ML19206A355

Partial Initial Decision Re Environ Consequences of U Fuel Cycle.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19206A355
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Hope Creek, Seabrook, North Anna, Sterling, 05000419, 05000484, Washington Public Power Supply System, Perkins, Cherokee, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, Crane
Issue date:	07/14/1978
From:	Coufal F, Desylva D, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Shared Package
ML19206A356	List: ML19206A355 ML19206A369
References
NUDOCS 7904190365
Download: ML19206A355 (40)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. ., l? ' L. UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCt"i!SSION 9 BEFORE THE ATG*1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Ma tter of ) ) ) CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT C04PAfiY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 ) 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-402 Units 1, 2, 3 anc 4) ) 50-403 CUKE POWER C04PANY ) Docket Mos. STN-419 ) STN-492 (Cherokee Nuclear Station ) STN-493 Units I, 2 and 3) ) FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CCf1PANY ) Docket No. 50-389 ) (St. Lucie Plant Mc. 2) ) KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CCMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-482 ) (Wolf Creek Generating Station ) Unit 1) ) METROPOLITAN EDISCN CCfiPANY ) Occket No. 50-320 ) (Three Mile Island 2) ) PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Decket No. 50-277 ) 50-278 (Peach Bottom Atcmic Power S ta tion ) Units 2 and 3) ) NCRTHERN STATES POWER CO. (MINNESOTA) ) Docket No. STN 50-484 Afl0 NORTHERN STATES PCWER CO. ) (WISCONSIN) ) ) (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) ) YA '?:";') 730d190 g g T

. In the Ma tter o f ) ) PUBLIC SERV!CE COP ANY OF INDIANA, ) Docket Mos. STN 50-5a6 INC. ) 571 50-5a7 ) ("arble Hill 1 L 2) ) PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50 441 NEW HA."PSPIRE ) 50-414 ) (Seabrcok Units 1 ?, 2) ) PUBLIC SERV!CE ELECTRIC & RAS ) Docket Nos. 50-354 t COMPANY ) 50-355 ) (Hoce Creek Generating Station ) Units 1 & 2) ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC ) 00cket "o. STN 50 485 CORPORATIC1 ) ) (Sterlinc Power Pro ject Nuclear ) IJni t No.1) 1 TENNE 35EE VALLEY AtlTHORITY ) Occket Nos. STN 50-518 ) STN 50-519 (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, ) STN 50-520 Units 1-4) ) STN 50-521 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTFORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-553 ) 50-551 (Phicos Bend Nuclear Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) TENNESSEE VALLEY 2L790R!TY ) 00cket Nos. " 50-566 ) STN 50-567 (Yellow Creek Nuclear Pc-er ) Plant, l' nits 1 and 2) ) C,;d U[3(I ,r

, In the Matter of j 1 lhi Ilil L DH Ehl;UN O!MPAT'y I Mocket *:os. 50-500 ) 50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Station, Units 2 and 3) ) VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY ) ) Cocket Nos. 50-338 (North Anna Pcwer Station ) 50-339 Units 1 and 2) ) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY ) SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-513 ) (Nuclear Project No. 4) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICC in ALAB-430, May 30, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board directed the Staff to serve every party to each of the 17 proceedings then pending before the Aopeal Board with the Licensing Board's decision on the radon issue as developed in Duke Power Comoany (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. SIN 50-488, 50-489 and 50-490. I hereby certify that copies of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision, Environmental Consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle dated July 14, 1978 have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of July, 1978: Al a n S. Rosen t ha l. Ec.q., Cha i nna n

• fiichael C. f arrar, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensinq Atomic Safety and Licensinq Appeal Coard Appeal Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington UC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Cr. W. Reed Jonnson

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Aopeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W.n h unit an. DC

'0555 Wasnington, JC 20555 i, n,. n d .<,( Yr Je P e E. Shar 43n

• M:mic 53 fen ard ':cens n:

t-ou n r,v.' m.o 4eea'. Ecarc U.S. :'uclear Reculatary Ccmmission U.S. Nuc: ear Regulatory Comm ssion Nashington, DC ~ 20555' Washingt n, DC 20555 [;d -c>.r j[

e Frederic. Coufal, Esq. Jonn F. Wolf, Esq.

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic 3afety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, CC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Samuel W. Jensch, Esq.
• Edward Luton, Esq.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, CC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Lester Kornblitn, Jr. Atomic Safety and Licensing Michael Glaser, Esq. Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 John M. Frysiak, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger

• Bo.rd Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Marvin M. Mann
• Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Oscar H. Paris
• Board Panel Atomic Sa.fety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Wasnington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, DC 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. David R. Schink Board Panel Department of Oceanography U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Texas A & M University Washington, DC 20555 College Station, Texas 77840 Mr. Glenn O. Bright

• Dr. Cacet H. Hand, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Bodega Marine Laboratory Board Panel University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission P.O. Box 247 Washington, DC 20555 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Dr. Richard F. Cole

• Dr. David L. Hetrick Atomic Safety and Licensing Professor of Nuclear Engineering Board Panel The University of Arizona U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Tucson, Arizona 87521 Washington, DC 20555 Pobert M. Lazo, Esq.
• Elizabeth S. Scwers, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Pashington, DC 20555 Q mry .'4,rg

, Dr. Dortid P. deSylva William H. Griffin, Esq. Associate Professor of Marine Assistant Attorney General -a

---

ss c " m- - -

Chief, Consumer Protection Division University of Miami State Capitol Building Miami, Florida 33149 Topeka, Kansas 66612 Dr. Walter H. Jordan James T. Wiglesworth, Esq. 851 W. Guter Drive Rainey, Wiglesworth and Dewey Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 9800 Metcalf, Suite 400 ~ General Square Center J. Micnael McGarry, III, Esq. Overland Park, Kansas 66212 Cebevoise and Lib trman 700 Shoreham Building Edward G. Collister, Jr. 15th and H Streett, N.W. Collister & Kampschroeder Wasnington, DC 20003 Attorneys at Law 1203 Iowa State of Soutn Carolina Lawrence, Kansas 66044 c/o Ms. Jaccuel/n Dickman Dept of Health and Environmenta'. Honorable Robert Bennett Control Governor of Kansas 2500 Bull Strr.et Topeka, Kansas 66612 Columbia, South Carolins 29201 Office of the County Clerk Dr. Georc' C. Anaerson c/o Ms. Joan Cox Department of Oceanography, WB-10 Coffey County Courthouse University of Washington Burlington, Kansas 66839 Seattle, Washington 98195 Mr. Darrell Carl ton, Commi ssioner Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Department of Labor Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 401 Topeka Boulevard 1800 M Street, N.W. Topeka, Kansas 66603 Washington, DC 20036 Mrs. Diane Tegtmeier Ralph Foster, Esq. 5130 Mission Road Kansas Gas and Electric Building Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 P.O. Box 208 Wicnita, Kansas 67201 William H. Ward, Esq. Mid-America Coalition for William L. Porter, Esq. Energy Alternatives Associate General Counsel 5130 Mission Road Duke Power Comoany Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 242 South Church Street Charlotte, Nortn Carolina 28242 Dr. Ernest O. Salo Professor of Fisheries Researcn M. Richbourg Roberson, Esq. Ins ti tu te Assistant Attorney General College of Fisheries Office of the Attorney General University of Washington 2600 E;11 Street Seattle, Washington 98195 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 [tfl -<tr[$ .J

