ML19263B374
| ML19263B374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000516, 05000517 |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1978 |
| From: | Cheatum E, Decker R, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B375 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901180123 | |
| Download: ML19263B374 (47) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
us m THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J
4 DEC2 7 078 >T
~
e Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman U
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum 53., U ; 6*
f W
Ralph S. Decker 4
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and )
Docket Nos. 50-516-CP NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND
)
50-517-CP GAS CORPORATION
)
)
(Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, )
SERVED ETC 3 81978 Units 1 and 2)
)
DECEMBER 26, 1978 INITIAL DECISION (Construction Permit)
Appearances W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq., Case Whittemore, Esq.,
Jeffrey Futter, Esq., and Edward J. Walsh, Esq., for the Applicant, Long Island Lighting Company, and Frederick H. Lawrence, Esq., for Applicant, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation.
Irving Like, Esq., Werner J. Zumbrunn, Esq., for Intervenor, County of Suffolk; Jean H. Tiedke, Shirley Bachrach, Adelaide Flatau, Laetitia Bradley, Mari Quint and Jean E. Marriner, for Intervenor, League of Women Voters; Joseph E. Cramer, Esq., and William Chapek, for Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25, AFL-CIO; Sandra Caron, Esq., and Jeffrey Cohen, Esq., Counsel for Intervenor, New York State Energy Office; Donald E. Brown, Esq., Jonathan Sinnreich, Esq., and Bruce Coolidge, Esq., for Intervenor, Town of Riverhead; Anthony J. Montenigro for Intervenor, Environmental Protection and Progress Committee, Local 25; Dr. Caryl R. Granttham and Ann Carl for Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Suffolk County.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq., Richard Goddard, Esq.,
Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq., Harry ri. Glasspiegel, Esq.,
William Massar, Esq., Lawrence Brenner, Esq., and Richard K. Hoefling, Esq., for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
790118co 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
A.
Health Effects of the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles 3
B.
The Reopened Record 12 Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluents 13 Characteristics of Radon 14 Radon Released from Mining 15 Radon Released from Milling 17 Transport and Radiological Dose of Radon and Its Daughters 20 Health Effects t rem Radon 22 III.
OPINION 30 Health Effects of Coal 30 Health Effects of Effluents Other Than Radon 31 Radon Releases from Mining 31 Radon Releases from Milling 33 Population Dose 34 Health Effects 34 IV.
COST-BENEFIT BALANCE 41 V.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, 7 NRC 826 (1978) 42 VI.
ORDER 44 ATTACHMENT A - Form of the Construction Permit for Unit 1 (i) r 790_1EiBT>P "
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In Item V.F.2 of the Attachment to our Order of June 25, 1976, this Board requested testimony on how Table S-3 of 10 C.F.R. Part 51, which sumarizes the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle, is applied in licensing cases such as the present.
Subsequently, in an Order of March 15, 1977 we asked whether the revised " interim" 1/
Table S-3 values, 42 Fed. Reg.13803, would tilt the cost-benefit balance against Jamesport.
Thereafter, in response to an Appeal 2/
Board decision in another case 7 the Staff and other parties to this proceeding embarked, with Board approval, on a detailed comparison of the environmental / health effects of c.omparable nuclear and coal plants, taking into account their respective fuel cycles.
Before the Board reached an initial decision, Table S-3 was amended to delete the value for radon-222 (radon).
43 Fed. Reg. 15613 (April 14, 1978).
The reason for removing the radon value was that "new estimates of releases have been devised that require upward revision of the value for radon in Table S-3."
(Id_. at 15614).
The Commission directed that, if The effectiveness of the interim Table S-3 values was recently extended to March 14, 1979.
43 Fed. Reg. 41373 (September 18,1978).
2/ Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 18 and 2B), ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92 (1977).
in proceedings pending before Licensing Boatds, the record on NEPA issues should be reopened for the limited purpose of receiving new evidence on radon releases and on health effects resulting from radon releases.
(Id_. at 15616).
Because of the Commission directive, this Board declined in its Jamesport decision of last May to deal with radon, other environmental /
health effects related to the coal and nuclear fuel cycles, and ulti-mate cost-benefit issues.
See Long Island Lighting Company and New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (Jamesport Nuclear Power Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2),7 NRC 826 (1978) (hereinafter cited as Jamesport Partial Initial Decision orPID).
In further implementation of the Commission's directive, the Board ordered that the Jamesport record be reopened "for the limited purpose of receiving new evidence on radon releases and on health effects result-ing from radon as well as the other gaseous and liquid effluents listed in Table S-3" (Board Order of June 1, 1978, at 2-3).
The parties responded by submitting to the Board a Stipulation Relating to Pro-cedures and Schedules Regarding Board Consideration of Radon-222 and Associated Health Effects (Stipulation), dated July 27, 1978.
The Stipulation provided that (a) the record compiled on radon and its health effects in Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear St tion, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-488, 50-489, 50-490, would be incorporated, with this Board's approval, into the Jamesport record to the extent that it was admitted as evidence in Perkins, and (b) further evidence on those matters would be offered by parties to this proceeding at a deposition on July 27, 1978.
In an Order dated July 31, 1978, we approved the procedures and schedules set out in the Stipulation.
On September 11, 1978 Staff submitted its proposed supplementary s
findings.
On September 26, 1978, the Applicants, the County of Suffolk and the League of Women Voters respectively filed proposed supplementary findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Thereafter, the Staff filed a Reply dated October 11, 1978.
We do not address separately the original Board questions on how Table S-3 is applied in licensing cases nor whether the values in Interim Table S-3 tilt cost-benefit balances previously struck.
These questions are encompassed within broader matters raised subsequently to which we now turn.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT A.
Health Effects of the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles 1.
Before considering the new testimony on radon presented pur-suant to our Order of June 1,1978, we will first discuss the evidence adduced on comparative health effects of the coal and nuclear fuel cycles before the record was reopened on the radon matter.
2.
Appearing for the Staff was Dr. R. L. Gotchy (written testi-mony fol. Tr. 8687, pp. 1-12 and attached Appendix A).
Applicants introduced Ex. 18 ccmprising testimony presented previously by them
-3/
in the Siting Board (Article VIII) proceeding on Jamesport (Tr. 8310-8311,8978-8980).
Suffolk County introduced as its Ex. 52, testimony presented by several witnesses sponsored by the County, the long Island Farm Bureau and other parties in the Article VIII proceeding-4/
(Tr. 9195-9198, 9208).
The Board admitted SC Ex. 52 with the qualifi-cation that the other parties at the time of submitting their proposed findings could coject to portions of the testimonies as being irrelevant and/or constituting challenges to the NRC regulations (Tr. 8316-8318).
3.
In his testimony on health effects of-the nuclear and coal fuel cycles, Dr. Gotchy explained the bases for his analysis (pp.1-2) and in Appendix A, set forth the assumptions affecting his evaluation of effects, presented four tables summarizing the results of his evaluations, and provided a list of literature cited containing thirty-nine references.
4.
Dr. Gotchy defined health effects to mean excess (i.e. effects occurring at a higher than normal rate) mortality, morbidity, and injury 3_/
In summary, Applicants' Ex.18 consists of direct +astimony of seven witnesses (approx. 210 pages) and 3200 pages of cross-examination.
4_/ SC Ex. 52 consists of approximately 1500 pages of testimony by eight witnesses including their cross-examination.
among occupational workers and the general public as a result of routine operations at the facilities.
