ML19329C674

Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision Allowing CP to Remain in Effect. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329C674
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	08/14/1973
From:	SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19329C672	List: ML19329C671 ML19329C674
References
NUDOCS 8002180178
Download: ML19329C674 (77)

Text

_ -._. _ _ . . _ . ._ _. ._. . _ _ . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ __ _- _

, e ,

4 April 14, 1973 r

?

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I

i l In the Matter of )

)

i THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )

2 and THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-346 i ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power )

Station) )

l 1

1 APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF

'- FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF AN INITIAL DECISION i

h i

I 1

l l- ,

i 4

1

?

8002180/7 [

. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ -__ _ _ _ ___. . . _ _ _ - - _ -. _ _ ... __._.2____.,_,. . . _

i e n N

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF RECORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. FINDINGS OF FACT - CONTESTED ISSUES . . . . . 18 A. Issue 1 (Conservation of Energy) . . . . 18 B. Issue 2 (Environmental Ef fects of Storm Damage) . . . . . . . . . 26 C. Issue 4 (Fuel Failure Rate) . . . . . 32 D. Issue 5 (Effects of Davis-Besse Effluents and Effluents from

Nuclear Reactors on Lakes j

Michigan, Huron and Superior) . . . . . . . . . . . 33 E. Issue 6 (Increased Radioactive Releases with Aging) . . . . . 36 F. Issue 7 (Industrial and Population Growth) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G. Issue 8 (Effect of Effluents on Lake Erie) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 H. Issue 9 (Shippingport and Plum Brook, Releases) . . . . . . . . . . . 51 III. FINDINGS OF FACT - COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 102 (2) (C) AND (D) OF NEPA AND APPENDIX D OF 10 CFR PART 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT - INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL BALANCE AMONG CONFLICTING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 A. Impact of Construction . . . . . . . . . 67 B. Impact of Operations . . . . . . . . . . 67 C. Need for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 (ii)

D. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 (ii) f j i 1

! e TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.

Page E. Board Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 70 V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 VI. ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 l

(

ii l

l

r ,

e f August 14, 1973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i

i In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )

and THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docke t No . 50-346 ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power )

Station) )

APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS Or

! FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN

! THE FORM OF AN INITIAL DECISION I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF RECORD.

1. The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (" Applicants") are holders of Construct-ion Permit No. CPPR-80 ("the Construction Permit") issued by 1

the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") on March 24, 1971. The Construction Permit authorized Applicants to construct a pressurized-water nuclear reactor, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ("the Davis-Besse facility") , at Applicar.Si' site on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio.

2. Because the Construction Permit was issued on March 24, 1971, the facility is subject to the provisions of Section B of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, which establishes procedures for the review of environmental considerations l

t

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A ") for construction permits issued between January 1, 1970 and September 9, 1971.

3. Pursuant to Section B of Appendix D, AEC published on January 5, 1973, a Notice of Hearing [38 Fed. Reg. 904]

which stated that a hearing would be held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("the Board") and set forth the matters which would be considered in that hearing. The Notice also provided that petitions for leave to intervene could be submitted by any person whose interest might be affected with respect to whether, considering those matters covered by Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, the Construction Permit should be continued, modified, terminated or approp-riately conditioned to protect environmental values. On March 15, 1973, AEC published a Notice of Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board [38 Fed. Reg. 7016] which designated the individual members of the Board.

4. In response to the Notice of Hearing, a letter dated January 14, 1973, was received from Steve Gannis requesting " permission according to the law to make a state-I ment at the environmental impact hearing" and requesting

" permission to become a formal .< ,a1 party" . Both Applicants

(

and the AEC's Regulatory Staff ("the Staff") objected to the admission of Mr. Gannis as a party on the basis that the letter failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714. In

i 1

l l

its Memorandum and Order of March 30, 1973, the Board denied Mr. Gannis' petition, but invited him to make a limited 1 appearance statement.

5. On February 2, 1973, Mrs. Evelyn Steobins on behalf I

of the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power (whose name was subsequently changed to the Coalition for Safe Electric Power)

("the Coalition") filed a " list of contentions" . Both Applic-ants and the Staff in their answers to this filing found that it failed to meet the requirements for a petition to intervene 4

set forth in 10 CFR S2.714. While Applicants requested that I the Coalition's filing should be denied, the Staff suggested i

that the Coalition should be permitted to cure certain defects in the course of the prehearing procedures. The Board's Memorandum and Order of March 30, 1973, found that the Coalit-ion's filing failed in substantial part to meet the requirements of $2.714 but allowed the Coalition an additional twenty days to submit a petition to intervene which conformed to the i

requirements of AEC's Rules of Practice.

\

j 6. The Coalition submitted an amended petition to i

intervene on April 16, 1973. Following responses by Applic-ants and the Staff, the Board issued a Notice and Order for Special Prehearing Conference, dated May 4, 1973 [38 Fed. Reg.

12149]. While noting that the Coalition 's petition, as amended, was still vague, unclear and ambiguous, the Board ordered that a Sp.ecial Prehearing Conference be held to clarify and resolve the matter.

o i

l

7. The Special Prehearing Conference was convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 22, 1973. On considering the filings

! of the Coalition and the statements of the parties at the l

Conference, the Board in its Special Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 31, 1973, found that the Coalition had j adequately identified its interest and had set forth with

! sufficient particularity and basis eight issues specified in l that Order. These issues are discussed in detail in Section II below. In so ruling, the Board took account of the fact that the Coalition had not had the benefit of counsel. (S ubsequent

{ to the Special Prehearing Conference, the Coalition obtained I

co unsel . ) Based upon the discussion at the Conference, the i

l Board stated, Order p. 2, that it expected the Coalition to f'

support, through direct testimony, the contentions made at the Special Prehearing Conference.

8. Pursuant to published notices [38 Fed. Reg. 15862, 16416], a Prehearing Conference was held on June 28, 1973, in

} Toledo, Ohio. The Board approved stipulations establishing further schedules for the proceeding, resolving certain objections by Applicants to interrogatories submitted to them j by the Coalition, clarifying several issues, and agreeing to I

i the admission into evidence of certain documents. Prehearing Conference Order, July 10, 1973, pp. 1-4. The Coalition distributed a list showing the witnesses it would call for each issue. Tr. 144-145. At the Prehearing Conference,

\

- . - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . - _ - _ - ,_. , _ _ _ _ - , , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _a

,e a . - . . - - & 4--_ _ a, _ h e i

l Applicants moved to strike Issue 3, dealing with transport-l ation of radioactive wastes and spent fuel, as a challenge to l AEC regulations without the showing required by 10 CFR

) S2.758. Tr. 102-103. The Board ordered that responses to the motion be filed by July 5, 1973. Tr. 130-131. The Coalition filed no response. The Staff, in a filing dated July 5, 1973, supported Applicants' motion. For the reasons expressed by the Board at the Prehearing Conference , Tr. 128-130, Issue 3 j was stricken. Prehearing Conference Order, pp. 4-5.

9. Pursuant to the directive of the Special Prehearing Conference Order, all parties undertook discovery. In l

response to a telephonic request by Mrs. Stebbins on June 7, 1973, and subsequent written interrogatories and request for documents from the Coalition dated June 21, 1973, Applicants supplied written answers and documents by transmittals dated June 12, June 15, June 19, June 20 and July 5, 1973. S ub-stantial additional documents were made available for the Coalition's inspection at Applicants ' offices. The Coalition visited the Davis-Besse site and interviewed Applicants ' and i

contractors' personnel. The Staf f supplied written responses to informal interrogatories posed by the Coalition on July 16, 1973. The Staff also supplied, or made available, numerous documents requested by the Coalition.

10. On June 8 and June 16, 1973 respectively, Applicants

! and the Staff served written interrogatories and requests for 1

l l

l r

e m

.. - .. ~_ . - . _ - . _ . - - - _ - _ . - - - - -. _ -..-. _ _ - .

I a

e 4

documents on the Coalition. The Coalition filed answers on

]

June 25, 1973. At the Prehearing Conference, Applicants

moved to compel the Coalition to file responsive answers to their interrogatories, observing that the Coalition had f ailed to answer many of them. Tr. 100-102. Following an agreement r

among the parties , this motion was withdrawn and the Coalition

! agreed to complete its responses to the interrogatories by i - July 9, 1973. Tr. 118.

l 11. In accordance with the schedule established at the Prehearing Conference and reflected in the Prehearing l

Conference Order, the Coalition on July 11, 1973 submitted its I

direct testimony covering Issues 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. No direct 1

testimony was filed by the Coalition on Issues 4 and 5.

j 12. On July 13, 1973, Applicants moved to strike the testimony of Dr. Ernest Sternglass submitted by the Coalition with respect to Issues 6 and 7 on the grounds that the testi-many was irrelevant to these issues. Issue 6 alleged that radioactive releases from nuclear plants would increase with i

l age. Dr. S te rnglas s ' Issue 6 testimony was silent as to the i

effects of aging and instead purported to show that the relatively small releases from the Shippingport Power Station and the Plum Brook Reactor Facility were resulting in high dose levels in the environment. Issue 7 asserted that locating the Davis-Besse facility in a largely agricultural area would result in industrial and population growth. Dr. Sternglass' Issue 7 testimony claimed to show that radioactivity released i

l 1

l

t a

from nuclear reactors had resulted in increased mortality and disease. The Staff's response, dated July 20, 1973, agreed that this testimony was irrelevant and should be stricken.

The Coalition filed no written response. Af ter oral argument, Tr. 209-211, the Board found that Dr. Sternglass ' testimony was irrelevant and immaterial to Issues 6 and 7 and granted Applic ants ' motion. Tr. 339-B.

13. Applicants also moved on July 13, 1973 to strike Issues 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the grounds that the Coalition had failed to meet its burden of going forward on these issues, and had f ailed to make a prima f acie case, as required by Consumers Power Co., (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-123, RAI-73-5, at 345 (May 18, 1973). Since the Coalition had presented no testimony on Issues 4 and 5 and had presented no relevant testimony on Issues 6 and 7 (see para. 12, ab ove) , Applicants argued that these issues should be stricken. Applicants also based their motion to strike these issues on the Coalition 's failure to respond to Applicants' interrogatories, a failure manifested by the Coalition's statement in its answers to the interrogatories that "informaticn will be provided in our testimony". See Coalition's Answers to Applicants' Interrog-atories, dated July 9, 1973. The Staff in its July 20, 1973 response opposed this motion, based upon an Appeal Board decision issued subsequent to Applicants' motion, Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2),

l

t i ALAB-137, July 17, 1973. The Coalition filed no written response. During oral argument, Applicants noted the apparent inconsistency between ALAB-123 and ALAB-137, but suggested possible consistent readings. Tr. 214-218. The Board ruled, with respect to Issues 5 and 6, that it would ordinarily consider the Coalition's failure to support its burden as suf ficient grounds to strike those issues. However, in its desire to develop a complete and adequate record, the 4

i Board denied Applicants' motion and ruled that it would hear the written direct testimony submitted by Applicants and the Staff and permit cross-examination by the Coalition provided that the Coalition advised the Board in advance of the I intended purpose of such cross-examination and specified what i

j the Coalition would show by it. Tr. 339-B. As set forth below, Issues 4 and 7 were resolved by summary disposition.

14. Applicants, on July 16, 1973, moved to strike the testimony of Dr. Ernest Sternglass, submitted by the Coalition on issues 6, 7 and 8, on the ground that the same methodology and arguments relied upon by Dr. Sternglass had been presented by him, examined, and rejected by the Appeal Board in Trustees of Columbia University, ALAB-50, WASH-1218, 320 at 336-349 (May 18, 1972) and by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in the construction permit hearings for the Davis-Besse f acility, Initial Decision, paras. 42-43, 2 CCH At. En. L.R. 111,594.01 i

(March 23, 1971) ; Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear l

._.,,_m, -

--w$ - --w . - - -m..n-

l

/

1 . .

r i

Power Station, Initial Decision, RAI-73-4, 282-284 (April l 12, 1973); and Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), Initial Decision, para. 66, 2 CCH At. En. L.R.

I 111,701.02 (December 14, 1972), affirmed ALAB-123, RAI-73-5 1

i at 344-345 (May 18, 1973). The Staff's response of July 20, i

1973, supported this motion, at least for Dr. Sternglass' i l Issue 6 and 7 testimony. By a separate motion submitted i

, July 16, 1973, Applicants also moved to dismiss Issue 8 on d

the ground that its subject matter as limited by the direct testimony submitted by the Coalition (radiological effects on I

fisn), had been litigated by the Coalition in the hearings held July 1972, relating to suspension of the Construction j Permit pending completion of the full environmental review.

