ML19206A624

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law,Filed by Intervenors.Seeks Denial of Continuance & Renewal of Applicants Cp.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19206A624
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/18/1977
From:	Kepford C Metropolitan Edison Co
To:
References
NUDOCS 7904200300
Download: ML19206A624 (38)

Text

/

3 n

\\giiie

-i 4

.ct. ?).

/

vp I

'q e.u ll,.

.c.e{1 I (.

\\

. \\,O gf v.3.{ y.. ;_s

-..,,.:.c-w <_..:..s.. v.s a.

i o

s.

9 ** ys ",. h e

7 r

e e.p' #e#

'1 s

s

.i v C

.c... n, -.: w...:u u u,. r, a A C.,.,

- -.p

. :..s. -

.a

/.

.e 4: g d g3

//

Eefere the Atc=ie Safe v and !.ic e r.s in e 5ca-d In the

.V_a t t e r c f

.u...., e.. s... 2.s e v-..

.. v e. u..3.. -.-.,.e,

)

-r

,ec..<e...o.

y

,u, 0 a

..i

)

et al.

)

)

("hree M.ile 'sland 'Tuclear

)

Generatir.g 5ta-i =, " nit 2)

)

)

P a' #."TT*.7.*#.'*.". v.O. O A c

.,a n --

o f.-.

...S-3..,s a.N O v.*

.-.f,,,,

."..V. w Q L.J

• .v.

m C v' '~' ' '~ e~ s'."' e' r_.?

/

77(2c us,' /S, / f 77 1

/

790420Dg&D

,T US-109

..e A

1 4..

e.

4-a..

---.sc..

d C~u -e'-. " -. ". e a'f,'- ~a

~o~~e^.=s

• '.a *.

".".1

=

's

-o-

-=

e~~.-

^

a a4 s'.

d-,ac*.

'. -. - a 4.-. a.' *. c.'

.a.a'.e-ed,"*

-'a 200.,^s^e' 3

-a.

(tr. 523). Witness for the Applican:, 7allance, agreed that the 3ceing 747 and the Lockheed C-5 A "-reatly exceed th e '<in e tic energy set

.#c.

s-3.d--

c dda..-..*

s."

( *...

3"

5 7 ' A -c' C ).

d

,4v,

' C -2 c,-

s e

.w,

..,,daan' kas

=>e o s'..a t.'.

'. o.

.d a. *. e --4 e

'."*"-.-a.

_r cw" f --.

a

.- a +. e s

.oc.

,a.m-,.

,4-..

ru

> =

u,.

- --. a -.... a e a.- 4.so-.3 e.

o.an,a a-

,c.-~.

..a-

.a 3

( u...

a,q,, ).

=

o -

s,20,

-.--c-,

.v 3

Che Applicant has c: censidered the ef'ects which the presence c*'

'." e w v-c'-'

2 ' we.e

-4."'.

d-a c.- a. '. a.- a. 4 - -.. e - *. 4 a

e..' " a.

.a.

-a a.J.C. a.c..

4, s.we...

u.

C.c

. s.Ss-

,c w /

c, u- *- ).

6

3 L

\\..

/

a-4.

ess

.3-,

..A S.3.eg-us-a.w e s-0 - en.4 a.

6. =. e 7.

s s O.#

w.a 4a w

7 4.re c.

ar**,-

s. C.r 3-aCC.J.a,

+ c u... s e A. %.. a7 a3, a.

a.." ~..* a #

• s d

A-v--.

d -,ac'-

'--~o

."...'r'-*.

'.a.

( '...

d -

,S.' '..

r-y4

-..s 7g 112.g g.

,,s

.u2.

.u.

~

.s...

,,a.

e,

. - ~ a a

g->-

a, A

cut of ~2rristurg ' :ernatic:al Airport are lockheed C,:As which are

=ilitary ai craf'. (see :To. 1, abcve; tr. 5:3, 1 C-17).

C',, W 4 6.=~,. s e ".a.'a-g- -oaa*.a 0"-

a C

1. d. e.. '. s

.#0."

---.a.-

L A -.

a d'# *

...a.#'.

( 6..

s,CA,

,G,Q )'.

R p,.

4

.m Ow.e.

C.

.oO.- a.4.c s,. %.

d.. e A C... e e -

.o.m.

w a

.w

.--a

".. e a* r. ' ' a ~ ~., -. - ' ' ', -.. ' --. a..v ~ -.- ~. ~ a.' '. a -.' '-- '..' a '..t,

,'e-ed 1'

-. - a wc.hJ-

-3

..s. e a,--,. 4..,.r.re,...

,4 2

ve,-.

..a.

.u.

3e..

a"---a..

a 5 - a. a *. a..- '. b a c'r.0,^*- -.

..t. ce-- +--ae

.a'-.'

5-

='

c Se,-

a,

.-a-

-da.

d

-e"-

a

.a e.a.a'.e

'"a-e.- d_-..w..-

"s -.a.' O C.70

O e-.c=u.e 3"--

2

es

(.-

p L 2 -;' ).

ia f,.

W 4 6.

e = s '.'a '. =

e a r. a. e - ". a. *"a...

.*. " C -. s '..' =.. a ". '. -

• c e.* *, d _. *. v, "

d u

d

.w CO, e ?e.7,

-y.1 (..

c. L. d' 9

1,44 n.

.~e a t. c. a.r s.

s.,,-

u v

n s.

r..

a 1

w4...,s 7,*a....

. e- -,.,. a.

e. s..,.,,-,. g4

.y 74 4.-

c -,,.,.a w

---

.o v

.e

,, c,. a.

A

a. ' - u '. Ja's-

' dab

• -.'da c-a s "

A 3'. A C#,--C

" c "- ' '

C '.

- =-. cee.,

.~

--y

---

a r.

mw--eA 7 4,w *

.w.

....6,4y C.e

s. w. -

e-.e.f. (.

s=i.p,

-,C),

0J.9 4.e 7

pa p e

a

-3...

)

l

.% e c a,'

,. - a %

-ae-

..a...,s 7a' 3 uee-e.. % a.. a.

--,ev.g.

.c a-.-..

c. # * #.. Ca'-

..... -.- a. v ' e W, a a-

' '..'.. s# # )~ ).

d-4 y "- - -. a '. #.~ ~

- a '.e#.

1. • a7

,40 " ". a '-

k

<T m..

'ta t'q 4

e.te-e,.

e

=m u

y J ' L "j

<'t - sp yms t n

i dL*',.

o. d' 1e v

b[

b bg.3' b

$b 4

4y r

j G8-110

r%

2

,~ s

.i l

/ l.

Witness Valance agr ed that his use of aircraft accident data 3

ave.e-.A-e. e.-

.5.e e-.d..

• d n %as d

.-d."-a.d a

'.s d-*e "w e d 3

a.a e-(..

c o-).

c s

[

i.' W4 t e ss 7a' a-e s '.a '.e d-v-"---

b. a.

cesdb'e ' o a 4.,--.- -- e-e d'

'd

+

$4 4+s o-

• w.

4_.,. ma.a,

u. m..

a

.s

.a.

-o so wcu-be d

'eadd g,

a

' d

-e would not assure th e v a 11J d.tv. cf the redel itsel" (tr. 6C7).

The =cdel used by the A: licant has been used revicusl~> s

,1 d -

- -"cla.a

-cue-

'e-'.

'd-a. e_d,-,,

a-d

'. " e c '. ' e.

.d'.s "ses a

a.d'~

d

.1 w

w as -e e

w. sa....:-a-d

• o

'd-dJ a '... a ' 3.= a d _ s '. a 7 ' a '. d s

(*.. 6CR).

-e 1---

Sta Witness oead stated that at levels belcw 2k00 take-offs a ' '. a - d * - s - a..-.va.a c.'

.a ' -. a.' '. '. a. r a.. - '"a-. --v,C#C

.s.,

'.".a.

- o-

^^

---.3 kakd.~s o.' ". a d--

c'."

r.

o.# s' ".

a---

a.. ~.ra-

"..v.. 2 wa-a a.

• .a?

-a Icw, also, that the curre:t level of usage of these larger aircraf t near "MI 2 was about 6CC crerations ter J ear (tr. 613).

Th e ratio c' 2400

'.e 4.00 4 s4

.S.. e. a. a d,

da

' s s"

'a-a.-.a.'

.ee.4 c

v, 24 a.

s. a '. e d.

' ' a '.

a

' ? a..e a-

' a-

,r a.

-..a.a e c' 'a u*.

e

.e aircraft usage, as with a: increase by scre than a fac:cr of 10, woul' a.=. c a<44

.a'.d--

^' a.

c - a. :. ' x ' ' d '. - c.' '.'a.

'sk ba.

.e,

-.ad.

e "4

' a '. e.-

A. a..'.'.. *. ? a-c..'.. o.' ~ a -.. ' ~. ~. d. a.

~. o *. *. a

• a c. o c.' ' ^s

( '.,..

1,' C = ^s.

s

-s4 4

w" o

-- 3 3

4, a4.-....

..-..,24.a..

.a.'e

• e *. "....- v. c.' V.

7 ' '.s c a.

a s *. =. *. e ^-.' v.~ ~. '~ e n'

_- ~~'.,

""..a e-_-

.a k a. a '=..~-

o.' seva..a'

.. d. e. ~

of magnitude increase in the nu=ber of large aircraft :ove=e::s be'cre we s '. a. '.

e-ea.dd g ~' a,---- -- e 'e.e'" (..

2,:,.

'd a'd

/5, Witness F.ead described his analysis of large aircraf t impacts as cc:servative because values were assumed to be either realistic o

"s"".s'.a

'.i,- ---

e.-.2'.4"..

C--

=

a.d.

'. O '. 5. 4 - S ' k a *. % a. a.

ag,.e e.

w

- - a

---y ow-o

--3

--...,. a s.. 97

/..

4. c C /

4

• w.

s...

j', '. W..

e.ss =.

• a d a. s '..* ^. '. _* m '. '.'a..-*. 's o '

.-=.a.d.

' o

~=.*s'-

.J.a s ' r_ - d - e a e'.ea.'.==--.#0. - *. A. s-'a.'*.*.

r, a-a.

--...3.#'.

- -

• a C.'.

l. '....?k-J.'J.

S S

~

-a

7.,

• s.,

.a.

s

-e

..a

.s,

...a.e S*.a*.e 3.r. s. e a... --

.s 4.

a s.

w--

4

. _se

.s.eea a

w.e s'..-c s' e, '

a..

- s',-

1,-'-"~. =-.-.a..

'- a '. ?..

--=, * '.

