ML20206C280
| ML20206C280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7551 OLA, NUDOCS 8811160204 | |
| Download: ML20206C280 (141) | |
Text
1 . ;/
O UNFTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGINAL i
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD In the Matter of: )
)
GENERAL PUBLIC LPCILITIES NUCLEAR )
CC+FORATION, et al. ) Docket Number
) 50-320-OLA (THREE VILE ISLAND, LN!T 2) )
LIr.EN5E AVENOVENT APPLICATION )
O I
Flees: 859 througn % 7 Place: Lancaster. Pennsylvania Date: Noverrber 3, 1998 f
i m e..m m m m m m. m.m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m e m m = = = = =
l 7 A', O I l- t\
O HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION ae.waw j 1220 L Senst N.W m 488 Was kington. D.C. 30005 1 3 ', .
1"'
ri ,n, ' J," g - (282) 628 4008
~r ic
i 859 I
A' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 In the Matter oft ) :
. ) !
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-320 OLA i CORPORATION. et alu )
)
(THREE MILE ISLAND. UNIT 2) )
LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION )
i l
Thursday, November 3. 1988 Courtroom A & Sixth l Floor Hearing Rcom Lancaster County Courthou's L 50 North Duke Street l
() Lancaster. Pennsylvania 170 The above-ent '
- led mat ter curre on f or hearing.
pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE PETER BLOCH. Chairman I Atomic Safety & Licensina Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wathingtc1, D.C. 20555 JUDGE OSCAR PARIS. Menber Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comqission Washington. D.C. 20555 JUDGE GLENN O, 3RIGHT. Menber Atomic Safety Licensing Board U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commiazion Washington, D.C. 20555
() Heritage Reporting Co r po rat ic o (202) 628-4888
l; AL' T
-c. 860-1._ / . APPEARANCES:
f:
On behnif of the Licensee. GPU Nuclear Coro n:
I , THOMAS A. BAXTER, Esquire DAVID P. LEWIS. Esquire MAURICE A. RCSS.. Esquire Shaw, Pittmen. Potts & Trowbridge, P. C. -
2300 "N" Street, N. W. j Washington, D. C. 20037 ROBERT E. ROGAN Director of Licensing & Nuclear Safety for GPU Nuclear Corp.
Three Nile Island Unit 2
_k On behalf of_1he U.S. Nyclear Regulatorv i Commission Staff: k STEPHEN H. LEWIS. Esquire COLLEEN P. WOODHEAD, Esquire U. S . Nuclear R'aulatory Commission Office of General Counsel washington, D. C. 20555
(} On behq.lf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanig:
RICHARD MATHER, Esquire Assistant Counsel Department of Environmental Resources AJIT BHATTACHARYYA Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources
-and-GAIL B. PHELPS, Esquire Assistant Counsel Bureau of Regulatory Counsel Department of Environmental Resources 505 Executive House 101 S. Second Street P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 On behalf of the Join + Intervenors. Su mque_hanna Vallev Alliance & Three Mile _laland Alert:
FRANCES SKOLNIX 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster. Pennsylvania
( Heritage Reporting Cotporation (202) 628-4888 h
.. .. . ._ _____--__--_-______--__________J
. . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . . . ~ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . - _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _
l-4 i- 861 C. Q R I E R T. E i
4 WITNESSEE: DTECI CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EMM
, P_Ulci:
. JAMES A. MARTIN. JR.
DR. .SHLOMO S. YANIV F by Ms. Skolnik (Resumect) 863 i
ji
! DAVID BUCHidlAN 903 l by Mr. Stephen Lewis 916 .
by Mr. Bhattacharyya 624 )
- by Ms. Skolnik 930 t
I !
i l
^
l l
{
l l
1 e !
i 1
l 1
I I
!l ll 1
l l
l l
i 1
I i
I l
4 1
l Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 .
I 1 l l 1
l l i i i l
- . . . . . _ _ . . . . - - - - - . . . . . . . . - - - - ~ . . - . . - . . . ~ . - . - _ . ~ ~ . . - . . . ~ _ . . . . . . . . . , . - . ~ . .
I
~s f
! . . i l '
, j 862 ]
. E X H I B~I T S I
EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED _ DESCRIPTION -l i
(None.) I INSERTS: Pace: .4
'CNone.)
l l
1 l
l l
l i
i G
I I
l Heritage ReportinC Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 i
i l
l
- r. - - - - - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ ... . _ _.~. _ -.. _ .,
,L , I l- n' ,
ic (
j- -
863 j i .. . .
I 1 P R O C E E D:I N G-S i
- i. . .
I I' 2 JUDGE BLOCH: With deep respect. I welcome you'all I i !
3 to our-Thursday hearings. _I expect that today will be the
[
l l 4 last da-j of hearings this week, .ft 4 .-
j 5 Ms .- Skolnik,.how are you?
' l t
- 6 MS. SKOLNIK
- _Yes. j L I
-7 JUDGR BLOCH: How are you this morning?
)
f 8 MS. SKOLNIX: I 'm fine. l t
j- 9 JUDGE BLOCHi Good. l
\. .
- l. '10 . Whereupon, i i i I 11 JAMES A. MARTIN JR. I 1
l 12 DR. SHLOMO S. YANIV i i i
13 having been previously duly sworn, were recalled as !
I g 14 witnesses herein and.were examined and testified as follows:
j 15 CROSS EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
- j. 16 BY MS. SKOLNIV.:
i 17 Q In your testimony you refer to the fact that I 18 health effects from low doses is extrapolated from high 19 doses. So you use models and risk coefficients? l l
t !
! 20 Is the high doses which are extcapolated from the 21 Nagasaki. Hiroshima data. l f
22_ A (Yaniv) The Hiroshima, Nagasaki study is the main !
l l I
23 human epidemiological study. However, there are others that j 1 24 just combined with Hiroshima. Nagasaki.
25 Q What are the other studiea on human populations 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i t I i I
I \
!- 1 i
h 864 !
1 i from high doses?
l' i
2 A. (Yaniv) One of the major studies other than
?
- i. 3 Hiroshima, Nagasaki is the British study for patients l 4 treated for ankylosis spondylitis. !
l I
- 5 ' JUDGE BLOCH
- I couldn 't hear that. j
! 1 j' 6 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Ankylosis spondylitis. i i l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
{
8 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) And other human populations ~ !
9 like women treated with fluoroscopies for tuberculosis.
10 specifically for breast cancer in the United States and !
l 11 Canada and other radiation therapy patients. l 12 BY MS. SKOLNIXi 13 Q Does the Bier 3 Committee use all of these? I l g .14 A (Yaniv) To my knowledge, yes.
15 Q Is there an euphasis on any particular set of 16 data?
17 A CYaniv) Yes. there is an emphasis on the 18 Hiroshima. Nagasaki simply because this is the largest human l 19 population. Ar.d also because you had n non-selected I l
20 popu1ation.
l l 21 Q Are there radiation measurements available from 22 the Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombs? f i
23 A CYaniv) Obviously there were no mensurements done 24 during the bombing.
25 Q How is it determined what the radiation h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 623-4888 l .. . - . -
l l
l 865 i' measurements were?
2 A (Yaniv) I will try to be brief. This is a very 3 complex process.
4 Q Could you explain? Is-there a name given to the 1
5 process? j i
6 A CYaniv) The latest which was quite recently 7 completed is the DS86 which stands Dosimetry System 86 8 Q What was the one before that. please?
9 A (Yaniv) The system used before that was the l 10 tentative 65 dosimetry system T65T or something like that.
11 I have it in my testimony. On page four, T65D.
1
- 12 Q Would you please explain the major dif ferences or l 13 assumptions between these two systems? Could you please do 1 l 14 it as briefly as possible without any personal opinions?'
{'! )
15 A (Yaniv) Are you referring to the main difference f
16 in the results?
17 Q No. In the systems.
18 A (Yaniv) Well. in principal there is no difference 19 in the system. Both systema intent to determine the orgen 20 doses of the survivoro.
21 However, it was recognized in the early 80*c that 22 the T65 system had some errors which had to do with the 23 yield of the weapon, with the energy distribution of the 24 radiation. attentuation factors afforded by the houses and 25 by the body itself. And also by the air between the point
- () Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 1
9
___.7._____~.___._________
i-II
!- 866
! /N 1 of explosion and the survivors which is measured in l 1 Q l
! 2 -kilometers. !
f
{
f 3 Q- So are you talking-about a difference in the kind-
{
r f 4 of dose that was delivered as well as, not necessarily the I I
l 5 magnitude? Are you talking about.the kind of dose from a l' 6 particular kind of radiation?
l 7 A (Yaniv) Especially in Hiroshima, yes.
8 Q Yes. What is the difference, please? i I
9 A (Yaniv) Okay. In beter round numbers under the j 10 T650, about 10 percent of the dose wes using neutrons. The 11 new system has about one percent of the dose using neutrons J
12 in Hiroshima. !
I 13' Q Now if there is a' difference in the neutron dose. !
14 dose that affect the kerma dose?
15 A (Yaniv) Yes.
t L 16 Q In other words, if the neutron dose goes down, the 17 kerma dose goes down as welI?
18 A (Yaniv) Now necessarily, it depends --
19 Q Was that an assumption made for this system?
20 A (Yaniv) No. This was not on assumption made. I 21 wish to point out that the kerma dose is not relevant l
i 22 directly to the risk coefficicott 23 What is relevant are the organ are the absorbed 24 organ doses, l
k 25 Q Is the kerma dose relevant to DS86?
i O aer11ege nevertima correre11en (202) 628-4888 i l l l l f
1 L- __
i I
- 867 i F. t n 1. A (Yaniv) It is calculated as well as DS66 There 2 are two kinds of kerma dose.
l f
[ .
1 3 Q Wait, please, don 't go on for j ust .a moment. .You :
'I 4 said that the neutron dose was decreased? !
5 A (Yaniv) Right. I f
6 Q And the kerma dose is -- what happens to the kerma l
- l. !
j 7 dose when the neutron dose is decreased? First of all, j 8 could-you explain what kerma dose is? l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you spell it too. (
MS. SKOLNIK: K-E-R-M-A.
10 11 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Well, very briefly kerma
[ 12 dose is so-called first collision dose, is the energy
! 13 imparted by the radiation in air to air due to the first' j
(} 14 interaction of the particles with air. It 's a very simple iS explanation. l 16 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 17 Q So in other words. is kerma dose ganma dose plus a 18 neutron dose? ;
19 A (Yaniv) Right. !
I 1
20 Q Thank you. In your testimony on page three, no.
l
! 21 page four you reference, you talk about reports on these two 22 systems which you have just spoken about the DS86 and T65D.
23 Would you identify those reports, please?
24 A (Yaniv) Just a second.
l 25 Q Thank you. t I
(O
_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
- , - - . - - . ~ - - . . - . - . . ~ . . - - . - - - . . - . - - . - . - . - . - . - - . - - - - _ - . -
I :
l.'
4 -
i 868 l
~
1 A (Yaniv) First of all, let me nake a correction. i b' N ) i 2 These two reports are'not reports of the dosimetry system.
3 There are other reports on that.
]
b 4 This report use the doses'-- these are preliminary f i
S reports using the new dosimetry system to assess the risk '!
l 6 co-efficient derived based on the new dosimetry system and l l
7 to compare them with the old. !
l
- 8 Let me read the titles of the two reports. j l !
. 9 MS. WOODHEAD: Excuse me, Dr. Yaniv. Are you
, 10 referring to the reports that are in your testimony, Preston !
I !
j 11 and Pierce? j i
12 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Yes.
! 13 MS. WOODHEAD: Then the-testimony names those f
i
() 14. reports. It 's Preston and Pierce.
{
i
! 15 JUDGE BLOCH: They are attached as exhibits. They j 16 are exhibits.
17 MS. SKOLNIK: So I can continue to ask questions 18 on those reporta? l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: You don't need to ask the title 20 because it 's already in the record. Exhibit 2 is the L
21 Preston and Pierce document and -- [
22 MS. SKOLNIK: Oh , okay. I misunderstood the 23 difference. ,
24 BY MS. SKOLNIK:
u I
25 Q Does this report i entify that the difference in f
r I) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4388 [
i
[
t
, , . _ ._...____..-__.__._.__.._._m _ _ _ _ _-. _ __ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ m . .. _ _. .,
1 .i I
l !
.. s
- f. 869 11 .
1 the premise used for the D65 and DF68 as the. amount of dose j;(s^..~
r- .
o j: 2. in the neutron and kerma doses? j
'I don 't understand which
[ 3 MR. BAXTER: I 'm sorry.
! 4 report we 're talking about now. ;
~
i j 5 THE WITNESS: .( Yaniv) I don't understand the 6 . quest ion. l 4-
! 7 BY MS. SKOLNIX:
l F 8 Q The life span report to part one. Comparison of 4
1 i 9 Risk Coefficients for Site Specific Cancer Mortality Based i
- t. .!
i
! 10 on the DS86 and T65 DR Shielded Kerma and Organ Doses,
- 11 Technical Report RERF TR12-87?
I J= 12 JUDGE BLOCH: You want to be careful on what --
1 i
!- 13 you transposed some letters and numbers in what you asked I I
14 him the gur.stion. So just ask it again, j
( > 15 MS. SKOLNIKi I 'm sorry. I don 't quite i t I 16 understand. t i 17 . JUDGE BLOCH: When you asked about T65D and DS86, ft 18 you trancposed letters and numbers. So just be careful how l i 19 you referer'ce them. [ 20 MS. SKOLNIKt Okay. ! I 21 BY MS. SKOLNIKr l 22 Q Have you read this report? I 23 A (Yaniv) Yes. I did. , 24 Q Could you tell me what the emphasis is upon in i 25 this report? t () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
= _ _ _
t i- i b, 870 l l IOT 1 A. (Yaniv) Tne' emphasis in this report is a !
- i. \~)
l 2 comparison of risk coefficient under the two dosimetry l i
- 3 systems, derived frem the two dosimetry systems.
4 Q Could you tell me what the conclusion was of this i 5 report, please, without your opinions? Strictly the {' l 6 conclusions. i l- 7 A (Yaniv) The conclusions of this report is that ) l l 8 the risk coefficient for various cancer sites under the new 'j l- [ 9 dosimetry system will be slightly higher by less than a l i 10 factor of two for gamma radiation. l l 11 Q .It actually states in the report that it will be l: 4 l 12 less than a factor of two? l. i 13 A CYaniv) I will refer you to a table in the 14 Page 33. Table 12. Comparison of Excess Deaths Per
.( ) report.
! 15 10 to the 4th person-year-Sv for Fe lected RBE Values Using i l 16 the DS86 and T65 DR Doses. I f 17 The. column on the right gives the ratio of the 1 l 18 excess deaths derived under the two dosimetry systems. And 19 depending upon the RB value selected it ranges for leukemia 20 from .96 which would '.mply lower to 1.95 which would imply 21 by a factor of two. 22 For eil other cancer except leukemia it ranges 23 from .73 to J.38 depending upon the RB value per neutrons 24 selected 25 And it continues for selected organs of the body, () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(. e g- .'- . 'l h 'l
]
871 1 .Jnder Organ Dose Equivalent,. top of the pe.ge. I 2 Q I 'm sorry. Could you explain what.the columns in 3 the right, right the T65Dr? What does that reprreent? And
- 4. the one beside it to the right?
5' A (Yaniv) Okay. The first column says sites of 6 cancer. That 's self explanatory. The first column is site _; 7 of cancer. j i 8 JUDGE BLOCH: You just want about the last column? l l 9 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes, I meant -- i i 10 JUDGE'BLOCH: Just the last column. ! 11 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 12 Q What does the figure in the last two columns mean? l 13 .A (Yaniv) It 's the ratio. i (} 14 JUDGE BLOCH: No, you 're talking about the last f 15 column now. She 's talking about the last column. 16 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) The last column, the column 17 headed DS86/T6SDR? 18 MS. SKOLNIX: Uh-huh. l 19 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) It 's the ratio of the two 20 previous columns. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Yaniv. you seem to focus on RBE l 22 of 1, is that correct? 23 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) No. < 24 JUDGE BLOCH: No? What did you say the range was I 25 in that last column? () Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
...........--....-.7...-.---...-..-..--
[ w gy y, i.- 872 l l 1 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) I said depending upon the 2 RBs selected -- the ratio for leukemia based on the two 3 dosimetry systems, the range is from .96 with RB of 1 to l 4 1.935 with RB of 20. j, 5 JUDGE BLOCH: And the second row is all except l . 6 leukemia.'.is that correct? i L 7 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Correct. i ! l j 8 JUDGE BLOCH: And that 's f rom . 73 to 1. 38? l i ! 9 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Correct. ! 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. l l 11 BY MS. Sr,OLN IY, : l
- j. 12 Q Dr. Yaniv, if the figure on the last column.to the l I
! 13 right hand side is over one, it 's more than one, that means I
-Q 14 then that the risk coefficient is higher for the dosimetry l 15 system of 1986? ll i
j 16 A (Yaniv) Right. I I l 1 17 Q So for breast cancer and -- for those -- so there ! l 18 was, and using the new system there was an increase in the l l. 1 I j 19 cancer incidence, is that correct? Please answer yes or no l l I i 20 first. t I 21 A (Yaniv) No. The number of cancer hasn't changed. f f 22 The doses have.
'l Q Okay. The dose is less because --
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Doctor, is there a change in the \ 25 risk for the same dose? l O aer11ege Reverune cernereuen (202) 628-4888 i i 1 1
-,..,:.-,,,_--am - mMmm m
.s I
L f 873 r i e"s 1 MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you. ! (_) . . i 2 JUDGE PARIS: The'overall -- ! 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Wait. Let him answer first. f 4 , THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) We have to separate here '5, i 5 the neutron dose and the gamma dose. And we 're talking here - } r 6 about gamma risk coefficient. - 7 Since, under the new dosimetry system it was i 8 determined that there were fewer neutrons than previously i [E 9 thought, therefore a larger fraction of the cancer had to be f ! l 10 due to the gamma radiation. ! l I 11 And therefore assuming an 'RBE higher than one. .the
'l l
l 12 risk coefficient for gamma are clightly' increased. The risk i 13 coefficient for gamma radiation are slightly increased. j 14 BY MS. SKOLNIK: []} 15 Q It 's dif ficult when you use terms like small or i 16 slightly. I think it's easy -- could you please answer yes i 17 or no? { l 18 Did the risk coefficient increase? ! l 1 19 A (Yaniv) The risk coefficient for gamma radiation Iu l 20 assuming an RBE for neutrons higher than one has increased. 21 Q Was it one of the major findings of this report 22 that the overall risk was greater for the r;ame amount of l' ~ 23 dose? i 24 A (Yaniv) Yes. l i 25' Q Thank you, d
.i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 028-4888
_s
., ^L i . l L !
3 g ..i r l874 i l-
.g 1 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Was the question-for the'same gamma 2 ' dose? I couldn 't : hear whatlyou said. For the same blank. !
3- . dose. YRiat ;was the question? l f [ 4 .M$, SKDLNIX: 'I'd nave t'o netve it read back. ; l i F S JUDGE PARIS: You just said dose. You didn't 1 i.
- 6 specify radiation. Did you menn gamma radiation? ;
- j. a j 7 MS. SKOLNIK I meant -- I think I t.eant l i
8 radiation...The conclusion, the study was based on more l l 9 emphasis to ganne. ! 10 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Not necessarily. It was 11 overall. i l 1 ! 12 BY MS. SKOLNIKi i I ! t 13 Q But however, the matter is -- the conclusion still ! l l ll) 14 is -- yes, I don 't want to explain myself. I 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let 's just stop for a second. , L l t 16 I'd like to have the question road back so we can see if Dr. l l ! ! 17 Yaniv answered the question that wae recorded in the i l l 18 transcript. 19 (Whereupon, the court reporter read back the last l l t t 20 question.) { ! 21 (Continued on the next page.) l 22 . I 23 I ( 24 i 2S E !- h l h Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 [ t i t i t ! [ t
j- l i l 7
- j. <
I 875 l l- t
; . 1 MS. SKOLNIK: Could you please read back-the 1: 2 question again to me? I 'd like to write it down. ;
1 i I , 3 (Whereupon, the Reporter read back the last I i . T/ .
)
[// 4 question again for Ms. Skolnik.) l C{ l [. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: We 're ready to go back on the j l j 6 record. I would just like to clarify that-the reason I l l' 7 asked for this question to be re-read is that I couldn't !' 8 hear all the words. I could not hear the "amount of." So I f 9' didn 't know if the witness had heard it.- He has now heard l l ! 10 the question. And he seeks'to revise his answer. Ms. ! e : I 11 Skolnik, do you have a comment? l t 12 MS. SKOLNIK: If he didn 't hear my question. I l i 13 don't understand why he answered it. l (} 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Ask him that question. ) 15 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i 16 Q If you did not hear rny question, why did you not j l 17 tell me you didn't hear it? 18 A CYaniv) In my answer. I understood that you are l 19 referring to gamma radiation under specific conditions. 20 Q I am referring to the premise that was used in , L 21 this particular report. And we already ascertained earlier i 1 22 in this cross examination that the gamma dose was of l
.I' 23 significance, was significant in this report. It had gained I
24 an increased significance because the neutron dose was } [ 25 decreased. 1 () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , i. k I l -. .
