ML19326A670

Transcript of 710212 Hearing in Port Clinton,Oh. Pp 2228-2273

ML19326A670
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/12/1971
From:	Skallerup W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 8002260855
Download: ML19326A670 (45)

Text

)

ITED TE?

M1 (.

R OMMISSION THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES IN'THENATTER s

3 w --

.g

~

7,.

A iN l'cice G

.'p.

^$ '~ QDa$t.e';--}

Y Pjag,es, '

g y

u,,g

?-

~. ?.

ft w

-1 2

1. _ i/ :

gx we

't.

p$ T _

6

m. M g h :+ $, $

" met., 4Wm$@S ' TOR. ~ _ F4. m. SSTRA.NS.C

. ~~fN h%M

?-

f

,V' g g g~-

5

?

w S

y f

gi

, ~;.,. Y. -

y, D..UPLIC. AT. lONL,0R. y s

1N

..!DYgMOMRAlyllfqEIMROR$)

.,jQfflERt.,

M.,

+. '

.-s

~<

m

=

1 a

MoRit 'AbailNEANS)DPROfflBETED*Mf{^

A

. CMMILE E

t r

F

_g w

EMEN

.~

W 8!$@v $ifd WlYl$e.

b$

f5

~

h t' -

?

i

$WWE LMdd%E fM$. fby., ACE 2 FEDERAL Dijd, N h

• W @} $..$. A< f d @w, A m.

M

.gy h W& plgi M jf.

igi[

j sy

,.,,y p+ b ^ n$$$!?Yi3M!

d 4

.Washi,.e_iin,b ti%..E.

4;%g 2.g, --

"oa m

4.15,Se

" ':a

... - - "f^

t a ',

. ngt% D. C.120002, g A' f

2

_t s.,

.w. ::.~ggEgy'kQigj i

sym HATION. WIDE COVERAGEg I * ',.j' Q

e S

4 t

y

~+.s.

-t

ih{K.q-

r -- n;.

222g

e,;;

. c,.

H. f; y

s

-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i

m

-t'

- - _ - _ - _ - - _ - - - _ - -+

'( f 4

In the matter of l

8 l

5 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY

{

and Docket No. 50-346 l

6 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC i

ILLUMINATING COMPANY I

7 l

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power I

8 Station, Unit No. 1) 1 9

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -+

I 10 l,

Trinity Methodist Church i

11 Conference Room Adams and Sacond Streets 12 Port Clinton, Ohio I

f

h.,

Friday,12hebruary1971 13

+-

14 The above-entitled natter came on for further l

15 hearing, pursuant to notice at 9:30 a.n.

r 1G

BEFORE, 17

~

WALTER SKALLERUP, JR., Esq., Chairman, 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

19 DR. CHARLES E. NINTERS, Member.

20 DR. WALTER H. JORDAN, Member.

l

'21 APPEARANCES:

.(';

22 (As heretofore noted.)

23 25 k h

-"q~

s

m, m 2

. +..m

. w. c -

w" ;: + :p, &,

3

,AP rvo. M : '_ 'w;M. ~

y.~ s 'gg w,};- -

n-

~

)

L

' } ;-

u; r

. s

+.

4 y

_m w c.y w w,

, ~, - --,.

.. r

.4-,

m aWr n.w. ;n t*^+',

t

__ W r[ 7 ';t.

z Ws%[' %vy K "n'n s-

-- ?-., ~a s:

v?

E Wh D.y m.: M,l.

.?

" f.:% 7:u '~ i y, wl In

~

-C O N=T F'N T-S' 1

u s.

%@%. r y" %,;?

?

p. :)G,. -

~

Page

.. m.te...

w

~

p f.~

• -'W <h' ;]g

'. ^

y t

-r w m 3

C'/%.

Closin.g f'tatement on Behalf of the r

h.,./k s

4 Mplicant by Pr. Charnoff.

2232

. u.

%m ;, m,,

ge e

w.4K.~T ~.., ' 5 w,

M s

s

~

Mi closin9 Statement of Ehelvn Stebbins

..n w a

^ 5 'A i on Behalf of the Coaliaticn for

%. m,: -

Safe Nuclear Pover.

2256 t.

w m,.

s

~7

.i p' ;yy.. ;

Closing Statement on behalf of the 2269

-g {. ;,

Regulatory Staff-by Mr. Engelhardt g_

g, %.

T fs],,

',. d *- f.. *

.( y :ad M.

O i

M' s

i i

-.w I

I'. G t,7, '

6

- gh'$ _ y.

.10 I j

y,

4'j ly.bN ?

4

,,5..

i s,y

%' 1

}

r A,*

/l

- =*

_- j41,\\,* * ;...

s s

1

.fgo',2.]*;i. :h. --,

t

..a;--

.q cf.

- e7 '

4 V "e T':g #

.,-~:.%,..,.,,

%,;. +- : -

a

(; -

.e 4

'4 '.g [ ;,.. -

)A 4,-

+ -

e p "+<

j,3 ;.,[f(f '-[- -'

~..

b..; pg 1

k%4t< y jve w

i 4yq

^

- -!d_

,1, -.', eg, m*f..I. e...

?T i

s..

v

- g.g p b

, yy -

A -

.O

'l

- 1$

,V. 7< ;, y, 4

'. 1

. # 'm*. e,.

h.

'%]

4."

• ~ i s e

}

J '

6 uy pw6 gy n--.-

' ' Y j,, # h.

3.# i '

SF,,/.' tt h

'..e,

.h@

m qu-2 d

s f

_A

,'%. 'Jw h-g

+

ja

+

+.,

f

?'

-y

,7v~-s.

o

)

) M * ?

L. ' &

+,, x

'g}

I I

a

%.f O

g l

.3. -

a

't',

e

.1 4

23 I

, c i

i r.

-l

?

24 1 L',

^'.'

a :4

' M, g.-

g3

...e

" j'y.

Q %.. ~ '

~.

o.

(

,. j

.c

• ,~nez p'yY Y,.,,.. +

%. y\\

n e,

7

%.,*i'g

.% S A.-

s

~

+%.-_'n.

t

+ y c" ' 9 ' ',' Q' -. _y

[

4 e

4 Q':9

I'.

%;QlW,3 wg A.

'Intsifusi 1

P_ R Q g E_ E_ E I_ N_ E S W W '.'. f Will the hearing please come e

~

y,1 "y

~"

2^

CIIAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

M^

'f r, -

x[$-."

-.

3 to order.

The time is 9:30 and the Board would like to

((

4 memoralize the fact that it is the birthday of Robert Tedesco

- q,~

q-

.N

~

's and Abraham Lincoln.

, qp i'i 6

(Laughter.)

7 DR. JORDMI:

Yesterday I raised a question con-a carning Dr. Goldman's reply to one of the Inte2 venor's

.s questions, in that I failed to understand just how the to conversions went from picocuries per, liter to microcuries

. k 11 per cubic centimeter.

&Q 12 Dr. Goldman has straightened me out on this, and I

- c. [p f,

13 have no further questions in that respect.

c4k,-%[:

14 MR. ENGELHARDT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to m.. '

.x;p

+tv-15 note for the record that the Applicant and the Staff are 16 prepared to go forward.

Ifowever, Intervenors appear to be 17 absent at the opening of this hearing.

.;c

~

,,e 18 CIIAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

%@6 I had a phone. call.this morning. ;

.a.

J{,

gg from Mrs. Stebbins who said thi: she has prepared a s'ummary i

20 statement and is on her way here and would hope to arrive

\\

2, sometime this morning.

MR. CHARNOFF:

As I understood it, Mr. Chairman, l

O-22 23 we were to meet here to hear Mr. Lau's continuation of his 24 direct and his cross examination.

It seems to me that if 25 he is not here at this point in time that he has defaulted.-

1 ~

s

y.. s

'4,f' g

- ' ), I 1,h [O,

'-[y ( 'h 4 ':

m,_

' 4 ;j:',,-Qy...,'

~

-~

M

,,i 9g:%,q ; sr.. y e.m a.m. :,

,O

~1 w,

D

?

%A. pffi,C;cf f

• Mt -* ;. '

'A w

e e'

'N p

g

, 3-

'2231 2

~

~

~ J

~ '

s/m.s2,? p rm

~

q. g $f f.7 M

','And I would move'that the Board rule'that Mr. Lau's opportun.

id

t

&L a n.

,.c c

%gpe, q2 ity'for furthar cross and direct testimony in this case iny2dQ..,

t.n^ iin be terminated.

~3~

m.

. -.w

, [.

.s

~,.

3 4

. y,q/& -

CHAIRMAN.SKALLERUP:

Have you any response?

M..s4 i

n pgg ;

5

. MR. hNGELHARDT:

Well, Chairman, it is nou 9:32.

8 f

I

.s

.m a

s M

6 And the precedent established in this proceeding hs.s been 2.-

m.

t 7

to defer at least briefly to counsel and other parties to I

.c' i

a make a timely appearance for the presentation cf evidence.

..g l

.9 I think at this hour of 9:32 it' may be a bit premature to j

m.,

~ -\\r F

E 10 grant that motion.

Maybe we should provide a raasonable t.

. m.

- h..;L

~ 11 period of 15 minutes or thereabouts and reconvene at that

[

t 7%

12 j

tine to see uhe'ther Mr. Lau is prcsent and ready to go.

l 9:7

~-

" g Mg :

CHAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

Considering the sever:. y or t

( )l

.13 O,qw; -

wgy;.+.

ggig[:

~ ~

+;p, p

14 the consequences, the Board believes we cught to allow

- g,.,

a reasonabis pericd of time for Mr. Lau to errive.

So we 1

f 15 s

will deny your motion.

A' 16 l

+y.

.-9 17 We will recess until 9:45.

.. r..

i t

Win" 18 (Re ces's. )

Qy

• Q4 s

g, y,..-c.,-

W G ti CHAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

The Board is ready to I

. +

/X f 20 proceed.