The Staff's July 20, 1973, response took the position that the ultimate issue,s in the two proceedings were sufficiently 3

different to warrant another consideration of this issue.

The Coalition filed no written response to either motion.

! Because Dr. Sternglass' testimony on Issues 6 and 7 had

! already been stricken for other reasons, the Board did not i

reach the question wnether this testimony should also be j stricken on the basis of res judicata. With respect to i Issue 8, the Board ruled that the methodology and arguments i

used by Dr. Sternglass in his testimony with respect to Issue 8 did not appear to be the same as those which had been l

l considered and rejected in other proceedings. Tr. 340. The 1

Board did not specifically rule on whether Issue 8 should be stricken on the grounds of res judicata as having been previously litigated at the suspension hearing.

15. At the evidentiary hearing, Applicants moved to strike the testimony of Dr. Sternglass as to Issue 8 on the ground that Dr. Sternglass lacked any educational or profess-ional qualifications with respect to fish population. The Board ruled that the testimony would be accepted for whatever it was worth. Tr. 589. The Board did, however, strike from this testimony references to the testimony submitted by Dr.

Sternglass with respect to Issues 6 and 7. Tr. 558-561, 576-577, 674-675.

16. Also on July 16, 1973, Applicants filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on Issues 2, 4, 6 and 7. The motion was accompanied by Affidavits of Lowell Roe, Dr. John N.

Sorensen, Dr. Morton I. Goldman, and Dr. Julius A. Gylys.

The Staff, on July 20, 1973, answered that summary disposition was warranted on the basis of the statement of material f acts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard, identified in the motion. The Coalition, on July 20, 1973, filed an opposition to Applicants' motion only with respect to Issues 2 and 6. No opposition was submitted to summary disposition on Issues 4 and 7. In the absence of any opposition with respect to these issues, the Board concluded that there was no genuine issue of f act and granted Applicants ' motion as to l

l l

I Issues 4 and 7. Tr. 235. With respect to Issues 2 and 6, the Board granted Applicants' motion for summary disposition except as to the controverted facts identified by the Board.

Tr. 341-342.

17. Notwithstanding the f act that the testimony of Dr. Sternglass submitted by the Coalition on Issues 6 and 7 was determined to be irrelevant to those matters (see para.

12 above) , the Board felt that the testimony raised a new question Ghich had sufficient potential significance to warrant its consideration as a new issue. This issue (referred to herein as Issue 9) claimed that the techniques for estimating environmental dose rates from radioactive releases from nuclear facilities were substantially in error, and was based on Dr. Sternglass' assertions that releases from the Shippingport Power Station and the Plum Brook test reactor, while releasing smaller quantities of radioactive materials than predicted for the Davis-Besse facility, had resulted in radioactive dose levels much higher than predicted for the Davis-Besse facility. Tr. 202-205, 343-348, 627. On the basis of res judicata, the Board excluded from this new issue Dr. Sternglass' allegations relating to the biological effect of radiation in that these issues have already been resolved adversely to Dr. Sternglass in this and other proceedings. Tr. 820-821. Tne Board initially rejected Applicants ' argument that Issue 9 should be dismissed as i l l

i t

I j merely another manifestation of the already-rejected method-ology of Dr. Sternglass. Tr. 345-347, 530-536, 596. Follow-i 1 I

] ing testimony by a Staff witness, Dr. Norman Frigerio,

! indicating that Dr. Sternglass had consistently used the same i

rejected methodology, Tr. 608-612, Applicants moved the Board to reconsider its ruling admitting Issue 9. Tr. 624. The Board deferred ruling on this motion pending rebuttal testi-mony by Dr. Sternglass. Tr. 627. Dr. Sternglass and the l

Coalition waived their right to rebuttal. Tr. 773. While the Board deferred ruling at the hearing on Applicants ' motion,

! Tr. 1118, based on its review of the record, the Board now i  !

rules that Applicants ' motion to reconsider has merit. The j Board finds that the methodology advanced by Dr. Sternglass

! in support of Issue 9 is the same as that which has been i

considered and rejected in this docket and in other hearings in the context of Dr. Sternglass ' allegations regarding the

, biological effect of low releases of radiation. Based upon the principle of res judicata (including collateral estoppel) ,

j relitigation was not warranted. Nonetheless, the Board also l

l examines the evidence submitted on Issue 9 and concludes, on the merits of the issue, that Dr. Sternglass' allegations, which formed the basis of this issue, are without any merit.

See Section II.H below.

18. Pursuant to a Notice of Evidentiary Hearing [38 Fed. Reg. 18053], the evidentiary hearing began July 23, 1973 i

l

i -

at the Trinity United Methodist Church, Port Clinton, Ohio, for the purpose of receiving limited appearance statements.

i Additional limited appearance statements were received on 1

July 24, 1973 when the hearing reconvened at the Anthony J.  !

t Celebreeze Building, Cleveland, Ohio. At the request of

the Board, oral and written responses were made by the Staff 1

i and the Applicants respectively, to matters raised by the limited appearance statements. Tr. 199-200, 206-209, 741-742, 1043. The hearings continued in Cleveland at the same location on July 24-27, 1973 and August 6-7, 1973.

19. On Augus t 6, 197 3, the Coalition filed a motion to delay the closing of the record with respect to Issue 2 i

and a motion to compel discovery. Tr. 760. Following oral arciment, the Board denied the motions on the grounds that j

the Coalition showed no reason for reopening discovery at such a late stage in the hearing, that the information sought by the Coalition was not relevant to matters in i

controversy as established by the Board's summary disposit-ion ruling, and that the Coalition had not, as to the

] information sought, taken advantage of the discovery process established for this proceeding. Tr. 1117-1118.

20. The record of the hearing includes the following exhibits of fered by Applicants (marked and numbered as

" Applicants ' Exhibits") and received in evidence:

I

1. Booklet entitled "50 Ways to Save on Your Electric Bill" (Tr. 257).

1 l

l ..

2. Applicants ' Environmental Report, dated August 3, 1970 (Tr. 352-354).

j 3. Applicants' two-volume Supplement to Environmental

' Repo rt , dated November 8, 1971, as amended by i

Amendment No. 1 dated July 13, 1972 (Tr. 352-354).

4. Applicants' Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplement dated July 5, 1972 (Tr. 352-354).

i SA & B. Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Study Reports by Industrial BIO-TEST Laboratories cover-ing July - December, 1972 (dated March 9, 1973) and January - March,1973 (dated May 11, 1973)

> (Tr. 352-354) .

l 6. Martin, D.E., " Radiological Impact of Nuclear Power Generation on the Water Quality of Lake Erie",

NUS-1044, June 1973 (Tr. 705-706).

! 7. Ohio EPA, Radiological Health Report, " Surf ace and Ground Waters of Ohio, 1969-1970-1971-1972".

(Tr. 849-853).

8. Chart, " Maximum Beta Activity in Lake Erie Water",

. (Tr. 860-861).

9. Table, "Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Readings, mrem / month", (Tr. 970-871).

10. " Table 1 Strontium-90 in Soil, 1971", (Tr. 875-876).

l 11. " Table 2 Strontium-90 in Milk, 1971", (Tr. 886-888).

l 12. Testimony by W.D. Rowe Environmental Protection Agency, before the Governor's Fact-Finding Committee at Hearings in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, July 31, August 1-2, 1973, (Tr. 913-915, 920, 1056, 1060).

i 13. Report by Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, I EPA, " Assessment of Environmental Radioactivity in the Vicinity of Shippingport Atomic Power Station, July 20, 1973", (Tr. 918, 920-921). l

14. Report by AEC, " Summary Report on the Assessment of Environmental Radioactivity in the Vicinity of the Shippingport Power Station, May 1973" (Tr. 918, 920-921).

15A - D. Charts, " Annual Average Total Activity in Untreated Lake Water, 1963, 1967, 1969, 1971", (Tr. 1023, 1061-1062).

21. The following exhibits were offered by the Coalition j (marked and numbered as Intervenor's Exhibits) and received in evidence except as otherwise noted:

1-4. Documents prepared by Toledo Edison's Area and Industrial Development Departments, (Tr. 303-308).

5. Summary of The Toledo Edison Co. Advertising, Sales Promotion and Public Relations Expenses, 1968 through 1973 (Exhibit 1-D to Applicants ' Answers to Coalition's Interrogatories, dated July 5, 1973),

(Tr. 313-315).

6. Summary of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

Advertising, Sales Promotion and Public Relations Expenses, 1968 through 1973 (Exhibit 1-E to Applic-ants' Answers to Coalition's Interrogatories, dated July 5, 1973), (Tr. 313-315).

7. Testimony of Dr. Sternglass with respect to Issue 8 (Tr. 578, 589, 674-675).

8A - M. Photographs of the Davis-Besse site (T r. 644-652, 673-674).

9. State of Ohio Information Circular No. 39, "The November 1972 Storm on Lake Erie", (1973) (Tr. 673-674).

10A. Testimony of Dr. Ernest Sternglass submitted with respect to Issue 6 (Tr. 817-827, 898-900).

10B. Testimony of Dr. Ernest Sternglass submitted with respect to Issue 7 (Tr. 817-827, 898-900).

I llA - F. Charts and Tables prepared by Dr. Sternglass regarding Shippingport TLD data (Tr. 940-945, 951-952, 987-990).

12. " Summary Sheet of RadM>y c; city Measurements" in .

Pennsylvania Surface h;U -> prepered by C.E. Moss, j

(Tr. 992, 998, 1002) s relescad).

i

13. Chart, " Ohio EPA Water Radioactivity Measurements at East Liverpool and Toledo", prepared by Dr.

Sternglass (Tr. 99 8-1002) (rejected).

14. Figure, " Average Monthly Values of Sr-90 Deposition",

prepared by Dr. Sternglass (Tr. 1002-1009) (rejected).

15. Figure, " Radioactivity in Drinking Water with Distance from Plum Brook Reactor", prepared by Dr.

Sternglass (Tr. 1009-1012).

16A-SS. Materials on Advertising by Applicants (Tr. 1047).

17. N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,

" Radioactivity in Air, Milk and Water, Oct. - Dec.

1972", (Tr. 1050, 1057).

18. U.S. Department of Fealth, Education & Welfare (Public Health Serv ..ce) , " Radioactive Waste Discharges to the Environment from Nuclear Power Facilities, BRH/ DER-70 -2 " , (Tr. ' 10 51, 10 5 7) .

19. NUS Reports , Preoperational Radioactivity Monitoring 19A- D. Program, Beaver Valley Power Station, June 1971 -

March 1972 (Tr. 1051, 1057-1058).

20. " Report of Reactor Operations for the NASA Plum Brook Reactor, April 9, 1971 - May 19, 1972", (Tr.

1053, 1058).

21. Penn. Dept. of Environmental Resources , " Water Quality Network Radioactivity Results, August 1964 Through August 1972, Southwestern Penn. Counties, Rivers or Major Tributaries Thereto", (Tr. 1053, 1058).

22. Michelson, "Some Observations on the Reports of Excessive Radionuclides in the Shippingport Area" .

(Tr. 1053, 1058).

, 23. Statement by Prof. Harold L. Ro senthal, (Tr. 1053, 1058).

24. Ohio Dept. of Health , " Radiological Monitoring Program 1966, 1967, 1968", (Tr. 1054, 1059).

16 (i)

l .

24A. " Radiological Monitoring Stations" (Tr. 1054, 1059).

24B-GG. Ohio Department of Health, " Radiological i Analysis of Ground and Surf ace Waters in Ohio",

1962 - 1969 (Tr. 1054-1055, 1059-1060).

22. The Staf f of fered the following exhibits (marked and numbered as Staff Exhibits) and received in I

evidence:

1. Letter to Dr. John Gofman from Dr. Norman A.

Frigerio, October 23, 1972 (Tr. 1071-1072).

i 2. Letter to Dr. Frigerio from Dr. Gofman, December 10, 1972 (Tr. 1076-1077).

3. Letter to Dr. Gofman from Dr. Frigerio, December 18, 1972 (Tr. 1079).

4. Letter to Dr. Frigerio from Dr. Gofman, February 5, 1973 (Tr. 10 80 - 10 81) .

P

5. Letter to Dr. Frigerio from Dr. Gofman, March 21, 1973 (Tr. 1085-1086).

6. Letter to Dr. Gofman from Dr. Frigerio, March 27, 1973 (Tr. 1088-1089).

.i

7. Letter to Dr. Gofman from Dr. Frigerio, April 2, 1973 (Tr. 1089).

8. Letter to Dr. Gofman from Dr. Frigerio , May 21,

l. 1973 (Tr. 1089).

