ML20235N224

Licensee Comments on Immediate Effectiveness.* Requests That Commission Speak & Approve Proposed accident-generated Water Disposal Method by Making Licensing Board Decision Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20235N224
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/21/1989
From:	Baxter T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
CON-#189-8083 CLI-85-13, CLI-87-07, CLI-87-7, LBP-89-07, LBP-89-7, OLA, NUDOCS 8903010109
Download: ML20235N224 (13)

Text

_ _ _ _ ._ _ -__ _ __

l }6$5'

• DOCKETED UWRC February 21, 1989

'89 FEB 23 A10 37 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

}

BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) 1 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA

) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear -) Generated Water)

Station, Unit 2) )

LICENSEE'S COMMENTS ON IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS I. Introduction On February 3, 1989, the Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board's Final Initial Decision in this Operating License Amendment pro-

.ceeding was served upon the parties. See GPU Nuclear Corp.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), LBP-89-7, 29 N.R.C.  !

l (Feb. 2, 1989). In its Final Initial Decision, the Licens- i ing Board authorized the NR' Staf f to issue the requested license amendment -- which would delete the current prohibition on dis-(

posal of the Accident-Generated Water ("AGW") at TMI-2.

In an Order issued in this proceeding on December 3, 1987, i

the Commission made note of its April 27, 1981 Policy State-ment,1# which indicated that any plans for disposal of the AGW shall be referred to the Commission for approval. The Commission stated as follows in its Order:

1/ Published on May 1, 1981, at 46 Fed. Reg. 24,764.

8903010109 890221 %jO PDR ADUCK 05000320 y G PDR. i

r

$l:'

l

.c

-If contentionsfare admitted and a-hear-ing is held in which-the Licensing Board' resolves the admitted contentions in

- 111censee's' favor, theLprocedures" described-below. implement the' Commission's commitment in;its.May_1, 1981 Policy Statement.

g

1 '. . The parties to the proceeding shall have 10' days after service-of the Licensing >

Board's decision to file written comments-

,with the' Commission-regarding whether the

decision should be effective-during,thelpen-dency of administre.ive appellate-review.

.2.- . The Cor,w,issionuintends to' decide-whether the Licensing Board's-decision should be.made' effective pending_ appellate review within 45 days after issuance of the Board" decision.

Pursuant to the Commission's Order, Licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation files the1following comments in support of a.Commis-

-sion determination'to make the Licensing Board's decision immedi-ately, effective..

II. Backaround L ,

The NRC's' environmental review of the disposal of AGW dates back to March 1981, when the NRC Staff issued the Final Pro-

. grammat'ic Environmental Impact Statement ("PEIS") on the TMI-2

- cleanup (NUREG-0683).- In the PEIS the Staff addressed, based on

the available information, the impacts of future disposal of the AGW.

On July 31, 1986, GPU Nuclear filed with the NRC a report on the disposal of the processed, AGW at TMI-2. In the report, GPU Nuclear identified and evaluated three disposal options on the

= _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _

l O

l basis'of relative technical feasibility, regulatory compliance,  !

environmental effects, costs, vaste generated, and time required

[

to accomplish. On the basis of the evaluation documented in that report, GPU Nuclear selected and proposed for NRC approval the option of forced evaporation followed by vaporization and atmo-  !

spheric release of the product distillate. The GPU Nuclear pro-posal also includes the separation and final treatment of the solids removed and collected during the evaporation process and the preparation of the resulting vaste product for shipment and burial at a commercial low-level waste facility.2/

In December 1986, the NRC issued for comment PEIS Draft Sup-plement No. 2, devoted solely to the disposal of AGW. The draft supplement assessed the environmental consequences of GPU Nuclear's proposed disposal method as well as a number of alter-natives. The comments on this draft included a detailed assess-ment by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-ments, which found that the health and safety of the public would not be affected by release to the atmosphere. See Staff Ex. 1 at A.13-A.23. The Department of Energy concluded: "we believe the 2/ One of the options GPU Nuclear evaluated was river disposal, an option which meets NRC regulations and licensing requirements.

