ML20236L364
Text
,_-__
]
- r:
.f DOCKET MN!!:8 EE00. & UA,EE.. />P M 3 g
p /
'7/',
(
j N.__
y,.
4
,j;
~
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
// s [-
c E'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
,l'
' ' /s BEFORE THE COMMISSION NL.fC M_.f yu I
In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket No.60-323 i'
)
(Diablo Canyon Unit 2)
)
i AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION l
TO EXCEPTIONS OF SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC.
TO THE INITIAL DECISION Introduction
+
In accordance with $2.762(b) of the Commission's " Rules of i
Practice" in 10 CFR Part 2, the AEC regulatory staf f (staf f) opposes the relief requested in the exceptions filed by Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. (Conference) i to the Initial Decision of the atomic safety and licensing I
board (board) in this proceeding as set forth below,
)
i t
a i
o g
(
D0ctiiED s\\
tur:
9 JnN221973 m Q j
4 m n, s r,
r IGHC WPJf4g3 9
tranen j
6 O
q i
/
g l
Q l
8708100227 870729 PDR FDIA CONNORB7-214 PDR J
2 Intervenor's Exception No.
1.
l I
In its Exception No. 1 the Conference states :
l
" Key provisions of the Atomic Energy Commission (Commission) regulations promulgated December 3, 1970 (Federal Register, December 4,1970) to imple-ment the National Environmental policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) are currently being challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia C ir cuit.
(Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc.,
National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club v. United States Atomic Energy Commission) The court decision will have a direct bearing on the issues being re-viewed by the Commission and will affect the nature and validity of any decision rendered by the Commission.
Conference, therefore, requests that the Commission rescind the provisional construction pernit pending the outcome of these court deliberations."
l In asking the Commi ion to rescind the provisional construction permit pending the outcome of a court test of the validity of a Commission regulation, the Conference seeks to raise a matter beyond the scope of the Initial Decision of the atomic safety and licensing board in this proceeding and thus beyond the scope o f " exceptions".
Within its supporting arguments, the Conference does take exception to the refusal of the board to reopen the hearing or delay considera-tion of the construction permit pending submission of environmental statements by the applicant and the staff.
Such action had been sought in the Conference's request of July 13, 1970. The board's refusal to grant the request was proper.
^O
i,
.~
s:.
l s i It is true that the applicant has not yet submitted an environmental report nor, of course, has the staf f prepared a detailed statement on environmental considerations. However, it should be no;ed that the Notice of Hearing was issued November 17, 1969, prior to the enactment of NEPA on January 1,1970, and prior to the initial _ promulgation of the Commission's Statement of General Policy on the implementation of f
The hearing was NEPA, Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, April 2,1970.
held in January, and the evidentiary record was closed by board order 1/
j of March 18, 1970.
The Commission has consistently recognized the necessity for additional
{
50 in the time for complete compliance with Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 2/
j case of pending applications.
In the Notice of Rulemaking for the l
i
'l December 4, 1970, revised Appendix D, the Commission dealt directly full with and denied a general suggestion by the Conference that compliance with NEPA be required in proceedings such as the instant -
f The Commission stated:
I one.
"The suggestion that construction permits issued without l
prior considerations of environmental factors by the Com-mission be suspended pending the investigation of the environmental impact of the f acility has not been adopted.
-l J
Whether suspension is appropriate is a matter to be determined to Subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice, pursuant 10 CFR Part 2, in the light of requirements established 'in Appendix D as herein adopted."'3/
1/ The atomic safety and licensing board " Order Reopening Hearing", dated July 15, 1970, reopened the record' for the limited purpose of con-sidering certain seismic and geological matters.
2/ Para. 3 of the April' 2,1970 version of Appendix.D of 10 CFR Part 50; para. 8 of the June 3,1970, proposed revised Appendix D of 10 CFR l
Part 50; and para. 8 of the current (December 4, 1970) Appendix D of i
3_/ 35 F.R.
18471.
j t
1 I
i.
