* & * *
ſ · • × °
ſ ſ º
• A • * *
ſ + ſ \, º
}}، ، ، ، ، ،n！∞
§ ø （* * * * * * * * * （ ）•
ſ. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ * * * · * *
ſ ſ- #' ， , , ， ， , , , ， ）§ § ¶ • ¡ ¿ e ¡ ¿ a tº º ? !
£ € w ºg t.;） :::}}ſigšſ （;:};';ſ ·p ： » ： ** *∞[ſ
Ď - ·- Å AR]8
º ſ tº ºŒ œ ¿ſae ſººſ e º ae∞ººº ！
- ！}{（5）}}{{{gg'}{f}）????）;
·¿ſº.4′ſae ſº ſ čººº£t; ſºº k;%
-（iz i €ś w ºſº}›‹sſ›.
w ż.w. ºſ eſºšº *，
y ſe aeº a:::::::}; }
：ſºſ §wyſ tºº ſº ſ ſwț¢ć
¡ ¿\， ， • A • 2,\ a^ ººº'ſ！!！
}}§::§ 83% º 8º. № §:ſſis-nºº， *$%
Œ œg \ a \ e i 2-3 b }
）， waſnº?
Aſ siººn eſſºſ
§ ¶ • ¡ ¿
ſ 2%
， , , ， ， ，::::::::::::& ！ ！！ !！
ſr« ºz. ºw 3 ſºwº， º ſº º º №º
\;\;\;, , ， , ， ） » ™ ， f & ſ \， aſſy， e
§ ø ± • & w & & § ¶º º
ſ. i ſº gae și șºſſº:№ſ
w º ºs º șt.gºeſ?
, ， ， ）, s a ſ 2w z š ų ū •
„№ №w » º ae
§ ø ± öſſ eſºšºſ
∞ • （ſººſ ºſ ſºº
y v zº sººs º a ºſº ſºſ， ſº: ºſ
، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، º aeſ）
a . :） ） {
， ，
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ & § ¶ • • ¶§§
∞ √≠ ≤ v ≤ 1
s ». * * s;،ſ.
}:};:&...– a »， « » ， » º «º
g \，\！ …*.* *
• t • • ºwº •
ºg rºsſºs mºyº » ， º k;· {·
ſi e º ſº s ſºº
* 3. s … • • • • • • • • • •
�. ， ） » x * * * s;
， , , , • • • • • • •
. . . . . • • • • • _■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ***
; ; , ， , ， ， ） • • • •
* * *
& s & * s; №. ！！ ！！ →
， ， ， ， ， ， ， ; *? º:· 纺ºººº ！ .
· » b a 8% º’， º ∞ × （ ×
w + v + b • • •„ • • • • • • • • º
， • • • • • •
»… w. • W • • • • • •
- „ ！ » ， « » • k • ’ ”
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
È • •
... • • • • • • • •
∞
s ſ ≠ ø § ¶ • • • •
، ، ، * * * *
ſ ºſ ſº
№rſki:&##
ſú （hºº.ººº ！
2. № ae ºſº º º
, , . . • • • • 2.2 * # : ; ?;
! |ſae ſº º ſº º
ae ： ， ， ，
SYMPOSIUM ON ENERGY AND HUMAN HEALTH: HUMAN COSTS OF ELE-
* · * * ſ;
• • • •;*.
, , º, º eº ??.
، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ºſ ºa
£
ae ： • • ► ► ►º
º.- eſtºſº，
:： , , , ， , ſºº; £ . . „ , ， , , ， ， ， ; :：
**:\;\;\;\;！- ſ;###########:;';
ºº ， ， ， ， ， ， ## *（）¿º
！ ،########



-•~*-º-º-º--：~----- • -*** * , ！* ç - 7 … ~~=（z-azz-z=-z==----- =~.~ .· · · --> :ā;* * * * * *-
•± − × …:… - - ~~~~）; №ż-żywº za sº： ---- :.….-..; G-: * · * * * * * * x <！-- ----- - - - - - ----... ------------• ** .- - - -- - - - -- - - --· · -~-~» +’’’ · · · ·
*
ș
№
∞
t ：
∞
） {
|
|
|
ſix→
：，■ -^» ſ ºſw ، ، ، ، ، ، * · *„ ， ， , ， ， ，،∞ √ √ √e º . "d●ſ.∞، ، ، ،，?* .∞
）ſºſ0•，●Ķº № º· ~：º：* * .،،sae ，，!eº
：|, , ， :º « »،{8：：* …S.§：،*， ， ，،~
，-£ €：∞&& &ſ→º ， ， , ， șià ſº z º.







SYMPOSIUM ON ENERGY AND HUMAN HEALTH:
HUMAN COSIS OF ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
Sponsored by
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
and
Ohio River Basin Energy Study
Grant Number – R
March 19–21, 1979
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
**. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460


/06
A. A
5-(, 3, 5
, S43 |
/ 4 7%
...,’ & ‘
...’ $ ve
jº º
- ...; Ye’º, ‘... º, :*
N_2 = 3 * W.
§ **** irº, sº \
f..."; : y : ; ; j $: & £2º,\,- 2 *
imérº# ; : ...} : . Tº $ $.....?" #2-3 :-ºš $ys
ºpºtº irº ; : j}; -, *, * * *
rº ; ; 2 - || º
*** t , ºr}… * º, º : $2.
& ; : "...V.'s. * *
* #& Wºº" * Yºs - : # fºr º
º f. wº- º s:3. *. - *} *
**** * Ş. ~3-##
§ vº. 3 5.º “...A.'
: Nº ºf
s . $. • Tº #4 • As
3. * +tº
w - wº A.
$g. jº * } : *\ss.
- *sºr.
&
# £º ſº. † º
~$$… ' ; : 3.
* %. Áº!, $º



FOREWORD
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study is a multi-disciplinary project of con-
siderable magnitude, supported by a grant from the Environmental Protection
Agency. It is concerned with present and future energy - environmental re-
lationships in the Ohio River Basin: a tremendous resource which, as senator
Bayh. described it in his address, is shared by the people of six states;
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The Ohio Valley is the acknowledged center of coal production in the
nation. Typically, five of the six valley states lead the nation in annual
coal production. However well known its coal production is , the valley also
has a unique nuclear history. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station, situated
a few miles down the Ohio from its beginning at the confluence of the
Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers in Pittsburgh, was the first commercial
nuclear power station in the World. Shippingport began to produce electric
power in 1937. The major thrust of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
is the evaluation of the many possible consequences of present and projected
electric power generation in the valley. Its major objectives are to conduct
an assessment of the environmental, economic, social and institutional impacts
of all types of energy development along the Ohio River and within its basin.
A major concern of ORBES is the health component of energy resource
extraction, transportation, conversion (i.e. burning of coal and reactor
operation) and transmission. In order to establish a sound "state of know-
ledge" base it was decided to organize a three-day symposium devoted exclusively
ii
to the energy-health relationship. The six sessions were devoted to:
I) occupational problems in coal and uranium mining;
II) methodological problems in detecting health effects;
III) health aspects of fossil-fueled power plants;
IV) health aspects of transportation and transmission;
V) health problems in nuclear power generation; and
WI) future areas of concern.
The symposium was designed to provide ample time for discussion and the
record of the proceedings, included in this document, attests to the areas of
controversy and those deemed to require continuing investigation.
The future of electrical energy development in the Ohio Valley and
beyond hinges to a considerable extent on the environmental and health con-
sequences of its production, transmission, and utilization. We believe---and
hope---that this symposium has provided a firmer foundation for the health
assessment task of ORBES.
Dr. E. P. Radford
Prof. M. A. Shapiro
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study (OREES)
Birch Bayh, U. S. Senator, Indiana 2
Session I: Health Problems in Extraction of Fuel . . . . . . . . 19
Occupational and Environmental Health Problems in Coal Mining
Curtis Seltzer, Ph.D. 20
Respiratory Problems in Coal Miners...W.K.C. Morgan, M.D. 60
Uranium Mining - Occupational and Other Health Problems
Joseph K. Wagoner, S.D. Hyg. ... 69
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Session II: Special Methodologic Problems in Detecting Health
Effects From Fuel Cycle Pollutants . . . . . . . . . 92
Measurement of Occupational and Environmental Exposures . . .
Morton Lippmann, Ph.D. . . . 93
Epidemiological Studies of Human Health Effects
Ian Higgins, M.D., Kathy Welch, MPH, and Jerel Glassman, MPH 122
Role of Animal Experiments in Relation to Human Health Effects
Yves Alarie, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . 137
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Session III: Health Aspects of Fossil-Fuel Electric
Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Air Pollution . . . . . . . Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., M.D., FACPM . . 168
Human Exposures To Waterborne Pollutants From Coal-Fired
Steam Electric Powerplants. . Jualian B. Andelman, Ph.D. . 195
Occupational Health Aspects of Fossil-Fuel Electric
Power Plants . . William N. Rom, M.D., MPH . . . . . . . . 221
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246.
Session IV: Health Aspects of Transportation and Transmission . 259
Health Aspects of Fuel and Waste Transportation
S. C.Morris, Sc.D. . . . 260
iV'
Health Aspects of Power Transmission . . Richard D. Phillips, Ph.D. .
Health Benefits and Risks of Electric Power Consumption
Ronald E. Wyzga, Ph.D. . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Session V: Health Problems in Nuclear Power Development . . . . . .
Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation. . Edward P. Radford, M.D. . . .
Environmental Exposures from Nuclear Facilities, E. David Harward . . .
Occupational Health Experience in Nuclean Power
Robert B. Minogue . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e.
Session VI: Future Areas of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential Health Problems in the Production of Synthetic Fuels
From Coal. . Prof. M. A. Shapiro, C.S. Godfrey, J.K. Wachter and
G.P. Kay . . . . . .
Long Term Health Implications of Radioactive Waste Disposal
William D. Rowe, Ph.D. . . . . .
Areas of Uncertainty in Estimates of Health Risks
g Leonard D. Hamilton, M.D., Ph.D. . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ú º º O & © º
. 285
302
324
344
345
360
423
. 460
THE QHIQ RIVER BAS IN ENERGY STUDY ( QR BES)
Blſ Ch Bay ſh
U → S. Senator, Indiana
Chancellor Pos War, Dr - Radford, D I - Shap 1 c 0, Dr -
Griffin, distinguished guests and partlo 1 pants in the Sympos luſu,
i 'm glad to be here. I that, k Dlck Caligul ri [ 0 iſ h i S
in troduction, excessive as it was - I "a not too sure anat the
neredity of this ORBES Commission is - I guess I have to claim
at least part of the bloodline •
I aust confess to you I always think 1 tº s good for us to
have the kind of exper lence that ſhakes it posslo i.e I or us to
listen to that kind of lntroduction I got althout inna ling.
Such as this morning 's plane ride from Wasning to n, the young
lady was going down the aisle taking our destination and name
and she got to he and sne asked the dest ination, and I said
Pittsburgh, and gave ſay naſae - A big smile of ſecogn it lon, "On ,
that 's just like Birch Bayn, isn’t 1 tº"
You know, Mayor Caligulrl and I were talking about the
environ a ent a high those of us as public offic lals serve • He has
the tough est job in the body politic in my judginent • Be in g a
Mayor he cannot afford the luxury of get ting on a piane and
going back to wash ington this evening and I 'm sure that the job
has gotten even no re difficult than it was at the titae a certain
occurrence transpired in the southern part of our state several
Suſanaers ago, back when the trains were running reasonably on
time and most of them were carrying passengers • A new m in lster
arrived in a little southern Indiana town down close to the
river in the jurisdiction of ORBES and he had been expected for
a long period of time. In fact, they had about given up hope,
so there was no body the re to meet him - He looked aſ ound and
found no one and tinally saw an old fellow sitting on the board
seat of n is donkey cart, dai ting over under the shade o I a big
oak tree and asked the fellow if ne "d carry niſa over to the
parsonage • And the tellow did, but the poor old donkey Just
gave up the gnost and died right there on the parson age lawn -
The minister got down and offered his syſapatny to the gentleſnan
and went inside and imaediately called the Mayor, “Mayor, this
ls Parson Brown, I just arrived in town." The May or in tec rupted
and said, "Oh Parson, we "we been walt ling for you• I" a sorry I
wasn’t there. I had some very lap or tant business. LS the C e
anything I can do to help you?" "Well, Mayor, you can - Tne re is
a dead donkey on my front yard and I "d appreciate it you take
care of the remains." "well," said the Mayor, “I l l take care of
that r light aſsay e."
well this is in the ſuld dile of the sunſueſ t1 he down soutnern
Indiana and on the ſaorning of the third day some of that pure
unpolluted southern Indiana alr Catae into the bedro Oſu of our
minister friend and it caſhe to his atten tip ſi that the May 9 I had
forgotten his prohlse. So he bounced out of bed, win ipped over
to the telephone and dialed the Mayor and said, "Mayor, this is
parson Brown. Three days ago you to id ſae you were go in g to
reſao we the reſu ains of that dead donkey • It is still ther e >
what's the matte C, don’t you poll ticians keep your projulses?"
The May or answered rather hastily, he had been up the night
before dealing witn Soſae of the problems with his constitutents
and he said, "we il, Parson, I though t it was the duty of the
clergy to bury the dead." The Minister thought and said,
*Perhaps you’re right, May or e I was just adw 1 sing the next of
kin."
Mayor, I think you and I and any of us in the body po 1 1 tic
and the political hierarcny are living in a time unem 1 t is
difficult to get the benefit of the doubt. I aust say the kind
of sens 1 ti vity you have shown, first as a council ſhe tube T, and
no is as a Mayor of this fine C1 ty is an exagap le I affa sure others
would like to be able to follow .
I a a glad to have a chance to be nere, to share soue
thoughts with you about the problems of environment and energy •
The reports that have reached in e, pe C ſlap S In Q t to tal ly
accurate ly, but I think fair ly accurate ly, about the environment
and atmosphere of the ſheeting this morning, nakes ſhe wonder if
I’m not like the early day Cnr is tian who was thrown Lato the
Co losseum and as he awaited the lion he got down on n is hands
and knees and bowed his head and began to 9 ray . . At ter what
seemed 1 1ke an endiess period of time nothing n appened and he
looked around and there the lion a lso was kneeling in prayer -
The Christian threw his head to the Sky and said, "Thank you,
Father, for deliver in g ſhe e." Whe reupon the l lo n opened one eye
and said, "Shut up - I don’t know w nat you’re doing out I’m
saying grace • *
Per haps some of you will i agree and per naps soille will
disagree out I think the spirit of friendly controversy, the
split it of prodding and the splicit of really search ling for the
real answers to the proble as of energy and environment, that is
the only kind of attl tude, in Iny judgment, that is going to nel 9
us solve both of these problems • Now what I would like to do,
thls no on, 1s to perhaps go through Sofile notes that I have
written down l n consultation with ſay stat f to try to so c t of put
down a to undation, particularly for soſue of you who do not live
in the igua ediate valley area, to describe the way we go t ne re as
far as the establishment of GRBES is concerned. I "d like to
discuss the origin of QRBES and, in general teras, true “poll tics
of policy.” And then og en for ſnore specific questions • Tne
latter part will be the host beneficial tor Do th of us •
I am grate ful for this opportun L ty to Speak before this
distinguished group brough t together by Dr - Radford under the
auspices of the Ghio River Basin Energy Study, whlch host of us
who are at all faſai liar is ith this know that that is URBES - we
apprec late the fact that we’re here but i think Dr - Radf (ºr d, as
lap of tant a role that you played, I think the tacts are that
nel ther you no c 0 RB ES nas actually prought us to getner, out 1 t
was an act of nature known as the Unio River, the nature of
which ls wery, V 2 r y precious to all of us up and down this
river - It was that act that really prought us here, resulted in
thlS Co amon I e Source shared by the people Of Ind l ana,
Southwestern Pennsylvania, Ohio, dest W1 r 9 inla, Kentucky, and
Illinois, and there is no question in g the tact that 1 t is an
extremely valuable asset.
But to share the river's assets is to also snare her
problems. And her probleås are not unligue to this region •
Other places in the country ſaay be represented here. I thought
that perhaps discussing how we got to the place of organization
where we are no w, studying this prop lem with the regional
approach, that ſaight be he ipful as you app i y this to Q ther
places. We have all sorts of common strengths and seaknesses
tle ſee
I recall so me of the disti ilery workers in Lawrence burg,
Indiana, having some friend i y reparte e º i tº so in e of the 1 r
workers who live across the line in Haſſal 1 ton County, Unio, in
£incinnati, and which starts out usually ºne re Clncinnati people
say: "An-ha, to tell you what we think of your to 1ks in
Lawrence D urg, we flush our to ile ts and dulap our sew a ge in the
river and 1 t goes down for you to drink 1 ts." And the people in
Lawrence burg say : *weil, lt 's not quite that way • an at we do
is bottle it up and sell it back to you • * 1 'm not too sure that
settles the problem but we are in extric aply pound to gettle C and
for that I eason we have tried to approach this in a C othia Q (a study
ºf £1 ſhe
I happen to believe that the energy-health dile ſama, faced
by those of us in the Ghio River Wa 1 ley, is indeed, it lt 1 sn’t
already confronting, will soon confront most other areas of
America • ORBES, though regional in nature, is ſlot g I O W, incla i lin
scope • d e are facing a national chal lenge of unprecedented
complexity and I am proud of the fact that we in On lo Valley
have taken the lead in developing new Strategies to tace this
challenge • I am extreme ly proud of the work that is Delſag done
by ORB ES and no pe that we can conclude it as rapid i y as
possible, and then be able to implement some of the findlings •
If we look at the real historical to undation, on whlch
GRBES is based, it realiy didn’t start here in the United
States. It started back in October, 1973, when a group of
non-industrialized countries in the Mlddle-East a C r 1 we d at an
agreement to reduce the flow of crude o l l to the United States,
Europe and Japan •. The Arab oll eſabar go plus OPEC trauſha tized
this country because it struck two simultaneous plows trous ºn 1 ch
ise are still reeling. And some of us are asking ourse 1 west is
this real ly true? One of the blows was political. The Auer lc an
public D e came as are for the first time, during the e ill bat go, that
the country was now vulnerable in a vital flaatter, its energy
supply, reaily its economic jugular vein •
The other i a medlate iup act was ecofioſa lce ACC OSS Lae nation
the higher prices of imported and domestic petro leuſa worked
the iſ way through the chain of econouilc lint et depende ſncles until 1
they appeared 1n the form of increased prices for other kinds of
energy and energy in tens 1 We goods and Serv Lces • This econoſu ic
blos, this incredible inflation attendant to the high p r 1 ce of
energy which still dogs us politically and econoſa ic ally to day -
The subject of OPEC, the merl t or the fallacy of a so-called
free market for energy, the discussion of those issues it seems
to gue can better take 9 lace at another time • But, I think it ls
important to start out with the understand in g that tals ls
really the first time in the entire n is tory of this country that
we really began to worry about the cost of energy and the
availability of energy aſid what that can do to the en tl re
economic structure of this society and the way of lite as we
have co Bae to know it. It is the first time we have begun to
assess investments, lifestyles, in terms of the LD 1 ſap act, and
the iſng act of energy on them • When you take th LS Sudden
awakening to the costs and availability of energy and you lay it
on the foundation of a decade of concern and progress deal ling
with the environmental proble as that had gone long un at teaded in
the society, you bring us to the foundation, really the two
pedestals, on which the DRBES study was based.
A national consensus eae rged during that period in wal cn is e
were trying to co the to grips with reality that an energy supply
was threatened. A consensus effierged that he aust reduce our
reliance upon for eign oil and place greater dependence on
domestic fuels. In the electric power industry the re was a
strong push that we ſuust have a greater rel lance o (a lauclear
energy and we must site ſhore new coa i fired plants near the coal
fields- I aust say the closeness of coal is not tae sole
crlter lo n for 2 lant sites as tar as the utill 1 ties * e iſ e
concerne de Water for transportation and cooling, as well as the
existence of these plants in reasonably sparsely populated
areas, were also required as people looked at the criter la of
development. Portions of Indiana and Kentucky along the Un lo
River between Cincinnati and Louisville apparently ue t these
specifications •
So we found the Arabs hard ly iifted the elabargo an en
several utilities announced their in tention to construct many
plants on both the Indiana and Kentucky sides of this reach of
the river. It was significant that certain of these plants were
long distances from the consumer-load centers of the util 1 ty.
In other words, we found unusually long spaces, great distances
existing, between where the utill ties are going to produce uuch
of this electricity and where it was ultinately go ins to be
consulae de Thus, it is as clear that external cond 1 tilons were
encouraging power plant construction in a scenic stretch of the
Valley and that much of the power would pe exported ahl ie ioca i
residents * e T 8 saddled with the liability of potentiai
environmental problems. It is not quite that slap le, as some of
you know who have looked at the early results of the JR BES study
and who are famil liar idlth the air currents, that indeed many of
the environſa ental impacts are going to follow, if not exactly,
at least a general direction of uuch of the use of the
electicity and it is that kind of problem we’re try ling to
dissect and nave a better understanding of .
Clt lze ns representing several environmental and pupi ic
interest groups called up on he early in the fall of 1974, to
report the probleſh and that more importantly they were unable to
get answers from the War lous government agencies on tae impact
of these plants. Likewise, they were unable to find out just
how set lous the environmental problems algnt be from such a
heavy concentration of facilities. Nobody seemed to nave the
aſış lºſe I and S Q they asked to r help • Thus the Senate
App f Op T i a ti ons commaittee, of which I happen to be a ſnemper, d1 d
act to direct the U.S. Environſº ental Protection Agency to
conduct a far-reaching study of energy develop Haent, including
power plant construction, in the loser Oh Lo River Basin. The
committee 's action took the for a ot i anguage ºnlch was added to
the report in the 1976 fiscal year funding measure for EPA and
the language added in July 1975 reads as follows, Just to give
us a little idea to reſh ind ourseives just exactly saat the
legislative mandate for the Ohio River Basin Study was and is.
fhe committee is as are of plans in various
stages of development whlcn could lead to a
concentration of power plants along the Unio
R 1 We C, l ſt Gh i oz £entucky, Indiana, and
Illino is . Although the environmental liap act
of such a concentration could be critical, the
de Clsion ſaak lng authorlty regarding the
construction of these facilities is disperse d
throughout the federal government and state
go Vernänen tse The committee directs the
Environſnefital Protection Agency to conduct,
from funds appropriated in this account, an
assessment of the potential environiaental,
social and economic lap acts of the proposed
concentrations of power plants in the lower
Ü hio Ri Weſ Basine This study should be
comprehensive in Scope- investlgating the
lap act of alry water, and solid residues on
the natural environment and residence of the
*-3
I e g ion • The study snould also take into
account the availabill ty of coal and other
energy so uſ ces in the I egion. • .
when the Appropriations . Committee t irst headed the
Baandate to EPA we were concerned about the concentration of
plants in the four states cited in the report: Il 11 mols,
Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana • A number of factors, including
early findings which indicated that plants” alr ealissions
Here carried hundreds of ſailes, led us to encourage EPA to
expand the URBES region to include Southwestern Pennsylvania
and most of West Virginia • Thus, all Slk States, an ich
border the Ohio River are now included in the official areas
of the [] RBES study •
Both EPA and the Approp flations Coaui ttee gave much
thought to the institutional structure a hic n Haign tº best
carry out the en ergy assessment e I think we at rived at a
rate coab 1 nati on her e > We encouraged EPA to cons 1 tier a
framework shi Ch àould include Teg I e Seſh t a ti ve S fºr O ſa
Unlversity facultles in the Unio River Walley. In an
innovati We ſhanner EPA S Ought proposals from ind J Oſ
unl wers it les G Hı no is they In ign t cooperate in the
undertakings, and the URBES study ls the result - Most of
you know, I esearchers from nine university catap uses in these
six states are engaged in a ſaultidiscle 1.lnary endeavor.
I ſaight add that one of the bonuses of expanding the
{}RBES region was the opportunity to involve representatives
from the Univers lty of Pittsburgh's distinguished School of
Public Heal the In the Second and third years of tals
activity we were grateful for that opportun lty • Of course,
Professors Radford and Shaplco of the School of Pup 11 c
Health are now participating in OR BES and nave taken the
lſhitiative in convening this symposiuſi - Thel C exals i nation
of the public health conside ration is one of ORBES ladst
inportant areas of inquiry, and I look to rid ard to study in g
their findings as quickly as we possibly can •
From the beginning, those of us in the Congress
realized that the assessment would nave little credibll Lty
unless the University researchers were glºw en ln dependence
from poll tical and bureaucratic ln terference • Tnus
research ers on an ORBES core team are partle ip at ling in the
project under separate grants awarded directly to the 1 c own
universities by EPA - An EPA Project Officer, trankly an
international ly respected environmenta 1 scientist, Los e i i
Smith, coordin a tes, as we know, the ſt liſle Liſa L We T S L ty
activities in an effort to guarantee that funds are oe in g
adjalnistered in a manner consistent with federai gul del lines.
But GRBES researchers are accorded freedom of in quiry in a 1 1
tespects - In addition to the URBES core tead, more than one
hundred other faculty and staff aeſapers in the various
un 1 wers 1 t les are providing support research to strengthen
the under taking S = Realistically, of course, there must pe
coordination, guidance and direct 1 on in such a ſia C ge
projecte Such direction would be suspect if it caue
directly from EPA itself. As we know, EPA is ciear i y not,
and frankly should not be a disinterested party.
fo provide such direction in the university conteat,
EPA as a r ded grants to two Univers 1 ty of Illinois members of
the core team to serve as a management team for the to tal
{}RBES effort. I believe that the selections of Dr.
Stuckel, a distinguished engineer and Dr. Keenan a 1 th n is
experience in Political science, were outstanding. The ir
task is, of course, to assure that the research process in
preparation of the final report be as objective as possible -
EPA and Congress have placed a heavy burden up on both the
Iºanage ſhe ſat and research e is aents of the OR BES endeavor, one
that may be too heavy, according to some prop nets of doom -
Indeed, they look at the past, and they say that in a ost
instances the record of inter-university cooperation and
research has not been over 1 y lup ressive • Soue say it is a
contradiction in terms for a federal agency and such a large
number of universities to attempt to cooperate in such a
fashion. After all, the main function of a federal agency
is to keep the wheels of government ſao wing unile a primary
purpose of university research is to CC it lc 1ze túat
movement. Well, frankly, there may be some truth in this at
tlinese I think = e should look at the positive side of this
marriage which I think can bring tº eſh endous strengtns to
bear and I am not willing to accept the conclusion as
ine Witab le from those who doubt whether we can succeed -
Neitner aſh I d 1 li in g to accept as in evitable that, because
£PA is coordinating ORBES, the agency is seeking only those
findings that conform with conventional EPA wisdom - I know
well that EPA has been criticized for such a pollcy in the
paste But, I aſſa contident that this will i not be the case
to E ORBES e
I think it is important for us to see that the URBES
study and those who are out looking for the answers and
putting together the data on which conclusions d ill be
based; that they be imaune from poll tical pressures - I
think so far we have been successful - We snould take the
politics off tinding out ºn at the facts are - I have to say
that I think we have to distinguish that wery lap or tant goal
on one side, from the wery realist lc assess aeſh t of how the
real world operates on the other - And that is that
Political decisions are the way public policy is made in
America today and to expect that the so-called politicians,
the elected public officials, will have no opportunity to
welgh the factor S 1 nVolved ls to expect Sou ething that
cannot and, l n fact, should not exist in out Society • You
aay want to get in to a discussion of this in a 11 tºtle ſaore
detail Decause I understand there ſaay be soille differ ing
opinions and that ‘’s what ſnakes the world go around •
No d, I think it’s important for us to nave the be net it
of all this information as quickly as we poss 10 ly can. The
economics of environmental regulation and economics is one
of OR BES major a reas of inquiry, as we know has become a
very hot top ic • Those of you who just caſue froſſ the ſalm in g
se ſainar are undoubtedly aware of the recent fracas that
ensued in Washington when certal n of the President’s
economists were critical of the proposed surface Hiln in g
regulations on the basis that they were too costly-
For those in Congress, and I should say what I’la about
to say a i thout relating that specifically to the assessment
that was inade in Washington by solae of the President’s
economists, but looking at it adre generally, there are
those in Congress and the agencies, probably some of you in
this room, who believe that ſhoney snould not be a factor lin
deteraining our national environaental quality goal - Let me
say as one of the original sponsors and continual protectors
of EPA, and the goals lt was designed and is still designed
to accomplish, that I must say never the less that I disagree
with this point of view • I believe that environiuen tal
decision makers, those in Congress, the agencies, the
research institutions, must be able, with some degree ot
certainty, to have the sense of the cost associated wilth
their de c is ions • If I am to alake any contribution to a
symposium such as this, I suppose, and I scratch ſay head to
see what kind of contribution I could ſuake, in the presence
of those who are experts in the sclence of both energy and
environment, it see as to me if there is any contribution
that I as a United States Senator could ſuake, it is to snare
ſay very frank assessments, couplete with the i r S trengths and
their weaknesses, of the practical aspects of policy
lap lementation • And to do this in the gene ral fashlon and
then we can get into some of the specifics in the question
and answer part of the prograa this noon • Now, I cofit ess
that I probably have already stepped on some to es and ala
about to step on some ſhore • I don’t in tend to apologize Lor
that; I found that in most of my lifet là e in deal ling with
public policy that probably de need a good deal more to e
stepping, because then you increase the circulation and you
get a little nor e action. -
in both this area of energy policy, and env iſ onla ental
policy and particularly the coordination of the two
together, we are woefully short of action • If I may just
share so the though ts of my conscience with you: from a ſud cai
sense I am not prepared to trade dollars or JobS for lives •
I find it very difficult to do that, impossible to do -
However, I am equally concerned over the fact that we 've no w
become 9 o lar ized; those of us who were early on ln the
mo Weine nt trying to prick the nationai consciousness as tar
as the environ àental degradation that is going on, we are
polarized more and more from those in society who say we
Rust have ad re jobs, perio de F or those on the other side
who say no, the health question is the only question we must
consider • And it just seems that together we had to find
ways to stop this polarization because the real test of our
free society is now we can have enough jobs to accoſamo date a
growing Society, at the same tiſſue he recognize the important
public respons 1 bility of having a legislative policy that
will protect the health, not only of this generation but of
the next generation of Americans •
It is easy to say that, I have to Confess to y Qu • . It
is much more difficult to implement that kind of policy and
to get the trade offs at an acceptable place on the scale •
It is complicated by the fact that the loss of jobs, the
cost of environmental protection, are iſhine diate and Ob w lous •
The loss of lives, ſucce particularly the deter location of
lives, a nich will be felt ten or twenty years from nos, ls
not imaediately weighable. You can look at the admissions
to our hospitals of those who have respiratory ailments, and
you can chart the almost identical line with the particulate
matter in the air. But it is not the kind of fact that is
felt by those who are alive and work in g in a nealthy way lin
the workplace to day - That is why I think it is extreiue ly
lmportant for us to look at the health factors and look at
the econo alc factors and do a better job of trying to ai X
both of those to gether at an accep taple level -
I think me nave to do a better job of articulating the
health realities, not just the immed late cost of env 1 roſam eat
as they damage health, but the long range relationship of
environment to heaith. Secondly, I think we need to nave a
better assessment of economic consequence, real econou ic
consequence--how they play on health, a flat diſaens lons the
health laws will really be. If you’re going to really be
able to weign this off we have to have all tmose facts so de
can ſhake in teill gent decisions • I think it is possld le to
do that and 0RBES is going to be very help ful to us • But
this is a critical kind of decision that we just nave to De
p ſepared to flakes
—10–
we l n Coſìgſ eSS have to take better advantage O I ouſ
research arms such as the Congress Lonal Budget Office, the
Office of Technology ASSessia ent, to be able to assist us in
fixing a price tag to the environmental goals we legislate •
And as controversial as it is, the re may be a point at unlch
d standard that alakes one ſalcro gram increase in the
require a ent, makes it that much more stringent, H 1 Jnt De
incredlp ly costly without any real returns from the
standpoint of public health. I think we have to make those
decisions, and hopefully to make them accurate ly - I have to
say this from a practical standpoint, at a tille when we are
not ab i e to prove, as I think de can if we do it the r light
way, prove the real health benefits that are necessl tated as
a result of certain environmental requirements the a the
political, in the proper use of that is ord, the political
support for environmental protection is go lng to be gone and
the whole effort will be lost. So it is important for us to
have a 11 these facts and be able to do a good j od of
selling. This is true not only of Congress put the
regulatory agencies.
Another ſhatter of some controversy, I think, causes ae
to say to those of you who may think contrar is ise that
design specifications often reduce the ability of the
ſharketplace to come up with alternative and u or e econouil cal
ways to handle the was te products of our industriallzed
Society • L ask myself, *Isn’t it far ſhore prudent to set a
standard and allow the polluter to reacti i t d 1 thin a
reason a D le per lod, using whatever technology ſhakes sense to r
his individual enterprise?". I "a not so ded to the Wehlcie,
the technology, as I am to the results - And I think we ſleed
to have enough flexlp liity to let each s 1 tuation De resolved
on its own circumstance •
I have to say that as I’ve been personal ly involved in
this 1s Sue alth some of my couſmunities and Soſa e of the
interest g|C Q U19 S that I Tep resent that they aſ €
character lstic of America • I find that the most frustrating
realis a 1 m public life to day is to see that the c e tends to
be major contlicts, Just ir reconcilable conti icts, between
groups that real i y benefit or lose from the same set of
Circumstances • You get industry on one hand and consulaers
on the other, you get the au to industry, you get gover nia ent
at loggerheads with one an other. Souenos or other we have
not be eſt able to get everybody togetner, and say o kay, it
isn’t good for industry to let the environ in ent de grade to
the place that you have the kind of Baajor flow effa ent that 1s
not go in g to consider any of the economics at all . It isn’t
good for theia, it isn’t good for the automobile companies,
to have the kind of Situation we had aſ ith the C lear. Alſ Act
which I is as and continued to be a strong supporter of that
—ll-
legislat 1 on • I have to confess to you that I doſa "t think
any of us in 1970, when we sat there in all those near ings
thought we were really going to get an absolute decision
that utopla is going to arr 1 we lin 1975. By the same token,
the people in the auto industry that had all the tecnnology
to tell us to stop g o ilu ting, as we our n hydrocarbons in
in ternal colupustion engines, they weren’t willing to share
that 1 Inf or ſaat i on at all . They said, “we can’t do i t < *,
period •
So we had to do Sofile thing to get their attention. So
we estao lished aſh arbitrary goai and said, "You better do it
by 1975 - " well, industry rushed out here and instead of
governäl ent and ln dustry and consulaers and every body sitting
do an and saying, “Ukay, here is the goal we re going to
teacn. How is the best way to reach it?" You nad industry
on one side, saying, "we can 't reach i t < *, and government on
the other saying “You’re going to reach it by 1975.” we
ended up with a catalytic converter, which I think inost of
us under Stand is certainly not the oest long-range solution.
You know lit doesn’t help the purpose of our symposium
for ſhe to p our out so ſhe of the frustſ a tions in my near t as
rar as I look at this as a Policy Inaker - But soiu e o t you
who are providing these tacts, I'd like for you to know it
is not a 1 ways an easy solution as to now you get these
groups to getſler to try to put to getner a policy that is
really in the long teria national interest of the eatire
SOC 1 ety. You look at the alap lent alr qual lty prop i elus that
we have right no d, in a nich some of our co film unit les are
go lng to be confronted in a relative ly short period of titae,
aſ ith Raj or sanctions if they do not late et trie standards that
have been estab i is he d ... I think in so ſhe co ſhuun i ties tin is ls
going to cause sigialticant dislocations lif they "re not ad le
to reconcile the pollution with the standards. I have been
trying to deal w ith this and I ſaust say as frustra ting as
the f1 r S t exam 9 le is i nawe Dee in near tened oy the Seco ade
If you live in Terre Haute, Indiana, you’re not as concer Ile d
at all with w ſuat the best way to so iv e the problein lin
Buffalo or Detro i t is, you’re concerned alth no a you so 4 we
it in ferre Haute, Indland, or Indianapolls - Yet we nad,
to C a long period of titae, EPA sitting there abso iu tely
uns li i ling to have any adjustiãents that would take into
consider a tion local situatio as - we il, we sat down witn EPA
and we sat down with Sofile of our institutions of nigner
learning that had the technology and I aust say I’ve seen an
aſā azing willingness on the part of EPA to say, "All rigint,
we "re not going to say you nave to do lt our day as long as
you recognize the need to do it and are will ling to coulu it to
reaching that goal . * Gn the other nan d, you have Soise in
ln dustry w no nave been to tally unwill ling to C ecognize the
-12–
tact that they re even polluting at ali say, "Ai i r ignt, lit
you let uS nave the Cºnance to put th 1 S to get n e C lin a
sensld le way, we "re golng to slgn off and we 'll ſheet cer taln
standards." Now, I have to contess to you that the Jury is
Stl l l out on that. Solae of those people who had been the
inaj or polluters ſaay be using this as a guise, i don’t know,
to put it off an other year or two or three or four, Ilve
yedſ Se I hope that is not the case - A1 though I am ali ling
to have a little glve and take on now we reach a given goal
as long as we reach it, I’m not willing to let any of those
who are really destroying our environiąent and Significantly
d liainlsh ling the lifespan of in any of our Cltlzens , hide under
a cloak of reason able ness to avoid an at is their ultimate
respons i D lilty • \
For give Bae for snar ing solae of th OS e personal
experiences with you but I think what we’re trying to do la
ÜRB ES is to get that infortaatlon out there as quickly as a e
C a ſle I would hope triat ariting of the flna 1 report all l
coinſhence in January 1980. That is really just around the
corner consider ling the size of the job - I hope we can get
that out there as quickly as we can. Give us a set of
options? let us weign the pluses and in in uses and the
streſigths and the weaknesses of these given options, aſid I
hope that is e in the Congress, orace we have the is is dolla that
will l coa e frog, know in g all the factors in Voived in the
de Velop a ent or energy and lts impact on the env iſ on in eat of
this region, Once we have the wisdoin, I not e the good Lurd
gives us the courage to do what ls r ign tº R1 gnt for the
health o E our co an unitles, really a significant section of
our country • At the Saſhe time we realized the i ſap or tance of
prowlding suffic lent energy for many other parts of , the
country to aeet the standards of ilving that they nave
De Coſa e a C CuS LQ ſue d to e
I aay have had some pess inlistic notes S 1192 ed in net e -
I aſſa no rāally an opt liaist, I still aim an optl ſalst . But I
tnink that op tial su nas to be laid on a realls tic scale and
I aſa confident se can aeet the dual goal of a good
environia ent and an econoſaic piane that is acceptable to our
Society • we cannot reach these two goals it we try to kil d
ourse 1 wes, if we "re not reai istic. The costs involve both
tallure to pro wide good environia ent and the cost of
providing good eav ironment - we nave to Know botn.
Now that is the end of this fl 1 lb uster and this
raſhpilng around. what ‘’s O ſl your a ln d is of more
significance than what I "we talked about .
Discussion
–13–
DEs is S22ncerz Qalyaksity of Louisvilliei. I am one
of the URBES core team a e ſabers, also one of the citizens
that knocked on your door - we’re grateful to you, Seſlator -
I have long Said, and like to say here, that in those early
years we had a or e access to your off ice than a e had to the
EPA.
Sæſ at Qt Bayuz. I "d be glad to claim thea; I just uqa’t
want to clal B all the cred lt. I think you tellows really
were the fatners. I was just offering the env iſ on ſhe nt in
which you could do your work •
DEs. His S2:[igeti. I have one question which I think
you could give soue answer to . There are a number of
in dustri a lized countries that nave no energy resources and
Yet at e econ on 1 cally strong • Those countries 1 up urt
Virtuali y all of their oil - we don’t have quite that auch
of a prop leſh - whl cn ſheans they ſaust be do i ng so ſhe thing
r ight and we're dolng lit wrong. Ansidering those questions,
pe ing a D le to get at that, is part of the GRBES charge •
what do you think = e "re doing wrong in the econ oſalc is arket
as coiàp a red to these ſlations 2
Senator Bayl: *ay I just offer a little advice? ASk
another questio a. ae haven "'t known each other long efious n,
and we ſlave a friendly repartee. The reas on I say that is
that if URBES tries, what are the consequences of a nat
nappens out ther e? I think 1 f we get URBES into that aſ ea
you’re gettlng it into an are a from which you’re never go lng
to be ad i e to extricate 1 t aſid we should stic K to Sou e of
the filore imſa ediate problems. º
One of the host current problems is is nat's going oa at
the multilateral trade negotiatlons. i aſā a trade than •
Looking at the Walue of the dollar -- anat that has do ne -- I
nawe to say that I hope we can Daiance our Dudget. I think
the re has beeſ, far to Q ſaucti ethp has lS and far too ſauct n Ope
placed on that because that is one of the parts o I the
propieſa. But, if we look at the real prop lein of the de I ic 1 t
Dalance, the real prop leſſ of the pay ſaents and you look at
the way our do I ke rs in our industry are treated one day wine n
we try to trade of someone else’s turf and they "re treated
and the I way when they try to trade on our turf . He nave to
coſae to grips with that, because that ls basic as far as the
strength of the dollar is concer ſhe de
Her e again I "we asked a yse if the same question - The
other countries are not do ling as ſaucín o f this as I think
/probably we are right now - Une of the things f have deeply
regrette q that we have not realiy be en ab i e to get geared
up, and me nave started no is and it ’s been do e fully late in
–l4–
Co ſaing, ls a a a J or effort to try to 9 to wide altern at L We
tue is so we could get this oil laonkey off our pack. Tina t
has a very lins idious effect on us, not only from the
standpolm t of energy, but also politics, national blackmaal -
There a te some things like that we just nave to do ſhore of .
I think OR BES 1 les in a ta or e confiſhed context and I
recognize that your question is right on target as far as
tne co gig lexity or the over all probleia, the GRBES findings ls
on ly a Staai 1 s liver there of .
DEs. Spence ti The nealth costs have escalated so
terribly in this country, and since we are debating nea ith
here today whlch is such an integral g at t of the dº BES
project, I feel is e cannot really dissociate ourselves that
easily trom the subject. I know that you are not suggesting
that e I "a trying to ree ſiphasize the complexity of the
health a rea in relation to the econofalc area and to the
world energy pro 3 leas
Seſ, altor Bay Li You’re right. One other probled, we have
is that we nave deſilanded, I think rightly so, a higner
Standard of 11 wing in the environmenta i sense, than any
other nation on the face of the earth. That is part or the
problem • That’s one of the benefits of our soclety put
tnere are Very few, if any, other nations, very tew of any
other taxpayers, that have to bear the costs of quia i i ty of
life as far as environment is concerned in the production
process as we do here in our society. The irony of this is
it we look at a hundred years froſa now the global lap act of
soae of the environmental practices that we re pursuing or
not pursuing, this is going to coine noſae to haunt ever yoae -
And to the extent we can do more to try to prick the
conscience of the industrial lzed do rid, all the industrial
coſamunities of the world, that pollution of this society is
a world proble ſa, not just an Unio River Walley prop leſs, or a
United States probleſa, then it seeins to ſue we recognize the
environ Hental prople in that is go in g to be coſì front in 9 us a
coup le O r three generations away • We also recognize so lae of
the attendant eco ſhotalc prop leths that are a Cesult of the
Unlted States a war eness of this proble in be for e O CIle I
ſiations • I do n "t necessarily waſıt to pass the buck to any
nation put I think if you look at what we "re do lng in our
Society to try and deal with the environmental questions,
1 tº s a generation or two ane ad of where the other so cle Cles
are in a os t lindustrialized societies •
Question: Se ſlator, you said that we have to nave a
better nan die than we now have on the cost of a chile M ling the
environia ental standard we have set for ourseives. à è ſº a We
certal n very significant environia entai standards imposed
up on us by the Clean Air Act - And the Cie an Air Act says
—15–
nothln 9 ap out now one can assess the cost to society of
achlew in J those Standards. Would you tav or an amenda ent of
the Cle an Al C Act, to iſlip os e that Spec if le C equireſa ent up on
EPA2 º
Senator Bay th: whether it takes an Aſaendalent to the
Clean Al C Act, of recognition of the real world ln is nicn ine
Clean A1 r Act is being lap leaented, I am concerned about the
Probi eſa that once you Start aiſlending that Act you then open
it to those who are not really looking for realistic kinds
of weign of ts and trade offs, but ſaany people who are looking
for loop no les so that they do nºt have to meet any standards
at all. I hay be rather hard nere. But nere again I find
it very difficult on one hand, to say that we weigh do 1 lars
agalnst nuiīan i i ves. But in the long run, if we "re talking
about a de midlińls, or question able increase and nealth
quality that hasn’t been proven, has a "t Deen studied, versus
an econd h ic d is location that is Cather quick and apparent,
then i think that it is an easy kind of a trade off to alake.
Unfortunately, In any of the decisions that nave to oe made
are not that eas 11 y recognizab 1 e.
Dra. Leonard Hamilton. Brookmazed Natigual Labarakoczi.
I recognize that in any socio-econoaic war lap les are very
iſap or taſi t . f n e thing I do il G. C unders tail d is wiły
environmental controls necessarily ſue an a depreciation of
jobs or lack of 3 ops. The results suggest that they may
create agre jobs • - -
Senatºr. Bayni. There are some studies that do snow
that, if you take the society generally, the stud les that
I’ve seen as an environſaentalist, and I like to be il eve
those studies, show that there are nore people working now
to produce environmental protection equip uent than have been
displaced by environmental requireiaen tS - I think we all
understand that many of those people are is or king in areas
where dislocation is not going to occur by the imposition of
the env 1 conuteſ, tal standards. The diff loulty is that you
have core areas of Raj or dis io catlon • We try to go back and
see where could se have done better and if we don’t is arn by
our in is takes, 2 articularly when we are pioneering in this
is no ie area of environment in the United States. I think we
nave to get consideration of this no ºf . URBES is propa Diy as
good an example as any ºne re you nave major pollution
proble as created in one area to provide energy Supp 11es to
otners, but that pollution is not going to rehain stable so
1 t is go lng to follow nor ſhal trends • I think we have to
look at a proader base of financiag our environiaen tal
I e Gül I e º e Il tse I think we talght have been better off if we
would nave per ſaltted a significantly nigner tax ºr lteoff to
get the se things on stre aſh quickly, so you don’t nave
—16-
hagg 1 ling that we "re going to Elgnt fore were [.. et’s flind a
way in which se can flna ſace tſi is situatl on out there
generally. The people that are going to be producing the
energy and have the environmental protection equipment
established, say in Madison, Indiana, since that is going to
Denefit society generally to get that electricity • *ay be
so clety ougn tº to general ly help bear Soſue of that and a tax
write off would he ip to do that. Witn what has happened to
utlilty rates, = e see that the fact of life is that
Consumers are going to pay for one end of the scal e o c the
other - And yet we are not Deing able, the way we are dolng
it now, to get the systems ifip lefdented as quickly as a e
others is e could-
To get back to what we ought to be do inge we ought to
be doln g ſauch a or e than we have been dolng in research as
far as combus tio a 1s concerned - Most of our research nas
been directed at energy supplies, not the more efficient or
ãore environmentally sound coſapustion processes - we had two
or three of them, the fluidized bed Coûbustion process, just
to naſae o ſne, that is very close on, that can do a tremendous
Jop both as far as S02 and increased BTUs - Yet we nave aot
elaphasized that part of the equation • Now I could have
answered your questloa in one word put a Senator new er does
that when a flve ſainute answer is the re •
we are prepared to look at where the regul at loins have
us coing a red to what the original leg lslative intent was .
But I think we would be wrong if we looked at that troud the
standpoint of retreat - Most of the goals that we originally
established were reasonable and we didn’t nave nearly as
ſauch idea about how to get there, the cost attendant, the
tläe and dis location involved in some linstances as we do
Il O as e So I think lt is oſtly falc and oſa iy alse to
periodically have oversight and look and see where these
I egulations go • EPA is not the Q ſhiy gover nº ent a gency to
put out regulations • And as Dr - Bingnau at DSHA will te 11
you she couldn’t see any her predecessor dealt with the size
of outdo or to lie ts and the reasonable proxiialty of K dou’t
get ſae started ) wooden ladders and tire extinguisners and
things like that - I mean there ls Soſa ethlſig dio Qū [.
regulators that tend to get carried away a lith dots and
tiddles instead of great announcefuents of 9 up lic policy -
So I think it is important to reassess ºne re we are -
But her e again I would hope that we could tind Soſhe way in
which we could get these near lic recoracl lab le forces together
Soſa eno we To get back to that auto thing, no in you could nave
gotten soſilepody to get the auto people that nad Line
technology and said, “Okay, we "re going to ſhake a taaj or
innovati on in this in ternal combustion engine aſld we "re not
—17–
go ing to say hever ...", and we "re go lng to say *OKay, we "ii.
give you an other four or fly e years • * we’re going to end up
glving you tour or flve years anyway and we ‘re going to nave
a mouse trap instead of a major change • So it is sitn some
of the other alr pollution proplems •
Hay i Just it a Ke one Blore couſa ent? I would hop e that
those of you who are nere and wno obw lously nave deep
concern and interest as well as more trian casual expect is e
in this area, would let the know your assessment of this
probleſh. It lis not an exact science and I" a sure that those
that are lnvolved in GRBES are palmtully aware that there
are golfi g to De so the trade of £S that are not exactiy certain •
And lt. 1 S lap or tant for us to have the exper lence of Deſieſ 1 t
of as gian y different aspects of this problem as we poss Lody
can, so we can nake the right determ in atlon • As I say, you
can provide us the also on, I hope the good Lord provides us
the courage, because it is going to take a good dose of both
of those e
Dr. Edward Radford. University of Pittsburghi Thank
you very Inuch, Senator Bayn, and we appreciate your taking
the tiſfie to coſhe to the Symposiuiãe
—18-
SESSION I: HEALTH PROBLEMS IN EXTRACTION OF FUEL
Monday morning, March 19, 1979
Moderator: Edward P. Radford, M.D.
Professor of Environmental Epidemiology
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEMS IN COAL MINING
By
Curtis Seltzer, Ph.D.
RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS IN COAL MINERS
: By
W. K. C. Morgan, M.D.
URANIUM MINING – OCCUPATIONAL AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS
By
Joseph K. Wagoner, S.D. Hyg.
—19–
OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH
PROBLEMS IN COAL MINING
By
Curtis Seltzer, Ph.D.
Office of Technology Assessment
U. S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment
Washington, D.C.
~20–
Coal-fired electricity is not made cheaply. The work-related
health and safety hazards of coal mining are well-known to miners
and operators alike. Even the general public has come to appreciate
the costs of "black lung" disease and accidents that coal miners
experience. Many of the environmental health costs of coal mining are
less familiar although coalfields residents know them well. These con-
cerns range from acid mine drainage and fugitive dust to accidents from
coal-hauling trains and flooding from stream siltation in Appalachian
watersheds caused by years of contour strip mining,
Most major environmental health problems have been identified and
a sense of their magnitude, severity and remedies are known. Current
debate focuses on the level of magnitude, degree of severity and
applicability of certain solutions. In policy terms these issues
translate into a few simple questions: 1) Are current federal occupa-
tional and environmental standards adequate?; 2) Are these standards
being complied with on a daily basis?; 3) Are the available compliance
data reasonably reliable?; 4) Are current monitoring strategies adequate?;
and 5) Are existing enforcement programs working well?
While most analyses discuss these questions and issues individually,
coalfield residents experience them holistically, cumulatively and,
in a sense, synergistically. Social turbulence in the coalfields is
likely to be related to the set of adverse environmental health conditions
miners experience in the course of their everyday lives. In these matters,
–21–
scientific precision is often superseded by perceptions of reality. If
the creek in your backyard is the color of orange soda pop, whether its
pH is 3 or 6 is of little consequence.
Both the problems of and solutions to occupational and environ-
mental health in coal mining are related to supply-and-demand economics.
Tight markets and static prices determine the level of externalized
occupational and environmental costs. When demand was sluggish, concern
for environmental health was deemphasized as workers, environmentalists
and community activists feared that economic pressure on local mine
operators would affect their competitiveness and jeopardize jobs and
community welfare. When demand is rising steadily or when prices are
increasing (whether or not production is increasing), coal workers and
community activists are likely to push coal operators harder for pre-
ventive and compensatory programs related to occupational and environ-
mental health. As coal demand and production rises over the next 25
years, economic conditions will be created for increased demands for
occupational and environmental safeguards.
To understand the nature of coal mining's current occupational
and environmental health problems, it is necessary to understand some-
thing of the economics of the industry. Neither occupational health
and safety nor environmental quality exist independently of coal's
economics and politics.
The single most important economic fact about the American coal
industry is that for most of this century coal demand was stagnant.
The industry's capacity to produce did not change significantly after
–23–
1918. In fact, as recently as 1975, coal operators produced 1ess bitu-
minous and anthracite coal than they had in 1929; 658 and 655 million
tons respectively. In 1947, about the same amount of coal was produced
as in 1977.
Lack of demand, low prices and stiff competition forced coal
operators to cut production costs as much as possible to survive in the
1920–1970 era. During the first 30 years of this period, the operators
maintained competitiveness by holding down their labor costs despite
wage pressures by the United Mine Workers of America. Labor costs were
reduced by gradually introducing new labor-reducing technologies such as
mechanized cutting, drilling and loading machines. In 1920, 640,000 miners
were employed compared with 416,000 in 1950, a 35% reduction. After World
War II, the industry mechanized rapidly and comprehensively. The intro-
duction of continuous-miner technology, electric shuttle cars and roof
bolts in underground mines after 1950 enabled the industry to maintain
tonnage levels with even fewer miners. A section equipped with one con-
tinuous-mining machine could produce as much coal with 10 workers as a
hand-loading section with 80. Labor costs were also reduced by the steady
increase in the share of coal output mined by surface methods, which were
inherently more efficient and less costly than underground techniques.
The portion of total bituminous production mined by surface methods rose
from 24% in 1950 to about 60% today. Underground mechanization and
surface mining cut deeply into the workforce. The 416,000 bituminous coal
miners of 1950 were reduced to about 125,000 in 1969, a cutback of 70%.
Bituminous production, however, actually increased from 516 million
tons in 1950 to 561 million tons in 1969.
–23–
This set of economic and technological changes carried grave
implications for occupational health, safety and environmental health
in coal mining. Weak coal demand and cost-cutting pressure meant operators
minimized health and safety expenditures. Occupational health and safety
costs were often externalized in whole or in part. (An externalized cost
of production is not paid by the mine operator. It is shifted in one
form or another to employees--as accidents or disease--the local environ-
ment, or adjacent communities.) The frequency of mine fatalities showed
no improvement between the early 1950s and 1970, although the number of
fatalities fell as the workforce was reduced. sianary, the frequency
of disabling injuries showed no improvement, although the number of injuries
fell. In terms of occupational health, continuous miners increased the
levels of respirable mine dust, which, caused many thousands of cases of
respiratory disease to appear by the late 1960s. No Federal dust standards
were established until the implementation of the 1969 Coal Federal Coal
Mine Health and Safety Act in 1970. In addition, the environmental costs
of surface mining were largely externalized in the 1950s and 1960s. A
few states enacted environmental controls in these years, but they were
inherently weak and enforced weakly. The environmental damage from
unfettered contour surface mining was considerable--naked high walls
run for 10,000 miles throughout Appalachia; overburden was pushed down
hundreds of slopes without regard for landslides, stream siltation or
water quality; blasting disturbed ground water and its noise aggravated
nearby residents; fugitive dust from mining and haulage nettled many;
finally, surface owners often had little say about how a coal company
–24–
went about extracting the sub-surface coal it owned.
The economic conditions forcing coal companies to externalize
occupational and environmental costs were also handicapping the capacity
of coalfield communities to bear them. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed
union miners and their families were cut off from the health care and
retirement benefits they had earned. (Those union miners who were fortunate
enough to continue working enjoyed first-dollar coverage through the UMWA-
negotiated Welfare and Retirement Fund.) Federal "commodities" (surplus
foodstuffs) became the dietary staples for many.
Most significant in terms of environmental health was the short
changing of local tax systems, which prevented communities from building
an adequate infrastructure of public services and facilities. Local
communities, counties and states had rarely taxed coal production or un-
developed minerals sufficiently. They feared that doing so would dis-
advantage local coal in competition with non-taxed coal from other areas.
The political influence of the coal industry was sufficient to beat back
efforts to impose higher local property taxes or state severance taxes.
The result was that coalfield communities lacked many facilities--such as
water and sewage treatment plants, recreation and adequate housing--and
services that make for community public health. The health consequences
of this syndrome were documented in a 1947 report on coalfield health
conditions prepared by Admiral Joel T. Boone for the Department of the
Interior.
The major consequence of this pattern--the cost externalization,
lack of infrastructure development, one-crop economies and undertaxation——
takes the form of a tremendous social deficit in the Appalachian coalfields.
–25–
Current problems are compounded by the absence of tools to deal with the
legacy that carries over from the past. Future occupational and environ-
mental impacts from mining will be added to this existing deficit. In
many communities, the margin for additional damage is thin or nonexistent.
This implies that even small future increments of environmental degradation
will have very large social consequences.
In this context, an overview of coal mining's environmental health
implications can be focused in two separate but related areas. First, this
discussion will outline some of the direct health impacts of mining on mine
workers and environmental health in their communities. Second, a brief
discussion is presented of the direct impacts mining has had on the ability
of coal communities to cope with current and future occupational and
environmental health problems.
DIRECT HEALTH EFFECTS: OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
A. Occupational Safety
Coal mining has never been a safe occupation. Since 1900, mining
has killed a recorded 110,000 miners and, since 1930 alone, more than 1%
million disabling injuries have been reported." In 1977, coal operators
2
reported 139 fatalities and 14,933 disabling injuries to MESA. Fatality
frequency in 1977 was .36 per million worker hours and disabling injury
frequency was 37.77 injuries per million **. Summary accident
data for coal mining in 1977 is presented in Table l. Trend data for
fatalities for 1952-1977 is found in Table 2. Little or no improvement was
recorded between 1952 and 1970 in fatality frequency for either underground
or surface mining. However, with the implementation of the 1969 Federal
–26–
by kind of coal mined alſTVOIKTIºlºur. Eumulativºrºurumºr-rººm
whº wº º- zº ºw-VT,
* -- ... . . .
Number of injuries reported Average
- to the Mining Enforcement Injury-frequency rates number Production
Kind of coal and and Safety Administration per million man-houra - of Man-hours reported
work location All dis- - - All dis- . persons reported (short tons)
Fatal abling All injuries Fatal abling All injuries working 3/ 3/
4./ 5/ 4./ 5/ 6/
Bituminous coal :
Underground mine a
Underground 82 10,911 (5, 896) 16,607 0.40 52.68 (28,48) 81, 16 126,722 203, 851,383 254, 820, 485
Surface------ fººm lºa 9 713 (613) 1, 326 • 38 27.59 (23.76) 51. 35 14,541 23, 738, 735 º
Total, underground mines-- 91 1 1,624 (6,509) 18, 133 . 40 50.06 (27.99) 78.05 14 l, 263 227,590, 118 254, 820,485
Strip mines----- 26 2, 142 (2,296) 4,438 , 21 18. 12 (19. 37) 37, 49 61, 887 l 14, 104,214 397, 722, 272
Auger mine a 2 29 (15) 44 1.81 17, 17 (8.13) 25.30 1,294 l, 106, 64 3 4, 256, 72 l
Other surface 1/ -- * tº-p 2 (2) 4 º - (5.04) 5,04 134 198,593 715,580
Total, mining------------- 119 13,797 (8,822) 22,619 • 35 39. 30 (25.04) 64.35 | 204,576 342,999,568 657, 515,058
Mechanical cleaning plants----- 8 733 (607) 1,340 . 27 22.14 (18.89) # 1.02 17,670 30, 177,926 tº-e
Independent shops and yards---- l 110 (111) 221 . 15 16.43 (16.28) 32.7l 3,854 6,572,088 º
Total, bituminous coal---- 128 14,640 (9,540) 24, 180 . 34 37.54 (24.40) 61.95 226, 102 379,749,582 657,515,058
l Pennsylvania anthracite coal:
* NJ Underground mine 8 -
T Underground * 9 66 (2) 68 16. 28 108,54 (3.62) 112. 16 A 15 552,767 564, 787
Surface . º l sº l º 9, 85 tº- 9.85 74 101,487 º
Total, underground mines-- 9 67 (2) 69 13, 76 93. 24 (3.06) 96.29 489 654, 254 564, 787
Strip mines * l 101 (116). 217 . 47 43. 32 (53.68) 97.00 1,267 2, 123,626 2,711,096
Other surface l/ ºr º 7 (11) 18 tºº 30, 55 (48.01) 78.57 171 229, 106 1,920, 484
Total, mining 10 175 (129) 304 3. 33 53.21 (42. 23) 95. 44 1,927 3,006,986 5, 196, 367
Mechanical cleaning plants----- l 105 (132) 237 . 52 53.95 (68. 61) 122.56 1, 107 1,909,245 º
Independent shops and yards---- tºº 13 (29) 42 º 91. A 8 (204.07) 295.56 76 142, 105 - º
Total, anthracite coal---- 11 293 (290) 583 2, 17 54.56 (56.74) l 11. 30 3, 110 5,058,336 5, 196, 367
All coal: -
Underground mine a
Underground 91 10,977 (5, 898) 16,875 . 45 52.83 (28. § 1) 81.25 127, 137 204,404, 150 255, 385,272
Surface---- 9 71.4 (613) 1,327 . 38 27, 52 (23.66) 51. 17 14,615 23, 840,222 º
Total, underground mines-- 100 11,691 (6,511) 18,202 . 44 50. 19 (27.92) 78. 10 141,752 228,244, 372 255,385,272
All surface mining------------- 29 2,281 (2,440) 4,721 .25 18.56 (19.91) 38.48 64,753 117, 762, 182 407, 326, 153
Total, mining------------- 129 13,972 (8,951) 22,923 . 37 : 39.42 (25. 19) 64.62 206,505 346,006,554 662,711,425
Mechanical cle an ing plant 6 e- tº tº ºw ºs 9 838 (739) 1,577 . 28 24.03 (2.1. 85) A 5. 88 18, 777 32,087, 171 gºa
Independent shops and yards---- l 1 2 3 (1 h ()) 26 3. . 15 18.02 (20.26) 3 R. 28 3,930 6, 71 (, , 193 * -->
Total, a 1 1 coal----------- | 29 14,933 (9,830) 24, 76% . （5 37. A 7 (24. B3) 62.59 229, 212 364,807, 91 B 662, 71 i , 425
Include a fatal injuries.
/ Information presented in this table is based on data on ſi le February 11, 1978, and is pre liminary.
/ Any injuries from mine a that have not reported man-hour data have not been included in the computation of injury-frequency rate fl.
/ Based on recorded data from reporting mines; should be used only for the purpose of computing rate a ; does not constitute industry total.
5/ Figures in paren the sea are for nond is abling injuries and are included in the accompanying figure. - !
ſ
/ Summary of average number of person a working for only those months during which each establishment, Wał-active...(nº-arithmeti; £ºſł88 far-all-manthal—
• 4 ... i. 1. & . . .3: ... ." § f: it tº ***** yºu, * : *** : idºles. ººse-wºº."
Culm banks and dredge a. . . . . . . . . . . * * - ". . . . . ; “...lik-tº-: *i- $º
*Tº Yºº. -* * * . …IS-º-º-º-º-º: •rº-ºr e, ºr re.” as ºn a º°
*w- wrvºv -w
source :
* -- t . .*... v. f. “A wºe s - ... * ~ 1. 1 A-1
4 is,..., |\ tº ºt, ºt-º-la:-º-º-º-
* . . . . . . [ . ." .
****
* ...t.--ºf-a-l-
isłł#, 1478