23. Incorporated in the record of the hearing is Applican ts ' direct testimony on Issue 1 (Testimony of Reed Rey-nolds and Lowell Roe, following Tr. 241); Issue 2 (Testimony of l

16 (ii)

Lowell Roe, following Tr. 630); Issue 5 (Testimony of Dr. Morton I. Goldman, following Tr. 705); Issue 6 (Testi-many of Dr. Morton I. Goldman , following Tr. 733); and Issue d (Testimony of Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, following Tr. 386; Dr. Peter Mellinger, following Tr. 388 and Tr.

529; Dr. Lauren R. Donaldson, following Tr. 389; Dr. Wilbur L. Hartman, following Tr. 389). Also incorporated in the record as testimony of the Staff is the Final Environmental S tatement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, March 1973 (following Tr. 498) and additional direct testimony on Issue 1 (Testimony of Dennis J. Night-ingale, following Tr. 683), Issue 2 (following Tr. 502, and ,

see Tr. 563), Issue 5 (following Tr. 724), Issue 6 (follow-ing Tr. 753) and Issue 8 (following Tr. 600). Incorporated in the record as the Coalition's direct testimony is testi-mony on Issue 1 (Testimony of Richard E. Morgan, following Tr. 327), and Issue 2 (Statements by several residents of the area near the Davis-Besse site, letter dated July 10, 1973 from U.S. Coast Guard to Dr. Owen Davies, following Tr. 672).

24. The Board incorporated by reference into the record of this proceeding the record of the hearings held in May and July, 1972, pursuant to Section E of Appendix D to 10

• l CFR Part 50, with respect to whether or not construction of the Davis-Besse facility should be suspended pending complet-ion of the full NEPA review and the Initial Decision issued l

following those hearings. Tr. 729-730.

25. The Board, in accordance with the Notice of Hearing (38 Fed. Reg. 904), has decided the matters in controversy among the parties and the issues required to be decided under NEPA and Section A.ll of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT - CONTESTED ISSUES 1

A. Issue 1 (Conservation of Energy)

26. As set forth in the Special Prehearing Conference Order dated May 31, 1973, Issue 1 states:

The Coalition contends that the Final Environmental Statement constitutes an arbitrary and capricious refusal to comply with considerations of alternatives as required by Section 102 (2) (c)iii of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in that the

' staff' has f ailed and refused to consider the alternative of .

conservation of energy within the Applicants' service areas so as to obviate the need for the 872 MN additional capacity of the Davis-Besse Plant.

By stipulation the Issue was limited to seven possible conservation methods: ban on promotional advertising and activities, conservation advertising, changes in rate structure (cost-based pricing rather than promotional pricing; higher rates), changes in the use of electricity, changes in public attitudes, energy-efficient buildings and energy-ef ficient appliances. Tr. 138, Prehearing Conference Order dated July 10, 1973, p. 3.

i

27. Testimony of Richard E. Morgan submitted by the Coalition claimed that current reserve projections for CAPCO (a power pool to which Applicants belong) were higher than those used by the Staf f, that Applicants and CAPCO exaggerate demand projections since Toledo Edison has a winter rather than a summer peak, that a 20% reserve margin may not be desirable and that CAPCO was satisfied with a 15.8% margin, that Applicants ' demand forecasts may be inaccurate, that higher electric rates could reduce peak demand, that CAPCO electric rates were structured to elicit the greatest possible demand growth, that Applicants were heavily promoting the use of electricity and thus increasing peak use, that greatly increased conservation advertising could significantly reduce peak demand, that more efficient appliances, better insulation

,, and fuel substitution could result in some reduction in electric use. Mr. Morgan, who had completed undergraduate I training in economics, has had no graduate training in economics or engineering, has never studied plant reliability and has never prepared energy demand forecasts. Tr. 328-329.

28. The projected CAPCO reserve margins used by the Staff in the Final Environmental Statement ("FES") were based l

i upon the 1972 ECAR Report. These snow CAPCO reserve margins i without the Davis-Besse facility of 9.6%, 10.6% and 4.3% in 1975, 1976 and 1977 respectively. FES, Table 8.3. The 1973 ECAR Report, reflecting additional capacity committed subsequent

- 19 -

=*pr -r -..e. ~ + . -- .- -

to the 1972 ECAR Report, Reynolds-Roe Tastimony*, p. 17, shows CAPCO reserve margins without the Davis-Besse f acility of 17 . 6 % , 16.8% and 9.4% for the same years. Morgan Testimony **,

Appendix A; Tr. 329. Using the 1973 ECAR data, without the Davis-Besse facility CAPCO reserve margins would still be below the 20% margin recommended by the Federal Power Commiss-ion. FES, p. 8-3. Applicants are not satisfied with the reserve margins of 16% and are considering additional units for years when, even with the Davis-Besse f acility in operation, reserve margins would be at that level. Tr. 243-244, 323-324.

The Coalition's witness was only able to state "that it is possible that there could be reasons why a 16 percent margin might be sufficient" . Tr. 324 (emphasis added) . In any event, Mr. Morgan admitted (1) that predicted CAPCO reserve margins for 1975 and 1976 were predicated on the assumption that two major new coal plants and one major nuclear plant as well as the Davis-Besse facility would be installed and available for commercial service on schedule, (2) that the other new nuclear plant was the subject of an intervention and a licensing hearing , and (3) that licensing hearings can delay plant availability. Tr. 330-332. In view of these f actors and the uncerta[nregulatoryrequirementsforexistingfossilfueled

• Testimony of Reed Reynolds and Lowell Roe Relating to Issue 1, following Tr. 241 (hereinaf ter "Reynolds-Roe Testimony") .

l

• • Testimony of Richard E. Morgan, following Tr. 327 (hereinafter " Morgan Testimony") .

l l

i plants, CAPCO 's planned reserve margins , including the capac- j ity of the Davis-Besse facility, are prudent. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, p. 18.

4

29. Applicants' and CAPCO's demand projections and forecasts have been adequate. Toledo Edison, notwithstanding the apparent misreading of FPC documents by the Coalition's witness, Morgan Testimony, p. 4, has had a summer peak since 1966. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 18-20, Tr. 276-280. The I forecasting methodology employed by Applicants and CAPCO was fully described. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 15-18 and Attachments A and B; Tr. 268-274. The accuracy of Applicants '

and CAPCO's forecasts is shown on Exhibit DJN 6 of the Testimony of Dennis J. Nightingale, following Tr. 683. The Coalition adduced nothing which would undermine the adequacy of the methods used, particularly over the relatively short

! period of time prior to scheduled completion of the Davis-Besse facility.

30. The Coalition's witness claimed that large increases in the price of electricity might affect future power demands, l although he stated that the magnitude of the effect is unknown.

, Morgan Testimony, p. 7. Applicants ' witness , a graduate

) economist, discussed at considerable length the effects of the

price of electricity on demand, analyzing the one reference cited by the Coalition's witness as well as other studies on this subject. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 1-5, Tr. 244-249, l

1 251-252, 285-2 86 and 287-291. The demand for electric power is very price inelastic because electricity is a small 4

percentage of the typical family budget and of the cost of operation for commercial and industrial facilities and because of the absence of good substitutes for electric power.

Tr. 244-249. Thus, increases in the price of electricity would not significantly alter growth in power usage. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, p. 1. A recent increase in industrial rates by 20% has not changed industrial use of electricity.

J I d,. at i

p. 7.

31. Although the Coalition asserted that Applicants have always used promotional pricing to encourage demand l growth, Morgan Testimony, p. 8, they neither supplied nor elicited any information that such practice now exists or that Applic ants ' rates reflect anything other than the cost of service. Rates of electric companies, including all-electric and other optional rates, are designed to follow the costs of l

providing service. Changes, such as equalization of rates, would lead to unjustifiable descrimination in violation of law.

Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 5-6, Tr. 369-370.

i

32. Applicants ' advertising programs do not significantly 1

add to peak demand. Applicants' advertieing program promotes i

4 outdoor security lighting (a non-peak use), proper insulation to home owners and builders (which would tend to prevent l

wasting of electricity) and conservation. Cleveland Electric

l' also promotes electric dryers, water heaters and ranges, but I

these do not significantly affect incremental peak demand because of the diversity factor. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp.

8-11; Tr. 265. All-electric homes have a peak demand in 4 winter months , Reynolds-Roe Testimony, p. 10, and thus do not add to Applicants' peak, which occurs in the summer. The Coalition introduced exhibits showing advertising by Cleveland Electric, Intervenor's Exhibits 16A-SS, but adduced no evidence showing that such advertisements significantly affected peak demand. In any event, economic studies by Applicants showed that advertising expenditures were not a significant variable on the level of residential electric use.

Reynolds-Roe Testimony, p. 11-12; Tr. 260-263.

33. Applicants have been promoting the conservation of energy for several years by encouraging residential builders to use proper insulation, promoting efficient use of elect-ricity by commercial and industrial customers, upgrading transmission and distribution systems, and promoting efficient electricity use by residential customers. Reynolds-Roe i

l . ; isnony, pp. 12-13; Tr. 254-258, 302-303. The Coalition's witness cited the "Save-A-Watt" program of Consolidated Edison Co. as an example ofshow increased expenditures for conservation advertising might slightly reduce peak demand, but conceded that there was no real way to determine the validity of the claimed savings. Tr. 323, 333-334. However, that 1

i f

-. r---. - ~ - , - . - . - - , . - - - - ,. - - - - - - -. - .,

i i .

utility in fact indicated that any reductions in peak demand 1

i were due to involuntary voltage reductions as well as its advertising program, without differentiating the percent 4

attributable to either factor. Tr. 292-296. In any event,

the relatively modest response to Applicants' consumer con-servative advertising may be an indication of the relatively

! modest consumer interest in a conservation program. Tr. 376.

l l 34. Applicants have Area Development and Industrial Development Departments. Lack of job opportunities in Applic-ants' service areas was resulting in significant out-migration, erosion of the area's economic base, and severe unemployment.

Efforts of these departments, if successful, might result in jobs for young people coming into the labor market who other-wise would leave the area. However, the net national effect of these efforts is probably zero, because the industries would merely locate or expand in other areas. To some extent, these activities must be considered a " defense mechanism" in that i

virtually every area ot the nation conducts similar activities.

i Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 7-8; Tr. 296-300, 360-364. Not-withstanding the social and economic benefit of providing job a

opportunities, reducing unemployment and protecting the i

l economic base, any enange in Applicants' area and industrial development programs would have no effect on the projected demand for 1975, the year that the Davis-Besse facility is scneduled for commercial operation. Tr. 368.

f

.,_.__.s.. . . .. -

e e

35. Other methods suggested by the Coalition for conserving energy include the use of more efficient appliances,

! better insulation and substitution of other fuels such as natural gas. Morgan Testimony, p. 10. Substitute fuels are either not available or are of uncertain supply. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, p. 13; Tr. 247-248, 291-292, 324-325. Applicants already promote better insulation and more efficient use of electricity by industrial, commercial and residential custom-j ers. Reynolds-Roe Testimony, pp. 12-13; Tr. 254-258, 302-303.

1 The Coalition adduced no evidence that more efficicat applian-ces could be installed in the quantities or on a time scale that would in any way af fect the need for the Davis-Besse facility. Nor did they indicate how Applicants could effect 1

such changes. The study relied on by the Coalition's witness for the broad proposition that such efficiencies could be realized, Morgan Testimony, pp. 10-11, depended largely on the availability of solar heating and natural gas and was in any event limited to California. Tr. 291. That report made predictions of the situation in the year 2000 and, as acknow-ledged by the Coalition's witness, "the exact magnitude of the i potential for electricity conservation in the CAPCO region by 1977 1s unknown". Fiorgan Testimony, pp. 10-11.

i

36. The Board finds that, while NEPA does not require utilities to actively promote the conservation of energy, a l

conservation program would not be likely to eliminate or l

significantly diminish the need for the Davis-Besse facility in order to assure a reliable electric power supply.

B. Issue 2 (Environmental Ef fects of Storm Damage)

37. Issue 2 as stated in the Special Prehearing Confer-ence Order is as follows:

The Coalition contends that the Final Environmental Statement has not properly evaluated all possible storm damage and the environmental consequences of such incidents as having the cooling tower lost due to storms, flooding of the area, or damage to buildings. The hign lake levels and severe lake storms make these events distinctly possible.

As stipulated by the parties , the issue is limited to storm damage which may cause damage to the plant which may in turn cause environmental damage. Prehearing Conference Order,

p. 3; Tr. 139.

