ML20010E644
| ML20010E644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1981 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E645 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109080095 | |
| Download: ML20010E644 (9) | |
Text
~
Atc dohs
?hl81
+
UillTED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD_
In the Matter of PENilSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT C0.
Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC C00 PERATIVE, INC.
50-388
- e i
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) 0,17pg d;
T[u Dlftp N8C STAFF MOTION FOR SUiiMARY DISPOSITION S
IP '
0F A PORTION OF C0.NTEhfl0N 2 v\\
I.
Introduction M
-d, N
On March 6,1979, the Licensing Board admitted Contention P.
alleges:
The residual risks of low-level radiation which will result from the release from the facility of radionuclides, and particularly from the release of cesium-137 and cobalt-60, into the Susquehanna River, and the health effects of chlorine discharged into the river, have not been, but must be, adequa ely as<sessed and factored into the NEPA cost-benefit balance before the plant is allowed to go into operation.
J The NRC Staff asserts that the portion of Contention 2 which relates to risks c; low-level radiation presents no genuine issue of material fact and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.E Section II of this pleading will discuss generally the law applicable to motions for sumnary disposition.
Sectior III will set If The Applicants have filed Partial Motions for Surnary Disposition on Contention 2 on August 13 and 25, 1981.
These Motions, however, address only the amount of radioactive releases (source term) and the doses associated with the source term. The Staff's present Motion goes further and addresses the risks to the public due to n50,i the release of radionuclides froc, the Susquehanna facility.
- 5 ll
~
8109080095 B10903 PDR ADOCK 05000
forth the Staff's reasons for concluding that Contention 2 raises no genuine issue of uaterial fact.
Attached to this liotion is the Affidavit,of Edward F. Branagan, Jr. and the Statenent of fiaterial Facts as to Which There Is lio Genuine Issue to be licard.
II. _GEllERAL POIr1TS OF LAW The Coumission's Rules of Practice provide for sunaary disposition of certain issues on the pleadings where the filings in the proceeding show that t are is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the novant ir entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
10 CFR 9 2.749.
Because tr e Cocuission's su' nary disposition rule is analogous to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (sunnary judgment), Federal court decisions interpreting Rule 56 may be relied on for an understanding of the operation of the summary disposition rule.E In_Adickes v.
Kress._& Co._, 389 U.S. 144, 167 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the pas ty seeking summary judgment has "the burden of showing t,e absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact."U To meet this burden, the novant must eliminate any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.E To further this goal, the. sucuary disposition rule provides that ali material facts, set out in the statement which must accompany summa y disposition motions, will be decioed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party.
10 CFR H 2.749(a).
y Alabama Power Company (Joseph it. Farley liuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
3]
See also Cleveland Electric libainating Co. (Perry fluclear Power T> Tant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-433, 6 liRC 741, 752 - 54 (1977).
y Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 368' U.S. 464,,468 (1962);
Sartor v. Arkansas fiatural Gas Corp., 321 l].S. 670, 627 (1944).
Any other party uay serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion for suumary disposition.
10 CFR 9 2.749(a).
Attached to a motion opposing summary disposition must be a separate, short, and concise statenent of the material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
10 CFR 9 2.749(a). A naterial fact is one which uay affect the outcoiae of the litigation.O The )pposing party need not show that it would prevail on the issues but only that there are genuine uaterial issues to be tried.O A party opposing the motion, however, may not rely on mere allegations but instead must demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise that a genuine issue exists as to a aaterial fact.U Furtheraore, the record and affidavits supporting and opposing the uotion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the metion.E Finally, the proponent of a motion for su; nary disposition uust meet its burden of establishing that it is entitled to judguent as a matter of law even if the opponent of such a motion fails to submit evidence controverting the conclusions reached in documents submitted Sj llutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Mgt. Co., 533 F. 2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977).
~6/
American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anerican Broadcasting -
Paramount Theaters, Inc., 388 F. 2d 272, 280 (2d Cir.1976).
7]
10 CFR 5 2.749(b).
Virginia Electric Pouer Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584,11 NRC 451, 453 (1980).
y See Public Service Co. of New Hanpshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
e
i
. in support of the notion.N III.
Staff Argument Contention 2 asserts, in pertinent part, that the residual risks of low-level radiation which will result frou the release of radionuclides, particularly cesium-137 and cobalt-60, into the Susquehanna River have not been adequately assessed and factored into the HEPA cost-benefit balance.lS/
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff concludes that there is no genuine issue to be heard regarding the statenent of naterial facts accoupanying this uotion. The Staff further concludes that the Affidavit of Edward F. Branagan, Jr. and the Statement of Material Facts as to Ubich There Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard, both of which are attached to this pleading, when read together with this Motion, show that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of lcw.
9]
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 7 HRC 741, 753 - 54 (1977).
Courts have, however, granted notions for sumary judgment even though certain facts havc been disputed when the disputed facts were found not uaterial to the resolution of the legal issues presented.
Riedel
- v. Atlas Van Lines, 272 F. 2d 901, 905 (8th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 942 (1960); Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. U.S., 416 F. Supp.
689, 693 (D.N.J. 19/5); Aluminum Co. of America v. Purlington Truck Lines, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 166, 175 (H.D. Ill. 1972).
10/ On August 13, 1981, the Applicants filed a " Motion for Partial Suwary Disposition of Contention 2 (Source Term)." That Motion and supporting affidavit specified how the anticipated releases of radionuclides from the facility to the river were computed and stated that the release estinates in the Applicants' Environmental Report for the Susquehanna plant represented conservatively high estinates of the actual releases that will occur when the plant is in operation.
e
l'.
