Text

Applicants Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of ASLB Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML19220A319
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/04/1977
From:	Blake E, Trowbridge G; SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 7904170401
	Download: ML19220A319 (98)
	v • d • e

e G

Aucust 4,

1977 s

a 0n.IIme.D S.n.eS Or e.r e.r C a-s m.

NUCLEAR REGIF ATORY COMMISSICN Eefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard In the Matter of

)

1 METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPA'iY

)

Docket No. 50-320 et al.

)

~

^

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Generating Station, U.:it 2)

)

APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSICNS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF ATCMIC SAFETY A'ID LICENSING EOARD INITIAL DECISION

$-l-77 1.

This prcceeding concerns the application of Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Pcwer and Light Cc=pany and Pennsylvania Electric Company (hereinaf ter collec-

\\

tively referred to as " Applicants") for licenses to construct and operate the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "TMI 2").

TMI 2, located adjacent to a similar operating unit (TMI 1) on Three Mile Island in the Suscuehanna River in Londenberry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, is presently almost cenpleted with fuel loading scheduled for October, 1977.

2.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as " Board") has conducted a public evidentiary hearing to censider (1) issuance er denial of a full-ter cperating license for TMI 2 cr itc apprcpriate conditioning to protect envircnmental values, and (2) because TMI 2 is subject to the provisions of Section C of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, whether considering those T.atters covered by Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 7 9 0 417 WiOI 4 11 - oIh

50, the provisional construction permit for TMI 2 chould be con-tinued, modified, terminated or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values.

With respect to its consideration under Appendix D of the TMI 2 construction permit, the Board has conducted a full NEPA review covering both contested and uncontested environmental issues.

With respect to the operating license the Board has in accordance with section 2.760a of the Commission's Rules of Practice confined its findings to matters 1/

in controversy.

3.

In the Background section of this Initial Decision, we describe the history of the proceeding.

In Secticn II, the Ecard sets forth its findings, first as to matters in contro-versy between the parties (section II.A), and second as to uncontested Appendix D matters relating to TMI 2's construction permit (section II.3).

Based on the findings of fact, the Board in Section IE:, Conclusions of Law, concludes that the provisional construction permit for TMI 2 should be continued and that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized to make such 1/

The Board asked a number of questions on its own en matters which the Staff and Applicants addressed in prepared written testimony and through additional witnesses.

Insofar as these =atters concerned issues in controversy or the Board's full blown NEPA review, they are discussed in the related findings in Section II.

Where the questions were posed to allow the Board to determine whether extracrdinary matters exicted which would require further Board attention under section 2.760a, based on the respcuses (see, for example, Applicants' Safety Responses and Staff testimony by Zwetzig (IMI 1 cperating experience),

Narrow, Davis and Fasano (quality of construction with delayed schedule) and Silver (NUREGs and Financial Considerations) ), che Board determined there were no such extraordinary issues and these subjects are not further discussed in the findings.

O ?.- *!d

. additional findings on uncontested issues as may be necessary to issuance of a full-term operating license for TMI 2.

I.

BACKGROUND 4.

Construction of TMI 2 was authorized on November 4, 1969.

By a*; plication dated April 4, 1974, Applicants recuested authorization, pursuant to Section 104 (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Act"),

to possess, use and operate TMI 2, a pressurized water nuclear reactor, at a steady-state power level of 2772 megawatts thermal.

Notice of Receipt of Application For Facility Operating License, Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity For Hearing en TMI 2 were published by 2/

the Cctmission in the Federal Register on May 23, 1974.

(39 Fed. Reg. 18497)

The Notice of Application For Facility Operating License offered an opportunity for members of the public whose interest might be affected by the proceeding to file a request for a public hearing in the form of a petition for leave to inter-vene (1) as respects, considering those matters covered by Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 of the Cc=missica's regulations, 2/

The regulatory and licensing functicns of tne Atomic Energy Consission (AEC) were transferred en January 19, 1975, to the new Nuclear Regulatory Cennission (NRC).

References throughout this Supplemental Decision to "Cc= mission" are to either the AEC or the NRC as appropriate.

Similarly, references to the " Staff" are to the NRC Staff or AEC Staff as appropriate.

07.~ 2f39

O (a) whether the provisional construction permit should be con-tinued, modified, terminated or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values and/or (b) the issuance or denial of an operating license or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values ~, and alternatively, er jointly (2) as respects issuance of the cperating license in consideration of erse matters covered by 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commissien':;

regulations.

5.

In response to the Notice of Application, a petition for leave to intervene was filed jointly by Citizens For a Safe Environment and York Cc=mittee For a Safe Environment (hereinafter 3/

collectively referred to as " Joint Intervenors ").

In addi-tion, the Cc=menwealth of Pennsylvania, through its Department of Environmental Resources (hereinaf ter referred to as " Pennsylvania")

requested to participate under 10 CFR S 2.715(c).

In a Memorandum and Order of July 24, 1974, the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Scard designated to rule on petitions for leave to intervene granted the request of Joint Intervencrs and admitted Pennsylvania as a 5 2.715 (c) participant.

Consequently, Notice of Hearing en Application For Facility Operating License was published in the Federal Register cn July 31, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 27749).

?/

Three other intervention petitions were filed in this pro-ceeding but did not result in hearing issms considered by the Board.

A petition by Mrs. Barbara Pradel was denied by the atcmic safety and licensing bcard designated to rule en intervention peti-tions by Memorandum and Orde dated July 24, 1974.

A second peti-tion, by Frederick and Gertrude Hellrich, et al., was allowed as a late intervention by this Board but subsequently was witndrawn by those intervenors.

The third petition, filed by Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power in August, 1976, was denied for lack cf a substantial showing of good cause fc

"=" e to file en time (3 card Order of April 14, 1977).

q{ 3"O

6.

Pursuant to Notice and Order of the Scard (40 Fed.

Reg. 20866), a prehearine conference was held on May 22, 1975, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

At that prehearing, Joint Inter-venors, Applicants and the NRC Staff presented to the Scard for its approval a stipulation on the admissibility of eleven conten-tions by Joint Intervencrs.

The parties also agreed upon a f

schedule for discovery.

By Order of November 6, 1975, the 3 card adopted as issues in controversy the eleven stipulated contentions advanced by Joint Intervenors.

,7.

A second prehearing conference was held in Harris-burg, Pennsylvania, on January 23, 1977 (see 42 Fed. Reg. 2139).

In the course of that conference a schedule for ccamencement of the evidentiary hearing was establis.ed and the Scard identified questions to which Applicants and the NRC were to respend at the 4/

hearing.

8.

Following puhb.c notices (42 Fed. Reg. 15984, 20686, 24778, 29578 and 33387), evidentiary hearings open to the public, were held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during April 5-8, May 2, May 16-21, and June 6-10, 1977, and in Bethesda, Maryland, en July 5, 1977.

Witnesses were presented by Applicants, NRC Staff and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to address Joint Intervencrs '

5/

eleven contentions and to respond to the Board's questions.

Two other matters were addressed in the course of the hearing in 4/

See footnote 1 supra.

5/

Appendix A to this Initial Decision contains a list of wit-nesses by contentions and by 3 card questions.

4 - n p4 q,..

-s-response to decisions of Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 6/

Boards

-- a reassessment by the Staff of the uranium fuel cycle impacts takirg into account the values in the March, 1977, Interim Rule, and testimony by the Staff and by Joint Intervencrs on the health ef fects associated with the nuclear and coal fuel cycle alternatives.

A number of exhibits were introduced into the 7/

record.

9.

During the course of the hearing, a number of persons availed themselves of the opportunities afforded by the Scard to 8/

maka limited appearance statements.

Applicants and the NRC Staff responded in writing to relevant questions posed by limited appearors, copies of which responses were distributed to those persons who raised the questions.

II.

F_INDINGS OF FACT II.A.

ISSUES RAISED BY CCNTENTIONS CONTENTION 1 Applicants have failed to consider the environmental impact on the atmosphere and weather of the cc= Fined thermal 6/

See Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAS-407, 6 NRC (June 1, 1977);

Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 13 and 23), ALA3-367, 5 NRC 92 (1977).

7/

Appendix 3 contains a list of the exhibits introduced into tne record of this proceeding.

S/

Limited appearance statements were made by Anton Chaitkin, Jcnn J.

Simon, Carl Jarbce (2 appearances), Elizabeth Ncrtham, David Levit, Ray Hearne, Judith Johnsrud, Abigail Jarbce, Ecb Jenison, William V. Whittick, Jane Donahue, Mary Swann, Mike Jones, Milton Lowenthal, Mary Douglas, and Larry E.

Arnold.

See tr.

184-243, 2667-2757.

ng-ono

'1,. a:

.M

~7-q.c-J releases of the generation facilities on the lower Susquehanna River.

These releases will add a significant amount of energy to the local area to be dissipated by radiation and convection with possible alterations in the local climate.

No operating license should be granted until such ef fects are discussed.

10.

Joint Intervenors presented no witnesses or direct case en this or any contention and confined their participation in the hearing to cross examination of testimony by Applicants, the NRC Staff and, in the case of Contention S, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 11.

Witnesses presented by Applicants and the NRC Staff agreed that there would be no significant impact on the local 9/

weather due to operation of TMI 2.

They observed that very large releases of energy in a concentrated area can influence 10/

weather conditions.

For example, in studies of the City of Chicago which releases over an area of about 1800 square kilometers some 53,000 megkwatts to the atmosphere due to man-made energy sources and an eg.ivalent amount due to sunlight abscrbed and released again as heat, there have been clouds and rainfall effects 11/

observed downwind.

Studies have shewn that pcwer plants in the range of the combined capacity of the two units at Three Mile 9/

Ecsler on Centention 1, pp. 6-7; Andrews, Markee, Drake en contentien 1, pp. 10-11; tr. 301, 333-34.

10 /

Hosler on Contention 1, pp. 1-2; Andrews, Markee, Drake en Contention 1, pp.

3-9.

11 /

Hosler en Contention 1, pp.

2-3.

z1" 1. ". H 3

-S-12 /

Island, however, have a negligible effect en the weather.

The only noticeable effects on local conditions expected from c;3 ration of the towers at TMI could be some minimal increase in local 13 /

fogging, which has been considered in TMI 2's environmental 14 /

assessment.

TMI's size censidering both units is significantly less than tre 10,000 MW-size which appears to be the threshold for a 15 /

concentrated energy source to noticeably impact local climate.

12. Concern that TMI's cooling tower releases in ecmbination with releases from other power plants located along the Susquehanna could impact weather in the area was also addressed, 16 /

and dismissed.

The distribution of generating plants along the Susquehanna is such that they act independently en weather conditions; the impulse of each on the atmosphere is diffused and lost before it can combine with impulses due to other plant releases under any conceivable ccmbinatien of winds in the 17 /

f Susquehanna River Basin.

If all the generating capacity which releases heat to the air along a 100-mile stretch of the Susquehanna were ccmbined in ene concentrated ccmplex, 12 /

Hosler on Contention 1, pp. 3-4, 6; Andrews, Markee, Drake on Contention 1, pp.

3-8.

13 /

Andrews, Markee, Drake en Contention 1, p.

10; tr. 300.

14 /

Jee FSFES, Appendix B, S 7.A.3.b.

15 /

E:slar en Contention 1, pp.

4-6.

16 /

Ecsier on Contencion 1, pp. 4-6; Andrews, Markea, Drake en Content:en 1, pp. 11-12.

17 /

Ecsler en Contentien 1, pp.

5-6.

/ M..

N W m

o one might expect local weather effects; spread over 100 miles, however, it is insignificant when ccmpared to the naturally 18/

released energy in ;he same area.

13.

The Board finds that the environmental impact on the atrosphere and weather due to operation of TMI 2's cooling towers singly and in combination with releases of other generation facilities on the lower Susquehanna have been evaluated and thct any impact will be insignificant and within naturally occarring variations in the area.

CONTENTION 2 The biological survey performed by the Applicants' consultant (as amended by Supplement II of the Environmental Report) is inadequate, in that it consists of little more than a listing of species which may be in the area.

A more thorough survey is necessary, including population estimates on a year round basis, to positively assess any possible impact of Unit 2 on the environment.

No operating license should be granted until such a study is made.

14.

Applicants have conducted studies of both the aquatic and terrestrial biota in the environs of TMI.

Contrary to Joint Intervenors' assertion that the studies have consisted 7 and the NRC Staff of no more than a list of species, Applicar 19/

amply demonstrated through testi=ony of a ncaber of witnesses anu the introduction of voluminous reports of studies conducted at 18/

_I d_. at 6.

19/ Applicants principal witnesses in this area were Dr.

Mudge, Dr. Raney and Mr. Nardacci; the NRC Staff presented Dr.

Hickey on aquatic studies and Dr. Ott as to terrestrial studies.

d?. TS

g 10.. _; -

1 20/

TMI that the biological monitoring programs at TMI are extensive.

