ML20235A857
| ML20235A857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1988 |
| From: | Bright G, Paris O, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF, SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235A860 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5311 87-554-04-OLA, 87-554-4-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8801130187 | |
| Download: ML20235A857 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
- s. j3//
\\
1 j
4' i
DOCKETED r
NC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 JAN -6 A11:52 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Orrict y SEst.w s 000KEitNG 4 SERVK.f.
Before Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Oscar H. Paris ggygJg-6gg Glenn 0. Bright
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-320-0LA
)
(Disposal of Accident-GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR
)
GeneratedWater)
CORPORATION, et al.
)
(ASLBP No. 87-554-04-OLA)
(ThreeMileIslandNuclaarStation, Unit 2)
January 5, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; RulingonContentions; Scheduling)
MEMORANDUM l
I.
Special Prehearing Conference i
The special prehearing conference was held on December 8, 1987, pursuant tc 10 C.F.R. 62.751a and the Board's Order of November 3,1987 t
1 Attendees were Thomas A. Baxter, Esq. and Maurice A. Ross, Esq.,
counsel for the Licensee; Stephen H. Lewis, Esq. and Colleen P.
Woodhead, Esq., counsel for the NRC Staff; Frances Skolnick, representing the Susquehanna Valley Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert; John McKinstry, Esq., counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
B801130187 eB0105I PDR ADOCK 05000320 G
4
. ( hu isheh).2 Since submissions showed that Ms. Frances Skolnick was a member of Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) and of Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and was duly authorized by both to represent them, the Board deemed these organizations to be Joint Petitioners. The Board ruled that, if one or more of their contentions were admitted, TMIA and SVA would be deemed to be joint interveners and that, pursuant to 52.715a of the Connission's Rules of Practice, Ms. Skolnick would then be their representative for all purposes in the proceeding, in that she would consolidai,e presentation of evidence, consolidate their cross examination, consolidate their briefs, and consolidate their proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and argument.
(Tr. 4)
If the Board were to decide that a hearing would be held, the parties were alerted to the fact that they are directed, pursuant to 52.754 of the Rules of Practice, to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, briefs, and a proposed form of order or decision, and that any such i
par'.ies would be deemed in default if they failed to file these submissions.
(Tr. 5)
The Board stated that it had read the Joint Petitioners' proposed contentions of October 28, 1987, as amended on November 20; the A
Neither oral or written limited appearance statements were received.
Such statements will be taken at the time another prehearing conference is held, and/or at the beginning of the hearing, if any.
(Tr. 3-4)
s.~
. l Licensee's (GPU) submissions of November 12 and December 2; and the Staff's submissions of November 16 and December 3,1987.
(Tr. 6-7) The Board heard oral arguments on the admissibility of the proposed contentions.
(Tr. 7-73)
Scheduling was discussed in the event one or more contentions were to be admitted.
(Tr. 73-86)
II. Admissibility of Contentions A.
Discussion of Legal Standards Section 2.714(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice requires that a petitioner's list of proposed contentions must set forth "the bases for each contention...with reasonable specificity."
In determining whether or not to admit the proposed contentions, we are guided by the Appeal Board's decision in Texas Utilities Electric Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 j
I NRC _ (1987), slip opinion at 32-34. Therein, the Appeal Board stated:
1
...Although the Rules do not state a precise equation for determining what is an adequate basis, we have noted that "such judgment must be exercised case-by-casg7 with the under-I lying purposes of this requirement in mind,"
and that the
)
licensingboardsggercise"aconsiderableamountofdiscretion
...in this area."
Moreover, the purposes of the requirement are well established. The bases requirement is intended to ensure, at the pleading stage, that the agency's adjudicatory process is not invoked for impermissible purposes, such as attacks on statutory requirements or challenges to Commission regulations,andthattheissueathandgappropriatefor litigation in the particular proceeding.
Additionally, the requirement " help [s] assure that other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at leasf0 generally what they will have to defend against or oppose."
