ML20147B390
| ML20147B390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Sterling, Skagit  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1978 |
| From: | Leed R SKAGITONIANS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (SCANP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147B393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812150259 | |
| Download: ML20147B390 (13) | |
Text
%.l J a
s
'4
/
i 3C PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM g
j g
- Ai l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- fY Y
.g;4
~ * '
M D' _.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
g* m
// j*ty,, eg. ' /*
^
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
PUGET SOUND PONER & LIGHT
)
DOCKET NOS.
STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al.,
)
50-523
)
(Skagit. Nuclear Power
)
INTERVENOR SCANP ' S
- Project,
)
RESPONSE TO PARTIAL i
Units 1 and 2)
)
INITIAL DECISION IN
)
PERKINS 1
i On August 23, 1978, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a letter requesting comments from all parties regarding the inclusion of portions of the Perkins I
- record, and the Partial Initial Decision issued on J uly 14, 1978, relating to the issues of Radon 222 and the environmental consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle.-
Since that time, 1
Intervenor SCANP, pursuant to ou r le tter of Septembe r 22, 1978, l
1 has been in contact with the intervenors in the Seabrook (Docket Nos, 50-443 and 50-444) and Sterling (STN 50-485)
I proceedingu regarding the possibility of con solida ted hear-
)
i ings.
Neither Ecology Action of Oswego (EAO),
'( Int e rve no rs in Sterling),
nor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution i
l (NECNP)
(intervenors in Seabrook) have yet reached ag re eme nt i
with the NRC staff and other parties as to the structure of j
)
f urther proceedings, it is believed.
l 0 c 4 a.4 3 p 2 C l)
~I'
- 7
-- i
't 812150 c259 l
e This submission therefore incorporates by reference the submissions of the E AO and NECNP in their respective dockets, since SCANP subs cribe s fully to these submissions, and intends to present the issues and witnesses identified in such submis-sions to this docket.
SCANP requests the ASLB to hold hearings on the Perkins record in respect to the licensing proceedings for the Skagit Nuclear Project, but endorses the idea of a consolidated hear-ing in the Sterling docket, if such an approach proves feasi-ble.
As NECNP points out, see NECNP Comments on the Partial Initial Decision in Parkins at 10 (September 8,
1978), the Sterling proceeding will provide a full and fair airing of im-portant issues, such as low dose and low dose rate effects, which vere not addressed adequately in the Perkins record.
I. THE Ps'RKINS RECORD IS INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE GENERI C FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF "THE LICEN SING BOARD The Perkins evide nt ia ry record is too li mi ted to support the findings and conclusions of the Licensing Board respecting the amount and effects of radon emissions.
The intervenors there did not have the resources, and the applicant and staff did not have the desire, to raise and explore the radon issue in sufficient breadth to enable the Perkins record to serve as a basis in other proceedings.
The Board s truck mu ch relevant testimony of f ered by the intervenor 's quali fied e xpert witness and refused several exhibits (Intervenors' Exhibi ts D-F) con-sisting of respected scientific analyses concerning the health i.-
- ~
s effects of radon emissions.
'See Comments of Ecology Action, Il the Matter of Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.-(Sterling Nuclear Power Project, Unit No. 1),
at 2.
The Board has un-critically accepted the evidence and conclusions of the Staff and applicant.
These f ailu res to inquire into the adve rs e envi ronme nt al impacts of radon emissions, as required by NEPA, render the Perkins record hopelessly incapable of answering the ultimate issue correctly posed in the Chairman's request:
Whether the radon emissions and resultant health effects are such as to tip the NEPA balance against construction of the Skagit facility.
.I f all the relevant issues concerning the effects of radon emissions are permitted to be developed fully and f airly in the Ster.'.inc proceeding, SCANP will not object to the use of the Sterling record as a basis for this and other proceedings
~
pending completion of the generic EIS.
O f cou rs e, it will be necessary to supplement this record to tak e into account the particular and unique impacts of the Skagit project.
These would include the radon emissions of the uranium used as a source of the Skagit plant, the health ef fects on those popu-
- lations, including Indian populations, living in proximity to the plant, and other issues which will require applicat:.on of the generic findings and principles emerging from Sterling to the particular facts and circumstances of the Skagit project and other nuclear projects... - -..
r 9
II.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE PERKINS RECORD SCANP has specific objections-to the Perkins record, which it finds to be extremely deficient in many ways.