1 i
I 4-Moreover,'under the December 4,1970, revision of Appendix D, I
environmental reports and detailed statements, in esses such as the instant one, will not await the operating license stage of review but are required as soon as practicable.~4/
For the ressons stated above, Exception 1 should be denied.
[
h I
l i
l t
l 1
i i
i l
4/ Para. 1 of current (December 4,1970) Appe:2 dix D of 10 CFR -
Part 50.
a i
w oe +..
-.swen I
)
- p:.
4 l
5 l
Intervenor's Exception No. 2.
1 l
I 1
I In its Exception No. 2 the Conference states:
" Conference further appeal to the Commission to rescind the construction permit and postpone action on the appli--
cation until Pacific and the Board have complied with the provisions of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 j
r (WQIA)."
j There has been no lack of compliance with the provisions of WQIA in b
Section 21(b) o f - the l
action on the application in this proceeding.
l Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by the WQIA, j
I
?
requires applicants for Federal licenses or permits to conduct any.
j activity, including the construction of a f acility such as 6 i
nuclear power plant, which may result in~any discharge into the f
navigable waters of the United States, to provide the Federal ~
licensing agency with certification from the State, or interstate water pollution control agency, or the Secretary of the Interior, as there is reasonable assurance, as determined by appropriate, that i
such certifying authority, that the activity will be conducted in a I
manner which will not violate applicabic water quality standards.
l However, where an application was pending on the date of enactment
- l of the Act, as was the case here, section 21(b)(8) of the FWPCA, as that, if a l
amended, provides an interim exemption to the ef fect l
construction permit is issued before April 3,1971, the applicants must obtain a certification within one year following issuance of the i
permit.
I
.~..
I L______.__._________.____m______
j
(
t..-
! 1 A construction permit was issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
on December 9,1970, and the company thus has ntil December 8, 1971, l
to provide the Commission with the necessary certification.
j Should any questions arise concerning the pro::ulgation of applicable 1
I i
standards, such as the Conference asserts, they can appropriately be if necessary, resolved during the exemption period and dealt with, I
)
pursuant to subsection 21(b)(9) of WPCA, as a: ended.
2 shoulc be denied.
For the reasons stated, Exception No.
i 1
I I
f I
J l
f y
l
/
7 Intervenor 's Exception No.
_3_.
i In its Exception No. 3 the Conference states that:
failure of the Board to conform
" Conference believes that to certain fundamental hearing procedures has deprived our organization, other interveners, and the public in general its case and has the right and opportunity to fully present deprived the Board of a complete record necessary for a l
wise and balanced decision in furtherance of public health j
Conference urges the Com-i and safety, and the environment.
mission to revoke the initial decision and schedule further hearings on the project in fulfillment of the public right to adequate review of this major project."
The Conference argues that the interveners were deprived of r.he 1.
'f right to introduce statements presented before a Congressional Com-The Conference cites three mittee on the subject of radiation standards.
f instances where reference to the statements or the statements per se were not permitted into the record.
In all the instances raised by the Conference in its exceptions, into evidence the statements the board properly refused to admit i
by individuals (Drs. Gofman and Tamplin) who did not appear and vouch for the statements and who were not made available for cr First, the board ruled that (cross-examination was examination.
that time) the statements could not being conducted by intervenor at be used as a basis for cross-examination since "there has been no d
testimony in the record on which you can cross-examine on those groun s, 138-139). Secondly, another i.e.,10 CFR Part 20 standards (Tr.
l i
l
~
l A
I-1
'.qv&, L +7 -
l 1
. 1 I
intervenor moved to introduce the Gofman - Tamplin statements, but the board sustained an objection in the nature of hearsay, since the prof fered evidence would not have been subject to cross-examination I
(Tr. 17 8-182). Thirdly, while conducting direct examination of its 1
own witness, the ' Conference attempted to introduce the Gofman-Tamplin statements (Tr. 222). The board ruled that the witness could not quote from the report but could " pursue it on his own knowledge" (Tr. 225).
i That is, the witness could not adopt and vouch for the statements un-1ers he were qualified to present expert opinion testimony on the matters contained therein.