His primary source of informa-tion for the uranium fuel cycle analysis was Table S-3 from 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Table S-3 lists the amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive materials that are released to the environment as a result of routine operations at uranium fuel cycle facilities.
The radioactive effluents listed in Table S-3 were used to calculate the 50-year dose commitment to the U.S. population and then estimated the human health effects from those doses using risk estimators set out in NUREG-0002, Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors (GESMO I), and WASH-1400, Reactor.
Safety Study.
He also used the occupational doses that appear in Table S-3 and GESMO I to determine the health effects for fuel cycle workers.
The doses from transportation of material among the fuel cycle facilities were taken from Tables S-3 and S-4. The same risk estimators were used to convert these doses into health effects.
Dr.
Gotchy's assessment of health effects, including those from routine operations and accident conditions was based on the generic assessments in GESM0 I and WASH-1400.
His estimates of health effects from nonradio-active causes relied on several Brookhaven National Laboratory Reports and Table S-4.
(Id_. pp. 1-2).
5.
Dr. Gotchy calculated uranium fuel cycle effects for the general public in the U.S. and fuel cycle workers in two situations:
(1) an all-nuclear case assuming that electrical power used in fuel cycle facilities would be generated at nuclear power plants, and (2) a mixed case assuming that the electricity for nuclear fuel cycle facilities would come from coal-fueled power stations.
(Id_. at p. 2, Tables 1, 2).
In contrast to this, for the coal fuel cycle, the health effects for the general population were estimated only for those living within 80 km (50 miles) of '.he coal facilities (I_d.,
Appendix A, p. 2; Tr. 8802), even though there is evidence that significant health effects do occur at distances beyond 80 km (Tr.
8805).
The reason for this difference is that the uncertainties associ-ated with projecting fuel cycle health effects become much greater for coal than uranium at distances of more than 80 km from the source of the effluents (Tr. 8805-06).
6.
The results of the Staff analysis are set out in the follow-ing table, which combines the occupational and general public columns from Dr. Gotchy's tables 1 and 2 from Appendix A.~5/
Fatalities Diseases / Injuries Nuclear fuel cycle: all nuclear
- 0.48 14 Nuclear fuel cycle: uixed 1.1-5.4 17-24 Coal fuel cycle **
15-120 57-210 Ratio of coal to nuclear:
All nuclear 31-250 4.1-15 Mixed 14-22 3.4-8.8
- For U.S. popt,ation.
- For population within 80 km of facility.
5/ Table 1, Excess Mortality Summary per 0.8 GWy (e) and Table 2, Excess Morbidity and Injury Summary per 0.8 GWy (e).
7.
In its Ex. 18, LILC0 presented its analysis of the health effects of uranium and coal fuel cycles and reached conclusions simi-lar to those of the Staff though its methodology differed in some respects.
For example, instead of analyzing 2 separate nuclear fuel cycle cases, LILC0 made a single nuclear assessment.
Relying on the fact that nearly all of the electricity required to power the uranium fuel cycle facilities is used during the enrichment process, LILC0 included in the enrichment step of its nuclear assessment the health effects caused by the coal-fueled generation of electricity.
It did not, however, include the health effects associated with the other coal fuel cycle operations, such as mining and transportation.
Thus, the upper bounds of health effects reflected in LILC0's nuclear assessment were slightly lower than those of the Staff's mixed nuclear case.
Relying on several sources, especially the Report of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee of the National Academy of Science, LILC0 used risk estimators that were somewhat higher than the NRC Staff's, which were based on GESMO I and WASH-1400.
The results of LILC0's analysis are given in the following table which com-bines routine operations and accidents:
Fatalities Diseases / Injuries Nuclear Fuel Cycle 0.38-4.82 7.87-11.87 Coal Fuel Cycle 5.32-112 166-332 Ratio of Coal to Nuclear 14-23 21-28 8.
We have studied the testimony of all eight witnesses as pre-sented in SC Ex. 52 and we concur with the Applicants' and Staff's evaluation that the great bulk of Ex. 52 either is not relevant to a comparison of fuel cycle health effects, or challenges NRC regulations in a manner prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
In the following para-graphs we briefly des 4 ribe the testimonies of the eight witnesses, and rule on those parts of each which we find admissible or inadmissible as the basis of findings of fact on fuel cycle health effects:
(1) The testimonies of Messrs. Bridenbaugh (Siting Board Tr. 25173, et seq.) and Pollard (Id. at Tr. 25909, et seq.) were mainly an attack on the adequacy of the Commission's health and safety regulations and NRC enforcement of existing regulations.
As such the Bridenbaugh and Pollard testimonies are inadmissible as being an attempt to challenge in the wrong forum the adequacy of Commission regulations and pert 3rmance.
(2)
Part of the testimony of Dr. Marvin Resnikoff (Tr. 25432-3 8) discussed the state of fuel reprocessing facilities and their future uncertainties, the uncertainties in future nuclear fuel costs, political and economic questions relating to plutonium recycle, and the status of high level waste solidification technology.
He also commented on the economics of plant decommissioning (Tr. 25446-47).
We concur with Applicants and Staff and rule that these portions are irrelevant and thus inadmissible.
Dr. Resnikoff stated that "far and away" the largest environmental cost is due to Radon-222 from uranium mill tailings.
He cited R. O. Pohl (study oublished in 1976) who integrated health effects over the full life of some of the radioactive materials released from fuel reprocessing including Krypton-85, Tritium, and Carbon-14, and Rn 222 from Thorium 230 in mill tailings.
In the case of Carbon-14, and Rn 222, health effects were calculated for the world population, and assumed that tailings piles would remain uncovered.
(Tr. 25439-45).
We admit in evidence his calculations of health effects from Carbon-14 and Rn 222 and will discuss his underlying assumptions (similar to those of Dr. Tamplin) in these calculations when we discuss testimony in the reopened record, infra.
(3)
Dr. Irwin D. J. Bross (Tr. 27038-50) focused primarily on statistical evidence from his Tri-State Study which he claimed indi-cated that health effects from low level radiation were underestimated by the Applicants who followed the BEIR Committee's use of the linear hypothesis in calculating health effects from ionizing radiation.
Dr. Bross asserted these effects mainly consisted of cumulative genetic degra.< Non. resulting in various manifestations of disease, and inc s,s('
- idence of leukemia in children of 5-10 years of age who wert ezposed during prenatal life (Tr. 27039-41).
We admit this part of his testimony as relevant to the controversy over the validity of the linear hypothesis at low level, low dose radiation, to be discussed below.
We reject, as inadmissible, his challenge to the Commission's
e radiation protection standards (Tr. 27039-41) and his discussion of the lack of reliability of both nuclear hardware and operators as elements of a mindless technology, and his recommendations for elimi-nation of the Energy Research and Development Administration (Tr.
27044-48).
(4) Mr. William Kelleher, a witness for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, described the role of that department in radiation monitoring (Tr. 27163-65,27170,27178-80),
described his views on low level waste burial facilities (Tr. 27172-73),
and status of reprocessing facilities (Tr. 27174-75).
We refect this testimony as irrelevant to the health effects question.
Mr. Kelleher challenged the validity of Table S-3's value of 22.6 person-rem for the occupational dose from reprocessing and waste management (Tr. 27177-78) and challenged the Commission's assessment of the environmental impacts of transportation put forth in Table S-4 (Tr.271/4).
This testimony is inadmissible.
