ML19317H351
| ML19317H351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Sterling, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1980 |
| From: | Conner R, Conner T, Silberg J CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, Public Service Enterprise Group, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317H349 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005290364 | |
| Download: ML19317H351 (6) | |
Text
-
namenn t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC 5=
APR 301%D
- I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
Office of the Secrefsy BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPE OARDS & Senice Luxh s7 L
20S' In the Matter of
)
s c)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
50-278 Units 2 and 3)
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
)
Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
50-355 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
)
Docket No. STN 50-485 et al.
)
(Sterling Pa";r Project, Nuclear Unit 1)
)
BRIEF SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL.,
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ET AL., AND PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO. ON DISPOSITION OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCY NO. 1 9
This urief is in response to the Appeal Boards' invita-tion to the parties, in their Order of March 7, 1980, to address the question whether the disposition of Alleged Deficiency No. 1 made in ALAB-562 has been materially affected by the information in the recent Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory draft report entitled "An Investigation of Radon-222 Emissions From Under-ground Mines," Progress Report 2 (February 1980), NUREG/CR-1273.
80 052 9 0]hh [
. The draft NUREG/CR-1273 presents the results of an analysis of the radon releases of 27 underground mines, repre-senting 63% of the total production of underground uranium in the United States; this is in contrast to the analysis of seven mines, representing about 25% of U.S. production, which formed the basis for radon release estimates from underground mines 1/
relied upon in the Perkins initial decision.-
Using the new information presented in the report, the estimated radon release associated with combined underground and open pit mining increased from approximately 4000 curies per AFR to about 5,200 curies per AFR.-2/
This new estimate is better and more reliable than that available to the Perkins Board, and should be available for use by the Appeal Boards in their findings on radon releases due to mining.
This does not mean, however, that reconsideration of the summary disposition of Alleged Deficiency No. 1 is now appropriate.
To appreciate this, we refer to the text of Alleged Deficiency No. 1, as amplified by Intervenor's response to Licensee's original motion for summary disposition of Alleged Deficiency 3/
No, l.-
Intervenors' argument was not that the esr 2,.te of 4000 Ci/AFR given in Perkins was incorrect, or that the data 1/
Tr. 344-346 (Wilde); Affidavit of Morton I. Goldman (attached)
Thereinafter ("Goldman Aff.")), 114-5.
2/
Tr. 348-349 (Wilde); see also Goldman Aff. 16.
3/
Response of Ecology Action of Oswego and Northern Thunder, Inc. to ALAB-509, Februarj 19, 1979, at 7-8; Intervenor's Response to Applicant's (sic) Joir.t Motion for Summary Disposition, June 25, 1979, at 3-4.
. base supporting it was insufficient.
Rather, their claim was that the methodology used by the Staff was inadequate in that no correlation exists between radon release rates and annual ore production.
In ALAB-562 the Appeal Boards rejected inter-venors' position, finding (pp. 23-24) that the averaging technique used by Staff witness Wilde was reasonable when used for fuel to be used over a plant's lifetime.
The Boards further found (p. 24) that the Staff's use of such an estimate was the only realistic approach.
Nothing in NUREG/CR-1273 affects the Appeal Boards' conclusions on methodology.
In fact, NUREG/CR-1273 uses the same averaging technique used by witness Wilde in Perkins -
namely, the summing of the radon releases from all mines sampled divided by the total annual ore production from those mines.
While it is true that the report found a "significant but not highly significant" correlation between radon releases and cumulative ore production, this correlation was not used in calculating radon releases per AFR.
The report concludes:
Compositing all radon per year from all mines measured and relating this to all production during the year is the best way to arrive at an industry average of Ci/RRY,
4/
The Appeal Boards' conclusions on methodology are also confirmed by Dr. Goldman, who states -5/that it is virtually impossible to estimate future radon releases from active mines on the basis of 4/
Draft NUREG/CR-1273, February, 1980, at 45.
5/
Goldman Aff., 113.
i
~
l cumulative ore mined.
Dr. Goldman goes on to confirm that the averaging technique utilized by witness Wilde and by the draft NUREG/CR-1273 is the best available.
Finally, Dr. Goldman offers a calculated range of emission values based on current ore production rates, as well as further calculations demonstrating i
that estimates based on the data in draft NUREG/CR-1273 and on current ore production rates are not likely to be substantially 6/
in error.~
l While there may be some uncertainties associated with these estimates, NEPA does not require that all uncertainties created by the lack of available data be resolved before com-pletion of the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
State of Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 465 (D.C. Cir.
1978), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 99 S. Ct. 2335 (1979); Monarch Chemical Works v. Thone, 13 ERC 1713 (8th Cir.
1979); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 534 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1976);
Environmental Defense Fund v. Hoffman, 566 F.2d 1060 (8th Cir.
1977).
Because the disposition of Alleged Deficiency No. 1 and the new data are in fact not inconsistent, the Board should not disturb its prior disposition of Alleged Deficiency No.
1.
i The Appeal Boards may, of course, use the data supplied in Dr. Goldman's affidavit to the extent that the Boards deem such information to be useful in resolving the radon issue.
The minor adjustments in the figures for radon releases associated with milling and mining of uranium, as testified at 6/
Id., 117-14.
. the hearing and discussed in the attached Proposed Findings of Fact and herein, are insignificant and do not undermine the cor-rectness of the basic conclusion in Perkins that "[t]he increase in background associated with [the operation of a nuclear facility] is so small compared with background and so small in comparison with the fluctuations in background, as to be completely undetectable."
Duke Power Company _
(Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87, 100 (1978).
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE f
/ Lb b i JayYE.
ilberg' Gr/
Lex!
Mat:f.
arson
.as
. Travieso-Diaz Counsel for Metropolitan Edison Company et al.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 331-4100 CONNER, MOORE & CORBER I
MN M'
f Troy B.
ner, Jr.
Cf Rober
. Rader Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company et al.
and
.. =.
I '
1 Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-3500 l
Dated:
April 28, 1980 l
l l
1 1
l e
5 4
4 i
i l
l t
i i
-