ML20205Q658
| ML20205Q658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7507 OLA, NUDOCS 8811090309 | |
| Download: ML20205Q658 (288) | |
Text
_ - - _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ . __
l
!O l
UNITED STATES !
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
! OPJGINAL l t
f 6..........................................................
, L I
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
- i i
I In the Matter of: ) !
) i GENERAL PUELIC 'JfILITIES NUCLEAR ) ,
1 CORPORATION, et al. ) Docket Number i I
) 50-320-OLA l CTHREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2) ) i
. LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION )
I i
)
i
\
! L l t i
l l
Pages: 573 through SSB l Place: Lancaster. Pennsylvania Date: Noverrber 2, 1989
.... ........................................--------------J
, .0\
l O o I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION osmWRwwws 1224 L Serut, N.W., Sees fM WanWestem, D.C. 20eH l . ..
I. ; dr . ...([bbb d. :n (302) M
( T FC<
r
l 573 l
l'A l
1 U
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-320 OLA CORPORATION. c1 stL_ )
(THREE MILE ISLAND. UNIT 2) )
LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION )
Wednesday.
Novenber 2. 1988 Courtroom A & Sixth Floor Hearing Room Lancaster County Courthouse 50 North Duke Street
() Lancaster. Pennsylvania 17603 The above-crititled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE PETER BLOCH. Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 JUDGE OSCAR PARIS. MEMBER Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D. C. 20555 JUDGE GLENN O. BRIGHT Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi ng t on, D.C. 20555
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- , , , _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ h
'I
$74 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Licensee. GPU Nuclear Corp.:
THOMAS A. BAXTER. Esquire DAVID R. LEWIS. Esquire MAURICE A. ROSS. Euquire Shaw. Pittman. Potts & Trowbridge. P.C.
2300 "N" Street. N . W.
Washington. D. C. 20037 ROBERT E. ROGAN Director of Licensing & Nuclear Safety for GPU Nuclear Corp.
Three Mile Island Unit 2 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission Staff:
STEPHEN H. LEWIS, Esquire COLLEEN P.WOODHEAD. Esquire U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555
(} On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsvivaniat RICHARD MATHER. Esquire i Assistant Counsel Department of Environmental Resources AJIT BHATTACHARYYA Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources
-and-t GAIL B. PHELPS. Esquire Assistant Counsel
, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel Department of Environmental Resources j SOS Executive House i 101 S. Second St reet P. O. Box 2357
- Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120 i On behalf of the Joint Intervenors. Susauchanna Vallev Alliance & Three Mile Island Alert:
FRANCES SKOLNIX
> 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster. Pennsylvania I
() HeritaEe Repo rt ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l .a
} 575 O tt I ' 't r '
VOIR WITNESSES.: DIRECT CROSS _BEDIRECT RECROSS EXAM. DIRE Ennelt 619 I' OR. GARY G. BAKER l WILLIAM J. COOPER by Ms. Skolnik 653 621 by Mr. Stephen Lewis 722 by Ms. Phelps 725 j by Ms. Skolnik 728 LINDA MUNSON 737 by Ms. Skolnik 758 by Mr. Baxter 794 l
by Ms. Phelps 797 by Ms. Woodhead 800 by Ms. Skolnik 803 by Mr. Bhattacharyya 806
- Panel: 809
! JAMES A. MARTIN, JR.
IO oa by sc"'.ovo Ms Skolnik v^"tv s 834 I
I l
i l
l I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
S76 EXHIB ITS EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED DESCRIPTION NRC Staff 2 833 NUREG/CR-4214 : "Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis" 3 833 NCRP Report No. 89:
Genetic Effects from Internally Deposited Radionuclides 4 833 Technical Report RERFTR 12-871 "Life Span Study Report 11" S 833 ICRU Report: "The Quality Factor in Radiation Protection" 6 833 Technical Report RERFTR 9-O 87 "The Effect of Changen in Dosinetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates in the Atomic Bomb Survivors" IHSERI.12
Description:
Enge:
Licensee 's Testirony of 624 Dr. Gary G. Baker and William J. Cooper on Dose Assessments and Microorganisms (Contentions 2. 3 end 5d)
Testinony of Linda F. Munson 740 Concerning Contentions 2, 4b & Sd NRC Staff Tentimony of 814 James A. Martin, Jr. and Shlomo Yaniv on Contention Sd Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 577
\ l E R Q C E E Q 1 tl G E
'(]T37/ Blat 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Good moening. With deep respect. I 3 welcome you all wholeheartedly to this Wednesday session of 4 this hearing. I would like to begin by allowing a new [
5 representative of the Commonwealth to introduce herself for f l
6 the record. l 7 MS. PHELPS: Good morning. My name is Gail i 8 PheIps. I 'm representing the Comtronwealth.
l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Before we start with the j 10 witnesses, I would like to say that I thought e lot about it what Mr. Baxter talked about yesterday about his frustration l
12 about not knowing what the alternatives are for no action. [
+
13 And it seems to me that it is strange that we 've O 14 gotten this far without knowing exactly what alternblive or 15 alternatives Joint Intervenors think are obviously superior 16 to the evaporation alternative. And I was thinking about j 17 what mig t be proper to do about that, f I
18 One thing that occurred to me is that we might i l
19 entertain a motion at the end that the Intervenors ' findings 1
20 be filed first so that you don't have to guess in your ;
( 21 findingo about which alternatives you have to respond to.
22 Another possibility that I thought of would be to l
23 ask Intervenors at this point to specify which alternative 24 or alternatives they honestly believe are clearly or ,
25 obviously superior, obviously superior to the evaporation i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {
P
s i !
I 578 f i alternative.
j 2 We can either let this matter ride or we could [
r 3 have a brief discussion of whether any remedy is appropriate !
4 at this time. And I would like to know the will of the l 5 parties about whether a discussion at this time would be f 1
6 profitable. j i
7 Mr. Baxter. since you raised it, do you have a
(
8 feeling that we should discuss it or set a discussion of it {
l 9 later or just pass on? !
10 MR. BAXTER: Well. it is our position that we were f
11 entitled to know, if not in the contention phase, during the [
l 12 discovery phase, what the alternative was that was being 13 articulated. We had understood Contention 8 to be dealing !
l t 14 with tanks inside the reactor building -- that 's been j 15 decided -- and that Contention 2, which is sometimes f 16 referred to as the no-action alternative. involved the !
i 17 construction of additional tanks outside. (
t 18 We asked during discovery of the Intervenors about f
i 19 the tanks they propose and the answer was that we should !
20 build them of the size and in a location that would limit 21 worker exposure and minimize monitoring. We were never 22 told, no tanks. We were never told, this is not our 23 alternative, that we were talking about, for example {
t 24 yesterday. leaving them in their current locations, nor were !
i 25 we told that the idea was to have 209 ii 000-gallon tanks j i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i f
t I
i h
t
.. i. ~
579 i
i i spread about the site somewhere.
2 I think we were entitled to come in and evaluate 3 what we have. At this point I don 't know that there is much l
l 4 to be gained by asking the Intervenora now, should we come 5 up with Option Number 4. I don 't think it 's appropriate. l 6 just an 1 don't think it was appropriate yesterday to ask 7 Mr. Buchanan to off the top of his head evaluate an entirely B new scenario. I don 't think it 's appropriate for us on the 9 third day of the hearing to be asked to start to evaluate an 10 entirely new scenario. I think the Intervenors ought to be 11 limited to the alternative that we all came into the hearing l 12 room with.
13 Since Mr. Buchanan was asked some questions.
() 14 including by the Board, about that yesterday. I am going to 15 ask that he be allowed to return to the stand after this 16 panel to clarify at least one exchange he had with you.
17 Judge Bloch, aoout the relative risks of the storage 18 location and to give his further thoughts about that 19 alternative, but not because we 've kept the engineers up all 20 night back at TMI or in Parsippany evaluating this latest 21 alternative. And I think that is where it ought to be left 22 and that ought to be the end of it and there should be no 23 further examination or exploration at this point.
24 The idea of having the Intervenors go first with 25 proposed findings may well be appropriate at this point.
() Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
~
I l
l 580 l 1 JUDGE PARIS: Your understanding of their 2 alternative is additional tanks on site but not.a large 3 number of 11.000-gallon tanks?
4 MR. BAXTER: That was certainly our understanding.
5 yes. And certainly not leaving all the water in its current 6 25. or 23 locations.
I i 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, would you like to 8 comment ?
9 MS. SKOLNIK: Certainly. Just like the Licensee.
10 we believe that we should know more about the evaporation 11 proposal. And the reason we came into the hearings in the 12 first place was because we felt that the NRC had not 13 evaluated the no-action alternative aufficiently. When I Q 14 came here on Monday, it was the first time that I knew the 15 burden was on me to come up with an alternative to the l 16 proposal offered by CPU. I did not have the benefit of e l
17 pre-hearing conference wherein the issues could have been 18 clarified or determined by the regulations. Therefore, it 19 was a total surprise to me that I was supposed to have spent 20 resources which I really don't have to evaluate what is the
! 21 best thing to do with 2.3 million gallons of water.
l 22 I feel at this stage that we are still asking 23 questions which have not yet been resolved. And for that 24 reason. I don 't think we should be forced as a party into 25 determining exactly which alternative is best. I think O Heritese aemrune Cormrauon (202) 628-4888 1
I i
581 i during the hearings we will be able to point out that the
{
2 evaporation proposal has raised too many uncertainties and 3 that at this time the amendment shouldn 't be granted. I 4 also feel that even at the end of the hearing perhaps the 5 no-action alternative should be considered further. And for 6 that reason, leaving the tanks with the water on the Island 7 until further investigation is done seems an appropriate 8 alternative to us at this point.
3 I think it is unfair to expect me to file my 10 findings before the Licensee. I thought, as far as I was 11 concerned, the regulations stated that the Licensee had to 12 file their findings first. I think it 's putting us in a bad 13 position to have to do something like that, because the
() 14 burden is on the Licensee. It states it in the regulations.
1S I t 's no t on me.
1 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you understand the dif ference j 17 between what I said about the burden of going forward and 18 the burden of proof?
19 The burden of goire forward is the burden of 20 showing that there is an alternative that you believe is 21 obviously superior and then once you raise it and describe 22 it and have some evidence about it, the burden of proof is 23 on the Applicant.
24 But the obligation of the Intervenors is to raise 2S issues to which there is a response. and the burden of proof Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
582 1 '
1 is on the Applicant.
2 I'm really. I am amazed that you didn't know that
{
3 the issue was whether there is an obviously superior 4 alternative because as I cow the legal brief filed by the 1
j 5 Applicants and as I saw the grounds on which we decided the 6 surrmary disposition motion. I thought it was pretty clear 7 that we adopted the standard of whether or not there 's an 8 obviously superior alternative. I don 't think that was a 9 surprise. hhy was it a surprise to you?
10 MS. SKOLNIK Why is it a surprise to you that 11 did not know that the issues were not clear to me when we 1
12 never had a pre-hearing conference?
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Because you didn't ask for a pre-14 hearing conference.
15 MS. SKOLNIr.: I was under the understanding that a l 16 pre-hearing conference was set by an order of the Judges 17 just as the pre-hearing conference had been in Decerrber.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: There can be a pre-hearing 19 conference, and i t 's no t required. And if you wanted one.
20 you could have asked for one.
21 MS. SKOLNIK But I was not --
22 MR. BAXTER: I would just remind the Chair also J
23 that we had several telephone conferences which included l l
l l 24 members of the Board over the last month setting the agenda I
i 25 and going over what was going to happen at this hearing. Ms. i
- l 1
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
583 i Skolnik had ample opportunity to ask any questions she had 2 of the Board or the parties if she was confused about the l
3 issues.
' 4 MS. SKOLNIKt I was not confused about the issues.
0 I was not confused abaut the issues Therefore. I did not 6 ask for further clarification.
! 7 MR. BAXTER: Well. then. a pre-hearing conference l
8 wouldn't have accomplished it, would it?
9 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, perhaps it would have drawn 10 out, though, that there was a need for clarification of the 11 issues.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Whatever the reason that you 13 misunderstood things, our job here is to decide on the
() 14 merits whether there is one or more alternatives that is 15 obviously superior to the evaporation alternative. If there 16 is, then we may decide in favor of that alternative. If 17 there is r.ot. we will decide in f avor of the Licensee 's 18 alternative, which is evaporation.
19 Now, there is an interesting paradox here, which 20 is that you 've got to go forward with showing that there is 21 an alternative you believe is obviously superior. But it 22 seems to me you are reluctant to even say what the 23 alternative is. And i f i t is so obviously superior, it 24 seems to me you ought to know exactly what the alterative is 25 that is obviously superior so that we can know what to
( Heritage R epor t i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888
584 i consider and that the applicants can know what to respond 2 to.
3 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. Judge Bloch, with the 4 information that I presently have. I believe that the no-5 action alternative is obviously superior to the evaporation 6 proposal.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you describe what the no-8 oction alternative is?
9 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
1 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Before you continue, you know f rom 11 our decision and on your own filings about ALARA that the 12 standard, of course, involves both radiological consequences 13 and economic costs. So it must be obviously superior 14 looking at all of that.
(])
15 MS. SKOLNIK Okay. The reason -- you want ne to l 16 state at this time why I think the no-action alternative is l
17 obviously superior?
JUDGE BLOCH: No. what I 'd like you to do if you l 18 i l
19 are willing would be to describe at least one no-action j l 20 alternative in some detail that you personally believe.
l 21 honestly believe is obviously superior so that we can know !
! l 22 what it looks like. If there is core than one. you could [
l l 23 state more than one.
24 But I would like you to have the tea. be that you 25 believe, weighing both radiological consequences and costs.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i i
. . S8S 1
g i that it's an obviously superior alternative.
2 (Pause) 3 (Continued on the next page) 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 l g 14 15 16 17 l 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
6..
586 1- MR. BAXTER: Judge Bloch. I would like the record 2 to reflect that the numerous representatives of the joint 3 Intervenors have been conferring for several minutes in 4 answer to your question.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Given the surprise that-they would 6 have to actually do this, it seems to me to be reasonable 7 that they be conferring 8 MR. BAXTER: I 'm not saying it 's unreasonable. I 9 just wanted the record to reflect.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. they are conferring. Would you 11 like to have o brief break to do this?
12 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, please.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: And about how much tire do you think
() 14 would be reasonable?
15 MS. SKOLNIK: 10 minutes is fine.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let 'e take a 10 minute 17 recess. It 's 9:28 by my watch. We 'll return at 9:38.
18 ( Whe reupon, a abort recess was taken.)
19 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will please cone to 20 order. Ms. Skolnik?
f 21 MS. SKOLNIKi Okay. First of all I want to say 22 that I don 't want this to be used as a tight pattern for 23 which no deviations can go f rom since we only have four SVA 24 members here to determine our alternative for the disposal i 25 of 2. 3 million gallons of radioactive water containrent.
( Heritage Reporting Corporat ion p
(202) 628-4888
587 2 First of all, we feel 6.st from the beginning we 2 weren't presented with reasonable choices. The alternatives 3 proposed were absurd and sometimes illegal.
4 The result was that the public was faced with only S two alt >rnatives, either dispersal of the radioactivity into 6 *he environnent by evaporation or containnent onsite.
7 So what we come up with for our alternative, the 8 best alternative, which we feel is obviously superior to the 9 evaporation is, the water should be pre-processed.
10 But even the term, pre-processed is ill-defined, 11 Because at this point we 're not really sure at what level of 12 vater, what levels of concentration of radionuclides we 're 13 talking about.
() 14 There 's never actually been a land point for 15 processing the water and then disposing of it. l 16 The NRC Comrnissioners stated back in 1981 that the 17 water should be processed by EPICOR SDS and it could be ,
t 18 stored in tanks safely until it could be disposed of.
19 So we would like to get all the water to that f 20 level and if it*s Iossible, to process it nore.
i 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Can you specify the process, which 22 level?
23 MS. SKOLNIKt Perhaps it could be probably best 24 indicated in Table 2. 2 EIS. I 'm not sure if those levels 25 can be brought lower or not, the achievable case.
i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
i l
588 1 JUDGE BLOCH: They can be brought lower. I t 's 2 just a matter of cost.
3 MS. SKOLNIK: No. The EPICOR system does have a 4 finite decontamination level. The water reaches a certain 5 level below which it cannot be decontaminated any further.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: All right. So what you want to 7 understand is treatment by EPICOR SDS to at least the levels l 8 of Table 2.2 in the PEIS?
l 9 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. But although -- SDS i sn 't 10 being used.
l l 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Well. the alternative s', stem which 12 has been developed since then which is --
13 MR. BAXTER: DWCS.
l i
14 JUDGE BLOCH: DWCS. Okay. So it 's pre-processed 1
(])
1 15 to that level in that way and then what?
16 MS. SKOLNIKt Okay. From yesterday 's testimoriy 17 from our questioning, it seems that there is a potasibility 10 of using the tankage that 's not presently on the island.
19 JUD3E BLOCH: Use existing tanitage?
20 MS. SKOLNIK Yes. Use existing tankage. Aa far 21 as the time period is concerned. I don't think that needs to 22 be specified for the were reason that the plans to 23 accommission Unit 2 and Unit i are really in the air.
24 And whether or Oot the island is ever really going 25 to be totally decontaminated is not clear. Therefore the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. -_____-.___.m _ _ _.
y q[ j. , , ;' ' ' "<
j i "i f
~
. u 589 i presence of the water on the island is not the only factor
. V(~5
? which will make the island radioactive, i
JUDGE BLOCH: So is it that you want to leave it
.iere until decommissioning?
. MS. SKOLNIK: No. What I'm saying is. I don 't l 6 even know when decommissioning will take place.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know the miniinum time that 8 you want to leave it there?
9 MS. SKOLNIK: The minimum time? Well, at least 30 ;
10 years.
i, 11 JUDGE BLOCH: And then you want to leave open what 12 will happen after 30 years?
13 MS. SKOLNIK: Sorry?
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: You want to leave open what will 15 heppen after 30 years?
16 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, for the reasons that the state 17 of Unit 1 and Unit 2 would be relevant to whether or not we 18 need to get rid of the water since there would be other 19 radioactivity there too, the water could just stay along 20 with the two units and be monitored, j e
. 21 A..d we also feel -- one of the most important :
\
22 things is that if the water is left to sit on the island [
] 23 that it would not ce forgotten. ;
24 That there could be constant or not constant but [
25 there could be ongoing research into finding a disposal l
I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62,-4888 i
590 1 mothed whereby the radioactivity would not be released into 1 2 the environment.
c 3 JUDGE BLOCH: What kind of research would be part 4 of your alternative? Because the cost of the research would 5 be part of the cost of your alternative.
6 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, isn 't that gosng on within the 7 nuclear industry in the NRC because of the decreasing supply 8 of low level waste? :
9 JUDGE BLOCH: So what you went to do is rely on 10 ongoing research and not have special'research as part of 11 the alternative?
12 MS. SKOLNIK: It isn 't -- if the research is going 13 on anyway --
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Then you don
- have to pay for it?
15 MS. SKOLNIK: Right, you don't have to pay for it.
l 16 JUDGE BLOCH: You have to accept whatever is going 17 on. That 's right.
18 MS. SKOLNIK: Okey. Well, how would I know -- I 19 don 't know what the depth of research that is going on at 20 the moment.
l 21 Therefore, how would I know that we would need 22 additional research?
23 JIJDGE BLOCH: I don 't know but it's your 24 alternative. If it 's obviously superior, you should at some 25 point be able to file with us a statement of what the i
I
()
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t
3 591 1 radiological consequences and costs are in your opinion. !
)
2 They 're going to do it. The applicants are going 3 to file a statement of the. radiological implications of ,
4 cost.
5 They may have the only evidence on coste because
-6 you haven 't submitted any. That 's one of the dif ficulties 7 you have in this hearing.
8 MS. SKOLNIK: Because I 'm not an economist. yes.
9 That is a difficulty. And also because we don 't have the 10 resources to bring an economist in.
11 Wasn 't it the purpose of the environmental impact r
12 atatement for the NRC to evaluate the costs of the i
13 alternative? i
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, there 's going to be 4 13 evaluations by both the Staff and by the Applicant. The 16 problem is that you haven't produced any evidence on costs. i
- 17 I 'm j ust pointing something out realistically.
18 That 's a dif ficulty you have. The fact that you don 't have 19 money doesn 't overcome the f act that it 's a dif ficulty you J
20 have.
21 You 've taken on the burden of participating in a 22 hearing which is very expensive. The expense here for the r
23 Utility and the Staf f is enormous and for the Government.
24 And part of your burdea is to produce certain 25 evidence. I 'm just trying to point out to you that that 's
() Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4880 l-I
,w--
592 1 the way that the issues are going to be weighed.
2 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. Are you asking me to detail a
- 3 research plan and to tell you how much it would cost? I ,
4 mean is that what you 're asking me to do?
5 JUDGE BLOCH: At some point when you-file your 6 findings you 're going to have to indicate exactly what your 7 alternative is so it can be costed and the radiological 8 implications can be specified.
9 If you have more than one that can be costed, you )
f 10 want to specify it pretty clearly so that we know exactly 11 what we 're talking about so that the Licensee can respond to -
12 it.
I i 13 You can't be continuously shif ting them. There 's l () 14 j ust no way that a trial can work in that way and be f air to 15 all the parties.
16 It 's a question of notice. At this point, we 're 17 in an evidentiary hearing. There should be some notice as 18 to what it is that the Licensee is trying to prove.
j 19 You can't have the burden of proof on proving
, 20 something that 's not known. !
{ 21 (Pause) 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you ready?
i 23 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. Judge Bloch, we would like to l
24 take notice of what you say ebout providing cost effect
! 25 analysis of the no action alternative and that we will l
Heritage Reporting Corporation 7 . () (202) 628-4888 l
593
/ 1 endeavor to do so.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: You are going to have to move to be 3 able to late ~ file the testimony. We 're going to have to ,
4 hear the reasons why you wish to late file and there was a 5 filing deadline before the hearing.
6 MS. SKOLNIK: But we get right oack to the points r
7 that I made e.t the beginning that I did not know that I was :
8 going to have to prove a cost effective alternative.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: As I say it really surprises me 10 because your own argument especially on the ALARA issue was 11 that cost and environmental impact both mattered and it all i
12 has to be weighed together.
13 The whole decision that we iusued attempted to h 14 look at it in that way. We talked about the standard that the Applicants laid forth which was obviously superior.
15 16 I don 't krow what you thought was going on here.
l 17 It 's j ust strange to me that you dic;n 't ur;d ;rstand that we t
18 were going to have to decide whether there was on obviously i 19 superior alternative to what was proposed by 'the Applicants.
< 20 But if you have evidence to submit, you have to 21 nove to have it accepted by us. So you want to describe l
< 22 what the evidence is and then we'll have to decide whether 23 or not we can accept it.
f 24 MS. SKOLNIK Well I present ly don 't have an I 25 economist to do a cost effective analysis of the no action ;
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
t I
I
594
. alternative.
b' r- i 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Well. I don't know what you hav3 but 3 when you have it, you have to move to have it introduced if 4 . you 're going to intr oduce it. l 5 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Are there any comments by the Staff?
7 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes. let me go through a few :
8 of these items. I think the first point that I would make 9 is that it seems to me that in the Board's order on the i 10 summary. disposition motions, the case law on obvious 11 superiority was recited at l e ng t h.-
12 And so I think that there is no lack of notice'to 13 the Intervenors that they were under an obligation to 14 develop testimony to the effect that there is an obviously
'(])
L 15 superior alternative and to develop what the details of that ,
1 16 were.
17 JUDGE PARIS: Are you looking at that in the 18 order? .
t 19 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I 'm looking at page eight. j c
20 JUDGE PARIS: Page eight? t 21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: The other parties have to have 22 been provided with notice prior to the hearing of what they i I were supposed to address in their testimony in order to pre-23 24 file their testimony.
25 A nd Mr. Baxter has said earlier. pre-filed i
i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I i
! l t
i i
_ _ ,_,, ._ _ _ __ ______ _ ,., __ l
l 395 l
f' - 1 testimony-cannot be filed against a moving target.
2 The 30 year period for onsite storage arose as a 3 . result of responses to interrogatories that SVA. TMIA I
4 responses to interrogatories and certainly the other parties.
5 were fully entitled to rely upon those responses. i 6 The Board accepted that clarification by the. joint 7 Intervenors, established a period of time that should be 8 looked at.
9 Of course it was essential that some period of 10 time be determined to look at because in order to do a cost 11 benefit analysis of alternative onsite storage we had to 12 know what the period of time was. ,
13 Now it 's interesting that now despite repeated
() 14 points raised by the joint Intervenors against the adequacy 15 of Supplement Number 2, of course Supplement Number 2 16 analyzed the no action alternative in terms of an indefinite 17 period of time.
l 18 150 years was noted in there as the period of time 19 that was required for tritium to get to drinking water 20 level.
f 21 We alnest seem to be backing now into an ;
1 22 intervenor concept that the f act we 're talking about is
]
23 something closer to un open ended or indefinite period of 24 onsite storage rather than 30 years which they have l 1
25 previously indicated in their responses to interrogatories.
) () Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation !
l i :
- i j h
596
(')
's_/
i Nevertheless my point is that 30 years was stated 2 during the discovery period.
3 The Board accepted as the key parameter of the 4 onsite storage that should cu addressed. And the 5 Intervenors certainly cannot expect the other parties to ,
6 have coverea in their testimony alternatives that were not 7 previously identified prior to the hearing. [
s 8 Additionally the preprocessing question has been l
9 left highly obscure. It was not clear to the Staff what the 10 Intervenor 's concept. that the Intervenor 's concept included 11 preprocessing until efter the testimony of Dr. Piccioni had 12 been received and he was cross examined and he made some
$ 13 clarifications as to his testimony.
() 14 The use of existing tankage and the Intervenors' statement that we don't need to decide exactly where that '
15 l
16 tankage would have to be on the Three Mile Island site, some 17 parameters have to be put on that as well.
, i 18 The laws of contention previously rejected was not j 19 admitted, which was that the alternative of storage of 20 onsite storage of the AGW in tanks inside the containment or l 21 reactor building should be considered and that was not 22 accepted as a contention.
23 MR. BAXTER: I 'm sorry. That was Contention 8. i 24 As I recall that was decided on summary disposition.
i 20 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Okay. Contention 8 is what l
[
t
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [
_ ._.- - _ ____._.__ _ __. ___._._.._. _ _. ____._ _._. ___.._.__ _ _. _ ~ __
1-4 l 597 3
1 I 'm referring to, yes. And so that puts a parameter on it
!~ 2 too.
1 t
(' 3 Yes, one may not have to determine exactly.where l i .
~!
- j. 4 on the site tankage would have to be but nevertheless there ~
i j 5 was an attempt previously to raise the contention that the !
l L 6 alternative of within containment or within reactor building l ;
l 7 storage and that did not survive for hearing.
i !
l 8 JUDGE PARIS: That contention involved l l
3 9 constructing tanks within the containment building which we l r i 10 decided was obviously superior because of the very great {
l b 11 occupational exposure associated with it. !
1 l l 12 (Continued on the next page.) I l
- 13
?
O 14 15
)
,l
- l. 4 l 16 1
l 17 I l l 18 ,
19 i
l 20 ,
e 21 !
22 i
l t
24 l
)
25 i t
i I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
, . _ . _ - - . - . _ - - . . - - - . . - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - _ . - - . ~ . _
i i p
I-I e .;r 598 ,
i MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I 'm simply . bringing that 2 factor up also.that one needa'to consider. I mean, if that j !
L 3 same alternative were to ccme up or if you heard something l l
4 where that same alternative was put forward now I wou:d ;
i S think that that would be raising something tha'e has been 'l
! i i
6 previously summarily disposed of. !
7 I think that the concept that-the Joint i l !
! 8 Intervenors should be permitted to submit additional i
- i
( 9 testimony on the costs of the no-action alternative should l l 1 1- 10 be rej ected. The Joint Intervenors did file testimony that 11 they chose to file with regard to their case. The fact
! 12 that it did not include testimony on the costs is simply a 13 choice that they made for whatever reasons.
14 I think that it should have been clear that the
! 15 obvious superiority standard that they were cited to.
16 including all of the considerations of ALARA that were 17 discussed and raised by them, that if they were proposing a l
18 particular alternative to be obviously superior, that they 19 needed to come forward with whatever evidence they believed I
( 20 was necessary to convince this Board that their alternative 21 was in fact obviously superior. And you have even offered 22 Ms. Skolnik the opportunity today to try to outline for you 23 what the nature of that testimony on cost effectiveness 24 might be so that you could have some perhaps additional 25 basis for deciding whether the extraordinary remedy of O seritece Rencr1ine corpore 11on (202) 628-4888
599 1- allowing for the testimony should be allowed, and she has
- ('\
'w) 2 not been able to. So I j ust don 't think that this is the 3 time to allow for further submission on that subj ect.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: That particular point we are not 5 arguing right now, because there is no motion, there is no
- s. 6. proposed testimony. :
1 7 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Well, I guess there is no j 8' motion. cathough eqrtain things have.been put before you and f 9 I gather you are entertaining - or you are not entertaining 10 a notiots.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: If we have a motion, we can argue 12 .i t . I think arguing it prospectively is kind of foolish.
13 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: And the Staff notes that there i
() 14 has been an argument that the Intervenors were not put on 15 adequate notice as to what the alternatives were or that the i 16 Staff somehow inadequately discharged its obligations under 17 NEPA with regard to considering alternatives. But the 18 Supplement Number 2 did consider nine alternatives. As you i 19 have pointed out, Judge Bloch, the testimony in this l 20 proceeding is supplementing that record under NEPA and the 21 burden of going forward on the Intervenor, it 's easy enough 22 for the Intervenor to sesert in some way that the Staf f 's 23 analysis was inadequate. but I think that they are going to 24 have a burden of going forward in this proceeding of showing 25 in what way it was inadequate and particular in what way it
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
600
("T 1 is inadequate as supplemented by the record here.
- ~
ss/
2 I would say that at some point in time, I believe 3 'that we should get to the point of considering if you are 4 open to a motion, my motion would be that you have ruled 4
5 that 30 years is the alternative and your alternative is as 6 described in your order of August 25, 1988 I see no basis
- 7 for expecting the other parties to have addressed anything 8 other than that alternative and I believe I would move that .
9 you confirm that that is the alternative that was supposed ,
10 to be addressed and no other.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I will entertain the Staff motion i 12 that we rule that the 30-year alternative was the one that 's !
i 13 been presented and that was ruled on by the Board as stated 14 in its order so that that is the length of time for storage
(])
15 that was to be contested. And therefore, the parties will 16 be permitted to respond to that. ,
i 17 Would the State like to comment at this point?
- 18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Pardon me?
l i i 19 JUDGE BLOCH: The State. The State of l 20 Pennsylvania.
21 MS. PHELPS: Yes, sir. Initially. I was under the ;
- r i 22 impression that you invited the Joint Intervenors to state j
, l 23 what their alternative was, which could be yet a third ;
24 alternative from the two under discussion and then they did 25 so. They said that the water should be reprocessed using l j
i
() Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
1
601 q 1 the best technology that would be available, EPICOR or SDS
)
2 or whatever would be appropriate. And I did have a 3 question, which was that the Table 2.2 gives two levels, i j
4 base case and achievable. Did they mean that --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's the achievable. l 6 MS. PHELPS: The achievable level. l 1
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. ,
8 MS. PHELPS: Okay. And that the Joint i
9 Intervenors ' position was that it should be at least 30 ;
10 years and decided in the context of'the whole 11 decommissioning issue. It seems like they have put forward 12 an argument at your invitation and now the Staff is arguing l 13 that they don't have any right to put forward yet a third
() 14 consideration. I 'm wondering 'what 's going on here.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: The Staff is trying to place things 16 in the context of the prior decisions of the Board.
) 17 Actually, they did say at least 30 years. I don 't think i
! 18 they 've ever specified what would happen af ter 30 years. Mr.
19 Lewis. What 's the basis for -- what is it you want to do 20 about that? L L
j 21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I'd have to look back at the ;
\
l 22 responses to interrogatories to see whether or not you are :
f 23 correct that it was at least 30 years and perhaps we can get !
i 24 back to that. I 'm not sure exactly what the wording of [
\
- 25 their response was. -
l 1
} Heritage Reporting Corporation '
' (202) 628-4888 I
l
[ l 602 "N - 1 MR. BAXTER: I 've provided it in the interrogatory 2 . responses I j ust handed out on Page 14. the answer that the 3 Joint Intervenors provided to our Interrogatory 2F which 4 asked what the eventual disposal method --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Baxter, before you begin. I 6 would like to comment that Mr. Baxter 's introduction, his 7 introductory remarks in this proceeding summarize in a very 8 concise way what the Applicants intend to prove. You might 9 want to look at that carefully. Because if they prove what 10 they said they were going to prove, they are probably going-11 to prevail. You want to look at what they think they have 12 to prove to win.
13 Mr. Baxter, if you would continue.
14 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, for the State 's
(])
15 benefit. I do think that the Board has asked a questien 16 today that we take exception to. And the.t is, what is your 17 contention. Joint Intervenors, today? Under the NRC 's 18 hearing process, we are to be put on notice at the 19 contention filing stage us to what the issues are and then 20 we pursue discovery, summary disposition, and evidentiary 21 hearing, on material issues that remain.
22 It has been clear to the Intervenors from the 23 beginning that what this hearing is about is contested 24 issues only. This is an operating license amendment 25 proceeding. It is not a de naza review by the Boerd of an
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. . .-.- - . ~. -...----.. . _ ._..- _ - ..- - ..-. - -~.- ..- - . _ - - -.- --
L 603 i ' i application. And the parties have known from the beginning 2 that there are contention requirements and that what'the l 3 Board is here to litigate is those contentions and the 4 contentions come from the Intervenor party and that they l l
5 are, at a minimum, to put the other parties on notice of f
't 6 what they are to respond to. l 7 We had alternatives in the Joint Intervenors' l l
8 contentions. Some of them nave already been decided. We i n
9 have this Contention 2 remaining. i 10 The Intervenora did not oave to have an l l
11 alternative contention. They could have contentions which l
12 simply said we believe that the cost-benefit balance on the l 13 proposal shows that its risks outweigh its benefits. And in O 14 reot- =ome or ne= oa ohemi trv ooatrot e"o the 1 15 decontamination factor and the effectiveness and the !
j 16 instrumentation were aimed at those things.
l 17 They chose, however, also to have contentions that 3
18 certain alternatives have not been adequately considered and c 19 it considered would be shown to be obviously superior. That j 20 is the contention that we have left here. And we have tried 21 through every step of the proceeding to get definition as to
, t
] 22 what that alternative is and 1 think they understood from l 23 the contention filing requirement, from the pre-hearing i
r 4
J '
24 conference, that they had to define what the contention was.
25 Not prove it, but they had to at least define it before we
,l i
1 :
O neruege neperu ng Cer (202) 628-4888 uen j
t
I i
I 604 1 had our burden.
l 2 I have handed out today to the parties and the i
! 3 Board and the Court Reporter excerpts f rom the Intervenors '
[ 4 Response to our First Set of Interrogatories dated February i-
! 5 15. 1988. I refer you to Interrogatory Series 2-2. We 6 start out by noting that Ms. Skolnik defined at the Pre-l 7 Hearing Conference Transcript Page 65, that the no-action
! 8 alternative, as distinguished from Contention Number 8.
)
i 9 involved interim storage in tanks on the TMI site but not
[ 10 inside containment building, and eventual disposal of the 1
l 11 water.
12 Among the questions we asked, what is the 13 estimated length of storage period in years? We did not get f
14 an answer to that question in years. We got storage equal 15 to the number of years for radioactivity to decay to l
1 l 16 harmless levels. I believe in response to a Staff request l 17 later they identified that as the decommissioning period, or i
l 18 the PDMS period.
l 19 C. What is the estimated size of the tanks?
I 20 Those most convenient to the Licensee, which comply with all 21 r lulations and give adequate protection to the workers and 22 the public. It was left solely at our discretion.
23 D. Where is the location on the TMI site where 24 the storage tanks would be placed?
25 Answert That location which is least hazardous to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
605 i employees and most accessible to radiation monitoring.
2 F. What is the eventual disposal method 3 encompassed in this alternative?.
4 Answer: That method which entails the least 5- health impact on the surrounding population.
6 That is all we 've had in terms of defining this 7 alternative. We therefore made, as I indicated in my 8 opening statement, the assumptions that were r.!cessary.and 9 we believed reasonable to evaluate this alternative. We 10 made them in our joint af fidavit filed with our summary i
11 disposition totions back in May. We were met with the 12 response by the Intervenors as to why we hadn't proven our 13 case on that alternative.
() 14 We were never met with the resoonse that oh, you i 15 missed the entire point; I 'm now supplementing my discovery 16 response and telling you that that 's not the alternative.
17 We weren 't told then. We weren 't told in response to the 18 Board 's Order. We weren't told in the testimony filed on j 19 October 11 20 And I think it 's an improper procedure to be asked 21 isow for the Intervenors to define this morning or next week 22 or in their proposed findings what they are really proposing
{
23 be litigated in this hearing. I J
24 As Mr. Lewis has said, we have to be on notice in !
)
25 We have not been placed on notice order to meet our burden. f
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j f
1 l
4
606 1 adequately. And I think to change the ground rules now is '
2 totally unfair to the party with the burden of proof. And I 3 would move that the evidentiary consideration be limited to 4 the alternative as we understood it coming into this 5 hearing. And that is, preprocessing as we had planned, G construction of additional tankage outside containment along 7 with the PWSTs and the BWSTs to store the water, and 8 disposal in 30 years. As it is, we still don 't know what i
9 the ultimate disposal method is.
10 But to now change the pretreatment proposal, to 11 change the tankage proposal to something different and to 12 change the time is to change the alternative itself and to 13 essentially render worthless all the attempts we have made 14 in our prefiled testimony to evaluate their concerns.
(])
, 15 JUDGE BLOCH: A major dif ference in what they l 16 said. I didn 't think there was a difference in pretreatment. ,
17 It was just the tankage, it was that they thought you could
. 18 leave some of it in containment where it lies? If I 19 understand it, they only changed, what the Intervenors have ;
20 now suggested is a change in the tankage.
l l 21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I don 't think that 's correct. ;
22 I think that the pretreatment has been a moving target. And l 23 today it was stated as being at lenet the achievable case.
24 MR. BAXTER: And of course we haven't evaluated, j t
25 there is a relationship between the storage location ard the ( .
i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
! ?
I I
t i
607
'l feasibility and wisdom of pretreating. We have not assessed 2 taking it all out.of the existing locations. attempting to I 3 pretreat it, and putting it back there, whether that makes l L ~4 any sense.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: So what'did you think the 6 pretreatment was, as you understood it from previous f
?
7 filings? ,
8 MR. BAXTER: I had understood that we were going i 9 to pretreat the water as we would for the evaporation l
^'
10 proposal. I think that 's what Dr. Piccioni also submitted. !
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that 100 percent EPICOR, DWST or !
12 DWCS?
i 13 MR. BAXTER: It would involve using EPICOR or the P
14 DWCS to achieve the same kinds of water we were otherwise
(]) '
l' 15 going to run through the evaporator for discharge. We would .
i 4
16 treat it to the base case levels.
t l 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Base case? !
! i 18 MR. BAXTER: Yes. '
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So they believe they would be f
20 treating to base case before storage, not to achievable. In 21 that what you meant? Did you mean base case or achievable?
k 22 MS. SKOLNIK No. I meant achievable case actually j i
23 because that was the case that was recogni.ned by the NRC !
24 when they evaluated the no-action alternative or dumping it 25 into the river. Am I correct?
() Heritage Reporting Co rporat ion (202) 628-4888
- r. _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . = . _ . .
h l
l
!- 608 I
1 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: No. D r .. Piccioni was totally
{
2 cor. fused in his analysis.
l~ 3 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. There is a possibility that l I
4 4 the water could be preprocessed. f
\ l l 5 MR. BAXTER: It may be. We 're talking about l
! l l 6 defining what the issue is. l
- i. .t l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is whether you have l
! 1 l 8 ever --
9 MR. BAXTER: It 's not the NRC Staf f 's alternative 10 that we 're evaluating. It 's the Intervenors ' alternative.
{
11 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is whether you 've ever I 12 stated that that was what you sought before. l t
i 13 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, I would need to go through my
() 14 responses to interrogatories to see if I did.
15 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: If that 's going to take a long 16 period of time. I --
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Maybe we can do that after lunch.
18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: And come back to this after lunch as l
20 to whether you previously had put the Applicant Licensee on i I 21 notice, and the Staff on notice as to what it was that you 22 wanted in the no-action alternative. They're correct. I l
$ 23 didn 't mean to create new opportunities now. I was l
24 troubled, as Mr. Baxter was, about what seemed to be a 25 noving target.
i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
l
m 609 l
j 1 I'd like to say something about the position you 2 find yourself in. I understand that'it is absolutely true ;
3 that you are disadvantaged here because of.your scarce
'4 resources. And there 's a paradox. It 's also true that
(
5 there 's more attention being paid to what you have to say !
