ML20028A440
| ML20028A440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-701, NUDOCS 8211220166 | |
| Download: ML20028A440 (26) | |
Text
N4 DNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'# ~
HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICM ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS E2 ':.719 P2:09 Administrative Judges:*
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
,uc.c Dr. John H. Buck "Gi Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore ISEEOMOhp%
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
) Docket Nos. 50-277
_ET _AL.
)
50-278
)
(Peach Bottom Atomic Pcwer
)
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
) Docket No. 50-320
_ET _AL.
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND
) Docket Nos. 50-354 GAS COMPANY
)
50-355
)
(Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Jay E.
Silberg and Matias F.
Travieso-Diaz, Hashington, D.C.,
for applicants, Metropolitan Edison Co., et al.
Troy B.
Conner, Jr., and Robert M.
- Rader, Washington, D.C.,
for applicants, Philadelphia Electric Co., et al., and Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
Judith R.
Johnsrud and Chauncey Kepford, State College, Pa., for Peach Bottom-Three Mile Island intervenors, Citizens for a safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power.
Bernard M.
Bordenick for the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Staff.
- The Appeal Panel members listed are on one or more of the Boards assigned to hear the captioned proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this decision.
8211220166 821119 PDR ADOCK 05000277 PDR
{ {h9 G
L
al 2
DECISION November 19, 1982 (ALAB-701)
In the fulfillnent of its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, this agency is required to consider, inter alia, the environmental effects associated with the release of radioactive radon gas (radon-222) to the atmosphere as a result of the mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel.
Once determined, those effects must then be factored into the cost-benefit analyses underlying reactor licensing decisions.
In ALAB-640, 13 NRC 487, 539-542 (1981), we found the annual amounts of mining and milling radon releases attributable to the operation of the Peach Botton, Three Mile Island (Unit 2), and Hope Creek reactors.
This decision concerns whether their environmental (i.e., health) effects are sufficiently significant to tip the UEFA cost-benefit balances against the operation of those facilities. 1 For the reasons explained below, we answer that cuestion in the negative without calling for any further evidence en the subject.
_1/
Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island 2 are fully constructed.
(The former is now in operationi the latter has, of course, been shut down since its disabling accident in 1979.)
Hope Creek is still under construction.
l o
3 I.
A.
The extended history of this consolidated proceeding was recounted in full in ALAB-640, supra, 13 NRC et 490-93.
For present purposes, we confine ourselves to a summary of the more important events.
In 1974 the Commission's regulations were amended to set forth in tabular form the values to be assigned to the various environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
10 CFR Part 51, Table S-3,
" Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data."
In 1978 the Commission determined that the value then provided in Table S-3 for radon releases was in error and must be deleted.
Rather than immediately initiating a new rulemaking proceeding to obtain a new and more accurate value, the Commission elected to defer its further consideration of the matter of radon releases to await completion of the NRC staff's generic environmental impact statement on uranium milling.
See 43 Fed. Rec. 15613 (April 14, 1978).
For the interim,.the licensing and appeal boards were to " receive new evidence on radon releases and on health effects resulting from radon L_
4 If. at 15615-16. 2_/
releases."
At that juncture, there were 17 construction permit and operating license proceedings pending before appeal boards.
In addition, a licensing board had before it the construction permit proceeding involving the proposed Perkins facility.
Upon receipt of the Commission's directive, that Board immediately embarked upon an evidentiary hearing on the radon release issue.
On July 14, 1978, it rendered its decision on the issue, in which it determined that the radon emissions associated with the mining and milling of uranium added so little to the radon already in the environment (i.e., natural background radon) as to be both undetectable and insignificant from a health effccts standpoint.
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87, 100.
Against this background, we decided to employ a " lead case" approach in confronting the radon issue in the 17 proceedings that were in an appellate posture.
Specifically, we gave the parties to those proceedings the
~~2/
The staff's " Final Generic Environmental Impact State-ment on Uranium Milling," (GEIS), NUREG-0706, was issued in September 1980.
