ML19341C257
| ML19341C257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002909 |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Cowan B, Kenrick J, Marcucci D ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103020549 | |
| Download: ML19341C257 (28) | |
Text
% f! $ E' !
=
i 4
4.ah,!.
O k
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
oi BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
ANSWER OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION TO UNSTIPULATED CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENOR SAFE ENERGY ALLIANCE OF CENTRAL ALABAMA, INC.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse" or " Applicant") files this answer to those proposed conten-tions of Intervenor, Safe Energy Alliance of Central Alabama, Inc. ("SEACA"), as to which Westinghouse, SEACA and the NRC Staff (" Staff") have been unable to reach agreement on l
admissibility.
By Order dated September 11, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( the " Board") directed the Applicant, the Staff and SEACA to " file stipulations as to l
the admissibility of contentions and/or disagreements as to f
admi's sibility. "
Pursuant to such direction, these parties have reached a stipulation with regard to revised SEACA l
contentions.
Under that stipulation, the proposed SEACA i
l i
8103020$f[
contentions have been divided into three groups.
Attachment A to the Stipulation sets forth those contentions which the parties agreo constitute admissible contentions in this proceeding.
Attachment B to the Stipulation sets forth unstipulated contentions that SEACA suggests should be admitted as matters in controversy but that the Applicant and/or the Staf f do not agree should be admitted.
Attach-ment C to the Stipulation sets forth those contentions previously filed by SEACA which have been deferred by agreement until the relevant sections of the license ap-plication in this proceeding have been filed by Applicant.
In this response, Westinghouse sets forth its objections to the admissibility of those proposed modified SEACA contentions listed in Attachment B to the Stipulation.
1.
Contention 1.
Waste Safety.
Proposed Sr.aCA Contention 1 reads as follows:
"There's no assurance that the health and safety of the public will be protected in waste management because we don't know what manufac-turing process and equipment will be used and we don't know how radioactive the waste will be.
With regard to the contentions listed in Attachment A, Westinghouse, by stipulating to their admissibility as contentions in this proceeding, does not in any way admit the merits of those contentions or the validity of any allegation of fact or law stated in those contentions.
Westinghouse reserves the right to set forth its position with regard to the merits of such contentions at an ap-propriate time. -
"(a)
WEC's proposed sodium silicate process for stabilization will not adequately contain the ionizing materials over the period necessary to be safe on a permanent basis because there will be a chemical breakdown of the binding matrix over a period of time which will release greater and harmful amounts of radioactive materials into the environment in excess of the levels permitted by NRC regulations.
"(b)
WEC's proposed process for treating liquid waste to form calcium fluoride is unsafe for the public because calcium fluoride itself is a very hazardous waste and there's no assurance it will remain buried.
Moreover, this waste is contaminated with low-level radioactive materials, mostly uranium, in excess of the levels permitted by NRC regulations."
The low level radioactive wastes generated by plant operations will be buried at a site licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") in accordance with NRC regulations.
No high level radioactive wastes will be generated by the plant.
Radioactive plant wastes which are neither high level nor low level radio-active wastes are not subject to NRC regulation and will be disposed of appropriately.
To the extent proposed SEACA Contention 1 relates to the disposal of such non-low level radioactive wastes, it is not properly within the jurisdic-tion of this Board and should be dismissed.
To the extent proposed SEACA Contention 1 relates to safe disposal of low level radioactive wastes, matters of such disposal and burial are not within the purview of this License Applica-._.
tion and will be governed by the license applicable to the site eventually chosen for burial.
Accordingly, the con-tention seeks to address matters not within the scope of the application or the proposed operation of the Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant ("ANFFP"), and should be rejected by the Board.
2.
Contention 4 Accidents.
