ML19206A344
| ML19206A344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904190341 | |
| Download: ML19206A344 (6) | |
Text
h p \\\\~1 '
N Y'V.
///
m r
4 J-UNITED STATES OF A?ER!CA N
~
a NUC:. EAR REGULATCRY CC.'ti!5SICN
.m
,.:,ib,,-
.x
.~
4"'.
C' C BE.:0RE die ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APDEAL SCAR.-d.,2 s
g y%rNrY,Q
~
2 "A/N In the Matter at.
)
)
MEUCPCLITAN EDISCN CO., et al.)
Cocket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generating S tation, Uni 2)
)
INTERVENORS' ES:rNSE C STAF: "C" O CF IPR!L 27 1973, 70 CONSCLICATE 7;JCEID:lis By nution of Acril 27, 1973, tne Staf# of tne NRC requested tnat tne Acceal Soard censolidate before tne Apceal Board tne proceedings in a numcer of reactor licensings for the purpose of receiving nc+ evicence on the radon issue. Tne Intervenors in the Three Mile !sland, Unit 2, case believe the Staff motion is deficient for an emcarrassingly large nurrcer of reasons, which are discussed herein.
i.
ine Staff cites 10 CFR 2.716 as a justification for this motion, yet has r.ade no attemot to describe how this motion "will be ccnducive to tne proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice." (2.716).
~he business of the NRC Staff is not to make rubber-stamoing reactor construction cermit and operating license apolications easier anc more convenient for the Staff. The business of tne Staff is certainly not to conceal environmental effects of tne uranium fuel cycle. The funda-mental duties of the Staff (and Commission) are spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 197A, NE?A, and related judicial decisions.
Nor has the S taf f described how this motion aids justice, an element normally absent from Ccmission proceecings.
790 9c)3t//
1'.3
innediately above) by this 50%.
The last Staff affidavit, that of Gotcny, presents the Staff's view of the future in the form of coinions, but offers negligible new evidence and no evidence relevant to the TMI-2 proceeding.
The Gotchy affidavit is irrelevant because it refers to requirements for new mills and dces not adcress currently operating or acandoned mills and acandoned mill taili ngs.
In a n affidavi t by Wal ter G. Runte, Jr., suomi tted by counsel for TMI-2 to the Aapeal Board on February 21,1978, i t is s ta tad tha t Firm cormii trents have bean made by the GPU System for the procurement of sufficient uranium to succor all of the GPU reactors (0yster Creek, TMI Units 1 and 2 and Forked River) through tne, ear 1987.
It thus apoears that about 40% of the lifetime fuel for TMI-2 may nave already been contracted for, with half of
- hat already processed and on site.
In 1987, tne Gotchy affidavit may be relevant, but now the radon releases and subsequent health effects frca presently operating mills are the relevant subject. Here the Staff has nothing wnatsoever new to o ffer.
It: should also be observed that the Staff has progressed one
- housand years in its understanding of, or, : ore probably, willingness to acknowledge, the long-term health problems posed by the abandoned mill tailings. The 74.5 curie number now deleted from Table S-3 addressed one year's releases of radon. The Staff now has moved forward to consider radon releases for one thousand years.
This pro-gress must be viewed in the context of one of the radon parents--
Thorium-230. Thorium-230 has a hal f-li fe of 30,CC0 years.
The S ta ff 1
1 assessment of radon therefore has gone frca 50,000 th to S0 th of the first half-li fe only of thorium-230. Radon releases from uranium-238 5 4 " ;; q
. Tre subject of radioactivi ty has been tne reason for being" for the C;r:nission since tne cays of the Cc=ission's creaticn in 1946, and the emission of raden-222 from active and inactive mines and from mill tailings has been kncwn to the Comissien for many years.