GPU Nuclear stated, in its July 1986 report: "On the basis of overall technical merit, analysis indicates that the controlled discharge of the processed, diluted water to the Susquehanna River is the simplest, least costly option and involves insignif-icant environmental impact, as do the competing options. How-ever, GPU Nuclear has opted not to recommend discharge to the  !

river in recognition of an existing public perception that unique health risks are associated with this disposal option."

a l

l ' l l environmentally preferred alternative appears to be onsite evapo- )

. ration." Id. at A.31. The Environmental Protection Agency com-mented that "there are no significant radiation impacts from the proposed alternatives identified. . . . Id. at A.51. Addi-tional supportive comments were received from the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources., See id. at A.5, A.6.

Following the public comment period, the NRC prepared the Final Supplement No. 2, dated June 1987, which is in the record of this proceeding as Staff Exhibit No. 1. The Staff concluded that: "The licensee's proposed action of onsite evaporation com-bined with offsite disposal of evapocator bottoms is an environ-mentally acct:ptable disposal method." 2# Staff Ex. 1 at 6.1.

In a letter of February 25, 1987, as revised on April 13, 1987, Licensee requested an amendment to its operating license for TMI-2, including associated changes in Appendix A Technical Specifications. The amendment would delete the current prohibi- (

tion on disposal of AGW imposed by Technical Specifications 1.17, 3/ In the impact statement, the Staff divided the alternatives into two categories: alternatives that were quantitatively eval-uated, and alternatives that were considered but rejected. Staff Ex. 1 at 3.1. The GPU Nuclear proposal and eight alternatives were quantitatively evaluated. Fifteen other alternatives for disposal of the AGW were considered but did not receive quantita-tive evaluation because they were found to be less desirable from a technical standpoint or clearly inferior to alternatives which received more detailed consideration. However, the PEIS contains a description of the rejected alternatives along with the basis for their rejection. Id. at 3.34-3.39.

3.9.13 and 3/4.3.13. On July 31, 1987, the Commission published a notice of consideration of this amendment application and, in an exercise of discretion, afforded an opportunity for a' prior hearing.S/ 52 Fed. Reg. 28,627 (1987).

GPU Nuclear has entered into'a contract with Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc., to supply the disposal system. In February 1988, GPU Nuclear authorized the vendor to proceed to final design and fabrication of the disposal system for the specific TMI-2 appli-cation.E! LBP-89-7, supra, slip op. at 12. Current expectations are that the system will arrive at the Three Mile Island site in April, to begin the process of installation and preoperational testing. The system should be ready to begin operation in early summer.

III. The Licensina Board Decision i

The Licensing Board has written 195 pages of slip cpinions

[

i l (including summary disposition rulings) asser. sing the merits of the contested issues raised in this proceeding by interveners Three Mile Island Alert and Susquehanna Val:.ey Alliance. In 4/ Much of this history may be found in the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Motions for Summary Disposi-tion). See GPU Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), LBP-88-23, 28 N.R.C. 178, 180-81 '(1988).

3/ GPU Nuclear made the decision to proceed with design, fabri-cation and testing at its own risk in order to minimize delays l

l from this proc 3eding in commencing disposal of the AGW, and com-mensurate delays in the cleanup effort at TMI-2. l l

i l

l l

1

~..

'these opinions, the Licensing. Board has~ fairly'and thoroughly "

evaluated ^the evidence and legal argument. presented, and has resolved al1~of'the contested issues in favor ei issuance of the J requested ~1icense amendment. The' Licensing Board's Final Initial:

. Decision des 2rves the Commission's prompt endorsement,'so that the amendment may issue and further Staff reviews prerequisite to system operation may proceed with dispatch.

The principal substantive issue decided by the Licensing Board is whetherithe=AGW should be evaporated as proposed by Licensee, or stored in. tanks on the~ site for an additional period ,

of at least 30 years to allow most of the tritium to decay, as suggested by Interveners.E/ See LBP-89-7, supra, slip op. at 2.

