ML19318A902
| ML19318A902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham J, Hossler D, Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP, YORK HAVEN, PA, PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CLI-80-25, NUDOCS 8006240343 | |
| Download: ML19318A902 (14) | |
Text
=
IW J U[-
d 6/23/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.;, 7 0: f g b,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- h. 22 f3 BEFORE Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/a
~
-d
)
In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
)
JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLI-80-25 AND ORDER FOR TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF LICENSE Peoole Against 'uclear Energy, Newberry Township Three Mile Island Steering Committee, and Steven C. Sholly (" joint petitioners") hereby move the Commission to reconsider Memorandum and Order (CLI-80 _2_5) and Order for Temporary Modification of, License ("the Orders"), both of which were docketed on 12 June 1980.
The reasons for this motion are set forth herein:
1.
The,0rdere do not consider in any detail the possible presence of radionuclides other than Krypton-85 in the TMI-2 containment atmosphere.
CLI-80-25, at Footnote 1/ on page one, takes note of the presence of other radionuclides:
"Most of the radionuclides originally released into the containment atmosphere have decayed to insignificant levels.
The dominant remaining radionuclide is the gas, Krypton-85 (Kr-85),
which has a 10.7-year half-life."
CLI-80-25 does not further address this issue, nor does the Order for Temporary Modification of License. The f
NRC Staff's Final Environmental Assessment (NUREG-0662) does little more, although it mentions (at pages 4-1 and 4-2) several of the many radionuclides which may be present (namely, tritium, Cesium-137, Strontium 89/90, radio-xenons, S 0 06240 3df3
. c.
and radio-iodines). NGPEG-0662 ' notes that all of the mentioned radionuclides are present in. levels below the MPC levels in Appendix B, 10 CFR 20.
Nowhere does Staff bother to calculate the quantities of these nuclides which are present.
Additionally, Staff's discussion' does hot address to any great degree the substantial range in measured concentrations of various radio-nuclides asLreported in original Metropolitan Edison Company documents, documents which were utilized in the study by Bernd Franke and Dieter Teufel (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg, West Germany, " Radiation Exposure Due to Venting THI-2 Reactor Building Atmosphere,"
12 June 1980). In addition to not fully accounting for the presence of additional radionuclides, the Orders and the Environmental Assessment do not address any possible radiation exposures which could result from any radionuclide other than j
Krypton-85. The magnitude of such radiation exposures have received no attention from the Commission.
From the Assessment, the Staff reports a concentration of tritium measured in the
-5 containment atmosphere of 8.4 x 10 uCi/cc.
Calculated on the basis of this concentration representing the average
. concentration in the entire free volume: of the containment
~(an assumption which,.in the opinion of the joint petitioners is questionable,. since. samples have been taken from only two 6
. locations in' the containment which contains 2.1 x 10 cubic feet of gas), which is the basis of the total activity for Krypton-85 fealculation, one arrives at the following:
)
-5~ ci/cc)(2.11x 106 3
3 6
-(8.4 x 10 u
f t )(28316.8 cc/f t )(1 ci/ 10 uci) 4
1 3_
i r
or a total activity of tritium of about 5 C1.
Tritium will not be removed by particulate filters or charcoal filters to any great extent, so that the entire quantity of tritium within the containment atmosphere can be assumed to escape into the environment. Tritium can be biologically active
[^
in~ that PD can be taken into the human body and found anywhere 3
the body contains water, including reproductive tissues and other radiologically sensitive tissues.
The impact of this i
j-quantity of tritium should be addressed.
So, in like fashion, should-any measurable quantities of all other radionuclides l
. in the containment atmosphere. The scientific basis for i
assuming that the measured' concentrations in fact are representative of those occurring throughout the containment atmosphere should also be addressed. Further, the possible increase in concentrations of certain radionuclides during the proposed venting or purging process (especially particulates) should be addressed. Nowhere that the joint petitioners are aware of in the Orders or NUREG-0662 Tis this subject addressed.
l 2.
'_The risk of the proposed venting / purging is estimated only from a radiological assessment frame of reference. More relevant and possibly more to the point is the public health assessment of the risks of venting / purging (see' attached letter to Mr.
