9
Risks of Energy Systems

Worldwide concern for the protection of public health and the environment has shown remarkable growth in the past 15 years, evidenced in the United States by the passage of landmark legislation, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the proliferation of regulations to mitigate, for example, the health and environmental risks of energy systems.

This concern is one of many that must be balanced in formulating energy policy. Furthermore, many aspects of this concern are new: Our knowledge of several important risks, as well as our knowledge of how to control them, is recent and incomplete.

Energy policy must be formulated with the knowledge available. Even were such knowledge greater than it is today, difficult decisions would still have to be made. The risks of various energy systems are of different types that cannot all be reduced to common measures. Judgment will continue to dominate these decisions.

The purpose of this chapter is to review the known risks, to indicate the difficulties of ascertaining some of the most important suspected risks, and to recommend both practical courses of action in the face of uncertainty, and steps to improve judgment with better information. Among the major categories of risk considered are those relating to industrial operations, to atmospheric pollution, to shortage of water supply, and to change in climate. For each of these, we have considered the risks posed by energy systems based on fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, and solar energy.

The chapter takes up the nature of risk and the government’s actions to control the risks of energy systems. The risks posed by the major energy



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems 9 Risks of Energy Systems Worldwide concern for the protection of public health and the environment has shown remarkable growth in the past 15 years, evidenced in the United States by the passage of landmark legislation, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the proliferation of regulations to mitigate, for example, the health and environmental risks of energy systems. This concern is one of many that must be balanced in formulating energy policy. Furthermore, many aspects of this concern are new: Our knowledge of several important risks, as well as our knowledge of how to control them, is recent and incomplete. Energy policy must be formulated with the knowledge available. Even were such knowledge greater than it is today, difficult decisions would still have to be made. The risks of various energy systems are of different types that cannot all be reduced to common measures. Judgment will continue to dominate these decisions. The purpose of this chapter is to review the known risks, to indicate the difficulties of ascertaining some of the most important suspected risks, and to recommend both practical courses of action in the face of uncertainty, and steps to improve judgment with better information. Among the major categories of risk considered are those relating to industrial operations, to atmospheric pollution, to shortage of water supply, and to change in climate. For each of these, we have considered the risks posed by energy systems based on fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, and solar energy. The chapter takes up the nature of risk and the government’s actions to control the risks of energy systems. The risks posed by the major energy

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems systems to health, agriculture, climate and water supply, and ecosystems are described, and wherever possible, compared. After some discussion, the major findings are summed up in nine conclusions. The reader may wish to read these conclusions first. RISK In ordinary language, as well as in this report, the word risk is used in two ways: to convey the possibility (probability) of loss or to denote a dangerous element or factor. This chapter examines the risks associated with the three principal groups of energy systems—fossil fuel, nuclear, and solar—particularly in the generation of electricity, as this provides a convenient base for comparison. Risks have been grouped by origin in the various steps of each energy cycle, including extraction and processing of the energy resource; its transportation and storage; its use in the production of another fuel (liquid fuels from coal, for example), electricity, or power; the disposal of waste, and finally end-use. (In engineering literature, fuel cycle is usually synonymous with energy cycle, but in official regulatory practice,1 fuel cycle excludes mining, operation of waste disposal sites, and transportation.) The complete evaluation of risk depends on the nature and amount of the dangerous element or factor (termed “insult” by some environmentalists) and an understanding of how it stresses or interacts with its targets, of how the targets are affected (termed “insult” in medical literature), and of how they react in turn. Such target reactions can then affect other objects or systems.2 The comparison of risks is often simplified by consistent comparisons—similar kinds of risks that arise when different energy systems are employed for the same specific purpose, such as the production of a stated amount of electricity. The matching of risks may be difficult. Consider, for example, the number of deaths associated with the production of 1 quadrillion Btu (quad) of electricity in 1 year from oil or uranium. Practically all cancer deaths due to the use of oil for 1 year would occur within the 30 years following, but those from uranium might be projected to occur over thousands of years. Would 30 deaths in 30 years be better, worse, or equal to 30 deaths in 1000 years? The decision calls for judgment, or for specific sociological information that shows how the bunching of deaths leads to more or less damage than spreading them over the years.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL RISK Owing to the many quite different types of risks incurred in the operation of an energy system, we considered it undesirable to force them into the terms of some arbitrary measure to obtain a sum. Instead (where possible), comparisons were made on the basis of individual, similar risks. Since the facts are frequently insufficient for clear-cut quantitative analysis, estimates of cost and benefit may become highly speculative. This is especially true if sociological data are in question, but as explained later in this chapter, it is also a frustrating problem even in dealing with the chemical and toxicological aspects of atmospheric pollution. The evaluation of total damage, based on all contributing factors, must therefore be a matter of judgment. Additional judgment must be brought to bear on decisions about “acceptable levels of risk.” In this case, the assessment of cost may have to be considered and should include the consequences of being wrong. Society may (or may not) prefer a larger risk that can be estimated with confidence to one estimated to be smaller, but with great uncertainty. REGULATION The federal government attempts to protect public health and the quality of the environment through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other agencies, based on such acts of Congress and subsequent amendments as the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Act of 1975, the Federal Mines Safety and Health Act of 1977, the Surface Mining Control and Regulation Act of 1977, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, and the Resource Conservation and Energy Act of 1976. Some 20 congressional committees deal with this field and compete with one another in producing legislation.3 At a conservative estimate, close to 90 units of the federal government, most of which function independently of one another, set or enforce standards.4 While there is no doubt about the need for regulation, its explosive growth and resulting complexity is bewildering and, on occasion, too costly or perhaps even self-defeating. An example of the complexity may be drawn from the electric utilities industry, where the regulation of risk, though not the only consideration of national policy, is a major factor in determining the 8- to 10-yr lead times for construction of fossil-fueled plants, and the 10- to 12-yr lead times for nuclear power plants.5 It has