It is clear that the board gave the intervenor a full opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its case both on direct and cross-examination within the limits of a fair hearing.
The Conference had the same right as the applicant and staff to present evidence, provided it was properly sponsored by witnesses present at the hearing and thus available for cross-examination (Tr. 119-144, 148-154).
2.
Additionally, the interveners argue that their request at the j
August 7,1970, hearing _ session to cross-examine on the matter of radiation effects on red abalone was kmproperly denied.
This con-j tention is without merit.
It was within the board's discretion to limit the scope of the reopened hearing and the board at that hearing properly confined cross-examination to matters within that limited scope, i
l
_________a
I 9
3.
The additional contentions of the Conference in its Exception 4
No'. 3 are that (a) it was deprived of a fair hearing at the January j
session; (b) it was not provided with adequate notice and opportunity to prepare prior to the August 7, 1970, session; and (c) that there was a lack of prompt action by the board in responding to requests for additional hearing sessions.
These contentions are not supported by the record.
)
(a) During the two days of hearing in January 1970 all the a
parties completed their presentations. The intervenor must accept the consequences, if any, of his absence on the second day of hearing.
It is clear that the intervenor was not deprived of an opportunity to present its views.
Indeed, at pages 232 through 242 of the transcript of the first day's hearing (Janu.sry 13, 1970) appears a. closing statement made l
by the representative of the intervenor. Prior to the closing I
statement, the same representative of the intervenor acknowledged to the board that he was prepared for presentation of his case (Tr. 199), and did thus present the case at that time.
1 l
Intervenor also now seeks to raise an objection to the fact f
that questions posed by the board at the prehearing conference were not answered in writing.
There is no requirement in the
" Rules of Practice" for such answers to be in writing. The questions were orally answered de-ing the January 1970 hearing d
. i
.----_,__,_,___,,,___,,__,_,___Q
1 1
T t. -
i 1
i P 1 i
I For the reasons stated above, Exception No. 3 should be denied j
l in all respects.
i l
l 1
i
/
l t
l l
1 i
i I
J l
i I
I i
l I Intervenor's Exception No. 4.
j In its Exception No. 4 the Conference alleges that:
"The decision of the Board on seismic and geological conditions on and of fshore in the vicinity of the site o
as they affect plant design is seriously deficient.
The decision does not provide reasonable assurance of I
public health and safety within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.35."
The contentions of the Conference at the August 7, 1970, reopened f
hearing with respect to offshore epicenters and onshore faults are In set forth by the board on pages 19-21 of the initial Decision.
summary, the Conference claimed the existence of an offshore fault (possibly associated with the Murray Fracture Zone) pointing toward the vicinity of the site, based upon a mapping of epicenters of off-I shore earthquakes reported by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
The Conference pointed out that these epicenters, when taken as a j
group, fell generally along a straight line which, when projected in the northeast-southwest direction, intersected the coast in the
_5/
vicinity of the site.
The Conference also claimed the existence of an active onshore fault 6/
in the vicinity of the site, the Edna fault, and another fault north Tr. 69-76, 92-93 (Aug. 7,1970); " Supplement to the Seismic Evalua-5/
tion of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit #2, AEC Docket 50-323" (following Tr.12 (Aug. 7,1970))
(CGS Supp. Rep.).
7, 1970);
l 6/
Tr. pp. 43-49, 66-67, 159-160, 169-170, 187-188 (Aug.
" Supplemental Geologic Report" (following Tr.12 ( Aug. 7, 1970))
l (GS Supp. Rep.).
l
7 9 of the Edna fault zone, tentatively identified as the "los Osos 7/
fault."
The Conference claimed that the Edna fault, the West Huaans f ault (southeast of the Edna), the so-called "Los Osos fault," and possibly an extension of these faults beneath the ocean or upon the coast might combine to constitute a fault of i
8)
J soismic significance.