4 The Staff has assessed the' residual risks associated with the release of radionuclides, including cesium-137 and cobalt-60, from tne Susquehanna facility into the Sesquehanna River.
Initially, the Staff caltJ1ated the amount of radioactive materials to be contained in s
the liquid effluents from the facility. These calculated releases are listed in Table 4.11 of the Final Environuental Statement (FES) Related f
to the Operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 HUREG-0564.(Affidavit of Edward F. Branagan, Jr. (Branagan Affidavit) at 2). Using these calculated releases, the Staff then calculated doses to individuals which may result from the radioactive materials in the liquid effluents.
(BrinaganAffidavitat2).
F,inally, the Staff calculated I
the risks to the public health from the low-level radiation contained in i
i the effluents.
(Branagan Affidavit at 2-3).
To calculate the risks, the Staff used risk estimators derived from recoumendations of the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects b
4 l
of Ionizing !!adiation Committee (BEIR I Report) and the " Final Generic I
Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide i
ilel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors" (fiUREG-0002). The risk estimators used 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rem by the Staff were:
and 258 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders -per million The Staff then multiplied the risk estimators by the estimated persons-rem.
annual doses to estimate the risks to the maximally exposed individual, to the average individual within 80 km of the plant, and to the general U.S.
population.
(Branagan Affidavit at 3).
I i
9 l
- llaving calculated the doses to the public associated with the release of radionuclides, the Staff concluded that the risk of potential preuature death frou cancer to a hypothetical, maximally exposed individual s
frou one year of reactor operations is less than one chance in one million for both gaseous and liquid e'fluents.
(Branagan Af fidavit at 3). The risk of potential premature death from cancer due to exposure to liquid effluents alone is approxiaately 4 x 10-7 for the maximally exposed individual.
(Branagan Affidavit at 3-4).
The risk of prei.:ature death due to cancer to the average person within 30 km of the facility from exposure to both gaseous and liquid effluents from one year of reactor operations is less than one percent of the risk to the naximally exposed individual.
(Branagan Affidavit at 4).
For the general U.S. population, the Staff estimated that 0.009 CdnCer dedths Day occur in the exposed population and 0.02 genetic disorders i:ay occur in all future generations of the exposed population.
The probability of one cancer death over the lifetimes of the U.S. general public due to exposure to radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and wastes from the normal operation of the facility is less than one chance in 100.
The probability of one genetic disorder in future generations of the U.S. population due to exposure to radioactive materials related to the normal annual operation of the Susquehanna Station is less than one chance in 50.
(Branagan Affidavit at 4-5).
e e
7-Based on the calculated risks due to exposure to radiodctive ef fluents, the Staff concluded that the risk to real individuals from such exposure from normal operations at the Susquehanna plant is insignificant.
(Branagan Affidavit at 5).
The environment costs of radioactive releases were addressed in the FES and were found to have no discernible effect on the general population.
(Branagan Affidavit at 6).
Moreover, the Staff concluded in the FES that primary benefits of provid.ing 2100 IM of electrical energy, minimizing system production costs and increasing system reliability through the addition of 2100 MW base load capacity will greatly out weigh the environmenul, social, technical, and economic costs.
FES, Section 9.8 (p. 9-4).
IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes that it has clearly demonstrated that, contrary to the allegations in Contention 2, the ri;ks of low-level radiation which will result from the release of radionuclides into the Susquehanna River have been adequately assessed and have been factored into the cost-benefit analysis for the facility.
There is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the alleged inadequacies in the assessnent and the ef fect of the assessment on the cost-benefit analysis.
Thus, the Staff concludes that suouary disposition of those porti ms of Contention 2 which relate to risk assessment should be granted in its favor as a matter of law in accordance with 10 CFR 9 2.749.
Respectfully subuitted, y
c
}ir.Ci.V;*
Q t l +.h, S C Lucinda low Swartz Counsel for 14RC Staff Dated at Bethesda,11aryland this 3rd day of September 1981.
a STATEllErlT OF (1ATERIAL FACTS AS TO UllICil TilERE IS f;0 GEllVIllE ISSUE TO BE IIEARD 1.
The Staff has calculated the amount of radioactive materials to be contained in the liquid effluents released fran the Susquehanna facility.
2.
The Staff has calculated the doses to individuals resulting from the radioactive materials to be contained in the liquid effluents.
3.
The Staff has calculated the risks to the public of potential premat'J,e death from cancer which result from the doses to the public from the radioactive releases.
These risks were caluclated i
by multiplying risk estimators derived from the flational Acadeqy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Cc,nmittee and the
" Final Generic Environmental Statemant on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in flixed Oxide Fuel in !ight-Water Cooled Reactors" (iluREG-0002) by the estimated annual doses.
4.
Tne risks of potential premature death from cancer to the uaximally exposed individual from one year of reactor operations are less than one chance in one million for exposure to both liquid and gaseous radioactive releases.
The risks of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed individual as a result of radionuclides from one year of reactor operations in liquid effluents
-7 alone are 4 x 10 The risk.o the average individual within 80 km of the facility is less than one percent of the risk to the maximally c< posed individual.
The risks to the U.S. general public are 0.009 potential cancer deaths in the exposed population and 0.02 genetic disorders in all future generations of the, exposed population.
_2 5.
The risks frou exposure to radionuclides, including cesium-137 and cobalt-60, as a result of effluent releases into the Susquehanna River are insignificant.
The dose to the public will have no discernible effect on the population.
Thus, the Staff, in the FES, Wds dble to conclude that the benefits of generating 2100 fM of electrical energy will greatly outweigh the environmental, social, technical, and economic costs.
i t
I l
l l
I l
1 i
e e