ML20205H316
| ML20205H316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1985 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-158 84-499-01-OL, 84-499-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8511150103 | |
| Download: ML20205H316 (30) | |
Text
$58 '
?
b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- 00ckEtte USMC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPfilSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M NOV 13 P3:12 Before Administrative Judges: GFFu 0; Stent;n .
00CKETING & SEPvg BRANCH Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris SERVED NOV 131985 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424(0L) 50-425 (OL)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
ASLBP 84-499-01-OL (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) ) November 12, 1985
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7 re: Groundwater Contamination)
Introduction and Background Contention 7 of Joint Intervenors Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (Intervenors) alleges that Applicants have failed to assure that the groundwater below the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) will not be contaminated by a spill of radioactive water. On July 15, 1985 Applicants filed " Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention 7 (Ground-water)" (Motion for Sumary Disposition). TheNRCStaff(Staff) filed the "NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7 (Groundwater)" (Staff Response) on August 9, 1985, in which they supported the Applicants. The Intervenors filed "Intervenors' Response to Applicants Motion for Sumary Disposition of 9511150103 851112 PDR ADOCK 05000424 0 PDR
ht
(- Q o..
i
. ., Contention 7" containi g en'
- Analysis of Affidavits by Bechtel 9
Geologists and Engineers and Applicants's (sic) Statement of Material Facts" by W. F. Lawless (Lawless Analysis) on August 9, 1985; an Amended Response (Inter enors', Response), containing corrections to the Lawless Analysis, was 'tif>ed by Inteyvenors on August 21, 1985.
Applicants fi, led " Applicants' Motion to Strike, and in the Alternative for Leave to Reply to, Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Con ention 7" (Motion to Strike) on
' , ~.
i
', August 26, 1985 followed by " Applicants' Raply to Intervenors' Respcnse
- to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition'of Contention 7" (Applicants' Reply)onSeptember9,1985. The Staff responded to the motion to strike on September 16, 1985 with "NRC Staff Response to
, Applicants' Motion to Strike or Reply to Intervenor's Response to l
Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7 (Groundwater)" (Staff Response to Motion to Strike). No response to the
- s. ration to strike has been filed by the Intervenors. We shall address the motion to strike as well as the motion for sumary disposition in this memorandum and order.
Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition ' was supported by an Affidavit of Thomas W. Crosby, Clifford R. Farrell, and L. R. West (Affidavit of Crosby, g al.), an Affidavit of D. S. Jagannathan, Stephen J. Cereghino, and Mark L. Mayer (Affidavit of Jagannathan, e_t, al.), an Affidavit of Thomas Crosty and Lewis R. West (Crosby-West Affidavit), and an Affidavit of Walter R. Ferris (Ferris Affidavit),
plus " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As to Which There Is No
1 Genuine Issue to Be Heard Regarding Joint Intervenors' Contention 7 (Ground-water)" (Applicants' Statement of Material Facts). Staff's Response was supported by the affidavit of Gary B. Staley and was accompanied by the "NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which Nc Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard Regarding Contention 7" (Staff Response to Material Facts). Intervenors' Response was supported by "Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts Relating to Contention 7" (Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts). Intervenors' Response was essentially a verbatim recitation of their statement of material facts; it was not supported by affidavit.
Motion to Strike: Discussion Before addressing the Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7 and the responses thereto, we shall address Applicants' Motion to Strike. Applicants' Motion to Strike is based on two allegations: (1)thatIntervenors'Responseisnotsupportedby evidence, and (2) that Professor Lawless, whom Intervenors characterize as their expert witness on groundwater, is not competent to testify to the statements in his analysis. Should the Motion to Strike be denied, Applicants seek leave to reply to alleged distortions and new material contained in Intervenors' Response.
The NRC Staff does not support Applicants' Motion to Strike, although it does agree with Applicants that Intervenors' Response should i be supported by an affidavit. Staff would have us provide Intervenors with the opportunity to file a sworn statement from Professor Lawless.
L
,,- .. ....-.., _ _.-._,..-. ._ .,,..,. - -,,., _ - - . . ~ . . . - - - - - - - .
. . , - . , - . - ...,v,-. .__,-,...--_,..__.,-_,r,.m._-._-
y _.7_,
If such a statement is provided, Staff would oppose the Motion to Strike. Staff points out that Professor Lawless clearly has a background in engineering and at least some familiarity with the issues involved in Contention 7, even though he is not a professional geologist or hydrologist. Staff further suggests that we should consider the qualifications of Professor Lawless in assessing the credibility to be accorded his analysis.
In evaluating the positions and arguments of the parties, we first take note of the fact that Intervenors apparently have chosen not to respond to Applicants' Motion to Strike. We know of no NRC requirement that a response be filed to such a motion. We interpret Intervenors' silence to mean that they choose to stand on the submissions they have already made.
