ML19269C681
| ML19269C681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000516, 05000517 |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1979 |
| From: | Like I SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902120072 | |
| Download: ML19269C681 (11) | |
Text
'
,7v bN w/
/ s ,.' -t f gi ' r.t a .,
f.sf vf
-~.
09 ,.
..e t L.
Q
'.lacq
~
-3
& c0,9 m
.- q w;
>N , A UNITED STATES OF AMEBIS.A,- -
x NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMI5'0 ION '-~
N d'
<...:~.-
). .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING A??EAL BOARD A n' ; < _ _
~-
In the Matter of ) o
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY and )
NE'd YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS ) Docket Nos. 50-516 CORPORATION ) 50-517
)
(Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
INTERVENOR SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE INITIAL DECISION Pursuant to 10 CFR, Section 2.762, Suffolk County (SC) hereby asserts the following exceptions to the Initial Decision (I.D.) dated December 26, 1978, and to prior rulings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in this matter."
A. Suffolk County Exceptions to the Board's Findines of Fact
- 1. Excepts to the failure of the Board to defer issuance of any decision in this pr^ceeding (see, Partial Initial Decision, dated May 9, 1978) without
- All exceptions taken to the Board's Findings of Fact (FF) shall be deened to except to 2.11 matters stated or implied in such. Findi1gs of Fact. Suffolk County reaffirms and incorporates by reference into its Exceptions its previously served ?roposed Findings of Fact and Conclusionc of Law (July 30, 1977), Ex-ceptions to the Partial Initial Decision, (May, 26, 1978), Brief in Support of Exceptions (July 10, 1978) and Proposed Supplementary Findings of Fact cnd Conclusions of Law (September 26, 1978).
79021200TF
first completing an evaluation of the project's costs and bene fit s (I.D., I. p. 2).
- 2. Excepts to I.D., IIA, paras. 3-7, inso-far as said findings are relied upon as support for the Board's ultimate conclusions regarding the., comparative health effects of the coal and nuclear fuel cycles (See, I.D., III, para. 38), and its weighing of the projects costs and benefits. (See, I.D., IV, paras, 43-44). The Board erred in assigning decisive probative weight to Staff's and Applican'ts' estimates of the heal *,h effects of the nuclear and coal fuel cycles and as a consequence thereof made an erroneous cost / benefit analysis.
3 Excepts to I.D., IIA, para 8(1)-(6) where-in the Board excludes the maj ority of the testimony pre-sented in S.C. Ex. 52. The Board erred in holding that said testimony either is not relevant to a comparison of nuclear and coal fuel cycle health effects, or, alter-natively, challenges regulations in a manner prohibited by 10 CFR 92.758.
- 4. Excepts to I.D., IIA, para. 8(2),(3),(4) and (5) wherein the Board admits limited portions of testimony from S.C. Ex. 52. The Beard erred in failing to assign decisive probative weight to this testimony in its evaluation of the ccmparative health effects of the nuclear and coal fuel cycles (See, I.D., IIB, paras. 9-44).
5 Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 11, wherein the Board impliedly adopts Staff's testimony that the Radon-222 source term is of overriding importance'in quantifying the radiological impact of the uranium fuel cycle. The Board erred in failing to consider and eval-uate testimony presented by the County demonstrating that other long-lived radionuclides, and releases of radiation during all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle but particu-larly these emitted du.?ing the post-power generation phase, will produce large scale health impacts and that such im-pacts were not assessed by Staff or Applicants.
- 6. Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 15, insofar as said finding is relied upon by the Board in arriving at a value for radon emission rates from open pit mines.
It das error for the Board to accept this value, and to integrate it into its cost / benefit analysis, when there is a clear absence of data with which to make a reliable prediction of such release rates.
7 Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 17, insofar as said finding is relied upon as support for the Board's conclusicn that open pi mines will be reclaimed and secured by the States. It was error for the Scard to reach.this conclusion in the abr]nce of clear supporting evidence in the record.
