ML18026A361

Forwards Comments on Suppl 2 to Des.Draft Inadequate. Document Neglects Costs Associated W/Physical & Psychological Health Effects of Accident

ML18026A361
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	05/22/1981
From:	Perkins J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8105270219
Download: ML18026A361 (14)

Text

Cf=ice o" '.-.ucl "Si::-.C

.. as 1ng ten ) 3C Stat> Colle:.-e,

.'.!ay 22, 1PS1 ear reactor

= egulation 2055'

~ ~ 15801 c~)

HLK5)

="'!IAY 2 6 1SSI ~ t!p a

3ir ctorg ~ivisicn o= Ticersuxg

. e" lo t'ttached, is a copy of =;;

comments on the "-uzzlement

-;='2 to t.-'e 3 S

"c= Sus".uehanna 1 ~>>6 2.

>oc'~ets 50-~87, 3v8.

. he cc;ments are c~ivic.ec.'nto

~~.vo p~ ts.

~ irst co.ae s-.eci ic res".orses o s-eci "c cl"-ims i no e6 as j re."." tbe G

~

~!ezt is a o 1~ r trea u "ent of

. the section dealing '.~ith e",-"E ec. econ"='.ic~

-'-J0:

=or in thx3 s

1C0 to 150.

.he

-..lan C

econci section th.".t Z thin'= the 8r"=t 's ".. its

. crs icate tha t."e c.r"="t's eating" tes

"--e los:

o~- a f.".cto hese

""e the i ~es that "==ect the cost e.";ti:: tes Z c.icn't d'or( better I::cull say t! ".t the c.r="Os corsultants hired.

oy the Aa>>..icant to shee.

the =e:t on the situation.

~ ~

T fir~~y be'ieve that this craft is so inac.ec,u"te

.h"- ~ it c"-n>>ot s -:" c ~

Gs a:. Meal Qwpft (s

unQOQU 8

as it Day be...it~

':."ve cc:'~in.-.. f; cm tl e

'.c.=='nistr-;.t=:on

."-".6 he =il I ur;e

-'.'. e i~C to 'arep~e a rea1 6 aft, one th t t e ts the -.roblea v>>-.. the econc;-.ics

. o-..erly.

Then as'== a;.a'n for public cor;=.ent

~~c, t!~en aroceeG to t'19 ""S ~

1 realize t.':is is not a.@le"sant "'roszect; ne'ther

'.vas ac,ing this craft " p

~ easan.

e..;aerience

~he role of the IPC is to esist

.ressures

="rom.he.("..>>licants the opponents and, the "overnnent officials in oreer to ensure the ~os

~ tho ou-h review of the problems associatec.::i h this

~o no let yc'rself be o~a~liea in.o acceatin=

a h"~~-

vec. jc Do Sincere',

Co='es:

-"="'en -rte1 iraqis icha c 0t i inger J3.%

Pe m3.ns

11

\\

'f

Co:x"ents on Gvaplement to the Ope=".ion Units 'c 2

Dr t environment 1 Si"tement rel=tec to of 'Suscve!:~a

""te."w =lectric S."ij.on,

~oc1~ets 5C-307, 308 Selectec co~;.ents be o:r result, from a gener"1 re"ding of the %ex" Co;.z. nts on the conomic "ssessment rely,. in acdition, on jn:or.-.."

vion'bt-inec by as~-jng from 3"-L.

This inform"tion should surely h-ve been available to the preparer of this docu...ent.

p. 6-4, sec.ion 6.1.1.3

~

'!te nvabers cited rom the DzR XEX report;;ere ci~iticized oy the comit-'.ee he;:cl ns being unduly generous, i.e. non-conservative.

gP(g)

A =ecent artie'ie w Science ingic"tes t!:at he ir=or -t.ion r hei noon b the Z

-. co 'a.,ee overes-',inatei the in:2.uence o= neut'=one in i=i oshima;

iMrsce,

.he conservative figu'e shovld prob" oly "e revised.

ups."zd o<< the factor of 2 or 3 jndic"ted by 3r. "."c="ord.