. . .. . . . . .. ?
_.__..__m,_._ . _ . . _ . _ ~ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . g , l 3
- t
- , t
[, 876 { !. l 1 JUDGE BLOCH. First, is that correct?- 1~A t ! j' L / 2 THE-WITNESS: (Yaniv) That's correct, under the l l l' !
- -3 assumption of'RB for neutrons greater than 1. l i
4_ BY MS, SKOLNIX: l 4 i i 5 Q Are you saying they were not correct in this ! i- l !. 6 report? l i .
-i 7 A (Yaniv) No. If you look at the table that I I
! l l 8 referred to, and you look under, for example, under RBE per j q 3 i 9 neutron of 1. then the risk from gamma is lower under the l l i l- 10 DS86 than under the old dosimetry system. l t-l 11 However, if you look under RB of 20 for leukemia l l 1 i 12 it 's almost, the risk coefficient is almost twice as high. } i l 13 Q And for the RBE for 20 for the female breast. ! I i Q 14- it 's over three times higher? Is that a correct l 15 interpretation? l l l 16 A (Yaniv) For breast. yes.'that la correct. .} ! L j 17 Q So -- I will reword my question, please, one more l 18 time, if you wil1 pleese wait just a second. f i 19 (Pause) l ! 20 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i t 21 Q I am going to leave my question the way it was. I 22 Was it one of the major findings of this report that the l i 23 overalI risk was greater? l 24 A (Yaniv) Are you referring to gamma radiation? l t 25 Q I am referring to the fact that the dose in the O neriiece Regertine Cervere11en (202) 628-4888
k!
, I
- 877 (
1 report is assumed to be the'same as the dose used in DR65 ! 2 The.only difference between those'two reports is wlaether it
- 3 was neutron or gamma.
4 A (Yaniv) No , that 's not correct. ) l 5 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. Will you please -- wait. . No, ; f 6' I'm not going to let you. 7 JUDGE PARIS: It is correct. Dr. Yaniv. is it not., j l \ l 8. that in the recent re-evaluations, it is -- the j I ! 9 investigators concluded that there was far less neutron j
- 10 radiation and consequently the results of the radiation are 11 more attributable to gamma radiation? :
1 12 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Yes. That is correct. But l- 13 also'the magnitude of the gamma radiation has been totally f i . 14 re-evaluated. [ 15 JUDGE PARIS: There was more gamma radiation than j 16 originally thought, or less? l 17 THE WITNESS' (Yaniv) In Hiroshima there was more 18 gamma. j 19 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. l l 20 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman, can I point out that 21 so far Ms. Skolnik's questions have continually asked what l 22 is already in the testimony on Page 4 where Dr. Yaniv 23 uurrenarizes the studieu concerning the Japanese data and l l 24 points out that -- let me be very careful here. l 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don 't you not atate it? You 've Heritage Reporting Corporation ( P')2 ) 628-4888
- - - - - - - - ~ ~---
rC-'-----~~~-'-~~--'~'-----------
- v. .
i {' i. 878 i-G. 'l made the point that you think it 's already handled in the -
- "'v/
- j. 2 testimony.
3 MS. WOODHEAD: Correct. It 's in the testimony, i l ! 4 the point that she keeps asking. I i 5 MS. SKOLNIK: I believe that there are additional ' I 6 conclusions which the testimony doesn't portray. l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: A11 right. We11, you need to focus l 8 your questions to ask about those additional areas. And it i . i j 9 may be that you think that and the witness doesn't. So you i t ! 10 have to communicate what it is you want answered. ) ! i l 11 MS. SKOLNIK: I realize that. j 12 BY MS. SKOLNIX: l i ! l 13 Q I'll try to rephrase my question. I 'm not j
]
14 rephrasing a question before, I'm asking you another 15 question. l 16 Allowing for different RBEs, did this study show ! t' l 17 that the risk of cancer was greater? l 18 MS. WOODHEADr Could you clarify that by saying l l 19 greater than what? I l 1 20 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 1 21 Q Greater than the -- than previously determined in l l 22 T65DR. Please answer yes or no. i 23 A (Yaniv) I can 't, because you said "allowing for" 24 and that I don 't underst and what you mean.
]
- l. '
I 25 Q If the RBE is 20. -- i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
879
'yT d
1 JUDGE PARIS: Are you talking just about ganma 2 radiation? . 3 MS. SKOLNIX: Well, the emphasis in the report is l 4 , on gamma' radiation. 5 JUDGE PARIS: So that 's what you are referring to? 6 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. )
~
7 JUDGE PARIS: All right. l 8 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i 9 Q If the RBE is 20, is tne risk to cancer greater? l 10 A (Yaniv) If the RBE for neutrons is 20. then the 11 risk coefficients for gamma radiation under the new I l 12 dosimetry system are higher. 13 Q If the RBE is 10. does the same conclusion apply? 14 A CYaniv) Yes. ({}
.15 Q So somewhere over an RBE of 1, the risk l 16 coefficient remains higher with this new dosimetry than 1
shown in the T65DR? 17 18 A CYaniv) If you look at the tables that we 19 referenced before, all cancers except leukemia under RB of 20 10 have increased by 5 percent, the risk coefficients. So I i 21 have not made exact calculation where is the break-even 22 point, at what RBE. 23 Q But, however. still looking at this table, for 24 shielded korma, when the RBE is 1, the risk is higher for 25 cancer using the DS86 dosimetry cystem. () Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 i r l i mm-_
o i 880 f 1 A CYaniv) We shouldn't be locking for shielded 2 kerma. This is not the dose to the. organs. This has to do ; 3 with the dose inside the house to the air and not to the { 1 ! 4 humans. So what is relevant is what 's on top. "Organ Dose ! I l l 5 Equivalent." i i ( l 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Why did they even, in a study on the { l I j 7 effect of radiation on human beings, why did they look at 8 the dose to the air? j 9 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Because that is the way it j 10 is calculated. First of all, you calculate kerma outside. j f ! 11 then you propagate. And it has to -- the kerma continuation ; 12 inside, it is a rather complex process because you have also 13 neutrons outside, and then you have N-gamma radiation O 24 2"terectioa 1" the meteriet- cor troettoa meteriet nich l i 15 produce secondary gammas. So you get a new dose, a new 16 energy distribution inside the house, in air. From there. 17 depending upon the location of the given individual, you , 18 calculate the dose to a specific organ, taking into l 19 consideration shielding of overlying tissues of the ! l 20 individual. So this is why all these steps are given. i 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm going to state what I conclude f I 22 from that. And I 'm not a scientist. I 'd like you to l 23 correct me if I 'm wrong. l. ! 24 Is it true that the reason the shielded kerma is l 25 presented in this table is that it 's an intermediate step in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l I i
. - _ . . - . ~ . - - - - - . . . - - . - . - - . - . - - . , - - . . .
I l L , i i- ! 4 k 881 i l /~} -1 the calculation of the actual organ dose?
- (/
i 2 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) Yes. And also in order to i j, 3 be able to make a more direct comparison with the previous ! 4 system which also gave kermas. l l l 5 MS. SKOLNIK: We don 't understand what has j ust l. , 6 been explained. i 7 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 8 Q We don 't understand. if the shielded kerma is the ! l 9 intermediate step, why.then would there be leukemia, a l 1 10 leukemia ratio from the two systems? I ! 11 A (Yaniv) I will try to explain. f 12 Q Thank you. , 13 A CYaniv) It was done similarly in the previous 14 system. The kerma was determined in air. .in a given [} i 15 situation. From having had this number and having had the ; 16 number of excess cancers, leukemia or other cancers, one l 17 could say all right, if I have that amount in the air. this i 18 would be the relationship. The same thing was done here. i i 19 However. in the two -- and having done the calculations in 1 20 the two different systems, not only the quantity of 21 radiation has changed, but also the energy distribution, the 22 energy spectrum of the radiation. the gentna. And therefore. 23 the attenuation of the overlying tissue has been -- is 24 different under the two systems. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Yaniv, is there any reason to () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i I, l l t
t
- I
, I i i
- 882 !
l- i l <~ i look at the shielded kerma to compare the incidence of (_)N
- 2. cancer f rom dose? j I 3 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) No. !
i 4 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: ! Could you explain why not? i 5 Q ; l 6 A (Yaniv) Because what matters is the absorbed dose f i ! 7 in a given organ, for which you would try to determine the l \ l
- 6 risk coefficient. l 9 Q So in other words, in the lower part of the page l
10 under "Shielded Kerma." is that not the absorbed dose? 11 A (Yaniv) No. It is not the tissue absorbed dose. } l 12 Q What is it? f I ' l 13 A CYaniv) It is dose in air. ; t f(]) 14 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Skolnik has had 15 this report for over two weeks. And all we 've done so f ar f ! 16 this morning is have a lecture by Dr. Yaniv on what the t 17 report means. This is not cross examination. I The time for obj ection is when a 4 18 JUDGE BLOCH: ( i 19 question is asked. ; 20 MS. WOODHEAD: I would -- j 21 JUDGE BLOCH: When there is a question asked that 22 you think is repetitious, you may obj ect. 23 MS. WOODHEAD: I obj ect to the constant 24 questioning which in nothing nore than seeking information l l 25 on an academic level. ) I 1 t ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I i ( 883 l JUDGE BLOCH: When the next question is asked, if
~( 1 p 2 that 's true, you obj ect. ;
! i 3 (Pause) { i 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: ! j' 5 Q In your statement at the bottom of Page 4, three i
- - l
!. 6 lines up, you say: Complete assessment of the data has not l l ? l 7. yet been published. ! l 8 Has. assessment of the data been undertaken? j l 9 .A CYaniv) Yes. There are two major groups that are l l 10 currently analyzing the data and are anticipated to publish ! ! I i 11 reports in 1989. One is UNSCEAR and another one is 3EIR. ; I 1 t-12 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to spel1 those? l f 13 .THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) UNSCEAR is spelled on Page ! [ 14 2. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's good enough. l 16 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) And BEIR is B-E-I-R. 17 Biological -- National Academy of Science. l i l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I would have understood that one if l I ' l 19 you had pronounced it my way. i 20 JUDGE PARIS: Dr. Yaniv, what group besides I l 21 UNSCEAR is working on these data? l 22 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Could you repeat your 23 question, please? l 24 JUDGE PARIS: I said what group besides UNSCEAR is l 25 working on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data? l 1 l O aernece Reperu ng Cer-reuen (202) 628-4988 i 1
. . . . . . ~ . - . - - . - - - ~
884 i THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Well, basically te group l 2 that is working principally on the Hiroshina. Nagasaki data
- 3 and doing the basic research in this area is Radiation l
4 Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, Japan. 5 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. i 6 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) But the National Academy of l 7 Science Committee on Biological Ef fects of Ionizing I 8 Radiation is preparing a new report on the effects of low-9 level, of low-LQ radiation, nicknaned BEIR-5, that will use l 10 these data to assess the effects. l 11 BY MS. SKOLNIK .: l 12 Q What are the names of the completed reports on 13 this data? 14 MS. WOODHEAD: (]) Obj ect ion. That 's irrelevant to 15 the testimony. It 's well documented as to the substance. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained. He had cited a number of , 17 reports. 18 MS. SKOLNIK Which are being undertaken? 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, you want the titles of the 20 reports that -- 21 MS. SKOLNIK: I want -- he cited reports that were 22 present ly being undert aken. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. That 's irrelevant. 24 MS. SKOLNIK I would like to know what the -- 25 JUDGE BLOCH: That is irrelevant to the proof () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
885 1 before us. We can 't wait for new reports. 2 MS. SKOLNIV,2 Okay. My question is related to: 3 Complete assessment of the data has not yet been published 4 based on results given in the above-mentioned reports. S What I would 1ike to know is what are the above-6 mentioned reports in which the results are presented? t l 7 MS. WOODHEAD: We understood your question. And I 1 l 8 obj ec t for the same reason, j 9 MS. SV,OLNIK s What was the reason again? I 10 MS. WOODHEAD: It is irrelevant to the testimony 11 before the Board. l
)
12 MS. SKOLNIK I don 't believe it is irrelevant to l 13 the testimony before the Board, because the statement goes 14 on to say that it is unlikely that the modified dosimetry iS will increase risk estimates by more than a factor of 2. I 1 16 think it 's necessary. l l 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I think it 's f air to ask Dr. Yaniv l 18 to interpret that particular phrase, since it seems to be 19 somewhat ambiguous. What do you mean in that sentence? ! I f 20 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Well. it is very simple. ' l 21 At least to me. l 22 JtTDGE BLOCH: Wel1. I think I know what you mean. l J 23 But it comes after --- j 24 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Based on the results given { f 25 in the above-mentiored reports, Preston & Pierce and Yukiko ! I Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l i l l.. .
_.._______._.____..m.-.__. . . . _ . . t~ ,4 I . I i i t )
- 886 l l
1 Shimizu. j 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Fine. There was e. possible { l i j 3 interpretation that you meant the reports that haven't been j l , i 4 published yet. So let 's continue. ! { l 5 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) It never occurred to me. l i ! 6 JUDGE BLOCH: I think that's what occurred to Ms. l i 7 Skolnik. The reference is back to the reports he 's actually '
}
l 8 cited, not to the unpublished reports. r 9 I 'd like to say that this is a difficult thing for { l j 10 both Ms. Skolnik and Dr. Yaniv because there 's some ! ! 11 f rustration at not being able to corrmunicate. My l 12 observation is that both c you are doing your best. And 13 I 'd j ust appreciate it if you could show consideration to l 14 each other. I don 't think either of you is trying to be 15 obstructive. Tupe 616 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 17 Q Is it the conclusion of Pierce that the modified 18 dosimetry will not increase by more th.in a factor of 2? And 19 if so, could you please show me that in the docu wat? 20 A (Yaniv) I will try to fi it. 21 MS. Sr.0LNIX : Thank you. 22 MS. WOODHEAD: Ms. Skolnik, will you please 23 refrain from asking double questions? It's difficult for 24 the witness to answer two questions at orce. If you could 25 separate them into one at a time, it would be easier for the Peritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
1 1 l 887 ' l t i witness. L 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I agree with that. But I 'd prefer ! ! i 3 that 'you addressed obj ections to the Chair rather than [ l 4 directions to the party. f i I l 5 MS. WOODREAD: A!I right. 8 l' l j 6 THE WITNESS: 'Yoniv) Piercc. Page 37 third j i 7 paragraph: The effe'.s of the changing dosimetry is to 8 increase the BEIf-3 eatimate by about 35 percent to 40 j 9 percent. BEIR-3 dosimetry was Sased on T65 dose estimates. l l 10 BY MS. SKOLNIX l 11 Q I 'm sorry. Could you tell me whet page that was l 12 again? 13 A (Yaniv) Page 37. l 14 Q 37" 15 A (Yaniv) In the English text. 16 Q And where were you referring to? I 17 A CYaniv) Third paragraph. Beginning of third 18 paragraph. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: The third paragraph on Page 37? 20 That 'n practically blacked out in my copy. 21 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) The second full paragraph. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. The second full paragraph. 23 which s*. orts: The increase from 2 to 5...? ,
\
24 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) No, no. We are talking of 25 a Preston & Pierce document. TR9-67. That was the O- Heritece aenertina Cerroretion (202) 628-4888
=. - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
- - - = - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -
-e I
L I f 888 fi . question. Preston & Pierce. j' 2 JUDGE ELOCH: Okay. Stop. What 's . the nurn f , [ 3 the Staff exhibit? 4 MS. WOODHEAD: I believe that 's Exhibit 6. , ! S BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 6 Q And would you name the document? 7 A (Yaniv) Preston 8 Pierce. (' 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Th9 effective changes in dosimetry. ( I 9 et ceters. Right? 10 THE WITNEcC CYaniv) Yes. I 11 JUDGE BLOCH: That's the one I was looking at. On ! 12 my I' age 37, the second paragraph says: "The increase from 2 13 to S. . . " l O 14 7"e "'r"ess' creaiv) "o- the eecoao 'uti 15 paragrap.1. 16 JUDGE BLOC!!: Yes. That 's the one I can 't sec. ; 17 It 's blacked out on my copy. That 's because it 's l 18 highlighted on this copy. If this is the important 19 paragraph. I would like to read it into the record. 20 MS. Sr.0LNIK: Well just a moment. Aro we talking 21 about RERF TR12-87? : 22 JUDGE BLOCH: We 're talking about the document -- 23 yes, that 's riEht. TR9-87. RERF TR9-87 24 MS, SKOLNIX: No. This one. the one I have in 2S front of me is 12-87 Life Span Study Report. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (2023 628-4899 i
- _ _ = - - _ .._______m__ _ _ _ , , _ _ _
889
-f, 1 JUDGE PARIS: No. Thit is the one entitled ' "The
)
2 Ef fect of Changes in Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk 3 Estimates in the Atomic Bomb Survivors." 4 MS, WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairn en. Ms. Sko l nik 's S question asked about Preston & Pierce, and that 's why the 6 witness turned to this documant. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. The paragraph that the 8 witness has referred to is not visible in my document, so I 9 will read it into the record. 10 "The effect of the change in dosimetry is to 11 increase the BEIR-3 estimate by about 35 percent to 40 12 percent. Although this cennut be measured dtrectly, it can 13 be asacssed in two ways. The clearest of these is that
.() 14 interpolation in Table 13 for an RBE of 12 indicates an 15 increase of 40 percent from the T65D to the DS86 linear 16 tiek. This is confirmed by & 35 percent increase in the low 17 dose slope when the BEIR-3 LQL model is used with the old 18 and new dosinetries. As noted above, the effect of the 19 change in dosimetry depends on RBE assumptions, and these 20 figures are appropriate, more or less, to those made by 21 BE 9-3. It is also noted that the BEIR-3 Committee would 22 probably have made different assumptions about RBE had they 23 been using the DS86 doses,'
24 MS. SKOLNIK: When we were speaking before, when I 25 was on my cross examinatic' we were looking at Life Span () Heritage r.tporting Corporat ion
'202) 628-4888 l
1
, - - - ~ _ _ . -
= - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - = - _ . _ - - - - - - - . - - - - -.-
\
I j l i t I l
- i. 890 l l l l- ( .
1 Report. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, the question you asked was J i i 3 about Preston & Pierce. ! l I { 4 MS. SKOLNIX: I believe this - this is Preston & i i l 5 Pierce here. l l ! ) i 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to ask someining about j i t l 7 the Life Span Report? 8 MS. .SKOLNIX: The,t was the one I was referring to j !. l ! 9 during the cross examination. And that was the one'that we l l, l 10 were looking at the table, when we were looking at -- just a i I 11 minute. l
-l 12 JUDGE BLOCH: That is the one we 're using, the l l
13 Life Span Report. No, no. We were just reading the other 1 l 14 one. The Effect. But the Life Span Report is not Petaton & (]) ' 15 Pierce. The utfe Span Report is not Preston & Pierce. l: 16 MS. SKOLNIK Who is the Life Span Report by? . l l 1 4- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's hard to read. Yukiko Shimizu i 18 is the first author. 19 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. And Preston is there as well, l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, that 's possible, but part of J 21 'mt is not vialble on my copy either. l i 22 MS. SKOLNIKt Well, when Dr. Yaniv was, when we l l 23 were speakind of the table, which shows the difference 24 between the kerma and the organ dose. it was in the 25 document -- () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-1888 l
s D 891-
~
- 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So you want to know about 2 this document. Let 's j ust talk about --
3 MS, Sr0LNIY, But the point is -- just a moment. l
.4 please, till I sort out.
