ML20080G239

Request for Clarification & Objections to ASLB 840127 Order Re Eddleman Contentions 37A,37B & 8F2.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080G239
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/06/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080G234	List: ML20080G231 ML20080G239 ML20080G254
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402130317
Download: ML20080G239 (6)

Text

-

r "e.

00 Cur 7ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , L "'

6 #ebruary lo8L.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G - , n.. ,

c ,

.a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS,ING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Docket- 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unita 1 ani 2) ) ASLBP Mo. 82-k68-01

) OL Wells Eddleman's Requestifor Clarification of, and Objections to, Board Order of 1-27-8h By-Order dated 1-27-8h and served 1-30, the Board granted summary disposition on Eddleman 373, r.uled out considaration of pain and suffering (Eddleman 37A), and granted summary disposition of Eddleman 8F2, among much else. I respectfully request clarification and object (timely) to such order re these matters as follows:

1. In my 6-20-83 resnonse to the DES, I state as follows: (p.14)

"Again, the DEIS . . . uses the models 373 attacks. Also, the Staff gives no consideration to pain and suffering in the cost-benefit balance (DEIS section 6, see table 6-1), or in discussion of j health effects in section 5 Thus, all the DEIS does is add basis to 37B by continuing the errors and omissions it alleges." I had erroneously believed that the vain and suffering issue was being considered together with 373. I believe the Board's order does allow consideration of nain and suffering if higher levels of cancer deaths due to Harwis ave shown (o"de" at 111, 1 97 8h) so I

. do not object. It appears my error in not referring to 37A is nuch of the problem. I request clarification as to whether., if health

! 8402130317 840206 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR _ _. _ _ _ . _ ,_ _ _ , __ __

a s effects are shown to be "far largev" than NPC staff says (Order 1-27-8h at 14),'a new contention needs to be filed en cain and suffering; and if so, _whether in needs to be filed bv Joint Inte-venors or whether'I could file it nyself.

2. With resnect to Contention SF"2" on December 5, 1983, I advised the Board that Dr. Johnson would testify (p? ' ) of -" J. I .

and W.E. Resnonse to Board Questions re Health Effects Contention 8) on 8F2 addressing the issues on Joint Contention II(c) (up 5-6 lbid) on critical issue 6 'and perhaus critical issues 3,k, and 5; to also address the 11 nlutonium isotores of concern in the nuclear fuel cycle.

At pages 5 and 6 Np-239 releasted fron Harris, and Pu-P39 and its decay products are cited as " substantial decay chains" of radioactive products released fron Harris that Dr. Johnson would testify about. Likewise (p.6) decay chains frcn Americiam isotopes ,

released from Harris, and'the time teriod over which the health effects of these long-lived isotopes shall be considered, were noted 12-5-83 as topics Dr. Johnson would testify about. On

.page 7 I stated Dr. Johnson would include or rely on this Joint II r

testimony in his 8F2 testimony.

12-16-83 (ASAP ef ter I got it)

The Board has been provided gwith a vita of Dr. Johnson:

it shows he is a fellow of the American College of Enidaniology, has taught epideminology at the University of Washington, with about 70 scientific articles and abstracts to his credit, about half in epidemiology and about half concerning "the study of bionedical contadination with radionuclides and their biomedical effects."

On the sane date, I provided the Board alist of Dr. Johnson's papers which he had provided to me; these concern nostly the health effects of olutonium and other transuranic contan$nants near nuclear installations. I believe it is clear from the abova that Dr. Johnson is a qualified expert on the health effects a

o -

of transuranic elenents (and their decay products) released from nuclear ' facilities, and the enidemiology thereof.

The Board notes (1-27-8h at 10) that the "other pronosed

-tonics for Dr. Johnson may be within the admitted enntentions, 4

but not within those few parts that are surviving the sunnary disrosition motions." The Board granted sunnary dis 7osition on 8F(2) (Order 1-27 84 at h6-50) without reference to the planned testimony of Dr. Johnson. .

7-k1 of 1-27 Order) (ibid p.48).

-I believe the Board is sinply wrong to say that because the nuclides from the fuel cycle are dispersed over larger areas, they are therefore of less concern. Under the linear hypothesis used by BEIRL,. the number of cancers would be the sane whether the nuclides deliver their dose to a few peonle or to many, as long as the dose is the saMe in total. If I have misread the Board on.this point,fI apologize;- but if'I have read correctly then I J

object to such logic and say- that under Black Fox the Board should consider BEIR when'it favors intervenors' positions as well as

.when it contradicts them. Under this logic, there is no nore reason to- reject 8F2 be .long-lived radionuclides than to reject Joint 'II re -the health effects of radionuclides released.

As to the period appropriate for considering healdh effects,.

