ML20081H137
| ML20081H137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1983 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081H118 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311070323 | |
| Download: ML20081H137 (17) | |
Text
.
l -
00CKETED USHRC f ' k)) :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA rrrr r gr gg c:z ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' ' W BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF WELLS EDDLEMAN'S CONTENTION 8F(2)
Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Wells Eddleman's Contention 8F(2). For the reasons set forth herein, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact to this Contention and that Applicants are enti-tied to a decision in their favor on this Contention as a mat-ter of law.
8311070323 831102 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR
This motion is supported by:
i 1. " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As L
To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Ee Heard On Wells Eddleman's Contention 8F(2)";
- 2. Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions For Summary Disposition on Intervenor Eddleman Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84, i as filed September 1, 1983 and as fully ap-plicable to the present Motion; -
- 3. " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Of Joint Intervenors' Contention II and Wells Eddleman's Contention 37B (Health Effects)",
filed October 3, 1983 (hereinafter "Appli-cants' Motion on Contentions II and 37B");
- 4. " Joint Affidavit of John J. Mauro and David Michlewicz in Support of Applicants' Motion i
for Summary Disposition of Wells Eddleman's Contention 8F(2)" (hereinafter " Joint Affida-vit").
I. Introduction In the Draft Environmental Statement (" DES"), the NRC Staff for NEPA purposes assesses the potential health effects associated with radiological effluents in the operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("SHNPP") and the potential effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle supporting i SENPP. In both instances, the Staff concludes the impact will j be very small. In Joint Contention II and Eddleman Contention 37B, Intervenors challenge the DES health effects assessment t
from SHNPP operation. By motion dated October 3, 1983, Appli-cants have moved for summary disposition on these Contentions.
In Contention 8F(2), Mr. Eddleman essentially reasserts por-tions of Contentions II and 37B and applies them to the uranium
5 r
fuel cycle. As the first two Contentions are without merit, so 8F(2) is without merit.
. As admitted by the Board, the wording of Contention 8F(2) is as follows:
The DES assessment of the health effects of the radiological effluents specified in Table S-3 is inadequate in that (i) effects are considered -
for too short a time period; (ii) food chain con-centration analyses are wrong; (iii) radionuclide concentration values are not conservative in view of NRC Translation 520; and (iv) radiation doses from internal and external emitters are underestimated.
Contention 8F(2) was almitted by the Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Contentions on the Staff Draft Environmental Statement), dated August 18, 1983, at 6.
Mr. Eddleman filed two sets of interrogatories with Applicants (August 31, 1983 and October 21, 1983) and with the Staff (also dated August 31 and October 21). Applicants responded to the first set of interrogatories on September 22, 1983, and file answers to the second set contemporaneously with this Motion.
The NRC Staff filed answers to the first set on October 12, 1983.
Table S-3, as referenced in the Contention, lists the radiological effluents released in the uranium fuel cycle. The DES assessment of potential health effects from the effluents released from the uranium fuel cycle is found in Section 5.10 and in Appendix C, and that assessment may be summarized as follows:
-The NRC Staff has determined that the envi-ronmental impact of this facility on the U.S.
population from' radioactive gaseous and liquid releases (-including radon and technetium) due to the uranium fuel cycle is very small when com-pared with the impact of natural background ra-diation.
DES, Section 5.10. Contention 8F(2) challenges this conclusion in two basic respects. In 8F(2)(i), Mr. Eddleman contends -
health effects were assessed for too short a time period. Con-tention 8F(2)(ii-iv) alleges that the NRC Staff's dose calcula-tion supporting its health effects estimate is underestimated due to the use of improper concentration and dose values for the radionuclides listed in Table S-3. The contention in this latter respect constitutes a challenge to particular aspects of the NRC Staff's dose modeling techniques.
The points made in Contention 8F(2) are addressed, as they apply to SENPP operations, in Part IV of the Applicants' Motion on Contentions II and 37B. See also Part III.F of " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 29/30 (Appendix I Compliance)," filed October 5, 1983. Various posi-tions supported in these earlier motions on the operations
. phase will be applied in this motion to fuel cycle allegations
- in Contention 8F(2). Applicants contend, briefly, that the NRC i
Staff assessment for uranium fuel cycle health effects
' demonstrably covers an adequate period of time, and further, s
l that the underlying modeling does not underestimate dose. Mr.
f Eddleman's contention to the contrary raises no issue of material fact and Applicants, accordingly, are entitled to i
-judgment as a matter of law on Contention 8F(2).
