ML18026A299
| ML18026A299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1980 |
| From: | MANN D, SADE T SUSQUEHANNA ALLIANCE, LEWISBURG, PA |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006170503 | |
| Download: ML18026A299 (49) | |
Text
Susquehanna AllianceP0Box249Lewisburg, Pa17837June10,1980USNuclearRegulatory Commission rFashington, D.C.20555Mt:Director, DivisionofSiteSafety&Environmental Analysis
DearSm/Madam,
Neareenclosing severaldocuments whichwehopewiLLbeofhelpinimproving thequalityoftheDraftEnvt"onmental Statement anditsSupplement whichhavebeenozeparedinrelat'ontotheplannedoperation oftheSusquehanna SteamElect"icStationUnitsL&2(DocketNo's50-387and50-388).OnMay26werequested andweregranteda15dayextension oftimeinwhichtosubmit.thesecommentsbyMrSinghBajwa,the%CEnvtzonmental ProjectManagerfortheproject.Thedocuments enclosedinclude1)asunanazyofthereasonswefeeltheDraftsupplmsent totheDraftmvtronmental impactstatement vithega.rdtothapondHillYR~e'ristnadeguate andincomplete; 2)commentsonthaDraftStatmsant itselftosupplement ourcommentssubmitted onAugust17whichreinforce ourbel'efthatasanEnvironmental ImpactStatement thisdocumentisinadequate andincomplete, and3)acopyofarecentPP&Lnewsreleasewhichbolstersourcontention thataninadequate assessment oztheneedforthepLanthasbeendone.Nehopethatthesecommentswillbeofvaluetothestaffincontinuing thecrocessoddullyanddiligently evaluating the.uii~aneodimpactsoftheproposedoperation oftheSusquehanna SteamElectricStation.Ttisouropinionthatinordertoadecuately addesstheazeasofconcernraisedbyusandothercommenters, extensivrevisions tothedzaftmustbemade.Znthiscontextwerequestthatasecondd"aft,be'ssuedandbemadeavailable forfurtherpubliccommentbeforethefinalEZSisadopted.PleaseletusResowifthisrequestwiLLbehonored.Sincezely, fortheSuscuehanna Alliance COMMENTSONDRAFTSUPPLEMZÃ2 TODRAFTEISFORTHESUSQUZ2RNNA ST~~CTRICSTATIONl)Oneoftheconclusions drawnbytheStaffofthe%AC'sofficeofNuclearReactorRegulation andofparamount concerntoresidents ofthevicinityisthatconstruction ofthe"PondHill"waterstorageeservoiwillhaveasignificantly negativeimpactonwaterquality.Znparticular, thesupplement statesthatnutrientlevels,specifically phosphorous, "willconsiderably exceed"thecriteriaestablished hytheEnvironmental iProtection Aqencyfornutrientlevelsandthus"Neaatential thateutzophic conditions willoccuzinthepondHillreservoir isrelatively high".Missingframthestatement
'sapolutionabatement ormitigatanplanbytheapplicant.
Untilsuchaplanisincluded, thisdaftsupplement isincomplete.
2)Thesafetyanalysisoftheprojectisclearlyinsufficient, especially giventheunpredictable natureoftheSusquehanna Riveranditstributaries, andthefactthatseverefloodinghasoccuredintheegiontwicewithinthelasteightyearsasaresultofext"aordinarily heavyrainsfromt"opicalstormsAgnes(L972)andEloise(l975)inunprecedented concentrations.
Themaximumflooddangerandimpactsofovertapping the~idamhavenotbeenadequately
- assessed, arathezglaringammission inlightoftheNRC'smandatetoarotectthehealthandsafetyofthepublic.Specifically, thestaffnotedinsect'on4.4.2.3that:Zf<<thedamweretoheovertopped thestaffbelieves<<thatthedamcouldfail.TheloadingthatwouldresultfromfailureofthedamwouldpzoducerapidlyrisingwatereLevations downstream ofthedamsite.Theaotential existstotaaanddrownaersonsandwildlifeinthedownstearnfloodlaindurinsuchflo~d~cl(emphasis added).Thepotential forhearntopattensusingRoute239andtherailroadduringsuchfloodingalsoexists.TheissueofsafetyshouldhesettLedon<<theconservative side,withthemaxi@nunbenefittoandozotection ofthepublictheoveidingconsideration.
Thesehazardsazenotacceptable andaplantomit'gatethesedangersshouldheincluded.
3)Thereportdaesnotadequately addresstheconsideration ofalternatives tatheconst=action ofthePondHillReservoir.
TheuseoftheAnyCorpofEnqineers Cowanesque Reservoir nowunderconstwction inPennsylvania hasnotbeenullyexplored, espec'ally inLightoftheaaplicant's ownadmission thatthecostsofthisalternative overa30yearper'adwouldbe$12million"(ascomparedwiththe$48-50millioncastofPandHill,$63mil'ionifaropertytaxesareteatedasanadditional projectcost).InfacttheStafhasconcluded that:Thebesteconomicalternative wouldageartobetheuse-an-existina-zeservoir-alternative (emphasis added).Basedontheinformation available, Cowanesque appearstobethemosteconomicamongallalteznat've reservoizs, givenhatconcerned authorities granttheuseofwaterforf'owaugmentat'an.
TheBaltimore Dist=ictCarpsofEngineers iscurrently studyingthefeasibility afmadiyingtheexistingprojecttoincludewatersupplystorageasaprojectpurposeinadditontofloodcontolandrecreation.
ZtiseltthatAxismodification wouldincreasetheeconomicefficiency of<<theCowanesque LakePoject.Preliminary findingsindicatethat"Mscouldbedonewithoutaffecting thefloodcontrolcapabilities, thatsubstantiaL releasescouldbeazovided'ntotheSusquehanna Riverduringlawstreamflowperiodsandthesereleaseswouldgenerally improvetheriverineenvionmentduringnaturaLLy Lowsteamflowperiods.Ratherthanexpendover$63milliononwhatmaybecomeaput=id,stinkinglakeatPondHill,"heutili"yand"Nepublicwouldbebetterservedhytheapplicant's agqzessive.investigation oftheesourcesrequiredtoeffectuate SUPP'~CCMHEHTSCONTXNUED thenecessary approvalfoztheiruseoftheCowanescgxe pro)ect.Znadditiontothefoxegoing citicismregarding alternatives toDeproposedIQpro)ect,theapplicant andstaffhavenotfairlytreatedthe"NoAction"oz"RiverFollowing" alternative, wherebySSESwouldmerelyshutdownduringtimesoflowflowintheSusquehanna River.Basedonanaverageannualoccurence ofLowflowof4days(aroughly904pxobability according totableSs3)"thecostofPondHiLLReservoir alternative wealdbeveryclasstatbereplaaeseat castadelsctrlalty cadettberivex'ollowing alternative".
Given<<theexcesscapacityfiguresofboththeapplicant andthePJMinterconnection, thestaffconcluded that"PPQcouldprovidereliablesezvicetoitscustomers evenduringashortintervalofshutdownofSSES".TheattachedpressreleasefzomPPQ.providessupportforthisstatement.
4)ThefinaLareaofcommentinregardtothispro5ectconcernstheimpactofthepro)cotontheculturalresources ofthearea.AlthoughtheappLicant iscommitted tocdoutanarcheological survey"andcertainpreventative measuresiresources arediscovezed, theapplicant.
doesnotspecifyinsufficient detailwhatthosemeasureswillbeandwhat,ifany,actionwillbe<<Men(including haltingconstruction) ifsubstantiaL resources areinfactdiscovered.
Thissuxveyshouldbeperformed beforeanEZSispreparedandtheresul<<tsincluded.
Theapplicant hasillust"ated inthecons~motion undertaken attherecreation azeaneartheplantthatithasnoregardforcuLtuzalesources.
Arepeatofthisperformance mustnotbeallowed.
