ML20037A482

Living in Finer Environ Reply Brief Challenging 10CFR20. Board Should Find That 10CFR20 Not within AEC Authority & Does Not Represent Reasonable Excercise of Discretion. Application for CP Should Be Denied

ML20037A482
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/22/1971
From:	Bleicher B COBURN, SMITH, ROHRBACHER & GIBSON, LIVING IN A FINER ENVIRONMENT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003050702
Download: ML20037A482 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. .cmgr 7s, ;, 4 4,g, sj gg ri,.gg +.m i 'h w:. w m ;L N h e s ,,y,. ._w,, ? ITCIED STAN.S OF AMTHICA { p,4z9 6 w. Eo ATOMIC ENRRGY COMMISSION v 1 (R ' c'p2 :R i: .y %; 4L y=7 In the thttar o' ) / 4 ) ,9

1. "' D TET TOLEDO TDIS9N COMP 1NY sni

) d THE CLRVSLAN3 ELECTHIC ILUlF.iNAl'IKG) Docket No. So-346E

• A %

.,1 COMFANY ) . Negg%@f C j.h 4, ) i -[ M Dsvis-Besse Nuolear Power Station ) e b. +ngng 10 CPR PART 20 ~, ?p,jhNf LIFE'S RSPLY BRIEP-C11ALLENG8 fo , Ggg !

%SV

" Y).NY$ PaKLIMINARY STATEH3NT ww , :id%b; Pursuant to tha cost-He1 ring schedule ordered on hY ,m.m g 9.,.c. February 11.1971 (TE. pp. 21'37) and confirated on Feb- '1 MWp l a-ym 1 ruary 1A. 1971 any answer to LTPR's brief ragarding the [, Sh%j ... yM!ddH ~ validity of 10.CPR Part 20 was to be served on or. before,g"f;ig # l March 8, 1971.. The AEC Staff's hrter was not in"fhet 1 hN% w:q k,by:, w.n.a w ge M,e y, g;g served untti Msrch 9, 1971. Pursuant to the schedule 2 -y p calling for LIFE's reply if any, within 10 days thereafter, i .,,. 9 I 19, 1971i Q',,. g.gp%,j-l. LIFE is filing this reply brief on or before March gh t ...y. - i: M4"%Y This ad.justoent was confirmed orally by Chairman Skallerup. w. "+ccr+F n \\ ~~9.nd contseted individually by LIFE on March 15. 1971 because v..m:g;gge the full Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was not them in h.~fyl'h $ p O 4 f4N .t session.

,{%'Ug

~= Mn $kh, In view of the fact that Counsel for Applicant on v4g.* March 2.1971 announced t'o 'the Board that they were not /$%k[a going to file a reply to LIFE's brief regarding Part 20 and thst Aeplicants* proposed findings of fact and con-i,h T , e,.. e +w Q~j N;w)}thh clusione of law were going to include coments on LIFE's n

hi MEPl=$

chs11ena:e, any reply which LIFE has to that ' document will $y. W Qw : O ,:4.5 D M.w be contained hereina [- u%fr <;h .h "- +hb. ~ e -. =. -,.d: dis ,cy 4

g _ q

a. 1-qW ms um;>x+,

2 o . m,. ,, m, m yu gg j g].',,,y. m y n c.9 2 a m J g.>T [ l 3 .9

.,fo, e

. y 4 :m - .q%. hl3 2m; ;pfasw.y%4 LC. . ~; rw , e. ~ ; %.[- y y,h . ~ 3 i This second LIFE brief replies to the content of the AEC 7/ .,p,9. W~7 W i - '.3 G,M. brief and is intended to be read together with thst earlier y a u rij -[ M 5yy j brief. 3 m, >

Q'd

~ "/f7" .) e :. 3 In our earlier brief LIFE explains its cont'entions W:$ + :- : w .m .g g,s;g f p aw*e that Part 20 misconceives the ~ proper function of' safety d'{.,?....d,*..w s 4 f a' mf' I s.