And the time being 9: 47, with respect to Mr. Lau

-n a.

k Sg f., "

y-21 the burden is now on him to show cause why he should not l

E...

t; be precluded frcm further participation in this case.

22 I

23 j

Accordingly, we are prepared tchear closing summary i,%

24 arguments.

,/

-hy,;

25 MR. CHARN0FF:

Shall I plan on going first, Mr.

w. h-

])

)-

5 a,

..x.

s b'[

s y; -.,,.,, b

,v e

- *,. -[

.' ' ". ];

4 QWp;

~

. c n'

($5 Y.k :} n. -,*

.,% c. t c.

~1 2232 n..

RMS/rms3 e't Chairman?

2 s

q.; p,,

CHAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

That would be appropriate.

.. - ^.

3 MR. CHARNOFF:

Let' me establish the agenda.

As

?

4 I understand it, the only remaining item for this hearing is the

~

closing statement by the Applicant, the Staff and any 6

Intervenors who might get here.

t 7

CHAIRMAli SKALLERUP:

That is our understanding l

t a

subject to Mr. Lau's coming late and showing adequate cause I

l 9

why he should be heard.

10 CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICIST 4

1I EY MR. CHAPNOFF t

12 MR. CHARNOFF:

Gentlemen:

Ordinarily in pro-13 ceedings such as this I pass the opportunity to make a i

. n.~. y c h$ftj e

~

i i

closing statement.

In such cases the issues, while 1

15 ;

i technical in nature, involve only a determination that the L

1 16 proposed facility has been demonstrated to satisfy appli-37 cable AEC requirements.

Such a determination in made on

['u 18 the basis of the entire record of the proceeding, including

~

l '3 the application and the Staff's Safety Evaluation.

In many I

20 respects this hearing does not differ from most proceedings i

I' that I am familiar with.

Q In some respects, hoaever, this hearing proceeding 2

I 23 l has been unique.

For example, it is the first proceeding l

s

'8 'i that I know of to be afflicted with a case of the mumps.

It g,

23 is also the first AEC proceeding I believe to receive a

_/

Y

q.

.,1;

&$ NYp. s y j '.'

4

?,.&s* y*

7. L

_ y

/

2233 RMS/rms4.

~

~

y,p g;.

, ;y -f;.

~

, N ';.;. /

[

petition for leave to intervene asserting that the Atomic 2

f'

%w. ].

Energy Act of 1954 was unconstitutional.

Accordingly, I

,yy-,

3 think it is appropriate for me to discuss the matters in

.t m; y *, -

controversy, the nature of the evidence relating thereto and M :.: ^

5 g

i,

'the public interest in having the Davis-Desse plant constructed 6

s and available for power production as close to its scheduled I n

t 7

u date for cot:nercial service as possible.

3 I will first briefly discuss the case of the e

1. = f M ~

9 i

Coalition, the first of the admitted Intervenors.

This l

10 t Intervenor some may characteri::o as an intervenor in esarch

^ ;"..'

x..

M;'

11 of an issue, any issue which might deter or halt the con-m; 4 "pq ppfn; 12 struction of the Davis-Besse plant.

The Coalitbn contended l

,n-g h

13 that the AEC siting criteria were not complied with, that A

tr4 @f I4 the. plant engineering safeguards could not be relied on, l

~f3}% '

15 that the critical exposure routes associated with plant 1

16 e ffluents Wa 6 not adequately examined and that the l

u i

37 ordnance and. Air Force activities at Camp Perry and over l

G'

)

Tf(h.

x.

Lake Erie in some undefined way posed a threat to the safety f

la r % '.* w y;'

19 of the plant and therefore to the public.

I'

~

I t

20 Uncontroverted evidence was introduced ex.claining

.u

v.

t~

21 the AEC siting criteria and demonstrating how the Davis-l Q

22 Besse plant and site are in conformance therewith.

Similarly, 1

7i uncontroverted tcatimony was introduced demonstrating the i

t 14 l adequacy and reliability of the engineered safeguards which z'

15 make a core meit virtually incredible.

.L w

i5 he <.

w l

7

+y k, f':

m

c w

t, n-n~.a,.;,ff;;*

LCy[',2 e

2234

.1;; 9 W

vyg~39 i

. s. ( ~ _

Wrms5 :~

l The testimony demonstrates that the ordnance a

19 2

. activities at Camp Perry and the Erie Industrial Park and r? ~ ~ < &

- s we

.37 s 3

the Air Force training programs carried out over Lake

~ A' "i

e' 4

Erie were carefully reviewed by the Ragulatory Staff and

. P 5

the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and that such 5

activities will be conducted under appropriate controls I

7 established by cognizant defense authorities who fully 1

m 8

recognize the er.istence and operation of the Davis-Besse i"

~

9 f acility.

I D

Furthermore, the Staff prosented, uncontrovertad 3,

~

11 testimony concerning the steel and concrete surrounding i

i 4

'An "

12 the reacter's critical parts which provide inherent l,

ue l

Arc

..A 13 capability to safely withstand most forms of ordnance.

The l

- uy;w -

..s,

a gg3 #-

14 Coalition's single witness, Dr. Sternglass, proved to be I

.~ c,

.s

?

15 the most versatile witness in the proceeding.

He testified l

t l

on behalf of the other two intervenors and on almost all che 1:i

7 matters in controversy in the proceeding.

l 1

s 6 Jc 13 Regardless of the matter in controversy ll 4

se s

l addressed by Dr. Sternglass, however, ~he deliverad himself I

c7 o

20 of only a single theme, that is, that radioactive gaseous n

effluents from all nuclear facilities are generally the n.

e f

same, radioactive materials reconcentrate in the food chain q-n and there are strong statistical grounds for suggesting a i

73 74 causal relationship between radioactive gaseous effluent i

5 i

releases and infant mortality.

4 9

..*k n'sg' y'" y

'[% '.? r. a

[_v.

- ry

~

Wy;;:l% y j:-N1D 3 2235

+

n e-

%~

s s s-R!-IS/rms6-j -

Unfortunately for Dr. Sternglass ' testimony on a..

} g.[

.?*'

}

m, behalf of the coalition the evidence shows that the gaseous w

1:

3 J'y isotopes he was concerned about will be retained by the

]

Davis-Besse gascous waste hold-up and treatment system.

y 5

'.3j.:

That is, those gaseous isotopes will not be released to 6

t the environment.

l i

~

1 Also, unfortunately for Dr. Sternglass,the 1

6 testimony shows that the gaseous effluents from the different !,

9 types of nuclear facilities do differ in important rsspects.

t la The Davis-Besse plant, a pressurized water reactor, will II release gaseous effluents at levels more than a thousandfcid 4

12 x.

less than the nuclear facilities of different types,and i

3 13 5,

n: n(

of a different generation too, I might add, which have been a-1 y,40:

.~~

reviewed by Dr. Sternglass.

j

.15 i

And I would remind the Board that it was Dr.

i Sternglass who, based upon his review of the relences from I6 i

37

[

these other types of facilities called for a thousandfold 3

13 reduction in gaseous effluent releases in orde:' that we may I

19 all sleep peacefully at night.

t i

i J.,

20 Of equal significance is the rejection of Dr.

l 21 Sternglass ' simplistic and questionabis selection of dcta i

i

^

h 22 to suggest a causal relationship between radicactive l

23 gases and infant mortality by creanizations and persons i

M i

not beholden in any way to the so--called atomic energy

'5 establishment, if indeed the latter exists in this country.

s

.e g' W t

I

. 9 = o x,, y

,(~~

/ '

^

p4;)h;;;

~.

z l*

b ~;A,%,,

Q ~ ;3

,~

2236

~'

p XiQ h *v[,

=

s&J:y;&'

,it'

~'

u

.v-' "' s e. g; I, of course, 'am referring to the Committee on u?

y:(.

gfrms,7;:,;

Environmental Hazards of the' American Academy of Pediatrics w.. n j.7 3,

3 r,y" x and components of the Environmental Protection Agency, t

b}> -

\\

s including rections formerly belonging to the United States w

S

@'~ m ~

Public Health Service.

6 f

The testimony by Mrs. Tompkins and by Doctors Kahn and Davis convincingly demonstrated that Dr. Stern-

~ p-, --

y a

glass' hypothesis lacked any statistical base and suffers 8

,'- w.

from sincere but false use of data.

4

., ~

10 I

Dr. Sternglass' response to this criticism of l

II

,y f his work is to complain about the existence of a conspiracy 12

.,n 2 ; a of soma so:.t which refuses to recognize the validity of his v.

13 work.

.g:p :

m$4N9f ' - g Q _'s In this connection it is worth noting that Dr.

,. 'I ~.

15 Sternglass also suggested a conspiracy of sorts when g

16 Nature Magazine, the British equivalent of our Science

'2 17 e.m Magazine, rejected an article by him purporting to demon-

_ _h, strate a causal relationship between fallout deposition Y

18 l

13 and infant mortality.

.a 20 In reply, Nsture Magazine editorialized on 2,

71 January 31, 1970, as follows:

"The fact that more than one h-22 editor has rajected Professor Sternglass' papers could be 13 a sign of the locseness of Professor Sternglass' arguments 24 rather than of the tightness of the conspiracy."

g,g,

25 Mr. Lau, the second intervenor, like the coalition, Jr. 7, IU 7.,.

(h^.'. f *,

y

-^

l*

=l-3,,

^

t tm %;;

s'

=,

7::%.p_.y.

y e

4 1

%gr/, ~A fe. (r,;,9 -

i s

gj.l 2237 n:cWlg ( - m

~

7 xy, c '

._ ' V

.5 g.

bms8 allegedly was concerned that the AEC and the Applicant did v

not correctly apply the ABC siting criteria.

Taking an

.. y:,

s "8

f^

J -

3 illustrative table in reference to docunent TID-14844, Mr.