Table 2-Fatalities in us coal Mines, 19527
(hours of exposure)
Underground Surface Surface
- fatalities as
O = e - efceſita
Year Fatalities Rateč Fatalities Rates º:
; 514 .97 33 .55 6%
1954 440 .96 2? .39 5
º 374 i.10 22 .48 6
1955 391 i.06 25 .51 6
1956 417 1.11 28 .52 7
1957 - 45? i.30 22 .42 5
1958 334 i.26 19 .39 6
1959 268 1.11 20 .43 7
1960 295 i.29 24 .52 3
1967 275 i.34. 17 .39 6
1962 - - 265 1.34 20 .45 8
1963 - 257 7.28 22 .49 9
1964 224 1.12 15 .33 7
1965 240 j.21 18 .40 8
1966 202 i. i2. 23 - .55 11
1967 - * - 186 1.05 22 .52 - 12
1968 - 276 j.63 24 .57 9
1969 • 163 .95 28 .63 17
1970 220 1.20 29 55 13
1971 f 49 .86 23 39 15
1972 128 .68 20 38 16
1973 105 .56 16 28 15
1974 97 .5i 24 33 25
1975 11 .47 32 33 29
1976 109 .45 23 22 21
1977 100 .43 27 23 27
- aëxpressed in million nours of exposure. Data do not include au - -
wº - germines, culm banks, dredges, preparation. ptants, shops, and contractor
SOURCE: Mine Safety and Health Administration, 1978. O C{Of$.
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, the frequency of underground fatalities
has been cut by more than half. Fatal frequency in surface mining has also
been more than halved. The number of underground fatalities has fallen with
the reduction in frequency. However, the number of surface fatalities has
increased despite lower frequency as more surface miners were hired in the
1970s. When the data are examined closely, it is apparent that the act has
almost eliminated multi-victim underground disasters as a source of fatalities
by setting and enforcing standards for methane, combustible dust and electrical
equipment. Some improvement has also been recorded in reducing fatalities
from roof falls and haulage accidents.
On the other hand, little improvement has been recorded in reducing
disabling injuries since 1969. Underground disabling injury frequency was
53.26 per million hours worked in 1952 and 50.86 in 1977, according to data
–28–
presented in table 3. Surface disabling injury frequency was 28. ll in 1952
and l8.91 in 1977. Overall, disabling frequency for all coal mining has
improved from 1952's 50.66 injuries per million worker hours" to 37.77
injuries in 1977 (table 1). However, since 1969 little consistent improve—
ment has been recorded.” The Act did not address injury prevention specifically.
Table 3–Nonfatal Disabling Injuries in U.S. Coal Mines, 1952-77
. . . (hours of exposure)
Underground Surface
injuries Rates Injuries Rates
1952 ------------------. 28,353 53.26 . 1,698 . . . 28.1-1
1953 - 22,622 49.38 1,604 29.48
1954 - 16,360 47.98 1,342 29.01
1955 17,699 48.10 1,140 23.14
1956 - 18,342 48.88 1,318 24.31
1957 - 17,076 49.23 1,339 25.72
1958 12,743 47.94 1,150 23.86
1959 10,868 44.90 1,054 22.64
1960. 10,520 46.09 1,125 24.45
1961 9,909 48.19 1,052 24.44
1962 ...: - 9,700 48.88 1,027 23.50
1963 - 9,744. 48.62 1,099 24.25
1964 9,692 43.35 1,116 24,75
1985 9,705 49.09 1,178 26.12
1966 8,766 48.78 1,043 25.00
1967 * 8,417 47.57 949 22.43
1968 7.972 46.99 1,039 24.59
1969 ------ 8,358 48.77 967 21.84
1970. - 9,531 51.79 1,346 25.67
1971 - 9,756 56.40 1,564 26.54
1972 º 10,375 55.32 1,305 24.84
1973 9,206 48.80 1,208 20.94
1974 6,689 34.95 1,229 16.83
1975 8,687 37.13 1,714 17.74
1976 11,390 47.09 2,071 20.04
1977 1 1,724 50.86 2,246 18.91
*Expressed in million hours of exposure. Data does not include auger mines, culm banks, dredges. preparation plants, shops,
and contractors. -
SOURCE: Mine Safety and Health Administration, tº/3.
' expressed as the number of calendar
One measure of injury is "severity,"
days not worked by the injured worker because of the injury. On the average
each underground temporary total disabling injury resulted in an average of
73 lost calendar days in 1977. The average servity for surface miners was
58 days in 1977.” Even more disturbing is the fact that the average severity
for temporary total disabling injuries increased dramatically in 1977 over the
1950–1976 experience. In that 27-year period, average underground severity
–29–
for temporary total injuries was 35 days for underground miners and 26 for
surface miners. These averages have been exceeded every year since 1974,
suggesting that reported accidents may be of an increasingly serious nature
and/or more time is spent recuperating from accidents than in the past--parti-
cularly in underground mining. Efforts by coal mine operators, labor and
federal enforcement agencies have not succeeded in substantially lowering
injury risk.” \ -
Estimates of future mine safety fatalities and injuries depend on the
level of coal production, the mix of mining methods (surface mining is
safer than underground), the number of miners employed, productivity rates
and accident frequency.
Most coal supply and demand forecasts predict greatly increased levels
of production over the next 20 to 30 years. Considerable disagreement
exists over how fast, how much, where and by what methods it will be
mined. Most observers say production will double and perhaps triple
mid-1970's levels (650 million tons) by 2000; the ratio of surface — to
deep-mined production will not be any less than today's 60/40 division;
productivity (tons mined per worker per shift) will increase very slowly;
and most coal miners will continue to work in underground mines in the East
even as the locus of production shifts West. All of these factors will
affect coal mine injury and fatality experience. The more workers employed
in underground mines, the higher will be industrywide fatalities and injuries,
for example.
- The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment recently prepared
production, employment and injury estimates through 2000. These estimates
suggest that coal production is likely to more than double and could possibly
triple 1977 tonnage (688 million tons) by 2000. Most production growth will
–30–
occur after 1985 when production is estimated to better 1977 by between
39% to 66%. No net increase is predicted in production by 1985 for mines
east of the Mississippi River, and no increase is predicted for eastern
surface mines even by 2000. Almost all of the East's additional production
will come from underground operations.
The ratio of eastern to Western production is shifting dramatically.
In 1977, western production of 166 million tons accounted for about 24%
of the nation's total. By 1985 this share is likely to rise to between
46c to 48% of the total, and by 2000, between 52% and 53%. In tonnage
terms, western production will increase over 1977 between 299% and 33.1%
by 1985, and by between 506% and 724% by 2000. However, most coal miners
will continue to be employed in eastern underground mines despite the
massive redistribution to western surface mined production. At both low
and high estimates of coal production, underground miners will represent
74% of the total workforce in 1985 and 79% by 2000. Employment is not
expected to increase significantly 1985 over 1977's 229,000 workers. By
2000, however, employment estimates range between 337,000 to 487,000 nation-
wide, depending on the level of coal production.
Probable health and safety costs of increased coal production can be
calculated using these estimates and current accident frequency rates.
Annual fatality and disabling injury forecasts are presented in table 4.
It may be argued that current accident rates overstate future costs since ,
they are likely to improve in the future. Perhaps. But trend data for
the last few years suggest that the rate of improvement in fatality
frequency has slowed almost to the point of stopping. Disabling injury
frequency has not changed much at all. Even if these frequencies are lowered,
–31–
the number of actual fatalities and injuries may still rise due to higher
levels of employment.
Table 4 suggests the probability of a substantially higher number of
mine fatalities and disabling injuries in the future as production increases.
Fatalities are likely to increase to between 157 and 187 by 1985 (over 1977's 139)
and to between 259 to 371 by 2000. Disabling injuries are likely to rise from
1977's 14,933 to between 17,000 and 21,000 in 1985 and between 29,000 and 42,000
in 2000. Barring some unforeseen --and unlikely-breakthrough in mining technology
or safety practices, these estimates can be taken as representing a likely
range of human costs associated with increasing coal production.
Table' 4-Mine Worker Fatality and injury Estimates
1985; 2000
------ 1977 Low High Low High
Surface
Fatalities - 29 25 30 32 46
Injuries 2,281 1,954 2,401 2,515 3,634
Underground
Fatalities . 1CO 118 1 40 2O3 291
injuries - 11,724 13,907 16,513 24,012 34,405
Other Coal workers" -
Fatalities 10 14 17 24 34
Injuries -- 984 1,586 1,891 2,653 3,804
Total
Fatalities 139 157 187 259 371
Injuries 14,989 17,447 20,805 29,180 41,843
*1977 data include workers in shops and cleaning plants, but not construction workers. Estimated data or 1985 and 2000 include another coal workers and uses a 10 percent
. add-on to the total of underground and surface accidents.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, The Direct Use of Coal: Problems
and Prospects of Production and Combustion (Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Caongress, 1979), p. 289.
–32–
Occupational Health
The most serious occupational health hazard miners face is coal mine dust.
Respirable coal mine dust is retained in the gas-exchanging portion of the
lungs. Exposure to sufficient quantities of respirable coal mine dust over
a period of years can lead to coal workers' penumoconiosis (CWP), which, in
its most serious form, is fatal. Additional respiratory impairment may result
from one or more of the following: job exposure to "nonrespirable" dust (which
- \ * *
affects the upper respiratory tract); toxic fumes and gases (produced as com—
bustion products from fires in mine machinery, conveyor belts, lubricating oils
and the like) ; trace elements (as both respirable and nonrespirable dust particles);
and mines gases. Other health hazards include noise, hot and cold environments,
stress and whole-bocy vibration. The most recent mortality study” found that
- coal miners died more often than expected from a variety of respiratory diseases
• *-* ~ *-* * *-* ... = a --~~~~ * * *-** **, *=ºs, --> * ~ *-* *-- - - -- - --
such as influenza, emphysema and asthma. Penumoconiosis and bronchitis were * * *** * * * * * * * ~ * *- * -
underlying causes of death in a significant number of deaths attributed to
nomalignant respiratory diseases. Cancer of the lung and stomach were also
higher, which may or may not be related to work factors.
The 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act phased in a 2 mg. /* standard
for respirable coal mine dust and established a "black lung" compensation pro-
‘gram. This standard is the strictest in the Western world. It is based
on British research done in the 1960s. Probability curves developed from the
British data suggest that at 2 mg. , one to two percent of those exposed to no
more than 2 mg. of dust over 35 years would develop simple CWP.” Recently
reported followup data suggests that the "risks of developing category 2 or
more coalworkers' simple penumoconiosis over a working life are one or two
percent (probability units] higher than earlier predictions.”
–33–
The 2 mg. standard may not prove to be as safe over time as the early
British research promised. A number of methodological questions can be
raised about the original research design and subsequent data manipulations.
Methodological criticism may be warranted on the data manipulation of both
sides of the dose-reponse **** No epidemiological study has been
done.--or could be done--of miners actually exposed to 2 mg. over a working
life due to the newness of the standard. The second round of NIOSH's Nationa
Study of Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis done in 1973-1975 by the Appalachian
Laboratory for Occupational Safety and Health (ALOSH a facility of NIOSH)
found a 6% rate of disease progression among working miners x-rayed in both
rounds.”
It is roºtsie—and literaer likely—as were research will prove that
the 2 mg. standard is not as safe as originally believed. This implies
that CWP will continue in the future even if every mine complies with the
2 mg. standard every working day from IlOW OTl,
Estimates of future prevalence of CWP can be made using available data.
Current NIOSH/ALOSH research suggests that a 10% to 15% prevalence rate
among working miners in the early 1970s is justified. Prevalence among
working miners in 1979 is probably lower inasmuch as about 40% of miners
working in 1969 have retired and almost 150,000 new workers have entered
the mines in the 1970s. Table 5 presents a set of CWP estimates associated
with increased coal production I developed for OTA. Under optimistic
assumptions of diligent dust control, as many as 10,000 miners would show
x-ray evidence of CWP in 2000. Under less optimistic assumptions, perhaps
18,000 cases would be detected. If the 2 mg. standard is not as safe as
as is currently assumed and if dust control efforts are not diligent, these
numbers will be higher.
–34–
Table 5 – Estimates of CWP Among Working Miners, 1976, 1985, and 2000
gº tº s º Prevalence Rates *
Optimistic - Pessimistic
Underground Surfacea Underground Surfacea
- Working miners 10% - 4% 15% 4%
1975 (208,000) - - * - - - s -
Underground (70%)
145,600 14,560 - 21,840
Surface (30%)
: 62,400 2,496 2,496
Total - 17,056 24,336
Working miners, 7% 3% 10%
** * 3%
1985 (229,829)
Underground (74%) -
169,922 * • 11,895 , 16,992
Surface (26%) - t
59,907 1,797
- - - 1,797
Total - 13,692 18,789
Working miners . 3% 1% - 5%, - 2%
2000 (410,893)
Underground (79%)
326,305 - 9,789 - 16,315
Surface (21%)
84,588 - 846 1,692
Total 10,635 18.007
a Prevalence rates for 1975 are consistent with the range of current research findings. The 4 percent prevaience rate for surface miners comes from R. Paul Fairman, Richard
J. O'Brien, Steve swecker. Harian Amandus, and Earte P. Shoub. "Respiratory Status at the U.S. Surface Coal Miners.” unpublished manuscript done for ALOSH NIOSH. 1975.
The ALCSH study used x-ray evidence to determine the prevalence of CWP. Most of the surface miners had extensive experience in underground coal mining which contributed
to the prevaience of Cwº. Prevalence rates for 1385 and 2000 assume that compliance with the current dust standard will lower prevalence. In addition. Increasing numbers
of older miners who had years of exposure before 1969 will retire, thereoy lowering prevalence among working mineſs. These prevalence rates have not been derived
mathematically, and should be seen more as possibilities than as predictions.
source: OTA, Direct use of coal, P. *.
CWP is one work-related disease process found in coal ainers "Black lung"
is the vernacular name miners use to describe all respiratory disability
associated with their trade. Black lung includes, cº, as well as occupational
bronchitis and emphysema, severe dyspnea, airways obstruction and as yet an
unnamed disease process affecting the gas-exchaning portion of the lungs.”
These various diseases may occur simultaneously in a single miner and in
different combinations. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung disease
among coal miners as in the population generally. Some of these disease
processes are probably related to nonrespirable coal-mine dust and to the
non-coal constituents of that dust (trace elements and quartz). No federal
–35–
standards exist for nonrespirable dust or for toxic respirable substances
encountered in a mine environment. It is reasonable to assume that the
prevalence of black lung disability will continue to be significant among
coal miners in the absence of controls on these hazards. Emphasis on CWP
and respirable dust may have concealed meaningful dose-response relationships
between black lung and nonrespirable dust as well as other harmful air-borne
substances. Since many more cases of black lung appear today than of x-ray
diagnosed cºp,” it is prudent ot suppose that a similar ratio will continue in
the future. In a rough way it can be said that for every case of CWP, at least
two cases of bronchitis, one case of severe dyspnea and one case of airways
obstruction will be found, although not necessarily exclusively.
NIOSH calculated future occupational health costs of increased coal
production in 1977. These estimates are presented in table 6. NIOSH's
prediction of CWP cases are considerable higher than those-found in table 5.
*** * -
• *s-,
Table 6 -Projected Health Effects of Increased Coal Production
*—
Millions of & Cases of" Cases of" Cases of"
tons produced Number of Cases” Chronic Severe airways
Yeaf (quads) employees of CWP bronchitis dyspnea obstruction
$975 estiniates
Underground 279 (7:3) 139,500 18,100 41,800 11,200 41,800
Strip auger 332 (7.9) 52,500 1,300 15,700 4,200 10,000
Total … 611 (15.2) 192,000 19,400 57,500 15,400 51,800
i885 estimates &
Underground 395 (9.8) 197,500 25,600 59,200 15,900 59,200
Strip augef .... - 735 (18.3) 116,000 : 2,900 34,800 9,300 22,100
Total 1,130 (28.1) 313,500 28,500 94,000 25,200 81,300
2000 estimates.
Underground 630 (15.7) 315,000 40,900 94,400 25,300 94,400
Strip auger - 1,170 (29.2) 185,000 4,600 66,300 14,800 35,200
Total 1,800 (44.9) 500,000 45,500 160,700 40,100 129,600
* Not mutually exclusive.
9 Not necessarily due solely to coal dust innalation. -
SOURCE: National institute for Occupational Safety and Health, ‘CCCupational Safety and Heath implications of Increased Coal Utilization," computer printout and attachments
(rev.; ‘tov. 4, 1977. Distributed at a fºicSH conference of the committee on health and ecological effects of increased coal utilization, Nov. 21, 1977.
–36–
NIOSH used a 10% CWP prevalence rate for working miners for 1975, 9% in 1985,
and 9% in 2000. These prevalence rates assume the current 2 mg. dust standard
will have little beneficial effect on CWP prevalence. NIOSH's assumption
may cast dout either about the standard's inherent safeness or about the extent
of compliance. NIOSH also used somewhat higher estimates of the future mine—
worker labor force than OTA did (table 5). The OTA and NIOSH estimates repre-
sent a band of possible occupational health implications of increased coal
production.” As a mater of personal opinion, I believe the OTA estimates,
will prove to be too low and the NIOSH ones too high. The range of likely
adverse health effects these two efforts present are: 1985, 13,700 to 28,500
cases of CWP; 2000, 10,600 to 45,500 cases of CWP. Bronchitis, severe
dyspnea and airways obstruction should each occur in at least a l; 1 ratio
to CWP . -
Future prevalence of work-related lung disease among miners will be
determined in large part by the effectiveness of dust control measures
implemented by mine operators and coal miners. As there was no systematic - - -
dust sampling and no standard before 1970, dose-response comparisons between
that era and now are difficult, if not impossible. The few dust surveys
done before 1970 found dust concentrations far in excess of the current
standard. For example Schlick and Fannick reported the results of 1968
Bureau took nearly 2,000 samples and found the mean dust concentrations of
the 16 occupation categories sampled exceeded 2 ng./m”.”
Miners who have worked in both periods say dust conditions are better now than
before. Clearly, the federal standard has forced mine operators to adopt
deliberate programs ot control respirable dust. It's fair to say that many
operators are making good-faith efforts to keep their working sections in
–37–
'compliance. Others, on the other hand, arent 't.
The quantitative measure of this effort lies in the data accumulated
from the operator-submitted respirable dust samples submitted to MSHA several
(on the average) times a year. Miners performing certain jobs are required
to wear a personal sampler for a full shift at specified intervals throughout
the year. The samplers are turned into the company at the end of the shift,
and the company sends the sample to MSHA for weighing. Several weeks later
the results are sent back to the operator. If the sample exceeds the standard,
the miner is required to take 10 additional samples until the results indicate
compliance.
A number of flaws in this system have been pointed out.
First, the lag-time between when the sample is taken and when the results
are received is os great that the sampling has little relevance to daily dust
control efforts. Mining conditions change frequently. Without immediate.
feedback from the monitoring, sampling results are useful mainly as a basis
for civil penalties and not for dust control. Second, incentives exist for
both miners and operators to falsify sample results. Samplers are noisy and
a nuisance to wear, especially in cramped conditions. Many miners believe
that operators only submit "good samples" and order retakes of the "bad" ones
(that is, those showing excessive dust). Some evidence is available to suggest
that this opinion is well-founded. Some miners report that their countries
weigh the entire sampler after each shift, rejecting those that are "too heavy."
Why, then they ask, should we bother taking samples when the company simply
redoes or falsifies "bad" results?" A "bad" sample means the miner is
required to take 10 more samples, a prospect that encourages him to go along
with falsification. Some miners believe that compliance samples will be used
–38–
against them in future black lung eligibility determinations, and apparently
try to "stuff" the sample to record high dust concentration. MSHA has devised
methods to void samples showing extremely high concentrations of nonrespirable
dust, which, the agency believes, indicates "stuffing." Coal mine operators,
of course, have an interest in submitting compliance samples to MSHA. Such
samples minimize operator inconvenience and avoid the possibility of civil
fines, which, for respirable dust violations, averaged about $150 in 1978.”
In one case, two management technicians with dust sampling responsibility at
a Consoldiation Coal Co. mine in Ohio were found guilty--and then innocent--
of deliberate fasification of sample results. Finally, MSHA has not been able
to establish adequate safeguards against sample falsification, which vary from
leaving the sampler in the dinner hole and sample stuffing to operator voiding
of samples. Samples taken by MSHA's own inspectors are even more infrequent
and often subject to the same kinds of distortions.” While sample data from
operator submissions suggest a 90%+ compliance rate on the days the samples are
taken, MSHA inspectors cited 36% of the almost 5,000 underground sections they
sampled in 1976 for noncompliance. Further, MSHA issues an average of about
2,500 notices of noncompliance and 50 withdrawal orders annually for respirable
dust violations, casting further doubt on 90%+ compliance. As in any other
representative survey, dust sampling may or may not be good reflection of dust
exposure on the 200 or so days each year when sampling is not done.
Several studies have found such weaknesses in the federal dust sampling
program. The General Accounting Office reported:
"...many weaknesses in the dust-sampling program which affected
the accuracy and validity of the results and made it virtually
impossible to determine how many mine sectioniswere in compliance
with statutorily established dust standards."
GAO said factors that affected sample accuracy were: sampling practices
used by operators and miners, dust sampling equipment, weight loss of sampling
cassettes, and weighting of cassettes by MESA and cassette manufacture's.”
A National Bureau of Standards (NBS) study found:
. . . when the miners and mine operators perform and supervise
the sampling and when the weightings are made in the normal manner, . . .
the uncertainty (of accurate, actual measurements of dust concentration )
is estimated to be as large as 31 percent... (Emphasis in the original.)
No follow-up study on the accuracy of the sampling program has been done
since the GAO and NBS reports were released in December 1975. Both investigations
noted that MSHA and NIOSH officials have made efforts to improve.
A recent study of underground mines in East Kentucky found:
Both the interview and the federal dust records suggest that
many dust samples are being collected incorrectly. In some instances,
extra dust has been added; but in substantially more cases, the samples
are too low. One explanation for inaccurrate sampling, of course, lies
in the fact that the mine owners control sampling in their own mines.
Since the penalty for exceedng federal standards may be close to mine,
coal operators have a strong incentive to err in the direction of samples
showing less than the actual dust levels. The 1969 law attempts to
circumvent this possibility by requiring that all samples be collected
by actual miners on the assumption that, since their own health is at
stake, coal miners will have a vested interest in insuring the accuracy
of samples taken at their work place. For various reasons, however,
that assumption has proven wrong. "22 -
Sharp found 27 percent of the 680 face and high-risk samples he examined were
0.1 or 0.2 mg. , which are generally considered to be impossibly low. (Those
readings represent dust levels in fresh air.) About 23 percent of equipment
operators' samples were also found to be too low to be realistic. Operator
attitude toward the sampling program has an important effect on sampling accuracy,
Sharp concluded.
These studies as well as anecdotal evidence suggests that the federal dust
sampling program is probably not a reliable indicator of daily respirable dust
exposures. The implication is that it is possible and probably likely--that many
miners are regularly exposed to illegal and unhealthy dust concentrations. It is
–40–
impossible to say how high daily exposure is in every mine or how often compliance
is achieved. From the perspective of occupational health policy, it is unjustified
to believe that future prevalence of respiratory disease in coal miners can be based
on the assumption that most mines are in daily compliance with the federal standard.
For these reasons and others, MSHA has proposed shifting from personal to area
dust sampling. Some of the unreliability in dust data may be eliminated through
this change, MSHA believes. MSHA has not proposed that control of the sampling
\
program be altered or that the lag-time problem be addressed. In response, the
... sº-c-ºssºsºkºrºsº-º-º-º-- ******** * ***** ***
United Mine Workers (UMWA), has instead proposed to MSHA that al airer-elected,
MSHA-trained miner be in charge of sampling at each mine. The union has suggested
that area samples be taken by recording dust monitors capable of providing
instantaneous printed readouts. These monitors would enable miners and foremen
to immediately correct dangerously high exposures. Further, the union has
suggested that personal sampling be continued to determine compliance with
federal law. Miner control and immediate feedback would, the UMWA says, make
sampling more effective in protecting miners' health. The coal industry has
opposed area sampling and miner participation. MSHA has not yet reached a
final decision on the matter.
While respiratory disease is the most serious job-related health hazard
miners face, other exposures--to noise, fumes, gases, stress, whole-body
vibration, cramped conditions, hot and cold environments and wet working
conditions--also exist. Hearing surveys indicate that miners experience more
hearing loss than expected, although the degree to which hearing loss is
job related is disputed.” Noise levels for certain mining jobs have been
found to exceed the 90 dba federal limit. Available noise sampling data is
not very accurate, MSHA officials admit. Often, many of the hazards noted
–41–
above occur simultaneously. Occupational health research has not been able
to analyze the long-term effects (including synergisms) of multiple hazards.
Future investigation may begin to develop tools for multi-variable analysis.
The need for this kind of research is clear: it is how a coal miner is affected
by his work.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF COAL MINING - - - - --
Coal mining--as distinct from coal combustion--affects the air, land and
water where it occurs. In this discussion, a distinction is drawn between
mining's adverse effects on the environment and those on human health stemming
from environmental degradation. This overview is limited to the latter.
AIR
Fugitive dust is a problem in some surface mines. Recent federal regu-
lations require mine operators to develop fugitive-dust control plans and
implement them.** Coal-truck haulage also creates fugitive dust, (as well
as significant safety hazards). Since much coalfield housing is squeezed into
narrow valley floors adjacent to coal-haul roads, fugitive dust is an import-
ant health issue to local residents. Often haulage-dust combines blow-off
or spillage from the coal with whatever dust (dirt and coal) is disturbed by
traffic flow.
Noxious fumes from burning coal-mine refuse piles are probably mining's
most substantial air-borne health hazard. A survey done by the U. S. Bureau
of Mines in 1968 found 292 fires burning in coal refuse banks, principally
in Appalachia.” Most of these--132-—were found in West Virginia. Smoke,
particulates, toxic and noxious gases are released by burning coal-refuse piles.
Gaseous emissions from these waste piles were surveyed in 1968. These data
are found in table 7. Coal-waste piles alone generated at least 1% of the
nation's total of all carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxides and
–42–
particulates. As these piles are concentrated in the Appalachian coalfields--
and usually within steep-sided valleys--their potential health impact on local
populations is amplified. More than 90,000 persons, for example, lived within
gº tº 26
three miles of burning gob piles in West Virginia alone. In 1940,
TABLE 7
GASES EMITTED INTO ATMOSPHERE FROM
BURNING COAL REFUSE BANKS IN 1968
Emissions Percent of
Gas (Million Tons) Total
Carbon Monoxide l. 2 - l. 2
Sulfur Oxide ... 6 l. 8
Hydrocarbons • 2 ... 6
Nitrogen oxides • 2 -l. 0
Particulate * ... 4 l. 4