6 here than would happen in any other country. And if you
\
7 were able to muster the resources to prove that there was a 8 better alternative, you had all of that ability and time to !
9 do that.
10 The problem is, you haven't mustered the resources l 11 that might have'been available to demonstrate that there was 12 a better alternative. And we 're going to look at the whole j 13 record. But it looKs like there are gaps in what you have
]
O 14 oem astreteo- ^aa t ooo't kao* *^v it i= vou otoa t :
! 15 understand the law. But it is the obligation of the !
l l 16 Intervenors to understand the law. And in fact, everyone is 17 trying to be solicitous in order to explain what the law is.
- 18 But part of what you 've said is that you didn 't understand ,
f 19 what the law required you to prove in this hearing, and that [
3 20 really is not the responsibility of the Board or the other 21 parties.
i 22 MS. SKOLNIX: It 's not a case of not having !
23 understood what had to be proved in the hearings. It's a f 24 case of believing my interpretation of your Order.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, I understand that. Would you i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 [
4 ;
o (
l.
4
610 i like to make a brief summary remark before we continue with l s)
)
2 the witnesses?
i 1- 3. MS. SKOLNIK Yes.
i Tape 404 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Judge Bloch, while they are 5 conferring, there is one other point that I wanted to make
{' 6 on this point that I think may not have been fully clear
! 7 from what I said, if I may go forward with that prior to her 8 summary?
9 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's a brief point ?
! 10 MR. STEPHEN lewis: Yes, it is. I just wanted to l
l 11 make clear that the Staff proceeded ors the basis of l'
l 12 providing a 30-year analysis on the basis of the Order and
!. 13 we provided an environmental assessment in the testimony of f
14 Ms. Munson to that effect. I mean, the Staff is attempting 15 to address as best we can whatever we understand from the
! 16 Order, and that 's what we clearly understood f rom the Order i
17 to be the parameter as to time that we should put on that l 18 analysis.
19 Earlier. in the environmental impact statement, it j 20 was in terms of indefinite storage, ISO-year period was put I i l 21 on that. So I just wanted you to understand that the Staff ;
22 has been in its impact statement and subsequently in its l 23 testimony, at.empting to address whatever we understood from j
(
24 the Order and from points raised by the Intervenors was the l l
2S no-action alternative that was being put forward. And l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4808 l l
, I l
_ _ . I
I !
i- !
t f i l 611 L{
j 1 2
that 's always been our posture, to attempt to address that as best we could.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: So I would like to say that in the f 4 future I think I have learned a lesson out of this. If I l 1
I 5 were writing a summary disposition decision again I would !
! I J 6 start with the findings of fact and not with the l
! 1 1
7 contentions. Because I think that if we had done that, more j l
- 8 would have been resolved. !
l 1
l 9 Starting with the contentions I think produces !
10 fewer findings than if we were to start with the findings of ;
11 fact. There were a lot of uncontested findings of fact that h 12 we never ruled on.
l !
f 13 MS. SKOLNIK First of all, in. response to Mr.
l i
() 14 Lewis ' position, it seems to me that he utill feels that I 15 have to prove that the NRC Staf f 's evaluation of the no-l
! 16 action alternative was inadequate in spite of the fact that I
j 17 your ruling on Page 2 of August 25 states we are not sure l 18 why more consideration was not given to the no-action
! 19 alternative. I think it has been decided, and also you said l
! 20 on Page 22. Licensee's motion for summary disposition of l
I 21 Contention 2, to that extent, meaning the no-action 22 alternative, is denied.
23 So I think it 's been established that the no-24 action alternative was not adequately evaluated.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: What was established was we were
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
- m. -
612 1 only ruling on whether there were genuine issues of facts 21 for trial. That 's the only thing we rule on in summary 3 disposition motion.
4 MS. SKOLNIK: So in that Order you did say that-I 5 had advanced enough genuine issues of fact to show that the 6 no-action alternative had not been adequately evaluated.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. That the issue here has got to 8 be whether or not there is an alternative that is obviously 9 superior to the Applicant 's. It 's what the law is about
- 2. 0 this hearing. There's no way I can change that. There 's 11 an issue about no-action alternative which you have raised 12 and you are able to litigate but the standard under which it 13 will be evaluated is whether the Applicants show by
() 14 preponderance of the evidence that the no-action alternativo 15 as they fairly understand it from the record of the case ic ,
16 obviously superior.
) 17 If they can show that i t is not obviously !
i l 18 superior, then they prevail. If they can 't. you prevail.
l f 19 M' . . SKOLNIK: Okay. The Licensee and the Staff [
1 20 have a problem with the fact that my alternative is ;
21 evolving. I feel the evaporation proposal has evolved and i 1 22 is still evolving and I think that 's been clear from the !
i 23 t es t inony. :
24 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand what you mean by i
! 2S that.
, I
} I l
j
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation f
, - , , ~ - - , , , . , . - - - - - - , , - , - . -w,n -.., n_---.~. -,wn,.g, -,.,,,y ,.,,wm--.,,wnup,v. - , nnv , _m-,a---~,
.m. ..
2, 613 i MS. SKOLNIK: Well. I think we 're evaluating .two .
2 evolving alternatives meaning that when we had certain f
3 information in 19'~ when the proceeding started, and we 4 keep getting, we 're getting more information, and as we get l 5 more information we feed that in and that will help us to !
r 6 make a decision on which alternative is best. So in that !
7 respect, both alternatives, both the no-action alternative l 8 and the evaporation process, they are evolving alternatives.
l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: What has evolved about-the l l
10 evaporation process. There are more details in engineering. [
11 I don 't think it 's changed at all. ,
12 MS. SKOLNIK: I think it has changed a lot, Judge !
13 Bloch.
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: In what way?
15 MS. SKOLNIX: For example, the amount of water 16 that will be pre-processed, when the proposal was submitted 17 in 1986, it was assumed that the water would be put through 18 EPICOR SDS, and now it 's more uncertain exactly what will be 19 going into the evaporator to be processed? I guess at the !
i 20 beginning it seemed -- well. Ot the very beginning we were I
21 not made aware that the evaporator could be operated in a i
22 decoupled mode and therefore we had no information to !
23 believe that the evaporator would be used as a f L
24 decontamination technique. The proposal was presented that ;
2S the EPICOR SDS --
l J
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
614 1 JUDGE BLOCH: How about as of the stage of summary
,)
2 disposition?
l 3 MR. BAXTER: That information was available in the )
4 preliminary system' description filed with the Board'and 5 parties last February, the concept that this evaporator l l
6 could be operated in a coupled and decoupled node. That was j 7 after we had retained the vendor and proceeded with the j 8 design. ;
I 9 JUDGE BLOCH: If the Board's ruling on what the 6
10 standard is is unacceptable, you may want to file a motion [
11 about it. But I don't see any alternative as to what the f 12 standards are. ;
13 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. As far as the 30-year period L r
() 14 is concerned, first of all. I never stated 30 years. That k 15 was what the Licensee inferred form the statement that I 've 16 made in the answer to interrogatories. Now, since the 17 proceeding began, we have attended citizens advisory panel i 18 meetings for the decontamination of Unit 2. So our i
- 19 information is different.
1 20 When the proposal first carc.e out, we had belleved l 21 that Unit 2 would be decontamineted to a point much further i
- 22 'Jeyond what the Licensee now anticipates. Also, it has 4
23 become more clear to us during this proceedings, not in l 24 these proceedings but at citizens edvisory panel meetings,
! ?5 that there is no clear definition of deconmissioning. So l
( Herttage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 l
r.
yr 1
615 1 that it is still undefined whether or not Unit 2 Three Mile 2 Island and Unit i Three Mile Island wil1 be completely 3 decontaminated and that Island restored back fe: residential l 4 use, f
5 JUDGE PARIS: Con I ask a question? I thought I ;
f 6 read in the paper that GPU had decided not to tear down and l 7 deconteminate and get rid of the TMI-2 f acility until the 8 end of the license period. Is that correct? Is that your- !
9 understanding? !
I 10 MS. SKOl.NIK: It is my understanding that they 11 will not clean Unit 2. It is also my understanding from the 12 meetings of the public citizens advisory panel that the time 13 at which it will be decommissioned is very ill-defined. And Q 14 in fact an NRC representative did say that it could be 30 15 years, it could be 50, it could be 60 and maybe it could be 16 90
[
17 JUDGE PARIS: That 's probably because the NRC is l
18 now considering license extensions. j l.
19 MS. Sr.0LNIK: I think it was also because l 20 decorrrnissioning was not quite well enough defined. It 's [
f 21 those two aspects. Whether or not a unit will be torn down 22 and carted away or whether it would be entombed.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Here 's the problem. There is a [
24 shifting environment. The question is, what kind of tanks i
25 are they going to put in? You can 't put in a tank that 's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 616 i designed for 30 years and a tank that 's put in for 115 2 years.' There may be differences in the engineering of them.
3 We have to decide what to do with the water. There 's a L
4- proposal to evaporate it. We need to know what you think is 5 obviously superior to that. You can't build an infinite 6 tank.
7 JUDGE PARIS: The staf f wasn't considering five 8 license extensions, was it, when it worked on 150 years? ,
+ 9 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: No. No. And. Judge Paris, 10 the 60-year period arises from the new decommissioning rule.
11 MR. BAXTER: Safe storage?
12 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes, for safe store, for the 13 safe store option under the new decommissioning rule. That
() 14 doesn't arise f rom a life extension.
15 JUDGE PARIS: What is the new decommissioning 16 rule?
17 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: It 's in ef fect now.
18 JUDGE PARIS: What does it state?
19 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: What does it state?
20 JUDGT PARIS: Yes.
21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: It provides -- I don 't have it 22 in f ront of me so you 'll have to bear with me. But it does
.3 provide options for decommissioning methods and one of them
! 24 is a safe store option.
25 JUDGE PARIS: Shank you.
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
617
'r's i JUDGE BLOCH: What I 'd like to do is have Ms.
(J ;
2 Skolnik make the last remarks, but I have a feeling that Mr. i 3 Baxter needs to make a few remarks now. Do you want to do 4 that? :
5 MR. BAXTER4 I would only comment that I don 't 6 appreciate at all why the ultimate disposition of the plant 7 has anything to do with the proposal before us and the 8 lievnse amendment before us.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, do you want to just say 10 o f ew words and then we 'll close this por in nf ' >
11 discussion? And I 'm not gaing to renpond. )- ever you say 12 wi.ll be unresponded to.
- 13 MS. SKOLNIK
- I think the disposition of the whole 0
() 14 Island is really relevant to what should be done with the 15 water. Because originally the ?ason for the water being 16 disposed by evaporation was to clean up the Island. So it 17 seemed to us that evaporation was being done because 18 otherwise the Island wouldn't be cleaned up. So now we have 19 information that no, that 's not what makes the Islano 1
20 contaminated. It could be all the other stuf f that 's going 21 to be left there, too, which will have to be monitored.
22 So there will be t.initoring going on at Three Mile 23 Island. So that could take care of the monitoring of the 24 tanks.
25 I think, too, our alternative is o viously
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I i
618 i i
i superior by the mere fact that it doesn't disperse the 2 radioactivity into the environment, and upon a population ;
3 who has suffered the accident and the ten years of cleanup.
4 I think also that it is really relevant that ;
i S information about the TMI Unit 2 accident in 1979 is still l 6 coming out. I don't think we can ignore that. In 1979 it 7 was said that there was no meltdown. And now we learn that l
8 it was a 50 percent meltdown. I think it's just relevant. (
9 It indicates the continuing nature of the cleanup and the 10 fact that it 's a research and development center.
11 I think that 's fine. I 'm finished.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Let 's begin with the witnesses. Mr.
13 Baxter.
i 14 MR. BAXTER: Licensee calls Dr. Gary G. Baker and 15 William J. Cooper. Starting with my left, would you each 16 state your name for the record, please.
William J. Cooper.
17 MR. COOPERt 18 DR. BAKER: Gary Glenn Baker.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: I'd )ike to welcome both of you to 20 the hearing. The testimony that you are about to give 21 should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 22 truth. And I would like to advise you that the testimony l
23 you are about to give us subj ect to possible penalty for 24 perj ury.
25 Do you each understand the warring that I 've j ust f Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 I
[-
619 l i given?
2 MR. COOPER: Yes.
3 DR. BAKER: Yee.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
5 Whereupon, i 6 DR. CARY G. BAKER 7 -and-0 WILLIAM J. COOPER it
- 9 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witn ss 10 herein, and was examined and testifisJ as follows
, -11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. BAXTER:
13 Q Gentlemen. I call your attention to a document 14
(]) that bears the caption of this proceeding. It's dated 15 October 25. 1988, entitled "Licensee 's Testimony of Dr. Gary 16 G. Baker and William J. Cooper on Dose Assessments and 17 Microorganisnm (Contentions 2. 3 a nd 5d) . " It consists of 18 23 pages and two attachments.
19 Does this represent testimony prepared by you or 20 under your supervis.on for presentation at this hearing? l 21 Mr. Cooper?
22 A (Cooper) Yes.
23 Q Dr. Baker?
24 A (Baker) Yes. it does.
25 Q Do either of you have any changes or cortections
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
T. h
!l 620 i to make to your testimony?
- vO 2 A (Cooper) No.
l '3 A (Baker) No.
4 Q Is it true and accurate to the best of your 5 knowledge and belief?
6 A (Cooper) Yes.
7 A (Baker) Yes. l 8 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman. I move that the 9 testimony be received into evidence and incorporated into 10 the transcript as if read.
(
11 JUDGE BLOCH: There being no obj ection. that may 12 be done.
-13 MS. SKOLNIK: I do obj ect.
Q 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. The o's . ction?
15 MS. SKOLNIX: I would like to ask a question. '
l 16 please, before the evidence is entered into testimony. l 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Surely. It's in the nature of voir ,
I 18 dire.
l 19 MS. SKOLNIK: It concerns the nattire of the l 20 revisions. !
21 JUDGE BLOCH: The nature of what?
22 MS. SKOLNIK The revisions that were made between 23 October 11 and October 25.
1 1 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Please proceed.
25 O Herliese 'aenertine Corgere11en (202) 628-4888 n
621 i i VOIR DIRE 2 BY MS. SKOLNIK 3 Q I would like for the witnesses to clarify when 1
4 they discovered that the decontamination factor was 1.000, 5 MR. BAXTER: Obj ec t ion. Mr. Chairman. This is not !
6 voir dire going to the qualifications or' the witnesses to 7 sponsor the testimony. This is cross examination. It l 8 should follow the ruling on the offer of the evidence. t 9 MS. SKOLNIK: The reason I'm asking is because on l
10 Page 2 of the letter of October 25. Line 5: As GPU Nuclear !
i developed more information, it was determined that the i 11 I
12 evaporator can easily achieve a decontamination factor of f
13 1.000 or more, and the NRC staf f 's dose calculations are !
t 14 based on this greater decontamination f actor. It's unclear t
l
- 15 from the letter whether or not the new information and the j
! 16 discovery of the witnesses that the decontamination factor l l
i 17 was 1.000 was made between October 11 and October 25 or !
i l 18 prior to that. ;
i
. 19 MR. BAXTER: I would not object to the question l 20 being proposed after the offer of the testimony has been 21 ruled upon. !
t .
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Voir dire goes to the que1ifications l l l 23 of the witnesses, not to the accuracy of the testimony, i
24 Cross examination is for the accuracy of the testimony.
l 25 If there is something you went to raise that {
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[
t r
I i
l l
622 l,
i questions whether they are actually qualified to testify, 2 then-you can do that. But not about the truth of what they ,
[
3 said. !
i 4 (Pause) 1- t i 5 (Continued ors the next page)
- l I l
6 j 1
l 7 !
r j
8 l -
l I 9 1
10 f n i
! 11 i i I 12 l
l 13 ,
I g 14- l i
! 15 !
- e
! 10 ,
! 17 l
l 18 j 19 20 l l 21 i
i f
j 22 23 24 l
}
l '
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b L
I
! 623 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Baxter Just to clarify. I take 2 it that the testimony .you 're submitting is dated October 25.
3 is that correct?
4 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Sko1nik. you'lI be able to use, j 6 if you want, the October 11 submitted testimony for cross l, 7 examination. That 's no problem.
8 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. A11 right. then I wi11 9 address my questions to the witnesses after the testimony 10 has been accepted into the record.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony is received into 12 evidence and shall be bound in and consecutively numbered.
l 13 (Licensee 's testimony of Dr.
t Q 14' Gary G. Bakttr and William J.
15 Cooper on Dose Assessments ar.d l-16 Micro-organisms was received 17 and inserted inte; the record l 18 and follows:) j l
l 1
O Her11ece aemrune cor-reuen (202) 628-4888 i
i
a .. _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
o 624
\
October 25, 1988 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) )
O :
LICENSEE'S TESTIMONY OF DR. GARY G. BARER AND WILLIAM J. COOPER ON DOSE ASSESSMENTS AND MICROORGANISMS (CONTENTIONS 2. 3 AND 5d) 9 0
-.-..._.____._J
625 .
t Q.1 Please state your name.
( ') A.1 (GGB) Gary G. Baker.
(WJC) William J. Cooper.
Q.2 Dr. Baker, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.2 (GGB) I am employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as Man- ;
ager, Environmental Controls, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
In these positions, I am responsible for the environmental moni-
~
toring and evaluation of activities at TMI.
i Q.3 Please summarize your professional qualifications and experience relevant to this testimony.
A.3 (GGB) I have a B.S. degree in Biology and earned the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Microbiology. In 1978, I was an Instructor in Biology and Microbiology at Indiana Univer-sity of Pennsylvania. In 1978 and 1979, I was an Environmental Scientist with Pennsylvania Electric Company, and in 1979 I began my employment with GPU Nuclear (and its predecessor) at TMI. As an Environmental Scientist from 1979 to 1981, I designed and im-piemonted radiological monitoring programs. I was Radiological Programs Manager at THI from 1981 to 1983, responsible for all phases of radiological environmental studies and monitoring pro- .
grams. In my current position at THI, which I have held since 1983, my primary responsibility is to ensure that plant opera- ,
tions are in compliance with all relevant regulatorf require-r ments. I am also currently an Instructor in Environmental t
t I
t l
( . .
- i 626 I
- Microbiology at The Pennsylvan'.a State University, Harrisburg Cr.mpus, where I teach both undergraduate and graduate courses. A O complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended ;
as Attachment 1 to this testimony.
l Q.4 Mr. Cooper, by whom,are you employed, and what is your ,
position?
A.4 (WJC) I'am employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as an
- Environmental Scientist in the Environmental Controls Department at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. l
, I t
Q.5 Please summarize your professional qualifications and l experience relevant to this testimony.
A ., 5
. (WJC) I have a B.S. degree in Chemistry from the Uni- 1 versity of Maryland, and I am a certified Health Physicist with (
(]) over ten years of health physics experience. From 1977 to 1980,
! I was a Health Physics Technician at The Johns Hopkins Universi- 5 i !
i ty. Since 1980, I have been employed by GPUN (and its predeces- i I sor) in Health Physics positions at TMI. In my current position,
! which I have held since 1985, my responsibilities include the TMI .
I
) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, and the develop- ;
l
- ment, maintenance and operation of routine effluent off-site dose !
i calculational codes. A complete statement of my professional !
l !
qualifications is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony. }
i l
i i
i c l
h j .
(]) l f I
- r
627
. Q.6 What is the purpose of this tostimony?
A.6 (GGB, WJC) We vill address the issues remaining on the
. (~^) radiological dose estimates off site for.the GPUN proposal to evaporate the THI-2 Accident-Generated Water ("AGW") and for the alternative raised by the Joint Intervenors, involving on-site storage followed by disposal. In particular, in response to Con-tantion 2, we vill compare the dose consequences of the proposal and the alternative. In response to Contention 5d, we vill explain how our dose modeling methodology takes into account t'a e effects of the tritium which will be released during evaporation.
(GGD) ! will also respond to Joint Intervenors' Material Statement of Fact No. 9, under Contention 3, by describing why any microcrganisms present in the atmospheric release are of no concern.
Q.7 How is your testimony organized?
A7 (GGB, WJC) We vill first describe the calculational method >; sed for dose assessments at TMI. Second, we sill present 2 the GPUN estimates of the doses to the maximally exposed hypo-I thetical off-site person and to the off-site population, from the 4
evaporation of the AGW. Third, we vill assess the dose conse-quences of Joint Intervenors' alternative of further storage fol-loved by disposal, and compare it with GPUN's evaporation propos- .
al.
(GGB) Finally, I will address the issue of microorganisms in the atmospheric release from tvaporation.
()O m
628
, Q.8 Please describo your deso assessment methodology, i
A.8 (GGB) The primary environmental dose assessment com-puter code used by GPUN Environmental Controls is the Meteorolog-ical Information and Dosa Assessment System (MIDAS). This code, which is used for quarterly and semi-annual dose assessments sub-mitted to the NRC with THI-l and THI-2 effluent reports, is designed to allow environmental dose assessment for chronic and acute exposures. The routine release portion of the model pro-vides the dose assessment required to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix ! guidelines for plant releases, is based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, and uses atmospheric disper-sion calculations based on the Pasquill-Gifford method presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111. MIDAS uses hourly averages of on-site meteorological data to calculate an integrated dispersion for the It integrates the dispersion over each hour
{) period of interest.
into each of sixteen sectors at ten distances.
The dispersion modeling derives the average airborne concen-tration, deposition rate from the plume, and ground plane concen-tration of each radionuclide in each sector as a function of time. The dose due to direct exposure to radioactive material in the plume and deposited on the ground is determined by MIDAS di-rectly from these functions, using published conversion factors such as those in Tables E-6 and 5-1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109.
The MIDAS code has been reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff. It has also been reviewed by an Atomic Safety and 4
O
.- ii i . ..-,-.. .
629
- Licensing Board, in tho TMf-Restart proceeding in which TMIA was a party, and was found to be an acceptable code for assessing at-(es) mospheric dispersion and environmental dose.
Q.9 What are some of the site-specific features used by the MIDAS code?
A.9 (WJC) The code employs numerous site specific files in order to provide a realistic model of the releases. For example, for atmospheric releases, the Unit 2 portion of the model consid-ers the following
- a. Two separate release points with plant-specific charac-teristics including height of the vent stacks, diameter of the vents, linear flow rate from the vents, and building dimensions for vake effects.
O b. Three different methods of assessing plume rise, i Plumes can be treated as grour.d level, elevated, or vake split. The wake split method is normally used on I
the station vent and the ground method is normally used on other release points. Wake split treatment causes the model to assess the degree of jet plume rise with
! each release condition of meteorology and ventilation The model then treats a fraction of the release flow.
as an elevated release and the remainder as a ground release to approximate the amount of the plume which is entrained by the building vake effect. The evaporator Q
630 vas conservatively treated as a ground release, which
( generally produces the highest calculated doses because of lover mixing prior to ground contact of the plume.
i l
- c. Seven environmental exposure pathways. The pathways included in the model are (1) human inhalation in the plume, (2) direct radiation to humans from the plume, (3) direct radiation to humans from radioactive materi-al deposited on the ground from the plume, (4) inges-tion by humans of vegetation grown on soil with ra-dionuclides in and on the soil which have been deposited from the plume, (5) ingestion by humans of cow milk from animals which have consumed vegetation grown on soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, (6) ingestion by humans of goat milk
() from animals which have consumed vegetation from soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, and (7) ingestion by humans of meat from animals which have consumed vegetation grown in soil with plume de-posited radionuclides,
- d. Actual residence locations. The actual locations of residences or clusters of residences in the vicinity of the plant in each of the standard sixteen compass sec-tors are included in order to have actual locations of residents for the direct plume exposure, direct plume O
i
631
- inhalation, and direct soil deposition exposure path-n ways.
(-)
- e. Actual garden locations. The actual location.of the nearest garden in each of the sixteen standard compass sectors are included in the model. Each resident fur-ther from the plant than the nearest garden is assumed to have a' garden alsa. This allows an assessment of the vegetation ingestion dose to humans based on actual land use around the plant. The maximally exposed indi-vidual i's assumed to reside in the location of highest plume inhalation and direct exposure and to eat food-stuffs from the highest garden, even if that garden and the maximally-exposed individual's residence are not in the same location.
- f. Actual milk animal locations. The locations of all known animals used for milk for human consumption with-in five miles of the plant are included, broken down into sixteen compass sectors. This allows assessment of the cow and goat milk pathways based on the actual land use characteristics around the plant. The maxi-mally exposed individual is assumed to drink cow milk and goat milk from the highest docations, even if the individual does not actually reside in those locations.
+
O .
632
- g. Actual meat animals. Locations of actual known moat
< ~ , animals within five miles of the plant are included to U provide an assessment of the meat pathway dose based on actual land use around the plant. The maximally ex-posed individual therefore lives at the location of highest plume and deposition direct exposure and inhalation exposure, while eating meat, milk, and vege- l tation from the highest locations for those pathways even if they are not co-located.
- h. Actual distances to the site boundary and actual ter-rain heights in the vicinity of the plant. The use of the actual site boundary distance specifies where to begin assessment of the plume exposures. The inclusion of terrain heights allows a better estimate of the dep-O osition of radionuclides on the soil, sinco s position is in part dependent on ground contact the plume.
Q.10 Now do you use the code to calculate ingestion and inhalation doses?
A.10 (MJC) Numerous parameters are used to estimate the transfer of radionuclides through the environment. Since some of the pathways involve multiple environmental media and trophic levels, estimates of the concentrations in each trophic level are required to adequately estimate the environmental dose from all of the pathways. For example, for the cow milk pathway, the O
O
633
. model must first estimate tho dispersion and deposition of the particulate radioactive material in the effluents onto the soil.
O It then uses transfer coefficients from NRC Regulatory Guide 1 t09 to estimate the concentration of radionuclides in'vegeta-tion based on the amount in the soil. Food consumption rates specific to cows are then app 1',ied to the vegetation to estimate the total amount of each radionuclide the milk animal consumes in a day, and transfer factors are applied to determine the concen-tration of the radionuclides in the milk. The consumption rates I (usage factors) and transfer factor used by MIDAS are those contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109. These are generally experi-4 mentally derived factors selected by the NRC staff following a i review of the applicable literature.
The MIDAS code estimates the quantity of each radionuclide i ingested or inhaled by mentbers of the p' u blic. To provide greater
[]}
accuracy, age specific parameters are used to specify the inges-4 tion of various foodstuffs and water and inhalation rates. The offsite population is modelled by specifying four different age l groups -- infants, children, teenagers, and adults -- each with specific ingestion and inhalation parameters. Ingestion and inhalation factors for each age group are specified in table E-5
! in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for the maximally exposed individual.
These are based on actual usage studies by the Department of Ag-riculture as well as on the "Reference Man" study in Internation-al Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 23.
Q ,
2
634
. When tho ingostion and inhalation quantities have been cal-culated, conversion factors between the quantity of each nuclide O' ingested or inhaled and the 50-year integrated dose committment are applied. These factors (Dose Conversion Factors or DCTs),
which are specific for each age group and radionuclide, represent an estimate of the dose per unit of radioactivity (i.e., mrom per picoeurie). The factors are provided in numerous publications from the NRC and other sources. The primary sources in use for chronic (routine release) exposures are Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172, which are in turn based on ICRP publications, including ICRP Publication 2, ICRP Publication 10, and ICRP Pub-lication 23. The DCTs in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172 have been calculated based on intake route (i.e., separately for inhalation and ingestion), age group, and isotope, using age spe-cific characteristics of body and organ size as well as biologi-
[]}
cal half lives and differences in physiology of the different ages (such as GI/LLI transit times). Biological half lives (the effective residence time of radionuclides in the body) are an in-tegral part of the derivation of the DCFs, as is the Quality Fac-tor of the radiation from each radionuclide. The Quality Factor (derived from the Relative Biological Effectiveness -- RBE) is a measure of the biological impact of radiation from a particular radionuclide as compared against a reference gamma source. Thus, the Dose Conversion Factors take into account the particular in-teraction of each radionuclide with the human body and permit O
t 635
- calculation of a dose equivalent that reasonably reflects the total relative effect.
() The dose calculated by MIDAS is a 50-year dose commitment.
It is essentially an integration of the total dose possible to an individual fo11ovinq !ngestion, inhalation, or exposure to a ra-dionuclide for the fo11sving 50 years. This accounts for the initial intake, the frcction of initial intake retained, the l
I fraction of the initial intake deposited in the body tissues, and t
the removal of the deposited activity by biological removal and radioactive decay. In most cases, the total residence time of the radionuclide in the body is much smaller than the 50-year in-tegration time, and most of the calculated dose is delivered in a l
much shorter time.
l 1
Q.11 This hearing uniquely focuses upon the amount and ef-l
() facts of the tritium to be released during evaporation of the l AGW. How have you accounted for tritium in your dose assessment l modeling?
l A.11 (WJC) There is considerable discusalon in the litera-ture regarding the Quality Factor for tritium radiation which should be used. ICRP Publication 2, on which the DCFs are based, used a factor of 1.7 as the Quality Factor for tritium's lov en-ergy beta radiation. Factors ranging from one to three are cor-mon in the literature, and recent National Council on Ra-diological Protection and Measurements (NCRP) publications recem-mend a Quality Factor of one. The use of a Quality Factor of
(]) ,
636
, 1.7, as GPUN doos, vill produco a calculated deso which is simply a factor of 1.7 times that computed using a Quality Factor of U one.
! Tritium is also a special case in t'he calculation of off-site doses because of the ability of the skin to freely exchange water with the atmosphere. Typically, about one-half of the tritium intake from exposure to atmospheric tritiated vater (HTO), which is the form of tritium in the accident generated water, is through absorption through the skin. The total intake of tritium used in the model for airborne tritium is, therefore, the sum of the amount inhaled and the amount absorbed through the skin. This additional intake of tritium thrcugh the skin is ac-counted for in the Dose Conversion Factor for inhalation.
i In the case of tritium, the biological half life of the
' d'Y'- * *a-
O "' "' " " '"' ' ^dd "'
ments for tritiuin with half lives as long as about 130 days and 250 days also exist, but these include only a small fraction (less than 10%) of the tritium in the body and do not in fact contribute significantly to the actual dose commitment. NCRP Publication 62 explains that the dose from the three compartment i
model for tritium, (which accounts for the fractions of tritium in the body which exist as f ree water, labile-f reely exchangeable organic, and tightly bound organic hydrogen) is only about four percent higher than that from the free water only. In addition, the NCRP 63 indicates that the dose to the cell nucleus
637
. associatcd with the chromosomal structures is trivial compared to that from the tritiated water in the cell. Thus the majority of O the dose from tritium is incurred within a few weeks following the exposure from the tritium existing as free water in'the body.
The Dose Conversion Factor for tritium used by GPUN's model em-ploys the effective half life for tritiated water recommended in ICRP Publication 10. The dose factors are designed for use for chronic (i.e., slov uptake) exposures from releases from nuclear facilities. These factors provide a committed dose, integrated over the lifetime of the individual.
Q.12 What has GPUN calculated to be the off-site doses from the proposed evaporation of the AGW7 A.12 (GGB) The radiological consequences to the public from the controlled, atmospheric release of the evaporated AGW O have been determined by estimating the dose to both the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person and to the total exposed population. The dose to the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person is a conservative (over-estimated) assessment of the exposure to a member of the public, as required by Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, using Regulatory Guide 1.109 dose methodology.
The maximally exposed hypothetical individual is assumed to be a person in the max'imum inhalation location who consumes meat, veg-etables and milk from each of the other maximum dose pathway lo-cations. The estimated dose to the total exposed population is a more representative assessment of the radiological consequences resulting from evaporation of the AGW.
O * .
i 638
. The MIDAS code was used to calculate tho estimated doses to I the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person for the dura-() tion of the evaporation process (taking ,into account, as well, the ertent of processing / reprocessing of the AGW). The dose to the bone is estimated to be 0.4 mrem, while the total body dose is estimated to be 1.3 mrom (1.2 mrem of which is from tritium).
i These doses, which are not annual doses but rather estimates for the duration of the evaporation process, still are voll below the annual guideline of 15 mrem given in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, for exposure from airborne releases.
t MIDAS was again utilized to estimate the dose to the popula-tion. In addition to estimating the inhalation and ingestion doses to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile radius of THI-2, I
the code also estimates the ingestion dose to an additional 13 million people assumed to be fed agricu'ltura' produce exported
[]}
from within the 50-mile radius. The total exposure to the popu-lation from evaporation of the AGW is estimated to be 2.4 person-rem to the bone, and 12 person-rem to the total body. For sim-plicity, in calculating an average ve have applied the total population dose (to 15.2 million) to the 2.2 million people liv-ing within 50 miles. This yields a conservative (i.e., upper bound) average exposure to a member of the 50-mile population of 0.001 mrom to the bone and 0.005 mrem to the total body. Since the evaporation process will take more than one year, the annual population doses are less than the values ! just reported.
[}
O
639
. As I explained earlier, the conservatisms built into the j 73 calcula:Lons performed by GPUti provide an upper-bound estimate of U the erivironmental dose f rom AGW evaporation. The actual doses are '.ikely to be much smaller than those calculated.
Q.13 Are these doses from the evaporation proposal signifi-cant in your view?
A.13 (GGB) No. The insignificance of these doses is evi-dent. The 0.4 mrem dose calculated to be delivered to the bone is actually incurred over the life of the maximally exposed indi-vidual, and not in the one to two year period of the evaporation process. The actual average dose rate from the strontium to the maximally exposed person vould be less than 0.01 mrom per year. l Compared to this 0.01 mrem estimated annual bone dose from stron-tium and the 1.2 mrem total tritium dose that the maximally ex-posed individual might receive from the evaporation of the AGW, the average individual in the TMI area vill receive 300 mrem per year from natural radiation (about 70 mrem from direct radiation from the soil and cosmic rays, 30 mrem from internal natural ra- .
dioactivity and weapons fallout and 200 mrem whole body equiva-lent from radon daughters) each year. The maximum individual organ dose to the bone is less than 0.003% of the naturally oc-curring whole body radiation the average member of the population would receive during the 50-year integration period. The whole body dose from tritium is about 0.01% of the natural whole body dose.
(} .
640
. The variability of individual doses is quite large. Radon
, doses alone can v1rv > 'a : ors of ten depending on the individ-ual's home condit t ra 0;.-ect rediation from cosmic and terres-trial sources can a2so vary. Differences in the local ~ geology can easily change the local terrestrial dose rate by a factor of two, as is routinely seen in the direct radiation monitoring by TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter) conducted by GPUN around Three Mile Island. Normal environmental exposure levels from direct.
radiation of 40 to 90 mrem per year are common, depending on the location monitored. The additional dose to the maximally exposed individual from evaporation is far below the normal environmental dose variability, and the additional dose to the average off-site individual is thousands of times smaller.
Q.14 Have you considered the radiological consequences of
() Joint Intervenors' alternative of AGW storage followed by dispos-al?
A.14 (GGB) Yes. The apparent benefit of this alternative is that it provides time for the radionuclides in the AGW to decay further. Over.a 30-year period, the strontium and cesium curie content would decrease by approximately a factor of two.
The tritium content would decrease by a f actor of about six over the same time period. However, based on the off-site dose assessment performed by GPUN, this decrease in tritium would not have a significant effect on the dose assessment. This is be-cause the doses are already so very lov that such a decrease in the source term is not meaningful.
O .
I t
641 Q.15 An fdontified material issue of fact for this hearing is whether strontium or tritium is the critical radioisotope. ;
O Please address this issue.
6 A.15 (GGB) Strontium-90, in contra'st to tritium,'has a very long biological half life, on the order of 15 years, and is not eliminated from the body completely even after the 50-year integration period. In addition, strontium-90 has a higher ener-gy beta, two betas per decay (including yttrium-90), and concen- i r
trates in a single organ (bone). As a result, if the j strontium-90 concentration in AGW vere not reduced by evapora-tion, the strontium would dominate dose calculations. With a ]
I decontamination factor of 1,000 achieved by the evaporator, how- :
ever, tritium is the radionuclide that contributes the most to l calculated doses -- 1.2 of the 1.3 mrem total body dose to the ,
maximally exposed individual for immediate evaporation.
Q Q.16 on page 20 of its August 25, 1986 Memorandum a'nd {
order, the Licensing soard discussed the issue of whether stron-tium or tritium would be dominant after 30 years of additional storage of the AGW. The Board observes that *(ilf evaporation vere the method of disposal at that time, the strontium would not be released, but would be concentrated in the evaporator bot-l toms." Is that observation correct? l j
A.16 (GGB) Almost. As Mr. Buchanan established in his af- [
f fidavit earlier in this case on Contention 4, the evaporator sys- (
l tem vill achieve a decontamination factor of at least 1,000 l
, r 1
t li G
s
- , - - - ,. _ -- -..,-, , , - ,-. . . - -... -. -_.- , --..., , ., , - - - - - . - , . = - ,
642 (except for tritium, all of which vill be releasod). Consequent-ly, at least 99.9% of the strontium-90 in the processed AGW, whether now or in 30 years, vill be concentrated in the evaporator bottoms. :t is assumed, however, that 0.1% vill carry over and be released to the atmosphere. This 0.1% of the avail-able strontium-90 is utilized'in our dose calculations.
Q.17 Have you quantitatively assessed what the doses vould be if the AGW vere evaporated after 30 years of additional stor-age?
A.17 (GGB) It is not possible to estimate, with any rea-sonable degree of accuracy, the potential off-site dose commit- 9 ment for evaporation of the AGW following 30 years of additional decay. As ! explained earlier, the MIDAS code utilized for envi-I ronmental dose assessments is based upon current land use and 4
O population distribution. Year-to-year changes in residences and land use are incorporated into these calculational models, and are based upon extensive GPUN surveys -- more extensive than i
those required by the THI-2 license Technical Specifications.
i Since the dose is dependent upon the maximum pathways -- includ-ing the maximum garden, cow milk and goat milk pathways -- any 1
change in the land use may significantly affect the dose commit-ment to the maximally exposed individual.
If one made the assumption that all off-site parameters of land use and population distribution remained exactly the same as they are in 1988, then 30 years of decay would affect the doses i
() - '-
1 t
- 1. -
643
. to the maximally exposed off-site person and to the population, r
The bone dose could be expected to be reduced by a factor of two O as a result of the passage of about one half life of l
strontium-90. The whole body dose to the maximum individual j vould be reduced from the 1.3 mrem from all radionuclides (1.2 f i
mrem of which is from tritium) to about 0.3 mrem, a reduction to about one-fourth. The maximally exposed hypothetical off~ site j person would receive a bone dose of 0.2 mrem over the individ-i ual's life (instead of 0.4 mrem), which represents an average annual dose of less than 0.005 mrom (instead of less than 0.01 mrem from evaporation nov). Similarly, after 30 years the aver-age exposure to the bone to a member of the population would be one-half of the currently projected 0.001 mrem, and the whole J
l '.>ody dose would be one-fourth of the currently projected 0.005
]
O ""-
In reality, changes in land use could actually result in
{
dose projections 30 years from nov which are higher than current
! estimates -- that is, the effects of decay could easily be offset by other factors. In my opinion, then, it is clearly not prudent to postpone AGW disposal for the mere hope that off-site doses vill be reduced from their alt.ady insignificant values to even lover ones.
Q.18 Dr. saker, as an experienced environmental scientist, how do you compare the evaporation proposal with Joint Interve-nors' alternative of further storage followed by disposal of the AGW7 0 .
644
. A.18 (GGB) It appears to me that the choice hinges upon an I assessment of the dose savings achieved from radiological decay O during a further storage period, and the, cost of the further storage. I could not endorse the Joint Intervenors' alternative for any further cost, let alone for the significant costs
(
presented in Mr. Buchanan'.2 testimony. I start from the posi-tion, which I have explained, that the off-site doses which are conservatively projected to result from the evaporation process are by any standard miniscule and insignificant. It vould be to-tally unjustifled to store this water for 30 years in the hope that land usage vill not change and the doses would be one-half of their already extremely lov levels. I must emphasize that these dose levels are so lov that they are within the range of uncertainty of state-of-tae-art dose assessment methodology and radiological monitoring. Half of nothing is still nothing. From an environmental cost / benefit standpoint, the evareration propos-al is the clearly preferred solution for disposal of the AGW.
Q.19 At page 36 of tts August 25, 1988 Memorandum and order, the Licensing Board held that Joint Intervenors' Material Statement of Fact No. 9, under Contention 3, put into contest the evaluation of microorganisms in the AGW. In their Statement, the Joint Intervenors cite an NRC Staff discovery response for the proposition that water boiling at 212*F vould kill the micrcarga-nisms. Yet, according to Joint Intervenors, the evaporator vill operate at a temperature of 131*F. Therefore, Joint Intervenors O
645
+ - conclude that a quantity of tne microorganisms vill be contained cs in w?',er droplets to be released to the environment, and their
(#
i release must be evaluated because of possible pathogen problems.
Dr. Baker, have you evaluated this concern?