The Licensing Board found that implementation of the evaporation proposal will have extremely small radiation-exposure conse-quences. Id. at 7. Further, the Board found that the maximum potential dose savings from the storage alternative were too small to justify the additional associated costs. See id. Con-  ;

sequently, the Board found that the alternative is not obviously superior to Licensee's proposal. Id. In fact, the Board found that Licensee's proposal is itself obviously superior to Interve-nors' alternative. Id. at 81.

E/ While other radionuclides are effectively reduced through ion exchange media and subsequent evaporation, tritium in the AGW will be released to the atmosphere. See LBP-89-7, supra, slip op, at 2 n.5.

l l  !

IV. Immediate Effectiveness Considerations In conducting an immediate effectiveness review, the Commis-sion applies the criteria in 10 C.F.R. S 2.764(f)(2)(i) to par-  ;

ties' comments to determine whether to stay the effectiveness of a Licensing Board's decision.1! Philadelphia Electric Co. (Lim-erick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-13, 22 N.R.C. 1, 2 (1985). The criteria in section 2.764(f)(2)(i) are:

I

1. the gravity of the substantive issue; j

2. the likelihood that it has been resolved incorrectly below;

3. the degree to which resolution of the issue would be prejudiced by operation pending review; and

4. Other relevant public interest factors.

Id. at n.l.

The Commission has also noted that its immediate effec-tiveness review is conducted to determine whether there are i safety reasons which warrant delay. Commonwealth Edison Co.

(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-87-7, 26 N.R.C. 1, 2 (1987). Further, to provide grounds for a delay of the effectiveness of a Licensing Board decision, an intervenor's concerns regarding a contested issue must challenge the Board's substantive conclusions regarding the issue. See Carolina Power 7/ Since this is not an operating license application proceed-ing, the Commission is not strictly bound by these criteria. l Each criterion is addressed below, however, in Licensee's com-ments. <

e .-. ,

t'

( :, _

&' Licht Co.s et al. (Shearon Harris Nuclear' Power Plant),

CLI-87-1,l25'~N.R.C. 1, 4 (1987), aff'd sub nom. Eddleman v. NRC, 825 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1987).

While. recognizing the sinceritp of the Interveners' con-

cerns, Licensee submits that the substantive ~ issue here is not-grave. The highest estimate in the record of the radiological e dose from evaporation-to the 2.2 million people.within'a-50-mile radius of TMI is 2.4 person-rem to the bone, and 12 person-rem'to the total body. This represents an upper bound average. exposure to a member of.the population of 0.001 mrem to the bone and 0.005' mrem to the total body over the duration of the AGW disposal.sys- .

tem operation.. LBP-89-7, supra, slip op..at 9-10, 23. (In con-trast, the average individual in the TMI area receives 300 mrem-

- per year from natural radiation. Id. at 10, 24.) These doses are so low by any standard, scientific or regulatory,.that they are self-evidently de minimus. While a further storage' period may result in'some dose savings,8/ the Board found "that the doses 1from evaporation now are already so small that any savings achieved from the Interveners' proposed storage period are

- unimportant." Id. at 37.

Neither is there any reasonable likelihood that the Licens-ing Board has incorrectly resolved the substantive issue.

8/ Changes in land use and population distribution could offset the effects of radiological decay. Doses in 30 years could even be. higher than current estimates for prompt evaporation.

- LBP-89-7, supra, slip op, at 35.

c . .

a i

Independent dose ~ projections by Licensee and the NRC Staff con-firm the extremely low doses expected to result from the pro-poSal.- No cont'rary projections are in the record. The.conclu-1 sion.that the~ impacts of these releases will be negligiblefis supported by impressive expert testimony and is consistent'with the standards set and enforced 1by this agency for radiological releases from operating nuclear power. plants.

