ML20093G103
| ML20093G103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1984 |
| From: | Bauser D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407230318 | |
| Download: ML20093G103 (84) | |
Text
1%N i
i l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O?ll(ETr-l nl,iic BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD N 23 All:C8 In the Matter of
)
U;n -
)
GC@,';;y{ ;7; l
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No.!50 @O0iOL l
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
' )
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
^
x
)
I (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS'OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS i
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Deborah B.
Bauser SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn H. Hill Carrow CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY July 20, 1984 Counsel for Applicants 8407230318 840720 PDR ADOCK 05000400 G
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00cp[rf0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U3iq BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARh1 g[
Al1:09 7.-
In the Matter of
)
.,,;~ N:p,,
)
l, D
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-400'OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ENVIRONMENTAL-MATTERS Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Deborah B.
Bauser SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn H. Hill Carrow CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 4
July 20, 1984 Counsel for Applicants i:
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Introduction and Background.............................
1 A.
The Proceeding.....................................
1 B.
Environmental Issues...............................
4 II.
Findings of Fact........................................
8 A.
Eddleman Contention 8F(1):
Table S-3 Coal Particulates..................................
8 1.
Particulate Concentration Levels.............
14 2.
Health Effects of Calculated Particulate Concentration Levels.............
24 3.
Assessment of the Significance of the Projected Health Effects of 1,154 MT/yr..................................
35 B.
Joint Contention II(e):
Fly Ash..................
41 C.
Joint Contention II(c):
Duration of Radiological Dose Calculations....................
60 1.
Population Doses and Risks...................
63 2.
Exposure of the Maximum Individual...........
68 3.
Conclusions..................................
76 D.
Eddleman Section 2.758. Petition...................
77 III. Co nc lu s i on s o f L aw..................................... 7 7 -
l July 20, 1984 f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A.
The Proceeding 1.
This is a contested proceeding on the application of Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (collectively " Applicants") for a license to operate the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, a s
pressurized water reactor facility located in Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina, approximately sixteen miles southwest of Raleigh.
The reactor is designed to operate at a core power level of 2,785 megawatts thermal, with an equivalent net elec-trical output of approximately 900 megawatts.
2.
Since the Licensing Board will be issuing its first partial initial decision in this proceeding, it is appropriate for it to set forth briefly the history of the case up to this
l l
l point.
Later partial initial decisions may update this history i
as necessary.1/
3.
On January 27, 1978, the Commission issued Construc-tion Permit Nos. CPPR-158, 159, 150 and 161, which authorized CP&L to construct the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,
2, 3 and 4.
43 Fed. Reg. 4465 (1978).
Issuance of the per-mits was authorized by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which had conducted public hearings on both contested (by in-tervenors) and uncontested aspects of the application.
Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,
3 and 4), LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C.
92 (1978),
a_f f ' d, ALAB-490, 8 N.R.C.
234 (1978), remanded, CLI-78-18, 8 N.R.C.
293 (1978), decision on remand, LBP-79-19, 10 N.R.C.
37 (1979), aff'd as modified, ALAB-577, 11 N.R.C.
18 (1980), rev'd in part, CLI-80-12, 11 N.R.C. 514 (1980).
4.
On January 15, 1982, the Commission issued " Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility Operating Licenses; Notice of Availability of Applicants' Environmental Report; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating Licenses; and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing."
47 Fed. Reg. 3898 (1982).
The Notice announced that the application was for Units 1 and 2 of the Shearon Harris facility, and that Units 3 and 4 had been 1/
While the Licensing Board and parties are familiar with the development of the case, and whiJe the numerous Board memoranda and orders document decisions made, Applicants be-lieve that appellate reviewing bodies would benefit from,a sum-mary of the history of this complex proceeding..
cancelled.
By letter of December 22, 1983, Applicants' counsel informed the Board and the parties that Unit 2 had also been l
cancelled.
I 5.
On February 23, 1982, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel established this i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and/or requests for hearing, and to preside over the proceeding in the event that a hearing is ordered.2/
47 Fed. Reg. 8705 (1982).
6.
A number of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene were filed in response to the Commission's published notice.
On September 22, 1982, the Board ruled on the requests and petitions in Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference), LBP-82-119A, i
16 N.R.C. 2069 (1982).
The Board granted party status under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 to the following:
(1) Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC); (2) Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Ef-fort and the Environmental Law Project (consolidated and re-3 ferred to as CHANGE); (3) Kudzu Alliance; (4) Citizens Against Nuclear Power (CANP); (5) Mr. Wells Eddleman; and (6) Dr.
Richard Wilson.
CANP later withdrew-as a party.
See Memoran-dum and Order (Confirming Withdrawal of Citizens Against Nucle-ar Power (CANP) as a Party) (May 3, 1983).
)
2/
As indicated below, the Board was supplemented for the ev-identiary hearing on environmental matters.,
7.
In a Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehearing Conference), dated March 10, 1983, the Board adopted the parties' proposal that issues should be tried and decided in groups as they become ripe.
For this pur-pose, the admitted contentions were divided into three groups:
environmental contentions, safety contentions and emergency preparedness contentions.3/
Hearings on safety contentions are scheduled to begin on September 5 (management capability) and October 10, 1984 (other safety issues), after which the Board will issue a partial initial decision on those contentions.
The hearing on emergency preparedness is scheduled to begin on February 11, 1985 (Tr. 1,076), after which the Board will issue its final decision.
Applicants' schedule for fuel loading is June, 1985.
B.
Environmental Issues 8.
The first of the three contemplated partial initial decisions in this proceeding will resolve all environmental matters under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")
and the Commission's implementing NEPA regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 51, raised as contested issues by the parties.
3/
While contentions later were admitted on a fourth subject, physical security plans, those contentions have been withdrawn.
See Order (Approving Joint Motion to Withdraw Security 21an Contentions) (March 19, 1984); and Order (Ruling on Various Procedural Questions and Eddleman Contention 15AA) at 5-6 (May 10, 1984). -
rz u
s I
9.
The parties, agreed that the following. contentions,
. admitted by the Board on September $2, 1982', would be grouped as environmentidigontentions:
Joint Conde'ntNon II (CANP 5)4/
CCNC'4[ 12 and-14 t
CHANGE 9 and 79(c)
~
Wilson Ia-d, I(e)-(f4), I(g),-and IVC Eddleman 15, 22A&B, 29/30 (CANP 6),
s y
37B (CANP 5), 75, 80, 83 and 84.
See Me'morandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second drehearing Conference) at 6 (March 10, 1983).
Subse-quently, the following environmental contentions were admitted:
Eddleman 8F(1),, 8F(2), 15AA and 85/86.
See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Contentions on:the Staff Draft Environmental Impact Statement) (August. 18,'1983); Memo-randum and Order (Ruling on Response,s to 'the-Memorandum and s.
Order of January 27, 1984 Concerning, Health Effects and Certain-s s,*
Other Mat ers) at 12-16 (March 15, 1904). N 10.
'CANP's environmental contentions were abandoned with.
CANP's withdrawal as a party.
Dr. Wilson moved to withdraw his contentions, following technical discussions with Applicants.
CCNC moved.to withdraw its Contentions
- .2 and 14 on the basis of infotration received from Applicants ph.ough discovery.
The Board granted these motions by Dr. Wilson and CCNC.
Memorandum t
sf Joint II is sponsored by CCNC, CHANGE, Kudzu Alliance and Mr. Ed,dleman.
a
-S-s, s.
es I.
(
x, L
\\
,1
~
and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Proposed Contentions Con-cerning Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR), Richard Wilson's Motion to Withdraw Contentions, and the Conservation Council of North Carolina's Motion to Withdraw Contentions)
(October 6, 1983); Erratum (October 12, 1983).
Mr. Eddleman also voluntarily withdrew his Contention 85/86.
Eddleman No-tice of Withdrawal of Contentions 85/86 June 5, 1984.
11.
4, Eddleman 15 and 22A and B, as well as CHANGE 79(c),
{
were rejected in Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Cost Savings Contentions, Discovery Disputes, and Scheduling Matters), LBP-83-27A, 17 N.R.C. 971 (1983).
CCNC 4 and CHANGE 9 were dis-missed in Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Spent Fuel Transpor-tation Contentions and Miscellaneous Motions) (August 24, 1983).
12.
Other environmental contentions were decided by the i
Board on motions for summary disposition filed by Applicants.5/
See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Dispo-sition of Eddleman Contentions 29/30, 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84) 1 (November 30, 1983); Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition of Health Effects Contentions:
Joint Contention II and Eddleman Contentions 37B, 8F(l) and 8F(2)),
LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C. 432 (1984); Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Response to the Memorandum and Order of January 27, 1984 5/
The environmental contentions decided by summary disposi-i tion are:
Joint II (a, b, d, e (in part) and f), Eddleman 8F(2), 15AA, 29/30, 37B, _75, 80 and 83/84.
,i
,1 r
s
~
Concerning Health Effects and'Certain Other. Matters)-(March 15, 1984); Memorandum and Order!(Ruling on Summary Disposition of r
- Eddleman Contention 83/84B) (April 27,- 1984); Order (Ruling on 1
Various Procedural Q0estions.and Eddleman Coptention 15AA) (May 10, 1984).
j Y
.r.
13.
The environmeatal contentions which were the subject of the evidentiary hearing were Eddleman 8F(1) and Joint II (c and e (.in part)).
Pursuad to' Order (Time and Place for Evidentiary Hearing) (May 31,1984), the; hearing was held in Ralei,gh, North Carolina,on June 14, l ji,~ 18 and 19, 1984.
2, 14.
Because of Administrat'iye Jddge Carpenter'e temporary unavailability, Administrative Judge Foreman served as a-member of the Board, in place of Judge Carpenter, during the' hearing
("
,)
1 and.in the decision on Eddlemaa Contention.8F(1).
Judge' Fore-l
_ q
~
man served at} a, technical interrogator an_d -informal assistant to the Board,funder 10 C.E.Ri>$ 2.722, for the bala'nce of the 4
/
hearing.
s 15.
In addition to ths'three admitted contentions'; the Board's first partial illitial decision will resolvo<another en-e-
vironmental raat.ter of dispute -- Fr. Eddleman's petition under
.i f'
10 C.F.R. S 2.758 to waive, in this, proceeding,'10 C.F.R.
~
S 51.106(c5, whicil" bars contentions concerning, inter alia,
'need for power or alternative energy sources.
,1
'l U
< u Y
f
~
Q.
a
/
f
/
-p:
.+
i t
q V
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT A.
Eddleman Contention 8F(1):
Table S-3 Coal Particulates s
16.
Eddleman Contention 8F(1) states:
Appendix C of the DEIS underestimates the environmental impact of the effluents in Table S-3 for the following reasons:
(1) health effects of the coal particu-lates 1,154 MT per year, are not ana-lyzed nor given sufficient weight.
Wells Eddleman's Response tc Staff DEIS, June 20, 1983, at 13.
Included in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 is Table S-3, the generic quan-tification of the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle.
Table S-3 values are not subject to challenge in indi-vidual licensing proceedings.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.
- v. NRDC, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983).
However, the health effects attributable to these values are not part of the Table; conse-quently, they are litigable in NRC adjudications.
See 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Table S-3 at n.l.
One of the values in Table S-3 is 1,154 metric tons a year (MT/yr) of coal particles.
17.
The health effects of Ta,)le S-3 coal particles are treated briefly in the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0972 (Oct. 1983) (FES) (Staff Ex. 1).6/
Section 6/
Contention 8F(1) was written prior to the publication of the Shearon Harris FES; thus, it relies on the draft environ-mental impact statement.
For the purposes of Contention 8F(1),
this difference is meaningless as both documents treat identi-cally the issue of Table S-3 coal pe.rticulate emission effects. E m-um-ummum
5.10 of the FES, entitled " Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle," summarizes the Staff's position on the radiological and nonradiological environmental effects of the light water reac-tor (LWR)-supporting fuel cycle "that reasonably appear to have significance for individual reactor licensing sufficient to warrant attention for NEPA purposes."
FES, Section 5.10 at 5-85.
These impacts are addressed in more detail in Appendix C of the FES.
As to non-radi.iogical effects, Section 5.10 sim-ply states that these impacts have been "found to be accept-able" by the Staff.
FES, Section 5.10 at 5-88.
In Appendix C, the effects of the nonradiological particulate effluents asso-ciated with fuel-cycle processes are grouped together with other chemical effluents and the following statement is pro-vided:
The quantities of chemical, gaseous and particulate effluents associated with fuel-cycle processes are given in Table S-3.
The principal species are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates.
On the basis of the data in a Council on Environ-mental Quality report (CEQ, 1976), the staff finds that these emissions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in comparison with the same emis-sions from the stationary fuel-combustion and tr nsportation sectors in the U.S.;
that is, about 0.02% of the annual national releases for each of these species.
The staff believes that such small increases in releases of these pollutants are accept-able.
FES, Appendix C, Section 4 at C-2.
18.
Mr. Eddleman's Contention 8F(l) constitutes a chal-lenge to the adequacy of the Staff summary position on the
_g_
i
-mm mu i i i
health effects of coal particulates.
Mr. Eddleman contends that this quantity of emissions may cause up to ten deaths a year, a number which is "[n]ot trivial."
See Wells Eddleman's Response to Staff DEIS, June 20, 1983, at 14.
Mr. Eddleman is of the opinion that the Staff should. ave devoted more atten-tion in its FES to the health effects of the 1,154 MT/yr coal particulate rate specified in Table S-3.
See Contention 8F(1).
In view of the litigation of this issue, which effectively amends the FES' treatment of Table S-3 coal particulates, see 10 C.F.R.
S 51.102(c), whether the FES sufficiently discussed this issue is not our central concern.
Rather, at issue is whether the Table S-3 coal particulate health effects have been properly assessed and, thus, considered by the NRC Staff.
As discussed below, the testimony of the Applicants' and Staff witnesses on this subject unequivocally establishes that the health effects of coal particles attributable to the uranium fuel cycle are insignificant, as reflected in the FES.7/
7/
Because coal particulate health effects are insignificant, it was not inappropriate for the Staff to treat the issue very briefly in the FES.
Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 348 F.
Supp. 916, 933 (N.D. Miss.), aff'd, 492 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1972) (an environmental impact statement "must thoroughly discuss the significant aspects of the probable en-vironmental impact of the proposed agency action.
By defini-tion, this excludes the necessity for discussing either insig-nificant matters, such as those without import, or remote effects, such as mere possibilities unlikely 'o occur as a re-sult of the proposed activity."); see also I1_ k Walton League of America v.
Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 377 (D.C.
C.
1981);
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hoffman, 56s h'.2d 1060, 1067 and n.11 (8th Cir. 1977); Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283 n.9 (9th Cir. 1974). -
19.