- 8. Excepts to I.D., TIB, paras. 19 and 20, since it was error for the Board to conclude that the mill tailings piles will be covered with sufficient overburden to reduce radon releases to about twice natural background in the surrounding environment, and, in reliance thereon, to adopt the release estimates made by Staff. The record evidence does not support the Board's findings on these issues.
9 Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 21 wherein the Board implicitly adopts Staff's conclusion that radon release rates and the health effects resulting therefrom cannot be estimated over the lifetime of the radionuclide.
The Board committed error by failing to adopt expert testi-mony presented by the County which demonstrated that such releases and the resultant health effects can and should be integrated out over the lifetime of the radionuclide.
The County also excepts to the Board's finding on the grounds that the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC, 554321, et seo., requires such a calculation.
- 10. Excepts to I.D., IIB, paras. 22-23, in-sofar s said findings are relied as support for the Board's adoption of Staff's calculations of raden popula-tion doses and rejection of County witness Tamplin's 4-
calculations of such doses, and his use of the $1000 per man rem figure to arrive at a cost estimate for these doses (See, I.D., III, para. 41).
- 11. Excepts to I.D., LIB, paras. 24-36, to the extent that the Board relles upon its treatment of the evidence of various estimates of health effects re-sulting from radon releases associated with the operation of the Jamesport plants to adopt Staff's and Applicants' projections of resultant cancers and genetic effects, and to reject the estimates of County wit Tamplin (See, I.D., III, para. 42).
- 12. Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 30, insofar
~
as said finding is relied upon as support for the Board's adoption of Staff's estimates of health effects resulting from nuclear fuel cycle effluents other than radon, and its estimates of health effects attributable to the coal fuel cycle, and particularly those resulting from the transporta'c ion of coal.
13 Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 34, insofar as said finding is relied upon as support for the Bcard's conclusion that the :lancuso report does not require an upward revision of the BEIR Reporc's upper estimate for cancer induction resulting from low dese/lcw dose rate irradiation. The Board committed error by failing
-5_
s to credit Dr. Tamplin's testimony on this issue, and as a consequence thereof, made an inadequate cost / benefit analysis.
- 14. Excepts to I.D., IIB, para. 35, to the extent that the Board credits Applicants' , testimony as a valid approach to estimating and judging the magnitude of health effects resulting from Radon-222.
15 Excepts to I.D., III, para. 37, wherein the Board assigns decisive probative weight to Staff's assess-ment of coal fuel cycle health effects. This was error because Staff's witness was not expert in making a coal health assessment; he relied on data sources which were our, dated and of dubious scientific validity for purposes of assessing coal fuel cycle health impacts either gener-ically or on a site specific basis; and he made specula-tive and unsupportable projections of death and health effects for the mining, transportation, and construction phases of the coal fuel cycle.
- 16. Excepts to I.D., III, para. 38, wherein the Board assigns decisive probative weight to Staff's assessment of nuclear fuel cycle effluent releases other than radon and including Carbon-14 This was error be-cause the County presented evidence demonstrating that Staff's (and Applicant's) estimates of nuclear fuel effects were grossly understated, that they failed to take account of releases associated with all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, and failed also to consider releases caused by a Class 9 accident and resultant health effects.
17 Excepts to I.D., III, para.'39, wherein the Board concludes that Federal and State law and/or regulatory actions will require reclamation of all current and future open pit mines to a condition such that further .
radon releases will be eliminated. The Board's finding on this issue is speculative and is not supported by clear evidence in the record.
- 18. Excepts to I.D., III, para. 40, wherein the Board concludes that uranium mill tailings can and will be stabilized so as to limit long term radon releases to approximately one curie per AFR. The Board's finding on this issue is speculative and is not supported by clear 4
evidence in the record.
