ML20080L888

Response Opposing Util Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 83/84 Re Carcinogenic Discharges. Statement of Facts as to Which There Are Issues to Be Heard Encl

ML20080L888
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/27/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080L879	List: ML20080L877 ML20080L884 ML20080L888 ML20080L894 ML20080L899 ML20080L907
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310030372
Download: ML20080L888 (6)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA setpt 27, 1963

, NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE A7OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James M. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of J Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER 'AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-k68-01

) OL Wells Eddleman's Resnonse to Annlicants ' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman 83/8h Applicants ' entire Motion on this contention is a large red herring. They argue in essence that since the Harris plant has a valid NPDES Permit, and the Clean Water Act (federal) and State of NC regulations are designed to protect the health and safety cf the public, and the environment, there is no effect of Harris dischanges.

l But in fact, as can be seen from the Aeolication and the Permit, there was no consideration given to carcinogenic discharges l from Harris, or interaction of Harris discharges with toxic and l carcinogenic chemicals in the environnent, in granting the Harris l

NPDES Permit or in filing the 1977 "401 letter" (attachment 2 of CP&L's 9-1-83 Motion on this contention). The reason is sinnle.

Neither the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500 of 1972, see sections 301 (b)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A), 304(b), 306 and 307) nor North Carolina Regulations (see 15 NCAC 2B.0200) requires any consideration of carcinogens in granting NPDES permits. The federal A8t recuires 8310030372 030927 PDRADOCK05000ggg C

-2 the use of technically feasible and economically effective cleanun '

methods, but says nothing about carcinogens. The 123 EPA nriority ,

pollutants (which CP&L has NOT tested for at Harris, see their 5 August 1983 response to interrogatory 83/84-8, pn 10-11) do not include chloramines (NHc1, 2 NH2 01, Nc1 3

), one subject of Eddlenan 80, nor heavy metals (another).

The only state regulation that governs toxic materials not set forth in the regulations, is one limiting the concentration to 1/20 of the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> LC (lethal concentratirn) 50 for fish, same for non-bioaccumulative collutants, and 1/100 of the LC-50 for bioaccumulative ones. 115 NCAC 2B.0208? The state NPDES regulations say nothing about carcinogens, and nothing in the nermit or in the 401 letter (Applicants' attachment 2) mentions carcinogens. .

thh * [RJ V D Thus, Auplicants ' argument is simply wrong, and their phrasing of Eddleman 83/84 (" Statement of Facts" at 1) that "the environmental imnact of chemical releases fron (the)

Shearon Harris Plant has not been adeountely assessed", is true.

Auplicants mischaracterize ths nosition of the Staff (see n.106 of 6/24/83 interrogatory resoonses, to #s 26 and 27) which does NOT state that there will be no health effects of carcinogens fren Harris.

l Moreover, Staff analysis is incomplete on this issue -- ,

see 6/24/83 interrogatory resnonses, p.101 bottom, Interrogatory 2, p.101 near top, and p.102 at bottom. I am sunelying today to t he t Staff che long-missing pollutant analyses (metals and a few organics)

\

River of the Haw and Jordan Lake, found today under a stack of newspaners in an unlabeled box. Staff Counsel Earth w!11 make a cony of them t

available to CP&L's attorney Hill Carromw.

Not only has the Staff not conpleted its analysis. CP&L hasn't done any. See entire response to Eddleman Interrogatory 83/8h-9

l (August 5,1983 at pages 13-14) by Anplicants -- no study of toxic l

, chemicals or carcinogenic metals anywhere around SENPP; no study of Trihalomethanes (the carcinogen of most concern to Staff, see l 6/24/83 resoonse at 106, item 27; p.101-102) has been made around Harris by Applicants (8-5-83 response to 83/84-6(a) at nn 10-11),

and no study of carcinogenic discharges from Harris, organic chemical l carcinogens, or metal carcinogens has been made (6/30/83 suonienent to Aeplicants ' resnonses on Eddleman Interrogatories 83/83-1(c ),(j) and (k)). In sum Applicants have never to this day analyzed any of the issues behind Eddleman 83/8h. Staff's analysis is at best incomplete. Aeolicants ' f acts 2,3,h k and 5 are therefore irrelevant.

" fact" 5 is clearly raise: See above at 1,2.

Applicants go on to misstate the contention as if it reauired

, revision of EPA regulations (it does not) or would seek a limit l

by NRC on carcinogenic discharges of chemicals from Harris, which cannot be innosed under Yellow Creek, 8 NRC 702 at 713 It does not.

What it doer recuire is a weighing of the effects of these discharges under NEPA in this proceeding.

This brings us to Aoplicants ' second argument, that NRC Staff's analysis in the DES is adequate. As noted above, in interrogatory l

responses filed AFTER the DES issued, Staff says their analysis is not done on trihalomethanes. Other analysis (metals etc) is ongoing l

according to Staff counsel.

l Applicants cite DES nages 5-2 through 5-8 as analyzing the contention Eddleman 893/84, but revealingly cannot cite any language re formation of chlor-organic comuounds or toxic metals. I find none.

What the Staff does say about THMs is that they are carcinogenic, n.5-8, that they are ehhanced in formation in power plants (p.5-7,1st naragrach ),

and the Staff has a concern about THMS and will analyze them further.