Addressing Contention 8F(1) on behalf of the NRC Staff was a distinguished panel of experts:
Dr. Loren J.
Habegger, Dr.
A. Haluk Ozkaynak, and Mr. Ronald L.
Ballard.
NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Loren J.
Habegger, Dr. A. Haluk Ozkaynak and Mr. Ronald L. Ballard Regarding Eddleman Conten-tion 8F(1) (Health Effects of Coal Particulates at the Table S-3 Level) ff. Tr. 1,380 (NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l))
at 1-2; Tr. 1,375-76 (Habegger, Ozkaynak and Ballard).
As Man-ager of the Environment and Natural Resources Section, Energy Environmental Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Dr. Habegger directs the activities of a staff of energy system i
engineers and environmental scientists engaged in studies of technology development in relation to environmental protection.
Dr. Habegger has a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering and has pub-lished extensively in the field of air pollution.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l), Attachment 1.
Dr. Habegger prepared Part I of the Staff's testimony, which involved identifying and assessing site-specific information (e.g., meteorological and topographic information) used to calculate the health effects of coal particles released from coal-fired plants that are used to support the uranium fuel cycle.
Tr. 1,382-83 (Habegger).
Dr. Ozkaynak, who has M.S. degrees in Physics and in Air Pollu-tion Control and has a Ph.D in Mathematical Physics, is a Re-search Fellow and Project Director of a large multi-year, multi-disciplinary study at Harvard University investigating the health effects resulting from population exposures to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ambient particulate matter.
NRC Staff Panel on Conten-tion 8F(l), Attachment 2 at 1-2.
The work of the Harvard group is the most multi-disciplinary and comprehensive continuing study in this field.
Tr. 1,593 (Ozkaynak).
Dr. Ozkaynak also has published numerous articles, with particular emphasis on transport and other models used in public health risk analyses.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l), Attachment 2 at 4-8.
Dr.
Ozkaynak prepared Part II of the Staff's testimony, with the exception of the concluding remarks on page 40 (questions 65 and 66).
Using the particulate concentration levels and popu-lation figures derived by Dr. Habegger, Dr. Ozkaynak assessed the health effects of the Table S-3 coal particulate emissions.
Tr. 1,383-87 (Ozkaynak).
The third member of the Panel was Mr.
Ballard, who is Chief of the Environmental and Hydrologic Engi-neering Branch of NRC's Division of Engineering.
Mr. Ballard oversees the NRC Staff's preparation of non-radiological envi-ronmental assessments for nuclear power plants.
Id.
Mr.
Ballard was responsible for developing agency guidelines for use in responding to NEPA.
Id. at 1-2.
Mr. Ballard compared the results of Dr. Habegger and Dr. Ozkavnak's analysis with the FES assescment of the effects of Table S-3 coal particles.
Tr. 1,387 (Ballard).
20.
Addressing Contention 8F(l) on behalf of Applicants was Dr. Leonard D. Hamilton, who is an expert on the health and environmental effects of all energy sources, including the health effects of air pollution from fossil fuel combustion for ___
electricity generation.
Applicants' Testimony of Leonard D.
Hamilton on Wells Eddleman's Contention 8F(1) (Table S-3 Coal Particulates), ff. Tr. 1,178 (Hamilton) at 1; cf. Louisiana l
Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
1 ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C.
1076, 1092 (1983) (reference to Dr.
Hamilton's expert qualifications in the appraisal of radiation health risks).
Dr. Hamilton currently is, and has been since its inception, Head of the Biomedical and Environmental Assess-ment Division in the National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
The Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division aims at developing a realis-tic assessment of biomedical and environmental effects of ener-gy production and use.
All forms of energy, including electric power generation using fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, and new technologies, are assessed.
Dr. Hamilton has been involved in assessing the risks of radiation for man for 37 years, and the comparative health effects from various energy sources for the past 10 years.
He received his B.A. degree and qualified in medicine from Oxford University, received a Ph.D in experimen-tal pathology from Cambridge, and obtained a Doctor of Medicine degree from Oxford (a senior medical qualification degree).
Dr. Hamilton is a registered medical practitioner in the United Kingdom, and a licensed physician in the State of New York.
He has published more than 150 scientific papers, including many reports assessing the hazards of various energy sources.
Hamilton, Attachment 1. __
l l
21.
Mr. Eddleman presented no witnesses in support of his Contention 8F(1) on the health effects of the coal particles released in support of the uranium fuel cycle and their treat-ment by the NRC Staff in the FES.
1.
Particulate Concentration Levels 22.
The Table S-3 particulate emission rate of 1,154 MT/yr is a hypothetical attribution.
Hamilton at 3.
It is used in Table S-3 in order to calculate a conservative estimate of the particulate emissions that might be associated with the electrical energy produced by the equivalent of a hypothetical 45 MWe coal-fired power plant operating for one year; this is the estimated energy needed to support the uranium fuel cycle for one year of the Harris Plant's operation.g/
Most of this energy is used in the uranium enrichment process at gaseous diffusion plants.9/
g/
Although the FES was written in support of a two-unit facility, Applicants cancelled construction of one of these units on December 21, 1983.
See 14, supra.
As a result, those environmental impacts that are not expressed in "per reactor" units in the FES must be halved to accurately reflect the im-pact of the Shearon Harris facility.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 2,059 (Branagan).
(Actually, in order to generate Table S-3 values, a model LWR with 1,000 Mw capacity and a plant load factor of 80% was assumed.
See NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 10 (citing Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248, Directorate of Licensing, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. (1974)).
The Shearon Harris plant capacity is 10% lower, that is, 900 Mw, and thus the uranium fuel require-ments and associated fuel cycle electricity requirements are expected to be proportionately less than those for the model plant.
Id.)
9/
Of the 323 thousand megawatt-hours (Mwhr) of electricity given in Table S-3 as the total annual requirement for the fuel
~
(Continued next page)._
23.
The three gaseous diffusion facilities used in the uranium enrichment process are located at (1) Paducah, Kentucky; (2) Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and (3) Portsmouth, Ohio.
These facilities are supplied with electricity primarily from power grids.
Thus, the impact of the particles released from coal plants supporting the uranium fuel cycle in fact are dis-tributed in small amounts over large areas.
Hamilton at 4; NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 5.10/
However, for purposes of their respective calculations to estimate an upper limit of health risks, as discussed below, Dr. Hamilton and the NRC i
Staff experts did not rely on this fact, instead using much more conservative assumptions.
l (Continued) cycle for the model LWR plant, approximately 96%, or 310,000 Mwbr, is required to perform the uranium isotope enrichment step of the fuel cycle.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention SF(1) at 4 (citing WASH-1248).
10/
As Dr. Habegger explained, because of the interconnections within utility grids it is not possible to completely associate increased electrinal generation, and thus increased particulate emissions, with any specific individual or group of power plants.
A possible approach is to allocate the incremental generation to specific plants according to utility dispatching practices.
However, this would be inconsistent with Table S-3 rule's constraints on the Staff analysis, namely, that the par-ticulate emissions are fixed at a level of 1,154 MT/yr, which is associated with coal-fired generation.
More realistically, assuming this generation is from the mix of plants in the util-ity grid, including hydro, oil, gas, and nuclear, the result would be a considerably lower level of coal particulate'emis-sions to support the uranium fuel cycle.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 5. -
_-_-.___-__---__-..___.._m_
24.
Similar methods were used by the Staff panel of ex-perts and by Dr. Hamilton to calculate the health effects at-tributable to the particulate emission rate of 1,154 MT/yr.
In order to calculate health effects, both Dr. Hamilton and the Staff experts had to estimate the particulate concentration levels attributable to 1,154 MT/yr.
Dr. Hamilton made a number of reasonable assumptions about the coal particulate emissions attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, whereas the NRC Staff's experts utilized actual data and a complex model to derive the atmospheric concentration of coal particles.
Tr. 1,223-24, 1,362 (Hamilton): Tr. 1,591 (Ozkaynak); Tr. 1,590-91 (Habegger); Tr. 1,591 (Ballard).
25.
Specifically, from the TVA's grid system, Dr.
Hamilton assumed the Bull Run Plant to be the only plant serving Oak Ridge, and the Shawnee Plant to be serving Paducah, Kentucky.
He also assumed that the following facilities are dedicated to providing electric power to their respective loca-tions:
the Joppa Plant (in addition to the Shawnee Plant),
supplying Paducah, Kentucky, and the Kyger and Clifty Plants, supplying Portsmouth, Ohio.
He then assigned the hypothetical 1,154 MT of particles individually to each of these five power plants on the basis of two different assumptions:
first, that any one of these coal plants may be singly responsible for the c
electricity used to produce the entire enrichment of uranium needeu to supply the Shearon Harris plant; and second, that the source of energy to support the uranium enrichment process may be divided equally among these coal plants.
Hamilton at 4.
26.
The Staff's point sources were limited to the three existing coal-fired power plants in utility grids that are known to serve the gaseous diffusion plants, i.e.,
the Joppa, Clifty and Kyger Plants.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 4.
Each of these coal-fired stations was also assumed by the Staff's experts to generate the total uranium fuel cycle electrical energy requirements, and thus to emit the entire 1,154 MT/yr of coal particles specified in Table S-3.
Id.11/
27.
In his calculation of particulate concentration lev-els attributable to 1,154 MT/yr, Dr. Hamilton assumed that in the region (50-mile radius) near the coal plant supplying power for each enrichment facility, emissions are uniformly mixed in the volume of air contained in a cylinder with a radius of 50 miles and a height equal to the average height of the mixing layer of air.
The concentration of particles in the 50-mile region is a function of the quantity cf emissions released by the coal plants and the wind speed.
Thus, the total emissions mixed in this volume are related to the time it takes for the wind to blow the particles 50 miles from the stack to the edge 11/
The Joppa, Kyger and Clifty Plants in fact have the capac-ity of 1,100, 1,086 and 1,304 Mw/yr, respectively.
735 Mw of Joppa's 1,100 Mw capacity is " dedicated" to the Paducah gaseous diffusion facility.
From the Kyger and Clifty Plants, there is 2,260 Mw dedicated to support the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion facility.
Connections to utility grids, as discussed in n.10, supra, allow the excess generation from these dedicated plants to be transmitted to the grid, and in turn allows other power plants in the grid to supply power to the gaseous diffusion fa-cilities when demand exceeds the capacity of the dedicated plants.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 5-6..
of the cylinder.
This calculation yields a rough estimate of the long-term average coal particulate exposure over the 50-mile radius area.
Of course, on an individual basis, persons closer to the plant would receive greater exposures than those farther away.
Similarly, individuals living downwind from the plant would receive larger exposures than those living upwind.
Hamilton at 5.
Using available annual average daytime condi-tions for the specific vicinities in question,12/
Dr. Hamilton estimated daytime particulate concentrations for the five plants.
Hamilton at 6-7 and Table 1.13/
In summary, the 12/
Dr. Hamilton points out that the small amount of particles equivalent to the emissions of a hypothetical 45 MWe coal-fired plant actually attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle is in re-ality much smaller than the 1,154 MT/yr set forth in Table S-3.
Hamilton at 6 n.2.
The allowable emission rate for three of the coal plants that supply power to the uranium enrichment fa-cilities (Shawnee Plant, 0.11 lb/10E6 Btu; Bull Run Plant, 0.10/10E6 Btu; and Kyger Plant, 0.10 lb/10E6 Btu) are roughly one-eighth of the figure given for the particulate emission rate in Table S-3.
Id. (citing 401 Ky. Admin. Reg. S 61:015 (Shawnee Plant); Tenn. Dept. Public Health, Div. of Air Pollu.
Control Regs. Ch. 1200-3-16.02 (Bull Run Plant); Ohio EPA Regs., 6 3745-17 (Kyger Plant)).
The allowable emission rate for the Joppa Plant is 0.19 lb/10E6 Btu, which is roughly four times lower than the figure given for particles in Table S-3, while the rate at the Clifty Plant of 0.236 lb/10E6 Btu is ap-proximately three times lower.
Id. (citing Ill. Pollu. Control Bd. Rules & Regs., Ch. 2, Pt. II, Rule 203(g)(1)(C) (Joppa Plant); Ind. Control Bd. Regs., 5 325 IAC 6-2 (Clifty Plant)).
Notwithstanding these "real" emission limits, in order to com-ply with the Table S-3 rule, the Board must assume that the amount of particles attributable to a 45 MWe coal-fired plant is 1,154 MT/yr.
See LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C.
432, 460 n.2 (1984);
see also n.36, infra.
Nevertheless, knowledge that the rule is very conservative tempers the significance of any criticisms of the conservatism in the witnesses' analyses.
13/
Dr. Hamilton's simplified concentration estimates depend on both wind speed and depth of the mixing surface layer, which (Continued next page) _.
estimated average daytime particulate concentration varies from 3
0.036 to 0.042 ug/m at the five sites analyzed.
28.
The Staff's estimated particulate concentration lev-els at the three plant sites studied relied on much more site specific information than did Dr. Hamilton's analysis.
Specif-ically, site-specific information on the ground-level disper-sion in the vicinity of the emitted particles was utilized.14/
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 7.
Dr. Habegger also utilized site-specific meteorological conditions, i.e.,
hourly data on wind speed and direction, temperature, and height of the surface mixing layer.
Id. at 10.
This data is collected in rour.ine measurements by the U.S.
National Weather Service (NWS).
The available data collected at the NWS station nearest the Joppa, Clifty, and Kyger plants were obtained for use in the analysis.
In addition, because topography can affect ground-level concentrations and is an input to the air pollutant dispersion model, at each location where the (Continued) are closely linked.
The faster the wind blows, the deeper is the mixing surface layer.
Also, faster wind results in reduced residence time, hence lower concentrations.
Hamilton at 8.
14/ This dispersion factor is dependent on the stack height and also on the rise of the plume above the stack.
The plume rise can be estimated on the basis of emission gas temperature, gas exit velocity, and inside stack diameter.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 6.
The stack parameters (height, inside diameter, exit velocity, exit temperature) assumed by the Staff experts were those that were reported to the Federal Power Com-mission.
Id. at 7. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
atmospheric particulate ccncentration was estimated, the elevation relative to the power plant was obtained from area maps compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Id. at 11.
29.
Using the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) computer model,15/
Dr. Habegger estimated ambient particulate concen-tration increments attributable to 1,154 MT/yr.
The particle concentration and population exposure analysis for each of the three fossil power plants covered a circular area of a 50-mile radius with the power plant emission source at the center.
The circular areas were divided into 360 grid cells.
Particulate concentrations for each hour were computed with the ISC model for receptors at the geographic centroid of each of the 360 grid cells surrounding each power plant.
Id. at 12.
For long-term (annual) particulate concentration levels, such as those calculated here, the ISC model predictions are quite accurate.
Id. at 13.
