ML20030D208
| ML20030D208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1981 |
| From: | Schultz G SCHULTZ, G.R., SUSQUEHANNA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108310522 | |
| Download: ML20030D208 (6) | |
Text
O N
e 6
UNITED STATES OF AMEPICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!GISSION g,
.g ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C
,rS T._
Before Administrative Judges:
T-3
- j James P. Cleason, Chaiman
\\
L-#.
GIenn O. Bright
\\.3 g
Dr. Paul W.
Purdom In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power & Light Ccr.pany )
Docket Nos. 50-387 and
)
50-388 Allegheny Electric Cooperative. Inc.)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,)}
August 22, 1981 Units 1 and 2)
MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE JF NEW CONTENTION (Froposed Contention 22 )
Intervenor SUSQUEHANNA ENVIRONkENTAL ALVOC ATES (SEA) respectively moves that the Board in the above-captioned pro-ceeding admit the following contention:
The " Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents", as assessed by the Staff in Chapter 6 cf the FES, grossly under-states said impact in that it relies on a probability factor which 1.* far too low and either does not take into consideration or understates the economic loss due te physical health effects and long-term er chronic health and environmental effects.
I.
The bases for this contention are calculations done by Jim Ferkins, who has a masters degree in reathematics: comments on the SSES filed by Mr. Perkins and Mr. Mike Molesevich of the Susquehanna Allj ances the response of the NRC Staff to these comments: a study cited by Mr. Molesevich and a review of the SSIS by Professor Sam Merrill of Wilkes College.
Probability Factor Basically, the Staff ignored all j
reference to experience and common sense and chose to use a l
probability factor below even the lowest factor in the RSS (the lowest factor being 1 in 30,000r the Staff figure being 1 in 41,667 ).
As Mr. Perkins Mints out, the figure based on actual operating experience is 1 in 400.
The NRC defends its choice of the protbility factor by attacking %r. Ferkins and by stating:
"as noted in Appendix H-1 of the DES, the RSS has been re-baselined l
since 1975 to reflect use of advanced modeling of the processes involved."
I submit that this is nonsense. All parties agree that the l
operating experience to date is insufficient to use as a base for a probability factor.
Hc.ever, this is not the same as saying the operating experience should be ignored, which is evidently what the Staff has done. Instead of choosing a factor near the upper end of RSS probabilities, the,v have adopted one below even I
~ i 8108310522 81 l
PDR ADOCK 05000 Les J
l 0
PDRM J l
n gg; i
1 the Towest estimate, and have not justified the use of this 5
i figure.
We would urge the Board to order the Staff to estimate G risk to the public based on a new, reasonable probability factor.
taking into consideration operating experience. As Mr. Ferkins stated, this would increase the factor roughly by a factor of 1G0.
Economic Loss. Lonst-Tem Effects Mr. Molesevich, relying on a report by J. Beyea, commented that the SSES does not address the long-tem health and economic effects of radiation and radio-active centamination from an accident.
The NRC response is that this subject is dealt with in Section 6 of Chapter 6 of the FES.
However, Section 6 has no such discussion, and Section 4 (para-graph 2) includes only a brief discussion and a reference to Table 6.1.4-4, " Summary of Environmental Impacts and Frobabilities' which includes cost figures. We submit that this hardly qualifies as a site specific treatment of this issue, and that the Staff should be ordered to re-do this part of the FES.
II.
It is understood by the Intervener that this contention must be filed based on the receipt of new infomation. It it submitted that the FES, officially received by SEA on July 22nd, contains the new infomation on which the contention is based.
Furthemore, there is new infomation in the FES in three (3) specific and distinct categories:
- 1) The responses of the NRC Staff to public comments.
These responses, in general, shed more light on how the NRC Staff came to find its conclusions. This is es;ecially relevant in the responses referred to above - to Jim Ferkins (7), Jim Ferkin:
(9) and Susquehanna Alliance (2), and in the oceponse to SA (5).
i
- 2) R? lack of infomation comrning long-tem health and economic effects of a major accident, can be seen as "new" information in that it should have been addressed in the FES and l
was not.
l
- 3) Many specific changes from the SSES to the FIS have been l
made, including:
6.1.4.2 - last half of 3rd paragraph, beginning with " Sequences initiated.
" is news
- 6th paragraph, Section (3), 350-mile, changed from 500-miles
- same paragraph, Section (4), same changes i
- 7th paragraph is new in its entirety
- 8th paragmph is new in its entirety:
6.1.'.3 - 2nd paragraph,1st sentence has been changed to include 4
"from early expo:ure" and a footnote to this phrases 5
5 the 3rd paragraph, 3 X 10 has been changed to 2 X 10,
8 7
3 I 10 has been changed to 2 x 10 :
the 4th paragraph, " population exposure up to 100 million l
person-rem" has been changed to 10 millions l
i 6.l.4 3 - 5th paragraph, background radiation has been increased 2
from 110,000 pers*on-rem to 160,000. Exposure from normal station operation has been increased from 40 person-rem
]
to 65 6th paragraph, changes the figures on acute fatalities from 45 and 10 miles, respectively to 20 and 15 Also, the last half of paragraph 6 is new information.