Sholly from Dr. Irwin D.J. Bross, Director. of Biostatistics, j
W Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, New York, dated
)
'19 June 1980). ' The joint petitioners are of the opinion that
.-r3--
w--
,...--1.-
--,cy1----
,p
4 the public health impact of the pro' posed venting / purging are more correctly analyzed by epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and other public health professionals, than by health physicists, and other members of the physics community, whose expertise is more properly directed toward assessing individual doses from the proposed venting / purging.
3.
Neither the Orders nor the Assessment (NUREG-0662) address the general maxim that releases f rom nuclear power reactors must be kept "as low as reasonably achievable" or the ALARA principle.
The fundamental question to be addressed is:
Is the proposed
- venting / purging compatible with ALARA, or do other means exist whereby such exposure as would result from the proposed venting /
purging could be substantially reduced or avoided? The joint petitioners note here that it is not necessary for an alternative to venting / purging to remove 100% of the radionuclides from the containment atmosphere in order to be a reasonable alternative.
Any substantial reduction in dose which could be accomplished would be reasonably achievable and therefore an acceptable alternative. For instance, much of the time delay in implementation of the cryogenic processing system discussed in the UCS Report
-(i.e., the system at Hope Creek) seems to revolve around the construction of a containment structure for the system. Why is it not possible to install and operate the system without such a structure? Even though small releases and possible releases of hundreds of curies of Krypton-8f could result f rom an accident in the' system, such a scenario (i.e., operation without containment)
could prove to be an acceptable alternative for reducing the total magnitude of the Krypton-85 release, at least when viewed in the light of ALARA.
The time lag ia implementing the cryogenic option without containment (possibly locating such a system in the Turbine Building or other reasonable location) should be examined before summarily dismissing the cryogenic system as requiring too long a time to implement.
Certainly, the one year to 20-month implementation schedule cited by the Staff and Commissioner Bradford (see Separate Views ojf Commissioner Bradford, attached to CLI-80-25) could be shortened.
4.
The monitoring programs of NRC, EPA, Metropolitan Edison, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and any others, should be examined in the light not only of their ability to detect and measure Krypton-85 (an ability which is admittedly substantial), but also in the light of their ability to detect and measure the presence of other radionuclides which are present in the containment atmosphere, such as tritium, Cesium-137, and others.
The ability of these monitoring programs to detect and measure these isotopes e
and the information which this would yield to assess the exposure to the publi.c from all important pathways for these isotopes should be considered.
5.
The psychological basis for approving venting / purging as the preferred option should be examined more closely.
The information which was -presented to the Commissioners at the meeting on
. ' 5 June 1980 by the psychologists from the Human Design Group and others was received without benefit of nor opportunity for rebuttal by others.(see Transcript, pages 41-60). The discussion references the study conducted by Dr. Peter Houts, at Pennsylvania State University. Although commissioned to do the study by the Pennsylvania Health Department, at least a portion of the funding 'for the study came from the Electric Power Research -
Institute (this is mentioned as a point of fact, not to imply that this flavors the results of the study). Some of the research which the Human Design Group used to back its statements are as recent as the study released by the Western Psychiatric Institute, a study which has not had the benefit of peer review.
This study had just been received by the Human Design Group prior to the 5 June 1980 meeting, certainly not in sufficient time to have effected a complete review of the document.
Dr. Sigfried Streufert, who was one of the psychologists at the 5 June 1980 meeting, was asked some. fairly pointed questions, and managed to avoid a direct answer to some of them.
For example:
Dr. STREUFERT:
I think that if I want to summarize what these findings look like, you are dealing with people in the area who are functioning normally.
They are not people who have serious problems, but they are people who hava a serious level of concern, which is producing to some degree, and in some of them, limited symptoms.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When you say some of them, is there are relative percentage that you could --
Dr. STREUFERT: Yes there is.
There have been a number of comparisons made. Some of these comparisons compare people, say, within a 15 mile radius of Three Mile
' Island, and people who live within 40 miles of it.
There have also been other studies that compare people living with the -- within the immediate vicinity of TMI with people living within the proximity of another nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. The results
_ _ ~
{ suggest there -is no serious problem for these people, that they are upset. The are seriously concerned that their symptoms are limited.