15/
ISC is'a standard model recommended by the EPA for use in air dispersion analysis for regulatory purposes.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 12 (citing " Industrial Source Com-plex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide," EPA-450/4-79-030, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
(1979)).
The concentrations are computed at different receptor locations for each hour over the simulated time period using the input meteorological data, stack and emission parameters, and receptor elevations.
The basic model assumes steady-state movement of the atmospheric pollutants in the downwind direction with Gaussian horizontal and vertical cross-wind dispersion.
The vertical dispersion is limited by the height of the mixing layer given as a meteorological input.
Id. at 12.,
30.
The results of Dr. Habegger's analysis, using both annual and maximum 24-hour averages, were as follows:
For the Clifty power plant, the computed maximum increment at any of 3
the 360 receptor points was 0.022 ug/m for the annual av-erage and 0.70 ug/m for the maximum 24-hour average.
For the Kyger plant, the maximum annual average was 0.013 ug/
3 3
m, and the 24-hour maximum was 0.71 ug/m.
For the 3
Joppa plant, the maximum annual average was 0.038 ug/m,
3 and the 24-hour maximum was 1.3 ug/m.
Id.16/
31.
In addition, the health effects of atmospheric par-ticles on exposed populations are dependent on the size distri-bution of the particles.
In general, smaller size particles are potentially more harmful, largely because of deeper pene-tration into the lungs.
Id. at 6.
Table S-3 does not provide data on particle size distribution.
However, using the data on which Table S-3 was based,17/ and making a number of conserva-tive assumptions about particulate emissions and controls,18/
16/
The ISC model has the capability to simulate particle re-moval by deposition, which results in lower concentrations, es-pecially at distant receptor points.
However, this feature was not utilized, which adds further to the conservatism of the analysis.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 12; see also Tr. 1,568 (Ozkaynak).
17/
Table S-3 assumes a coal ash content of 8%, a coal heating value of 13,000 Btu /lb, and a thermal-to-electrical conversion rate of 10,300 Btu /(kilowatt-hr) with pulverized coal firing.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 7 (citing " Power Plant Emissions," Correspondence from J.F. Wing to Wayne L. Smalley, NRC (March 20, 1969)).
18/
Using the parameters specified in note 17, supra, 9,295 MT of ash is associated with the generation of the 323 thousand (Continued next page) __ _
Dr. Habegger conservatively calculated that 790 MT/yr of the 1,154 MT/yr of particulate emissions are less than 2.5 um, and (Continued)
Mwhr required annually in the uranium fuel cycle for the model plant.
For pulverized-coal-firing without air emission con-trols, typically 85% of the ash in the coal is carried in the flue gas fly ash with dry-bottom boilers and 65% with wet-bottom boilers.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 7-8 (citing " Assessment of Energy and Economic Impacts of Particulate-Control Technologies in Coal-Fired Power Genera-tion," ANL/ECT-9, Midwest Research Institute and Argonne Na-tional Laboratory, Argonne, IL (1980)).
The references for Table S-3 do not distinguish between these types of boilers; thus, the more conservative value of 85% was assumed by Dr.
Habegger in his analysis.
With this assumption, of the 9,295 MT/yr of ash associated with the model plant, 7,900 MT/yr is carried in the flue gas as fly ash.
(The remaining ash is col-lected as bottom ash.)
Using available data for pulverized-coal fired boilers, of the 7,900 MT of fly ash emitted without controls, approximately 10%, or 790 MT of the particles have diameters 2.5 microns (um) or less; 35%, or 2760 MT of the particles have diameter in the range of 2.5 to 15 um; and the remaining 4350 MT of particles have diameters greater than 15 um.
To obtain the Table S-3 particulate emission level of 1,154 MT/yr, it must be assumed that only 85.4% of the 7,900 MT/yr of ash carried in the flue gas is removed.
This modest level of emission control can be achieved by various types of control devices.
Because of the unknowns in the control device design used as a basis for Table S-3, a conservative approach was used by Dr. Habegger in his analysis in which it was as-sumed that all of the least harmful particles greater than 15 um are collected, none of the most harmful particles less than 2.5 um are collected, and the level of control on the midsize 2.5 to 15 um particles is adjusted to give a total emission rate of 1,154 MT/yr.
The result of this approach gives 790 MT/yr emissions (68%) of less than 2.5 um, and 364 MT/yr of emissions in the 2.5 to 15 um range.
Id. at 8-9.
Mr. Eddleman challenged the degree of conservatism inher-ent in this approach.
See Tr. 1,452-73 (Eddleman cross-examination of Dr. Habegger).
However, the important point is that this assumption is conservative because no matter what emission control technology is assumed, no more than 68% of the particles released will be fine particles
(< 2. 5 um ).
Tr. 1,467 (Habegger). -.
l 364 MT/yr of emissions are in the 2.5 to 15 um size range.
Id.
at 9.19/
32.
Using the annual average particulate concentrations, Dr. Habegger also calculated the total computed population ex-posure in the coal plant vicinities.
These exposures are 5,567 3
persons-ug/m in the 50-mile vicinity of Joppa, 5,625 for Clifty, and 2,174 for Kyger.20/
The total computed population 19/
Dr. Habegger observed that the actual Joppa, Clifty, and Kyger power plants emit particulates at a considerably lower rate than that given in Table S-3 and used in the analysis for this testimony.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 9, unnumbered footnote.
Based on available data, Dr. Habegger notes that the Joppa plant utilizes an electrostatic precipita-tor (ESP) with a design particulate removal efficiency of 98.6%
that limits the particulate emissions to an estimated 115 MT associated with a generation of 323,000 Mwhr (as is required for the model LWR plant fuel cycle).
This is approximately only 10% of the assumed 1,154 MT level in Table S-3.
Id.
For the Clifty plant, which also has an ESP, the particu-late removal efficiency is in the range of 99.84% (test) to 98%
(design), and the particulate emission associated with 323 thousand Mwhr is in the range of 30 MT to 400 MT.
Id.
Simi-larly, the Kyger plant has an ESP with greater than 99.8% test efficiency and 99.4% design efficiency.
This range of efficiencies gives estimated particulate emissions of 16 to 114 MT associated with 323 thousand Mwhr generation.
Id.; see also n.
12, supra (Dr. Hamilton's observations about effluent limits in contrast to assumption of 1,154 MT/yr); Tr. 1,244 (Hamilton).
With the high removal efficiency of these ESPs, a signifi-cant fraction of particles with diameters less than 2.5 um is removed.
For example, using standard calculation procedures, Dr. Habegger estimated that approximately 70% of the 0-2.5 um particle size range is removed with an ESP, which has an over-all removal efficiency of 96.5% for all particlas.
With this value, the emissions of 0-2.5 um particles associated with 323 thousand Mwhr generation is in the range of 10 to 120 MT in-stead of the 790 MT assumed in his analysis.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 9, unnumbered footnote.
20/
Dr. Habegger estimated the population in each of the 360 receptor grid cells surrounding each of the three power plants.
(Continued next page) _
exposure using the maximum 24-hour concentration is 100,800 3
persons-ug/m in the 50-mile vicinity of Joppa, 103,000 for Clifty, and 47,200 for Kyger.
Id. at 16-17.
The population-weighted average (sum of exposures divided by population)21/ of the incremental annual average particulate concentration is 0.011 ug/m for Joppa, 0.0038 for Clifty, and 0.0025 for Kyger.
The population-weighted average of maximum incremental 3
24-hour concentration is 0.19 ug/m for Joppa, 0.071 for Clifty, and 0.054 for Kyger.
Id. at 17.
These figures are consistent with Dr. Hamilton's estimated average daytime 3
particulate concentration level of 0.036 to 0.042 ug/m,
see V 27, supra.
2.
Health Effects of Calculated Particulate Concentration Levels 33.
Utilizing the particulate concentration levels calcu-lated by Dr. Hamilton and by Dr. Habegger, health effects (Continued)
The estimated population in each cell was assumed to be exposed to the particulate concentration increment estimated for the cell midpoint.
Estimates of the population in each grid cell were derived from 1980 data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Census.
The various other census data, e.c.,
population by age, sex, occupation, education, was also available.
Within the 50-mile radii the total estimated 1980 populations are 528,000 for the Joppa plant vicinity, 1,460,000 for Clifty, and 870,000 for Kyger.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 16.
21/
The population-weighted averages can be interpreted as the concentration to which the average individual in the area of analysis is exposed.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at
- 17. _
attributable to 1,154 MT/yr can be estimated.
Dr. Hamilton utilized both a comparative and a quantitative method to assess health impacts. Hamilton at 8-16.
Dr. Hamilton's quantitative method is a simplified version of the method used by Dr.
Ozkaynak in the Staff's analysis.
Tr. 1,590-91 (Habegger).
34.
Dr. Hamilton first took an ana'lytically useful look at the particulate concentration levels at issue here.
Charac-terizing the prototype pulverized coal-fired plant that was the basis for the Table S-3 figure of 1,154 MT/yr as essentially
" uncontrolled,"22/
Dr. Hamilton estimated the concentration of respirable or thoracic particles (TP) in this mass of total particles.
35.
From such an uncontrolled pulverized coal-fired power plant, TP constitutes only about 40 percent of the mass of the total particles.
Hamilton at 8.
Larger particles tend to be deposited in the nose or pharynx and do not reach the lung.
Thus, only 40 percent of the particles released potentially are damaging to health.
Dr. Hamilton then calculated that the con-centration of TP that would penetrate the thoracic region would 3
be about 0.014-0.017 ug/m.
Id. at 8-9.
For perspective, Dr. Hamilton then compared this concentration of TP 22/
Table S-3's environmental effects are described in detail in WASH-1248.
See FES (Staff Ex.1), Section 5.10 at 5-85.
WASH-1248 specifies that the coal plant at issue is "pulver-ized."
Tr. 1,244 (Hamilton).
In Dr. Hamilton's judgment, a pulverized coal plant would have to be essentially uncontrolled to emit 1,154 MT/yr of coal particles.
Hamilton at 8 n.3.
Compare n.18, supra (Staff's analysis of this subject).
(0.014-0.017 ug/m ) with the EPA's estimate of potentially injurious concentrations of TP.
In a critical review of the available scientific and technical information most relevant to the review of primary (health) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, EPA stated, " Based on a staff assessment of the long-term epidemiological data, the range of annual TP levels of interest are 55 to 110 (micrograms per cubic meter]."23/
36.
In other words, EPA has concluded that from both short-and long-term exposures to particles, the " bottom line" or lowest level of TP at which there may be some risk of health 3
effects is approximately 55 ug/m.
Hamilton at 10.24/
As stated above, the concentration of such particles in the atmo-sphere, assuming a reasonable distribution of the entire 1,154 MT in a 50-mile radius around a single uncontrolled pulverized 3
coal plant, would be 0.014-0.017 ug/m.
This means that even if the 1,154 MT was all distributed by a single coal plant 23/
Hamilton at 9 (citing United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper in its " Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter:
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information," January 1982 EPA-450/5-E2-001, at pages 112-113).
24/
Dr. Habegger observed that the NAAQS standards for partic-ulates, which are established to protect public health, are 75 3
ug/m for annual averages and 260 ug/m for 24-hour maximums.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 14.
Based on the particulate concentration estimates he obtained, Dr.
Habegger also concluded the concentrations associated with the 4
Table S-3 level of emissions would contribute only a very in-significant increment-relative to the NAAQS.
Id.
i i
in one place, which obviously is not the case since three dif-ferent gaseous diffusion plants are used in the enrichment pro-cess, the concentration would be approximately 3,000 times smaller than the minimum concentration having some risk of i
3 symptomatic effects.
While the 0.014-0.017 ug/m of TP is an incremental concentration to a pre-existing background con-centration of TP, there is no reason to doubt that its propor-tional responsibility for any biological effect is equally miniscule.
See Hamilton at 10; Tr. 1,364 (Hamilton).
- Thus, Dr. Hamilton's comparative analysis suggests virtually no health impacts from 1,154 MT/yr of coal particles.25/
37.
Dr. Hamilton goes on to perform a numerical assess-ment of health effects of coal emissions attributable to the Shearon Harris plant's uranium fuel cycle needs.
Hamilton at 11-16.
This calculated health risk relies upon a damage func-
)
tion for fine particles developed recently by the Harvard Uni-versity Energy and Environmental Pouicy Center, i.e.,
the group 25/
An additional way to evaluate the significance of the par-ticulate concentratic.4s at issue here is to compare them to in-crements allowable in " pristine" areas designated as Class I l
areas under the regulations for prevention of significant air quality deterioration.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 14.
In Class I areas the maximum increment in particulate con-3 centrations allowable from new development is 5 ug/m f07 3
an annual average and 10 ug/m for the 24-hour maximum.
Id.
Although there are no designated Class I areas within 100 miles of any of these facilities, the increment in particulate concentration from the Table S-3 level emissions, whether reli-ance is placed on Dr. Hamilton's or Dr. Habegger's particulate concentration estimates, would not be cause for concern rela-tive to these stringent standards (even if they did apply).
See id. -
that is headed by Dr. Ozkaynak.
See " Analysis of Health Ef-fects Resulting from Population Exposures to Ambient Particulate Matter" October 1983 ("1983 Harvard Report"), pre-pared for the Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program of the U.S. Department of Energy, which is Staff Ex. 3.
This fine particle damage function in fact is a surrogate for the health effects of all air pollution.
Thus, the damage function encom-passes health effects that may in fact not be caused by coal.
l particles but, rather, by SO r
ther pollutants.
Tr.
2 1,224-25, 1,233-37 (Hamilton); Tr. 1,391-95 (Ozkaynak).
- Thus, for example, this risk coefficient includes health effects (including unknown effects) that may be caused by trace metals in the coal particles -- an issue of particular concern to Mr.
j Eddleman.
Tr. 1,234, 1,323, 1,326, 1,350-51 (Hamilton); Tr.
1,384-86 (Ozkaynak); Tr. 1,419-20 (Habegger).
38.
In this calculation, Dr. Hamilton used a damage func-tion for respirable particles in a linear non-threshold way, thereby conservatively assuming that even the smallest incre-mental particulate dose has an incremental health effect.
Tr.
1,238 (Hamilton); Hamilton at 11.26/
This linearity assumption l
26/
Moreover, as previously stated, to provide an under-standing of the upper boundary of risk from coal particles emitted in support of the uranium fuel cycle, Dr. Hamilton also conservatively assumed that the entire hypothetical 1,154 MT of particles are emitted and expose the 50-mile population around each of the fossil plants serving the three gaseous diffusion facilities.
This assumption ignores the fact that the 1,154 MT is roughly 3 to 8 times more than the actual particles those plants are allowed to emit per 45 MWe equivalent.