SOURCE: Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions, l068
National Pollution Control Administraction , AP-73, August , l970.
several doctors testified that sulfur dioxide emitted from burning piles located
1-1/4 miles from Triadelphia, W WA., was sufficient to cause severe problems
to the town's residents.” The author is not aware of any current epidemio-
logical study of respiratory effects associated with burning gob piles. New
surface mining regulations require that coal-mine waste fires be extinguished
by the mine operator in accordance with an approved plan. Orphan piles may
continue to be a source of concern.
Blasting from surface mining is a third air-related hazard. Residents
–43–
living adjacent to strip mines have been injured by rocks and debris striking
them or their homes. In one case, a 1000-pound boulder reportedly flew 50
feet and crashed into a Floyd County, Kentucky house injuring a woman's hand.
The Janis Grear Mine paid $4,700 in property damage, but nothing for personal
injury in this case.” Blasting noise is also a nuisance. Mining noise has
been addressed in the final surface mining regulations which established noise
limits and for mining and set up other blasting restrictions.
LAND
The two most serious health hazards from mining's impact on land are
surface subsidence from underground mining and dangers related to the dis-
posal of coal-refuse.
Subsidence is a familiar problem throughout much of coalfield West Virginia,
Illinois and Pennsylvania. When underground mining occurs, pillars of coal are
left to support the roof.” Over time, these pillars erode and weaken. When
deterioration is extensive, the strata above the mined-out area will collapse
into the void, lowering portions of the surface by the width of the coal seam
or less (a few inches to 6 feet or more). Property damage often results and
residents may be injured. A recent survey done by the General Accounting Office
reported that mine subsidence results in nearly $30 million in property damage
* annually.” GAO estimates that two of the 8 million acres undermined in the
U. S. have already subsided to some degree, and another 2 million acres will
subside by 2000 when total undermined acreage reaches lo. 5 million unless adequat
preventive measures are taken. No reporting system exists to tabulate injuries
24A
or pyschological stress related to subsidence. Subsidence-related injuries
are not reported to any federal agency. The always present danger of subsidence
-44–
impedes the development of non-coal industry and community facilities in the
coalfields. The opportunity costs of subsidence are significant. Feasible
techniques are available to minimize subsidence by backstowing waste material--
either flyash from coal combustion or the coal mine waste itself. Coal operators
30A
have not backstowed waste material because of the dollar costs involved.
Dr. Robert Erwin, head of the West virginia Geological Survey, said
recently that thousands of West Virginian homes are being ruined and lives **
threatened by subsidence from abandoned underground mines:” "'I wouldn't rule
out the chance of a youngster falling into a crevice caused by subsidence in
some places.'" A 7-year-old boy was reported drowned in Seneca, Illinois,
when "... an abandoned mine shaft filled with water collapsed in his back
yard."
Mining produces much refuse, which, in the past, has often been disposed
of haphazardly and with little attention paid to environmental or health
considerations. This refuse consists of materials extracted along with the
coal which are separated and discarded on the surface. (Other refuse is produced
from coal washing and preparation, together with sludge from treating acid-mine
waters and scrubbing coal's flue gasses.) About 107 million tons of mine refuse
was produced in 1975, (table 8). The fraction of run-of-the-nine material dis-
carded in preparation is now about 29%. Many coal consumers are demanding even
cleaner coal. More than 3 billion tons of mine waste are estimated to have been
piled on the surface over the years in some 3,000 to 5,000 refuse banks.
Apart from degrading surface water quality, the main hazard from refuse
piles comes from their physical instability. Erosion and landslides can result
when refuse is not graded, compacted and reclaimed. Few engineering or re-
clamation regulations applied to these banks--known as "gob" piles of "slag"
heaps--before the 1970s. In some cases, the refuse was heaped into jerry-built
–45–
dams to create settling ponds used in coal preparation. Following the collapse
of a Pittston Corp.-owned gob dam on Buffalo Creek, W. WA in 1973 that killed
125, a survey found at least 30 other dams to be imminent flood hazards and
another l76 to be potential hazards.” Federal agencies and coal operators
have made an effort to safen these dams since the survey. Existing and new gob
dams are now covered by recently promulgated OSM regulations. Existing impound-
ments are likely to present more of a hazard to human life than those built
in the future because of the new engineering requirements. The degree of danger
these dams present today is difficult to estimate. Fear of dam collapse is
often expressed by citizens living downstream from an impoundment. The lack
of housing options in the coalfields inhibits ready evacuation of downstream
ai ea S ©
Table. 8-Mechanically Cleaned Bituminous Coal and Lignites ~ •ºir-
(thousand short tons) - -
Total raw Percent Refuse
Coal Cleaned of total resulting Percent
moved to Cleaned by Total production in refuse
cleaning by wet pneumatic Total produc- mechanically cleaning of raw
Year plants methods methods Cleaned tion Cleaned process Coal
i 940 115,692 87,290 14,980 102,270 460,777 22.2 13,422 i 1.6
1945 .............................. 172,899 130,470 17,416 147,886 577,617 25.6 25,013 14.5
1950 .............................. 238,391 183,170 15,529 198.699 516.311 38.5 39,692 16.6
1955 .............................. 335,458 252,420 20,295 272,715 464.633 58.7 62,743 18.7
1956 359,378 268.054 24,311 292,365 500,874 58.4 67,013 18.6
1957 .............................. 376,546 279,259 24,768 304,027 492,704 61.7 72,519 19.2
1958 .............................. 320,898 240,153 18.882 259,035 410,446 63. 61,863 19.3
1959 .............................. 337,138 251,538 18,249 269,787 412,028 65.5 67,351 20.0
1960 .............................. 337,686 255,030 18,139 273, i 69 415,512 65.7 65,517 19.4
1961 .............................. 328,200 247,020 17,691 264,711 402,977 65.7 63,489 19.4
1962 .............................. 339,408 252.929 18,704 271,633 422. 149 64.3 67,775 20.0
1963 .............................. 362. 141 269,527 19,935 289,462 458,928 63.1 72,679 20.0
1964 388,134 288,803 21,400 310,203 486,998 63.7 77,931 20.1
1965 419,046 306,872 25,384 332,256 512,088 64.9 86,790 20.1
1966 .............................. 435.040 316,421 24,205 340,626 533,881 63.8 94,414 21.7
1967 448,024 328,135 21,268 349,402 552,626 63.2 98,624 22.0
1968 438.030 324,123 16,804 304,923 545,245 62.5 97,107 22.2
1969 435,356 315,596 19,163 334,761 560,505 59.7 iOO,593 23.1
1970 426,606 305,594 17,855 323,452 602,936 53.6 103,159 24.2
1971 361,168 256,892 14,506 271,401 552,192 49.1 89,766 24.9
1972 398,678 281,119 11,710 292,829 595,387 49.2 105,850 26.5
1973 397,646 278,413 10,505 288,918 591,737 48.8 108,728 27.3
1974 363,334 257,592 7,557 265,150 603,406 43.9 98, 184 27.0
1975 374,094 260,289 6,704 266,993 648,438 41.2 107,101 28.6
* U.S. Bureau of Mines Yearbook, various years.
--
–46–
WATER
Mining can seriously degrade the quality of ground and surface water in
mining areas. In addition, some evidence shows that stream siltation in
Appalachian watersheds caused by surface mining has increased the threat to
human safety and health from flooding.
Ground waters, which are often tapped for residential purposes including
drinking, can become contaminated from mining activity. When sulfur-bearing
coal is exposed to air and water, a chemical reaction occurs forming sul-
furic acid and iron. Heavy metals locked into the coal as trace elements tend
to dissolve in the lowered pH, adding metal ions such as aluminum, manganese,
zinc and nickel to the drainage. Acid mine drainage can contaminate ground
water when it seeps into acquifiers via joints and fractures in the rock or
through direct interception of the aquifier 31A When a mine is above the water
table, acid seepage can occur. When below, water can drain into the mine and
lower water tables and dry up wells. Mine-related blasting can dislocate
aquifiers. Mining and reclamation can change the permeability of surface soil
and rock strata, and alter the rate of groundwater replacement.
Acid mine drainage is a problem more commonly associated with surface
waters. The National Strip Mine Study prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 1974 estimated that more than 10,000 miles of Appalachian streams
were significantly affected by mine drainage.” About 6,300 miles of Appalachian
streams were continually polluted by acid drainage, representing about 93 percent
of the Nation's total.” Northern Appalachia contains many of the polluted water—
ways. Acid drainage from underground operations--many of them abandoned——accounts
for pollution in the Basins of the Monongahela, Allegheny, Susquehanna, and North
Branch of the Potomac. The Environmental Protection Agency reported almost 20
–47–
percent of the total stream miles in the Monogahela Basin are polluted by acid
drainage.
Acid surface water can be unfit for human consumption, expecially when
concentrations of heavy metals--some of which are carcinogenic—-are high.*
As water treatment and central water systems are not well-developed in many
coalfield areas, the health hazards of contaminated drinking water are signific-
cant for many families. Compliance with recent regulations should minimize
acid drainage from operating mines, but abandoned mines will continue to
create acid drainage. T : . .
In mountainous regions, surface mining has frequently created substantial
siltation in adjacent watersheds. Before regulations were in effect, operators
often pushed unwanted soil, called "overburden" or "spoil," down the mountain
side. Rain eroded these unstable slopes causins landslides and stream siltation.
Research in Kentucky indicates that sentiment yields from strip-mined lands
were as much as l,000 times that of undisturbed forests.” In the Middle Atlantic
states, on the order of 30,000 tons per year of suspended solids have been
attributed to surface mining and 17,500 tons per year in the midwest. Re-
clamation of abandoned strip mines and compliance with OSM regulations in
active operations should reduce this impact. However, since much future
siltation from mining will occur in watersheds already heavily loaded by
past mining practices, the margin available for additional siltation may be
very small, particularly in many narrow Appalachian valleys.
Flooding, of course, is the principal danger from heavily silted streams
in that area. Much controversy exists over whether strip mining increases
surface runoff and amount, thereby silting stream channels and increasing
flooding potential and danger. Industry argues that surface mining often makes
affected land more permeable, reducing runoff and decreasing stream siltation.
–48–
Steep terrain, forest fires, heavy rainfall, housing, roads and other construction
near natural stream beds are the principal causes of flooding in Appalachian
* 36
watersheds, industry argues.
Most state or Federally funded studies, however, suggest that surface
mining (as practiced before the 1977 law was enacted) contributes to stream
siltation and to flooding. The Kentucky Department of Natural Resources,
for example, studied the 1977 floods in East Kentucky and found:
The preponderance of evidence from previous studies indicates
that active, unreclaimed or improperly reclaimed surface mined
areas increase runoff.37
The claim that surface mining decreased flooding by increasing the porosity
of the affected land was challenged by Drnevich et. al.:
One of the more startling findings was that the pereability
of the mine spoils was about four orders of magnitude lower
than what might be predicted based on particle size distri-
bution curves. This low pereability was attributed to the
breakdown and weathering of the soil during the compaction
and wetting processes.38 . . . -- ~~
A recent case study of flooding in Harlan County, KY, acknowledged
that road construction, heavy rainfall and other factors contributed to the
devastating floods there in 1977, but found that these factors are "... small
* > & tº e 39 wº we º - -
in comparison to surface mining." Detailed examination of local watersheds,
! I
Hardt says, indicates that ". . . surface mining has had a significant effect
on flooding in the county.” This study suggests that surface mining increased
the April 1977 flood level at Harlan at least three feet and was responsible
for at least $3 million of the damage from the April flood.* A preliminary
estimate of the dollar costs of the 1977 flooding in East Kentucky was $175.1
million.”
• * *
* * * *
Apart from the dollar costs incurred by public agencies and private
interests, local residents are killed, injured and psychologically affected
–49–
by flooding. In the lj East Kentucky counties flooded in 1977, the Red Cross
found 10 flood-related fatalities, 2, 255 persons injured or made ill, and 132
persons hospitalized. More than 9,700 families suffered property losses
and more than 4,500 homes and businesses were completely destroyed or suffered
major damage.” Several investigators have reported emotional traumas caused
by the Buffalo Creek disaster in Logan County, W va.* Children and adults
who have experienced flood trauma spend a great deal of energy and time
reconstructing their lives and coping with the stress of readjustment in
later years. Fears, phobias, sleeplessness, nervousness, irritability,
fatigue, physical illnesses (headaches, backaches, ulcers), depression,
martial tensions, and alcoholism have been identified as flood-caused
legacies among survivors.
II. Mining's Indirect Effects on Health Care Capabilities in the Coalfields
The impact of occupational disease and injury and the impact of environ-
mental health hazards is determined in part by the facilities and services
that exist locally which are capable of preventing these problems and treating
them when they occur. This capability consists of a network of health-related
institutions, personnel, services and perspectives that plays an active role
in both prevention and treatment. Often, in coalfield Appalachia, a high level
of adverse health impact coexists with an underdeveloped infrastructure for pre-
vention and care. Both sides of the balance sheet are shaped by the general
quality of life--living conditions, housing stock, personal income, community
development and so on--that is found.
Some of these factors in Appalachia have changed markedly over the last
decade, while others remain the same.
–50–
Substandard living conditions and inadequate public services have existed
in coalfield communities for decades. Journalists, novelists and social
scientists have all reported the dimensions and subtleties of the problems
there.” It is also true, of course, that some conditions have changed for
the better within the last decade. Coal miners who work a full year can earn
$20,000 or more.” The rise in coal prices that began in 1970 and increased
spectacularly in 1973–1974 following the OPEC embargo made rich dozens of
coal entrepreneurs. Federal disability benefits for black lung victims and
higher UMWA pension benefits. Spendable income in the coalfields has risen
since 1970 because of higher wages. The depression that beset Appalachia
throughout most of the 1950s and l960s ended for many working miners and their
families, although this region continues to have a sizeable population of low-
and fixed-income citizens.
Yet, as in many countries of the Third World, indices of economic growth-
such as personal per capita income do not necessarily reflect proportional
gains in public economic development (measure in terms of adequacy of community
services and institutions, public health, and long-term economic security). The
decoupling of economic growth from economic development in the Appalachian
coalfields may have significant consequences in the long-term future as coal
resources are extracted and economic diversification does not occur.
The role of coal production is central to the development of under-develop—
ment in Appalachia. Poor market conditions and cut-throat competition squeezed
the coal industry for most of this century leaving as a by-product severe under-
capitalization of private and public infrastructures in communities there.
Low wages and the company-town system prevented miners from purchasing and
building adequate housing. The lack of effective taxation on coal production
and undeveloped minerals prevented coal towns and counties from developing
–51–
good schools, water and sewage services, recreational facilities and many other
public services.
Absentee ownership of coal resources and coal companies drew profits away
from the communities where they were made, leaving them starved for capital.
The most recent study of Appalachian capital needs found that energy development
is "... likely to be the source of about one-fourth of Appalachia's public
investment shortfalls . . . somewhat less than $200 million..." during the 1977–
1985 period.” Total private investment requirements to support adequately
Appalachian energy development will total about $6 billion, of which about 25%
will be demanded from local financial institutions.
This report said:
Serious shortfalls are likely to occur in the availability of
private financing for housing. . . and . . . overall capital prob-
lems are most severe in the coal mining areas of eastern Kentucky,
the Central Appalachian portion of West Virginia, southwestern
Virginia and eastern Tennessee where the need is created by
nuclear power-plant construction rather than coal development.
. . . past deficits in public facility provision and maintenance
are not likely to be overcome by future Appalachian energy
developments. In some significant cases, new Appalachian
energy development will not generate enough revenue or tax
base--in the right places--to cope with near-term energy
accommodation problems.
For these reasons and others, diversified economies never developed in
much of the Appalachian coalfields, thus chaining them to the whimsies of
coal's boom-bust cycle and protracted demand stagnation. Today, the con-
sequences of these patterns are apparent. Public services--roads, schools,
medical care, governmental capability--are frequently inadequate leaving
communities incapable to taking advantage of the benefits of future coal
growth. Where coal mining dominated local economies, the social and economic
problems seem more pronounced and the capability of responding to growth less
evident. Several recent studies have described the connection between con-
—52–
centrated land ownership and inadequate taxation revenues on one hand with
sº tº 49
extensive community needs on the other.
These larger social and economic patterns determine the kind of public
health measures and treatment capability available to coalfield residents.
For example, absence or inadequacy of water and sewage treatment facilities
is an important factor in preventive health. In Raleigh County, W WA, one
public health official told an interviewer from the University of Kentucky
* * * * *-ºs---ºº-ººmsºmºsºm-ºs-ºsmºs--- ~~~
some sewage-befouled hollows was the acid mine drainage that killed the bacteria.”
The medical plan negotiated between the United Mine Workers of America
(UMWA) and the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association in 1978 instituted co-
payment on physician care. This change is likely to reduce doctor visitations
and preventive care. The UMWA Funds have also ended negotiated retainer re-
lationships with several dozen miner-oriented clinics and hospitals, forcing
them to cut services.” Although west Virginia has begun to increase the
assessed value of undeveloped coal property, it is doubtful that this will be
able to produce enough tax revenue to help this network of health providers.
Coal companies are challenging higher tax bills in several counties.
Conclusion
Most observers feel that coal production will increase steadily over the
next 20 to 30 years, although demand limitations for certain kinds of coal will
continue intermittently. In light of this radical break with coal's past, it
seems imperative to mine coal differently than before. Many externalities have
been regulated by federal legistlation since 1969. But the adequacy of some
current occupational and environmental standards are questioned, and the degree
of compliance and enforcement is moot. Industry has not accepted occupational
–53–
and environmental regulation gracefully. A spirited, well-financed campaign
against "excessive" regulation fills the coalfield media. The National Coal
Association recently submitted to the White House a 32-page list of federal
policies and regulations it wanted changed to unleash coal production and
combustion.”
The patterns of the past need not--and should not--be repeated as coal
demand improves. Five general principles related to occupational and environ-
mental health can be set forth to guide responsible coal development. First,
production costs--occupational, environmental and social--should be fully
internalized. Second, it follows that coal prices--as well as the price of
other fuels--should not be artifically low and should reflect the true costs
of the product. Third, a different social calculus for apportioning economic
benefits between coal developers and local communities needs to be negotiated.
Fourth, momentary disruptions in oil and gas supplies should not be the pre-
text for turning the coalfields into a national sacrifice area through re-
laxing necessary occupational and enviornmental regulations on coal. Finally,
a wide spectrum of local citizens should participate in planning local coal
development--its extent, pace and conduct. In the past, these decisions were
made by private interests concerned only with their own ratios of costs to
benefits. Since mining scatters many kinds of costs and benefits in local
communities, those affected have a right to participate in the economic and
political decisions that shape the quality of their lives.
—54–
REFERENCES AND NOTES
*Mining, Enforcement and Safety Administration, Injury Experience
in Coal Mining, 1975. (Washington, D. C. : MESA/Department of the Interior, 1978).
*Mine Safety and Health Administration "Coal-Mine Injuries and Worktime,"
1978, p. 4.
*When MESA was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Labor in the spring of 1978, it was renamed the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA). The insertion of "health into the agency's
name may indicate a renewed concern for the occupational health problems
in mining. -
*MESA, Injury Experience in Coal Mining, 1975, p. 125.
5- .
Ibid., The 1969 disabling freqency rate for all coal both underground
and surface was 41.76.
*Data supplied by MSHA.
"It should be added, however, that the federal accident reporting require—
ment was tightened in the 1970s so strend data may conceal real improvement.
On the other hand, it is difficult to estimate accurately the extent of under-
reporting and undercounting of accidents. Tighter reporting requirements may
actually stimulate less accurate reporting. Numerous other weaknesses in the
federal data harass those who have tried to make sense of it.
*Howard Rockette, Mortality. Among Coal Miners Covered by the UMWA
Health and Retirement Funds, (Morgantown, W.W.A: NIOSH/Alosh, 1977).
*M. Jacobsen. S. Rae, W.H. Walton, and J.M. Rogan, "New Dust Standards
for British Coal Mines," Nature, Vol. 227, August 1, 1970, p. 447.
19M. Jacobsen, "Dust Exposure and Penumoconiosois at 10 British Coal
Mines," a paper presented at the Vth International Pheumoconiosis Conference,
Caracas, Venezuela, October 2 – November 3, 1978.
*see OTA, The Direct Use of Coal for a brief discussion of some of these
questions. Also James Weeks, "Review of Scientific Data for the U.S. Standard
for permissible Exposure to Coal Mine Dust," OTA contractor report, November
1, 1978. -
*relephone interview with Harlan Amandus, ALOSH, April, 1979. Fifty to
sixty percent of the miners X-rayed in round 1 were not X-rayed in round 2.
Progression in those who were not X-rayed in round 2 is likely to be considerably
higher given the high rate of mine-worker retirement in these years. ALOSH has
not tried to evaluate the reliability of MSHA's dust samples, the majority of
which indicate compliance with the 2 mg. standard.
—55–
*Donald L. Rasmussen, "Breathlessness in Southern Appalachian Coal Miners,"
Respiratory Care, Vol. 16, No. 2, March–April, 1971.
*º-ººººº-
- * ~ *-** **** ** *-* * *
14
The 1969 Coal Act——PL 91–173, Title IV, Part A-- provides "black lung
benefits" to "coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis
and to the surviving dependents of miners whose death was due to such disease."
"Black lung benefits" are awarded to victims of penumoconiosis, which is
defined as a "chronic dust disease of the lung arising out of employment in
an underground coal mine." (Surface miners and othe coal workers are also
eligible for benefits.) Between 1970 and December 31, 1977, 421,000
compensation awards were granted by the Social Security Administration and
Department of Labor. This represents a number equivalent to the entire
coal-miner workforce in 1950. Obviously, the number of awards for exceeds
the prevalence rates established for CWP by epidemiological surveys and
analysis. This suggests that federal officials have defined compensable CWP
to include "black lung disease." It may also imply that the accepted CWP
prevalence rates are far too low. And it may imply that the eligibility
standards have been stretched to include a very wide range of lung impairments
some of which undoubtedly, are made worse by cigarette smoking.
L5
Both NIOSH and OTA excluded retired miners from their calculations.
If retired miners were included, the number of CWP cases would increase greatly.
16
Donal P. Schlick and Nicholas L. Fannick, "Coal in the United States,"
in Marcus M. Key, Lorin E. Kerr and Merle Bundy, Pulmonary Reactions to Coal
Dust (New York: Academic Press, 1971), p. 21.
* : *-yara ºx-º-º-º:******* * ~y
17
Telephone interview with Larry Beaman, Office of Assessments, MSHA,
February, 1979.
18
For example, MSHA inspectors are often made victims of what is known
as "the penetration game." This occurs when a sample is being taken——either
by the worker or by the MSHA inspector--on a continuous miner machine. When
a foreman orders the operator to take abnormally shallow cuts into the coal
face, exposure to respirable dust will be lessened considerably. However,
since this technique--the penetration game--reduces production, it is only
used when samples are taken, miners and MSHA inspectors say. MSHA inspectors
do not have authority to order deeper--that is, normal cuts.
* * **** **** * * - * *-es-w ºr * *- *-** *** - - -------
General Accounting Office, Improvements Still Needed in Coal Dusting-
Sampling Program and Penalty Assessments and Collections, December 31, 1975, p. 1
*Ibid., p. 15.
*National Bureau of Standards, An Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Coal
Mine Dust Sampling Program Administered by the Department of the Interior, A
Final Report to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. (Dept. of
Commerce, Washington, CD, 1975, p. iii.
—56–
*Gerald Sharp, "Dust Monitoring and Control in the Underground Coal Mines of
Eastern Kentucky," Masters Thesis, University of Kentucky, November 1968, p. 4.
*NTosh, Survey of Hearing Loss in the Coal Mining Industry (Washington, D.C. :
HEW/NIOSH, 1976); J. A. Lamonica, R. L. Mundell and T. L. Muldoon, Noise in Under-
ground Coal Mines, (Washington, D.C. : Interior/MESA, 1971); and Thomas G. Bobick
and Dennis A. Giardino, The Noise Environment of the Underground Coal Mine (Wash-
ington, D.C. : Interior/MESA, 1976).
Regulations promulgated by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Title 30, Part 816.95.
2
Pu. S. Bureau of Mines, Coal Refuse Fires, An Environmental Hazard
(Washington, D.C.: Interior/USBM, 1971). -
“Ibid., p. 21. -
.*-* *-*****s-s-s-s-s-s-s--
*From trial records, briefs of counsel, The Board of Commissioners of
Ohio County v. Elm Grove Mining Co., 122 W. Va. 422, 9 S.E. 2nd 20, 813 (1940).
"Conference Held on Strip Mine Blasting," Mountain Life and Work, May
1978, p. 27. A report of the proceedings will be available in June, 1979
from Appalachian Science in the Public Interest, Corbin, Ky.
tº-ºººººmsºmºs º-wrº-ºs. --ºr-º- 29
The exception to this pattern occurs when longwall mining systems——which
employ controlled subsidence as part of the extraction process——are used.
Longwall
mining accounts for only 4% of total underground production, however.
General Accounting Office, Alternatives to Protect Property Owners from
Damages Caused by Mine Subsidence, February 14, 1979. Much of the GAO's data
was derived from a 1977 contractor's report prepared for HUD.
30AAppalachian Research and Defense Fund, Disposing of the Coal Waste
Disposal Problem (Charleston, W.W.A: Appalachian Research and Defense Fund, 1973).
30BErwin quoted in Steve Mullins, "Sinking Mine Tunnels Plague Homes in
W.W.A," Charleston Daily Mail, January 15, 1979.
31 U. S. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, The National Strip
Mine Study, Vol. 1, Summary Report, 1974.
31AOTA, Direct Use of Coal, p. 237.
32u. S. Army Corps of Engineers, The National Strip Mine Study (Washington,
D.C.: Department of the Army, 1974).
Appalachian Regional Commission, "Challenges for Appalachia: Energy,
Environment and National Resources" (Washington, D.C. : Appalachian Regional
Commission, 1976), p. 497. -
*Little, Inorganic Chemical Pollution of Freshwater, EPA, 1971.
35c. R. Collier, R. J. Pickering, J. S. Musser, "Hydrologic Influence of
Strip Mining," U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 427–C, 1970.
*west Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, "Report on
the April Floods" (Charleston, W.W.A: West Virginia Surface Mining and Re-
clamation Association, 1977). -
–57–
*"Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, "The Floods of April-A
Report on the April 1977 Flood in Southeastern Kentucky." (Frankfort,
Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, 1977).
*vincent P. Drnevich, G. Perry Williams and Ronald J. Ebelhar,
"Geotechnical Properties of Some Eastern Kentucky Surface Mine Spoils,"
Proceedings of the Ohio River Valley Soils Seminars, Lexington, Kentucky, 1976.
*Jerry Hardt, "Harlan County Flood Report," (Corbin, Kentucky: Appalachia--
Science in the Public Interest, 1978), p. 42.
“Ibid., p. 4.
*Ibid • , p. 47.
42
- “Al Riutort, Randall Lawrence, and Janet C. McCarty, "Southeast Kentucky's
April 1977 Floods: The Cost of Recovery" (Frankford, Kentucky: Kentucky De-
velopment Cabinet, Governor's Economic Development Commission and the Appalachian
Regional Commission, 1977), p. 2. - - - - - -
*Ibid., p. 47.
“see, for example, Kai Erikson, Everything in Its Path (New York: Simon
*Among the most recent surveys of conditions in the Eastern coalfields are:
OTA, The Direct Use of Coal, Chapter VI; Kendrick and Company, "A Pleasing Tho' --
Dreadful Sight": Social and Economic Impacts of Coal Production in the Eastern-
Coalfields (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1978); Heln Lewis,
et al., Colonialism in Modern America: The Appalachian Case (Boone, NC:... –
Appalachian Consorium Press, 1978). - -
46
But thousands of miners worked short weeks or not at all in 1978 following
a 3-1/2 month-long contract strike. Poor market conditions for certain kinds of
Appalachian coals coupled with a prolonged strike by workers of the N&W Railroad-
the major coal-hauling line in central Appalachia--contributed to the layoffs.
A few companies shut down inefficient operations or laid off workers to increase
productivity. Underground miners worked an average of 220 to 225 days annually
in 1976–1977, but only about 200 days in 1978.
“"consAD Research Corporation and Denver Research Institute, Capital Impacts
of Energy and Energy-Related Development in Appalachia (Washington, D.C. :
Appalachian Regional Commission, 1978), p. pp. xvi-xvii.
*Ibid. , p. xxi.
*Davitt McAteer, Coal Mine Health and Safety: The Case of West Virginia
(New York: Praeger, 1973); Tom Miller, Who Owns West Virginia? (Huntington,
WVA: Huntington Herald Dispatch, 1976); Appalachian Research and Defense Fund,
Coal Government in Appalachia (Charleston, WVA: Appalachian Research and Defense
Fund, 1972).
*Kendrick and Co., "A Pleasing Tho Dreadful Sight," comment made to
Rand Bohren, Appendix El.
–58–
*one recent study of five clinics by the West Virginia University Department
of Community Medicine found that the financial conditions of the clinics worsened
measurably with the imposition of co-payments. As utilization fell, receivables
rose. Operating deficits were recorded in each quarter studied. Physican staffing
fell by 42% from July, l977 through September, 1978. Non-physician staff de-
clined by 25%. Special preventive health programs were eliminated. See Depart-
ment of Community Medicine, (West Virginia University), William Kissick, and
American Health Management and Consulting Corp., West Virginia Primary Care
Study Group: Problems of Reimbursement, November, 1978.
*Letter from Carl Bagge, National Coal Association to President Carter,
April 3, 1979. - --
–59–
RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS IN COAL MINERS
By
W.K. C. Morgan, M.D.
Professor of Medicine
University of Western Ontario
Director of Chest Diseases Service
University Hospital London Ontario
London Ontario, Canada
–60–
RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS IN COAL MINERS
An increased prevalence and higher mortality from bronchitis and other
chest diseases were noted in certain occupations including coal mining by
& 2
Thackrah and Greenhow in the nineteenth intº The term bronchitis as
used at that time was nonspecific, and in the case of coal miners undoubtedly
covered a variety of diseases including coal workers' pheumoconiosis (CWP),
silicosis, emphysema, tuberculosis, and bronchitis. It was the advent of the
chest X-ray and clinical pulmonary physiology, in conjunction with better
pathological and bacteriological techniques, which made it possible to define
and sort out the relative contributions of the various diseases to the morbid-
ity and mortality experienced by coal miners.
As a result of numerous epidemiological studies which have been carried
out in almost every coal mining country, a clearer definition of the respira-
tory problems seen in coal miners has emerged. It is apparent that the long
continued inhalation of coal dust in high concentrations may lead to two con-
ditions, namely coal workers' prleumoconiosis (CWP) and industrial ºnata.
cWP is best defined as the inhalation of coal dust in the lungs and the tissue's
reaction to its presence. It can be divided into two forms - simple and com-
plicated, which is often known as progressive massive fibrosis (PMF).
COAL WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS
a) Simple
4 -
Simple CWP is response to the deposition of coal dust in the lungs. It
is recognized by a suitable history of exposure, usually at least 10 years
–6l—-
2
underground, and by the presence of fairly distinctive radiographic appear-
ances. Pathologically it is characterized by the coal macule. This is a
stellate aggregate of dust situated round the respiratory bronchiole. With
prolonged and severe coal dust exposure, the body's defences are overwhelmed
and dust starts to accumulate around the second division of the respiratory
bronchiole. This is accompanied by a little reticulin and occasionally
** \
minimal collagenous fibrosis. Later the smooth muscle in the bronchiolar wall
atrophies and the bronchiole dilates. The latter is often referred to as focal
emphysema and does not extend to the alveoli or major gas exchanging surface.
Simple CWP is divided into categories i. 2 and 3 according to the profusion
of small opacities in the chest film. Postmortem studies have shown an ex-
cellent relationship between the coal contents of the lung and radiographic
category. Physiologically the high grades of simple CWP may lead to certain
very minor pulmonary function impairments. Thus the distribution of inspired
gas may be slightly disturbed, and the residual volume and alveolo-arterial
gradient minimally increased. Static lung compliance sometimes shows an
increase and in a few instances the diffusing capacity and the pulmonary
arterial tension for oxygen may be slightly reduced. These impairments are
usually only seen in categories 2 and 3 simple CWP, are was estates with
symptoms and cannot be regarded as disabling.
The importance of simple CWP lies in the fact that it is a precursor of
the development of complicated CWP or progressive massive fibrosis (PMF).
The latter occurs on a background of category 2 or 3 simple CWP and if simple
CWP can be prevented, it follows there will be a decline in the incidence of
PMF. Simple CWP is unassociated with an increased death rate or disability
and is innocuous in itself.
–62–
b) Complicated CWP or Progressive Massive Fibrosis (PMF)
4
This is a different and more serious form of CWP. Unlike simple CWP,
PMF is a response to coal dust plus some other factor or factors as yet
unknown, but possibly immunological. Necessary for its development is a
suitably heavy coal dust burden in the lungs. It will, however, only develop
when the lung has been suitably primed, that is to say when category 2 or 3 is
present. Unlike simple CWP, PMF may develop and progress after dust exposure
has ceased. PMF is characterized by the development of a large opacity greater
than 1 cm in diameter, plus as other changes of simple pneumoconiosis already
alluded to. The large opacity may slowly enlarge and in some instances other
large opacities develop elsewhere in the lungs. The earlier a large opacity
appears the greater the likelihood that it will progress and cause disability
and premature death.
The masses seen in PMF are partly collagenous but the centre is often
composed of calcium phosphates and glycosoaminoglycans, various proteins
including hydroxyproline, with only about 20 to 30 percent of eu-in." As
the masses increased in size they obliterate the vascular bed and airways.
PMF is subdivided into stages A, B and C according to the size of the large
opacities. A is between 1 and 5 cm in size, B between 5 cm and a third of a
lung field, and C greater than a third of a lung field. Stages B and C are
associated with respiratory impairment and the latter leads to decreased
longevity. Physiologically PMF is characterized by a reduction in lung volumes
and in the diffusing capacity. The conglomerate masses also lead to ventilation
perfusion mismatching and a concomitant increase in the alveolo-arterial grad—
ient for oxygen which may be associated with arterial desaturation. Pulmonary
hypertension develops in stages B and C. Airways obstruction is frequent and
–63–
occurs in the absence of cigarette smoking or concomitant emphysema.
The prevalence and incidence of simple CWP are related to a number of
factors of which the most important is exposure to high concentrations of
5
respirable coal mine dust. Long term studies by the National Coal Board
of Great Britain and by Reisner in Germany have done much to delineate the
6 & 7
risk for various levels of exposure. Jacobsen has looked into the
pneumoconiosis attack rate and likelihood of progression for various dust
levels and has been able to show that provided the dust levels are kept below
4.5 mg/*, less than 4 out of 100 miners starting off as category 0 will
- 6
develop category 2 or above over a period of 35 years. Similar findings
have been published by *"
Aside from dust, individual susceptibility is important in the development
of CWP. Not all miners who are exposed to the same dust levels develop CWP.
In addition there are marked regional differences in the prevalence of CWP
which cannot be accounted for by the differences in dust exposure when the
latter is measured gravimetrically. Whether the difference in prevalence rate
is related to the chemical composition or rank of the coal mine remains un-
known but there is some evidence in favor of this hypothesis. Probably more
important is the propensity for certain coals to fragment into many smaller
particles of around 1 micron in size. Thus the mining of certain coals may
lead to a higher proportion of larger particles between 4 to 6 microns, while
other coals may fragment more easily and lead to a greater proportion of
smaller particles of between 0.5 and 2 microns. The latter are recognized
to be more dangerous as far as the development of CWP is concerned. Moreover,
when considering an eight hour dust measurement, it is important to bear in
mind that an almost infinitely greater number of small particles, e.g. around
–64-
l micron in size as compared to particles of 5 to 5 microns need to be present
to constitute the same gravimetric measurement.
Dust control is important in that it prevents the development of CWP.
Thus were it possible to prevent categories 2 and 3 simple CWP, then PMF
would be virtually eliminated, and it is for this reason that dust control is
essential. Nonetheless, no amount of dust control will lessen the effects of
cigarette smoke-induced disease, and it is pertinent to bear in mind that the
latter is still the main cause of respiratory disability in coal miners.
INDUSTRIAL BRONCHITIS . .
For many years it has been realized that coal miners have a greater
prevalence of cough and sputum than does a comparable population of wº-ºº."
Furthermore, most studies have shown that miners tend to have a slightly lower
ventilatory capacity than do non-miners. This reduction in ventilatory cap-
acity cannot be accounted for by the presence of pneumoconiosis and until the
last few years the explanation remained obscure. Thus, epidemiological studies
have failed to show a relationship between increasing category of simple CWP
and a decline in ventilatory capacity. Moreover, since there is a relation-
ship between X-ray category and the dust content of the lungs, it can be
inferred that the decrease in ventilatory capacity that is found in miners
cannot be explained by dust deposition, at least until PMF develops. These
apparent anomalies may be explained by two hypotheses:
a) That coal miners develop a form of airways obstruction which is
related to their occupation and dust exposure, but which is distinct from the
bronchitis that is induced by cigarette smoking. The cause of this airways
obstruction could be either emphysema or bronchitis.
b) That differential migration accounts for the differences. Thus were
–65–
the more fit to leave coal mining within the first five or so years, those
who remain would have decreased pulmonary reserve, and this might account for
the lower ventilatory capacity observed.
The second hypothesis is considered first since it has been refuted.
Most studies have shown that it is not the fitter entrants who leave coal
mining, but the less fit and those with respiratory symptoms. The more fit
the man in general, the more likely he is to continue coal mining.
The first hypothesis therefore become more likely, and there is much
circumstantial evidence in its favor. There are a number of arguments which
have been marshalled against the suggestion that emphysema occurs more
commonly in coal miners, and these have been alluded to --~~~ The
hypothesis that coal mining induces a nonspecific form of bronchitis is far
more attractive. Such a hypothesis would explain the observation that there
is often a poor relationship between the symptoms of bronchitis and CWP.
Without dwelling unduly on the methodology of several studies which indicate
that industrial bronchitis is the culprit, long-continued dust exposure has
been shown to lead to cough and sputum and also to decreased ventilatory cap-
sets." The airways obstruction which occurs in industrial bronchitis pre-
dominantly arises from involvement of the larger or central airways. Further-
more, there is further evidence to suggest it is the deposition of larger
particles in these airways that leads to the mucous gland hypertrophy and
excessive mucous secretion. Radiographic stigmata are not seen since the
particles deposited in the dead space are removed by the mucocilliary escaltor.
This entity which is a result of long continued deposition of dust in the dead
space is best referred to as industrial bronchitis and does not lead to the
development of emphysema. Finally it must be borne in mind that lowering of
–66–
dust levels when such standards are measured in terms of respirable dust will
not necessarily affect the prevalence of industrial bronchitis, since most
of the evidence suggests that the nonrespirable fraction of dust between 5
and 10 microns is more likely responsible for the induction of industrial
bronchitis than is the respirable fraction of between 0.5 and 5 microns.
–67–
5
©
8
REFERENCES
Thackrah, C.T. The Effects of Arts, Trades and Professions and of
Civic States and of Habits of Living on Health and Longevity.
2nd Edition, Longman, 1832.
Greenhow, E.H. Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council
1860, Appendix V | H.M.S.0. London 1861 . -
Morgan, W. K.C. and Lapp, N. L. Respiratory Disease in Coal Miners.
Amer. Rev. Res. Dis. 4, 047, 1976.
Morgan, W.K.C. In Occupational Lung Diseases. Chapter 12.
Morgan W. K. C. and Seaton, A. W. B. Saunders. 1975.
Morgan, W. K.C. Burgess, D. B. Jacobson, G. et a | . The Prevalence of
Coal Workers' Pneumoconios is in U.S. Coal Miners. Arch Envir. Health
27, 221, 1973.
Jacobsen, M. Progression of Coal Workers' Pneumoconios is in Brita in
in Relation to Environmental Conditions Underground. Proceedings of
Conference on Technical measures of Dust Prevention and Suppression
in Mines. Luxembourg, October 1972. -
Reisner, M.T.R. Results of Epidemiological Studies of Pneumoconios is
in West Germany. | nha led Particles | | | Wol 2 London Unw in Bros.
1970 Page 921. -
Morgan, W. K.C. industrial Bronch it is. Brit. J . . nd. Med. 285, 55
| G78
URANIUM MINING – OCCUPATIONAL AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS
By
Joseph K. Wagoner, S.D. Hyg.
Special Assistant for Occupational Carcinogenesis
Office of the Assistant Secretary
OSHA
Washington, D. C.
–69–
URANIUM MINING
OCCUPATIONAL AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS
DR, JOSEPH. K. WAGONER
It is appropriate to use as an analogy from the history of the develop-
of uranium bearing ores as an energy source, to look at it as a model for
how we should proceed in the future with regard to health research in re-
lation to energy technologies. I think it is a fair statement to say that
respiratory disease problems of underground miners have been with us since
ancient times. The first indication that there might be problems with
uranium-bearing ores dates from about 1546 when major respiratory disease
problems occurred in miners in the Hartz Mountains of central Europe. The
specific nature of the respiratory disorder, however, wasn't suspected until
about 1887, when the first clinical evidence emerged that the disorder was
a malignancy. In 1913, about 30 years later, Arnstein reported that of
665 miners in the Schneeberg area who died during the period of 1875 through
1912, 276 or 40% of them died of lung cancer. In 1932, the physicians in
Joachimsthal reported that of 17 deaths among their miners in a one-year
period, 53% were due to lung cancer.
Now these investigators noted three characteristics of the disorder.
One, the long latent period between the onset of mining and death due to
lung cancer; two, the pathologic absence of silicosis; and three, the pre-
ponderance of undifferentiated small-cell carcinoma in the histology.
—70—
They concluded that the most probable cause of these tumors was the radon
present in the air of the mines. They also made note at that time that the
miners themselves had stated that discovery of a rich uranium vein was
always followed some years later by a strongly increased mortality among
themselves. By the 1940's when large-scale mining and milling of uranium
bearing ores started with the United States, for nuclear weapons initially,
- this lung cancer experience and its probable relationship to radioactivity
within the mines was fairly well accepted by the independent scientific
community, but little heeded by government or industry.
As a result the Public Health Service in the early 1950's initiated a
major epidemiologic program to delineate the magnitude of hazards associated
with health problems indigenous to the uranium-producing industry. During
the period of the 1950's and 1960's medical examination teams in the -
Colorado plateau area of the United States examined about 5,370 miners and
millers. It was in the population of miners that as early as 1962, Archer,
Baldwin, and Cooper showed a statistically significant excess of lung
cancer among the subset of those uranium miners who had at least three or
four years of underground experience. In reviewing the study of the
methods of this study at the NIH in 1962, Dr. Brian MacMahon stated,
"If after the European experience there were any doubts as to the implica-
tion of radioactivity in the etiology of lung cancer, they surely have
been dispelled by the findings to date." Dr. MacMahon further stated that
the data therefore gave an indication that the problems of the American
uranium miners could not become a medical disaster that in relative terms could
be as great as the European experience, because of the larger population
at risk.
–7l-
In 1964, however, the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking
and Health concluded that, "Although the induction of lung cancer by radio-
nuclides is probable in man, the evidence is certainly not as firm as in
animals." It was in that same year that I and other members of the Public
Health Service reported a tenfold increased risk in lung cancer among long-
term underground miners and this excess could not be related to age, smoking,
nativity, heredity, urbanization, self-selection, diagnostic accuracy or
other variables in the mine. Furthermore, for the first time we were able
to show that the mean cumulative radiation dose of the uranium miners with
respiratory cancer was significantly greater than a matched control, matched
on the basis of age, year of initial examination and race and also other
kinds of non-respiratory disease. In 1964, Dr. Saccomanno of Grand Junction
reported that the lung cancer among the uranium miners, in contrast with
N.
controls matched for age, smoking and residence, showed a peculiar distri-
bution with regard to histologic . types. They were predominantly undiffer-
entiated small-cell carcinomas that occurred in the more proximal regions
of the lung. In 1965 we reported the demonstration of an exposure-
response relationship between air-borne radiation, as measured by the term
' and we demonstrated that this exposure-
"cumulative working level months,"
response relationship persisted even after adjusting for cigarette smoking.
Now on the basis of these and other data the Department of Labor in
1967 issued an order under the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act to limit
the maximum permissible exposure to uranium miners to 3.6 working level
months during any 12-month period, or exposure limit of 0.3 working level
in the mines. This standard was to go into effect sometime in January,
1971. However, as has happened in the past as well as present, this
–72–
proposed stricter standard led to a controversy, to say the least. The
Public Health Service and the Department of Labor were opposed by those
groups both within and without the Government interested in the continued,
uncontrolled exploitation of uranium ores. This debate and controversy
stemmed from two aspects of the data. First was that at that time there
were no data to demonstrate conclusively that anyone exposed to a few
working levels or less had any problem. Of course, there were as yet no
populations studied that experienced that limited exposure rate. The
other aspect was that the early studies had not demonstrated an increased
risk of lung cancer among the non-white miners, nearly all American
Indians, a group who because of their cultural, economic or religious
reasons, used very little tobacco. These findings led some to speculate
at that time that the induction of bronchogenic cancer by radiation in the
absence of cigarette smoking was either very unlikely or nonexistant.
It was speculation on those points that naturally led those with a
special interest in the continued uncontrolled exploiting of uranium to
suggest that maybe mining should be done either by non-smokers, or that if
smokers were to be permitted in the mines, that a low exposure standard
should only be set for those companies who hired the smokers, and much
more lenient, or higher exposure standard, for those who hired non-smokers.
Fortunately, I think this type of argument did not convince the public
officials of the United States to set a dual standard.
It did, however, precipitate a very intense investigation both within
and without the government. By 1971 we had demonstrated that there was
a significant excess of lung cancer in miners exposed to cumulative
doses of 120 working level months up to 350. This meant that any individual
–73–
exposed at one working level for 12 months per year, within ten years had
accumulated enough exposure to lead already to a risk of lung cancer of
3 to 4 times. In 1971 Lundin also demonstrated that when you adjusted
for cigarette Smoking patterns among the uranium miners, it was only
sufficient to account for about a 49% increased risk in the expectation,
yet there were still 62 observed deaths versus 11 to be expected or a
464% increase. At that time Lundin hypothesized that if the latent period
of radiogenic lung cancer was longer in the non-smokers as compared with the
smokers, due to the predominance of promoting effects of cigarette smoke,
that it might be too early to expect any problem in the non-smoking
proportion of the uranium group. Two more recent reports deal with efforts
to test this hypothesis among the U. S. uranium miners, one reported in
1974 at the International, Cancer Congress and one by Dr. Archer reported
at the New York Academy of Sciences in 1976.
- There were approximately 632 non-white Indian uranium miners, and out
of this group, as determined by the medical examinations and questionnaires
solicited in the period of 1950–51, 1954, 1957, and 1960, fully 437 of
those were reported to have never smoked cigarettes. The other clearly
obvious pattern for those who did smoke is that they smoked very little.
That group, when followed up through 1973, demonstrated eleven deaths due
to respiratory-tract cancer, whereas you would have expected only 2.5 to
occur. That 2.5 expected, I might comment, is fallaciously high due to
the fact that the rates used to generate them were from the Colorado
Plateau population, which had a component of non-white groups other than
Indian. Studies have shown that the Indian populations have a much lower
baseline risk of lung cancer. Among those Indians who had died due to lung
–74–
cancer four had never smoked cigarettes, two had smoked cigarettes only
in the quantity of two or three cigarettes a week, four smoked two to six
cigarettes a day, and only one smoked a pack or more. The interesting
figures here show that the mean induction latent period for those who had
never smoked or smoked very little, that is less than one cigarette a day,
was 18.5 years. When we contrast that with the observations among the
white uranium miners who died from lung cancer, and who had smoked 20
cigarettes or more a day, the mean induction latent period was l3.7 years
for the smoking. Clearly, these results support the hypothesis that non-
smoking merely protracted the interval from the onset of mining to the
induction of the cancer.
These observations have now been confirmed by Axelson and Sundell
in their studies of the Swedish zinc miners, where they have shown airl
association of radon—daughter exposure and lung cancer in non-smokers,
and a longer length of induction period for the non-smokers as opposed to
smokers. In 1974 Archer et al. demonstrated that, as opposed to matched
controls, matched on the basis of age and cigarette means, there not only
was an excess of small-cell undifferentiated tumors in this group but there
was an excess of epidermoid and adenocarcinoma also, but to a lesser degree.
More recently Dr. Archer and his group demonstrated an exposure-response
relationship for radiation and lung cancer for miners within the various
smoking and non-smoking categories, indicating that for each group there
is an increased risk associated with radon-daughter exposures that persists
in the absence of cigarette smoking. Recently, we have seen some more
definitive analysis from Czechoslovakia and these studies have demonstrated
–75–
a statistically significant increased risk in lung cancer in each group
of radon-daughter exposure categories, down to and including 100 to 140
working level months.
Now, what can we say about the problem in uranium miners? We can say
that by 1974 we had a sizable increase of lung cancer; we can also say we
have a sizable increased risk of accidental deaths. More importantly, we
can see now what have been the devastating effects of the very lengthy
period of public debate and denial of the risks that have gone on. In the
same group studied and observed from 1950 through 1974 we now know that the
relative risk of lung cancer is very high. In terms of public health impact,
the cumulative risk has increased steadily: 9.2 excess deaths by 1962,
174 deaths by 1974. We have llá excess lung—cancer deaths that have
occurred in the study population of 3,000. We now know that 3.S of 1978
there are at least 35 more lung-cancer deaths and 25 have been diagnosed
among those 3000 miners systematically followed up.
poes the problem with mining uranium ores stop at the surface of the
mine? Obviously, we don't have all the data but the indications are that
it may well not. Our original concerns were restricted to the mining
population. However, in 1971 we started looking at what happens to the
group who were involved in milling. One significant finding was an
increased risk of lymphatic cancer in this group.
Finally, can we say that the problems of uranium as a source of energy
cease with milling? I think the evidence is now before us that the answer
to that question has to be no. During the late 1960's and the early 1970's
it became very widespread knowledge throughout the Colorado plateau
areas, that the tailings and waste materials from the milling of uranium
-—76–
ores have been used for landfill for housing developments in the Colorado
plateau area. At that time studies had indicated that the radon gases were
emanating through the surface foundations of the houses and that the con-
centrations of radon daughters in some of the buildings were similar to
what was being experienced in the underground mining. We now know that in
Colorado itself seventeen million tons of uranium mill tailings at inactive
and abandoned mill sites are sitting with no regulation. The long-term
health implications of this situation remains to be demonstrated, but from
the data at hand the implications are not reassuring. In that context I
think it is noteworthy that in 1978 the Congress finally passed the Uranium
Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act, which designated the Environmental
Protection Agency to set standards concerning control of past waste disposal
from these mills and earmarked the Department of Energy with responsibility
for implementing that. Recently, there has been a timetable set forth in
the Federal Register of Wednesday, February 28, 1979, with an an Ilou Ilceſſleſ it
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, giving the timetable for standards
that will be set to control the waste disposal problems associated with
past and current milling of uranium.
In the context of the underlying theme of this conference, human
costs of energy production, or an assessment of health effects associated
with energy technology, I think three points are clear. Due to the un-
controlled dissemination of waste materials, the human cost of energy
production is not restricted to and within the exclusive domain of the
working population. Due to protracted debate and the long period between
identification of health problems and subsequent control of exposures,
we have and will continue to have a legacy of health effects in the uranium-
–77–
mining industry for years and years to come. The third point is that pre-
mature speculation, which seems to be prevalent in many studies of
occupational health, that the effects obviously have to be due to something
other than the industrial setting, in this particular case smoking, has led
to further delays in the suggestion that we set adequate standards in the
United States.
Two questions are now obviously before us as a society, if I may go
-back to the original theme that I addressed. With the uranium-miner ex-
perience as a model, can we as a society afford the years of debate in
assessing the health consequences of future energy technology, while ex-
posures are allowed to take place: Certainly we should not. Second, can
our society any longer permit a lack of separation of powers in its govern-
ment, that is the separation of powers between those who promote a technology
and those who regulate it? The answer to that is certainly no, too. I think
also that the support of research concerning health effects, for example
with radiation, but I suggest in the whole energy technology field, should
no longer be in the hands of those who both promote and regulate a
particular technology.
–78–
Discuss IGN
SESSION I
DEs. Leonard tiamilton, Brookhaven National Laborakorzā. I
would l l Ke to ask Dr. Morgan now he wouid have coped with
trying to predict the nealth effects in in iners in the period
1985- 1990-2000, it he is as involved in an exercise unet e one
would have to calculate these figures?
DCs. Margan: That is a good question and I think one has
to consider the various health nazards to which ſalmers are
expose de If one starts off by consider Lng coal sorkers’
pneumocon losis, then there is enough in for nation trom the
National Coal Board of Great Britain and from Relsmer of
Steinkon 1 enbergo auve felns of Geräany, to calculate the
likelihood of a previously non-dust exposed new miner developing
simple P neumoconiosis. And from that, since the attack rate for
PMF is known for Category 2 and 3 simple pneumoconiosis, one can
predict with a fair degree of accuracy how many Hien are golng to
develop PMF in those particular years • Such predict lons always
assume that the dust ſheasuretaents ſaade D y what used to be the
Bureau of Mines and nois is MESA are accurate • He now know as a
result of a Congressional in qulry that so laething like 40 s of the
aeasurements ſaade between 1970 - 1976 were inaccurate. Clear ly
there has to be some terta of estap lished dust sainpling program
with valid measureſdents. The second thing one ſleeds to coſis ider
ls, of course, industriai profichi tis - I really did not have
tige to point out in ſay presentation that the type of dust whlch
ls responsible for the induction of industrial D rotacn it is
differs from that which is responsible for the development of
coal workers’ prleuinoconiosis - we know that lt is the respirao le
traction between 0-5 and about 6 laicrons which ieads to the
develop a e ſat of coal workers’ pneuſa occºniosis e. The evidence would
suggest that it is larger particles, between 5 and 10 thic cons
which are depos lted in the dead space and that lead to the
development of industrial bronchitis. But industria i pronchitls
lS nothing like as much of a nazard as is clºar ette
smoke-induced bronchitls. Nevertheless, one also needs to be
saſapling differ ent sized particles, or better still the total
airborne particulates, to obtain sola e idea of now to predict the
prevalence and effects of industrial pronchitis. So, there are
–79–
tº Q I act of S to be considered, both of a hich are likely to
produce occupation aliy related impairment, mainely the size of
the part 1 cle, and the ańount of dust traat enters trie respiratory
tract. The third thing one needs to know soaetning about is the
Ciga ſette Coſì Suſſ, 2 ti oil of the Almers who are current i y worxing.
If one knows this, I think one can draw the necessary inferences
tº 9th Fletcher and Pe to 's work in Britain which shows that apout
13 to 15 percent of cigarette saokers will go on to develop
alſ ways obstruction • * 1 to I get the exact number sno Gevelop
severe alrways op struction, but these data can be found in the
monograph. Occupational exposure does not enter into tals area.
finai i y one ºust n onestly think about accloients. This is not gay
bailiwick, but clearly there does need to be some attempt aade
to il Bai t the nuaper of accidents • Does that give you soae idea
of hos I would go about it?
Drs. Hall.ligaz Reasonable • There is a further point I
sould l l ke you to clarify and that is this. How aouid you go
about trying to predict what the effects of this 2 mg per cubic
ſhe tet standard is going to De? G1 Wen the uncertainty triat you
sould nave stated about measurements • How does one cope with
that?
DEs. Morgan: Quite clearly, one nas to have waild dust
Reasure àents before you can make any accurate predictions. At
the time the Bureau of Mines introduced their dust sampling
program there aete one or two or us in NIOSH, Dr. Marcus Key
and ſays e if, who suggested that the personne i sampier
measurements should be supplemented by area saiapling. He were
not too sanguine concerning the accuracy of the personnel
samplier, since this is dependent on the flow rate of the cyc ione
and sewe ral other war iables. To us some sort of check seemed
desirable • In the absence of Walid dust heasureſhen ts, one can
io ox at the attack rate and the progression rate of CWP over the
Same per iod. Alternatively utilizing the dust ſa easureňents as
far as possible, and from the calculated attack rate and
progress loi, index, one can try and calculate now hauy al ners
sill be affected over the next 30 years • In this regard, when I
was at MI0SH we used a group of radiologists for the ſaost part
to look at progression rates • The only trouble was that there
were some radiologists who read twenty times as lauch progression
as did others, and ail read about ten times as much progression
as ald the British readers • While I have a feel lng that the
British were under-read, I also have d feeling that
epidemio i ogldal studies cannot be carried out significantly and
properly in a situation ºne re individualistic opinions reign
Süpt elite e There has to be some standardization and unitorial ty
athong readers. However, radiologists are not always susceptible
to standard 1zation.
* The Natural History of Chronic Bronchi tis and &ſigny seſſia,
Gxford University Press, 1976. •
-80–
DEs. Rauford: I would like to ask Dr - Seltzer if ne would
comment oil the accident rate lin coal in in in 9 • He gave so ſhe
nuinbers that sounded fairly horr endous to me in the area of
safety and acclient rates, as they relate to moro Adity and
aortall ty. would you care to coaſa ent, Dr. Seltzer?
DEs. Seltzeri. The Baortality rate in coal ſtin ling, in
underground coal ſaining, has decreased sign lificantly since 1969.
The maln cause of this decrease has been that the Inuitl-wictlu
disasters which piagued the industry throughout the i3tn century
have been reduced significantly - what have not been reduced are
some ot the other causes of accidents • wn at has not been
reduced at all slnce 1950 ls the frequency rate of disabling
linjuries • The 1969 Act did not address specifical i y the cause
of disab ling injuries. Data from the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (DOL ) in 1977 says that there were a iiaost 15,000
disabiling injuries which accounted for, on the average, two
Baonths lost tl file, calendar time. If you take the current
fatality rate and the current disapling injuries rates, multiply
them by the expected nuſuper of in iners for 1985 and the year
2000, d1 vided according to surface and underground, you can get
the or de c of nual pers I gave you •
I'd like to say sofliething on the health question unich is
i) re. Morgan’s bail linick and less so ſalne - To think that coal
workers’ pileumoconiosis is a disease of the past, I thiak, ls to
aake a severe error- To say that you na We to as Sulae sew eral
things. One is that the two milligram respirable dust standard
ls inner entiy sate • It is not. That standard (2ng/ in 3 } is based
on British research of the 1960’s. It is pased on a nuiaper of
statist 1 cal manipulations ºnlch do not i ook very sound in
retrospect. The probability curves that were constructed witn
these data suggested that at two all il grams, one to two percent
of the Bainers exposed would contract C* P (coa i workers’
pneumoco niosis ) over a 35-year period. Follow-up studles
released recently say that the propao ill ties are even nAgner oy
one of tie o per Centage 9 O L ſits - The 2 in g standard ls not
Ilsk-free e. Yet it is ſad re Stringent than any other staſadard in
the world. I think that before you can ſhake the assumption that
C#P is a disease of the past you have to confir a the safeness of
the current Standard • The Second as Stubaption that 1s made by Dre
Morgan and others who think that Cwſ’ lis a disease of the past,
is that every ſaine section meets the 2 mg standard every day.
That is, what the Marx Brotne Is used to call, horse teatners.
Any one who knows anythlſag about coal alning knows tria t e very
section does not meet the 2 ag standard every day - There nave
been several studies that have confirmed this e The most recent
study --do ne at the University of Kentucky-- indicated taat 27%
of the dust samples surveyed were ingossibly low. The study *s
autnor, Gerald Sharp said such measurements were eitner lower
than or at the level of dust measurements taken Quislide the
–81–
in in e i if you na we first-hand Know ie dige of the aining industry,
You Kno a that the re are various is a y S that both the coup any arid
the nine r S can falsify dust level measurements • Everyone knows,
including MSHA, that trae recorded dust measurements are too low,
and pecause of that Know i edge, MSHA is now considering dirt erent
ways of in easur ling dust. The most important innovation, a nich
the Milne workers’ Unlon (UMWA) has proposed, is that miners
contro i the du St Satup i l ng e My nuncil is tº at if that takes
place, you would see iſio re effective dust control than you have
lſ, the P & St. s.
QEa. §gº.gian: May I just colaa ent on tº o portions of that
coluńent. It MESA has changed its nańe to MSHA or something eise
then I apologize for being out of date. I don’t doubt that by
next year it sill have yet another name, another set of
initials, and another set of inaccurate dust data • I would
point out, however, that my figures were not based up on the i869
data of Jacobsen. Had i\r - Seitzer been in San Francisco two
weeks ago at the International Conference on docupational Lung
Disease, he would have heard Mike Jacobsen give to illow-up NCB
data based up on complete dust saang iing up to the end of last
years He sould also have neard Dr. Manfred Relsner do tae same
thing to r German coal alness The relationship between the
ilkelihood of developinent of Cisp and warlous dust levels as
derived from both the NCB and the German data, are very slini lar,
lſº fact they almost colncide despite the fact that the Germans
§§§ & d different laethod of in easuring dust, Mass. the
Tyndai lo scope • Both mathematical models have hardly changed
since the first inter 1 m tº gures were presented at the European
Iron and Steel Community Meeting at Luxemburg in 1972. * The
present data that Jacobson and Reisner have described in the San
Francisco Meeting are ln very close accord witn those originally
pub iished by the National Coal Boat de More over, I did not say
that coal workers’ pneumoconiosis was a disease of the past.
what I said was that the development of further C#9 would be
hl graiy 1 aproban le and almost negligible if the U. S. dust
measurements co aformed to the standard • However, you are
absolute 1y right that aust measurements cannot o Telled upon,
put that is your prop lem, sir, not minee - --
Drs. Geºrge døgſle (Ue S- Department of Energy l, ſº
Pittsburgh) : A couple of comments- I would say that coal
workers’ 9 neua oc on losis is a disease of the past - Secondiy, Dr -
Seitzer stated that miners’ control of the dust hazard could be
a more et fective way of dust hazard control • At no tiſae shoulid
an elap lo y ee or alner be allowed to control the dust hazard • The
experts snould control the dust hazard, for example, the people
sho have been trained in occupational health and industrial
hygiene ( MSHA - DSHA, etc. ) • They set the standards aſad at no
*Conference on Technical Measures of Dust Suppression in the
*ines, Luxemburg, 1972-
-82–
tline should efaployees oe allowed to contro i the samp ling because
1ſ they do and eventually they come down with Soſae type of coal
workers’ pneumoco ſalosis or eventually black lung, that agency is
held 11 a D le. In reference to Dr. Wagoner: In the promulgation,
of the ruies for carcinogens, it was reported in the paper about
a week ago that you shouldn’t have stringent standards for weak
Car Clno genss In Jay Oplmi on once a carcinogeny always d
KCar Clſl Oge ſie There should be one standard for all or the las And
a second question, how ſauch political or bureaucratic influence
has been brought to bear la handling of the carcinogens? For
exampie, some time ago, Dr. Bingham who heads DSHA and Ray
Marshali, the Secretary of Lab or , have threatened to quit
because brown lung or byssinosls standard was somewhat
coiàprotaised. This was flainly due to the political lap ilcatlon •
So how much political impilcations have there been in the
setting of carcinogen standards? I ask this question decause
the people who are responsible for the health and safety of the
workers should not compromise on an individual ‘’s health -
Drs. Waggner: with reference to your first statement or
questlon , L 'm not quite sure which it is ~ Yes, I strong i y
support the positlon of inaking no distinction oetween a "weak
car clnogen" and a "strong carcinogen -" I think lit was Marvin
Schneiderſuan (NCL ) who said that in terms of public health
practice lif you ſhake a distinction between "weak” and *strong
carcinogens,” the "weak” ones will nave the greatest public
health ifag act and it we don’t do anything they are probably the
apst per Vasive in our society • The second point is itn I e gard to
the DSHA carcinogen situation and Dr. Bingham's situation, I
prefer to reter that question to Dr. Seitzer or Dr. Y -
Alarie- I clearly do make that Statement on that, the ugh. If
kie as a Society a ſe going to perpetuate a Coſa Cept of making
societal decisions, then those decisions should be aade oy
society with full knowiedge of all data and with full disclosure
of those decisions out in a forum of society rather than penind
closed government doors. The reas on there is no discrepancy
to day, is that the tricks that are being used on the days when
the op et a tors wear the sample r s are not the Salfie used a nea MSHA
saiaples are taken. The main polnt of the trick is called "tne
penetration game," and since there are no coal alnes in New
York, I will explain what "penetration gathe" is - Simp iſ take a
narrower cut, a shorter cut into the coai, and the ſainer or a
contlnuous Baiſle I is not exposed to the dust. MSHA has the right
to close something down but it does not have the r lght to start
sofaething up - If an operator chooses not to run the Haachine in
the normal way, or chooses not to run the machine at all, MSHA,
on the day 1 t did take the saſaple, cannot dictate to the section
is or Kings
–83–
On the other point that you raised, samp ling is increased
witn activity whether MSHA does it or Wnetner the operator does
1 tº In an average ſalne only 3 or 4 Samples on a given worker
will be taken. You cannot base any estimates of future disease
based on 3 or 4 saagles a year, which every study that nas been
done in this are a says they have been inaccurate • -
£d Light (Appalachian Research and Defense Fund,
Charles to n, sest Virginia, also on the DR8 ES Advisory
Coaſalttee) : I have one comment and one question • First, on Dr.
Morgan *s topic, this is a littie outside my area o t expertise.
There is very strong disagree ident with his opinions • Recentiy I
was in touch alth Dr. Rasinussen sno is 41th the Appalachlan
Pulmonary Laboratory in Beckley, west Virginia • Dr. Rasmussen
has personally examined hundreds of coal miners disapled with
respiratory disease problems. He has given a statement saich I
aß Submitting in to the record of the ſheeting. *Etaphysema aimong
coal miners is believed to be more trequent than among the
general population by solae observers and hay be a frequent cause
of disability among coal Bainers. The occupational versus
non-occupational factors in causing eſtigny Seſha aust be rur ther
eiucidated. It is true, to r exampie, that cigarette-smoking
coal ainers, on the average, have more loss of lung tunction
than non-sinuking coal miners • On the other hand, there is no
proof, that cigarette smoking is a greater hazard than exposure
to coal alne ataosphere • Solae non-smoking coal miners are
severely disable d while some heavy smoking in liners are nealthy.
Smoking and moderate exposure may be additive- Auch more
evaluations will i be required to resolve these areas - Strict
enforces ent of present regulations, careful neal th monitoring
with an effective transfer program with continuing study of the
bronch lal disease probi eſas offer the best means for prew enting
the una arranted suffering and excess ſhortality among miners
employed over the past sever ai decades in the United States • *
Now, my question which should be directed to Dr. #d 9 O Ilê Te
Is it possible to predict ºne ther there will be add 1 ti on ai lung
cancer cases from the future production of uraniuin in the United
States , both occupational for the miners and trous the waste
disposal probles? And second of all, would there be soae excess
lung cancer cases even if we meet the occupational and EPA
standards? Is it possible to make a judgment estimate as to,
for example, hoid ſaany cases of lung cancer we ſaay expect per ton
of additional uranium ore needed for power plants?
Dris sagoneſ: I think the current data would indicate tºo
things • Just because de lowered the concentrations, as
indicated by the standard, to 0-3 working levels or less than 4
working level months over a 12 month period, does not laean we
solved the problem arising because of what we falled to do in
–84–
the past. That is going to be with us for a long, long geriod.
The seco ſld part of that quest 1 on is --ls the current standard
that go o d? Based upon the new data that have coue from
Czechoslovakia and our own data, my personal Opinion is that the
sclent it 1 c data did not de A on Strate dad Support the accur acy of
that standard in terms of oeing protective against tuture
lntroduction of lung cancer. I think the Czechoslovaks have
made son e estigate of what they would conside C tu de the
contribution and i would refer the answer, after I get through
wlth th 1 S, to D C e Radford who ls probao i y āli Cſh tº O C tº
knowledgeable, sith his responsibill ties of the BEIR Committee.
But the Czechoslovaks indicated that they believe that the oest
measure would be an additional 0 - 23 lung cancer per thousand
miners per sorking level -
- - Drs. Ragford: I do think that se nave - a substantially
greater body of information on the problem of radon daughters
and cancer induction than we had even 3 or 4 years ago, oe cause
of a ſautapet of new studies including turther follow up on
fluorospar in iners in Newfoundiand, Canada, and the uranium
Iainers in Canada, which, in my opinion, constitute propaply the
inost significant group in terms of defining the risk of any that
I know of ~ They have not, however, yet been f oil os ed up
adequately, it is pertinent to ask is nether they will pe. In
addition to the Swedish zinc ſalmers that Dr - , -wagoner men tloned,
there have been a number of other studies carried out on Swedish
iron miners, and i "in doing one of these myself - I think that
the Canadian miner data especially iſldicate that even for
exposures down in the range of 30 dorkling iew e i a on tas, there
appears to be a doubling of the lung cancer risk • A tº ieast ſay
preliminary evaluation of the published Canadian in iner data
suggests this. Thirty ievel working tuonths: that means a tenth
of a working level for 300 nonths, which is 25 years exposure to
a 0-1 working level, almost doubles the cancer risk. Is that an
acceptap is standard? I think more information is going to be
coming out in the next 3 or 4 years which aili enable us to
snarpen that, but the point I wanted to add to this discussion,
ls conce I ned with what Dr - is a goner Bentle ſhe d a D out trie ſalne
tallings issue of uraniuſa fuel sites- we have a g rob leia right
here in Pennsylvania w nich is on the from t page of to day “s
paper, about the Cannonsburg, Pennsylu ania site - This are a has
now been found to be heavily containinated with uraaluſa or e
tallings, and indeed if you wis it the coaſauni ty, you find out
that they ſaay have carr led some of these tall lings all over the
western part of the State, at least according to Solne anecdotal
stateiaen ts. So, that here we have one such problein c ignt l n our
own back yard-- it isn’t just in Denver, Colorado, Grand
Junction, or elsewnece in the uranluia Haining are as, it’s around
the U.S. The iegislation referred to by Dr. Wagoner named 22
sites in the United States and the list is gro d'ing- These are
not partic larly related to energy production except that the
–85–
alne tallings issue in the case of coal and auclear fuel is one
that is going to be around for quite ash 1 lee
Jetty Eleids (Pennsylvania Power and Light Coe in
Aliento su ) : I have a question for Dr - wagoner of Dr e Radford.
in , a recent near lag we had for a nuclear plant that we “re
building and also other nearings, the U · S • Nuclear Regulatory
Commissi on has prepared a fable S-3, that deals with the nuclear
fuel cycle • The question that generally cofaes up from
interwen ing groups are the effects of ai illng. My question is
of the to tai fuel cycle noid significant is the all illng portion
of it? Both from the environmental and the cost benefit
analysis points of view?
Drs. Radford; well, ſay answer would be that troin the data
we have so far, the occupational nealth problem in the mills is
probabiy, not a major one. If indeed it is a problem then rather .
than being lung cancer, the data suggest a very different
aechanisa of action, which will probably have to be contro i led
by different techniques than eliminating rado a daugn ters • But
the milling issue is intinately tied up with envicoamental
effects of the nine taillngs • According to EPA (I* in not sure I
believe this, but this is an at they say ) in the who le nuclear
fuel cycle the exposures froń ſaine tallings lead to tſie alg gest
Singie health iEspacte
Dra. Haſulliga: I would like to cominent on that last point-
when you say something is the biggest part of the nuclear tuel
cycle it could be biggest because all the rest is terribly
sia all. Our group has done so ſae calculations, in unich se cellate
mining and ſailling to the exposure that you get- The cisk to an
individual accumulating a dose to the bronchia i epe theiluſh over
a 50 year life period-- any 1ndlwidual fro ſu no- to
eternity--develop in g lung cancer that results ºf colu Qae year "s
operation is sometning like i in 10, as compared witn the risk
of develop ing a lung cancer from natural Dackground, anich is
soſae thing like 10 times greater • It only becomes a significant
risk if you take this dose and ſaultiply it, as soſue people have
done, by the world population from now to the next 25 million
years and calculate the number of people that would die from
iung can cere
Dr. Radford: I think your point is 4 ell taken - Y Qui ſaay
have not a ced that I was care tul to say that I "In not sure I agree
with this assess aent. But, this kind of evaluation is really
what the purpose of this symposium is all about - Can we make
predictl ons of this type la comparison with coal sockers’
pneumoco nios is? -
-86–
Drs. Halen (Jones and Laughlin Steel Co - ) : ińso tar as
accident statistics are concerned, a large nuaper of war lap ies
deter in line whether a laan or miner loses tigae from so I k and how
ſauch time ne does lose. I wonder if the statistlcs triat are
aw a liable to day are respons 1 We to the War y l ng sever Lty of
accidents as ſue asured by an objective assessilent of 111 Jury, or
do they report only to tal lost time?
DCs. Seltzeſ: I" in not sure of all the variad les that
you’re talking about. What I was refer ring to in the two ſudn'tns
tlgure, was the average lost calendar tiſſue of tempo racy to tal
injuries, not the fatal injuries and not the permanent partial
injuries. I’d like to add one other thing. These accident
statistics are propaply as advanced as any you can find •
Informal iy, I am sure MSHA would admit that in the past, perhaps
as much as 60% under reporting and under countlng existed in
disabiliſt g injuries. With new regulations being proulal gated
within tile p as [. Ye aſ 47 MSHA now estimates about 20%
under reporting and under counting - Thus, time aw all able
informat lon is not complete and is nampered by under reporting
and under counting. The ſhaln variable in that equation is what
is called "Light Duty Po llcy.” That is when a person gets
injured on the job and is encouraged not to record 1 te That
in Jury is not reported as a disabling injury • It is reported as
a nondisapling injury and that worker is kept on the pay roll.
There are very substantial benefits, both from the coup any ‘’s
point of view and the worker 's point of view to play along alth
that gańe e. - - -
Drs. Halen: Hell, let me answer that just for a minute - I -
think the re are ways of our objectively measuring the severity
of injuries, if one goes down the line of a computation,
fracture and so for the Win at I mean, for example, in a recent
survey that I uy self did prior to a strike, when we had soule 100
coal fainers of f, there dere three with fractures and 97 with
sp rains and strains. I just wondered -- is there a way--or do
these Statistic S address this so I tº of thI ſag so that one can
deter aiſle inore accurately shat can be prevented and what cannot
be p rew ented?
Dr. Ka Macgan: May I say sometning? I find myself an
agreement with Dr - Seltzer for once • lif you consider fatality
rates in coal mines a relatively objective finding, the Matlonal
Acadeſhy of Sciences report indicated that the rate in the Unlted
States is three tidaes to Seven tiſſues as high as in most European
coal in in ess I think you nave to distinguisn between the
acc 1 dent rates at large companies, such as that of Dr. Halen,
ishi cn have a good record, and the many small coal mines which
eia ploy i 5 or 20 ainers in west Virginia and Kentucky - They "re
tne ones which nave the Dad accident record • It’s not United
States Steel and Consolidation Coal Coup any, which have aade a
–87–
real effort to cut down accidents, but the small coal alnes or
the relatively shall coal ſuines, a nere the record is oad. I
don’t think there 's much doubt that this is where soaething
should and could be dones
Dris. Hugu Szedge C2. The recent discussion has brought up
one illo re 1 SSue that i is ant to addresse The question of
radioact 1 V1 ty in the ſaine tailings of coal alnes, has thus far
received only a brief cominent. For example, in the western
fields, some of the lignites are considered nore valuable as a
source of ios grade uraniua ores than as a fossil fuel. In the
Eastern fields, coals are traditionally uranium poor, naving a
Very S.B. all quantity. But the sha is over put dens are soiae what
hote Une question I "d like to address here is whether or not we
have any kind of statistical details or any knowledge of snat
the rado ſº daughter effect nay be on the present population and
on the Bainer hiatself. There are some 2 taillion, pernaps 3.
ai ilion acres of strip ained, unreclaimed land and tallings
containing these shales lying on the surface •
DEs. Ks. Higtgaai, First, you’d have to snow there is an
increase a radio activity in the coal iaines and I don’t talak that
there is any evidence that this is so. I don’t know about the
new lignl t e nines, but the ſaeasurements in estao iisned a lines
have not shown any increased radioactivity • The other polat is
that the coal ainers, as a landle, have a loser deatn rate from
lung cancer than does the general population. Now, coai al ners
are altogether different from the uraniuſa ainers of Ontario or
Utah e Soflaedody, needs to make the ſue asurements to see ºne ther
there is an increase of radioactivity and I think this has been
done e To ſay knowledge, I don’t think that there is any evidence
that the re is any lncreased radioactivity •
tles. Haſall tºns. There is good e widence that Dr - Morgan’s
Iſ eida iſ kS a ſe CO C I & C Le
DIs. Spenget: Let he advise you that Exxon Coſap a ſly io cates
seaſus oy dropping a Gelge C Counter down tſar ough the ſlo 1 e 1 n
order to find thefs. And I ain quite alaazed at the alaount of
radioactivity in coal.
Drs. Radford: I would like to tollow up on Dr - Morgan "s
response. The fact of the matter ls that a easureſaents nave peen
iña de lin under ground coal Baines and the rado a gas levels are not
high, and the re is not as a result a large rise in lung cancer
rates in underground coai ſaines. I think Urs Rockette is nere,
and I beiieve he has snown a slight excess, no thing ilke the
kind of excess of lung cancer that is to und in uranium alues •
–88–
D.C.A. H. S.23 ſigge: I accept that that is quite correcte I
nave no arguine nt with that e
* Drs. Migrisian: Is Dr - Rockette here because I th link 1 t
would be very apropos for niſa to coſmilient since in this report
wnlon ne prov loſed to the Public Health Service, he had reported
an SMR of 112 and he wery cautiously, (and he is often
als quoted, ) put in a caveat that this slightly increased rate
could £) tº due to different shoking had its of differ eat
geograpnl ca i iocations • iſ this regard lt Suo Sequently turns
out that host of the ſalmers who had an increased death rate from
iung can cer catae from areas in the United States in ere lung
cañcer rate is appreclaply higher than elsewhere • In this case
it was Charles to a, West Virginia, but one only need look at the
statisti Cs to see that West Virginia, Rentucky, Me & Jersey and
New York to r example, have a much nigner death rate troſa lung
cancer as coag ared to Neoraska and Iowa • - - -
DEs. Spence E3. I coine fro in the Joans Ho 2 kins University
School of Hygiene and Public Health as a Diocnemist alth a long
n is tory of study in the fleld of a olecular blo logy • Akıd Slſic e
that time, it nas been ſay conclusion that the re ls no such thing
as a safe dose of this sort of thing. The fact that there is a
small concentration only means that the impact hay be staai i as a
result of only concentration alone - The path days are st1 il the
Saitº e e I think this means that zero dose is propaply the only
safe dose. - º -- --
Drs. Howard Rockette. University of Pittsbukuni La
response to Dr. Morgan, I think the SMR of li 2 speaks for
itself in terms of having not been ap le to take into account the
smoking history and geographical differences • In the report I
purpose ly pointed that oute Although the SMR of 112 was
statistl cally significant, statistical significance depends upon
the sample size also, as well as the actual difference pelng
OD Set we de I think that on the basis of the study I have done,
it would be very difficult to go bacK, since I did no E nave
smoking n istor les, and attribute that excess, that 112 ratſher,
to be re iated to occupation • I ſlight note that in the other
studies done in the United States, the re are tº o contradlc tory
Sets of results. There is the work by Drtmeyer and Costelio
wnlon optained a very loºd lung cancer rate, and also there were
soiae previous studies done by £nterline which obtained a high
lung cance r rate. The current study is kind of in teräed late
between the tido, but as I indicated, will thout taking 1 nto account
the São king ni stories, I don’t see hors one couid attribute a
shall excess to 2 ccupation •
Qgs. Morgan: But Dr tiae yet did take into account smoking
histories, all of which were available. His lung cancer studies
are stil 11 low-
–89–
Lºs 89.g&site: Yes, that’s true e Although A. daven’t
looked at that paper for so the tiſae, one thing that did confuse
ine was that one age sub group shoºed an unusually nig a riske It
was the 65-69 age group - I "ſa not saying that this means there
is an excess risk but I thought there was a pecul lar ity in that
there would be one age group that would nave that nign of an
excess, and it aer its furtner investigation •
Ilka Lan Higginsz. University. Qi Michigan; I want to
coinaent on this. In Britain during the 1930 °s through 1950’s,
lung can cer death rates among coal miners were loid or very loº.
At that time coal in iners tended to smoke less than the test of
the populations . This is as probably the reason for taelſ low
cancer death rates • Coal ſº iners in Britain are no is tending to
sſaoke nuch note heavily a This change is being reflected in the
Registrar Genera i fs Decennial 0 ccupational mortality statistics
for 1970, shich shows their lung cancer deatn rates to be
higher e It will be interesting to see what nappens in 1980 -
I also want to coinaent on the relative importance of Elming
and Sao Kling for bronchi tis and disability • Co ſup at isons of the
prevalence of resplicatory symptoms, or onch it is and level of
wenti latory lung function in fainers and ex-Hainers and non-tainers
iiving in the same area have consistently snown a higher
prevalence of respiratory symptoms and chronic bronchi tis among
Hainers • Miners and ex-miners also nave a consistently lower
average lung function than non-tainers • The ſaagnitude of these
differences in different places has war i ed considerably -
Sometimes Hiners have appeared very little worse la el ther
respect frota non-ſuiners. Furthermore, it has not peera very
clear i y shown that the in iners’ excess symptons and lower lung
tunction are due to their dust exposure, though this ot course
seeias i.i. Keiye
in contrast, respitatory sympton prevalence and chronlø.
bronchitls are consistently related to sºoking - We at Alatory.
lung function is also lower in cigarette smoker's trian in
iſlù Il-Sā Qić eſ Se Thus both ſala i ng and Sãok in g appear to Coſi trip title
to the excess symptoms and lower lung function of ainers • My
view is that smoking does so rather more than mining; put I do
not think ſaiſhing can be lºg noted e *
In connection with Dr. Spencer 's question, I D elieve it is
laportant to coapare ainers with non-taiſiers in the saae general
area where the miners live. It is unsatisfactory to coapare
almers in G tan with noſa-miners in the ill dweste
Drs. Haſālitga: Not a question, but just a CoſăIn ent to the
person is no was worried about radioactivity in the coal - I ſhawe
a ball park flgure that the worst couid represent 2% of radon
exposure froß uranium- So it is proportionally a great deal
–90–
less •
Drs. Adugner: I would like to ſnake a few comments and I
no pe D C e Higglns would address some of these this atter noon.
In tſie º no le discussion of the coal studies, the appropriate use
of I e glona i versus a rather diluted nationai coilip arison needs
c iar if ic at lon. Also, I think, it lis Very limp or tail t that ide
define the concepts or the “neal thy worker” and the "nealthy
survivor”, and our tellance, and I say this as a statistic lan,
on that thagical test of slgnl ti cance is nich generates SMR of
around 100 • I don’t know what a north al SMR is. Certainiy there
have been discussions where pelng normal is 60 and normal ls 80.
I think also one has to consider witn regard to the coal studies
that may be they naven ‘’t proven the po iſit that there is a
probiem, put they certainly have not excluded the proo lea e It
is not a negative study •
–91–
SESSION II: SPECIAL METHODOLOGIC PROBLEMS IN DETECTING
HEALTH EFFECTS FROM FUEL CYCLE POLLUTANTS
Monday afternoon, March 19, 1979
Moderator: Herschel E. Griffin, M.D., Dean
Graduate. School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
MEASUREMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
By
Morton Lippmann, Ph.D.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
By
Ian Higgins, M.D.
ROLE OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS IN RELATION TO HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
By
Yves Alarie, Ph.D.
–92–
MEASUREMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
By
Morton Lippmann, Ph.D.
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University Medical Center
550 First Avenue
New York, New York 10016
–93–
MEASUREMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
MORTON LIPPMANN
INTRODUCTION
This session is focussed on the detection of health effects associated
with the exposures of people to fuel cycle pollutants. While health effects
cannot be determined by measurements of occupational and environmental ex-
posures, such measurements can provide a rational basis for predicting the
extent and severity of the health effects resulting from the exposures when
the nature of the effects and the dose-response relationships are known.
The establishment of causal and temporal relationships between exposures
and effects must come from epidemiological studies and animal experiments
of the types to be discussed by Drs. Higgins and Alarie in the next two
papers.
The adequacy of measurement techniques for occupational and environ-
mental exposure evaluations can only be defined in terms of specific
contaminants. Thus, in order to define methodologic problems in the measure—
ment of exposures to fuel cycle pollutants, it is necessary to define which
contaminants are likely to be encountered in concentrations sufficient to
product effects.
Characterizing Exposures to Fuel Cycle Pollutants
For fuel with well-developed technologies, the exposures of COIl Cerºl
have been well characterized and techniques for their evaluation have, for
–94–
the most part, been established. Thus, while the potential for excessive
exposures still exist in fuel oil refining, coal handling, and uranium
refining, there are no serious deficiencies in measurement and control
technology. The excessive exposures that still occur are due to failures
to apply the available technologies.
For the plutonium or thorium fuel cycles, i.e., breeder reactor
...technologies, there are a number of aspects of the exposure control tech-
nologies which require considerably more development. These include capture
and disposal of the radioactive noble gas fission products, separation and
1ong-term storage of long-lived liquid and solid activation and fission
products, etc. On the other hand, there do not appear to be any major
technical deficiencies in the measurement technologies for characterizing
exposures to radionuclides or ionizing radiation.
The major methodologic problems in exposure evaluations for fuel cycle
pollutants are associated with the developing technologies for producing
synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels from coal and oil shale. One difficulty
lies in defining the compositions and strengths of the effluents and fugitive
emissions. There are complex mixtures of organics at various points along
the process streams. Furthermore, the stream composition varies greatly
from process to process, and with the compositions of the starting materials
and operating parameters in each process. The exposures of the refinery
workers will also depend on the number, distribution and magnitude of the
process leaks, while the exposures of downwind and downstream populations
will depend on the design and performance of the effluent recovery systems
and the extent of fugitive emissions.
–95–
The only data currently available on exposures resulting from these
processes are from pilot-scale operations, and there are very few of these.
In any case, the results have limited predictive value for full-scale plants
because of likely variations in operating factors, and because the effluents
acceptable in a pilot-scale operation are likely to be unacceptable in a
full-scale plant. Thus, the controls specified on the basis of the pilot-
plant or demonstration plant experience should prevent the release of
hazardous effluents into the occupational or community environment of the
full-scale plant.
While the exact compositions of the process and waste streams from coal
conversion and oil shale processing plants will be highly variable, it is
clear that they will contain large numbers of hydrocarbons that are mutagens,
teratogens, whole carcinogens, co-carcinogens, initiators, and tumor pro-
In Otors. Thus, even if the compositions could be precisely determined, and
if the health effects of each alone were also known, it still would not be
possible to realistically determine the potential for adverse effects of the
mixture. The combined effects could easily be greater or less than the
aggregate of the effects produced by each of the components when acting
alone.
Use of Indicator Compounds
One approach to characterizing the hazard potential of such mixtures is
to select one or more individual components of the mixture to serve as
indicators. The presumption is that the concentration of the indicator (s)
varies directly with the hazard potential of the overall mixture. For
gasification plants, carbon monixide (CO) may serve as a suitable indicator
for most of the plant population. When the CO levels are monitored and
–96–
results are used to ensure that the plant is operated in a manner that con-
trols the escape of CO, it can generally be presumed that the concentrations
of other air contaminants will also be sufficiently low to satisfy occupa-
tional and environmental standards.
It is much more difficult to specify appropriate indicator chemicals
for the mixed contaminants which can escape or be released from coal liqui-
fication or oil shale processing. Concern for the carcinogenic potential
of the mixture is likely to force tighter controls than those needed for
the prevention of either acute or chronic chemical toxicity. Unfortunately,
there is no single chemical which can serve as an acceptable hazard indicator
for this type of process.
Some investigators have adopted or suggested benzo(a)pyrene (Bap) as an
indicator chemical, on the basis that: 1) it is likely to be present in
most mixtures, 2) it is a known and potent animal carcinogen, and 3) it
can be routinely analyzed by analytical techniques of proven reliability.
While it is likely to be present to some degree in most mixtures, its
contribution by mass or biological activity is likely to be highly variable.
Furthermore, its potency as a human carcinogen is uncertain.
An epidemiologic study of roofers exposed to very high concentrations
of Bap found some excess lung cancer among those exposed for more than 20
years (1). The SMR's for those exposed for 9–19, 20–29, 30-39, and > 40
years were 92, 152, 150 and 247 respectively (the smoking histories of the
workers were not known). Airborne Bap concentrations measured in roofing
operations range from 14 ug/m” in the roof-tarring area, to 6000 ug/m" in the
coal-tar roofing kettle area (1,2). The amounts of Bap recovered from masks,
which were worn by a minority of roofers studied, indicated an average of
–97–
16. 7 ug BaB inhaled per day (1). Another group exposed to high concentrations
of airborne BaB were British gasworkers, who inhaled about 30 ug/day (3).
The mainstream Smoke of a cigarette contained v 3.5 x 10-4 pug of Bap
in 1960, (4) although the levels are lower now. Thus a 2 pack/day smoker
3 (2)
3.
inhaled 'vl. 4 ug/day. Ambient urban air in 1958 contained about 6 ng/m
which could account for an inhaled mass of ‘u 120 ng/day, i.e., 0.12 ug/day.
Rural ambient air has about 10% as much Bap"?).
The lung cancer SMR's for rural non-smokers, urban non-smokers, light
smokers (< 1 pack/day), heavy smokers (> 1 pack/day), roofers (> 20 years
exposure, and including many smokers) and gasworkers (including smokers)
are 14%), 16%), 124%), 502(?), 159(1) (7)
, and 169 ' ' , while their daily
Bap exposures are of the order of 0.012, 0.12, s.0. 70, 0.7 to v 2.5, 17, and
30 respectively. clearly, Bap exposures are not particularly good indicators
of lung cancer risks. All of the exposures cited involve a mixture of organic
compounds and other toxicants as well, but the influences of each, and their
interactions, cannot be determined.
Since there is potential for exposure to so many such substances in
coal and oil shale processing, it is impractical to routinely monitor for
more than a few indicator compounds. Furthermore, different indicators or
groups of indicators may be needed in different situations. Therefore,
research is needed on the unit operations and process streams in these in-
dustries, to identify chemical indicators whose biological effects are
similar to the mixtures in the expected exposure atmospheres. The strategy
(8)
recommended by a USDOE sponsored Working Group is to identify a variety
of potential indicators (perhaps 6 or 8), identify the places where each is
likely to be useful and the kind of monitoring required. They concluded
–98–
that the state-of-the-art for monitoring each compound by the methods
needed should be assessed and, if necessary, that new instruments should be
developed. Since the final selection and evaluation of specific indicators
cannot be made until a commercial plant is built, it is necessary to be able
to choose among a number of indicators for which instrumentation is avail—
- able. The Working Group also recommended that the instrumentation should
probably be non-specific, so that a common line of development will lead to
instruments capable of measuring several indicator compounds.
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Exposures to fuel cycle pollutants can take place via several different
pathways, i.e., inhalation, skin absorption or penetration, and ingestion.
There can also be exposures to excessive levels of physical agents, i.e. ,
- noise, ionizing radiations (x and Y radiation, short X UV) and non-ionizing
radiations (1ong X UV, visible light, IR, microwaves). Most of the measure-
ments made to determine actual or potential exposures are made of the ex-
posure environment, e.g., concentrations of chemicals in the air, drinking
water, food, etc. These can frequently be supplemented by measurements
which determine toxicant accumulations or effects, e.g. , measurements of
in-vivo burdens, concentrations in body fluids or tissues, and concentrations
in excreta such as urine, feces, hair, exhaled air, etc.
In-vivo measurements are practical when they can be made with external
detectors, as with radionuclides emitting penetrating radiations which can
be detected with solid-state and/or scintillation detectors. Population
estimates of accumulated chemicals and radionuclides can be made by measure-
ments of tissue burdens, when appropriate tissue samples can be obtained
from human accident victims at autopsy.
–99–
~
Sensitive analytical techniques appropriate for determining the con-
tents of tissues, excreta, air and water samples are generally available,
although research and development on techniques for concentrating and/or
separating the contaminant from its matrix or sampling medium may be neces-
sary in many cases. There are relatively few cases where a judicious
selection of separation techniques and laboratory analytical techniques
fail to yield satisfactory analytical capabilities for an environmental
analysis of interest. However, there may frequently be cases where the
technology is too time-consuming and/or expensive for the particular
application.
One major area in which our capacity for environmental assessment is
technology-limited is in the evaluation of inhalation exposures to complex
mixtures of airborne organics. Another area is direct-reading instrumentation
for chemicals which produce effects more associated with their transient
peaks rather than their cumulative exposures. The need for direct-reading
instrumentation is greatest for chemicals present as aerosols. Great prog-
ress has been made in the past decade in the development of continuous direct
monitoring devices for specific airborne gases and vapors. By contrast,
there are no instruments available for the continuous measurement of the
airborne concentrations of specific chemicals present in the atmosphere
in aerosols. We cannot, for instance, currently monitor the concentration
of sulfuric acid mist. Our inability to do so has contributed to our fail-
ure to characterize the roles and effects of the various components of the
overall S0, mixtures generally present in the ambient air.
The only direct-reading aerosol monitors currently available are those
which measure some physical parameters of the aerosol, i.e. , size distri-
-100-
butions, overall number or mass concentrations, and light scatter or ex-
tinction.
The adequacy of measurements made to evaluate the potential for health
effects in a given situation can be judged by a variety of criteria or
combinations of criteria.
These include:
1. Sensitivity, i. e., can the airborne concentrations capable of
producing the health effects be measured at an acceptable level of accuracy.
2. Specificity, i.e., can the contaminant of interest be measured in
the presence of co-contaminants and background contaminants.
3. Temporal resolution, i.e., can the peak concentrations of the
contaminant of interest be determined with a resolution appropriate to the
averaging time for the biological effect.
4. Temporal responses, i. e., what is the interval between the time of
air sampling and the availability of the concentration determined for the
sample. This can vary from instantaneous for direct-reading gas phase
sensors to months for laboratory evaluations of field-collected extractive
samples.
5. Spatial resolution, i.e., can the measurements be made at locations
suitable for exposure evaluations. In other words, can the measurements
be made using personal samplers or hand-held samplers or monitors at the
breathing zone of the individual whose exposure is being determined.
A complete discussion of measurement techniques for the determination
of chemical contaminants attributable to fuel cycle pollutants, and for
those released into the occupational environment, ambient air, and liquid
effluents would require a monograph, and are clearly beyond the scope of
101
this paper. A recent review of the current status of the available measure-
ment techniques and some recomendations for research on environmental
measurements was prepared by the Second Task Force for Research Planning in
Environmental Health Science (9).
The balance of this paper will consist of a review of techniques for
characterizing exposure atmospheres which are applicable to both ambient
air and workroom air. Within it, the emphasis is on recent developments
in direct-reading instrumentation.
Monitoring Exposure Atmospheres
There are various approaches to monitoring the exposure atmosphere and
characterizing the concentrations of the chemicals to which people are ex-
posed. The traditional and simplest monitoring technique is manual sampling,
where a known volume of air is drawn at a known flow rate through a collector.
For particles, the collector can be a filter; for soluble gases, it can be
a bubbler; for organics, it can be a charcoal trap. The appropriate collect-
or is used to trap particles with known, and presumably, high efficiency.
For gases and vapors, the collection efficiency needs to be known and
constant. If it is less than 100 percent, the amount collected can be
corrected to compensate for the lack of total collection. For aerosols,
on the other hand, there must be 100 percent collection efficiency, since
the collection efficiency is particle size-dependent, and the investigator
wants to know the total amount, and not some estimate that varies with its
particle size distribution. In practice, this requirement doesn't cause
any great problem, since filters and other types of collectors with essentially
quantitative collection capabilities are readily available.
One advantage of sample collection and subsequent analysis is that there
102
is almost no limit in the choice of sample processing that can be done, or
in the range of sophisticated and sensitive laboratory instruments that can
be brought to bear on analytical problems. The investigator can get the
ultimate in sensitivity and specificity, with correction for interferences.
On the other hand, there is a basic limitation in this procedure in that
there is a significant time lag between sample collection and the deter-
mination of what was collected. Manual saving techniques may, therefore,
be used to back up continuous monitors, and perhaps, as the final arbiter
on a substance's exact concentration.
For a more complete discussion of the state-of-the-art of air sampling
technology and for descriptions of available sampling and monitoring in-
strumentation, the reader is referred to the latest edition of the ACGIH
reference book: "Air Sampling Instruments.”
Intermittent/Continuous Instrumentation
There are two basic types of automated instrumentation. one is the
intermittent type of operation, and the other is continuous. For monitoring
particle size distribution, a combination of intermittent techniques is
generally used because there is a very large particle size range to be
covered, and there is no universal instrument that can indicate the con-
centration of each particle size interval over the entire range.
One of the instruments used to measure very small particles (0.08 pm
to 0.5 um) is the electrical aerosol analyzer shown in Figure 1. It sorts
out the particles of a poly-dispersed aerosol according to their electrical
mobility. The particles are collected on a current collecting filter at
the end of the tube, and the amount of charge they deposit on that filter
is measured incrementally. The voltage gradient and/or the flow rate is
103
changed sequentially to allow a different size-cut to reach the filter. In
this way, there is a progression of size increments. This technique can
provide an accurate size -distribution in a stable atmosphere. However, it
takes a finite amount of time to run through these increments and collect
the size band data to get the size analysis.
While the mobility analyzer can be used as a size analyzer for small
particles, it cannot be used to measure particles larger than approximately
0.5 um in diameter. Fortunately, there are other techniques suitable for
measuring the size distribution of the larger particles.
The property of light scatter is used in measuring the concentrations
and size distributions of particles of 0.3 pm diameter and larger. When
light is focused on a particle in the instrument illustrated in Figure 2,
some of that light will be scattered. The amount of light that will be
scattered by a given particle depends on its size. A photomultiplier can
be used to detect the light output from each particle. The pulses can be
accumulated according to size intervals in a multichannel pulse-height
analyzer, and these intervals can be calibrated according to particle size.
Unfortunately, there are other properties of the particle besides its size
that affect the amount of light scattered, including the refractive index,
the color, the shape, and so forth, and reliable data depend on accurate
calibrations.
Intermittent techniques can also be used in monitoring gases. One
method for carbon monoxide involves a combination of gas chromatography and
flame ionization detection. The flame ionization detector is nonspecific,
but by coupling it with the holdup time in the chromatographic column,
specific analyses can be obtained since the carbon monoxide will pass through
104
the column and move into the flame ionization detector at a characteristic
time.
The alternative approach, i.e., continuous monitoring , is more commonly
used for gases. For example, carbon monoxide can be monitored using an
infrared analytical technique which does not collect the sample at all. As
shown in Figure 3, the gas is directed through the sample tube. Infrared
radiation also passes through the tube at wavelengths that are sensitively
absorbed by carbon monoxide. There will be an attenuation of the infrared
because of the absorption of the carbon monoxide in the sample tube, and
thus, the energy received on the detector will vary with the substance
concentration. Operationally, this technique is best implemented by using
a reference tube of clean air, and getting the difference in attenuation
between clean air and the air containing the carbon monoxide.
Other gaseous constituents absorb infrared energy; for example, Water
vapor. However, these gases and vapors allº e wavelength-specific, so by
tuning to the wavelength at which carbon monoxide has preferential absorptive
capacity, the effect of interference can be removed, giving a sensitive,
accurate, and specific analysis of carbon monoxide. The only time lag is
the insignificant amount of time it takes to flush the sample through the
tube. This, then, is a commonly used method of monitoring carbon monoxide
on a continuous basis. The sensitivity is a function of the length of the
sample tube, which can be 10 or 20 meters with folded tubes. Similar in-
struments can also be used in measuring other gases by choosing appropriate
wavelengths free of significant absorption interferences.
The flame photometric detector illustrated in Figure 4 is commonly
used in measuring the concentrations of sulfur-containing gases. If a sulfur-
105
bearing material is passed through a hydrogen burner, a light photon emission
will result that can be detected with sensitive photomultipliers. It is a
nonspecific technique in that it gives roughly an equivalent response for
hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide and some of the mercaptans. If the only
sulfur gas present is sulfur dioxide, then the test is quite specific, but
if there are other sulfur gases, the test cannot be specific unless the
sulfur gas detector is equipped with a chromatographic column that will
feed the sulfur species into the flame-photometer in sequence. Such a
composite instrument is , of course, an intermittent sampler.
In most situations, it is desirable to have a built-in calibration
device on the concentration monitor to ensure that the concentration in-
dicated on the output chart or on the dial is correct. One of the more
common devices used for in-line continuous calibration is the permeation
tube. For the flame-photometric detector, the calibration device shown in
Figure 4 contains liquid sulfur dioxide sealed into a Teflon tube. The
tube is slightly porous to the saturated sulfur dioxide vapor above the
liquid in the tube. The rate of permeation of sulfur dioxide vapor out of
the tube is very much dependent on the temperature, but is constant at a given
temperature. When the permeation tube is held within a constant temperature
bath, a known emission rate can be obtained. With an accurately calibrated
dilution air flow, the concentration of the calibration gas can be deter—
mined, and it can be directed periodically into the analyzer to get a span
signal. This is a very convenient method of instrument calibration. There
are similar calibration tubes available for nitrogen dioxide, and for a
number of hydrocarbons that are readily condensed into liquids at room
temperature.
106
Instruments that measure the light emitted during gas phase reactions
of nitric oxide and ozone are also used in monitoring contaminant concen—
trations in occupational and ambient atmospheres. If an excess of ozone is
mixed with the sample containing nitric oxide, as in Figure 5, the amount of
light is proportionate to the amount of nitric oxide. This technique can
be used for measuring nitrogen dioxide by passing the sampled air through a
chemical converter that converts the nitric dioxide to nitric oxide, which
can then be measured on a mole for mole basis. Nitric oxide and nitrogen
dioxide can be differentiated by sequential readings with and without the
converter in-line. * ---
The same basic type of instrument can be used as an ozone monitor by
feeding an excess of nitric oxide into the reaction chamber. Other oxone
monitors are based on other chemiluminescent reactions of ozone, specifi-
cally, with ethylene and organic dyes. .
Measuring Aerosol Mass Concentration
Both of the methods described for measuring particle concentrations
and size distributions, i.e., the small particle mobility analyzer and the
larger particle light-scatter analyzer, measure the diameters of particles
and sort them by so many numbers of particles in each size interval.
Number concentration is important in many studies, but in studying effects
Oºl people or animals, the investigator generally needs to know the
aerosol's mass concentration. Since the mass of a particle varies with
the cube of the diameter and with the density, the investigator needs to
know more than number distribution. On the other hand, the automatic
machines accumulate a very good statistical base. Adequate approximations
of mass concentrations can sometimes be made by determining the volume
107
distributions from the transformed number distributions. If the particles'
density is determined, then a mass median diameter distribution or a con-
centration can be calculated.
While such data transformations may be justifiable in some cases, the
property that is being reported is not being directly measured. It is,
therefore, sometimes necessary to determine the aerodynamic size distri-
bution, since this is the distribution of sizes that affects deposition in
the respiratory tract. If a system of somewhat redundant measurements can
be justified, it is best to use a variety of complementary aerosol Tilea. Sullſ e-
gients involving light scatter, mobility, and aerodynamic properties.
The beta attenuation technique combined with a two-stage collection
system, as illustrated in Figure 6, sorts the particles by their aerodynamic
sizes and measures the mass in each fraction. Using this technique, the
air enters an impaction jet at the top, and particles below its aerodynamic
cutoff size will be collected on the back-up filter. The mass of accumu-
lated particles collected at each state can continuously be monitored using
the beta attenuation technique. A carbon-14 source is used as a beta emitter.
The amount of 3-radiation that reaches the detector depends on the 3–
absorption in the accumulated sample between the source and the detector.
There is only about a 10 percent variation in beta attenuation with
mass number (Z), with the exception of hydrogen, and hydrogen does not
usually contribute much to aerosol mass. Thus, the amount of beta attenu-
ation by the impacted particles on the first stage indicates how much mass
of material has been collected in particles above the impactor's cutoff
size, and the attenuation of the particles on the second stage indicates
the mass of small particles below the cutoff size. However, the response
108
time of this technique is not very rapid.
Another type of direct ionitor of aerosol mass concentration utilizes
quartz-crystal oscillators as mass balances, and is illustrated in Figure 7.
Very small sample masses can be detected as they accumulate on the quartz
crystal oscillator. The quartz crystal is cut into a particular mode, and
electrodes are attached on each side. When a high frequency signal is
applied, the crystal oscillates, and its oscillation frequency depends on
the mass of the crystal. -
When particles are deposited on the crystal, its mass increases and
the oscillation frequency decreases, therefore, the sample accumulation
can be measured by the change in the frequency of the oscillator. In
modern instrumentation, frequency counting is relatively simple and precise,
and very sensitive. Thus, infinitesimal... masses produce readily measureable
signals.
However, this technique has its limitations. The sensitive zone does
not have a uniform sensitivity. It is greatest at the center of the electrode
and falls off toward the periphery. However, it does provide a sensitive
indication of mass, and with enough calibration to be sure of its perform-
ance under the given operating conditions, can be used as a sensitive mass
monitor.
Another instrument that can be used to provide an approximation of mass
concentration of particles in the one-tenth to one micron range is the in-
tegrating nephelometer, which is illustrated in Figure 8. This technique
measures the total scatter of an aerosol. The instrument discussed earlier
measures the scatter from individual particles. The nephelometer, by
contrast, measures the scatter of a cloud, i.e., the total scatter of all
* - - - ***** ** * * * * * * * * ~ *.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.* twº-ºººººººº, ex .
*** ******** a -ºs- ºa, a *, *s, * * * ***$-E's- “ -- ask * * * → * * * *** ****-*~ * > -- “* * * * **
109
of the particles in the sensing zone.
110
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Existing measurement techniques for the evaluation of occupational and
environmental exposures to fuel cycle pollutants are generally adequate
for the more fully developed fuel cycles. These include the preparation
of coal and petroleum products for combustion, and uranium for nuclear
fission. Further improvements in seisurement techniques for evaluating eX-
posures -to the pollutants for these fuel cycles will be primarily concerned
with refinements in instrument convenience, performance and reliability.
In many cases, there is room for improvement with respect to size, port-
ability, cost, response time, sensitivity and specificity.
Entirely new measurement technologies need to be developed and refined
for some of the pollutants associated with fuel cycles currently under
active development, especially coal conversion and oil shale processing.
One major problem is that the mixtures of hydrocarbons within these processes
and in their effluents are so varied and complex that it is not possible to
characterize all of their individual and combined toxicities. A second
problem is that designs of commercial scale plants and their potential for
effluent and fugitive emissions cannot be determined at this time.
An attractive approach for effective hazard evaluations in the synthetic
fuels industry is to select one or more appropriate constituents of the
mixtures to serve as indicators. However, considerable research will be
needed to serve as a basis for establishing the feasibility and utility of
this approach for these processes.
continuous, direct reading instrumentation for monitoring airborne
concentrations of many of the pollutant gases of interest are available.
Many of these instruments utilize sensors which respond to gas-phase re-
** *** * * *** **sº sº gº ºs- ~rºr-º-º-º: •ºrº -º ºr -º º --- * *
Ill-
* sº
action products and/or spectral absorptions. Direct reading aerosol moni-
tors are available for the measurement of mass concentration and particle
size distribution. However, there are no direct reading instruments for
measuring the concentrations of specific chemicals present in aerosols. The
development of such instruments, while admittedly difficult, represents an
area for productive research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ---
This work is part of center programs supported by Grant No. ES 00260
from the National Insitute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Grant No.
CA 13343 from the National Cancer Institute.
112.
References
1.
Hammond, E. C., I. J. Selikoff, P.L. Lawther, and H. Seidman. Inhalation
of Benzpyrene and Cancer in Man. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 271:116-124 (1976).
Sawicki, E. Airborne Carcinogens and Allied Compounds. Arch. Environ.
Health 14:46-53 (1967).
Lawther, P. J., B. T. Commins, and R. E. Waller, A Study of the Con-
centrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gas Works Retort
Houses. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 22:13–20 (1965).
**-****** *-** * **-* =s== =---
Kotins P. , and H. L. Falk. The Role and Action of Environmental Agents
in the Pathogenesis of Lung Cancer. Cigarette Smoke Cancer 13:250-262
(1960).
Faoro, R. B. trends in Concentrations of Benzene Soluble Suspended
Particulate Fraction and Benzo(a)pyrene. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc.
25:638-640 (1975).
Haenszel, W., D. B. Loveland, and M. G. Sirken. Lung-Cancer Mortality
as Related to Residence and Smoking Histories. I. White Males.
J.N.C. I. 28:947-1001 (1962).
Doll, R., R. E. W. Fisher, E. J. Gammon, W. Gunn, G. O. Hughes,
F. H. Tyrer, and W. Wilson. Mortality of Gasworkers with Special
Reference to Cancers of the Lung and Bladder, Chronic Bronchitis, and
Pneumoconiosis. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 22:1-12 (1965).
Working Group on Assessing Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Needs for the
Coal Conversion and Oil Shale Industries. Final Report to U. S. DOE
under Contract No. EY-76–C–02-0016, Brookhaven Nat'l. Lab., Upton, NY
(Feb. 1979).
ll3.
9. Second Task Force for Research Planning in Environmental Health Science.
Human Health and the Environment - Some Research Needs. DHEW Publ.
# NIH 77–1277, Supt. Doc. , USGPO, Washington, D.C. (1977).
10. Air Sampling Instruments Committee, Air Sampling Instruments for
Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants-5th Ed., Cincinnati, American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (1978).
ll.4
H.V.
A-A
Charged
cedn air ſ derosol
|'s HH
A
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of electric mobility analyzer tube as
used in mobility size analyzer. Source: Liu, B.Y.H., (Ed.),
Fine Particles, Academic Press, 1976, p. 599.
. ...4.x- - ... ,------------- * * * * ** -º-
|NLET
* - \
* e” N
^ . N \
2 . . TSENSOR CHAMBER N \
~~ e’ \\
/
SS . //
*
S
s
/
/
- - lºss
PHOTOMULTIPLIER N \ \ S.
CALIBRATOR
VIEW VOLUME
W/~~~ tº º Y ~ 2 * * - T -
* - * : *. sº
Tº -- º ºr * S . asº
LAMP
|MIRROR
23.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of single particle optical particle size
analyzer. Source: Climet, Inc. literature.