4 v% -

Lau simplistically contended that the Davis-Desse site has

._.s v-5

, j,Q inadequate exclusion and low population zone areas and an

,..n 6

inadequate population center distance, f

N.,..

The.tastimony demonstrates that several engineered !

7 a

safety features and systems have been incorporated in the w

8 plant design to assure ccnfermance with the AEC citing u

10 criteria.

.s

'b II Mr. Lau also contended that the meteorolocical cs

?

Mk,:..

data obtained at the site was inadaquate and that it did 12 Il not take into account certain season weather storms.

Perhaps m.m'4 p y'. -

i

(

Id l

IDjf'[

this centention more than any other illustrates the comple::ity j pp; i

15 ip i l

of dealing with comnlicated technical considerations in i

. -Q-I6 public hearings such as this for the icymnn.

i 7 2N ~ '

I7 IIere we have Glenn Lau and one or more of the 3_;&

i 18 limited appearors reporting on bad weather storms allegedly w

t, c

'C '

19 not considered by the Applicant.

Unfortunately, in the

[

w l

f

20 sophisticated technical world of atomic energy what may be a::.

y;

'4,f 21 bad wear.her for the icyman is good weather for redicactive Q

22 rolcaces. The more violent the ctorm, the greatsr tho t

i

~ E3 dilution effect it has on radioactive releaces, whether i!

24 they be normal or accidental.

7 25 7,

Lau's contention with regard to meteorolocy is

,agg,

$4

a::gwA. y. g

. +,

~

f s..

. * :.. :;s 3...,

ggs-7 -j:

A-

wi r ', -

2238

.=

. ICIS//,

'~

I 9

wrong.

The testimony has demonstrated the conservatism of k

[t'..g] -

'the meteorology used in evaluating this site.

3 DB y

'f 11 c

0ws 7.~ ;

./

5

.b b

6 7

8 9

10 e...

9 11 w

13

~

....+

... > *::: er. s, 14

. ~m.

r 15 L

19' ' '

16 g

• 9 37

.e g.

18

,w 19 i

~4 20 k

t 21 22 23 24 h

%.,/

25

.. f.

g 1,D.

9 I

. [' h ~

t k.

fy;g..es,,-

ag 2 g,w.,

e

. -a Mym 11- -

a 2239

[7l yty)1. '

mf;.

1-

'As far as the' ability of the station to withstand 3

2 structural damage'from such storms, the testimony pointed y,~...

-: m.

3 out that the station is designed to withstand a tornado,

\\

4 producing winds of 300 miles per hour, a more severe y

5 condition than has occurred at this site.

6 Mr. Lau also contended without success that tho

~

7 population growth projections are in error.

No testimony g

was introduced contradicting the population projections in

(

g the PSAR.

In comparison with many other approved reactor 1

go sites, this is a lightly populated area.

j Hr. Lau's final contention related to the capability,

3,

)

12 to evacuate the low population zone, or that portion of it

-n..

[

');;* -

which uight only in the most remot circumstances have to 33 L.

Of

.'53d k.I E' be evacuated in the event there was a concurrent flood, sand 34 or snowstorm, i

4 15

,l s'

t i

The Applicant has clearly committed to make the l

16 necessary arrangements prior to the inception of plant operation to assure that evacuation, if it should be 18 19

- ocessary, will be done and done promptly.

The testimony I

i demonstrates that Mr. Lau and his witnesses confused their

,p.

20 j

't i.T normal difficulties with the effects of bad storms, with the 21 I

r

{4 feasibility of moving people, not vehicles, over a reasonable

'd--

22

' {}

't

!! period of tine, several hundred feet to areas outside of I

23 1

the radioactive cloud or outside of the low population zone.

24 8

I Furthe rmore, the testimony yesterday afternoon

e.

25 q: '

A 3-y-i-

Sqpn_Qy "% O.

, +,_,;;-

.. qm gy.4,

,y c'-

'.g tyg2 w g

.c j

m 2240

~

&R kJ6M:- l s.

i

,j?y;;7. m..[,h h1clearly established the feasibility of accomplishing any

'ijd: ':X,'; 2 required evacuation..

^ -

^

.b

~

%.y % y a ;* f ( ~~' 3 Finally, we come to the Intervenor, who has made 7

.y b

- J.,

4 this case unique, LIFE and Mr. Reany.

This is the first

tue s

• > * - +

e 1sp

~ 5 proceeding to involve a challenge to the AEC's radition

^

yjff *

' N.

6 protection standards since the Commission's memorandum in x

I~

7 the Calvert Cliffs proceeding.

That nemorandum set the a'

ground rules for challenges to the radiation protection g

standards in licensing proceedings.

These ground rules need q$ -

3o to be clearly understood the Commission's memorandum in the

.. :m

+p>.

Calvert Cliffs decision dated August 8, 1969, clearly f $f stated that findings in proceedings such as this must be

' 450 12 gg

. 33 made in accordance.with AEC regulations which establish the in,.53W nm ;p:h 34 standards for reactor construction permit determinations and

.w.

15 that such regulations which are general in nature and are

~

m adopted in public rule-making proceedings are not subject 16 i

~1'i'

. g to amendments by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in

• a

. h,. '

individual plant licensing hearings.

13 avv.

{

The memorandum did, however, permit a challenge 19 in licensing hearings such as this to the validity, and I i

I 20 3-i underscore the word " validity," of such AEC regulations on 21 i'

limited grounds, if the contested regulation relates to an 22 E.-

issue in the proceeding.

Imd I would underscore the latter,

on limited grounds, if the contested regulation relates

. h to an issue in the proceeding."

~x yv %

*'qt

• u

,l e

4:

q -Q---

y I'

f

%R%me%;

, Tnt. /

+,

, y f - : v :+

~...

hy

%ff tg;3q '

~2

,c 4 '

2241 r'

a

.~

.s.f ww_.

/

dfDNMJ

'C l'he' memorandum there'upon ~ identified ihree limited wwu-"

~

[h..f Q '"

2'a x

t w

y ;r ~*.e

.N g

grounds for challenge to the validity.of'Asc regul'ations in

= y,y 4M yn. -

tp%% 3 M

~lic.ensing hoarings.-

A.,R. f~'t....

,3 w

'.t

\\ t.

- k, 6.g (1 '

4 One, whether the regulation was within the

_ yx -

s

.. a,+ ;

M:;

Conunission's" authority; 5

8 0.J"g,

.pm Cp>..

s Two, whether the regulation was promulgated in j

, v ;,- <

a I

}

accordance with applicable procedural requirementc; ano,

,f I '

7 t

% 4 4

3 Three, with respect to the radiological safety n

~ l-stan6ards, whether ther the standards ectablishec are a f

r

.g

- q:..

-W, reasonable exerciso of the bread discretion given to the 10 Commission by the Atomic Energy Act for implementation of the

-w 11

.lw: ~

- f f

statute's radiological safety objectives.

' ~ww,. 12 t a..'

.w h 33 In tiiis proceeding LIFE at al have not challenged ww @ m_r

.)

chN '14 10 CFR Part 20 on the first two limited grounds which I i

w-7.-t,.?ofj+-'

have just contioned.

LIFE's challenge apparently is directed i

15 I

16 I cnly at the third limited ground, namely, whet.:er tho l

r

'~

standards are a reasonable e::ercise of the Commiscion's i

17 I

Mi, 3 2

pC.{;,,.,,a_.

discretion.

13

'm*

The radioloaical safety objectives of the Anomic

. x/ ;,

9 3

7 m

1; Energy Act of 1.954 as amended are set out in many plc.cc.3 l

20 7i l

.<n.,V

' r in the Act.

Sect' ions 3(d) and 1Gl(b)' are representative.

t

,1 m

s V -

I 'they speak of development and utilization of stomic energy p.c 22 I'

!for peaceful purposes to the manimum extent cons'ictent with 23 p g

Iprotectionofthehealthandsafetyofthepublic.

l A

24 t

n _

1, Qr ','c, -

'the test of reasonable exercise of its broad y

. - n

, ru, (p

J'

h" M;;ffM &

%1j%

s

espiaf z.,

.'s

....wWt:t 1

~ m;; ity,4 2242 4.ff. 'p ;:':

m s.

O.:d:11.a ' I discretion is not different from the test that would be cy U,<

Q f

'.";. fg ~

2 applied on judicial review by a court of appeals to establish

. y;, '.C ;=',~ 3 that there is a s'ubstantial question as to the validity of

,]-

~~

(,

• h')'

c 4

the standards and I would note that the memorandum points 3.<?

,.., m' 5

out that only'if the Board feels that there is a substantial

'. N -

6l question presented on the record as to the validity of the challenged regulation is it to do anything, and if it is to 7

s do anything at all, it is simply to certify that question to i

9 the Commission.

10 To establish that there is a substantial question

~

as to the validity of the standards, the Intervenor LIFE gg O'

-@ C 12 would have had to show that such standards were or are an

.:: g:e,

I $@N.

g3 arbitrary or capricious exercise by the Commission of its

r c 3 -

14 discretion.

This LIFE has failed to do.

.g-7.i-15 LIFE's sole witness, Dr. Sternglass, was quite convincingly rebutted as to his hypothesis, his tiechniques, 16 and his facts.

Nor does the record which includes the 17 m-

~,

.b-y,e -

18 testimony of the Board's witness, Iir. Tamplin, show that such standards represent an arbitrary or capricious action l

by the Commission.

On the contrary, the record of this 20 N[.

pr ceeding shows that the Commission's Part 20 standards are 21

~

based on and consistent with the recem:r.endations of the h

23 Federal Radiation Council and approved by the President for 2.4 the guidance of federal agencies.

This is consistent with t

l. /

the provisions of Section 274 (h) of the Act, which until 25

W ; '

Q;&j ~,

LR ryg,*

4ew u,.

x cy o

jf ' ! *:',

S d:qN

- b vM,

,~

5,5'3 C ty'5-2243

.Wf$ '; <,

M;q.

