ML19345B084

Forwards Summary of Public Comments Received on Code Criteria for Determining Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence. Comments Include Public Citizen Litigation Group & Critical Mass Energy Project Petition

ML19345B084
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/07/1980
From:	Hironori Peterson NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:	Marrone J AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS
References
FRN-45FR43128, RULE-PR-140, RULE-PRM-140-1, TASK-OS, TASK-RH-008-3, TASK-RH-8-3 NUDOCS 8011260095
Download: ML19345B084 (12)

Text

_

l YY%*

f

-' ?hh,?f'.-a w$~h$

~.{._ ~;~ h. h::m&awwinCN 5 h$Yk~.or.p:,a,..,3

.~..m~.. m-:, m..

p

n---

&-u<.

J-T et fhciM-E4g.kT.;.Q,.yd+-t-w De,,Camral aIe.

.,JSaltzmam,. RRR* ' - :.+

e

A -- ;. g g r >w, g q '. W ";?~b W / W.- M. RDEMEPFit M1nitrJ-N r.

Nf,'

di,-

4.....,. 3

.s

_. y.. ~..,.

..,CR (2 c: pies) -

....,f...

.,.. x f.; u

..;. RH53. RCE/ Subject r

.u.-.f

... w. 9. wv.,,d )tinogue

~

i.; 'f. '..

. ;.; -.. w '

T Docket FRM-T40-T -

~

f: v,1.fm

.4-

^ -

W i-f; M -' g: +Q - j ~,f ;:.,tgett3,

Z Uccket PR-140.

-~

....y...a m.

y BW. L.s.",$gai.gert.

W-f... (44 FR 43123

.. ;:.9 ' Goiter

.,5 >r

~-

h

- ~..

.Lpcg;

.,..:,-.7 :m i.

N a.qfA... _ 4 -i... u.,.Parscnt.

-i%, ;.. ; e r..

-:w 2,.:%v.p. :;?'. ; ~, $a:s..;A s. )WW;;-zQ.:. t 1..:#.speterscw... -

y

.sk*.*C. -A'*E.$'S'Q *. *, M ^ ~ 'L-h=. Y' h*l' d' '.h*.E;m h' N,. D.$*$

$& 'W.& 4)d.5 '-%*'* hce-a.c.t*,'eC. /lr:; ;ar C;.,- ts. c. e. r. ;'...

• 3.qe *m.:: *yi

-

• n.s.*

.f.-

.e, es.m :,w C'.? rAf:-h*.,

m&.r,,

m.:- t

...m ;..

w: x,;..

,,,e..:. - - ~ *.

a 0*'>CC"M2n.W.1 *.u

?. P ? - -?%;D7P

?.h J' j

. m,e o.J:: *. ~+),;.4'C-.34Q:,.'M'...w,ca;;6-ir, ;;;;'*ts;,=d:

.r,.r s =e-*GlF.W;w:..

- % y" s d. "r-

-m.:<, 2.M; ';

G.:;~ywdi;;y:--n.-%v :-2.%1 s

.a:.n 5

$?~

% Q :..=Gi.m(h z Y $

4

?

!%':H

' 5. 2 'r 8 - W. p z t W s:. M -s = M f ~ %.T. % a.' $ $ $ :

Y Nat

' $ $$ 5 NR N nD'E D. & &pt;;w $'h.m$x$

L ?; % ~-i m &q /-*

n ~ The*NSuite 240 ;. gg h-f$$; v$G.Y'g@

4,-n

?.A" nnermE Canasek.-- M:4. 4~~

+.%

MWSM? -J

.W.-

-YAmartcam Nuciaar Insurws. Inc.t.d?7

.7,g-%43

~

. :. - m m m. x

-;. m;.

m r r.ington w.- r m m. ; ~...

'. 7. f,..

. - =.:

- Tarsiagtan, Cnanacticut' 06032:-T -

• l

. =.. -

.v..a.

u=- ::,,. +..... :..;

e..

n

.;% = :, ~.*X.... ; - ;

~

Dear Nr;.Naramec ':

'.:.?-.,!.~.~~[.L,:w;v-

..,....... -;.v..,.. i..p..