A.19 (GGB) Yes. The microorganisms associated with the
~
AGW have been studied and determined to be typical environmental microbes. They are not considered to be primary pathogens and do not pose a health threat to the workers or the general popula-tion. Further, there are several factors which virtually pre-clude pathogen suriival in the environment.
First, the microorganisms in the AGW can De traced to three principal sourcer- the Susquehanna River, hydraulic fluid from defueling tools, and the general airborne environment. None of these sources yield a primary pathogenic population. Human pathogenic microorganisms are transmitted principally from fecal
(])
contamination and/or vector mediated transfer. These microorga-nisms are very fastidious relative to their nutritional and envi-ronmental needs. Consequently, they do not survive in the gener-al environment outside the human body.
Second, studies conducted on aerosols emitted from cooling towers supplied with secondary sewage effluent confirm that air-borne transmission of pathogers is not a significant thriat to either the workers at the plants or to the surrounding popula-tions. (Adams et. al., 1978.)
O .
4 6
646
. Third, natural biocidal activity, such as the lethal effects 1
of ultraviolet light and dessication, prevent the long-term sur-vival and growth of most microorganisms. Here, the salt-concentrating effects of the evaporative' process (i.e.l boron) will in itself be blocidal.
Finally, when they cite the Preliminary System Description (Feb. 26, 1988) for an evaporator operating temperature of 131*F, Joint intervenors are referring only to the evaporator section, which operates under a vacuum. As that document states in sever-al places, the vaporizer section will heat the distillate to ap-proximately 240'F. This temperature is lethal to virtually all microorganisms. Pathogenic microorganisms are susceptible to the lethal effects of heat above normal body temperature. The micro-organisms that can withstand temperatures at this level are not pathogenic to humans..
[
O
647
- References
() NUREG-0172, "Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors For a One Year Chronic Intake," G. R. Hoenes, J. K. Saldat (November 1977).
Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculations Of Annual Doses To Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents For The Purpose Of Evaluating Compliance With 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1 (October 1977).
Regulatory Guide 1.111, "Methods For Estimating Atmospheric Transplant And Dispersion Of Gaseous Effluents In Routine Re-leases From Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Rev. 1 (July 1977).
ICRP Publication 2, "Report Of Committee I,I On Permissible Dose For Internal Radiation" (1959).
ICRP Publication 10, "Evaluation Of Radiation Doses To Body Tis-sues From Internal Contamination Due To Occupational Exposure" (December 1986).
ICRP Publication 23, "Reference Man: Anatomical, Physiological And Metabolic Characteristics (April 1975).
NCRP Report No. 62, "Tritium In The Environment," (March 3, 1979).
NCRP Report No. 63, "Tritium And Other Radionuclide Labeled Or-ganic Compounds Incorporated In Generic Materials," (March 30, 1979).
Adams, A. P., Garbett, M., Rees, H. B., and Lewis, S. G., "Bacte-rial Aerosals from Cooling Towers," Journal. Water Pollution Control Federation, pp. 2362-69 (October 1978).
() ,
ATTACRMINT 1 648 O' GARY G. BAKER, PH.D.
PROFESSICNAL BACKGROUND 1983 to Manacer of Environmental controls-Three Mile Present Island GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Primary responsibility is to ensure that plant operations are in compliance with all relevant regulatory agencies. Also coordinate planning fer the dismantlement of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility.
Environmental controls Operations... Staffing... Budget Planning / Implementation... Policy Design /Reviev...Public Relations...Offsite Emergency Plan Response... Environmental / Radiological Surveys Programs...
O 1981 to Radiolooical Procrams Manacer-Three Mile 1983 111Ard GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Responsible for all phases of radiological environmental studies and monitoring programs. Contract Administration... Professional Testimony... Environmental Assessment Coordinator...Public Relations.. "4nagement Interface...
1979 to Environmental scientist it-Three Mile Island 1981 GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA r Designed and implemented radiological monitoring programs. Evaluate Exisiting Systems... Evaluate Data... Monitor Commercial Laboratories. . . Management Reports. . .
i O
r e
- W f
649 1978 to Environmental Scientist III-Pennsylvania 1979 Electric Active in all aspects of biological stuides es and monitoring program for ten coal fired and U two hydroelectric facilities. Program Evaluation... Design / Conduct Studies... Interpret / Report Technical Data...
1978 Instructet INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Indiana; PA ,
Taught General Biology and Microbiology at an undergraduate level.
Other I served as a consultant to the educational and business community in Central Pennsylvania addressing microbiology problems and, graduate student programs.
EDUCATION 1978 Ph.D.-Environmental Microbioloav WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV 1975 M.S.-Environmental Microbioloav WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV O 1971 B.S.-Biolocy MORRIS HARVEY COLLEGE, Charlestown, WV 1966 to Biolocy 1968 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Salt Lake City, UT
~'~
O .
s
AIISCEMZ?iT i 650 RESUME
. Willins J. Coopor GPU Nuclear Corp Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Box 480 iddletown Pa 17057 Educationt BS Chemistry 1977 University of Maryland, College Park Maryland Additional courses:
1986 Health Physics Summer School - External Dosimetry l 1987 contractd class - Internal Dosimetry /ICRP30 1983/1984 Dickinson College, Carlisle Health Physics, 2 semesters l 1980 Penn State University - Radiation Shieldig 1 semester '
1978 The Jchns Hopkins University - Radiation , Biology (audit)
Experience:
1985 to p"resent - Environmental Scientist, GPU Environmental Controls operate and control the TNI Radiological Environmental Monitoring ,
Program (REMP) including all phases of design, development and operation of existing and new a g ling regimes operate and maintain the environmental Thermoluminescent dosimetry program.
Support the TM1 Emergency plan by developing and operatlng
() emer$encyoffsitedosecalculationalundodsandcon$utercodes.
Deve op, maintain, and operate routine effluent offs te dose calculation codes to provide assessment of dose committmants from normal plant affluents and to provide a priori dose estimates for licensing documents.
1983 to 1985 - Radiological Engineer, GPU Radiological controls.
Provide engineering support and review of inplant work plans to ensure work conducted in radiologically controlled areas is "ALARA". Review individual tasks as well as system designs for l incorporation of features to minimize eno_sure to radiation and radioactive materials. Was prima n G W Radiological Engineer
! for the defueling system design at TMI-2. Also responsible for
! internal dose assessment for workers, shielding design, and the development of the policy to provide access into the TMI-2 reactor building without resplratory protection. Support the emergen o plan by performing offsits dose assessment, and controlllng the In-plant radiological personnel.
O 9
-, _ -_.----- -,- _ __ _.,_ -. --,- _ _ - , . _ - _ _- - , _ , _ , , . . - - - - - - , - - , _ . - - - - - -- n.,c- - - - ,
651 1981 to 1983 - gediological Ccntrolo ForcCon, GPU Radiologicci Controls. Supervise and control up to about 30 in-plant radiological controls technicians. Review and approve all in plant work in radiologically controlled areas. Provide
() guidance for workers on Supprt measures (eg clothing).
orposure the controls, emergency approve plan protective b performing of fsite dose assessment untl1 arrival of the Rad. En inser and i inplant radiological control and technician supervis on during emergencies. Temporary duty in Unit-1 to support inplant '
radiological controls during the OTSG kinetic expansion repair 1980 to 1981 - Radiological Controls Technician, GPU Radiological Controls. Provide inplant support duriM routine and energency conditions to work crews in radiologically controlled areas.
Conduct surveys and perform effluent sampling. Supervise other technicians in the absence of the foreman. Performed first post-accident surveys of the TMI-2 reactor vessel head, refueling canal, and polar crane.
1977 to 1980 - health Physics Technician, The Johns Hopkins University Homewood Campus, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Marylsad was only Health Physic technician on Rosewood Campus, with several dozen indipendent laboratories using radioisotope tracers in biological and chemical research as well as sealed sources, irradiators- and diffraction and fluorescence x-ray machines, in geol m , materials science, and physics research.
The campus 57.so had MEV ene m Van-de Graff accelerators which were not in use at the time. Responsible for external and internal dosimetry, ef fluent control, wasta packaging and shipping, periodic laboratory surveys and inspections to enforce license compliance for sevreral dozen authorized users on the licenses and as many as 400 individual workers. Also assisted
() users with radioisotope conuting problems and developed the iodine-125, tritium, and phosphorus-32 bioassay program.
Assisted professor of biol m in his bioluminescent omanism
'photobiol gy) research with spectral analysis, phyto' plankton culture media, developed radioactive single photon visible light spectral calibration sources. Began research program to attempt to demonstrate non-lethal biolg ical effect of low-level radiation by irradiation of bioluminescent organisms (not completed at time of resignation). .
i Papers:
Angular and absolute response to xenon-133 of a Thermoluminescent Dosimeter used for Environmental Monitoring (in preparation)
A Simpified Air Tritium Sampler (in preparation)
O i
"'"-~Y#9---e-i-- y-.- _ _ _ . , _ , _ _ _
652 Professienci scciatico:
Planary Member - Health Physics Society Member - American Nuclear Society O Member - Susquehanna Valley Chapter of the Health Physics society Member - central Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Nucisar Society and 1988-1989 treasurer Member - American Academy of Health Physica Professiot'ai certifier. ins Certified Health Physicist - Achieved "Comprehensive" certification by the American Board of Health Physics in 1985 O
O .
l 1
i O
4 6
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ _
tD f
[
l~
L 653 1 MR. BAXTER: The witnesses are available for cross 2 examination.
3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
5 Q Yes. Good morning, Mr. Baker and Mr. Cooper.
6 Could you please tell me when you became aware that the 7 decontamination factor was 1,000 and not 100?
8 A (Ccoper) After submission of our October 11 9 testimony. In the course of trying to resolve to ourceives 10 the reason for the dif ference between the NRC Staf f 's 11 offsite dose results and our own, we realized at that time 12 that our dose calculations had originally been based on a l
13 decontamination factor of a 1,000. !
l "a
O 14 8^xtea or
- net?
l 15 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Of 100, I 'm sorry, 100.
16 It . 3s af ter our original submittal of October 11. f 17 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
1 18 Q When you submitted affidavits in May were you j 19 aware that the decontamination factor was 1,000?
20 A (Cooper) Yes.
21 Q So, even being aware that the decontamination l 22 factor of 1.000, you proceeded to make errors in your dose 23 calculations?
l 24 A (Cooper) No, that 's not correct. Our dose j 25 calculations were performed in July of 1986 Based on the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a-654 rw 1- ' definitions in our: July,1986 report at that' time the
) ~ ( f. i 2 decontamination factor of the unit was expected to be 100. !
3 Q. Did you interact with other people who were 4 submitting testimony like Mr. Buchanan?
5 A '(Cooper) Yes.
6 Q- Was there not information, enough information 7 between you to make you realize that you were ucing the 8 wrong decontamination factor to calculate dose?
9 A' (Cooper) As I say, we were aware, we were aware .
.10 that the decontamination f actor had been adjusted to at 11 least 1,000 12 But we did not realize that our original 13 calculation of 100 until af ter October 11.
(} 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr Cooper, at the time the October
- 15 11 testimony was submitted, was it correct?
16 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I 'm corry?
17 JUDGE BLOCH: At the time that the pre-filed 18 testimony was submitted on October 21, were the numbers ,
19 about dose correct?
20 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) They were based on a 21 decontamination factor of 100 Based on that assumption 22 they were correct.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Based on the system that was 24 actually installed, were they correct?
20 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) No, they were not.
'() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 j
655
(~g .1 (Pause)
. .v 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms.-Skolnik, whst 's happening?-
3 There are a lot of people waiting-on you and there 's no 4' surprise about what 's happening now.
5 MS. SKOLNIK: I 'm tryi.':q to sort through the 6 documentation because originally GPC had assumed a 7 decontamination factor of 100 8 And I'm trying to assess in my mind the relevance 9 of the fact that even though Mr. Baker submitted affidavits 10 in May of 1988 in which he stated that he recognized there 11 was a decontamination factor of 1,000 and then we have a 12 letter after October 11 to say that he had used the
- 13 decontamination factor of 100 by accident.
i.
'4 I'm trying to assess the relevancy of --
-( )
15 JUDGE BLOCP: If he had an affidavit that showed 16 that earlier knowleJge you might want to ask that other 17 question to pin that down to show that he at one time knew 18 what he later didn't acknowledge in his testimony.
19 But then I think we might want to move on because 20 all you're doing is pinning down a mistake that he made 21 which will have some ef fect on credibility but then we 'll 22 want to get to what the merits of the testimony are too.
23 You might want to pin down that he knew at ono 24 time that there was 1.000 decontamination factor.
2S MR. BAXTER: Judge Bloch, I think they 're saying
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e .
s 656
()
r ^ '- 1 2
they knew all ' he time that there was 2.000 decontamination factor.
3 The testimony is, that they didn't recall chat 4 their calculations were based on 100 until after the 5- testimony was filed.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let me just clarify that.
7 Mr. Cooper, did you know at the time that you filed the 8 testimony in October 11 that there was a decontamination 9 factor of 1,000?
10 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes, I did.
11 JUDGE PARIS: But you calculated or made your 12 calculations in 1986, is that what you said?
13 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's correct.
() 14 JUDGE PARIS: And at that time you believed that 15 the decontamination factor was 100, is that right?
16 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) At that time we assumed 17 the decontamination factor was 100 18 JUDGE PARIS : And you had forgotten that you had.
! 19 done that when you filed 1988, October, 117 20 THE WITNESS: (Cocper) I lost sight of the fact 21 that we had used 100 instead of 1.000.
22 BY MS. Sr.0LNIK :
23 Q By what means did you learn of your mistake in 24 making the dose calculations from a decontamination factor
- 25 of 100 when it should have been 1,000?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(;,.x 6
657
(
.u-)
1 MR. BAXTER: I believe that 's been asked and 2 answered. They testified that after testimony was filed, 3 thev were trying to understand why the stats were higher and 4 they recalled then that they had used the wrong 5 decontamination factor.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: That was an answer given already.
7 They were looking into the difference between themselves and 8 the Staff.
9 You could ask more about that if you want. I hope 10 not a lot.
11 THE WITNESS: CBaker) Let me explain maybe some 12 of the things.
13 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, excuse me. Mr. Baker. I
() 14 suppose when I directed my question I 'm quite amazed that 15 Mr. Cooper, threw his voice back over here to Mr. Baxter 's 16 seat.
17 I don't know why when I ask a question of the i
18 Licensee 's witnesses that Mr. Baxter makes an answer.
19 MR. BAXTER: I 'm ent it led to.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's a standard obj ection. If the 21 question has been asked before it 's an objection to say that 4
22 it was asked and answered. It 's to avoid repetition.
23 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
24 Q Okay, Mr. Baker, what would you like to explain?
25 A (Baker) When we took a look and saw the obv' sus fu s_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
F 658 1 difference between the calculations, you go down given the
(~)
Q/
2 source term is essentially the same in which you're 3 releasing is essentially the same that starting point, you 4 have to go down and look at the various input parameters and 5 go into that calculation.
6 If an individual does not use the same kind of 7 transfer factors for example, if the assumed dispersion is a 8 little bit different, those can cause sona differences in 9 the end point calculation.
10 When we took those things and looked at those 11 things'and took them under consideration, they could not i 12 have explained why we differed so largely with the Staff in 13 their calculations.
14 If you looked at the number, just basically looked
(]}
. 15 at the two numbers, you could get alnost an order of
'16 magnitude of difference between the two.
17 That 's when we went back and said well, the other 18 obvious place where there 's that kind of a f actor in these 19 calculations is with the decontamination factor that was 20 assumed by both of them.
21 We had assumed that we had corrected the 1986 22 calculations that originally come out with 100 DF to 1,000 23 but in fact, we had not.
24 And that 's why it got us into taking a look at it 25 and why went back and started re-comparing numbers.
, () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
~ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
659 r^g 1 Q So were the-documents by which you discovered your O
2 mistake, have they recently been filed by the NRC7 3 A (Baker) No. I think what we 're looking at is.the 4 . methodology that they used in the PEIS, the input 5 parameters.
l 6 Q But it was up. to that. point that you- didn 't notice - ;
i 7 that there was a dif ference between the dose calculations of l 8 the Licensee and the NRC?
9 A (Baker) We knew there was a difference. As soon
{
10 as the PEIS came out, we knew there was a difference.
11 We thought that it could be explained by certain 12 of these input parameters. When we got down and looked 13 point by point by each one of the input parameters we found 14 that although thers is a difference, it 's not enough to have
(])
15 cauced that large of a discrepancy between our calculations 16 and their 's.
17 That 's when we started tracking back to the basics 18 from the start of the thing, back through to find out where 19 the error occorred.
20 Q What was the error of dif ference between the NRC 's 21 original calculation and your original calculations?
22 A (Baker) It approximated an order of magnitude.
23 Q In other words, if the total body dose to a 24 maximally exposed individual as set out in Table 5.1 in the 25 EIS. the NRC saw that there was a total doce of .7
() Heritage Reporting Corpo rat ion (202) 628-4888
, ,g .y g - . _ - . _ _ - . ,,
o l
660 i millirems.
2 You have said that there was a total body dose of l
- 3. 1.40 and also -- okay for the thyroid then if the EIS had j 4 showed that it was less than 4 millirema, your calculations i 5 had shown less than 80?
6 THE WITNESS: CCooper) Our testimony contains our (
7 dose calculations. Look at the testimony filed October 25 8 Results for whole body and bone -- use of a decontamination 9 factor of 1,000.
10 If you look at the previous testimony that we had 11 filed on the 11, that contains the doses based on 2
12 decontamination factor of 100.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: So the difference is always one
() 14 crder of magnitude?
! 15 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Not necessarily. Because 16 the tritium was not affected by the decontamination factor,
$ 17 the whole body dose only goes down a small fraction.
18 The bone dose which we had originally assessed as 19 a critical organ does go down ersen.tially in order of 20 magnitude.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Can you cite pages of your 22 testimony?
23 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Certainly. It 's contained 24 on page 14. That 's of the October 25. the first paragraph.
25 fifth and sixth line.
() Heritage Reporting Corpo rat ion (202) 628-4888
661 1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
'2 Q Okay. So October 25. page 14 reflects the dose !
3 when you used the decontamination-factor of 1,000, is that 4 correct?
S A (Cooper) That 's correct.
6 Q The dose on page 14 reflects the use of a 7 decontamination factor of 100, is that correct?
8 MR. BAXTER: Page 14 of what? ,
9 MS. SKOLNIK Page 14. October 11. ,
10 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's correct. Page 14 il lines approximately five and six of the first paragraph i 12 would be based on a decontamination factor of 100 ;
13 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
O 14 Q So the total body dose on page 14 using the a
15 decontamination factor of 100 was estimated to be two 16 millirems while the NRC had estimated it to be .7 total j _. 17 body?
18 A (Cooper) Again. on our October 11 submittal the :
! 19 two millirem is whole body dose based on a decontamination 20 factor of 100 ,
21 The NRC in the PEIS used a decontamination factor j
) 22 of 1,000. !
23 JUDGE PARIS: So is the testimony in your October
- 24 11 submission erroneous?
20 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It does not apply to the ;
t i
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
l I ,
l
1 662 r~' 1 decontamination factor of 1,000.
2 JUDGE ' PARIS : Well --
3 THE WITNESS: CCooper)- It is no longer correct 4 based on the decontamination factor of 1.000.
5 JUDGE PARIS: It is not correct, is that right?
6 THE WITNESS: CCooper) That 's right. That 's why 7 we amended it on the 25.
8 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
9 MS. SKOLNIK: I want to pursue this point.
10 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
11 Q If the NRC had used a decontamination factor of 12 100, isn 't it true then that the total body dose would have 13 been greater than .7? And therefore --
i
(} 14 MR. BAXTER: We 're willing to stipulate that the 15 lower the decontamination factor is, the higher the dose is.
I 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, I'll take notice of it too.
l 17 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. The reason I 'm bringing the 18 point up is that Mr. Baker has said that the reason that 19 they have changed their estimate between October 11 -- the i
20 reason that they had recognized their mistake between 21 October 11 and October 25 was that the NRC 's dose j 22 calculations were an order of magnitude greater.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. If you look at the bone, 24 that 's correct. But he explained that because tritium is 25 involved in the whole body dose and the tritium isn't
() Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
1 I
663 l
r~ 1 reduced by the decontamination factor that the factor of an !
i ' - (._ I 2 order of magnitude does not apply. l l I L 3 THE WITNESS: CCooper) It 's not correctly stated. l I l 4 The reason we looked at it is because ours particularly in l 1
5 bone dose was considerably higher than the NRC 's, not vice !
L l 6 versa. ;
7 JUDGE BLOCH: We had it in the wrong order? Okay.-
t 8 There was a difference of an order'of magnitude. The l 9 Applicant 's was higher.
{
10 But it 's an order of magnitude only for bone.
I 11 THE WITNESS: (Baker) That 's right and I should l
12 have stipulated that because the decontamination factor is' 13 going to greatly or will impact strontium as opposed to 14 tritium cince there is no essentially reduction on the
(])
15 decontamination factor for tritium. i t
16 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
17 Q What was the dose to the bone w11ch the NRC --
18 it 's not on this table. What was the dos? and where is that i l
19 figure, please? ,
l 20 A (Baker) I'll have to check their testimony. I j 21 believe that their bone dose was . 8 millirems.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: It's testimony that we have filed 23 before us now?
24 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Yes.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So you can refer to that. Ms.
I
(
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 -
L_ --
. . _ - - . - . - - . . . - . . . . . . ~ . . . - . . - ~ _ - . ~ ,
li i- i I !
i '
i I~ 664 :
? :/
i 1 Skolnik and not to have Dr. Baker look it up.
2 (Continued on the next page.) )
f' i 3 i
4 i
5 i.
l 6 i
I 7
i ;
l 8 j
! 9 !
i l
! 10 .
l t I
! i 11 j i, ,
! 12 l
! l
! 13 j
t h 14 l
! 15 16 17 l
18 ;
I l
19 20 21 ;
l 22 I
i 23 !
1 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
665
(
l 1 MS. SKOLNIK: Judge Bloch, could you clarify for o<~T 2 me? What is an order of magnitude?
3 JUDGE BLOCH: 10.
4 MS. SKOLNIX: 10. Okay.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: 10 tines.
6 MS. SKOLNIK So if --
7 JUDGE BLOCH: They round it of f f rom . 36 to . 4.
8 MS. SKOLNIK: So is the difference between .8. the 9 bone?
10 JUDGE BLOCH: If you have 3.6 and you divide by 11 10. you get .36 but they rounded it off to .4.
12 MS. SKOLNIX: I'm comparing it with the NRC bone 13 dose of .8 Is .8 an order of magnitude below 3.6?
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Not quite. There are obviously 15 other discrepancies as well. The only difference is not --
16 there must be modeling differences as well as differences in 17 the decontamination factor.
18 MS. SKOLNIK I was led to believe that the reason 19 that they had changed the testimony between 11 and 25th was t
20 because that they had seen that the bone dose was an order 21 of magnitude.
22 MR. BAXTER: They testified that they changed the 23 testimony because i' was an error for a decontamination
, 24 factor of 1.000.
25 I fail to set why we need to devote nost of this
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t,g _ - ,
T,-
U 666 1 hearing as to what inspired them to go looking. They have
}
2 found the error and corrected which they are obligated to do 3 as witnesses before this Board.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: They have also admitted the error on 5 the stand. I'm not sure what you want to get out of it. To 6 some extent the admission of the error will affect 7 credibility.
8 To that extent it 's on the record. I don 't know 9 what else you want J draw out.
10 MS. SKOLNIX: The reasoning I 'm continuing on the il point is because I'm talking about their credibility. And 12 it 's important for me before I begin to cross examine them 13 that I feel that they are credible witnesses.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I will allow you a few more
(])
15 questions to see where we 're going with this. Let 's see if 16 there really is more that you can get on credibility than 17 you already have.
c 18 (Pause) i 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, it 's kind of a tenuous
! 20 point already and now I see you don 't have the questions in >
21 mi Kl.
22 I mean we ren!!y want to proceed with some 23 expedition here. If you think it 's on important point you I
24 should know what to ask at this point.
! 25 1
() HeritaCe Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
667 1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
/~')L
( t 2 Q Mr. Cooper, do you have the October 11 testimony 3 in front of you and Mr. Baker? Because if I refer to a page 4 it is going to be on there. The page number will be the 5 page that 's on here.
6 So as much as I can, I will tell you what the page j 7 is on the testimony. l 8 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board will note that, that was 9 pre-filed but it 's not now testimony in this hearing. And 10 you can use it for cross examination.
11 MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you.
, 12 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
13 Q I 'm going to go to question eight, answer eight.
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Page?
15 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q Page four, line 15. When you estimated the hourly a
17 average using MIDAS, what was the period of interest?
i 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. Are you done with the P
19 credibility stuff now?
20 MS. SKOLNIK Yes.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Because I want to take a 22 break. I thought you were going to do credibility. I 'm not 23 sure why you 're using the October 11 testimony if you 're 24 done with credibility.
25 It 's the October 25 testimony which is in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. 668 1 record and which --
} ;
2 MS. SKOLNIK: Right. That 's true. The reason I 'm ;
3 using it is because when I wrote my questions I was using !
4 the other one. !
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
6 MR. BAXTER: This answer is unchanged.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: I think you 'll find it 's the same so 8 you can refer -- i 9 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, I 'll go. I think the page l 10 numbers might be slightly different.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. We're going to take a 10 1
12 minutu break. It 's 11:03. We 'll be back at 11:13. r 13 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
i 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome back.
(])
i 15 MS. SKOLNIX: I will repeat my question again.
- 16 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l I i
! 17 Q Page four, question eight, answer eight, line 13 i
18 on the October 25 When you estimated the hourly average 19 using MIDAS what was the period of interest?
20 A (Baker) What we did because obviously as the 21 testimony states the dispersion will drive the ultimate ,
22 calculation, was to get a representative data base of what i
23 the meterology is for an entire year.
24 We have an onsite meteorlogical tower that has l 25 been collecting data since probably around 1972 forward. l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 I
l 669
' : ( 1 We have a very good underatanding of the
- (_]/
2 meterological patterns certainly on a gross scale within TMI 3 arx3 certainly some 01: a micro-scale urcund the island 4 itself.
5 1985 that data was used because, number one it is ;
6 representative of the typical meteorology in the area and !
7 because the calculations were done in 1986 ;
8 So we had the 1985 data base but what we wanted to 9 do was to take was is typical meteorolgy in the area in 10 order to get the calculation as close to actual.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I don't think you told us 12 what the period of interest was though.
13 THE WITNESS: (Baker) From January 1. 1985 to December 31, 1985.
(]) 14 The calculations --
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it a dispersion during a one year 16 period?
i 17 THE WITNESS: (Baker) That 's correct.
! 18 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
! 19 Q Is there any particular reason why you didn't use 20 the two year period to detemine the hourly average since two 21 years was the specified time for the evaporation process?
- 22 JUDGE BLOCH
- Let 's have -- Dr. Baker began. Let 23 him answer this and then Mr. Cooper can add.
24 THE WITNESS: (Baker) The doses that we 26 calculated were based on on annual release rate, a constant
() Heritage Reporting Corpo rat ion (202) 628-4888 4
I
670
<"s i release rate from the effluent from the evaporator.
'N] 2 So what we wanted to do was to calculate what the 3 dose is, an integrated dose if you will, for a period of~cne 4 year.
5 In order to be able to.do that you need to be able 6 to take meteorology that is representative of the area 7 regardless if it was over a five year or one year or two 8 year period.
9 That average yearly dispersion value should not 10 change greatly over a long ceriod of time because you 're
{
11 developing that data base that characterizes the area.
12 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
i
! 13 Q Are you saying then that the weather pattern.
14 meteorological conditions in one year will give you the same 15 average had you used two years?
16 A (Baker) There is --
17 Q Could you answer yes or no, please?
18 MR. BAXTER: Objection, Mr. Chairnan. There 's no 19 requirement that the witness answer yes or no. He 's allowed 20 to explain.
21 THE WITNESS: (Baker) There is --
22 JUDGE BLOCH: He could say, yes or no and then 23 explain.
24 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Yes and no. There is a --
25 JUDGE BLOCH: No, no, no. Will the use of MIDAS
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
671
(~S 1 for a one year period give you the same dispersion as if you ss' 2 used it for a two year period?
3 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Yes, it could.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Now you can explain.
5 THE WITNESS: CBaker) Thank you. What we were 6 looking for is a typical meteorological pattern around the T Three Mile Island, Harrisburg area.
8 There is no question that there is variability 9 between years. But over the long trend that variability 4
10 will even itself out to provide you with an annual 11 dispersion characteristic.
12 1935 data which is the data that we had loaded up 13 on the computer at the time, we examined. It was
() 14 representative of that annual meteorological situation and 15 therefore was appropriate to use that meteorology for the 16 calculation.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Baker. I think there may be a 18 comunication problem. One question is whether the period 19 that you used for your meteorological data is correct.
20 The other question is, to what period of t.me of 21 disperson did you apply it? For what period of time did you 22 run your model to find out what the total dispersion would 23 be f rom the evaporntion. Try again.
24 THE WITNESSt (Baker) The period of time of I 25 interest that we chose -- we knew there was going to be a
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
u 672 j 1 release on a yearly basis assuming for two years or two and !
{
'2 a half years.
.3 You can assume that same meteorology over that 4 time period.
S JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let 's assur.* that.
6 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Okay.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Now for what Jeriod of time did you 8 assume that the evaporator would be run so that when you 9 model dose, you figured out what t't*> total doses would be?
10 THE WITNESS: (Baker) 'ihe period of interest 11 certainly will be over the period that the water is going to 12 be evaporated, 19R9 to whenever. I 13 JUDGE BLOCH: How many years did you run it for in 11 your model? When you ran the modeli how many yeare did you
(])
10 run it for?
16 THE WITNESS: (Baker) We took in one year of ;
17 meteorological data, 1985 We used that into the model.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: But to calculate dase you had to 19 assume that the evaportor was running for some finite period 20 of time, didn't you? '
21 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Yes. !
What infinitive time did you assume ;
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
23 it would run for?
r 24 THE WITNESS: (Baker) We assumed that it would i
25 run for a year. two years with this typical meteorology in
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 h
.)
673 -
i effect at the time.
[-)
s 2 If you couple the meteorology to the effluent --
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Was it one year or two years?
L 4 Was dt one year or two years? What exactly was the oeriod l 5 of ' w you assumed that the evaporator would run? ,
6 THE WITNESS: (Baker) I'll let Mr. Cooper, he [
7 actually ran the numbers. I 'll let him take the next point.
8 THE WITNESSt (Cooper) We used one year 's worth !
r 9 of meteorology and the total source term tt at 's been 10 estimated for the release from the evaporator.
11 So the use of the total source teria over the [
12 course cf one year that 's representative wi'.1 produce the ;
i 13 same dose if you apply over each of two years.
() 14 So we used one year of data but used the total 15 source term r,o that we nave a represtintative dose.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
l 17 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q If you had used two year data, would you have come ;
t 19 up with a different dose?
20 A (Cooper) Using two years of r?presentative data !
21 similar to 1985, the dose would have been the same. j i
22 JUDGE PARIS: Because you would have the source i k
< l 23 term for each year? (
24 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's correct. In that ,
25 case you would have used half of the source term in each
- i
, t
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
674 r
.O
- 2 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's assuming that you ignore 3 decay?
, 4 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That's correct.
5 BY MS. ST,0LNIK:
6 Q So in your calculation you assumeu that 510 curies l 7 of tritium will be released each year?
8 A (Cooper) No. In our calculation we used one ,
9 year 's worth of data and applied the entire source term to 10 that year because the meteorology is representative the !
11 exact time period whether it 's over one year or two years ;
1 12 doesn't matter for the actual dose commitment calcuated. 7
- 13 The source term and the dispersion are what 14 determines dose. And we used a good approximation of the 15 dispersion based on 1985 actual meteorology and the total ;
16 source term.
17 Q Is there any particular reason why you chose 1985?
18 A (Cooper) 1985 was originally picked because that I 19 contained the last full year of meteorology data that we
- l 20 had.
21 1985 is eepresentative of an average year.
22 JUDGF BLOCH: When you say that, what 's that based i 23 on that it's an average year?
24 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) We have virtually a j 25 complete record of our onsite meteorology **om our own met l f
4 Heritage Reporting Corpotation '
(202) 628-4888 i
i
-- tw.-,----,,.--.-,m.--,-,,-,,, ..e--.,,--mmwr,,y ,c.-,.,-m.---w-,-mem -.,-,,,r,m,,,<-~%-,,-,--,,,.,,~ere--_n --%-w r- 'v.'
675 1 tower going back into the 1970's.
2 And based on the last nine years. that would be 3 7
8 through '86 of full data that we reviewed. 1985 4 represents an average. l l
S BY MS. SKOLNIX:
6 Q Does 1985 represent the wcrat case of weather j 7 patter.7s? I 8 A (Cooper) No. as I said it reprecents +n average. ?
9 Q What determines -- if you had an unusual weather 10 pattern or if you had unusual meteorological conditions 11 during the evaporation period that were not reflected by the f 12 1985 average. how would that affect the dose?
13 A (Cooper) Well. I would first point out that I
() 14 can't really conceive of any unusual patterns that would i 15 drastically affect the average meteorology. [
16 1985 inciuded snowstorms, thunderstorms, every 17 short term meteorlogical change that normally occurs in a
[
18 year.
19 Overall weather patterns can change the dispersion 20 slightly and that 's why we talk aoout average.
21 But there 's nothing that the weather can do that 22 would significantly affect the dose.
7 23 Q If you had a hurricane?
! 24 A (Cooper) A hurricane is a very short term thing 25 and I would actually expect that hurricanes would because of
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i
676 i the high winds that we would actually have better dispersion 2 that without a hurricane.
-3 Q With a hurricane you would have heavy rains, so 4 wouldn't that af fect the dispersion rate around the TMI area 5 in that the rairi might bring the radioactivity down?
6 A (Cooper) Well, there 's a dif ference between rain 7 bringing radioactivity down and dispersion. Dispersion is 8 the down-wind, is how the radioactive material or actually 9 any plume whether it contains radioactive material or not 10 spreads out and dillutes itsell as it moves down wind.
11 So the dispersion is dependent on the mixing in 12 the atmosphere.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. It 's not dependent on
() 14 wnether or not it 's raining?
15 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) The dispersion itself is 16 not.
17 JUDGE PARIS: Rain tends to bring it down so if 18 you have a heavy rain it might bring it down all right on 19 the island. right?
20 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's correct.
21 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
22 Q So then over the two year period the dispersion 23 rate is affected by the seasons?
24 A (Cooper) The dispersion rate overall is affected 25 by the gross weather patterns typical of central
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
677
{J i 2
On a day to day basis. dispersion will change.
3 And on a season to season basis, dispersion changes.
4 Q So let 's imagine then that ' you have a tank of 5 water which is above the average tritium concentration which 6 is listed as .13 microcuries per milliliter.
7 Let 's say the tank contains the highest 8 concentration that 's possible and it 's a wet day and the 9 dispersion -- strike that, please. I want to start that 10 over again.
11 Let 's imagine that it 's the worst case scenario as 12 far as the weather is concerned for dispersion and the 13 evaporator is being fed a tank of water which has its 14 maximum concentration which any one tank could put into it.
'(])
15 Would that be reflected in your done calculations 16 using the 198S?
I 17 A (Cooper) Actually I think it would because in the 18 same circumstance there will be another time with a lower 19 tank that will average that out.
20 That 's why we use 1985 a full year 's worth of data 21 so that we would have good dispersion and bad dispersion and 22 everything in between.
23 And the short term differences in meteorology 24 spread out over the year and spread out over the two million 25 gallons or 2 3 millior, gallons that we 're talking about
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
2
(
678
/ 1 variations in concentration of the tank and variations in 4 .
- 2 day to-day dispersion will certainly be averaged out over 3 the course of evaporation. There 's no doubt it.
4 Q But is it feasible to have them in a quarter.
5 isn 't it possible to have an impact, a dose dispersed upon 6 the population which would be greater than the average over 7 the year?
8 I 'm thinking of your technical specifications 9 which say how much a population can be impacted upon.
10 A (Cooper) Well, in any given quarter to quarter 11 the average dispersion on a quarterly basis is different 12 than other quarters.
13 However, because we 're talking about a total body 14 dose of no more than 1.3 millirems, our technical
(])
15 ' specifications are in excess of 1.3 millirems.
16 To be in accordance with our technical 17 specifications for dose we could release it all in a 18 quarter.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Cooper, could you tell me if 20 there 's any way to attach error bounds to your estimates 21 based on possible variability in weather and other factors?
22 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I would estimate that our I
23 dose our 1.3 millirem total body dose that was estimated is 24 the upper bound of our air vent.
25 The actual dose that will be incurred from the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{}
i 2 1 evaporation will be somewhere between zero and 1. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: And how did you build in the .
3 conservatism so that you 're at the upper bound rather than !
4 -the middle? What did you do in the model to do that?
5 THE WITNESS: CCooper) We start by defining the .
6 maximum individual. ;
i 7 JUDGE BLOCHi The definition of maximum 8 individual? {.
9 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Basically the maximum l L
10 individual has parameters assigned to that person that are 11 potentially impossible to actually have happen.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: And on the estimates for the average 13 exposure, is there an error bound you could talk about on ;
() 14 that?
15 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) In the same case the ;
16 average individual that we 'll talk about, that 's also the i
17 upper bound of what donc could be expected.
18 Two reasons for that are again the consumption ;
19 rates that are defined for the average individual.
20 And also because we took the total of those
{
21 commitment for all the pathways which includes up to 15 i 22 million people and only applied to the approximately two [
l 23 million peopte that actually live in the area, j 24 So that 's already an overestimate of the average i 25 individual by e factor of seven.
1 j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '
i i
[
t
. . _ - _ - _ _ _ , - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . , - , . _ _ ~ -
680 JUDGE BLOCH A factor of seven you said?
1 2 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Well, because of the ,
3 dif f erence between -- i 4 JUDGE BLOCH: 1S million and two? i 5 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) 15 million and two f 6 million. ;
7 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
i 8 Q Mr. Cooper. I 'm thinking of our changing climatic 9 patterns at the moment. We have had severe rains and we 've 10 had severe, hot summers and drought.
11 Do you still anticipate that 1985 meteorlogici 12 patterns will adequately reflect what we can expect in the ;
13 next few years.
() 14 A (Cooper) Absolutely. There 's no reason to expect 15 short term climatic changes that we haven't already seen 16 over the last 10 years or better that we have meteorlogicl 17 data for. i 18 The fact that it did or did not rain or that it 's 19 hot or that it 's cold really has nothing to do with the j i
20 dispersion. i i:1 The atmospheric instability is although it does l I
22 contain certain elements of temperature, the visual ,
t 23 inspection of the weather to say, wow, it 's very hot today, t 24 really has nothing to do with the dispersion.
25 Q Okay. Maybe the heat doesn 't but air currents ;
i f l
() Heritage Repor t ing Corporation (202) 628-4088 J 1 i
, i f
1
-.--.-,h
681 would have an effect?
'{ }
i 2 A' (Cooper) Well, we have a gross climatic condition 3 here that 's not noticably changing. l 4 MS. SKOLNIX: We 're conferring here because lately ,
5 there is mounting evidence that we are having and will be t
6 -having major clinatic changes.
7 JUDGE BLOCH2 That 's your testimony. You 're not
- 8 on the stand. l 9 MS. SKOLNIK: Pardon? 6 i
10 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's your testimony and you 're not I 11 on the stand. You must ask questions. [
12 MS. SKOLNIK Oh, it is? It's an opinion.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, and you can't cite it in
() 14 findings because it 's not testimony. l iS MS. SKOLNIK: Well, isn't his an opinion?
16 JUDGE BLOCH: He 's an expert witness. You 're not 17 a witness. To make that perfectly clet . you cannot cite l 18 your statements in your findings. ,
19 What you cite has to be in the record as i
20 testimony.
21 (Pause) I 22 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
23 Q Mr. Cooper, are you aware that other scientists 24 dif fer about your opinion of changing climatic conditions?
25 MR. BAXTER: Which opinion? i l
Heritage Repor'ing Corporation i (202) 628-4888
682 MS. SKOLNIX:
i The opinion concerning what he said 2 about not having major climatic changes.
3 MR. BAXTER: I 'm not sure what testimony the 4 question is relating to.
5 MS. SKOLNIK: It 's a statement that he j ust made.
6 MR. BAXTER: He said that temperature doesn 't 7 affect dispersion.
8 MS. SKOLNIK: No, but after that. Yes, he said 9 climatic change over the last 10 years have indicated that 10 there won 't be anymore changes, 11 So I 'm saying, is he aware of the opinion of other 12 scientists that say -- is he aware of other scientist 's 13 opinion who dif fers with your 's?
(} 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I think the probative value of what 15 you 're asking is too alim to allow the question. He has 16 given his opinion as to whether there will be a change or 17 not.