115
| Li G}{T
| SOt) R. C. E. |
| |
| (QC C.
Rorari NG e U | O PT | CAL
\! A Nº E Tº
j "Fºr | SYSTEM
Streqm e | | W N 0 OWS | | Ea |
i- | | | | **
| | | | || |
| | | |
| | | | || |
sAM, Pie | | | REFEREN c as cº
Tu B E | | | | | Tues E READ OUT
| l | | | |N DICATOR
| | | | | | and
| | | | | RECORDER
Stream c ! { | | ~. , - OUTPUT --
*ld-J pºllſ | . =
| | –F] .
| | | || | | | - sº º sº sº º smº º-> <--> —l
orrector H- | | T - d |
*= R. F. S I C N A L |
— — — — — — — — — — —l | UN | T A M P L | F | E R — — — . . -- - - -
| |
ºmºmº |
— — — — — — — — — — —l
ELECTRONICS
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of infra-red gas analyzer. Source: Air.
Sampling Instruments (5th Edition), ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1978.
-- est---n -- ~~ *** * * * * - ----- "...ºr-- - - - - - - - - - - - -- *** * * *

116
R8. CCRO8 R
\
ELECT FOMEYER
--
*— 300 V DC
FOUR-WAY VALVE
ſt
ſt
+
VENT
Oil UTION
POW (R
sº Y
-__ N ROY AMETER
k PERMEATION T ~~
TUBE
• ar - -C PHOTO-
CONSTANT-TEMPERATURE 8ATH} MULTIPLIER
§ | TUBE
ROTAMETER | | | \ ELECTROMETER
R
| NARROW-8AND
CLEAN. | optical Filr=R
AiR | *2 r. |
SOURCE: |
i-----
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of flame photometric analyzer for sulfur
gases, with permeation tube calibrator. Source: Air Sampling
Instruments (5th Edition), ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.



117
SAMPLE
FI LTER ' ( Y->
MECHANICAL \ Yº-º-º/__
----, - - - Jºh PUMP >==<l—tºi.
-T. PHOTOMULTIPLIER FLOW REACTOR
gº-ºº-ººrº
POWER
SUPPLY
*==zarassaraºsmas
sº H-
STATE RECORDER T-
ELECTRO-H-K VACUUM
METER GAUGE
Hi LEvel O2
OUTPUT
OZONE
GENERATORT
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of chemiluminescence NO/NO, analyzer.
Source: Scott Research Labs literature.






118
S, DETECTOR IMPACTION
l > H2—”
Ó ... O
—s, DETECTOR
22.ɺ
O Í/Oº
:
I —- -
—º-.
TO PUMP
p -
REAMP AMP/ RITIMER countERI Ampſ IPREAMPI .
DúSG. DISG. * ~,
*** *** *-* ~ *-a- ºr-s-s
H
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of TWOMASS mass concentration analyzer.
Source: Liu, B. Y.H., (Ed.), Fine Particles, Academic Press,
1976, p. 551.

ll.9
Figure 7.
Mass Sensitivity
Distribution
0.2 mm g . I pm
— -7-- = T
Y ELECTRODEs
Schematic diagram of quartz-crystal oscillator used as a mass
balance, showing sensitivity over crystal face. Source: Liu,
B.Y.H., (Ed.), Fine Particles, Academic Press, 1976, p. 489.

120
Flashlamp Floshlomp
º:- Trigger Power
Aerosol in-a- Generotor Supply ->Aerosol Out
clean | Liqht
Purde Ai ! !“ Q
urg; ºr Collimotor Opol Gloss-HÚ Trap Calibrator
| |
XPIO IO Scottering Reſeº
3/ Photo
|
* ºn 9 Cleon
Multiplier Phototube Volume tube 934 Purge Air
|Delay 8, Gate Sync From Flashlamp
—A
—- ſo 1. | Pulse Gen.
|Pi H- lo * tº º Span T- Modnet
| Analog |Amplifier 8, ...A D.C. Lº". Strip Chart|Magnetic
—D-IT Divider Goted Detectorſ 2"-F| Amp || Z: Recorder || Tope
Time * Recorder
Cons?ont |
Linear
H.V. Power L -> -]Multip Anolog-
Supply Log Hºuſe- and,
TF Conver ter
Figure 8. Schematic diagrams of integrating nephelometer.
Source: MRI, Inc. literature.

121
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
By
* * Tan Higgins, M.D.
Professor of Epidemiology w
Professor of Environmental and Industrial Health
\
Kathy Welch, M.P.H.
and
Jerel Glassman, M.P.H.
School of Public Health
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
-122-.
Introduction.
The task of the epidemiologist who is interested in the effects on health
of fuel cycle pollutants is to relate exposure to response in some definable
population. As you have just heard, he has first to measure exposure to
specified pollutants. He has to do this in the work place and elsewhere to
reach sound conclusions about the dosage received by each person in his study
group. He has then to identify and measure any effects, or responses, that
these exposures have caused. The relationship between exposure and response
should be quantified with as much precision as possible in the form of a
dose/response curve (or series of dose/response curves). Responses of in-
terest may be influenced by many factors other than pollution, by age, sex,
socio-economic status and smoking, for example. It is essential that due
allowance should be made for such confounding factors if erroneous conclusions
about the hazards of pollution are to be avoided.
As in any scientific endeavor, the epidemiologist can make observations
or conduct experiments. Broadly speaking, observations are of two kinds:
1) Persons with an effect of interest can be compared with persons
without it to see if their current and past exposure differs, and
2) Persons with known (or estimated) exposures are followed to see if
the frequency and severity of some effect can be related to the intensity
and duration of those exposures.
Experiments are also of two kinds:
1) Those based on "natural" changes, such as varying concentrations
arising from industrial emissions or accidents, and
2) Those based on planned change where the effect of control measures
is studied.
123
Definition of the population for study.
The first problem is to decide what population we should study. Are
we more interested in the general population or should we focus on those
we suspect of being a high risk group? Patients with heart or lung diseases,
asthmatics, the young or the old, for example. Ideally, we should know
what proportion of the whole community the high risk group comprises? But
susceptible persons have seldom been identified in this way. More often,
patients on the lists of physicians have been recruited for diary, panel
or other special risk studies. The result has been that one has only a
vague idea of the prevalence of such persons in the community.
Instead of trying to study the whole community, which is a taxing
activity requiring an initial census, epidemiologists often select some
group (or groups) within the whole, which is assumed to reflect the behavior
of the whole reasonably accurately. Thus, persons employed in different -
jobs, children in school, insured persons and so on are often selected as
being more readily accessible than members of the community at large.
Occupational groups sometimes offer advantages over community defined groups.
The late Professor Donald Reid originally conducted his studies of air
pollution among postmen (mailmen) because the occupation ensured a certain
socio-economic homogeneity.
It may be more practicable to study the effect of certain exposures
within a particular industrial group rather than in the general population.
Exposure to pollutants, which may occur when coal is converted into liquid
or gaseous fuel, and exposure to ionizing radiation are examples. There
are a number of problems with occupational groups. The disabled tend to
be under-represented. The heavier the exertion required, the less likely
l24.
are the disabled to remain in the work force. Disabled persons may move
from heavier to lighter jobs. Persons with certain impairments and diseases
do not ever get into the work force either because they do not try to do so
or because they are rejected by a pre-employment physical examination.
These forms of selection result in most occupational groups being healthier
than the general community, a situation which is often referred to as "the
healthy worker effect."
Identification of comparison groups.
It is important to establish adequate comparison groups. Frequently
the population being studied can be subdivided into a number of exposure
categories (none, light, moderate, heavy; or, better, classes based on
pollutant concentrations or dosages). These internal comparisons form the
bases for exposure/response curves. In many studies, however, additional
external comparisons are important. This is particularly so when the
question posed refers to a possibly increased risk of some disease resulting
from occupational exposure. Does this group of men who are occupationally -
exposed to this or that pollutant have an increased risk of dying of cancer?
Chronic respiratory disease? All causes? These questions imply some
standard of comparison or basis for expectation. The United States pop-
ulation, the population of the state or city where the industry is located,
some other industry, all persons covered by social security, are some of the
comparison groups which have been suggested and used.
Sources of information on population.
Information on the general population is available from routine demo-
graphic and vital statistics. Often, however, the detail one might like
L25
is insufficient for adequate comparisons. Occupational data is limited
and smoking habits usually nonexistent. If these important confounding
variables are to be dealt with adequately, a special effort will have to
be made to collect them. Usually an up-to-date definition of the population
will need a census.
Occupational groups can be defined by company or Union records. But
these may not always be available. They need to be checked for completeness.
This can be done through quarterly social security records. Any discre-
pancies between nominal lists and SSA records need to be resolved. . .
Measurement of exposure.
We need to decide first what pollutants to measure, how, where and
for how long. Often measurements will have been made at one or more sites.
But these will seldom be adequate for epidemiological needs. Nevertheless,
such measurements may be all that are available for estimation of past
T and Schimeiº and their colleagues on
exposures. The studies of Buechley
daily mortality in relation to daily pollution in New York City have been .
based on measurements of pollution made at a single sampling station in
uptown Manhattan. Clearly such limited data, while it may provide a
reasonable picture of overall change, is less than ideal. In the industrial
setting, measurements will usually have been made at sites where the risk of
exposure is particularly high.
In neither the general community nor the work place are people exposed
to these measured concentrations. In the community, people live at some
distance from the sampling station. They work somewhere else. They travel
between the two and move about elsewhere during the course of the day.
126.
More important perhaps, but increasingly recognized, they spend most of their
time indoors whereas pollution is measured out-of-doors. There are large
differences in pollutant levels indoors and outdoors. In the work place
employees may spend only a small fraction of the work shift exposed to the
pollutant concentrations which are measured. The rest of the time they may
be exposed to lower concentrations. An additional problem in assessing
exposure at work is that sampling is usually intermittent. The days on
which samples are taken may not be representative of all days.
In the general community samples are usually taken over 24 hours, though
continuous recording instruments are used for some pollutants. Personal -
monitors provide an integrated exposure over a working shift or in the
case of a radiation badge over a longer period, usually a week. For many
exposures we may be more concerned with short peaks than with integrated
shift or 24 hour samples. Thus, deterioration in the respiratory condition
of patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema or attacks of asthma may
depend more on transient short peaks of exposure than on 24 hour concen-
trations.
In assessing exposure, the epidemiologist has to be concerned with daily
patterns of movement. In the industrial setting this involves a time and
motion study. But in the general community this is difficult. Perhaps
personal monitoring provides the best way of obtaining reasonably accurate
estimates. To date, few such studies have been carried out.
If it is hard to estimate short (24 hour) exposures, it is of course
much harder to estimate exposures over the past 10 or 20 years or over a
lifetime. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that pollutant concen-
trations have nearly always changed over the years. What we measure now
127
may have little relevance to pollution in the past. Inevitably we must rely
on historical information, work and residential histories and what is known
or believed about the way pollution has changed.
Measurement of response.
Turning now to the response side of the equation. A variety of biological
indices can be used to study effects of exposure. These range from death,
severe disability and serious illness, through respiratory or other symptoms
and lung function to mild discomfort, unnoticed changes in physiological or
psychological function, or silent accumulation of chemicals in the body.
Some of these indices are routinely collected. For example, deaths, including
daily deaths, can be obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics
(or similar Offices of Vital Statistics in certain other countries). Illnesses
are available in insured populations. But many of these indices must be.
obtained by the epidemiologist by means of a survey.
Death is a good epidemiological index, if somewhat terminal. Provided
the fact of death is confirmed by a death certificate there is not much
doubt about it. As soon as interest turns to specific causes of death, a
number of problems arise. Some of these are concerned with diagnosis.
They include such things as criteria for diagnosis, fashions in certification,
observer variation and error. Others reflect the ordering of potentially
killing illnesses on the death certificate into underlying and contributory
causes. Finally, people who die of heart disease do not remain in the
population to die of cancer or stroke. There is, as we say, a problem of
"competing causes of death."
When one collects ones own data, a clear statement of the biological
index used as a measure of the effect of pollution needs to be made. The
128
index needs to be clearly defined and its degree or severity classified.
The reproducibility of symptoms, physical signs, special investigations .
such as chest x-rays, lung function tests, blood and other laboratory tests
has to be carefully assessed. Needless to say, initial training is
important in ensuring that tests are correctly carried-out and variation
between observers is reduced to a minimum.
A claim that is sometimes made for epidemiology is that it offers
&ſi opportunity to identify persons with the earliest deviations from the
norm. While this is certainly true, it should be recognized that minimal
changes are often hard to differentiate from normal variation. Once
defined there may also be uncertainty about the future implications of
such deviations. For example, a modest rise in respiratory airways
resistance (50%) may be brought about by exposure to S02 Or N02 at low
concentrations. A comparable rise can also occur from breathing cold
air, after coughing or even from taking a deep breath. In the case of
S02, the A.W.R. may revert to normal even while the subject continues to
breath S02. Do these changes have any more serious implications? We
do not know. Yet there is a tendency to assume they do and to regulate
accordingly.
Again, in the search for sensitive indices of effects, subtle changes
in lung function have sometimes been used. An increased response to
carbachol, for example, has been shown to be brought about by prior
exposure to low concentrations of N02. What such a response means is
at present uncertain. But in the present state of our knowledge, such
a test seems to me to be an inadequate basis for regulation.
129.
What should we measure?
The brunt of fuel cycle pollutants falls on the respiratory system.
It seems obvious, therefore, that our focus of interest should be on this
system, though not of course exclusively. We have fairly adequate and
reasonably extensive tested methods of investigating the respiratory system.
Thus respiratory symptom questionnaires, spirometry, chest radiography and
measurement of sputum volume and quality have been extensively used. Recom-
mendations have recently been made by a task group of the American Thoracic
Society (ATS 1978)? The search goes on for more and more sensitive tests;
but in my view, our problem is much more to apply those tests we already
have than to develop new ones.
Ionizing radiation and coal conversion products pose a potential
risk of cancer, respiratory and other. Collection of morbidity and mortality
statistics on cancer should presumably be one of the indices with which we
should be concerned. But relatively large populations must be studied if
sufficient cases are to develop in a reasonably short time. It is clearly
desirable to monitor other changes, which may occur more frequently than
cancer, changes in sputum cytology, fetal wastage and congenital mal for-
mations, for example, particularly if women are exposed.
The Medical Research Council's Clinical and Population Genetics Unit
has been monitoring lymphocyte cultures in 197 dockyard workers exposed
to low concentrations of ionizing radiation (cumulative dosages of from
3 They observed a striking correlation between dose in
1 to 30 rems).
rem and aberration counts/1000 cells tested. The relationship was particu-
larly notable for cells with unstable aberrations (acentric elements,
dicentrics, rings). This suggests to me that lymphocyte cultures should
130.
be considered in radiation effects. As other bio-assay systems are
identified, consideration should be given to them as they can provide a
relatively inexpensive method of screening for harmful effects.
Equal treatment of study population and comparison group.
When an industrial population is being compared with the national,
state or other comparison group, it is of course important to avoid
introducing bias through greater attention to the group of greater interest.
There is a serious risk that this may happen. There is an almost irresist--
able tendency to correct deaths which one knows to have been wrongly
certified in the group of special interest, as a result of review of the
hospital records, for example. Clearly such "correction" is quite
improper unless a similar scrutiny of the deaths in the comparison
population is also made. A more subtle form of this bias is to increase -
the autopsy rates in the population of interest (but not in the comparison
group).
There may even be problems resulting from the scrutiny and coding of
the death certificates in the population of interest but accepting the
original coding for the comparison group. This seems to me to be parti-
cularly likely to occur when the original coding would have been carried
out under a different revision of the international classification of
causes of death.
Confounding factors.
Many factors other than air pollution influence morbidity and mortality
from the respiratory diseases. Smoking, occupational exposures, infections,
l3l
allergy, heredity, age and sex must be carefully considered before respiratory
disease is attributed to general air pollution. Climate, in particular
temperature level and short-term temperature changes, may also contribute
significantly to disease, both respiratory and other. There may also be
difficulty in separating one pollutant from others. In London, for example,
daily concentrations of smoke and S02 are so highly correlated that it is
impossible to separate their independent contributions to effects. In most
cities, poor people tend to live in areas where pollution is highest.
Inevitably, effects of pollution are therefore confounded with effects due
to low socio-economic status.
Many studies of air pollution have failed to allow at all for smoking,
occupation, ethnic origin and socio-economic status, making any conclusions
that are drawn about the effects of pollution uncertain. Other studies
have made some allowance for some of these factors but this allowance may
not have been sufficient to eliminate the confounding effect.
Miscellaneous problems.
- *-*-* -- --> ---- - - - - - --------------- *-**** - -
A variety of problems arise in studying effects in relation to short-
term changes in pollution. Studies using daily deaths have shown that the
date a death is registered may not be that on which the death occurred
(Sunday deaths may be registered on Monday and other day-of-the-week
effects may also occur). Place of death may not be that reported. Pol-
Tution in most great cities varies considerably from place to place.
Attempts to improve dose estimates by considering areas within the city
lead to problems with small numbers and uncertainty with respect to how
the population at risk of dying may have varied throughout the 24 hours.
132
Another problem with daily studies is that there is often a phase
shift between the measurements of pollution and the measurements of the
health effects. Pollution over the 24 hours may be measured from 8:00 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m. Whereas, health may be measured from midnight to midnight.
It is difficult to make personal observations or tests for many days
at a time. We tried to study a sample of elderly persons (over 65 years
of age) in Tampa, measuring their ventilatory lung function once a day.
The best we were able to achieve was to follow a small, declining sample
of persons for three two-week periods. over six months diaries or telephone
interviews may be more successful, but these suffer from subjectivity and
the problem of remembering to fill in the daily record. Another problem is
the tendency of most large cities to announce their daily "murk" index on
the radio or television, with the possibility that knowledge of pollutant
concentrations to which subjects have been exposed may bias answers.
Problems of analysis.
There are many problems in analyzing data on politution and health -
effects. The studies of Schimmel and his colleagues, Lave and Seskin"
and the E.P.A.'s CHESS" studies and their critical reanalysis make these
clearly apparent. Most of these authors have discussed these problems.
I do not intend to do so in any detail here. It may, however, be worth
saying again that no amount of statistical sophistication (or juggling)
can compensate for poor, inaccurate or absent data. It may be very
difficult, indeed impossible, to draw conclusions about effects of indivi-
dual variables when these are highly correlated. Multivariate analysis
used to date in pollution studies have always assumed linearity of variates,
an assumption which is at least questionable.
133
The most critical decision from an economic standpoint is, of course,
what concentrations should be selected as standards of air quality. On the
basis of past epidemiological studies, average 24 hour concentrations of:
250 g/m” of smoke (as measured by the British smoke filter) and 500 ug/m”
Of S02 are probably reasonable. Average annual concentrations are harder
to specify, if indeed such standards are useful. One approach might be to
select an annual concentration which experience shows would never permit a
24 hour concentration of more than 250 ug/m” for smoke or 500 g/m” for S02.
For London this would result in average annual concentrations of about
50 g/m" for smoke and 130 g/m" for SO2. The main trouble with this
approach, however, is that 24 hour distributions of pollutants through
the year differ in different places. What might be appropriate for London
might not be so for New York City. - -
A serious problem arises when one tries to convert British smoke con-
centrations to equivalent total suspended matter (T.S.P.) as measured with
a hi-volume sampler, the usual method in the U.S. At relatively high
concentration (750 ug/m") the two methods are roughly equivalent; but at
low concentrations T.S. P. measurements are roughly three times those measured
with a smoke filter. Thus an annual average concentration of 50 g/m”
smoke would translate to about 150 g/m” T.S.P., a concentration that is
about double the current U.S. standard. Most authorities would deprecate
relaxing the particulate standard to such a degree without better evidence
on the relationship between the two methods. Clearly additional research
on the two methods taking particle size into consideration is needed.
These are some of the problems which epidemiologists who are concerned
with pollution have to face. There are, of course, many others, such as
the cooperation of persons being studied, access to records, completeness of
134
follow-up and so on. But these are general problems for all epidemiological
work and the title of the session does say Special. In conclusion, I hope
we have not succeeded in convincing you that the problems are so great
that epidemiological studies should not be attempted. Epidemiology is the
only way of obtaining answers to some of the questions being asked.
135
: CSC
*
REFERENCES
Buechley, R.W., W. B. Riggan, W. Hasselblad and J.B. Wanbruggen. S02
levels and perturbations in mortality. A study in the New York-New
Jersey Metropolis. Arch. Environ. Health 27:134-137, 1973.
Ferris, B.G., Jr. Epidemiology Standardization Project. Amer. Rev.
Resp. Dis. 118:1-20, 1978. . .
Lave, L.B. and E.P. Seskin. Air Pollution and Human Health. Baltimore.
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. 368 pp.
Schimmel, H. and L. Greenburg. A study of the relation of pollution
to mortality. New York City, 1963-1968. J. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc. 22:607-616, 1972. * -
Schimmel, H. and T. J. Murawski. S02--Harmful pollutant or air quality
indicator? Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 25:739-740, 1975.
Schimmel, H. Evidence for possible acute health effects of ambient -
air pollution from time series analysis. Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med.
54:1052-1108, 1978.
136
ROLE OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS IN RELATION TO HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
By
Yves Alarie, Ph.D.
Department of Industrial Environmental Health Sciences
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15261
137
INTRODUCTION
When new chemicals are proposed for introduction on the market as
food additives, drugs, pesticides, etc., an important portion of the re-
search work done is devoted to evaluation of their possible toxic effects,
not only for humans, but also for the biosphere.
Thus, the role of animal experiments is crucial in preventing cat-
astrophic effects to occur. The second role of animal experiments is to
investigate and confirm, expand, or deny claims of possible effects on
humans of chemicaſs already on the market and for which epidemiological
evidence is introduced about their possible deleterious effects. The
most important role of animal experiments is concerned with accurate pre-
diction of safe levels of exposure for the human population.
Animal experiments are also conducted to probe the mechanisms by
which toxic reactions are produced, and how the chemicals are biotrans-
formed and eliminated. This established a sound 5asis for recommendation
of safe levels of exposure.
II. REQUIREMENTS OF AN ANIMAL MODEL
In order for animal models to fulfill their role, they must be
solidly based on fundamental sciences and provide:
1. Sound anatomical, physiological, or biochemical basis of the
measured toxic effects.
2. The response observed must be characteristic, easily recognized,
and amenable to quantitation.
3. Concentration-response relationship must be demonstrable.
4. The qualitative correlation between the effect observed in animals
and the effect observed in humans must be very high for a series
of related chemicals.
138
5. From the concentration-response relationship, prediction of effects
to occur in humans should be made over a wide range of exposure con-
centrations as well as delineate safe levels of exposure.
Obviously, the above are not always fully obtained with each animal
model currently used. Nevertheless, animal experimentation will in-
crease in the coming years and will be refined so that better predic-
tions can be made.
III. SOME ANIMAL MODELS
This Symposium is concerned with health effects from fuel cycle
pollutants, both waterborne and airborne. By using some examples Of
animal models, I hope to demonstrate how they can be used and what their
role is, in relation to human health effects. -* --
A. Airborne Irritants -
Of industrial and urban atmospheric contaminants, approximately
50% of them have irritating properties. First, they impinge on the
surface of the cornea and nasal mucosa and stimulate the nerve
endings. This stimulation evokes a burning sensation. Entering the
lower airways, these chemicals can also induce bronchoconstriction
and inflammatory reactions. Repeated exposure to these chemicals
induces chronic bronchitis. An animal model (1,2) has been developed
to first categorize airborne chemicals as irritating or not, evaluate
and compare their potency, and to predict safe levels of exposure.
- * * ~ --~~~~
a. Basis of the Model
Recognition that an airborne chemical is a sensory irri-
tant is accomplished by monitoring the breathing pattern of an
139
C.
animal, typically a mouse, as shown in Figure 1.
When inhaling an irritant, a characteristic pause occurs in the
breathing pattern due to stimulation of the trigeminal nerve
endings located in the nasal mucosa. A reflex respiratory inhi-
bition is initiated. This response is easily recognized and
can be monitored continuously, as shown in Figure 2.
Since the level of response, measured as a decrease in
respiratory rate, is related to the concentration of the irri-
tant, a concentration-response relationship can be developed,
as shown in Figure 3.
Comparisons to be Made
Since concentration-response relationships can be obtained,
it then becomes very easy to compare the potency of various chem-
icals. As shown in Figure 4, the potency of these airborne chem-
icals varies greatly.
Predictions for Human Health
Once concentration-response curves are obtained, a con-
venient point for comparison, provided the curves are fairly
parallel , is the half-way point between no response and maximum
response, which for this model can be taken as 50% decrease in
respiratory rate and has been termed RD50. The RD50 values for
the chemicals shown in Figure 4 are listed in Table 1. From
these values, predictions of effects to be expected in humans
and establishment of safe levels of exposures can be attempted.
A:list of various standards for exposures to airborne chemicals
is in Table 2. In Table 3 are the proposed relationships of RD50
140
to expected human effects and to the standards presented in
Table 2. If we want to test how effective the model is, we can
compare the predictions with the current Threshold Limit Value
as done in Table 4. We find that for 9 - 11 chemicals, the TLV
is between 0.1 - 0.01 RD50. The two exceptions are for epi-
chlorohydrin and formaldehyde. The difference for epichloro-
hydrin is small, but for formaldehyde, the acceptable range for
TLW predicted by the model is much lower. This difference has
been discussed and is due primarily to the fact that the animal
model does not consider tolerance development to this chemical,
while in workers continuously exposed to formaldehyde, this
phenomenon occurs (3). –––––.
Another test of the predictions made by the model is to
evaluate how accurate the predictions are for the range of expo-
sure concentrations. This is presented for 2 of the 11 chemicals,
acrolein and chlorine in Tables 5 and 6 (see Reference 1 for
others). It can be seen that, in general, the predictions made--- - - --—
within each concentration range are reasonable. Unfortunately,
for the lowest concentration, with the exception of sulfur di-
oxide, there were no data in the literature to permit us to
present firm conclusions. However, as long-term chronic studies
on these chemicals are being conducted, these results should
complete the picture.
d. Difference in Sensitivity
In predicting levels of effects for humans, we must
take into account, the difference in sensitivity existing
14l
in the population. This is particularly difficult to take into
account in animal experiments since we are using fairly homog-
enous pupulations. Several species can be tested, or different
Strains can be tested to obtain an estimate of the variation in
Sensitivity. This has been done using the model described above
and some of the results are presented in Table 7. As can be
seen, there is a factor of 10 between the most and the least
sensitive strains. Such variations can then be taken into
account when making predictions of human reactions from animal
models. *
B. Pulmonary Hypersensitivity sº ---
Many industrial contaminants can elicit bronchial hypersensi-
tivity. Reports of asthma-like attacks by workers exposed to simple
chemicals such as toluene diisocyanate, phtalic anhydride, trimeTiitic
anhydride, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, ethylene diamine, etc., are &
frequent. Exposures to these chemicals stimulate the formation of
reaginic antibodies. gy
a. Basis of the Model
Several animal species have been used to investigate the
sensitizing properties of airborne chemicals. When challenged
with an aerosol of antigen, a characteristic breathing pattern
results which can be quantitated so that the magnitude of the
response can be obtained (4). Using the challenging antigen,
Sera. from sensitized animals can then be tested for antibody
reactive toward the hapten groups (i.e., specific chemical) of
interest.
142
b. Application in Humans
Once it has been demonstrated that the antigen prepared
can be used to detect antibodies in sera of animals, it becomes
very easy to apply the technique for evaluating sera from
workers exposed to the chemical, in this case, toluene diisocy-
anate (5,6). Such tests, as shown in Figures 5 and 6 can iden-
tify workers with elevated levels of IgE antibodies and permit
the follow of their disappearance, once the workers are removed
from exposures.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Society is now entrusting toxicologists with the primordial re-
sponsibility to prevent entry on the market of chemicals which can lead
to disastrous effects on a very large scale. Often we read newspaper
accounts, as well as scientific reports of adverse effects of chemicals.
Have toxicologists failed to protect the public? What we do not read
about is the number of promising chemicals which are prevented from
entering the market because of what toxicologists found in their inves-
tigations using animals. It would be interesting to have some accurate
statistics in this area to determine the performance of toxicologists
and the animal models used.
It remains, however, that toxicologists will be at the front-line
of evaluation of new chemicals and it is only via toxicological testing
in animal models that we can prevent adverse effects to occur in man.
*Q. #
143
REFERENCES
Kane, L.E., Barrow, C.S. and Alarie, Y. A short-term test to predict
acceptable levels of exposure to airborne sensory irritants. Am.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 40, 207, 1979.
Alarie, Y. , Kane, L.E. and Barrow, C.S. Sensory irritation: the use
of an animal model to establish acceptable exposure to airborne
chemical irritants. In: Industrial Toxicology, Principles and
Practice. A. Reeves and H.N. MacFarland Eds. J. Wiley for 1979.
Kane, L.E. and Alarie, Y. Sensory irritation to formaldehyde and
acrolein during single and repeated exposures in mice. Am Ind.
Hyg. Assoc. J. 38, 509, 1977.
Karol, M.H., Ioset, H.H. and Alarie, Y. Hapten-specific respiratory
hypersensitivity iniguinea-pigs. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 39, 546,
1978, -
Karol, M.H., Ioset, H.H. and Alarie, Y. Tolyl-specific IgE anti-
bodies in workers with hypersensitivity to toluene diisocyanate.
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 39, 454, 1978.
Karol, M.H., Sandberg, T., Riley, E.J. and Alarie, Y. Longitudinal
study of tolyl-reactive IgE antibodies in three workers hypersensi-
tive to toluene diisocyanate (TDI). J. Occ. Med., 21, 354, 1979.
144
TABLE I
RD50 and 95% Confi dence Limits for
Eleven Sensory Irritants
RD50 } 95%. Confidence
Compounds º Limit
ppm ppm
Acrolein 1.68 1.26 - 2.24
Ammonia 303. 159 – 644
Chlorine 9.34. 6.64 - 14.1
- chloroacetophenone 0.96 0.766 - 1.26
- chlorobenzylidre 0.52 0.425 - 0.57
maiononitrile - . . .
chioropicrin 7.98 || 5.22 - 10.6
Epichlorohydrin 687 633 - 748
Formaldehyde 3.13 2.54 - 3.97
Hydrogen chloride 309 281 – 410
sulfur dioxide 117 107 - 128
Toluene diisocyanate 0.39 0.345 - 0.446

*RD50: Exposure concentration associated with a 50%
decrease in respiratory rate.
145
TABLE 2 Q l |
Standards, Definitions, and Promulgating Agencies for Airborne Contaminant Standards
|
Standard
Responsible Agency
–
T
Definition
|
. Threshold Limit Value
(TLV)- Time-Weighted
Average (TWA)
American Conference of Govern-I
mental Industrial Hygienists
"The time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-
hour workday or 40-hour workweek, to which nearly all
workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, with-
out adverse effect." * (2)
Threshold Limit Value-
Ceiling (TLV-C)
American Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial Hygienists
—-y-
"The concentration that should not be exceeded even
instantaneously." (2)
|
Short-Term Exposure
Limit (STEL)
American Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial Hygienists
"The maximal concentration to which workers can be exposed
for a period of up to 15 minutes continuously without
suffering from l) intolerable irritation, 2) chronic or
irreversible tissue change, or 3) narcosis... provided that
no more than four excursions per day are permitted. . . The
STEL should be considered a maximal allowable concentration,
or absolute ceiling, not to be exceeded..." (2)
Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL)
occupational Safety and
Health Administration
ł , ,
Set in accordance with Sec 605).5 of Public Law 91-596 ". . .
standard which most adequately assures to the extent feas-
ible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or func-
tional capacity, even if such employee has regular exposure
to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of
his working life." (6)
Emergency Exposure
Limit (EEL)
Committee on Toxicology,
National Academy Of
Sciences
"The EEL for short-term exposure to an airborne contaminant
is a concentration which, when inhaled for a specified
single, brief period, rare in the lifetime of an individual,
, is believed not to result in a period of disability or inter-
ference with the performance of his assigned task." (7)

Air Quality
Standard (AQS)
Environmental Protection
Agency
g º prescribe pollutant exposures or levels of effect that
a political jurisdiction determines should not be exceeded
in a specific geographic area. . ." (9)
* The 1968 TLWS (as 8-hour TWA) have been designated as consensus standards by OSHA until a PEL is
§
A
TABLE 3.
Proposed Relationships of RD50 Concentration Values
to Industrial and Environmental Standards
Concentration
Designation
Expected Response
Proposed Relationships
Proposed Relationship to
in Humans . . to Industrial Standards | Environmental Standards
l() RD50 Lethal Lethal or extremely severe
injury to the respiratory º ºsmºsºmeº
tract t
RD50 Toxic Intolerable sensory irri-
tation; respiratory tract
injury may occur with . sº *
* extended exposure
0. RD50 Effective Definite but tolerable Highest acceptable
* sensory irritation concentration for TLV
º 0.2 RD50-basis for STEL
0.3 RD-a-basis for EEL /
50
0,0] RDso Ineffective Minimal or no sensory Lowest concentration
irritation necessary for TLV
0,0ſ)] RD Acceptable "Safe" level of no Recommended highest
50 | effect * :
concentration for
Air Quality Standard
:

§

TABLE 4
|
Prediction of Sensory Irritation Responses in Humans for
Eleven Sensory Irritants Evaluated in Mice, and
Relationship Of RD50
to Current TLW-TWA Waiues *
Sensory
Irritant
Predictions of Responses in Humans
Intolerable
at RDso(95%
C.L.)
Uncomfortable
but Tolerated
at 0.1 RD50
Jpm
Minimal,
NO Effect
at 0.01 RD
, ppm
1977
TLW-TV/A
ppm
| 0.1-0.01 RD
} ** -- * * * * * *- - - - - - - - -- *.* - - - - - -
Is Current
TLW-TV/A betwee
50
Acrolein
Ammonia
Chlorine
Chloroacetophenome!
chlorobenzylidene
- maiononitrile
chloropicrin
Epichlorohydrin
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen chloride
Sulfur dioxide
Toluene
diisocyanate
* (C) indicates
- PPn
1.58
(1.26–2.24)
303
9.34
0.96
0.52
587
(633-748)
3.13
(2.54—3.97)
117
0.39
(153-#4)
- 0.9
(6.64-14.1)
& (6.22-10.6) . . .
70.0
309.0
(287-410)
(107-128) ||
(0.345-0.446)
0.2
30.0
. . 0.7
(0.766-1.26
: U → 0.05
(0.429–0.677) . . . -
0.3
30.0
12.0
0.04
*- * - - -
-->
Ceiling Value
! --&
0.02
. , so
on
on
ow;
- 0.08
7.
on
3.0
0.004
0. I
25
0.05
0.05
0.1
2(c)*
5(C)*
- 0.02(c):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ ~~~~--------------------
yes
- yes
yes
- yes
yes * -
yes
no
no
yes
yes
- yes
148
TABLE 5
Acrolein (3)
!
F- *— w-r-y
Predicted Effect Accordin Concentration | Corresponding -º- r
to Proposed Model 9 Factor in Concentration Reported tºurs: to Acrolein
Terms of RD50 ppm (Results are for humans' unless otherwise toted)
lethal or extremely ; 10 20 21.8 ppm intolerable.
# * * * º | |0,5 ppm x 6 hr 1/2 rabbits died,
tº • * & | 0 ppm x 4 hr l/6 rats died,
5.5 ppm . . Intense irritation,
º::::::: ::::::: ſººn l t 2 - l, 2 ppm x s min Extremely irritating - only just tolerable.
reSD 1 "a tory tra C & * e
. jºi";. 1.2 ppm x 5 min 87% of test panel reported irritation.
1 ppm x 5 min . . 0.2% of test panel reported irritation.
1.6 ppm x 30 sec 0dor detectable. ,
1.8 ppm x 4 min Profuse lacrimation, practically intolerable.
0.5 ppm x 5 min 19-35% of test panel reported irritation.
0.5 ppm x 12 min 91% of test panel reported irritation.
Definite but tolerable sensory -l
irritation. • * * 10 0.2
º acceptable concentration |0.3 ppm x 60 min considerable acute irritation after 10-20 mini decreased
. * * t respiration. : t
0.15 ppm Nasal irritation.
Minimal or no sensory irritation. 10-? ow 0.09 ppm Eye irritation. *
Lowest cºncentration necessary 0.06 ppm Eye irritation 0.471 on scale of 2.0.
for TLW. wº * tº * >
Safe; leyel of no effect. 10-3 0,002 No data available.
Recommended highest concentration |
for Air Quality Standard. f |
! t }
|
£3

§
TABLE 6
| Chlorine (1)
Predicted Effect According Concentration Correspondin --— *_ – * *ºr-º-
to Proposed Model Factor in Concentratio Reported Exposures to Chlorine &
Terms of RD50 ppm (Results are for humans unless otherwise noted)
lethal or extremely ...”. 10 90 1050 ppm lethal concentration,
lºg tº tº rewrºwn 1000 ppm Rapidly fatai,
• e 105 ppm Tolerable for only a few seconds.
40-60 ppm Dangerous for even short exposure,
Intolerable sensory irritation; | , 9 . º 20(8.7-41) ppm, Painful eye irritation,
::::::::::::::::::"::::::::. \ 16.8 ppm … . . . . Frritation of throat in 3 minutes.
, t * …, | 14-21 ppm ... sº, Dangerous, . . . . .
º::::: 9(2.6-41) ppm º Intolerable raspiratory irritation.
: 5 ppm Chronic ...” caused premature aging; bronchial disease;
t mucous membrane inflammation; corrosion of teeth.
3-6 ppm Stinging or burning of eyes, nose, and throat; headache.
3.0/1.9-4.2) ppm Painful respiratory irritation.
Öefinite but tolerable sensory 10-l 0.9 —wr-------——ºr l-2 ppm Men can work.
irritation. --- .
1.3(0.02-2.9) ppm . No eye or respiratory irritation.
Highest acceptable concentration g . . .
for TLW. g f tº
Minimal or no sensory irritation. 10-? 0.09 |0.05 ppm i . Odor detectable.
lowest concentration necessary & § }
for TLW, &
Safe; level of no effect. -3' ; © * l
Recommended highest ºntratiºn 10-" 0.009 | . No data available.
for Air Quality Standard, | f ſº
|
j
's

g
º
-- ----> *-ī--- ~~~-e-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º- *-*-*--.
sº 15
TABLE 7
Results of Sensory Irritation Obtained in Warious
Strains of Mice with Exposure to Sulfur Dioxide
RD
Haplo- 50%.
Strains ** e 95% C. L.
HEJ 4T 39–44
SS - -
SS & - -
SS * * - - -
• * * =
* * * - .
Walue obtained from concentration-response relationship which
... represents the concentration necessary to obtain 50% decrease
in respiratory rate. Least squares linear regression analysis
with F test for regression significant at 0.05 level for all
groups. < *.
- *-*- : * *
£Results from previous report.
+Data obtained from two different shipments--six months apart. . . . . .
From Alarie, Y., Oka, S. and Cypess, R., unpublished, under
NIEHS grant #ES-00872.

L51
L-1–1–1–1–1
. . . . . . . . ~sec
* * *
* -
- * * * * * *-- ~ *
*** *** ---> -- . . . . ~~~... -
Figure 1 - Typical oscillograph display showing the respiratory cycle of
a mouse during normal control conditions (upper tracing) and
exposure to a sensory irritant (lower tracing).
* * *-** * * * * -- **s---wº-ºnsº-- * 4 - - - -
Yvºry”vºrºſ
250 :
|
* 1254——
Lºo . . . :
-3 : :
2. -
º - –––. A.
> i. i
º H-
O : == | -i- !
t {
1– i
- - - - - - - - - * * *-**----- * - - - -- - sº -e-...---- -*****
Figure 2 - Average respiratory rate of 4 male Swiss-Webster mice prior,
during, and following exposure to formaldehyde (top) and
acrolein (bottom).




152
17
T-I-T-III II I-I-I-I-I-III |
O
lſº
* O
<
Cº
>
&
O 60 H. sº
º
<
Cº.
a.
Vº
lº
* 40 P- º-
2.
º RDso- 1.7 PPM
: 95% C.L. E. O.77 - 3.6
<
* 20 !-- sº
Ü)
º
&
SS C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I
O.1 - 1.0 1 O.O
CONCENTRATION OF ACRO L El N - PPM
* ***.*.*.*.*.*.*.*-..~ ******, * v- . -
1 GQ
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
0.07
Figure 3 - Concentration-response relationship obtained with
exposures to acrolein in male Swiss-Webster mice.
- *** *-*-*-------- *** * * ***** ******* * --------...-
COM C E M T & AT ION! - PPNº.
mº-º-º-º:
| TFTTTTTI | | ITTTTT * | i I ITTTTT I } TI ITT —I TTTTTTT TT TTTTTTI
A Cºot, if I Nº-
|- ; QRMAL Dº Y DE = }
- CKºtOROACE TOPMG. MON: Nºs
º Ye *4
CMLOſłOP$CRIM
Fams. EPICHLORORYDRIM º
/
|-tº- —
|-> ammº
L–1–Lillil–1–1 Llull–1–1 | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ǻ $º 100. 1 Gº 4 QQQ — - - 1999-0
Figure 4 - Concentration-response relationships obtained for
eleven sensory irritants in male Swiss-Webster mice. - ~ *-*.*.*-**





153
18

A(3300)
A(2500)
2OOO-
A
Gº A
1600-
Yºr
º A
1200- ºr
# = *
Q A m
hºme Cº. º.
lil .
2.
800-l D &
º ul
| P & Ol
400-
O
cºe
sº •ºsºe
•º #" O
- O. O.
O == *—
TDI-EXPOSED TD-EXPOSED
SENSITIZED NON-SENSITIZED
- - Figure 5 - -
RAST assay for tolyl-reactive IgE antibodies in sera from workers exposed to
TDI. Nët cpm = cpm (T-HSA discs)-cpm (HSA discs). Clinical reactions upon
TDI exposure: A , immediate response confirmed by bronchial challenge; A ,
immediate bronchial response; D . delayed bronchial response; g, , cutaneous
response; ºr , delayed bronchial and cutaneous responses; 6) no response.
Significant titers: P-456 met cpm (P º 0.01), P535 net cpm (P<0.001).
154
19
3OOO=
1. AST H M A
TD
-- BRON CHIAL CHAL LEN GE
TD !
2500-
LASTHMA
TDI
2000s.
CASE 1
T.Asth MA
>
fle TD |
° 1500-
le
lſº ! .
2 -
I. A STH MA, HIVES -
M D . - -
CUTAN.
TDſ -->G [D. AST H M A
IOOO- \\ º: TD |
D.A.ST HMA, HIV ES
TD ! ---
CASE 3
500-
CASE 2
| J ! T; I |
9–77 Il-77 I-78 3-78 5–78 7-78 9–78 Il-78
DATE (MONTH, YEAR)
Figure 6
RAST assay for tolyl-reactive IgE antibodies and clinical hypersensitivity
episodes in 3 workers with TDI sensitivity. Net cpm = cpm (T-HSA discs) -
cpm (HSA discs). I. Asthma: immediate bronchial reaction occurring within
15 minutes of exposure. D. Asthma: delayed-onset bronchial reaction
occurring more than 120 minutes following exposure.













155
D ISCUSS IGN
SESSION II
A guestion to Dr. Higgins: Regarding one of the areas of
tº e £3 it iſ e type of poi i u tants, that original ly #6 €. GS
epidemiological assessiaen tº As you know, a corners tone of the
national energy program is the dieselization of aines. Because
of substantial increases in coal mined daily, eacn ſalne has
opted for dies e i ization • However, the Unions nave gone on
record against dieselization • Just last seek the sest Vic glnla
legislature passed a morator luſh on all diesels lin West Virginia
ſaines for two years or until such tidae as the nealth lap act of
use of diesels in mines has been resolved - Slnce the nealth
effects of diese is may be a D1 g problem I would like to solicit
from Dr - Higgins or other aeſabers of the panel any coataeats or
suggestions they ſhay have in regards to this urgent probiea.
DEs. Higglns: The use of diese is under ground and elsewnere
nas become a political rather than a scientific, issue. This is
a pity, because there are iſlap or tant Scientlt 1 c quest loſas to be
answered about the hazards of dies e i eſaissions • There are two
main is or cies 3 do the ealssions cause cancer of the lung? and
do they result in chronic obstructive iung disease? The
evidence, such as it is, suggests that they are not serious
hazards for either of these conditions • No study of sorkers
exposed to diesei emissions has shown an excess cancer risk.
So ſhe studies of chronic respiratory syāptoms and disability have
Suggested Soiae effect; put others have not. In Dr. Rockette‘’s
study of the nor tail ty of fainers, mortality from lung cancer was
highest in Charleston, dest Wilſ ginia, an area is here diesels are
ſlot used -
DEs. Hamiltoni I don’t wish to C ſlaſh ge the £00 l C
itainediately on diesels, because I think there 's an area of
uncertaiſi ty her e > But I want to ask Dr. Lippu ann a question
because I have the general impression trom his talk that me te it
Very coat or tao ie with the current aethods of assessing the
conventionai air pollutants, the health effects of unich de seem
to have a great debate aboute Une of the proo is as 1. S
exemplified, for exampie, in the recent Congressional review, it
isn’t so recent now, in a review of the CHESS study they were
156
very critical of the metnods of aeasurement • Do you teel that
existing ſaethods or measure illent of the Cofiw entio is a 1 a 1. [
pollutants, particularly of the Species of the oxidation
products of sulfates, are such that de can place rel lance on
them and later judging about the possible healtn effects
assessa ent?
Dr. Lippſlann: I think there are really several questions •
One, I indicated that the only sulfur oxide we know how to
aeasure reasonably sell was sulfur dioxide. We don’t know how
to make routine measurements of any of the sulfur oxide
particulates directly e In fact, we rarely itle a Stil'ſ e theſis
effectively on collected fliter salap les. If you want to measure
sulfuric acid, you have to use teflon filters and do chemical
separations prior to the analyses • Clearly, we don’t have
adequate methods for many of the poilutants of linterest. Nois,
sulfuric acid is not currently a regulated material; i.e., the re.
ls no an oient air standard for it. That ls perhaps one reason
why we have not seen any effective instrument developia ent,
although EPA has supported several lnstrument develop aent
projects a nicn were unsuccessful - while I agree with you, 1 n
general, that we don’t have accurate heasurements, the fact that
we don’t end up with good theasurement and data bases is se idom
the proo lem of the technology • It’s having the to reslga t to
Know ºn at to heasure, and to have the resources, tinancial as
well as technical, to make enough good measurements.
Question: My first question, for Dr - Lipp in ann, is really
a foilo m - on to the one he just answere de would you comment on
the actual field experience in the use of measuring techniques,
going from the technological capability to what do tually has
occurred? My Second question is to Dre Higgins • * Quild you
comment on the influence of the actual field exper lence in the
use of heasuring techniques? The reason to I this question is
clearly that if you are investigating diseases that have la tent
periods of 20 or 30 years, and you do a teii year study, you’re
clearly going to get not ning, put this fact does not prove
anything - You ſaay have spent a tai illon d oilar S or tile
taxpayers noney ditn no result. The I inal question that I have
1s for Dr. Alar le 3 would he comment on the Aſhes test as a
Blethod of detectlag carcinogens, that Deing a Klind or anlaal
Bao dei to is nich human experience ls now being compare de
Dr. Lippälään. A real problein in any study involving numan
investigators and techniclans is Daisuse of instruments.
Instruments taay have good designs and demonstrated feasio llity,
but that doesn’t ſaean that you can depend on the technicians who
are likely to be eſſap loyed in moderate ly difficult Sltuations to
use the a properly- The only reliable data are from studles
where there are a laborate quality control progralas pen and them
to make sure that the calibrations are perforſhed trequently and
157
reliably and, 1 f necessary, where corrections or adjustinents can
be inade in the lastruments. There is one other poln tº i think
you can D e ſuls led oy worrying about the precision of time datas
As Dre Higgins pointed out, the saiapier is seldota located in
the aost appropriate place, and sorry in g she ther you have a 10,
20 or 40 # error in the measurement ſaay be excessive. The
expense of improving the precision of heasureiuent at that
particuil aſ site may not be worth lt win en the S1 te is not
representative of the are a ln which it is located.
Drs. Higgins: Two years ago when we were studying air
pollutio a ln Florida, se learned that true west Gaeke aetſao dº for
measuring SG2 couig be completely in Validated it the tetup era ture
in the sampling box rose to high levels. Here was an exalap le of
a probień is lth a test which has been used for many years as a
standard ſuetnod' which had been complete ly, 1 gnored-- until 1 a
technici, an or ought it to light. . . . . -
#1th regard to duration of follow-up, clearly a long period
Bay be necessary if you are to identify cases of cancer is 1 th a
iong iatencye I have new er Deen coupletely convinced, nowe wer,
that you al 11 get nothing from shorter periods of follow-up - I
suspect that Sofia e ſadre sensitive subjects should show up atter
shorter periods. Clearly, it you are studying a population with
about 20 years since first exposure to a suspect car clinogen if
the average latency period is 25 years, 20 years all 1 not be
long enougn to ideatlify all the cancer . cases unich may deve io9 •
fhe next 10 or 20 years may be crucial 20 years may, now ever,
1dentify some excess cases. It is clearly very ling or tant to
live long enough to do the further follow-up or at least to will
the data to solae one who will do it posthumously for you •
Drts. Alacies well, I have no probleå a itn the Aſhes fest.
I think 1 tº s entering into a sort of Second generation now,
shere p o tency I esponse or dose response curves are being
obtained, which I ſlave shown in the model we have • You can 't go
anywhere in terms of predict 1 on until these are do ſhe add you
have lt for Se Veral carci ſãoge ſıs o a shlch you ſlav e Soille n uſian
data - we nave several carcinogens, known carcinogens, in man
trom extremely potent to moderately potent and solae propaple •
ūne wouid think that Aſues is intelii gent enough to recognize
that fact • As a matter of fact, I think he ls doing Just that
right no d. So I predict that within two to three years it
certainly will De a quite useful test. Right ſhow for yes or no
answers that is r idiculous • Secondi y z there are a lot of 1 diots
running around dumping a lot of things on the Afaes test Kilowing
adsolute ly nothing about what they’re doing - . And they "re
publishing letters here and there and every where saying it 's no
good. If you dump a highly reactlve cheinical in these nutr lent
systems and then they come out negative; well, what you nave is
a stupid test to begin is itn-
158
Dan Saaktzilan. University of Liliuois Sznaal of Eublic
Health: I have a question for the panel or the attendees of the
adderator. I am troubled Dy the use of indicators, although I
understand 1 t is a rather useful scientific shortn and • I’m
realinded of the slituation with guidelines on wage and price
control isnere you set a 7% cell lag, which all or a sudden
becomes the target that everybody trles to meet. In coſial, unl ty
alr pollution control we "we found that setting an ladlca to r for
ozone as the che alca i indicator for the control of cne ſaical
oxidants concentrated our efforts on solving the ozone problem,
not on solving the pnotocnemical oxidant problem • To the extent
that recently US EPA has decided that, in fact, the p no tocheta ical
oxidant problem is an ozone problem- Sluilar iy alth the use of
sulfur dioxide as an indicator of whatever. The total suspended
partl culates-sul tur dioxide complex problem, using the sulfur
dioxide as an indicator of that, has led to a lot of polltical
probleſas, particularly in my home state of Illinois where de fre
trying to do the best to protect the pupilc from health p cop leſas
but we are way below the sulfur dioxide levels - we get a lot of
people saying, "well, you can have a great deal more sulfur
dioxide without doing narû to the general public • Look now far
below the levels we are.” I’m troup led oy the process, the
political process by which the ind 1cator loses its effect as a
sy abol and instead gains some respectability as tae end in
1 tself e I was wondering it anybody has suggestions, aslde trola
Just constantly remainding ourse lwes and the politicians and
bureaucrats that these were established for use as indicators. -
DRs. Lippiaaga: I could not a gree with you ſhore--in tact, I
spent ſay time poln ting out that the most coain only used indicator
Ior alr pollution potentlai n as no relevance • Sulfur dioxide is
the best example possible • Because we did not know what
component of the complex to measure, we in easured the one that de
could most easily measure. On the other hand, what snould one
do when you have such a complex ſuixture and you can "t possibiy
Beasure all the potentiai toxicants? The only useful thing to
do is to keep the limitations of the measurements in ſalnd and to
p lick an approprl ate indicator - For example, 92 one appears to be
an appro p r late indicator for the pnotocheinical Shog Bulxture,
albeit with some limitations • SU2 is a poor indicator to r the
S0x-particulate complex because SU2 is essentlal ly non-toxic at
Lealistlc ambient levels. I think nawing a group of ladicators
Specific, to the process ſuay be the ſhost positive thing we can do
in the control sphere at this time •
DEs. Haſailtons. I’d just like to ask Dr - i.ippinann to
clarify his last reſnark. My understanding of S02 is that it is
a precursor of sulfate. *
159
DEs. Lippſlanus. Sulfates form continuously and gradually
over long distances and I talnk a rational national pollcy sould
pe to 11 in it sulfur dioxide eſúlssions over the snole Northeast in
a unifor a way. To have certain cities use [] e 3+ sulfur fuel and
otner cities use 3• 0% sulfur fuel is completely irratio aale
DEs. Halalii.20; I couldn’t agree with you no re except that
you’re l l Inl ting it to the Northeast - it seems to ſae that with
prevali i ng a linds we should certainly put the major elaphasis
tuf ther s ests
Brºs. Liggilanni I didn’t mean the Northeast in a liſulted
sense--i meant the whole Northeast quadrant of the United States
from M1 an esota eastward and perhaps se should include the
southeastern part of the country as well - #e have a ditte rent
probieſ out sest than we do in the east.
Säätizālaſlº. I'd like to just clarify the problem I see with
the sulfur dioxide particularly in our state, ( Illinois) - we “re
probably on the western edge of prevailing winds that created
the sulfate problem in the rest of the country - we nave a
nuſaber or power plants around the state that are located in
areas in which the ambient air quality is far beios the sulfur
dioxide national ambient air quality standard that nas been set.
There is a great deal of movement in our state, by the
utilities, by the coal industry, and some other right tain king
people, who feel wie ought not to have that sort of *u werk ill.”
because we’re so far beloid the standard that these p 1 ants ought
to be allowed to emit more sulfur dioxide than they are
currently allowed to eſalt. The problem that faces public health
advocates is that now that we have got this son de Cful indicator
tnat tells us what the problems are, we’re stuck alth it as the
probiea 1 tself - nie "te so far below the sulfur dioxide level lin
some of these cases that it is absolutely impossible to argue
for lower emission levels on a particular plant. Particularly
when the people in the legislature are able to say, “Weii, it "s
not our problem-- it ‘’s New York’s problem-- let triem do so lae thing
about it.” That is the proble in that de ruin iſ to, and I nate to
see us develop the same problem with coai conversion tecnnology •
Illinois is a prime state for placing coal conversion 9 laſats - I
think ta at again if we start concentrating on those indicators
without having some definite metnod of making suice tilat
throughout the whole process de maintain our focus on the real
probleia, we sili create àore probi eſas than we solve •
Dºs Lippiaaſıſız. The model is really what EPA did as itn auto
eſals Sion S • You can’t set aab lent standards for everytning, and
so the tigue S we control the things that can be coine air pollutants,
iike converters at the source. I think the in telligent thing is
to direct the control technology at the source and not through
the amo i ent air quality standards • I think you "re making a
160
great als take, which I suspect they is ill, about using total
sulfate as the next air quaii ty standard to drive coat rolse
Because anu onlun Suiphate is innocuous and that’s where host of
the aeasured sulfate will be. Sulfur ic acid is so ſaetning else
again, Decause of the very variable percentage of it. Sulfates
might be iſap or tant , but we just do nºt have enough data base to
really know. But total S04 measured on a filter, I think would
pe Just as his is a ding, and just as Inisguided, as an elag iſle to
drive controls of SD2 gas-
is C. Hauilton. Continental Dil Companzi I wonder if Dr.
Higgins would expand on his asthāa reimarkse I talked to an as thfua
special list last week a no pointed out that not only do foods and
pol lens exacer pate astnſha attacks but theſe is a strong
psychogenic component and teåperature change that have an
effecte He said that ºn 1 le he did not kno is anything about
ep 1 demiology, he did feel it would be very difficult to ascribe
any astmaa attacks to air pollution per se. It al ght occur or
Baignt not occur, but one could never telli-
DEs. Higgins: I agree, it is difficult to acSD ipe
as thmatic attacks to air pollution, but I don't believe it is
lap ossib le. In fact, as thin a tic Sudjects ſnay resp 911 d ratner
specifically to certain substances • The troup ie is that ſuost
asthuatl c s respond to ſuany different stiãull - frie probie is is to
ident1 fy asthmatics who respond specifically to pollutants and
then try to assess the consistency of their response.
Another pro a lead Hith as thmatics and alr poliution is that
there aay oe a response to some pollen unich has not been
aeasured but which may vary in paraliei is ith poilution-
A further problem is that asthmatic attacks ſaay O €
triggered by snort peaks of pollution ºn lch may have very little
effect of the 24 hour pollutant concentration • It might appear
in such circumstances that a very low 24 hour concentration ls
causing attacks and that consequently no concentrat loſa of the
pollutant is acceptaple • On the shoi e, as thaatic attacks are ln
Bay Vle ºf a dangerous way of reaching acceptable pollutant
concentrations •
Quest lon: Is there any way you can in easure the suit uſ ic
acid lin the emissions?
Dºs Llppālaſıſız. Froſh a point source, the answer is yes •
There are quite acceptable aethods for stacks or other point
sources where you have relative ly, nign concentrations • I ain
less sanguine about the possibility of measuring a few
ſaicrograms to 20 alcro grains per cubic aeter in ambient air Ž
there you laay have some problems • If you are influenced by a
local point source it could be measured Dy availapie techno iogy
161
with pſe tty good precision by someone in your local nealth
agency - no could nelp • -
ERed Lippetſ. BEgg Rhayed National Laboratory: I want to
contlinue thi S debate I thought de had started on the sulfur
dioxide standards • I am a little confused as to whether there
is a disagreement aſhong the ſubers of the panel or not. Dr.
Higgins, I Dei i e ve, said he could live with 100 ſuicrog raſas
annual average of SU2 . I presume that included the sulfate
that goes with its And Dr. Lippin ann, if I understood you
correctly, you want to put the shoi e country on 0 - 2% suitur or
do you sant to no lo that to 2+? I am not sure which you meant.
You" re concerned about suit uric acid, and as a result you are
willing, regardless of the cost, to e iiminate all the sulfur in
the atmosphere • Can you straighten ſue out?
Drs. Griffin: To win on are you addressing the question?
EC3 g Llp2.ect: I’d like to hear if they both agree oa this
or if they disagree.
Drs. Higgins: On the basis of the epidemiological evidence
and even more from animal experiments it is difficult to support
an affable nt average annual standard fo S02 of less than 100
|al crogſ a 3- Alone, SG2 appears relºarkably harmless. One must
reinefaber, however, that such an average annual concentration is
coinpatible witn a one to three hourly concentration of perhaps 2
Hagf R&e - Trils puts a soſae what different complexion on trie issue.
Further more, S02 does not usually occur alone, and aay be
converted into other chemicals--sulfates, for example, which
have so he tilaes been thought to be more irrl tant, though tae re is
now doubt about this -
- Dr - Schlame 1 has been studying daily deaths in relation to
daily SU2 and partlo les in New York City. He believes SU2 to be
not only hara less but even beneficial e i I ind 1 t diff loui t to
go all on g = 1 tſh n lia on this. But it lis clearly important to try
and Teso i ve the issue e * ~ *
Drs. Alatle: My grands other kne is that • Dr - Higgiſis, I an
against this primitive metnod of burning sulfur candies at the
sake as a sort of nealthy activity of neiging people to the next
world •
Dra. Li2Liaanni I was not advocating any particular
ie Wei-- I was Siſºp ly trying to get the think in g g o Ling ln a
different directlon • While S02 by itself is not realiy 1 1kely
to De lap or tant, it does act as a ſaessenger - In the past ide
at teapted to contro i the inesse Tiger rather than gettling at the
real problefa. It is time to get past that type of think in ge
The vis LD 1 lity p cooleſa is largely a sulfur oxide particulate
162
problem fur the northeast quadran t of the United States and for
the south east to some extent aiso - in teräs of acid rain, we
also nave a problem which has to De addressed by control of
sulfur ealss lons - an at I "in saying is that it’s not talc to put
the burden of etals Slons controls on areas of the country
selectively for what will turn out, in retrospect, to be
Cap C lic 1 O U S I e a SO ſl S e I don’t know what percentage of sulfur
ea, issions contro i is appropr late for this who le quadrant of the
country an ere a ore than 50% of the population ilves • But, lt
should be distributed more equitably than it is now - It is
likely that 2% is too nign, and U- 3% is too io w tor all sources •
we will have to coine to some coing roſalse figure, a nich, as
Senator Bayn suggested, Gaay not necessarily be a zero risk
level. But it, at least, should be more equitable than the
multiplicity of lità its now used in the war lous local regions •
Drs. Griffia: Let he ask one claritying question • Are you
suggesting that the control of air pollution shouid not be based
on attempting to deal with alr quality standards of soae sort
io cally? Úr rather, that our control should be on an
industry-wide basis, so that there should be a reduction in
emissions of all sorts? Is that the basis for your suggestion?
Drs. Lippmann: I won’t say that across the board? I do
say so for sulfur dioxide which is transformed to sulfates
during lotas range transports ae, for instance, in our owa alr
pollution studies, find that a locatlon at High Polnt, New
Jersey, a very 119mtly populated site at the confluence of New
York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the summer-tliae, nas
sulfate ieve is which are 85% as high as they – are in New York
£1ty • Thus, the contribution of the metrog olitan region to the
sulfates ſaeasured in New York City, is only about 15 to 25% . In
that kind of S 1 tuation the concept of local air Sned s is
completely inapp ropriate • For other pollutants, it unay still i pe
appropriate •
Julian Angel haſli. I nave a cominent and a questi on • As far
as standards are concerned, in the is a ter field they are
different and they can be useful, P acticularly toc tnose
parameters that ſuay not pe getting to levels that could pe
harafuli regularly, but ratner shen they "re norma ily los aird then
be come indicators of the central problem • I feel no re
cotator table alth using then not necessarily to c control leve is,
Dut 3 S lindlcators of the prob leia? for example, carbon
chloroform extract as an ind ication of high levels of organics
iſ idateſ •
In 1970 the World Health Organization adopted the guide Llne
for six polycylic aroſlatic hydrocarbons in drinkling ºf a ter , such
tnat when the to tal concentration exceeded 20 ug / 1, this dould
De reas on for concern and further investl gation • And today lin
163
the sate E fleid there is a lot of concer n ad out cn loc inated
organics, so fle of shich one could readilly measure but a full
scale set of analysis would be rather complex; thus people are
tº y iſłg £O find indicator parameters, like total organic
chior ine, which one could perhaps if, O I & ëasily Baoſhi to £ e
Hopeful ly, this would ultimately result lin a set of standards,
Dút ſo I ſhow the measureſae ſit Siúp iy would be used as a guide for
i.evels of concerne
I have a question I’d like to address to Dr. Alac i e to
perhaps expand on a haj or point he ſtade. How waii d iBignt this
target be for those cheaicals that are sensory irr ltants, but
might also nave other to xicological propertles, like la tent
effects on the central nervous systein, or ſuight be autage as or
€aſ Cinoge Ins? In other words, Balght this be expanded to those
sensory l r ritants that have ſhore serious or more variad Île human
effects? * - - - - , ,
DEs. Alatle: I "a talking about a concept of getting a
concentration response cur we and op viously the coacept app lles
to any diode i system you want to use, not only the tao dei se nave
used. If you have a ches ical, let 's say carb on a on oxide, and
this an i ſhal no del is used, the animals will die and no
irritation response will De seen. Any model nas Liù itations.
However, basical i y any chemical can be placed lſat () d
classification; I've snown one model for sensory irri tauts and
developed one to C guiſuonary hypers ensltivity . . and one can oe
developed for any endpoint that you are . . interested in. I
haven’t talked about limitations of models. - we "re workling on
this now with 11 very common solvents that are used in ladustry,
and where the RD50s are now in the thousands of parts per
Baillion- At one point, I fully expect that the ſao de 1 sili no
longer be useful since another toxic etfect will pre doin ind te -
Drs. Lippmann: I think thougn that there is one point in
your co aments which really does stand out and n as to de
addressed. If the materia i l’s a sensory 11 r itant, and on ly a
sensory lc ritant, the model is greate an en the sens or y le c 1 tant
is also sometning else, such as a carcinogen, clearly it as not
gſ eate Epichloronydrin, in particular, has been Snown to be an
animal carcinogen by various routes of administration, including
innalation, and I bellewe that the results from epidemio io gical
Studles are polm ting in this direction also e
Drs. Alacie: That’s time with us - we nave no objection
that cne in icals would have other effects--op viously we expect
that they sli1 have other effects. What we are interested in is
predicting a la wel, a concentration, at an icn eplchlorony drin
will not induce cancer - At the Society of Toxicology last week,
there was a dose response relationship 9 resented for the
carcinogenicity of epichlorohydrine. This came from a 30 day
164
study and the re is now a three year study going on • The refore,
I" in looking torward to see at what level se are going to detect
Carl C. eI . Q CC Li ſi è il Cée Th1 S in ouid be t ſtie also for
Dischloro the thyl ether. Blschloroiaetnyle ther is an extremely
Q O teilt S e Il S Q I Y iſ titant, also the ſaost potent alr porne
carcinogen Known in than • But it also has a dose response
relation snip . It also has a concentration at unich you see no
cancer occurring, as has been shown in an in a 1 studies •
QEs. Ha Saengeki Dne coańent about laboratory animals.
Dr - Alarie, could you tell us win at the lap act on the public
would be if we used rapb its to test the edibility of Haushrooms?
Drs. Alacle: I'm sorry, what do you sant to test?
Dr. Spencari I would like you to tell me what the impact
would be on the public if we used rabbits to test the edioility
of Hausrar o oss?
Drs. Alaſtie: We use rabbits? Rabbits to test shat?
DEs. Spence E3. To test the edibility of a ushrooias- win at
would nappen to the public?
Drs. Alacies. Wny do we use rabbits to test the toxicity of
Haushroo as? - ** = * ~ * -
DEs. Spengeti. The point I was trying to make is that the
panel apparently assumed that the concept of D locnetu ical unity
is infallad Île, which is obviously not correct. Rapp its can eat
toxic aushrooms and survive. The point being that some
chemicals you may test oy animal model, and that aniaal could
well have no response whatsoever.
DEs. Alarie: You see the say you address it, of course, is
you do a "t pick up one single species of an Laal- we have a wide
variety of the fa. There is no problem whatsoever and I certa in 1y
can find one aan on the face of this earth w no will look exactly
like your rapp it. But the problem is ne will be the exception.
So what I want is an aniãai which will represent the human
population. I go searching for it by trials and errors - it is
not some thing I can guess •
Joe Banon. Chicago Lung Associationi. I was Elding none in
ſay car from work about a month ago, and i near d a news report on
an air pollution study, to be done by the Yale Lung Research
group, she re two towns in Connecticut, I believe, are used to
study the prevalence of respiratory diseases • Dr - Higgins, if
you are familiar with the study, can you coma ent on 1 t?
165
Drs. Higgins: Yes, I 3in faini liar with the studies you
Bentione I think one of the main difficulties is tria t the
differences in pollutant leve is between the tºo toxins sas wery
shall• Une sould not expect to be able to snow differences in
Dronch it is, lung function, etc. , due to pollution because even
the Biore polluted town as as not polluted enough - we had a
siſal lar probleſſ in our studies in Florida •
166
SESSION III: HEALTH ASPECTS OF FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
Tuesday morning, March 20, 1979
Moderator: James J. Stukel, Ph.D.
Professor of Civil Engineering
University of Illinois
AIR POLLUTION
By
Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., M.D.
HUMAN EXPOSURES TO WATERBORNE POLLUTANTS
FROM COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
By
Julian B. Andelman, Ph.D.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASPECTS OF FOSSIL-FUEL
ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
By
William N. Rom, M.D., M. P. H.
167
AIR POLLUTION
By
Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., M.D., FACPM
Professor Environmental Health & Safety
Harvard School of Public Health
Harvard University
Boston, MA
168
HEALTH ASPECTS of FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS - AIR POLLUTION
Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr.
Fossil fuels used for electric power include coal, oil and gas.
Coal and oil make up the major sources of energy. As a result of their
combustion, particulates, sulfur oxides and oxides of nitrogen are pro-
duced. Coal can produce large amounts of fly ash and soot which in
turn can be largely controlled by various methods. Oil usually does
not produce so much. Sulfur dioxide production will vary with the sulfur
content of the fuel. This component is more difficult to control than
the fly ash. Nitrogen oxides are also generated and when diesel engines
are used they can make considerable impact on ambient levels. They are
even more difficult to remove from the emissions than S02. Control
has been directed to limiting the generation of NO2.
These components consist of the major air pollutants from fossil
fuel. This presentation will discuss their apparent impact on the
health of human beings with special emphasis on levels at somewhat above
the present air quality standards.
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
NO and NO2 are produced due to the heat and pressure if present, as
in diesel engines. NO appears to have little effect. It can be converted
in photochemical smog to NO2 which is reactive. Thus this discussion will
be on the effect of NO2.
Chamber Studies — Short-term
A number of chamber studies for short-term exposures have been done.
169
=2<=
These are summarized in table 1 - Most of these have involved healthy
subjects (1, 5, 6, 13). A few have used asthmatics (7) or "reactive"
subjects (3). Some have used mixtures of pollutants (4, 14). Most
of these studies have produced negative results if levels of NO2 have
been below 2.82 mg/m3 (1.5 ppm). One study (7) did indicate that 3
out of 20 asthmatics showed a measurable increase in airway resistance
after a one hour exposure to 0.2 mg/m3 N02, and 13 out of 20 had an
increased sensitivity to carbacol. The subjects apparently did not
detect any change in their airway resistance. This study has been
criticized because of the varying levels of the baseline airway resis-
tance in the subjects. Furthermore, the relevance of these sorts of
observation to the real world conditions have also been questioned.
Certainly further studies of this sort and in this dose range are
warranted .
Kerr and coworkers (6) have exposed l3 asthmatic, 7 chronic .
bronchitics and iO normal adults to 0.940 mg/m3 (0.5 ppm) NO2 for 2
hours in a chamber. A ly-minute period of moderate exercise was per-
formed during the first hour of exposure. Each person had a 2-hour
control period in the chamber on the day before the exposure. They
did a variety of tests of pulmonary function including airway resis-
tance. The study was not made double blind since NO2 could be-detected
by odor at this level. During the exposure to 0.940 mg/m3, 7 of the 13
asthmatics had varying symptoms - two burning of their eyes, one head-
aches, and from some, chest tightness on exercises; one normal and one
chronic bronchitic had a running nose. All of these symptoms were
felt to be slight. No delayed reactions were reported. No significant
170
changes were noted in the various measured parameters (spirometry,
airway resistance, single breath N2 elimination or pulmonary mechanics.)
If they grouped the asthmatics and chronic bronchitics together then
they could show a significant increase in total lung capacity, functional
residual capacity and residual volume. Static compliance was slightly
decreased. The authors interpreted their findings as physiologically
not meaningful, and that they could have been due to chance. These ob-
servations should be repeated at this level as well as at lower levels.
One other study also needs discussion. This is a study by Von Nieding
et al (lá) in which they exposed healthy subjects either to workplace
levels of NO2 (9.4 mg/m3 – 5 ppm), 03 (0.196 mg/m3 0.1 ppm) and SO2
(13.1 mg/m3 – 5 ppm) or NO2 (0.1 mg/m3 0.05 ppm), 03 (0.049 mg/m3 0.025 ppm)
and SO2 (0.262 mg/m30.1 ppm). Changes in airway resistance and arterial
oxygen saturation were observed at the higher levels, whether exposure was
tC) NO2 or 03 singly or in combination with or without SO2: The lower levels
produced no effect. Both groups were challenged with l, 2 and 3% acetyl-
choline. Acetylcholine, after exposure to the mixture with the higher
concentration, produced markedly increased responses over the control
values. After exposure to the mixture at the lower levels, there was a
slightly increased response after 2% acetylcholine but no increase after
1 or 3% acetylcholine. In view of the lack of an increased response to
3% acetylcholine, the change at 2% does not seem so important. It would
have been more relevant if there had been a graded dose response. To
propose a hypothesis that the response might be a stepwise function that
responded at 2% but not at 3% does not seem to be tenable.
171
There is no short-term federal standard for N02. At this time it
does not seem appropriate to set such a standard for one hour at the
level of Orehek's study. It would seem to be more appropriate at a level
of 0.5–0.8 mg/m3 (0.266 - 0.425 ppm) as a one-hour average value.
Epidemiologic Studies
There are rather few epidemiologic studies that have looked at
the possible effects of N02. Those that have, have been compounded by
errors in analysis for No. that were discovered later or there had been
increased levels of other pollutants along with the increased level of
N02. Attempts to attribute an effect or a portion of the effect to
NO2 are difficult.
The various studies are summarized in table 2. The studies by
Shy et al. (9, 10) and Pearlman et al. (8) had the problem of a probable
error in the Jacob-Hochheisser method of measuring NO2 as well as the ---
coexistence of elevated particulate levels in conjunction with the
elevated NO2 levels. -
The study by Cohen et al. (2) was examining such a narrow range of
exposure that one might not expect to see much difference.
The studies of Spiezer et al (ll, 12) deal with an occupational
group - policemen. It may not be appropriate to extrapolate their
results to the general public. Also, the areas with the higher levels
of NO2 also had elevated levels of other pollutants. So how much of
the effect - if any - could be attributed to NO2 is not clear.
The Federal standard annual average of 100 mg/m3 (0.05 ppm) is
probably more than adequately protective. Certainly more studies are
172
needed to evaluate the adequacy of this standard.
SOr and Particulates
These two pollutants will be discussed together because they
usually have a common source. In addition, sulfates occur in the
particulate phase, either as a mist (H2SO4) or as an actual particle
as various sulfate salts.
There are two fundamental problems with the category of partic-
ulates. One involves the size distribution and the method of
collection, the other the chemical composition.
In Europe and Great Britain, particles are collected at relatively
low flow rates, on filters that are then read by light reflectance. ..
The system has been calibrated against a standard black coal smoke so
that the reflectance units can then be expressed as mg/m3. This
method collects the small size or respirable fraction (<10–7 pm). The -
conversion applies only to a special coal smoke and cannot be used for
oil-fired smoke or for general dusts, etc., that may have a wide range
of colors. This method is referred to as the British Standard Smoke
method. - -
In the United States, particulates are sampled by the so-called
hi-vol method. In this method, air is drawn through a filter in
large amounts (70 - 75 m*/min) and the amount of dust is measured
gravimetrically and referred to as the total suspended particulates (TSP)
This method can collect larger particulates that would not be deposited
in the lung, although elutriators or other devices can be used to
minimize this effect. There is a move to collect the mass respirable
173
fraction (MRP below 10 um) as well as the total suspended particulates.
Present U.S. standards are based on TSP. Data are being collected so
that hopefully eventually a standard can be set for MRP.
All of these methods-standards imply that equal weight has equal
effect. This probably is not so since the chemistry of the particulates
needs to be evaluated. Some data have been collected on suspended
sulfates, nitrates and a few on the metals. This is an area that needs
much more attention. It will be an expensive study but one that needs .
to be done. The MRP particularly need such analyses as this is the fraction
that is more likely to contain the sulfates and also to be deposited deep
in the lung. In addition, the hi-vol glass filters tend to collect SO2
and convert it to sulfate on the filter, thus giving spurious values for
suspended sulfates. In due course we should also be able to characterize
the type of sulfate, since they do not have equal effect on the respira-
tory system (15).
Mortality
The effects of acute episodes with markedly high levels of SO2 and
particulates as have occurred in London in 1952 and 1962, - the Meuse
Wally and Donora are clear evidence that an increased mortality can result.
It has been more difficult and controversial to demonstrate an effect at
lower levels closer to those usually seen. Buechley et al (16) analyzed
mortality data from the New York - New Jersey metropolitan area. They
used only one monitoring station to estimate exposure. They did an
extensive analysis and controlled for a number of confounding variables.
They felt that at about 300 ng/m” S02 there was an excess mortality.
Particulates, in this case coefficient of haze, did as well as a
174.
predictor. Buechley (17) reanalyzed the data later and added additional,
more recent years when the levels had fallen. He demonstrated a similar
correlation but with a much lower cross-over point. He concluded that
S02 was acting as a surrogate for some other substance that had not
changed as much.
Schimmel and Murawski (41, 42) analyzed the same sort of data
using somewhat different methods. They also used a single monitoring-
station as their indicator of the levels of pollution. - They reported
that 80% of the effect was due to particulates and 20% to SO2. In one
of their presentations they concluded that S02 was relatively unimpor-
tant. They too noted no reduction in the mortality with the reduction *
in pollution. - ---
Lave and Seskin (34) have made extensive analyses relating - -ºw.
minimum sulfate and suspended particulate levels to mortality. Their -
results have received considerable attention. In some - cases the results
have been accepted and used to calculate the impact on health. Others
have been critical of their methodology and conclusion. These are
perhaps best summarized by quoting from a group of Biostaticians (43)
--- * *
that reviewed the report of Lave and Seskin.
They were particularly concerned that Lave and Seskin had not
investigated as fully as they would wish how well their models fit
their data. To determine whether Lave & Seskin's estimates might be severely
distorted by outlying values, they undertook a robust analysis and
re-estimated the regression given in equation 3.1—l of Lave and Seskin
after some data correction and removal of outliers. The estimates that
175
they obtained for the air pollution regression coefficients are
presented in Table 3 along with those of Lave and Seskin. They
differ considerably from the values given by Lave and Seskin.
They went on to state:
"Our other area of concern is that the linear model may not
be the best-fitting model. Even if it is a good description of current
inter-relationships, it may not be suitable for predicting what would
occur if the value of the air pollution variables were changed."
"There are several reasons for doubting the suitability. One
reason is that a dose-response relationship that can be regarded as
linear over a particular range of values may not be linear outside
that range. Another reason is that no attention has been paid to the
competing risks that cause mortality -- the authors assume that all
the other socio-economic factors would remain constant - while the air –
quality changed. A third reason is that association does not
necessarily imply causality." - -- ---
"Our final conclusion is that Lave and Seskin have made a pioneering
effort in showing an association between mortality rates and air pol—
lution. The next steps -- assuming a cause and effect relationship
and assessing the relative costs and benefits of reducing air pollution
cannot, in our opinion, be undertaken with any degree of confidence
given the quality and nature of the available data. This conclusion
seems to be very close to the Lave and Seskin's own views as expressed
in their last chapter, Chapter ll. we believe readers would be well
advised to read Chapter ll before other chapters, because it not only
summarizes the rest of the book but also places the work in perspective
176
as a first step in the solution of a complex problem."
It does not seem reasonable to conclude from these studies
that Sox or particulates are having an effect on mortality at the
levels usually measured at present. It is not possible to conclude
unequivocally that there may not be some effect, but this is probably
unlikely. \
The report from CHESS, 1970 - 1971 (44) will not be discussed in
detail. Their best-estimated values tend to confirm the present º
Federal standards. Their indictment of sulfates needs much more
verification and study. It is unfortunate that the studies were not
designed to look at differences between populations as related to
differences in the levels of pollution. Instead, they were grouped by
- area or regions where comparable studies were done. -
A number of the studies reported below have come from workers in
Great Britain or in Europe where the British Standard Smoke method
was used to estimate suspended particulates. Commins and Waller (20)
made a comparison of this method with the hi-vol method. Their data
have been used to correct the Black Smoke data to total suspended
particulates.
Acute or short-term effects
There are a limited number of studies that have looked at the
short-term effects on mortality. The effects of a relatively high
level on mortality have been well documented. The few studies are
summarized in Table 4. The data are spotty and variable.
177
=10–
Jaeger et al. (33) exposed 40 mild asthmatics and 40 "normals"
to 1300 ag/m” (0.5 ppm) SO2 for 3 hours. All wore nose clips during
the exposure so they were forced to breathe through their mouths.
The asthmatics showed a significant decrease in mid-maximal expiratory
flow during the exposure. The other tests showed a similar but non-
significant trend. Two of the asthmatics and one of the "normals"
developed wheezing in the chest during the night after the exposure
to S02. These were not interpreted as being an asthmatic attack and –
were considered mild episodes. This study can be criticized in that
the battery of pulmonary function tests were not done in the chamber
but rather in another laboratory about a four-minute walk away. They
did not measure particulates and there was a kerosene heater in the
trailer-chamber that could have contributed to the exposure. - No .
organized effort was made to query all the subjects concerning possible
symptoms on the night after exposure. This study deserves to be Ire-
peated with an improved protocol.
Lawther et al. (35) have reported increased symptoms in chronic
bronchitics at moderate levels of exposure. Emerson (24) was not able
to show any change in pulmonary function in similar types of patients
at somewhat higher levels of SO2. This may have been due to the
relatively small number of subjects studied.
Van der Lende et al (45) reported a transitory fall in FEV1.0
in a relatively large population at levels below those reported by
Emerson. Cohen et al. (19) noted a weak association of asthmatic attacks
with levels of SO2 above 200 ag/m” and TSP above 150 ag/m”. They
178
–ll-
reported that temperature acted much more strongly. This was similar
to the observation of Emerson.
It does seem that 3-hour exposure to lºC)0 pg/m3 of S02 Carl CallSé
mild symptoms in some sensitive asthmatics. Somewhat lower levels for
24-hour periods in conjunction with levels of TSP above liO ug/m3 CalliS e
reversible decreases in FEV1.0 and FWC. Since these changes appear to
be reversible and their long-range significance is unclear, one
could conclude that these changes represent an acceptable change. - I
Long-term effects
Selected studies on the effects of long-term exposure to SO2 and
particulates are summarized in Table 5. These levels refer to 24-hour
annual average values. Here, too, the data reported as black smoke
have been converted to TSP equivalents. In Fletcher's study (30)
the particulates only had changed markedly; SO2 levels had not. This
was interpreted as emphasizing the role of the particulates. Lawther ---
et al (35) had made a similar observation and conclusion with respect
to the short-term exposures. The studies of Sawicki on adults (40)
and Lunn et al (36, 27), and Douglas and Waller (23) on children, tend
to confirm the levels of particulates.
Chapman et al. (18) have also studied children. Their study focused
primarily on particulates. They shifted their instrument that they
used to measure the pulmonary function without reporting any tests to
show comparability. Also, there were differences in the socio-economic
status that could have accounted for the differences seen. A further
problem lies in the tacit assumption that equal weight of particulates
L79
-l2-
means an equal effect. This is probably not true. There is a great
need to develop more information on the particle-size distributions and
the chemical characteristics of the various particle-size groups.
Hammer et al. (31) did very extensive analyses to control for a
variety of confounding factors in two groups of children in Long Island
and New York City. They concluded that there was an excess of lower
respiratory disease mortality when S02 levels were 175 - 250 ug/m”
(0.067 - 0.096 ppm), TSP above 115 pg/m3 and suspended sulfates of d
l3 = 14 ug/m”. As with all of these studies, the exposures are best
estimates from a single monitoring station. Their suggested levels are
consistent with observations of others. No analyses were done to try
to separate out the effects of S02, particulates or sulfates. Certainly
their data are not sufficient to use to set a standard for sulfates.
The last three studies represent a l2-year series of follow-up
studies, on a community in New Hampshire (26, 28, 29), where the main
source of pollution is a pulp mill. The same sample was followed and
as the levels of pollution fell an effect level appeared at about
l:30 ng/m” TSP. The total sulfur as measured by the lead peroxide candle
was low and underwent some fluctuations reflecting the closing of the
sulfite operation in 1963 and the expansion of the Kraft process in
subsequent years.
The results from the initial study have been compared with
comparable data from Great Britain (38) and with a cleaner community
in British Columbia (27). This comparison indicated a sort of a dose-
response effect in that more polluted communities in Great Britain had
180
-13–
more symptoms than in Berlin, N.H. and the cleaner community had
better pulmonary function. Thus, the observation from the community
with a pulp mill may well be applicable to other communities. It
would have been good to have had information as to the chemical com-
position of the particulates, as they undoubtedly were different
* *
in the three communities.
Sulfates –
The Chess (44) studies have reawakened interest in sulfates 3.S
possibly being more important than S02. A fundamental problem with
sulfates is that it is probably the cation that is more important.
There appears to be a gradation of effects in animals (15) with
sulfuric acid being the most irritating and sodium sulfate being
relatively innocuous. We are not yet able to characterize the type
of sulfate. Thus, a general standard for soluble sulfates does not
seem to be warranted given the range of irritancy for the different
sulfate compounds. --
An assessment of the effects of microparticulate sulfates on
human health has been prepared (25). It is appropriate to comment
on some of the studies reported there as well as some more recent
work.
Dohan (21) and Dohan and Taylor (22) looked at the prevalence of
respiratory disease in a number of cities related to levels of
suspended particulate sulfates. They showed an increased prevalence
with rising levels of sulfates. This was exacerbated during a flu
epidemic. Their threefold rise in suspended sulfates was accompanied
181
-14-
by an increase in total suspended particulates from something over
100 pg/m” to l88 ag/m”. They concluded that sulfates were the active
component. However, they had not controlled for the various con-
founding variables.
A similar study was undertaken by Ipsen et al. (32) in which
much more detailed and sophisticated analyses were done to control
for the auto-correlation between pollutants and season of the year.
When they controlled for the auto-correlation, they were not able to-
show that the levels of pollution were having any effect on respiratory
disease. Their studies emphasize the need to control for such phenomena
in order not to be tempted to make incorrect conclusions.
Sackner et al. (39) have been exposing animals and human beings
to submicronic sulfuric acid mist. Human beings have been exposed
up to 1000 ug/m3 for 10 minutes without demonstrating any effects on
a variety of tests of pulmonary function. This has included some
asthmatic children. These results are encouraging as to the toxicity
of sulfuric acid mist but they need to be replicated and also for
longer periods of exposure. Exercise should also be added to the
protocol.
Miscellaneous
Some of the combustion products that are emitted from coal-
fired plants have carcinogenic capabilities. These materials, like
the variety of metals that can also be emitted, are probably in too low
a concentration to be having an effect. Careful studies to evaluate
this potential problem still need to be done to have better quantifica-
182
—l S-
tion of the risk and also to determine whether there may be synergism
with such exposure and occupational exposure as well as with cigarette
smoking.
No discussion is planned of the role of sulfur oxides and oxides
of nitrogen to the formation of acid rains. These may well turn out
to be the controlling factor in control of emissions. * *
Summary:
The most significant potential contributions to air pollution
from fossil-fuel-fired power plants are NO2, sulfur oxides and
particulates. Their possible effects on health are discussed.
Acknowledgement:
This paper has been supported in part by Grant ES 00002 and ES 01108 from
the U.S. Public Health Service and EPRI Contract NO RP 1001-1.
183