The staff understands the board's reference to " geologic and seismic f
9/
J to embrace i
questions and considerations raised by the Conference" all of these contentions, as described above and in the Initial 10/
Since there is no further identification by the board
~
Decision.
11/
of the "possible uncertainties"' associated with these contentions, f
I
~~ 7he conservatism indicated by the f
f theboard'sconclusionthat"/
t,_
I difference between these latter accelerations and the design basis f
1,2_/
acceleration appears to be sufficient" could be construed as holding, j
l 7/
Tr. 83-84, 165, 169-171, 184, 187-188 (Aug. 7, 1970).
-8/
Tr. 116, 159-160, 163-167, 169-171, 175, 179 183, 187 (Aug. 7, J
1970).
9_/
Initial Decision (I.D.) p. 22.
10/ I.D. pp. 19-21.
11/ I.D. p. 22.
1_2/ I.D. p. 22.
l I
" E N J U q,.,,
l I
. in effect, that the conference's contentions saamarized above, I
even if valid, would not result in accelerations at the site in.
excess of the design basis acceleration (0.4 g).
We do not believe Such a con-that the board's conclusion should be so construed.
clusion would not be supported by the record.
Indeed, if the conclusion on page 22 of the Initial Decision were so construed, it would be in apparent contradiction to the board's earlier statements on page 20 with respect to the offshore epicenters:
"If there were indeed a northeast-southwest fault along the line suggested by the epicenters, and if the fault intersected the coastline at or.near the plant site, the predicted earthquake from the depicted length of this inferred fault would likely exceed in magnitude the on-site shaking from the design-basis earthquake described l
l Data presented to the Board during the in the PSAR.
August hearing indicate that this would be true whether l
or not this postulated f ault was further connected to the Murray Fracture Zone. The Board thcs concludes that
. i I
l a fault zone trending as suggested by the Conference' would If it be significant to the Diablo seismic co-sideration.
were concluded that this fault exists, further 'considera-tion of the possible connection to Murray would be required to establish the new design-basis-earthquake." [ Emphasis
)
supplied./
We understand the board's reference here to the " design basis earthquake" to refer to an earthquake that night be associated n.
-. ~
~
'--------a--
1
,,.4..
1
., M/
with the design basis acceleration of 0.40 g.
A conclusion
-l that the predicted earthquake inferred from the offshore epicenters would result in on-site accelerations in excess of 0.40 g could not
}4/
be reconciled with the later conclusion that 0.40 g would accommo-date "possible uncertainties" if they included such an earthquake.
Moreover, it should be noted that neither the staff nor the appli-cant contended that the plant's seismic design could accournodate an I
earthquake that might result from an inferred fault of the length Rather, the staff and the depicted from the offshore epicenters.
l M/ Strictly speaking, there is no " design basta earthquake" for q
{
Rather, operating basis earthquakes were chosen this site.
{
and on-site accelerations associated with these events (staff (SE)
J
" Safety Evaluation," following Tr.151 (Jan.13,1970)
- p. 6; applicant's " Partial Sumary of Application," following Tr.120-A (Jan.13,1970) (Partial' Stmarary) pp. 7-8; Tr.155-157 (Aug. 7, 1970)), These earthquakes and associated accelera-tions are accurately described in the Initial Decision on page 8.
3 However, as the board indicated in the Initial Decision on page 9, after completion of the design, a review will be made for the purpose of confirming no loss of function for components nec-l essary for a safe shutdown using a combined response spectrum
- Thus, with acceleration values twice those used in the design.
i Class I structures are designed to withstand accelerations of This figure may properly be referred to as 0.40 g (I.D. p. 9).
a " design basis acceleration" and, for purposes of discussion, could be associated with a " design basis earthquake," although no such earthquake has been identified as such.
,14]
1.D. p. 22.
e e
.-e w
as I
< 15/
In applicant contended that no such offshore fault existed.
there was no specific evidence received at the August 7, 1970,
- fact, reopened hearings as to the accelerations at the site that might be associated with an offshore fault inferred from the of fshore epicenters.
