ML18025A080

Amendments to the Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power

ML18025A080
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/15/1979
From:	Johnsrud J Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18025A080 (13)

Text

215 884 6262 8xecutlve Oirectorst George 8oomsmo-R.O; rtl:peoch 8ottom, po. 17563 717 548 836 Judith Johnsrud-433 Orlondo Avenue. State College, po. 16801 814 237 3900 UNITED STA i)sM~ %RICA NUCMLR REGULATORY CQGCSSION ~0.

the Atond.c Safe 1'efore and Licensi Board aC v

~ t ')

In the 1'htter of

)

PENNSYLVANIA PCFrKR AND LIGHT CGHPANX CP and 50-387 ALUXiHBZ ELECTRIC COOPKtkTIVEq INC e Dodcet Nos O-388 (Susqueharn2a Steam El.ectric Stations Units 1 and 2)

A?KNDIZNTS TO TEE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INDENE PILED BY THE ~IRONKKTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER

,I The Environmenta1 Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) submits the following supplement to its September 58 1978~ Petition for Leave to Intervene in the captioned proceeding to address three matters-Notice of Appearance B, Clarification of Petitioners'nterest-and Standing C, Statement of Contentions and Their Bases Notice of A earance 1

Drse Chauncey'epford and Judith H Johnsrud~ Executive Board member, and Co-Director~ respectively'of the Emrironmenti1 Coaction on huclear rower'avtng been d~ authorised by the Executive Board of that organisation to represent members'nterests in any'nd all I

administrative and legal proceedings~ herewith enter their notice of-appearance as representatives of,these Petitioners in the proceexKngs related to the matter captioned above Clarification of Petitioners'nterest and Standin Xn the September 5~ 1978~ Petition for Leave to Xntervenep Petitioners'ECNP) representative, Dri Johnsrud~ advised that an affidavit setting forth interests of ECHP members on the basis of residence near Susquehanna Steam K.ectric Station~ Units 1 and 2 (Susquehanna) would be fi3.ed separateIp Such an affidavit was filed on September 8~ 1978'y'ry Oliver J~ Larmi, R.D~ 4~ Bloomsburg,

~ennsy1vauia; Dr. Larmi is a member of the Rcecutive Board of the Eavironmental Coalition on Nuclear Power; to the best of my'nowledge other signators of his affidavit are also members of ~i Xn additi 4 Dr. Johnsrud is employed at Lewisburg~ Pennsylvaxd.a> within a forty'Q.e radius of Susquehanna'tatement of Contentions and Their Bases

1. Petitioners contend that the analysis of the effects of the uranium fuel. cycle on human health from the beginning to the very end of the fuel cycle~ have been serious'is-represented and underestimatedi Xn particular, the health consequences of the long-lived isotopes (long compared with "fuI1 plant lifetimes) have yet to be considered for the deto~ication period" of each and every long-lived isotope released~ or caused to be re1eased to the emrlronment~

by the 639 operation of Susquehanna (See NRDC v HRC~ f47 P. 2d 633>

at n 12) ~ Xsotopes such as Tc-99~ Se-79~ X-129~ Cs-135'nd

the alpha-particle em9.tters have~ to date~ eluded full environmental an~sis by those responsible for such ana3gsisi 2i Petitioners contend that the cost-benef9.t an~sis performed by'he Staff and App19.cant is who~ falsified.

'Qd.s cost-benefit an~sis does not represent an an~sis

",conducted &~ and 9n good faith" (See Ca1vert Committee v USAZCp D Ci Cir p 1971@ slip Cliffs'oordinating opinion~ pi Il)~ Instead, the analysis conducted was designed to arbitrari+ reduce environmental and health costs while'imultaneou~ inflating alleged benefitsi In particular~ radiation exposure from various isotopes~

both short- and long-lived~ is compared with various back-ground sources of radiation exposure. Yet no justification has thus far been advanced for comparing any cost attributable solely'o the operation of Susquehanna with costs attributable to background radiation sources which exist independent3g of the Susquehanna reactors. In addition, this comparison of radiation attributable to Susquehanna with background radiation distorts complet~ the cost-benefit an~sis of Susquehanna because the benefit side of the an~sis receives no such comparison. No comparison of the energy generated by Susquehanna is made~ for, example, with the solar energy 9.ncident on the United States Further~ tne analysis is faulty. because it neglects completely the health costs due to all of the long-lived radioactive isotopes released~ or caused to be released, to the environment by the operat9.on of Susquehanna. After all~

