated water by conservatively assuming that pertinent isotopes were present at the lover level l
of detection.
The NRC Staff then performed dose calculations for evaporation and the various other alternatives evaluated; and in section 5.7, the NRC Staff applied the BEIR III estimators to as-sess the risk of health effects.
In essence, with respect to the f i
proposed evaporation of accident generated water, the NRC Staff determined that not'c single fatal cancer or a single incidence j
i i
of genetic ill health would be expteted.
fit PE!S Supp. 2,
{
l 5 5.2.
For this and other reasons, the NRC Staff concluded that j
I the proposed evaporation would have no significant environmental j
impact.
The NRC Staff's discussion is comprehensive, particularly i
3 when one considers that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), no environmental impact statement (EIS) at all is re-I
{
j quired for federal actions that do not significantly affect the l
quality of the human environment.
42 U.S.C.
S 4332(c); Lower l
Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 687 F.2d l
732, 740 (3rd Cir. 1982).
Further, one must recognize that when j
the NRC Staff (or any other agency) does prepare an EIS, its f
f 4
asse::sment is subject to a rule of reason.
Scientists' Institute i
for Public Information, Inc. v.
AEC, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.
f j
Cir. 1973).
The Staff need not foresee the unforseeable.
J.d.
i Moreover, an intervenor who challenges an agency's environ-I mental evaluation must shoulder its burden of going forward.
As
[
I l
j the Supreme Court stated in the Vermont Yankee case, L
1 l
..(W)hile it is true that NEPA places on an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the envi-ronmental impact of a proposed action, it is still incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their l
participation so that it is meanin ful, so that it alerts i
the agency to the intervenors' pos tion and contention.
"!C]omments must be si nificant to step over a thresh-old requirement of material ty before any lack of agency re-j sponse becomes of concern.
The comment cannot merely state
[
that a particular mistake was made it must show why
}
j the mistake was of possible significance in the
.i results..
t I
I l
l i
1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978),
J cuotino Portland Cement Ass'n. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 394 i
(D.C. Cir. 1973), gitg, denied Eqh nom., Portland Cement-Coro, v.
l TPA, 417 U.S. 921 (1974).
Thus, a genuine issue of fact cannot f
be raised by asserting a theoretical possibility of harm.
PM.rSland Pover Cooperative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor),
LBP-82-58, 16 N.R.
'2, 526 (1982), citino Northern States j
Power Co. (Prairi*
c--
.nd Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 N.shC. 41, 48 (1978).
These principles are particularly germane to NRC evaluations j
of health effects.
The effects of rad!. tan are considered by
[
t the NRC Staff in virtually every NRC lic.(
ng action, and many
[
t of the NRC's regulations, such as the maximum concentrations in I
10 C.F.R. Part 20, Appendix B, and the ALARA limits in 10 C.F.R.
l r
Part 50, Appendix I, reflect the adoption by the Commission of t
l the conventional findings of the National Committee on Radiation i
Protection (NCRP), the International Commission on Radiological
[
r Protection (ICRP) and the National Academy of Science's Committee
{
on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR).
Because health ef-fects have been repeatedly and extensively considered, it makes l
little sense to revisit the issue in each new hearing, unless an intervenor satisfies the threshold burden of going forward and demonstrates some particular and substantial new controversy wor-thy of adjudication.
! l I
J
m L.
i Indeed, in Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-31, 12 N.R.C.
264 (1980), the NRC adopted a policy that "unnecessary adjudication (of health ef-j fects] should be avoided" since "it would serve no useful purpose to litigate (health effects] when there is no serious contest as to the result."
Id. at 277.
The Commission further stated:
(W]e believe that a Licensing Board could take official notice that releases within Appendix I levels result in radiation exposures that are small fractions of doses from natural background radiation and that the 1972 BEIR Report contains a "geners. '1.y accepted evaluation of the effects of ionizing radiation."
This does not mean of course that health effects of Appendix I re-leases cannot be contested.
It only means that litiga-tion regarding these issues need not begin on a clean slate, and that, for example, the BEIR estimates can be relied on in the absence of a contest and may be used, along with cny other evidence, in ruling on summary dispositica motions and rendering initial decisions.
Id.
This policy has been followed by licensing boards.
In Carolina Power & Licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C.
432 (1984), the Licensing Board discussed the NRC's policy of avoiding the relitigation of health effect issues absent some substantial new scientific evi-dence.
In this vein, the Board observed that an opponent of sum-mary disposition on a health effects contention must present new (post-1975) and substantial evidence that casts doubt on the BEIR estimates; and where an opponent wishes to rely on the work of researchers to question the BEIR committee conclusions, i t should obtain affidavits from the researchers.
Id. at 436, 437..
4.
IV. Statement of Case The affidavits supporting this motion collectively demon-strate that tritium and the alpha emitters such as transuranics have been fully considered, The Affidavit of Kerry L.
Harner shows that the radionuclide constituents of the accident gener-ated water that will be evaporated have been analyzed, evaluated,
' and determined.