Thus, the bases requirement is merely a pleading requirement designed to make certain that a proffered issue is sufficiently articulated to provide the other parties with its broad outlines and to provide the Licensing Board with enough information for I
3
. determining whether the issue is appropriately litigable in the instant proceeding. The requirerrent generally is fulfilled when the sponsor of an otheiwise acceptable contention provides a brief recitation of the factors underlying the contention g references to documents and texts that provide such reasons.
But the fact that a contention complies with the bases require-ment of section 2.714(b) does not mean that the issue is destined to go to hearing -- such a contention is subject to being rejected on the merits prior to trial undey2the sunmary disposition provisions of the Rules of Practice.
The bases requirement most assuredly "should not be read and construed as establishing secretive and complex technicalities such as in some other areas of the law are associatedwithspecialpleadingrequirementsforwhicp35 **
practitioners have an almost superstitious reverence."
The regulation does not require ge detailing of admissible evidence as support for a contention.
And, in assessing the admissibility of a contention, it is not permissible fg a licensing board to reach the merits of the contention.
As we have held repeatedly "[w]hether the contention ultimately can be proven on the merits is 'not ge appropriate inquiry at the contention-admission stage.'"
67 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-845, 24 NRC 220, 230 (1986).
68 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 21 (1974).
69 Id. at 20-21. See Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Foint, Units 3 and 4), 4 AEC 787, 787 n.2, 788 (1972).
O Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20.
71 See Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 540 41 (1986); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 547-49 (1980);
Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Uiitts 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 425-26 (1973). See also Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-72-23, 5 AEC 5, 5-6 (1972).
72 See 10 C.F.R. 52.749; Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 21.
3 Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20.
f
4 l
f j 74 See Allens Creek, 11 NRC at 547-49, 5
Shearon Harris, 23 NRC at 541.
76 Id. (quoting Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generatin IItation, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 694 (1985))g 3
I B.
Rulings on Proposed Contentions, As Amended Proposed Contention 1 The Joint Petitioners assert that neither the Licensee nor the NRC has shown that the evaporation method of disposal of accident generated water (AGW) complies with the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle because other methods of water disposal discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS or PEIS), NUREG-0683, Supplement No.
2, June 1987, would not release all the radioactivity, whereas the open 4
cycle evaporation method would release all of the tritium and a quantity of radionuclides into the environment.4 3
A copy of the proposed contentions, as amended, is attached hereto.
{
During the conference, the Joint Petitioners apparently attempted to change, at least in the alternative, the basis for the contention. They cited York Consnittee for a Safe Environment v.
U.S.N.R.C., 527 F2d 812 (D.C. Cir.1975) for the proposition that j
the use of the ALARA numerical guidelines in Appendix I of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 has been invalidated (Tr. 8). This untimely attempt to advance a new basis was improper and the alternative basis is rejected. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521, 523 n. 11
)
(1979).
In any event, the Court of Appeals had merely held that, in the case before it, the NRC had not complied with its own
{
definition of the term "as low as practicable" (the precursor to j
the ALARA standard) in failing to perfom an individualized analysis of costs and benefits.
I (Footnote Continued)
{
i
e i
. In its response of November 12, the Licensee argues that (1)
I petitioners' legal position is without basis in that they do not challenge Licensee's compliance with the ALARA numerical guidelines in i
Appendix 1. (2) petitioners' legal theory is erroneous in implicitly suggesting that the alternative method lowest in radiological releases must be selected under NEPA, and that (3) petitioners' statements are both deceptive and irrelevant because the PEIS shows, and is not questioned by the petitioners, that Licensee's proposal does not releas6 all the radioactivity, that all disposal methods release some l
(FootnoteContinued)
We note that, in letters of December 16 and December 29, 1987, the Licensee and the Staff respectively commented on the York Committee decision. Other than asserting that since 1975 the Commission has consistently held that observance of Appendix I's numerical guides shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the ALARA requirements of Part 50, the Licensee did not explain why the Joint Petitioners' reliance on this decision by a federal court was misplaced. While in its earlier responses of November 16 and December 3, the Staff had opposed the contention, in its letter of December 29 the Staff did not object to the contention if the thrust thereof was that the dose limitations set forth in Appendix I had not been met. For some reason, the Stafi apparently believes that the Commission only authorized this Board to consider whether or not the prohibition in the technical specifications against disposal of AGW should be deleted, and that, once the deletion of the prohibition has been authorized and after the Staff has reviewed the (as yet to be submitted) specific design system for the evaporator, the Staff on its own will determine whether that specific design systems's anticipated environmental impacts fall within the scope of those estimated in the PEIS, Supplement No. 2.