We find Applicants' Motion to Strike not to be meritorious. In the initial part of the motion, Applicants assert that where a movant has made a proper showing for summary disposition and has supported its motion by affidavit, as Applicants have done, the opposing party must proffer countering evidence or explain by affidavit why it is impractical to do so. Cited in support is Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-32A, 17 NRC 1170, 1174n.4(1983). Applicants contend that Intervenors have failed to respond as required by regulations and therefore Intervenors' Response should be stricken. In the Staff Response to Motion to Strike it is propounded that factual responses to motions for summary disposition be supported by affidavits or discovery documents.
j t
The Commission's requirements for summary disposition place no such restrictions on an opposing parties response, nor will we. 10 CFR 2.749(a) provides that:
Any party to a proceeding may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that party's favor as to all or part of the matters in the proceeding. * *
- Any other party may serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion, with or without affidavits, within twenty (20) days after service of the motion.
(emphasisadded).
Section 2.749(b) states:
When a motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this section, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must issue set forth sp(ecifTc of fact. emphasis added). Tacts showing that there is a genuine All that we find to be required by the Commission is that the answer set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact. The submission'of evidence or an affidavit is not a Commission requirement, nor is there a limitation that the facts set forth in the response come from an affidavit or discovery document. Perhaps other jurisdictions may require such procedures, but not this agency.
The facts relied on by Intervenors to establish that there is a genuine issue of fact are contained in documents published by the Applicants in connection with the VEGP application and in documents prepared by the Savannah River Plant, a U. S. Government entity. These are independent sources and do not relate at all to the veracity of Professor Lawless. His affidavit would serve no purpose to establish
! the validity of the information he cites. The information can be 4
-
- _ _ - e ,. _ , , - - _ _ _ _ - - . . ,
authenticated independently, should that be needed, because the cited i material is readily available to the parties and to the Board.I We find that Professor Lawless has cited information of sufficient specificity to support his argument that there is a genuine issue of material fact to be heard. Moreover, we find that Professor Lawless has has sufficient background and familiarity with the issues involved in Contention 7 to provide support in opposing the Motion for Sumary Disposition.2 Accordingly Applicants' Motion to Strike is denied.
We must next address Applicants' request that as an alternative to granting the Motion to Strike we grant them leave to reply to Intervenors' Response, for the purpose of identifying alleged distortions of the record and arguments that should have been (but were not) provided to Applicants during discovery. The Staff does not object to our granting this request, provided that the other parties are also granted leave to reply.
We find Applicants' request to reply to be reasonable and acceptable so long as the reply is not premised upon new material that is first brought to the attention of the other parties by way of the reply. If new, unreviewed material is the basis of the reply, Staff's 1
Applicants provided copies of the cited material to all parties with their September 9, 1985 filing, " Applicants' Reply to Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7".
2 Professor Lawless was a senior project engineer at the Savannah River Project (SRP) prior to joining the faculty of Paine College.
position that fairness requires that the other parties be afforded the right to reply to the reply is correct. The filing of new information with the reply is inconsistent with Applicants' initial filing of the Motion for Summary Disposition which alleged thut, based on information then available, there is no genuine issue of fact to be heard. It further conflicts with the concept of summary disposition that calls for an expeditious disposal of the issue. Permitting replies to replies presents an unacceptable inconsistency. We therefore will permit Applicants to reply to Intervenors' Response to the extent the reply does not rest on new material introduced in the reply. Our determination renders moot Staff's request for permission to file a response to Applicants' Reply.
Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition: Discussion We have discussed the standards governing summary disposition and relevant NRC case law in earlier memoranda and orders, and we need not repeat that discussion here. (See: Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 8 re: Vogtle Quality Assurance), October 3, 1985).
Contention 7 states as follows:
Applicant has not adequately addressed the value of the groundwater .
below the plant site and fails to provide adequate assurance that l the groundwater will not be contaminated as required by 10 CFR 51.20(a), (b) and (c), 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), and 10 CFR 100.10(c)(3).
The gravamen of the contention is that Intervenors are concerned that an accidental spill of radioactive water on the site could result l
1
in radioactive contamination of the water table, and possibly the deeper, aquifers under VEGP, all of which are used as public water supplies. (Georoia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-35, 20 NRC 887, 900 (1984)). The contention has environmental as well as health and safety aspects, all areas over which the Board has jurisdiction in this OL proceeding.
(See: 10 CFR 2.104(c) and 51.106).
Applicants' Statement of Material Facts lists nineteen alleged material facts as to which no genuine issue exists to be heard (statements 1-19) plus a conclusion as to why Applicants are entitled to a decision (statement 20). The NRC Staff is in agreement with Statements 1-6, 8, 14, 16, and 17-20. Statements 7 and 9 describe the geology underneath the VEGP site, which Staff discussed in both the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Final Environmental Statement (FES); Staff does not contest Statements 7 and 9. Statements 10 through 13 address the potential for an accidental spill at the site, a matter which Staff considers outside the scope of the Contention in view of the Board's statement when admitting the Contention that its gravamen is the effect an accidental release of radiation could have on the groundwater underneath the VEGP site. Therefore Staff takes no position on Statements 10 through 13. Staff also takes no position with respect to Statement 15, which pertains to releases at SRP, because it has not performed a detailed study of conditions at SRP; Staff believes, however, "that releases at SRP may not be applicable to Vogtle".
f Affiants for the Applicants are all registered geologists whose qualifications are adequate to support the statements in their affidavits (except to the extent noted below). Staff's affiant is a hydraulic and civil engineer with extensive experience in hydrologic engineering and is qualified to support the statements in his affidavit.