Approximately -- depending on how close in
'you are to TMI. The symptoms they are show, which could be physiological stress and. psychological-stress symptoms exceed people living further away by a low amount; but
.not to any serious degree.
The-problem, I think, more than anything else is to maintain the threat level to which these people are exposed to for an extended period of time.
If it can be done in a way'that these people feel safe, it would be better to get the stress limits over with as soon as possible.
They still feel stressed even though the symptomatology is not excessively great.
(Transcripts of 5 June 1980 Commission meeting, pages 51).
Nowhere in that exchange is the percentage figures that Commissioner Kennedy appeared to be requesting.
. Another exchange during the 5 June 1980 meeting appears to be directly at odds with language in CLI-80-25, which at page 4 states, " Testimony at the June 5,1980 oral briefing by expert consultants on the question of psychological stress supported this conclusion... " The conclusion mentioned is that the stress resulting from the venting / purging would be less than from any.of the alternatives.
An exchange between Dr. Baum of the Human Design Group and Commissioner Bradford is enlightening on 'this point:
i Dr. - B AUM:
I would think anything over three or four or five months would probably be getting to the point of being too long.
~You have to also remember that as long as. the plant remains unstable, and -the uncertainty continues, that characterizes it now, the possibility of accidental leakage remains.
Those kindslof things are stressers.
.r
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is the real point, I take it.
You are not talking so much about anxiety related, solely related to Krypton, as anxiety related to the plant?
Dr. BAUM:
nat is a primary source, yes.
Mus, it appears that the primary source of stress is the plant itself, i
and.not the presence of Krypton-85 inside the containment.
All of this is to point out the need for additional Commission discussion j
and additional guidance to the Commission on the issue of psychological stress. This is especially true because the Commission l
has based its decision to permit venting / purging at this point in time at least -in part on the premise that doing so _will reduce the
~ stress levels-in the area around TMI. This premise is questionnable.
Moreover, the previously referenced study by Dr. Peter Houts does.
not appear _to have been completely reviewed by the Staff in the
[
- Assessment (NUREG-0662), nor during the 5 June 1980 briefing at the Commission meeting.- The Houts study found significant levels of stress remaining as of January 1980; in fact, the study showed I
the levels of stress increasing, not decreasing as has been the previous assumption, notably by the Kemeny Conmission. 'The l stress question is a serious ' one, one which is not best examined
'in the light of the limited review done by the Staff and the
~
limited discussion presented at the 5 June 1980 meeting with the Counissioners. Additional investigation is necessary into this question..
e 1
. 6.
The manner in which the Commission' orders have been constructed artificially restricts any public hearing on the modification of Licensee issue, and artificially limits due process.
For example, there has been no public hearing on the entire venting / purging question. There have been a limited number of public meetings, meetings with restricted groups, and public comment on the Environmental Assessment.
There has yet to b'e a single public hearing at which the public has been invitad or been able to present evidence which may be contradictory to the positions of the Staff and the Licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company.
The public has been patiently awaiting a public hearing, and it has not materialized. Now comes the Order for Temporary Modification oj[ License. The provisions for public hearing on the License modifications is morally, if not legally, bankrupt. A hearing ont the modification could be requested within 30 days of the date of the Order. The venting / purging is now scheduled to begin on the 16th day of those 30 days, and will, depending upon weather conditions, be significantly or perhaps totally accomplished by the time the period for requesting a hearing will be expired.
The Order further requires that any hearing on the matter, if requested and granted, would be combined with the TMI-2 Technical Specifications proceedings, a proceeding which has not and will l
not reach even the stage of rulings on contentions until some time after the 7 July 1980 Special Prehearing Conference.
The actual litigation stage of that hearing will probably occur no sooner than August or September, by which time the venting / purging will clearly be finished. This sequence of events, as envisioned by the Order, is plainly unfair and prejudicial to the interests
of parties whose interest may be affected by the Order, parties among which the joint petitioners may find themselves.
Therefore, we request that the sequence of ev4.stf5 surrounding possible requests for hearing be explored by the Commission in a reconsideracion of its prior Orders. 'The joint petitioners respectfully submit that only a schedule which permits 30 days notice pr$or to the implementation of the Order, and, in the event a hearing is requested, provides that the hearing is held before the Order is implemented is fair and just for all parties.
