ML20147B417

Requests the Bd to Receive Written Evidence & Hold Addl Hearings on the Radon Issue.Forwards Evidence & Objections to Perkins Record

ML20147B417
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, Sterling
Issue date:	11/15/1978
From:	ECOLOGY ACTION OF OSWEGO
To:
Shared Package
ML20147B393	List: ML20147B390 ML20147B417 ML20147B429 ML20147B442
References
NUDOCS 7812150268
Download: ML20147B417 (7)

Text

-_. _ _ _ _ - _. .

. SEP. 2 31973  !

B3:0?Z THE ATOMIC CAFETI AND LICE'iSDG APcEAL BOARD , ,

In the 11atter of )

)

P.ochester Gas and Electric Corp. et. al.) Docket No. STN 50 h05 i S ,erling liuclear Power Project )

. Unit No. 1- )

In response to the Board's order and nemurandu:n of ray 30 (AIAB L80),

Ecciogy Action asks that the Board receive written evidence and hold additional

__ hearings on the radon issue. We also have objections to the Perkins, reccrd.

We received the Perkins record on July 12. Fourthen days is not sufficient time to prepa.e a full case. Our request here for additional evidence and hearings will identify what we consider deficiencies in the Perkins record; we cannot say at this point whether we will be able to sponsor testimony in every area. However, we believe such evidence is necessary to cocply with the reo.uirement of the National Environmental Policy Act for full disclosure of the envirocaental consequences of a proposed action. In aeditions the Coms!.asion needs auch evidence to carry out its responsibility ,o protect public health and safety.

l The Board's 27 30 order essentially places the burden of proof on intervenors to shev that the Perkins record is inadequate and innaccurate. Accordirg to the Comeission's rules (10 CFR 2 732), the burden should be on staff. And although the Board in AIAB h 'O ostensibly rejected consolidation of all the raden cases, it has in fact consolidated them by using Perkins as a concen record. This consolidation is even core enerous to intervenors than was the original staff proposal, since we did not even have the opportunity to develop the Perkins record and must now do ao af ter the fact. Add to this the extreme pressure for haste on the internener in Perkins, which forced its witness to prepare his testimeny in one week. The entire procedure is manifestly unfair to those who wish to challenge the staff and utilities 8 view ,

on raden. .

781215080i a .. -. -. - .- - - . .

-~.

cxaains and pres:nt witnzs;ts in our own procciddag. YTa recusst that wa ba given an additional h5 days to identify spacif3cally the evidsuca that ne are able to offer. As discussed below, we also ask that, if necessary, the Board call for evidence itself.

I. AD2ITIC11AL T:.HTEN EVIDEhtE The Perkins record should be supplemnted by direct testimony in the following areas:

A. Mealth effects. The rulings of the Perkit Atomic Safety and Licensing

, Board have effectively prevented the presentation of direct testinony challenging the conservatism of -he staff and applicant's health effects calculations. The applicant was allowed to rebut documents used by the intervenor, yet the intervenor's exhibits on health effects (Dthibits D, E, F, and 0) were stricken from tha record.

(These documents do not appear in the written record, in violation of the Co==ission's rules (10 CFR 2 7h3e). tie recuest the Board to order the staff to provide us and the other parties with copies of the exhibits).

These exhibits support the thesis that the staff has understated the heal:A effects from raden emissions. There is a sizable body of mputable scientific opinion represented by the exhibits. It should not be ignored be'cause of legal tecimicalities.

NEPA recuires the fullest possible disclosure of the impacts ~of radon. The Board cheuld take whatever step: are necesoary to include these documents in the record, even if it must call the authors of the doeurants as its own witnesses. This affirrative action r.my be unusual, but the Board has a crecial responsibility to cnsure full exploration of radon impacts, since the Commission has ignored these impacts until now.

Testimony from the author of one of the exhibits, ER. Ellett, would also clarify i

. . . . , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - ~ _ . _ . , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . .

so:a confusion in the record over fi;;ures supplied by E11stt to staff witnssa Gotchy (sne TR &n ih15).

In acdition, we wish to present evidence on our own behalf challengin.; the validity of ,he etaff's estinates of health effects from raden.

B. Doses and health effects fro:s oren pit eines.and phosphate ~471 tailings.

The Perkins record shows that radon edssions from abandoned open pit minos were

, not considered by the staff until the Perkins hearing. Emissions from phosphate =in tailings (these tailings. are considered a uranium resource by staff) have been totally ignored. ?Te ask the opportunity to present written evidence on :these matters.