Furthermore E~~l.'org.w anc Alice St

art,

'~~ong others,

"--e beginning.to cuesiion

.he conservativeness of the linear hypothesis.

As a respo~siole

agency, no't ~i adjvdj:catirre bom8, of scientific s udie~~e I'<C shcvld.~~svme the:Ior~t" of.hese "cput"ble scientists d.e=ne the ccnservaMive "line'." hat': ha% oeing eonserv:.Vive

'e.~s, not that one accepts the aver ge ~

p. 6-5, section 6.1.2

-"L~ere the drat.says, A,Tone is ~o'm to h"ve caused any.r.=...at>on injury or f"tality to any member of the obli'c,>> covld, ecva y h=-ve ~

oeen mitten,

.'.one is 'mo::z not to nave c"used an'- rad

.ion j~~vry g or f.";i"1'ty ~o any member of the pu'olic, Zt is cle"."ly the c.".se tha no study has been done:rhich

~~oulc ina:cate that t'e d.=.".=t's cl"j~ is trve.

1.vovld. suggest

.hat such co~ments,

',Ii ich."=e unnece s."'p'o the I~iC>s c".se, although pe h"ps rot to the A..plica.t's, be eliminated..

Pe=."rein~ the estimates of.eleases f om T.'.Z-2, i==s the e been LLay published e-tjmates of the rele". ses hac. 2':1-2 noi h"d the e-ra-thic'-- contairwent'?

>>Zt h"s been estiaate4 that the n zizz coul tive of=site radiation dose io m individual was less than 100 millirem.>>

The St~:=.

has failed io note hat ihere have been f~ higher estjmates

~resented to it'o v)hich it has failed to-espond Ls parts.cd."z, in "octet

-;,'='5C-272.lith e."-"-~d to the interv nt'on by Lo.!e Allovrays.C e

1c

~or~ship Intervenor sub~>>ttec, a ressort 'n response to a Zo"--d

{',uestion on the accident at h ea ~.ile Island ~

Utilizing the methodolo~

provic.ed, in the ~itI-2 final Safety Analysis e'port the report's author calcvlated. th"t the rele"se of..enon-133 from tive accident at Tr;T vIou'td have proviced 280 rem dose for a 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> ez..:osure at the exclusion oounc~~y

~~ad a 45 rex cose for a thirty day exposure at the lo'7'popul ion zone "cvnd~~y.'

he.e figures h"ve been 'n the hads of'he.'PC s'nce August, 1979.

-En the con inuin-" ~Xter~ath of the ccc'cent

.".t "7 r"c'.ios "oto-.e"

'f seve al c'.if:erent

~'sees thm iodine mc'. xenon h"ve oeen found.

outsic~e the pl~et, in ~vater s:eagles

~

7P 8-g n.

6 8, ection 61 3

2

'l; v~ond.er ho'I tl.e resic.eats of tl e -orouch o= Her':(icM, 6 miles to the "outh of tbo al~t site,:,ill feel to le"~ they a e not a potful tion center.

'p. 6-14, section 6.1.4.4 irC~)

The 6r"-.t ne-lects the costs as ociate6 ~vith th"'hysical

~~d.

osyc! olo."-ical health'ef:sets of an accident.: i,h sub -,anti"~

g) awards bein~ ~ de by courts

.o individuals or f".nilies of incividuals~for the loss of one li="e, the costs as oci..~ed,;.rith the loss of tens or hundreus or thous~~6s shoula not be shru=-"ed. o=f ~

p. 6-19," section 6-~1.4 ~ 6-This seFtTon re."a="aing the chzxce. of m:accident:;bose.

c~.econ&in"stion.

cost is Gl billion is iud.icrous.

Th's I believe n '~es a,...oc"-ery of.he v:hole e =ort.

>>if the

",. obability of an accic.ent s.-crious enough to "ecui e extensive cleanu~ ~c d.econ.-mination is t"'n as...

