ML20236P848
| ML20236P848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1987 |
| From: | Baxter T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4858 OLA, NUDOCS 8711190030 | |
| Download: ML20236P848 (61) | |
Text
( , y g st .
DOLKETEC-k; U$NRC UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA '87 NW 16 PS :04 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF 5tthlinny DOCKETNG A SEHvlCf.
BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) '
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA
) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2) )
i LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE.TO INTERVENE BY SVA AND TMIA i
1 I
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C. l Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C. !
Maurice A. Ross {
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l Counsel for Licensee November 12, 1987 8711190030 871112 PDR ADOCK 05000320 0 PDR
])503
- - _ _ - - - i
r-. .
a: '
.; ).
- g 3
- TABLE OF CONTENTS y , Pace A 1
'T I.- .INTRODUCTI'N.......'.........................e.............
O 1-o .;p
..II.. STANDARDS FOR(THE ADMISSIBILITY =OF CONTENTIONS............ 2 LA. .ThecIssues Must Be Proper'ForEAdjudication.
? I n - Th e ' P ro c e ed i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 3 9J " lB '. 'TheIHearing Process Must Not Be: Improperly:
Th Invoked....'............................'.............. 5.
'C. In10rder: To Meet' The -Basis' Requirement, . q v Petitioners MustcInclude In Each' Contention' A Reason For1The' Concern Stated, And Must 1 Confront'The.Available Information................... 6 1
'D. .
The Parties'Must Be Put On-Fair.An'd Adequate Notice.Of-The Issues To Be Litigated.................... ......................,.7 .
III. RESPONSES TO THE CONTENTIONS............................. 10-Contention.l............................................. 10' Contention 2............................................. 13 Contention 3............................................. 19 Contention 4............................................. 22 Contention 5.............................................. 27 Contention 6............................................. 36 Contention 7............................................. 38 i Contention 8............................................. 42
.IV. CONCLUSION........................................ ...... 46 i
i
_i_
L2 _ _____z_ _ _ i
t l- s. . . .
' Attachment A:
Commission Statement of Policy Relative to the-NRC Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement-4 on:the Cleanup of.Three Mile Island Unit 2, April 27, 1981 (46 Fed. Reg. 24,764).
Excerpts.of Transcript From a'Public Meeting
^
- l. . Attachment B:
of the NRC's Advisory-Panel for.the Decontamina-tion of TMI-2 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania', on February: 26,'1987..
s a
-ii-
l l
A November 12, 1967 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA
) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2) )
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY SVA AND TMIA I. INTRODUCTION In its Memorandum and Order (Regarding Interest of Petition-ers) at 5 (Oct. 1, 1987), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board directed Susquehanna Valley Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert 1! (collectively " Petitioners") to ". . . file supplements to their petitions for leave to intervene which must include a list of the contentions sought to be litigated and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
1/ In paragraph 3 of its Memorandum and Order, the Board re-quired Ms. Skolnick, who filed on behalf of SVA, to notify the Board if she is an attorney or a member of TMIA. In filings with the Board dated October 1 and 5, 1987, respectively, Ms. Skolnick and Ms. Stuchinski (Chairperson of TMIA) report that Ms. Skolnick is a member of TMIA and has been authorized to represent that or-ganization in this proceeding. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(b),
therefore, Licensee treats Ms. Skolnick as the sole representa-tive of SVA and TMIA.
y 5
a On' October 29,-1987,' Petitioners served " Supplement to the 7 Petition for. Leave to-Intervene for'Susquehanna Valley Alliance
.(SVA) and Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA)," which is dated g, October: 28, 1987.- Licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation herein sub-mits its response to the Petition.
We begin the response to Petitioners' proposed contentions with a. general discussion of the legal requirements for conten-tions. Licensee.then addresses each contention in the order presented in the; Petition.
II. STANDARDS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, require that a petitioner submit a list of contentions which pe-titioner seeks to have litigated and set forth the bases for each contention with reasonable specificity. This standard requires that a contention state a cognizable issue with particularity, Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 216-17 (1974), and include a " reason" in support. Houston Lichtina and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 548 (1980).
In assessing the admissibility of a contention, the Licens-ing Board should not reach the merits of the proposed issue.
Id.; Babcock and Wilcox (Parks Township, Pennsylvania, Volume Ra-diation Facility), LBP-86-19, 23 N.R.C. 825, 827 (1986). How- l l ever, the Board should determine whether the petitioner has I I l
L
}
l
\
presented a specific issue which-is appropriate for litigation in the instant proceeding.2/ Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 N.R.C. ,
slip op. at 16 (June 30, 1987); Farley, supra, ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C.
l at 216. Such a determination is necessary (1) "to assure that i the proposed issues are proper for adjudication,"'(2)."to help assure at the pleading stage that the hearing process is not im-properly invoked," and (3)'"to help assure that other parties are l l
' sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at least gener-ally what they will have to defend against or oppose."
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and.3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. 13, 20-21 (1974) (footnotes omitted). A determination on the admissibility of contentions must be made in strict observance of the principles listed above.
Id. at 21. Elaboration of principles particularly applicable to Petitioners' contentions follows.
A. The issues Must Be Proper For Adjudication In The Proceedino As an initial matter, a contention is not cognizable unless 2/ A finding that there is a litigable issue does not mean that the contention is destined to be proven on its merits. The con-tention still may be rejected prior to trial under the summary disposition provisions or in a Board initial decision rendered after an evidentiary hearing. Texas Utilities Electric Co. ;
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 N.R.C. , slip op, at 16 (June 30, 1987); Allens Creek, supra, l ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. at 548, 550.
'W e
it is material and relevant to a matter that is within the scope-of the issues set forth in the Commission's Notice and Opportuni-ty for Hearing in the proceeding. See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-619, 12 N.R.C. 558, 565 (1980); Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 N.R.C. 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979); Public Service Co. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 N.R.C. 167, 170-71 (1976). ,
In order to establish the relevance of a contention, the pe-titioner must demonstrate a nexus between the proposed contention and the matter presented in the commission's Notice and Opportu-nity for Hearing. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. 1649, 1654 (1982).
A relevant contention in this case must address an issue within the scope of the license amendment under consideration which would delete the current prohibition on disposal of TMI-2's accident-generated water. 52 Fed. Reg. 28,626 (Commission notice of opportunity for prior hearing in this proceeding); Board Memo-randum and Order (Regarding Interest of Petitioners) at 5 (Oct.
1, 1987) (" Proposed contentions shall be limited to matters with-in the scope of the amendment under consideration"). See also Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-10, 3 N.R.C. 209, 217 (1976).
To establish materiality, the contention must provide a foundation sufficient to warrant further exploration. Peach l
_ _ - _ _ - - - _ - )
Bottom, supra, ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. at 21; Ducuesne Licht Co. (Bea-ver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 A.E.C. 243, 246 (1973). See also Seabrook, supra, LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. at 1 1655, citing consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-74-5, 7 A.E.C. 19, 32 n.27 (1974), rev'd on other arounds sub nom., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978), for the proposition that a contention must be suf-ficient to require reasonable. minds to inquire further.
B. The Hearino Process Must Not Be Improperly Invoked A contention is not appropriate for litigation if it collat-erally attacks a Commission rule or regulation. 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758. Similarly, as a general proposition, Licensing Boards should not accept in individual proceedings contentions which are or are about to become the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission. Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 85 (1974); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit 1), ALAB-729, 17 N.R.C. 814, 889 (1983), aff'd, CLI-84-ll, 20 N.R.C. 1 (1984). This policy avoids wasteful du-plication of effort, and it also avoids regulatory inconsistency. l Id. In the same vein, Commission policy statements and policy declarations are binding on the Boards. Mississippi Power &
Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 N.R.C. 1725, 1732 (1982); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 N.R.C. 41, 51 (1978), remanded on other arounds sub nom.,
Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
1 C. In Order To Meet The Basis Requirement, Petitioners Must ]'
Include In Each Contention A Reason For The Concern Stated, And Must Confront The Available Information )
l The basis for the contention should provide either a reason-ably logical and technically credible explanation or a plausible and referenced authority for the factual assertions in the con-tention. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-765, 19 N.R.C. 645, 653-56 (1984). The pe-titioner's personal opinion alone is not adequate for this pur-pose. ;
A contention should refer to and address publicly available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 175, 184 (1981). The Com-mission itself has emphasized petitioners' duties in this regard.
See cenerally Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. 1041 (1983). The Commission held that a petitioner has an " ironclad obligation" to diligently uncover and apply all publicly available information to the prompt formulation of contentions. Id. at 1048. This require-ment for specific reference to relevant documentation applies with special force to Licensee's submissions and proposals to the l
I l-0 NRC on'the disposal of accident-generated water and on the clean-up of TMI-2, and to the NRC's documented assessments, including L
NUREG-0683, " Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to' decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes re-sulting from March 28, 1979, accident, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2" (March 1981), Supp. No. 1 (Oct. 1984), and Supp.
No. 2 (June 1987).
If a contention inaccurately describes an applicant's pro-posal or misstates the content of licensing documents, or fails to address either adequately, it should be rejected as lacking an asserted basis. See Carolina Power & Licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 N.R.C. 525, 536 (1986),
affirming LbP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069, 2082 (1982); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-107A, 16 N.R.C. 1791, 1804 (1982); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 N.R.C. 1423, 1504-05 (1982).
