ML19220C811
| ML19220C811 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Hope Creek, Seabrook, North Anna, Sterling, 05000484, Washington Public Power Supply System, Cherokee, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1979 |
| From: | Kepford C, Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905140519 | |
| Download: ML19220C811 (8) | |
Text
.. '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
!!UCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING APPEAL 50ARDS Alan S. Rosenthait, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck April 11,1979 Michael C. Farrar c W"' T g,ypENT N.
Richard S. Sal = art Dr. W. Reed Johnson g'
Jerome E. Sharfman In the Matters of METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY el d.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMPANY et al. )
Docket Nos. 50-277
)
50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Pcwer Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
and Vocket Nos. 50-338 STN 50-482
\\e q,
50-339 STN 50-484
//
g@q,s 50-354 STN 50-485 N)$[ 3
$s 50-355 STN 50-491 I
50-389 STN 50-492 c h4 50-400 STN 50-493
- F 50-401 STN 50-518 50-402 STN 50-519 Mb f
50-403 STN 50-520 50-443 STN 50-521 (v i e 50-444 STN 50-346 50-482 STN 50-547 50-500 115 RE 50-501 M6 50-513 50-553 7005140 OT h
00-::4 RESPONSE TO THE PEACH M CM LICENSEES RESPONSE CN CE MINIMUSER In a brief dated April 4,1979, Philadelpnia Electric Ccmcany (Peach 50ttom, Units 2 and 3) and Public Service Electric and Gas Company &
Atlantic City Electric Campany (lope Creek, Units 1 and 2)(collectively refer ed to belcw as the "Acplicants"), disputed certain statements made in resconse to ALAB-509 by the Three-Mile Island, Unit 2 ("TMI-2") and Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 ("PB") Intervenors, the Tyrone and Sterli19 Intervenors, and the Hope Creek Intervenors.
The TMI-2 and PB Intervenors be-lieve that their previous filing, dated February 19, 1979, already suffices as a response to most of the objections raised by the Peach Bottom and Hope Creek Applicants. Therefore, in the following reply to the Applicants' brief, the TMI-2 and PB Intervenors attempt only to clarify a limited number ~
of matters which, although raised in their earlier February 19, 1979, filing, were apparently misunderstood by counsel for the Applicants.
The Applicants a'sh to minimize the adverse health consequences of radon by averaging them out over the entire U.S. population ard then by comparing them to background. The resultirg c:;sts would be expressed in terrs of incremental doses per person (Applicant's Brief, at 7). To say this is simply to restate tne discredited djt minimus theory.
The TMI-2 and PS Intervenors maintain that such an approach r.sguises the trua magnitude of the radon-induced costs. Viewing the total racon-induced deaths attri-butable-to plant operation, rather than the comparative, incremental dese per average U.S. resident, is the only way to place the radon-related costs of nuclear reactors in proper perspective.
Contrary to the unsupported assertions by the Applicants and the Perkins Board (Applicant's Brief, at 6), no authority exists to support the hypothesis that the effects of radon are or may be zero or negligible.
Dr. Kepford's estimates were characterized by the Perkins Board as " inflated" only due to wishful thinking. That Boa.rd acted erroneously and with bias in order to reach the: cre-arranged decision to license the Perkins reactors.
This subterfuge by the Perkins Board was resorted to precisely because the radon emissions attributable to plant operation are sufficiently significanc that they cannot be ignored.
Even assuming many assumptions by Gotchy and others in the NRC which may seriously underestimate the deaths caused by radon, Xepford's a
1
testimony concluded that far many more people will die prematurely from cancer due to each year of nuclear plant operation than would die prematurely from ocerating a comparably sized coal-fired facility for an equivalent period.
The actual number of deaths caused by radon is staggering, not insignificant.
Furthennore, the radon-induced, plant-related costs are thrust virtually entirely upon the shoulders of future generations.
The people who will lie from the rtdon attributable to present plant operation will not benefit feca these reactors, cannot presently protest he illegal licensing of such reactors, and cannot presently point out that licensing reactors is not even justified based upon the needs of the current generation, since virtually no one benefits from these' reactors except possibly the utilities and their shareholders.
NEPA's cost-benefit analysis requires a comparison with alternative ways of meeting perceived demands for energy.