1h~1 ADDZTXONhL COMMENTSONDRAPEKVTERONMENTAL STATEMENT FORSSESQl$g((-1)Thereportdoesnotadecpxately addressthecont'nuing andevenescalating contx'ovezsy regarding thehealtheffectsofcontinued exposuretolowlevelradiation.
Znaddition,"
nomentionisgiventowhathasbeendubbedthe"Heidelberg Report"whichhasalsobeent"anslated andprintedbytheNRCas"Radioecological Assessment oftMWhylNucleazPowerPlant".lnstudyingexistingdataonthetansferactorstoplantLife(andultimately humantissue)ofcertainradioactive isotopesemanating fromoperating nuclearpowex'eactors, thaauthorsofthereportconc3.uded thattheNRC'sjudgments onhowmuchplutonium, cesium,st"ontium, etcwaspickedupfromthasoilwere"between10and1,000timestolow".Evenmoraout"ageous thantheerrorfactorcalculated bytheWGermanscientists istheircontention thattheoLdAECinanattempttomoLLifyciticsofearliernucLearpolicy,deliberately riggedtheexperiments tominixdzethehightransferfactorsinherentintheisotopes.
Thestepsinc3.ude, butwezanotLated.toea.pze-testing andselection ofsoi3.ssoastochoosethosewhichabsorbedtheminimumamountoftheisotopeb.addingradiotoxic substances tothesoilshort3ybeforehazvestingg therebyavoidingrealistic conditions, whereplantswouldgrowfromseedsinthecontaminated soilc.cookingthesoilinovenstoreducethehactexiological efectuponthaisotopeandthusassuxelowerreadingsTheHeidelberg ReportisthefirsttimetMtindependent scientists haveexaminedtheVRC'ssafetyassurances aboutroutineemmissions fromoperating plants.Although, inallairness,itshouldbenotedthatthereportmayhavecomeintotheNRC'shandsafteroronlyshort3.ybeforethereleaseoftheDraftEnvironmental Statement forSSES,itsconclusions wa=antathoroughreviewoftheissuesraised,notonlybythaKC,butenvionmentbeforeitcanheconsidered complete.
2)Itisinteresting tonotethatintheDraftSupplement totheDraxtEZS,theapplicant orcmisesthatitis"committed tocarryoutanaxchaeological survey"andtotakewhateverpreventative measuresarenecessary toprotectculturalresources.
The'ronyinherentinthatpositionisthatnosuchsurveywasundertaken orevenalludedtofortheor'ginalprojectitself,onethatinvolvesconsiderable moraexpense,area,andintensity ofconstzuction thanthePondHillReservoi.Inaddition, partoftheplant'ssecondary construe<<d.on involvesestablishment ofarecreation areaontheLow-Tying flat3.ands adjacenttotheSuscg:ehanna River,similarareasofwhichhaveproventohearcheoLogical motherlodes ofinformation onandrelicsofpre-ex'ting indigenous popuLations.
Astheapplicant itselfnotesinAppendix8totheDraftSupplement
...Suchassessments (inventories ofhistoricorarcheological resources whichmayheimpactedbytheproposedconstactionazetohemadeoursuantto36~800,Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservation Actof1966asamended(16USC470).hyExecutive Ordex11593,May13,1971,"Protection and~ancement oftheCultuzalEnvironment",
andbythePresident's Memorandum onEnvironmental QualityandWaterResources Management, July12,'78.TheappLicant shouldhezecpxized toconduct,suchaninventory incompliance withthe lf CGMKWZSQNDRAFTEISCQNTZHUEO ofarenewedanthxacite industryontheregion.InananalysispreparedrecentlyxotheSusquehanna Allianceentitled"Economi.,,
Social,andEnvi"onmental ImpactsofRenewe)MiningintheAntMacite Region",itwasfoundthatarevitalization ofthis'ndus+,especiaLly oneemploying newopen-pitminingtechnolcgies, couldremoveal3.econocallyext"actable coalandxestorepxesently unusableareastoproductive landuses,rovewatercualitybeyond~Joerequirements ofthePennsylvania CleanStreamsLaw,create1500newjobsinminingandrelatedindusties,andstemtheoutmigzation ofyoungpeoplezomthearea.Allofthiscouldbeaccomplished intheprocessofproducing afuelcost-competive (basedonBTUequivalents) withthosecurrently inuse.AgainwestateourbelieftMttheoperation ofSSESwillprecludetheneedforsuchanindustryandthelossofthesebenefitsshouldbeindludedinthecost-benefit analysis.
above-cited Legislation, regulations, andexecutive pronouncements, beforeconstmction continues andanopera~~glicenseisgranted.Inadditionaplanormitigating thedamageonebyconst~ction shouldbeimplemented.
3)TheStaffandapp3icant's cost-benefit analysisdonotadequately reflecttheimpactr4)Aswithallothex'nvi"onmental ImpactStatements relatingtotheconstzuct'on of.nuc3.earpowerplants,theStaffandtheutilityconcerned havedismissed outofhandthepossiblity ofaserious,orClassIXaccidentandthehealtheffectsofsuchacatastrophe onDeLocalpopulation.
Althoughth'somissionwillbeaddressed shortlyasuaanazyofthePresident's CouncilonEnvironmental Quality's genericcriticisms of,theentireEZSprocess,itisespecialLy glaringbothinLightoftherecenteventsatT.'GandSSES'sproximity tothatcxippledreactor,whexeintheStaff'sownestimation (madeinconjunction withaproceeding dealingwiththeSalemplant)aClassZXaccidentdidoccur.Athorougheviewofthepossibilities ofsuchanoccurrence atSSESshouldbemade<utissite-specific notonlytothenatureof"".etechnology employedbyDeapplicant intheconstwction oftheplantandcertaingeographic andgeologicfeaturebutwhichalsot."aroughly reviews,analyxes, andassessestheprobabi3.'ty ofsuccessofaLaxge-scale evacuation ofarearesidents shouldsuchameasurebenecessitated byex"aozdinazy eventsatthesite.ZftheNRC'stoevenbegintoestozepublicconfidence initsabilitytosafelyregulatethenuclearindust~,theattitudethat"itcan'thappenhere"mustnolongerbestandardoperating proceduze.
5)Inax'ecentlettertoJohnAhearne,ChairmanoftheNRC,GusSpethofthePresident's CouncilonEnvizonmentaL QualityoutLinedsevera3.genericdeficiencies, whichhecharacterised as"disturbing intheNRCImpactStatement Processofnuclearpowereacors.ThemostdamningofCQ'scxiticisms wasthatthe,discussion ofpotential accidents andtheirenvironmental impactsinthese~<actstatements was"perfunctory, remarkably standardized, anduninformative tothepublic".Spethfoundthatdespitewidevariations inthesi"e,locat'on, anddesignofnucLearpowerplantsthathavebeen(.licensed bytheSEC,"viN:nally everyEyacnntainsessentially identiaal "beilesylate"
'anguagewritteninanunvarying format".Theailuretoconsidertheworstcase,ox'lassZXaccidentisexemplified intheStatement preparedfortheLicensing ofTNZUnitsI5IZ,wherenoconsideration isgiventotheC3.assZXscenar'o.
hisomissionloomsquitelargeinviewoftheStaff'sownviewthatsuchanacc'dentdidoccuronNarch28,3.979.SpethalsourgestheCommission to"broadenitsangeofvariables (e.g.rad'at'on pathways) indetermining accident's impacts,andexpand'tsdiscussions inEZS'softhe CCK2KNTSQNOBAPTEISCONTINUED impactsofnuclearaccidents onhumanhealth,thenaturalenvironment, andLocaleconomies".
Onceagain,t&scriticism seemstostemfromthebeliefthatEZS'sascurrently preparedaresimplygeneralzegurgitations ofpre-existing dataandpositions thatbearLimitedifanyrelevance toparticular anduniquesite-specific information.