4_
I
After discussing the applicable law and the timeliness of this Motion, we will address Mr. Eddleman's contention as to time period covered and dose calculation. Our Motion addresses all radionuclides listed in Table S-3 except radon. Health effects from radon released in the uranium fuel cycle are being treated by the NRC as a generic matter governed by the Peach -
Bottom proceedings. The Commission has instructed licensing Boards not to consider radon issues while the Commission has such issues pending before it on a generic basis. Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 ) , et al., CLI-83-14, 17 N.R.C. 745, 751 (1983).1/
1/ In Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), et al., ALAB-701, 16 N.R.C. 1517 (1982), the Appeal Board found to be acceptable the radon health effects analysis adopted by the NRC Staff. It is this analysis which the Staff utilizes in the SENPP DES. Appeal is pending from this decision. CLI-83-14, supra. With respect to the treatment of radon in the instant proceeding, see Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069, 2084-85 (1982).
See also Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), ALAB-490, 8 N.R.C. 234, 241-242 (1978).
As with the rest of the radionuclides listed in Table S-3, the NRC Staff has found the potential health effects from radon to be very small. We note that while the potential health effects from radon are small indeed, the potential effects from radon over a 1,000 year period are 15 times greater than the potential effects from the remaining radionuclides in Table S-3. Thus, over a 1,000 year period there are two potential cancer deaths from radon and 0.13 potential cancer deaths from the remaining radionuclides. DES, Appendix C at C-7; Joint Af-fidavit at 21.
II. Applicable Law The well defined standards generally applicable to motions for summary disposition are discussed in detail in " Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition on Intervenor Wells Eddleman Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84" filed in this proceeding on September 1, 1983. Appli-cants rely on the discussion of law set forth therein, on the legal principles discussed in Part I of Applicants' Motion on Contentions II and 37B, and on the following discussion of the timeliness of this Motion for Summary Disposition.
Contention 8F(2) is ripe for summary disposition and the present motion is timely. The Commission and its adjudicatory boards have long emphasized the use of the summary disposition process where the procedure provides "an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues." In accordance with this principle, a motion for summary disposition can be filed at any time in the course of a proceeding. 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a);
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696, 16 N.R.C. 1245, 1263 (1982) quoting Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 550 (1980); cf.
Groover v. Magnavox Co., 71 F.R.D. 638, 639 (W.D. Pa. 1976).
- Further, such a mot.'.on is not premature simply because discov-ery has not run its full course. ALAB-696, supra, 16 N.R.C. at 1263; gf. R.S.E. Inc. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 489 F. Supp.
1227, 1236 (M.D. Pa. 1980). Here discovery will be completed in any event no later than November 14, 1983. See Scard Me:2-randum and Order (Modifying Schedule on Environmental Conten-tions), dated October 25, 1983, at 4.
Under these standards, this Summary Disposition Motion is .
timely for three reasons. First, summary disposition is designed to avoid unnecessary litigation. In this proceeding, environmental issues not resolved by summary disposition are scheduled for hearing commencing January 24, 1983, with .
prefiled direct testimony due January 10, 1983. To expedite this hearing, Applicants already have moved for summary dispo-
- sition of Joint Contention II and Eddleman Contention 373, and Applicants believe such motion is meritorious and should be granted. Eddleman Contention 8F(2) simply takes some of the points made in Contentions II and 37B and applies them to the uranium fuel cycle. Administratively, it clearly is appropriate to dispose of all assertions which are substan-tially the same prior to hearing through the summary disposi-tion process. In contrast, it would make little sense, and de-j feat the purposes of the summary disposition process, for the same issues to be disposed of in one contention (as to the operations phase) and retained for hearing in another (as to the uranium fuel cycle phase).