• a 5 i Qjg$i%

MM ~C standards in that it erroneously' includes oest as a factor 2we . g; -v f 4d j in setting such ctandards. " age six of the AEC's brief J sffhM( +l sentions this LIFE argument without giving an answer eroe t i %g_ to deny it. The ABC does not explain why the " economics," _N(cq@j. { of improvementf (referred to in 10 CFR 20.1 (c)) is (N ;& %' yhy. i m I

5, D $

relevant to safety. It is not pertinent to LIFE's oon- ,,u;;& m. 4 " ..,,.?. syt! $ -^ te-. tion to Doint out that the Commission followstthe --MGy9t . 4.%o 7 9 %. ~ ~ recommendations and guidance of various groups of scientifio3 W @ wQ2 . gum ,Q ' N,i;* g W v W I experts. (Figuring cost.into the determination 'ofisafety w. o

Jq

- 6 j standards is an exercise of value judgement which the: ; g f.,h recommendations of scientific groups should not~be making @h y i W/W A G %],- ~ i for the Commission. The fact that other groups may have (;gp recommended reference to cost and technical feasibility, h, s.. % .,r at%gm a. does not validate it or absolve the AEC of the responsibility Q*f~ ~ f;L b h l to exercise its administrative discretion with reason and)w ~;s; M ;,%y

m

~ i s. .mmwe within the scope of its Congressional mandate. ', q' - o gvif

x.yg;;,,,

Contrary to tha implication of the ABC's commentsj LIFE

) J,

;t;;

c-c.y y;s .y.m doas not c.ntand Part'20 is' outmoded because it does not WW wpg it sorporate NCRP RepoIt No ' 39 ( Acylicant's Exhibit B). ~.y. ;. g.s.,N. 4% . M ZM I Rowever, the fset thtt even tha National Council on Radiation,7%iM iv s.. ...4 w Protaction has recongended 'certain dose'11mits which are '., W if ..,mr gt'.% &QM%g strikingly different frca those in Part 20 htblights,' - % 9.; 8 U o mg% Mr i n the inadequacies of the existing 'riteria. c W.. (.., Furuher, tho 1 %$qyu u.T.?

n.

w s...- ;. c s m.4; ...m. f. $h lls

w(w' m _,,.

.:,. t f n c. j;.Q.'v.M%2p' n. , Af ^ : ',: N ~:;. 3 ? 'u ,+;, m w ns . a a .m x. ~aw4 p ? _-, + ; - .7.; ,4 %~y 7 q; yy:$i,y.;y ~9 z x2-t*:?> ~ s u, W-y =. x

y?39gx3} ____ lf u- - p~;;myyy?g d E .c y m gg s y p Lw y > b i &,; ?. o,. 3 c ;h Tw::. - Q: WM- ~ 3m 7 31 mqw NCEP report is based on data that has been available for ~.N;x~$Q:M We<i - M.t:@%a .S - %.)? p { same time although the AEC has not reflected current M6 cyWM eq+NjMM I l scientific developments in Part 20. The NCRP's changes Y ,. n.t. w.$4 i 3 can hardly be dismissed as insignificant--reductions of WIW 4

p*jp%

n..

r u 4. 1 i. 50% (occupational skin 'and thyroid doses). 40% (occupational" N t. .w n x x. i forearm dose). 80% (occupational feet ard _ande dose).y l%d'y i j. .x w. M 331/'3% (for non-ocnupational dose to certain body organs)h4Y13b( l 54 l . h $. whph 3 NCRP.Repet No. 39 alto recommerdad creation of a new occupational estegory for. fertile women who would be

{

{ limited to 2 or 3 rene per year instead of the 5 rems they ~ 9 )$; @ l can now receive. The purpose of this change would be to.. m g v.g. RM wgnd' ' ! 1 t',_ a1 i ensure thqt a fetus is not exposed more than.5 reas during" x',g ~. 3 the entire gestetion period. What all'of this mesus'is A:Nhk. l w;ndb% tha'. existing Part 20-viewed by a Broup that helped. fg2p %d +m ~ w rQ.g formulate it--onntains'some exposure limits'that dould,.c' % -- -] 7d 4 n m, be lower. + " s 1 3 &+ S ~ <d c. y m Itisnice.that,theFRChasbegunaocupletareview[~m gr.h m h of the current radiation st.sndards with the help of the f National Academy of Sciences and NCRP,. but reference to' this_ ;Rgg% L gg.. .z :.QC 4 long overdue review'dosa 'not ' answer the objection LIFE has 7 3 s,p l raised to the construction of.t&lg cinnt-under_ existing Q D l - ~ L 's

"L.