"The Comnd.ssion's prime area of concern in the licensing context

~ i ~ is public health and safety'.'{Vermont Yankee v. NRDC~ U~S, slip opinion~ p. 28~ 1978) ~

3, Petitioners assert that known and assured reserves of uranium are insufficient to supply the lifetime fuel required for Susquehanna 1 and 2 in a growing nuclear economy~ The

historic growth rate for nuclear generated electricity, a measure .of uranium consumption~ is about 32$ annu~~,.for the years -1961 through 1977~ Even if this growth rate drops more than in half to 155~ all of the estimated, reserves of uranium wQ1'ave been consumed prior to the end of the Qdxty year life of Susquehanna 1 and 2, As a result, much higher fuel prices wQ3.

result, and environmental damage will Increase grea~ with the mining of ever lower grade ores. The problems of disposal of mill tailings~ now deem'ed trivial by some~ will rapid3g mount, Yet no environmental impact assessment has been made of the interrelated fuel supply-mill tai1ings problems as uranium is consumed, as these problems pertain to the entire operational lifetime of Susquehanna, 4, Petitioners contend that there is no need for Susquehanna The information supplied by the Applicant shows that~ with very modest increases in electrical energy conservation efforts~ all

. of the need for Susquehanna 1 and 2 wIU. disappear complete~.

Applicant's Mvironmental Report (ER, p. 1.1-2) gives load growth ranges. Table 1.1-15 of the ER shows that at the Vere Low Growth rate scenario~ the entire output of Susquehanna 1 and 2 wi3.1 be available for sale outside the service area of the Applicant as the units come on line The conservation programs suggested by'he Applicant are not designed to encourage either meaningful energy'onservation or efficient energy use. Instead, these programs are aimed at encouraging continued electrical energy usage, regardless of whether electricity is the most efficiant form of energy'or the Job at hand or not, The Applicant has not considered the alternative to Susquehanna~ as required by'APA~

of more strict energy conservation measures For example~ there is no comparison of cost for upgrading the thermal insulation in existing residences and, commercial buildings in the service area of the Applicant with the cost to complete the Susquehanna plant.

The discussion of the Applicant's anticipated load growth is based on increased use of electricity for space heat In residences and commercial establishments, together with the continued practice of

>>5>>

over-use of electric 2.ghting~ both for indoor use and for ad-vertising and display.

In addition~ the Applicant presents no discussion of the negative impact of increased electrification of industrial opera" tions (through "modernization~ " to become more "efficient") upon employment ~ This impact is readily seen by'omparing the 'umber of workers needed to achieve a given',output, of an "inefficien04

~ Z ~

plant with the employees needed in'-'modern~ efficient, mechanized plant to achieve the same output, The Applicant thus grossly".;

underestimates the unemployment created by'he 'Applicant in its service areas I

I ~ t,

'L I

5. Petitioners contend that the models use'd to c'alculate individual and population doses are inaccurate and obsolete.

These deficiencies are compounded by the arbitrary'election of data for the purpose of underestim'ating radiation doses. In particular, the milk transfer coefficient for iodine has been underestimated (See Health Bgrsics, 35, p. 413-16, 1978) ~

addition~ these models use factors which convert alpha-particle dose in rads to ress w'hich are far. too low (Hee Health P~sicsa ~4

p. 353-60a 1978)a and which underestinate the radiation efi'ect, on a per rad basis~ for the very low energy beta and gamma radiations~

as from 8-3 and C-14 (See Health basics, ~4, p. 433-':83 1978) ~

Further'ore, the entire set of radiation standards is based primari3g on the data from Eiroshima and Nagasaki~ where the doses received by survivors were essential+ instantaneous. For radiation effects from the entire uranium fuel cycle, as wiU. be caused by the opera-tion of Susquehanna 1 and 2, the doses received both by workers P

and by'embers of the public wiU..bse low doses delivered at3 in genera1~ low dose rates. The bomb blast data have no demonstrable relevance to this chronic~ low dose situation. See'Health E~si~cs

~33 p, 369%5, 1977, and Hritish Journs1 cf ~Cancer ~7 p. 44o-51, 1978.