C. Mill tailings volu::m. The staff assumptions about the grade of uraniu:a that will be =ined are core optimistic than we think is arranted., 7le w:Lah to present evidence showing that LM volume of mill ta414ngs per AFR will be greater than the staff has postulated. In addition, we recuest the opportunity to question staff witnesses further on the effects of Icwer than anticipated " duty factors" on the voltne of dll +m414 ngs. The Sterling reecrd shows that the industry has not achieved expected duty factor.s.

D. Significance of i= pacts from raden. 77e wish to challenge the staff and Qrom m ntngJnd_ d11.tng j applicant 8 s opinion that radon icpacts'js}re insigniH5anThecause they are sman when co= pared to the effect of background radon. This opinions in the Forkins mcord, comes frem scientists, who have no mon expertise in the field of coral philosophy than does a bricklayer. The number of curies cc=ing from a d11 tailings pile and the nu ber of lung cancers that result are scientific questions. But the cuestion of whether we should be concerned about causing that number of lung cancers over the next million years is an ethical pne. The Board will have a better basis for deciding this cuestion if it hears fron persons with training and backgr .:md in philosophy as well as scientists. Ecology Action asks to present such evidence.

E. Cost. The staff has assu:ned i= proved techniques for disposing of :111 tailines and has sug.. ested that, open pit =ines would be covered. The staff should he orcered to 1

_ , . - - - , . . . , . , - . . . _ . , . . . - - - , - - , - , . - - m.--..-,,..._, . . ~ . - . - . . - . .- m._- , , _ _ _ . - _ _ . , - . . _ - , . . - _ . . . - . . .

presznt evidence on tha cost of thesa masures and the resulting increasa in tha l

• s }

cost of nuclear furl, This information is nec:ssary to perfor:n th2 cost br,nsfit analysis recuired th IEPA.

1 F. Local incacts of radon releases fro s vill tailings . This has not been i addressed at all in Perkins, yet health effects from radon will fall cost heavily on l people living near the tcilings piles. TTe wish to present evidence on local health impacta.

G. Longterm buildup of radon in the erriironment from all mill tailines p g Comparing the radou release from one Annual Fuel Recuiremnt to total backgrounJ radon gives a distorted and misleading impressicn. One can always cake a case that one year's contribution is infinitesmal and go on producing uraniu.: fuel until mn cade emissions of radon reach high levels co= pared to background. If the Board cceepts this sort of tunnel vision, it could create a permanent reservoir of radicactive waste for future generations without exar4ning the full impact of its cetion. TTe believe IEPA recuires the Board to consider the cu=ulative i= pact of redon from all cines and mill tailinge piles. Such evidence is not in the Perkins record, and ws ask to present it.

~

R. Tox'. city of nuclear waste in mill tailings. The Board =ust decide whether mill tailines are a significant environ = ental cnd health hazard. Testi=cny in Perkins compares mill tailin:s\d .* mda r eo s Mens / to background, but there are other standards that can be used by the Board to determine the hasard of mill tailings. One mthod is to compare the toxicity of the waste in cill tailitys to the toxicity of high level radioactive mate. We wish to present evidence in this area.

I. Health effects resultinc from radon in mill tallinas. ::r. Robert Pohl of (n

Cornell University, whose word was cited in the 1975 rulacaking petition on raden, has presented testimony in Black Fox (ST:150 550 and 557) shcwine that there will be 775 potential health effects per gigawatt / year fro:n radon emitted from =in tailings p.b S piles alone. Dr. Pohl's worheess /

more conservative assumptions than did the staff

._, ~ -

Us would also like to offer Dr. Pon1 as a witness on thz mtters in paragrapha ,

F, O and F.170 are in ;ha process of contacting * ,r potential witnessoa.

II. FU3f -EP iE RINGS Many portions of the Perkins record refer to specifics that don't apply to the Sterling proposal. We are especially concerned ab;ut being left with a record that contains no specific infomation about the uranium that will fuel the Sterling plant. We wish to question staff witnesses on :his catters in particular on the source of the Sterling fuel (i.e. open pit er underground minc.) and the milla that will process it.

We are also dissatisfied with the depth of cross examination of staff wituenses on regulation of uraniu:n mining and milling. The staff has relied upon such regulation as an assurance that tailirus pilas will be stable for a certain period of time.

We want to question staff further to find out hon reliable this assurance is. Two important questions that were not as' red in Perkins are how long is a =ill or nine license in effect, and how will the staff's criteria be enforced after the licenso expires? Even core crucial- in light of our experience with Woct Valley $s the question of who will be responsibis for tallings and opan pit mines after they aro abandoned. _

We ask the Board to allow us to cross examine staff witnesses in the catters mentioned above, and also on " duty factors" of uraniu:a fuel as discussed in paragraph C of the previous section.