.(8F2 (1)), the Board cites its ruling on Joint II(c) where sunmary disposition was rejected. Again, I don't understand the difference:

Ih pages h0-41 re II(c),, the Boa-d says that an annual effects

. calculation may be no good, that the cumulative effects are greater over 30 or 40 years (of reactor operation). The m.rc' re jects ny

-position to use the half-lives of the nuclides released (e.g. Th-230, U-238) as a period over which to assess their health effects, but do ICob t/ gar-does not _ appear to explain why the Staff's 100-year dose comnitment hDd

-g_

is adequate, so far an I can see: The fact that the ratio of effluents dose from the nuclear fuel cycle to background is higher in th3s period seens irrelevant to the cuestion of whether the health effects of the nuclear fuel cycle effluents are adecuately considered in the DES /FES. The question is whether to license Harris (and allow its nuclear fuel cycle effluents ) -- thus the question is the amount of those effects, not their ratio at some tine to the background radiation. I therefore respectfully request clarification of this coint by the Board, and reversal of its order re 8F2 sunmary disnosition af if the Board believes on , reconsideration that such is justified by Dr. Johnson's proffered testimony and expertise and nublications, and/or the articles of his cited above.

I also request clarification about the argument I raised that what- is being licensed is Harris, not background radiation, and therefore in ny view the comparisons to background radiation are not relevant since the background radiation is there whether Harris operates or not. It nay be. that this view has been so persistently rejected by NRC or its case law that the Board felt' no need-to address it; or I may have overlooked a place the Board addressed it. I request clarification on this point also,as it affects the Board's- ruling on 8F2 (p.48) re ratio of fuel cycle to background health effects, and thus may be relevant to the reconsideration of 8F2 requested above.

~

Concerning 8F1, I resnectfully recuest clarification of the basis 'for the statement in footnote 1, ncge kh of the 1-27-8h Order, which, observin6 that "no credit for" reduction (in narticulate emissions from coal plants due.t, Harris cueration) is taken in the FES, were shown at hearing that the Harris plant

.goes on to say that "If it

h '4 will- displace coal-fired units and that this will result in a substantial net reduction in particulate enissions, that oresumably would dispose of this contention," in light of 10 CPR 51:

The contention states that Aupendix C of the FES underestimates the environmontal inunct of the effluents in Table S-3 because health effects of the coal particulates,1,154 MT per year, are analyzed nor notggiven sufficient weight. 10 CFR 51.26(b) requires the FES to "make a meaningful reference to the existence of any responsible opuosing view not adequately discussed in the draft environmental statement, indicating the resuonse to the issues raised." This language would apnear to include the contentions responsive to the DEIS (e.g. 8F1) as well as conments. The Board, in refusing osition of 8F1, seems to give the contention the status summary dispThus, the Staff has not complied with 10 CFR 51.26 on 8F1.

of a " responsible opposing vieu".410 CFR 51.26(a) requires the FES ,

to include a final cost-benefit analysis. This analysis entirely omits coal particulates as given in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20.

10 CFR 51.23(a) requires the LES to include the natters specified (e) in 51.20(a),(ie) and (g) and $1.21 as appropriate. 51.2o requires operating license stage environmental recorts to discuss 10 CFR 51.20's T able S-3 "as the 'aasis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium ... isotopic enrichment..."

I cannot find anything in these sections of the rules about credits f'or any offsetting reductions in particulate emissions, nor about amending or curing defects in the FES af ter it is issued. The effectively contentiongallages- that the FES fails to comply with the rules requiring appropriate consideration of the effects of)g al .ffluents pdm cul d e-i Glow cndiV3 +*

in Table S-3 I cannot see any orovisions that wouldg offset this, even if Harris were to (1) displace coal fired units and (2) result in a substantial not reduction in particulate emissions. I also ask if it wouldn't be necessary to conpare actual net coal particulate emission reductions to the S-2 .i$k MT. Respectful y 2-6-84

$'b Ebr&

Wells Eddlenan

a >

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0103.ISSION In the matter of CAROLLNA POWER & LIGHT CO. Et al. ] Docket 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 end 2 ) 0.L.

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE

' Joint Intervenors Resuonse to Board 4

I hereby certify that copies of Orde" servaA Jan 30 y gm. . ,-a n, WE Recuest5for Clarifidation of, and Objections to, Bd. Order of 1-27-84';

and of Joint __Intervenors' 9esnonse to %m-n-- m e-ne<**-- us u Iy, HAVE been served this 6 day of whm m ., 198 h, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are marked with an ' asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by includine letter of Bruno Uryc Jr NRC to Wells Edd3 eman, re eine hangers , n=evi ousiv sa"ved to Applicants and to Judge Kelley for the Board.

JudE es James Kelley, Glenn Bright and James Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensirg Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin6 ton DC 20555 George F. Trowbridge (attorney for. Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge R uthanne G. Miller 1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel i WashinEton, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2055 5

, Office of the Executive Legal Director 111s Lotchin, Ph.D.

l Attn Docke ts 50-400/401 0.L. *Ph8 10 Bridle Run .

USNRC Chanel Hill NC 2751h Washington DC 20555

, Dan Read

, - Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEA?UI/FLP Attn Docke ts 50-kOO/h01 0.L. .

Office of the Secretary Raleigh,7707 NC Waveross 27606

• ""' Li"d" ** Littl*

' a neton DC 20555 Governor's Waste Mgt. Bd.

l

• John Runkle .

513 Albemarle Bldg 325 N. Salisbu W St.

Granville Rd Raleigh, NC 27611 l Chapel Hill Nc 2751k

• Bradley W. Jones

• Robert Gruber USNRC Region II Travi s Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.

Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 l Blox 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Raleigh NC 27602

• Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by h l 729 Hunter St.

l . Apex NC 27502 1 - _ - _ . -- _ _