! 0 JUDGE PARIS: Why don't we refer to these t' h 6 documen' by their RERF TR numbers? The Effects of Changes 7 in Dosimetry is TR9-87. The Life Span Report is 1R12-87. 8 MS. SKOLNIK: When we were speaking, during the y l' l 9 cross examination, the cross examination has been directed l l l 1 10 to the document Life Span Study Report. I l k, 11 JUDGE BLOCH: That's correct. j l' i 12 MS. SKOLNIK: And when we were looking at the l l 13 table, it was this document. RERF TR12-87. , t 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to ask the witness why 15 he answered from the other document? 16 MS. SKOLNIK: No. I think he was looking at this l ! 17 one. Or is the same table in -- j 18 JUDGE BLOCH: No. He answered from the other j i I 19 document. ! l I 20 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman, may I remind you that ! i 21 she asked about conclusions of Preston & Pierce and that 's j i 22 why Dr. Yaniv switched documents? i l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: I had already said that. But I l l 24 thought maybe che wanted some explanation from the witness. l; 25 MS. SKOLNIX: The author of this report is also ! l l O Heri1ece Reger11ne Cergere11on (202) 628-4888 1
l l 892 l
,G. 1 Preston & Pierce. So I wasn 't trying to change. documents. .g]
2 JUDGE BLOCH: All right. But Dr. Yaniv understood 3 the question to relate to the other document. So he l l 4 answered from the other document. Now, if you want to.have l l S a question about this document, ask it. j 6 JUDGE PARIS: There were Japanese authors along I 7 with Preston & Pierce involved in TR12-87. But only Preston t l 8 & Pierce are the authors of TR9-87. l 9 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) May I point out that in my f i 10 testimony, these documents are identified as Preston & ! I il Pierce 87 and the other one is identified as Yukiko Shimizu, j l' 12 el ch.. 1987. l l ( l 13 JUDGE BLOCH: He thought you were using his labels 14 and he went to the document that he called Preston & Pierce. 15 MS. SKOLNIK: However, when we were talking about l h 16 the table -- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let 's stop this. Off the i 18 record. 19 (Discussion off the record) 20 JUDGE BLOCH: I j ust advise Ms. Skolnik to please i 21 just direct her attention to the next question. Ms. 22 Skolnik, do you want the last answer stricken? Is that your 23 problem? As nonresponsive to what you intended? 24 MS. SKOLNIK: I'm slightly confused at the moment 25 as to how we were able to relate to the same table. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ . . _ _ - - - - - - - - - _=- - - - - = =- _ i. l 893 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Just ask a quention.about the table. 2 BY MS. '(OLNIK l 3 Q Dr. Y ai .l.v. when I asked you a question, when you 4 were speaking -- j 5 JUDGE BLOCH: No. We 're not going to go back to ' 6 the past. We 're going to ask a question now. We don 't have 1 7 to figure out the past. The past is dead. 8 (Pause) i 9 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman, I believe et the 10 close of the session yesterday Ms. Skolnik said she had an j 11 hour 's cross examination - for these witnesses. And I note 12 that we have been in session for one hour. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. I intend to be a little (} 14 bit more patient this morning. We can spend a little bit 15 more time. 16 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) May 1 -- in the report that 17 you -- 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Yaniv. please don 't. Would you 19 tell me first why it is that you need to speak now when 20 there 's no question? Are you qualifying a previous answer 21 that is not complete? 22 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) No. But I see the 23 frustration, what is it between the two documents. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Then let 's take a brief break and 25 during the brief break you can go over and talk to Mc. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
D I, 894 1 Skolnik ant' tell you what you think happened. Because we 2 are just talking about what happened in the past.
- 3. Would you like that. Ms. Skolnik? Would you like 4 ' on explanation from Dr. Yaniv of f 'the record?
5 MS. SKOLNIK Yes. I guec= part of the confusion 6 perhaps is that I don't seem to be able to find the other 7 document. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: A h .' Well, we could have someone 9 make it available to you. 10 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) May I approach? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Y as. 12- (Of f the record comments) 13- JUDGE BLOCH: We 're of f the record right now. () 14 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 15 (Continued on the next page) J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 () Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888
4 ! l c j I j; 895 l 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome back. ' 2 BY MS. SKOLNIK: lI 3 Q Dr. Yaniv, has the risk coefficient increased as. ! j ! 4 -the epidemilogical data has increased from the victims of ! 5 Hiroshma, Nagasaki? If possible c yes or no answer. l- , i 6 A (Yaniv) For certain cancer sites. it has { L 7 increased. 8 Q Could you name thore cancer sites, please? 3 9 A (Yaniv) Breast being one. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: The Court wil1 note that it 's each I i 11 of th3ae sites that has a coefficient of more than one in I 12 RERF TR12-87 Table 12. In the last column. , 13 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. i i t 14 JUDGE BLOCH: If it 's more than one. it's an , 15 increase. 16 BY MS. SKOLNIX: f 17 Q Has the ICRP taken this into in their KOMO meeting 18 in 1987? j 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I couldn't hear that question. 20 BY MS. SKOLNIXt i p 21 Q Hae the increased risk coefficient for certain f 22 cancer sites been +uken into account by the ICRP at their I 23 KOMO meeting in 1987? l l (_ 24 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. Irrelevant. j 25 MS. SKOLNIK: I think it 's not irrelevant O Heri1ece nevertina Correretion (202) 628-4888
896 1 because -- 2 JUDGE BLOCH:. I 'll allow the question. 3 MS. SKOLNIK: Pardon? 4 JUDGE BLOCH: I will allow the question. l l 5 MS. SKOLNIK Thank you. j 6 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) We have not mentioned in 7 our testimony at all the KOMO statement of the ICRP. 1987. 8 And if I recall they made a reference that there is a j 9 possibility o'f increase of risk coefficient due to the f 10 reassessment of the dosimetry in Hiroshma and Nagasaki. 6 I 11 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i 12 Q What increase? What was the increase that they i 13 noticed? l lO 14 15
^ c'eatv) t e a reme= der-JUDGE PARIS: Dr. Yaniv, do the results from the i
i 16 new studies of the effects of the atomic blast at 17 Hiroshma. Nagasaki have any effect on the RBE of beta 18 radiation? l 19 THE WITNESS: CYaniv) No. i I 20 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. J ! 21 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 22 Q Was the RB of tritium studied in the Dale Pierce 1 b 23 report? I 1 24 A (Yaniv) No. 25 Q Will the data from the Hiroshma. Nagasaki victims Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
897 1 continue to be analyzed? 2 A (Yaniv) Yes. 3 Q Could further analysis lead to a further rise in 4 the risk estimate? 5 A (Yaniv) Everything is possibic. 6 MS. SKULNIKt That 's all I wanted to hear. 7- BY MS. SKOLNIK: 8 Q Dr. Yaniv. could you compare the population of the 9 study group of Hiroshma, Nagasaki with the population around 10 TMIS 11 JUDGE BLOCH: In what respect? 12 BY MS. SKOLNIK 13 Q In age, sex. the amount of exposure to radiation? () 14 A exposure. CYaniv) It 's easy with regard to the amount of The study population, the lowest group of the 15 16 study had doses between one, well. one thousandth millrem 17 and ten-thousandth millirem delivered in a very small
-18 fraction of a second.
19 The highest group has over 40.000 millirem 20 delivered over a very small fraction of a second. 21 What we are dealing here is a small f raction of a 22 millirem to the average member of the population delivered 23 over many, many months. 24 So we are dealing with many others of magnitude of 25 difference.
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ - - _ _
l ! i 898 l 1 Q Wot , you compare the populations, though, with l 2 regards to their exposure prior'to either the impact of the 3 bomb or the impact of evaporation? 4 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. That 's outside the ;
)
5 testimony. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Is this going to link up to q l 7 something? What are we going to get to from that? l t 8 MS. SKOLNIK: Well. I was going to ask him, did he j 1 9 feel that the Hiroshma. Nagasaki data could be applied to 5 10 the population of TMI. Was there enough correlation between ! 11 the two populations. 12 BY MS. SK0LNIX: 13 Q Was there enough similarities betw2en the two ' I () 14 populations in order to apply the Hiroshma. Nagasaki data? 15 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's a f air question. 16 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) I don 't have in f ront of me 17 the exact demographic data of the Hiroshma. Nagasaki 18 population and the population surrounding TMI. 19 However, the Hiroshna. Nagasaki population was a 20 normal population composed of both sexes and all ages and so 21 is the TMI population. l 22 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 23 Q Waa the Hiroshma. Nagasaki population exposed to 24 radiation prior to the bomb? Yes, like everybody else on this globe. ! 25 A (Yaniv) ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I
.[
e i 899 l 1 Q Well. other than cosmic and onckground, were they ! I 2 exposed to radiation from-additional sources? 3 A (Yaniv) I presume _that they also were exposed to I 4 medical sources. ; 5 Q Were they exposed to any nuclear power plants? j i ' [ 6- .A (Yaniv) There were no nuclear power plants prior i ! 7 to 1945. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'l I take official notice of that. <( MS. SKOLNIX: Okay.
~
9 I 'm not going to ask you any to more questions on Hiroshma and Nagasaki. 11 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i l 12 Q I'm on page oight of your testimony. And it's in 13 your question. "Please compare the releases of tritium and 14 strontium 90 and the accident generated water to the 15 Commission 's regulations"? 16 MS. WOODHEADt I 'm sorry. I can't hear you. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. She 's referring te question 18 12 and she 's reading 1'c out loud. You don 't have to read it 19 out loud. l 20 MS. SKOLNIX: Oh. okay. I 'm carry. 21 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 22 Q The question was on page seven, question 11 It 1 23 concerns ALARA. Do the regulations. 10 CFR part 50. or 10 l 24 CFR -- 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. The way you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
b' - t i ! l- 900 l characterir.ed it, was that it concerns ALARA? l 1 j 2 MS. SKOLNIK Yes. ! i 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Question 11 doesn 't mention ALARA.- l l 4 MS. SKOLNIK: The answer does. ' I 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. l 6 BY MS. SKOLNIK 7 Q Do the regulations 10 CFR. Part 50, Appendix 1 or t. l 8 10 CFR. Part 20 apply to radiation exposure to the release 1 l 9 of radiation f rom waste treatment ? I L 10 JUDGE BLOCH: We already held that it did. 11 MS. SKOLNIK: Pardon? l l l 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Our decision said that it did. 13 MS. SKOLNIK Oh, did it? There are no separate l O 24 recuiatioa=? 15 JUDGE BLOCH: No separate regulations? You didn 't j 16 ask me about separate regulations. We said that the ALARA 17 principles applied to this case. l 18 I understand when you don't hear when we rule l 19 against you but I have dif ficulty understanding why you 20 don 't hear when we hear rule in favor of you. 21 MS. SKOLNIX: I think I was going to try to make a 22 distinction between ALARA and any possible regulations 23 ' oncerning waste disposal. I waun 't sure. 24 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 25 Q The doses are based on the input -- are the doses Heritage Reporting Corporation CO2) 628-4888
7______._.__-- i I 1 k 1 901 l 1 based on the input parameter? 2 MS. WOODHEAD: Pardon me. Could you clarify that j j 3 question? What doses? 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 5 0 The doses from evoooration? Are they dependent un j { I 6 the parameters that are put )nto the model? ! [
.I 7 MS. WOODHEAD: Obj ec t ion. This testimony does not- l 8 deal with doses. It deals with health effects of given j 9 doses.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained. 11 MS. SKOLNIK: I won't ask any more questions. l t 12 Thank you. I i 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Doctor, could you make a comparison j 14 of the doses we 're talking about to dental x-rays or chest (]) 15 x-rays? 16 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) In a very good practice a 17 single film of chest x-ray would result to a partial dose of [ 18 about 10 MR. That 's an excellent practice. 19 A single dental x-ray will again result in the 20 irrigation of a small part of the body to few MR. l t 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Meaning two or three? 22 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Something of that order. l 23 JUDGE BI OCH: And the dose we 're talking about ) 24 here being released over a period of time to the average 25 individual? f I i l t () Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corpo rat ion i t l i i
n.=--, - l: i 902 1 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) In one-thousandth cf an MR. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. l 1 3 Licensee? 4 VR . BAXTER: We have no questions. Thank you. 1 S JUDGE BLOCH: Staff?
- 6 Does the State have some questions?
7 MS, PHELPS: No questions. l 8 MS. WOODHEAD: We have no redirect. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Recross? 10 MS, WOODHEAD: On what? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: What I asked. 12 Thank you very much for your participation. 13 You*re excused from the stand. () 14 THE WITNESS: (Yaniv) Thank you. 15 (Whereupon. the witnesses were excused.) 16 MR. BAXTER: We recall Mr. Buchanan at this point. 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Mr. Buchanan, could you please l 18 state your name for the record. 19 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) My name is David R. 20 Buchanan. l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I would remind you that we had a ! i 22 conversation before and I explained the hazards of ! 23 testifying before the NRC at a hearing. Do you recall that? 24 It 's still in effect. 2S THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) I do recall. () Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
903
- i Whereupon, 2 UAVID BUCHANAN 3 having been previously duly sworn, was recolled as a witness S 4 herein and was examined and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR.. DAVID LEWIS 7 Q Mr. Buchanan, at the end of Tuesday'a hearing 8 session. Ms. Skolnik asked you a series of quesilons 9 concerning the possibility of long term storage of accident 10 generated water in its current locations. 11 And a+ that time you indicated you had not 12 adequately considered that new alternative. 13 have you now had the opportunity to consider this l (} 14 matter further? 15 A (Buchanan) Yes, I have. 16 Q What is your opinion concerning this new 17 alternative? 18 A (Buchanan) Let me explain. In fact, I 'd like to 19 start clarifying my understanding of some further details of 20 what the proposal is. 21 I 'm assuming that we 're talking about those 22 locations which are listed in Table 2.3 of the July. 1986 23 GPU letter. 24 That table provided a listing of 25 locations. 25 There are small tanks. large tanks. inside tanks, outside () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4803
i , i I 904 ! l-(" i tanks, pools and sumps. l U) 4 2 I also believe the proposal includes the- l 3 processing of water before storage so as to achieve ! 4 radionuclide concentrations that are listed in Table 2.2 of l 5 the PEIS. l 6 Concerning the basic integrity of the tanks, as j 7 f ar as I kncw I believe the tanks are structurally sound. i 8 At the same time it would be my recommendation and proposal l l 9 that a review of the quality of the tanks 60 undertaken by ; I-10 qualified metallurgical or corrosion engineering personnel,
'I 11 The tanks have stored water in some cases which i
12 are outside the design, the original design intent of the l 13 tanks. ' l () 14 So I believe it is appropriate for some review of 15 the tanks based upon their usage to date be undertaken. , 16 The comments which I have about the proposal. I 17 tried to divide them in three general categories. 18 One of them is what I see the impact upon our 19 plant cleanup. The impact due to surveillance requirements 20 and thirdly, I'd like to briefly talk about risk. l l 21 Plant cleanup. It is important that when the fuel l 22 removal proCram is completed that a careful and thorough 23 survey be made of the plant to quantity residual fuel. 24 Personnel at the plant who are cognizant of this 25 octivity tell me that for the measurements to be effective. > l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . P
I i I l i 905 i locations where there is water with the fuel, the water will i 2 need to be removed before that survey can be undertaken. ! [ 3 Unfortunately this impacts a number of locations j
'4 where it is proposed that the water remain, f I
$ These are locations such as the reactor coolant (
6 system. the three bleed tanks, miscellanous waste holdup t i 7 tank, the aux building sump tank, the aux sump, deep end of j i 8 the canal and perhaps, although we 're not sure yet, the fuel I 9 canal itself. 10 We have a building conflict here obviously because ( r { 11 we have to drain the tank to do the survey, yet we 're l 12 assuming that we 're going to use the tanks for the storage l l' 13 of water. 1 14 It is possible with careful planning that we miCht 15 be able to accorrenodate these surveys by astute shif ting of 16 water from tank to tank. 17 However, there is a unique problem with the fuel l 18 pool becuase of its large quantity of water there is no l 19 place to shift it. 20 So I'm obviously not going to be able to drain 21 that quantity of water if it is necessary that fuel surveys 22 be done at that location. 23 If this option is pursued it is my opinion that 24 the reactor coolant system should be left drained rather 25 than filled as it is one of the locations listed in the O nernese ae-ru na cor-reuen (202) 628-4888 l I , . .1
I ( 906 i table. 2 The reason for my opinion is that the fuel surveys j l 3 wilI be extensive since this is where trost of the fuel is f> I t ! 4 at. And besides being extensive they will probably be quite 5 tirre consuming. 6 Furtherncre, and I know this an issue that you may 7 not be fcmi!iar with, but the equipment to pump down the ! l l 8 reactor coolant system is temporary systems, I believe you 9 would find it appropriate to try to use those systems while 10 they are still in place rather than come back at some later j 11 peroid of time and have to reinstall and assemble new 12 pumping equipment for the reactor coolant system. 13 If this option is pursued, it is also my idea that O 14 it *o">o he vr"ee"t t v"m> "' 'ne e'er 't = the reector I 15 building and leave it dry as well as pump out and leave dry 16 the deep end of the canal. 17 I mention this because this does start to impact
'\
18 upon the storege volume. But I believe there are reasons. 19 The canal volume is established at one end with a 20 temporary dem which has an inflatable seal. 21 This dam was put there. It is not normal for a 22 normal plant during normal refueling but because of our 23 special defueling tank, our special defueling process that 24 we 're usinC. we installed this dem with the inflatable seal 25 t,o hold back the water from the reactor vessel area. Heritage Reportitig Corporatic.n (202) 628-4888 \ . _ .. .. .
f- ! i ! l 907 l i The dam is periodically monitored and is certainly
')
2 adequate for several years
- time span.
3 However, if we 're going to talk 30 years. I have I 4 to express my concern with the quality of the seal to remain
- 5 intact and functional.
. 6 Concerning the basement, the basement is dirty not I
7 only with radionuclides but just plain dirt. The processing 8 of that water is complicated with the presence of that dirt. l 9 I would not recommend that you put clean water 10 back into the basement and again at some later date have to 11 struggle with the issue of the dirty water. 12 It seems prudent and it certainly avoids, you 13 know, some cost if that handling of the dirty water only be 14 done once. 15 With these adjustments and with filling the fuel ! 16 canal to its designeo limit. I think we will have an 17 available storage capacity including the tanks, pools, aux 18 building sump. 2.8 million gallons. 19 We vilI have an estimated 2. 3 mil 1 ion gallons 20 which leaves 500,000 gallons of free board. 21 500,000 gallons may seem to be a lot but when I'm 1 22 dividing this free board amongst. you know. 20 some spaces, i ! 23 it is close. 24 Because we are assuming that we are filling these , I I
/5 tanks right up to the overflow point.
Heritage Reporting Corporation ; ( (202) 628-4888 , i l l
- _ _ . _ _ . . - _ _ _ = _ _ = . _ ..
i d j 908
s: 1 The processing of the accident generated water by
' -)
\
l 2 EPICOR 2 which is also one of the objectives of the proposal j 3 and then the returning of the water to the tanks will i ! 4 require very careful planning for the purpose since we do i i 5 'have very limited free board 6 Whenever you go to process, when'you process the I 7 water through. you like to do it where you take the volume 8 of the tank, put it through EPICOR, put it into a receiving 9 tank. We call that the batch mode processing. 10 That 's the trost ef ficient way in which to clean up 11 a given volume of water. So for every volume of water in a l l 12 tank that we are starting with, we*ve got to have an equal 13 ancunt of f ree board in a receiving tank again eating into ; () 14 the free board issue. 15 In terms of free board, a particular problem is 16 trying to clean the water up in a fuel pool. It is such a 17 large volune of water, there simply is not enough free board i 16 capacity to receive the water. 19 The processing of that water, we 'll have to do 20 that with what I would I refer to as the feed and bleed. 21 You take some water out, you clean it, you put it 22 back in the pool. The pool becomes a lit t le bit cleaner on 23 the average because of the clean water. 24 Then you take some nnre water out and you 25 continue. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 i .