The DES nowhere addresses bioaccumulation of TEMs or other chemical

-h-carcinogens in food chains and webs leading to humans.1 The DES, ,

so far as I can find at pages 5-2 through 5-9, doesn't even deal with formation of chemical carcinogens other than THMs, does not address health effects of chloramines formed at Harris, and thus fails to deal with much of Eddleman 83/84 Anplicants " Facts" 7 and 9 are thus false.

However, CP&L Discovery document 00000h, Evaluati on ano Control of Macroinvertebrate Nuisance Organisns b Freshwater Industr$al Supply systems, by Billy Isom of TVA (copy provided to Staff, Board in materials and NRC Docketing and Service, re Eddleman 75)(filed this date, 9227-83),

observes at p.8, iten 1, that chloramines are toxic and "nay be lethal or reduce renroductive capacity of fish or macroinvertebrates at concentrations from o.1 ppn to 20 pob." Yet Staff did not analyze these iqpacts at all in the DFS.

Applicants' " Fact" 10 depends on the foregoing, all of which except for #5 (irrelevant since NEPA analysis is what 83/8h seeks )

and #1 (restating Eddleman 83/84) are shown false or irrelevant herein.

In particular, there is no food chain analysis or heavy metal analysis in the DES and I can find no analysis of chlororganics other than THMs. For THMs, the Staff is still concerned, so that is sue cannot he disnosed of now. Bloconcentraticn of THMs has not been addressed by the Staff (nor the Aunlicants, who also ignore the metals issue and the chloramines).

Applicants annear to argue that this issue cannot be heard Food chain effects are cart of Eddlenan 83/8h parts B and C very exnlicitly and nart A also, see at end of each nart.

because by itself it many not tin the NEPA balance fully against licensing the Harris plant. NEPA does not reouire that each innact analyzed tip the balance. It requires analyzing the imnacts and then balancing them.

Meeting applicable standards which were not set wi th regard to carcinogens (e.g. the NPDES permit requirements for CP&L's Harris vlant) is simoly irrelevant to Eddleman 83/8h, or at best it is argument as to the amount of health effects to be exnected.

But since those health effects were not analyzed in setting the NC and federal NPDES standards for discharges (CP&L's NPDES nermit Application, see ER, includes the ability to discharge a little of everything), CP&L's whole argument fails.

Moreover, even if you accent CP&L's argument, the lack of analyzing food chain effects, toxic metal effects mobilized by Harris dischargess, chloramines, and toxic organic carcinogens formed in the Harris plant (e.g. TEMs) and their food chain effects on human health and the environnent, still give substance to Eddleman 83/8h which says that the chemical effluents from Harris have not been sufficiently analyzed as to health and environmental effects.

For the above reasons, CP&L's " facts" are either fals e or don't help them any, and their Motion for Summery Disnosition of Eddleman 83/8h dk should be denied.

// ' h/vW

~ - - - - , - - - - , - - , , -- - - - - - . - y

STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO WHICH THE9E ARE ISSUES TO BE HEa9D ON EDPLEMAN 83/84

1. N either Staff nor CP&L has analyzed the effect .

of Harris plant discharge chemicals on carcinogenic metals.

2. Neither Staff nor CP&L has analyzed format *on of. chlororganic connounds other than THMs at Harris. As to Tri Halo Methanes (THMs), Staff analysis is not comnlete, f 3. Trihalomethanes are carcinogens.

chemical and metal

4. Food chain effects of carcinogens, 4 chloramines and other discharges from Harris are not adequately considered in the DES, if they indeed are considered there at all.

5. The NPDES permit for Harris was issued without analysis of carcinogenic chemicals that might

• be formed in or discharged from the olant.

6/ NEPA requires weighing environmental costs and benefits of the effects of onerating Harris.

7. CP&L identified no carcinogens as e#fluents from Harris in its NPDES permit monlication for the Harris plant.

8. No carcinogens were analyzed by the State of NC in issuing the Harris NPDES permit because State regulations,15 NCAC 2B.0200 and following, do not require such analysis.

9. The Federal Clean Water Act does not exolicitly require analyzing carcinogenic discharge effects, and is not health-based at all, but is based on technical and economic feasibility of cleanun.

PL 92-500 at 301,302,306,304.

10. No NPDES standard is a "no effect" standard, under which there is no effect of the allowed discharge.

11. Carcinogenic chemicals will form inside the Harris plant due to chlorination (uncontradicted statement of Eddleman expert <

" George Goe"; NRC Staff analysis of THMs, DES at 5-6/7,8)

12. The . health and environmental effects of chemical carcinogens discharged from Harris have not yet been calculated except for THMs ignoring food chaf n effects.

13. CP&L has made no study of chemical carcinogenus, metals, or formation of chlororganic compounds at Harris.

14. NRC Staff studies indicate formation of THMs at' Harris, do not cover food chain effects or metals or chlororganic carcincgens other than THMS, and are not yet comolete.

15. The environmental effects of the chemicals mentioned in Eddleman 83/8h still haven't been adequately ' analyzed for NEDA s purposes by NRC.

a

~

,-,,,.vw ,-v. ,.-ww .- , w%g- -----yg. g 5 y .h .,yyw,_my ,y n9 __yg -% -, p .-* werwgw e emP-ww-'r.s- --y----r-ww- '-ww-'