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems been estimated that some 90 permits are now required to open and operate a surface coal mine.6* Administrative and Legal Aspects Most of the standards governing the risks of concern in this chapter have been established by administrative action under federal legislation. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, lists environmental pollutants and sets standards for their allowable concentrations in, say, drinking water or the atmosphere by a process that usually includes a hearing. After proposed regulations are reviewed by the public and departmental consultants, and a final version adopted, the final action is the promulgation of a regulation with the force of law, which is published in the Federal Register. The enforcement of the regulation is by administrative and court action, by court action in civil proceedings for an injunction and civil penalties, or by court action in criminal proceedings. Where the risks arise from a utility plant or other facility licensed under a quasi-judicial process (such as a nuclear plant licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), consideration of the elements of risk as applied to that facility is an important aspect of the licensing process. The attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality at the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency are principally the responsibility of the states,7 a responsibility they exercise under state implementation plans that have been approved by the EPA. The plans vary greatly in detail from state to state. Local agencies may also comprise parts of the regulatory process. The complexity and repercussions of such implementation plans are worthy of more than passing notice. For example, as will be considered under “Emissions and Wastes,” the vast majority of urban areas are not in compliance with the ozone standard, and the agency expects that even 10 years from now, some will find compliance very difficult despite envisioned steps to curb automobile emissions and to limit traffic patterns. Practical Aspects Should an unattainable standard be relaxed? Under the Clean Air Act, standards are to be reviewed every 5 years and may be revised by the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the basis of that review. The act requires, however, that the standards be based squarely on * See statement 9–1, by H.Brooks, Appendix A.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems scientific criteria for adequate health protection: Neither the cost of achieving such standards, nor even the availability of the requisite technology to achieve them, is germane to such a determination.8 Whether governmental regulation extends in such cases beyond practicable or just limits may be questioned. As a case in point, the ozone standard was recently reviewed and relaxed, a decision that aroused criticisms of “not enough” and “too much.” The several problems of how to regulate need to be studied, and the ozone case will provide a profitable subject for one such analysis. Since the enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1970, several major policy steps have been taken that will tend to keep permissible ambient air levels of pollutants low or impede their rise. In the case of the new ozone standard, the administrator has set it with consideration for groups of “particularly sensitive citizens such as bronchial asthmatics and emphysematics who in the normal course of daily activity are exposed to the ambient environment.”9 This requirement will be of particular importance for the determination and interpretation of epidemiological exposure-effect curves (see “Dose-Effect Curves”) and poses major problems in determining how much weight should be given to small sensitive subgroups of the population. Two striking and important changes have been made in the regulation of emissions. Areas of “no significant deterioration” have been designated where only a 10 percent increment over preexisting ambient air levels of pollutants would be permitted.10 Enforcement here will be complicated by the inability to control extraterritorial emissions that are atmospherically transported to the restricted region over distances that are sometimes as great as many hundreds of miles. Second, it is now required of new utility plants (among other stationary sources) that the best available control technology (BACT) be employed regardless of ambient air quality levels, emission standards, or the quality of fuel used. While this may provide benefits, one economic effect will be to lessen the advantage of using low-sulfur coal or oil and to enhance the market for high-sulfur eastern coal. The cost of power plant construction is increased by about 25 percent. (See chapter 4.) Among the major arguments to support this policy is that of caution. It is not certain that adequate protection is provided by present primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. “Best available control technology” represents a philosophy of playing it safe. Its principal disadvantage is cost. On the other hand, if present standards prove materially inadequate, retrofitting would cost much more, or it could even be impractical. Although dissatisfaction with various aspects of the government’s handling of the regulatory process is often expressed (e.g., of nuclear