L
- f. 909 p
1 I 'm not sure that we 'll ever get to the, to your 2 desired water quality by doing that style of processing on ! 3 the fuel pool. ! 4 It 's going to take very long and I 'm not sure l l 5 we 're going to get there; one of the problema with having 6 large volumes of water and having to process in the feed and 7 bleed rrode. 8 Another problem, the next point I wanted to make 9 is the consideration that many of our tanks that we are l l 10 using are in fact dirty and have internal contamination. l l 11 The problem with that is as we process the water l 12 and put it back in a tank, the water is just going to Cet l 13 dirty again which means reprocessing again. 14 The tanks that I 'm particularly concerned with are 15 the three reactor coolant bleed tanks. misscelaneous waste 16 holdup tank. 17 In fact an estimate that I received from a 18 processing engieer whenever I talked to him about this 19 yesterday, he felt that these particular tanks, the 20 recontamination would be in a factor of 100 to 1.000 21 I suppose that we could continue to process and 22 process and eventually get the water clean, but the length 23 of time and the cost associated with that. I cannot project. 24 Certainly a better way to have clean tanks for a 25 stable plant is to drain the tanks. desludge. ilush and
^
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,, ,m f
. _ _ = _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ . ,_ m. . _ . _ _ _ _ 'l 910 i secure. That leaves you with a clean tank, minimum 2 radiation levels left. It certainly seems like a.better 3 idea than continuing to try to move water through the tanks 4 to clean them up. 5 My next general area is the issue of surveillance. 6 I think we need to make sure we recognize that the various 1 7 tanks, pools, and sumps are scattered throughout auxilliary 8 and fuel handling buildings. 9 They are not in one area which means that you 're 10 not able to do a quick, easy inspection as would be done 11 with perhaps outside storage tanks. 12 If I can generalize a little bit, a few large 13 tanks in close proximty is definitely the preferred water 14 management configuration rather than having scattered tanks (]) 15 throughout an existing facility. 16 To avoid frequent inspections. I believe it would 17 be necessary to install remote level indicators for all of 18 our water storage locations. 19 Some of our tanks do have remote level indications 20 but many of them do not. 21 It would also be appropriate to refurbish 22 isolation valves at the time the tanks are drained for 23 processing. 24 A quick estimate leads us to believe that there 25 are over 100 valves in the plant which need to be addressed () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l 911 l 1 for refurbishment. 2 All the valves may not need to be refurbished but 3 it certainly is an item which needs to be looked into. 4 In fact there are some valves that I believe that l 5 we cannot be caught, for instance, at the bottom of the 6 borated water storage tank, which is about a half million 7 gallons, there-is a large approximately 20 inch diameter 8 gate valve which cert ainly will be leaking somewhat. 9 There 's no way I can get to that value to improve 10 its characteristics without draining the borated water j 11 storage tank and there 's simply no place to put that water. 12 So the activities of valve refurbishment and level I l 13 instrumentation are two activities that should be ! l 14 undertaken. I do not have a cost estimate for these two (]) 15 activities. 1 l
- 16 But it 's obvious to rne that there will be in l 17 excess of 1.000 man hours that have to be spent for these 3
18 two activities. 19 With the tanks filled with water. the need for 3 20 winter freeze protection is a consideration. 21 You could use our existing heating system which i 22 requires a ventilation system to be operating or perhaps you 23 may wash to investigate the idea of local heating in the 24 areas where the tanks exist. 4 25 This topic would require some engineering analysis l l
- ([) seritage aeporting corporation (202) 628-4888 J
! l 4
l 912 i to' develop the uvat cost ef fective method of providing
'f 1
j 2 freeze protection. l 3 Keep in mind that the additional operation of the 4 ventilation system if you wish to use it does lead to 5 additional maintenance ef forts and cost for that system as 'j i 6 well as come additional increase in operating cost. , 7 Concerning surveillance itself. I believe it is 8 necessary that daily level recordings be ootained. 9 That 's the reason for the remote instrumentation ; 10 to make it easier. And also quarterly detailed inspections 11 of each water storage location should be undertaken. 12 These inpsections, detailed inspection would 13 result, in my estimate, approximately 100 millirem per () 14 person per inspection. 15 Assuming a two man team over a period of 30 years. 16 a total of 24 man-rem would be experienced due to the tanks 17 rurveillance program, 18 This definitely is not a fine tuned eltimate. 19 It 's an estimate that I quickly put together yesterday based 20 upon our current knowledge of the plant. 21 Some incresse in cost will arise for additional 22 radiological control protection personnel as well as some 23 incremental costs in rad waster generation. 24 Furthermore. we have to recognize that there will 1 26 also be -- this pr]aram will require come additional time () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
913 1 1 on the part of our operating staff. 2 The third general area is the topic of risk. When q 3 TMI-2 was placed into long term inactive layup it is not I 4 likely that there are any accidents which could impact 4 5 public health and safety. I 6 But we do need to recognize that Unit-2 will l 7 contain some residual fixed radioactive contamination. 8 Now that we have gone or proposing to store water 9 in tanks inside the building, we have to recognize that the 10 accidental failure of a tank could relocate what was once 11 fixed contamination. 12 This results in some health risks to the workers 13 and a possible. although I believe very slight, possibility 14 of an airborne release. I 15 I believe the probability of this type of an I j 16 accident happening is very low but yet the risk is not zero. 17 Please understand also that the contamination that l 18 I'm talking about is not the contamination already in the l l 19 water but the contamination that originated in places such 20 as cable trays. instrument racks. pipe hangers. the other 21 nooks and crantes of the plant to make cleanup, total 22 cleanup difficult. 23 Another risk is making assumptions concerning the 24 licensing of this proposal or any other onsite long term 20 storage plans. O sernece ae - u ne *r (202) 628-4888 uen
- _ _ = . .-. . ___ __ __ _ _-
1 914 i A licensing change will be needed and it is
)
2 possible and in fact probable that controls will 60 imposed 3 that I have not yet considered. 4 For example, this proposal for using existing 5 tanks assumes continued usage of the processed water ete rage 6 tanks. 7 The processed water storage tanks were installed 8 after the cleanup for the temporary holdup of our accident 9 generated water. 10 So as we look at long term usage of these tanks. 11 it is possible that requirements could be imposed for 12 periodic non-destructive testing, the contruction of 13 retention dams and possibly others. 14 I don't know for certain that these requirements (]) 15 will be imposed but as we move to the licensing procesr 16 these types of questions will arise and will need to be l 17 addressed. ' 18 Not only is equipment changes costly but 19 considerable man-hours by engineering and licensing 20 personnel will be expended. 21 In conclusion, the proposal does not repreuent a 22 program which is easy to implement nor is it cost free to 23 maintain. 24 My engineering judgment and experience is that the 25 cost of the program wi11 run into mi11lons of dolIars. l () lie r i t age Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48S8
l i- 915 t i i In my mind, it is easy to estimate, speculate that ] L 2 the cost will exceed the evoporation proposal. 3 MR. DAVID. LEWIS: ~The witness is availcble fo* 4 cross examination. l 5 MS. SKOLNIK: It was more like a seminar. Judge 6 Bloch. I wonder if I could submit a trction that I could 7 cross examine now but I appreciate your presentation and if 8 it would be porsible to get a copy of the transcript and to 9 read this over and to perhaps ask Mr. Buchanan more 10 questions later. 11 JUDGE BLOC!!: Given it 's sn issue that 's in the 12 case because of the Board 's concern I prefer that we take 13 about a 15 minute break so that you can organize your 14 thoughts. And you can ask your ques'. ions now. 15 Because if the Board is satisfied thet the record i ib is adequate, we may declare that the issue is over. 17 So if you 'd like, we 'll take a 15 minute break and l 18 we'll resume at 11:30. Does the Staff have a comment? I 19 thought Ms. Woodhead was indicating she might have -- i I 20 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: The Staff has a couple of l 2i queetions. ! 22 JUDGE BLOC:!: C uld you like to hear the Staff 23 questions f1 rat? 24 WS. SKOLNIK: Yes. 25 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: My pleasure. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4889 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ = . _ _ _ _ _ ____ . - _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - .
,-, , ~ _
916 V4 1 CROSS EXAMINATION b']- 2- BY MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: 3 Q Mr. Buchanan, as I understand your outline of what 4 this option entails, this option could not be effective in 5 your mind unless it involved putting the water processed-4 .through the EPICOR 2 system into clean tanks; is that l l 7 correct? i
- J l 8 A (Buchanan) It 's my understanding that. that was ;
^ 9 the proposal. 10 Q And you? testimony. I believe, is if it were not 11 done that way. it would be a matter of putting it back into 12 tanha that are in some cases contain sludge und contain 13 radioactivity in them? l '( } 14 A (Buchanan) That 's true. ! 15 Q Is it your understanding that this proposal 16 involves putting all of the water into locations that could 17 be called tanks? 18 A ("uchanan) There are tanks. There are pools. 19 These are open povit, fuel storage pools. And also we are r l l 20 utilizing the volume of the aux building sump which is four 21 or five or six thousand gallons, I believe. 22 We 're using all the available storage spaces that 23 we have. , l 24 JUDGE PARIS: By fuel storoce pool. do you mean ; I l l 25 spent fuel pool? > f J ( Heritage Reporting Corporation . (202) 628-4888 I
,e, . - .-- . - - _ . - - , - . - - , - - . _ - - - - - - . - . _ , _ . - - - ,
y .- ..- -.. 7.,.- _._ . - - - . - . - ~ . = . I F- . , ^: 4 n .l
- p. :? v
! 4
'917 v '
1 1 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Yes, I do^. 2 JUDGE PARIS: Does each unit on the island have f i l 3' its own spent fuel pool or ic there one spent' fuel poo'l ! i l 4 serving both?- ]! I : j- 5 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Each unit has separate [ i l- 6 fuel storage pools. ; i : l 7 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you'. ! ~
?
t 8 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: j. ) '9 Q Is it.your understanding that this alternative i 10- involves leaving any of the accident generated watcc in ; t !. 11 locations that are open to the atmosphere. the Ju!:dde-i j' 12 atmospehre? , i I i 13 A (Buchanan) The processed water storage tanks do j r L So it 's not an open tank but the tankn are ! l g(]) 14 have vents. 15 vented to the atnesphere as is the c rated water storage I 16 tank and as is COT 1(a). ; l 17 So there are four outside innka and they are l ! 18 vented to the atmosphere. j 19 Q Would -- let me ask you this preliminary question. 20 The head of the teactor vessel is off? 21 A (Buchanan) That 's correct. l 22 Q Does this pro}-n 3al, as you understand it. involve ; I 23 leaving accident generater' water in the reactor vessel in i 24 its current configuratior *h the head off? was discussed, set I 25 A (Buchanan) At ' p r o l't c e I () Heritage Reparting Corporation (202) 629-4888 p r f
.. - _ . . . . - . . - . ~ .
l' i y f r t 918 e l, . t
<~ 1 'forth two days ago, I interpreted that to mean, yes, leaving d'~N_$ )c' j 2 it~in the reactor coolant system. 1 1
3 Part of my discussion or recitation this morning, ! { 4 I.believe that that 's the wrong thing to do and I'd ; i- t
- 5 recommend that water be removed from the reactor coolant
[ i 6 system and not remain there. ; i:- 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there space for that? ! 6 8 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Yes. I.say there is [ 4 i ) 9 space. Also, that is eating away at the free board though, f ( ' [" 10 but there is space. ! V \ j 11 (Continued on the next page.) e i
'12 i
- 13 t t
14
)
15 ; ,- 16 l 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I l i
j ! t I f to 4 6 ) 919 ! 1 BY.MR. STEPHEN LEWIS (Continuing): { l 2 Q Is it your understanding that under this. ! i Ii 1 3 alternativo the water that would be stored in these :
- j. 4 loce.tions woulo be borated water?
< f j 5 A (Buchanan) Yes. But at the same time I 've also !
- - 6 assumed that we 've made no provisions for controlling the I
j: 7 boron. If I could elaborate a little bit, as you process ; i , 8 water through the EPICOR system, typically it removes some 6 .
?
- 9 of the boron. So that if you have a particular requirement [
1 10 for boron control, you may have to put that boron back. l d i j 11 I 've assumed that we would not be doing that. j 12 Q Was.it your testimony that leaving the, that using [ ! 13 this alternative -- let me rephrase it. l- i 14 Using this alternative, would the Licensee be able
])
t 15 to continue in the manner it is presently proceeding with ! 16 its removal of remaining fuel from the reactor? 17 A (Buchanan) Yes. The only real concern I get into 18 is the issue of the residual fuel surveys, which is part of I 19 the overall fuel removal program, but the physical I 20 activities of trying, or accomplishing the fuel removal, t l 21 could go forth. ; i l 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Providing the water has moved l l f 23 oround, as you stated. l i
- 24 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) For the most part, the !
\ > 25 water we have in our various storage locations is reasonably l l
r l l > /~T I (/ Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4868 I l ! f
l
. . 920 i - well independent of the defueling activities, or reasonably
}
2 well decoupled. Reasonably well. 3- . JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood. 4 -Because I thought you testified that in order to ao the i 5 measurements, you did have to move .the water and the f ree 6 boarding space made that difficult. 7 THE WITNESS: CBuchanan) Okay. As I was l 8 answering. I was thinking about that conflict I was building 9 in for myself. Yes. It 's the issue of doing the fuel 10 surveys from the tank, which I get hung up because in my 11 ' terminology that 's not exactly defueling. But it 's part of 12 the overall program. That survey work would have to be 13 done. Whether or not that really results in any fuel 14 removal is yet to be determined. That really depends upon (])- f 15 content or the amount of fuel. 16 So this water shuffling will have this impact upon 17 the total cleanup program. 18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: One moment. , 19 (Pause) 20 BY MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: 21 Q In your mind, are there any criticality issues k 22 associated with retaining the accident-generated water in 23 the locations proposed, as proposed in the existing tankage? i 24 A (Buchanan) Preliminary estimates that I am aware ( c 25 of, of measurements that have been made or attempted to be [ I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l r
,w~~ wt- , - +-m ar --m- , ru g -> m cr-------w+---=menww.m nv vv v~---s e,*- m w- ,ww~--,rn vm ve - , ------m----e,n- w> ,w*w' w,w-- ~~~<w-
P 921
,r . 1 made in the various tanks indicates small' quantities.of fuel 2 in any given tank, and is certainly way below the anount
- 3. needed for criticality. So I have made the assumption, 4 . underlying assumption here that the criticality issues will 5 not be present. Of course that is, assuring that is one of 6 the objectives certainly of the fuel survey program.
7 Q And it is your understanding that under this 8 . proposed -- is it your understanding that under this ! t 9- proposed alternative the accident-generated water would not
-1.0 be in contact with the remaining fuel that is in the reactor 11 vessel?
12 A (Buchanan) If you drain down the reactor vessel,
- 13 put the water elsewhere, then that becomes a true statement.
14 Conversely, if you say no, I really want to use that reactor (]) i 15 vessel for water storage, then it will, that water w$11 I 16 remain in contact with whatever residual fuel there may be 17 in the vessel. 18 Q What were you assuming in that regard? l i 19 A (Buchanan) My assumption is, or my recommendation i 20 is that you remove the water f rom the reactor vessel and l1 A 21 leave the reactor vessel and the reactor cooient system 3 , 22 drained. l 23 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: That 's all the questions I l 24 have. l i l
- 25 JUDGE BLOCH
- Mr. Buchanan, you said roughly 24 )
l l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l'
_ .. _ __ _ .. .m. . - . . _ _ . _ _
.__._._...____._._.__..7__..._...__....
i ! 922 l (~') 1 man-rem occupational exposure. is that correct? v 2 THE WITNESS: CBuchanan) That 's correct. i ! 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you make a comparison of that-i l' 4 to the evaporation proposal, the overall exposure, j 5 occupational, from the one to the other? ! 6 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) That was contained in l 7 Mr. Tarpinian 's testimony. l 1 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Do.we have that number? My 9 recollection is that it 's less than 24 man-rem. But I am l 10 not certain. 11 MR. BAXTER: For evaporation? 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. l 13 MR. BAXTER: I believe it 's 23. Yes, it 's 23. l l () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: And that 's in Mr. Tarpinian 's 15 testimony? l l 16 MP. . BAXTER: That 's right. Page 3. ; i 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it if that were really l; 18 critical your 24 estimate done overnight would probably not l 19 be sufficient. I 20 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) There are other l
\
21 radiation exposures that would be involved, if you went l 22 through all those details that I did. For instance, the i l 23 issue of valve refurbishment. There is radiation exposure l l 24 there which I have not even begun to try to estimate what j 25 that would be. l l () Heritage Report ing corporation (202) 628-4888 l I i
._ .~-
I h j 923 ;
- )
j ('- l' JUDGE PARIS: What would you say the margin of e- \ j' 2 error is around your estimate and around Mr. Tarpinian 's j l '- 3 estimate? ; t I ! '4 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) I can 't speak for Mr. f 5 Tarpinian 's estimate. I believe mine is accurate within 30 6 percent. ! 7 JUDGE PARIS: So 24 plus or minus 30 percent? [ f. 8 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) That 's correct. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: What else haven't you included? Did ; i 10 you include sludge drainage. if it was decided that was l f 11 necessary for the tanks to be cleaned? , f
'12 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) In terms of my man-rem i n 1 13 estimate? No. The only piece, the only thing that I did a 14 man-rem estimate was the surveillance.
j- 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Surveillance. ; (Buchanan) f j 16 THE WITNESS: Tank cleaning, valve j 5 l 17 refurbishment, level instrumentation. I 've made no estimate t
- i
- r 18 for man-rem exposure. l ] l [ 19 MR. BAXTER: The Tarpinian estimate is for I l 20 pretreatment of evaporation bottoms. j 21 JUCGE BLOCH: So pretreatment is also not 22 included. 23 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) I made nc estimate. i i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Are there any more questions before 25 we take our breuk? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626 *,888
924
-G The State?
i.-b. 1 2- MR. BHATTACHARYYA: I become lawyer. I have a , 3 question. l l 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome as a lawyer. Would you just i 5 announce your name for the record? { f 6 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: Aj it Bhattacharyya is my name. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: You may want to spell that. If you 8 would, for the record. l 9 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: It 's in the record. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, it 's in the record, then please 11 continue. l 12 CROSS EXAMINATION l 13 BY MR. BHATTACHARYYA: l [ O 14 Q One thing, one cost you did not consider is the 15 different shield transportation costs. You'know, you have a 16 different solid waste stream come out of this system as ( 17 opposed to evaporation system. I 18 A (Buchanan) You 're ref erring to the resin, resin 19 waste? ( 20 Q Yes. The solid waste that 's coming out. 21 A (Buchanan) The preprocessing estimate we have 22 made for the evaporator program included that cost. I 23 believe if you look at the text. I think it is 32.1 million 24 for preprocessing. That included materials and operations 25 and disposal of EPICOR material. Heritage Re. porting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ . _ - . . . ~ _ ~ l t 925
~
j. f 1- r~~ ~1 Q It 's for the evaporation, whatever this -- ( ! 2 A (Buchanan) Yes. ! 3 JUDGE BLOCH: This is preprocessing? i i 4 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) The preprocessing, yes. l t 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Just the preprocessing. 6 .THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) As I got into some of my l l 7 elaborations where I start talking about repeated processing l 8 due to dirty tanks, there is going to be additional resins 9 consumed, and I have made no allowance or estimate of how 10 much additional processing will be required. But there will 11 be some, due to the dirty tank situation. 12 BY MR. BHATTACHARYYA: 13 Q But you will have two waste streams, one () 14 *mmediately and another 30 years later.
. Thirty years later.
15 is it a true statement that 30 years later, because of 16 Pennsylvania low-level waste, you would have, you would 17 potentially have a lesser cost for the waste streams? 18 A (Buchanan) Certainly potential. 19 Q So the question of how much waste you are going to 20 generate now as opposed to later is irrelevant. because if 21 you generate most of the waste later, then there is 22 potential for significent cost reduction. Is that not true? 23 A (Buchanon) I don 't know whether the cost is going 24 to go up or down, with the. you know, with the Pennsylvania 25 storage or disposal facility coming on line. I don 't know () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p-__~ -. . i I I ! i ! u 926 l l
.i l 1 what is going to happen to the cost.: I don 't know. I 'm not j
) (~)T s : i 2 close enough to that topic really. j l- t 3 JUDGE BLOCH: 'But the thrust of the question I l l '4 think' is won 't there still have'to at some time be a way of i- : { 5 disposing of the solid waste materials? l I ' i '6 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Oh, yes. r I i I
- 7 JUDGE BLOCH
- Is that what you meant? I i I j' 8 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: No, the thing that was in the j i' !
j 9 back of my mind is that in fact you have a shorter l 10 transportation route. Okay? So the basic transportation j l i i
- 11 cost and the basic transportation risks would be, unit-wise.
12 would be smaller, because of the distance it traveled. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: You are expecting that the waste ! () 14 disposal site in the future would be closert 15 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes. It will be, because by ; 16 law Pennsylvania is required to have it by 1993, and if it 17 doesn 't have it by 30 years later, we would have problems. 18 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) I think the argument ! t 19 there gets into what kind of rates are going to be charged. 20 We 've seen large, substantial increases from the existing 21 storage facilities in the past ten years or so and that 's j 22 why I 'm not at all comfortable in guessing what the State of 23 Pennsylvania f acility may wind up charging. You 're right, 24 obviously. Transportation costs will be down. ! [ 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Our record did not previously show , () Heritage Reporting (202) 628+4888 Corporation [ l L I
, ,-- - .. - . - .- _ _ - .- --.- ~-. _ - ... .- -..... - - - -- - - = _ - - _ _ . - . , E j jI 4. l d( l l 927 l l 1 that there would be a solid waste disposal site in 4 9 Pennsylvania by 1993. I know of nothing in our record that l 1 j 3 has said that. That 's Federal law? ; 4 l 4 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: Federal law. ; 5 JUDGE BLOCH: We can of cource take note-of !
- j. 6 Federal law. Thank you. ;
j 7 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: I mean, basically what ; t . l 8 happens, if you don 't meet the milestone, you have l 9 penalties, severe penalties through to +.he state and the 10 generators of the state. i l 11 BY MR. BHATTACHARYYA: l I 12 Q The issue of transportation is important, because ; i 13 if you look at some of the risks for this, dubstantial risk ; O 14 comes out of the transportation. So the cost itself is one 15 part of the problem. The risk of transportation is another l 16 part of the problem, 17 So I think it would be in this particular l 18 discussion of onsite storage, how much of the waste goes 19 upfront to distant repositories and how much goes later to 20 nearer repositories, would have been a good significant 21 input to get a handle on. l l 22 JUDGE PARIS: When you speak of risk -- 23 MR. BHATTACHARYYA No. I was trying to see if he l 24 had thought about this particular. I was trying to get at. 25 do you have an idea of the waste generated now as opposed to l lO l l Heritege Regerting Cerrore11en (202) 628-4888 l-
928 O i later? X) . 2 A (Buchanan) As it pertains to the discussion that 3 I made this morning about my evaluation of the proposed 4 option, the. timing and the transportation of the waste. I S didn 't even attempt to get into that topic. I was really 6 limiting my discussion really to the onsite operational 7 activities,-quite honestly. l i 8 JUDGE PARIS: By risk in transportation, do you l 9 have in mind the risk f rom radiation exposure while it 's in I 10 transit -- 11 MR. BHATTAChARYYA: Yes. 12 JUDGE PARIS: -- or risk from accidents? 13 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: Both. () 14 JUDGE PARIS: Both. Normal and accidental, both to j 15 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: 16 the drivers and to the public around. 17 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. 18 MR. BHATTACHARYYA Thank you. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I believe that the record contains 4 20 enough information about transportation risks and including i 21 both radiation and accident so that if it is correct to make f 22 on assumption that Pennsylvania will have a storage site. 23 that that data can be derived from our record. 24 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes. One input I need is the i 25 mix in how much risk now as opposed to later. And this is I i () Heritage Reporting Corpo rat ion (202) 628-4888 I
929 1 the input I was asking, because we looked at it. {~/}
~
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, basically, I.think the 3 quantity that.will be transported later will be roughly the I i 4 same as it would be under the current -- I I 5 kR. BHATTACHARYYA On the extent of' l 6 preprocessing. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: -- under the current evaporation 1 8 proposal, except that it will be.somewhat less hot because 9 of decay. 10 The remarks you just made of course are applicable , i 3 11 whether the tanks, whether it 's stored in tanks outside or l 12 whether it 's stored inside. 13 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: In the evaporation option I do
- 14 not have a clear idea of the extent of preprocessing. The
(]} j 15 preprocessing is comparable in the two cases. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: You may want to confer with the
- 17 utility officials because our records do indicate what that i 18 is.