18 There 's no one else here to testify. If you ask 19 him about other scientist 's opinions, it 's hearsay about the 20 other scientists.
21 I wouldn 't take anything from it anyway.
22 MR. BAXTER: And I think Mr. Cooper is talking 23 about changes that might relate to his dose calculations.
24 There are changes in weather and there are changes that are 25 relevant to the dose calculations.
() Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
.~. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 683 1 We 're talking abot what 's relevant to the dose 2 calculation.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Cooper, is it possible for en 4 extended period of time for the jet stream to shif t and to 5 affect local weather?
6 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Well, actually the jet 7 stream moves on an annual basis.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. but if it were to shift and 9 stay in a certain position for a period of tine. might that
- 10 affect local weather?
l 11 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It would affect local 12 weather but I would not be able to say with certainty that i
13 it would affect local dispersion.
14 The weather and the dispersion are not necessarily
(])
l 15 related.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So if I heard you correctly.
17 what you said is, if it did shift for an extended period of 18 time, you 're not sure what ef fect it would have on 19 dispersion, is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That*o correct.
21 JUDGE PARIS: Did you have a very hot, dry summer 22 here this year?
23 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes.
24 JUDGE PARIS: Would that have affected dispersion 25 compared to a more normal year and if so, how or do you
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
684 1 know?
2 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Again, the' hot and dry 3 isn't really relevant to the dispersion itself.
4 Based on what I've seen of our meteorological datn 5 for this year, there 's nothing significant in it that 's 6 different than other years.
7 The heat and the dry, the driness isn't really 8 part of the dispersion.
9 JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
- l 10 JUDGE BLOCH
- Ms. Skolnik, if you have something 11 important about weather, let 's ask it and then get on.
12 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
3 13 Q When you use MIDAS which radionuclides did you
(} 14 assume would contribute to the dose?
15 A (Cooper) We used --
16 JUDGE BLOCH: You can point to a place in the 17 testimony that handles that. You can do that. If not, you 18 can answer.
19 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) We used the radionuclides 20 in the 1986 submittal.
21 BY MS. SKOLNIK 22 Q I 'm sorry. In the 1986 proposal?
23 A (Cooper) Yes.
24 Q So from -- are you referring to the table 2-3, 2-l 25 4? It's on page 1. ,
, L i
() Heritage Repor t ing (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
l
685 i A (Cooper) Radionuclides listed on Table 2-3 of our
}
2 July, 1986 suomittal are those that were used for the 3 original calculations.
4 Q Are you aware. Mr. Cooper, that whereas this table 5 shows six radionuclides, there 's a potential of 32 6 radionuclides as designated in the Environmental Impact 7 Statement for the NRC7 8 A (Cooper) Also included in the Environmental a
9 Impact Statement is --
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Please, ,1ust answer the question
-11 first. Are you aware of that?
12 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Continue.
()
14 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Also included in the 15 Environmental Impact Statement is additional information 16 f rom GPU Nuclear based on additional isotopes present or 17 potentially present which were separately evaluated.
18 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
19 Q So you 're saying now that you did evaluate the
. 20 edditional 26 radionuclides that were not on Table 2-37 21 A (Cooper) There is a list as an attachment to the 22 Environmental Impact Statement that we 've already referred 23 to earlier in t/s proceeding.
24 Q Could you refer to that, please?
3 25 A (Ccoper) I believe it 's appendix A around page
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J 686 t
( 3' 1 43. Page 44 whis5 includes --
q,1 t 2 Q Sorry. In the EIS? -
3 A (Cooper) In the NRC 's EIS.
4 Q Yes.
I 5 A (Cooper) Page A-44.
6 Q A-44.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's the letter. And what is the I 8 signifennce of that for your analysis, that particular 9 letter? j 10 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's an analysis of l
11 additier.ai isotopes potentially present and an assessment of ;
12 their potential impact on the of fsite dose assessment 13 relative to strontium 90 (
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that informations included in
(])
15 your bottom line figures? l 16 THE WITNESS: CCooper) It 's included because we l 17 have already produced a conservative overestimate of the [
16 dose.
s 19 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l t
20 Q Is it specifically included?
21 A (Cooper) These isotopes were not included in the !
l 22 MIDAS run itself. 1 23 Q Okay. So the radio isotopes other than tritium, i 24 strontium 90, cesium 137, cesium 134, antimony 125, and 25 cobalt 60, all the radio isotopes other than those were not j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i
~
f I I
- . L
687 l 1 included in the 50 year dose?
/}
2 A (Cooper) That 's correct. ,
3 JUDGE BLOCH: And what was the done that was !
4 included and what was the dose that was excluded? ;
5 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) The dose assessment is i 6 based on the isotopes in the July. '86 submitt al. The other i 7 isotopes were evaluated as discussed in the letter '!
8 attachment to the EIS. i 9 JUDGE BLOCH: What was the magnitude of the dose i l ,
i 10 that was included in the study and what was the magnitude of ;
11 the dose that was excluded? j 12 1HE WITNESS: (Cooper) The magnitude of the dose :
13 that is attributable to the other. isotopes listed in the 14 attachment to the EIS is that they would contribute no more
(]) f 15 if present than 50 percent to the total strontium dose. ;
16 JUDGE DLOCH: No more than 50 percent to the 17 strontium dose?
16 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That 's correct.
l ;
19 JUDGE BLOCH: And to the total of all of the ones s L
20 you included, what 's the percent? Or. can 't you say? {
21 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I 'm sorry. I don't really !
22 -- our assessment is that the strontiam dose to the bone I 23 will be no creater than .4 millirem integrated over 50 24 years.
25 The independent assessment of the additional l
i I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
- . - . . - _ - _ - _ . . - _ _ . -,-.,_- , - . ..,. , - ,. - - _ , , _ _ . .,,. , ,- -. n . - , , _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ , - . , , _ ,
688 i i isotopes indicates that in partiucler carbon 14 is the major
)
2 contributor and that it would contribute no more than 50 3 percent to that .4 millirem.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that mean if you 'd run those j 5 isotopes through the nodel also and use.the same definition 6 of maximally exposed individual and average individual?
7 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) You 'd get .6 8 JUDGE BLOCH: You 'd get .6?
{
9 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes. However, becuase of l 1'
10 the conservatisms built into the model, the .4 is 11 appropriate.
12 BY MS. SKOLNIK 13 Q So, your independent assessment, your separate 14 assessment of the other 26 radionuclides led you to the
(]}
15 conclusion that the maximum dose f rom those radionuclides 16 would be .6 millirem?
17 A (Baker) That 's not the testimony.
18 MS. SKOLNIX: No, i t 's no t . Could he repeat then 19 what he said what 's the dose f rom the 26 radirnuclides which 20 were not assessed in the MIDAS code wherein values of the i
21 six radionuclides on Table 2-3 was used?
22 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Because our assesement of I
23 dose is designed as erestimate there 's a bounding )
I 24 condition.
2S The additional contribution from the other j
() Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
\
)
689 1 isotopes has not been included because it is expected to
[}
2 fall within the bounds of the original calculation.
3 The carbon 14 in particular from this list is the -
r 4 major contributor to the additional estimated impact is i
5 estimated to contribute approximately 50 percent of the dose j 6 to the bone from strontium 90 t 7 It does not mean that I expect the dose to 8 actually be .S.
9 BY MS, SKOLNIK ;
i 10 .Q What model did you use to assess the dose from i 11 these radionuclides?
12 A (Cooper) I used the models described I r
13 pred>minantly in the regulatory guide 1.109. l
'( ) 14 Q Could you name those, please?
15 JUDGE BLOCH: I think that your question was 16 ambiguous when you said these radionuclides. I don 't think l
17 that there 's anyway of knowing in the record what that '
t s 18 means. !
19 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay.
t 20 BY MS. SKOLNIK 21 Q The model by which you determined the dose from 22 the radionuclides listed on Table 2.2 of the Environmental l 23 Impact Statement which are not listed in Table 2.3 of the fr 24 GPU Nuclear 's proposal of July, 198f>? [
25 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is, what was the model 1
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l f
t
._--______________]
l 690 :
i you used to do that? h a 2 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Again, it 's the model !
3 contained in Reg Guide 1.109.
4 BY MS. SKOLNIX: l.
5 Q Could you name that model, please? !
t 6 A (Cooper) I don't believe it has a name. The -- l 7 all the regulatory guide is calculation of annual doses to L
8 man from routine releases of reactor effluents for the :
i 9 purpose of evaluating compliance with tendency of R part 50, j i
i 10 Appendix I. !
F
~
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that regulation provide that {
r 12 you can use less than all of the radionuclides?
13 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I 'm sorry. j j
1
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that regulation which you were I
15 applying provide that you can use less than all the ;
i 1 16 radionuclides in figuring dose? !
t
~
17 You say there is a regulation that you take to --
, 18 MR. BAXTER: The regulatory guide? j i
19 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It 's a regulatory guide. !
i 20 JUDGE BLOCH The Reg guide. Does the Reg guide l 1
21 stipulate that you use fewer than all the radionuclides? l l
l 22 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) The Reg guide doesn't !
'2 specify which isotopes to use when. It merely gives models l 4
}
l 24 in order to calculate those.
t 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there something in it that i
() Heritage Reporting Corpo rwe ion (202) 628-4888 i i
! f a
691 l' suggests that you use less than all the radionuclides that 2 would be released?
3 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) No.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Why would you do that?
, 5 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) At the time of the 6 calculations we did not have the data that indicated carbon I 7 14 could contribute.
i 8 Subsequent to that, we obtained that information l
9 and then did the evaluation that resulted in the letter 10 that 's included in the EIS.
l 11 (Continued on the next page.)
12 13 i
- l. 14 l 15 l
16 17 l 18 19 20 1
21 22
, 23 l-24 25 l O Neruege ne-r1ime cer-retiem (202) 628-4688 l
\
l
692 1 JUDGE PARIS: At the time you did the calculations f
2 the first tine, did you use all the radionuclides that you !
3 knew would be in the -- .
i 4 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Absolutely. ;
5' JUDGE PARIS: Okay.
6 BY MS. SKOLNIK: :
7 Q Does the. regulatory guide state the actual steps ;
8 that you take to determine the dose from the radionuclides 9 in Table 2.2 that are not in Table 2.3 or the GPU proposal? i l
10 If I look at Regulatory Guide 1.109. will I see how you 11 estimated the dose from the radionuclides listed in Table 5
.12 2.2 EIS?
13 A (Cooper) That infornation is included in Reg. :
14 Guide 1.109 It contains a number of different models, j
- 15 including necessary parameters to estimate the offsite l 3 16 doses. The evaluation that was performed in that letter is 17 a relative impact based on strontium 90 and that started off s
4 18 by assuming that the dispersion of all those would be the i 7
19 same because they would be released at the same time. It
[
t 20 also included an additional reference which I cannot recall 21 the name. i
[
22 Q So you just said that there are different models i t
23 identified in the Regulatory Guide. Is that correct? [
- ?4 A (Cooper) There are models for different i
j 25 conditions for dispersion. There 's a model for each of the !
t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
(
t i :
i
693 l 1 different pathways, there 's a nodel .
[}
( 2 Q Okay. Would you identify which model you used l
3 from the Regulatory Guide?
j 4 A (Cooper) In particular, as stated in our 5 submittal with this letter, these are based on a comparison .
6 of the vegetation pathway dose, because the vegetation L 7 pathway dose is dominant.
8 Q Are you saying that all of the. the dose from all 9 of the radionuclides on Table 2.2 which aren't on Table 2.3 10 are you saying that the dose is through the vegetation 11 pathway and not --
12 A (Cooper) I 'm sorry. I missed the reference to 13 Table 2.3 The radionuclides on Table 2.2 --
MR. BAXTER: I think Table 2-3 is the reference to
(]) 14 i 15 the July '86.
16 BY MS. SXOLNIX 17 Q What was your reference for the letter, please.
18 that was submitted again?
19 A (Cooper) Appendix A. Page 44 to the Environmental 20 Impact Statement.
21 Q Okay. What I'm looking for in the letter is an 22 explanation of how the dose from these particular 23 radionuclides was assessed, in the letter on Page A-43.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you looking for it in the letter 25 or do you want Mr. Cooper to testify about it?
() Heritage Repor t i ng Corpo rat io n (202) 628-4888
694
.' ( 1 MS. SKOLNIT.: I would like him to show me in the 2 letter where Jt says how the dose was calculated.
3 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I'm not sure if it does 4 say. I 'll have to look.
5 It 's very dif ficult to read.
6 (Pause) 7 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) On Page A-43. the second 8 peerngraph from the bottom describes the data included in the 9 table on Page A-44.
10 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
11 Q Okay. So what I can conclude though is that the 12 dose from the radionuclides not listed on Table 2.3 of the 13 GPU proposal but listed on the EIS Table 2.2 was not !
I 14 included in the dose which you have calculated from the j 15 evaporation process? Is that a correct conclusion? f 16 A (Cooper) No. it is not. The actual calculation f 1 l 17 run did not include those doses. And if it had included j l
18 those isotopes the result of that calculation would have (
19 been higher. However. I consider the results of the l 20 calculation to still represent a bounding dose based on the fe l
21 conservatiems built in. That is why we did not specifically 22 rerun it because we looked at the results of our evaluation i 23 as listed on Page A-44 and consider that our doses are l 1 i
.i 24 representative of what we actually would expect as a k
- 25 bounding condition.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j l
. I:
695 i Q- So it does not include the dose but you 're saying
)
2 that the calculation from the other radionuclides is enough 3 to bind the dose from the other radionuclides? Is that a 4 correct assessment of the statement?
5 A (Cooper) That is essentially correct, yes. We 6 consider that our evaluation is sufficiently conservative 7 that we did not need to rerun our calculations based on the 8 additional isotopes in Page A-44 of the EIS. Also I would 9 point out that the NRC 's did include the isotopes, and it is 10 not significantly different from our result.
11 Q Using the MIDAS code you assess the dose for 50 12 years. Is that correct?
13 A (Cooper) That is correct. It is a 50-year dose
() 14 commitment calculated.
15 Q Is it true that the radioisotopes listed on Table 16 2.2 EIS which are not found in Table 2.3 of the GPU Nuclear 17 proposa!, have a half-life f ar beyond the 50-year dose 18 conmitment calculated in the MIDAS code? For example, 19 plutonium, uranium, carbon 140 20 A (Cooper) If you note in Table 2.2 of the EIS.
21 uranium and plutonium in particular are described as less 22 than detectable and in that circumstance they are actually 23 not known to be present. Carbon 14 is indeed a long half-24 life isotope, not quite 6.000 years. However Carbon 14 is 25 present in the environment already. And the quantity that
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p 696 q i we could potentially release is approximately 100 million
):
2 times less than what is already present in the environment.
3 The dose commitment of 50 years that we 're talking 4 about is from the ingestion by an individual, and the 5 ingestion of that individual is integrated for 50 years.
6 The dose to that individual is integrated for 50 years.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Cooper. I would just prefer if 8 you could respond to the narrow question, because when you j 9 respond like that you open up a lot of new questions.
10 The answer to the question was yes. there are 11 radionuclides with much lonBer half-lives than 50 years.
! 12 And you enn cite those in your findings if you want to i 13 because they are well-known. You don 't need to have them 14 from a witness.
(])
15 MS. SKOLNIK Okay.
16 BY MS. SKOLNIK 17 Q When you spoke of the lower level of detection, is
, 18 it true that that does not mean that the radionuclides are 19 not present?
20 JUDGE BLOCH: I'll take notice of that. Yes.
21 that 's true. The meaning of lower limit of detection is 22 that that 's the lowest you can measure. Below that they 23 don 't know.
j 24 BY WS. SKOLNIK:
25 Q In other words, you cannot draw from that I.
() Heritage Reportic.g Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
[
697
{} 1 2
conclusion -- if your instruments cannot detect the radioisotope, you cannot -- is it true that you have no way 3 of proving that the. radioisotope is still present? The 4 lower level of detection refers to the capabilities of the 5 instrument. Is that correct?
6 A (Cooper) The lower limit of detection refers to 7 the capability of the instrumentation.
8 JUDGE Bl.OCH: That 's correct.
9 BY MS. SKOLNIK5 10 Q Below the lower -- so that is not to say that 11 those radioisotopes are not present?
12 A (Cooper) It defines explicitly that they are nst 13 present larger than that. And it says nothing else.
() 14 Q It does not deny their presence. It denies --
15 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's correct. You 're right.
16 MS. SKOLNIK: Am I r18ht?
17 JUDGE BLOCH: You 're right.
18 MS. SKOLNIK: I mean. I 'm riCht. it 's on the 19 record that it 's right ?
20 JUDGE BLOCH: It says nothing about whether they 21 are present or not present below the lower limit of 22 detection. It doesn't say it one way or the other. It 23 doesn 't rule it out. But it doesn 't say it one way or the 24 other. You j ust don 't know because you can 't measure that 25 amount.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
698 I
{} 1 2 Q BY MS. SKOLNIK:
So if the radioisotope is just below the lower ;
i 3 3 level of detection, when it would be released into the ;
4 enviro nment . won 't it contribute to the done? i 5 MR. BAXTER: We 're assuming that it 's there.
t 6 MS. SKOLNIK If the radioisotope is there. !
i 7 JUDGE BLOCH: This is all kind of logic. It i 8 really doesn 't - need testimony. ,
t
, 9 MS. SKOLNIK Well, it seems logical to me but I'm I i
10 not sure if it 's logical to Mr. Cooper. t i
11 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's j ust definitional. We 're j t :
12 talking about definitions. If you can't detect it. that j L
13 doesn't mean that a lower amount isn 't there. That's given.
14 You can j ust go ahead with that. We 'll accept that in j (])
15 f i ndings. ;
16 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay.
i
- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, would you like to t I
l 18. estimate how much more time you need for these witnesses? l 4 i
, 19 MS. SKOLNIK4 No, I can 't. j
, 20 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'd like you to make a rough t i
21 estimate of how much time you need for these witnesses.
?
22 Just think coout what you 've prepared. end consider. l 23 VS. SKOLNIK It could be one more hour. On the [
i i j 24 other hand, if other things come up. I could be two hours. l r
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. What I 'd like to do is for us !
l I i
i i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
\ l I I i
l 699 f 1 .. r i to take a break. It 's 12 : 04. We 'll take a lunch break
- 2 until 1:15. .
t 3 MS , SKOLNIK: Judge Bloch. could I please finish 4 asking one more question on'this point? {
t 5 JUDGE BLOCH: You may. I didn 't realize you were i l
6 closing up on something. Yes, please do.
7 MS. Sr.0LNIX Yes. I 'm not quite finiched. !
8 BY MS. SKOLNIK 1 ?
- l. 9 Q If the radionuclides below the lower level of [
i 10 detection un'e.present in the water, is it true that the dose 11 from those radionuclides which have long half-lives will :
1 12 extend beyond the 50-year dose calculated by you using !
13 MIDAS?
O 14 auoce 8'oc"' we ve aireeer aeo that a" er- !
l' 15 You 're allowed to cite the half-life thrt *s known from the !
i 16 tables in your findings. Thet e are radionuclides with more !
t t
17 than 50-year half-life. You know it. It 's known. You can [
l t
16 cite it, f
i i
19 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. I cuess I just have a problem i l [
I 20 as to what I can use for my findings of fact. which perhaps l 21 you will explain to me at some stace, j i
I l 22 JUDGE BLOCH: It has to be in the record or the i t
\.
23 Board has to say we 'l1 take of ficial notice of it. So there l l
24 are certain specific things we 've noticed. Like the half- f L
25 lives on the t ables. l I
l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
'l l I l
=m
- x. f __ m ...__.-...- - w _. _.----.. .. - - - -
_-.____y_ _ .- - - -- - % . e .__ _ _ _ _ _ .- - . _ --__-i i
i 700 i MS. SKOLNIX< Okay. Okay, that 's finc. I 'm 2 finished with that particular question.
l 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Good. Is th.Ss area of questioning 4 finished?
5 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Then we can take our lunch 7 break. It's 12:06 and we have until 1:15 8 (Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m.. the hearing recessed.
9 to reconvene at 1:$,5 p.m. the same day, Wednesday, November j 10 2, 1988, at 1:15 p.m.. at the same location.)
l I
1 l I l
[
r h Heritage Reporting (202) 626-4888 Corporation
_ __'- -___ ^_ _ _ . _ _ . - . . - - - - - .-' ^. - _
3-h
~
t'
,' 701
(^TL i AEIERRQQR 1EE11QM i
\ ._/ - l 2 (1:15 p.m.)
3 JUDGE BLOCH: .Goor' af ternoon. I have a brief. ;
4 . announcement. For the limited appearance session on 5 . Thursday, the door that will be open is the revolving door 6- on the <: rant Street Alley. The way into the building is 7 through the revolving door on the Grant 3treet Alley.
8 I'd like to continue with the witnesses.
9 MS. SKOLNIK: Judge Bloch, I wonder, could you 10 clarify. since you just mentione j about Thursday night, when 11 people come in, if they wish to speak, what will be the
. 12 order for the people to speak? How is that going to be 13 handled?
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I'll assign an order and I have some 15 filings already and I 'm sure there are some that came to 16 Washington after I left that are being forwarded to me. So 17 I 'll handle it that night. Is it important that it be 18 assigned in advance? .
2 1 19 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, somee,ne had just asked me, and l l
20 I was going to give the information.
4 21 JUDGE BLOCH: We 'll ass.4 gn an order. I don 't i 22 expect it will be a big problem.
23 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
24 t 25 a
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
t
ryr--
702 i Whereupon,
{]!
v
. 2 DR. GARY G BAKER 3 WILLIAM J. COOPER 4 previously duly sworn, resumed the stand as witnesses herein, and were further examined and testified as follows:-
['
t 5
6 CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed) 7 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
8 Q Mr. Cooper, I am on Page 11 of your testinony, 9 your answer to Question 11 You state in your testimony
- I 10 that you are aware of the literature that gives the RBE for f
l
! 11 tritium to be 3 Could you state why you chose an RBE of i l
12- 1.77 t
l 13 A (Cooper) Well. first of all, there 's a dif ference l
- - (]) 14 between RBE and Q. We do not use an RBE of J. RBE is 15 dependent on the particular biological end point ne' you 16 are looking at. This is a quality factor that we ate i 17 talking about in this answer.
18 Q Okay. Let me rephrase the question, please.
19 Why did you choose a factor of 1.7 over a factor.
20 instead of a factor of 3 when you knew that there was 21 evidence of a fuctor of 37 22 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony we , *. hat there 's a 23 difference between an RBE and a Q. Would vnu like to 24 c arify that difference?
25 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) When ye xposc ai
( Heritage Reporting Corporat!on (202) 628-4888 l
l
N 703 i organism to radiation there 's a number of dif ferent
)
2 biological end points that you can measure the relative 3 effect of one radiation compared to another with, either the 4 reproductive capacity or cell killing or whatever. And the-5 RBE refers to -- is specific for the biological end point.
6 And the Q, or quality factor, is a specific assigned number 7 based on the best judgment and the range of RBEs.
8 MS. SKOLNIK: Mr. Cooper, we can 't quite hear when 9 you turn your face away. If you could please raise your 10 voice. Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Sure.
12 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
13 Q Could we please have your explanation again?
() 14 Could you say it loud < please?
15 A (Cooper) The RBE is a specific measurement of the 16 comparison between one radiation, one type of radiation and 17 a different kind of radiation measure, depending on the
. 18 biological end point that you are interested in 19 investigating. The biological end points can be different, 20 and the reference radiations can be different, so the RBE 21 can vary. The Q or quality factor is a specific selected 22 number based on the review of RBE inforraation, and the Q is 23 a spacific number that is used for adj ustment of absorbed 24 dose to dose equivalent.
t 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it fair to say that the Q is the
(
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i.
704
- i. /~ 1 more general impact and the RBE could be specific impacts on
(>T
.2 specific places?
3 THE WITNESS: (Ct >per) Yea.
4 JUDGE PARIL. So if your RBEa for given radiation ,
5 are higher, the Q will be higher than something that 's 6 lower?-
7 THE WITNESS: CCoopt.> The Q is essentially a 8 fixed value th . 's defined for the specific radiation based 9 on selected from the information on RBEs for different 10 situations.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, a hypothetical example. If 12 all the measured RBEs were 7, can you tell what the Q would 13 be?
) 14 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Then the Q would be 7 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
16 BY MS, SKOLNIK:
17 Q When you gave us the definition of RBE, you 18 mentioned that it was the -- you mentioned reference 19 radiation.
20 A (Cooper) That 's correct.
21 Q Do you mean, could you explain that, please? Just 22 a simple explanation, if that 's possible.
23 A (Cooper) Because of the way the concept, the way 24 you convert from absorbed dose to dose equivalent, you have 25 to have a Q factor for different radiations. And the way
-( ) Heritage ReportinE Corporation (202) 628-4888
9 705 i the calculational method is done is that a specific
)
2 reference radiation. specifically high energy X-rays around 3 200 KEV is assigned a Q factor of 1. !
4 Q What is the reference radiation in order to S achieve a factor of 1.7?
6 JUDGE BLOCH: He said what the reference was. It 7 was X-rays of 200 KEV.
8 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
9 Q Is '. hat the same for a factor of 3?
10 JUDGE BLOCH: The reference is the same. The 11 ratio of effectiveness is different.
12 I guess I 'm having dif ficulty understanding how 13 needing to ask questions at this level of sophistication you i
() 14 are ever going to get to the point where you are going to do 15 something here.
16 MS. SKOLNIX: I'm trying to ascertain the 1
, 17 selection of a 1. 7 DCF over a 3. 0.
l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I know --
19 MR. BAXTER: There 's on 3. 0 in the testimony. It 20 says he used 1.7 instead of 1 quality factor. Bottom of 21 Page 11 U
22 MS. SKOLNIX: It also says then, factors ranging 23 from 1 to 3 are common in the literature.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: For the RBE. Nut the Q.
25 MS. SKOLNIK: Not the Q. Okay.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
-. . - . - - , - . . . _ - - , _ - - - . . _ . - - - . _ . - . . - , , . , - - . - - - . , . . .--.--.-.--.i
706
/~' 1 JUDGE BLOCH: I may have misspoken. The sentence
'\ ,
w- 2 follows the sentence on quality factors. It appears to
?- relate to quality factors appearing in the literature.
4 Could you, Mr. Cooper, could you explain that on 5 the bottom of Page 11, the last full sentence. It 's 6 immediately following the discussion of the quality factor.
7 It says: "Factors ranging from 1 to 3 are common in the 8 literature." What does "factors" mean in that sentence?
9 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) That is intended to imply 10 the RBEs.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that mean that you don 't know 12 of any quality factors in the literature which are suggested 13 to be 3 for tritium?
(} 14 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) No, I do not.
15 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q What RBE did you use when calculating the dose 17 from tritium?
18 JUDGE BLOCH: No.
19 MS , SKOLNIK: No?
20 JUDGE BLOCH: He didn 't use an RBE, he used a Q, 21 quality factor. The RBEs are specific to different portions 22 of the body. This is the testimony.
23 MS. SKOLNIK Yes.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: And the quality factors are overall.
20 The equation he used, used a quality factor, not an RBE.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I
l 707 i BY MS. S.;OLNIK : ;
(~m%N 2 Q On Page 12, in your dose calculations.for tritium 3 did you include the dose from the tritium that would go.into 4 the water in the river and into the underground water?
5 JUDGE PARIS: And into the what kind of water?
6 MS. SKOLNIKi I'm sorry. Into the Susquehanna 7 River and into the groundwater.
8 JUDGE PARIS: Groundwater.
9 MS. SKOLNIK: "O U 's" don 't sound too good in 10 Irish.
11 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) The ingestion of surface 12 water is not included in the atmospheric dispersion model.
13 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
() 14 Q Did you take account in your dose calc"lations for 15 the dose that the people would receive from the Susquehanna 16 River, since Lencaster City people drink the water?
17 A (Cooper) As I j ust said, the ingestion of surface 18 water is not included in the atmospheric dispersion model.
i 19 We have separately reviewed the potential for deposition 20 into the surf ace waters f rom atmospheric releases and they 21 will not contribute to the calculated dose.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you say a few more words about 23 the basis for that conclusion?
24 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes. We have looked at 25 the effect from current TMI releases, since we are currently
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
708 1 releasing tritiated, or tritium as tritiated water from both (v ~^)
2 units.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: From what?
4 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) From both units.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: If you could speak right into the 6 microphone, it would help everybody.
7 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Okay. So knowing the 8 current releases that are underway f rom both units and 9 looking at the amount of tritium in the river, upstream and 10 downstream, we know that there is no effect to the offsite 11 dose from surface water from current releases. And based on 12 that, comparison between maximum credible contributions in 13 the river now and comparing the two different quantities of.
14 release, those amounts cannot contribute to the two
(])
j 15 significant digits of our dose calculation.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: When you say "no ef f ect, " that 's a 17 term of art. Can you give us some idea of the ratio of the 18 releases to the amount of tritium ir the river?
19 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Jurrently TMI releases, as 20 Mr. Harner stated yesterday, or average over the last few 21 years, around 12 curies in a aarter. That 's approximately 22 one tenth of the proj ected release rate f rom the evaporator.
23 And the amount of tritium in the river now that flows past 24 the plant as a result of natural production and weapons is 25 on the order of about 4,000 curies.
, () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i 709 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Per quarter?
(^);~
\-
2 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Per year.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Per year.
4 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes. We have not, in all 5 our environmental monitoring, ever been able to detect any 6 deposition f rom atmospheric release in the river.
7 THE WITNESS: (Baker) I 'd like. to also point out 8 that the PEIS as well as my organization evaluated direct 9 discharge of~the accident-generated water to the 10 Susquehanna. Those doses were on the order of about 4 11 millirem bone dose to the maximum exposed individual. I 12 would not expect the concentrations of materials evaporated 13 to anywhere get near the concentration that direct discharge
() 14 to the river would be. So even if we discharged directly to 15 the river we would only get .4 millirem bone dose.
16 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
17 Q Nevertheless, --
18 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. .4 millirem bone dose to 19 what? The maximally exposed individual?
20 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Yes, that's correct.
21 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
22 Q Nevertheless, even if it is insignificant, isn 't 23 it true that it is in addition to the tritium in the water 24 already?
2S A (Baker) Well, if I take the maximally exposed
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
?
L' 1
710
- f^T 1 individual from direct water discharge'and assume tSat U
2 that 's going to be the contribution from evaporation. I 3 still only come up with .8 millirem bone dose. 8 millirem 4 bone dose projected out over a 50-year life is, you can 't 5 physically measure that in the environment, the contribution 6 that the tritium would be to give you that kind of a dose.
7 JUDGE ELOCH: Ms. Skolnik, would you say it is 8 obviously correct, if you add something to something else
-9 then what you have is something more than you had before?
10 That 's a basic f act that you can also rely on as noticed 11 from the Board.
12 (Continued on the next page) 13-(
15 16 17 18 19 3
20 21 i
22 23 24 25
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . - . - . - . ~ . - - . _ -
711 j- g F j'] . 1 MS. SKOLNIK: Judge Bloch, if I could ask one j i \~):
When you are considering the~ record, does the l
{ 2 other thing? :
l 3 record include all the affidavits and everything that has
! 4J gone on since the beginning of the procedures? l I
5 JUDGE BLOCH: No. !
i 6 MS. SKOLNIX: It includes only the testimony? j 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Only the sworn testimony. l l
8 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. Thank you.
9 BY MS. SKOLNIK.
10 Q When in calculating the dose from the tritium, did l i
11 you include the tritium which becomes organically bound in l E
12 the food? r I
r 13 A (Cooper) The dose calculation does not explicitly
() 14 include the small f raction of tritium bound up in the food.
l 15 It does include the food pathways for tritium. (
Could you explain that a little I 16 JUDGE BLOCH: j t
17 further for me? How does it not explicitly include, but it l 18 includes it? (
19 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It includes the ingestion )
I 20 pathways for vegetation and milk and meat. It treats it as 21 being tritiated water. !
22 JUDGE BLuCH: Okay. So if it 's a tritiated i i
23 conipound other than water it doesn 't dif ferentiate or give 24 an extre effect to that small amount, 33 that what you 're ,
25 saving? j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
712
' /T 1. THE WITNESS: .(Cooper) That 's correct. But as is
-(/
2 stated in the -- as indicated in our testimony the 3 additional impact from that is a very small' percentage of 4 the total dose and the NCRP does not recommend that you need 5 to include that. That 's on page 12 of our testimony. t 6 (Pause) 7 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
8' Q You 've been referring to NCRP Publication Number 9' 62 in your testimony?
- 1. 10 A (Cooper) The particular reference that I just 11 referred to would apply to NCRP 62 ano 63, 12 Q NCRP report 62 shows that the effects of 13 protracted exposure to relatively stable leve'l's of tritiated
()
14 water followed by pulsed exposure --
15 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me. Could you give the 16 witness a reference to what you 're reading f rom?
17 MS. SKOLNIK: Pardon?
18 MR. BAXTER: Are you reading from the document?
19 MS. SKOLNIK: No, I 'm reading -- yes, I 've got it 20 now.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Let the witness see the relevant
, 22 part of the document and review it before you ask a 23 question.
24 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
25 MR. BAXTER: He has a copy.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
713
- (~T 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have one with you? Just
%J :
2 reference it so that he can review it.
l 3 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
- 4. BY MS. SKOLNIK:
5 Q Page 46, the second paragraph. In here they --
6 okay. I 'l l let you. read it first. Sorry.
7 A (Cooper) Is that page 467 8 Q Yes. .It 's the 62 report.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: The first full paragraph?
10 MS. SKOLNIX: Second.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Second.
12 (Witnesses reading document.)
13 JUDGE BLOCH: I think they are ready.
(} 14 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
15 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q The statement here relates to protracted exposures 17 followed by a pulsed exposure to tritiated water. Would you 18 say that the evaporation process of two years is a
, 19 protracted exposure?
20 A (Cooper) Yes.
21 Q Is it possible when a tank of water containing a
- 22 concentration larger than the minimum concent ration of 23 tritium and it would be released into the environment by ;
24 evaporation, could that be termed a pulsed exposure? ,
- 25' A (Cooper) I would say that given the virtually
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
1 I
l' i-4 i
r.
714 1
! - "T- 1- continuous release nature of the evaporator, it should be 1
! ((_) '
2 termed protracted or chronic. j j-l 3 Q Could you define what you mean by a protracted !
4 4 exposure?
5 A (Cooper) I'used the term protracted or chronic j
( l 6 exposure to imply that the exposure is conducted over a j r
7 presumably long period of time on the order of weeks.
[
k
- j. 8 months, or years. l l
1 9 Q 'What - is a pulsed exposure? How would you define !
! I i 10 that?
I
'11 A (Cooper) I would define it as a very short term 12 release on the order of a few minutes is my definition.
13 Q Is it possible that the evaporator will release
() 14 varying concentrations of tritium?
15 A (Cooper) The evaporator must release varying 16 concentrations of tritium because there are varying 17 concentrations of tritium in the water.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik?
19 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: You had said you 'd want about an 21 hour total. You 've used a half an hour. What I want to do 22 is at the end of the next half hour, I want to look at the 23 kind of progress you 've made and ask you to tell me why you 24 need more time if you do.
25 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. Fine.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
715
-~
(^s 1 JUDGE BLOCH: So I would set a half limit at this i q,)
2 point.
3 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
4 Q In-considering the genetic and semantic effects of 5 tritium, did you consider those experiments which 6 demonstrated that the most hazardous time for mammals 7 axposed to tritium as thimodide would be in -- or as neo-8 natal?
9 A (Cooper) No. we did not because there is 10 essentially no release of tritiated thymidine from the 11 evaporator.
12 And the amount of synthesis of tritiated thymidine 13 would tx? so small that it could not contribute to the dose.
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I point out that as I was reading 15 the NCRP publication you just referenced. this point was 16 covered in the paragraph following the one you just asked 17 about.
, 18 MS. SKOLNIK I was not under the impression that i 19 tritiated thymidine was released from a nuclear power plant.
l 20 I thought it was the --
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Not directly but it can be 22 manufactured by the organic but very small amounts and 23 therefore the NCRP said that it wasn 't relevant in 24 talculations of dose.
25 MS. SKOLNIK: But they also referenced the study
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
W 716
(~ i that I j ust quoted.
~ D}.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. but he told you the reason he 3 didn 't cite it was, he didn 't think that there would be a 4 significant dose of tritiated thymidine. .
S- BY MS. SKOLNIK:
6 Q When you calculated the dose, did you take a count P
7 of tritium in the organically bound pool?
8 A (Cooper) As we said before, the inclusion of the 9 tritium in the organically bound pools is as the NCRP states 10 in Publication 62 is insignificant in the conmitted dose.
11 I believe the NCRP identifies approximately four 12 percent contribution from the organic pool.
13 Q Will there be additional doses from TMI Unit 2
() 14 during the evaporation process, during PDMS?
15 MR. BAXTER: Obj ect ion. This is not a proceeding 16 te evaluate the dose consequences of PDMS. We 're evaluating 17 the proposal to dispose of the accident generated water. i 18 It 's irrelevant and outside the scope of the hearing.
19 MS. SKOLNIK: It 's also relevant that the l
20 evaporation process is incurring one dose while the Unit 2 [
21 and Unit i are incurring their individual doses as well so 22 that the evaporation process is cumulative. ;
23 JUDGE BLOCH: What evidence do you have that 's ;
i 24 relevant? Will you be introducing evidence that that 's 25 relevant, that it 's an accumulative dose? You 're assuming
( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l I
- r
717 rw 1 what, more than a linear effect?
.U 2 MS. SKOLNIK: I 'm assuming that if there's other 3 nuclear radioactivity being released into the environment 4 that whatever the evaporation process gives is additional.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: .Well, where is your evidence that.
6 that increases the importance of that additional release?
7 I would assume that you 're hinting at some kind of 8 a more than linear effect?
9 MR. BAXTER: There is a -- in the Board 's 10 memorandum in order of January 5, 1988, intervenor 's 11 proposed Contention 5(b) was rej ected for litigation.
12' That alleged that the PEIS failed to consider the 13 cumulative effects of the TMI 2 accident and the rest of the
(} 14 cleanup program in evaluating the evaporation proposal.
l -15 JUDGE BLOCH: That resolves your obj ection. We !
! 16 won 't allow the question.
l 17 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
l l 18 Q Page 15, line 16, will you explain why you use a I 19 background level of 300 millirems per year while the NRC and 20 the PEIS uses a value of 178 millirems per year?
21 A (Baker) I believe the principal difference here !
22 is that we have included background for radon and I do not 23 believe that the Staf f ine:luded that in their background 24 calculation. !
25 JUDGE BLOCH: The door closed, you said the
() Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
- 5 4 718 1 background from what?
l{s.(J"]
2 THE WITNESS: (Baker) The background from redon l
3 in central Pennsylvania and I don't believe that the Staff 4 did that.
l 5 JUDGE PARIS: What pages are we on?
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Page 15.
7 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) I would paint out that our-8 testimony does mention that we 've includeJ 200 millirem from 9 radon also on page 15.
10 JUDGE PARIS: Is this radon incurred in the hone, 11 in buildings, everywhere?
12 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Yes. This is a whole body lL l 13 dose equivalent from redon in home.
() 14 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Your Honor, I 'd also like to 15 point out that 178 has been cited before by the intervenor 's 16 cs a figure the Staff used.
17 I believe that the figure in the EIS was 18 approximately 87. 178 somewhere came along in a pleading or 19 in testimony.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Well in any event, the PEIS is 21 available for ref erence so we don 't have to go into that 22 right now.
23 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I wasn 't going into it but I 24 didn 't want it --
25 JUDGE BLOCH: I know. The obj ection is well taken.
+
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
719 l 1 So when you go to checking that you might want to look at 2 the document itself to see what the right amount is. l 3 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes.
4 (Pause) 5 JUDGE BLOCH: I would note that even the wind now 6 seems to be sounding impatient.
7 JUDGE PARIS: It 's dispersing stuf f.
8 (Pause) 9 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
10 Q Have you considered any opinion different from the 11 opinions that led you to conclude that because the doses are 12 already so very low that such a decrease in the source term 13 is not meaningful?
() 14 MR. BAXTER: I don 't understand that question.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm af raid I didn 't either. You 're 16 talking about doses and source term and they seem to be 17 apples and oranges.
18 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, it 's a quote f rom Mr. Cooper 's 19 own testimony.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Where?
21 MS. SKOLNIK Page 16 4
22 JUDGE BLOCH: What line?
23 MS, SKOLNIK: The last three lines.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Will you please just read the whole 25 paragraph before you respond?
() Heritoge Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
l 720 !
l
/^T 1 MR. BAXTER: If I can clarify. Is the question O
2 whether Dr. Baker in writing his testimony considered other ,
3 people 's opinion?
4 MS. SKOLNIX: Well, first of all could you --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Baker, why do you consider it?