38. Issue 2 was the subject of Applicants ' Motion for j Summary Disposition. Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749, there is no i

controversy with respect to the following facts:

a. The ground level elevation of the station structurec of the Davis-Besse facility is 7.33 feet above the record high water level l in the Western basin of Lake Erie.

b. The wave protection dike provides an additional 7 feet of protection against high water.

c. All station structures having safety signifi-cance are designed for the maximum wind conditions associstted with a tornado.

I

d. Structures which do not have safety significance are designed to withstand strong wind conditions which have a recurrence interval of once in 100 years at the site.

e. Damage to structures which do not have safety significance (including the turbine building and cooling tower) or their complete des-truction would not prevent safe shutiown of the facility.

f. The foundation of the cooling tower and the soils surrounding and under it will withstand high water levels from storms.

g. The water intake system from the lake to the pumphouse structure is designed to withstand any normal flood, storm and ice conditions.

Damage or destruction of this part of the system does not prevent safe shutdown of the f acili ty .

h. The pumphouse structure and forebay are designed to withstand maximum credible natural events.

i. The travelling water screens will prevent blockage of the water intake system from fish or debris.

Applic an ts ' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated July 20, 1973, pp. 1-2; Tr.

222-223, 341-343. The only controverted issues are whether the ground level elevation and the wave protection dike assure that the plant is adequately protected against all credible floods and high lake levels and whether the wave protection dike is designed and constructed to withstand the erosive action of storm-generated .,es and wind-driven ice. Tr. 341-343.

39. The Coalition's direct testimony consisted of several statements from residents of the site area, a letter to i l L

a Dr. Owen Davies from the U.S. Coast Guard (following Tr. I 672), and a State of Ohio report on the storm of November 1972 (Intervenor's Exhibit 9) . As this testimony related to the controverted issues, it showed that the storms of November 1972, March, April and June 1973 caused general flooding of low lying areas (see all statements) , that Mr. Russell Taylor's seawall of rip-rap stone was leveled in the November storm, that the storms washed holes in "the Toledo Edison dikes along the [Toussaint] River" (statement of George O.

Trenchard) , and that Lloyd St. Clair believes that a big field of moving ice could break through dikes.

40. The testimony shows that the ground level elevation of the site is higher than the probable maximum high water level conditions, and more than seven feet above the record high water level. Roe Testimony *, pp. 3-5. At no time, even during the recent storms , has the water level been within

! seven feet of station elevation. Tr. 654, 664-667, 669-670.

The record high water conditions as compared with ground level station elevation is graphically shown on Figure 3, Roe Testimony. To determine the probable maximum high static l

water level of 583.7 feet IGLD for the site, there was super-imposed on the probable maximum mean monthly lake level the

• Testimony of Lowell Roe Relating to Issue 2, following Tr.

630 (hereinafter " Roe Testimony").

r maximum wind tide and maximum transverse seiche effects caused by the probable maximum meteorological event. Roe Testimony,

p. 4; Tr. 631. Because the mean monthly lake level for June 1973 was 0.1 feet above the probable maximum mean monthly level and as part of its review of the operating license application for the Davis-Besse facility, the Staff is review-ing its evaluation to reconfirm that the design water level is adequate. Tr. 509. The Staff does not believe that this reanalysis will change the design water level. Tr. 517. In any event this design water level is not the normal, expected or even unusually high condition that would be appropriately analyzed in the Staf f 's NEPA review. The probability of the i

postulated high water level approaches zero. Staff Supplemental Issue 2 Testimony, p. 2, following Tr. 502. Rather it represents the extremely remote conditions against which the AEC, in the exercise of its radiological health and safety responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act, requires that the facility be designed. Tr. 511-512. The testimony clearly indicates that the maximum credible high water level, wind tides and seiches have been properly calculated and that the Davis-Besse facility is well above any reasonably anticipated l high lake levels.

41. High lake levels would not present operational

)

problems for the Davis-Besse faciliti. Even with the high water conditions associated with the storms of November 1972 and 1

l 1

4 March, April and June, 1973, there was no time when Davis-Besse personnel could not reach or leave the facility.

i Because there would be adequate warning of conditions which might create water levels approaching the design conditions, adequate personnel could be made available at the Davis-Besse facility. In any event, such high water periods would be of short duration, emergency transportation would be available to bring in additional personnel, and if necessary, the duty shif t could shut the plant down and maintain it in a l safe shutdown condition. Tr. 633.

42. The wave protection dike between the Davis-Besse facility and Lake Erie is an earthfill breakwall 15 feet wide at the top, having a 3 to 1 slope and built up to an elevation of 591.0 feet IGLD. Roe Testimony, p. 4. This dike is composed of dry clay earth material, free from organic matter, 1

carefully compacted to specified density, and placed on undisturbed earth. Tr. 635. This clay earth material is extremely impervious to water flow. Tr. 659. The dike is j

faced with stone filter blanket to allow water to run off without croding the dike. On top of the stone blanket is large stone riprap, with the stones ranging from 100 to 6000 po unds . About 75 percent of the stone riprap is in the 1000 to 6000 pound range. The dike design is in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' specifications. Tr. 635, 637-I 1

-er.-- ,- -- -- , , ,. -m-,

e e 638, 659. There is extensive experience that this design will withstand wave action and erosion. Tr. 655-656. The dike has l also been analyzed for its ability to withstand moving ice i

floes and is adequately protected against their possible effects. Tr. 636, 654-655.

43. The statement in the Coalition's testimony that Mr. Russell Taylor's seawall of riprap stone was leveled during the November 1972 storm in no way indicates that the wave protection dike would be affected should waves ever

reach it. First, there is no indication as to the nature of Mr. Taylor's seawall. Second, Mr. Taylor's property is exposed to much larger waves than the Davis-Besse site because it has a fetch distance of 100 miles as opposed to a fetch distance at the site of 12 1/2 miles. Tr. 637. Fina'1dy , the s

wave protection dike is 3000 feet inland of the beach 1(ront.

Any waves which would pass over the beach front, if the\

i water level were sufficiently high, would be broken as they l passed over it. Tr. 637-638. ,.

44. Mr. Trenchard's statement that the recent storms

" washed large gaping holes in the Toledo Edison dikes along the [Toussaint] River" refers to marsh dikes on land owned by Applicants but not part of the Davis-Besse site. These march dikes were constructed by a different technique and to l different specifications than the wave protection dike. Tr.

t 634-635. Thus, any holes wnich may have occurred in the 4

l I

-e# = eme.p .m..>*ei w e p marsh dikes are irrelevant to the ability of the wave protection dike to withstand storms.

45. The Board therefore finds that there is reasonable assurance that the high ground level elevation and the wave protection dike assure that the Davis-Besse f acility is adequately protected against all credible floods and high lake levels and that the wave protection dike is designed and constructed to withstand the erosive action of storm-generated waves and wind-driven ice.

C. Issue 4 (Fuel Failure Rate)

46. As set forth in the Special Prehearing Conference Order, Issue 4 states:

The Final Environmental Statement's evaluation of the threat of radio-activity to the agricultural and farming lands, and farm animals and products has been underestimated in that the Final Environmental State-ment should have assumed a fuel failure rate higher than 0.25 per-cent of failed fuel to obtain a source for environmental impact calculations.

47. Issue 4 was the subject of Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition. No opposition to the motion with respect to Issue 4 was submitted. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749, there is no controversy with respect to the following f acts:

a. Substantial experience has been accumulated on Zircaloy clad fuel in pressurized water reactors.

l b. The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Strtion will uti'lize Zircaloy clad prepressurized fuel.

_~_

I

c. This experience shows that the fraction of failed fuel rods is less than 0.1%.

d. Only three of the sixteen operating PWRs using Zircaloy clad fuel have experienced fuel fail-ure rates exceeding 0.2% for any one cycle.

The major causes of these failures have been identified and replacement fuel in these reactors has experienced failure rates of less than 0.1% to date.

e. Excluding reactors which utilized fuel which was not prepressurized, the fuel failure rate experienced is about 0.05% .

Applic an ts ' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated July 20, 1973, pp. 2-3; Tr. 235. There are no controverted matters with respect to Issue 4 and the Board therefore finds that the Final Environ-mental Statement was not incorrect in assuming a fuel failure rate of 0.25% of failed fuel to obtain a source for environ-mental impact calculations.

D. Issue 5 (Effects of Davis-Besse Ef fluents and Effluents from Nuclear Reactors on Lakes Michigan, Huron and Supericr)

48. As set forth in the Special Prehearing Conference Order, Issue 5 states:

The Final Environmental Statement is inadequate in that it fails to evaluate the cumulative and syner-gistic effects on Lake Erie of the effluents from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Reactor together with what-ever effluents may be produced by other nuclear reactors operating adjacent to Lakes Michigan, Superior and Euron.

l i

- - - - - ~ - -

1. emumi-- em #

l - ,

i The Coalition submitted no direct testimony as to this issue.

49. The NUS Corporation evaluated the cumulative radio-logical effects on Lake Erie, to the year 2010, of all presently operating or planned nuclear generating stations i on Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron. The calculated annual population dose in the year 2010 to an assumed 15 million users of Lake Erie would be 200 man-rem, as compared with approximately 2,000,000 man-rem received by the same population from natural sources. The maximum individual exposure would be very small. The cumulative effect would therefore be insignificant. Testimony of Dr. Morton I. Goldman with respect to Issue 5, following Tr. 705; NUS Report NUS-1044 ( Applican ts '

Exhibit 6) . Since these doses will not be significant with 1

i respect to man, they will not harm animal life. Initial

Decision, July 9, 1972, pp. 10-11.

50. Although the NUS report did not consider test i reactors, the ef fect of liquid releases from test reactors on the area of Lake Erie near the Davis-Besse f acility would be essentially zero. Applicants ' Exhibit 6, footnote, p. 3; Tr. 713. Releases from test reaccors are miniscule as compared i with an individual power plant. Tr. 713. In determining dose, the NUS Report also eliminated from consideration several short-

lived isotopes, particularly neptunium-239 and tellurium-129.

The method for selecting isotopes considered in evaluating long-

term buildup is set forth in detail on pages 10-16 of the NUS Report, Applicants ' Exhibit 6, and uses the isotope 's effective

' half life, maximum release rate, and concentration factor.

With particular respect to neptunium-239 and te11urium-129, these isotopes have only been identified at one boiling water reactor. Tr. 717. In any event, the downstream dose contribution of the long-lived daughter isotopes of these two short-lived isotopes would be extremely small. Tr. 718.

51. The NUS Report presents projected concentrations averaged over the entire volume of the particular lake concern-Applican ts ' Exhibit 6, p. 5. Over relatively long periods ed.

of time, this is a reasonable assumption, taking into account vertical mixing which would occur with overturning of thermo-clines. Tr. 714-715, 718-719. Assuming non-uniform mixing, concentrations could increase by about an order of magnitude.

Tr. 719-721, 732-733. This however would still yield an 1

insignificant maximum individual exposure and an annual population dose of 2200 man-rem.

52. The Staff concluded that, even if several hundred reactors would be operating on Lakes Michigan, Superior and Huron, the total contributions to temperature rise and i

~

chemical contributions in Lake Erie would be undetectable by biota. Such contributions would be much smaller than observed natural variations in Lake Erie. There would thus be no synergism since synergism requires the interaction of two or more factors. Staf f Supplemental Testimony - Issue 5, follow-

\

1 ing Tr. 724.

53. The Board finds that the FES has adequately accounted for the cumulative and synergistic effects on Lake Erie of the effluents from the Davis-Besse facility together with effluents from nuclear reactors operating on Lakes Michigan, Superior and Huron.

E. Issue 6 (Increased Radioactive Releases with Aging) t

54. The Special Prehearing Conference Order stated Issue 6 as follows:

The Final Environmental Statement is inadequate in that no consideration has been given to the f act that operating experiences at nuclear plants show that radioactive releases go up with aging of the reactor. The evaluation, therefore, of radio-

! activity on the environment is com-pletely inadequate and incorrect.

The Coalition submitted no relevant direct testimony on this issue.

55. Issue 6 was the subject of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749, there is no controversy as to the following facts:

a. Experience with Zircaloy fuel in operating pressurized water reactors shows that fuel

! failure rates do not increase over plant life-l time. Since operating experience is used to improve fuel design, failure rates to date have tended to decrease after the first operating cycle.

b. The significant factors affecting the magnitude

! of releases are the level of fuel defects, changes in the effectiveness of waste manage-ment system components , and steam generator leaks.

Applicants ' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated July 20, 1973, pp. 3-4; Tr. 223-224, 341-342. The only controverted issues are whether periodic refueling, maintenance and equipment modifi-cation and repair assure that none of the factors in b. above will cause increased releases over plant lifetime due to aging, and whether radioactive releases have not tended to i

increase wici, aging of reactors, as shown by the fact that releases have not increased faster than the generation of electric power by nuclear means. Tr. 341-342.