We also request discovery riS hts so that ne can obtain docu:nents that vill aid us in preparing testimony and cross exa=ination.

III. OBJECTICNS TO THE PE?XINS RECORD Ue have previously discussed the necessity of bringing Perkins intervenor's exhibits D, E, F and 0 back into the :ecord. We also object to the ASl3's decision to strike portions of Dr. Kepferd's redirect testi=cny.

i l

Tha transcript shows that Dr. ispford's attorney novar officially co:pleted-his dirset exacination. C,n TR 2739 line 9, counasl for tha applicant simp 3(y announend that he was ready for cross exatination and so the cross exacination began. This interruption pretented Dr. epford from cocpleting his direct testi=ony; when he tried to finish at the end of cross examination, the same epplicant who interrupted him at the beginning objected. If the ?erkins case is to serve as a " base," as AU.B BOO conte = plates, the Board should nake every effert to see that views opposed to the staff and applicant are fully represented. The ASIB action han effective 3y censored the intervenor.

The first section of censored testinov (TR 2797 2802) is Dr. Kepford's answer to the self serving and untrue re:: arks of staff representative Scinto. "We found an error," Scinto announces (TR 2h90 line 22), when the truth is that intervenors in other cases found tra ermr and the staff has hvoically resisted acknowledging its full extent. Dr. nepford was promised an opportunity to arewer Scinto (TR 2538 line 23 l:h) and his answer should be restored to the record.

The second consored portion is directed toward the bias of the staff and, as such, is certainly relevant. '

' the third comerns the staff's decision to co;: pare radon emissions from rilling uit those froc natural background. Certainly that is an opinion tnat the intervenor should be allcnved to challenge directly.

If the Board doesn't like Dr. Kepford's " argumentative" answers, it should strike siellar opinionated testinony froc other witnesscs if it wishes to to fair.

For instance, it should strike Dr. Hanilton's testincny frorn line 25 of TR 2321 to li:.e 7 of TR 21:3, and line 18 of TR 2331 to line 18 of TR 2333; the su~ey of Dr.

Gold =an's testinony on page 12; and Dr. Gotchy's testinony from line 10 of TR 118 to line 5 of TR 2h203 line 1b of TR 2h37 to line 2 of TR 2h38, and line h 23 of TR 23h7.

Finally, we ask the Bo?.rd to strike the testimony of staff witnessesotchy because it does not exaciae the full i= pact of .

radon from : tining and -41Wg and thus dces not

~

y coat MEPA requirerents for full discitsure of environmental impacta. gest The time period covsred by Ootchy's testicony is 10,000 years, which is raction!

of the ti=e durin; which radon.will .be produced.

In Section 101 b (1) of HEPA, Congress decl res its purpose e to responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations." Similarly, :,he guidelines of the Council on a Envir t n reouire agencies to " assess the action for cu;ulative and longterm effects from the perspcctive that each generation is a trustee of the environment for succeeding

. generations" (Guidelines, 6a).

The staff has steadfastly refused to follow NEPA. They have taken e baby step fornard toward the goal of full disclosure. Either the ustaff sho ld b e crdered to meet its obligations under NEPA by assessing the total amount of rado

. that will be e=itted froc milling and cining, and its effects, or the staff testimo ny should be rejected as irz1slevant and ic=iaterial under 10 CFR 2 7h3 c.

17. TABLE S 3 The Pe. kins record contains admiss ions erfrom parts the of otaf Tablo S 3 besides the radon entry are not full disclosures of th e impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle. For example, occupational expecures are not i ncluded (TR 2536 line 19). Carbon lh is considered for only a h0 year environ

nental dose period although the staff has estimated effects over the first 1000 ,

years (TR 2605). t The radon in enrdchrant m131 tailings hasn't been considered (TR 0519 line Tie rei-ind the Board that we have asked c a fromthat full effe t all leng11ved isotopes for all portions of .the fuel cycle be consid ered in the Sterling case srecord (Ecolo,y Action :totion of March 15).g The Perkin sh,ows that the staff knows of deficiencies in Table S 3. We thinkrPerkins er support offers of our motionfu thof rarch 15. In any case, we ask the Beard to order the staff to u y all deficiencies of which it is aware in Table S 3 all entries that do not reflect the fullg impact ved isotopes.

of lon li. In partic