ML19263F003
| ML19263F003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Sterling, 05000484, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1979 |
| From: | Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263F000 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910190249 | |
| Download: ML19263F003 (13) | |
Text
.'
h ocCKETEo us e 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CJ-JUL 21979 >
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 80AIEFA CNi:e ef tha Secret:ry 4
V Dcdating & Service In the Matters of Branch g
v PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al'.
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
50-278 Units 2and3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
)
Docket No.
50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
PURLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
50-355 Units 1 and 2)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY et al.
)
Docket No. STN 50-484 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC Docket No. STN 50-485 CORPORATION et al.
)
(Sterling Power Project,
)
Nuclear Unit 1)
)
INTERVENORS' ANSWER TO THE MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION As a result of ALAB-540, the Applicants in these proceedings filed a joint motion for summary disposition on radon (" Joint Applicants' Motion")
and the NRC Staff filed a motion for partial summary disposition on radon emissions attributable to the mining and milling of uranium ore outside of the United States (" Staff Motion"). The Intervenors in the Three Mile Island, Unit 2,and Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, proceedings ("Intervenors") file the following answer in opposition to the Joint Appl'icants' and Staff Motions.
In conjunction with this answer, the Intervenors are also filing an affidavit of Dr. Chauncey Kepford which sets forth their statement of the facts as to
( Of which there is a material dispute.
0
,1 L
791019 270 OSS;-
24 W 2220 032
. First we note that the Joint Applicants' Motion must summarily be denied because it fails to address numerous deficiencies in the Perkins record that have been previously noted by the TMI-2 and/or the Peach Bottom Intervenors.
In footnote one of page 2 of the Joint Applicants' "Brief In Support of Licensee's Joint Motion for Sumary Disposition," the Joint Applicants state the erronecus proposition that "the Intervenors in Sterling and Tyrone are the only intervenors to have alleged that there are any deficiencies in the Perkins, record." All materials submitted by the Joint Applicants in support of their motion are similarly restricted to the deficiencies noted by the Sterling and Tyrone intervenors.
The Joint Applicants' Motion therefore can at most be viewed as a motion for partial sumary disposition on certain radon issues, since it does not even attempt to discuss the Pakins deficiencies previously noted by the THI-2 and/or Peach Bottom Intervenors.
This omission by the Joint Applicants is of no small consequence, since many of the most important deficiencies in the Perkins record have been noted only in previous filings by Dr. Chauncey Kepford, who represents the TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors. Numerous documents by Dr. Kepford were filed sub-stantially prior to the Joint Applicants' Motion and concern deficiencies in the approach which the Perkins Licensing Board assumed towards the radon emissions problem. The following three filings by Dr. Kepford specifically requested that the NRC Staff circulate such documents to the parties in this consolidated radon proceeding to assure a more complete ventilation of the radon emissions issue:
1.
The TMI-2 "Intervenors' Response To Staff Motion of April 27, 1978. To Consoi'1 ate Proceedings," dated May 6, 1978, at page 9.
2.
The TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors' "In Response To the De Minimus Theory and ALAB-509," dated February 19, 1979, at pages 3-4.
2220 033 Lo e s h,s
3 3.
The TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors' " Response to the Peach Bottom Licensee's Response on De Minimuser, dated April 11, 1979, at pages 5-6.
Furthermore, the July 27, 1978, submission by the TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors ("Intervenors' Response on the Acceptability of the Perkins Evidentiary Record"), as well as these Intervenors' critique of the Perkins' de minimus theory (dated February 19, 1979), note deficiencies in the specific treatment accorded the radon issue by the Perkins Licensing Board.
