ML19224A302
| ML19224A302 | |
| 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: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-509, NUDOCS 7812130217 | |
| Download: ML19224A302 (11) | |
Text
.
.-..__-.a_, c.. _ r.q a r.
1 s ert. _
- ** g _
..,,..3, y r c--
. _,,., C _.,,. e. e v_ c.
.. t,.
n.
x _a....
e
\\ t ~- /
m n'
/'
n. g.v.v -
- a _e r_ _ v.
2.. D
?., _? C T '. ' c 7. '.Y...t_o o. r t m' e-
_3 0.'u_n c
- o -
/
w W,i Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chair-.an U
h \\[ 7 T '
=o P
.a-,
Dr. John E. Buck r~
9.,C Yd.,
- d..,-
9 Michael C. Farrar 4
Richard S.
Salcman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson g
Jerome E.
Sharfman SEJi'. o Di E
.: 8
)
In the Matters of
)
)
PHI'_.ADELPHIA ELECT'f!C CCPAMY et al.
)
Occhet !!cs. 50-277
)
2 0
.3., -
ia (Peach Ecttom Atumic Pcwe" 0***4 cn,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
)
- IETROPOLITA'T ED:SCN COMPAl"? ec al.
)
Occket '70.
50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POSTER CCf'PANY
)
Docket Mos. 50-338
)
50-339 (North Anna Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 COMPANY
)
50-355
)
(Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
- e. r C.o..r a,
- a. C e..>. n 'D a, _v, n- _, C n.,._e A r. v_
)
c c.v. _. s.:.o.. n,
_ 8o m
s u
a,
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
CAROLIMA PCWER A"O LIGHT CC"PANY
)
Iccket Nos. 50-400
)
50-401 (Shearen Harris Nuclear Pcwer Plant,
)
50-402 Units 1,2,3 and 4)
)
50-403 3
4
)
I, err Appeal Panel Menber is en One er rcre of the 3 cards hearing the capricned preceedings; their colleccive desienatien is simply a convenience in issuing this joint crder.
2 342, f.
/ :
i
/
/
Uf, l
(Q
_2_
9 PU3LIC SEPVICE CCFPA'T! OF NEW
)
EA".PSHIR et al.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-444
)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPA!PI A'TD )
KANSAS CI""i POWER AliD LIGH*
)
COMPANY
)
)
(Wolf Creek Generating Station,
)
Dcchet No. ST'I 50-432 Unit No. 1
)
)
NORTEIRN STA'"ES POWER COMPANY
)
(MI:!NESOTA) A'!D liORTEIPli STATES
}
PCWER CCMPA'PI (WISCONS!!i)
)
)
(Tyrone Enercy Park, Unit Nc. 1)
)
Decket No. Sri 50-4 3 4
)
RCCEESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
CORPORATICN et al.
)
)
(Sterling Pcwer Project Nuclear
)
Docket No. STN 50-485 Unit No. 1)
)
}
DUIG PCWER COMPANY
)
)
(Cherokee Nuclear Statien,
)
Decket Nos. STN 50-491 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
STN 50-492
)
STN 50-493 THE TOLEDO EDISCN CCMPAITE et al.
)
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Pcwer Station, )
Docket Nos. 50-500 Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501
)
I3ASHINGTCN PU3LIC POWER SUPPLT
)
SYSTEM
)
)
(WPPSS 'Tuclear Project No. 4)
)
Cocket No. 50-513
)
TE'INESSEE VAIL.IY AC'"EORI':"?
)
)
Cccket Nos. SOT 50-513 (Hartsville 'Iuclear Plant, L. tits
)
s-"; 50.519 1A, 2A, 13 and 23)
)
sn* 33_5:0
)
SST 50-521
)
2.343
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF DiDIANA,
)
INC.
)
)
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Docket Mce. STN 50-54 Units 1 and 2)
)
STN 50-54
)
TENNESSEE VAT.T.EY AUPHORITY
)
)
(Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant,
)
Decket Ncs. 50-553 Units 1 and 2)
)
50-554
)
)
- EMOP3.MCUM AND 00SE_R_
December 1, 1979 (ALA3-509 )
Earlier this year, the Commission held incorrect the value it had assigned in Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51) to the emissicas of radon-222 expected to occur as a result of the mining and milling of uranium.
43 Fed. Reg. 15613 (-Acril 14, 1978).
At that time, it told us to reopen the records in pending licensing proceedings "to receive new evidence en raden releases and en health effects resulting free raden releases."
Id. at 15615-16.
In implementing that directive in some seventeen separate preceedings (Philadelchia Flectric Co. (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3), ALA3-480, 7 MRC 796 (1979)),
we decided it vould be to the parties' and Scards' advantage to begin with the record being made before the licensine 2.344
. 1/
board in yet another preceeding, Perkins--
Accordingly, we called upon the parties to frane their positiens in terms of the Perkins record and the Licensing Board's sub-sequent decision therein.--~2/
7 NRC at 904-06.
We have studied carefully the papers the parties have submitted.--3/
They involve a variety of m:tters.