In accordance with a j
Ccmmission directive, however, the determinations in ALAB-640 respecting release rates rested upon the disclosures in the adjudicatory record before us, rather than upon anything in the GEIS.
See 13 NRC at 521.
To date, the Commission has not promulgated a new Table S-3 value for radon-222 releases.
5 opportunity "to supplement, contradict or object to" both the Perkins record and the determinations made by the Perkins Licensing Board on the basis of that record.-
ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796, 804-06 (1978). d!
Ultimately, we heard from intervenors in five of the proceedings. They challenged both the sufficiency of the Perkins record and the correctness of the result reached in that case.
Upon our consideration of the submissions to us, we elected (1) to consolidate the five proceedings on the radon 1
issue alone; (2) to divide the issue into two components; (3) to conduct an evidentiary hearing limited to the first component --
i.e.,
for each reactor, the quantum of the radon releases attributable to the uranium fuel cycle per year of reactor operation; (4) to abide the outccme of that hearing before addressing the second component (the health i
effects of the determined releases); and (5) to hold in 1
abeyance the entire radon issue insofar as concerned the 1:2 proceedings in which that issue had not been put into contest by a party.
See ALAB-540, 9 NRC 428, 433 (1979);
ALAB-562, 10 NEC 437 (1979).
Subsequently, the construction permit applications for two of the facilities involved in i
l
--3/
The Perkins record was formally incorporated in the record for each of the 17 proceedings before us.
6 the contested proceedings were' withdrawn;-4/ this reduced to three the number of facilities encompassed by the hearing.
B.
Following the evidentiary hearing and the receipt of the parties' proposed findings of fact, we rendered ALAB-640.
As previously noted, in that decision we determined the amount of radon which would be released in the mining and milling of the uranium necessary to provide fuel for the operation of each of the three facilities.
We also concluded, by a divided vote, that a fuller opportunity had to be given the parties to demonstrate that the determined releases might have sufficient health effects to tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance for one or more of the facilities against reactor operation.
13 NRC at 539-42, 543-45.
No party sought Commission review of ALAB-640 and the Commission declined to review it sua sponte.
Thereafter, we issued ALAB-654, 14 NRC 632 (1981), in which the procedures for the further consideration of the health effects aspect of the radon issue were detailed.
In essence, we placed the burden upon those claiming a need for an evidentiary hearing on the health effects question to demonstrate at the
_4/
Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No.
1), Docket No. STN 50-484; Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1), Docket No. STN 50-485.
7 threshold "the e::istence of a genuine issue of material fact respecting * *
- the environmental significance of fuel cycle-related radon emissions."
Id. at 634.
The parties were explicitly informed that that demonstration would have to take the form of "the documented opinion of one or more cualified authorities to the effect that the incremental fuel cycle-related radon emissions will have a significant environmental effect in terms of human health."
Id. at 635 (emphasis in original).
We recorded our expectation that "any such opinion will explicitly take into account (1) the comparative relationship between the amount of those emissions (as found in ALAB-640) and of natural radon emissions; and (2) the fluctuations in natural emissions (indoor vis a vis outdoor as well as from one geographic area to another). "
Ibid.
We concluded that, "in the totality of circumstances, there is nothing unreasonable about rcquiring the inter-l l
venors thus to shoulder * *
- the burden of going forward on the question of the need for a further hearing on environmental impact".
In this connection, we stated:
l the subject of health effects was thoroughly explored in the Perkins evidentiary hearing in the context of fuel cycle-related radon emissions not dissimilar in amount to those later determined by us in these proceedings.
And the Licensing Board's conclusion in that case that the incremental radon contribution of the uranium fuel cycle would not have significant health effects was grounded upon the testimony of highly L
8 qualified expert witnesses.
See LBP-78-25, supra, 8 NRC at 95-100.
One such witness was Dr. Leonard D. Hamilton, a physician who headed the Biomedical and Environ-mental Assessment Division at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
For over thirty years, Dr.
Hamilton had been involved in the appraisal of radiation health risks.
Prior to joining Brookhaven in 1964, he had spent 14 years on the staff of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in New York City and had also served on the faculty of the Cornell University Medical College.