I l
1 There is some evidence in the record as to what magnitude earthquake might be associated with a postulated 40-mile ~ long onshore fault system composed of the West Huasna, Edna, and so-called "Los Osos" f
faults (up to the ocean). A witness for the applicant testified 1
i consistent with its analysis for the other earthquakes, an f
- that, i
/
earthquake of magnitude 6-1/2 at the site would be associated with 16/
l such a postulated fault system.
A magnitude 6-1/2 earthquake
~~
at the site is less than the magnitude 6-3/4 operating basis earth-I 17/
However, the Conference contended that the quake at the site.
so-called "Los Osos fault" might be further connected with another j
_18./
feature that comes ashore at San SLmeon, 30 miles from Morro Rock.
l
\\
Applicant's " Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-15/
sions of Law," filed September 4,1970; staf f's " Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," filed l
September 30, 1970; GS Supp. Rep.; CGS Supp. Rep.
16/ Tr.17 3-179 (Aug. 7,1970).
I Tr. 179 (Aug. 7, 1970); SE pp. 6-7; Partial Summary, pp. 7-8.
17/
18/ Tr. 116, 170, 175, 179-183, 187 ( Aug. 7, 197 0).
I a,f
'l l
=.
i 1 The board, however, made no explicit. findings as to the existence or length of the so-called "Los-Osos f ault" or with respect to possible I
connection. between the so-called "Los 'Osos f ault" and the feat ure that' I
1 comes ashore at San Simeon. The witness for the Conference at the i
August 7,1970. reopened hearing testified that'"the possibility of sit.
/hecombinedWestHuasna,Edna,andso-called'LosOsos'faultsystems[
~
19/
"~
being longer /than 40 miles / cannot be ruled out."
The board's deci-sion should not be construed, 'in our view,. as concluding that the plant's seismic design could accommodate any earthquake asso'ciated with this
-claimed combined onshore fault system, even if it' extended beyond 40 miles to some indefinite length. There is no evidence in the record to support such a conclusion.
In fact, the evidence establishes that the-
{
magnitude of an earthquake associated with a fault system of the length
)
of the claimed combined fault system, extended north into the ocean, would l
j f
exceed the magnitude 6-3/4 on-site earthquake used in' establishing the l
20_/
plant seismic design.
/
l 19/ Tr.179 (Aug. 7,1970). The staff's witness testified at the
. )
August 7,1970, reopened hearing 'that 'the evidence offered by.
-l the Conference did not cause them to change any of the' conclu-j sions in the CGS Supp. Rep. or the GS Supp. Rep.- (Tr. 133-134, l
197 ( Aug. 7, 1970); I.D. p. 21).
Since there are no statements i
in the CGS Supp. Rep. or in the GS Supp. Rep. with respect to on-site accelerations that might be associated with an offshore 1
f ault of the. length depicted by the of fshore epicenters or the onshore faults, this testimony by the staff does not support the board's conclusion with. respect to the conservatism in the design basis acceleration accommodating all the contentions of l
1 the Conference.
20/
Tr. 189 (Aug. 7, 1970)..
)
l
________-_______m__._-__
._..._m._._.
m._._.__imm.,u_._.
r+
i
' 1 l
As the foregoing discussion indicates, the staff believes that the record would not support the conclusion if, the decision were so I
read, that dhere is adequate conservatism in the. design basis ac-celeration to accommodate all the contentions of the Conference, if accepted as valid.
Implicit in the board's decision is that neither offshore nor. onshore fault syctems are of the magnitude asserted by the Conference.
The decision is, however, ambiguous in this respect. Hence, specific findings of fact based upon the record 21/
with respect to the validity of these contentions are in order.
l 1
The staff believes that such findings of fact should be made in accordance with paragraphs 5-12 o f its " Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law", filed Septem$er 30, 1970.
4 l
In summary, the staff believes that the record supports the con-
)
clusion that the apparent northeast-southwest alignment of the i
of fshore epicenters is fortuitous and there is no geologic evidence to support the proposition advanced by the Conference that the epicenters define a northeastward structural trend in the of fshore 22/
area.
