# Appendix — Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1455%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 435 U.S. 519 ## Text ve * . a/¢ ; La i ———= Ca -_ a . — = a, = - . - 4 ~ ‘ = ¢ 7 6 - - , 4 ee _ —_—— 401 [SUMMARY OF APPLICATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Ex. 3, pp. 2-5, AEC Dkt. No. 50-271] SITE AND ENVIRONS The site for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont in Windham County on the west shore of the Connecticut River upstream of the Vernon Hydroelectric Station. The site consists of about 125 acres owned by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corperation and a narrow strip of land owned by New England Power Company and located between the Connecticut River and the boundary of the Vermont Yankee property and in which Vermont Yankee has perpetual rights and easements granted by the New England Power Company with the approval of the Federal Power Commis- sion. The City of Brattleboro, Vermont is about five miles upstream of the site. There are no residences on the site, and the minimum distance from the reactor building to the boundary of the exclusion zone, as defined in 10 CFR 100, is 910 feet. The nearest town with a population of 25,000 or greater is Northampton, Massachusetts, about 30 miles to the south. Much of the land around the site is undeveloped. Most of the developed land is used for agriculture and dairy- ing, with houses seattered or grouped in small villages. Ap- pendix B appended hereto is a map showing the location of the site with respect to adjacent areas (FSAR 2.2). In July 1969 Vermont Yankee initiated a comprehensive environmental radiation surveillance program designed to monitor the atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic environ- ments in the vicinity of the station. This program was de- veloped in cooperation with the Vermont State Department of Health and reviewed by the Vermont Water Resources Board. 402 It is Vermont Yankee’s intent that the environmental sur- veillance program will be closely coordinated with condi- tions of station operation by systematically correlating in- formation developed through continuous in-plant monitor- ing, effluent release records and environmental sample col- lection and analysis. The primary purpose of the surveil- lance program is to make station management and the State Health Department aware of any conditions of station op- eration which may have a significant effect on the environ- ment. The operational surveillance program will be a graded program subject to periodic critical review (FSAR 2.6). Plant Design Bases Dependent Upon Plant Site and Environs Characteristics Information relating to the site and environs for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is presented in Section 2 of the FSAR. The design features which were dependent or affected by the site characteristics are sum- marized below. Condenser Off-Gas System The condenser off-gases will be discharged to the atmos- phere through decay piping and a stack 308 feet above grade. The off-gas system is used during normal operation. It is expected that the release of gaseous radioactivity will be kept within small fractions of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20 based on the use of the off-gas system. However, to further minimize the release of gaseous radioactive wastes, Vermont Yankee will modify the off-gas system to provide additional holdup and subsequent decay of air ejector off-gases. The design of this advanced off-gas sys- tem is currently underway and fabrication and installation npn: CCN [6h ow it oo = —_— - - 403 will be completed by the end of the first refueling outage (FSAR 9.4 and Appendix EF). Liquid Waste E fluents Liquid effluents will be released from the radwaste dilu- tion system at a point downstream of the aeration blocks in the station discharge structure. The liquid waste treatment system has been designed so that those liquid effluents which are released from the station are always well within the limits specified in 10 CFR 20. This is a batch-type sys- tem wherein the wastes are separately collected and pro- cessed based upon the most efficient methods. Batches of liquid radwaste are sampled and analyzed prior to dis- charge. If suitable for discharge, radwaste effluents are released at a rate such that the resultant concentration at the point of release will never exceed 10 CFR 20 nor the applicable state release limit. During each release, a con- tinuous radiation monitoring device is set to alarm upon excessive activity concentration in the radwaste discharge line. Discharge records are maintained for all station liquid radwaste effluents. Wind Loading Design Plant structures are designed to withstand the effects of 80 mph winds with gusts to 110 mph. Although the prob- ability of a tornado occurring at the Vermont Yankee site is small, all structures and equipment necessary to initiate and maintain a safe plant shutdown are designed to with- stand a tornado wind loading of 300 mph (FSAR 2.3 and 12.2). Hydrology The site is at mile 138.3 above the mouth of the Connecti- eut River on the west bank on the pond formed by the 404 Vernon Dam and Hydroelectric Station, The maximum recorded water level at Vernon was 231.4 feet mean sea level whieh oceurred during the flood of Mareh 19, 1936, The minimum elevation of access openings to buildings housing important equipment is 252.5 feet mean sea level, more than 20 feet above the maximum observed water level, An analysis of water levels resulting from the probable maximum flood, a postulated occurrence which is more severe than the most significant historical event, has been performed and shows that the station is suitably protected against the maximum probable flood (FSAR 24 and Ap- pendix 1), Geology The site area is overlaid by glacial deposits, with an average of JO feet of glacial overburden above the local bedrock. Major structures of the station, including the reactor building and turbine building, are supported on rock, Seismic velocity measurements at the site verified the hard massive nature of the bedrock and there were no indications of deeply weathered or faulted zones (FSAR 2.5). Seismic Design The maximum acceleration at the bedrock surface of the plant site from an earthquake is expected to be from 0.08¢ to 0.04g. Although this acceleration is considered to be con- servative, the seismic design for structures and equipment important to safety are based on dynamic analyses using acceleration response spectrum curves together with a ground motion of 0.07g. The station is also designed so that the plant can be shutdown in a safe and orderly manner even if the ground acceleration were 0.14g (FSAR 2.5 and 12.2). ~aeselUCU POU El Fh h6h]— OO Pee — ) %4N eAD0y (e) YOReIUGR 4 ond UM) Wy 19n4 peyerpers| _— (q) BUN > M7 O} 1eN4 YSel4 (e) Buu -_mtims Gn menses 1. sPenawesr as 6 WW 42 As discussed earlier, the environmental considerations relating to the construction and operation of the individual nuclear power plants, including transportation of radio- active materials to and from the power plant, are considered in detailed environmental statements in the separate licens- ing actions for each individual facility. The supporting manufacturing operations to the nuclear fuel eyele have been reviewed and those that have been judged to be relatively remote, indirect, and less signficant contributors to the environmental impact of the nuclear fuel eyele have not been included in this statement. Typical operations in this category include production of commer- cial reagents such as sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride, ammo- nia, nitric acid, ete. In many instances improvements in technology are avail- able and plans are underway for incorporating these ad- vanees into production facilities. However, the primary basis of the present survey is today’s industry with only minimal allowances for advances that may be accomplished in the future. In line with Commission practice, standards and criteria relating to fuel eyele facilities are continually evaluated and modified as appropriate to reflect experience, changing technology, and expansion of the industry. Thus, future environmental evaluations should also reflect contin- uing changes and advances as they affect the current mode and level of operations. | 3. Nuclear Industry Models (a) Model LWR A “model LWR” was developed to relate the environ- mental considerations of the supporting fuel evele to the annual operation of a nuclear power plant. In the development of this model, the requirements for each BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY O48 step of the fuel cycle have been reviewed for the current generation of 1000 MWe boiling water reactors (BWR) and pressurized water reactors (PWR). Both of these classes of LWR'’s utilize fuel in the form of sintered uranium dioxide pellets encapsulated in either stainless steel or zircaloy tubing. The maximum requirements in each step of the fuel cycle used to define the model LWR are listed in the first two columns of Table S-1 for both an initial core loading and an annual fuel re- load along with fuel performance parameters used to define fuel requirements. The useful life of LWR’s has been estimated at between 30-40 years. For purposes of this analysis, a 30-year life has been conservatively assumed in defining the “annual fuel requirement” for the model LWR. The model LWR annual fuel requirement is defined as the sum of one initial core loading plus 29 annual reloads, averaged over the 30-year life of the plant, and is listed for each step of the fuel cycle in the third column of Table S-1. In discussing the environmental consid- erations of the nuclear fuel evele steps in subsequent sections, resource use and effluent quantities have been related to this annual fuel requirement. 44 TABLE S-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL LWR (1000 MWe) MAXIMUM FUEL CYCLE REQUIREMENTS Average Annual Inrbal Annual F wei Core Rewad Requirement Irradiation level (MWD, /MTU) x 10-3 “4 33 33 Fresh fuel assay (wt U-235) 26 3.2 3.2 Spent fuel assay (wt% U-235) 0.76 0.84 0.84 Ore supply (MT) x10°3 332 82.5 91 Yellowcake U,0, supply (MT) 665 165 182 Natural UF, (MT) 840 200) 270 Separative work (MTSWU) 304 110 116 Enriched UF, (MT) 200 47 52 Enriched UO, (MT) 12 36 40 Fuel loading (MTU) 134 32 35 Bases MT = metric ton = 2205 Ibs. Reactor plant load factor — 80% MTU = metric ton uranium Enrichment tails assay — 0.25% MT SWU=separative work No plutonium recycle units in metric tons Reloads include recovered uranium Losses of 1% each in fuel fabrica- tion and reprocessing pDoioccn TWH crwircw ——_-- —_— +... 7) 545 (b) Model Fuel Cycle Facilities In some steps of the fuel ctcle, numerous plants utiliz- ing a wide variety of alternative processes and opera- tions are involved. To evaluate environmental! effects on a generic basis, a model fuel cyele facility for each component of the fuel eycle was defined. Where industry has used one predominant method or one type of facility, that method or facility has been defined as the model facility. Where a single predomi- nant operation has not been used, the mode of operation that imposes the most significant impact on the environ- ment has been selected as the model. In some cases, where the nature of the impact from two or more modes of operation differs significantly, the aggregate opera- tion of all plants, normalized to an appropriate annual capacity, has been selected as the model fuel cycle facilitv. The model fuel cycle facilities are not in- tended to represent particular plants. However, the models were selected to be representative of the indus- try and to lead to conservative or pessimistic assess- ments of the environmental considerations. In the case of mining, milling, fuel fabrication, and radioactive waste management, the above approach resulted in the adoption of representative individual facilities as the model facilities. The UF, production model is a composite of the total industry complex of two plants that are presently in operation. The iso- topic enrichment model is the total government-owned, contractor-operated complex of three plants as it essen- tially exists today. The reprocessing model is a com- posite of the total industry complex of three plants as they are planned for operation in the middle of this decade. Table S-2 gives the annual capacity of each 546 model fuel eycle facility and relates this capacity to the annual fuel requirement of the model LWR. TABLE 58-2 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CAPACITIES RELATIVE TO THE ANNUAL FUEL REQUIREMENTS OF A MODEL LWR Equivaient Number of Model LWR js ¢ oem Annual Fuel Capaaty Requirements Range Mode: Uranium Mine (MT ore) x 1073 250-750 480 5.3 Uranium Mill (MT U,0¢) 500-11009° 960 5.3 UF Production (MTU) 5000. 10,000 5000 27.5 Isotopic Enrichment (MTSWU) 6000-17000 10,500° 90 UO, Fuel Fabrication (MTU) 300-1000 900 26 Spent Fuel Reprocessing (MTU) 300-1500 900 26 * Current operating level of industry and assumed model plant capacity. ** Characteristic of about 70% of current facilities. The lifetime of each model fuel cycle facility was esti- mated to relate the land use to the model LWR annual fuel requirement. These estimates are generally 20 years which are on the low side of the expected life- times, so that the resulting land use numbers are con- servative. BLEED THROUGH DADS COPY 547 4. Approach to the Assessment of Environmental Considerations A detailed environmental review of an industrial process effluents involves the consideration of three components. These are (1) a source term or rate of effluent release, (2) a dilution term, or dispersion of the effluent throughout the medium under consideration, and (3) a population term, giving the distribution of human beings or biota affected by the efluent. To evaluate environmental impact, these factors must be combined. In this broad survey of environmental considerations, the nuclear fuel cycle is treated on a generic basis. This ap- proach permits an overview of the entire industry without keying the study to particular plants and manufacturers. In order to compensate for the lack of specific detail, effluent concentrations, radiation dose rates, and human population densities appropriate to the model fuel evele facilities are estimated in each section. Whenever possible, the environmental considerations have been related to the annual operation of a model LWR. This has been accomplished by normalizing the land use, water use, fossil fuel use, and effluent releases (including chemical, radiological, and thermal) to the model LWR an- nual fuel requirement, defined above in part 3.a of this section. The summary tables in each section, and the main summary table in this section, present the environmental considerations on this normalized basis. It is recognized that the considerations presented in the summary tables may not adequately express the actual en- vironmental impact of the fuel cycle. Accordingly, this in- formation has been supplemented with concentrations and dose rates and compared with applicable and available 548 standards.' These additional considerations are presented in the