Referring to the testimony of other expert witnesses for the applicant and the staff, Dr. Hamilton had this to say:
"As can be seen (from that]' testimony, the additional Radon-222 from the mining and milling [ phases] of the uranium fuel cycle makes an additional negligible contribution to annual natural background radiation and consecuently, a similarly negligible impact on the health effects associated with the fuel cycle" (emphasis supplied).
Not having been carties to Perkins, the intervenors ncw before us cannot be deemed bound by Dr. Hamilton's conclusions.
(This is so even though Dr. Chauncey Kepford, the representative of the Peach-Bottom - Three Mile Island intervencrs, was permitted to cross-exanine him on behalf of the Perkins intervenor).
But in the absence of a concrete threshold showing that there is a difference in competent expert opinion on the health effects issue, there is wholly insufficient cause to require either the applicants in the instant proceedings or the staff to replow at yet another hearing the ground previously traversed by Dr. Hamilton and the other Perkins witnesses.
Id. at 634-35 (footnotes omitted).
C.
In response to our invitation in ALAB-654, the Peach Bottom - Three Mile Island intervenors filed a memorandum on the health effects question, supported
9 by the affidavit of Dr. Chauncey Kepford (one of their representatives) 5!.
According to those parties, radon releases in the amounts determined in ALAB-640 will pose a significant health risk and, thus, tip the cost-benefit balance against these nuclear power plants.
Replies to that submission were then filed by the Three Mile Island applicants, the Peach Botton - Hope Creek applicants (in a single document authored by their common counsel) and the NRC staff.
All of these parties asserted that Dr. Kepford was not a qualified authority on the subject of health effects and that, in any event, his assertionc lacked scientific basis and thus did not give rise to a genuine issue of fact necessitating resolution at a hearing.
On the latter score, the Three Mile Island applicants appended to their memorandum the affidavit of Dr. Leonard Hamilton, who (as noted in ALAB-654, p.
8, supra) had testified on
_"/
That submission noted that it was joined in by the organizaticn that had intervened in the proceeding involving the proposed Sterling facility.
Although one of the five original consolidated proceedings, Sterlina was dismissed when the construction permit application for it was later withdrawn.
See pp.
5-6, supra.
Notwithstanding this development, at our invitation the Sterling intervenor continued to participate on the radon issue.
See ALAB-640, 13 NRC at 492 fn.
6.
No response to ALAB-654 was submitted by the Hope Creek intervenor.
=
=
10 the health effects question in Perkins.-6/
II.
As earlier seen (p.
7, supra), ALAB-654 imposed two specific obligations upon the intervenors in connection with their endeavor to establish the existence of a genuine issue
_6/
The Perkins intervenors had filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's radon decision, LBP-78-25, supra.
Although the parties briefed those exceptions, we decided to hold our ruling on them in abeyance to await the outcome of this consolidated proceeding.
Early this year, leave was sought to withdraw the Perkins construction permit application.
For that reason, we vacated three non-final partial initial decisions rendered in the proceeding, including l
LBP-78-25, and dismissed all pending appeals as moot.
We explicitly stated, however, that this action did not
" vitiate the testimony and other evidence contained in the record on the issue of the environmental effects associated with the release of radioactive radon' gas (radon-222] to the atmosphere as a result of the mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel."
ALAS-668, 15 NRC 450, 452 fn. 3 (1982).
In this connection, we stressed that that record had provided a portion of the basis for ALAB-640 and might be employed in any I
subsequent decisions in the consolidated radon proceeding.
Ibid.
Although ALAB-668 was brought to the attention of the parties now before us, none objected to the continued use of the Perkins reccrc.
l
~
11 of material fact on the health effects question.-7/
- First, the intervenors had to demonstrate that "there is a difference in competent expert opinion" on the question; this obviously entailed "the documented opinion of one or more qualified authorities to the effect that the incremental fuel cyclu-related radon emissions will have a significant environmental effect in terms of human health."