In addition, the record indicates that the cluster of 23/
offshore epicenters is not related to the Murray Fracture Zone.
21/ We do not constfue the board's Initial Decision as making any findings on the contentions of the Conference at the August 7, i
1970, reopened hearing other than the finding excepted to in Exception 1.
22/ CGS Supp. Rep. ; CS Supp, Rep. ; Tr. 53, 65, 105-106, 124-125, 131, 133, 191 (August 7, 1970).
23/ Tr. 52-53, 56, 59-61, 89, 93, 100, 104-106, 108-111, 126 (August 7, 1970).
's i
1 Insofar as the onshore faults are concerned, the staf f believes, j
in summary, that the record. indicates that there is no historic.
1 l
record of 'any seismicity occurring along the Edna or West Hausna f ault zones, and that there is no evidence of movement having occurred along the two fault zones for the past 100,000 years or l
l 4
Therefore, regardless of whether or not the Edna and West i
more.
Hausna fault zones can be connected into a single fault system, the Edna fault zone does not af fect the earthquake potential of 24/ At various stages in the proceeding, attempts the plant site.
j were made by the Conference's witness to relate small earthquakes i
4 However, the epicenters of small earthquakes cannot to the Edna fault.
i instru-be located accurately. The earthquakes in question were not I
mentally recorded but reported on the basis of observed intensity.
l Even for a well-recorded event,. the epicenter can have a variation In addition, the area o f maximum observed intensity-up to 15 miles.
is not necessarily at the epicenter. The small ear:hquakes cited f
)
by the Conference, therefore, do not change the conclusion that
]
there is no historic record of any seismicity occurring along the l
25/
Edna or West Hausna fault zones."~ In fact, the Conference 's
(
l it l
witness at the August 7, 1970, reopened hearing admitted that l
24/ CCS Supp. Rep.; GS Supp. Rep.; Tr. 140-141-(August 7, 1970).
/
Tr. 43-49, 66-67( 96, 127, 133, 190-191 (August 7, 1970).
l 1
l l
l l
l hD ' r i
. ]
l
-i "may be true" that small earthquakes can never successfully be used l
to define major structures and that, particularly in California, small earthquakes are very diffusely located and only the large 26/
l ones appear to have a direct bearing on active faults.
j The staff further believes that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the existence of a "Los Osos fault" and that it is unlikely that any fault of significance to the plant design exists in the Los Osos Valley. The Conference's witness had done no grologic mapping to support the existence of a fault in the Los l
21/
Osos Valley.
Geologic mapping of the Los Osos Valley in 1904 and 1953 does not indicate any fault along the locus o f the postulated I
28/
~
"Los Osos fault".
l 26)
Tr. 96 (August 7, 1970).
I 22/ Tr. 83, 117 (August 7, 1970).
The Conference 's witness testi-j fied that his knowledge of the "Los Osos' fault" is based upon
" hoofing over the area and looking at the rocks and trying to determine what rocks, at'what age, what their age is, in con-text to other rocks and topographic features as well".
Tr. 83 (August 7, 1970).
28/
Tr. 122, 180, 184, 185, 195 (August 7, 1970). The maps by Fairbanks (" San Luis Folio": U. S. Geological Survey Geologic Atlas, Number 101, 1904) and Jennings (" San Luis Obispo Sheet" Geologic Map of California, 1958) were not received in evidence, as such, although they were discussed at th e /.u gu s t 7, 1970, reopened hearing. However, the record indicates that they were l
consulted by Dr. Jahns, a consultant to the applicant and witneos for the applicant at the August 7,1970, renpened hearing (Tr. 122 l
" inch to the mile mapping of the geological survey",180 184-18')
(August 7, 1970)).
Dr. Jahns testified that he had never seen any so-called "Los Osos fault" (Tr. 195 (August 7, l') 70),
i l
r.
j J
l
, l-While we agree that the findings of the board as set forth in its l
1 Initial Decistor. are somewhat. ambiguous as to matters relating to q
)
seismic and geological conditions in the vicinity of the site.to the extent discussed above, we do not agree with the Conference's f
contention that the Initial Decision "does not provide reasonable as-surance of public health and safety within the meaning of 10.CFR 550.35".