Applicants complain that the comments by Professor Lawless "are vague and conclusory", "are seldom factual or specific", and "are for the most part denials and disparagement devoid of substance". We find that some of the comments by Professor Lawless can, indeed, be characterized by such terms. But that is not true of all of his comments. We shall address only those statements that we find to be substantive and probative, review the acceptable rebuttal contained in Applicants' Reply, consider Staff's comment, if any, and then give our evaluation of the issue. We shall take the issues to be considered seriatim as raised in the Lawless Analysis. In the interest of brevity, we shall refer to the Intervenors allegations, including the comments by Professor Lawless, as having been made by the Intervenors. For reasons to be set forth below, we are denying in part and granting in part the Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7.
Sr-90 Contamination of Groundwater at VEGP Intervenors allege that contamination of groundwater by Sr-90 has been found in the VEGP area, and they cite the FES. Applicants maintain, on the other hand, that there is no such finding in the FES.
We have been unable to find any reference to groundwater contamination by Sr-90 in the FES. We conclude that there is no basis for this
allegation and that therefore the statement fails to raise a genuine issue of fact.
Statistical Analysis of Hydrological Deta Intervenors allege that the groundwater data have not been analyzed statistically and therefore there may be serious flaws in conclusions drawn from the data. Applicants acknowledge that they have not performed a statistical analysis of the groundwater data and state that such an approach is not customary with this type of data. Moreover, Applicants state that the data were made available to the Intervenors, but Intervenors have failed to provide evidence of any flaws in the conclusions drawn from that data. Intervenors have failed to show that a statistical analysis of data from exploratory wells is customary practice. Having been provided with the groundwater data by Applicants, Intervenors have had the opportunity to examine it ano analyze it in any way they deemed appropriate, to attempt to identify serious flaws in the conclusions drawn by Applicants; Intervenors have failed to do so. We conclude, therefore, that the Intervenors have failed to show that a genuine issue of fact exists with respect to the matter of statistical analysis of groundwater data.
Effect of Settlement on the Marl Intervenors allege that the Applicants have failed to address the effect of settling of the VEGP facility on the marl upon which it rests, and alludes to plastic deformation and fracturing of the marl. They also mention " differential downward flow rates of the grouted wells underlying the facility", which Applicants find unintelligible. We,
too, fail to comprehend the meaning of this quoted portion of Intervenors' statement. As for settlement, Applicants point out that
" plastic deformation" implies deformation without fracturing. Affiant Ferris attested that following site excavation, the exposed marl was mapped, drilled, and sampled, and the results verified the strength of the marl and an absence of open joints or fractures. Moreover, tne program demonstrated that the marl was unaffected by foundation heave following removal of the overburden. Post-construction analysis has shown that settlement has nearly ceased and has amounted to less than an inch. Affiant Ferris attests that the safety factor against overstressing the marl is on the order of 20 to 30, and the sands underlying the marl have physical strength and elastic properties essentially the same as or greater than the overlying marl. Finally, geotechnical verification work at VEGP during the summer of 1985 demonstrated that the marl is a dense, nearly impermeable calcareous claystone without voids, open .ioints, or fractures, thus confirming that the marl has not been fracture. by plant construction. (Affidavitof Ferris, 11 4-6). We conclude that Intervenors have failed to show any basis for their concern. Therefore we find that no genuine issue of fact has been shown to exist with respect to this issue.
Leakage of Radioactive Water from Auxiliary Building Intervenors argue that the assertion by Applicants' that a fracture in the wall or basemat of the auxiliary building would result in an influx of water rather than a possible leakage of radioactive water from the building into groundwater "is speculative and opinionated and not
supported by research or experience". They suggest that if air pressure is maintained no influx may result. Affiants Jagannathan et al.,
however, attested that the basemat of the recycle holdup tank (RHT) room is at an elevation of 119 feet, whereas the top of the water table aquifer is at approximately 165 feet. Consequently there is a 45 foot hydraulic head at the bottom of the building, and air pressure within the building is atmospheric; consequently water would seep into the building from outside through a fracture until water level in the building reached that of the water table. We find the reasoning of Applicants' affiants to be well-based on known facts and neither speculative nor opinionated. Intervenors have failed to show that there is a genuine issue of fact with respect to this issue.
Adequacy of Geological / Hydrological Exploration Intervenors allege that Applicants have not extensively explored the geology and hydrology under VEGP; we interpret " extensively" to mean adequately. Applicants state that they have done so, citing the Affidavit of Crosby, et al. The Staff indicates its agreement with the Applicants' Statement of Material Fact (number 1) relevant to this
, issue. Nevertheless, there is a basis for the Intervenors' position in the VEGP SER. (NUREG-1137, Section 2.4.12.7, June 1985). The SER found several inadequacies in Applicants' geology and hydrology exploration
~ program, as follows:
Further monitoring of the unconfined aquifer and backfill is
) necessary to establish the design-basis groundwater level.