Proposed SEACA Contention 4 reads as follows:
"(a)
WEC has not adequately addressed the risk of accidents during transportation as re-quired by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
"(b)
The WEC Report does not adequately explain the basis for rating the probability of accidents; no technical basis is provided for rating accidents as ' credible', ' incredible' and
' remotely possible', to the detriment of public health and safety.
"(c)
NEPA requires a consideration of the consequences of major accidents at a plant facility, and this includes a. criticality event, an explo-sion in sintering furnace, a fiti in the bank of HEPA filters, a UF6 leak, and a 002 powder spill, all of which are listed as possible accidents in l
WEC's Environmental Report."
This contention fails to satisfy-the reasonable specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b).
Although broadly alleging a failure to address adequately the risk of accidents during transportation, proposed SEACA Contention 4(a) fails to state which aspects of the risks of transport accident have not been addresset by Westinghouse.
Further,,, --
paragraph 4 (a) constitutes a challenge to NRC regulations currently in effect covering the transportation of all licensed materials to and from nuclear facilities.
See 10 C.F.R. Part 71.
Proposed SEACA Contention 4(b) fails to specify what is inadequate about the Westinchouse explanation of its basis for rating the probability of accidents.
Contrary to the contention, the Westinghouse Environmental Report on page *-13 defines a credible occurrence as one likely to occur within a forty-year period, a remotely possible occurrence as one likely to occur once in that forty-year period, and an incredible occurrence as one not likely to occur within a forty-year period.
These definitions are adopted for use in this particular application by Westing-house, and the contention fails to indicate any basis for the claim that this definition is inadequate for the
(
instant proceeding.
l Proposed SEACA Contention 4(c) also does not state a valid contention.
The Westinghouse Environmental Report l
addresses each.of the five accidents referred to in this proposed contention, as follows:
1.
Criticality event:
page 5-28; 2.
Explosion in a sintering furnace:
pages 5-26 through 5-27; l l'.
L
3.
Fire in the bank of HEPA filters:
page 5-26; 4.
UF6 leak; pages 5-14 through 5-17; and 5.
UO2 powder spill:
pages 5-17 through 5-19.
SEACA fails to allege that these discussions are inadequate or to indicate in what manner they might be inadequate.
Thus, this contention should be rejected by the Board for failing to provide adequate specificity.
3.
Contention 5(a).
HEPA Filters.
Proposed SEACA Contention 5(a) reads as follows:
"(a)
Harmful particulates of uranium less than 0.3 micrometers will pass through even 99.9%
efficient HEPA filters as aerosols and will be extremely dangerous to the health of workers and other members of the public who breathe in these particulates, because said particulates could lead to cancer and other health hazards."
This concention should be rejected by the Board because it fails to provide adequate specificity.
The contention does not identify the standards which SEACA claims will be violated in the event particles of uranium of l
less than 0.3 micrometers pass through the 99.9% efficient HEPA filters.
Rather, the contention uses subjective terms l
l such as " harmful" and " extremely dangerous" in identifying the alleged SEACA concern.
In order to make this contention specific, language is needed to identify which particular NRC l
l l !
L
4 when such violation or EPA regulations could be violated at might occur.
Otherwise this contention hould be rejected.
4.
Contention 8(b).
Need for Plant.
Proposed SEACA Contention 8(b) reads as follows:
"(b)
Given the closing of WEC's mixed oxide plutonium plant in Pennsylvania, the 5 year term of the license, the 40 year projected life of the plant, and the 30 year anticipated supply of uranium, WEC will eventually have to resort to use of plutonium, which will be highly dangerous to the public."
There will be no plutonium in this plant.
The License Application for the ANFFP does not request posses-sion of any plutonium.
Thus, this proposed contention with its speculative claim of an alleged need " eventually [toi have to resort to use of plutonium" is totally irrelevant to the issucs before this Board and should be denied.
5.
Contention 9.
Radiation-Dose Models.
Proposed SEACA Contention 9 reads as follows:
"(a)
WEC and NRC have understated the immediate and long-term harmful health effects to workers and neighboring citizens of dose levels associated with operation of the facility.