D. The Parties Must Be Put On Fair And Adecuate Notice Of The Issues To Be Liticated The notice aspect of the requirement is a natural outgrowth of fundamental notions of fairness applied to the party with the l
burden of proof. As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board j i
has observed:
T' ,pplicant is entitled to a fair chance to 6 Zend. It is therefore entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what l
i I
> I relief is being asked. . . . So is the Board below. It should not be necessary to specu- l late'about what a pleading is supposed to mean.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit l No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C. 559, 576 (1975) (emphasis added; foot-note omitted); see also Comanche Peak, supra, ALAB-868, slip op. ,
l at 16 (June 30, 1987). Moreover, the Licensing Board is entitled j j
to adequate notice of a petitioner's specific contentions to.en-able it to guard against the obstructionism of its processes. As noted by the Supreme Court in upholding the Commissica's require- l ments for a threshold showing of materiality:
i
[Ilt is still incumbent upon interve- j nors who wish to participate to structure j their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the interve-nors' position and contentions. . . . In-deed, administrative proceedings should not 3 be a game or forum to engage in unjustified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to matters that'"ought to be" con-sidered. . . .
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553-554 (1978).E/
The basis with specificity requirement, however, transcends
" notice pleading" allowed in the federal courts. Such pleading has been found to be insufficient for NRC licensing proceedings. j See Wolf Creek, supra, ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C. at 575 n.32 (1975). It 3/ See also Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-804, 21 N.R.C. 587, 592 n.6 (1985)
(" cryptic, nonspecific references to various ' studies' are of no l value").
I 4
Edoes not, however, require the~ petition to detail the' evidence which will be offered in support of each contention. Peach
= Bottom, suora, ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974). In short, the standard falls somewhere in between, and "[t]he degree of-specif-icityLwith which.the basis for a contention must be alleged ini-tially involves the exercise of judgment on a case-by-case basis." 14 In this' case, there are several factors which the Board should' consider when exercising its judgment and applying the
" bases with~ reasonable specificity" standard to Petitioners' list of proposed contentions. First, TMIA was a party to the TMI-1 Restart and Steam Generator Plugging Criteria proceedings.- See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-9, 21 N.R.C. 1118 (1985), aff'd, Three Mile
-Island Alert v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106is.Ct. 1460 (1986); GPU Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island
-Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-6, 25 N.R.C. 114-(1987). As such, TMIA is no neophyte, but rather has extensive experience in NRC proceedings. Second, Petitioners have a long familiarity with the-issues involved in this license amendment request. Over six years ago, the NRC staff issued the Final Programmatic Envi-ronmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the TMI-2 cleanup. 52 Fed.
Reg. 28,626 (1987). SVA and TMIA filed comments on the draft PEIS. Further, on July 31, 1986, Licensee proposed a plan to I
evaporate the accident-generated water by forced heating. Id.
l
)
t _-
i I
e On December 29, 1986, the NRC issued for comment an updated Draft Supplement No. 2 to the PEIS on the disposal of accident-generated water. Id. Again, both SVA'and TMIA filed comments on~
.the draft supplement. The Final Supplement became available in ]
i' July 1987. See 52 Fed.. Reg. 27,091 (1987). In addition, Licensee's plan has been the subject of several public meetings in the TMI area by the NRC's Advisory Panel for the Decont'amina-tion of TMI-2. Representatives of SVA and TMIA have both at-I tended and made presentations at those meetings. Thus, Petition- j l
ers' familiarity with the NRC proceedings and the issues should be considered when determining the adequacy of the proposed con-tentions.
III. RESPONSES TO THE CONTENTIONS Contention: 1. Neither the Licensee nor the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission has shown that the disposal of the accident-generated water by an evapo-ration method is more in keeping with the A.L.A.R.A. (as low as reasonably achievable) principle than any other method of disposal.
The A.L.A.R.A. principle is one of the main objectives stated in the original Environ-mental Impact Statement (EIS), March, 1981, Section 1.6 p. 1-17. An evaporation method in an open cycle releases all of the tritium and a quantity of radionuclides into the en-vironment. All other methods evaluated in !
the EIS do not release all the radioactivity.
Petitioners do not claim, in proposed Contention 1, that Licensee's proposal to dispose of the accident-generated water does not comply with ALARA standards. Indeed, Petitioners total-ly ignore available information from the NRC Staff and Licensee u-_______.-. __ _
0 on the radiological releases associated with the on-site evapora-tion proposal. Petitioners also ignore Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which contains the ALARA standards for radioactive mate- f
- rial in light water cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. Ap-pendix I contains numerical guides, the observance of which "shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with" the ALARA requirements of Part 50. Northern States Power Co. (Prai-rie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 N.R.C. 41, 58 (1978). Appendix I, sections II.B.2(a) and (b) de-fine ALARA guidelines as 5 mrem to total body, 15 mrem to skin, and 15 mrem to any organ (dose or dose commitment) in any one year from gaseous effluents.
Evaporation of the accident-generated water will be within the ALARA standards set forth in Appendix I. Indeed, the Staff reports that the 50-year dose commitment to the maximally exposed member of the public, as a result of evaporation of the accident-generated water is calculated to be less than 4 mrem to the thy-roid, 0.8 mrem to the bone, and 0.7 mrem to the total body.
NUREG-0683 (PEIS), Supp. No. 2 at 3.7. Therefore, all estimated dose commitments are less than Appendix I guidelines.
Petitioners do not address or otherwise challenge this in- j formation in proposed Contention 1. Rather, they appear to j l
advance the legal argument that Licensee must show its proposal to be "more in keeping" with the ALARA principle "than any other method of disposal." Petitioners' legal position is plainly l
l l
t . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _
without basis and does not present an issue to be adjudicated.
The ALARA principle does not require radiological releases to be the lowest possible. See Prairie Island, supra, ALAB-455, 7 N.R.C. at 56 (1978). Rather, "[t]he term 'as low as is reason-ably achievable' means as low as is reasonably achievable taking ;
into account the state of technology, and the economics of im-provements in relation to benefits to the public health and safe-ty, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public inter-est." 10 C.F.R. 5 20.1(c). Petitioners have not challenged Licensee's compliance with Appendix I, and have not advanced any basis to question that the estimated releases are as low as is reasonably achievable.
Implicit in proposed Contention 1 is the additional errone-ous legal theory that the alternative lowest in radiological re-leases must be selected under NEPA. Clearly, however, NEPA re-quires agency decision-making which balances the benefits of proposed actions against not one but all of the significant envi-ronmental impacts and costs. 42 U.S.C. 5 4331 gt sec. Alterna-tives must be considered on the same basis. Under NEPA, the agency may not isolate radiological impacts from all other envi-ronmental considerations and select an alternative solely on that basis.
Petitioners assert that: (1) "An evaporation method in an open cycle releases all of the tritium and a quantity of 1
l
___ __-_- l
(
a 7,
radionuclides into the environment," and (2) "All other methods evaluated in the.EIS do not release all the radioactivity."
These statements are both deceptive and irrelevant. What the !
PEIS shows, and Petitioners do not question, is that Licensee's proposal does not release all the radioactivity, that.all dispos-al methods release some radioactivity, and that all disposal !
methods will result in release of essentially all of the tritium.
See NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.1-34. These statements, in any case, do not relate to the question of compliance with ALARA principles, and do not constitute a specific challenge to the i Staff's thorough evaluation of radiological releases and their environmental impacts.
In sum, proposed Contention 1 does not present a factual ]
dispute for resolution in an adjudication, but rather consists of observations which are clearly without legal basis and which do not challenge the relevant conclusions reached by Licensee and the NRC Staff.
Contention: 2. The EIS fails to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USCS S 4332, n 29). The NRC and GPU failed '
to conduct conclusive risk / benefit analysis of the "No Action Alternative." The EIS has not clearly demonstrated that any adverse im-pact from the disposal program are outweighed by its benefits to the public. The benefits have not been clarified except the NRC says disposal is a fundamental element of the clean-up. This would appear to be a benefit to the Licensee and the NRC, but not to the public. The benefits of whether or not to dispose the water can only be analysed fol-loving the evaluation of the Licensee's plan for " Post Defueling Monitored Storage."
I
t
, y I* - l Proposed Contention.2:actually consists of three independent' Lallega'tions'.. First, Petitioners assert that a " conclusive"'NEPA Jcost/ benefit 1 analysis of the "no action" alternative has not been-performed. 'Second, Petitioners claim that the. benefits of the.
. proposal have not been identified, and therefo're.have not'been
~
shown.to outweigh any adverse impact from the disposal program.
I
'Without'a single reference or citation to the NRC's' voluminous j- programmatic environmental impact statements on the cleanup of TMI-2-and'the disposal'of accident-generated water, Petitioners i contend that the only explanation of benefits advanced by the NRC is a statement that " disposal is a fundamental' element of the cleanup." Petitioners construe this "to be a benefit to Licensee and the NRC, but not to'the public." Third, Petitioners contend
,that the benefits of disposal can only be analyzed after the evaluation of Licensee's plan for Post-Defueling Monitored Stor-age (PDMS).