2.4 chances in 1OC,OOO pe- ee, and, if the average Qecon-

.a ination, co"t.;. is assured to oe one billion doll="-s, th n the est~~atec, rising:vould. be about 824,000 per year " I v:on't cuibole

~vith this oec use it is merely a zatheua.ic"1 s.atement f, however,

.he c.

-"t's uthors sean to su~e,est

.h t the hypothesis of

.Le st

~e-vent is reasonable, then X vill a gee On the very ne..t "at,.e, "s the au.hors try to e-o" ein their ehi~ce on the >e".ctor S"=sty S~vfy

t. ey vr ite "The accident pt Th ee 'rile Tsl~c. pcc~e ec.

l::arch 1979 at a ti="e '.Ihen ti e accumulated.

ex-,erience recorc.;.'as "bout 400 re" ctor years.

Zt is of intere.=t to no e th t this

.v's

';.r='. thin the rcxge of freruencies estimated.

by the

?SS for an accic'.ent of t'"is severity,>>

The auti ors cannot h ve the best of'ach:;orld, The:="...Z acci" nt v~ill cost at le-st Sl billion to decontaain"te.

'ence it ='ts v:ith t¹ average accic'.ent cite6 b<< the authors.

Zt occ.'~=ed.

>vithin the ran=e of frecvencies sup-.ested, by the 2SS Hence 2.4 in 1C0,000 ~er year is not a reasonable estimate