'a r.

a8-111

3

, m r

.f N46.

gee i -

_ggA ega-c~e s we-.%.7, A. o n y s.

g3 *c y'a.s.u,-

c.

. g *. "..M..T o

~ 4 2 r

/

a CCu'd- * *. *. *

'i. '. ' s '. S " 4-.

'.b e d ~ "7aw.

Q.* aUP^wV,wvv^.'b..

.a.d.~ ~ ~. a.# *. a '.

.S ^ O

'u C 'o s,

^^

A.u g

• g

--e 66

-.a*.e C.r s.h e

3. *. C.e r C s *.... C. 4 a.

. 4. 4 a.

a.........,S aa woe s.o

,6 6

3 a..

+w 7

s a _ v,3. a,.- 4 a 6. 4 C-4

--e

.acu o.,

.es 4-.

C.!,a.e a.4-...<=.

a g. 4 s *.

4. 4 a 6.-3

.o

.-3.-

w structures (tr. $}'.).

r I v'. W.

e-s

0. S a..d s'.a'.ed " ' C '-7 '-"a'. '.'e.e d s "..".-.. '. ' d

'. j.

'..'. e

-w d-a.#.- a a.# '.

e.

S e b.

. ^.. ' *. '. u s e d.,

k,u'. ao

'..'.a*.

• b A

'A - W ' CV

. e.-..s C W 3"s '. O

-UC-U " C *.." '. ' d " '. T,

• '0"a.

s -- ". a " "

b. e." a" de

1. " A. d.

.#."^*

. '. ('.

. 4,,I b

.~.

d d"

~ ---

d Ob

,C, tr. 6r.%,.'

1. '.1 ).

="..-~.'e,

s. u.. e L.

'. a.. s.' a..' v A.

a - a.

s ~. a '. d.s ". a. s,

-o *.

facts (tr. 654, 1. 23-24).

,I a.

44*

eag

.r.e g g

.., s. e -

s. u. a.

4-ue-

. - -4 a.%s W C "- ' i be.

s s

o:4 a-c.-

.' g n.

--a u gce,

• g.7b.9 e6

.-s.6.4 Ca"

a"";

'. a V *. ' C.#

-"C.a

.d.#

'. b a.

C C.". s e ". " e "

• e s b b w.y.

f -

. j f.

C *# a" a CC.4.d." '. We."a

' ' C." a* e '. ' a "

• 'av a

a.

.* a. s e ". ". ' 7 " " a. l.d.~ '. a. d.

'w O 'e, 0"

a

.y y

f.

=

4.#,

.c o.- o..-,-y_,.,

.- e.*.4.,.

we.

.w3.

( *. ~. <aL)

7. e *.

.4

~

.o.

O..

6.% e..-.

c 6

w O

a s.*

A

+%

-a o.e.

3~. su.

v.r '... 3.4.- e.. 3.r s.

.. sa 4 4 - *. w m

eg. e C n e. g e e.,.. a.

C a. e e

--.O-.

.bCC ( *. *..

C',l,

... C.7., - - ye-7.

a.a.

V"*.b. " ".l7

--.a a.-,.

--, ". 3,-". e 'r ',~ N n* 2 0 a

,w e.

1,; _ ' 4. ).

.ru.

• . 6,

%. e s

• a *.,. a.

. L.

• w

.a.

.e

.- p e m. 7.. C.e a.7-.4;o s a-.4 w

• w 2

w w'.-.

.~

-y s~C.

wn?v_'4CQ a7 gy %,.

.-r,.--,.A.

6.3 4-a 4-

• w.

w 4

e7e-a,, e n- -

.s.. yw.....

.a.

y. Ac.* La g ( *..

-'3,-).

O... A.

s.. k a-o... 0 ~ 6. '.y s.3*.e.

pub'4 s

.A

., s.'--

a..s b.

• -7 6

A

• w 7

6 4

mg3

_4g-

.7 4 9.e. -

• .% a '.

e

.#U*'- =f"a..'.-".-

C.#

aw" "d e m"'. o-a-

7 b d

..3.

=

_2--;

u-

~

n '

076-

%e.-

C o m-.t.4

, A.

C.e f..

.~t. )'.

r.

,j.

W.4+

,e-7.. 34 S+.3.

3

.---a

-3.

• '.a "p." O *. a. #.'.#'. v.

C.#

'. e ".

'wO

"."a.

. d."." s 6

6b b.

e s e 7 *. " " C W a.." ".'* "..+ e. '.v

'.'."a.

' w~ ~ ".' s o.# ^ " as 10 ass""y'."C"-

C.#

d w

• w "..g C a.

• .~

a" w _

.a6.e

.4C.- a. n....s rm.

4-.p %.

. % a.

6.,,

Cm e n..e weS

.0.74

%. e L.

'.,. C =--

(' 6... v "r ",

n

)

.w w-4 1

.7

-e

.!..

• w. -

,*a *. e.

s. u,.

s..

w 3-mCC..-

,- e a.

(' s.,. -

6. o

+be 7*

7 A

~.# " ". s s a.. * * '.. ".

"re. sea.-) "*s -.o".ab'.v o

.'Cw

• ".a*.

a '.w a..-

"a..-

W w u.' d r

e ot

b. a.

'. a. ' d. v a. d. '*. 4 ~< 7, '..' C, - 2 0 '.

7 ".. '. " e." C " a., %e s '..-. e. '"o-*.

'. ' -_e s..

s s

d a

Calculated largt aircraft Crash probabilities Could at = Cst b e used as a as*a."o- -.4-4."s ('.

. 4.24, '. 0 4 -c~ s< ).

k w.

m5 g e.... s

.C. e. ; a ;.

.4. e.a

.s.

, 3. 3 >. a d.- - ~ '.# *. C as"-

--.o

"..V.". 2 Wa* a i

g e.. ' 4 3 4 4 a..". '., *"a*.y"a.*.'....-

a." " '. d.e"'.s w0 C C a "..

3"' '.'.a'.

as

• 1. • e

..a 4

,~

y g.6 A,-

e -, C.. i.da-I. *. ~.. 3 O, s.

f.

.A I

eg,.s s.

, a 4a...-

.4 11 o

j

.a a.--

).1 Wit"ess 3ead stated that the 0%istiOg Criticiscs Cf Vad3-lkCO Were

.a...

C, :

.C h'),

.a..444...-.s s u.t*u

. n.. : e _. w-c 4

i

,~4

,-o s..

• u s.

--.a a o.

M ou s

%g'4.*4.s.a og

---.-y.4..-

a

n..!

, g g v.

3 s.ue - -...

u.**'.

.r.g

. -s

a.. a. ~.

m e-s

.a

.u

.'s**

"A'n 7

• ,SO bg,.

b. 4. g -

• b. a... esg 48

• b 4..,. s *

• i

• p..a.

-; --. ~.-

r,***

e k

9 -_

.g-E g

..e.p g

4

....~

A

$ 112

4 gq c.-

fro: IQ to ICCC (tr. 693), and agreed that c:e could therefore arrive a t " uch, cuch high e r risks than were esti=ated in WASE-lLCC" (tr. 695-9),

2 I. Witness ?.ead stated that =c =atter hew low the accident probability, it casset be dee=ed an acceptable prebahility if the ec:se:uences of a: accident are tee high (tr. 709-10), that accident ecusecuenes s were not ec:pletely issored in his analysis (tr. 709), but that he could not describe in any =eaningful way the causec.uences of a large 'aircraf t crash accident at a nuclear peser plant (:r, 663),

e bti-113

,e

-m<

Fish Survev 5

4/. The biclegical survey cf fish populatic:s sub=itted by the Applicant cannot be used to assess the effects of Three Mile Island Unit 2 opera tic:s.

The surve" t.re ra: cannoc detect a 25 per cent s

drop in fish populatic: (transcript, 992).

Rather, the survey s b-

=itted by the Applicant is capable caly of detec ting a "very great effect" (tr. 2011) er the ec==.lete eli=ination of a sr.ecies (tr. 2027).

j$ Witness fer the Applica=t, Ra ey, sta ted that an ef fec t "wculd have to be a very great effect before you could notice it," when asked hev big an ef fec t would have to be on fish populaticas before it could be noticed ( tr. 2011, 1. 20-2 4).

References :c essentially ec=plete absences of fish were frecuently ecuated by Raney with the existence of detectable effects frc= pcwer elant operstics (tr. 2015

1. 7-16; 20:3, 1. 1 k ; 2027, 1. 2-11; 2C30, 1. 4-1-).

" O h'itness Raney stated that an effect en fish populations causing a redirectic: frc: 50 percent to 30 percent could =ct be related to pla:t cperatic: (tr. 2C29, I. C-13).

7 7. Witness Raney did affir: that nu=bers can be attached to plant related fish populatics chan es (tr. 2029, 1. 14-22).

3d Staff witness Zicke.v stated assess =ent of sienificance of chances in fish-related paracecer: is not desi ned to have numerical values (tr. 2043, 1. 6-22), in direct ecatradictic to the testi=ony of

-4. ness nene7 n-.

2 0 Witness for the Staff was unable to quantify what e c:s ti tu te d a significant change in the fish po.nlatic: as related to the operation of TMI-2 (tr. 2CL3 47, 2050, 2052, 2C61, and 2069).

7 C Witness Eickey stated that the "ec plete absence cf fishes belcw the discharge, would =ct =can that an u: acceptable impact has cecurred.

( tr. 2C51, 1. c-ik ).

This is in centradic tion of the state =ent of witness Raney that ".

. you certainly Encw there's a disaster if you

-- 3, '.,x 4).

.#4-d e.c

.'d '." ( '...

en' o

bS-114

,o n-7 /. Witness for the Applicant indicated that ten years of sa=p'd--

fish populatices would be needed to determi:e the re eral fish poeula-tics in a given area (tr. 2033).

Therecorddoegnet show that this seeded rreoperatic a1 populatics data exists either for TMI-l or TMI-2.

In fact, the reccrd shews that such data do not exist (tr. 1993-9).

Prior to 1970, no k cwn fish population studies were =ade in th e vicinic7 of TMI.

Staff witness Eickey stated there are no baseline fish population da a for Tork Have: Pond (tr. 2055, 1. 2h-5, 2056, 1. 1).

~n y -- The Applicant =ccitors fish scre=ents by trapping fish, marking the=, a:d releasing the=.

The Applicant is unable to relate, hcwever, the stress or tran=a of trapping and marking these fish to any subse-quent fish acvements. (tr. 1993).

,,> >. The numbers of species of macrcinvertebrater found in the vicinity of TMI-2 have not yet returned to the levels found in 19c7, prior to ccestructice of TMI 1 cr 2 (tr. 2037).