Second, the expert opinion had to take into account both the amount of natural radon background radiation and the fluctuations in natural emissions from one locale to another.-8/
On the latter score, we took specific note of the undisputed facts, disclosed in the Perkins record, that (1) fuel cycle-related radon emissions are minute compared to natural emissions; and (2) the amount of natural radon found in the environment varies widely from one j
_7/
It should be noted that, in their response to ALAB-654, the intervenors did not challenge the placing upon them of the burden of going forward on the matter of the need for an evidentiary hearing on that cuestion.
In any event, we remain persuaded that, for the reasons stated in ALAB-654 (see pp.
7-8, suora), that burden j
was properly allocated.
l l
_8/
" Natural emissions," which produce " natural background radon," are derived from such things as ordinary building materials and soil.
ALAB-654, 14 NRC at 633 l
- n.
5.
I
12 geographic area to another and inside and outside of buildings.
ALAB-654, 14 NRC-at 633.-9/
At the outset, therefore, ve must consider whether the applicants and the staff are right in their claim that the intervenors' submission failed to meet either obligation.
A.
Dr. Kepford's affidavit is entirely devoid of any reference to his expert qualifications.
Nor is this deficiency cured by anything in the intervenors' memorandum to which the affidavit was attached.
Indeed, it would be impossible to glean from either the affidavit or the memorandum any information at all respecting either his educational background or his experience.
Perhaps intervenors thought such illumination to be unnecessary in light of the fact that Dr. Kepford had submitted a statement of professional qualifications in the Perkins proceeding and thereafter had been permitted by the Licensing Board to testify on the health effects question presented in that case.
See pp. 17, 22, infra.
In addition, at the hearing below in the Thr_ee Mile Island proceeding now before us, Dr. Kepford's testimony on the question likewise was received.
_9/
In that regard, we observed that exposures to indcor radon concentrations exceed outdoor experures by, on the average, a factor of 30.
See also, fr. 17, infra.
j
4
.i l i 13 It Appears, however, from an examination of the records in the two proceedings that neither Licensing Board ruled on the matter.
Forihspart, the Three Mile Island Board expressly declined to pass upon Dr. Kepford's
~...
. qualifications.
Tr. 2929-31.
As it indicated in its
~
initial decision, his testimony had been admitted simply for "whatever weight-is deemed appropriate."
LBP-77-70, 6 NRC 1185, 1223 (1977)
- 1SI "Ne havc'tindependently considered Dr. Kopford,'s quali '
fications a's se? forth in the Perkins record.
His statement of professional qualifications (fol. Tr. 2819) discloses that he possesses
__ orate.in chemistry obtained at thei 31 University of Calgary in Canada.
Between 1s67 and 1969, he was employed as an industrial research chenist'by the United v.
. '?L Aircraft Corporation.
During the ensuing two years, he held anassistantprofesscrshipinchebistryattheYorkCampus of the Pennsylvania State University.
The statement does not reflect any employment subsequent to 1971; rather, it indicates without elaboration that, since that date, Dr.
Kepford has devoted himself fully to "the problems of.
nuclear power."
10/
Ac further appears in that decision, the Licensing
~~
Beard ultimately attached little, if any weight, to Dr.
Kepford's testimony.
See 6'NPC'at 1224.
Even had a licensing board determined that'Dr. Kepford was a qualified Sidpert on the subject at hand, that determination wy; d not have been binding, on us.
+
y.-g-i_
~y.
y e
.,_~g kt--
1 14
?
Not long ago, we explicitJy adopted the expert witness standard set forth in Rule /02 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which speaks in terms of " knowledge, skill, experience, training or education."
Duke Power Co. (Willian B. !!cGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 1
453, 475 (1982).
Applying that standard here, we are compelled to.the conclusion that no basis has been provided by the intervenors for c finding that, by experience or education, Dr. Kepford has acquired knowledge or skill sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the health effects question to which his affidavit is assertedly addressed.
Cf. Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 848 (10th Cir. 1979); Ball v.