(See, for instance,
- Industrial Radicactive '4aste Discosal," hearings before One Joint Comi ttee en Atnmic Energy, January 23, 29, 3C and Feoruary 2 and 3,1959, statements by Raw Matarials Ceveia ment Laccra:Ory, : age 58; D.A. Holaday, page 72; '4.N. Gahr, page 85; and Grand Junc:ian Operations Office, Atomic Energy Comission, p. 574.)
'his entire sucject has thus far been ignored by ne Ccmission as far as its NEPA recuirements go.
The Comission's responsibility quoted above also seems to ae ore of a set f-praise and puolic relations gesture than ene of a solemn comi' rent to dc wha t i t says i t 's goi r.g to do.
It shculd be rememcered that :ne problem of tne icng-tarn health effects of raden and o ner long-lived isotcpes was brought officially to the Comission's a tantion by a rule-making petition submitted by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) in lata 1975.
Tne Ccemission did not have to search the litarature; the literature was brougn: to the Comission.
The Comission did nothing.
In the GESN proceeding, Ta ;1in and Cochran utiliced the approach of Rcbert Pohl in :ne NECNP petition to furtner bring to the Ccmission's attention in 1976 the inadequate nature of its assess.ent of the mill tailings problem.
The Ccmission did nothing.
The submission of the Keoford testimony in tnis proceeding expanded on the previous efforts, and si.ill the Comission did not live up to i ts premise.
Only with the Jordan memorandum of Septemcer 21, 1977, did the Staff lurch cut of its lethargy.
Tnere has been no explanation frta
$4 -op t-
oweh
h
- Furthencre, the Cc 7-ission should fully ccmcensate those aho must new relitiga e Onis issue since tne entire resconsibility for the relitigation stems frcm the failure of the Comission to obey its statutory resconsibility witn regard to the environmental effects of tne full nuclear fuel cycle.
The Ccmission, and its spokespersons, have misled the public and Congress far too long.
For exagle, in testifying before Congress in 1974, tne Chair an of the Acceal Scard Panel cf the Ccmmissica s ta ted tha t inus, an11e intervenors may have had little success a thi s point in inducing the adjucica:Ory boards ;0 ceny cutrign; a c:nstruction cerri: Or c;erating license, it i? no: accur-e to say tna: a deaf ear us been turned ::
their concerns. When a solid foundation has been shcwn for a : articular concern, a:;rc; iia:e relief has been for.nc: ming.
(From " Nuclear P:werplant Siting and Licensing,'
hearings cefore tne 'oint Carmi-ee on A: mic Energy, M.aren i.:-
22, Acril 24-25, and May 1,197a, page 756.)
Tnese scathing and self-congratula: cry words must be examined in :ne lignt of just how tne system works.
In the case of racon-222 in :ne Dil-2 proceeding, the uncontroverted testinony of Kepford shcwed that by far tne largest source of radioactive emissions in the entire nuclear fuel cycle had been suppressed by the Comission and ignored in the environmental statement. The Ccmission at that time had failed to act for over a year..nd a half an the New England Coalition's petition cancerning radon and other long-lived isotopes. NEPA requires that the environmental it act statement be ccmplete prior to the licensing of a nuclear pcwer plant to operate, a " major federal action,to give decision-makers the comolete information upon which to base the decision. Yet in the case of TMI-2, the Apreal Board bli tnely saw "no occasion to suspend plant operations to awai t the outeeme of a remand"( AUS-465),
u >t c.~
q
.,q n
.g.
9.
The service list attacned to this Staff motien contains nearly 140 names. The Inter /enors in the TMI-2 proceeding do not have the resources to pay for reproduction and ser/ ice of documents to all these pa rti es. Therefore, copies will be sent to all parties of the TMI-2 proceeding. We request tnat the Commission circulate tais Intervenors' Res;cnse to the Staff Motion among ne other parties en the Staff's Motion service lis:.
10.