l We disagree. Had the Commission intended to restrict our jurisdiction in any manner it would have so stated and it would not have issued a Notice of Opportunity For A Prior Hearing (emphasis added.) Thus we conclude that during the adjudicatory process it must be established on the record before us that the cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA standard.
f
i
- d. radioactivity, and that all disposal. methods will result in.the release of essentially all of the tritium.
(SeealsoTr. 10-12,14-15)
In-its 1
response of November.16, the Staff argues that the proposed contention lacks legal basis because the ALARA requirements do not call-for a comparison of how much.below Appendix l' numerical guidelines projected doses from alternative water disposal methods would be.
In its response of December 3, the Staff also urged that the contention fails to identify any inadequacy or deficiency in the PEIS.
(See also Tr. 12, 15-16)
]
The proposed contention is admitted as an issue in controversy.
Simply put, citing the PEIS, Supplement No. 2, the Joint Petitioners allege that the ALARA principle has not been complied with because the selected open cycle evaporation method would release all of the tritium and a quantity of radionuclides whereas other methods. would not release all the radioactivity. The basis is set forth with reasonable i
specificity and sufficiently places the other parties on notice as to that which they will have to defend against or oppose. We do not reach I
the merits of the contention at this stage of the proceeding.
1 Proposed Contention 2 Joint Petitioners allege that neither the NRC Staff nor GPU has conducted a conclusive risk / benefit analysis of the "no action
]
alternative", i.e., leaving the AGW stored on-site rather than disposing of it by evaporation. The proposed contention also alleges that the Staff's PEIS fails to demonstrate clearly that the adverse impacts of disposal by evaporation are outweighed by the benefits of such J
1
'l
-B-i i
disposal.5 Finally,'the proposed contention asserts that the benefits of whether to dispose of the AGW can be detennined only after the l
evaluation of GPU's plans for post defueling monitored storage (PDMS).
j (PDMS refers to the proposed condition of TMI-2 following the completion j
of the planned cleanup activities. (Licensee's Response of November 12, at18,n.5))
l In its November 12 response the Licensee argues that Joint i
Petitioners' allegation that a conclusive cost / benefit analysis of the j
"no action alternative" has not been conducted is " bald opinion, unadorned with any rationale or reason". Consequently, GPU believes that the contention does not meet the " basis with specificity" requirement of 10 CFR $ 2.714(b) and fails to put the parties on notice as to what they must be prepared to defend against or oppose.
(Licensee's Response at 14; Tr. 20) Licensee states that the "no action alternative" is one of nine alternatives quantitatively evaluated by Staff in the PEIS end notes the Staff concluded that, although on-site storage would involve small potential environmental impacts, the environmental impacts from ultimate disposal would not be significantly different from near-term disposal.
(Licensee's Response at 15-16) With regard to Joint Petitioners' claim that the benefits of disposal of the AGW cannot be analyzed until Licensee's plan for PDMS is evaluated, 5
Joint Petitioners' proposed Contention 3 deals with this issue in more detail.
j
)
. )
f l
Licensee argues that no basis is provided for the contention and further j
that it challenges the Commission's Notice for Opportunity for Hearing l
which " clearly contemplates that the time has come to decide on i
Licensee's proposal".
(Id. at 18)
The NRC Staff, on the other hand, stated it. its November 16 response that the aspect of the contention that challenged the adequacy of Staff's analysis of the "no action alternative" to be set forth with
{
sufficient specificity and basis so as to be admissible.