15.

Terrestrial studies commenced in the area of TMI 1 in 21/

1973.

Initial phases included sampling and observation to obtain descriptions et the exist'.g vegetational ccmmunities and identification of their ccmponent taxa as well as a description of 22/

the natural envirc mental stresses acting en the vegetation.

The components of a terres'c ial ec cystem such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and insects which were expected to be affected 23 /

by plant operation were also documented during the initial phases.

Following ccnmencement ( ' operation of TMI 1 in 1974, terrestrial monitoring continued with detailed studies conducted to evaluate the significance of mortality or injury to birds, if any, resulting frca impactions on the cooling towers, and the extent and significance of any damage to natural vegetation and/or crops which might result 24/

from cooling tower salt drift.

Results of the bird impaction studies revealed that this impact was insignificant; the studies 25/

have been terminated.

The vegetation studies which were conducted throughout each year censisted of detailed 20/

See Applicants Exhibits Nos. 4-8 which are reports en werk done by Applicants' principal consultant in this area, Ichthyological Associates, during 1974, 1975 and 1976.

21/

Mudge, p.

10.

22/

_I d_. at 11.

23/

_Id_.,

Tables 8 and 9.

24/

Id, at 12, Figure 7.

25/

ott, p. 4; Mudge, p.

13; FSFES S 6.5.

j3. 4 - o rD

. checks of species composition, relative abundance and relative dcminance of naturally occurring vegetation and a plant pathology transect study to observe differences in ficwering time or 26 /

appearance of flowers as well as plant diseases and damage.

Applicants' terrestrial programs rre suffic.ently detailed to provide baseline information against which operation of TMI 2 27 can be assessed.

In the NRC Staff's view, the data collected to the present is r.cre than sufficient in all areas as baseline data and actually exceeds predictive requirements in the area of 28 drift effects fren the towers.

While detailed population 29 /

estimates cf all terrestrial biota do not exist, Applicants' programs are designed to accect possible effects on terrestrial 30 /

species habitat which adequately serves the purpose.

The Board concurs with the Applicants' and Staff's assessment that Applicants' terrestrial monitoring programs consist of far =cre than a species list and provide adequate baseline data.

16. Aquatic monitoring studies by Applicants in the vicinity 31 /

of TMI date frca 1967.

The initial study, which continues 29.Ntdge at 12-16, Figures 8 and 9.

27/

M. at 16; Ott, p.

5.

28/

Ott, p.

5.

29/

Population estimates have been made of selected terrestrial blota.

Mudge, p.

16.

30/

See Ott, pp. 4-5.

31/ Mudge, p.

2; tr. 949.

ni arrt M..

s

@ to the present, has been conducted by Dr. Charles Wurt: and consists of a study of the macroinvertebrate f auna in the 32/

vicinity and downstream of TMI, providing both qualitative 33/

and quantitative data on species composition.

In 1970, two mere studies were initiated by App'.icants -- cne on fish and a second en macroinvertebrates in the vicinity of TMI and the York Haven Hydroelectric Station which is located immediately 34/

downstream of TMI.

This fish study has provided data gained by trapnetting and electrofishing on numbers and percents of fish by species caught each year, weights and percents of fish by species each year, and average number and average weight of fish caught per day's effer for each sampling period, as well as statistical analyses of the data to determine mean and 35/

standard deviations in catches and variances in the data.

The second program en macroinvertebrates has provided informa-tion on facnal diversity of species in the vicinity c' TMI, seasonal succession of species, dcminant species, and an analysis of variance over the years and relationship between species 36/

counts and observed physical-chemical variables.

32/

Id., p.

2, Figure 1; Eickey en Contention 2, p.

2.

33/

Id., p.

3, Tables 1-3; Eickey on Contention 2, p.

2.

34/

Id., p.

3; tr. 949-50.

35/

Mudge, pp.

4-5, Tables 4-5, Figure 2.

36/

Id., pp.

5-6, Figure 4.

O A - p n d'

9 9 -

1 17.

In 1974, Applicants increased the intensity of aquatic biological =cnitoring through initiation of detailed studies 37/

conducted by Ichthyological Associates. (IA).

As the testi-

=cny of Dr. Mudge of Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany and Dr. Raney and Mr. Nardacci of IA revealed, the aquatic program conducted by IA at TMI is very ccmprehensive.

The basic components include data on impingement of fish, entrainment of idtdarplankten, phytoplan': ton and :ceplankten, fish surveillance through seining and trapnetting, benthic macroinvertebrate surveillance, as 38 /

well as population estimates, movements and food habits of fishes.

Illustrative of the detail of these studies is that in the case of the area first noted above, i.e.,

impingement, fish are collected semimenthly at four intervals over a 24-hour pericd, the specimens are all identified, countea,

.easured and weighed, their reproductive status and physic.1 conditicn are determined, and information on time of sampli:tg and station operational 39/

status are recorded.

Simila: detailed efforts are involved 40/

in the other facets of the prceram.

The program spans the year and assures collection of data during all meaningful periods 4 L/

for the biota.

37 /

Id., p.

7.

38 /

I d,., pp. 7-10.

See generally Applicants' Environmental

c. a. 5-39.

Rest.onses r 39 /

Ii., p. 7.

40 /

Ed., pp. 8-9; Hickey en Contentien 2, p.

I.

41 /

See Hickey en Centention 2, pp.

5-6.

2x c~ ? ' q

'l*.

9 O Populaticn estimates have been attempted and more precise popula-tion estimates are censidered unnecessary due to the unlikell-hoed of success in view of the wide range of natural variatiens which occur and the relative mortality which the biota would 42 /

suffer frca sampling alone which would be necessary.

18. There was considerable crcss examination directed at the capability of Applicants (or indeed any applicant) to determine the impacts due to plant operation by analysis of data frcm the 43 s ampling program cver time.

Natural environmental forces and perturbations, coupled with stresses imposed on the aquatic system by a variety of man-made sources, compound the biologist's difficulties in determining confident cause and effect relation-44 /

ships.

Thus, while Applicants' program is acceptably dete.iled to provide a baseline of information on aquatic species with which post-operaticnal data could be compared to identify differences in species abundance and relative ab undance, a variety of factors must be evaluated to draw conclusiens as to the plant's bearing on those differences.

In the end, it cannot be done simply by comparing differences in numbers of individual spec: -2s observed; it can only be done by careful analysis of all the data collected and the application of an expert biologist's judgment based on enough data.

The Scard 42 /

See Hickey on Contention 2, pp.

6-9.

43 /

See, for example, tr. 991-94, 2011-13, 2015-18,2021-30, 2040-54, 2057-60, 2061-63, 2073-75.

44 /

See Hickey on Cantention 2, p.

7; tr. 2073-75.

t3 4.. P.'~(

@ finds that Applicants' data base and monitoring program secpe are adequate to provide sufficient information to allcw this judgmental process to be performed.

CCe m_a.v-u 3

m a

iva The design for the eccling towers is inadequate to withstand the earthquake or tornado that the rest of the plant is built to withstand.

As a result, if thic earthquake or tornado does occur and the main plant does withstand it, it is highly probable that the cooling towers will not.

Then, either the plant will shut down for two or three years while the towers are rebuilt or repaired, or the plant will continue to operate without eccling towers using once-through ecoling.

In this latter event, it is highly likely that state water quality criteria wculd be violated and severe envircamental impacts would ensue.

Therefore, no cperating license should be granted until the entire plant is rendered capable of withstanding the maximum anticipated earthquake or tornado or until an adequate cost / benefit analysis pursuant to NEPA is conducted taking into account the impact of possible less of the cooling towers.

19.

The ccoling towers at TMI 2 and other ncn-safety related structures, systems anc. cc=penents are built to conventional standards cc= mon for structures and equipment in an area of fairly Icw seismic activity and low torando proba-45/

bility.

While they are designed to withstand high wind conditions and have inherent strength against seismic distur-46/

bances, like the remainder of the non-safety grade portiens of the plant such as the turbine building and the transmission 45/

Heward, p.

2; Norris, Silver en Contention 3, p.

2.

Less of the towers does not inhibit safe shutdown of the plant.

Tr.

1120, 1123.

46/

Heward, p.

2.

fi t - 9 4 4

c a.

47 /

facilities, the c0 cling towers are not designed to e.eet the postulated forces associated with extreme and highly improbable 48 /

natural phenonena.

20.

Based en his considerable experience in the construction of large pcwer plant projects, Applicants' witness Mr..ieward cbserved that the cost of upgrading the rema ;. der of the plant, including the towers, to maet safety-grade standards for natural 49 /

phenc=ena would be substantial, and further that, it is implicit in industry practice that very large capital costs are not jr.stified on an ecenc=ic basis to avoid plant cutages due to 50 /

such events.

Furthermore, as both Mr. Heward and the Staff's witnesses noted, frc= a consideration of alternatives standpoint, the cost c# upgrading a fossil plant alternative to the same criteria in order similarly to increase reliability would cost even more than to perform such a tach at a nuclear plant where 51 /

sc=e of the plant is already so qualified.

21.

According to Applicants' and the Staff's witnesses, were a tornado or earthquake to f ell the towers, C int Inter-venors' predicticn that TMI 2 would be operated ence-through and violate state water quality criteria would not be realized.

First, it was noted that TMI 2 is designed and constructed to 47/

Heward, p.

3; Norris, Silver, p.

3; 4S/

Heward, p.

3.

TMI 2's newer design is generally similar to the design of ecoling towers at othe plants.

Tr. 1113.

49/

Heward, pp. 2-3 50/

_I d_.

See also vanNiel en Centention 8, p.

2.

,- 4

-w o n

-t

, AJ

9

-3 6 -

Civil Defense Duty Officer is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; the County Civil Defense Headquarters, which serves as the constant communications center for all emergencies 1.2.1/

in the county, in always manned.

Sinilarly, Pennsylvania's ERH, whose personnel are notified immediately by the state civil defense duty officer, maintains a number of contact points where 124/

BRE representatives can ca reached by the CD duty officer.

Upon receipt of the call from the CD duty officer, the 3RH repre-sentative eaen contacts TMI on one of its multiple phone lines to confirm the validity of the initial notice to CD and to receive details on the event which allows BRE to perform its 125 /

role as the Cc=menwealth's expert radiological adviser.

49.

It is the Cc=monwealth of Pennsylvania (and within the Cc=monwealth, the civil defense organicatior which actually would imp'? ment protective action measures, including evacuation 126 /

m/

if necessary.

The Commonwealth's civil defense organization operates at three levels, with state, county and local organi a-l_13 /

Applicants' Testimony on Cententien 8, p.

10; Molloy, p.

3; VanNiel on Contention 8, p. 2.

124 /

Williamsen, p. 5; tr. 1494.

125 /

Tr. 1499-1503, 1827-28.

In the event tnat ERE could not be contacted (considered remote in view o; 3RH's multiple contact points and successful drills in the past), civil defense could proceed based on Applicants' expert recommendations as to the need for protective action.

Tr. 1499-1500.

126 /

See Williamson, p.

1.

127 /

See generally Willia = son, pp.

1-5.

G

@ 12 V tiens.

Mr. Williamson and Mr. Molloy, the Cc=menwealth's 129/

witnesses, described the interaction and close cocrdination which exists among the three levels within civil defense in the state, as well as between civil defense and other state, county 13W and local governmental entities.

In the event of an emergency, the civil defense headquarters in the affected areas are activated into Emergency Cperations Centers (ECCs) and utilized by represen-tatives of agencies such as Red Cross, Coast Guard, Civil Air Patrol er Naticnal Guard along with civil defense personnel, to 13 L/

ensure a coordinated response.

The ccmmunications capabill-ties throughout civil defense are extensive.

For example, in Dauphin County's headquarters which serves as that County's ECC in an emergency, there are:

radio gear covering four fire frequencies, six police frequencies, CAP, citizens band, amateur radio and mobile telephone frequencies, as well as medical telemetry and civil defense teletype equipment, and nineteen incoming telephone 132/

lines.

The resources available to civil defense include not only their own personnel and equipment, but also, because of their 129/

Id., p.

3; Molloy, pp.

1-2.

129/

Mr. Williamsen is Deputy Director of State Civil Defense; Mr. Molloy is Director of Civil Defense in Dauphin County where TMI is sited.

130/

Williamson, pp. 4-5; Molloy, pp.

1-2.

131/

See Molley, p.

4.

131/

Mclicy, pp.

3-4.

_noo

')

e o

9

@ g.

. 1 authority and communications capabilities, virtually sll the emergency rescurces in the state, including fire, police and ambulance personnel and equipment, various transportation capa-bilities, such as vans and schcol buses, and facilities which can 133/

be used for mass care centers such as schools.