Theinability totanslatethisinformation innon-technical termseasilycomprehensible tothegeneralpublicalsomeetswithCQ'sdisapproval.
"-inally, Soethsuggeststhatthe%Cvigorously pursuethegoaloffulfilling totheu'costextenttherequirements oftheNationalEnvionmentalProtection Actandthe"Legi~tepublicinterestinfulldisclosure ofnuclearplanthazards"(emphasis added)intheobviousbeliefthatsuchdisclosure hasnotbeenatoppriorityoftheNRC'sagendainpzeparing Environmental ImpactStatements fortheoperation ofnuclearpowezplants.Webelieveitisthe'responsibility oftheNRCtobringtheEZS'stheypzeparewit~theguidelines setbyCEQ.Untilthisisdonefcrthed"aftEISinquestionhere,itemafnswhollyinadequate andincomnlete.
V091979FRO!t:f\iVIEHORAffDUli FOR:.DonaldE.Sells,ActingChiefEnvironmental ProjectsBranch2,DSE//I'ho-asD.Yiurphy,Chic'f=,'adiological Assessnent Branch,DSEs
SUBJECT:
'.RESPO"!SE TOCOlf~IE!fTS Of'/DINFTEfl'JIROÃi~iEHTAL
.STATEt",E;"T OrfSUSgUEHAf,tfA U.'fITS1R."fo2~'r'Inresponsetoyourmemorandum datedSeptember 20,1979,enclosedareourresponses tocor.".-,ents ontheDraftEnvironmental Statement
'QES)onSusquehanna Ug~and2(IIUREG-0564);
Severalchangesareneeded,intheradiological sectionsoftheFinalEnvironmental Statement becauseofachangeinsourceterms.ChangestoSections4.5and5.3ofthe.DESwillbosenttoyou.afterwereceivenewsourcetermsfromETSB.*ThomasD.fiurphy,ChiefRadiological Assessment BranchDivisionofSiteSafetyandEnvironmental
- Analysis, ERR./I!ote:Stoneourresponsetocorn.;est(i5-I Isalsodependent onthe~newsourceterm,itwillbesent'fith ourmarked-up copyofSections4.5and5.3oftheDE."\
Enclosure:
asstatedcc:0.ffullerH.KregerF<.Congel~~BIanagan'...'<:/4)/g-jDISTRIBUlIONDocketFileNRRReadingRABReadingT.HurphyOCPICCWISSSASSC
~OATC+..HBB.:.NK....
Branagan.:p 10/31/79RRS,O55...;.f
..FCoo,ga J........
II/Q/79~~~~~\~...R..:.NK.r.phd........
/r/~7ri"""~~~~~~~~~~~~t'~~~~~~~~~
RESPONSETOCOHHENTSONDRAFTENVIRONMENTAL STATEHENT ON'US(UEHANNA UNITS1AND2Comment85-4,H.L.HersheyIstronglydisapprove
'theissuanceofanylicensetooperatetheSusquehanna plantuntilyouhave:...canbesurethroughindependent studiesthattheeffectsoflowlevelradiation emittedfromtheplantoverthe30to40yearlifespanwillnotharmthepublic.ResponseSeeresponsetocomment85-1.Comment88-2,T.A.Drazdowski SierraClubApreliminary reviewfindsthereportflawedandincomplete inthefollowing:
...2.Discussion ofthehealtheffectsofradiation andradioactive wastedisposaldonotnotethepresentcontroversy amongscientists concerning risks,safedosage,andwastedisposaltechniques.
ResponseTherisksfromwastedisposalareaddressed inSection4.5.5"UraniumFuelCycle"ofNUREG-0564.
Seeresponsetocomment85-1foradditional information onpotential healtheffectsassociated witheffluents fromSusquehanna Units1and2.Comment$9-1EPA)v'erequesttheNRCtoexplainthechangeswhichallowedafivetosevenfoldincreaseinprojected gaseousiodinereleases(foundbycomparison oftheStatements of1973and1979)andtoexplainwhytheincreases didnotresultinanysubstantial changeintheassociated dosestoachild'sthyroid.(Fordetails,seetheDraftStatement, page4-16versuspageG-56,and4-18versusG-75,77.)Insupportofthisrequest,itmaybenotedthatour1973commentsonprojected gaseousiodinereleasesandassociated dosesweresharplycritical, andwerecommended theuseofengineered iodinecontrolsystemsandotherdesignmodifications toreduceiodinereleasesuchthattheoffsitedosetoachild'sthyroiddidnotexceed5milliremperyear.Ourcommentsarereproduced intheDraftStatement, pagesG-151,152.
Comment89-1,EPA-cont'dThe1973responsetothosecomments, shownonpageG-123,item11.13,stipulated useofdesignmodifications, andreferenced arevisedradiological impactasdescribed onpageG-77,section5.4.1.Eventhoughsection5.4.1notedtheexistence ofuncertainties inthecal-culational model,andthedoseimpacthasnowbeenrecalculated usingnewsource-term calculations, perpage4-1,buttheStatement.
doesnotcontainanyspecificdiscussion oflessenedimpactperunitofiodinerelease.Thisdiscussion oflessenedimpactperunitofiodinereleasemustbeincorporated intheFinalEnvironmental ImpactStatement.
ResponseThemodelsusedinestimating dosesintheenvironmentaI statement fortheoperating licensearestate-of-the-art models.Thesourceterm,meteorological dosimetry modelshavebeenimprovedsincetheissuanceoftheconstruction permit.ThesemodelshavebeenreviewedbytheU.S.Environmental Protection Agencyinregardstoimplementing theUraniumFuelCycleStandard(40CFR190).Thedosescalculated bythesemodelsarethoughttobeconservative (i.e.,themodelsprobablyoverestimate actualdoses).Commentf9-3,EPAHeareencouraged thattheNRCisnowcalculating annualpopulation dosecommitments totheU.S.population, whichisapartialevaluation ofthetotalpotential environmental dosecommitments (EDC)ofH-3,Kr-85,C-14:iodinesand"particulates."
Thisisabigsteptowardevaluating theEDC,whichwehaveurgedforseveralyears.However,itshouldberecognized thatseveraloftheseradionuclides (parti-cularlyC-14andKr-85)willcontribute tolong-term population doseimpactsonaworld-wide basis,ratherthanjustintheU.S.Totheextentthatthisdraftstatement (1)haslimitedtheEDCtotheannualdischarge oftheseradionuclides, (2)isbasedontheassumption ofapopulation ofconstantsize,and(3)assessesthedosesduring50yearsonlyfollowing eachrelease,itdoesnotfullyprovidethetotalenvironmental impact.Assessment ofthetotalimpactwould(1)incor-porate...by estimating thehealthimpactforaperiodreflecting multi-generation times.
Response-Comment89-3,EPAThestaffdoesnotbelievethatpresently available worldwide dosemodelsarecapableofmakingsuchprojections withmeaningful results.Thestaffhasdetermined thatpresentmodelsfortheU.S.sufficiently represent thepopulation exposureduetooperation ofthisplant.Environmental impactsfromuraniumminingandmillingareaddressed inSection4.5.5,"UraniumFuelCycleImpacts",
ofNUREG-0564.
Commentf9-7,EPATheassessment ofthedirectradiation fromthenitrogen-16 isnotdiscussed insufficient detailtoallowmeaningful interpretation (seepages4-16to4-21).Forexample,itisstatedthattheapplicant calculated adirectradiation doseof2.7mrem/year perunitat0.55kmsouthoftheplant...therefore shouldbemorefullydiscussed inthefinalEIS.ResponseThecalculated valueforthedirectradiation dose(20mrem/yratatypicalsiteboundaryof0.6kmfromtheturbinehuilding) giveningiVEtheBraunSafetyAnalysisReportisforastandardimplantdesign.Thedirectradiation doseof2.7mrad/yrinNUREG-0564 isanestimated doseforthespecificdesignincorporated intheSusquehanna plant.Sincethedirectradiation doseisdependent ontheshielding incor-poratedinthespecificplantdesigntheabovevaluesarenotdirectlycomparable.