A number of parties are dissatisfied with either the record or the decisien in Perkins, or both--4/
Intervenors in several proceedings wish us to censolidate these preceedings.
Under ncrual circumstances, the next step would be a prehearing conferer.ce at which we could explore with all the parties not only the best procedure to follcw but also -- in order to clarify exactly what contentions the parties wish to pursue -- the precise nature of the issues which are contro-verted.
J/
Duke ?cwer Co. (Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3), Iccket Mcs.
STM 50-488, 50-489, and 50-490.
_1/
That decision is reported as L3?-78-25, 3 SEC 97 (1973).
__3/
In one uncontested proceeding, which was also pending betere a licensing board, we granted the parties' request for a renand so that the board below could consider the raden issue.
It has since done so.
See cur unpublished order of Septerher 27, 1978 in Tennessee Vallav Authority (Yellcw Creek Units 1 and 2), anc L3P-73-39, 8 NRC (revember 24, 1973).
Cur use of the shorthand notatien "?erkins" elsewhere 4/
- 's crder shculd be taken, ;nless :ne contex: requires o therwis e, as referring to bcth the record and the decisi:r in that proceeding.
o' CX j
.d
-5_
9 Cwing to the number and scattered location of the parties involned, hcvever, it is not practicable to hold a prehearing conference at this point.
Instead, we will attempt to accomplish the same purpose by calling for the submission of further written memoranda.
In this connection, two areas seem to call for attention neu.
First, we need to clarify the extent to which particular parties are dicsatisfied with Perkins insofar as it deals with rates cf raden release or levels of raden concentration from either natural sources or nuclear fuel cycle activities (as distinguished frem the health effects of any resulting exposure).
Second, if Perkins is accurate on emission rates and concentration levels, it seems appropriate to examine at the threshold the Licensing Board's de minimus theory, i.e.,
its conclusion that the nationwide health effects attributable to raden released in fueling nuclear pcwer plants mus' be deemed to be insignificant because those emissiens are extremely Icw in relation not only to natural :- :en back-
~/
w/
g cund but also to fluctuaticns which occur in that background!-'
__5/
Certain parties have enchasized in their cacers the question of raden-induced hea' "'a'"ects "= "y those living close to uranium rines and mills.
Dif-ferent censideraticns may be relevant where nearby impacts are concerned.
See generally cur recent decision in Ecchester Oas a::d Electric Cere. (Sterline Unit 1), AI.A3 -5 0 7, 3 ::ac _(::cremcer C,
_3
? ).
u.s.}G.
O
'h
O
_ g-T 1.
Radon Emissions.
In establishing the format under uhich Perkins would be used as the starting point for concidering the radon issue in other proceedings, we observed that "[o]hvicusly, non participants in Perkins cannot be held bound by the record adduced in that preceeding."
ALA3-480, surra, 7 NRC at 305.
As it turned cut, a number of parties filed cbjec-tiens with us about one aspect or another of the Perkins record.
Most such objecticns, hcwever, went to the adequacy of that record on the question of health effects.
That is, most partis: seemed willing to accept without further ado both the evidence and the decirien in Perkins on the levels of raden emissions and the resulting concentrations to which the populacion is exposed.--6/
In those respects, then, as
--6/
Intervenors in the Three-Mile Island and ceach Ectter croceedines did mention in genera _ terr.s a neec cr discovery of unspecified staff documents concerning source terms.
As we understand it, the current staff practice is to make much material available to the parties without the need for invocatien of ferral dis-covery precedures.
Having heard no more about the matter, we assume that the intervencrs ' representative, Dr. Chauncey Kepford, has been given any material he asked the staff fer.
If we are mistaken about the accessibility of staff material relevant to this point, or if the material in cuestien dces provide a basis for objec :ing to this aspect of Ferkins, any affected parties are free to seek a speci:10 remedy fror us.
u. d' 5. 7 o
was centemplated by ALA3-450, those parties could new be held 7/
-~
hound by the Perkins record.
In other words. we would now be fre'e in mos' prcceedings to go forward en the basis of the Perkins record alone insofar as emission rates and concentration levels are concerned.--8/
We cannot do so, hcwever, in every proceeding:
inter-venors in Sterline and Tyrene have suggested that v.cre evi-dence should be adduced en the cuestion of emission rates and concentration levels.--9/ These sucgestions reflect in general terms the topics in which the intervenors are inter-ested.
Before we can begin to decide whether to accept the Perkins figures as valid, we need to learn more about the objections to them.
_7/
Any party who objects to this conclusion should tell us promptly why he believes it shculd not apply to him.
See 10 CFR 2.752 (c).
--9/
It is not likely, hewevur, that we will do so.
In each proceeding, the Board has sua spente responsibility, that is, the obligation to review the record independently of the parties ' positions.
In light of that, it seems unwise to decide either Perkins.dditional evidence en this generic or the uncentestec cases kncwing (see p.