Activaticn of entities such as local fire and poli-e units can be done collectively or individually as desired directly from a centrcl panel at the County Civil Defense Headquarters frcm which an alert can be sounded throughout the county or only in selected 134/

communities.

Respense by the civil defense organizatica and, through it, all entities required in an emergency, can be 135/

rapid and as large as is required to cope with the emergency.

50.

That the civil defense organizations in Pennsylvania adequately could cope with an accident at TMI 2 which required evacuation of off-site areas was demonstrated by the testimony of the Ccmmonwealth's witnesses who were asked to address speci-fically their capability to respond to the pcstulat_d effects of 136/

a maximum hypothetical accident (20U0.

The hypothetical 133/

See Molloy, pp. 11-12; Williamson, pp.

5-8.

134/

Molloy, p.

4; tr. 816-17.

135/

Molloy, pp. 10-12.

136/

See Applicants' Testimony on Contention S, p.

9.

0..^

c o o

,, -J

' accident parameters included an assumed LCCA, TID 14844 source terms, a containment leak rate of 0.2% per day, Pasquil F stability and a one meter per second windspeed in the Ji-ection which would involve the greatest nu.nber of people within five 137 /

miles of the site, thereby providing the greatest challenge 138/

to the off-site authorities responsible for evacuation.

Based 139/

cn these conservative assumptions, Applicants calculated as a functicn of distance, the time that would elapse after the accident before individuals who tock no protective action at all would receive doses exceeding EPA's protective action guide 140/

(PAG) levels of 5 Ren whole bcdy and 25 Ren thyroid.

Appli-cants calculated that for the closest off-site residences, the time would be forty-five minutes, that for the fringe of the closest more densely pcpulated area, it would be about three hours, and that regardless of action taken, the PAG doses would 137/

The Seabrook decision (ALAB-380), which reiterated the Appeal Board's view earlier expressed in Midland and San Onofre decisions that Commission regulations require that the capability to evacuate or take other protective action need be shown only within the limited population zone (LP2), issued during the course of the evidentiary hearings in this proceeding.

That decision was relied upon by the Scard (tr. 1739) to sustain an objection to cross examination of Pennsylvania's witness Mr. Molloy on evacuation of an area 7-8 ailes frcm the site.

In general, however, both Applicants and the Cc=menwealth addressed their capabilities to take protective action out to five miles, well beyond the two-mile LP2.

138/

Applicants' Testimeny en Contention 8, pp. 7-8.

139/

Id.,

p. 9, Tables 1 and 2.

140/

These EPA levels are obviously well below the values of 25 3.em whole bcdy and 300 Rem Thyroid referred to in the Commis-sion's site criteria, 10 CFR Part 100.

.M 4 - 9 A_

1.

- 4 0-141/

never be reached beycnd about 4.3 miles.

51.

The confidence displayed by the Pennsylvania's witnesses in the ability of the Cc=monwealth to cope with any emergency was not altered by the problem posed by Applicants, or indeec by the extended cross examination conducted by Joint Intervencrs en their abilities to respond to it.

Mr. Molley described in detail the sequence of events he expected would likely occur.

First, in accordance with the ccordinated plans tetween Pennsylvania and 142/

Applicants, upon receipt of the initial call from TMI to the state.ivil defense duty officer, the duty officer would contact 143/

the 3RH duty officer and the county civil defense headquarters.

ERE would call back to 2E to cbtiin additional informaticn en the 1.3 4../

technical details of the accident involved.

Communications rauld be established between the site, BRH and state, county and 145 /

146/

1ccal civil defense headquarters.

McM ""=+"

.s initiated by Arclicants,

.41/

Id.

112/

See Applicants' Testimony on Cententacn 3, pp. 3, 10.

143/

See Molloy, p. 7; Applicants' Testimony en Centention 8, p.

10; VanNiel on Contention 8, p. 2; tr. 1493, 1604, 1745.

144/

Molley, p. 7; Applicants' Testimony on Contentien 3, p.

10; tr..745.

As Mr. Molloy frankly noted, he is not an expert en radiology and relies on BRH and Applicants for an expert assessment of the problem.

Technical discussicns of the radiological censa-quences, then, are left to ERE within the Commonwealth.

Molley,

p. S; tr. 1362-63.

See also footnote 125 supra and accompanying text.

145/

Molicy, p.

7.

146/

Such as, to the State Police, Eershey Medical Center and Brookhaven Assistance Group.

!M.. ' ' " ?. 0

147/

148/

state civil defense, and county civil defense would be conducted simultaneously.

52.

The public would be alerted to the need to evacuate in several ways.

Public announcements would be broadcast ever radio and television stations by the tations' announcers at civil defense 's request or directly from state civil defense headquarters which has the capability to be patched directly into the news 112./

media for announcements of this type.

Public anncuncements scuhl include information on the need to evacuate, the principal 150/

routes to he utilized and the location of mass care facilities.

In addition, local police and fire police would use bull horns 151/

to make announcements in their assigned cc=munities, following 152/

a pattern established by local chiefs in the areas to be covered.

Finally, door-to-door notice would be undertakec, with particular attention to the needs of specialized facilities and individuals lil/

requiring perscnalized treatment such as the handicapped.

147/

Such as, to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Director of State Civil Defense, and representatives of entities who respond to the State ECC.

148/

Such as, to emergency perscnnel in local ccmmunities affected, other county civil defense headquarters, state police, Harrisburg International Airport, and Red Cross and other county representatives who report to the County ECC.

149/

Molloy, p.

8.

150/

Id., pp.

8-9.

151/

Id., p.

S.

152/

Tr. 843-45.

153/

Molloy, p.

8; tr. 903-05.

31

Nj

@ 53.

The principal =cde of evacuation is by private vehicle, although civil defense has compiled detailed information en the availability of supplemental modes such as public and private buses, cabs, vans anl helicopters which can be called upon as 154/

necessary.

Traffic control is the responsibility of state and local police, who are in constant ccmmunications sith civil 155/

defense.

For situations of this type, the state police have available a mcbile ccmmunications center frem which they can direct 156/

operar.icns.

Traffic congestion is not expected to handicap evacuation efforts due to the alternate routes available in the area and constant cc=munications between police and other emergency 157/

persennel which allows coordination of evacuation routing.

54.

Based on his familiarity and experience with civil defense and other emergency-oriented organizations in Pennsylvania, Mr. Molley testified that it was his opinion that civil defense e ould effect and cc=plete an evacuation of the areas pcstulated 158/

to be affected by Applicants within the prescribed times.

As be-he and Mr. Williamson stated, civil defense is an emergency-oriented organization whose daily business is response to emergency 159 /

- ' ~ ~

and disaster situations.

They ara called upon constantly 154 /

Id_.,

p. 9; tr. 826.

155 /

Id.

156 /

Id.

157 /

Tr. 802; 907.

158 /

Molloy, p. 10; tr. 1411 159 /

Molicy, pp. 10-11; Williamsen, pp.

3-5. In 1976, civil defense in Dauphin County handled more than 35,000 police, f i r e,apd. c,, p.,

ambulance calls.

Molloy, p.

3.

4 :-

e

-4 3 -

to react to emergencies.

In Dauphin County alone, in the past several years, in addition to the general fire and police respenses, civil defense has coordinated responses to flecds (which in the case of Agnes affected scme 10,000 people in the county), a plane crash, a train derailment and a gas explosicn, some of which inrolved evacuations and all of which were handled 160/

safely and efficiently by emergency persennel.

At the state level, during the 1972 flecd, civil defense ccordinated the evac-161/

uation of 100,000 people from Wilkes-Barre in four hours.

These past successful efforts were due to coordination of emergency resources through assured ccmranications and the work of trained and drilled emergency persennel -- the same elements en which an evacuation of off-site areas around TMI 2 would depend.

So far as civil defense and the emergency personnel who will actually be conducting the evacuation are concerned, a TMI radiological emergency is not different from other emergencies which require 162/

evacuation.

Told the nature of the problem, what segment of the public is involved and what action by emergency personnel is reccmmended, civil defense can implement that action which in the case of evacuation is performed in a similar manner regard-167 less of cause.

Its organizational structure and communica-tions capabilities allow quick response with whatever rescurces 160/

Molloy, p.

11; tr. 829-31.

161/

Willia =sen, p. 10.

162/

Molicy, pp. 5-6; tr. 1372-73.

163/

See Molley, p.

3; tr. 1362-63.

34..-,,qd-

9

-4 4 -

are nec2ssary and provide the means to react with flexibility to 164/

con ingencies.

55.

Joint Intervenors' suggest._

-- that live drills cf the general public should be conducted to show that the evacuation plans will work -- was opposed by all the witnesses presented on this contention.

Applicants ' witnesses described the training program.= and drills conducted at TMI to exercise the response of their personnel to emergencies, as well as to test the cc=munica-165/

tions ties with off-site authorities; they, hcwever, saw 166 /

v-Williamson, no benefit to drills involving the pub'd-the Ccmmenwealth's Deputy Director of State Civil Defense, testified that experience in Pennsylvania supports the conclusion of a Stanford Research Institute Study which concluded, based on evaluations of specific national disasters, that public drills would produce no benefit, may tend to degrade effectiveness and 167 could be counterproductive.

Mr. Williamson cited two exper-iences to illustrate this point.

First, he recounted an experience in Erie, Pennsylvania, where an extensive public exercise was planned which involved detailad plan.

g of evacuation routes and 168 /

assembly ar?as; people simply stayed a.

ne to avoid the test.

164/

See. volley," pp. 6-13.

165/

Applicants' Testimony on Contention 8, pp. 10-12.

Dr.

Gallina of NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement testified that he had observed two drills at TMI and that they were sc=e of the best drills he had seen c onducted at any facility.

Tr. 1856.

166/

Tr. 1642-43.

167 /

Williamson, p. 10.

168 /

Id.

~g

@ In contrast, evacua ticrCE. 3G0 people from Wilkes-Barre in four hours was done wi% prior public drills and relied on Li2./

planning and the trainh gency personnel only.

Mr.

Molloy's views were s4Ee observed that based en actual e xperience, the publichry well to real emergencies and L2.9 /

to the instructions o,Taty personnel.

It was his opinion, however, that 3l%>2uld j ust not bother to partici-171 /

pate in drills because th:r:al inconven:.ance to their routinesI Finally, Mr M'AlCY UOhcern that drilling the public to react to a particular:dahl situation could exacerbate the problem emergency perms ~Md encounter attempting to direct a 172 /

different public resporEcactual emergency.

While the emergency personnel "SE ind drilled to respond to a variety of situations e*Lans and procedures provide for flexibility in approaw:

3encies, Mr. Molloy believes 11 1/

public dri.11s could 9 % reductive.

The NRC Staff's 174 /

witnesses, :co, saw no mM:chlic drills.

While the Staff supports preplanning QlCeh md TMI's F.mergency m w

'cceptable under 10 C7R Part 50, WR T, the NRC Staff observed that an extensive study conduch demonstrated that there was no 164 1.

cllry, p.12; trg;;;

171/

g.,pp. 12-13.

170' M., p. 13.

17's

_Id.

174, see 7anNiel en29%t 8, p.

3; tr. 1829-30, 1840-41.

n 3 o r n.s i,s

G

- 4 6-statistical difference even between public respense to an emer-gency where a plan existed, and public response without an emergency 175/

plan.

56.

The Board #inds that the emergency and evacuation plans developed for TMI 2 are adequate and workable, that planning has been done which would enable a coordi.nated effort between Appil-cants and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania capable of responding to emergencies at TMI 2 up to and including a maximum credible accident, that adequate cc=munications capabilities exist to implement the plan, and that live tests involving the public need not be conducted to demonstrate the adequacy of emergency and l_7.1/

evacuation planning for this Unit.

CONTENTION 9 The releases of gaseous radioactivity exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

Systems exist for significantly reducing the emissions frc=

Unit 2.

In a plant of similar design (Rancho Seco), equipment is being utilized to reduce by a factor of 10 the release of radicactive iodine from that expected to be released from Three Mile Island, Unit 2.

Also, at the San Onofra, Unit 1 plant a cryogenic system is used to reduce the release of radioacrive noble gases.

These practicable and workable s-(stems are avail-able at modest cost to reduce by approximately a

.ctor of 10 175/

_I d_., at c.

3.

176/

The Board notes in this regard the Ccmmission's recent denial of a request for rulemaking which sought a requirement for public drills at all facilities.

See 42 Fed. Reg. 36326 (1977).

,] 4.. :n,3 4's L

@ the emission of gaseous radioactive fission products from Three Mile Island, Unit 2.

No operating license should be granted for Unit 2 until such systems, or comparable ones, are installed.

57.

At the time this contention first was advanced by Join Intervencrs, the Appendix I "As Low As Practicable" rulemaking hearing (RM-50-2) was underway and there existed 112-l only a qualitative standard.