His criticism of LILCO on 11 adequacy of the health effects evaluation of radon emissions associated with uranium mining and milling (Tr. 27198) is relevant in light of new evidence which we will discuss t he reopened record, infra.
(5) Mr. Paul A. Giardina testified that the Staff's analysis of radiation and health effects from transportation of radioactive materials to and from the Jamesport site was inadequate. He contended that high population densities along a substantial part of the ground transportation route rendered Table S-4, as a basis for the Staff's generic assessment, inappropriate and deficient (Tr. 26146-48).
This testimony, being a challenge to Table S-4, is inadmissible.
Mr. Giardina maintained there was an inadequacy of hard data for assessing relative health effects between alternative fuel cycles.
He did say, however, that it appeared occupational fatalities from coal were much higher than from oil, gas and uranium (Tr. 26149-50).
This testimony is relevant and is therefore admissible.
He described EPA efforts to establish protective action guides in case of emergencies at a nuclear facility.
In the case of Jamesport, he advised that a radiological emergency response plan applicable to a 9 mile radius from the plant should be considered assuming a worst case design basis accident (Tr. 26151-59). We consider this portion of the testimony to be irrelevant in that it does not bear on the health effects question.
(6)
Dr. Jan Beyea's testimony as a whole dealt with the con-sequences of a " hypothetical catastrophic accident" at Jamesport, and bore on the question of site suitability and emergency evacuation be-yond the low population zone.
(Tr. 27412-59).
We find Dr. Beyea's testimony inadmissible on the health effects question because it challenges the Commission's basis for determining the values in Table S-3 which expressly excludes Class 9 accidents from considera-tion.
(7)
Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin's testimony at the Article VIII proceedings (Tr. 27283-86) was based on evidence he presented at the GESM0 I hearings.
(Tr. 27298).
This testimony is relevant and, as supplemented and/or modified in the reopened record, is discussed in our findings, infra.
B.
The Reopened Record 9.
The witnesses offering testimony for Duke Power Company in the Perkins case were L. C. Dail, Leonard D. Hamilton (written testimony fol. P-Tr. 2265, pp. 1-3), Morton I. Goldman (written testi-mony fol. P-Tr. 2265, pp.1-15), and Lionel Lewis (written testimony 6/
fol. "-Tr. 2265, pp. 1-7).' Staff witnesses presenting written affi-Javits (fol. P-Tr. 2369) in Perkins were R. L. Gotchy, Paul J. Mango, Jack E. Rothfleisch, and R. M. Wilde. A Supplementary Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy was also accepted into the Perkins record following P-Tr.
2425.
Kathleen Black sponsored an affidavit originally prepared by Homer Lowenberg.
(Also fol. P-Tr. 2369).
Hubert J. Miller (P-Tr.
6_/ Citations to "P-Tr." refer to the Perkins transcript as distinguished from "Tr." citations which refer to the Jamesport transcript.
2393 et seq.), G. Wayne Kerr (P-Tr. 2476 g seq.), and John K. Lerchl (P-Tr. 2531 et seq.) also testified for the Staff in Perkins. Chauncy Kepford appeared for the Perkins Intervenors. His deposition was taken on June 3, 1978 (P-Tr. 2674 et seq.).
- 10. At the Jamesport deposition held July 27, 1978, the Appli-cants presented Leonard D. Hamilton (Tr. 9234b g seq.).
Staff witnesses were Ralph M. Wilde (Tr. 9269-9274) and R. L. Gotchy (written testimony fol. Tr. 9268). Written testimony of John K. Lerchl was incorporated into the record fol. Tr. 9268. Suffolk County presented Arthur R.
Tamplin (written testimony fol. Tr. 9327, pp.1-13).
Radioactive Liquid and Gaseous Effluents
- 11. The Commission notice which deleted the quantity of radon from Table S-3 also removed dose estimates and made it clear that the table did not include health effects. 42 Fed. Reg. 15613 (April 14, 1978).
Therefore, as previously indicated in our Order of June 1,1978, we reopened the record for the limited purpose of receiving new evidence on radon re-leases and health effects resulting from radon as well as from the other gaseous and liquid effluents listed in Table S-3.
In response, Staff wit-ness Gotchy provided written testimony entitled Carbon-14 Radiological Impact Assessment (Fol. Tr. 9268) which extended previous estimates for an environmental dose commitment period of 100 years out to 1000 years.
The extended value is incorporated into Dr. Gotchy's final results (Tables 1 and 2, Encl. 5, Supplemental Affidavit of May 10,1978). Witness Gotchy also provided tables listing curie releases of all radioactive effluents from the nuclear fuel cycle.
(Enclosure I to Supplemental Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy).
Staff witness Gotchy stated that "al-though it would be possible to reduce the entire listing of nuclides considered in S-3 and GESM0, that is not necessary since most of the radiological impact of the entire uranium fuel cycle is accounted for by relatively few radionuclides."
(Ibid at p. I-1).
Dr. Gotchy stated further that "the Rn-222 source term is of overriding importance in quantifying the radiological impact of the uranium fuel cycle."
(Ibid at p. 1-2).
No other party provided testimony on radioactive effluents other than radon in response to our order of June 1, 1978, and the statements of Dr. Gotchy quoted above were not challenged.
Consequently, we now focus on radon releases and their health effects Characteristics of Radon 12.
Radon-222 is one of the natural products of the decay of uranium-238 which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
Uranium is widespread in varying concentrations and depths throughout the continents of the world.-7/
The precursors of radon are all solids which tend to remain within the uranium ore bed.
Two of them have long half-lives --
thorium-230 with 80,000 years, and radium-226 with 1600 years.
Radon is a noble gas with a half-life of 3.8 days.
When radon is formed from the decay of radium, it diffuses through the ore and any soil covering 7/ See, for example, Chapter 6 of NCRP Report No. 45 issued November 15, 1975 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
Since this document was used by the Staff and Suffolk County, the Board takes official notice of it for the purpose of providing some of the background information in this section of our initial decision.
^
, the ore.
Due to its relatively short half-life, some of the radon decays into solids before reaching the atmosphere.
The amount of decay depends on the permeability of the soil and the depth through which the radon must diffuse. Typically, 2 feet of soil will told up radon long enough to permit about 25% of it to decay allowing 75% to escape.
(Mango, written testimony at 9). As a consequence the atmosphere everywhere contains small concentrations of naturally generated radon and its daughters -- mostly lead-210 and polonium-210 which are found in the atmosphere as aerosols.
When soil covering uranium deposits is removed for any reason, including mining, greater than normal amounts of radon escape into the atmosphere.
Conversely, if ore deposits are covered with soil, the amount of raJon escaping is reduced.
Radon Released from Mining 13.
Nearly all uranium is mined by either of two methods:
deep mining or open-pit mining.
At this time, roughly half of the uranium comes from deep mines, but this fraction is expected to increase in the future.
(See P-Tr. Lerohl, 2543; Wilde, 2551-52; Wilde, Tr. 9274).
14.
Staff witness R. M. Wilde estimated that deep mining causes the release to the atmosphere of 4060 curies (Ci) of radon per annual
-8/
fuel requirement (AFR) (fol. P-Tr. 2369, at 5).
This estimate was made 8f An AFR is either the average amount of fuel consumed by a 1000 MWe reactor operating at an 80% capacity factor for 1 year or the amount of material that must be processed at any stage in the fuel cycle to produce or dispose of that amount of fuel.