I

~"

-6. Petitioners contend that the analysis of alternatives~

as required by NEPA and the Corned.ssion's rules~ is wo@MZg inadequate and incomplete This antis does not consider serious efforts at energy conservation~ end use efficiencies~

or what have come to be known as '" Second Law Efficiencies "

In addition, no discussion has been presented concerning the health benefits of energy conservation in co+unction with the conservation alternative to Susquehanna'here has also been no comparison of the health costs attributable to the operation of Susquehanna with those of not operating Susquehanna'n3gr with these types of comparison can the true health cost of Susquehanna be evaluated.

Solar energy in any of its various forms is not considered as an alternative to Suscuehanna, Bg ignoring this commonly used alternative energy source, the Applicant is hoping to prevent home use of solar heating and hot water applications, Further encouragement of reliance on expensive electric~ operated mechanical heating and cooling devices, like heat pumps, in the name of energy conservation~ seems to defeat not only energy conservation, but also the development of solar energy. The prlnuegr beneficiary of this defiance of NEPA is the Applicant.

7~ Peti.tioners contend, that emergency response and evacuation planning by the Applicant, the Director and Staff of the Office of Radiological Health of the Pennsy3.vard.a Qepartment of Environ-mental Resources~ the State and County Civil Defense Agencies, and others responsible for protection of the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency affecting the population beyond the site boundary of Susquehanna is not complete and sufficient to assure prompt notification and evacuation of all areas in which persons may be exposed to radiation doses in excess of those permitted by existing radiation exposure standards for the general public and Protective Action Guides. The recent Planning Bas9.s Report of the HRC and Sxrironmental Protection Agency

&7&

~NURSE>~396/EPA 520/1-78-016~ December,. 1978, p. 5) notes that

'more specific guidance with respect to accidents whose consequences would be more severs than the design basis accidents explici~

oonsidered in the licensing process Iisj appropriate,"

In view of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's expressed reservations about the reliability and validity of the probability estimates in the Reactor Safety Study~ WASH-1400 (See~ sligo~

and HUNG-0396/EPA 520-78W16~ pp I-6 through ...'~'UREO/CR-0400 notes at pp '-8 and I-9; see also I

transcript of the X-10'ncluding December 21, 1978~ and subseouent NRC Comm5.ssioners'eetings and Commissioners'raft policy statements on VAStL-1400)~ and in view of the, explicit limitation of the validity of." the Reactor Safetyi Study's analyses through the year'980~ priorto tne operational

'c lifetime of Susquehanna 1 and 2~ Petitioners contend that no probability analysis exi.sts to )ustify the Applicant's and Staff's failurel, to address the'.full consequences to the plant and to the geneti'c and somatic health and the safety'f the pub1ic, and the

~ 1 full long-term costs of property'amage of the design basis accident (including sensitivity analyses) and of accidents more severe than 'the design basis accident. Petitioners contend that no operating license for Susquehanna 1 and 2 should issue until the Applicant, Commonwealth~ Luzerne County~ Salem Township officials and any others sharing responsibility for public health and prepared and tested with drills that include participation safety'ave of all of ths potentially affected public emergency preparedness and evacuation plans for the design basis accident and for worst-.

case (Class 9) accidents, . Risk analysis is incomplete and inadequate to comply with iiPA and the Combed.ssion's mandate under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954~ as amended~ in the absence of ful1 analysis of

~

both the probability and consequences of worst-case accidents. The ex'Lsting studies of disaster response are inadequate to demonstrate~

in the absence of tests invo1ving those who would be affected, the capability of emergency response and evacuation plans to provide the protection required for the public~

h

~

Two serious contradictions additionally inhibit the effective

'erformance of the duties of the two parties having moor responsi-bility for emergency notification of the public and for the protection of the public health in the event of a radiological emergency~ First, the App19.cant~ through various pub1ic relations efforts and the commmd.cations media, has sought to convince those residing in the vicinity of Susquehanna that the plant poses no significant threat to the public health and safety~ but has offered no verifiable foundation for such claims beyond the now-repudiated Reactor Safety Study The Applicant is the 'initiaL source of in<<