(t l>ecember 1970, established the Federal Radiation Council.

a:

' &' Ah.

-2 In December of 1970, as has been stated here m, <.;,;.,

t

' ' p.y "3

3 many times, the functions of the Federal Radiation Council 4

were taken over by the new I'nvironmental Protection Agency.

v['

\\

, j 2f 5

The testimony also reveals that the 11ational Council on

,u 6

1:adiation Protection and I:3asurements, as recently as last 7

month, published recommendations that the present standards, s

as they apply to the general population, be ratained.

This 9

reflected a review.of developments in research during the 10 last decade as evidenceu by the references set forth in the

^c s.

j; 21CRP document nu.'ber 39, which was Applicant's I:xhibit tio.

8, t

i

..g 4 12 I believe.

f4 '.

h[w 4 _

33 Similarly, the testimony shows that the National e

34 Academy of Sciences, National F.esearch Council Advisory f

[ *. [.* W p

4 Y.,

15 Committeeto the Federal Radiation Council in April 1970 l

t s

l 16 revieued allegations such as these made by Drs. Gofman ana l

• y 6,.

9 Tamplin, calling for immediate reduction of the maximum i

.s permissible radiatien levels and concluded thct there is la t ' ~

no justification for an immediate revision of the existing 39 standards.

.,, o Arrayed against this testimony is the testimony 21 of Dr. Sternglass and Dr. Tamplin.

l 0c,.,

}

t!ith respect to Dr. Tamplin's testimony, it is 23 i

sufficient to note that in addition to the consideration 23 l

25 given to his views by the National Council en Radiation l

i

,,Q e

c 4,

t M

s

rysg e y _

q yf5 d Q 2244 8

p~ a tya G ' ; 1

~

\\

y<

Qe -

p l

/

1,

~ Protection and I!easurements, and'the NAS-NRC Advisory

,~,,-

i f l; Q 2'

Committee to the PRC, that the testimony shows that sub-

• g. m...

-*.a, w

" U4 _' [', 3

- stantial questions have been raised as t.o his assumption that

,m.

,9

\\;

,, g f-4 the population at large can receive an average dose of 170

. 7, millirem if the individual dose at the site boundary is limited

.y;-

a 5

ec 6

to 500 millirem.

Dr.11orton Goldman's testimony has established 7

a that the 500 millirem maximum annual dose to an individual

[ L.

3 at the site boundary virtually precludes the exposure of a 1.",

~/

suitable sample of tlie population to a dose of 1970 millirem jo

't*

~.

(

3, per year.

Substantial questions have also been raised as

. F.

v li,f 12 to Dr. Tamplin and Dr. Gofman's assumptions with respect

~,,2:C i y y; 33 to the magnitude of carcinogenlc effects that would result ld}wi @

"f 1%f6 3'4 ~

from the doses that they assume.

Both Dr. Sternglass and

^j: l hk 15 Dr. Tamplin present the phenomenon of reconcentration of radioactivity in portions of the food chain as a recent is

.. ' f, j7 development or discovery which requires revision of the

.w-

.h Q Part 20 standards.

They choose to ignore the fact that gg gik "

'b-Section 20.106(c) in Part 20 has been in Part 20 for quite y,

~

some time and is used by the AEC to restrict nuclear power 20 J

ww JT plant releases where it appears necessary to do so, taking 21 into account the possibility of reconcentration in critical 22 i

fo d paths.

23 24 The testimony of 11r. Rogers and Dr. Horton Goldman

.,q -

[gh, is clearly refutation of LIFE's apparent contention that 25

; y y ;~

i M,4 ) * ',

7,g-

.m:. '.,.. %,

.?.M x 3[ 4;%, f

x,rr.

e. g... c mf;a. y -u

.. g.,

j t

G' f

2245

. x. y. - :,,

'h 1

Section 20.10G (c) is a residual power exercised by the Commission

.'. ;f'r 2

only after a bad situation develops.

LIFE misreads that 4.p

'l' 3

provision.

It clearly allows the Comatission to anticipate situations and to establish specific limits to fit specific

,f 4-a-

5 situations.

The testimony demonstrates that this is indcod 6

~

exactly what the EC has done and does do.

7 a

Dr. Tamplin and Dr. STernglass and LIFE might like to see 10 CFR Part 20 formulated or drafted differently g

i j

30 to account for the phenomenon of reconcentration, but their l

testimony cannot and does not demonstrate that reconcentratica

~

,3 12 is not anticipated and treated by the present 10 CFR Part

@.d;#1 20.

33

..m.g

.I 14 t E 15 6 j_,

, 7f 15 i@

((

s.

37

,~

.sv

};

gy;.[

i{'

- ~f 33 f

f[*

'N:,'

}9 4...

Wf.

t 20 4g; o.

s..

~

q..u.-

I s

y 22 N

23 i,

I t

14

[

~

g_

i W-a;:.

{

u n T

>j,

s

, +7 7..

s' ~knl ? '

re, 22M 1 sg -

DD2 Inl I

It in clear, therefore, that the Intervenor LIPP

.~,

7

~

2 and the testinony have failed to'denonstrate any abuse of

?.'

3 discretion by the ITC in establishing and unholdina the radia-4 tion nrotection standards in 10 CPP 20 The testironv to the 5

contrary denonstrates that the Irc standards are in accordance s

6 uith the nost recent advice of the rederal Padiation Council.

7 the Congressionallv-chartered National Council on Padiation a

Protection and Peasurerents, and the TCPP, excent for certain 9

feu UCPP occunationally dose recommendations rade in.Tanuarv 10 of this year uhich the 7 tonic rnerny Cornission and the in Tnvironrental Protection Joency which now has standard settina 12 responsibilities, have obviously not had time to turn around

/

13 on.

wn :. "

, [(c,'

14 This alone demonstrates that the tre has not acted 15 arbitrarily or canriciously and, therefore, there is no sub-16 stantial nuestion with recard to the validit" of the TTC radiation Protection standards.

I vould renind the Board that 17 e

18 under the Calvert Cliffs decision all it can do is determine 39 whether on the limited arounds for challence of the standards 20 in a licensing hearina there is a substantial question as to

..I the validity of the standards.

21 22 Civen the nature of the testimony hv Drs. Pternalass 23 and Tannlin and its verv effective inneachnent and rebuttal l

' 24 by the Ptaff vitnesses and Dr. P ? ton Coldman, and niven the 25 confornance of the 7TC standards with the advice of the N

+

=

Y

'/'.l,,

TSM.s :D.;

fl Z. %., -

y

~ p.

2247

/.O,.b <-

.'1 z."~

. > N.In2:

qualified standards setting agencies, this Board cannot but ti?

2 find no unrensonable exercise of discretion bv the trc in

'Q s

3 irplementinn the radiological safetv ol'jectiven of the 7tenic

~-

4 rnergy Connission 7ct of 1954 as anended.

', J:-

5 I would, horover, like to proceed further, partly 6

becausc, centlenen, I think this being the firrt case 7

to handle a challenge to 10 CPR Part 20, I could submit to a

you that the extents to which you consider this challence

-a 9

and you apply the rules of Calvert Cliffs will have precedent-10 sotting value for other cases.

2, m

-}

11 7 urge th'o Ecard, therefore, te revie" and read the 2

12 Calvert C1.iffs decision with great care.

Phile it nav not he

y.., ;.

y,;.

13 a' classic example of cicar and simple proso, that decision

'. 3p Qr

' '5 14 unequivocably requires that the challonce to the reculation in,

J 15 a nroceeding such as thin must be related to en insuo in the 16 proceedina.

17 Those vords cannot be linhtiv disrecarded.

r, n,.-

18 7ccordingly, this is not a general innuirv into the validitu

.D:/

gg of Part 20 independent of an3,7 other considerations in this 20 case.

7t must be limited to an inquiry into the validity of

]'

pj Part 20 as it apnlies to the Davis-Pesse reactor.

22 Let ne quickly state that this does not nean that

{}

23 the innuo is t'hother the Davis-Pesse reactor can nect Part 20.

25 That issue has not been raised by any of rhe parties.

Itat it

~~

i

~

does mean is that the challence to the validitv of Part 20 25 J.

V-)

w

d[@t. % 23:k:hj' :

< ~ ; A -

M*h

p;y[h -.,,. L >

234g m

Li%N-c 'M In3:

3 cannot' be based upon radioisotopes that won't be released fron-33,o M.

N j? J 2

the pavis-Pesso facility.- Finilarly, the challenge cannot he

%

F;(? ~ '

%.Q.'

3 bared upon an examination of the reasonableness of the naxinun

(

T-

..x

/.

",Q 4

perninnible concentrations not forth ih the Table 2 in 7ppendix

, j'-~

.q/

.E1 5

D, for any one of. the isotopes which nay he released hv the m

,' ('.

Davis-resse plant, if that isotope is not physically releasable' s

'l s 7

by itself vithout acconpanying isotopes.

3 This is because the note at the end of the tables

[-(

9 in 7ppendix B of Part 20 provides that where there is a rixture n

.7 10 in air or vater of nore than one radionuclide, the linitina

,.;o 9'd 11 value for each radionuclide is detornined to be less than the

ws '

lb.

12 table TPC values for such nuclide.

Mw, g.

.x i

1 7 '

13 Thus," LIFT, under the Calvert Cliffs menorandun,

-, ' ~ 4'ji.T tz@.

g _ -

7.--...

it

' y ys,' ' E 14 Tor exanple, nicht have attenpted to challenco Part 20 an nugl

' J E.. }

'4[g" 15 applies to the Davin-Desrc facility by nrosentino testinony i

l M.* *,

Tf1 16 t?ith respect to the safety of isotopes 14ich Pould be released !

uy &

ff;>i y 17 from the Davis-Posse plant; such testinony would have had to y$

5 j~l$sy'sf.l*.