See note 12, supra.
l l..
is particularly conservative in view of the fact that one of the.two schools of thought on this subject among the scientific community believes that at ambient levels, much less the miniscule' increment to ambient levels.under consideration here, the health effects are zero.
Tr. 1,229, 1,238 (Hamilton); Tr.
1,577-78 (Ozkaynak).
39.
The 1983 Harvard Report recommends, for quantitative L
{
risk assessment, use of only a fine particles (FP) risk coeffi-cient, or particles smaller than-2.5 micrometers.
See 1983 Harvard Report (Staff Ex. 3) at page 8 and Table 1,.page 5.
FP represent a small portion of the thoracic particles (TP) previ -
ously described.
FP are about 10 percent.of the total particu-I.
late emissions from an uncontrolled pulverized ~ coal-burning I
power plant.
Hamilton at 12.
The FP damage function, which is.
5 3
l 1.3 + 0.6. deaths / year /10 persons per ug/m FP, is'de-f rived from available cross-sectional mortality analyses.
1 Hamilton at 12 (citing 1983 Harvard Report (Staff Ex. 3).at i
45-50).
i l
40.
Using this damage function, and the 10 percent FP, i
Dr. Hamilton calculated the expected excess' deaths per. year from population exposure to 1,154 MT/yr total particulate emis-
?
i sions around'each of the coal plants.
Hamilton, Table 3.
I These estimated excess deaths should be compared with.the ex-1 pected deaths from all causes in the population around each of these plants.27/ In summary, the estimated excess deaths from l
i 27/
Dr. Hamilton's estimates are based on the assumption that any one of these plants may be~ singly responsible'for the elec-i, (Continued next page) i I.
, _., _ _ _ - ~,
population exposure to 1,154 MT/yr total particulate emissions range from 0.001 to 0.13.
This risk is indistinguishable from zero against the background of expected deaths from all causes, which ranges from 2,400 to 11,000 at the same five areas stud-ied.
The upper limit of estimated expected deaths from partic-ulate exposure corresponds to about one one-thousandth of one percent of the mortality rate.
Hamilton at 12-13, Table 3.
41.
Dr. Ozkaynak performed a similar but much more com-plex analysis than that conducted by Dr. Hamilton.
Using the results of the dispersion modeling study and the population data described above, and taking into consideration the socio-demographic information (e.g.,
age, race, education, etc.)
available from the 1980 census, Dr. Ozkaynak calculated both mortality and morbidity health effects attributable to 1,154 MT/yr.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 19.28/
Chronic (Continued) tricity which supplies the entire enrichment of uranium needed to supply the Shearon Harris plant.
Using this assumption, the greatest health risk posed by the coal used to supply uranium enrichment facilities is 0.068 deaths annually for the 50-mile population around the Clifty Plant.
An equally plausible as-sumption is that uranium enrichment services are being supplied equally by all three facilities to produce fuel for the Shearon Harris plant.
Using this assumption, the amount of coal gener-ated for each facility would be divided by three and health risks associated with each site would be similarly reduced.
(This calculation does not account for different quantities of energy being supplied by more than one coal plant in the vicin-ity of the uranium enrichment plant.
Hamilton at 14 n.10.)
This would result in a worst case health risk of 0.023 deaths annually.
Hamilton at 13-14.
23/
Ascertaining whether (and if so to what extent) the par-ticulate pollution at current U.S. concentrations is linked to (Continued next page) >
as well as acute effects were considered.
Id.29/
Acute (re-spiratory) morbidity indicates short-term illness such as pneu-monia, influenza and common coughs, while chronic (respiratory) morbidity indicates persistent, long-term illness such as chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma or other obstructive lung disease.
Id. at 19, unnumbered footnote.
These calculations relied primarily upon airborno particulate risk coefficients developed by the Harvard group under Dr. Ozkaynak's direction.
Id. at 22-24, 27, 28-29.30/
1 i
l (Continued) morbidity is hampered by an extremely limited data base.
NRC l
Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 25.
However, in Dr.
Ozkaynak's opinion, it is still possible to estimate the likely l
range of morbidity impacts of air pollution after careful con-sideration of all relevant sources of error.
Id. at 25-26.
29/
HowcVer, chronic morbidity effects were not calculated be-cause, based on the available scientific evidence, a risk coef-ficient was not available at the very low ambient total suspended particulate levels at issue here.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 28.
Dr. Ozkaynak concluded that "any detectable chronic (morbidity) respiratory effects resulting from the incremental particle concentrations will be highly un-likely."
Id.
30/
For acute morbidity, (acute) respiratory disease incidents and hospital respiratory disease emergency admissions were among the morbidity health outcome variables studied.
For chronic morbidity, chronic respiratory disease prevalence was considered.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 20.
For acute mortality effects of particle pollution, daily long-term (time-series) mortality risk coefficients were used.
For chronic mortality effects, cross-sectional mortality coef-ficients relating annual mortality and annual average pollution in a large number of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) in the U.S. were employed.
Finally, toxicologic evi-dence regarding exposures to particles at or near the projected pollution levels were reviewed.
Id. at 20.
1 i
I
'42.
There are a number of factors which contribute to the uncertainties of the Staff's morbidity and mortality risk esti-mation.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 28-29.
The health effect calculations done by Dr. Habegger and Dr.
Ozkaynak use 95% confidence limits.
Tr. 1,447, 1,449 (Ozkaynak, Habegger); NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at Table 3.
This means that one can have 95% confidence that the actual effects of 1,154 MT/yr fall within the (large) bounds of uncertainty or error band stated in the testimony.
Tr. 1,506 (Habegger).
Thus, the analysis subsumes a number of issues of concern to Mr. Eddleman, such as whether the calculation ade-quately considers coefficient of haze (see Tr. 1,516-20 (Ozkaynak, Habegger)), the different compositions of particles in different areas (see, e.g.,
Tr. 1/410, 1,418-20 (Habegger)),
and failure to make progress in identified areas of research (Tr. 1,506 (Habegger)).
Stated another way, all uncertainties were captured in the analysis through the use of a range of re-sults which encompasses the impact of these uncertainties.
See Tr. 1,449 (Habegger).
43.
In summary, for the area surrounding the Joppa and Clifty facilities, Dr. Ozkaynak estimates the incremental ex-cess amergency room visits for respiratory disease would be about 3 cases every two years (1.4 per year).
In contrast, the i
expected number of incremental annual acute respiratory disease incidents for the same areas are about 30 per year.
In the vi-l cinity of the Kyger facility, the projected risks are about s
s one'-third the values predicted for the areas surrounding the s
Joppa ar.d Clifty plants (0.5 per year excess emergency room visits for respiratory disease and 11' acute respiratory disease incidents per year)., For-all of these projections, the lower-ihch.uded,zero'orn,oincrementalhealth i' bound estimate alwayst effects.31/
The upper bound estimate is either twice or 1.5 times the most likely or central estimates presented.
The most likely annual mortality risks ascociated with emissions from either the Joppa or' tite Clif ty plants are isss than 0.09 per year within the 50-mile radius 'of irach plant.
The likely mor-
,tality risksinear the Kyger facility, on the other hand, can be expected to.be less th'an 0.03.32/ 'URO Staff Panel on Conten-2 il
,w tion 8F(l) at 31,,'i4 and Tables 2 and 3.
These figures are consistent with Dr. Hamilton's estima,ted range of excess deaths of 0.001 to 0.13.
See V 40, supra.
s 31/
Dr.2 Hamilton obseryed that the Harvard group's 1983 study shows that a preexisting respiratory condition is necessary to demonstrate morbidity.
Tr. 1,308 (Hamilton).
In fact, relying on the data, ambient levels of particles " ara' good for you,"
i.e., improve your health -- an outcome that is not plausible to Drf HSnilton or to Dr. Oskaynak.
Tr. 1,308 (Hamilton).
32/
P'redicted average mortality riskssresulting from particle p
emissions from the Joppa or the Clifty plants would likely be 2
-5 l
x 10 to 4.8 x 10 deaths per day.
(This would be
~
l about 0.01 deaths per year.)
The Kygerifacility'is expected to
-5 contribute 0.8 x\\lO to 1.9 x,10' excess daily. deaths associated with thd'1,154 (MT/yr) particle emissions.
These daily projections, if multiplied by 365, are still less than one-third of the annu*ai mortality projections that are based on risk coefficients derived from croys-ser'iional mortality studies.
The highest exposures and daily mortality within the 50-mile radius surrounding these plantd would be excess daily deaths of 8.6 x 10~4 (Joppa), 8.8 x 10 (Clifty) and 4.2 x 10~4 (Kyger).
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 34-35.
(,
44.
Finally, Dr. Hamilton performed an alternative calcu-lation of the health (mortality) effects of coal particulate emissions attributable to the uranium fuel cycle by assessing the health risk for the entire United States due to the long-range transport of these particles.33/
Based on the Brookhaven National Laboratory's Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Divisions's matrix results, Dr. Hamilton estimated that the av-erage total U.S.
exposure to fine particles from all coal power 3
plants is 90 person-ug/m per MT emissions.
Using the FP damage function cited above, the calculated additional deaths in the entire U.S.
population from coal particles associated with the uranium fuel cycle would be 0.13, with a 95 percent statistical range of 0.013-0.26.34/
In the entire U.S.,
33/
The Staff witnesses did not do this calculation.
This was because the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments to Prevent Signifi-cant Deterioration, 43 Fed. Reg. 26,380 (June 19, 1978), recom-mend the application of air quality models to a downwind dis-tance of no more than 50 kilometers.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 15.
Also, EPA does not analyze the impact of a source beyond the point where the annual average 3
particulate concentration falls below 1 ug/m.
Based on its computer calculations for the 1,154 MT/yr emissions, no-whare within the vicinity of the three coal-fired power plants does the annual average incremental concentration approach the 1 ug/m annual average recommended cut-off for PSD model-l ing.
Id.
34/
Dr. Hamilton points out that, in assessing the 50-mile and U.S. population risk estimates described above, it is important to keep in mind that linear dose-response functions are not j
able to distinguish between large doses to a few persons and small doses to many persons.
Hamilton at 15.
The estimates for health effects of long-range transport are based on exceed-ingly small exposures to millions of persons.
Since the human body has many defenses against low-level exposure to particles, (Continued next page),
yi, f,/
[
roughly 2'milliondieannuallyfhomallcauses.
Hamilton at i
12;'Tr. 1,279-81$(Hamilton).35/
\\
t
/
3.
Assessment of the Significance of,the Projected Health Effects of 1,154 MT/yr
/
45.
Dr. Hamilton and the Staff witnesses reached the same conclusion about the significance of the health effects they a
determined to be attributable,to.,the 1,154 MT/yr of coal par-ticulates specified,in Table S-3.
46.
Dr. Hamilton-cpncluded that conservative calculations of the upper limit of health risk which may be associated with the 1,154 MT/yr figure indicate that atmospheric concentrations of the amount of particles' attributable to a 45 MWe coal-fired plant reasonably distributed over a 50-mile radius would be 3,000 times smaller than the minimum concentration determined by the EPA to present'some health risk.
Moreover, he observed, conservative calculations of the upper limits of risk of those particles distributed among the populations around the five fossil plants supplying the uran.'.nm enrichment facilities Continued) these small doses are probably less harmful per unit exposure than higher doses.
The long-range transport health effects es-timates therefore probably are biased on the high side.
Hamilton at 15-16.
35/
Although the Staff witnesses did not do a long-range transport calculation, because the health effects at the outer boundary of the 50-mile radius are virtually negligible, they would expect effects further away from the coal plants to be even less.
Tr. 1,571-72 (Habegger)..4'
indicate that, at most, a tiny fraction of a death, each year those plants are in operation, could be attributed to the par-ticulate emissions.
Hamilton at 17.
This risk is extremely small, particularly when compared to the deaths one would ex-pect in those same populations from all causes.
This upper limit of risk is confirmed by an alternative calculation of the impact of the Table S-3 particulates over the population of the entire United States.
Moreover, these calculations assume that exposure from particles is long standing; otherwise, the calcu-lated impact is inapplicable.
Id.
Thus, in summary, it is Dr.
Hamilton's opinion that the Staff succinctly and correctly con-cludes in the FES that there is a miniscule incremental envi-ronmental impact from the coal particles identified in Table S-3.
Id. at 2; Tr. 1,314-16 (Hamilton).36/
36/
As Dr. Hamilton also observed, these detailed analyses are limited in perspective and therefore possibly misleading in na-ture for the following reason.
Operation of a new nuclear power plant, such as the Shearon Harris Plant, will in all likelihood result in the retirement earlier than otherwise pos-sible of old coal-fired riants with much higher rates of par-ticulate emissions and, consequently, greater health and envi-ronmental impacts than the Shearon Harris Plant and associated l
fuel cycle activities.
The net result of such a replacement is thus a considerable reduction in health and environmental im-pacts which is not included in Table S-3 or in the above analy-ses.
Hamilton at 3; see also Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-367, 5 RN.R.C. 92, 96 n.12 (1967) (early startup of plant would result, i
inter alia, in retirement of old coal plants).
The intuitive l
appeal of this pragmatic approach suggests that the analysis need go no further once it is determined that there is no " net" health cost involved here.
- See, e.g.,
LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C. 432, 460 n.1 (1984).
However, as the Board previously has observed, 10 C.F.R.
S 51.23(e) plainly states that the impacts of fuel (Continued next page)
, y N
y eir---
--v
47.
Dr. Ozkaynak thoroughly examined the socio-demographic profile of the population near these three plants.
After determining that the population characteristics are typi-cal of the national average, he determined that national dis-ease incidence rates and the cross-sectional mortality model developed using a national data base can be applied reliably in projecting the baseline risks in the region studied.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 35.
He therefore compared the projected baseline annual morbidity and mortality values in the three areas studied with the number of incidents attributable to baseline air pollution.
The absolute values are quite large due to the size of the population and the magnitude of the ex-pected incidence or prevalence rates.
Id., Table 5.
Expected excess emergency room visits due to chronic respiratory condi-tiens range from 236,162 (for Joppa) to 653,355 (for Clifty).
The corresponding expected excess emergency room visits due to respiratory conditions for the Kyger facility were 388,970.
l The expected annual acute respiratory incidents are 603,179 for l
the Joppa area, 1,680,421 for the Clifty area, and 978,678 for the Kyger area.
Total annual mortality is expected to be 5,723 in the Joppa area, 11,897 in the Clifty area, and 7,526 deaths in the Kyger area.
Id. at 38.
(Continued) cycle particles "shall;be evaluated on the basis of impact val-ues set forth in Table S-3."
Thus,_ arguments that challenge the need to assess the health effects of 1,154 MT/yr, however realistic, constitute an impermissible attack on :the rule.
See LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C. 432, 460 n.2.,
48.
The morbidity effects of baseline air pollution are 2 to 18 percent of the total annual morbidity predicted for the population bases studied.