In our opinion, the record of this hearing clearly supports the ultimate conclusion of the board as set forth in the Initial Decision that' the.
2_9/
seismic design for this facility is adequate.
In view of our position as to the adequacy of the record in thf a pro-ceeding with respect to seismic and geological n.atters, we believe that the relief requested in the Conference's Exceptions ~30/
is unwarranted.
4 We believe that any question as to the adequacy of the board's findings i
as set forth in the Initial Decision with respect to these matters can be properly dealt with in a Final Decision by the Commission which I
incorporates the substance of Findings 5-12 of the staff's Supplemental l
Proposed Findings of Fact and conclusions of 1,aw, dated September 30, 1970. These findings are fully consistent with the record and provide
]
t a sound basis for the c snelusion of the board that the seismic design for this f acility is adequate.
29/
I.D. p. 22.
30/
pp. 21-22.
l 1
i j
. l Intervenor's Exception No.
5_.
In its Exception No. 5, the Conference alleges that:
"The Board's decision is deficient in failing to require satisfactory resolution of problems associated with the calculated design-basis accident."
This exception is directed to certain conclusions reached by the l
board with respect to the application of 10 CFR Part 100 of the
[
]
Commission's regulations. The question at issue is whether dose l
calculations for purposes of 10 CFR Part 100 should be made for children.
s In the Initial Decision, the board stated that one "does not find l
this interpretation 60 CFR Part 100 applies specifically to adults 7 31/
in 10 CFR Part 100C and that "the reputed low probability of the l
l occurrence of the design basis accident is no justification for the l
arbitrary interpretation of 10 CFR Part 100 as it applies to indi-32/
l l
viduals."
The board then found that if the dose were recalculated for a child, the estimated 2 hr. dose at the site boundary would exceed q
l l
i l
the 300 rem guideline unless the applicant's parameters for dose cal-i J
33/
culation were used.
However, the board concluded that "there are technical alternatives available which could and should be pursued.if i
l 1
3_1)
I.D. p. 16.
32/
I.D. p. 16.
33/
I.D. p. 16.
I j
q a
r doses to children are contemplated within the meaning of 10 CFR i
I 100" and that "in view of the Commission's review procedures and j
other proceedings in the Commission's regulatory process, this El issue can and will be resolved."
l The staff believes that the board erred in concluding that the accident dose calculations in 10 CFR.Part 100 cannot be confined to adults but should also be made for children.
First of all, 10 CFR Part 100 is not intended to be an exposure guide for accidents, but rather a guide for consistent site evaluation for stationary power and test reactors. This important consideration is made clear by footnote 2 to 10 CFR Part 100 which states as follows:
"The whole body dose of 25 rem referred to above corres-ponds numerically to the once in a lifettme accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers which, according to NCRP recommendations may be disregarded in the deter-mination of their radiation exposure status (see NBS Handbook 69 dated June 5, 1959). However, neither its use nor that of the 300 rem value for thyroid exposure j
as set forth in these site criteria guides are. intended g
l to imply that these numbers constitute acceptable limits j
for emergency doses to the public under accident condi-
[
tions. Rather,' this 25 rem whole body value and the 300 i
[
rem thyroid value have been set forth in these guides as l
reference values, which can be used in the evaluation of i
l reactor sites with respect to potential reactor-accidents i
I of exceedingly low probability of occurrence, and low risk of public exposure to radiation."
m 34/
I.D. p. 17.
.o a.-
l L__________________
. i 100 is not intended to be an exposure guide, an Since 10 ql Part dose interpretation of the Part as applying the postulated accident calculations to adults is not an " arbitrary interpretation" which f
neglects the greater sensitivity of children, as indicated by the Neither a dose of 300 rem to the thyroid of a child > nor a l
boar d.
l dose of 300 rem to the thyroid of an adult has been established in I
the Commission's regulations as an acceptable limit for an emergency dose.