(See, e.g., Applicants' Ex. 18 at A.1).
i by multiplying the estimated concentration of radon in a mine's ventilation system exhaust times the volume of air exhausted from the mine during the time required to extract one AFR of ore (2.71 x 105 metric tons).
Mr. Wilde testified t.5at deep mines do not continue to emit radon because it is industry practice to seal ventilation and hoisting shafts of mines no longer producing uranium. Moreover, even if the shafts are not sealed, when the ventilation fans are shut down, radon releases stop for all practical purposes (Wilde, P-Tr. 2541-42).
15.
Mr. Wilde testified that the data are insufficient to predict with certainty the radon emission rates from open-pit mines.
(Fol. P-Tr., 2369, at 7).
The absence of any value for radon releases from open-pit mines led the Perkins Board to request Mr. Wilde to make a rough estimate.
(See generally P-Tr. 2543-48,2550-58).
On the basis of a number of conservative assumptions, he calculated an upper bound of approximately 100 Ci per year per AFR (Ci/yr/AFR).
(See P-Tr. 2609-13).
Mr. Wilde later confirmed the accurancy of his calcu-lation using the same assumptions.
(Tr.9273-74).
Witness Goldman for the Perkins Applicant indicated that he had made a similar calcula-tion and estimated bounding values of 100 to 200 Ci/yr/AFR.
(P-Tr.
2639-40).
16.
Perkins Intervenor Kepford used the Staff's radon release rate of 100 Ci/yr/AFR in his calculatiom.
He assumed, however, that open-pit minee Suld remain open forever (P-Tr. 2788-92).
i
- 17. Whatever the radon release rate is from an open-pit mine, the total amount of radon emitted depends on the period of time that the walls and floor of the pit remain open to the atmosphere.
(See P-Tr. Gotchy, 2547).
This period is a function of the applicable reclamation laws.
Mr. Wilde stated that, although the flRC has no regulatory power over uranium mines, nearly every state where uranium is mined has rather stringent reclamation laws governing open-pit mines.
For example, Wyoming requires that the land be returned to a condition such that it can be used for an equal or higher purpose after mining than that for which it was used prior to mining.
(P-Tr. Wilde, 2556; P-Tr. Goldman, 2639).
Radon Released from Milling
- 18. After mining, uranium ore is processed in a mill to remove most of the uranium from the ore, leaving the other materials including radon precursors thorium and radium in the tailings.
Staff witness Mango estimated a release of about 30 curies per AFR.
(Mango, p. 2-3, P-Tr.
2559-2560).
Following milling, the tailings are piled in the open within dikes.
Mr. Mango estimates that approximately 750 curies of radon per AFR will be released from the tailings during the period of active mill operation which he took to be 26 years.
During this period, a portion of tne toilings pond is composed of wet pon'! area, wet sandy beach areas and some dry beach areas.
Radon is released principally from the dry beaches (Mango, p. 3-4).
During the next five years while the tailings piles dry out, Mr. Mango estimates the release of an additional 350 curies of radon per AFR.
(Mango, p. 6). Thus, the total release during the period of active mill operation is about 1130 curies of radon per AFR.
This value was accepted as reasonable by the Perkins Applicant's witness (Goldman, p.1) and was not challenged by Intervenors' witnesses in either the Perkins or the Jamesport proceedings.
19.
Following the active period, Mr. Mango assumes that the tailings will be covered with sufficient overburden to reduce radon releases to about twice natural background in the surrounding environ-ment.
This assumption is based on a recently developed NRC Staff branch position which applies to all mills licensed by the NRC. A number of mills may be located in agreement States and would thus be subject to State rather than NRC regulatory control.
However, Mr.
Kerr, Assistant Director for State Agreements in NRC's Office of State Programs, testified that those agreement States in which uranium milling activities are carried out have provided the NRC with commitments to impose stabilization requirements equivalent to those described by the Staff (P-Tr. 2477-2480, 2483, 2485.
See also footnote 5 of the Commission's notice regarding radon, 43 Fed. Reg. 15613).
20.
Under these stabilized conditions, Staff estimates a release of about one curie per year per AFR for the first 100 years.
Then assuming some degradation of the overburden, about 10 Ci/yr/AFR for the next 400 years and about 100 Ci/yr/AFR for the next 500 years (Gotchy, Tr. 9271).
In contrast, Suffolk County witness Dr. Tamplin assumed a release of approximately 100 Ci/yr/AFR based on an earlier Staff estimate given in NUREG-0002 at page IV H-24.
(Tamplin affi-davit at p.1, Tr. 9271.) Staff witnesses Wilde and Gotchy testi-fied that the Staff estimates provided for Perkins and Jamesport represented revisions since the publication of NUREG-0002 which are based on the improved stabilization requirements described in the preceding paragraph (Tr. 9271-9272). Moreover, Dr. Gotchy referred to a recent report prepared by Colorado State University (not offered into evidence) which estimates that tailings piles stabilized to meet the recent NRC branch position would remain stable for about 2000 years (Tr. 9273).-9/If so, the release would re.nain at about one Ci radon /yr/
AFR (Tr. 9272).
9/ We note the enactment of the " Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978".
Act of November 8, 1978, Pub. L. No.95-604.
One purpose of the Act is to provide a program to regulate mill tailings during uranium or thorium ore processing at active mill operations as well as after termination of such milling operations in eder to stabi-lize and control these tailings in a safe and environmentally sound manner and to minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public.
Said Act provides, inter alia, that licensees will comply with decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation standards prescribed by the NRC and that Agreement States will comply with public health, safety and environmental standards which are equivalent to or more stringent than standards adopted and enforced by the NRC.
21.
Dr. Gotchy's testimony discusses at length his reasons for his conclusion that he cannot predict radon release rates and therefore health effects into the distant future.
These reasons include the probability of drastic geological and climactic changes, shifts in population distribution, famines, plagues, wars and advance-ments in cancer prevention and cure.
(Gotchy affidavit, p. 11-13, and Gotchy Supplemental Affidavit, IV IV-20).
Transport u.i Radiological Dose of Radon and Its Daughters 22.
Staff uses a simple wedge model to estimate the concentra-tion and uptake of radon (and its daughters formed from the decay of radon in the 6tmosphere) under the assumption of prevailing westerly winds. At any down wind distance, the model predicts a uniform con-centration from the surface to an altitude of 1000 meters.-10/
Population density is assumed to increase exponentially as a function of distance down wind and to be uniform in the cross wind direc ion. As a consequence, population dose is irdependent of the wedge angle.
Staff then assumes a 10]
In its notice amending 10 C.F.R. Part 51 to remove from Table S-3 the quantity and effects of radon released, the Commission chose to leave this matter open to litigation in individual proceedings in part so that experience with various approaches may be gathered as a possible basis for generic rule later on (43 Fed. Reg. 15613).
In this spirit, the Board offers the following observation.
NCRP Report 45 states that the concentration of radon in the atmosphere diminishes with altitude, infers that it diminishes exponentially as does air density itself, and cites one investigation in which a half-depth of 700 meters was determined (Para. 6.4.1, p. 81).
With this information it is possible to calculate the surface concentration per unit of release and compare with that of the Staff's wedge model with a cap of 1000 meters.
Out of curiosity, we made that calculation and found that both models predicted the same surface concentration.
constant U.S. population of 300 million people, uses conversion factors from NCRP-45 and determines a population dose to the bronchial epithe-lium of 560 man-rem per 1000 curies released.
(Supplemental Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy, p. III-14).
