ML20094D001

Proposed Findings of Fact in Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Submitted by W Eddleman on Contention 8F(1) & by Joint Intervenors on Joint Contentions Ii(E) & (C).Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20094D001
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/06/1984
From:	Bauser D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408080217
Download: ML20094D001 (10)

Text

- - -- - - . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _

e August 6, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kh[

'84 AGO -7 P3:00 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) U t,

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN REPLY TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED BY WELLS EDDLEMAN ON CONTENTION 8F(l) AND BY THE JOINT INTERVENORS ON JOINT CONTENTIONS II(E) AND (C)

1. Intervenor Wells Eddleman submitted proposed findings of fact on his Contention 8F(l). See Wells Eddleman's Proposed Findings and Conclusions Concerning Contention 8F(l) (Coal Particulates), July 20, 1984 ("Eddleman Findings"). The Joint Intervenors filed proposed findings on their Joint Contentions II(e) and (c). See Joint Intervenors' Findings of Fact on Joint Contentions II(e) and II(c), July 24, 1904 ("JI Find-  !

ings"). Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions l

of Law on Environmental Matters,-dated July 20, 1984, ("Appli-cants' Findings") address the three environmental contentions

-that were the subject of the evidentiary proceeding in great detail. Accordingly, this Reply addresses only significant er-

-rors in the intervenors' proposed findings on environmental

~

S409000217 840006 PDR ADOCK 09000400 0 PDR

r

.e' contentions that were not discussed or were only touched upon

~in Applicants' Findings.

Contention 8F(l)

2. Mr.-Eddleman maintains in his findings that the cross-sectional data developed by the Harvard group headed by Dr. Oskaynak, and relied upon in the testimony of Dr. Hamilton and the NRC Staff panel of experts to generate a risk coeffi-cient for air pollution, fail to account for the effects on the individuals studied of exposure to air pollution prior to the time period studied. See Eddleman Findings, 11 10-11. As evi-dont from -one of the quotations referred to by Mr. Eddleman, Dr. Hamilton specifically testified that the cross-sectional data he and the Harvard group relied upon to generate a risk coefficient for mortality due to air pollution do fully account for the effects of past exposure. See Tr. 1,334-35 (Hamilton)

("what you are seeing is the effect-[of] . . . very long term exposure to these particles"); Tr. 1,421-22 (0 kaynak); See also Tr. 1,331-32 (Hamilton: this is the best state of~the art, and is a very conservative assessment); Tr. 1,329 (Hamilton basis for confidence in' cross-sectional analyses is confirmatory experimental evidence); Tr. 1,421-22 (Oskay ak:

analysis assumes people exposed to typical level of particle concentrations in previous years of their life); Tr. 1,548

~

(Oskaynak: cross-sectional data consistent with time series mortality data).

n

a

3. The tectimony of Dr. Hamilton and the NRC staff panel of experts on Contention 8F(l) is devoted exclusively to providing a conservative upper bound estimate of health effects attributable to the coal emission rate specified in Table S-3.

Thus, for example, an air pollution risk coefficient is used as a conservative surrogate measure of risk for coal particles.

See Tr. 1,'224-25 (Hamilton); see generally Applicants' Findings at 11 37-43. Mr. Eddleman ignores these estimates in his pro-posed findings, instead taking the fraction of total emissions from the annual fuel cycle, rather than coal particulate emis-sions, and multiplying this number by the risk coefficient for air pollution particles of all sizes. Eddleman Findings at 1

12. This arithmetic simply ignores the fact, apparent from the methods used by the expert witnesses and explained in great de-tail in their testimony, that none of the experts believe the

-incremental risk of Table S-3 coal particles reasonably can be estimated in this fashion. As Dr. Hamilton and the Staff ex-ports stated, their calculations constitute reasonable upper bound calculations of risk attributable to 1154 MT/yr of coal particles. See Tr. 1,238 (Hamilton); Tr. 1,506-13 (Habegger).