Both EAO and NECNP have. already presented criticisms of the Perkins record (e.g. NECNP Comments on the Perkins Record, submitted Aug. 28, 1978).
These criticisms, which demonstrate serious procedural defects as well as substantive shortcomings of the Perkins record, do not adequately address SCANP 's. concerns about the radon population dose conclusions presented in the Perkins record and given in the supplemental affidavit of R.
L.
Gotchy dated March 28, 1978
( f ollowing-Perkins Record TR 2425).
SCANP's concerns focus on two errors which undermine Gotchy's conclusions:
1.
Gotchy's assumptions concerning radon re-leases from mill tailings.
2.
The atmospheric dispersion model used by G ot ch y.
Dr. Gotchy's af fidavit provides much of the foundation for Findings 34 through 51 of the Partial Initial Decision, con-cerning the relationship between radon and cancer.
SCANP sets forth its criticisms of Dr. Gotchy's assumptions and methods as follows:
A.
Faulty Assumptions Regarding Radon Releases Estimates for Radon releases f rom mill tailings given in Table 1 of Gotchy 's March 28, 1978 affidavit (780 Ci/RRY for milling and active tailings and 350 Ci/RRY from inactive mills m
9-
-w...,--s,,e-.,-
.w.=~-,+,e ew--
r a w m --
-v'wo--
v w~,,,=nas-m e
ww
-=,iw
+,-r+=
r m-
,wa--u-e-
a,--g--ww,+*-r
,-nm-ev, e* e w --
t and interim. tailings piles ) are taken entirely from the affi-davit of P.
Magno. (f ollowing Perkins ASLAB Tr 2369).
These estimates are questionable for a number of reasons:
1.
They assume ultimate stabilization of all tailings piles.
This is.not a supportable assumption, because many piles are located in, arid ' areas. like the Colorado Plateau (8 inches / year of rainfall or less).
In such areas reclamation with natural vegetation is dif ficult or impossible, and tail-ings are like dry sand and are carried by the wind.
The par-ticulate background from dust in the air in such areas in the U.S.
is 65 ug/m3, indicating the high natural dust level.
Findings 26-33 contain several inferences and ~ conclusions respecting stabilization which are not warranted by the Perkins record.
The Board's opinion that the situation with respect to takings has changed greatly within the past years is without foundation, and is contrary to Findings 28-29, to the effect that abandoned mills and mills in agreement states are no't subject to "new req ui re me nt s ".
2.
Magno's figu res assume a two-f oot depth of overburden cover (Perkins ASLAB TR 2566).
In the dry, windy climate of the Colorado Plateau, two f eet of overburden will be stripped by wind action.
3.
The contribution of old long-term unstabilized piles is not included (The testimony of M.
Scinto, Perkins ASLAB TR
- 2514, indicates that there is "no information" on abandoned piles).
1 4.
There is some i ndi ca t ion, e lu cid a t ed in testimony
( Perkins ASLAB TR 2518) that the numbers are derived from wet piles.
Needless to say, tailings ponds will not stay wet in the climate in which most of them are located.
5.
There is no good estimate of the number of existing stabilized piles.
In fact, Gotchy testified to the "large amount of unstabilized piles" (Perkins ASLAB TR 2584).
6.
There is no way to estimate how well reclamation leg-islation is enforced, nor has there been any attempt to esti-mate this.
There is an admission that such legislation exists in only one state - Colorado (Perkins, ASLAB TR 2523).
Without an estimate of reclamation, responses about tailings piles are meaningless.
7.
The numbers generated by Magno appear to be based on
" composite model tailings pile " (Gotchy affidavit of March 28, 1978, p.3)
Although this model is i.ndeed conserva tive as to area and depth of tailings, and makes the conservative assump-tion of full activity over its entire 20-year buildup, it does l
not take into account unstabilized tailings, old and unmoni-tored tailings, or remo val and shifting of ove rbu rde n.
Fur-
- ther, there is no evidence that precipitation and w ind data have been considered quantitatively in this model.
Conse-quently, the 780 Ci/RRY and 350 Ci/RRY could be incorrect by anywhere f rom a small f actor to an order of magnitude.
B.
Inadequate Atmospheric Dispersion Model l
The atmospheric dispersion model used by Gotchy (affidavit of May 19, 1978, p.
19, et seq.) uses the " wedge model", which 1
, l 1
...~
'3 4
assumes uniform vertical atmospheric distribution of particles.
A more refined, precise and regularly used model. 'is that ob-tained by consideration of.Fickian dif fusion, which produces a Gaussian vertical : distribution of particles.