6 You can ask the question. Ms. Skolnik. I'm just getting too 7 impatient here.
9 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
9 Q On what do you base the statement, the doses are 10 already so very low?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: You could make a reference to the 12 testimony if you want.
t 13 THE WITNESS: CBaker) I would take you back to
() 14 page 16 of the testimony. We talk about normal 15 environmental levels right around line 460.
16 If you take a look at those numbers for normal 17 background and compare those to what hypothetical, maximally 18 hypothetical person would receive as a result of the 19 evaporation, there is just no comparison, 20 I don 't even know other than through a calculation 21 one can even arrive at that number and see it. ;
22 JUDGE BLOCH: The levels are actually indicated on 23 the previous page of testimony on page 15. She 's comparing j t
24 his answer to on page 16 to his answer on page 15.
l 25 l (
l l
l I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
i r
- ~,~ e
721 (m. 1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
L) 2 Q Are you saying that any dose which does not have.
3 which does not have a significant comparison with the 4 background dose is not worth thinking about?
5 A (Baker) I 'm not sure that I really understand 6 what ycur question is as you state it. I think I know what-7 you 're driving at though. Let me try to work from that 8 point.
9 We know that we have normal fluctuations in 10 background. We find those in spot locations. We find them 11 in regions. We find them in states. We find them in 12 countries.
13 There is always a variation at which background
() 14 will fluctuate. If the doses that an individual were to be 15 exposed to fall within that environmental fluctuation 16 there 's really no dif f erence f rom a statistical or f rom an 17 actual standpoint in the person receiving an extra .4 18 millirem because it 's within the fluctuation to begin with.
19 Q However, if a person is receiving the maximum 20 background in a radon area and then they receive the dose 21 from the evaporation. is that signi f icant ?
22 A (Baker) No, I think if you take the dose that
!!3 we 're talking about over a 50 year done commitment period of 24 .4 millirem and take the data that gives you fatal cancers, i 25 gives you fatal or teratogenic cacogenic effects. I think
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
. - - +.. _ ..
1 i
i 722 ;
i r~s 1 that probability that, that will happen approaches zero to a b 2 the point that it is considered insignificant.
- 3 MS. SKOLNIX
- That 's al1.
4 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Judge Bloch. Staff has a few l
3 5 questions. .
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Please.
8 a 7 CROSS EXAMINATION l i
4
! 8 BY MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: l I
l j 9 Q There was testimony from this panel earlier l 10 regarding the conservatism introduced !,nto a population, l i j 11 introduced _into a calculation of the average dose to a (
4 l i 12 member of the public. [
g 13 And as I recall, the testimony was to the effect O 14 that vou useo e rooo iaee tioa vethwer or some 1e mi>>1oa l 15 people or maybe it was 13 million.
16 And that you then applied that population dose and l I
17 you used as the denominator the 2.2 million, I believe it is 18 within 50 miles.
19 Am I correct 1y stating your testimony?
20 A (Cooper) Yes. that 's correct. In assessing the f
21 average dose to an individual within the 50 mile radius. you 22 took the total population dose which is conrnitted to 15 f; 23 million people and divided it by the 2.2 million resident.
l 24 Q That 's a highly conservative assumption, isn 't it ?
l 25 A (Cooper) Yes. indeed. The 15 mi11 ion people is a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4
,, 723 i i fed population within 50 miles and the 2.2 million is the br' 2 resident population. !
3 -Q Many of the 15 million people live beyond the 50 t 4 miles?
5 A (Cooper) That 's correct. l 6 JUDGE BLOCH: That question was, many of the 15 7 million who do not live within 50 miles. live beyond 50 8 cmiles.
9 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: It was a little bit redundant 10 but in any event. !
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't know where the people who 12 don 't live within 50 miles do actually live.
13 THE WITNESS: (Baker) Well, if I can clarify 14 that. the point is, is that because of the agricultural area
(])
15 that we are in, the produce that is produced by farms or 16 what not within a 50 mile radius actually has, is 27 distributed out to an estimation by the state of 18 Pe itsylvania to 13.2 million people.
i 19 So if you take that as Mr. Cooper said as a fed
- 20 population, then your population dose goes out to the 2.2 l 21 plus the 13 .
22 BY MR. STEPHEN LEWIS:
23 Q I was just trying to figure out why you took that 24 figure and then divided it and then used it as a
- 20. denominator. The number of peorie within the population
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 I
724
- 1 j ust didn 't seem to be logical.
2 A (Cooper) W
' ell, it 's because there 's two separate 3 populations, the total fed population and the resident 4 population.
5 .
A nd just essentially to dispel arguments about 6 which one to use we picked the most conservative.
7 Q I want to ask you another question. This is on 8 page 15 of the testinony and it 's an answer by Dr. Baker. ;
9 In that testimony you did a~ calculation from the . 4 millirem 10 50 year dose commitment to the bone.
11 And you in that calculation yielded a zero. .01 12 millirem per year for bone. Is that correct so far?
13 A (Baker) Yes, it is as I read it.
() 14 Q You didn't do a similar reduction to an average to 15 a annual dose for the tritium dose. The 1.2 millirem for s 16 the tritium, is thet also a 50 year dose commitment? ,
, i 17 A (Baker) Yes.
18 Q And what happens if you try to if you calculate 1'
j 19 that to get an annual doue?
! l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: You divide by 50.
{
! 21 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) Let me in here. Because 1
22 the tritium has such a very short biological half 'tife you 23 essentially would divide it by the two years of the 24 evaporation.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: So there is a --
4
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
725 i THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It 's a 50 year committed
- q' v '
- 2. dose but essentially when you integrate it for 50 years, all
'3 of the dose is actually incurred very shortly after the 4 exposure.
5 JUDGE PARIS: What is the biological half life of 1
6 t ritiurr.? l 7 THE WITNESS: (Cooper) It 's 10 days.
l 8 JUDGE PARIS: 10 days.
9 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Those are my only questions.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Redirect?
11 MR. BAXTER: No redirect. Thank you. j 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, the State has some questions.
13 CROSS EXAMINATION ,
Q 14 BY MS. PHELPS:
15 Q Continuing on with page 16. You state that or 16 this is Dr. Baker states that the difference in dose that 17 we've been discussing between the annual dose we expect in 18 this area and what to expect from the treatment would be --
19 this is because the doses are already so very low that such f 20 a decrease in the source term is not meaningful. !
l 21 Can you telI us what you would regard as a {
l 22 meaningful increase? j 23 MR. BAXTER: I 'm sorry. Could you refer us to the j 24 testimony you 're referring to? ;
25 MS. PHELPS: At the bottom of page 16.
O Heritene Re-rtine Cer-retion (202) 628-4888
En 726 1 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's the same question, the same 2 sentence that was being penaed about before, j 3 MS. PHELPS: I 'm j ust going to --
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Yl hat-level would be considered ,
5 -naaningful?
l 6 BY MS. PHELPS:
7 Q What standard are you using? What level would you ,
8 consider meaningful? i 9 A (Baker) Well, if I put it.in perspective of the 10 regulations for example, let's use that. Certainly 15 11 millirem is an allowable organ exposure from an operating 12 plant, 25 millirem per year and these are per year numbers 13 f rom EPA to the maximally exposed individual. .
'(]) 14 I think those numbers are at least a standard 15 around which one can determine f rom an environmental
[ 16 standpoint what one might al?.ow or one might not. ;
i 17 Q Is half of that meaningful? I mean if 15 millirem i i i 18 a year is meaningful, is half of that meaningful? i.
19 A (Baker) No, I don 't believe so. no. f i
! 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Baker, how about from the t
- 21 standpoint as of low as reasonably achievable? [
- r 22 THE WITNESS
- (Baker) And I think that 's what one [
L 23 should have to go to. A nd I think as one approaches that j
. 24 point or one gets to that point. I j ust don 't think that 20 levels that are so significantly below background are so
,() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t i
i i
727 1 lost in the statistics that they 're meaningless.
i .;- 2 You know, the idea that we sit here and calculate.
I j 3 somethina out to six decimal places, I think says something
!. 4 for our ability to calculate.
t 5 But the significance of a six decimal place number 6 is just not there.
l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it possible that it 's wcrth l )
8 saving one millirem if it 's actually cheaper to do that than l 9 to release it?
10 THE WITNESS: (Baker) I think you have to look at 11 the number that you 're talking about.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Suppose it was cheaper and easier to l 13 avoid releasing one millirem, then release it. Wouldn 't you 14 think it was significant --
15 THE WITNESS: CBaker) Then I think from the 16 concept of ALARA. I think you 're bound to be able to do that
! 17 or have to do that, yes.
18 Is it environmentally significant? That 's a 19 different question.
20 MS. PHELPS: I thank you.
l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that change redirect?
22 MR. BAXTER: No, sir.
- 23. JUDGE BLOCH: Recross?
l 24 l 25 O Her11ece Renortina Corneretion (202) 628-4388
y 728 i RECROSS EXAMINATION
.('T) f' 2 BY ids. SKCLNIK:
3 Q You 're talking about. Mr. Baker, about meaningful '
4 and not meaningful. Who do you think should be the 5 determiner, who do you think should determine whether or not .
6 a dose of radiation should be acceptable? Or meaningful?
7 A (Baker) Well, obviously at least, it would seem L
8 obvious to me that everybody can establish what they want as ;
9 their own significant level. ;
10 For example. I recently turned down a chest X-ray 11 in a physical because I already had one chest x-ray during 12 the year.
13 I do not believe that if I got that other chest I
() 14 Xray that I would have any kiad of significant impact on my iS health or well being.
i 16 But it 's you know, it 's not inappropriate to not I 17 be exposed to things, and I don't care what it is, if you l 18 don 't need to.
1' 19 From a regulatory standpoint, there are 20 regulations that govern the amount of exposure that a power 4 21 plant is allowed to give to the public.
22 The plants operate very well below those numbers.
23 And I think if o.ie had to establish a rule or a guideline as 24 to what, f rom an environmental standpoint, was significant 25 or not significant, those are numbers that we should shoot i
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4
?
729 I i at.
2 Q You say that everybody should decide and that you i 3 shouldn 't be exposed if you don 't need to be. Do you think i 4 it 's proper that the people who will be exposed P' the [
5 radiation from evaporation should be the people to decide t
6 whether or not they should accept that exposure?
7 MR. BAXTER: Obj ec t ion. Mr. Chairman. I think r
8 it 's clear that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the :
9 licensing authority with respect to this application and l 10 that it 's doing the environmental r. 3st benefit analysin l l
11 here. i t
22 JUDGE BLOCH: The method for determining is set 13 forth by the laws of the United States, the regulations of l 14 the NRC and the actions of the licensees pursuant to those
(]J !
10 regulations and regulation guide.
.s ,.
16 That 's the process. And it 's set by Government.
17 your Government and my Government. j la BY MS. SKOLNIX: ;
19 Q Are you saying that the NRC regulations provide j; 20 the level of radiation exposure which is acceptoble to ;
21 society?
i 22 MR. BAXTER- Obj ect ion. Mr. Chairnen. T'm not 23 sure why we 're engaging in legislation or rulemaking. !
i 24 We 're talking a'out a predicted dose that Dr. .
4 25 Baker and Mr. Cooper have presented and their view that it t
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
{
o :
f Of
, , - - - , , , - - - - _ , . , . . , , . . , - .---, m -, .-,,v.--..,c--- ,--x,--,---,---,.,---,-------or -
7 T' .
730
~g i is so low as not to be meaningful.
(J t
2 It 's not relevant whether the higher doses ,
i 3 permitted by regulations are or aren't meaningful in their 4 view. ,
5 JUDGE BLOCH: You have the. meaning of what he 6 defines as meaningful. And you know exactly what he means i 7 by it.
8 And I think that you probably can't derive much L
9 more from that by asking him questions. You obviously 10 disegree about what 's meai'ingful. But he 's fully defined i,
11 what his testimony is. l 12 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
13 Q Does the no action alternative provide less ,
14 ' exposure to radiation than the evaporation proposal?
~() l 15 MR. BAXTER: Obj ec t ion. We 're outside the scope 16 of the additional cross examination thTt was done by the NRC 17 Staf f and the Commonwealth. ,
18 BY MS. SKOLNIK
- 19 0 Is the no action alternative --
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, the question is also 21 asked and answered, page 16. answer 14 explains that.
~
22 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
- 23 JUDGE BLOCH
- I want to thank the witnesses for 24 their appearance and excuse them from the stand.
25 (Whereupon, the witnesses were excused.)
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (20^) 628-4888
B,
- i
, 4 4, ,
t 731
("g i JUDGE BLOCH: What I 'd like to do is to swear the (J
4 2 next witnesses and then take a break. Is that acceptable?
3 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, we have one other 4 mattr7 based on the hour and a half discussion this morning 5 about what the scope of the hearing is essentially.
\
6 We feel we eqn't leave the record with the way it 7 was yesterday. Mr. Buchanan was allowed to testify about 8 leaving the water in its current location which was not an 9 alternative which we had assessed in our teattirony 10 He was asked that. He indicated then that. Se had il not had a lot of time to think about it.
12 I would move that the Board rule that, that 13 alternative is not part of this hearing and that testimony
() 14 be stricken or that we be allowed to return Mr. Buchanan to 15 the witnuss stand for a limited period of time to provide a 16 more thoughtful response than he was cllowed to do yesterday l 17 to that question.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: We had an hour aru a half on it thin i
19 morning.
20 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: But I want to take very briei' 22 argument from the other parties on whether we shoule take 23 that ruling.
- 24 I take it as I recall. the principal reason for 25 your argument is based on the enswer to interrogatories and i
l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l
l l.
732 1 on what else?
2 MR. BAXTER: Well, I would start with the 3 contention itself, the language of the contention itself, 4 the responses to interrogatories, the responses to summary 5 disposition motion and the pre-filed testimony of the Joint 6 Intervenors, all of which were opportunities specify that 7 the storage mode tl.Jy had in mind was leaving it in its 8 current location.
9 And I think it 's clear f rom the course of the 10 hearing today they arrived at that judgment at about 10:30 11 on this morning for the first time.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: And you 're also claiming surprise?
13 MR. BAXTER: Absolutely.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is whether there 's
(])
15 anything in our record that indicates that the Utility E 16 should not have been surprised by your suggestion that a 17 portion should be retained within the containment in the 18 reactor systems in which it 's presently louated.
1 19 MS. SKOLNIK: I 'm looking for Mr. Buchanan 's 20 testimony.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: This might be the best time for the 22 break.
23 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: The Staff wants to briefly 24 respond to this. While I think that it is fair to state 25 that from what I am aware of, of everything tnat went prior 1
() Heritage Reporting Corporatian (202) 628-4888 l
733 r~ i to this hearing, the witnesses would not have been aware i
. U) .
2 + hat one of the alternatives that was being considered was
[
3 within containment storage.
4 Nevertheless I think that it would be better for 5 the record if Mr. Buchanan were allowed the opportunity to ;
6 resume the stand and close out consideration of that matter.
7 He did respond regarding the possibility and the 9 availability or the possibility of retaining it in some l
9 manner within existing tankage. I 10 I said before, within the building, but I think l l
.1 the issue more had to do within existing tank capacity or [
12 existing storage locations wherever they may be. !
\
13 And I think he should be allowed to resume the ;
() 14 stand to provide clarifying testimony on that point because j
> 15 of the fact that there was surprise. That 's the point. (
[
16 But I think the record would ben 1 fit and would be 17 closed out better if that were done rather than attempting 18 to strike portions of the testimony already received.
19 JUDGE BLOC:!t I can see that if we were to rule in 20 that way, there would be risk of sua sponte review by the 21 appeal court on that issue even thouEh it 's not of ficially 22 within the record. I consider that a thing to considet. If 23 they were to review the record. I 'll be wrong.
24 Ms. Skolnik, was it a surprise?
25 MS. SKOLNIK: The reason the lin.c of questioning
() Herttage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 734 i
i came f rom Mr. Buchanan's testimony on page -11 when he spcke 2 about the construction of two additional 500.000 gallon .
i
- 3 tanks. ,
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, he did that because of the S Utility 's understanding that you wanted all the tenho to be !
6 in the yard outside the containment. t t
7 They cited your interrogatory response to show !
8 that you were satisfied providing it would be convenient. I i 9 don 't remember the exact word. I think it 's convenient for ,
10 the Utility and it would be more convenient for them they l t
11 thought to have it out in the yard than having it within the 12 containment building. j j 13 So they thought that they were estimating your 14 proposal basco on your answer to previous interrogatories.
(])
. 15 MR. BAXTER: Which said, the answer said I quote, f 16 "that location which is least hazardous to employees and f; 17 most accessible to radiation monitoring". closed quote. [
18 JUDGE PARIS: We ruled out constructing tanks 19 within the containment building as a means of storing water.
i i
, 20 MR. BAXTER: I understand. Judge Paris, but ;
- 21 yesterday the witness was asked about just leaving the water !
22 where it is right now. That 's i t . [
t 23 JUDGE BLOCH: So the reason that he mentioned ;
i 24 those two tanks is because that was the best understanding :
I 25 that the Applicants had based on your filings and the ;
i j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4e88 1
2 ;
I
)
-___--..,____,-.-,.._-,t
~ = . - .. . . . - .
t 735 g
1 proceeding of what you ranted done.
2 So I don't understand why that f act is ground for l
3 pursuing an alternate which was not what you seemed to be 4 proposing.
5 MS. SX0LNIK: It was -- in speakin? -- when h(
l 6 drew, he talked about the cost of two additional tanks which l 7 led to the question, why would you need two additional 8 tanks?
9 JUDGE BLOCH: The answer to that is, because we i f 10 thought that 's what you wanted. He was just trying to I
11 estimate what it was that the Intervenors seemed to want l l
12 based on their interrogatory response.
l 33 I think I have an understanding of what's j l
O 14 happening here. I think what I'd like to do is to rule that l 15 this was not properly within the scope of the hearing.
l 16 But since it's been raised, we would like it to be 17 sufficiently addressed so the Board feels that the record is l
L 18 adequate on this point. j 1 l 19 So we would 1ike to have him back and the atendard i 20 would be our satisfaction as to the adequacy of the record. l l
21 MR. BAXTER: We 'll be prepared to proceed with him ;
22 right after this break. !
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Good. l 24 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Well, why does it have to be l 25 done out of the order of what we had hoped to proceed in
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
736 1 order to accommodate witness schedules as much as possible 2 with the Staf f 's two panelo?
3 Can Mr. Buchanan made available af ter the Staf f 's 4 two panels are completed?
5 MR. BAXTER: I simply wanted to get it wrapped as 6 close to the relevant record as possible.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: That doesn't mat ter a lot to me ,
8 because I can follow it from one day to another, ;
9 MR. BAXTER: We can wait. I 10 JUDGE BLOCH: We 'll go to Staf f witnesses next.
11 We are going to recall Mr. Buchanan. Dr. Buchanan? :
12 MR. BAXTER: Mister.
.a 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Buchanan. Thank you. We 'll !
14 take a 10 minute recess. It 's 2: 22. We 'll be back at 2:32.
(]) l 15 that 's 2: 32.
l 16 (Whereupon, a ahort recess was taken.) i 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Good afternoon.
i 18 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman, the Staff presents e
19 its next witness. Ms. Linda Munson. Ms. Munson, would you r
20 state your name for the record, please? [
i l 21 M S .- MUNSON: My name is Linda F. Munson.
f 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Munson. the testimony that !
i l
l 23 you 're about to give is required to be the truth, the whole i
24 truth and nothing but the truth, t i
25 And as I 'm sure you 're already aware the testimony L
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
1 737 i
- i- that you ce about to give may be subject to penalty for perj ury.
2 Do you understand the' warning I've just given?
3 MS. MUNSON: Yes. I 4- JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
5 Whereupon. l l
6 LINDA MUNSON ;
7 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein i
8 and was examined and testified as follows:
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION i 10 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
11 Q Ms. Munson, do you have a document before you with ;
12 the general caption. Three Mile Island. Station Unit 2.
13 entitled. Testimony of Linda F. Munson Concerning -
Q 14 Contentions 2. 4(b) and 5(d)?
15 A (Munson) Yes. I do.
16 Q Will you state whether this is testimony prepared i
17 by you? ;
18 A (Munson) Yes, I did prepare this testimony.
19 Q Are there any additions or corrections you wish to 20 make? i J
t 21 A (Munson) Yes. I 'm af raid there are. On rege two i
22 in the answer to A-3. the bottom two lines of that answer.
23 The first one should read. "in assessing radiation dose I i
24 would estimate 0.0096 curies of strontium 90". We 're just !
25 inserting anotner zero in there. i 1 !
Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
1 (202) 628-4888 [
I i
i 4
738~
JUDGE BLOCH:
- i I didn 't hear another zero when you 2 said it.
3 JUDGE PARIS: Which line are you on?
4 THE' WITNESS: (Munson) The second to the last S line of answer number three.
6 JUDGE PARIS: Oh, okay.
, 7 THE WITNESS: (Munson) And that should be 0.00096 8 curies of strontium 90. And in the following line. 0.00046 9 curies in 30 years.
10 Also on page eight there are two typographical 11 type errors. On page eight. Table 2. the first heading 12 there under alternative should read. "30 year storage 13 followed by evaporation". The word, body, appears in there 14 actually. It belongs af ter total body on the f ar lef t. The
'( )
15 body slipped away there.
16 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
17 Q Excuse me. Ms. Munson, you mean the f ar right?
I 18 A (Munson) Yes, thank you.
19 Q It should go from the lef t to the right?
i 20 A (Munson) Yes, it goes from the left to the right.
21 The word processer did ne in when I wasn't looking.
22 Also on that page I don't think it would cause any 23 confusion but in first footnote at the very bottom of the c- 24 page the next to the last line on that. "could be 25 constructed for less than. it says. 8. 0. 5. The word.
I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
L
739 N i million should probably appear in there for clarity. I 2 think it 's obvious but. You can't do much for fif ty cents.
3 And those are the only correctie;ns that I 'n aware 4 of.
5 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
6 Q As corrected, is your testimony true and correct l
J- 7 to the best of your knowledge and belief?
8 A (Munson) Yes. it is.
9 MS. WOODHEAD: The Staff moves to have Ms.
10 Munson's corrected testimony admitted into the record as if 11 read.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: That shall be done and it will be 13 numbered consecutively.
1
() 14 (The testimony of Linda F.
15 MunPan concer ning Contentions 16 2, 46 and 5d was received and 1
17 inserted into the record and 18 follows:)
4 19 20 1
24 22 23 l
24 I
25 i i
! l I
([) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i f
740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL.
} Docket No. 50-320 OLA
)
) ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA I (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Disposal of Accident-station, Unit 2) ) Generated Water)
TESTIMONY OF LINDA F. MUNSON CONCERNING CONTENTIONS 2, 4b and 5d Q.1.
Pleare state your name and place of employment?
A.1, My nane is Linda F. Munson.
I am employed by Evergreen g Innovations, Inc. of Richland, Washington, a company which I own.
My professional qualifications are attached to this testimony.
Q.2.
Please state your participation in preparation of NUREG-0683 Supplement 2 (The PEIS Supplement 2).
A.2.
During preparation of supplement 2 I was' employed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and managed a project for the NRC to assist them in preparing the Supplement. I was involved in writing or reviewing virtually every section of the report.
1 O
l
741 Q.3. In regard to Contention 2, admitted to this proceeding as limited by the August 25, 1988 Memorandum and Order, please b
compare the amounts of tritium and strontium-90 which would be released by evaporation of the accident-generated water at this time and in thirty years.
I A.3. The latest data used in the Supplement for the amount of tritium and strontium-90 was taken from a February 1987 letter o from F. R. Standerfer to W. D. Travers (referenced on page 2.3 of the Supplement), and I am using those concentrations as e current even though there has been some small amount of radioactivo decay since that time. The current content of the water is 1020 curies of tritium and 0.96 curies of strontium-90. ,
Using the standard formula and calculating 30 years of radioactive decay there would be 188 Curies of tritium and 0.46 O
Curie of strontium-90 in 30 years. This is 19% of the current tritium and 48% of the current strontium-90. Evaporation at either time would release essentially all of the tritium and a '
j small fraction of the strontium. In assessing radiation dose I :
1 o ;
would estimate 0.0096 A curies of strontium-90 would be released !
i by evaporation in the near future and 0 0046 curies in 30 years.
4 Q.4. How would 30 years o.' radioactive decay affect the 50 year dose c emitment to the maximally exposed individual and the !
population? I t
l L
f 742 i e A.4.
Far the Caxibolly cxp20Cd individuol chout 99.54 of tho !
i
' total body dose ttoa evaporation of the accident-generated water i would be from tritium exposure.
That dose would be reduced to 19% of its current value in 30 years.
i f
i Approximately 87% of the bone dose to the maximally exposed individual is due to strontium-90 and another 54 is due to cesium-137 for evaporation in the near future. (The remainder '
is mostly due to isotopes that have not been found, but are presumed to be present at the detection limit.) Both strontium- i i
t 90 and cesium-137 have similar halflives (about 30 years) so it
{
is reasonable to' assume a 48% reduction in bone dose by delaying evaporation for 30 years. The following table gives the doses. '
i Radiation Dose * '
i O axi.a11y ix,os.d i
i offsite i
_ Alternative offaite Individual, Population, arem i The licensee's ' person-rem l
preferred alterative (Forced ivaporation, 0.8 bone solidification, with 0.2 bone offsite burial) 0.7 total body 3 total j
(
! body l 30 year storage 0.4 bone followed by 0.1 total body 0.09 bone I s
evaporation 0.6 total body t
- These values were rounded as the last step of calculation so given in the supplement.they may not agree exactly with calculations from ro!l I should also clarity that in calculating the offsite population doses I have assumed that the population density and land use 3 !
l O i i
_ _ _ , _ . --~ ~--~ ~ ~~ ~
743 p3ttorno do nst chengo cvor tho 30 year period. If the population were to increar.e significantly, or if there was an
() increase in dairy production, I would expect the dose to the population to increase.
Although changes in demographics could either increase or decrease doses, increases are probably more ,
likely.
l i
Q.5.
What is your conclusion about the environmental impact of these comparative doses?
A.S.
I would not attempt to evaluate environmental impact on !
the basis of a single parameter, particularly one of such minor '
significance as these radiation doses. .
In the "worst case" the dose to the maximally exposed individual is on the order of a single day of natural background and is received over a one to
() two year period.
The NCRp doesn't even calculate population doses when individual doses are this low because they consider it insignificant. '
i f
However, I have applied the environmental assessment methodolog i
of the PEIS to the alternative of thirty year storage prior to evaporation and have produced an "Environmental Assessment of 30 l I
year Storage Prior to Evaporation" as part of this testimony.
)
i Trom that evaluation I would conclude that, by spending somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 million 1988 dollars to store t 4
O ,
i l
744
. water, tho 11ccn000 c uld rcduso tho tctol body d:Co to tho toxically cxposed individual by 0.6 arem and the bone dose to the maximally exposed individual by 0.4 arem. The total body dose to the population would be reduced by something less than 2.4 person-rem (less because population density will probably increase) and the population bone dose would be reduced by 0.1 person-rem.
The probability of a traffic accident would doctease because of the lower waste transportation distance (assuming that the frequency of traffic accidents per mii* e is unchanged in 30 years) but there would be an increased probability of an accidental release of the water during storage.
In addition to the quantified cost of storage I would expect t
that in 30 years the licensee would be subject to new waste packaging and disposal requirements and unknown, but probably i
escalated waste disposal costs which would increase the cost per person-rem saved.
In sun =ary, I see nothing in this analysis that would make 30 years of storage prior to evaporation clearly preferable to the licensee's evaporation proposal.
5
. 745
. Environmental Assessment of 30 Year Storace Prior to Evaporation f')
by x' Linda F. Munson
- 1. The alternative of storing the water for 30 years prior to disposing of it by evaporation was consideration in the supplement, not given detailed addition to my testimony using the however, I have prepared this same methods supplement (except where that were used in preparation of the the board can evaluate the environmental noted) so that alternative relative to the licensee's proposal. impact of this 1.1 Description of the Alternative This alternative water in storagewould tanksrequire on the storage of the accident-generated island for a period of 30 years.
There is currently insufficient so additional storage tanks would be tank capacity on the THI-2 site, storage period, the tanks would be constructed. During the leaks and water level measurements would be made. periodically inspected for During the 30 years of storage the inventory material of radioactive assumedwould decrease inventory by radioactive of tritium decay. Table and Strontium-90 1 gives the at the time of preparation of be after 30 years,the Supplement and what the same inventory would Io U Table 1. Radionuclide Inventory of the Accident-Generated Water Curies As Curies Isotope Half-life Indicated in After 30 years Supplement 2 of decav Tritium 12.3 years 1020 188 (19%)
Strontium-90 28 years 0.96 0.46(48%)
In addition to reduction be of come radionuclides due to radioactive decay there might also evaporation loss of tritium due to since tanks are vented and possibly some small decrease in the amount of tank surfacer. strontium-90 because of plate out on These effects have this alternative. been ignored in evaluating At thewould water end ofbea disposed period of of.approximately 30 years of storage the The technology available to dispose 6
O
9 f~ of tho or cecident generated wotor in 30 yoces io likoly to bo tho 746 ocno olightly improved versions of the technology i currently avanlable. Based on the current research that I ea that is
!- aware of I have no reason to anticipate breakthroughs in tritium or strontium removal technology during that time. l i
Although the rate of regulatory change 4
that the regulations under leads me to anticipate !
different, I have not attempted to which disposal would occur would be -
be, except anticipate what they would to presume that a dis i
- site with.4n the I pennsylvania region woulu be available (posal as required by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste policy Amendsents Act of 1985.)
2 l
I Under this alternative, at the end of the 30 year storage period the water has proposed would be treated by ion exchange auch as the licensee and then disposed of by evaporation same way as the licensee has currently proposed. in auch the t 1.2 Environmental Impacts t
{ !
Except for the commitment of financial resources l
i land area, environmental impacts and a small 1
at the time of disposal (or in the event of thisofalternative all arise tank failure). j l Occupational Radiation j Excesure. Ccnstruction of tanks and t
continuing surveillance of the 1
contribute significant water tanks are not expected to exposure. additional occupational radiation .
(This is the sape conclusion reached 3.5.1.2 of the supplement.) in section
- (O 1
i Radietion E3posure I
to the Public. In the t l
accidental release absence of an during storage, radiation exposure to !
public will occur only the [
! (neglecting the very smallduring disposal dose that after 30 years !
j evaporation losses during tank storage). might occur from The radiation dose !
i received will t i population distribution and habitsdependof on the the disposal method selected and on the; i Tor this resident population. i j assessment, I have assumed that the populatior. Jensity t and population the land use patterns do not change over the 30 year period. If i were to increase significantly, or if there was I an increasetoinincrease.
population dairy production, I would expect the dose to the i either increase or decreaseAlthough such demographic t.hanges could i
] likely. doses, increases- are probably more i I
1 Table 2 shows the 50 i exposed member of the public yearand dose commitment to the maximally :
to the i
this alternative. To facilitate review, the total population from staff's calculation j
of radiation dose for the licensee's preferred alternative of i i evaporation without additional prior storage is also included, i 4
i 7 '
1 1
!O 1
i,- - - - - , - . - - -
747 commitmnnt of Resources.
Thio oitornativo rcquirOc o C oll, tcmporcry commitment new tanks. However, it is unlikely cf land on the TMI site for construction of available for any other use during that the land would be
(~') so the commitment is insignificant. the 30 year storage period, s-alternative has been estimated The cost of this cost 'is broken down in Table 3. to be $4.6 to 5.6 million. The To Costs are in currenc dollars.
facilitate review, the preferred alternative of evaporation licensee's cost estimate for their storage is also included in Table 3. without additional prior Table 2. 50 year Dose commitment From Evaporation in 30 years Maximally Exposed offsite Alternative Offsite Individual, Population,
- mram person-rem 30 year storage 0.4 bone foll 0.09 bont (bod',)
1 owed by 0.1 total body 0.6 total evaporation 'y The licensee's 0.8 bone preferred alterative 0.2 bone (Forced Evaporation, 0.7 total body 3 total body solidification, with offsite burial)
'{ , Table 3.
Cost Breakdown for 30 Year St:tage in Tanks Followed by Disposal at the End of 30 Years (costs are in millions of current dollars)
Alternative Individual Cost Elements Total 30 year storage tank construction, monitoring followed by and surveillance
- 0.5 to 1.5 evaporation distillation, treatment, vaste packaging and disposal of evaporator bottoms ** 4.1 4.6 to 5.6 Forced Evaporation, >
solidification, with offsite burial **
- 4.1
- Supplement 2 estimates $0.1 to l
longer believe 1.3 million fo'. this, however, I no that the needed tanks and arsociated piping and monitoring value is likely to be $1.0 million or more. systems could be constructed for less than $0.5 and the true ht 6[t w-
- Value from joint affidavit of Baker et. al. May 1988 8 ,
O
748 It chculd b3 natCd th0t tho COOT CotiC0tOO for cycp raticn in 30 ycora chculd b3 c:noid uncertainties, red cec what speculative due to numerous particularly with respect disposing of solid radioactive to the cost of vaste. In recent years
() radioactive of inflation.vaste disposal cost have risen many times might continue. I have neglected the possibility that this thetrend rate 1.3 Accident Analysis The potential accidents that have been considered alternative include discharges of water due to tank leaks, for this identified for evaporation, the same operational accidents accidents involving transportation of the and accidentu are analyzed in the Supplement, vaste. Similar are necessary for tank size. however adjustments for evaporation with and without 30The year maximum storageidentified accident in Table 4. The probability of is identified accidents involving wasta transportation to beto a low level waste site after 30 years are also 1
expected reduced '
to be available within the region.due to theFor fact that a site is expected analysis we have assumed a site 500 milesthe purpose of this The results of the analysis from the TMI site.
are presented in Table 5.
facilitate review, the staff's assessment To preferred alternative of evaporation without of the licensee's storage is also included. additional prior 4
Ir Table 4. Assessment of Radiological Impacts of operational Accidents
. Maximum Alternative Accident Individual, Population Description mrem person-rem 4
30 year storage tank failure followed by 0.6 bone 30.7 bone evaporation (500,000 gal *) 0.09 total 0.9 total body body Licensee's preferred Alternative Evaporation,(Forced tank failure 0.015 bone Solidification, with (11,000 gal **) 0.7 bone offsite burial) 0.002 total 0.015 total body body t
I have storage wouldascumed be 500,000thatgallons.
the largest single tank that would be used for 30 years seems extremely unlikely. The failure of more than one tank in
- This is the same maximum accident anticipated in the Supplement.
9 I
~, .
749 [
1.4 Reaulatory Considerations !
I 4 Although form is storage of a high an unusual volume of radioactive waste in liquid i action, believe impediments to storing would I
O significant regulatory tanks on the TMI site for there the be no liquid 30 years. Disposal at the end of the in
! 30 year storage period would be !
t effect at that time. Disposal subject to the regulations in ;
would still require approval of the NRC under the Commissioner's 1981 policy Statement. I i
) expoet that evaporation after 30 years would !
regulatory impediments. not have other l
Table 5. Estimated Non radiological !
Accident Impacts from offsite shipments !
4 Number of Estinated Number Alternative Shioments Accidents
- Iniuries Fatalities :
Jo year storage 68* 0.004**
i followed by 0.003** 0.0002** l 0 cvaporation 1
- (
{ Forced Evaporation, 68* 0.6***
, solidification, with 0.5*** 0.03*** . !
offsite burial t
- Value includes 60 shipments of resin liners Supplement E and 8 as described in ic shipments of evaporator bottoms as described in the al.
) ()e*intaffidavitofBakeret.
Accident rates are extrapolated based on the ratio of the distances.
e**
These accident rates are extrapolated from the case of 60 shipments to 3.1.2.3low the level waste 2.
site near Richland, Washington given it. Section of Supplement i
l
)
4 4 .
l I
10 l
{
(}
i j
. 750 TESTIMONY OF LINDA F. MUNSON CONCERNING CONTENTION 4b Q.1.
Please address the issue of the concentration of tritium in the accident-generated water set out in the Memorandum and Order which states the evaporation has no effect on the concentration of tritium in the affluent.
a concentration of 2.1 uCi If the water contains exceed its permissible con /ml...the Licensee will tinuous release rates which is 570 uCi/sec (release limit of 3 gal / min.
Memorandum and Order, August 25, 1988, at 42.
A.1.
A tritium concentration of 2.1 uci/ml in a significant volume of the accident generated water is inconsistent with the data we reviewed in preparing the Supplement.
Tritium concentration is the amount of tritium divided by the I{) volume (in appropriate units). The original PEIS (1981) estimated that there were 2910 Ci of tritium in the water (decay corrected to September 30 1980) which, at that time, totaled 1.54 million gallons (page 7-47). This equates to a concentration of 0.50 uCi/ml. Since that time tritium has decayed, exchsnged with the atmosphere, and been diluted with water containing very little tritium, all of which will reduce the concentration of tritium.
The July 31, 1986 submissian by GPU which initiated the Supplement (their number 4410-86-L-0114 --Document ID 0058P) 31 j
751 '
listcd tha cvCr0g3 tritiua c:ne:ntraticn in tho watcr cs 0.13 uCi/ml. The document also presents a reconciliation of the
(]'
v estimate it used, 1020 Curies, with the or).ginal PEIS value.
This reconciliation defined the quantities of tritium released in the interim, taking radioactive decay into account. My review of the submission showed 0.13 uCi/ml to be credible. The document also presents what it calls "actual source terms" which includes the tritium concentration in 25 locations. The contaminated drains had the lowest tritium concentration but reportedly contained only 2751 gallons of water. The tritium concentrations in the other 23 locations ranged from 0.045 to 0.30 uCi/ml.
Four additional letters from GPU, referenced in footnote 1 to Table 2.2, gave additional information on the source term. Some
((] contained analytical results for tritium that were consistent with the previous data.
The document which contained the 2.1 uC1/ml value was labeled "Technical Specifications for Processed Water Disposal for CPU Nuclear Corporation Three Mile Island-Onit 2 Nuclear Power Plant" and was apparently approved to "Issue for Bids". It was first supplied to me during this litigation (about mid April 1988.) In addition to the narrative section on page 43 that contains "typical water chemistry for processed water", "based on PWST-2", which gives the 2.1 uC1/ml value, the document also 12 O
752
/
ccntoinc cn updatcd varcicn of tha radionuclida invcntory at tho 25 locations.
The table lists the tritium concentration of PWST-2.as 2.42E-01 uCi/ml (decay corrected to 10/01/88).
Tritium concentrations given for the other 24 locations also support the reasonableness of the supplement value in that they range from 0.0389 to 0.26 uCi/ml, neglecting the contaminated drains which are relatively low in volume and in tritium concentration.
Q.2.
How does this typographical error affect the release and dose estimates in NURIG-0683 Supplement 2.
A.2.
The typographical error has no effect. Final Supplement 2 was written and printed in June 1987 before the referenced document, with the typographical error, was available to us.
!{} (Although it is dated December 1986 I first saw it during discovery, cround April 15, 1988.)
To reiterate, in evaluating the licensee's proposal, an average
' tritium concentration of 0 13 uCi/ml was used as indicated in Table 2.2 of supplement 2.
A 20 gpm feed rate to the evaporator was assumed in calculating a release rate of 160 uci/sec (section 3.1.1.2 on page 3.6).
Calculations of radiation dose were based upon these values.
The feed rate of the evaporator affects the rate at which the dose is received but not the total dose.
13
. ~
l f 753 TESTIMONY CF LINDA F. NUNSON 1
CONCERNING CONTENTION 5d Q.1.
Explain why the staff, in the Supplement, estimated a greater risk of genetic effects than fatal cancers in the general population from evaporation while the NCRP Report in the Supplement and the licensee (Dr. Behling's affidavit) did not?
A.1.
The NCRP and apparently the licensee as well considered only the radiation dose received by the gener61 population from
- evaporation.
We considered that the radiation dose received by the workers doing the evaporation would result in genetic effects to their progeny. We considered their progeny as members of the general population.
I Q.2.
i Do your estimates contradict the nothodology of the NCRP?
t A.2. No.
I consider that we are in fundamental agreement. Our reasons for calculating more genetic effects are essentially unrelated to the heal'.h effects of tritium.
Q.3.
Do you disagree with the licensee's statement that, "The risk of genetic effect or fetal injury is considerably smaller"
[th*an the risk of cancer)?
14 O
754 fi, A.3.
It 10 o valid ctot=cnt if you cro diccu:: sing cnly tho !
dose from material dispersed into the atmosphere from '
eivaporation as the NCRP did. However, the methodology we used is more conservative in that worker dose is considered to i contribute to genetic effects. It therefore leads 1:o a !
different conclusion. I agree that the risk to the offsite I
population and their progeny from genetic offects is less than :
the risk of fatal cancers. ,
f Q.4.
Is worker exposure from evaporation likely to be a i problem? -l
?
t A.4 No. I Worker exposures from evaporation would be a small
[
portion of the worker exposure. Worker exposure at TMI-2 is i
less than what workers receive at most operating plants. It is I
( {
just larger than the very low population dose.
Q.5, !
