ML20246P223
| ML20246P223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V29-N02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V29-N2, NUDOCS 8905220120 | |
| Download: ML20246P223 (128) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_-
~~~
, . . .> c w ww, . - - .,n 'r:.
?' N;.r.4.g. -Me: "g y;f 1 - s iA ,
Cr.
~
NUREG-0750
,. .' eji 7
- ; g
,4 : 7 4- ,
- .-Vol. 29, No. 2 '
j 4 ,
. Pages 89-209 s
. . . u.
=
b ', , .. . L ,. . , . . > -. -<+ ffhf .
,s .
8 y y
).u ~ i
- u. . ,. ,
'. .1, ,
.. 4-
"'^ '
g mmm- _Y q msg - s 3 { . n ,.
. L '
RRM : .
. f' Rljf}6l$qMl.!O%Wh.N . ~ 0e 4 , '
. "V??9.5;@h,7.cL.
(W: W a w, ,.Yh%IP,
. . s 3 :r risw*w r-
{5A$.
. .n gm,,-n$.s.'$
3 v.
.n %;",'c ...
OE%O.,.
'wR &.- %,9: :x.% bg,y%+' + W -
f.e LMo';d.:-;pa
.,. p y. :? Ms v .
- / . /^~
.. ;;q :
'l,f l iqq.h?.hfb ,;.:;glly:fb,khh;y,;{$hl$:h$j un.o ri, ' %q,wj M J # h. h Mwm-c
.. s w .
-u v d ;rt n f',y i. E 4
. m ,. .
D W ' E A '.d ggsagggggg9043o 0750 R PDR
Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office l Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication. Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical . Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 l ( Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 , (301 /492-8925) 1 o
4 .
.,. , s. 1
' ~ ' '
'.~,)....-
3 NUREG-0750 Vol. 29, No. 2 _ 4 . 4 Pages 89-209 -
* .~ '
~,
;- ;. x . . , ..:. .
. p ,
. ..~:.
.'.,. , - , . . .c .: ,. -
..,~ . -
. . u. .
.. , 7,.g ;.
. s ., -;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES
. .. .! D ' .
.v. . .
.' ~
February 1989 _J . .... . . - >4 y ,, This report includes the issuances received during the specified period
^,
from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the
- .. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
' ~ '
. The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein
. are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significance
, . c. ,.
U.S. NUCLEAR RbGULATORY CO'MMISSION
. ~
~
.- Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services
. Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925)
- __.___ _. m_1_______._____ _ _ _ _ _ _
_- _=_ _ _ ._
,c a ~ .. .
g- , , s. ; .. <
- n. we. s - ,... ,
. .. -2 .. ,
;i a,
,a . .
,..r . .
w .
-+ .d'. 5 a
s 9 3 ,4 ,e
?- >
.. , c
.x -
u. 4
. .A ,
x . ;s v., . , .
- p ;.w.e.; , . - .. e "1
4
,,,,=.*3-
+
, , s',_ 3.
, 7 ..-, ,. . .
...s..
s,
. ~ . ...
. .. 7 '. '
- up 9.;, ' .:,:. . , p ,;
. .c .
T;m . .. .. .
.. =
ifM j . .L' " . , ..".: . : ' . . .x,- , COMMISSIONERS .
^
- t ;
# , . .c . . .
.yg ;
'P Lando W, Zech, Jr., Chairman
. L.- /- ,
e y, Thomas M. Roberts -
-.4-.., .
...- J
Kenneth M. Carr {i$j'h. .N: ~,l 3 . l ' ,;;[ , Kenneth C. Rogers 7-lc.;.f .
. James R. Curtiss
. .~,.,
n w *
, ... .4 .
f
& 5 4'
-f .
. 4
. , s
. .;.- .. a tr * . ;<' . - Christine N. Kohl, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel '
,'. '* < B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
;, s f, *4
.I 6 +
I; - , ,* . ! t "e w ,
- r. a > .
- g. e- ,
.-( 6
. * . 4 5 = g , -
.i . ... *
- o ', e 1 l .e I
1: l t
- --m___- . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
d r , t
~
'4 .
EV,.,'y ..L . n,.4 ,
, 0 (l' f , l ,
. CONTENTS
. s e, - .
..., , . ', .3 . . ; 4 Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, y; ', ,
; ' a.
' 'f . ,.
-l 3 3, ~ ' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY g , 4'-
.,2 Y >
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
. ,j e
. , f ..
. Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
A - ;...y MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI-89-1 February 2,1989 ...... 89 i
-' . Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
,. . . ' , g.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. c-6, (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2)
, Dockets 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning)
~
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-910, Rbruary 8,1988 ..... 95 m q Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards f , ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, INC. (AlChemIE Fa:ility-1 CPDF; licility-2, Oliver Springs) Dockets 50-603-CP/OL, 50 604-CP (ASLBP Nos. 88-570-01-CP/OL -
'3 88-57101-CP)
INITIAL DECISION, LBP-89 5, February 1,1989 ................ 99 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.
. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
Docket 50-320-OLA (ASLBP No. 87 554-3-OLA)
.'.- , (Disposal of Accident-Generated Water)
FINAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-89-7, Rbruary 2,1989 ......... 138
,,' ~, ,.
. ','. ~
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
~
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) Dockets 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL) (Offsite Emergency Planning) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 89 8, February 16, 1988 .... 193
,- VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION q
*' ' ~
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket 50-271 OLA (ASLBP No. 87 547-02-LA) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-89-6, Rbruary 2, 1989 ..... 127 e7 lii l l ,
l Commission issuances j 9 ) v> Ch ! llE O : o .
s..
,3, .
y .
; g
, , , v, .
! ' , *"^*
)
- L g .
N! '
'M) ,
> ,L *' ' ,9 y
.i-
.. . h& , , . . , ,
.;; ,, v* .:
. ~.
e., , .c y ,a ..'::.~ .
.'p; . * .,
- ,5.
'* . . s g <r .e,. _. . ' ; '
.'+.
' 4 ., .j.
.z'.,> ; . ; ,, i
- rq '$ : ,i, ci ,
Cite as 29 NRC 89 (1989) ' CU 891 ' . , .. 3. , , ,
.,e,
.y'..e ..
6
., , .y
. .* *' z : 3 A,
- '.h : . u 'l < *
' ' ', . ; . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,. .,37 g' f Q
.i ..
+,
- 4. , ' . NUC' LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c ,y . . -;,e y 7 r t,.;-
, . ;. . - j
,y g' ,7 * .
, ,.:, r. g4,4o';.
. ;.. ,a, COMMISSIONERS:
e 3 '
,,p- .
' .* :( r
,,.f.'" 4 . < g* . . - ,, ..
. } ,'. , .+s ;.,'l ;' #.<v. q 4..,,=;..*
c . 7, . Lando W. Zech,6r., Chairman ;
, 7, ...-
~ v , : .1 .- Thomas M. Roberts
, q, ' : ' , ..nc '.
~
,4 ,
,,, Kenneth M. Carr c-. ,4 ,-
, ' .i / I ., b ' ' '
1, Kenneth C. Pogers n '. ':, 9. .u.. . , ' .i f . : . 7 yi
, s g
. James R. Curtiss
) '
l , , . , n" j l_, ? ; . . , , m '_ ['
- t. ** ' :.
/ - ; ..
a.'.-
. s.
In the Matter of Dockst No. 50 322 OL 3
,.- .; (Emergency Planning)
. LONG ISLAND UGHTING
-+7 ,
COMPANY a ,, .g .. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) February 2,1989
,; ; .r
. ' 'Ihe Commission detern ines that Intervences' motion regarding an aspect of applicant's emergency plan constitutes a motion to reopen a portion of the record
,e ,, ,
that has been closed and, therefore, must be judged against the appropriate (,*f 's standards b 10 C.F.R. 62.734(a)(1). The Commission finds that Interveners
.. .. , _. have failed to comdy with its requirements for even considering a motion to a, g ..; -
.T, reopen and, accordingly, denies the motion,
~
c ; . ; ' RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
...c."n .
,i .
In order to prevail on a request to reopen the trecord, the movant must
~
. : , 3 l . demonstrate that (1) ,ts motion is timely, i.e., that the issue it now seeks to
, - ' - 'l . ,. raise could not have been raised earlier; (2) the motion addresses a significant
,, j f,' ? . safety or environmental issue; and (3) a materially different result would be
,- or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered.
+.. ,..', 4 ', ,
10 C.F.R. 9 2.734(a)(1)-(3). See, e.g., Georgia Power Co.- (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-872,26 NRC 127,149-50 (1987). 89 4 a a . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ ___.__m_ _____m .-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _mm_ __m_._ _ _ _ _ __.__._mm-_________m__ -
,v
* . ,. RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD
- .J ., ,. >.' -
The Commission's regulations require that a motion to reopen the record
' ~ lls: ' ' , c,' '
.. ', must be accompanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or technical basis for the movant's claim that the three criteria in 10
,[ ' }; '
~ '
, , C.F.R. 5 2.734(a)(1)-(3) have been satisfied.10 C.F.R. I 2.734(b).
- ~' ' ' ~ , J. , m: ,
5
, 't ',- .-
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD (SPECIFICITY)
'y
; , The new material in support of a motion to reopen the record must be sct forth
, ; , ',.- .,p .
with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements
, ,s., contained in 10 C.F.R. (2.714(b) for admissible contentions. Such supporting ~' ** * '
a information must be more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
^
i
- .,. ,~ , Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361,1366 (1984), ag'd sub nom. San ,y .. -,
Luis Obispo Afothersfor Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), ag'd on reh'g en banc,789 F.2d 26 (1986), cert. denied,479 U.S. 923 (1986).
' ~ ' '
RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD If a motion to reopen is to succeed, it must be based on evidence through affidavit (s) as required in 10 C.F.R. 52.734(b). It is not enough merely to
, express a willingness to provide unspecified, additional information at some unknown date in the future. Aferropolitan Edison Co. ('lhree Mile Island Nuc1 car Station, Unit 1), CLI-85 7,21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985), quoting Louisiana Power
_ and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB 753,18 NRC 1321, 1324 (1983). RULES OF PRACTICE: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTION
. In denying an intervenor's motion to admit a new conter.: ion alleging an applicant's noncompliance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12), which requires pro-
, vision for emergency medical services for contaminated injured individuals in
- . the ever t of an accident, which is considered by the Ccmmission as a motion to
, , ,,, reopen a portion of the record that is closed, the Commission is not addressing the merits of the proposed contention or the applicant's noncompliance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12). See Cleveland Electric //luminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175,181 (1981).
9 e . en
/
l
~
90 1 l C _.
q
, . j W
- . e . .
1 i i 37 g, , y . a , 1 l
* -{
J MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j
. y I. INTRODUCTION /
s . This matter is before the Commission on a pleading filed by the Interveners regarding emergency medical services and described as a " Motion to Admit New ;
,~'
,' .' ,. ,' Contention." After due consideration, the Commission finds that the pleading in {
> '< . .. reality constitutes a motion to reopen a portion of the record that has been closed. ,
i Judged against the appropriate standard in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734, the Commission
. .~
e : finds that the pleading does not meet the standards required for that motion. . I
~
' - Accordingly, the motion is denied. This action is taken without prejudice to the
- Commission's pending consideration of whether Interveners' conduct in respects
.. other than the filing of this pleading warrants sanctions. See Commission's
. . c' Order in this Docket, November 9,1988 (unpublished).
J
. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 25,1987, Interveners New York State, Suffolk County, and tly.
Town of Southampton filed a " Motion . . . to Admit New Contention" with the Commission. The proposed contention alleged LILCO's noncompliance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12), which requires provision for emergency medical services for enntaminated injured individuals in the event of an accident at a nuc! car facility - in this case, Shoreham. The Interveners argued that their submission met the five factors that must be balanced in order to admit a late-filed contention. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1). LILCO responded that the motion was premature at that time because LILCO
.* had not yet responded to the generic criteria contained in FEMA Guidance Memorandum M.S.1, Medical Services ("MS-1"), dated November 13, 1986.
~
. LILCO argued that its response was not due until September 2,1987. Thus,
-'- LILCO concluded that there could be no siolation of that guideline until after that date because compliance was not required until that date.
1 *
. -" Furthermore, LILCO argued that the Interveners were attempting to reopen a
- closed record instead of filing a new contention and that even if the Commission
. .<- . were to ,iudge the motion under the latter standard, it would still be insufficient.
, Compare (2.734 with $ 2.714(a)(1). First, LILCO argued that the Licensing
. . Board had already rejected an identical contention and had closed the evidentiary record on this issue. Specifically, LILCO pointed out that on February 25,
- 1985, the Interveners submitted a late-filed contention on the arrangements for
medical services for contaminated individuals which was essentially identical 91
I m ' ' to the contention before us now.! The Licensing Board rejected that contention and subsequently closed the evidentiary record in the proceeding involving the f .
, Shoreham Emergency Plan. See LBP-85-12,21 NRC 644,651 (1985). While X -
~
.,,' the Licensing Board found a number of defects in the plan and declined to j 3 t,.
i authorize issuance of the requested license, none of the defects involved the
" subject of this proposed contention - medical services for contaminated injured
./
f , . . . [- individuals. LBP-85-31,22 NRC 410,429-31 (1985). l , T ' . a c , , LILCO then argued that the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's t decision not to admit the late-filed contention on this issue, citing ALAB-832, P * * ' *
. '..* . 23 NRC 135,143 (1986), and the Commission itself declined to take review of i' ' -
[# %, ' < y, , , , s . this issue. Therefore, according to LILCO, the record on this issue was closed at that point and the Interveners must meet the standards applicable to reopening
., a record - standards that the Interveners did not address.
Second, LILCO argued that even if the Commission viewed the motion as
*~
an attempt to submit a late-filed contention, the Interveners had failed to meet the five factors addressed in 9 2.714(a)(lj. The NRC Staff supported LILCO's
.: arguments.
c, -
, e The Commission took the matter under advisement, awaiting LILCO's re-sponse to MS-1 which is now on record. LILCO has now filed a supple-mecil pleading entitled " Renewed Opposition to Interveners' Proposed Con-tention . . ." which (1) argues that its purported compliance with MS 1 (as
; submitted in an attached affidavit) moots the Interveners' proposed contention, and (2) reasserts that the proposed contention does not address the applicable i
standard, i.e., the standard for reopening the record. LILCO's " Renewed Oppo-sition" does not argue that the tendered contention does not meet the standard for a late-filed contention. We are not clear whether this omission represents an abandonment of that argument or if it is simply an oversight on LILCO's part. The Interveners have responded by arguing that LILCO's " Renewed Op-position" sccks a summary disposition on the merits prior to the admission
', of the contention. The Interveners contend that under prior Commission de-
. cisions, a reviewing body cannot decide the merits of a contention while de-
, termining whether the proposed contention is admissible. Moreover, they argue that LILCO's response does not comply with Commission requirements for a motion for summary disposition. Additionally, they argue, LILCO has failed
?- -
to shoulder the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact in this potential dispute - a key element in any attempt at sum-
.c '
?' mary disposition. Finally, the Interveners argue that the pleading does meet the standard for a late filed contention. The Interveners do not respond to LILCO's I
The intervanors apparently submitted that contentaon m response to the decision m CUARD v. NRC. 753 F.2d 1144 (D C. Cir.1985). m which the Court vacated the Commission's pnar micrpretatmn of 150 47(b)(12). 92 1 j
i . {, - l ,..
~ -
..? .
/ \
,, .. '.. '~
- j. ,
3.- argument that the Commission should view their original motion as an attempt i: .n
', i to reopen the record.
~
- The Staff's response takes the position that the motion should be considered
" as a motion to reopen the record and argues that the motion does not meet those
, ,.f; ,; , - -
,y" - .
. , standards. The Staff also fails to address the late filed contention standards e .
raised by the Interveners.
- l. ,
[^,~c,.' , III. ANALYSIS
., ., t.
'c. ~
'" - The initial issue before us is whether the Interveners' motion must be judged
~1 -
against the standard for a motion to reopen a closed record found in 6 2.734
.- i? . . .
or the standard for submitting an untimely contention in an open record found
" E[-f/
- Y '. "
in 6 2.714(a)(1). We find that the evidentiary record was indeed closed on
; 7
..{. . ; ,
' - the Shorcham Emergency Plan as of August 29, 1984., LBP-85-12, upra,
" 21 NRC at 651. All additional emergency planning litigation has been in response to appellate decisions and superseding developments. In the instant
". pleading, Interveners scck to raise an additional issue and introduce additional factual material, i.e., MS.1 and LILCO's alleged noncompliance, into the record.
. Clearly, therefore, this effort constitutes a motion to reopen the record, not just to submit a newly proposed contention.
In order to prevail on a request to reopen the record, the movant mest demonstrate that (1) its motion is timely, i.e., that the issue it now seeks to raise could not have been raised earticr; (2) the motion addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) a materially different result would be cr would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered. 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734(a)(1)-(3). See, e.g., Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127,149-50 (1987). Furthermore. "[t]he motion must be accompanied by one or more affidavits
,. - which set forth the factual and/or technical basis for the movant's claim" that
, the three criteria noted above have been satisfied.10 C.F.R. 5 2.734(b). This
. . supporting material "must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. 0 2.714(b)
, 3 ,
for admissible contentions. Such supporting information must be more than 1 . mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence." Pacific Cas and Electric
~
Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775,19 NRC
. 1361,1366 (1984), aff'd sub nom. San Luis Obispo hiothersfor Peace v. NRC,
, , y 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), aff'd on reh'g en banc,789 F.2d 26 (1986),
cert. denied,479 U.S. 923 (1986). 1
, In this case, Interveners have failed to base their request upon any evidence, however slight. The Interveners' submission contains no affidavits at all, much less an affidavit as required in 6 2.734(b) describing (1) the Interveners' 93
,g satisfaction of the three factors enumerated in 6 2.734(a), and (2) the technical
, ^., *
, basis for the Interveners' proposed contention. Although the Interveners' v
_ , original motion indicates that additional information would be forthcoming, i.e., 7,.
,f',' .
" factual evidence and expert opinion will prove . . ." -(Interveners' Motion a *L.' , ' at 11), they have not submitted such information, even when faced with the
!c .
.,7 , , . . - second round of briefing initiated by LILCO's " Renewed Opposition" - and
"~
j .- 7 ,,,, '~ , after LILCO's and the Staff's initial responses should have placed them on
,. ,,,/
,F '
notice of this defect. "It is not enough merely to express a willingness to provide r
. .,,.. ,- - unspecified, additional information . . . at some unknown date in the future."
+. -
f-(.',('.* , . , Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85 7,
.s N' ' ~~ '
21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985), quoting Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321,1324 (1983).
. In sum, the Interveners have failed to comply with the Commission's 4' ' ' '
requirements for even considering a motion of this nature. Therefore, we must deny the motion to reopen the record.2
- +
It is so ORDERED. For the Commission 3 SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission
., 4 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2d day of February 1989
, , s. .
, r .
- r. ,- .
.
- 2 By denying the motion to reopen the record, we have not addressed the merits of the prop sed contention or LEfo's compliance with i50.47(b)(12), See Cleveland Electric /theminanas Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
, .. IJruts 1 and 2). L.BP-8124,14 NRC 175,181 (1981). If the Intervenas believe that sonous deficiencies sust in
*' , , the ares of emergency tradical services, they should appnse the staff of these deficiencies for its considerauon
, as part of the staff's review of uncontested issues.
3 Commissioner Curtiss did not panicipsic in this Order. l s 94 i l - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - _ . - - - . _ - - _ - - .- - _ . . _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - , - - - - ---------_------------------_.----------___.--.----.--_--------_,_a
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore Howard A. Wilber l i
! ~ . . 1, c - [ , L ,.. .
, s> -
~
- - + . e,
\; T
,~'
i -; ;, ,
,. *;, . j l; ; 2*.
. Cite as 29 NRC 95 (1989) - ALAB-910 j, q- ,. ; J. e, - , c ' ."f
, ,2 . ...
r . i
,1 * ,
; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s y .
.4.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i... - y,, ; Ae^ ' g '., ,, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 6 li,
.., .4
.y .. .
- t. Administrative Judges:
- + ,
'U,, .'.! . ,
> x' . - '
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ' 7; !;e * [ _'
.g ,j ~
Thomas S. Moore
.. . Howard A. Wilber
. ~
- .; -. f
; , e
-r
. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 OL
'O , . 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) February 8,1989 The Appeal Board forwards to the Commission for decision the interveners' motion for directed certification of a Licensing Board order establishing a hearing schedule for the remaining issues pending in the offsite emergency planning phase of this opemting license proceeding. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
. .- (SCIIEDULING ORDER) t' . .
, , The Appeal Board ordinarily will review a scheduling order on a motion for directed certification for the limited purpose of determining whether the schedule {
- 1. - , , set forth therein deprives a party of procedural due process. See ALAB-889,27 !
, NRC 265,269 (1988); ALAB-864,25 NRC 417,420-21 (1987); ALAB-858, ' - 25 NRC 17,20-2I (1987). t 7: ,
8 9 8t # I i 95 I a m _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ - - . _ _ _ - _ _ . - . _ _ _ - - - - . _ - - - - . _ _ - . - - - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - . . _ . - - _ _ . - - _ . . . _ - _ _ . _ - - - _ . . - _ - _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . - - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - - - . . . - - . - - - - _ - . _ _ _
1
)
\
d i i APPEARANCE p - R
. ',, : e'.-. . Allan R. Fierce, Boston, Massachusetts, for the interveners, Attorney General t of Massachusetts, et al. I
.' l'.' -
, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER e *.
.s On February 3,1989, three of the intervenorri filed a motion for directed )
. , certification of the January 24,1989 memorandum and order of the Licensing i, , Board establishing a hearing schedule for the remaining issues pending in the
. offsite emergency planning phase of this operating license proceeding.2 The ,
, gravamen of the motion is that the order violates procedural due process in that
]
r; , it establishes a schedule that is so compressed as to deny them a fair chance
~
y,6j . l'if ' both (1) to prepare and present their case on the issues now ripe for Licensing
+ . . Board adjudication; and (2) to brief all of the assertedly serious material errors Y ', ' '
, contained in that Board's December 30,1988 partial initial decision on the New Hampshire emergency response plan.2 On the same date, but presumably without knowledge of the interveners'
~*-
motion, the Commission issued a memorandum sua sponte in which it took note of the January 24 scheduling order. In that memorandum, the Commission went on to say: 4 t.itigation of emergency planning issues, pardcularly where state and local governments are
. not participating in planning efforts, can be a lengthy process. We are pleased, therefore, that a
the [Umnsing] Board is taking steps to bring this promeding to a close within a reasonable timeframe, taking into account the rights of the parties. 'Ihe Commission wishes to commend you and your colleagues for these efforts. Extrapolating from the Board's schedule, it would appear to us that September 50, 1989 would be a realistic target schedule for a finalinitial decision to be issued in this matter.' As we have previously observed in this proceeding, we will review a scheduling order on a motion for directed certification for the limited purpose of
. determining whether the schedule set forth therein deprives a party of procedural W ,
, . I no Attorney General of Massachuseus, the seacoast And Pouunon League, and the New England Coalidon on
,, , Nuclear Polluden.
. 2 34e 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i); Miic Service Co. ofNew Hampshire (seabrook stanon, Units 1 and 2). ALAB 271,1
* * . ~ NRC 478. 482 83 (1975).
3 i, 5se LDP-88 32,28 NRC 667. .
'ne Comminaion Wded that it desired to be nodried pmmptly should it become apparant to the Li e sc n ing Board that the September 30 date cannot be met 96 I
J
)
l i
e .,
' s' . -,
< % due process.5 In normal circumstances, then, we would have had no hesitancy
. ,; y: . . ,.,. . .
'.~ ' '
i . in undertaking to examine, immediately fo!'owing the receipt of responses from the other parties, the substance of the interveners' claim that the scheduling C - ~ 5 order at bar has such an effect. The Commission's February 3 memorandum
* ~
4
. constrains us, however, to adopt a different course.
) .i ', '
.. . . The Commission's endorsement in this fashion, and on its own initiative, of
?, 7, T. .
- y. a Licensing Board scheduling order is unusual if nct unprecedented. Given the -
J- -
' 1
, 2 1., *-
nature of the February 3 memorandum, we are unable to ascert:an whether the Commission's intention was to strip us of any review authority over the January
- - 24 scheduling order. It does appear, however, quite incongruous for us to pass
't.*
i ,
upon whether that order comports with 'due process in circumstances where the Commission has already expressed its opinion that the Licensing Board should
'-7 l^
i be " commend [ed]" for a " reasonable" action that took "into account the rights
'. of the parties."
Without awaiCng responses, we thereforeforward the pending directed certi-fication motion to the Commission for whatever disposition it deems warranted [ in the circumstances. Needless to say, notwithstanding its February 3 memoran- ! dum, the Commission remains free to return the motion to us for consideration on the merits. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Barbara A. Tompkins Secretary to the Appeal Board o
- , . ' s . ,
35u Al.AB-889,27 NRC 265. 269 0988); ALAB 864. 25 NRC 417,420 21 (1987); ALAB-858. 25 NRC 17, 2421 (t 987). 97 I 1
, i
\
i j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOArlD PANEL B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive) Frederick J. Shon, *Vice Chairman (Technica!) Members Dr. George C. Andersen Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Charles Bechhoefer* Jerry Harbour
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Peter 8. Bloch' Dr. David L. Hetrick Morton B. Margulies*
Glenn O. Bright' Ernest E. Hill Gary L. Milhollin Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr Frank F. Hooper Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter
- Helen F. Hoyt' Dr. Oscar H. Paris' Hugh K. Clark Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith
- Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Michael A. Kirk Duggan Dr. Martin J. Steindler ,
Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Seymour Wenner . Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til Sheldon J. Wolfe' John H Frye lil' Gustave A. Linenberger* James P. G!eason Dr. Linda W. Little ,
- Permanent panel members 0
g
- i. , ' . . -
, ,
- i t
;_ . a ,
c ._ 7 - t,.. w- :* g - '.N, 7
.=
.. e ..,
(- -+ ..; 4 ;d', ..;q f,7, <~.7 - E.y,. Cite as 29 NRC 99 (1989) LBP-89-5 ' . a p ; ,,.-.s y. .. 4 '. ;-. ,.s..- . . . . - ' 1
- +- .. >
, . t 2 .
)
.[' M J F ., c . ,W '
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA r . . .r .'" ~ - c.,.g.' ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;ll ~ . . ;,. c ",'q (. lr.' { [,, 9. ; *; , . %: :.,.y o . , '; -
- - .s
/$ 'T. . .;! .(l. $' ' *. : g : K.
,f,
p ' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
% .. ri W .N:c , . , e. .
? .
/ c, _
'G,a,si. f. .l :.', ,'-; ;,*' ' [.' ;
?a .,,.
Before Administrative Judges: g ? .'( g - .. ;. ' . , -. . , ,
~
ln J: ". ..f, ; / ,; ,
.. o. ,.
4' , " ' ', , y , . ( * > ', ;.ff ,' Morton B. Margulies, Chairman b ,,' ' ,*;" .,g:,i '
-l% Oscar H. Paris o . ,
. Frederick J. Shon
- f. .s .
^
s q . . ,
. '7 r-C', ;3=
.. . -. .- .., , '. '. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-603-CP/OL 50-604-CP .
(ASLBP Nos. 88-570-01 CP/OL
-~' '"
88 571-01 CP) ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE -
' ll. . ENRICHMENT, INC.
(AIChemlE Facility 1 CPDF; Facility 2, Oliver Springs) February 1,1989 < , y- '
. Although the Applicant does not intend to use the subject centrifuge machines for enriching uranium, because the machines are capable of doing so, they are
] , .
, " ' f ,.,.' dermed as a " production facility" and must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
~
Commission as provided by 6i11v and 101 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
- l , , .
as amended. i, , Where chemical hazards related to the production of stable isotopes are
. . , ,/ unrelated to materials licensed under the Atomic Energy Act and the hazards will j.1' , ,
, be subject to regulation by other agencies, the issues considered of importance
.. .,y1 , in licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are those associated with l/
"e . .- ( -'~ .',*- ensuring adequate protection of the common defense and security.
- e. N
^
'., , The exact nature of the precautions the licensco will take to provide physical
, , protection, material control, and accounting for special nuclear material will
. be withhcid from public disclosure in a licensing proceeding, pursuant to 10
. C.F.R. f 2.790(d)(1).
.m J
h_, _.mn-_m.u_. _
1 o a. APPEARANCES j
' 1
. Stephen A. Irving, Esq., Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the Applicant. -
~ .
, i -
* .Z ' ' ' '
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
+
~ Regulatory Commission, for the Staff.
.,.p- .
~
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 . 3. g
.- i * * ,
. . Page
, 1. SCOPE OF DECISION . ...........................101 IL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 e i A. Procedural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
. 'l B. The Pacilities and Equipment ......................... 103
, , C. Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 1
III. FINDINGS OF FACT ...................... .. ........ 107 A. Safety Analysis .................................... 107 B. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
. C. Safeguards Provisions . ............................. 109 s
. D. Protection of Classified Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 E. Financial Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 F. Environmental Law ........ ................. ..... 113 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................. 121 ;
4 V. O R D ER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 i P ATTACHMENT 1 - APPLICANT'S WITNESS LIST ............. 124
': i '
- v. ,
ATTACHMENT 2 - STAFF WTrNESS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4 , ATTACHMENT 3 - APPLICANT'S EXEIBIT LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 ATTACHMENT 4 - STAFF EXHIBIT LIST .... . ............ 125 s *
, 1 l
. 1 100
a
- . ,. 1. ,
, f, ,y. J ' l-INITIAL DECISION
+
.- e, '
1..
. J. s. ;. .[r .: . ",' '
I. SCOPE OF DECISION
.}. -
"I
, q' ,t In Docket No. 50-603-CP/OL, we determine that the construction permit y for which application was made should be issued to All Chemical Isotope j ( , , ' ', '
Enrichment Company, Inc. (AIChem!E or Applicant).
.l - The construction permit sought is to allow AlChemIE to modify an existing
.r- , .. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility for operation as a stable isotope enrichment production plant. The facility, the Centrifuge Plant Demonstration Facility is located on the federally owned Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant
.- site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Classified centrifuge machines, to be acquired l
*- from DOE, will be employed to enrich the stable isotopes that are to be
. used fc,r medical, industrial, environmental, and energy conservation purposes.
. . Because the equipment is capable of enriching uranium, although that is not the Applicant's intended purpose, the plant is defined as a " production facility"
"' ' ' nnd requires licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).
Applicant seeks authority to operate the facility for a period of 40 years. In Docket No. 50-604 CP, we find that the construction permit sought should
. be granted to AlChemIE.
. The construction permit applied for is to authorize Applicant to construct an additional facility at Oliver Springs, Tennessee, for use as a stable isotope enrichment production ' plant. The classified centrifuge machines for production of the stable isotopes will also be acquired from DOE. The machines, capable of enriching uranium, will be used for the same purpose as those at the Oak Ridge facility. The plant site in Oliver Springs, Tennessee, is nearby to Oak
, . Ridge, Tennessee.
All of the applications are unopposed. II. INTRODUCTION i A. Procedural llackground By applications filed November 17, 1987, with the Commission, AlChemIE
'~
, . seeks a permit to construct and a license to operate the AlChemIE Facility-1
'~
. ^ CPDF (Facility 1) and a permit to construct the AlChemIE Facility-2 Oliver
' , Springs (Facility 2). The NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in the Federal Register (53 Fed. Reg. 15,315-19) on April 28,1987, for each of the docketed applications. Licensing Boards, composed of identical members, were appointed on May 3,1988, to preside in the respective proceedings.
101 m____-_..2_______m.__ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
> (For simplicity in terminology, the Licensing Boards will be referred to in the singular.) The Licensing Board handled the proceedings on a consolidated l ,
,, record.
The only public response to the Notices of Opportunity for Hearing, was
~
from the State of Tennessee. The State on behalf of the Tennessee Department
- ' ' - of Health and Environment, through the Office of the Attorney General, filed f
a request to participate in the proceedings as an interested state pursuant to 10
' ^ . C.F.R. 6 2.715(c). The State of Tennessee withdrew its request to participate on s',, ? November 9,1988, after having had its interest satisfied by action of the parties.
On July 21,1988, a Special Prehearing Conference was held at Knoxville,
.' +
<' s Tennessee, and on July 27, 1988, a Special Prehearing Conference Order was issued summarizing the results of the conference. The key issues in the
. proceedings were identified. The Licensing Board found that there were no litigable issues involving the request for an operating license in Docket No. 50-
/ -.
603-CP/OL, no party having intervened.
, Applicant requested expeditious handling of the applications because of its desire to meet a contractual date made with the DOE for transferring the
, technology and to get the business venture under way. In advance of the hearing, t
., the Licensing Board reviewed Applicant's and Staff's evidence that was to be placed in the record of the unopposed proceedings. We submitted written inquiries to the parties when additional information and further review were needed on matters at issue. The inquirics and responses of the parties were reflected in the exhibits entered into evidence in the proceedings. Telephone conferences were held with the parties to expedite the prehearing and hearing process.
The applications went to hearing on January 4,1989, at Knoxville, Tennessee, following notice in the Federal Register. 53 Fed. Reg. 45,176-77, 49,617. I Although notification was given that limited appearance statements could be made at the January 4 session, nov was offered. Applicant and NRC Staff
> way of live witnesses and affidavits.
. presented evidence on the iss,.
Attached to this Initial Decision and made a part hereof are the following
. attachments: Attachment 1, Applicant's Witness List; Attachment.2, Staff's Witness List; Attachment 3, Applicant's Exhibit List; and Attachment 4, Staff's
. Exhibit List.
. Specific evidence of safeguard and security matters, considered to be propri-ctary under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.790(d)(1), was submitted by affidavit at the hearing.