In April, 1975, the rule-178/

making hearing was completed and Appendix I was prc=ulgated, establishing quantitative standards for as low as practicable.

Since Appendin I was adopted, Applicants have performed a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the radwaste systems at TMI 2 which demonstrates for gaseous effluents compliance with the design objectives in Sections II.3 and II.C of Appendix I and that there are no cost-effective augments which could be179 /

added to TMI 2 pursuant to Section II.D of Appendix I.

58.

TMI 2's present gaseous radwaste treatment systems have been ccmpared with Rancho Seco's equipment.

The NRC Staff's witness, Mr. Stoddart, testified that the treatment systems for radioicdines at Rancho Seco and at TMI are essentially the 177/

Rodger, p. 1.

178/

Rulemaking Hearing:

Numerical Guides For Design Objectives And Limiting Conditions For Operation To Meet Th2 Criterion "As Low As Practicable" For Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled 1 NRC 277 (1975).

Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, CLI-75-5,.

179 /

Rodger, pp. 3-4; Stoddart on Concentien 9, p.

6.

p3-o.,o 1..

.M

9

@ same and that the releases frcm these plants are expicted to be stuilar, rather than a factor of 10 different as the conten-180/

. tion asserts.

Dr. Rodger, Applicants' witness, ncted that the Rancho Seco is atypical in that its liquid wastes are discharged as vapor to the air and that if a similar tech-nique were employed at TMI 2, the resultant doses to the off-181/

site population would be increased rather than decreased.

59.

As for the suggestion that TMI 2's radwaste equipment should be augmented with a cryogenic system, the Staff's and Applicants' witnesses both testified tnat this agument would be 192/

far from cost-beneficial.

Dr. Rcdger estimated tact the annualized cost of a cryogenic system is at least $500,000 a year and that at TMI 2 it would result in a total p :pulation 183/

dose reduction of about 7 man-rem per year.

Thus, the cost-benefit would be about $70,000 per man-rem ccmpared with the $1,000 per man-rem standard for cost-effective augments set by the Cecmission in Appendix I.

60.

The 7 card finds that TMI 2's gaseous radicactive 2

releases do nct exceed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 design objec-tives and that there are no augments including Rancho Seco-type ISO /

Stoddart on Centention 9, pp. 2-3.

131/

Rodger, pp.

5-6.

182/

Id.,

p.

6; Stoddart en Cententien 9, pp.

4-5.

183/

Id., p.

6.

A. 1.. ~,.^ 9_,

s

E O

-4 9 -

equipment or a cryogenic system, which can be added to TMI 2's gaseous radwaste system which would be cost-beneficial under the Commission's standard set out in Section II.D of Appendix I.

CONTESTICN 10 The discharge of chlorine frem Three Mile Island, Unit 2 will have an adverse effect on water quality and this has not been adequately considered in the NPF.A cost /%enefit analysis.

61.

Chlorination of TMI 2's circulating and service water systems is expected to be conducted in the sa.ne manner which Applicants have employed at Unit 1.

The cir;ulating water system will be chlorinated by injection of chlorine at the rate 184 /

of 4,000-6,000 ppd during three 15-20 minute periods daily.

The service water system will be chlcrinated similarly three 185/

times a day, but during different periods of time.

Chlorination of the circulating water system at this rate will result in no more than 1.0 mg/1. total residual chlorine in the 196/

natural draft cooling tower blowdown. -~~

As demonstrated by tests conducted at Unit 1, this level in the blowdown, after mixing with the service water system prior to discharge, results in concentrations of chlorine of less than 0.01 mg/1. at the plant discharge into the River.

Moreover, with two units 198/

operating which will not be chlorinated simultaneously and 194 /

Ebert, p.

3.

185/

Id., pp.

3, 5.

186/

_I d.,

.c o.

3-4.

187 /

Id.,

p.

4.

1c9/

_I _d., -

5.

A.1 ~ M A.

c.

h

- 2 0-189/

whose discharges are comlined prior to release into t'.ie River, m/

100 chlorine concentration levels to the River will be halved.

62.

Despite the fact that no detectable ievels of residual chlorine (i.e.,

less than 0.01 mg/1.) are expected to be released 191/

to the River, Applicants' witness Dr. Fava evaluated the effects of chlorine releases on the aquatic biota by assuming releases would occur.

He assumed releases of 0.2 mg/1. for 192/

twenty minutes six times a day and ignored the effects of 143/

chlorine demand.

Based on these assumptions and the para-194 /

meters of the chlorine plumes which would result, Dr. Fava 195 /

cc= pared the chlorine releases with toxicity levels for 196/

species in the area of TMI 2.

He determined that there is little likelihood ofmortality of even planktonic organisms by entrainment :.n the plume and virtually no expe aticn of mortality 139 /

Id.,

p. 4.

190 /

Id.,

pp. 5-6; Samworth on Contentien 10, p.

4; tr. 2083.

191 /

Ebert, pp.

4-5.

192 /

Fava, p. 2.

193 /

Id.

Actual measurements of chlorine demand in the Sus-quehanna River in 1976 showed a mean immediate demand of 0.6 mg/1.

Were chlorine demand considered, therefore, no evaluation would be necessary since even _the conservatively assumed releases would be consumed immediatelv. bv. cnlorine demand.

_I.d._.

194 /

Id.,

pp.

2, 5-6.

195 /

_I d_., Table 1.

196 /

See Fava, Figure 1.

.nc 34 G c.

-GD

@ 197/

to motile organisms.

Although there would be scme tempora ry loss of local habitat to motile organisms due to avoidance of the chlorinated discharge, the impact of' avoidance would be minimal when the size of the area affected, the frequency of chlorination periods and the lack ci unique habitat in the 199/

affected areas are considered.

Based en the actual levels expected :o be released frcm TMI 2, it was Dr. Fava's opinion 199/

that there will be no impact from chierine releases.

fl.

The Board finds that chlorine discharges expected frc=

TMI 2 operation have been adequately considered and that truly minimal effects en the aquatic biota, if any, vill result frcm these expected releases.

CONTENTICN 11 In its dose calculations the Applicant has ignored the effect of the ccoling towers.

Interaction between the gaseous releases of radioactivity (in particular, radicactive iodine isotopes) and the ccoling tower plumes can increase *he thyroid dose by the ccw-milk pathway by up to a facter of 10.

Such a possible increase in the dose would exceed that allcwed by the

'as low as practicable" guidelines of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.

No operating license should be granted until the Applicant considers the effect of the cooling towers en the gaseous iodine and reduces the releases as necessary.

64.

In performing the Appendix I dose calculati s, no interaction was assumed between the gaseous racicactive releases 200 /

from TMI 2 and the nanural draft cooling tcwer plumes.

197 /

Fava, pp.

4-5.

198 /

g., pp.

5-6.

199 /

Id.,

c.

6.

200 /

See Hoslar on Contention 11, p.

1.

q ',,- f} G

. Gaseous releases, including radiciodines, were assumed to be essen-H,y grcund level releases to the atmosphere, deposited in the 201/

environs at dry deposition rates.

Due to the relative release heights of the gaseouc effluent and the cooling towers 202/

it is not expected that the two plumes would uerge.

65.

Interaction of the radiciodine releases in the gasecus effluent with the cooling tower effluent can be postulated to cccur in several ways -- by entrainment of the gaseous plume 203/

into the towers themselves and release of a portion of the gaseous effluent with the tower plume; by intersection of the two plumes at or above the release point of the cooling towers; or 'ey washout of the radioactive plume due to drift droplets from the 204/

cooling towers.

Each of these possibilities was addressed by testimony of the NRC Staff and Applicants and their impacts on the Appendix I evaluation of radiciodines were found not to be significant, even if they were to occur.

66.

Intersection of the two plumes or entrainment of the gaseous plume in the towers with some portion contained in the t ting plume can be considered tcgether.

In either case, because the effect would be to elevate the gaseous plume to at least 1500 feet, the deposition rates within a few miles of the 201/

See Andrews, Markee, Osloond on Contention 11, pp.

3-4.

202/

Id., p.

3.

203/

In response to a Board question concerning the impact of that portion of the entrained gaseous plume which would be scavenged cut of the tower plume by the drif: eliminators and be released in the tcwer blowdown, Applicants' Appendix I witness Dr. Rodger conserva-tively estimated n increase of less than one arem per year whole body or thyroid dose would result to the maximum exposed individual.

Tr. 1864-65.

204/

See Ecsler on Con antion 11, p.

2; Andrews, MarPoe, Osicond on Centention 11, pp.

1-4.

, 4 -.~ m o h

-5'-

q -

plant, including the critical dairy receptor which for TMI 2 is 2.01l located about 1.2 miles from the Unit, would be decreased.

Dr. Hosler calcuiated that the downwind concentrations of radio-iodines would be reduced to 4/100ths of the concentration calcu-206/

lated based on no interaction.

It was Dr. Hosler's opinion that this would be so even if the radioactive gases were assumed to be absorbed onto or dissolved in drift droplets exiting the tower, since such droplets evaporate before reaching the ground leaving the radioactive residue to disperse in the atmosphere but from an elevation greater than the level used in the Appendix I 207/

calculation; the Staff conservatively estimated that drift droplet deposition could result in a deposition rate 10% greater 208 /

than that for dry deposition.

67.

The other mechanism of plausible interaction between cooling tower discharge to the atmosphere and the radioactive gaseous plume is the possibility of drift droplets from the cooling towers falling through the gaseous plume and " washing out" the radionuclides to the ground.

In Dr. Hosler's view, this mechanism was of extremely miaor significance, amounting to something less than 1/4000ths of the washout effect due to 2_09 /

natural rainfall in the area, if anything at all.

By the 205/

Andrews, Markee, Osloond on Contention 11, pp.

1-2.

206/

Hosler on Contention 11, p.

2.

207/

Id., pp.

3-4.

20S/

Andrews, Markee, Osicond on Contention 11, pp.

2-3.

209/

Tr. 477-78.

f11 "sp.J

@ Staf f 's i:alculations, drift droplec washout could increase the deposit.on rate used in the Appendix I analysis by a little less i

than 0.5, thereby increasing the critical cow-milk pathway dose from 1.6 to 2.4 millirem per year, still well belcw the Appendix 210/

I value of 15 millirem per year.

68.

The Board finds that the ccnceivable mechanisms for interaction between the gaseous radicactive plume frem TMI 2 and the cooling tcwer plumes have been evaluated and that taking such possible interactions into account does not disturb the Board's determination that TMI 2 cc= plies with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I.

210/

Andrews, Markee, Osicend on Contention 11, pp. 3-4; tr. 471.

A 1 ~ ^ Q *)

. II.B.

Comoliance With Section 10 2 ( 2 ) (C) and (D) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 69.

TMI 2 received a construction permit in November, 1969.

The unit, therefore, is subj-e to the provisions of section.

of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Pursuant to Appendix D the Board has conducted a full NEPA review of TMI 2.

In this portion of the Initial Decision are described the results of that review.

Applicants' Environmental Reports and Staf f's Environmental Statements 70.

Pursuant to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, Applicants submitted to the Commission a document entitled " Applicants' Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,"

dated December 10, 211/

1971.

Applicants subsequently amended this Environme 1

Report in March, 1972, and supplemented it in August, 1972.

Based on information supplied by Applicants in the Environmental Report and gathered from ot'ael sources, the Staff independently made an assessment of the considerations specAfied in Section 102 (2 )(C) of NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.

The results of the Staff's assessment were published in a Draft Environmental Statement (DES) notice of a7ailability of which was published in 211/

Applicants' Exhibit No.

2.

1 1 - r n e. *J

O..)

~

the Federal Register en June 24, 1972 (37 Fed. Reg. 12513).

The notice provided an opportunity for comments on the DES and stated that copies of the DES were being provided to appropriate state and federal agencies for their comment.

Follcwing receipt

'of comments in December, 1972, the Staff published a Final 212/

Environmental Statement (FES) reflecting the completion of the NEPA environmental review for both Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, and concluding that the action called for under NEPA and Appendix D was a continuation of construction permits and issuance of operating licenses for the two TMI units.

Notice of availability of the FES appeared in the Federal Register on December 8, 1972 (37 Pad. Reg. 26144).

Unit 1 of the Three Mile Island Facility received its operating v,/

license in April, 1974.

71.

In support of an application filed on April 4,

1974, for an operating license for TMI 2, Applicants filed a document entitled " Supplement II to Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, Unit 2, Three Mile Island Nuclear Statien, Units 2LL.l 1 and 2,"

which updated the discussion of environmental considerations related to the operation of TMI 2 and indicated the results of ongoing =cnitoring programs.

Notice of Availability of Applicants' Environmental Report Supplement 2, Operating 212 /

The December, 1972, FES is reprinted as Appendix 3 in Staff Exhibit No.

1.

213 /

3taff Exhibit No.

1, p.

i.

214 /

Applicants' Exhibit No.

3.