Similarly, the population dose to the whole lung would be ten times less, or 56 man-rem per 1000 curies.
Whole b'dy dose would be about 26 man-rem per 1000 curies and bone dose about 680 man-rem per 1000 curies (Ibid, Table 1, fol. p. III-16.
See also Table 6, Gotchy Affidavit, p. 15).
23.
Dr. Tamplin makes no attempt to model the transport of radon but simply uses figures from NCRP-45 relating naturally occurring emination rates of radon (1 x 108 Ci/yr.) to individual doses of 3 mrem /yr to soft tissue and 6 mrem /yr to the gonads with higher doses to the bone and lung.
He then uses an average dose of 5 mrem for this 11/
affidavit.-~(Tamplin affidavit, p. 2).
Then assuming an initial release l_1/ From these figures one can.umpute a whole body (soft tissug)ersons dose of 9 0 man-rem per 1000 curies released.
(0.003 rem /yr x 3 x 10 p 8
+ 10 Ci/yr.)
Thus the Staff's estimate for whole body is about three times higher than Dr. Tamplin's. Moreover, Staff's estimates of cancer induction are not confined to whole body dose but add to that lung and bone cancers from doses to those organs.
In fact, the total number of cancers estimated by the Staff is about 5.7 times that resulting from whole body irradiation alone.
(Table 4, p. 8 Gotchy affidavit of March 28,1978).
We have not found that this difference was explored during cross-examination.
Be that as it may, this difference is small in comparison with other factors and assumptions used by Dr. Tamplin which makes his final results much higher than those of the Staff.
p., -...r.
r. ~. rate of 200 curies of radon per year which diminishes exponentially but very slowly with the half-life of the thorium parent (80,000 years), Dr. Tamplin then computes the dose to a population of 300 million people from now to infinity.
The population dose thus cal-culated is extremely high, viz., 3.6 x 105 man-rem per annual Jamesport fuel requirement.
(Tamplin Affidavit, p. 2).
This is equivalent to integrating at a constant release rate of 200 curies /yr. for 120,000 years.
Dr. Tamplin then multiplies this result by an assumed 40 years operating life for Jamesport and by $1,000 per man-rem to obtain a cost of 14 billion dollars.
Health Effects from Radon 24.
Having estimated the quantities of radon released from mining / milling, and then estimated the population exposure per unit of radon released, the parties next turn to the estimation of health effects per unit of population exposure.
In this extremely difficult matter, both Staff and Intervenor Suffolk County rely heavily on the BEIR report, at least as a point of departure.-12/Since there are no directly applicable human data in the range of interest, (natural 12/ "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation", Report of the Advisory Conmittee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (commonly known as the BEIR report), Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Coun-cil Nov. 1972.
Since both Staff and Intervenor Suffolk County rely on the BEIR report at least as a point of departure, since the subject matter is clearly within the NRC's area of expertise, and since the Board has found reference to it very helpful in understanding the evi-dence of record, we take official notice of the BEIR report.
background levels) the BEIR committee assumes that there is no thres-hold and that the point of no effect corresponds to the point of zero exposure.
The Committee then derives risk estimators or ratios of number of effects per unit of population dose from available data at much higher levels of radiation dose.
The Committee assumes that these ratios hold (remain constant) all the way down to zero exposure dose.
This approach is commonly known as the linear theory.
Both Staff and Intervenor Suffolk County assume there is no threshold and both take premature death due to radiation induced cancer and genetic effects as appropriate measure of health effects.
However, the numeri-cal values of risk estimators selected by Staff and Suffolk County are markedly different.
25.
Staff makes separate estimates of cancer for whole body, lung (bronchial epithelium) and bone exposures and uses estimators of 135, 22.2 and 6.9 deaths per million man-rem respectively.
It is important to note here that in this context, the word rem refers to the energy per unit mass deposited in the organ to which the risk estimator applies.
Staff's cancer risk estimators were taken from WASH-1400 and GESM0 (NUREG-0002) and are so-called absolute risk estimators that are based on estimated latent periods followed by periods of increased risk (plateaus).
(Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy, p. 7).
The distribution of energy deposited within the body resulting from inhalation of radon and its daughters is different than that from exposure to total background radiation from all sources.
For this reason Staff conputes expected number of cancers separately for each critical organ and then sums the results.
Nevertheless, a direct comparison with the'BEIR report can be made for whole body exposure.
The BEIR Committee esti-mates range from 2,000 to 9,000 cancer deaths per year from exposure of a population of 200 million people to a natural background dose of 0.1 rem / year / person.
The wide range results from the choice of para-meters and the model used.
The most probable value is stated to be 3000 to 4000 cancer deaths per year.
(BEIR Repu t at p. 90.
See also Gotchy, Tr. 9312).
Stated in the same risk estimator terms as used by the Staff gives a most probable range of 150-200 cancers per million man-rem whole body exposure.
This compares with Staff's figure of 135 cancers per million man-rem whole body.
Dr. Gotchy states that the somewhat lower value of the Staff's estimator results in part from correction of an error in the BEIR Report.
(Tr. 9313-14). Additional comparisons between the risk estimators from the BEIR Report and from WASH-1400 as used by the Staff are discussed during the cross-examination of Dr. Gotchy by Dr. Tamplin and indicate close agreement.
(Tr. 9212-9216).
26.
Utilizing the above described ratios for estimating exposure dose and cancer incidence per unit dose, Dr. Gotchy provides the results per AFR in Table 4 of his March 28, 1978 affidavit.
- 27. When applied to the proposed Jamesport facility which would require 2.3 AFRs/yeu and operate for an assumed 40 years, the following results are obtained in terms of premature deaths from induced cancers.
Total from mining and milling prior to stabilization:
10 deaths.
For the first 100 years (at 1.0 curie / year /AFR) from staoi-lized tailings piles:
2.3 deaths.
In a footnote to Table 4, Dr. Gotchy states that had EPA risk estimators been used (which are based on the relative risk model rather than the absolute risk model), the number of lung cancers would be increased by factors of cbout 1.6 to 2.5 depending on the assumptions used.
28.
By similar methods, Dr. Gotchy also estimates the number of genetic effects from exposure to radon and finds that there is about one genetic effect for every three cancers.
(Supplemental Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy, p. IV-5, and Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy, March 28, 1978, pp. 8, 9 and 10).
29.
As an alternative means of gauging health effects, Dr.
Gotchy also computes and compares the nuclear and coal fuel cycles in terms of expected life shortening.
He finds that the risk of life shortening from coal is at least 530 times greater than for nuclear.
(Supplemental Affidavit of R. L. Gotchy, p. IV-16 through IV-19).
30.
As a final step in comparing the health effects from nuclear and coal plants with equivalent electrical output, Dr. Gotchy incorporates his new estimates from radon exposure into previously determined effects from other nuclear fuel cycle effluents.
Results
_ given in Table 6 and Enclosure 5 to the Supplemental Affidavit of Dr. Gotchy clearly show that the nuclear fuel cycle is much less damaging than the coal fuel cycle.
Dr. Gotchy recognizes that there are large uncertainties inherent in most of his estimates of health effects from the coal cycle.
However, he points out that the impact of transportation of coal is based on firm statistics.
(Summary and conclusions, Encl. 5, Gotchy Supplemental Affidavit, fol. Tr. 9268).