The level has not been conclusively established because the water level was measured in the unconfined aquifer over a l
l 4 }
13 -
4 relatively short time and had interrupted segments as discussed in Section 2.4.12.6 of this SER.
(p. 2-32);
The staff requires additional wells in the marl aquiclude because of the limited monitoring over the full depth of the marl as discussed in Section 2.4.12.2.2 of this SER. The required permeability testing will confirm the range of the applicant's previous permeability test results and provide the permeability of the interbedded limestone lenses.
(Ibid);
This aquifer [Tuscaloosa] should be monitored to determine the long-term effect of withdrawing water from the Tuscaloosa aquifer. Well No.1W-1 and any other production wells not being pumped should be read on a monthly frequency to monitor the effects of pumping from the Tuscaloosa aquifer.
(p.2-33). In the case of the first two inadequacies cited above, the SER stated that Applicants have made commitments to satisfy Staff's findings, and the Staff considered the Applicants' commitments satisfactory, subject to confirmation. In the case of the third requirement, the SER stated that Staff would make the requirement a condition of licensing.
According to Staff affiant Staley the Applicants are still conducting laboratory permeability-tests on the cores taken from the marl in June 1985. (Staley Affidavit,1 12). The Applicants also state that data from well series 42 have been and are still being supplemented and confirmed by data from additional wells. Further, some data from the field and laboratory studies conducted in June 1985 were included as Appendix A to Applicants' Reply; as we indicated supra, at page 7, new material--not yet evaluated by the Staff and the Intervenors-- is inappropriate in the reply to Intervenors' Response and will not be i
k
-- -- -.- r-n, y--- -
w-
14 -
considered by us now. The material in Appendix A to Applicants Reply must await the hearing for our evaluation. Therefore we find that a genuine issue of fact exists with respect to the adequacy of geological / hydrological exploration.
Geology and Hydrology Under the Blue Marl Intervenors allege that the Applicants admit that the geology and hydrology under the blue marl is uncertain. Applicants deny making such an admission and point out that the only uncertainty mentioned in their Statement of Material Facts is whether the Ellenton Formation exists beneath the VEGP site. (Applicants' Reply, at 14). The Affidavit of Crosby, et al., states that the Cretaceous (Tuscaloosa) and Tertiary Aquifers are believed to be hydraulically connected. Consequently no reliance has been placed on the Ellenton Formation as an aquiclude.
(Affidavit of Crosby, et al.,121). Therefore the fact that some uncertainty exists about the geology and hydrology beneath the marl is of no consequence. Thus there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to this matter.
Uncertainty in Data on Marl Thickness and Permeability l
Intervenors allege that data on mari thickness and permeability came from only 22 exploratory holes, of which three drew water and three were discounted; Intervenors claim that these provided inadequate data from which inadequate conclusions have been drawn. Applicants state i that conclusions about the marl are based on data from over 200 exploratory holes, not just the 80 in-situ permeability measurements made at different levels in 22 of thess holes. (Applicants' Reply, at l
15; Affidavit of Crosby, et al.,1 19). Two out of the three wells in which water was drawn were in near-surface, weathered marl, and in the three discounted wells water leaked around the packers. (Id., 1 28).
As we have noted, however, the Staff has found that additional geological and hydrological exploration is required, and that work is still in progress. In view of that circumstance, we conclude that a genuine issue of fact exists with regard to uncertainty about the thickness and permeability of the marl.
Data on Marl Continuity Intervenors allege that Applicants' data from the well 42 series are not adequate to prove that the marl is continuous. Applicants, on the other hand, state that the continuity of the marl under VEGP has been demonstrated by more than 10,000 feet of marl penetrated by drilling, coring, Standard Penetration Testing, and undisturbed sampling. (Affidavit of Crosby, et al.,129) In addition, core samples have been visually inspected and photographed and have produced no indications of voids or extensive fracture zones. Moce than 900,000 square feet of the upper surface of the marl at the base of the power block excavation was inspected and logged, and more than 20,000 square feet each of vertical surface at the caisson excavations for the auxiliary building and the radwaste solidification building have been inspected and logged, all of which support the conclusion that there are no voids, solution cavities, extensive fractures, or joint sets in the marl.(Id.,130). Finally, the hydraulic head difference between the water table aquifer and the confined aquifers below the marl confirms
that the marl is an effective aquiclude. (Id.,131). The 42 well series consisted of two wells open to the marl itself, one open to the l confined aquifer, and one to the wate., table aquifer. These wells were monitored for four years until plant construction required their closure, at which time they were sealed. Data from the 42 well series open to the two aquifers indicated a hydraulic head of about 55 feet.