Ironically, ti.e Feach Bottom and Hope Creek Applicants, in their April 4,1979, response to Dr. Kepford's February 19, 1979, critique of the de minimus theory, them-selves admit (at pages 4-5) that much of Dr. Kepford's February 19, 1979, critique goes beyond the narrow confines of the de minimus theory and addresses the broader issue of the adequacy of the Perkins record. The irony here is that these same Applicants now join with the other Joint Applicants and choose to ignore numerous factual issues raised in Dr. Kepford's filings,in an attempt to restrict their Motion For Summary Disposition to the somewhat more limited set of concerns raised by the Sterling and Tyrone Intervenors.
The deficiencies noted by Dr. Kepford were formally brought to the attention of the Staff and Joint Applicants and cannot be ignored. The primary burden of proof in these proceedings rests squarely with the Staff and the Joint Applicants, not with the various Intervenors.
See, e.g., the February 19, 1979, filing by Dr. Kepford ("In Response to the De Minimus Theory and ALAB-509"), at pages 5-8.
The Joint Applicants have repeatedly been placed on notice of Dr. Kepford's objections to the Perkins approach. Their decision to restrict their Motion for Sumary Disposition to tne Issues raised by the Sterling and Tyrone Intervenors therefore demonstrates that they have chosen to forego the opportunity for sumary disposition on any remaining deficiencies in the Perkins record, which were raised only by the TMI-2 and/or Peach Bottom 2220 OM Intervenors.
? 0., O E k,.-
3
The major issues in this proceeding as to which there is a material dispute ahe both legal and factual. The Intervenors assert that the radon emissions attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle are sufficiently prodigious that licensing of additional reactors, both at the construction as well as the operating stages, must cease until the Staff and/or Applicants have affirmatively demonstrated that such licensing is compatible with the Ccmmission's statutory responsibilities. The Intervenors further assert that the Staff and the Applicants have failed thus far to make such a showing. The statutory respcasi-bilities at issue here concern the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA"), as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (" ERA"), as amended.
Under the AEA, nuclear reactor licenses may be granted only where consis-tent with "the health and safety of the public." Power Reactor Development Co.
- v. International Union. Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961); NRDC v. USNRC, 547 F.2d 633, 640 at cate 13 (D.C. Cir.1976)(reversed on other grounds).
Under the ERA, the Commission is required to refrain from the unquestioning promotion of nuclear power which characterized licensing activities under the former Atomic Energy comission. Under NEPA, all long-term adverse environ-mental and health consequences of the Comission's licensing activities must te publicly described in a final environmental impact statement and must be factored into the agency's licensing decisions. NEPA's requirement of full public disclosure and careful and informed decisionmaking would not be served by a tiecision granting the Joint Applicant's Motion. Nor would the public health and safety be protected by the granting of the Motion, as required by the AEA and ERA. The basis for these legal positions is more fully discussed at pages 24-57 of the TMI-2 "Intervenors' Brief in Support of Exceptions to the Initial h
Decision Dated December 19, 1977," which as submitted to the Appeal Board on I
January 30,3199 8, and in the TMI-2 "Intervenors' Appeal From an Appeal Board 2220 035
-:i-Order on the Grounds of Fraud and on Other Grounds," which was submitted to the NRC Comissioners in the TMI-2 Intervenors' appeal from ALAB-480.
Both of these documents have oreviously been incorporated by reference into the present proceedings by the TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors, at page 4 of their February 19, 1979, critique of the de minimus theory.
The attached affidavit by Dr. Kepford, which sets forth facts which controvert those submitted by the Joint Applicants as not being in material dispute, establishes facts which we believe must either be accepted (in which case all reactor licensing must cease) or be addressed in soms future hearing, with full opportunity for cross-examination.
In the event the facts stated in Dr. Kepford's affidavit are not all accepted as true, we request that Dr. Goldman be made available for cross-examination purposes if such a hearing is to be held and that opportunity to present testimony which will further undermine his assertions also be made available. We also request that the Staff be required to produce persons who will testify on the prospects for permanent reclamation of abandoned open pit uranium mines, abandoned underground uranium mines, and abandoned mill tailings piles, since we contend that any such reclamation procedures as have been suggested to date will not protect the health and safety of the public for the full period of toxicity during which radon gas will continue to be emitted.