. Joseph F. Tubridy, Esa. Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr. a100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W. 10307 Atwell Drive Washington, DC 20016 Houston, Texas 77096 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Richard E. Jones, Esq. 1107 West Knapp Street Associa te General Counsel Stillwa ter, Oklahoma 7:074 Tr alina Power i Lignt Comoany Do Fayetteville Street Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Raleigh, NC 27602 Sheldon, Harmon & Roisman 1025 15th Street, N.W., Thomas Erwin, Esq. Suite 500 115 West Morgan Street Washington, DC 20C05 Raleigh, NC 27602 Norman Ross, Esn Wake County Public Library 30 Francis Street 104 Fayetteville Street Brooklin, MA 02126 Raleigh, NC 27601 Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. George F. Trowbridge, Esq. Sheldon, Harmon & Roisman Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbricge 1025 15th Street, N.W. 1800 M Street, N.W. 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Jessie C. Brake John L. Ahleren Attorney General's Office Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 629 Sta te House Annex, Room 203 Raleigh, NC 27602 Concord, NH 03301 Edward G. Bauer, Jr., Esq. Ms. Elizabetn H. Weinhold Vice President and General Counsel Bradstreet Road Philadelphia Electric Ccnpany Hampton, NH 03842 1000 Chestnut Street Philadelpnia, PA 19105 Robert Backus, Esc. O'Neill, Backus, Spielman Eugene J. Bradley, Esa. and Little Philadelphia Electric Ccm, ny 116 Lowell Street 2301 Market Street Vanchester, NH 03101 Philadelpnia, PA 19101 7homas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. John A. Ritsner, Esq. Conner, Moore and Corber Rooes & Gray 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 225 Franklin Street Washington, DC 20006 Boston, MA 02110 Raymond L. Hovis, Esq. Laurie Burt, Esq. Stack and Leader Assis tant Attorney General 35 South Duke Street Commonwealth of Massacnusetts (ork, PA 17101 Environmental Protectior. Division One Ashburton Place, 19tn Floor Boston, MA 02108 tjfl ~rT

O , W. W. Anderson, Esc. William Hubbard, Esq. Deputy Attorney General William M. 23rrick, Eso. Department of Justice Office of Attorney General Capitol Annex 450 James Robertson Parkway Harrisburg, PA 17120 Nashville, TN 37219 Myron Sloom, Esc. Raymond Gibbs, Eso. U.S. Environmental Protection 111 Commerce Su fiding

Agenc, 316 West Lytle Region III, Curtis Suilding Murfreesboro, TN 37130 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106 Leroy J. Ellis, III, Esq.

Omer, Ellis and Brabson Karin Carter, Esc. Chancery Building Department of Environmental 421 Charlotte Avenue Resources Nashville, TN 37219 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 505 Executive House Robert Pyle, Esc. Harrisburg, PA 17120 5203 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, TN 37209 John B. Griffith, Esc. Special Assistant Attorney General Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Tawes State Office Building (C-4) Union Carbide Corporation Annacolis, MD 21401 P. O. Box Y Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 207 01o Main Building Martin Harold Hodder, Esc. Pennsylvania Sta te University 1131 N.E. 86th Street University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 Miami, Florida 33138 Alvin H. Gutterman, Esq. Dr. Frank Hooper A torney for Applicant Resource Ecology Program t Division of Law School of Natural Resources Tennessee Valley Authority University of Michigan Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 [;/' r .~. ~.. >

' Harold F. Reis, Esq. Mr. David A. Caccia lowenstein, Newman, Reis R.D. *2 & Axelrad Sox 70-A 1025 Ccnnecticut Avenue, N .W. Sewell, NJ 08080 Washington, DC 20036 Mark L. First, Esq. .,arman A. Coll, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Steel, Hector & Davis State of New Jersey 1400 S.E. First National Bank Bldg. 36 West State Street Miami, Florida 33131 Trenton, NJ 08625 Mr. Robert D. Pollard William Horner, Esq. Union of Concerned Scientists 67 Market Street 1025 - 15th Street, N.W. Salem, NJ 08079 Washington, DC 20005 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq. Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Public Service Electric and Citi:nes for a Safe Environment Gas Comcany 433 Orlando Avenue 80 Park Place State College, PA 1680 Newark, New Jersey Ms. Juoith H. Johnsrud Peter Buchsbaum, Esq. 433 Orlando Avenue Robert Westreicn, Esq. State College, PA 16801 Departnent of the Public Advocate Division of Publit Inscrest Advocacy Dr. John R. Lamarsh 520 East State Street 68 No' th Chatsworth Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625 Larcnncnt, NY 10538 Dr. Paul Mecray, Jr. Mr. Ernest E. Hill Suite 303 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Cooper River Parkway West University of California North Park Drive P.O. Box 308, L-123 Pennsauken, NJ 08109 Livermore, CA 94550 Mr. R. B. Briggs ss0 iate Director F Michael Parkowski, Esc. 110 {tvans Lane 0epu ty Attorney General , tnall Building Oak Ridge, TN 37830 ia Dever, Delaware 19901 Q.rvr - .. <. 't;

. 3 '. r. Lac !1 l' s. Dr. venneth A. cCoilom ,,.sistant Dean Vice Pre-:a u !' u. College of Engineering The Tuiedo Edison Lump.tny Oklahoma State University Edison plaza Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 300 Madison As enue Eoledo,Ohiv Uo52 Michael W. Maupin, tsq. Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson ?. O. Box 1535 Lcslie llenry, Esq. Richmond, Virginia 23212 Fuller, !!cnry !!odge & Snyder 1200 Edison Plaza Honorable Anthony Gambardella 300 M.sdison Avenue Office of the Attorney General i ledo, Ohio 43004 Supreme Court-Library Suilding 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Donald H. Hauser. Esq. The Cleveland Electric Mr. James M. Torson Illuminating Company 501 Leroy P. O. Box 5000, Room 6l0 Socorro, New Mexico 37501 Cleveland. Ohio 44101 Mr. William A. Blinn Ohio Power Siting Commtssion P.O. Box 173 5 361 E Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Blaine Fielding, Esq. David E. Northrop. Esq. Assistant Attorneys G. neral Ruom 320, Seneca Towers Environmentai Law Section Attorne, General's Otfice 361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 c, Y .typ .a