His estimate of 1.2 deaths in the general public due to the transpor-tation of coal (Table Ib, Gotchy supplemental testimony, fol. Tr. 8687) is twice as high as his lower estimate of deaths for the entire fuel cycle (Table 1, Enclosure 5, Gotchy Supplemental Testimony, fol. Tr.
9268).
This lower estimate includes active mining and milling plus 100 years release from stabilized tailings piles (0.11 cancers from Table 4, Gotchy Affidavit of March' 28,1978 plus the 0.48 deaths pre-viously estimated and shcwn in Table 1 of Gotchy Supplemental Testi-many, fol. Tr. 8687).
31.
In estimating health effects, SC witness Tamplin first quotes the range of BEIR estimators of 100-450 induced cancers and 30-750 genetic defects per million man-rem to the whole body.
Dr.
Tamplin then argues that even the upper estimate of the BEIR Report for cancer indrtion may be too low, possibly by a factor of at least ten.
First, he states that the upper estimate is based on the relative risk model (rather than the absolute risk model used by the Staff) and presents his reasons for preferring the relative risk model.
On the basis of his interpretation of several scientific papers (published for the most part since the BEIR Report was issued in 1972), Dr. Tamplin then argues that the BEIR estimators are too low and expressed the opinion "that the cancer induction rate for low dose / low dose rate irradiation is:
900-9000 induced cancers /1,000,000 person-rem".
(Tamplin Affidavit, pp. 3-10).
Regarding genetic effects, Dr. Tamplin expresses the belief that the BEIR estimators are icw by a factor of 8.
(Tamplin Affidavit, p. 13).
The papers to which Dr.
Tamplin refers in support of his conclusions include those of Bross, Mancuso, Archer, Rotblat and Pochin.
(Tamplin Affidavit, pp. 6-10).
32.
Testimony of Dr. Hamilton on behalf of the Perkins and Jamesport Applicants as well as that of Dr. Gotchy for the Staff reect an entirely different view of these papers. With respect to the work of Dr. Bross and Dr. Archer, Dr. Hamilton's testimony des-cribes certain characteristics of these works which lead him to the conclusion that they are flawed.
(P-Tr. 2643-2647, 2649-2651; Tr.
9250-9256).
Dr. Gotchy also discusses certain defects in the Archer paper (Tr. 9298-9307).
- 33. With respect to the article by Dr. Pochin, the record indicates that two witnesses, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Tamplin, reach significantly different inferences from the article.
(Cf. Tamplin Affidavit, p. 10 with Tr. 9238-9242).
However, Dr. Tamplin did not discuss in his testimony what materials contained in that article lead him to conclude that the article demonstrates that risk estimates based on the BEIR Committee Report are inadequate.
In short, the Pochin article is simply used by Dr. Tamplin as a reference without any discussion of the information contained therein upon which Tamplin draws the conclusion that the article demonstrates that the BEIR Com-mittee Report estimates are inadequate.
- 34. With respect to the so-called Mancuso report, Dr. Tamplin again asserts that the information in this report demonstrates that estimates based upon the BEIR Committee Report underestimate the effect of low dose radiation.
However, with respect to the Mancuso report, the record in this proceeding is principally one of secondary information.
Dr. Tamplin asserts that the report shows to him that low dose radia-tion has a greater effect than that estimated from the BEIR Committee Report (Affidavit, pp. 7-10, Tr. 9383-9404), whereas Dr. Hamilton indicates that the report has insufficient information to lead him to any such conclusion (Tr. 9245-9251).
Similarly, Dr. Gotchy indi-cates that further information concerning the report is needed to reach any conclusion (Tr. 9311,9321-9323).
35.
Neither the Perkins nor the Jamesport Applicants attempt to estimate health effects from radon.
Rather, Perkins witness Hamilton, who, although agreeing that Dr. Gotchy's estimates were reasonable and conservative based upon the data he used (Hamilton testimony, page 1, following P-Tr. p. 2266, and Tr. p. 2270), felt that calculating health effects based upon such extremely low level exposure was not truly meaningful as repair mechanisms were not taken into account (P-Tr.
- p. 2271).
Dr. Hamilton also decried extrapolations of health effects into the distant future as being misleading (P-Tr. p. 2275).
- Rather, Dr. Hamilton expressed the view that the problem should be addressed in terms of increase in Radon-222 that a person is going to get from the nuclear fuel cycle in terms of the fractional increase in natural background radiation from Radon-222 to which every living person is exposed (P-Tr.
- p. 2275).
Dr. Hamilton concluded that the average annual dose to be the broncial epithelium from Radon-222 from natural sources is 165 millirad per year (P-Tr. p. 2276).
Dr. Hamilton calculates that one year's operation of a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant at 0.65 capacity factor would increase natural background Radon-222 by 0.15 part per million or an increased dose to the bronchial epithelium of 0.00025 i
millirem per year (P-Tr. 2277).
Dr. Hamilton considered that increases in Radon-222 of this magnitude "make an additional negligible contri-bution to annual natural background radiation and consequently, a similarly negligible impact on the health effects associated with the fuel cycle" (Hamilton testimony, pp. 2 and 3, fol. P-Tr. p. 2266).
In response to questioning by the Perkins Board, Dr. Hamilton testi-fied that variations in normal living style, traveling about the country, going indoors or outdoors, result in doses that are many orders of magnitude greater than the increase in dose resulting from Radon-222 emanating from tailings (P-Tr. 2322 and 2333).
Dr. Hamilton concluded that these low levels of exposure are " completely insignifi-cant and without any reality" (P-Tr. 2323).
For comparison, Dr.
Hamilton (P-Tr. 2322) referred to some calculations provided Dr.
Goldman which compared radon exposure from natural outdoor background radiation to that from indoor background.
These calculations show that the entire lung dose from radon projected for 500 years could be offset by reducing the average time spent indoors by the U.S. popula-tion by less than 10 minutes over a 500-ycar period.
(Goldman,p.
8-10, fol. P-Tr. 2266).
36.
Perkins witness Goldman pointed out that uranium mining /
milling was by no means unique either as a source of radon or an activity with very long term associated health effects.
For example, phosphate fertilizers used widely in agriculture contain small amounts of radium which are the source of some of the radon background concen-trations in the United States.
III.
OPINION Health Effects of Coal 37.
The Board recognizes as does the Staff that there are many areas of uncertainty associated with the estimation of health effects resulting from the coal cycle.
For some of these effects, we can envision that future laws, technological advances and improved practices may well lower Staff's current estimates.
On the other hand, we note t1at Staff estimates do not include many sources such as the emission in stack gases of radon, radium and other toxicants and corcenogens, their release into surface water or their leaching into ground water.
In view of the fact that Staff's current esti-mates show that health effects from the coal cycle are much greater than for the nuclear cycle, especially when measured in terms of life shortening, we believe it quite improbable that resolution of all uncertainties would alter the final coal / nuclear comparison (Fdg. 29, 30).
Health Effects of Effluents Other Than -Radon 38.
Excepting radon which we discuss below, we accept Staff's estimates for all other nuclear fuel cycle effluents including Carbon 14 since they were derived using thorough, detailed and reasonable methods (Fdg. 11).
Radon Releases from Mining 39.
The Board accepts the Staff's estimate of 4060 curies of radon per AFR released from deep mines as reasonable in that (1) it is based on field measurements and experience, and (2) it is not challenged by Suffolk County.
(Fdg. 14).
We also believe that radon emissions from open-pit mines can and will be held to amounts equal to or less than that for deep mines.