56. Periodic refueling of a reactor and the ability to replace defective fuel elements at any time assure the releases from fuel will not increase with aging over plant lifetime. Goldman Testimony *, p. 2; Tr. 736. Those pieces of equipment specifically referenced by the Coalition as being subject to aging (see Intervenor's Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition, dated July 20, 1973, Affidavit of Evelyn Stebbins , p. 2) , valve packings, bearings and fittings, I

l are unlikely to leak due to careful selection, are located so that leaks can be detected, and are accessible to repair. Tr.

737-740. While some equipment leaks may not be easy to repair, such repairs can be carried out. In any case, stringent

• Testimony of Morton I. Goldman Relating to Issue 6, following Tr. 733 (hereinaf ter "Goldman Testimony") .

i l

l l

l 4 Technical Specification limits imposed as operating license conditions restrict plant operation if those limits would be exceeded, thus mandating the repair of leaks which might cause those limits to be exceeded. Tr. 751-752.

57. The record clearly shows that, after the first few years of plant life, both gaseous and liquid radioactive j releases reach a "quaisi-equilibrium". Goldman Testimony, i p. 2; Tr. 736, 749. This conclusion is based upon an analysis

of all operating U.S. nuclear plants. Goldman Testimony, Tables 1-3, Figures 1-6. Although the Coalition pointed to j two reactors in which releases per unit power increased f

a

between 19 6 8 and 19 70, Tr. 744, these increases are attribut-i able to steam generator tube leaks which were subsequently I repaired and lower energy generation resulting from plant shutdowns. Tr. 745. Since the curves representing energy generated by older plants, by nuclear plants, and by individual 1

plants, have tended to parallel the curves representing gaseous and liquid radioactive releases from those plants for '

the same periods , the indication is that releases do not increase with age. Tr. 747-749.

l 58. As shown by the Staff's Supplemental Testimony on Issue 6, following Tr. 753, the Staff analysis of radioactive i releases from tne Davis-Besse f acility was cased uoon a f normalized liquid source term of 5 curies per year, equal to i

4 A

- - - - ,..-- -.-- , ,en-, r ,,,,--,....--.-,ym-~.w . - , - - - . . . m.--,,,-r-.v- -- . - , , g ,o. w ,v-1 g-. w g

. ~. _ - - _ __ .-

i a total leakage flow of 3383 gallons per day. The Staff's evaluation of the radioactive waste systems indicated a probable leakage rate of 115 gallons per day resulting in a i

liquid source term of only 0.15 curies per year. The 33 fold margin provides more than adequate margin for any increases in leakage over plant lifetime.

59. The Board finds that radioactive releases are not likely to increase witn the aging of the reactor and that the a

FES has adequately considered operating experience at nuclear

reactors in evaluating radioactive releases.

i F. Issue 7 (Industrial and Population Growth)

60. Issue 7 is stated in the Special Prehearing Confer-ence Order as follows:

The Final Environmental Statement is inadequate in that population growth in this area has not been i properly assessed inasmuch as the placing of this plant in this largely agricultural area will probably stimulate the growth of industry and population. The environmental effects assumed in the Final Environmental Statement are incorrect.

61. Issue 7 was the subject or 3pplicants' Motion for Summary Disposition. No opposition to the motion with respect to Issue 7 was submitted. Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.749,

, there is no controversy with respect to the following facts:

i

, i l

_ _ _ _ - ~ ._. _

a. The most important factors with respect to the location of industry in Ottawa County are infrastructure (urbanization economies) and localization economies.

b. The presence of the Davis-Besse f acil2_f in Ottawa County will not result in any changes in the infrastructure or localization economies.

c. Although the availability of electric power is l one aspect of a suitable infrastructure, the proximity of a power plant is not.

d. The local tax rates resulting from the increas-

] ed tax revenues supplied by the Davis-Besse facility to local governments would not be a major influence on industrial growth.

e. The factors which would cause an influx of population into an area are the availability of job opportunities and the easy access to existing population centers.

f. The presence of the Davis-Besse facility will

, not cause the availability of significant numbers of job opportunities or make access to population centers easier.

g. Experience in areas surrounding other nuclear plants shows that the presence of a nuclear power plant nas not affected the industrial or population growth of these areas.

h. The Davis-Besse facility will not stimulate the growth of industry or population in the area surrounding the plant.

Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated July 20, 1973, pp. 4-5, Tr.

235. There are no controverted matters with respect to Issue 7 and the Board finds that population growth in the Final Environ-mental Statement has been adequately assessed in that locating the Davis-Besse facility in a largely agricultural area will i not stimulate the growth of industry and population.

1 l

G. Issue 8 (Effect of Effluents on Lake Erie)

62. The Special Prehearing Conference Order states Issue 8 as follows:

The total effect of all effluents (radioactive, heat, chemicals, dissolved solids and suspended solids, and B.O.D.) to Lake Erie as a result of all operations of the Davis-Besse Plant (either alone or in combination with other pollutants) will add to the pollution of Lake Erie, endanger fish, wildlife, spawning grounds, aquatic biota, their habitat and supporting ecosystem, recreational aspects or water supplies, and will be in violation of the non-degradation clause of the Water Quality Standards of Ohio as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. These effects have not been properly assessed in the Final Environmental State-ment.

63. With respect to the effect of non-radiological effluents from Davis-Besse, Applicants presented testimony of Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, Director of the Center for Lake Erie Area Research of The Ohio State University. The evidence shows that the 3'F isotherm will cover only 0.7 acres and the

$ l'F isotherm only 2.1 acres. Few fish could swim against the effluent current to enter the very small area where there is

! a significant temperature shift. No adverse effect on inverte-brate fauna is expected beyond the discharge apron. The Davis-Besse plant will not alter the balance of dissolved or suspended solids and will not result in levels detrimental to

i i

, bio ta. Herdendorf Testimony *, pp. 1-4. The concentration in I

the cooling water of chemicals in existing Lake Erie water l

will result in sublethal concentrations to Lake Erie biota.

1 l Tr. 544. Chemicals added to discharge water as a result of

plant operation would not be expected to be detrimental to 4

i biota, with the exception of chlorine which mignt have some 1

l detriment to fish. However, because of plume velocity, fish l* would not be able to stay in the small area of potentially i

detrimental chlorine concentration for a long enough time to l have lethal effects. Chlorine and other added chemicals would

! be below measurable levels at about 600 feet from the point of I

discharge. Tr. 544-546. The biological oxygen demand (BOD)

release from the Davis-Besse facility will be very much lower than the natural BOD of the Lake. Tr. 546. These conclusions 1

, are supported by the Staff's Supplemental Testimony on Issue j 8, following Tr. 600, and the FES , S55.2.5 - .7 and 5.5.3.

I The record clearly supports the finding that there would be no l significant effect, synergistic or otherwise, from the thermal l and chemical effluents of the Davis-Besse facility when added l

I to the existing chemical and physical constituents of Lake Erie.

Herdendorf Testimony, pp. 4-6; Tr. 459-460, 546-547. The Coalition presented no direct testimony on non-radiological effects.

• Testimony of Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, following Tr. 386 (hereinafter "Herdendorf Testimony").

. - . . - - . . -_ -- _ -._ _. _ - , . . _-_ __.- . __. - . - . ___ - .. - _,--._- - - ~,

l 64. Applicants alsc presented testimony which demonstrated that, at the very low doses resulting to aquatic i

life from radioactive effluents from the Davis-Besse j facility, no synergistic effects between radioactivity and temperature and between radioactivity and chemicals would be 1

l expected. Effects have been experimentally observed only at dose levels thousands of times greater than those which would be received by aquatic organisms from the Davis-Besse *

facility. Testimony of Dr. Peter J. Mellinger, following Tr.

388 and 529; Tr. 522, 527, 542, 548-549. This conclusion is i

corroborated by the Staff's Supplemental Testimony on Issue i

5, following Tr. 724. The Coalition presented no direct testimony on the possible effects of synergism.

65. The only direct testimony presented by the Coalition on Issue 8 concerned the effects of radiation on fish, and consisted of a short written statement by Dr. Ernest Stern-glass (hereinafter "Sternglass Testimony") and an appended i

paper by Dr. Sternglass entitled " Fallout and Reproduction of Ocean Fish Population", dated October 8, 1971 (hereinafter "Sternglass Paper") . Intervenor's Exhibit 7. Although Dr.

l Sternglass has a Ph.D in engineering physics, he has no educational qualifications in ichthyology, biology, zoology or fishery science. Tr. 580-581. The thesis of the Stern-glass Testimony was that the Lake Erie fish populations had 1

- . . _ . _ . .. ._. - . - _ _ , _ _ .-_-. . _ _ . = - - - - . - . - -

_ _ . . - - _ - . - . -. - - - _ _ = . - - . - - . _ - - - -

4 1 _

i shown an "otherwise unexplained pattern of sharp drops" .

1

! attributed by Dr. Sternglass to fallout from nuclear weapons tictine, Sternglass Testimony, p. 3. Dr. Sternglass presented i

data showing a sharp fall off in the commercial catch of wall-eye in Lake Erie "within two years af ter the heaviest nuclear i

testing in Nevada and the Pacific in 1957 and 1958". Id. The l Sternglass Paper attempted to show a correlation between

! certain low altitude nuclear tests and a decrease in the North l

l Atlantic fish catch by Norwegian fishermen and the California i and Alaska fish catch by United States fishermen. Sternglass

)

.I, Paper, pp. 4, 7.

66. Applicants specifically addressed the arguments presented by Dr. Sternglass in testimony submitted by Dr.

+

Lauren R. Donaldson, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, Univer-sity of Washington and by Dr. Wilbur L. Hartman, of the 1

Biological Station (Sandusky , Ohio) , U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Dr. Donalduon has extensive experience in many phases of fish sciences, with particular emphasis on radiation effects on fish. He has published numerous papers in his field. In preparing his testimony, Dr. Donaldson received the assistance of Dr. Ole Mathisen, Professor of Fisheries and i

l Biometrics, University of Oslo, as well as colleagues at the l University of Washington. Tr. 397-398. Dr. Hartman is in i

i charge of fishery research on Lakes Erie and Ontario for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and has published numerous papers,

- . . - - - - _ _ _ - - . . - .. , , _ _ , _ _ _ . = . . . . - , , - . . _.___ .. .- .,. _- .- ,

= __ - - .- .- .. -.- - - - - _ .-_. .. - . ._ - . - ..__.-

0 1

y 4

I j including several on the Lake Erie fish population. Tr. 390-391.

67. Dr. Donaldson's testimony established that the annual

! world fisheries catch has increased at a fairly steady rate -

2 1 i from 1948 to 1968 with the declines of 1969 and 1971 due to j i

l fluctuations in the Peruvian anchoveta fishery. Donaldson j Testimony * , p. 1, Table I . Total United States catch has 1

remained constant over the years with species composition i shif ted due to abundence and competition. Id. at 4. The 2

' Norwegian fishery shows greater fluctuation than that of other i

major fishing nations, with drastic shifts in species l

composition. Thus, as the Norwegian herring catch dropped i

! sharply from 1967 to 1969 due to overfishing, the Norwegian i

capelin catch dramatically increased. Id. at pp. 4-7, Table i

! II, Figure II. Dr. Donaldson also testified that experiments

with fish and fish eggs show that no measurable effect was

l produced at levels of irradiation below 5 roentgens / day, a

, level many hundreds of times greater than that produced by

! the Davis-Besse facility. The experiments do indicate that I lower levels of irradiation (0.5 roentgen / day, still much higher than levels resulting from Davis-Besse) may have a beneficial effect. Id. at pp. 13-15. The levels of radiation l

! to be released from the Davis-Besse f acility would have no i

l adverse effect on the population of fish in Lake Erie. Tr.

l i l

• Testimony of Dr. Lauren R. Donaldson, " Comments on ' Fall-out and Reproduction of Ocean Fish Population' by E. J.

Sternglass", following Tr. 389 (hereinafter "Donaldson Tes timony") .

l l

-r yn . - . . - _.

--__c.- . , . - _ . . _ - _ _ . , _ . _ , . , , . - . . . , , , . , . . . , _ _ _ , . , , , , ,.,v.,, . _.y-y,_ , .