Resolution of the substantive issue would not be prejudiced q by making the Licensing Board's decision immediately effective.

Licensee has contracted for the equipment already and is proceed-ing to ship it for final testing'at the site.- It will be a few.

-months, however, before the AGW disposal system is ready to oper-ate and has the requisite NRC Staff approvals.E! Once operation commences, it will take one to two years to evaporate the 2.3-million gallons.of AGW.

~Other relevant public interest factors weigh in favor of immediate effectiveness. As stated in 1987 in the NRC's own environmental impact statement:

Ultimate disposal of the water is considered ,

a fundamental element in accomplishing the overall cleanup of TMI-2. Relatively  :

R near-term action'to safely dispose.of the water would support the Commission's goal of safe and expeditious cleanup of the facility.

9/ Once this license amendment is issued, deleting the prohibi-tion on disposal of the AGW, license Technical Specification 3.9.13 still requires NRC Staff approval of the system operating procedures prior to system operation. The Staff will also be issuing a safety ? valuation on GPU Nuclear's technical evaluation report on the specific disposal system design, and reviewing the process control plan.

I

' Staff.Ex.-1 at viii. The Commission in 1981 announced that, it 6

would undertake a' unio"e role in approving anyLproposal to dis '

pose'of the AGW. Coni .ent with its goal of' safe and expedi-

'tious' cleanup, the Commission should now speak and approve- .

Licensee's proposed AGW disposal method by making 1the Licensing Board'sLdecision effective.'immediately. 'More than;enough time has been: devoted to the public scrutiny of this matter. As a result'of the thorough review of the NRC's environmental impact statement.by NCRP, EPA, DOE and state' agencies, as well as the-Licensing Board's comprehensive examination of the questions raised by. local intervening organizations, a broad. ranging and highly competent evaluation'has been done.- A-Commission-decision need not-and should not wait yet further for the completion of administrative appellate review, Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWSRIDGE-L A &L Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.

David R. Lewis i

~

Maurice A. Ross Counsel for Licensee i 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 i (202) 662-8000 Dated: February 21, 1989 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

m: ,

f:,

Lc(KEiED-(i

(

. Uw.c.

February- 21,.1989

'89 FEB 23 A10:38 UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA  : OFF!E , _ _ ,w NUCLEAR REGULATORY: COMMISSION DOCKETr evit:f BEFORE THE COMMISSION i

In the Matter of' )

)

GPU NUCLEAR' CORPORATION ) Docket No'. 50-320-OLA'

-) -(Disposal of Accident-V (Three Mile Island' Nuclear ') Generated Water)

Station, Unit 2) )

'i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-I;hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's comments on Immediate Effectiveness" were served this 21st day of February, 1989, by U.S. mail, first class, postage. prepaid, upon the par-ties' identified on the attached Service List.

l T A. h Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

i

.__-___L_ ___:____.

70L u it?

M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '09 FEB 23 A10:37 BEFORE THE COMMISSION M %; ' .-

00Dk Q.

In the Matter of )

)

GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA

) (Disposal of Accident-  ;

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)

Station, Unit 2) )

SERVICE LIST 4

Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Christine N. Kohl, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts  !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas S. Mocre, Esquire Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commis'sioner Kenneth M. Carr Washington, D.C. 20555 '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Howard A. Wilber Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner James R. Curtiss Board Panel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Atomic Safety and Licensing Secretary Board Panel h U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

)

l

a I

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing

. Board Panel U.S. Nucleat . Regulatory Commission  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen H.' Lewis, Esquire Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

-Docketing and Services Branch Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Adjudicatory File Atomic S'1fety and Licensing Board Panel Docket  !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard P. Mather, Esquire Department of Environmental Resources ,

Corimonwealth of Pennsylvania '

505 Executive House Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Ms. Frances Skolnick 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 Ms. Vera L. Stuchinski 315 Peffer Street Harrisbu"!, Pennsylvania 17102 i

Mr. Lee H. Thonus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 311 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 i

L__-_________-___.