E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 519 F.2d 715, 718 (6th Cir. 1975). In this ccnnection, when interrogated on voir dire in Perkins, Dr. Xepferd candidly and commendably acknowledged his lack of formal education or experience in medicine, health physics or any other discipline having a perceivable relationship to the ascertainment of the health significance of radioactive emissions.
Tr. 2677-78.
i B.
In addition to intervenors' failure to have qualified Dr. Kepford as an expert on the subject under scrutiny, their submission made no mention of, let alone discussed, the matter of the significance of the amount and
/
15 i
distribution of natural background radon.
Once again, the record establishes without contradiction that the radon contribution of the uranium fuel cycle is a minute fraction
,of the radon that is released to the atmosphere from other
~
sources -- so minute, indeed, that that contribution is not even detectable.11/
This being so, there is at least room for serious question whether the fuel cycle radon emissions can be taken as, of themselves, naving a significant impact upon human health.
If anything, the doubt in this regard is I
reinforced by the equally undisputed fact that those' emissions also are vanishingly small when compared to the J
fluctuations from place to place in the amount of natural radon in the environment.
Perkins Tr. 2276-77, 2333.
See also, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources.and Effects of Ionizing Radiation 71-74, 80 (Table 30) (1977).
For, at least in the absence I
of a demonstrated marked difference in radon-induced health effects between one gecgraphical area and another, the existence of these fluctuations would appear to negate any theory that the fuel cycle radon increment measurably
--11/
Affidavit of Homer Lowenberg on the Radon Value in Table S-3, fol. Perkins Tr. 2369, at p. 3.
Although labeled as Mr. Lowenberg's affidavit, in actuality its content was sponsored by, and thus must be deemed the direct testimony of, staff witness Kathleen Black.
Perkins Tr. 2369.
l
j 16 i
increases such health hazards as may be attributable to natural background radon.
Intervenors' seemingly deliberate choice to ignore these considerations is all the more surprising in light of the testimony of Dr. Hamilton in the Perkins proceeding, to which we made specific reference in ALAB-654.
Dr.
Hamilton's expert qualifications in the appraisal of 4
radiation health risks are beyond cavil.
See p.
8, supra.
I,Perkins, he referred specifically to the " negligible" additional contribution that fuel cycle-related radon emissions make to annual natural background radiation in i
concluding that.those emissions have "a similarly negligible l
impact on the health effects associated with the fuel cycle."
Ibid.1 !
Given this judgment of an established authority, assuredly the intervenors had a duty to confront it in connection with their insistence that a genuine issue of material fact existed on the health effects question.
Stated otherwise, if there exists the contrary judgment of other competent authorities in the field, it was incumbent upon the intervenors to bring it to our attention.
1
-~12/
D). Hamilton also alluded to the vast difference in the natural radon dose received by individuals; a difference attributable to the fluctuations in natural background radon.
Perkins Tr. 2276, 2278.
1
17 C.
There is yet a third reason why it must be concluded that the intervenors have fallen far short of demonstrating the need for a further hearing devoted to the health effects question.
It appears from an examination of Dr. Kepford's affidavit that the thesis advan.ced therein differs in no material respect from tre proposition that he put before the Perkins Licensing Board several years ago in the capacity of a witness for the intervenors in that proceeding.
Kepford, fol. Perkins Tr. 2819.
Given the fact that the Perkins record has been incorporated in the record of this consolidated proceeding, manifestly no useful purpose would be served by a rehearsal of his testinony.
In this regard, we need only reemphasize what was said in adopting the " lead case" approach in ALAB-480, supra:
In the circumstances, the Perkins record
- *
- should be sufficient to serve as the base point for the examination of the radon issue in the [now censolidated proceeding].
This is not to say, of course, that every party to each of those proceedings will necessarily concur that that record is satisfactory in every particular.
No matter hcw thorough may have been the treatment of the radon issue in Perkins, one or more of the parties to other cases ncnetheless may cenclude that there were stones left unturned; i.e.,
that portions of the staff's new analysis were net adequately tested or that there is available evidence bearing upon the issue beycnd that presented to the Perkins Board.