Nonetheless, sincetheactualdirectradiation dosecouldbehigher(orlower)than2.7mrad/yrasurveywi11berequiredatthetimeofplantoperations.
Ifthesurveyindicates thatthelimitsof40CFR190couldbeexceededthenstepswillbetakentoreducethedose.
Comment89-8,EPAThehealthriskconversion factorslistedonpage4-27appearlowandareinconsistent withthefactorsusedintheGenericEISonUraniumMilling(NUREG-0511).
Thesevaluesshouldbemadeconsistent withthoseusedinNUREG-0511.
~ResonseThebasisfortheriskestimators onp.4-27ofNUREG-0564 ismorefullydescribed inCh.4,Section3,Appendix8,"HealthRisksfromIrradiation",
oftheFinalEnvironmental Statement ontheUseofRecyclePlutonium inMixedOxideFuelinLightplaterCooledReactors"(NUREG-0002).
AsstatedinNUREG-0002, Thoughtheseriskestimates aretheupperboundestimates givenintheRasmussen Report,higherestimates canbedeveloped byuseofthe"relative risk"modelalongwiththeassumption thatriskpervailsforthedurationof'life.Thiswouldproducerjarvaluesuptosevenfold greaterthanthoseusedinGESNO."Consequently, theriskestimators inNUREG-0511 areconsistent withthoseusedinNUREG-0002.
Comment<10-4,D.Mann,Susquehanna AllianceThereportdoesnotfairlyrepresent thegrowingcontroversy overtheeffectsoflowlevelradiation.
Timeaftertime...federal standards belowered.~Resonseliearenotawareofanystudiesthathaveestablished thatthereisnosafelevelofradiation.
However,asaconservative andprudent;jdT.rkde~assumption,~assume/that noamountofradiation issafe.Formore~~~
'F 5ResponsetoComment810-4-cont'dthanfourdecades,radiation hasbeenthemostthoroughly studiedcarcinogen.
Numerousmajorbiological researchprogramshavebeenwelldocumented andmaybefoundintheopenliterature.
WhiletheUnitedStateshasbeentheforerunner inradiation
- research, manyothercountries alsohavepursuedsimilarprogramsandhavecontributed substantially totheknowledge.
Whiletherelationship betweenionizingradiation doseandbio1ogical effectsamonghumansisnot~recise1knownforalllevelsofradiation, theprincipal uncertainty existsatverylowdoselevelswherenaturalsoucesofradiation (cosmicandterrestrial) andthevariations inthesesourcesarecomparable tothedosesbeingevaluated.
Themostimportant biological effectsfromradiation aresomaticdiseases(principally cancer)andhereditary diseases.
Bothoftheseareidentical tothosewhichoccurnormallyamonghumansfromothercauses.Itisthislastpointincombination withotherconfounding factors,e.g.,magnitude andvariations (1)innormalincidence ofdiseases, (2)indosesfromnaturalradiation sources,(3)inradiation dosesfromman-madesourcesotherthanthenuclearindustry, and(4)inexposures toother(non-nuclear) carcinogens, whichisresponsible formuchoftheuncertainty inthedose-risk relationship atlowdoselevels.Datafromstudiesofanimalsandhumans,arereviewedcontinuously byteamsofscientific expertswhichevaluateradiological information andproviderecommendations.
IntheUnitedStates,theprincipal expertise inradiological matterslieswiththeNationalCouncilonRadiological Protection (NCRP)andtheNationalAcademyofScience/NationalResearchCouncil(HAS/NRC).
Federalagenciesalsoretaint,s~~~
'4IIt4' ResonsetoComment~$10-4-cont'dexpertise intheradiologic disciplines inordertofulfilltheirresponsibilities, however,theseagenciesrelyheavilyonrecommendations oftheseadvisoryorganizations.
Othercountries havenationaladvisoryorganizations similartothoseoftheUnitedStates.Further,therearecooperative international organizations whichevaluatedatafromallsourcesandpresentrecommendations andconclusions, forexample,theUnitedNationsScientific Committee ontheEffectsofAtomicRadiation (UNSCEAR) andtheInternational Commission onRadiological Protection (ICRP).Insummary,notonlyhavetheradiological databeenascertained bytheworld'soutstanding biologists andepidemiologists, butthedatahavebeenevaluated independently bytheir.peers.Inlieuofpreciseknowledge ofthisrelationship, alinearnon-threshold extrapolation fromhighradiation levelstothelowerlevelsisassumedforradiation protection purposes.
Thismeansthatitisassumedthatanydoseofradiation, nomatterhowlow,maybeharmful.Severalfederalagencies, principally theEnvironmental Protection Agency,Occupational SafetyandHealthAdministration andtheNuclearRegulatory Commission, haveresponsibilities forregulating exposures toradiation orradiop'active material.
Inallcases,thestaffsoftheseagenciesarewellawareofthepotential healtheffectsandhaveexpertise inbiologyandtheotherdisciplines neededeitherwithinthestafforavailable tothem.
Comment811-3,F.L.ShellUraniumFuelCycleImpacts-Radon-222 Ireferyoutothetranscript oftheTNI-2Operating LicenseHearingJuly5,1977,page2890andthetestimony ofOr.ChauncyKepfordandOr.ReginaldGotchy...The naturally occurring costsarebadenoughwithoutaddingtothem.~ResonseIWithregardtoDr.Kepford's testimony regarding useof$1,000perman-remforenvironmental healthcosts,theStaffwouldliketomakethefollowing points.(1)The$1,000perman-remvaIuewasselectedbytheCommissioners astheupperboundofallthenumerical estimates, intheliterature.
Thepurposewastoestimatethepotential monetarycostsofhealtheffectsduringthelifetimes ofpersonslivingwithin50milesofanuclearpowerplant(nootherfacilit)sothatthosepotential costscouldbecomparedwiththerealcostsofaddingadditional radiological wastetreatment systemstoeachproposednuclearpowerplanttodetermine iftheoperation oftheplantwouldresultinmeetingthe10CFRPart50,AppendixI"aslowasreasonably achievable" rule.ItwasnevertheintentoftheCommissioners tousethatmonetaryvalueforanyotherpurpose,suchasestimating themonetarycostsoffuturehealtheffectsfromothersourcesontoday'spopulations orfuturepopulations.
Theobsurdity offuturemonetarycostscanbedemonstrated verysimply~assuminhumaninstitutions andthehumanracepersistintothefutureinthesamemannerastoday.Ignoringtherealpossi-bilitythatradonhealtheffectsmaynotoccurinthefuturedue totechnological advancesinthecureandprevention ofsucheffects,itispossibletocalculate howmuchmoneywouldhavetobedeposited inasavingsaccountnowtomeet"futuremonetarycosts"of10billiondollarsperreference reactoryear.Asaconservative
- estimate, itwasassumeda5percentsimpleinterestratewoulddemonstrate themeaninglessness ofsuchcalculations.