"(b)
WEC's radiation dose models fail to address the _ radionuclides, radon gas, and certain daughter products of uranium, and the production of. plutonium-239 by neutrons captured by uranium-238, all of which will be associated with the normal operation of this plant." --
This conter.cion fails to specify why the evalua-tion of dose equivalents contained in the Westinghouse Environmental Report, Section 4.2.2.1 ff.,
is inadequate or in what manner Westinghouse has understated the dose that an individual might receive.
The License Application assumes that current regulations of the Commission must be met and demonstrates that the doses will be within those regula-tions.
The License Application also demonstrates compliance with the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" ("ALARA")
standard.
The contention, insofar as it challenges NRC regulations and the ALARA concept, should be rejected as constituting an impermissible challenge to the regulations.
Proposed SEACA Contention 9(b) also lacks speci-ficity.
The contantion fails to state what radionuclides are not addressed by Westinghouse.
With respect to the claim that Westinghouse dose models fail to address radon i
gas, or the production of plutonium-239 by neutrons captured by uranium-238, and the further contention that these will be associated with normal operation of the plant, the contention fails
'.o establish how this could occur.
Because neither radon gas nor plutonium-239 will be associated with either normal or abnormal operation of the ANFFP, and because the contention does not specify how these elements....
could be associated with operation of the plant, this portion of the contention should be denied.
With respect to the claim that the radiation dose models fail to address certain daughter products of uranium, the contention is inaccurate.
Table 4-1 on page 4-7 and Appendix D, Section D-5 on page D-7 of the Environmental Report, specifically address daughter products of uranium.
The contention does not specify any other daughter products that should be addressed.
Thus, Contention 9 should be rejected.
6.
Contention 12.
Alternative Sites.
Proposed SEACA Contention 12 reads as follows:
"(a)
NRC cannot make the determination of 10 CFR 70.23(a)(7) because other sites in Pennsyl-vania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois are obviously superior.
"(b)
The Prattville, Alabama site is too close to a major population area and therefore will not adequately protect the public against the risks associated with the plant."
This contention should be denied for a number of reasons.
First, although a broad assertion is made that sites in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois "are obviously superior", no specific sites are identified, nor is any reason given why ar.y such site would be obviously superior.
In this respect the contention is vague and lacks specificity.
Similarly, the claim that the Prattville, Alabama site is "too close" to a major population area and.
that the public will not be protected adequately against risks associated with the plant is merely a broad gen-eralization, not a specific allegation.
Second, there is no requirement in connection with an application for a special nuclear meterial license that alternative sites be considered.
The ANFFP is an industrial facility that could be sited in a number of locations, unlike a nuclear power reactor that generally must be sited within the area that the utility building the reactor has a monopoly on the sale of electricity.
More pertinently, this regulatory proceeding concerns the proposed possession by Applicant of special nuclear material, not the siting or licensing of a plant facility.
Assuming arguendo that other "obviously superior" sites could be found, the relevant question conceras alternatives to possession of special nuclear material, not alternatives to the location of the plant.
No consideration of alternative sites as suggested by the contention is required.
Finally, Contention 12(b) represents a new con-l tention never previously raised by SEACA.
The claim of inadequacy of the site due to closeness to population is not j
tied to any standard, and thu.= the contention must be denied on this basis also.
l I
i %
7.
Contention 14.
Prototype Consideration.
Proposed SEACA Contention 14 reads as follows:
"Information concerning t.ne two existing plants in Europe is needed by SEACA to adequately assess the hazardous or harmful health effects of the proposed Prattville plant to the populace of Central Alabama, and without such information the dangers of said plant to workers and the general public will be underestimated."
This " contention" is in reality a discovery request, whereby SEACA seeks information concerning two existing plants in Europe, and is not appropriate for admission as a contention.