It is thus inappropriata, as the toolicants suggest (A;.pii. ants' Brief, at 9), only to balance perceived denunds for energy against the environmental costs of producing energy through one source alone, nuclear power.
Furthermore, the de; minimus theorf does not include the long-tenn, raden-related costs in the cost-benefit analysis.
Instaad, the theory dismisses them from the very outset as " insignificant,"
so as to rati:nalize never entering these staggering costs into the cost-benefit analysis.
Kepford does not question the general utility of a cost -
benefit approach, and contends only that all long-term raden-induced costs must be entered into the equation without subterfuge.
The Apolicants misunderstood the TMI-2 and PB Intervenors' references to ccmcaring the alleged benefits of plant operation to background radiation frem the sun to imply merely that solar energy is an alternative to nuclear power and must be considered as such under NEPA (Applicants' 3rief ac 10-11).
In our view, it is indisputable that solar energy and conservation are 115 327 systematically overlooked by the Ccmission in its licensing proceedings, in violation of NEPA. However, this was not tha primary purpose of our references to the background radia tion from the sun.
Those references were also illustrative of the principle that if radon costs are to be ccmpared to background levels of radiation to give the appearance of minimizing the radon costs by comparison, then the alleged benefits cf plant operation must like-wise be deemed insignificant, since they too may be compared to large background effects such as the total solar radiation reaching the continental United States.
It is also not inconsistent to argue that the precise effects of the radon emissions attributable to plant operation are both substantial and unresolved (compare Applicants' Brief, at 18-19). As noted above, Kepford's calculations which show that the aumber of radon-related deaths from nuclear energy generation dwarfs the numoer of deaths caused by operation of a coal-fired facility were based upon assumptions adopted earlier by Gotchy and others from the NRC.
The unresolveo scientific problems referred to in the TMI-2 and PB Intervenors' February 19, 1979, brief concern the health effects of low-level and background radiation. Based upon the currently available da ta on these subjects, it would seem that the Gotchy and other NRC assumotions on these subjects (which Kepford adpted in his testimony) tend to Eerestimate the total radon-induced deaths attributable to nuclear d
power generation.
Resolution of these uncertainties in the existing state of scientific knowledge thus would most likely operate only further to discredit nuclear power compared to coal and the other alternatives.
It is ludicrous to argue that "in deference to" the uncertainties in scientific knowledge the Parkins 3 card adopted a reassuring, conservative appro: ch (Applicants' Brief a t 18-19). Rather, "in deference to" the unresolved scientific problems concerning the precise effects of low level radiation, the Perkins Board 115 328 expunged all information on this subject frcm the Perkins record.
This censorship was " conservative" only from the perspective of those who would license nuclear power plants regardless of the public health and safety consequences and the mandates of law, choosing instead to let the public be damned.
With regard to the Applicants' comments on the need for a prograrm:atic EIS on radan, we note that the present proceeding involves a large number of reactors and is designed to have programmatic impacts with regard to these and all other nuc' ear reactors, present as well as future.
We also note that large quantities of fly-ash frem coal-fired power plants have been incorporated in much of the concrete used in Peach Bottom 5 ), fly ash con-("PB").
As noted in the Perkins proceeding (Goldman test.
tains naturally occurring uranium-238, which produces radon-222.
Trapped inside the various structures at Peach Bottom, radon and its daughters can become a significant ha::ard when inhaled by workers, who are not monitored for this extra work-related radiation exposure at Peach Bottom.
The PB Intervenors also wish to clarify their request to "incorport.te by reference" portions of seven documents submitted previously by the THI-2 Intervenors.
Both the TMI-2 and PB Intervenors are represented by Dr. Chauncey Xepford.
Neither of these Intervenors has been graced with adequate financial backing, and neither of them is able to afford the costs of unnecessary xeroxing.
The FB Intervenors simply assumed that the NRC would xerox the hundred or so page: which they " incorporated by reference".
These materials were specifically selected because they were the materials which the TMI-2 Intervenors suomitted when the very same de, minimus theory was advanced in tne context of the TMI-2 proceeding. None of *hese materials are so specific to tne TMI-2 proceeding :nat their relationshio to the Perkins' version of the de, minims :necry is not readily apparent.
Furthermore, only tnose pages e
115 329 from these seven documents which bear upon the d_e minimus theory and the ALAB-48b' proceeding were incorporated by reference.