I Secondly, it has been the consistent and long-standing practice of 100 was published as a " guide" on April 12, the staff, since Part TID 1962, to confine the dose calculations in Part 100 to adults.
100 as containing a j
14844, identified in the " NOTE" to 10 CFR Part l
sample calculation which may be used for further guidance in develop-ing the exclusion area, low population zone, and population center 15/
distance, sets forth the sample dose calculation for adults.
Finally, the fact that the dose calculations were to be made for In In the adults has been noted in at least one Initial Decision.
Matter of National Bureau of Standards,~~36/
the Presiding Officer stated in a footnote as follows:
TID 14844, pp. 23 (use of " standard man" breathing rate), 25 35/
(Table III sets forth dose to critical organ per iodine curie inhaled for the " standard man," i.e.,
"m" in equation 9 (p. 24) = 20 grams).
_3_6/ 2 AEC 434, 436 (1964).
.w.,
w n+e.-w mini, L_____
I I
~
l
, i "These two issues were presented for determination in J
view of the AEC proposals for change in 10 CFR Part 20.
In that proposed amendment, the I-131 airborne and water i
contamination 10 CFR Part 20 MPC limits were to be lower-ed for the purpose of protecting small children who were considered to be the critical segment of the population.
~
Therefore, these two issues sought to determine if a l
change in 10 CFR Part 20 based on small children's expo-l sure would require a similar change in 10 CFR Part 100, j
which was then and is now based on the exposure of the j
standard man."
[ Emphasis added.7 I
Although we believe that the board erred in its conclusion that the accident dose calculations in 10 CFR Part 100 cannot be con-fined to adults but should also be made for children, we do not agree with the contention of the Conference that this matter requires l
further hearings.
It is our opinion that the Initial Decision merely f
reflected an erroneous interpretation of 10 CFR Part 100 and is sub-
]
l ject to appropriate clarification and correction in a Final Decision by the Commission.
I i
l I
.{
l l
l l
i
.. ~. ~. _
l
4
{
. ~
l Intervenor's Exception No. 6.
L In Exception No. 6 the Conference alleges. that:
"The application and the review of this application are deficient in their failure to present and consider an evacuation plan for the Diablo area and surrounding regions."
In its Initial Decision the board properly noted that 10 CFR 31/
E50. 34 does 'not require the submission of emergency plans in conjunction with a construc' tion permit application although such information is required in conjunction with an operating license 3L8/
application.
!l Pursuant to a request by the staff during the course of the review of the application, the applicant provided an outline of its pro-39/
posed emergency plans for this facility.
This outline was con-sidered by the staff during the course of its review of the application.
Under the provisions of 10 CFR 150.34, the details of its emergency l
plan must be submitted by the applicant in its Final Safety Analysis 1
At the construction penmit stage, such detailed information L
Report.
is not required of applicants.
24,1970,10 CFR 550.34 was amended to -require applicants 31/ On December for construction permits to submit -preliminary plans for coping'vith emergencies (35 F.R. 19567).
This amended regulction, however -does.
not apply to this application.
38/
I.D. p. 22.
39/ Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 5, Volume 6 Section 13.
't e
o 6-
- 1 In our view this exception of the Conference deals with a matter which is outside the scope of this proceeding and should be denied, i
i i
l l
\\
l l
i l
i
,,4, M1 c'Hwe
- c.-
I
\\
I Conclus fo_n,n 4
For the reasons stated above, the AEC regulatory staff believes that the relief requested by the Conference as set forth in its
$2/
\\
Exceptions to the Initial Decision should be denied and, to l
a the extent noted in the above discussion, their Exceptions to the i
Initial Decision should be rejected.
Respectfully suomitted, l
%Eb.
l b
rein G. Malsch unsel for AEC Reguistory Staff 1
l January 21, 1971 I
t I
I 40/ Pp. 21-22.
i I
1
--___________.___________._____.n