Applicant has failed to sub it evidence into the record to indicate that the ccustructic and operatic:

of TMI-l and es:structics of TMI-2 is not the course of this decline in population levels.

3% There is no indicatic: in the record that the requirece:ts Of the Enviro nmental Technical Specificatic: (non-radiological), May 31, 1977, version, sectic: 3.1.2. a. ( 1) ('c ), first paragraph,cz: be met by the Ipplicants biological =ccitering progra=,

Repeated questicas asked the Applicant's witnesses to quantify what constituted a significa:c change in any fish-related parameter, but produced caly a series ef evasive answers ( tr. 2013-15, 202L-30).

Exhibits fur ished by the Applicant centain cethe atical values for a :=ber of fish-related para =eters (Exhibit k, page 19I; Exhibit 5, pages 31-32, A2 h3, 69-70).

Statistically derived populatice estimates for rish are given is v_xw a s a u. g

. a- -. o. 2,

.a e, n.

w,.

e ap

,b The fish =ccitorier.. re ra submitted bv the Applicant does act s

provide data c the relative propertice of health fish to diseased, c anc e r c us, parasit e-b e aring, er otherwise u healthy fish (tr. 1993-5).

This f ailure is cc peunded by the fact that Ir. Ja:es Mudge, Envir o n-ce tal Scientist for the Applicanc. appears te be e d e=ti.v -ualified 4

by H.is academic baccground co undertake such studies (see 7 cfessional Qualificatic:s of Ja=es E. Mudge, Ph.J, tr. after page 930).

oS~ilti

7

,m n-C'# d'.e v.e. 4. e. 4..,.

a W4 '. e _- s 7. ' '. e

_ '. a *. e. ' b a '.

-a.

' d

.d _- - A.- d ' ' - "-ed.'e-c.

d o

practicing the ocitoring aspects of energency prepared:ess was such that the drills are usually annou:ced in advance.

(transcript at 1037).

Forter also ad=itted that there had not been any "substa -

tial drill, where all o' the stops were pulled cut." (tr. 1Ch5).

i

'7

>< Witness 3ritt: said that it is =ct Cc==issics policy to reasure actual radiation doses to people i= the. environ =ent (tr. 1065),

that the Cc- ' sic rea,uires the Applicant to derive esti=ates of such figures thrcugh the =easure ent of effluents and a subsequant calculatic: of deses (tr. 1065).

Staff witness 7a Niel stated that doses accu =ulated by me=bers of the public under accident conditic=s would be cenitored by the Eureau of Radiclerical Health ("3RE") o' of the Cc==c: wealth o' Fe :sylvania (tr. 1075).

7a Niel stated that the responsibility for the protectic: c' the public under accident ec:ditic s " alls upc the Cce=c wealth of Pennsylvania and 3RE (tr. 1075),

a 3 [ Eowever, Ccussel for the Cc==c wealth provided ce=c which a

discussed the uncertain status of the budget for the Department o' Environ =en tal Res ourc es,

cf which 3EH is a part.

This re=o raised the possibility that budgetarv. cc straints cio-ht necessitate the ec:plete disb a ding of the Co==c wealth 's enviro==ents.1 =ccitering progra:s, which include the ec=ple te or subs tantial 9:.s=antling o' the 333 radiolegical cenitoring prcgras. (tr. 11C9).

Witness 7a Niel reiterated that the of' site =ccitering responsibility under accident cc ditices is with the state (tr. 1101).

Staff witness Stch stated that no one has been sr.eci'ically desi mated to re:crt to the NRC E

on the car. ability c' the Cc =ccwealth ta carrv cut its functicus in an emergency (tr. 1745-6), though indirec t noti'icatic: =etheds were stated to be available (tr. 1746).

5tch; also stated that any shortcctings c the part c' the Cc==c: wealth wculd necessarily hava to be reflected in the Applicant's emerge:cy plans and prece dures, which would then require a re-review. (tr. 1791).

3 ;/. Witn e s s 7a Niel admitted he was =ct sure -hether or Oct th e Cctrissics has cade a:7 atte:pt to veri'v the

.v e a r b v.vear capability of the Cc==c: wealth to carry out its e=ergency "uncticas (tr. 1073).

.W116

8 4

s hC The record de cestrates a great deal of confusion and un-certainty regarding who is responsible for =ocitoring outside the icw population zone in the event of an accident, and whether any party could in fact be lied upc to =enitor radiatice outside of that area under acc _ 2 t conditions.

Staff witness Gallina tes tified tha t the jlpplicant was full.y responsible for =ccitoris-o inside the icw populatic: :one ("LFZ") (tr. 1760), but could not state that any =enitoring respcasibility ertended beyond the L73" (tr. 1761). Witness Stohr agreed that the responsibility of the Applicant probably extended caly to the limit o f th e L73 (tr. 1770).

Stehr was unable to identify a=7 agency, state or-f ederal, which had or exercised any =ccitoring responsibility beyond the L73 (tr. 1770).

,,/

7. The 3 card fcund that the initial panel of Staff witnesses apparantly were "the wrong witnessee" (tr. 1C95).

The 3 card there-fore declared that the record was unsatisf actcry and ince=plete with regard to the =onitering capability line of i=quir7 (tr. 1097).

Subsequently, Staff wittees 7a Niel returned to the stand (tr. 17k1) with Staff witnesses Gallina and Stchr (tr.1741).

o, g,L Van Niel then read answers to questicas fro = the Board frec notes he had prepared (tr. 1743).

He stated that doses to =e=bers of the public wculd be assessed throughcut the ccurse of an accident by the Applicant based on in-plant projections or frem offsite sonitoring, er both (tr. 1743).

Ee further stated that in the event of a sericus accident, the Governor could reques t assistance fro = the Federal Gover: ent under the Disaster Frepar[edness Act of 1974).

If the Fresident then declared an e=ergency er disaster area to exist, the Applicant would send a radiatic: =ccitoring teas " dew wind to the site boundary and to the closest populatics area" to =ake surveys (tr. 1744).

Later, Staff witness Gallina state' that :: der 10 CTR 20.203 the respensibility of the Applicant could cenceivably extend beyced the LFC (tr. 1761), ticugh he later said that beyond the 5 =ile r:

cf the L?l, the state was technically respcasible a

fer =ocitering, :ct that the Applicant would =ctiter : til the state was able to de so (tr. 1761).

Witness Stchr stated that c the basis of a recent appeal board decisic: the responsibili:7 of the Applicant extended to the limit of the 170 (tr. 1770).

S tohr also stated he was not aware of s:7 federal reg:latics er require =ents which b8:117

9 m

,-.n

}

delineate the au::crity for =enitoring (tr. Ate-).

Ecwever, Wit =ess Gallina agreed that radistic: =enitoring outside the LPZ was the legal responsibility of the state'(tr. 1303).

Stehr later repeated his state =ent that the Applicant's respense requirements do not extend. beyond the LPZ (tr. 1810).

Stohr also stated that the NEC inspectie: progra= ie not required to assess the capability of the state with regard to e=ergency response (tr. 1312).

M3. Witness Stchr stated that the cuantity of radioactive icdine i

inhaled by individuals ceuld be =easured by memu of properly calibrated whole bcdy ecenters (tr. 1787).

He further stated that he had received assurances that the state vculd use such counters in its dose assess =ents for = embers of the public, depending on the c --- s tanc es (tr. 1783). Ecwever, he ack=cwledged that the state d

had no such ceunters (tr. 1738).

Staff witness Gallina stated that several hospitals with nuclear =edicine depart =ents would have thyroid, scanners, which eculd be used for icdine dose assess =ent.

Ctr.17[3c7.

Ecwever, the xpplicant failed to de= ens tra te in the record that these hespital scanners ceuld be =ade available in suf ficient qusstity, that =essures could be taken to transpcrt the affected people to these ses ers under post-accident cceditions, or that cost ec:sideratic s would not make any atte=pted reliance on these scanners prchibitive.

a8 118

.,N r' 'N 10 s'

E=ercenev and Evacuatic: Pls:s Oi Intervencrs' Conte = tic 8 states that warning and evacuatio:

plans of the Applicant and the Cc==c wealth of Fernsylvania are inadecuate and unworkable, and that =o operating license should issue for Three Mile Isla d Unit II (TMI II) until e=ergency and evacuation plans are sh ew to be werkable thrcugh live tests.

4(Thecontentio: also sets forth the basic assu=ptions en which the successful i=ple=entatic: of e=ergency and evacuacion pla:s rests, viz., assurance cf adequate protectio of on-site and off-site persons fro = receiving radiation exposures that could affect their health and safety (Applicant's testi=c=y on Cc=tention 3, p. I, and tr. 763).

These assu=ptions are:

(1) that all involved state and iceal officials are on 24-hour notice; (2) that all involved state and local officials can be centacted i==ediately; (3) that all people notified will react pro:ptly; (L) that all people notified know how to respe=d; (5) that all people notified are trained in what to do; (6) that the public will respond to a radiological e=erge=ey warning a d evacuation =ctificatic=; and (7) that me=bers of the public will allow the=selves to be evacuated.

11 7.,.

Witnesses fer the Applicant described the Applicant's preparatic:s of TMI-II emergency plans with respect to fulfilling the specifications of 10 CT2 50 Appendi I 17 (tr. 756-799), but did ct shew that these deta led preparatices would in fact result is fulfilling their recuired purpose either under the ass==pticus set forth in Contention 8 or as delineated in 10 CFR 50 57 (a)(2) and (3)(1).

For exa=ple, Witness Herbei: described the process of ec==unicating accident infer:atio:

to these scate and local agencies responsible for direct i=plementatic:

of evacuatics (tr. 731-786) but depended fer his confidence that the emergency i fer:stics would be received and fully understeed u, their UW119

pn past e=perience in drills (tr. 785).

He further stated, hewever, that these drills were arranged "=any conths in advance" of the exercise (tr. 786, 1. 13-14).

He stated that variable weather cenditions constituted "randes atte= pts at ec==unications" (tr. 786).

Wit =ess did not explain hcw these few drills could be used as a statistically valid rando= sampling apolicable to the operational lifetime of CMI-II.

Witness Herbei responded that advance k=cwledpe of such drills is "probably fairly co==ca" (tr. 788) and that the persc=s to be cc:tacted have "been aware that we are going to hold a drill" (tr. 789).

Yet Eerbei agreed that e:erge:cies do not happen when everybody is expecting the= ( tr. 789, lines 4-7).

His confidence that the recipie:t person will be ava4 1able 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day is based upe: the fact that the re-cipient "has been there every ti=e we have ru: the exercise." (tr. 791)

The total===ber of such ex[ercises was esties ted to be 3-5 per year 1: 1974-76 ( tr. 791) and "pr bably.