Obviously, nonparticipants in Perkins cannot be held bound by the record adduced in that proceeding.
At the same time, hcwever, it would be to no party's advantage to insist that the radon issue be relitigated from the c arting line in his own case, so long as he were given an opportunity in
18 his proceeding to supplement, contradict, or object to anything in the Perkins record.
In our view, this is a fair and appropriate procedure.
7 NRC at 804-05.
In sum, in contrast to the record on the quantity of 4
radon releases, the Perkins record on health effects is complete for the purpose of our decision here.13/
Accordingly, we now turn to that record.
We must determine whether it warrants a finding that the radon releases a
'1 1
associated with fulfilling the uranium fuel requirements of the reactors at bar might tip the NEPA balance against plant operation.
(3/
The health effects testimony in Perkins was, or course, in the context of the radon release rates disclosed by the evidence in that proceeding.
As noted in ALAB-654, however, those rates were not materially different from the rates determined in ALAB-640 based upon an expanded record.
See p.
7, supra.
l Because we are confining our censideration to the 4
Perkins record, no weight will be given to the affidavit of Dr. Hamilton which accompanied the Three Mile Island applicants' memorandum in response to the intervenors' post-AIAB-654 submission.
See p.
9, supra. (The procedures established in ALAB-654 did not provide for a reply by intervenors to that affidavit.
We likely wculd have allowed such a reply either en intervenors' motion or, had one appeared necessary, on our own initiative.
On the latter score, the Hamilton affidavit (in common with the Kepford affidavit) does not appear to add anything of real substance to the testimony adduced previously in Perkins; rather, Dr.
Hamilton's principal aim appeared to be to establish that the conclusions to which he testified in Perkins would not be affected by our findings in ALAB-640.)
19 III.
In ALAB-640, we found that the long term release of radon associated with the 30-year operation of a single 1000 MW (c) reactor could vary from 630 to 6900 curies per year, according to the circumstances.
13 NRC at 537, 541 (Table 3). AA/
But the Perkins record establishes without contradiction that the natural release of radon in the United States is from 1 to 2.4 hundred million curies (C1) per year.EE/
Thus, the long term radon release rate associated with a single reactor stands in relation to natural releases roughly in the range of from one part in 10,000 to one part in 100,000.
Dr. Hamilton testified that exposure to typical radon concentrations in outdoor air results in a dose to the bronchial epithelium (i.e., the cellular lining of the air 14/
This range of values is obtained by multiplying the total yearly release of radon per annual fuel require-ment (AFR) for each of the three cases of Table 3 by 30 AFRs per reactor lifetime.
See 13 NRC at 537.
The highest value corresponds to Case 3, which assumes that underground uranium mines are unsealed, open pit mines are unrecovered and mill tailings piles are uncovered.
15/
Gotchy, fol. Perkins Tr. 2369, at p. 14.
1 7
..,,-~q r
e
+
L l
4 20 I
passages of the lung)16/ of 5 millirads (50 millirem) per 1,
year.
Perkins Tr. 2276.17/
Thus, the addition of the radon j
emissions from a single nuclear plant would cause an increase in the bronchial epithelium dose of from 0.0005 to 0.005 millirem per year.
I j
Dr. Hamilton further testified that the average bronchial epithelium dose due to naturally occurring radon I
16/
"Since the observed lung cancers appear to arise i
primarily in the bronchi near the hilus of the lung, 1
most authors concerned with the dosimetric and radiobiological aspects of the problem assume the relevant biological. target to be the basal cells in the bronchial epithelium."
Federal. Radiation Council, Report No. 8 (Revised): Guidance for the Control of l
Radiation-Hazards in Uranium Mining 49 (1967).
bec l
also Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing j
Radiation, U.S. National Research Council, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1960 (BEIR II.T) 325-26 (1980).
17/
The source of Dr. Hamilton's 50 millirem per year figure is the UNSCEAR 1977 report, which computes a I
dese from outdoor radon of 5 millirads per year using a natural outdoor radon concentration of 0.1 picocuries (pci) per liter and an outdoor occupancy factor of 20 percent.