., The exhibi:s were received in evidence but are not included in the pubuc record.
, They are kept in a nonpublic docket that is maintained by the Office of Nuclear 1 Material Safety and Safeguards.
. . During the course of the January 4 hearing, the Licensing Board requested that the Applicant produce additional financial information and that NRC Staff 102 l -
\ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - ___ _ _ _ -
. . \
l 1 f: j 3
.D'
.[' . ,
broaden its review of Applicant's financial qualifications. The hearing was then I . . '. . . . ; . [ -
,' ? - ,- continued to January 17,1989, at Bethesda, Maryland. j At the January 17 hearing, Applicant produced additional information 's to '
[* , . ' ~ 1i. ,(' , its finances, and NaC extended its review of Applicant's financial qualifications. L. .,
. ' O .. t ' O ,.'., <
The record was then closed.
" [ .,.
', 'l ,
i; This is not a contested proceeding within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 52.4(n) as
+ J. ,
there is no controversy between the Staff and the Applicant concerning issuance
? it.? '- .','
, ,g ,
of the construction permits or concerning their terms or conditions and there is
-f , ,
". ,c.% : no intervenor in the proceedings.
. ,. , ' .,,j;F ,
; ~
Applicant and NRC Staff were requested to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of a proposed initial decision by January 23, 2 1989. The parties filed a joint document in response to the request.
. ,', H. The Facilities and Equipment
' AlChemIE Pxility I was previously used as a centrifuge plant demonstration facility by the DOE, at which tests were conducted with the machines in enriching uranium and some stable isotopes. Applicant will lease the facility
. located on the federal reservation at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and purchase the 120 centrifuge machines, which are classified.
As a result of the DOE tests, the centrifuge machines and associated piping are slightly contaminated with uranium. The uranium is fixed tightly to the machines and piping and is not available for dispersal,
. AIChemlE Facility I has already been totally constructed and operated. Only
, , minor building and equipment modifications are necessary for AlChemIE to commence operations. It is estimated that the earliest date for completion of
, the modification of the Oak Ridge facility would be in February and the latest in May 1989.
AIChemlE Facility 2 will be a new plant The plant will be a steel frame structure with aluminum siding and metal interior walls. The facility will be
, located on a 20-acre industrial park site being developed by the City of Oliver
. , ,. Springs within its corporate limits. Approximately 120 gas centrifuge machines
, will be at the location at startup, and the plant will have a capxity estimated at
., ... 600 machines. The site is within 7 miles of Facility 1.
, ,. . The machines that AIChemlE intends to use at Oliver Springs have been
.( ,- constructed and tested by DOE. They were originally intended for use by the s
. DOE at its Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant site at Piketon, Ohio. AIChemlE
-l will transport the machines from Piketon to the Oliver Springs facility.
AlChemlE expects it will take between 30 and 36 months to complete the
! Oliver Springs site. It would start construction in March 1989.
103
C. Regulatory Requirements
- Because of the unusual nature of the subject facilities, they do not readily
.~ .
fall within the Commission's regulatory scheme and its regulations.
. .. ; s . The enriching of stable isotopes per se is not within the Commission's regulatory authority. However, any equipment or device capable of enriching
-
- uranium is defined as a " production facility" and must be licensed by the NRC
.< .; , 47 ', - ', .,
as provided in illly and 101 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 7, ' ',g* - Because the centrifuge machines AlChemIE will obtain from DOE for use at
,_'p - ,, .'
. both facilities are capable of enriching uranium, their possession and use must be licensed by the Commission. The NRC regulations that govern the licensing l '
of production facilities are found in 10 C.F.R. Pan 50.
, ,. The Commission is authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to regulate the commercial use of radioactive materials. The Com-mission may also exercise jurisdiction over hazardous materials intimately as-
, ( ,
sociated with radioactive materials under its jurisdiction. The Staff concluded prior to noticing the applications of opportunity for
,x , hearing that although some of the machines are slighdy contaminated with uranium, the safety implications of the quantities are negligible and would be
.' adequately controlled by routine licenses granted under Parts 40 and 70. It decided that in this case the chemical hazards related to the production of stable isotopes are unrelated to materials licensed under the Atomic Energy Act and that such hazards would be subject to regulation by other agencies, such as
., the Environmental Protection Agency under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, s
The Staff advised the Commission in making its recommendations on noticing the applications in the Federal Register of opportunity for hearing that the Commission should not exercise any authority it may have over chemical hazards that may arise from operation of the machines to produce nonradioactive
~
materials; that the only licensing issues of importance in connection with such a license are those associated with ensuring adequate protection of common defense and security (safeguard issues); and that Notices of Opportunity for Hearing should be issued that are specifically tailored to ensure that the review is limited to issues relating to common defense and security and to National Environmental Policy Act findings. Federal Register Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on AlChemIE Applications, SECY 88 88, Appendix A to Staff Exhs. 2A and 28. The Commission Notices of Opportunity for Hearing published in the Federal
, , Register followed Staff's recommendations. 53 Fed. Reg. 15,317-19.
The issues set forth in the Notice for the construction permit application for
~
the Oak Ridge facility, in Docket No. 50-603-CP/OL, were stated to be: 1 104 l
l l e . . .
. , , a .
'I
- ,o
, m. . i . . .: .3 , 1 . - , , .,. . ,,;: ; d, if c. .'.%; ..
",j f, , 1. Whether, in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.34, the L ' , , O 1.., ,i
- b .j Applicant has described the proposed design of the facility including, l U. .: .A but not limited to, the principal architectural and engineering criteria
,.g., y ; , ,. -
, ..' y ,lL for the design, and has identified the major features or components L ,* ' , i 'J
, N , , ' O .j incorporated therein to ensure adequate protection of the common
, ( .. g ,y- ' 71- defense and security;
}".pl.^ ,' ",. ,K ( ,* , .' :i. .. , .*
- 2. Whether the Applicant is technicauy and financially qualified to e . o ,.e modify the existing facility in such a v/ay as to ensure adequate
(, , m,. .ar ,s., , protection of the common defense and security; . q Whether the issuance of a construction permit authorizing the mod. 3.
^
' \" ,
4 4- ification of the facility will be inimical to the common defense and 1 _;, f .. < security; and o - j, 4 Whether, in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51, ! the construction permit should be issued as proposed. i
- , The construction permit issues in Docket No. 50-604-CP as set forth in the -
' N . *'a - - . - - Notice are identical to those stated above for Docket No. 50-603-CP/OL, except (.,* -
. the latter involves the modification of an existing facility and the former the construction of a proposed facility.
The Licensing Board was directed in the Notices of Opportunity for Hearing that should the construction permit applications be unopposed, as has occurred,
. it will determine the following without conducting a de novo evaluation of the applications: (1) Whether the applications and the record of the proceedings
, contain sufficient information and whether the Commission staff's review of the applications has been adequate to support the proposed findings to be made by
^
the Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety on issues 13, above, and to suppon insofar as the Commission's requirements under the Act are concerned, the issuance of the construction permits proposed by the
, , f Director; and (2) whether the NEPA reviews the Commission's staff conducted have been adequate.
e
' ~
The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, in Docket No. 50-603-CP/OL, for
, Facility 1 also provided that upon completion of the modification of the facility
, [ ' ' ' ,. '
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the
, . construction permit and the application, as amended, and in the absence of good cause to the contrary, the Commission will issue to the Applicant, without -
-e
- . ',~ .
. additional prior notice, a class 103 facility license authorizing operation of the-facility.
\
No petition to intervene as a party was filed as to the application for an operating license. Nothing has come to the attention of the Licensing Board that would constitute good cause for not issuing the operating license. As stated previously, the proposed facilitics for which construction permits
.' are sought do not readily fit within the Commission's regulations. Applicant 105 i e
_.__________-____._m _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
I O
-l and Staff drew up a list of nonapplicable sections of 10 C.F.R. Part 50. In most instances the sections only apply to nuclear reactors. We agree with the parties
. , _ 7 ,. . o that the cited sections do not apply to the plants proposed. Staff Exhs. 2A and l
2B at 4 In three instances, Staff concluded that while certain sections of Part 50 ap- ,
.,- plied generally to the proposed facilities, as a practical matter they do not require l
,c.. . any action in response from Applicant. Staff states that 10 C.F.R.150.34(a)(8) C/.k ' [ .r requires no action because it involves matters relating to research and devel-opment and that no research and development is part of Applicant's proposal;
., *f, . ,
1
, ,' that Applicant has provided technical specifications in the area of safeguards, which under the narrow scope of the proceeding are the only technical speci-
. * ,3 fications that need be provided under 10 C.F.R.150.36; and that whereas 10
*- C.F.R. 5 50.42(a) requires that the proposed activities serve a useful purpose proportionate to the quantities of special nuclear material or source material to be utilized, there is no such material available for a useful purpose and there- l r . fore the proposed activities need not serve a useful proportionate purpose. Staff
. , Exhs. 2A and 2B at 5,6. We find Staff's position to be meritorious and agree
^ -
with its conclusions. The Commission, through the Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, on December
. 20, 1988, granted to Applicant an exemption from the requirements of 10 s '
C.F.R. il 50.34(a)(10), 50.34(b)(6)(ii), and Appe'ndix E to Part 50, which address the subject of emergency planning for production and/or utilization facilities. In granting the exemptions the Commission found that since the only radioactive material under consideration is the uranium firmly fixed to the centrifuge machines, there is no potential radiological hazard for which emergency planning is necessary.2 In making the following findings of fact, in accordance with the Corr. mission
. , instructions contained in the Notices of Opportunity for Hearing, the Licensing
. Board reviewed and considered the entire record and all proposed findings of
. fact and conclusions of law submitted jointly by the parties. Findings of fact and
, .. conclusions of law not incorporated directly or inferentially herein ire rejected as being unsupported by the evidence of record, or as unnecessary to the rendering of the Initial Decision.
l
. 3 sections 50.10(e); 50.21; 503)(8) and (i). 50 33a(a) through (d); 50.34(a)(3), (4). (5), (7), and (l I); 5034(b)(1).
(2), (4), (5). (6)(ii). (ui) (w). (vu) (8), (9); 5034(f), (g); 5034a; 5036a; 50.41; 50.43; 50.44; 50.46; 50.47; I 50.48; 50.49; 50.54(a). (i), (i 1), (j), (k). 0), (rn) (o) (q), (r). (s), (t). (u). (w). (y). (z). (bb); 50.55(e)(1) (f); 50.55a; 50.57(c); 50.60; 50.61; 50.62; 50.64; 50.7)(b)(2); 50.71(e); 50.72; and 50.73. 2 FoUowing the close of the heanns on January 19.1989. the Commission on its own iruustive, exempted Apphcant from the financial protecuan and indemnity recuaements of 10 C.F.R. Part 140. The Commission deternuned that
. the exempuons will not present an undue nsk to the pubbe health and safety and are consuasnt with the common defense and secunty.
l 106 9 m
E 4 s-
.i , ,
.~ -
. ., s. ,
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
' . . ., .. , 'u . -
,. - , i, *
\m , , ,. ,, l' A. Safety Analysis
'., ,' ' \.
, . , .. [ 1. The Applicant submitted Applicant's Exhibit 1, which contains safety C, i j. *, .
analysis reports for both Facility I and Facility 2. The Staff's review of thesc
/ '5' ' . . i . ', documents led to Staff's Exhibits 2A and 2B, Safety Evaluation Reports related
.,'h . - -
] - f ', ' to the applications for construction permits for Facilities I and 2, respectively.
i
.. , .a 2. From a safety standpoint, the Commission has jurisdiction over these
' I' ? ~ ..
facilities only to the extent they present radiological hazards resulting from
. a isotopes that fall under the Commission's regulatory purview. In its review, the s'
', ,, ? Staff concluded that the only such radioactive materials that could be involved in the construction or operation of the two facilities were the slight residues of
(' ' '
, uranium contamination in the form of UO2F2 clinging to the interior surfaces of the machines. The Staff notes that the DOE has already established that
., -.". . this material does not carry over either in product or tails in tests that involved
~
. the separation of stable isotopes. Staff Exhs. 2A and 2B at 5, 8, C-2. The
]
Staff also notes that AIChemlE will sample and analyze both products and tails during operation to ensure that no uranium carries over. Id. at 8.
~
. 3. Nor does any accident seem likely to release appreciable quantities of umnium. The Applicant has analyzed likely accidents from both plants.
. Appl. Exh.1, Tab 50-603 at 61 ff., Tab 50-604 at 7-1 ff. The Staff's review affirms this. Staff Exhs. 2A and 2B at 8.
- 4. The Staff also reviewed the potential for the enrichment of naturally
, occurring radioisotopes other than uranium (although the Commission does not, in fact, regulate these) and found that their enrichment " presents no radiological hazard, either to the workers in the plant or to the public." Id. at 11-12.
, , 5. The Commission would be concerned, of course, if the process here
,, , , involved presented the potential for inadvertent criticality. The Applicant's Safety Analysis. assures us that it does not, for the quantity of uranium as fixed contamination in any machine is less than that which can be made critical under any conditions of geometry or moderation. Appl. Exh.1, Tab 50-603 at 6-1, '
Tab 50-604 at 7-4.8
- . . ,' , 6. The Applicant has described and the Staff has reviewed the provisions
-' for disposal of radiologically contaminated and classified wastes. Appl. Exh.1,
, i -*
Tab 50-603 at 5-1, Tab 50-604 at 6-1; Staff Exhs. 2A and 2B at 12. The major
~
portion of these wastes will consist of failed rotors (devices of classified design presently contaminated by uranium). The Staff concluded that the Applicant's 3 With respect to the general radiological hazard that this plant might present to us surroundings. we note that the Appbcant requested (on August 17. 1988) and the Commtssion granted (on December 20, 1988) an esemption i fmm 10 C.F.R. Il50.34(a)(10), 50.34(b)(6)(v), and Appendia E to Pan 50. These are regulauons gwermns the provisions a licensee must make for the protecuan of the pubbc in the event of a radiological emergency. 107 9 9
gI
.k . ' li ,
s Hk. . D, . . plan to dispose of these items through DOE is appropriate. Staff Exhs. 2A and lg >
.E ' '
2B at 12; Appendix D. The Board expressed its concern that there might be some
- y : 7,, (, , , , t.s * ' , 3l - question regarding the method of disposal if contaminated classified equipment
"- ~*
m , were contaminated with anything other than uranium, since Applicant's general-
.., pF ,
j .' c,.- f,?, intent was to return classified waste to DOE, and DOE had by letter declined P. Q. .? ." a W '
. to accept waste containing hazardous material other than uranium. Board Letter
, E f.y .
- ! . 'c , E.' of November 16,1988, citing DOE Letter, Appendix D to Staff Exhs. 2A and-4 -
2B. The Staff, in its reply (Staff Exh. 6 at 2), noted that such wastes could be
;' .% p / 7{, ',f, , -J' g
,'[.4 f 'M
'J;N 'A '(( W. ' y; , .
,E-commercially decontaminated by properly cleared personnel (although perhaps -
at some extra expensc) and further noted that the Applicant's plan at present was '
.c e .
,. / .
to store such wastes until they could be declassified. The Applicant's witness,. C " 7':, - * ,- ,, Chief Executive Officer Smelser, testified that the plan was indeed to store,
'(
.* declassify, and then decontaminate such waste. Tr. 214-18.
- 7. Finally, the Staff has addressed decommissioning and concluded that.
,j,'>. .
'y '_ the contaminated machinery can be disposed of adequately at end of life. Staff
.. . ? ,
Exhs. 2A and 2B at 13.
. . 8. We have reviewed the evidence introduced in this case and we conclude
>*.c.
. f." that the information supplied by the Applicant is sufficient to enable the Staff ~
, . . s to reach sound conclusions concerning those aspects of the facilities' safety that are within the purview of the Commission's authority. We further agree that the conclusions drawn by the Staff from the material so supplied are sound ones:
f, ' The construction of Facilities 1 and 2 can be carried out without undue hazard
, to the health and safety of the public.
. 9. The Licensing Board finds that the Applicant has provided sufficient 2- information relative to the safety of the facilities and that the Staff's review of j a that information is adequate.
c , B. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
- 10. In accordance with 5182b of the Atomic Energy. Act of 1954, as
. amended, and 10 C.F.R. 5 50.58, the applications were referred by the Staff to
.'r. ',
*'- the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) for review and report.
The ACRS reviewed the application and on October 6,1988, considered the application .-t its 342d meeting. R>llowing the meeting, the ACRS issued a letter report to the Chairman of the NRC in which the ACRS stated its support
' - ~
for the issuance of the license, subject to the implementation of the planned .
, . . safeguard and security controls. 'Ihe letter recited that the NRC Staff has
,f ' expressed satisfaction with Applicant's proposed safeguard program, and the ACRS has no reason to disagree. (Appendix E to Staff Exhs 2A and 2B).
108 l _L__-___x_--__-- _
1 y _. a.
.s- >
. s.-
1,.' ' ' , , ' , , . , . .
".. C. Safeguards Provisions 4 11. Clearly there are two aspects of the safeguarding of special nuclear
,?
S
. [, . .
- material that might be impacted by the licenses at bar. First, some of the material
. ' . C .,
t , previously separated by DOE might fall into the wrong hands. Second, the
, e - "
.- ~ ,, , -
machines might be surreptitiously used to separate fissile isotopes. Measures to b .
.- l protect against these possibilities have been addressed in Applicant's Proprietary l ...- ' - .
.- Exhibit 1 (Appl. Exh. P-1) and in Staff's Proprietary Exhibits 1 through 4 (Staff p '.....-
* / .'. Exhs. P-1 through P-4).
', - . u. - -
- 12. The exact nature of the precautions taken to provide physical protection,
, material control, and accounting for special nuclear material has been withheld f ,' ' .
- from public disclosure in this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.790(d)(1).
'~
,. We note, however, that the only special nuclear material that the Applicant will
- .J be licensed to possess will be the fixed contamination and the internal surfaces of the contaminated machines. Staff Exhs. 2A and 2B at 14. Further, receipt
'3, .....
l on site of any fissile rnaterial at any concentration will be prohibited by the '^* ** *
. conditions of the license. Id.
1 .. 13. Precautions have been proposed by the Applicant and reviewed by the Staff to preclude access to the separation machines by unauthorized personnel
, and to preclude the bringing on site or shipment off site of any unauthorized
, special nuclear material. Appl. Exh. P-1; Staff Exhs. P-1 through P-4. The Board has examined those documents and generated a series of inquiries
_ regarding them. Those inquiries have been answered to our satisfaction. Staff Exh. P-2. We have also inquired into and received adequate assurance ! concerning the precautions to be taken while shipping classified safeguards-telated equipment from the point of origin to site. Id.
~
14 The Applicant is technically qualified to perform the safeguards func-
, , tions required by the plan, and, indeed, many of those functions can be per-formed without specialized training. Staff Exhs. 2A and 2B at 14. It will be a condition of licensing that all necessary safeguards and security structures be in
. .,.', place, that all safeguards and security functions be understood, that staffing be
. adequate, and that all appropriate training be complete before equipment capable of enriching uranium is installed. Id. The activities proposed to be conducted
, under the licenses will be within the jurisdiction of the United States. All of the directors and principal officers of the Applicant are U.S. citizens. AlChemlE !
is not owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a
, foreign governmenL Appl. Exh.1. I
- 15. The Licensing Board finds that the Applicant has provided sufficient information relative to the proposed safeguards provisions for these facilities
., i, ,
and that the Staff's review has been adequate to ensure the protection of the common defense and security. i I 109 4 s l l
{ ,w lL> , , u , 'r i Y h? , ,
, D. Protection of Classified Information
;A
[ , lZ , ,
- 16. The Applicant has submitted information regarding the protection of g t ,-- -
classified information in its Security Plan for both facilities. Appl. E*.h. PA T;te
~ : (e ,
g . Staff has reviewed that plan. h .E Exhs. P-1, P 3. The nature of the centrifuge - Qw]Q, ,j~ [; . .
~
machines is such that certain information concerning them must be controlled in l XE J.' ... , accordance with Chapter 12 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and ' 't t'y "
.' ! with Executive. Orders 10,865 and 12,356. Procedures for obtaining approval 1 7j ,
. l f; %
, . '. t ' . for facilities that licensees use for protecting classified information are set forth -
. 7;:,'. 9 in 10 C.F.R. Part 95, " Security Facility Approval and Safeguarding of National
. .e
;' .' N Security Information and Restricted Data." '.. .
- 17. . The Licensing Board considers the details of the methods and proce-
~ _,' ,' 5.
- t. ,I., .
*' dures used by the Applicant to comply with the requirements of Part 95 to be ~
~~* , ; - , . ,- : proprietary, and we will accordingly not discuss them iri these findings. Never-
, . ' theless, we have reviewed the relevant information and we agree with the Staff's
, t .'. '.7 conclusion that proper compliance can be. attained.
U-
?
i E. Financial Qualifications
, 37.,,
~ '
s
- 18. The Applicant submitted financial data covering its current and pro -
. . posed activities. Letter of September 12, 1988, from Smelser to Thompson, Appl. Exh. 3. Staff's review of Applicant's financial qualifications was issued
- on December 29,1988, as nonproprietary Supplements to the Safety Evaluation Reports. Attachments to Staff Exh. 8.
', 19. Chief Executive Officer Smelser testified as to Applicant's finances on ,
.c January 4,1988. 'IY.188 et seq. Based on the testimony and Staff's written -
,. review, the Licensing Board requested Applicant to submit additional and more specific evidence on the issue of Applicant's financial qualifications and for -
- . Staff to further review Applicant's qualifications, more in accordance with 10.
C.F.R. I 50.33(f) and Appendix C to Part 50. Tr. 260 et seq.
+
?.0. Additional written testimony was filed by Applicant on January 9,1989, and by Staff on January 13,1989. Appl. Exh. 4t Staff Exh.10.; Applicant and Staff witnesses presented testimony on Applicant's financial qualifications at
. the continued hearing on January 17,1989. Tr. 289 et seq. The information
, presented at the continued hearing was current and precise. It was 'made clear that Staff's standard of review for these applications was the standard applicable to newly formed entities under Appendix C, i11, to Part 50 of 10 C.F.R.
4- .
- 21. The information submitted by Applicant and the review conducted by .
' ~
- Staff established the following:
- a. AlChemlE is a newly formed, investor-owned entity, organized for J,, '
~
' ,, , , . the primary purpose of engaging in the licensed activities, it has no corporate affiliates or parent companies. AlCtenWE was initially.-
110 h m___m_________.______________.___..______t.____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
e
. g , , ..
L, - ,i. - : > >
+
-. n s . c - '
i 47 4
,, , s
- 1. , 3. .
., e -
W -. i.7?, ,
,! t
-: . *s. ! 7*a 1* s
_y 6
- s. . '- * - .' . ' -., f
% x g .p y[, ,'[,, ; 7 j' M b./, .Q ,
j% 4.p7,,- : p.;C' Jlf.. , - - ' funded through a combination of stock sales and loans. Attachments i
. j
.N ..
.% C
' " - to Staff Exh,8.
[ '. .;]"' lt .. f. .
. .. . g ( ,N
<".~
- b. Applicant's most recent balance sheet, December 31; 1988, shows it' has assets of $127,718,827, liabilities of $51,225,695, and a stock-
[Q..' y .r" ;y']? ' ,.,y e.
.,% % .4
* ] ,
' c.g. . / (., ,
- l. ,
holders' equity of $76,493,122. . The stockholders' equity includes equipment equity in the amount of $74,900,000. ' Appl. Exh. 4, Tab
}.,% 'M ds~'. . f,* * ' ,. ,1 ' ' . ,
- [y " December 31,1988 Balance Sheet."
- c. A pro forma cash flow statement for 5 years shows total cash .
;%.* ;
- 5 ., ., i
.; .s from t.Il sources of $181,450,000. Sources include: isotope sales,.
l ., ., . f fj , * . ~ [ %. , , 'i ~ - l ' ' ' 3
$153,000,000; . fixed-asset sales, $28,000,000;' and ' bank loans q
l- - 1 41 *
,~
, i $450,000. The 5 year cumulative gain on operations is reported.to :
K ; , j _ 7. , f. 4 .- ,
+
., be $112,365,991. Id., Tab "5 year Proforma (projected)."
r; e ; 8 %,. g 7.. ;, ,
.' d. The cost of modifications at Facility 1 is placed at $376,000. Ptmds -
. .; . i ,,,
s , ~ .. . . . are expected to be obtained from the sale of surplus equipment and/or j .a
.,.,.'p.*
borrowed from banks, . Id., Tab " Construction Cost Tscilities 1 and
*/ '* 7 .-
L ,
, , 7 L.
s'c e ' 'E . f ' -
. r, e. The estimated cost of construction of Facility 2 will' be $32,875,000.
- s. Sources of the construction funds would be: a grant from the State of G Tennessee, $459,000; an urban development action loan, $2,000,000;;
sales of surplus equipment, $11,500,000; and profit from isotope ; L- I ' " . sales, $24,479,144. Bank funding would be obtained if required. /d. -
* ' f. AlChemIE estimates that the initial capital costs for the safeguards
~7 *~. -'
systems at each of the facilities will be less than $100,000. Monthly - operating costs for the systems are estimated to be approximately b $44,000 for Facility 1 and $19,000 for Facility 2. Applicant has ob-tained a standby letter of credit from a bank in the amount of $517,050 -
^
to provide additional assurance that decontamination and disposal of the centrifuge equipment will be accomplished. Attachments to Staff
-4 ' '
, y [!. '
Exh. 8 at 3. s ,
'j..,'.v' 22. Staff's review was based on the premise that (1) if the classified in-
'. / *
. , formation related to the centrifuge machines is protected, and (2) if the machines
; 'o '
are adequately prevented from enriching uranium, then the common defense and security will be protected. The review consisted of evaluating the financial in-i- .- .,.- formation provided by the Applicant to demonstrate how items (1) and (2) will I[ , ,,' , ' be satisfactorily achieved. Staff reviewed AIChemIE's financial qualifications to fulfill NRC safeguards requirement including physical security requirements
~f*- *
. - - and measures for the protection of classified information. Applicant provided
; , " *1 l .
the information upon which the review was based including the identification 4+ . ; , , . i of sources upon which AlChemIE relies for the necessary funding. Id. ut 2.-
- 23. Staff concluded in its review that Applicant demonstrated that it pos.
/ . , sesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds required for the modifi-
. cations to Facility 1 and that it is financially qualified to make the modifications.
t 111 J _i ___1____.___.___._____________________.___.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
4 Funding would come from saleable surplus equipment (appraised at S28 million)
. v. and from bank financing, if needed. Staff Exh.10.
, j 24. It further concluded that: (1) AIChemlE has demonstrated reasonable
. '. ,. ,' assurance of ob'aining the funds needed to decontaminate and dispose of the
, , * * ], , centrifuge equipment as required; and (2) Applicant also has demonstrated that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to 1 1 .,.,y,.. . fulfill NRC safeguards requirements including physical security requirements E<
- ' 1. ,,, and measures for the protection of classified information and that AlChemIE 1 '.
. is financially qualified to construct the proposed facilities in such a way as to
- . . ensure adequate protection of the cormon defense and security. Attachments
'. , to Staff Exh. 8 at 4 and Staff Exh.10..
. 25. As to Facility 2, Staff, in its review, found that Applicant's fmancial
; ..' ability to construct the plant is based to a significant degree on the success of
, , isotope production at Facility 1, profitable sales of the isotopes, and additioral
, - sales of substantial amounts of surplus unclassified equipment. Staff concluded
*J that if the events do occur as planned, then the Applicant has a reasonable financing plan for Facility 2 construction costs and would be financially qualified
( - to construct the facility under 10 C.F.R. i50.33(0 and Appendix C to Part 50.
,. Staff Exh.10.
- 26. Moreover, as to the lesser amounts of funding needed for Facility
, 2 to fulfill safeguard requirements including physical security requirements and measures for the protection of classified information as well as for the decontamination of centrifuge equipment, Staff found Applicant's financing assumptions to be reasonable, it concluded that AIChemlE possesses or has reasonable assumnce of ocoining the necessary funding for these costs. As
- i a result, AlChemIE is financially qualified to construct the facilities in such a way as to ensure adequate protection of the common defense and security.
Attachments to Staff Exh. 8 at 4 and Staff Exh.10.
- 27. The Staff applied a correct standard for determining whether Al-ChemIE's financial qualifications enable Applicant to fulfill NRC safeguard re-quirements, in modifying and constructing the respective facilities, so as to
,', >- ensure adequate protection of the common defense and security.
- 28. It is readily apparent that because of the small amount of funding required, Applicant is financially qualified to modify Facility 1 in its entirety as proposed, including those areas involving safeguards.
, 29. Staff, in its review, conditionally forecast Applicant's financial ability to construct Facility 2 in its entirety ($32,875,000) because a major part of the
- sum is dependent upon profits from Facility I which is yet to operate. It did conclude that the Applicant demonstrated that it was financially able, because of
,4 ; ,
its ability to acquire the much lesser funding necessary to fulfill NRC safeguards requirements for Facility 2 and, therefore, was financially qualified to construct the proposed facility so as to ensure adequate protection of the common defense 112
-?" .
s
' ,, and security. Id.,'IY. 320-23. The Staff's conclusions are rensonably based and
, . . , we concur in its finding.
- 30. Based upon the foregoing, the Licensing Board concludes that the
.', +. ' -
< applications and the record of the proceedini. contain sufficient information and
,J ' 'y,- that the Commission's Staff review of the applications has been adequate to
= ,
3 ., support the finding that the Applicant is financially qualified to modify and
,,,', construct the respective facilities in such a way as to ensure adequate protection
.,- ,.- , .< of the common defense and security.
_,- .r . ~-
- F. Environmental Review
. ,' .. i 31. The Staffissued on September 8,1988, an " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the AlChemIE Facility 1 CPDF"
~ '
and an " Environmental Assessment Related to Construction of the AlChemIE
- '? Facility 2 Oliver Springs." Staff Exhs. IA and IB. Underlying the Staff's
'~ * ', Environmental Assessments was AIChemIE's Environmental Report for each of the facilities. Appl. Exh. 2.
- 32. On October 3,1988, the NRC Staff published in the Federal Register a " Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction
, and Operation of the AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF and Finding of No Signifi-cant Impact, Docket No. 50-603, All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc." (53 Fed. Reg. 38,806) and " Notice of. Issuance of Environmental Assessment Re-lated to the Construction of the A!ChemIE Facility 2 Oliver Springs and Finding of No Significant Impact, Docket No. 50-604 All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc." (53 Fed. Reg. 38,805). Included in Staff Exhs l A and IB.
- 33. Our findings also take into account the Board's request for additional information, da:ed October 18, 1938, and the Staff's response thereto (Staff
* ~
~
Exhs. 3 and 5), and the Board's Inqt.iries of November 16,1988, and the Staff's
- c. '
Response thereto. Staff Exh. 6. We consider these responses to be amendments to the Staff's Environmental Assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact. Facility 1
,. 34. As has been noted, supra. Facility I was previously used by the DOE
, , i as a Centrifuge Plant Demonstration Facility (hence, CPDF), and is located at
. the site of the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Thus the facility is already constructed and has been operated. In addition to tests conducted with uranium,
* ~ .
the machines have also been used to enrich some stable isotopes. As a result of these DOE tests, the centrifuge ma:hines and associated piping have been
, slightly contaminated with uranium. Because the tests were to demonstrate enrichment, some of the uranium contamination is enriched in the uranium-235 113 l
]
l i l l 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]
(
, isotope. Some modification of the building and its machinery will be necessary for AIChemlE's operations, but the construction period is expected to be very short. Staff Exh. IA at 2.
[ EnvironmentalImpacts at Facility 1
-U '
- 35. The Staff's Environmental Assessment states that the local environment
' - N "
is a well-characterized industrialized area with an established buffer zone. The industrialized area has utilities and waste management services to support'the facility's needs for steam, sanitary water, and electric power. Id. !
- N ~
,- 36. The exterior of the CPDF facility will be modified only slightly to meet AlChemIE's requirements. Existing centrifuge equipment will be used to process various chemical compounds, some of which are considered toxic or hazardous. Id.
- 37. Air Emissions Permit. AlChemIE has filed for an air emissions permit
' with the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment (TDHE). While the feed material and processing rate information have not been completely defined,
~3 the Staff used available information to perform an analysis which indicates that material releases due to normal operations are expected to be environmentally acceptable. Id.
- 38. Feed Materials. In Table 2.1 of its Environmental Assessment of Facility 1, the Staff lists a total of forty feeds that AlChemIE is planning or considefi ng for processing in Facility 1. Of the forty feeds listed, twenty-six have toxic or hazardous properties either of the material or of its textion products.
The Staff states that AlChemIE has indicated that it will use material safety data sheets and other data supplied by the manufacturers of the feed chemicals to develop handling, operating, and safety procedures, which are normal industrial precautions to protect workers and the environment when handling the material. Id. at 9-10.
- 39. Wastewater. AlChemIE wastewater (primarily sanitary water) will bc
, / discharged through the existing Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant wastewate'r
, treatment plant which is currently covered by a National Pollutions Discharg Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES limits will not have to be
', modified to accommodate AIChem1E's wastewater. AlChemIE's nonhazardous and hazardous / toxic solid and liquid wastes will be transferred to appropriate existing DOE, municipal, and commercial waste management operations which already have the necessary permits. Id. at 3. The sanitary wastewater is not expected to contain any radiological or toxic materials. Id. at 28.