Further, the " contention" contains a non sequitur, in that SEACA claims that without certain information, the' alleged dangers of the plant will be~ underestimated.
There, of course, is no correlation between the extent of SEACA's knowledge, or lack thereof, and the proper consideration of the safety of the plant.
Insofar as the heading of the contention suggests a need for I
prototype consideration, Commission licensing criteria do not require a prototype as a prerequisite to license is-l L
suance.
Finally, the contention.is vague with its reference to unspecified " dangers", and 2ts broad claim that such l-alleged dangers will be " underestimated."
For all of these i
reasons, this contention should be rejected by the Board.
l l
l t
I l
_11_
8.
Contention 17.
Alabama as an " Agreement State".
Proposed SEACA Contention 17 reads as follows:
"' Source Materials' and 'By Product Materials' of the Plant are to be regulated by the State of A'
la as 'an Agreement state' (See S 5-8, Application), meaning that the State of Alabama will assume all responsibility and obligation for said materials, yet the State is untrained and unprepared to handle the same and is assuming an enormous risk for its citizens in doing so."
This contention is beyond the power of the Board to consider.
Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the Commission to enter into agreements with states with respect to special nuclear materials and provides that during the duration of such an agreement "the State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from radiation hazards."
Such an agreement has been entered into with the State of Alabama.
Essentially this contention challenges the validity of the agreement, 'and is not litigable in this licensing proceed-ing.
(It should be noted that the contention is based on the erroneous promise that the state will be handling source material and byproduct material of the plant.
In fact, the state would not handle such material.)
9.
Contention 18.
Responsibility for Operations.
Proposed SEACA' Contention 18 reads as follows:
"The Application (Section 4-1.2, page S-11) states that-tha responsibility-for all phaces of..
operations, including safety and health protec-tion, shall follow the usual lines of organiza-tional authority.
WEC has not provided sufficient information as to the meaning of the terms ' usual lines of organizational authority' for the NRC to determine whether organization of the proposed safety-related functions will be adequate."
This contention should be rejected as vague and nonspecific.
Section 4 of the License Application provides a lengthy discussion of the administrative and managerial controls proposed by Westinghouse for safe and efficient operation of the plant.
(License Application, pages S-11 ff.).
Nowhere does SEACA indicate how or why the information with regard to the Westinghouse organization and administra-tive controls, including the information relating to the
-usual lines of organizational authority, is insufficierc for a determination that the organization of the proposed safety-related functions will be adequate.
This contention should therefore be rejected.
10.
Contention 19.
"ALARA" as Invalid Standard.
Proposed SEACA Contention 19 reads as follows:
"The 'ALARA' or 'As Low as Reasonably Achiev-able-standard used in the License Application is invalid, inaccurate, and much too subjective."
10 C.F.R.
S 20.1(c) sets forth the NRC requirement that licensees "make every reasonable effort to maintain rad'iation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as_ low as is reasonably achievable."
The regulation thereafter defines the ALARA standard.
Contention 19, in addition to being vague, constitutes a direct challenge to the Commission regula-tions.
Thus, this contention should be rejected.
11.
Contention 20.
Drv Process Unworkable Com-bination.
Proposed SEACA Contention 20 reads as follows:
"The Plant conversion process will include components that have never been used before in the United States and said process needs to be carefully scrutinized, piece by piece, by both SEACA and the NRC to insure safety to workers and the general public of Central Alabama."
The language set forth above does not constitute a contention.
Although Westinghouse does not agree that the plant conversion process needs to be carefully scrutinized, piece by piece, by SEACA, even were SEACA to scrutinize the process, no justiciable issJe in this proceeding could arise therefrom.
Thus, this contention should be rejected.
12.
Contention 21.
Notification and Tracking Requirements.