,,; 3 - o r 4

O

-5,1 -

License Gtage appeared in the Federal Register on May 20, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 22022).

The Environmental Report, as supplemented, discusses the following environmental considerations:

(1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (2) adverse environ-mental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (5) irreversible and unretreivable commitments of resources which would be invo) sed in the proposed action should it be implemented.

The Report also includes a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the facility, and a discussion of the status of compliance of the facility with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements which have been imposed by Federal, Stare, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection.

72.

In July, 1976, the Staff published a Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, updating the December, 1972, FES by providin7 additional information relevant to the environmental impacts of operating TMI 2, based on L. formation supplied by Applicants in the Environmental Report, Supplement II, Staff visits to the site and vicinity, and information obtained from other sources.

Notice of Issuance of the Draft C. 4 -, r r o

,4

-5 8 -

Supr1.ement to the Final Environmental Stacement was published in the Federal Register on July 29 1976, (41 Fed. Reg. 31623 ).

The notice invited comments on the Draft Supplement and Appil-cints' Environmental Report as supplemented, stated that copies of the document.were being provided to federal, state and local officials for review and cc= ment, and noted that comments received would be made available for public inspection.

( Id_. )

73.

The Staff, after receipt and consideration of the cc==ents submitted on the Draft Supplement to the FES, prepared a 215 /

Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (FSFES),

which includes a discussion of the comments received.

Notice of Availability of the FSFES was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 1976 (41 Fed. Reg. 55952).

The FSFES contains a detailed description of the site and the plant and a dis-cussion of the status of compliance of the facility with appli-cable Federal, State, regional and local environmental require-ments.

The FSFES includes an evaluation of the probable environ-mental impact of continued plant construc' n and plant operation.

It contains an assessment of Applicants' effluent and environmental measurement and monitoring programs and an assessment of the environmental effects of postulated accidents.

In the FSFES, the Staff analyzed the need for :he power to be generated by the facility and assessed alternatives to the plant, its site and design.

In addition, the FSFES includes an evalua-tien of the adverse environmental effects which cannot _e avoided, the relationship between short-term uses of man's 21Y Staff Exnibit No.

1.

@. ~

53

S

@ q 1

w -

environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc-tivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Finally, the FSFES contains a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the facility.

The Staff's conclusion in the FSFES is that the action called for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the continuation of the construction permit and issuance of an operating license for TMI 2, subject to certain conditions for the protection of 216/

the environment.

Impacts of Construction 74.

TMI 2 has been under construction since 1969; the 217/

exterior structures are now ccmpleted.

Work remaining includes installation of interior electrical and mechanical equipment, testing cf components systems and structures and final grading and landscaping of the site.

Transmission lines associated with TMI 2 have been substantially completed and impacted areas subjected to post-construction seeding or devoted 218/

to agricultural use.

75.

Constructica of TMI 2 has had a minimal effect en the cc=munity in the area of the site and on water quality, 216/

FSFES, p.

(iii).

217 /

ER S 4.1; FSFES S 4.1.

218 /

ER S 3.2; FSFES S 4.4.1.

, r : t.l n

J 9

- 6 0-fleed control and navigation.

It has resulted in the dedication of land for the unit.

Impacts associated with the land devoted to plant use have been evaluated and are considered minimal in terms of effect on terrain, vegetation, wildlife and loss of other uses, including agricultural.

Continued construction will result 219/

in virtually no additional adverse environmental effects.

I=cacts of Operation 76.

TMI 2 has a unicue cooling system which employs both natural draft cooling towers, which cool the Unit's condenser cooling water, and mechanical draft cooling towers, which cool the blowdown stream from the natural draft towers and other 220/

miscellanecus cooling water systems.

The circulating water system removes heat frcm the main condenser by circulation of 416,000 gpm of water in a loop whose principal components are the condenser, circulating water pumps and two hyperbclic 221/

natural draft cooling towers.

The system is designed with a blowdown rate 'f 5,000 gpm, a makeup flow of 14,250 gpm and a contined e raporation rate of 9,250 gpm from both natural draf t 222/

towers.

The blowdewn ficw from the natural draft towers 219/

ER S;. 4.2, 4.3; FSFES SS 4.2 - 4.5.

220/

ER S 3.1

_SFES, Appendix B, S III.D.l.

221/

Ebert, p.

2; see also ER, Figure 3.4-1 and FSFES, Appendix B,

Figure S.

222/

Id.

n ' - n t: '

m

.e-e

. is not discharged directly to the Susquehanna' River but is cooled and diluted in three-cell mechanical draft cooling tcwers

/

com prior to discharge.

77.

In respcnse to a Board question, Applicancs and the Staff reevaluated the water use projections for TMI 2.

The projections made for TMI 1 were reviewed and compared with actual water use data collected at TMI 1.

That ccmparison confirmed the projection for water use by TMI 2 of 9,250 gpm estimated in

,, a./

. m.

the Environmental Report and Environmental Statement.

Measured in terms of river flow, it is predicted that TMI 2's consumption 50 percent of the time will be only about 0.1% of of the Susquehanna River flow and that less than one percent 225 /

the time it could be as much as 1.0% of River flow.

Removal of water fren the Susquehanna at these rates is not expected to 226 /

have a significant impact on the River's water balance.

In contrast to these projected values upon which the environmental assessment was conducted, actual data on River flow and consumption by TMI 1 during 1976 reflects that the monthly average consumption of that similar unit was only about 0.045%

227/

of the Susquehanna flow.

78.

Impingement and entrainment effects of the cooling system have been considered.

Impact on the ecology in the area 223/

FSFES, Appendix B, III.D.l.

224 /

Applicants' Environmental Responses, pp. 1-4; Samworth cn Water Use and Chemical Discharge.

2.

225/

Applicants' Environmental Responses, p.

226/

FSFIS S 5.3.1.

2 2_7_/

Applicants' Environmental Responses, p.

4.

!. - o r b.

2

@ y --

- 3 of the TMI 2 site due to impingement of fishes on the intake and entrainment of organisms in the cooling water system has been 228/

evaluated as insignific nt.

The intake structure is designed for 0.2 fps intake velocity which allows most fish to swim away 229/

from the intake.

Studies conducted at Unit l's similar structure have revealed slight impingement, in terms of weight and amount of fish about equal to the catch of two or three successful 230/

fishermen en a single day in the area.

Most fish impinged have been small forage fish whose losses have not decreased in any substantial way the production of forage fish to feed larger fishes 231/

in the river.

Phytcplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs and larvae small enough to pass through the 3/8-inch mesh travelling screens, river water pumps and 1/8-inch mesh strainers, will be entrained in the cooling towers and are expected to be killed by the combination of mechanical, thermal and biccidal effects.

In view cf the small cooling water intake requirements, the nature of the topography (in that spawning and feeding grounds abound in the area and the intake of TMI-2 is only one of several Susquehanna channels at that location) and regeneration 228/

ER SS 5.5.1.5, 5.5.1.7; FSFES S 5.5.2.1, 5.5.2.2.

229/

ER S 5.5.1.7.

230/

Applicants' Environmental Responses, pp. 27-23.

231/

ER S 5.5.1.7; FSFES S 5.5.2.1; Applicants' Environmental Responses, p. 28.

See Hickey on Aquatic Impacrs, pp.

1-2, 4.

_., r o #

Q,,

23

- 6 3-capabilities of planktonic organisms, entrainment is not expected 232 /

to result in any adverse impact on populations.

In response to an inquiry by the Board for additional information on aquatic effects, Applicants and the Staff provided witnesses to address the various aspects of aquatic effects due to TMI 233 /

operation, including impingement and entrainment.

Appli-cants also introduce as exhibits voluminous reports of aquatic studies performed in the vicinity of Three Mile Island which support the conclusion that based on station design and actual observed plant operations at Unit 1 of TMI, impingement and entrainment are not expected to have a significant adverse impact 234/

at TMI 2.

79.

Heat and chemical discharges into the Susquehanna River 235f from TMI 2 are expected to have little or no environmental impact.

Because of the cooling system, most of the heat is dissipated 236/

into the atmosphere, rather than to the river.

The expected low levels of heat and measurable chemicals discharged to the River are confirmed by extensive studies conducted at TMI 1.

Based on plume studies at TMI 1, it is expected that the intake / discharge 232/

FSFES S 5.5.2.2; Applicants' Environmental Responses, 27-29.

233/

See generally Applicants' Environmental Responses, pp. 5-39; H1ckey on Aquatic Impacts; Samworth cn Aquatic Impacts.

234/

Applicants' Exhibits 4-8.

235/

ER SS 3.5, 5.1, 5.3.1; FSFES SS 5.5.2.2, 5.5.2.3.

236/

ER S 3.3.

jg t.. - o r rd

-t.

tamperature differential will be less than 5*F eighty-five 237/

percent of the time; most of the time, TMI 1 has operated

,,o/

with temperature differentials of 3-4*F or less.

The thermal plume at TMI 1 has generally been less than 20 meters in width (in contrast to the 400-meter width of the particular channel of three channels in the Susquehanna at the point where the 239 /

discharge empties) and 50 meters in length.

Only on isolated cccasions has the plume extended much beyond the general pattern and never has a 5 F plume been cbserved beyond 25 meters 240 /

in width and 200 meters in length.

Chemical releases frca 241 /

TMI 2 will all be well within federal water quality standards 242 /

for drinking water and have been evaluated against data on 243 /

chemical toxicities of aquatic organisms.

Chlorine releases have been subjected to particular scrutiny by both the Staff and 244/

the Board.

Based on the design af the plant, its intended operation in a manner similar to that of TMT 1 and on the detailed 237/

Applicants' Environmental Responses, p.

47.

238/

Tr. 945-56, 239/

FSFES S 5.5.2.3; Applicants' Environmental Respcases, p.

47.

240/

Applicants' Environmental Responses, p.

47; see also FSFES S 5.5.2.3.

241/

See FSFES, Table 3.5.

242/

ER S 5.3.1.

243/

FSFES S 5.5.2.2.

24_4 /

See fcctnotes 184-99 supra and acccmpanying text.

- arx w.

-6 5 -

studies conducted at TMI 1, the Board concurs in the Applicants' and the Staf f's determination that although scme avoidance by fish of the plume may cccur in the immediate vicinity of the 245/

unit's out fall, no significant adverse environmental effects 246 /

are expected from the discharge of heat and chemicals from TMI 2.

30.

On June 22, 1977, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued to Metropolitan Edison Company a revised certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Centrol Act, as amended 247/

248 /

(FWPCA),

for the Three Mile Island Station, Units 1 ar.d 2.

The Board finds that this certificate satisfies the requirements of Section 401 of the FWPCA.

81.

Most of the heat released from TMI 2 passes into the atmospnere via the natural draf t cooling towers.

About 10,000 gallens of water per minute will be evaporated and passed to the atmosphere from these towers.

When the atmosphere is already at or near saturation, discharge frcm the towers will be visible until it proceeds to a location of drier ambient air and evap-orates to invisibility; most of the time the visible plume will extend only a short distance from the tower.

The plume frca 245/

See Acplicants' Environmental Responses, p.

28; 5 -6.

246/

In response to a Board inquiry concerning a repor

.ish wi'nes es for kill attributable to TMI 1 (see FSFES S 11.1.5.6) c the Staff and Applicants dispelled the Board's concern, noting that no fish kill attributable to TMI 1 had ever been observed and none is expected from operation of TMI 2.

See Applicants' Environmental Responses, pp. 28, 40-42.

See Hickey on Aquatic

Impacts, p.

35, Hickey on Fish Kills, pp.

2-3.

247/

Pub.L.92-500, 86 Stat. 816.

248/

Applicants' Exhibit 9.

.)

I TMI 2 is expected to ascend to heights always exceeding 1500 feet and usually much greater.

No visible plume is ever expected to reach the ground and no increase in humidity is expected to occur at the ground in the vicinity of TMI.

Because of the plume elevation, no resultant icing at ground level is 249/

expected to occur in the TMI environs.

32.

Drift (entrained small water particles) has been reduced by tower design to 0.03% or less of the water circulated.

These water droplets will have no harmful effects on the environment because they are so small in size that they will 250/

evaporate before reaching the ground.

Chemical salts which may be dissolved in the water droplets can reach the grc nd after droplet evaporation.

Due to area rainfall, good soil permeability and the designed low drift rate of the towers, salt drift impact on area soils due to operation of the towers ou/

is not expected to be detrimental.

Direct foliar absorp-tion of salt drift by vegetation may occur, but no effect is expected; no effect has been observed due to operation of TMI 1 2n/

cooling towers.

249/

ER S 5.1; see FSFES, Appendix B 5 V.A.3.a. and b.

250/

ER S 5.1; FSFES, Appendix B S V.A.3.d; Hosler en cententien 11, p.

3.

251/

ER S 5.5.5; FSFES S V.A.3.d.