'18 show that the naximun permissible concentration values for such t

• &',f *

,,. m,s a,.

t _

33 isotopes, taking into account both the note at the end of the

.j$

20 tahics in 7ppendix P, and the provi= ions of Foction 20.100(3),

m

[.'

21 vero grossly unsafe.

22 This LTPr has failed to do.

Tannlin't testinony van 23 cqually deficient.

The testimony of Sternglass and Tanplin

/

1.s insofar en it discunned, for exanplo, the effects of cesiun-137

' (;ml.

my p 75 and 138 and strontiun resulting fron case'ous offluents, and

,a c y r

JM J2 ~

..h:. >i 9-f 7 '; s 4+.

T.,

=

a yhn

*R,K%,.s, e ? ~ ?-+

e

} yy.

+

?hSll ~:

2,

_1 gg., ~

71 2249

'st 2,:

z; '.'.

I ri-lInd insofar as it considered only the Table 2 values for cesium,

.s 2

y,[

vithout conn _idering the reductions in those concentrations

e:.7,

, ~ <

3 as required by the note at the end of the table, waS sinnlV Er iG,\\

4 not relevant to an issue in this proceeding.

.y,,-

o

~.

5 7ccordinaly, on'the basis of the record at this i

o 6

hearing, gentlemen, I submit that you can find no substantial 7

question as to the validity of the radiation standards, l'n on 8

roccipt of the propo' sed findinas by the parties, ve would hope 8

that you will promptly issue a decision crentino the construction f

s 10 permit.

This is justified by the record in this nroceedinn.

11 The proloncation of this hearinn to hear from promis ad

':((.

12 witnesses by LIPF who did not natorialize, tocether with the

'k 13

' order to the Director of Pequlation to deny our renuest for

]9yM' 14

'a modest amendment to our previously cranted e::enption has

_ l 15 alreadv nade it innessible to meet the Tecember, 1974 schedulo 16 for power production from the Davis-Pesse facilitV.

}

17 I urge you to examine the connents of the Federal ip.c -

18 Power' commission which are set forth 1ecinning on pace 7-21 of

s s("

19 the Staff exhibit which set forth the Staff's detailed state-7 20 ment under the National Environnental Policy Ict.

Those g

l 21 connents of the Pederal Power ccmnission will enable you to

^

22 cain a very clear understandinc of that other public interest

(}

23 rhich is sonetines lost sicht of in hearings such as these, j

l 24 nanely, the public interest in having a reliable supply of r

' 25 nouer in 1974,

'75, and later years.

Thank you.

1 E !-

O IN ey-

'g 14

,2 ;: :.

..j.,, y< l'"

<3 i,

2250

_.,. v 4

< j, j.

5'y--hlin5 I

cr7It'r7U FKILLTPUP:

The Doard will go off the

~

2 record.

j, 1

• T, -

3 (Discus,sion off the record.)

L

' ' #}

4 CUTIPJ'7M FKILLEPUP The Doard Pould like a conference t

S uith counsel.

6 (Dench conference.)

7 CUTIPPbH FF7LLTPUP:

Prs. Lau.

8 FRF. L7U:

I am here this morninc because nv 9

husband is conpletely unable to even get out of bed this to morning.

7nd he asked ne to come here and appear in behalf 11 of him, not to cross-e. tamine or give further testimony, but w-j 12 to ash that the Board might reconsider his notion for a delav I.

,y.', '

on these problems that he has.

13 l

.y,p{Q Qd 14 I understand the first motion van made for a three-

,,.n-f 15 week delay.

I don't know if a whole three weehn is necessarv.

16 It is going to depend a great deal on, as I told you up there, f

-7 17 I have called a neurolocrist, but I cannot talk to anybody until is 12:00 today.

It nav depend on what his reconmendations are.

.u,

.j.

19 It may only be a veck.

20 j

7nd I would ask the Board to reconsider this very 21 strongly and in view of the fact that Dr. Charnoff navn that j

22 they cannot already neet the 1974 Decenber deadline, that I 23 don't feel another week or even tuo vechs is goinc to have that 24 much nore dela" on the cane.

25 I might also further state that he is completelv 1

2. ;

,"r!;

2251 et,y r @ w

~

y.n.

4:a;

~p.p.

$ _.y

,.3 ' J.,

prepared vith his, to aive cross -examination, and to give his InG

,x-2

}.J'lg'f.

testimony.

This is not any reason at all for the delay,

tlso, t; E ~

3 that he has been here this week, when I don't feel that he 34 4

should have, and he has just extended himscif nuch further than 5

g,,,

a nan chould be capable of doing.

6 71so, in view of the fact that you are beginning 7

with sunration, and you have stated that F*r.

Lau has civen 9

some cross-exanination, the greatest part of '.in crons-exaninatjo 3

has not been ccmpleted.

10 gow,t,hether this will take two, three, fcur, five t

l 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> of cross -eramination, I don't knew.

But the thinc of it !

i 12 is there are very important questions which he has yet to ask. l y,

l 13 7nd these deal with some of the things !'r. Charnof f broucht up

. in hic I think it is called a summation, dealing with the 14 I

./7 :',

w a

2-i 15 meteorology, population zones, and so forth.

4 I

16 Tnd these questions I feel are verv pertinent to l

17 the case.

Now if he is denied the time that he needs to get a j I.

t',.; ;

13 little recuperated, that all the points in this case cannot j

J i

,b 13 be brought out, and, therefore, cannot be rendered and civen q

i 20 l a just verdict or decision by the Board, if they do not have t

Of all of the facts to consider.

(

g; 22 j Therefore, I think at this tin >e I will aaain put I

~

b t-

1. 3 the motion before the Ecard as to askino for a delav.

t 21 I C!iP IPT'7M f:Kt LLTRUP :

fir. Charnoff?

l s

73

!"P CF7PMorr:

Yes, sir, fir. Chairman.

l e

b (3'*

'*,%w.-

t

%.[*'

• gsc$(4%

43p;in.J 2252 wy e; g,

-3 y,?,-

M,

-In7 1

I will give a very brief response.

He are sorry 3,

,o

'1

, E 2

that l*r. Lau is not feeling well.

Pe believe, hotrever, that

,; e 3

the arguments that were offered yesterday hv us with regard to i

Qci 4

his motion for at least three weeks applv equallv forcefully 3c, y.,

5 to the statement hv l'rs. Lau.

6 Me believe too that there is a requirement to e

i 7

balanca all of the interests and conniderinn all of the nanv

,c 8

opportunities that have !>een extended to !'r. Lau, that vere 9

recited by me in ny arounent yesterday and considered by the 10 Board in its decision yesterday, we believe the Board's 11 decision van a fair one yesterday and we vould urge the Board 33

.. e;

' W 12 to reconfirn it.

LvT;

(

M. -

13 I Uculd also point out that the Board noted that

&Q-

]

EE 14 it was sending the question up, or its decision up to the 15 7 tonic Fafety and Licensino 7pneal Peard.

If that 7nneal 16 Doard fee.ls that the Board's decision yesterday was not 17 correct, it would order this Licensine Peard to reonen the

-3;pi.

is hearing.

pn

,~;

39 There is nothing particularly new in what l'rs. Lau 20 has offered this morning, that was different from what Mr. Lau pi had offered in support of his motion yesterday.

22 That being the case, I would urne the Board to I

a-simply reconfirm its decision vesterday and 7 think that its 24 decision Pith re.4pect to submitting the question to the J.

25 7tomic Fafety and Licensing 7ppeal Board was a correct and a 8

.I?" I e.

f u;~. w

,, /

- 3,3,.3l i

,r

~

,+

=,

L QQpQ gyy.17;--;

2253

.. a - -

,q.y.f,

M in8-I wise one.

~

W.

9.' t..

~2 CP7IP117N SK7LLTPUP:

Fr. Tngelhardt..

4

,%ac, 2n.

x;4-3 f*R. TTGTLP7PDT:

ffr. Chairman, speaking on behalf

.', y,'

. s 4

of the Ptaff, I think I would have to sav.that we would he

_3 s

,1.

5^

opposed to a reconsideration of the Board's decision of 6

yesterday, regarding Fr. Lau's notion for more time to nrepare.

7 I don't believe that the considerations sucgested 8

by Mrs. Lau this morning in any way appreciablv change the 9

facts as they were presented to the Board yesterday when it responded to Mr. Lau's motion an we think that the opportunitics 10 v 3 11 for 1*r. Lau to present his case has cone and gone, and that

_~

> >w

-(,s

~

12 it is now the time to find that this matter has been dealt

~

(

l'3 with properly and as a consequence we would oppose any recon-s yk %.,,%

.. e w.

~

' T e *,, ' 14 sideration c.f the Board's action of yesterdav denying 1*r. Lau's mg

.[~

15 notion.

Q 16 f *P,S. L7 U :

Mr. Chairnan, may I say sonethine first.

17 CUTIPl*7N FE7LLT. PUP:

yes.

l 'M 18 f*RF. L7U:

In view of the two connents nade, first

m..: ?. -

u-13 of all Fr. Lau does not need more tine to prepare his case, 20 as he already does have it prepared.

7nd also when Fr. Lau 21 was here and made the notion himself, at that tine he was 22 feeling very bad.

23 Eut this time he is connletely incanable of even i

5 24 coning.

To I feel the ratter has worsened, and, of course, g

9

'25 this is not beinn used as a neans for delay.

It is somethina i

4 m

I-

hbhf.,.f.;., & l

[.YO i:

~

ayw m

m 4

225A

. AT..; J ; % sl *

+-

wM w* $c yr.h ~u,

h? 'lln95 I that is totally t$nnredictable and certainly was not prepared w;q w

tr -. -

,a?

y.u, y i g,.

2 for. 'Ind'I think under these' circumstances reconsideration

. Y.. g # 1i A '.

%Nf6 4',,,

should be made.

y, ~

(

G 4

CUPIRf!7N FRILLEPUP:

The Board vill go off the Q v.m:;:j; p,

~,. a,

v. -

gg 5

record.

v'f;p, }. -

M 6

(Discussion off the record.)

e c

~

7 CUAIRff7N FK7LLFPUP:

On the record.