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems waste, as described in chapter 5 under “Management of Radioactive Waste”), the tremendous importance of regulation cannot be ignored. Considering the legislative expansion of environmental and public health protection in the last 15 years,11 it is too much to expect that any society could master the art of such regulation so rapidly. We are still in the period of learning by sequential experience the extent to which our regulatory objectives can be achieved, and how. There are limitations to the control of risk. As the reduction in risk becomes more refined, the incremental benefit eventually diminishes and the cost rises disproportionately. No amount of regulation can ensure a risk-free society, nor should it be assumed that such a goal is desirable.* HEALTH The risks associated with several energy systems are compared here on the basis of the production of electricity. Electricity now accounts for 11 percent of final energy demand and 29 percent of primary energy use, and its use is increasing relative to that of other forms of energy. Comparisons are given for each step in the cycle; thus, some of the results (e.g., mining, transportation) are applicable to other end-uses. The fossil fuel and nuclear systems are of primary interest. Estimates for the risks of solar, fusion, and geothermal energy cycles are still speculative, although it does appear that many uses and forms of solar energy would be no more hazardous than energy systems now in use and, in some forms, less so.12 The Risk and Impact Panel of this study reported health effects relative to the operation of an electric generating plant of 1-GWe (109 watts=1 gigawatt (electric) (GWe)) capacity, at 33 percent efficiency and 75 percent capacity factor for 1 year. Such a “GWe-plant-year” corresponds to a fuel input of about 0.0673 quads, and an electrical output of 0.0225 quads, approximately 1/300 of current national electricity production. The fuel required to operate such a plant for 1 year would be 3 million tons of coal, 12 million barrels of oil, 67 billion ft3 of natural gas, or 150 tons of uranium oxide (U3O8) obtained from 75,000 tons of mined ore (0.2 percent) for a light water reactor operated on today’s once-through fuel cycle. (With reprocessing and recycle of uranium, this latter requirement could be reduced to 120 tons of uranium oxide.) It should be noted that a GWe-plant-year of electricity is equal to 75 percent of the GWe-year of electricity used in regulatory procedures. A 1-GWe power station will * See statement 9–2, by H.Brooks, Appendix A.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems serve a regional population of about 1 million, including urban, suburban, industrial, and rural components. ROUTINE INDUSTRIAL RISKS The routine risks engendered by industrial activities to supply energy involve fatal and nonfatal outcomes. Fatal Accidents The lowest accidental death rates in the generation of electricity are for light water reactors and natural gas systems (0.2 deaths per GWe-plant-year). The rate of accidental deaths for electricity from oil is somewhat higher (0.35) and that for coal is very much the highest (2.6 for surface mining, 4.0 for deep mining).* These rates of accidental death are set out in Table 9–1. To place them in perspective, recall that a GWe-plant serves a population of about 1 million. In 1974, the accidental death rate of the general population was 500 per million, of which 220 deaths were due to motor vehicle accidents, 80 to falls, 30 to burns, and 10 to accidents with firearms. The higher rate of accidental deaths for electricity from coal is largely due to deep mining and to transportation. Both could be improved. In general, small mines suffer twice as many accidental deaths as large mines, per ton of coal mined. If the standards observed in all coal mines were brought up to the standards of the safest, the accidental death rate could be reduced to perhaps a quarter of its present value. However, future trends are difficult to estimate. Until 5 years ago, the accident rate was declining about 4 percent/yr. Since then, it has risen slightly (per ton).13 In the future, automation and other technical improvements in deep mining should enhance safety, but the rapid expansion of production, with a less-experienced and younger work force, and a possible shortage of mining engineers may raise accident rates. The high mortality rate due to coal transportation is an estimate that is not directly based on coal-train-miles. It reflects conditions that are likely to change. For future planning, this estimate could easily be high by a factor of 2 or 3, in our opinion. The matter needs more precise study. * Statement 9–3, by J.P.Holdren: The coal numbers are dominated, as noted later, by an unrealistic estimate of deaths in coal-train accidents. They shouldn’t be cited without a disclaimer.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems TABLE 9–1 Accidental Deaths During Routine Operation, by Energy Source (per gigawatt-plant-year) Energy Source and Quantity Required Extraction Processing Transport Power Station Totala Coal (3×106 tons)   0.02 2.3b 0.01   Deep 1.7       4.0 Surface 0.3       2.6 Oil, onshore and offshore (12×106 barrels) 0.2 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.4 Natural gas (67×109 ft3) 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.2 Uranium oxidec (150 tons from 75,000 tons of ore) 0.2 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.2 aTotals do not add due to rounding. bThe estimates are not based on coal trains per se, but on the overall rate of train accidents. Furthermore, many accidents with trains are not the fault of cargo nor of the carrier, and the responsibility for them may be incorrectly charged, For meaningful statistics, the matter needs further study. A forthcoming review cites figures based on the exclusive use of unit trains that scale to 0.5 deaths per gigawatt-plant-year. less than one-fourth the entry in the table. Carl W.Gehrs, David S.Shriner, Steven E.Herbes, Harry Perry, and Eli Salmon, “Environmental. Health, and Safety Implications of Increased Coal Utilization,” in Chemistry of Coal Utilization, tech. ed. M.A.Elliott. chap. II, suppl. vol. 2 (New York: Wiley Interscience, in press). cWith reprocessing, the uranium oxide requirement could be reduced to 1.4 tons. Presumably, the mean extraction risk would be reduced proportionately, and the processing risk increased. The net result could be lower total risk. Source: Data for coal are from MITRE Corporation, Metrek Division, Accidents and Unscheduled Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources and Technology (Washington, D.C.: MITRE Corporation, (M76–68), December 1976), p. 51, except power-station entry. For oil, natural gas, and power stations, U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Energy and the Environment—Electric Power (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). For uranium oxide extraction, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alternative Sources of Electrical Energy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (WASH-1224), December 1974). For uranium oxide processing, Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr., Chairman. Nuclear Power: Issues and Choices (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977), p. 175. For uranium oxide transport, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Regulatory Standards. Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive. Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (WASH-1238), 1972); and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG-0002, or GESMO), 1976).

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems Nonfatal Accidents and Occupational Disease Underground coal mining is again the most hazardous energy-cycle activity, as shown in Table 9–2 (15,000 days lost per GWe-plant-year), followed by oil and surface mining (about 3500 days lost), fission and natural gas (1500–2000 days lost). These estimates are less certain than those for low side. The production and use of synthetic fuels from coal (with which we have little recent experience) may be considered to have the same risk as coal from extraction through transport and perhaps about the same as oil in processing. Underground coal mining is more hazardous than underground mining for other materials: The frequency of injuries is about 50 percent higher and their severity is about 25 percent greater. In the case of oil, extraction accidents account for 60 percent of work days lost. With natural gas, accidents related to drilling were at least 10 times greater than accidents in other steps of the energy cycle (per quad).14 Routine accidents in hydroelectric plants in 1972 were about one half as frequent and one tenth as severe as the average for all electric generating plants. From a medical point of view, underground coal mining adds considerably to the risk of the coal fuel cycle, but it has never been completely and satisfactorily analyzed, owing to the many factors TABLE 9–2 Accidental Injuries and Workdays Lost During Routine Operations, by Energy Source (per gigawatt-plant-year)a Energy Source Accidents Workdays Lost Coal miningb     Mined underground 112 15,000 Surface mined 41 3,000 Oil 32 3,600 Gas 18 2,000 Nuclear 15 1,500 aA permanently disabling accident was credited with 6000 workdays lost, and a temporary disability with 100 workdays lost. The figures are for 1977. bSynthetic liquid fuel from coal might be estimated to have a rate equal to that for coal plus an allowance for the conversion process. Source: National Research Council, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Risk and Impact Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, in preparation), chap. 2.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems involved—sociological as well as occupational.15–18 The principal physical factors are dust, noise, and gases (including engine emissions). The present respirable dust standard is set at 2 mg/m3 of air. “Respirable dust” signifies particles that are small enough to reach the depths of the lung (bronchioles and alveoli). Larger particles may be eliminated in the larger air passages (nose, trachea, bronchi). Respirable dust is defined in practice as the material trapped by a particular “respirable mass sampler,” whose deposition characteristics are assumed to represent the depths of the lung. The problem may first be seen as coal worker’s pneumoconiosis, a reaction of the lung to coal dust, diagnosed by X-ray, that is unimportant in itself, but that may develop into progressive massive pulmonary fibrosis, which seriously impairs pulmonary function. In 1969–1971, the prevalence of pneumoconiosis among miners was 30 percent and of massive pulmonary fibrosis, 2.5 percent. On the basis of meticulous studies abroad, the present dust standards—if enforced—should lower the incidence of simple pneumoconiosis to less than 3 percent, and of massive fibrosis more or less proportionately to 0.25 percent. Although the standard applies to respirable dust, it should be emphasized that dust composed of larger particles can have irritating effects on the larger air passages, and perhaps the gastrointestinal tract, that may be quite important. “Black lung” is not a medically defined disease but a legally established state of eligibility for benefits, loosely defined by Congress in 1972. The term includes coal worker’s pneumoconiosis and progressive massive fibrosis, as well as other diseases affecting the heart and respiratory system that may not necessarily result from coal mining. Measures that reduce the threat of pneumoconiosis-fibrosis types of illness may therefore have a much smaller effect on the whole spectrum of black lung conditions, for which disability payments now total more than $1 billion/yr (a total certain to rise). The larger dusts, noise, and gases (including engine emissions) presumably give rise to significant types of illness outside the pneumoconiosis-fibrosis category. The prevalence of such illnesses should be investigated. It is essential that the entire problem be studied, with attention to both the medical and sociological factors (and particular attention to such complicating factors as smoking habits). The spectrum of conditions that can be attributed to work in the mines must be clarified to deal with them medically and to establish fair standards for disability compensation that are in line with national policy for all workers. With respect to cancer,19 a study of deaths in coal miners only (the working population), excluding disabled and retired men, did not detect an excess risk. In contrast, a study of 533 miners employed in 1937 and followed for 28 years did show an excess of deaths from cancer, particularly for digestive-system cancer. The problem should be reviewed

