ML20010G110

Response to ASLB Request Re Positions on ALAB-640.Radon Emissions Determined by ALAB-640 Constitute Significant Addl Environ Impact.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20010G110
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/03/1981
From:	Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ALAB-640, ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8109150335
Download: ML20010G110 (3)

Text

'

y. gW' Y IQ Sepember 3, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMRluCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM E 4 0$ ,3 h

h

% t' (D g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. ENS RD h, cccrW D

(' w' # 6 i uW ,

In the Matter of: g ag @ 7 g SEP ggp --jj -

j HOUSTON LICHTING AND POWER '

l "

Docket No. 50-466 CP 01 g g th3SOM U I (Allens Creek Nuclear Gen- l g sc@28 ff erating Station, Unit 1) gach y

~ J INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S BRIEF TO THE LICENSING BOARD WITH REGARD TO ALAB-640 At Tr. 14,424, Judge Linenberge; of the ASLB for this proceeding requested

,,arties to present positions with regard to the findings of the Appeal Board's decision, ALAB-640,3 uiladelphia Electric Co., et al, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3, et al., May 13, 1981). Subsequent discussions in the record placed a written brief as the appropriate response form and a submittal date of Thursday, September 3, 1981. Below is Intervenot's position.

1. THAT THE RADON EMISSIONS DETERMINED BY ALAB-640, CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT f ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM THE ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION.

ALAB-640 has concluded that Radca 222 emissions attributable to the op-eration of a 1,000 MW(e) nuclear plant's fuel cycle at any time during or after the plant's useful life would be 7,000 Ci/ year (CCZ. Slip op. , Table 4, P. 30,585.34) .

Thus, for the ACNGS the emissions are 8,050 Ci/yr.

However,ALAB-640 leaves untouched the issue of health effects of Radon 222 regardless of quantity. The decision appears to state that just as the Inter-venors in the Peach Bottom decision appealed in ALAB-640 could not be bound by the d_e e minimus decision of the Perkins Board, the Allens Creek Intervenors can-not either. (CCH. Slip op., at 30,585.35)

In other words, Table"5-3" as found in the Allens Creek Final Environmental Statement Supplement #1, (Pg.S. 5-33) may be filled in and arguments concerning that quantity laid to rest, but the health effects are at issue.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, (83 Stat.852) agencies of the federal government are required to present detailed environmental 3 statements on major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the y human environment. Major federal actions requiring such statements have included f such modest activities as a loan by the Federal Housing Administratica for con-struction of a golf course and park, (Texas Commission on Natural Resources vs.

United States, (W.D. Texas) 2 ELR 20,574, vacated as moot, 430 F2d 1315, (5th Cir. ,

1970) and construction of an incinerator at the Walter Reed Medical Center Annex, (Montgomery County v. Richardson, 340 F2d 591, (D.C.D.C., 1972) 8109150335 810903 PDR ADOCK 05000466 m PDR

s.

ALAB-640 has indicated the impact from the uranium fuel cycle on the envir-onment is 6,925 Ci/yr more than 75 Ci/yf as stated in the Allens Creek Final Environmental Statement (Pg. 5-20, Table 50-15) of November 1974. Therefore, because the increase in radioactive emissions from Radon 222 is greater than

originally discerned, and the Allens Creek plant is a significant federal action on the environment, a draft environmental impact statement supplement devoted to the effects of Radon 222 on human health is the proper requirement of j the Board in this proceeding at this time.'This is not to say that any small

, change 4.n a significant project requires such a statement, but rather that i

the change in Radon 222 emissions, were it the only environmental impact, would be sufficient alone for such a requirement, being greater than the impacts in Texas Commission on Natural Resources (supra) and Montgomery County (supra).

II. WHERE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AS HERE, THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE R" QUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT.

In 10 CFR 51.23, that rule specifically states (51.23(a),)"The draf t environmental impact statement will include the matters specified in Sec.

51.20(a), (e), and (g) and Sec. 51.21 as appropriate." This is important because Sec. 51.20(e) sets the Table S-? vaJues to be used, and one of these is the Fuel Cycle Radon 222 emissions. And, Sec. 51.23(a) presupposes through Sec. 51.23(b) perusal by federal, state, and local agencies as well as interested persone of the draf t environmental statement. Themajor intent of Sec. 51.23(b) is

< to bring agency expertise to bear on the conten ts of the statement, even as in this case where the statement is an aspect of a project instead of an entire proj ect .

Finally, 10 CFR 51.23(a) also presupposes its own Sec. 51.23(c) which requires t a cost-benefit analysis. Here, where an arguably strong impact has been added (namely 6,925 Ci/yr of Radon 222 as c gas to the environment, normalized by this Intervenor to 8,050 Ci/yr) the cost-benfit analysis of the project must be updated under Sec. 51.23(c) of 10 CFR.

On publicaton of the Draft Supplement, the Board in this proceeding could l probably request Intervenors to file contententions on the Staff's conclusions on the Applicant's submittals with regard to the health effects of fuel cycle emission of Radon 222 to the environment, through a Federal Register notice.

Also, it would appear the Board would be required to entertain contentions from

- the public responding to that Federal Register notice on the environmental impacts of the Fuel Cycle Radon 222 as they related to health effects.

i

, i' t*

• 1 .

I III. CONCLUSION t

Despite. obvious inconvenience to Applicant and Staff, this Intervenor I

believes its obligation here has been to inform the Board as to what he believes ALAB-640 requires at thi.s moment of those seeking construction permits for energy production facilities, and has so stated.

}

Respectfully

'1

[hhnF.Doherty CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of "INTERVENOR DOHERTY' S BRIEF TO Tile LICENSING BOARD WITH REGARD TO ALAB-640" were served on the parties below this 3od - of Sep-tember, 1981, via First Class U. S. Postal Service, from Houston, Texas.

l Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Gustave A. Linenberger, Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, j Administrative Judges, i

Counsels for Applicant: J. Gregory Copeland, Esq., Robert Culp, Esq.

! Counsels for Staff: Steven Schinki, Esq., Lee J. Dewey, Esq.

Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board The Several Intervening Parties Docketing & Service Branch, N. R. C.

l t

l l

1

_