The Affidavit of Dr. Gary G.
Baker describes the NRC-approved model that translates radionuclide releases to doses, and discusses how tritium and undetected radionuclides such as transuranics were treated.
The Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling provides an extensive discussion of the health effects of tritium and transuranics, both in general and with respect to evaporation, and demonstrates that the risk of even one adverse health effect from evaporation of the accident generated water is very small.
As described in the Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner, both Licensee and the NRC (through the U.S. Department of Energy's Ra-diological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory -- RESL) have l
analyzed processed accident generated water to determine its ra-dionuclide constituents, including uraniums and transuranics.
Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner, 1 3.
Uraniums and transuranics l
were below the limits of detection in Licensee's analyses, but Licensee also performed a technical evaluation of accident gener-ated water using the ORIG 2:1 code to assess undetected ra-l dionuclides of any significa%ce.
Id.,
11 4-8.
ORIGEN is a code l
l.
that calculates the isotopes produced in a reactor based on plant history.
Since the nuclear process involved in a reactor pro-
. duces predictable fission products, activation products, and transuranics, and since rates of decay and decay products are known, the isotopic inventory and relative abundance of isotopes can be determined.
Id., 11 6.
Licensee has applied this method-ology to provide a conservative estimate of each detectable or-analytically identifiable and significant radioisotope, including uraniums and transuranics.
Id., 11 7-8.
In the case of uraniums and transuranics, the lower level of detection was used as an upper bound on the concentration of identified radionuclides in Licensee's evaluation.
Uraniums and transuranics were subsequently detected in the analyses performed by DCE's RESL on behalf of the NRC.
Levels of uraniums and i
transuranics detected were all below (usually orders of magnitude below) Licensee's convervative estimates.
Id., 11 10-13.
As described in the Affidavit of Dr. Gary G. Baker, Licensee used th'e Meteorological Information and Dose Assessment System (MIDAS) to calculate doses due to the proposed evaporation of accident generated water.
MIDAS is a code, approved by the NRC and by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the TMI-I Restart I
proceeding, that applies the methodology established in NRC Reg-ulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111 to assess dose.
Affidavit of Dr.
1 Gary G.
Baker, 11 3-10.
l l
(
l
_9_
i t
,,m,
-..-w-
-c e
d By this means, Licensee has calculated.that the maximally exposed individual vill receive a dose of 2.0 mrem to the whole body and 3.6 mrem to the bone.
1.4 mrem of the dose to the whole body is attributable to tritium, and essentially all of the 3.6 mrem to the bone is attributable to stronti,..
Id., 1 14 and I
j n.l.
Licensee has also assessed the contribution to dose of ura-l niums and transuranics identified as potentially present in the evaporator effluent, and it has determined that none contributes ever. as much as 1% of the dose attributable to strontium.
Id.,
l 11 13-25.
l The NRC has independently calculated doses to the maximally exposed individual from evaporation.
For the purposes of its analysis, the NRC conservatively assumed that the pertinent ura-niums and transuranics are present at the lower level of detec-tion.
The NRC arrived at doses for the maximally exposed indi-vidual of 0.7 mrem to the whole body, 0.8 mrem to the bone, and 4 mrem to the thyroid.
Id., 1 19; Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling, 1 86.
The Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling provides an in depth dis-cussion of the health effects associated with tritium and transuranics, since this subject was the focus of Joint Interve-nors' allegations.
In particular, Joint Intervenors alleged that with respect to tritium (1) there was not enough information pro-vided concerning carcinogenicity and lack of threshold for such effect (Tr. 41, 43); and (2) tritium can be absorbed into a cell I
.J
i 1
and by this mechanism be detrimental to humans, particularly to fetuses (Tr. 43).2/
With respect to alpha emitting isotopes, Joint Intervenors were dissatisfied with the extent to which the toxicity of transuranics.was discussed (Tr. 42).
As Dr. Behling's affidavit shows, tritium is one of the most studied radionuclides and has been extensively addressed in NCRP Report No. 62, NCRP Report No. 63, and in the BEIR III Report.
Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling, 1 3.
Tritium can be incorporated into organic molecules and remain in the body for several to many months.
Id., 11 17-22..The contribution to dose from this com-partment, however, is small, and the overall biological half-life for tritium is about ten days.
Id., 1 27, citina NCRP Report No. 62.
Similarly, the likelihood that tritium will be incorpo-rated into a DNA molecule and produce a transmutation effect is extremely low.
Id., 1 38-40.
Thus, the NCRP has found:
it is reasonably conservative to assume, for the purpose of practical hazards considerations, that there is no significant transmutation effect for tritium incorporated in DNA, and that one may estimate hazards solely on the basis of absorbed beta dose.
There is, at present no reason to consider the RBE for chromosome aberration production by beta rays from incorporated tritium to be different from one."
2/
Joint Intervenors also noted in response to one of Licensee's interrogatories that tritium can be absorbed through the skin.