~ q s. %Bi&Q guidt.ines. 7- ~,

m; h.

i " ~ y? myg LIFE is obliged to' point out the Applicants' and AEC's'. .gg A. ung arroneous interpretation of Dr.- Stern 61 ass' testimony, > lAy -, g_k. v: x concerning relationships between radiat'on exposure and

1. g

.' C3 y;p:W c g,?& infant mortality on pp. 29-30, 33-34 of Applicants' proposed'~ Ju ~ B findings of fact'and conclusions'of law. in t* e fora of an ]p y@&Q j ? initial decision and on,p. 10 of AEC's brief. ' Applicants [ $h , a m.u j m%q sistaltenly state on those af.orementioned;pages thatr Dr.. 7. gx u h. S, Qm*A c. [ [*dQ'*, -iCM ,:j!:U D .?.n u n k'y % ;,W 7 r l- ~

~.

>? +:l u r :q. My L s. r L'..< ~,, jl ~.r,,,, b

+:NUs V w,

<.X R T. 1 r ~ ,.a, ~ .n V s

.Y, "

d, 7l ,a l} f

• t.

u y N' 4 g_ hqdy @$ v3l, f 4o% ~ uWMsM k,M3.Wh'b j ,p. .m. .---w_ -a ve. .,,,. m.m

y y_ y. ~. _ ~ g .y .. m r.- ; ~.. 'j 3,,. y* Q Q y,og Q.s,.m q q' e '* r j;, he-y .a .' ; A; ggg@g@y!Q. .o. .e gggg { '** ; 99 . j ~ '. q- ~- Oj;'t,'.Qs 9y y l .n r-at y, :, . _ 3 <p '_.h '~' Q / tMe 4 ..s .j Sternglass "allsged a causal relationship between fallout depositdon' (ff ., m,"g 4M and infant mortality and a causal relationship between low 2mvel s .. ~ dNH r mm radioactivity reinsses from certain nuclear facilities and infant. , x dMM". m s. y 4+ g am t mortaliV in risighboring coun11es.% On transcript pages 1356. f '%;,Me% , s. - =-; y. ,f ' 1, on lines 8-11, Dr[ Sternglass states his'date' suggests . + ~ "e w,dm.,,a, between low Intel radiation and increases in leukemia in Utah. e g.A um Againk on page 1356 lines 23-2h Dr. Sterngass states that his. N.m JA ~in$ 4 data on excese deaths and fallout depositita "could not be regarded ~M s m.m. y as proof of causation," but suggests a correlation betwen the two.l ' M2 h Mgwy t @. (.,[y@V .f - 2359-139a) Dr. sterngalsa In every case of data cited (Tr. pp. h explicitly pointed out that this is not definite prcAf of a causal relationship-bat, merely an association between the ~ lhhb w n $* m n. kd And in answer to. Applicants' questica on cross-arwi $'i M l -data. - ~ ~.g . ; pg n 'i on this very matter (Tr. Ihlk-lh15) Dr. sterng~es.elearly - 1 v; pas # .yn.. } v ' % v,$, +?.34 j v_.. s I stated "Tha sind of dat.a I submitted and which f T h 7 M'E 'A exiots in all this type o'f-in these kinds' .-~ i of casw-ean never be regardea as Iro percent ? *"X 3 big proof of causation, but can only be regarded