Proposed SEACA Contention 21 reads as follows:
"WEC has made no showing that it will comply with,ao stringent new notification and tracking requirements for hazardous waste materials pro-mulgated by the Envircnmental Protection Agency under the-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and-WEC needs to make such a showing, and in the ~ absence of such showing, the populace of Central Alabama could be endangered.".
In the License Application Westinghouse has committed itself to comply with all regulations, license specifications, and permits.
,wicense Application, S 4-1.2,
- p. S-11).
Included within this broad commitnent is the responsibility to comply with applicable reqairements of the Rescurce Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (" RCRA").
Apart from this general commitment, there is no way in this license proceeding to demonstrate compliance with the RCRA, which will be implemented in this case by the State of Alabama Health Department, Solid Waste Division.
Questions relating to Westinghouse compliance with requirements promulgated under the RCRA are beyond the scope of con-sideration by this Board.
Further, this contention contains a vague non sequitur - it does not specify how the populace of Central Alabama could be endangered if Westinghouse does not show at this time that it will com,aly with the RCRA require-ments.
Thus, this contention should be rejected.'
13.
Contention 22.
Synergistic Effects.
Proposed SEACA Contention 22 reads as follows:
"The synergistic effect in the Alabama River of paper mill wastes from the Union Camp Corp.
plant when added to the radioactive discharge from the Prattville plant will create a hazardous nuisance condition unsafe to the general populace of Alabama, and this has not been adequately addressed in the Environmental Report."
As stated, this contention is vague and non-l specific.
SEACA does not indicate what synergistic effect j
l could occur or how the effects of discharge from the ANFFP bave'not adequately been addressed.
The contention sets l
t l
forth no basis upon which to establish the potential of any synergistic effect.
In fact, the Environmental Report demonstrates that Westinghouse will not be adding any matter to the Alabama River that is not already present in larger quanti, ties in the river.
(See Environmencal Report, l
Table 4-7, p. 4-31.)
Further, SEACA does not explain what specific standard a broadly characterized " hazardous nui-
{
sance condition unsafe to the general populace of Alabama" would violate, even assuming arguendo that synergism between I
the plant discharges and the paper mill wastes of the Union Camp Corp. plant could occur.
Thus, the contention should l
be rejected.
14.
Contention 25.
Emergency Bulletin Board.
Proposed SEACA Contention 25 reads as follows:
"The Application (4-3.4.3, page S-21) states that ' Changes associated with the handling, processing, or storage of special nuclear material
... shall be communicated by the use of circulars, routing of revised procedures..., work place I
meetings, and/or postings'.
In order to guarantee i
communication, there should be one central bulletin board containing all messages which employees are required to check and sign in on every day, and any changes should be posted in conspicuouc wording ar.d coloring, because under other procedures identified in the Application, it would be too easy for a key employee to miss an important message and thereby make a critical mistake."
10 C.F.R.
S 19.11 sets forth the requirements for the posting of notice to workers.
Among the requirements is a posting "in a sufficient number of places to permit individuals engaged in licensed activities to observe them on the way to or from any particular licensed activity location to which the document applies."
This regulation reflects the philosophy of the Commission on posting near the places where activities will be carried on.
The con-tention for an emergency bulletin board constitutes a i
challenge to the regulation and its underlying philosophy.
SEACA is seeking to impose its view of appropriate posting places in lieu of the regulatory scheme established by the l
Commission, and l's contention should, therefore, be rejected.
15.
Contention 27.
Southern Building Code.
Proposed SECA Contention 27 reads as follows:
"The ".9cuthern Building Code does not impose stringent enough requirements for a building etructure which would be needed to house special I
nuclear materials, and therefore such a building could be'tco weak to withstand a nuclear criti-cality explosion."
l Section 5 of the License Application, at pages S-24 through S-63, sets forth the health and safety engineered
~
controls and technical specifications.
One of the specifica-tions in Section 5 is that with certain exceptions, the special nuclear material building must comply with the Southern Standard Building Code.