-16-
Table i
Selected Summary of Results of Chamber Studies (short-term)
on Human Beings Exposed to NO2
Effects
|
Concentration Duration of Referenc
mg/m.” (ppm) Exposure
4.5 (2.5) 2 hrs. Incr. Raw normals
to incr. to Ach
response l
<2 = 82 (<1.5) 0.25 hr. No change Raw
health subjects lj
l. 316– (0.7-1.0) Not specified No significant change
i e 880 until pulse 150/ in reaction time or
plus other min on exercise cardiorespiratory
smog compon- - work efficiency in
ents - healthy subjects 4.
l. 166 (0.62) 2 hrs. exercise No change; no diff.
0.2 – l hr. ven- exercise healthy
tilation incr. subjects 5
4 x
0.940 (0.5) 2 hrs. l3 asthmatics, 7 chr.
br. , 10 health nor-
mals; 7/13 asthmatics:
slight burning eyes (2)
headache (l) and chest
tightness exercise (4);
no significant change
in pulm. function unless
comb. patient groups;
changes very slight 6
0.564 (0.3) 2 hrs. No increased response in
added to 03 "reactive" subjects 3
exposure -
0.200 (0. ll) l hr. 3/20 asthma inc. Raw
13/20 increased sensitiv-
ity Carbacol; no symptoms 7
0.10 (0.05) 2 hrs. No effect gas exchange
(also ozone or Raw; 2% Ach incr. Raw
0.05, SO2 1% & 3% no effect; heal-
0.26) thy volunteers l
- ***-**---------------------------- " ---
184
Table 2
Selected Summary of Epidemiologic Studies on NO2
Concentration mg/m3 (ppm) Effects References
Mean 90th Percentile
0.15 - 0.28% 0.28 – 0.94 k Slight increase in respiratory symptoms and
(0.08 – 0.15) (0.15 - 0.54) slight decrease in pulmonary function 9, 10
Same Slight increase in bronchitis morbidity º
& No effect on croup, pneumonia or hospitalizations 8
0,096 vs 0.043 0.188 vs 0.113 No effect healthy non-smoking adults
(0.051 vs 0.023) (0.10 vs 0.06) - 2
0.103 Maximum Questionable small increase in respiratory
(0.055 0.263 - 0. 654 symptoms. No difference in pulmonary function;
(0.140 – 0.30 Policemen. 11, 12
* Data from Jacob—Hochheiser method.
~4
Later shown to be in error (1ow); values probably should be higher.
;

§
—18-
Table 3
Comparison of Regression Coefficients (b - values) Calculated
by Lave and Seskin (34) and Thibodeau et al (43)
Particulates
- - - -- ~~~~ *** - - -
Sulfates
Lave & Thibodeau, Lave & Thibodeau, -- - - - - - -
Seskin et al. Seskin et al.
Minimum 0,473 0.08 0.199 0.57
Mean 0, i73 0.26 0.303 0.0l
Maximum 0.028 0.08 –0. Ol& 0.01

186
-19-
Table 4
Selected Summary of Effects of Short-Term Exposures to S02
and/or Particulates – 24-hr Level Unless Otherwise Specified,

S02
ſug/m3
(ppm)
Suspended Particulates
\
pg/m”
Effects
\
Ref.
| 1300
722
300-200
250
200
(0.5) 3 hrs
(0.276)
(0.114 - 0.070)
(0.095)
(0.076)
350a
230a
350a
150
Chamber exposure, mouth
breathing; Restings–Sit—
decr. MMEF asthmatics;
2/40 asthmatics wheezed
in night; l/40 "normals"
wheezed in night
No change in pulmonary
function in patients
w/ chronic bronchitis
33
24
Reversible
Decreased FEV1.0
Increased respiratory
symptoms in patients
w/ chronic bronchitis
Weak association
asthmatic attacks
45
35
19
* Corrected from orginal data to TSP equivalents (20).
187

–20-
Table 5
Selected Summary of Effects of Long-Term Exposures
to SO2 and Particulates; Levels Refer to
24-hour Annual Averages
Suspended
S02 Particulates Effects Refs
ps/nº | (ppm)
250 (0.095) 250* Increased phlegm production 30
130 (0.05) 2404 Increased respiratory disease 40
l.20 (0.046) 2003 Increased respiratory illness
-- and decreased pulmonary function 36, 3
| 120 (0.046) 230 Increased lower respiratory
illness 23
23 (0.009) ll.0 Decreased FEV0.75 18
250-l/5 (0.096–0,067) liš Increased lower respiratory
disease and morbidity 3].
55 (0.021)* 180 Increased respiratory symptoms
Decreased pulmonary function 26,
37 (0.014)” i_31. No effect 28
66 (0.025) b 80 No effect -- 29
* Corrected from original data to TSP equivalents (20)
b Equivalents calculated from lead peroxide data
188
–21-
REFERENCES
Beil, M., and W. T. Ulmer
Effect of No.2 in Workroom Concentrations on Respiratory
Mechanics and Bronchial Susceptibility to Acetylcholine
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Hlth. 38:31-44, 1976
Cohen, C.A., A.R. Hudson, J. L. Clausen, and J.H. Knelson
Respiratory Symptoms, Spirometry and Oxidant Air
Pollution in Non-smoking Adults. . -
Amer. Rev. Resp. Dis. 105:251-261, 1972
\
* * * * * * * *-* *-*-º-º- ºr--- * **** - * ~ *-* *-* - - - - - - - - - - -
Hackney, J.D., W.S. Linn, J.G. Mohler, E.E. Pedersen, P.
Breisacher, and A. Russo
Experimental Studies on Human Health; Effects of Air
Pollutants.
Four exposures to ozone alone and in combination with other
pollutant gases.
Arch. Environ. Hlth. 31:379–384, 1975
Holland, G.J., D. Benson, A. Bush, G.Q. Rich, and R. P. Holland
Air Pollution Simulation and Human Performance.
Am. J. Pub. Hith. 58:1684–1691, 1968
Horvath, S.M. and L. J. Folinsbee ~ - " - --
The Effect of Nitrogen Dioxide on Lung Function in Normal
Subjects. -
EPA - 600/1 - 78 - 006, Res. Triangle Park, N.C.
Kerr, H.D., T. J. Kulle, M. L. McIlhany, and P. Swidersky
Effects of Nitrogen Dioxide on Pulmonary Function in
Human Subjects. - * - - * .
EPA 600/1 – 78 — 025, Res. Triangle Park, N.C.--------------------— ---------
Orehek, J., J.P. Massari, P. Gayrard, C. Grimaud, and J. Charpin
Effect of Short-term, Low-level, Nitrogen Dioxide Exposure
on Bronchial Sensitivity of Asthmatic Patients.
J. Clin. Invest. 57:301-307, 1976
-** ~ *-*** --~~~~~~< *~ *s-, -- ~~~~...sºsº.ºr-- - - - - - - -, -------. - - - - - -- ----------- - - --
-- - - - - - * *
Pearlman, M.E., J. F. Finklea, J.P. Creason, C.M. Shy, M.M.
Young, and R.J. Horton
Nitrogen Dioxide and Lower Respiratory Illness.
Pediatrics 47:391-393, 1971
189
–22-
10.
ll-
12.
ls.
14.
*
Shy, C.M., J.P. Creason, M. E. Pearlman, K. E. McClain, F. B.
Benson, and M.M. Young
The Chatanooga School Children Study: Effects of Community
Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide.
I. Methods, Description of Pollutant Exposure, and
Results of Ventilatory Function Testing.
APCA Journal 20:539-545, 1970
Shy, C.M., J. P. Creason, M.E. Pearlman, K. E. McClain, F.B.
Benson, and M.M. Young º
The Chatanooga School Children Study: Effects of Community
Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide. . . . . .
II. Incidence of Acute Respiratory Illness. -
APCA Journal, 20:582–588, 1970 *
Speizer, F. E., and B. G. Ferris, Jr.
Exposure to Automobile Exhaust.
I. Prevalence of Respiratory Symptoms and Disease.
Arch. Environ. Hith. 26:313–318, 1973
Speizer, F. E., and B.G. Ferris, Jr.
Exposure to Automobile Exhaust.
II. Pulmonary Function Measurements.
Arch. Environ. Hlth. 26:319-324, 1973 - -- ** *
Von Nieding, G., H. Krekeler, R. Fuchs, M. Wagner, and K.
Koppenhagen *** *.
Studies on the Acute Effects of No.2 on Lung Function:
Influence on Diffusion, Perfusion and Wentilation in
the Lungs.
Int. Arch. Arbeits, Med. 31:61-72, 1973 -
Von Nieding, G., M. Wagner, H. Lollgen, and H. Krekeler
Zur akuten Wirkung von Ozon auf die lungenfunktion
des Menschen.
VDI Berichte 270: 123-129, 1977
1.90
–23–
15. Amdur, M.O., J. Bayles, V. Ugro, and D.W. Underhill
Comparative Irritant Potency of Sulfate Salts.
Environ. Res. 16:1-8, 1978
16. Buechley, R.W., W.B. Riggan, W. Hasselblad, and J.B.
Van Bruggen
S02 Levels and Perturbations in Mortality - A Study in
the New York - New Jersey Metropolis.
Arch. Environ. Hith. 27:134–137, 1973
17. Buechley, R.W. r
so2 Levels 1967 - 1972 and Perturbations in Mortality:
A Further Study in the New York - New Jersey Metropolis.
Report Contract NO. l - ES - 52101 NIEHS, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
18. Chapman, R.S., W. Hasselblad, C. G. Hayes, J. V. R. Williams,
and D. I. Hammer
Air Pollution and Childhood Ventilatory Function I. Exposure
to Particulate Matter in Two Southeastern Cities, l971-1972.
Ch. 22 in CL.INICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AIR POLLUTION RESEARCH,
Edited by A.J. Finkel and W. C. Duel, Publishing Sciences
Group, Acton, MA, l076
19. Cohen, A.A., S. Bromberg, R.W. Buechley, M.A. Heiderscheit,
and C.M. Shy
Asthma and Air Pollution from a Coal-fueled Power Plant. --
Amer. J. Pub. Hlth. 62:1181—ll88, 1972
20. Commins, B.T., and R. E. Waller
Observations from a 10-year Study of Pollution at a Site in 7
the City of London.
Atmos. Environ. 1:49–68, 1967
2l. Dohan, F.C.
Air Pollutant and Incidence of Respiratory Disease.
Arch. Environ. Hith. 3:387–395, 1961
22. Dohan, F.C., and E.W. Taylor
Air Pollutants and Incidence of Respiratory Disease. A
Preliminary Report.
Amer. J. Med. Sci. 240:337–339, 1960
191
-24-
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Douglas, J.W. B., and R. E. Waller *
Air Pollution and Respiratory Infection in Children.
Brit. J. Prev. & Soc. Med. 20:1-8, 1966
Emerson, P.A.
Air Pollution, Atmospheric Conditions and Chronic
Airways Obstruction.
J. Occ. Med. 15:635-638, 1973
\
Ferris, B.G., Jr.
Microparticulate Sulfates: Effects on Human Health.
Air Quality Monograph #75-24 Washington D.C., American
Petroleum Institute, 1975, 27 pp.
Ferris, B.G., Jr., and D.0. Anderson
The Prevalence of Chronic Respiratory Disease in a New
Hampshire Town.
Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 86:165-177, 1962
Ferris, B.G., Jr., and D.0. Anderson
Epidemiological Studies Related to Air Pollution: A
Comparison of Berlin, New Hampshire, and Chilliwick,
British Columbia.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 57: Suppl;979–83, Oct. 1964
Ferris, B.G. , Jr. , I.T.T. Higgins, M.W. Higgins, and J.M.
Peters &
Chronic Nonspecific Respiratory Disease in Berlin, New
Hampshire, 1961-1967. A follow-up study.
Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 107:ll.0-l22, 1973
Ferris, B.G., Jr., H. Chen, S. Puleo, and R.L.H. Murphy, Jr.
Chronic Nonspecific Respiratory Disease in Berlin, New
Hampshire 1967–1973. A further follow-up study.
Amer. Rev. Resp. Dis. 113:475-485, 1976
Fletcher, C.M.
Recent Clinical and Epidemiological Studies of Chronic
Bronchitis.
Scand. J. Resp. Dis. 48:285-293, 1967
192
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
-25-
Hammer, D.I., F. J. Miller, A.G. Stead, and C.G. Hayes
Air Pollution and Childhood Lower Respiratory Disease
I. Exposure to Sulfur Oxides and Particulate Matter in
New York, l972.
Ch. 24 in CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AIR POLLUTION RESEARCH,
Edited by A.J. Finkel and W. C. Duel, Publishing Sciences
Group, Acton, MA, 1976
Ipsen, J., M. Deane, and F. E. Ingenito
Relationships of Acute Respiratory Disease to Atmospheric
Pollution and Meteorological Conditions. “
Arch. Environ. Hlth. 18:462-472, 1969
Jaeger, M.J., D. Tribble, and H. Wittig - -
Florida Sulfur Oxides Study, Health Effects of Sulfur Oxides.
Volume II, Original Studies, Section 12, April, 1978
Lave, L.B., and E.P. Seskin
Air Pollution and Human Health.
Resources for the Future, John Hopkins University Press.
Baltimore, MD, 1977 368 pp.
Lawther, P.J., R. E. Waller, and M. Henderson
Air Pollution and Exacerbations of Bronchitis.
Thorax 25:525–539, 1970 -
Lunn, J.E., J. Knowelden, and A.J. Handyside * wº- -
Patterns of Respiratory Illness in Sheffield Infant Schoo
Children. .*
Brit. J. Prev. and Soc. Med. 21:7–16, 1967
Lunn, J. E. , J. Knowelden, and J.W. Roe -
Patterns of Respiratory Illness in Sheffield Junio
School Children: A Follow-up Study.
Brit. J. Prev. and Soc. Med. 24:223–228, 1970
Reid, D.O., D.O. Anderson, B.G., Ferris, Jr., and C.M.
Fletcher
An Anglo-American Comparison of the Prevalence of Bronchitis.
Brit. Med. Jour. 2: 1487–1491, 1964
193
-26-
39 e
40.
4l.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Sackner, M.A. , D. Ford, R. Fernandez, J. Cipleys D. Perez,
M. Kwoka, M. Reinhart, E.D. Michaelson, R. Schreck, and
A. Wanner
Effects of Sulfuric Acid Aerosol on Cardiopulmonary Function
of Dogs, Sheep and Humans.
Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 118:497-510, 1978
Sawicki, F. , and P. S. Lawrence, Eds
Chronic Nonspecific Respiratory Disease in the City of
Cracow. . Report of a 5 year follow-up study among adult
inhabitants of the city of Cracow, Warsaw.
National Institute of Hygiene, 1977, 290 pp.
Schimmel, H. , and T.J. Murawski
S02 - Harmful Pollutant or Air Quality Indicator.
A.P.C.A. J. 25:739–740, 1975
Schimmel, H., and T.J. Murawski
The Relation of Air Pollution to Mortality.
J. Occ. Med. 18:316–333, 1976
Thibodeau, Les R. Reed, Y.M.M. Bishop, and L. Kammerman
A Review of AIR POLLUTION AND HUMAN HEALTH by Lester
Be Lave and Eugene P. Seskin.
Final Report EPRI Contract, 1978
USEPA
Health Consequences of Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS
1970-1971.
U.S. E.P.A. - 650/1 - 71 – 004. Washington, D.C., May, 1974
Van der Lende, R., C. Huygen, E.J. Jansen-Koster, S. Knijpstra,
R. Peset, B. F. Wisser, E. H. E. Wolfs, and N.G.M. Orie
A Temporary Decrease in the Ventilatory Function of an
Urban Population. During an Increase in Air Pollution.
Bull. Physiopath. Resp. ll: 31-43, 1975
194
HUMAN EXPOSURES TO WATERBORNE POLLUTANTS
FROM COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
By
Julian B. Andelman, Ph.D.
Professor of Water Chemistry
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
195
HUMAN EXPOSURES TO WATERBORNE POLLUTANTS
FROM COAL-FIRED STEAM ET.ECTRIC POWERPLANTS
by *
Julian B. Andelman, Ph.D.
Professor of Water Chemistry
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
* The focus of this paper is the evaluation of the potential impact on
human health from waterborne chemical pollutants emitted principally at
coal-fired steam electric powerplant sites. coal is the primary fossil
fuel used for electric power generation in the Ohio River Basin, which is
the major reason for its emphasis in this paper. Nevertheless, such plants
have substantial emissions in common with other fossil-fueled and nuclear
powerplants, and thus, where applicable such as for cooling water effluents,
some of the total impacts of these common emissions will be considered when
assessing total wastewater flows. Although many of the chemicals which are
constituents of the coal itself will also be emitted as waterborne wastes
due to coal mining, preparation, and transportation, the possible impacts
of these activities will not be considered specifically.
It is not the intention of this paper to exhaustively present the full
range of chemical pollutants emitted by the water route at these powerplants.
Such information can be found in numerous articles and reports. Rather,
L96
2
using a few specific examples, an attempt will be made to assess some of the
likely human exposures that may occur, principally through the drinking
water route, once these chemicals are emitted to surface receiving waters,
primarily rivers, and assuming that they act as conservative pollutants.
In this context, and perhaps somewhat unusually, the term conservative will
signify: first, that they do not degrade, which certainly applies to
trace elements in stable oxidation states; that they are not released by
the natural water system, such as by precipitation or volatilization; and
finally that they are not affected by municipal water treatment processes,
It is safe to say that it is unlikely that one could find any water pollu-
tant that meets all of these conditions, but, as a preliminary worst-case
analysis, this is certainly a conservative set of conditions in two senses
=-- ---
of the term.
After initially describing briefly the kinds of sources of wastewaters
associated with fossil-fueled steam electric powerplants, two broad classes
of chemicals will be considered: trace elements and organics. Some of
their uses and origins at these sites will be reviewed, along with some of
their quantities emitted, and possible impacts on surface water quality, and
ultimately, possible human exposures. Although it is well known that such
human waterborne exposures can be considerably amplified, such as for mer-
cury, via concentration and accumulation in the aquatic food chain, because
of liaised quantitative information this possible route will not be evaluated.
Nevertheless, any conclusions based on assessments of waterborne exposures
that do not consider such additional routes must be regarded as incomplete.
There are a variety of wastewater streams associated with powerplants
and these are shown schematically in Figure l (1). They vary considerably:
L97
3
in flow volumes, ranging from as awa. as 1 MGD/Mw typically for once-through
cooling, to just a few gallons per day per megawatt for some cleaning operation
with recirculating cooling water blowdown and once-through ash ºluteins
systems being intermediate in flow at several thousand GPM/Mw. The compo-
sition of the intermittent smaller flows of run-off from coal piles, as
well as that of the bottom and fly-ash wastewaters, is largely determines
by coal composition, while many other wastes, such as cooling water, waste-
water from boiler water treatment and boiler condensate blowdown are
strongly influenced by added chemicals. The categories of these wastewaters
by relative volumes and rainfall runoff influence are listed in Table i.
ſ
A large variety of organic and inorganic chemicals are utilized for
...sº->
water treatment, cleaning, and the control of corrosion and biofouling of
coolins water systems, many of which are shown in Table 2. These additives, ---
along with coal constituents can and do appear in these coolins water and
wastewater effluents. Because of the very large volumes from once-through
cooling, which is estimated to be used currently in about two-thirds of
the steam electric powerplants in the U.S., a portion of this paper will con-
sider the potential impact of the formation of chloro-organics in such
systems due to the wide use of chlorine to reduce bio-fouling.
Many trace elements, including heavy metals, can appear in virtually
every wastewater and cooling water effluent stream of powerplants at con-
centrations higher than those in the source water. Such chemicals can ori-
sinate fºr the coal itself. from corrosion products at the plant, and from
chemicals used for such purposes as cleaning agents, corrosion inhibitors,
such as zinc and chromium, and water and wastewater treatment chemicals,
such as alum, used as a coagulant in water treatment, and contaminants of
**
198 <--
4.
lime. In some cases there is the potential for reducing their emissions
by using alternative chemicals, such as the possible substitution of
molybdate as a corrosion inhibitor instead of chromium or zinc. However,
..”
*º-
tº-
when the trace element originates from the coal itself, it may be possible
to reduce its emission only by modification of the wastewater flow systems
or treatmerit of their effluents. Thus, for example, the diversion of run-
off from a coal storage pile to an ash lagoon can reduce its impact.
Unlike the trace organics, considerable data are available regarding
the concentrations of trace elements emitted in wastewater flow. streams at we
powerplants. To obtain a perspective on the possible impact of a few such
metals in wastewaters of powerplants, Table 3 presents estimates of their
daily quantities discharged compared to those from all other industrial
sources. It is clear that for these four metals, powerplants constitute a
significans. if not substantial source. In the case of chronium this 1973
estimated discharge rate was perhaps 0.5 percent of all chromium actually
used by industry in the U.S. Similarly, it was recently estimated by the
E.P.A. that during the period 1975 to 1990 electric utilities would dis–
charge about 50 percent of all the lead emitted to water. It is, therefore,
apparent that there is a need to assess the possible impacts of the emissions
of these and other trace elements as possible agents of waterborne disease.
Some typical concentrations of zinc and chromium applied as corrosion
inhibitors in cooling towers are shown in Table 4, along with information
about a few other chemicals. It should be emphasized that these typical
concentrations in the circulating water are in units of mg/l, and are quite
substantial should they ultimately appear in a receiving stream and remain
relatively undiluted. However, the volumes of such blowdown flows are
L99.
5
much smaller than those from once-through cooling, and do in fact often re-
ceive considerable dilution by receiving waters, Where there may be
reason for concern, in spite of the high dilution, is the possible pre-
cipitation and incorporation of these and other heavy metals into sediments,
which can then constitute a major sink and act as a substantial source in
the aquatic food chain, such as for shellfish. Thus, where an analysis
indicates that the average impact of such effluents on receiving waters and
ultimately drinking water is small, other warerborne routes of exposure
should be considered before a hazard is judged to be unlikely. . . -- -
To obtain an additional perspective on some of the wastewater streams
from a coal-fired powerplant, Table 5 shows some typical flows in gallons
per day per megawatt (GPD/Mw) from several plant operations. It is apparent
that there is a considerable range of flows as discussed earlier, as well-
aş concentrations of trace and macro constitutents within them. . . The flows
shown there are substantially lower than the typical value of 1 MGD/Mw for
once-through cooling, which is also much larger than, perhaps typically ,
10,000 GD/Mw for blowdown from a recirculating cooling water system. How-
ever, the latter flow and that from a once-through ash pond overflow are of
the same order of magnitude. -- -- T. — — — —- - -
In all of these wastewater streams one can find a full range of
trace elements, and these have been studied extensively. Some examples of
their concentrations, in coal pile leachates are shown in Table 6 (2). It
is apparent that the concentrations of many of these chemicals can be quite
high compared to typical concentrations in the Allegheny River, as well aiS
drinking water criterion limits. However, because of the relatively low
average volumes of these leachates, they are unlikely to constitute a hazard
* t . .
200.
6
except for a local situation, such as due to non-dilution or contamination by
infiltration into a water supply aquifer. Another possible route of im-
pact on water quality of these trace elements is by the ultimate settling
of particulates from stack emissions at powerplant sites, and their subse-
quent leaching into surface or ground waters. No such direct assessment of
this route will be presented here, but it is incorporated into the following
regional assessment.
It is useful to consider a possible future impact of trace element
emissions from increased power utilization in a specific region. One such
analysis by the Regional Studies Program of the Argonne National Laboratory
did such a projection to the year 2020 for several areas, including four
counties in the Illinois River basin in Illinois (3). As part of the
National coal Utilization Assessment they projected the emissions of trace
elements in a combined high coal electric and accelerated synfuel scenario. -º-
This region was chosen as 3. case study because of the large amounts of
accessible coal reserves and the potential for increased coal-fired power
generation and synthetic fuel production. It should be emphasized that their
projected, emissions include those related to several phases of coal utiliza-
tion, including the possible impact of urbanization. Also particulate atmos-
pheric emissions that are settleable were included. In this case they assum-
ed that 50 percent of the deposited atmospheric trace elements are trans-
ported to the river via surface run-off. Although it is apparent that their
analysis encompasses much more than impacts of the coal-fired electric
powerplant itself, to the extent that it assesses the full range of sources,
it can indicate whether indeed there may be cause for concern about operations
at the powerplant site. * sº.
–201—
7
As an example of their approach we shall examine their analysis for
Jersey county, one of four they considered in the Illinois River basin.
Table 7 presents their data for eight trace sistents that have potential
impacts on human health. In each case average concentrations in the river
in the absence of increased coal utilization are shown, as well as some
current-drinking water standards or criterion limits. Incidentally, the
average values for arsenic and cadmium in the river exceed these limits.
However, water treatment will often reduce concentrations of trace elements.
Table 7 indicates that there are substantial projected increments under.
average flow conditions due to the 2020 scenario, at least for some of the
trace elements, including selenium, =rcury and beryllium. And, of course,
under the 7-day iQ-year low flow condition, there is a substantially greater
impacts by a factor of about 8. In this case the increments compared to
background concentrations become important for the other elements as well.
It should, however, be emphasized that where the human effects of these
elements are chronic, the short period low-flow higher exposure becomes of
lesser concern. Finally, the last column considers the relative body
burdens due to drinking water intake under low flow conditions compared to
typical dietary sources. For mercury and lead the water constitutes a sub-
stantial source, but again these would be reduced by a factor of about 8
under average flow conditions. It should also be noted that their assessment
also indicates that the air contributions to these body burdens are men
lower than those of water. One can thus conclude that, to the extent that
the assumptions are valid, it is unlikely that there is a substantial impact
from most of these trace elements on the human health of the general popula-
tion in the year 2020 scenario in Jersey County, Illinois. Where the
analysis indicates that an element like mercury may be of concern, there may
-202- *
8
be need to refine the assumptions and examine further the extent to which,
for example, the mercury may be behaving as a conservative pollutant in
the river and water treatment systems.
One can at least make several preliminary judgements and conclusions
about the possible waterborne route impact on human health from trace elements
arising from steam electric coal-fired powerplants. There can be substantial
tº quantities of such trace elements emitted, even when compared to those
*
associated with other anthropogenic activities. Some of these emissions are
due to the use of chemicals at the plant and can be limited by the judicious
use of alternative chemicals. However, a large number of trace elements are
present in coal and will necessarily appear in wastewater streams, although
***
their impact can be reduced. These trace elements are naturally present in
the hydrosphere and in many cases and at most times the incremental loads
- * -º - ---
from powerplants are very small. However, for some elements, such as mer-
cury, selenium, arsenic, chromium, and lead, the added waterborne load could
be substantial compared to background concentrations. In particular, situa-
tions could be encountered where there are localized i-racts such as due to
low dilution, groundwater contamination, or concentration in sediments. In
general, however, the concentrations of trace. elements in water are such that
potable water sources constitute • relatively small fraction of the contri-
butions to human body burdens compared to dietary sources. Where there is a
potential increase from powerplant emissions, it is unlikely that they
will constitute a danger of acute human toxicity. However, there is a need
to fully and continually assess their potential chronic effects as such
powerplants become regionally concentrated and their emissions become highly
localized.
—203–
9
Next we shall address the organic chemicals that can appear in waste-
water effluents at coal-fired steam electric powerplants, and these can
be attributed to four basic sources: those present in the raw source water,
either of natural or anthropogenic origin; those orginating from the coal
itself, ultimately appearing, for example, in ash pond effluents or run-off
from coal storage piles; chemical additives, such as corrosion inhibitors
and cleaning and dispersing agents; and products from the reactions of
chemicals in the ºster and wastewater systems, such as those from chlorine,
added to cooling water and then reacting either with natural or synthetic
organics already present in or added to the water. Serious concern about
such chlorination reactions has developed in relation to the formation of
trihalomethanes in drinking water disinfection, but many other products,
depending on the nature of the organic precursor, can form as well. The
E.P.A. list of 129 priority pollutant chemicals consists nostly of organic
chemicals and includes several of these trihalomethanes that can form in
water and wastewater chlorination. All of priority pollutants are now
being addressed for possible control in the proposed revision of steam elec-
\
tric powerplant effluent limitations guidelines (4).
Only sparse data seem to be available on the nature and concentration -
of organics actually present in wastewater or cooling water from these
powerplants. A compilation of some such measurements reported recently by
the E.P.A. for several powerplants is shown in Table 8 (4). In addition to
the organics Listed there, others were detected frequently, such as unchlori
phenol at concentrations of a few u g/l in cooling tower blowdown, several
phthalates, and several. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which as a class
are frequently associated with coal process wastes and contain some highly
potent animal carcinogens.
–204–
10
Of the organics listed in Table 8, benzene can be categorized as a
suspected human carcinogen and chloroform as an animal carcinogen. For
almost all the other listed chemicals there are either very little or no
s”
available data on chronic toxicity, although acute human toxic effects are
*g
known at much higher levels of exposure. Several of these chemicals have,
‘however, unpleasant taste and odor characteristics, and at the concentrations
shown can impart unpleasant taste to fish or similarly taint drinking water.
As a class halogenated organics are responsible for adverse biological
reactions and are the subject of regulatory initiatives. Ҽ
Although the concentrations shown in Table 8 are in the g/l range,
in most cases they typically are at least comparable to and often substanti-
ally larger than the highest concentrations found in drinking water (5).
Whether they will result ultimately in significant waterborne human exposure
depends on dilution of the wastewater streams, their ability to concentrate
in the food chain, their movement and fate in natural waters, and their
ability to survive drinking water treatment.
In an attempt to assess the possible impact of the reactions of
chlorine with organic precursors in powerplant cooling water, Jolley and
co-workers in the laboratory exposed untreated cooling water sources to the
chlorine doses they would receive typically in practice, using radiotracer
chlorine-36 and assessing its incorporation into the gross organic load, as
well as measuring some specific chloro-organics that were formed (6). Chlo-
rine is frequently used in such cooling water to prevent bio-fouling of the
cooling water system. The tentative identification and quantification of
several of the compounds found is shown in Table 9, along with comparable
results for a chlorinated secondary sewage effluent. There is considerable
–205–
11
• * concern about the possible adverse effect of chlorine residuals and such
chloro-organic compounds on aquatic biota, and it is interesting to note
that the concentration. in the chlorinated secondary sewage effluent were
comparable to those in the other emoriated waters. Many of these compounds
are known to kill or otherwise affect fish or zooplankton. for example,
*
it has been reported that 5-chlorouracil and 4-chlororesorcinol can signi-
*~
ficantly lower the hatching success of carp eggs at concentrations as low
-. as 1 ug/1 (7). Nevertheless, aside from organoleptic characteristics of -
- the chlorophenols shown in Table 9, any possible adverse chronic human effects
at these concentrations are generally not known. However, they are of
interest as an indication that a wide variety of alore-organics can be
formed in chlorinated cooling waters at powerplants. - - - - . . . . ... *
In these chlorination studies it was observed that the range of incor-
poration of chlorine into emiere-organic atter was 0.5 to 3 percent of the
applied chlorine dose of approximately * -sſi, which is typical of that * -
used in chlorinating secondary sewage effluents and is one-through coolins
water system at powerplants, although the latter usually receive inter-
mittent doses. From these results one can infer that there was an incorpor-
ation of a range is to 90 ug/l of chlorine into organic atter in the cooling
water. me actual quantity of organic matter thus ending up as chloro-or-
ganics would, of course, be highly dependent on their nature. Taking chlor-
obenzoic acid as a model, this range of chloriae incorporation would
generate 65 to 390 asſi of total chloro-organics. If, however, all the
chlorine were incorporated into the highly chlorinated chloroform, this
would generate 17 to 101 waſi. - . - -
In order to evaluate the possible ultimate human exposures to these
-206-
12
chlororganics from powerplant effluents it is useful to first assess their
potential impacts on surface water quality, particularly in comparison to
the Ioads generated by chlorinated municipal sewage. This is addressed in
Table 10 for four segments of the Ohio River and two of its major tributaries
in the greater Pittsburgh area. The quantities of power generated along
these river segments are shown, along with the estimated or known cooling
water effluent flows (including both once-through and other types), chlorina-
ted sewage effiuent flows, and average and recent minimum river flows. It - - - -.
is apparent that, except for the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to the Beaver
River, the ratio of cooling water effluent flow to that from chlorinated
sewage is quite high. On the average for the region, this ratio is about 8
to l. It is interesting to note that in the lower Allegheny and Mononga-
hela Rivers the cooling water effluent flows are about 40 and 60 percent,
respectively, compared to recent minimum river low flows, although they are
substantially smaller than the average river flows. It is thus apparent
that the chlorinated organics in these cooling water effluents could appear
in the surface receiving waters relatively undiluted at times. Also, be-
cause the doses of applied chlorine are comparable for the cooling water and
secondary sewage effluents, it is reasonable that they may be generating com-
parable loads of chloro-organics when their relative volumes and frequency
of chlorination are considered, at least in the Pittsburgh area described.
in Table 10.
One can make several generalizations and, conclusions from these various
sources of information regarding the possible impacts of organics from steam
electric powerplants. Measurable concentrations in the region of l to 100 ug/1
of a large variety of organic chemicals can be found in the wastewaters of
–207–
13
~~~sº ºw ººm-s-smººsºº" --> *-
such powerplants, although the available data are quite liaissa. In addition
to the organics from the coal itself and those added in the plant, such
as for water treatment, corrosion inhibition and cleaning, chlorination of
cooling water can result in quantities of chloro-organics comparable to
those generated by the chlorination of municipal sewage, and in some areas,
possibly even much greater quantities. The possible impacts on water quality
will be highly site-specific, and under some low fiow conditions the dilutions
of these cooling water effluents may be very small. Although a few of the
identified organics are likely to be human carcinogens, most Occur at COri-
centrations well below known acute toxic levels, and at the same time
little or no information is available regarding their chronic human effects.
In addition to human exposure via drinking water, they could also affect
human health by concentration in the aquatic food chain. However, it is a -
reasonable judgement that there is no need for alarm about their possible
impacts. At the same time it would be highly desirable to obtain additional
information about the full range of organics in these effluents and their
likely concentrations. Such evaluations could then be put in the perspective
of the variety of information now being developed about the possible human
health effects of such compounds in water, and a better assessment then made
as to the contributions and impacts from powerplants.
REFERENCES
l. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-74
029–a, October 1974. º
2. Cox, D.B., T.Y.J. Chu, and R.J. Ruane, in Proceedings of NCA/BCR Coal
Conference, Louisville, Ky., October 1977.
*-****º- “…- --------
*
-208–
3.
6.
7.
14
Regional Studies Program, An Integrated Assessment of Increased Coal
Use in the Midwest: Impacts and Constraints, ANL/AA (DRAFT), U.S.
Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, October 1977. –
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Report for Revision
of Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (DRAFT), Effluent
Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., September 1978.
Safe Drinking Water Committee, Drinking Water and Health, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,1977.
Jolley, R. L., G. Jones, W.W. Pitt, and J.E. Thompson, "Determination
of chlorination effects on organic constituents in natural and process
waters using high-pressure liquid chromatography, " in Identification
and Analysis of Organic Pollutants in Water, L.H. Keith (Ed.). Ann -
Arbor Science, 1976.
Gehrs, C.W., L.D. Eyman, R.L. Jolley, and J.E. Thompson, "Effects of
stable chlorine-containing organics on aquatic environments."Nature, 249,
675 (1974). & g
–209–
oruſoſiº wais qu'Iºni-TISSO， HO） WvHb
awana wriotido •—•—•—
q„nwpływ ºn? --º-º-º-º-º-º-
nºong wiwº ſº º ºvº ~~~~
|-naong qinºvº ------
·āfīāīā ,
· x£
|}
}
|
(ūF6āŪTĪTIFī7Õīſī VāEI WOg
WICI MO'IſſHALVMĀLSVMCINW HGHLV
}
|
|
, !
|
{
Waetsäarvºſ.
| 1.1 ſailºv rollonaisto2
Swią lºſs ºaaſºwą ºfiſnoop |
ej geomo "Hºw'/'A7. Dwº
äïsºſaſsivijſ
|
į
pºsaºs a ſwyni 'ºſlºw M
ņnaņawws # y： aouya03\\
'saisvaſ į savuſtºs į
|
→† • • .
�-- -}}{
}' .
}
5ĘTĀTșī£ineo> ºtſuvnºptar， að
ºs ſººſ sow^{\^ ooº
-à-----
waer
șiş norąłłą, ººrſo}
Açº';
~~ ~---
•rsiºonHº ,
yłąů €.), º
*$ ſſh ºſ añºſł
ſoºſ→å
off. （ſºłºwſ 81&ºffſ»
|
X£taevapºyº |· · · · · · · · · · · ·· *$1$\^^^
| ' ’•|
--◄-' , ، ، ، ،
|-:---! Waelºks .
}|-|----• •¿-{º}}\;"
zarºnºsºnčnº*→ styx waſłoHºy
.goº -aalºwał . . .
[、].*|
º anaoſ, ſotſin oo> ·} -, . |---
|-}·āālwa ºdwºrsaono2_• → .|1
· · · · \{T（S）（iº) ‘’ -
· ,*-- -|- -4\} . .
|-L. . . · º ,→–|vaeſſa-a.------…i
} |! |
�
•■<ſå-º-º-º-º
• Nºxºrnaţiº
Œ1 （ ! ）
§§±37őrwł• •-}！”, “,
Noſ į ººtaen oº
ſºººf ſººſ &
º , e aº nasewiv oi .
r— .| øn.
#
ſºrºſºn&wicz
, ，，saessæ
•ºzdºn， ſoºīān） |
įºniſwaïñëş živalº ! ' .
|
Q•è**** �
snyxiwºſ，
！===−−-~--~\，
-！”
£|
■<！&•
[ NWT eſ}{{HMAOd
M 'IVOIHĀĪ,
§¶√∞}，
fæÓ
entd * ºoº
inaw Iwaai
·Aſ Q Đâå
-ºslºg}}{C}{A
§ § 1 W/W
••••••••
=ī£IVŇ MYa
|-
. *wºiſtanº
|ģºjº į ſººſ ſººſ
y=====------
, ! ! №ſſae;EFly，
| , ، ، ، ، ، ، ، . . . . . į , º șj.| |_„_hajłł-ºff*
, , ... * * · ·waer-ºrºſà 01&•
. . . . . . . ..aeſſaealºw/W}.|-
. |
șºffº ?\@oſae .|
’ √&å ſå ºffſ. |
�
±
-į
* .·
-- * .*�|-
º šºvršiwºłłº
{
*（=！！ ！= ~~~~ ~~~~
...~ * -----wºrrº-ºº º
* T ȘIHQĐIŁ
sniwrdd qaw).
on sy rejo o^ $
* = --------------> . . .<=-------, --> -->=== *-* **** * * * * * *






-210-
CLASSIFICATION OF WARIOUS WASTEWATER SOURCES FROM
TABLE 1 -
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS (FROM EPA l; l;0/1-7 || 029—a)
Class Source

High Volume
—u—
Nonrecirculating main condenser
cooling water
Intermediate Volume
. Sº,
Nonrecirculating house service water
Blowdown from recirculating main
cooling water system
Nonrecirculating ash sluicing systems
Nonrecirculating wet-scrubber air
pollution control systems
Low Volume
ºr
Clarifier water treatment * - -a - - -
Softening water treatment
Evaporator water treatment
Ion exchange water treatment
Reverse osmosis water treatment
Condensate treatment
Boiler blowdown
Boiler tube cleaning . *-*** * -- ~~
Boiler fireside cleaning
Air preheater cleaning
Stack cleaning
Miscellaneous equipment cleaning
* * ******** *-*-a-e---
Recirculating ash sluicing systems Tº
Recirculating wet-scrubber air
pollution control systems
Intake screen backwashi`
Laboratory and sampling streams
Cooling tower basin cleaning
Rad wastes
Sanitary system -
Recirculating house service water
Floor drainage
Miscellaneous streams
}
Rainfall Runoff
Coal pile drainage
Yard and roof drainage
Construction activities
º------- - -
–211-
|
|
|
|
|
}
TABLE 2 . CHEMICALS USED IN, STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTs
(FROM EPA || || 0/1-7 l; 029-a)
.
r– 0. | it- w
Jeg º Shemical Use Chemical
Regenerants of ion exchange
for condensate treatment
. Nitrates
Caustic soda
Sulfuric acid
Ammonex
|
Corrosion inhibition or scale
prevention in cooling towers
pH contréi in cooling towers
*
Biocides in condenser cooling
Additives to primary coolant.
Coagulant in clarification
water treatment
Regeneration of ion ex-
change water treatment
Alme soda softening
water treatment
$
corrosion inhibition or scalp
prevention in boilers
pH control in boilers
Sludge conditioning
oxygen scavengers in boilers
Boiler cleaning
Aluminum sulfate
Sodium aluminate
Ferrous sulfate
Ferric chloride
Calcium carbonate •
Sulfuric acid
Caustic soda
Hydrochloric acid
Common salt.
Soda ash
Ammonium hydroxide
Soda ash
Lime * º
Activated magnesia
Ferric coagulate
Dolomitic lime
Disodium phosphate
Trisodium phosphate
Sodium nitrate
Ammonia
Cyclohexylamine
Tannina
Ligning -
Chelates such as EDTA, NTA
Hydrazine
Morphaline
Hydrochloric acid
Citric acid
Formiº, acid
Hydroxyacetic acid
Potassium bromate
Phosphates
Thiourea
Hydrazine •
Ammonium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium carbonate
Biocides is, cooling towers
Pispersing agents in
cooling towers
water systems
Additives to house service
water Bystems
in nuclear units
Numerous uses
&
---
Organic phosphates
Sodium phosphate
Chromates
Zinc salts
Synthetic organics
Chlorine
Hydrochlorous acid
Sodium hypochlorite
Calcium hypochlorite
Organic chromates
Organic zinc compounds
Chlorophenates
Thiocyanates
Organic sulfurs
Sulfuric acid
Hydi ochloric acid
Lignins
Tannins
Polyacrylonitrile
Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylic acids
Polyacrylic acid salts
Chlorine º
Hypochlorites
Chlorine .
Chromates
Caustic soda
Borates
Nitrates
Boric acid
Lithium hydroxide
Hydrazine
Numerous , proprietary
chemicals
|
#
TABLE 3 - TOTAL METALS DISCHARGED FROM POWERPLANTS IN THE
U.S. (1973) COMPARED TO OTHER INDUSTRIAL SOURCES,
INCLUDING COOLING WATER DISCHARGES
(FROM EPA 440/1-74 029—a)

*** * * *** *** --- --------
.*-** *** *w rvº-ve *-w
*** -->
Discharges by Major
r
*-*.*.*
Percentage of
Pollutant
Steam Electric Power- All Major
plants, lb/day Dischargers
Chromium 15, 365 50
Copper 2,739. .l.4
Iron 20,683 iO
Zinc 20,099 21
Total 58,886 l4
* → *-*** *** **, *-
wº-lee”, assºa. **** *** * -- *-- *** *
–213–
TABLE ll. WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS (WITH CONCENTRATIONS
- IN mg/l) OF TYPICAL COOLING TOWER INHIBITOR SYSTEMS
(FROM EPA 110/1-7. 029—a)
&-
- -- - - -- - - - - - - --
*- ***
Concentration in
. Inhibitor *e. • . . recirculating
. system © Water.
chromate only e 200-500 as Croa
Zinc . 8–35 as zn – -------—---
. . chromate -. 17–65 as Croa
Chromate e —H·-
- Phosphate . . . . . ... 30–45 as Po,
Zinc . . . . . . . . . 8–35 as Zn
*- -*- Phosphate 15-60 as Po, --—
Zinc . - * Ta-5s as Zī-
. . . . . . . Phosphate . . . . . 15-60 as Po,
- Phosphate * º ... • 15–60 as Pei-----—
T TT T : Organic - 3-10 as organic
$ Organic only 100–200 as organic
10 est- as BOD
loo est- as COD
50 est- as CCl
tº
. . . . . . extract 4.
- 5 est - as MBAS
Organic º 30 as chlorophenol—- - ––
Biocide w . . 5 as sulfone
l as thiocyanate
-- - -- ****------ *-*-* ~~ - --~~~~--- ---> --
------ a------ - - - - - - - - - - - ------
º
–214-

TABLE 5, TYPICAL CHEMICAL WASTES FROM A COAL-FIRED POWERPLANT
(FROM EPA lll: 0/1-7 l. 029-a)
|_ Waste Stream Flow, Typical Concentrations of Major Pollutants , mg/l.
GPD/MW, TSST. Iron | Copper Sulfate Hardness
Ion exchange ſº 88 46 • sºn º 2O85 * *
Boiler blowdown 52 25 tº , Ǻ º tºº
Boiler cleaning 0, 25 127 2100 380 gº 52O
Boiler fireside cleaning 4, 44 582 142 º 1650 4661
Air preheater cleaning ll, 7 1882 1610 º 1130 3700
Miscellaneous cleaning l, 11 . 1000 gº º • . tºº
& Laboratory operations lO l.00 º tºº • º
tº | Floor drains 30 s 100 - ſº dº cº-
| Recirculating bottom 400. 1000 º • º Cº.
ash sluicing blowdown $ & t * e
Ash pond overflow (once- |5000 . . 60 - º 510 . . 244
through fly ash) o {}
Coal pile drainage 60 864 wn ... tº 6880 1025
|
TABLE 6 . COMPARISONS OF SOME TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRA-
TIONS IN COAL PILE LEACHATES WITH THOSE IN
THE ALLEGHENY RIVER AND HEALTH AND OTHER
DRINKING WATER CRITERION LIMITS (ug/L)
Tº - F - - EPAP- - -
Leachate, Leachate, 1966 mean, criterion.
Element Plant 1° Plant 2* Allegheny R. limit
Cu 400 - 1,000 10 – 500 30 1,000 -
Zū 2,000 - 16,000 1,000 - 4,000 90 * 5,000
Ni. 700 - 3,000 200 - 500 20 tº
Crº < 5 - . 10 < 5 - LO 5 * 50
Hg < 0.2 - 3 3 - 7 * * 2
As 5 = 600 6. – 50 60 50
Se < 1. --> 30 < 1 - l - 10
Be & 30 — ‘ 70 < 10 – 30 0.1 0.2°
*~ *sºmº- ºr ºr -º **s sºme sº-º-º-º-º: * * * *-** *-* *-** ***** **** *-*-
*From D.B. Cox, T.Y.J. Chu, and R.J. Ruane, in Proceedings of NCA/BCR Coal
Conference, Louisville, Ky., October 1977.
*u.s.E.P.A. Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Proposed Second-
ary Regulations.
*U.S.S.R. Drinking Water standards
–216–
TABLE 7 - YEAR 2020 PROJECTION OF TRACE ELEMENT
IMPACT FROM A COMBINED HIGH COAL ELECTRIC
AND ACCELERATED SYNFUEL SCENARIO : WATER
QUALITY IN ILLINOIS RIVER (JERSEY COUNTY)
AND BODY BURDEN3s
Concentration - ug/l
Year 2020 coal
utilization increment
Water
*- 7-day Drinking vs. diet
Trace River Average 10-year Water body
element average Flow low flow criterion burden
As 44. 0.6 5 10 0.23
Be 0.10 0.13 - l.0 0.2 0.ll
Cd 12.7 0.7 5.7 10 0.03
cr 7.4 1-1 8.4. 50 0.32
Hg 0.0 0.4 * 2.9 2 2.3
Ni i2.9 2.5 19.8 1000 0.08
Pb 28. 3 2.9 22.7 50 0.73
Se 0.01. 0.5 4.1 10 0.02
*Adapted from An Integrated Assessment of Increased Coal Use in the Midwest:
Impacts and Constraints, ANL/AA-ll (Draft), Argonne National Laboratory,
October 1977.
*Comparing projected 7-day 10-year low flow concentration in river (assum–
ing same in drinking water) with typical diet intake.
–217–
TABLE 8 . SOME REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS (pg/1) OF ORGANIC
CHEMICALS IN WASTEWATERS FROM STEAM ELECTRIC
POWERPLANTS*
Once-thru Cooling tower Ash pond * * *
Chemical cooling blowdown effluent
Benzene º 2 - 45 1 • 2 **-*-i- ºrº
Toluene gº 24 4.
2,4-dinitrophenol º dº 50
Dichlorobenzene (isomers) - 20 35 - 64
2,4-dichlorophenol º - 83
2.4.6-trichlorophenol gº 35 & ºr
1,2-dichloroethane 44 tº º
is L-dichloroethylene 16 gº º ~. º,
is 2-dichloroethylene 11. {--> - -
is is l-trichloroethane 12 º 27
Tetrachloroethylene 78 tº tº
Chloroform tº ºr 2 - 26 tº ºr
Bromoform wº- 13 - 154 &º
Chlorodibromomethane tº º 59 tº a
*~~~ *** - ***-* * * * * * * *-s-s-s-s-s- *** *- -º-º-º- **** ---
º
From Technical Report for Revision of Steam Electric Effluent
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1978.
tº.
* *-** ~ *-**-* ----------> *-
*** *-ºs --> --> -º- -
* * *-º- --> --- ~~~~ * *-* *-ºr-es-sºº, s-- *** **,
~~~~~~~ ... -----— — — —--------- * --- ~~~
-218-
TABLE 9 e TENTATIVE IDENTIFICATION AND CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/1) OF CHLORO-ORGANICS IN LABORATORY-
CHLORINATED SAMPLES OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT AND
STEAM ELECTRIC POWERPLANT COOLING WATER
INFLUENT*
Watts Bar . Mississippi
Sewage Lake River
* * * * * ~ * --→ * * * * Effluent Sample Sample
Nucleoside
5-chlorouridine i.e. 7 0.6 7
Purine
8-chlorocaffeine 1.7 1.-1. 6
6-chloro-2-aminopurine 0.9 l.0 3
8-chloroxanthine l.5 3 tº sº.
Pyrimidine
5-chlorouracil 4. 0.6 3
Aromatic acid
* 2-chlorobenzoic acid 0.3 1.1 10
3-chlorobenzoic acid 0.6 0.2 8
4-chlorobenzoic acid l-l 0.3. 8
3-chloro-4-hydroxybenzoic acid l. 3 0.8 3
4-chloromandelic acid l-l 1.8 6
4-chlorophenylacetic acid 0.4 3 20
5-chlorosalicylic acid 0.2 3 18
Phenol
4-chloro-3-methylphenol l.5 0.2 0.7
2-chlorophenol 1.7 0.2 4.
3-chlorophenol 0.5 0.2 6
4-chlorophenol 0.7 0.2 2
4-chlororesorcinol 1.2 0.5 7
*From R.L. Jolley, G. Jones, W.W. Pitt, and J.E. Thompson, "Determination of
chlorination effects on organic constituents in natural and process waters
using high-pressure liquid chromatography," in Identification and Analysis
of Organic Pollutants in Water, L.H. Keith (Ed.), Ann Arbor Science, 1976.
–219–
TABLE 1.0 . COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED STEAM ELECTRIC POWER
COOLING WATER AND CHILORINATED MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
EFFTUENT FLOWS WITH THOSE OF THEIR RECEIVING
WATERS IN MAJOR RIVERS OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Cooling Avge. Recent
Power Water sewage river minimum
--—River-segment generated effluent effluent flow - river flow
Mºg * MGD MGD MGD MGD
Lower Allegheny l, 150 750 25 12,500 2,000
Lower Monongahela 3,620 720 17 7,900 l, ljQ
Ohio-Pittsburgh
to Beaver R. 530 400 195 20,900 3,160
Ohio-Beaver R.
to Pa., border 2,590 150 9 23,350 3,715
Total 7,890 2,020 246 -->
–220-
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASPECTS OF FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
By
William N. Rom, M.D., M.P.H.
Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health
University of Utah
Pulmonary Disease Division, Department of Medicine, and
Division of Occupational and Environmental Health,
Department of Family and Community Medicine
Salt Lake City, Utah
e 84132
–221–
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ASPECTS OF FOSSIL-FUEL ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
Analyses of occupational health risks in fossil-fueled power plants have
concentrated on raw material extraction (e.g. underground coal mining), trans-
portation of the raw materials, and the health consequences of the air pollu-
tion from electricity generation. There is little information concerning
occupational safety and health risks of the power plant workers.
The Edison Electric Institute estimates there are l,000 fossil-fueled
power plants in the United States, and that they employ approximately a half-
million workers. A typical fossil-fueled power plant will have three to four
units, each capable of generating fifty to one-hundred Megawatts. Most power
plants are now using coal or are in the process of converting from oil and
natural gas to coal for economic reasons and encouragement by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy. This will result in greater occupational and environmental
health risk because coal-generated power entails greater risk than oil or
natural gas.
For a 1,000 Megawatt power plant, coal has a two to three times greater
health risk (occupationally-related deaths) than an oil-firéd plant, and a
thirty-six to 1, 120 times greater health risk than natural gas.'
From 1967 to 1971 at two 1,000 Megawatt TVA power plants (Colbert and
Gallatin) there were 665,000 man-hours worked annually at each plant with
388.5 days lost because of accidents.” There were no fatalities. By con-
trast, in 1969 in coal mining there were thirty-two disabling injuries per
million man-hours worked versus eight for all industries. There were 2,000
days lost per million man-hours worked which compares to approximately 258
for power plants.
–222-
Page 2
Over half the health costs associated with the generation of electrical
energy comes from coal mining; these rise will be only about 10 to 15% with
strip mining. Coal transport by railroad may also represent hazards, parti-
cularly accidents, since 10% of all railroad cars are hauling coal to power
plants (approximately five million carloads of coal in 1970).”
In comparing estimates of the health effects for alternative fuel cycles
for equivalent l,000 Megawatt electric units (Table l), coal greatly exceeds
oil and natural gas for occupational and monoccupational deaths and occupa-
tional impairments.”
The occupational death and impairment risks from coal
are magnified (Table 2) when one considers the greater number of millions of
Kilo-watt hours are generated by coal-fired plants compared to oil and natural
* for coal vs. 292 x 10° and 297 x 10° for oil and
gas in 1975. (844 X 10
gas respectively). In evaluating the coal. fuel cycle (Table 3), coal mining
accidents and disease were the highest with power generation accidents very
low, and power generation disease not even listed.
The future portends dramatic increases in coal production to meet energy
needs, both in electricity and liquid/gaseous fuels. Coal mining will undergo
major expansion in the Rocky Mountain states (Table 4) with a doubling of the
number of existing mines over the next ten years with a four-fold increase in
production." Major power plants are planned (e.g. Intermountain Power Project
in Utah) to produce power primarily for transhipment, or schemes (railroad,
slurry pipeline) to ship the raw products to the Far West or Midwest. Con-
siderable health risk and environmental degradation will likely occur from
these energy needs - all of which will not be accomplished without considerable
controversy.
The National Occupational Hazard Survey has provided a modicum of informa-
tion on power station health hazards.” The National Occupational Hazard Survey
was a two-year field study initiated by NIOSH in 1972, intended to describe
–223–
Page 3
the health and safety conditions in the American work environment, and to de-
termine the extent of worker exposure to chemical and physical agents. The
sample of businesses in the survey was selected by the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics and consisted of approximately 5,000 establishments in sixty-seven
metropolitan areas throughout the U.S.
Hazard exposure data was provided for 453 occupational groups, including
#433 - Electric power linemen and cablemen (43,433 workers) and #525 - Power
station operators (3,340 workers). Table 5 illustrates the number and per
cent of workers exposed to the more prevalent five individual hazards from
the survey (continuous noise, mineral oil, ethanol, isopropanol, and tri-
chlorethylene). Eighty percent of power station operators were exposed to
continuous noise, and 23.5% were exposed to trichlorethylene.
Using the "Occupational Mortality in Washington State 1950–1971" study
by Dr. Samuel Milham (NIOSH contract) as the reference, public utility
workers have increased proportional mortality ratios (PMR) of cancer of
the recrun (191), asthma (184), coronary heart disease (Ll2), and accidents
6 (Table 6) Possible etiologies for
caused by electrical current (449).
such elevated PMR's other than chance or bias could be social class, sulfur-
dioxide - particulate in-plant air pollution, electromagnetic radiation, sol-
vent exposure, etc. An increased pulmonary embolism PMR in linemen may be
secondary to traumatic injury.
In understanding the occupational health and safety problems of fossil-
fueled power plants, two tours were arranged through electric generating
stations. One was a public utility that burned coal, oil and/or natural gas,
and the other was an industrial utility burning coal and natural gas. These
tours provided practical experience in viewing the processes and work situation:
of power plants. Generally, the work environment did not appear particularly
–224–
Page 4
hazardous, although the noise level appeared excessive at numerous sites,
and several of the maintenance jobs may be especially hazardous. One power
plant was twenty-five years old with three units generating over 240,000 kilo-
watts, and the other was slightly older generating 175,000 kilowatts. Both
employed over 100 workers with one-third to one-half working on maintenance.
Coal arrived in railroad cars from nearby coal fields - one unit
consumed 1700 tons of coal per day. Inside a separate building, coal is
shaken out of the railroad cars exposing the operator to coal dust and noise
levels as high as 115 decibels. Ear protection was mandatory, and the building
had been insulated with an acoustical material. No dust respirators were
worn. Coal is transported by conveyor to a storage area; it is loaded and
transported from here to a secondary storage area where coal is stockpiled
(Figure l). The conveyor belts may create a coal dust problem, particularly
near adjacent walkways. The coal pulverizer is enclosed and utilizes large
steel balls or a hammer mill. The powdered coal is blown into the boiler.
Compared to natural gas, coal dust causes greater wearing of the pipes carrying
steam in the boiler and results in greater maintenance problems (Figure 2).
In the boiler, air and coal are mixed to heat distilled water into super-
heated, pressurized steam (1005°F, 1,525 pounds pressure). Heat may be a prob–
lem, expecially if the boilers are inside a larger building. The steam is then
transported to the main engine room to drive the turbines and generators to pro-
duce electricity. The turbine room was very noisy (estimated 85 decibels) (Fig-
ure 3). Nearby is the control monitoring headquarters. Older switches may con-
tain mercury and present a mercury hazard to control monitor workers.
Flyash from the boilers may be a problem. It is considered a nuisance dust,
and has a fine, sand-like quality with a variable silica content depending on
the coal (17% at one of the power plants visited). Flyash exposure may occur
at the base of the boiler when various doors are opened; a slight negative
–225–
Page 5
pressure within the boiler reduces dust exposures to flyash. A positive pres-
sure would increase the dust exposure hazard. The flyash is conveyed to a sepa-
rate building where it is moistened and hauled away via truck by contractors
(Figure 4). Loading flyash may lead to excessive dust exposures, especially for
farmers removing it to place on their fields to melt snow and hasten the plant-
ing season. Farmers prefer to load it dry to facilitate unloading. Electro-
static precipitators are used to remove particulate from flue gases going up
the stack. Neither power plant had scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide since
they burned low sulfur (<0.5%) coal. A comparison of stacks from two units of
one power plant illustrates the differences in smoke from natural gas (left)
and coal (right) fuels (Figure 5).
Power plants have two closed cycles for water use and re-use - condensors
are used to condense the steam returning from the turbines. The water in the
steam cycle is distilled and kept free of impurities to reduce scale formation.
Cooling water from cooling towers passes through the condensor; this water is
also purified - a large water treatment plant exists which may entail exposures
to chlorine gas, sulfuric acid, and sodium hydroxide. Settling ponds are used
prior to any water discharge. A wet chemistry laboratory is used to monitor
water purity,
Maintenance work may prove particularly hazardous since it is an ongoing
activity throughout the plant. Exposures are usually intermittent, but may
be quite heavy. One of the generators was being overhauled on one tour; sol-
vent and oil exposures may occur here (Figure 6). Trichlorethylene and methyl
ethyl ketone exposures are not unusual. Insulation on pipes may contain asbesto
this is more common in power plants built in the pre-1970 era (Figure 7). Re-
moval of the asbestos may generate a hazardous dust exposure. Scale and plaque
that accumulates on steel parts may be sandblasted resulting in a silica hazard.
A welding shop on the premises has exposures to various welding fumes.
–226-
Page 6
The electricity generated passes through transformers prior to distri-
bution. The transformers may contain polychlorinated biphenyls, and an expo-
sure may potentially occur during maintenance. The electricity then passes through
a sub-station where electromagnetic radiation exposures may occur.
A list of the safety mishaps at one power plant was available for Feb-
ruary - it provided a typical listing of power plant injuries: An apprentice
mechanic received a hairline fracture to his right arm when the sump pump he
was removing slipped and fell on him. A test and instrument journeyman re-
ceived medical attention for inhalation of chlorine gas. A serviceman received
flash burns to both eyes when a flash occurred as he was installing jumpers
in a meter base. A skilled helper received a laceration to the two middle
fingers on his left hand when he caught them between the forks on a fork-
lift. Five meter readers received medical attention for dog bites.
Measurements of crystalline silica, respirable coal dust, total coal dust,
and fly ash were made at three coal-fired power plants in Colorado by NIOSH.
Only a small number of workers were in direct contact with coal or flyash.
Personal samplers were used; coal handlers were exposed to excessive total
coal dust at all three power plants and to excessive silica at two. (Tables
7 and 8). One of the power plants required NIOSH-approved respirators for
its coal handlers. Most coal handlers worked outside on a high stockpile of
coal where engineering controls were not feasible. Excessive flyash exposures
occurred at one utility plant among utility men cleaning baghouses (Table 9).
Professor N. LeRoy Lapp has reported pathological findings on a lung
biopsy of a forty-two year old boiler repairman who worked at a power genera-
ting station that burned bituminous coal.” He was a nonsmoker who had been
employed for twenty-four years. His chest x-ray (Figure 8) was read as normal.
The lung biopsy was obtained at the time of mitral valve replacement. Light
–227-
Page 7
microscopy (Figure 9) revealed mild-moderate thickening of the walls of pull-
monary arterioles, and focal areas of thickening and fibrosis of alveolar
septae. There were also a moderate increase in the number of pigment-laden
alveolar macrophages. Electron microscopy (Figure 10) revealed thickening
of the basement membrane in the alveolar walls by fibrous material and colla-
gen fibers. Four types of particulate matter were found in the intersti-
tium (Figure 11): 1) dense needle-like material, 2) smooth, angular pieces,
3) larger rectangular chunks, and 4) granular aggregates of the previous three
types of particle. Also, small, round debris (probably silica) and a few
asbestos bodies within macrophages were noted. Presumably, this particulate
material represented an occupational exposure to mixed dusts (flyash, as-
bestos, silica, coal dust) in a nonsmoking boiler repairman.
The Federal Power comission estimated 3,607,000 tons of tiºn Were
released to the atmosphere in 1972 from 696 major steam plants.” This re-
sulted from the combustion of 350 million tons of coal with an average ash
content of 13.4 percent (by weight). Recently, flyash has been reported to
be mutagenic. Both organic and inorganic compounds were found in a res-
pirable fraction of coal flyash that caused frameshift mutations in a bac-
© wº gº © tº fº & a º 10
terial strain lacking normal excision repair (positive Ames test). A
horse serum filtrate had approximately a tenfold greater activity than a
saline filtrate of coal flyash suggesting this increased the sensitivity of
the Ames technique in detecting mutagenicity of complex mixtures, or enhanced
solubility of mutagenic compounds, or provided serum proteins for complexes to
be formed increasing mutagen detection. Substances on the surface of flyash
deposited deep in the lung could be similarly soluble in alveolar fluid. The
surface of flyash may contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (shown to be
-228—
Page 8
mutagenic and may bind serum proteins), and may condense many metals, e.g.
cadmium, selenium, arsenic, antimomy, molybdenum, lead, nickel, beryllium,
manganese, and iron.
Coal-fired power plants may result in population doses of radioactive
particles and daughters of uranium 238 and 235 and thorium 232 that exceed
those of a comparably-sized nuclear plant.* These particles are primarily
attached to flyash. Radium-226 and radium-224 are the major contributors
to the whole-body and most organ doses from the coal-fired plant, and in-
gestion is the main exposure pathway.
Coal and oil-fired power plants are responsible for nearly two-thirds
of the nation's sulfur dioxide emissions. Seventy-four percent of 623 large
coal and oil-fired power plants are currently in compliance with sulfur dio-
xide limitations.” Sulfur dioxide is an irritant to the respiratory mucosa,
primarily to the upper respiratory tract where it is absorbed as sulfurous
acid or one of its ionization products. In high concentrations, it may cause
a chemical pneumonitis. Frank and associates studied acute changes in pul-
monary flow resistance after ten to thirty minute exposures in healthy human
volunteers.” Pulmonary flow resistance increased significantly in 39%
exposed to five ppm, 72% to thirteen ppm, and in only one of eleven exposed
to an average level of one ppm. The change occurred within one minute of
exposure, increased after five minutes, but on the average, showed no further
increase after ten minutes. The cause of these changes appeared to be broncho-
constriction rather than tissue swelling or edema. Smith and Peters assessed
the effects of chronic, low-dose sulfur dioxide exposure on pulmonary func-
tion:* In studying 113 copper smelter workers, they noted that at average
levels of l.0 and 2.5 ppm, sulfur dioxide was associated with an excess loss
of FEV1 over one year and an increase in respiratory symptoms after controlling
for smoking. No exposure to respiratory particulates on pulmonary function was
–229–
Page 9
found. Workers with FEV1 less than the predicted values based on age and
height showed evidence of even greater losses of pulmonary function related
to sulfur dioxide exposure.
Trichlorethylene exposure may occur among maintenance employees; the
main physiological response is central nervous system depression, especially
from acute exposure. Other effects include visual changes, confusion, euphoria,
incoordination, nausea, skin irritation and alterations in hepatic and renal
function. Liver cancers in mice fed trichlorethylene by gastric intubation
have been reported by the National Cancer Institute.”
Exposures to polychlorinated biphenyls may occur to workers repairing
electrical capicitors and transformers. About 95% of the 100 million capaci-
tors produced annually in the U.S. contain PCB's, and the 135,000 PCB-containing
transformers represent 5% of all transformers in the U.S.1% The Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976 has now banned manufacture, processing, and distribution
in commerce of PCB's. Health effects of PCB's were best described from the
Japanese Yusho incident in 1968 where 1,200 cases were reported from persons
exposed to up to 3,000 ppm of Kanechlor 400 in rice bran oil contaminated by
PC3's during a heat exchanger leak.” Signs and symptoms included darkened
skin, acneiform eruptions, including chloracne, eye discharges, nausea, visual
changes, neurological changes, and edema and/or low birth weight among infants
born from women exposed to PCB's during pregnancy. PCB's may induce hepatic
microsomal enzymes, and in animals, may cause hepatic necrosis, hepatic
tumors, and an altered immune response.
Power plant workers may be exposed to electromagnetic radiation since
there are sixty Herz electric and magnetic fields in several locations on the
power plant premises. Electromagnetic radiation may cause biological effects
from tissue heating, or by membrane excitation which occurs earlier. Studies o
electromagnetic radiation effects have directed attention to growth and develop-
—230–
Page 10
ment of plants and animals, cellular and molecular aspects of cell metabolism
and physiology, chromosomal changes, alterations in behavior, and the health
of utility linemen.” The Johns Hopkins University nine-year study of
utility linemen working on energized high voltage transmission lines found no
physical, mental, or emotional changes attributable to the exposure.”
Soviet studies of workers exposed to electromagnetic radiation in substations
and switchyards found increased subjective findings, e.g. headache, fatigue,
neurological and cardiovascular changes, hematological changes, and decreased
sexual potency.*** Marina and Becker have found that rats exposed to a sixty
Herz electric field for one month exhibited hormonal and biochemical changes
similar to those caused by stress.” In another experiment they continuously
exposed three generations of rats to the same electric field and found in-
creased infant mortality and stunted growth.*
A preliminary study in man showed that a 1-g (45 Hero magnetic field
has a slight but statistically significant effect on cognitive skill assessed
by the Wilkinson Addition Test and Response Analysis tests.” Constant magne-
tic fields are reported to slow would healing by a delay in fibrosis and
fibroblast production.”
In summary, there are multiple potential and real hazardous exposures
for fossil-fuel electric power plant workers. There is a paucity of published
information on the prevalence of occupational disease and injury rates among
these workers. The working population is generally stable, and would provide
ample opportunity for research. An important study design feature would be
to isolate the many potential exposures, in order to study workers exposed to
single hazardous agents. This may be particularly difficult to achieve in
maintenance workers. Further studies on the health status of power plant
workers are needed.
—231–
10.
11.
12.
517. NIOSH August 1978.
Page 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Health evalua-
tion of energy-generating sources. JAMA 1978;240:2193–2195.
Sagan LA. Health costs associated with the mining, transport, and combus-
tion of coal in the steam-electric industry. Nature 1974; 250: 107-1ll.
Comar DL, Sagan LA. Health effects of energy production and conversion.
Annual Rev of Energy 1976; 1:581-600.
Guidotti T. Health implications of expanded coal utilization in the western
states. 1978 (unpublished)
National Occupational Hazard Survey. Survey analysis and supplemental
tables. USDHEW PHS CDC NIOSH, December 1977; 3.
Milham S. Occupational mortality in Washington State 1950–1971. CDC
Contract No. CDC 99–74–26.
Gunter B.J. Health hazard evaluation determination report 78–50 (A, B, and C)-
Harrison G, Lapp NL - Electron microscopic findings in the lungs of miners.
Ann NY Acad Sci 1972; 200: 73-93.
Federal Power Commission. Steam-electric plant air and water control data
for the year ending December 31, 1972. Washington, D.C., 1975. (FPC-S-246)
Chrisp CE, Fisher GL, Lammert JE. Mutagenicity of filtrates from respirabl
coal flyash. Science 1978; 199: 73-75.
McBride JP, Moore RE, Witherspoon JP, Blanco RE. Radiological impact of
airborne effluents of coal and nuclear plants. Science 1978; 202: 1045-1050.
Fishbein G. Environmental health letter. Washington, D.C., February 1, 19
Frank NR, Amdur MD, Worcester J, Whittenberger JL. Effects of acute contro
1.3.
exposure to S0., on respiratory mechanics in healthy male adults. J Appl
2
Physiol 1962; 17:252–258.