Petitioners' claim that a " conclusive" cost / benefit analysis of the "no action" alternative has not been performed is not accompanied by any explanation, let alone a specific one, of why Petitioners view the NRC-Staff's treatment of the "no action" alternative to be deficient, inconclusive or in error. A bald opinion, unadorned with any rationale or reason, is not adequate to meet the " basis with specificity" requirement of section
'2.714, and fails'even to put the Board and parties on notice as to what the issue is.
) The NRC Staff divided proposal-alternatives into two general categories: alternatives that were quantitatively evaluated, and alternatives that were considered but rejected. NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at- 3.1. The "no action" alternative is one of the nine quantitatively evaluated, and is addressed by the Staff, among other places, in section 3.5.1, " Liquid' Storage in Tanks,"
of PEIS (NUREG-0683) Supplement No. 2. There the Staff described the alternative in terms of the required system and operation; assessed the environmental impact in terms of occupational radia- I tion exposure, radiation exposure to the public and commitment of resources; considered the impacts of postulated accidents; and i evaluated regulatory considerations. The Staff concluded that environmental impacts of the "no action" alternative ~arise prin-cipally at the time of eventual water disposal or in the event of tank failure. "Because the water contains relatively long-lived radiological contaminants, the environmental impacts from ulti-mate disposal are not expected to be significantly different from 1
those impacts estimated for near-term disposal options." Id. at 3.33. Noting the absence of any overriding benefit from postponing disposal, which is required prior to facility i
decommissioning and termination of the TMI-2 license, the Staff j supports safe and expeditious removal of the water.S/ Id. at I
1/ The Staff observes further that the "no action" alternative is inconsistent with the Commission's policy that the cleanup, including the removal of radioactive waste from the TMI site, be (Continued next page) l l
l
i
)
. i 3.34.
Chapter 5 of PEIS Supplement No. 2 compares the nine alter- l natives. Based on that comparative analysis of the radiological and non-radiological impacts of the alternatives and postulated ;
i accidents, as well as the commitment of resources, the NRC Staff )
i concluded, inter alia, that:
Storage of the accident-generated water on ,
i the TMI site for an indefinite period, even though it involves small potential environ-mental impact, is inappropriate because it only postpones action that will ultimately {
be required to dispose of the existing water. Additionally, extended storage presents no significant environmental advantage over relatively near-term action to dispose of the water. Because of the relatively long radiological half-life and relatively small quantity of contaminants in the water, the environmental impacts of disposal following even a relatively long storage period would not be significantly different from impacts associated with near-term disposal.
Id. at 6.1; see also id. at viii.
Proposed Contention 2 does not articulate why this cost / benefit analysis of the "no action" alternative is less than conclusive. It utterly fails to assert a basis.
(Continued) carried out safely and expeditiously. NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at ,
3.34; commission " Statement of Policy Relative to the NRC Pro- {
grammatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Cleanup of Three j Mile Island Unit 2," 46 Fed. Reg. 24,764 (1981) (Attachment A hereto).
l 1
l
'e l I
l I The challenge to the description of the benefits of dis- )
\
posal of the accident-generated water fares not much better. !
I The NRC has stated that disposal is a fundamental element of the clean-up. It has said much more:
In addition to evaluating risks and i costs, the staff concluded that there is a benefit to taking relatively near-term ac- !
tion to dispose of the existing accident-generated water. Ultimate dispos-al of the water is considered a fundamental element in accomplishing the overall cleanup of TMI-2. Relatively near-term ac-tion to safely dispose of the water would support the Commission's goal of safe and expeditious cleanup of the facility. Dis-posal of the water would be required in connection with ultimate decommissioning of the facility and release of the site for unrestricted use. Disposal of the water, regardless of some period of continued storage at TMI, is expected to be required since the water will remain slightly radio-active for several hundred years. The en-vironmental impacts associated with dispos-al following even a relatively long period (10 to 30 years) of onsite storage are not expected to be significantly different from impacts associated with near-term disposal.
Accordingly, the NRC staff further conclud-ed that the no action alternative of ex-tended storage of the accident-generated water in tanks on the TMI site was inappro-priate, even though it would involve rela-tively small environmental impact. This alternative, consideration of which is re-quired by NEPA, would not directly result in the disposal of contaminated accident-generated water. Adoption of this alternative would only postpone action, which would ultimately be required to dis-pose of the existing water without presenting a significant environmental advantage.
Id. at viii.
l l
t e
w
.To' state, then, as Petitioners do in proposed Contention j i
2,7 thatithe: benefits of disposal.have not been " clarified" is
.to ignore,,andsfail to confront, publicly available information-
' ' (which;the: Petitioners have). No criticism:is advanced,.spe-Ecific or otherwise, to expound upon any perceivedLdefi~ciency in I
the Staff's description of the benefits.of disposal, or.its assessment that=those benefits outweigh the environmental.im - .;
pacts.j Petitioners' unsupported' opinion that'a clear demon-stration-has not been made that: benefits outweigh' costs, does not constitute an-acceptable basis for a contention.. j
~
. 1 Finally, proposed Contention 2 suggests the total post- q ponement of action.on the license amendment request. In par-
'ticular, Petitioners claim, without any explanation, that'the
' benefits of. water-disposal cannot be analyzed until Licensee's ,3 plan for PDMS is evaluated.E No basis is provided for.this j contention, which clearly fails to meet the requirements of section 2.714. Further, this claim is irrelevant and outside the scope of the_ Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the i
license amendment request. Indeed, the Petitioners here would appear to challenge the Commission's Notice, which clearly con- ;
i templates that'the time has come to decide on Licensee's pro-posal, and that this amendment request should be assessed on i 1/ Post-Defueling Monitored Storage, wnich has been the subject j of GPU Nuclearereports filed with the NRC Staff, is the term used !
to define the proposed condition of TMI-2 following the comple- ] '
tion of the planned cleanup activities.
f L_
l l
l
- its own merits. See also NUREG-0683, Supp. No.-2 at 7.4 (5 7.1.8, Relationship to Post-Defueling Monitored Storage).
Contention: 3. The EIS fails to comply with the require-ments of the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS has not demonstrated that the benefits of the evaporation process will exceed the costs and risks to the public.
The benefits are unclear whereas the risks
- include the following
l l a. The release of radioactivity into the i air will enter the water, food chain, human organisms and the entire ;
ecosystem. !
I
- b. A solidified waste of possibly 88,000 cubic feet will be created. This vaste will have to be trucked to a low level waste site. ;
In proposed Contention 3, Petitioners repeat the assertion made in proposed Contention 2 that the PEIS does not demon-strate that the benefits of the proposed amendment exceed the accompanying costs and risks. Petitioners again make this bottom-line assertion without a single reference or citation to the NRC's voluminous programmatic environmental impact state-ments on the clean-up of TMI-2 and the disposal of accident-generated water. In addition, proposed Contention 3 makes gen-eral observations about the release of radioactivity into the ecosystem and the transportation of low level waste without de-monstrating that these issues have a particular bearing on the instant proceeding.
The Petitioners' assessment of the demonstrated benefits of the disposal of accident-generated water as " unclear" is
clearly simplistic. Throughout the original PEIS and Supple-ment No. 2, the Staff has described the benefits of overall clean-up which will, most fundamentally, minimize the radiation .
i exposure that threatens the health and safety of the workers at TMI and the general public. See response to Contention 2, {
I suora. Disposal of accident-generated water is quite clearly an important aspect of the overall clean-up. The allegation in Contention 3 that the PEIS fails to demonstrate the benefits of 1 1
the evaporation process, suggests that Petitioners have ignored l 1
the publicly available information that addresses that precise issue.
Contention 3 proceeds to identify conditions common to all nuclear facilities, but fails to advance a claim particular to this proceeding. The contention does not demonstrate how ei-ther the environmental impacts associated with radiation re-leases or the disposal of low level waste from the facility are matters particular to disposal of the TMI-2 accident-generated water by the evaporation option. More importantly, the conten-tion does not assert that the manner in which the application and the Staff's evaluation deal with general radiological ef-fects on the environment or transportation of solidified waste is unsatisfactory or inadequate.
As explained above in response to proposed Contention 1, the NRC Staff has extensively assessed the environmental im-pacts from radiological releases for the proposed and e
1 alternative' disp'osal' methods. Petitioners have cited no spe-
- cific. inadequacies, deficiencies or errors in this assessment.
Rather,1 Petitioners have made a generalized observation that-
- radioactivity released in the evaporation process will enter the' ecosystem. Contention 3(a) neglects to identify.any'spe-cific' risks' associated ~with'the releases from the evaporation
. opti on, not alrea dy cons idered in the PEI'S, Land is'therefore an L inadmissible contention.
With respect to proposed Contention 3(b), on the transpor-tation'of solidified wastes from TMI-2, Petitioners have not !
alleged that the risks-associated with off-site waste disposal J.
are unique to the evaporation process. Proposed' Contention 3(b), rather, states the general contention that transportation of waste from the evaporation option poses risks. The Peti-tioners have again made general observations about operations common to nuclear facilities. In addition, Petitioners have again overlooked or ignored'the information throughout Chapter l
3 of PEIS Supplement No. 2 on the off-site transportation of 4 1
waste to the storage or disposal site. These impacts are sum-1 marized,in Chapter 5.