Id.,
Table 5.
Mortality due to air pollution is about 5 percent of the total mortality from all causes.32/
Id. at 39.
49.
Dr. Ozkaynak then considered the percentage of change in the expected incidence of total and air pollution-related morbidity and mortality resulting from the incremental 1,154 MT/yr particle emissions.
Id.,
Table 6.
The likely pe.centage of change in the total baseline morbidity rates, resulting from these incremental emissions, is very small (0.0001 to 0.005 percent).
The likely percentage of change from the morbidity associated with the background or baseline air pollution levels is also very small (0.007 to 0.031 percent).
The likely per-contage of change in the total annual mortality resulting from changes in incremental particle pollution range from 0 to 0.002 percent.
Compared to mortality attributed to background air pollution in the areas studied, the likely range of percentage l
of change caused by incremental change in the ambient particle pollution is O to 0.034 percent.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(l) at 39-40.
32/
Dr. Ozkaynak noted that these are high percentages since he purposely selected the larger of the available risk coeffi-cients to maintain conservatism in the overall projections.
Furthermore, the possibility of zaro mortality and morbidity offects of air pollution cannot be excluded.
NRC Staff Panel on Contention 8F(1) at 39.,
50.
Overall, Dr. Ozkaynck and Dr. Habegger conclude that, in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of relative propor-tions compared to baseline health impacts from background air pollution in tha areas analyzed, the projected impacts are very small.
Id. at 40.
Furthermore, concentration as well as health impacts are so small that they could not even be detected with the state-of-the-art monitoring, survey design, and analysis techniques.
Finally, all of the projected health impacts are much smaller than the uncertainties associated with the available risk assessment models and the predictions re-sulting from their use.
Id; Tr. 1,384 (Ozkaynak); Tr. 1,561-65 (Habegger).
51.
Relying on the analyses performed by Dr. Habegger and Dr. Ozkaynak, Mr. Ballard of the NRC Staff observed, These analyses have found, for example, that the incremental releases of inhalable particulates, and the population exposure to these releases, constitute less than 0.03% increase over ambient annual average particulate concentrations and exposures for the specified local regions.
Health effects from the Table S-3 level of coal particulates were also estimated, in terms of acute morbidity and mortality effects.
As provided in Tables 2 and 6 these conser-vative estimates indicate that the expected annual increases of acute respiratory dis-ease incidents are 30 or less (less than a 0.005% increase over baseline), and annual mortality increases are in the range of 0.0 to 0.09 (less than a 0.002% increase over baseline).
NRC Staff Panel en Contention 8F(1) at 40-41.
l.---
52.
In summary, the results of Dr. Habegger and Dr.
Ozkaynak's extremely thorough analysis confirm the Staff's judgment, contained in the FES, that the non-radiological im-i pacts of the uranium fuel cycle are acceptable.
Id. at 41.
Based on these site-specific estimates, it is clear that in-creases in morbidity and mortality incidents attributable to 1,154 MT/yr of coal particles are judged to be small in an absolute sense and clearly small when comparing the incremental increase to the baseline values presented for the regions of interest.
Id. at 42.38/
Mr. Eddleman's cross-examination of Dr. Hamilton and the Staff witnesses presented no b& sis for challenging the consonant findings of these experts as to the insignificant health effects of 1,154 MT/yr of coal particu-lates.
Dr. Hamilton and the Staff Panel were each asked by the Board whether they essentially concurred with each other's work and the results thereof.
The answer given-by_all the witnesses was a resounding "yes."
Tr. 1,362-(Hamilton); Tr. 1,590-91 (Habegger, Ozkuynak, Ballard).
As Dr. Habegger observed, Dr.
Hamilton's more approximate approach confirms the results of l
the Staff's more exact approach.
Tr. 1,591 (Habegger).
In sum, contrary to Mr. Eddleman's assertion in Contention 8F(1),
the.FES' treatment of the health effects of Table S-3's coal 38/
This analysis thus confirms the benefit-cost balance set forth'in the FES, as well as the Staff's need to treat only.
briefly the health effects of this one aspect of che uranium.
. fuel cycle.
LSee'n.7, supra.
c)
, i
particulate value is reasonable.
There is no basis for requiring the Staff to devote further time and resources to such an inconsequential environmental effect of operation of the Shearon Harris facility.
B.
Joint Contention II(e):
Fly Ash 53.
The Joint Intervenors' Contention II(e) states:
The long term somatic and genetic health ef-l fects of radiation releases from the facility during normal operations, even where such re-leases are within existing guidelines, have been seriously underestimated for the follow-ing reasons e) the radionuclide concen-tration models used by Applicants and the NRC are inadequate because they underestimate or exclude the following means of concentrating radionuclides in the environment ra-dionuclides absorbed in or attached to fly ash from coal plants which are in the air around the SHMPP site.
Joint Contentions of Intervenors at 3-4 (undated).39/
54.
Testifying on this issue on behalf of the Applicants were Dr. John J. Mauro and Dr. Steven A. Schaffer.
Testimony 4
of John J. Mauro and Steven A.
Schaffer on Joint Contention II(e) (Fly Ash), ff. Tr. 1,605 (Mauro & Schaffer).
Dr. Mauro is the Director of the Radiological Assessment and Health Phys-ics Department of Envirosphere Company, a division of Ebasco Services, Inc.
Ebasco is the architect-engineer for the Shearon Harris plant.
Dr. Mauro has a doctorate in biology and 39/
The deleted portions of Joint Contention II(e) were decid-ed on Applicants' motion for summary disposition.
See 1 12, supra.
radiological health and is a certified health physicist.
He has worked for the last twelve years in the field of ra-diological assessment, and has written a number of publications in this field.
Mauro & Schaffer at 1 and Attachment 1A.
Dr. Steven A.
Schaffer is Senior Radiological Assessment Engi-neer at Envirosphere Company.
Dr. Schaffer has a doctorate in biology and environmental health science.
He has worked for tha last ten years in the field of environmental assessment, and also has published in his field.
Id. at 1 and Attachment 1B.
Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer have assisted Applicants in the l
preparation of the radiological assessments contained in the Harris Plant Environmental Report (ER).
They also have re-viewed the DES and FES prepared by the NRC Staff which assess the environmental impact of operation of the Harris Plant.
Id.
at 1.
55.
Dr. Edward F.
Branagan, Jr. testified on behalf of the Staff.
NRC Staff Testimony of Edward F.
Branagan, Jr. on Joint Contention II(e), ff. Tr. 1,865 (Branagan-II(e)).
Dr. Branagan has a doctorate in radiation biophysics.
As a Se-nior Radiobiologist with the Radiological Assessment Branch, Dr. Branagan is responsible for evaluating the environmental i
l radiological impacts res'.11 ting from the operation of nuclear-t power reactors. In particular, he is responsible for evaluating radioecological models and health effect models for use in re-actor licensing.
Branagan-II(e), attached Professional Quali-f1 cations.
56.
No witnesses testified on behalf of the Joint Intsr-venors.
57.
The approaches taken by Applicants and the Staff to respond to Joint Contention II(e) were complementary.
Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer's testimony provided a detailed ac-count of the salient features of the inhalation dosimetry and atmospheric deposition models used in the ER and the FES to predict doses from gaseous releases.
They showed that the as-sumptions and parameters employed in these models conserva-tively accounts for the attachment of airborne radionuclides to l
fly ash.
Dr. Branagan's testimony succintly placed the con-cerns of the Joint Intervenors into perspective.
l 58.
The Applicants' witnesces divided Contention II(e) l into two issues.
The first issue is whether doses calculated via the inhalation route are underestimated because ra-dionuclide attachment onto respirable fly ash in the ambient t
atmosphere was not taken into account.
Joint Intervenors con-tend that this particle adsorption would cause more of the ra-dionuclides in the gaseous effluent to penetrate deeper into the lung and be retained for longer periods of time.
This part l
of Contention II(e) constitutes a challenge to the inhalation dose conversion factors tabulated in Regulatory Guide 1.109.40/
40/
See Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of annual doses to man from routine releases of reactor effluents for the purpose I
of evaluating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Rev.
1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1977).
, L
t The second issue is whether the doses from the radioactive gas-eous emissions, calculated by Applicants and the NRC Staff for the crop-food-chain pathway, are underestimated becauce the calculations did not account for radionuclide bound to parti-cles depositing more readily onto the ground, pasture and crops.
This part of Contention II(e) constitutes a challenge to the deposition velocities assumed in Regulatory Guide
.1.111.41/
Mauro & Schaffer at 2-3.
59.
Thus, Applicants' testimony is primarily directed at establishing that the models relied upon by Applicants and the Staff accurately account for lung deposition of inhaled ambient particles, including fly ash, and use appropriate deposition velocities in assessing the atmospheric transport and disper-sion of gaseous effluents from the Harris Plant.
Id. at 12, 15.
Applicants also performed a calculation assuming greater lung particle deposition or retention of radionuclides than is assumed in Reg. nuide 1.109.
Id. at 13-14, Table 2.
60.
Dr. Branagan's testimony addresses this latter issue.
Dr. Branagan calculates the perceived impact of fly ash parti-cles of optimal size, for inhalation purposes, on the dose to the critical organ (thyroid).
41/
See Regulatory Guide 1.111, Methods for estimating atmo-spheric transport and dispersion of gaseous effluents in rou-tine releases from light-water-cooled reactors, Rev.
1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Co.nmission (1977).
61.
Before evaluating whether the inhalation dose model used by Applicants and the Staff appropriately accounts for the fly ash phenomenon of concern in Contention II(e), it is impor-tant to understand that this phenomenon, namely, radionuclides attaching to fly ash in the atmosphere and then lodging in the I
lung, is only applicable to radionuclides that can take l
particulate form.
This is because radionuclides that cannot take particulate form will not stay in the lung, but will be immediately exhaled or absorbed into the body fluids.
Mauro &
Schaffer at 4.
This fact is an important element of Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer's analysis because tritium is not in particulate form; it is inhaled as water vapor and, hence, that fraction not exhaled is immediately absorbed.
It will not bind to or otherwise stay with a particle.
Tr. 1,668, 1,711-13, 1,720 (Mauro); Mauro & Schaffer at 5.
Tritium makes up over 98 percent of the whole body dose from inhalation.
Mauro &
Schaffer, Table 1.
Thus, the concern identified in Joint Con-8 tention II(e) only applies to the remaining two percent of the-inhalation dose.
Id. at 4-5, Tr. 1,681-83, 1855-56 (Mauro).
62.
In view of the inapplicability of the fly ash phenom-enon to tritium, it is not surprising that this assertion was tle major focus of the Joint Intervenors' and the Board's ques-tions of Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1,664-69, 1,676-93, 1,711-20, 1,743-83, 1,791-95 (Mauro).
63.
The Joint Intervenors pursued the possibility that tritium might " nucleate" around a coal particle, i.e.,
through nucleation, coal particulates could attract water out of the atmosphere and form water droplets around themselves.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1,669 (Schaffer); Tr. 1,762-63 (Mauro).42/
The hy-j pothesis is that this nucleated particle would then be inhaled and behave as a particle, e.g.,
lodge in the lung.
Tr. 1,762 (Mauro).
This hypothesis assumes a totally unestablished phys-ical phenomenon, namely, that the tritium " nucleated" to the particle will not behave as water vapor and pass through the lung -- an assumption strenuously disputed by Dr. Mauro.
The fundamental reason Dr. Mauro objects to this hypothesis is that I
water that nucleates around a particle does not tenaciously bind to it.
Consequently, the (tritiated) water would not stay in the lung.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1,668, 1,684-85, 1,762-64, 1,855 (Mauro).
64.
However, even if one were to postulate this hypothet-ical phenomenon, i.e.,
that tritium can tenaciously bind to particles, it is not a cause of concern for several reasons.
First, the likelihood of the tritium released from the plant being inhaled as water vapor bound to particles is extremely 3
remote.
This is because there is about 100 ug/m of l
l 42/
Joint Intervenors also explored the. possibility that be-cause of the presence of the Cape Fear coal plant in the vicin-ity, tritiated water might concentrate in the atmosphere around the Harris Plant to a greater extent than assumed by Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1,791-95 (Eddleman, Mauro).
i This view was rejected by Dr. Mauro because the presence of the Cape Fear plant has no influence on the Gaussian dispersion-model used to calculate tritium concentrations.
Tr. 1,766, 1,793-94 (Mauro).
.=
respirable-size particles in the air.
These. particles could hold only an insignificant fraction of all of the water vapor l
in the air, of which the tritiated. water is, in turn, an ex-i tremely small-fraction.43/
Tr. 1,715-16 (Schaffer); Tr.
1,716-20 (Mauro).
Thus, even assuming that binding of water to coal particulates took place, there is little likelihood that the molecule of water in question -- the molecule that hypo-d thetically is tenaciously bound to the particle that lodges in the lung -- will be tritiated water.
Tr. 1,856-57 (Mauro).
65.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that.he "couldn't conceive of a situation where the tritium would re-main as a particle," Tr. 1,684 (Mauro), Dr. Mauro did consider the effect of this hypothetical and the result is not unacceptable.
Essentially, the lung dose would increase by a i
factor of 70 and the whole body dose due to tritium would dis-1 appear.
Tr. 1,685-87 (Mauro).44/
This means that the tritium 4
dose effectively would bc 0, and the lung dose would be 5.2 mrem.45/
See Mauro & Schaffer, Table 1.
3 43/
In contrast to the 100 ug/m of respirable-size parti-3 cles in the air, there are 8 g/m of water vapor in the ambient environment.
Tr. 1,716 (Mauro).
Thus, only a small portion of the water in a cubic meter could be associated with the particles in that volume.
Tr. 1,717-18 (Mauro).
44/ This estimate assumes a 1 kilogram lung mass and a 70 kilogram whole body mass.
Rather than being distributed throughout the body, the tritium would deliver its dose to-the lung.
Tr. 1,685 (Mauro).
45/
At Judge Carpenter's request, Dr. Mauro also considered the upper bound dose of tritium that an individual might re-(Continued next page).
66.
Notwithstanding the fact that the fly ash phenomenon of concern in Joint Contention II(e) can have little impact since it only affects a small fraction of the dose received by the public, Applicants' witnesses considered whether the inhalation dose model used by Applic. ants and the NRC Staff ade-quately accounts for this phenomenon.
67.
The calculational method used by both Applicants and the NRC Staff is in accord with Ragulatory Guide 1.109.
The calculation requires four piecec of information:
(1) the source term; (2) the atmospheric dispersion factor at the loca-tion of the maximally exposed indivioual; (3) the inhalation rate of the maximally exposed individual; and (4) the inhalation dose conversion factor.
The product of these four terms, with appropriate unit conversion, yields the inhalation dose, as presented in the ER and the FES.
Mauro & Schaffer at 5-6.
i 68.