-232-
14.
15.
16.
17.
l8.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Page 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Smith TJ, Peters JM, Reading JC, Castle CH. Pulmonary impairment from
chronic exposure to sulfur dioxide in a smelter. Am Rev. Resp Dis 1977; 116:
31–39. *
Industrial Union Department. Trichlorethylene: a cause of occupational cancer?
Washington, D.C. : I.U. D. Facts and Analysis - Occupational Health and Safety
July 1975; 24. \
USDHEW PHS CDC NIOSH. Occupational exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)
criteria for a recommended standard. Washington D.C., September 1977.
Miller M, Kaufman GE. High voltage overhead: a health hazard? Environment
1978; 20 (1):6–36.
Young LB. Danger: high voltage. Environment 1978; 20 (4): 16–38.
Kouwenhoven WD, Langworthy OR, Singewald ML, Knickerbocker GG. Medical evalua-
tion of men working in AC electric fields. IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems 1967; PAS86:506—511.
Singewald ML, Langworthy on, Kouwenhoven WD. Medical follow-up study of
high-voltage linemen working in AC electric fields. IEEE Trans. on Power
Apparatus and Systems 1973;PAS92:1307–1309. ,
Asanova TP, Rakov AI. The state of health of persons working in the electric
field of outdoor 400 and 500 kW switchyards. Gig Trud Prof Zabolev 1966; 10:50.
(Translated by GG Knickerbocker).
Sazanova TE. A physiological assessment of work conditions in 400 to 500 kV
open switching yards. Scientific Publications of the Institute of Labor Protec-
tion of the All-Union Central council of Trade Unions 1967; Issue 46, Profizdat.
Korobkowa AP, Morozov YA, Stolarov MD, Yakubº YA. Influence of the electric field
in 500 and 750 kW switchyards on maintenance staff and means for it's protec-
tion. In: Int Conf on Large High Tension Electric Systems (CIGRE). Paris:
August–September 1972.
—233–
24.
25.
26.
Page 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Becker RO, Marino A. Electromagnetic pollution. The Sciences 1978 (Jan) ; 18:1.
Gibson RS, Moroney WF. The effect of extremely low frequency magnetic fields
on human performance: a preliminary study. Pensacola, FA: Naval Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory 1974.
Gross W. Smith LW. Wound healing and tissue regeneration, biological effects
of magnetic fields. M. Barnathy, ed. New York: Plenum Press, 1964.
-234–
TABLE ll
COMPARISON OF HEALTH º FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL CYCLES3,
Effects Coal Oil *** Nuclear
Occupational deaths 0. 54–8. 0 0.14–1. 3 || 0, 06–0. 28 0.035-0.945
Nonoccupational deaths l. 62–306.0 1. 0–100.0 C Q @ 0.01-0. 16
Total deaths 2, 16-314. 0 | 1. 1-101. 0 || 0.06–0. 28 oº-la
Occupational impairments 26.0-156.0 | 12. 0-94. 0 || 4.0–24.0 4. 0–13. 0
*For electric power production per 1,000 megawatt electric units.
;

#
TABLE 2
comparison of HEALTH EFFECTS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL CYCLES*
*:::::::: *:::::::::::.” Estimated Deaths cºin
Fuel Units X 10 Electric Plants Occupational Nonoccupational Impairments
Coal 844 128 69. 0–1,024 207. 0–39,168 3,330-20,000
Oil 292 44 * 6. 0-57 44.0–4, 400 530–4,100
Gas 297 45 3.0-13 9 @ Q 180–1,080
Nuclear 168 26 0.9–25 0. 3-4 & 100–340
Total ** 1,601 243 º 79–1, 119 251–43,572 4, 140–25,000
*For electric power production in the United States in 1975.
**Some totals do not add up because of rounding.
;

;
TABLE 3
Page 16

ESTIMATES OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF COAL FUEL CYCLES
Occupational
Occupational Injuries and Nonoccupational
Procedure Deaths?" Diseasek Deaths
Coal fuel
Extraction
Accidents 0.45-l. 24 22. 0-80.0 © &
Disease 0.00–4.8 0.6-48.0 © O ©
Transport
Accidents 0.055-1. 9 0.33—23.0 0.55-1. 3
Processing
Accidents 0.02-0.05 2. 6-3. 1 1. 0–10. 0
Power Genera-
tion. Accidents 0.01–0. 03 0.9–1.5 |
Air Pollution tº gº tº tº @ e. 0.067–295.0
TOTAL 0.54–8.0 26. 0-156.0 1. 62–306.0 i
*Per 1,000 megawatt electric units per year.
Some totals do not add up
because of rounding.
-237-
i
|
Table 4 The magnitude of the expansion of coal mining in far Western states.
State-
Arizona
Colorado
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Total, 8 states
* Numbers in parentheses indicate underground mines; remainder are Strip mines.
Number of Number of Annual Coal Increases in
Existing Mines” Pianned New Mines Production” Production**
2 (0) O 10, 2 5. O
33 (18) 37 9. 4 45. 6
8 (0) 6 26. I 48.2
5 (i) 3 9. 8 77.7
10 (0) 5 li. i. 42. 6
2O (20) 25 7. 9 64. 5
4 (l) 2 4. i. 2. O
20 (5) 23 30. 9 139. 8
102 (45) 1Ol 109. 5 425. 4
|
** Annual production in millions of short tons per year. A short ton, the industry
| i
standard measure, is very nearly equal to a metric ton, or 1000 kg. Data are
current for 1976.
} * | |
#
Page 18
TABLE 5 NATIONAL 000UPATIONAL HAZARD SURVEY
#
1) Continuous Noise
% of the occupa-
tional group
433 Electric power linemen 2,881 6. 6%
and cablemen
525 Power station operators 2,673 80. 0%
2) Mineral Oil
433 26,988 62.1%
525 1,159 34.7%
3) Ethanol -- - - - ------- ------
433 1,984 4.6%
525 209 6.3%
4) Isopropanol
433 3,229 7. 4%
525 488 14.6%
5) Trichlorethylene
433 11,595 26.7%
525 789 23.6%
TABLE 6
CAUSES OF DEATH OF ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS
Proportional
Cause of Death
Public Utility Workers
Cancer of the rectum
Asthma
Coronary heart disease
Accidents caused by electrical current
Mortality Ratio
Linemen
Cancer of the large intestine
and the rectum
Cancer of the respiratory system
Pulmonary embolism
Accidents due to falls
Accidents caused by electrical current
191
184
ll2
449
157
129
278
239
2,657
–239–
TABLE 7
BREATHING ZONE AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF
TOTAL COAL DUST
NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation.
Report
Sample Total Coal Dust
Number Location Job Classification Time of Sample (mg/MA)
º |. 61 Basement Equipment Operator 8:12 am – 2:30 pm 0.7
.N.
P 115 ! I Bag House Cleaner 8:28 am – 3:02 pm 0. 5
111 Utility 8:17 am – 9:20 pm 56.0
64 $ ) Heavy Euqipment Operator 8:20 am – 2:25 pm 64. 0
117 Utility 8:30 am – 12:00 noon 39.0
60 U 3 ! I 12:30 pm – 2:30 pm 1. 6
EVALUATION CRITERIA 10. 0 1/
- ance dust TLV of 10 mg/M., was used, since these were not respirable samples
;

TABLE 8 BREATHING ZONE AIR CONCENTRATIONS
RESPIRABLE COAL DUST
OF RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLI
NE SILICA (QUARTZ & CRISTOBALITE) AND
NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Report
CRYSTALLINE SILICA
LABORATORY LIMIT OF DETECTION
Sample Quartz Cristobalite Coal Dust
Number Location Job Classification Time of Sample (mg/MA) (mg/MA) (mg/MA)
2381 Coal Handling Coal Handler 8:07 am - 3:00 pm 0.14 * 3.0
EVALUATION CRITERIA 0.05 0.05 2.0
0.03mg/sample 0.03mg/sample ---
TABLE 9 BREATHING ZONE AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF FLY ASH
NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Report
Sample Fly Ash
Number Location Job Classification Time of Sample (mg/M3)
110 Outside Coal Handling Bag House Cleaner 8:20 am – 2:25 pm 1.7
59 | || | || | | || Welder (C1eaning Bag) 8:17 am – 9:20 am 83. 0
EVALUATION CRITERIA 10. 0
|
i
l
|
t
i


#
Figure l Coal conveyer, loading,
and storage processes
Figure 2 Coal-fired boiler
Figure 3 Turbine and generator
room of a fossil-fuel
power_plant
Figure 4
Flyash disposal loading 7
facility -
–242–



}
Figure 5
Figure 7
Page 22
Smoke from a stack from a boiler burning natural gas (left) compared
to smoke from a stack from a boiler burning coal (right)
-------------
Figure 6
---
--------
Older pipe insulation may contain asbestos posing a hazard during
replacement
–243–




Page 23
-----------
PA chest radiograph of 42 year old nonsmoking boiler repairman
Figure 8
(read as 0/1 on the ILO/UC 1971 classification of the radiographs of
the pneumoconioses)
Figure 9 Lung biopsy specimen demonstrating mild-moderate thickening of the
walls of pulmonary arterioles, and focal areas of thickening and
fibrosis of alveolar septae
–244–


sº
sº
- º
--- -
Figure 11 Particulate matter found in the pulmonary interstitium:
N-meedle-like material, An-angular pieces, R-rectangular
chunks, and Ag-granular aggregates (x 9,400)
–245-

DiSCUSS IQA
SESSIBM III
Drs. La Hamilton: I would like to make a general
clarl tying cofańe nºt particular ly in V les of the reſuarks that have
just been read into the record. Particular ly in the light of
DE • Be ferris’s presentation because I think that so ſhe
confusion could arisee You know there is no evidence that S02
does anybody any harm. Of course, we accepted that in the light
of present day epidemiology that indeed flarm is trout the
particle materials But S02 is ſhalnly oxidized to another
material, sulfate or sulfuric acid; and it is these mater ials
that are harsful. But SQ2 is the narmful precursor ; lit isn’t
the material itself - In essence, I think it would be very
hazardous to give the public the lapression that we are seeing
no effect of S02, and that we don’t have to sorry about the
material itself--it is an at S02 turns , into • MO is time t e l’s
aſ other very iſlap or tant coaside ration that de nave to Keep De tore
the pub lic and that is ºn en SO2 leaves the stack as a gas, in
the process of being oxidized to sulfate, it for as a respirable
particle • This is another important ſº atter • The very best
particulate reſno wers in the world will not reſhowe the S92 and
prevent the occurrence of this respirable part icie in the
atmosphere. And a third important point lis that, it it is a
sulfate particle, it’s capable of being carried over many
thousands of miles • fo give you an example, it nas been snoºn
that in Europe, long-range transport of the acid mater Lal nas
been aiap ly demonstrated py European so I KerS • Now, this ls a
Very lap or tant p cop led 2 the fact that you have 1 of a g-range
transport. It aeans that if you have a 50% reduction in SU2
emissions in New York, you can do the sort of study that has
just been reported, in which the SO2 levels apparently have gone
down and one hasn’t seen any conco ſhitant change in health - It
ls easy again by just focusing sometimes on isolated Studies, to
draw aisleading conclusions • I ſilention these things in a very
simpilstic way, at this time, because I would like the URBES
study, which is going to be the subject of consider atlon, to
take these into accounte. I feel 1 t , is necessary that these
considerations be clearly enunciated at this tige - But , of
course, tomorrow I would like the opportunity of dealing with
these uncertain ties inore fully -
–246–
Drs. His Si22ngers. I think in a li fairness I should respond
to and coup linent Dr. Ferr is and his analysis of the work of
i.ave and Seskin in discussing the C egression correlation
technique S used. I respond by saying that the classic
ſaisstate hents and mis-use in that technology exist in
engineer 1 ng 11terature in the classic textbook by Metcalf and
Eddy on water and wastewater freatinent, and the text by Nem eros
on Industrial wastewater freatment. I think that they take a
stand Q a the lissue mentioned, that certain regressio as did not
show any relationships, and all of these regression techniques
take a partial of the sum of the squares which, in turn, ſhakes
the assumption that the variables the rein hold constant relation
to each other, which is totally wrong - I have a question I’d
11ke to address to the group - That is in relation to, not
knowing what sulfur dioxide does except that in sulfuric acid
there is another gaseous component which was passed oy rather
lightly this morning, the subject of nitrous oxides--better
known as N 0x- Among that family of compounds it is quite
reasonab i e to write equations about the for flation of ai trous
acid ºn 1 ch, in titaes past, in the good years of u0 is cular
biology, since it was written as H0 N 0 was known as *Lin NG."
N 1 trous acid is a powerful mutagen - That is a known tact. It
ls a fact in no lecular biology and has been for ſaany years- iſe
need ſlot aſ gue that. I dould like to hear an ansser to the
question : what is the effect of nil trous acid, LIl C Oligh
innalation into the aived li of the lung?
Dra. Ferris; I don’t know that there have been any
heasurements of nitrous acid per se - By and large, Nû nas Deen
felt not to have any health effects. . It is oxidized to Mū2, and
that in turn is hydrated to H2Nū3 so it’s usually tae ni tric
acid that is of concerne
QEa. Ha. Spences: The problem I nave witn that is the long
term latency of cancer and the fact that we cannot snow an
effect by respiratory Volume of irritation of anaphy lactic
snock, of a nic n the person ſuay be suffering - To ſue 1 t is a
meaningless a easure of the possible lap act of tila L Q ſlē
particular thinge -
Dr. Eercisz. But if you are talking about the car clao gens,
ise are faced with all sorts of competing factors and, with the
long ia tent period, it is awfully hard to 10 ok back in your
*Retrospectroscope” to determine whicn is the linitlatlag agent,
agents, O C co-agentSe
DEs fia. Søengers. I can't argue with that-
uana Blair. Evansvillez. Indiana i One of the things I’d
iike to hear this panel address, botn on air and water
pollution, is the synergistic effects of all these chemicals
–247-
for thing toge the r , and what effect do these nava on nealth
problems of people? Also one other question about power plants,
loss of tue i in power plants and its relation to ozone
productions • That seeſas to be one of the major elements and the
EPA saw fit to cnange the standards. , -
Drs. Aage iſlan: I hesitate to really coauent very ſuch
about the Syne r gistic nealth effects. That’s certain iſ not my
area • I have been Soaean at taialllar with polycyclic aroaatic
hydrocar o ons and their possi pie in tiuence on water porne als ease,
and have been looking at Some of the he ai th effects that other
people measure. Of course, some of these chemicals are potent
carcinogens • There have been a number of studies ºn icn not on 1 y
ha ºf e attempted to deteriaine their carcinogenicity on an
individual basis, but on some of the mixtures of Polycyclic
hydrocat Dons as welle In some such studies that nave been
recentiy reviewed, it nas been snown for some of the potent
carcinogens like benzopyrene and dibenzan thracene taat, if
indeed you put these in witn ſaixtures of other polycylic
aromatic hydrolo carbons, there doesn’t seen to be either
potentiation of cocarcinogenic Lty •
Drs. Røms. I in not a dare of any ineasurements of ozone on
the premises of power plantse Most of the audient ozone
ſheasurements are made in contaunities • It generally nas been
ascribed that host of this ozone has been due to various
transportation systeins and reactivity from sunlight • Ozone may
have acute respiratory effects. Most of these effects nave been
demonstrated by the investigators of the Los Angeles Basin.
There have been several recent studies that are probably worth
commenting on and would certainly warrant further discussion.
One is a nether there is acclimatization to ozone, whetner people
ano live in nign ozone environments for an extended period of
time nave less of an acute response to experimental ozone
exposures than those who live in are as with less oxone. I would
think that is a recent finding that would war cant turther
discuss 1 on •
£ettis: I would like to aimplify on anat Dr - - Ro in
said. The N0-N 02 interaction in the presence of ultraw lo let can
release atomic oxygen which then reacts alth a olecular oxygen to
form the ozone. This is part of the pno to chemnical reaction and
requires sunlight (ultraviolet) to cause the in tec actlon • The
effect of tolerance to ozone has been dead astrated in cha fiber
studies that have compared Los Angelenos, a no had lived there
to r son e tiſtie, ºil th Canadians, who came to Los Angeles for the
study. The Canadians showed much more reaction to the chaſao er
exposure than the Los Angelinos stio had been exposed to it over
a period of tiae e This tolerance has been used as alſº
explanation as to why ae have not seen much of any effect of
ozone increases during alerts in the Los Angeles area • To speak
-248-
in ore S 9 eclifically to possible interactions, tals of course, is
of great concern oecause frequently in the laboratory you give
gas A3 then you give compound 83 you don’t usual ly give them
as a mixture. It is only just recently that Some of the chamber
Studles have used various mixtures • We also nave to refer to a
certain number of animal studies to assess this and to luentify
Synerg is in OE aſ tag Ohlsås Dr. Aſadur in Boston, Dr. M. Corn
here in Pittsburgh, and others have looked at the interaction
pe tween S02 and particulates. They have shown that with
hygroscopic type particulates and certain chea lcals, such as
metals that can act as a catalyst, they caſh augſuen t tae effect
of the S02 - Presumably the S02 is absorped on the particle, and
then with the catalyst and water vapor it ls convected to
sulfuric acid, w micn is auch more toxic than the S02- Related
studies nave looked at the interaction of S02 with ozoae and S02
with hydrogen per oxide and in both instances presumably the end
product has been a sulfuric acid mist which again apparently is
more toxic than the original S02 gas- I certainiy unders core
anat Dr - Hatail ton said that the S02 is a precursor and probably
its end product in the final common pathway is its appearance as
a sulfate that we nave to be concerned about. But do not tall
into the next trap which says that all sulfates are equally pad,
because they are not. I think that is titly we should not set a
sulfate standard, until we can improve our chemical tecnni ques
so we can specify the type of sulfate we are talking ap out.
& dra. Stukeli. There are documented cases of eievated
oxidant levels due to the long range transport of power piant
enlissions • In a recent study, the pollutant concentrations in a
Ste. i.ouis are a power plant plume were monitored, over a long
distance, using plume tracking aircraft - it was found that the
oxidant levels in the piume increased over tiſae, and that a
large fraction of the elevated oxidated levels ſaeasured in
Springfleld, Illinois, could be attributed to this plume.
Springfield is more than a hundred miles north of St. Louis .
DCs. EEEI is: Is this not due to inter actions of oxides of
nl trogeſa in the pluſhe?
QEs. Stukel: Yes, that’s correct- The point 1s that
oxidant leve is are usually thought to be only due to automobile
eiaissions • I wanted to make the observation that this is not
always the case.
DEs. Sz. Alic. Public Service of Indiana: I have a question
for Dr. Roſn. The materiai that was shown was on smal is c units
is nich were 25 years or older • I wonder if he intended to show
tne worst case situation rather than the actual situation which
exists in most power plants constructed and in operation?
–249–
DEs. RQā: Df the two power plants that I toured, the worst
case was the industrial one for which I didn’t have any slides
li iustrating the problems there. They sould not a lios
9tt O to graph S e The other one, a public utility, nad two of its
units that were wery old; the newest was the iar gest of the
three and was constructed during the early seventies • fre other
tido plants were built in the 1951-1955 era. It reflects the
technology that existed 20-25 years ago • And in that sense, I
would say it is more of a worst case exampie than a dest case
exańple. There are quite a few large coal-fired power plants
being built in our region, and I" in told triat many of the
problems that I illustrated no longer exist. - For example, they
don’t use asbestos-containing insulation on the pipes, that *s
being taken over by fiberglass. Also I was told that they nave
electric switches that do not use mercury so that there is no
gºëf Cúſ y thazar de I. are not sure about the sandblasting
operations • filey are, however, having a lot of coal dust .
problems, and I’la told that their primary concern is ads the
dust hazard in the neid, large power plants. I think what inay
happen l n many of these cases is that as we advance is lth our
newer technologies, we have new prob i. eins to so iv e-
Drs. Ails. Another question I nave for you, Dr - Roſa, is
that you’re trying to show here that smaller units are prone to
taore problems. This is soue what contrary to tae objective of
EPA "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" which encourages
going to slaaller no acentrall zed units. Do you have any w less on
the subject? And nave you provided your views to EPA2 -
Dr. Rainz. The answer to the second question is no- To the
first part of your question--true, Sinai ler plants may have more
problems • I thiſak that is more in terms of no 4 new a plant is
and new er piants tend to De large c plants • Many of trie o ider
propiess are solved with newer technologies •
Drs. Alii The trend sould be to smaller units lf
"Prevention of Significant Deterloration," especially in the
ſaidsest and east, becomes the main consideration •
gºs. Radford: I have a couple of cominents and then a
question for each of the panelists- with regard to Dr. H.
Spencer’s question about nitrite arising from oxides of nitrogen
wnen the nitric acid or NO 2 nydrollzes, it is lay understanding
you get both nitrite and nitrate molecules, which talgh t suggest
that nitrite could be significan t- we have some unpublished
data on smokers, ºno inhalie a lot of oxides of nitrogen too,
along with all the other stuft- One would predict that if
nitrite were a significant product in a smoker, you would get a
very definite relationship oetween the production of the
he themoglobin, which is generated by nitrite in the body, and
the awao unt of exposure to other agents such as carbon anoſad xide •
–250–
se found very si ljnt effects in a very large sample- sº e aſ e
currently working on people taken from all over trie United
States. we are finding a very slight effect of itewels of
smoking on the production of aetheuogi obin in the body • It has
been a such argued point. But, it is extremely. Sãall and it
suggests to ſhe that however the Cheſnistry goes, the n1 trite
coaponent must be extremely Saali • This f its with snat Dr.
Ferris said about MiG aiso being present be cause we Lind no
pnysical logical evidence. That’s the coaſă ent I wanted to make-
I "d Just like to make a quick question • Dr - Ferris - would you
like to say anything about the Six City Study you’re currently
dolng? would you want to make any comments or prell in linary
statements, or have you said enough?
Next question is to Dr. Andelſian: Is there any extensive
use of river water for irrigation purposes where Some of these
contaminants in the river, before treatſhent in water systems,
might get on to food crops and therefore have a pathway into the
human population? Finally to Dr. Roſa, and I guess it "s really
relevant to the point made by a previous discussant about the
age of power plants. There was a technology--it may no longer
exist--ºne re in coal-fired power plants, the feeding of the tuel
into the boiler was under positive pressure • I have been l n one
such plant, and those are extremely dusty because we have the
fuel fed at higher pressure at any place in the sorking area.
Does anybody nave any idea hog trequently this positive pressure
technology is belng used? w
Drs. Eecris: Reluctantly I will make solae prellä inary
comments recognizing that we are still finding and coilecting
data much faster than we can analyze it. One of the things we
are finding which is extraordinarily important, which others
nave coaia ented oa, is that the levels that to which we are
actually exposed are much more influenced by the lindoor
environment. If you want to predict in at a person’s exposure is
going to be, you have to a easure the indoor environment, a nich
ls much a or e i likely say to give an accurate exposure est làate
than the outdoo D env 1 C Q an ente Ye t the outdoo C eſt V LC on inent lis
what we are controlling. Also, when we selected our clies, we
had & In 10:e gradation of exposures to totai suspended
particulates, from very low to quite high an icn is one of your
ſleigno oc ling co minuinities, Steubenville, Ohio - We started
collecting ſaass respirat le particulates and find that this nice
separation no longer exists • At this time, the cities are very
similar in mass respirable 2 articulates and Steubenville, Dhlo,
sticks out as the only one high in mass respirable particulates •
So this is another factor that needs to be taken into account.
Although there may be a lot of big stuff ln the total suspended
particulates, they may be naw ling no effect on the nealth. wie
have finished analyzing so the data from Steubenville, []nio, which
involves hospital adāissions over four months per year, over a
–251–
four year Period, and tried to link this to levels of pollution
on the alert days. There were days when the pollution levels
ran over 300 to 400 ſaicrograms, total suspended particulates and
S02 - we were not able to deadnstrate any association be tseen
levels of poli ution and non-traumatic nospital admissions - se
also looked at oxides of nitrogen and soiae spotty oxone data.
ide is et e not able to see that they were having any lint Luence on
hospital admissions. This study can be criticized that per naps
the population oase is too shall to snow anything, or that we
are using too coarse an endpoint for this since aif we could
look at is ere the total non traumatic hospital admissions. The
other in triguing thing that nas come out is that if neities are
using gas Stoves for cooking, as other people have shoan, there
are higher levels of oxides of nitrogens throughout trie home.
This is so even though the stove is oeing used only three or
tour hours in the course of the day. It at fects the 24-hour
level. Other people have looked at the instantaneous values and
they have been as high as aliaost 1 part per alllion over is
àinute periods of tiilies. It may very well be that these peaks
are ſauch a or e iiaPortant because the levels that we see in the
homes are day belo is the 24 hour annual standard for N02. There
at e Solae suggestive data that this ſady De having some effect
up on the respiratory symptoas and tests of pulàonary function in
the children is no ilve in those homes. These are very, very
preliminary and we need to have further evaluation or it. de
, are not seeing marked differences in respiratory symptoms or
pulmonary function in the adults across the six citles. I think
ise need to look at these on a longitudinal basis so we don’t
have the high inter-city variability to aask intra-clfy ertects.
The analyses are still in a very prel liainary stage • *
DEs. Andellanº. I have no factual information adout the
possible use or impact of the use of wastewater from power
plants or cooling water in terms of their ultimately beling used
as it £igation date te The re are a couple of people at the
Graduate School of Public Health attemptlng to develop
ln for Baati on about the possible impact of power plant et L luents
on healt n - I wonder if any of then know of papers reviewing the
subject since they have been reviewing this literature much more
extensive i y than I? Do any of you have any ideas about this?
Ja Bernz Student. Iniversity of Pittsburghi with regard
to irr lgation use of power plant effiuents, the ſuany studies
done by EPA, Corps of Engineers and DOE were concerned wilth the
release of heavy metals from the ash, as well as trou
FGD-scrubber sludges • There has been some concern with the
uptake of cadmium and vanadium by plants • The researchers were
concerned with plant health rather than with the prop lem of
heavy metals entering the food chain. With regard to sewage
effluents, there are limitations placed on the spraying of
sewage effluents or digested sludge or untreated wastewaters on
-252-
tood crops. The l l Ritlng tactor used is cadial ua Co ince n tra tion •
This liaitation is due to the expected up take by the plants as a
result of a specific concentration of cadmium. There are a
nuiaper of studies with a great deal of information with regard
to heavy metal up take - Nio is, as far as organics are concer ſhe d, I
beileve that very little information is available in literature
or in the reports of actual operations •
Dr. Rota: The power piant I toured had negative pressure
rather than positive pressure for its coal dust- And i don’t
know how prevalent positive pressure is throughout the country •
Perhaps trie util lity industry has int or nation on that. At a
number of coal fired power plants in the west, I’m a dare of some
irrigation exper linentation that has occurred with wastewater •
This nas been done in Utah by Utah State University • They have
been concerned more about the effects on the plant ratner than
toxic products entering the food chain. Their priſsary concern
has been with vanadiuſa • However, toxic effects nave been
observed a -
DEs. stukai: Are the re any Cotaſſieſhts on positive pressure
technology that any of you would like to ſnake?
Dan Saartzianz University of Illinois School of £uplig
Health: Professor Shapiro mention ed that you tiere nop in g to
nave a document to represent the state of knowledge at this
tiſae, and so I would like to offer soae results that were
obtained by a colleague of nine at the University of Illinois,
School of Public Healtn, witn tºo very important caveats. Gne
is that at this time the report which has been done under
contract with the United States Environinental Protection Agency
has not peera approved and released by EPA, althougn a public.
presentation of the data was ſhade. Secondly, this is based on
Bay understanding of that public presentation and if you are
willing to accept my understanding of it, then I don’t want to
trust your judgment too far •. I ofter this not as expert
testimony but just pointing out so ſhe in for nation that does
exist. And anat ougnt to nappen is that somebody ought to look
into it if there is any interest atter my presentation •
Professor Tsukasa Namikata was asked to look at a 14%
reduction in the ſhortality rate that occurred in the Chicago
area between 1971 and 1975. Specifically, he was asked snether
or not he could associate any of that reduct lo n sitſ reduction
in air pollution levels in the city • He divided the city into
76 recognized coinſaunity arease He then took results trom 28
particulate monitors and 24 sulfur dioxide Isoſtitors and
extrapolated air pollution results for the community areas that
did not, in fact, contain ſmonitors • He noted lſº £ile.
presentation that that **S probably ſlot to Q bad for
particulates • That sort of extrapolation got a little bit
–253–
tenuous silen you deal t witn S02. He then did a similar i 1 near
I e gress 1 on technique to what was done py Lave and Seskiln, and
controlled for socioeconomic variables, educational levels and
an index of other environmental stresses. He nad three and exes
which he gave the sources for , and I" a afrald I do not nave them
at this titae, what the indexes were or ºne re he got taeae He
looked at the to tai suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, a
coubination of total suspended particulates and suifur alox ide,
and a complex of total suspended particulates and sulfur
dioxide • So, there are tour different categor les of 9 oilution.
He also looked at a wide warlety of causes of deatn, including
Just about everything I could think of as a non-doctor other
than accidents; he exciuded accidental deaths and nualcides.
The findings on aortality rates of the study were that 5% of the
14 & drop in nor tail ty rate trom 1971 to 1975 was associated, at
a statistically significant level, with a 25% reduction in total
suspended particulate levels - I don’t know about the morbidity
aspects of the study-ºne didn’t present them at the presentation
I attended--out I understand in discussing this with soiae of the
people ºn o worked tº 1 th hiſi, that they did t ind some slgnificant
associations with reduction in pollution levels and hospital
adiniss loſis. I just otfered that for the sake of the record and
those interested should contact Dr - Tsukasa Naaikata. Again,
I’m not sure ºne ther the study has been released yet - in tact,
when EPA reviews 1 tº they may decide they should not release the
Study •
DEs Sa '12EEisz Brookhaven National Laboratoryi i nave
tºo questi oase Une for Dr. Rosa: you start by poiating out
that in the estimates of health effects throughout the total
fuel cycle, there were no estlinates that had been previously
made tot occupational disease in power plants. No d that you
have gone through this, do you have any preliminary estlinate of
the incidence of occupational disease-say, per power piaut per
year, or Sołaething--that ſaight be put lm there. The second
question is to Dr. Ferris : in your discussion of the
statistical reanalysis of the Lave and Seskin data, I unders tood
that in general the result was to con Il riñ the association that
Lawe and Seskin found, but then you followed by saying that your
conclusion das there was not any like linood there of an effect
at current levels of air pollution - what i "d like to ask is, is
that conclusion based on your thinking that the association of
Lave and Seskin is not causal, or because of the nonlinear
damage functions you mentioned, or for some o trier reasoa?
DEs. Rolai I don’t have any preliminary data on the
prevalence of occupational disease in Power plants - I think
this would relate again, as would the prew lous question asked,
to the age of the plant and length of duration exposure or power
plant workers. The re probably is no such thing as “poser plant
disease; * the re are a number of exposures and a number of
–254–
potentia i p copie us - I would not e We a nazard to guess win at the
prevalence of alse ase ſaay be for a orb Adity of aortality. I
sould he n tidn so a e studies that I did as are of , that ſaay be
addressing this problem • First of all y Dr - Sellkoff at Mount
Sinai has done a survey of is orkers in the fennessee Wailey
Authority . I am not aware of this being published any an ere, so
I don’t Know the exact statistics • However, that prevai ence
survey addressed the prevalence of asbestos-related als ease
aſaong as a estos insulators who sork for the Tennessee Walley
Authorlty - Tne grew a lence of as Destosis DY chest radio grapn
aiaong these as oestos insulators may oe similar to otner studies
of asbestos insulators iſ New York and New Jersey • The other
studies that I’m aware of are those that have been done oy the
Tennessee Walley Authority- They have oeen io oićlng at
respiratory effects of dusts, particularly coal dust - However,
I am very interested in studying power plant workers to see if
we can address your question in particular, “Anat Ls the
prevalence of disease and what diseases are these?"
Drs. Eercisz I gave you, if you recall, the data that were
reported. The association from the reanlysis was much, much
lower, and it did not reach a level of significance • Enose ano
did the reanalysis telt the opsier Vations could have occurred py
chance alone. So, on this basis we exclude these as being
causaliy related. I think if there were causality, one would
have to be careful about the range over which these obser w at loſis
were made and I think we would ail agree that at hign levels
there ls a definite effect of this sixture of S02 and
particulates. But, which is the active in gredient? I don’t
think we know - I think it wery unwise to take data troia one
iewel and extrapo late it down to the loider level. This ſaay not
be defensible at all. At the levels of pollution we are seeing
ln taost instances around here, the re may be a very almlaal
effect, if any, upon mortality e It hay be having an effect up on
symptoms but not had rtality •
Rāz Gorag[iz Asst. Virginia State Coordinator for ££A. Last
May 1978, in Phase I, the GRBES did the first year "s inter 1 a
report • []ne of the wery excl ting portions of that presentation
lnvolved the Teknekron work. That seemed to indicate the long
range transport mechanism and the causative factors to c acid
rain coaside ration of a very serious nature • In lay role, I’ve
had an opportunity to be approacned and deliberate at great
length a netner, in fact, se should be concerned an out the acid
rain phen offleſions. In addition, since that time, tae study
indlcated that this could be a very large ling act area, sort of a
funnel effects western Pennsylvania, Northern West Wic glnia,
and Eastern Ghio seem to be the receptors of these problems.
The Ce have been a nuinber of supportive activities since May
1978. A number of subtle and some Very drainatic matters have
occurred since the first fiſh ding. The EPA office ºnicn is not
–255–
to Q far from Pittsburgn--in wheeling, west Virginia--has
uno trically observed so ſhe phenomenally low pH readings
associated with rainfall, in particular is lth the inversion that
occurred last fall, in late Gctober or Movember, 1978, anach was
declared to be the worst in the past three years. So it was
iaore than a coincidental relationship - I would like very lauch
to nave the panel discuss the acid raln fall. I don’t sant to
reveal the pH readings we get until I near anat you have
experieſ, ced across the board and particularly the losest
readings that you have seen - we have done some quick literature
research and the values we found are startling. I dou’t see
anything in the literature close to anat we found • Altnough it
is unofficial data, we have a lot of confidence in it’s
Walidlty •
Qrs. RQias. Acid rains have occurred in the northeastern
part of the U.S. This has had some effect on some of the lakes.
I do not think we have quite as bad a situation as has occurred
in Scandinavla a mere they had serious effects on lakes such that
tney had reduction of fism population • I think probably in ſaos t
of trie areas ºne re there are woods or vegetation there is enough
buffering capacity to tolerate the acid rains, unless they are
at an extremely low pH >
Drs. Stuckel; shat’s extremely low there?
Bra. Eertis: The low pH 's are 3 to 4. Most of this has
been attributed to sulfuric acid although . . the nitric acid
probably contributes some - with respect to the alert you talked
about, we collected base-line pulmonary function data on the
children in Steubenville and followed them during the period of
that ai et te We are just in the process of analyzing the
pulmonary function data to see if it had any effect up on their
health. We have not fully completed that analysis as yet.
DEs. Andelaaſız. I think that it would be very difficult to
assess health impacts from acid rain tall in this part of the
country is here se have a lot of acid aine drainage • He certa inly
nave wery low pH "s in some of the rivers, like the Kis Kluain itas
or the 40 no agane la • Sometimes we get pH 's as low as three. One
question is snat is the possibie Liap act of Such a loser p H on
nuſhan he altn through the route of affecting is a ter treatment or
ãopilizing trace metals from sediments and things like tradt. It
I had to conjecture, I’d say it’s going to be very difficult to
3S SéSS e shat you have to try to do is see if, in fact, you can
measure some high levels of aetals and it you can do that, then
the next step is assessment of the impact on human health - I
thlink that, as Dre Ferris indicated, probably the greatest
concerns about acid rainfall are ecological ones •
–256-
Ed uluntz A22alaghlan Research and Defense fund kū aest
Mitulalai I th 1 nk it’s approp r late to inake a state then t at this
point. The key environmental health question QRBES needs to
answer is what is the pest judgſa ent of dose-response range for
sulfate. This conference will be a real disappointment to ſa e as
an ad w is or y co anittee theiaper if intor ſnation isn’t generated to
nelp Blake this decisions First of all, it appears to be
relatl we i y unlikely that S02 direct nealth effects below
standards are significant. Hopefully, but may be this is too big
a hope, EPA a li i Soon get its act to gether to enforce the
existlng aab lent SO2 standard • As a ſheaper of another advisory
committee on in creased coal utilization to the office of
Technology Assessment of Congress, I was alost impressed by a
conclusion of our team of researchers from Harvard School of
Public Healtn under John Spangler on the suifate question.
At ter a very, thoughtful, review of all the relevant data, they
told us that the epideiaiological work on sulfate indicates that
some pollutants or combination of pollutants emitted by coal
burning power plants poses probable health risks at and lent
levels. increasing eſſa issions will probably increase this risk.
Total sulfate is a "t necessarily the definite cuip rit, but it is
a valid indicator. They sald some of the CHESS findings are not
1nconsistent with other independent researche Sulfate-effect
thresholds concluded by CHESS are basically restated by UTA as
its current best estimates, i. e., seven or eignt micro graias per
Clip ic R e Leſ £ Oſ asthaa aggravation, around twenty-five
aicrogra as per cubic laeter for increased a or tality - They
debunked tne common criticisms of epidemiological studies
implicating sulfates after a thorough and thoughtful and lysis -
On staoking, it is important to note that a very high correlation
between air pollution and Simoking had its of the entire urban
population would be requl red to account for the aortality
differences now attributed to air pollution • It is unlike ly
that this is true. The report generally endorses the Brookhaven
approach to estimating the range of sulfate effects e. I
understand Dre Hamilton will glve detailed discussioſa of this
totaorrow and, in Bay opinion, this will be the real heart of this
environia eſt tal neal th conference • I’d like to make one brief
cominent on the University of Illinois’ unpublished study that
is as just thentioned e I think this would be a very lag or tant
contribution to the data DRBES needs to aake its decisioſa- It
will be helpful to estimate the trends in Chicago sulfate levels
and maybe try to work this into the analysis -
Drs. Stuckei: Before the re are other questions, are there
any state ments in response to that?
Drs. Lippſlaunz. Mes, York University: As nas been orought
out by several speakers and cominents at this ſheeting, there are
good reasons not to rush into a sulfate standard • It’s quite
clear that the bulk of sulfate that de measure aost of tae time
–257–
is auń unium sulfate which is innocuous. Sulfur ic acid is ſuuch
more hazardous, but it for as a very variable part of the
aeasured sulfate. While I "u up, if I may, I’d like to respond
to something Dr - Hamilton Just said about concentrated sulfuric
aclo depositing in the alveoli • Fortunately, that is physically
1apossible, primarily because sulfur ic acid and other acid
drop lets are ny groscopic. They can’t get to the aliveoli in
concentrated to rid even it they’re lahale d in the concentrated
toria, because of the enor à ous up take of water wap or as they
penetrate through the conductive air days. They have to deposit
as wery, wery diiute drop lets-
One thing which the directors of this conference nave not
addressed is related to the necessity for SUx control • I’d like
to refer to some thing that we said in a slide projected on the
screen yesterday showing haze - Now the S02, as a gas, does not
scatter light. However, ºnen it is oxidized, it for as particles
which are acidic a. These particles scatter light and produce
haze. Haze may be very iiaportant, and not only in terås of
W1.sibl lity reduction • It was demonstrated quite effectively oy
several presentations at a recent Atlaospheric Aerosol Conference
sponsored by the New York Acadeiay of Scie ſnces in January -- that
the haze reduces the actinic radiation reaching the ground.
Some fairly coa Vincing data is coming to light is nich ladlcates
that the Onio River Walley Basin may need to be concerned about
the effect of the naze on productivity of crops. I suspect that
these considerations, i.e. e.e. agricultural productivity, acid
rain, and visibility are perhaps the really significant problems
resulting from Titae sulfur oxide emissions in the environment-
Perhaps we snould deemphasize the search for he altn effects
which may not be there and devote more. research to other aspects
of the pollution problem which may snow effects at lower levels.
DEs. Hamiltoni A quick correction, sire Gne of the
problems of uncertainty is clear iy that even when we have a
aeetling i ike this, people don’t listen to your reſha rºs, or if
they do, they his near theń, because I distinctly reſh effin et saying
that suitucic acid dida’t get neutralized-
–258–
SESSION IV: HEALTH ASPECTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSMISSION
Tuesday afternoon, March 20, 1979
Moderator: Hugh T. Spencer, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of Louisville
HEALTH ASPECTS OF FUEL AND WASTE TRANSPORTATION
By
Samuel C. Morris, Ph.D.
HEALTH ASPECTS OF POWER TRANSMISSION
By
Richard D. Phillips, Ph.D.
HEALTH BENEFITS AND RISKS OF ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION
By º
Ronald E. Wyzga, D.Sc.
—259–
HEALTH ASPECTS OF FUEL AND WASTE TRANSPORTATION
By
S.C. Morris
Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division
National Center for Analysis of Energy System
Department of Energy and Environment
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, Long Island, New York ll.973
–260–
INTRODUCTION
Energy resources are frequently not found where we could like
them to be. We thus expend considerable effort in transport. Living
on Long Island, I am reminded of the cost involved every time I
buy gasoline for my car or oil for my furnace. I do not find much
solice in the knowledge that 200 years ago, When We Were on a Wood
economy, the area on Long Island where I live was a major supplier
of energy to New York City. As a sidelight, if you have eVer?
wondered what happened to all the horse manure generated in New
York back then, it was sent to Long Island on the same boats that
brought wood to the city. Unfortunately, today we have not been able
to find a profitable return cargo for most of our energy transport ,
. So the round trip cost , in dollars, health and environmental impact ,
must be charged against the transported fuel.
What are the health costs of energy transport? Accustomed
as we are to the carnage on our highways, We should not be
surprised that there are some. In the U.S. we move around
8
annually about 6.5 x 10° tons of coal, over l; x 109 barrels of
crude oil and over 5 x 109 barrels of refined products, and over
2 x 104°
cubic feet of natural gas. Most health damage is due
simply to the trauma resulting from accidents which accompany the
handling and movement of such a large mass of material. Some of
the health risk, however, stems from the unique nature of the
fuels transported. Table l summarizes estimates of the health
damage of energy transport in several fuel cycles on a unit energy
basis. Since coal has the highest health risk and nuclear the
most controversial, I will go through these two in some detail.
–261–
• . Table l © . .
Health Damage in Energy Transport
per GWe—yr
- Latent
Fuel Cycle - Deaths Injury Cancer
Coal 0. 5 2 - cº
Oil 0.08 7 eº
Natural Gas 0.001, l sº
LNG 107°tolo-l -
Nuclear 0.02 0.3 0.002
COAL TRANSPORTATION
Coal is transported by rail, water (rivers, Great Lakes, and
intercoastal waterways), truck, and/or conveyer belt. One slurry
pipeline is in operation and pipelines are a potentially significan
mode of coal transport in the future.
Most coal moves by rail. Coal constitutes 29% of all rail
freight in the U.S. and 13% of all freight revenue. By comparison,
coal transport makes up 20% of all rail freight in the USSR. Coal
is moved in hopper cars which are unloaded by turning the car
itself over , by opening bottom hoppers , or , more rarely , by
unloading from the top. The cars are generally loaded at mine
sidings or tipples which collect from several mines. The average
hopper car carries 75 tons of coal, older cars 55 tons and newer
ones 100 tons. Size of hopper car used depends on the condition
of the track. Modern unloading facilities are frequently trestles
running over storage piles into which coal is dumped from moving
cars. Many have loading and unloading rates of thousands of tons
per hour. *
-262-