Please summarize the r'easons that the licensee's and the staff's estimate of cancers and genetic effects differ. I C
i A.5. i We did our calculations independently with no effort to t.
i match the licensee's estimate. As a result our health !
l, physicists and the licensee's used different computer models with slightly different values for most parameters. Examples include population distribution, land and water use, meteorology, etc. Also, we used different quality factors for I 15
'O ;
I
- 755 a
< All of thoco differenc30 h vo cinar offcets en tha i
calculated impact. In my opinion the only significant discrepancy is in the calculation of genetic effects in the
- offsite population. There is a simple explanation for this i difference. We considered workers' children as part of the j
offsite population, they did not.
i i
1 l
9 4
!'O i
1 i
a f
1 l
1
' 16 i
- O E
L
756 I i
i Linda F. Hanson President .
Evergreen Innova,tfor,s, Inc.
2323 $nchemish ;
Richland, Washin; ton 99352 !
M.S. A41ytical Chemistry, Iowa State University 1968 l.A. Chemistry, United States International University 1968 '
January 1931 to January 1988. :
Associate Section Manager of the Oosimetry Technolo;y Pacific North est Laboratories .
Section of B i P.O. Box 999, Richland, Washin; ton 99352. !
August 1972 to January 1981 ud ted Nuclear Industries as Environmental Engineer, Senior Envirene '.41 Engineer, Project Mana;er and Mana;er, !
Incastrial Safety. .
Prior es trience at the University of Minnesota, Colle;e of Veterinary Medicine;as assistant at ! cat State a research University. assistant and laboratory instructor, !a
.. In ey current capacity I am a consultant in health physics and [
radicaci,ive and others. malte management to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) !
In ry positics at Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. I ransaed re uIatienthe of project to assist the cleanup the US Nuclear Regulatory Comission in of TMI-2.
I was project mana er and an author of Dra;ft atic Frogra. andr Final Supplement No.1 and Draft and Final $wa;plere i reactor. nvironmental Irpact Statetent governing cleanup of the TMI 2 ,
In this capacity ! participated in pubite hearings, made :
the Cleanu:preser,tatiens to ths Advisory Panel to the Nuclear Re;ulatory Comission on Reactor safe;uards.of TMI 2, and to a Subcomittee of the Associated Comittee on !
l
! aise participated in three multi disciplinary team Technical Safety Appraisals for DOE HQ.
I I served as the Industrial Hygiene appraiser for two uranium enrichrent facilities and thu /sdiation protection practices I appraiser at a Itquid metal breeder reactor. '
s
! participated in a sajor contract to frprove radiation protection practices at a major fuel fabrication facility. I also managed a contract to !'
j upgrade facility. radiation and environmental protection at a uranium extrusion i
. f
!O l
- 757 I was the principal author of a study of chemical decontamination
. of accident-damaged reactors (such as THI) for the Electric Power Research Institute.
c 1 assisted COE Headquarters in an evaluation of emergency preparedness at one of their major sites and served as an observer for the NRC on numerous emergency preparedness exercises at commercial power reactors.
I managed and contributed to, a study to provide guidance in ,
decontamination planning for the US NRC.
I participated in an NRC program to perform in-depth team appraisals of radiation protection at all of tie NRC licensed uranium mills.
In a previd *osition with UNC Nuclear Ind m ries I, with the help of an able staff .pensible for industrial safety, industrial hygiene and fire crotec; a nuclear reactor and the fuel fabrication facilities that supp'erted it.
I manaaed and contributed to a study of decommission alternatives for the West ValIey Fuel Reprocessing Plant under contract with Argonne Natier,al Laboratory.
For several years I working with a commercial enterprise of UNC, preparing licensee environmental reports and license applicstions for several 7**-
different clients in uranium mining, uranium milling, and nuclear fuel.
fabricati'n. I also team taught a course, "Radiation Protection in Uranium Mining and Milling", tested and selected mine water treatment processes.
O ouring my in4tiai assignment at the reactor i a:sisted in operation of a pilot plant to treat reactor effluents using various ion exchange processes. I also assisted in the classification and sampling of environmental release points and incressed my knowledge of health physics through courses and self study. '
O
_ _ - . - . . _ w
758
'i MS. WOODHEAD: Ms. Munson is available for cross
(%.)') .
2- examination.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to clarify that we w
j 4 bound in the testimony but not the attachments I assume, is i
} 5 that correct?
I' 6 MS. WOODHEAD: Pardon me?
i
' 7 JUDGE BLOCH: There were attachments, weren 't 8 there? No. Okay. Were the attachments in the wrong place.
1 3 9 MS. WOODHEAD: I 'm sorry. I failed to identify 4
- 10 the-fact that her professional qualifications are attached i 11 to her testimony. Is that what you mean?
j 12 JUDGE BLOCH: But these things are not part of her 13 testimony?
l- 14 MS. WOODHEAD: No.
f])
{ 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Thnnk you.
l 16 MS. WOODHEAD: Let the record reflect that the 17 testimony includes Ms. Munson's professional qualifications.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
19 MS. WOODHEAD: And also, I failed to mention that l
l 20 previously I had provided the Court reporter a corrected 21 copy of the testimony. Now, Ms. Munson is available for 22 cross examination.
l l 23 CROSS EXAMINATION i
- 24 BY MS. SKOLNIK
j 25 Q Ms. Munson. is it possible that -- I 'm looking at i
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i e
i
759 t .
T~T - 1 your environmental assessment for the 30 year storage prior L.) ,
2 to evaporation.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik. you may want to ask 4 something other than, is it possible.
5 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, well --
6 MS. WOODHEAD: Are you referring to page six of 7 her testimony?
8 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes.
9 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
10 Q On line nine, 10 could you identify how mucn time 11 capacity there is available on TMI-2?
12 A (Munson) I don't really consider myself to be an 13 authority on the tank capacity at TMI-2 I know of no
() 14 reason that there would be -- that it would be any different 15 than has been reported by the Licensee in their affidavit.
16 We 've seen that information before and I have no 17 reason to question it. But, you know. I have no new 18 information on that.
, 19 Q Did you, in your assessment, did you evalutte the 20 cost of additional tankage?
21 A (Munson) Yes. I belit.ve that there is a sort of ,
22 bounding tank cost estimate. It 's not an extremely rigorous 23 cost estimate. But a cost estimate does appear on page eight.
c Q .And what tankage did you use in order to get that
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-760
. i figure?
2 A (Munson) Okay. That was my understanding of the
'3 approximate cost of constructing a-single 500.000 gallon 4 tank.
5 I believe that, that same figure appears in our 6 supplement. Let me check that. ]k) . Excuse me. The lower t
7 figure, the .$10,000 appears in'our supplement.
l s, 8 And while some people may be able to construct a 9 tank for that. I have, after thinking about it after the 10 supplement was published. I have serious doubts that it il could be done so cheaply particularly at a nuclear )wer 12 plant j ust because of ' the kinds of inspections and sinds of 13 controls and security and so on that are involved with any 14 ~ activity at a power plant.
(])
'15 Q So really does this cost -- are you saying then 16 that this cost doesn't really reflect anything that 's t
17 feasible?
18 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. That was not her 19 testimony. I believe she said that her --
4 20 JUDGE BLOCH: The obj ection is sustained. The j l 21 question isn 't well phrased. l L 22 BY MS. SKOLNIK 23 Q What does the cost .5 to 1.5 million refer to?
4 24 A (Munson) That is what I know -- believe would be
'83
. the cost of constructing a 500.000 gallon tank on the TMI
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, . - , , _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ -
h 761
~N 1 site.
-(d 2, I should add that this tank would be a rather l
3 standard kind of tank much as what 's there. I didn ' get l
l 4 into -- I noticed in the License? 's testimony they talked 5 about some particular waste storage criteria. They were not 6 applied and they are not reflected in this estimate.
7 Q Is the tank capable of atoring water for 30 years?
l' 8 A (Munson) I believe that within this cost range 9 you could build a tank that would be, yes.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Munson, how did you estimate the 11 market cost?
12 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Basically I looked at 13 other environmental impact statements that contained
() 14 construction costs for various tanks and other kinds of 15 things. Made a few adj ustments for inflation.
16 It 's intended to be a ball park figure to allow 17 comparison with the other alternatives in the supplenent, 18 not to be an absolute number.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: I know but it j ust seems to me yoc 'd 20 have to call someone to find out what tanha are going for.
21 Did you call someone to find out what tanks were going for?
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) No, I didn 't. I did look 23 at other environmental impact s+atements that I had around
, 24 and looked and said, okay, we 'll add a f air escalation 2S figure to that. That 's how I did i t. Perhaps it could have
( Heri*uge Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,y l 762 l e
l
(^T. 1 been done better.
L) 2 BY MS. SKOLN1K: i 3' Q So would this cost -- does this cost reflect the ;
l 4 total cost that would be needed to develop the no action j 5 alternative? )
i 6 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. That is not her !
? testimony. l 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Well. I think it 's a f air question. l 9 If you 'd like to clarify why it 's not your testimony you can !
I i
10 say that.
11 Is this the whole cost of the no action f i
12 alternative? i i
13 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I guess having sat here [
() 14 for three days. I don 't know what the no action alternative 15 is. i 16 I knew what we called the no action alternative !
17 when we wrote the supplement. And I don 't believe that 18 that 's what you 're talking about when you say the no action 19 alternative.
20 There 's a sort of, what I would call, an enhanced 21- storage alternative that we evaluated here. And this is my 22 estimate of the cost of that alternative in this 4
23 environmental accessment.
24 And I've described the alternative I think in 25 sufficient detail that it should be clear what my
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
763
(] i assumptions were.
.v 2 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
1 3' Q Okay. Those were the assumptions I was going on.
4~ A (Munson) Okay. -
5 Q Maybe we should clarify exactly what it is. the no 6 action alternative to you is, so that when I ask you 7 questions you understand that I'm referring to the same 8 point.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don 't you instead ask her what 's i
j 10 included. For example, what would be the expected life of 11' the tanks that your estimating?
12 THE WITNESS: (Munson) What I have included. the
! 13 alternative that is covered in this environmental O 14 e==e=== eat- briertv de=cribed e= 3o veer atorese c *ne f 15 base case water followed by evaporation.
iG I woulJ 1't consider that to be a no action kind of 17 alternative but I think that 's the sort of alternative I 18 haar you advocating.
19 And that was the shcrt label I put on it. It l
20 doesn 't include pretreating first to an echievable case or l 21 anything like that.
l 22 It just takes base case water, pute it in existing l
l 23 tanks and constructs at least one new tank onsite and then 24 at the end of 30 years. the water is subject to evaporation.
( 25 And there are a number of assumptions built into Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
764
- this necessarily particularly since I'm not an economist,' I
("f i
2 didn't try to crystal ball inflation. But that 's what this
'3-environmental assessment is.
4 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
5 Q Was the base case water enalysis used for the 6 water which you considered in the no action alternative in 7 the environmental impact stateinent?
8 A (Munson? Yes, it was. Early in Section III. we 9 have a table which is on : sage 3. 2 of the EIS, Summary of 10 Alternatives Evaluated.
11 it tr.dicates that the Section 5.3.1 talks about-12 "liquid storage in tanks. parentheses (no action 13 alternative)".
(} 14 Under the column. retreatment it says. "no".
15 indicating that, that would be base case water.
16 Likewise under Evaporation folidification of 17 bottoms and disposal of license burial ground, the i
18 Licensee 's preferred alternative as we evaluate it.
19 retreatment is labeled. "no." For the river discharge it 's 20 labeled. "yes." That was the meaning of that.
21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: You stated 5.3.1 you meant --
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I do that very easily. I 23 apologine. Yes. 3. 5.1 liquid storage in tanks.
24 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
25 Q Is the base case water suitable for its disposal
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
765 t
'(]
v i- into the environment?
2' A (Munson) How?
3 Q The concentrations that are listed in the base l t
4 case. Are those -- would those meet regulations if disposed ;
S into the environment? Oh, I see, by dumping into the river? !
6 A (Munson) I believe that were it done slow enough.
7 yes,-it would be. That particular situation is notually ,
8 analyzed in here not as any sort of elternative that we 1
9 considered but as the maximum credible accident under a true i 30 no action alternative whtye you simply -- with the water and l 11 don't . dispose of it ever or don't do anything. !
i 12 On page 5.9 that is Table S.2 where we talk about 13 storage in tanks and ultimately all the tanks failed. l
() 14 The maximally exposed individual would receive a r
15 dose of 3 millir em to the bone and 0. 4 millirem total body.
- 16 The population would receive a dose of 140 person-
{
i 17 rem to the bone and 4 person-rem to the total body. That ,
l- i
! 18 isn 't totally out of line for discharges if it were done t
! I l 19 over a period of years particularly, it would probably be a !
! I j 20 permissible action.
t j 21 (Continued on the next page.)
l 22 (
23 l 24 !
1 25
' l
! l
) Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 I
766
(' i - BY MS. SKOLNIX (Continuing):
\ >y 2 Q Did the NRC stipulate a policy in 1980 concerning 3 the concentrations of water which had to be achieved before 4 this water would be disposed of?
5 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec tion. Outside the scope of 6 testimony.
7 JUDGE-BLOCH: If there is a regulation or an 8 issuance of the Commission, you can cite tha'.,
9 Ms. Skolnik - if the line of question $ng you were !
10 going to start actually ties into the testimony, you could 11 answer the obj ection rather than acceding to it. But it has j 12 to tie into the testimony. Sometimes you start at a lit;'.e 13 distance f rom it and you come back, but it has to be tied in
() 14 logically.
15 MS. SKOLNIK Yes, right. The reason I was asking 16 it was because -- i 17 JUDGE BLOCH: You don 't have to say. If you have 18 no reason to tie it in --
19 MS. SKOLNIK: No. I do have a reason, though.
20 Thr t 's the thing.
21 (Pause) !
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Perhaps an addition to 23 that last answer might help you. And that is. I am aware 24 that anything that is done with the accident-generated !
l 25 water, any disposal does require the Commission's approval '
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
767 i and so clearly I can't speak for the Commission. So I 2 don't mean to imply that absolutely it would be all right to 3 discharge base case water. But it isn't an unusual sort of 4 thing for a power plant to discharge water of that 5 concentration.
6 MS. SKOLNIX: The reason I'm proceeding in this is 7 because Ms. Munson has assumed that the water has to be the 8 base case and I wanted to question further about the policy i 9 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as far as the 10 concentrations of the water that might be able to be stored 11 on site.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: If the cas. is one that you can 13 legitimately raise, because you 've put people on notice that
() 14 that 's what you 're laterested in, then you can pursue it.
iS If it 's a new idea, then we 'll have an obj ection.
16 It may be that there were other alternatives that l 17 coul.d have been done in the EIS but we 're not at that stage 18 now. We 're constructing a record f rom this proceeding that
! io will cure whatever problems you 've raised, that you 've i
20 raised in a legitimate way.
I 21 MS. SKOLNIK: I think it 's related though to what 22 we determined yesterday in cross examination, that the base l 23 case in the Environmental Impact Statement may not be the l 24 influent to the evaporator, that the evaporator might be ,
I :
20 used for batch cycles. l
() Heritage Reporting Corporstion (202) 628-4888 f l \
l
I 768 L/% 1 MR. BAXTER: We also established that that doesn't I 2~ matter because it 's not being released at that point.
3 MS. SKOLNIK: So what I 'm trying to determine then l 4 is the beginning point to decide at which the water will be 5 disposed of.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: That depends on what the alternative 7 is and it depends on what the cost is of getting that 8 alternative worked out. Obviously, if you 're going to 9 preprocess the water, it 's going to cost more than if you l
10 don't preprocess it and store it. A true no-action 11 alternative would not be preprocessing the water That 's 12 action.
13 CPause)
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, there seems to be some 15 need for you to clear your mind and get clear on what you 're 16 trying to do because there 's a lot of hesitation.
17 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, there is.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: How would you propose to get 19 organized so that while we're in session things can flow 20 more quickly?
21 MS. SKOLNIK: I feel as though I am organized.
22 though, because I 'm thinking through the process.
23 JUDGE BLOCH. Okay. But what I want is to have 24 your thinking time done so that when we 're sitting here we 25 don't have to sit with nothing for long periods of time.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 769 f~') ; 1 There should be something happening. That 's what cross x_/.
2 examination is. It isn't waiting for you to come up with 3 the next question.
4 Now, if there 's no way to. do that then we 'll j ust S suffer with you. But there will' be a time at which I'll say 6 okay, this isn't producing very much, and we 'll set a time 7 limit. So j ust, I'd like you to be as ef ficient as you can.
8 We want you to be able to have a chance to ask productive 9 questions. But we really don't expect to sit here for long 10 periods of time while you get organized. The thinking about 11 what you 're going to ask should have been done before.
12 MS. SKOLNIK: Perhaps my thinking isn 't as 13 organized as it could have been had I been, had I realized
(]) 14 the burden that is upon me to show that the no-action 15 alternative is superior. It is a different way of thinking.
16 / Td I'm still struggling with that.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. We 'l l try to go along with 18 you for a while. Let 's see how it goes.
19 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
20 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
21 Q How often, Ms. Munson, do you think that the tanks 22 would need to be inspected?
23 A (Munson) Tanks outside might be inspected oh.
24 perhaps even as often as daily in a cursory fashion. It 25 depends on what you mean by inspection. Certainly n
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7
..- c) 770' l 4 t
- j. (T 1 thorough inspection would be a much more infrequent kind of i n) '
l l 2 activity. t io >
i 3 Q And what'do you mean by inspection in your .I L
4 testi mony ? Let me find that. i j' !
5 MS. WOODHEAD: Would you refer to the page, t
(
6 please?- !
!- 7 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. I 'm looking for it. i i- !
! 8 BY MS. Sr.0LNIK : !
t t 9 Q Page 6. second paragraph. fourth line, starting on
~
10 the fourth line, l 11 A (Munson) I have indicated that the tanks would be 12 . periodically inspected for leaks and water level 13 measurements would be made. I would guess that an 14 inspection for leaks might be as casual as a drive-by from a 15- vehicle perhaps once a day. Level measurements would !
16 perhaps be recorded weekly. Something along that line. The 17 commitment of time for this activity on outdoor tanks I l i
18 assumed would be quite minimal. ;
19 JUDGE PARIS: Be quite what? l 20 THE WITNESS: (Munsc;n) Minimal. !
21 BY MS. SK0LNIr. :
22 Q Could you explain why it 's necessary to take water j I
23 level measurements?
i 24 A (Munson) Well, of course, if it doesn 't leak you ;
{
25 don't need to take water level measuremants. But my i Heritage Reporting Corporution (202) 628-4888 ,
l.
m ,
i '
771
/~T 1 thinking was that given the sensitivity of this water. given
()
2 the great embarrassment to the Utility should they suddenly 3 find that there had been a leak or whatever, that they would 4 want to keep a running inventory on the water and to take 5 level measurements. Actually. level measurements on very 6 large tanks don't tell you very much because it takes many 7 gallons change of course to change the level very much 8 except by temperature differer.ces. But I would presume that 9 you would want a record of that. It isn't a necessity I 10 don 't believe. But I believe it would be a very good idea.
11 JUDGE PARIS: ! suppose you could have a leak in 12 the bottom seeping inlo the ground that you could not 13 detect.
14 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Certainly.
(])
15 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q Would that require many people to do that job?
17 A (Munson) I would have assumed it was clear from
- 18 what I said earlier that an individual driving by once a 19 week or once a day, that would only require one person to 20 measure. The level would depend on what kind of 21 instrumentation you had installed. But certainly it would 22 be very easy to install instrumentation where a single 23 individual could do that, probably on several tanks within 4 24 an hour.
25 Q Did you factor that into the cost for the 30-year
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 1
e t
772 i alternative?
. h~'s 2 MS. WOODHEAD: Could you clarify what costs you 3 mean?
4 MS. SKOLNIX: Costs for monitoring.
5 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
I 6 Q First of all. are the tanks that are present on 7 the site at the moment already, ao they have monitoring 8 equipment?
9 A (Munson) GPU has a surveillance program. I 'm not 10 familiar with the details of that curveillance program. In 11 the alternative that I've called 30-year storage followed by 12 evaporation on the cost table on Page 8. I talk about tank 13 construction monitoring and surveillance with regard to the
() 14 cost figures. Yes, it is included.
Line 3. could you tell us 15 Q Thank you. On Page 7 16 something about the current research that you are aware of?
17 A (Munson? The only research, the only methods that 18 I am aware of we covered in the supplement. And j ust a 19 minute. I 'll find you that reference.
20 (Pause) 21 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. On Page 3. 38 there 22 are two methods of removing tritium from watet that are 23 discussed: combined catalytic exchange treatment and water 24 distiilation treatment. I don't believe that there is an 25 ac tive research program involved in either one of these.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o 773
(~~' ) i But there might be some advances in this technology.
J C/ -
2 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
3 Q Have you done further research since 19867 4 A (Munson) No , I have not.
5 Q Why do you have no reason then to anticipate ;
6 breakthroughs? !
7 A' (Munson) I have no reason to anticipate l
8 breakthroughs becetuse with the exception of the TMI 9 situation. I am not aware of any large body of water with 10 relatively, tritium at these levels that anyone would wish 11 to recover. And generally there is something that drives 12 research that ts money into it. Someone has a resource 13 that they want to get out, something like that. And I 'm not
() 14 aware of any such situation anywhere.
1S Q Ic it true though that, is it true that the demand 16 for low-level waste space is increasing faster than the 17 supply?
16 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. Outside the scope of 19 the testimony.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: It seems related to what we were 21 just talking about. So I 'll allow it.
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Very, very little low-23 level waste space is taken up by tritium waste, and further, 24 i t 's very. very difficult to take a large body of a dilute 25 waste and concentrate the waste and to f ree release the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) S28-4888 1
r~7 -
i 774 ,
4 1
1 material that 's lef t. I guess I've gotten of f your
(}
v 2 question. Your question again was is the supply --
3 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
4 Q Is the demand for low-level waste, not liquid 5 tritiated water, is the demand for low-level waste greater 6 than the supply?
7 A (Munson) I don 't think that was --
8 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ect ion. I believe you misstated 9 your question. You asked about a demand for low-level 10 waste. I don 't think there 's a demand. ',
11 MS. SKOLNIK: Maybe there is. Maybe comebody l
12 wants the tritiated water.
13 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
14 Q The demand for low-level waste sites.
(])
15 A (Munsor) There is a great deal of activity 16 involved in finding new sites. There are two active sites 17 that I'm aware of in the United States, maybe, no, I believe 18 there are three active burial sites. All of them have 19 capacity at this time for the vaste that 's expected to come 20 from power plants the next few years. There is a Low-Level 21 Waste Policy Amendments Act that mandates that new regional 22 sites be developed. I see a decrease in the supply of low-23 level waste, particularly from reactors, and in the near 24 future I expect that thera will be more sites available.
25 Q Don 't you think that -- isn 't. at the same time
() Heritage Reporting Corporation
(^02) 608-4888
_ . _ . - _ - . . .- .-.. .-_..-. . . ._ ..--...~.-.
I 773 that a demand is increasing, and supply -- oh. you 're
} i 2 saying, okay, as more low-level waste is created, hasn 't it i 3 been the policy of the Nuclear F.egulatory Commission to !
4 ?ncourage volume reduction of waste? l i
5 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ect ion. This witness cannot j 6 speak for the policy of the Commission. !
l 7 MS. SKOLNIX: Well, the reason -- I 'm basing my j 8 questions on the sentence based on the current'research. {
l 9 And what I 'm t rying to -- !
10 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's about technological change, f f
11 right? !
f 12 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. I 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Strontium or tritium removal j
() 14 technology. What you just asked is not related to that.
I T51/B166 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l l
16 Q Is it possible that research on tritium and 17 strontium removal technology could accelerate because of the I 18 need for tritium in the defense industry? l 19 A (Munson) I think the answer to that question is l o
20 no but I don 't think you asked the one you wanted to. l 21 Q No, that 's right.
L t
22 A (Munson) Could cesium and strontium removal j 23 technology be improved because of the need for tritium? I l
24 don 't think so. !
25 JUDGE BLOCH: 1 think she said tritium, as I heard [
t V
() Heritage Repo r t i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888 {
t
~ . . . .
776 1 it.
(
r]
2 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
3 Q Yes. Tritium.
4 A (Munson) Tritium removal technology could be 5 enhanced because of the need for tritium? Is that what you 6 were asking?
7 Q Yes. Because of the demand for tritium in other.
8 in the defense industry? Do you think it 's possible that 9 that might accelerate research into that technology?
10 A (Munson) Yes. Certainly it 's possible.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: You 've got cnother one of those 12 "it 's possible" questions.
I could have answered.that one.
13 too.
14 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I was taking lessons from 1
({}
15 you earlier.
', 16 BY MS. SK0LNIX:
17 Q Would you say that your knowledge of current 18 research is all inclusive of the research that is going on 19 at the moment?
20 A (Munson) Absolutely not.
21 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
i 22 Q Is it possible that in five years time that
]
23 progreau could offer us new and better things with nuclear 24 waste technology? 1 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. I 'll answer that. No. l l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=_
777 1 seriously, you 've got to nere carefully phrase what you ,
{}
2 want. Anything is possible.
3 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, I guess that 's my point.
4 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
5 Q As technology is developed, isn't it likely that 6 costs could decrease for disposal of radioactive waste?
7 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ection to this line of 8 questioning. This is highly speculative. The witness has 9 stated her entire knowledge. And the subsequent questions 10 nave just been repetitive.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: It is repetitive. But I 'll allow 12 this one question.
13 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Are you asking me to
() 14 contradict my testimony that says that the cost of waste 15 disposal has been going steadily up for the past se /eral 16 years? Do I think that 's going to continue? I have no way 17 of knowing. But giant decreases would surprise me very 18 mJch.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: The economic factor you really want 20 has to do with discounting for the present and it has to do 21 with rates of inflation. That 's even harder to predict.
[
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I did my affidavit the way ,
23 I did because I'm not qualified to testify in that area.
24 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
25 Q Ms. Munson, is there a reason why the water must n/
s_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
778 7's 1 be evaporated and the tritium dispersed into the air?
\_)
2 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec tion. That is not her 3 testimony, that it must be evaporated. This witness '
4 testimony concerns inree narrow issues.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained.
6 BY MS, SKOLNIX:
7 Q When you calculated the dose commitment f rom 30-8 year storage, you also calculated the dose -- sorry. Let me 9 turn you to the right page. Page 8 When you calculated 10 the dose from the 30-year storage, and compared it with the ,
f 11 preferred alternative of the Licensee 's, did you include the 12 dose from dismantling and decontamination of the evaporator? ,
13 A (Munson) No. The estimate contains no dose for 14 dismantling and decontamination or the evaporator.
-( ) '
15 Q Did it contain a dose for dismantling and 16 decontamination?
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Did it contain a dose for 18 dismantling and decontamination of the tanks that would hold 19 the water in the no-action alternative?
20 THE WITNESS: (Munson) No, it did not.
21 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
22 Q Did it include the dose from decontaminating all 23 of the tanks af ter the evaporation?
24 A (Munson) No, it does not include that dose.
25 However, if you look at the PEIS. there is a calculation of
() Heritabe Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1
t 779
{} 1 2.
the dose rate from base case water. It occurs on Page 2. 4.
In the course of preparing the supplement, we calculated the 3 dose rate from a hypothetical tank, 3,800 gallon tank of 4 accident-generated water and at three feet the external dose 5 rate would be 0.3 millirem per year. Any water left on the 6 tanks would not give the workers dismantling them any 7 appreciable dose. ;
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Munson, we have the situation in P
9 this case that the EIS is admitted as an exhibit but not in ,
10 evidence. But I assume when you refer to it you are il referring to it in a way that suggests that you are still in 12 agreement with the results that you are citing?
13 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. If I know of any 14 reason why the result is not valid I will be sure and point
(])
iS that out. Thank you.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: To the extent that Ms. Munson makes 17 her reference to that exhibit, what she refers to can be 18 considered in evidence.
p 19 BY MS. SKOLNIX: i 20 Q Ms. Munson, did you compare the amount of waste 21 that would be created by the evaporation process with the l
22 no-action alternative of leaving the water on the Island for l 23 30 years? I 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. The question is obscure 2S to me because that doesn 't create any waste. You mean the
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
o r
?
780
(~y ;t amount that would be dispersed?
D 2 MS. SKOLNIK: No. I meant the evaporation 3- bottoms, anything that would'be left after dispersal with ;
- 4 anything that would be left, if there would be anything left 3
1 5 from 30-year storage.
6 MR. BAXTER: That the water is still there? .
t 7 MS. SKOLNIK: If the water would still be there. l 8 Right. Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I think there would be 2.3 10 million gallons of water left. is that what you 're asking?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is not understandable.
12 MS. SKOLNIK: No. That 's all right. Okay.
i 13 Forget it.
'14 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
, 15 Q Did you calculate the dose to the thyroid from '
16 either the 30-year storage or the Licensee 's preferred 17 alternative when you compared the -- in this particular
! 18 evaluation?
19 A (Munson) No. I did not. ;
! Would the dose, would there be a dose -- did you 20 Q
- 21 consider any other alternative to 30-year storage 22 followed -- did you consider 30-year storage followed by any i
23 other alternative? 5 24 A (Munson) Not in any quantitative way, no.
l 25 Q Is it the Commission policy to mitigate the
() Heritage Reportir; Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
r I
l
r I l
781 1
(~/y 1 adverse effects?
x_ i 2 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ection.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained.
4 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
i 5 Q Okay. Ms. Munson, does the 30-year storage ;
6 followed by evaporation -- well, no. It 's all right. Your 7 testimony says that itself.
8 Yesterday there was a question left to you from 9 the Masnik and Thonus testimony.
10 A (Munson) I think I recall it, but would you give 11 me the question?
12 Q Yes. I believe it was Nunber 4: The NRC assumes 13 that the concentrations of rac:onuclides shown in Table 2.2
() 14 can reasonably be considered a maximum and upon this 15 assumption based its dose calculations.
16 MS. WOODHEAD: What is the question?
17 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
18 Q Why did you assume a DF of 1.000 when the licensee 19 in the proposal of July 1986 stated that they expected a DF l
l 20 of 100?
21 A (Munson) I changed that based on the interim 22 information that they gave us between the draf t and final 23 CIS. Those letters are referenced several places but I 24 believe that they are also all referenced on Page 2.3 as 25 Footnote A of Table 2.2.
s
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
782 The base case maximum i Q In the EIS Table 2.2.
2 concentrations are based on treatment by SDS and EPICOR-2.
3 We learned yesterday in testimony that the SDS was no longer 4 in use.
5 Could you explain, would that change, would the 6 use of the WCS change your base ccncentrations?
7 A (Munson) The concentrations that appear in Table 8
2.2 are those spccified by the licensee. We have every 9 reason to believe.that they can mees them in any number of 10 ways. They can meet them with the EPICOR SDS system. They 11 can meet them with other systems. In preparing the 12 Environmental Impact Statement, our strategy was first to 13 look them over to see if they seemed reasonable, if they 14 were achievable, if they were achievable to simply use them
(])
15 in the EIS with the theory that the Licensee would then be 16 stuck with them.
17 Q Can the DWCS decontaminate all of the 40 percent 18 of the water?
19 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. This witness is not 20 qualified to testify about the Licensee 's equipment.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: You haven 't established that she is, 22 anyway. You could ask her. Do you know how the DWCS 23 operates? l 24 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I have some basic ,
t 25 understanding of it. I 'm not familiar with the particulars
() heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
[
t
. __.-_.-.___._____._.__~.__-_-______m.__.~..__.
__7_.
U '!
L !
l j 783 ;
j 1 of it. I . understand f rom yesterday 's testimony that it 's an l- (~}/
\-
j 2 ion exchange demineralizer. And I . am f amiliar with those. j i ;
l 3 JUDGE BLCCH: Are you qualified to answer a l i i i 4 question about the DWCS? l 1 _!
S THE WITNESS: (Munson) Some questions perhaps but l
l 6 not all questions. !
t
- 7 JUDGE BLOCH
- All right. So if there is a reason 8 to think that you are not qualified, just say that and don 't l 9 answer, i l 10 You can ask a question about the DWCS.
11 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
4 :
12 Q Is it possible for the DWCS. is it physically i
13 possible for the DWCS -- strike that. please. l 14 JUDGE BLOCH:
'(]) In this context, "possible" may ;
l 10 work. l; I
16 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
l l
17 Q Is the DWCS in the reactor vessel?
! t j 18 A (Munson) Yee. it is.
l
! I L 19 Q Is it possible then for the --
l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it in the reactor vessel? Is
(
21 that the question?
22 THE WITNESS: (Munson) It is the submerged
! 23 demineralizer system. It uses canisters that are submerged
(
- i. 24 in the reactor vessel and fuel canal and so on.
l l
25
([) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
r I
l l
r
, p 784 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
- (ii /
i 2 Q Is it physically possi'cle for that treatment
'3 system to take all the tanks f rom around Unit 2 and 4 decontaminate it?
5 A (Munson) That system --
6 JUDGE BLOCH: First, do you know? That 's the 7 first question.
8 THE WITNESS: (Munson) No. I 'm not extremely 9 certain. It may actually be possible. But that eyaiem is 10 designed to work on the primary syntem of the reactor.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: The witness is not qualified to 12 answer that question.
BY MS. SKOLNIK:
13 14 Q So could you, if the SDS system isn't available
- (])
15 and the DWCS isn't available tor the 40 percent of the
- 16 water, could you explain how will the Licensee achieve the
? 17 base case water, since it says in the EIS that the SDS was i
18 to be used and now it will not be.
l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: 'm assumption? Do you know how they 1
i 20 will achieve that base case?
i 21 THE WITNESS: ( Mu o.~ think I know of some
, 22 ways th.it they could achieve this base case water. I do not l
23 know how they will.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: So she can 't answer about how they 25 will do it but she could tell yoa how they could do it.
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
785 y
- /N i She doesn't know how they vill ds it.
(f c' 2. MS. SKOLNIK: Okay.
3 BY MS. SKOLNIK: '
4' Q Could you tell us what the alternatives are. [
5 please?
6 A (Munson) Certainly. One alternative that they 7 aave broitght up in the idea of using the evaporator as a 8 pretreatment and we know that it has a. decontamination 9 factor of 1.000. They enuld certainly use it to bring some l l
10 of the water up to base case level. I would imagine. They ;
i 11 also have the EPICOR sys'.em which would be a big help in 12 vringing it up. I have no doubtr that they would be able to ;
13 do tha*.
(h 14 Q So the base cose maximum concentrations does not 15 reflect the maximum concentrations going into the 16 evaporator. is that true?
- - 17 MR. BAXTER: Obj ec t ion. Mr. Chairman. I don 't f 18 know how many witnesses have to say it how many times. When i the evaporator is being used in batch cycle. it is not 19 i 20 relevant to the release to the atmosphere. It 's a closed !
21 cycle. It goes th ough twice again.
22 JUDGE BLOCHi It 's the input they will have to ' l 23 .c "hen they link up the evaporatur to the vaporizer. l 24
' 'v0LNIK: What I 'm trying to understano is 25 , entrat'on of the water , what is -- well. I l
() 'eritaEe Reporting C202) 626-4888 Corporation
s -
786
("3 1. do have to say it because'it does seem to be a really
\~/
2 isaportant point. So please. I'do want to take a few
< 3 seco nds.
4 (Pause) 5 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
G Q Does the cost of the evaporation method start with 7 the base case water or does it start with some other 8 concentration of water not yet determined inside this EIS?
9 A (Munson) The programmatic EIS accepted as a ,
1
\
10 startinC point water of the base case because under the !
i
<- 11 existing Environmental Impact Statement the processing of j i
12 water through EPICOR and through some of their other systems :
13 on site is a permissible action. It seemed like a t 14 rennonable starting point from which to evaluate
()~
! 15 alternatives. And that is what we did. I understand now [
i
- 16 that GPU's p4ans are somewhat different. A d;fferent 17 starting point would have been more appropriate for the EIS.
18 But it does asrume that all of the costs, all of the .
19 radiation exposure, all of the data in here start with a f 20 common starting point of base case water. And with the 21 exception of the no-action alternative, all of the 22 alternatives evaluated and all of the costs and all of the
[ 23 associated impacts end up with the water off the Island. {
t 24 Q So everything starts, they all start with the base !
r 25 case?
I i
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (>
[
, ,--,..,_,n_--- w,, .,nn.e.,,, e a . . , , , . _ , , ~ . ~ _ . , _ . , . . . _ . , . .
787 i
1 A (Munson) Yes. That was our assumption in 2 preparing this. j 3 JUDGE BLOCH: That was the 'Staf f 's assumption?
4 We 're making comparisons f rom this point as to two cases?
5- It would appear to be more appropriate to take the costs !
I 6 from wherever we start now to wherever the water is disposed I
r 7 of. There 's no reason to disregard any cost of any l
I 8 alternative.
9 CPause)
E TS2/Bl&O JUDGE ALOCH: Ms. Skolnik. I have 3:26. At 3:40 11 we will evaluate whether you need more time. And that is f
12 because of the length of time in between questions and the l
11 lack of progress in getting any important informat'.on from i Q 14 the witness. I i
15 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. l 16 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 17 Q You used the history of the EPICOR SDS system to 18 validate your belief that Table 2.2 would be a maximum. How [
19 have you validated our belief? f 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik. I don't think the !
21 witness would agree with your premise. I don 't know what {
22 that means. f 23 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. There was a question 24 f rom someone else 's testimony and I 'm kina of getting stuck l 25 w.'.th their answer. I 'm not comfortable with it. [
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l t
r i
w.____. _ - _ . - _ , _ _ , _ . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . . , - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -._.
i
t 788 Y 1 JUDGE BLOCH: You have to ask a question'the 2 witness can answer. Try to break them up and not give an 3 assumption that you 've got.
4' BY MS. SKOLNIX:
5 Q I 'm back to your testimony. On Page 15, when you 6 calculated the worker exposure -- I 'm sorry. I asked that 7 already.
8 Mien the question was asked to you, is worker 9 exposure from evaporation likely to be a problem, and you 10 said no. to whom were you thinking the problem was directed?
11 A (Munson) I presumed that the question is worker 12 exposure likely to be a problem, a problem to the utilities.
13 a problem to the workers, whatever, is essentially is it 14 sbnormal , would be my interpretation of that question.
(]}
15 Q You state that worker exposure at TMI-2 is less 16 than what workers receive at most cperating plants. Does 17 that surprise you, since TMI-2 is not an operating plant?
18 A (Munson) It does not surprise ne in view of the 19 radiation -- well, it does surprise me in view of the 70 radiation levels there. I think basically workers at TMI-2 21- get a surprisingly low amount of radiation gisen the 22 conditions present in portions of their plant due to the 23 accident.
24 Q Isn 't it true, too. that their workers will get 25 less of a radiation dose if the water was stored on the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 4
,--...~...,_,.,y.,,%-_..
. , _ _ _ . , ,_,.,,,_m._,___.._._-.,,
- _ , . . - . - , , , . , , , , , ,_,_.,__,_y_ ____ _ _,._._.y,w , _ , . ,
789 i Island and evaporatien or whatever process followed in 30 J
2 years ' time?
3 A (Munson) I think we have quantitatively evaluated 4 worker dose from evaporation in a fair way end certainly if 5 you didn't do the evaporation you wouldn't get that 6 exposure. If you did do a pretreatment, you would get some 7 other exposure from pretreatment. Yes. There would be a a very small difference and it would be, i t could conceivably 9 be less. Yes.
. 10 Q If it 's less then does that mean that the adverse il effects have been mitigated?
12 A (Munson) What adverse effects?
4 13 Q Any genetic effacts, cancer, development of
. ~( ) 14 cancer? If they have been decreased, is it true to say that 15 the adverse effects have been mitigated?
? 16 A (Munson) The probability of some sort of risk of
- 17 those effects would be less with less exposure, certainly.
18 Q So if the adverse health effects are mitigated.
, 19 would you agree that the no-action alternative is an a
j 20 obvinvely superior standard?
21 A (Munson) I don 't think that we established that
) 22 there were any adverse health effects to be mitigated. And 23 the other part of the answer to that is that any sort of 24 "obviously superior" would have to involve both costs and 25 benefits. And I think in my testimony. I make it fairly i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- i. 4 -~
l 790 .
clear that I think that doses of this magnitude ought not to
{}. 1 2' be certainly the overriding concern in determining 3 environmental impact, or for tilat matter, obvious 4 superiority or whatever. 1 5 Q Is it your belief that there is a safe' dose of ;
6 radiation?
7 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec tion. .
8 JUDGE BLOCH: What#3 the obj ection? What*s the [
t 9 obj ect ion? i 10 MS. WOODHEAD: Irrelevant. We 're not litigating' !
11 safe doses of radiation here. We 're litigating the f 12 environmental impacts of 30 years of storage of ir.' n water. ;
13 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony of the witness was [
() 14 that the levels of radiction involved here are safe. That 's 15 what she said. She said there 's no substantial risk f rom l 16 them.