summary text in each section, as well as in the sum- mary text in part 5 of this Section. Whereas the informa- tion presented in the summary table is normalized to the annual operation of a model LWR, it is unrealistic to ex- press concentrations, dose rates, and postulated accident effects on this basis. Accordingly, these considerations are based upon the nominal operation of the model fuel cycle facilities. Estimates of effluent concentrations and radiation doses at the site boundaries of the model fuel evele facilities are based upon experimental data or calculated values. Where measurements are available these data have been used. In most cases, however, it has been necessary to calculate these quantities, based upon estimated release rates and a model for dispersion. For the fuel reprocessing step, de- tailed analyses have been made of atmospheric dispersion in conjunction with the NEPA review and the preparation of the detailed environmental statement for specific plants. Therefore for that step in the nuclear fuel cycle the diseus- sion is based upon actual meteorological conditions at the specific sites. For other components of the fuel evele, for which no such data were available, an atmospheric disper- sion model suitable for reactor accident analyses has been employed. This model utilizes X ‘Q values which are 1/10 of those given in AEC Safety Gnide No. 3,2 as recom. mended for realistic environmental evaluation in proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR 50 ‘Most commonly used Federal, State and international standards were utilized for both radiological and non-radiological effluents. ° 4-30 day release curves in Safety Guide 3, Assumptions Used for FEval- nating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Acei- dent for Boiling Water Reactors, (SAEC, 2 Nov. 1970. * Consideration of accidents in Implementation of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969; Proposed Annex to Appendix D, 10 CFR 50; 1 December 1971. BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY 549 Where measured or estimated concentrations of chemi- cals in surface waters were available, these concentrations have been compared with the recommended criteria con- tained in the Water Quality Criteria “Green Book.” This volume represents the most comprehensive document on water quality requirements, and is used as a basic reference by agencies engaged in water quality standards setting ac- tivities. The recommended criteria are for source water which is to be subjected to normal water supply treatment prior to consumption as drinking water. Airborne effluent concentrations have been compared with current EPA National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards,’ where these are available. Secondary stan- dards are designed to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of air pollutants in the ambient air. For sulfur oxides, the secondary standard is 0.02 ppm, annual arith- metic mean, and for nitrogen dioxide it is 0.05 ppm annual arithmetic mean. It is important to note that the discussion of environ- mental considerations in this document is confined to off- site effects ; occupational health and safety of on-site work- ers are given major consideration by the AEC in detailed safety licensing reviews for individual facilities. 5. Summary of Environmental Considerations The principal environmental! considerations for each com- ponent of the nuclear fuel cycle, and the aggregate con- * Water Quality Criteria; Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior; U. S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration; Washington, D. C., April 1, 1968. * National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, pub- lished by the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 84, April 30, 1971. 550 siderations, normalized to the annual fuel requirement of a 1000 MWe model LWR, are summarized for the nuclear fuel cycle in Table S-3. Table S-3A similarly summarizes the considerations for each step in the nuclear fud cyele. (a) Use of Natural Resources (1) Land The temporary land commitment amounts to 63 acres per annual fuel requirement for the model IL.WR. More than 70% of this land is an undis- turbed area or which maybe withdrawn by fencing from active use by human habitation. “he fene- ing also restricts migration of large animals. Ap- proximately 18 acres are transformed fiom their original state by the construction of facilities. Less than 5 acres of land are permaneatly com- mitted to the production of the annua! fuel re- quirement for a model LWR. At any time, the total temporary land commit- ment required by the fuel eyele to support a 1000 MWe LWR is about 750 acres. The tots] perma- nent land commitment, assuming a 30-year reactor life is about 140 acres. To cast the land requirements into furher per- spective, a coal-fired power plant of 100 MWe capacity requires the disturbance of appreximately 200 acres per vear for strip mining alone. The disturbed area for the nuclear fuel cycle amounts to approximately 18 acres per annual fue require- ment of a model LWR, which is less than 10% of the equivalent annual coal mining land commit- ment or equivalent to a 90 MWe coal-fired power- plant fuel requirement. BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY yndyno ABi9Ue YAN] OM OOO'T POU Jo wZO> £01 (o-OL ¥ Jos) sed juanqey yuu demod pouy “T8Oo OMA SFY JO UoRdusUOD aq) O) JUePRAInby git ‘e-O1 * LIQ) [800 yuejearnby wdINO YA] PAW OOO'L [POUT Jo 4 > Lig (e-O1 ¥ AYUMI) ABs0u9 peorsqooig ‘Ta04 “USs04 Bul joo . yBNALYI-20UO YL YAY’ PALIN OOO'L [POU Jo 45> = — &ZI punad oO} pasavqosy | ZS0'11 SHPO open OF paBByostc] 49M0) BUTYOOD YM YM] OMIA OO0'L [PPOU Jo 27~ egl 418 0} podawyosy(| ™ (o-O1 X SUO|jS) wary 8 jueid tamed posy{Poo oA IE OG OF JUOTRAInbYy Lz 9 OL*® LA) pesow uepanqgieayy oF po WWOS AUIURULIAY yuBld Jamod pary-[HOo + WX OG OF JUerwarnby 8! BAW poqanysi(] oF Ve peqsnystpy,) £9 parrummos ApuBod way (88198) GNV'] as.) ae. OMG TWIN 3m) SMR 0001 eo eo, Wwewes DEY OF 4 eEMULY 18d Dey] WOwE (Mowssnbey jony jeRUUy YA] [PPO] OF PeTTPeULION ) 24) PNY sepOA 404 sUO|eLapHsUO) ;eyUsMUOZAUY yo Coeur, Ss TMVL 952 ‘weo00ad paw on sud peunqwu wor Wry, “UONBIVIUAD dawod 40} [Woo yusTVAINbs Jo UORSNqWios UOdn pesYg s,UaN We paywUuIE] , -eiti- x | 8}2 OZ “ON r0 24 83° 009 "HIN ol “HN ae Joye gel +¥N uORnIpP JO MOY ey) PUB uotNn;IpP aambes yu) zs i SUIN SUD OY] | SPUPURS aqrestuLied mopeq tec 48 S[PA9] OF J9UBM JO BOIPOd DUlAtsoo Aq UworpNyTp ro eplon| [PUCK PPE arts PUL SUOTPRAJUSOUOS ayNyIP Ut 9% ®ON juss Be JooOye [RpUUIUO’I AUS MIGAPH 205 PwTy sg ¢ - tos “uajod &@ oNIWRUOS yey) SyueUOdWO,) ‘Ssdoy Fur spinbry] ‘mooidal pus ‘UOT}WOLEqR) Jony ‘jueUTyOIIUe Woly ‘ya[wey URWNY UO sega s¥Yy yey) ) [PA] MOfOQ-SPLepurys ajeys jo ours UNM oUO,) LO — = MH MYL SNIpws arur-g¢ UI Uoeindod Jo; Wes-uvUI FF st BOP Apoq 994.4 —— syuuid Sumeooidas jong wos ayes sop [ehUUY WKUIXeyY — situ wos Aypedmwuug ‘yuewUOILAUS OF Suaniye JUwOYyIUss ou — SIT WOLy A]yedroULLY “quaUTUOITA Ue OF] SpueNwe juvOYyTUsS ou — Ajuo si Woy 6M) OM 0001 ” womasnbey jon 4 jenuvy 16d poy] anwuey ; [ $00'0 sorUwINSUBL | ot sONpoLg UO | { 20 ell Ose (e-O1*) $84M . LST (e-O1 *) umnuy 9600 winrue) po OST ws 922-"Y ts 22o-UY (UsWUTRI Ue BUIpNjoul) sewer) (S2LUNd) TVOIDOIOIGVY — SLNEI 44g 000' 16 sprog Oz (¢-O1 ¥) suoKgnypog sBurrey me (aomesnbey jong fenuTy YA] POW OF PeztTeus0y ) 2Ph) PNY AeepNA 404 sUONBsspIsUO) [wJUsMUOZIAUY JO CawuUNy (402) — &S TMV —_ a > es A eee eo 2S ‘UM’ OMA 000'T [Ppow jo %) > OLEE (6-01 X 1g) IWewany JUPWUOTIAUY JY) OF JUSNYge JUBOYIUTIS OU j9Ae] YY UVYyY sayIED “punoud Of pouinjes sBul/1e) ul pepujour-s[jru Wo 4 00s! ( PeLINg ) sprjog ‘UM’ [Ppow 40; shUsWaIINbes jany jenuue oe (e-O1 =) wmmmeg 9 JO Buywwooordad (¥y0} 405 OZ YAO O1 5° %F> . e018 “ORBUI0UOD WWRWIXeU-sjUBid Burmeooddes wos 4 j ‘UM’ [Ppoul 40) syueuarmbes any [wnUUY gz FuIBIDOId [I0} 405 OZ YAO OL JO ve — ieee %OL> BHC U2s.U0O-UBId UONBLqEs [any Woy - ‘wyusuiainbes jong jwnuue 120 oez-u, UM'T POU GLZ JO Surmmoooad pwyoy 205 OZ YAO 1200 poe OL 3° %¢> UoRNIQUI.UC2-UORHINpod %4y Wor -— WOWUOIIAU® UO eyo OU ‘aIOjaseyy ‘uenye OU — punads 0, pewinjar puv sonbry 2 siajysnep yY wns) sure, Ul pepnpur— Suyjyu wor 170 OE Loo _ . . L700 966-8 re - a wo wo ee0 a soyyonu, y wanes} sprnbuy £000 - — 1000 om _ _ soluBsnsues | ol —_ — ol ™ — - - Spoupoid UOLSSI c00 . - goo : -_ etl 200°0 - — Zo000 — : bell Ost — = Ot — : ; (¢-O1 *) C84M Le -- rel — —_ : (s-O1 ¥) Way 9F0 0 —_ —“ = cOOOO ZOU rl0o 86800 wniues } 200 -- _ — - 00 O&A c00 = eo = ree 900 FH es + : pate - te cco UN (}UCWUTRIYU FUIpNpout) seses) (s91an)) Daboynpuy "aaa aw a (p.juoo) syuondg be ate aos ss aes a] 3 4 3 Q 2 a v Wuawasnbey Png fOUuaY YA] POW OF PeztTeULs0EN apt) PRY seep, 404 sUOTesepIsUO ) feEyUsUOsTAUY Jo Caeuny (pawo2) — Ves WHIVL _ nor hv lvoe Ae 8 OF (2) Water Water is used in the nuclear fuel cycle both as a coolant and for process requirements. Water uses have been grouped into three categories based upon the method of return of the water to the bio- sphere. Water is evaporated into the air, dis- charged into water bodies or is returned to the ground. The largest quantity of water involved is the 11 billion gallons required to remove the waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of the nuclear fuel cycle in the production of an annual fuel require- ment. Assuming once-through cooling at these power stations, all of this water is returned to sur- face water bodies. An additional 338 million gal- lons of water are directly involved at the fuel cycle plants for cooling, process, and dewatering re- quirements, totaling 11.3 billion gallons of water moved in producing the annual fuel requirement for the model LWR. In order to remove the waste heat from a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant on a once-through basis, approximately 300-400 billion gallons of water are pumped annually. Thus, the total demand for water in the components of the nuclear fuel cycle constitutes less than 4% of the water requirement of a 1000 MWe LWR. The largest single direct dissipation of water by evaporation in the nuclear fuel cycle is for process cooling in the enrichment step. The gaseous diffu- sion plants evaporate approximately 90 million gallons of water to the atmosphere per model BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY (3) 999 LWR annual fuel requirement. This constitutes approximately 55% of the 163 million gallons of water discharged to the atmosphere in the nuclear fuel cycle. As a point of reference, a 1000 MWe LWR utilizing cooling towers would evaporate ap- proximately 7 billion gallons of water per year to the atmosphere or more than 40 times the evapora- tive use of water by the nuclear fuel cycle to pro- duce the fuel for a year’s operation. The requirement for uranium mine drainage moves over 120 million gallons of water per model LWR annual fuel requirement. However, minimum de- pletion is involved, since the water is pumped from the bottom of the mine pit to the ground surface for return to ground water at some other location with some being returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. Other The uranium enrichment component of the nuclear fuel cycle requires over 98% of the electrical energy required by the fuel cycle. The total elec- trical requirements are 317 x 10° MW-hr for the annual fuel requirement of a model LWR. A 1000 MWe LWR would produce 7 million MW-hr in annual operation at a load factor of 80%. Thus the electrical requirements of the nuclear fuel cycle to produce fuel for this reactor are less than 5% of the energy produced by the reactor in a year’s operation. At present most of the electricity generated in the United States is produced in plants that burn fos- sil fuels. Assuming that coal comprises the bulk of fossil fuel utilization, the electrical energy require- ments of the fuel cycle correspond to the consump- tion of 116 x 108 MT of coal. A 1000 MWe coal- fired station consumes approximately 2540 x 10% MT of coal annually. Thus, the nuclear fuel cycle for a model 1000 MWe LWR consumes about the quantity of coal required for a 45 MWe fossil- fueled plant. Additionally, approximately 100 x 10° sef of nat- ural gas are consumed for process heat, most of which is used in the milling operation. This quan- tity of natural gas could be used to generate roughly 10,000 MW-hr of electricity, which is less than 0.2% of annual output of the model LWR. (b) Effiuents (1) Chemical (i) Gaseous At present, most of the power plants that supply electricity to the fuel eyele operations burn coal. Consequently, the combustion prod- ucts of coal comprise nearly all of the air- borne chemical effluents attributable to the fuel eyele and approximate the effects from the operation of a 45 MWe coal-fired power plant for a vear. The main contributor to these gaseous effluents is the uranium enrich- ment step, which consumes over 98% of the electrical energy required by the fuel cycle. The existing plants draw power from the grids of large utilities ; thus, no single power supply source ean be identified with the gaseous efflu- ents. To the extent that power is supplied by nuclear power plants, the total quantity of sul- BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY SS 561 fur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and airborne particulates would be greatly reduced. Fluorine is introduced into the fuel cycle dur- ing the UF. production step and is removed from the fuel material in the fuel fabrication step. As a result, fluorine becomes an airborne effluent from several steps of the nuclear fuel eyele. Although most of the fluorine gaseous wastes are effectively removed by scrubber treatment systems, approximately 0.7 MT per model LWR annual fuel requirement is re- leased to the environment as an airborne con- taminant. To put this quantity into perspec- tive, the estimated fluoride emissions from four major industries are given in Table S-4. TABLE S4 ESTIMATED FLUORIDE EMISSIONS FROM MAJOR U. S. INDUSTRIES Source Emissions MT /yr. Phosphate Industry 17,000 (principally fertilizer manufacture) Aluminum Manufacture 15,000 Steel Manufacture 39,000 Brick, tile, glass manufacture 19,000 VOTAL 90,000 Assuming a nuclear power generation indus- try of 140 model LWR’s by 1980, approxi- 062 mately 100 MT of gaseous fluorides would be released annually by the entire nuclear indus- try at that time. This constitutes about 0.1% of the total annual quantity of fluoride emis- sions from the total of the industries noted in Table S-4. Despite the trivial nature of this effluent in comparison with other major industries, the airborne fluoride release from the nuclear fuel cycle could constitute a potential for adverse environmental impact. Measurements or cal- culations of airborne fluoride concentrations at the site boundaries of specific plants fall within the range of 0.005-2.0 »g/in3. For per- spective, these concentrations are well below the level of observed adverse effects on human health, and they span the range of existing state standards.