252/

Ott, pp.

2-3.

ph ;,3

'c'4

9 e7-33.

Releases of radioactivity in liquid and gaseous path-ways during normal operation of TMI 2 have been evaluated against the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

Applicants have performed an analysis to demonstrate conformance of TMI 2 with the design objectives in Sections II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I and a cost-benefit evaluation of alternative radioactive release treatment augments to demonstrate conformance 253/

with Section II.D of Appendix I.

The Staff has performed an independent evaluation of Applicants' methods to meet the Appendix I requirements which censists of a review of information supplied by Applicants on their Appendix I assessment, a review c2 Applicants' radwaste treatment and effluent control systems described in the application, a calculation of scurce terms, and a calculation of cost-benefit ra_io for potential radwaste 254/

system additions.

84.

Doses, using conservative assumptions such as location and eating and drinking habits, were calculated for the indi-vidual maximally exposed frca TMI 2 operation and then compared 255/

with the Appendix I dose cbjectives.

The calculated doses 253/

FSFES S 3.2.1.2; SER Supp. 1 S 11.7.

254/

_I d_.

Applicants' estimated releases and those of the Staf f were generally the same, Applicants ' estimates in scme cases beirg a factor of two or three less than the Staff's.

See FSFES S 3.2.1.2.

The Board's assessment is based on the Staff's higher estimates where differences exist; both Appl -

cants' and the Staff's estimates are well within Appendin I limits in all cases.

255/

See FSFES S 5.4.1.7 and Table 5.10.

/[?.. - " c. o 9

4

& ~l59 N

lE bk ffj4 /Zs,

'Q l,

$/ Y Y f

+/

r:4

\\

IMAGE EVALUATION TEST YARGET (MT-3)

I l.0 ll :';* "23 I

- :=

i1am g ps

~

bS l,l p

%L

'l.25 II l.4 l =l.6-Il 4

6" 6;% %7}yp 4

64 4 ' J 4'%

4 yph m:+;f>,,

cf8 rfee ss.

c. p

+

v o

s

. 256/

were all well below Appendix I dose objectives.

Thus, whereas Appendix I prescribes 3 mrem per year total body dose from all pathways due to liquid releases and 5 mrem per year from noble gases, the calculated total bcdy doses due to TMI 2 normal operation including anticipated unusual occurrences were 1.7 mrem per year and 0.3 mrem per year for liquid and gaseous 257/

pathways, respectively.

Compliance with the as low as practicable (or more correctly the "as low as reasonably achievable")

criteria for radiciodine was discussed earlier in this Initial 258/

Decision.

In response to a Board question on operating experiences at Unit 1, Applicants ' witnesses noted that releases frca TMI 1 have been at least an order of magnitude less than 259/

those which would result in Appendix I dose levels.

85.

Population dose estimates based on normal plant opera-tion releases and occupational exposures have been considered.

The Staff has detarmined after reviewing Applicants' safety ane. lysis report and conmitments to design features and operating practices that occupational doses for individual workers and total plant force will be as low as reasonably achievable, projecting 260/

an estimate of 500 man-rem per year occupe.tional exposure.

256/

_Id_.

257/

FSFES, Table 5.10.

258/

See paragraphs 57-59 suora.

259/

Applicants' Safety Responses, p.

3.

260/

FSFES S 5.4.1.4.

g

. In terms of general population doses, the Staff estimates thac based on year 2010 population projections, the annual dose commit-ment to the population within 50 miles of the plant will be 11 man-rem, a small increase in the population dose of 310,000 man-ren 261/

frc= natural radiation background; annual dose cc=mitment to the general public in the

~i.S. population will be 33 man-rem, ccm-262/

pared to 28,000,000 man-rem from background sources.

86.

Consideration has been given to exposures to members of the public frem postulated accidents.

Radiological conse-quences ecti=ated by the Staff for the postulated accident would result in exposures to an assumed individual at the site boundary which are less than or cc= parable to these whien would result frc= a year's exposure to the Maximum Permissible Concen-263/

trations (MPC) of 10 CFR Part 20.

The estimated integrated exposure of the population within 50 miles of the plant from accidents un to and includine desien basis accidents would be 264/

much scaller than that from naturally-cccurring radicactivity.

87.

Environmental effects associated with the transporta-tion of radicactive =aterials to and frcm an individual reactor site and from the entire fuel cycle associated an individual 261/

FSFES S 5.4.1.2, Table 5.7 and Appendix D.

262/

FSFES Table 5.7.

263/

FSFES 5 7.2.

264/

Id.

gz aq2

-7 0 -

reactor's cperation have been determined by the Ccmmission through public rulemakin~ proceedings and incorporated into the Ccr.. mis-3 sion's regulations for inclusion in the environmental assessment 265/

performed for each plant.

These effects, quantified in tabular form in Cc= mission regulations, are appropriate for inclusion in evaluating the envircnmental effects associated 266/

with TMI 2's operation.

The environmental effects of transportation of cold fuel to the reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor and vf solid radioactive wastes from the reacter are described in "able 5.8 of the FSFES.

With respect to the environmental effe cts associated with operation of TMI 2 due to uranium mining ar.d milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotepic enrichment, fuel fabrication and the tail end of the fuel cycle which involves either reprocessing or storage of irradiated fuel and manat;ement of radioactive wastes, the Staff in section 5.4.3 of the December, 1976, FSFES des-cribed these effects based en values for such effects described in Ccamission regulations and in a related notice of prcposed 267 /

rulemaking issued by the Cc= mission on October 13, 1976.

Subsequent to issuance of the FSFES in December, 1976, the 268 /

Ccmmission ir. March, 1977, issued an Interim Rule that slightly 265/

See 39 Fed. Reg. 9076 (1974) and 40 Fed. Reg. 1005 (1975).

266/

Although applicable to TMI 2 and mest current vintage reactors in the U.S.,

the values established by the Cc= mission are not appropriate for all reactor types.

See, e.g.,

10 CFR S 51. 20 (g) ( 2).

267 /

See 41 Fed. Reg. 45849.

268 /

See 42 Fed. Reg. 13803.

qq

,03

kh revised certain of the values associated with the uranium fuel cycle which the Staff had considered in the TMI 2 FSFES.

Pursuant 269/

to a directive by the Appeal Scard, the Staff during the hearing updated their discu.

7 of the uranium fuel cycle effects by providing a new assessment of these impacts based on the values in the Interim Rule; and completely supplanting the 270/

discussion in Section 5.4.3 with a revised assessment.

The Staff's witness on this subject testified that inclusion of the Interim Rule values does not disturb the otherwise favorable 271/

cost / benefit balance on TMI 2 struck by the Staff in the FSFES.

88.

The Board finds that the adverse impacts associated with plant operation have been adequately considered and properly evaluated as not significantly affecting the environment.

Monitoring Programs 272/

89.

In the discussion related to Contentien 2 above, the Board has made findinws on the adequacy of Applicants' aquatic and terrestrial precperational =cnitoring programs.

The Scard has determined that Applicants' programs have been ade uate to permit a reasonable assessment of the potential impacts of Unit 2 273/

cn the aquatic and terrestrial biota.

Operational monitoring 269/

See ALA3-407 (June 1, 1977).

270/

Tr. 2620.

See also the related discussion of health effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle in connection with the con-sideration of alternatives.

55 95-100 infra.

271/

Tr. 2647-48.

272/

See paragraphs 14-18 supra.

273/

See 55 15, 18 supra.

See also Public Service Co.

of New Hamesh;re, et a?. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 527 (1977).

d.'/.

c ng.

and methods of operation for the cooling system installed at TMI 2 have been evaluated, but none is judged overall to have advantages which would suggest its use in lieu of the present 294/

system.

95.

Pursuant to a decision by the Atemic Safety and Licen-295/

sing Appeal Ecard in the Eartsville case, that consideration of alternatives in certain cases include a discussion of the ccmparative incremental health effects associated with viable alternatives, NRC Staff and Joint Intervencrs offered witnesses on the cc=parative health effects associated with nuclear and coal fuel cycles.

The Staff presented as its witness Dr.

R.

L.

Gotchy, a senior radiologist with the NRC.

Dr. Gotchy is well qualified to address the subject, having received an M.A.

in radiation health and a Ph.D. in radiation biology, and having spent fifteen years in health physics, radiation physics, radiation biology, environmental science and regulatory develep-296/

ment of related standards.

Joint Intervenor's representative in the prcceeding, Dr. Chauncey Kepford, presented himself as Joint Intervenor's witness on the subject.

96.

In his testimony, Dr. Gotchy quantified the incremental health effects attributable to coal and nuclear fuel cycle alternatives and contrasted the risk of such healtL effects for 294/

FSFES S 9.3.1, Appendix 3, XI.A.5.

295/

ALA3-367, footnote 6

supra, at 103 fn.52.

296/

Dr. Gotchy's qualifications are incorporated in the transcript follcwing tr. 1883.

- s

-7 7 -

either fuel cycle with the risks experienced generally by average menters of the public frem other causes.

Based on data and models from a variety of recognized sources and input principally frc= Table S-3 and from the GESMO proceeding for the nuclear fuel cycle,Dr. Gotchy estimates with an order of magnitude of uncertainty that the excess mortality to the U.S.

population per vear cer 0.9 GWy (e) ener v. =. reduced is 0.48 (assuming an all-w nuclear fuel cycle) and 1.1 to 5.4 (assuming 100% of electricity 297/

used in fuel cycle is produced by coal power).

For the coal cycle, Dr. Gotchy's estimate, with about two crders of magnitude of uncertainty, is that the excess mortality per year per 0.9 GWy (e) is in the range of 15-120 to the regional popula-298 /

tiens within 50 miles from plant sites.

By comparison, Dr. Gotchy noted, the incremental risks from either cycle repre-

~

minute increases in the normal expectation of =crtality from 299/

ner causes.

97.

Dr. Kepford's approach differed drastically frc= that employed by Dr. Gotchy.

Dr. Kepford in his testimony did not attempt to treat all causes of incremental health effects to workers and me=bers of t'.e general public from the various seg-ments of the fuel cycles (such as rescurce recovery, processing, pcwer generation, fuel storage, cransportatica and waste manage-300/

ment) as Dr. Gotchy did.

Rathe r, Dr. Kepford limited his 297/

Gotchy, pp.

3-4, Table la.

298 /

Getchy, pp.

5-8, Table 1b; tr. 2236-37.

299/

Gotchy, p. 12.

300/

See Getchy Tables 1, la, lb, 2,

2a and 2h.

(iv. c4p

- 7 8-g :-

consideration to the health effects on the general population due to one source -- Raden-222.

98.

For Raden-222, whereas Dr. Gotchy employed as a Raden-222 source term the value of 74.5 curies, normalized

's an equivalent fuel cycle requirement, frcm Table S-3, Dr. Kepford derived his source term in "a chemist's way."

First, he deter-mined based upon a 1000 Mw model reactor's annual fuel require-ments the total amount of uranium 233 atoms which would be

_7 n 1 /

deposited in corresponding mill tailings piles

and, assuming with time the dacay of uranium 233 to Radon-222, calcu-lated the total curies of Radon-222 which would ultimately result.

With minor corrections to account for differences in rating and capacity f actor between the model reactor and TMI 2, Dr. Kepford calculated that over an infinite period there wculd 2

result in mill tailings piles 1.8 x curies of Radon-222 19.2/

per annuC fuel requirement.

With the assumption that 1% of the Raden-222 in the mill tailings would escape the piles and be available to contribute to health effects and a thirty-year operating life for TMI 2, and using the same ratio of effects per curie of Raden-222 that Dr. Gotchy employed, Dr. Kepford then completed his estimate of health effects associated with Raden-222 l'

by multiplying his source term of 1.8 x 10 ~ bv. 1%, ac.ain by 30, and 301/

Although he made similar calculations for the thorum-230 stream from mill tailings and the depleted UF-stream frcm the e

enrichment process, Dr. Kepford explained thau only the mill tailings source term was used in deriving his health effect e s timat-a s.

Tr. 2871, 2897.

302f Kepford, p.

3.

,,,, o A4

u..%

r$rs

.. s s

-7 9 -

303 /

again by the Gotchy ratic of effects per curie.

99.

Applicants and the NRC Staff opposed the Board's consideration of Dr. Kepford's testimony on the ground that his analysis was founded on use of a Raden-222 source term, expressed in curies per a.nnual fuel recuirement, which was many orders of magnitude largar t.han the value established by the Commission in Table S-3.

Therefore, Applicants and the Staff argued, the testimony constituted an attack of Commission regulations which was unpermissible because Joint Intervenors had not even attempted to meet the strictures of section 2.758 which govern such chal-lenges.

The Ecard was not convinced at the hearing that all of Dr. Kepford's testimon1 shculd be stricken.