In short, Petitioners provide no cognizable issue in pro-l posed Contention 3. Specifically, Petitioners do not demon- j strate a nexus between the general observations about released f radioactivity or waste transportation and the proposed license amendment. Moreover, by ignoring the available information and l
l
providing none of their own, the Petitioners have not alleged, let alone supported with a basis, any inadequacy, deficiency or error which would constitute a litigable issue.
Contention: 4. Neither the NRC nor the Licensee has demon-strated that the use of an evaporator will adequately protect the public health and safety because of the following:
- a. No credible scientific evidence has been presented to warrant the use of an evaporator for 2.5 million gallons of contaminated water which has been generated by a severe accident at a nuclear power plant.
- b. Sufficient evidence has not been pro-vided to ensure that the evaporator can filter out transuranic, other ra-dionuclides as well as chemicals to protect the public health and safety.
- c. The evaporator's monitoring and safety systems have not been shown to provide the safeguards needed to protect the public health and safety.
- d. It has not been demonstrated that the influent to the evaporator may be var-ied from 3 gallon / minute to 20 gal-lon/ minute without the health and safety of the public being jeopar-dized.
In proposed Contention 4, Petitioners would recast the Commission's Rules of Practice to place an intervenor in the role of the agency's decision-maker, reaching conclusions as to whether or not Licensee has met its burden of showing reason-able assurance that the public health and safety will be pro-tected if the license amendment request is granted. In order to meet the basis requirement of section 2.714, Petitioners
j.
I must do more than assert, in a proposed contention, that in their opinion: "no credible scientific evidence has been presented," " sufficient evidence has not been provided," or that something "has not been shown" or " demonstrated." Peti-tioners must confront the available information and provide, with particularity and specificity, their reason or reasons for a conclusion that the proposed license amendment request would violate the Atomic Energy Act and/or the Commission's imple- j menting regulations. Mere assertions that Licensee, in Peti-tioners' opinion, has not made its case are not adequate bases for contentions to be adjudicated. They would wholly side-step the basis requirement.
For example, subpart (a) does no more than state that, from the standpoint of protecting the health and safety of the public, Petitioners do not believe credible scientific evidence has been presented to warrant the use of an evaporator to dis-pose of the 2.3 million gallons of accident-generated water.
This resembles an ultimate issue on the proposal, not a conten-tion. Petitioners have not proceeded to state why use of the evaporator, in their view, would be harmful to the health and safety of the public. While Licensee's and the NRC Staff's de-l scriptions of the system are available to them, Petitioners here point to no specific concern. See, e.a., GPU Nuclear July 31, 1986 report at 28-45 (evaporation system) and 67-69 (safety evaluation); NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.3-6. The I
l l
l ,
J Staff further. reports that open cycle evaporation of tritium-contaminated water has-been and continues to be used at Maxey Flats, Kentucky. See NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.39; see also 1 . 'id. at 7.15 (S 7.3.1.11, " Evaporation is~ practiced'widely-in
-the nuclear industry and other industries.").
Subpart (b) questions-the adequacy of information to de-termine whether "the' evaporator can filter out transuranic, ,
other radionuclides as well as chemicals to protect the public health and safety." Again, not a single reference is made to the substantial body of information available to Petitioners, and no basis is supplied to support Petitioners' conclusion.
Chapter 2 of PEIS Supplement 2 exhaustively describes the l contaminants in the accident-generated water and the treatment. i systems (SDS and EPICOR II) ,used to remove radionuclides from the water.E/ Based upor. this. considerable analysis of the evaporator system influent and experience-based performance data on evaporation systems, the NRC Staff estimates a maximum
' tritium release rate of less than 30% of the permitted continu-ous release rate, and a release rate for non-tritium radioac-tive material which is less than 1.2% of the continuous release rate permitted by Licensee's technical specifications.
NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.6-7; see also id. at 7.6 (S 7.2.3, s/ All of the water either has been or will be treated prior to evaporation. See PEIS Supp. No. 2 at A.41 (GPU Nuclear letter 4410-87-L-0018, Feb. 3, 1987).
l
Quantities of Transuranic Elements). The Staff also reported ;
that chemicals "are mostly removed by the separation, filtration and ion exchange processes to which the water is subjected routinely during use and before storage in tanks,"
and that "none of the chemicals would be expected to vaporize to an appreciable extent in the evaporation option." Id. at 7.7 (S 7.2.5, Quantities of Chemicals, Oil, and Grease); see also id, at 7.8 (S 7.2.8, Limitations of Water Cleanup Pro-cesses). Petitioners ignore all of this, and offer no basis for subpart (b).
Subpart (c) claims, without elaboration or citation, that s the evaporator's monitoring and safety systems have not been shown to provide the needed safeguards. Again, Petitioners
.have not been specific at all about what "needed safeguards" are missing, and they have failed to point to any deficiency in the relevant information available to them. If Petitioners refer to the environmental radiological monitoring system and programs in place at TMI, they have overlooked the substantial information discussed below in response to proposed Contention )
- 7. If Petitioners refer instead to monitors and safety systems indigenous to the evaporation system, they have ignored in-formation made available to them in a public meeting of the NRC's Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on February 26, 1987.2# There GPU 7/ See Attachment B (excerpts of the transcript) (Standerfer, Hofstetter, Cooper and Urland are with GPU Nuclear; Panel member (Continued next page)
y 1
Nuclear describedLits-plan to continuously monitor the.
evaporator: system effluent and to provide for automatic termi-nation"of. releases to,the atmosphere if established. operating and-release limits are exceedediE# Here there is no assertion of non-compliance with a Commission regulation, and no "regula-
- toryngap exists." See Seabrook, suora', LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C.
"at 1655-56.
Subpart-(d) merely records the fact that the evaporator processing rate could be increased from 3 gallons per minute to 20 gallons per minute. Again, Petitioners advance no reason (Continued) r Gerusky is with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
. sources). Petitioners' representative Skolnick was present at
'and. addressed the meeting, and.was provided with a copy of the
. transcript.
More detailed design information is premature at this point.
8/.
Licensee has not obtained approval to dispose of the water, and the disposal method has not been approved. As the Staff has explained, the Commissioners [with the aid of any findings which emanate from this Board), will approve a disposition method in principle and will then grant the Staff authority to amend the license to allow disposal of the water. Once the prohibition is removed, the license will still include a provision stating that
" ACCIDENT GENERATED' WATER shall be discharged in accordance with NRC-approved procedures." GPU Nuclear Technical Specification ;
Change Request No. 56 - Revised, April 13, 1987 (provided via j Staff counsel's letter of October 1, 1987). "Once the license is I amended to remove the prohibition against disposal of the j accident-generated water, the licensee will submit a safety eval- l uation-_ report and specify the particular engineering and moni- j toring details of the approved method." NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 j at 7.2. A more detailed system design is not necessary to decide l the license amendment request, which is bounded by the Staff's j PEIS and Licensee's 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92 analysis. Id.; TSC: Request 56, supra.
-l I
O for their concern about the processing rate. For the addition- I 1
al reasons set forth above in response to (c), this claim does l not constitute an acceptable contention.
J Contention: 5. The NRC staff has violated the very intent i I
of the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USCS Section 4332, n 29 with this deficient EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act 1 (NEPA) states: j Purposes intended to be served by detailed environmental impact statement is to provide decision-makers with environmental disclo- -
sures sufficiently detailed to aid in substantive decision whether to proceed with projects in light of its environmental conse-quences . . . ."
The NRC staff also has violated Section 4332 of NEPA by not sufficiently informing the public as required by law. NEPA states:
" Purposes served by environmental impact statement include . . . (2) tool of environ-mental full disclosure by providing in-formation to public about environmental costs involved in particular project . . .
Neither the Licensee nor the NRC have pro-vided sufficient detailed information to dem-onstrate that evaporation will protect the public health and safety for the following reasons:
- a. Dr. Karl Z. Morgan chairman of the In-ternal Dose Committees of both ICRP and NCRP for two decades and who has re-searched ionizing radiation and health physics for over 50 years has shown that the calculations done by the NRC and GPU are not correct. Dr. Morgan has stated for the record, "the studies made by GPU and tne NRC staff are woefully inade-I quate and much more data should be pro-vided before deciding the best way to be rid of this problem." (Comment on the EIS, June, 1987.)
6
- b. They have ignored the cumulative effects of the accident and the clean-up. For instance, there is a great controversy
! as to how much radiation escaped during the accident and the subsequent eight and one half year clean-up.
- c. They have grossly simplified the ra-diological and chemical content of the water and underestimated the effects ,
upon the population. This very water has covered the melted fuel rods during and after the core had reached 5,100 de-grees Fahrenheit. Neither the Licensee nor the NRC have analyzed the health ef-fects of the synergistic effect of all the radioisotopes and all the chemicals present in the water.
- d. They have underestimated the effects of tritium and alpha emitting radionuclides on human beings. The alpha emitters such as plutonium 238 and other transuranic elements which are present in the water were virtually ignored in the 1987 EIS. They were not examined for their chemical and biological char-acteristics in spite of their well-known toxicity.