* State standards are used for comparison because there are no applicable Federal Standards. At uranium mills and UF. production plant sites, the combustion of natural gas for proc- ess heat is a source of nitrogen oxide release to the environment. Dispersion calculations indicate that annual mean NO, concentrations are within the EPA air quality standards of 100 »g/m’. That standard, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is adequate to protect the publie welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of oxides of nitrogen in ambient air. * State of Washington : 0.5 ug/m* State of Pennsylvania: 5.0 ug/m* BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY a on ea eo te 563 (ii) Liquid The largest quantity of liquid effluents, 240 x 108 MT of waste solutions per annual fuel re- quirement, contains sulfuric acid and other spent chemicals from the milling processes. This waste liquor, however, is discharged to the tailings pond, and since it does not nor- mally contaminate unrestricted ground or sur- face bodies of water, it does not actually become an effluent stream. Significant quantities of a number of chemi- cals are discharged in liquid effluents from the enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing steps. The concentrations of fluorides, ni- trates, and ammonia contained in the liquid waste streams from the model fuel fabrication plant are a possible source of adverse environ- mental effect. Dilution of these constituents by the receiving body of water by 1-3 orders of magnitude may be required to achieve drinking water source quality, depending upon the flow rate of the receiving body of water, its upstream quality and its downstream use. Efforts are in progress to minimize these re- leases from existing plants. The liquid effluent quantities from enrichment appear large but generally are of chemicals that do not constitute a potential for adverse environmental effect and are at much lower concentrations. The enrichment step contrib- utes the largest total quantity of liquid con- taminants, but the concentrations of potential contaminants in the effluent streams are gen- erally within the range of permissible stan- 64 dards.’ Additional dilution by about 700 times by the receiving body of water dereases the concentrations well below acceptable levels. The release of hexavalent chromiun, although small in quantity ( oe : ee 1 ET: em eer — > = sa 573 In addition to requirements for care in design, construc- tion, and operations of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, each licensee is required to report incidents to the cognizant AEC Regulatory Operations office which either have or threaten to cause any of the following types of events: (i) Radiation exposure of individuals beyond stated limits. (ii) Release of radioactive materials in daily averaged concentrations of more than 500 times limits speci- fied in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II. (iii) A loss of operations of any affected facility for a period of greater than one day. (iv) Damage to property of over $1000. The information in these reports is used as a basis for corrective action to prevent similar events from occurring in existing plants and is taken into account in the licensing actions on new or modified facilities of a similar nature. Such information is also evaluated to determine the need for new or modified standards and criteria. The effectiveness of these measures to date is borne out by the fact that the incidents which have occurred in fuel evele facilities in this country to date have neither resulted in significant injury nor endangered the health of any indi- vidual in the general public. Nevertheless, for each li- censed operation of the fuel eyele, a serie. of potential acci- dents with environmental effects judged to range from trivial to serious have been postulated and evaluated in the safety analysis that is performed before the individual facility license is issued. Records to date indicate few if any of the routine type accidents involving special nuclear material have had any measurable effects on the environ- ment. Thus, the review of accidents for this statement has Ni irrsenenscenninsaniennasiscnendaietanthiosl _- _—-. om ee ~* ~ a an . NE EE ae ee 623 result from nuclear fuel cycle operations, there is essentially no heat release to the environment from these wastes. The storage of packages containing solid high-level wastes at an engineered facility will result in the release of a small amount of heat. The wastes in each package (about 10 cubic feet) will generate about 2-5 kw of heat, depending on the elapsed time since the material was first created in the re- actor.” During transfer and storage of packages in the facility, some heat transfe medium will be used to dissipate the heat from the sealed con- tainers. (ec) Accident Effects There have been no accidents at burial grounds under Federal or State jurisdictions that resulted in offsite envi- ronmental effects. Some minor accidents have occurred in- volving materials not utilized in any fuel evele. Accidental opening of an other than high-level waste package prior to burial and release of the package contents could oceur, however, at a commercial land burial facility. Normally the seattered waste materials would be confined to the feneed facility and the impact on the environment would he negligible. However, even if it is assumed that as much as 14 of the waste contained in a 55-gallon drum is released to the unrestricted area, the effect on the environment would be insignifieant. The volume of a 55-gallon drum is approxi- mately 2x10 eubie centimeters. Using the assumption made previously of a waste concentration of 0.025 micro- curie per gram and density of 1 g/ce, the total amount of radioactivity involved is about 1.7 millieuries. If the waste were uniformally dispersed over an area of one acre, the 624 concentration of the radioactive material would be about 0.04 microcurie per square foot or 4x 10-5 microcurie per square centimeter. Dispersion over a greater area would result in a proportionally lower concentration. Much of the dispersed material would be in the vicinity of the site which is normally uninhabited and unused. Recovery of the bulk of the scattered waste could easily be accomplished. Radia- tion surveys could be made and the area decontaminated. With respect to the engineered structure facility for high- level wastes, the major credible accident would be loss of cooling with concomitant heating and possible failure of the package in which solid high-level waste is contained. The facility will be designed to protect against this type of acci- dent. The facility will be designed to withstand all credible natural forces and man-created accidents so there will be no release of radioactive material outside the facility. The high-level solid wastes are immobile, stable material, sealed in containers. The presence of trace amounts of radioactiv- ity in the cooling media would identify the failure of a waste container. The cooling media will be routinely monitored and treated to preclude any release of radioactivity to the environment. A failed waste container would be repackaged. [ta ae ae a ele ee 2 ——_ -- — a on Se ee me - me Me oe 676 presentations will by comparison be quite small. We are trying to do the overall picture. (iiven that, the representatives of the vendors of the industry and of the Commission, to some extent are on the opposite side and don’t think that the request for 160 minutes is particularly unreasonable to get a full presenta- tion of our needs. Finally, we are under the impression Mr. Smiley ad- vised me of — CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Beg pardon? MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Smiley advised me, I spoke with him on the phone, the hearing had been reserved for seven hearing days — two the first week and five’the second. Based upon that, it would seem for the number of parti- cipants we do have enough time even if we stay within the outer bounds. Maybe that was the Commission’s conserva- tive assumption regarding the length of the hearing and they perhaps — we represent the unanticipated event. [29] In any case, we feel that the time we requested will be essential to ake a meaningful participation and hope that the Board will give it serious consideration. Thank vou. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Mr. Roisman. | might comment by way of a footnote that as far as the Board members are concerned, we had not attempted to make an estimate of the length of the hearing, awaiting the very purpose of this planning session so we could get some idea of the parameters of the proceeding. | have no present idea how long we will need. T am following the mandate of the Commission that this should he an expeditions hearing albeit an informal one. 677 I thank you for your statement, Mr. Roisman. We will certainly give it very serious consideration. Do the Board members have any questions of Mr. Rois- man at this stage, because it is a little unusual, if the other participants will permit me, because of the rather unique nature of Mr. Roisman’s comments now as contrasted with the others? At this stage, the Board members would like to ask questions, or would you prefer to go through the list and come back up? DR. GEYER: I would like to suggest to Mr. Roisman that it might be helpful if he would give us a list [30] of the people he is representing. We had that in other hearings, but I think it would be nice to have it here. MR. ROISMAN: You mean the list of participants in the National Intervenors? DR. GEYER: Yes. MR. ROISMAN: I will be glad to provide that to the Board and we will do it in a number of days. DR. GEYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: May we now continue? Next on the list is Westinghouse Electric Corporation. MR. LINDLEY: I am Peter Lindley of Westinghouse. Westinghouse would like the opportunity to enter a brief oral statement, probably 15 to 30 minutes in length. This staement will concentrate in the main on the areas of the fuel eveling which we are interested in, but we would like to offer comments upon the alternatives before the Board. 678 Our presentation — we — will be given by Mr. W. J. Dollard, General Manager of the Nuclear Fuel Division. But we would like the opportunity, if necessary, because of his schedule to put — to have the statement made by some other designated person. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: That would be acceptable. Thank you, sir. [31] Next on the list is the Edison Electric Institute, but my recollection is that Mr. Upton indicated you would cover that? You would cover for them? MR. UPTON: Yes. I have already covered the extent of the participation. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you. Next is — with the new name being changed throughout the country, Exxon Nuelear Company. Did you bring the tiger? MR. NELSON: Lam Roy Nelson. We will file a written statement with possible oral statement that will take five minutes. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: You said possible oral state- ivent. You don’t know at this stage? MR. NELSON: I don’t know at this stage. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Is there some way the Board can know whether or not you want oral time allocated? MR. NELSON: We will let you know in a few days. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Fine. Thank you very mueh. I have the electrie utility group by Mr. Freeman. MR. FREEMAN: I am George C. Freeman, Jr., with the law firm of Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Virginia. I am appearing for the following electric utilities. 679 and also the counsel listed in our notice of appearance which I will not repeat at this time: [32] Baltimore Gas & Electric Company. I might indicate, though, Mr. Robert Buchanan of the legal department of Baltimore Gas & Electrie Company is with us foday. Boston Edison Company. Consumers Power Company. General Publie Utilities Corporation. Long Island Lighting Company. New England Electrie System. Northeast Utilities Company — CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Excuse me. May I interrupt you? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Did we have the listing wrong? You call it New England — we have New England Power Service Company. Is that different from the one you just read? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. It should be listed as New England Eleetrie System. Northeast Utilities Company. Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Philadelphia Eleetrie Company. | might indicate that Public Service Company of New Hampshire has indicated that they will not participate in this rulemaking, and therefore they ask their name be deleted. But continuing the utilities that we are here represent- ing — Public Service Electric & Gas Company. [33] San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Southern California Edison Company. Virginia Electric & Power Company. Yankee Atomic Electrie Company. On behalf of these companies, we have already submitted written comments for the record. We would like to reserve, if possible, 30 minutes of time. We would hope that we would be permitted to come before the last of the persons commenting for the following reasons: First, we would not repeat in any oral statement the details of our written comments. We would, however, like to be available to briefly summarize our preference for alternative two and to answer any questions the Board might have of these utilities with regard to that preference. Second, we are concerned, vitally concerned, with the interface between this rulemaking and the proposed rule and individual licensing cases. The issue of the relationship of this proceeding and the survey and individual licensing cases has been raised in several pending licensing cases for members of our group. Finally, we would like to be able to perhaps respond and comment on crucial technical questions which might particularly affect the utility industry as they may be raised in the comments of others preceding us in the [34] proceedings. We would estimate at a maximum 30 minutes that would be required for that purpose, and if, indeed, when the time came we felt it would not be in the public interest or onr clients’ interest or to the Board’s interest to take that time, we would, of course, not do so. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Mr. Freeman. 681 The S. M. Stoller Corporation? I recall now Mr. Stoller called our office and indicated that he would not have someone present — Dr. Leonard Geller? DR. GELLER: I am here. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: May I tell Dr. Geller what's involved? We are calling the list of participants and asking them to indicate whether they will want to make oral presenta- tion in addition to the written submission; if so, what areas will be covered and how much time they will need. Can you— catch your breath — say something? DR. GELLER: I would say five to 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: What areas do you think you will cover? DR. GELLER: I don’t know vet. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you very much. For your benefit, sir, there is a transcript being made of this planning session so that you can find out what went on before you arrived, [35] The New York State Atomie Energy Council? Anyone here on their behalf? (No response. ) Consolidated Edison has indicated they will file a state- ment and not requested — MR. UPTON: Mr. Chairman, Consolidated Edison is one of the group on behalf of which I filed a statement. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: I hope you have a_ better chance at keeping track of your clients than I am. (Laughter.) Thank you, sir. New York Public Service Commission? (No response. ) The Natural Resources Defense Council, is that — that’s the group I told you about that asked for the extension of time. Gulf United Nuclear Fuels has indicated they will only file a statement. And Franklin L. Gage has filed a statement and I don’t know whether or not he’s indicated he wishes to appear. 1 won't take up the time of the group. We will look into the question of whether or not his letter indicated he will need time. If he does, we will schedule him accordingly. Now are there any questions from the participants up to this point as to the procedures which will be followed? [36] MR. FREEMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Yes, Mr. Freeman? MR. FREEMAN: I take it under the procedures which will be followed here that there will not be the usual service of various statements, motions, and papers, on counsel for the various participants; that that is not in the overall format. I would like to ask an —ask as a matter of cour- tesy among counsel that are here that we agree on such an understanding, and I, for my part, would he delighted to furnish copies of any materials which we filed on behalf of the 14 utilities which we are representing, and would 683 appreciate copies being sent to us. I think it—as far as the Staff were concerned, they intend to do that. MR. MURRAY: Yes, that’s right. MR. FREEMAN: I think it would be very helpful for all of us, though, if we could, because to the extent we would make oral statements, having material in advance would be of assistance and save the time of everyone. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Does the Staff have a view on that? MR. MURRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We fully intend, as Mr. Freeman anticipates, to make available everything we have in writing in this whole area to every participant who indicates an interest in receiving this material. We are assuming anyone who is on this list that we have before us [37] has indicated such an interest. We think it is a good idea. We don’t wish to impose that view on anybody. It is not formally within the preseribed format for the pro- ceeding, but we certainly will follow it ourselves, and we are glad to hear that the utilities will be following it. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: You will do so in advance? MR. MURRAY: Oh, ves. As soon as they are available. [38] DR. GEYER: Will you provide a list of the people whom you are sending the material to, the other partici- pants? MR. MURRAY: Dr. Geyer, I am using the Chairman’s list. DR. GEYER: Mr. Murray indicates he will be sending it to everybody on this list. MR. UPTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Chairman’s list has to he revised in part. ee RN es ee ee EE ORE ee Fe EE EY eee ke ee eee ~ 684 CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Yes, we are going to take the transcript and revise the list. MR. UPTON: I can’t imagine why all the lawyers in- volved — | hope the lawyers won't assume too much of a role in this proceeding. I feel this is very much like — it is a legislative type hearing and | think there’s a difference in my role as a lawyer and — in a legislative type hearing when | accompany a client who is going to testify before a congressional committee and my role as a lawyer when I am handling a licensing proceeding or a court case. The two roles of course are very different. In the con- gressional committee situation, the lawyer's role willingly or unwillingly is somewhat more muted, and that’s some- what the way I see the lawyer's role in this proceeding. Certainly we are delighted to send copies of anything that we file either on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute or the eight organizations that | named to everyone else who [39] appears on this list. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you. MR. ROISMAN: I am all in favor of Mr, Freeman's suggestion but | wonder if the staff would make available a list of the addresses on it so that we could make the services to the appropriate people and also where there are multiple people listed — for instance | notice here that individuals are listed who are with the individual com- panies or concerns and are not in Washington, but they are today represented by counsel from Washington. If service is preferred on one or the other, maybe they could indicate an address to which those documents could be served. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: I think that’s a useful sug- gestion. el eee eel i i | 685 Mr. Murray, would it be possible for us to get together an exact and accurate list with the names of people and addresses to whom they should be sent? I think it would be useful to us as well. MR. MURRAY: Lam sure we could do that, Mr. Chair- man. When I said I am using the Chairman’s list, I per- haps was aware of the fact that the Chairman, I believe you indicated — CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Is an informal list. MR. MURRAY: — had developed it based on the [40] filings that the AEC secretariat office had, and of course these filings have addresses on them. I think they were left off here because they weren’t ger- mane for this purpose. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Also made up from some sig- natures that were nog legible by the way. (Laughter. ) I think perhaps, Mr. Murray, it would be useful once we make up such a list to distribute it to the participants. MR. MURRAY: We will do that. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you. MR. GLEASON: In response to vour statement before, about the oral statement, | should point out that the forum does intend to file extensive written comments on this sur- vey. However, we did not file them by January 15th as was set out in the written notice and it is doubtful that we will file them by February Ist and the reason for that is the seope of our review. We simply could not be concluded within that time frame so that it may be that when we make our oral statement, we will still not have written our extended written comment; they will not have been submitted to you. We would attempt not to repeat or to duplicate things which would be more appropriate in written comments. [41] The fact is you probably will not have our written com- ments by that time and that may present somewhat of a difficulty in the Board understanding what our position is: and for that reason, it may require a little bit more time to explain it than if we had had the time to file the written statements and the Board had had the opportunity to read it ahead of time. | regret that is the situation. It is not as a result of in- tentional procrastination on our part. It is the result of the extensive review that we are subjecting the environ- mental survey to, CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Mr. Gleason, may | make this request of my fellow Board members? Would it be pos- sible for vou—TI understand what vou are telling us — would it be possible for vou to make some efforts to be of assistance to the Board in this advance preparation because again the only questioning will be by the Board. Mr. Roisman, in making his statement this morning, in- dicated with some specificity the areas that would be dealt with in their presentation. Would it be possible for vou to do that? Do the Board members think that would he - useful? (Loard conference. ) DR. GEYER: 1 think so. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: The Board seems to think that would be useful. Would it be possible for you to give us that assistance? me ew mee ee — ee —— 687 [42] MR. GLEASON: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to do that today. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Not today. T am saving before February Ist. MR. GLEASON: Before February Ist I will. T ean give you a general outline right now whieh I attempted to do before. We will concentrate in our statement on an analysis of the substance of the environmental survey. We think that there are areas that we would like to touch on with respect to the accuracy of some of the material, with respect to the seope of the doeument, with respect to some of the methodological approaches, so that we think that the evaluation of the survey will be in some depth. That would constitute the bulk of our presentation. We would like to address ourselves also to the alternative rules, but that will be done in a more general fashion. [ believe Mr. Roisman indicated that their written com- ments would not be submitted until some time after their oral presentation and within the 30-day period thereafter. We would intend to file ours as soon as possible, perhaps prior to February Ist if it is feasible so that you will have the benefit of the comments as soon as possible. Nevertheless, T think we find ourselves somewhat in the same situation with respect to being able to make an oral [43] statement which will he helpful to the Board, CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Dr. Steindler? DR. STEINDLER: T wonder if | might address my- self to that comment and to the one Mr. Roisman made AQ CRAIN AA atoms a Re = AE OT te IE NS _ ee A TTR ~ es memes arg and also one of the gentlemen | think from Westinghouse indicated that the statement may be made by an alternate. One of the things we are interested in is being able to examine the statements presumably on the basis of tech- nical detail, and the alternate in particular; and | can appreciate the problem he might well have, and the prin- cipal speakers in general, | trust will be capable of field- ing questions on the substance of their presentation in such a way as to allow us to examine those areas in which there is either serious disagreement or challenge or some such so that we don't end up with unchallengeable or un- explainable statements that kind of sit in the record and that we can't really use; the intent being here obviously to provide for as much information for the Commission as we can possibly get, in summary, then, what | am looking for is those people who present technical discussions, either a eritique of the environmental statement as issued or a supplemental state- ment that deals with that topie should be prepared, it seems to me, to be technically competent in the area—at least to the point of being able to answer questions. (44) The other comment L would like to make is that in all instances it seems to me appropriate that the presenta- tions, particularly the oral ones, should focus as closely as possible on the content of the Federal Register notice and continue to foeus on the questions that are really before the House; and if we can continue to bring back all of the discussion to the main central issues, then | think we can provide for the Commission a useful transeript they can use in their subsequent deliberations. [45 CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Dr. Steindler. Did you have any comment? The gentleman there? SE GE ERIE ave 689 MR. RESTRICK: It appears to us it may be difficult for the Board to file—to ask questions where the people are filing written statements after the Board is over. Is it intended by the Board they would file written questions with people on the supplemental statements et cetera? Or are they going to go in as filed? CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: We have not addressed that question specifically. I know it is certainly not my present intention to keep the record open in the matter. I think it would depend upon how the reeord develops. I regret that I can’t give vou a specific answer right now. MR. RESTRICK: It appears two major groups will not be filing detailed comments until after the hearing. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: That is true and it does pre- sent some difficulty. It may be that a further session may have to be held. I just don’t knov at this stage. How do my brethren feel about it? DR. GEYER: Well, it seems to me that if we could have something from the Atomie Industrial Forum prior to their oral comments, jt might help us in discussing the problems they are having. MR. GLEASON: Dr. Geyer, we will submit as much as we can to the Board prior to the commencement of the hearing [46] and if that is no more than a general outline of what we will cover, we will at least do that. We will make every effort to give you the benefit of our thinking prior to our oral statement. DR. STEINDLER: The present apparent lack of open- end time for submission of statements, I think, makes it even more important that the written comments are en- OR ee ei tirely self-explanatory and reasonably carefully edited so as to stand on their own feet. I think if that is done, as the Chairman pointed ont, the reeord itself may, in faet, be sufficient as it 1s submitted. MR. UPTON: Mr. Chairman, | am still not entirely clear about what is going to come first in connection with these statements and comments and | would just like to suggest to the Board the way it sort of runs in my mind and see if | am right or if the Board has some other idea in mind and so forth. It seems to me that, again T keep trving to think in the context of a Congressional committee hearing because that is the way I try to think in this kind of proceeding. Ordinarily when someone appears at a Congressional committee hearing they have to submit in writing the testimony they are going to give before they appear at the committee hearings. Sometimes they read the testimony which is usually pretty much a waste of time, | can assure you. And at other times they are allowed to summarize orally various aspects of the [47] testimony and point out other things that they think should be pointed out that didn’t appear in the testimony. Now, I don’t see why we can’t all be expected — and maybe I am taking this too lightly because at the moment I don’t expect to make any oral presentation at the hearing, but | don’t see why we can’t all follow that procedure here by submitting what | would call our position in chief in writ- ing before the hearing begins and then summarizing or clarifying or highlighting that written position while the hearing is being conducted, and then not trying to anticipate at that point what our response is going to be to what the position of all the other parties is, but trying to make those Re . a 691 responses after the hearing in the comments which every- one is permitted to file, written comments, after the hearing record is coneluded. What I am afraid of is if we don’t watch out we are going to wind up with a situation where everyone is jockey- ing for position to come last in appearing at the hearing because he wants to be sure he has got the last word on what the other fellow said. I would hope that could be avoided. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: I think those are significant comments and I thank you for them. In fact, they seem to be at base contemplated by the supplemental notice and | quote to you from the notice and this is the notice of December 27, | believe. Yes, the supplemental notice in which [48] the Commission contemplated that — and I am quoting, “Relevant written statements may be received for the record and those participating may, depending upon the niunber of requests received and the time available, be per- mitted to make brief oral statements of their views either in addition to or in lieu of written submissions.” Again going back to my opening remarks, it is my under- standing of the intention of the Commission that written comments on the survey, on the proposed amendments, to Wit the alternatives, were to be filed by January 15. It seems to me the Commission contemplated this would be a legislative type hearing, oral presentation, which would be in addition to the written submission and would permit the highlighting of the main points of the written submissions and permit the Board to question — in order to point up the issues. It is true we will be faced with the dilemma about the situation that von have described and Dr. Steindler has indicated one of the things that should be followed in making this a more meaningful and expeditious i EES ET ee EL ON ek et me record. It may be that the Board may find it necessary to prescribe that written submissions be put in before the oral hearing and then proceed the way the Commission wanted us to proceed. We will have to take that under advisement. I under- stand the problems of the organizations which have indi- eated [49] they have got problems in preparing this stuff in time, and it may be that the time schedule may have to allow itself some flexibility. I don’t know yet. [50] MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Mr. Roisman? MR. ROISMAN: If I could, I would like to indicate — perhaps there has been misunderstanding on what we have been doing and | hope this will respond to the questions by Dr. Steindler and Dr. Geyer — we do intend, at least within the time frame that vou indicated at the commence- ment of the hearing today, 48 hours before the commence- ment of the oral hearing, to give a fairly detailed state- ment of what our “position” is. I think Mr. Upton put it our position in chief; what we will not be prepared to sub- mit at that time simply because of the technical problems of getting this together and putting it in the final form is the completed document, something that will look like this in form, which will incorporate into it our comments on the various positions taken by parties at the hearing and so forth, and try to represent the definitive position of our two groups, National Intervenors, and Union of Concerned Scientists. I should hope the Board will be well aware of not only the areas which I gave vou this morning, but also our posi- tion with respect to each of those areas and the major 22 OEE - A RO ok. ” questions and concerns that we have in those areas well in advance of the hearing. Secondly, no matter what witnesses we bring down, they will be more than well qualified to answer the [51] questions in the area in which they are testifying. It happens that in several areas we have more than one person working and the chief person may not be available, but someone who’s been available — but someone who's been working with that person will be available. Certainly we will not be bringing down witnesses who cannot respond to questions asked by the Board in the technical area that is pertinent to that particular area. Finally, the written document that will be submitted both hefore the hearing, as well as the final one, will stand on its own. It will not be — not need to be referenced other than references in the technical document outside of the purposes of this proceeding. CILAIRMAN PAGLIN: Mr. Gleason wanted to be ree- ognized, | thought? No? Okay. Mr. Freeman. MR. FREEMAN: Mr. Chairman, since in our written document we made certain procedural recommendations which the Board had contemplated and indeed addressed itself to, and we have discussed some of the procedures to he followed, I just simply would like to make certain on the record that we correctly understand the position of the Board, The Board indicated that while questions and answers by participants and the general Staff would not be appro- priate to this hearing, to the extent, I believe the Chairman said, [52] the participants want to raise questions or have concerns, they may reflect them in their written comments, A Ne A ON AE OI I NL I EAT OT NILE i te PR PTOI 694 in their oral comments, and in the supplemental written statements. | would hope that the Board in fashioning any require- ment for the submission of written statements in advance of oral statements, would still permit parties the flexibility to voice concerns which may have been raised in the interim. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Oh, yes. MR. FREEMAN: About statements by other persons, and indeed if they still have concerns that are voiced in the supplemental written statements and in the opinion of the Board these raise substantial factual situations, it seems to me the Board, as the Chairman just indicated, might enter- tain a further hearing session if it felt that the record needed supplementing on this line, so that the concerns, legitimate concerns of everyone, could be covered both in terms of being expressed and answered in substance on this record; and that would be a help to the Commission and to the public. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Mr. Freeman. IT take it vou were making reference to the document you handed me this morning? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Yes. We will keep that in mind, [53] the points vou make. Are there any other comments by the participants? Mr. Gleason? MR. GLEASON: Mr. Chairman, there is an issue item that has come up in our thinking about the position we might take with respect to alternatives one and two. I addressed a letter to Mr. Muncie on January 9 which T re- sar gret I did not also send to the Board. I did not do it be- cause it was in the nature of asking a clarifying question. Basically it deals with the interpretation which the Regu- latory Staff puts on alternative one and I think it would serve — save a great deal of time in the oral presentations if the Staff was prepared to state its position on the inter- pretation of alternative one, either at this time or at some time prior to the start of the hearing, because otherwise I think we will spend a great deal of time in oral diseussion trying to figure out what the Staff’s position is. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Mr. Murray, would you re- spond? MR. MURRAY: I think I can help Mr. Gleason on that, Mr. Chairman. There is an error in the alternative number one. Looking at the reprint from the Federal Register, page 24192, containing the notice of proposed rulemaking, look- ing at the third column where alternative one appears, going to the middle of that column to the end of alternative one, that is, and counting up, one, two, three, four, five, [54] six, seven, eight lines, there is a line that begins, “Cvele and when factored into the cost,” the “when” appearing in that line should be an “if.” 695 This is a substantive change in the nature of alternative number one. It is the original intention. MR. GLEASON: Would you also change the “are” in the next line to “would be”? MR. MURRAY: If I were a stickler for proper English, | would. ( Laughter.) CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: And you are changing it, right? RO ET re A EO A EOC OE ES MP LOLS. et ~ 696 MR. MURRAY: I shall. (Laughter. ) MR. GLEASON: Thanks a lot. Mr. Chairman, I take it that, therefore, that there is no need in the hearing for us to address ourselves to alterna- tive one in its uncorrected version. We will just assume, for purposes of the hearing, that it reads as it was just corrected. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: And all other participants may so regard it as well. Mr. Roisman? [55] MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Gleason’s question seems to raise a point that I am not sure we need to get into, in the hear- ing. As I understand it, whatever the Staff may have thought Alternative One meant, any party is free to sug- gest vet a third alternative to the Staff or to explain how they would be interpreting Alternative One or Two, if they were supporting them, or opposing them. I take it we are not being faced with a fait accompli by the Commissioner, did I understand that to be the nature of the hearing which is that they said, you must choose between Alternative One or Two. If vou don’t like it, that is tough. They are willing to consider an Alternative Three, Four, Five, or Six. Secondly, if | understand what the Board has indicated will happen after this prehearing conference is over, that the Board will issue a statement identifying the people who will testify at the hearing or rally, the amount of time —— i. See oe eee 697 given, and for our purposes, I hope a specified time when that will happen; a day certain, and within some amount of leeway, a time certain, on that particular day. Quite to the contrary of what Mr. Upton suggestea, we have no interest in going last. If he prefers, we would be happy to go first, deferring, of course, to the Staff’s gen- eral desire to do so. [56] All we need to know is, since we are bringing a lot of people in from out of town, we need to know what day we are going to go. When we know that, we can schedule accordingly. Am I correct in assuming that is what the Board will be doing after this hearing? CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: You have anticipated, cor- rectly, Mr. Roisman. My next point is to close the session, if there were not anything else. That is, the Board will issue a further notice, as soon as possible in order to give the participants as much ad- vance notice as possible. What we propose to do is set up schedules, if we can, devoted to day and date and time, if we can organize them, in a logical manner, for the convenience of the parties; and also for the making of a decent record. We will indicate in this notice, the time to be allotted to each group, participant, or individual. | might indicate if there is nothing else, or no other questions, just by way for the record, the record that is being made; the transcription of the proceedings this morning, will not be made a part of the record in the pro- OIE EL BL A OO CS NE AN TE I A TC nee - = a 698 ceedings, the formal record, which the Commission has requested be certified to it. [57] Our purpose in holding this session was, as I have in- dicated, and what has begun to come out, and that is for the convenience of the Board and the participants and in order to organize an effective and expeditious proceeding. We don’t see the need at this stage, to make this a formal part of the record, which will be certified. If there are no other comments, | just want to indicate, for the record, the Board will apparently without objee- tion, grant the request for extension of time by Sierra and Natural Resourees defense counsel, for a reasonable ex- tension of time. | think | indieated it was either ten days or two weeks. If there is nothing else, this procedure planning session — Lsee Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: I thought it might be useful to remind everyone here that the hearing itself, is, I believe, in the room next door. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank vou for reminding me. It will be in this area, but it will be in the Closed-Con- ference Room, next door, at 10 a.m. Mr. Freeman? MR. FREEMAN: Mr. Chairman, | hope the Board will reconsider its decision about not having this — the trans- cript of this prehearing conference made a part of the official reeord. [58] I think it would be important that it be so, because the Board has, in further discussions this morning, illuminated _—_— 699 and clarified the extent to which people will be permitted to participate and the ways in which the substantive con- cerns that they have, might be clearly put before the Board, and made a part of this proceeding, and I think that, if, at some future date, a court is concerned with the procedural interface of this rule-making and the procedures being followed by the Commission here, with individual licensing cases, it will be very helpful to have that part of the record. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Well, you raise a good point, Mr. Freeman. I say, initially, it was our intention that this was for the convenience of the Board, so that we would have an accurate record of what the understandings were, and so on. The point you raise is a reasonable one. It may very well be that it may serve a purpose, making it part of the record, We can take that under advisement. I don’t feel strongly, one way or the other. As I say, it was our intention, this being a rather novel procedure, that we had intended this to be kind of informal, and as I say, for purposes of ac- curacy, to have a record made. I don’t, at this stage, see any basic objection. We will take it under advisement. MR. FREEMAN: Thank you, very much. [59] CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: All right, if there is nothing else, | thank all of you for coming, and you will be hearing from us by way of formal notice, soon. Thank vou, again. (Wherenpon at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, January 17, 1973, the Prehearing was adjourned. ) a SRT A EE Ee TR REET SOMERS R NE 4S 700 (60) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In THE MATTER OF: Docket No. RM-50-3 URANIUM FUEL CYCLE “New Executive Office Building Room G2008 17th & H Streets Washington, D. C. Thursday, 1 February 1973 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. BEFORE: M. D. Pacis, Ese., Chairman. Dr. Joun C. Geyer, Member. Dr. M. J. SteinpLer, Member. APPEARANCES: (As heretofore noted.) ADDITIONAL APPEARANCES: Arvin E. Upton, Esq. and James P. Mc Granery, Jr., Esq. Lebauf, Lamb, Leeby & MacRae, 1821 Jef- ferson Place, N. W., Washington, D. C., on behalf of Alabama Power Company, et al. “- — 701 [61] CONTENTS STATEMENT OF: Page (OF TRANSCRIPT } S. H. Sminey, Deputy Director for Fuels and Materials — Director ate of Licensing, Regulatory Staff, Atomic seeneed Commission 72 Dr. Frank K. Pittman, Director, Division of Waste Management & Transpor- tation, USAEC S eae cat 96 W. D. Rowe, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 151 Sreve J. Gapier, P.E., St. Paul, Minnesota, on behalf of the Mapleton Intervenors of Midland, Michigan 165 Peter A. LINDLEY, Assistant to General Manager, Nuclear Fuel Division, 190 Westinghouse Electric Corporation 199 Antnony A. Rowman, on behalf of the Consolidated National Intervenors and the Union of Concerned Scientists, 206 accompanied by Dr. Epwarp P. Raprorp, and 219 Dr. Henry W. Kenda 263 702 [62] PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Good morning, ladies and gen- tlemen. May we come to order, This is an informal rule- making hearing in Docket RM-50.3, which is being held pursuant to notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 15, 1972, by the Atomie Energy Commission. The Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking concerns possible amendments to Part 50, Ap- pendix D of its rules, which would deal specifically with the question of consideration of environmental effects associ- ated with the uranium fuel evele and the individual cost / benefit analyses for light water cooled power reactors. In conjunction with this rulemaking, the Commission’s Regulatory Staff at the same time issued for comment and environmental survey of the effects associated with produc- ing the annual requirements for uranium nuclear fuel of a model light water cooled reactor, capable of producing 1,000 megawatts of electricity. The environmental survey, which was to serve as the basis for the rulemaking hearing, describes the effect of each stage of the evele, from the mining and milling of natural uranium to the ultwnate disposal of high-level radioactive wastes resulting from reprocessing of the used fuel. The notice of rulemaking invited the comments of [63] interested persons and scheduled an informal rulemaking hearing on February 1, 1973, to permit the presentation of views, both oral and written, on two alternative approaches to consideration of the environmental effects of the ura- nium fuel evele and environmental statements in terms of possible amendments to Part 50. 