Conservative Staffestimates indicateonlyafewhealtheffectsmightoccurwithin1,000years.Itisobviousthatessentially allofDr.Kepford's "healtheffects"wouldoccuroverperiodsoftimewhichexceedtheprobablelifeexpectancy ofthehuman-race andoursolarsystem.Nevertheless, tongue-in-cheek, itcanbeshownthatiftheutilityweretodepositone-centinaperpetual savingsaccounttopayforanyfuturehealthcoststhatmightoccur,thatfundwouldcontaincontainnearly'$16 million-trillion afteronly1,000years.Clearly,one-centwouldnotsignificantly modifythefuturecostsof..,..-,,electrical powergenerated today.WithregardtoDr.Kepford's estimates ofmillionsoffuturedeathsfromradon-222 perReference ReactorYear,theStaffresponsetocomment16-1arealsorelevanthere.
v Commentgl6-1...LochstetTheLongTermHealthConeauencesofSusquehanna SteamElectricStationbyWilliamALochstetThePennsylvania StateUniversit+
August1979ThcNuclearRegulatory Commission hasattempted toevaluatethehealthconsequences ofppcration ofthcSusauehanna SteamElectricStation,Units1and2initsdraftenvironmental statement HURB-0564'hehealthconsequences o8radon-222 release's fromtheuraniumfuelc~cleareestimated forthcfirst1000yearsinsection4.5.5.Inevaluating theradon-222 emissions fromthecoalfuelcycleinsectionS..4.4.,(itemg7onpageS-10),thestaffrecognizes thattheemissions continuefor"millions ofyears"~Neitherapproachiscorrect.Footnote12ofNRDCv.USNRC,547F.2d633(1976)reouiresthatth~astesbeconsiaered fortheirentiretoxiclife.Thus,theonlyproperevaluation issrLthnetemporalcutoff.Suchanevaluaticn isattachedasanappendixtothisstatement
("Comments onNUREG-0332").Thisevaluaticn showsthattheStaffhasunderestimated thehealthconseauences ofboththecoaLanduraniumfuelcycles.TheHRCapparently 5ustifies i¹allowingohealthconsauencsbycomparison withbackound(P.4,-27to4<<2S).Thisistot"llyirrhlevant andcontr"rytoHZPA.N"P.reauiresanevaluation ofthebenefitsandallofthecostsofthFederalactionunderconsider"tion (Susquehanna 1Ec.2).Background radiation isnotajustified federalacticn.The.harmcausedbybackground cannotjustifyotherham.TMsimpropercomp-'rison ofcoststobackground iscontrarytothedecisoninCalvertCliffsCoordinating Comitteev.USA'".449F.2dLLO",12.15(1971)~Theopi.-:=ansandcalculations presen"ed hercaremvoem;.n1,notnecks"s.-.;r" ly.thoseofThePennsylvania StateUniversit-..
Nyaffil:;=.tion isgivenhereforidentifica-'on purpoec'~'.,--
I1D'I~~
10.eCommentsonlERM-0332 byDr.ViilliamL-LochstetThePennsylvania StateUniversity November1977XnthdocumentNURZG-0332 (Draft),theNRCestimates theexcessdeathsper0.8gigawat-yearelectric(CVy'(e))
tobaabout8.5foranallnucleareconomyandabout15.to120f'rtheuseofcoal(Ref.
1)~Theseestimates aremuchtoosmallbecausetheyigno~thehealthef'fectsduetotheslowreleaseofradon-222 resulting fromthedecayof'.'.radioactive components ofthecoal,uraniummilltailings, andofthetai1"ngsfromtheuraniumenrichment processXfthenealtheffectsa=estimated, by'heprocedure usedbytheERG~thenthecxcesde"ths=reabout600,000inthenuclearcaseand.'twentythousand fc=coal.Theestimates presented hereareallbasedontheprodu-.'.o.'.:of0.8G'.fy(e)~RadonProducedbytheUranium~~'..'.i:":cleT!.eproducionof0.8G3'i'yof*..'etricitybya5~reouir>>abou~29metrictonso="..:-.--'..hed urani~.fcr fuel.Vitnur.n~en='eh=en
=lants".::.tingwitha0.2,~tilsassa.r,ll.6metrictonsonatura..:::
=-niunwillbereauired.
,XntheabsenceoftheL~.;."BR, 117m.=.-.ric tonsofdepleteduranium>i~uldbeleftover.pithauranizmil1whichexracts96/of'
~~theuraniumfromtheore(Ref.2},atotalof90,000metrictonsoforeismined,containing 152metrictonsofuraniumTheuraniumm%11tailingswillcontain2.6kiXograms of'horium-230 and6metrictonsof'ranium@.
AsPohlhaspointedout(Ref.3)thethorium-230decaystoradium-226,whichinturndecaysCoradon-222.Thisprocessresultsinthegeneration of3.9xlOcuriesofradon-222, withthetimescaledetermined by'he8xl0~yearhalflifeof'horium
>>230.The6.metrictonsofuraniumcontained inthemilltailingsdecaybyseveralstepstoradon-222thruthorium-230.ThisprocessoccursonatimescalegovernedbyCheA.~5x10yearhalflifeofuranium-.238>themajorisotopepresent{99.3+F3Thetotalamountofradon-222whichwillresultfromthisdecayis8.6x1011curies.The117metrictonsofdepla-eduraniumfromtheenrichment processsalsomainlyuranium-23SwnichalsodecaysThedecayo."theseenricIenttaiIingsresultsi"-totalof1,.7xl0"'..uries ofradon-222.ThisisIi::";:.:8 nTable1,along~.i-;'-..
theotheradonyields.instructive toco;;-aretheseG::=:..esofactivitytothe:-:..".'vity othefissionproducts~:hi...-esult fromtheue:.;"thefuelwhichtheyareassoci"-::=':.ith.
Thetotalrfissionr.:.oduct inventory resulting f"om0.':"':y(e) withhalfliveso"25yearsormoreisabout10curies,ThisismuchlessthananyofthenumbersinTablel.':ieshouldbemorecarefulwiththesetailings.
RadonProducedbytheCoalFuelCycleItem2iofAppendixAofNUTMEG-0332 (Ref')assumesa75$capacityfactor,whichfora1000Mfeplantvuuldproduceonly0.75GYy(e).hcapacityfactorof'0fowi2Q.beusedhereTheproduction ofO.SG'.vy(e)byacoalplantoperating at40/.efficiency, using12,000BTUperpoundcoalwouldreouire2.5millionshorttonsofcoal.Thisisclosetothevalueof3milliontonssuggested onpage9ofNUREG-0332 (Ref.I).Thereisgreatvariability intheamountofuraniumcontained incoal.AnanalysisofcoalsamplesatoneTVAplantreportedbytheEPA(Ref.4.)indicates arangeofalmostafacorofteninuraniumcontent.Eisenbudand.Petrow (Ref.5)..port"~fluofaboutlpartpermillion.Arecentsurveyb-.theUSGSbasedonseveralhundredsamplessuggeststhatintheUni-.'ratescoalconuinsanaverageof1.Spart.permillie.-".;.ura~ium(Ref.6)~'othvaluesof1.0and1.Sp~>i'llbeus(i!:;::"e,.'~us2~$milliontonsofcoal>d.llcontainv,'~,.usandbetwen2..';".:-;;
L!.1:':.ilo~s ofuranium.Using';heas~o~ionl,ofHUR"=G-03'::.
{:-'.e~',
.'.)thatthereis99/partic~lr~te removalfromplan-.c::.:'..s ior.=-,I',4ofthisuraniumvillbe='disp-sedintotheaindth~remainder cartedawayasa'hasforlandburial.TableIin"cates'hatwith1.0ppmcoaltheuranium1intheresul"ing ashwilldecaytoatotaloi3.2xlOcuries 13ofradon-222,whilethestackemissions willleadto3.2xl.Ocuries.For'l.8ppmcoalthevaluesare5.8x>0curiesfromash11and5'x10curiesfromemissions Evaluation oftheHealthEffectsXtisnecessary toevaluatethenumberofdeathswhichresultfromthereleaseofonecurieofradon-222.-~orthepurposeof'h'sevaluation thepopulation andpopulation distributions areassumedtoremainatthepresent:values.ThisshouldprovideagoodfirstestimateNUR~-0332 (Ref.1)suggeststhatareleaseof4,800curiesofradon222fromthemines(page11)wouldresultin0023excessde"ths(Tablela,page18).Thisproxdesaratioofg.gx10dea"hspercu='.DatafromChapte=ZVofGER)0(Ref.7)suggestsavalueof1.7-=0deathspercurieasalover1'z:it.Thevalueofl.8xlOd-:.="hsprcuries~U~beusedhere:-.:theL~Cestimate.
ltis~..-=-=-tood thatthisisveryappro--~.r-=.'..:.:.