It is the fourth factor which accounts for radio-nuclide lung deposition and clearance, which is the subject of Joint Contention II(e).46/
In order to derive the dose (Continued) ceive if he had the same specific activity of tritium in every organ of his body as existed in the environment from the Harris Plant.
Tr. 1,693, 1,743 (Judge Carpenter).
Assuming this were the case, the individual would receive 4 mrem /yr whole body dose from tritium.
This contrasts with the actual whole body dose estimate for tritium of.07 mrem /yr.
See Mauro &
Schaffer, Table 1.
It also can be compared to the Appendix I gaseous effluent whole body dose design objective of 5 mrem /yr.
See Tr. 1,743-44, 1,781-82 (Mauro).
46/
The inhalation dose conversion factors used by Applicants and the NRC Staff are listed by radionuclide, organ and age (Continued next page) -
conversion factor values, a two-compartment lung model was developed that simulates the behavior of radionuclides follow-ing inhalation.
This model was first described in ICRP-2 (1959).47/
Upon inhalation of any material, the material is either immediately exhaled or it is deposited in two areas of the respiratory region (the upper and lower respiratory pas-sages).
Once deposited in the two compartments of the respira-tory system, the material is cleared at varying rates depending on the chemistry of the particle and the site of deposition.
Once cleared from the lung, the material is translocated to other locations in the body and is eventually eliminated via radioactive decay and excretion.
The dose conversion factors listed in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for inhalation reflect the time-integrated dose to each organ as the radionuclides are transported through the body following inhalation.
Id. at 6-7.
f 69.
Deposition and retention of radionuclides in the lungs depend on many factors such as size, shape and density of the radioactive material, the chemical form and whether or not the person is a mouth-breather.
At the time the ICRP-2 lung 1
(Continued) group in Table E of Regulatory Guide 1.109.
These values are expressed as the 50-year integrated dose commitment to the specified organ per unit of radionuclide activity inhaled (i.e., millirem per picocurie (mrem /pC1)).
Mauro & Schaffer at 6.
47/
ICRP-2 (1959) is entitled, " Report of ICRP Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation."
See Mauro & Schaffer ref. (3). '
model was developed, there was limited emporical data to deter-mine the actual effects of particle size, shape and chemistry on lung deposition patterna.
The model therefore makes assump-tions about the deposition and cicarance pattern of the inhaled radionucliden.
Specifically, the model annumes that 75 percent of the inhaled material (soluble and innoluble) is deposited and 25 percent is immediately exhaled.
Of the 75 peraent de-posited, 50 percent of the insoluble particles are deposited in the upper respiratory tract and 25 percent in the deep lung.
The model also assumen that half of the insoluble particleo de-ponited in the deep lung are removed in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and half are retained with a' half life of 120 days.
Soluble particles are annumed to pass through the lung.
Id. at 7.
70.
More recently, several studies using human subjects have measured particle depoaltion in the lung as a function of particle aerodynamic diameter.4p/
A comparison of the experi-montal data and the assumptiona in the lung model for percent deposition and distribution shown the model used to derive the dose conversion factors to be somewhat conservative.49/
i 49/
The term aerodynamic diameter refers to the diameter of a unit donalty sphere having the same terminal settling velocity as the particle under consideration. Terminal settling velocity is the equilibrium velocity of a particle that is falling under the influence of gravity and fluid resistance and is dependent upon particle size, shape and density.
Mauro & Schaffer at 8.
~
~
49/
The percent particle deposition.in the total respiratory oystem (upper and lower lung compartments) ranges from less than'10 to-100 percent of the total particles inhaled; depend-(Continued next page)
-50,
v v
Therefore, the inhalation doses calculated by Applicants and the NRC have not been underestimated due to inappropriate lung deposition patterns.
Id. at 8-9.
71.
Joint Contention II(e) focuses on the retention of particles in the lung.
Particle retention in, as well as sub-sequent translocation from the lung is also dependent upon the solubility of inhaled material.
The less soluble a radioactive particle, the greater dose it will deliver to the lung.
- Thus, soluble radionuclides are rapidly transported into the body which tends to reduce the lung dose, whereas insoluble ra-dionuclides remain in the lung for a much longer time producing a greater dose to the lung and a much smaller dose to the rest-of the body.
Id. at 9.
The inhalation dose conversion factors (Continued) ing upon particle size.
However, the size of respirable fly ash particles in ambient atmosphere: has a median aerodynamic diameter of about 2.0 um.
The deposition fraction for most particles in the size range of fly ash is about 30 percent but can approach 60 percent for sizes near the 2.0 um diameter.
These fractions can be compared to the 75 percent fraction as-sumed in the model.
Thus, the model assumes a greater quantity of particles of the size of fly ash io deposited in the total lung than has actually been observed to occur.
Mauro &
Schaffer at 8; see also Tr. 1,648 (Schaffer).
With respect to particle deposition in the deep lung, where long-term retention can occur, the emperical data indi-cate that 10 to 30 percent of the inhaled particles in the size range of 0.1 to 2.0 um is deposited.
This fraction is estimat-ed to be less for nose-breathing.
Comparing the measured depo-sition fraction (10 to 30 percent) to the fraction assumed in the model (25 percent), it can be concluded that the model is reasonable, if not somewhat conservative, in its assumption of radionuclide deposition fraction in the deep lung.. Id. at 9. !
l in Regulatory Guide 1.109 take into account lung retention I
based upon a solubility classification.
Radioelements are classified as soluble or insoluble based upon the recommenda-tions of the ICRP Task Group on lung dynamics.50/
Thus, the model accounts for the retention characteristics of ra-dionuclides.
Id. at 9-10.
72.
The inhalation dosimetry model does not account for lung retention of the noble gases, xenon, krypton and argon.
This is because, as inert gases, noble gases do not bind sig-nificantly to particles or adsorb onto surfaces.51/
Conse-quently, they will not be attached to particles that might lodge in the lung.
Id. at 10 and Attachment 2; Branagan-II(e) at 2.52/
73.
The accuracy of the inhalation dosimetry model is confirmed by data about ambient particle size, particularly 50/
See ICRP, 1966, Deposition and retention model for inter-nal dosimetry of the human respiratory track.
Health Physics, 12:173-207, cited by Mauro & Schaffer at 10.
51/
Dr. Branagan also maintained that although the activity concentrations of radionuclides in coal fly ash have been mea-sured, noble gases from nuclear power plants have not been detected in the coal fly ash.
Branagan-II(e) at 2.
- However, it was established on cross-examination that this assertion was based on a 1982 United Nations Report, United Nations Scientif-ic Committee on the affects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),
" Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," 1992, that did not clearly make this finding.
See Tr. 1,917-29 (Branagan).
52/
Even if one assumes a significant particle binding by noble gases, this is inconsequential to the resulting dose be-cause the source terms of these radioactive gases would also significantly decrease due to holdup and removal of gases in the HVAC charcoal filtration system.
Mauro & Schaffer at 10. _
coal fly ash, that has been collected since the development of the model.
This data confirms that the model effectively ac-counts for coal fly ash lung deposition and retention.
Mauro &
Schaffer at 10-11.
74.
Data describing the distribution of atmospheric particulate matter in the United States indicate the existence of three separate particle size modes having independent behav-ior in ambient air.53/
The first mode, the nuclei mode, is below 0.1 um and generally consists of primary particles emit-ted as a result of fuel combustion (oil, gasoline, natural gas and coal).
These particles are formed by condensation from the gaseous phase and only exist for short times due to rapid coag-ulation and aggregation.
The second size mode falls between 0.1 um and about 2.0 um.
These particles typically remain air-borne for several days, and this mode is called the accumula-tion mode.
These particles are largely formed by coagulation of particles from the smaller mode and by aggregation of addi-tional particles.
Because of their relatively long life, these particles are the ones most easily transported from point source emissions.
The third and final mode includes particles above about 2.0 um, generally produced through mechanical ac-tion and easily removed by washout and sedimentation.
These 53/
Mauro & Schaffer at 11 (citing U.S.
Environmental Protec '
tion Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper.
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter:
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, EPA-450/5-82-001, January 1982). -
l particles exist in the atmosphere for only a few hours.
M. at 11.
75.
The most prevalent particle mcde present in the atmo-sphere around the Shearon Harris site from an industrial source would be the accumulation mode.
This is because the plant is located in a forested region with no major industrial combus-tion source within five miles of the plant.
In this rural, non-industrial area, it can be expected that larger particles (2.0 um) emitted from faraway sources would not be present be-cause they would have rapidly settled out; however, smaller particles ( 0.1 um) transported from faraway industrial sources would have aggregated and thus grown in size by the time they reach the site.
M. at 11-12.
76.
Not only can the particle size from industrial com-bustion sources transported to the Harris Plant vicinity gener-ally be deduced based on area conditions, but it is possible to make certain assumptions about coal fly ash particle size in particular.
Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer reported that a survey for coal plants equipped with electrostatic precipitators shows a typical size distribution for fly ash with a median aerody-namic diameter of approximately 2.0 um.
M. at 12.
Thus, fly ash in the atmosphere will be in the size range that is implied in the model.
This is because the inhalation dose model used by Applicants and the NRC Staff assumes particle deposition fractions for the lung representative of particles in the size range of about 0.1 to 2.0 um. _
77.
In summary, considering the sizes of ambient atmo-spheric particles generally, and fly ash in particular, it can be concluded that the inhalation dosimetry model used by Appli-cants and the Staff accurately accounts for lung deposition of inhaled ambient particles, including fly ash, at the site.
78.
Notwithstanding the above analyses, the evidence es-tablishes that the doses calculated for the Harris Plant vicin-ity would not change even if one assumes greater lung particle deposition, or longer lung retention of radionuclides (due to decreased solubility) than is assumed in the calculation per-4 formed in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.109.
79.
Using standard Reg. Guide 1.109 methodology, maximum adult doses that are expected to occur from the annual releases at Shearon Haris are about 0.075 mrem whole body dose and 0.14
- n. rem critical organ dose (thyroid).
Id. at 13.
Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer performed this same calculation assuming 60 per-cent radionuclide deposition in the deep lung.
Id.
This is the maximum deposition fraction observed from human studies, as opposed to the 25 percent deposition assumed in the model.
Doses were adjusted using current ICRP-3054/ correction equa-tions for different deposition fractions.
Assuming a 60 per-cent deposition fraction, the whole-body dose remains about 0.075 mrem, and the dose to the critical organ (thyroid) is about 0.16 mrem.
Id.
54/
Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers, ICRP Pub-lication 30, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1979-82), cited by Mauro and Schaffer at 13. _
80.
In order to assess the significance of alternative assumptions regarding solubility, another calculation was per-formed by Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer.
This calculation assumed all radionuclides (except tritium) are insoluble.
The result was a whole body dose of about 0.074 mrem, and a critical organ dose (lung) of about 0.084 mrem.
Id. at 13-14.
81.
Similarly, Dr. Branagan calculated the effect on the thyroid dose assuming that the fly ach and the iodines and particulates formed particles of an optimal size such that all of the inhaled particles were deposited in the respiratory tract.
Branagan-II(e) at 4.55/
82.
In the FES (Appendix D at D-9 and 10), the dose to the critical organ (i.e.,
the thyroid) of the maximally exposed individual was estimated to be about 0.2 mrems/yr from inhalation of iodines and particulates in gaseous effluents.
(Doses to all other organs of the maximally exposed individual were estimated to be less than 0.2 mrems/yr from inhalation of iodines and particulates.)
Id. at 3.
The dose conversion fac-tors used to estimate doses in the FES from inhalation of io-dines and particulates were taken from Appendix E of Reg. Guide 1.109.
The bases for the dose conversion factors in Reg. Guide 1.109 are described in NUREG-0172.56/
The equations for 55/
Dr. Branagan considered the dose to the thyroid not be-cause the thyroid is the organ most vulnerable or sensitive to radiation, but because it was the critical organ, i.e.,
the organ subject to the highest dose.
Tr. 1,903-07, 1,946-47 (Branagan).
56/
NUREG-0172 is entitled " Age-Specific Radiation Dose Com-mitment Factors For a One-Year Chronte Intake" (Hoenes, 1977). -
calculating internal dose conversion factors in NUREG-0172 were derived from those given in ICRP-2.
See n.47, supra.
The ICRP Committee II assumed that 75% of the particles that were in-haled would be deposited in the respiratory tract.
Branagan-II(e) 3-4.
83.
Rather thar using the value of 75% assumed in ICRP-2, Dr. Branagan assumed that 100% of the particles that were in-haled would be deposited in the respiratory tract.
The result is that the preceding dose estimates would increase by a factor of ene-third; that is, the dose to the thyroid of the maximally exposed individual from inhalation of iodines and particulates would be increased from 0.2 mrems/yr to about 0.3 mrems/yr.
Id.; see also Tr. 1,866-67 (Branagan).
84.
Thus, assuming that the fly ash and the radioactive particles formed particles of an optimal size and increased the dose from the inhalation pathway, the dose to the maximally ex-posed organ from all pathways of exposure to radioiodines and particulates would increase from 4.6 mrems/yr, see FES, Appendix D, Table D-7 on p. D-10, to 4.7 mrems/yr, see Branagan-II(e) at 5.
Dr. Branagan noted that this dose esti-mate is less than one-third of the applicable dose design ob-jective of 15 mrems/yr.
Id.57/
57/
This is the dose design objective per reactor to any organ from all pathways of exposure to radioiodines and particulates.
See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I at Section II.C. __
85.
In summary, it is clear that particle size and solu-bility have no significant effect on the whole body or thyroid dose from particulate inhalation.
Certainly, it is unlikely that the attachment of radioactive iodines and particulates to coal fly ash would increase the dose to the thyroid or any othcr organ to such an extent that the estimated doses would exceed the applicable dose design objectives in Appendix I of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
Consequently, the risks of "long term somatic and genetic health effects of radiation releases from the facility during normal operations" have not been " seriously underestimated" by the Staff.
Joint Contention II(e).
- Rather, the phenomenon of radionuclides attaching to fly ash impacts only a small fraction of the inhaled dose and, with respect to that fraction, the inhalation dose model used by Applicants and the NRC Staff effectively accounts for the attachment of ra-dionuclides to fly ash particles in the atmosphere around the Harris Plant.
86.
Finally, Dr. Mauro and Dr. Schaffer evaluated whether the phenomenon of radionuclides attaching to fly ash impacts the calculation made by Applicants and the NRC Staff of the food pathway dose for the Harris Plant.
Mauro & Schaffer at 14-15.
To make this assessment, it is necessary to examine the assumptions used in Regulatory Guide 1.111 as to particle depo-sition velocities.
This is because, in general, the greater the deposition rate, the higher the dose from the food inges-tion pathways.