As we indicated, supra at 14, the Applicants have stated that data from the 42 well series are still being supplemented and confirmed by data from additional wells. (Applicants' Reply, at 16). These data as well as existing new data on the marl are yet to be evaluated by the Staff and said evaluation made available to the Intervenors. Thus we find that a genuine issue of fact exists with respect to marl continuity.
Hazardous Chemical Wastes Intervenors allege that Applicants have addressed only radioactive waste releases and have left out all reference to hazardous chemical wastes. Applicants argue that the allegation is unspecific and lacks a factual basis. Furthermore, they argue that the Board " discerned the gravamen of the contention to be that 'an accidental spill of radioactive water on the site could result in radioactive contamination of the shallow, and possibly the deeper, aquifers under Plant Vogtle. . . . ' LBP-84-35, 20 N.R.C. 887, 900 (1984) (emphasis added)."
(Applicants Reply, at 18). We agree with Applicants' arguments.
Intervenors have failed to provide a basis or sufficient specificity with regard to chemical wastes at VEGP, and chemical wastes are beyond
the scope of the contention. Therefore we find that no genuine issue of fact exists with respect to this allegation.
Contamination of Cretaceous Aquifer at SRP Intervenors allege that SRP asserted, in the Draft Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations at Savannah River Plant (ERDA-1537,1977), that clay barriers would prevent downward migration of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals, but that subsequently the impermeable barriers under M Area were found not to be present.
Intervenors argue that similar blanket statements made by Applicants about VEGP could likewise prove to be wrong. Intervenors also c:iallenge Applicants' assertion that groundwater contamination at SRP resulted from seepage basins at M Area, from which Applicants argue that contamination will not occur at VEGP because the plant will have no seepage basins. According to the Intervenors, groundwater contamination at SRP resulted from long-term leaks out of a waste holding tank.
(Intervenors' Response, at 6).
Applicants attest that "[t]he only reported contamination of the Cretaceous aquifer at SRP has been the detection of chlorinated hydrocarbons in wells in the A-Area", which "apparently came from waste seepage basins at the SRP site." (AffidavitofCrosby,etal.,160).
Applicants state further that at A Area and the adjacent M Area, the
. " green clay" formation (which is the stratigraphic equivalent to the
" blue marl" underlying VEGP) becomes thin and discontinuous. Therefore in this area at SRP there is little impedance to downward vertical flow
through the Tertiary sediments overlying the Cretaceous aquifer.
(Id., 1 64-67).
The Staff, like the Applicants, responded to the foregoing allegation of Intervenors by pointing out the differences in the hydrology at SRP and VEGP and the use of seepage basins at SRP. (Staley Affidavit, 1 18). In addition, Staff argues that it has not been established that there is any reason to believe that the groundwater situation at SRP is relevant to the issue raised by Contention 7.
(Staff Response, at 7, n. 2).
The Intervenors appear to imply that the Cretaceous aquifer at SRP has become contaminated by long-term leakage out of a holding tank used to store radioactive wastes, but they do not cite an authority for this information. Applicants' affiants state that the only reported contamination of the Cretaceous aquifer at SRP is by chlorinated hydrocarbons at the A Area, but they, too, fail to cite an authority.
By relying on the documents cited by the Intervenors and the Applicants (copies of which were filed with Applicants' Reply) as well as the filings, we have been able to resolve some of the disputes between the parties about groundwater contamination at SRP and decide its relevance to VEGP. The following discussion summarizes the facts we have learned about groundwater contamination at SRP.
High-level radioactive waste did leak into groundwater from a waste storage tank at SRP, viz., Tank 16 located in H-Area, in September 1960, but as of 1976 no high-level liquid wastes were believed to have leaked from other tanks into groundwater. (ERDA-1537, at 111-93 -95). The
137 leaked radioactive waste (primarily Cs) from Tank 16 entered shallow groundwater almost immediately, but subsequently moved only a few feet because of the ion exchange capacity of the clay in the soil. (Exhibit F accompany'ing the Motion for Summary Disposition, at 3). SRP production wells 20A and 53A, located in A Area adjacent to M Area, were found to have low levels of chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in the Cretaceous aquifer. The source of the chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination of the Cretaceous aquifer is the overlying Tertiary aquifer which is contaminated because of the M Area settling basin. How the chlorinated hydrocarbons migrate from the Tertiary down to the Cretaceous aquifer is as yet unclear. (Final Environmental Impact Statement, L-Reactor Operation, Savannah River Plant, DOE /EIS-0108 (May 1984), Vol. 2, at F-85, 99, -110; Technical Summary of Groundwater Quality Protection Program at Savannah River Plant, DPST-83-829, Vol. I (December 1983),at6-13,-14).
An hypothesis, currently under investigation at SRP, to explain the migration of chlorinated hydrocarbons from Tertiary to Cretaceous aquifers under the A and M Areas at SRP suggests that the contaminants may migrate from the Teriary aquifers down the well annuit to the well screens located in the Cretaceous aquifer. Mixing with water being withdrawn through the screens from the Cretaceous aquifer, such contaminants would make it appear that the Cretaceous aquifer itself was contaminated. On the other hand, it is now known that the green clay aquiclude becomes thin and discontinuous in northwest SRP, under the A and M Areas. (00E/EIS-1080, at F-36). Thus, as affiants Crosby et al.