TheEp'se-,1-;":.-:
'"'hehealtheffec-sofamodel'...umJmilltailingspile.Ti.".:.!'stimate atotalof200healthc"...ts(Ref.8,pe73)fo=.:,.'lewhichemitsatnos20,000c".'.s-oradon-222for10C.ars.Theresulting estimateis~ldeathspercu=ieand~d.llbeusedhereastheEP::.estimate.
lI 145'valuation ofHealth:"ffects
-NuclearAtpresentsomerecenturaniummilltailingspileshave2feetof-dirtcoverin~.
XnthiscasethePAestimate(Ref.8)isthatabout1/20oftheradonproducedescapesintotheair.Thisfactorof20islistedin"'.Table1andisuse'dtofindtheeffective releases.
Thusthe3.9x10curiesof.'vadon whichresults8fromthoiuminthemilltailinsresultsina.release of1,9x107curiesintotheamosphere, whichw'ththNRCestimateof48x10deathspercurieresultsin90deaths.".'iththeEPA,estimate1900deathsresult.Asimilartreatment appliedto896x10curiesofradonfromtheuraniuminthem.11tailingsresultsin200,000deadfor.the)BCestimateand4..3millionfortheSPAestimate.
Itishereassumedthatnofutuegeneationwillseefittotakeanybettercareofthemilltailingsth"nispresently practiced.
Theuraniumenrichment tailingsarepresently locatedintheeasempartofthecountry.Itisassmedthattheseareburiednea;theirpresentloc'-'tions.
Radonwillnotescapesoeasilyhcu-gchwecsoll.Prc.!action factorof100iscse6toestimatet.".i~effect.Theacc:."-cyofthisestimatedpendsontheparticul:".:
otheburialwhichcanonlvbeprojected.
An"ad='itional factorof2isused,toreducetheefeetduetothefactthatmuchofthisradonwoulddecayovertheoceanratherthanpopulated
]5landareas.Nocompensation istakenforthegreaterpopulation densitynearthepointofreleaseascomparedtotheuraniummilltailingspilesofthewesternstates.M.ththistotalreduction factorof200theNRCestimateis400,000deadwhiletheEPAva:lueis8million.Evaluation ofHealthEffects-Coalltisassumedthattheashesfromthe'c'oalplantswillbeburiedinamannersimilartothe'tailings fromtheuraniumenrichment process.Thusa.reduction factorof200isusedinthiscasealso.-Againthehigherpopulation densityisignored.Theparticulate whichisreleasedintotheairbyth.coalplantistakentocontainlpof'hecontained uranium.Sincemostsuchplantsareintheeas"empartofthecountryitisestiraedthathalfvo.llfallintotheoceanratherthanontoland.I.secondfactorof2isusedtoreducethefectoftheresulting radonduetothefactthatsomeofthisradonwe'llecay'veroceanaswiththeradonfromtheu;aniumintheeric"..i.'icnt tailings.
Againnocompensation istakenforthe~c:=";-.:.r population densityne"rthepointofrelease.'his g=v:".=.hetotalreduction facto'f4sho"~intable1.'::.ththesereduction fa";;o=sapplic'otheradonreleasedby'.::eashesandemissions, nthetwoc-..sesof'.0ppmand1.6'v-:..
uraniumcontentcoal,thehealthe:"fectsarecalculated.;
Theseareshownintable1,andrangefrc;7,700deadfromashesand3,800additional deadfromairbornemissions
.for1.0ppmcoalintheNHCestimateto2o0,000dead fromashesand140y000deadfromairbornreleasesinthecaseof1.8ppmcoalintheZPAestimate.
thhII"4~3\4 I~~16Discussion Itisobviously verydifficult toestimatewithanyprecision howmanyhea'1theffectsresultfromthereleaseofagivencurieofradon-222fromsomespecificsiteinthewestTheestimates presented heredifferbyafactorof20.Thismightbestbeusedasarangeofexpecteddeaths.Thereduction
'factorsusedherearecrudeestimates insomecases,andcouldbeimprovedupon.Changesinpublidpolicycouldalsochangethem="nnerinwhichthismaterialisdisposed.,
thusgreatlyc~ginthese'actors.
Inparticular deepburialcouldpractically eliminate theescapeofradontotheatmospnere (Ref.8)~EItisimportant tocompareTable1herewithTable1ogNUP~~-0332 (Ref.1),,which shows0.47deadforthenuclearcaseandatmost120deadforcoal~Theselastnumberstotallvignorethee=ectsoflongtermradonemissions, whichresultin1atleas-100timeshighermortality.
Theselongtermeffectsarenotonlysignigicant, butdominatetheeffect::-:simportant touseTable1tocomparethere1ativers'-:i-:."-'enucl'"=andcoaloptioninthe'rpresentforms.1n-h='.-csede;-.'hsduetoallcausesconsidered inI&K-0332ca:.'-...'-.,=..nore.".
-:insignificant, sincetheyareso~'.Thr;-".l:-.~luten>alc.rofdeathspercurierelasedisrrelevant si.-.c:-,,'nter.;
3"..bothcases.Therelativ:.
riskidetermindso".'.'vtheor.n'tities ofradon-222generated andthereduction fact"::.UnlessthereisacleardecisiontoNreat-coalas..asdi~er=-ntly fromuraniumenrichment tailin=s, thehealtheffectsfromthetailingswillbe50timesgreatesincetheeis~~~~C45yaSg~ov w
1750timesmoreuraniumthere.Thenuclearoptionremainsmorehazardous thancoalunlessthereleasesfromallofthetailingspilescanbgreducedbelowthereleasesfromtheairbornIparticulates ofthcoalplant.ThisisnotthepresentpolicyrAdditional CommentThereis8typographical erroronpage25."ofNURSE>--0332 Reference f33islistedthereasbeinginvolume14.8ofSciance,sheeasitappearsinvolume14'.Acknowledgment
.Theabovecomments~ereinspiredbythe5Julyl977testimony ofDr.ChaunceyR.Kepfordinthematterof'heThreeiH.leIslandUnit2(DocketNo.50-320)operating licenseentitled:
"FealtheffectsComparison forCoalandNuclearPo~'er"~
IrIh0*4P 18TablelEnergySourceExcess1Iortality perO.SGÃy(e)duetoRadon-222emissions OriginofRaconprtlclBR-RadonGenerated CuriesFactorHRC-Reduction DeathsThoriuminRillTailsUraniuminRillTails3.9xlpS.6xloll202090200~000l9004.3xlpUraniuminEnic?~entTails1.7x1013200400,000Sx106Co=-11.0p~UAshesAi=Particulate
~011";..2xl09 7~7003,800l.6xl05Sxl04Coal~taO~I~lgBDpzUAshes5.8xlp20014,0"..02.9"10-5AirParticulate 5.8xl096,8M1.4x105 19References 1"HealthEffectsAttributable toCoalandNuclearFuelCycleAlternatives" NURG-0332,Draft, U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission (September 1977)vironmental Ana3.ysis ofTheUraniumFuelCycle,PartI-FuelSupply"EPA-520/9-73-003-B, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,(October1973)R.O.Pohl,"HealthEffectsofRadon-222fromUraniumP~ing"Search,7(5),345-350 (August1976)P.H.Bedrosian, D.G.Easterly, andS.L.Cummings,"Radiological SurveyAroundPo~erPlantsUsingFossilFuel"EERL71-3;U.S.Environmental Protection Agency',(July1970)5I$.Eisenbud, andH.G.Petrow,"Radioactivity in.theAtaospheQcEffluents ofPowerPlantsthatUseFossilFuels,"Science'1114,:288-289 (1964)6V.E.Swansonetal,"Collection, ChemicalAnalysis, andEvaluatio:
ofCoalSamplesin1975",Open-file report;76-468'S.Depart-ent ofthI:.terior, Geological Survey,(1976)7"FinalGenericEnv'"~nmental Statement ontheUseof.=.ecyce.lutoniur.