4 4

s w~ ~ ^

8 PRF. L7U:

fir. Chairnan, may I make one more O:

9 o, -

further point before you speak?

b[

10 Talking about the delays in beina prepared and A; R.:

11 having enough time to do cross-exanination, it might be noted

.g V,

~

g, +',

3, 12

- that Pr. Lau first began his cross-exanination', that at that mW n,

f^m

i.

time he did come dewin with the mumps.

13 m.

' 14 Pad perhaps you did grant a two-week delay I believe

-u.

4^ s?.

$.N 15 or something, until Pehruary 8th for somebody, which was not QN, 4

16 Mr. Lau.

7nd I think this also should be taken into con-w:-

2 5.o,p 17 sideration, that at the time he did begin his cross-examination, 2p-a...,

ig.

w ;-,

is it was not his fault that he could not continue it at that time.

(J 13 Pnd, therefore, I feel he should have time to put g;,

1

- 20 his caso into '-he record.

-E

'[ ~ ~

2:

CUTIPMEN FK7LLEPUP:

The Board has considered the 22 arguments of the 7pplicant and the Staff, and the Eoard would gg '

state that in coning to its conclusion yesterdav to deny the 23 l

24 motion to recess for three weeks, the Board did consider jp 25 f'r. Lau'n illness and recognized the possibility that he night w.,

.#hr 6

• f?Y)',

)

o,,

^'.

,,,s it _N

~J N r

_yA[(..k '

9.;

3;qsM y?M

t

.v i.,

q-@ c..

~

/.

2 -*

2255 a s.m

.y w... s.. -

rng,,.2..e

.~

u

, y A.. s v;.._ -

..:.y-s -

- gy,. w.,,

Dr':S in10' I.

not be able to continue with the case due to his illness.

6 A.,,,.,,.. ;.

--g.6;'

t. 2 '

n,a)R'l >;;*..

T'e. took this.into consideration and in neighip v

u;

,,. p.y....e 5

9 %c,

3 all of the interents involved, determined that the proceecinc

/

'i~.

t

.~

.L J.

'?jf?

4 shotild continue.

. c.p. e

. jp ' +.1, 5

The Board will at the earliest practicable time,

~g, s

2,,

4.

6 very likely on l'onday of next week, file with the 7pnocl Board i a

i

_4

i. e

}',

7 its ruling in this matter. ' fnd we will also file with that

.9.<

y ruling this ruling denyinct the motion for reconsideration.

S l

9 fins. L7U:

Is it proper for inc at thin time to ash j

{

10 what interests were weighed?

^$ '.'.

A f

i v.s.

c

+

.f 11 CI'7 IPf *PN SK7 LLERUP :

That is in the record.

i m._.

1

,46y*'q wd 12

?TS. L7'U :

Thank vou.

l w gy y<

[

dE.13 CliPIPIITN SKILLERUP:

It vould appear in venterday's I

% ;e# Lc -

nkdfgly.. >

i Dh:;Q:#

14 transc,ript.

{

~

, j -: ;s y i

Y "7

• l

" Crid 2 15

.c.,

15 i

-g. '

m j

wf yy, ' '-

17

.?

i s

\\

.,.~W.

-g

q X

.~ '

13 l

y Qs r

1 19 j

i i,

f,. ' ^

}

go

x. a,

g,,, *-

dI 1

9 --

i e9 22

i 4

23 X,'

u.

l 4

_,Y l

_ _wy' 25 m

y-n ys' p

'a y-

. w i r ', "'

'l*

.,R, ' c.l' ~

o

j).,6 y,F -

r I2d 6 2256 m DB 93 g!~ ty 1

<4 i:

1 IIR. CUARNOFF:

Mr. Chairman, I take it the only s

,z

. c 2

remaining item then are the closing statements by the ip ; m,'..

9[

3 parties who have not yet uade them.

t

,;gs 4

There is one procedural item we didn't dispose y

['

5 of yesterday and that is a schedule has not been set for 6

transcript corrections, proposed transcript corrections.

l I

7 111ght I propose that all of the partics submit

?c,

J ~

8 them on the 20th day, on or before the 20th day after the I

~

conclusion of the hearing.

I g

10 CHAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

Any objection?

l l

MR. ENGELIIARDT:

No.

t.

g;

+.

9

CHAIRI1AN SKALLERUP:

The Board orders that any 12 pr.

[.K corrections to the transcript be subm3.tted to the Board on 33 ap;.

m l

'f'rk:@,

or before the 20th day after the conclusion of the hearing.

t y

i 14rs. Stebbins, would you like to have the last l

15 word or give Mr. Engelhardt the last word?

l 16 l

11RS. STEBBINS:

Mr, Engelhardt, what is your e

17 You know a woman always likes the last word.

{

desire?

. s.-

13 3,

&~

,o IIR. ENGELUARDT:

You look so prepared and eager, i

t 19 5

3 I think I should defer to you to make your closing statement.

20

.(,

XXXXX CLOSING STATEMENT OF EVELYN STEBBINS

['.

El l

I OU BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR SAFL NUCLEAR POklER.

I HRS. STEBBINS:

Well, my statement is as Chairman

,44 s

of the Coalition and I am also speaking for all of the as d

,)

8

2257 ty2 1

organizations and individuals that we represent.

(

2 Ue nust disagree completely with Mr. Russell Baron, 3

attorney for the Coalition, in his closing remarks and must 4

point out that the remarks made by him did not represent the 5

Coalition's view of the AEC hoaring, that they were his own 6

personal comments and cartainly do not reflect the pccition 7

of the Coalition.

s I,

further, do hereby swear and affirm that the Coaltion for Safe Nuclear Power never requested a " delay for 10 the sake of delay" and that our request for delay was based jg solely upon one reason -- the time needed to properly 12 prepare a case and bring in expert witnesses.

He completely 13 fail to understand how Mr. Baron could have used that term.

9 He seemed to be quoting something the Applicant's lawyer, 15 Mr. Charnoff had accused us of.

16 As members of this Hearing Board, the AEC Staff, 37 and the Applicants, Toledo Edison and Cleveland Electric 33 Illuminating, know full well, the purpoted purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not the construction and

g I

peration of the proposed facility will cause undue risk to 20

, the public health and safety or damage to the environment 21 l or biosphere.

C-.

2~,

)

23 This Hearing Board, the AEC Regulatory Staff, and i the Applicant, along with the AEC rules and regulations, have g

ki) 25 w rked together to prevent a fair hearing for the issues l

l

r-

,.s' 2258

1.. ' ty : 3 I

which need to be discussed at this hearing, and decided before 2

the Davis-Desse Nuclear Powcr Station is constructed.

The n

3 Applicant, aided and chetted by the AEC, is trying to push 4

this nuclear power plant down the throats of the citizens 5

of Chio.

First, the AEC granted a varianco to the Applicant g

7 uhich allcred them to stcrt construction, at their "own risk,"

t, a

of cource, before the constructicn hecring which in Oc t

i 9,! decide uhether cuch a nic-t can be cuilt cifciv.

..n OL..:::sor t

h to this variance.nermit was nade by one of the Intervancra 10 i

i,.

i

!I 3i ; before the ?ermit was granted, because of the f act that cncs L

t i

the utilities hsu invested money in the plant, the

!icaring y

33 Board would be under pressure to allow them to proceed.

It

./

t

_yct y

is perfectly obvious that the start of conctruction by the l

15.

Applicant puts precrure on the Ecard to clicu them to continue 9

l construction.

16 n

n t

i 17,i Ue are discusted t.'ith the Applicant, Tolsdo bp Ediscn's action in this matter.

We wish to point out chct i

i

[ the Coclition was offered time to prepare our case if we l

13 I!

'!; would agree to a " mini-permit" which would allow Tol edo l

l 0 s I

c l Edison to continue construction, of ccurse, at their "ovn l

_t 1

r:.sk.',

h.cuever, because or_ rn.e nrececent sent;nc. recsmant r i

o l of such a decision, and th: 7::ry dangaraur implicct cr :) an La g;

this might have en conc:ruction cf other nuclec r pc'..er plants,

i g

.~

whereby the power conpanics could firct act a variance to i

25 1

i I

t i

d;/ u 2259

?$~^

ty 4 e

I start construction, then continue with a " mini-permit" and 2

pour millions of dollars into construction before it was ever decided that such a plant could or should be built at 3

4 that location, and thereby making it even more of a burden 5

on the hearings boards to allow a construction permit "after 6

the fact of construction" already started.

^

Since we would not agree to the mini-permit, the 7

a Toledo Edison Company sneaked around behind our backs and requested such a permit from the AEC on January 7, without g

10 sending copies of such request to the Intervenors, and did l

t i

not do so until January 11.

Here they vcre requesting gj

^

the very same thing that we had denied them, and which would 12

[

)s 33 have given us the time we needed to prepare our case.

. r.

'# M ' - '

34 We must, at this point, commend this Hearing Board, for their refusal to allow any further construction 35 16 on the Davis-Besse plant until the construction permit is issued.

37 Second, the Coalition was not granted intervention 33

~

status at the prehearing, and decisions were made regarding

. g the hearing without our being allowed any say so in this 20 decision making.

As a citizen group, with lack of adequate 21 funds, we could not go ahead with any p.'.anning for a "possible" 22 I

participation in the hearing as Intervenors.

Instead of 23 deciding whether we would be allowed intervention status as 24 G

25 a first order of business, we were not granted intervention P

- F:PWT

s

<. :n- > v

. li;L..,. ;, ty 5 -

2260

,'t, );*

'l status until Decemb6r 9, after the hea ing had been proceeding.

2 It would seem as though there should have been an additional

~

3 prhearing, as has been done in some other cases, to determine l

4 our status legally, and that this should have been a first l

, - I:nd G3 5

order of business.