formation and the only source of data pertaining to the severity and scope of the radiological hazard following an accident at Susquehanna'n the ear~ stages of an accident~ the Applicant may be unable or unwi1ling to ascertain that an offsite radiation hazard exists or will exLst~ and may be expected to avoid advising other responsible authorities and the public as long'as the utility officials believe that emergency'vacuation -- detrimental to the utility company's interests is not absolut~ essential. Further" more~ the Applicant~ having impressed upon tne public the safety of its nuclear reactors and the aLLeged extrem~ low probability of a catastrophic accident~ or other responsible officials may be unable to convince endangered residents of the necessity of emergency actions and evacuation, A second contradiction inhibiting adequate emergency response lies in statements made by the DLrector of the Pennsylvania Office of Radiological Health, Mr, Thomas H. Gerusky. He has stated at a public meeting that his staff would not be able to respond at all hours to an accident at a nuclear facility. He has also~ by'ffi-davit~ denied having made such a statement. Furthermore~ the Qf'fice of Radiological Health has been unsuccessful in obtaining the amount of funding required to provide adequate qualified staff and equip ment to be able to expand its capability to monitor and to respond to a radiation emergency situation at Susquehanna.

8+ Petitioners contend that routine~ or occasiona1~ use of

<<9>>

environment~ persistent or inadequate+ tested herbicides to maintain clearance of transmission line rights-of-way is a somatic>

teratogenic~ and potentially mutagenic threat to the health living near or traversing and'-'afety'f persons these areas.

9.'he archeological investigation of the AppU.cant's upland site for the Susquehanna Station~ hasti chosen following the flood caused by Hurricane i

Agnes,'as incomplete and inadequate '972 to determine the status of cultural antiquities in advance of the commencement of construction, Completion of archeological investi-gation ixL compliance with state and federal law govendzg protection of antiquities should precede further construction at the site }

Petitioriers believe the Board should require an independent review of the Applicant's archeological stucU.esi '

gC 10'etitioners C

assert that the Nuclear Steam Supp~'Srstem 2

(NSSS) of Susquehanna 1 and 2 contains numerous design defLcienciesp some of which may never be resolvable, and which~ when viewed together, render a picture of an unsafe nuclear installation which

'I msy never be safe enough to operatei The pressure suppression containment structure may not be. constructed with sufficient strength to withstand the, dynamic. forces realized during bl'owdowni The reactor pressure vesselI may'-riot suzvive the thermal shock of cool KCCS water after blowdown without cracking. The cracking of stainless steel piping in PrR coolant water envtronments due to stx'ess corrosion has yet to be prevented or avoided. BNR core spray'ozzles occasionally crack, a problem which reduces The ability of Susquehanna to survive Anticipated theix'ffectiveness.

Transient ':Q.thout Scram (AxÃS, see MS'-1270) remairis to be C

demonstrated. For this ATNS issue~ reliance on probabilistic f

numbers~ as 10 per year, is un4ise and unsafe, Orerpressuriza-of the pressure vessel is a serious safety'problem> especi~ 'ion in view of the underhanded and wholly'nadequate method used to ensure that the ASHE stamp was to be applied to nuclear pressure vesselsi (See Proceedings of the Annua1 Minter Meeting~ AGE,

~

November 17-22, 1974, New York~ NARY+,

paper by A.J. Ackennane)

Numerous prob3.ems remain with the adequacy of electrical cable penetrations of the containment structure The reduced'apability of Susquehanna to scram at the end of the fue3. cycle due to con<<

trol rod poison depletion aggravates aQ. of the above problems~

such that when all of these~ and certainlg others such as containment steel liner buckling problems that have not been specifica32y addressed here, are combined, the conclusion of an inadequate and obsolete design is obvious {See~ for general reference materials~ NUR33-O138, NUKED-O153~ among others<)

11 Petitioners contend. that excessive reliance on "sing3.e failure" events (i,e+~ see FSAR 6.3 ~ 2,5) leads to a false sense of security and certain+~ especi~ when it is known that multiple failures occur (See testimony of Dr. David Okrent, AORS~ before the California Legislative Committee on Bxergy and DtudzCshing Resources~ October 29~ 1975~ p. 11. See also Joint '.