='..-H.xedOxideFuelinLightVaterCooled:?cactors,"
HURD-".,',":C:.".
U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commissio",
iAugust1976)8:-i?ef.2~-gpss4' J
20ResponseOr.Lochstet's commentsareinaccurate anderroneous insomanyareas,itwouldbeimpossible torespondcompletely inameaningful way.Ourmajordifferences centeraround:(1)Or.Lochstet's insistence oncalculating radon-222 releases(bothcoalandnuclear)andresultant healtheffectsoverperiodsoftime~exceeding thelifeexpectancy ofthesolarsystemmuchlesstheprobablelifeexpectancy ofthehumanspecies.(2)Incorrect useofprev'ious NRCestimates ofcancermortality percurieofRn-222released.
(3)Incorrectly equatingEPAestimates ofhealtheffectswithcancermortality.
(4)Improperassumptions ofRn-222releasesfromuraniummilltailingsanduraniumenrichment tailings.
Itisthestaff'spositionthatthecureand/orprevention ofcancerislikelytooccurwellwithinthe100to1,000yearperiodevaluated bythestaffintheSummerOL-OES.Althoughpopulation dosecommitments maycontinueintothefuture,thestaffdoesnotbelievetherewillbeanysignificant cancermortality associated withsuchdosecommitments.
Therefore, itisreasonable totruncateestimates ofcancermortality at100to1,000yearsfromthepresenttime.Or.Lochstetincorrectly drived4.8X10deathsperCiofRn-222releasedtotheatmosphere fromdraftNUREG-0332.
Heassumedthatthe0.023cancerdeathslistedintheNUREGcamefromreleaseof4,800CiofRn-222,alsomentioned intheNUREG.The0.023cancerdeathestimate 21ResponsetoComment816-1-cont'dactuallycomesfromtheestimated 1130curiereleaseduringactivemillingonly.Therefore, amoreappropriate valuewouldbe20X10deathsperCi(i.e.,aboutafactorof4higherthanheassumed.)
Or.LochstetmisusedtheEPAestimateofhealtheffects(hisRef.8)byequatingitwithcancermortality.
Inaddition, theEPAlater(1975)reducedtheirestimateofhealtheffectsintheEasternU.S.from120to30givingatotalof.110healtheffects.Stilllater,EPAconcluded theirestimateof80healtheffectsintheNorthernHemisphere wastoohigh.MorerecentEPAestimates ofcancermortality areincludedinthePerkinsHearingrecordintestimony byOr.R.L.Gotchy,authorofNUREG-0332.
InMarch,1978,Or.W.H.Ellet,U.S.EPA,providedOr.Gotchywithhislatestestimates, whichresultedinabouttwiceasmanycancerdeathspercurieofRn-222releasedasshownintheSummerOES.Finally,Or.LochstetchoosestoignorecurrentNRClicensing andindustrial practicewhichwillresultinmuchsmallerreleasesofradon-222 thanheassumedforhiscalculations.
Infact,deeplyburiedmi11tailingsmayresultinlong-term radonreleaseswhicharelessthancouldoccurinnaturehadtheuraniumnotbeenmined,milledandusedtogenerateelectricity.
Thisisbecauseover90%ofthelong-livedU-238andU-234isremovedfromanore-bodywhichgeologicprocesses couldeventually bringtothesurfaceoftheearth.Onceonthesurface,theradon-222 releasescouldoccurundiminished overmillionsorbillionsofyears.
22ResponsetoComment>16-1-cont'dFurthermore, Or.Lochstet's assumption ofradon-222 releasesfromuraniumenrichment tailingsarewithoutanyfactualbasis.SuchtailingsIarebeingheldforuseinbreederreactors.
IntheeventtheU.S.doesn'tusethisvaluableresourcedomestically, othernationswillbepurchasing thedepleteduraniumfortheirownbreederprograms.
Intheinterimperiod,noradon-222 willbereleasedfromenrichment tailings.
Inconclusion, thestafffindsOr.Lochstet'sevaluation oftheradon-222 impactstobeunrealistic andincorrect, bothphilosophically andtechnically.
~~'
023Comment817-3,M.HuntintonAnothermajorpointthatIcontendinthisreportistheestablishment oftheuraniumminingandmillingnecessary forthisplantashavingan"acceptable" impactupontheenvironment...of anothergroupof1.2millionpeopleperyearinthissituation too.ResponseThecontenti'on byMr.Huntington that"TheNRCitselfhasbeenunabletodisagreewithOr.ChaunceyKepford's findingsthat1.2millionpeopleperyearwilldieinthefuturefromtheeffectsofradongasemittedfromthetailingsproducedjusttofuelTMI",isincorrect.
TheNRCStaffhasrefutedsuchclaimsinseveralhearingsasmeaningless formanyreasons.Someofthemoreimportant reasonsarediscussed inresponses 11-3totlr.Shelly,and16-1toOr.Lochstet, andneednotberepeatedhere.Comment-,".18-2, S.LauhlandRadiation causescancer.Thisisanacceptedmedicalfact.TheUnitedStateshasasurplusofpowerplant,sowhyaddtheBerwickplanttothelonglistofenvironmental andhealthhazardsofthiscountry.ResponseSeeresponsetoCommentf10-4.Comment819-13,N.i<.Curtis,PennslvaniaPowerandLihtComanENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1.Table5.1,pg.5.3-Thistablehasbeenupdatedtoreflectchangesinsamplinglocations andstationnomenclature corrections.
Thelowerlimitsofdetection havealsobeenrevisedperNUREG-0473.
Acopyofthetablewithcorrections indicated willbeforwarded underseparatecover.ResponseTheaboverevisions willbeusedinestablishing thattheenvironmental radiation monitoring programmeetsthestaff'spositiononenvironmental monitoring.
Lowerlimitsofdetection willbeincorporated intheapplicant's technical specifications.
~~g+C1 24Comment-..20-2C.L.JonesOet.ofEnvironmental Resources Commonwealth oPennsvan>aSentFuelStoraeSection4.5.5-Radioactive Wastes-Thissectionshouldbeexpandedtoincludecontingencies forthelong-term storageofspentfuel'onsite.Thismayberequiredifadecisionhasnotbeenmadeonthefinaldisposition ofspentfuelaftertheplanthasbeenoperating forafewyears.Response'Ehestorageofspentfuelisaddressed inanNRCdocumententitled"FinalGenericEnviornmental ImpactStatement onHandlingandStorageofSpentLightWaterPowerReactorFuel"(NUREG-0575).
Thestorageofspentfueladdressed inNUREG-0575 isconsidered tobeaninterimaction,notafinalsolution.
Thecommission hasclearlydistinguished betweenpermanent disposalandinterimstorage.OneofthefindingsofNUREG-0575 isthatthestorageoflightwaterreactor(LWR)spentfuelsinwaterpoolshasaninsignificant impactontheenvironment, whetherstoredatareactororawayfromareactor.Primarily thisisbecausethephysicalformofthematerial, sinteredceramicoxidefuelpelletshermetically sealedin7ircaloycladdingtubes.Zircaloyisazirconium-tin alloywhichwasdeveloped fornuclearpowerapplications becauseofitshighresistance towatercorrosion inadditiontoitsfavorable nuclearproperties.
Evenincaseswheredefective tubesexposethefuelmaterialtothewater,\environment, thereislittleattackontheceramicfuel.
i+~~25ResonsetoComment020-2-cont'dTYhetechnology ofwaterpoolstorageiswelldeveloped; radioactivity levelsareroutinely maintained atabout5X10~Ci/ml.Maintenance ofthisApurityrequirestreatment (filtration andionexchange) ofthepoolwater.Radioactive wastethatisgenerated isreadilyconfinedandrepresents littlepotential hazardtothehealthandsafetyofthepublic.Theremaybesmallquantities ofKrreleasedtotheenvironment fromdefective fuelelements.