3 As I indicated in our teTephone comersattorr-of October 37,198tT, a sammary

- n of the-puh11e e related.to the 20 critaria_tre 10. CFR Part 140 has:

4

. Are recatved.fa-msponsa.ta the notice of.

gc_$c:ei.the two cassunts Wrfcft' y. 2 -Q

" ~~-c.been prepared.'.T?tts summary is. enclosed. It r.i p of the Pubfie Citizarr ~

%. C. :./

• ~ r-9 t.tttgsttos Groupr'-=CrtticaY Mass Enery Pmject petition (PRM-1404} and puh11c, - J

' - J: comments reTated tz the att w Ma Wrfcis warm received irr response to the

~ i3 e '3~. Commission's % 4.fbe inftnsattow on-the mordstas,stnation for theQnea i

J :- :~.9c - r-a...... v_..r."..,.c ;. -:.t

,,.. N 'e..

!ttia IsTand.ac=tdant P. M

• r '

~

,5thWf.D...:

....'A-r.......,.,m....v,

2 c..; *N-.%4.WW'E-:v:-4rs.:-.Simeurely*

• ' ~T -

L. W -. : ' -e R

~-

'se:

J r

-4 tcry;.,s...x...p;e oamru.sms 3r c:,-j:,;..;:- v d p h... S..

h,~N,

..~.-n--

+

... /=w::y,:4., ' 4@q;;.,g$;..Ec. wp.ge.n.;c~. g. HABOLD LZ

.,.. = - - em J

m

-a i.

y

f... y z. _

j

%. 4..fli.~

.f,;

e zw;-.:;

.. :~.c;-., t.. g.

.:..~.- - ;

. -~ ~ -~-

n y

.w..m.

-w%;;:::sr-:45 Resoid 't., Petersorr, Jr;.. w ;

.e es : -: ~

... - - S

-. i..-

+.;f NSg~ Ek@kMg@.0mca of Standards DeveTopment. s

a.i: ;ts-cj'-mc$yRJ W. Envinrumatai Health Pitysicist -

1.y '.cdl. i

G iG Y-

- $ 'Md hf;r-N-

..p n -

e.

N.-(

..r...

i%..h:

..s

..~

% '*L; -?'.., %. %. 4 ' - .. ;...- ew

.1

,.,.;~~%g,.,;.

.w';;.Vnc$. r-'ik?qd,. :.? CMh-~~x O'-'*-Q.?]5:

s;.,

^

.a

'.,a.,

• .w '

"n.m,y.

A j ?

k'$-).=*-

$.E-

5. N. ~~ '

• 5

.;..i hE statEt ? K h

. -5Y j'S.:-.

L ;.

f~

+.:..c-f '

.2

. - T s9.=% ", f -t-**cf2?*.i;5 % ~~%r'.h,'.-2 y T:.-'. m.,'

• 1.~.r~;'i:c ~. ' e, 2.;

~ %.

~ y:i.,

=*l -.. ",

' :: ~~ - '

~

'-- 1

- A=:.a.t. :.-. s:-==c,

.p r u.

-:.w. M %. w ? ;> ~ :- +

.~. &%

^

..~tif?

'~~'J)! %.;;%d.W,;."*". wsm.We.g -w,,i :.-: ppik-1 ;;-7.= - 7.Q.

~.:,. :. u.

- ;^

E.

. ~. -

• *~. $

'2 W/.J.'*-5l'g ~.4,, -2,g i. 'fJ -

A-6y @p? p r-. 9:,.w g;,if::;. '?*\\.%3 s,. -

=:-

.." y

- +. -.

2'.

-m mcm. : m.yc,cg.g -

.. :...,,,, a...- p.~ g :i' sg m.*. 7.c.,.%.<.-: n-.:a +,.n<... -

.. 3>r...-

......f:'-,c.

E. ;....=' ;;r. w 4., s14 J. :q;,e g::: ~. ::+..i.. v; e, *3

k. -

.r u

~-

-s s

=-

W

.,,,. c - ;. - 1;..s.-..-

.y y,.. 3..., &, - - ;..~,-

p-

.-r

s. -

N 7.'-

a

• =

s

...,.- s.-

..., sow.. f., 3 w*,. -e..

-~

,f -!4.;e. e Q.....;.....1.,,,-...;

f.

- -,. &.,.~.'y.= g.

. ;;e...

n..

.sf

.,....... MJ,*

• 4, 4.. w,. * ~. g i; v

.. ~

+-

<.w Y.

't y

s,

~.-.

.~

.s str....f.

s- - ;

_e p *..

7~.

- ~-

okc5 mm-M SB'/Q C 8 CF#1NT/CI7 ' '4fT/4 _ T/ tit r

ms a

uGufber*:.-

L.

Y %Esi.y

,,?~rn w ra f, p7.

'~ ~~

,., i

.w sum.u.s a.

s sp-m y.

