ML20236R804
| ML20236R804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1987 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4878 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8711240040 | |
| Download: ML20236R804 (11) | |
Text
_
. gr7f November 16, 1987 k
00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 57 WJV 19 P3 I47 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARUFICE & SEQ W7 c;Cy,Ei w; e, 'R m R.
%M.h in the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
}
Docket No. 50-320 OLA
)
ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Disposal of Accident-Station, Unit 2)
)
Generated Water)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF SVA AND TMIA 1.
INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Order (Regarding Interest of Petitioners), dated October 1, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board determined that petitioners Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and Three Mlle Island Alert, Inc. (TMI A) had established the requisite interest for intervention in this license amendment proceeding. The Board directed SVA and TMI A to file, so as to be received on or before October 30, 1987, supplements to their intervention petitions listing the contentions sought to be litigated and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. O On October 28, 1987 SVA and TMIA filed a joint
-1/
TMIA had indicated in its intervention petition that it authorized Ms.
Frances Skolnick of SVA to represent it in this proceeding.
However, under the Commission's Rules of Practice an organization may not be represented in agency proceedings by other than one of its members or an attorney-at-law.
See Board's memorandum and order at 4, citing 10 C.F.R. Section 2.713(b). TMIA has cured this defect by clarifying that Ms. Skolnick
"...is and has been a member (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) g[
kla g f o
l 1
l l I
" Supplement to the Petition for Leave to intervene..."
Pursuant to the Board's memorandum and order, the NRC staff files the following response addressing the admissibility of the SVA/TMIA proposed contentions.
I 11.
DISCUSSION l
in order for the SVA/TMIA contentions to be admitted as issues in i
controversy in this proceeding they must comply with the requirement of i
Section 2.714(b) that the bases for each contention be set forth with reasonable specificity.
The nurposes of the basis requirement are: (1) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for
)
i litigation in a particular proceeding,
(2) to estabilsh a sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the contention, and (3) to help assure that the other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose.
- See, Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power
- Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
l l
As noted below, some of the proposed contentions meet the Commission's standards for admissibility, while others fall to meet the Peach Bottom test in that they do not establish a sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry and do not identify with clarity the matters to which the Staff and GPU Nuclear Corporation (the " licensee") would have (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) of TMI A..."
See TMIA's " Authorization for Ms. Frances Skolnick, a Member of TTJi A, to Act as Intervenor Representing the Organization," dated October 5,1987.
i to respond at hearing.
The proposed contentions are individually q
addressed, as follows.
l Contention 1.
The contention raises the issue of whether one or more of 1
the alternative methods of disposing of the accident-generated water j
("AGW") considered in the PElS, as supplemented, 2,/ are more in keeping I
with the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable ("ALARA") objective of the j
Commission's regulations, b Contrary to the assumption implicit in contention 1, there is no requirement that the method of disposal of the l
AGW approved by the NRC be "more in keeping" with the ALARA 1
objective than alternative disposal methods.
Appendix i
to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 establishes numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to assist applicants and licensees in meeting ALARA requirements of 10 C.F.R. 95 50.34a and 50.36a.
Appendix I provides that conformance to its numerical guidelines "...shall be deemed a
conclusive showing of compilance... "
with ALARA
-2/
" Final Programmatic Environmental impact Statement Related to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Resulting from J
March 28, 1979 Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1
2" (NUREG-0683, March 1981) and Supplement No.
2
(" Final Supplement Dealing with Disposal of Accident-Generated Water")
(June 1987).
3/
10 C.F.R. Section 20.1(c) states that in addition to complying with
~
the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20, Commission licensees should
"...make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as low as is reasonably achievable.
The term 'as low as is reasonably achievable' means as low as is reasonably achievable l
taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest.
See also 10 C.F.R. 59 50.34a, 50.36a.
i i
J
. 1 i
i requirements.
Th t. Appendix I numerical guidelines have been expressly 4
app!Ied to the TMI-2 cleanup program, including the disposal of ACW.
See PElS, Vol. 2, Appendix R.
There is no legal basis for SVA/TMIA's assumption that the Commission's ALARA requirements call for a comparison of how much below Appendix ! numerical guidelines projected from alternative AGW disposal methods would be. EI Since this doses proposed contention is based on a premise that is lacking in any legal basis, it should not be admitted.
Contention 2.