. 10 - Ms. Phylis Pierce Peter F. vannino. Esc. 1913 Seaver Road Assistant Di rectar of La.r Kine, sport, T?l 37660 City 0 Louis /ille 200 City Hail flicholas D. Lewis Louisvilie, Kentucky 40202 Chairman Energy Facility Siting Evaluation David K. '4rtin, Esq. Council David C. Short, Esq. B20 East Fif th Avenue Assistant Attorney Ceneral-Olympia, Washington 98504 Room 34, Sta te Capi tol Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq. 'licholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Ted R. Indd, Esq. Debevoise & Liberman Attornay for the Ccard of <00 Shoreham Gu11 dint Comissicners a,i tne County '306 F i f teen th 5 tree t, fl.W. o f J e f f e r.,., n,.ndiana r >c Washington, CC c0005 P.O. Cox 4007 427 Ea st ai n S treet P1 chard Q. Quigley, tsq. W;ashington Public Power Supply f4 d i so n, Indiana 47250 Syste"' Thcmas M. Cattilo, E3c. ., 0. Box 968 404 East Main Street Ricnland,,Wasnington yadison, Ina.ana 47250 a 'lalker C. Cunninct, m, Jr. Esq. Ralch C. Pickard 1129 Kentucky P;r.e ite uaildina Envi rcrren tal t'ar,acement Of fice of tne Jefferson County Attorney Board of the State of Indiana Louisville, Kentucky 40202 1330 West N'ichinan Street Indi anacoli s, Indiana 45206 Dr. Puentin.1 Stober Fisheries Research Insti tute Mr. Jonn Woodcnck Uni versi ty of.lashin-ton Indiana Sas saf ras 4uduDen Societ;. Seat t le, '.'as hira ton 2317; 2415 Heacley Road Blocmington, Indiana 47401 Robert Grav Dural Ccute 1 Mr. Georce T "ouser, Dresident Ha ncve r, Indiana a7:;3 Knob and Valley Aucubcn Society of Southern Indiana Harry H. Vcint, Esa. ". O. m,ox 0;;--. Le Roeu f, L a"O, ' ci W and "v ae New Albany, Indiana 47150 175 7 9 S t ree t, ".. Was hi nntcn, J. C. 20025 Robert C. Slover Save the Vall ey, Inc. Cha rl es Ca nbell, Esc. P. O. Box 813 'iice ?res i dert an" 12ror

v e!

"a d i s on, Indiana 47250 Dublic Serv: me C+'arv 'f Iroian: 1000 East Pain Street Dlainfield, Indi ana ~61EC M Tb3

. David R. '!andeventer, Eso. Ecology Action Jefferson County Co ns ure r Box 94 P'otecticn Division Oswego, I!cw York 13126 40i Cid Lcuisville Trust Building Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq. f'ew York Sta te Enercy Office Bill '!. Seiller. Esc. Swan Street Duilding, Core 1 2100 Cc7nonweal tn Buildi ra Second Floor, Empire State Plaza Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Albany, tiew York 12223 Georce A. Leininaar, Jr., Eso. Ira L. Myers, M.D. City Attorney, City of Madi son State Health Officer 1327 Irocuois Drive, P.O. Box 325 State of Alabama %i: son, Indiana a7250 Department of Public Health State Office Building J, B ruce '1i l l er, E sc. Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Jef ferson County Attorne:. 1129.<entucky " cme Life Guilding Louisville, Kentucky . Cu., 2 Herbert S. eanger, Jr., tsq. General Counsel Lewis E. Wallace, Esq. Mrs. Marie Horine, President Deputy General Counsel Save Marble Hill David G. Po'.tell, Esq. Route 2 Assistant Ceneral Counsel Lexington, Indiana 47133 W. Walter La Rocne, Esc. Tennessee '/ alley Authority Joseph 3. Hein, Esc. 400 Commerce Avenue Brc.sn, Tocc & Heyburn Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Sixteenth Ficor, Ci tizens olaza Lcuisville, Kentucky 40202 Honorable A. F. Summer Attorney General Nichael J. Wal ro, Esc. State of Mississippi Attornov for the olan Board and P. O. Box 220 the Board of 2cning Arneals of Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Jef ferson Ccunty, inciana 427 East "ain Street iadison, Indiana 4/c:-0 Alton B. Cobb'.t.D' c Mr. Eddie ruente, Director, Division of ?adiological al ta Lex K. Larson, Esc. Bureau of Env.i ronmenta' Heal : : 1757 ti Street, N.W. Mississiroi State Coard of Healtn Washington, DC 20036 2423 ::or:n Sta:e Street P. O. Eox 1700 Ms. Sharon Morey RD 3 Cswego, liew York 13125 U A ~ %.... Jc Jocelyn F. Olsen, Esc. Dr. Paul W. Purcom, Director Minnesota Pollution Ccntrol Environmental Studies Institute Agency Crexel University '935 W. County Road, 32 32nd & Chestnut Streets

oseville, Minnesota 55113 Philacelphia, Pennsylvania 191Ca

r. Tcm Galazen '>r.s e argaret Dietricn R.R. 2

cute 2, Scx 5ca Scx 64 Garconsville, Virginia 229a2 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 5a859 ailliam H. Rodgers, Jr., Esc.

Jcseph P. Schaeve, Esq. Georgetown University Law Center Sureau of Legal Services 6CC '.ew Jersey Avenue, N.W. Je;;artment of Natural Resources Wasnington, J.C. 200C1 Sox 7921 'dadison, Wisconsin 53707 S'rs. James C. Arnolc Box 3951 Mr. Stanley Cider Charlottesville, Virginia 229C3 C/o Durand Postmaster Tyrone, Wisconsin 54736 Richard Foster, Esq. 19CS A Lewis '/ountain Road Barbara J. Willard, Esq. Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin John J. Runzer, Esq. Hill Farms State Office Sldg. Pe::per, Hamilton & Scheet: 4802 Sheboygan Avenue 123 South Broad Street Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Philadelpnia, Pennsylvania 19109 Mr. Edward Gold Mrs. June Allen SlA ath Street 1719 eadowbrock Heights Mencmonie, Wisconsin 54751 Charlottecville, Virginia 22901 Ricnard Ihrig, Esq. Mr. Cean P. agee Sox 2Ca Executive Secretary Wincna, Minnesota 55987 Soard cf Sucerviscrs Louisa Court House Mr. William Warren Louisa, Virginia 23090 722 St. Christccher's Road Ricnmond, Virginia 23225 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk* Secretary of the Ocamission Mr. Bradford Whitman U.S. ';uclear Regulatory Ccmmissicn Pollution Control Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 J.S. Justice Decartment Rocm 2623 Atomic Safety and Licensing 10th Street & Pennsylvania Acceal Board (17 copies)* Asenue, N.W. U.S. ';uclear ;.egulatory Ccmmissicn Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 2C555 r; g - n f. () Gy .-w*

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Panel U.S. Tiuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Secticn Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washingtcn. D.C. 20555 (51 copies) ?.?C Staff Attornevs Lnaries . Sar:n, Esc.* Richard L. Black, Esq.* Laurence Brenner, Esq.* James ii. Cutchin, IV, Esq.* Steven C. Golcberg, Esq.* .'dilton J. Grossman, Esq.* Edward G. <ettnen, Jr., Esq.* Stephen Lewis, Esq.* Henry J. McGurren, Esq.* William O. Paton, Esq.* Joseph Scinto, Esq.* Stephen M. Schinki, Esq.* I !l4 $ A?A Y Lharles

s. sarth -

Counsel for ?!RC Staff c.