~
- 40. Accidental Releases. The Staff's analysis of potential accidental re-kases of material from the process indicates that the offsite concentration of toxic materials will be less than the time weighted average threshold limit val-ues (TWA-TLV) which have been established by the American Conference of 114 I
p , e , ,
' ~
. .../ .
s .y
'T -
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Exposure of the population to
- 1 i toxic material emissions in concentrations below these limits will not result in
,I [', * ' . 4 any adverse health and safety effects. Id.
q'- ,,, , '
< a , :, . 41. In the All Chemical Isotope Enrichment Inc. Facility 1 - CPDF Environmental Report (Appl. Exh. 2), AlChemIE states that it considered the
., L '
worst-case accident scenario to be the rupture of a 150-kilogram feed cylinder of a mercury feedstock compound on the loading dock of that facility. AlChemIE 5 , ,.
,,, went on to state that the safety and environmental impacts of such an accident could be mitigated by requiring that protective clothing and a respirator be worn
. . by personnel and by having an enclosed loading dock which could prevent mercury release to the environment. Appl. Exh. 2 at 511. At the hearing,
[' ; - ..
, 'l ." . -
William A. Pfeifer from AlChemIE testified that the loading docks at both V~
. Facility 1 and at Facility 2 would be enclosed on all sides and equipped with N -
an overhead door which could swing down to enclose the entire dock and thus
.' - , eliminate the release of material to the environment. Tr.183-84
. 42. Routir.e Gaseous Discharges. Very small gaseous discharges can bc expected from both the building ventilation system as well as from the evacuation and purge systems for the cascade. Staff believes that the extent of these
, emissions will be small because the cascades operate under vacuum and because DOE's experience with such facilities had demonstrated that the releases are small. In addition, AlChemIE will install systems to treat discharges from the evacuation and purge systems for all cascades except those processing xenon and krypton. Cold trapping, chemical trapping, or mechanical trapping will be used depending on the physical and chemical characteristics of the material involved. Staff's Environmental Assessment for Facility 1. Staff Exh. l A at 13.
- 43. Oils, Solvents, and Solid Wastes. Oils, solvents, and solid wastes generated as a result of operations and maintenance activities will be packaged on site and shipped to offsite waste treatment disposal facilities. Solid wastes such as failed centrifuges may be contaminated with toxic or hazardous material
, as well as the residual uranium they contain. If they are contaminateil with
. toxic or hazardous material, they will be decontaminated and sent to DOE for
- ,' classified burial. The toxic or hazardous material removed from them will be packaged and shipped to a licensed waste contractor. Id. at 13-14.
M.'. .
.. 44. Land Use Around Facility 1. The CPDF is located in the ORGDP
,' . within the 15,000-hectare DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). De ORGDF site
', e is already dedicated to industrial uses. Lands surrounding the ORR are farmland with low-density housing. He proposed AIChem1E facility is approximately 3
, .- . '. kilometers from the north and west boundaries of the ORR. immediately beyond the north boundary are a few rural homesites, and more rural homesites are
,a .
located across the Clinch River to the west of the ORR. Id. at 16.
- 45. Geology. The site lies in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic province of East Tennessee, which is characterized by alternating ridges and valleys 115
p , m. I ( 9
~
, , - aligned couthwest to noricast. The proposed AlChemiE site lies in a valley un-yf - . . .
s
- 2 derlain by shales and limestones of the Cona3auga and Chickamauga formations, l~
y .
, while the ridges to the northwest and southeast are underlain by the Knox group 3 .,
and Rome formations, which are more resistant to erosion. Id. s 46. //lstorical Resources. No historic structure or. sites are located near - the proposed AlChemIE facility. Only four of twenty three historic sites in the
,'~
e, , five-county area surrounding the site are within 10 kilometers of the facility.
;. s Archaeological surveys have identified remnant cemeteries and prehistoric sites, but none are located near the proposed facility. Id. " '3.
~ '
3.
- 47. Demography and Socfoeconomics. ~ The o a counties (Anderson, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, and Roane) had a combmed population in 1980 of ~
, e 480,622. Knoxville,40 kilometers to the east, and Oak Ridge,10 kilometers to
> 'O ,
the northeast, had 1980 populations of 183,139 and 27,662, respectively. 4 - 48. DOE and its contractors are dominant in the local economy. DOE
, accounts for 77% of the local employment in Oak Ridge and owns 63% of the
> land area within city limits. DOE also owns 10% of the land in Roane County .
, where the proposed facility is located. Government ownership of such a high percentage of the local land substantially reduces the size of the potential tax
. bases for Anderson and Roane Counties. /d.
! j- ,
- 49. Ecology. 'Ihere have been numerous studies and assessments of the
, ecology of the ORR, which are referenced in Staff's Environmental Assessment.
Two threatened or endangered species that occur near the facility are the black snakeroot (Cimic(uga rubfolla), a Tennessee threatened species, and the federally endangered pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsills orbiculata). The ' black snakeroot occurs within 3000 meters of the site in mesic calcareous soils where minimal disturbance has occurred. The mussel Lampsilis orbiculata was reported in the Clinch River in 1982, but no other record of its occurrence has been reported in the area. It requires clear, silt-free water. There are about thirty endemic mollusks that have been reponed above the Tennessee Valley Authority impoundmo of the Clinch River, but none have been recently recorded below the reservoir. /d. at 1819. As we have mentioned, supra, the CPDF has already been constructed, and the modifications to be made to the building by AlChemIE
. are minor. There there will no significant impact on the environment, including the endangered and threatened species mentioned above.
- 50. Hydrology. The major surface drainage in the valley where the
- ORGDP is located is Poplar Creek a tributary of the Clinch River. Poplar Creek flows into Clinch River about 2 kilometers cast of the AIChemIE's proposed facility. A water pumping and filtration facility located on the Clinch River im-
, mediately adjacent to the ORODP supplies water to the ORGDP and the Clinch River Industrial Pa Discharges from AIChemIE's facility would enter Poplar
, Creek at outfall it '203, arH ./noff fmm around the facility would also flow into Poplar Creek. The rufw saters of the watershed are moderately hard, 116
._______.___._____.______.__-.____m__ _ _._____.___
.'p *
+
s v . .
- c. .<.
- sb
- 4 ,
9 , , c,
. ~
m , . . , y,'
" ' " -
- d.
3 ,y* . p ; , . ,< s. , .
/ . .
k
; ;..s : ,.
.n
$ l ., " e - .
., . E' $ with total dissolved solids (primarily calcium magnesium / bicarbonate) usually -
ge p t.7 ,. .o. -
" , ; i, rangieg between 100 and 250 milligrams per liter. According to a 1986 ena-Y
./
' ; A
- 91,;
....l
- vironmental study of the ORR and surrounding ansas, ambient concentrations M
1 ,
';l,,;7N. ,' .-,}k , ., , , .
i . i .." i ,. of lead, zinc, and mercury exceeded Tennessee Stream Standards at sampling ! ((, locations within Poplar Creek upstream from ORGDP and downstream in the '
,1 i
,C '
4m' - . ., 2 Clinch River. He source of these chemical species is unknown. Zinc and lead ps .
,F
are potential products of the AlChemIE Facility, but no release of these species
- b. ., + c. g. j 's to the environment is expected. Id. at 19.'
47 *
- 51. In the vicinity of the.ORODP, groundwater occurs primarily in the' s ,. -
# . ' i, J.
,. Knox and Chickamauga aquifers.: Groundwater levels are highest in January .
, ' ' Xf.* * ,. .
jl .
. . and February and decrease to minimum levels in October and November. Depth '
y*,,.;. . ,
'cy. .' a to the water table is genera"y 10 meters or less except in areas of high relief.
C Y I : v[ ,,yh.h. '
,.e : . --
3jz- ' Permeability is quite high near the surface where dissolution has enlarged the . fractures in the dolomites and limestones, but data indicate that permeabilities , . - R n..
- m. J' . . . .l ,-
W. decrease with depth so that groundwater movement is restricted to the upper,- E- . m; , w( - more weathered bediock. No industrial or public drmking water are withdrawn
'* ~1*l
. +
from local groundwater sources by ORGDP or other institutions. Residential +- . W. and single-family wells are common in rural areas south of the Clinch River.
'F Id. at 19-20.
- 52. Meteorology. He meteorology of the Oak Ridge area'is largely in.
n . fluenced by its topography. Prevailing winds follow the topographic trend of-the ridges, with daytime up-valley winds _ coming from the southwest and night - time down-valley winds coming from the northeast. Wind dispersion, expressed
/ '
i'. , ' as X/Q values calculated from 1987 ORGDP data and EPA approved disper.
' sion models, showed the maximum annual X/O values predicted for the SSW
... . to WSW direction at I to 1.2 kilometers and in the NE to ENE direction, at' distances of 0.5 to 0.6 kilometer. Id. at 20.
.s . + : Facility 2 3
- 53. AlChemIE proposes to construct Facility 2 in the proposed AndyJustice -
^ '
' ~, '
Industrial Park in Oliver Springs, Tennessee, and to install centrifuge machines previously used by DOE. Staff Exh. IB at 2 3. The facility will be housed in a T- . ,
. _ steel-framed building with aluminum siding. The centrifuge equipment will be 2
obtained from DOE's Ohio facility. Some of these machines are contaminated
^
<- with uranium. He centrifuges will be used to process various chemical 4
compounds, some of which are considered toxic or hazardous. U.S. NRC Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction of the AlChemIE Facility
? 2 Oliver Spring:, Staff Exh. IB at 2.
e j i 117 e
I 4 Environmentalimpacts at Facility 2
~
. 54. The local environment at Oliver Springs is moderately well character-ized as a result of the environmental studies of the nearby Oak Ridge Reser-I, vation. De subject area at Oliver Springs is being developed as an industrial s , park with utilities and waste management services to support the major facility needs. Id.
- 55. Air Emissions Permit. A1ChemE will file for an air emissions permit
. for Facility 2 with the TDHE. As was the case with respect to Facility 1, the a
. feed material and processing rate is not completely defined, as a result of which
, the Staff used available information to perform a conservative analysis which
. indicates that material releases due to normal operations are expected to be
'? environmentally acceptable.14.
, 56. Feed Materials. The potential feed materials that AlChemIE is plan-
, ,; ning or considering for processing in Pacility 2 are identical with those for
~
T. ' Facility 1, discussed supra. That discussion need not be repeated here.
. 57. Waste Water. AIChemE wastewater (primarily sanitary water) will be
~
discharged through the existing Oliver Springs wastewater treatment plant. He discharge limits will not have to be modified to accommodate the AIChemE
. wastewater. AIChemE's nonhazardous and hazardous / toxic solid and liquid .
wastes will be transferred to appropriate existing DOE, municipal, and commer-
, cial waste management operations which already have the necessary permits.
Id. De sanitary wastewater from Pacility 2 is not expected to contain any radi-ological or toxic materials. Id. at 30.
- 58. Accidental Releases. Staff's analysis of potential accidental releases of material from the process indicates that the offsite concentration of toxic materials will be less than the TWA TLVs which have been established by the
. ACGIH. Exposure of the population to toxic material emissions in concentra-tions below these limits will not result in any effects. The NRC also assessed the potential consequences of using the contaminated equipment and concluded that even under the unexpected conditions where the uranium would be released to the environment, the consequences would be minimal with a 50-year whole-body equivalent dose commitment to an individual of less than 1.2E-5 millirem.
Id. at 2-3.
- 59. Process Of Gas Systems. Each centrifuge cascade will have four process off-gas systems. Rese are the evacuation and purge systems for (1) the cascade, (2) the feed system, (3) the product withdrawal system, and (4) the tails withdrawal system. The cascade evacuation and purge systems establish and maintain a low pressure in the centrifuge casing. The feed evacuation and purge system is used to remove air from the lines between the feed, cylinder and the centrifuge before the feed is introduced into the case. Thus this system is used prior to startup of the cascade. The product and tails withdrawal evacuation 118
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ - __ __ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . __ _____-____.m_.. __._-..-
l .I Lpp , p c m
, ~
a../" 4 L L . . . L- 1, , . .. . ' M.) 1'., and purge system is used to initially evacuate the case and the withdrawal piping. ! ., + ji 1 ' " [. V . - ; _-
, De purge system may remain operational during cascade operation to remove Z /c< _. ; :, T* l' ." ' ; ,
.; any noncondensables that collect in the product or tail cylinders. Id. at 8.
Ev- n j,' .-[
'u 60. The discharges from all four of these evacuahon and purge systems L'" , , ,. , , .' r a t..: will be connected to a common discharge header for each cascade. For all the -
? : a
~~'
f cascades except those processing xenon and krypton, the gases in the header H .r ;s ', . will be treated to remove the process material. AlChemIE plans to use cold
. . .M~ f". 'e trapping, chemical trapping, or mechanical trapping depending on the physical:
g .*
.]
*~
n s.
.'. l.{
.c -
and chemical properties of the vanous process matenals. Id.
- 61. Staff performed what it considered to be a boundmg analysis of the g., ,
- consequences of normal releases to the atmosphere. It selected dimethylcad -
{,. ,J mium for the analysis because this matenal has the highest ratio of expected j, , * ] c.: -
; .- C ' ' annual production to the ACGIH's established TWA 'ILV, ne maximum an-
- nual production of dimethylcadmium was estimated to be less than SE+4 grams
, l per year. . Staff assumed (it said conservatively) that the AlChemIE facility
,- % . would release one part in a thousand to the atmosphere. Thus the maximum r.
amount of dimethylcadmium would be 50 grams (this corresponds to 40 grams
~ , ,
~
.- ' u , of cadmium). To make the analysis more conservative, it was assumed that
'. this material was processed over a 3-month period. From these assumptions,-
Staff calculated an average release rate of about SE-6 grams per second. Using - the maximum X/Q of 3.8E-8 seconds per cubic meter, Staff calculated that the
- + ,
maximum cadmium concentrauon in the air at ground level would be 2E-13
- - . grams per cubic meter, which is many orders of magnitude below the ACGIH
$ - TWA-TLV for cadmium of 0.05 milligram per cubic meter. On the basis of this analysis, Staff concluded that normal atmospheric emissions for the AlChemIE '
facility are expected to be of no environmental consequence.14. at 25-26.
- 62. ' Oils, Solvents, and Solid Wastes. - As is the case with 1%cility 1, oils, -
- solvents, and solid wastes will be generated at Facility 2. Dese materials will -
. be handled and disposed of at Facility 2 in the same manner as discussed, supra, for Facility 1. That discussion need not be repealed here. Id. at 1314.
~,' .
^
.+ 63. Land Use Around Facility 2. De proposed facility will be constructed
. at the 247. hectare Andy Justice Industrial Park located within the Oliver Springs city limits, ne lands surrounding the facility are rural farmland or rangeland with associated low-density housing. The nearest house is approximately 0.5
"*. *.. ., kilometer to the northeast. Approximately 2 kilometers to the southeast are x residential areas of Oak Ridge. The commercial center of Oliver Springs is
.p / , , ,
approximately 1.5 kilometers north. Highway 61, the major four lane access to
,' - Oliver Springs, runs southeast from downtown Oliver Springs ano passes within
, , - -l . 0.5 kilometer of the proposed facility. Both sides of this highway within the j
Oliver Springs city limits are commercially developed. Facility 2 will occupy about 8 hectares of land at the industrial park. Id. at 16. 119 _____________i__________ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
l 1
)
(
^
64 Geology. The geology of the site for Facility 2 is similar to that for L ,
~
t ,., Facility 1 except for the fact that the site les is a valley underlain by shales and limestones of only the Conasauga Formation. Other aspects of the geology i have been discussed, supra, for Facility I and need not be repeated here. Id. at
.. .. 18.
- 65. Historical Reaurces. Of the twenty-three historic sites in the five-county area surrounding the site, only one is within 10 kilometers of the facility.
s Id.
)
- 66. Demography and Socioeconomic. The demography of the area sur- 1
, rounding proposed Facility 2 is similar to that described for Facility 1, except that Facility 2 is to be located within the city limits of Oliver Springs. The 1980
, , population of Oliver Springs was 3600. The area immediately surrounding the proposed facility is rural farmland and rangeland with low population density.
id. 4
'7 67. Ecology. 'Ihe facility at Oliver Springs will consist of buildings and paved or concrete areas within a fenced compound. The region immediately surrounding the proposed fac"ir," is primarily pastureland with fence-row veg-etation. The woodland comm mitics in neighboring areas are typical of the
'i second-growth forests of East Tenmssee, with Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
- +
being the dominant tree species. The site, which is still being used to pasture cat-tie, is not an appropriate habitat for any threatened or endangered plant species. On the other hand, the site could be an appropriate habitat for the Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), which is on Tennessee's endangered species list, and for the Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus saw2nnarum), which is on Ten-
~'
nessee's threatened species list, although these species have not been seen in the area. Use of the site by AlChemIE will impxt only an insignificant fraction of similar habitat in Tennessee and therefore will not significantly impact the status of these species. Id. at 19; Staff Exh. 5 at 2 and Enclosure.
- 68. Hydrology. Poplar Creek is less than 500 feet south of the proposed facility, and runoff from Facility 2 would go into Poplar Creek. Sanitary
' discharges from the facility, however, would be treated in the Oliver Springs sewage treatment facility. Staff Exh. IB at 19.
- 69. The groundwater situation under the Oliver Springs facility is similar to that described, supra, under the CPDF facility, and therefore need not be repeated here. Id. at 20. <
- 70. Meteorology. No meteorology data are available for Oliver Springs, but Staff states that the data from the ORGDP, which have been discussed above i for Facility 1, are applicable to the Oliver Springs site because of the general topographical similarity of the two sites. Staff expects, however, that the Oliver Springs site will be less dominated by wind flow from the ENE. Nevertheless, 5
it believes that the X/G values calculated from the ORGDP data can be used for s the Oliver Springs site. Id. at 20-22. 120 i
4 3
# .s 1
~
,. 71. Impacts of Construction. The proposed Facility 2 will occupy 8 hec-
'- - ' / tares of the 247-hectare Andy Justice Industrial Park. The building will occupy
, c4 .' ,f , ;. . .
~.4' about 0.2 hectare of area, and the rest of the developed area is estimated to
,>-f' - . ;
2' J '.* ' involve less than 0.8 hectare. The balance of the AlChemIE site would be
,1 , ' : - ,; - ' . $ ,
maintained and landscaped appropriately. Standard construction methods will be
-; 'n ' ,
- o. .. ,y [, used to control fugitive dust and water runoff from the site during construction.
, . ?" 's . . .
,.r . '
Id. at 24.
, ' l ' f* ] : ,' '6.'{ [ ,
. . - L ~
,. L t Conclusion
' 72. The Board finds on the bases of the Staff's Environmental Assessments, Te
, AlChemIE*s environmental reports, and their updates in the record, that the Staff V* made an adequate and comprehensive review and evaluation of the environmen-tal impact resulting from construction and operation of the proposed facilities.
i The review and evaluation supports Staff's finding that the proposed activities
, .." *
- will result in no significant impact on the human environment and that an envi-ronmental impact statement need not be prepared. The National Environmental y 'e -
- Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review conducted by Staff is adequate.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon our review of the entire record and upon the foregoing findings j of fact, the Licensing Board makes the following determination on the issues in the proceedings: A. Facility 1 (CPDF)
~ '
The Licensing Board concludes that the application and the record of the
.e proceeding contain sufficient information and the review of the application by
,I ',' ' the Staff has been adequate to support the affirmative findings proposed to be made by the Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety
,i I' on items 1,2, and 4 and a negative finding on Item 3, below.
- 1. Whether, in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.34, the
, ~
'i ,
~
- 1. . . Applicant has described the proposed design of the facility including, but not
'. limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein to ensure v' adequate protection of the common defense and security.
.,- ,} - 2. Whether the Applicant is technically and financially qualified to modity
- the existing facility in such a way as to ensure adequate protection of the common l defense and security;
~
\ I 121 l l
.. e i
1 l s ; l
- 3. Whether the issuance of a construction permit authorizing the modifica-tion of the facility will be inimical to the common defense and security; i
,v,.
- i 4. Whether, in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the 9 "
construction permit and operating license should be issued as proposed.
,q B. Facility 2 (Oliver Springs)
"Ihe Licensing Board coricludes that the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information and the review of the application by the Staff has beca adequate to support the affirmative findings proposed to be made by the Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety
, on Items 1,2, and 4 and a negative finding on Item 3, below.
- 1. Whether, in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.34, the
. Applicant has described the proposed design of the facility including, but not
'~
limited to, the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein to ensure
- t .
adequate protection of the common defense and security;
- 2. Whether the Applicant is technically and financially qualified to construct
.- the facility in such a way as to ensure adequate protection of the common defense
. and security; i 3. Whether the issuance of a construction permit authorizing the construc-tion of the facility will be inimical to the common defense and security; -
- 4. Whether, in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the construction permit should be issued as proposed.
C. The Licensing Board concludes that the applications and the record of . these proceedings contain sufficient information and the review of the applica- I tions by the Staff has been adequate to support, insofar as the Commission's licensing requimments under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are concerned, the issuance of the construction permits for Facility 1 (CPDF) and Facility 2 (Oliver Springs), as proposed by the Director of the Division of In-dustrial and Medical Nuc! car Safety. D. The Staff is authorized to issue the construction permits in a form consistent with this Initial Decision.
, E. The application proceeding, Docket No. 50-603-CP/OL, never became a contested proceeding with respect to issues relating to the operating license.
.Upon completion of the modification of the facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the construction permit and the application, as amended, and in the absence of good cause to the contrary, the Commission should issue to the Applicant, without additional prior notice, a class 103 facility license authorizing operation of the facility.
122
t
- l. - .
[ ? v . . '
,., -l: . .:
y, ogggg
,.j'. q, } y ,,.
. , t_. .
n ' ;. a.+ -
..3.,- .
a , e. ;-.f.'. .: -- - In accordance with 10 C.F.R. il2.760,2.762, 2.764,2.785,' and 2.786, this . a 1 , c. 3 3 ,. ."
.. : p' , .; *
- Initial Decision shall become effective immediately and will constitute, with y '6,....,.f .. . .. .
.g '.h/ f 9 J,, , +
- respect to the matters resolved herein, the final decision of the Commission j ..j;y. l.,f.. i W' y% ..;, ', . ;. , ?' : forty-five (45) days after issuance hereof, subject to review pursuant to the.'
3 . ' ., , ,f / "'j < g , , . -y. . : ~ above-cited Rules of Practice. k.$,l { , . .' c, .C. ,'. . * ; ,, . ,.' ^c 4,,5 Any party may take an appeal from this initial Decision by filing a Notice of' s M . 'fg ; : ,*. }l .% - ... , f ' ' ".', Appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Decision. Each appellant must [ l'% . ..; i [ ' - F.', ',* ~
'r file a brief supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing
' 'b-7
* ! its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty '
4
.i ,- ' , , ., a p './,J .
/ - ', .
lJ (30) days after the period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of
~ ',j, ! /l4. '.
- 3 ., all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an 3- ' f ~. ,- . . . . appellant may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal of any.
i, <; [- f , ;' * *
..i')~. Other party. A responding party shall file a single responsive brief regardless of the number of appellant briefs filed.
g*
.3 , ,s. e,,f.* .
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- Morton B. Margulics, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE .
. Oscar H. Paris r ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
, k_^ -
- Frederick J. Shon
,' '., .- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
- 7. "
i this 1st day of February 1989. ., , .. .. y ~ e *' , , a g
. , *
- I
., .3 ..Y $ . - .
r . :- <
,a ,,- *.*e ,
i .c - . af 123 l
r
- z k.
'l' ...<.
, 1, .. .
'U ATTACHMENT 1 4 ,
[ ,
. . ,?
E APPLICANT'S WITNESS LIST
.2 '
., i . , <
, Witness Exhibit Sponsored
}
- M ,
Dwight C. Flynn By affidavit 2
, 3.t'
' J'; u ,
Ann Hansen By affidavit '1 N Monte Carroll Mcdonald By affidavit 3 (Ecological Survey)
~, .. , 3 ,, ,,
William A. Pfeifer By affidavit and live 3 (Technical Security),
,- , . '0- ' P-1 (Public), and P-1.
, f .".' -
Randolph J. Robinette . By affidavit P-1 (Public) and P-1 John H. Smelser By affidavit and live 3 (Financial) and 4
,, ?w
, ,. .' ~
# k '
ATTACHMENT 2
- 4 - .w., .
L , STAFF WITNESS LIST
' ' ^ '
, ~,~
Witness Exhibit Sponsored Wayne G. Burnside By affidavit 4, P-1, and P-2
, A. Thomas Clark 1 A, IB,2A, and 2B 8,10, and P-5
^
. James C. Petersen
, Carl B. Sawyer P-2, P-3, and P-4 Jerry J. Swift 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit No. Title Nonproprietary is -'" < 1 Safety Analysis Reports 2 Environmental Reports 3 AlChemIE Correspondence to NRC 4 Supplementary Financial Information l P 1 (Public) Affidavit on Safeguards and Security
, ,' Proprietary
, P-1 Information on Safeguards and Security l
~
- l. .
124 4 f __m_______-__________________m.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
k ~ 4
. e, . . .-w , .
m - p,. r,;. . 3 . ATTACHMENT 4 p . . *7 l g,, ,-
- .% . f k ' .,
h'(.
- f ; y: g . g.. ., ; ,
. ., y ,;; l. ;
- STAFF EXHIBIT LIST
. fQ . , ; ';M. -
' . . ..fp'l;f.7", -
g;4 ' ;. d...,., 'J'- QN } ,-('; .,- Exhibit No. Title
--.-}w .c,,.{'; ,
g .(. 2 {'
- Nonproprietary
.. .- f '. T, e, , . ;- lA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Mate-
; 'l .', ", [' , ,. . ., '
rial Safety and Safeguards, Environmental Arsessment Related q( , ff~.IJ * . i" . , , to the Construction and Operation of the AlChemIE Facility 1
- y.7 i;
" ,\ 7 ' ,' ' CPDF, Docket No. 50-603, All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, .
O']-.l ' ' ', ,. '.< . . ,. ,3, ., .f., . .4
~
Inc. September 1988.
'* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Notice of Issuance of t...' .E -
1 V '.. ? , ' .'? E ~ , ' ", Environmental Assessment Related to Construction and Op-L eration of the AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF and Finding of No
N 4. c
~
' Significant impact, Docket No. 50-603, All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc.
**fz- .l
~
~~
( ., -
' " - ' - 1B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Mate-
. rial Safety and Safeguards, Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the AlChemIE Facility-
'.'i '
- 1 Oliver Springs, Docket No. 50-604, All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc. September 1988.
c , 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Notice of Issuance
- . of Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction of
- ** the AlChemIE Facility-2 Oliver Springs and Finding of No J Significant Impact, Docket No. 50-604, All Chemical. Isotope Enrichment, Inc.
, .,t-
> 2A Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Cot truction, Modi-fication, and Licensing of the AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF All
' ~ *
'.,- Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
'
- Docket No. 50-603, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of- ,
l', . fice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, October 1988.
*- l
>^
. 2B Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Application for Con- )
,~*
- struction Permit, AlChemIE Facility-2 Oliver Springs All
; .' Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc., Oliver Springs, Tennessee,
-' . . - i
. r.
Docket No. 50 604, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of-
. -,, - fice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, October 1988.
3 NRC Staff Testimony of Jerry J. Swift Addressing Atomic
, ~
Safety and Licensing Board Inquiries of October 18, 1988. I 125 1 I __._E_______m_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _____ ___._m__.____ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
't; .
,' a
+
.# 1 4
sq '
-i ,
.c, L. , . ,
. .s
- -u-.'
" ' ' ^ '
g,7 _ 4 Affidavit of Wayne G. Burnside. y .e *'
- - f, 5 NRC Staff. Supplemental Testimony of Dr. Jerry.J. Swift
.%jy s W, .. p.,,
; Addressing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Inquiries of
[Q '
+
October 18,'1988. [-M'.., - ' 6 NRC Staff'Astimony of Dr. Jerry J. Swift Addressing Atomic l[{. ? m' g . , n
, Safety and Licensing Board Inquiry of November 16, 1988.-
.,',e '
-% 7 NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Jerry J. Swift Addressing Re-
/( ,Yw ; /.f 4 . ' '
- s.,'
sponses of All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, Inc., to Atomic
. . Safety and Licensing Board Inquiry of November 23,' 1988.
". s 8 NRC Staff Testimony of James C. Petersen and Jerry J. Swift .
- l. . ,
T' "
, Addressing Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board Inquiry of Y-
'. 3.
. December 21,1988.
[,7,l 34 , . , 9 Part B of Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report -
- >J - Related to the Construction, Modification, and Licensing of the AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF, All Chemical Isotope Enrichment, L' ' ' '
)' .
Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Docket No. 50-603, U.S. Nuclear >
~ ' '
.*- Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety a: and Safeguards, December 1988. Docket No. 50-604.
10 NRC Staff Supplemental Testimony of James C. Petersen on 4 . Financial Quali6 cations.
. Proprietary P-1 Staff Review and Analysis, AIChemIE's Security Plan.
4 - P-2 NRC Staff Testimony of Wayne G. Burnside'and Carl B. Sawyer Addressing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In-- quiries of November 16,1988.
' ~
P-3 NRC Staff Review of Safeguards Licensing for AlChemIE
'J' *
,, . Facility 1 CPDF, OfSce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safe-
, ' guards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, . Washington, D.C.
~
. P-4' NRC Staff Review of Safeguards Licensing for AlChemIE
, p Facility 2 Oliver Springs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-
. , ington, D.C.
~
P-5 Part A of Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report
. . (Proprietary Version). , :o 126 e
I l _____-_-_.________._____.__._-_______.-_m._____.______.__________________.______________m__ ____ __
4
, 1
..g . J.' - e sc- , Cite as 29 NRC 127 (1989) LBP 89-6
- y. , ,.,
- p. =
. , , .q. .
, y
* "'* e . 3 .. .
.1.,,,.. *L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,' .,. .r , y,,[';,'
..T ' -
. :g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4,
.2. . ; . ., ,
p
- 1,.
-, ;. /- ......: 1. ,,
;c . . . .,
e. 4 J. ' , . + , ,. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,,3,- .
s .. ; z..j;-l + 3 ,>'<;, . '. . ,.. y. . .- ' '. v ' , ... ,
, t .
7 - ,,,. 3 .j ! . , Before Administrative Judges: , , ,-.'..c , . ,r.,
- - , f.
^.
'- - . f*, " .; .-
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman
- ' ia e, l; Dr. James H. Carpenter
, r - i *
.- Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
4
~
s ,. , - ; j-
'4 4- .
- 4' l, L, in the Matter of Docket No. 50 271 OLA
* ' t (ASLBP No, 87 547 02-LA)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORAVON (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power J 4 , Station) February 2,1989 The Licensing Board, on the basis of a recent court opinion as well as n funher explanation of an earlier ruling, grants reconsideration of its exclusion in LBP-88-26.(28 NRC 440 (1988)) of a contention raising questions as to the risk of a particular severe accident (a scif-sustaining zirconium fire in the spent
~
, fuel pool). The Board also amends an existing contention to include the severe-
^
# '- - l accident considerations as an additional basis. The Board refers its ruling to the
, L r. .
Appeal Board and postpones its effectiveness until after the Appeal Board acts 'i E' ' - - .- on the referral.
^ '
, . . f.* ' ' ^
RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Parties are not expected to respond to motions for reconsideration absent an
; , ', - invitation from the Licensing Board to do so.
9 4 127 i a
o L '/ . ,7 ,
, .t s
Y, + , , - 1 4 NEPA: BEYOND DESIGN. BASIS ACCIDENTS ' A;
'[ ,
Although the National Environmental Policy Act does not in itself mandate the consideration of the risks of a beyond-design-basis accident, the Commis-
' .7 ,
sion's Severe Accident Policy Statement,50 Fed. Reg. 32,138, 32,144 (1985),
+ ., *
, permits examination of the risk of such accidents in a spent fuel pool expansion
^
p' , , proceeding.
- .- n'-
." POLICY STATEMENT ON SEVERE REACTOR ACCIDENTS:
a' '
'f +"
REVIEW OF BEYOND DESIGN IIASIS ACCIDENTS
, , The Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement permits examination of
, , , , the risk of such accidents, using the methodology spelled out in the Commis-sion's NEPA Policy Statement,40 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980).
- RULES OF PRACTICE: REFERRAL OF RULING TO APPEAL BOARD
'~'
Referral of a ruling to the Appeal Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.730(f), is appropriate where review of that ruling is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest and unusual delay in the proceeding. 0
, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion for Reconsideration of Severe-Accident Ruling)
This proceeding involves the proposed expansion in capacity, through rerxk-
, ing, of the spent fuel pool of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,' a boil-ing water reactor located in Vernon, Vermont. Pending belore us - for the third time -is a proposed contention sponsored jointly by the New England Coali-tion on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP), an intervenor, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts), participating as an interested State (hereinafter jointly referred to as Interveners), seeking to litigate the increased risk of a particular severe accident allegedly resulting from the proposed capacity ex-pansion. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Applicant) and the NRC Staff each oppose admitting the contention. For reasons set forth below, we
., are granting the Interveners' motion, admitting the severe accident contention (as well as amending the basis of another contention to include severe-accident considerations), referring our ruling to the Appeal Board, and postponing the effectiveness of our ruling until the Appeal Board takes action on our refeiral, 128
~
_m_____-___.m_-._-------__-----a- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - -
' '
- i e
y n' , -
;9 ~' r b s .. - ,.
t
~
Q
- 5.
- m .e
- l _
h 3. " A. Background . .
._.w
- 3. c >:
i
- .1;j.I .i,., ' \ . ,( ; p y? ' 4 , . ' We were first faced with the proposed contention'at.the outset of the. ;
X,W/.- -
, *je .
,.7 proceedlag. In our Prehearing Conference Order dated May 26,1987, LBP- .