J .h4- m. J +-.a* m - - -,e 20 -
attest, there is hydraulic connection between the Tertiary and
- Cretaceous aquifers in the area at SRP where the apparent contamination of the Cretaceous aquifers has occurred. Hence the Cretaceous aquifer ,
at SRP could have been contaminated by percolation from surface sources.
(Affidavit of Crosby, et al., 11 66-67).
i Was the green clay aquiclude at SRP thought to have been continuous prior to the discovery of the apparent contamination of the Cretaceous aquifer in 1981? In ERDA-1537 issued by SRP in October 1976 the green clay aquiclude-was characterized by the following language:
The green clay. . . .is one of the more significant hydrologic units in the region; it is only 6 to 10 ft thick in H Area
, (although somewhat thicker elsewhere), and its importance is easily missed if only drilling information is available. The 80-ft decline in piezometric head. . . .across the green clay indicates-that the clay is continuous over a large area and has low permeability.
(ERDA-1537,atII-150). Applicants suggest that this statement refers to H Area, only. (Applicants' Reply at 19). While H Area is mentioned in the passage,.we believe that the. language we have quoted contains a
- generalization from which it could be reasonably inferred that the green
- clay was believed, in 1976, to be more continuous than later experience proved. Further, it seems unlikely that the M Area settling basin would have knowingly been installed over an area where a discontinuous aquiclude might allow contamination to percolate into deep aquifers that are used as a source of domestic water.
From the foregoing, we conclude that it is not unreasonable to i
infer that the green clay aquiclude under SRP turned out to be less continuous than originally thought, as Intervenors allege. But whether
one can jump from this conclusion to the conclusion that the same thing is likely to occur at VEGP is quite another matter. It certainly is possible that the same thing could occur at VEGP. On the other hand, with the exploration that has already been carried out plus the additional exploration currently in progress, it seems even more likely that discontinuities in the Blue Marl, if any, will be discovered. In any case, it would serve no useful purpose to litigate the question of whether one can make such an inference. We have after all already decided to litigate the issues of the adequacy of geological / hydrological exploration, marl thickness and permeability, and marl continuity at VEGP. No purpose would be served by determining whether the SRP experience can and/or should be extrapolated to VEGP.
Wells as a Pathway for Contaminants Intervenors allege that affiants Crosby, et al., do not attest to the closure of exploratory wells at VEGP. (Intervenors' Response, at 8). Applicants point out, however, that the closure of exploratory holes is discussed in paragraphs 69-72 of the affidavit. (Applicants Reply, at 22). That is true. The affiants attest that it is normal practice for engineering firms that drill exploratory wells to fill them with grout following their use for exploration, unless the wells are to be used for production or continued observation. (Affidavit of Crosby, et al, 1 69). They attest, further, that all wells used for exploration only were grouted, except for 236, 237, and 239. No documentation of closure exists for these three wells. (Id., 1 71). These three wells are located northeast of the power block, in the Blue Bluff Marl outcrop
l l
l above the Savannah River. (Ibid.; Id., Figs. 3, 6, and 8). Affiants state that groundwater in the water table aquifer could not reach these wells because they are beyond the lateral extent of the water table aquifer (i.e., in the Blue Bluff Marl, as we have indicated) and because ground water in the water table aquifer at the power block does not flow northeastward. (Id., 1 71) Staff affiant attests that even if contaminated water were to enter these wells, no potable water supply would be affected because there are no production wells between the three ungrouted exploratory wells and the Savannah River, which is the sink for the Tertiary and Cretaceous aquifers underlying the marl.
(Staley Affidavit, 1 14; Applicants' Reply, Fig. 5). We conclude from the foregoing that the three exploratory wells which may be ungrouted present no risk of contaminating a potable water supply.
Intervenors also allege that Applicants' assurance that the tremie method for grout-sealing wells ensures seal integrity "is an advectisement and not a scientific or engineering statement of specification. . . .". (Intervenors' Response, at 6). Applicants'
- affiants replied by describing the tremie method in some detail.
(AffidavitofCrosby,etal.,172). The Staff's affiant attested that the tremie method for grouting wells assures that the hole is completely filled and no voids are present. (Staley Affidivit, 1 14). The affidavits from Applicants and the Staff are adequate to reassure us about the adequacy of the tremie grout-sealing technique. We conclude that the Intervenors have failed to provide any basis for the allegation
that Applicants' characterizations of the tremie method of grout-sealing wells are no more than an " advertisement".
Therefore we find that no issue of genuine fact exists with respect to possible contamination of groundwater via exploratory wells.
Direction of Groundwater Flow Intervenors allege that Applicants' data do not agree with the assertion that contaminated groundwater would move towards Mathes Pond.