. above 20" (tr. 792).

Of these exercises, witness Herbei: testified that 1/3 er 1/2 of the calls had been preceded by advance =ctificatic of the person called (tr. 793).

43 The confidence of Applicant's witness in the e:ergency response espabilities of the State Ccuncil on Civil Defense and the Eureau of Radiolegical Health is based upo:

(1) review of their dccu=ents pertaining to energency plans and precedures ( Applicant 's testi=ccy,

p. 2, and tr.1562) and (2) persc:al ec: tacts with state a:d local officials but not upon direct k cwledge of their experience with ac tual radia tic: energencies (tr. 1562-63 and 1565). Witness Herbei:

further testified that his confidence is based upo

. knowledge of their personal qualificaticus, experience, the training that they conduct

." (tr. 1567T.

Het this witness agreed that the Dauphin Ccusty Civil Defense Direc tor had stated that he (Mr. Melley) was a political appointee and former radio statics employee and had very little knowledge tf radiatio cr its effects er of permissible deses that might be administered to his volunteer workers (tr. 1567.

See also tr. 1355, lines15-227.

u d$. X:c. lic an t 's witness also restanced that he b elieved the 7e c.,ev.

i Director of the State Ccuncil en Civil Defense, Mr. Williacac=, ha6

" testified that he knew very little" abcut radiatics ( tr. 1567).

, e,. 4 -- n L)

.n y

8"(, The witness further rrefessed uncertainty of Applicant's pro-cedures for review of state and local agency e=ergency capabilities (tr. 1571).

Sc. Applicant's testim >=y states that accidents considered in e=er-gency preparednese (including a waste gas de8 tank rupture, break in 7

a pri=ary systes letdewn line, red ejection accident, fuel handling accident, and a 1 css of coolant resulting free a double ended rupture of the largest pipe in the reacter ecolant syste=) are shcwn to be highly i= probable. Witness f or the Applicant, hcwever, was unable to s ecify, or cite any studies upon which the Applicant had relied for 2

that cerclusion, that such eccidents had been shown to be highly i= prob able (tr. 1587-1592).

Mr. Herbei stated that he could " state generally the ec:clusions that he believed) the Rasmussen Report has arrived at" (tr. 1588) and that "It is my opinion and =y understanding that thcan are the conclusicus that the Ras =usse Report has reached (tr.1589), but Fr. Eerbeim also testified that he had not read the Eas=ussen Report (tr.1589, lines 3 and 6), and he was unable to cite any other confirmatory s tudies (tr. 1590, lines 5-10), of which he had previously stated there were "several" (tr.1588, lines 7 and 8).

6'/. Adecuacy of the TMI-II emergency and evacuation plans is dependent upon certainty cf the allocation of caspensibilities for ti=ely notifi-cation cf authorities and the public. that evacuation is needed.

The record lacks clarity with respect to the understanding by all involved responsible parties of the allocation of responsibility for declaring that an evacuation is required. Witness for the Applicant has ccetra-dictory statements with respect to Applicast's role is recc==endation for evacuation to these agencies responsible for imple=entation of evacuation.(tr. 1607-1610).

At tr. I607, lines 4-9, Witness states that he does not k cw they (Applicant) are the ene that wculd stipulate direc tly that an evacuatics would be necessary.

At tr.1608, lines 11-14, he states that Applicant's planning goes into detail on who has responsi-bility te initiate evacuation.

At tr. 16C9, this witness states it is the Applicant 's " responsibility to =1ke the recc==endatic."

A't tr. 1610, lines 1-7, he agrees that the Applicant is the sole source of infor=atic:

initially and is the one that must rake the initial assess =ent of potential off-site deses.58-121

s 13

c. q 57-Cc==enwealth of Pennsylvania's witness, Mr. Malloy, Directar of Dauphin County Civil Defense, testified that his age:cy would take evacuatie= actic: based upo: =cti^ication frc= the State Council c Civil Defense er its staff duty officer, or upon receipt of information of an e=ergency fre= the utility (tr. 1720-21).

Witness Molloy also referred to his dependence upc= the Eureau of Radiological Health and utility personnel for information and reco==endations (tr. 1363-6k, 1366-67, 1371-72I.

5~7. NRC Staff witness 7a: Niel stated that Applicant does not have respc=sibility for offsite evacuation (tr.1C76) but in subsequent testi c:7 in response to the Board's cuestions at tr. 1098, witness 7a Niel stated fro: prepared notes the respensibilities of the Applicant to include initial assessment, initial classification of the e=ergency, initial dose assese=ent, notification of authorities, and appropriate recc==endations to the Pennsylvania Eureau of Radiological He alth.

He further states, "Licens and local agenciest irsitate pro-tective and assessment =easures for =ajcr accidents

" (tr. 17k2, lines 12-20), but the precise delineation of the obligation was not clarified by Staff witnesses. In additics, 7a Niel stated that the Applicant has the optic to notify local e=ergency respc=se erranizaticus directly (tr. 1743, lines 13-17).

The significance of uncertainty e=-

hibited by these witnesses with respect to the actual authority to order evacuatic, as opposed to either recc= mending evacuatics or implementing it, beca=e evident with the introductics of a doct=ent frc= the Cc==on-wealth Secretary of Envire== ental Resources, dated May 13, 1977.

fhis docu=ent, detai'd r the i= pacts of proposed legislative budget cuts upc: the Department of I:viron= ental Reseurces, =cted, as its 1:1tial point, a " reduced radiological health envirc:= ental socitoring progra=

and emergency respense capability" (tr. 1082; see also tr. 1103-9).*

fi The record shows nu=erous instances of Cc==o: wealth witnesses '

' Interveners take =cte, on virtually the eve (August 12, 1977) of their deadline fo

" ; Procosed Findings of Fact in this case that the Fe::sylvania House of Represe tatives has failed to pass the Senate-approved restricted budget described in Secretary Maurice

~

Goddard's May 13, 1977, =e=crandu=.

It is ccw care than one :csth.

since the Cc=:c: wealth's fiscal crisis beca=e the reality "predic ted is the dec =ent cited above.

US-122

._..~_

Ik

- /

e.

f* Ad. 4 T e C t*

lack of knowledge of a:d potential ec= sequences of a radiolegical event at TMI-II requiring evacuatic of the public ( tr. 813-14, 337, 1356 ).

Related to this lack of k:cwledge of radiatics, with respect to Contention 8, there is evident contradiction between witness Molley's assurance that his agency's "acticus and abilities to take actics" are "not dependent upon the need fer a detailed knowledge of the substance against which we need to protect persc=s who could be affected" (Molley testi=ony, pages 5-6);and his state =ent tha t 'Ne have to have so=e idea cf what we are dealing with" (tr,. 1362) and ".

. need to k:cw the severity

< < m e v. s is).

of the proble=" (tr. 1363.

Molley states that he would relv on the a

rpplicant and the Cc =c= wealth for inf er=ation needed to deter =ine what seg=ent of the public will be or could be affected, and would evacuate the a=er they suggested plus "perhaps a little = ore as a safety =argin"'

(tr. 1363-64)'.

Molley's confidence in the Applicant's ability to supply adequate infer =ation c the area to be evacuated is based on his sta+ed assu=ption of the adequacy of Applicant's seteorological assess =ent capability (tr. 1367).

He has made no independent assess =ent of that capability (tr.1367).

50 Wit = esses for the Cc==enwealth displayed confidence in +keir ability to cope with the kinds of e=ergencies with which their ag e:cies aave had experience, such as floods, fires, airplane crashes, train dara11=ents, natural gas leaks (tr. 305-6, 229-32, 2431 a4).

Ecwever, witness Molley ex;ressed no understanding of significant differences b e twe en these experie=ced civil defense hazards and radiatice hazards,

stating twice c the record _ his belief that "an e=ergency is an e=ergency is an e=ergency.

." (tr. 908 and 1373).

fhis witness also said that he has little or no k:cwledge of radiation (tr. 1355-56).

He has not studied radiation beyond "a li=ited degree" or "in depth" and specified ouly his exposure to a cue-week se=inar in 197h which included "at the begissing of the class sc=e technical information" but that "the people that ec ducted the class e=phasized that they did not expect us to retain hardly anything at all.

."(tr. 1356, linec 23-24 and 3-I3).

In fact, witness Molloy responded te the question, "Do ycu k=ew what cons titu tes a r adiation i= jury?" with "Not really." (tr. 313).

Vitness did ot k cw if persons er vehicles in-volved in evacuatten folicwi=g a radiological accident night be ecc-ta=1:ated (tr. 3: 4).

Mr. Molloy stated that he does not k:cw if there b8-123

15 q

g-would be any visible hazard associated with p radiolegical e=ergency (tr. 337).

He added that the =ajority of the public would ec sider radiation an u

1. ' d'd ar hazard (tr. 337).

Mr. Molley stated that he has a trained radiologic '

amitering =an on his staff (tr. 1356),

upon whose radiation expe:;ia a=cag others, he relies heavily (tr. 1361, 1363, and 1372),

Cc==c wealth witness Williamson stated that there is no specific require =ent in the state plan progra for any prerequiaite for the traini=g of county radiological defense officers (tr. 1358).

Mr. Molloy could not describe his radiological officer's background qualificaticas for the position (tr. 1357).

The county radiological officer was described as being i==ediately available to the Dauphin County Civil refense direc tor during the scr=al eight-hour workday (tr. 13587.

Witness Melloy described the night shift c duty at the Dauphi: County Civil Defense of fice as containing 3 or "buly 2" persons

('t r. lk22 7.

He did not specify that additional radiological officers were available for 24-hour duty.

1: su=,

there appear to be critical gaps between the assurance of werkability of the " paper" emergency and evacua tion plans and the understanding of the rs=ifi:aticus of a radiolegical emergency by those responsible for ti=ely i=ple=entation of the plan to provide adequate protectics of the public health and

safety, fE-The pre-filed written testi=cuy cf the Cc==c wealth witness Molloy was said by hi= to have been prepared in the presence and with the assis-tance of ecumsel fer the Applicant, Mr. Trewbridge and Mr. 31ake, who, with Cc==c wealth ecumsel and Eureau of Radiological Health representatives, provided hi= questic a and the = art =u=

hypo-thetical accident =edel (tr. 1374-75),

.f7, The Cc==enwealth witness' ti=e estimates are of questiceable accursey, both for =ctifyi:g the pchlic of a radiatic: e=ergency and for asse=bling volunteer e=ergency perseinel to initiate local popula-tion evacuatics precedures.