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems again and prospective studies initiated, especially since recent legislation has led to major improvements in mining conditions. It should not be automatically assumed that the exposures experienced in mining will increase the cancer incidence rate. Significant evidence from the United Kingdom shows that lung cancer is diminished for unknown reasons in underground coal miners.20 In the case of uranium miners, a lung cancer mortality rate of about 0.2 per GWe-plant-year can be estimated from the doses and cancer-induction factors given later in this chapter (1400 person-rem×(2×10−4) cancers per person-rem).* PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS Epidemiological Methods In dealing with the quantitative assessment of risk due to emissions and wastes, the dose-effect curve is used whenever feasible. For the discussions that follow, it is important to consider the advantages and limitations of the method, particularly in the examples detailed below. Two kinds of toxic agents are generated in energy cycles, artificially radioactive elements (fission products or elements activated by neutron adsorption) whose half-lives may be short or very long, and chemicals. Much more is known (for present purposes) about the mode of action of the ionizing radiations than that of the chemical agents at the low levels of dosage that are of primary concern. It appears that radiation primarily induces late effects (e.g., cancer), whereas the chemicals produce more immediate effects, although they might produce late effects as well. Ionizing Radiations The systematic study of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors has provided an outstanding example of the knowledge that can be gained from a large-scale epidemiological study, and the time and effort required to achieve it. Results for leukemia are illustrated by the dose-effect curves in Figure 9–1, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The death rate (mean annual rate for the period 1950–1974) is plotted against radiation dose (per person) received in 1945.21 For the entire study period, there was a crude excess of 67 cases of leukemia in the total population of about 83,000 persons. The curves illustrate the great sensitivity of the epidemiological method at its best, when a specific class of rare disease due to a specific cause is fully * Statement 9–4, by H.Brooks: This is based on historical data. As in the case of coal mining, it could be reduced much further.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems needs. (Biomass production at sea could avoid this problem.) For most solar technologies, the main risks are those associated with extracting and processing the requisite large amounts of construction materials. 8. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND RESEARCH The difficult tasks of setting standards for ambient air quality and emissions have been greatly complicated by a lack of precise knowledge of the levels at which epidemiological effects first appear and of the diversity of such effects. Pragmatic decisions must therefore be made in the face of uncertainty—uncertainty magnified by the periodic (and appropriate) review of these standards. Industrialists may claim that the standards are set too low, in order to make them safe regardless of cost and convenience; this inhibits industrial planning and has been a deterrent in the further use of coal. The situation calls for a major research effort into the effects of pollutants, including emissions from mobile sources (nitrogen oxides, ozone, nonmethane hydrocarbons), as well as from the stationary sources (nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulates) that this chapter considers at length. The committee recommends that investigation center on the dose-effect curve (or exposure-effect curve) in the region near and below the present ambient air quality standards. The quantitative assessment of exposure, and if possible, of dose per individual, is essential to advance knowledge in this field. One or two centrally located stations are insufficient to monitor an urban area for epidemiological research (they may be sufficient for other purposes). Measurements of indoor and outdoor, residential and occupational exposures are necessary. Mortality is too gross an endpoint to be used alone. Others must be selected for specific types of morbidity and for physiological and biochemical response. While immediate responses are important, late effects in specific individuals may be even more important. The effects of emissions on plants and ecosystems should receive major attention. The magnitude of the several problems to be investigated necessitates undertaking and maintaining long-term studies. Some will take decades to complete. Much of the work cannot be planned from first to last detail, and none of it should be subject to political control. Coupled with the need for an effort adequate in scale to the problems under investigation, there is a