703 The alternatives were set out in the Commission’s notice of November 15. It is to be noted for the record that the language of Alternative 1 is to be considered amended, in accordance with a letter dated January 22, 1973, from Mr. Murray of the Regulatory Staff, in the following respects: The language to be amended appears in the right-hand column of page 24192 of the Federal Register of November 15, 1972, and concerns the revision of language in the penultimate sentence in paragraph (1). The latter part of that sentence as amended will read, “Activities as related to a particular light water cooled nuclear reactor have been analyzed in the Commission’s environmental survey of the nuclear fuel cycle, and if fac- tored into the cost/benefit analysis, would be sufficiently sinall 2° not to affect significantly the resultant conclusion.” Thereafter in a supplemental notice of rulemaking issued on December 27, 1972, the Commission set forth the pro- cedural conditions which would be followed in this [64] in- formal legislative type rulemaking hearing. It was speci- fied, among other things, that since this would be part of a rulemaking rather than an adjudicatory proceeding, the provisions of subpart (g), “Rules of General Applicability,” of Part 2 of the Commission’s rules of practice, would not be applicable and that no discovery or cross-examination would be utilized in this proceeding. However, the notice provided that the participants in the hearing would be subject to questioning by the presiding Hearing Board. Thereafter, on January 17, 1973, and pursuant to the supplemental notice, to authorization in the supplemental notice, the Hearing Board named by the Commission con- ducted a procedure planning session at which all partiei- pants in this proceeding were iny ited. 704 As a result of that session, a further notice of rulemak- ing hearing was issued by the Hearing Board on January 19, setting forth, among other things, the schedules of ap- pearances for participants who are to make oral presenta- tions, in addition to written submissions, and a statement of the understandings and agreements expressed by the participants at that session. There was attached to that further notice of hearing a list of names and addresses of all of the participants who had filed statements in this proceeding, and it was agreed by those present that the written submissions to [65] be offered by the participants would be provided to the other participants in ths proceeding named on the list. Subsequent to the issuance of the further notice of hear- ing, certain changes were made in the schedule for appear- ances set out in that notice by the agreemert of the participants and the consent of the Board. Th> principal change is that the Consolidated National Intervenors and the Union of Concerned Scientists will make their presenta- tion on the afternoon of Thursday, February 1, that is today, instead of their previously scheduled appearance on Friday morning, it having been agreed among the parties that they would exchange positions with the Thursday afternoon scheduled participants. In addition, I have been advised by Mr. Dzugan of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that he will appear at the conclusion of the session on Friday, February 2, in lieu of his scheduled appearance this morning. In commencing this rulemaking hearing, the Board has determined the following documents shall be incorporated by reference in the reeord of this proceeding, as though they ha@pbeen set forth at length at this point in the pro- 705 ceeding, namely, the Commission’s notice of proposed rule- making, published in the Federal Register on November 15, 1972; the environmental survey of the nuclear fuel cycle issued by the Regulatory Staff of the Commission ; the [66] Commission’s supplemental notice of rulemaking hearing issued December 27, 1972; and the further notice of rule- making hearing issued by the Hearing Board on January 19, 1973. | would like now to call for the appearances of the par- ticipants and their counsel, if they are accompanied by counsel, in the order in which they appear in the January 19 further notice of hearing. And thereafter, I will ask for appearances by any others who wish to make oral presenta- tions and for whom provision has not been made in the further notice of hearing. However, it is to be understood, of course, that these latter will be heard if time is avail- able in the sessions that have been scheduled for the next two days. May I now, for the record, have the appearances of the Regulatory Staff of the Commission. MR. MURRAY: M: Chairman, my name is James Murray; I am appearing as counsel for the Regulatory Staff of the Commission. Our principal witnesses are with me here at the table. We will have back-up personnel to help them in response to any questions the Board may ask. The principal witnesses are, immediately to my left, Mr. S. H. Smiley, and two persons removed, Dr. Frank Pittman. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Next on the schedule in the further notice is [67] listed General Electric Company. We have been since advised that they do not desire to make an oral presentation, but will 706 be present for questioning. Is there an appearance for General Electric? MR. RESTRICK: John Restrick, counsel for General Electric. We do have people here who can answer ques- tions of the Board if they have any. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank vou, Mr. Restrick. Next, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Is there someone present from EPA? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: We will cheek later on. [| men- tioned, but I will have the appearance now, the Minnesota Pollution Control Ageney, | believe Mr. Dzugan is here now. MR. DZUGAN: My name is Ken Dzugan, and I am here on behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Ageney. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Mr. Steve J. Gadler. MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman, | am Steve J. Gadler. I am here from St. Paul, Minnesota. | represent the Maple- ton Intervenors and myself at this hearing. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank vou, Mr. Gadler. Westinghouse Electrie Corporation. MR. DAUGHERTY: I am Thomas Daugherty, West- inghouse, and our principal witness, Mr. Peter Linley, is present. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: On behalf of the National [68] Intervenors and Union of Concerned Scientists. MR. ROISMAN: Anthony Z. Roisman. | am appearing on behalf of the Consolidated National Intervenors and the bird atch Title PLEASE POP BLS IA ee 707 Union of Concerned Scientists. Our two technical witnesses will be here this afternoon, Dr. Henry Kendall, Dr. Hlenry Radford. | would like to make a correction. In response to a ques- tion by Dr. Geyer, we sent in a list of the participants, and the name of the Mapleton Intervenors was included in that list interested, inadvertently. As vou heard, Dr. Gadler is here and will be speaking on their behalf. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank vou, Mr. Roisman. The record will be corrected accordingly. Going back up again, the Atomic Industrial Forum, Ine.? MR. WIGGIN: | am Edwin Wiggin. I am with the Forum: [ will be making a statement tomorrow morning. I will be aceompanied by counsel, who is not yet here. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, Mr. Wiggin. Next on our list is Exxon Nuelear Company. They have also advised us that they do not desire to make an oral presentation, but will have someone present. Are they here? MR. NILWON: Roy Nilson, representing Exxon Nu- clear, We would like to have our written statement entered [69] into the record. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Yes. Exxon has submitted a statement and it will be considered introduced into the record at this point. S. M. Stoller Corporation. DR. GELLER: | am Leonard Geller from S. M. Stoller Corporation, I will not be making an independent submit- tal or oral presentation. I will, instead, be working with the 14 utility group represented by Mr. Freeman. 708 CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: So, as I understand it, you will not make an individual oral presentation? DR. GELLER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you. Now, skipping down, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and the other named utility companies appearing jointly. MR. FREEMAN: George C. Freeman, Jr., of Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson of Richmond, Virginia, appearing here on behalf of that group of utilities, accom- panied by Mr. David Brollier of my firm. Also Dr. Leonard Geller of S. M. Stoller Corporation is assisting us as a technical expert. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Next, the New York State Atomic Energy Council. Do we have an appearance for them this morning? [70] MR. CASHMAN: Thomas J. Cashman, appearing on behalf of the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation. | anticipate counsel from the Atomic Energy Council will be here tomorrow. In view of the changed schedule, | cannot guarantee he will make it. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you, sir. That completes the list of participants named in the notice of January 19 who sought the privilege of oral presentation. Are there any other persons present today who are not listed, who were not here at the planning session on Janu- ary 17, who would wish to make an oral presentation, pro- vided time will be available? If so, can you state your name and your affiliation? re Uh. ee Pi ae ee ee ey Siberia 709 MR. ROWE: I wasn’t here when you called the roll, but W. D. Rowe from EPA. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Thank you. You will be appear- ing this morning, Mr. Rowe. Mi. ROWE: Yes. CHAIRMAN PAGLIN: Hearing no response to my earlier question about additional oral presentations, we will now move along. The first appearance, on behalf of the Regulatory Staff of the Commission, | will call on Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very (71] much. Mr. Smiley will present the opening statement of the Commission, and followed by Dr. Pittman, who will address himself to the subject of high level waste disposal. Since we do have a number of back-up personnel here, who will possibly be answering questions, I am wondering if I shouldn’t submit, for the record, at this time, the statements of qualifications of all of our people, including Mr. Smiley and Dr. Pittman, and the back-up folks, and have them incorporated in the record physically as if read. CHAIRMAN: PAGLIN: Without objection, Mr. Murray, they will be accepted. (The documents follow.) EDUCATION BS 1 Yr. Graduate Work EXPERLENCE 1972 to date 1970-1972 DONALD A. NUSSBAUMER U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Chemistry-biology Union College, Schenectady, N.Y. 1950 Biochemistry Cornell University, New York, N.Y. 1951 Assistant Director for Fuel Cyele Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Plan, direct and supervise nonreactor fuel cycle licensing activities of the AEC Regulatory program as carried out by the following Branches — Fuel Fabrication and Reprocessing, Transportation, Technical Support, and Materials and Plant Protection. Activities include licensing of nonreactor production and utilization facilities, including their operate ‘s, licensing of special nuclear material in quanti- ties greater than a critica, mass, approval of radioactive material shipping con- tainers, approval of controls for safeguarding strategically important nuclear materials against diversion and protection against acts of industrial sabotage, and assessment of environmental impact of fuel evele plants pursuant to the National Environmental Poliey Act. Chief, Fuel Fabrication and Division of Materials Licensing Transportation Branch U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 OTL 1961-1970 1957-1961 1955-1957 Administer the technical evaluation and processing to final action all applications for and conumunieations coneerning lic, .2es for special nuclear material in quanti- ties greater than a eritieal mass. Administer the evaluation and approval of proposed designs of shipping casks for transportation of irradiated reactor fuel elements and other radioactive material from the standpoint of their adequacy to comply with regulatory standards. Chief, Souree and Special Nuelear Division of Material Licensing Materials Braneh U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Administer the technical evaluation and processing to final action of all applica- tions for and communications concerning Ecenses for source material and special nuclear material. Division of Licensing and Regulations U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Radiation Safety Specialist valuation of potential radiation hazards associated with the use, storage, dis- posal, and transport of radioactive materials and the adequacy of engineering and administrative controls to protect against such hazards. Assists in the develop- ment of criteria, standards and operating procedures in radiation protection for use in establishing regulations and evaluating license applications. Field Representative Oak Ridge Operations Office U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee Tt Visited firms and institutions licensed by the AEC to use radioisotopes. Advised radioisotope users in special radiation protection problems involving shielding, monitoring, instrumentation, laboratory design, ventilation and waste disposal. Cheeked programs to determine compliance with proper radiation safety practices. 