7.
The finding of "no significant hazhrds consideration" is believed by the joint petitioners to have been erroneous as a basis for permitting the immediate ef fectiveness of the Orders.
The l
joint petitioners cite die study by Bernd Franke and Dieter l
Teufel, " Radiation Exposure Due to Venting TMI-2 Reactor Building
)
Atmosphere", dated 12 June 1980, as being sufficient to raise a question of significant hazards, a question which must he addressed before the venting / purging can be permitted.
Therefore, in consideration of the above, the joint petitioners repeat their request to move the Commission to reconsider the Orders dated 12 June 1980 in Docket No. 50-320.
The joint petitioners stand ready to assist the Commission in any feasible manner, including providing witnesses capable of addressing the issues raised herein. A description of the nature of the joint petitioners is attached to this motion.
9 i
DATED: 23 June 1980 Respectfully submitted, 0-w L'
Steven C. Sholly, pro se r
,unni nam, Esquire fo Newb y Township Three Mile Island Steering Committee ~
/
4ttYY{f Y
Donald Hossler for People Against Nuclear Energy O
4 9
e e
9 4
O 4
0 0
Q JOINT PETITIONERS IN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1.
Steven C. Sholly Private citizen, residing at 304 South Market Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. Home phone 717/766-1857, Work 717/233-4241.
Mr. Sholly lives approximately 16-17 miles from TMI.
' 2.
Newberry Township Three Mile Island" Steering Committee Citizens group representing Newberry Township, Pennsylvania, which is located largely within 5 miles of TMI. They are represented by their attorney, Jordan Cunningham.
3.' People Against Nuclear Energy Citizens group representing citizens from the Middletown area living within the 5-mile radius of TMI. Donald Hossler is the President of the organization.
I
Irwin D.J. Bross. Ph D.
Director of Biosttistics Roswell Park Memorial Institute 666 Elm Street Butf alo, N.Y.14263
' * " '"$ 1. 0 u T.I'f5* M
- N 'U s"$ U E* M *!*~'"* * '
June 19, 1980 Steven C. Sholly Three Mile Island Legal Fund 1037 Maclay Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103
Dear Mr. 9 holly:
You have asked for my analysis of the Heidelberg report on the venyl.ig of TMI-2.
-The main conclusion of RADIATION EXPOSURE DUE TO VENTING THI-2 REACTOR BUILDING ATMOSPHERE by B. Franke and D. Teufel (June 12, 1980) is that the radiological assessments made by the Metropolitan Edison Company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot guarantee that the_ health and safety of the population in the vicinity of TMI-2 will be adequateTy protected.
The report notes a number of serious uncertainties f
in the estimation of the population exposure, such as the failure of the official assessments to consider the effects of radionuclides other than Krypton-85.
Consequently the official estimates of dosages are almost certainly serious underestimates of the actual dosages and there would be no adequate warning of this danger of excessive doses because the monito' ring is also faulty and inadequate.
More realistic dose estimater suggest that there would be serious hazard to the health and safety of the population around TMI-2 and the report therefore recommends against the venting of TMI-2.
The conclusions and recommendations of.the study are well-supported and generally sound with respect to the radiological assessments that are in the area of expertise of the authors.
However, the public health implications which are the crux of this issue are not adequately handled in this report or in the official reports that are the subject of this critique.
Stavan C. Sh311y Jun3 19, 1080 Page 2 All of these radiological reports use official risk estimates for genetic damage and cancer which are 10 years out of date.
These estimates do not take into account a dozen or more recent biostatistical studies of human populations actually exposed to low-levels of ionizing radiation (1).
These new studies show that the actual risks of leukemia and other diseases are more than 30. times worse than the older estimates.
Consequently, on the basis of the new scientific evidence from epidemiology, biostatistics, and public health research (as opposed to traditional radiological computations),
the health effects in the population around TMI-2 are likely to be far more serious than the estimates of Franke and Teufel would indicate.
Very sincerely yours,
/
j~Q Q' bVM Irwin D.J.
Bross, Ph.D.
g, Director of Biostatistics IDJB/mak Enc.
(1)
A 1980 Reassessment of the Health Hazards of Low-Level lonizing Radiation.
l l
1 e
l