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems need for flexibility and independence in pursuing the studies that suggests scientists outside the government should conduct much of the work. We should realize that answers will come slowly and decisions will have to be made on an uncertain basis for some time in the future. 9. PUBLIC APPRAISAL OF ENERGY SYSTEMS There is a need for research that will contribute to better understanding of the factors that determine public perceptions of the health and environmental risks of energy systems, and their acceptance by different subgroups within the public. No strategy for risk reduction in energy systems can be fully acceptable if it does not take into account these public perceptions and judgments, even when they are seen as unfounded by experts.* It is unlikely that the appraisal of risk will ever be able to avoid difficult relative value judgments between different kinds of risks, as well as between risks and economic or other benefits of energy technologies. This is not to say that present methods of risk assessment cannot be improved. Nevertheless, the judgmental factor will continue to predominate in decisions among energy alternatives, and is unlikely ever to be superseded by formal analysis of risks and benefits. This underscores the importance of an informed and open public debate. NOTES    1. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 190,02 (a), (b), 1978, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,”    2. In addition to the risks associated with the operation of an energy system itself, those associated with construction of power plants and the occupational risks of manufacturing its parts might also be considered (as done in chapter 6). It was recently claimed (H.Inhaber, Risk of Energy Production (Ottawa, Ontario: Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB 1119), March 1978); and H.Inhaber, “Risks from Conventional and Unconventional Sources,” Science 203 (1979):718–723) that inclusion of these risks brings solar power to a level of risk approximately equal to that of power from coal or oil. The calculations supporting these widely publicized conclusions have been rejected. (See, for example, J.P.Holdren, K.R. Smith, and G.Morris, “Energy: Calculating the Risks (II),” Science 204 (1979):564–568; R. Caputo, “Energy: Calculating the Risks,” Science 204 (1979):454; R.Lemberg, “Energy: Calculating the Risks,” Science 204 (1979):454, and John P.Holdren et al., Risk of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critique of the Inhaber Report, Energy and Resources Group (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, June 1979).) The inclusion of these risks is worth consideration, but the ramifications might be endless, and ultimately the definition of the risks under investigation would blur. For further discussion of risk and its estimation, see National Research Council, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, Committee on * See statement 9–22, by H.Brooks, D.J.Rose, and B.I.Spinrad, Appendix A.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems    Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Risk and Impact Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, in preparation), chaps. 1, 2, and 3.    3. J.Clarence Davies III and Barbara S. Davies, The Politics of Pollution, 2nd ed., Studies in Contemporary American Politics, general ed. Richard E.Morgan (Indianapolis, Ind.: Pegasus, 1975).    4. Estimated from inspection of the list of agencies publishing in the Federal Register (1979).    5. T.J.Nagel, “Operating a Major Electric Utility Today,” Science 201 (1978):985–993.    6. John A.Phinney, consultant to Continental Oil Co., personal communication to H.I.Kohn, September 15, 1978.    7. Public Law 95–95 (August 7, 1977), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Sect. 110.    8. Although the standard is set without reference to technological considerations, penalties or other sanctions resulting from legal proceedings may be withheld if the required technology is unavailable.    9. Federal Register 44 (1979):8202–8233. The preamble to this regulation provides a useful summary of several points raised in this chapter about the Clean Air Act and the problems of regulation in general.    10. Public Law 95–95 (August 7, 1977), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Sects. 160–169, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.”    11. Davies and Davies, op. cit.    12. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit.    13. T.Falkie, “Perspectives on Coal Mining, Preparation, and Transportation,” in Actions to Increase the Use of Coal: Today to 1990 (McLean, Va.: Mitre Corp., 1978).    14. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 4.    15. Robert B.Cameron, An Estimation of the Tangible Costs of Black Lung Disease Related Disability to the Bituminous Coal Mine Operations of Appalachia, Appalachian Resources Project no. 47 (Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee, 1976), p. 123.    16. National Research Council, Mineral Resources and the Environment, Supplementary Report: Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis, Commission on Natural Resources, Committee on Mineral Resources and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975).    17. Office of Technology Assessment, The Direct Use of Coal: Prospects and Problems of Production and Combustion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office (052–003–000664–2), 1979).    18. Mitre Corp., Accidents and Unscheduled Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources and Technology, Metrek Division (McLean, Va.: Mitre Corp. (M76–68), December 1976).    19. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chaps. 4 and 5.    20. F.E.Speizer, “Questionnaire Approaches and Analysis of Epidemiological Data in Organic Dust Lung Diseases,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 221 (1974):50–58.    21. G.W.Beebe, H.Kato, and C.E.Land, Mortality Experience of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–1974 (Hiroshima, Japan: Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF TR 1–77), 1977).    22. The analysis can be further refined by considering acute leukemia and chronic granulocytic leukemia separately. T.Ishimaru, M.Otake, and M.Ichimaru, “Dose-Response Relationship of Neutrons and Gamma Rays to Leukemia Incidence Among Atomic Bomb Survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Type of Leukemia, 1950–1971,” Radiation Research 77 (1979):377–394.    23. 1 rad equals 100 ergs of absorbed radiation per gram of tissue. Since different radiations (gamma rays, alpha particles, neutrons) are more or less biologically effective (per rad), the

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems    doses are normalized for comparison to rem, the biologically equivalent rad dose of gamma rays.    24. For gamma rays, X-rays, and beta rays (low LET radiations) the following dose-effect relation has frequently proved useful: effect=aD+bD2, where a and b are constants. The initial part of the curve (e.g., up to 50 rads) is practically linear; thereafter, the slope increases constantly. The Nagasaki curve might be of this type. (See Ishimaru, Otake, and Ichimaru, op. cit.) A definitive review of the subject is being prepared by the National Council on Radiation Protection (in press, 1979).    25. See note 22.    26. M.Ichimaru, T.Ishimaru, J.L.Belsky, et al., Incidence of Leukemia in Atomic Bomb Survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1959–1971 (Hiroshima, Japan: Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF 10–76), 1976).    27. B.D.Dinman, “Non-Concept of ‘No-Threshold’: Chemicals in the Environment,” Science 175 (1972):495–497.    28. D.M.Bernstein, “The Influence of Trace Metals in Disperse Aerosols on the Human Body Burden of Trace Metals” (Thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 1977).    29. Dinman, op. cit.    30. R.H.Haynes, “The Influence of Repair Processes on Radiobiological Survival Curves,” in Cell Survival After Low Doses of Radiation, ed. T.Alper (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975). See also, R.F.Kimball, “The Relation of Repair Phenomena to Mutation Induction in Bacteria,” Mutation Res. 55 (1978):85–120; and H.I.Kohn, “X-Ray Mutagenesis: Results with the H-Test Compared with Others, and the Importance of Selection and/or Repair,” Genetics 92 (1979):S63–S66 (supplement).    31. E.J.Underwood, Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition, 3rd ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1971).    32. National Cancer Institute, Epidemiological Study of Cancer and Other Chronic Diseases, ed. W.Haenszel (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966).    33. R.Doll and R.Peto, “Mortality in Relation to Smoking: 20 Years’ Observations on Male British Doctors,” British Medical Journal 11 (1976):1525–1536,    34. R.Doll and R.Peto, “Cigarette Smoking and Bronchial Carcinoma: Dose and Time Relationships Among Regular Smokers and Lifelong Non-Smokers,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32 (1978):303–313.    35. For asbestosis see P.E.Enterline, “Pitfalls in Epidemiological Research,” Journal of Occupational Medicine 18 (1976):150–156; for cotton dust, J.A.Merchant, et al., “Dose Response Studies in Cotton Textile Workers,” Journal of Occupational Medicine 15 (1973):222–230; for silicosis, T.H.Hatch, “Criteria for Hazardous Exposure Limits,” Archives of Environmental Health 27(4) (1973):231–235,    36. National Research Council, Carbon Monoxide, Assembly of Life Sciences, Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of Environmental Pollutants (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).    37. N.Mantel and M.A.Schneiderman, “Estimating ‘Safe’ Levels, A Hazardous Undertaking,” Cancer Research 35 (1975):1379–1386.    38. N.Mantel, et al., “An Improved Mantel-Bryan Procedure for ‘Safety’ Testing of Carcinogens,” Cancer Research 35 (1975):865–872.    39. Mantel and Schneiderman, op. cit.    40. Frederick W.Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution: Statistical Analyses by Region, by Age, and by Cause of Death” (Dissertation submitted to Union Graduate School, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1978); Frederick W.Lipfert, “Differential Mortality and the Environment,” in Energy Systems and Policy (in press, 1979); and Frederick W.Lipfert, “Statistical Studies of Mortality and Air Pollution: 1. Multiple