However,forthefuelinvolved(fuelatleastoneyearafterdischarge),
experience hasshownthistobenotdetectable beyondtheimmediate environsofastoragepool.Therewillbenosignificant discharge ofradioactive liquideffluents fromaspentfuelstorageoperation aswasteswillbeinsolidform.Thisstatement supportsthefindingthatthestorageofspentfuelinaway-from-reactor facilities iseconomically andenvironmentally acceptable.
References
'I.NaturalResources DefenseCouncil,DenialofPetitionforRulemaking, July5,1977,42FR34391.Available intheNRCPublicDocumentRoom.Comment820-3aC.L.JonesDeartmentofEnvironmental Resources, Commonwealth oPennslvaniaRadiation ReleasesSection4.5.2-DirectRadiation
-Thedirectradiation doseof2.7mrad/yrcalculated bytheapplicant couldbelowbyaboutanorderofmagnitude basedonamore...measurements takennearseveraloftheoperating boilingwaterreactors(BWR's).ResponseSeeresponsetoComment89-7.
26Coment~20-4,C.L.Jones,Det.ofEnvironmental Resources, Commonwealth oPennsvanyaThecalculated radionuclide releasesinliquideffluents isdiscussed intermsofdosecommitments (pages4-14,4-15).TheDepartment believesthattheimpactofradionuclide releasesandresulting riverqualityconcentrations shouldbecomparedtotheNationalDrinkingWaterStandards.
~ResenseAnnualdosespersitefromliquideffluents weregiveninTable4.10.Theestimated dosetothetotalbodyoranyorganofthehypothetical maximumindividual fromallpathwayswasabout1.0mrem/yr.Thisdoseincludesthedosefromingestion offishaswellasconsumption ofwater.Thedosetotheaverageindividual usingthenearestcomunitywatersystemwouldbelessthan1.0mrem/yr,~he Environ-almentalProtection Agency'.s NationalInterimPrimaryDrinkingHaterRegulation" statesthat"theaverageannualconcentration ofbetaparticleandphotonradioactivity fromman-maderadionuclides indrinkingwatershallnotproduceanannualdoseequivalent tothetotalbodyoranyinternalorgangreaterthan4millirem/year",
(Sect.141.16).Theannualdosesfromliquideffluents fromSusquehanna Units182arebelowtheabovelimits.Comment>21-4,T.R.DuckThestatements inSection4whichstatethatradioactive
- releases, bothoccupationally andenvironmentally, willhavenosignificant environmental impactaremisleading whenoneconsiders thattheeffectsoflowlevelradiation areunknown.GroupssuchastheNationalAcademyofScienceshesitatetoplaceacceptable lowdoselimitsonhumanhealtheffects.ResponseSeeresponsetoCommentsg5-1and10-4.
27Comment821-8,T.R.DuckThetablesinSection8dealingwiththeeffectsofcoalversusnuclearplantspresumably usedcoalinthegeneralsense.TheSESSislocatedneartheheartoftheanthracite coalregion.Anthracite, becauseitisacleanerburningcoal,hasbeenexemptedfromanyEPAairpollution regulations.
SincethisisthecoalthatshouldbeusedatSESS,itisthecoalthatshouldbeusedinanycomparative studies.Response'IAsstatedinNUREG-0564, thereisaconsiderable amountofuncertainty inestimating healtheffectsoverlongperiodsoftime(greaterthan100years).Theoveralluncertainty inthenuclearfuelcycleisprobablyaboutanorderofmagnitude (increased ordecreased byafactorof10)over100yearsandabouttwoormoreordersofmagnitude over1000years.Theuncertainty associated withthecoalfuelcycletendstobemuchlargerbecauseoftheinability toestimatetotalhealthimpactsfromallthepollutants releasedtotheenvironment fromthatcycle.However,ifoneassumesmostofthepublicimpactoveraperiodofseveraldecadesiscausedbyinhalation ofsulfurcompounds andassociated pollutants, thereisasmuch-asatwo-order-of-magnitude uncertainty intheassessment ofthecoalfuelcycle.Inviewofthelargeuncertainties inanycomparison ofthehealtheffectsofcoalversusnuclearpowerplants,asitespecificcomparison isnotwarranted.
Comment;"'.23-1, L.E.llatsonTherewasquiteabitofdatacollected onfishandwildlifebuttherewasnonecollected onhumans-nohealthpictureofthehumanpopulation within10milesoftheplant--before thestartupofoperation.
Ifeelthisshouldhavebeendone-tohavesomecomparison withdatathatmightbetakenafewyearslater,withrespecttoeffectsofradiation 28Commentf23-1-cont'detc.,withnormaloperation oftheplantandalsoincaseofanaccidentsuchasatT.M.I.ResponseAnimalandfoodcropsamplesweretakenpriortothestartupoftheplant.Thebackground activityinthesesamplesisdetermined bydestructive means.Similardestructive testingofhumanswouldnotbepossible.
Althoughwholebodycounting(anon-destructive test)couldbedoneofhumansnearthesite,thiswouldnotbeeffective becauseofthemobilityofthehumanpopulation andthecostofwholebodycounting.
Comment823-3,L.E.WatsonOnpageG87,6.2.2intheEnvironmental Statement ofJune1973,thestaffcomments"theapplicant doesnotappeartohavemadearrangements forinterchange ofdataasyet,withnearbyradiological monitoring programsatPeachHottom,TMI,OysterCreek,IndianPoint,Shoreham, ForkedRiver,NewboldIsland,Salem,orLimerick.
IntherevisedDraftStatement ofJune1979,thisomissionhasnotbeencorrected.
ResponseResultsofenvironmental monitoring programsatnuclearpowerreactorsareroutinely madeavailable tothepublic.Forexample,seeanNRCdocumententitled"Radioactive Materials ReleasedfromNuclearPowerPlants,AnnualReport1977"(NUREG-0521).
29Comment,823-4,L.E.WatsonInthesection4.5.5onUraniumFuelCycleImpacts,weobjecttotheconclusion thatboththedosecommitment andhealtheffectsoftheuraniumcycleareinsignificant whencomparedwithdosecommitment andpotential healtheffectstotheU.S.population resulting fromallthenaturalbackground sources.Theeffectsareadditive, andeventhenaturalbackground sourcesareconsidered ersponsible formutations, cancer,andotherdiseases.
Justbecauseonemusttoleratenaturalbackground sourcesitdoesnotfollowthatradiation fromtheuraniumfuelcycleisharmless.
Itcouldbethe"strawthatbreaksthecamel'sback"..ResponseSeeresponsetocomments<5-1and10-4.Comment825-5L.E.Meierotto, U.S.Dept.ofInterior~Pae5-2Weagreewiththestaffthattheapplicant shouldmonitorgroundwater bothupgradient anddowngradient onamonthlybasis.Wenotethatthepotential forradionuclide contamination ofgroundwater isimpliedonpageD-lofAppendix'0(item1.6);however,figure4.1(p.4-13)doesnotindicategroundwater asanexposurepathwaytohumans.ResponseTheapplicant statesthat"Ingeneral,groundwaterinthePaleozoic rockformations oftheAppalachian Highlands flowsfromthetopographically higherareas(recharge areas)tothevalleys(Ref.2.4-25).Thisground-water,itisbelieved, discharges tospringsandtothestreamsandriversoftheregion,exceptatfloodstage."*Consequently, thedosesfromingestion ofgroundwater shouldbenogreaterthanthedosesfromingestion ofwaterfromtheriver.Anyuseofgroundwater asadrinkingwatersupplyshouldbebalancedbyadecreaseinriverwaterasadrinkingwatersupply.+Susquehanna SES-ER-OL, p.2.4-12