Proposed Contention 5(a) alleges the " studies made by GPU and the NRC staff are woefully inadequate and much more data should be provided before deciding the best way to be rid of this (water) problem." This is a classic example of a vague and cryp-tic statement which fails to identify a cognizable issue with particularity or a reason in support. The proposed contention l fails to identify what Petitioners seek to litigate; what pro-posed issues are properly within the scope of the hearing; or !
what issues are proper for adjudication.
l
--_____.__._.__________]
d For example, the proposed contention refers to " studies made by GPU and the NRC staff" without any indication of what these studies pertain to or when they were conducted. Second, the unidentified " studies" are termed " woefully inadequate," and once again no specific inadequacy is asserted. Further, there is no indication of how the alleged inadequacies in these unidentified
" studies" adversely affect public health and safety or the envi-ronment. Third, Petitioners' proposed contention claims that "much more data should be provided" without indicating why addi-tional data is needed, what type of data should be provided, who should provide the data, and what areas should be covered in the data. In sum, Petitioners' proposed Contention 5(a) is totally lacking in clarity and precision.E/
In order to be admitted in this proceeding, a proposed con-tention must be related to the license amendment request under consideration. There is no indication that Petitioners' proposed Contention 5(a) is in any way related to the proposed license amendment. In fact, the proposed contention contains a general reference to studies done on ionizing radiation and health phys-ics over a 50 year period. A discussion of such issues, without 2/ Petitioners appear to cite Dr. Morgan's comments on the draft of PEIS Supplement No. 2. See NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at A.36-40. This reference by itself does not cure an otherwise de-fective contention. The contention itself must present the as-serted basis with specificity. References may be used in support of, but not as substitutes for, the required basis. See Browns Ferry, supra, LBP-76-10, 3 N.R.C. at 216 (1976).
l 1
C a strong showing that they are pivotal to the proposed licensing action, would clearly be beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Proposed contention 5(b) consists of a generalized allega-tion and an argumentative statment. First, Petitioners allege that the Licensee and the NRC Staff have ignored the cumulative effects of the accident and the clean-up. Second, the Petition-ers claim that there is great controversy as to how much radia-tion escaped during the accident and the subsequent clean-up.
Neither allegation in proposed Contention 5(b) has an asserted factual or legal basis. l As an initial matter, proposed Contention 5(b) misstates the facts. Petitioners' assertion that the cumulative effects of the accident and the clean-up have been ignored is simply wrong. The radiation effects of the TMI-2 accident are addressed in the original PEIS. Section 1.6.3.2 of the PEIS states, in part:
These doses (radiation dose received by the public during clean-up operations), even when added to the doses which occurred during the TMI-2 accident (maximum dose less than 100 mrem) are likely to have negligible health effects to individuals of the population. The background radiation in the area amounts to about 116 mrem per year, 36 per-cent of which comes from cosmic radiation, 39 per- !
i cent from terrestrial radiation, and 24 percent from internal radiation (mainly K-40 deposited in the body). On the basis of comparison of the ,
doses calculated here to those of natural back-ground radiation, the health effects through the completion of the clean-up operation vill be non-existent, especially in consideration of the fact that natural background radiation in the United States varies from one location to another within a range of about 70 to 310 mrem per year.
NUREG-0683 at 1-26. i l 1 j
i l
1 l
l L_ __ -- _ - _ - )
(
< Furtheri the issuelof the cumulative radiological impact on the. environment was addressed in NUREG-0683, Chapter 10 and Supplemental, Chapter 3.- The referenced sources establishedLthe projected overall impact of the clean-up, including the accident-' ;
generated water disposal, on the-environment. To date, the im-pacts'are within the' range of those estimated. NUREG-0683, Supp.
. No.'2 at 7.24. In addition, radiation releases to the~ environ-ment throughout the clean-up have been within 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I guidelines:and are projected to be so throughout the balance of the clean-up, including during the accident-generated water disposal. Thus, an examination of the cumulative environ-mental-impact of the accident and the clean-up has been under-taken and found not to present an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the public. See NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 6.1, 1
7.24. Petitioners do not address this information or indicate in any way how it might be inadequate or in error.
The Petitioners' argumentative assertion that there is
" great controversy" over the radiation released during the TMI-2 accident is irrelevant in the absence of any asserted basis for considering any such controversy to be material to the requested ;
license amendment. With nothing more than the Petitioners' bald i
assertion, this statement is lacking a factual basis and rele-vance.
Finally, it should be noted that Petitioners had the oppor-tunity to litigate the issues raised in proposed Contention 5(b) i j
3 0
1
!l l
=
l i
, . e in the TMI-l Restart proceeding. Indeed, TMIA Contentions 1 and -)i 2 in that proceeding were " addressed to potential cumulative ef- l fects on the offsite population if gaseous and liquid effluents from restart'of TMI-1 are added to those which have already been
- released in normal operation of TMI-1 and 2, during-the accident at TMI-2, and which will be released during cleanup of TMI-2."
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit _ :
1), LBP-79-34, 10 N.R.C. 828, 839 (1979). The Licensing Board in that proceeding admitted those contentions, id. at 840, which subsequently were withdrawn by TMIA.1S! Metropolitan Edison'Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-60, 14 N.R.C.
1724, 1729 n.5 (1981), aff'd, ALAB-705, 16 N.R.C. 1733, 1743 n.25 [
(1982). Certainly in its Notice for this proceeding the Commis-sion did not intend to provide another opportunity to litigate the TMI-2 accident or an opportunity to contest the entire TMI-2 cleanup program.
Contention 5(c) actually consists of two allegations: (1) that the NRC and the Licensee have grossly simplified the ra-diological and chemical content of the water and underestimated 10/ " Motion to Withdraw TMIA Contentions One and Two," May 5, l 1980, Docket No. 50-289. The Licensing Board in that proceeding reviewed contentions dropped by interveners to assess the impor-tance of the contention and to ascertain whether issues raised by the contention were adequately covered by the contentions of other interveners, and whether the hearing record might be inade-quate or incomplete if the issues were not addressed.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-32, 14 N.R.C. 381, 395 (1981).
l
the effects upon the population, and (2) that the NRC and the Licensee have not analyzed the health effects of the synergistic effects of all the radioisotopes and all the chemicals present in the water. Petitioners make this general, albeit vehement, crit-icism of the PEIS without pointing to the particular aspects of the NRC's or Licensee's analyses of radiological or chemical con-tent or health effects that are " grossly simplified" or inaccu-rate. Moreover, the Petitioners provide no basis for their as-sertion that the actual radiological or chemical content or health effects differ from the PEIS analyses. Contention 5(c) cites no studies, reports or investigations that even suggest that the analyses by the NRC or the Licensee are deficient.
In addition, the Petitioners have " grossly" exaggerated NEPA requirements by suggesting that the NRC study synergistic effects of all radioisotopes and all chemicals present in the water. An EIS prepared under NEPA need not address remote and highly specu-lative consequences. Life of the Land v. Brineaar, 485 F.2d 460, 472 (9th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974). Because l the Petitioners have again provided no basis to substantiate a claim that synergistic effects are a reasonable possibility with '
respect to the evaporation option, proposed Contention 5(c) sug-gests that NRC discuss all conceivable consequences, however j speculative they may be. The Petitioners have, therefore, formu-lated a contention which both goes well beyond the scope of the instant hearing and provides no basis for the alleged deficiencies.
l l
1 1
o l The EIS "need not discuss every nuance of a proposed action, l nor need it give various questionable effects the weight demanded by various proponents or opponents." Johnston v. Davis, 698 F.2d 1080, 1092 (10th Cir. 1983). The EIS must "give a reasonable and balanced discussion sufficient to permit an informed choice of ]
alternatives." Id. Given this standard, the NRC has prepared a valid EIS. The Petitioners have not stated why the alleged I ommission of a discussion of synergy " detracts materially from the assessment of environmental consequences." Id. In fact, the
]
Petitioners have not described what the requested extensive dis-cussion of synergism might contribute to this proceeding.
The NRC has rejected contentions made by interveners that applicants have not adequately considered synergistic effects in t, environmental qualification of equipment, when the interveners "had not identified any equipment or components which they be ~
lieved to be susceptible to synergisms, and to which a contention Georcia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric would be directed."
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-49, 20 N.R.C. 1457, 1458 ;
(1984). Proposed Contention 5(c) is similiarly defective in )
failing to identify those radioisotopes and chemicals particular-ly susceptible to synergisms.
The Petitioners do not provide the requisite basis and spe-cificity to support proposed Contention 5(c). Rather they have 4 made unsubstantiated allegations about synergistic analysis that i
{
go well beyond the scope of the instant proceeding. {
I
}
1
'y Proposed Contention 5(d) alleges that the effects of tritium )
and alpha emitting radionuclides are underestimated. Second, Pe-titioners assert the alpha emitters and other transuranic ele- i ments were virtually ignored in the 1987 EIS. The effect of .
i tritium is discussed in four separate sections of PEIS Supplement l No. 2. Section 7.2.16 discusses the tritium concentration pro- {
\
cess. NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 7.11. Section 7.2.17 covers f the biological half-life of tritium and cites other record au-thority for further discussion of the topic. Id. Section 7.2.18 explains how the dose of tritium incorporated into the body is calculated. Id. Finally, section 2.2.1 specifically addresses the overall environmental effects of tritium. Id. at 2.5. Peti-tioners do not allege any deficiency in the sections referenced above and fail to state how the effects of tritium have been underestimated. Since the Petitioners have not alleged a spe-cific deficiency, the proposed contention lacks reasonable spe-cificity as required by the Commission's rules.