MM J.i $ $*C as a probability that the typothesia is conect, m

pmMgp$$ '.w My %$ i-j that there may well be a causal relationship.. q ua and all one can do is increase. the prmity J' %$dp5 of that typothesis.* 1 U' fTr.Ih15 . 9 ; e ; - G 7 n ? ?.,.; + s. i3. ;

• 4 ?[

] Y '*'w wJ g Applicants on page 37-38_ of propoaed findings of ~ feet and y$ i l .7wg.y g% W 4 ? 3 s, conclusions of Inw and AEC Staff on page 10 of reply brief state 1 ~ . s. M., 6 h.- <1 j Q@ppscw m that Dr. Tamplin dose not 'show. bow' the total population can be p l_ .nr> Y ~ ~ 1. fr., g.si g$M exposed to an average dose' of 170 millirens par year., LIFE

g

.cy 'f E DTT ,j suta:its that this would be irrwvelant. to a challence to Part 20[ d vm2 6 a M 4,6 l since Part 20 does in fact, permit exposure to an average dose of n' V3pej .1 ~p g, ,e ',a .t 7 ppgp 170 =Neems per year to the population. ~Dr. Tamplin has shown ' V ' 4 46d - w m y; n. -. yk. ~< s t ny u A C,AA ,M that the allowable, exposure of 'an averags ' dose of 170 millirens'

• E @g I

.( .y;p.y, pt -.gn ~.~.+ s t +.e m, : ~ + por year prescribed in Part 2C to be excessive. _ f _s 3.W956 4 p t., ge;ged ;9 hm% $y%M._ W.+i.]^id'Q ; .k

c/. 5

.u.:h'~:;c m 2% ~ ,'. L_* b. JJ n,. d 1,.a.,.t * ; ^,% s3 .L-i m. ~ p /.. w. ' D' f ? ?.r_ [ fh *,lI,W = ffT, fl l

h QY.

fk _ f fl

~. .u t (3 - + - 69 9, %%<.c 6.,np;& Q;y;.q. ly,<,&q,.yn p.qh;f.qq' I 9 ? ~ a

v

> c,..,..

5 j .? ',, ~ 7 ?^ '.^ f ,. 0 . & Qn Q h R < p. 'Q 4?Q}.l i.;l.,[p e?f-oj%,, f

3. ' g. A:- i :. q;p. --gppppyy; 2

1 . ~, wmW Mew ti}p . n.,,..,. ... o4.c g~),p.n,m. c s u. ~ ,.m-.-. ~.. e w,~. .n o m u;,~ c w.y.py y y y - + - 3.aVEph L 4 n ' 4;&. y'4Q 32 .s- ...a m o j p ,. g %w ; m p d - g.q es ,<J. The fact remains that the existig Part 2D criteria are inadaq6 ate?.,N,p. 4 r.e. wq

y. Y @c.M.m and that Applicantai asaurances' thet hvis-Besso will meet'these

+ v ,,- M. l i gg criteria should not be regarded as proof. of the altimate safetr, of,-{y.,%. .,,o:,e

n. - e,

A e x&. n., + = Li the proposed plant.'. ']/;f.,...: i' 7 f C f {.. y. gy/ Q p;g;gq.gg, l j + o . n. q u ~ ' At the hearings, the AEC did not present convincing evidence -37M( 5

s94 to prove that Part 20 adequate 3y deals with the problan of kh[

~ .. C%f apporticaing radioactive. output among unitipla sociating and potenti W e utw . ~ A. u, =n,,.g..., ..w ,. t.---c . 'M #9D sources, Several nuclear facilities ring' lake Erie alrea #. 1 .: m.,J, &. r>:- r, + ~, v.g4 a ~.?MMM How many mere vill 12 permitted and at what level of cohesian. i .'.. n,,x,Ww -.s can thq operate'I Neitbar 10 CFR 20.106 (e) nor aqr other ~- N J ?, o:Y 2 ^.. ,e m~n section of Part 20 addresses itself to this inemasingly laportant,._ U W @~-x + - - ,Wi l<. 's 0, ' T.,"';. # n. m,n:4 r : M2 .,.m.. .w 't problem. J yy3 ~. -.. ~. - ~;. - M ~ g p g..,_ m., t a s,.4.g w 'in cant Maina, the ABC regulatory staff brief and Applicante M@qMf-6,., ,w. c.y. @. t .a.. g. w..~. -. a. ..s.,. {... g%p. ~ 1 g+;ct hd4ys of fact and conclusions of law in the farm of M,s..aF i s &< s