! 19 Now, would you like the 15-minute break? j 20 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. j
- 21 JUDGE BLOCH
- Okay. It 's 11:34 We 'll be back at i i
i 22 11:49. That 's 11: 49. f j 23 ( Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) , r Tape 694 JUDGE BLOCH: Go ahead. ; , 25 MS. WOODHEAD: Mr. Chairman, before we begin could , I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t l [
'l 930 1 I --
2 JUDGE BLOCH: You mean while we 're still off the 3 record? 4 -MS. WOODHEAD: Oh, I'm norry. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: ihat do you want? Just state what 6 you want to state. 7 MS. WOODHEAD: Oh. I wanted to point out that, 8 the fact that Pennsylvania is expected to have a low-level 9 waste site is already on the record. It 's in Ms. Munson 's , 10 testimony on Page 9. although she doesn't specifically state i i 11 Pennsylvania. She said something'to the effect that local i !. 12 storage would be available in 30 yecra. So that is on the- ! 13 record. 1 i
.() 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Well, the fact that i t 's 15 in Pennsylvania says something about the distance, though.
16 MS. WOODHEAD: Right. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Sko li,ik. 18 CROSS EXAMINATION 19 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 20 Q Mr. Buchanan, under the GPU evaporation proposal, 21 are you planning to preprocess the water? And to what 22 extent will you use the equipment that is presently 23 available? 24 MR. DAVID LEWIS: I have an objection. Your Honor. 25 We 've come here to provide some brief testimony on the () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ '
y .?
- *h 931 -l v !
l f3_ 1 alternative that was advanced by Joint Intervenors,' storage i f.~'L/- p 2 in its current locations. . And I don 't think that question ; 3 should now be redirected back to the original evaporation -; I 4 propesel. j l , 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you specify whether there is- [ i ! l 6 any difference in pretreatment because the water vi.I be ! j' 7 stored within the containment as opposed to the previously 8 estimated situation of it being stored outside containment. I L 9 under the Intervenors ' proposal? Is there any -- there may it i 10 not be any difference. The Applicants have previously } i 11 estimated the cents associated with the Intervenors ' ( 12 proposal of storage in tanks outside containment. Is there 13 any difference, in your opinion, in the pretreatment l Q 14 required because we 're going to use sites within the ! 15 containment ? 16 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Yes, I believe there i l 17 will be difference in cost. As was stated, existing tankage
- 18 contains some residual activities. They are dirty tanks.
19 The water is going to get dirty. Even though we try to l 20 preprocess the water at the beginning of the program, if you 21 put the water back into dirty tanks it 's going to get dirty l l 22 on you again. Therefore, you are going to have to do come l 23 additional repeat preprocessing in order to have the water 24 stage for the evaporator. So there will be some additional l l 20 costs associated with -- there will be some additional Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.m..__...._._.
.7...________.._._...__.._-_.__._.._._._._...___..__,__.._.___....__
l - [- . I 1 [~ 932- 1 1 processing costs due to using existing tanks. [~ 2 ' JUDGE . PARIS : By "dirty" you 're talking about ! ! l j' 3 .something beyond radioactivity? i !. I ! 4 THE WITNESS: CBuchanan) I 'm talking principally l 4 I l-I 5 radioactivity. I [ 6 JUDGE PARIS: Radioactivity? All right. -l l- ! 7 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) That 's what I 'm worried l l' ! I 8 about. Yes, there is some dirt. You know, the l 5 ! l- 9 radioactivity is in some chemical form tied up on something. j
- 10 JUDGE PARIS
- Sludge or something like that? l
- i. !
l 11 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Sludge. l I 12 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. . 13 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) And those issues also t O 14 nave to de eeareeeea- You xao - there e etuos e im tne 15 tanks. As you process the water. we have to be filtering [L I 16 that sludge out of the stream. You have to deal with those I j- 17 filters and the replacement of those filters. That is an . s I 18 additional effort. alno. b 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that really additional? Don 't [ j 20 you have to deal with that sludge anyway during the cleanup? 21 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) What you 'd really prefer I 22 to do. and I believe it in the most effective way, is to h 1 23 what I c.all desludging the tanks. You drain the tanks, go ! t I ! 24 in with equipment that is deliberately intended to try to , 25 pull out the heavy residual. It will be wet, but you know. l Heritnge Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I l 1 !
i 933- - {} 1 2
' muddy water, if we can really call it.
JUDGE BLOCH: And would you be doing that.during l 3 the cleanup anyway?
- 4. THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) There are needs to do i
5 that-for our present cleanup program, yen. That is correct. [ 6 JUDGE PARIS: Would that be done if the water is 7 evaporated? 8 THE WITNESS: .(Buchanan) Yes, it would be. 9 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 10 Q So was that cost of desludging the tanks figured . t 11 into the evaporation proposal? 12 A (Buchanan) It has nothing to do with the , 13 evaporation program. But that is -- () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: The questions we 've asked. I think,
-15 suggest that it really doesn't have anything to do with the t 16 storage inside the containment, either. It has to be done, !
17 whether we have storage inside the containnent or outside , i [ 18 the containment.
- i 19 BY MS. SKOLHIK
- l i
l j 20 Q Under the plan that you addressed today, do you l 21 plan to preprocess the water with the equipment available? l \ ! 22 A (Buchanan) Yes. ) 23 Q Is there a difference between the water that would , I 24 be preprocessed for storage and the water that would reach E 25 the criteria for vaporization? I f () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l I ! l
-.-_--__--,.D
934
. r~3 '1 A (Buchanan) As I understand _ the way you 've been Q-) '
2 using terms. "preprocessing" means achieving a water quality 3 that is suitable for evaporator influent. 4 Q Is that -- oh, yes. Can you achieve -- I may have 5 just asked it, but I have to ask it again. 6 Can you achieve -- 7 (Pause) 8 BY MS. SKOLNIK: , 9 Q If you compare the cost of achieving the i 10 evaporator influent with the cost of preprocessing the 11 water, would you get a difference? What is the difference? , i 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Preprocessing it to what? : 13 MS. SKOLNIK: Preprocessing it for storage. j () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: In the evaporator? 15 MS. SKOLNIK: No. If you preprocess it with the l 16 equipment that 's available, what is the difference in cost 17 between that and preprccessing it in the evaporator to reach l 18 effluent criteria? 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Could I have the qualification. ( 20 to what degree of processing does the question relate? The l 21 same degree in each coce? 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Is the obj ect to get it to the state j i 23 at which it would be able to be vaporized? j 24 MS. SKOLNIKi I think that 's where there 's a lot 25 of confusion. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r* . - 935 5 i JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. But I'm not sure any of the (G i 1 2 rest of us have the confusion. What 's the confusion? j 3 MS. SKOLNIK: Is the -- okay. 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 5 Q You said that you could achieve the evaporator i 6 influent for the vaporizer with the equipment available on i 7 site at the moment. , 8 A (Buchanan) No, I did not. , 9 Q Oh, okay. So you could not achieve -- 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Not for the vaporizer. For the -- 11 THE WITNESS: CBuchanan) Evaporator. ; 12 JUDGE BLOCH: -- evaporator. He can achieve the 13 influent to the evaporator with the equipment on site. To 14 get the influent to the vaporizer, they need to purchase the e 15 evaporetor and use it. 16 MS. SKOLNIK: Right. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Which would be a large additional 18 cost in your proposal. Is that what you 're estimating? Is 19 that your proposal, that the evaporator be purchased but not 20 the vaporizer? ! 21 MS. SKOLNIV.: No, I 'm not going to propose that. 22 What I 'm t ry .Ag to wo rk ou t -- ! 23 JUDGE BLOCH: So let's state what you are 24 proposing, which is not that. 20 MS. SKOLNIK: Well. I think the evaporator has I i O Heriteae aenertine Corgeretion (202) 628-4888 j r [ h i
936
'rT 1 already been bought.
(-) 2 BY MS. SKOLNIX: 3 Q Has the evaporator already been bought. Mr. 4 Buchanan? 5 A (Buchanan) Procurement activity is underway. 6 Q Does that mean it 's on site? 7 A (Buchanan) No, it does not mean it 's on site. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, if you use the 9 evaporator in your proposal, the cost of the evaporator 10 becomes part of your proposal. 11 MS. SKOLNIK Yes, but I think what I 'm trying to 12 decide, if the equipment, is the equipment now on the 13 Island. () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: It doesn 't matter. Even if it 's 15 already on the Island, if you use it, it 's part of the 16 proposal. 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch, these questions are 18 going f ar beyond the direct testimony. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Please, the only subj ect that we 're 20 talking about now is the differential impact of storage 21 within the containment. 22 MS. SKOLNIK In the containment? 23 JUDGE BLOCH: In the storage locations that they 24 are in now, some of which are in the containment. () Heritage Repor t ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 c F i 937 t I. .BY MS. SKOLNIK: r") 1 .! !- (_/ i 2 Q When you were talking about the available tankage, j l 3 and you said that you needed to remove.the water to quantify [ I !. 4 .the fuel, but wouldn 't you need the quantit'ated assessment i L ! F 5' of the fuel before you removed the water because of the need ! , t f I l 6 for the water to prevent criticality? ! ! h
- 7 You said that you would have to remove the water (
! t 8 in order to quantify the amount of fuel that 's lef t in the 9 reactor vessel. But wouldn't you need to leave the water ; i 10 there? Because if you don't know what 's in the reactor 11 vessel, why would you remove the water when it 's there to 12 prevent criticality? 13 A (Buchanan) In order to have criticality, you need ! 14 water. (]) 15 JUDGE BLOCH: The water is a moderator. 16 JUDGE PARIS: Doesn't GPU have a pretty good idea 17 of what is in the containment vessel in terms of fuel and 18 the condition it 's in. 19 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) We do have estimates, 20 certainly. 21 JUDGE PARIS: You do have what ? 22 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) We do have estimates. l 23 That is correct. 24 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. l l ' 25 (Pauses I . () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4988 l h
- m. r, I
i t ): 938 , j l
- j. 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, we 'll permit about ten Ui 2- more minutes and then we 'll evaluate where we are. 1 3
i '3 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. i 4 BY MS. SKOLNIK: ! t i l j 5 Q When you spoke about --.you were talking about the ; 6 contamination in the tanks. And if the water gets i l 7 recontaminated, when it is returned to the tank, doesn 't , l ) 8 that increase the source term then for the evaporator? l 1 ! 9 JUDGE BLOCH: I don 't understand . that question at ; I 10 all, j 11 MS. SKOLNIX: The source term -- 1 l 12 JUDGE BLOCH: There 's no evaporator in this I I 13 proposal. This is your proposal. There 's no evaporator. ! 14 (Pause) (]) 15 'BY MS. SKOLNIK: l 16 Q Is it possible to include the storage of the water 17 along with the amendment for PDMS? Is that -- you talked 18 about regulatory controls against leaving the water on the 19 Island. But wouldn 't it be possible to include that with ! 20 the PDMS licensing amendment ? 21 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Excuse me. I don 't understand ; i' 22 the question. It seems like it 's again not limited to this 23 piece of testimony. 24 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, we were talking about f 25 regulatory controls. p e f I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f L i, f
. _ . . _ ~ _ _ . _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ ,
i 939 I
. i' JUDGE BLOCH: If this Board were to approve.this
{ 2 version, there probably wouldn't need to be any further ; i 3- regulatory consideration. It would come out in the course l l 4 of this hearing. I would agree with that as a matter of S law. We have the power to order this alternative if we j i 6 chose to. ; 7 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Your Honor. this hearing isn't 8 for you to choose an alternative. You can rej ect the f i 9 current proposal, because there 's an obviously superior l 10 alternative. I assume that 's what you mean -- if you found 11 that this was an obviously superior alternative. That would j r 12 not then make that alternative a proposal pending before the i I 13 NRC. h () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'd have to be brief ed on it. My l 15 understanding is that we could then direct the licensing of 16 that alternative. ! 17 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I don 't believe that 's the ; 18 law. That 's not my understanding. r 19 JUDGE BLOCH: We would need to be briefed before , 20 we would reach a conclusion about that. But at any rate. 21 that 's not the witness' expertise. ! 22 BY MS. SKOLNIK 23 Q What percentage of the tank do you think would h 24 need review? You talked about review at the beginning of k 25 the proposal. () Heritage Repo r t ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
l , I 940 1 A (Buchanan) I 'm assuming you 're - ref erring to 2 structural integrity. 3 Q Yes. 4 A (Buchanan) All of them. j i 5 Q A11 of them? l l 6 A (Buchanon) Absolutely. j i 7 Q What was the life expectancy of these tanks when i I 8 they were built's f 9 A (Buchanan) Excluding the process water storage { I 10 tank, these tanks were designed to accommodate the life of I 11 the plant. which I believe was 30 years. However, each tank I 12 had on original design function that 's not necessarily how l 13 we're using the tenks in the current mode of activity at O 14 u"11 2. 15 Q However. wou ldn 't the -- come of these tanks, is q 16 it true that some of these tanks were built to support i 17 reactor operating? f 18 A (Buchanan) They are all built to support the l 19 plant. So I guess that 's true. 20 Q So their function, do you think the function of { 21 storing the water for 30 years may be less? ; I 22 A (Buchanan) Normal plants, a typical pressurized j 23 water reactor cystem does not utilize borated water that 's 24 borated to anywhere near this extent. pH controls are 25 different. All the radionuclides -- we 've had the power l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
941 i gamut, I suppose -- that 's not typicat of a normal power gg 2 plant. Our water isn 't, is a little different than what you 3 will find in an operating power plant. 4 Q And what difference will the boron in the water 5 make? 6 A (Buchanan) That 's why I think we ought -- I think l 7 your proposal needs the review of a qualified corrosion 8 metallurgical engineer. I am not. 9 (Continued on the next page.) 10 11 ! 12 , i ! 1 l 13 i l ! lll 14 l 15 ! 17 ! j 18 i l 19 i
- I l, 20 1
21 l 22 1 1 1 , 23 i 24 I 25 j i l llh Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l i l
942 1 Q When you spoke about surveillance, would you talk 2 a little bit more about that? 3 MR. DAVID LEWIS: That 's a very vague question. 4 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Could we have a little more 6 focus, please? 1 7 BY MS. SKOLNIX: 8 Q Is it necessary to open the tanks? Okay. Sorry. 9 Where would the radiation exposure cone f rom when you 're. l 10 surveilling the. when you're looking at the tanks? I 11 A (Buchanan) My assumptions were that you need to 12 inspect all of your isolation boundaries, make sure that , t 13 they are in tact, site glasses, what have you. () 14 A lot of those represent dead legs which contain ; 15 some residual radioactivity. Those are the types of 16 locations where you 're going to pick up some radiation 17 exposure. 18 Q And how often would that need to be done? I I 19 A (Buchanan) My statement was that I assumed j l 20 quarterly. ! 21 JUDGE BLOCH: The surveillance of these tanks with 22 the 24 man-rems would be only quarterly? 23 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) That's correct. j 24 BY MS. SKOLNIK: ! t 25 Q What did you nosume when you were assessing that l I () Heritage Reportir.g Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; I a 9
, n,~,--- ---wn, _ - .mn , ----n n-,--n---,---n- -
b o 943 p
'1
~
doae, what were you assuming was the red.!onuclide content of 2 that water? 3 i A CBuchanan) I 'm talking gamma radiation. 4 Q Yes. How much had it been processed? l 5 A (Buchanan) Some of it -- I don 't know. I 'm not 6 sure 'I understand what you 're saying. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Buchanan, would the exposure be 8 resulting mostly from the water in the tankage or from other 9 sources within the plant? 10 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) It 's f rom other sources. 11 It 's residual contamination. It 's not the water in the 12 tankage that 's the maj or source. That's true. l l 13 JUDGE PARIS: So gamma radiation coming through O 14 the te"x *eit "ie e t de e m 'or eo"rce or -- 15 THE WITNESS: CBuchanan) I do not believe so. l 16 BY MS. SKOLNIK: 17 Q When you 're talking about the Mintion expos'are, 18 are you assuming that the tanks are al1 inside or some are 19 in and some are out? 20 A (Buchanan) It 's the antir? inventory tankage. 21 Q So some of them are outside? 22 A (Buchanan) Yes. 23 Q Okay. So where would the radiation field come 24 from, from around, yot. Know, onsite? I can understand that 25 there wc'ild probably -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . - - = _ - . - - - - - _ - --
t L l b 944 (-
& A (Buchanan) The outside tankage, you know, d
l 2 essentially is zero. I assumed zero for the outside tanks. l y, 3 Q Okay. So the 24 person-rem, was it person-rem? l 4 A (Buchanan) Correct. O Q Yes, that was just for the tankage that was ; 6 inside? 7 A (Buchanan) Tankage, poo1s. and sumps. 8 Q What percentage of the tankage is that? Do you 9 have any idea of f hand? . t 10 A (Buchanai l I don 't know. I 'd have to sit down f 1 11 and do the arithmetic. One of our interrogatory answers { 12 gave a listing of tanks and tank volumes. I 'd have to sit 13 down and calculate it. 14 Q Yes. actually I have it right here. 15 JUDGE PARIS: By tanks inside. do you include l l 16 tanks in the auxiliary building? 17 THE WITNESS: (Buchanan) Yes. 18 BY MS. SKOLNIX: 19 Q Is the -- were you thinking of preprocessing the i 20 water and cleaning the tanks and then putting the water back 21 in? Or during the 30 year storage period, would the sludge 22 remain in the bottom af the tank when you were thinking of 23 this proposal? 24 A (Buchanen) If the sludge is not renoved then it 's 25 going to stay in the tanks. That's certainly true. Heri'. age Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L - l
.; 945 1 JUDGC BLOCH: Mr. Buchanan talked about it two
{ 2 ways. He said the better way would bs to take the sludge l 3 'out first. What 's the question now? 4 MS. SKOLNIK: That was what I wanted -- I 'm trying 5 to envisage. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: The radiation doesn't come from [ t 7 within the tanks. It comes from the whole surroundings of j 8 the plant when the people are in there to check it. You 're ! 9 within containment. There 's still a lot of radiation in , 10 co nt ai nmer't . Not a lot of it but enough to get 24 person- [ l 11 rem over the inspection period. i l4 : 12 BY MS. SKOLNIK: i 13 Q Is that person-rem f rom the reactor when it 's in ['
! () 14 PDMS?
15 A (Buchanan) It 's a total. You are going through i t 2 ! 16 the plant entering all, not all certairily, but a number of l 17 the cubicles and spaces of the plant. $ l. 18 You're exposed to whatever residual activity i 19 remains everywhere essentially. You can't point your finger l 20 and say, my exposure is coming from there or this tank or 21 this wall or whatever. It 's a cumulative. It 's total. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, if there are other l- 23 questions that you 'd like the Board to Inquire into, we i j 24 could do that. 4 25 Could you explain if there are other questions of i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688 } i i
,,..,,-.r---- . . - , , , , . , ,_ ,
U
- 4. 1 l
s j 946 I I i impoetence that we could ask questions about? l 2 (Pause) i l 3 JUDGE BLOCH: In two more minutes we intend to 4 decide. Ms. Skolnik, this is the last moment f or you to i I 5 tel1 us if there something we must ask. l 6 MS. SKOLNIR: No. There 's noining. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board is prepared to rule on i 8 this issue that we raisa as a matter of adequacy, First,
- l. 9 I'd like to thank you very nach, Mr Euchanan, for your work l
10 in analy::ing this inferrution. ! 11 When we raised this issue yesterday I expressed 12 concern about whether the Utility had sympathetically 13 evaluated the Intervenor's proposal. 14 But it 's clear to me right now that there was no 15 lack of sympathy that what was different was that the f l 16 Utility knew a lot more ainut its plant than I did in 17 thinking it wasn't being rympathetic, i 18 It 's quite clear to me based on what you 've said j { 19 about man-rems and costs and compitcations. at:d difficulties g 1 20 attended to storage within the existing areas including : 21 within the containment that there je no obvious superiority 22 of this alternative to the evaporaten proposul. . 23 And that there in therefort no more reason to , 24 consider this issue within this case. 25 Consequently the issue that the Board raised as a l Haritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i-1
9' 947 1 matter of adequacy.of the' record is hereby dismissed.