L7,*ITED STATES OF AMER TC.\\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.911 SS h)N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Frederic J. Couf al, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan, Member Dr. Donald P. deSylva, Member In the Matter of ) ) DIRE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488 ) 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station, ) 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) ) PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION E'WIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE Accearances J. Michael McGarry, Esq., Debevoise & Liberman, 806 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 and William L. Porter, Esq., Legal Department, P. O. Box 2178, Charlotte, NC 28242 For the Applicant, Duke Power Company Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq., Charles A. Barth, Esq. and Joseph F. Scinto, Esq., Office of the Executive Legal Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 For the NRC Regulatory Staff William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq., 2124 Wachovia Building, Winston-Salem, NC 27101 and Thcmas S. Erwin, P. O. Box 928, Raleigh, NC 27602 For the Intervenors U 4 ^ C f3 2

O UNITED STATES OF MIERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) DURE POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. ST'i 50-488 ) 50-489 (Ferkins Nuclear Station, 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE Backzround L. The environmental consequences of the uranium fuel cycle associated with the operation of the Perkins Nuclear Station were considered in the FES (dated October, 1975) by including Table S-31I and by factoring those consequences into a cost-benefit balance. On March 7, 1977, the Co= mission promulgated its final interim rule as to environmental impact values for the uranium fuel cycle which amended Table S-3. At the hearing, the Staff provided testimony that the new figures contained in the revised Table S-3 were so little different from those in the original Table S-3 that the cost-benefit balance would not be disturbed. (See Affidavit of Robert A. Gilbert, at 6 following Tr. 1778; see also 1779-1782.) 1/ Table S-3 is part of 10 CFR Part 31. 9 -ofi3 v

- 2. In addition to presenting the revised Table S-3, the Staff presented an analysis comparing the health effects associated with the coal and nuclear fuel cycles. In making this evaluation, Dr. R. L. Gotchy considered the entire fuel cycle associated with each alternative. The co'al fuel cycle consists of mining, processing, transportation, pcwer gener-ation, and waste disTosal. The nuclear fuel evele includes mining, milling, uranium enrichment, fuel preparation, fuel transportation, power generation, irradiated fuel transport, reprocessing (if permitted) and waste disposal. (See Supple-mental Testi=eny, R. L. Go tchy, following Tr. 1740.) The Ap licant also presented testi=cny cencerning the health effects associated with the coal fuel cycle. (See Testimony of Lionel Lewis following Tr. 1776.) 3. . -ter the close of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, one of the members of this Board prepared a memorandum which was transmitted to the Commission. The chief thrust of this =emorandum was to bring into question the Table S-3 value for the amount of radon (Rn-222) emitted frem tailings piles associated with uranium mills. 4 On April 11, 1978, the Commission amended Table S-3 by removing the value contained in the table for raden i t' ". C 1 u .1

@ from the uranium fuel cycle.2'l releases The Ccamission directed that in proceedings pending before Licensing Boards, the record be reopened for the limited purpose of receiving new evidence on radon releases and on health effects result- ~ ing from radon releases. 5. In response to the Ccamission's directive, a public hearing was convened on May 16 and 17, 1978, in Bethesda, Maryland, to receive evidence on the amount of radon that might be released into the environ =ent resulting frca the mining and milling of an amount of uranium sufficient to supply the Perkins Nuclear Station for 40 years of operation. The subsequent health effects were also considered. 6. In connection with the hearing, the Staff filed with this Board a series of five affidavits (following Tr. 2369) which included, as more fully discussed belew, the Staff's most recent esti=ates of radon-222 releases frem mining and milling operations and an evaluation of the health effects resulting from such releases. The Applicant also filed testimony and presented evidence through a panel of witnesses (Lewis, Goldman, Mcmilton, following Tr. 2266). _2/ 43 F.R. 15613.

-L-7 Intervenors provided the testimony of Dr. Chauncey Kepford, a former assistant professor of chemistry, who had carticipated in questions concerning radon-222 emissions in the Three Mile Island proceeding. Dr. Kepford's testimony ~ [ was supplied by a depcsition taken on June 8, 1978, in 3ethesda, Maryland. At the deposition, Dr-Kepford's pre-2715).3/ filed direct testinony was offered (Tr, p. Dr. Kepford also offered a document entitled, " Resource Con-sump tion (Tr.

p. 2713) and some 11 other documents, or parts of documents (Tr. 2716-2724) which had not been prefiled.

8. Two of the Staff's affidavits explained how the incorrect value of 74.5 Ci for Rn-222 frca milling came to be incorporated into Table S-3. Mr. Rothfleisch pointed out that during the preparation of NASH-1248 (from which Table S-3 was taken) he estimated the amount of radon emitted from the full tailings pile during the period of time required to mill one annual fuel requirement (AFR).4/ Miss Black (who -3/ The Board, in an Order dated June 30, 1978, received the deposition and certain exhibits and ruled on obj ec-tions and motions made at the time the deposition was taken. -4/ About 57 days is required to mill the 2.7 x 105 tons of 0.1% uranium ore required to fuel a 1000 MWe plant operating at 80% capacity for 1 year. Ut] -o p..r>

O sponsored testimony originally written ny Mr. Lowenberg said that this is nearly equivalent to the amount of radon that is emitted per single AFR during the typical 10-year period of active mill operation. It was assumed that the tailings pile would remain wet, a condition which retards the emission of radon. This value was incorporated into Table S-3. The fact that the value did not include the total amount of radon that would be emitted from the pile during the thousands of years following the cessation of milling operations was overlooked. Radon Source Terms A. Radon from Mining 9. Raden-222 is one of the natural products of the decay of uranit=-238 which has a half-life 4.5 billion The precursors of radon are all solids, two of them years. of long half-life, thorium-230 with 80,000 years and radium-226 with 1600 years. Radon is a gas having a half life of 3.8 days and readily diffuses through the soil or ore body; the amount reaching the atmosphere depends on the length of the path (and hence the lapse of time) between the origin of the radon (the ore body) and the air interface. Typically 2 feet of soil will hold up the radon long enough to permit about 257,of the radon to decay, c.