6.1.4.4 - 3rd paragraph, " tens of billion dollars" has been changed to "10 billion dollars" in referring to accident costs.
III.
This not3 sn is being filed more than 10 days after receipt of new infornation.
The new information, in the form of the FES, was received by SEA on July 22nd.
SEA is a.So.1-profit organization, consistbog totally of volunteers. We have no paid staff. We have approximately 22 5 members, but only 20-30 active members. Among the active members, most are intimidated, understandably I think, by the legally and technically coc;11cated intervention proceedings. The upshot of all this is that there is on17 one person, the author of this motion, with sufficient grasp of these proceedings to actually write the motion, and only one who oan t3 relied upon to type it expeditiously. This is one factor in the delay in filing.
The other reasons for our inability to meet the 10-day deadline, besides the relatively brief time period itself, were the cemplicated nature of the issue, the necessity in our minds of writing a cerrlete preposed contention, and the necessity of comparing the FES, Chapter 6, with the SSEE on a line-by-line basis.
With respect to 10 CFE 2 714, we think that these circum-stances meet the " good cause" test of 2 714(a)(1)(i). There are no other means in which our interest can or will be protected.
The cdmission of this contention will assist in developing a sound record, given the importance of the issue and the alleged deficiencies in the Staff's treatment of it.
Indeed, it is our position that the record of this proceeding will be grotesquely flawed by the emission of litigation on this issue. With respcet to 2 714(a)(1)(iv), our intarest will not be represented by any other parties. The admission of the contention will, of ccurse, broaden the issues and result in a slight lengthering of the proceeding, but this is more than outweighed by the critical importance of the issue and the ir. completeness of the record if the issue is lef t out.
Finally, undsy 2 714(d)(3) SEA's praperty, financial and other interests in this proceeding has been recognized by the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COXMISSION BEv0FF THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANI A POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-387
""d
)
50-388 ALLEGHEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Units 1 and 2)
SERVICE LIST Ss ;tary of the Commicsion Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Co-Director, Environner.tal Washington, D.C.
20555 Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue Adninistrative Judge James P. Gleason State College, Pennsylvania 513 Gilmoure Drive 16801 Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
- 'r.
Glenn O. Bright 1800 M Street, NW Atomic Safety and Licensir.g Washington, D.C.
20036 Board Panel U. n. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kr. Thomas J. Halligan, Washington, D.C.
20555 Correspondent The Citizens Against Nuclear Dr. Paul W. Purdom Dangers 245 Gulph Hills Road Post Office Box 5 Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Scranton, Penna. 18501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Es. Colleen Karsh Board Panel Box 558,A RD #4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mountaintop Penna.18707 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jessica H. Laverty, Esq.
Decketing and Service Section Office of the Executive Office of the Secretary Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555
'ommission Washington, D.C.
20555 Fobert W. Aditr, Esq.
l Department of Enviremental Resources Co monwealth of Fennsylvania t
505 Executive House Post Office Box 2357 Harrisburg, Penna. 17120 Ja es K. Cutchin IV. Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Thomas K. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Lepart-ent of Enviremental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Post Office Box 2C63 Harrisburg, Penna. 17120 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
l e
Board. These interests would be hamed by a denial of this motion.
I V.
In closing, we would again urge the Board to admit this 1
contention, for the reasons stated above, and because of the importance of this issue relative to the health and safety of the people in our area and, combined with the issue of the need s
lor the plant, relative to our argument on the cost benefit l
analyris.
If the Board denies this motion, we would urge that the Board order litigation of this issue and its subparts indepen-I dently, c-its own notion, at the licensing hearings.
i Respectively submitted,
&&of Gerald R. Schultz, E q.
i
)
UNITED STATES OF /RERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULAMRY C0!3!ISSION BEF0FE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AFD LICENSING BOARD 1
In the Matter of
)
I PE!GSYLY/J;IA P077ER & LIGHT COMPANY
}
1 and Locket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC C00FERATIVE, INC.
)
50-388 i
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
l Units 1 and 2)
)
RETIFICATE OF SERVICE 2his is to certify that copies of the foregoing Nation for Allowance of New Contention were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail First Class, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of August,1981, to su those on the attached Service List.
I w
Patricia Kellmer, Secretary Dated: August 22, 1981
__