+w J. ,
, , ., y, 3 e, . <
., 8717,25 NRC 838,' we admitted a contention (then numbered as Contention i
'j d# .n ' . '4. , T;; Y Qqg ,
r/ 'l,j'd ' , , , ,C r/.'- ,
- 2) claiming that the proposed expansion would produce increased risk of -
a particular severe accident (a self sustaining zirconium fuel cladding fire)' j
- ', such that an Environmental. Impact Statement (EIS) should be issued by the p
M ,'M Jk ;[ 2 L. - % : ' ,.' - [Q ' ? *,' .. p.
*' *Q Staff prior to final NRC action on the proposed license amendment. This
( -) .l ," m., ' 1 , n. 7 ^6 ; . id contention had been rewritten by us to combine a portion of NECNP's proposed Contention 5 and the environmental allegations included in Massachusetts'
* ., ', f f ' ,. ( } *t'f **
proposed Contention 1.5 "' ; g
,%* On appeal, the Appeal Board reversed our admission of the severe-accident
' .i . ..
' ~
,~' . contention. ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13, reconsideration denied, ALAB-876, 26
'j
.c" -
+
' ,, l Jy, NRC 277 (1987). It did so essentially on the ground that beyond-design-basis accident contentions of the type in question.were not litigable, both as a matter s .
i - '^ -
., 1 of law and of Commission policy, in a proceeding of this type.
, f 1
',.. We were again confronted with essentially the same contention when, fol -
' ' - ,; lowing issuance of the Staff's Environmental Assessment (EA), the Interveners - proposed to litigate Environmental Coraention 1, which challenged the treatment f
</
of the cladding fire accident in the EA and called upon the Staff to issue an
*~ - EIS. This contention added that the self sustaining zirconium fire in the fuel 'e . '4 -
pool could result from an accident within the design basis.' ,
< We found this proposed contention to be essentially similar to the one
,-* . previously accepted by us but rejected by the Appeal Board, and we nejected this new contention on the ground that we were bound by the " law of the
. case, as set forth in ALAB-869 and ALAB-876. LBP-88 26, 28 NRC 440, 443-45 (1988). (To the extent that the fire was alleged to result from a within-g.
design-basis accident, we determined that no adequate basis had been provided to demonstrate how such a fire could arise, and we rejected that poruon of the -
- . contention for lack of an adequate basis.) In a separate opinion, Chairman I - 3' ,. , '. r ,I .
Bechhoefer, although emphasizing that the " law of the case" required our
- rejection of Environmental Contention 1 stressed that the Appeal Board seemed
#^ . 1, .
to have rejected the contention without explicitly addressing our rationale for 4 accepting it. Id. at 45154
* Shortly thereafter, on November 30,1988, the Circuit Court of Appeals for
,' the Ninth Circuit issued an opinica that reversed the Appeal Board's (and another l
? o , .
Licensing Board's) rejection of a severe-accident contention in a different l- ,
; licensing proceeding that involved the proposed expansion in capacity of the l g . .
c, ,- .. I'!he pornen of Maasschusats' Contendon I which alleged that, because of the nok of the esvese escades in
* ' ^" ,, quesuon. the proposed hcense amendment "is inansient with the protestues of. . the .m i.,
l-129 l
- g. -
l f v L . spent fuel pool of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Sicrra Club v. NRC,
, Cir. No. 87-7481 (9th Cir., Nov, 30, 1988). Based. solely on that opinion, NECNP. and Massachusetts, on December 30, 198.8, filed a motion seeking reconsideration of our ruling that rejected Environmental Contention 1 on the 4
, basis of the " law of the case "2 Alternatively, the motion sought " certification" of the question to the Appeal Board. The Applicant and Staff, in response to
,.c.y
, , . . f- , our invitation,3 filed responses, each opposing the entire motion.'
- v. ,j ,
,g -
.. . D. Discussion of Reconsideration Motion -
.s The Applicant and Staff each oppose the admission of the proposed contention on a variety of grounds. We will discuss them sertatim.
~'
- 1. The Staff (although not the Applicant) first argues that the cufrent 4
proposed contention is not "substantially identical" (as claimed by Interveners) to the contention considered by the Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club. The Staff claims that the basis for the contention discussed by the Court of Appeals was primarily the so-called "Brookhaven Report" (NUREG/CR-4982), whereas the basis for the contention rejected by the Appeal Board in this case "made no reference to
; the Brookhaven Report" but instead relied on the alleged vulnembility (based I on an NRC draft report, NUREG-1150) of the Mark I containment utilized at Vermont Yankee.5 It is true that the initial severe-accident contention which we admitted - as
\"
well as the current version which is before us - relied to a significant extent on the alleged vulnerability of the Mark I containment. It is also true that the bases of NECNP Contention 5 and Massachusetts Contention I, as originally submitted, did not refer to the Brookhaven Report. Those contentions each
. were filed on March 30, 1987. The draft version of the Brookhaven Report was served by the Staff on the Board and parties as a Board Notification dated March 27,1987. Assuming service by mail, under the NRC Rules of Pracace, the panics would not be deemed to have received that notification until April 1, 1987 (10 C.F.R. 6 2.710), a day after the contentions were required to be, and were, filed.
t
, 2 Joint Mouen of New England Coahtinn on Nuclear Polludon and the Comrnonwealth of Massachuscats for Reconsiderauen or, in the Ahernauve, to Cerufy the Quesuon to the Appeal Board, dated December 30,1988
, ("Mouan").
3 order dated January 5.1989. Parues are not espected to respond to monons for reconsidersuon absent an invitauan from the Board to do so.
, ' Response to Joint Monon of[NECNP) and the Commonweakh of Massachusetts for Reconsideradon or,in the Alternauve. to Cerufy the Question to the Appeal Board," dated January 13.1989 (" Applicant's Response"); NRC staff Response in oppostuun to Jamt Mouon of New England Coahuon on Nuclear Polludon and Commonweahh of Massachusetts, dated January 23,1989 ("NRC staff Response"i 8
NRC staff Response at 1411, i 130 1 l i i l
~
)
1 1
]
_- o
J!
,. 'L. -
~..
Following responses to the contentions by the Applicant and Staff, dated
, , ' , * .-- April 9 and 13,1987, respectively, NECNP, on April 16,1987, filed a response
, 3.,
'? ,;1,* ' - to those responses, for our consideration at the prehearing conference on
', - .. ,- , , ". y . .C, *
.* April 21-22,1987. That response explicitly mentioned the draft Brookhaven
', , ,. y, *
--" Report as " additional factual support" for its severe-accident contention.' And in w j . 3,; ;' ,; [. .
9, ~ accepting Contendon 2, we explicitly referred to the draft Brookhaven Report as r .. ,
'.j' y ,,. ,
/* .
" additional support" and as one of the bases for the severe accident contention.7 y*,' .; 1 ' ] [ .,' .
,.L .: ,
, % The contention that is currently before us is essentially the same as former L '.. .,. , , , ,
- < . .. Contention 2, except for including a reference to the Staff's subsequently issued .
~/' ')? '. . . . .f.
EA and as substituting the final Brookhaven Report (issued in July 1987) for the draft report as one basis. With respect to the relief it seeks, the contention still i
- 4*, asserts that an EIS is necessary but alternadvely seeks revision of the discussion s* -
of severe accidents in the EA. That alternative relief is not inconsistent with the
.l,.. ,
,y .. ~ relief that Massachusetts stated it was seeking as early as the initial prehearing
; - conference.' Therefore, the contention that is before us is essentially the same A )
as former Contention 2. S O, As one ofits alternative arguments, the Staff asserts that the contention before 4 us was late-filed and should be rejected as not complying with the criteria for such contentions.' As indicated above, the contention is essentially similar to that submitted at the outset of the proceeding and, hence, should not be regarded as
~
late-filed. To the extent the subsequent minor changes in the contention call for
- s. ' '
a balancing of the relevant factors, we balance the factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)
. r as favoring modification of the contention (as originally submitted) to include the final Brookhaven Report as a basis and as seeking revision of the EA as an alternative to an EIS. Those changes were submitted in a timely fashion; the draft Brookhaven Report was provided as a basis only 15 days after its i
, , presumptive receipt by NECNP, the specific reference to the EA was supplied in a timely filing of contentions based upon the EA, and the final Brookhaven
, Report was substituted for the draft report at the first opportunity for submitting
- new contentions following the Appeal Board's reversal of our acceptance of Contention 2.
All other factors also favor these changes - with the potential delay in the proceeding being offset by the Staff's "no significant hazards" determination on
, .,- . reracking which has permitted installation of new racks (although not permitting
.< ^r . ,
~* '
'NECNP Response at 3 n.1. The basia of the NECNP severe-accident envuonmental contention (Contenunn 5)
*
- which we accepted in LBP-8717, incorporated by aference the basis for NECNP Contenuen 1. a safety based
* ." severe-accident contenuon which we seyected. The NECNP resp.anae which referenced the draft Brookhaven Report as additional support for the severe-accident contention was directed to the safety contenuan but. through
., ./ - .' ~ incorporation by reference, was also apphcable to the envuonmental contenuan.
7 LBP 8717.supre 25 NRC at 846 n.18,854.
' - 8 Id. at 852; Tr.126. ;
8, . 'NRC staff Response at 1415, 4
. 131 e
sm-____m_.- . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ______.____.___________.__________m
a utilization beyond the currently authorized 2000 assemblies) prior to the final
, conclusion of this proceeding. Most important, both NECNP and Massachusetts
~
have rendered significant assistance in developing an adequate record on other p
#. contentions, and we have no reason to expect that they would not do so here.
i ' ' s' In its present form, which is what we are now considering, the contention
. - . does indeed appear to be "substantially identical" to that dealt with by the Ninth
- D' '_, -
Circuit. The Staff concedes at least that they are "somewhat similar."10 We 3 . add only that the contention before us is more deserving of admission than was 1'$ "
~
that in Diablo Canyon, inasmuch as we consider the proposed contention (as the successor to former Contention 2) to be timely filed in contrast to the " late-filed" e~ ' . ' ~ contention filed in Diablo Canyon, and the contention here is more specific (in i terms of the described accident scenario) than was that in Diablo Canyon."
. 2. The Applicant and NRC Staff each challenge, on technical grounds, the applicability of the Sierra Club decision to this proceeding < As they observe, the Vermont Yankee reactor is not located within the confines of the Ninth
-
- Circuit. Moreover, the only case before the Ninth Circuit was the Diablo Canyon ruling by the Appeal Board (ALAB-880). Further, the " law of the case" in this
. G, <
proceeding - specifically, the holding in ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 - was 3
~
not directly modified by the Sierra Club ruling,
- . Although these observations are accurate, we do not subscribe to the view of the Applicant and Staff that they prevent our acceptance of the proffered
. .: contention. In the first place, the Commission has not indicated a policy of
] t
, , "nonacquiescence" with that decision. The Commission is seeking reconsider-ation only of the small portion of that decision interpreting the Commission's s
. rules on late-filed contentions 2 - a matter that we do not deem to be applica-ble to the present contention and, in any event, an interpretation amounting to dictum in the Sierra Club decision which we are not using in our consideration of the severe-accident contention before us.
For reasons set forth below, we believe that the Sierra Club decisicn senously undercuts the rationale of the Appeal Board in ALAB-869 and ALAB 876 and, in addition, is consistent with our ruling in LBP-87-17. 'In particular, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nucicar Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-880,26 NRC 449 (1987), which was reversed by Sierra Club, had relied in substantial part on ALAB-869 and ALAB 876, ALAB 880,26 NRC at 460-62, Moreover, the rulings in ALAB 869 and ALAB-876 did not directly focus
. 10 1d at 10.
" As the Interveners observe (Mouan at 6, 8), the Diablo Canyon t.icensmg Board, in rejecung the proposed
. severo-accident contention, capressed a sinular view, to the erfect that the contenuon before it was wmcr thirt the one previously accepted by us but rejected by the Appeal Board. racafic Gar andflecinc Co. ObW Carnon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). LBP-87 24,26 NRC 159,167 (1987),
12 Sierra Club v. NRC, No. 87-7481,9th Ctr., Respondents' Wuon for Reheanng Regardog One Ayct of1his Court's opinion, dated January 5,1989 132 -h______..-_-___._.m _- -_.._--- - - _- - - - - - - -
er
.. r
. ,. , (. , . ,
,7.,:j>,' 5
,. . . ' *- m . '
, on our rationale for accepting the severe-accident contention under the authority
,' ~. ' .
of the Commission's then recently issued Severe Accident Policy Statement.25
' * ' 't '
~
4 For these reasons, we believe that reconsideration of ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 (, ' * = - 7
-/. .- ' 6 is warranted. We are thus accepting the current contention (as set forth in the
; \. 1t .-
Motion) but, because ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 still technically constitute the 7.. ,' o* alaw of this case," we are referring this ruling, inter alia, to the Appeal Board p v]', , ~
. ~- '
and postponing its effectiveness until after the Appeal Board has taken some 4
.,, ~,,,,. . ' -
final action on our referral. l' . , . ; p' 3. The Applicant and Staff next assert that the Sierra Club decision is
** * ~
- i. - -+ inconsistent with decisions of other circuits, as well as with prior Commission f - - '.' decisions, and thus should'be narrowly applied, at most to reactors in the Ninth
(
' ~
- Circuit. In particular, the Applicant and Staff each cite San Luis Obispo Mothers -
l', -- for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1237 (D.C. Cir.19841, aff'd en banc (on other
.l
," .' grounds),789 F.2d 26, cert, denied, U.S. 93 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1986), to r .- the effect that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require -
I M,
- NRC consideration of severe, beyond-design-basis accidents. The Appeal Board i
had relied on this decision to a substantial extent in its rulings in ALAB-869
- and ALAB-876. The Appeal Board had added that, to the extent that NRC ever considers severe accidents of the type in question, it does so as a matter of i , discretion pursuant to NRC's 1980 NEPA Policy Statement,2' which does not
~
, , apply to license amendment proceedings of the type involved here. ALAB-869, supra,26 NRC at 31. The Appeal Board decided ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 on the basis of its apparent belief that we had founded our earlier ruling on use
, , of this NEPA Policy Statement.
. As is made clear by Chairman Bechhoefer's separate statement in LBP ,
26, supra, 28 NRC at 451-54, the Appeal Board did not in fact address the rationale of our ruling in LBP-87-17. In LBP-87-17, we accepted Contention 2 e, , on the basis of the Commission's 1985 Severe Accident Policy Statement. In pertinent part, we believe that Policy Statement was intended to govern " hearing
, ,",- , ., proceedings that might arise for an operating reactor," such as is involved here and explicitly permits examination of the risks of severe accidents. 50 Fed.
Reg. at 32,144, it incorporates the NEPA Policy Statement by reference only
.f' -
in order to define the methodology by which risk is to be considered, but it does not incorporate the jurisdictional limitations of the earlier NEPA statement.
* /. .> , ,
Indeed, the 1985 Severe Accident Policy Statement expands the applicability of
~'
(
- . the examination of risks of severe accidents to proceedings such as this one.
,h , ;
Our reference in LBP-87-17 to the 1980 NEPA Policy Statement 25 was only 13 Policy statement on severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Nture Designs and Existing Plants. 50 Fed. Reg
.i ** .
32.138 (Aug. 8.1985).
' 34 1ntenm Pohey staternent on " Nuclear Plant Accident Considerauons Linder the Nauonal Environrnental Policy
- Act of 1969." 45 Fed. Reg. 40.101 (June 13,1980).
13 LDP-8817.supro. 25 NRC et 855. 133 a 4
~
i
. 1 a
a j l
. l to define the method under which we would consider the particular accident in L
) ,_ ' '
question. !
^ '
The 1985 Severe Accident Policy Statement also makes clear that mitigative 1
. ; .l actions to prevent severe accidents are not to be examined, only the environ-
, o, 3
f
, , , . . mental risks of these accidents. That is the reason why LBP-87-17 admitted a {
contention dealing with the risk of the postulated severe accident but declined 7, ?. - f-- to admit contentions seeking to explore mitigative measures to prevent or alle-
/
. Q., ,,
;b .' viate the effect of such accidents -i.e., the health and safety aspects of those
.- . accidents.
' ,x :,2( 2 , With the above explanation in mind, it is clear why the San Luis Obispo
,', 'r
- Afothersfor Peace decision, which is relied on by the Applicant and Staff at
* [* ' .
this time and was relied on by the Appeal Board in ALAB-869 and ALAB-876,
.t is not relevant to our decision on the contention in question. San Luis Obispo
, Afothersfor Peace held only that NEPA itself does not require the examination
,- of accidents the occurrence of which is remote and speculative; it thus upheld
- I
. the exclusion through the 1980 NEPA Policy Statement of any discussion of severe accidents from environmental impact statements that prefoted that Policy
'f' Statement.
Here, as in LBP-87-17, we are relying on t.n eatirely tifferent Policy Statement to support our admission of the seer O Ljent contention. Moreover, Interveners' contention, like that in Sierra Cluo, wes not accept the remote and speculative characterization of the accident in question but, rather, raises
.'~
, . .. questions (supported .by appropriate bases) about the risk of the accident.
Furthermore, the contention seeks either the issuance of an EIS or, alternatively, revision of the EA.The contention is thus consistent with the intent of the Severe Accident Poiscy Statement, and the assertedly contrary ruling in San Luis Obispo Afothers for Peace becomes irrelevant. In that connection, we note that the , I y Applicant and Staff spend much time in their briefs attempting to convince us that San Luis Obispo Afothersfor Peace and the 1980 NEPA Policy Statement are governing, without even mentioning the subsequent Severe Accident Policy Statement or Chairman Bechhoefer's explanation (more than 3 months ago) of
~
, LBP-87-17 as being premised on the Severe Accident Policy Statement.
- 5. In LBP-88-26, when we rejected the severe-accident contention (Envi- ,
ronmental Contention 1) on the basis of the " law of the case," we also rejected the severe accident bases proffered for Environmental Contentions 2 and 3 on
, the ground that ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 precluded our considering such ac-cidents in any form. LBP-88-26, supra,28 NRC at 446,450 n.16. Interveners,
, in seeking reconsideration of our severe-accident ruling in LBP-88-26, appear
- to be referring to the entirety of our ruling on that subject.
Our change of position with respect to Environmental Contention I causes us to reconsider our exclusion of the severe-accident basis from Environmental
,- Contention 3 (consideration of alternatives) but not from Environmental Con-134
__i___.________________.________________________.____.______________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
1
.- i
.g, ,
.s <. ,y .
~(..
- , , ,,, ; o . .
l.',. .~..,w, tention 2 (occupational exposure). With respect to Contention 2, the postulated 3a ' ll < .
. . , . l severe accident would perforce occur too infrequently (whatever its ultimate l
* ' " ' , ' /' .
' ,/
, risk) to be considered within expected occupational exposures. On the other ;
i -
. '. e .
hand, with respect to Environmental Contention 3, the risk of the particular ac- ! f' ,
. . cident, if found to be suificient to require preparation of an EIS or modification
=g ,
u
,' f , " , .'
- of the EA, would likely have an impact on the consideration of alternatives.
y* , (If an EIS were required, the entire discussion of alternatives would have to
'. ,. g . be reconsidered.) The additional basis for Environmental Contention 3, which
<- .., we are accepting, would be litigated simultaneously with Environmental Con-q tention 1 and would not be a ground for delaying litigation of the remainder of i
< ".' - i -
- Environmental Contention 3.
- t. - *. '
~ * '
'2 . ,
C. Certification
'p '
...\ .
-' 4 . . ,- - . As an alternative to a ruling admitting proposed Environmental Contention l
- ' ' ' 1, the Interveners seek certification of a question on admissibility to the Appeal
- e. .
- Board, in the event we were to decide that the ultimate determination rests with the Appeal Board. They suggest that we issue a ruling and then certify it pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.718(i).
! Both the Applicant and Staff argue that we should not certify the question
. of the applicability of the Sierra Club decision and its effect on ALAB-869 and ALAB-876. They do so essentially on the ground that, in their view, ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 were correctly decided and were not affected by the Sierra
. , Club decision. They claim that the Appeal Board would be bound to follow 6 ALAB-869 and ALAB-876 and that certification would thus serve no useful purpose.
As should be apparent, however, we believe that, because the Appeal Board
'. did not extensively discuss our reliance on the Severe Accident Policy Statement f'*>
. (no party having briefed it, insofar as we are aware), it did not address the full
'. ,,.~ , ramifications of our decision. Although we are still technically bound by ALAB-
- , 869 and ALAB 876, we believe that the Appeal Board should be afforded the
, opportunity of reconsidering those decisions on the basis of both our further
. explanation of LBP-87-17 and the recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit.
Although issuing a ruling and certifying a question is a possible way of
_ . achieving that result, we believe that the better course is for us formally to rule and to refer our ruling to the Appeal Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.730(f). In
., ,. our view, resolution of the alleged zirconium-fire contention in this proceeding
, is legally required and should be accomplished as soon as possible in case issuance of an EIS or revision of the EA should turn out to be necessary prior to a final decision on the amendment before us. In short, prompt review by the Appeal Board (and, potentially, by the Commission) is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest and unusual delay in the proceeding.
135 4 - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - -___ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . - _ ------.--_____-__.--a
- . -1 g -
4 1 l
.. q
. 1
. i D. Effectiveness of This Ruling
~ ~
, Because the ultimate decision on this contention must be made by the Appeal Board (or Commission), we are postponing the effective date of our ruling until N' '
- the Appeal Board takes final action on our referral (either by agreeing with the 3, . , result we reached or rejecting our referral). If the Appeal Board should elect-y * *- , to certify a question or refer its ruling to the Commission, it can make its own
& . decision on effectiveness of our decision.
l"
- 1% <,
M, _' . C E. Discovery In LBP-8717, we provided approximately 60 days' discovery on Contention
; 2. LBP-87-17, supra,25 NRC at 862. The Interveners propounded interrogate-l' , "_ $' rics on that contention but, insofar as we are aware, they were not answered. We .
, .: thus will authorize another 60 days' discovery, beginning from the date of service '
- / of en Appeal Board (or Commission) decision which makes our determination ,
effective, covering both the new Environmental Contention 1 and the additional
, 4:
c
'~,
basis for Environmental Contention 3. Such discovery will include the receipt of
. s ' answers to interrogatories, the asking and answering of second-round discovery, and the completin. of document discovery.
For the reasons stated, it is, this 2d day of February 1989, ORDERED:
. - 1. Our ruling on Environmental Contention 1 in LBP-88-26 is hereby reconsidered. Environmental Contention 1 is hereby admitted as an issue in -
controversy in this proceeding. The basis for Environruental Contention 3 is ' also modified to include the severe-accident basis proffered by the Interveners.
- 2. ' This ruling is referred to the Appeal Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
6 2.730(f). (Filings relevant to this referral are identified in the Appendix to' this Memorandum and Order.) Y , 3. This ruling shall become effective upon final disposition of the referral by ~
, the Appeal Board, or as otherwise provided by the Appeal Board or Commission.
,6 se r
.(
e e a , 136 1 l
- - - - g .
- b ', 1
,i, -
- i. ,
?* .
'd -
R. y [' ,. I.
+ 4 '
=g . , b" ,
l * .- _.r._, L a 7 , . e ' s r .. jf .
-d,. r SOM. + , , .' ,5 '.. _ ,
~*
,v . -, *.,i. 4
<s . u : 1c. %
. f b Fi'l; ,.,?
- ) ; ~
e t
/ ,
4
- s. . ., / ' * ,.fe
-*, ,.d AJl-
- ,3 ;Y g ,, .'. .. .;(O, ' s. % ? .. ;
/
,3 : .
.mm. ~ t.. : -
, . - ..?...
,a l $2[.$.~ .: m. , ,.. ~ , - ? %, ".9 4. - Discovery as set forth in Part E of this ruling'is hereby authorized.-
{, . . ;.)* ,#A-;k'3. #Q ;...-[ p. ' ,
... . .-, n-~ -
, ,,', ' ' THE ATOMIC SAFETY, AND .
, ( '. _' LICENSING BOARD
.c ,
. , l t-. o. ,. ,, i M, , .,'a,'r
,n. . J. , , ;.. - ,,
... , ., ' .,. ....i / . ' ' ~ '
s? . ..
-,. s; . . . . .
7 ;ns;A . y, '.3; ,,f. f;.: .f. : * *s* *~
. , C,. Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman
,, ; * '.7 q , ' ;.. - 2 i ,
.l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
,~, , ~ .
. a/'- . . . - , .. .<-
, 7 '. .
q- L '. c: . n ;, . . ,
, .Dr. James Hi Carpenter -
.... , 7.y g,.,,, * - ' .. .a* - ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE-
. u . .m~\.m
~. . .
. ;o. ,
r: :. ,:: , .. .
<.', as Gu +a -
.x? ' , , .,
. .. ; :. . ' 3, " . .
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. 3., 't : s. ' - 3". ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -
<- . . , ,, . ~, s . . , . . , .
7 * .* ,-
- y .
- 1. .
* ~
. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2d day of February 1989.
+
- a.
Attachment:
Appendix (not published). 3,. . . fm
,, .6
* .I . e E de ., ,
7 ; ,,, , ,
'bo -
s A t 0 + ,
' g g.. ,
_ , ,. 9 + ,e
- g 8 s s ' , ' *. ,
l ,. Y e 3 .,' .
- g 5., ' * , ,
-, s v s,. *
, ? i 4 { 't 9 4
'
- W e
, ,i S 4 ,
g 4
,#,' . g 2 .-
g
- ' ,O, e p %> '
, t 4 ,
O" # 4
- g .$ g 9 - %
e v. t d . 96 ,. e
# 9
- e a . ' ',4* '
e
- 8 g W ,e a*
- 8 g , # 1 e r 6 '
'g! .
6
...e , . ; . t . .
., e.*
4
- g m
g g
- 9 F
.e, 8 6
9 137 O 4 k m n- _ _ - _ _ . - __ -a.s-__--.. - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _., , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ ~ ~
- - - -].
, d j
t I ] i a f 1
~' I' Cite as 29 NRC 1'38 (1989) LBP 89-7 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
a:- ' i.
.i
^
[ s , ,
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.- . s
*'3
- _ . Before Administrative Judges: ,
t .
", 3 Peter B. Bloch, Chair Glenn O. Bright f
. / - '
Dr. Oscar H. Paris - 1 In the Matter of Docket No. 50 320-OLA
- r- (ASLBP No. 87 554-3-OLA)
. (Disposal of Accident-
., Generated Water)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES l . NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al. l , , (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) February 2,1989 - The Board approves Applicants' proposal to evaporate the accident-generated - water (AGW) resulting from the Three Mile Island accident. As a result of the evaporation process, solid radioactive materials would be drawn off and shipped
- for burial. The liquid wastes, whose primary radioactive component is tritium, .
- - , would be evaporated. j
, The Board found that implementation of Applicants' proposal would have extremely small radiation exposure consequences, both to workers and the general public.
As Interveners pointed out, there would be some dose saving through
,, radioactive decay if the AGW were stored on site for 30 years. However, the total dose that might be saved by storing the wastes on site, permitting decay prior to evaporation, would be no more than 36.4 person-rem, but the cost of
, the storage alternative was estimated to exceed S800,000. Thus, the dose saving was considered inadequate to require that much expenditure.
138 l l l- e 1 _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ -
s t
, ; i. , .
/
.. . ..L.s. - ,
~*a , ,_
, ,k, *4 e., *
., ? ,
~ j , . ' I.4 s
,l ,- *: RULES OF PRACTICE: BURDEN OF PROOF (NEPA ISSUES)
- ~
~ ~ . . .
/ ... Applicants' proposal to evaporate AGW shall be approved by the Licensing
, ' , ( ', ' ; ' , ' y - >. .
c , .,. ; i Board unless it finds that another alternative is obviously superior. it is J ,
+
. . , Interveners' burden to propose the other alternative. The burden of proof
.- 1 0' , ' y., f.I - remains on the Applicants, who must show by a preponderance of the evidence
- 'i . ;. s, . ,
- that the other alternative is not obviously superior. -
. .- L . ..
N +- ,,, . / q
.J[>- RULES OF PRACTICE: EFFECT OF HEARING IN NEPA
.x . - CONTEXT
.. .'.*- - s It is the licensing board's obligation to consider all the facts in the record
, ! f .
and to determine whether alternatives to Applicants' proposal are obviously .
.i. .
.c . , superior. At the hearing stage, it is no longer relevant whether the Preliminary
, ','; Environmental Impact Statement was deficient. The hearing record is part of l., , _ N .
.. , the agency record on which an environmental decision is reached.
10 C.F.R. PART 50, APPENDIX I, III.D ($1000 PER PERSON-REM) s The agency's $1000 per person rem standard for reducing radioactive effluent is applicable to a proposed license amendment regarding the evaporation of AGW that is contaminated by radioactivity. When the total radiation exposure
'~ .. is no more than 36.4 person-rem, it is not appropriate to require Applicants -
to spent $800,000 to further reduce the radiation exposure consequences of its proposed action. TECllNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED
. . y Radiation releases from tritium evaporation;
, . Tritium, health effects of;
' ' *. . Maximally exposed offsite person;
,,n < -
, Dose to the total exposed population; l
. Evaporation of radiation. contaminated water; Occupational exposures;
. Accident risks, shipment and burial;
.- .e Dose modeling; MIDAS code; Radiation, low-level (health effects);
Radiation, genetic risk; Cost estimates, alternative proposals; Radiation consequences, alternatives compared; l 139 4 ________----____-___-J L _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _
~
y .
~ '
1 . m ,
.y b
f ., . 1 M"' : - - 'IYitium, measurement of;- ,, i [, ;, . . Microorganisms, effect of evaporation system.- s.
. Je p'. .
.4
-APPEARANCES
' + - , -
.t
. For General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, et al, (Applicants'): Thomas -
. A. Baxter, Ernest L. Blake, Jr., David R. Lewis, Maurice A. Ross, p"
/
' ' , ~,. ,,
all of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.-
,n a~ - For the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff 2): Stephen ~ H.
Lewis, Colleen P. Woodbead.
' For Three Mile Island Alert and Susquehanna Valley Alliance (Interveners 5):
Frances Skolnick. FINAL INITIAL DECISION
'Ihe issue before us is almost a decade old.' It originated during the famous
+
Three Mile Island (Unit 2) accident in 1979. As a result of the accident, the - reactor building basement was covered with about 260,000 gallons of accident-
,. generated water (AGW). Staff's Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement,
' > NUREG-0683, June 1987, Staff Exhibit 1, Supp. 2 at 2.1, 6 2.1 and Table 2.1.
Since the accident, additional water has accumulated. Ibid.,* see, e.g., Id. at 23, Table 2.2. Water not present at the time of the accident but which has been used - for cleanup following the accident is classified as AGW because it has become
- radioactively contaminated. The final volume of AGW at the end of defueling is
-- expected to be approximately 23 million gallons. Id. at 2.3 (Table 2.2, footnote
. (c)).
Several alternative methods for disposing of the AGW have been considered.
- See, e.g.,14. at v-vii, including Table S.I. After considering the summary disposition papers before us, we concluded that the principal remaining genuine
~
issues of fact, for which there would be a hearing, were whether the AGW
- should be evaporated (and the solidified evaporator bottoms properly buried),
' as proposed by General Public Utilities, or whether it should be stored in tanks I !n yuier epunens. safened to as tjeamoso er oPUN.
Sin pdor apunens, safened to as NaC staff. 3 1n paier spunens. vafened to as Jaus Luarvenous.
'We used lonpage very similar to the bepuung of this opuuan in the beginrung of our pnar opuuon. Rulings
- en Mauens for Sununary Dupastuan,12P 88@. 28 NRC 178 (1988).
140
~?
o
- . a b
^
,t ," . ,: , . c.
v
'e % on site (the "no-action alternative"), perhaps for 30 years, to allow most of the
,. , ., tritium to decay.5 We note that Applicant and Staff filings concerning summary disposition
. 7, .- , ', ,
. disagreed about the cost of these two alternatives and that the record did not N ' ' ' ,- - -
r
- contain detailed information on the cost of onsite storag.: for 30 years. We
, ' , ' s. ,
, were not sure, at the time of our summary disposition decision, why more
.- .. consideration was not given to the no-action alternative, but a possibility we considered was that the Staff failed to give it adequate consideration because !
' ' ~ '
Q it believed that Commission policy prohibited it. We also noted the following
'*- genuine issues of fact in the record: (1) the amount of tritium now present in ;? ,
each of the separately stored portions of the AGW, and (2) the seriousness of the health effects of the release of tritium through evaporation. ! yu.,. . q; - . .
9 ; , '
I. INTERVENERS' PROCEDURAL POSITION
- n,
.; These issues we have just discussed, previously set forth in our Summary l
. Disposition decision, were the issues we heard and that we must decide.' l 1
- However, the Interveners, represented by a nonlawyer,7 adopted a static theory 4
of their case (see Interveners' Conclusions of Law, particularly 112,3, and 3 (the second paragraph numbered 3]), in which they apparently did not accept l our framing of the issues and subissues and continued to argue that they should prevail because the Staff's Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement, j - . NUREG-0683, June 1987, Staff Exhibit 1, was deficient. Our ruling, which we set forth as clearly as we could, apparently was not _ understood by the Interveners 8 However, it is based on sound principles of law that recognize the nature of the hearing process, in which all the parties have an opportunity to introduce evidence that bears on the determinations made in the
', '- S Apphcants and stafr now agree that inuum as the radioisotope of entical canarn m assessmg the rheological
- s- '
impacts of the proposed evaporauart smce it wt!! remove radioscuve sohds, such as simntium.90, from the AoW
- urr.tl those sobds will be reduced to 1/1000 of their ongtnal level; but the pmcess will not affect the quanuty of
~,' tndum. see LBP-88-23, supra,23 NRC at 191.