Thus, c'o'.trary to the Applicants' assertions (Applicants' Brief, at 24), the Applicants were not being asked to sift through a mass of unrelated documents, which they undoubtedly already have xeroxed and read in any event.
It is regrettable that the NRC chose not to circulate these hundred or so pages. The PB and TMI-2 Intervenors will assume that all pages identified on page 4 of their February 19, 1979, brief have been duly incorporated into the PB record, as well as into the records of all proceedings affected by ALAB-480 and ALAB-509. We reiterate our request that all affected Intervenor groups be served with these papers imediately, we express disbelief at the Commission's failure to advance the state of the record even in such a limited way, and we reserve the right to claim that the failure to promulgate these documents as requested constitutes reversible error.
If the Peach Bottom and Hope Creek Applicants request a copy of all these referenced documents be sent to them, we believe they should be served with such papers as well. Had these dccuments been served upon all the parties, the references in our February 19, 1979 brief to the Comission's continuing and intentional failure to comply with its most basic statutory obligations would have assumed additional :eaning. We trust that this was not the reason for the failure to circul;te these documents, and that the Commission will new proceed to circulate all such documents as previously requested.
Respectfully submitted.
7
<[
Chauncey R.' Kepford Representative of the Intervenors 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Dated this /hday of (314) 237-3900 April, 1979.
115 330
.. x -
55 5kI~5 W &5/h$C5
..~.'
~
/
'N b w,f '
,5.{ /
Nu 2 d 5 ' A m l 'c ':< s ~ c-L
..,'e b y
b'I*O'
,1, d GMLG d 'M Mm u-> h.g D'n $s,w d'ch
!, o i b ' " or hj :c t' h.'n kk U. S. !/'0/
EV bl; 3,,
t Edward Lutos, Es ci., CN.irman George F. Trewbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Jicensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Fetta.L U.S. Nuclear Regu3atory Co= mission Trowbridge Washingtca, D.C. 20555 18co M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Gustave A. L1:enberger Atc=1c Safety and Licensing Board Atomic' S af e ty & Lic easing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co asission Board Fan el Washington, D.C. 20555 U.0; Nuclear Regulhtory C$==is s ic a Dr. Ernes t O. Sa.o Washingtca, D.C. 20555 o
Professor. Fisheries Research Institute, WiI-lu Ate.ic Safety and Licensing College of Fisheries Appeal Board Caiversity of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Karis W.
Carter, Ass t.
Attorney General Cf' ice of Enforcemen t Docketing and Service L2;"rtment of Zavironmental Resources Section 709 Health and Welfsre Building Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17120 U.S. Nuclear Re;ulatory Commissica Washington, D.C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, sq., Chairman, e
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel He ar~v J. McGurrem U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CCmmission Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regula tory Ces aissica Washingtca, D.C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Memoer, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Jerome E. Shartman, tsq., Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior.
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appea ane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccaniss on Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20 o II W
\\-
[
b
<-4 9s
.w h
h k'x g; l<,,
Q-ll5
,I IL~~
l:'
h e% 9y &a xa b, J,o~
~
~
~
2-
~
~
~~ ~
~--
~~
My: on Bloom, Esq.
U.S. Environmental Protection Michael C. Farrar. Esq., ChairTnan
- m c
Atomic Safety and Licensing p
II, Curtis Building la lph Penn ania 19106 a
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Or. John H. Buck Conner, Moore and Corber i
Atomic Safety and Licensing 1747 Pennsylvania f. venue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ceranission-Washington, D.C.
20555 Raymond L. Hevis, Esq.
Stock and Leader 35 South Duke Street John B. Griffith,'Esq.
York, Pennsylvania 1740.
Special Assistant Attorney General
,Tawes State Office Building (C-4)
A Annapolis ~, Maryland 21401
- p rs"'Es$nl y
grne Gn Department of Justice Capitol Annex" Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Linensing James M. Cutchin, IW Esq.
i Counsel for the NRC Staff U.
c ear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulhtory Cocnission Washington, D. C. 2(,35-o Washington. 0.C. 2D555
~
J/
/
,.W':Cc i't e9,?< QV Chauncey Kepfora ~ //
Representative ~of the TMI-2 and PB Intervenors 115 332