.......qa -

v v

.n.-

PeneC Fam.21ss M-MmnCM0340*

,ai: - *

?

l-

_,,, s

-q-(g. - ::. Q.._

.a

__ w.e.1.

- as,: -

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

~

80L1sGOO95 -

-r o 3 v 3 ooJb.

o 1 1 Altd.=>

1 ff FUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED CN THE CRITERIA

-2 IN 10 CFR PART 140 FOR

~.

DETERMINING AN " EXTRAORDINARY d

~

3 NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE" 2

j d

a Public comments on the criteria in Part 140 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 140) were received in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Notice that it had initiated the making of an ENO determination for the accident which occurred at Unit No. 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, on March 28, 1979,1 in response to the Commission's solicitation of public comments on a petition. filed by The Public Citizen Litigation Group an.d the Critical Mass Energy Project 2 and were also submitted in connection with a public hearing held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on November 21, 1979 on whether the accident at Three Mile Island was an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence."

Fifty-eight (58) comments were received in response to the July notice and November public hearing on The Three Mile Island accident. Many of these comments dealt with specific details applicable to the Commission's deter-mination of whether that accident was an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence."

Those comments have been-summarized'in the report of a staff panel on The Three Mile Island accident to the Commission (NUREG-0637). Only those i

1 Published in the Federal Register of July 23, 1979 (44 FR 43;281).

2 Published in the Federal Register of August 28,1979 (44 FR 50419).

O portions of these comments which relate specifically to the Part 140 criteria are included here. Two comments were received in response to the Federal Register notice on the petition.

SUMMARY

OF COMMENTS 1.

The ENO r.riteria neglect the latent effects of radiation such as cancer.

Comments 2, 7, 20, 25, 36, 37, 40, 42, 57 2.

The period in which injury has to be manifested is too short to deal with latent effects.

Comments 2, 7, 20, 40, 42, 57 3.

The criteria are too high.' -

Comments 18,_25, 37 4.

Criterion I is unnecessary as the damages in Criterion II could not be set without Criterion I also having been met.

Comment: 17 5.

The present Part.140 does not set forth criteria for defining

" substantial releases-of radioactive materials" as opposed to ground contamination or-radiation dose.

Comment:

17 l

l l

~~

6.

Part 140 fails to specify what constitutes " objective clinical evidence of radiation injury."

Comment:

17 7.

Criterion I should consider the dose rate immediately after deposition rather than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> later.

Comment:

40 8.

The damages should include the increased cost of purchasing replacement power.

Comment: 37 9.

The criteria should consider psychological damages.

Comment: 58

~.

10.

Lowering the criteria would deny licensees their rights to defend themselves from unjust lawsuits.

Comment: PRM-140-1 #1

11. Lowering the criteria might result in higher insurance premiums and could endanger insurance availability.

Consent: PPM-140-1 #1 9

3

=. -...... -. -

COMMENTS Comment #2.

Gene McCrae Albricht, Bigberville, Pa.

Point #1.

The ENO criteria neglect the latent effects of cancer.

"[In addition.] the criteria for establishing rad'f ation doses are criminally negligent in view of the effects of low-level radiation according to studies completed by Mancuso, Natarajan, Bertall and others...."

Point #2.

The period in which injury has to be manifested is too short to deal with latent effects.

"How can latent cancer be proved within the statute of limitations period when latent cancer typically requires longer than the statute period to develop? Clinical evidence of injury from exposure within 30 days would require massive over-exposure--clearly overlooking any:

lesr4e exposure as worthy of.no consideration."

Connant #7.

Michael L. Hershey, Lancaster, Pa.

~

Point:

The ENO criterion II does not consider latent effects.

"Theesecond provision concerning substantial offsite damage is a factor which may take a long time to manifest.

How do you prove damage from low level ridiation? It would take 10, 15, or 20 years before cancer or genetic damage may surface but you would not be able to. prove it was a result of the accident at TMI."

4 l

-.1 ~ ~~

i _. i.

L.

~

~ ~ ~ ~

T T___

~

Comment #17.

Dr. Chauncey Xeoford - Environmental Ccalition on Nuclear Power.

Point #1.

The present Part 140 does not set forth criteria for defining

" substantial releases of radioactive materials."

The definition of an ENO as it appears in the statute [The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended] does not support the two pronged tests as set forth in the Commission's rules.

In fact, the statute states clearly that one aspect of an ENO is a substantial release of radioactive saterials offsite. By comparison, Part 140.84 sets j

forth levels of damage as expressed in terms of exposure to persons i

offsite and levels of ground contamination, neither of which is a measure of offsite release of radioactive materials."