Statistics are not maintained for accidental deaths and
injury in railroad transportation by type of freight carried;
thus, it is not possible to determine directly from available
data the mortality effects of transporting coal by rail. There
are several ways to estimate this value. The simplist is to
assign a proportionate share of all railroad deaths to coal
transport. This apportionment may be on the basis of total
weight or bulk of material transported, train-miles traveled,
or ton-miles traveled. Over 60 percent of accidental deaths
associated with freight traffic result from rail-highway grade
crossing accidents, primarily due to collisions between trains
and motor vehicles.” The number of intersections crossed and the
characteristics of each crossing (e.g., highway vehicle and train
traffic density, type of crossing protection) are crucial
parameters. several models have been developed to predict the
accident risk at grade–crossings based on such factors. Rogozen,
et, al.,” use such a model to estimate the impact of specific
unit train routes compared to coal slurry pipelines. They conclude
that, an increase in train traffic is non-linearly related with
statistics such as train-miles or ton-miles. In a typical example,
as the average number of trains per day increased by 70%, the
predicted accidents increased by only 30%. While there are many
factors which cannot be considered in these models , it seems clear
they offer the best approach to quantifying impacts for particular
cases. A great deal of information is required, however. The
routes to be followed must be specified; for each grade—crossing
–263–
on route, the following data is needed: average daily highway
traffic, average daily train traffic, type of crossing protections
urban or rural location, and single or multiple tracks. For
broad assessment purposes in which specific routes are unknown,
a simpler approach is required. Estimates below are based on
ton-mile and train-mile apportionment. Since the detailed models
indicate a non-linear response, these are average, rather than
marginal, estimates. Examples cited by Rogozen, et al., Suggest
the marginal estimates may vary downward from the average by as
much as a factor of 5. since coal represents a substantial Share
of all rail transport , and an even greater share in areas With
heavy coal traffic, the average figure may be reasonable when
estimating effects of total U.S. coal transport. When estimating
the incremental effect of a single plant or a perturbed scenario,
3. marginal estimate would be desired. All grade-crossing accidents
involving trains have been charged against coal transport in
calculations made below. One might argue that since the fault
frequently lies with the motor vehicle, that only a portion (and
perhaps a small portion) should be charged to coal transport.
There is some reason to believe that unit coal trains may
create different exposure situations than the average freight
train. Coal has a greater density than average freight , coal
cars are generally bigger and heavier and coal trains longer than
average. Train velocity may be different. Unit trains generally
operate on well used and maintained lines and it has been
suggested that they may be less likely than average freight trains
–264–
to pass non-signal crossings. Concerning the l;0 percent of
accidents not at grade-crossings, unit trains generally can avoid
hazardous switching and yard operations. While one might Suspect
that unit trains are less likely to be involved in fatal accidents
than are average freight trains, there is no quantitative basis in
available data on which to base an adjustment. Occupational
accidents associated with unit trains seem likely to be
concentrated at on- and off-loading facilities.
Schoppert and Hoyt, in a sample of grade-crossing accident
reports from six states, found that grade-crossings have a
turbulent effect on motor vehicle traffic resulting in accidents
not involving a train." Accidents not involving trains were
twice as frequent as accidents involving trains and motor vehicles.
Of the accidents not involving trains, half occurred When a train
was present but not involved and half when a train was not even
present. Based on detailed data from l6,000 crossings in
Illinois, it was found that the fatality rate was much higher in
accidents involving trains but the non-fatal injury rate was
higher in non-train crossing accidents (Table 2). These accidents
*** ***** **** **º-º-º-º:* * * * *-*** ** **. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
e Table 2
Accidents and Health Damage at Railroad
Grade-Crossings by Train Involvement a)
Accidents Deaths Injuries
Train Involvement, No. % No. Per Accí No. Per Accº
Train Involved lll 3 30.7 290 0.26 738 0.66
Train. Not Involved 25ll, 69.3 25 0.0l 1707 0.68
Total 3537 IOOT #15 2|| || 5
(a) Based on Illinois data for 1962–1964. Fron Schoppert and
Hoyt, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
50, l968, pp. 20–21.
# Accidents
–265–
not involving trains have not been included in calculations below.
In cases where a crossing exists solely for the benefit of a
unit train such accidents should be charged against coal transport
to the same extent as accidents involving trains. In the
majority of cases, however, where crossings have mixed use , it is
not clear to what extent non-train accidents should be charged
against coal transport. Lorber has extensively reviewed Schoppert
and Hoyt and developed a statistical model of grade-crossing
accidents based on their data.”
In unit trains, and for the most part in non-unit trains also,
the cars must return to the mine empty. Thus, train mileage refers
to the round-trip distance per trip times the number of trips
while ton-mileage is calculated as tonnage hauled per trip times
one-way distance (no ton-miles are incurred on the empty return
trip) times the number of trips. - -
There were 6.78 x 10” ton-miles of freight movement on U.S.
railroads during the period examined, 1966-7. Freight trains
logged 3.97 x 109 train-miles.” Statistics for total deaths and
injuries, deaths and injuries among employees and among the public
are given in Table 3 per ton-mile and per train-mile.
The basic data from which the statistics are calculated are
given in Table l; . . The annual statistics show a slight downtrend
• *
in public deaths and injuries. Given that both railroad and
*The 1973 deaths and injuries among the public seemed anomalously
low. The data for L973 were rechecked with DOT to assure they
were correct (personal communication with M. Snellings, 6/8/78).
–266-
* & Table 3 * * s s =
Deaths and Injuries Associated With Railroad
T -

'ron-mile and train-mile data frcm Yearbook of ::=ilroad Facts,
Association of American Railroads, Washington,
r −.
i-, * >
and 37.
Injury and death data from U. S.
Railroad Administration, Office
Nos. l.25 through ll: 3, 1966–7%.
not available in this form.
Dept. of
of Safety
2ātā for
arº
* *-
Ç. 3 º' U
*
*
1977, pp.
29
fºur- , -ºilºts. * ºt
Deaths.g Deaths 2 Injuries Injuriés Beat:39 D==z:36 Injuries Injuri; 3
per lò º per 109 per 109 per lò” per lº” per 13 per lo per lò
Year ton mi train mi ton mti train mi ton ini train ºil ton mi train ->
1966 2. lé 3.65 l; .30 7.25 O. G.50 O. O.35 5.33 9.00
67 2.08 3.55 l; ... l;7 7.65 O. 060 O. : )2 l, . ºl T. 55
63 l. 98 3. H3 l!. 26 7.38 0.059 0.2.03 5. l.2 8.83
69 l. 95 3. l;5 l; .50 7. 97 O. G.72 O. i27 l; .91; 8.75
70 1.95 3.50 3.86 6. 90 0.077 O. 128 l; .50 8 . Off
71. l.91; 3. 33 l!. 05 6.97 0.04l 0.379 3.89 6. 69
72 1.82 3. ll, 3.99 6.87 O. Ol;8 0. C52 3.56 6.15
73 O. 38 0.68 O. l;5 0.8.l. 0.068 0.124 3.5l. 6. l; l;
7 l; l. 62 2.95 3.56 6. l;5 0.055 0. l CO l; .02 7. 23.
66–7 l; l. 71, 3.05 3.66 6. l;2 O. O5 0.103 H. &l, 7.78
data from Table IV-2 4 ×
- Table l; -
Railroad Freight Statistics 1966–74
PöPLIC EºPLOYEE
Toni mi Train mi
Year x 109 X 10° Deaths. Enjºlries P==&as injuries
1966 738 l, 37 l395 3173. 37 3933
67 719 #20 ll. 93 32ll; 43 3.783
68 7 || || l;29 ll, 7 l; 31.68 1; H 38 H
69 768 l, 33 li; 96 3',55 55 3793
70 765 l;27 ll, 95 2949 52 3i; l;3
7L 7 l;0 l; 30 ll, 32 2994 30 287 ||
72 777 l; 51 ll, ll; 309.9 37 27.67
73 852 l; 69 321 38l 53 30l.9
7 l; 851. l; 69 l333 3027 l;7 34l8
66–7 l; 6.951, 3.965 l2103 25l. 60 #10 303116
–267–
automobile traffic is increasing, this must reflect the effort
of the railroads, state highway departments, and Department of
Transportation to reduce accidents, particularly at grade-crossings.
Statistics were not calculated later than 1974 since accident data
were no longer reported separately for freight traffic by DOT after
that year.
The average haul length for the industry as a whole is over
500 miles,” but coal shipments have an average haul length of
300 miles." Assuming l GWe-yr electrical output requires 3. li. x
10% tons of coal, this yields l X 109 ton-miles.
Assuming an optimum unit train size of lº ,000 net tons,
annual round trips required would be 3.1 x 10% tons = 2.27 train
l. 5x104 tons/train
trips. º -
227 trips x 600 miles round trip = 1. l; x 102 train miles per
GWe-yr. * -
Non-unit train movement would involve more train miles to
deliver the same amount of coal, but only a share of the effort
can be changed to coal transport. If one takes these results and
applies the average figures over the 1966–71, interval from
Table 2:
cases per GWe –yr
Train-mile Ton-mile
- basis . . . basis
public deaths 0. Bl 1.8
public injuries 0.86 3. 8
employee deaths O. Gºſld 0.06
employee injuries l. 0 l; .. 6
e !
–268-
The estimates from the train-mile approach give a closer fit
with the results of the more detailed approach in Rogozen when
3
compared in actual cases. For haul distances other than 300
miles, the estimates are linearly proportional to changes in
haul distance. Note that accidents involving the public , mostly
collisions between motor vehicles, and trains, have a high death &
to injury ratio , while occupational accidents involve many more
injuries than deaths.
since the bulk of the effects involve collision with
automobiles, one would expect variation by region due to
differences in the density of automobile traffic and driving
patterns. Table 5 provides estimates of the variation in
accident rates by railroad aistrict. These tables combine data
on all rail traffic, both freight and passenger. The difference
in deaths per train-mile among regions is less than a factor of
2 and in injuries less than + 10%. *
- Potential health effects not quantified result from the
contribution of diesel exhaust from coal unit train locomotives to
air pollution and to the possible impairment of emergency medical
service in communities where major streets are frequently blocked
by unit trains.
- Barge transport of coal is estimated to be an order of
magnitude less hazardous than rail transport and slurry pipeline
(based on experience with oil) a further order of magnitude
safer.”
-269–
-----
Th” - T 2 =
Tablº |->
Casualties by Railroad District i373
-- (Class I Railroads, Line-Haul)
East err, Soºt ºn erri §est exºr
Train Miles X loº - 276. l; lić. H 329.4
Train. Accident S-Class I Line-Haul
killed 56 23 68
injured l; 6 l; 31.5 l;25
rain Incidents-Class I Line-Haul -
killed 1,16 225 575
injured l;l 28 2#1 5i, 93
Non-train, Incidents-Class I Line-Haul . __ - -
killed 1,6 31; 87
injured 18990 Tll;i 19346
Total All casualties - -
killed .. 6 518 337 730
deaths/10 train-miles l. 87 3.35 2 - 22
(1.7-2.0); (3- C–3.7) (2.1-2. § )
injured 6 23592 9839 25269
injuries/l.0 train-miles 35.4 × 83.6 76.7
- . . . (84.3–86.5) (82.0–35.3) (75.7–77. 7)
Source of data is for class I railroads, line-hauls fro- USDoT, Federal
Railroad Administration Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 145, pp. 64, 68 and
wº-
... -- a------ - - - - - • --...- . * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----. - - - - ---
• - i-e •º ºs atº * -: -º-º: ... -- - * * * *
*Range iſ pare: thºses is 955 poisozi confidence interrai.
Truck transport has been the most rapidly growing coal transp
mode. Twelve percent of total coal production, cz about 8 x lo'ſ
tons, is delivered by truck. Haul distance averages 50 to 75
9
miles. This does not include truck-haul of coal to tipples for
loading on rail or barges. Assuming a 30 ton load of coal per
trip, 3.4 x 10% tons requires l. l x 105
7
trips. For a l O0 mile
round trip , this yields l. l x lo' vehicle-miles. Common carrier
-270-
truck fleets average 7 accidents per 10° vehicle miles, resulting
in 79 accidents per ow.-yr. Assumins 0.03 deaths and 0.5 injuries
per accident results in 2. It deaths and H0 injuries per GWe-yr.
The principle waste products in the coal fuel cycle subject
to transport are fly ash and scrubber sludge. In general, these
wastes are maintained on or near the plant site to avoid
unnecessary transportation. Current designs use slurry pipelines
which are expected to produce minimal health effect.
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Transport is much more complex in the nuclear fuel cycle than
for coal because there are many more steps in the cycle. The mass
of nuclear materials required per GWe—yr is much less than for
coal, however. Even with the elaborate precautions required in
the shipment of nuclear materials, transport is a minor part of
the cost of entire fuel cycle. Because of this, other factors
predominate in processing facility location leading in SOIſle CalS eS
to cross flows of material or longer hauls than would Otherwise
be required.” Figure l illustrates the transport steps in the
full nuclear fuel cycle. These are detailed in Table 6 and its
accompanying notes for the steps needed to Support l GWe—yr
production of electricity in the nuclear fuel cycle the way it is
currently operated in the United States, although including
shipment of spent fuel assemblies to interim storage. Later
introduction of a federal waste repository would require an
additional 7 trips by rail from interim storage to the repository.
–271-
Fuel Elements Nuclear Spent Fuel
Poºyer
Z- Plants | N
Fuel, - º (
Eletrieńt. -
Fabrication. \
Pú
U-235, U-233
-------- ~~~~ --- ~~~~ *** * * * *
5\
--
.
-
- Enriched UFs
Fuel
Material
Preparation
W
reprocessini–
Uranium
Enrichment
r
Aasar mºss-sºº... sº -º-º-essºr ºr as , sº * – t < *, *... •
| Conversion
Depleted UF6
*- ºr *** *** ***.*.*.* * * ~ *
Depleted U
Th
N- |
* * * * *-*... -- a-- as-
W
Ore © - Waste. **** = .
\{ Mills ke— ” : Repository -
FIGURE 1. Full Nuclear Fuel Cycle







–272-
TAll LE 6.
NUCLEAR FUEl, CYCLE TRANSPORT (No RECYCLE)
t; per GW,-yr
QUANTITY SHIPPED DISTAlice Śllipºp summer of
X:... torial Form From To Mode Mass Activity H. leg Ship:..ents
CºE $clid Bulk Mine Mill Truck 1.7×10°rtº 1.4×10°ca") 0-40 (5) “” tº 0°)
Concentrated in anular or Mill Conversion Truck 340 ift (f) 360 ci (8) 275–22000.000° 20% +)
U 309 ("yellow cake") p Jwder in Plant
. 5.5 gal steel
drums
... (
"F6 Sc lid in 10 Corversion Enrichment Truck 394 it (1) 62(k) 20-900 (500) (*) 22 a)
t c 14 ton Plant Plant
cylinders
I. :nriched UF6 Solid in(a) Enrichment Fuel Prepara- Truck 64 MTC0) 62(P) • 0-1600 (750)(4) 11 (r)
2.5 ton Plant tion Plant :
cylinders -
Uô2 I’c wilder or (n) Fuel Prepara- Fabrication Truck 49 Mr (e) 62(t) 0-1600 (750) (*) 12 ºv)
1.6 llet in tion Plant Plant -
steel pails
fºupported in
55 gal drums
l!?, irradiated 'I'ype B Con- Fabrication Reactor Truck 43 wr u(*) 62(x) (1000)% 7(z)
Fuel Assemblies tain era Plant - *
Irradiated Fuel '' 'pë B Con- Reactor Storage Truck 16 MT § 7,6E6 (390); 29;
A: scriblf.es t \ind rs Rail 24 MT 1.1E7 (1000) 5**a
Low Level Waste Conversion Burial Site Truck 280 tº (cc) 20–900 (500) (44) 25-ya (**)
Plant
Low level Waste Fabrication Burial Site Truck 180 M40ſf) 20-900 (500) (*) 19-35 (*)
d l’lant -
lºw Level !aste Solids packed Reactor lºur ial. Ground 100-1000 m3 (EB) 223 c1(hh) (god) (**) to ( ; i.
in drums
;
Notes to Table 6:
a. Calculated from GESMO, p. IV J (E)-l7. l. 77E6/ (4732 x 1.1) = 340.
MT U39 • An ore grade of 0.2% this yields l. 7E5 MT ore. Note WASH-1238 &
wasā’ī348 (p. H-7) have a much lower fuel requirement since they
assume recycle and only 0.8 GWe yr.
b. Calculated from GESMO p. IVH 14, 4.51B5 x 14 = 6. 31E6 ci 1975–2000 total
from GESMO p. IVJ (E) 17, 6.13E6/4.732E3 = 1.33E3 ci/GWe—yr.
Ce, WASH-1248, Pe H-7. *
de Number in parenthesis is the distance used in the models of WASH 1248 and
s GESMO. - --
e. Scaled from WASH 1248, p. H-7, 182 MT U308 and 3350 trips. (340/182 x
3350 = 6258.
f. From GESMo, p. IV-J (E) 17, 1.6E6/(4732 x 1.1) = 307 MT U3O8. Assuming
yellowcake is 90% U308, 307/0.9 = 34.1 MT yellowcake.
g. Following calculation was provided by J. Nagy. The activity of a mass
of radionuclide is given by:
ll - e
C ſci] = -3.5768 x 10 M– : [Mass (metric tons) J -
AT (atomic wt) ſhalf life yrs]
For Unit Mass --
Nuclide - Ü-235 U-238
M l l —--—
A ºv235 ~238
T & 7.04 x 16° 4.458 x 10°
C [ ſ tonnel 2.162 - 0.336
The activity of nuclear fuel is given by:
235 *235 ci/tonne
2.162 f + 0.336 f
238 °238
where,
f = parent nuclide fraction by weight
d = number of main sequence daughters in equilibrium
plus parent
–274-
f and d depend on before/after milling and before/after enrichment.
Rough values are given below:
activity
*235 *235 #238 °238 (ci/ºrº
before milling 0.007 ll 0.993 14 4.84
0.197 4.671
(4.0%)
after milling/ -
before enrichment 0.007 2 0.993 4. l. 36 .
0.030 1.335
(4.0%)
after enrichment 0.032 2 0.968 4 l.44
O. 138 l. 301
(9.6%)
WASH 1248, P = H-9.
Scaled from WASH 1248, p. H-9, 307 x 12 = 20.
182
From GESMO, p. IV-J (E) 17, 1.21E6/(4551 x 1.1) = 266 MT U.
or 340 MT UF6. •
See note g.
WASH 1248, p. H-10.
WASH 1248, p. H-10.
Shipped as Class A, fissile material (NUREG-0170, p. A-6)
Calculated from GESMo, p. IV-J (E) 17, 1.89E5/4346 - 43 Mr U
or 64 MT UF6.
See note g.
WASH 1248, p. H-12.
Scaled from WASH 1248, p. H-12
(64/52) x 5 = 6.2
See note o. 43 MT U = 49 MT UO2.
See note g.
WASH 1248, p. H-14.
–275–
bb.
CC =
dd.
€e e
. ff.
33 -
ii.
WASH 1248, p. H-14, 40 MT UO2 requires 9 Shipments.
(49/40) x 9 = 12.3
See note O.
See note g.
GESMo, p. IV-G 4.
From GESMO p. IV-G 4 - 30,800 shipments
From GESMO p. IV-F (E) 17 4346 GWe yr equivalent 30,800/4346 = 7
From GESMO, p. IV-G 4 --
50,200 Mt Uranium + Plutonium by truck in 61,400 shipments
75,200 MT Uranium + Plutonium by rail in 15,300 shipments
From GESMO, p. IV-F (E) 17 3072 GWe yr equivalent. - -
GESMO, p. IV-G 4.
From WASH 1248, p. H-13, Scaled to 1 GWe yr 8000/0.8 = 10° ft.” = 280 m”
See note co- - -
See note co.
3 3
See note ce 5000/0.8 = 6250 ft = 180 m - s -
USEPA, Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cyclº (EPA-520/3–73-003-3,
Part I, 1973, p. 138 gives 3000 - 55 gal. drums (620 m ). WASH-1238, p. 49 –
gives 3800 ft3 (100 m.”). The SDG and E Environmental Report for Sundesert
Nuclear Plant Fig. 3.5-4, gives 300 - 55 gal. drums plus 483-50ft” container
(1000 m3). g
WASH-1238, p. 49. ---
EPA 520/9–73-003–B, p. 139.
-276-
Introduction of reprocessing and recycling, of either uranium or
of uranium and plutonium introduces some additional transport
steps, but reduces the flows in others. The differences are
estimated in detail in GESMO.”
Although the quantities shipped are much loºſer than in the
coal fuel cycle, there is greater concern due to the intrinsic
risk of exposure to radiation both routinely and in accidents.
Workers involved in transport are not classed as radiation workers
and not subject to individual monitoring. Thus, occupational
exposures of transport workers cannot be obtained directly from
available data. A recent surveillance program showed that some
transport Workers receive a higher annual dose than permissable
for the general public.” As a result, there are plans to require
individual exposure monitoring for certain classes of transport
workers.”
Dose calculations have been made in several reports based on
assumed dose rates and time spent by Workers at various locations.
Table 7 summarizes the collective radiation dose and the expected
latent cancer fatalities associated With transportation between
various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. The cancer estimates ,
based on health damage functions developed by the BEIR committee,”
are very small; the total estimated exposure in all transport for
l GWe=yr might lead to l cancer in 1000 years. In 1975, fuel
cycle related transport contributed less than l9% of the
population dose from transport of all (non-military) radioactive
materials. This is expected to grow to lj% by 1985.45 A more
–277–

TABLE 7
Routini Baniological risks of Iransport in THE
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

a - MAN-REM *
:*:ATER IAL PoPULATION PER fire-YR ... ... ... ... LCF
ſ]RE | HORKERS ſ], ſ]5 E-5.
NIEREDIAI; HoRKERs ſ],23 IE-5
- *|ATERIALS “” PuBLIc ſ},0l. 7E-6
UNIRRADIATED Fuel WoRKERS 0,0] 25-6
• * PUBLIC e ſ}, ſ|{}l ſ],2E-6
IRRADIATED FUEL ''ORKERS 1.3 2E-1;
PUBLIC 2.l. 35-l;
Low LEVEL WASTE !!oRKERS 1.ſ. 2E-1;
FROM REACTOR PUBLIC l.2 25-li
ToTALs WorkBRS IgE-lt
- * PUBLIC #Li
. . . . . . ToTAL . . .9E-l;
--------------- --
---
*-----
---
-º-
-
*LATENT CANCER FATALITIES.
*INCLUDEs lºg, Fe, 102 AND LOW LEVEL WASTES FROM "FRONT END"
OF FUEL CYCLE, “” - - -
RASED ON WASH 1238, P, ; AND WASH 1243, P. H-21, ADJUSTED FOR
No-RECYCLE AND scALED To l five-YR,
-- •º- -
important concern is the risk of larger potential exposure in the
event of an accident. Both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the Department of Transportation have promulgated regulations
aiming to minimize the chance of an accident involving a radiation
–278–
release and minimizing the impact Were a release to occur. The
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that the annualized exposure from
transport accidents is an insignificant addition to normal
transport risk.”
A WHO working group examined the risk of spent
fuel accidents and reported that, "as the fuel assemblies are
stored for extended periods before shipment, most of the
radioactivity will be , due to the longer lived strontium-90 and
caesium-lº'ſ, which are not volatile . . . . . in an accident causing
rupture of the Shipping container, any radioactive contamination
occurring Would be localized. Although in extreme cases evacuation
of people in the immediate vicinity might be desirable, more
general evacuation, although common in accidents including other
toxic materials such as noxious gases, would not be necessary."
The most extreme case would be an accident involving a large
release of radioactive material in a high population density area
such as New York City or Chicago.
Table 8
Results of Low Probability/High Consequence Accident Analysis
Latent * *-* * **** -º-º-º- -- *** ***
Cancer Early Early
Material Fatalities Morbidities Fatalities
*º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º: # .
Spent Fuel (3990/2=17&ſºci) 10 6 O
Piutonium (i.13×106ci) 3961; 952 18
*Truck shipment through Neww.york City. 3000 dispersible/2.17x10°
non-dispersible.
**New York City air cargo of overseas fuel. 100 kg of PuC2, 100%
released, 5% aerosolized.
From A. R. DuCharme, et al., SAND77–1927, pp. ll3–120.
–279-
Taylor, et al., in a study of potential accidents in New York
City found that time of day and routing restrictions significantly
affect accident impacts and that buildings significantly limit
radiation exposure.” In a later, more detailed report , the
largest domestic fuel cycle related accident (spent fuel) examined
was calculated to produce only 10 latent cancer fatalities
(Table 8). 19 Urban accidents involving recycled plutonium have
been estimated to result in less than 1.00 latent cancer fatalities.
Although the transport of fuel cycle materials prior to
enrichment has generally assumed to pose insignificant radiological
hazard, a recent accident in Colorado (September 1977) involving
a spill of several tons of yellow cake resulted in extensive
clean-up and review of possible regulatory action covering future
shipments by NRC and DOT, and has been cited in a recent HEW
report as one example raising pressing questions on the need for
emergency response planning.”
Finally, transport of nuclear material also involves the
common accident risks faced by coal. The shipments detailed in
Table 6 sum to over 300,000 vehicle-miles per GWe-yr, including
return trips. If fatality and injury rates are 5 x 10-8 and
8.7 x 10-7 respectively,” expectation is 0.02 deaths and 0.2
injuries per GWe-yr.
-280-
SUMMARY
Coal transport accidents raise almost no concern, yet can
involve more loss of life than any other step in the fuel cycle.
Perhaps the reason is that the accidents are common, every day
auto accidents — or that the biggest imaginable catastrophy
would be a school bus being hit by a train. Yet perhaps the
level of attention given this subject is appropriate to the level
of risk. If one were concerned with grade-crossing accidents, they
would be better addressed in the whole, rather than restricting
interest to accidents involving coal trains. In contrast,
transport of nuclear fuel cycle materials raises widespread
concern — despite the fact that all assessments show minimal
effects — order of magnitude less, than the corresponding effects
from coal transport. Even the largest calculated accidents in
nuclear transport have a lower cost in life than the annual damage
from coal transport , although the clean-up costs in nuclear transport
accidents can approach $10°. It is interesting to note that despite
the low risk of radiologic exposure, the nuclear fuel cycle
involves more vehicle-miles of travel than coal. Injury from
common accidents is estimated to be lower in the nuclear cycle
only because of the lower accident rate associated with the
transport of hazardous materials.
–281–
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Work supported by USDOE, ASEV, Office of Technology Impacts.
Assistance from colleagues in the Biomedical and Environmental
Assessment Division at Brookhaven, particularly J. Nagy and
L. D. Hamilton.
–282-
10.
ll-
l2.
13.
REFERENCES
Congressional Research Service, National Energy Transportation,
Vol. I, Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Commerce,
Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate (publication 95–15),
1977, pp. 56–58. # &
Federal Railroad Administration, USDOT, Accident Bulletines
No. 135 through No. 141, 1966–1972, Table loğ.
M. B. Rogozen, L. W. Margler, M. K. Martz, and D. F. Hausknecht ,
Environmental Impacts of Coal Slurry Pipelines and Unit Trains,
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (OTA-E-60-PT2),
1977, pp. 72-73 and B-28 - B-35.
D.W. Schoppert and D. W. Hoyt, Factors Influencing Safety at
Highway—Rail Grade–Crossings, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 50, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 1968, pp. 20–21.
W. H. Lorber, draft report, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,
lS79.
Association of American Railroads, yearbook of Railroad Facts,
1977, pp. 29, 35, and 37.
#ºnal Coal Association, Coal Traffic Annual, Washington, DC,
1976.
S. C. Morris, K. Novak, and L. D. Hamilton, National Coal Assess-
ment, Health Effects of Coal in the National Energy Plan,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1979.
Congressional Research Science, op sit, p. 62.
Congressional Research Service, National Energy Transportation,
Vol. I, U. S. Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources
and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 1977, pp. 1150–1152.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental
Statement on the Use of Recycling Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel
in Light Water Reactors (GESMO), NUREG-0002, l076.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Summary Report of the State
Surveillance Program on the Transportation of Radioactive
Materials, NUREG-0393, March, 1978.
Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation, Report of the
Work Group on Radiation Exposure, U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, February,
l979. *.
–283–
ll.
lº.
16.
I.T. -- - * ~ *- - - -
-- Working Group, WHO Regional Office for Europe (ICP/CEP 80); (1))
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Report of the
Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation, (BEIR) Washington, DC, 1972. -
USNRC, Final Environmental Statement on the Transport of
Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG 0170,
1977, pp. 11–37. -
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR), Sources and Effects of Ionizing
Radiation, 1977, p. 211. -
Health Implications of Nuclear Power Production, Report of a
Copenhagen, 1977, p. 42. -
J. M. Taylor, et al., A Model to Predict the Radiological
Consequences of Transport of Radioactive Material through
an Urban Environment, Proceedings, lith Conference on
Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, New Orleans, 1977.
A. R. DuCharme, et al., Transport of Radionuclides in Urban
Environs: A Working Draft Assessment, SAND 77–1927, -
Sandia Laboratories, 1978, pp. ll&–120.
USNRC, NUREG 170, op sit, pp. 5–46.
Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation, pp. 211 and
2ll!. Report of the Work Group on Radiation Exposure,
U. S. Dept. of HEW, Center for Disease Control, February,
1979, pp. 21.l. and 214. - -
USAEC, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive
Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, l972,
p. 105. -
-284-
HEALTH ASPECTS OF POWER TRANSMISSION
By
Richard D. Phillips
Biology Department
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Richland, WA 99352
Operated by
Battelle Memorial Institute
Work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract EY-76–C–06–1830,
and by the Electric Power Research Institute under contract 23112-02714.
–285–
Health Aspects of Power Transmission
Richard D. Phillips
Biology Department
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Richland, WA 99.352
There has been a rapid growth of power transmission systems in the United
States over the last several decades and this growth is expected to con-
tinue. There are currently more than 40,000 circuit miles of overhead
ac (60-Hz) transmission lines in the United States operating at extra-
high-voltage (EHW), 345,000 to 765,000 volts, and many more miles are
planned over the next several years. In addition, ultra-high-voltage
(UHV) transmission systems are now being developed that will operate at
l, 100,000 to 1,500,000 volts. -- -
Considerable controversy has developed over the past several years con-
cerning the health aspects of existing EHV and proposed UHV transmission
lines. Several scientists and concerned groups claim that the electro-
magnetic fields in the vicinity of these power lines produce adverse
biological effects and are hazardous to man (1,2). Other scientists
State that such claims lack scientific support (3,4). Legal proceedings
have been unable to resolve this issue because of the lack of reliable
data. In recognition of the need for scientifically sound data to make
a risk assessment and to insure public health and safety, research pro-
grams have been initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) to assess the health aspects of power
transmission systems. --
Four research projects are in progress at Battelle Northwest as part of
the DOE and EPRI programs. In one of the DOE projects, a multidisciplinary
research team, consisting of physical and biological scientists, is con-
ducting a broad and comprehensive study to screen for effects on rats and
mice of acute and chronic exposure to 60-Hz electric fields. In a compan-
ion project, supported by EPRI, miniature swine are being exposed chroni-
cally to a 60-Hz electric field over two generations to assess possible
effects of exposure on clinical parameters and on reproduction, growth
and development. A third project is examining the potential of static
(dc) and 60-Hz electric fields to induce genetic changes in fruit flies
and bacteria. The fourth project is evaluating the ecosystem in the
vicinity of a l, 100 kW test transmission line at Lyons, Oregon.
The small and large animal studies were started in 1976 and a large amount
of data has been generated from these projects during the past three years
(5-11). This paper will summarize the results of the small animal project
and relate our findings to the results of other studies reported in the
literature.
--286-
EXPOSURE SYSTEMS
The environment in the vicinity of high voltage transmission lines is
complex and includes many factors that might be sources of biological
effects (Table 1). For the purpose of controlled laboratory studies
we chose to retain only those which dominate in the transmission line
environment and which, based on existing literature, have been reported
by some laboratories as having produced effects. This decision led to
system design criteria which eliminated or minimized all the factors in
Table l except the external electric field and the unavoidable conse-
quences of physical interaction between this field and the exposed
subject (internal fields and currents; field perception).
Table 1. Possible Electromagnetic Field-Related Sources
of Biological Effects in the Wicinity of ac
Transmission Lines
Primary Field Effects Secondary Factors
Large External Electric Fields Spark Discharges
Small Internal Electric Fields Steady-State Currents
Electric-Field- Induced Body Corona Discharge
Currents Ozone
Audible Noise
Small External and Internal Radiofrequency Fields
Magnetic Fields
Hum and Vibration (of significance
Magnetic-Field-Induced Body mainly in laboratory simulations
Currents of the transmission line fields)
Field Perception Higher-Frequency Harmonics in the
Hair Stimulation * Electric and Magnetic Fields
Other Modes?
The maximum electric field encountered by man under EHW transmission lines
is about 9-12 kW/m. The currents and electric fields induced within the
body are a function of the field intensity and the body shape. Values are
quite different for man (biped) than those for rodents and swine (quadru-
peds). Accordingly, considerable care must be exercised in designing
animal experiments and using data from such studies to predict possible
effects on humans in the same situations. This is illustrated in Figure
l, which shows a man, a pig, and rat placed in a uniform 60-Hz electric
field of 10 kW/m. The strongest surface electric field generally occurs
at the top of the body and is enhanced over the uniform field value by a
factor of 15–20 for man (12), 7 for the pig (13) and about 4 for the rat
(11). Estimated current densities are shown at two locations within each
body, the trunk and lower limbs, and illustrate the strong dependence on
–287–
bódy shape. The total current between each body and ground, the short-
circuit current (Isc), is also shown. Based on these data, a much higher
unperturbed field would have to be used with pigs or rats to produce
surface fields and internal current densities comparable to those in a
man exposed to 10 kW/m. Scaling factors between rat and man are: en-
hancement, v 4:1; average trunk current density, v 15:1; average current
density in the lower limbs, v 5:1. Comparable scaling factors between
pig and man are about 2.5, 7 and 2.5, respectively.
We selected 30 kW/m for the pig exposures and 100 kW/m for the rat and
mouse exposures in the biological experiments. Assuming a scaling factor
of 3 between pig and man, and a factor of v 10 between rat, and man, the
field strengths used in the experiments would be equivalent to exposing
man to about 10 kW/m. - -
Three systems were built for exposing small laboratory animals to uniform,
vertical, 60-Hz electric fields: a rat exposure system, capable of sim-
ultaneously exposing 144 rats individually housed in plastic cages; a mouse
exposure system in which 288 mice, 3 per cage, can be exposed simultaneously;
and a special test system for experiments requiring direct data acquisition
from individual or small numbers of animals during or immediately after
exposure. The same numbers of rats and mice are sham-exposed under envir-
onmental and housing conditions identical to those of the exposed animals.
One of the four racks used for exposing rats is shown in Figure 2. Each
rack consists of four electrodes, with the rats individually housed in
plastic cages located in the three lower electrodes. The animals are in
electrical contact with a metal mesh floor that forms the top layer of
each two-layered electrode. Animal excreta falls through the mesh floor
onto absorbent paper in a field-free region on a lower metal plate. The
water system is located in this space between the mesh floor and the lower
plate, with a small demand-type water nozzle located at the floor level of .
each cage. This design eliminates possible perturbation of electric field
uniformity by the watering system, eliminates shocks to the animals during
drinking, and minimizes mouth-to-nozzle steady-state currents during drink-
ing. Pellet food is provided ad libitum in slot hoppers at the front of
each cage. The profile of the food delivery system is low to minimize any
potential perturbation of field uniformity by the food.
The mouse exposure rack (not shown) is identical to the rat exposure rack
except for a lower cage height, a small vertical separation between elec-
trodes, and an additional electrode.
Extensive measurements have been made to characterize the three small animal
exposure systems. Electric field uniformity is + 4% over the total cage
area in the rat and mouse exposure systems. The exposure systems are free
of detectable levels of audible noise and ozone, and there is very little
harmonic distortion. Animals do not receive spark discharges or other shocks
–288–
from the housing system or from other animals during exposure to electric
fields.
Photographs of the system used to expose miniature Swine to a vertical,
60-Hz electric field are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Exposed and Sham-exposed
pigs are housed in separate, environmentally equivalent buildings (Figure
3). The overhead electrode and individual animal stalls are shown in
Figure 4. Electric field uniformity over the area of a stall is about
+ 2.5%. No levels of audible noise, hum, vibration or ozone have been
detected with the high-voltage system operating.
BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS
Experiments are being conducted in 11 major biological areas to screen for
effects over a wide range of parameters in rats and mice exposed to 60-Hz
electric fields for up to 120 days. Experiments in each major area use
separate animal groups and are directed by professionals with Specialties
in the areas under investigation.
Experimental Design
Several features of experimental design are common to all the biological
experiments. All experiments use Sprague-Dawley rats and/or Swiss Webster
mice. All animals received from the supplier, Hilltop Laboratories, are
carefully examined before being used in experiments to assure that they
are healthy. A sample population from each shipment is sacrificed at
delivery for virology screening and histopathologic examination. The
remaining animals are maintained in standard cages in an isolation room
for 1-3 weeks, earcoded, then acclimated for 14 days in cages identical
to those used in the electric field exposure systems. During exposure
or sham-exposure, the environment, housing and husbandry are identical
for both groups of animals except for the presence or absence of the
electric field. This design reduces the risk of obtaining false positive
results and increases the ability to detect subtle effects of exposure.
In addition, animals maintained in standard cages ("cage controls") are
used in many of the experiments to verify that the exposure cages do not
produce effects that might mask subtle effects of exposure.
In most of the experiments the animals are about 60 days of age at the
start of exposure. Except for several cardiovascular and behavioral
experiments, the field strength used for all exposures is 100 kW/m. The
exposure period is about 21 hours/day; this allows about 3 hours/day for
scheduled measurements, cage cleaning, feeding and watering.
With few exceptions, experiments are double-blind: the principal investi-
gator is unaware of which animals are exposed and which animals are sham-
exposed until the measurements have been completed. Most experiments are
replicated to insure that the results of a single experiment are not due
to some unidentified systematic error in that experiment, or to statistical
chance. Our statistical criterion for positive effects is p < 0.05.
–289–
The results of the biological experiments with small animals that have
been completed to date are summarized below. The swine study is still
in progress and results are not available at this time.
Metabolic Status and Growth
In eight separate experiments, body and organ weights were determined
in juvenile (age, 26 days) and young adult (age, 56 days) male and female
rats, and in young adult (age, 60 days) male and female mice that were
exposed or sham-exposed to 60-Hz electric fields at 100 kW/m for 30 or
120 days. In addition, food and water consumption was measured daily
during the 30- to 120-day exposure periods. In other experiments, a
number of parameters related to metabolism and growth were measured in
rats that had been exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 or 120 days, including:
oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production rates; metabolic rates;
circulating concentrations of thyroxime, thyroid stimulating hormone
and growth hormone; lipid, protein, and glycogen levels in liver; and
serum concentrations of glucose, urea nitrogen and triglycerides. There
were no reproducible, significant differences between exposed and sham-
exposed animals in any of the parameters measured in any of the experi-
ments. These experiments failed to confirm effects reported by other
investigators: increased pituitary and adrenal weights, reduced water
consumption and lower body weights in rats exposed to 15 kW/m for 30
days (14); transitory, enhanced growth rate in mice exposed to 25 and
50 kW/m for 6 weeks (15); reduced growth rate in rats exposed to 50 kW/m
for 100 days (16).
Bone Growth and Structure
Bone growth and structure were assessed in juvenile male and female rats
that were exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 days starting at 28 days of age.
To differentiate any possible direct effect of exposure on bone growth
from that of an indirect effect on the general growth patterm of the
animals, body weights, kidney weights and liver composition (fat, glyco-
gen, protein and moisture) also were determined. Exposure had no effect
on growth rate of the tibia, morphology of lumbar vertebrae or the tibia,
or on cortical bone area and marrow space in the tibia. No alterations
in the general growth pattern were observed.
Reproduction, Growth and Development
A series of three replicated experiments were undertaken to determine the
effects of exposure to 60-Hz electric fields at 100 kW/m on reproduction
and on fetal postnatal growth and development in the rat. In the first
experiment, a 6-day exposure prior to and during mating did not affect the
reproductive performance of either males or females. Continued exposure
of the mated females through 20 days of gestation did not affect the
viability, size, or morphology of the fetuses. A similar 30-day exposure
–290–
of the males and unmated females did not affect their mating performance
or fertility on subsequent testing. In the second experiment, exposure
of the pregnant rats was begun on day 0 of gestation and continued until
the resulting offspring reached 8 days of age. There were no differences
between exposed and sham-exposed groups in litter sizes or survival of
offspring. Body weights and subsequent growth through 42 days of age
were the same for both groups. The only differences observed between
exposed and sham-exposed animals were in tests of neuromuscular and neuro-
logical development through 42 days of age. A higher percentage of
exposed offspring showed motile behaviors (moving, grooming and standing)
and a lower percentage exhibited righting reflexes at 14 days of age. The
results of the two groups were indistinguishable upon retesting at 21 days
of age. Tests of the reproductive integrity of the offspring have not
disclosed any deficits. The third experiment involved a 30-day exposure,
beginning at 17 days of gestation and continuing through 25 days of post-
natal life. There were no significant alterations in growth or develop-
ment of the offspring. In another experiment mice conceived, born and
raised in a 100 kW/m, 60-Hz electric field for three successive generations
were compared to identical sham-exposed groups. Exposure had no apparent
effect on conception, litter size, mortality or body weights up to 10
weeks of age in any of the three generations. These findings fail to
confirm a report by Marino et all that exposure to electric fields of three
generations of mice increases mortality and rate of growth of offspring.
Hematology and Serum Chemistry
Clinical pathologic evaluations were made in female rats exposed to 60-Hz
electric fields at 100 kW/m for 15, 30, 60 and 120 days, and in female
mice exposed at 100 kW/m for 30, 60 and 120 days. All experiments were
replicated and used exposed, sham-exposed and cage-control animals. Hema-
tology parameters measured included volume of packed red cells, red cell
count, mean corpuscular volume, hemoglobin concentration, white cell count,
distribution of leukocyte cell types, reticulocyte concentration, platelet
concentration, bone marrow cellularity, red cell osmotic fragility, pro-
thrombin time and iron uptake from plasma. Serum chemistry parameters
measured included urea nitrogen, alkaline phosphatase, glutamic oxaloacetic
transaminase, glucose, triglycerides, iron, total iron-binding capacity,
total proteins, and protein fractions as determined by electrophoresis.
Exposure of rats and mice to 100 kW/m for 15-120 days did not cause repro-
ducible changes in any of the hematologic or serum chemistry parameters
assayed. Several investigators have reported effects of electric field
exposure on hematologic and serum chemical parameters (14–16, 18–21). The
failure of this study to substantiate these reported effects may be explained
by one or more of the following: 1) our exposure systems and conditions are
very well defined, and eliminate secondary influences of the electric field,
such as spark discharges, ozone, and noise; 2) our exposures have been rep-
licated for each time period, whereas most other studies reporting effects
have not been replicated; 3) our sham-exposed animals are more valid controls
-291-
than "cage-controls" used in some studies; and 4) our electric field
Strengths and durations of exposure were, in many cases, different from
those used by other investigators.
Immunology
A series of experiments were conducted to quantitatively assess humoral
and cellular components of the immune system. Serum immunoglobulin levels
were measured in rats exposed to 100 kW/m for 15 or 30 days and in mice
exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 or 80 days. Complement activity and peripheral
blood T- and B-lymphocytes were measured in mice exposed to 100 kW/m for
30 and 60 days. No significant differences were observed between exposed
and sham-exposed rats or mice in any of the parameters measured. In the
second phase of this study, we assessed functional immune responses by
measuring serum antibody levels in response to a specific antigen and by
in vivo assays of cell-mediated immunity. To assess the primary immune
response, the serum antibody levels were measured in mice exposed to 100
kW/m for 30 or 60 days and challenged with keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH).
No significant differences in the amount of precipitating antibody for KLH
were observed between exposed, sham-exposed and cage-control mice. Cell-
mediated immunity was evaluated in mice after 30 days of exposure to 100
kW/m by determining the delayed hypersensitivity to KLH and the contact
sensitivity to dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB). Exposure had no effect on the
response of sensitized mice to DNFB. In exposed mice, however, there was
a significantly reduced response to KLH as measured by skin thickness at
the site of injection. The mean reaction diameters for the two groups were
not significantly different. Other experiments have been made in which
cell-mediated immunity was tested in mice exposed for 30 to 180 days by
examining the response of lymphocytes stimulated with mitogens. No effects
were observed.
Endocrinology
Plasma hormone concentrations, and endocrine gland and reproductive organ
weights were examined in rats after exposure to a 60-Hz electric field at
100 kW/m for 30 days. In addition, a detailed examination was made of male
reproductive endocrinology. This included plasma gonadotrophin levels,
plasma testosterone, testicular vein androgens, blood flow rate through
the reproductive tract and androgen secretion rates. Exposure of rats to
electric fields had no effect on body weight, weights of endocrine organs
or plasma levels of corticosterone, thyroxime, thyroid stimulating hormone,
follicle stimulating hormone, testosterone or luteinizing hormone. Testicu-
lar weights were unaffected by the treatment, and there was no effect on
testicular blood flow rates, androgen levels, or testosterone secretion
rate. These data are in conflict with previous studies (14, 20) where much
lower field strengths were employed, and suggest that secondary factors
(electrical discharges, corona and ozone) may have had a major influence
on those experiments. Our results are in general agreement with those of
–292–
the Italian (ENEL) studies summarized by Cerretelli and Malaguti (22),
where field strengths of 80–100 kW/m were used.
Cardiovascular Function
A series of experiments were conducted to determine whether exposure to
60-Hz electric fields alters cardiovascular function in the rat. Para-
meters assessed included electrocardiograms (ECG), heart rate, blood
pressure and vascular reactivity. In addition, the cardiovascular and
endocrine responses of rats to acute cold stress were determined in
animals that had been exposed to 60-Hz electric fields. Electrocardio-
grams and heart rates were evaluated in male rats exposed to 80 kW/m for
8 hours or 40 hours (8 hours/day for 5 consecutive days), and to 100 kW/m
for 1 month (v. 21 hours/day). The same evaluations were made on female
rats exposed to 100 kW/m for 1 or 4 months (21 hours/day). ECG analysis
consisted of measuring the durations of the PR interval and the QRS complex.
Recordings were made during the first hour after the completion of electric
field exposure. No differences were seen between exposed and sham-exposed
animals in any of the experiments. These results failed to confirm the
findings of Blanchi et al. (23), who reported that exposure of rats to 100
kW/m slowed electrical conduction in the heart. Systolic, diastolic, pulse
and mean systemic blood pressures, and vascular reactivity were measured
in rats that had been exposed to 100 kW/m for 35 or 120 days. Wascular
reactivity was quantified by measuring the change in pulse pressure in
response to an injected dose of phenylephrine, a vasoconstrictor that
produces an elevated pulse pressure by increasing peripheral resistance
to blood flow. No significant differences were observed between exposed
and sham-exposed animals in any of the measures. Cardiovascular and endo-
crime responses to cold stress were measured in rats that had been exposed
or sham-exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 days. Plasma corticosterone and thyroid
stimulating hormone levels were determined in the animals prior to and after
being subjected to acute cold stress (-13 + 1°C) for 1 hour. No significant
differences were found between exposed and sham-exposed rats before or after
cold stress. In a parallel experiment heart rate, skin temperature and deep
colonic temperature were measured during cold exposure in rats that had been
exposed or sham-exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 days. Walues of both groups were
essentially identical. -
Pathology
Complete gross and histopathologic examination of approximately 30 selected
tissues per animal were performed on groups of male rats and both male and
female mice exposed or sham-exposed to a 100 kW/m, 60-Hz electric field for
30 or 120 days. Animals were weighed after sacrifice, and selected organs
from each animal were weighed. No histopathologic effects of exposure were
observed, and exposure had no significant effect on body or organ weights.
The results of these studies fail to confirm a report by Soviet scientists
(19) that exposure of rats to electric fields at 5 kW/m produces vascular
damage and atrophic changes in brain and liver.
-293–
Central Nervous System
A detailed histologic examination was made of the brains of mice exposed
to 100 kW/m for 30 days. Results failed to reveal any differences between
exposed and Sham-exposed mice.
Neurophysiology
Synaptic transmission and peripheral nerve function were assessed in male
rats that had been exposed to 100 kW/m for 30 days. Immediately following
exposure or Sham-exposure, superior cervical sympathetic ganglia, and
vagus and sciatic nerves were removed from rats anesthetized with urethan,
placed in a temperature-controlled chamber (37.5 + 0.4°C) and continuously
superfused with a modified mammalian Ringer's solution equilibrated with
95% 02 and 5% C02. Parameters used to characterize synaptic transmission
and peripheral nerve function were: 1) characteristics of the postsynaptic
or whole-nerve compound action potential (including amplitude, area, config-
uration, rate of rise, and rate of fall); 2) conduction velocity of the
postsynaptic or whole-nerve compound action potential , measured at the
beginning of the compound action potential (inflection conduction velocity)
and at the peak of the compound action potential (peak conduction velocity);
3) absolute and relative refractory periods; 4) accommodation; 4) stimulus
strength-duration relationships; 6) changes in poststimulus excitability
(e.g., conditioning-test response); 7) frequency response; 8) post-tetanic
response; 9) high-frequency-induced fatigue. The only consistent difference
observed between exposed and sham-exposed animals was a shift in the con- -
ditioning-test response curve for exposed animals that suggested increased
synaptic excitability.
Behavior
A series of experiments were conducted to assess the effects of various level
of 60-Hz electric fields on the behavior of rats. These experiments have
focused on perception and passive avoidance behavior, activity during exposur
and performance of a learning task immediately after exposure. In the passiv
avoidance experiments, rats were given the option of being, exposed to or
shielded from various field strengths during short- (45-minute) and longer-
duration ( ~ 24-hour) tests. Rats were placed in a shuttlebox, one end of
which was shielded and the other end visually identical but unshielded from
the 60-Hz electric field, and scored for activity (number of end-to-end
traverses) and time spent in each end of the shuttlebox. In short-duration
tests (45 minutes), rats exposed to field strengths > 90 kW/m spent signifi-
cantly more time on the shielded side of the shuttlebox than did the sham-
exposed controls. Repeated tests over 4 weeks, one test per week, did not
modify this behavioral response. However, exposure of the rats to 100 kW/m
for 30 days (630 hours) prior to the test, attenuated this behavioral res-
ponse. Activity during the 45-minute tests was significantly greater in
exposed rats than in sham-exposed controls. This higher activity was seen
-294-
at field strengths as low as 50 kW/m and increased with repeated tests.
In longer-duration tests ( ~ 24 hours, 12 hours light:12 hours dark),
rats exposed at 75 or 100 kW/m spent more time in the shielded end of
the shuttlebox than did controls during both the light and dark periods.
However, rats exposed at 50 kW/m spent more time in the field than controls,
but only during the 12-hour light period. The results of the longer-duration
tests confirmed the results of the 45-minute tests in which exposed rats
showed an increased activity. This effect was observed in rats exposed to a
field as low as 25 kW/m and occurred only during the first hour of exposure.
An experiment was conducted to assess the performance of rats in a learning
task after exposure to 60-Hz electric fields at 0, 50 or 100 kW/m for 23.5
hours. After exposure, each rat was placed in a two-compartment shuttlebox
and learned to move from one compartment to the other in response to an
80-d6 tone in order to avoid a 20-second shock to the feet (an avoidance
response). If no avoidance response was made by the rat, it could escape
the ongoing shock by moving to the other compartment (escape response).
No consistent differences were observed between exposed and sham-exposed
rats in avoidance or escape responses.
SUMMARY
Exposure of rats and mice to 60-Hz electric fields at 100 kW/m for up to
120 days had no statistically significant, reproducible effects on a number
of measures of metabolic status and growth, bone growth and structure, re-
production, hematology and serum chemistry, endocrinology, cardiovascular
function, nerve function, or organ and tissue morphology. An effect on
cell-mediated immunity was detected and is being evaluated further in addi-
tional experiments. Exposure of rats in utero (day 0 of gestation to 8 days
of age) had a transient effect at 14 days of age on motile behavior and
development of the righting reflex. Significant effects were observed
in synaptic transmission and behavior. Exposure to 60-Hz electric fields
may increase the excitability of the nervous system of rats. Experiments
are in progress to obtain a better understanding of these effects and their
potential consequences. -
–295-

| 0.
T i.
Animals. CONS/1830-1, Conservation Division, Energy Research-and- -
Phillips, R. D. and W. T. Kaune. 1977a. Biological Effects of High
References
Marino, A. A. and R. O. Becker. 1978. High-voltage lines: hazard
at a distance. Environment 2009): 6-15, 40.
Young, L. B. 1978. Danger: high voltage. Environment 2004): 16-20,
37-38. -
Miller, M. W. and G. E. Kaufman. 1978. High voltage overhead. Envir-
onment 2001): 6-15, 32-36. - -
Bridges, J. E. 1978. Environmental considerations concerning the
biological effects of power frequency (50- or 60-Hz) electric fields.
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-97: 19-32.
Phillips, R. D., R. L. Richardson, W. T. Kaune, D. L. Hjeresen, J. L.
Beamer, and M. F. Gillis. 1976a. Effects of Electric Fields on Large
Animals - A Feasibility Study. EPRI EC-131, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA. - *-** - ----- - - - - - - - ------ - -----. ---- ... •-
Phillips, R. D., M. F. Gillis, C. H. Allen, J. L. Beamer, R. L.
Richardson, W. T. Kaune, and T. W. Jeffs. 1976b. Effects of Electric
Fields on Large Animals. EPRI EA-331, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA. --—-------------, ------ - -
Phillips, R. D., W. T. Kaune, J. R. Decker, and D. L. Hjeresen. 1976c.
Biological Effects of High Strength Electric Fields on Small Laboratory
Development Administration, Washington, D.C. NTIS, Springfield, WA.
Strength Electric Fields. CONS/1830-2, Conservation Division, Energy
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C.-NTIS, "T-" -
Springfield, WA. - •
Phillips, R. D., M. F. Gill is, C. H. Allen, J. L. Beamer, R. L.
Richardson, W. T. Kaune, T. W. Jeffs, and J. R. Decker. 1977b. Effects
of Electric Fields on Large Animals. EPRI EA-458, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA. - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - - ---. . . . - - - - - -, - .
Phillips, R. D., M. F. Gillis, J. L. Beamer, C. H. Allen, W. T. Kaune,
J. R. Decker, T. W. Jeffs, and R. L. Richardson. 1977c. Effects of
Electric Fields on Large Animals. RP-799, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA. ---------------------- -------------- - - - - - - - - - ------
Phillips, R. D., J. H. Chandon, M. J. Free, J. C. Hampton, D. I. Hilton,
D. L. Hjeresen, R. A. Jaffe, W. T. Kaune, B. J. McClanahan, J. E. Morris,
H. A. Ragan, R. P. Schneider, and G. M. Zwicker. 1978. Biological Effec
of High Strength Electric Fields on Small Laboratory Animals. Annual
Report. HCP/T1830-03, U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Electric
Energy Systems, Washington, D.C. NTIS, Springfield, WA.
–296–
12.
| 3.
14.
- 15.
| 6.
I7.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Deno, D. W. 1977. Currents induced in the human body by high voltage
transmission line electric field--measurement and calculation of dis-
tribution and dose. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-96: 1517–1527.
Kaune, W. T., R. D. Phillips, D. L. Hjeresen, R. L. Richardson, and
J. L. Beamer. 1978. A method for the exposure of miniature swine to
vertical 60-Hz electric fields. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-25(3):
276-283.
Marino, A. A., T. J. Berger, B. P. Austin, R. 0. Becker, and F. X. Hart.
1976. Evaluation of electrochemical information transfer system. I.
Effect of electric fields on living organisms. J. Electrochem. Soc.
123(8): 1199-1200.
Poznaniak, D. T., H. B. Graves, and G. W. McKee. 1977. Biological
effects of high-intensity 60-Hz electric fields on the growth and
development of plants and animals. J. Microwave Power 12(1): 41-42.
LeBars, H. and G. Andre. 1976. Biological effects of an electric
field on rats and rabbits. Rev. Gen. Electr. , Special Issue, July:
91-97.
Marino, A. A., R. O. Becker, and B. Ullrich. 1976. The effect of
continuous exposure to low frequency electric fields on three gen-
erations of mice: A pilot study. Experientia. 32: 565-566.
Bayer, A., J. Brinkman, and G. Wittke. 1977. Experimental research
on rats for determining the effect of electrical AC fields on living
beings. Elektrizitaetswirtschaft. 76(4): 77-81. (In German).
Blanchi, D., L. Cedrini, F. Ceria, E. Meda, and G. G. Re. 1973.
Exposure of mammalians to strong 50-Hz electric fields. I. Effects
on the proportion of the different leukocyte types. Arch. Fisiol.
70: 30-32.
Dumansky, Y. D., W. M. Popovich, and Y. W. Prokhvatilo. 1976.
Hygienic evaluation of electromagnetic field generated by high-
voltage power lines. Gig. I. Sanit. 8: 19-23. (Translation UDC:
613–647).
Knickerbocker, G. G., W. B. Kouwenhoven, and H. C. Barnes. 1967.
Exposure of mice to a strong ac electric field - An experimental
study. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-86(4): 498–505.
Cerretelli, P. and C. Malaguti. 1976. Research carried out in Italy
by ENEL on the effects of high voltage electric fields. Rev. Gen.
Electr., Special Issue, July: 65-74.
Blanchi, D., F. Cedrini, F. Ceria, E. Meda, and G. G. Re. 1973.
Exposure of mammalians to strong 50-Hz electric fields. II. Effects
on the heart's and brain's electrical activity. Arch. Fisiol. 70:
33-34.
–297-
UNIFORM FIELD = 10 kV /m
; ;
—E - 175 kV/m
J - 175 mA/cm3
E - 70 kV/m
*>e 2 - &
J - 25 mA/cm E • 40 kV/m
^2. 12 nA/cm2
zº
J - 900 na/cm3
Interaction of man, pig and rat with a uniform, 10 kW/m electric field. E represents the
enhanced field strength at the highest point on the surface of the subject; J is the cross-
is the short-
sectional current density at the trunks and lower limbs of the subjects; 'sc
circuit current between the subject and ground.
Figure 1.