Second, since the contentions in 8F(2) are generic and have been previously asserted, Mr. Eddleman has had plenty of
4 time to develop his own position and to learn the position of Applicants with respect thereto. Furthermore, discovery of Ap-plicants' position on this contention has now been completed.
J This Summary Disposition Motion is timely, thirdly, be-cause summary disposition is appropriate for " demonstrably insubstantial issues." As discussed below, such a showing presently can be made with respect to Contention 8F(2). This Contention, in fact, is groundless.
III. Duration of Health Effects Estimate In Contention 8F(2)(i), Mr. Eddleman contends the DES health effects estimate for radiological effluents in the ura-nium fuel cycle is inadequate because effects are considered for too short a time period.2/ In the DES, effects are consid-ered for the 100-year period and the 1000-year period associ-ated with each year of power plant operation. Mr. Eddleman believes estimates shculd be made until all radionuclides released have decayed. Mr. Eddleman is wrong. To follow his approach would be both scientifically inappropriate and unnec-essary.
Mr. Eddleman's approach is scientifically inappropriate because any resulting estimate would be misleading and 1
2/ A similar issue is raised in Joint Intervenors' Contention II(c) regarding health effects from radiological releases from normal plant operations. Applicants' analysis of this issue in
- their Motion on Contentions II and 37B, at 44-48, is applicable here as well.
I i
specious. The DES estimate already covers periods of 100 and 1000 years. Joint Affidavit at 8. In this assessment, the Staff expressly assumes no development in the prevention or cure of disease. Such an assumption, even for the period covered by the Staff assessment, clearly is extremely conserva-tive--over the past decades medical development has been rapid and dramatic. It would be absurd to presume that there will be no advances in medical science for hundreds or thousands of years. Id. at U14. Mr. Eddleman would take the Staff's ex-tremely conservative assumptions and apply them thousands and millions of years into the future. This is nonsense, and any number derived from the process would be scientifically inap-propriate (artificially high). Under NEPA, a good faith effort to describe reasonably foreseeable events is all that is required. The Staff in the DES in its conservatism has more than satisfied this requirement. See Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. A.E.C., 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.
Cir. 1973).
Mr. Eddleman's approach, as well, is unnecessary because the Staff has selected for comparison the periods in which the comparative proportion of dose and health effects would be greatest for the uranium fuel cycle associated with SHNPP operation. The Staff compares the radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle with effects from the natural background radiation. For the 100 and 1000-year periods covered by the DES, the former is very small in comparison to the latter.
_g_
e Nonetheless, the comparative ratio is the highest that might occur. This is because the dose attributable to the uranium fuel cycle will decrease over time while the comparative cack-ground radiation will not be reduced. Short-lived radionuclides like tritium, Kr-85 and I-131 will decay to neg-ligible levels within that period; radionuclides deposited onto the soil or into surface waters will become relatively unavailable to the biosphere through processes such as sedi-mentation, migration below the root Zone, and transport to the deep ocean. Joint Affidavit at V12. Thus, if any period of time greater than 100 or 1000 years is considered, the ratio of effects will be less than in the 1000 and 100-year periods con-sidered by the Staff. Id. at 13. In sum, the Staff in the DES has determined the maximum ratio of health effects from the uranium fuel cycle associated with SENPP operation. To make additional calculations that would not increase the comparative ratio, obviously, is unneceasary. Id. at U15.
For all the above reasons, Contention 8F(2)(i) raises no issue of material fact.
IV. Dose Calculation Contention 8F(2)(ii-iv) asserts that the dose calculation in the DES for the uranium fuel cycle is underestimated because the NRC Staff used inappropriately low radionuclide concentra-tion values in the food chain pathway and for internal and external emitters. Mr. Eddleman thereby disputes the transfer factors (food chain pathway) and dose-conversion factors (internal and external emitters) utilized in the dose modeling calculations. Mr. Eddleman cites in support NRC Translation 520 ("Heidelberg Report"). Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's Conten-tion, the NRC Staff's estimate of dose is reasonable and Mr.
Eddleman's reliance on NRC Translation 520 is misplaced.
Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewicz have reviewed the assertions of Mr. Eddelman, the methodology of the NRC Staff in calculat-ing health effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and the most recent literature relevant to the transfer factors and dose conversion factors with which Mr. Eddleman quarrels. Further-more, during the past year, Dr. Mauro and his associates at Ebasco have reviewed the modeling components challenged by Mr.
Eddleman in connection with a project for Batte'le Memorial Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy. Joint Affidavit at 517. Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewicz also independently calcu-lateo the dose and health effects to the population from the radionuclide releases from the uranium fuel cycle for a 100-year and 1000-year period. This independent calculation confirms the continuing validity of the NRC Staff's assessment as set forth in Appendix C of the DES.
The modeling procedure utilized in the DES is set forth in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environ-mental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water Cooled Reactors" (NUREG-0002) (August 1976). See DES, Appendix C at C-7; Joint Affidavit at 17; NRC
i i
I Staff answer to Eddleman Interrogatories No. 90, 92, 98 (October 12, 1983). Pathways considered in this procedure l
include (1) external exposure to airborne radioactivity; (2) +
1 inhalation of radioactivity; (3) external exposure to 1
o radioactivity deposited on the ground; and (4) ingestien of !
t food stuffs, containing radionuclides from terrestrial and .l i
aquatic food pathways. Joint Affidavit at 17. As with Regula- *
] tory Guide 1.109 (covering dose calculations from releases dur- ;
ing plant operations), the methodology in NUREG-0002 involves approximately 1000 calculational parameters. Id. at 117. The
] ,
models and parameters in NUREG-0002 are consistent with standard methodologies widely used by the nuclear industry. ,
The models as a whole and individual parts of the models have
- been reviewed and these reviews reflect that the methodologies utilized are reasonable and do not lead to dose underestimates.
Id.
Mr. Eddleman is wrong as to his assertions and his reli-ance on Translation 520 is misplaced.3/ Environmental transfer i
factors are obtained from measurements made of concentrations j of radionuclides and stable elements in plants and soils, j Natural settings and materials obtained from the natural envi-ronment are used; no artificial selection is involved. Joint Affidavit at 118(1). Internal dose conversion factors, I
3/ See " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 29/30 (Appendix I Compliance)" at 38-40;
" Applicants' Motion on Contentions II and 37B" at 53-54.
i ,
i !
l
similarly, are obtained from observed behavior of radionuclides in man and animals. Id. at 118(3). External dose conversion factors are based on mathematical models. The most recent reports of refined calculational models for external dose con-version factors reveal that the factors used by the NRC Staff are consistently conservative. Id. at 18(4).
As noted previously, the methodologies and parameters uti-lized by the NRC Staff in calculating dose from releases of radionuclides are subject to continual review. The studies that provide data for the parameters are indeed numerous. For example, data which support the internal dose conversion factors u, sed in the dose calculations are the result of over 5,000 separate studies on the uptake and elimination of radionuclides by man and experimental animals after inhalation and ingestion. Id. at 118(3). Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewicz compared the parameters used by the NRC Staff in performing the dose calculations found in Appendix C to the DES with the most recent literature describing ongoing research and data. They found that many of the parameters used by the NRC Staff remain unchanged while some have increased and others have decreased.
Id. at 1118, 19. Overall, the parameters used and the dose and health effects calculated by the NRC Staff in the DES are rea-sonable and within the range of values observed or calculated in the scientific literature. Id. at 119.
To confirm the calculations performed by the NRC Staff, Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewicz independently calculated the dose
- . _ = _ - . = _ - = . _ _ - _ - __ .. .- .-. -.
+
and health effects using the NRC Staff estimates of radionuclide releases from the uranium fuel cycle (not at issue here). .A description of the calculational methodology is set forth in Attachment 5 to the Joint Affidavit. The NRC Staff i
estimated a population dose of approximately 600 man-rem (not including radon) over a 100-year period due to the radionuclide releases required to support 1 year of operation of the refer-ence light water reactor. Joint Affidavit at 20. Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewice calculated a total of 100-year dose commit-ment of 620 man-rem. Given the statistical uncertaintios in the calculational parameters, these numbers are essentitlly identical. Id. This independent calculation demonstrates that i the NRC Staff's estimates of dose and health effects provided in the DES are reasonable and have not been underestimated.