17 Is that a correct summary of what you 've said. Ms. f i
18 Munson?
i 19 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. I think that would j 20 be a correct assessment, f
21 BY MS. SKOLNtK:
22 Q So when you get below your regulatory limits. is i
! 23 the deterraining factor cost? :
24 MS. WOODHEAD: Coi.Id you clarify that question? ;
t l l 25 ' i o n.
JUDGE BLOCH:
It 's a two-part s Is the 1
l I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- g. p - .-,,--.---.y-- -y,w,m-,--my, .m--w,,,yw.,,w%#=----.m..----.c.-m,,,,,r.__-,-,.-
= - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --
r 791 1 limit for you on health effects regulatory limits?
2 THE WITNESS (Mui.Jon) I think maybe there are a l 3 couple answers to this question. ;
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, I may rot be close enough to the f 5 mike. l 6 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I think there are a couple f 7 answers to this, really. One in terms of a member of the 8 regulatory team and all. We have gone to great length to ;
I 9 make the conservative assumption that there is on safe dose -
'O
. of radiation. But if you ask me personally as a radiation :
11 worker if I take into account the risk of radiation when I f i
12 accept a job in a power plant. I do not ordinarily. No. I [
13 don 't. I don't consider that to be a significant risk. .But 'i 14 that 's a personal opinion.
- iS JUDGE PARIS
- You don't consider that to oe a f
16 significant risk. Does that mean the same thing as it 's a l 17 risk you*re willing to teke? i I
18 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. Very definitely. It i 19 is one of the lower-level concerns. I consider how much I 'm j 20 cetting paid, where I 'lI be. how much time off. how much 21 time with my family. Lots of other concerns are overriding 22 to me in that case.
. 23 JUDGE PARIS: Than'< you.
24 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
25 Q So it is a balancing of risk and benefit ?
O Heritece never11ne (202) 628-4888 Corgore11en !
I i
1 L
Y
-792 1 MS. . WOODHEAD: Could you clarify what you mean by
}
2 "it"?
3 JUDGE BLOCH: We have four minutes more before we.
4 assess whether you need more time.
5 BY MS. SKOLNIK' l
6 Q When you incur radiation exposure. ,
7 A (Munson) Now is this me personally or are you 8 asking as an evaluator of a proposal such as the evaporatien l 4
9 one? ,
r 10 Q The proposal. j I
11 A (Munson) Okay.
l l 12 Q When you are determining radiation risk, do you ;
13 balance the risk with the benefits to determine whether that l
() 14 exposure ir, necessary?
15 A (Munson) That is an appropriate methodology. As li i
16 a peint of clarification. I should perhaps indicate that as :
17 Proj ect Manager with Battelle, s' calculated the radiation .
18 doses and the NRC for ; heir own reasons chose to do the risk l
19 estimates and so on themselves, and they would be in a 20 position to defend the particular estimators and so on the) ,
t 21 used. So the balancing of risk per se was not something I [.
22 was responsible for on this. {
23 Q Were you able to evaluate *;he benefits of I 4 (
24 evapor at ion? l 25 A (Munson) Yes.
3 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
)
I
793 What are the benefits of evaporation?
{}- 1 Q
.2 A (Munson). The benefits of evaporation I believe
. 3 we 've talked about. Certainly you on longer have 2.3 4 million gallons of water over which you have to maintain 5 custody. You don 't have to monitor tanks. You don't have 6 to wonder if there 's going to be an accidental release.
4 7 Basically, those are the benefits as I see them.
8 Q How did you weigh these benefits? Those are the 9 negative --
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Costs.
11 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. Those are the costs.
12 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I don't believe that we 13 nede a particularly strong case that it was absolutely 14 necessary to go ahead and do that because there are many,
{}
10 many safe things that can be done with the water. Those 16 benefits are discussed in numerous documents. The risks are 17 documented here and in my testimony. I don 't know what else 18 you 're looking for, frankly.
19 BY MS. SK0LNIK 20 Q Well. you just said there are many safe things 21 that could have been done with the water. What are they?
22 A (Monson) I believe we have about 11 alternatives 03 in here that discuss that.
24 Q But they all, isn 't it true that they all had j 25 risks involved?
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4883
794 i A CMunson) So does breathing.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: The witness characterized them as 3 "safe." That 's her use of the term.
4 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. Okay. Ms. Munson, I 'm q 5 finished.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: I have one question. Ms. Munson, do 7 you have an opinion about the likelihood that if we stored 6 the water for 30 years it might become politically feasit.e 9 to drip the water into the Susquehanna River?
10 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Certainly political 11 feasibility is not something I have any real feel for.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Then you shouldn't answer the 13 question.
I
() 14 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Okay. Fair enough. l 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff? I nean Applicant?
l 16 CROSS EXAMINATION !
17 BY MR. BAXTER:
18 Q Ms. Munson. on Page 6 of your testimony where you 2
19 are defining the alternative, the first full paragraph under i
j 20 1. 1, you state that there is currently insufficient tank 21 capacity on the TMI-2 site so additional storage tanks would j l
! 22 be constructed. I thought I heard you say when you were 1
23 being asked about the cost estimate that you 've included one 24 500,000 gallon tank. Could you clarify it for it?
That 's what she said.
i 25 JUDGE BLOCH:
/ l
[ '
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
- . _ _ . ._ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ __ _ __ . _a
_. _. _ - - = _ _ _ .
P .
s, p
l h
795 1 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. That 's what I said.
q
)
2 And that 's what I was thinking of, storage te.nku versus tank !
3 capacity and all -- I think 2 kind of got lost in the sound 4 of the words there -- that additional tanks would be l
i 5 required or perhaps one additional tank could be made to do.
6 I am uncertain on that. l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: If you would wait. Mr. Bright has 8 one question.
9 JUDGE BRIGHT: Ms. Munson, on your section back 10 here. Page 11. concerning Contention 4Cb). I think you are 11 saying something about this value of 2.1 microcuries per 12 milliliter. And there is come conversation in here, and 13 other values are reasonable, but then we slip right into 14 Questton 2 and Answer 2 which immediately, without you
{}
15 making a definitive statement beforehand. this has not 16 become a typographical error.
1/ Could I get you to, if you believe it to be so.
18 that according to your judgment that thir must be, or should 19 be. Dr in my opinion is, a typographical error?
20 THE WITNESS: CMunson) I had. I believe, seen 21 some sort of piece of paper identifying it as a 22 typographical error. And I did look over the document and 23 found both the more reasonable value and this value in it.
24 I would guess it to be a typographical error. That 's how I 25 happened to identify it as such.
() Heritage Repc r t ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
r 796 i JUDGE BRIGHT: hell, in your opinion, would this
[
2 be, it' not a typographical . error, e rather hugely anomalous 3 piece of information? -
4 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes, it would. It is S completely inconsistent with everything I have ever been led 6 to believe about the water.
7 JUDGE BRIGHT: Thank you.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Just to clarify'just a bit, would 9 the testimony stand for what you believe just as well if you 10 took the word "typographical" out and just called it an 11 error?
12- THE WITNESS: (Munson'. Yes.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
14 BY MR. BAXTER:
(])
iS Q Mr. Munson, in your affidavit filed this Summer in 16 response to our summary disposition motions. I 've given you 17 on excerpt there. Cn Page 4 of that af fidavit there 's a 18 sentence that states: "Although the supplement (Page 6.1) 19 used a lower value. 87 millirem per year, recent evaluations 20 of background radiation dose tend to be in ;he range of the 21 300 millirem per year value."
22 Would it be reasonable in assessing the doses you 23 have predicted in here to compare them against the 300 1
24 millirem per year figure?
25 A (Munson) I don 't believe that would be
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
797 r
i unreasonable to do. no.
2 MR. BAXTER: Thank you. That 's al l . !
r 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you believe it would be !
4 reasonable?
3 5 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. I believe it woula 6 be reasonable. 6 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Ms. Phelps.
8 CROSS EXAMINATION f 9 BY MS. PHELPS: }
10 Q On Page 8. Table 2 speaks about the 50-year dose f I
11 commitment from evaporation in 30 years. I be1leve what you !
12 are doing here is comparing th? 30-year storage does 13 compared.with the Licensee 's preferrect alternsitive for ,
14 individuals and for population dose. Correct? I don 't f
15 understand some of these figures. If we could Just go !
16 through them a bit. so that I 'll understand them? j 17 A (Munson) Okay. !
18 Q Now, for the maximally exposed offsite individual i l
19 in millirems. between the two optio.is. the 30-year storage 20 and the Licensee 's prefe.rred alternative. it looks like the 21 30-year period has an effect here. You go from 4 bone dose j i
22 to .8 bone dose. Why would that be? Or the other way j 23 around. Why would that be?
153/B18e A ( Mu nso n.' Bone dose arises primarily from l
25 strontium 90.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I L
, c 798 1 Q Which has a half-life of?
{
2 A (Munson) Of 30 years, very nearly. It '.9 a little 3 bit different than that. And so the dose to the bone drops 4 by half, actually I believe 48 percent or whatever. And 5 that 's making a lot of assumptions that everything else in 6 the environment is j ust the same. But yes. l tc l
7 0 And then for the person-rem dose, you go f rom .09 8 bone to .2. It doesn't seem to be in quite the same l 9 proportion.
10 A (Munson) I think that 's simply an ef fect of the l il rounding. The reduc. ion in the dose should be 48 percent 12 by waiting 30 years and it happens that the figure is close l t
13 to the line. I went back to the original doses to ,
i
.() 14 additional significant digits in order to make sure that we 15 accurately represented them. And that gives you that l l 16 anomaly. I i
17 Q And then looking at *he other figures for the l 18 total body, the comparison is in the, for the individual 19 dose, it 's seven times. correct. .1 for the 30-year storage 20 followed by evaporation and .7 total body dose for the 21 Licensee *s preferred alternative?
22 A (Munson) The total body dose snould d-op to 19 (:
+
23 percent of its value. That figure appears on Page 6 and I (
l 24 thin < that is approximately 19 percent there.
25 JUDGE BL OCH: It's one sixth for tritium and one j i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i j t t
t V
~
l 799 f 1 half.for strontium.
}
2 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Tritium has a 12-1/2 year !
3 half-life. And so it decays very rapidly. And it 's the
'l 4 principal contributor to total body dose. It doesn 't j S contribute to bone dose. Strontium contributes very little f
6 to total body done. It does contribute to bone dose. '
7 significantly.
f i
8 BY MS. PHELPS: i l
9- Q Then moving over to the other column, it appears
{
l 10 to be five times rather than seven times the difference. You l
11 have .6 total body and 3 total body. Is that because you 12 are using u total, a different population figure in 30 13 years, or what?
(} 14 A (Munson) No. I have not used a different I believe once again 4 t 's 10 population figure in 30 years.
i 16 the effect of the rounding. I can check that and get back l 17 to tais group if you like. I've checked these doses several l
18 times and I believe them to be correct, but some kind of 19 funny thinga happen when you report only one significant 20 digit.
21 MS. PHELPS: I see. Thank you.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: If there is a rounding error and you 23 wish to correct it, you could do that by letter and we would 24 receive it for the record.
25 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Okay. Thank you.
() Heritage Report ing (202) 628-4888 Corporation
800
{} 1 2
. JUDGE BLOCH:
MS. WOODHEAD:
Recross?
Could I have just a moment?
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, yes. Sorry. Redirect.
4 (Pause) 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
7 Q Ms. Munson. I believe you were asked a question 8 concerning the fact that you did not calculate a thyroid 9 dose. Could you explain why you didn't calculate a dose to 10 the thyroid f rom the evaporation of the accident wat .t?
11 A (Munson) Well, one of the principal reasons was 12 that I understood the Board's memorandum to indicate that 13 that was not a concern of tt.eirs.
() 14 Another reason was that the doce to the thyroid 15 comes entirely from iodine and we have presumed iodine 129 16 to be present at the lower limit of detection. And we have 17 f arther presumed that all of that iodine 129 was released in 16 the evapore. tor. Those are both very, very conservative 19 assumptions and ones that I am not entirely comfortable 20 with. I think it is cort of inconceivable that all would be 21 releened by the evaporator. But it seenwd, I couldn't 22 justify a lower number so I took the conservutive approach 23 and welcomed the opportunity to leave the numbers of f 24 because I don 't feel that they are meaninEful.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'd like to state that I don 't
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 l
l
801
{) i 2
recall the Board say ing it wasn't interested.
THE WITNESS: (Munson) There was something about 3 things at lower limits or detection or something that led me 4 to that conclusion.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: You may be right. I j ust don 't 6 recall that. So without looking at the memorandum I 7 , wouldn 't want to concede that.
8 MS. WOODHEAD: Maybe I need to clarify something.
9 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
1.0 Q Did you calcu. ate a dose to the thytold in the i
e 11 environmental statement?
4 12 A (Munron) Yes. The dose to the thyroid appears in 13 the environmental statement. And I should point out that
()
14 radioactive will have absolutely no effect on the dose to 15 the thyroid because of the very long half-life. You can use i 16 the figures directly out of here for thyroid dose.
- 17 Q Well, was your statement to Ms. Skolnik concerning 18 your testimony rather than the environmental st at ement ? I 19 believe you stated that you did not calculate a thyroid
. 20 dose. Can you tell me to which document you were referring 21 when you made that st at enent ?
?2 A (Munson) Excuse ne. I was referring definitely 23 to my test inony. The thyroid dose does appear in the 24 Environmental impact Statement.
25 Q All right. You stated earlier that in answering
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 802 ;
1 one of Ms. Skolnik 's questions about the base case. listed in f 2 Table 2.2 in the environmental statement that GPU has a f 3 different starting point. Could you expand on that !
4- statement and clarify what you meant by that? j i
S A (Munson) It is my understanding in reading both :
6 GPU's initial submissions and some of the later testimony 7 and all that they have, in calculating environmental 8 impacts, particularly occupational radiation exposure.
)
9 talked about the period from the current situation or the i 10 end of defueling probably until the water is disposed of and 11 concluded all of the radiation dose and so on, the !
i 12 occupational dose associated with treating that and so on. >
13 And it 's probably a valid method for them to make {
14 comparisons using one set of equipment versus another. For 15 simplicity in the EIS and because every alternative that we
{
16 evaluated assumed that the water from the primary system and ;
17 all would be p processed to the base case levels, we 18 iCnored those impacts. nasumed that they would occur under !
19 the Environmental Impact. Statement, of which this is a -
20 supplement. And so we neclected those for simplicity, f 21 Does that clarify it?
22 Q Yes. Thank you, Ms. Skolnik asked you some [
i 23 questions about your opinion about risk and the doses tha' j I
24 you have calculated in th? environmental statement and in -
25 your testimony concerning 30-year storage. I would like to l O aeritece ae-r11nu (202) 628-4888 cor- retion I r
t
, -l l
803 !
i ask you to explain your opinion of the risk you percokve 2 from evaporation of the water in the near future.
3 A (Munson) I perceive that evaporation of the. water i
4 in the near term would have a very small risk, such as I S would consider negligible, personal 1y.
6 MS. WOODHEAD: Thank you. I have no further I 7 questions. ;
l 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Recrose..
9 RECROSS EXAMINATION !
l 10 BY MS. SKOLNIX: l 11 Q When you say that a very small risk is negligible.
l 12 do you believe that there is a safe dose; do you believe i 13 that the curve goes to nero so that there is a certain point 14 at which there is no risk?
l 15 A (Munson) As I thought I had explained before, in t 16 performing the environmental assessment we have assumed that k 17 =ero risk occurs at =ero dose and that any additional dose 18 entails some risk. That 's how we 've done our assessment. I 19 personally have no concern regarding the risk of relatively 20 low doses of radiatiors. And by relatively low I am talking 21 in terms of occupational limits. That is not a risk that I l l
22 worry about. But that's a personal opinion and it is not l 23 reflected in the EIS.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it reflected ira any way in your 25 professional work?
O Hern ece ae-ru ns cer-reuen (202) 628-4888
o 8G4 THE WITNESS: (Munson)
,{ } 1 In any of my professional 2- work? j 3 JUDGE BLOCH: In your professional work in this ;
l 4 case.
- 5 THE WITNESS
- (Munson) I don't believe that it is l 6 reflected in the professional work in this case, no. ,
7 BY MS. SK0LNIK:
8 Q Are you aware of other work in this field whereby.
9 the dose can be calculated by different methods?
4 10 A (Munson) I am aware of the NRC Regulatory Guide 11 instructions to workers which talks about three different i
j 12 hypotheses as far as risk of radiation. There 's a linear 13 hypothesis, there 's a curvilinear, and I don 't remember the t -
() 14 terminology on it. But I certainly am aware that other 15 people assign very much higher risks to radiation dose than 16 perhaps the NRC did in this case. I remind you that I was 17 not the one who went from done to risk in this case.
18 Q On Page 8 of your statement when we were 19 discussing the dose to the thyroid, you show less than 4 20 millirems to the thyroid for evaporation. And then you --
21 A (Munson) Wait a minute. Page 8 of my testimony 22 contains no data on dose to the thyroid.
23 Q Yes. And on the EIS you show it was Icus than 4 24 millirems. I wasn 't able to understand why you vent from 25 that to zero and transferred no value for a dose to thyroid
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1, (
I j
805 ;
1 in this evaluation. Because what we are doing here is a 2 comparative analysis of the two. And I wasn't quite able to -
t 3 ' understand why you would drop such an important estimate.
]
4 A (Munson) Let me say first that the dose to the "
5 thyroid from any iodine 129 in the water wilI be the same i 6 now and in 30 years. So it doesn't help you make much of a l
,- 7 comparison between the two alternatives. I guess I've been [
t 8 ' reinstructed that I perhaps misunderstood the Board. But
[
9 there was some indication or I thought that there was that t 10 the Board was not interested in radionuclides that were
{
11 below the lower limit of detection. l l
{ 12 Further. I feel that in the Environmental Impact i 13 Statement, we have greatly overestimated the thyroid dose by l
Je not only r.ssuming that thyroid is present at the lower limit
! 15 of detection but assuming just like we did for tritium I
- 16 absolutely no iodine 129 is removed by the evaporator. Some f l 17 of that-lodine in that colution I believe will be present as [
I 18 iodide. it will be removed with the decontamitution factor [
! 19 of 1,000. I didn't have any basis to assign what portion of .
20 it might be some sort of elemental or organic iodine that !
So for conservatism we I 21 Juld be released versus the other.
l 22 assumed 100 percent release. I am r.ot entirely comfortable 23 with that assumption. I don't believe it is very accurate. [
l I
24 Q Does that dose to the thyroid, would that be the i e i
' 25 maxim m value of the dose to a child 's thyroid? (
l i
{
i Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
1 806 1- A (Munson) Yes, it would.
l
(~s}
u t 2 JUDGE PARIS: Ms. Munson, a few minutes ago I :
3 think I heard you say you assumed that the thyroid was at' 4 the lower limit of detection. And I assume you meant iodine [
5 was at the lower limit of detection? [
l 6 THE WITNESS: (Munson) Yes. We assumed that ,.
i 7 iodine 129 was present in the accident-generated water at
(
) 8 the lower limit of detection, and virtually 100 percent of 9 the dose to the thyroid is due to that isotope. Thank you. ;
j 10 MS. SX0LNIK: That 's all . f l
t 11 JUDGE ELOCH: Licensee?
! i MR. BAXTER:
12 No questions. l
. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: State? ,
14 MS. PHELPS: This is autside the scope of
- (]) f i 15 redirect, if I may, f r
16 JUDGE BLOCH: We allow some latitude for the state l
17 because of the extensive participation. ;
j 10 (Pause) !
i j 19 RECROSS EXAMINATION
(
20 BY MR. BMATTACHARYYA !
- 21 Q We are curious what lower limit of detection you {
22 use for lodine 129 and what kind of measurements -- these !
23 are based on the type of measurements that you assumed -- (
24 what kind of measurements you assumed for the detection.
25 A (Munson) As I stated before, the data on Table
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [
i 1
t
e l I
807 1 2.2'was supplied to us by the Licensee. They can perhaps l 2 best speak to the particular measurement. I can tell you l
[
3 ,
that the lower limit of detection that we assumed was 6 4 times 10 to the minus 7th microcuries per milliliter, i
5 Q It 's a f airly small number So would this be your 6 opinion, that that reflects c fairly sophisticated i
7 measurement of iodine 1297 !
8 A- (Munson) Yes. In fact I believe that this was 9 some of the analysis that the Licensee had done of f site end 10 that 's what this was based on.
11 MR. BHATTACHARYYA Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARIS: Ic it low because much of the iodine 13 has escaped from the water already by now, is volalitilized
() 14 by now, over the years?
15 THE WITNESS: (Munson) I don't really. I don 't 16 think I 'm really qualified to speak to why it 's low or how 17 many curies are there. I really haven 't investigated that.
18 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. Thank you.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff?
20 MS. W9ODHEAD: No more questions.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you very much. Ms. Munson. You 22 are excused.
23 (The witness was thereupon excused.)
24 JUDGE BLOCH: We would like to, if you would, to 25 swear the next witnesses before the break.
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4898 Corporation r
808 1 MS. WOODHEAD: The staf f calls Schlono Yaniv and 2 Jones Martin to the stand.
3 JUDGE PARIS: You' called Martin and Yaniv? !
4 MS. WOODHEAD: Yes. t 5 JUDGE BLOCH f Why don 't we j ust -- I j ust want to !
i.
6 Cive the warning now. We don 't even have to have the :
7 testimony with them at this point. It would be faster to 8 give the testinony during the break. i 9 MS. WOODHEAD: Dr. Yaniv. will you give your full r 10 name for the record, please? f i
11 DR. YANIV: My name is Schlono S. Yaniv.
12 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Martin, will you give your full [
1 13 name, pleese? .
() 14 MR. MARTIN: James A. Martin. Jr. ;
15 JUDGE BLOCH: I want to welconc you to our f
16 proceeding. Your testimony is to be the truth, the whole {
17 truth and nothing but the truth. And the testimony you Eive i
18 is subj ect to possible penalty for perjury. That will be f i
I 19 true whether it 's before the break or af ter the break or 20 tomo rrow. So do you understand the warning that I 've Elver.? [
21 DR. YANIV: Yes. .
22 MR. MARTIN: Yes. (
i 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. And we will take a 24 recess. It 's 4:06 on my watch. I t 'l l be 4 : 16, 4:16 when we 25 return. l t
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
t i
, 809 1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
)
T54/Bla8 JUDGE BLOCH: If the parties are ready to start, i'
3 we will start. .
4 Whereupon. ,
.3 JAMES A. MARTIN. JR. i DR. SCHLOMO S. YANIV. l 1 having been first duly sworn, were called as witnesses ;
8 herein. and were examined and testified as follows: !
t 4 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
11 Q Gentlemen, do you itave before you copies of a !
12 document with the style of this proceeding entitled "NRC ,
13 Staff Testinony of Janes A. Martin, Jr. and Schlomo Yaniv on j
(} 14 Contention 5d"?
l 15 A (Martin) Yes.
i Yes.
16 A (Yaniv)
- 17. Q Will each of you identify this as testinony which l
18 was prepared by you, first. Dr. Janiv? 'l l
19 A (Yaniv) Yen, it is testimony prepared by me. l>
20 Q Mr. Martin, is this testirtony that you prepared j 21 also? l 22 A (P'rtin) Yes. l l
23 Q Are there in this document, whic* is ten pages, to 24 which is attached Special Qualifications of Mr. Martin and l j 25 Dr. Yaniv, are there any additioris or corrections you wish 1
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
}
4 1,i
, .. -_g.w m . , , . .,,wm,.4,-,.wwy_,,...m.m.., _ nnn w.y ger , ,_ _ , , _
,m----n
-- . . . -,ew,em _c
i 810 t jyl.-
1 to make?
2 A. (Martin) Yes. t 3 Q Could you please identify the page numbers for us? }
4 A (Martin; Yes. On Page 7. let me count the lines j 5 from the bottom. Eight line up from the bottom. It starts !
6 with a parentheses. It reads: "1.e.. 2 times 20 to the i
7 minus 4th power." That should be "2 times 10 to the minus l
?
8 4. " (
i 9 And on Page 8 it 's a little more complicated. ;
10 Starting again from the bottom, counting up five lines, it )
l
- 11 starts out, the line starts out: "Salts (e.g. SR 90 salts)"
j .2 -- strontium 90 salts - "in the AGW are expected to be ,
t ,
13 reduced to" -- at the end of that line write "1/1,000 = l 14 .001."
({}
15 And on the very next line, start the line with a [
16 pare "*'Jes, to read: "(0. 08/1. 000 = 0. 00008" and then i 17 inse: "achievable with pretreatment)". That 's simply [
, i i 18 making a distinction between the base case and the !
i 19 achievable case. I 20 So the whole thing reads then, the sentence starts 71 out: "However, in Supplenent Number 2. it is estimated that !
F l
[ 22 soluble salts. e.g., strontium 90 salts. in the AGW. are
), 23 expected to be reduced to 1/1. 000 = 0. 001 (0. 008/1. 000 = l l
24 0.00008 achievable with pretreatment) of their pretreatment 25 concentration before release to the atmosphere, whereas
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a 811 ;
i 1 almost all of the tritium would be released by the proposed-2 evaporation.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: To clarify. is the statement in 4 parentheses intended to reflect both pretreatment and j 5 evaporation? f 6 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Yes. The total, the 7 achievable case, yes. But the comparison that 's being made 8 here, it's to the base cane. i
- 9. Now, on Page 9 four up from the bottom, the line 10 starts: "consequenceu of the releases." And the acronym. f 11 it says "NRCP" should be "NCRP". And that 's the ' extent of l
12 it. l l
13 BY MS. WOODHEAD:
l l
14 Q There are no more additions or corrections to your 15 testimony?
16 A (Martin) No.
17 Q Is your corrected testimony true and eccurate to l 18 the best of your belief. Mr. Martin?
i l 19 A (Martin) Yes.
20 Q Is it true and accurate to the best of your 21 belief. Dr. Yaniv?
22 A (Yaniv? Yes, it is.
23 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman. Staff moves that the 24 testimony of Mr. Martin and Dr. Yan2v be admitt ' into the 25 record as if read.
1 O seritece Reger11ne (202) 628-4888 corpore 11on l
l
4 812 1 JUDGE BLOCH: I just want to clarify one thing.
)
, 2 Mr. Yaniv, is your testimony that all of the statements are 3 correct or are there some portions that you are tot ifying 4 to and not others?
5 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Basically, my testimony is 6 limited to the health effects.
7 J'JDGE BLOCH: So are there portions of this 8 enclosed statement that you do not subscribe to or that you 9 have no opinion about?
10 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) There are portions of the 4
- 11 testimony that I have not prepared.
12 MS, WOODHEAD: Perhaps it would be good for Dr.
13 Yaniv to identify those answers which he prepared and
() 14 supports.
l 25 JUDGE PARIS: Are you in agreement with the
! 16 answers that you have not prepared?
17 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) To my knowledge, yes.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: What is it that you 've prepared?
l 19 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) All the aspects relating to 20 the health effectr. of given doses. I accepted the doses on 21 their face value. I did not calculate the doses.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Mr. Martin, are you 23 subscribing to the entire testimony?
l 24 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Absolutely.
1 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. If there are no l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 d
1
1 -
1 I. 813 l (g i obj ections --
[ 2 THE WITNESS: (Martin) I would have to -- God. l i'
l '3 absolute is so strong. You know. I listened to what Schlomo i
! 4 said and -- l I
' l 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Is all of this your testimony? j 6 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Yes, indeed, it is. Yes.
I l 7 Yes. And af ter thinking about it a bit, yes. I 'll repeat.
l 8 absolutely, yes. l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: So the testimony is admitted into l
10 evidence and shall be bound into the transcript and numbered l l 11 consecutively.
[ 12 (The "NRC Staf f Testinony of l
i 13 James A. Martin. Jr. and I
i
(} 14 Schlomo Yaniv on Contention Sd" was received and inserted 15 16 iato the record and follows )
17 i
! 18 l
I 19 l
l 20 21 22
! 23 24 25
() Heritage Reporting Corporotion (202) 628-4888
814 r
.D' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r3 C'
_BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Docket No. 50-320 OLA NUCLEAR CORPORATION,~ET ~ ' ~
AL.
)
l ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (ThreeMileIslandNuclear h (DisposalofAccident-Station, Unit 2) J Generated Water)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. MARTIN, JR.
AND SHLOMO YANIV ON CONTENTION Sd 0.1. Please state your names and places of emplopent.
A.I. My name is James A. Martin, Jr. I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as a Senior Health Physicist. My professional cualifications are attached to this testimony.
My name is Dr. Shlomo S. Yaniv. I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Senior Health Physicist. My professional qualifications are also attached.
Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.2. The purpose of cur testimony is to discuss the issue of health effects from the proposed atmospheric release of tritium and strontium -90 in the accident generated water (AGW) at TMI-2, in accordance with the August 25, 1988 Memorandum and Order concerning contention 5d, Q.3. Are you familiar with the report of the National Council on Radiation 1
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in NUREG-0683, Supplement No. 2 O
815 (Suppl.No.2)atpp.A.13-A.23,aswellasthedoseestimatesinSuppl.
No. 2.
A.3. Yes.
Q.4 Please briefly explain the potential health effects of the amounts of tritium and strontium in the AGW if released by evaporation over a 21 year period.
A.4 Because the expected doses are so low, no health effects could be observed nor are any expected. Because no human or experimental, data exist at these low levels of dose and dose rate, the risks of adverse health effects must be estimated using health effects models and risk coefficients comonly derived by extrapolation by national and ,
international advisory organitations (e.g., ICRP, NCRP, NAS, UNSCEAR).
At the extrenely low doses and dose rates under consideration here the O a"'s <rects or ca"c ra ar iact = d $ acid ac or cacc r #d av r -
genetic effects. The models ano parameters are based on e:ttrapolations from data obtained at high doses and dose rates, and are applied to estimate consequences of exposures at very low doses and dose rates.
This is an application of the customary no threshold approach.
However, in using such estimates it is very important to recognize that at the extremely low dose rates we are describing in this instance (r.aximum exposed offsite individual estimated to re'ceive 700 microrem and an average individual in the offsite population estimated to receive one microrer: Suppl. No. 2. Table 5) there is little risk, if any, of adverse health effect. Differences in model formulatfors and the specific value selected to represent the range of values O
816
. a for various parameters of the calculation have little ineaning when
{} dealing with dose estimates as low as these.
Q.5 Did the Staff make such an estimate for the potential health effects from the Licensee's proposed evaporative method and atmospheric release of the AGW over a 21/2 year period?
A.E Yes. In Suppl. No. 2 the Staff estimated a risk of 4/10,000 of one cancer fatality. As stated by the Staff on p. 5.4 of Suppl. 2, the uncertainty in the risk factor is estimated to be between zero and four i times the results reported here. Thus, the range of this result is from zero to 16/10,000 risk of one cancer fatality. In fact, the Staff perceives very little risk of any cancer fatalities.
5cr illustration, we have used a different risk factor based en the O most recert data to estimate hea,th effects. The iifetire risk o<
fatal cancer is estimated as 4 x 10'4 (0.0004) cancer fatalities per person-rem. Using this risk factor we have calculated a .0024 popula-tion risk of fatal cancer. (24/10,000 or, more than a 991 chance of no cancer).
The estimated risk of genetic disorders in the offspring of irradiated individuals is considerably smaller, i.e., about 0.'3 x 10'4 (0.00003) genetic disorders per person-rem in the first generation and about 2 x 10'4 (0.0002) genetic disorders per person-rem in all future generations.
See NUREG/CR-4214 Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Plant Accident O
[
817
.,s .
1 Consequences, p. !!-144 The Staff perceives very little risk of g O 9eretic disorderi reivitias from the proposed evaaoretive atmosaherie disposal of the AGh'.
Q.6. Are you familiar with "reevaluation of the Japanese atomic bcmb survivor data" referenced in the NCRP report at p.A.20 of Suppl. No. 27 A.6. Yes.
0.7 How do these data affect the risk calculations in Supp. No. 27 A.7. The reevaluation of the doses received by the su?vivors of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may affect the estimates of risk of increased incidence of cancer in an irradiated population. The genetic risk estimates are not based on Nagasaki and Hiroshima data. No genetic effe.ts have been observed in the offspring of survivors of
. O Hiroshima - Nasaiaki. Tnerefore, geretic effects estimate, are not irpacted by reevaluation of the doses received by the survivors. Only recently reports have been published corparing the risk coefficients for cancer mortality based on the so-called tentative 1965 desiretry system
- (T65D)ar.donthereviseddosimetrysystem(0586)(PrestonandPierce, 1987, Yukike Shimizu et al.,1987). These analyses make it clear that
) the effect or risk estimates will be strongly dependent on the assumed Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) for neutron's, which cannot be reliably estimated with the most recent revision of the estimates of radiation doses received by atomic bomb survivors. Complete assessment of the data has not yet been published. Based on results given in the above mentioned reports, it is unlikely that the modified dosin:try will i
818 increase risk estimates by more than a factor of two. This would not O cha"s' th starr's coaciu$$oa that th r is very i$ttie risk of m cancer fatality from the proposed evaporation of the AGW.
Q.B. Please cement on the following issue:
[T]he NRC Staff esticated a higher probability of a genetic defect [2/1000) than a fatal cancer
[4/10,000) from exposure to tritium, whereas the ,
licensee concluded that the risk of a genetic defect i from tritium exposure was considerably smaller than i
theriskoffatalcancer[0.0003to0.0051 Femorandum and Order at 63 and 50-52.
A.8. As stated above, the estimated risk factor for genetic effects per unit
, i dose (person-rem) is smaller than the estimated risA factor for fatal
- ,O cancer. in sup,i. u. 2 the staff .dded the risk or genetic effects fr- j total body dose to the offsite population (3 person rem), and the
~
considerably higher estimated occupational exposure (25 person-rem),
i 1.e. the Staff included the offspring of the workers. It is apparent i
1
' that the licensee did not include the workers' offspring. i j
0.9. Have you read the documents authored by k.Z. Morgan and Charles V.
Huver, filed by the Joint Intervenors during sumary disposition r procedures in this proceeding?
A.9. Yes. We have read both docurents. .
O i
i i
l
-6 819
( Q.10. Please provide your opinion of each of these documents in relation to
]
t the health effects from tritium and strontium -90 reletses from evaporation of the AGW.
A.10. The germane argunents not already addressed in this testimony can be stated succinctly. In the following, our responses follow directly '
after the succinct statement (underlined) of the issue. ,
i A.10.1. The staff underestimated the O for exposures to tritium beta o particles (Morgan) and the experimental evidence that tritium beta .
] rays are more effective than cama rays in oroducing adverse health I effects has not been taken into account. (Huver) l The Staff is aware of recent reports on the RBE of trittur beta particles. The relevant experimental evidence indicates that tritium IJs tritiated water) may be up to twice as effective as
'O sa-a rays cicau ne. 4o. acan so. 89). As isated ia acan aenere No. 89, "Although transmutational effects exist in both whole
- animals and in vitro cell systemt , their effects in the whole l animal relative to the effect from beta particle dose from I
tritium are small. They should receive only miner consideration i in estirating genetic risks from deposition of tritium.
However, in consideration of the experimental evidence, tritium '
in the fom of tritiated water should be considered to be twice l
- i as effective as low levels of esposure to gama rays for genetic i damage." The risk estimate for genetic disorders used ir this i tescimony reflects a 0 (quality) factor of 2 for tritium.
i O !
b
.g l
i
7- 820
( Dr. Morgan states that there are biological data indicating that the O
vaive of a for iow-ievei beta radiatioa shouid be ao iower thaa five.
(Exhibit A to SVA/TNIA's motion for sumary disposition, dated June 20, 1988,at3). No references were, however, provided and the Staff was not, therefore, able to verify this statement. However, using the recomended factor of 2 and assuming that all, the dose is from tritium exposure, increases the estimated population dose equivalent from 3 person-rem to 6 person-rem. This would not change the Staff's conclusion that there is very little risk of any cancer fatalities from the proposed evaporation of the AGW.
A.*0.2. The Staff underestimated the health effects of the AGW (Morgan).
In the answer to question Q.5. above, a risk factor of 4 x 10*4 <
(0.0004) for latent cancer fatality was used. This is about three times higher than the risk factor of 1.35 x 10'4 used by the staff in NUREG-0683. This factor, 4 x 20*4, is a rounded factor obtained from f multiplying the cancer fatality risk from BEIR !!! and NUREG-4214,
! /d (i.e., 2 x N) by two, which results in an estimated risk factor cf i 4 x 10'4 caricer fatalities per person rem. Including the factor of two because of the increase in Q for tritium beta dose results in an 4
overall increase of about 6 (8/1.35 = 6) in estimated cancer fatalities over those estimated in NUREG-0683. The estimated effects
- are still very small, bewever. i O.11. Please compare the releases of tritium and strontium-90 in the AGW j to the Comission's regulations.
4 i
.s. 821 I
A.11. Under 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1. radioactive releases from normal O operation of . nucitar ,ower reactor shouid be as iow as i. reasonabi, achievable (ALARA) considering costs impacts and options available.
Numerical guideline values for nuclear power plant design are given in Appendix ! for expected annual doses to individuals from such releases.
The estimated doses based on conservative assumptions for all of the disposal options considered in Suppl. No. 2 are below the annual dose objectives in Appendix !.
10 CFR Part 20 provides tables of alt 1ble annual average concentra- '
tions in air and water of radionuclides discharged to the environinent .
from licensed facilities. A corparison of projected annually averaged -
concentratteris of radionuclides from the proposed discharge of the AGW, and the values in the tables in 10 CFR Part 20 demonstrates that the AGW releases would be small fractions of perinissible releases.
0.12. Please correr.t on the Board's staterent on p. 21 of the Memorandum i
and Order that ". . . there is a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the isotope of critical concern is strontfur. or tritium.
A.12. Sr 90 is the most restrictive radionuclide in the AGW before treatment and evaporation. Hcwever, in Suppl. No. 2 it is estimated that soluble e i re rhmk (0.06/1000 = 0.00008 cf their pretreatment concentration before release 4
to the atmosphere, whereas almost all of the tritium would be released by the proposed evaporation. Under these circumstances. tritium will be the dominant nuclide contributing to doses offsite.
O
822 1
C.13. Can you compare the projected doses from atmospheric disposal of the Q AGW with the doses from normal, routine activities?
A.13. Numerous comparisons can be made, but two appear to be especially Sermane. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Bureau of Radiation Protection notes in its 1987 Annual Report g Environ-mental Radiation 3 Pennsylvania that natural background radiation '
doses across the State range from 95 millirem per year to 87 millfrem per year. The 0.7 millirem conservatively estimated dose for the maximally exposed individual, estimated in Suppl. No. 2 to result from '
the evaporation of the AGW is not only much lower than natural back-ground in the State, it is much lower than the variation in natural '
background across the State (95-87 = 0, n 0.7).
Further, the average dose to an individual within 50 miles of the TM! ,
O fac4iity (2.5 miiiton peopie) from sne proposed evaporation of the AGW may be estimated as: 3 person rem /2.5 x 106 persons = 1 x 10-6 rem, er I about one ricrorem. This is equivalent to en exposure to natural background radiation for 5 minutes or less.
Q.14. Please provide your opinion of the health effects of the tritium and strontium-90 releases from evaporation of the AGW. )
i A.14. We agree with the conclusion in Suppl. No. 2 45 to 'the minute expected !
NCRP consecuences of the releases. The M(f has also concluded. After a !
study of the proposed disposal of the AGW that the health and safety of the public would be ur,affected by the proposed release of the AGW Suppl. No. 2. at 20. We perceive very little risk, if any, of somatic i
o
823
- - ( ~
or genetic effects from the proposed disposal method of the AGW, even h including our calculation with higher risk coefficients and Q factor.
4 e l
5 i
i a
i l
J l
}
l 1
i I ,
!'O 3
J 4
3 4
k i
!o i
I f.
824
. PROFES$10NAL i
QUALIFICATION 5 0F James A. Martin, Jr.
O s aior weaits Rhrsicist Radiation Protsetien Branch Office of Nuclect Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. 0.C. 20555 Academic 1952 B.S.(Physics) University of Scranton.
Scranton. PA 1957 M.A.(Physics) Temple University Philadelphia, PA 1959-61 Graduate School Nuclear Engineering. Physics. Health Physics Pennsylvania State University State College PA Frofessional Society Memberships Current: Health Physics Society Actrican Nuclear Society National Physics Honor Society
(' .
Past: American Physical Society Anerican Society for Testing and Materials (Sub-Y Comittee on neutron and gama-ray dosimetry) 4 Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering PERT!hENT EXPERIENCE 1975 to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Present Washington. D.C. 20555 ,
(10/88) Engineer Risk Analyst Senior Health Physicist Areas of work have included nuclear power plant siting, accident sequence evaluation, probabilistic risk assessment, emergency planning and response, accident consequence rodel development, accident consequence assessment and applications.