Moreover, Mr. Eddleman's estimate ignores biological reality.

See Tr. 1,273-75 (Hamilton). As Dr. Hamilton explained, if the risk were greater than he and the Harvard group estimates, "it wouldn't be so difficult to identify deaths from air pollu-tion." Tr. 1,277-78 (Hamilton).

a

e Joint C'nt"ntien II(n)

4. Joint Intervenors suggest that in order to provide a reasonable calculation of the health risk attributable to the phenomenon of radionuclides from the Harris Plant becoming at-tached to fly ash in the atmosphere, it was necessary to do a

' site specific study of the area for this purpose. JI Findings, 1 8. In support of this claim, Joint Intervenors refer to the existence of the Cape Fear coal plant, and the experts' alleged

' uncertainty as to the assumed deposition and clearance pat-terns." fd. Joint Intervenors misunderstand the expert wit-nesses' testimony and ignore their analysis, which conclude that such site specific information was unnecessary.

5. The primary purpose of Dr. Maura and Dr. Schaffer's testimony was to consider whether the generic models used by Applicants and the NRC Staff to calculate radionuclide exposure from normal operation of the Harris Plant adequately account for the specific phenomenon that was the subject of Joint Con-tantion II(e).1/ Mauro & Schaffer, ff. Tr. 1,605, at 12, 15; see generally Applicants' Findings at 11 57-59. Of course, by 1/ As Applicants' counsel noted during the proceeding, had Joint Contention II(e! been directed at the impact of the exis-tence of the Cape Fear Plant in the region, Applicants' testi-mony might have been more focused on that subject. See Tr. '

1,813-16 (discussion among parties). However, the plain fact is that Joint Intervenors' contention was not directed at coal from any specific emission source but, rather, was coal gener-ally in the atmosphere from any source, e.g., Soviet Union, China, Japan. See Joint Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Interrogatories on Joint Contention II (First Set), dated May 16, 1983, response to interrogatory II-39.

_4 r

s .,

.\ .,,

- N

'~

-definition, such anlapproach' ignores sonte site-specific infor-mation.-Specifically, while it accounts for.the r'elease rates from the Harris Plant, in particular,'and local meteorological conditions, the calculation is not adjusted because of the ex-

, s <

s. s istence of the Cape Fear. Plant 12 miles away. See id. at 11

,. a ,

c 67, 74-76. However, as Dr. Mauro explain'ed, it should ng be adjusted. ThisIis because the presence.of*the Cape Fear.

~

so s s ,

Plant does not increase the size of particles in the atmosphere on which radionuclides $could attach. Rathe[, the Isrge parti-g <<sc.s > .

cles from the coa 14 1 ant'vould quickly deposit on t6e gE und'

,Q! t

-s and therefore not be*available for attachment,.by radionuclides.

Tr. 1,816-17 (Mauro).

a ,

Dr.-Mauro and Dr. Schaffer did consider--

g ,

whether the =

size \ range of particles in the atmosphere is con- , ,

r +-

servatively accounted,for in Applicantsmodels, and determined

'w .

- that the models do a'ccount for the ef fects of suc1Nparticles.-

See Mauro & Schaf f er ',2 f f . NTr: 1,605, at 7-9.

It is true, as s

( '

i ,'

Mr. Eddleman . states',lthat Applicants' witnesses were unfamiliar p

with the-efficiencies of' preci'pitators'dt the Cape Fear Plant.

However; as Dr.'Mauro expla'ined, such facts'are irrelevant tos

. _ y  : .

Dr.~Madro and Dr. Schaffer's, calculation} shich relied upon' 3 s ,

_ , , -q t &

data [howingtheactua1obsarvedeffiteintilevelsin\theatmo- s sphere'. Tr. 1,807 (Mauroh'.

s i

-6. Joint Intervenors incorrectly stiggest that the wit-nesshserredbynota,ssumingadsorption .

r absorption of noble 1

gassa 'onto coal particles. - JI Findings, 1 9. ~ ~

Attachment 2 to Dr.