Witness Mclicy suggested a 30-35 minutes hc=e-to-office e=ergency driving ti=e to be adequate for an 11-=ile trip ::dar worst weather cceditices of heavy feg, s:cw, er icy reads (tr. 1425-26).

He further specified his cwn farthest distance location, as a volunteer fire =as, frc= the Londc=derry !cwnship fire s tation

., - 3 <b g

4 y

n-ar being apprcxd-,tely iM =iles ever "back c,cu=try ready" a distance which he claimed to travel in 3 4 =1 utes in responding to a fire aIar= (tr. 1428).

Such a clai= dces not provide rease able assurance of the reliability of the witness' ability to estimate ti=e and distance require =ents accurately.

See, f or c e= paris o=, tr. 315 at which the witness surnesta, for an evacuatic=, that firemen and polic e '5will be in their fire statio:s prepared to go cut" i: 34

=inutes.

$UE I further contradiction under=ines reasonable assurance that e=ergency and evacuatio= plans are adequate and workable.

• dith respect to civil defense response capability, there is an uncertainty suggested, cc the c=e hand, by witness Molley's assurance that the sires alar = alerts all e=ergency perso:cel and that all such perso: el would ta=ediately report for e=ergency duty (tr. 320-323), and c the other hand, by witness Melloy's state =ents (1) that not all of the volunteer e=erge cy perse: el would be allcwed to leave their jobs to report for duty (tr. 323 4) and (2) that he hi=self does not always respond to a fire although he is a ce=ber of the fulI 52-perse:

Londonderry volunteer fire ec=pany ( tr.1428 and 821, 824).

Witness Molley's assurance that the full ec=ple=ent of volunteer e=ergency persc=nel would respond to a radiological eeergency alarn appears to rest in part c: his certainty of adequate, but rot necessarily prier, arrs=ge=ents fer the evacuatic: of volunteers' f a=111es by school bus, i=prc=ptu car-pooling, and rescue trucks ( tr. 325-327).

With respec t to witness Melloy's prepared tasti=cuy that the pre-de=irent =cde of evacuation tra:sportation would be by private vehicle (Molley testi=ony, p. 9), the witness responded that he-has not analy:ed data to verify w -

proportice of the total affected populatica has d-ediate ready access to private vshicles in the event of the =exi=u= hypothetical accident (tr. lh29).

Further questic ing of the wittees (tr. 1431) revealed that sc=e of the e=erge:cy vehicles --

he volunteered' the availab d' d ty of Harrisburg School Distric t busea would require, by his estimate, so more than 25-30 minutes to arrive is the evsenatic:===e; there was no specificatic th t this time allcwed adequately f or worst-wea ther er wors t-traf fic ec:ditions.. In additic=, the Oc==c wealth witness testified that he has :ot rade prior b8-125

'7 mm r-

~

~

arrange =ects to know the whereabcuts of these school buses at all t-i=e s (tr. 1432).

Mr. Molley testified further that he has neither perfer=ec :or analyzed studies of highway traffic capacity or the effects of highway lead upon average speed (tr. 1434).

5PI. The provisics cf adequate nu=bers and kinds of e=ergency vehicles and of plans f or their disse =inatics of evacuatic: notification to the public were said by Mr. Molloy to be the responsibility of the local volunteer fire co=pany chiefs (tr. 1438).

Eeview of such plans is the responsibility of the directer of Dauphis County Civil Defense, which review he clai=s to have perfer=ed infor ally in the absence of written plans or =aps of =ctifica tic: area assign =ents (tr. 1438 ki).

The record shows no =ethod of independent confir=ation of the adequacy of these localized co== unity-level e=ergency evacuatics arrangements that are the ulti= ate link between the responsible agencies and those persons for whc= the e=ergency and evacuatics progra=s are estensibl7 being planned.

In the absence of live tests, it re=ains unprove that these plans will in fact acce=plish their basic purpose :

ti=ely notificatics of the public in order to protect adequately their health and safety in accordance with the Atc=ic Energy Ac t of 1954, as amended, and 10 CyR 50.57 (a)(3)(i).

./- C, "h e Dauphis County Civil Defense director states that he feels evacua tics drills for the general public are unnecessary (tr. 1463) but also states "I don't fail to find drills good acco=plish=ents." (tr. 1454)

His reasc=s for feeling drills are unnecessary are tha t it would cause confusio: for the public to have rehearsed an evacuatics; that =e=bers of the public, not wanting "to be bothered," would not respond, a:d that negative publicity would result frc= only 90% participation (tr. IL63 k).

He states, conversely, ".

.the = ore k:cwledge the better, yes" in respense to Intervecors ' question, "Do you believe that an appreciatics of the toxicity cf a substance in the envirc =ent impro ves an individual's understanding of the need for protective seasures.

.?"

(tr. 1466).

h/ Reversing hi=self again (tr. Ih67), the witness responded that it is not reasonable that a k:cwledge of the cause calling for an e=trene = essure (evacuatics) cc tributes to an individual's cooperation M'INb

m 18 But, admitting that the Dauphin Ccunty Civil, Defense ciency has not experienced any radiological emergency and dist ster situatiocc, he stated that the basis for characterizing hew the public would react in the event of a radiological emergency is "just =7 opinion" (tr. 1467 and 1474).

The Deputy Director of the State Council on Civil Defense testified that the principal decu=ent upc: which his agency relied for its cc=clusicas regarding the effectiveness of drills was a study that did not include investigatice of radiological events (tr. 2528).

b3 The witness differentiates between drills in an institution such as a : rsing ic=e er school where there is a " captive audience" and a mall or the entire ecunty where the populatice at risk is the genersi public at large ( tr. 1468-9 ).

Mr. Molloy agrees that the U.S. civil defense organizaties was originally set up to deal with the ec sequences of radiological e=ergencies (tr. 1h69).

h3 The Cc==etwealth witness states that "pesitive centrol =easures in the county 's Standard Opera ting Frecedure" could include having occupants beyond the d-ediate evacuatic: =cce recais in their residences (tr. 1470).

The Deputy Director of the State Council on Civil Defense s tated that "pesitive centrol =easures" could include blocking of roads (b. 247f).

Witness Willia = son stated that he censiders that the county civil defense director is authorized to define and imple:ent positive control

=easures (tr. 2h79) under the State Council of Civil Defense Act of 1951 (tr. 2h80).

The witness did not k:cw if this Cc==c wealth plan includes a =echanis= to =ctify those who live ;ust bevc=d the evacuatice :cce of the radistic: dose levels to which they =ight be subjected (tr. 2480)'.

$ '. The Deputy Directer of the State Council en Civil Defense f

testified that he believes the use of the ter " incident" rather tha:

" accident" to describe a radiological accident at the nuclear reactor was based cc an attempt 09:ot excessively arouse the public ('tr. 2470),

Ee stated that the civil defense agency was instructed to use the term " incident" by perso:cel of the Eureau of Endiclegical Health, so as "not to alars the public" ( tr. 2471-2).

Witness Williassen states that the area specified for evacuatics would be the c ly locatic: "at that point in ti=e (of initial public =ctificatic ] " in which health effects =1ght be incurred frc= a radielegical event _(tr. Ik75).

But this witness s ta tes elsewhere (tr. 2h33) that his agency has no numeric al guide es er stc dards which apply to protective actics.

r {gn

lo

~%,

T The respense arcee following this witness' testisocy that he had reviewed "The Fe :sylvania Plan for the I ple entatics of Protective Actic Guides" (tr. 2481) and that it is the State Civil Defense agency's 17'r/'t responsibility to provide supple = ental perso= el and equip, for =c=itoring affec ted areas ( tr. 2481-2 ). Witness stated that "affected areas" refers to the area involved with the nuclear release but that he does =ot k:cw if such area is predetermined (tr. 2482).

65; Interve:crs ' atte=pted questiening of the rela tic = ship of k:cw-ledge by =e=bers of the public of the terns of the Pric e-And erson Ac t,

(Section 170 of the Atc=ic Energy Act of 1954 as a ended) to the willingness of the public to respond to evacuatics warning was disallowed by the 3 card (tr. 2512).

bb !stervenors were prohibited by the Board,c grounds of irreleva:cy to the contentics, frc= pursuing quescions to ascertain if the State Civil Oe f ens e e=ergency plans had give: due consideratic to the effect upon thejublic's willingness to be evacuated, of the low Fopulatics Zone residents' knowledge, or 1:ck of k:cwledge, of plans for deconta=icatice and interdictics of prcperty (tr. 2513-24).

e 38-17d8

20 9

s Health Effects 67, Is a result of what was referred to as the Hartsville decisics, AIA3-367, (tr. 2097) the Staf f brought forth Or. R.L. Gotchy with a testi=c 7 regarding the ec=parative health effects of coal and nuclear generated electricity (tr. 2095-7).

It was referred te as being a supple =ect to the Final Environ = ental itate=ect (tr. 2097).

Witness Gotchy himself described the tes:i= cry as generic (tr. 2100),

bT. Witness Gotchy stated in his written testimony that his health effects calculaticus were sc=ewhat high because of the ecuservatis required (testi==ny, page 3).

Gotchy elaborated further by saying it was a tendency of the Staff that when ec frc=ted with an uncer-tainty, to take the high range of values found in the literature (tr. 2169).

(-Q Under cross-exa=inatics, Gotchy revealed nu=ercus secconserva-tisms. He ad=itted that the health effects he found for the uraniu=

fuel cycle did not represent the upper bound of esticates found in the literature (tr. 2168).

Gotchy ad=itted he used a risk =cdel which would underesti= ate the cancer incidence y a factor of up to seven (tr. 2169-70).

He ad=itted that the populatic: density =cdel used L: the wester United States was not necessarily conservative (tr. 2134-5).

His health ef fec ts calculations did not ine'.ude radioactive e=issicus frc= existing uraniu= =ill tailings piles ( tr. 2192)

He stated that radiatice doses fre= mill taill gs piles were calculated assu=ing the piles were stabilized by covering with two f eet of dirt (tr. 2139), which he believed would reduce radicactive raden emissic s by a fac ter of 4 ( tr. 2190).

76 Witness Gotchy agreed that, frc= Staff calculatic=s in the GISMO (Generic Z:viron= ental State =ent on Mixed Cride) proceeding, the lung dese to the rasidents of the United States, using a popula-tion =edel, wculd be 16,CCO persen-re= frc= all =111 tailings piles produced between the years 1975 and 2cCO, with a 50-yesr e--

d' est (tr. 2137 5).

Gotchy ad=itted he was aware cf =easurements of deces fro: =ill tailings piles by the Envirc : ental Frotec tic: Agency E?A were (tr. 213c).