i......~s

.,* ? ?-m., 4p s.. ~ i I '% Q g.$ j an initial decision fs51 to' give satisfactory ainswers to ths' s '* a M~s n m.p. a. n ~,. = py,y points made by LIFPs evidence and suussarised in our earlier brief.. , g'y m,;- I . +. ', 2 y.:y g' l As us stated in that earlier briefj Part 20's flaus;-the assessive3 ;lgjMpr. 7 3 g.,1 m y ~ e. of some of its exposun limits, the lack of a 3 high letal .v. ... m% ~ preven ve him Ma 4 GR t oR of MWh . y,d WpgN l?' i , x 3 v.; p g., q ; q {3,4; N [Q v.x, y. ...,,} y '. or esposure from udtipla sources of,rediation--are made uneh o m@ m., My , -.. nnw, a : A M hmM%e M MdWDMDM.k.

• ?fl,13[ sm i,-

M t .,~, < i y e ,;w W g g.@.a.. L' which is the health and safety of every person,in the coentryd. 'g-, ^' ~)- p

f. '

..ig E

• (

Q* g5 #. 48 l-Foe a3l the reasons stated our briefsj LIFE sebsits that W 'C M b.,'.., c. ,,s, e + b,w s - I y, m.w t.m, m. the Board should find that Part, to is not within.e the Commission's. b.ip>.y,;'g ~~' . n. 4.. l mthCE"1$ aEnl kIles Det regaseest a paeombla e3, of,htier.'q(gy}h-I$$ a 5- - I a-

• ' ' ' b f

U 1a.wysys:$4p% w .,,, zw. 3 v: _. 1,.r. y <;.s. ,_se q,,.; ia,' , ; 1.a b, - py ,, va? g p. r u: - w;, 's ; 7 p *u,-, ~ j,.'n',"s y+ n g, q

O Y.[fvj bY.

.j * , $i [ ,f4 +n XA r 64 1,- ,, o ry 2 '< _ % g, a; :. 3 +o, h= w ; y ,s m,

,~ g, d

',:'

e xlQhD%%ft wy .~ m.. .~ I q" 1*,,J*,,y, ~ ~p 4 * "..

",,J*.

t ec ~ , @k y;,QQ , l;.. y? p 'l ~ % !,

v rw g r.,

+.: p \\ lc 'D. j

• q,'

[ ^ 3 y*Q fG / ~ 1 **s fm N 't; A,f p f l% &+ Q,3 g~ lg y -i f 3. n,,y jf. f~5 Q Q 'Q;, ,., L ' y^.f f 'l. W-- W. + yc, W. p - @ N. 4 p M w d,y p g E g. ~. 4 g-m

3e

. m ;.e.w. m...

y . ~. \\ . 3 .v,,.u n,., ~. ~-. g ~ # my g - , 34 e - > -5.;, m. w,, c.%u,y,,,,g ^ .w. m c y o ; j *?~.,7~. ~,gx,~4.py <. ~. i g, .w.%... s, .p 4,, 1 n...

• p ;y, A
• r e..

n - m, r w ;. ;. y,-. w 4 n. ., e. ,,..,, u %s.,..m,R, .,.s,.o,, x. ..,..m ~ ~~- @ l cs s ,ws 4 ^ .-tf* ,9 I 8 ,f The Board should, therefore, deny the Application for a construction 2'M . I .NryfQ*) t / 3., l pemit for the Davis-Besse nuclear power station. dyg#e%n r w w.,..yb,.. M. M'.

s s

g. u, ~' _G r_ 1. a,.gs.g@g Respectrally submitted, 44 %n . 't. m-Q. _ ~., m.. g.M.. f. %g@ W t. ~.