The model 'would af f ect-both X(r )' - the downwind airborne concentration - and L
- the vertical mixing depth - in Gotchy's equations (1) through (7),.(9) and (10), and would obviously af f ect the rate of depo-sition loss, and the ground plane and inhalation doses (Gotchy, May ' 19, 1978 affidavit, p.
III-3).
In particular, because the population dose.is inve rs ely proportional to mixing depth (equation (9)),
it is particularly sensitive to a di'f f e rent expression for L'.
The ' assumption is inherent in Gotchy's population dose estimates that radioative material disperses from the ground level.
This does not take.into account the many dry tailings piles which rise as high as 25 feet, or which are situated.on bluffs or mesas.
Nor does it take into account open pit mines which are not on. flat terrain.
Gotchy's mo' 1 also assumes the existence of a stable inversion layer.
The height of inversion layers changes rapidly on the Colorado Plateau; diurnal varia-tion is common.
The mixing depth is treated as a constant in Gotchy 's model.
Appropriate variation would make a consider-able difference; Gotchy cannot, in fact, draw any realistic conclusion about population dose f rom this model.
It is somewhat su rp ris ing that the NRC ' depends on an un-calibrated atmospheric di spers ion model.
Many tailings piles in. various topographic and weather situations exist where
_...-.-...-........-.-.,--.,..-..,w...-.'
uranium is mined and milled.
It s eems an obvious process to assess dispersion of radioactive dust from these piles.
The j
technique of gamma-ray spe ct ros copy or alpha-ray spectroscopy would allow positive identification of dispe rs ed species and distinguish them f rom background dust and background radiation.
It also is odd that there is not continuous monitoring of tailings piles., at least over the period from 1965 to the present.
Instrumentation is certainly available for.such monitoring, and it would eliminate most of the guesswork in these estimates of population dose.
C.
Exceptions to Licensing Board Conclusions Several of the Board's conclusions are sufficiently dis-turbing to warrant comment additional to criticism of the methods and assumptions upon which they are based.
Especially disturbing is the comparison, in Finding 30, between emissions from tailings piles associated with the f ueling of Perkins and the natural emission of Radon from the soil of the entire United States.
The Board persists in its narrow and ostrich-like approach, ignoring cumulative impacts from Radon emissions from tailings piles associated with fueling all plants and the effect of increased concentrations of emissions in smalle r geographic regions actually impacted by emissions from indivi-dual piles.
It is obvious that possible harmf ul effects of any substance will appear insignificant, assuming dispersion (whether actual or artificial f or comparative purposes ) over a
~
wide enough time and space frame.
If the Board utilized this same analysis to evaluation energy need, it would be forced to conclude that the.Perkins plan will p rodu ce an amount of electricity " negligibly small" compared to the energy needs of the entire United States, and that the plant is therefore l
unnecessary.
The potential consequences are too severe f or the Board to continue to indulge in this meaningless comparison as a basis for its ultimate conclusions.
SCANP also takes exception to the Board's conclusions, Findings 31'-32, that Dr. Gotchy "is being excessively conserva-tive."
Several of his assumptions have been shown to be unwarranted, and the Board's conclusion evidences its persis-tence in underestime ting the size and number of tailings piles which are and will be created., posing physical problems of stabilization whose' magnitude the Board refuses to consider.
- Finally, the Board concluded, Finding 52, that the re-leases of Radon and impacts therefrom are insignificant in striking the cost-benefit balance for Pc rkins.
In addition to the strong possibility that the evidence in the Perkins record is inadequate to support this conclusion, the conclusion demons trates a narrow and constricted perspective which cannot address the cumulative impact of Radon emissions as required by NEPA.
.The Board's apparent attitude that P e rk ins could be evaluated in isolation renders the record and findings singu-larly inadequate to serve as a basis in other proceedings.
1.--
_. _. -.. _ _. _ _... _, _ _. _. _. _,. _ _ _. ~
. ~...
~
4
'.,,i III.
SCANP' S POTENTI AL WITNESSES At present, SCANP is able to p rovide the names of three expert witnesses whom it believes will be available to testify respecting Radon emissions, depending, of course, on when their testimony will be required.
These witnesses are:
1.
D r.
H.
Peter Metzger of Boulder, Colorado.
Dr.
Metzger would testify concerning disposition of mining and mill tailings in the Colorado Basin.
2.
D r.
Robert Siek of Colorado Department of Health, Denver.