United Nations Scientific Ccamittee on the Effects of Atcmic Radiation, Sources and Effects of 4
i Ionizine Radiation 74 (1977).
(Dr. Hamilton converted 1
millirads to millirem by multiplying by a relative biological effectiveness factor for alpha radiation of j
10.
Perkins Tr. 2276, 2298.)
For continuous outdoor exposure the dose would be 250 millirem per year.
Using a different publication as a scurce, a staff witness stated that continuous exposure to an outdoor radon concentration of 0.15 pCi per liter would result in a bronchial epithelium dose of 450 millirem per year.
Gotchy, fol. Perkins Tr. 2369, at p. 14.
This result, adjusted to the same radon concentration used by Dr. Hamilton (i.e., 0.1 pCi per liter), would yield an annual bronchial epithelium dose of 300 millirem.
i
\\
1
-m..
., _.. _. _. ~..,,
s w
-mm
21 concentrations indoors is 1600 millirem per year, and may vary
- rom 210 to 23,250 millirem per year.
Perkins Tr.
2276, 2278.
Accordingly, in terms of radiation exposure, the radon releases attributable to a single 1000 Mw(c) nuclear power plant (0.005 millirem per year) add less than one part in 100,000 to the average exposure due to natural sources (1650 millirem per year (outdoor plus indoor)).
In the circumstances, it is manifest to us that the fuel cycle contribution to the radon already in the environment -- a contribution that, once again, is so slight as to be beyond detection (let alone measurement) -- cannot serve to tip the NEPA balance against the operation of any of these three facilities.
All that we need or do decide l
here is that any incremental health risk occasioned by the releases attributable to the fuel cycle is negligible, as i
Dr. Hamilton concluded.
Moreover, that speculative and l
conjectural risk estimate, to the extent it need be considered under NEPA at all, 18/ is acceptable in the sense that it is of insufficient magnitude to alter cost-benefit balances (such as those for the facilities at bar) that otherwise justify the licensing of facility operation.
l l
18/
- See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund v. Hoffman, 566 F.2d 1060, 1067 (8th Cir. 1977); Trcut Unlimitea v.
~~
Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1974).
l l
i
22 Only Dr. Kepford cxpressed a contrary opinion on the radon health effects question.
The springboard of his thesis is the premise, also used by the NRC staff in Perkins, that low levels of exposure to ionizing radiation cause cancers in at least a linear proportion to the dose received.
Proceeding from that premise, Dr. Kepford claims that continuous exposure to the incremental fuel cycle radon emissions will result in significant adverre health effects.
For example, according to Dr. Kepford, the long-term release of radon attributable to one of the Perkins reactors will result in approximately 0.16 (i.e.,
1/6th) of a fatality per year.
Kepford, fol. Perkins Tr. 2819, at pp. 2-3 and Table 4 (line 5). ---19/
By extending his calculations over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of years, Dr. Kepford arrives at his conclusion that radon emissions over these various time intervals will cause extremely large numbers of cancer-induced fatalities.
These 19/
Dr. Kepford cceputed fatalities in his testimony for the total assumed radon release as a result of the 30 year cperation of the three units of the p>oposed Perkins facility, each of which had a full power rating of 1280 Mw(e).
We have divided his figures by three to obtain a single-reactor value.
Although calculated on a somewhat different basis than that employed in ALAB-640, Dr. Kepford's per-reactor radon release value ir in fact quite close to the upper range of the re. ease values we determined in that decision.
Ccepare Kepford, fol. Perkins Tr. 2819, at Table 1 with ALAB-640, 13 NRC at 538, 542 (Table 4, Model Light Water Reactor Case 3).
1 23 fatalities, the argument continues, necessarily tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against operation of each of the reactors in question.
But, as Dr. Hamilton pointed out, Dr.
i Kepford's extrapolations over unrealistic time periods are misleading:
i I think what we're trying to achieve is a i
reasonable understanding of what the risks are to people using one form of energy compared with another.
And we go about this in a generally conservative way, usually taking upper-limit risks just to be sure that we are protecting the public.