Dr. Mauro and Mr. Michlewice also independently calculated the 1000-year population dose and health effects. Their indepen-dent calculation resulted in less than 1 cancer death per 1000 years and compares favorably with the NRC Staff estimate of 0.13 cancer death. Id. at 121.
NRC Translation 520 (the so-called "Heidelberg Report"),
relied upon by Mr. Eddleman, has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community for its many inaccuracies, misleading treatment of available data, and other critical methodological flaws. See Joint Affidavit at 122, Attachment 4; Affidavit of John J. Mauro in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Dis-position of Joint Intervenors' Contention II and Contention 37B
4 '
I at 116, Exhibit B; see also, Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LPB-81-59, 14 N.R.C.
1211, 1496-1497 (1981) (rejecting analysis based on NRC Trans-lation 520). The transfer factors and dose-conversion factors proposed in NRC Translation 520, in particular, have been found to be unsupported by experimental data. Joint Affidavit at 122, Attachment 4. Indeed, a co-author of the report was compelled in an administrative proceeding in Germany to recant statements he made in support of the report's conclusions.
Joint Affidavit at Attachment 4 (at 4).
In addition to NRC Translation 520 being wholly rejected by the scientific community, there is a serious question wheth-er its authors may even be deemed experts in the field. At the least, the authors deserve little credibility and cannot be viewed as professional scientists undertaking a neutral quest for the truth. The authors of the report are students at Heidelberg University. Id. at 2. In the report, the authors offer no credentials supporting their expertise in radiobiology, health physics, radioecology, internal dosimetry or nuclear power plant operations. They.also list no experi-l ence or publications in these fields. Further, the authors i
have represented themselves to be sponsored by the University, contrary to fact and to the express request of the University president. The Dean of the Heidelberg Biology Faculty conclud-ed that the authors are "a bunch of students setting out to prove their philosophy right" who did so with " data based more
~ . . . . _ , _ _ . - ,_._,_m__. ~_..,,.w.n.,_ ...,-,...,.~.,e,_ _, _.-,y, .r.7.,m, , . , . _ . _ , , , . _ _ _ - , . . _ , _ . - . - . . . , -...___,,.7_-.r.
4 on fancy than on fact." Joint Affidavit at V22, Attachment 4 (at 2). Given the criticism both of the substance of the 4 reports and of the professionalism of its authors, the report and Mr. Eddleman's challenge to the DES modeling practices based thereon clearly can be given no weight and cannot raise any material issue of fact in this proceeding. -
Finally, even if the environmental transfer factors and dose conversion factors recommended in NRC Translation 520 are used to calculate the dose to the population over 1000 years from the t.ranium fuel cycle to support the reference 1000 MWe
, light water reactor, the dose remains extremely small compared i
to background radiation dose. Using the same risk estimators used by the NRC Staff in the DES (Appendix C at C-6), Dr. Mauro i
and Mr. Michlewicz calculated the resultant health effects to be less than one cancer death per 1000 years. Joint Affidavit 4
at 23. Thus, the health impact of the uranium fuel cycle remains negligible even if the factors recommended in NRC Translation 520 are accepted at face value. Thus, no material issue of fact regarding the validity of the NRC Staff's conclu-sions regarding the health effects from the uranium fuel cycle is presented by Mr. Eddleman's references to NRC Translation 520.
4 I
i
.-, - ~ . - - . ---.---,----w , , . , , , - , - - - ----nm , , , , . , , , , , - > , - - , - - , . . , - - . . . , - , , . , , . - . ,,-,,y
4 V. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that their Motion for Summary Disposition as to Contention 8F(2) be granted.
sp tfu ly submitt i, .
I ThoqasA. Baxter,
~
1 P.C.
Dean D. Aulick, P.C.
, Johr H. O'Neill, Jr. (j s.W , PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 i Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 26602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: November 2, 1983 1
1 em-. q- g--i +-oay-e+-~.-au g; g 7, 4-.-- --+-wa--mmw,e-w -y- y,e,p.-.,, 9 me9 y-q9 g+-g-eg-ep,9-w m-yy-y---qre-*m gp w rga-p r- % i ayn-weyi-----p - - -
9-q