This particular specifica-tion, however, is only one of many requirements on en-gineered safety.
Because the contention is based on an erroneous premise with regard to the reference in the License Application to the Southern Standard Building Code, the contention should be denied.
Furthermore, nuclear criticality is not the same as an explosion, and in the incredible event of a nuclear criticality accident in the ANFFP, no nuclear explosion could result.
(There has never been a nuclear criticality accident anywhere in the world in a low enriched uranium nuclear fuel fabrication plant.)
In this regard also the contention is based on an erroneous premist-and chould be denied.
[
16.
Contention 28.
Neutron Isolation Structure.
Proposed SEACA Contention 28 reads as follows:
L
" Contrary to information in the License Application (1.2,-page S-25), a neutron isolation structure will be unable to contain the neutrons spontaneously emitted by U-235, and this fact poses a danger of the special nuclear material going critical."
This contention demonstrates SEACA's fundamental ignorance of the problem of neurron isolation and the purpose of a neutron isolation. structure.
SEACA does not <
understand that the purpose of a neutron isolation structure is to separate various quantities of special nuclear mate-rials so that when the neutrons are emitted from such ma-terials, criticality will not be achieved.
The neutron isolation structure is not designed to contain neutrons spontaneously emitted by U-235.
It is an isclation struc-ture, not a containment structure.
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
17.
Contention 29.
Degradation of SNM.
Proposed SEACA Contention 29 reads as follows:
"The Application (5-1.5.3, page S-28) does not specify the process for degrading uranium-235 as special nuclear material to uranium as source material and, giver, potential dangers in such a process, far more information is needed by the NRC and SEACA to evaluate the process."
l l
Not only is this " contention" no more than a l
discovery request, but it is also vague and contradictory.
I SEACA claims-it needs more information to evaluate a process, yet at the same time flatly contends -that there are potential dangers inherent in the process about which it does not have enough information to make an evaluation.
The process for degrading uranium as special nuclear material to uranium as source material is enrichment blending.
This process is well understood and is used at other fuel fabrication plants.
SEACA does not identify the " potential dangers".
that it believes are involved in this p) _ cess and Westing-house is unaware of any dangers associated with the process.
Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
18.
Contention 34.
Personnel Dosimetry.
Proposed SEACA Contention 34 reads as follows:
"WEC should know in advance where personnel dosimeters are needed in the plant, rather than have to rely r,n information obtained from initial beta-gamma radiation surveys."
Westinghouse will know in advance where personnel dosimeters are needed in the plant.
Two means of obtaining this information are initial surveys and personnel dosimetry studies.
Westinghouse in its License Application has indicated it will uce both.
(See Section 5-3.1.1, at page S-40 (Surveys) and Section 5-3.2.1, at page S-53 (Personnel Dosimetry).)
Because the contention is based upon an erroneous premise, it should be rejected.
19.
Contention 35.
Uranium Concentrations in Air.
Proposed SEACA Contention 35 reads as follows:
"No exemptions from normal uranium concentra-tion levels in the air should be given WEC at
' designated portions of the controlled area of the plant because said exemptions could endanger plant workers, because the cumulative effect of even low-level radiation will eventually cause cancer or chromosome damage to the body."
Westinghouse is not requesting any exemption from NRC regulations w'th regard to uranium concentrations in _ - -
air.
Here again, the contention is based on a lack of understanding by SEACA.
The NRC regulations provide for a maximum level of radiation exposure.
Westinghouse has adopted, as an administrative matter, control levels for airborne uranium designed to make certain that NRC regula-tions will never be exceeded.
(See Section 5-3.1.2, at pages S-41, S-42.)
These control levels are substan-tially lower than the permissible levels contained in NRC regulations.
(In some cases, the levels are as much as one-tenth of the NRC permitted limit.)
The License Applica-tion provides that designated portions of a control area of the plant may have higher limits than those administra-tively imposed by Westinghouse under certain conditions, i
provided that the NRC criteria are not exceeded.