(Intervenors' Response, at 7). Applicants declined to reply to this allegation on the grounds that it was unsupported and therefore warrants no response. (Applicants' Reply, at 20). In support of Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition, affiants Crosby, et al., attested that accidentally spilled radioactive fluid would percolate downward until it reached the water table aquifer and then move laterally in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head. Accordingly, they attested, the flow would be northward toward Mathes Pond. (Affidavit of Crosby, et al.,
1 25). In support of their statement, Applicants' affiants presented in Figure 9 of their Affidavit a map showing equipotential contour lines of groundwater surface for the water table aquifer under VEGP in December, 1984. Solid line contours are shown on the north and south sides of the plant, dashed line contours are shown on west side of the plant, and no contours are shown on the east side of the plant. Flow lines drawn across the contour lines show flow fields toward the northwest and toward the southeast. No flow fields are depicted in a northeastward or southwestward direction. Intervenors allege that the data of
Applicants' consultants clearly show flow directions to the northwest, southeast, and southwest under VEGP. (Intervenors' Response at 10).
The Vogtle FSAR contains maps of groundwater contours for the water table aquifer in November, 1971, and in March 1980. The results differ from those presented by affiants Crosby, el al.; instead they support Intervenors' allegations. (FSAR Fig. 2.4.12-7, Sheets 1 and 2). No flow fields are depicted on these two maps, but in the map for November, 1971, it is obvious that flow lines, if drawn across the contours, would show flow fields a>cy from the plant toward the northeast and southwest as well as toward the northwest and southwest. In the map for March, 1980, on the other hand, the flow fields around the plant would all be directed back toward the plant.
The November 1971 map contours on the northwest and southeast sides of the plant are sufficiently similar to contours in comparable locations on the December 1984 map contained in the Affidavit of Crosby, et al., to suggest to us the possibility that the 1984 map would, if all contours had been drawn in, look very much like the 1971 map. The 1980 map, on the other hand, suggests that the flow fields in the water table aquifer under VEGP may shift and change, probably in response to charging of the water table.
We find, in view of the foregoing, that Intervenors allegation, that the Applicants' data do not support the Applicants' assertion that contaminated groundwater in the water table aquifer would flow only to the northwest toward Mathes Pond, appears to be firmly based. We l
i 1
conclude that a genuine issue of fact exists with respect to the direction of groundwater flow.
Groundwater Travel Time Intervenors allege that Applicants' calculation showing groundwater travel time from the plant to Mathes Pond to be 350 years, and Staff's calculation showing groundwater travel time over the same distance to be 15 years, may be in error because they both employed methods that experts in the nuclear waste management industry have found to result in large margins of error. (Intervenors' Reply, at 7). Intervenors allege that the simple model used by Applicants and Staff to estimate contaminant travel time over a great distance in groundwater has not been validated, and they suggest that a numerical model and computer simulation should have been considered. They argue that the need for a more sophisticated approach to modeling groundwater movement is demonstrated by experience at SRP, where comparisons have been made between simple and sophisticated mathematical models and between modeling results and field measurements. (Id.,at12).
The difference in the estimates of Applicants and Staff results largely from the fact that Applicants' estimate is based on calculated travel times through backfill around the plant and cough 2850 feet of Barnwell sands and limestone overlying the marl; Staff, on the other hand, assumed that once contaminants left the backfill, they would move rapidly through Utley Limestone (shell deposit) within the Barnwell group, and therefore in its calculations Staff ignored the 2850 feet between the backfill and Mathes Pond. (Applicants' Statement of Matcrial l
Facts,1 19; Staley Affidavit,1 10; Affidavit of Crosby, et al.,142 and Fig. 7). The analyses of both Applicants' and Staff are based on a simplified, one-dimensional flow model which assumed the flow path to be a straight line between the auxiliary building and a spring on the southeast side of Mathes Pond; the calculations were based on Darcy's Law. (AffidavitofCrosby,etal., 1139,41,44).
Intervenors argue that by extrapolating from experience at SRP, where allegedly similar calculational techniques gave a groundwater travel time estimate that was slower by a factor of 4 than that actually observed, travel times for contaminated groundwater at VEGP, given a core-melt accident, would be about 5 years to Mathes pond and less than 5 years to the nearest stream. (Intervenors Resporie, at 12).
Applicants responded by pointi.7g out that it was erosion of a stream which physically shortened the migration pathway that resulted in the shorter-than-expected contaminant travel time, not erroneous estimates.
(Applicants' Reply, at 21).
We have examined the SRP document cited by Applicants and by Intervenors, " Numerical Modeling of Ground-water Flow at the Savannah River Plant" (DP-1638, 1983), and have confirmed that in 1978 tritium from a burial ground outcropped earlier than expected because erosion had, indeed, shortened the flow path of subsurface water by about 900 feet. (DP-1638, at 9-10). Because of this event, SRP carried out a modeling study to develop a numerical model of groundwater flow under in the Barnwell Formation under F and H areas. (Id.at9-10).