Gotchy recalled that the deses =easured by the about an order of =agnitude higher than the 16,CCO perse:-re (tr. 2133),

and that he thcught the =easure=ents were fre= exiscing piles (tr. 2139),

br 129

9's e

21 Gotchy ad=itted that the two-foot covering of the =ill tailings piles represented a =ini=al control effort, but =ct mini =al ec=-

pared with doing nothi=g to stabilize the piles (tr. 2198), and that, indeed, it was his understanding that at present the piles were not being stabilized (tr. 2198-9).

Further, he said that his assu=ption that piles retired since 1975 would be stabilized with two f eet of dirt was in that regard =c=-ccuservative (tr. 2199),

and that he was aware of no require =ent that the =111 tailings piles be stabilized with two feet of dirt (tr. 23CO).

7/<

Witness Gotchy described the lung-dese =odel used for his calculations as the so-called s= eared-lung =edel which assu=es that the dose is distributed unifer=ly throughout the lung ( tr. 2221).

Dr. Gotchy then admitted that only a s=all fractics of the lung, the bronchial epitheliu=, was the sensitive tissue of the lung in which cancer develops (tr. 2222).

He agreed that the use of the e= eared-lung =cdel did represent a c -ccuservative approach (tr. 2223).

71 I= answer to a questic=, nr. Getchy statee that taere were health effects frc='ccal-fired plants which persist beycad the tereination of operaticus of the plant (tr. 2158).

Exa=ples he =entic=ed were chronic respiratory ec=ditic=s, as breachitis and emphysera and allergies.

Dr. Gotchy volunteered that these health effects which were fatal were irreversible (tr. 2138).

In terms of emissicus fre=

the entire coal fuel cycle which would lead to adverse health effects, Dr. Gotchy =entioned that acid =ine drainage can dissolve tr ce a

elements in stress beds which may cause subsequent health effects if the water is used for driching or agricultural purposes ( tr. 2158-9).

He added, however, that he was act aware of these effects having been evaluated by anycne (tr. 2159).

He =entiered the preble= of sulphur c=ide re= oval sludge dispesal, but did act associate such sludge with any health e f f ec ts (tr. 2159).

Dr. Gotchy stated that the ash recovered and tha: not recovered cc=tained trac e ele =ents, in-cIuding toxic cues, but effered no particular health eff ec ts (tr. 2159).

In his testi=c y, Dr. Gotchy attributes the vas t =ajcrit-f of fatal health effects to black lung disease s=c:s underground c oal.ziners,

respiratory f ailure a e:g = embers of the public frea inhalatie: et br 130

^

22

~

'N cembustien products, and deaths at railroad erossings due to coal trains (testi=cny of Dr. Gotchy, Table 1).

Gotchy attributed the cause of the majority of adverse health affects to =e=bers of the public to sulfur exides and sulfates ( tr. 2160-1, 2164),

Dr. Gotchy did not identify any specific agents which weuld cause adverse health effec ts af ter the termination of operations of the plant, except for radicactive agents (Gotchy testi=ony, page 6).

1

=

US~i31

3 23

[l.

Witness Gotchy described the =edel used to calculate health eff ects fro = the uraniu= fuel cycle.

Fre='the operatic: of a give:

facility for ene year, radicactive isotopes released to the environ-

=ect are follcwed through the various pathways to =a for forty years.

For each of the forty years, the effects on the individual are calcula ted for the subsequent 50 years (tr. 2773 4).

The last year considered i his study was the year 2000 with envirc== ental effects considered for the subsequent 40 years (tr. 2223).

~d. Witness Gotchy statec i= his prepared testi=cny that one

/

consideration not previous.y evaluated was the radiological i= pact of

=ining and burning coal ( tes ti=c=7, page 10).

Dr. Gotchy =entioned there that raden gas is released during the =ining and burning precess, but would be released frc= the fly ash piles f or =1111cus of years (testimony, page 10).

He subsequently states for coal with one part per =illic uranius, ec=bustion of the coal and ash disposal cause approxi=stely the same health effects frs= raden as frc= the rado: frc= =ill tailings piles (testi=eny, page 10).

Curicualy, Dr. Gotchy does not discuss the raden gas which e=anates f rc= th e =111 tailings piles over the ss=e period of about a =illion years (tr. 2228-9).

Similarly, Dr. Getchy used as one of his references a published paper by Fehl (testi=ony, ref. 30).

He obtained the figure of one part per =illic of uraniu= in easter:

coal frc= Pohl, but later, under cress ex? d"ation, Dr. Getchy volunteered the state =ent that Fehl had indeed calculated several thousand deaths asscciated with the e=anatice of raden frc= =ill tailings piles over a period of o=17 80,000 years ( tr. 2229-30 ).

Dr. Gotchy also ad=itted that rado: e=anation frc= the piles gees c= past the year 2000, th e

.~

year 2CLC, for abcut a =illion years (tr.2226, 223-9).

Yet his testi=ony a

makes no reference to health effects fro = radicactive rado frc= th e sill tailings piles of the uran "~ '"el cycle after the year oC40 d

D'. Gotchy also stated that Fehl did not ec sider the health effects r

o' frc= Fb' o and that had the effects fro = this radicactive isotere of lead been assessed ever the same period of ti=e, the calculated health effects would increase significantly ( tr. 2241).

=

{

e so

a

24 3

C Th e sole witness for the Interve= ors -- due to the financial constraints i= posed by the Cc==issics -- was Dr. Chauncey Iepf erd, who was also the representative of the Interve ors in the hearing.

His testi=ony was sub=itted to describe certai= long ter= health effects frc= suelear and coal fuel cycles, including so=e health effec ts cited by Gotchy as needi=g evaluatic: (Gotchy testi=ony, page 10, Iepford testi=c 7 after page 2835, transcript).

76 Dr. Iepford calculated the quantities of raden gas to be for=ed by radioac tive decay frc= (a) thoriu=-230, and (b ) the urani==-238 not recovered frc= the ore, both i= the =ill tailings piles, and fro =

(c) the depleted uraniu=-238 fre= the gaseous diffusion plant (Iepford testi=ony, p ag e 2 ).

Using the quantities of =111 tad'd gs appropriate for c e year's operatic of TMI-2 (Kepford testi=c:v, pare 2)y Dr. Iepferd derived two nu=bers which rela ted ca:eer deaths to each curie of rado released frc= the piles for each year's fuel for TMI-2 (Iepford testi=ony, page 3).

Cne of the derived death rs tes was fro the testi=c=y of Nk C 3 Dr. Gotchy, the other fro = the Envirc:= ental Erctection Agency (Iepford testi=ony, page 3 and 4).

It should be noted that the death rate which produced the higher total deaths of the two death rates, the IPA-derived figure, was based c= the table S-3 of 10 CTR 51.20 value of 74.5 curies of rado: released per year (tr. 2903 ).

77. Fre= the two derived death rate values, Dr. Kepferd th en calculated (the nu=ber ef cancer deaths caused by) each of the three sources (a, b, e, above), after having reduced each value L: table 2 by a factor of 1C0 and =ultiplied each by the 30-year anticipated operational life of TMI-2 (testi=ony, page 3, k; tr. 2903 4).

The resulting cu=bers he listed in table 3 in his tes ti=ony.

'r. Kepford reiterated that his assu=ptics of a ecustant world population and distributics for the ti=e periods i=volved was not perfect, and then stated that although the pcpulatien =edel see=ed inappropriate, it was a useful first apprc=i=atics in understa= ding the le ts-t e r= h e al th effects of the uranin = fuel cycle (Iepford testi=ony, page k).

The populatic: =edel used by Dr. Kepferd was the ss=e as that used by the 1

Tuclear Regulatory Cc==ission itself i= 2 E 3-0116 (tr. 230$~2401).

7$ The 1:terve crs ' witness also evaluated the health eff ects frc=

a coal-fired plant of the sa=e generating ca;acity as IMI-2 attributable LNj ~ $ $

25 h._

to uraniu= at a concentration of one part per sillic in the coal.

For population distributics, he used the =cdel of Dr. Getchy (testi=ony, page 5).

7f, The deaths Dr. Kepford calculated were tabulated in table 4 in his testi=ony as a function of varicus plant operatic para =eters for the coal and nuclear eptions, using for each, respectively, the death rate derived by Dr. Gotchy and by the I?1 (testimony, page 5).

Th e deaths calculated using either death rate were higher for coal than for TMI-2 using the sa=e death rate (table k).

$1 Dr. Kepford also calculated the raden to be produced by decay of particulate uraniu= released frem the uraniu= conversics, enrich-

=ent, and fabricatica stepa of the uraniu= fuel cycle.

Frem the rade a d the two death rates, he calculated the deaths to be caused by rsden frc= these three steps.

He found these figures to be higher than the correspending deaths frc= coal or nuclear using the same death rates ( t es ti=cuy, pag e 6 ).

Dr.Kepferd then =entic=ed qualitatively se=e factors which would significantly reduce the deaths frc= coal acd fres so=e uraniu: fuel cycle activities but not the traniu= =111 tailings piles (testi= cay, page 6).

These f ac tors were esti=ated to reduce the deaths be tween a fac tor of 10 and ICCO per year of operation for the coal fuel cycle and for the ccaversica, enrich =ent, and fabricatics steps of the traniu= fuel cycle, but, again, not the =111 tailings piles (testi= cay, page 6, tr. 28ki-3).

Tl, Cn the basis of his calculatic s, Dr. Kepford concluded that the long ter= health effects of the nuclear fuel cycle would be worse than for a coal fired plant (tr. 2343).

5 2. Witness for the I:terve= ors, Dr, Iepferd, stated in his testi-mony that the current regulatery practice was to not ec= sider health effects frc=

the =111 tailings piles af ter e certain arbitrary time (testi=c=y, page 4).

Dr. Kepf erd esti=a ted tha t fr c= the uraniu=

re=aining i= the sill tai'4 gs piles, about eightee: billice curies of radioactive raden gas wculd be released to the envirc:=ent fer each year's operatic: of IMI-2 (testi=ecy, page 2).

The quantities of rado censidered in the testi=c 7 of Staff witnesa 3r. Gotchy are 74.5 curies38-134

26 3

and 4300 curtss, both released a==ually for the 30-year life of the pla=t (Gotchy, testimony, page 9).

Dr. Gitchy ad=1tted that rado releases fro the =ill tailings piles were not ec sidered beyond a certain period (tr. 2226).

He also admitted that the releases went on for a =1111o= years (tr. 2228-9).

Dr. Gotchy aleo admitted that he could sat argua with the nu=bers produced by Dr. Eepford (tr. 2890).