This contention raises the issue of whether the PElS, as supplemented, adequately demonstrates, in accordance with the National j
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended ("NEPA", 42 U.S.C. 4321, ej seq. ), 5_/ that any adverse impacts associated with disposal of the ACW in the manner proposed are outweighed by the benefits of such disposal to the public.
An aspect of this contention is a challenge to the adecuacy of the Staff's analysis of the "no action" alternative.
The contention is set forth with sufficient basis and specificity so as to be admissible.
The last sentence, which asserts that the benefits of the proposed disposal can only be analyzed following the evaluation of the licensee's plan for Post Defueling Monitored Storage, is extraneous to the
-4/
Evaporation of the AGW is projected to result in doses well within the Appendix ! numerical guidelines.
See Supplement No. 2 at 3.7, reporting the 50-year projected dose commitment to the maximally exposed member of the public as less than 4 mrem to the thyroid, 0.8 mrem to the bone, and 0.7 mrem to the total body.
-5/
SVA/TMIA cite to note 29 to 42 U.S.C.S.
4332.
This is an extensive annotation and SVA/TMIA should be required to specify the case (s) upon which they rely.
. 1 1
1 contention and states no basis.
That sentence should, accordingly, not i
be admitted.
Contention 3.
This contention should not be admitted because it fails to put the Staff and the licensee on notice as to the issue to which they would have to respond.
The mere listing of two asserted risks of the proposed action does not provide a basis for the assertion that the Staff
'l has not demonstrated that the benefits of the proposed action will exceed I
1 the costs and risks to the public.
Contention 4.
This contention contains four subparts, all of which fall to state bases that identify the issues to which the Staff and the licensee would have to respond.
In subpart (a) SVA/TMIA have stated no basis for their assertion that the proposed evaporation process could not l
evaporate 2.5 million gallons of ACW.
In subpart (b) they have failed to identify any inadequacy in the PEIS, as supplemented, with respect to the matter of flitering of transuranic, other radionuclides and chemicals.
i For example, the matter of transuranic is addressed in Section 7.2.3 of l
Supplement No. 2 to the PEIS, in response to comments from, among l
others, SVA and TMI A.
In order for the Staff and ilcensee to be able to address the issue that remains in light of this response, SVA/TMIA must identify with specificity the inadequacy they perceive in the Staff's analysis.
The same specificity must be provided with respect to other radionuclides and with respect to chemicals.
In subpart (c) the
" safeguards" SVA/TMIA have in mind are not identified and no specific inadequacy in the monitoring and safety systems associated with the proposed evaporation process is identified.
In subpart (d) the relevance of the possible change in the influent rate to the evaporator is not l
l I
stated.
Therefore, there is no basis provided for asserting that this raises an issue warranting further inquiry in this proceeding.
For these reasons, contention 4 should not be admitted, since specific bases are not
)
I provided.
Contention 5.
In this contention SVA/TMIA assert that the Staff is not I
in compliance with NEPA for failure to make full disclosures of certain 6_/
In none of the subparts of the asserted environmental impacts.
contention, however, do SVA/TMIA specifically identify the respects in 1
which they assert the PElS, as supplemented, to be inadequate.
In j
subpart (a) they do not identify the respects in which the Staff's responses to Dr. Morgan's comments on the Draft Supplement (see, l
Supplement No.
2, Sections 7.1.11, 7.2.14, 7.2.15 and 7.5.15) are
)
Inadequate. U in subpart (b) SVA/TMI A fall to specify in what precise i
way the PElS, as supplemented, is inadequate. As is clear from a review of the PElS, the cumulative radiation effects of the TMI-2 accident and the cleanup have been considered by the Staff. 8_/
Nor does SVA/TMIA's l
l 6/
SVA/TMIA incorrectly state that two quotations at the front of this l
~
contention are directly from the language of NEPA.
In fact, the l
quotations are from cases cited in n.29 to 42 U.S.C.S. 4332.
l
-7/
If SVA/TMIA are permitted to amend this subpart, the Board should require them to supply a typewritten version of Dr. Morgan's comments, since the handwritten version submitted to the NRC is at i
best difficult to read.
I
-8/
See PElS at 1-26, where the Staff states:
1 l
Requiring that the numerical design objectives of Appendix ! to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 are met will assure that the radiation dose received by the public during the cleanup operation is sufficient to protect the pub!!c and (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
reference to "...a great controversy as to how much radiation escaped during the accident and the subsequent eight and one half year clean-up"
]
put the Staff and licensee notice as to the matters to which they 1
would have to respond should this subpart be admitted.