_ __ - .- - - . _ - . - - _ _ - . . _ _ - - , - . = . _ _ - . = _ _ . . - _ _ - - _ . . - - - _ _ _ -

m O

i J t 401. Since man is the biological entity most sensitive to radiation, releases from the Davis-Besse facility because they will not result in harm to man will not result in harm to fish. Initial Decision, July 9, 1972 (Section E proceed-i i ing) pp. 10-11.

j 68. Dr. Hartman's testimony was specifically directed at the changing fish population in Lake Erie. Total commercial j fish cateh in Lake Erie has remained steady from 1914 to 1966, and during the 1950's remained near the long-term average.

i Hartman Tes timony* , pp. 4,11, Figure 2. The causes for changes in the Lake Erie fish community have been widely studied and i

are generally recognized to be exploitation (overfishing) ,

changes in the watershed (erosion, silting, dams), nutrient j loading and introduction of new fish species. Id. at pp. 2-4.

The decline of Lake Erie whitefish probably began with the sedimentation of river and bay spawning areas from 1890 to 1918. The long term temperature increase in the Lake may also j have stressed this species since it is at the southern edge of 1 F

its zoographical range. Id. at pp. 4-7, Figure 3. Lake Erie a

f walleye catch rose sharply from the mid-1930's until 1956 when it precipitously dropped. A dramatic increase in fishing i

pressure particularly from Canadian fishermen and a conversion from cotton to nylon gill nets and other technological improve-

• Testimony of Dr. Wilbur L. Hartman, " Factors Involved in Changes in the Fishery Resource of Lake Erie Over the Last 100 Years", following Tr. 389 (hereinafter "Hartman Testi-many") .

I

. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , . , , , , ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ , , ~ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ _-

4

)

i i

ments led to overfishing of this population. Id. at pp. 8-9; Tr. 471-472. Oxygen depletion in the Western and Central basins and the tremendous increase in smelt population were l 4

I l also responsible in part for the overall drop in walleye  !

population. Id. at pp. 9-11, Figure 7.

69. The Staff Testimony, presented by Dr. Norman A.

I Frigerio of Argonne National Laboratory, verified that the doses to biota set forth in the FES (55.6) were somewhat I conservative and that even at those conservative values, no deleterious effects would be expected. The low levels of i

radiation which would be present would be expected to stimulate the organisms. Tr. 601-604, 617-618.

, 70. Based upon its evaluation of all the evidence {

presented on Issue 8, the Board finds that the presentation of Dr. Sternglass should be given no weight. In evaluating the

, Sternglass Testimony, we first observe that Dr. Sternglass i arbitrarily chose whitefish and walleye population to demonstrate a decline in Lake Erie fisheries, but ignored the facts that total commercial production in Lake Erie during i- the 1950 's remained near the long-term average, Hartman i

Testimony, pp. 4, 11, that other species such as smelt increased dramatically during the 19 50 's , Hartman Testimony , pp. 9-11, Figure 7, and that the walleye productic a in the Eastern basin i of Lake Erie increased from the 1940 's to 1965 and has i

remained at a constant level since that time. Hartman Testi-

- - . =. - - - - . - . - - _ _ - . _ - _

f f

1 many, pp. 10-11; Tr. 394-395. If fallout had been the cause of the drop of walleye population as claimed by Dr. Sternglass, tne ef fect would have been uniform in both the Eastern and i

Western basins. Tr. 399-401. The invalidity of Dr. Sternglass'

conclusions is shown by Dr. Frigerio's demonstration that, using Dr. Sternglass ' methodology, the fish catch in Lake Erie increased from 37 million pounds in 1960 to 41 million pounds in 1970 notwithstanding an increase in f allout and radio-activity in Lake Erie. Tr. 604-606.

71. The Sternglass Testimony should also be rejected for i

its unfounded statement that the decline in take Erie white-fish and walleye was an "otherwise unexplained pattern".

l Sternglass Testimony, p. 3. Dr. Sternglass' reference for this statement was "H. A. Regier and W.L. Hartman, Science, 180:

1248, June 22, 1973". Yet a copy of this article, attached to the Hartman Testimony, clearly sets forth the explanations.

As Dr. Hartman , the co-autnor of that article, made clear, there was no basis for Dr. S te rnglas s ' allegation that the population decline was "otherwise unexplained". Tr. 391-393.

Another reference relied upon by Dr. Sternglass (the source of Figure 1 of Sternglass Testimony) also provides an explan-

! ation for this "otherwise unexplained pattern" . Tr. 472. Not cnly was there no basis for Dr. S te rnglass ' attempted correlat-ion between nuclear testing and fish population, there was an apparently deliberate ignoring of available information which i

. - - - - _ - . ._ . - - - . _. ., . . _ . - - . _ , . - ~ . - . - - _ , - . . - . _ -

-~- . ~ .. .. -

would contradict his conclusion.

72. Even the basic allegation on which the Sternglass

! Testimony is grounded is in error. Dr. Sternglass starts with the assertion that "the extremely sharp drop in walleye population [ occurred] within two years after the heaviest j nuclear testing in Nevada and the Pacific in 1957 and 1958".

Sternglass Testimony, p. 3 (emphasis added) . Yet his own Figure 1 shows that the dramatic decline in walleye population f

l began in 1956, one year before the nuclear tests relied upon i

I by Dr. Sternglass. The 1956 date is confirmed by Dr. Hartman.

l Hartman Testimony, p. 8.

73. The Sternglass Paper is similarly without merit. It selectively and arbitrarily discussed certain Norwegian and United States fish catch data and ignored catches by all other countries. Because of the interlocking nature of fisheries, such a selection is an inappropriate method of determining casual effects. Tr. 398-399. See Tr. 611. Had Dr. Sternglass i considered tne total world fish catch or the fish catch of the l other major fishing nations, his graphs would not have fit his conclusions. See, e.g. Donaldson Testimony, Figure I. Dr.

Sternglass stated that the Sternglass Paper was prepared under deadline and therefore could not include other fisheries.

Tr. 582. However, he made no effort to update the Paper in the intervening twenty-one months , Tr. 582-583, before sub-mitting it in this proceeding as "the truth to the best of my l knowledge". Tr. 554.

l t

. - - - - - -- -. _ -_ -, .. - . - . - . - . - , . _ - . . _ _ _ _ - _ . = - . - . . - . - - - - -

~ . - -. - -- - = .

74 The Sternglass Paper attempts to make correlations which are completely invalid, such as correlating strontium levels in milk with a decline in herring population. Tr. 437- l t

438. The level of strontium in milk or air has little bearing on the radiation dose which fish might receive. Tr. 434-438.

Different concentration factors are involved and the buffering I action of calcium in the sea greatly reduces strontium concentration. Tr. 4 38. Dr. Sternglass' theory also ignores i the time lag of se.aral years between the spawning cycle and )

the fallout levels relied upon by Dr. Sternglass. As a

. result, as Dr. Donaldson observed, the cause and effect

, relationship asserted by Dr. Sternglass is not in chronological l

Juxtaposition. Tr. 408-409, 483-484.

75. The final aspect of Issue 8 deals with the so-called "non-degradation" clause of the Ohio water quality starue.rds.

The Coalition introduced no evidence on this matter The state water quality standards do not, of course, apply to the radioactive ef fluents from the Davis-Besse f acility. Tr. 139-140. Applicants have received from the State of Ohio a certifi. cation that there is reasonable assurance that the Davis-'? asse facility will meet applicable water quality standards. Initial Decision, July 9, 1972 (Section E proceed-ing) , p. 11; FES Sl.3.2; Tr. 77. The Staff has also independently evaluated the effect of the Davis-Besse facility

upon Lake Erie and has found that it will comply with Ohio I

l

.,m--- - -- r- - - -- -

- , . - ,- -e--w --- w-

4 water quality standards and with the water quality objectives of the United States-Canada Great Lakes Agreement. Tr. 766-768.

76. The Board finds that the ef fects of ef fluents from the Davis-Besse facility have been properly assessed in the FES. Such effluents will not significantly affect Lake Erie, its fisn, wildlife, spawning grounds and biota. Nor will the effluents from the Davis-Besse f acility adversely affect recreational aspects or water supplies, or violate the "non-degradation" clause of the Ohio water quality standards.

H. Issue 9 (Shippingport and Plum Brook Releases)

77. Based on the testimony of fered by the Coalition on Issues 6 and 7, the Board derived the following issue for consideration:

The Final Environmental Statement underestimates the dose levelt from releases from the Davis-Besse facility in that radiation levels and contamination levels around two other reactors, Shippingport and Plum Brook, have been much higher than those predicted for the Davis-Besse f acility although the releases c' radioactive materials from those reactors have been much lower than those predicted for the Davis-Besse facility.

Tr. 344. See also Tr. 202-205, 759. This issue did not include the biological effect of radiation. Tr. 820-821, 826.

78. All parties presented testimony on this issue.

Dr. Sternglass testified for the Coalition as to his analysis of data reported by others, including Applicants ' consultants l

l I

I i

l t

l l

i Industrial BIO-TEST Laborat Sricc and NUS Corporation (herein-

! after "NUS"), Pennsylvania and Ohio state agencies and various federal agencies. With respect to the Shippingport Power Station, Dr. Sternglass relied upon selected strontium levels in soil and strontium and iodine levels in milk samples around i

the Shippingport site as originally reported by NUS for

]

calendar 1971 and the first quarter of 1973, uacorrected N S thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) readings in the Shippingport i

area and selected Ohio River water measurements at certain l locations upstream and downstream of the Shippingport site.

See Intervenor's Exhibits 10A and B; Tr. 774-800. Dr. Stern-glass claimed that this data showed very high levels of radiation in locations surrounding Shippingport and decreasing with distance away from Shippingport and that these alleged high levels declined to more normal levels after the Shipping-port facility had neen shut down for repairs. Tr. 790-791, 797. Regarding NASA's Plum Brook reactor, Dr. Sternglass 2

alleged that radiation measurements of Lake Erie water and analysis of TLD readings showed very high doses resulting from i operation of the Plum Brook reactor and d creasing with distance from that reactor. Intervenor's Exhibits 10A and L.

79. Applicants presented direct testimony of Dr. Morton I.

Goldman describing in some detail the methods for determining the transport of radioactive materials i:t the environment from any given source. Tr. 846-849. There appears to be no i

1 l

i i

..- -- _ , . . . _ , - , _ - . __ ,, , .,,___.__,_.,,p ,, , , , . . m.o_,. . . -

_.-.y

dispute that these methods, essentially identical to those in use for many years, accurately predict the movement of radio-j active materials and the resultant doses. These methods have been confirmed by studies, including one by the U.S. Public

Health Service of the radioactivity in the environment of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, " Radiological Surveillances at i a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Station". BRH/ DER-70-1. Tr. 843.

Applicants also presented direct testimony, discussed below, which specifically rebutted each of Dr. Sternglass' allegations concerning the Shippingport and Plum Brook reactors.

80. The Staff's witness, Dr. Norman A. Frigerio of Argonne National Laboratory, described the model used in the FES for the computation of dose to the population surrounding the Davis-Besse f acility. Tr. 971-973. By comparing doses computed by this model to those measured at various nuclear facilities, the Staff has determined that its model is conservative, i.e. that it overpredicts dose by a factor of 1.5 to 3 times the measured dose. Tr. 961-962, 973. The Staff aise presented direct testimony, discussed below, which specifically rebutted Dr. Sternglass ' claims.

1 81. Dr. Sternglass' claims as to strontium levels around Shippingport are unsupported by the facts and show an

• 1 j arbitrary selection of data by Dr. Sternglass to fit his hypothesis. Dr. Sternglass asserted that levels of strontium in soil, as initially reported by NUS, decreased with distance from Shippingport. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 2; 4

Tr. 790-791. However, he examined only strontium measure-ments for the spring and summer of 1971. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 2. The samples for the fall and winter of 1971, as originally reported by NUS, show the opposite pattern, i.e. samples closer to Shippingport show lower readings than the samples farther away. Tr. 877, 879.

I Dr. Sternglass had the NUS reports for all of 1971 and had

examined them. Tr. 784. Yet he offered no explanation for neglecting this data. In any event, NUS' April and September 1971 soil samples have been recently reanalyzed by NUS, the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") and the AEC's Health and Safety Laboratory. This reanalysis shows th at , even for the samples selected by Dr. Sternglass, Dr. Sternglass' claim is invalid. The reanalysis demonstrates that the NUS spring i

and summer samples for strontium in soil had been subject to analytical errors and that the originally reported levels were too high. As reanalyzed, the levels for strontium in soil for the firs; three quarters of 1971 were essentially the same as those reported for Winter 1971 and 1972. Applicants' Exhibit 10; Tr. 875-883. The EPA reanalysis was reported in its " Assessment of Environmental. Radioactivity in the Vicinity of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station", dated July 20, 1973 (Applicants' Exhibit 13) . Dr. Sternglass was aware of this EPA document but elected to rely upon an early draft of the EPA report, alleging that it was essentially the same as the final L

report. Tr. 796. The Board is disturbed that Dr. Sternglass failed to mention the reanalyzed data set forth in the EPA report.

i

82. Dr. Sternglass also attributed high reported strontium measurements in 1971 milk samples to operation of the Shippingport f acility. Dr. Sternglass sought to draw comparisons between levels reported for individual dairies, and statewide and metropolitan area levels, Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 2; Tr. 787, notwithstanding the fact that metropolitan and regional sampling involves a l

I composite of many dairies, thus eliminating extreme values and invalidating comparisons between individual dairy data and coriposited data. Tr. 888. In any event, an independent reanalysis of these samples by NUS and EPA has yielded much lower strontium levels. Applicants' Exhibit 11; Tr. 886-890.