We now address the legal arguments presented by the Joint Applicants at pages 3-8 of their "Brief in Support of Licensee's Joint Motion for Summary Di sposi tion. "
Concerning deficiency number 2 raised by the Starling and Tyrone Intervenots, the Joint Applicants have the audacity to suggest that the Appeal Board should not ascertain the true quantity of uranium ore necessary to fuel the affected reactors because a preliminary detennination on this subject was
.q:
,s made in the Sterling proceeding. The U4I-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors strenuouhl) ohjktho any such restriction, especially becUul}0 036 the numbers derived,in the Sterling proceeding are contrary to fact.
The_ quantities of ore needed to fuel these. reactors werethe subject of a separate document introduced by Dr. Kepford in the Perkins prc;eeding (entitled " Resource Consumption," by Chauncey Kepford).
If the Joint Applicants wish to avoid discussing this topic at the upcoming radon hearing, then they must be held to have adopted by implication all conclusions by Dr. Kepford set forth in this Resource Consumption document as well as all conclusions on this subject in the accompanying affidavit.
If the Joint Applicants wish to avoid this topic, contrary to the full disclosure requirements of NEPA and the need for infonned decisionmaking, it is they who should be " estopped", and not the Intervenors.
Concerning deficiencies numbers 9 and 20, we note that the supply of uranium ore, both at home and abroad, is limited. Since our position in these consolidated radon proceedings dictates that all mining and milling of uranium ore is illegal and must therefore cease, and since -the domestic supply of uranium ore is finite and soon will be approaching exhaustion in any event, foreign sources of uranium are will undoubtedly be sought to fuel U.S. reactors. This is not a subject of speculation.
In fact, the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for TMI-2 (at 9-17 through 9-19) specifically anticipates that foreign ore will be available to fuel these reac tors.
NEPA, the AEA, and the ERA all apply to all uranium ore sources and their related radon impacts, whether the source of ore is located domestically or abroad.
The Staff and Joint Applicanti positions on this issue reflect solely upon the extent to which various Executive Orders under NEPA require cotisideration of foreign impacts.
No such limitations apply to the AEA or ERA..
In fact, the dangers of atomic energy were first publicly displayed abroad, through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki { Atomic energy is by its very nature an international source of concern, and it may therefore not be presumed 2220 037 a u a A~
x
7-that Congress sas u.
oncerned about +he international consequences of U.S.
atomic activities. Moreover, the uvuncil :n Environmental Quality has increasingly e idenced its' ntentions of ensuring that NEPA not be restricted to domestic irr: act.
Nor.
atPA on its face limited to domestic impacts.
If foreign uranium ore is not to be a subject of the upcoming radon hearing, then all U.S. reactor licenses must henceforth be subject to the specific condition that uranium ore from foreign countries may not be used as a source of fuel.
Regarding deficiency number 16, the Congressional detennination that adequate stabilization of abandoned mill tailings piles is necessary does not amount to a showing that permanent stabilization of these piles is possible or likely.
Since adequate long-tenn mill tailings stabilization techniques have not been tested, developed, or even suggested, it would be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and arrogant to assume automatically, merely upon a showing of Congressional recognition that the problem is sufficiently pronounced to warrant legislation, that the problem will somehow be solved. One cannot assume that the laws of the land will be implemented and enforced, particularly where implementation and enforcement may prove impossible.
Furthermore, no such laws require permanent reclamation of the abandoned underground and open pit uranium ore mines.
Concerning deficiency number 21, we note that there may be a trade-off between air pollution problems (radon emissions) and water pollution problems (radium and radon dissolved in ground waters) as a result of any future efforts to stabilize the abandoned mill tailings piles.