1951-1955 Senior Health Physics Inspector Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory General Electric Company Schenectady, New York Health physies responsibilities in environmental monitoring, chemical processing of irradiated uranium, radiochemical research laboratories. Also health physies responsibilities in reactor design, startup, operation and refueling. Duties in- cluded evaluation of facility and equipment design, radiation monitoring, and establishing administrative controls for radiation safety. SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATIONS “Safety Controls Over Uses of Radioactive Materials.” Sympositm on the Ad- ministrative and Regulatory Problems Connected with Atomie Energy Programs — University of Puerto Rico — 1959. “USAEC Regulatory Control Program for Uranium Milling.” International Symposium on Radiological Health and Safety in Mining and Milling of Nuclear Materials — International Atomie Energy Agency — Vienna, Austria — 1963. MILITARY STATUS 1946 to 1948 Veteran U.S. Army Medical Corps PERSONAL U.S. Citizen Born October 15, 1927 Married 5 Children 4 6 EDUCATION BS EXPERIENCE 1968 to present 1961 to 1968 195S to 1961 THEODORE R. WORKINGER USAEC, Bethesda, Md. Chemical Engineering Univ. of Wisconsin 1950 Fuel Fabrication & Reprocessing Fuels & Materials Div. Regulatory, USAEC Primary responsibility is the evaluation of the engineering and radiological safety design criteria and design bases for the proposed Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant. Chemical Processing USAEC Assisted the development and implementation of programs and policies for Govern- ment and industrial activities in the chemical reprocessing segment of the nuclear fuel eyele. Overall staff responsibility for program planning, budgeting and man- agement of the AENC’s research and development programs, projects, and produe- tion operations pertaining to the chemical processing of irradiated reactor fuels and target materials to recover, purify, manufacture and supply special nuclear materials, fission products, transuranie products and other radioisotopes, at the AKC’s separation facilities at Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River. Responsi- ble for assisting technical exchanges with international \ Pi Division of Lsotopes Development USAFG Responsible for adininistering the Commission's radioisotope production and dis- tribution program. Implemented the development of solvent extraction processes 4 2 ater a? 1950 to 1958 for the recovery, separation and purification of fission products and other radio- nuclides, the development of methods to ensure the safe shipment of large quanti. ties of fission products and the development of technology for manufacturing large sealed sources for isotopic power and radiation applications, General Rleetric Hanford Atomie Prod. Operation Shift supervision responsibilities for operations in chemical separation plants, the plutonium fabrication facility and the UO, conversion facility. Staff responsi- bility also for operator safety training, production planning and scheduling, nu- clear materials management, and plant maintenance. From 1952 to 1955 senior process engineer with responsibilities for assisting with supervisor and operator training, preoperational testing, and the startup of the Redox plant, the TBP plant, and the Purex plant. In 1955, appointed Group Leader of the Process and engineering Unit, with responsibilities for providing process engineering services to ensure the overall performance and safety of the Purex plant at Hanford. Pro- noted to Mngineering Analyst, with responsibilities for technical evaluation and economic analysis of proposed new eapital projeets, and directly assisted the Manager of the Facilities Engineering Operation, Chemical Processing Depart- Inent, With management studies directed toward improving the effectiveness of the design, engineering and project management components reporting to him. vIL NELSON R. LEIST National Lead Company of Ohio P. O. Box 39158 Cineinnati, Ohio 45239 Telephone 513 738-1151 EDUCATION Chem. Eng. Degree Chemical Engineering University of Cincinnati 1954 Juris Doctor Degree = Law Chase College 1961 EXPERLENCE 1966 to date Supervisor Production Technology- Chemical Group National Lead Co. of Ohio Responsible for the development of process improvements and new processes for the conversion of uranium concentrates into cascade feed materials. Duties in- clude work associated with processes and procedures necessary for environmental protection. Specifically in the field of water and air contamination by chemical pollutants and radionuclides from the refining processes. 1961 to 1966 Section Leader Chemical Departinent National Lead Co. of Ohio Supervision of a section responsible for the devlopment of new processes and procedures associated with the liquid-liquid extraction of uraniwn and thorium. GT 1956-1961 Technologist Chemical Department National Lead Co, of Ohio Pilot Plant and production testing of liquid-liquid extraction processes. temeeeeeeneeeeeen e | PUBLICATIONS J. F. Blom, R. 1 Eierhorst, C. W. Huntington, J. 1. Krekeler, N. R. Leist, J. R. Nelli, and M. D. Snyder, “Refining of Thorium-containing Uranium Concentrates by Extraction with Tributyl Phosphate,” USAEC Report, NLCO-692, August 29, 1957 N. R. Leist, “Evaluation of a Coalescer-De-Entrainer Unit,” USAKC Report, NLCO-725 (p. 29-34), April 18, 1958 C. T. Hieks, N. R. Leist, and J. R. Nelli, “Laboratory and Pilot Plant Evaluation of Stanrock Uranium Concentrate,” USAEC Report, NUCO-762, October 10, 1958 N. R. Leist and J. R. Nelli, “Raffinate Mirer-Settler for the Primary Extraction Columns,” USAEC Report, NLCO-S805 (p. 15-21), April 29, 1960 J. WH. Krekeler and N. R. Leist, “Removal of Foreiqn Materials from the Refinery TBP Solvent,” USAEC Report, NLCO-S8S82, June 25, 1965 R. C. Kispert and N. R. Leist, “Computerized Control of Nuclear Materials for Uranium Residue Reprocessing,” USAEC Report, NLCO-1017, May 3, 1968 J. HH. Cavendish, R. C. Kispert, N. R. Leist and G. P. Miller, “Cry. tallization Char- acteristics of Acid Uranyl Nitrate Solutions,” Nuelear Applications, 5:224, 1968 N. R. Leist, “The Beneficiation and Refining of Uranium Concentrates,” USAEC Report, NLCO-1067, April 23, 1970 R. C. Kispert, N. R. Leist, and A. FL Pennak, “Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides in Vent Gases by Scrubbing,” USAKC Report, NLCO-1094, October 20, 1972 9TL ROBERT G. JORDAN Union Carbide Corporation — Nuclear Division P. O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Telephone : 615 483-8611, Ext. 3-5164 EDUCATION B.S. Chemistry-Physies — Ohio State University 1942 EXPERIENCE 1972 to date Manager of Safety and Environmental Union Carbide Corporation Protection Nuclear Division 1963 to 1972 Plant Superintendent UCC-ND Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Ss) 1961 to 1963 Plant Superintendent UCC-ND = Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant 1954 to 1961 Plant Superintendent UCC-ND Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1951 to 1954 Operations Superintendent UCC-ND Padueah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1947 to 1951 Process Engineering Department Head UCC-ND Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant 19438 to 1947 Process Engineer — SAM Laboratories UCC-ND and Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1942 to 1943 Iingineer Sanderson & Porter EE EDUCATION 1S. MEN PERIENCE 1971 to present IMT -1971 1965-1967 1956-1963 LOD 1956 192-1953 bol-1O52 1948-1951 VIRGIL S. EMLER P.O} Box GS Piketon, Ohio 45661 Telephone: (614) 289-2331 Met. Engr. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. 1950 Supervisor, Environmental Control Goodvear Atomie Corp. Corporate responsibility for environmental control and pollution abatement. Supervisor, Special Projects Goodyear Atomie Corp. Coordination and evaluation of development laboratory projects. Supervisor, Chemistry Dept. Cioodvear Atomie Corp, Developmental chemistry for gaseous diffusion process, IR Spectroscopy, speetrography, and cleetron microprobe labs. Supervisor, Metallurgy Dept. Goodvear Atomie Corp. Developmental metallurgy for diffusion plants. Mailure-analysis lab. Metallurgist Gioodvear Atomie Corp. failure analysis. Metallurgist North Ameriean Aviation (North Ameriean-Rockwell) Teehnical assistanee to vendor foundries. Metallurgist Battelle Memorial Institute Alloy development. Metallographer, Metallurgist Vanadium Corp. of America Metallography, heat-treatment studies. KMdueational and Professional Qualifications ‘ROBERT F. BARKER Chief, Product Standards Branch U.S.ALE.C. My name is Robert F. Barker. | am Chief of the Product Standards Branch of the Directorate of Regulatory Standards of the U. S. Atomie Energy Commission, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. Since assuming this position in January 1961, | have been responsible for the formula- tion of poliey and development of regulatory safety standards, criteria, rules and regulations for the transportation of byproduct, souree and special nuclear material in the Commission's licensing program. During the past 11 months, | have been responsible for preparation of the sections on transportation in about 50 environmental statements for individual nuclear power plants. I received a Bachelor of Science in Eleetrieal Engineering from Ohio University in 1949. I did graduate work toward a Master of Science degree in radiological physics on an AEC fellowship at the University of Rochester in 1949-50, which | received in 1953. 61 | was employed by the University of California at the Los Alamos Seientifie Laboratory from 1950 until 1955. As assistant Leader of the General Monitoring Section, | was responsible for the monitoring operations at nuclear weapons tests, around the test reactors and for shipments coming to or leaving the Laboratory. While in that position, | compiled and edited the first General Moni- toring Handbook. In 1955, | joined the AEC as assistant Chief of the Radiation Safety Braneh of the Lsotopes Division and, except for the vears 1959 and 1960, | have been with the Commission sinee that time. During 1959 and 1960, T was employed on the Staff of the International Atomic Energy Ageney as a Senior Health Physicist in the Division of Health, Safety, and Waste Disposal. As part of my duties for the LAK.A, | was the Secretary to the Panel of Experts called together by the Ageney to establish International Standards for the Safe Transportation of Radioactive Materials. ni In subsequent meetings of Panels of Experts on Transportation of Radioactive Materials organized by the LAFA, in 1962, 1964, 1970 and 1971, | represented the AEC as participant or ad- visor to the designated participant. lama Health Physicist certified by the American Board of Health Physies. Lama member of the Health Physies Society, the American Society for Quality Control and the Society for Non-Destructive Testing. Il am author of the Chapter on “Radiation Protection” in the Handbook on Non-Destructive Testing, an A.S.T.M. publication, co-author of a Chapter in the “Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials” edited by Roy Gibson and have written several technical papers on safety in transpor- tation. OGL IRM Oe Tye [ins Lakeman dh saab - : ro aa JOE DYKSTRA P. O. Box P Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Telephone 615 483-8611, Ext. 3-3306 EDUCATION A.B. Chemistry Grinnell College 1943 EXPERIENCE 1943-1945 Hooker Chemical Company, Niagara Falls Manhattan Distriet — Fluorine and Fluroearbon Development and Production. 1945 to date Union Carbide Nuclear Division — Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Tel Operations Division Supervisory assignments in gaseous diffusion cascade operq- tions, equipment decontamination, uranium recovery, fluorine production. Oxide to UF's production, utilities production and distribution such as steam, air, potable and recirculating cooling water and diffusion plant environmental control. Currently, Chemica! Operations Department Superintendent responsible for re- ceipt and shipment of toll enrichinent feed and product and diffusion plant equip- ment decontamination and uranium recovery. PUBLICATIONS AFC publications on Fluorine Production and Uranium Recovery. EDUCATION B.S. Graduate Study EXPERIENCE 1972 to date 1957 to 1972 IRVIN G. SPEAS Union Carbide Corporation — Nuclear Division P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Telephone: 615 483-8611, Ext. 3-5164 Mechanical Engineering — Duke University 1949 Math & Mech. Eng. Courses University of Tennessee 1955-58 Mngineering Consultant Union Carbide Corporation Nuclear Division Office of Safety and Environmental Protection Oak Ridge, Tennessee This office is responsible for the coordination of the safety and environmental pro- grams at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Padueah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Department Superintendent Union Carbide Corporation Nuclear Division Design Engineering Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Responsible for engineering studies of plant facility requirements, design of special process equipment, plant budget justification documents, design of process and utility piping systems, and environmental pollution abatement studies and designs. Per |] Cees ke eae I A, 0 gd FEE Ci tS 1949 to 1957 Design Engineer Union Carbide Corporation Nuclear Division Design Engineering Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Design of process and utility systems and associated pumps, compressors, heat exchangers, stills, and cooling towers. I ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL ASSIGNMENTS 1967 to 1972 Y-12 Plant representative on the AEC-ORO Environmental Pollution Task Force. This group is responsible for the environmental programs at the AEC facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Padueah, Kentucky; Cineinnati, Ohio; and Portsmouth, Ohio. 1970 to 1972 Y-12 Plant representative on the Union Carbide Corporation — Nuclear Division 3 Four-Plant Environmental Committee. This committee was responsible for apprising management of the extent and possible impact of the Division’s opera- tions upon the environment. TECHNICAL PAPERS PRESENTED “Survey of Municipal Refuse Incinerator Design Practices”, presented before the AEC-ORO Environmental Pollution Task Foree, July 13, 1967. “Electrostatic Precipitators Versus Mechanical Collectors For Steam Plant Stack Emission Control”, presented before the AEC-ORO Environmental Pollution Task Force, January 17, 1969. “Environmental Pollution Control (Liquid, Gaseous, and Solid Wastes)”, pre- sented before the AEC National Plant Facilities Managers Meeting; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; March 14, 1969. “Environmental Pollution Control at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant”, presented before the Southeastern Industrial Health Conference; Gatlinburg, Tennessee ; October 1, 1970. “Experience with the Oak Ridge Centralized Sanitary Landfill”, presented before the AEC Pollution Control Conference ; Oak Ridge, Tennessee ; October 26, 1972. MILITARY STATUS 1944 to 1946 Veteran U.S. Army Signal Corps TECHNICAL SOCIETIES Registered Professional Engineer, State of Tennessee Member of Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers and the National Society of Professional Engineers PERSONAL U.S. Citizen Born July 12, 1925 Married Two Children Height — 5’9” Weight — 155 pounds Excellent Health No Physical Defects VoL EDUCATION BA EXPERIENCE 1962 to present 1956 to 1962 . . T+ : Er 2 wre WILLIAM H. RAY USAEC, Bethesda, Maryland ~ Physies State University of Iowa 1938 Senior Health Physicist Fuels & Materials Div. Regulatory, USAEC Evaluation of the radiological safety provisions of irradiated fuel and radio- isotope processing plants. Work has included the preparation of environmental statements, safety evaluations to justify the issuance of materials licenses for: laboratories utilizing hot cells, tests and usage of devices employing large quan- tities of radioisotopes as a heat source, and containers for the shipment of irra- diated nuclear fuel and/or large quantities of radioisotopes. Health Physicist General Atomic Organized and administered a health and safety program for the newly founded General Atomics Division of General Dynamics. Developed instruments as they became needed for special radiological safety applications, e.g., a stack gas beta activity monitor, a low background laboratory counter to simultaneously measure alpha and beta activity, and a variety of radiation alarms, some adapated to dealing with pulses from accelerators and thermonuclear experiments. Responsibilities included nuclear safety surveillance and material accountability, design of ventila- tion systems to control airborne radioactive particulates, operation of the radio- active waste collection and packaging service, and promulgation of radiological and industrial safety throughout the laboratory. Served as a member of the iso- Col aera ener eee tope committee of a local hospital staff comprised the Radiological Assistance Team for San Diego county. 