Analysis of deposition velocities establishes _.
that the food pathway dose calculation conservatively accounts for the attachment of radionuclides to fly ash particles and the effect this phenomenon may have on the rate at which ra-dionuclides deposit on the ground.
87.
The particle deposition velocities on which the Reg-ulatory Guide 1.111 calculation is based range from 0.12 cm/sec to 1.81 cm/sec.
Id. at 15.
At issue here is the validity of these rates, assuming radionuclides are attached to fly ash particles.
EPA has published data 5g/ on deposition velocities which are based on field and laboratory measurements.
For par-ticles 0.1, 1.0 and 10 um in diameter, the corresponding depo-sition velocity is 0.015, 0.21 and 4.0 centimeters per second.
Id.
The median size of fly ash is about 2 um.
Therefore, an appropriate deposition velocity for fly ash is slightly above 0.21 cm/sec.
This is well within the range assumed in Regula-tory Guide 1.111.
Thus, the assumed deposition velocities are appropriate, if not conservative for fly ash particles.
Id.
88.
In conclusion, Applicants and the NRC Staff have established that the inhalation dose conversion factors on which they relied in evaluating the radioactive emissions from the Harris Plant appropriately account for radionuclide adsorp-tion onto respirable fly ash in the ambient atmosphere.
More-over, even if one assumes that the fly ash phenomenon of con-cern in Contention II(e) is not enveloped in Reg. Guide 1.109's 5p/
See EPA 1982, n.53, supra. _
w J
inhalation model assumptions, it would not materially alter the calculated doses from inhaled particulates.
In addition, the
'I calculation of doses from the crop-food-chain pathway appropri-ately accounts for the binding of radionuclides to particles 7
deposited onto the ground, pasture and crops.
m x
C.
Joint Contention II(c):
Duration of Radiological j
Dose Calculations 3
l_
89.
The Joint Intervenors' Contention II(c) states:
T1 The long term somatic and genetic health effects of radiation releases from the facility during normal operations, even L_
where such releases are within existing guidelines, have been seriously underesti-mated for the following reasons c) the work of Gofman and Celdicott shows that the NRC has erronecusly estimated the health effects of low-level radiation by examining effects over an arbitrarily short period of time compared to the length of 36 time the radionuclides actually will be causing health and genetic damage.
_Z; i
Joint Contentions of Intervenors at 3-4 (undated).
In its Sum-mary Disposition Order, as supplemented by its Memorandum and Order dated March 15, 1984, the Licensing Board partially de-nied Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Joint Con-m$
tention II(c).
In doing so, the Board limited the issues to be litigated to "whether the NRC staff should confine itself, as it has done in this case, to computations of annual doses and effects," and whether it would be appropriate to " disclose r;;;
the total risk represented by the life of the plant."
13 LBP-84-7, 19 N.R.C.
432, 457-58.
The Board also questioned 2
whether the FES should take into account the incremental impact TE r _~_
-N-'
i on people living near the plant for many years.
Id.
- However, the Board made clear that the time period over which doses should be calculated should not include geologic time periods.
Id.
90.
Applicants' witnesses on Contention II(c) were~Dr.
John Mauro and Mr. Stephen Marschke.
Applicants' Testimony of John J. Mauro and Stephen F.
Mars,chke on Joint Contention II(c)
(Radiological Dose Calculations), ff. Tr. 1,971 (Mauro &
\\
Marschke).
Dr. Mauro's qualifications are described in 1 54, supra; see also Mauro & Marechke.at 1 and Attachment 1A.
In sum, Dr. Mauro is an expert in the field of radiological health.
Mr. Marschke is an associate of Dr. Mauro.
He is the Principal Radiological Assessment Engineer at Envirosphere Com-pany.
He and Dr. Mauro have assisted Applicants in the prepa-ration of the radiological assessments contained in the Shearon Harris ER.
Mauro & Marschke at 1.
Mr. Marschke has a B.S.
in nuclear engineering and has worked for ten years in the ra-diological assessment field.
Id. at 1 and Attachment 1B.
Tes-tifying on behalf of the Staff was Dr. Edward Branagan, whose qualifications are summarized in U 55, supra.
See also NRC Staff Testimony of Edward J.
Branagan, Jr. on Joint Contention II(c), ff. Tr. 2,0$8 (Branagan-II(c)).
Dr. Branagan is a ra-diobiologist in the Radiological Assessment Branch of NRR.
Id.
at 1 and attached Professional Qualifications.
91.
The approaches taken by Applicants' witnesses and Dr.
Branagan to Contention II(c) were substantially different, -
although not inconsistent.
Cf. Tr. 2,063 (Dr. Branagan is of the view that Applicants' method of calculating life-of-the-plant releases and doses is a reasonable and appropriate meth-oc).
Applicants' testimony, prepared in response to the Board's rulings on Contention II(c), was designed to accomplish three objectives:
(1) to briefly describe the method used in the FES and the ER for calculating radiological doses and risks, and to explain the reasons for characterizing the offsite impacts of these doses on an annual basis; (2) to quan-tify the impacts in terms of the life of the plant; and (3) to demonstrate that the impact of radiation released from the Shearon Harris plant on the population and the maximally ex-posed individual over the life of the plant are vanishingly small relative to background radiation.
Mauro & Marschke at 2-3; Tr. 1,972-73 (Marschke).
Dr. Branagan's testimony pro-vides an upper-bound estimate of the incremental impact on peo-ple residing near the plant for many years by making a conser-vative annual dose estimate and multiplying times 40 (years of operation).
Branagan-II(c) at 3-4.
However, unlike the Appli-cants' quantification of dose, which is based on actual plant data, Dr. Branagan used the Appendix I dose design objective of 5 millirem per year for gaseous pathways to calculate the maxi-mum ine'.vidual dose.
Id. at 5; Tr. 2,081-97 (Branagan).59/
59/
Dr. Branagan did not calculate the risk to the U.S. popu-lation from life-of-the-plant releases.
Dr. Branagan explained (Continued next page) -
92.
In evaluating doses from Harris Plant radiological releases, consideration was given by Applicants both to the population dose, i.e.,
the sum of the individual doses, and to the dose to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual.
These two different ways of assessing dose were used in order l
to ensure that regulatory limits, which are designed to protect the individual, are met, and that the risk to the populction as I
a whole is understood.
Mauro & Marschke at 3.
In addition, in view of the Licensing Board's inquiry into the risk to the pop-ulation and to the maximally exposed individual from 40 years et plant operation, Dr. Mauro and Mr. Marschke considered plant life doses, including any residual exposures from releases dur-I ing the life of the plant for a period of 100 years after plant operation ceases.
Id.
Howevez, as guided by the Board, the highly speculative doses accrued over geologic time periods were excluded from their analysis.
Id.
1.
Population Doses and Risks 93.
The current values in the FES (Staff Ex. 1) are annu-alized doses and associated risks.
Thus, Table D-7 of the FES presents the annual wb-le body and thyroid population doses (Continued)
I that "the risk to the average individual within 50 miles of the i
site would be much less than the risk to the maximally exposed l
individual.
In turn, the risk to the average or the average dose to an individual within the whole United States would be much less thar that."
Tr. 2,123 (Branagan). -
within 50 miles (80 km) of the Harris Plant on an annualized basis.
Separate values are provided for doses from liquid effluents,60/ and from noble gases, radiciodines and particu-lates in the gaseous effluents.61/
Table D-9 of the FES summa-rizes annual U.S. population doses from the Harris Plant and
' rom natural background radiation.
Id. at 4.
In Tables D-7 and D-9 of the FES, the annual population doses'are then com-pared to background radiation.
Id. at 5.
94.
Applicants and the Staff agree that the FES' annu-alized dose ascassment also could have been presented on the l
i l
basis of the plant life.
Id. at 5; Tr. 2,045 (Mauro); Tr.
2,062 (Branagan).
The explanations given by Applicants and the Staff for annualizing the dose and risk estimates are:
(1) Ap--
plicable regulations contain annual limits or design objec-tives, rather.than cumulative limits or design objectives.
Branagan-I.sc) at 3; see 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I.
Similarly, for the purpose of NEPA assessment, the l
l 60/
The doses from the liquid effluents are from.the ingestion of sport and commercial fish harvested from the main reservoir-and from the Cape Feer River.
The values are calculated by as-i suming the annual source term, presented-in Table D-1 of the l
FES, is diluted in the reservoir.
The calculation also' assumes i
that the reservoir water overflows to the Cape Fear River, o
where it is mixed in the river flow.
Fish in the reservoir and the Cape Fear River are. assumed to reconcentrate the ra-dionuclides to varying degrees, depending on the element; the i
fish then are harvested and consumed.
Mauro & Marschke at 4.
61/
The doses from the gaseous effluent include external expo-cure from air submersion and deposited radioactivity, and in-ternal exposure from-inhalation and-the ingestion of contami-nated vegetables, milk and beef.
Mauro & Marschkeoat 5.
j.
impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle are generically expressed.
on an annual basis.
Mauro & Marschke at 5; see 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Tables S-3 and S-4.
(2) There are no regulatory or other limits established for population doses; consequently, in order to evaluate their significance, population doses from nu-clear power plants are compared with natural background popula-tion doses, which are calculated annually.
Mauro & Marschke at l
5.
(3) The benefits from operating the plant are expressed on i
an annual basis in the FES.
Annual benefits must be compared to annual costs.
Branagan-II(c) at 3.
In sum, annualizing doses from the Shearon Harris plant facilitates the assessment of the significance of those doses and provides a reasonable representation of the radiological impacts of plant operation.
Mauro & Marschke at 5 52/
Plant lifetime doses and risks can be readily calculated.
Of course, while this would increase the numbers, the ratio betwaen costs and benefits would essen-tially remain the same, i.e.,
"[i]ntegrating the impacts over the lifetime of the plant would be counterbalanced by integrating the benefits over the lifetime of the plant."
Branagan-II(c) at 3.
g2/
Applicants believe-the FES' treatment of health effects on an annual basis is fully consistent with the standard that an 1
EIS "must be written in language that is understandable to nontechnical minds and yet contain enough scientific reasoning to alert specialists to particular problems within the field of their expertise."
Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 348 F.
Supp. 916, 933 (N.D. Miss. 1972), aff'd, 492 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1974).
[
i _ _
95.
Life-of-the-plant population doses can be obtained by multiplying the values in Tables D-7 and D-9 by the assumed 40-year plant life and adding in the residual dose to the popu-lation due to radionuclides which reside in the environment after plant operation terminates.
The annual doses c.ontained in the FES would change to reflect the population doses from the life of the plant as follows:
(1) the fifty-mile dose:
from 15.4 to 624 person-rems; and (2) the U.S.
population dose:
from 25.7 to 1,738 person-rems.
Mauro & Marschke at 6, Table 1.
These doses include the dose due to residual radioactivity in the environment over a 100-year period following plant shut-down.63/
For the 50-mile population, this residual dose is about 8 person-rems.
For the U.S. population, it is about 706 person-rems.
Id. at 6 and Attachment 3.
This residual risk is so small that, in view of the numerous conservativisms inherent in calculation of annual doses during plant operation, the 50-mile and U.S.
population doses due to the operating life of the plant may be estimated by simply multiplying the annual doses presented in the FES by 40, i.e.,
ignoring the residual l
l 63/
Dr. Mauro and Mr. Marschke used a 100-year period as the outer limit of their analysis because (1) almost all ra-dionuclides decay away to very small fractions of'their origi-nal quantity within 10 years; (2) as a result, the dose deliv-cred over the first 100 years is much, much higher than the dose delivered over any subsequent 100-year period; (3) to go beyond 100 years requires speculation about land use and behav-ior of radionuclides; and (4) beyond 100 years, there may be unknown medical breakthroughs (c.g.,
cure tor cancer).
Tr.
1,992-93 (Mauro). _
i l
dose.
Mauro & Marschke at 6-7 and Attachment 4.s4/
96.
These plant life doses can be compared to natural background radiation doses in order to assess' their signifi-cance.
Within the fifty-mile radius, the population dose from background radiation would be 180,000 person-rems for one year and 7.2 million person-rems for 40 years.
Within the United l
States, the population dose due to natural background radiation l
l would be 26 million person-rems for one year and 1.04 billion person-rems for 40 years.
Id. at 6, Table 1.
97.
Similarly, the risk associated with life-of-the-plant doses readily can be obtained by multiplying the U.S. popula-tion health risk of 0.008 cancer deaths per year, referred to in the FES, by a factor of 40.
The result is 0.32 cancer deaths associated with the operating -life of a two-unit plant, which means 0.16 cancer deaths for the single unit Shearon Harris plant.
Id. at 7.
(The U.S. population risk changes to 0.25 if the risk of the residual dose is included in the esti-mate.
Id. at 8, Table 2.)
98.
The above results reveal that the best estimate of the number of cancer fatalities in the U.S. due to plant opera-tion for 40 years is zero.
Tr. 2,036-37, 2,043-44 (Mauro).
l This number can be compared to the expected number of cancer-g4/
This conclusion is apparent when it is recognized that1*.he 706 person-rems is delivered over a 100-year period to-260 mil-lion people, which contrasts with about a billion person-rems dose of natural background radiation.
Obviously, the i ndivid-ual dose is miniscule.
Tr. 2,051-52 (Mauro).
[
- i r
l
fatalities over 40 years in the U.S., which is over 10 mil-lion.p5/
Of course, the risk to the 50-mile population is even less than the risk to the U.S.
population.
Specifically, the risk to the 50-mile population, including the residual dose, due to routine-emission from the Harris plant is 0.10 cancer deaths.
Mauro & Marschke at 8, Table 2.
The expected number of cancer fatalities within a 50-mile radius of the facility over 40 years is 100,000.pp/
Id. at 8-9.
2.
Exposure of the Maximum Individual 99.
Table D-6 of the FES presents the annual dose commit-ment to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual.p7/ Table i
65/
This cancer figure is based on the fact that there are ap-proximately 190 cancer fatalities per year per 100,000 people in the United States (Cancer Facts and Figures, 1984), and there are approximately 260 million people in the U.S.
Mauro &
Marschke at 8 n.1.
ps/
This cancer estimate is based on the fact that there will be approximately 1.8 millica people in the 50-mile plant vicin-ity at the year 2000.
Id. at 9 n.2.
p7/
Prior to the performance of the dose calculations, a land use survey was performed to identify the locations of residencs and food ingestion pathways near the Shearon Harris site.
The result of this survey is the identification of the limiting ex-posure pathways and their locations, i.e.,
the locations with l
the potential for the highest exposure.
As for most sites, the important radiation exposure pathways are inhalation,, direct exposure, and the ingestion of vegetables, railk and beef.
The limiting locations typically are farms or gardens closest to the plant.
Four limiting locations for each pathway are presented in Table D-6.
