ML19289E741
| ML19289E741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1979 |
| From: | Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905290055 | |
| Download: ML19289E741 (6) | |
Text
-
h"dC PLXIC D00UhfEWT R0eM UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0f011SSI0ft 4/5/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AfiD LICEtiSIfiG BOARD
...'i"?.h.
In the Matter of BOST0fl EDISOff COMPAfiY, ej g.
Docket fio. 50-471
'l '
(Pilgrim fluclear Generating
{
O, Station, Unit tio. 2) g f1RC STAFF MEMORAf1DUM Off APPLICABILITY AtlD EFFtCT OF PERKIllS PARTIAL IrlITIAL DECISI0tl If1 PILGRIM UtlIT 2 PROCEEDIfiG Pursuant to this Board's Order of March 14, 1979 the parties to this proceeding were afforded the opportunity to file two pleadings, one addressed to the adequacy of the Perkins record on the radon issue and the second addressed to the applicability and effect of the Perkins 1/
Partial Initial Decision ("PID")~ in this proceeding. The Order allowed the parties to request the Board to:
(a) receive additional written evidence on the radon question, (b) call for a further hearing on the Perkins record, or (c) consider objections to any aspect of the Perkins radon proceeding. As of this date the Staff is not aware of any such requests. Pursuant to Part 4(c) of the Order the Staff is filing its memorandum regarding the applicability and effect of the Perkins PID in this proceeding.
1/ Duke Power Company (Perkins), Partial Initial Decision--Environmental Consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, July 14, 1978.
2043 333 7905290055
The first question posed by the Licensing Board is whether the Perkins ehidentiaryrecordsupportsthegenericfindingsandconclusionsofthe Perkins Licensing Board respecting the amount of radon emissions in the mining and milling process and the resultant health effects. The StaffbeliehesthatthePerkinsrecordisadequatetosupportthese findings. All sides to the issue were effectively represented and the Licensing Board (including 0*. Jordan, who had earlier raised the radon issue)tookanactiheroleindehelopingtheracord. We also submit that these findings are equally as applicable to the effects of the fuel cycle i
2/
supporting Pilgrim Unit 2 as that supporting Perkins.
On this basis, we propese that this Licensing Board adopt the findings of the Perkins Licensing Board en the amount of radon emissions and the resultant health effects.
The Perk hs PID does have certain passages-(for example, the background discussion in paragraph (1)) which are specific to the Perkins record.
In allmaterialrespects,howcher,thePerkinsPIDisapplicabletothispro-ceeding. The appropriate background information regarding the significance of the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle in this proceeding is found in paragraph 23 of the Staff's Proposed Findings if Fact and paragraph 33 3/
of the Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact.
2/ The Perkins proceeding involved three 1280 MWe plants. Filgrim is a 1180 MWe; therefore the Perkins record represent a worse case.
3/ The Staff's Findings were filed August 15, 1977 and Applicants' on August 22, 1977.
2045 33f
. The Licensing Board's second question is whether the radon emissions and resultant health effects as established in the Perkins record are such as to tip the itEPA balance against construction of Pilgrim Unit 2.
The Perkins record demonstrates that the increase in untural background radiation associated with the mining and milling of an annual fuel require-3/
ment ("AFR")
is so small, particularly in view of fluctuations in natural background radiation, as to be completely undetectable. PID, paragraph 51.
Based upon its review of the evidence adduced, the Perkins Board concluded that there would be only a very minimal resulting impact on health effects.
PID, para. 49. There was ample basis for the Licensing Board's conclusion, therefore, that the impact of the incremental radon is not significant.
PID, para. 51. This very small incremental impact could not tip the cost /
benefit balance against construction and operation of the Pilgrim Unit 2 facility unless the record indicated that the costs and benefits were virtually in equipoise. The Staff has submitted in its Proposed Findings of Fact in this proceeding that the benefits of construction and operation of Pilgrim Unit 2 clearly outweigh the environmental and economic costs which will necessarily be incurred. Staff Proposed Findings para. 262-264.
The cost / benefit balance in this proceeding is not, therefore, tipped.
3/ An AFR is defined as the uranium required to fuel a 1000 MWe plant operating at 80% capacity for one year.
2045 335 Forthereasonssetforthabohe,werespectfullyrequesttheLicensing Board to adopt the findings in the Perkins PID on radon emissions and resultant health effects. Based upon a consideration of the level of incrementalimpactsinYolYedandthecost-benefitbalanceinthiscase, we further request the Licensing Board to find that the balance is not tipped against construction of this plant.
Respectfully submitted, h
>n L
Barry H. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of April, 1979.
2045336 4
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0",illSSIO:1
- 4 BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY ATID LICEi!SI lG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
BOST0:1 EDIS0N COMPAtlY, et al.
Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MEMORANDUM ON APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT OF PERKINS PARTIAL IrlITIAL DECISION IN PILGRIM UNIT 2 PROCEEDING",
in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by depnsit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 5th day of April, 1979:
- Edward Luton, Esq.
Henry Herrmann, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Room 1045 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 50 Congress Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Mr. and Mrs Alan R. Cleeton Union Carbide Corporation 22 Mackintosh Street P. O. Box Y Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 The Board of Selectmen
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Town of Plymouth Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 William S. Abbott, Esq.
50 Congress Street, Suite 925 George H. Leaald, Esc.
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street _
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Dale G. Stoodley, Esq.
Bostan Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 2043 137-
, Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U. S. fluclear Regulatory Commission U. S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Laurie Burt, Esq.
U.
I uc -
Regulatory Commission hont n
a t, sq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Assistant Attorneys General Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mr. Lester B. Smith Environmental Protection Division Director of Conservation One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Massachusetts Wildlife Federation Boston, Massachusetts 02108 P.O. Box 343 11atick, MA 01761
'tW
/
72 L
y Barry/ H. Sm1th Counsel for t1RC Staff I
s as
.em e D
9 9