)
6 2 I want to thank you for the very extensive 3 cooperation that you gave the Board with its concerns. ! 4 So we-are prepared to -- the Intervenor 's proposal 5 concerning storage outside the containment is of' course 6 still its proposal and that 's what we 're having our heerings 7 about. 8 We 're prepared to adjourn this session of the [ 9 evidentiary hearings until next Monday. I guess I 'd like' to 10 have an estimate if we con of the amount of cross ! t il examination time that the parties plan for next Monday and : Tuesday. 12 [ i 13 Is there any way we can get that estimation? Can i () 14 the Intervenors estimate that for us? Do you have any iden 15 what your cross examination t ime will be for the two i l 1 16 witnesses we 're co-ing back here for next Monday? : 17 MS. SKOLNIK: No. I real 'y don 't. P 18 JUDGE BLOCH: My belief is that we should be able } l l 19 to finish in either in the first afternoon or the first day i I 20 and a half so that, that one o ' clock starting time is ! I I 21 appropriate. [ t 22 Taat was what was concerning me whether we needed ; t 23 more time next week. The whole week is scheduled but my [ I i 24 anticipation is that we 'll finish by some time Tuesday f .25 afternoon, i I i () Heritage Repc-ting Co rpo rat ion (202) 628-4888 l ' i i l l
l
- f. 948
{ 1 So we will adjourn the evidentiary hearing. We do j 2 have -- 3 .MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Your Honor. I believe he had 4 scheduled for today, the oral argument on the motion to I 5 strike.- l l i 6 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's correct. Would the parties 7 prefer that we break for lunch or that we have the oral l ! 8 argument before lunch? l i 9 MR. DAVID LEWIS: I think it might be better to ) 1 10 proceed with oral argument af ter lunch for this notion. 1 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. It's 12:23. We 'll resume for l l 12 that purpose at 1:30 i l
'13 (Whereupon, the witness was excused.)
14 (Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m.~. the hearing was 15 recessed, to reconvene this name day. Thursday. November. 3. I I 16 1988 at 1 30 p.m.)
- 17 I l 18 l i
19 l l' 20 I 21 22 23 l 24 25
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l k J
v 949 i AFTERN'OON SESEION 2 1:30 p.m. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Good afternoon. I 'd like to suggect j l 4 a'alightly different procedure than I did before because i l 5 I 've now carefully compared the_ motion to the tt.stimony. 6 It seems to me it might w:stx better than dividing 7 the time the way I suggested to have t.icensee assume that I 8 have read the document and compared it, that we have; 3 l 9 And therefore have the Staff'make a brief j l l 10 3tatement of its agreement or disagreement with the j j 11 Licensee 's motion. l l 12 The. State could then speak. And then the i 13 Intervenor and then if there 's some brief rebuttal we could l lO i 14 hear that at ~that time. just a couple minutes' rebuttal. l l l 15 Would that be acceptable to the parties? i l l l 16 MS. PHELPS: Yes, j l 1 17 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes, j l 18 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. ! l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So let 's proceed. l l t 20 MR, STEPHEN LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, the Staff l I ( 21 supports the Licensee's motion. We have reviewed the l l l f 22 testimony and consider it, excuse me, reviewed the motion j 23 and consider it in terms of the admitted issues in the 74 proceeding and the issues that have survived sunmary 25 disposition motions. l Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4868
__ _ _ .__ _ ._= _.
.1 950 i And attempted to assess whether or not the 2 portions of the testimony that are sought to be stricken 3 from the record or are sought to be not accepted as evidence .
4 in the proceeding relate in any way to those contentions. 5 And it is our conclusion that the portions which 6 the Licensee is. seeking to strike are not related to any of l 5 7 the remaining issues in the proceeding. ! I r 8 They are not related to health effects of tritium. fI 9 They 're not related to the question of whether or not ! 10 tritium or strontium is the radionuclide of greatest concern 11 from the proposal, j l 12 They are not addressed to the question of the , 13 effect upon risk coefficients used in assessing the risk 14 associated with evaporation of the AGN 15 The ef fects upon that, the possible effects upon l 16 that of data on re-evaluation of Japanese survivors. 17 There are some portions of Dr. Morgan 's proposed 18 testirrony that do address some of these subjects but we 19 concur in the Licensee's identification of which portions of
?O the testimony do not addresi any of those issues. !
21 So factually. we find ourscIves in support of the 22 notion. Additionally the appendices to the. propoued 23 appendicea to the testimony of Dr. Morgan. 24 As to Appendices A and B. it is our independent 25 view that those documents cre not addressed to any of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
. . - . - . h
I I 951
- 1. issues in this proceeding but are rather addressed to 2 whether or not currently established regulatory values for I 3 maximum permissible concentrations in offluents to a unrestricted areas and maximum permissible exposures to i
5 workers should be modified. [ 6 That's a rulemaking matter which someone could s t
? bring up in a rulemaklng they might seek to request.
f 8 But it is clearly totally different than the { i 9 issues before this Board regarding the impacts of the 10 proposed disposal of the AGW. l 11 Appendix C is also offered by Dr. Morgan in 12 support of hic arguments regarding NPC and maximum ! { !' 33 permissible exposure to workers. j O 14 ^ao e ere eieo comcermeo ee i 2ne 'icemeee l 15 regarding the fact that Dr. Morgan apparently purported to 16 represent as a portion of that Appendix C. two pages of 17 recommendations and summary which are not in fact, part of l 18 that document. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Did the Staff independently verify 20 that allegation? 21 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS We have not. I am relying. I 22 am relying on the Licensee 's representations in that regard 23 and my correnent s Ore in that context, f 24 We have ao reason to doubt that the Licensee has 25 presented the full iocument as they have stated under cover O Heutece never11ee (202) 628-4888 Cer - 11em
. f,' 'i' 952 1 of their motion.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: So if I hear you correctly, there 3 are no differences-between the Staff and the Licensee? 4 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I 'm not quite through yet. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh. okay. If that 's true there may 6 not be any reason to continue. Is that what you 're saying? 7 hR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes, but I do -- that 's t rue 8 but I want to make a point about Appendix D. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 10 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: The Appendix D docu;ent is, as 11 I understand it, a portion of the studies, papers related to i 12 the studies conducted by Dr. Patrick ano others. [ 13 And the subj ect of Appendix D is "ediation ; () 14 monitoring and previously in this proceedii.g. Intervenors ( 15 have sought to raise the contention regarding the adequacy L 16 of the Licensee 's proposed plans or the Licensee 's 17 capability with regard to radiation monitoring for the nGW. } ( 18 And that contention has previously been rej ected. ! 19 So I think that, that document does not therefore ! 20 go to any admitted issue in the proceeding. f 21 I think the case law -- we 've taken a look at the ! t 22 case law cited by -- I l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you say Appendix D? i 24 MR, STEPHEN LEWIS: Appendix D. f i 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm missing Appendix D. j l () Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-48r8 f f e 1 _a
I- , i 1 l l' 953 JUDGE PARIS: {;_ 1 So am I. i 2 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes. It also has the name. 1 l 3 Appendix F. but it was Appendix D to the testimony. I i ! 4 JUDGE PARIS: Is it labeled Appendix F also? 5 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: That 's not it? i 6 M3. WOODHEAD: That 's not it. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'll hand this back when we 're done 8 with it. 9 MS. WOODHEAD: That 's j ust the index, l 10 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes. Subsequently by a 11 document dtted. 10/20/88. SDA TMI notification to parties 12 that Dr. K.Z. Morgan 's appendices to his testimony are being i 13 submitted as exhibits. The full document is attached to O 14 thet- l 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. ' 16 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Do you need a copy of what I 'm j 17 referring to? 18 JUDGE BLOCH: No. I have it now. f 19 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: We have also looked -- 20 JUDGE BLOCH: -- to save the state of 21 Pennsylvania. 22 MR, STEPHEN LEWIS: We 've also looked at the case 23 law cited by the Licensee for support for the authority of 24 this Board to strike testinony that is not material and they 2S assert in some respects, what they refer to as scandalous. ' I
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l I
954 ; i
- i But in any event the point is that much of the 2 testimony is in the nature of an attack upon standards 3 established by the NRC. is in the nature of an attack upon 4 recommendations of various bodies with which -- and those 5 recommendations. Dr. Morgan apparently disagrees with. j i
6 And those are us I say, rat. issues in this ; 7 proceeding. I 'm satisfied that the Board has ample l 8 authority to strike testimony on the basis set forth by the l t i 9 Licensee. ! 10 That completes my comments. i W 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Ms. Skolnik. ! 2 i
, 12 MS. P!lELPS : Excuse me. !
4 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, I 'm sorry. That 's correct. Ms. ( )(]} j 14 iS Phelps. MS. PHELPS: The State agrees that the Board has 16 the authority to strike much of this testimony but I l 17 question the wisdom of doing so in that the purpose of the = r i 18 hearing. I believe. is in many ways to ventilate a lot of i i ! 19 the issues before we ventilate the rest of it. l 20 And I think that the broader view of accepting I 21 this testimony would not be prejudicial to the Licensee or 1 22 the Staf f because I don't believe that this testimony is of 23 a nature that it 's likely to confuse the Board or it 's 1 ) 24 irrelevant or perhaps beyond the bounds. So, we support 1 25 putting in -- () Heritage ReportinE Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 a
. _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . ~__ __ _ ._ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ . _ _
955 1 JL"JGE BLOCH: How did you feel about our accepting 2 .as a limited appearance statement in its entirety and 3 therefore not having it in the formal evidentiary record 4 which should be en orderly process for reaching our 5 conclusions? 6 MS. PHELPS: The only hesitation I have about that 7 is that, would you then expect the appearance of the witness 8 bimself? l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, there arts -- 10 MS. PHELPS: Would he be available for cross 11 examination or any development of the testimony? l 12 JUDGE BLOCH: We11. there are portions of the I l j l i' l 13 teutimony that aren't challenged. l lO 14 as ese'es' aicht- ! 15 JUDGE BLOCH: To the extent that there is 16 testimony that is not challenged or that 's admitted over 17 cnallenge he of course could be available. Of course he 'd { l 18 have to decide whether he wanted to be. I I 19 But if he was willina, he would be available. I l j 20 MS. PHELPS: Then I think it would certainly be l l 21 acceptable to put the irrelevant or unadmitted portions in 22 ac a limited appearance. l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. l 24 Ms. Skolnik. Could I ask, before you begin. l' i 25 whether you 've been able to verif y the rather serious l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
956 i 1 i charges about Appendix C? 2 MS. SKOLNIK I spoke with Dr. Morgan about'it and i 3 all I can say is that at thic time that he did not introduce i 4 the document as a means to deceive. 5 When I spoke to him, he was not able to, he didn't . 6 have a copy of the full document with him. He could not L 7 verify from whom he had recei"ed the document. l t 8 I know for sure he did not introduce the document , 9 to deceive anyone. ! l 10 JUDGE BLOCH: So he could have been deceived. But ! 11 you 're not sure whether the document is a valid reflection i ) 12 of the cover page either, are you? Because he 's not sure. 5 i i 13 MS. SKOLNIX: Well, if the Licensee 's document is t i () 14 correct and there 's no other edditions, I did not find that f l i 15 page in the actual NRBP document. ! f ! 16 JUDGE BLOCH: What I 'll rule on this is very [ 17 simple. Because if this is accurate as filed, it may be ! i 18 filed as an exhibit. ) f 19 If it 's not accurate, then we will not accept, j 20 then we will not accept this exhibit. So he will verify ; 21 before he introduces it that it 's an accurate copy. l 22 MS. SKOLNIK: Okay. I believe that much of what l 23 the Licensee and NRC say is irrelevant in Dr. Morgan 's l, I 24 t est imony is indeed relevant to the issues that still have t 25 to be resolved. f i I () Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 i l 1 1 I t
)
l 957 I I
'1 I believe that the Paragraph A-3 is directed to j . ['
2 the quality of the water and the' insufficient evidence l 3 concerning that water. t 4 And its comments are relevant to those issues ; I S still to be resolved in Contention 3. 6 Still remaining to be resolved are those issues , 7 about the adequacy of the sampling and analysis of the water l 8 which will provide the influent to the evaporator. f 9 And I believe Dr. Morgan's testimony is directed 10 to those issues. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me ask. The Licensee, as I 12 understood it. indicated that these were not values from the i . 13 split sample, that different locations are being comparea. l l O 14 1= that correct? I 15 MS. SKOLNIK: I was trying to check that just now 16 and I didn't have the most up to date GPU document. But I i ! 1 17 think it 's still -- his testimony is relevant in that we are l fi L ! 18 looking at the water sampling analysis and the NRC 's 19 determination of whether or not the maximum concentrations 20 were reflected in Table 2.2 EIS. 21 I believe a large portion of Dr. Mo rgan 's 22 testimony is admitted by the Judges admittance of the 23 applicability of ALARA where they wrote on page 10. "should 24 Joint Intervenors have any specific argumente concerning 25 ALARA are applicable to genuine issues submitted below. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 958 They may raise those arguments and present relevant {} 1 2 testimony at the hearing". 3 Statement six is related to those issues -- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: I 'm still looking at three. I will 5 try.to consider three before we go on to the next one. We 6 would -- in fact these are values that are taken from 7 comparable locations so they reflect measurement error. 8 we would admit it into evidence. 9 If they in. fact are widely disport readings from - 10 different tanks, we wouldn 't. Because the issue is whether 11 the tritium in particular has been properly measured. 12 MS. SKOLNIX: I think also though one of the 13 issues was still unresolved was Contention 3. I think it 's () 14 nunber 10. Yes, page 28 of the Judges ' order. If you will hold on for a second. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: 16 MS. SKOLNIKt I 'm sorry, it 's number eight. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: What page? 18 MS. SKOLNIK: Pace 28. number eight. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand how this 20 statement relates to that at all. 21 MS. SKOLNIK: I think what the Boa'rd and probably 22 the NRC and the Licensee do is split, they try to 33 compartmentalize everything. 24 But other people don't do it that way. They try 25 to address the issue as it is presented by the smaller () Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4888
i . i j 959 l 1 ;
. 1 issues that have been admitted. And.I do feel --
I' 2 JUDGE BLOCH: That's the law. That 's correct. l l I l- 3 That 's the way surrrnary disposition works. The issues that ! 4 are admitted are the only ones you can litigate. 5 MS. SKOLNIX: Okay. What I 'm saying is. Dr. i 6 Morgan's statements relate to the issues that still need to j l
.7 be resolved in Contention 3.
8 And because he hasn't addressed each point -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Which part? We want to know why 10 this is relevant. That 's what we 're talking about. Which 11 smaller issue that 's in the case is this relevant to? 12 MS. SKOLNIK: It's relevant to 7, 8. -- it's l 13 relevant to 2 Do you want me to read all of the numbers O 14 18et neve beea eemitteo? i 15 JUDGE BLOCH: This isn't our ruling. This is a l 36 atatement of your al1egation. isn 't it? Isn 't this a 17 statement of your allegation? It 's not the ruling. 18 MS. SKOLNIK These are the issues that have been i 19 admitted am being unresolved. l 20 ,,DGE BLOCH: No, that 's the listing of the issues l l 5 ! 21 that you placed in contention. The rulings are further ! 22 along.
- 23 For example on page 34, we do not find that 1
24 statements 4(I)(IXi(XI) weren 't being litigated. That's a 25 ruling. [ l Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l \ _ . _ _ ,_
l
%O 1 MS. Sr.0LNIK: On page 34 you 've said that the 2 facts presented in statement 4, 2, 3. 4, 6. 7 8. and 10, 3 12. and 13 may be litigated?
4 JU9GE BLOCH: That 's correct. Now is it one of 5' those? 6 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. I 7 JUDGE BLOCH: A11 right. Which one? 8 MS. SKOLNIK: Well, I -- the point is I think it 9 addresses -- l 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Which one? i 11 MS. SKOLNIK It addresses all of the issues that i I 12 have been admitted. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I just want to know one. If you get I 14 one issue that it's relevant to, it can be in the case. 15 MS. SKOLNIK: I believe it 's relevant to 8 l t 16 JUDGE BLOCH: 4. Roman Numeral 8. 4(VIII). The i 17 column in Teble 2. 2 that we 're talking about ? 18 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Deals with base case? 20 MS. FKOLNIK: Yes. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Is going to be achieved by further 22 filtration of the water. This infornvition is not relevant 23 to that. That's going to be achieved and measured. 24 MS. SKOLNIK: I thought that was an issue that 26 st'.ll needed to be resolved. f O seritese nerortica Cervere11on (202) 628-4888 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---__.t .. r__ _m , L 961 1 JUDGE BLOCH: This issue can be still litigated if l 2 it's not a maximum. But I don 't ser: how this data here 3 comparing samples is Boing to do that for you. What's the 4 relationship? 5 MS. Sr.0LNIK The relationship in that if the 6 maximum concentrations have been inaccurately determined , i 7 then the dose could be different. i 8 JUDGE BLOCH: That if subsequently the Applicant's l l 9 measure it improperly that those maximums will not ba i l 10 achieved? Is that what you 're saying? l 11 MS. SKOLNIX Yes. l 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. On that ground, we would l 13 consider admitting his testimony. just solely on the purpose ! l Q 14 of whether it reflects on the ability to measure. 15 But that means that what I said before is still l 16 true. These have to show something about measurement. j 17 If they're. in fact. values taken from different 18 locations, they don 't show that. They've Cot to be from a 19 split sample or from similar I; cations if they 're going to i l l l 20 reflect on the accuracy of measurement. 21 The Licer.see thinks they 're not that. So Dr. I 22 Morgan will have to state that these are similar locations. l 23 that they are comparable locations, and that they reflect on 24 mencurement. 25 What 'J the next? Of course the last paragraph Heritage R epo r *, i ng Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
962
.i there is clearly irrelevant. That 's j ust Dr. Mo rgan 's
.{.