- 3..x; p

~ -.. 4 1 . ', Q.1 m. ' - N.e g,.'f.g g - y.;;;. y ?.. ;y g..,y,g,g.,4.egy ; s ~.. t p = - a u 9-t .1, 6.$4.y k.*- t 4,"p..n v ..d Q @M[A Beatrice K. Bleicher

M+

b' Attorw for LIFE Cobourn, Smith, Rohrbacher, and M. T.* ~ci. nV. -,w% o.~ - Olboon c . e. s - y 7th Floor Toledo Trust Bldg. fg.g 4 + Toledo, Ohio 1060h . @.6% Wk% , %,m p:1 -

x w

+,.v.o s ^ n gW o' t .,xfh ~w - [i J7pjc:1@,D e A, y. % >. :+ .y % A A;h t -

• A9.)g.Mx

. g np m% - ,e.g .. sw v. fe% ,.p.p g Q M -w

; pr w ;g<r.g e-s s

s. m -f...-. g, r. . r. s ..~ m -,~ z., = - m: sys ...,.3AQ,.; rg ~ ~ .a .a ~ ;. . n .2 s.,. s m. .o~ - m.,,,p,q q; c '.. k. t. 4 ~ a,, . ~, ^ o . - p.l.3 1.1% k# ~ x., g, ,p x w.,y p n;

s w

w. i -,.,.,ap;,* y '.,lF' % ^, f,/g* s ;.. ? } p mg 3 e 1 J, A ( ] ' ' lR ~*;;, *2 e1 ,.,y p,q;4.- e ..e. < f.' e,9/M,.,. um , _; #,$ ;b'k{ ;'* w ht.- Q * ,,y z ? h '$ff,f ?** '*a ~ :r;t,.% g.y v 5 1 +- , m.u m. y ,.. r

• h

. 1. ' s > Q,s. W - y t $ @2

• A@s.

~ ( .h.' f L. *

• I R..

C.e5 [*4')N.s%,4M.. # ,^p,.,y W W + , R.,

- 4, w,.c

~ ,....e, ~ e e y crs pp*m,. g .y +&Nk.v ~ 6-5 b^

• ^

s =- sy p-es ~, 4 .2 .s .u a.. MM .. W <<}.. r%. e g 'd--, .,EW% g. >); - t d*

• d'

4. s ~ 5,p? y 4.-

3 7; '.o r =- . pg e, . y ', 4 t c 4, ' ) '^ % . p,q, -. 4 4 X ;'.y - < [- 1, D% 4 I /. M f O.k-e ( - ag,; n.o* w ; s .y w c. t 3 m .- %.m.4s3,%g,..,4 4 ( s,, V =. g* p; q ~ &b .h a 9 - y' 4 w_ w W j4 y - 3 1 . 3 ' y Y> r - =u p.1 *yg - 4 V,Yp p.cTh y

• r

, ;;. GJ,W y.Q.- s, s + s c a, , %m,: n-rYgqmy 1 . r.,;.p..m Jg, -i .~ '.. ; '.t.%. -> 3; > ns. 4..Q)Q f. a.. ~ e, s. a s b h., f l ;, '*h Q 4 w.. ,. L:,5.. .n,s., n. **,'g h.k,,b .i r. ~ v'.. u. 'r w ., ~ ~ s a m ,. y i a

L_e-. A O.

o. ; ; *fl. M.',.Q,.4,pQ,s, $.N ,c ? ~ s g 's 3 ...,g ,. ; A.a#,.. j - i... b 4? y'n u s. J'. " ?.. [.e. m v. J, - (,- q;.p" ;-.q;N f.a;,y,3.Q[ ' -y. q%c,;[;n.;;.n, jgL

• Ef, [

Y .q ~ ;!. g Q o{ l ' r. } -- 6 a, .. ". ;, a ) r,~, ; y 3 - a. g :r ;c,e.-..3 a - v.1 n K ne s. , u.. xm,,,,,w,n. ~ ~ *n~ i. w + jp 9_ - ,,}}