. allowing 75?; to escape. If a body of uranium ore is ezposed to the air, raden gas will escape into the air. The process will continue so long as the ore body is exposed, up to billions of years. 10. Staff's witness R. M. Wilde explained how he arrived at an estimated quantity of 4060 Ci of Rn-222/AFR associated with mining. It was calculated frcm an estimate of the concentration of radon in the ventilating air frca an underground mine =ultiplied by the amount of air pumped frem the mine during the time required to extract 2.71 x 10 5 metric tons of ore (1 AFR) from the mine. Since mine venti-lation ceases when the mine is closed down, the mine does not constitute a continuing source of radon. The estimate of 4060 Ci/AFR was accepted as reasonable by Applicant's witness (Lewis Testimony, paragraph 2 following Tr. 2266) and was not challenged by Intervenors. This value was used by Gotchy in his estimates of health effee e from mining. We adept it as a reasonable estimate. 11. The Board was concerned that abandoned underground mines could continue to be a source of radon release to the atmosphere and questioned Mr. Wilde concerning this. Mr, Wilde indicated that it was industry practice to seal ventilation and hoisting shafts of mines no longer producing cg ny'.M Ju

7_ uranium. Moreover, even if the shafts were not sealed, when the ventilation fans are shut down, radon release would essentially go to zero (Tr. 2541-2542). 12. Mr. Uilde testified that there was insufficient data to predict with certainty the potential rate of radon emission frcm open-pit mining operations (Wilde, p. 7, following Tr. 2369). Open-pit mining constitutes about half of the present uranium mining activity (Tr. 2543). Though this may be anticipated to become a decreasing portion in the future (Tr. 2550), the Board was concerned by the absence of any estimates of potential radon released from open-pit mining (Tr. 2543-2558). Failure to include any such estimates (and the associated health effects' apoeared to be a major omission that was questioned at length. We insisted that at least an upper bound be placed in the record. Mr. Wilde made a number of conservative assumptions and calculated a value for radon release from open-pit mines of approximately 100 Ci per year per AFR (Tr. 2609-2613). Applicant's witness Goldman indicated that he made a similar calculation and estimated bcunding values of 100 to 200 Ci/yr. 13. We have assumed that the acount of radon released frca mining could be as high as 200 Ci/yr/AFR and that half of the uranium for the Perkins plant will be from open pit 54^^E9

- S- .ines. Thus we arrive at a fi~ure of 100 Ci/vr/AFR from unreclaimed open-pit mines. This figure was adopted by Intervenors' witness Kepford for purposes of calculations which he subsequently performed in connection with testimony. that he gave at his deposition (Kep ford p. 2) 14. The total amount of radon attributable to open-pit mining depends upon the period of time that the walls and floor of the pit remains open to the atmosphere as well as the concentration of uranium in the soil of the mined out pit. In arriving at the figures in column 4 of Table 1 of his testimony, Dr. Kepford assumed that the pits remain open forever. Since U-238 has a very long half-life, he calculates the amount of radon from the open pie...ines required to fuel 1 the Perkins plant (120 AFRs) at 6 x 10'3 Ci emitted in the 0 following 10 years. We find no error in his mathematics but do have problems with the assumption. 15. If one assumes that an open pit =ine produces enough are to supply one nuclear plant and that the pit is refilled (cr otherwise stabilized) at the end of 20 years of operation, then some 4000 Ci of radon would be released per AFR, nearly the same as that estimated for underground mining so it would not matter whether the uranium came frem underground or open-pit mines. c4 170

_ g - 16, NRC has no regulatory power over uranium mines; it is entirely a state matter. Therefore we inquired con-cerning the present practices of the s tate regulatory agencies. Mr. Wilde stated that nearly every state has rather stringent reclamation laws governing open-pit mines. Jyoning requires that the land be returned to a condition such that it can be used for an equal or higher purpose after mining than it was used for prior to mining (Tr. 2556). Dr. Goldman stated that of the five states in which signif-icant amounts of uranium are mined, only Aricana has no reclamation requirements. 17. Since the amount of radon expected from the mining operations in determined by the amount of reclamation to be applied to open-pit mines, we necessarily must speculate as to what might occur. We are doubtful that all mines will be reclaimed immediately on the cessation of operations. Neither do we believe that society will permit such open sores on our landscape for all future time. It is our judg-ment that recla=ation will likely occur within 100 years after mining has ceased. This would result in an upper linit of 10,000 Ci/AFR--2 times that considered by the Staff but very small compared to that proposed by the Intcrvenors. What if we are wrong? Would radon from this b4 'P71

@ impose a serious burden en future generations? We source think not, as we shall explain when we censider health effects. B. Radon frcm Milline 18. Af ter the mining operation, uranium ore is deliv-ered to a mill where it undergoes the varius chemical proc-esses which result in the separation of U 0 fr the ther 33 materials contained in the ore (Tr. 2502-2505) At the mill there are a number of potential points of radon release. One point is the stockpile where the ore awaits processing (Tr. 2502). There will be scme generation of radon during this storage period. Staff witness Magno testified that this was considered in developing his estimates but proved to be only a very minor contribution and was not included in the overall estin.ates (Tr. 2559-2560). During the course o f milling, there will be the release of some radon as a result of crushing and grinding and various chemical proc-essing steps. Staff witness Magno estimated that this release would amount to some 30 curies per AFR (Magno, pp. 2-3, following Tr. 2369, Tr. 2560). Thereafter, the tailings or residual material remaining after the uranium has been extracted (which centain substantial amounts of thorium and [?Q -en y

11 - radium) go to a tailings pile (Tr. 2305-2306). Mr. Magno provided separate estimates for radon releases from the tailings piles during different periods during and folicw-ing active milling. ~ 19. Since most of the thorium and radium remain in the ore after the uranica has been removed, radon will con-tinue to be released from the ore and diffuse to the surface of the tailings piles. The rate of emissien will be deter-mined primarily by the diffusion constants and will be essentially constant for thousands of years, being chiefly determined by the half-life of the parent Th-230, 80,000 years. Since only 907. of the uranium is recovered in the milling operation, the tailings piles contain about one tenth as much uranium as the ore. Hence even after most of the Th-230 has decayed it will be regenerated from the U-238 and will continue to emit radon at about ten percent of the original level for billions of years. 20. Mr. Magno's testimony provides an esti= ate of approximately 750 curies of radon per AFR released from the tailings during the period of active mill operation, which he took to be 26 years. During this period of time, a portion of the tailings pond is composed of wet pond area, wet sandy beach areas, and some dry beach areas. [/ -m.,

12 - Radon is released principally from the dry beach areas (Ma gno, pp. 3-a, following Tr 2369 and Tr. 2561-2562). Mr Magno estimated that during the following period of approximately five years during which the tailings piles dry out and are stabilized, approximately 350 curies per AFR wculd be generated (Magno, p. 6, following Tr. 2369) 21. Mr. Magno's values of 750 and 350 curies of radon pe-AFR emitted from the piles prior to stabilization was accepted by the parties and the Board. 22. Mr. Magno estimated that the end of the 5 year at dry out period, the tailings piles would be emitting radon at a rate of about 100 Ci/yr/AFR.5 This val':e was not challenged; indeed it was used by Dr. Kepford in his calculations (Kepford Testimony, bottem of p. 2). 23. The total amount of radon emitted per AFR depends entirely on the assumptions that are made concerning the stabilization of the tailings piles after they dry out. If the piles remain uncovered, or are protected only by a -5/ This value is consistent with that derived in NUREG-0002 which was relied upon by Board member Jordan in question-ing the 74.5 Ci that appeared in Table S-3. rg _m fg u-