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems    Regression Analysis by Cause of Death; 2. Multiple Regression Analysis Stratified by Age Group,” in Science of the Total Environment (in press, 1979).    41. Herbert Schimmel and L.Jordan, “The Relation of Air Pollution to Mortality, N.Y. City, 1963–72, II. Refinements in Methodology and Data Analysis,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 54 (1978):1052–1112.    42. National Research Council, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects on Ionizing Radiations, Division of Medical Sciences, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1974 (first printed 1972)).    43. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Natural Background Radiation in the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report no. 45), 1975).    44. The calculation assumes a mean annual dose per person of 0.1 rem, a population of 200 million, and a factor of 2×10−4 cancers per person-rem: 1×10−1×2×108×2×10−4=4×103 cancer deaths.    45. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 1977, General Assembly, 32nd Sess. (New York: United Nations (Sales no. 77.IX.1), 1977). The U.N. factor is 2 person-rem to the public per MWe-year, and occupational exposure would double it. The cancer death rate factor is 1×10–4 per person-rem.    46. N.A.Frigerio and R.S.Stowe, “Carcinogenic and Genetic Hazard from Background Radiation,” in Biological and Environmental Effects of Low-Level Radiation, vol. 2 (Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1976), pp. 385–393.    47. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 43), 1975).    48. Separate and much higher annual standards apply to exposure of limited parts of the body, e.g., for occupational exposure, 15 rem to skin, 75 rem to hands, 15 rem to other organs (excepting bone marrow and gonads).    49. T.F.Mancuso, A.Stewart, and G.Kneale, “Radiation Exposures of Hanford Workers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes,” Health Physics 33 (1977):369–385.    50. G.B.Hutchison, S.Jablon, and C.E.Land, “Review of Report by Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale of Radiation Exposure of Hanford Workers,” Health Physics (in press, 1979).    51. S.Marks, E.S.Gilbert, and B.D.Breitenstein “Cancer Mortality in Hanford Workers,” in Symposium on the Late Effects of Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, in press, 1979).    52. T.C.Anderson, “Radiation Exposures of Hanford Workers: A Critique of the Mancuso, Stewart and Kneale Report,” Health Physics 35 (1978):743–750.    53. J.A.Reissland, “An Assessment of the Mancuso Study,” National Radiation Protection Board (United Kingdom; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (Report no. NPRB-R79), 1978).    54. 10 Code of Federal Regulations 50, app. I, 1978, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives…for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.”    55. A curie (Ci) is the quantity of any radioactive isotope undergoing 3.7×1010 disintegrations per second. Note that the radiation emitted may be of any type.    56. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 190.02 (a), (b), op. cit.    57. 10 Code of Federal Regulations 50, app. I, op. cit.    58. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy, op. cit.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems       59. International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Recommendations,” Annals of the ICRP 1 (1977):53.    60. National Research Council, Risks Associated with Nuclear Power: A Critical Review of the Literature. Committee on Science and Public Policy, Committee on Literature Survey of Risks Associated with Nuclear Power (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979).    61. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, op. cit.    62. Committee on Science and Public Policy, op. cit.    63. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 2.    64. Committee on Science and Public Policy, op. cit.    65. Ibid.    66. The end-use hazards of natural gas (e.g., of gas stoves and gas heating) have not been evaluated.    67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Air Quality, Monitoring, and Emissions Trends Report, 1977 (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-450/2–78–052), 1978).    68. K.E.Schaefer, “Editorial Summary: Preventive Aspects of Submarine Medicine,” Undersea Biomedical Research 6 (1979):S-7–S-14 (supplement).    69. G.MacDonald and L.J.Carter, “A Warning on Synfuels, CO2, and the Weather,” Science 205 (1979):376–377.    70. Public Law 91–604 (September 22, 1970), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.    71. Federal Register 44 (1979):8202–8233.    72. U.S. Department of Energy, An Assessment of National Consequences of Increased Coal Utilization, Executive Summary, vols. 1 and 2, prepared by staff members of the following national laboratories: Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy (TID-29425), February 1979).    73. U.S. Senate, Air Quality and Automobile Emission Control vol. 1, Summary Report, Committee on Public Works, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Serial no, 93–24), September 1974.    74. B.G.Ferris, Jr., “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Regulated Air Pollutants,” Air Pollution Control Association Journal 28 (1978):482–497.    75. American Lung Association, Health Effects of Air Pollution, Medical Section, American Thoracic Society (New York: American Lung Association, 1978).    76. U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, op. cit., vol. 2, Health Effects of Air Pollutants.    77. National Research Council, Airborne Particles, Assembly of Life Sciences, Committee on Biological Effects of Environmental Pollutants, Subcommittee on Airborne Particles (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).    78. Ibid.    79. Federal Energy Administration, A Critical Evaluation of Current Research Regarding Health Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, technical report prepared by Tabershaw/Cooper Associates, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Administration, April 11, 1975).    80. J.B.Mudd, “Sulfur Dioxide,” in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 9–22.    81. Electric Power Research Institute, Sulfur Oxides: Current Status of Knowledge (Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI EA 316, Project 681–1), 1976).    82. National Research Council, Nitrogen Oxides, Assembly of Life Sciences, Division of Medical Sciences, Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of Environmental Pollutants (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).    83. National Research Council, Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment, Commission on Natural Resources (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978).