Committee on Atomic &ergy~ U,S Congress~ Hearings entitled "Browns Perry Nuclear P3.ant Pire~ vol, l~ September 16~ 1975+) ~

1'( ~ Petitioners contend~ when taken together and factored into lifetime monetary full cost determinations for Susquehanna~ that plant decommissioning and ultimate dismantling and site decon-tamination~ interim spent fuel storage and"subsequent disposal~

radioactive waste management and disposal at aLL stages of the nuclear fuel cycle~ and health costs for the full period. of toxicity of radioactive materials attributable to the operation of Susquehanna wQ3. render this nuclear facility economic~

non-competitive with vtrtually argr of the many alternative sources of energy'r with conservation. Absent riational policy deterazLna-tions, federal legislation, and administrative agency regu1ation of these issues~ Petitioners contend that no operating license should

'ssue for Susquehanna 1 and, 2

a e /'fe For all the foxegoing reasons stated in these contentions~ the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power contends that this Atomic Safety'nd Licensing Board shou1d exanline D~ the public hea1.th and safety'nd envtronmental impacts~ costs~ burdens~ and irreversible damages which will result from the operation of Susquehanna 1 and 2 and should deqy'n operating license to the Applicant, These Petitioners wish and intend to conduct afu13. case of cross-exanlination of Applicant and Staff and any other witnesses, as well as to present witnesses of their own in support of these contentions~

in order to assist this Board in reaching a just deterndnation of the matter at issue Because of prior participation in numerous AEC and NRC J

administrative proceedings, however, ECNP~ a non-profit public-interest organization, is heavil7 burdened with debts for these earlier legal cases~ may'f which have contributed substanti~ to the betterment of federal regulation of nuclear power reactors, as a reading of the records wQ.1 reveal, Petitioners therefore, with this filing> renew their prior requests for financial assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory'gency'n order to maximize the agency's benefit,. from our contribution t

to this proceeding. We ask that~ as an immediate and first step in financial relief~ the Conmd.ssion undertake hereafter the reproduction and mailing to other parties on the lengthy service list of subsequent filings by ECNP in this case.

R espectfu3Zy subnd.tted, Judith H, Johnsrud Dated Jauuazy /5 >e7q Co-Director and Representative~ ZCNP 433 Orlando Ave,~ State Co%.ege~ Pa,

U.S. NVCi. ~w P."..:"~.A=.Q(~V COW'.PAISSIQN DG V".l:?!G " S";2'/IC'": SSCTIGN Posting bl.'.

Capi ~ Re;~ivr.".

Add'I C-SpQclc) ~i: f. '.'y '-

~ ~

'c

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Amendments to the Petition= for

-Leave to Intervene Filed, b the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear

~Pc-er dn Dcchet Ncs. 50-387 end 50-388~ hsve 'been served cn the following, by deposit in the UeS~ Kd3.~ first class~ postage paid~

this ~ day of Januaxy~ 1979 ~

~

rect.a'~~X J vs

~'4~M+rd~

~ Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director and Representative, hCNP I

Secretary of the Commission . Docketing and Service Section U.Se Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington~ D,C, 20555 U S. Nuclear Regulatory'ommission Washington~ D. Ce 20555, Charles Bechhoefer,'squire Chairman~ ASLB Panel Jay Silberg~ Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regu1atory Commission Shaw~ Pittman, Potts~ and Trowbridge Washington~ D, C, 20555 1800 M Street NW Washington, D,C, 20036 Mr, Glenn 0, Bright ASLB Panel Gerald Schultz, r'squire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Susquehanna "Nvironmental Advocates Washington, D,C. 20555 500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre~ Pa. 1870m Dr. Uscar H. Paris ASLB Pane1 Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz~ Chairperson U S+ Nuclear Regulatoxy Commission Citizens Against Huclear Danger Washington, D. C. 20555 P.O. Box 377 R.De 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Berwick, Pa. 18603 Board Panel U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Colleen lhrsh Washington~ D,C, 20555 558 A~ ReDe Nb Mountain Top~ Pa ~ 18707 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel I&. Thomas M. Geruslqr, Director U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bureau of Radiation Protection Washington, D, C, 20555 Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvard.a James M. Cutchin~ IV, Esquire P,O Box 2063 Office of the Rcecutive Legal Harrisburg~ Pa, 17120 Director U,S. Nuc1ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 pOCXDEO.

P5NRCg ~

JP,817 187S> 5