The evidence of record is that, during the active mining phase before recovery is accomplished, radon release will be from 100 to 200 curies per year per AFR (Fdg.15).
Hence, if the open-pit is filled and recovered within 20 years, the release will not exceed that from deep mines.
The Board considers it highly probable that Federal and State laws and/or regulatory actions will require the reclamation of all currently active and future open-pit mines follow-ing (or concurrent with) active mining operations to a condition such that further radon releases will be effectively eliminated.
The fact that most states in which uranium mining occurs already have strict reclamation laws supports this view.
Moreover, we take note of the
" Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977", Section 10P.,
30 U.S.C.1202, which states that one of its purposes is to " assure that adequate procedures are undertaken to reclaim surface areas as con-temporaneously as possible with the surface coal mining operations".
Although it pertains to coal, we believe that this Act foretells a national policy which will deal with all surface mining operations.
We have already noted the recent enactment of the " Uranium Mill Tail-ings Radiation Control Act of 1978", Pub. L. No.95-604.
Having taken this action to assure that the release of radon from tailings piles is held to acceptable levels in order to protect public health, the Con-gress can be expected, in our view, to assure that similar precautions are required for open-pit uranium mines.
Finally, we take note of the
" Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976", Section 8002, 42 U.S.C. 6982.
This Act requires the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, inter alia, to conduct a detailed and comprehensive study on the adverse effects of solid wastes from active and abandoned surface mines on public health and to identify means of utilizing mining wastes to prevent or substantially mitigate such adverse effects.
This act also requires the EPA to establish and promulgate standards defining hazardous wastes and for treatment and disposal of them as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Until these standards are prescribed by the Administrator, it is not entirely clear whether this Act will result in a requirement for recovery of uranium surface mines.
It is clear that the Congress is mindful of the need to control mines so as to protect the public health and is not adverse to assuring that that need is met through the enactment of public law.
(Fdg. 15, 16, 17).
Radon Releases from Milling 40.
Since it appears to be reasonably derived and is the sole estimate of record, the Board accepts Staff's estimate of 1130 curies radon /AFR from active milling and from the tailings piles prior to stabilization (Fdg. 18).
In view of the recently developed Staff require:acnts for the stabilization of uranium mill tailings for mills licensed by the NRC, the commitment of agreement states to impose equivalent requirements, and the provisions of the " Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978", this Board finds that uranium mill tailings can and will be stabilized so as to limit long term radon release to approximately one curie per year per AFR.
(Fdg.
18,19,20).
Population Dose 41.
Once radon is emitted from mining / milling sites, the next step in determining health effects is to estimate population exposure dose.
To do that, Staff has modeled separately its transport, the amounts of radon and its daughters taken up by man through various pathways, and the distribution of energy deposited within various organs of the body from the decay of radon and its daughters.
In con-trast, Dr. Tamplin has considered the radon released from mining / milling simply to add to that already present as natural background and to use lumped parameters to estimate population dose.
Had Dr. Tamplin then used the same estimators as the Staff, his estimate of resultant cancers would have been lower by a factor of about 10 as we calculate it. At this juncture, we can only conclude that Staff's approach appears to be more reliable in that it follows the process in a step by step fashion and, in our view, employs reasonable assumptions for each step.
But as we next discuss, that difference is more than offset by the choice of risk estimators employed.
(Fdg. 22, 23).
Health Effects 42.
In estimating the number of cancers and genetic effects from a given population dose, Dr. Gotchy uses risk estimators which are quite cicse to the mid-range values of the BEIR report.
For a variety of reasons, Dr. Tamplin asserts his belief that the BEIR (and thus the Staff's) estimators are much too low for low dose / low dose rate irradia-tion and should be increased by factors from 9 to 20.
(Tamplin affidavit:
compare p. 2 with p.10).
Similarly, he believes the BEIR estimators for genetic consequences are low by factors of 8 to 27.
(Ibid, compare
- p. 2 with p. 13).
The record before us thus consists of the opinions of a few experts testifying for Suffolk County that the BEIR estimators are too low, of an expert for both the Perkins and Jamesport Applicants who testified that the BEIR report overestimates the effect, and the expert opinion of Staff witness Gotchy who used estimators very close to those of the BEIR report.
In view of these differing expert opinions, we rely heavily upon the BEIR report because (1) it was sponsored by the Federal Radiation Council, (2) the BEIR Committee expressly recognized the need to make comparisons of biological risks for nuclear plants vs.
those from the combustion products from fossil fuel plants, (3) the Committee consisted of a large number of highly qualified members, and finally, the BEIR report reflects that its members endeavored to ensure that no sources of relevant knowledge or expertise were overlooked.
We recognize as does the BEIR Committee that important new evidence has been generated in the last six years, e 9, additional 2
follow-up studies of cancer incidence of fetuses and young children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We understand that the BEIR Committee is now reviewing this new information and expects to publish 'a new report shortly.
Until that report is published, however, the Board believes that the most prudent course is to rely on the conclusions and recom-modations expressed in the 1972 BEIR report.
Consequently, we find the estimates of health effects presented by the Staff to be the most reliable.
(Fdg. 22-35.)
By far the widest divergence of opinion among the parties relates to the question of how far out in the future one should attempt to esti-mate, sum up, and charge as a cost against the proposed facility, the health effects from radon emitted from stabilized mines and mills.
Both Dr. Kepford and Dr. Tamplin-for the Perkins and Jamesport Intervenors integrated to infinity.
Dr. Gotchy, en the other hand, believes it quite impossible to make defensible estimates beyond 1000 years at most.
In light of the extremely low individual doses, Dr. Hamilton believes the whole attempt to make such calculations is misleading and meaning-less.
He states that he cannot believe that such tiny individual doses have any probability of doing harm and that summing up such tiny doses over very large numbers of people and over very long periods of time is a misuse of the linear theory which produces results which are illusory and without any reality.
In considering these divergent views, the Board has found it helpful to separate the releases and health effects resulting from active mining and milling from those stemming from the slow-releases following stabilization. horeover, we think it instructive to divide time into 50 year increments or periods.
During what we shall call the present 50 year period, the whole process of mining, milling, stabilization, and consumption of nuclear fuel occurs.
Health effects attributable to that period are clearly assignable to the costs of the proposed nuclear plant. All the direct benefits from that plant are also realized during the present 50 year period.
Moveover, the health effects estimated for the present 50 year period are much higher than for any 50 year period to follow.
Accepting tne Staff's estimate of a little over 5000 curies of radon released during the present period, and choosing as we do a value of about 1.0 curie per year released after stabilization (as does Staff for the first 100 years), it follows that releases during successive 50 year periods are only one percent of those during the present 50 year period.
Of course, there are no direct benefits (i.e., electrical power) to people living during successive 50 year periods but there are indirect benefits.
This is especially so, as ir Jamesport, where the maintenance of a healthy socio-economic structure during the present period may be difficult and quite possibly impossible without the electrical output of the nuclear plant.
(See, for example, Finding 145, p. 883, and footnote 58, p. 927, of our Partial Initirl Decision, 7 NRC 826).
There is another reason for preferring to think in terms of 50 year periods.
Dr. Gotchy has expressed at length the great difficulty in making health effects estimates out into the distant future (although to be conservative, he does so through twenty future 50 year periods, i.e., 1000 years).
But we find it unrealistic to place reliance on forecasts out even to the end of the present 50 year period, i.e.,
out to about the year 2030.
It is our view that the current socio-economic structure results largely from the fact that petroleum has been abundantly available and at low prices.