Point #2.

The current regulation fails to specify what constitutes

" objective clinical evidence of radiation injury".

h

" Criterion II,-the second prongof the Commission's rule (10 CFR 140.85) merely establishes a higher level of damages to be suffered before an ENO is to be declared. To add further (and wholly unneces-sary) confusion, Criterion II requires that five or more persons must die or show objective clinical evidence of radiation injury in order to qualify as damaged persons. The Commission's rules are silent with regard to exactly.what constitutes objective clinical evidence of radiation damages or injury.

Indeed, all responsible authorities on radiation effects consider all exposure to radiation to be harmful.

"The rules should also contain either a workable definition of what constitutes radiation injury-to both--an indi-vidual-and to those individuals affected by a reactor accident or an explccation of specifically what evidence must be collected to qualify as 'objec-tive clinical evidence' lof radiation injury."

I Point #3.

Criterion I (defining " substantial" releases of radioactive j

saterials) is unnecessary as the damages specified in Cri-terion II could not be met without Criterion I-also having been

(

met.

5 ww-q

,v y-y r

g w---

g

---

y - - - - - - - -

w-v-

---m--r---

g ->

"The Commission's rules are such that both ' prongs' or Criteria must be met before any ENO can be declared.

It is difficult to postulate an accident in which Criterion II could not be met with-out Criterion I also having been met. As a result, Critorion I is unnecessary."

"The Commission"s rules should therefore be immediately amended to accurately reflect the wording of the ENO definition in the statute and the problems encountered in a real nuclear accident."

COMMENT #18.

Paul Noland.

Point:

The criteria are.too high and should be lowered.

"The decision that prompted me to write this letter was when you pronounced that the Three Mile Island accident (not mishap or incident) did not constitute an extra ordinary nuclear occurence.

According to the arti-le I read you said it didn't meet the requirements. Well m.en.

The only sensible thing to.do is to i

lower the darn requirements."

COMMENT #20., Holly Lou Ann Holyk, Los Angeles, California.

Point #1.

The criteria do not consider the effects of low-level i

radiation.

"The criteria in general I believe do not deal with many of the actual dangers posed by nuclear power, and as an indf rect result do little to stimulate creative research to help lessen actual dangers.

Of the three criteria listed, no consideration appears to be given to the very real health threat of low level _radjation..." Granted, the burden of all cancer incidences and other related health dis-orders in an area surrounding nuclear power plants should not be placed upon the utility companies. But as research ever more strongly supports that leu level radiation causes cancer and other untoward effects, and nuclear power plants are known to emit low level radiation in accidents and possibly during normal operation, the plants should not be freed of their responsibility for damage done to public health."

"Could not a system be developed wherein utility companies assume financial responsibility for the percentage of disease and defects linked to low level radiation above the national norm in an affected area?

)

6

Point #2.

The criteria do not consider the latent period associated with Cancer.

"Of the three criteria listed, no consideration appears to be given to the very real health threat of low level radiation and the fact that its delitarious effects do not appear until years after exposure."

Comment #25.

Holly S. Keck, ANGRY--Anti-Nuclear Group Reoresenting York.

Point #1.

The present Part 140 criteria are too high.

"[In any case], the levels of radiation exposure required to declare a nuclear accident and ENO are ridiculously high in view of current data available showing the considerable risks of low-level exposure."

Point #2.

Substantial damage tre the form of latent health effects could occur without meeting the damage criteria.

"It is not necessary to hospitalize five people within thirty days to have substantially irradiuted the general populace.

Significant damage can be done even though it'will not be apparent until later.

For example, studies have shown conclusively that very low levels of radiation in the diagnostic x-ray range produce a 42% increase in all forms of cancer in children when the mothers are irradiatad during pregnancy (Alice Stewart, M.D. British Journal of Radiology, 1959).

Comment #36.

David Barrick, Environmental Policy Institute Point:

The ENO criteria do not consider latent cancer effects.

"[Furthermore] the BEIR III Report found that 268.to 1031 excess cancers will result per million persons for single exposures to one rad of low LET radiation. While Criterion I may not be met in the strict sense, it is entirely probable that e.v. cess cancers will 7

~

- ~

=,.

..._.._u-occur in the population in the vicinity of Three Mile Island as a result of the accident.

It further appears that the values con-tained in Criterion I show an intent to identify cancer causing doses as significant or substantial doses. Therefore, more careful interpretation of radiological exposure data and the conclusions of the BEIR III Committee may find that the intent of Criterion I has been met in the THI accident."

Comment #37.