+ 'We stated the same pnnciple in our order, m the followmg language:
me i . , The pnmary issue to be heard is whether the nasction alternauve is obviously supenor to the forced evaporauon proposal becausa the latter method will release all of the tntium in the AGW to the aunosphere without any (further] pnor penod of natural radioacuve decay.
*l, ** e Related subissues to be heaed are: whether the inuum content of the AoW has been accurately
. . determmed, whether Inuum is of more enucal concern with respect to our determmauon than stronuum-
. 90; and whether the nsk to the pubhc heahh from tntium released by forced evaporauon is gmater than e =
N - limnsee and staff have acknowledged.
/d. at 233.
7
. Frances skolruck worked dagently for Interveners and we appreciate her efforts to inform this Board.
' 8
, , Durmg the beanng, we advised them further (Tr. 584,59492, relatirig to how costs wers a pan of the pending issue, and Tr. 608, daecribmg Interver. ors' problem and staung that they have to demonstrate the esasience of a better alternauve; see otro Tr. 58182. where the floard capiamed the difference between the burden of going forward and the burden of proof). Ilowever, ser Interveners' statement, Tr. 1684 81.
i l 141 l l l 1
.a > .
r a '. ,. , ,
< n
' ~ '
i
, :j j
J preliminary environmental innpact state' ment. After havmg heard that evidence, it is logical that we should weigh it directly in making our decision, which isj p ,
'."' itself a public process of weighing environmental issues. LBP-88 23, sapra,28 J
NRC at 183-84, citing the following NEPA cases that we also stated we would U. - apply to the analogous issues arising under Commission regulations requiring ,
. releases to be As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA): ' Public Service o a . .
. , Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC
' ^ '
; .+ 503, 522 (1977), qW'd sub nom. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
. .a
<^
- v. NRC,582 F.2d 87,95 (1st Cir.1978), citing Monroe County Consermtion g F; Society,Inc. v. Volpe,472 F.2d 693,697 98 (2d Cir.1973).
U q- Perhaps some of the Interveners' apparent dif6culty in accepting our rulings '
, , a, -
and legal interpretations may have arisen out of confusion about the different
- i stages of agency consideration of the AGW issues. ,
- 1 First, there was the preliminary environmental impact statement. Then, In-
~-
. tirvencrs were permitted to intervene by stating contentions together with "the
, . ,- baks for each comention . . . with reasonable speciScity." Texas Utilities Elec-
' tric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868,25 NRC
>>12, 930 (1987). Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing
. Conference; Ruling on Contentions Scheduling), unpublished. January 5,1988, at 3. By Sling contentions, considered under the liberal standards appropriate
, for this stage of the case, interveners indicated the issues that concerned them and they gained a ticket of admission to the case, entitling them to access to the :
, discovery process.
. . At the close of the discovery process, Interveners faced a motion for summary disposition.- At that point, they filed affidavits. As we have already discussed, this Board found that they had raised genuine issues of fact that they could -
^
take to hearing; and the Board also applied the law to this case and deAned the -
. genuine issues of fact for hearing.'
. The evidentiary record now is far more complete than it was at either the.
c contention admission stage or the summary disposition stage. ' And.it is this Board's obligation, acting for the Commission, to reach a determination based on the entire record of this case. 1'
- IL CONCLUSION After considering all the facts of record, in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the Applicants' request for an amendment to its license should be granted. By a preponderance of the evidence, they have demonstrated that
, their alternative is environmentally acceptable, because of the acceptable level of occupational exposure and the very low level of atmospheric relea,se, and we 142
. - _ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . ______________m_ ___
E
~
../ .
L , s r
.~ , , .
T * ' E conclude that the Interveners' no-action alternative is not obviously superior to
~~ '
4 i '. the evaporation proposal.
- i. . ..
'(.- We are convinced that implementation of Applicants' pmposal will have a ,
- ,f extremely small radiation exposure consequences, both to workers and the
[' general public. Ibrthermore, using extn:mely conservative assumptions, we ,~L ,L '
- conclude that the maximum savings in radiation dose that could be attributed to
!.^' .- the no-action alternative would be 36.4 person-tem, comprised predominantly
, *,y. of occupational exposure - with some exposure of the public Applying the
(' b '
; . i, cost-benefit standard of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, ill.D, it would be s - -
n - appropriate to require Applicants to spend at most $36,400 ($1000 per person-
% J '
. - rem) to avoid this dose consequence, but the no-action alternative (including e
d- -
'; disposal of the waste after 30 years) would cost $800,000 more. Consequently,
. g.g ' y -
Applicants correctly conclude that their proposal is entitled to our approval and
. ,m ;,
that Interveners' no-action alternative is not obviously superior. .
* , Of particular concern to us has been the proposed radiation exposure of the general public, which is comprised of people who will not have consented to
'l this exposure, Applicants and the Staff independently determined the radiological conse-quences to the public from the controlled, atmospheric release of the evaporated AGW by estimating the dose to both the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person and to the total exposed population. Interveners did not submit any -
calculations of their own and did not seriously cha!!cnge the estimates of the magnitude of release made by the other parties. The dose to the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person is a conser-vative assessment of the exposure to a member of the public, as required by
- Appendix ! to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, using Regulatory Guide 1.109 dose method-ology. It is very unlikely that any actual person will receive a dose as great as that of the maximally exposed hypothetical individual, who is assumed to be a person in the maximum inhalation location who consumes meat, vegetables, and milk from each of the other maximum dose pathway locations.
The MIDAS code, whose use by Applicants was accepted by the Staff and not specifically challenged by Interveners, calculates the estimated doses to the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person for the duration of the evapora-
" " tion process (taking into account, as well, the extent of pmcessing/ reprocessing
. s ,
- of the AGW). The dose to the bone is estimated to be 0.4 millirem, while the total-body dose is estimated to be 1.3 millirems (1.2 millirems of which is from tritium).
These are not annual doses but rather estimates for the duration of the
' " evaporation process, and they are still well below the annual guideline of 15 millirems given in Appendix 1 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, for exposure from airborne
. releases. Baker, Tr. 638.
143
l . ,
.- j L
l
.2 . i l, i 1
In addition to considering the maximally exposed individual, we can consider the estimated dose to the total exposed population; that dose is a more represen- , tative assessment of the radio!ogical consequences resulting from evaporation of-
, the AGW. Daker, Tr. 637. MIDAS was again utilized to estimate the dose to the population. In addition to estimating the inhalation and inger? ion doses to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile radius of TMI-2, the code also estimates the ingestion dose to an additional 13 million people assumed to be fe<1 agricultural
._ produce exported from within the 50-mile radius. The total exposure to the
. a population from evaporation of the AGW is estimated to be 2.4 person-rem to the bone, and 12 person-rem to the total body.
For simplicity in calculating an average, Applicants applied the total popu-lation dose (to 15.2 million) to the 2.2 million people living within 50 miles.
, This highly conservative assumption yields an upper-bound average exposure to
. a member of the 50-mile population of 0.001 millirem to the bone and 0.005
- ' millirem to the total body. Since the evaporation process will take more than !
, year, the annual population doses are less than these values. Baker, Tr. 638. i
~
The Stalt independently estimated the offsite doses expected from Appli-
. cants' evaporation proposal. The Staff predicted that the maximally exposed
, , hypothetical offsite person would receive 0.8 millirem to the bone, and a total-body dose of 0.7 millirem. The Staff estimates a dose to the offsite population of 0.2 person-rem to the bone, and 3 person-rem to the total body. Munson, Tr. 742, 747. Considering that different models and assumptions were used (e.g., GPUN's conservative consideration of population ingestien doses beyond 50 miles), the Board considers the dose estimates of Applicants and the Staff to be in general agreement - both agree that the doses would be verv ?ow.
The Board finds that the insignificance of these dose- is evident. Compared to the 0.01-millirem Applicant-estimated annual bone dose from strontium and the 1.2-millirem total tritium dose that Applicants estimate the maximally exposed individual might receive from the evaporation of the AGW, the average individual in the TMI area will receive 300 millirems per year from natural 4 radiation (about 70 millirems from direct radiation from the soil and cosmic rays,30 millirems from internal natural radioxtivity and weapons fallout, and 200 millitems whole-body equivalent from radon daughters) each year. The maximum individual organ dose to the bone therefore is less than 0.003% of the naturally occurring whole body radiation the average member of the population would receive during the 50-year integration period. The whole body dose from tritium is about 0.01% of the natural whole-body dose. Baker, Tr. 639.
, As another illustration, the worst-case dose to the maximally exposed indi-vidual is on the order of a single day of natural backgmund radiation, and is received over a 1- to 2-year period. Munson, Tr. 743.
l 4 144 i _~_l-~- -- _ _ _ . . . _. .- -
1 p - l
-.s l: ,. ,
~
,.. - v. .. .
lE ' ' ,. [, , ;. . w III. ' EXPECTED RADIATION RELEASES 9, ,- g, . . . .c .?, _ e> 1 L l, - .- Whether the- AGW is disposed of through evaporation or through the no-3 ,, action alternative, followed by a method such as evaporation, some radiation ['i ,. . ' O.- - ,s . . ,
, - {, will be released to the environment. With respect to either alternative, the amount that will be released is the planned release plus the expected release due
%'. ,*t
'i - J; v ,
to an unplanned mishap.
/
.,,. '* .c.
- In this portion of our Decision we will estimate and compare both the
'.4 s , ,., *- *
*N*
expected and unplanned releases from the evaporation alternative and from the
^
, 4
~
no-action alternative. ge e
,4
- . ,9,,y* .. '
. . i A. Evaporation Proposal Releases Description of Applicants' Proposa!
~
. ~, ,
1.
~ - ' I On July 31, 1986, GPUN filed with the NRC a report on the disposal of-
. ; the processed AGW, evaluating three disposal options on the basis of relative
- - i 7' technical feasibility, regulatory compliance, environmental effects, costs, waste generated, and time required to accomplish. Based on its evaluation, GPUN asked the NRC to approve a proposal for forced evaporation followed by vaporization and atmospheric release of the product distillate.
The GPUN proposal also includes the separation and final treatment of the
- - solids removed and collected during the evaporation process and the preparation -
of the resulting waste product for shipment to and burial at a commercial low-level waste facility.
- 2. Implementation GPUN has entered into a contract with Pacifi: Nuclear Systems, Inc., to supply the disposal system. In February 1988, GPUN authorized the vendor to
- proceed to final design. and fabrication of the disposal system for'the specific TMI-2 application. A detailed description of the systems and evolutions that / ,
will accomplish the controlled disposal of the AGW is contained in GPUN's Technical Evaluation Report for Processed Water Disposal System. Buchanan,
~
?- .
Tr. 456-57. That report is in evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 1. 'R. 470. The processed water disposal program consists of: (a) a dual.fvaporato:
^ " .f.
i- ,, system designed to evaporate the processed water at a rate of 3 'pl!ons per minute (gpm); (b) an electric-powered vaporizer designed to raise the
- > evaporator distillate temperature to 240 F and to relcase the resultant steam
' ~
to the stmosphere via a flash tank and exhaust stack: (c) a waste concentrator
/
designed to produce the final compact waste form; and (d) a packaging section
]
I
. i 1 15 l
i
_.7_,_
, a I 4 e' .
. ?
. . designed to prepare the resultant waste for shipment consistent with commercial -
~
- - ~'
1.~ low-level waste disposal regulations. Buchanan, 'IY. 457. All AGW will be processed through the evaporator prior to release to the environment via vaporization. The designed flexibility of the disposal system permits the evaporator assembly to be decoupled from the vaporizer assembly.
"- In this configuration, the evaporator operates independently of the vaporizer and processes the water in a batch-cycle method of operation. The distillate from the evaporator is pu nped to a separate staging tank, and the feed to the vaporizer is supplied from an independent staging tank. Conversely, if the
' +
vaporizer is coupled to the evaporator during operations, the water is processed
> N in a continuous-flow operation. The distillate from the evaporator is fed directly to the vaporizer for atmospheric discharge. Buchanan, Tr. 458.
c . , Average activity levels have been projected for the total 2.3 million gallons
, ., , of AGW assuming further preprocessing of approximately 31% of the inventory.
%' ( See Buchanan, 'IY. 465, cols. I and 2. These data appear in PEIS Supplement c, No. 2, Table 2.2, and are identified as " Base Case" water. These activity
'; , levels formed the basis for the Staff's analysis of the environmental effects
+
of evaporator discharges. The activity releases occurring from evaporator
. discharges of Base Case water result in releases that are a small fraction of the releases permitted by existing regulatory requirements for the operation of a nuclear power plant. Buchanan, Tr. 458-59.
- 3. Operatwg Limits Since the PEIS analysis assumed processing Base Case water with a vaporizer discharge to the atmosphere containing 0.1% of the radioactive particulate
, from the influent, the PEIS values for Base Case will be used as the system operating limit. Thus, when operating the processed water disposal system in the coupled mode (evaporator and vaporizer in continuous operation), the volume of water being processed will be isolated from all sources of contamination. Its a
radionuclides content will be verified to be within the Base Case limits so that quarterly average concentrations of all water processed in this mode will be no greater than the concentrations listed at Tr. 465, col. 2. When processing water through the vaporizer in the decoupled mode (inde-pendent of the evaporator), the quarterly average vaporizer influent concentra-tions will be no greater than 0.1% of the values in Tr. 465, col. 2. These limits equate to an atmospheric release rate for particulate radionuclides of 8.23E-5 ! microcuries per second if processing water containing the maximum limits at a rate of 5 gpm. Buchanan, Tr. 459. Joint Interveners' Material Statement of Fact 4(xiii) under Contention 3 asserted that the NRC's dose calculuions are inadequate 5ecause the water a entering the evaporator in batch cycle will deviate from the concentrations listed 146 l l _ __ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ n_.___._______.__
u - s ji
. ~ ,
pt V. .
., . . .; ' { . , ', a 1 in Table 2.2 of PEIS Supplement No. 2. See LBP-88-23, supra 28 NRC at 199..
i, J. ,. , 7 ' g. . ,i ' ; ,. . , , ,: For the reasons just discussed, the system operating limit will be the same for
, ,,' ,. l- - -
all methods of operation, and the batch-cycle operation of the evaporator wil! f[',*f.,*j' o
,' i not affect the resulting dose calculations. Buchanan, Tr. 459.
r ..,c,. ,
- e. .
, C . r. . ,.., ,,'. ^', .l,f.; ,.
. 4. Accident Risks
, .n 3:
];.; . i.*,e Both Applicants and the Staff testified re!,arding the potential risks associated
,"',. with the evaporation proposal.' Applicants noted that the evaporation process
' . . *' p" .' - f'.. , , , '
- ?' is estimated to last from 15 to 24 months. During that time, the AGW,will -
-. , be stored in an approximately 500,000-gallon tank prior to being vaporized.
I' - - *A ' Applicants estimated the probability of an uncontrolled release from the staging ,' :-, ., , - tank as 0.17% over a 24-month period, with a resulting dose of 2.50 millirems
'e ,
. J. ' * , , from the liquid pathway and 1.79 millirems from the airborne pathway to the
[) ~(~ ',
- i , -
critical organ - the bone. Weaver, Tr. 475. We consider Applicants' estimates
,7~ ' of the percentage risk and resulting dose to be highly conservative.
4 ,
.y .!
- g - ' p , . , *'( , l*
S. Occupational Risks - Shipment and Burial
. The transportation of evaporator bottoms to a disposal site involves radiolog-ical and nonradiological risks. Radiological risks include occupational dose to
- drivers and handlers of AGW and bottoms, plus dose to members of the general
. population. The general population dose consists of routine dose exposure to bystanders and other vehicular passengers in addition to accident dose due to transportation mishaps. Weaver, Tr. 475.
Applicants estimated conservatively that disposal of evaporator bottoms will require eight to twelve truck shipments to the burial site. The average activity a . of each shipment is expected to be less than 0.5 curie total activity. Applicants' assumed the shipments would travel along the ! ast-risk route from TM1 to Hanford, Washington, which is the proposed burial site.
<.~ . ,
' ^ '
~, . - *
, ,. Applicants estimated that the incident-free population dose from twelve shipments would be 10.4 person-rem, and the estimated dose to the driver per 7
,. - p- ~ i
~. shipment would be 95 millirems. Weaver, Tr. 475-76.
~ -
l Applicants testified that the expected number of traffic accidents and fatalities
,~*' ,
for these shipments would be 0.019 and 0.002, respectively.
- 6. Accidental Risks - Shipment and Burial
~
-' - .
- Taking into account the severity and probability of an accident, the popula-
- tion density along the least risk route, and the resulting release fraction of ra-147 i mu_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ m__ _ . _ _ _ _ ____ 2 _ ____.____ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ m _
- ~ _ __ 4 4 $ ~ ' a .J . dionuc)io produces s 0.003 person-rem expected from these shipments. Weaver, ' ~.'-.
.s Tr.476 In addition, the further preprocessing of AGW prior to evaporation will produce approximately forty liners which will require twenty to forty shipments
, for disposal and represent a disposal volume of 6200 cubic feet. Applicants testified that the expected number of traffic accidents and fatalities resulting from disposal of these liners would be 0.093 and 0.0038, respectively, and the L' ' i cxpected dose to each driver would average approximately 15 millitems per accident. Applicants estimated the incident-free dose to the general population from these shipments as 4.8 person-rem, and taking into account the severity
, and probability of an accident, the estimated ac~cident dose as 0.56 person-rem.
, id.
The Staff assumed that the maximum accident for Applicants' proposal
)'
involved the rupture of an 11,000-gallon storage tank of AGW. From this P .
, . accident scenario, the Staff estimated a dose of 0.015 millirem to the bone
.c
., , and 0.002 millirem to the total body for the maximally exposed individual, and a population dose of 0.7 person-rem to the bone and 0.015 person rem to the , total body. Munson, Tr. 748.
In addition, the Staff estimated that Applicants' proposal would require a total of sixty-eight waste disposal shipments. The Staff estimated that the sixty-eight shipments would result in 0.6 accident,0.5 injury, and 0.03 fatality. Munson, Tr.749. The Interveners did not challenge the Applicants' or the Staff's risk analysis of Applicants' proposal. Both analyses demonstrate that Applicants' proposal does not present significant accident risks.
- 7. Occupational Radiation Exposure - On Site Applicants conservatively estimated the occupational dose attributable to evaporation of AGW and the packaging of the evaporator bottoms as 23 person-rem. This maximum dose was based on 9.6 person-rem from approximately 16,000 person-hours for the evaporation process in a radiation field of 0.6 millirem per hour (mrem /hr),8.7 person-rem from approximately 3500 person-hours for the packaging of the evaporator bottoms in a radiation field of 2.5 ,
mrem /hr, and 2 to 5 person-rem from the preprocessing of water. Tarpinian, )
~
Tr. 443-44 l
- 8. Offsite Doses to the General Population Applicants and the Staff both presented testimony estimating the radiological doses to the public from GPUN's evaporation proposal and from the Interveners' 148 1
l i
)
l d
-_a
.. o 4
~
,f' A, ,
- alternative. While the Interveners' witnesses implied some criticisms of these modelir,g efforts, which we address below, they did not offer their otvn estimates
'- -( of offsite doses or indicate in any quantitative way the extent of any perceived
~
error in the estimates of Applicants and Staff. The Board will discuss the
'.J modeling issues first, and then consider the dose estimates.
./ . ,
?
. . s
. t >
L a. Dose Modeling
, 7 . ,- , . -
. ne primary environmental dose assessment computer code used by GPUN
. .j Environmental Controls is the Meteorological Information and Dose As.cessment System (MIDAS). The MIDAS Code uses atmospheric dispersion calculations
~'
's ?. [ ': '.I '
based on the Pasquill-Gifford method picsented in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111 to derive the average airborne concentration, deposition rate from a plume, and @ 'Y ' , the ground concentration of each radionuclides in each sector as a function of '
> + .} ,, ' -
, time.
- m. He dose dee to direct exposure to radioactive material in the plume and deposited on the ground is determined by MIDAS directly from these functions, using published conversion factors such as those in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109. Baker, Tr. 628. MIDAS also accounts for the transfer of radionuclides through the environment using transfer coefficients from Regulatory Guide 1.109. It estimates the concentration of radionuclides in each trophic level to arrive at estimates of the quantity of each radionuclides ingested or inhaled by members of the public.
When the ingestion and inhalation quantities have been calculated, dose conversion factors (DCFs) are applied. The primary sources of these factors are Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172, which in turn are based on International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publications, in-cluding ICRP Publication 2, ICRP Publication 10, and ICRP Publication 23. Cooper, Tr. 632-34. The DCFs take into account both the effective half-life of
,; radionuclides in the body as well as the quality factor of the radiation from each radionuclides. The dose calculated by MIDAS in the manner described above is
'. , a 50-year dose commitment. Cooper, Tr. 635.
. .,' Although the relevance of assertions in their testimony was poorly articulated,
- , 3 . ,
Interveners' witnesses raised a few points that could have bearing on dose
's
- modeling. Dr. Huver referred to studies by Koranda and Martin and by
. Kirchmann, and his description of the findings of these studies suggested that
. tritium might bioaccumulate in plants and animals. Huver, 'TY. 1664-65. Both Dr. Huver's and Dr. Morgan's testimony also suggested that a greater Quality Factor for tritium beta radiation should be acknowledged. Huver, Tr.1655,
, 1658-59,1665-65A; Morgan at 2 3. These notions were convincingly dispelled l '
by the testimony of Applicants' witnesses, Dr. Auxier and Dr. Fabrikant, and are discussed in the subsequent portion of our opinion dealing with health effects. 149
. _ _ _ _ - __-___-____-_-_______-__________________a
~
- '. b Based on their testimony, we accept the Applicants' use of a DCF of.1.7 for tritium as a conservative value.
%~
- b. Dose Estimates
~
Applicants and the Staff independently determined the radiological conse-Y quences to the public from the controlled, atmospheric release of the evaporated AGW by estimating the dose to both the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite
~
' ., person and to the total exposed population. The dose to the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person is a conservative (overestimated) assessment of the
* . exposure to a member of the public, as required by Appendix ! to 10 C.F.R. Part
, 50, using Regult. tory Guide 1.109 dose methodology. The maximally exposed hypothetical individual, who is a concept that does not exist in flesh and blood,
, , s ,
is assumed to be a person in the maximum inhalation location who consumes meat, vegetables, and milk from each of the other maximum dose pathway lo-cations. The estimated dose to the total exposed population is a more represen-tative assessment of the radiological consequences resulting from evaporation of the AGW. Baker, Tr. 637. The MIDAS code was used by Applicants to calculate the estimated doses to the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person for the duration of the evapo-ration process (taking into account, as well, the extent of processing / reprocessing of the AGW). The total dose to the bone is estimated to be 0.4 millirem, while the total-body dose is estimated to be 1.3 millirems (1.2 millirems of which is from tritium). (If the strontium-90 concentration in the AGW were not re-duced by evaporation, the strontium would dominate dose calculations. With a decontamination factor of 1000 achieved by the evaporator, however, tritium is the radionuclides that contributes the most to calculated doses - 1.2 of the 1.3-millirem total-body dose to the maximally exposed individual from immediate evaporation. Baker, "Ir. 643.) These doses, which are not annual doses but rather estimates for the duration of the evaporation process, still are well below the annual guideline of 15
. millirems given in Appendix 1 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, for exposure frorn airborne releases. Baker, Tr. 638.
MIDAS was again u.ilized to estimate the dose to the population. In addition to estimating the inhalation and ingestion doses to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile radius of TM1-2, the code also estimates the ingestion dose to an additional 13 million people assumed to be fed agricultural produce exported from within the 50-mile radius. The total exposure to the population from evaporation of the AGW is estimated to be 2.4 person rem to the bone, and 12 person rem to the total body. For simplicity, in calculating an average, Applicants applied the total population dose (to 15.2 million) to the 2.2 million people living within 50 r6iles. This 150
m. e t e
, o:
,.n t ,' - *. . , , . .
*l*' l9 ,
,,l,, .
g " -l ' *. , . , . , t , yields a conservative (i.e., upper-bound) average exposure to a member of the b ' ;,, ,;; '
, , - :'- 50-mile population of 0.001 millirem to the bone and 0.005 millirem to the h ,
, k d. ', total body. Since the evaporation piocess will take more than 1 year, the annual
.',. population doses are less than these values. Id.
' . " , . , ' ' ' , j' ' 'j ' '
Independent Staff Estimate. The Staff independently estimated the offsite i'..[.,' . . ,. , . ,
r doses expected from Applicants' ecporation proposal. The Staff predicted that
,'.i c '. / , , . ./ . .
the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person would receive 0.8' millirem
<- . ' P ; ' < ,- ..
5 to the bone, and a total body dose of 0.7 millirem. 'Ihe Staff estimates a dose
,j - (' .
- 1. 7
'[ to the offsite population of 0.2 person-rem to the bone, and 3 person-rem to the total body. Munson, Tr. 742,747. Considering th:4 diffuent models and b ;., ., ,
assumptions were used (e.g., GPUN's conservative consideration of population
.+,, -
', ingestion doses beyond 50 miles), the Board considers that the dose estimates
*U *
- of Applicants and the Staff are in general agreement that the doses would be Y,2 . ,.
very low.
" j" '.v ..
' 'a
- In the interest of conservatism, we adopt the higher of the two estimates in '
,...' ;3 ., .
~
- each instance. Hence, we consider that the maximally exposed hypothetical a' -
. - o offsite individual will receive 0.8 millirem to the bone and 1.3 millirems to the
., total body. The total dose to the offsite population is found to be 2.4 person-rem
,' . '. to the bone and 12 person-rem to the total body. We note that the Applicants'
- estimate of offsite dose is over twenty times larger than the Staff's estimate for
* ' exposure to the bone and over four times larger for total body.
+ .
- c. Significance of Doses
'IKe Board finds that these doses are insignificant when compared to radiation 3,.
doses that people receive even day as the result of natural phenomena. In
- - addition, for reasons we will discuss below, we conclude that the health consequences of this additional exposure are expected to be negligible or
.f,
- 4 nonexistent.
M ,, Compared to the less-than-0.02-millirem Board-estimated annual bonc dose
'v from strontium (0.8 millirem divided by the number of years oflife expectancy)
-
- and the 1.2-millirem total tritium dose that Applicants estimate the maximally exposed individual might receive from the evaporation of the AGW, the average individual in the TMI area will receive 300 millirems per year from natural radiation (about 70 millirems from direct radiation from the soil and cosmic rays, 30 millirems from internal natural radioactivity and weapons fallout, and
, 't 3,
- - 200-millirem whole-body equivalent from radon daughters) each year. The
-' maximum individual organ dose to the bone therefore is less than 0.006% of the
! -
- naturally occurring whole-body radiation the average member of the population S *
- i,-
would receive during the 50-year integration period. The whole-body dose from j
- tritium is about 0.01% of the natural whole-body dose. See Tr. 639 (Baker - i
,. adjusted by the Board for its hight r estimate of bone dose).
%. b 151 e
m,
9, s i " n As another illustration, the worst-case dose to the maximally exposed indi-vidual is on the order of a single day of natural background radiation and is received over a 1- to 2-year period. Munson, Tir. 743. The additional dose to the maximally exposed individual from evaporation is far below the normal environmental dose variability, and the additional dose to the average offsite individual is thousands of times smaller. Baker, Tr. 640. Another way of considering these same data is that the dose to the hypo-thetical individual from evaporation of the AGW would be less than 10'7o of an additional dose a person would receive from living in a brick building each year, and is comparable to the whole-body dose an average individual in the
; general population receives from watching color television each year. The dose
.c to the average individual is many hundreds of times less and thus de minimis.
Fabrikant, Tir.1225.
- 4
~ The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
_s- . o g. 7, does not even calculate population doses when individual doses are this low j s because the NCRP considers them insignificant. Munson, Tr. 743.
^
B. Description of the "No Action Alternative" Since the Interveners resisted specifying the alternative that they considered to be obviously superior to Applicants' proposal (Tr. 561, 581-90), it is necessary
, for us to review part of the history of this case to determine which alternative Interveners were entitled to have the Board evaluate. We then will also briefly discuss some.other alternatives the Interveners mentioned and that we briefly inquired into pursuant to our broad powers to require the preparation of an .
adequate record. As admitted, Contention 2 states as follows: The EIS fails to cornply with the requirements of the National Environmental Poticy Act (42 IJSCS 4332, n.29). The NRC failed to conduct conclusive risk / benefit analysis of the "No Action Alternative." s LBP-88-23, supra, 28 NRC at 185. This contention embodies what we have identified as the principal issue at the hearing - whether from a cost-benefit standpoint, the alternative is obviously superior to Applicants' proposal. As i
~
drafted, Contention 2 would appear to refer to alternative 3.5.1," Liquid Storage in Tanks," evaluated by the Staff in PElS Supplement No. 2, and which the Staff also refers to as the "no action alternative." See Staff Exh. I at 3.32. This alternative involves retreatment of the AGW to Base Case levels (as does Applicants' proposal), id. at 3.2 (Table 3.1), existing and newly constructed storage tanks at TMI, id. at 3.32, and indefinite storage. Id. 152 9 m___m__.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . -_ _ . _ -_ _ _ _ _ ._.________._______..______.______.________.._____._________.1_.___.
ih. ,
.o v. .,,,
,, ,q _
, .__a
, n L a- ' *
~
r , . < 1 , _ a .
- a. 9 a...; ., m y ,.7 73 .,- t .
. . *'g; ,
..,.*^
, ,1, ; '. . $ { ;' +, v.'f 17.; , ., ,~~ ,; At the special prehearing conference,'Intenenors clarified Contention 2 by ' p .n..
- y. ,
s, explaining that "the no action alternative supposes that eventually the. water will
; f ',f W . . ,<' . , .
be disposed of." Tr. 65; Memorandum and Order of January 5,1988, supra, at J. M ; p o- t. ; .'7 .:, , , :, . a 20. ' x
. .o %; < , , .
4,y. ,,,.g,;-. . 4, .g a. 17 , .,.y. c, . ,. ,
.q .j, -
m; . t
- 1. Procedural Setting s,,.s - , *, . . " y_, . ...,?.... , 2. .. .- .,
,- +
O'
. - , ' y ,. ..[,f' , , It should be noted that the NRC hearing process provides great latitude in
! ? ',' , y, , , d , ' ' ..,"?" .
., . discovery and it gives the Applicants for the license amendment the burden of
':q';, > e; . . >
proof. However, an obligation of the Interveners is to. state their allegations
' ' t., m ' *,; 4. . * > .p. .
. . with sufficient specificity that the Applicants are put on notice of the issue on .
f'i' y, f ~ ! y y' . . , ~.7
. , which they have the burden. . .
J. *, u , I .,, v. . The notice requirement a natural outgrowth of fundamental notions of q.- 'f.' *. , i',". *
) ,,
fairness applied to the party with the burden of proof. As the Atomic Safety at -
.p . ,v,:
..w
} j * .", and Licensing Appeal Board has observed:
s- .se *. ,~ c = r ., Ihe applicant is entitled to a fair chance to defend. It is therefore entitled to be told at
- o ' ' , the outset, with clarity and precision, whs; arguments are being advanced and what relief is f "
.. . - being asked . . . So is the Board below,' It should not be necessary to speculate about .
what a pleading is supposed to mean. _~ ; - .
\ '".,'
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-
.c a X , 279,1 NRC 559,576 (1975); see also Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche
~
' ~ ' '
... , ' Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 NRC 912, 930 (1987).
*;/, . -
Moreover, the Licensing Board is entitled to adequate notice of an Intervenor's b - specific contentions to enable it to guard against obstructionism of its processes.
, As noted by the Supreme Court in upholding the Commission's requirements for a threshold showing of materiality:
! .' iT)t is stiti incumbent upon Interveners who wish to participate to structure their participation
.. ?_. 1 ' '
so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the Interveners' position and contentions
. ,'*,. , , ( ,
.. . g. >
',.. . . . . Indeel, administrative proceedings should not be a game or forum to engage in
*' unjustified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to matters that *ought to
~
be" considered. .. 2 ', ', v. , Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. 519, $53-54 (1978)
,L .- * (emphasis added).
f
. Similarly, "an intervenor is not free :o change the focus of its admitted ' ; i, - -
contention, at will, as the litigation progresses." Public Service Co. of New
~,
, . Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 n.11
* ' , . ;,,. ' .' . c f.l, l
;t .
(1988). t g 4 .O
.. 'e ,
'- 5 i,g.
I 153 I t
- -__ - _--._.--___a _ _ - - - . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ . . _ - . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . - . _ - . - - - - . - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ . - - _ - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
o < Qw,, ,
- I, ' k ,
~
W .. l s. ..
..l s
6Y l .
, 2. ' interveners' Discovery Responses .
L o
' - ' ' * , . During discovery, Applicants asked Interveners the estimated size of storage >
L.
. p' ts? - , . tanks encompassed in'the no-action alternative. ' De Interveners responded "Those most convenient ~ to the Licensee which comply with all regulations .
a ' f,.j "
,l, < .
/ , 4. . + ; ,
and give adequate protection to the workers and the public."' SVA/TMIA's . H,..*,j 3 , Responses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Documents; Feb.15,, 4,' , . . . l.
, 1988, at 13, Interrogatory 2-2(c). . . .
2 - 3 P, , , , -
- L Applicants asked the Interveners the location on the TMI. site where storage .
> ' gF mg ,
- q tanks would be placed. De Interveners responded Lanat location which is '
[pg y, y u; 3 ,- :c, least hazardous to employees and most accessible to radiation monuoring.114. at m %:
., .4, p -
14, Interrogatory 2-2(d). . . . . . . .. f
~
, De Staff asked the Interveners for what length of time they'clauned the
.g. '..
. < - water should remain on site. The Interveners responded: "It is expected thatl L/ <, %
- the water may remain on-site at least until Unit 1 is decomndssioned and forL
/ as long as Unit 2 remains in Post Defueling Monitored Storage." SVAfrMIA's L.g ', T . '
- Response to NRC's Interrogatories, Feb. 22,1988, at 4, Interrogatory 5.