Rather the Ecard elected to proceed with the receipt of the testimony and allow 304 /

cross examination.

Following examination of Dr. Kepford and additional argument on motions to strike, the Board anncunced that the testimony would nct be stricken, but that the Scard was reserving as to what use, if any, it would make of Dr. Kepford's 305 /

testimony in reaching a decisien.

100.

In reaching its decision in this proc eding, the Scard gives no weight to Dr. Kepford's testimony en comparative health effv.us of the coal and nuclear fuel cycles.

Our determination draws on the arguments advanced both en the reccrd and in the parties' findings, as well as our cwn independent assessment.

303 /

Kepford, p.

3.

304 /

Tr. 2834-35.

305 /

Tr. 2929-32.

f,

,, 4 9

_v

@ While the Board remains convinced that not all cf Dr. Kepford's testimony is subject to dismissal strictly as a challenge to Cc= mission regulations (e.g.,

the coal cycle portian), the con-clusions which he draws en the nuclear fuel cycle require consid-eration of Raden-222 e=amations =casured in curies per annual fuel requirement which differ dramatically from talues established in Table S-3 for curies of Radon-222 pe; annual fuel requirement.

Consequently, it appears to the Scard th.t inasuuch as a cent al building block in Dr. Kepford's analysis is a value for Raden-222 diffarent frcm that set down by the Cc= mission by regulatien for use in proceedings such as this that the Board may disregard those conclusiens as irrelevant to our consideratien of the subject.

In any event, the Board regards Dr. Kepford's analysis which requires the Board to extrapolate today's scientific, technical, social and medical patterns and knowledge literally over ten's of billions of years into the future, as beyond the 306/

pale cf reascn required by NEPA.

The Scard is not r e c. a r e d,

e nor does it deen NEPA to require it, to make the vast array of assumptions that are necessary to adept Dr. Kepford's mathedclogy of assessing future health effects.

Dr. Kepford's coaclusiens are remote and speculative.

To indulge in such speculation 306/

It is well established that NEPA requires only the cen-sideration of " reasonably foreseeable" effects.

See, for example,

!!aine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),

ALA3-131, 6 AEC 1003, 1011-12 (1973); Lcnc Island Lighting Cc.

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 631, 836, 33s, 853 (1973).

gfo 4(3

9 q.-

.. 3 a,--

seems particularly improvident to the Board where, as here, the relative impact (even assuming Dr. Kepford's analysis to be correct) is so minor when viewed in perspective to health effects 307/

associated with other causes.

101.

The 3 card finds that TMI 2, as designed and selected fren feasible alternatives, represents the optimum selection based on overall ecencaic and environmental considerations.

Cost-Senefit Balance 102.

The 3 card finds on the record in this proceeding that a systematic, interdisciplinary approach has been employed in the environmental review of TMI 2, that environmental facters have been given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with technical and other considerations, and that evaluation of alternatives to minimize environmental impacts and suitable cost-benefit analyses, as required by NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, have been conducted.

103.

The 3 card, on the basis of the entire reccrd finds that the principal costs of TMI 2 may be summari:ed as follows:

(a)

Removal for the duration of the plant life from use for agricultural or wildlife habitants of less than 50 acres of land for the unit's facilities.

307/

Cn cross examination of Dr. Kepford, it was shown that given his analysis of health effects, operation of TMI 2 would result in one one-billionth of the total deaths assumed to cccur during the same ten's of billions of years.

Tr. 2866-75.

.. L.s.

.4

-i t,,,. -

O.

(b)

Use of land for additional transmission line rights-of-way, almost all of which since construc-tion have been returned to agricultural use.

(c)

Scme temporary disturbance of land ensite and of adjacent waters which has occarred during construction.

(d)

Use of 23,000 gym of Susquehanna River water, of which about 9,250 gym will be consumed by evapora-tion into the atmosphere frca natural draft cooling towers.

(e)

Possibility of sc=e increased local fogging frca cperation of cooling towers.

(f)

Some visual impact from the ccoling towers and additional transmission lines.

( )

Discharge to the river of about 19,750 7pm of water with small amounts of chemicals anc heat.

Average effluent temperatures will be less than 3*F above river ambient.

(h)

Some small and localized destruction of minute aquatic organisms by entrainment and of small fishes by impingement.

(i)

Annual release of about 550 curies of radienuclides (0.24 Ci/yr excluding tritium) in liquid effluents fl" ', c 16

@ and about 6,700 Ci/yr of noble gases, 0.01 Ci/yr of Iodine 131, 560 Ci/yr of tritium, 25 Ci/yr of argen-41 and 0.06 Ci/yr of particulates in gasecus effluents.

(j)

A very low likelihcod of accidental radiati n exposure to nearby residents.

Oc)

Minimal environmental effects asscciated with the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and waste to and frem the facility.

104.

The Board finds that the primary benefit from the operation of TMI 2 will be the addition of 906 Mwe (330 summer rating) net generating capacity which at 65% capacity will pro-vide about five cillion kilc'.*.tt hours of electricity per year.

III.

CONCLUSIONS CF LAW 105.

In accordance with the Atcmic Energy Act and the Cenmis-sion's, Regulations, and on the basis cf the entire record in thic proceeding and the foregoing discussion and findings, the Ecard concludes as follows:

The environmental review conducted by the NRC a.

Staff pursuant to Appendix D of 10 CER Part 50 has been adequate;

,.,,,,4

, e n

f

1 b.

The requirements of S 102 (2) (C) and 10 2 ( 2 ) (D) of NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 have been complied with in this proceeding; c.

Having considered and decided all matters in controversy among the parties related to construc-tion, and having independently considered the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken, and after weighing the envircamental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternativ-o, the construc-tion permit for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, should be continued.

c.

Having considered and decided all matters in controversy among the parties related to operation, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shculd be authorized to make such additicnal findings on uncontested issues as may be necessary to issuance of a full-term cperating license for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

IV.

ORDER 106.

Based en the 3 card's Findings and Conclusions and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 4 es 5

's

_gr.

Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authori ed to continue in effect the construction permit of Metropolitan Edisen Company, Jersey Central Pcwer and Light Company; and Pennsylvania Electric Company for Three Mi.e Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, and to

=ake such additional findings on uncontested issues as may be necessary to issuance of a full-term operating license for that Unit, consistent with the terms of this Initial Decision.

107.

IT IS ORDE RED, in accordance with 10 C.F.R.

Sections 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785 and 2.786 that this Initial Decision shall be effective immediately and shall constitute the final action of the Ccamission 45 days after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above cited rules.

Excep-tions to this Initial Decision must be filed within 7 days af ter service of the decision.

A brief in support of the exceptions must be filed within 15 days thereafter (20 days in the case of the NRC Staff).

Within 15 days of the filing and service of the brief by the appellant (20 days in the case of the NRC Staff), any other party may file a brief in suppcrt of, or in cpposition tc, the exceptiens.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTEUI, PCTTS & TRCW3 RIDGE HWY?fW4 6 George F.

Troweridge Ernest L.

Blake, Jr.

Counsel for Applicants August 4, 1977

(\\ ', '

o^QJ s

A-1 APPENDIX A - LIST OF WI*NESSES AND PREPARED TESTIMCNY C w at r s.1 *

VLs.mrmu,

w.--

1 Applicants C.L. Hosler, " Prepared Testimony of C.L.

Hosler," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transc-d r~ #cllowine tr. 284 (cited as "Hosler en Contention 1" ).

NRC Staff L.

Andrews, E.H. Markee, R.L.

Drake,

" Testimony of NRC Staff Related to Environmental Impact en the Atmosphere and Combined Thermal Releases of the Generation Facilities en the Lcwer Susquehanna River," incorporated into transcript following tr. 304 (cited as

Andrews, Marxee, Drake en Contention

.t a CONTENTION 2 Applicants J.E. Mudge, " Prepared Testimony of James E. Mudge," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript following tr. 980 (cited as "Mudge").

NRC Staff C.R. Hickey, "NRC Staff Testimony Related to the Adecuacy of the Appil-cants' Aquatic Biological Survey,"

incorporated into transcript felicwinc tr. 988 (cited as ' Hickey en Contention 2").

W.R. Ott, " Testimony of NRC Staff Related to Adequacy of Applicant's Terrestrial Biological Survey Data,"

incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 988 (cited as "Ott").

CCNTENTICN 3 Applicants R.W.

Heward, " Prepared Testi=cnv. of R.W. Heward, Jr.,"

dated March 25, 1977, incorporated ir_to transcript followinc tr. 1114 (cited as "Heward").

q',] o + y

A-2 t

-. ~. _ _ _..

NRC Staff J.

Norris, H.

Silver, "NRC Staff Testi-many Related to Loss of Cooling Towers Due to Earthquake or Tornado," incor-porated into transcript #ollowing tr.

1123 (citec as "Norris, Silver on Con-tention 3").

R.B.

Sa= worth, "NRC Staff Testi=cny Related to Use of Once-Through Cocling,"

incorporated into transcript follcwing tr. 1123 (cited as "Samwortn en Con-tention 3").

CCNTENTION 4 Applicants S.J.

Zuckernick, " Prepared Testi=cny of S.J.

Zuckernick," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript following tr. 1141 (cited as "2ucker-nick").

NRC Staff R.G. Easterling, "Testi=cny of NRC Staff on Capacity Factor 3rediction,"

incorporated into transcript folicwing tr. 1919 (cited as " Easterling").

CONTENTICN 5 J.M. Vallance, " Prepared Testi=cny Applicants of John M. Vallance," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript follcwing tr. 511 (cited as "Vallance").

J.3.J.

Read, "Testi=cny of NRC Staff NRC Staff on Aircraft Hazard," incorporated into transcript following tr. 617 (citec as " Read on Contention 5 )

CONTENTION 6 Applicants S.W. Porter, " Prepared Testi=cny of S.W. Porter, Jr.,"

dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript follcaine tr. 1011 (cited as " Porter").

NRC Staff J.H. Osloond, P.G.

Stoddart, "Testi=cny of NRC Staff on Radiological Environ-mental Monitoring For Normal Plant Operations," incorporated into trans-y.

, of)

A -3 cript followinc tr. 1060 (cited as "Osicond, Stoddart on Contention 6").

C.R. VanNiel, " Testimony of NRC Staff on Radiological Instrumentation in Accident Conditions," inco rporated into transcrict folicwinc tr. 1060 (cited as "VanNiel en Contention 6").

Wayne Brit: (no prepared testimony)

CCNTENTION 7 Applicants C.L. Hosler, ' Prepared Testimony of C.L. Hosler," dated March 25, 1977, inccrporated into transcript following tr. 481 (cited as "Hosler en Centention 7").

NRC Staff T.L. Johnson, W.S.

Bivins, "Testi=cny of NRC Staff on Effects of Weather Modification on Flecd Protection,"

incorporated into transcript folicwing tr. 508 (cited as "Jchns on, 31 vins ").

CCNTENTION 9 Applicants J.G. Herbein, G.P. Miller, R.W.

Dubiel, " Applicants' Testimony on Intervenors Contention 8," dated March 25, 1977, as supplemented by " Time vs. Distance Curves," inco rporated into transcript follcwing tr. 757 and 1556 (cited as " Applicants' Test 1=cny on Contention 8").

Thcmas Potter (no prepared testi=cny)

NRC Staff C. Richard VanNiel, " Testimony of NRC Staff on Emergency Plans For Evacuation," incorpcrated into trans-cript following tr. 1701 (cited as "Varliel en Centension 8 ").

Charles Gallina (:h3 prepared testimony)

Phil Stcht (no prepared testimony Cc==cnwealth of K.J. Molloy, " Prepared Testimony of Pennsylvania Kevin J. Mollcy," incorporated into c'M

A-4 transcric_t folicwinc_ tr. 801 (cited as "Molloy").

C.A. Williamson, " Prepared Testimony of Craig A. Williamson," incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 301 (cited as "Williamson").

CCNTENTION 9 Applicants W.A. Rodger, " Prepared Testimony of Walton A. Rodger," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript n edger ).

a ro3 lowing tr.

3 c,a o-(cited as n

NRC Staff P.G.

Stoddart, " Testimony of NRC Staff on Gaseous Effluent Treatment Systems,"

incorporated into transcript following tr. 1869 (cited as "Stoddart en Cen-tention 9").

.0 Cne.r_um.tCx.I va a.

R.W.

Ebert, " Prepared Testimony of Applicants Rex W.

Ebert," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 1887 (cited as "Ebert").

J.A.

Fava, " Prepared Testimony of James A. Fava," dated March 25, 1977, incorporated into transcript fcilowing tr. 1889 (cited as " Fava").

R.B.

S a=wo rth, " Testimony of SRC NRC Staff Staff on Chlorine Impact," ir ec rporated into transcript following tr. '077 (cited as "Samworrh en Contention 10").