>ather,cl e"-"ly

.1 in 400 ver ye~'s the reaonable assumption if vee are not allo;zing

=or. the

~~~~ ct o= >>lessons le "ned.>>,

as the Craft's authors have claimed.

So~ let's use the methoLolo~~

of the sentence cvc-.ed. above:

31,000,000,000

= 82,500,000 per year as the s-'a ed ZUV econoni.c r. s'~ ~

he P aft errs by a factor of'00

'urthe~

> v;os.

su.=.

es" th.".t Cl billion may not-be a ze".sonable esti=a. e.:.7here did. it co~e from?

Dy

The co"t o the

".. I accident d cont"ruination is no:I esti.-.."ted at

"-1.3 bi~lion.

T".e cost oz repl"cement po;;'er fo.

r:.tep.".yer"= is es imated at.".1.2 bi>>ion t."rough 1985 "lone.

he ",roposed i".~ustx'y insvrance scheme zor replace.,en

~ po:;e=,

sponsorer; by the

. uclew Plectric L~w:r~ce Limited oz 2erauda r:o~.-ld h.".ve provided "

m -inurn of 0156 yillion zor the GPU r.".tep"<<ers had it oeen 'n p acct So v:e can reduce co.,ts to G:-U r"tep"ye s to Cl.05 billion through

1985, and ac'.d on, for the folio'min~'yeas sore igv=e ~

Since T;.Z-2 coul&x~t ossioly be put o"ck into se vice vl;til 1990't seems conserv"tive to add another Cl billion for the ye."~s 1985 to 1990 '-..a'=-in the generous s"-emption th. decon.."a'nat'ion doesn't cost more thvz

1 ~ 3 billion, -:.e w~

e thus faced::.ith a cost o

at least "3.35 billion.

Hence~

the ~equal est

":. ted economic rise is novr G8,375,000.

Pvrthe more if.he

>SS

".~as reasonabl~

accurate

e can expect another Ti!Z-type accident

'oe ore 1985

sin-f oa t."e Craft

@gas any r ention of control rod z Zlvres "o

the sort tn=.t occurred at 3ro:ax's erry 3 in June of le+0.

"iso missin=

thou.""h understandablyg

..'"s an< comment on the ne-.s co.".ce n about 'iling "iate reactors'cr~

systems reported on "y the.';:C~s Ozfice zor Analysis"~-.d:-va uat>.on oz O-.erational Data.

'"hese gaps shov3.d be filled~

~

~

r

~ Pnme 6-19, Section6.1.4.

6 Co ~e. ts on the.7orst c" e sv~8-,e"ted.

by the draft's autho "

and.

on th proposed c".=e to

'oe "tvc.'ed, ~

7/ors u case:

Cne vni lost n first year.

h dr"ft doesn t sv

-. est the resv~ t on the othe in this scenario so I.'.eill ta3ce their three ye~ estimate for a delay in restart.

Ca rying ch"-yes for the lost pl~t me estimated by the comply at 18;. per yern of final cost.

Assuring a 93.5 billion final cost and. m even cli trioution of the costs oetr:een the

~:.'o un'.s the carryin~ charges on the vndza" -ed.. acility r:ould tot"1 "945.illion The lost c~~ryine, ch~=.es on the draped, facility:vould total 89.128 oillion dolls=s.

(Levelized 16.3~a oe

ea -or 32 ee"-s) f4)(7)

Net r placement po.ver at 40 mills pe h.'Ih at the company's expected.

68.9<~ 'capacity

~vould. total 0456 million per year.

Tn add.itio,

-the comz~y. youlf. lose 'out on"-its sales to the

~JR. by-some predicted.

5 to 6 billion mvh per yeew.

At a split s"vin~m profi m~6 ailM pe Wvh,- the.loss of: ecch-wait'>+o%1d cost ratepayers at least "40 million per ye~

,ve r.'ill assvme a "1 billion cost to decont~ainate and, five ye ~s ~

~ Then vie nill assu)"e tha the ccmpw~y still has su:":icient" e;ehererzith"

~ 1

.o ouild.

a. replacement for the dezage8. unit.

That..ill t."2.-e

.en years

~~d,ri11 be p id. ='or in ~+lated c.ollars, not in 1980 d,ollars ~

Thus the final cost of'he accident, neglec inc, the costs of o:

'te c~

~ s and settlements~

cm. be calcula-'ed..

c"-rrying ch ~=es rvined. fuel 9,128 dana=ed o.it red--.."ed snit (millions "-)

~945 684 3,420~

60088 repl"cement por,'er 3.20

.lost sales to ~mi8 cost of clec~'1up

+ 1.,000

+

814,198 81,749 ql ant. cons tructec.

and qaiQ for in yea'998 O.olla have a subs t-.)tial 1 y hi>he>

co Gt to r tepas ers For the potent

.ve'll e~leet th t.

QrUt's the technioues of the/'.receecin(=,

iq~awaph

""~a the probability, of' in 400 ~er ye~

rre-.=at an.""=.u~

conomic ris< of 539 867,500 Or1 U.t3.~ isa Zasmvss ear es ti.~'ted.

e he bill, ne;" ectin=

"ther a lot, is,"15>947,000,000

=or

. 1 billion acczc'.~n 8+I

~

1's V1 0 ~ 've nc~ fif-'een ye"~'s vnti ca.:"city replaced

II

-the ".ropo ed c;."e:

one the "econd i" do;vn for' ye '.r'vntil re.".t;."t C~ry~n-ch"--e-for the lost al"nt ~v".uld acu.".1 a levelized, 12 ~ 2',2 ')er yew~

~

.~.s~v!Din~~

R ~3 ~ 5 bill'Qn f'".1 cost c"'1d c".5 Oven distri'..vtion of t.'".e cost" be-':veen t!:e f".cilcitie'.!:e c""" '7'.":.

~ chm."es:.o tne lost plantv '.vovlc. tot.1

>.119 bill'on.

Lost c.".r yia~

ch"-~"es of the vndmc".ed f"cilitytvovld tot"1 885 million. ("!:cse fi~m "e" "e in'i"ed dollars.)

l',et r~z'er'~nt po'::er "t 40:=ills

(

9vO mills ).er mvh at the company's e;..ec Med c:.-,,"city o-70

's

~v!ould tot 1 '96 million o

the vndavaged f.".cility and "3. '.'0 billion or

.he fifteen years vntil the capac'ty is repl"ced,.

J.<ain the company v!ovid lose out on i.s sales to the PJIi ~ id of'40 mill'on (19o"0 dsoll"--s) per ye"- ~

Assvaing a,"cl bill'on cleanup (in 1980 doll"rs fo= consis~e~cy) and..t!:g can.t"v.l.tiot~.of.. eylacsmerLu

@apse't>> in ="xed.,c.oll."-~s cvhich

>vill be capit lized. in 2006,:;e can compile Qe folio.via". chart.

ca-ryin~ cha: -.-es ruined fuel

. replace-.ent pocver I

lost sales to 6=id cost of clearup da%ak'ed uni u

~5,119 50 3~480 600

+1 000 810t249 696 120 4

~

+

Sl $ 701.

rs(~)

\\

vnd."wa.-ed vnit

(,",million

'~885.

ca=ryine, ch~=.es unit e~c'991 to doll s.

To ~et annv. 1 ill.tion cos t.

~on 1983