. radium) go to a tailings pile (Tr. 2305-2506). Mr. Ma gno provided separate estimates for radon releases from the tailings piles during different periods during and follow-ing active milling. ~ 19. Since most of the thorium and radium remain in the ore after the uranium has been removed, radon will con-tinue to be released from the ore and diffuse to the surface of the tailings piles. The rate of emission will be deter-mined primarily by the diffusion constants and will be essentially constant for thousands of years, being chiefly determined by the half-life of the parent Th-230, 80,000 years. Since only 90% of the uranium is recovered in the milling operation, the tailings piles contain about one tenth as much uranium as the ore. Hence even after most of the Th-230 has decayed it will be regenerated from the U-238 and will continue to emit radon at about ten percent of the original level for billions of years. 20. Mr. Magno's testimony provides an esti= ate of approximately 750 curies of radon per AFR released from the tailings during the period of active mill operation, which he took to be 26 years. During this period of time, a portion of the tailings pond is composed of wet pond area, wet sandy beach areas, and some dry beach araas. M '975

12 - Radon is released principally frca the dry beach areas (Magno, pp. 3-4, following Tr. 2369 and Tr< 2561-2562). Mr. Magno estimated that during the following period of approximately five years during which the tamlings piles } dry cut and are stabilized, approximately 350 curies per AFR would be generated (Magno, p. 6, following Tr. 23691 21. Mr< Magno's values of 750 and 350 curies of radon per AFR emitted from the piles prior to stabilization was accepted by the parties and the Board. 22. Mr. Magno estimated that at the end of the 5 year dry out period, the tailings piles would be emitting radon at a rate of about 100 Ci/yr/AFR.5! This value was not challenged; indeed it was used by Dr. Kepford in his calculations (Kepford Testimony, bottom of p. 2). 23. The total amount of radon emitted per AFR depends entirely on the assumptions that are made concerning the stabilization of the tailings piles after they dry out. If the piles remain uncovered, or are protected only by a -3/ This value is consistent with that derived in NUREG-0002 which was relied upon by Board member Jordan in question-ing the 74.5 Ci that appeared in Table S-3. t A _ c.-7,: J ~a'

. foot or two of soil, as has been the practice in the past, the radon will continue to be emitted at a rate of 100 Ci/yr/AFR for tens of thousands of years. The total to infinite time would be about 11 million curies per AFR or nearly 1.3 billion curies for the 100 AFRs required to fuel the Perkins Nuclear Station for 40 years. This is shown in column 7 of Table 1 of the Kepford testimony. 26 The Board agrees with the Intervenors that the amount of radon that would be emitted frca unstabilized tailings piles when integrated far into the future will be very large. 25. Staff witness Gotchy assumed t!.at the tailings piles would emit radon at a rate of 1 Ci/yr/AFR for the first 100 years, 10 CL/yr/AFR for the next 400 years and 100 Ci/yr/AFR for periods beyond 500 years (Gotchy p. 4). Thus at the end of 10,000 years, he estimated 912,000 Ci/AFR (Getchy Table 6, p. 15) which would amount to 0 1 x 10 Ci due to the 110 AFRs required for Perkins. This agrees with the Kepford figure of 1.06 x 108 Ci. (See Kepford Tcble 1, colu=n 7 at 10' years. ) 25. We question both the Kepford and Gotchy assump-tions on stabilization. Dr. Kepford assumed no stabilization. ~~.v.... V s

. Mr. Magno testified that the Staff has recently developed performance objectives for tailings piles management that will require that the tailings piles be buried so deep that the radon emission rate will be no more than dcuble the release rate frca natural soils in the surrounding envirens (Magno p. 6). This will require some 6 to 20 feet of soil over the piles and will reduce the rate to less than 1 Ci/yr/AFR, about 17. of the rate from unstabilized piles. 27. In response to Board questions, the Staff produced a witness, Hubert Miller, who described the Staff's Branch Technical Position which requires all Applicants for a license to operate a uranium mill to commit themselves to a plan of reclamation (Tr. 2396, et seq.). The fundamental thesis of the Branch Technical Position is that the tailings be reclaimed in such a manner that no on-going active care would be required to maintain stabilization (Tr. 2395). The Branch Technical Position is applied to new and existing applicants (Tr. 2401, 2542). By way of example, Mr. Miller stated that the two most recent applicants have ccmmitted themselves so dispose of tailings below grade (Tr. 2396). 28. Since a number of mills may be located in agree-ment states and thus are not subject to NRC licensing, the Board questioned the assumption that all tailings piles 54 -C'7S

. would be subject to stabilization requirements such as those described by St-Miller as NRC branch positions for NRC licensing purposes. The Staff presented in response to the Board's inquiry Mr. Kerr, Assistant Director for State Agreements in NRC's Office of State Programs. Mr. Kerr testified that the NRC had been in contact with the states in which uranium milling activities are carried out and each of the responsible states has provided the NRC with commitments to impose stabilization requirements equivalent to those described by the Staff (Tr. 2477-2480, 2483-2485). 29. There are, of course, some abandoned mills and asscciated tailings piles from previous milling activities. These abandoned facilities are no longer under license and may not therefore be subj ect to stabilization requirements as a part of licensing activities, although there is some indication that scme effort in this regard may develop in the future (Tr. 2453-2544, 24d0-2481). Nevertheless, since these are abandoned facilities, any radon emission from such tailings piles cannot be attributed to the operation of the Perkins facility. 30. The Board is of the opinion that the situation with respect to tailings piles has changed greatly within SM "T3

. the past year. We are no longer faced with abandoned and unstabilized piles. The new requirements will assure that they will no longer be a major source of radioactivity. The NRC Staff has recognized the problem and has moved to handle it. Tailings piles stabilized to NRC criteria will emit only 1 Ci/yr/AFR so that the amount of radon from tailings piles associated with the fueling of the Perkins plant will be about 110 Ci/yr. This is negligibly small compared to the natural emission of radon from the soil of the U. S. 8 (some 10 Ci/yr -- see Gotchy, p. 14). 31. Neither the Intervenors nor the Staff have argued that stabilized piles are a menace. The Intervenors argue that we cannot guarantee that they will be stabilized for all future times. Gotchy conservatively assumed that after 100 years the soil coverings will be eroded to the point that the radon release rate will be 10 Ci/AFR and that after 500 years it will be 100 Ci/AFR. He also assumes that the population of the U. S. will remain stable at 300 million. 32. It appears to us that Dr. Gotchy is being exces-sively conservative. It is not apparent that piles that meet present NRC standards will be eroded in a matter of $P 't p...s

. a few hundred or a few thousand years. Furthermore if there are people around to breathe the radon, those people can readily repair any damage to the piles. We see no reason for piling uncertainty on top of uncertainty. There may be another period of glaciation within the next 10,000 years, but we do not have to assume it to project radon emissions into the future. If all the stabilization is destroyed by some catastrophic event, then radon will be a miner problem. 33. The Intervenors argue that even if stabilization could be assured for the next few thousand years, it surely could not be guaranteed for millions of years. Bbst of the impact that they proj ect occurs after the first thousand or 10 thousand years. That ir. pact is cancer deaths to future generations. Before addressing the impact on people to be born tens of thousands of years in the future, we will first explore the relation between radon and cancer. Radon and Cancer 34. There is good evidence that miners who in the past breathed air containing a large concentration of radon gas (over 100 pCi/ liter) for extended periods were cuch more likely.o die of cancer than were members of the Sk*ng