1955 to 1956 Training Officer U.S. Publie Health Condueted Radiological Safety courses for State Health Departments throughout the U.S. Helped to establish the fallout monitoring network, and worked with the Federal Civil Defense Agency in the initiation of a radiological safety training program, whieh included the forecasting of fallout patterns. 1954 to 1955 Maintenance Engineer Black Hawk Broadcasting Installed, maintained and operated two television stations, and maintained two AM broadeast stations. Ran RCC proof of performance. Designed and built equipment to convert to color transmission. 1950 to 1952 Research Associate (iraduate School of Public Health S Univ. of Pittsburgh Taught Radiological Physies and Health Physies, and provided health physics surveillance throughout the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Institute of Technology. Initiated a reasearch program to investigate the consequences of inhaling insoluble radioactive particulates. Served as a consultant to Westing- house Kleetrie Corporation's Atomic Power Division, and participated in Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory fallout studies in Nevada during two bomb test series, 1953 te 1954 engineer dgerton, Germeshauser & Grier Responsible for the radiological safety program of EG&G, Ine. in addition to pri- mary duties involving nuclear explosion diagnostic. During this period, developed and field tested a radiation measuring and telemetry system. 1944 to 1950 1941 to 1944 1938 to 1941 Section Chief Oak Ridge National Lab Responsible for: all plant and environmental surveys, personnel monitoring, and instrument calibration. Played a primary role in establishing the objectives, developing the techniques, and evolving the basie principles of the health physics profession. Instituted radiological safety programs at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, at Mound Laboratory, and at the San Francisco Navl Shipyard (which evolved into the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory). Served as a consultant to AEC regarding radiological safety practices at uranium refineries, and made a field study of the residual activity and the particulate problem at Eniwetok, following the first test series at that atoll. Crystal Physicist Collins Radio Co. Developed new quartz oscillator control cuts, manufactured techniques and quality control procedures. Custom finished erystals and trained finishers. Heating & Air Conditioning Engineer = Cheeker Electrie Supply, Ine. Surveyed domestic and commercial buildings to determine heating and cooling needs. Designed heating and air conditioning systems, including duct work de- tails. Supervised installations and responsible for atta‘ning warranty performance. PUBLICATIONS “Letter to the Editor.” (Concerning evidence of log-normal distribution of air sampling data and of personne! cumulative radiation exposure.) Health Physics, Vol. 9, p. 242, 1963. “Stack Gas Beta Monitor,” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 496-502, 1962. lol es | CEE “Radiation Alarm Pedestal,” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 494-496, 1961. “Protection of Livestock from Radioactive Fallout,” Bremer County Independent, Waverly, lowa, November 7, 1956. AKRCU-565 “The Design of Radiochemical Laboratories.” ABRCD-2357 “Change and Eng. in Use.” MDDC-1502 “The Clinton Walkie Talkie and Scale of Two.” MDDC-40 “Health Physies Building Surveying at Clinton Laboratory.” Radiological Safety Manuals: “A Manual of Radiological Safety Practices,” The Donald N. Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California, 1959. GiA-417 “Radiological Safety at General Atomic,” 1958, “Health Physies Primer,” Edgerton Germeshausen and Grier, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, 1953. 86 RALPILG. PAGE USAEC, Bethesda, Md. EDUCATION B.A. Chemistry and Math Augustana College 1949-50 Rock Island, Ill. 1951-54 AEC Radiological Physics Fellowship — University of Washington 1954-55 Seattle, Wash. Nuclear Engineering University of Tennessee Night School University of Maryland 1957-60 Management Federal Executive Inst. 8 weeks Charlottesville, Va. 1969 EXPERIENCE a 1972 to present Chief, Materials & Plant U.S. Atomie Energy Commission 3 Protection Branch Directorate of Licensing Washington, D.C. Reviews applicant's materials security and plant protection procedures and issues license amendinents, exemptions, and special conditions; assists in development of regulatory materials and plant protection policies and implementing regulations; evaluates effectiveness of applicable materials and plant protection requirements on a continuing basis. 1967 to 1972 Assistant Director for Licensing U.S. Atomie Energy Commission and Regulations Division of Nuclear Materials Safeguards Washington, D.C. Same as in present position. eileen a nn en ee 1962 to 1967 Chief, Enforcement Branch U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Division of Licensing and Regulation Washington, D.C. Reviewed compliance inspection reports and initiated enforcement actions in cases where licensees were found out of compliance with applicable regulatory require- ments. 1955-1962 Health Physicist U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. Reviewed adequacy of radiation safety programs proposed and implemented by licensees for protecting the publie against radiation hazards. PUBLICATIONS “Physieal Protection of Special Nuclear Material in Transit”, Conf. Transporta- tion of Radioactive Material, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, October 1969 by Page, R. G. “The Division of Nuclear Materials Safeguards — The Second Year”, 11th Annual Meeting of Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Gatlinburg, May 1970 by IYAmico, V. J., and Page, R. G. 0&2 “U.S. Safeguards Experience in Regulation and Inspection of the Private Nuclear Industry”, Symposium on Safeguards Techniques, Karlsruhe, West Germany, July, 1972 by Wischow, R. P., D’Amico, V. J. Page, R. G., and Ong, L. D. Y. NATHAN BASSIN USAEC, Bethesda, Md. Telephone 301-973-7463 EDUCATION B.A. Chemistry Suffolk University 1951 Chemistry Boston College 1956 EXPERIENCE 1958 to date Senior Reviewer Materials Branch ; Directorate of Licensing, USAEC Evaluation of applications for use of byproduct material. Review of applications for all areas of radioisotope use including review of applications for disposal of radioactive waste by land burial and burial at sea, 1958-1959 Reviewer Materials Branch USAEC Division of Licensing and Regulation Evaluation of applications for use of byproduct material. 1958 Physical Scientist Canoga Park Area Office USAEC Administration of contract of prime AKC-contractor, Review of health physies and materials management programs of contractor. Tél 1955-1958 Reviewer Isotopes Branch Oak Ridge Operations Office USAEC Review of applications for use of byproduct material. 1952-1954 Chemist Tracerlab, Ine. Boston, Mass. Worked on classified Air Force project. ane Ren eieerenenmnrremerenermes ae neem: JACK EF, ROTHFLEISCH USAEC, Bethesda, Md. EDUCATION B.Ch.E. Chemical Engineering College of the City of N.Y. 1940 Industrial Management University of Tennessee 1956-60 EXPERIENCE 1972 to present Senior Materials U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Licensing Engineer Washington, D.C. Process license applications for uranium milling and uranium hexafluoride pro- duction facilities including preparing detailed statements of environmental im- pact of proposed or existing installations. 1968 to 1972 Technical Superintendent Union Carbide Corp. e3 Vanadium Mine and Mill Hot Springs, Arkansas Supervised Technical Department Operations. Prepared budget. Established mill operating conditions for optimum recovery of vanadium from ore. Directed studies for solution of process problems, process improvement, and process de- velopment. Set up and directed air, water, and noise pollution control programs. 1962 to 1968 Senior Development Engineer Union Carbide Corp. Electronics Division Parma, Ohio Development and optimization of systems for production of pure hydrogen for use in fuel cells. Studies included catalytic steam reforming processes, thermal eracking of hydrocarbons, dissociation of ammonia, and hydrazine and hydrolysis N | of metal hydrides. Vlanned and direeted experimental work, correlated test data, prepared reports, and technical proposals for government contracts. 1960 to 1962 Chief Metallurgist Union Carbide Corp. Uranium Mill Rifle, Colorado Planned and supervised process studies directed toward improved quality and reduced costs in the production of uranium and vanadium compounds from carno- tite ore. Responsibilities included supervision of air and water pollution control programs. 1952 to 1960 Senior Chemical Engineer Union Carbide Nuclear Co. Gaseous Diffusion Plant Oak Ridge, Tennessee vel Headed section engaged in engineering development studies directed toward im- proving various processes associated with the separation of uranium isotopes by gaseous diffusion. Process studies ineluded fluorine generation, feed plant opera- tions, byproduct recovery, barrier manufacture. 1951 to 1952 Lieutenant, USNR United States Navy Communications Officer USS Eldorado (AGC-11) 1946 to 1950 Chemical Engineer IIT Tennessee Valley Authority Chemical Engineering Department Wilson Dam, Alabama Pilot and production seale studies in support of production of phosphatic fertil- izers, ammonia, nitric acid and ammonium nitrate. Included studies on control of stack emissions from phosphate and nitric acid plants. SEO enema seteaen cea meee mene ar camara ener nei niet ins 1948 to 1946 Ensign, Lieutenant (JG) USNR United States Navy Communications, Executive, Commanding Officer, USS LST 544. 1941 to 1943 Junior Chemical Engineer Tennessee Valley Authority Chemical Engineering Department Wilson Dam, Alabama Manufacture of water gas conversion and ammonia synthesis catalysts. Ammonia plant start-up. 1941 Rodman - Chainman Civil Aeronauties Administration New York, New York Airport layout and design PUBLICATIONS “Hydrogen from Methanol for Fuel Cells” SAE, 1964. “Miniature Hydrogen Generators” Power Sources Conference, 20th Annual Pro- ceedings, 1966. FEL EDUCATION 1952-1956 1961-1962 EXPERIENCE June 1956- May 1959 May 1959- May 1961 Sept. 1962- Dee. 1966 JAMES C. MALARO, JR. 4700 Broad Brook Dr. Bethesda, Md. 20014 Telephone: 973-7718 (Work) 530-5472 (Home ) College : Yale University Major: Chemical Engineering Degree: BB. Date of Graduation: June 1956 One year of graduate study at the University of California (Berkeley) under a U.S. Atomic Energy Commission special fellowship in Health Physies. Process Engineer U.S. Rubber Company, (Naugatuck Chemical Division, Nauga- tuck, Conn.) In military service — served for nineteen months as Health Physicist for the U.S. Army Radioactive Material Disposal Facility (Edgewood, Md.). Health Physicist U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. cel pein saeeaaeaeaanee iammareains items dp Dec. 1966- U.S. Atomie Energy Commission : Present 1. Senior Reviewer, Isotopes Branch, Division of Materials Licensing (Dee. 1966-May 1970). to Assistant Chief, Materials Branch, Division of Materials Licensing (May 1970 — March 1972). 3. Chief, Materials Branch, Directorate of Licensing (March 1972 — present). PROFESSION SOCIETIES Member of Health Physies Society (President, Baltimore — Washington Chap- ter) and American Nuclear Society. Certified by the American Board of Health Physies. 9€2 EDUCATION B.S. EXPERIENCE 1972 to date 1963 to 1972 1960 to 1963 CHARLES Fk. MACDONALD Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 1956 Chief, Transportation Branch Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Supervises the review and processing of all types of license applications for and communications concerning the transportation and packaging or radioactive material. Materials Licensing Engineer U.S. Atomie Energy Commission Review and process for final action applications for and communications coneern- ing licenses for receipt, possession, use and transfer of special nuclear material and source material with particular emphasis on those applications for packaging of radioactive material for transport. Supervisor, Health Physics, Combustion Engineering, Ine., Naval Reactors Divi- sion. Established procedures covering personnel monitoring, waste disposal, environ- mental monitoring, building and area surveys for operation of the SIC prototype. Se ae ee ae 1958 to 1960 Radiological Safety, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Naval Reactors Division. Assisted in establishing procedures for the group. 1958 to 1958 Engineer, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear Division. Mechanical design of a PWR. ; 1956 to 1958 U.S. Navy PUBLICATIONS Implementation of the NEW AEC Transport Regulations 10 CFR 71, co-author, 1968. SEL EDUCATION B.A. EXPERIENCE 1972 to present 1965 to 1972 1963 to 1965 LELAND C. ROUSE USAEC, Bethesda, Md. 301/973-7457 Physical Sciences, Education Nebr. State College at Wayne 1951 Chief, Technical Support Branch Fuels and Materials Directorate of Licensing Responsible for administration and techn [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1455%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.