D r.
Siek would testify concerning the effects of Radon 222 from mail tailings in Glenwood Springs, in the Colorado Basin Mining Area.
3.
D r. Ruth Weiner, P7:of essor of Environmental Studies at Western Washington U nive rs i' y.
D r.
Weiner will tes ti fy and/
or cross-examine with restf act to atmospheric dispersion of radon.
IV.
CONCLUSION l
SCANP's approval of the NRC's decision to ascertain the l
l effects and significance of radon e mi's s ions is diminished by the cavalier manner in which the S taf f appects to be as-suring itself that,these emissions are not harmful.
The Staff apparently dismisses occu rrence s such as the Salt Lake City firehouse and the 700 buildings built with radioa ct ive tailings as dark age aberrations incapable of repetition in the f u tu re.
Yet the Staff appears willing and anxious to risk _.
I consequences the adverse potential of which is far greater and long reaching without significantly greater knowledge or assurances of safety.
The Perkins Board refused tb accept reputable scientific testimony addressing health problems it does not wish to admit exist, and strikes expert testimony opposing the staff and applicant views.
The Perkins record is l
not adequate, and intervenors believe it essential that oppor-tunity be given, in this docket, to adequately address the Radon 222 problem.
ll Respectfully submitted, 1
OO % ), b".i.
' )){ r,($
(,,,.j.',,'
gy 2
ROGER M.
LEED Suite 610 1411 Fourth Ave. Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone:
206-624-8901 Counsel for SCANP DATED:
November 15, 1978
. 54A/10/20 4
/TRT, %,%'
%.(,
f,,
- DV
'd!
UNITED STATES. 0F AMERICA 70 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7'ti
\\ r.i BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOAhD a
': ~.
In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
DOCK ET NOS.
STN'50-522 COMP ANY, - e t al.,
)
50-523
)-
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
).
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of:
INTERVENOR SCANP' S RESPONSE TO PARTI AL INITIAL DECISION IN PERKINS have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, onthisINfx day of lh En.lt,
1978.
Samuel W. Jensch, Esq., Chairman Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission',
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20055 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Dr. John H. Buck,. Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing L
School of Natural Resources Appeal Board University of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioni A nn A r b'o r, MI.
48104 Washington, D.C.
20555 Gustave A.
L ine n be rge r, Member Michael C.
Farrar,. Membe r Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Certificate - 1 l
l I
_. _,. ~.. _...
m. m.
+
Docketing "and Service Section Canadian Consulate General Office of the Secretary Peter A.
van Brakel Vice-Consul U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory
' 412 Plaza 600
. Commission 6th: and Stewart S treet Washington, D.C.
20555
. Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard L. Black,.Esq.
Counsel for.NRC' Staff F. Theodore Thomsen U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Perkins,. Cole, Stone,~Olsen
. Commission
& Willians-Office of the' Executive Legal 1900 Washington Building Director Seattle,, Washington 98101 Washington, D, C.
20555 Alan P. O' Kelly LNicholas D.
Lewis, Chairman.
Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman j
Energy Facility Site Evaluation
& O' Kelly Council
- 1400 Washington Trust Financial 820 East Fif th' Avenue Center Olympia, Washington '98504 Spokane, Washington 99204
}
Robert C. Schofield, Director Skagit County Planning Depart-ment i
120 West Kincaid Street i
Mt.Vernon, Washington 98273 Richard M. Sandvik,-Esq.,
Assistant Attorney General l
Department' of Justice 500 Pacific Building 520'S, W. Yamh ill Portland, Oregon' 97204 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.-
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washignton, D.C.
20036 H. H. Phillips, Esq.
vice President and Corporate Counsel Portland General Electric la
{ }'f j
DATED:
LC ' lb-j Company 121 S.W.
Salmon S treet i
Portland, Oregon 97204 j
h M I.2d U.
'CFSP and FOB
.x_
E.
Stachon & L.
Marbe t ROGER M.
LEED 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Counsel for Intervenors 3 Boring, Oregon 97009 Certificate - 2
-rn-+,-
y
.,m-,,y..w-w.r,.ys..
,,.-.m.e.,pw,-a-
.%er,w
,.,m_-.y p,ry.wge,e,-m,w,,.,,q,-.,gm
,,w-e-
,-,mm,-w,,,4-,we,w,me,,,,-g.e,wwwr,e.c,,%-w.,,
,,,.,wem
.-,-cm,-.,mer,,,,w,,a