. public who breathed air containing only the normal back-ground concentration of radon (about 0.1 pCi/ liter). Tcday uranium miners are protected by regulation which limits radon exposure to 3 WLM/yr;6/ this results in a maximum dose to tne bronchial epithelium of about 15 rem per year (Tr. 2573). 35. Miaers are exposed to air containing a consider-able concentration of radon, but no one escapes breaching some radon. Radon seeps from the soil (because the soil contains uranium) and mixes with the air we breath. The amount varies from place to place. It has been estimated that the average concentration of radon in the air over continental U. S. is about 0.1 pCi/ liter which in itself produces a dose to the bronchial epithelium of about -6/ WLM stands for working level acnths. level (WL) is the exposure to a miner thatOne working air with a radon concentration of about breathes A miner exposed to 100 pCi/ liter. per day for a month (177 hrs) would receive ansuch a concent exposure of 1 WLM. v- _ v. 2, L a

19 - 50 mram/yr. 7'/ But that isn't all. Modern man lives in houses with concrete floors, stone fireplaces or brick walls. He works in buildings made of concrete. The radon concentration inside such homes and buildings is much larger than it is out of doors. Consequently the average dose to an incividual in the U. S. is estimated to be between 210 and 23,000 millirem per year with an average of about 1650 crem/yr (Hamilton, Tr. 2276). 36. The question arises as to whether this exposure to background radon produces lung cancer in some people? In other words, do small doses of radiation to large numbers of people produce as many cancer deaths as large doses to fewer people. This is equivalent to asking whether the relation between health effects and dose is a linear one. -7/ The figures for the concentration of radon in air due to natural b.ackground and the lung dose therefrom art subj ect tc a considerable uncertainty. Gc cchy con o. 43 of his written testimony (quoting from Ncalo,45) 'gives the average Rn-222 concentration in the U. S. as 150 pCi/m3 which is equivalent to 0.15 pCi/ liter. That concentration results in a dose of 450 mrem /yr to the bronchial epithelium. In response to a question, Dr. Hamilton relied on a United Nations Scientific Com-mittee Report to arrive at an average dose of 1650 mrem /yr to the bronchial epithelium from natural radon background. That dose was from breathing radon inside buildings; the figure for radon out of doors was an average of 50 mrem /yr (Tr. 2275-76). We recognize that the concentration of radon in the atmosphere varies from place to place and is subject to considerable unc ertainty. Differences by a factor of five are not important for our purposes of ccmparing natural back-ground to the amount that might be due to Perkins. v-Y & #l ~ .4j

. Science does not provide an unequivocal answer. Many radi-ation biologists are of the opinion that since body cells have a demonstrated capacity for repair there may well be a threshold dose below which the damage is much below ~ linear, possibly zero (Hamilton Tr. 2270, 71). Applicant's witness Lewis stated ". it is important to note that the linear extrapolation used to calculate health effects low levels as an estimate of actual health effects at may considerably overestimate the actual number of health effects. Various radiatien protection standards setting bodies say, in fact, thatthe real effects are likely very much lower and may, in fact, even be zero" (Lewis, pp. 3 and 4 following Tr. 2266). He cited a number of government publications as authority for his statement. 37. Since there is no certain evidence for a radia-tion effects threshold, it is generally agreed that :he conservative approach is to assume linearity. Dr. Getchy's estimates of deaths were based on the linear assumption using risk estimators from RASH-1400 and GESMO (Go tchy p.

7).

Although Dr. Kepfatd made reference to some published papers which argue that the linear assumption is not conser-vative, Intervenors presented no such evidence. Indeed Dr. Kepford used the risk estimators of Dr Go tchy in his U/' "' C } ,f 9

. calculations (Kepford p. 3). We are of the opinion that the linear hypothesis provides a conservative estimate of potential deaths due to small doses of radiation to large populations. 38. Dr. Gotchy adopted a si=ple wedge =odel for calcu-Lating the dispersion of the radon plume frc= a mine or tailings piles as it moves across the U. S. He used present populaticn density figures increased by a factor to bring the total U. S. population to 300 million. He relied on the RABGAD ccmputer code developed for NUREG-0002 to calculate the total populaticn doses per curie of radon emitted.

Then, using the risk estimators of WASH-1400 and NUREG-0002, he estLnated the potential deaths per curie of radon from a source in western U. S.

His figure (derived from Table 4 of his testimony) is about 2 x 10-5 potential cancer deaths per curie. As he stated on p. 7 of his testimony, this figure is smaller than that used by EPA by about a factor of 2 which is well within the factor of 10 error band of his estimates. 39. Using the foregoing risk conversion factor and his esti=ates of radon release from mining and milling, Dr. Gotchy calculates the total deaths during the 1000 CA ~"?>

O year period following the mining of 1 AFR to be 1.2 addi-ticnal deaths (Go tchy p. 8) This number should be multi-plied by 110 AFRs to get the total impact of the Perkins plant or approximately 130 deaths in 1000 years. 40. Dr. Gotchy's testimony discusses at length the reasons for his conclusion that he cannot predict specific health effects into the future beyond 1000 years (Gotchy, pp. 11-13, following Tr. 2369; Gotchy Supplemental Affidavit IV IV-20, following Tr. 2425). Dr. Gotchy further shows that on another basis one can conclude that the radon release frem the nuclear fuel cycle does not have a significant adverse impact. He compared raden releases resulting from the mining and milling of uranium with radon naturally occurring on the earth, and provided calculations out to 10,000 years of the comparative population exposure reault-ing from radon emanation from the nuclear fuel cycle compared to the naturally occurring exposures. These calculations show that exposures due to radon releases frca mining and milling are insignificant cc= pared to natural background radiation exposures (Gotchy, pp. 13-16, following Tr. 2369). 41. Out to 1000 years, Dr. Kepford's calculatiens are somewhat higher than those resulting from the use of Dr. Gotchy's esti=ates. For 1000 years, Dr. Kepford estimates

r. g _ c. cr

... a u

. a total of 489 deachs iue to the radon resulting frca approximately 110 AFRs requirea to fuel the three Perkins facilities for a 30-year operating lifeti=e (Kepford, Table 4, Tr. 2790, 2791). For the same number of annual fuel requirements, Dr. Gotchy's estimates to 1000 years predict approximately 132 deaths. It should be noted that Dr. Kepford's calculations contain certain radon scurce estimates greater than those contained in Dr. Gotchy's estimates. These include a source of 100 curies per year per AFR, to account for residual releases from open-pit mines (Kepford, p. 2). Dr. Kepford assumes no stabilization of mill tailings piles and thus assumes a release of approxi-mately 100 curics per year per AFR for the entire period (Kepford, p. 2, Tr. 2791). As noted above, Dr. Gotchy's estimates for 1000 years are based upon a release from the tailings piles for the first 500 years of approximately 10 curies per AFR and 100 curias per AFR for the 500 years that follows. 42. In contrast to Dr. Gotchy, Dr. Kepford continues his computations of health effects on the same basis for periods to millions and billions of years. On that basis, of course, although the annual incre=ent is small, the total period of time is so enormous that the total number [34 TS7