SVA/TMIA's Responses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Documents (Feb. 16, 1988) at 21 (answer to interroga-tory 5-1).
As stated in the Affidavit of Dr. Gary G.
Baker, the ability of tritium to enter the body through the skin is taken into account in Licensee's modelling by the inhalation dose con-version factor.
Affidavit of Dr. Gary G.
Baker, 1 12. [
w t
Id., 1 41, citina NCRP Report No. 63.
During discovery, Joint Intervenors cited three scientific studies in support of their contention:2/ (1) Dobson and Cooper, "Tritium Toxicity: Effect of Low-level HOH Exposure on Developing Female Germ Cells in the Mouse," Radiation Res. 58 (1974);
(2) Dobson and Kvan, "The RBE of Tritium Measured in Mouse Oocytes:
Increase of Low Exposure Levels," Radiation Res. 66 (1976); and (3) Zammenhof and van Marthens, "The Effects of Chronic Ingestion of Tritiated Water on Prenatal Brain Develop-ment," Radiation Res. 77 (1979).
Dr. Behling addresses each of these studies.
Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling, 11 98-114.
The first two studies predate the BEIR III Report and NCRP Reports No. 62 and 63, and are in fact cited in NCRP Report No. 63.
None of the three studies casts any doubts on the validity of the BEIR III or NCRP Reports or predicts any appreciable effect when applied to the proposed evaporation of accident generated water.
Thus, the BEIR III risk estimators may be applied as a conserva-tive assessment of Licensee's proposal.
Applying the BEIR III risk estimates to Licensee's and the NRC's calculated doses (total population dose), the risk of even one fatal cancer among the 2.2 million people residing within 50 miles of the plant ranges from 0.0003 to 0.005.
The upper limit probability of a fatal cancer for the maximally exposed 3/
SVA/TMIA's Responses to uicensee's Interrogatories (Feb. 16, 1988) at 22, 23-24 (answers to interrogatories 5-3 and 5-8). m
4 l
1 individuals is less than one chance in 5 million using the NRC's calculated dose and less than one chance in 2 million using Licensee's calculated dose.
Id., 11 86-88.
These risk estimates are based on the conservative linear no threshold hypothesis and almost certainly overestimate risk.
Further, the dose calculations themselves are very conservative, assuming many worst case conditions.
Id., 11 64-72.
One conser-vatism of particular note in Licensee's modeling is the quality factor that is assigned to tritium.
While the NCRP has deter-mined that the beta radiation from tritium has an RBE of 1, Licensee's model is based on an assigned quality factor 1.7 to this beta radiation, which increases doses and consequently health effect estimates by the same factor.
Id., 11 28-30, 41; Affidavit of Dr. Gary G.
Baker, 1 11.
Regarding transuranics, Dr. Behling's affidavit provides a comprehensive assessment of their chemical and radiological prop-erties.
The chemical toxicity of these radionuclides is second-ary to their radiological properties.
With respect to the risk of health effects associated with the radiotoxicity of transuranics, Dr. Behling calculates very conservative upper bound doses of 0.005 mrem to the lung, 0.006 mrem to the liver, and 0.03 mrem to the bone -- doses for which the risk of an ad-verse health effect is vanishingly small.
Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling, 11 115-163.
l-.
L In summary, both Licensee and the NRC Staff have fully cal-culated the radionuclide constituents of accident generated water and the doses attributable to the proposal.
The doses are very small -- smaller than 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) limits, smaller even than the normal vari-ation in natural background radiation (Affidavit of Dr. Hans Behling, 11,90-97, 153-164).
BEIR provides a conservative esti-mate of the risk associated with low dose, which in the absence of substantial new scientific information in the form of affida-vits from researchers, should be considered definitive.
See Black Fox and Shearon Harris, suora.
V.
Conclusion From the discussion above and the supporting affidavits, it is clear that tritium, and alpha emitters such as transuranics in the evaporator effluent have been fully considered.
The exten-sive evaluations that have been undertaken demonstrate that not a single fatal cancer, a single fetal injury, or a single incidence of genetic ill health can be expected in connection with the pro-posed evaporation of accident generated water.
Thus, the NRC Staff's assessment in the PEIS and its determination that the proposal involves no significant environmental impact (which may be supplemented pro tanto by the evidence supporting this motion and the Board's ruling)I# is complete and accurate.
For all of 1/
Allied Central Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296, 2 N.R.C.
671 (1975); Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
LBP-82-100, 16 N.R.C.
1550, 1571 (1982).
-14 '
9 the foregoing reasons, Licensee submits that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to contention 5d.
Licensee is entitled to decision in its favor on this contention as a matter of law, and this motion for summary disposition should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS f. TROWBRIDGE N...
'd2tw k
Thomas A.
- Baxter, P.C.
David R. Lewis Counsel for Licensee 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 i
(202) 663-8000 Dated:
May 16, 1988.
i i
. - _.. _, _ _. -.. - - - _