Thus, the contention suggesto a requirement beyond that imposed by regulation; namely, that Westinghouse be required to operate within its own administrative control limits without "exemp-tions," despite the fact that even if Westinghouse were to allow higher limits than its administrative controls, those limits would be in compliance with the NRC regulations.
The contention constitutes a challenge to NRC regulations and, therefore, should be rejected. -.
20.
Contention 37.
Air Samples Analysis.
Proposed SEACA Contention 37 reads as follows:
"WEC will do no continuous recording of radioactive airborne effluents to unrestricted areas so that an instantaneous high level spike could not be detected instantaneously and there-fore Part 20 CFR cannot be met."
This contention constitutes a direct challenge to NRC regulations.
10 C.F.R.
S 20.106(a) provides that for purposes of measuring concentrations that exceed NRC regu-lation limits, concentrations "may be averaged over a period not greater than one year".
Acceptance of this contention would negate the authority granted in the regulation to average concentrations by requiring instantaneous recording of high level spikes.
Further, this contention does not identify what part of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 will not be met.
Thus, the contention should be rejected.
21.
Contention 38.. Radiological Monitoring of Solid Waste Material.
Proposed SEACA Contention 38 reads as follows:
"The License Application does not distinguish between the various isotopes of uranium and given the f act that U-235 and U-234 are alpha emitters l
l and given the fact that U-235 is more dangerous to the public, the Application does not adequately l
assess the' harmful effects of the same to humans, animal and plant life."-
(
applicant's program for radioactive survey of solid wastes is set forth in the License Application at pages S-50 through S-51.
The purpose of the survey is to t e-
-7
- ert e
+.-.
y y
determine the concentration of radionuclides contained in large quantities of solid waste material prior to packaging that material for ultimate disposal, and the control level is expressed in microcuries per gram of waste material.
SEACA does not provide sufficient specificity to determine why this survey method is inadequate.
The SEACA conten-tion is based upon an erroneous premise that U-235 is more dangerous to the public than U-234 and that it is necessary somehow to distinguish between isotopes of uranium for purpose of the survey.
In.Tct, U-235 is not more dangerous than U-234, and even if it were, the isotopes need not be distinguished for the purpases for which the survey of solid waste material is conducted.
Further, SEACA does nct state what standard it believes will be violated in the event a distinction is not made between the isotopes of uranium.
In this respect the contention lacks the required degree of specificity and should be rejected.
22.
Contention 39.
Beta-Gamma Exposure Limits.
Proposed SEACA Contention 39 reads as follows:
"The maximum exposure limits iu the Applica-tion (5-3.2.1(1) + (2) for indivfdaals entering a restricted area of the plant are too high and thus can lead to cancer and other hazardous health effects."
10 C.F.R. S 20.101 sets forth radiation dose standards for individuals in restricted areas.
The License Application on page S-54 sets forth the ANFFP control limits.
The ANFFP control limits are well below the regulatory limits contained in 10 C.F.R. S 20.101.
There-fore, a contention that the maximum exposure limits in the License Application are too high is a direct challenge to the maximum exposure limits in the regulation and should be rejected.
23.
Contention 41.
" Average" Dose Equivalent.
Proposed SEACA Contention 41 reads as follows:
"With respect to surveys, personnel dosimetry, and bioassays, the regulatory compliance component should prepare and maintain charts graphically displaying the average dose equivalent per radia-tion worker more often than on a quarterly basis, as is required by the Licenee Application; in fact, statistics on high, low, and mean radiation doses for workers should be kept at least weekly."
This contention takes out of context the informa-tion that will be maintained concerning radiation exposure.
Section 6-2 of the License Application at page S-64 sets l
forth charts to be prepared and maintained by the regulatory
(
compliance component at the plant as part of the ALARA program.