A 7

8 9

10 11 I

G)g 13

• fW.:,, wo.

.. ; e a.

14

+

}.

15 16 I7 10 m.

m 1

20 s

23 24 75

's

• w,

, 16

.w:-7...,

Nek n.

2261

>%;: n-f,

.r~

-Tp 4; l'

This~ hearing Board did not grant the Coalition Y -1:.

,{)!

2 adequate time to prepare our case and bring in our. witnesses.

,, a;r a j-3 I do hereby swear and affirm that the Coalition had

(

N;';

4 contacted the following persons, and they had agreed to be 5

witnesses for the Coalition:

Dr. Edward Radford of Johns

.a

'i 8

Hopkins, Dr. Lamont Cole of Cornell University and Charles 7

Huver, of the University of Minnesota, previously entered s

into the record.

s The Applicant has put constant pressure on the Hearing v'

to Board not to grant any delays because it would cost them money.

Th6 purported reason for the hearing -- to. decide y,

s M'E 12 whether this plant can be built without risk to the public q3 i3

. health and safety -- should have been the only deciding J,}k'f-{,f ~

14 factor, not whether it would cost the Applicant money.

m.;

.F 15 Without adequate time, we could not properly prepare our i~

16 case.

Further, even when we could have had a witness, Dr.

IIuver, come in on Monday, January 11, we were denied per-37 mission to do so.

We offered to have him come in when the

'].

3, m;

hearing reconvened, and that was also denied.

j, 3;

Fourth:

One after another of the Coalition's con-20 9

tentions were not allowed to be discussed, not necessarily 21 because AEC rules would not allow them to be discussed, but 22 apparently simply because we had not worded our contentions 23 in a manner in which the AEC staff, the Applicant and the 24 Gj'.[

Hearing Board thought to :be properly worded.

25 q.

l o

f.

^

g%u n@n.f;.#

7 e'

i DW. L i;;

2262 c.,.

• h y

33-2Yi b

I We were not allowed to discuss radiation standards, y

93 -

d.

2 as allowed in the Calvert Cliffs case.

We must point out

,;e.

y&

'b j-3 thr.t the " safe standards" which the AEC adopted for uranium

( s.'p?

i'M +; '

miners have caused lung cancer.

The supposedly safe radiation 4

V 5

from weapons testing has probably caused leukemia in persons

.y.~.

in Utah.

The accidental but " safe" release, according to 6

AEC, of radiation from the recent testing out West contaminated 7

I milk in five states.

a Eminent scientists have said that the radiation standards g

_ s which the AEC has adopted will cause cancer and leukemia, j* :,

to

.L and yet the Coalition was not permitted to raise this issue.

r.

. [M h Why?

Because for some reason we did not word our petition for 12 u','y>,%,. ;

leave to intervene in the correct manner.

The issue was here, OglM 'h-13 x

7

p s p (? t i but we could not. discuss it.

m3,%: t' 3 -

j, t

. s,. :. -

Y u naed only to go through out petition and ask whether 9-

_ 15 y

.~

the points we raised are pertinent considerations that should 16 be thoroughly loched into in order to assure that this nuclear

.7 p

??,

facility can.be built without undue risk to the public health

.l

, s.o la

.d;.4.;

• M#

or scfety.

When should we discuss the following matters, zi-19 1

before or after a plant is built?

i.

W.

I Whether the Davis-Besse plant can operate safely in 21 i

t view of the fact that this plant is based on designs which are not presently tested according to the information licbed 23

'by the Applicant in the PSAR, since none of the plants listed 24

by the Applicant are presently operating.

25

.~

'M M h ',

^

l lM:

,35 m.

t?.$O.~. /,-

2263

&17 ~

l

+

ey un-3 49.~ ','; ~.

Wh3thir thera 10 cny assurance that the integrity of z

fj -

2 components and engineering'of safeguards will be maintained syr.

d,'l &

3 over the life of the proposed plant, inasrauch as they will q

.([

4 be exposed to radiation which will lead to deterioriation.

. m.

c:

5 Whehter the quality control and quality assurance "1:

6 procedures and programs are adequate.

7 Nhether emergency plans and procedures have been adequatels

~

3 developed in case of an accident.

9 Whether occurrence of an accident or the discharge of radioactive effluents and heat into Lake Erie would endanger a

la

'~

[

11 the health, safety., lives and property of the public.

D!

12 Uhether the fog created'by the cooling towers would

.a ;

m.-.

13 cause dangerous environmental conditions hazardous to aircraft,

, rw z

., w Wdjdf 14 and cause more dangerous conditions in case of accidental j.;3 %

T '" J 15 release of radioactivity.

~

l

-0 l

3 is Whether the proposed plant will cause serious erosion of the Lake Erie shoreline and damage to shorefront property.

17 la How the dnagerous radioactive wastes will be transported AG,. m. 4 from the plant, and whether this can be done safely.

g3 20 Whether such wastes would have to pass througit densely 1,

.g. '

.1 Populated areas.

22 Whether the normal release of radioactive wastes will O

lbe properly monitored.

23 J

24 Whether operation of the plant will be inimical to the

- I'

s itealth and safety of the public due to the locatior near y,.

~. v.'

=

\\

7),.

w;

• .";7.e t. e ; :a a.,

.c v:rF; ' - R, 22s4 4

DD-4o. y, s I-dense population centers of Detroit, Toledo, and Sandusky i-a F

2 and Cleveland.

• r-

. 3 3

Uhether effective arrangements could be made to control l

J 4

itraffic and permit ready removal and evacuation of people in i

+e mo i

5 case of an accident.

c j Mhather the applicants have demonstrated tnat !.o aio-

~

logical damage to any of the population of !.,aP.e Eric arca 7

I i

j:will result from the radiation cmitted by the proposed plant.

3 I

g t'hother all aspects of the enviro.m.ent should be con-

}l sidered, as required by the National Environmental Protection 10 lAct.

4

,I i

12

'.fnether the Applicant has demonstrated that the proporea j

~

n facility can conply with applicable Federal and State water r,,e 4

,v

'? W S

guality standards.

u p

,1 j)

Mhether the risks to the public health and safet" far g

,foutweighthebenefits.

-3 g

p 4

h

• Thether the final design has undergone necessar" g7 research and development.

3 gg

,.i Whether the AEC presently has qualified, adoquate staff u3 9

61 lto conduct the necoccary on-sito compliance inspection during l' the course of construction.

_1 a

i

',c, 1,

Whether a complate environmntal study should be

, c,

(

1

' comaloted before ccnstruction.

<> p i

--cnd #4 c.,

r, l

.s -

'D l

s t

I 1

y -;

i

i

1. um,.

~'

'DD 05 2265 g'.

ty.1

[

1 The questions which we must ask are:

2 In this a hearing to see how well our lawyer could 3

word our contentions, or is the purpose of this hearing to j

4 determine whether or not the construction and operation of 5

the proposed nuclear plant will cause undue risk to the 6

public health and safety?

f I

1 7

i Shouldn't the AEC allow the discussion of these i

3 vital, partinent issues before construction of a nuclear I'

l 9 '

power plant?

{

o i

10 Fifth, the Atomic Energy Cctaission is a God l

si unto itself, and can set its own rules,and regulatiens without l

12 regard, even for the laws of the land.

It has been an i

(I agency with its own built-in conflict of interest, due to the 13 f act that they were charged with setting safety standards and 14 l

l also promoting nuclear power.

l 15

?l 16 The National Environmental Policy Act was designed l

37 to assure the public that all federal agencies, including i

i is the AEC, would fully explore the environmental implications

, i, of activities under their jurisdiction to prevent costly 1

l mistakes.

The AEC finally adopted new erogulations on 73 December 4 for implementing the NEPA, slightly more than I,

7; i

n four months after the deadline established by President 23 ] Hixon for all federal agencies and si:: months after the June l

}

(, l ueadline set by the President's Council on Environmental j

24

~

r.3 l Quality.

1 i

~

[. A -

4

(, yd. ~,y,.

fty 2 226G 4

E ::.,

I llowever, these rules still do not apply to the y

'(

-2 Davis-Ecsse plant, because the AEC, in its own way, without 3

regard for the environment, nas determined that these rules 4

do not apply until March 4, 1971.

5 The question we must ask is whether it is logical 6

to allow the Davis-Besse plant to be built without considering the UEPA when the plant will have to operate. within the 7

e determinations of the National Environmental Policy Act.

It g

would seem as though these determinations should be made i

jo before the plant is built, not after, which might prove l

l exceedingly costly to the power companies and its customers.

g Sixth, with respect to the other Intervonors, we 12 G

h must point out.

g3 3

~6 i ]', r-

., g

[

That the conditions under which LIFE was forced g-35 to present complete testimony to the AEC and the Applicant, I

g j a change of the rules in the middle of the hearing, and I

the cxtremely short time allowed for them to obtain such q

f testimony would have made it practically impossible for them 3,

4" i

^

! to comply with such an unfair ruling.-

1, i

1 IIere again, it was the insistont demands of the 20 l

I i

i

,~ '

Applicant that there be no delays, that the hearing proceed, i

21 t

i which forced the short time, not the consideration of whether I

{~)

the issues to be examined could be properly done in the i

i

_1 l

I short tiue allowed.

-~

e. 4 i

l-l E.'

We completely fail to understand how the Board i

l l

4 1

a s

I i

.,, mj

. d_ -), ' R.'-l.,

ty;3

~,

2267 e

g

.r.

e 1

could have possibly ruled against Mr. Lau's request for a a

c s

_.g 2

delay in the hearing because 'of his illness.

It nus t be y;, '

l 1

3 unheard of in the annals of " justice. "

Since I was not

}0*#,

here, I can only presume that the Applicant mus have again 4

f

.. ~

5 reiterated his time worn phrase that there thould be no J

6 ] delays, that these delcys cost the Itpplicant

.oney.

i 7

Again, uc nust ash :

'; hat is the purpoco of shi 8

hearing?

e Is it to ruch thic mattor through fcr the 17p'.ie:r.u, 9 i t

1

~'

to

'2oledo Edison Conpany and Clevolcnd Electric Illuminac.i ng 33 Company?