SVA/TMIA
)
do not provide any references to support their assertion as to this " great controversy" and the Staff is, therefore, unaware of what they may be i
relying upon or the relevance of any such documents to this proceeding.
Subpart (c) raises two matters, one dealing with oversimplification of the radiological and chemical content of the AGW and underestimation of the effects of disposal of the AGW on the affected population and the other with an asserted synergism among the radioisotopes and chemicals present in the AGW.
In neither case have SVA/TMIA identified the bases for their assertions such that the Staff and licensee could address the matter I
at hea ring.
In subpart (d) SVA/TMI A have not stated as bases any Inadequacies of the analyses in the PElS, as supplemented, regarding the effects on humans of exposure to tritium and alpha emitting radionuclides i
as a result of the proposed action. As noted in our response to proposed Contention 4, SVA and TMIA provided comments regarding transuranic (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) is equivalent to or below that of a normal operating reactor.
These doses, 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.
As a result of its evaluation of the proposed evaporation of the AGW, and of alternative disposal methods, the Staff concluded that the environmental impacts estimated from implementation of any of the AGW disposal alternatives would fall within the range of impacts estimated in the PElS. See Supplement No. 2 at 6.1, 7.24.
1 '
and the Staff has responded in Supplement No.
2.
With respect to tritium, the Staff has also responded to comments from, among others, j
TMI A.
See 59 7.2.16-7.2.18.
In order for the Staff and licensee to i
I understand the matters to which they are being asked to respond, j
l SVA/TMIA must identify with specificity the inadequacies they believe j
l exist in the Staff's analysis, j
Contention 6.
This contention sets forth a basis with sufficient clarity to support its admission.
Contention 7.
This contention falls to set forth any inadequacy in the proposed monitoring for the disposal of the AGW.
It, therefore, does not put the Staff and licensee on notice as to the matters to which they would have to respond.
If the studies to which SVA/TMIA make reference are subsequently completed before this proceeding is completed and SVA/TMIA believe they can demonstrate the relevance of such studies to the adequacy of the monitoring of the AGW, they may make appropriate motions to have those studies considered in this proceeding.
Contention 8.
This contention fails to state any basis why the two alternatives raised should have been considered in the PElS, as supplemented.
Since a wide range of alternatives were evaluated in I
Supplement No. 2 (see generally 56 3 and 5), it is incumbent upon SVA/TMIA to establish a foundation warranting inquiry into the t~wo additional alternatives asserted in the contention.
See Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20.
Ill.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed in this response, proposed SVA/TMIA l
Contentions 2 (with the exception of the last sentence thereof) and 6 l
i-.
-9 should be admitted as issues' in controversy in' this proceeding..
Contentions 1,
3, 4,
5, 7,
and 8 should be _ rejected as ' Issues in controversy.
Respectfully sutmitted, Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney-Dated at Dethesda, Maryland this 16th day of Noverber,1987 I
4
'l i
4 1
l I
i
-i
00LKETED UhRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 NOV 19 P3 :47 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDC m CE m d u<tice f 00CK[ilN3 4 SEdvlCf.
BRANCH in the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
)
Docket No. 50-320 OLA
)
ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Disposal of Accident-Station, Unit 2)
)
Generated Water) j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF SVA AND TMI A" in the above-captioned proceeding proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by use of express mail service, or as indicated by a l
triple asterisk by hand-delivery, this 16th day of November,1987:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Esq.
Administrative Judge Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555*
Washington, D.C.
20037***
Dr. Oscar H. Paris John R. McKinstry Administrative Judge Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commonwealth of Pennsylvania U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C.
20555*
P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120**
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555*
Washington, D.C.
20555*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555*
Washington, D.C.
20555*
8
'.4-p l _,
Susquehanna Valley Alliance Three Mlle Island Alert c/o Ms. Frances Skolnick 315 Peffer Street 2079 New Danville Pike Harrisburg, PA 17102**
i Lancaster, PA 17603**
Jay Gutierrez Regional Counsel
)
USNRC, Region I 1
631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406*
J Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney i
l l
L 1
^
1 1
A 1
l l
1 J
i 1
l l
]
1 i
I
_.___.n_----
A