Furthermore, it is misleading to suggest that the Staff has concluded that "the stabilization of mill tailings piles will reduce radon emissions 100-fold" (Joint Applicants' Brief at 8). The Staff at most' can'be said to have stated that the short-term emissions of Li Gsh2 radon from the piles might be reduced if enough' dirt is placed on the piles.
But will this be done no matter how much dirt it takes? Are the Joint Applicants c
volunteering to pay the enormous costs of such an enterprise? What will happen 2220 038 a few decades later when the dirt Cover will have eroded away and the Staff still will not have developed a permanent solution, if any is to be found?
What are the coitingency plans if whatever " pussycat" method arrived at by the NRC. Staff fails?
The conclusions drawn (Statement, para 41-43) regarding the long-tenn The stability of the mill tailings piles constitute unsupported hand waving.
setting of performance standards is a futile exercise if there is no enforcement and the record of the NRC with regard to enforcing even its o - regulations is pathetic. There is no assurance whatsoever in either the TMI-2 or Perkins records to state conclusively that the stabilized piles will pertist.
In fr.ct, the reclamation " plans" are vague (Perkins tr 2401). Reliance was placed on some " Universal Sail Loss Equation" (tr 2402-3) which treated parameters in an averaged way (tr 2403), and was not based on any measurements in that area where the tailings are located (tr 2403-4).
In addition, Staff Witness Gotchy acknowledged that "the Comission has no position on long-tenn stabilization,of tailings piles." (tr 2405).
In fact, the Staff does not take into account radon release rates over long periods of time, as asserted (Statement,43).
Instead, the Staff assumes the stabilization efforts will fail in time, periods short compared to the half-life of thorium-230 (See Gotchy Affidavit, af ter Perkins tr. 2369, page 4), and there is no reason to believe that reclamation will persist even for such short period:.
No genuine permanent solution which will protect the public from radon emissions has been tested, developed, or even suggested. This is true for radon emissions from the abandoned mill tailings piles, for radon emissions from open pit uranium ore mines, and for radon emissions from underground uranium ore mines.
2220 039 m) MS
.g.
The assumptions of the Perkins Licensing Board concerning the magnitude of radon emission must be rejected because they adopt a view of the prospects for preventing further anissions which is unrealistic and unproven and is speculative, and due to the Board's failure to consider the long-tenn emissions of radon for the full period of toxicity of the wastes and mi es.
The assumptions of the Perkins Licensing Board concerning the health effects of radon must be rejected because they adopt dosimetry models selected so as to underestimate the probable adverse health effects, because they do not account for all effects which may result due to low levels of radiation, and because th0y do not include long-term adverse health effects resulting during the full period of toxicity of the wastes,and mines. But worse yet, the Perkins Licensing Board, in its relentless efforts to fabricate reasons upon which to base the silly de minimus theory, swallowed unquestioningly the patently misleading and inapplicable quotations put forth
.by Applicant Witness Lewis (Perkins I.D., para. 36).
In fact, the reports cited by Lewis refer specifically to low LET radiation, while the health effects caused by radon-222 and its daughters are due primarily to high-LET radiation, where such considerations do not apply. As is stated in one of Lewis's references (NCRP 43)
Thus the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of high-LET radiation must increase as the dose decreases. (NCRP 43, pages 11-1 2).
All of the Applicants and Staff's Witnesses, and the Perkins Board Were silent on this subject, of which, I submit, they were all fully aware.
It is the responsibility of the NRC Staff to provide complete and accurate information on the radon emissions data to all parties in this procefddg. ha'the' than attempt to conceal such data until embarassing o
questioning upon cross-examination forces disclosure. See, e.g., Perkins transcript at 2465-67.
pg
The full amount of radon emissions attributable to operation of a commercial nuclear fuel cycle for a period of one year is prodigious, neither insignificant or de minimus. The magnitude of the radon emissions attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle is sufficiently large that it endangers the public health and safety.