Staff objects, however, to the sentence which asserts that the benefits of the proposed disposal can only be analyzed following the evaluation of the Licensee's plan for PDMS, on the grounds that it is extraneous to the contention and lacks a basis.
(Staff Response at 4-S; Tr. 22-23) In a
" clarification" filed December 3,1987, Staff also objects to the assertion in the contention that Staff's evaluation inadequately demonstrates that any adverse impacts associated with the proposed disposal of the AGW are outweighed by the benefits to the public, on the grounds that the assertion is vague and lacking in basis.
(Staff Clarification at 3; Tr. 23)
The part of the proposed contention which contends that Staff's assessment fails to provide an adequate risk / benefit analysis of the "no action alternative" is admitted as an issue in controversy. Joint Petitioners assert that the PEIS shows that there is no radioactive impact from storing the AGW on the island, and the financial cost of storing it would be almost zero.
(Tr. 18) Thus bases have been set forth with reasonable specificity. We need not reach and decide that
f 1
' part of the proposed contention which alleges.that the PEIS fails to adequately show that adverse impacts resulting from evaporation are j
outweighed oy the benefits, because we consider this proposed issue in 1
more detail in our discussion, infra of proposed Contention 3.
o Finally, we agree with Staff-that the part which alleges that benefits
.f 1
of the proposed disposal can only be analyzed after evaluation of l
Licensee's plans for PDMS is inadmissible on the grounds it lacks relevancy and basis.
Proposed Contention 3 Joint Petitioners allege that the PEIS fails to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it fails to show that the benefits of the evaporation method will exceed the costs and risks to the public. They allege that the benefits are unclear, whereas the risks include '(1) the release of radioactive naterial into the air, l
where it can enter the food chain, water, huens, and the entire f
ecosystem, and (2) as much as 88,000 cubic feet of solidified radioactive waste will be created, which must be trucked to a low-level waste disposal site. Joint Petitioners further argue that there is "no benefit whatsoever from releasing radioactivity into the environment."
l (Tr.31)
The Licensee notes that, without making a single citation to the Staff's PEIS, Joint Petitioners assert that the PEIS does not demonstrate that the benefits of disposal of the AGW outweigh the accompanying costs and risks.
Licensee considers Joint Petitioners' assessment of the benefits of disposal of the AGW as " unclear" to be h
j:
A 1 t
simplistic.
(Licensee's Response of November 12, at 19-20) Further, Licensee asserts that proposed Contention 3 identifies conditions corrraon to all nuclear facilities but fails to advance a claim particular to this proceeding.
(Id. at 20) GPU also argues that Joint Petitioners have made a generalized observation about radioactive materials to be released during the evaporation of the AGW without citing specific inadequacies or errors in the PEIS, thus ignoring acailable information and providing ncne of their own.6 (Id. at 21-22)
Consequently Licensee views proposed Contention 3 to be unsupported by a basis.
(Id.
at.22; Tr. 32)
Staff agrees with Licensee. Staff argues that the " mere listing of two asserted risks" does not provide a sufficient basis to put Staff and l
Licensee on notice as to the issues to which they wou'd have to respond.
4 (Staff Response of November 16, at 5)
)
I We find Contention 3 to be admissible for litigation in this l
l proceeding.
It sets forth two risks with sufficient specificity to put l
l Licensee 6nd Staff on notice as to what they must respond, and it states j
l O
We do not consider Ms. Skolnick's failure to cite pages or sections j
of the PEIS to be a fatal flaw. While SVA and TMIA have been I
parties in a previous NRC proceeding, Ms. Skolnick has had no l
previous experience representing a party in a NRC hearing.
(Tr. 7)
A petitioner's representative who is new to the field should not be held to the same standards of clarity and precision to which a lawyer might reasonably be expected to adhere. Houston Lichting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 546 (1980); Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek knerating Station), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559, 576-577 (1975)
CU l
.:q '/
i that the benefits'of the proposed. disposal method are either unclear or, i
as alleged by Joint Petitioners at the Special Prehearing Conference, are ' nonexistent.-(Tr. 31) 1 Proposed Contention 4_
This contention contains four subparts, all of.which address the operation of the evaporator but each of which ra_ises a different issue.