We believe it highly probable that this underlying basis will be drastically changed in the United States before the end of the present 50 year period.
But even if all reasonable precautions are taken (such as the substitution of nuclear for oil fueled electrical generating plants and the accele-rated use of solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal power), and ignoring the possibility of war over the last dwindling supplies of oil, we believe that the structure of society will change markedly.
Thus, if our judgment proves correct in this respect, speculating into future 50 year periods would be extremely shaky at best.
However, to say that a health effect can be ignored simply because its prediction is difficult and unreliable is not by itself very satisfying.
But as it turns out, health effects as estimated by all parties for any 50 year period are so low following stabilization that we are not overly concerned should the future prove us wrong.
Dr. Gotchy estimates that the release of 50 curies of radon, i.e., one curie per year over a 50 year period, would result in about 0.01 cancers within a total population of 300 million people.
Thus the individual risk per AFR is about one chance in 30 billion during a 50 year period.
In terms of Jamesport, the release and effect would be about 100 times higher for a 40 year operating life so that about one premature cancer death would be expected.
By contrast, as derived from Table 6 of the Gotchy supplemental affidavit, some 100 deaths from lightening strikes during the same 50 year period would be expected within the population of Long Island alone (3 million vs. a U.S. population of 300 million).
We note further that NCRP Report 45 states at page 89 that users of natural gas in the home receive a radon dose from that source of about 2% of that from radon in the natural background.
Assuming that several hundred thousand persons on Long Island utilize natural gas in their homes, we compute that the dose and health effect to those people per year is considerably greater than the dose and health effect to the whole U. S. population from a 100 curie per year release which might be attributable to Jamesport stabilized mines and mills.
(0ver the first 1000 years following stabilization, Dr. Gotchy uses an aver-age of about 50 curies /yr/AFR, i.e., about 100 curies / year for James-port.
As stated above, we believe that the release would be about 2 curies / year for Jamesport).
In summary then, this Board finds that the health effect from the slow seepage of radon from stabilized mines and mills is extremely low in comparison not only with radon in the natural background but with other low risks, both natural and man made, which we consider negligible.
For all the reasons discussed above, we conclude that attempts to estimate health effects following stabilization by summing miniscule risks over large populations for long periods into an unknown future are meaningless, misleading and unnecessary.
Thus we believe Dr. Gotchy's estimates out to 1000 years results in an overestimate of health effects.
Even so, his final comparisons with the present generation health effects from coal shows that nuclear is much less damaging.
We reach this same finding.
(Fdg. 20, 21, 23, 27-30, 35).
In this connecticn we now consider SC's supplementary proposed findings (paragraphs 20 and 21) on health effects costs attributable to radon emissions resulting from Jamesport which are based on Dr. Tamplin's testimony (fol. Tr. 9327).
First Dr. Tamplin used the Staff's outdated estimate of radon releases which have been revised downward substantially to reflect application of t1RC criteria on stabilization of tailings piles (Tr. 9271).
Second, he summed the radon releases over an infinite period which over the assumed 40 year life of the Jamesport reactors 7
yielded a total dose commitment of some 1.4 x 10 person rems.
- Finally, he applied the $1,000/ person rem value from 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I-,
to calculate the monetized health effects cost of Jamesport at $14 billion.
For reasons stated above, we consider it unrealistic to integrate health effects from stabilized tailings piles for over 50-100 years, and much more so over infinity.
Furthennore, the use of the $1000 person rem
(
i value is applicable only to isotope emissions from LWR reactors as clearly stated by the Commission when it issued Appendix I.
For these reasons we find the referenced Suffolk County supple-mentary proposed findings without merit.
(Fdg. 23).
~
IV.
COST-BENEFIT BALANCE 43.
In our Partial Initial Decision, we concluded for a number of reasons that the proposed Jamesport plant was needed.
Alternate sites for the plant were explored and the Board found the proposed site to be the preferable choice.
(Fdg. 244, PID). We also explored several pos-sible alternative means of generating power and found that they were not viable.
These included purchased power, solar and wind power, refuse derived power, conservation, and a combination of these pos-sibilities.
(Fdgs124-130,PID).
An oil fueled plant was never suggested by any party as a realistic alternative. We also found that a nuclear plant was more desirable than a coal firad plant on the basis of economy and fuel availability (Fdgs. 249,250,258 and 275, PID).
Moreover, we have now determined that the health effects from the coal fuel cycle are higher than those from the nuclear fuel cycle for compar-able electrical output.
(See Section III, supra).
Therefore, we conclude that a coal burning plant is less desirable on all counts.
Moreover, we explored in depth alternative means of unusable heat disposal and found the proposed once-through cooling cycle to be preferable (Fdg. 264, PID).
Costs were weighed against benefits in arriving at all of these conclusions.
44.
The costs and benefits of the proposed Jamesport plant were thoroughly considered in determining the need for the plant, i.e.,
in balancing against the alternative of not providing a new central generating plant of any kind.
(Fdgs.104-145,284-297,PID).
Having now reevaluated the probable health effects associated with the operation of the Jamesport plant and the fuel cycle which supports it, we reaffirm our conclusion that the plant is needed and that the bene-fits to be derived from it outweigh all associated costs.
(Section III, supra).
V.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, 7 NRC 826 (1978) -
1.
The Board has considered all of the extensive documentary and oral evidence presented by the parties to this proceeding.
Those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties which are not incorporated directly or inferentially in this initial decision are rejected as being unsupported in law or as being unnecessary to the rendering of this decision.
Based upon our review of the entire record in this proceed-ing and the foregoing findings as well as the findings in the Partial Initial Decision, and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.10(e) and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 of the Commission's regulations, the Board has concluded as follows:
The application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information and that the review of the application by the Staff has been adequate to support the following.
2.
We find that:
A.
The Environmental review conducted by the Staff pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been adequate; B.
The requirements of Section 102(2)(C) anddD) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 have been complied with in this proceeding; C.
The Board has weighed the environmental, economic and other costs of the proposed facility and has independently considered the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of this proceeding, and having considered available alternatives in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the Board determines that the appro-priate action to be taken is issuance of construction permits for the proposed Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, subject to the conditions for the protec-tion of the environment set out in the Staff's proposed 3.3/
construction permits and as extended by the Board.
13/ Attachment A hereto is the form of the Construction Permit for Unit 1.
Tiie form of the Construction Permit for Unit 2 will be identical, except that the earliest and latest completion dates for Unit 2, specified in paragraph 3A of the permit for that unit will be July, 1988 and July, 1992 respectively.
VI.
ORDER On the basis of the Board's findings and conclusions in its partial initial decision and this initial decision, and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission's rules and regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized to issue permits to the Applicants to con-struct the Jamesport plant consistent with the terms of the partial initial decision and this initial decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 55 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, 2.786 (1977), as amended, 43 Fed. Reg. 17,798 (1978) that this initial decision shall beconie effective immediately and shall constitute, with respect to the matters covered therein, the final action of the Commission forty-five (45) days after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Exceptions to this initial decision may be filed by any party within ten (10) days after service of this initial deci-sion.
Within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff) any party filing such exceptions shall file a brief in support thereof.
Within thirty (30) days of the filing of the brief of the Appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~~'
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Member u / h,/,, /
J
~
..(
i Ralph,5. Decker, Member
.0A M \\D Mk Sheldon J. Scife, Esqt' ire Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of December,1978.