Despite Dr. Sternglass' claim that the strontium levels sharply declined af ter Shippingport was shut down for repairs in September 1971, Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 3, the reanalyzed data in fact shows that strontium levels in milk I were higher af ter the repairs than they were before. Tr. 889.

33. Dr. Sternglass also points to the high reported values for levels of iodine-131 in milk in early 1972, alleging that nowhere in the eastern United States did iodine levels exceed one-tenth of this level. Intervenor 's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 4. In fact, reported values in the eastern United States for the same period did exceed one-tenth of the maximum, single sample reading relied upon by Dr. Sternglas ;. Tr. 893.

3

i .

i

}

In any event, both AEC and EPA have concluded that these iodine levals, if they were not measurement errors, could not possibly have originated from Shippingport. Applicants' Exhibit 14, p. 2; Applicants ' Exhibit 13, p. 5; Tr. 895-896.

t Dr. Sternglass did not try to relate the fact that the high l

i reported iodine levels occurred in "early 1972", Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, App. 6-2, p. 4, with his assertions that strontium and TLD readings returned to " normal" levels at that same time. Id. at pp. 2-3.

84. Dr. Sternglass also attempts to show unusually high radiation levels as measured by TLDs in the Shippingport area.

Id. at p. 3. Although his written testimony did not so state, Dr. Sternglass deliberately used " uncorrected" readings. Tr.

793-794. Doses from in-transit exposure must be considered in evaluating TLD readings. Tr. 890-892, 940. It is inter-esting to note that the TLD measurements relied upon by Dr.

Sternglass in his Plum Brook argument, Intervenor's Exhibit

10A, p. 5, are " corrected" values. See, e.g. Applicants' Exhibit 5B, p. 5, the BIO-TEST rOport cited by Dr. Sternglass as a source of his Plum Brook TLD information (Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, p. 5) . The Shippingport TLDs, considering the type of. handling they received, did not yield unexpected results. Tr. 970.

85. Radioactivity levels in Ohio River sediment *:are also presented by Dr. Sternglass to show a purported relation-i

(

l l

j ship to Shippingport releases, Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, l App. 6-2, p. 4. However, Dr. Sternglass showed a complete f f ailure to consider all data. He neglected to present avail-1 l

able data showing higher bottom sediment radioactivity up-stream of Shippingport than downstream (or indeed any data showing upstream levels), he compared values obtained from I January to October, 1971, with the " lowest" value obtained in

. 1959 survey, id., and he apparently deliberately ignored the i

f act that the 1959 survey had peak values several times t

1 higher than the 1971 data and an average value essentially the same as 1971. Tr. 900-902.

86. Dr. Sternglass also presented data, purportedly based on State measurements, in an attempt to show unusually high doses from Shippingport's liquid radioactive effluents.

l , Claiming to have used the measured flow of the Ohio River and State radioactivity measurements, Dr. Sternglass back-calculated the amounts of releases from Shippingport. Inter-venor's Exhibit 10B, App. 7-1, p. 1. Dr. Sternglass ' methods are thoroughly unscientific. Radioactivity measurements were not taken at the locations stated by Dr. Ster glass. Tr. 903.

Measurements were moved from che calendar quarter in which they were taken to another calendar quarter. Tr. 906-908, 911-912. Dr. Sternglass chose sampling stations which ignored major tributaries, major drainage areas and potential

! contributions of radionuclides. Tr. 903-904, 907. He failed i to use river flow and radioactivity data to proximate a I

l l

material balance, thus ignoring the relative contributions

' to the Ohio River of the Allegheny and t'.e Monongahela. Tr.

905, 910-911. Dr. Sternglass invalidly averaged the activities of these two rivers in claiming to present the radioactivity levels upstream of Shippingport. Id. He inaccurately used a single grab sample to represent a calendar quarter average. Tr. 912. The invalidity of Dr. Sternglass '

findings was affirmed by William Rowe, Deputy Administrator of the Office of Radiation Programs, EPA, who analyzed the same allegations by Dr. Sternglass and concluded that "Dr. Stern-1 glass only used data which supported his theory and ignored i

data which did not .... [C]onclusions drawn from the Stern-glass analysis are meaningless". Applicants' Exhibit 12, p. 5.

87. Dr. Sternglass' allegations regarding the Plum Brook facility, located near Sandusky, show the same arbitrary use of data that has characterized his other efforts. Thus, Dr.

Steinglass attempted to demonstrate that a la- a radioactive release from the Plum Brook facility in 1970 1.oduced increasingly higher levels of radioactivity in drinking water

! at locations closer to Sandusky. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, ,

p. 1 and Figure 6.1. Virtually every item of information presented by Dr. Sternglass in his Figure 6.1 is inaccurate, misrepresented or irrelevant. Dr. Sternglass labels the beta activity curve " Drinking Water" and compares it to beta activity in Toledo's treated drinking water. In fact, the beta l

l

f activity curve is based on measurements of untreated lake water, which will invariably have higher activity levels than treated drinking water. Tr. 854, 857. Dr. Sternglass compares 1971 beta activity with beta activity at Toledo for 1973, the lowest that Applicants have recorded at Toledo, and much lower than the 1973 values at other Lake Erie locations.  !

Tr. 857-858. Although Dr. Sternglass ' text states that data i

for 1969, 1970, and 1971 show a peaking of radioactivity at I

Sandusky, Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, p. 1, only the curve for 1970 was presented in Figure 6.1. Using Dr. Sternglass' ,

methodology for accumulating and presenting data, Applicants prepared similar curves for 1969 and 1971. These did not show the alleged peak at Sandusky, but instead showed highest levels at other locations. Applicants' Exhibit 8; Tr. 859-860. Dr. Sternglass' beta activity curve was based upon the sum of the maximum values for radioactivity in suspended solids i

sample fracticns and dissolved solids sample fractions, even though these two maximum values, in five of the six locations, occurred in different samples taken at different times. Tr.

854-856. The data points plotted by Dr. Sternglass thus bear no chronological relationship to each other. Tr. 859.

Finally, of the twelve data points used by Dr. Sternglass (maximum suspended and maximum dissolved fractions for six locations), eleven occurred prior to the date on which a high I reading was taken in plum Brook, which Dr. Sternglass repres-

ents as a large release from the Plum Brook facility resulting in the . decreasing radioactivity levels at the i geographic locations set forth in his Figure 6.1. Tr. 863-864. Thus, Dr. Sternglass' beta activity curve in Figure 6.1 is totally misleading.

88. Figure 6.1 of Intervenor's Exhibit 10A also presents a curve showing maximum suspended alpha activity in a

water and purporting to show a curve paralleling Dr. Sternglass' .

beta activity curve. Here, Dr. Sternglass arbitrarily plotted only the maximum suspended alpha activity fractions while omitting the dissolved alpha activity fractions. Had he used the same invalid technique that he used in creating the beta activity curve , i.e. summing the maximum dissolved and maximum suspended fractions, the curve we 2ld not havc I

paralleled the beta activity curve which purported to show a peak at Sandusky. Tr. 856-857. The alpha activity curve also erroneously compares radioactivity in untreated lake water with that in drinking water. Tr. 857. Since all of the alpha activity measurements used by Dr. Sternglass in Figure 6.1 were taken prior to the date of the high reading in Plum Brook, t

Tr. 863, Dr. Sternglass' attempt to attribute the peak to this high reading misrepresents the data.

89. Dr. Sternglass attempted to relate TLD readings to gaseous releases from the Plum Brook facility. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, pp. 5-6. By selecting a single quarterly TLD reading at station T-24, near Sandusky, Dr. Sterng) ass suggests l

i i

- , - , . - - - . ~ . _ - . . ,

.l . ,

i . .

that its high reading was attributable to the Plum Brook f facility. Id. Without explanation, Dr. Sternglass did not

consider the monthly TLD readings for the same station which l

l were set forth in the report from which Dr. Sternglass had 1

! obtained the quarterly reading. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, ,

, l l pp. 4-5; Tr. 868. Those monthly readings demonstrated that

T-24 did not have the highest readings. In fact eleven of

)

] the eighteen TLD stations showed higher exposures than T-24.

! Tr. 867-868, 966-969. The most likely explanation was that i the high quarterly reading at Station T-24 was a single I

+

aberrant point. Tr. 968. Its high reading is readily attributable to in-transit exposure or handling. Tr. 872,

! 967-968. In order to support his theory, Dr. Sternglass also compared the Station T-24 quarterly reading with the quarterly l

l reading of an upwind station T-9. Intervenor's Exhibit 10A, j

i

p. 5. In fact, however, monthly measurements at T-9 and T-24 i

have tended to move together, with simultaneous high values i

i and simultaneous low values, thus indicating that releases i

from the Plum Brook facility had no noticeable effect. Tr.

[

873. The pattern shown by the TLDs is erratic and does not

~

indicate any ef fects from the Plum Brook f acility. Tr. 967.

I 90. The Board has also examined Intervenor's Exhibits 22 and 23 which were introduced by Intervenors in support of .

Dr. Sternglass' claims with respect to the Shippingport l

1 l ,

facility. See Tr. 799. Neither document supports Dr. Stern-glass' posicion. Intervenor's Exhibit 22, a paper submitted by Irving Michelson to the Governor of Pennsylvania's Fact-Finding Committee, does not support Dr. Sternglass' hypo thesis since it is based entirely upon the erroneous NUS 1971 strontium in milk samples. Intervenor's Exhibit 23, a State-

! ment by Professor Harold Rosenthal also presented to the Governor's Fact-Finding Committee, deals with biological effects and merely argues for more research.

91. The record clearly shows that Dr. Sternglass, i

both with respect to the Shippingport and Plum Brook allegat-ions, has relied only on data supporting his theories and has systematically ignored all other data. Dr. Sternglass has also seriously misinterpreted much of the data that he has used. The lack of any valid scientific basis for Dr. S te rn-glass' charges was clearly shown during his rebuttal testi-mony. For example, Dr. Sternglass sought to introduce into evidence a chart, Intervenor's Exhibit 14, purporting to demonstrate that strontium-90 had escaped in large quantities from Shippingport. Tr. 1002-1009. This chart plots strontium-90 levels as measured in Hawaii, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, New York and Bermuda, allegedly showing a peak at Shippingport (even though there was no measurement for Shippingport) . This argument, outlandish on its face, with no justification for the relationship which Dr. Sternglass presented, became even l

s

, less credible with Dr. Sternglass' explanation that he could use these widely separated locations because they were within "a few degrees of latitude" and "within 100 miles (latitude] or so" of each other* , Tr. 1006. Similarly l unbelievable is Dr. Sternglass' explanation that a release from Shippingport would dif fuse in both directions, east and west, around the world. Tr. 1006.

92. The record also lends support to the " serious questions as to whether [Dr. Sternglass '] presentation is consistent with even a moderate degree of scientific respon-sibility". Trustees of Columbia University, ALAB-50, WASH-1218, 320 at 349 (May 18, 1972), affirmed sub nom. Morning-a side Renewal Council, Inc. V. USAEC, F.2d , 1 CCH At.En.

L. R. 14104 (2d Cir. 1973). Dr. Sternglass prepared a correlation between the " control" TLD for the Shippingport TLD stations and the other Shippingport TLDs. Intervenor's

]

Exhibit llF; Tr. 985-987. Because there appeared to be a high correlation between the " control" TLD (Station 1) and a TLD (Station 38) which Dr. Sternglass stated was "on the

[Shippingport] site", he made the "very serious charge" that

. someone had apparently kept the control TLD at the site rather than in Pittsburgh. Tr. 986. Yet Dr. Sternglass was

! unable to explain why other TLD stations which were on the i

Shippingport site showed a much lower correlation than did

• Pittsburgh is at latitude 40*, Bermuda at latitude 32' (about 600 miles south) and Hawaii at latitute 20' (about 1400 miles south) .

i _ _ _ _ . _- . _ _ _ . . __ _ ___ _-_ _ _ . - . _.

1 In fact, when presented with his own  ;

Station 3 8. Tr. 1021.

data showing that TLD Station 43 had a lower correlation, Dr. Sternglass was unable to say where that station was i located, even though he had himself portrayed Station 43 as an "on-site" TLD . In'tervenor's Exhibits llA, llB. Tr. 1021-1022. Nor could Dr. Sternglass explain why Station 14, which 4 he had earlier portrayed as " upwind" of the site, Intervenor's Exhibit llB, showed a higher correlation with the control TLD i than on-site Station 43. Tr. 1022.

l j 93. The Board finds, on evaluating all the evidence presented on Issue 9, that the high strontium levels in the

! Shippingport vicinity were based upon analyses by NUS which i

have subsequently been shown by reanalysis to be in error, and that the purported high doses observed in Ohio River water ,

and sediments and reported for Shippingport TLDs , and the allegedly high levels around the Plum Brook facility were the

! product of the arbitrary selection and misinterpretation of data by Dr. Sternglass. Tnere is no basis in Dr. Sternglass' testimony and the exhibits introduced by Intervenor for the i

contention that the Final Environmental Statement under-estimates the dose levels from releases from the Davis-Besse i

facility. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the methods for determining transport and decay of radioactive materials from a source are well understood and that the Final Environmental Statement tends to over-estimate the dose levels i

from the expected releases of radioactivity from the Davis-Besse facility.

I III. FINDINGS OF FACT - COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 102 (2) (C)

AND (D) OF NEPA AND APPENDIX D OF 10 CFR PART 50

94. Pursuant to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, Applic-ants submitted to AEC their Environmental Report, dated August 3, 1970 ( Applicants ' Exnibit 2) , a two volume Supple-ment to the Environmental Report, dated November 8, 1971, as amended by Amendment No.1 dated July 13, 1972 (Applicants' Exhibit 3) , and a Cos t-Benefit Analysis Supplement, dated July 5, 1972 ( Applicants ' Exhibit 4) . Notice of availability of the Supplement to Environmental Report was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 24946].

95. Using information in Applicants' submissions, as well as information from other sources , the Staff made an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102 (2) (C) of NEFA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.

On November 25, 1972, notice of availaoility of the Staff's Draf t Environmental Statement, prepared pursuant to Section B of Appendix D, and a notice of availability of Applicants '

Environmental Report and supplements thereto was published in the Federal Register [37 Fed. Reg. 25065]. The notice pro-vided that interested persons, within forty-five days from the date of publication of the notice were to submit comments on the proposed continuation, modification or termination of the Construction Permit, as well as comments on Applicants' 1

l l l ,

i Environmental Report and supplements thereto and the Staff's Draft Environmental Statement, for consideration by the l

Commission. The notice further provided that Federal and  !

i State agencies were being provided with copies of these reports and the Statement, and that when any comments from j these or local agencies were received, they would be made available for public inspection.

96. After receipt and consideration of comments on the  !

Draft Environmental Statement, the Staff prepared the FES and published a notice of its availability (38 Fed. Reg. 6424]. l 1

The FES includes a discussion of the comments received and the disposition thereof; a final cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental ef fects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental ef fects , as well as the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility; and a conclusion daat af ter weighing the environ-mental, econonic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, the action called for is the continuation of the Construction Permit with appropriate conditions to protect environmental values, j 97. The Board finds that both the Applicants ' Environ-l mental Report and supplements thereto and the Staff's Draft i

i i I, r

l l

i

, - . . , - - , - . - - - - - - - . . . . , . . , , _ _ . - . - . - , - _ _ - - - - - .~, .---.,,--,wl,-- -, --

we.-e----

and Final Environmental Statements comply procedurally and substantively with the requirements of NEPA and Appendix D

~

of 10 CFR Part 50.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT - INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL BALANCE AMONG CONFLICTING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS i

! A. Impact of-Construction

98. Continued construction of the Davis-Besse facility will have little, if any, significant impact. The effects of continued construction were evaluated in the Initial Decision, May 19, 1972, pp. 13-22, and in the Initial Decision, July 19, 1972 pp. 6-7. Transmission lines have been routed to minimize land use conflicts, disturbance to the existing environment and historic or scenic areas. FES S4.1; Supplement to Environmental Report ("SER") 54.2. The relatively minor amounts of dredging which remain will not cause significant aquatic impact and dredged areas will be restored to their natural condition. FES S4. 2. 2 ; SER S 6. 3. Through an arrange-ment between Applicants and the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, the marsh areas on site will be preserved and pro-1 tected. FES S4.3; SE> 56.3. The Board has considered the unavoidable impacts of construction and finds that Applicants are taking appropriate measures to minimize them. .

B. Impact of Operations

99. The radiological effects of accidents during plant operation and in transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes l

_= - .. . - - = _ .- _. . _ -

l 1

have been analyzed using realistic assumptions. Both Applic-ants and the Staff concluded that environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small. FES S7; SER $8.

i 100. During routine plant operation, small quantities of radioactive materials will be released to the environment.

i Releases of radioactivity from station operations will be so low that exposure levels will not be detectable and will be

' l

small compared with normal background radiation. Initial Decision, July 9, 1972, pp. 14-15. Treatment provided for radioactive liquids and gases will be in accordance with AEC regulations. FES S 3 . 4 . Exposure to the maximum individual  ;

will be within the limits of proposed Appendix I to lo CFR Part 50. Initial Decision, July 9, 1972, p. 11. Taking into i account all effluent pathways, including direct radiation, i

routine plant operation will contribute a negligibly small incremental dose and will not constitute a meaningful risk.

FES S5.7; SER S7.2. The radiological effects, including synergistic ef fects , on aquatic organisms were thoroughly reviewed with respect to Issues 5 and 8, discussed in SII.D and G above. The effects on wildlife were reviewed in Initial Decision, July 9, 1972, pp. 10-11. No significant l

effects are anticipated for either aquatic or terrestrial organisms .

I f

101. The thermal and chemical effects of plant operation, including synergistic effects, on the Lake Erie ecosystem were examined in the context of Issue 8 and were found not to result in any significant adverse impact.

See S II . G above . See also Initial Decision, July 9, 1972,

p. 9. Effects of entrainment and impingement on aquatic organisms will be negligible. Initial Decision, July 19, 1972, p. 8; FES SS5.5,1, '.5.2, 5 5.5.4.

l 1

0 69 (i)

1 1 .

i

. ~

i l

102. The natural draft cooling tower will produce a i

visible plume with an average length, conservatively calcul-

ated, cf 1.5 miles and a length exceeding five miles less than 3% of the time. Ground level fog, increased precipit-ation and icing are not expected to result from cooling tower operation. Drift will be insignificant. FES 555.3, 5.4; SER S7.4. Neither the presence of the cooling tower, nor j other station structures is likely to pose any significant hazard to migrant birds. Initial Decision, May 19, 1972, p.

j 22; FES S5.4.

I 103. Trans7 rtation of fuel and radioactive wastes will be carried out in accordance with AEC and Department of Transportation regulationr . The radiological impact of such i

, shipments will be minimal. FES S5.9; SER 55.

C. Need for Power I

104. Tne need for the power to be generated by the h Davis-Besse facility was considered in connection with Issue '

l. See SII. A above. The capacity to be provided by the i

Davis-Besse facility is needed to assure a reliable power i

supply.

1 l , D. Alternatives i

l 105. Alternatives to the Davis-Besse facility which were considered include the purchase of power, alternate sites, and other forms of power generation including coal, l )

l 69 (ii)

gas and oil faeled fossil plants. Purchased power is not a reasonable alternative because other possible vendors also need additional new capacity. Construction of an equivalent plant at a different site would yield no significant environ-mental gains to balance the economic penalty c: delay.

Other forms of power generation are either not available or

, would result in economic penalties and no environmental gains.

FES 59; Applicants' Cost-Benefit Analysis, Supplement (Applic-ants ' Exhibit 4) .

106. Also considered were alternate cooling systems (open cycle, mechanical draft towers, cooling pond, spray canal) , alternate intake and discharge system designs, chemical, biocide and sanitary waste system alternatives , and alternate transmission line designs. FES S10; Applicants' Cost-Benefit Supplement. The Board finds that the designs selected for the Davis-Besse system represent the appropriate choices.

E. Board Evaluation 107. The Board finds on the record in this proceeding that Applicants and the Staff have employed an interdisciplin-ary approach in the environmental review of the Davis-Besse facility, that their procedures have insured that environmental i factors have been given appropriate consideration in decision making along with technical and other considerations, and that both the Applicants' Environmental Report and supplements l

l thereto . and the Staf f's Final Environmental Statement contain

consideration of alternatives to minimize environmental I

impacts and suitable environmental cost-benefit analyses, as required by NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.

108. The Board, on the basis of the entire record, finds that the principal benefits and costs of the Davis-Besse facility may be summarized as follows:

a. The environmental costs associated with the Davis-Besse facility will be the use of 180 acres of farmland for the facility itself and 1800 acres for transmission line right-of-way; a small loss and displacement of some birds and animals due to disturbance of their habitat; a small loss to tne ecosystem of aquatic organisms in the plant's cooling water system; theevaporationofg000gpm of water; consumption of 0.75 tons of U 23 per year; a 3*F increase in water temperature over 0.7 acres; the discharge of small amounts of chemicals to Lake Erie; release of small quantity of radioactive materials to the air and water (total of 22 man-rems per year within 50 miles) ;

and a low probability of an accident in the plant releasing radioactivity or of an accident during the transport of radioactive materials.

b. These costs ara outweighed by the benefits of supplying 6.11 billion KW-hr electricity per year to residential, industrial, and other users , with favorable effects on both the local and regional 3 economy, and the preservation of over 500 acres of water fowl habitat. Alternatives for obtaining these benefits by burning fossil fuels would not only be much more expensive but the burning of fossil fuels would contribute to air pollution due to the exhausting of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides ~

and particulate matter to the atmosphere.

V. CONCLUSIONS 109. In accordance with Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations, the Board concludes:

a. The environmental review conducted by the Commission's Regulatory Staf f pursuant to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 has been adequate;

b. The requirements of Section 102 (2) (C) and (D) of NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 have been complied with in this proceeding;

c. Having considered and decided all matters in controversy among the parties and having independ-ently considered the final basis among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken, the Board has determined that the Construction Permit should be continued, subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Regulatory Staff, in the Final Environmental State-ment, for the protection of the environment:

i. A comprehensive, preoperational environmental monitoring program shall be established to provide an adequate baseline for measuring the operational impact of the Davis-Besse t

facility.

ii. Applicants shall submit, during the time of the operating license review, proposed environ-mental Technical Specifications governing the operation of the Davis-Besse facility which assure that the environmental impacts are not significantly different than those described in the FES.

iii. A monitoring program shall be established to record any kills due to birds hitting the cooling tower and other f acility structures, placing empnasis on ooservations during adverse weather conditions and during the i

spring and fall migratory seasons.

i iv. The objective of the design of the Davis-Besse facility shall be such that by careful operation the total residual chlorine concen-tration in the effluent will be 0.1 ppm or less, not to exceed 2 nours/ day.

l

v. If harmful effects or evidence of irrevers-ible damage are detected by the monitoring l  !

=

programs, Applicants will provide to the

Staff an analysis of the problem and plan l of action to be taken to eliminate or significantly reduce the detrimental effects or damage.

VI. ORDER 110. Based on the Board's findings and conclusions and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation is authorized to continue in effect the Construction Permit, consistent with the terms of this Initial Decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , in accordance with 10 CFR 5S2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785 and 2.786, that this Initial Decision shall constitute the final decision of the Commission subject to the review thereof pursuant to the above-cited rules.

4 4

4 1

1 l

i i

. . - . ,_.-,_e ., _. . - . . , - _ _ , -,.- ,

August 14, 1973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )

and THE CLEVELA'ID ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-346 ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants '

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of an Initial Decision" were served according to the attached Service List this 14th day of August, 1973.

O.

l .

S1 L

A / MY J#tyEfSilberg 1

.-~.-. .

v e a

I SERVICE LIST By Hand Delivery By Deposit in U.S. Mail Mr. Frank W. Karas Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Chief, Public Proceedings Bodega Marine Laboratories Branch, University of California Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 247 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Bodega Bay, California 94923 Washington, D.C. 20545 Dr. Harry Foreman Atomic Safety and Licensing Center for Population Studies Appeal Board University of Minnesata U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Minneapolis, Minne.cota 55455 Washington, D.C. 20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Francis X. Davis, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 John B. Farmakides, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Russell Z. Baron, Esq.

Brannon, Ticktin, Baron &

Mancini 930 Keith Building Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 l

I l

t

- . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,