The first allegation.is that no credible scientific evidnce has been presented to demonstrate.that the evaporator, operating in an open cycle
-)
..ence
_j mode, can be assured not to break down more than 25% of the time.
f there is no assurance that the 2.3 million gallons of_ radioactive water i
l can be evaporated within a time period which will provide reasonable I
protection to the public. The second allegation is that sufficient J
evidence has not been provided to ensure that the > evaporator can filter out transuranic, other radionuclides, and' chemicals to protect the
~
public health and safety. The third allegation is'that the evaporator's monitoring and safety systems have not been shown to provide the safeguards needed to protect the public health and safet/ when the evaporator operates in an open cycle mode. The fourth and last allegation is that it has not been demonstrated that the evaporator can be varied from processing 3 gallons / minute to 20 gallons / minute without jeopardizing the public health and safety.
Licensee argues, in its November 12, 1987 response, tnat the first allkgedissuefailstosetforthaspecificconcernortostatewhythe j
use of the evaporator would be harmful to the health and safety of the public.
(Licensee's Response, at 23-24) With regard to the second l
J I
,.-r
. 13 -
issue, Licensee points out that Chapter 2 of PEIS' Supplement 2 describes
'l the contaminants in the accident generated water and the treatment systems to be used to remove radionuclides from the water, but that, in-
/
spite of this infomation, Joint Petitioners provide no basis to support their concitsion. (Licensee's Response at 24-25) Licensee argues thet l
/
the third issue alleged in proposed Contention 3 fails to be specific about what "needed safeguards" are missing or to point to any deficiency l
in the relevant information aveilable to them.
(Licensee's Response at 25-26)
Finally, with regard'to the last allegation, Licensee argues that Joint Petitioners fail to set forth a reason for their cor.cern about the processing rate. (Licensee's Responie at 26)
The NRC Staff agrees with Licensee.
It believes that all four subparts fkil to state bases that identify the issues which the Staff and Licensee would have to respond, Staffnotes,jnteralia,thatwith regard to the second subpart of the proposed cuntention, it addresses j
the filtering of transuranic in Section 7.2.3 of Supplement No. 2 of the PEIS. Staff argues that the " safeguards" mentioned in the third subpart of the proposed contention are not identified and no specific inadequancy is identified.
(Sff Response af November 16 at 5)
Finally, with respect to the fourth subpart of the proposed contention, Staff argues that the relevance of the possible change in influent rate to the evaporator is not stated by Joint Petitioners. For these reasons, Staff believes that proposed Contention 4 should not be i
admitted.
L_
k
.I 1
(
l We agree that the subparts of proposed Coistention 4, as set forth in Joint Petitioners' filing of November 20, fail to state the bases that would make them admissible. However, at the Special Prehearing Conference Joint Petitioners pointed out, with respect to the allegation that sufficient evidence has not been provided to assure that f
radionuclides, transuranic, and chemicals will be filtered out of the evaporator's effluent, that there are no filters on the evaporator.
(Tr. 33-34) Thus, a basis is provided for the second allegation. With regard to the third allegation, that the monitoring and safety systems have not been shown to provide the safeguards needed to protect the put,iic health and safety, Joint Petitioners pointed out at the Special Prthearing Conference that there will be an in-line gamma detector on the evaporator which will be unable to detect tritium end strontium-SO, both of which are beto emitters.
(Tr. 34) Thus a basis is pruvided for the third allegetion. With regard to the last issue concerning the change in processing rate, Joint Petitioners pointed out during the Special Prehearing Conference that the release rate of radionuclides would depend on the the feed rate to the evaporator, plus their concentration in the water and the carry-over action of the evaporator.
(Tr.35) Thus an adequate basis is provided for this subpart of the proposed contention. Therefore, we admit the last three subparts of Contention 4, which were designated as (b), (c), and (d) in the responses of Licensee and Staff. The first subpart, i.e. subpart (a),
is denied admission because it is vague, fails to set forth a basis with reasonable specificity, and is of doubtful relevancy.