At each location, and for each pathway at that location, doses are calculated for four age groups (infant (0-1), child I
(Continued next page) l D-6 specifies the maximum dose to the critical organs via each pathway for the critical age groups.
In order to calculate the maximum dose to an individual, the doses in Table D-6 must be summed.
Thus, for example, the highest dose to any organ for any age group is to the infant thyroid gland due to the con-sumption of milk at the nearest cow milk location.
In order to determine the infant's total thyroid dose, which is the maximum and, hence, limiting organ dose, the exposure to the thyroid from inhalation (0.22 mrem /yr), ground deposition (0.20 mrem /yr) and milk consumption (4.19 mrem /yr), must be combined, yielding 4.6 mrem /yr.
This is the value reported in Table D-7 of the FES as the limiting " dose to any organ from all path-ways."
Table D-7 compares the calculated annual commitments for the maximally exposed individual to the Appendix I design objectives.
Mauro & Marschke at 11.
It should be noted that 4.6 mrem is well within the natural variability in background radiation in one location.
See Tr. 2,048 (Mauro).
100. Since the annual doses in the FES are provided for selected organs and age groups at selected locations, the maxi-mum dose to an individual over the operating life of the plant (Continued)
(1-11), teen (11-17) and adult (17-40)), and for eight organs (bone, liver, total body, thyroid, kidney, lung, GI tract, and skin).
The doses are' presented in this way because the dose limits in Appendix I are expresced in terms of total body and organ doses.
In Table D-6,.the highest doses from these calcu-lations are tabulated.
Mauro & Marschke at 9-11...
cannot be obtained by directly multiplying the values in Table D-6 by 40.
Doing so would be unrealistically conservative be-cause it would mean, for example, that an infant remains an in-fant for 40 years.
Dr. Mauro and Mr. Marschke therefore per-formed a calculation to determine the doses to an individual l
who receives the maximum lifetime exposure because he is ini-tially exposed at birth and lives his entire life in the vicin-ity of the plant.
The calculation takes into consideration changes in internal dosimetry and feeding habits as the indi-vidual grows to an adult.sg/
The results of the analysis are stated in terms of the annual dose to each organ and age group for each pathway.
Mauro & Marschke at 12 ar.d Attachment 6
(
(see, especially, Table 6-2).
101. In sum, the maximum lifetime whole body radiation dose to an individual from the 40-year operation of the Harris Plant is 130 mrem.
This figure was obtained by multiplying the annual dosec for each age group by the number of years the individual is in that age group while the plant is operating, and then summing these values.
To this number is added the sg/
Dr. Mauro and Mr. Marschke's asseesment begins at age 0, i.e.,
infancy.
Tr. 1,975-76 (Marschke).
Thus, risk to the l
fetus is not included.
See Tr. 1,978 (Mauro).
Adding to this calculation the incremental increase in risk due to exposure from conception to birth would have very little effect on this assessment because, although the risk coefficient applicable to the fetus is five times higher than the adult risk coefficient, this higher risk coefficient is only applicable to 3/4 of one year (i.e.,
9 months) out of a 70-year lifetime.
See Tr.
1,978-82 (Mauro).
residual dose after plant shutdown (from 41 to 70 years).
The calculated risk of cancer mortality from this exposure is esti-mated to be about 2 x 10-5 (0.00002).
Mauro & Marschke at 12-13.
This risk was calculated using the age-specific cancer risk coefficients and the methodology presented in BEIR I.69/
i l
Mauro & Marschke at 13 and Attachment 6.
l 102. The 40-year lifetime dose of 130 mrem appropriately l
is compared to that individual's 40-year and lifetime dose from natural background radiation, which is 4,000 and 7,000 mrem, respectively.
Mauro & Marschke at 13.
This lifetime amount of radiation is within the annual variations in background radia-tion across the United States.
See Tr. 2,046-48 (Macro). The l
significance of these doses also can be assessed by calculating the health risk attributable to them.-
The maximum individual's calculated lifetime risk of dying of cancer from radiation re-
-5 leased from the plant is about 2 x 10 (0.00002).
The lifetime risk of death of cancer caused by natural background
-3 radiation is 1 x 10 (0.001).
The average risk of dying of cancer from causes other than operation of the Harris Plant is 2 x 10-1 (0.2).
Mauro & Marschke at 13.
103. In contrast to Applicants' dose and risk assessment, which relies on site-specific information, Dr. Branagan made a 69/
See Mauro & Marschke, ref. (2), Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, "The Effects on Popu-lations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," Na-
)
[
tional Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, November i
1972 (BEIR I).
l
rough calculation of the maximum impact of life-of-the-plant doses utilizing Appendix I dose design objectives.
Dr.
Branagan reasoned that in Appendix D of the FES, the Staff presented its analysis which showed that the Shearon Harris plant had sufficient waste treatrient systems to meet the dose design objectives in Appendix I.
Branagan-II(c) at 4.
Opera-tion of the Shearon Harris facility will be governed by op-erating license technical specifications that will be based on the dose design objectives of Aopendix I.
Because the design objective values were chosen to permit flexibility of operation while still ensuring that uoses from plant operations are "as low as reasonably achievable," the actual radiological impact of plant operation may result in doses close to these objec-tives.
Thus, it was reasonable to base a dose estimate to a maximally exposed individual on the Appendix I annual dose de-sign objectives.
Id. at 4-5.
The Staff's method, although less precise than Applicants', doec previde a useful " quick look" at the issue in question, namely, whether it makes a sub-stantive difference for doses and effects to be assessed over the life of the plant, rather than on an annual basis.
104. Using this method, Dr. Branagan assumed that a hypo-thetical individual will be exposed to 5 mrem /yr (total body exposure).
Branagan-II(c) at 5.70/
The cumulative exposure 70/
Dr. Branagan's choice of 5 mrem /yr was subject to consid-erable discussion during the hearing because it effectively ig-(Continued next page)
I )
i l
i for 40 years would be 200 mrem (0.2 rem).
Interestingly, this number is not far afield from the Applicants' 40-year dose es-timate of 130 mrem.
(Continued) nores the dose from the liquid effluent pathway.
I.e.,
the Ap-pendix I dose design objective of 5 mrem is the total body objective for noble gaseous effluents.
It does not include the liquid pathway dose design objective (3 mrem /yr total body).
(In addition, because there is no total body gaseous effluent objective, arguably it ignores radiciodines and particulates, which are considered in the organ dose design objective for cirborne effluents, which is 15 mrem /yr.)
See Branagan-II(c) at 5.
Dr. Branagan was satisfied that 5 mrems/yr is a conserva-tive estimate of the dose to an individual, because it is un-likely that an individual will be simultaneously exposed at the dose-design objective levels from gaseous and liquid effluents to the same body organs for 40 years.
Actual doses to real individuals in the near vicinity of the site are expected to be a fraction of the dose of 0.2 rems.
In Dr. Branagan's judg-ment, in order to obtain a dose of 0.2 rems, an individual would have to spend almost all of his or her time at the site boundary, and obtain almost all of his or her food grown at an J
offsita location where the highest concentrations of ra-dionuclides are expected.
The average dose to an individual within 50 miles of the site is expected to be about 500 times less than the preceding value.
FES, Table D-7, at D-10; see Branagan-II(c) at 5-6; Tr. 2,082-100 (Branagan).
In fact, if an individual was absolutely maximally ex-posed, the 5 mrem /yr dose would be incorrect, as it does not account for the liquid dose or, arguably, some of the gaseous effluents (e.g., radiciodines).
See Tr. 2,086-89 (Branagan, l
Eddleman).
However, Dr. Branagan's assessment included an ele-ment of realism in that it takes cognizance of the annual doses l
calculated in the FES, e.g.,
.2 mrem /yr from the noble gas I
offluents, which is less than 10% of the Appendix I dose design objectives, or about 1.5 mrem /yr total exposure (gaseous, lig-uid and food pathways).
Tr. 2,090-100 (Branagan).
In view of these anticipated doses, and the improbability of receiving multiple components of this total cxposure. Dr. Branagan's 5 mrem /yr figure is a conservative estimate.
See Tr. 2,138-40 (Branagan).
105. In order :o assess the relative. significance of the l
200 mrem dose estimate, Dr. Branagan compared it to the dose received from exposure to natural background radiation in the United States.
Branagan-II(c) at 8.
Assuming an average annu-al exposure of about 0.1 rems to natural background radiation for the State of North Carolina, the dose to an individual ex-l posed to radioactive effluents for the plant's lifetime (i.e.,
0.2 rems) is conservatively estimated to be about 3 percent of the dose from exposure to natural background radiation (i.e.,
about 7 rems over a 70-year lifetime).
Id.
Furthermora, the 40-year dose of 0.2 rem is within the annual variation of back-ground radiation of about 0.07 rem /yr to about 0.3 rem /yr that is dependent on geographical location.
Id.
106. Dr. Branagan then assessed the risk of potential pre-mature death from cancer to an individual exposed to radioac-tive effluents from 40 years of reactor operation.
The esti-mated.2 rem can be calculated to result in about 3 chances in one hur ' red thousand (0.000003) of causing fatal cancer.71/
71/
The risk estimator of 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rems was used by Dr. Branagan to estimate poten-tial health effects.
See FES, Section 5.9.3.1.1. This cancer fatality risk estimator is based on the " absolute risk" model described in BEIR-I.
Higher estimates can be developed by use of.the " relative risk" model along with the assumption that risk prevails for the duration of life.
This would produce
. risk estimates up to about four times greater than those used in Dr. Branagan's testimony.
The Staff regards this as a rea-i nonable upper limit to the range of uncertainty.
The lower limit of the range would b9 zero because health effects have not been detected at doses in this dose-rate range.
The number (Continued next page) '
.This risk is an extremely small fraction of the current inci-dence of actual cancer fatalf. ties, which is about 20% (0.2).
Branagan-II(c) at 7-8.
107. Dr. Branagan also estimated the number of potential genetic disorders associated with exposure of the general pub-lic to radioactive effluents from normal operations.72/
108. Multiplying the cumulative pcpulation dose from expo-sure to radioactivity attributable to the normal operations by the genetic risk estimator, see n.71, Dr. Branagan estimated that about 0.16 of a potential genetic disorder may occur.
The value of 0.16 is the sum of the number of potential genetic disorders that may occur over all future generations of the (Continued) of potential cancers would be approximately 1.5 to 2 times the number of potential fatal cancers.
See Branagan-II(c) at 6-7 (citing BEIR III).
While BEIR III discusses relative risk, it recommends the use of the absolute risk model, on which all of the witnesses relied, because the data on cancer incidence com-ports with the absolute not the relative risk model.
Tr.
1,999, 2,000-2,051 (Mauro); Tr. 2,117 (Branagan).
Branagan-II(c) at-6-7.
72/
First, Dr. Bran &gan estimated the collective dose-equiva-lent commitment (the population dose) to the population within 50 miles of the plant from exposure to radioactive effluents from one reactor-year of normal operations.
This was about 15 person-rems to the total body. See FES, Table D-7 at D-10.
For 1
40 years of operation, the cumulative population dose would be about 620 person-rems.
Second, Dr. Branagan multiplied'the cu-l mulative population dose by genetic risk estimators to obtain the number of potential genetic disorders.
The genetic risk estimator of 258 cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rems was used.
This value is equal to the sum of the geometric means of the risk of specific genetic defects end the risk of defects with complex etiology.
Branagan-II(c) at 7,
- 9. -
E
1 xposed population (within 50 miles) due to exposure to radio-l active effluents from 40 reactor-years of operation.
Branagan-II(c) at 9.
This value is small compared with the current incidence of actual genetic ill health in each genera-tion, which is about 11%.
The 50-mile population around the Harris site is about 1.75 million people.
Branagan II(c) at 9 (citing BEIR III).
3.
Conclusions 109. In summary, Dr. Mauro and Mr. Marschke's detailed calculations establish that the calculated cumulative radiation exposure to the 50-mile population and U.S. population due to operation of the Harris Plant is less than one ten-thousandth of the doses to these populations due to background radiation over the plant lifetime.
Applicants also established that the calculated lifetime whole body dose to the individual maximally exposed to the Harris Plant's operation, assuming a 40-year plant operating life, is 130 mrem, which is about two one-hundredths of the lifetime dose from natural background ra-diation.
Mauro & Marschko at 14.
This maximum individual dose calculation is confirmed by the Staff's assessment.
Based on these calculations, and in contrast to Joint Contention II(c),
it is reasonable to conclude that the lifetime offsite radia-tion dose and associated health risk to individuals and to the population from normal operation of Shearon Harris is insignif-icant.
The risk of long term somatic and genetic effects of -
radiation releases from the facility during normal operation is a small fraction of the current incidence of actual cancer fa-l talities and actual genetic _ill health in each generation.
Es-l timation of cumulative risk instead of annual risk would not change this fact or its significance.
D.
Eddleman Section 2.758 Petition 110. See Applicants' Response to Eddleman Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 re Alternatives and Need for Power Rule, August 31, 1983.
III.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 111. The environmental issues in controversy in this pro-ceeding are limited to the matters raised by the intervenors.
10 C.F.R. S 51.104(a)(3).
Mr. Eddleman and Joint Intervenors i
litigated three contentions which challenged the adequacy of the FES:
(i) Eddleman Contention 8F(1), on Table S-3 coal particulate health effects; (ii) Joint Contention II(e), on fly esh; and (iii) Joint Contention II(c), on the duration of the radiological dose calculations.
Based on the foregoing find-ings of fact, which effectively amend the FES, see 10 C.F.R. 5 51.102(c), the environmental contentions do not constitute a challenge to the adequacy of the FES, which properly sets forth the environmental effects of operation of the Shearon Harris facility.
Respectfully submitted,
,gM h. A-a, -
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Deborah B. Bauser SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 Counsel for Applicants Dated:
July 2C, 1984.
N July 20, 1984 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p [Tr, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 k 2J BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD All:gg
~ OL :.. :
.i
- /Jj /.,ff 7 In the Matter of
)
~f
}
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)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Environmental Mat-ters" were served this 20th day of July, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
B M A. k Deborah B. Bauser
/
j
p i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In ths 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)
)
l SERVICE LIST i
l James L. Kelley, Esquire John D.
Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C.
20555 307 Granville Road i
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 12607 Washington, D.C.
20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Office of Executive Legal Director Durhea.
North Carolina 27705
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conimission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 1
Docketing and Service Section Richard E.
Jones, Esquire Office of the Secretary Vice President and Senior Counsel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & Light company i
Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 f
Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Dr. Linda W. Little l
CHANGE Governor's Waste Management Board P.O. Box 2151 513 Albemarle Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-y
,e,,, -
r
--e
-.+.-,--,._,,,--,-,---,y.
,..~.,-w
1 P'
Bradley W. Jcnos, Esquira U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director l
Public Staff - NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 i
I 9 !