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems       84. U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 183–315.    85. U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, op. cit., vols. 2 and 3.    86. National Research Council, Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants, Division of Medical Sciences, Committee of Biological Effects of Environmental Pollutants (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).    87. Assembly of Life Sciences, Carbon Monoxide, op. cit.    88. National Research Council, Vapor-Phase Organic Pollutants, Division of Medical Sciences, Committee on Biological Effects of Environmental Pollutants (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1976).    89. Division of Medical Sciences, Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants, op. cit.    90. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 5; and see M.Kawai, H.Amamoto, and K. Harads, “Epidemiologic Study of Occupational Lung Cancer,” Archives of Environmental Health 14 (1967):859–864, and R.Doll, et al., “Mortality of Gas Workers—Final Report of a Retrospective Study,” British Journal of Industrial Medicine 29 (1972):394–406.    91. C.W.Gehrs, et al., “Environmental Health and Safety Implications of Increased Coal Utilization,” in Chemistry of Coal Utilization, suppl. vol. 2, tech. ed. M.A.Elliott (New York: Wiley Interscience, in press).    92. Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution,” op. cit.    93. Electric Power Research Institute, op. cit.    94. National Research Council, Sulfur Oxides, Assembly of Life Sciences, Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Committee on Sulfur Oxides (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978).    95. U.S. House of Representatives, Staff Report on Joint Hearings on the Conduct of the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Community Health and Environmental Surveillance System” (CHESS) Studies, Committee on Science and Technology and Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 94th Congress, 2nd Sess., April 9, 1976.    96. Greenfield, Attaway, and Tyler, Inc., Evaluation of CHESS: New York Asthma Data, 1970–71, vol. 1 (Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI EA-450), 1977).    97. U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 280–291.    98. Schimmel and Jordan, op. cit.    99. R.W.Buechley, SO2 Levels, 1962–1972, and Perturbations in Mortality, report for Contract no. 1-ES-2101 (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1976); and “Eleven Years of Daily Deaths in the New York-New Jersey Metropolis” (Paper presented at the 8th International Scientific Meeting, International Epidemiological Association, San Juan, P.R., 1977).    100. Ibid.    101. Schimmel and Jordan, op. cit.    102. Lester B.Lave and Eugene P.Seskin, Air Pollution and Human Health (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).    103. Schimmel and Jordan, op. cit.    104. L.Thibodeau, R.Reed, and Y.M.Bishop, “Air Pollution and Human Health: A Reanalysis,” Environmental Health Perspectives (in press, 1979).    105. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    106. Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution,” op. cit.    107. E.Landau, “NAS Report on Sulfur Oxides: A Critique” (Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 24–29, 1979). See also “The Dangers in Statistics,” The Nation’s Health 8 (1978):3.    108. Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution,” op. cit.    109. The statistical sensitivity of the study was such that a difference smaller than 4 percent excess deaths could not have been established at the 0.05 level of significance. This lack of sensitivity is common to studies in this field.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems       110. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    111. Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution,” op. cit.    112. A.E.Martin, “Statistics of Air Pollution,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 57 (1964):969–975.    113. Schimmel and Jordan, op. cit.    114. Lipfert, “The Association of Human Mortality with Air Pollution,” op. cit.    115. Martin, op. cit.    116. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    117. F.S.Harris, Jr., Atmospheric Aerosols: A Literature Summary of Their Physical Characteristics and Chemical Composition (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service (NASA CR-2626), 1976).    118. Landau, op. cit.    119. Harris, op. cit.    120. Ibid.    121. Mary Amdur, “Toxicological Guidelines for Research on Sulfur Oxides and Particulates,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Statistics and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1976), pp. 48–55.    122. J.D.Shannon, The Argonne Statistical Trajectory Regional Air Pollution Model (Argonne, Ill.: Argonne National Laboratory (Informal Report ANL/RER-79–1), 1979).    123. B.R.Appel, et al., “Sulfate and Nitrate Data from the California Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACHEX),” Environmental Sciences and Technology 12 (1978):418–428.    124. G.M.Hidy, P.K.Mueller, V.Deyo, and K.C.Detore, “Design and Implementation of the Sulfate Regional Experiment (SURE),” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Pollution (Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society, 1979), pp. 314–321.    125. Electric Power Research Institute, “SURE Takes to the Air,” EPRI Journal 3 (1979):14–17; and J.P.McBride, R.E.Moore, J.P.Witherspoon, and R.E.Blanco, “Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants,” Science 202 (1978):1045–1050.    126. U.S. Department of Energy, op. cit.    127. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology and Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, op. cit.    128. F.E.Speizer, Y.Bishop, and B.G.Ferris, Jr., “An Epidemiological Approach to the Study of the Health Effects of Air Pollution,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Statistics and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1976), pp. 56–68.    129. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 4.    130. Ibid.    131. Ibid.    132. Ad Hoc Population-Dose Assessment Group, Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979) (A preliminary assessment for the period March 28–April 7, 1979).    133. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, main report and app. VI (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (WASH-1400 or NUREG-75–014), 1975).    134. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequence Model (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG-0340), 1977).    135. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Statement on Risk Assessment and the Reactor Safety Study Report (WASH-1400) in Light of the Risk Assessment Review Group Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 18, 1979).