. j Proposed Contention 5 l
In this contention, Joint Petitioners assert that neither detailed nor accurate information was given in the PEIS to allow decisi'on-makers and the public to determine the effects of this proposed action on i
public health and safety, as required by NEPA.
It has four subparts j
which purport to identify at least four areas in which the PEIS is deficient. Subpart (a) alleges that Dr. Karl L. Morgan, in comments on I
the draft PEIS which he reviewed, stated "the studies made by GPU and the NRC Staff are woefully inadequate an( much more data should be provided before deciding the best way to be rid of this problem." (Tr.
49; see also Tr. 50-51). Dr. Morgan's c6mments, as well as those of two other named individuals, were reviewed by the Staff and were responded to in PEIS Supplement No. 2, 'out Joint Petitioners fail to state any
{
inadequacies in Supplement No. 2 and thus do not present an issue with sufficient specificity to be 3itigated. Subpart (a) is rejected as an issue in controversy.
Subpart (b) alleges that the PEIS ignores the cumulative efforts of the TMI-2 accident and the cleanup program, and conclusionally states that there is a great cor.troversy as to how much radiation has been i
released due to the activities of the last eight and one-half years.
The allegation that cumulative effects were ignored is patently wrong.
Without any judgment as to the adequacy of the PEIS treatment of the matter, we note that cumulative effects are discussed in the original i
PEIS (NUREG-0683) in Section 1.6.3.2 and Chapter 10 and in Supplement 1 at Chapter 3.
Joint Petitioners make no specific claims as to the
.in i.i
_m
l :l adequacy of the material in the PEIS, and thus do not raise an issue to i
be litigated here. With only the bald statement as'to the " great controversy" about the amount of radiation previously released, there is nothingtolitigateandsubpart(b)isrejectedasanissuein i
controversy.
Subpart (c) contains two allegations:
(1) that the PEIS " grossly" simplified the radiological and chemical content of the AGW, and (2) suggests that the synergistic effects of all radioisotopes and all chemicals in the water be determined. Joint Petitioners fail to point
{
out what substances have been left out, and do not set forth bases for suggesting in an all-encompassing manner that synergistic effects of all radioisotopes and chemicals in the AGW should be determined. Absent some idea of what their concern is, we find it would be impossible for Staff and Licensee to prepare for litigation. We therefore find no bases have been set forth with reasonable specificity, and subpart (c) is rejected.
Subpart (d) has two allegations:
(1) that the effects of tritium have been underestimated and (2) that the effects of alpha emitters and other transuranic have been virtually ignored. As to the first J
allegation, the effects of tritium have been extensively discuswd in PEIS Supplement No. 2, namely at Sections 7.2.16, 7.2.17, 7.2.18 and 2.2.1.
Pe'citioners have addressed, particularly in the areas of f
J biological and cancer-producing effects (Tr. 41, 43), specific j
deficiencies in these discussions, and thus they have demonstrated the reasonable specificity required by the Comission's rule. Similarly, as i
. to the second allegation, transuranic slements are discussed in PEIS Supplement 2, at 7.7.
Joint Petitioners find specific deficiencies in this discussion in that biological ceasequences are " virtually ignored."
(Tr. 41, 42). We find the requisite specificity required by the Commission's rule is therefore met and subpart (d) is admitted for litigation.
Proposed Contention 6 The contention alleges that many impurities have been added to the AGW over the years since the accident, and that the effects of all of these on the Epicor II and SDS cleanup systems and the evaporator itself must be evaluated. The Licensee argues that the Staff evaluation of this matter in the PEIS is adequate, and that therefore no litigation is necessa ry.
(Response of November 12, at 37-38; Tr. 55-56) The Staff, on the other hand, states that sufficient basis has been presented for the contention to be litigable, and that they have no objection to the admission of the contention.