The Petitioners concede in the contention that alpha emitters and transuranic elements were discussed in the EIS. The PEIS contains the following discussion of transuranic elements:
The specific concentrations of transuranic elements in the water are less than the analytical limit of detection in analyses that have been per-formed to date; however, specific maximum concen-trations of transuranic elements as determi7ed from the lower limits of detection have been pro-vided in this supplement. The best measure of ra-diotoxicity is radiation dose. The dose from these elements, assuming they are present at the lower limit of detection, hes been included in the supplement. Chemical toxicity of the transuranic
q Jl
+ '
m j 1
jL is1 negligible atuthe' environmental 1 concentrations
, expected. -Impact from transuranic elements was 1
.found.to be insignificant. j NUREG-0683,'Supp.ENo. 2Lat 7.6. ;Similiarly, the PEIS~ discusses. ,
l alpha. emitters 1as follows:
The~ accident-generated water differs.from mine. vater in'two ways that affect the alpha. con-tamination. First, the alpha; radiation in uranium.
.mine' water-is primarily from radium and-its daugh- 3 ter products,-which are formed by the radioactive decay of uranium. The radium is : separated f rom
.the uranium in the milling process and re-forms only very slowly because of the-several thousand year half-life of the' naturally occurring-uranium isotopes. JSecond, all of the accident-generated water will:have'been treated by ion-exchange, which-is one'of the most effective methods of re-moving ~ uranium from water (in fact, it is the a basis of-the resin-in-pulp uranium milling pro- o cess). Water analyses verify thatflittle alpha l contamination is present'following treatment. j 1
--Id. at 7.7.- g I n ' sum', the.PEIS identified the presence of alpha emitters j and concluded that they were not present in sufficient concentra- 1 tions to cause adverse health effects. Similiarly, the'PEIS con-cluded the. impact from transuranic elements was insignificant.
Petitioners have advanced no reason for their view that these conclusions are in error in any way.
Contention: 6. An amendment to the license is premature be-cause this water is presently covering the melted fuel, which melted at 5,100 degrees Fahrenheit, and will be used in decontamina-tion activities with the potential for the addition of more chemicals. The Licensee has added more chemicals since the submittal of its proposal in July,.1986. The effects of these chemicals on the capabilities of the Epicor II, SDS and evaporator systems must be {
evaluated.
l 1
L
__- . w
Proposed Contention 6 appears to argue that consideration has not been given to the fact that some of the accident-generated water will yet be used for decontamination activities and become more contaminated with chemicals because of that use or by addition for other purposes. In its thorough description of the constituent contaminants in the accident-generated water, i
the NRC Staff considered the sources of the water, the use for defueling, and the treatment with SDS and EPICOR II (systems al- '
ready approved and licensed for use at TMI-2). See, e.a.,
NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 2.1 - 2.16. As the Staff stated in June 1987:
The only chemicals that have been added to any portion of the accident-generated water to date are as follows: 1) boric acid and sodium hydroxide, which are described in the supplement;
- 2) hydrogen peroxide, which will have decomposed to oxygen and water; 3) diatomaceous earth, which is used as a filter aid in defueling -- the major-ity of which is removed by the filtration process;
- 4) various flocculating agents, which are used to aid filtration -- concentrations at the time of addition are in the parts-per-billion range. Most of the flocculant is removed, with the particulate it attaches to, in the filtration process; and 5) chemicals that the water may pick up from being used in the reactor building, which ,
are likely to include oil and grease, calcium, ox- {
ides of iron, sulfates, and other trace constitu- l ents. Chemicals do not become radioactive by con- I tact with the fuel under the current conditions.
These elements are mostly removed by the separa-tion, filtration, and ion exchange processes to which the water is subjected routinely during use j
and before storage in tanks.
None of the chemicals would be expected to vaporize to an appreciable extent in the evapora-tion option or be discharged to a significant ex-tent in the river discharge option (except as noted in the supplement). Air and water
)
l l
discharges in any option must conform to applica-ble regulations.
Id. at 7.7; see also is, at 7.8 (effects of chemicals, oil and grease on.SDS and EPICOR II).
Petitioners have not addressed this information or advanced any reason for concern with respect to the described capability for treatment of chemical contaminants in the accident-generated water. Consequently, proposed-Contention 6 lacks an asserted I
basis and must be rejected.
contention: 7. The off-site monitoring studies which have been undertaken by Dr. Ruth Patrick and Bernd Franke could prove valuable in determining the adequacy of the monitoring for the dis-posal of the radioactive water. It is pru-dent, therefore, to await this additional in- ;
formation for the sake of the public's health l and safety.
Proposed Contention 7, in effect, is not a contention, but rather requests that the NRC postpone its decision on the license amendment application and await the results of studies of off-site environmental monitoring which may or may not call into !
question in some undefined way the adequacy of monitoring for the disposal of accident-generated water.11/ In an acceptable 11/ Licensee has obtained, since the Petition was filed, a report by Patrick et al. prepared for The Three Mile Island Pub-lic Health Fund and entitled " Light Water Reactors Monitoring and j
Management, In Plant and Environmental, for Three Mile Island." l If this is one of the studies to which Petitioners refer, Licensee can only state (not having completed its review) that l the study does not focus on accident generated water disposal in ;
particular. Again, it is Petitioners' burden to assert a basis (Continued next page) l 1
1 9
l 1
I a !
-contention, a petitioner is required to present a specific issue l which is appropriate for litigation in the instant proceeding.-
Comanche Peak, supra, ALAB-868, 25 N.R.C. , slip op, at 16. j In proposed. contention 7, however, the Petitioners have clearly i
not fulfilled this obligation.
First, it is unclear what issue the Petitioners' seek to lit-igate because proposed Contention 7 is impermissible vague and cryptic. The contention seems, at once, to question the time frame in which the proceeding will go forward, and the adequacy of the radiological monitoring programs. Second, if Petitioners are questioning the adequacy of radiological monitoring programs, proposed Contention 7 is defective because it neither acknowl-edges the extensive monitoring programs implemented at TMI which have been approved by the NRC, nor does it. point to any particu-
~
lar deficiency, inadequacy or error in those programs. Finally, i the contention does not specify what contribution the existing and forthcoming studies-might make to the resolution of the license amendment proceeding. Proposed Contention 7 provides no basis, therefore, for reviewing, much less, " awaiting," the forthcoming studies.
(Continued) in the contention itself. It is not the responsibility of the .
Board or other parties to research references in order to ascer-tain what the Petitioners mean. Limerick, supra, ALAB-804, 21 N.R.C. at 592. Licensee has been unable to locate any available study by Franke.
a Proposed Contention 7 dor; not address the available in-i formation on radiological i tr. soring in the original PEIS'and its ]
l J
. supplements, nor does it exple 1, in any way, why these estab-lished and extensive monitoring programs are inadequate for the proposed evaporation process. Rather, by ignoring or, at best, overlooking the sufficiency of the present radiological moni-toring programs, the Petitioners have failed to formulate an ad- i missible contention. Specifically, in submitting this conten-tion, the Petitioners have ignored their " ironclad" obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question with sufficient care to enable them to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation of a ;
specific contention. Catawba, supra, CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. at 1048.
Chapter 11 of the March 1981 PEIS describes the environ-mental radiological monitoring programs performed by the Licensee and by federal and state agencies at the TMI site and in nearby communities during the decontamination of Unit 2. NUREG-0683 at 11-1 to 11-8; App. M (and its progeny). Moreover, the adequacy of the Licensee's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) for the TMI site was thoroughly explored and conclusively determined in the TMI-l Restart proceedings. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1512-14 (1981).1E' Petitioners have advanced no 12/ See also 1986 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, April 30, 1987, filed with the NRC by GPU Nuclear.
l r
reason to question that this program, already approved by the
\ NRC, will be inadequate for the proposed water disposal activity.
Proposed Contention 7, which is, in effect, a motion for postponement of the instant proceeding and a challenge to the Commission's Notice, proposes that the Licensing Board await the publication and/or evaluation of additional information on off-site monitoring before considering the proposed license amend-ment. It is clear that a petitioner may not simply point to a newly issued guide or report on a generic issue, but must estab-lish a nexus between that issue and the instant proceeding.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-87-24, 26 N.R.C. , slip op. at 4 (Sept.
2, 1987). In this ersatz motion for postponement, however, the Petitioners do not specify what the forthcoming studies might contribute to the present case. The Petitioners do not specify the scope of the studies or their relevance to disposal of the water by an evaporator. Rather, the Petitioners speculate that the studies "could prove valuable to determine the adequacy of the monitoring." Again, the contention does not state with pre-cision and clarity any inadequate aspects of the present moni-toring programs.
Proposed Contention 7 is submitted in blatant defiance of section 2.714, which requires that an intervenor state the basis of each contention with reasonable specificity. It cites no de-fect in the radiological monitoring programs presently
} ;
0
. implemented, and it.provides no basis ~for. reviewing, much less, i
" awaiting"'the. named off-site studies. .l Contentions. '8.- The NRC failed to.give reasonable and due !
consideration to evaporation in'a closed l cycle with the bottoms and condensate.being solidified and shipped tota Low Level Waste Site. They also failed'to give reasonable l consideration to disposing the water in tanks and storing it inside Unit'Two.