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems       136. Risk Assessment Review Group, H.W.Lewis, Chairman, Report of the Risk Assessment Review Group to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0400), 1978).    137. Assuming effective evacuation of 30 percent of the population, partially effective evacuation of 40 percent, and ineffective evacuation of 30 percent.    138. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, op. cit.    139. While the authors of WASH-1400 argue that median values, which give equal. probability of being exceeded or not, may be a better measure of very rare events, the mean value may be a better measure of the probability of accidents involving many events. In WASH-1400, the mean is generally 2–3 times higher than the median, which is within the uncertainty range of about fivefold quoted in the report,    140. Risk Assessment Review Group, op. cit.    141. “Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Light-Water Reactor Safety,” Reviews of Modern Physics 47 (Summer 1975):suppl. no. 1.    142. Risk Assessment Review Group, op. cit.    143. Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, Spurgeon M.Keeny, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Power: Issues and Choices (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977). (Also known as the Ford/Mitre report.)    144. Commission on Natural Resources, Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment, op. cit.    145. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski, eds., Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants (New York: Academic Press, 1975).    146. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    147. Division of Medical Sciences, Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants, op. cit.    148. L.B.Barrett and T.E.Waddell, Cost of Air Pollution Damage: A Status Report (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency (Publication AP-85), 1973), quoted in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 4.    149. Robert L.Heath, “Ozone,” in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 23–56.    150. J.Brian Mudd, “Sulfur Dioxide,” in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 9–22.    151. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    152. Mudd, op. cit.    153. J.C.Noggle and Herbert C.Jones, Accumulation of Atmospheric Sulfur by Plants and Sulfur-Supplying Capacity of Soil (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-600/7–79–109), April 1979).    154. Assembly of Life Sciences, Nitrogen Oxides, op. cit.    155. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.    156. E.J.Ryder, “Selecting and Breeding Plants for Increased Resistance to Air Pollutants,” Advances in Chemistry Series 122 (1973):78–84.    157. Paul R.Miller and Joe R.McBride, “Effects of Air Pollutants on Forests,” in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T.Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 196–236.    158. Fabius LeBlanc and Chruva N.Rao, “Effects of Air Pollutants on Lichens and Bryophytes,” in Responses of Plants to Air Pollutants, eds. J.Brian Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski (New York: Academic Press, 1975).    159. Ryder, op. cit.    160. Miller and McBride, op. cit.    161. Commission on Natural Resources, Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment, op. cit.    162. Assembly of Life Sciences, Sulfur Oxides, op. cit.

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems       163. G.E.Likens, “Acid Precipitation,” Chemical and Engineering News 54 (1976):26–49; and personal communication to H.I.Kohn, October 1978.    164. Ibid.    165. Christopher S.Cronan and William A.Reiners, “Forest Floor Leaching: Contributions from Mineral, Organic, and Carbonic Acids in New Hampshire Subalpine Forest,” Science 200 (1978):309–311.    166. Commission on Natural Resources, Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment, op. cit.    167. National Research Council, Energy and Climate, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).    168. William W.Kellogg, “Review of Mankind’s Impact on Global Climate” (Typescript prepared for the Workshop on Multidisciplinary Research Related to the Atmospheric Sciences, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo., June 21, 1977).    169. C.F.Base, H.E.Goeller, J.S.Olson, and R.M.Rotty, The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL-5194), 1976).    170. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 7.    171. J.Williams, ed., Carbon Dioxide, Climate, and Society (New York: Pergamon Press, 1978).    172. In addition, dust and nitrogen oxides have the potential to make a quantitative contribution.    173. And possibly also widespread deforestation, although the role of the biosphere is not clear. Reforestation has been recommended: See, for example, G.M.Woodwell, G.J. MacDonald, R.Revelle, and C.D.Keeling, The Carbon Dioxide Problem: Implications for Policy in the Management of Energy and Other Resources, report to the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, July 1979).    174. MacDonald and Carter, op. cit.    175. Kellogg, op. cit.    176. Williams, op. cit.    177. Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 7.    178. Schaefer, op. cit.    179. J.Harte and M.El-Gasseir, “Energy and Water,” Science 199 (1978):623–633; and Risk and Impact Panel, op. cit., chap. 6.    180. U.S. Department of Energy, op. cit.    181. National Research Council, Energy and the Fate of Ecosystems, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Risk and Impact Panel, Ecosystems Resource Group (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, in preparation).    182. Ibid.    183. Public Law 91–190 (January 1, 1970), National Environmental Policy Act, Sec. 102(B). See also S.F.Singer, “A Quantified Environment,” Science 203 (1979):400,    184. H.Brooks, “Environmental Decision Making: Analysis and Values,” in When Values Conflict, eds. L.H.Tribe, C.Schelling, and J.Voss. (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 115–135.    185. Risk and Impact Panel, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, op. cit., chap. 6.    186. Eutrophication refers to the enhancement of the basic nutritional level of lakes and other bodies of water that eventually disrupt the natural ecological relationships between species, permitting “undesirable” ones to outgrow and inhibit the rest, and leading to profound changes in the entire habitat,    187. Risk and Impact Panel, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, op. cit., chap. 6.    188. See chapter 8, “Geothermal Energy,” and National Research Council, Supporting Paper 4: Geothermal Resources and Technology in the United States, Committee on Nuclear and

OCR for page 422
Energy in Transition, 1985-2010: Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems    Alternative Energy Systems, Supply and Delivery Panel, Geothermal Resource Group (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979).    189. See “Solar Energy,” Risk and Impact Panel, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, op. cit., chap. 6; and National Research Council, Supporting Paper 6: Domestic Potential of Solar and Other Renewable Energy Sources, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Supply and Delivery Panel, Solar Resource Group (Washington, .D.C: National Academy of Sciences, 1979).    190. Ibid.    191. The President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, The Need for Change: The Legacy of TMI (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).    192. Sir Edward E.Pochin, Why Be Quantitative About Radiation Risk Estimates?, Lecture no. 2, Lauriston S.Taylor Lecture Series in Radiation Protection and Measurements (Washington, D.C.: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1978).    193. Risk and Impact Panel, Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems, op. cit., chap. 8.    194. National Research Council, Implications of Environmental Regulations for Energy Production and Consumption, Commission on Natural Resources, Committee on Energy and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).