NJ. ' De Interveners also were asked what the ultimate disposal method would' A
* - be for their alternative. They responded: . " Rat method which' entails the :
'least health impact on the surrounding population." SVA/rMIA's Responses 1
s
,[ ,' ,,' to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Feb. 15,1988, at 14. -
Interrogatory 2.2(f).-
~
~*
- 3. The Board's Conclusions About the Interwnors' Contendon .
7 ['~ ' Based upon the Contention 2 reference to the PEIS "no-action alternative," '
, . , Interveners' statement at the special prehearing conference, and Interveners'. re.
^
sponses to discovery requests, Applicants addressed at the summary disposition stage a Contention 2 alternative that consisted of:
- a. retreatment of the AGW to Base Case levels of Table 2.2 in PEIS -
Supplement No. 2;
- b. storage of the AGW in existing and newly constructed tanks)
, c. a storage period of 30 years;
+ 4' .
- d. ultimate disposal, but by undefined means.
.< r -
Licensee's Motion for Sumrnary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2, . 3, and 8), May 16,1988. In response to Applicants' motion for summary disposition on Contentbn 2, the Interveners did not contest Applicants' characterization of the Interveners. alternative. In fact, the Interveners explicitly accepted the 30-year storage period
. and the use of tanks for storage. SVA/FMIA's Response to Licensee's Motion
- for Summary Disposition on Contentions 1,2,3,4,5d,6, and 8, June 20,1988,
.* . at8.
**q 154 r .
4
..-__.__-________m. .-___..__m-
_-._.._._....-__.___._-._________.____.___.______________.______m
m y; ;, : > ,
.v .
e , ,, - b; , - - 4' < - -
. + .. n ,
Q', ..-
, m
, y. . .
~ <- ,
lz ; ,
,.n s> -, .
-a *; % .. ., .
. < , .. ... ca MP
- 4.
. 7 fi, . f. . :C Y -
Further, the Interveners' witnesses subsequently endorsed in their direct' l
, ' ,,- . .,y,.,u, .
' testimony the 30-year storage period and the use of tanks. Piccioni, Tr.127;-
' Morgan at 3-4 ("'Ihird Set of Comments Relative to Treatment and Disposal of
.. . _,,?.t , ..
.f( ' f. -j'.
. ,,',y, .J 2,100,000 Gal. of Contaminated Water at TMI 2," by Karl Z. Morgan, September .
, . ;,7 [." _ J ~ < 1,.c f 7 . ' ' '.* ?
. 30,1988. It appears that Dr. Morgan's five pages of direct testimony were not
'i .
' + . f.y 7 d . moved into evidence by the Interveners. See Tr. 1525 26. 'Ihe direct testimony
, j " ., , is not in the transcript of the November 15,1988 evidentiary session. Since the :
l e, .
. f.
3-4 ,
. . ; .,( , ,,'.,', : ' Board and the other parties also apparently assumed the testimony was received .-
into evidence, we formally admit the document as Interveners' Exhibit No.1 -
, . ; f ,, ' , , *. . ,' C :cite it hereafter as " Morgan.") ~
7..y 7,l'n, " - .., Q 'y( !p" 4,. *g . . and a; ,. - s.., ,
;.e yi .. .
- Although the parties should be on notice at the contention-filing stage of
- / ;-- -
1_ Q. 2 ' ' . , .p . ... I what issues are to be litigated, at the outset of the evidentiary hearing the f
$7$ .Si , ,,
s '. y f. , Board requested that the Interveners' explicitly define their alternative so that ~
., y 5 the Applicants and the Staff would be on notice, without making their own -
i , y ,;.,.
- L ,. . , , p,, ,
r assumptions, as to what the Interveners considered to be "obviously superior" to '
. ,, . / ',
f'
~
'.' . / -
' the Applicants' proposal. (At the summary disposition stage of this proceeding,:
the Board held that NRC precedent requires us to accept the Applicants' proposal
. unless an alternative is "obviously superior." See LBP-88 23, supra. 28 NRC l
? '
at 183-84. s The Interveners did not add to the previous understanding of the Board and
; the other parties. Interveners defined their alternative as involving retreatment -
of the AGW followed by monitored storage in proper tankage for an indefinite < f
'., period of time prior to final disposition. Tr.106.
, On the third day of hearing, the Board once again requested that the Interveners define their alternative or alternatives. Tr. 577. The Interveners
. . balked at the notion that they had to set a target for the hearmg and argued .
, , that they did not consider their alternative a " tight pattern" from which they could not deviate. Tr. 586. However, after a recess to confer and consider the question, the Interveners stated that they wanted the AGW: (1) pretreated to
~
t J. ,
" ,' the level of " achievable case" water in Table 2.2 of PElS Supplement No. 2, (2)
' 'l o '., ,
' ~ '
stored in existing locations in the plant for an indefinite period of time not less -
.. >, ', than 30 years, and (3) subject to continuous research. Tr,581-90.
y -u
."..., 4. Interveners' First Witness
^ *
; e c.
t When the Interveners' first witness, Dr. Richard Piccioni, appeared for cross-
~
' * examination, it became evident that Interveners did not have a single alternative
. , in mind. Although there was no motion to strike portions of his testimony, the -
' Board would have granted such a motion to the extent that a new alternative
.3' '
. .! , was being suggested. Furthermore, we now rule that the thrust of Dr. Piccioni's
"[.,'., ,
testimony was irrelevant to the admitted contention. b
, 155
.,m A
9 m _.-_._w_.u._ - . _ _ , , . _ .
e
~P '
Dr. Piccioni testified that the AGW should be pretreated until the radioactive conMnt of AGW equals the levels listed in the " achievable" column in Table 2.2 of PEIS Supplement No. 2, rather than to Base Case levels. Piccioni, Tr.159. Further, Dr. Piccioni testified that he envisioned the storage of the AGW in as
- ~ many as 209 tanks of 11,000-gallon size on the TMI site. Piccioni, Tr.120, 145.
The Board rules that Dr. Piccioni's testimony is irrelevant. However, we do not consider it likely that, in so ruling, we are eliminating an alternative .
- that strongly recommends itself or that could possibly be "obviously superior,"
considering radiation releases and costs. We strongly suspect that a field of 209 such tanks would be very costly to construct and maintain, if there is space available. In addition, immediately processing to Base Case would reduce the level of radioactivity in the stored water, but at some cost (including use of the evaporator) and in immediate
,; - worker exposure, similar to that occurring in Applicants' proposal. The principal
- - gain from this proposal is the reduction in exposure should there be a mishap and spill in a single tank; however, the Board does not rely on the level of s, radiation from a spill in reaching its conclusions in this case.
~
- 5. Existing Storage Locations During the Interveners' cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses, Inter-venors again deviated from the previously understood definition of their al-ternative. This time, the Interveners had two revelations. First, the Interveners announced that they were "looking at a variety of alternatives." Tr. 561. Sec-ond, among the variety of alternatives, the Interveners were proposing that the AGW be pretreated and returned to its existing storage locations (presumably including the Reactor Building basement, system piping, sumps, and pools).
This was the first time the Interveners revealed their " retreatment and leave
'- . it where it is" alternative, which differs from the testimony of the Interveners' own witnesses, who addressed the storap of water in tanks. Piccioni,'IY.127; Morgan at 3-4 The Board recognized the inherent unfairness to the other parties presented
- by Interveners' moving definition of the Contention 2 alternative. However, our initial impression was that this alternative might have some advantages, so we asked a few questions of our own -in the interest of an adequate record -
before deciding to abandon this line of inquiry, which is irrelevant under a strict interpretation of the admitted contention. After the testimony of Applicants, witness Buchanan on occupational doses, costs, interferences with cleanup completion, accident risks, surveillance and maintenance difficulties, and other impediments to this new alternative, the Board was satisfied that the possibility of simply pretreating the AGW and 156 l l l L _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _
,- w y ,
-V .
. ~
l/ ,' .. . .b '. : C . . . . putting it back in its existing locations was not obviously superior to the I l' ,
= Applicants' proposal. Tr. 946. ' Therefore, the Board declined to expand the H, * . ,.
* ' ' ; , (
proceeding to consider this option further and it discontinued its inquiry. Tr. 947.
' e ', : .,. : %
, 3, , M- ,- - ,t' , ' C. Radiation Consequences of the No Action Alternative
, Applicants and the Staff both attempted to estimate the offsite dose con-sequences of Interveners' alternative. Both assumed that the AGW would be '
f., , ' ',*
?e -
evaporated after a 30-year storage period for additional radiological decay. See 5 .
*. . c. C1 Baker, Tr. 642; Munson, Tr. 741, 747. During the 30 year storage period, the dN c: 4 , , ' ,' a ,v..;, ,
tritium would decay to roughly 17 to 19% of its current value, and the strontium-
- 'ia ? , -- - . 90 would decrease by a factor of about two. Baker, Tr. 642-43; Munson, Tr.741, N,af.' - -
745. 7y .f T , ,. _
- t. < .; Because the models used by Applicants and the Staff both utilize current
'~ . e ~ i f, .j, , ,
. land-use and population-distribution data, 'the prediction of doses 30_ years .
i " , ,',, ,.,' hence requires assumptions. The witnesses both assumed that offsite parameters remain exactly the same as they were in 1988. Baker, Tr. 642; Munson, Tr. 742-43,746. In fact, the projected dose reductions may not even occur. Changes
- in land use and population distribution could actually result in dose projections '
" 30 years from now that are higher than current estimates. In other words, the effects of decay could easily be offset by other factors.
. Using the Board's conservative (high) estimates of doses from the evaporation
. alternative, as presented above on page 151, we find that:
- -
- As a re'sult of the further storage period the whole-body dose to the maximally exposed individual would be reduced from 1.3 millirems from all radionuclides (1.2 millirems of which is from tritium) to
. about 0.3 millirem, a reduction to about one-fourth.
s ..
- The maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person would receive a bone dose of 0.4 millirem over the individual's life (instead of 0.8 millirem), which represents an average annual dose of less than 0.01
?. . - ;. o .. - ' millirem (instead of less than 0.02 millirem from evaporation now).
- * < Baker, Tr. 639 (adjusted to the Board's bone dose estimate).
-
- After 30 years the average exposure to the bone to a member of -
' < ;, - . the population would be one-half of the currently projected 0.002 1C- _ , -
5 * - millirem, and the whole-body dose would be one-fourth of the currently projected 0.01 millirem. Baker, Tr. 643 (adjusted by the
'L .,
Board). We also agree with Applicants' witness, Baker, that
. these dose levels are so low that they are within the range of unartainty of state-of-the-art dose assessment methodology and radiological monitoring.
,, i ,
'. '. - Baker, Tr. 644.
157
, / .
e
, ,4' t
We note that Staff projections are slightly higher, but at the level of dose we i are considering we do not consider the projections to be substantively different.
- , Staff states that, after the 30-year storage period, evaporation would result in
* ~
g l doses tc the maximally exposed hypothetical offsite person of 0.4 millirem to the -
' i
~
.. i _ bone and 0.1 millirem to the total body. The Staff's population dose estimates f , c( . ,
are 0.09 person-rem to the bone and 0.6 person-rem to the total body. Munson,
~
?- Tr. 742, 747.
,- , The Board fmds that the doses from evaporation now are already'so small -
']
( . that any savings achieved from the Interveners' proposed storage period are unimportant.
. IV. - HEALTH EFFECTS In discussing the radiation consequences of the Applicants'_ proposal and.
comparing them to those of Interveners' alternative, we have considered the
, magnitude of the expected releases and have compared them'to naturally
, occurring radiation. In this portion of our Decision, we will examine evidence
'^ '
concerning the health effects of radiation releases of the expected magnitude. This evidence was submitted with respect to issues that survived the summary
; disposition stage of the proceeding. In a subsequent portion of this opinion, we
, set forth the contentions that were litigated and the issues that arose under each s
contention. Before we begin the formal consideration of the issues, however, let us consider an issue raised in the limited appearance session by Ms. Mary Stamos
, .Osborn. Ms. Osborn showed a series of color slides, which she used to illustrate what she believes to be the mutating effects of radiation on plant life. The
~ ,
presentation was very graphic'and emotionally powerful and the Board has considered its substance, We understand Ms. Osborn's presentation in the context of the evolving dis-cipline of radiation ecology. See Vincent Schultz and F. Ward Whicker, Eco-logical Aspects of the Nuclear Age: Selected Readings in Radiation Ecology, Argonne National Laboratory, TID-25978,1972 (not in the record but appro-
, priate because it is being used to consider nonrecord material). In this respect, we note that:
Att living organisms. always, from the time of their origin on carth until now, have been irradiated. And in the future. everywhere they will continue to be irradiated. Some of the
' radiation. from the sun. is necessary for continued life; some of it is unnecessary; and some is harmful. It is extremely dif6cuh to sort out the various effects and to decide what is
,, factual and of signincance . . Id. at 12 (Ralph Buchsbaum, " Species Response to Radiation: Radioecology"). i I 158 o
l
.i l
. -k i 1
l 1 i , '
. . We consider Ms. Osborn's views important because of the depth of commit- i
~_, . ment she attaches to them and because other members of the public obviously 7" '
suppon her. The difficulty we have in interpreting Ms. Osborn's slides and j ' ~ ,, .
- commentary is the lack of information about radiation dose lesels, both for j
~
,' * ~ ~ '
background and TM1-related radiation, r.nd the absence of information about
- ;, 3 , ,
j
. 1 .
. other possible explanations for the observed phenomena that do not involve ra-
~ *
, diation as the cause.
., ?". -
, For example, NUREG-0738, " Investigations of Reported Plant and Animal l
-[ '"' ~ '(, .," -
[~ , Health Effects in the Three Mile Island Area"(1980), at 26-28, found that citizen i
- ;- ', s observations about changes in wildlife and vegetation were attributable to such l factors as increased human population, changes in farming methods, prolonged
. a.
.l',' ' ' . J"'a ~
severe winters, chemical pesticides in use throughout the eastern United States,
, [ !
, ,. . fire blight (a bacterial disease), red-spider or pear-slug feeding, leaf spot disease -
9;'-Z f q'
- and the trampling of animals. See also Robert Ford Smith, "The Vegetation
/,
^
e' . Structure of a Puerto Rican Rain Forest Before and After Short-Term Gamma
. ' ,; Irradiation, in Howard T. Odum and Robert F. Pigeon, A Tropical Rain Forestt
. A Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico, U.S. Atomic
. .; , Energy Commission,1970 (finding extensive damage to plant life from exposure to a 10,000-curie source, with plant damage found 40 meters from the source, where the dose was 2000 rads. Damage was manifested at times of leaf fall and leaf development and in malformed new leaves. There were no mutation effects reported).
The Board is aware that many citizens will reject our reasons for discounting the pictures of plant mutations, just as they also will reject our reasons for granting the license that has been requested. However, as judges, it is not our role to be popular. Our role is to listen, to consider, to decide, and to explain. A. Effects of Tritium on Human Beings Interveners have argued, pursuant to a surviving portion of their Contention
, 5d, that tritium is disproportionately damaging to hurnan beings, thus increasing the risk from the evaporation of tritium as part of Applicants' proposal. In-
. -
- tervenors have not, however, related their arguments concerning tritium to the
- .,, overall risk they believe will be incurred by the public. Hence, it is up to de
.- Board to relate Interveners' arjonent that tritium is "more" damaging to the
*~ . risk that will be experienced in this case.
We note that Interveners' arguments about tritium rest largely on the tes. timony of Dr. Charles W. Huver, Tr. 1652-68 (curriculum vitae at 1669-75),
/
-- who did not appear before us. We find Dr. Huver's testimony to be logical and well-presented and credible. We also find that Dr. Joseph Fabricant and 4 ,
. . . Dr. John A. Auxier, Tr. 1132-1417 (curriculum vitie at 1250-89,1237-49) ap-peared before us for cross-examination and analyzed in detail the same sources 159 u_.-________________________________ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _
** e f
O V J
. analyzed by Dr. Huver (Tr. 1138-1236,1291-1300), answering questions about the relevant literature in detail and without notes. We are convinced that the
~
testimony of Dr. Fabricant and Dr. Auxier is also highly credible and we find it more directly relevant to the issue before us - how to estimate in an appropriate way the population effects of the Applicants' proposal to evaporate tritium.
, We note that the Staff's testimony by James A.' Martin, Jr., and Dr. Schlomo J I
Yaniv was also highly impressive, particularly Dr. Yaniv's ability to cite the C- ' ' literature in detail and without notes. Tr. 809-902 (curriculum vitae at 824-831). He Staff's testimony also was helpful because of its focus on the issues
,D before us. In particular, we note that Dr. Huver's conclusions about the effect of tritiated thymidine in animal experiments is of very little value here because .
almost all of the tritium is in the form of water. Fabrikant, Tr.1174, ctring NCRP Report No. 63; Martin /Yaniv Tr. 819, citing NCRP Report No. 89 (Staff
~ '
Exh. 3).
. The Board acknowledges its indebtedness to counsel for Applicants for filing very complete findings that we have used as the basis for our own findings, making alterations and explanations whenever we felt necessary.
~
Applicants' proposed findings were particularly good in stating the strong points of Interveners' evidence, permitting us to accept those findings when appropriate and to fairly evaluate their impact on this case.
'. - 1. Tritium in the Environment Th'e movement af tritium through the environment has been well studied
, and is addressed in detail by NCRP Report No. 62. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, and its chemical propenies and distribution in nature are essentially
, the same as hydrogen's. A tritium atom may combine with hydrogen and oxygen
- i to form tritiated water (HTO). All water in the environment has some tritium in it. The tritium in the AGW at TMI-2 is in the form of tritiated water and would be released in that form by evaporation. The dispersal of tritiated water from the evaporation of AGW will follow the same pathways as natural water in the environment. Auxier, Tr. 1155-56.
When tritiated water is released to the environment, some of it will eventually become part of other molecules, including organic molecules in plants and animals. Tritium that becomes incorporated into such molecules is referred to as
- organically bound. There are several ways by which tritium can become part of an organic molecule. He simplest and most prevalent way is through the natural exchange of hydrogen ions bonded to oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus. In living tissues, about 80% of organically bound hydrogen exists as exchangeable hydrogen which readily assumes equilibrium with tritium. Auxier, Tr.1156.
The remaining 20% of organically bound hydrogen is nonexchangeable. Nonexchangeable hydrogen is primarily bound to carbon. Tritium can become 160
._m__. ___.____ _-_-___m. -J
J ' L
- l .
1
*I f, ,
.c incorporated into an organic molecule as nonexchangeable hydrogen by the
.' y ' * .a photosynthetic conversion by plants of carbon dioxide and HTO to form hexose,
~ - . 5' -
. ." and the ingestion of plants and subsequent cellular synthesis can introduce l"* .
this nonexchangeable tritium into animal and human tissues. As the organic molecules containing nonexchangeable tritium undcrgo biological turnover, g ,4 , , ,
- these molecules and the tritium are degraded and climinated as metabolic waste.
L, 'a.','. -. - - -
. Auxier, Tr.1156.
,,- s, ,' &
. (,
i- N a '
.f . .'.*
. V 2. Tritium Uptake in Plants and Animals While tritiated water, like regular water, is taken up in plants and animals, L *4 lJ.. % .
the evidence shows that there is no significant concentration of tritium in either
^j
, ,',." plants or animals. In transpiring plants with leaves having large surface areas,
', 7 tritium levels may exceed environmental levels through preferential transpiration of nontritiated water from the surface of leaves to the atmosphere. This
, l !
.- ,]- / ,
- i. , preferential transpiration is attributable to the difference in mass between H 2O
* % ,' . and HTO (18 vs. 20), which reduces the vapor pressure of tritiated water to 90
~
to 92% of that of normal water. Under extreme conditions of low atmospheric humidity (such as in deserts), the tritium content in plants may be increased by as much as a factor of three over the specific activity of the environmental
^ '
soil water. This phenomenon is insignificant in temperate climates. Auxier, Tr.I157.
. .' There may also be a discrimination factor under nonequilibrium conditions.
When plants or animals are exposed to tritiated water, some of the tritiated water will become organically bound. Under equilibrium conditions, the percentage of tritium in organically bound pools in the tissues of the body will be equal to the percentage of tritium in freely available body water. If the amount of tritium
. in the environment is then reduced or eliminated, the tritium in freely available
. . body water will be eliminated and the percentage lowered at a faster rate than tritium that is organically bound. Therefore, during the transition period, there
. . may be a higher concentration of tritium in organically bound pools than in the body water. Eventually, however, the tritium in organically bound pools will
'- j also be elimina"'d, and the organically bound and freely available tritium will equalize. Auxier, Tr. 1157 58.
~ '
- 3. Expert Opinion About Tritium Uptake Each of the articles cited by Dr. Huver was considered by the NCRP. NCRP
, Report No. 62 subsequently concluded:
161 ! _ . . - . - . _ . _ _ . . _ - . - - . - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - - . _ ~ _ . _ - - . _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _._ - . - - _ . _ -. _ _ . - _ -_ _ - - - - . _ _ _ _ - - . - - . _ _ _ _ . - - - . _ - - . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . _ . -
m- * ' N.
~
4 No apparent enridiment or concentration effect for tritium has been found in aquatic or ,a . s *, , tenestrial food chains. In fact, dilution in larger hydrogen or organic pools is the general
~ '
< , ,. , rule, as tritium moves to consumer populations.
. , ,i 4
,3, , 'Ihere is no evidence for a significant concentration process for tritium in either plants o
or animals. j y'- y.
, , G i.. e
"', ?-+, Auxier, Tr. 1157 58; see also Fabricant, Tr.1174 (no significant transmutation I' . , ' ["
L , , , . . , v ,; ' .s. 9: effect for tritium incorporated in DNA, citing NCRP Report No. 63 at 101;; 2 - - " Martin /Yaniv. Tr. 819,~ citing NCRP Report No. 89 (Staff Exh.' 3: "[I]n - f, . ? * . . consideration of the experimental evidence, tritium in the form of tritiated water
'\,'*
- should be considered to be twice as effective as low levels of exposure to gamma -
rays for genetic damage."). W. , r N '4. Individual Studies
-, , Koranda and Martin (1%9), cited by Dr. Huver 'at Tr. 1664-64A, rely on a l
f- study that involved the unique characteristics of the kangaroo rats at a desert
. . weapons test site and is of little relevance. Koranda and Martin observed a ratio of organically bound tritium to body water tritium of about 1.2, but NCRP concluded that the result might simply reflect the discrimination phenomena
, f, . 4 f i ' under nonequilibrium conditions. Auxier, Tr. 1158-59. Since Koranda was one
+. ,
of the authors of NCRP Report No. 62 (see Auxier, Tr.1409), the conclusion in .
, , that report is entitled to special weight with respect to interpreting the Koranda
. and Martin study. .
Another Koranda and Mariin paper (1973) was a study of a small plot of; irrigated farmland in California. Tritiated water was applied directly to the
+
soil, and the movement of tritium in the plants during the growing season was observed. The transfer factors observed by Koranda and Martin were smaller than those conservative (high) values used in GPUN's dose modeling (a soil-to-vegetation transfer factor [Biv] of about 0.8 for Koranda and Martin and a Biv of 4.8 for Applicants' model). Auxier, Tr. 1159 62. Kirchmann et al. (1971) provided data on the uptake of tritium into the ' organically bound hydrogen pool in cows. The Kirchmann data do show higher uptake with tritium-labeled forage than with tritiated water, but the uptake from vegetation is actually consistent with the relative masses of the two components (water and milk solids). In the case of ingestion of tritium as water, from 3% to 4% of the tritium activity in the milk was found to be in the milk solids, largely in milk fat. For tritiated vegetation ingestion, from 10% to 16% of the
. _ - tritium in the milk was found to be in the milk solids. Since the actual solids content of milk is on the order of 10%, the result for the vegetation ingestion is about as expected, while the result for tritium ingestion as watdir is lower than 162 l
i a n.- -- - -..------.-.a-.- _. - _ - _ . _ . - - - - . _.-..-_.a_-- -_---_.---.x.---_... - - - _ _ - - _ _ .-_--___.--m.-_.._-A
,y - _
; _ .6
+ T- .
g . k . t' , , , s . . k .h '
, Jt; . s' y
4 o , s .. ', ; ,, , could be expected from the simple ratios o' f the mass of the milk c' omponents. Auxier, Tr.1163.' gl;'.; .,. 7,6.,
- y
- 9 !. ?. * . ;
w3 u t ,. . ; , ,., .g ..,e .
. j.37.- ,,,
*^. .
p , . . _ } s. t 5. Tritium in Humans
- ,; . m . ,. . . - - . .
j- ,,.o- . . , . :- : If a human ingests tritiated water, some of the tritium can become organically y " ~. I , *"sC 3 ..t ' p., ., .. - bound. Tritium may enter organic compounds by exchanging with the hydrogen ,
'; b at any of tip labile sites in the molecule. In addition, tritium may be incorporated f.
, ji. ! , s,
.4. ">, j
.s1
. into stable molecular configurations. ' Fabrikant, Tr.1164. Hydrogen bonded -
.f;f..
4
.' ./0.'*. ,-
.[,,.
a to carbon, however, is usually not exchangeable except during some enzyme-
. mediated reac' t ions. The only mechanism by which tritium can bond to carbon -
' ' 7,"
- f' ', ,/ <s;i , -
3 " a is apparently by de novo biosynthesis. Thus, tritium will generally not become
;e, .
. incorporated into molecules as nonexchangeable hydrogen, except to a very f ., Ji,., - ., / g 4 limited extent during enzyme-mediated reactions. Fabrikant, Tr. I165.
i.; L. .., p;m:, m _ . ;, .. . . . : 6. Multiple-Compartment Model Not Necessary
>[' . ' '[ * ',.'
- '} :.
When warranted, a muldple-compartment model may be used to account for
.* ' ' . incorporation of the tritium into organically bound pools, and the elimination .
of tritium can ba determined by the combined elimination rate of the three
. compartments (tritiated water, exchangeable organically bound tritium, and nonexchangeable organically bound tritium). However, the cells'or molecules with long retention of tritium because of their biological turnover rates also
.g . are slow to incorporate tritium; and at any time only a small portion of these
- cells are in a biological development stage that permits them to react with the
+- tridum in the body. Therefore, the body eliminates most of the tritium before
- these pools can respond to its presence. Accordingly, for practical purposes, the
. tritium in organically bound compartments usually may be neglected. Inclusion
," of these compartments complicates calculations and results in a minor change ;J :
the committed dose equivalent to body tissues. In essence, biological elimination p - : ,. ' (, , of all but a small portion from the body of an average man occurs at a rate of L.
- , .- 50% cvery 10 days. Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr. 1165-66; Cooper, Tr. 636-37.
.?-
Nt. ',' Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) and Q
. . B.
~'.'.
Because different types of radiation may produce different amounts of damage
*^, . . - to exposed tissue, many studies have been undertaken to compare the extent of
/' ,
. . .,.. i
, / damage by a particular type of radiation against the degree of damage from l
~,?.
a reference radiation (usually 200-kev x-rays). This comparison is expressed . as the Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of a particular type of radiation,
'7
. , which is an experimentally derived ratio of the dose of the reference radiation to 1 163 l
1 e _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________..______m_ _________i___._._..__...m-__.______m___________m.__.
the dose of the investigated type of radiation that produces the same biological effect. Note, however, that an RBE for a particular type of radiation depends i not only on the Linear Energy Transfer (LET) of the radiation but also on the particular biological system (e.g., different tissues) and biological end point (e.g., cell death, biochemical alteration, genetic alteration) being examined. Auxier, Tr.1152-53; Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr. 1197-98. Because different types of radiation can produce differing degrees of damage in expose,1 tissues, absorbed dose in rads is not by itself a sufficient measure for radiation protection purposes. In order to account for the overall difference in the degree of damage caused by the different types of radiation, dose is multiplied by a Quality Factor (Q), derived in part from experimental RBE values, to ! arrive at a dose equivalent. The Quality Factor represents the best scientific judgment based upon consideration of the studies' biological systems, effects, and experimental RBE values. Absorbed doses in rads may then be multiplied by Q to calculate dose equivalents measured in rem. Auxier, Tr.1153, f I. Expert Opinion on Q j Based on extensive consideration of many studies and factors, including the , reported RBEs, both the ICRP (ICRP Publication No. 26) and the NCRP (NCRP l Report No. 91) have adopted a Q value of I for tritium beta radiation. Auxier, l-
'IY I153; Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr.1200; Cooper, Tr. 635. GPUN's MIDAS Code, however, conservatively uses a Q factor of 1.7. Cooper, Tr. 635-36.
s
- 2. Individual Studies Testimony by Interveners' witness Huver referred to several RBE studies. In only one experiment referenced by Dr. Huver (Dobson and Kwan,1976) was an RBE in excess of 2 reported; and the RBE reported in that study was 3.
Huver, Tr.1655. In the others, reported RBEs ranged from I to 2. See Huver, Tr.1658-59,1665A.
- 3. Importance of Reference Radiation Huver failed to take into account the reference radiation that was used in certain of the studies - particularly Dobson and Kwan. The reference radiation for determining the RBE should have a confirmed RBE value of 1. X-rays with an effective photon energy of 200 kev are the recommended reference radiation.
Compared to x rays, the RBE for tritium is about 1 in most experiments. However, some investigators use Co-60 as the reference radiation. The RBE for Co-60 gamma radiation relative to the standard reference x-rays has been 164 i I
2 p I l l reported to range from 0.85 to 0.29 with decreasing dose rate. Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr.I197. The reference radiation used by Dobson and Kwan was Co-60 gamma radiation at very low dose rates (1 to 3.2 rads / day). NCRP Report No. 63 considered Dobson and Kwan (1976), as well as Dobson and Cooper (1974) which is also cited by Dr. Huver, and concluded that "an analysis of the dose-response curve from 3H and from gamma rays indicated that the increase in RBE of 3H in this experiment can be ascribed to a reduced effectiveness of gamma rays in the low dose region (Bond,1978)." Fabrikant, Tr.1294. The same is true of Furchner (1957), which Huver also referenced. Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr.I198.
- 4. High-Dose Studies The few other studies cited by Dr. Huver pertaining to RBEs - e.g., Worman (1954), Moskalev et al (1973)- all involved acute effects at high doses and have little relevance. See Auxler/Fabrikant, Tr. I198; Fabrikant, Tr. 1295-96.
Moreover, none of the RBEs reported in these studies would bring into doubt the Q value of 1.7 conservatively used in GPUN's MIDAS Code.
- 5. Theoretical Importance of " Stopping Power" Both Dr. Huver and Dr. Morgan advanced the theory that tritium beta rays should have a greater Q factor because the specific ionization or stopping power of electrons increases at the end of the electrons' tracks. Huver, Tr.1665; Morgan at 2-3. However, the converse is also true - that beta particles have less ionizing ability at the beginning of their tracks. Morgan, Tr.1625. Further, Dr. Morgan admitted during cross-examination that one can integrate Q as a function of linear energy transfer or linear energy over the entire range of energies dissipated along the track of a beta particle to arrive at an effective quality factor, Q, and that when this calculation is done in the manner described in ICRU-40 (Staff Exh. 5), Q is approximately 2. Morgan, Tr.1625-27. See also :
Auxier, Tr. 7343-44. We see no merit, therefore, to Dr. Morgan's suggestion that tritium beta particles should be likened to alpha and fast neutron particles with RBEs of 20. See Morgan at 2.
- 6. Studies of Trillated Thymidine .
Finally, Dr. Huver's testimony referred to the incorporation of tritium into j DNA molecules and remarked on several studies, most of which dealt with mice exposed to tritiated thymidine. See Tr. 1654-57,1665A-66A. Dr. Morgan's 165 l l I ____m_.m___..-m__-_m __.____________
J testimony mentioned in passing that tritium in DNA can transmute to helium. Morgan at 3. Neither witness explained the signi6cance of their observations, but we infer that they would have us find that there will be some heightened effect and greater genetic risk than with other forms of mdiation. P /. '. . We address this hypothesis at the outset by observing that tritiated thymidine is a DNA precursor selected in experiments specifically because it will become 3; y incorporated into DNA,'and experiments do indicate that exposure of animals to tritiated thymidine results in a greater effect than exposure to similar levels s
* of tritiated water. Fabrikant,'lY. 1174-75, 1179-80, 1188.
~
s 7. Conclusion The AGW, however, is tritiated water, not tritiated thymidine, and the testimony of Dr. Fabrikant shows that while some tritiated water in the body l
. could be synthesized into a DNA precursor, the relative abundance of tritium
" taken up into DNA would be extremely small and negligible. Fabrikant, 'lY.1175.
.c . ,
Further, scientific studies have only been able to detect transmutation effects in
- certain organisms when tritium is incorporated into one of three key positions
. in the DNA. Fabrikant, Tr. 1173-74
- For all these reasons, the Board agrees with the NCRP that it is reasonably conservative to assume, for the purposes of practical hazards considerations,
- that there is no significant transmutation effect for tritium and that one may estimate hazards sole!y on the basis of absorbed beta dose. Fabrikant, Tr.1174, citing NCRP Report No. 63 at 101. Similarly, we agree with the ICRP that the formation of tritiated organic compounds in the body following inhalation or ingestion of tritiated water is too small to have any effect on total dose. Id.,
citing ICRP Publication 30, Part I, at 65-67. We find that the testimony of Dr. Huver and Dr. Morgan is insufficient to justify a rejection of the dose modeling of Applicants and Staff. GPUN used a Q factor of 1.7 in its dose modeling; and while the Staff used a Q factor of 1 in its calculations in the PEIS, in its direct testimony the Staff doubled its
- previously calculated population dose to demonstrate that use of a Q factor of 2 would not affect its conclusions. Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 820. Accordingly, we find that the dose-modeling used by GPUN and the Staff is acceptable and we reject j
- the view urged on us by Interveners. ]
1 I C. Radiation Health Effects Although radiation doses of 9 rads or more have, to varying degrees, been empirically associated with adverse health effects, there is no empirical evidence ] linking lower levels of radiation to health effects. (For effects of 9, rads, see l 1 166 )l l l Nx -- -_ _ _.
t *4
* . Yaniv, Tr. 837; Morgan, Tr. 1646-48.) Indeed, linear or quadratic projections 3', ,
. a' from the high-level radiation dose curves suggest that the expected effects of
,, j, ,
1
.. . . - ,4 - - ". . <
radiation at low doses are so sparse, in comparison to natural variations in
.[ '
- radiation, that it may never be possible to obtain empirical evidence concerning
,' L' :
P 1, . ' ' . , " , - health effects at those levels. Auxier, Tr.1362: Yaniv, Tr. 815, 835-36.
't 4 ' ,' s , , .-J*. -
- , "' Furthermore, linear interpolations may overestimate the effects of doses of less t ..- ~ ' , ' . -
" ' N than 20 rads by a factor of 2 to 10. Fabricant,'IY.1210. 1 j
l J ; ,, . . We repeat that at very low doses, such as those calculated for evaporation, l adverse health effects have not been observed and the probability of occurrence 'fj , ' .,; - . could be zero. Ribrikant, Tr. 1201, 1203; Auxier, 'IY.13N; Martm/Yaniv.
^
~
Tr.815.
- ' s Nevertheless, for radiation protection purposes, advisory agencies and com-
' ' ,[..,
? ...
mittees such as the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological
'. ,- . Effects of Ionizing Radiation ("BEIR") extrapolate from observed effects at high
~
- doses to arrive at risk estimates for low-dose exposures. Fabrikant. Tr.1203-'
~t ,,
' 04; Auxier, '11.13N; Martm/Yaniv, Tr. 815. The only effects that could be
~~
' - , . expressed statistically at doses as low as those predicted for evaporation are
, 3
'~ cancers and genetic ill health. Yaniv, Tr. 815, 842. We address each in turn. j J' ' '
. \
- 1. Carcinogenic Risk
- Based on the risk estimates calcula'ed by the SEIR III Committee and the recently published NIH.NCI Report (see Tr.1211), Applicants' witnes ':abrikant applied a cancer risk estimate of 1 to 2 x 10d per person-rem to the total population doses estimated both by the Staff (3 person rem) and by GPUN (12
e person-rem) for evaporation. By this method, Dr. Fabrikant arrived at estimates ranging from 0.0003 to 0.0024 total excess fatal cancers among the 2.2 million
. people living within 50 miles of TMI-2. Fabrikant, Tr.1226.
The Staff's estirnate in PElS Supplement No. 2, based on a risk estimate of
. - . . . ."' 1.35 x 104 per person-rem and its calculated 3 person-rem population dose, i
- was 0.00N. Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 816,820.
The Board adopts Dr. Fabrikant's conclusion that the upper-limit probability of even one fatal cancer among the 2.2 million people living within 50 miles of ( ' the plant as the result of the evaporation of AGW would be less than 1 chance l
/ ,,,
- - - in 400. In addition, we find that the upper-limit probability of a fatal cancer
. for the maximally exposed individual is less than I chance in 5 million using
- ,"~ ,,
the NRC's calculated dose, and less than 1 chance in 2.5 million using GPUN's
' ~'
calculated dose.
~
Dr. Fabrikant added that while an excess value can be estimated, in fact no excess cancer will result from tritium and the other radionuclides released during the evaporation process. Fabrikant, Tr.1226. The Staff's witnesses also perceived very little risk of any cancer incidence and would expect no health 167 I
~ ~
i effects. MartirWaniv Tr. 815, 816, 844-45. The Board also does not expect any health effects.
- a. Testimony of Dr. Morgan Testimony by Interveners' witness Morgan asserted that recent studies of the
, Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors show cancer risk is greater by a factor of 2' '
3 than previously published values. Morgan at 2. (This issue was accepted
,f as a litigable issue of material fact in the Board's ruling on Contention 3 as
, well as being included in its discussion of issues pertaining to Contention 5d.
LBP-88-23, supra,28 NRC at 200,214.) In a table on page 2 of his testimony, he indicated that the absolute-model risk valce from "Recent Japan Studies
- 1988" was 4 to 8 x IP and the relative model risk value was 1.6 to 3.2
, x 10-3. (The absolute-risk model assumes that the dose-relate.d excess risk per year observed during the period of epidemiologic study continues throughout the lifetime of the studied population. The relative-risk model assumes that from the end of the period of study through to the end of the lifetime of the studied
. ,~ - population this risk increases or decreases as the normal age specific nsk varies.
Morgan, Tr.1568.)
- b. Credibility of Opposing Witnesses We reject Dr. Morgan's testimony and accept the testimony of Applicants
., and Staff. Our conclusion is based in part on our assessment of the credibility of these witnesses. The qualifications of Applicants' witnesses and the quality of their oral responses, for example, were superb. Dr Fabrikant is a radiologist, a member of the NCRP, a member of the ICRP, and the only scientist to have served on all five of the BEIR committees. While serving on the BEIR III Committee, he was Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Estimating the Total Cancer Risk of Low-Dose, Low-LET, Whole. Body Radiation. Fabrikant, , Tr.1143-45,1148.
Dr. Auxier is a Certified Health Physicist, a member of the NCRP, and until recently was a consultant to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation ("RERF"), whi+ he organization reassessing the dosimetry from Nagasaki and Hiroshin'. Auxier, Tr. 1139-41. Further, Applicants' and the Staff's witnesses were fully conversant with the subject matter of their testimony and the studies and data underlying it. t 168 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ..__-___-__.__---------U
p F
,e.t. . . ., . c. Lack of Credibility of Dr. Morgan s . . x .,~, ... >
W' '.? .,' 7 (; ' '
}'E l, V. y[f., .I, 7.,'.
, Dr. Morgan is a past president of the NCRP but presented no statement i, q- , 2, .: . .' . , .
of qualifications with his testimony. His testimony generally lacks credibility iK, ,
,: G o -; { ' ..; . ' ,
because he cited a document that purported to be a British public document but Mi l.' :;j,V ,',, ." r. < M { ['; ; was not; and he continued to present this visibly incredible document, without
, ,, .:j;-(;. -,
P. ) ' , ', . - , . remorse, even after its lack of authenticity was alleged by the Applicants. He
, .. % -f t'* -
also was unable to show the source of some of the most significant portions of g.. ;; , ,' ."p - . W. N the testimony he presented to us. y, {',4,( , 3 , s,- % 4 ; I " "g!; - Dr. Morgan testified that he does not hold himself out as an expert in ,, x, ;, , E, .,' epidemiology or biostatistics, and that he has not been a member of any of
..'7
- the BEIR Committees or an employee of RERF. Tr. 1564-65. Dr. Morgan also
[" ., < . , ! ' - - -
. f,- - l '
.z testified that he does not have access to raw epidemiologic data on radiation-l,
.t V* .,
g.
',- associated cancer and has performed no computer analyses of such data to arrive
,j . .. 34 ,
at risk values. Tr.1566. And Dr. Morgan was repeatedly unable to explain or
. t . ' 'l - - - -
, support assertions in his written testimony.
i- bV ' We note that Dr. Morgan was an Intervenor witness who appeared without [.f _; . ', 3( . remuneration. His desire to serve the public interest as he sees it, is admirable. .,"~ ,; ,m . . . , However, he has been careless in the way he prepared this testimony and in having available information with which to substantiate his views.
. . t . We find that Dr. Morgan submitted a document to this Licensing Board as Appendix C to his prcfiled testimony in order to show that the United Kingdom had reduced occupational radiation exposure limits in light of the
. - . , - new Japanese dosimetry studies. Dr. Morgan's characterization of the United
*c , ,
Kingdom's actions was inaccurate. See Fabrikant, Tr.1299. The submitted
. 4 " document" consisted of four pages. The first two pages consisted of a cover page of a publication of the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) numbered GS9 and entitled, " Interim Guidance on the Implications of.
Recent Revisions of Risk Estimates and the ICRP 1987 Como Statement," and an abstract. The last two pages were a " Summary of Main Conclusions and
. . . . - .- Recommendations."
b ,;
- l. ' '.
- 4 -
s ' Applicants moved to strike this Appendix assening that the last two pages
- ;- . were no; part of NRPB-GS9. ' Applicants provided a complete copy of NRPB.
.- , GS9 (a ten-page document), and Dr. Fabrikant testified that he believed that
.- the last two pages of Appendix C to Dr. Morgan's prefiled testimony were part i- ,' .
. of a Friends of the Earth petition previously submitted to the ICRP. Fabnkant, Tr.1299.
At the hearing, Dr. Morgan testified that the document he provided as 4 - o - Appendix C to his prefiled testimony had come to him that way through the m [
? -
.- - - l mail. Tr. 1527-28, 1531. He testified that he did not know who provided the document because it came in the mail without any identification. Tr.1528.
i.. *
~
E ' Upon further cross-examination, however, Dr. Morgan produced what he had 169 _ . _ - _ _ _ __ __ ._.m___ _ -________.______.-.____m_______ ________________________m____________mm_______________ , _ _ _
[ ; l \ t I I 1 l .' used to prepare Appendix C. Dr. Morgan in fact used two separate documents: ! ) the full text in pamphlet form of NRPB-GS9 and a separate two-sided page in different type entitled " Summary of Main Conclusions and Recommendations."
)
' This latter page was paper-clipped to NRPB-OS9, but Dr. Morgan admitted he had supplied the paper clip. Tr.1535.
Thus, we fmd that Dr. Morgan's prior testimony that he had simply provided { 1- .
. Appendix C to his preftled testimony in the same manner he had received it was
' false. Rirther, Dr. Morgan showed no concern for the authenticity and accuracy of the documents he had provided with his testimony. See Tr. 1528 29, 1553-54;
, see also Tr. 1531, 1552 54.
We conclude that Dr. Morgan was careless about the accuracy of his testimony.
- d. Dr. Morgan's Lack of Documentation Dr. Morgan's testimony also lxks credibility because of his inability to produce documentation or supporting explanations for his statements on risk a values.
Returning to Dr. Morgan's testimony on comparative risk values, the recent Japanese studies to which Dr. Morgan is presumably referring are the work of the RERF (Radiation Effects Research Ibundation, the successor to the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission). Since 1981, the RERF has been reevaluating the dosimetry used to estimate the doses of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors. The new system that is being developed is designated DS86 (for Dosimetry System of 1986). Previous dose estimates were based on the T65D (Tentative 1965 Dosimetry) system. Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr. 1213-14; Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 817. The first indication of the effect this reevaluation might have on risk estimates was the publication of a paper, RERF TR 9-87, by two members of the RERF,
' ' Preston and Pierce, in 1987. Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 817. Dr. Morgan's. assertion that the Japanese studies will increase risk estimates by a factor of 3 is based on the ICRP's review of this paper at its 1987 annual meeting in Como, Italy.
See Tr.1559. Dr. Morgan, however, appears to be misinterpreting the ICRP's statement. In the Statement by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (issued after the 1987 Como meeting), the ICRP observed that "under the new
* , 'DS86 dosimetry' this increase in risk is reported as being by a factor of 1.4 compared with the risks that would have been estimated by the former 'T65D' dosimetry." Fabrikant, Tr.1298; see Appl. Exh. 4, Tr.1688A. The ICRP further observed,"[t]his inclusion [of a longer followup period of the population sample) and other factors cited in the paper raise the risk estimate for the exposed 170
I
~
,. 3., population by a total factor of the order of 2." Morgan, Tr.1559; Appl. Exh. 4 9 : at 1688A.
m
..] .
4 t . . . l'. Dr. Morgan interprets this statement to reflect a "further" increase by 2, or
./ c . '. .' '. -
. . .. C '[ a total increase of 2.8 (2 x 1.4). Morgan, 'It 1559. We find this interpretation inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words and we are not surprised,
. , " [l ! , * : ( ~ ' c [ '" . ,' ,' ' ,*,. ' j' ,, ^f
,,.,y ..
therefore, that others such as the British National Radiological Protection Board
. s . , h ,' - ~. . N interpret the ICRP's statement as indicative of a possible increase by a total E,. : .3 J ' . . ... '
, . , ' . 'l factor of 2. Morgan, Tr.1562.
p ' ' ' i? ' . ,' , ' { . .i' To provide a setting' in which to consider Dr. Morgan's testimony, we cite
- 4. . -
Dr. Fabrikant's testimony that at the time of this meeting, the ICRP considered ,. , , / / . *; .
. , ;l . '
.,. . the information to be too sparse and preliminary to warrant any consideration
, . '- 'w. for an immediate change in dose limits. Fabrikant, Tr.1298. Dr. Fabrikant
" explained that Preston and Pierce was a preliminary presentation of the effects of the DS86 dosimetry on cancer risk estimates in the Japanese atomic bomb
* - ' 4 ,
. i' survivors, and the discussion of risk estimates in that paper was based on a number of broad assumptions to permit the authors to discuss some of the
.., .'~' e . .O, possible implications of the emerging new-data. They were not based on the
*- actual individual radiation dose revisions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor on the
' ' ' ' : new data of cancer mortality now available. Accordingly, Preston and Pierce's paper does not contain precisely quantified risk estimates upon which radiation protection guidance can be based. &brikant, Tr. 1296-97, 1358.
Applicants questioned Dr. Morgan to ascertain precisely how he derived the values listed on page 2 of his testimony and attributed to "Recent Japan Studies."
~
Dr. Morgan replied that he had copied the numbers off of some table, but he did not have the table with him, and could not recollect the source. Tr. 1571-72,
- 1574, 1576.
. Applicants also asked Dr. Morgan for identification of the source of the values attributed to "NRC-1981" on page 2 of Dr. Morgan's testimony. Again.
- Dr. Morgan could not explain where these numbers came from. It appears,
.. however, that the numbers came from the 1987 Supplement No. 2 to the PEIS, which uses an absolute model cancer risk estimate of 135 per million person-w f' ,
rem (1.35 x 10-d/ person-rem) and states "[u]se of the relative risk model would
. ,( , ,-
produce risk values up to four times greater thhn used in this report." Staff
. . Exh. I at 5.4 (emphasis added); Tr. 1570-71. The NRC regards this range of
. .. .- .,. between zero and four as reflecting the limits of uncertainty in the risk values.
~'
.- . Martin /Yaniv Tr. 816, citing Staff Exh. I at 5.4 ("[t]he Staff regards the use of the ' relative risk' model values as a reasonable upper limit of the range of uncertainty").
-- - Dr. Morgan's inability to explain the derivation of the risk estimates in his
..,, testimony renders his testimony of no probative value. See Virginia Electric
,- . and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 555,10 NRC 23, 26 (1979) (expert witness may not state ultimate conclusions and 171 9
M-J - - . _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 f 1 s then profess an inability to provide the foundation for them); id. at 27 (where
. g the conclusion rests upon an analysis, wimess must make available sufficient information pertaining to the details of the analysis to permit the correctness of the conclusion to be evaluated).
We further note that Dr. Morgan's values are inconsistent with Preston and Pierce (1988) (Appl. Exh. 3), which Dr. Morgan admitted was one of the sources for his testimony. See Morgan, Tr. I',88-89. Dr. Morgan admitted during cross-
.,. examination that using UNSCEAR's method of extrapolating to low doses and relative model methodology, Preston and Pierce arrive:! at a nonicukemia risk
, estimate of 3.7 to 7.3 x 104 per person-rem. Morgan, Tr. 1620, 1622-24.
Again, using UNSCEAR's method of extrapolating to low doses, Preston and Pierce arrived at a leukemia risk estimate of 0.4 to 0.8 x 104 per person-rem. Morgan, 'It 1621. Thus, the total lifetime risk for all cancers calculated by Preston and Pierce using the relative model method and UNSCEAR's method of extrapolating to
, low doses is approximately 4 to 8 x 10d per person-rem. Tr.1621. Dr. Morgan lists this range of reiLtive risk as the absolute model risk. We note that the range of values attributed to "Recent Japan Studies - 1988" and listed by Dr. Morgan under the heading " Relative Model" is exactly four times the range of values he has listed under the " Absolute Model" heading. We surmise that Dr. Morgan has simply applied the Staff's statement in the PElS that the relative model
, produces values of up to four times greater than the absolute model We further observe that if Dr. Morgari had liged the 4 to 8 x 104 per person-rem estimate under tae " Relative Model" heading, as it appears he should, and had applied the Staff's statement the other way around, he would have arrived at absolute model risk estimates four times smaller - or about I to 2 x 104 per person-rem, which is exactly the range of values used by Applicants in its evaluation of doses calculated for the evaporation d AGW.
During cross-examination, Dr. Morgan expressed preference for the relative model risk values rather than the absolute. (The relative model does not apply to leukemia, and hence leukemia risk is expressed as an absolute average excess risk. Morgan. Tr.1624.) Dr. Morgan, however, admitted testifying in a previous proceeding in August 1982 that the absolute risk model was preferable. Morgan, Tr.1568. He attributed his change of position to a discussion he had with Dr. Stewart, Dr. Radford, and others on the day before his testimony in this proceeding. Morgan, Tr. 1567-69. Later, he attempted to explain his sudden enange of position by asserting that in reality he had gradually changed his mind l after publication of the Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale study on the Hanford ! workers, Dr. Modan's paper on Tinea capitis (ringworm), and the [19811 GAO l report on cancer risk (previously cited in Appendix A to Dr. Morgan's prefiled l testimony). Tr. 1632-33. I I l l 172 l \ l
l a 1 I 4 , ,., ,
," The Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale and the Modan publications, ht. wever, i 1
?; .; e, , y were avulable prior to 1980 (Tr.1639), well before Dr. Morgan's August 1982 3,, .,;
., n , - n. ' ; e, e '
testimony. Ibrther, Dr. Morgan's discussion of these studies relates entirely
. / , . , ,
to his preference for a supralinear dose response curve and not to the use of '
-, ,i' , '. 'c ' ,... -l ,,' *,!.,- the relative versus absolute risk model. We are left with the impression that 3
,-/' ' '
. j , Dr. Morgan chose to advocate the relative risk model for the first time in this 1- proceeding. We need not speculate on when or how he came to this position. ,
. ,;, j.,, ., .
. . l t l j. We also fmd Dr. Morgan's subscription to a supralinear theory to be highly
.l '
.c ," - - [ ,'" 7 : . . .; questionable. The Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale publication on the Hanford
.,.,"', - workers and the Modan publication on the Tinea capitis patients are both studies J y* ,
,,j,r 4 with significant experimental weaknesses. The data from the Hanford workers
' '- are flawed by the fact that the Hanford workers came from the chemical industry
/.I ' .
. .-I '
during World War 11. Fabrikant,7Y.1388-89. The types of excess cancer found in that population are those associated with the chemical industry. Conversely,
". s..
no excess leukemia, which is almost a signature of radiation-associated cancer,
, ",[ ', .
was observed. Id.
'Ihe Tinea capitis studies are complicated by somewhat unreliable dosimetry
* ' , ,V ' (which was, however, more likely to be accurate than the Hiroshima and
" ~ ~
Nagasaki data) he Tinea capitis patients treated by irradiation of the scalp
- and - what we consider more important - by delivery of dose not only to the thyroid of these patirents but to the pituitary gland as well. Fabrikant. TY.1385-
. 86; Yaniv, Tr. 837-38.
Dr. Morgan's reliance on a GAO report is equally infirm. Dr. Morgan claims 1 that the GAO found that the best fit of the curve for ankylosing spondylitis !
-[
was produced by a supralinear model. Tr.1634. Dr. Morgan admitted on
, cross-examination that the GAO had examined several sets of data. not just ankylosing spondylitis, and found that each set of data could be fit acceptably by more than one model. Tr. 1639-40. When asked specifically whether the '
GAO report found that the linear and quadratic models also fit the ankylosing
, ,; spondylitis data well, Dr. Morgan responded "not at low doses." 7Y.1642.
When specifically referred to a paragraph of the GAO report and asked the
'l . ; -
- same question, Dr. Morgan again replied "No." Tr.1643. The paragraph was o
then read aloud by the Licensing Board, which considered the meaning to be
' * ' obvious:
* ' ' ' In summary. the data for ankylosing spondylitis patients are fairly well fitted by models
* ,' '. ,.' that grow as a square root, linearly, and quadratically at low doses. Rather than end the a*
,f ,.
- controversy over the hazards of low level x rays. they suggest why the controversy exists.
- Note that the above analysis does not address the issue of the total cancer risk from x rays,
. . , e .,.
- only the chance of getting leukemia.
. 1Y.1643.
. w
- 173
=
/
Dr. Morgan then inf,:ated he had replied no to Applicants' questions because
~ s in his mind fitting " fairly well" means "it doesn't fit too good." Tr.1644.
We find Dr. Morgan's responses inconsistent and we note that the paragraph
, quoted above refers not only to the linear and quadratic models but also to the square-root model which Dr. Morgan claims the GAO was advocating. We Snd Dr. Morgan's testimony on this point an example of intellectual carelessness.
t
, e. Opposing Testimony In contrast to Dr. Morgan's testimony, Dr. Fabrikant addressed the various
, dose-response curves for low-level, low-LET radiation doses examined by BEIR and other scientific organizations. Fabrikant, Tr.12N-08. The 1980 BEIR
' Ill Committee found that the linear-quadratic relationship was the preferred model for estimating response based on the existing experimental evidence and microdosimetric theory. Fabrikant, Tr. 1206-07. Both the NCRP and ICRP hold
, the same view. In contrast, the supralinear model is not used by any recognized national or international radiological protection organization for risk estimation for low-dose, low-LET radiation exposure. Fabrikant, Tr.1205. De Board rejects the supralinear model.
The Staff's wimess, Dr. Yaniv, and Applicants' witnesses, Dr. Auxier and
. Dr. Fabrikant, funher testified that the new DS86 dosimetry will not raise risks to
, any great extent. Yaniv, R. 817-18, 870; Auxier/Fabrikant, Tr.1215; Fabrikant,
'It 1297-98. These witnesses discussed the implications of a subsequent RERF publication. RERF TR 12-87 authored by Shi: . u et al, which contains more precisely quantified data. Yaniv Tr. 870; Fabrikant, Tr. 1297-98. Even as Dr. Morgan admitted, this report supports an increase in risk estimates of about 1.4 in terms of shielded kerma, but finds that using estimated organ-absorbed doses, the risk coefficients derived from the two dosimetries are very similar.
Morgan, Tr. 1624-25; Auxier, Tr. 1353-55,1391. (Kerma dose is the energy imparted by the radiation to air and is not directly relevant to risk coefficients. ' It is the organ-absorbed dores that are relevant. Yaniv, Tr. 866-67, 880-82.) i ne more precisely quantified data in RERF TR 12-87 and other current epidemiological data are currently being evaluated by UNSCEAR and the present l BEIR V Committee. UNSCEAR has derived a lifetime risk estimate for high- l dose, high-dose-rate radiation, and if it uses its previous method for extrapolating { to low doses, it will arrive at a lifetime cancer risk estimate of 2.25 x 10d per i person-rem using the absolute model and 3.5 x 104 per person-rem using the { relative model. De BEIR V reassessment is due to be published at the end of l the year, but it too is concluding that the new Japanese dosimetry increases risk estimates only slightly and much less than a factor of 2. Fabrikant. Tr. 1297-98. Both the Staff and Applicants added further perspective on the ramifications of the DS86 dosimetry. Dr. Fabrikant testified that even if the cancer risks 174
i: 3 - .
~
k . ' t i, were revised upward by a factor of 2, and there is no evidence for this at this time, it would still not result in any additional ill health from evaporation of
: ', ,.[,
i[.
' n, , .. ;., ,y * - .
the AGW, because the doses would still be too low. Fabrikant, Tr.1215. The 4
'l,- -
Staff actually applied an increased risk estimate of 4 x 10 per person-rem in
'; . . t' .p ' - its testimony (an increase by a factor of 3 over that used in the PEIS), doubled
. ,1 * . c 1 : .. ,.3 ? 7 *l ,. '3< . 5
, its calculated population dose to reflect use of a Q factor of 2 (increasing the
",'.4
./ .
.y' ., -
calculated population dose from 3 to 6 person-rem), and still only arrived at a 0.0024 population risk of cancer. Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 816. Even with this
, , o. ; .
'" ; ,,f.
. ? adjustment, the Staff's cancer risk estimate would be no greater than the upper
~, ' " '
bound that Dr. Fabrikant calculated using Applicants' very conservative 12
- v. f 7, ,. " .- -
person-rem population dose. Compare Fabrikant, Tr.1226.
.; 7
- , . 'r
' ~
-- 2. Conclusion In conclusion, the Board finds that Applicants and the Staff have adequately
,g ,
evaluated the radiation-associated cancer risk. We further find on the basis of the record before us that the new DS86 dosimetry is unlikely to have any significant
', l-
effect on Applicants' and the Staff's independent evaluations. D. Genetic Risk g' *
, During summary disposition, based on statements by Applicants and the Staff that appeared inconsistent, we questioned whether the cancer risk was greater than the genetic risk. LDP-88-23, supra,28 NRC at 210,216. Both
' Applicants and the Staff presented testimony on genetic risk. Interveners,
- however, presented no testimony and conducted no cross-examination on this question. Accordingly, we find Applicants' and the Staff's testimony to be undisputed.
The Staff explained that the apparent discrepancy at summary disposition
' ' between Applicants and the Staff's estimates of genetic detriment was the result
~. .
.- of the Staff's inclusion of occupational doses in their risk estimates. Munson,
" - Tr. 753-55; Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 816. The risk of genetic disorders in the offspring
- ! # '.- of irradiated individuals is 0.3 x 10d genetic disorders per person-rem in the
, 1 first generation. The risk in all future generations (the equilibrium value) is
.", .- about 2 x 10d genetic disorders per person-rem. Id. These estimates are
- ' taken from NUREG/CR-4214, Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Plant
. . ,- Accident Consequences (see id.) based on the BEIR III report (see Staff Exh. 2; Testimony of Dr. Auxier and Dr. Fabrikant, Tr.1220).
~
- The Staff did not multiply their calculated offsite population doses by these risk estimates in their testimony to arrive at a prediction of effect, but this
, . , calculation is simple. Three person-rem (the Staff's calculated total body dose 175 1
s a.
L L a; [ -
, a
- * , j
[
. . 1 to the offsite population) multiplied by 2 x 104total genetic disorder per person- -
rem equals 0.0006 predicted genetic disorder, or less than I chance iri 1600 of a single genetic disorder occurring in all future generations as a consequence of the
,' evaporation of the AGW. Applying this risk estimate to Applicants' populatio'n I
,, dose of 12 person-rem results in a projection of 0.0024 (2 x 10d total disorder j per person-rem multiplied by 12 person-rem) genetic disorder, or less than 1 i
+. chance in 400 of a single genetic disorder. Dr. Fabrikant took this process one
> )
step further and calculated the possibility of a single genetic disorder, using i t' the maximum equilibrium value (1100 cases per million live births per tem of parental exposure) reported in the BEIR 111 Report (rather than the geometric mean used in NUREG/CR-4214 as reflected in Staff Exh. 2). Even then, there is : C . t ' less than I chance in 200 of a single genetic disorder during all future existence. Fa'o rikant, Tr.1229. ( g.,Q .,." The Staff also discussed 14CRP Report No. 89, which suggested that using a
. O factor of 2 for tritium might be appropriate when considering genetic damage.
" Martin /Yaniv, Tr. 819. This has little bearing on Applicants' dose calculations, since Applicants' MIDAS Code uses a Q factor of 1.7, but the Staff doubled
, , its previously calculated population dose (which had been calculated using the normally recommended Q factor of 1). Using a Q factor of 2 increases the Staff's calculated population dose to 6 person-rem and the total number of projected
~ genetic disorders to 0.0012 (i.e., less than I chance in 800 of a single genetic disorder occurring in all future generations as a consequence of the evaporation
' of the AGW). In sum, no matter how one manipulates these numbers, the doses are simply too low to predict or expect any genetic detriment. Moreover, the'-
reassessment of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors suggests that the current genetic risk estimates are perhaps four times too high. Pabrikant, Tr. 1218-19. E. Conclusion on Health Effects Based on the record described above, we find that, contrary to Interveners' Contention 5d, Applicants and the Staff have properly evaluated the risks of radiation. associated health effects. Applying the generally accepted risk estimates used by GPUN and the Staff to the population doses calculated for
,, the evaporation proposal leads to the conclusion that, using estimates that are intentionally high and conservative, there is less than I chance in 800 of a gtnetic disorder and less than I chance in 400 of one cancer death from implementation of the evaporation proposal.
4 176 ________________________.__._m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
i i l
- t. -
2, ; V. COSTS -INCLUDING BOARD CONCLUSIONS ABOUT a ,,. r
' l' , . . . ,
TOTAL RADIATION COSTS
. , '. c , .
., .- 'y
- j
- s a .
In this section of our opinion, we review the cost estimates provided to us,
. .'. then we review the radiation estimates provided to us, and we make 'a preliminary T. .'" . l*
.o",,..,
( ': p ,' * . l ,
. balance of both kinds of estimates for the two alternatives.
.c ,,
,. .t, . .-
... < v
, '* . ' " ' /' -
A. Dollar Cost Estimates
- The most accurate testimony on dollar costs was provided by Applicants, who made detailed cost estimates that stood up under cross-examination. Interveners
- - presented no estimates on cost and have not challenged Applicants' estimate of cost. The Staff's cost estimate, while adequate and similar to Applicants' l estimate, relied on other environmental impact statements to estimate the cost 7
> .- of new tankage, and not on market prices, and therefore is not as acceptabic as Applicants' estimate. Munson, Tr. 759-61.
. 4 m ,, .,
Based on our acceptance of Applicants' dollar cost findings, we fmd that further preprocessing of 31% of the water volume by demineralization prior to evaporation is estimated to cost $2.1 million. This estimate is based on actual 1987 processing costs and includes all handling, loading, and processing operation costs, including the cost of the resin and liners, transportation to
,,', burial, and disposal at Hanford, Washington. Based upon vendor price quotes, the evaporation and vaporization of 2.3 million gallons of pmcessed water
. and the pxkaging of the resulting evaporator bottoms is estimated to cost an additional $1.7 million. The transportation and disposal of the packaged evaporator bottoms will cost an estimated $293,700. The total cost for the evaporation proposal is estimated to be approximately $4.1 million. Buchanan,
' Tr. 460; Munson, Tr. 747.
'. e Interveners did not estimate the cost of the no-action alternative. Hence,
~'. .
we accept Applicants' estimate and find that the cost of Interveners' alternative
~
. will depend upon the assumptions made for the design criteria used for the
~
. storage facilities. The construction of two additional 500,000-gallon tanks to s
, .,, be co-located with and designed to the same standards as the existing PWST6 is estimated to cost St.3 million, excluding piping, monitoring, and pumps.
,., . Buchanan, Tr. 462; see also Munson, Tr. 747.
',, The cost of Interveners' alternative would also include the $2.1 million or l more for AGW preprocessing, and the costs of ultimate disposal. Making
' ~
. . the reasonable assumption that AGW disposal and preprocessing costs of the i ,
proposal and the alternative cancel each other out (involving processing to Base Case levels), one is left with the additional S1.3 million cost for the storage portion of Interveners' alternative (assuming that they do not need to meet the i 177 en _,.m__- _-.____ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ . _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - - -
m- -- - s.
. -s-
~
, -..<s ,
'n
~
y, - standards of Generic Letter 81-38),' whose scope and applicability were not argued before us). l , , Since the Board finds that Pennsylvania is likely to have a disposal site, saving the long travel distance to Washington state, we use our judgment to l - reduce the transportation costs for the no-action alternative by $220,000 of the
$293,700 transportation estimate made by Applicants. Munson,'IY. 746,74849 (assumption of Pennsylvania repository); Buchanan, Tr. 460; Munson, Tr. 747.
Hence, we find the net incremental cost of the no-action alternative, primarily for buying tankage, to be about $1 million. We also are faced with Intervenor's argument that there may be technological-improvement during the next 30 years, bringing the cost of ultimate disposal
~ '
, - through evaporation or other alternatives - down. Against that, we weigh
,, , . Staff's argument that the cost of disposal of low-level radioactive waste has
'*i ' been increasing in recent yeart, indicating a possible long-term trend. Munson,
'IY. 748. On balance, the Board's judgment is that it is conservative' to assume -
"i a 10% saving in the cost of evaporation ($1.7 million), or $170,000 (treated as current dollar savings). Also, we will conservatively assume that there is no long term trend in waste disposal costs because the data to which Ms. Munsori refers are too short term to indicate what will happen over 30 years.
. Finallj, after reducing the $1 million net incremental cost we previously calculated by $170,000 assumed technological savings, we find that the no-action alternative will cost at kast $830,000 more than Applicants' proposal.
B. Total Radiation Consequences of the Two Proposals
, After reviewing the testimony and bringing it together in one place, we have constructed the following table, summarizing the radiation consequences of Applicants' proposal:
d 9
' At one point, Interveners suggested the applicauen of Genene tetter 8138, setung standards for temporary waste storage, to this case. If we adopted that standard, we would find than the cost of the no acuan ahernative would be s9.1 milbon, far tn excess of the amount we assume for the purposes of our opinion. Buchanan, Tr. 46243.
178 _ _____m.___ ___m_______________.______m___.__m _________m__.-
1'
't ,
1 l _j
-.w .
]
y .- 3 p 1'
,..'.. , . e
- L .
O. u . 3 ..- , -. , - . p
- q
- r ,a . 3.. , ,,p -l . 3 - */ ..t ,-
Total Radiation Consequences of Evaporation Proposal 4 % q',+.?'{_' V.C ' , l.1 '/. ' ' ?, **
, [. . Dose e,, * -
.J A.; * ; .. ,.: ). : , . , -~ ft , ,, Population in Person Rem Evidentiary . J y . c..J ., . . , , , . ' ' .q,t . . Stage of Process Affected (total body =TB) Source
.3.. . r .
ln.', ,l D' 1 ,., y, - ,- , , t; e - , ' Evaporation and General public . 2.4 bone Baker, Tr. 638 TB
'. q ' 7 * . [ 4. ^ i vaporization 12
,.'.1,",.'. g! ?, . "_ ; } 4 . Occupational 23 TB Tarpinian, Tr. 443-44
- c. . .
",~,'.. " Shipping bottoms General public 10.4 TB Weaver, Tr. 475-76
" . 'l 1 ~ - - Drivers 1 TB . Weaver, Tr. 475-76 4.8 .TB Shipping liners General public Weaver, Tr. 476 l '- e .
/ ;
[ ,,,. , Drivers 1 TB Weaver, Tr. 476
,e o , '
,'j '3.
Transit accidents General public ' O.5 TB Weaver, Tr. 476
.. .- ' ' . -- [ Board conservatism]
,4 TOTAL .ALL 2.4 bone
',*; V .
; - 52.7 TB
~ '
A To simplify, let us say that the person-rem consequences of. Applicants'
? proposal is 55.1 person-rem. We assume: (1) that the no action alternative will have none of these consequences resulting from shipping, and (2) that the 30-year storage period will reduce the radioactivity of the bottoms by one-half,
,. L .-
thus halving the consequences from evaporation and vaporization at the end of that time. Tarpinian, Tr. 444. On net, we therefore find that the no-action
'~
[, ' alternative would save at most 36.4 person-rem.
~ '
For the purpose of this calculation, we do not consider accident scenarios because the favor Applicants' proposal 'Ihe most important accident risk is
,r,, , , ',*,
-'. total breach of a 500,000-gallon storage container, which must maintain integrity t j' ,
- '. for 30 years. Since Applicants' proposal only requires a maximum of 2 years
- i ,* '
- of storage in similar containers, it is clear that the accident risk is greater -
.o '
for the no action alternative. Weaver, Tr. 479-80; Munson,' Tr. 744. Indeed,
; ,. f - ... testimony indicated a 3.75% risk of release for 30 years from a 500,000-gallon ,,s.. .' * -
tank (Weaver, Tr. 477), with dose consequences in the first year of stomge
"- of 30.7 person-rem (bone) and 0.9 person-rem (total body). However, we shall (conservatively) ignore these possible releases during storage in comparing proposals.
, m
.~ The question is: How are we to weigh the 36.4 person-rem savings through
< the no-action alternative? Our answer is that the appropriate legal standard is the 4
~. , ' , , ' .
j, i one found in Part 50, Appendix 1, for interpreting the Commission's ALARA j
, 7, .
~
principle.
*f .
I
= i 4
179
4 k
~
Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 is entitled, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ' As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled
. Nuc! car Power Reactor Effluents." The relevant portion is III.D, which states
- >- (in relevant part):
iT}he Applicants shall include in the radwaste system all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-
, . benefit return, can for a favorable cost-benefit ratio effect reductions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. As an interim measure [still in effect] and until establishment and adoption of better values (or other appropriate criteria) the values $1000 per total body man-rem and 51000 per man-thyroid rem (or such lesser values as may be demonstrated to be suitable in a particular case) shall be used in this cost-benefit
, analysis.
.s This standard is not, of course, directly applicable; but it provides a useful
~
standard by analogy. Designers of new plants are required to meet this criterion. Here, we have a volume of radioactive material to dispose of. The same cost-benefit concerns seem to be applicable. We conclude, therefore, that Applicants would have to spend as much as $36,400 for hardware and technology needed to save 36.4 person-rem of exposure. However, the net incremental cost to Applicants of the no-action' c alternative would be over 5800,000. Co'nsequently, we conclude that Applicants need not incur this extra expense and that the evaporation proposal is therefore appropriate and should be approved. We note that there have been a variety of subissues argued fully and carefully, on our record, con _ .dng the accuracy with which tritium and other radioactive content can be nicasured. In our review of those materials, we became convinced that accurate measurement is being conducted by Applicants, with 1 Staff oversight. We are satisfied that, during the life of the project, measurement i errors would at most produce a 10% increase in radiation release. Even if we thought that the release would be increased by 100%, the standards of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, iII.D would be met. We conclude that, under the operable legal standards, the Applicants' pro-posal is itself obviously superior. Necessarily, the no-action proposal could not be obviously superior. VI. UNCERTAINTIES I There are a variety of miscellaneous issues we have yet to address. These include disagreements about the tritium content of the AGW and about the accuracy with which Applicants measure the radioactive content of the AGW. 180 l
- v. ,
p , ,- e l v
.c ; ,' '. '. /. .
T' ,.q
? ,' . s , . ',. 4
."'. * ' In writing about these subjects, our attention was called to the question of l-
'(,. . v the relevance of these subjects to the litigation before us. To our mind, the only relevance to the litigation is if these allegations about uncertainties have
\ .
, . . j. ' 'j . , j 7, .' an impact on our basic conclusions about the alternative to adopt concerning
, ., l J ,' N. I. the disposal of the AGW. To be relevant, therefore, these subjects would have
/ .
s 'T y,. ?- . , to bear on the risk from the evaporation of the water or on the relative risk in
', ' :.. . , . ; J ., . c*.. person-rem from the two alternatives.
2' S' . We note that Interveners have not made the connection between these
.- * ' ' ' F - concerns and the ultimate question before us. Nevertheless, we have decided to
' '?, , . ', . i e l
sift the evidence ourselves with this question before us. Again, we are indebted
- N
,J- ,
~
to Applicants for their care in addressing these issues in their findings, and we
** ' ' .
- have decided to use their findings as the basis for this portion of our opinion.
., c. - 7 Tritium Content of AGW
~
r' - '
~ -
7~ A.
,x .. .-
' ' - Since 1981, the total inventory of AGW has increased to a volume of
~
- . approximately 2.2 million gallons due to continued additions from support
' systems and condensation from the reactor building air coolers during the a
. summer months. Care has been exercised to minimize the additions of new water
- and to ensure that the commingling of noncontaminated water with the AGW is .
s
.' ,' restricted. Even with care, the final volume of water will increase to a limit not 2
.. expected to exceed 2.3 million gallons. Buchanan, Tr. 456. Approximately 31%
of the 2.3-million-gallon inventory will be considered for further preprocessing
' - - in order to meet the Base Case levels of Table 2.2 in PEIS Supplement No. 2.
- u. ~ Buchanan, Tr. 460.
Applicants estimate that the AGW contains no more than 1020 curies of tritium, which represents an average concentration of 1.2E-1 microcuries per milliliter ( Ci/ml) in the projected 2.3 million gallons of AGW. Harner, Tr.166.
- ( , ' , y, [. i.
The Staff, in PEIS Supplement No. 2, utilized a tritium source term of 1020 y - -
~
g ,.. .' . curies. Thonus, Tr. 349; Munson, Tr. 741,
. J -
Applicants' estimate was derived during the preparation of GPUN's July L' ; 1986 proposal. The most recent sample data from 25 bodies of water were used and the concentration of each body of water were then multiplied by its
- corresponding tank volume to yield the amount of tritium present in each tank.
,,' . The total inventories of tritium in each tank were then added to obtain the total
, , ,. curies of tritium in the AGW. The result was a total of 1180 curies of tritium in
, ,~ . ~a .
the AGW, Correcting the data from July 1986 to October 1988 for radioxtive decay, a conservative total tritium curie content of 1020 was estimated. This
- estimate is conservative because reductions for normal evaporative losses of
, , ~,
12.5 curies per calendar quarter were not included. Harrier, Tr. 338.
" '. In addition to this 1986 sampling effort, GPUN has since analyzed about 5000 routine samples of the AGW, including measurements of tritium; these measure-R 181 l -
i l 1 ( . 1 i l _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ ___-____--______A
p , , i-d . E<.; ments confirm the 1986 data. In conjunction with the rot $ tine samples analyzed by the GPUN laboratory, periodic independent Quality Control analyses are also
- , performed. The QC techniques include round-robin, blind, duplicate, replicate, spiked, and split samples. In this way, the accuracy 1.ad precision of the entire analytical process is verified frequently. In addition, a sample was analyzed
, independently by GPUN's chemistry department and by the U.S. Department of '
Energy's Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory ("RESL"), Idaho
, Falls, Idaho, on behalf of the NRC. This analysis, as discussed further below.
is consistent with the GPUN data. Harner, Tr.167-68. P , 1, Empirical Evideisce Challenged with Models The Interveners asserted in Material Statement of Fact 4(xii), under Con-tention 3, that the alleged changing source term of the AGW is particularly relevant to tritium. As an example, the Joint Interveners stated that Applicants relied on data from the PElS (1981) and EGG-PBS-6798 to get 3161 curies and 4231 curies, respectively, while TPO/rMI-043 Rev. 6 (1986) shows that the cover inventory of tritium at the time of the accident was 8794 curies. All of the estimates on which Interveners rely are derived from model predictions. Based on these estimates, the Interveners challenged Applicants'
, ability to accurately determine the tritium source term. See LDP-88 23, supra, 28 NRC at 199.
- 2. Empirical Evidence More Reliable Witnesses for each of the parties, however, urged the Board to rely upon sampling data, rather than model predictions, to assess the content of the AGW.
Licensee witness Hofstetter explained that there are many computational
, methods available in the literature which attempt to model what might occur at s
, the time of a reactor accident having failed fuel exposed to its cooling medium
- 4 or the atmosphere. Each uses a set of assumptions to define the accident.
Assumptions are made defining core conditions, plant configuration, responses to the event, and duration. As would be expected, each estimate is different due to the assumptions made and computational method utilized. Hofstetter, Tr. I68. Two of the early estimates of the tritium source term at the time of the TMI 2 accident are 8794 curies (TPO/rMI N3, Rev. 6, Data Report - Radioactive Waste Management Summary Review) and 4231 curies (EGG-PBS-6798, TMI 2 Isotopic Inventory Calculations). Both of these estimates are based on postulated conditions. Hofstetter, Tr.169. I
, 182 f
- 1
- u. . .
- O . a' t, During cross-examination, Dr. Hofstetter specifically addressed ORIGEN-2's
[$ - j,. calculation of a tritium inventory of 8794 curies at the time of TMI-2 accident.
, ,,- f .. Dr. Hofstetter noted that the accuracy of ORIGEN-2, like any code, depends
'T upon the accuracy of the input parameters used to run the code. The applicable codes for ORIGEN-2 include radiation history, length of isotopic enrichments,
] .. '
4
..'. various core components, length of power operation in the reactor, and mode of i- power operation.
Dr. Hofstetter observed that the number of input parameters is particularly
.,, , . ,. - important when estimating the tritium inventory because tritium is not produced
' J j 7 '< in high yield. Thus, the inherent errors in the model are magnified when one is
.*(-
;. s attempting to observe a relatively infrequent occurrence such as production of
, y . < tritium. Hofstetter, Tr. 275.
f ,
'.,,, Similarly, Staff witness Thonus expressed little confidence in the ability of a computer code to accurately estimate the tritium content of the AGW, Mr. Thonus testified that he believed the estimate of 8794 curies resul'.ed
' . .,7
~< -
from a gross overestimate of the amount of lithium contained in the uranium dioxide fuel. Thonus, Tr. 403. Mr. Thonus noted that the authors of the
~
~
. ORIGEN-2 analysis assumed the maximum allowable lithium as an impurity in the manufacturing process, when there was no evidence to support such an
- assumption. Id. Therefore, Mr. Thonus would not endorse the estimate of 8794 curies of tritium. Thonus, Tr. 402.
Finally, even Joint Interveners' witness Morgan testified that he always gives more credence to properly conducted sanipling than to theoretical estimates. Morgan at 2. Consequently, it is clear that for a radionuclides like tritium, Applicants' actual measurements should be relied upon rather than model predictions. Hofstetter, Tr. 277; Thonus, Tr. 349. Dr. Hofstetter also addressed the tritium source term of 2910 curies (NUREG-0683, PEIS,1981). This estimate was based on limited sampo data and source volumes in September 1980. By contrast, the GPUN tritium source term of c, .m ,- approximately 1180 curies, reported in July 1986, was based on much more
, , , ',- sample data and source volumes from early 1986. Hofstetter, Tr.169.
3, use of Upper-Bound Tritium Source Term
*. The estimated upper-bound tritium source term of 1020 curies, presented by
. GPUN in July 1986, and by the Staff in Table 2.2, PEIS Supplement No. 2, is a projection to October 1,1988, taking into account only radioactive decay. Since tritium is not produced in the fuel after the fissioning process has stopped, there has been no tritium added since March 1979. The amount of tritium present
~
, continues to decrease through radioactive decay, while some also is released to the atmosphere through normal evaporation. Therefore, the tritium source term estimate of 1020 curies, which is not corrected for evaporative losses, is 183
\
- f. ; , + ' (
y , , . l'
~ '
y ' w , n. , . . c p ~ ~ } *: , .
, ?' , ,
~ . g. r '
Q;4 :: - [ 3 ! ,l M ' an upper-bound value based on actual laboratory analytical results and storage
, location volumes of virtually all of the AGW at TMI 2. Hofstetter, Tr.169 70; Thonus, Tr. 349 ("The source term can'most accurately be characterized by the lin ,": .1 - ' ^
series of samples and measures taken by GPUN."). l Applicants' witness Harner explained the significance of the conservatism in : h, ! * '.. ,, ~
. t the Licensee's estimate of 1020 total curies of tritium in the AGW. Mr. Harner i//f
' ' ~
~
noted that GPUN monitors the air leaving the station for its' tritium content.
- 'P '
Harner, Tr. 338-39. Applicants' data show that from 1979 through 1986,-' except for the first two quarters of 1980 where the Licensee was doing specific ' g, , processes, there has been an average release of 12.5 curies of tritium per quarter
, .s , through evaporative losses. Harner, 'It 338. This conservatism more than i
. compensates for the theoretical possibilities put forward by the Interveners in f . -
their arguments that the AGW could contain more than 1020 curies of tritium.
-i. _
' 4. Program to Overcome Measurement Problems Joint Interveners' Material Statement of Fact 4(iv) under Contention 3 asserts
'[ in part that it is dif6 cult to acquire an accurate assessment of the tritium
- z. concentration of water. LBP-88-23, supra. 28 NRC at 195. As'a general
' J' , 1 matter, determining the concentration of any element on a liquid sample is an ~
intricate process. Tritium analyses are particularly difficult because tritium emits
. only very-low-energy beta particles. When determining tritium' concentrations
. . in liquids, two major interferences are (1) the presence of other beta-emitting radionuclides in the sample and (2) the variations in counting efficiencies caused by chemical impurities in the sample. Both of these interferences are addressed ~
, in TMI-2 Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM 3013.81, which was used to analyze all tritium samples taken by GPUN. Hofstetter, Tr.170.
, The presence of other radionuclides that also emit beta particles (and/or
, . gamma rays) can give a falsely high indication of the amount of tritium present in a sample. Therefore, Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM 3013.81 provides g' , '
methods to remove the interfering radionuclides using various methods - filtration, ion exchange, or flocculation. Hofstetter, Tr.170. The second major interference comes from the presence of chemical impu-rities either in the scintillation cocktail or the water sample itself which can produce a falsely low indication of the amount of tritium present in the sample. Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-3013.81 provides two methods that control i these chemical interferences, in one method, ascorbic acid is added to the sam-ple to react with any organic material and minimize its effect on the detection efficiency. In the other method, a known amount of tritium is added to a second - aliquot of the sample. This spiked aliquot is used to determine the exact count-ing efficiency for the detector in the sample matrix. Once this is known, the 184
)
l 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . .__ __._______._____.___._____M__
~ . > , l o 1 s
il .
. -< . \
I
~ '
. 3" I' tritium concentration of the unspiked sample can be determined more accurately. !
-, j Hofstetter, Tr.171, q
, .. 3, . ' ' , ,'
' ' ' , h, i S. Reasons for Different Tritium Measurements
. .: j
,. l , 2. '
The Interveners contended in Material Statements of Pact 4(viii) and 4(x)
* - . under Contention 3 that the Staff invalidly assumes that the average concentra-tions of radionuclides as shown in Table 2.2 of PEIS Supplement No. 2 can bc
.* reasonably considered a maximum. Joint Interveners cite as an example the av-( ,
' ' crage concentration of tritium in Table 2.2 as 1.3E-1 pCi/ml, while a document obtained from GPUN during discovery reports a measured tritium concentration
~ ~
in the PWST-2 storage location of 2.1 Ci/ml. This was also the only issue q~ . , l remaining under Contention 4(b). See LBP-88-23, supra,28 NRC at 198-99, j.j/f tf - ,' _
,c.
4
- 2(M.
*' The record shows that the values for radionuclides listed in Table 2.2 of PEIS
,'T ,
- Supplement No. 2 are reasonable projections of concentrations expected to exist in the influent to the evaporator. Harner, Tr.172; Munson, Tr. 782. Licensee compared the projections of concentrations for processed water in Table 2.2 against the RESL analyses of SDS and/or EPICOR II processed water in the PWST-2 tank. The actual analytical results for PWST-2 processed water were lower than the projections of Table 2.2 for all radionuclides except tritium. This
* - demonstrates that the data from Table 2.2 are a reasonable estimate that can be used for dose calculations.
Since the amount of tritium is not reduced by wate,r processing, the final concentration in each storage location after processing is !!n same as the tritium . influent concentration. Therefore, depending on which of thele locations is being processed. the tritium concentration will vary. The average tritium concentration is then a mathematical calculation and must be done in place of the capability to e undertake a physical mixing of the entire AGW volume in a single, homogenous -
' batch. Harner,'IY.172.
t Second, the tritium concentrations at issue cannot be compared directly to
'i
- cach other. The values are a mixture of actual sample results, as well as estimates s
l. calculated using averaged numbers, actual numbers, and other input at various
# points in time. The tritium value of 1.3E-1 Ci/ml was a mathematical projection of the average tritium concentration of all the AGW on October 1,1988, and
^
was based on 2.1 million gallons of AGW. The tritium value of 2.3E-1 pCi/ml
~ ~
was an actual analytical result obtained by GPUN for a PWST-2 sample (GPUN N Sample No. 8615668) on October 27,1986. It was also the result obtained for
',. s a tritium analysis performed for a sample of PWST-2 (GPUN Sample No. 86-17062) on November 21,1986. Harner, Tr.172-73.
We find that one of the tritium values supplied to Interveners by Applicants was an error. The tritium value of 2.1 pCi/ml was an error on page 43, step 185 1
mm.
= . -- 4
. . -y ,
P . s I
- n - y , . ',
y , a
,. . .7.3 of a GPUN document titled, "l'echnical Specification for Processed Water :
Disposal for GPU Nuclear Corporation Three Mile Island - Unit 2 Nuclear ' 4~ , y q Power Plant." This document, produced during discovery, is a bid speci6 cation .
' [f ' ,
a s -' sent to vendors and provides information necessary for them to evaluate the task . e and return a proposal for construction. Based on Mr. Harner's testimony that -
'q .G' '
9l he checked the lab results, we find that no sample from TMI-2 ever contamed
.c ..'. e tritium as high as 2.1 pCIAnt The correct value for the sample in question is ~
6- 23E-1 pCi/ml. Harner, 'IY.173; Thonus, Tr. 349; Munson, 'IY. 75152. (We . [ 4e considered whether this error had an adverse effect and we conclude that since tritium is.nc e. moved by the proposed AGW disposal system, the error in
.' the bid spee < stion had no effect on the evaporator proposal design. Harner, ,
o
, , 7Y. 215.)
, 4 B. Sampling Accuracy
. . _ '. , , Joint Interveners' Material Statement of Fact 4(vi) and (vii) under Contention .
U -' - ' T, 3 stated that the analyses of the PWST-2 samples by RESL' for the NRC
, .- ? and by GPUN gave differing results for Co-60, Cs 137, and Sr 90, and that
., , , neither detected C-14, whereas an analysis by Westinghouse found C-14 at a -
'. 4 concentration of 3.0E-4, greater than the average concentration listed in Table 2.2 of PEIS Supplement No. 2 by a factor of three. See LBP-88-23, supra,28 NRC at 198.
A sample of PWST-2 was obtained on February 23,1987 (GPUN'Sampic No. 87-02569). A portion of the sample was transferred to the NRC for analysis by their contracted laboratory, RESL. A comparison of the GPUN data and the f ' RESL data can be done on positive (greater than lower-level-of detection) results for individual radionuclides. One method for comparison is ' outlined in the NRC " Inspection and Enforcement Manual," Inspection Procedure 84725. This
^
method is used to evaluate a licensee's analytical capability to make consistently-accurate radioactivity measurements. The licensee's measurement is compared '
' to an NRC or RESL measurement and a determination is made whether the two values are close enough to be in agreement. The " agreement" criteria are based on an empirical relationship that combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of the program. Harner,'IY.175 76.
Applying the procedure to the RESL and GPUN data for the PWST 2 sample shows agreement for the tritium, Co-60 and Cs-137 results. The differences observed between these two sets of data for tritium, Co-60 and Cs 137 are not major and, in fact, are within the range of normal differences observed when comparing radiochemistry data from two separate laboratories in accordance i with NRC standards. Harner, Tr. 176, 259-60; Thonus, TY. 348. l The difference between the GPUN data and RESL data for St-90 is explain-
, able from the procedures used by the two laboratories. In most cases, strontium-l -
186 l _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __E_____.______-_____________._.__._m
;g ,
V - Y 90 analyses on liquid samples are done through the use of the 14-day method,
~ ' .'
, ,N , - -
'. where one separates the strontium and the yttrium from each other and then
- watches the yttrium, which is the daughter of strontium, gtow back over time.
4*. ., ..,, , , .,
- - ~S , ,.
- I. ,[ The more-accurate 14-day method is not practical for process control use at TMI. Harner, 'lY. 176, 261. Thus, GPUN uses either a 72-hour or a rapid
. ; . 5
~
method to analyze for Sr-90 in liquid samples. GPUN quality control data for
-l. ' -
,a the liquid Sr-90 analysis has shown the 72-hour method to be more accurate f1
,',t ' -
tlan the rapid method; however, both are inuerently conservative. The 72-hour j,, 'l analysis results average 40% higher than the actual, while the rapid method d
.s .
results average 100% higher than the actual concentrations, at the IE pCi/ml
. St-90 level, when compared to standards or the results of split samples reported
'3
*/' by offsite laboratories using more traditional methods. Harner. 'lY. 176, 261-62.
e
. , if,;,. . ' j ~ In any event, both the GPUN and the NRC results for this Sr-90 analysis are lower than the value used in the PElS to evaluate the environmental impact of Sr.
c-
/ .,.
? 90. 'Ihonus, Tr. 348, 370. In addition, the environmental impact analysis on the PEIS was not calculated from these single sample analytical results. The average
.5 or Base Case data were conservatively calculated from many sample results and
'- assumptions made from knowledge of a long history of water processing through the SDS and EPICOR 11 systems. Harner,'IV.177.
The C-14 concentrations at issue vary because the values are a mixture of actual sample results, averaged numbers, and estimates or projections calculated from various input. The C-14 value of 3.0Ed pCi/ml is an actual sample result obtained from a PWST-2 sample (GPUN Sample No. 85-16198) analyzed by Westinghouse. The sample date is December 23,1985. The C-14 value of < 2.0 E-7 Ci/ml is an actual sample result obtained from a PWST 2 sample (GPUN
- Sample No. 87-02569), taken in February 24, 1987, and analyzed by RESL.
The C 14 value of 1.0Ed pCi/ml found in Table 2.2 of NUREG-0683, Supp. 2, is a calculated estimate based on operational experience of SDS and EPICOR 11 Systems and on the average of four processed water analyses performed by
. Westinghouse in early 1986.
A calculated projection of concentration for the total volume is not the sanic as
. an actual sample result of a single portion of water. The C-14 values listed vary,
^
but the NRC and GPUN appropriately used the 1.0Ed Westinghouse average
# .* concentration for dose estimates, even though RESL measured a much lower value. Hofstetter, Tr.177-78; Thonus, Tr. 348.
. .' 1. Staff Checks on Accuracy of Measurement in Material Statement of Fact 4(ii) under Contention 3, the Interveners argued that the NRC's sampling of the AGW was inadequate because the NRC took
. a 4-liter sample from a tank that contains one-fifth of the AGW. LBP-88-23, 187
( . t w supra,28 NRC at 198. The testimony during the hearing demonstmted that the
,. NRC has analyzed a representative sample of water available for evaporation.
C '
^^
. ; In February 1987, the water in the PWST-2 was sampled. The sample of
.s FWST-2 was divided between the NRC and GPUN. Harner, Tr.178; Thonus, e' "
\ .
Tr. 368. All of the PWST water has undergone treatment through EPICOR II
. . > or through SDS and EPICOR II. Harner, Tr. 304-06. While some variations r.
o in concentrations of radionuclides occur among batches of AGW processed through SDS and EPICOR II, the average concentrations resulting from this processing have not been signific:.ntly different. Therefore, the PWST-2 wuct is representative of the TMI-2 water available for evaporation, and it has been evaluated by the Staff. Harner, Tr.178. Moreover, the NRC did not intend to use the PWST-2 sample to provide bounding radionuclides limits on the AGW. The NRC does not have to develop its own data for environmental statements. GPUN's more extensive sampling provided the basis for the estimated influent to the processed-water disposal
; , E - -
system. The NRC sample in question here was taken only to gudit GPUN data. The results of this sample do support the information supplied by GPUN, See Thonus, Tr. 347,356,358.
.' , , At the hearing, the Staff also explained that as part of the NRC inspection program, NRC inspectors come on site, split samples with the Applicants, and independently confirm Applicmts' laboratory analysis method. Thonus, f '
Tr. 359. The results of the NRC inspection program are published in the NRC's
. - inspection reports. Id. The Board, sua sponte, requested and reviewed these inspection reports dating back to 1981. Tr. 359-60. The Board was satisfied that the NRC had adequately audited the Licensee's laboratory analysis program.
Tr.1630. 3 Joint Interveners' Material Statement of Fact 4(iii) and (iv) claimed that
, procedures presented in ASTM Method 3370 and 4212-CHM-3013.81 at 5.0, 6.1.7, were not followed when the AGW was sampled in February 1987. See
, LBP-88-23, supra. 28 NRC at 195. Applicants' and Staff's testimony showed that the Interveners' assertion is incorrect. Harner, Tr.179; Thonus, Tr. 348.
, in February 1987, a sample was removed from the recirculation flow path of PWST-2 in accordance with TMI-2 Chemistry Procedure 4212-CIIM-30ll.05, Rev. 0 (5/23/84) entiticd, " Sample procedure." This procedure explains how one obtains a representative sample from a plant system. The procedure does not l concern analysis or testing of the water. It is used simply to obtain a bottle full of water from a well-mixed larger volume. Harner, Tr.179. Step 2A of 4212-CHM-3011.05, 6 2.0, References, includes " ASTM Section D 3370-82" as one of four ASTM standards followed and incorporated into 4212-CHM 30ll.05.
Harner, Tr.179; Thonus, Tr. 348. TMI-2 Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-3013.81, entitled " Determination of Tritium By Liquid Scintillation Counting," provides instructions on how to i 188 f i
l 4 i i j
- \
1
\
4
'I
, .,' .. determine the tritium concentration of the sample. The then-current version '{
~
of this procedure was followed by GPUN when the PWST-2 sample was j
,',- + .
.1 3 .. A ,, '
- transported to the laboratory for analysis. Harner, Tr.179; Thonus, Tr. 348.
k . . <; , t, , , , ; The Joint Interveners stated in Material Statement of Fact 4(iv) under Con-1 ~
- (- .s
. J. tention 3 that Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM 3013,81-P 5.0,6.1.7 (10/27/87) .
- was an updated version of Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-3011.05, Rev. O I
,f, 3' ;, , , ,
,' i j h.,
y (5/23/83). See LBP-88 23, supra,28 NRC at 195. The evidence shows, how-4, ever, that Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-3013.81 is not an updated version of
" - , . - 4212-CHM-3011.05. They are distinct procedures that give directions for two (
i , ..
- > entirely different tasks. Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-3011.05 explains how
~'
< f, a liquid sample is drawn from a plant system. Chemistry Procedure 4212-CHM-4 '
3013.81 provides step-by-step instructions that must be followed to produce an j
, ,/
l
- < accurate and reproducible determination of the tritium concentration in a given aliquot of sample. Harner Tr.180.
.' Microorganisms
- - C.
'J In Material Statement of Fact 9 under Contention 3, Joint Interveners con-tended that an evaluation of microorganisms in the AGW must be undertaken.
LBP-88-23, supra. 28 NRC at 200. The completely uncontroverted testimony in the record demonstrates, and the Board finds, that the microorganisms associated '
?
- - with the AGW are typical environmental microbes and not primary pathogens; that in any case the vaporizer section will heat the distillate to approximately 240 F; and that any microorganisms that can survive this temperature are not pathogenic to humans. Baker, Tr. 645-46; Masnik, Tr. 349 51.
D. Conclusion In sum, the Board finds that the tritium content of the AGW has been con-servatively determined from the results of actual measurements, and that the
^
accuracy of GPUN's sampling and analysis program has been verified indepen-
- dently. Contrary to the assertions remaining in Joint Interveners' Contentions 3 e' ' * ,
- and 4b, the radionuclides content of the AGW has been adequately characterized
.c , .'
to support the environmental comparison of disposal options. (.., .
'~
VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
,' Although we believe that we have already presented all the findings of fact and conclusions of law required of us, we have decided to adopt Conclusions of
- Law, based on those provided to us by the Staff, in order to include the principal conclusions of law all in a convenient place.
189 i l l
. i 1
l
- 1. Allissues Resolved
( This is a contested proceeding on an application for an amendment to an operating license for a utilization facility. The Board has decided all of the et
^
^
admitted matters in controversy raised by the Interveners within the scope of
; NEPA and the Commission's regulations implementing NEPA in 10 C.F.R. Part
^
, 51. See 10 C.F.R. 6 51.104(a)(3). The Board has also decided the public health and safety matters raised by the Interveners.
se a s b-' 'l
- 2. Absence of a Prehearing Conference
, Since this case involves an amendment of an existing operating license and is not a construction or operating license proceeding, a prehearing conference was permissive and not mandatory.10 C.F.R. 6 2.752(a). Furthermore, telephone
",, conferences were held prior to the evidentiary hearing and there was no prejudice, alleged or actual, to Interveners from the absence of a prehearing conference.
j.
- 3. Witnesses J s
, All of the witnesses at U1e evidentiary hearing were qualified for the subjects
' on which they testified and we have accorded each the evidentiary weight that
~*
we found their testimony to be worth.
- 4. The Record The record of decision on this application includes the PEIS, Supplement No. 2 (Staff Exh.1), as supplemented and amended by this Initial Decision, but we admitted into evidence only those portions of the PEIS specifically referenced by wimesses as part of their testimony. See 10 C.F.R. Of 51.102(c),51.103(c);
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generaung Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 706-07 (1985), review declined, CLI.86 5, 23 NRC 125 (1986).
, S. Health, Safety, and Common Defense Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. @$ 50.92 and 50.57, the Board concludes, with respect to the matters in controversy, that:
(a) there is a reasonable assurance that the activities that would be authorized by the amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and would be in compliance with Commission regulations; and 190 i 1 _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _-___-_-__-__-_-_____ - __- - - ~
3, . - , c m; , 4 , L. '; G , * '. ).] .,,, '.' 9- '
,,u- '
,j ;, . s # ;F 'l" ,' _, (b) issuance of the amendment would not be inimical to the common -
" 1, , , 4 5 ]'.[. .i j, . . , q'f) ,. . ' defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
.n s. .,..,.: ,
; ,.. { , ; , . , ' ' %,- . . ,y o.,
,. .v . . . . . , .
c ., , .,- . 3 .> E ., ' , , . : &, ,-
, ' .n ,c.,. In reaching this Decision, the Board has considered the entire record of the
^ ,,j.,,.. s..C',., proceeding. All proposed findings presented by the parties and not addressed in
- y. j .3 u,
- if f;..T,
- - . ' ' ,e' .
this Decision are considered to be without merit or unnecessary to the Decision. f, . E ;, . '
. - . ;- -. The Board's fi' ndings of fact are supported by reliable, probative, and substantial
- . evidence in the record.
.y , . ."- -
[... .- . ' 'f >:, . , . .n.,. .,
.s .
.~ - 7. Conclusion
, ,2 ' ,
- 'AC All relevant matters have been decided in favor of the Applicants and,-
!; y ' therefore, the requested amendment should be authorized.
; y.
,q ,
e,.
- VIli. ORDER j
. For all the foregoing reasons ar.d upon consideration of the entire record in
- this matter, it is, this 2d day of February 1989. ORDERED, in accordance with
.' 10 C.F.R. Il2.760 and 2.762: :
, 1. That this Initial Decision shall constitute the fmal action of the Commis-
' ~
j sion forty-five (45) days after its date unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 6 2.762 or the Commission directs that the record be certified to it for final decision.
- 2. Any notice of appeal from the Decision must be filed within ten (10) !
days after service of the Decision. A brief in support of the appeal must be
' ** filed within thirty (30) days (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant) after ;
, . j .
the filing of the notice of appeal. Any party not an appellt.nt may file a brief
, e- in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal within thirty (30) days (forty (40)
, . .'i
,,..~
/--
days in the case of the Staff) after the period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants.
'~
}}