Or is it to assure that the construc: cn arc p ::c ciu

,~w.

12 of the Davis-Besse plant will not cauce undue risk nc tha s

,,33 public h6alth and gafety or damage to the environ =cnt or

','f T [-) :

r,,4 '.

p biosphere?

g,

"e do hereby finally and cnphaticall'f decicra

". n I

c we do not, cannot consider that there has ecen ; fair 37 r hearing -- a hearing which would allev discuccion of the i

A issues which should be decided before the Davis-Bosce nuclear

_ g.

Is End GS plant is built.

33 20 4

h p.

2) s s

n}-

??.

,-m b

25

- 4 t

w b

5

- w-

D.g.,.

dfh 'ff,,' '

~

/ WW !@ ~ ~~

2268

%rh s

a. cT : 3,

$?fclnle 1

I't.'ould also like to enter into the record a copy i

,' 3.}

2

~ _

$ff;k:'p of a telecram which I,sent to the Director of Ohio Pater a: p ;- -

3 Pollution Control Board and to the Governor of the state, which j'.j~

I think has some bearing on this hearing.

4 3

. N'i 5

The telegram reads, "Dr. Thomas P. Gardner, tctinc

.;+

6 Chairman, Ohio Water pollution Control Board, 450 rast Tovn 7

Ftreet, Columbus, Ohio 43216, dated February 9, 1970.

4 8

• We strongly urge that a public hearing he held 9

before cny certificate or permits be issued for the Davis-

,y,,

m 10 Besse nuclear power plant.

We further request that public

' i '..

q

(~-

11 hearings be held in Cleveland.

e

%,r

./

12

" Discharge of radioactive waste to the unter would

, ";' q::-,.

.f f.

violate tihe water quality standards, ninimun conditions nnpli-l 13 1

W%g. -

p

~14 cable to all vcters at all places and at all times,

.., a #

c, 15 should be free fron substances which are toxic or harmful to 1 il 16 human, animal, plant or anuatic life.

The discharge of

.c 17 radioactive waste to our water uould also violate non-

. JN,.:

is degradation clause of our uator quality standards.

,,..g 4;W '

19 Figned Evelyn Ftebbins, Chairman, Citi:: ens for 20 Clean Air T. Pater, Inc., and Coalition for Safe Nuclear Tower.

]

pg I would also like to enter into the record a copv 22 of the t'all Street Journal article on 7 tom-700 Trash, dated p,e 23 Monday,' January 25, 1971.

t end 57 24 l fG n

.i~s N ;h

• L N

's-

~

a,5 ;.

, s yra s

rctiW. -

2269 w

m;;>, e 1

/.,' =.,

MR. ENGLEHARDT:

Mr. Chairman, that last request 2

raises som question as to tinat status this is.

Is Mrs.

Un 6'..

o' 3

Stebbins just bringind this to the attention of the Doard?

1

,s 4

MRS. STEEBINS:

Just bringing it to the attention i

I 5

of the Board is all.

6 MR. ENGEL id.RDT :

Need it be marked for any91ng, t

7 other than just recognized as an article brought to your O

attention?

I O

CHAIRMAN SKALLERUP:

What is it ycu are dcin :?

l D !

4 j

, t' >

10 MP3. STEB3IN3 :

"Atem-Age Trash,"

I marc 17 vich

[

==

11 to cnter it into th: raccrd for whatever purpores cuch a i

i

• z mimited appearance might ccunt, not for evidence or anything I

,.,-r' 13 of that nature.

.,. n TM' 14 CHAIRMAN SRAT,T,RRUP:

Any cc~r.cnt?

I I

i f5 d

?G. CHAR'!OFF:

no comment.

s t

ic CHAIP;GM SEALLERUP:

It is sc wordered that it

\\

t

?

17 I

be receivad as a liuited appearance.

.)- h is,f Are you ready for Mr. Engelhardt?

p i

.i i

59 h MRS. STEEDINS:

I cm recdy.

9

't

't f

20 1 CLOSING STATE *1ENT ON BEHALP OF THE REGULATORY i

4 N

STAFF BY MR. ENGELUARDT l

1 l

[i U".

XXXXX 22 MR. ENGELMARDT:

Mr. Chaircan, I have a very m

[

brief closing statement.

The cpplication for a construction 13 v

a

[' permit filed by the Tolodo Ediscn Comptny and the Cleveland 2 ".

ti Elsetric Illuminating Company for the Davis-Bocso :)lant has i

p3 l

s fe.

'/

A s

yfg-p l

~

r

, ; ac -_ -

3e 3,~

2270 i %X'r !

,m.,

~ 'd,.,

1 Ibeen under consideration by the Regulatory Staff and by the j

' Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards since August 1, 2

. %n w

-w 3

1969 4

As our testimony in this proceeding has shown, we 5

have concluded that there is a reasonable assurance that this proposed facility can be constructed and eventually oper-6 I

~

ated without undue risk to the hecith and safety of the public, 7

n Three intervanors in this proceeding have attennted 8

to raise questions as to the safety of this proposed facility.

9 The Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power presented as its sole 10 witness Dr. Ernest Sternglass, whose testimony had little gg 3

12 {

s&.

relevance to specific contentions of that party.

And what

't,

{.

j3 was relevant raised no serious question as to the adequacy

.,g.

of the design of the proposed plant or the safety of the 2

<14 15 proposed operation.

{

?

16 Crocs er. amination by the Intervenor also failed to raise any serious questions regarding this facility.

37

~

• Ef; 4 They did raise specific questions regarding the use of off-33

-h shore r'nges by the various milita;y organizations, but g

these matters have essentially been resolved during 20 the review of the application by the AEC Regulatory Staff 21 I

aniby additional assurance given by responsible government 22 fficials as to the controls to be exercised in the use of 23 24 these ranges.

(_,

The second intervenor, Mr. Glenn Lau, presented 25 m-

',*ig

)

,4 7, N

2M ~(,)

}.'.1., - s

. I'. ' 1

^'

g'%,b.-ri.

~~*)-

k %. s.

2271

..e-. y,

h

' kg i i 32 b 3

Dr. Sternglass as his witness.

This testimony was essentially 4

,e W,;

2 not relevant,to Mr. Lau's contention with respect to the

-Ip > m s.

s

. g.s. f :..~.

J'

• 3 safety of this facility.

'O 4'

Mr. Lau presented in addition some 10 witnesses f

', ~

5 who described the snow and storm conditions in the Sand 6

Seach area in which they live in suppcrt of.Mr. Lau's I

7 contention that the applicant failed tb meet the requirements 8

of the Commission in that it cculd not assure the feasibility

, t 9

of proposed evacuation plans.

W 10 The information was not previously known by j

4 the Regulatory Staff, it was considered by the Staff, and

'W 11

.e p:;,

7;_

12 in rebuttal testimony ~it indicated that this prcblem culd l

18 developed or that the Applicant could not meet the requirements ys s

^

of the regulations.

19 20 The third intorvenor, LIFE, contended that the

,t'~

21 i

radiation standards sat forth in 10 CFR Part 20 ucre illegal, f I

l inadequate and an abuse of the Commission's discretion.

22 i

~

In support of their contentions Intervonor LIFE 23 l

24 presented but a single witnoss, Dr. Sternglass.

In addi_icn, i

'-~

{

25 the Board presented as its witness Dr. Arthur Tamplin, g

,t

^4

2272 t

whose testinony was also related to the LIFE contantion.

4 aht LIFE witness and Dr. Tamplin was

(

2 The testimony of the i

3 rebutted by the Staff's witnesses.

9 With respect to Dr. Tamplin's testimony, rebuttal a

testimony indicated that Dr. Tamplin's testimony was a~

e deficient in that it failed to provide underlying assumptions 6

on which his conclusions were based, an'd that further the 7

assumptions which vere provided were unrealistic.

a The testimony by Dr. Sternglass was rebutted by 8

I 30 several Staff uitnesses.

The rebuttal mada clear that the data relied upon by Dr. Sternglass in his testimony 13 relating to the adequacy of the standards were unraliable 12 and chosen to support his hypothesis while ignoring or 13 distorting other data which failed to support this hypothesis.

14 15 Other rebuttal testimony discredited certain 16 contentions of Dr.. Sternglass with respect to the adequacy of 17 known information, the adequacy of studies and the effects la of strontium-90.

19 In summary, the Staff in this proceeding has 20 heard no reliable evidence which would in any way change 21 its conclusions as stated in the Safcty Evaluation as to the j

r m

., 2 4

h l

adequacy of the application or as to whether this construction 23 l

permit should be issued.

24 Furthermore, the evidence presented in this

/

i 25 t

^

2273 1

proceediag regarding the invalidity of Part 20 has been

(-)

2 fully and completely rebutted in the presen'tation of cvidence 2

}

by the S*:aff and the Applicant.

c '.

F

, (,

4 And as fcr ns the evidence is concerned, there has l

E ll' been no showing by the Intervenors that the Part 20 radiation e ;j standards are deficient or will not adequately protect the hea;t

j i

7 q and safety of the public.

d r:

That concludes our statement.

I C f CHAITGIAN SKALLERUP:

Any further matters to ecme

o [

before the Board?

I

[

(No response.)

\\

32 {I CHAIRMAN SIv'ELERUP :

There being none, the Board I

f adjourns the hearing.

3 u

MR. CHAMiOFP:

May I ask whether the Board has i

35 closed the record in the hearing?

ss CHAIPl*AN SKALLERUP:

The Board is closing' the 37 record of the hearing.

It is so ordered.

S (Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m.,

the hearing was concluded.)

g i

20 b

'(

2z n

l, i

l 24

.ls/

25

.