CONTENTION 11 C.L. Hosler, " Prepared Testincny of Applicants C.L. Hosler," dated March 2S, 1977, incorporated into transcript follcwing tr. 360 (cited as "Ecsler en Contention 11").

Andrews, Markee, Osicond, " Testimony NRC Staff of NRC Staff Related to Interaction Between the Gasecus Releases of Radio-g *,,, s w?

b a-a activity and Cooling Tcwer Plunes,"

incorncrated into transcript following tr. 380 (cited as "Andrews, Markee, Osicond on Contention 11").

BOARD _QUESTICN__- TMI 1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE Applicants T.M.

Crinmins, R.W.

Heward, R.L.

WL7ne, J.G. Herbein, R.E.

Gehman,

" Applicants' Responses to Scard Questions - Safety Related," dated March 28, 1977, pp.

1-3, incerecrated into transcript following tr. 1229 (cited as " Applicants' Safety Responses").

NE' Staff G.B.

Iwetzig, " Testimony of NRC Staff on Cperation of Three Mile Island, Unit 1,"

incorporated into transc 4-~

ollowing tr. 1273 (cited as "Swet:1g").

BOARD QUESTION - QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION WITH DELAYED SCHEDCLE Applicants T.M.

Crimmins, R.W. Heward, R.L.

Wayne, J.G.

Herbein, R.E.

Gehman,

" Applicants' Responses to feard Question - Safety Related," dated March 28, 1977, pp.

4-6, incorporated into transcript following tr. 1229 (cited as " Applicants' Safety Responses").

NRC Staff L.

Narrow, A.B.

Davis, A.N.

Fasano,

" Response of the NRC Staff to The Licensing Board Question Ccncerning the Quality of Construction," incer-porated into transcript followinc tr.

1271 (cited as " Narrow, Davis, Fasanc").

BOARD CUESTICN - FINANCIAL CONSIDERATICNS Applicants T.M. Crimmins, R.W.

Heward, R.L.

Wayne, J.G. Herbein, R.E.

Gehman,

" Applicants' Responses to 3 card Questions - Safety Related," dated March 28, 1977, pp.

7-9, inccrporated into transcript folicwing tr. 1229 (cited as " Applicants' saf ety Respenses").

n.s c oa

[ '. 3

..m'

e h

h A-6 NRC Staff H.

Silver, " Response of NRC Star Licensing 3 card Ccncerns About i..

t of Financial Considerations On Sa:

Operation of the Plant," incorporated into transcript followi-~

1272 (cited as " Silver en Financial Con-siderations").

BJAE CUESTION - STAFF ACTICNS CN TNCREASED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS NRC Staff J.3.J.

Read, " Supplemental Testimony of NRC Staff cn Aircraft Hazard,"

incorporated into transcript folicwing tr. 1297 (cited as " Read Supplenental Test 1=cny").

BOARP CUESTION - NUREG-0138 AND NUREG-0153 NRC Staff H.

Silver, " Response of the NRC Staff to the Licensing Board Question About the Applicability of Itens Addressed in NUREG-0138 and NUREG-C153 to this Plant," incorporated into trans-cript followinc t.

1322 (cited as

" Silver en NUREGs").

BOARD CUESTICN - CCNSUMPTIVE WATER USE Applicants L.L. Lawyer, T.A.

Jenckes, J.E. Mudge, D.

Callahan, G.A.

Nardacci, E.C.

Raney, L.D.

Gar =an,

" Applicants' Responses to Scard Questions - Enviren= ental,"

dated March 28, 1977, pp.

1-4, incor-porated into transcript follcwing tr. 935 (cited as " Applicants' Environ-mental Responses").

R.3. Sa= worth, "NRC Staff Response to NRC Staff Water Use and Chemical Discharge,"

incorporated into transcript follcwing tr. 988 (cited as "Samwortn on Water Use and Chemical Discharge").

SCARD QUESTION - ACUATIC IMPACTS pplicants L.L. Lawyer, T.A.

Jenckes, J.E. Mudge, D.

Callahan, G.A.

Nardacci, E.C.

Raney, L.D. Garman, " Applicants' Responses to LY. ' o if

A-7 Board Questions - Environmental," dated March 23, 1977, pp. 5-39, incorpcrated into transcript followinc tr. 925 (cinea as " Applicants' Environmental Re:penses ").

NRC Staff R.B.

Samworth, "NRC Staff Response to Water Use and Chemical Discharge,"

incorporated into transc 4 7*

clicwinc tr. 983 (cited as "Samwortn en Water Use and Chemical Discharge").

C.R.

Hickey, "NRC Staff Response to Licensing Ecard's Question Relating to Aquatic Inpacts," incorpora*.c4 into transcript followine tr. 9dd (E~ded as

" Hickey on Aquatic Impacts").

BCARD QUESTICN - FISH KIILS App:.icants L.L.

Lawyer, T.A.

Jenckes, J.E. Mudge, D.

Callahan, G.A.

Nardacci, E.C.

Raney, L.D. Garman, " Applicants' Responses to Board Questions - Environmental," dated March 25, 1977, pp. 40-42, incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 935 (cited as " Applicants' Envircnmental Responses").

NRC Staff C.R. Hickey, "NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board's-Question Relating to Fish Kills," incorporated into trans-cript followinc-tr. 988 (cited as

" Hickey on Fisa Kills").

30ARD QUESTICN - RIVER WA2 R RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLING Applicants L.L.

Lawv, e r,

T.A.

Jenckes, J.E. Mudge, D.

Callahan, G.A. Nardacci, E.C.

Raney, L.D. Garman, " Applicants' Responses to Board Questions - Environmental," dated March 28, 1977, pp. 43-45, incorporated into transcrint followin o35 (cited as " Applicants' Environmental Responses").

J.H. Osloend, "NRC Staff Response to NRC Staff Licensing Scard's Cuestion Relating to Radiological Assessment of River Water Samples," incorporated into transcript folicwinc tr. 1062 (cited as "Oslcond on Raver Water Samples").

Q c'%

A-8 BOARD QUESTICN - THERMAL MIXING IONE Applicants L.L.

Lawyer, T.A.

Jenckes, J.E. Mudge, D.

Callahan, G.A. Nardacci, E.C.

Raney, L.D. Garman, " Applicants' Responses to Scard Questions - Enviren= ental," dated March 28, 1977, pp. 46-48, inco rporated into transcript follcwing tr. 933 (cited as "Applfcants' Envircnnental Responses").

NRC Staff R.B.

Sa= worth, "NEC Staff Response to Licensing Board's Question Relating to Mixing Zones," incorporated into trans-c-i r' #cilowing tr. 98s (cited as "Samworth on Mixing Zones").

BCAPD CUESTION - REG. GUIDE 1.109 AND IRRIGATION PATHWAY Applicants W.A.

Rodger (no prepared testi=cny)

NRC Staff K.F.

Eckerman (no prepared testi=cny)

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE DiPACTS NRC Staff J.

Norris, " Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Staff's Assessment of the Impact of Revised Table S-3 Values en the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Cost-Eenefit Salance," incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 2620 (cited as "Staf f Assessmenr of Revised Table S-3 Values").

COMPARATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR AND CCAL FUEL CYCLES

- NRC Staff R.L. Gotchy, " Supplemental Testi=cny Regarding Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alter-natives," as revised, incorporated into transcript follow 1 7 *-

2095 (cited as "Gorchy").

Joint Intervenors -

C.R.

Kepford, " Health Effects Cc=parison for Coal and Nuclear Pcwer," dated July 5,

1977, incorporated into transcript followinc tr. 2835 (cited as "Kepferd").

6 ",. ' ~ o ' ' O a

=

6 B-1 APPENDIX B - L~ST OF EXHIBITS APPLICANTS Final Safety Analysis Re= ort, Applicants _xhibit No. 1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, as amended through Amend-ment 54, received in evidence tr.

279 (cited as "FSAR").

Applicants Exhibit No. 2 Environmental Report, Cperating License State, Three Mile Island Station, Units 1 and 2, as amended, received in evidence tr. 279 (cited a -- a ).

as cn Applicants Exhibit No. 3 Supplenent II, Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, Unit 2, Three Mile Island Station, Units 1 and 2, received in evidence tr. 230 (cited as "ER").

Ichthyological Asscciates, Inc.,

Applicants Exhibit No. 4 "An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the '?icinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Annual Report for 1974, received in evidence tr. 953 (cited as " Applicants Exhibit No.

4").

Applicants Exhibit No. 5 Ichthyological Associates, Inc.,

"An Ecological Stud" of the Susquehanna River a the Vicinity of the Three Milo Ia.and Nuclear Statien, Supplene atal Report fcr 19~4," received in evidence tr. 953 (cited as " Applicants Exnibit No.

5").

Applicants Exhibit No. 6 Ichthyclogical Associates, Inc.,

"An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Annual Report for 1975,"

received in evidence tr. 953 (cited as

" Applicants Exhibit No.

6").

Applicants Exhibit No. 7 Ichthyological Asscciates, Inc.,

"An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in che Vicinity

,is.

(%

.o

- b

B-2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Supplemental Report for 1975," received in evidence tr. 953 (cited as " Applicants Exhibit Nc.

i Applicants Exhibit No. 8 Ichthyological Associates, Inc.,

"An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Annual Report for 1976,"

receivec in evidence tr. 954 (citec as" Applicants Exhible No.

3").

Appl.nants Exhibit Nc. 9 Ccemenwealth of Pennsylvani?

Department of Environmental Rescurces letter to Metropolitan Edison Company and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, dated June 22, 1977, received in evidence tr. 2763 (cited as " Pennsylvania 401 Certification").

NRC STAFF Staff Exhibit No. 1 NUREG-Oll2, entitled " Final Supplement to the Final Environ-mental Statement Related to the Operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2," dated December 1976, received in evidence tr. 280 (cited as "FSFES").

Staff Exhibit No. 2 NUREG-0107, entitled " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2," dated September 1976, received in evidence tr. 281 (cited as "SER")

Staff Exhibit No. 3 NUREG-0107, Supp.

1, entitled

" Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No.

1, Related to the Operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2,"

received in evidence tr. 232 (cited as "SER").

Staff Exhibit No. 3-A Chapter 7 to NUREG-0107, Supp.

1, entitled " Instrumentation and Control," received in evidence tr. 283 (c.tec as "SER").

,._.,vy' b

em

P B-3 Chapter 8 to NUREG-010 7, Supp.

1, Staff Exhibit No. 3-B entitled " Electric Pcwer," received in evidence tr. 292 (cited as a

= e r.T w-e LICENSING 3 CARD Ecard Exhibit Nc. 1 Press Felease, Ccm=cnwealth of Pennsylvania Cepartment of Envircn-mental Rescurces, " ER Budget, 1977-73 Fiscal Year," dated May 13, 1977, received in evidence cr. 1140 (cited as " DER Eucgeo Press Release").

Environmental Protection Agency, Ecard Exhibit No. 2

" Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Acti'ns For Nuclear Incidents," dated E ptember, 1975, received in evidence tr. 1385 (cited as " EPA PAG Manual").

'9 iy, >

c.

4, 1977 Aucust UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CC.'Oi!SSICN Sefore the Atomic Safet/ and Licensine Scard In the Matter of

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY,

)

Dociet No. 50-320 et al.

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Generating Station, Unit 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Proposed Findings cf Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Initial Decisio n" dated August 4, 1977, have been served upon each of the persons listed on the attached service list by mail, postage prepaid, this 4th day of August, 1977.

6 d d # d d.

Ernest L.

Blake, Jr.

Dated:

August 4, 1977 iT ', ~ ' ' ! O

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. -,.,,, R p e,.... -. C. R.,

C C, v. S.3,ts.4 u-n

._ m n Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Scard In the Matter of

)

METRCPOLITAN EDISCN CCMPA';Y,

)

Dccket No. 50-320 et al.

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Generating Station, Unit 2)

)

SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Fanel U.S.

Nuclear Regulate:7 Cctmission U. S'.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, D.C.

20555 Washingten, D.C.

20555 Mr. Gustave A.

Linenberger Alan S.

Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Scard Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatcry Cctmissica Washington, D.C.

20555 Henry J.

McGurren, Esc..

Cffice of the Executive Legal Dr.

W.

Reed Johnsen, Member Director Atemic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Board Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S.

'iuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Ernest O.

Salo Professor, Fisheries Research Jerome S.

Sharfman, Esq., Member Institute, WH-10 Atemic Safety and Licensing Appeal University of Washington Scard Seattle, WA 98195 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Chauncey R.

Kapford 433 Orlando Avenue Cocketing and Service Section State College, PA 16801 Office of the Secretary and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission 2556 Bread Street Washington, D.C.

20555 York, PA 17404 Karin W.

Carter, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Office of Enforcement Department of Environmental Resources 709 Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 13

. L

ML19220A319

Text

Navigation menu

Search