. of deaths summed over this period of time, as computed by Kr. Kepforc, is very large, e.g., the imp ac t accumulated for 10,000 years is 4800 computed deaths, for a billion years it is 230 =illion computed deaths (Kepford, Table 4). It is this impact that Dr. Kepford urges us to debit nuclear power when assessing nuclear power vs. an impact associated with coal (Kepford, p. 6). 43. On the other hand, a third and different point of view was expressed by Applicant's witness Dr. Hamilton who, although agreeing that Dr. Gotchy's estimates were reascnable and conservative based upon the data he used (Hamilton testimony page 1 following Tr. p. 2266, and Tr. 2270), felt that calculating health effects based upon p. such extre=ely low level exposure was not truly meaningful as repair mechanisms were not taken into account (Tr. p. 2271). Dr. Hamilton also decried extrapolations of health effects into the distant future as being misleading (Tr.

p. 2275).

44 Rather, Dr. Hamilton expressed the view that the problem should be addressed in terms of increase in raden-222 that a person is going to get from the nuclear fuel cycle in terms of the fractional increase in natural GP -{TS

. background radiation frcm raf.on-222 to which every living person is exposed (Tr. p. 2275). Dr. Hamilton concluded that the average annual dose to the bronchial epitheliu= frec raden-222 from natural sources is 165 millirad per year (Tr,

p. 2276).

He calculated that one year's operation of a 1000 EJe nuclear power plant for one year at a capacity factor of 0.65 would increase natural background radon by about 1.5 parts in 10 million; the dose to the bronchial epithelium would be increased by less than one thousandth ~7 of a millirem (2.5 x 10 rem) per year. Dr. Hamilton considered that increases in raden-222 of this magnitude "make an additional negligible contribution to annual natural background radiation and consequently, a similarly negligible impact on the health effects associated with the fuel cycle" (Hamilton testimony pp. 2 and 3 following Tr,

p. 2266).

45. In response to Board questioning, Dr. Hamilton testified that variations in normal living style, traveling about the country and going indoors or outdoors results in doses that are =any orders of magnitude greater than the increase in dose resulting from raden-222 emanating frcm tailings and mining (Tr. pp. 2322 and 2333). Dr. Hamilten concluded that these low levels of exposure are " completely insignificant and without any reality" (Tr. 2323). 54 -cco .-a

.. 46. Applicant's witness Goldman calculated the a=ount of radon that would seep from the ash pile of a coal fired station that burns coal from various regions of the U. S. Since the amount of uranium in the coal varies frem region to region as well as the heat centent of the coal, his cc:aparison was on the basis of Ci of radon per year per annual coal requirement (Goldman Testimony, Table 2 follow-ing Tr, 2266). He calculates that the amount of radon frc= a 20 feet deep ash pit would vary from 2 to 15 Ci/yr/AFR. This is more than that expected from uranium mill tailings piles stabilized to NRC criteria. The radon also persists for very long tL=es into the future. 47. Dr. Kepford accepted the Goldman esti=ates of 2 Ci/yr/AFR as a basis for his calculations of deaths frcm radon from a coal plant (Kepford Testimony, p. 4 and Table 4). However he reduced the Gotchy risk esti= ate of deaths per curie of radon by combined factors of 0.05 and 0.17 because of the reduced number of people between a coal plant at the Perkins site and the sea coast and also because of reduced plume residence ti=e.5! These reduction factors -S/ Radon from a coal-fired plant is released at the point of use of the coal and the location of ash piles; uranium is mined and milled in western United States. c:tt -CEO o>

- were strongly questioned at the deposition (Tr. 2756-2782) Dr. Kepford is certainly correct chat a triangle with its apex a t.'beksville, N. C. wili incluce many fewer people

nan a similar triangle with its apex in Utah.

On the other nand he did not take into account such factors as the decay of radon in the plume as it moves across the U. S. and the increase in population density near the east coast The problem is complicated and it appears that Dr. Kep fo rd 's model was over simplified. 48. It appears to us that if the open uranium mine nits are filled and the milling piles stabilized then the health effects from the radon from the uranium fuel cycle would not be much larger than the health effects from the radon from coal ash piles. In either case the effects are small; the 110 Ci year from stabilized piles caused by P e r'e t n s (110 AFRs) wculd produce only 0.002 deaths per vear "n the entire U. S. Dr. Kepford's coal figures are smaller ': t are susnect for the reason stated in paragraph 48. We

on ' t think the difference is important.

I 49. The Board has weighed carefully the views of the S t 1." #, Applicant and Int e rveno rs. They do net differ greatly factual evidence but 'n they do differ on the proper treatment up _c 4 o

. of projections of potential effects into a distant future. We believe that we have an obligation to assess the effects of todays actions on future generations. We certainly =ust censider any known effects on our immediate successors as of importance comparable to effects on those now living. When it comes to balancing adverse L= pacts to those descendants who may follow a million years frca now against the benefits to the present generation, we would weight benefits to the present population. The benefits are certain -- the impacts hypothetical. The action presently proposed is not one that presents a serious risk to any future generation. Even if Dr. Kepford's projections were to come about, Perkins would result in, at most, 500 deaths per millennium at any time in the future. We believe those esti=ates are inflated. A possible half a death per year in a population of 300 million people is a minimal impact. Under the NRC sta'i-o lization procedures and reasonable regulations on open pit reclamation, the impact will be 100 times less. 50. The impact on future generaticas of a coal fired Perkins plant is also considerable. A 3-unit coal station would consume 400 million tons of coal in 40 years -- coal that will be sorely needed in the future. A billion cons of CO2 that it would put into the atmosphere could have a v. .....w

. significant effect on future climate. We believe that future generaticas will be better off if Perkins is nuclear. 51. Based on the record available to this Board, we find that the best mechanism available to characterize the significance of the radon releases associated with the mining and milling of the nuclear fuel for the Perkins facility is to compare such releases with those associated with natural background. The increase in background asso-ciated with Perkins is so small compared with background and so small in comparison with the fluctuations in back-ground, as to be completely undetectable. Under such a circumstance, the impact cannot be s ignificant. CONCLUSION 52. In response to the Commission's directives con-tained in the statement of consideration issued in connection with the amendment to Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51, published in the Federal Resister on April 14, 1973 (43 F.R. 15613), this Board has carefully considered available information concerning the releases of radon-222 associated with the uranium fuel cycle and health effects that can reasonably be deemed associated therewith, and concludes that such releases and impacts are insignificant in striking the cost-benefit balance for the Perkins Nuclear Power Station.

6 30 - IT IS SO ORDERED. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J] &{, hl _,(.,yWa l Dr. Walter H // Jordan, Meat.er N k' ' 1 h Ci. l.i / tb ~ Dr. Derald P. deSylva, Member A

D JL

- r.). AA Frederic J r Couf al:,] Chairmah Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 14th day of July, 1978. '}}