In the interest of fairness, e recuest that the Commission send free of charge to all intereenors all documents pertaining to radon filed by the Intervenors in the TMI-2 proceeding in order to cut short what will otherwise be a time-consuming discovery process. The following ma terials a re rect..s ted:
1.
the Kepford testimony of July 5,1977, 2.
the Intervenors' Findings uf Fact and Conclusions of Law, August 15, 1977, 3.
Intervenors' Letter to he Licensing Board, December 20,
- 1977, 4
Interienors' Excep tions to tne Initial Cecision, Decemoer 30, 1977, 5.
Intervenors' Brief of January 30, 1978, 6.
Coments of Dr. Chauncey <epford and Dr. Judith Johnsrud on NUREG-0332, 7.
The " Motion Requesting Immediate Emergency Injunctive Relief to be Followed by a More Permanent I.'.terlocutory Injunctive Relief," U.S. Court of Apoeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 78-1160, Feb rua ry 27, 1973, and the resulting orders.
And the additional materials should also be furnished intervenors:
1.
the NECNP rulemaking petition of November,1975, 2.
the testimony of Tamplin and Cochran on radon-222 in the GESMO proceeding, 3.
Cc=ission Dccuments SECY-77-449, 99, and the April 11, 1978 equivalent.
g _n7~e
Q CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC_E_
,.0S,,,a,_.jO,wNCrAPRILherey certify that ccpies of INTERVENORS' RESPONSI g
Ql' n servec upon :ne foliomng cy aeposit in t:
27, 1973, TO CONSCLIDATE PRCCEEDINGS nava 1e U.S.ra i ;, Fi rs t Class,
th may of May, 19 so.
s Idward Lutos, Iso., Ch a ir ia n George ~. Trowbrid?e, I 'q.
Ato-ie Sa:ety and *icenstag Soard Shaw, Fittman, Rotts k U.S. !!uelear Regulatory Co==1saica Trowbridse 2
Washingt a, D.C. 20555 1,CC M 5treet, N.2 Washi gton, 0.0. 2C056 Mr. Gustave A. Lin e r.b e rg e r Ato:i: Ssfety and 'i:ensis; Sosed Ato i:.sfety L Licensi:4
^
U.S. *:uelea r Regula tory Coetsission Soard Tanel Washington, 0.C. 20555 U.C.
hcies? R egu ' a t ory C--
4 -'a Dr. I.sest O. salo Washington, O.C. 20555 P oiessor, Tiah-ries Research
! s :itut e, Wi!-lO Ate-1: c.'fety and Licea.sira College of Fisneries Appeal 30ard Calversity o f Washisgton U.S.
'!u e l e n e Re.su ' a t o ry Saattle, Wash gren C8195 Coe:ission Washington, D.C. 20555 Kari W.
Carter, Asst. Attorney General O f fic e of Inforcement Oceketing and Service Cepart=ent of Inv* ror' e n tal Re s o'Jrc es fse c t i0 n 7C9 Heal:h and Welfare Suilding Office o f :'.e Secretary Harrisburg, F'e nn s v l v a nia 17120 U.S. Nuclear Re ulato y Co=si'aica W as h in.ito n,
O.C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal,.ts q., t.ha i r an,
Atcmic hfety and Licensing Appeal Panel p,,,77 y, gegu77,,
U.S. Nuclear Regulaccry Ccmmicsion Counsel for NRC Staff Washington' D.C 20c 5
,fuelear egu.,atory voss ssion n
Washiaztoa, C.C.
2C555 Dr. W. Reed Jonnsen, Memcer, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Jercme E. Sbarfman, Esq., Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Apceal Panel Washington, O.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washington, D.C. 20555
.?
WI W T f.'C W / '! /d'f l
/
n, ecc.m ChaunceyEepprd" e
(
ums 3gp33gn;33;y,of the,ngen7enen3 h33 0--lando Ave.
uM*
- 4 W' C ')
i r-5: ate College, ra. *ocC1 c
....a., w:.
Q w ~,.
p%
,,'v e l. y i e-
+Op
~~