2 feelings. That 's r.ot testimony. 3 MS , SKOLNIK: I think the other point that I 'd 4 like to make. Dr. Morgan would like -- 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Would like what? l 6 MS. SKOLNIK: Dr. MorEan's testimony reflects a 1 i 7 lot of people 's feelings. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's fine but that 's a limited 9 appearance statement. When it has to do with testimony. it l 10 has to be relevant. I il MS. SKOLNIK: A nd o n 5. paragraph 5. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Well. I think there 's something on 4 13 that 's challenged too. Or are you conceding 4? () 14 MS. SKOLNIX: No. The Judge entered a vote under 15 memorandum order on August 25. page 10 "should Joint 16 Intervenors have any specific arguments concerning ALARA 17 that are applicable to genuine issues admitted" -- 18 THE REPORTER: I cannot hear you. 19 MS. SKOLNIX: I 'm sorry. 20 I'm relating this to your admission of the ALARA 21 pr i r.c i pl e. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Have you read and considered the 23 motion and the document ? 24 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you really believe that Paragraph I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 638-4888
n,_._- --
- - - - - - = - - - -
- _ - = - . - - - - _
l 963 1 2 is relevant. Dr. Morgan's statement about Licensee 's ' I 2 public record? l 3 MS. SKOLNIr.: I guess I do because I just said it. l 4 JUDGE BLOCH: That the attitude of the NRC and its I S senior staff. that 's relevant in this proceeding? 6 MS. SKOLNIK: It seems pretty relevant to me. J 7 JUDGE BLOCH: So that means that the people who 6 have testified before us are not to be believed because of l 4 9 this general statement about the attitude of the NRC and its
- 10 staff?
l 11 The individuals who spoke here had to have their 12 sincerity challenged because of this general statement. 13 MS. SKOLNIK: It 's not their honesty or 14 dishonesty. It's their -- iS JUDGE BLOCH Their credibility, their l 16 truthfulness. 17 MS. SKOLNIK: Or assumptions. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: There 's nothing about assumptions 19 here. This has to do with the truthfulness of the witnesses 20 as a general attack on the agency that 's supposed to reflect 21 on the credibility of individuals. 22 And I don 't hear that kind of ergument. That 's 6 23 prej udicial argument. It has to do with rej ecting people l l 24 because of who they work for. 25 I would no more accept that argument about t Heritage Reporting Corporation (?O2) 6.'8-4888 l i l t
[ C $ j 964 l l b {} i 2 Intervenor groups than I would about the NRC or about a Licensee. 3 MS. SKOLN1K: And I hope you don't accept the i 4 arguments and the Licensee 's motion. I thsnk their motion S really attacks Dr. Morgan too. So what 's 'the dif ference? ! j 6 JUDGE BLOCH: The dif ference is that his testinony 7 is irresponsible. They 've stated that. And actually the 8 responsibility for that is not his, it 's y >urs because 9 you 're the party. 10 You 're supposed to sponsor only testimony that 's l l 11 relevant and not broad attacks on institutions or groups. 12 Paragraphs 2 and 3 will be struck. The beginning 13 of the -- excuse me, yes. 2 and 3. the : rst is the title of () 14 it. I just haven't decided that because if there 's anything 15 left we may need the title. 16 The statement about what 's incong"uous which is 17 the first sentence of the next paragraph will be struck. 18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Could you go o/er that again 19 just a little more slowly? 20 JUDGE BLOCH: The paragraph beginning. "The public 21 record of the Licensee". is struck. 22 The parecroph beginning. "The attitude of the NRC 23 and its senior utaff". will be struck. 24 JUDGE PARIS: What page are you on? 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Page three, number 4 the paragraph () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
(_.___-- - - - - - --- _ -- . - - - --- - - - . . _ - - - - - I 1 Y i l 965 l l l 1 beginning. "I also considered incongruous", the first [} i 2 sentence will be struck. f 3 I 'm not certain about the relevance of the ntxt 4 sentence, so you might want to address that. The next 5 sentence under. "table". 6 MS. SKOLNIX: Yes, I believe when Dr. Morgan 7 admitted it, that it was related to the contention or the , j 0 issue that still has to be resolved about dose under use of 9 models. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. My belief is that, that 11 portion is receivable into evidence. It doesn't go the 12 whole distance for you because you still will want to 13 conment somehow on the overall radiation levels which is the , () 14 principal thrust of the case made by the Intervenors, by the 15 Applicants and by the Staff. 16 Dr. Morgan doesn 't appear to address the actual r 17 levels that will be released. 18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Is this starting with, i 19 "Present MPE"? l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: It says. "The present MPE and values i 21 reconnended in Bier 3" and it 's not because that 's direct ly i 22 relevant but he does have some statements about risk that l i 23 are arguably relevant. 24 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: And are you just addressing ! 25 that sent ence ? i () Heritege Repor t ing Corporation (202) 626-4888 _ l
1 , i 1 966 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Through the end of the paragraph. 2 We gave Applicants rebuttal so if they disagree with any'of 3 these rulings, they can state their reasons and we 'lI see 4 whether that persuades us that wa're wrong, 5 We 're now at paragraph 0. i 6 MS. SKOLNIK I believe paragraph 5 is -- it 's in l 7 with your admission of the applicability of ALARA and if we l 8 had any evidence that we should bring it in. l 9 JUDGE BLOCH: I don 't see a tie in between any of 10 the issues and instrumentation and techniques. This is the 11 first I 've seen about needing to use new instrumentation and , 4 12 techniques. Is that something that 's in this case? 13 MS. SKOLNIK: I think the sampling and the l 14 sampling procedures that was admitted as unresolved issues, 15 Contention 3. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: The sampling procedures had to do l 17 with detecting the current levels. 10 MS. SKOLNIK: Right. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: This information doesn't deal with 20 the current levels. It deals with somehow monitoring 21 accidental releases in the environment. if I read it l 22 correct 1y. l 23 MS. SKOLNIX: Whatever you say. l l 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, do you see that? It says ! 1 25 "that the NRC has not recommended monitoring wells and 1O Hentece s e-r u ne (202) 628-4888 Cer-euon l
a 4 f 967 i springs". 1 2 MS. SKOLNIKt Yes, I will concede. l l 3 JUDGE BLOCH: So 5 will be' struck. It 's been ' i 4 argued that 6 is irrelevant. 5 MS. SKOLNIK I believe, to me this paragraph is 6 also related to the issues that still need to be resolved in-7 6 concerning the maximum concentration in Table 2. 2. i 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess my problem with 6 is that it ) 9 looks like it 's conclusions. If you were able to l 10 demonstrate that what he says is true, that it was important j 1 11 for radiological reasons to treat more water than is being 12 treated, you would have a case, i l 13 But we 've been trying what 's gcing to be treated 14 and what the radiological levels and all that. He doesn't (]) l 15 really comment on any of the di ect f acts that stake on i l 16 that. This is his opinion much as I might have an opinion . 17 at the end of the case. 18 He 's not an expert on the overall conclusion 19 without stating what the facts are and what he believes 20 about that. So I would strike 6. 7 was argued to be 21 irrelevant. 22 MS. SKOLNIK: I agree that -- well. it 's not that 1 J 23 I agree but I will concede that l i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, we 'll st rike 7. ! 25 MS. SKOLNIKr I believe in 6 it could be related () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 i sl 968 l 1 to the ALARA principle. 2 JUDGE PARIS: Could be what? l 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, 8'is true. But we've ruled l 4 that the vaporization is not at stake. that there was no f
$ chal1enge.
6 There is no valid issue about vapori::stiori, is 7 there? We j ust don 't have en issue about that. 'fe 're not, 8 giving any consideration to it because we don't consider it 9 an issue. j 10 I don't know about the NRC. the rest of the Staff. 11 But it 's not for this proceeding. 12 Is there any place in our summary disposition ; l
- j. 13 order where we said there was an issue on vapor and the Q 14 methods of vaporization?
l 15 MS. SKOLNIK: No. j 16 JUDGE BLOCH: 9. I correnented at the beginning of 17 the hearing this time. And you 've got to show an obviously I ! 18 superior alternative. ! l 19 So showing a deficiency in the EIS won't do. So j 20 that 's irrelevant. We 'll st rike 9 l 21 I thir* we 've ruled that we accepted the l ! 22 decontamination f actor of 1.000 on sunmary disposition but i 23 there was no valid challenge to that. So 10 is struck. l 24 Have we seen, on 8. going back to 8 for a second. 25 Have we seen Dr. Morgan's letters of March 19 and March 27 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , i I I
s 969 i MS. SKOLNIV,2 Yes. 1 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you refresh our recollection 3 as to when we saw them? Were they part of the summary 4 disposition? 5 MS, SKOLNIK Oh -- 6 IM. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch. . hey were exhibits i 7 A and B to the Joint Intervenor's response to our motion for ! 8 summary disposition. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Our ruling on 8 will stand but we 10 Uill review the letters again just to make sure that t here 's 11 nothing there that we think is important. 12 And 11? The suggestion of the Licensee was that 13 we allow 11 only to the extent that it relates to tritium. 14 MS. SKOLNIX: If Dr. Morgan was able to show the 15 inaccuracy of the measurements for carbon 14, would the rest i 16 of that statement on 11 be admitted or could we leave it 17 admitted until 18 Obviously if the occuracy of the measurements is j 19 off. then the calculation of dose from carbon 14 would be 20 relevant. ,. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you ref resh my memory as to 22 what we said at the summary disposition, decision on thst? l I 23 This particular portion about , l f '4 MS. SKOLNIK: Carbon 14? 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, yes and the ability to reduce i Heriiage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4868 i
970 f 1 by~1.000. Perhaps, well, why don 't we leave this as a 2 matter for the Applicants to corrrr.ent on in rebuttal too. l 3 Your argument is that it should be accepted 4 contingent on your first denonstrating some problem with ! 5 measurement. Okay. Let 's leave that over for rebuttal. 6 127 i 7 MS. SXOLNIKi It would be relevant cgain to what i l 8 we just talked about, carbon 14. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. The Applicant s e.i d. they 10 never said tney 'd completely remove any of that. 11 MS. SKOLNIK I 'm sorry? 12 JUDGE BLOCH: You 've got to reduce it by a factor 13 of 1.000 There 's no issue about ecmpletely removing 14 anything. 10 MS. SKOLNIK: There would be an issue though if it 16 had been inaccurately measured? 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Wel1. that sounds like it goes back 18 to li, right? Yes, this also goes to the ef ficiency of the 19 evaporator which we ruled was not en issue. So 12 should be 20 struck.
- 2) 13? This not only seems irrelevant. it seems to g 22 be a direct arBument against the no action alternetive.
23 Because you 're proposing that we hold it onsite for 30 l 24 years. l 25 Arx1 he says it's too long to wait two years, a l Heritage Reporting Corpo rat ion (i>02) 628-4888 [ l
I l 971 1 year and a half. 2 MS. SKOLNIKt No. I think his statement is derived l l 3 from the fact that he doesn't believe that the evaporator i 4 con decontamina.e the water. 5 That 's why it 's too long to hold a tiger by the I ! S tail. 7 Jt.TDGE BLOCH: It sure doesn 't ,ay that. It I 8 doesn't say anything about the evaporator not working i 9 properly. 10 He says. "it 's too long to allow it to take 319 5' days". I would allow that as relevant but only -- 12 MS. SKOLNIX: No. excuse me. He*s saying, it I 13 would take 319 days with no shutdown and perfect operation. l O 24 so *'et he = eaviaa t=' "ea it ""t oo a aaa 15 there 's non-perfect operation it would obviously take longer 16 than 319 days. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. the Licensee actually is 18 estimating two years. 19 JUIME PARIS: Two and a half yeara 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Two and a half years. But you want 21 to keep it onsite for 30 years. 22 MS. SKCLNIKt Yes. He's relatinE the no action 23 alternative to the unsufcty and uncertainties of 24 evaporation. So to evaporate it for two or three years is 25 definitely worse then, a whole lot worse than 'eaving 1* l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
i ,
'v /
,1 . 972 (^ i onsite. t_J' 2' . JUDGE BLOCH: Let 's let the Arolicants comment on 3 .this in rebuttal.- 14? 4 MS. SKOLNIK: That is not un issue u 9 been 15 admitted. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: It 's what ? It 'e admitted? 7 MS. . SKOLilIK : No. But it is a relevant point. s 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, but we know that this is all 9 true. This is already established in the record. 10 MP. STEPHEN LEWIS: Except that the numbers. \ 11 JUDGE BLOCH: The numbers are slisatly wrong. 12 MR. STEPHEN .EWIS: Yes, 178 is 87. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: This is a matter that 's already 14 established in the record. I don 't see that Dr. Morgan 's (]) 15 testimony on it adds anything. It 's redundant. 16 MR. DAVID LEWIS: We have not moved to strike that 17 portion though. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Oh , you haven 't ? You want that in? 19 Okay. 20 JUDGE PARIS: There is a discrepancy in the record 21 on just what the background is. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: We 'll permit 14 in. 23 JUDGE PARIS: If somebody could prove what the 24 background is, it would be interesting. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: 157 () Heritage Reporting (202; 628-4888 Co rpo ration
973 ("N 1 MS. SKOLNIK: I believe that 15' relates to the C/ , 2 part that was admitted concerning assessing dose and risk. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: The assessment of the effect of ths 4 tritium? J 5 MS. SKOLNIK: The wider issue. I 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. We 'll permit 15 to remain. 1 7 Well, to the extent that it deals with tritium the C-14 is 6 not relevant. The ef fect of tritium that 's an issue. 9 MS. SKOLNIK: Would it be relevant.though if the 10 other part is proved? f 11 JUDGE BLOCH: If there 's -- no. There 's no issu.e 1 12 about the biological effect of C-14. 13 (Pause) , () 14 We would permit all of 15 to remain in. B? This 15 is a -- it 's not in the motion? 16 MR. DAVID LEWTS: We have not challenged Paragraph 17 B or Paragraph C. ) 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I didn 't read it that well. i 19 C is not challenged. D is challenged if I recall correctly? 4 20 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, sir. i 21 JUDGE BLOCH: This appears to reflect on the 22 integrity of this Licensing Board without any specific facts i 23 about any of the members. 24 MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. I 25 JUDGE BLOCH: So the next two paragraphs that are l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 62C-4838
1-974 i part of that should go too. 2 MS. SKOLNIK: I could al.eo say though I would if 3 -po ssibl e , if you do rule that the: parts that you 're not I ' 4 admit. ting could be put into the record as limited appearance 5 statements. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: We will do that. Now the Licensee 7 has some rebuttal time. 8 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, Judge Bloch. Let me 9 address item A-3 first. I believe that the Joint 10 Intervenors should have been prepared today to show where i 11 these numbers come from. 12 They were put on notice that we would be arguing 13 the motion today. They were given over a week 's notice. () 14 They could have contacted Dr. Morgan. 15 We pre filed this in advanced to give them time. 16 'de are able, righ, now, to identify where these numbers can 17 come from and I think perhaps it would instructive if I went 18 through that. l I 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. l et 's dc inot. 1 20 MR. DAVID LEWIS: This dccument entitled. Third l l 21 Set of Comments, was prepared after Dr. Morgan had reviewed j { 22 our prior motion for summary disposition. I 23 And all of the numbers here are upparently drawn 24 from the prior affidavit of Kerry Haruer which we submitted ! 25 during summary disposition. l( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 I l
... - ...~. . -.--- ..~-- -.- .- . . . - - - - . - . - - . . . . . .. . - -
975 !
, i
, ~. 1 Let me start-with the first one, antomony 125. 2 The first number there. 6.2 times 10 to the minus 7 l 4 3 microcuries per ML is taken from the RESL. That 's the NRC 's ' 4 contractor laboratory 's measurement of --- ' 5 JUDGE BLOCH: This is on page'four? Page two? i 6 MR. DAVID LF,WIS: Page two of Dr. . Morgan 's l 7 testimony.
; 8 JUDGE BLOCH: No. I know that. But where is the 9 - table I 'm to look at?
i 10 MR. DAVID LEWIS: I 'm sorry. Page nine. i 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. i
~
! 12 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Of the Harner affidavit. l l 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I was looking at the wrong page () 14 there. l 15 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The next value which is a less j 16 than value, 1.1 times 10 to the minus 7, is a value of L 17 measurement by Westinghouse or rather en upper limit by W 18 Westinghouse as shown on page four of their measurement o? l 19 CCT-2 in 1985 l 20 So there are two sources by two different 21 laboratories over a year apart. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: From different locations? l 23 MR. DAVID LEWIS: From dif ferent locations. The i i 24 RESL was measuring the PWST-2 number. West.i.nghouse in -- i l 25 this particular measurement cones f ror.) Westinghouse 's sample s I i
) Heritage Reporting Corporution
- (202) 628-4888 l
i i l
i 976 1 orawn from the condensate cleanup tank number 2 (~
- v. )
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That 's -- I'm going to ask
. 3 for three of these and 11 it showe for the first three that 4 there 's no comparison of comparable numbers, I 'lI consider i
S that aufficient. Let's go to the second one. I 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Cesium 137, the first value is 7 again taken f rom RESL 's sample drat <n in 1987 f rom PWST-2 as I 8 rhown on page nine. 9 The numbers have been changed. It was 8 times 10 l 10 to the minas 6 as presented on page nine. But that 's the ! 11 same as 800 times 10 to the minus 8. l 12 The next value given, 7.6 times N to the minus 8, l 13 appears to be, there 's a number on pace four. It 's the two 14 sigma value, the standard deviation of a measurement by f] l 10 Westinghouse in 1985 of CCT-2 l 16 Comparing a standard deviation of one measurement 17 from one tank with an actual measurement in another tank two 18 years later is absolutely meaningless. This has no l 19 probative value whatsoever. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Just hold up j ust a secono. It's 21 actually shown on the table as two standard deviations. 22 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, 2 sigma. 23 JUDCE BLOCH: So he didn 't have to figure it. He 24 just copied it from +.he table. Okay. Thank you. And the l 25 third? Heritage Reporting Co poration (202) 628 4888 l \
977 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The next'one, cobalt 60, the -(( 1 2 first value is again.an RESL measurement of PWST-2 as 3 reported on page nine of our testimony. 4 The next value. 8.4 times 10 to the minus 8 5 microcuries per ML. matches, corresponds to the standard 6 deviation measurement in Westinghouse 's measurement' of this 7 particular radionuclide in 1985 in the CCT-1 It 's on page 8 four under CCT-1, the very first radionuclide. The second 9 column is the 2 sigma value. 10 And again, comparing a 2 sigma value from one 11 measurement in one tank with another measurement from 12 another source a year later is -- has no value. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: So the first three values appear .() 14 f rom the Licensee 's explar.ation to be taken f rom non-15 comparable samples. So they do not reflect on measurement. 16 If that 's true then based on the Board's ruling. 17 we would not allow this testimony. 18 Can you enlighten us at all about that?
- 1. MS. SKOLNIK: Yes. I just -- I want two minutes.
20 please? 21- (Pauce) 22 JUDGE BLOCH: I think the best way to handle this. 23 I suggest is that we make the ruling and if you, prior to 24 Dr. Morgan 's testimony the day before, could get something 25 to the Board and the parties, in writing, by way of a motion ( Heritage Repcrting Corporation (202) 628-4888
978 r"N i for reconsioeration that shows there really was something we O 2 missed, then you could do that. 3 It seems very unlikely to' me that you 're _ going to 4 be able to come up with something right now. Because I just 5 looked at 'he data they 're ref erring to and the numbers j ust 6 matched just exactly the way they said. 1 7 MS. SKOLNIK .Yes, I 'd like to talk to . Dr. Morgan. j 8 JUDGE BLOCH: So if you have grounds for motion 9 'or reconsideration, you can file it in writing providing i 10 it 's received by the Board and parties the day prior to Dr. 11 Morgan 's testimony, otherwise it 's s sruck. 12 hR. DAVID LEWIS: Proceeding to Paragraph A.4 of 13 Dr. Morgan 's testimony. I have'one clarification. please. 14 Is the heading there stricken also? I wasn 't sure (])
- 15 from your ruling. But it would seem it would be appropriate i
16 since it 's j ust a statement about --
- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: It seems to me that would be proper 1
18 to strike the heading. ; 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Proceeding then to the bottom of u0 the page, the last sentence starting. "The present MPE 21 values", and continuing through the end of that first l 22 paragraph on page four, we submit that this should also be 23 stricken. l 24 JUDGE PARIS: Excuse me. Where are you? I 'm ! i 25 lost. ! i I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l f L - . _.-- .---,,_.._..__,,__---._____--_--_.__---.,_..,m._._..__ -
~ . . . . - . - . . . . . - . - .. - . - . .----- - -.-...- =.-.- - _ .-_ -..
l-
~
i l 979 I f [
- .-(/r') 1 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch had ruled that L 2 Paragraph A-4 was stricken down through the bottom of page {
I j 3 three with exception of the last sentence starting on the ;
- . i
{ 4 second to last'line on page three. "The present MPE and 'j L S values recommended to the Bier 3 Report"? ! i 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Uh-huh, [ L ! [ 7 MR. DAVID LEWIS: That portion was still at issue. j i : [ 8 I would sabmit that, that sentence and proceeding through ! I l 9 the first paragraph on page four should also be stricken so t 10 that the only testimony remaining is the statement, "that l l
- j. 11 .the table below gives the' value of the radiation irduced l
12 cancers". ( t l 13 We don 't obj ect to the introduction of the these [ l l () 14 numbers as risk estimates. I f 15 But the text above it was referring to "maximum F . 16 permissible exposures for workers". That 's irrelevant. l ! 17 There is a reference to Nagasaki and Hiroshima data that ! 18 it 's of fered solely to support the suggestion before that, I l 19 "MPE values should be changed". There isn't a work j i ! 20 exposure. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: We just struck the two words, 2* "present MPE". and left the rest of the sentence? "Present 23- MPE and." l I 24 MR. DAVID LEWIS: In that light I would not obj ect 25 to the sentence running through tiie fourth line on page () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
i j
^
i' n. , ! 980 ; L u, I A (% i four, "published values", but I would still move to etrike j l NJ' ' l q' 2 the sentence starting, "The British have lowered the MPE l
-3 va l'ues. Why is the NRC stal1ing"?
l 4 I think MPEs are relevant. I'think Appendix C ie ! 5 not authentic. i- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: A11 right I so ru1e. We're going a 7 to rule that Appendix C was not proper but we're going to , 1. j e allow Dr. Morgan to show that we 're wrong if that 's in f act , , t ! 9 the case. l 10 MR. DAVID LEWIS: I also have another point of 11 c1arification, Judge Bloch. Back on page three when you !' 12 struck the text under Paragraph A-4 I assume that Appendix l 13 A and Appendix B were also struck since they were offered I,
.I O 14 only to support this porti n of the testimony.
t 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Was the reference to A and B struck? l 16 MRe DAVID LEWIS: You had struck the entire second 17 paragraph which is where the -- prior third paragraph or the , 18 entire paragraph starting, "The attitude of the NRC". l l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: So where 's the reference to 20 Appendices, the Appendices? E l 21 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Appendix A is the third line ; 22 down in the paragraph. l_ 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Which page? j l 24 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Page three. l L 1 I 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. , l l I i l !O Herliege ae-rting Cor-retien (202) 628-4888 r I
. - - . - . . . . . - . . . - . . . - . - . - - . - - - _ . ~ . . - - . - - . . - - . - . . - . _ .
n ! I b l ! i 981 f , . ~ 1 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The paragraph starting, "The
.{ } l
! 2 attitude of the NPC", there is a reference there, "See i i ! 3 Appendix A". i i l 4 JUDGE BLDCH: Yes, that 's struck. i i ! ! 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Arsd then at the very last line ! i i 6 of that paragraph, "See Appendix B". l ! i l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. i l 8 MR.' DAVID LEWIS: I just wanted to confirm that ! l l 9 the appendices were also struck alonP with the paragraph.
~ l'O JUDGE BLOCH: They were in support of the i
11 stateraents that were struck so they 're also irrelevant. j' 22 (Continued on the next page.) f 13 . f([] 24 15 i 16 ! l 17 f r ! 18 . ! l l 19 f r 20 i l 21 . t 22 f i 23 l l 24 , I i 25 t I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 I, l ! l i i ? I
. . _ - . _ ~ _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . - . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _
l ! l l' i l' 982 ! l !