- 27 -
The model developed was based on Darcy's Law, but it used the finite-difference method to solve the hydraulic head distribution in time and space in three dimensions (two lateral and the vertical), and computer programs to calculate, first, the components of groundwater flow, and then flow velocity itself. (Id. at 19). Groundwater flow velocities calculated with th.is model varied according to location in the flow field, ranging from about 30 feet /yr along the groundwater divide to about 205 feet /yr near the discharge area, where the water table gradient was steeper. Rates and travel times generated by the model varied with the water table gradient at the rate of about 0.13 ft/ day for a 1% change of gradient. Point dilution measurements of flow velocity near the F Area Effluent Stream yielded velocities ranging from 36 feet /yr to 72 feet / year. The flow nodel predicted velocities for this area ranging from about 24 feet /yr to 154 feet /yr, which SRP considered to be in general agreement with the measured velocities.
(Id., at 23-27).
Another estimate of groundwater velocity of the Barnwell material was made by SRP using the simple, one-dimensional Darcy Law calculation, similar to that used for the VEGP estimates. This method gave estimates ranging from 4.3 ft/yr through Barnwell clayey sand to 32 ft/yr through a sand lens. Tracer dilution tests and tracer injection tests, apparently conducted at an earlier time, were compared with these calculated estimates and yielded velocities ranging from 2.3 to 69 ft/yr. (DPST-83-829, Vol. I, at 3-24).
Intervenors, citing the same material we cite here, argued that SRP found actual velocities to range from 2.3 ft/yr to 180 ft/yr, and they
,+ ,,-y y =- -,,w---- g , w. --e,-vp ., -- --. r
compared these measured velocities with the 32 ft/yr estimate obtained with the one-dimensional Darcy Law calculation. (Intervenors' Response, at 13). The 2.3 ft/yr is a measured velocity which should be compared with a calculated value of 4.3 ft/yr (Id., at 3.27), and the 180 ft/yr is an assumed flow rate used to calculate travel time, not a measured value. (DP-1638, at 27). The maximum observed velocity for the Barnwell formation appears to be 72 ft/yr, as reported in DP-1638 (at 27), which is close to the maximum observed value of 69 ft/yr reported in DPST-83-829 (at 3-24).
Had Intervenors been more accurate in citing the SRP report, perhaps we could have spent less time and effort here belaboring the SRP results. But putting that matter aside, it seems quite clear that a simple, one dimensional model may be inadequate for estimating ground water velocity over long distances where, as is the case at VEGP, the water table gradient undergoes marked changes. At VEGP the water table gradient becomes very steep as Mathes Pond is approached to the northwest and as the Savannah River is approached to the northeast.
(FSAR, Fig. 2.4.12-7, Sheet 1). As we have indicated above, we would expect flows to move away from the plant in both of these directions.
In addition, the simple one-dimensional model used at SRP gave a maximum estimated velocity of 32 ft/yr in the Barnwell formation, whereas observed values in separate studies had maxima of 69 and 72 ft/yr. This difference suggests that the one-dimensional model may underestimate groundwater velocity. Finally, we note that the more sophisticated, three-dimensional finite-difference numerical model developed by SRP is
capable of calculating estimates which take into account how flow velocity changes as the water table gradient changes.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that there is a basis for Intervenors' allegation that the method used by Applicants and Staff to calculate groundwater velocity at VEGP may lead to large errors.
Therefore a genuine issue of fact exists with respect to this matter.
Groundwater Contamination and 10 CFR Parts 20 and 100 The Staff, in analyzing possible groundwater contamination from an accidental tank spill and from a core melt release, concludes that radioactive decay and dilution of the contaminants over the estimated long period required for them to be transported from the site in groundwater assures that no potable water supplies would be contaminated in excess of 10 CFR Part 20 limits for releases to unrestricted areas during routine operation. Hence the 10 CFR Part 100 limits for accidental releases to unrestricted areas would not be exceeding, since they are higher than the Part 20 11mits. (Staff Response, at 3-4; Staley Affidavit, 118-13,15-17). Therefore Staff would have us grant Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on that ground alone. In view of the uncertainties that we have found above, however, there is no basis for doing as Staff requests.
ORDER Upon consideration of the entire record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, it is this 12th day of November,1985,
7 s 4
s -
30 -
1 t
OfiDERED
- 1. That Applicants' Motion to Strike, and in the Alternative for
, * ' ~ Leave to Reply to, Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition is denied with respect to the motion to strike and granted to the extent found with respect to the motion for leave to reply.
- 2. That Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7
^
is denied because the following genuine issues of material fact remain to be heard:
(1) Adequacy of Geological / Hydrological Exploration (2) Uncertiinti in Data on Marl Thickness and Penneability
,- (3) Date on Marl Con)inuity 4
.t (4) Direction of Groundwater Flow (5) Groundwa'ter Travel Time
- 3. That Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition is granted with respect to all other issues in Contention 7.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t
MortonB.Mdrgulies,pJairman
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUBGE I
.L,Jr.
, GPtave 7. Linen r INISTpATIVE J DG W
Dr. Oscar H. Paris W$
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland
,.