Furthermore, the threat to the public safety is sufficiently pronounced that the granting of any additional construction or operating licenses for comercial nuclear reactors would constitute a violation of the NRC's statutory obligation to assure protection of the health and safety of the public. This statutory requirement in effect mandates a moratorium on reactor licensing, which must continue at least until permanent solutions, which will eliminate or substantially reduce all long-term radon emissions attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle, have been tested, developed, and conclusively proven through demonstration projects.
Any " solution" to the radon emissions problem which relies upon periodic human intervention is by definition not sufficiently " permanent" to warrant resumption of reactor licensing. The radon emissions resulting from our current
~
reliance on nuclear power will cor.tinue for many millennia. One cannot assume that during some, much, or all of this extended period the existing human societies will have sufficient technological expertise to understand and address the public health threat inherent in these radon emissions, noi
!n one assume that these societies will have sufficient resources available to them to continue to address the radon emissions problems, even if they vould be able to recognize the seriousness of the problem.
The TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors adopt.the concurrent filing of 2220 041 4
90 USSS
11 Ecology Action of Oswego as a part of this filing.
Respectfully submf tted,
/-
/-
,,4
//
l& &. ::: :s 'T< : w/
/
W
//
/*
Chauncey Kepford Representative of the TMI-2 and Peach Bottom Intervenors 433 Orlando Avenue
'l Date
/.At:V5blf?f f.
2220 042 i
e
y.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICS IherebycertidythatcopiesofINTER7ENORS8 ANSER TO TE MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION and AFFIDAVIT OF DR. CHAUNCHI KEPFOR TE INTERVENORS' STAT 9ENT OF THE FACTS AS TO WHICH THZRE IS A DISFUT3 have been served on the following parties by deposit in the U.S.
E ay of June, 1979,
~
d Mail,' first class, postage paid, this 2 7 q\\ fi' i I &~, s 7,, p.,j y Q Q ccq7(o q-
/
Of Ust y Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud, for
_3 Dr. Chauneey Keptord
' jg.
O1 Representative of the Three }Lle
'cy[#?!hq,[97E6 6
Island, Unit 2, and. reach Eattom, 30' 1
"aJ /e se, C'
Unita 2 & 3, Intervenors 8'enett O
0
(
~
Myron Bloom, Esq.
U.S. Environmental Protection Nichael C. Farrar. Esq., Chairtnan n
]II,CurtisBuilding AL d U censing Re A ea Boa d la 1
Penn 1 ania 19106 a hi 9 D
Troy B. ' Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner, Moore and Corber Dr. John H. Buck 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W.
i Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20006 Appeal Board i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corr.ission-Raymond L. Hovis, Esq.
l Washington, D.C.
20555 Stack and Leader 35 South Duke Street John B. Griffith, Esq.
York, P m sylvania 17401 Special Assistant Attorney General
.Tawes State Office Building (C-4)
W. W. Anderson, Esq.
Annapolis'. Maryland.21401 Deputy Attorney General gg g3Ag 8
Department of Justice
~
~
Capitol Annex Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
'l
,- Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
(
Atomic Safety and Linensing James M. Cutchin, IV,, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff U.
Nuc ea Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulhtory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 m
2220Td.~'"
b Edward Luton, Esc., Chairman George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and ficensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Fotta &
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555
~
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washing to n, D.C. 20036 Mr. Guetave A. Linenberger Atomic 52fety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conuaission Board P~anel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regurato'ry Com=ission Dr. Ernest O. Salo Washington, D.C. 20555 Professor, Fisheries Research Atomic Safety and Licensing Ins titu te, Wii-10 College of Fisheries Appeal Board University of Washington TI.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Asst. Attorney General Office of Enforcement Docketing and Service Section Uepartment of Environmental Resources 709 Hesith and Welfare Building Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 U.S. Nuclear Re;ulatory Commineion Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman.
Atomic Sdfety and Licensing Appeal Panel Hear'v J. McGurrem U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member, Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq., Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 j
2220 044
~
71 g w n.._. m..
1.
k e
.