{J. The difference between the dea ths esiculated by Dr. Gotchy ned Dr. repford has nothing to do with the e=ission ra te of 74.5 curies per anecd fuel requ

-a-a

' of r den, but instead the period of ti=e over d

which the e=issio: cccurs.

Dr. Gotchy e=plained the ti=e-peried (tr. 2772),

used in his assess =ent, whereas Kepford in effect, considered instead essentially all rado released to the environ =ent regardless of ti=e ecnstrsists (Kepferd testi=cny, page 31.

$4, Dr. Kepferd, on the last page of his testi=ony, suggested that

~

if as arbitrary value of cue =illion dollars were used as the value of a hu=a life, in a full cost benefit analysis that includes the long ter= health effects of the rado: e=issions frc= the =ill tailings piles, the ecsts would " dwarf all conceivable benefits frem TMI-2" (testi=ony, page 7).

$fe Dr. Kepford offered an alternative =ethod of acccusti=g for the health effects of radioactive rado: frc= the uranius =ill taillags piles.

He suggested that the quantities of rado released ulti=ately to the environ =ent be, alternatively, for cc=putational purposes, assu=ed to be released si=ultaneously with the operatic of TMI-2 (testi=c=7, page 4).

The result would be the release,'i= effect, cf about ten billic: curies of rades per year.

This approach, he observed, I

woula =ake the raden proble: ore apparest, since the curie quantity was about the sa=e as an entire year's production of fission products by SMI-2 (testi=ony, page 4).

l ~

a8r.idpu

27 m

W..

s ha '4hile not a part of his testimony, Or',

Gotchy identified a portion of a dcct=ent published by the :iuclear Regulatory Cc =issics, NURIG-0116, which contained population esti=ates for periods of ti=e in the far distant future.

These population es timates used by the Cc==1ssion, for evaluating population deses due to a =eteorite impact in a radioactive waste depositcry, sere derived by asst =ing the populatics and habits of today's society can be projected essentially unchanged f ar into the future (tr. 2398-2401).

,(/. Dr. Gotchy acknowledged that the Cc==ission does require its licensees to keep records of exposure of workers to radiation (tr. 2730).

Ecwever, he did state,to the best of his knowledge, the Cc==ission did not require its licensees to perfor= any health follcw-ups en those exposed for epide:iolcgical purposes (tr. 2730-1).

He was si=ilarly unaware if the Cc-d ssion itself undertock such health follcw-ups of exposed werkers (tr. 2781).

=

a8~13G

28 Corelusions of Law-

$$-To the extent that existing policies, procedures, practices or regulatices of the Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission =ay be interpreted so as to prchibit or restrict the Interve= ors fro: challengi=g the Co==ission's practices, procedures, policies, rules, or regulations with regard to (a) the prcbability of aircraf t impse t c on t aine d in Standard Review pla: 3.5.I.6, NUREG-75/C87; (h') evacuation and radiation monitoring responsibilities and prepared:ess beyond the low populatics scue:

Cc) Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20 and Appendi= D of 10 Cy2 30 and the assu=pticus that no adverse health effects are to be ccusidered to occur af ter a certain arbitrarily short ti=e af ter the particular f acility ceases operatic ;

(6) the supple:ent to the Final Supplement to the FL:al Z:virc = ental Statement prepared by the Staff (testimeny of Dr. R.I. Gotchy);

(e) the policy of denying financial assistance to latervenors any such restric tive application of these existing Cc= issics pelicies, procedures, practices, rules and regulatic s in this canner is illegal, discriminatory, arbitr ary, capricious, unr easonab le, and an abuse of discretion, beyond the statutory aatherity of the Co =ission, and would constitute a denial of due process and equal protectie: as they are guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

$7. The rules, regulatione, policies, procedures and practices of the Oo :ission are entitled to great deference, but =ct to the point where the reccrd de cestrates that they wculd be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and an abuse of discretic or otherwise illegal er uneenstitutional.

This e ta te:ent is particularly appropriate where the record indicates that the existing Cc==issics rules, regulatic:s, policies, practices, or precedures do not adequately or credibly protect the health and safety of the pub lic,

58-13'?

29

.- 3, s

as the Cc=rissic: is required to do under Sectic=s 2(d), 2(e),

and 3(d), of tre Ate:1c Inergy Act of 1954, as amended, particularly in view of both the purpose and langnage of the Energy Reorganizatics Act of 1974, and of the National Invironmental Policy Act of 1969, as interpreted in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Cc==ittee v. U.S. A.E.C.

and related and subsequent judicial decisices.

(C-The practice of ignoring er considering negligible the radiclogical consequences in excess of the ex;csure guidelines of 10 CFR 1CC which eculd result frc a large aircraft crashing into TMI-2 if

-7 the rcbabilit7 exceeds 10

r. er year is arbitrarv., capricious, unreascrable and an abuse of discretion and otherwise illegal.

The use of the aircraft i=ract probability of 10-7r.er year is without any basis of either a k cwledge of the risk to the public of exposure to large quantities of radiatic: cr a k=cwledge of the radiological ecusecuences to the public.

By ignoring the radio-1csical risks and ec= sequences to the public, the Cc =ission fails to protdct the health and eafety of the public as required neder the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as a: ended, a d ignores the purpose and language of the Energy Reorganizatic: Act of 1974 and the National Envirc = ental Folicy Act of 1969.

4l In denying the Interve crs' :otion to require chs A;;iicant to supply a witness to discuss the ability of IMI-2 to withs tand the isteet of a large aircraf t, the Board, denying the I:terve crs' plea for an extra two weeks to for=ulate the =otics ( tr. 7kl-7),

procrastimated over two and one-half scaths af ter crally denying the motics before issuing its written explanatics of the denial.

In its denial, the Board attempts to place the burden of prcef on the Interve= ors by suggesting that the Interve= ors had not shown that tha large aircraf t impac t "should have been ec=sidered a design basia event" (E phasis in the original document ).

Such a positics is incessistent with the Cc==ission's rule (10 CFR 2.732) and York Cc==it tee f or a Safe Invironment, et al., v. U,5. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==issics.

The denial of the =ctics also rests en the arbitrary istac t prcbability rate cited above, b8-138

T.

20 s

.c qIL The Board arbitrarily and capr,1cusly denied the Intervencrs the righ t to cress exs=ine the Staff witness with regard to aircraft i= pact consequences bec use of a pending =otion and "until we a

rule in your favor on that =otion.

."{tr. 1309).

That =otion was subsecuently denied by the Board (above),

The result precluded the Interve:crs frc= =aking legitimate 1:qairy into =atters in controversy.

The Board also withdrew its ov: request that the Staff provide a witness to discuss the structural desig: of IMI-2 with regard to aircraf t i= pac t (tr. 748).

Again, the result was to prevent legiti= ate inquiry into =stters in controverry.

63 The subsequent admonitic: by the 3 card that the Interve= ors had not established a basis for ec=sidering accidents worse than desig:

basia (tr.1381-2) does not reflee t adherence to 10 CFR 2.732.

This ad=ctitics ca=e after the Interveners had been denied the opportunity to establish a possible relat' occhip be tween a class 9 accident and a large srcraf t i= pac t (abeve).

It should also be f

noted that civil defense and disas ter prepar[edness officials

=ust take disasters as they ec=e without regard to whether er not they exceed se=e arbitrary level of probability, risk, or conse-quence.

The 3 card cannot turn its back c the responsibility for licensi=g under lo CFR 50.57 (a)(3)(1) s=d (a)(6) an: its funda= ental responsibilities under the Ate =ic Energy Act of 1954, as a= ended, Sec. 2(d), 2(e), and 3(d), and the purycse and language of the Energy Reorganiza tic: Act of 197L.

(I/f. The sustaining of the S taff ceu=3 el obj ec tiens (tr. 1783) was arbitrary and unreasonable.

7ictims of a nuclear catastrophe are granted the right to bring suit for damages under Sectics 170 cf the Ato ic Energy Act cf 1954, as a= ended.

As indicated in the record, the Cc:=issic

's rules and the Applicants ' stated intenticas make the Applicant the pri=ary scurce of data with regard to the radiatics ex7csure received by members of the public during the progress and in the af ter=ath of an accident.

Ye t Sec 190, of the Ac t prevents the use of data disserisated by the Applicant in

~

Court.

bW139

31

/-

d5 The admonitic: of the 3 card that the 2 card is going to " judge the Applicant's entitle ent to a lice =se on the basis of its adherence to what is required of the Applicant, and nothing =cre" (tr. 1784-5) is arbitrary, capricieus, unre acenab le, and an abuse of discretion and ec=trary to the Cc==ission's rules and regulatices, and is otherwise illegal under the 1954 Atcric Energy Act, as a ended, and is contrary to the language and purpose of the National Environ = ental Felicy Act of 1969 and the Energy Reorgn=ination Act of 1974 For si=ilar reascus, liciting the Applicant 's re,ponsi-bilities during and af ter an accidmet to within the cuter boundary of the low populatic: zone =ust be ec sidered illegal and beycad the statutcry authority of the Oce:issice.

/1/

yw The =otions to strike portic=s er c11 of the testi=ce.y of Intervenors' expert witness Dr. Chauncey Kepford. =us t be denied since Dr. Kepford's testi=007 relied upon the e:iscios rate of rado in Table T-3 {tr. 29037.

Dr. Kepford's testi c=y addressed adverse health effects caused by rade e:issions directly attributable to the operation of TMI-2 hundreds, thousands, and =illic=s ef yeers af ter TMI-2 will cease operation.

C the other hand, Table 5-3 addresses c:ly e=issiens which take place ec currently with plant operations.

Thus Table S-3 dictates that 74.5 curies plus L8CO curies cf raden are all that can be attributed to the operation cf TMI-2.

The laws of physics state that tha =ill tailings fre: the production of fuel for c=e 2

year for TMI-2 will cause the creatie e f ab ou t 1.3 10 curi,s 0

of raden, of whic? Dr. Eepford assumed culy 1%, or 1.3 : 10 e=r,,

would be released L to the enviro::ent.

The record does not shew any controversy over the reality of the radioac tive decay of thorit=-230 and =raniu -238, both precursors of the radc=, and the subsequent productics of rados.

The rules of the Cc= issic: which allow a dis-cussien of the adverse health effects of no more than 0.CCC01% of the emitted rade: and in effect deny the existence cf the re=aining 99.9999% of the rado: to be eritted are arbitrary, capricicus,

unreasonable and an abuse of discreti = and otherwise illegal, since the previsicas of the Atc=ic Energy Act of 195k, as a: ended, Sections 2(d) and 2(e), the purpose and language of the I ergy Reorganizatic: Act of 197k, and the National Invircemental Felicy Act of 1969, and the andate of the Ccur in Calvert Cliffs coor-disating Oc::ittee v.