NRC safety goal development and implementation, securisy. fire protection, meteorology, dose modeling, and health effects modeling. Review applications for construction pemits and operating licenses for nuclear power plants and write and defend sections of staff Safety Evaluation Reports. Monitor perfor-mance of contractors (National Laboratories, principally) performing risk assessments, accident sequence quantification and phenomenology, environmental consequence modeling and health effects modeling. Review applications for license and Technical O
825
' '
- t Specification amendments in the areas of radiation protection.
Protective Actions Manager in NRC Emergency Response Center.
3 1971-1975 (V U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 Health Physicist and Head, Model Development Section Develop and apply dispersion, dose, environmental contamination and health effects models for effluents (aquatic releases) and emissions (atmospheric releases) from nuclear power plants and fuel cycle activities. Validate models by comparison of calcu-lated and measured doses in the environs of a nuclear power plant. Estimate the environmental impacts and health effects of actual emissions and effluents from nuclear power plants and a fuel reprocessing plant. Perform and analyse radiological monitoring in the environs of nuclear power plants. Develop (in 1*
part) technical bases for EPA uranium fuel cycle standards.
Participate in the development of EPA Protective Action Guides.
- Review and coment on AEC Environmental Impact Statements.
19ff-1971 Moleculon Research Corporation - Cambridge, MA Head Radiation Physics Department Perfom dosimetry (output diagnostics) in underground weapons tests. Perfom transient and pemanent radiation effects tests on materials and desiretry materials. Develop advanced material properties (e.g., high tersperature plastics) erploying radiation effects on materials.
'O 19!1-1965 International Business Fachines Corp - Owego NY Staff Physicist i
Perfom space and weapon radiation effects tests on electronic
- parts and systems. Sinulate space and weapons environments 4
using various machines: Electronlinearaccelerators(LINACS),
i
' Van de Graff. TRIGA reactor, bare critical assemblies (Godiva),
flash x ray machines, pulsed power (electron) machines. Perfom desiNtry experirents and provide dosimetry during tests. Set up and manage radioisotope laboratory. Assistant Radiation Safety Officer.
Fertinent Comittee Memberships:
hRC/ EPA Task Force on Emergency Planning TM1 Accident Dose and Health Effects Task Grove i
CIRRPC (Comittee on Interagency Radiation Research and
! Policy Cs ordination) Working Group on Planning for Post-Accident Human Health Effects Research O
V 826 l
.'o .
Federal Emergency Response Contamination and Health Physics Working Gaoup IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Accident Source O Tern Woraing Group ;
C5N!/N'), (Comittee on the Safety of huclear Inst 011ations/Ruclear Energy Agency) Working Group on Accident Conseq&ence Modeling Censultinc/ Lecture Activities Cver the past fifteen years I have participated annually as an invited lecturer l at various short courses, on the subjects of: health physics; meteorology; ;
ervironrental transport; dose and her.lth effects modelingt severe accident
- event trees and phenomenology; pectabilistic risk assessmenti accident conse- !
quence modeling and results and emergency planning. These include courses i cc ducted by: Harvard University. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Interna. i tional Atomic Energy Agency. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Health !
Physics Society, and U$hRC. '
r Putlications and Major Presentations
(
Nu 4rous pubitcations (papers, reports) and presentations at National Society l ar.d International meetings in the above noted areas.
I y
i (O i
[
i I
I f
1
, O ;
807 v I PROFES$10NAL QUALIFICATIONS ,
i 0F SHLOMO S. YAN!V l
, EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA !
Sc D. (1969), M.Sc. (1965) Radiation Health i
Technion-IsraelInstituteofTechnolo!y,Haifa,IsraelIngenieur (E.E.) (1955), B.Sc. ,
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA !
Graduate Training in Radiological Physics (14 months, 1962-1963)
Comissariat a l'Energie Atomique, Nuclear Research Center, Saclay, France [
Training in Health Physics (3 months in 1958) , L I
4 PROFES$10NAL CERT!FICATION ,
1 Certified in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics (1966); *
{
Recertified in 1981 and 1985 j l .
PROFES$10NAL SOCIETIES :
Health Physics Society J (Q National and Baltimore-Washington Chapter l
A.erican Association of Physicists in Medicine National and Mid-Atlantic Chapter j Siegraphy listed in "American Men and Woren of Science" l
Language proficiency: English, French, Geman, Russian, Hebrev, Polish
(
I ('
PROFES$10NAL EXPERIENCE
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington 0.C. 20555 June 1979 - Senior Health Physicist (Radiological Physics and Present Health Effects Specialist) Radiation Protection and f r
Health Effects Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory L
Research l f
l Identifies research needs, plans and develops !
research programs in the fields of radiation biology, i radiological physics and health physics. Manages lr l research projects including planning, evaluating l
1 O i l
I P
, t J
[
- 2-f proposals, monitoring contractor performance and preparing sumaries of research results. Perfoms
{d risk assessment analyses to improve the knowledge of the radiological impact of NRC-licensed facilities in l
' normal operation and accidents. Providas technical '
advice and assistance to other NRC offices and out-side groups in areas of expertise. f i
May - September Acting Chief. Health Effects Branch. Office of Nucitar '
1981 Regulatory Research Directed NRC research efforts on the biological I effects of ionizing radiation and the uptake and !
metabolism of radioactive materials. Supervised i seven professionals engaged in these activities. !
?
May - December Member of the Environmental Releases & Health :
1979 Consequences Task Group of the NRC Special Inquiry Staff (Rogovin TM1 Investigation)
L Responsible for the preparation of the Dose Assess- :
ment and Health Effects portions of the Task Group !
report and participated in the preparation of the ,-
sections on Background. Monitoring and Radiation Protection, January 1975 - Technical Assistant to the Director Division of t
iiO l
ew"' 2$7' 5 svardi ' cic' "d r"vira" "ta: " arch-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
I l
Provided technical and administrative assistance in I the evaluation, planning and development of radio-logical and environmental protection research projects !
and programs in health physics, radiological physics I and radiation biology. Coordinated activities with respect to radiation health with other Federal -
t i
- gncies. Reviewed and evaluated manuscripts and
, I draft publications related to radiological and environmental health aspects of NRC-regulated activities. [
January - Member Reactor Safety Study Team .
I December 1975 '
Member of NRC project team that prepared the Reactor [
Safety Study (WASH 1400). Had primary responsibility for N.naging the development of the dosimetric and .
health effect models and reviewing the portions of the Reactor Safet Study report that dealt with these (
topics, particula ly Appendix VI. l
[
O I
1
829 lI September 1972 - Senior Health Physicist. Product Standards Branch.
January 1975 Directorate of Regulatory Standards. U.S. Atomic
{,} Energy Comission. Washington, DC 20545 Developed criteria, standards. Regulatory Guides.
rules and regulations for the protection of workers ;
and members of the general public from unnecessary l radiation exposure associated with the use, posses- '
sion or transportation of radios:tive materials and i radiation sources with particular emphasis on the medical applications of radioactive materials. Pre- ,
pared analyses of potential radiation hatards including environmental effects. Provided technical advice and assistance to other AEC units and outside i groups.
7 t+1versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 i September 1969 - b Assistant Professor of Radiology. ?
Septceber 1972 Department of Radiology. School of Medicine !
Assistant Professor of Health Physics.
Department of Radiation Health. !
Graduate School of Pubite Health l Developed methods for reducing radiation doses to '
patients from nuclear medicine procedures including
'n U
the use of short half-life accelerator produced l
' radionuclides. Evaluated the use of TV image . :
enhancement with magnetic disk recording for patient i
' dose reduction in fluoroscopic examinations. Taught radiological physics and health physics to graduate i students, radiology residents and radiology technt. l t
cians. Served as Radiation Safety Officer for the j l
Presbyterian University Hospital responsible for radiation protection aspects of nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology. !
September 1967 - Radiation Physicist and Radiation Safety Officer September 1972 (part-time).MontefioreHospital.3459FifthAvenue. ,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 T t
Participated in treatment planning and responsible i for radiation dosimetry (calculations and measure- !
ments) for X ray therapy (orthovoltage and super. [
ficial), brachytherapy and cobalt 60 teletherapy. I Calibrated and evaluated performance e,f diagnostic !
and therapeutic radiation equipment. Responsible for I radiatier, protection of staff and patients. Con.
sulted on the radiation protection aspects of the {
design of laboratories and X ray installations. [
O i
j
4
.o =
- 830 I
h:vember 1963 - University Health Physicist. Radiation Safety Office August 1967 (3
)
Responsibic for radiation protection at a major university and the safe use of radioisotopes.
Supervised the performance of routine and nonroutine radiation and contamination surveys. Calibrated radiation monitoring instruments, performed leak .
tests on sealed sources. Operated a whole-body counter facility and evaluated results. Maintained l i
personnel exposure and rs.diation monitoring records. ~
Assisted in teaching graivate students in health physics laboratory techniques. Member of Radiation Safety Committee and Comittee on Humcn Use of Radioisotopes. .
Israeli Atomic Energy Comission P.O. Box 7065. Tel-Aviv, Israel (
Parch 1958 - Radiation Protection Engineer. Health Physics August 1962 Department i
Responsible for health physics instrumentation, area {
and personnel monitoring and control cf radioactive ;
materials in hot laboratories and nuclear reactors.
Supervised environmental monitoring. Participated in the design of het laboratories to ensure adequate i
radiation protection. Provided health physics instruction to personnel.
March 1955 - Serve <1 as an officer in the Israeli Air Force with i Parch 1958 responsibility for the design, maintenance and installation of electronics and telecorrunications j l
equipeent.
l l
OTHER PROFESS!0NAt. ACT!VITIES '!
~
I 1982 - 1985 Member of an Advisory Group to the Harvard University l
School of Public Pealth for revision of NRC's Radio- i logical Health Effects Models, r
1981 Advisor to the World Health Organization on pubite i health protection and remedial responses following '
accidental releases of radioactive materials. l April 1980 Member of interagency working group which developed I the "Federal Strategy for Research into the Biologi- l cal Effects of lonizing Radiation." ;
f O !
i i
o 5 l gf. 831 '
[I,.. 1979 - 1980 Consultant to the Interagency Scientific Review Group I O
on theorFeasibility t'aai th' "a '** Study
<<< eti of af Epidemiolog'ic
'a ve raa'a9 Investiga-Radiation. f 1978 - 1979 Member of the Science Work Group of the Interagency I Task Force on the Health Effects of lonizing Radiation (Libassitaskgroup).
i i
1976 - 1982 Meuber of AN5! N42.2 Subcomittee on Nuclear Measurements 5tandards.
l 19 M 1972 Consultant in radiological physics and health physics I to several hospitals. institutions and comercial l l companies in the Pittsburgh area. l
. I I
I I
f I
t i
O I
. l l
l f
. i O
t i
t t
___ _____ ________ _ _ --J
i i I r
f 832 1 MS. WOODHEAD: I have previously given the Court 2 reporter a copy of the corrected testinony. !
l 3 At this time also the Staff would like to present i 4 for admission into the record as exhibits the documents 5 previously served on the Board and the parties as l
6 ottachments to the testimony of Dr. Yaniv and Mr. Martin. 1 7 To save time I will try to give a very brief title to each 8 docunent . And I have numbered these en exhibits already and 9 I will indicate the number.
10 Staf f 's Exhibit Number 2 would be "Health Ef fects 11 Models for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence 12 Analysis" and it is one page.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: What was Nunber i?
() 14 MS. WOODHEAD: It would be the environmental 15 statement previously admitted.
16 JUDGE ELOCH: Okay. Because we didn 't number that 17 one.
16 MS. WOODHEAD: I believe the Court Reporter did.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, that 's what counts. Okay.
20 MS. WOODHEAD: That 's right.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Number 2 22 MS. WOODHEAD So this in NUREG/CR-4214. That 23 would be Staf f 's Exhibit Number 2.
24 Staf f 's Exhib.it Number 3 is NCRP Report Nunber 89:
2$ "Genetic Effects from Internally Depo ~ited Radionuclides."
() He rit age Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
833 1 This is a full copy.
d 2 Exhibit Number 4 in Technical Report'RERFTR 12-87:
1 3 "Life Span Study Report 11."
4 Exhibit Number 5 is ICRU Report 40: "The Quality l
$ Factor in Radiation Protection." That 's Exhibit Number 5. ;
i 6 Exhibit Number 6 in Technical Report RERFTR 9-87: j l
7 "The Effect of Changes in Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk j 8 Estimates in the Atomic Bomb Survivors." That 's Exhibit l 9 Number 6. And I will present the Court Reporter with three j 10 copies.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: We will receive those as marked 12 exhibits. l 13 (The documents referred to Q 14 were marked for identification 15 ao NRC Staff Exhibits 2. 3. 4 16 5 and 6.)
1 17 JUDGE BLOCH: The partles should be aware that 18 marked exhibits rey to be cited as evidence. They can be 19 referred to by the witnesses who might clarify how they 've 20 relied on them, and then the status may change. But you j i
?1 cannot junt eite anything in an exhibit. l 22 MS. WOODHEAD: The witnesses are available for 23 cross examinatlon.
, 24 MS. SKOLNIK: Good afternoon.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i 1
. _ _ = = . _ . _ _ - - . _-- .
- = _ = . _ = . _ = _ _ .
834 1 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Good afternoon.
2 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Good afternoon.
. 3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
5 Q I'm looking at Page 2. and it 's Question 4 Answer I
- 4. You say "because the expected doses are so low". Could l 6 ,
1 7 you please identify what the doses are?
's A (Martin) The doses that we are talking about are I 9 in Table 5.1 of the EIS. what is it, the Progranmatic 10 Environmental Statement. Page 5.2. And particularly Number 11 3.1.2. which is the forced evaporation alternative. We 12 ref erence Table 5. Table 5.1 And in the column under 13 "Maximally Exposed Offsite Individual" it is shown to be .7 O 14 millirem total body. which is the number which we discuss 15 several places in this testimony. But it arises from the 16 loss or the relenne to the etnosphere of approximately 1.000 ,
17 curies of tritium and approximate'y 1 millicurie of 18 strontium M plus a whole bunch of other radionuclides that 19 were considered in calculating this dose. l 20 Q So it 's 3.1 1?
t 21 A (Martin) 3.1. 2. And 3.1.1. It arises egain from 22 the evaporation and the loss to the atnosphere. driving to 23 the atnnsphere of 1.000 curies of tritium and 1/2.000th of 24 the approximately 1 curie of strontium 90 which is about a 25 millicurie of strontium 90. The same reduction f actor of Heritage Reporting Corporution i (202) 628-4888 m . _ _ -
835 1 1,000 for the other radionuclides that are considered 2 soluble salts. And the carbon. The whvle list that's also
)
3 in another table. That 's what we 're ealPing about. The l 4 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are almost the same answers.
5 Q Okay. Are there doses above this level which you 6 would continue to term low dose?
7 A ( f aniv) Yes.
8 A (Martin) Yes.
9 MS. 'iKOLN IK What do I do when I get a "yes" and 10 "no"? i 11 JUDGE BLOCH: The same thing that you do when you !
12 get ; 'yes" and a "y?s."
13 BY MS. STOLNIK: I 14 Q Are there human data availabic for doses for low 15 doses?
16 A (Yaniv) There is no hum 9n data available for low 17 doses and there can't be.
18 Q Could you exp1nin why thero can't be?
19 A (Yaniv) The risk associated with low doses is 20 limited as is described in tl.e testinony to stocastic 21 effects, which rneans a potential increase in incidence of 22 cancer and incidence of genetic ef f ects which hsve a very 23 high natural incidence in the general ppulation. The 24 increase, potential increase of such doses is by far lower 25 than the natural temporal and geographic variation of these Heritage Repotting Corporation (202) 626-48_3
~.
t i
3 036 1 effects. and therefore. even if they do occur, they canno*,
2 be detected among exposed population of many. many I 3 thousands, even many millions. This statistically has been l 4 chown that it cannot be done. l
! 5 Q Hvs anyone undertaken studies of low desses of 6 radiation?
7 A (Yaniv) Studies have been undertaken et the c 6 range of what is ge~ rally considered low' doses.
l 9 Q Could you identify what *he hiCh range of a 3cw 10 dose is. please?
11 A (Yaniv) At the level of occupational exposure.
12 Q Could you identify that?
13 A (Yaniv) Say ! rem per year. That 's my personal O 14 opinion. There is no definite definition of what is 15 considered low doses or what is considered high doses.
16 If you want the definition of high doses. I am 17 volunteerint, here. it would be the kind of doste that would 18 cause acute radiation effect. and these will be in excess of 19 100 rad. Acute dose.
20 Q Are you aware of the Atinia Capita Study?
l 01 A (Yaniv) Yes. I am.
22 Q Is that identified as a study of radiation 23 exposure 'rnm low doses?
24 A (Yeniv) The doses delivered to the skull of the 25 children -- are you referring to the Atinia Capita Study in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
<n 837 1 Israel?-
2 Q Yes.
3 'A CYaniv) The doses delivered were in the hundredu '
4 of reds to the skull of the children. There was an 5 identified increase of thyroid cancer from scattered .
t 6 radiation. I presume that 's what you are referring to. And 7 the doses were estimated many years after exposure on the 8 order, on the average of 9 rads to the thyroid of external r
9 X-ray radiation.
10 However, the dosimetry in that study is very 11 uncertain because one'could not ascertain that the children 12 were not exposed to the u.seful beam which easily could have 13 increased the doses by an order of magnitude.
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I couldn 't hear the last part. If 15 you could repeat the last sentence. The children were not 16 exposed -- 7 17 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv The childrers, the doses
, 18 were not measured when the children were exposed in the late 19 '40s and early '50s. Following the epidemiological studies.
10 dose aseessment was made on phantoms, i
j 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Or what ?
i 22 THE WITNESS. (Yaniv) Phantoms. And of course a 23 phantom doesn 't move. A child lying under an X-ray machine 24 for about 30 minutes is not necessarily still. So there is
! 25 a very great possibility, which was admitted in the original i
i l
j
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
}
838
("]
xe 1 paper by.Dr. Maden that was published in Lansit. That was
- 7. the author of the study, Dr. Madan.
-3 JUDGE BLOCH: So you suspect that the estimate of 4 9 rems to the thyroid is not very accurate?
5 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) I would say that it leaves 6 some questions unanswered.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Very scientific.
8 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) I 'm a professional. I hope.
9 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Just one additional 10 comment. The numbers that Dr. Yeniv mentioned were in rem.
11 You mentioned several hundred rem and 9 rem just now. To L
12 put them in the context of our testimony where principally ,
13 we talk aoout millirem, these are hundreds of thousands of
() 14 millirem and 9.000 millirem.
15 (Continued on the next page) 16 ,
17 :
r 18 19 20 21
! 22 23 24 25
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i l
l
839
-1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
2 Q So ycu 're saying that there is no data available 3 for low doses of radiation?
4 A (Yaniv) There is no human epidemiology data for 5 doses below say 10 rats. ;
13 A (Martin) May I also add my two cents? One must ;
7 Le careful when one talks about -- there have been number-8 studies looking for effects. ;
9 And I could say the answer in a negative way or a '
10 positive way. Let me try both ways. In a negative sense i
11 they couldn't positively identify something.
- 12 And that 's because of the statistical problem that 13 Dr. Yaniv was talking about. l
() 14 And let me finish that. l
,.. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you limiting your responses to 16 controlled studies when you say there is no data? i 17 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Human epidemiological 18 studies by definition of not controlled studies nobody 4
19 exposes -- people for the purpose of dividing !
20 epidemiolonical data.
)
i 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it there are people who have 22 written about low exposures using data but you 're not l i 23 somehow including as what they do as studies, is that right?
24 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) I 'm saying there is no ;
i 25 statistical significant data available from any of the i
I
. -( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
! i
840
'V 1 studies --
~(Je 2 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
3 Q Are there populations available for study of low 4 doses of radiation?
5 A (Martin) Before he gives a technical answer. I 've 6 got to say, yes, you 're looking at all of us.
7 A (Yaniv) Well, what Jim I think' refers to, we are ,
8 all exposed to natural radiation and we all have been 9 exposed at one time or another to medical radiation.
10 My contention is that if you want to achieve 11 direct evidence in the range below 10 rads talking about the 12 dose, you cannot do la by epidemiological studies because of 13 statistical limitations.
() 14 Q What are those statistical limitations?
15 A (Yaniv) As I explained before, the very high 16 incidence of cancer and genetic effect in the general 17 population and very low probability of increase.
18 If my memory does not -- is correct, I think you 19 would need a controlled study of about 10 million people !
20 subj ect to 10 million controls in order to get a statistical !
. [
21 statement sufficient to achieve a 95 percent competence i 22 limit. l I
23 But I may be a little bit wrong on those numbers.
- 24 JUDGE PARIS
- From what you have said, I take it j
- 25 that there were no documentable low dose survivors from the i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
k i
, a:
841-L (' l' Japanese atomic bonib experiet ,t s that cottid be 3
(_)$ !
2 epidemiologically studied? I 3 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) ~n the Japarsese studica the 4 lowest doses at which -- this' is the 'a mst data that I 'm 5 aware of that reach sone specific types of concer have shown 6 an increase were on the order of 20 rats.
7 Now I wish to point out that even the sapanese 8 experience, it was an extremely high dose rate, et9 at tlie ,
9 low dose which makes a difference.
10 JUDGE PARIS: Yes.
11 BY MS. SKOLNIK: ,
12 Q So f rom what you 've said already we are not able 13 to conclude that there is no effect from low doses of 14 radiation but rather it 's the statistical limit 6tions placed
(}
15 upon us that causes us not to be able to observe low dose 16 effects? :
17 A (Yaniv) Yes.
18 A (Martin) Amplification, the answer is, yes, but 19 one can presume for purposes of calculation as we have done i 20 and is the habit of the radiation protection business that 21 there are effects.
22 You use that presumption and you run through your 23 calculatior.s and see what the answer is.
24 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
25 Q When you talk about health effect, would you ,
l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i t
6
842 l 1 please identify health effect? Vnat does it mean to you?
2 A CYaniv) In the conteyt of my testimony even 3 extremely low doses that have been mentioned that only i 4 theoretically possible health effects from radiation are 5 increased incidence of cencer and increased incidence of --
6 genetic effects in the offspring of the -- population.
7 Q When you speak of cancer incidence, do'you mean a i 8 cancer that will kill a person?
f 9 A (Yaniv) Both lethal and non-lethal. .
10 Q Is the problem in identifying the health effects 11 of low doses of radiation also connected with the fact that 12 cancer. occurs in the population for reasons other than i 13 radiation? i i
O 14 ^ creaiv> ree- taet the primotvet ree oa- .
l 15 Radiation induced cancers are indisting dishable f rom cancers 16 through other causes.
17 Q Are there -- you mentioned some of the cancer, the 18 health effects. Does breast cancer also, is that included? ;
19 A (Yaniv) Yes.
l 20 Q So when a person gets breast cancer, you are not j 21 able to identify where the exposure came from or whether or [
22 not it was radiation?
l 23 A (Yaniv) When the patient gets cancer it is ,
l i 24 impossible to ascertain that one or another cause of that i i
- 25 particular case, i t
Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 l
l -
843 1 -The only way that one can do it is in the
)
2 statistical sense is the increase of incidence in the 2
3 population as is done among the Japanese survivors. ;
4 Q Would you conclude then that after evaporation it !
t 5 will not be possible to identify the ill health effects like J
6 breast cancer and other cancers which will not kill people?
7 A (Yaniv) Even the very low doses, I 'd have to say 8 that if and there is a big if here, there will be any effect 9 of that operation, due to that operation, it will be 10 impossible to identify.
11 A (Martin) And as we have done in our testimony we 12 have presumed that there would be and we make our 13 calculations and low and behold we find out that the chances are most likely that there would be none.
'(]) 14 15 Q But you have no way of statistically verifying l l 16 that, is that correct? A value of zero cannot be f 17 statistically verified for ill health effect from the low l !
j 18 doses of evaporation? i
( l
! 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. The question assumes !
20 something that 's not in the testimony. There 's no test imony i 21 about a value of zero. ,
, 22 MS. SKOLNIK: The gentleman said that he could [
- i. '
r l 23 assume zero. !
t I
24 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony says four in 10,000.
25 He said very small. The chance that there will be no result [
i
(]) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ?
l t
i t
I l'
1 L 844 L
- . 1 r is very high.
I 2 The testimony is four in 10,000 of one cancer l'
- 3 fatality. It 's a very small chance of an ef fect. But it 's
- - 4 ~a chance. It 's not zero.
l -5 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, I 'm sorry. Where are you
- i. 6 saying?
l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Page three, answer five.
i j 8 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, we were talking about ill i
j 9 health effects. We were not talking about cancer fatality.
i 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, you may ask them but I don 't l
i i 11 think they ever said that the chance was zero. You could l 12 ask them that.
13 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
O 14 Q Is there a zero chance that the -- wait, no. let 15 me do that again. Is it possible to have no effect from the 16 dose f rom evaporation?
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, that 's possible.
1 18 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Yes. And I agree.
20 BY MS. SKOLNIT,
! 21 Q How will you statistically verify that is what I 22 have been asking you and I believe your testimony did say l 23 that you were not able to statistically verify no ill 24 effect?
l 0
25 A (Yaniv) My testimony says and if I may read.
l O Her11ege never11ng corgere11en (202) 628-4888 1
r i 1.-
]"
i- !
! 845 :
1 "because of the expected doses of-solo no health effects 2- could be observed nor or any expected". .l
)
! l
- 3 I use that expected in the mathematical terrr of
1
{
4 expectation.
l 5 Q Yes. And from that first sentence we went into a l 2
I j 6 conversation about the statistical limitations of showing j i I
- 7 that there would be no effect from the low doses of
!. I l 8 evaporation. l l
9 Did you or did you not say. it was not l 10 statistically possible to veriiv no ill health effects?
l
! 11 A (Yaniv) Yes.
l i 12 Q Yes, you did say it 's not possit>1e to verify? l 4
t 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, there 's a communication i i
14 problem.
15 MS. SKOLNIK Yes.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: He did say that but he never said !
17 that there would be no expected ill health effects. He 18 never said that. No scientist would say that.
19 MS. Sr.0LNIK : Can he quantify the ill health l l
20 offects from this evaporation?
21 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) We did our best to 22 quantify. There are numbers in here. I wish to add 23 something.
24 I really don't believe in ::ero risk in anything.
25 There is nothing that we do or don 't do for that matter that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
4 846 l does not' carry some risk with it.
q{) _1 But we don't' pay much 2 attention to it.
3 I cannot guarantee you that the ceiling is not-4 going to collapse on our head within the next five minutes. ,
5 MS. SKOLNIX: The collapse of the ceiling we have 6 no power over it.
7 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
8 Q Do we or do we not have power over the evaporation ;
9 of the water. the determination of whether or not to 10 evaporate the water?
11 A (Yaniv) I don 't --
12 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. Irrelevant.
13 MS. SKOLMIK: Is the ceiling relevant? !
() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, it 's not relevant and t
15 neither is the power over the water and it 's all known and 16 if you just could concentrate on what your case is. l 17 MS. SKOLNIK: I think I am concentrating on my ;
o 18 case.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Please proceed. .
20 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 21 Q On page two, would you please explain why the only l t
22 concerns are increased instances of cancer and not first i 23 genetic effect having already following our conversation l t
24 about breast cancer and other non-lethal cancers? l 25 A (Yaniv) Somatic effect refers in this case to all
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i
p .._ _.__._... _ . _ . _ . .._.._ .._ _..~ .~... -.._..___ ._.._ _ ._...._.-.-.
i p
l 847 e
( ,
i i types of -- cancer.
. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: He said that the cancer he 's 3 referring to is any cancer, lethal and non-lethal.
i
- 4 THE WITNESS
- (Martin) And including breast i 5 cancer.
- 6 JUDGE BLOCH
- Or any other kind of cancer.
7 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Or any other type of i
+
8 cancer. That 's what somatic means. No, that 's not quite <
i l- f l
9 true. Strike that last part.
l l
l 10 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) For the record. somatic !
i, I
! 11 means affecting the actual individual as is genetic would
}
j 12 affect the offspring. l 13 Somatic means affecting the individual. Genetic j 14 means affect the offsprinF-(])
! 15 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
16 Q You did just say that there was no zero risk? {
l l 17 A (Yaniv) I said I don 't believe in it. l 1 i 18 Q You don't believe in zero risk? You do not f I i l 19 believe in zero risk? I 20 A (Yaniv) No.
21 Q You do not believe ir nero risk? In other words, j
j 22 there is a dose. a safe dose?
23 A (Yaniv) No, I didn 't say that. First of all safe f1 j- 24 is an entirely different issue. What I said is that the
} 25 probability of zero is something that is alien to me.
2
() Heritage Reporting (202-) 628-4888 Corporation l
i l
,i -
1 i r
r---------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i l +
~
! 848 f
1 JUDGE PARIS: Is something that what?
2 THE WITNESS: (Yansv) Alien to me.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: I can't get the word either. Alien l
4 to me. Alien to you. l 5 JUDGE PARIS: Oh, okay. In other words, there 's l 6 always the probability of the world coming to an end in a 7 minute? I 8 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Yes.
, I l 9 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
10 Q Isn 't it true that -- l 11 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Excuse me. Do I get a 1
12 chance here or was that question addressed to him.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn 't think there was a question.
14 Do you want to answer it?
~
15 THE WITNESS: (Martin) There is one part of that.
16 that bothers me. I am very much in sympathy with what Dr.
17 Yaniv said but the example that 's in mind is salt.
18 We must have salt in our bodies to live. We must 19 have water in our bodies to live. If I have too much salt 20 or too much water. I die.
21 But ).f I have zero salt or zero water I die also.
22 And so you know I 'd have to put that kind of a footnote on 23 my sympathy for what he just said.
24 There are some levels of things that we must have.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
849 1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
L(~}
2 Q Well, then am I supposed to then say that there q 3 are some levels of radiation exposure which we must have?
t 4 A (Martin) .You may say that if you wish.
S Q Would you agree with that?
6 THE WITNESS: -(Martin) I apologize. I am sorry.
7 I apologize. I 'm Irish also. So that came from there.
i 8 MS. SKOLNIK: If you hadn't been Irish I wouldn 't 9 have accepted the apology. I guess this is one way of 10 throwing you off your questions.
11 THE WITNESS: (Martin) Let me be more positive 12 and get you back on where you were. I agree with the thing 13 that Dr. Yaniv said and the thing that I agree with is that
() 14 for regulatory purposes.
iS Even in the absence of data we have to have 16 something on which to base en assessment. We do ALARA which
, 17 involves a risk benefit and in order to do the mathematics l'
- 18 to do the arithmetic to make comparisons, we must have some 19 kind of a model and so we presume.
I 20 This is not saying we absolutely believe it.
21 We 've already said we don 't know. There 's no data. But we 22 presume and that 's a perfectly valid way of getting numbers 23 into the ALARA process certainly for comparison purposes.
! 24 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
d l 2S Q Is it true that the maj ority, the scientific
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3
I i
7 I
850 i opinion in this country and throughout Europe believes that
{}
2 there is no safe dose radiation exposure? Aside from your 3 opinion?
4 A (Yaniv) Well, as I said before I don't think the ,
5 question is phrased properly. I don 't know what means safe.
6 What is a safe car? I don 't know what means saf e.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Doctor, you need to phrase it a 8 little differently. Is it true that scientific opinion 9 states that there will be some adverse effect of any level 10 of radiation ne matter how small?
11 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) All right. I would eay 12 that the majority of scientific opinion would say that any 13 increment of dose of radiation dose is associated with some i
() 14 level or risk which could be extremely small.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) But it is not zero.
! 17 JUDGE PARIS : But it could be so small that you 18 would never be able to identify?
! 19 THE WITNESS: ('ianiv) I would go a little 6.
20 farther. I would say it could be so small that tne rink.
l 21 radiation is very easily measured, the risk is so small that
, 22 we accept daily this kind of risk without second thought. ,
23 JUDGE PARIS: Without second what?
24 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Thought.
25 JUDGE PARIS: Thought.
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 .a i
- 1. l J
j 1
[ 851 1
.. i 1 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
.{ }
i 2 Q You talked about the ALARA principle. Would you l 3 explain the ALARA principle, please?
i 4, A (Martin) In looking ct various alternatives for j j i
{' 5 some activity ALARA is principle nothing more that what we !
i 6 do everydar.
l 7 You ask yourself the questions if I do this i
8 alternative or that alternative or another one, what will be 9 the costs of each, cost to me in a variety of different l 10 ways.
i i 11 It could be monetary costs, grief, whatever. And i
a i 12 then what are the off side potentials if I do that. What i
13 would my benefit be if I do that and would be my down side
(]) 14 risks if I do that.
15 It 's j ust like common shopping for a car. I have l
l 16 to risk a certain amount of money. I 'm taking e chance on a 17 particular car. I like this one better than another one.
i 18 But in this particular case of the disposal of the 19 accident generated water, the PEIS has gone through the 20 ALARA exercise with some rigor of putting estimates of 21 costs.
22 First of all you break down the various options
! 23 and for each option you estimate, well, would be the cost l 24 and then in particular with regard to he radiological l
l 25 exposures, what would be the resultant dose to both the l
l l
l k) Heritage Peporting Corporation (102) 628-4888 l
852
{f 1 2
workers onsite and the people offsite and to their progeny.
And then you lay all of this out and somebody 3 makes up their mind. This has come up before. Somebody has 4 to make up their mind now. We have all this information and i 5 ther somebody makes a choice. i 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Just a second. Ms. Skolnik, if a 7 witness is answering a question and they're going way beyond 8 what you think you need to, you can say, please stop. Okay.
9 MS. SKOLNIK: Please stop. j
. 10 THE WITNESS: CMartin) Touche. l 11 BY MS. SKOLNIK !
t 12 C Okay. Somebody has +, determine whether to take l 13 the action. You weigh up all the costs and then somebody l
() 14 must determine whether you take action. l 15 Would you believe that the person who is taking 16 the risk should be the person who decides? (
l L
17 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ect ion.
i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained. We went through that one ,
L 19 before. I t
^
20 MS. SKOLHIK: I don 't even remember. I guess I 21 like challenges.
22 JUDGE BLOCH With the last witness. ;
23 BY MS. SKOLNIK f s
24 Q If two methods of disposal are the same, how do l 25 you weigh up the benefit of either one? i f
I
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
. - . - - -. .-. ..-. . -.. .- - - - ..-.- ... .._. .._... -.- - .-.- _~ -
c.
I t
i 853 I ~
i MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec tion. This testimony is about i ' N' ]'
- 2 health ef fects of the doses f rom evaporating the water and
! 3 it 's the only subj ect that this testimony addresses. I r i l' 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained. If you need the answer l
- 5 to that question, he already answered it --
l 6 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
l 7 Q Is the risk f rom evaporation in addition or l 8 instead of the risks imposed by any other radiation i
l 9 exposur- '
10 Does the risk of exposure to evaporation 0
substitute for any other exposure or is an addition? Is it l l 11 ;
12 cumulative? f l
' 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, is the exposure to the l I
() 14 radiation resulting from evaporation? Is that wPat you 're j I
g 15 talking about? )
f I Yes.
e 16 MS. SKOLNIK: t i
j 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So what 's the question now?
j 18 That the risk of --
i
- 19 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
20 Q Does the risk of exposure from the radiation, no.
21 If the riek of exposure from evaporation an addition to all i
22 the exposures f rom other sources? (
23 A (Martin) Yes.
24 JUDGE PARIS: You mean such as radon?
25 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. And Unit i and Unit 2.
I j
j
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
1,
} 854 I
(} 1 2 Q BY MS. SKOLNIK:
Does the effects of radiation have a cumulative l 3 effect?
4 A (Yaniv) That 's a rather dif ficult question. That j 5 is difficult to answer. First of all it would be easier to l
i 6 answer with regard to genetic effect.
7 If a person received a dose of some radiation 8 let 's say at the age of 10 and then another dose of l 9 radiation at age of 50, the 50 doesn't add to the 10 for i
i 10 obvious reasons. There 's no genetic ef fect at age of 50 11 JUDGE BLOCH: I couldn't hear the end of that.
12 There 's no genetic?
! 13 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) There is no genetic effect
() 14 for individuals who are age 50 for the very simple reason 15 they ds not procreate anymore.
16 With regard to other effects there are repair 17 processes within the body. within the cell that it might. it l
18 is scientific contention that it might not be strictly 19 additive if separated by time.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: This is at very low doses or at all 21 doses?
22 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) Very low doses. But also
! 23 in a very high dose this is basically the principal upon i 24 which radiation therapy concept is based. one of the 25 principals.
i
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I____ _ _ . . . .-.. .
i e
i 1
-855 1 Because the amount of the dose delivered to a
[ ~
{ 2 cancer patient over a period of six weeks would be easily 3 delivered over one day.
l_ l
! 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l
! l
! 5 Q You said there were repair mechanisms in the l .
6 cells?
! 7 A (Yaniv) Yes.
8 Q Is there experimentai evidence for that.? ;
i 9 A (Yaniv) Yes. i 10 Q Could you teil us wha + that is, please? .
l I 11 A (Yaniv) I don 't have the document with me but !
l 12 NCRP report 64 if I 'm not mistaken addresses this issue at 13 length. The whole report 10 devoted to it that the j l
l () 14 effectiveness of low doses and dose rates.
15 And there are ma ny documents which of fhand I t
t l
16 cannot cite. many experiments that show that the same amount i 17 of radiation, the same dose deliver acutely all over the 18 long period of time do not lead to equal effects. l l
19 I am talking about low LET radiation which refers l 20 basically to x-rays, geama rays and beta rayu.
21 The radiation delivered in a protracted way in a 22 low dose rate has lower effect. l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Doctor Yaniv, do you do those 24 studies on animals or human beings?
'1 i 25 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Nobody does studies on
)
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688
856 1 human beings. -These studies are on animals and on --
{}
2 JUDGE BLOCH: I suspected that but it wasn't my 3 job to testify.
4 (Pause) 5 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) The NCRP document that I 6 mentioned before it is NCRP 64. It is called. Influence of 7 Dose and its Distributi.on on Time on Dose-Response 8 Relationships for Low-LET Radiation, 1980.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, it 's seven af ter. At 10 5:30 we 'll assess whether you need more time You may not 11 need that much but at 5:30 I will definitely assess whether 12 you need more time for more questioning.
13 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. Can I just break for a minute
() 14 and confer with --
15 JUDGE BLOCH: You would like to take a break right l
16 now?
17 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, please.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: How much time would you like?
l 19 MS. SAOLNIX: I would like five minutes.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. We 'll take a five minute l 21 break. It 's 5: 08. We 'll be back at 5:14.
22 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
i 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik?
l 24 MS. SKOLNIK Yes.
i
! 25 JUDGE BLOCH: We wish you well. It 's your t ime
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
i l
\
857
'i again.
{
2 MS. SKOLNIK: Judge Bloch. I really cannot go on 3 today. I cannot formulate one more question. It 's 4 impossible.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: What 's the problem. !
6 MS. SKOLNIK: I 'm exhausted. I really -- I sit 7 here all day doing cross examination which I know I was j 8 aware of. but I am exhausted.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: I'd like the advice of the other 10 parties about what to do.
11 MS. WOODHEAD: Could I ask if Ms. Skolnik is 12 finish?d with her questions for the witnesses?
13 MS. SKOLNIK: I would like to resume tomorrow.
() 14 MS. WOODHEAD: Do you know how much more cross 10 examination you will conduct?
16 MS. SKOLNIK: I 'd say no more than un hour. No 17 more than on hour.
18 MR. BAXTER: We have no obj ection. Judge Bloch, to 19 adj ou rning. It seems to me we have time tomorrow. We only 20 have Mr. Buchanan after this panel. And then I believe 21 we 're scheduled to hear oral argument on our motion to 22 strike portions of Dr. Morgan 's testinony.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know how much time Dr.
24 Buchanan will testify on direct tomorrow?
20 MR. BAXTER: It should be under 10 minutes for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
858 l g 1 direct.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Your motion is granted. I l
3 MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: We 'lI begin at 9:30 tomorrow.
5 MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you. ,
6 (hhereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed 7 to reconvene tomorrow. Thursday, November 2, 1988 at 9:30 i
8 a.m.) 1 9
10 11 12 13 h 14 15 16 17 l
l 18 19 l
20 l
t 21 i
22 l
) 23 24 l 25 r
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l
l
i l
~
/ '\ 1 CERTIFICATE
%) !
2 This is to certify that the at'; ached proceedings before the ;
I 3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter l 4 oft j i
5 Name General Public Utilities Corporation, et al.
6 Three Mile Island (Unit 2) License Amendment l
7 Application l 8 D,cket Number: 50-320 OLA l i
9 Places Lancaster, Pennsylvania i
10 Date: November 2, 1988 l 11 were held as nerein appears. and that this is the original i t
12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me, and ;
() 14 thereaf ter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the l 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedingo.
l J
. 18 Lrf 0 h_ _%
19 Signature typed: Joan Rose i
20 Official Reporter j 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 l
l 23
, 24 l 20 l
i Heritage Report i ng Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
[
f
- - - - . - . - - - _ _ -