~~~e in mixed dollars, 1991 to 2C" 4 fo tj e d."=-~"ged 1<93 =or the v~c:.ma..-seds All others are in 1~.80 the. 1991 i~~re:"re cm assvae a conserv-t've 10~'rate fo-fvel, replacement

~o;ver, lost sales, to 1991 a compounded--20'~ovnts.

to a 114 inc ease.

ca ryizg charades fuel replacement po',ver-los t salgs tcco cost of cle=cup damaged vnit S5gll9 107 7g447 284

+

2140 6161097 und"w ~ed unit

(-" m)

S885 1,489 257 "2,631 So, in corn"..~i.-on 'vi.h th fi.w~r on the "cvorst" case,;ve

'h""ve an equal e

mo tly in 1991 coll~ s ~

greceo..din.-

ha-$ -$ re.;re entin-c conomic ris~ of 846,82C,GOO.

't4

3ecavse the w~alysis aoove included some ri;:ed dollws or c~ryin--. ch~-es',

Z decided to t~'

the !!Ors ~

c.".Se ence

more, t,".is time c':lcul"ter>

he ef ects in 1503 doll"=s.

For every ye.".

of the cor a"my's pro":osec carryin~~ char,'e schedule

.7 h'.".ve vlcc a fac:or basp" on a 10',; inx la'ion rate to "djust. the i: g e

b-"c~i. to " '""3 r dollw cost.

-'he draft'" st"ff vsed~4G nills "s a net re.Qace ent co t, a, fi.mre probably conse v"tive~for 1903.

7 h.".ve used 16 mill per k;;h rate of e~ings f"om the

~mid. for 1983, b""ed upon some analysis of the p""t record of the co:.>pmy.

'3. billion is the d:"ft's estim~.e of cost.

Assu~e a ".3.5 bilon fin"1 cost and an even distrioution be~;een the tv!o units.

The cot paly ssumes an "ver ~e c pacity of 68.9'or e"-ch vnit.

~educed as described, the carryin: ch."-w".es foregone for the d~'aged facility v!Ov~d total.'2,959,000,000 in 1983 dollars'he three years of carr'~in@

char~ebs for the undraped p~~t os.d total 8861,00O,OOO.

carryi~~rges

dmna~ed fuel replacement po",er t

lost sales to gr5.d cost of cleanup damaged unit

~2g 959 50 3,420 o00

+

1,000 9 8pOP9 0

$862-684 120

+

S1,665 So, in constant 1983 dollms the cost of a..hypo.hetic".1

""1 bil'lion accicen+ ':hich destroyed one urit ~ad rendered'he,.oth~

out ox service xcr three yep s "!Quid be

~9,694,0CO,OCO.

~this ne=lects entirely ofxsite dwarves xd injuries and th"t a uti""'.y tr-:in~

to ha~die a '$ billion loss and zcjor cleanup

':!Ovkd h"ve a h.".

c.

t~~e ente"in."- the capital mal=et for cons.ru.c-.ion funds ~

At the 3SS fi~e cvoteo. by the draft's. authors o

1 in 400 per

$ ear fo a billicn dol l,~ ~c(ident) this fi,.v. o trG Rslates i 0 estimated

".24-2 =".illion economic risk for the first ye"= ox 'uscue-hmna's o".er"tion.

'<his fizzle is more th-"t 1CO times "s hi:-.h as the dra t's.

zp()

+ conservative, used. here, means lovr

L1 C

l