(Response of November 16, at 8; Tr. 57-59)
The Licensee's arguments go to the merits but it is not our function to reach the merits of the contention at this stage of the proceeding. We agree with Staff that sufficient basis has been presented. The contention is therefore admitted ss an issue in controversy.7 7
We do not adopt the view of Mr. McKinstry, representing the Pennsylvania 6 Department of Environmental Resources, that both the (Footnote Continued)
N' I
Proposed Contention 7 The Joint Petitioners ' contend that it is prudent to await the completion of off-site monitoring studies being conducted by two named individuals which could prove valuable in determining the adequacy of monitoring the disposal of the radioactive material. They concede that off-site monitoring does not prevent any releases of radioactive contaminants but argue that an effective monitoring system must be in I
place in order that the evaporator system can be turned off'in the event of excess releases.
(Tr. 60)
The proposed contention is rejectcc'.
Evea if we were to consider it as a contention, it would be inadmissible because the Notice of Opportunity for Prior Hearing, 52 Fed. Reg. 28626(1987), directs that contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration -- here, whether the proposed plan to evaporate the accident-generated water could be implemented without significant environmental impact. The alleged contention simply does not specify what the nascent studies will contribute to the resolution of this proposed license amendment. Moreover, it does not specify any (FootnoteContinued)
Joint Petitioners and the Staff recognized or intended that "...the thrust of Contention 6 was that not necessarily the fact that there would be chemicals remaining after further decontamination, but the fact that parts of the water or portions of the water were still to be used and that disposal of all 2.1 million gallons was unnecessary." (Tr. 56, 57) Ms. Skolnick did not affirm that this was the Joint Petitioners' position and the Staff explicitly denied that this aspect was raised in the proposed contention.
(Tr. 57)
I
l inadequacies in the existing monitoring system.
Further, we agree with the Licensee that it is not a contention but rather is a motion for i
postponement.
(Response of November 12, at 41)
Pursuant to the Commissions instructions we are dedicated to seeing that the process moves along at an expeditious pace, consistent with the demands of fairnass. Statement of Policy On Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 453 (1981) Thus, we will not permit this proceeding to be delayed. As the Staff notes, if the studies are completed before our proceeding is concluded and are relevant, the Joint Petitioners may move for leave to file a contention out-of-time.
(Response of November 16, at 8).
Proposed Contention 8 The contention alleges that the PEIS failed to give reasonable consideration to two disposal techniques, viz., closed-cycle evaporation with solidification and shipment to a low-level waste site of the bottoms and condensate, and storage of the water in tanks within the containment building. No basis for such analysis was presented in the original submission of contentions of October 28, 1987, nor was any clarification made in Joint Petitioners' submission of amendments to the contentions of November 20, 1987. However, during the discussion of contentions at the Special Prehearing Conference the Joint Petitioners did clarify their contention such that an acceptable basis was presented for each proposed method of disposal.
For the use of closed-cycle evaporation and subsequent solidification of the recovered water, Joint Petitioners allege that
l
. this method would mean that the contaminants would be held (Tr. 64, 65,
-67) and thus not released to the general public. We find this to be an adequate basis for litigation. Concerning the etncept of-inside-containment storage, the Joint Petitioners allege that (Tr. 65):
"... they didn't give enough consideration to disposing the water in tanks and storing it inside Unit 2.
It is almost the
_same as the "no-action" alternative, except that the no-action l
alternative supposes that eventually the water will' be disposed of. But storing it in tanks inside Unit 2, is saying that it would be left on the island and monitored as a means of disposing of it."
The Board accepts this clarification as a basis for litigation.
Accordingly, this contention is admitted as an issue in controversy.
ORDER In light of the admission of certain of the contentions, or portions thereof, as issues in controvery:
1.
SVA and TMIA, Joint Interveners, are admitted as a party, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is admitted as an interested state.
2.
The parties shall have until February 22, 1988 within which to initiate and complete discovery.
3.
Each party shall notify the Board in a letter whether it will file a motion for sumary disposition.
Each letter shall be served, by personal delivery or by express mail, in order that the Board and the other parties will receive the letter on or before February 8, 1988. Depending upon the contents of the letters, in a subsequent l
1 l
I
- - _ _ _ _ _