- m Mauro and Dr. Schaffer's testirsony,explal ins =in considerable .'

s ,.,+

k , )1

. :, , ,s -5

~

'3., bss 39  :,; .'

s - , , , ,,

.. 'h . I '

,..Q iR

'~ 1 t ,

th ,

s s u-: '

• Q

C'

~6 .

~

detail why it is reasonable for the inhalation dosimetry model to make this assumption.. Attachment 2 shows that an insignifi-cant fraction of radioactive noble gases released from the Harris Flant would become associated with airborne fly ash par-

-ticles. See Maurois Schaffer, ff. Tr. 1,605, Attachment 2 at 2-l_through 2-3; see generally Applicants' Findings at 1 72.

d? -

.7.: While Joint Intervenors correctly point out that the

-inhalation dosimetry model'used by Applicants and the NRC Staff for.the calculations contained in the ER and the FES do not ad- -

~ dress the dose to the lymph nodes, they fail to mention Dr.

Mauro's response to Dr. Foreman's inquiry on this subject, t -namely, that he believes consideration of this question by use of a later model would introduce a conservativism not accounted

'for in the model Applicants and the NRC Staff used. Tr.

.1,723-25 (Mauro). See J.I. Findings at S ll.

8. Joint Intervenors misunderstand Dr. Schaffer's state-ment about monodisperse aerosols and their applicability here.

The-studies relied upon by Dr. Schaffer and Dr. Mauro on parti-cle-behavior in the lung traced single or monodisperse parti-cles. Insofar as these particles agglomerated in the lung, the studies would have reflected that fact. Tr. 1,625-27 (Schaffer). These studies are fully applicable here in under- ,

standing how particles behave upon inhalation. See Mauro &

Schaffer, ff. Tr. 1,605, at 9.

i ,

b I

?

.- _. - . _ _ _ . . _..n

. ;- Joint Contention II(c)

9. Joint Intervenors incorrectly state that Table 1 of Applicants' testimony on Joint Contention II(c) by Dr. Mauro and Dr. Marschke "shows that approximately 94% of the total an-nual whole body person-rems for the US consists of gaseous emmissions from the plant." JI Findings, 1 16. Table 1 shows

.that about 93% of the annual whole body dose to the U.S. popu-lation from the plant comes from gaseous emissions.

Conclusion

10. Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings on Contention 8F(l) and the Joint Intervenors' proposed findings on Joint Conten-

.tions II(e) and (c) provide no support for the positions advo-cated by the intervenors in these environmental contentions.

Accordingly, and in view of the testimony by the expert wit-nesses proferred by Applicants and the NRC Staff, Eddleman Con-tention 8F(l) and Joint Intervenor Contentions II(e) and (c) should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted, b L btnc.1 h ./

Thomes 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: August 6, 1984 a

h f 2_

n. -

August 6, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCKir p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UEHC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 1 A33 -7 P3:00 L CFi ,!-  :

<In the Matter of ) 3';#-U, fFJ CUCKIR' '

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Unit 1) )

- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact in Reply to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Submitted by Wells Eddleman on Contention 8F(l) and by the Joint Intervenors on Joint Contentions II(E) and (C)" were served this 6th day of August, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.

O e l><,A /$. /& u'

• A -

Deborah B. Bauser i

n

i:

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

. Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

.=a.

SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Ghapel 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 Durham, North Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Richard E. Jones, Esquire ,

Office of the Secretary Vice President and Senior Counsel U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & Light company Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Dr. Linda W. Little 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

"O 4

Br dicy W. J;n00, EIquira 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

'~, . _ .

Public Staff .NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo

+

University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 t

o

~ . - - . . - - . - - - - .

C