- .-fT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any further rebuttal? :
~
g i 2 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. I'm just going through 3 this -- 4' JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, just one uoment. .j 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS: -- to see what portions are 1 6 still remaining. ! l ' 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Please one moment. 8 (Pause)
\
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Please continue. l 10 MR. DAVID LEWIS: I believe the next portion of l 11 testimnny that 's still at issue is Paragraph A-8 on Page 6 l t 12 You indicated that you were stil1 going to consider these 13 letters. Just to ref resh the Board 's rece 11ection, the Q 14 March 19, 1987 letter was the letter that suggested a 15 modification. The Board looked at that issue and on Page. I [ 16 believe it 's Pege 9 of the Licensing Board 's Memorandum end f t 17 Order, ti Licensing Board ruled that the Staff and Licensee 18 had already considered and disposed of Dr. Mo rg on 's 19 proposals and that Joint Intervenors had shown no mistake in i 20 that ruling. I 21 The March 19, 1987 letter was actually a setter : l 22 colementing on the Draft PEIS. And the board looked at it in L 23 that light and ruled on Page 53. Footnote 18 that -- p 24 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's correct. ! 25 MR. DAVID LEWIS: -- that letter should be I i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !, I 1
)
983
/~%' 1 considered no further.
k) 2 JUDGE BLOCH: All we said on 8 was that it is 3 strJck but that we 're going to review the letter. In light ! 4 of what you 've said, it 's unlikely that our review will S change what we did. I 6 hm. DAVID LEWIS: The March 2. 1988 letter does : 1 7 not address modifications. I don't believe modifications is 8 still en issue in this proceeding. And we would also obj ect 9 to incorporating prior documents by reference. We don 't 10 think that 's appropriate direct testimony. It makes it very 11 hard to figure what 's in the record and what isn 't and
-12 what 's relevant. And we think . that is prej udicial and 13 inappropriate.
Okay. l -( ) 1. 4 ' JUDGE BLOCH: So that 's a comment that we i 15 could consider if we decide for some reason the letters are , l I 16 important. 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, sir. The next issue is 18 whether carbon 14. the reference to carbon 14 should be 19 included in Paragraph 11 on Page 7. During summary , 20 disposition, the Licensing Board ruled that it was . I 21 uncontroverted that Licensee -- that there were influent and ! 22 effluent criteria for the evaporator that would be met, and 23 therefore the -- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: That seems right. Could you remind 4 . 25 me of where we said that? I 1 i () Heritage Reporting Corporat ion (202) 628-4888 i l l l l l l
984
/~i 1 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, sir. Just one moment. It '
(/ , 2 was stated at Page 47 vf your Memorandum and Order..again at 3 Page 72, very emphatically and at Page 74 of the Memorandum 4 and Order. Three different rulings. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: 47 was first, right? 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS: 47 was the first reference. I i 7 believe that 's the reference we cited in our motion to e 8 strike. That 's in one point. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Where on 47? That 's the ruling we , 10 find no material fact to be litigated? That 's the ruling 11 on 147 The ruling on the contention that 's stated on Page 12 46 as Number 14? ) 13 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. Starting at the bottom of . Page 46 and continuing onto the top of 47. 1 (]) 14
-l 15 JUDGE BLOCH: And the next place we said it was i i
- 16 where? l
- 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS
- Page 72.
! 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Wait a second. 19 :JR. DAVID LEWIS: That 's a very clear st atement. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: That 's right. Dr. Paris says that 21 14 cioesn 't seem to relate to C14. 22 All right. What 's the next one? 76? 1 23 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The entire contention there 24 addressed the ab4.lity of the evaporator to filter out other 25 radionuclides and chemicals. Similarly, that issue was also i () Heritage Repo r t 1 rid Corporation (202) 628-4888
, ._.,_-_____.,___--...______--,-_.---,.-,...m_,_ ...,.. - . _ . ----.-... _ _ __ _ ,,- ..__,_ _ . - ~ ,
4 985 addressed on Page 72. The f act that carbon 14 wasn't { i 2 particularly addressed here simply reflects the fact that in l 3 Joint Intervenors ' prior papers they did not highlight 4 carbon 14. But the contention, which was broader, which was j 5 that the evaporator might not filter out radionuclides, that l I 6 portion was really rej ected. The Board accepted the 4 7 decontamination factor of 1,000 and the Board ruled that 8 these influent and effluent criteria that will be met, and 9 on Page 72 they stated with regard to the preprocessing 10 systems, EPICOR and SDS will remove contaminants to levels i 11- which meet the standards set forth in the evaporator ; 1% influent. Because these.further material statements are not 4 13 controverted, there is no genuine issue of material fact to ()- 14 be controverted. . 15 JUDGE BLOCH: They will renove contaminants to 16 levels which meet the standards set forth for the evaporator , 17 influent. These issues are not controverted. There is no i
~
18 genuine issue of material fact to be litigated. That 's l 19 correct. So os to C14. that will be struck. 2 20 Hold on a second. , 21 (Pause) , 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you refer us to testimony on , 23 how much C14 is involved here? This is not a question as 24 to, it really isn't a question as to whether it 's an issue , 2S in the case. It 's more an issue as to whether *.he Board I i i () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i . i . l I f
986 {) i 2 should consider this for er, adequate record. the levels of C14? So what are 3 JUDGE PARIS: Table 2.2 of the FEIS under the base 4 case lista 8.7 tin,es 10 to the minus 1 curies of C14, with a S concentration in microcuries per milliliter of 1.0 times 10 6 to the minus 4 achievable 8.7 times 10 to the minus ), and 7 1.0 times 10 to the minus 4, which sounds like the SDS - 8 EPICOR treatment didn 't take any of it out. 9 MR. DAVID LEWIS: That is the base case and also 10 this 1 times 10 to the minus 4 therefore is also the 11 evaporator influent criterion. If you look at Dr. Mo rgan 's 12 prior references to measures of carbon 14 they were, there 13 was one value that was 3 times 10 to the minus 4 and another () 14 one that was 2.3 times 10 to the minus ', But the answer to 15 that, simply put, is that before this can go into the 16 evaporator or for release to the environment, the criteria 17 will have to be met. And Dr. Harner testified today -- not , 18 today, the other day -- that carbon 14 is, they do sample 19 for that in the, in confirming the appropriate, the 20 evaporator criteria are met. The only remaining issue then 21 is whether we can do the sampling. And as the Board has 22 already ruled, the comparison that Dr. Morgan presents in 23 Paragraph A-3 doenn 't call that sampling program into doubt 24 whatsoever. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Our concern is whether there is a () Heritage Reportiria Corporation (202) 628-4888
r i i i 987 l F ( ; 1 high enough level of carbon 14 to be concerned about the [ 2 release of carbon dioxide containing carbon 14. j 3 MR. DAVID LEWIS: In our motion for summary l 4 disposition, in the prior affidavit of Dr. Gary Baker, we f* l { 5 presented a comparative dose assessment evaluation that ( i 6 looked at radionuclides other than the ones that we had [ i 7 nodeled ard presanted the comparative impacts, impacts j 8 compared to the dose of strontium. i 9 On the footnote to that prior affidavit we } I ! 10 indicated that if carbon 14 was in gaseous form, CO2, the ! 1 il dose compared to strontium would be, I believe the value was ! i 12 point -- well, let me double-check it. l 13 (Pause) ! l O 14 ua navto 'ew1s> rne ocee compereo to etroatium 15 would be less than i percent. i 16 The NRC Staff also presented testimony earlier in 17 this proceeding. 2nd I believe they addressed carbon 14 also l ! 18 and indicated that it would -- assuming these ) 19 concentrations, would -- be a small contributor to dose. So 20 there is testirrony on the rer ord already addressing - . l l- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there anything more you 'd like to 22 say? What I think we're going to do on this is not declare I l 1 i 23 it to be un issue at this time, but we 'd like to know if i l 24 there 's anything more we should consider. because we will ! l
'S review these materials Friday in our offices, particularly l Heritage Reporting Co rpo ra'. l on l
( ').02 ) 628-4888 I l
p_-----._____.____._...._____....____--
- s. j l
t 1 k 988 i i i 1 Dr. Baker 's af fidavit. The Staff might want to also comment l{ l g 2 on this and then tha Intervenors. Does the staff have any a j 3 comments on the possible significance of carbon dioxide i 4 releases containing C14? j 5 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: No. I was taking in all the l I, 6 references to where the testimony was contained. Thc only i l 7 thing we can do is also look back.at it. [ j i
+
8 JUDGE BLOCH. Okay. Thank you. Intervenors, have 9 you anything to assist us in knowing whether the levels of l. ] 10 carbon dioxide with C14 might be enough to be serious? l- 11 MS. SKOLNIK: I would have to consult with Dr. I 12 Morgan. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Thank you. Continue. 14 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Let me state one thing. The, (]} i 15 I think that the carbon 14 issue came up partly in rePard to l 16 the fact that in the Licensee 's testimony it was spoken of f l 17 in terms of being something additional to the 1986 MIDAS ! 18 run. I believe carbon 14, if I 'm not incorrect, was one of 19 the radionuclides that was identifi.ed in that list in a -- 20 attached to the back of the PEIS. But of course it was 21 included in the Staf f 's analysis. And of course, the I Staff's analysis did conclude that the ricks associated from 22 l 23 the release -- i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there a FEIS reference we should 25 look at, too? l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l' (202) 628-4888 l l
989
. 1 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Well,- first of all, I 'm 2 ctarting f rom Table 2 2 which shows that it? was l' amized 3 within, it was included within our run. And -- 1 pu give
- l. 4 me a moment.
t
- l. 5 JUDGE PARIS: Thank goodness this is not a coal 6 powered plant, or we 'd -- at least it 's not putting out 7 enough CO2 to contribute to global warming.
.T72/Bla8 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: In Chapter 5 of the PEIS where 9 we get to the health effects statements that made in there, 10 those included our assessment of the very low levels and the
. 11 low significance that was attached, the very low risk that 12 was considered to be attached to those, to the disposal into 13 the air of the AGW, included consideration of all of the O 14 reotomuctioe= iieted in Tahie 2.2, including these that were 15 assigned a value at their upper limit of protection. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: So which part should we review about l 17 that? 18 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I'm saying that it would be in 19 Chapter 5 where we reach our conclusions on health effects. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: So it 's Dr. Baker and Chapter 5 that 21 we should review? 22 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes, sir. It 's the Af fidavit of 23 Dr. Gary Baker on Coutention Sd that was submitted with our 24 prior motion for summary disposition. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: What is? Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
o t 990 t 1 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The affidavit to'which I was
) ,
2 referring was the Affidavit of Dr. Gary G. Baker on , 3 Contention 5d.- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. It 's not contained in the - 4 5 present affidavit of Dr. Baker, the testimony? 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS: It 's not in the testimony, no. 7 This was -- ! 8 JUDGE BLOCH: In the affidavit on summary l 9; disposition. Okay. Thank you. That was a clarification I 1 t 10 did need. All right. ,
- i
. 11- MR. DAVID LEWIS: If I could proceed, the next 12 issue that 's, next paragraph that 's still at issue ~is t l 13 Paragraph 13 on Page 7. I would make two points here, or -[ 14 9 (]) perhaps three. 15 . The feed rate of the evaporator was an issue at ,
- 16 the summary disposition stage and was resolved in 17 Applicant 's f avor. There was no issue of material fact. l 18 And I refer the Board to their ruling at Pages 39 and 48.
19 I would also point out that the feed rate we are
, 20 using is 5 gallons per minute. And I think Dr. Morgan 's !
i ! ! 21 reference to a one-fif th gallon per minute feed rate doesn't 1
- l t
22 address our proposal and therefore is irrelevant and 23 inmaterial.
! l 24 And finally. in the second portion of this, Dr. j 25 Morgan refers to modifications that he previously suggested.
() Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4868
'orpo ra t ion
--v--- ,r , s.v,,,--v,,--,,x,,,,-.--,.,,_.=v,,-, .y. -
-..,,-,-,w.,.v_-,,,,_.w,,,,-._me.-,-.-
y m.,,ww-- -,.3n- s. -y,.mm.__.,-,-~~,
.l l
1 991 ) i i This again is the issue that was. raised in summary 2 disposition and rej ected at the Board's Metrorandum and Order !
'3 at Page 9. So this entire section is resurrecting old f
4 issues and is irrelevant and immaterial. l l 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That seems correct. I 'll l 6 strfke that, too. ; 7 MR. DAVID LEWIS: The'last portion at issue is 8 portions of Paragraph 15. We had, we did not obj ect to the 9 second paragraph under Paragraph 15. the portion reading: I 10 It'should be appreciated that since, and continuing to the
)
11 bottom, except for the reference to carbon 14. But we did ! l 12 object to the introductory langauge and the reference to j 13 prior comments'and the appendices. O 14 The allegation that the Licensee and NRC have 15 consistently under-estimated both occupational ard public ! 16 radiation dose, that is supported by these two prior j 17 comments which were submitted in summary disposition. And 1 I I I 18 we think that incorporating prior documents by reference is i j 19 inappropriate. 20 We think that trost of this in f act, particularly 1 i 21 Appendices B and C and the prior letters, are in fact an l l 22 ottack on the NRC and ICRP. We 're not obj ecting to the l 23 direct t e s t imo ntj , but we think these are superfluot s ( 24 reference and should be stricken. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: We 'l1 strike the first two t Heritat,e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - . _ . . ~ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ s l'
.992 1 paragraphs and. leave the third.
{ }: 2 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. I would also ask in that , 3 rem:1.iing portion that, consistent with the ruling before.
- l. 4 the reference to carbon 14 be stricken at this time, subj ect j 5 to your further review of the pleadings that we and the NRC l l
6 Staff have referenced. l 7 JUDGE BLOCH: So those are two places. There 's 8 the C14 -- ! 9 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. Two locations. First line 10 and -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: -- and the equation. 12 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Yes. 13 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Is it also true in the last l
- . () 14 sentence where they talk about a hydrogen atom replaced by a l iS helium atom, how about carbon atom replaced oy a nitrogen 16 atom?
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So those will be contingent i 18 on whether or not we decide Friday that we will declare an 19 issue necessary for the record, for on adequate record. But 20 they 're struck as of now. 21 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch, I think with these 22 rulings, maybe, I think cross examination of Dr. Morgan will 23 be unnecessary. And I don't know if the NRC Staf f. I 24 suspect they may have little or no cross examination also, i 2S We may be able to avoid an unnecessary day of hearing. And l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 1 1 , A- - -
l' l
- - i 4 ,
- 993 >
J I 1 I would like to suggest that possibility. l j 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board would like to have him
- . t J 3 attend. And I understand from the State 's comments that it !
a 4 would like him to attend, also. So we 'll have him at tend. j li i !' 5 Yes? i I l ). 6 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: I would like to point.out that ' 1 ! 7 carbon 14 is a fairly important isotope'for low level waste i i j 8 en sposa l . We have looked at pathways. groundwater pathways. 3
- 9 not necessarily air pathways for carbon 14, and they do tend l
< r' I- 10 to give high doses. So what looks minute is not necessarily 1 11 minute,-that minute. And I wish to present these facts to l 2 12 you. If you wish -- l i 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there anything we should review 14 on Friday? 15 MR. BHATTACHARYYA Yes. There is a paper on the l l 16 CRCPD conference that I actually authored on carbon 14. You i 17 might wish to see that. That 's where I learned it -- I'm l 18 not an expert on the subj ect -- that it is in fact true that ( 19 some calculations of carbon 14 doses tend to be. tend to ! 20 give high numbers. And if Dr. Morgan -- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Just a second. 22 (Pause) j 23 JUDGE BLOCH: If you were able to produce that 24 tonight somehow, we would look at it, we'd have it in our i 25 filings, without it being in the record. And if we should Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 994 decide it 's a matter that 's important for an adequate j{ 1 2 record, that might support us in knowing. 3 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: But I 'd like to be on record 4 having requested that carbon 14, that the State would l j 5 support some discussions on carbon 14. I- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. It 's no t that it 's not , 7 been covered. The question is whether there is a level;that
- 8 we 're still concerned about with everything that has been 9 said about it.
10 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: Judge Bloch, one comment I 11 wanted to make was that it is my understanding that the 12 question about carbon 14 was raised originally by Dr. Morgan l 13 in terms of whether or not, in terms of health impacts. And 14 there was some discussion about whether or not the RBE L( ) . ~ 15 related to carbon 14 should be something considered here. 16 Now, of course, this Board has admitted the issue 17 of tritium health impacts, and has not admitted the issue of 18 health impacts associated with ar.y other radionuclides. 19 And, well, there 's also the impact of whether or not 20 strontium or tritium is the controlling, the radionuclide of 21 greater significance. So I think that it is a matter that 22 although the State has indicated they think it should be 23 considered, at the present time it is not an issue in the 24 proceeding. 2$ It 's my underntanding, from what the Board 's ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
995 i statement was, was it 's simply that you wanted to satisfy { 2 yourself that there wasn't some matter that appeared in the 3 record of this proceeding that raised some question as to 4 whether or not carbon 14 might be in the AGW in such S concentrations and might eventually be released in such 6 amounts that it is a matter for concern that you wanted to 7 pursue. Am 1 correctly understanding your statement? O JUDGE BLOCH: That 's correct. And you think the 9 article the State is referring to is not about that? 10 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I have no opinion about that. 11 No, I'm not commenting on that article. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 13 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: I 'm sure it 's a very fine (} 14 15 article. MR. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch? 16 MR. STEPHEN LEWIS: But my point is that I 'm 17 interpreting. I'm understanding the Board to say that you 18 are looking at it to see whether or not you believe that 19 carbon 14 should be for some reason in issue in the 20 proceeding. And it clearly isn 't at the present time and 21 has only been addressed, or has mainly been addressed in the 22 PEIS, which of course covered all of the radionuclides 23 listed in Table 2.2 and in an affidavit that you 've been 24 referred to by Dr. Baker at the summary disposition stage. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i h 996 I i MR. DAVID LEWIS: Judge Bloch, I would'ask-if the i 2 State provides reference material to the Board, it also at t 3 the same time-provide the copies to all the parties. I
~4 JUDGE BLOCH: That should be done. If it doesn 't.
! 5 we 'l1 distribute them on Friday. ) f 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS: It is simply that the State 's 7 attorney wasn 't here, so I was -- l 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. If you are able to supply it 9 to all the parties -- 10 MR. BHATTACHARYYA: You went it tonight? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, the only reason I want it 12 tonight is we wanted to decide by tonorrow, given the , i 13 hearing schedul", so that if it were needed for en adequate l 14 record there would be some opportunity of the par +'eu to l 15 react. 16 MR. 9HATTACHARYYA: Yes, sir. l 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS: Nothing further on this motion l 18 to strike. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik, do you have any l 20 comments? l l 21 MS. SKOLNIK: No. l 22 JUDGE BLOCH: What I 'd like to ask is that a copy l 23 of the tentimony that conforms ta the Board's rulings be ! l 24 prepared and presented to Ms. Skolnik for her examination to 20 see if she thinks it complies with the Board's rulings. Is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
. _ _ - - . ~ . . . . . . , - .
._ . err' _ _ _ - , _ -
997 g- 1 there someone wil1ing to undertake that? 2 MR. DAVID LEWIS: We 'll undertake that. Judge 3 Bloch. . 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So that you wilI be 5 introducing into the record a copy of the admitted testimony 6 of Dr. Morgan when he comes. 7 There might be a need for some alterations if we 8 change our mind on carbon 14 but that 's the only j' 9 uncertainty right nc. I l 10 Is there any other urgent business that should be i i 11 transacted before we conclude? 12 MR .- DAVID LEWIS: No. sir. Not from Licensee. l 13 JUDGE BLOCH: There being none. I want to thank
- i 14 all of the parties for their participatior and I'd like to
( 15 thank our Reporter. And we 'll be seeing people tonight for l l 16 the limited appearance statement. Thank you. 1:00 o ' clock l l 17 next Monday. l l 18 (Whereupon. at 3:CO p.m.. the heuring recessed. to 19 reconvene the foilowing Monday. November 7, 1988, at 1:On f 20 p.m.) i l 21 t l 22 23 24 l 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6'48-4888 l
l l 1 CERTIFICATE 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 3 United States tJuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 4 of:
'> tJame : General Public Utilities Corporation, et al.
6 Three Mile Island (Unit 2) License Amendment 7 Application 8 Docket Number: 50-320 OLA 9 Place: Lancaster, Penncylvania i 10 Date: November 3 , 1988 l ( 11 were held as herein appearn, and that this in the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States tJuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken utenographically by me, and g 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the
!v) ,
k 15 direction of the court reporting company, arid that the l 16 transcript la a true and accurate record of the foregoing ; t 17 proceedingu. -- s l J iU UL 0W W l i ! 19 Signature typed: Joan Roce i l 20 Official Reporter r i 21 Heritage Reporting Corpo"wtion i
?? i l
?3 i l
4
*D 2
l 1 CJ Heritngo Reporting Corporation l 1 (?O2) N8-48RB
. .- - _ _ - . - - _._._}}