19 Excepts to I.D., III, para. 41, for reasons stated in Exception 10, sucra.
- 20. Excepts to I.D., III, paras. 42 and 43, wherein the Board adopts Staff's testimony that coal generation health effects will exceed those resulting from the nuclear T.cde, and rejects evidence presented by the County demonstrating that the health effects resulting from radon releases alone are such magnitude, or at minimum, are so substantially uncertain, that the casts of building the plants now far outweigh any asserted benefits. Particular exception is noted to the following s
erroneous findings of the Board as being not supported by substantial evidence in the record or against the clear weight of the evidence: (a) that important new scientific evidence does not support.the County's position that use of the BEIR risk estimators results in underestimates of health effects caused by low dose / low dose rate radiation (I.D., III, para. 42, pp. 35-36); (b) that the health effects of rcdon should not and need not be calculated over the lifetime of the radionuclide (I.D. III, para.
42, pp. 36-38, 40); and (c) that maintenance of a healthy socio-economic structure during the present period may be difficult and quite possibly impossible without the 4
electrical output of Jamesport (I.D.; III, para. 42, p. 37).
- 21. Excepts to I.D., IV, para. h3, wherein the Board reaffirms its previous conclusions that Jamesport is needed, that there are no viable alternatives to the plants and that a nuclear plant is more desirable than a coal-fired plant on the basis of economy and fuel availability. The bases for the County's exceptions to
_8_
these findings are set forth in its previously sub-mitted " Exceptions to the Partial Initial Decision" (Exc.
Mos. 29, 33, 34, 36) and its "Brief in support of Excep-tions" (pp. 6-41, 64-70).
- 22. Excepts to I.D., IV, paras. 43 and 44, wherein the Beard concludes that the benefits to be derived from the Jamesport plant outweigh all associated costs. This conclusion of the Board is in error because it is contrary to clear evidence in the record demonstra-ting that: (a) the plants are not needed; (b) no reasoned judgment can be made.as to whether nuclear or coal enjoys an economic advantage because of the substantial uncer-tainties surrounding such a comparison; and (c) no reasoned judgment can be made regarding the comparative health, safety and environmental effects of the nuclear and coal fuel cycles because of substantial controversy as to their magnitude and comparative security and because of Appli-4 cants' and Staff's inadequate analyses of same. In addition, the Board committed error by failing to receive and consider relevent evidence on nuclear fuel cycle health effects issues which led it to grossly under-estimate such effects. The Ecard's restrictive rulings thus farther skewed the accuracy of its cost / benefit analyses rendering it fatally defective under NEPA.
_9_
23 Excepts to I.D., V, para. 1, wherein the Board rejects proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties which are not incorporated directly or inferentially in the I.D. as being unsupported in law or as being unnecessary to the rendering of said decision. Specifically, and in addition t'o exceptions taken to the Board's exclusion of and failure to give adequate weight to relevant evidence presented by the County (See, Exceptions,suora), the County excepts to the Board's failure to address legal arguments demonstrating Applicants' and Staff's violations of various federal laws, and to reject the application on the basis of same. (See, eg.,
Brief in Support of Excentions, pp. 8-11, 28-32, 52-53, 64-70; Proposed Sucolementary Findings of Fact and Con-clusions of Law, paras. 49-52).
24 Excepts to I.D., V., para. 1 wherein the Bcard concludes that Applicants and Staff have complied ,
with relevant statutes and regulations and that a con-struction license should be issued. See, Excepticr Nos.
1-21, suora.
25 Excepts to the Board's failure to hold as matter 7f law that the Jamesport EIS is defective because it should have contained, and been subjected to agency and public cerment and review, the cost /bena r_.
analysis whi;h is the subject of this I.D.
- 26. Excepts to the Board's failure to require preparation and circulation of a Suppleme7tal EIS evalua-ting the comparisons of health ef fects related to the coal and nuclear fuel cycles and the ultimate cost / benefit issues.
Respec'"ully Submi* eed Dated: January 15,'1979 k ... .
Irvtag Like Spedial Counsel for the County of Suffolk