U.S. Ate:ic Energy Cc= issics are viciatedi

.J8~140

'3

,22

17. Regulations 10 CTR Sl.20(e) a:d 10 CFR 50 Appendix D. point 15, state that =c further discussic: of the enviro== ental effects of the uranius fuel cycle, apart frem the discussion of those effects which have been incorporated in Table 3-3 of those regulatices,

"shall be required."

This language neither recuires nor precludes further consideration by the Cc==issics and the Applicant of the effects of the uraniu: fuel cycle.

Neither of these regulatices authorizes the Co==issica er the 2 card to refuse to enter into the record er to fully and in good faith censider any envirc = ental effects of the uraniu= fuel cycle not already incorperated into Table S-3, which effects the Intervencrs atte=pt to have entered into the record fer ecesiderstic=.

Further: ore, any 11=itatics of this sort by the Heard er Cc==issics would be contrsry to and a violatic cf the express language and purp ose of the Natienal Enviro:: ental Policy Act of 1969 and the Atc=ic Inergy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Recrga=1:ation Ac t of 1974 Also see, NROC v. U.S.N.R.C., F.2d 633, 653 :.57 (D.C. Cir., 1976).

YS. The supple:est to the Final Supplement to the Final Envirc:= ental Statement entitled " Supple = ental Testi=ony Regarding Health Effec ts Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle 11ternatives," by Dr. R.L. Gotchy, has act been circulated for ec==ent a=ceg Federal ag en c ie s, and othere, a violatics of the Natic:al Environ = ental Policy let of 1969.

N, The policy and practice of the Cc:=ission in denying funding to I:terve:crs in this preceeding is arbitrary, capricus, unr e a c enab le and an abuse cf discretion.

This policy and practice is punitive and otherwise illegal and has the eff ect er deny 1=g intervencrs

<the right to present witnesses (tr. 2144),a right guaranteed al!

parties under the Cce=issic 's cwn rules (10 CTR 2.743).

This practice and policy is contrary 'o the Natic al Enviro:= ental Felicy Act of 1974 The policy is also contrary to the purpose and language of Calvert Cliffe Cecrdinating Cc==ittee v. U.S. Atc=ic Energy Cen=issics, and the York Cc==1ttee f or a Safe Enviro:sent, et al.,

v. U.5'.

Nuclear Regulatory Cc==iscies and the fif th a d fourteenth Eseni=ents to the U.S. Constitutics.

US - 1<11L

33 3

/6C. Counsel f or the Staff stated that this preceedi s is governed by I

Append 1= D of 10 CTR $C, and requires a full reviewunder the National Enviret= ental Policy Act cf 1969 ( tr. 2123 ).

Interveners cenclude the Board and the Cc:=issic: have therefere failed, utterly and ce=pletely, in this functice,. Similarly, the Applicar_t has failed to ec=plete its responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.20(d) by ignori=g adverse data in its findings.

In particular, the record shews no evidence of any review by the Applicant, 3 card, or Cc:=issic: ef:

(a) how and whe TMI-2 migh t be dec c==issicted, and the resulting ecccc=ie and envirc: ental costs.

The record shevr o evi-de=ce of a k cwledge of the quantities of residual radicactivity re=aising in the plant after rezcval of used fuel er the radiatic: levels to which workers will be expcsed; (b ) the long ter= radicl:gi:sl health and envd ---~aa'al eff ects of the uranius fuel cycle, as related to the operatic cf CMI-2 as required for cost-benefit analysis t

~

(c) the epide=1olegical relatic= ship be tween rsdiatica doses to workers in the nuclear industry and subsequent adverse health effects; (d) the e ff ec t ce the stated or perceived need

.. pcwer of a ch ang e, fres a rate structure which offere users er clasees of users reduced rates fer increased electrical ecesumptics, to a flat-rate s tructure, er an increasing-rate rate structure; Ce } the fica:cial capability of the Applicant to fulfill its obligatic:a to the public in the event the Price-Anderse:

Act is declared unconstitutic:a1 is all jurisdictices, as L Carolina Envire== ental Study Grcup, et al. v. U.S. Ate =ie I:ergy Cc==issics, U.S. District Ccurt, Western District of Ncrth Carolina, March 31,1977 ;

(f) the effect of a sericus progrss of e:ergy ecuservatice, such as, for exa:ple, the ene prepcsed by the Fresident of the United States, c= the stated need for power; (g) the 1:stitutic:al =echanis=s by which a ec=tinued reliance c= large, c en t r al'-s ta tic: ;enerated electricity precludes,

serious efferts at energy conservatics, here insula tic:, and the wide cale use of the vari:us f orms of eclar energy.

Ub ~ IM

-]

34 (h) health benefits of ec:servatics of energy as an alternative to operatic of the plant; (1) data by sources ind e pen d en t of the nuclear industry showing that coal ce=bustics is a =cre econc=ical =ethod of gener-ating electricity than nuclear; (dl reports which suggest that nuclear reacter accidents are

=uch =cre probable and have such ore severe cc:secuences than stated in the Eeactor Safety Study, WASH-lLOOp (k) the sccial, political, tech =ical, and environmental proble=s associated with all forms of radioactive waste dispcsal, including =111 tailingrpiles; (1) censideratic: of all the long-ter= radiological and enviro:-

mental effects of all aspects of the uraniu: fuel cycle as related to the operation of TMI-2 ;

(m) the licensi:g actic:s proposed by the Applicant wculd censtitute

"=ajer Federal actic a significently affec ti=g the quality of the hu=an envirc =ent" within the ="aning of 3ec. 102 (2)(c) of the Natic:al Envirc = ental Policy Act of 1969.

The Act requires both the 3eard and the Oc==issic: to ec: sider environ-

= ental i=pec ts before they take any " major Federal action."

Therefore, neither the 3 card =cr the Cc==issic: =ay relegate the required environ =estal censiderstion to othcr prceeedings which wculd be conducted af ter the proposed "=ajc-Federal actics" has been taken.

S e e als o, N. R. D. C. v. U. S _'i.R. C.,

574 ?.2d 633, 653

.57(D.C. cir., 1976).

US 143

s 35 s

/C/-

The inadequacy of the Applicast's considerstic: of radiatic:

=enitoring and evacua tic: preparedness beyced the confines of the low population sene is illegal and constitutes an independent basis for denying the propeeed licensing ac tic:s.

/07.

The iscdequacy of the Applicant 's consideratics of the radiolegical ecuseque=ees of a large airersf t i=pacting into TMI-2 is illegal and ce stitutes an independent basis fer deny 1:g the proposed licensi=g ac tions.

/c 5. The inadequacy of the Applicant 's consideration of the long-tern radiological effects of the uraniu= fuel cycle is illegal and ccustitutes an indepe= dent basis for denying the proposed licensing actic=s.

/04 The inadequacy of the

/

Applicant'9censideration of energy conservatic: as an alternative to =aking iMI-2 irrevocably radicactive is illegal and ec stitutes an indepe= dent easis for de:ying the proposed licensing ac tic:s.

/ C"Ifhe inadequacy of the Applicant 's cc: sideration of the very questionable ability of the Cc=:enwealth to perform under disaster conditions to protect the health and safety of the public is illegal and co ctitutes an independent basis for denying the proposed licensing acticus.

/CO. The inadequacy of the Applicant's ec=sideratics of its own i= ability to meet its Environ = ental Technical Specifica tions

( ?To:-

Radiological) Sec. 3.1.2.a(1)(c) is illegal and ec:stitutes a:

independent basis for denying the proposed licensing actic=s.

/c% Under 10 CF2 30, Appendi D, parts D(2) and (3) the Board is act autherised te grant an operati g license beyond twenty per cent (20%)

of full pewer.

s e

o

g.

36

~,

/Cf Ne to the deficie::cies noted abeve, =either the Board =cr the Cc =issica is authori:ed to grs=t the Applicant an operating license for.?!-2.

Further= ore, the =agnitude of the deficiencies in the fi'd gs and propeesla necessitates denial of any ec=tinuance or renewal of the Applicant's ccustructics Per=it for TMI-2.

Respectfully Sub=itted,

/:y, /..,

i n x W

/

igast 15, 1977

• "" '7 hE'*#

Re pres en t a tive of the Interve ors 433 Criando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16301 b8-145

1_ _

C ':.'4,.,,. -.,a,,.:. :,--r.,.,

a:.

a:

..u:

I hereby certify th a t copies of !NT'TI'iCRS PROFCSEO FI!TDINGS CF FACT AND CONCLUSICNS OF Le.

dated Aurust 15, 1977, have been served on the followir.g by deposit a the U.S. Mail, Firs t Class, postpaid,

_/ - day of Aug :s t, 19 this 7

i Edward Lutca, Esq., Ch airman George F. Trewbridge, Esq.

Atemic Safety and !icensing 3 card Shaw, Fittman, Fetts L U.S.

Nuclear Fe:;ala torv Oc== saion Trewbridge Washingten, D.C. 20555 15CC 8 Street, N.i.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Oustave A. Linenberger Ate =ic 52fety and Licensing 3 card Atemic Safety i Licensing U.S. Nuclea r Regula cory Cc:n=ission Board Fan el Washington, D.C. 2C555 U.S. Nuclear Regul'atory Cc==issica

.. nasa 4 ngton, a.v. cv5

,q

,r

.vr. -rnest O. ca,o p

s Frofessor, Fisheries Resesren Instituta, WE-10 Atomic Safety and Licensir.g College of Fisheries Appeal Board University o f Washington U.S..'ucle ar Regui n tory Seattle, Washington 98195 Cc==ission Washington, D.C. 20555 Kari:

d.

Carter, Acs t. Atterxey General Office of Enforcement Decketing and Service Cepart=ent of Iaviron.?. ental Resources Section 709 Hesith and '4elfsre Euilding Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17120 U.S. Nuclear Re ula tory C c = m i.c s i o n Washinsten, D.C.

20555 v.

,,cuurren nenrv c,

\\t~il14 Counsel !or NEC Staff ac Nuclear Regulatory Cc=:ission Washington, O.C.

2C555 O.

1 D

A-

,-l'\\

-y 9

}

1. o, g

' g.

N d

r---

1 1D

/

/J,s / k q

Cf

'c'

/

f

'ik.l.' Q.V' }&MJ J

-4/In t\\

./

Chaur.cey Ieptcrd /

n Represe: tat 1re of the ::terrenceg US-14G