ML19211D375

Discusses Aslab Conclusion on Radon.Questions Number of Deaths Estimated by Aslab When Multiplied by Number of Us Planned Reactors.Alleges That cost-benefit Data Balance Is Against Nuclear Energy

ML19211D375
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, 05000355
Issue date:	01/03/1979
From:	Caccia D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML19211D372	List: ML19211D371 ML19211D375
References
PLED-790103, NUDOCS 8001180318
Download: ML19211D375 (1)

Text

s)

?

4& '

.b< QBEFORE cl THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENLTNG APPEAL BOADR 1/3/79 v e - Jiope Creek 4~ ,

Docket Nos. 50-354 & 50 355 y-

/ Brief by David Caccia on Boards de minimus conclusions on radon.

6 for radon are correct, Presuming that the Board's calcula1!ed levels of exposure conclusion, as I understand it,I question their de minimus conclusion. This between 2 and 132 deaths per millenium states that fromthere will bereleased the radon somewhere in conjunction with the Perkins reactor. And, that this is an insignificant amount of deaths.

First, this number of deaths must be multiplied by the number from the entire nuclear of planned reactors program. in the country to see the radon impact These deaths may seem insignificant as a statistic, how insignificant are they? but as actual people, perhaps members of the Board, when compared Second, the health effects of radon may seem acceptable But, with the health effects of using coal instead of nuclear.

if a cost-benefit, balance was to be calculated between nuclear and the energy alternatives of solar, co-generation, conservation, etc..and if the nuclear was debited with the radon health effect, I think the balance would be tipped against nuclear. Indeed, a recent study in Califoria showed the cost-benefit balance to be against ~._

nuclear in such a comparison even without including the radon cost. '

I point this out, not to raise a new issue, but to point out that a valid in question with cost-benefit the best alternative. comparison should compare the process .

Recent studies show that the ~

energy with. alternatives, and not coal is what nuclear should be compared If such a the balance at exact equipoise. In which case, study was to be done for Hope Creek, it might find i any number of deaths due to the radon would tip the balance against Hope Creek.

At the risk of going beyond the radon issue, I wonder n if the cost of de-commissioning Hope Creek has been factored into the cost-benefit calculations? .

itted Q

Respectfujlly David Caccia

Q, 1765 302 r

~~ "

~~l _, - Y_

. ~l _ _

.e,; ' ..a

._._._.a_

---. " E4F-

..p.. *~

b i 800118o 3 /8'