That section of the application makes clear that l
the eight different types of charts to be maintained are in
[
addition to records for documentation of compliance with the l
l regulations.
Thus, Westinghouse will document in compliance l
with the regulations and, in addition, will maintain these eight specific charts.
SEACA has singled out one type of chart which it believes should be kept on a different basis, '
as though the information on taat chart were the only type of information being generated.
The contention does not explain why the statistics should be kept on the basis' suggested by SEACA.
Accordingly, this contention should be
~
rejected as vague, nonspecific and' based on erroneous premises.
24.
Concention 45.
Exemption-Notification Require-ment-Respiratory Equipment.
Contention 46.
Exemption-Caution Signs.
Contention 47.
Exemption-Waste Disposal Requirement.
Contention 48.
Exemption-Criticality Accident Requirements.
Proposed SEACA Contentions 45, 46, 47, and 48 read as follows:
"45.
Westinghouse should not be exempted from the 30-day notice requirement of 10 CFR 20.103 for use of respieatory equipment because the NRC naeds to make timely examinations and inspections of the equipment in order to protect plant workers.
l l
"46.
Westinghouse should not be exempted l
from the requirement of 10 CFR 20.203 requiring that all containers of licensed material bear a l
durable, clearly visible sign identifying radio-l active contents because plant workers need to be constantly reminded of the dangerous qualities of the special nuclear materials they will be handling.
l "47.
Westinghouse should be given no exemp-tion from the requirement of 10 CFR 20.301 govern-ing waste disposal since even the smallest amounts of radioactivity on records and papers can be dangerous to plant workers.
! l
"48.
Westinghouse should be given no exemp-tion from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 govern-ing ' Criticality icident Requirements' and monitor alarms in certain areas since, no matter how remote an area may be from operations involv-ing special nuclear materials, there is nonethe-less a great risk to all individuals in the plant vicinity if there is a criticality accident."
These contentions should be rejected by the Board i
as raising issues beyond the authority of the Board to consider.
Westinghouse has requested certain exemptions from the requirements of the regulations, all of which have been granted in connection with other fuel fabrication facilities licensed by the Commission.
These exemptions are granted by che Staff, acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant co 10 C.F.R. S 20.501.
The Commission has not delegated to the licensing boards the authority under that section to grant or deny such exemptions.
Accordingly, the Board should reject these four contentions.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barton Z. Cowan
/s/ John R. Kenrick/BZC Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott
/s/ Donald R. Marcucci/BZC Law Department Westinghouse Electric Corporation Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation Dated:
Februarv 23, 1981 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Dccket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
CERT.'FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Answer of Westinghouse Electric Corporation to Unstipulated Con-tentions of Intervenor Safe Energy Alliance of Central Alabama, Inc." were served upon the persons listed on to this Certificate of Service by deposit in the United States Mail (First Class), postage prepaid, this 23rd day of February, 1981.
/s/ Barton Z. Cowan Barton Z. Cowan i
Counsel for I
Westinghouse Electric Corporation l'
l l
l
ATTACHMENT 1 John F. Wolf, Esquire, Chairman Ms. Cathalynn Donelson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 855 Park Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Montgomery, Alabana 36106 3409 Shepherd Street Chavy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Ira L. Myers State Health Officer Dr. Harry Foreman, Member State of Alabama Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Public Health Boy.-395, Mayo State Office Building University of Minnesota Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Minn:apolis, Minnesota 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Martin J. Steindler, Member U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20555 Argonne National Laboratory i-9700 South Cass Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Argonne, Illinois 60439 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Barton Z. Cowan, Esquire Ecktrt, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Docketing & Service Section
-42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street Office of the Secretary Pitt: burgh, Pennsylva.nia 15219 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Donald R. Marcucci, Esquire Law Department WOtinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 PittOburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 64 516 south Perry Straet Montgomery, Alabama '36101 Sh2rwin E. Turk, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Dircctor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wnchington,-D. C.
20555
..