8, infra) that a matter migh be forthcoming in other preceedings.
See Carolina ?cwer & Licht Cemnanv (Shearen Harris Units 1,2,3 and 4), ALA3-490, 8 NEC (August 23, 1973, slip cpinien, p.
15); Vircinia Electric & Pcwer Cemeany Cierth ;_nna Units 1 and 2), ALA3-491, s NEC (August 25, 1973, slip cpiaien, p.
9, fn. 12).
As we understand ths:.: carers, the intervencrs in Marbl_e_
9/
- aesentially centent, insofar as E111 and Scif Creek c-a enese tcpics are cencerned, te have their preceedings governed by what transpires in Sterline and in the pre-ceedines in which Dr. Eepford is involved, respectively.
As we have indicated, sienificant developments will, in any event, mest likely have te be censidered in all pre-ceedings (see fn.
3, supra).
2 ?dP
_ g _
Specifically, the intervenors in Sterlinc and Tvrene --
Ecolocv Action of Osweco and Northern Thunder, respectively
-- are to furnish us a particularized memorandum setting forth (1) not only the respects in which they believe the radon release d: :s and conce:.tration levels in Perkins are inaccurate or otherwise deficient, but also the basis.'cr their assertiens and the pctential significance of the deficiencies (i. e., the decree of impacr that any ccrrecciens might have upon the Perkins figures); (2) whether, and if so way, they believe a hearing is necessary on these tcpics er whether seme other procedure for considering the matter is appropriate; and (3) what evidence, either written or oral as the case may be, they are prepared to offer.
The inter-vencrs' memoranda are to be filed and served upon the other parties to the Sterline and Tvrone proceedings by Friday, January 5, 1979.
After service of those pcpirs, the other parties to those two proceedings will have thirty days to file responsive memoranda.
The respenses shculd fccus, inter alia, on whether a hearing is necessary cr whether scte other procedure is appropriate.
-re, _, u.s.
e nanun a.
u.
As indicated by the preceding section, we are not now in a position to determine whether Perkins accurately
- 2. 3@
_c 9
reflecrs the levels of exposure to radon.
If, however, at some future time we wera no find the Perkins emissien and concentration figures correct (or reascnably close to being so), we would have to come to grips with the Licensing Board's de minimus theory.
The Perkins board took the approach that, whatever else might be said about the health effects of raden, Based on the record available to this Board, we find that the best mechanism available to charac-terice the significance of the raden releases associated with the mining and milling of the nuclear fuel for the Perkins facility is to ccmpare such releases with those associated with natural background.
The increase in background associated with Perkins is so small ccmpared with background and so snall in com.sarison with the fluctuations in background, as to be completely undetectable.
Under such circumstance, the impact cannot be significant._10/
If we were to subscribe to that view, there would appear to be no reason to consider the questien of health ef fects further.
Ccnsequently, we celieve it approcriate tc censider this aspect of the 3 card's decisien at t.k2 outset.
Tcvard this end, any party in anr cf the pending pro-ceedings whc disagraes with the Licensing Ecard's apprcach
_1_0/
LEP '3-25, sucra, 8 :7EC at 100.
2.350
O,
shoulf brief us fully en why that Board's views are not acceptab le.--11/
--12/
These briefs should be filed and served within forty-five days of the date of this order.--13/
Responses from any party in any of the proceedings who supports the Licensing Board's approach will be due thirty days thereafter-~14/
--11/
In order that these briefs he v.ost useful to us, they should accept arcuendo the levels of expcsure set forth in Perkins.
If those levels prove to be sienificantly incorrect (in a directicn favorable to the intervenors '
pcs.' tion), then the Licensing 3 card 's premise (relatinc to tha disparity between natural ind fuel-cycle-related concentrations of raden) wculd be #aulty and its d_e_ minimus conclusion could not stand.
The briefs called for here shoule! focus, therefore, on the validity of the conclusion, not of the premise.
The premise will be challenced in the memoranda called for in section 1 of this order.
12/
It will suffice for each party to serve only the other parties to its own proceeding.
We will see to it that tt s parties to all the other proceedings receive copies.
--13/
'7e stress to the parties that they may not have another opportunity to file briefs before us en the correctness of the d_e minimus theorv, and that our analysis of it may turn out to be crucial in shaping the future course of these proceedings.
_1_4/
All parties should discuss whether an analegy might be drawn to the Cermission's Appendix I regulatiens.
10 CFR Part 50, App I.,
Sec. II.
These regulatiens set limits upon radioactive releases during nor=al cperation which are couched in terms of levels abcve background and which permit resulting deses which are small in relation to these caused by backgrcund (as is shcwn by 10 CFR Part 51, Table S-4, fn. 2).
2.351
. 9 It is so CPDEFZD.
FOR TH2 APPEAL BOARDS A /
k2ddx2OJ K f$s $e Marcaret E.
Du Flo Secre/tary to the Appeal Boards o
ci r-N, il