P.roposed Contention 8 challenges the. reasonableness'of the.
NRC's consideration of two particular disposal alternatives: 1) evaporation in a closed cycle with the bottoms and condensate being solidified.and shipped,to'a low level waste site, and :2)
-)
on-site disposal and storage'of the accident-generated water.
'This contention.neither acknowledges that'the NRC did consider
.these' alternatives either independently or in conjunction with others, nor specifies the' aspect of the~NRC anal'ysis ofEthese
.i alternatives-that is' inadequate, deficient lor in error. Thus, the' Petitioners have again provided no basis for their contention as required in section 2.714.
The Supreme-Court has made very clear that in preparing an !
environmental impact statement under NEPA,'"the concept of' alter-natives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility." vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S. at 551 (1978). Federal agencies are free .j to make reasonable limitations on the scope of their discussion j
.of each alternative. Texas Committee on Nuclear Resources v.
Marsh, 741 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1984). Moreover, consideration
, need only.be given to reasonable alternatives. An environmental 1
l f'
Q=--_-__-_-
V
+
impact statement is satisfactory if the treatment of alterna-tives, when-judged against a " rule of reason," is sufficent to permit a reasoned' choice among the various options. Druid Hills Civic Ass'n v. Fed. Hichway Admin. 772 F.2d 700, 713 (llth Cir.
, 1985).
In the analysis of options in the March 1981 PEIS and the June 1987 PEIS supplement, public documents available to the Pe-titioners, the NRC fulfilled its obligations to reasonably con-i sider alternatives to the evaporation option, as required by law. l The Petitioners do not cite these documents, nor question the vi-ability of NRC analysis. The assertions in proposed Contention 8 f ignore the available NRC documentation, and are groundless chal-lenges to the NRC's legal obligations.
The NRC has effectively considered the alternative of closed cycle evaporation with bottoms and condensate being solidified and shipped-to a low level waste site. Closed cycle evaporation ;
with solidification and disposal of bottoms was considered in alternative 3.1.3. NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.15-18. (The !
river discharge of distillate portion of that alternative does not apply to Contention 8.) Solidification of the condensate and l shipment to a low-level waste site was evaluated in alternative j 3.3.2. Id. at 3.24-26. The fact that the combination identified by Petitioners does not appear in PEIS tables as a separate cap-tion is irrelevant where the information itself is presented. [
I m ___m_____ _ _ _ _ _
b -
t.
.[.
Petitioners: offer'no criticism of the Staff's assessment of
.their combination of alternatives. . Further, the option proposed byfthe Petitioners would increase environmental impact with no apparen't'off-site benefits.U I specifically, the Staff'.has-de-
'termined that combining these options increases the amount-of )
waste shipped to a low-level burial site'above the amount assumed
~
in any' single option considered. See.NUREG-0683, Supp..No. 2 at' 5.2, Table 5.1. In addition, the option proposed by the Peti- f tioners increases.the risk of a transportation accident'by j increasing-the. amount of waste to be shipped. Further, occupa- )
tional exposure would be increased because the water is essen- j
.tially processed twice -- by distillation and by solidification.
1d. .
The NRC has sufficiently and reasonably. addressed the'first option raised.by the Petitioners. Moreover, the option clearly presents unfavorable'results, particularly in comparis'on with the ']
evaporation alternative under consideration. Petitioners have presented no inadequacy in the prior analysis nor provided a reason to' consider this alternative further. 4
)
i M/ The perceived benefit appears to be that the distillation process will remove the activity from the water so that when the I distillate is solidified there will be no release to the environ- l ment. However, the distilled water will contain at least 90% of j the tritium. NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 3.15. When this distil-late is solidified, approximately 50% of the tritium is immedi-ately released'to the atmosphere during airing. Id. at 3.25; GPU Nuclear report, Disposal of TMI-2 Water (July 31, 1986), at 47, ;
- 54. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that a release of 1 tritium will occur which is of the same order of magnitude as j d
tritium releases already considered in the PEIS.
1 3:
Similiarly, the~NRC did give reasonable consideration to f disposing the: water in tanks and storing the tanks at TMI-2.
i Under the "no action" alternative of " Liquid Storage in Tanks," l
'the NRC' Staff assessed the idea of maintaining the water in tanks ;
on. site for an indefinite period of time. NUREG-0683, Supp. No.
2 at 3.32-34. '(This evaluation is' described in detail above in l i
response to Contention 2.) The reduction of tritium to a level comparable to the EPA limit for drinking water would take approx-imately 150 years. Id. at 3.32. Retention for such a period of time "is not considered practicable because of the inability to guarantee institutional controls for periods in excess of 100 -
years." "In effect, the'TMI site would become a low-level waste disposal site for radioactivity in mobile form." NUREG-0683 at 7-49. The NRC reasonably rejected that alternative because TMI-2 (
i is not a licensed low-level Vaste disposal site, ld. Attempting to license TMI-2 as a low-level disposal site pursuant to 10 ;
C.F.R. Part 61 would raise regulatory and institutional issues which could not be resolved within a reasonable period of time.
Moreover, as a matter of policy, the NRC concluded that TMI l should not become a permanent waste disposal site.1A/ NUREG-0683 l
11/ In addition, the preparer of an environmental impact state-ment need not consider " alternatives which could only be imple-mented after significant changes in governmental policy or legis-lation or which require similiar alternatives of existing restrictions." Natural Resource Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 l F.2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975); Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974) cert, denied 421 U.S. 994, (1975). ;
i i
1
_ _ - _ _ _ - - - i
j b i at-2-3, 12-2. The NRC reasonably _ considered the option of on-site disposal and storage and found that it was, on balance, less desirable than near-term disposal by the evaporation option. Pe-titioners.have not challenged these assessments in any specific way.1EI When judged against a " rule of reason" standard, the NRC's treatment of various alternatives, and in particular those raised i
by the Petitioners, is sufficient to provide a reasoned choice among the' alternatives. Proposed Contention 8 provides no basis to conclude otherwise, and should properly be rejected.
IV. CONCLUSION !
For the. reasons set forth above, Petitioners have failed to assert a single acceptable contention. Accordingly, the SVA and 1
i i
{
l l
1}/ See also NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2 at 7.21 (S 7.3.7.5, Onsite j Storage Alternatives). l
w.
TMIA petitions-for: leave.to intervene / requests-for hearing should be denied. .See'10 C.F.R. .5 2.714(b).
Respectfully submitted,
-SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
.v L = ,
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,-P.C.
Maurice A. Ross-Counsel for Licensee 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.- 20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated: November 12, 1987 l
1 i
l I
j i i
, [7590-01]
~ ~
STATEMENT OF POLICY RELATIVE TO THE .
ATTACHMEN A
'., ; NRC- PROGRAttiATIC ENVIROM1 ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE l CLEANUP 0F THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
(
, AGENCY: ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i i
ACTION: Statement of Policy.
SIMMARY: On November 21, 1979, the ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed the staff to prepare a Programantic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28, l
l 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2. A Statement of Policy and Notice of Intent regarding that decision was published in the Federal Register on ,
November 27,1979 (page 67738). _ As stated at that time: "In the. Commission's judgment an overall study of the decontamination and disposal process will assist the Commission in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to protect the public health and safety as decontamina-
'I tion progresses. It will also be in keeping with the purposes- of the National t Environmental Policy Act to engage the public in the Commission's decision-making process, and to focus on the environmental issues and alternatives before commitments to specific clean-up choices are made." As directed, the Commission's staff has now completed a final programmatic environmental impact statement on all phases of the cleanup of D1I Unit 2 to meet the foregoing objectives.
Preparation of this final statement has had the benefit of extensive comments from government agencies and the public. Comments on the draft PEIS from the Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2 (a panel which the Commission established to provide independent advice from local officials, '
scientists and individuals in the area) had not been received prior to com-I pletion of the PEIS. However, the Commission has now received the Panel's f) l
=-
- 2 [7590-01] ~
I comments and finds that the staff's final PEIS is responsive to those com-
.ments. The Commission concludes that this statement satisfies our obligations ;
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Now that the environmental impact statement for TMI-2 has been published, !
the Commission believes that the licensee should accelerate the pace of the i
cleanup to complete expeditiously a11' decontamination activities consistent with ensuring protection of public health and safety and the environment.
As the licensee proposes specific decontamination alternatives for each major cleanup activity, the staff will detemine whether these proposals and the associated impacts that are predicted to occur fall within the scope of those already assessed in the PEIS. If they do not, additional reviews will be undertaken in accordance with NEPA. Each proposed cleanup activity will be I carefully reviewed to assure that all applicable NRC requirements to protect the health and safety of the public are met. If a specific proposal requires an amendment to the facility operating license, public notice will be provided in accordance with Commission regulations. The staff may act on each major cleanup activity if the activity and associated enviro'nmental impacts fall within the scope of those already assassed in the PEIS. The staff will keep the Commission infomed of staff actions on each major activity prior to staff i
approval of the major activity.
If any cleanup activity and associated environmental impacts fall outside I
the scope of those already assessed in the PEIS, the staff shall complete necessary reviews in accordance with NEPA and NRC requirements, and submit recommendations to the Commission.