But we try to * *
- relate these risks in a pretty reasonable perspective.
It seems to me the whole basis for presenting these risks is to present them in some reasonable framework.
l Now with regard to radon-222 and the question of whether or not and for how many years we should I
project this risk, it is my view as a physician *
"
- these long extrapolations into the future of the hazards of radon-222, without any considera-tion of the framework, the background in which these hazards take place, [are] extremely-misleading.
That's why I believe * *
- that one should express this increase in radon-222 that one is going to l
get from the mining and milling in terms of the fractional increase in natural background l
radiation from radon-222 to which we are all exposed each year of our life frcm new to a billion years from now
- Hamilton, Perkins Tr. 2274-75.
See also Perkins Tr. 2333.
I i
l i
e' 24 It follows that, if (as Dr. Kepford claims) a reactor's fuel cycle emissions result in approximately 1/6th of a fatality annually, natural radon exposures will cause in 20/
excess of 16,000 deaths annually.
We cite this com-parison because it provides necessary perspective.
As it graphically demonstrates, the incremental health risk to the population stemming from the fuel cycle emissions (if indeed i
there is any) is vanishingly small.
This is what we understand Dr. Hamilton to have had in mind when, on the basis of the relationship between the fuel cycle releases and natural background radon, he characterized the health 4
--20/
This follcws from our determination that, in terms of raden exposure, the radon releasas attributable to a nuclear reactor add less than one part in 100,000 to the average exposure due to natural sources.
See p.
21, supra.
e*
25 effects of the former as " negligible."
See p. 16, supra.21/
In each of the three individual licensing proceedings consolidated for purposes of consideration of the radon i
21/
Although not crucial to the result we reach, it is worthy of passing note that, according to one witness in Perkins, the wide disparity in indoor and outdoor natural radon concentrations (see fn. 9, suora) is due in appreciable measure to the choice of building materials (e.a.,
the use of concrete block or brick in place of woodI.
Goldman, fol. Perkins Tr. 2266, at p.
9.
In this regard, it appears that not only brick and block, but such other commonly employed (but not indispensable) construction items as gypsum wallboard, produce in the aggregate radon doses in amounts far exceeding those associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
See United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects l
of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation 77 (1977).
Thus, it cannot be said that all significant sources of natural background radon are l
beyond human control --
i.e.,
in their totality, the l
health risks of such raden are not always involuntarily
(
assumed.
It also should be noted that there is no current issue regarding the need for the pcwer to be generated by each of the facilities at bar.
Accordingly, had the fuel cycle-related emissions been found to pose a significant health risk, it would have become necessary to balance that risk against, inter alia, the health risks associated with the generation of electricity by other means.
I
26 issue, all that remained for disposition was that issue.22/
Accordingly, on the basis of the conclusions stated above, we hereby terminate cur review of the initial decisions in those procei: dings.
Except to the extent that it may have been previcusly modified in connection with our review on other issues, each decision is affirmed.23/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS i
i bb d8m*kh C. JegnSho~emaker
]
Secretary to the Appeal Boards WW
~~22/
In Thrce Mile Island, sce ALAB-69^, 16 NRC in.
l (September 14, 1982); in Hope Creek, see ALAB-518, 9 NRC 14, 41 (1979).
Insofar as the Peach Bottom facility is concerned, Unit 3 was still before us in Anril 1978 when the Commission directed the r' consideration of the radon issue in all pending e
cases.
See ALAB-532, 9 NRC 279 (1979).
But the same does not appear to have been true with regard to any proceeding involving Unit 2.
For this reason, not-withstanding its inadvertent inclusion in the caption throughout the course of the consolidated proceeding, Unit 2 is not encompassed by this decision.
23/
Although the conclusions reached here are equally 1
applicable to the proceedings before us in which the l
radon issue was not placed in controversy (see pp.
4-5, supra), we will abide the event of possible Commission review of this decision before taking formal action in those proceedings.
a
. m.
. -... -, _, -. - -. -,. ~ - - -
.. - _ -. - - - _, _ - _...