Dr. R.ssalie Bertelle, Ministry of Concern for Public Health.

J Point #1.

The ENO criteria are too high and do not adequately consider latent cancer.

l

" Classification of an event as ' extraordinary' should not require the use of unreasonable criteria.

It is questionable whether the following criteria are reasonable or even applicable in a nuclear situation:

1) proof that people off-site received radiation exposure equiva-lent to 4,000 chest X-rays (20 REM);

2) five'or more people died immediately;' and.

3) at least $1 million worth of damage."

" Knowing what we do of radiation-related health damage, is it reasonable to require such a high public exposure to radiation? As long ago as 1948, the maximum annual occupational dose allowable was lowered to 15 REM. Knowing that it can take cancer up to twenty or thirty years to develop, is it at all reasonable to require five immediate deaths? Is radiation poisoning (which occurs at high doses, and results in death fairly quickly) the only health problem to be guarded against?"

Point #2.

Damages should. include the increased cost of purchasing replace-ment power.

"Isn't it reasonable to consider the future additional costs to rate payers--for purchasing power that TMI cannot now provide--as economic damage?"

8

/

/

~

~. -

o 2

~,

..~

s. u

+ -

l Comment #40.

Warren L. Prelesnick, Hershey, Pa.

_oint #1.

Criterion I should consider the dose rate immediately after D

deposition rather than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> later.

" Recalculating the ' observed or projected' levels within the first eight hours of the accident will provide a more honest and accurate picture of the actual levels released."

Point #2.

Cr'cerion II, does not adequately reflect latent cancer incidence.

"[As you are well aware ] low level radiation damage does not show up until years after the exposure. Often 10 to 30 years elapses before a person gets cancer, has heart problems, or other abnormali-ties that are a direct result of low level radiation. To 'close

. the books' because no one died or was hospitalized within 30 days of the event or showed clinical evidence of physical injury is more than a bit ridiculous and unscientific, given the. knowledge. base. -.

now available regarding low level radiation exposure."-

Comment #42.

Ellie M. Cohen, Laguna Beach, California.

Point:

Insufficient attention has been paid to long-term low-level radiation effects.

"Some of the damage to wildlife and human life may not be apparent for, years but indeed more and more studies point the fact that low level radiation is a long term carcinogen."

Comment #57.

Mr. and Mrr._Villiam A. Hess, Rockville, Maryland.

(Submitted 12r inclusion in transcript of November 21, 1979 Harrisburg Hearing) 9

/

,1 Point:

The ENO criteria do not cessider latent effects.

"To satisfy the criteria that five or more people were killed or hospitalized should not be based entirely on statistics taken at the time of the a:cident. This criteria may not be satisfied for years tu come, and recent evidence compiled by the Center for Disease Control demonstrates the unpredictability of such nuclear occurence3 on the morbidity and 50-'

'ty rate."

Comment #58.

The Honorable Robert

, House of Reoresentatives, Congress of the United Point:

'The ENO criteria should consider psychological damages.

"...you must consider that there were psychological damages done which deserve regulatory recognition."

Commint PRM-140-1. Donald E. Vandenburgh, Vice-President, Yankee Atomic,..

Electric Company Point #1.

Lowering the criteria would deny licensees their rights to defend themselves from unjust lawsuits.

"If the threshold for determining an ENO is set a level that results in the waiver of defenses Leing triggered for incidents which do not result in significant injury and loss, the licensee would be denied the fairness of defending itself against unjust lawsuits. A claimant has the same rights under our legal system regardless of the Commission's determination of whether an ENO exists or does not exist. With this fact in mind, the Commission should be very careful, before lower'r.g the current criteria, that the right of licensees to defend themseives under the American judicial system is not sacrificed as an emotional response to the recent incident at Three-Mile Island (TMI)."

Point #2.

Lowering the criteria might result in higher insurance premiums and could endanger insurance availability.

10

~

i

g.

"A lowering of the threshold for an ENO would doubtless add to the

~

uncertainty with which private insurance companies view responsibility for nuclear incidents. This uncertainty would lead to higher premiums for insurance coverage and could at sone point endanger the availability of insurance coverage. The availability of insurance coverage from private insurance carriers has been central to the recent shifting of the focus cf the Price-Anderson protection from Federal government indemnification to private industry responsibility."

Comment PRM-140-2.

Robert Gartner, Housten, Texas Mr. Gartner's comments relate to the ENO determination for the Three Mile Island Accident and not to the ENO criteria in 10 CFR Part 140.

l 4

4 e.-

=

ow ammme 1

11

.