1
T , . .
.- 3 ,' [7590-01] 1 I
-( j
.4<
Any future proposal for disposition of processed accident-generated water shall be referred to the Commission. for approval.
On September 26,1980, this Commission issued a Statement of Policy on the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's order to the licensee to cease and desist from using any operating revenues for cleanup and restoration costs-at TMI-2 which are not covered by insurance. We reiterate here our previous position that we will not excuse the licensee from compliance with any order, regulation or other requirement imposed by this Commission to protect public health and safety and the environment.
Furthennore, the cleanup should be carried out in accordance with the criteria in Appendix R of the PEIS as well as in conformance with the existing
(-
operating license (DPR-73) and with previously imposed orders.1/ The Appen- '
dix R criteria specify limits on the doses which may result to offsite indi-viduals from radioactive affluents resulting from cleanup and decontamination, activi ties. Those criteria supplanent the. existing restrictions on the j
-licep: ee's cleanup activities.
l The Commission expects to receivt continuing advice from the TMI-2 Advisory Panel on major activities required to accomplish expeditious and safe )
l
(
II The licensee's authorization under license DPR-73 has been modified through the order issued February 11, 1980, the modification of order issued August 11, 1980, and the amendment of order issued November 14, 1980.
." 4
[7590-01]
1 cleanup 'of the TMI-2 facility. This . advice will'be'important to the Com-mission throughout the cleanup process.
Dated at Washington, DC, this17* day o 1981.
- ~
FOR THE NUCLEAR EGULATORY COP 91ISSION !
l 11 nnn 0s a q SAMUEL J. CHILK ecretary of t))e Commission e
i
(
I ,
l l
I 1 .
i
ATTACHMENT B J RN
' bao L ' 94 PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE DECONTAMINATION OF TMI-2 l
Stenographic Record of Hearing Held at i Council Chambers '
208 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA on I
, Thursday ;
February 26, 1987 3:30 p.m. .,
PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Arthur Morris, Chairperson Michael Masnik Thessas Smithgall
., Joel Roth
~
Niel Wald ,
Anne Trunk Gordon Robinson Kenneth Miller Thessas Gerusky ,
John Luetzelschwab Frederick Rice Elizabeth Marshall 6
Meelek Stenographic Servlee, Ise.
adas ese DOIS Sees wremmasses, ya e,ese pneese sas/sts sess 1
1
~-
a;
},
e:
1 cal'culations that the strontium 90 is' dominant for the dose I
.o If they show by this method that other. !
2 commitment.
f l' 3 isotopes are not as significant as strontium'90, then we 4 know that there is no contribution to those -- from those d 5 to'the dose commitment compared to strontium.
.. Le MR. GERUSKY: The question-is, are we comparing i 7 the doses to individual organs versus bone dose? I'm g trying to figure out -- l g MR. COOPER: .As well the different isotopes' to will'have different critical organs. :And there was no 11 adjustment for waiting factor or anything of that sort
.done. For example, as Frank said earlier, the iodine i
12
.. 13- doses the thyroid and strontium doses the bone.
'A" t<4 MR. GERUSKYr 'And the ratio does not take into 18 account that thyroid versus the bone?
Is MR. COOPER: That's correct.
17 MR. STANDERFER: I think what we're trying to show
~
l
'18 here, one, the strontium environmental levels are below .
I to standards, meet existing standards. And we were again 20 trying to show that the other isotopes are less significant, 21 again trying to give a relative feel for the fact that we 22 are looking at the right isotopes.
23 MR. GERUSKY: On your carryover, can you go into {
24 more detail on what the carryover monitor does and how it j N does it?
25
Y' ,'
^
I >.
I_ 4 f: .
1- MR. STANDERFER:
I expect that will'be a con-2 ductivity cell on condensed water. But let's ask Chuck.
^
3 MR. URLAND:- Yes, most normal evaporators that-4 operate-in closed cycle have continuous conductivity s
LW . s ~ monitors on both the feed and the condensed distillate.
. . e Since we're proposi'ng to evaporate in a open cycle and 7 release the vapor, what we will have to do is pull a s stream,' sample stream of the vapor, condense it with i e continuous conductivity probe and.use that as our scaling to or guide for operation of the evaporator.'
11 MR. GERUSKY: Then this really isn't a monitor.
ja as much as -- It's not a radiological monitor.in the sense 13 we think of'it in nuclear power plants. You're smonitoring
- ~
N 14 just th total solids, I guess, in the water, in the water-ts vapor.
l' to MR. URLAND: Yes.
17 MR. GERUSKY: The next step is you're doing 18 radiological monitoring behind that, it'looks like. What .
Is are you going to be looking for?
.- 20 MR. URLAND: 7. have to turn it over to the 21 environmental people.
~
- 22. MR. STANDERFER: The monitor, in-line monitor 23 there is for gross upsets in the plant, and it will be a 24 gamma monitor. The actual reference control will be the ;
25 water samples that are taken and sent to the laboratory.
k' 26
- i. -
- t v.,
1 'The. concentrations here are so low'that direct in-line 2 monitors cannot measure it at the levels t. hat will.normally 3 be going up the stack. So both the carryover monitor and !
4 -the in-line radioactive monitor is-to control gross upset 6 of the evaporator itself.
. 6 MR._GERUSKY: They have -- Is.there any automatic 7 control that will shut the facility down if'a preset. point e is reached?
9 MR. STANDERFER: Yes, and that -- What we pri-10 marily will'be looking at is a carryover monitor, make sure 4 11- that ths is'no particulate going up with the steam. And 12 that is very sensitive and can measure down to levels of 13 a hundredth of a percent, which are the assumptions that E '
14 you make when you make these calculations.
15 MR. GERUSKY: Where are you going to do the Is liquid -- the radioactivity analysis of the release? Are 17 you going to take the samples from the two monitors or.are 18 you going to just take them in the evaporator itself?
e 19 MR. STANDERFER: No, that's one line that con-20 denses water from the stack, goes through -- some of that 21 water will go through the carryover monitor and some of l
- l 22 it will go through the in-line radioactive monitor for 23 high radiation levels. And the rest of it will go into 24 sample, which will be sent to the laboratory. And some 25 of those measurements will be made on site, and then the
.b -
27
o.
3 t-I' #
sg 1L more sensitive ones will be made off site'in another 2 laboratory.
[ 3 First of all, the critical thing is to have good 4 chemistry on the feed' water before you put it in the 5 evaporator:so that you make sure that you are not intro-s ducing high concentrations of any of these radioisotopes.
7 MR.-GERUSKY: On your strontium 90'decontamina-
. a tion factor through the exchangs system, you didn't really -- >
s The strontium 90 concentrations vary considerably, and you to came out with one number. It really didn't show what the 11 decontamination factor was. Do you have that number?
12 MR. STANDERFER: Let Ken --
13 . .MR. HOFSTETTER: Decontamination number, of
"*" 14 course, does tend to vary with the concentration of input is water. That is the effluent, quality of the effluent ,
is remains about the same. So, for instance, when we were 17 processing water out of.the reactor building basement which 18 had high levels of radioactivity, the DFs, if you want to
~
to call them that, were quite high. When we look at water i 20 which has been recycled, that is, has been reused for de-21 contamination, picked up small amounts of water, the DF 22 will appropriately be lower because the influent concen-23 trations are lower as a result. For the reactor building 24 basement where we had cesium concentrations of 120 micro-25 curies per milliliter, DF to the total system was on the
. Y 28 l l
hemomm___________m__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
F gu -
o 4
- s
.Vs '
.000KETED' ..
. November 12, 198yWRC ]
1 a '87 NOV 16 P5:04
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICAt i NUCLEAR REGULATDRY. COMMISSION OFFICE 0F 5ECMTARY 00CKETING A SERvlCE l BRANCH q I
BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETYEAND' LICENSING-BOARD In the Matter'of- )
) '
.GPU; Nuclear Corporation- )- Docket'No.-50-320-OLA.
). ~(Disposal of Accident- j (Three Mile. Island Nuclear ) Generated Water) 1 Station,' Unit 2) ) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-I_hereby certifyLthat copies of~the foregoing " Licensee's Response to Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by SVA E and TMIA" dated November 12, 1987 were served on November 12,
'1987 by Federal' Express to:
John F. McKinstry, Esquire-Department lof Environmental Resources.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 505 Executive House Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Ms. Frances Skolnick 2079 New Danville Pike. I Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
'by: hand delivery:to:
Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire l
Office of the General Counsel
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l l
l l _ __ _- _ __
e
' if
.'l '
i s ifLo - ' *
- D- 'i
- Sheldon. J'. _ Wolf e ,1 Esqui re Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ~ Panel !
g 'U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.C. 20555 q 4
Mr. Glenn:0. Bright Atomic Safety and LicensingiBoard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D.C.- 20555
'Dr.cOscar H. Paris: ~
I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(- Washington,'D.C. 20555 and by-first class mail,' postage prepaid, upon the following:
Docketing and Services Branch Secretary of the' Commission !
c U.S. Nuclear.Regulato'yr Commission )
Washington, D.C. 20555 q Dr. William D. Travers Director, Three Mile Island Cleanup Project-Directorate P.O.-Box 311 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
_ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _