ML20236Y106
| ML20236Y106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5237, CON-#487-5147 OLA, NUDOCS 8712110098 | |
| Download: ML20236Y106 (88) | |
Text
-
O .
U.Nutu STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-320-OLA (Discosal of 4 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Accident- i NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al. Generated i (Three Mile Island Nuclear Water)
Station, Unit 2) l l
i I
SPECIAL'PREHEARING CONFERENCE i
l s
O LOCATION: HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA PAGES: 1 - 86 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1987 s....=..===.=.=..=....==...=.... ...===..... .............==..=.....................
,(Q D \
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reponers 1220 L Street. N.W.
Washmston. D.C. 2000$
(202) 628 4888 l 8712110098 871208 l PDR ADOCK 05000320 J DCD
[ __ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - -
i
. 1 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD 2
L3 4 In the' Matter of: )
. )
5 GENERAL PUBLIO UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) DOCKET NO: 50-320-OLA CORPORATION, et al. (Three Mile ) (Discosal of Accident 6 Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) ) Generated Water)
)
- 7. Special Prehearina Conference )
)
8 -
9 Tuesday, December 8, 1987 10 '
Ballroom l 11 Center City Holiday Inn 230 S. 2nd Street
.12 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
~
y 13 The above-entitled matter came on for Special 14 Prehearing Conference, pursuant to notice, at 8:37 a.m.
I 15 .BEFORE: HON. SHELDON J. WOLFE HON. GLENN O. BRIGHT ]
16 HON. OSCAR H. PARIS Adminsitrative Judges '
17 APPEARANCES:
18 1 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory l 19 Commission Staff:
20 STEPHEN H. LEWIS, Esquire !
COLLEEN P. WOODHEAD, Esquire 21 DR. WILLIAM D. TRAVERS MICHAEL MASNIK 22 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington,D.C. 20555 24 (Appearances Continued on Page 2) i 25
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
2 1 APPEARANCES (Continued) 2 On behalf of the Susquehanna Valley 3' Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert:
4 FRANCES SKOLNICK, Esquire 2079 New Danville Pike f 5 .Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 6 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
7 JOHN McKINSTRY, Esquire Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 8 Resources 505 Executive House 9 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 10 On behalf of the Licensee (General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, et al.
11 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2):
12 THOMAS A. BAXTER, Esquire MAURICE A. ROSS, Esquire 13 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
() 14 Wa fli ng on DC 2b37 I 15 ROBERT E. ROGAN l
Director of Licensing and Nuclear Safety 16 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 17 General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 18 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17507 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
L___________-____________-________
i 2A 1
2 1NDEX 3
4 EXHIBITS: PAGE ~ DESCRIPTION 5 1 77 Copy on Licensee's Schedule 6
7 8
9 10 11 12
! 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 ,
II a
3 ti U. 1 PROCEEDI NGS 2 JUDGE WOLFE Good morning. The Special Prehearing
! 3 Conference in the case of General Public Utilities Nuclear 4 Corporation, et_ al., (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit j 5 Number 2), ASLBP Number 87-554-04-OLA, is now in session.
6 It is being held pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751A of the 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, and pursuant l 1
8 to the Board's Order of November 3, 1987.
]
1 9 This Conference is being held in order, among other l
)
I 10 things, to hear arguments upon the admissibility of certain 11 Proposed Contentions. In this case, GPU, the licensee, seeks 12 an amendment which would delete the current prohibition on the 13' disposal of accident-generated water imposed by the technical O 14 egecificetiene.
15 We are the three Administrative Judges on this Atomic 16 Safety and Licensing Board.,
17 To my left is Judge Bright who is a nuclear engineer.
18 To my right is Oscar Paris, Administrative Judge, environmental 19 scientist. And I am Sheldon Wolfe, Legal Member.
l 20 It wasn't until we arrived at the hotel that we 21 learned from the hotel or motel that the room on the 10th floor 22 was too small to accommodate the large tables plus the l 23 audience. So we have to move down to this room. I hope this 24 didn't inconvenience any of the attendees.
i 25 Neither written nor oral limited appearance 1 p Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 1 statements will be received during this Special Prehearing 2 Conference. Such limited appearances will be taken at the time 3 o,f another prehearing conference, and/or at the beginning of 4 the hearing, if any.
5 Persons wishing to make limited appearance statements 6 at such times are requested to inform the Secretary of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
8 20555.
9 As indicated before, the primary purpose of this 10 Special Prehearing Conference is to hear arguments upon the 11 admission of issues and Contentions in controversy and 12 thereafter to determine whether a hearing should be held.
13 Submissions to us have shown Ms. Frances Skolnick to o
l) g 14 be a member of Three Mile Island Alert as well as of 15 Susquehanna Valley Alliance, and duly authorized by both to 16 represent them. Therefore, TMIA and SVA are deemed by the 17 Board to be Joint Petitioners. If one or more Contentions are 18 admitted, they will be deemed to be joint interveners, and 19 pursuant to Section 2.715A of our Rules of Practice, Ms.
20 Skolnick will then be their representative for all purposes in .
]
21 that proceeding, in that she will consolidate presentation of 22 evidence, consolidate their cross examination, consolidate l
23 their briefs and consolidate their Proposed Findings of Fact, 24 Conclusions of Law, and Argument. l 25 If the Board decides that a hearing will be held, the (m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
5 ;
(_/ 1 parties should be aware that they are directed, pursuant to J
2 Section 2.754 of our Rules of Practice, to file Proposed ;
- 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law briefs, and a Proposed 4 Form of Order or Decision, and any such parties will be deemed 5 to be in default if they do not so file.
6 Beginning at my left, would counsel and/or i
7 . representatives for the parties, identify themselves for the 8 record? j 9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Appearing on behalf
'10 of the Licensee, GPU Nuclear Corporation, I am Thomas A.
11 Baxter. To my left is Maurice A. Ross. We are with the firm 12 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge. I would also like to 13 introduce to my right Robert E. Rogan. He is GPU Nuclear's
'( ) . 14 Director of Licensing and Nuclear Safety for TMI-2, 15 MR. McKINSTRY. I am John McKinstry. I am with the 16 Department of Environmental Resources with the Commonwealth of 17 Pennsylvania.
18 MS, SKOLNICK: I am Frances Skolnick. I am the 19 representative for Three Mile Island Alert and the Susquehanna 20 Valley Alliance.
21 MR. LEWIS: My name is Stephen H. Lewis. On my right 22 is Colleen P. Woodhead. We are counsel for the NRC staff.
23 Also on my left is Dr. William Travers, and on the extreme 24 right is Michael Masnik, Technical Staff Members responsible 25 for this matter.
n (s) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w___________.__
l 6
() 1 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Are there any matters to 2 discuss before we proceed to oral argument on the' Proposed 3 Contentions?
4' MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I.have just one. I would 5 like to report just briefly on the status of consultation among 6 the parties, if this would be the appropriate time to do that.
7 I have made an attempt to meet with the representatives of all 8 the other parties prior to the Conference-to try to identify !
9 any disagreements or agreements that could be worked out. I J
10 have met with counsel for the NRC Staff and counsel for the 11 ' Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to discuss, among other things, j i
12 the schedule for further events in the proceeding, if the Board 1
13 does decide that one or more Contentions are admissible, and we l
() 14' would be prepared to discuss that schedule later in the 15 Conference if it becomes relevant and appropriate. l 16 As reflected in my letter to Ms. Skolnick of November 17 23, 1987, copies of which were sent to the Board, my offers to 18 meet with the Joint Petitioners representatives were refused 19 over a course of about seven weeks, so we have had no 20 consultation or negotiations with that party.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: We have read your letter. Any other 22 matters?
23 (No response) 24 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. We have read the Joint 25 Petitioners' Proposed Contentions of October 28, 1987, and I
~/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 7
1 those Contentions as amended on November 20. We have also read l 1
2 the Licensee's submissions of November 12 and December 2.and we 3 have read the Staff's submissions of November 16 and December l 4- 3. I 5 We will now proceed to hear oral argument from Ms. i 6 Skolnick. As I have stated, we have read all the submissions. l
- 7. We know what the arguments are. And.now, Ms. Skolnick, the 8 ball is in your court, to address yourself and support your i
9 Proposed Contentions. But before you do that, Ms. Skolnick, ,
-10 would you advise the Board, havepeuappearedasa 11 representative and trier at Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 hearings? >
13 MS. SKOLNICK: No. This is my first time. j
() 14 JUDGE WOLFE: This is your first time? ,
15 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
16 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. So address.yourself then to 17 the Licensee and the Staff's arguments, and support your 18 Contentions and rebut their argunents. i:
19 MS. SKOLNICK: My first Contention concerns . hat the 20 evaporation method, which is boiling the water off into the 21 atmosphere and releasing radioactive contaminants into the 22 atmosphere, is not in keeping with the ALARA Principle, which
/
23 is "as low as reasonably achievahla."
24 a
The ALARA Principle was.3dopted some years ago as a
/
25 means to keep radioactive contaminants out of the atmosphere as
( 1
't
- ,? L N Heritage Reporting Corporation / j
'[
II '
' i s, (202) 628-488A.: l
< j i
8 3
(s) 1 much as possible. And it was also adopted in recognition of L 2 the fact that there is no known threshold below which there are l
l 3l no-known effects of radiation.
l 4 At this point, we feel that there can be a choice 5 made which is in keeping with the ALARA Principle, which the 6 evaporation method is not.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Are you now going to proceed to address 8 the arguments presented by the Licensee and Staff?
9 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. Addressing the statement that 10 Petitioners also ignore Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50, which 11 contains the ALARA Standards for radioactive material and light 12 water approved nuclear power reactor effluents, Appendix 1 sets T
- 13 numerical guidelines for the ALARA Standard. But in 1975, in a
() 14 court case, The York Committee for A Safe Environment versus 15 The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Court,
- ' l16 under Judge Wright, invalidated the use of the Nuclear I II Regulatory Commission, and this is a quote
- "
...a single
/ 17 18 numerical criterion, because of its failure to accord an i 19 individualized consideration of the costs and benefits of
(, 20 reducing radioactive emissions, from any part, any particular
> ]N 21 reactor below the numerical guidelines " l l
I 22 Judge Wright clearly stated in that case that since 23 there is no safe standard of radiation, no numerical guidelines 24 could be set. In addition to Appendix I --
25 JUDGE PARIS: Can you give us a citation to that?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i l
I' l
, m o, r , c
->t j l *j'
' \
.* \
y
',.C , N . .
4
,( 3 y
, ss \
, 1 u , 9' )
y~ em e;& Y c
)
_(,) 1 MS. SKOLNICK: 'Yes. 174 U.S. APP, I guess'D.C.
2 29527 F. 2d 812, 815, 19'15.
.j ,
d 9 Hl;h 3 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. ,
'C i
_5~
4 MS. SKOLNICK: Indeed, Appendix I recognizes what I -
"r l k> S' 1 -jys,t said about the no safe dose of radiation.
, It piso 8-
'I .
}
6:~i specifies that in addition to satisfying the non erical guides, l 7' and I quote: ....The applicant shall include in the rad waste m . 8 system all items of reasonably demonstrated tectinology that
\i ep 9 when added to the systom sequentially and in order of q s
b
.10 diminishing cost / benefit return, can, for a favorable
' 11 cost) benefit ratio, ef fect reductions in dose 'to the population r
12; '
r easonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor.
- J y 13 The evaporation method in the open cycle 7;eleases de)s
,(
t -
14 radioactive contaminants into thA atmosphere. The evaporation 15 machinery is modified from a closed cycle to an open cyc]e so 16 that the contaminants go into the atmosphere.
< 1 , i g 17 <
In addition, there are other methods of disposing of 18 the4 water, which will release less radioactive contaminants 19 into the atmosphere. Those are storing the water on-site, j 2 02 storing water in tanks until such times as the tritium decays 21 to lower levels, putting the water in tanks and taking it'off 22 --the Island, solidification.
23 I think that is all I want to say at this time.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: This is your response then, in support
'\
25 of your yroposed Contention 1, Ms. Skolnick?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
Y l
10
() 1 MS. SKOLNICK: And will.I have e chance to speak 2 again after the Licensee and the NRC Staff respond, if I so l
l 3 wish, to this Contention?
4 JUDGE WOLFE: If you so request, after they have 5 completed.
6 MS. SKOLNICK: Thank you.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter, do you have anything to l
8 say?
'9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just in general I 10 would-like to state my understanding of what we are doing this 11 morning. And that is that we are looking at the language of 12 the Joint Petitioners Amended Contentions, filed on November 13 20.
() 14 JUDGE WOLFE: Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Baxter. l 15 Would you bounce the light off the ceiling, please, so that it 1
16 gets in our eyes here? Can you put out a little more? It is q i
17 very difficult for us to see. )
i 18 Sorry, Mr. Baxter. Go ahead.
19 MR. BAXTER: What we are doing here this morning as I 20 understand it is addressing the language of the Amended 21 Contentions the Joint Petitioners filed on November 20, 1897.
22 The Commission's Rules require that the words of the ,
1 23 contentions themselves must evince the basis and specificity 24 that the Rules require.
25 Ms. Skolnick appears to be stating, and I am sure O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1 1
L__-_._____-__ __
11 i I
(
/~)T 1- correctly, her organization's position about the technical 2 merits of their position. We are not here to debate the 3 . technical merits, but'whether the Contention itself puts us on 4 notice and has an adequately asserted basis, with specificity.
5 If the Commission's precedent, as I understand it, 6 means anything, it means that at least there must be a l 7 statement of the reason for the concern, and a specific 8 statement of that reason. And I think a major problem we have 9 with this Contention, as amended, as with the others, is that 10 while it states a conclusion, and in this case, on contention 1 11 it is that the proposal doesn't meet ALARA, it does not state a 12 reason why Petitioners hold that view or assert any basis for 13 its conclusion that we fail to meet ALARA in their view.
() 14 While we have pointed out in some detail in our 15 written response what the PEIS says about these matters, it is l
16 not that we are arguing the merits, either. What we are trying 17 to point out is that there is an abundance of publicly 18 available information dealing with this issue and the others 19 .which we believe the Petitioners are obligated to address and i
20 to at least state, in some conclusory way, why that information 21 is wrong. l 22 The PEIS concludes that our proposal, as well as the 23 alternatives examined, are well within the dose requirements of i
24 Appendix I and therefore meet the ALARA principle. There is no 25 explanation whatsoever provided by the Joint Petitioners as to lieritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 t
12 i3
( r- I why:that conclusion and assessment may in any way be in error.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis?
i 4 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, the Staff opposed the 5 original Contention for the reason that we felt it was without
- 6. legal basis in that it was seeking, it asserted that a finding 7 had to be made as to which alternative was more in keeping with 8 ALARA, and we believe the language of that regulation itself 9 indicates that certain numerical guidelines, in the plural,-not !
10- just one number, but guidelines, if they are complied with, 11 constitute conformance with the "as low as reasonably 12 achievable" standard, and when the Amended Contention was 13 filed, which deleted reference to more in keeping with Appendix
() 14 I, we did respond to that in our Supplemental Response, 15 indicating, emphasizing that not only did we feel the 16 Contention was without legal basis, but in addition, it did not 17 confront or point to a deficiency that it was asserting to 18 exist in the Staff's evaluation that the doses to be 19 anticipated from the projected evaporation method would be well 20 within Appendix I.
21 And for those reasons we felt that it was lacking in 22 basis, and have opposed the submission.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Lewis, Judge Bright and I did not 24 receive copies of your Supplemental Response before we left.
25 Judge Wolfe did. Would you happen to have a couple of extra I
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13
'l copies?
2 MR. LEWIS: we can provide you with a copy.
3 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
4 (Whispered conference)
.5 JUDGE WOLFE: Had you finished, Mr. Lewis?
6 -MR. LEWIS: Yes.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Would you like another bout?
E MS. SKOLNICK: Yes, please.
9 I believe that the legal basis t'or our argument lies 10 in the Addition to Appendix I which GPU Nuclear and the NRC 11 Staff have faile'd to indicate. And it is again, as I quoted 12 before, that: .... The Applicant shall include in the rad l 13 waste system all items of reasonably demonstrated technology O 14 taet wnee edded to the erstem eeseeetie111 end in order of 15 diminishing cost / benefit return can, for a favorable l 16 cost / benefit ratio effect reductions in dose to the population 17 reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor."
18 And also, in the EIS of 1981, the NRC Commission clearly states l 19 that they want the cleanup of Three Mile Island, in order to 20 keep the doses as low as reasonably achievable. I think that 21 was recognized as the principle some time ago. And I don't 22 honestly believe that numerical guidelines can be held to a 23 principle such as the ALARA Principle.
24 I don't think you can on the one hand say there is no 25 dose of radiation which is safe and then on the other hand say, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
14
) 1 but here, don't let the dose be over this. I don't think you 2 can put a numerical guideline on that kind of principle, i 3 especially when you are talking about a population which have 4 already been impacted upon by the accident and by the cleanup. t I
5 And it also clearly specifies that they do have to look at 6 systems which will reduce the radioactive impact upon the 1
7 population. The evaporation in an open cycle does not do that. l 8 Evaporation is a method by which the radioactive contaminants 9 will be released into the atmosphere and the population does 10 have the right not to be impacted upon again, especially when 11 there are other options. It's not, we are not asking for 12 anything unreasonable. We are asking that the radioactive 13 contaminants are contained, and at this point we are choosing
() 14 the options. We are not choosing between this machine or that 15 machine.
16 Therefore, I am asking that the ALARA Principle is 17 used in choosing an option for the disposal of the accident-18 generated water.
19 (Whispered conference) 20 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything further, Mr. Baxter?
21 MR. BAXTER: Only, Mr. Chairman, to point out that 22 Ms. Skolnick had in her hands the written objections of the 23 Licensee and the Staff at the time she, on November 20, filed 24 her amendments. She had ample opportunity at that point to 25 expand upon, provide whatever additional level of detail she l
gm Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 I
l 15
- '\
(_) 1 thought was' appropriate, given what we had argued.
2 We are not here today to hear oral argument on 3 evidence that hasn't been adduced. And that is what I think we f 4 are hearing. I would again challenge Ms. Skolnick to address 5 herself to the language of the Contention as filed and talk 6 about in what way she feels it meets the Commission's i
7 requirements for basis, asserted basis with specificity, not j 8 whether she is right or whether she is wrong.
l 9 I have no other comment. Thank you. j l
10 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis? {
i 11 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, we had also assumed, 1
12 because of the fact that service of our Response to the j 13 Contentions was made on an overnight basis, that Ms. Skolnick
() 14 had ours as well sa the Licensee's in her hands when she filed i l 15 her Amended Contentions.
16 It certainly is correct that the provision, she 17 correctly points to a provision of Appendix I that provides 18 that if there is a cost beneficial, additional reduction that 19 can be effected, it should be effected, and it uses a value of 20 $1,000 per person rem, in terms of whether or not those 21 additional reductions should be made.
I 22 There is a substantial amount of information in the 23 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement Number 24 2, regarding the costs of the evaporation method and the other 25 alternatives.
i
/, )
N/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
16
) 1 If Ms. Skolnick were to be challenging something 2 specific about that, then I think we would be dealing with 3' something where we could address whether or not there was a 4 basis for it. But there is a lot- of information in there and 5 as with the response that we have filed to many of the Proposed 6 Contentions, we need to know what the specifics are of what the
- 7. party is alleging in order for us to be able to respond. And I 8 did not hear those kinds of specifics. I did not hear that 9 kind of basis in the amendatory information provided by Ms.
10 Skolnick this morning.
11 JUDGE WOLFE: Do either you, Mr. Baxter, or you, Mr.
12 Lewis, wish to address the case cited by Ms. Skolnick? Skelly 13 Wright's case?
() 14 MR. BAXTER: I am not familiar with the case off the 15 top of my head. The citation isn't quite clear to me, either 16 as I wrote it down. I don't believe we need to. We'll review 17 it when we get back to the office. If there is something 18 dramatic in it that we need to respond to, we will do so at 19 that time. But right now I am willing to rest on our arguments 20 as presented.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis?
22 MR. LEWIS: Appendix I has been amended as recently, 23 I believe, as 1986. I have no reason to believe that the 24 decision -- I am also unfamiliar with the decision cited by Ms.
25 Skolnick. But based on the fact that the Commission's g
v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i _ ------_--- -_-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - 1
17
,~
sj 1 Regulations have been amended as recently as 1986 and based 2 upon her description of what the decision says, I have no l 3 reason to believe that Appendix.I is in any way inconsistent 4 with that decision. We will also read it when we get back and.
l l
5 verify that provisional view.
6 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry, do you have anything 7 that you wanted to argue at all?
8 MR. McKINSTRY: No.
9 JUDGE WOLFE: All.right. If you are finished then 10 with contention 1p we will proceed to contention 2.
11 MS. SKOLNICK: Contention Number 2 involves the 12 alleged failure of the NRC and GPU to conduct conclusive 13 risk-benefit analysis of the no-action alternative.
r's '
(,j 14 They clearly say that the benefits of disposing of 15 the water --
16 (Whispered conference) 17 JUDGE WOLFE: I'm sorry, Ms. Skolnick.
18 MS. SKOLNICK: That's all right.
19 JUDGE WOLFE: Go right head.
20 MS. SKOLNICK: All right. ;
21 We felt that the no-action alternative had not been l l
22 clearly investigated. It seemed to us that from the beginning j 23 it had been decided that the water should be disposed of by the 24 evaporation method, not only by the Licensee, but also by the 25 Staff. ,
1 l
O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
18
() l' We feel that in fact the Staff did look at it, and in 2 the Environmental Impact Statement up there on one of the 3 tables, it clearly shows that there is no impact from storing 4 it on the Island, there is no radioactive impact. The space 5 that it would take up is zero and the cost is almost zero as !
6 well. So there are cost benefits for' leaving it there. Tnere i 7 are health benefits for leaving it there. There are no safety 8 issues involved. Whereas, the disposal of the water entails 9 the release of the radioactive contaminants. It entails the 10 creation of more waste which must be shipped off the Island.
1 i 11 And at this-time, Pennsylvania and other states are in a crisis l l \
l 12 situation as far as finding low-level waste space.
f 13 I believe that the statement about my statement about
() 14 the no-action alternative not being carefully investigated is a 15 bald opinion unadorned with any rationale or reason and is not 16 . adequate to meet the basis for specificity, I believe that is l 4 17 incorrect. I believe the information in the EIS clearly points 18 to the fact that more investigation should have been undertaken 19 concerning the no-action alternative.
20 That is all I want to say at the moment.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Well, I think I will interpose 22 myself into it, at the moment. You say that the PEIS contains I
23 certain data but you don't tell us what that data is and why it I 24 is deficient, in any manner. We just don't have your factual l 25 underpinning for your argument, basis with reasonable Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 19
) 1 specificity. Can you give that to the Board?
2 MS. SKOLNICK: I believe it is specific enough to say 3 that the no-action alternatives releases no radioactivity into 4 the' environment, and therefore it must be given an equal 5 standing with the evaporation method or with any disposal 6 method.
- 7. JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter?
8 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I guess what we are 9 getting is some attempts to amend the Contention this morning. 1 10 What is says in the single sentence that we're discussing here, 11 and it's the sentence to which the NRC Staff interposed no i
12 objection, is that NRC and GPU failed to conduct conclusive ]
13 risk-benefit analysis of the no-action alternative, e
14 Now, in fact, this morning, Ms. Skolnick says there 15 is consideration-in the EIS of the no-action alternative. So 16 we know'it is there, as we pointed out in our response.
17 In fact, the Staff quantitatively considered nine 18 alternatives, looked at and rejected others, and the no-action 19 alterative was one of the nine that was substantively and 20 quantitatively considered. The environmental impacts are 21 evaluated, radiological exposure to the public, and 22 occupational exposure, commitment of resources, likely 23 consequences of any postulated accidents. It received the same 24 kind of depth treatment that the other eight alternatives did.
25 All we have heard this morning is that Ms. Skolnick O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20 ry (s/ 1 doesn't agree with the conclusion. But to have an acceptable 2 contention, there has to be, in the Contention itself, an 3 asserted basis for why the impact statement may be in error.
4 And all we'have is a single sentence that says she doesn't 5 think the no-action alternative was given a conclusive cost-6 benefit analysis.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry?
I 8 MR. McKINSTRY: Nothing further. i 9 JUDGE WOLFE: Nothing? Mr. Lewis?
10 MR. LEWIS: Your' Honor, to begin with, Ms. Skolnick's 11 presentation on Proposed Contention Number 2 confirms our j 12 perception that the focus of the Contention was on the question 13 of whether or not the Staff and the Applicant had adequately
(') 14 considered the no-action alternative -- that is, to leave the l
15 material for some unspecified period of time on-site in tanks. l 16 That was the portion of the Contention which we felt was 1
17 admissible in terms of the fact that it clearly enough defined !
18 for the Staff what SVA and TMIA were seeking to raise so that 19 we could address it.
20 By saying that it was admissible, we in no way 21 conceded that the Environmental Impact Statement did not 22 provide information which we felt was clearly sufficient to 23 demonstrate that there were no significant benefits in our 24 mind,-in the Staff's mind, to the no-action alternative, and 25 although, as we acknowledged in the statement, the negative l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21 m
(.) 1 environmental impacts associated with the no-action alternative 2 were not severe, we took the position, based upon policy 3 considerations of removing the waste from the site, and upon 4 the fact that'we saw no significant benefits.to leaving it 5 there in light of its very long half-life, and the fact that 6 eventually the material would have to be removed, in our view.
7 Those materials are all in the document and by-indicating that i 8 we found that portion of the contention sufficiently clear that 9 we could address it at hearing, we certainly are not indicating 10 that we would not vigorously state in the hearing that w 11 believe we have adequately demonstrated why the no-action 12 alternative is not the appropriate alternative to be adopted-13 here.
() 14 MS. SKOLNICK: If I might add one more thing, please?
15 Okay.
16 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, you see to disagree, Mr. Lewis, 17 with Mr. Baxter. Mr. Baxter opposes the Proposed Contention 18 because there is no basis set forth with reasonable 19 specificity, and particularly in using wording such as 20 " conclusive" in the Proposed Contention, Mr. Baxter says the 21 Contention is conclusional in nature.
22 You, on the other hand, seem to be satisfied and do 23 not oppose the Proposed Contention, despite the conclusional 24 nature of it. Could you tell us why?
25 MR. LEWIS: To begin with, by indicating that we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
22
() 1 would.not oppose the portion of the Contention alleging failure l
l
- 2. to conduct what is called there a conclusive risk-benefit 3 analysis of the no-action alternative, we are not conceding 4 that the concept of a conclusive risk-benefit analysis is a )
1 5 concept of law with which we necessarily agree. But we looked 6 at that Contention. We were looking at the Proposed 7 Contentions from the point of view of whether or not some of 8 them stated a basis sufficient to put the Staff on notice as to 9 what it would have to respond to in the proceeding.
10 This particular portion of Proposed Contention Number 11 2, in our opinion, did that. I think that we recognized that 12 there is a strong policy component as well as a balancing of 13 environmental impacts and lack of environmental benefits
() 14 associated with the Staff's conclusion that the no-action 15 alternative is not preferable. But because there is a policy 16 component to it, we felt that the assertion by SVA-TMIA was 17 sufficient to make us understand what they were seeking to 18 raise, and that is the reason we found that Proposed Contention !
19 admissible but opposed all except one other of the Proposed 20 Contentions.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: I am asking this question generally 22 before we return to Ms. Skolnick. But this Proposed Contention 23 1 seems to be made up of two parts, particularly the last 24 sentence of the Proposed Contention.
25 I believe you object to that last sentence, Mr.
l l
l 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
23
/~: .
1 Lewis?
2 MR. LEWIS: Yes. We object to that last sentence as 3 being unrelated to what we perceive to be the principal thrust l 4 of the Contention and to.the extent it was intended to be some 5 subset or' separate Contention, it did not have any statement of 6 basis.
7 We also clarified in the document we filed recently, 8 our Clarification of our Response, that we found the sentence 9 that asserted the EIS has not clearly demonstrated that any 10 adverse impact from the disposal program is outweighed by its l 11 benefits to the public, to be vague and insufficiently 12 specified to put us on notice as to what it was raising. So 13 the only portion of the Contention that we were supporting in
(]) 14 terms of admissibility was the one regarding the adequacy of 15 the discussion of the no-action alternative.
16 JUDGE WOLFE: I think at some place in either your 17 initial Response or your Response to the Amended Proposed l you 18 Contentions, define the meaning of the term " post-19 defueling monitored storage." Would you do that once again, i
20 Mr. Lewis? Define what that term means?
21 MR. LEWIS: I will attempt to do so, consulting with 22 my colleague here. I l
23 It is a proposal that has been made by GPU for the l
24 monitoring, the provision for monitoring the storage and ;
l ?
25 condition of the site after all of the fuel is removed from the j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
1 I
I E_ _ _ _ _ _
24
() l' reactor, and the remaining radioactivity is reduced to 2 potentially very, very low levels. And there is a proposal for 3 a monitoring program that would take place after that. That 4 would occur following the removal of all the fuel from the 5 reactor and from the site. And let me consult.
6 (Whispered conference)
'7 MR. LEWIS: That is a proposal that is before the 8' ' Staff, is a separate action which will be addressed in another 9 supplement to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 10 and requires NRC authorization.
11 . JUDGE WOLFE: It has not been addressed to date, 12 then, in the FES?
13 MR. LEWIS: No.
I) 14 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Back to you, Ms. Skolnick.
15 MS. SKOLNICK: I would like to address the last 16 sentence of my Contention, please: "The benefits of whether or 17 not to dispose the water can only be analyzed following the 18 evaluation of the Licensee's plan for post-defueling monitored 19 storage."
20 The fuel will mostly be removed from the reactor.
21 There will be something like 20 -- I'm not going to quote it.
22 There are quite a few kilos of radioactive fuel left in the 23 reactor. The reactor building basement will not be able to be 24 entered below the 300-foot level, because it will be so highly 25 contaminated for many, many years to come.
/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t i
1 25 i
() 1 So the point I am trying to make is that Unit 2 will i'
2 remain radioactive after the cleanup. This is extremely 3 relevant to whether or not this water should be disposed of.
4 The water, in itself, will not make Three Mile Island 5 Unit 2 a radioactive waste site. Unit 2 will be made a low- j 6 level waste site, high-level waste site, because of the status 7 of Unit 2 at the end of the cleanup.
8 So it has to be taken into consideration when we are 9 deciding whether or not we should dispose of this water. l 10 Furthermore, I.would also add that perhaps this water i
11 could be used in the PDMS stage. Perhaps it could be used for 12 decommissioning. So, I do believe that whether or no it should 13 be disposed of has to take into account the whole picture,
() 14 right up to the end. And the end is not in sight, because 15 Three Mile Island, Unit 2, is going to be radioactive for l 16 generations to come. l l
! 17 The other point which I should address is the EIS has 18 not clearly demonstrated that any adverse impact from the 19 disposal program is outweighed by its benefits to the public.
l 20 I read the EIS over and over. The adverse impact is clearly 21 that this population will be radiated. The benefit is, I 22 cannot find any benefit in disposing of this water by open 23 cycle evaporation, or any other method. If it is stored, which 24 is a no-action alternative, almost no radioactivity will 25 escape, if it is kept in storage properly. So there hasn't j 1
1 A/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26 t
D a
(,/ 1 been a clear demonstration that to dispose of this water is for 2 our benefit.
3 Also, the other point I would like to make is that 4 Dr. Bruce Molholt, in a statement which he did send in to the 5 EIS, which was not published and it may have not been published 6 because it arrived on the, or it was mailed on the deadline 7 date for comments. But the other advantage of leaving the 8 water is that tritium decays. And tritium has the most curie 9 content in this water. And even to leave the water for 20 to 10 30 years is going to make a large impact on the radioactive 11 effects of that water. And those benefits are not addressed at 12 all.
13 Also, the other kinds of benefits for leaving it
() 14 could be that we could have technology to further dispose of 15 this water so that the population will not be impacted upon.
16 That is not addresed either.
17 That concludes my comments.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
l 25 l
I i
f) v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
)i
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ i
27 1 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis, would you restate. You 2 said that this post-defueling monitored storage would be 3 reviewed and reported upon by the staff subsequently, and what 4 would that document be again, please?
5 MR. LEWIS: It would be supplement number three to i
6 the programmatic environmental impact statement. q i>
7 JUDGE WOLFE: I see. All right. Thank you.
8 Is there anything else, Mr. Baxter?
9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. For your information, we did ,
10 define PDMS in our November 12 response in footnote five at the 11 bottom of page 18 simply as the term used to define the )
12 proposed condition of TMI 2 following the completion of the 13 planned clean-up activities. This will be the subject of 14 separate licensing review by the NRC staff. It is important to t]
15 note given the arguments that we are hearing that PDMS is l
l' 16 planned only for the period until the decommissioning of TMI 1 i
1 17 and 2 at the most.
18 NRC policy now provides that nuclear plant sites be 19 decommissioned. The PEIS makes clear that the time required 20 for this small amount of tritium to be reduced to EPA drinking i 21 water standards would be 150 years. The NRC's rule making on 22 decommissioning assumes that you cannot assure institutional 23 control more than 100 years. So we are not talking about ]
24 keeping PDMS around, as Ms. Skolnick assumes, for generations 2.5 to come, but much to the contrary.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L l
}
l 28
~
l
! ( )s 1 And what we can really call the no action alternative 2 is the postponement alternative. It really does not change l 3 anything. And the staff has discussed whether or not there 4 would be benefits from a twenty or thirty year delay, and has 5 clearly shown that tritium does not decay rapidly enough to 6 make any kind of difference whatsoever.
j 7 We have pointed out in our written response that the l
I 8 Commission's notice of opportunity for hearing limits this 9 proceeding to the license amendment request under I
10 consideration. That is whether or not to lift the ban on the 11 disposal of the accident generated processed water.
12 The NRC is separately looking at the entire clean-up 13 of TMI 2, and it issued a programmatic impact statement in 1981
(( ) 14 on the whole process, and it is continuing to supplement it on 15 various particular aspects of the clean-up. All of them were 16 evaluated and considered in that 1981 PEIS. This is not a
! 17 proceeding on the entire clean-up of TMI 2. And the 18 conclusionary sentence in Petitioner's contention two does not 19 establish any relevance between the decision to dispose of this 20 water and the evaluation ultimately of the licensee's proposed 21 PDMS.
22 The intervening sentences which I have not addressed l 23 on whether or not the benefits of disposal have been identified 24 are covered in our written filing of November 12. The staff 25 has clearly defined the benefits. And that is that we do not l
l l
t
-\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1 L 29
()' I have 2.3 million gallons of mobile radiation in water sitting 2 on that site for a long period of time.
3 When it is ultimately going to have to be disposed 4 of, they find no benefit from postponement, and therefore 5 concluded responsibly that the thing to do in the public 6 interest is to dispose of the water now.
7 That is a benefit that is clearly articulated by the 8 staff and has not been challenged in the contention itself 9 other than to say that they disagree with it. Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARIS: You spoke of decommissioning.
11 How many years for the decommissioning of TMI water, 12 or do you know?
13 MR. BAXTER: About 2007 or 2008.
() 14 JUDGE PARIS: Years?
15 MR. BAXTER: No, the year 2007 or 2008.
16 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis, do you have any more?
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Your Honor. The main point or the 19 reason that we considered this to be lacking in basis is that 20 there is nothing in this sentence that asserts what the basis 21 is for saying that the consideration of whether or not to 22 authorize disposal of the accident generated water is any way 23 interrelated with the separate determinations of whether or not 24 to authorize certain license amendments that would be necessary 25 in connection with post-defueling monitored storage.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
30
() 1 They are two separate matters, and the scope of the 2 amendment that we are dealing with now is limited to the 3 accident generated water question. The point is that what the 4 staff has emphasized in supplement number two to the PEIS is 5 that there is no benefit that we can see in delaying disposal 6 of the accident generated' water which the staff believes must 7 be removed from this location either at this time or at some 8 later time.
9 JUDGE WOLFE: Is there anything more?
10 MS. SKOLNICK: It really amazes me that people can l 11 think that there is a benefit in releasing radioactivity into 12 the atmosphere over keeping it stored and keeping it out of the 13 environment. Once it goes into the environment, it is there
() 14 for generations to come. We will not be the only people at 15 risk. We are risking future generations.
- 16 The benefit in storing it is that we are taking that 1
i 17 risk away from our future generations of the radionuclides like 18 cesium and strontium which exist for thousands of years to 19 come.
20 I know that the scope of the amendment is directed 21 to whether or not the prohibition should be lifted on the 22 disposal of the water. But the National Environmental Policy 1 23 Act clearly states that in writing up an EIS that the NRC has 24 to consider the greater scope of things. They have to consider )
25 not only how this water will impact at the time that it is l
l v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
31 1 released, but also how it is going to impact in years and years 2 to come.
3 And it also have to take into account the effects of 4 all other contaminants in the environment which includes 5 anything from any other industrial pollution, and also 6 contaminants which have been released since Unit 2 and Unit 1 7 started up, and also since the clean-up started as well.
8 So whether or not the amendment have a limited scope, 9 the NRC staff in writing up an EIS has a wide scope and it has 10 to be recognized. And the public wants to be recognized, i l 11 because they stand to be impacted upon by radioactivity.
12 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. We will proceed with 13 proposed contention three. Ms. Skolnick.
i( ) 14 MS. SKOLNICK: I guess contention number three, that i
15 it still builds on what I said before about the benefits and l l
16 the risks, the risks being that by evaporating will release the 17 radioactive contaminants into the environment. It will enter 18 the food chain. It is just a fact that when radioactivity is 19 released into the environment that it becomes a part of the 20 atmosphere and the biosphere. It enters into the food chain, 21 and it enters man through various pathways. Those are the 22 risks. There is no benefit whatsoever from releasing 23 radioactivity into the environment. l 24 JUDGE WOLFE: But y0u do want proposed contention two 25 and proposed contention three to be considered separately?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
32 1 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes, please.
2 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter, do you have anything on l
3 proposed contention three?
4 MR. BAXTER: I should have mentioned also in response 5 to contention two that as with contention three that there are 6 no changes in the latest amendment filed by Ms. Skolnick in .
l 7 response to the staff's and licensee's objections. The j 8 contention simply stops well short of pleading an issue to be 9 litigated here. To say that there will be radiation released 10 and solid waste generated is intellectually true. Although Ms.
11 Skolnick apparently thinks that by saying that that she has 12 defined some environmental, impact that has not been considered.
13 But in fact, there is radiation. There is radiation
() 14 everywhere. And she has not addressed herself to the 15 assessment in the impact statement or has alleged in any way 16 why it is'in error. There is no consequence that flows from 17 contention three at all.
18 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry.
19 MR. MCKINSTRY: No.
20 JUDGE NOLFE: Mr. Lewis.
21 MR. LEWIS: You have our position. It is on page 22 five of our response, our initial response, and we will rest on 23 that.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.
25 Is there anything more, Ms. Skolnick?
lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 33
( 1 MS. SKOLNICK: No.
2 JUDGE WOLFE: We will then proceed to proposed i 3 contention four.
4 MS. SKOLNICK: I am maintaining that no credible !
l 1' L 5 scientific evidence has been presented to demonstrate that l
6 evaporating in an open cycle mode can be assured not to break l
7 down more than 25 percent of the time. It is important to know '
8 that the evaporator which will be brought on site at Unit 2 has :
, 9 to be modified. Because generally evaporators act in a closed 1
1 10 cycle, so that the radioactive contaminants are not released I i
l 11 into the atmosphere.
t l 12 But GPU Nuclear plans to modify the system, so that 13 the radioactive contaminants are released into the atmosphere.
() 14 They reckon that according to the vendors that it will not 15 break down any.more than 25 percent of the time. But as far as l
16 I can gather from the EIS and the GPU proposal, that 25 percent 17 of the time was only related to it operating in a closed cycle.
l 18 There has been no scientific evidence presented to us 19 about this evaporator acting in an open cycle, none whatsoever.
l 20 We were given assurances that it has been used in the nuclear 1
21 industry and at Mexi Flats. And we all know that Mexi Flats is 22 closed down, because there are a lot of problems there. So to l I
23 me, that is no scientific evidence. l 24 So what our contention on that the evaporator is that i
25 we have no assurances whatsoever that it will evaporate !
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
w____-_________ _. . _ _ _ ._. _ ____-_____-_- _ 1
l ,Y i 34
() 1 effectively and efficiently, so that the chemicals and the 2 radioactive contaminants will not be released.any more than one 3 percent. The one percent is what the GPU Nuclear says will i
~
4 escape. But there are no filters on the machine. We know that 5 it could boil up, and it can cause foaming. It can cause a 6 flow to leave the evaporator through the stack. l; 7 We know that the water contains transuranic and 8 other particulate. We have no scientific evidence that this 9 evaporator will filter out the transuranic and other !
10 particulate. And we are told that there is a different i 11 monitor set on the evaporator that there is a carry-over 12 monitor which measures the total solids in the water vapor. j 13 There is an in-line monitor which measures gamma. And gamma l
() 14 radiation is not what is emitted from strontium-90 which is one 15 of the chief concerns of this water. Tritium and strontium are i i
16 both beta emitters.
17 l And GPU Nuclear has said in the past that there is a 18 problem using gamma monitors to detect strontium. So we have 19 no assurances that this evaporator is going to work 20 effectively. We have no assurances too that the evaporator 21 will shut down automatically when the radioactive contaminants 22 reach a certain level.
23 Also, an evaporator working in a closed cycle has 24 been shown to work on a three gallon per minute level, but the 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and GPU Nuclear has said that it O Horitage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J y j, a. -
- . [, / '/,
j g.
(.
ni
\'t .
t 35
' ,f c
h,, . 1 could fperate on a twenty gallon per minute. But y have not *Iky
,4 t, 2 been given assurances that anything ovel) three gallons or even- ',
\ J J f 3 at threet ' gallons itself t; bat the machine can effectively filter
'j V ., y } N '4 a ,.
4 out thb' # transuranic and other p/rticulate mab.ar. That was a l
f' i A
5 conclualonary statement made in the EIS that it could work ,]
o {
6 effectively at twenty gallons per minute. % 1,a l 7 On the question of whether it can*e' d';< at three U
8 gallons or twenty gallons per minute, it is part$cylarly tr 9 relevant becausa the particulate release rate is dependent on 10 the particulate concentration,in,,tZre water, and thnyfeed rate
.11, to the evap3rator, and the carry-over action for the
- . 'i a
>. .i t i 12 evaporator. ,
l 13 We are also told that the radiological consequences sq '
(j 14 from the evaporation on the water varies considerably, and that I
15 40 percent of the water"1s processed prior to evaporation 16 compared to when 100 percent of the water is processed.
1 17 And there are a lot of other contaminant.s preserg- in 18 the water. And to say that the evaporator has been used across 19 the nation, it is not part of the scientific evidence that an 20 evaporator modified can work effectively on water which was 21 generated by our nation's wors c commerchl nuclear accident.
9 22 So we do not have an precedent for using an 23 evaporator manner. And I think that. the\ EIS has not really 24 addressed the fact that this it aprecegent, and that this 25 water is indeed uniquely hazardous. Because as GPU Nuclear and at 1
l Heritage Reporting Corporation )
(202) 628-4888 'J,
' l
.1 i
f [jf 1 ,)
- R.
( ~k
(, . 17 ~
3G 1 he _
RC'st 'has said so often, the whole clean-up and the
'WV . 2 accide,nt[af TMI is a developmental and a research project.
Is 3 That is all for now. Thank you.
_h{ L #
p 4 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Paxter.
9 5 MR. BAXTER: There has been only a slight amendment 4: <
.j/M to contention four in the November 20 filing. The introduction j 7 was deletee and some changes-to the wording of formerly
-[ 8 subparagraphs (a) and (b), now the first and third paragraph. j J
>;f yA 9 The first pa:agra;Ji was modified slightly to introduce the f, t - p F 10 concept of te period of time that would be required to IL1 ' eveparate and whether availability might be 75 percent or
?
[ 12 sonh[dt}ingeliM!<
). .r.
13 ,./"here is absolutely no asserted basis for linking h
,\
't .
14 availd lity and the length of time that the evaporator runs to
.)
J 15 the e, environmental impact or any threat to the health and safety b f/ , .
16 1 of the public. That is a purely economic thing as to how long 'l l
l; . 17 it taked to run the evaporator process. Whether it runs 75 18 percent or 90 percent is of no consequence in terms of
'} j.
19 assessbg the impact and comparing it to the alternatives. And h , }( ,
Or ,
20 there is no assertion or contention as to why it might be 21 relevant. '
i 22 It is difficult to respond here. Again I think that
(
$0 '21 wy are ) dealing with what is attempting to be oral argument on zy 5 24 the merits when the Commission's rules say that what we are 25 su posed to be doing is not reaching the merits of contentions g .
', Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
,y H
I
i.i r
.)
.37
)() 1 at this stage, but deciding whether the words that we have got T
2 in' front;of.us are adequately specific,'have a basis embodied-
<W i, < 1 in)them,'and put everybody en notice.as to.what the issue is.
q la
'%) 4 This contention in its totality is styled in the
'3 , 5 terms that ths"~ Petitioners have not been assured of (a), (b),
,, 6 (c), and (d). Ther have not reached a conclusion about (a), i
[ ,
7 (b), (c), andl(d).
, m 8 ' How that isEnot the issue here. The issue is whether 9 we,have made'an adequate. demonstration and'where there is i ,
10 anything wrong .with our @roposal and with the staff's 'i
.t' 11 assessment of'it. These matters have all been identified and 12 discussed in our proposal and in the PEIS, and there is not one
- t 13 reference to those documents or discussions e.s to why they may
() 14 be in error about the ahl ity to filter out transuranic or 15 providing. monitoring and'sgiety systems, or about the influent l
16 rate of the evaporator which I contend is absolutely IT irrelevant. Thank you.
18 JUDGE WOLFE: I take it that the evaporator is not in 19 being now, in the actual physical plant, nor is there a 20 finalized design for the evaporator, is that correct; and I 21 gather this from footnote eight of your submission of November 22 12th, is that correct, Mr. Baxter?
23 MR. BAXTER: There is not at this time a final Dbi 24 design. This is an evolving situation, Mr. Chairman, which I 25 will take just a minute to explein. At the time of our July O Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 1
j
l l 38
%, (, . r x) 1 31, 1986 proposal, we were basing our evaporator proposal on i
2 generally commercially available equipment. )
E I
3 Of course, the evaporation process if not a i l
4 mysterious one physically, and we were able from what we know j i
5 to describe bounding concepts in terms of the design and the !
6 impacts. And'that is generally the basis upon which I think 7 also the staff's PEIS is based.
i 8 We do not have NRC approval to dispose of the water 9 by this methodology. But nevertheless, we have as a matter of 10 prudence and in order to not be totally behind the curve in i
11 terms of our schedule for completing the clean-up selected a 12 vendor and entered into some preliminary contracts. So the 13 design information now is starting to be developed. This is to
() 14 attempt to limit the six months design and installation time
, 15 that would otherwise be required after we get approval. And 16 this, of course, is being done at the company's own risk.
l 17 But we do not have an evaporation system on site, and 18 my understanding is that the design is in process. We know 19 more than we did last month, and I expect that we will know 20 more two months from now than we do now about the detailed 21 operating characteristics. But everything that we know now is ,
l 22 bounded by the information that has already been provided to 23 the NRC staff.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry.
25 MR. MCKINSTRY: No.
i
%/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I 1
39
.(1) 1 JUDGE WOLFE: 'Mr. Lewis.
1 2 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, if I could briefly j 3 summarize the basis of the concern that we had had about this i
4 contention and all of its subparts. We could not identify in l 5 this proposed' contention a statement of basis for this. series j 6 of assertions as to the problems that SVA and TMIA perceived l
7- with respect to this evaporator.
8 Mr. Baxter is. correct that the PEIS is conducted on f 9 the basis of certain performance standards that the staff i; 10 believes'that an evaporator that to our understanding would be l 11 available commercially to be provided to this company could 12 achieve. We did not have a specific design submitted to us.
)
13 That will come subsequently, and we will have-to look at that.
]
() 14 But we have absolutely no reason to believe and this l 15 contention does not in any way advance any basis for us j i
16 believing that an evaporator to achieve the purpose discussed 17 in the Applicant's submittal cannot be designed and purchased. !
l 18 There is simply no basis for asserting that these 19 various problems -- I do not even want to get to the point of l
20 whether or not there is any reality or any substance to them.
4 21 The point is that no basis has been shown for asserting that !
l 22 these various deficiencies exist with respect to the 23 evaporation process.
l 24 And in a number of the cases that we have pointed to, 25 there is specific information provided in the PEIS which l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p 40 1 addresses the points, and there is nothing in the contentions 2 which says what was inadequate about that information and 3- analysis provided in'the PEIS.
4 So in summation, we simply found it to be lacking in
- 5. any basis that.would advise us as to the precise matters 6 raised, so that we could address it at hearing.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Skolnick.
8 MS. SKOLNICK: I still feel that I have set forth a 9 basis for requiring that more evidence be given about the 10 evaporator. I think that in one of the letters that I received 11 from the NRC that they were going to consider the amendment to 12 the prohibition of the water. But at the same time, they would 13 be either agreeing or disagreeing with the principle of
() 14 evaporation. And the principle of evaporation has to be 15 considered in terms of the method by which the water would be 16 evaporated.
17 Therefore, I have to consider the evidence which has 18 been set forth in the EIS concerning the monitoring and the 19 safety systems. And I believe that we have not been shown that 20 the evaporator can operate in a safe and efficient manner.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: Is there anything more?
22 (No response.)
23 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. We will proceed to proposed l
24 contention five. )
25 MS. SKOLNICK: As my contention number five states,
(-I Iloritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
41 f3
(_/ 1 the purpose of the EIS has to provide detailed information so L 2 that both-the public and the NRC Commissioners can make an 3 informed decision concerning the disposal of the water. The 4 people who commented on the EIS, for example, Dr. Michio Kaku, 5 Dr. Karl Morgan, and Dr. Carl Johnson, all who have reputations 6 beyond any doubt and are brilliant mes, have said that the EIS 7 is not a document that is conclusive and provides enough 8 information to the people.
9 When the EIS came out originally, the draft, there 10 - was absolutely no mention of the transuranic in the water 11 despite of the fact that they are so toxic. And eten though 12 they mentioned it in the final EIS, in the EIS itself they 13 discussed cesium, tritium, carbon-14, boron, and sodium.
() 14 They discussed the characteristics of these 15 radioisotopes and chemicals. They have still ignored the 16 biological consequences of transuranic and other alpha 17 radiating emitting radioisotopes. This makes it insufficient .
i 18 data.
19 Furthermore, they failed to note and give the 20 information to the public that tritium, cesium-134, and 21 strontium-90 are carcinogenic substances. They have totally 22 ignored that. They have totally ignored the fact that for 23 these substances that there is no safe threshold for these 24 substances.
25 JUDGE PARIS: Are you implying that there are ,
5 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
42
). 1 chemical' carcinogens in addition to being radioactive 2 carcinogens?
i 3 MS. SKOLNICK: At this time, I would like that 1
4 information to be given so that we could get a detailed l S. analysis of the chemical contaminants in the water. I feel 6 that they have not given enough information about that. They 7 did discuss the boron and the sodium. But they discussed those l 8 because they were in the most abundant supply in that water.
1 9 But they have ignored most of the other things and the effect l- 10 that they might have on our health and the environment. ,
1 \
i 11 There are phosphates in that water. And also from I
12 the time that the reactor will be defueled that the walls in 13 the reactor do have to be flushed down. And in the original
() 14 EIS, there were references made to the fact that 15 decontamination solutions would have to be put into that water 16 in order to get the reactor building cleaned. j 17 So we need to know what all of those contaminants !
i 18 might be, and we need to know what their effect might be on the j 19 environment. And to list just three or four as being relevant 20 really simplifies the whole matter.
21 They have also underestimated the effects of tritium, 22 and as I have said, the alpha emitting radionuclides in human 23 beings. Plutonium-238 which is an alpha emitter is highly 24 toxic, and it is present in the water, but there is no mention 25 of what the radioisotope can do to the human body.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4008
43
() 1 As far as tritium is concerned, I think that Dr.
2 Michio Kaku states that they have underestimated the effects of 3 tritium, especially when it is absorbed into the cell. They 4 have ignored that. _And they have ignored a lot of evidence 5 that has been presented to say that doses of tritium are 3
6 detrimental to human beings; and in particular fetuses because 7 tritium does cross the placenta. And there have been numerous 8 experiments done, and the experiments did include small doses l 9 of tritium, and they did conclude that there was no dose of 10 tritium which was safe.
l 11 The comment in my statement concerning the studies 1
12 made by GPU and the NRC as being woefully inadequate and much 13 more data should be provided for deciding the best way to be
() 14 rid of this problem, this is certainly not a vague and cryptic 15 statement. I do go on to say that that they have to simplify 16 the ra:.tiological and chemical contents of the water. And I 17 talk about the tritium being in the water and the fact that 18 they have ignored the alpha emitters on health effects on 19 people.
20 The proposed contention refers to studies made by GPU 21 and the NRC staff. I have indicatod in my original contention 22 that the study was the GPU proposal and the EIS, and I believe 23 that Karl Morgan has commented on those. And I have pointed 24 out the specific inadequacy of the studies, once again by 25 pointing to the lack of radiological information on the highly Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
44 I) 1- toxic radioactive contaminants.
2 I think that a discussion of the health effects of 3 evaporating the water is extremely pivotal to'the issue and is i 4' extremely pivotal to the issue of whether or not to dispose of 5 this water. I think that it is much too simplistic to say okay. ,
i 6 that there are a couple of things in here, and just denying the i
7 fact that this water was created -- not denying it, but 8 underestimating the fact that this water was created by an 1
9 accident and that it was in touch with the melted fuel, and it _J 10 has been covering the melted fuel for seven or eight years or 11 whatever.
12 So I just do not think that we can really take the i
13 risk without really indulging in investigative measures to find j i
() 14 out exactly what is in this water.
15 The NRC did do a sample of the water. I think that 16 they listed about fifteen radioisotopes which they did look 17 for. In a reactor, there are 500 radioisotopes. Some of them, 18 of course, will have decayed, but to list twelve is )
19 underestimating what could be in that water, l j
20 Furthermore, the concentrations are in terms of 21 microcuries per inilliliter, and the EPS standards are seven 22 picocuries per liter. And if you put these concentrations i I
l 23 listed on this letter of July 21, 1987 into picocuries per 24 liter, you most certainly get very large numbers. And the 25 water is indeed beyond the maximum permissible concentrations j
+
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
l l
(202) 628-4888 )
l i
l i
45 (O _/ 1 for releases into the water and into the air. We are not i
2 talking about a really innocuous liquid here.
3 We are talking about something which contains from 4 their own analysis, we are talking.about concentrations which 5 for strontium are over 300 times the maximum permissible 6 allowances for liquids to be discharged into the water. And I 7 think that this has been underestimated. It was mentioned in 8 one of the comments in the back of the EIS that the strontium 9 was indeed 367 times over.
10 But I think that from the beginning that they have f
11 made the processed water to look'very innocent. And I think' 12 that I have clearly stated and I have given enough basis for my 13 contention that there has to be further investigation.
() 14 JUDGE WOLFE: Are you finished, Ms. Skolnick?
15 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
16 JUDGE WOLFE: Please stand back. You can photograph 17 from a stationary spot, but you cannot move around.
18 Have you finished, Ms. Skolnick?
19 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
20 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter.
21 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I frankly am finding it 22 increasingly difficult to follow the argument and associate it 23 with what contentions or parts of the contentions that we are 24 addressing here. It sounded at points like we were talking 25 about the addition of chemicals in contention six.
l
<- i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i
1
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ b
1 l
46
(-
\/ 1 I repeat that what we are here to do today is to 2 address whether the contentions proposed, which Ms. Skolnick 3 had ample opportunity to amend, meet the Commission's 4 requirements. There is no reference in the contentions to Dr.
5 Kaku or Dr. Johnson. If that was supposed to be a credible 6 asserted basis for the contention, she had all of the l
7 opportunity in the world to advance those people.
8 We do have a reference to Dr. Morgan solely for the 9 proposition that studies are adequate and that more data should l 1
10 be required. It is hard to fashion somethin( that is more 11 vague, cryptic, and uninformative than to say that more studies 12 and more data ought to be produced before the proposal is 13 decided upon when there is not even a specific identification
() 14 at all as what kind of study, what kind of data, or what 15 conclusions that we are talking about that are inadequate.
16 This is an example of a contention that wholly fails to put 17 anyone on notice as to what the issues are.
18 It is hard also not to get drawn into the little 19 debate that we are having on the merits here today. Ms.
20 Skolnick accuses us of simplifying the content of the water.
21 When she talks about strontium at several hundred times the 22 maximum permissible concentrations for drinking water, she is 23 talking about water that has not been treated at all. And she 24 knows and the PEIS clearly shows that this water is going to be i
25 substantially treated.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 c
47
() 1- Where she talks about transuranic and alpha emitters 2 not having been evaluated, these comments were made to the.
3 staff on the staff PEIS and they have been specifically 4 addressed, as we quoted and pointed out in our response. The 5 reason that alpha emitters are not discussed in any more detail 6 than they are is because they are going to be filtered out by 7 the ion exchange processes that we use for this water prior to 8 its entry into the evaporation system.
9 The reason that transuranic are not discussed in any 10 more detail is because they are not there. It would be 11 misleading and inappropriate for the staff to have detailed and 12 lengthy discussions of the public health effects of transuranic 13 elements which are not even existent at limits of detectability
() 14 in the accident generated water after it is processed.
15 So we have heard emotional conclusions and we have 16 heard.a lot of statements of position, but we havo not heard 17 any defense as to why these four paragraphs in proposed 18 contention five have an adequately asserted basis to meet the 19 Commission's rules. So we stand on our written opposition of 20 November 12.
21 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry.
22 MR. MCKINSTRY: Nothing, thank you.
23 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr Lewis.
24 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, the basis for our concern 25 regarding proposed contention number five was that in all of O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
48 i ) 1 its subparts that it failed to point to specific inadequacies 2 in the PEIS supplement number two as providing a basis for why 1
3 SVA and TMIA have the concerns that they are asserting here.
4 As we pointed out in our response, these points are 5 addressed in the PEIS. The fact that they are addressed partly i 6 in response to comments on the draft supplement simply 7 vindicates the purpose for having a circulation of draft l 8 environmental statements.
9 But the point and once again I have to agree with Mr.
1 1
10 Baxter that we are digressing on each of those contentions as l 11 we get into their discussion to some discussion of the merits.
12 And Ms. Skolnick is stating her views as to the merits of i
13 certain of these matters. I do not believe that is the
()
<~
14 question on any of these points before the Board.
l 15 We would simply say that the staff has attempted and 16 believes that it has succeeded in addressing in the l 17 programmatic environmental impact statement all potential 18 impacts associated with any constituent of the water of which 19 we are aware, even where our analysis indicates that the
- p. . . .
20 concentrations of certain radioisotopes would be very low, 21 perhaps even below the limits of detectability.
22 Nevertheless, we have assumed that they will be l 23 present in some proportions. And we have even gone to 24 calculations of impacts for certain of these elements. These 25 are basically the transuranic, as I understand it, which have (h
w_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l-49 p)
- x. 1 'been discussed by Ms. Skolnick. That is the only additional 2 point that we would make in addition to our written response.
- 3. JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Skolnick, in your proposed 4 contention when you cite Dr. Karl Morgan, Mr. Morgan's 5 conclusion or statement was a comment on that environmental 6 impact statement, is that not correct?
7 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
8 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.
9 MS. SKOLNICK: And in his comment on the EIS, Dr.
l 10 Karl Morgan --
l 11 JUDGE WOLFE: On the draft EIS?
l 12 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes, it was on the draft.
13 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.
() 14 MS. SKOLNICK: And if you remember too, the draft EIS 15 did not content sufficient information about the content of the 16 water. When it went out to the different bodios, the NRC staff 17 recognir ', tritium, cesium, and strontium in the water, but 18 they did Tot allude to the fact that there were other 19 radioisotopes in the water. So when the people were commenting 20 on the EIS, they directed themselves only to the tritium, 21 strontium, and cesium.
22 But fortunately, people like Dr. Carl Johnson in his 23 comments did raise the issue of the transuranic. And this 24 letter is a part of the final EIS.
25 And in his comments on the draft EIS, Dr. Karl Morgan j
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 50 1 did show by using other different calculations that the-dose to 2 the population would be higher than the way that the NRC staff 1
3 did it.
4 To quote Dr. Carl Johnson in his letter on the draft 5 supplement, it is on A-26 of the final EIS.
i 6 JUDGE WOLFE: What is the page number? j 7 MS. SKOLNICK:- Page A-26.
8 JUDGE WOLFE: A-26?
i 9 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. Section A, 26. Ile says in the 10 third paragraph, "There is no mention here of uranium, 11 plutonium, or other transuranic, nor of the other 500 12 different radionuclides of potential importance in the 13 assessment of contamination of nuclear facilities. This is a
() 14 very serious oversight. I believe that the concentration of all 15 of these should be determined."
16 In the comments on A-69, a physics professor in l 17 Lancaster came forward and stated the importance of determining I l
18 the alpha radiation effects in that water. He alluded to the >
)
19 fact that even though these radioactive elements are in small 20 quantities that their toxicity is extremely high.
21 And the maximum permissible concentrations that I 22 stated earlier being 300 times, that is after the water has 23 gone through the processing. And if the water is to be 24 evaporated, all of the water does not go through the epicore on 25 the SDS system again. It has been determined that the s- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
w-----____-_________-__ l
51
) '1 evaporator has the job of removing some of the radioactivity 2 before it goes up'the stack.
3 There is a chance that particulate will be released 4 at the stack as well. And even though it is only one percent 5- as the licensee says, there is still the risk that it can do a 6 lot more damage than they have estimated.
7 To quote Michio Kaku on A-133, he had made comments 8 on the draft supplement as well, and this is concerning 9 . tritium. "Because water is everywhere in our environment and 10 since tritiated water is chemically identical to water, the 11 pathways for ingestion of this water are non-negligible.
12 He goes on to say, "I find the analysis of how much 13 radiation-can be ingested in humans from an evaporation or
() 14 boil-off wholly deficient in this report."
15 I did not mention Michio Kaku in my original 16 contention, but I was of the understanding that when we met 17 today that the issue was going to be clarified. Michio Kaku 18 also --
19 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me, Ms. Skolnick, could you give 20 us that reference again to Dr. Kaku's comments?
21 MS. SXOLNICK: Yes, A-133. And now I am on 22 A-132.
23 MR. BAXTER: Are you talking about the transcript of 24 the Advisory Panel where Mr. Epstein is reading from Dr. Kaku?
25 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. And then the letter was (v
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 52
. 1 submitted'to the NRC staff.
2 He says, "I mentioned them," meaning plutonium, j 3 "because the transuranic are some of the most toxic chemicals 4 known to science. The low levels of concentration in-the water 5 are compensated by the fact that they are quite. toxic."
6 (Continued on next page.)
7
-8 9
-10 11 12 13
() 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
'- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
53
() 1 When I made the statement about Dr. Morgan saying 2 that the, for the record, the studies, meaning the proposal and 3 the. draft supplement were woefully inadequate and much more L 4 data should be provided for deciding the best way to be rid of l 5 this problem, it was a statement which was indicative of the 6 statements made by Dr. Carl Johnson and Dr. Michio Kaku of I
7 Dr. Piccione and Dr. Sternglass.
8 As I said before, too, the National Environmental 9 Policy Act indicates that we have to look at the cumulative 10 effects of the accident and the clean-up. And the basis for l
11 that part of the contention is the lack of information in the 32 environmental impact statement. That's all I have to say.
13 JUDGE WOLFE: Is there anything more?
() 14 MS. SKOLNICK: No.
15 MR. BAXTER: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I won't 16 repeat myself except to note that Dr. Johnson's letter is 17 treated in the PEIS. It is treated as letter No. 13 and 18 responded to by the Staff on pages 7.6 and 7.7. The Advisory 19 Panel comments of Dr. Kaku are identified as No. 17. They are 20 responded to on the same pages. And Dr. Morgan's comments are 21 letter No. 23 that the Staff responds to on pages 7.10 and .11, 22 among other places. And the Petitioners have not at all 23 addressed that information or alleged any inadequacy in it.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: Did you, Mr. Lewis, point out somewhere 25 in your responsive briefs that the Staff, in turn, had Heritage Peporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
54
( 1 responded to Dr. Morgan's comments on the draft EIS?
2 MR. LEWIS: Yes. Page 6 of our response.
3 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything, Mr. McKinstry, more?
4 Anything more, Mr. Lewis?
5 MR. LEWIS: No. We-will rest on what we have said in 6 our response.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. We will proceed now with 8 proposed contention 6. ,
9 MS. SKOLNICK: The contention states that it is 10 premature to decide on the exact contents of this water. The 11 water is presently in the reactor core. It has been covering 12 the fuel. There are still clean-up activities to follow. At 13 which point, more chemicals might need to be added. And the
() 14 'EIS has ignored the fact that the water is still in use and, 15 indeed, that it is not sitting in tanks ready for disposal.
l 16 And, in fact, back in Maryland, a Mr. Bixby said that disposal I 17 of the water would be looked at after clean-up. And we still 18 feel that they contents of the water cannot be decided l l
19 conclusively at this point as far as the chemical content is 20 concerned.
21 I realize that chemicals do not become radioactive by 22 contact with the fuel. It is their own impact, the impact from 23 chemicals going into the environment that concerns us. It is 1
24 not the radioactive content. It is how they will effect the i 1
25 environment when they go out there and it is also how they l q l
%d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
---_-_-___ _. . k
55
() 1 might relate to the different metals in the evaporator.
2' And to say that none of them would be expected to 3 vaporize to an appreciable extent is a conclusionary statement.
4 We need evidence. It is on page 37 of the GPU response.
5 They do admit that there has been boric acid and 6 sodium hydroxide added, hydrogen peroxide, diatomaceous and 7 various flocculating agents. We would like to see those all 8 addressed as to what effect they might have on the environment 9 and on the health of the people when they are released.
'10 ~ Further, I don't think the EIS addressed the effect 11 of additional chemicals on the Epicore and SDS system and its
- 12. ability to filter out the contaminants in the water. That's 13 all.
() 14 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter?
15 MR. BAXTER: There has been no amendment to 16 contention 6. We have addressed it in our November 12 filing.
17 I would only add here that Ms. Skolnick's discussion today for 18 the first time of what the Staff has indeed said about the 19 chemicals and the PEIS implies that the listing of chemicals is 1
20 going to be released to the environment. Quite the contrary. '
l 21 The Staff is discussing the fact that it is well familiar with 22 the fact that the water is used for some decontamination l 23 activities. Chapter II of the PEIS thoroughly discusses the 24 constituency of that water. It is discussing in response to i
25 comments received on the draft the kinds of chemicals that have J
/ "
l Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 o . .
l l 56
) 1 'been added. And then it goes on to state that these chemicals 2 are routinely removed under the ion exchange, filtration and l
L 3 separation processes that we have been using at Three Mile 4 Island for the last 8 years. There is no mystery to this 5 process. We have lots of operational experience with SDS, l
6 Epicore, our other cleaning systems at the plant and the Staff 7 is simply stating what they well know from oversight at that 8 facility for 8 years. And that is that there are not going to 9 be chemicals released to the environment to any significant 10 extent in connection with this evaporation operation. And 11 there is nothing in contention 6 that challenges or takes on 12 that information.
13 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry?
() 14 MR. MCKINSTRY: I just wanted to state that I thought 15 the thrust of contention 6 was that not necessarily the fact 16 that there would be chemicals remaining after further 17 decontamination, but the fact that parts of the water or 18 portions of the water were still to be used and that disposal 19 of all 2.1 million gallons was unnecessary.
20 I believe that is what Ms. Skolnick is stating in 21 contention 6 and that -- I don't think that's been addressed.
22 I don't know if that point has been addressed in responses to 23 contention 6.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: And you are addressing your comment or 25 question to whom now?
lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
I 57 1 MR. MCKINSTRY: I am just saying that I think that is 2 what -- since the NRC Staff only stated that this contention 3 sets forth the basis with sufficient clarity, I just believe 4 that that is what the Staff is stating as a basis, but I would
]
5 like to hear what they have to say.
6 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Mr. Lewis?
7 MR. LEWIS: Well, we did not perceive that aspect of 8 it in the contention. This is one of the two contentions which 9 we supported in terms of admissibility. I guess two points I 10 would make about that, (1) in looking at this contention, we 11 felt that it had to do with the fact that what it was raising 12 was the fact that chemicals are going to continue to be added 13 to the water or may need to be continued to be added to the
-( 14 water during the period of time that the water continues to be 15 necessary to be used at the facility, either for covering some 16 of the remaining core or for other processing activities.
17 It does not, in our mind, raise the additional point 18 which Mr. McKinstry was talking about, about the fact that 19 until the processing and the need to cover the water is 20 completed and the need to use the water to cover pipes of the 21 core is completed. Until that point, of course, all of the 22 water will not be evaporated. As long as some of the water is 23 continuing to be used for those purposes, that water will not 24 be evaporated at that point. It will be evaporated when its 25 purposes for on-site use have been completed. And I believe Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
58
() I that is made clear in.the environmental impact statement.
i 2 Of course, we believe that the operating history of 1
l 3 the Epicore 2 system and the SDS system, which have been used 4 since about I guess 1980 -- for years, now, at the TMI 2 site, 5 establishes a very sound basis for the applicant having 6 estimated what they believe will be the constituents in the 7 accident generated water when it is evaporated and as it goes 8 into the atmosphere.
9 And, so, what we saw in this contention, the reason 10 we considered it admissible is that it put us on notice that l 11 there was an assertion that the fact that certain chemicals 12 were going to continue to be added to the water, somehow made 13 it difficult or it made the analysis in the environmental
() 14 impact statement inadequate. The analysis in the environmental 15 impact statement is based upon removal capabilities that the 16 history at this plant show can be achieved in terms of 17 chemicals and radio nuclides. But this -- yes, both in terms of 18 chemicals and radio nuclides.
19 And, of course, sampling will be done by the Licensee 20 as they go through the evaporation process to confirm that 21 these assumed removal capabilities are being met.
22 The contention in our mind was a specific contention l
23 going to whether or not the fact that there are continuations 24 of adding certain constituents to the water meant that the l i
1 25 evaluation that is in the PEIS is inadequate. We don't believe Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {
)
l l
I 59 l
?~
1 it is, but we understood the contention. l 2 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything further, Ms. Skolnick?
3 MS. SKOLNICK: No.
4 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything more?
5 MR. BAXTER: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. To the 6 extent this is a scheduling contention, which I must say I 7 didn't totally read it that way, it is clear that the 8 completion of this evaporation process, if it is authorized, is 9 going to lag and be behind the completion of other planned 10 decontamination activities we have underway at Three Mile 11 Island. So, it is clearly going to be the case that we will 12 have enough water to use for whatever purpose we want during 13 decontamination.
() 14 And, if it is really a scheduling thing, I think it 15 is a challenge to the notice of opportunity for hearing on the 16 amendment, as well.
17 JUDGE WOLFE: We will have a 10-minute recess.
18 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
19 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Continue with the 20 conference. We will now turn to proposed contention 7, 21 MS. SKOLNICK: And the proposed contention No. 7 22 concerns the monitoring while the evaporator would be in 23 progress. And, if I am not mistaken, the Environmental 24 Protection Agency is removing some of its monitors, probably 25 during the time the evaporation would be taking place. Not l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
60 r
(_y
, / 1 only the evaporation, any disposal method. And the monitoring 2 even though it doesn't stop the radioactive contaminants from 3 going into the environment, at least it does give us an idea of 4 what is going into the environment and how the people might be 5 effected and if the disposal method wouldn't be working 6 properly, then it could be stopped. Hopefully.
l 7 There is at this time very important studies and the 8 works which happen to be funded by money that was set aside 9 right after the time of the accident. It was set aside in the 10 public health fund. And Dr. Ruth Patrick of the Academy of l
11 Sciences and Bernd Franke from the Hiedelberg Institute in 12 Germany has undertaken these studies. The studies are almost 13 ready. In fact, I think Ruth Patrick's is already available to
() 14 the public.
15 And it would seem that since the public's money has 16 been spent on these studies that the recommendations from these 17 studies should be used in monitoring the area.
18 I deny that I am trying to dispose a decision on the 19 license amendment application. What I am asking for is that 20 this is to be an issue that would be part of the contentions 21 which would be admitted into the hearings. So, without the 22 monitoring, it could be investigators -- to find out if there 23 is adequate monitoring why the water would be disposed of if it l 24 is to be disposed of.
25 JUDGE PARIS: This study is being carried or these f]
v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
61
() 1 studies are being carried out under contracts with the 2 Commonwealth?
3 MS. SKOLNICK: No. They are under contract with the 4 Three Mile Island Public Health Fund, which is an item that was 5 set aside. I think it was around 1980 or 1981. The. money was 6 penned to'a fund by GPU Nuclear. There was a portion of the 7 money set aside for reimbursement for people that had to 8 evacuate during the time of the accident. But I think it was I 9 approximately 5 million, which did accrue interest, which.was
]
10 set aside for studies such as the one that Dr. Ruth Patrick and 11 Bernd Franke have undertaken.
12 There have been other studies, too, on low-level 13 radiation effect and also a study by Dr. Jan Beyeu. And he is
(~%
(,) 14 undertaking one at this time concerning just how much radiation 15 did escape at tho time of the accident because there is 16 controversy about that as well.
17 JUDGE PARIS: Are they working under contract with l
18 GPU, then?
19 MS. SKOLNICK: No. They are not supposed to be i
20 working under contract with GPU. The contract is with the TMI i 21 Public Health Fund, but GPU does oversee the studies in some 22 manner. They could probably address that better than I could.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Okay, thank you.
24 MS. SKOLNICK: They are not involved financially or 25 not supposed to be involved financially.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L______________________
)
62- j f' ) 1 JUDGE BRIGHT: Ms. Skolnick, when you talk about !
\
2 monitoring, you are talking about the far field monitoring? f l
3 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. Off-site monitoring? '
4 JUDGE BRIGHT: Yes. l l '
5 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
6 JUDGE BRIGHT: Thank you. j 7 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. McKinstry, is the Commonwealth 8 doing any off-site monitoring or has it done any off-site i
9 monitoring under agreement with the NRC, or do you know?
10 MR. MCKINSTRY: No. EPA is currently doing the l i
11 monitoring. {
12 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Skolnick? I 1
() 14 MS. SKOLNICK: On page 39, the Licensee's response to I'
15 my contentions, it says that the Licensee has been unable to 16 locate any available study by Franke. That is because the TMI 17 Public Health Fund is holding that study at the moment prior to 18 it being published. And there are steps to try to have that 19 study availablo to the public as soon as possible.
20 JUDGE WOLFE: Are you finished?
21 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
22 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter? I l i 23 MR. BAXTER: Judge Paris, I can respond to your 24 question, briefly. The TMI Public Health Fund is an 25 organization that arose as a result of class action law suits O)
\- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
y- --
r , u J
>: 'l u s I? '
63 i n < !'
I H(,). 1 brought followingtheTMIac&..ded.4 It is administered by the
>! l 2 U.3 District Court for the middJg; district of Pennsylvania, 3 Judge Sylvia Rambo. GPU in no way oversees -- well, it has to i>
4 contribute financially, it no way cM rb.Hs any of the work that g '
- y 5 is done by that fund. ,.-
P 6 JUDGE PARIS: Th'ank you for that clarification.
. % }1 4 >
i 7 MP. BAXTER: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does do t a 8 monitoring at the TMI site, as we point out in our response. f3 9 Chapter 11oftheoriginalhEISontheentireclean-up,- _
10 March '81, describis tne environmental monitoring programs. #-
, , ., 3 s 4 *i-) i, .
Ibelit:vethe~fommonwealthispickin{fp{1, 11 EPA is changing, but d !
12 much of their functions,
> \
y', ' . , 7 ?g f 13 Our fundamental response to th.Li cotgnntion is simply )
O 14 taetner^aoeemotcontemnteteorreseiretheileniee9eecvrc,-,, 3 15 h a postpone its decisions simply because, sh tirs are underw$;n NEPA does not require agency analyses to0 tW{, perfect. Whpt'it l
16 h
17 requires is that they provide reasonable assessments of the t
t 18 impact.s and the alternatives. Anf, in this case, there has v ,'
19 beenno'.assertionorshowing$nah;wayincontention7that
)
20 there are any inadequacies in the environmental radiological
?
21 monitoring programs we already have at the TMI site. These .f
/ s 22 programs were reviewed in the original licensing of the,two 3 23 units and once again in the TMI restart proceedings. \
)
24 So, we have got a regulatory presumptiontere and (
)
25 decisions that have already been made by this agency that these i s' t
' l x Heritage Reporting Corporation -
(202) 628-4888 l 4 i \
i-
{
-~ - ----
,. i l/, '
7 64 1
r p q q 7, r a m a r e a d e q u a t e . The fact that there are studies underway r
2 of off-site monitoring does not undermine, at all, the 3tiNat.nuing validity of those regulatory findings. And we have s
"3 4 been given no basis for delaying this proceeding to await those 5 s tticies . Thank you.
/ 6 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry? Mr. Lewis?
7 MR. LEWIS: We will rest on our response.
8 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything more, Ms. Skolnick?
y 9 4 MS. SKOLNICK: No.
10 '
JUDGE WOLFE: We will proceed then to proposed 11 content /on 8.
l 12 5 MS. SKOLNICK: This contention asserts that the 13 Nticlear Regulatory Commission Staf f f ailed to give reasonable 14 f.d Nue consideration to evaporation in a closed cycle with the 15 bottoms and condensates being solidified and shipped to a low-l 16 level daste site. They also failed to give reasonable
, 17- consideration of two disposing water end tanks and storing it i
., t / .,
18 inside Unit 2.
( ,I
. 19 I think the National Environmental Policy Act asks ,
> I/ 20 that the agency show good faith by studying all the 21 alternatives. And it seemed to me that these two alternatives 22 were basic and they were not investigated thoroughly, (a). And 23 our position to evaporating the water and releasing the 24 contaminants into the environment.
25 I think the evaporation in a closed cycle would mean
-, /
6a# 't / ;
e'%
, l. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u
Y N t
7, _- ~
7 ,
- t 1r .
' 65
) , 1 that she' contaminants would be held. They did consider in the t
2 EIS. evaporation and dumping the condensate, which would he what g
'3 would be left over, it would be the stuf f that wouldn 't go ,in? :
_.1 '
4 through tha stack. They'did. consider.that. But, unfortunately, 5 they put a:fot of people off that alternative by saying that 4 6 theywouihdumpit into the river. .And the Susquehanna River L
7 happens to be the water source for.a~ lot of' towns, like 8 Lancaster, Columbia. I believe Baltimore does get some water 9 from that river, as well. S:? , it was an alternative almost
?:
10 that was given, but then withdrawn becauwDit wasn' t made .,
7 11 presentable to the people.
s 12 e I think, too, they didn't give enough consideration
- d. 3 to' disposing the water in tanks and storing it inside Unit 2.
() ' '14 It is almost the same as the "no-action" alternative, except 15 that the no-action alternative supposes that eventually the
,10 water willJbe disposed of. But storing it in tanks inside Unit J1' 2,.vis saying that it would be left on the island and monitored
, L18 as a means of disposing of it.
e 19 In response to the Licensee's comment that the 20 Supreme Court has made it very clear that in preparing an 21 environmental impact statement under NEPA , the concept of ss 22 alternatives must be binded by some notion of these -- that is i F 23 on page 42. I think NEPA clearly states, too, that the NRC has 24 t o l o 6 T: at alternatives, whether oc not they have -- if they 25 a::a reasonable, they have to be considered. I think it in 1:
. , {g
'. ,3 / Heritage Reporting Corporation G ,
(202) 628-4888 L
66 1 imperative that the agency does show good faith in choosing as 1
2 many alternatives'as possible when deciding how this water 3 should be disposed of. ,
l 4 And further on in the page, it says, "Moreover, 5 consideration need only be given to reasonable alternatives." $
6 I think if operation in a closed cycle and disposal 7- of the water by storing it in tanks on the island are i 8 definitely extremely reasonable alternatives. Nuclear reactors 9 around the country bave sites at which low-level waste and 10 high-level waste are being stored. That is not, of course, the i
11 desired situation, but because a high level waste, some of the 12 low level waste sites have not been chosen. The NRC has said 13 that even though it is not their policy, they may -- the )
0 14 ticeneees mer store redioective weste en eite.
15 The letter I am referring to from the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Claimant is dated August 1, 1985 and the subject ist i
17 Commercial Storage as part of the after sites of low-level !
18 radioactive wastes, not generated by the utility.
]
19 It is in recognition of the possible curtailment of 20 accidents to existing disposal facilities because of a need in )
1 21 this country to find sites for the waste. I 22 On page 43 of the Licensee's response, they say that 23 the NRC has effectively considered the alternative of closed l 1
24 cycle evaporation of bottoms and condensates being solidified 25 and shipped to a low-level waste site. This 3.1.3 in the final Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i
67
/"N
(_) l' EIS on Section 315, it concerns distillation, solidification, 2 and disposal of bottoms with the discharge, the condensate 3 going into the river. So, it is not quite the same as anything I 4 collected being solidified and taken off site. Because it is 5 particularly threatening to the population in this area that 6 anything more than what already is going into the river will be 7 dumped in the river since it is their water supply.
8 The statement on page 44 where it says: Moreover --
9 this is something I would like a response. The option Cary 10 presents on favor of the results, particularly in comparison 11 with the evaporation alternative under consideration may 12 present unfavorable results to the Licensee but the fact 13 remains that contaminants will not be released into the l
() 14 environment. So, for the public, that is extremely favorable.
l 15 And when they, on page 45, where they say the 16 reduction of tritium to a level comparable to the EPA limit for 17 drinking water would take approximately 150 years. I would 18 challenge that statement because tritium does have a half life i 19 of 12.5 years and, according to Dr. Bruce Moholt of the 20 Environmental Protection Agency, there would be a substantial 21 decrease -- he said, I quote: "Hence, delaying the evaporation 22 step for 25 years would release only 250 curies of tritium to 23 the atmosphere." So, it would not take 150 years for the 24 drinking water to decay to appreciable limits. Thank you.
25 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter?
l O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l
l 1
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ J
l l
1 68
'O
.V 1 MR. BAXTER: There have been no amendments to 2 contention 8 in response to the objections filed by Licensee 3 and the NRC Staff. What we have is a listing of two 4 alternatives which with no explanation or reason provided 5 Petitioners say the NRC ought to have considered.
l 6 As we quoted the Supreme Court of the United States 7 on page 8 of our response in the Vermont Yankee decision 8 reviewing environmental decision making by the NRC said that 9 administrative proceedings should not be a forum for 10 interveners to simply allege that certain things ought to be 11 considered without putting the agency on notice and advancing 12 some reason why they should.
13 Ms. Skolnick is flatly wrong when she asserts that it
() 14 requires the agency to consider all alternatives. It requires 15 the agency to consider reasonable alternatives and to make a i
l 16 reasonable assessmentoof them.
l l
17 The PEIS considers a total of 18, 9 quantitatively 18 and 9 that it rejects for reasons stated there. And the 19 contention, itself, evinces no reasons why additional 1
20 alternatives should be considered.
21 It seems to me that rather than just alleging that i
22 something else ought to be done at this stage of the process, l
! 23 the contention would have to establish or assert some reason l
l 24 why the alternative might prove to be favorable or preferable i 25 in some way to the proposal on the table. And the contention l I
} lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
69
() 1 hasn't done that.
2 I make the argument at page 43 of our response, which 3 Ms. Skolnick specifically referred to that in fact this first 4 sentence in her contention is addressed by the Staff, albeit, 5 it is parts of two alternatives. She referenced alternative 6 3.1.3, closed cycle evaporation with solidification and 7 disposals of bottoms. She failed to reference the very next 8 sentence in my response which acknowledges that the river 9 discharged of the distillate portion of that alternative 10 doesn't apply to contention 8. Rather that the solidification 11 and shipment to a low-level waste site which they contend in 12 the contention should be considered was evaluated as part of 13 alternative 3.3.2.
() 14 So, we have there precise alternative, albeit, 15 considered in two different pieces, under two different columns l
! 16 in the NRC's PEIS. But the Staff's assessment of those 17 processes are there in the PEIS, available for Ms. Skolnick and 18 the Petitioners to challenge in detail if they had wished to do 19 so. And all they have done is said we ought to have considered 20 them. When, in fact, I think that it has been considered.
21 And to say that the contaminants are not going to be l 22 released to the atmosphere as part of that alternative is 23 simply incorrect and the PEIS shows that.
24 The second sentence of the contention, we have 25 treated and can see no difference between that contention and
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
70 (q
_) 1 the no action alternative. It is at best misleading to call 2 that a disposal option. That is simply storage. That storage 3 on site and, again, it would postponed the problem and the 4 issue and does not provide any kind of solution for the public.
5 This is not meant to be and it is not licensed now as a low-6 level waste disposal site.
l l 7 And I think the Staff is clearly right from a policy 8 viewpoint that TMI should not become in contrast to other 9 sites, which would be to decommission around the country a 10 permanent low-level waste repository, 11 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Baxter, on page 45 of your response 12 to the supplements, which Ms. Skolnick referred to, in the 13 middle of the page you referred to NUREG 0683 at 7-49. Is that
() 14 a page number?
15 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. I am referring there to the 16 original PEIS of March 1981 which also has the number NUREG 17 0683. The latest one is supplement No. 2 to NUREG 0683. The 18 Staff has kept that same designation for all the PEIS and 19 supplements on the clean-up of TMI 2.
20 JUDGE PARIS: Could Staff get copies of the original 21 for us?
22 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
23 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
24 MR. BAXTER: Thank you. l 25 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
71 m
k_) 1 (No response.)
2 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Lewis?
3 MR. LEWIS: The Staff's position was very similar to l l 4 the position that Mr. Baxter has enunciated. Our position was j
! l l 5 that'since the Staff has evaluated in the PEIS a wide range of
]
6 alternatives, nine alternatives considered in detail, fifteen 7 others considered in lesser detail and put to one side for 8 various reasons. That for someone to simply come in and say ,
1 9 here are two additional alternatives you should have considered 10 without advancing any reason why this Board should inquire 11 further into those two alternatives is to fail to meet the I 12 Peach Bottom test. It does not supply enough basis or j 13 foundation for this Board going forward and admitting the
() 14 contention and requiring the Staff to evaluate those two.
15 We did not go further and state, but it is, l
16 nevertheless, correct that if you put together the alternatives 17 that we have considered, you will find that they really do 18 encompass this alternative in the first sentence.
- 19 And, as far as the alternative regarding continued l
20 storage on site of the waste, we believe that is already 21 addressed in another contention, the no-action alternative 22 which we have supported the admissibility.
I 23 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Anything further?
l 24 MS. SKOLNICK: Often, the burden does lie on the 25 public to inform the NRC Staff of its duties, but its duties in l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
72 I 1 looking at alternatives are clearly set out in NEPA. I guess 2 it is page 368. And it says that NEPA requires that agency to 3 the fullest extent possible under other statutory obligations 4 consider alternatives to its action which would reduce 5 environmental damage. So, the two alternatives should be 6 admitted as a contention because it clearly states that they 7 could have considered them.
8 Furthermore, I did not say that they have to consider 9 all alternatives as Mr. Baxter said. I said they must consider l
10 reasonable alternatives. And I pointed out the fact that 11 storing it on site permanently or at least until there is 12 another method or until it has decayed enough was a reasonable 13 alternative.
() 14 And I do want to try to make the distinction between 15 the no-action alternative and the alternative of storing it in 16 tanks on site. Because the no-action alternative has been 17 rejected by the NRC because they perceive that at some point it 18 would have to be disposed of. But it could be stored in tanks 19 on site with the rest of the radioactivity that has to be 20 contained within Unit 2. Unit 2, as I said earlier, the 21 reactor basement is highly contaminated. The NRC, I believe, 22 is in the progress of establishing rules for decommissioning. !
23 But we don't know when that is going to happen. So, we could 24 be looking at years and years ahead.
25 I think it is unreasonable to say, "Well, until the
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 1
73 1 year 2000," because I don't think that is relevant. I don't 2 think we know at this time what is going to happen with our i 3 different reactors around the country. That's all, thank you.
I 4 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything more?
I 5 MR. LEWIS: Nothing.
6 MR. BAXTER: Nothing further.
i 7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. The Board has discussed how 8 we will proceed and we decided that after reviewing the i 9 submissions and the transcript, we will issue a memorandum and i
)
10 order which will (1) memorialize what occurred during this l
11 conference; (2) rule on the admissibility of the contentions; 12 and (3) we will schedule other actions to be taken if any.
13 contentions are admitted.
14 We will, as I say, review all documentation and the 15 transcript and make that determination as to the admissibility 16 of contentions.
17 I take it everyone has received a typewritten copy of 18 the Licensee's proposed schedule. As indicated, we are not l l l 19 going to rulo from the rule, today, on the admissibility of 20 contentions, but using Licensee's proposed schedule as sort of 21 an outline, does anyone have any objection to it as such?
l l
22 For example, there is 30 days elapsement between any 23 ruling by the Board, assuming th-at we admit one or more l
l 24 contentions, and that is the opening date for discovery with 25 discovery to be completed within 30 days. Does anybody have l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
74
() 1 any objection to proceeding lock-step with the dates, 30 days, 2 45, whatever is the lapse of time indicated on this proposed 3 schedule. Do you follow me?
4 MS. SKOLNICK: Not quite.
5 JUDGE WOLFE: You will note that there are certain --
{
6 do you have a copy before you?
7 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
8 JUDGE WOLFE: Each date there is a certain number of 9 days lapse of time before something else is supposed to happen.
10 We are not going to rule on contention today, so, does anybody 11 have any objection to proceeding along this schedule of 30, 40, 12 whatever days are indicated?
13 JUDGE PARIS: In other words, if the Licensing
() 14 Board's decisions or ruling came out December 15 rather than 15 December 8, then 30 days behind December 15th and so on down.
16 MS. SKOLNICK: Can I say -- if you were to rule, 17 let's say, on the 15th, but it could be later, that would run 18 into the holiday season and I would not be available to work on 19 these issues at that time, as I'm sure most people won't be.
20 So, I think to set a time -- I think I would have to have a lot 21 longer than the 30 days, considering that 15 of them will be 22 involved in holiday time.
l l 23 JUDGE WOLFE: Did someone use the date of 24 December 15th?
25 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. Didn't you?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ = _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - .
1 75
) 1 JUDGE WOLFE: That's three days from the day. And 2 that is highly unlikely.
3 MR. BAXTER: This is the 8th.
4 JUDGE WOLFE: Oh, this is the 8th. Well, it is 5 highly unlikely anyway that we would get out a decision.
6 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, before the shots are 7 fired, could I propose my schedule and defend it briefly?
8 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.
9 MR. BAXTER: I will provide a copy with the Court 10 Reporter. It might make the discussion clearer if we just had
- 11. a copy incorporated into the transcript rather than me reading 12 it.
13 JUDGE WOLFE: Right.
() 14 MR. DAXTER: With your permission. As background for 15 our proposal, as we have indicated to the Board before, we are 16 interested in expediting this proceeding consistent, of course, 17 with the agency's and the Board's obligation to conduct a fair 18 and impartial proceeding. It is clear that this proceeding is 19 going to delay what we had previously scheduled to be the start 20 of this evaporative process, which would have been in January 21 1988.
22 We had asked the NRC for approval no later than 23 July 31, 1987. Even with this schedule and, as you can see it 24 before you, we would not get a Commission decision perhaps as 25 late as July of 1988. So, we are talking about a full year
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 76
() . 1 later than we had initially requested. It is going to delay 2 the completion of the clean-up of Unit 2. We think the 3 Commission has said that proceeding expeditiously with the 4 clean-up is an important thing and, therefore, we think it is 5 an obligation on behalf of people who wish to have a hearing 6 here to participate expeditiously and to organize their 7 responsibilities so they can.
8 The 30 days, let's be clear about what the 30 days 9 is. It is 30 days to ask questions, not 30 days to write 10 testimony or to write a brief. It should be clear to the Board 11 today, Ms. Skolnick has substantial familiarity with this 12 proposal. That's because it has been on the table for over a 13 year. And there has been substantial information already out.
14 Normally, at the discovery and early contention phase (f
15 of an NRC proceeding the Staff's EIS isn't even available. We 16 have the unique circumstance here where the EIS is available 17 first. And, so, I think that she ought to be able to write her 18 questions. That is all we would be talking about. Not her 19 answering our questions or having to develop expert *.estimony.
20 If she doesn't know what her questions are sufficiently well in 21 30 days, and there is no 15-day holiday I'm aware of, but in 30 22 days to write questions, I think we have got to ask that she 23 arrange her priorities to do that. Th? burden is going to be 24 on the Staff and the Licensee in the discovery process, I would 25 imagine, to answer her questions.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
L___.__
1- 1 i i f 77 ,l 1 (Copy of Licensee's Proposed Schedule follows:)-
2 l 3 ********** INSERT **********
l 4
c.
l' 5 6
1 7 )
i 8
9 10 i
)
11 12 l 13 l
'O 14 l 15 16 l
17 l 1
18 19 20 21 22 23 ;
24 25 1 IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
__m__.-___ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . ,
TV- /
Tapt c,A q LICENSEE'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE kJ December 8 (or other date of ASLB rulings): Open discovery January 8: Deadline for filing discovery requests January 22: Close of discovery (deadline for responses)
February 22: Testimony and exhibits filed March 8: Hearings begin March 11: Hearings conclude March 25: Licensee proposed findings filed April 4: Intervenor and Commonwealth proposed findings filed April 14: Staff proposed findings filed April 18: Licensee reply findings filed May 20: ASLB decision served June 6: Immediate effectiveness comments filed July 5: Commission immediate effectiveness decision no later than O
78
() 1 JUDGE WOLFE: Did you plan to submit written 2 Interrogatories? Is that what you had in mind?
3 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes.
4 JUDGE WOLFE: Do you know what I am talking about?
5 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes, I think so.
6 JUDGE WOLFE: As against taking of depositions.
7 MS. SKOLNICK: I may do both.
8 JUDGE WOLFE: Do you understand that it will probably 9 be expensive.
10 MS. SKOLNICK: Yes. I may want to do Interrogatories 11 and depositions. May I just address something that Mr. Baxter 12 said? I think it is just really important to understand that 13 having a public hearing on the disposition of the water does
(]) 14 not delay the clean-up because GPU Nuclear will take until at 15 least the third quarter of 1988 to remove the fuel from the 16 reactor buildings. And as long as the fuel is in there, the 17 water is needed.
18 After defueling, the reactor building has to be 19 flushed down and decontaminated. So, the water is needed at 20 this time. And the hearing, to me, really the important step 21 at this point is to make sure that this water is disposed of 22 properly. There is no need for us to be on a tight schedule.
23 We have waited for eight or nine years for this clean-up to be 24 completed. And back in 1979 I think they talked about the 25 clean-up being over in two years. We are still here talking
) IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 79
( 1 about it. So, the people aren't concerned that the clean-up is ,
2 over and done with really quickly. The most important point is i 3 that it does proceed with the health and safety of the people 4 in mind.
5 So, to say that we are delaying the clean-up, I don't 6 even know if the press statements from GPU Nuclear have-7 confirmed that.
8 As far as after you would make your ruling, the 9 amount of work that I have to do with it will be determined by 10 the number of contentions that are admitted to the hearing.
11 And even though the holidays I guess for some people aren't 15 12 days, but I happen not to have a huge staff at my disposal to 13 do the necessary investigation and to do the necessary writing.
() 14 I am a citizen and I also am a member of the public. And I am 15 asking that unnecessary stress is not placed on me while I 16 undertake this issue which is of vital importance to this area.
l 17 I would recommend that I would have two months from j 18 the time that you decide what contentions will be admitted to 19 the hearings. I would also recommend that from the deadline 20 for filing discovery requests that I have two months until the s
21 close of discovery. And I recommend that at a minimum -- these j l
22 are all minimum, because 1 think it is important that it could
]
23 be expanded depending on the number of contentions that will be l
l 24 admitted. And, so, at least one and a half months from the 25 close of discovery until testimony and exhibits are filed and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l L_----__-_-
80 l
1 then a month before the hearings begin.
2 JUDGE WOLFE: Does staff have any input, please?
l 3 MR. LEWIS: This sequence and the amount of time i
4 between each of the events is satisfactory to the' staff. The 5 period for discovery would seem to us to be ample based upon l 1
l 6 our experience in other NRC proceedings. And, indeed, a number J 7 of these things, the burden will fall on us, but we are willing 8 to comply with a schedule that would follow this sequence and 1
l 9 this timing.
10 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. McKinstry?
Ell MR. MCKINSTRY: The proposed schedule is fine.
12 MR. BAXTER: Just one further comment, Mr. Chairman, 13 if I might on this schedule. Ms. Skolnick is by herself at the
() 14 table today, but the petitions indicate she represents two 15 organizations. And, as we have pointed out before, TMIA has ;
16 substantial experience in NRC proceedings. I think it is fair 17 for the Board to impute to Ms. Skolnick, the availability of 18 some resources beyond her solo self given what is represented 19 in those petitions for leave to intervene. And she has had our 20 proposal, as I indicated before, since July of 1986. This is 21 not new.
22 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, I wanted various, Individuals' 23 input. Obviously, I am not going to rush pell mell to a 24 decision. The Board is not going to do that. On the other 25 hand, we are not going to allow people to sit on their hands l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
l 81
() 1 and not comply with their obligations. There has to'be some 2 sort of medium approach or reasonable approach.
3 I am just giving you my thoughts on this. We don't 4 have to make a determination today. At the time that we issue 1
5 the memorandum and order as to which I spoke earlier, we will l l
6 set forth a schedule. Maybe everyone will be happy. Maybe no fl 7 one will be happy, but we have to get on with arriving at a 8 just decision and that is what we plan to do.
I 9 I am glad for the input. We will take that into 1
10 consideration when we issue our. memorandum and order. Is there j I
11 anything else to discuss before we conclude this conference?
12 MR. BAXTER: I have one last matter, Mr. Chairman.
13 Certainly, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to suggest how you
() 14 do your business, but we, as the Licensee are anxious to begin 15 the discovery process if there is an admissible contention and l
H l 16 allow Ms. Skolnick to get on with asking us her questions. We i
17 would welcome a telephone conference call just announcing the 18 summary conclusions of the Board prior to your writing and 19 memorializing them into a full memorandum and order if that 20 would advance the schedule by a week or two. It has been my 21 experience, that has been used in other NRC licensing i 22 proceedings to get things along and we would certainly not 23 object to that approach if it would save time.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, we will give consideration to 25 that idea. We are not promising anything. It may well be that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
82
() 1 we could do it. It may well be that when we get into this we 2- are going to have to write everything up and have it before us.
3 So, we will just have to consider that approach as well.
4 All right, if there are no comments, them, this 5 special --
6 MS. SKOLNICK: I have something.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. I 1
8 MS. SKOLNICK: I wondered -- I have two questions, 9 actually. Is'the transcript from today's pre-hearing i
10 conference available? Will it be made available to me?
11 JUDGE WOLFE: You are not ordering a transcript? ]
12 MS. SKOLNICK: I am asking if it is available for
)i 13 free?
() 14 JUDGE WOLFE: As I understand it, the transcript is q l
15 11odged with the public library and that's at where? ]
l 16 MR. TRAVERS: The Public Document Room. i 17 JUDGE WOLFE: The Public Document Room. It's not in 18 Harrisburg; is it?
19 MR. LEWIS: It's in Harrisburg. ;
i 20 JUDGE WOLFE: It's in Harrisburg. I don't know at 21 what time that transcript will be lodged there, but it will be 22 available there for you.
23 MS. SKOLNICK: Would it be possible to have that 24 available in the Lancaster Library? l 25 JUDGE WOLFE: Available where?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
83
() 1 MS. SKOLNICK: Lancaster. It's 25 miles away.
2 That's the library that is closest and is most convenient.
3 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, there is no -- can you address 4 this, Mr. Lewis?
5 MR. LEWIS: Well, the provision is that it would go 6 to the local Public Document Room, which is in Harrisburg. It 7 has to go there. Whether or not there is --
8 JUDGE WOLFE: Would you be willing to check into the 9 possibility?
10 MR. LEWIS: We will try to look into it. We cannot 11 provide it. We cannot provide it.
12 JUDGE WOLFE: We cannot, either. Yes?
13 MS. SKOLNICK: I have just been informed by O 14 Mr. Doroshow that it has been made available in the past in the 15 local library. So, maybe if you could just continue that 16 tradition.
17 JUDGE WOLFE: I don't know of that tradition.
18 (Laughter.)
19 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Lewis said he would look into it.
20 MS. SKOLNICK: Okay. And the other -- now, it's the 21 third thing, too. TMIA is no longer on GPU Nuclear Service 22 list. I would like them return. It is much more convenient if 23 they receive the information at the same time as I do. The NRC 24 and the Board has sent the stuff to TMIA, but GPU Nuclear had 25 struck them from their list. And it just is much more
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
84 f*
1 convenient.
2 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Baxter?
3 MR. BAXTER: In exchange for Ms. Skolnick serving 4 Mr. Rogan at the Three Mile Island site, we will restore TMIA.
5 MS. SKOLNICK: That's fine.
6 MR. BAXTER: We negotiated something.
7 MS. SKOLNICK: Did you -- you want me to put him on 8 the list?
9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, please.
10 MS. SKOLNICK: Okay, so, will you give me that 11 address?
12 MR. BAXTER: Certainly.
13 MS. SKOLNICK: And the other item I think I would
() 14 like to ask about today is a request, actually, that the 15 hearings would be held in Lancaster. And it is for my 16 convenience rather than commuting to Harrisburg.
17 JUDGE WOLFE: Do you have any places in mind in 18 Lancaster?
19 MS. SKOLNICK: I would be very glad to find a place.
20 At this time, we do have a new building in Lancaster which has 21 been made available to different organizations. And I believe 22 it is to be available in January of 1988. But we also have 23 various city buildings and we also have two universities there.
24 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, we will give consideration to it.
25 You look into these various places. As you can see, we need at O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
85
( l least three large tables and a long table for the Board, a 2 table for the reporter, and I don't know what the audience will 3 be. Maybe up to 100 people.
1 4 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman?
5 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.
6 MR. BAXTER: Harrisburg, under normal considerations 7 of proximity to the site, Harrisburg is closer. And we had 8 normally thought of it as being the appropriate location. It 9 also, although I can understand Ms. Skolnick's concern, I have 10 no reason to believe that Lancaster is more logical location 11 for the broad group of people who might be interested in l
1 i
12 attending than Harrisburg. I would assume Harrisburg, being 13 closer to the site, is a preferable location from that point of
() 14 view.
15 In terms of the Staff's capability to get to and 16 cover the hearings, in terms of people coming from the site, l 17 Harrisburg would be a preferable location. But those are just j
18 considerations I pass on to you.
19 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, I am not yeaing or naying. If 20 you come up with some locations in or around Lancaster that 21 would look favorable, we will consider those. But we are not 22 going to make a determination now until we hear more from you.
23 And we will probably want to look around Harrisburg for other 24 sites as well.
25 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 86
) 1 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.
2 MR. LEWIS: My two cents, if I may? On the hearing 1
l 3 location, Lancaster is 25 miles from the site and Harrisburg is l 4 much closer and in our view would be much .aore convenient for 5 the vast bulk of the people that have to participate here. So, 6 we would much prefer to have it here.
7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. The special pre-hearing 8 conference'is concluded.
9 (Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the pre-hearing conference 10 was concluded.)
11 12 13 A)
(, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 1
1 23 i 1
24 )
l 25 O
k/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
( __ _ ._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
l l
1 CERTIFICATE (D
\s/ 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the l 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name: GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL.,
(THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION,' UNIT 2) 6 7 Docket Number: 50-3200LA 8 Place: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 9 Date: December 8, 1987 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a
() 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
16 /S/04 M ML M1$78 -
17 (Signature typed): ANDREW M. EMERSON 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888