#
* splą įg oļuņoºla z H-09 01 sqeų Đsodx3 01 pºsn (l104 SKS ‘Z Đun6 !！!
rº-º-º-º:
º
ſ.
·
|-
|×
--------.
---...….*
–299–


ham-exposure to 60-Hz
-
1 ng exposure or s
dur
1 ne
d to house Swl
f buildings use
ior view o
electric fields.
Exter
Figure 3.

| enpļa ļpu į uog sl | eqs pue se pouņoala peau da Ao fiu! Mouſs buļpl įnq
fiſſiſſiſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ| ſºț¢&######!
|-
ļ
ſıſı ſıľnſiſ， Bilſuſ, ſi ſuſifs ſºiſsae!
!|
----įį}}}}
!: º Rºſſºſ:5:Bºſſ: № Estºſ: ſ= （ſeiſ ||{ļ·
ț¢ £ıſıſıſı， fıſı 5. ſıf, ſiis ſiiſ ſiſi |， }}}};ļ
*** Fº * ni r-riº-~~~~ī-ſiji-Fi-EEE; }įſiiſ
īſāīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīīī£§§:ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖ
ſº ſºlºiſ; ſººri:Daeth* … --ſae，
È ſºſiſſaernïaeliirījiſ*laeſaerae
***
!!！!!!!!!!:ſſiſſiſī£ījījiſi:i:iſ:№ſ-i|ſſ|}}}#{{##"…"）,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!！Ëſiſäisiä ſiji-ſiſi;$ſ;.ſae}}·
!!!!!!！!! ¿iiſiſſiſſiºiſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ|}}}----$
§5， ſākāſā， ē， ī， ，，，，，，:… … •••••įjįķ
+†·
， ，
-------
ĒĒĒĒĖĖĘ-
·}
-
---
---
º
• ĐuļMs
Đunsodx3 40 MēļA J. 04.134 u I
* # 3）, n6 !！!
–301–










HEALTH BENEFITS AND RISKS OF ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION
By
Ronald E. Wyzga's
Program Manager
Integrated Assessment Department
Environmental Assessment Department
Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, California
*The contents of this paper are the responsibility of the author and should
not be attributed to EPRI.
-302-
So far we have concerned ourselves with a traditional
environmental view of electricity generation: the health
and environmental costs of fuel extraction and transport,
electricity generation with its accompanying air pollution,
solid waste disposal, and electricity transmission. Tomorrow
we will discuss those environmental concerns peculiar to
nuclear power generation. As we discuss these issues, I
can't help but think that somehow we're missing a fundamental
aspect in the current environmental debate, that of how much
energy we should consume. Environmental regulations are seen
as tools to help limit the consumption of energy, even though
they were created for other purposes.
There is no doubt that environmental concerns are justified.
The serious air pollution episodes of Donora, London, the
Meuse Valley have had environmental consequences that should
never be repeated, and we now have laws to insure against a
reoccurrence. SO2 and particulate levels have declined
considerably in our cities as air pollution control measures
have been taken. We spend much time debating over appropriate
levels Of so2 and whether sulfates are injurious to health,
but new and existing regulations are observed. Certainly
there is a need to review these and all regulations periodi-
cally as required by the Clean Air Act. It is encouraging
that the 24-hour ambient standard for photochemical oxidant
was recently relaxed. The fact that standards can be relaxed
—303–
as well as tightened may suggest that we are approaching
socially optimum standards rather than seeking an unrealistic
environmental perfection.
Despite the original importance of health issues in develop-
ing environmental standards, the most recent controversies
over proposed power plants avoid debates about health effects.
This is certainly true for the substances most commonly
emitted by fossil fuel power plants. Current issues Of
concern are visibility degradation, acid rain, socio-economic
impacts, aesthetic impacts and impacts upon non-human species.
It is noteworthy that the Seabrook controversy did not focus
upon health and safety risks of nuclear power, but upon the
fate of a clam population. Health effects of air pollution
were all but ignored in the Kaiparowits debate. It was to be
the cleanest coal-burning power plant ever built. Health
effects were not an issue; concern for visibility, aesthetics
and water quality were most often voiced.
The Kaiparowits debate does in fact provide an important clue
to what may be a new and important environmental issue. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its critique of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), focused attention on
the need for Kaiparowits (l). The EIS, according to the EPA,
did not consider the impacts of conservation measures being
implemented by the State of california. These included mand
tory insulation standards, a partial ban on electric heating
in new commercial buildings, appliance efficiency standards,
–304–
and commercial lighting standards. Moreover, the EPA was
concerned that the EIS failed to address the possible demand-
reducing effects of peak-load pricing and other load-management
techniques. Environmentalist and other groups agreed. Friends
of the Earth criticized the methods used to forecast electricity
demand and argued that "financial incentives and disincentives
combined with regulations concerning electrical power use
could limit electric power demand to the point where new
generation capacity would not be required" (2) . . The California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research asked "if demand
forecasts overestimate the actual electricity need and a
surplus of electric energy is available, growth will be encour-
aged to fulfill the demand forecasts and proposed conservation
efforts will be curtailed" (3) . In other words, growth should
be curtailed in order to encourage conservation.
It is my argument that one of the most important current
objectives of environmental concerns is the desire to impose
a conservation program upon society. The origin of this
attitude may be environmental, as one way to preserve our
environment is to allow no new intrusions and to redistribute
existing resources to meet current needs. What better way to
achieve this goal than to control energy growth.
NEPA or the National Environmental Policy Act and other
regulations force us to scrutinize every action or development
and to list all conceivable environmental impacts. If any-
thing is scrutinized, some impacts will be found. Such
–305–
scrutiny is useful to identify potentially important impacts,
but it can also divert our attention from the fundamental
issues which underlie societal concerns. Such I believe is
the case of Seabrook; very few members of the Clamshell Alliance
worry about the future population of the seaclam; nuclear
power and level of energy consumption are the unspoken issues.
I don't argue here that NEPA should be abolished or amended,
but while attending to the risks of electricity generation,
we must remember the total picture. It is important to
foresee impacts on clam populations, but we must at the same
time ensure that we are providing enough energy for our society.
Environmental regulations are not the appropriate tool. to
achieve the universally-accepted goal of energy conservation.
There are two ways in which environmental policy can lead to
reduced electricity consumption: (l) it can impose environ-
mental constraints which increase the costs of electricity
and therefore reduce demand; (2) it can use environmental
regulations to restrict the the development of new energy
facilities and thereby reduce the supply.
Electricity costs can be increased in many different ways
through environmental regulation: air and water control
equipment, higher-priced fuels, environmental siting and
permitting procedures, delays in construction and operation.
All of these costs must be weighed against the environmental
benefits they yield, but we must also weigh these benefits
-306-
against the social consequences of the higher costs. Higher
electricity costs contribute to inflation, that problem which
troubles the U.S. public most according to the several public
opinion polls reported in our newspapers. Inflation itself
spawns many socio-economic impacts, also cited frequently
these days in our newspapers. Some attention is presently
being paid to this issue. It has been raised by the Council
of Economic Advisers, dismissed by the EPA, and is now under
study by a commission responsible to Alfred Kahn, our national
inflation fighter.
It may be difficult to weigh environmental concerns against
inflationary concerns, particularly when there is uncertainty
and debate about both. The two are certainly intertwined;
better estimates of their association are needed so that
our policy decisions can reflect them judiciously.
Price increases of electricity can achieve conservation, but
responses are limited, particularly in the short-run where
voluntary restraint or changes in lifestyle are the only
significant options. There is little opportunity to introduce
technical innovations through equipment modification,
alternative production cycles and technical systems in the
short-run. Ten years as a minimum are required for these
innovations to come to pass. Other responses such as fuel
substitution or changes in the industrial mix take even
longer to implement.
-307-
As an energy conservation tool, price increases induced by
environmental regulations will impact the residential sector
the greatest. Little immediate conservation will take place
in the industrial and transportation sectors because the
potential for conservation in these sectors resides largely
in technical innovation (which requires a lead time of at
least five years) . There may be some possibility for conser-
vation in the commercial sector, but it is the residential
sector who will respond the most, and since taxes on energy
are regressive, it is the lower income groups who will be
the most affected by increases in energy prices.
Figure l demonstrates the increase in fuel costs resulting
from environmental regulation according to consolidated
Edison of New York (4) . These costs represent the difference
in cost between high and low sulfur fuel. Similar cost
differentials exist for other fuel uses; i.e., residential
and commercial boilers. Environmental benefits may have been
achieved as a result of these costs; certainly SO2 levels hav
been reduced significantly in New York City over this period.
(See Figure 2) (5). There has incidentally been no concommita
measurable change in the health status of New York City durin
this period (6).
Dr. Lawrence E. Hinkle, Director of the Division of Human
Ecology at the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center
worries about the health effects of increased energy costs.
–308-
He writes that "in the past few years, as the cost of home
heating and electricity have gone up, an increasing number Of
landlords of the poor have reduced or abolished the heating
of dwellings and have turned off the electric power of those
who could not pay their bills. In New York we actually have
poor old people dying from cold and exposure in unheated
apartments, and we have people of all ages dying from accidental
fires, smoke inhalation, and carbon monoxide poisoning because
they have attempted to supplement the inadequate heat in their
apartments by turning on the oven or by using a charcoal • .
brazier or a kerosene space heater." Dr. Hinkle adds, "It
seems quite possible that further efforts to lower the SO2
content of the outdoor air to produce health benefits that
are probably illusory may in fact increase morbidity and
mortality from smoke fires, and carbon monoxide" (7).
Writing in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. John E -
Milner, Department of Environmental Health, University of
Washington, reports of several British studies which demonstrate
a high incidence of hypothermia among the elderly poor, who
cannot afford to heat their homes to adequate temperatures (8).
One British study in fact suggested that between "20,000 and
100,000 hypothermia deaths occurred yearly in Britain".
Hypothermia is the failure to maintain a body temperature
adequate for optimal physiologic functioning, and it can
result in depressed respiration and consequent pneumonia,
pancreatitis, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accidents.
There is no information about the incidence of hypothermia in
–309–
the U. S. , but the British experience should cause some concern
about the potential for hypothermia in the U.S., particularly
in an era of rapidly-rising energy prices.
I or no one else knows for certain how many deaths or health
effects can be attributed to hypothermia or unsafe heating
resulting from high energy costs. We have ignored these
impacts to date and have certainly not considered their
possibility in our framing of regulations. Everything is more
complicated than previously thought to be ; environmental
policy-setting is no exception. These policies can have
negative impacts as well as benefits.
Environmental regulations may yield some conservation results
as a side-effect, but they are not designed for that purpose
and are not the most suitable tools for achieving conservation; .
their results may in fact be counterproductive, yielding
more societal harm and discomfort than intended. The tools
for implementing conservation need to be designed and evaluated
for that purpose alone.
Environmental regulations can yield some conservation by
limiting supply as well as limiting demand. Availability of
supply was an issue in the Kaiparowits debate. The cancellatio
of a power plant can lead to environmental benefits and
possibly to some conservation. But as a conservation measure,
the most significant response possible in the short-run to
the non-building of power plants is the voluntary change in


–310–
lifestyle which will take place largely in the residential
sector. Some of the drawbacks associated with this
approach were cited above; others are a result of a general
shortfall in electricity generating capacity.
The amount of conservation possible is limited. A detailed
study of the potential for technological conservation
suggested that a seventeen percent reduction in anticipated
energy use could reasonably be attained through conservation
measures by 2000 (9). (See Table l. ) With extreme efforts
this reduction could be as high as 34%. Demographics favor
an increase in total energy consumption. According to the
Bureau of Labor statistics the total number of Americans
expected to be in the labor force in 2000 A.D. is llo million
contrasted with the 102 million in the labor force today. Past
increases in productivity have generally occurred 3.S a result
of replacing manpower by machine power which requires a greater
per capita energy consumption. It is increased productivity
which generally contributes to our increased per capita incomes.
The larger share of elderly in our 2000 A.D. population will
also lead to greater energy requirements.
Environmental requirements in themselves will demand additional
energy. For example, a change from water-cooled to air-cooled
condensors, in order to reduce the detrimental effects upon
water resources would require increased fuel consumption
of 6-10% for fossil fuel plants and 7–l4% for nuclear power
plants. Flue gas desulphurization will require about 5-l9%
–31 l-
of the input heat of a fossil fuel power plant.
In addition the extraction of energy fuels will require
more energy as they become less readily available and as
environmental measures are needed to restore the land. All
of these factors lead us to estimate that by the year 2000,
we would need significant additional energy to maintain our
standard of living. Our current consumption is about
75 quads a year. One can argue about forecasts of the
energy demand for the year 2000, but no one argues that our
energy supply must increase between now and then if we are
to improve or even maintain our standard of living. Even
Lovins estimates that we will consume 95 quads of energy in
the year 2000, although Lovins would suggest that very little
of this energy would be in the form of electricity (10). Given
that the year 2000 is but 21 years away, and that the existing
trend is towards electrification, a significant share of the
energy growth will be in the electricity sector.
Insufficient electricity supply can create severe problems.
We noted above some of the problems which could occur in the
residential sector. In addition, decreased capacity will
provide a smaller reserve margin and reduced reliability Of
service. Certainly the probability of blackouts and brown-
outs would increase - An improbable combination of natural
phenomena, improperly operating protective devices, and
communication difficulties all led to the New York City blackou
-312-
of July lº, 1977. Constraints on electricity supply will
certainly increase the probability of such events. The events
of the catastrophic New York City blackout are well-known.
In a study for the Department of Energy (ll), Systems Control,
Inc. estimated a lower bound of $345 millions damage. (Note
Table 2. ) The greatest losses were those which received little
publicity: loss in business activity and losses to the
utility, Con Ed. Vandalism, crime, and food spoilage contributed
only a small part of the total damage.
There may have been significant health effects, also . Table 3
gives mortality by cause of death for several days around the
blackout. We note that the blackout itself began at 9:36 p.m.
OIl July l3 and ended in most areas the evening of July 14.
* The most striking statistic is the increase in cardiovascular-
renal deaths among those 65 years or older during the day after
the blackout began. With only one data point, no adjustment
for weather, and no consideration of the usual variance in the
New York City daily mortality rate, it is dangerous to draw
any conclusions. Nevertheless the figures are consistent with
a hypothesis that blackouts can lead to increased mortality.
The damage associated with the New York City blackout was not
unique; cost estimates of other power outages have been made
and are given in Table 4. The higher costs of the l977 New
York City outage may reflect its long duration, but all of the
estimates suggest that blackouts can be costly.
–313–
The other danger associated with a shortfall in capacity is
that inadequate supply will stunt economic activity. This
can happen in two ways: In periods of inadequate supply,
the industrial sector is often the first to whom supply is
curtailed. This was the case with the recent natural gas
shortage. In the face of an uncertain supply, no industry
will locate in a given area. Secondly, frequent curtailments
or outages can create a generally unfavorable economic climate
with little confidence for investors. In both cases, limited
or lessened investment will have its effects on the economy.
It will result in higher unemployment which is far less benign
than the monthly figures often bandied about. A study
undertaken by Dr. Harvey Brenner, School of Hygiene and
Public Health, The John Hopkins University, relates national
health statistics to unemployment (l2). The results of his
study are summarized in Table 5. We see that general mortality,
infant mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cirrhosis mortality,
suicide rates, homicide rates, imprisonment rates, and mental
hospital admissions rates are all statistically significantly
and positively associated with higher unemployment. General
mortality, infant mortality, suicide rate, imprisonment rate,
and mental hospital admission rates were all positively
and statistically-significantly associated with inflation
rates. Brenner replicated his results for three states
(California, Massachusetts, and New York) and for two countries
(England and Wales, and Sweden). There is a need to scrutinize
Brenner's data and methodology, but his results suggest that
we pay close attention to how we impact our economy.
-314-
My underlying concern in this paper is that we pay full
attention to both the risks and benefits of electricity
consumption. At present we highlight the environmental
risks associated with electricity generation and we applaud
the generation of less electricity in the name of conservation.
Conservation is a worthy goal, but reduced electricity
use is not equivalent to conservation. Measures aimed
merely at restricting energy use may have public health
consequences.
Environmental policy is naturally directed towards protecting
all site-specific and regional environments. When it is
applied in the energy sector, it is applied on an incremental
plant-by-plant basis. The results are that the broader policy
issues of adequate energy supply are not addressed. We
desperately need an energy policy with an important conservation
component so that our society and its regulations can address
energy concerns along with environmental concerns in order to
develop solutions which minimize the total social impact.
–315–
Figure l
;
67 ea 69 7o 71 72 75 74 75 76 77 * * * * * * *
YEAR
ANNUAL Cost OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTROL IN POWER AND STEAM PLANTS
LocateD IN NEW YORK CITY
Source: Reference (4) . -


–316–
Figure 2
O28 H

O24 H.
O2O H.
Of 6 H.
O12 H.
i
O08 H
004 H.
O | | | | | }
1950 1960 1970 1980
CITYWIDE ANNUAL AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATION (1954-1975)
Source: Reference (5)
–31 7–
Table l
YEAR 2000 END USE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL PERCENT SAVINGS
(IN PERCENT)
ELECTRIC NONELECTRIC
- ENERGY ENERGY TOT
CONSERVATION PROGRAM SECTOR SECTOR ENER
NONE 0 0
REASONABLE 17 25 2
ExTREME - 3|| 50 l;
Source: Reference (9).
–318–
Table 2: suMMARY OF EconoMIC IMPACTs'
Impact Areas Direct (SM) Indirect (SM)
Businesses Food Spoilage S. l. O Small Businesses S] 55 .. 4
Wages Lost 5. O Emergency Aid 5. O
Securities Industry lº . 0 (private sector)
Banking Industry l3. O
Government
(Non-public services) Federal Assistance
Programs ll. 5
New York State
Assistance Program 1.0
Consolidated Edison Restoration Costs 10. O New Capital Equipment 65. O
* - - - - . . . Overtime Payments 2.0 (program and
- installation)
Insurance” Federal Crime Insurance 3 - 5
Fire Insurance 19 - 5
Private Property
Insurance 1O. 5
Public Health Public Hospitals-- l. 5
Services overtime, emergency
room charges
Other Public Metropolitan Trans- MTA Vandalism - 2
Services portation Authority MTA New Capital Equip-
(MTA) Revenue ment Required ll. 0
Losses 2.6 Red Cross . Ol
MTA Over time and Fire Department .5
Unearned Wages 6.5 overtime and damaged
equipment
Police Department 4.4
overtime
State Courts . O5
overtime
Prosecution and
Correction 1. I
Westchester County Food Spoilage 0.253
Public Services
equipment damage,
overtime payments O. 19
TOTALS $55.54 S29O. 16
"Estimate based on aggregate data collected as of May 1, 1978. See
previous page for discussion of limitation of these costs.
*overlap with business losses might occur since some are recovered by
lf. Stilº ance .
*Looting was included in this estimate but reported to be minimal.
These data are derivative, and are neither comprehensive nor definitive.
Reference (lo).
Source: –319–
Table 3
Cause of Death July 12–15, 1977
Cardiovascular
Total Respiratory Renal Homicide Other
Date July 12 l? | 1.4 l5 13 14 15 13 l4 15 | 3 || || 4 || 15 | 3 || || 4 || 15
64 — — — . T 2 || 77 | 68 6 11 8 24 25 20 39 || 37 36
Age
65+ - – 10 4 157 || 39 l4 15 12 5 l || 100 87 38 || 42 39
Total 212 176 2 3 4 |20 7 20 28 20 75 | 1.25 107 4 6 5 77 79 75
Blackout began 9: 36 p.m. July 13, 1973; power restored c. 10 : 30 p.m. ; July 14, 1977
SOur Ce:
Reference (11).
§
Table 4
COMPARATIVE cost ESTIMATES OF POWER oUTAGEs
Estimated
Geographic Scope Cost Date
Hauugard” New York State $2.17 million/hr 1971
NYEDA' •NYC $2.5 million/hr 1971.
Shipley* U.S. S. 60/kwh. 1971
Telson" New York State $.33/kwh. 1973
NERA" U.S. Sl/kwh. 1976
Gannon* U.S. $2.68/kwh (ind), l976
$7.2L/kwh (comm)
Ontario Hydro” Canada $15/kwh (15min), , ls 77
- $9.1/kw (1 hr.)
Present study" New York City, 1977 $4. ll/kwh. l978
*As reported in Myers'
*Ontario Hydro, "Ontario Hydro Survey on Power System Reliability:
Viewpoint of Large Users", April, 1977. --
*P. E. Gannon, "Cost of Interruptions: Economic Evaluation of
Reliability", May, 1976.
“Direct plus indirect costs divided by estimated kwh sales lost due
to the blackout (see Section 4). Disaggregated, direct, was $.66/kwh.
and indirect was $3.45/kwh.
Source: Reference (ll) .
–321-
Table 5: MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC INDICES ON SELECTED MORTALITY RATES, UNITED STATES
(t--Statistics in parentheses) 6
Time Log Time Per Capita Unemploy- Inflation 2
Dependent Variable Year'S Intercept Trend Trends In COme ment rate Rate R F D. W.
GENERAL MoRTALITY RATE"
(Lag O-5)
(l) *:::::::::::". 1940–74 96. 2.--— — — — — — — — — —------------ -(), 53E-2 0.62 O s 87 O. 89 & 21, 9 l.93
Ota A. W. * (1.92) * (5.05) * (2.96)
(2) *:::::::: it. 1940–74 136 - 4----------------------- - - 32E-l | 68 2.83 e 96 #74 - || 1 s 67
Ota Il Oſ) * (6.55) * (6.95) * (5. 16)
(3) Mortality rate, 1940–74 497 - 7---------------------- - . 24 12 - 65 3.59 , 97 #98 c 6 2 e ll
LT l whites * (7. O6) * (8. O1) * (5. 44)
(4) Mortality rate, 1940–74 936. 2.---------------------- - .. 4 3 17, 74 3 O - 77 . 99 #199 - 6 2, 40
LT 1 nonwhites * (10.48) * (10.69) * (6.49)
(5) Cardiovascular º
l disease mortality 1940–73 – 2,836. 8 -1.7 .. 8 l, O77. O------------ 2. 85 1.04 . 74 6.50 2. 36
§ rate * (4.70) * (4.76) * (1.83) (.78)
º (Lag l-4)
(6) cirrhºsis mortality
rate 3 1940–73 — . 2.------------------------ . 65E-2 . 14 .16E-2 . 98 & 114 - 4 l 65
(Lag 0-5) * (8.99) * (4.21) ( . Ol)
(7) Suicide rage" -
(Lag 0-5) 1940–73 6. 34--------------------- . 90E-3 - 42 a 27 . 9] * 26 - 2 l - 80
+ (1.50) * (14. 23) * (4 .. 23)
(8) Imprisonment
rate (minus 1942- 1935-65 –577. 90 - 3 - 18 195. 5 –––––––––––––––– 1.59 • 64 . 76 * 10, 4 l. 87
45) 4 * (3.14) * (3.48) * (5.92) *3. 35)
(Lag O-2)
(9) Mental hospital -
admision rate 1940–71 –70 - 00--------------------- - 49E-1 3. ll 2. lº . 97 # 63 a 4 1.85
LT 65 3 *(8.69) * (8.92) * (3.21)
(Lag O-5)
1 Per 10,000 population 1 - tai led test is : t= 1 - 7 l ; F=2.28 ; at 99 percent leve A of confidence,
2 Per 100,000 pºpulatiºn, *= a- + h^ ts ignificant at 90 percent level of confidence : t=2.49; F-3. 3 l ; at 99.9 percent level of confidence,
*lad Bºuakkan t = 3 l . l ; F= . . $39 Å. came re a fºr l t= 3.45; F-4. 71 .



References
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(ll)
(12)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, letter from
Administrator Russell E. Train to Secretary of the Interior
Thomas S. Kleppe, June 4, 1976.
Friends of the Earth, Inc., letter to Paul Howard, State
Director, Bureau of Land Management, Utah, November 13, 1975.
United States Department of the Interior, Final Kaiparowits
Program Decision Option Document, April 30, 1976.
Freudenthal, Peter C. (December, l978) "Discussion of Paper
of Vaun A. Newill, R. Wyzga, and James R. McCarroll",
Bull. N. Y. Academy of Medicine, 54 (ll), l249.
Eisenbud, Merril (December 1978) "Levels of Exposure to
Sulfur Oxides and Particulates in New York City and Their
Sources", Bull. N. Y. Academy of Medicine, 54 (ll), l012.
Schimmel, Herbert (December 1978) "Evidence for Possible
Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution from Time
Series Analysis: Methodological Questions and Some New
Results Based on New York City Daily Mortality, 1963–1976, "
Bull. N. Y. Academy of Medicine, 54 (ll), 1052.
Hinkle, Lawrence, Jr. (1978) "Health Benefits and Health
Costs of Controlling Sulfur Oxides in Air", Bull. N. Y. Academy
of Medicine, 54 (ll), lz57.
Milner, John E. (October 1978) "Hypothermia", Annals of
Internal Medicine, 89 (4), 565.
Smith, Craig, editor (June l978) Efficient Electricity Use,
Pergamon Press, Inc.
Starr, Chauncey (April 1977) "Energy Planning--A Nation at
Risk" in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy
Technologies and Energy Conservation Research Development
and Demonstration, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session,
April 4, 5, 1977, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

Systems Control, Inc. (July 1978) Impact Assessment of the
1977 New York City Blackout, Final Report prepared for
U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20545 under
contract No. EC-77–C–0 l—5103.
Brenner, Harvey (lo 76) "Estimating the Social Costs of
National Economic Policy: Implications for Mental and
Physical Health and Criminal Agression", a study prepared
for the use of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of
the United States, October 26, l976, U. S. Government Printing
Office.
–323—
i) is CUSS ſºli
SESSION I W
Joad Blair. Exalaswillez. Indladai Most of my remarks are
go in g to be addressed to Dr - a y z ga from the Electic lc Power
institute, and if he sould like to respond, i = ould app rec late
it e It seeſhed to me as he was talking, that I was go in 9 to go
back to Evansville, Indiana, and datch the 20 or so poser plants
that aſ e going up around ſay home a i th a lot different lign t
because I was no 2 ing that they would put out 9 ollution so ſay
electrica i costs could stay down • It seeins as though ae talled
to recog (11.2e one very eSS ential e i eſa ent of econoſal CS, as tar as
e i e Ctrl.c. power productlon is concer ſhed, aſid that is, acco C ding
to the ºl e w York f lines yester day, we are 36% over the peak load
capacity needed in this country • No a 36% over our peak load
need says that there is an inflation built in, in econoulc
359 e Cºts of u till ties 1 (1 tini S country, that is to tai ly
unnecessary. Any time you are operating 36% over peak load
capacity, that means you are paying for power plants that aren’t
needed. I "d like to point out two exalapies of this, the fact
tnat power plant construction ls what causes the price of
electric 1 ty to go up. One of theia is the Marble Hill 1 Piant
which is being bull t on the Ohio River at Madison, Indiana, at
the cost of approximately two billion dollars - it is a fluciear
plant. That is doubling the capital pase of the company that is
building it, the Public Service Company of Indiana • Do up ling
1 t The ir rates are p ased up on the l r cap 1 tal base. That looks
to lie Ll Ke l t is go in J L Q du uple the 1 C rate S- And l L is not
pollution contro i equiptaent that is going to cause the rates to
double •
I would also like to point out the exalap le of the
Indiana- Michigan Electric Company Power Plant, which is owned by
the Aſher lcaſh E i e C tric Power, that is going up in RocK9 or t,
Indiana, which is also a 2, 400 ſhe gariatt unit. It also is going
to double ind lana-Michigan’s capital base - That is ºn Y electric.
rate S J O up 3 not just be case scruppet S or precip 1 ta to r s or
whatever, are put on these - I would aiso like to point out that
conservation does work. As a matter of fact, conservation has
taken place so much in Indiana over the last year that the
construction of severai power plants has been de layed. The
–324-
Indlana - Michlgan Plant, for in Stance, flas Deeſi de layed by at
1 east B year because Indiana-Michigan his projected the ir
electrical needs. And also, during the coal Strike in 1977-78,
we found that in Indiana a 25% reduction in electrica i usage was
accolap lished a 1 tº the lay-off of 6,000 people under an elaer gency
situation • No a 25% electrical reduct lo n in the state o f iſld lana
was a pretty Rassive reduction. Those or 000 people sno were
laid of f, had a dequate plan in l ng take ſº piace, 9 Top abiy would not
nave been forced to De laid of f o Aiso anotne I thing ls that
peak i oad uen and 1 s nardiy a say to run this country whenever se
are naw l ng a reai serious ea V1 ronmental problem • Peak 10 ad says
that you can bulld and accomplish the needs of whatever you
want. Environluentalls ts, it seeds, would say, let 's go altn
peak load prici ſag and ſhake people pay for those - W ſlen i na ve a
business, which I do, and lay capital runs out, I stop expand lng.
I can *t Just at p1 trarily Say I want to bul id more and ſhore and
Iaore, and expand when the capital runs out . That is the salae
thing that shouid happen alth people us ling electrl cliy . If
tnere is no ne left to use at Peak load tiſſues the n time c e snould
De no no Ce use of it • And then Dr. W y Z ga Said-- this ls a
quote: "In the face of uncertain supply, no industry will
locate in a certain area • * well, I would like to speak I coul the
he art he re, pecause in ſhy area with all these power plants going
up around me, we are seeing a mixing zone. You can fly any day
and See a ful xing zone of varying deptns in the atmosp nece • § £
are see ing our alſº turn Drown and or ange and win a te Wer other
color. And any are we see ling this? The ut 111ty that services
ſhy particular area has a total generatlng capac lty of about
1,000 ſhe gawatts. That’s Southern Indiana Gas and Electric- In
that same area that Southern Indiana Gas and Electric serves, we
have Indianapolis Power and Lignt, a nich has a major electrical
tacility is ſlic n S e CW e S Indianapolls - # tº ſiaWe Ł ſle
Indiana- Michigan Electric Company which ls building the pian t in
Rockport, which I ſa entioned earlier - we have the Puoll c Service
Company of Indiana, just 25 miles nortn of Evans Wille, which is
going to have a 3, 250 megawatt station when it "s f inlsned. It
See as that, with the Clean Air Act Alaetidae ſits of 1977 and the
tact ta at econo laic sanct loſis are 9 laced upon places tha L u on 't
comply alth the Clean Alf Act standards, the econoalc arguia ents
that he ſaentioned do not hold water because of Que very
significant thiſ, g. If our air is clean to day and not clean
to Gio Crow, and de ſhave a non-attainā eſn't Status as a result of
that, and all the electr 1 cal production that "'s going on in the
a ſ e a a ſhich i S dirty ling our al r, causing us to be on
non-atta inſu ent status, is going to places 11 Ke Fort sayne,
Indiana; Müric le z Indiana; Indianapolis, Indiana; and
Pialnfield, indiana? we are not receiving any of the benef lts
from 1 tº All we are receiving is the pollution • So it is very
simple 1 f you are going to i ook at things on a national level to
say yes, we need to build in ore and ſhore power plants to supply
clean energy gro stn - But to I those of us sno are in the lower
–325–
end of the valley, we do a t = aſh t to see 1 t nappen in Ke 1 t has
nappened nere in Pittsburgh. I took a drive up the Unio River
Boulevard yester day and I " We new er Deen so app alled ill ſay 1 life
Titan K y O u.
Drs. Hz. Spenger: I would like to announce solae ground
rules for this debate. First of all, it iſ not involved in i t . I
au Suce that hany of you real lze that that requl res the exercise
of Soine conside rable restra in tº Second ly, 1 fee i that the
presentat loſi was a Side of a controvers 1 a 1 issue, or in any such
lssues, and I think it would be appropriate if anyone who feels
to be on the opposite side, oe give ſi equal time • The panel
I 1 rst, p 1 ease -
Dr. Rs. Ayzsia: I think the question probably was alrected
in ore at the than ſay colleagues, although 1.f they sant to take a
stab at the answer I would be happy to let them. Let Iae first
or all say that I did not argue that we should uls miss
env iſ on is ental p I otectl on • I think enviro aſhen tai g rotection
should, in fact, be implemented when it is needed. All that I
Silapiy a c gue d is that when we consider enviro ſatàental control
theasures, a e Should look at what the total lap acts are - The re
are environſueſ, tal peſt efits; there are conservation oeae r lts ;
but the re are also some so Clal 1 up acts - I as K that we exalaine
these social impacts, soiletning that de nave lign ored nece to for e.
Secondly, I haw e not argued against conset V at lo n - I thiſłk that
every one a grees that conser Vation is ſiece SS aſ y = An at I aid
arguing for is some resolution of the dileſúlia we now face
because we are working on one ſland with, I guess, tne
incretaea talls a 9 t environmental policy versus the need to r solae
type of an overa ii comprehensive energy policy - We soiaenoa nave
got to learn to resolve these two pollcy directlons. I don’t
really know you I Specitl C are a so I can 't cohºl ent on it, out I
will say that having excess capaclity is so ſuetning that no one
wants, even utilities. It costs the la ſadney, and if the re is one
thing that ſno ti vates ut l l it les , lt is tao ſley, econo thics • And I
would add that, as 9 art of the ideasures to try an i iſ Sure that
is £ d of] 't tº a W E excess capacity, we have Pup lic Service
Coaſuissions and Public Utility Counſmissions • If they are doing
their 3 obs correctly, and I think in thany States they are doing
their jobs correctly, it is they and exagilne the Iae ed for
electricity or energy in a gly en area and try to ensure that
these needs ace in fact the tº I thin K even they are I rustrated
and have difficulty in dealing with Solae of the e ſhvil coaia ental
poll cies at the saine time •
Dºcs. Hz. Spenger: Does anyone else on the panel w is n to
respond to the reaarks of Mr. Blair? iſ no feels to be on the
other s 1 de of that debate troia the audience?
–326–
Jona Camppellz. Nea Ygſ.K: I aſh r rota New York and I don’t
want to talk too ſauch because my situation is a lot different
from the Onlo R1 Weſ B as in . However, we do have in New York,
purported if, according to a lot of people, so the thing 1 1ke a 35%
reserve aar 9 in, and the idea that that LS Surp lus poser , Deyond
wn at is needed to insure a re 1 laple service, n as S Copped a lot
of power 9 lants •
In a y State, and lit is certainly one coſts ider at lo n that is
lmportant nere, 45% of our electricty is gene cated w lºtſ, oll . It
results in tre ſhe nd ously hign rates 1 ſh Bay area, having not ning to
do with the Cap 1 tallz at 1 on of the ut l l l ties •
The capital p o E tlon of a utility cate base is ſlot the
entiſe rate D 3 See It also has og erations and maintenance and
lad ot, a ſld an assor tia ent of other expenses • in p a ctl cu lar lin
New York State, we spend about 1 - 2 p 1 li ion dollars a year to r
oil • In the future, l t rae a plants a ren’t constructed, what ever
addition a 1 deſh and occurs in ſay state, now ever sin a 11, is go l ng to
pe ſaet a ltn. o 11 and it is go in g to be met at ever increas ling
C OS te a e "we do me a study D in the economics of power in New York
State and we found that lºt ºne build power 9 lants in large
numbers, the savings to our utllity customers run lato the
Dillions of dollars •
what hasn’t been seen 1s that the nuſab e ſ of p i ants aſad the
virtues of conservation are not entirely unſal Xed - we il we ln a
world an ere we are affected by other people : o y Arabs, oy wars
in Iran, and by a whole variety of other effects. He also burn
a lot of oll in New York City, and lt adds a tremendous amount
to the sulfur but den in the city and on Loſag Island-
I n a V en’t been exactly organized here but to Suſa up -- when
you are conside ring she the r or not to bulld a power piant, you
nave to look at the entire p 1 cture -- all the economic et rects and
not on 1 y one Sinai 1 facet of it, which ls whether you have
Surp ius 9 oa e C or ſlot - Tſle one-face t d 99E oach is a very O D tuse
way of doing ene I gy planning and it n as cost he and lay ſae ign Dors
in New York State well into the area or 2 bill 1 on do 1 lars or so,
and it is going to contlinue to cost theſú in or e ii, the next few
ye aſ S e.
DEa. Ha. Spencer: The gentleſnail in the Diue S = eater ls
next, and then Dr. Blome, and then the two cign tº ln trae ald Gle.
I’d like to ask the panel if the re is any response to the
previous coinia ent that you would like to ſaake - i would prefer
that we try to conduct this as stad otmly as possible, out it "s
probably not going to be easy - I’ll glve you about I iv e ainutes
and that ‘’s Lt.
–327–
Dan Swartzianz University of Illinois Szngol of Public
Health: I’ve Deen de D atling with ſayse iſ a he ther to get up mere
and say anything or not. I don’t teel that I as particularly on
the other side of whateve r issue it is exactly that we are
trying to put out £ inger oft. In fact, I see myse it on a
parai i e i line with the gent leſſ an froſh the Electric Power
Researca Institute, certainly heading lil the saille direct lon,
hopeful i y llnes that willi new er lie et. The ſeasoſ, any i s a y = e
are head i ng Ln the same directl on is that the question ne
addresses lis an extremely limp or tant question I or a 11 of us to be
as King ourse 1 Wes. If the re ls any group of people w no ought to
be sli ling to exaia ine the other slue of the coin, it is tags e of
us w no consider our Selves environmental advocates - we are the
ones wºn 3 nave been saying for [Haily years that there is ad such
thing as a free lunch. It D enooves those of us sno spend some
tline do in g this, particularly those no get paid to do it, as I
do, to S it back and see what is the total iſap act of an at we do
and of what we are advocating . . It is terr lb ly important to look
at all of the so cla 1 costs, all of the both quant liflap le and
nonquant 1 fiddle Societa i làp acts of the actions that we propose
that SOC lety take - Because of that I have, in the past,
advocated a nu aber of times that ef, V iſ onia ental lists sad ui d pe
behind the push to wards cost-benefit ai, alyses • Unce we are apie
to real ly get a handie on some Sort of assessia ent of the
benefits of the progralas we advocate, we w l l i be in a much
better position to achieve the goals tn at we na We bee Ia tighting
tor - My concern is the way in unich this issue was addressed,
not the fact that it was addressed. I th link it n as a very
proper place in the program. i aſā coſicerned ap out a few g o in ts
that were raised, and I would just 11 Ke to brief iy hilt eacn of
those points. I think, however, that I comine ſld to those who
read tº is record sometime in the future--i assume you are going
to put it in a tiae capsule or soiletning-- I teel they all 1 pe
capabie of judging Mr. Wyzga's work on its own iner it, and i aff,
ſlot go iſ g to p r es uſae to tell the fla hoºd they ought to read that
work. 3 ut I do have a couple of poliſh ts that I think we ougnt to
thlink ap out lſ, tſi e is O C K • F 1 I St LS the C J (I Cep t that ſhe d 1 t ) l S
not a S 1 gnificant issue 1 n the develog a ent of ſlew powe C p 1 ants.
The reas on why a lot of the arguinents nave centered around
visipill ty and estnet lcs and costs, is because we do n 't have a
lot ot the data we need to argue the ſle alth polſ, t- For
1nstance, 1 m the New Source Performance Standards that are Deling
considered by EPA and debated py people in tront of theia, there
is a concern for p of lution from Coal burning - I fee i that is
1 ſaplicit, in where a lot of the env iſ onſueſ, talls ts are co Iaing
from, is a concern Ior the health of our population • But since
we don’t have the sulfate information or the Second ary impact,
and we are stuck witn a fairly poor indicator like sulfur
dl oxide, we are not in a position to De able to I occe tully
advocate the health side of these things • But I take fairly
strenuous objection to the concept that the only thing we’re
–328-
debating is economics and esthet l'Cs, altnough I think trios e are
extremely lap or tant, as one of the p C eV 10 tis discuss ants
it entil one de i also just sant to point out that I didia’t hear,
during the presentation, any k l n d of association D B C see ſt
hypother a la and hl gher eſłe iſ gy Costs • In fact, l r i "in not
alstaken, I heard, although it went D Y very quickly, that no
associat 1 on was poss 1 Dle at this time and so that all = e nave ls
that sort of anecdotal g resentation that yes, in tact, it has
happened . It lis interestlng to note, as is a S p Q 1 in ted out to
fae--this is not a y thought-- that this Supposed 1 y has napp ened
ln England where we don’t have the saile sort of strenuous
contro is that we are asking the utilities to ſue et here in the
{jnlted States • Also, I would like to 9 oint out to the
representative of E PRI, and may be he can take 1 t back to his
coileagues, that if r ! ſl fact, they "re concerned about
discriminatory our dens on 1 Individuals who have difficulty
meeting a 1 gn electrical rates, that may be they ougnt to consider
Support l ng r a the r than oppos 1 ng in verted rate structures. Tn at
*1 gnt get them to the Satae place that they "re concerned a pout
he re. A 1 so the gent leuan polnted out that a number of the
studies triat ne 199ked a t = e re rather tacl le. After 1 oo King at
nis description of the situation ln New York at Leſ tne
"biackout, " I am quite certain as to n is quall float loſis to make
that Judgment. I would just like to end by re inforcing what I
said at the Deginning. It is a terrl Diy iiii po ſtant quest lon, and
we lose all credibl llty as en Vlt on ſaental health advocates lif we
don’t examine this question, but i don't think this record
refiects the kind of exalul nation that is needed. Thank you to r
this op 9 or tunity •
Qc2. Ha S22nger: D. Bloiae is next, and I would like to
have so he one follow ling that who dould tai K ap out so ſae lissues
related to the other two papers, ºnlcn were very good-
Don Blouez University of Kentucky: I would like to address
thls quest i on to Dr. Morris. You snow ed. So the very liap cessive
Illus co ace callſig the safety or nuclear transport, a t le as t ui,
i and surfaces • There is going to De an increas in g alaount of
nuclear traffic, Dotn spent fuel and new fuei, a long water says.
will you comia ent on the safety and potentlal hazards of nuciear
transportation accl de înts in ltn regard to water says aſld the
integrity of those canisters in water 2
DEs. Mgr. Els: I guess the only cotainent I can ſhake is that
the Nuclear Regulatory Coaſa issl on Standards for the casks that
the spent fuel is Snipped in do specific y standards for
1ämer slo n that they must aee to They have to be aple to stand up
to tests of being immersed in water •
-329–
DEs. His Spengeſ: Next person, please -
Jerry tields. Pennsylvania £942c and Light guaganzz
Allenko sai I would like to respond to the gela tieman tro a
Evans V11 le -- a personal respo Ilse? I don’t want to respond to c ſay
company. In Pennsylvania a utility is required under the Puplic
Utill ty Comulssion Act Section 401 to provide re 1 lap le, sate
electrica i generation. Also your reference that projections, of
util 11tle S were way off base is correct . In the early 7 J “s, our
colupany, for example, suggested that the deſa and 1 in the tuture
would in crease approximateliy 7% per year. However, this has
decreased Sharp 1 y and now we est Liuate about 2.5 # demand iſ crease
pe I Yed C e
You ſaentlo fled your local electric utility coup any is
doubling its size. Uut company is, also - Gur investiaeat over
the tirst 50 years is about 2 billion dollars and at the present
time we are buliding a 2-unit thousand ſaegawatt nuclear c e actor
whlch costs also about 2 bill loſt dollars • But one thing you
ſatist Te Ti eſaper is that for each year a nuclear power p is at , t or
example, is de layed, the construction and interest costs all 1 pe
higher by about 150 to 250 all il on dollars. This will the n be
passed on to the custoſner - in addition to that, eacn uay that
thls new plant is de layed, we will o e using approxiàate ly
100,000 o arrels of oil. It should be noted that witn nign
energy prices for all fuels that we nave right now there is an
additional dependence on oli for gasoline, tires, clotning, and
Other SuDS tan Ce Se Since there is a snortage of oll we are
coap ound ling the problem by using oil for power - In add 1 tion, if
a new plant is delayed we ſuay have alr pollution prop leas oy
continuing to use old plants which are allowed to operate
instead of being retired. Even though there ſaay be an
addltio 3 a l aſaount, let's say 365 electric above the demasiu, you
really can’t talk about that per colºp any • Most companies work
on later connection and they work by econon lc dispatch is nich
means that if you can produce electricity for three cents per
Kllow a tt 9 e C ſhout , and aſ 9 tile I coulp any Can 9 & 0 duce it E J E t = 0
cents, you are not going to operate your p lant. in the
inter connection that our coil pany 1 s in, the Pennsylvanla, News
Jersey, and Maryland inter connection, there is a lot of oil.
These are basica ily older p i ants. For exa ſaple z Pnl ladelphia
Electric has a lot of oll units. That Ls one reason to go to
new plan ts, possibly coai and nuclear - This means a utility,
like our coſap any, sli i De naviſh g excess electrica i generation
even though we prep are environidental reports for foss Ll and
nuclear 9 lants and simultaneously talk about conservatio in . For
example, we talk about insulation, storia windows, purchasing
appliances that use less eiectricity • So on one nanu, we are
building power plants, and on the other nand we are talking
apout the conservation • It seems like we are in a vice that we
are trying to do as much as we can for our coſamunity, tor the
–330-
p up llc, to make certa Ln they have sate and I e i lable elect L lic Lty .
And yet once you start bull ding a power plant, as it was
In ein tid ſhe q, I oe 1 leve this iſ or mlng, lt takes about 10 to i2 years
for p 1 annling and construction. You Just can 't S top and wait a
few years unt l l e i ectrl city is needed - You have got to contlſ, ue
Your pro g rains and try to pro wide a good e il V iſ on ſile ſn't I & C the
community living around the power piaſat, and also you nave to
try to j i Ve the consume r the best I ate possible • I just as a n ted
to glve a little in to raatl oth oil that • , Tnan K you •
D.C. H. Speacek 3. Thank You • How did any one on the panel
w is n tip Speak to any of that? Dr - Radio r d, and Dr. Haal 1 ton.
Then I will try to assess the crowd at that poln t-
Ed leianſ. A2Dalachian Research and u2 fense £und and also
[18585 Advisory Coliſhitteei I feel there is a very lap or tant
issue relating to the nealth effects ot electric p Oºde C
transmission which wasn’t covered, and i t e ally fee i that [] R8 ES
has an obligation to get inforia at 1 on on this top lo - I "Ai no t
sure that in any taeube rs of the paſſie 1 would be linvolved in this
issue, but perhaps other people in the audie ſace would nave
lnforiat 1 on and I would urge OR BES to go into this furtner with
perhaps people w a o aren "t ne re. This has to do witn the effects
of Spraying her piclaes under the electric power transal ssion
lines. In West Virg inla we have had coag la in tS for several
years troid people all around the state concern ling prop leas
caused by this application. Up to now, it has been malnly
2, 4, 5-T used on these electric power transmission 11 nes. The
concern for health effects ranges frofu blf tº defects, skin
iſ ritation and cancer . EPA, 1 in Just the past weeks place u a pan
on 2, 4, 5-T, which for years the power companies kept telling us
as as Safe - Gf course, the ſilanufacturers of the C nefalcal is ill
challenge this and the decision could possibly be over turned .
Probably ſadre significant, in terms of what we ought to consider
for the future, is that the companies a l l l try alternative
sprays, 1 - e < 2, 4-D and torqoſh, which also sould have a range of
p o SS lo le nutian n e a ltn e f I ects in add 1 t loſt to e CJ logic 3 L e t t e cts.
Another prop i eta I have is silt n Dr - Pnl ill P S 2 I esentation. He
suſhimarily wrote off the School of though t w nich nas coac 1 uded
that the re are possible nea itn effects, based on research up to
date, from very high voltage translaission lines. I don’t nave
any expertise in this area, myself, but agala feel taat URBES
has an obligation to get l n formatl on troin Soſaepody is ith
expertise from the other point of view on this. I a not sure
tnere 's any one here that can speak to that side of the ques tion
but oo w lously there is aalaal data and Russian researc n uata to .
the other point as Dr. Phillips just said he disagreed a ltn. 1 t.
I would have liked to see niſh go in to specifics as to sny ne
disagreed with it. He didn’t choose to do that. I "d i ike to
ātake on e obser Vation on Dr. #yzga's presentation . I was
fascinated by the industry’s will ingness to dC Cep C tile
–331–
ep 1 Geiſi 10 1 0 glo ai = ork on the unemploy iſ ent and black outs quest lon.
Yet you talk about the ep 1 demiologic work on sulfates and
they "re not quite so ready to accept it.
LEa. tia. Speaceki. i have d iſ eady asked the tº an ei
the lapers -- perhaps I have not got ten to ai 1 of theſa. At out the
A9 ent Ur a rise question, I " i i give a one Sentence response to that
if they don’t feel there *s any thing they can say about 1 t . Dr.
Pnillips, would you like to respond to the question about true
Russian data base la relation to what you Sald?
DEs. Puillies. First I will respond to the second question
concerning other Studle S uſal ch have been conducted 1 in the United
States, and the n answer the first question concer uing the
Russian data Dase. I did not have the opportunity in ſay 30
flinute presentation to discuss the value and shortcomings of
eat iller studies that have been done lin this research area. I
did not mean to give the impresslo n that earlier research nas no
walues This is ſlot the case, of course • There nave peen
Several rather extensive critical reviews of past research.
So the of these appeared within the last year in the open
literature • It is not posslo ie to discuss the ratner aassive
aſbount or research that has been conducted on plo i og loa i et fects
of ELF electroiaagnetic waves. It would require more taue than
we have available in this discussion per lod. In respouse to the
first questl on concerning So Viet research in this a rea, during
the past year I had the opp or unity to visit the Soviet Union and
taik with their scientists as a U. S. participant on two
different U. S. - USSR exchange pro graius • I Drieti y suialaar lzed
soae of their findings in my presentation. I had an opportunity
to taix to the group at an institute in Lenin grad wriq published
soiae or the work at the 1972 Cigre in ee ting, the group doing the
aniãal experimental work at Klew at the Comaunal riy glene
Laboratory and to several groups of sclentls ts at lns titutes in
# OSCO is a we can’t lignore the Russ lail results - Data is data • I
isould be the last one to say that the 1 r data are not va lid.
Pn 11 os op ni cally data ls data ; lit's n e i time r good nor D au. Ho a
Y O Li i ſhi e ſ 9 ſ et Line d did is ail O til e ſ issue • The £e a c e two
potential prop lens with the Soviet research that nas been
conducted to date • First, they use experiſhen tal deslgus and
procedures that are somewhat dispa cate troin acceptaoi e aestern
standards • For example, they do not always use approp r late
control groups in their studies • ‘thls ſhakes lt difficult to
deter in 1ſle ºne the r the effects the y o pset we (1 - e - b0 Hz Lleids,
or what e \re r ) are the result of the agent in question or due to
solae secondary factor ( i. e. teåperatuſ e º a unidity, no is e,
et C e ) • One starts to won der nois one can claim an et tect when
there is no appropriate contro i available to ſhake such a claim.
This situation was not evident at Sew era i lab or a tor les lin
f{QSCO as a Unfortunately, the results of studies from these
laboratories have not been published yet. There appears to pe
–332-
some disagreen ent aſhon 9 War 1 ous Scient 1 I lo group S with in the
Soviet Union concerning the Walldlty of Some of the ear ller
research on effects of 50-Hz electro Ragſletic fields • My present
P OS it loſi is ſhe utſal - Let us wait till aii the data are in
per ore we ſhake judgments. The re ºil i be a ſhe eting alth the
Soviet Sc lentls ts this June in Seattie, as part of this
U. S. -USSR Exchange Pro graia • Both U - S - and USSR scientists will
present their latest results - we should have ſhore in for a a ti on
awal lap i e at that time concern in g the host recent Soviet
tl ndings • -
Dr. d.s. Spenger: Did any one e ise wish to Speak to this
lssue?
Qris flyzga: I think there was a comment in a de ad out ay not
qualifying some of the results of those other Studles. I think
1 f you read ſay paper careful ly, you will see that, in tact, I
did qualify the ſa • Professionally 1 an a statistic Laa and I
be lieve it is an opilgation to ſay profession to scrut in 12e any
result o efore I formally declare ºne the r or not I be 1 lev e i t . I
Silap ly a a de OD servatlons of these C eSuits and ind loate u that
they need scrutiny before we can deter ſaine an ether or not we can
accept theia • Per naps they generate ſhypotheses a nich snould be
tested l n other studies •
D.C. tis. Spenger. Dr. Radford and Dr - Haſa Ll to n, I do
nave a poi1cy of trying to allow all persons to speak. If you
already had solite thing to say, I "a not going to coine pack to you
immediately but I haven "t for got ten that your n and nas been
raised - -
DEa. Sadfatdi, I {l 3 ºf e 3 C Oihálē Il C C O ſlo è C Illſlº the
transportation issue, a question for Saia Morris, and then a
£ Uiſ the I C Oillia ent C, ſº inflat § 62 {C a ſi pe ſhap S call al
conservation/ environſa ental arguaent. The conſu ent relates to the
earlier guest L on about the Sn 19p in g o f was tes, coal or other
in a terials by Da I ges- 1 - as a few is Lºutes i a te Cod ling ii., S dia,
and I may have alssed it, but if you didn’t coſan ent on the use
of r1 ver traffic. for nandling waste or fuels, I als n you sould •
It is Hay under Staſiding that there are de t in lite he al Lin costs
involved in that, too - Barges do get loose and cause war lous
probi eſas. It is particularly relevant to this part of the
country an era a lot of Iue 1 is transported oy pac ge. The
question I nave has to do with your statement • If I in terpreted
you correct ly, you said that the occupational accide ſit Bao r tail ty
in the transportation of coal created in or e deaths tſhaſa in the
faining of coa is Is that a correct state then t?
DEa. Sa. Mig CEls. It depends on the situation • If you look
at a strip ſai ne situation, I think that is true •
–333–
QRa Rag facii. You can qualify it iſ you like but i is ou id
just 11 Ke to ask the question, ; Lil review lºng triat coaclusion
where do you see the grew entive strategies? I aean, a lot of
sh at we are discuss 1 as in this Sy a posium has to do sith
historical trilngs that have gone on ſhow for the last several
decades, and hay involve technology that day be out ot date.
Üne of the things, obviously, we all hope to do by uncovering
these 9 top lea are as is to preven t t nea • in other words, a e
don’t have to accept the tact that, say , 5,000 men d le each year
ãow ling coal around this country. Iſa the future ſhay be there are
things we can do and may be that is part of the cost we are golfig
to build in to the tuel, to 9. That’s what we are talking about
when se protect the environment. So my question is, a Juid you
address t nat?
A Gº a flnal coaſtent With regard to Ron sy Z ga's
presentation • #hat I aſa hear ing is not so much the
confrontation that some people seem to feel - in other sords, I
don’t think that the separate courses are necessar lly paral le i,
never to fleet. It sounds to ſae as thougn anat we are really
Say ling here of this conser V at loſi Versus environia e at argua, ent is
that, I think, se are almost at a polnt a here we can uncouple
environa ental control and environmental costs troia the ultimate
Societal cost or benefit of generating electric 1 ty. 1ſt Q the r
words, i do nºt see that there 1s a one-to-one correspondence
between protecting the environale ſit and tſie t inai cost that is
going to go to the consumer. It is relevant to some of the
things that the critics have just raised - I wish perhaps you
Right speak to that e. -
DEs. Sz. Mg trºlsi. I appreciate Your question very much
because it gives ſhe an opportunity to pusn a point that l try to
ſhake as frequently as I can. I think there are two criter la
that we have to consider when we decide now ſauch p r evention se
want to have • After all, Just because we can calculate anat the
he aitn effect is, really doesn’t say anything about now Huch you
Sno uld the in do to try a ſad I e duc e that nea i th e f { e C t . *3 / J e i t
is already reduced to the maxlſauſa feaslo l e an ourat • Tne flrst
crl terlo n is the to tal impact, and those ace the nulho eſs that I
idas Show ling, So we can coſap are now ſuany deaths per glga watt
electric year in transport, as compared to mining, as coup ared
to air pollution, and give us so ſue idea of snere the Diggest
effect is . That gives us so ſue basis of deciding wner e we want
to put Our ela 2 ha Sls Öſh P C e Weſlti O ſhe But theſe ls aſho the C
criterio m also, and that is the level of ind lu lauai risk - H.
think that that difference ls Very cleaf Wrien you comp are coal
àining is ith the transportation eftects. A 1 thougſ, O laiſ
calculations snow that the per gigawatt Year total ef tect of
transportation accidents and coal mining accide ſits are roughly
the saine, that is within a factor of two or three or soiletning,
tne 1 ridi w idual risk to the coal iaine r is auct higher because the
–334–
nuuber of coal ful ners iſ Volved in 9 D 9 du C in 9 that Cu al per
gigawatt year is much less than the number of people wrie are at
risk of Delng in L L D y freight trains. At least that is true on a
national average basis. The re are probably local situations
wn ere the lindlwl dual risk in a local Co ſtill unity that In as a 10 t of
unlit tra 1 ſh traf f l C is pet hap S ſligh e ſ - 1 could env is luſ, that
tnere are such local S 1 tuatl ons. One indication of that is that
tne Departſaen t of Transportation keep S records on rail rodd
eſhp loyee S win 9 are ki i le d at grade cross lng accidents of I duty,
1n the i r prl V at e i life, ſhot OC Cup at loſia 1 - It is hard to
calculate a rate but there are enougn of them so that the
individual r is K must be nign . I assuſhe it is just because those
people live and travel arouſ, d railroad cross in gs a or e taan the
average person. I nope that answers that part of the quest lon.
ſin oarge transport, the data we na V e been ab is to look at trom
the coast guard on water transport would indicate that the
deathS and injur les lin accidents liſh D arge transport ace
considerably low er than in rall road transport • There is quite a
Variatlo a pe tween linland rive I rates and Great Lakes transport,
though - Great Lakes transport has a nigner C is K, 9 articular ly
occupational risks. I "in not sure, of finand, of the difference in
risk to the public, like small boats oe iſlg run do win-
Drs. Hs. Spenger: I would like just very quickly to answer
*I e i.l gnt on be half of this question to Agent Grauge • Mr.
Light, the URBES Project personnel will not let that go
unnotice d - We are working on 1 to We nave a good deal of data
on the pharmacological effect of that coing ound which goes back
to 1940 up to the present. Now D r - Haſali ton and then Dr.
Zellet, and tals gent leſaan I 1 ght here, and I think Jona Bial r,
have be eſt patient long enough - I’ll recognize Jonn if the re ls
still so he tiae left -
DEs. La Haallianz Brigg &naven. I nave several au estions
for Dr. Pnl liips. The first question is: Are the effects that
you describe linked by some change iſ the in embranes of cells and
I wonde red a net ſhe r they are a 1 1 recover able or w net n e r time y are
9 e º Aaſae (a tº Ha V e y o u aily Q ose I V at loſis on the ſe C 0 V eſ do i li Ly I C on
these effects--in other ºf ords-- their dut at 1 on 7 That is the
flrst question • The second question is this $ In assessing the
health and environfuental ling acts of ene C gy we dould like to
include sofa e quantitative data fro a this question of power
transâission effects. So for this purpose it would be very
he ipful if you would tell us it you nave done any thinking ap out
the Inua D et S of workers that night be exposed to these So r t of
effects, and whether or not the public is inevitably exposed, or
whether they can be adequately Protected by ellm in a ting theſa
from coin in g any is he re near these I lign ts of way? I hean, win at
hazards are the p up lic and occupational people really go in g to
be exposed to? Thank you •
–335-
Dr. Enillipsi Unfortunately, I could only spend 30
Alnutes to cover the tremendous amount of research. To date we
have found very few effects. uf the many systeias we have
examined, the few effects appear to involve the nervous system,
Deſhavior, and in aunology • Jur plans in the lulae a late tuture are
to investigate the relations nip between effects and in agai tu de of
field strength a n d/or duration of exposure, and to exalaine
£e covery I roſt effects to deter thine is net ſhe r such et tects ace
trans l to Ty of per manent. Such data are not awai lap le at this
tline •
Concerning the mechanisa of interaction of fields with
biological tissue, I be ile we research on medabraſies ſuay be a
fruitful area. He currently have a study lin progress that is
address in g potential aeſapſ ane changes by exposure to 60-Hz
electric fields • These are in vitro studies--exper line, its in
shich cells are removed froin the body, exposed to fields, and
then studied. The major issues of concern in tertas or human
nea ith are occupational and genera i public exposures.
Wit ſº regard to occupational exposures, the population
exposed to the largest electromagnetic tie ids are people wind
work in S sitch yards - Just recentiy, within the last year, so the
We ty W aluable data have becoſue availabi e concerniug the
durations and in tensities of exposure to so he of these workers.
Much of these data have not been available earlier because the
is orker is exposed to various field in teſts 1 ties at war lous
durations of exposure throughout his workday in the switchyard.
Recently, a personnel nonitor nas been developed by Dr. Ueno at
Project UHW which gives cuimulatlve exposures althlia vac lous
bands of fleld strengths. Data they are now collectlng with
this new device should provide us with a better est luate of now
long workers are exposed to electric fields and at an at
Streing the Public exposure is nor a dily wery small - Unly a few
people walk under EHW transmission lines • These are the ſun ter's
aſ Cl Că îlp eſ S sho So ſhe ti ſães foli i Qw the transtals slo a line
I l ghts-of-way be cause l t it easle C to walk a long these c i e ared
d iſ © as e T net e a c e i ac Iſle rs, of course, a no gro - C C Q 9 S un de T E H W
transit is sion lines • The general population, as ide frota those
àentioned above, are se idola exposed to electſ otha griet lc tie ids of
EHW i ines. There is not a good quantitative estlinate of the
durations and intens 1 ties of exposure to such group S as nun ter's
and camp ers who waik the transmission corridors -
DEs fia. Spencer: Based on some recent literature, i t nln K
the ſhe in brane question is a dynamite issue • It truly is. Mr.
Zeller, would you go an eaci, and then John Blair -
Tom Zellerz. Indiana State University:. One point i Just
Want to 9 Olſht Oute we have neard a lot of epid effi Lo 10 J ical
studies--animal studies--s not down for statistical reasons, etc.
–336–
and I just 4 as t to polat out tha L works D oth ways - if the
effects are derived trom animal studies you can "t necess a cliy
conclude that there are no effects lit nuisans • Currently the
pollcy is that man-Baade substances have full constitutiona i
rignts and are de e ſhe d 1 (1 no cent unt li P C Q Weſt guilty • If the
burden or pro of 1 S on the Coſì Suitle r. the 9 ſhi y ad W antage 1 can See
is that it ſaakes for great in a terial for epideiaioio glo a 1 studles
lſ, the I u ture •
My questions are as to the separation of conservatlua and
environa ental control -- that "s a good point and I tain k = e need
to go that as āuch as possible z but [ waſ at to po in tout, that
there is one place in win lch they are ſea i i y Connected and you
can 't separate them. It’s the wrid le issue of placing the true
cost on the product, 1 tself, iſis tead of part of trie cost of
production pelng born as social costs and healtſ, costs, unlcn ls
what this illee tiſt g is all about. Until you do that, I go a "t see
now people can Bake true conservation decisions - when I filp on
a lign tº switch, I’m thinking I a a creating a ir pollution and
nuclear saste by doing this aſhd I take that in to account De cause
I know that. But the gener di public doesn’t know that, and the
pe opie i a Fort way ſhe, Indiana, do not know that when Liney turn
[3 ſt the 1 c s is Ltch, they are polluting my alr due to the
Indiana-Michigan Plant down near EWadswl ile, Indlana • So that "'s
one place where, until those environmental controls are put on
that plant, those people in Fort Way Ine are not being adde to
bear the full cost of consuming the lic product aſid there to re
cannot a ake a reasonable Coase I wation decision • But other wise I
a gree ºn lith that 9 Oln te
I would like to ask Dr. Mor Els ap out the impressive ti in
of the transportation of E a dioactive is aste - I ata Liap cessed oy
the efforts that have been aade to contain these wastes during
transportation, and I am not Sure ºn at else you can ask the la to
do e But I do is a ſat to ask, S ince we have been talking a Dout
statistical reilability of tests--how statistic ally sign lificant
a e re L no S e test S 2 B 1 (I trie y do Q fle C asket a coup i e o f t t the s?
Liu they do 1 L S everal tilă es? How slgral ficant L S 9 ſhe test uilder
ideal conditions at the Sandla laboratory is 1 thout taking ln to
account nuſuan error? was it statistically significan ti y done?
Can you answer that?
Drs. Morrisis. I aſu not sure exactly no is to evaluate the
statist L cal Significance of it. Those tests were in the context
of a much larger testing prog raia d'hich involved coup uter
simulation and scale model tests. I believe the ones sno an were
the only ones do ae of the tull scale tests • You say that they
are sort of ideal conditions. I don’t reai i y know that they
were ideal conditions - I think they were purposely des lgae d to
De extreºue cond lti Oris. In other words, most of the trucks that
–337–
are carrying spent fuels are ſlot going to De trave 1111 g at 80
diles an hour. It is very unlike ly that they are going to find
as solid a concrete wall to crash ln to as they did at Sanula e I
don’t tº link they are ideal conditions • I think they were done
as sort G I wer if 1 catlon tests to deteria line ºne ther the t indings
from the scale ào del testing and tſie collapu ter Studies actual i y
nel d up in a fui 1 scale test. I "Hi S of cy that, at least right
now, I can 't reai i y give you a Statistical evaiua tie a or what
triat à e a ſis.
Tail Zellet: I Just aan ted to ask * r - Phil 11ps ad out the
effects of far a lag under those high voltage lines • Are there
any problems with that or are there just no prop leſſas, so that
You can go an eac and farā as noctual?
QEa. Phililies: I can only answer that question from an at I
have read botn in the popular press and troia the very few
scientific papers that have appeared in the literature. The te
have coià 9 laints by farmers, even in the are a where I live. They
complain of spar K discnarges • For examp iè, they drive tractors
under the trans ſaission line, and hay receive Spark a lscharges
when they get on or off the tractor under the 11 ſhe - The ſe may
be coing laints in soiae are as by people who are do in 9 tar ſuing,
1 < e < , p 1 C king crops under a EHW transmission line, especia 1 ly 1 f
they are using any kind of wilre support for the crop - Tue y ſuay
experlen ce spark discharges • All the coup laints that I am a ware
of have been directly related to the Spar K discharge prop lea,
and of course, to the land utilizatl on issue •
Drs. H. Spencer: The gentleſuan in the lignt tan coat
I ‘d like to ask the pane i, to stay another flve ſainutes . I
that al. 1 right with you people? Tneſ e Seeſas to O €
consider able aſſad unt of interest nere • Go r light anea d -
Biznard (Ilrich, Group. Alainst Suoi and £ollutiºn (GASB
Plºtsputini. The first conſient is conce C ſling Dr. Pnll l l ps
result S L na t ſhe p r es ented fro in the 3 at t e i le lab S. The re - ef
Iluſãeſ G us ei. Le C L S Lila t w e ſ e i u L I Guſld 1 iſ tſle S L Li die S S Q Id £ Du C
think that lºt ſhay De We ry important to not lice that one e t tec
can be enough if that effect is a Ser lous enough effect. The
have found two different things right now , the iſnin uno iogy an
the Ileſ V ous Sy Steſia e If these are se Clous enough, l t (lo e Sn"
matter that they have "t found a list of 20 different things.
think this issue ls reflected in other things that nave bee
said, botn this afternoon and earller, about the size of tin
effects that are being measured or not measured. The aniſaa
studies, Dr. Pall lips told ſhe, involved usually about 2
anlúals • To see an effect witn 20 animals, it souet line
requires a ratner large effect. The effect of pollutants i
ep 1 Cleialo i og lotai Studies, partly De Cati Se the poilu tants
themselves, are a easured very badly, and partly pecause ti





















–338-
indlwl dual exposures are ſheasured very badly, as DE • Ferr is
said, trom the Six-City Study ºne re the ind 0 or leve is a c e quite
different from the outdoor levels. A y own assessment of the S02
data is that the neal th cost of S02 could be anywnere troiu
no thing to 20 p 1 1 lion do liars. This is about the Con Ildence
1 lialt that we can place on 1 t, or ſad Y be you could even put it ori
the other side, lt could be nelp 1 ng 10 D illion dollars = orth-
The Slze o I these effects are ſhot Known aſad this relates to that
k1 no of control . we don’t know the cost of these he at tra effects
and the size they could be is a lot pigger than L ſhe poliſh t
estliliates that get ſhade of the ſhe
D.C. H. S.2 sincert: Does anyone on the panel is is n to respond
to that? Dr. Philips, you’re nodding your nead aggressl vely.
Drs. Ptill Ll2s: You add tessed two very in portant issues,
and we are acute ly aware of these issues • Let me a duress the
second question first, about the sensitivity of our tests. iſl
the blological screen lng exper linents, we are using a very or oau,
screening approach . It an effect is see in in a particular study,
the in aſ e look at the systeia i ſi ſãuch a or e depth. Ed Ch
in West 1 g a to r fro a past exper lence in his C es e aſ Cn area, knows
what size population he ſhe eds by naving Knowledge of the test
sensitivity and variance. He will know nos Aany ania in als ne
needs to snow an effect, with 95% con I la ence • Of course, one
nas to oe realistic and welgn cost and effort against the
propapii ity of detecting an effect with a certain test system •
Sofiae b 19 log lica i Systeius ſhay De Baoſ e Sens it 1 we than others •
Utner systems may not be very sensitive, partly reflecting the
tact that some o Lo logical systems nave n1 gn war lap lilty or are
protected by congensatory a echanistas 7 trils can "hide" effects.
In our studies, each investigator is using the ſudst seas ltive
tests ſhe nas to detect effects. This relates directly to your
flirst question: whether one effect can be as làportant as, or
in ore in portant than, 202 Üf course - what a scientist must do
ls first to identity the effects -- w nat biological sys Leas are
Seſh S it l V e - The ex listeſt C e o L Suc n effects have to 9 e c 0 is t l r in ed
by Otnet S in 1 Indepe ſide ſit Studles • Once aſh effect ſhas been
found, you atte up t to deter ſalne the consequences of the e It ect.
This is, you start in-depth studies to obtain a G e t t e iſ
understanding - For examp i e, lin. our Study is e See 3 cn aſage lin
synaptic excitap ill ty. This ls an extreſa ely sensitive test.
This effect may not o'e retiected in the De haw L or or fulictl on ot
the iºnol e o C gaml Să. However, such sensitive tests as this Baay
provide important insignt in to the Hech an i Siu o f l n teract loſis of
electromagnetic fields with plological tissue • Such intocſa a tidn
is needed to deslgn specific tests for poss lo le effects that Inay
De harſaf ul. Also, data froth such studles may provide the
foundation to r epideſalological and clinical studies o a nun ans.
EV entuali i y in 82 need to ex diſtine el the C V Qi utſi te et S {) iſ
occupationally exposed group S - This issue addresses a previous
–339–
questlon frold the audience: can effects occur in numans and not
ln exper lineſ, tal ania als? Yes • The hullian Spec les is We cy.
complex, especially behavioraily - #nat we do in i apot a to ry
studies on anima is is node 1 biological systems and, no petuily,
optal n the bas lc iſ formation that is needed to ſe late trils
lſiſ O C ſºatl O In to the huſhaſa exposure Situation . Eventua liy ,
now ever, you have to be able to relate research results from the
laboratory to numans by conducting studies ( assessine nts ) on ſaari .
QEA. B.A. Spence E. The gentle ſhan at the fourth tao ie here,
and then Mr - dialſ in over t line •
Jaz Beary… iiilſigis Poser. Coſău day: I’d like to just clear
up so the thing for the record as far as the geia tie taaii ti ou the
Appalacn 1 an Research is concerned. It wasn’t clear to ae that
Lt. is a S pointed out exact ly shat happened with the tso
herbicides, 2, 4,5-T and 2, 4-D - it wasn’t a proposed ban or
anything like that • It was an a D So lute pron Lp it ion of using
those two herb ic ides 1 ſafaediately effective ºn en Barbara Blum
made tſhe announce ſuent about three or four deeks ago • i 'd like
to point out that 1 t was oftly the Second t1 ae that the E.P. A nas
done so a ething like this without any detal led Statist lcal
epidemiological studies - C1 early the E. PA thought that triere was
enough e V. laence to take this type of action based on soae
observations that were ſhade on ſals car flages in sofaeſh living in
areas a mere these two agents were broadcast for "r 1 grit of say"
control. The ban went on a little further than just broadcast
applications and couple tely panned the use of them • Gur
particular company has not been broadcasting her pic1 des for so tae
20 years now, although that is not the case with every pody. But
lt was an absolute pan and even reſilo Ves the use of theia trom
selected pasa i spray1 ng. I think that’s gossip ly uſ, I of tunate
because these two digents àignt possibly oe used ln that type of
application in an environſueſ tally acceptabie manner - But at any
rate, it lis a complete ban until 1 further nu tice • I Just wanted
to clear triat up - The other thing I dould like to Speak to, and
this ill a y Surp C is e n iſ a little bl t, Dut it any of the th in ss Dan
Sc near tza aſ spoke ao out e a rile r , I ain in cotap ie te dºg ſee in eat
wl the And I think it’s good that the two S L des, 1 f y ou can
categorize people 1 m to environmental is ts and in dustrlalls ts to r
the t1 ſhe belſlg, their disp aſ lty in Wieś points lis gettling a lot
closer to getner. The one thing I would polnt out to hità ls in a
pass ling coin thent a e laade concernling utlilty rate structures?
that we sno ui d get away troin inverted rates • L "d like to polat
out that utill ties are a "t ln favor of inverted rates Just to r
the sake of being in favor of something - Rate structures
supposedly nave one overly in g principle, and that ls the cost of
Service to the cus to fle r > Where ia'ſ ge cus to ſaers can be served
readliy with a single transmission line, and they take up the
distribution after it gets to the lic point, it costs a lot less
to provide service - with respect to some of the other iteias in
-340-
terms or "time of day metering," and io ad management, to try to
spread out the peak loads and drop the peak i oad a i little D1 t .
Those types of things are beling actively pursued by the
ln dustry, as well as inst litutes such as E. PRI aſid 9 tile L S - I
tn link that a li tilese things are peling considered - Tiley are
looking not only at what they do for the load, but also the cost
of those types o I Seſ V loes of those types 9 tº the ter ling de V 1 Ces •
The industry is do 1 in g 1 ts part lm those are as .
D.E. H. Spencert. Allſ ignt, thank you - I’ll add to that
as Jonn is coaling to the laicrophone - EPA is concerned, as is
the a1 r force, 9 articularly about the CDC K9 it C T e s of the
Ranchand Aircraft. These persons en guited cons laer do i e amounts
of Agent Orange during the Vietnald war and, of course, sutte red.
*ca. Ms. Blalk: A coup i e of points • One of thetu I would
like to ask is about the transportation of nuclear was te: The
Su Dje Cl was D C Quig ſat up ap Out D aſ ge C.I. a ſisp of tatl on e #e il, tile
Hoosier Natlona i Forest has been laentioned as a poss lb le
perlaanent storage site to r radloactive waste - And that Slts on
tne Unio Rlver i in Perry County, Indid na • A nat are the prospects
for parge transportation of radioactive was tes? And if they use
a cask-- like the tow boat that recently sunk in the Ufalo River
near Evans will le- - that took note than tso weeks to raise, what
kind of continge ſıcy plans are involiV ed in Soiâ eth ing like that?
Dr. S. 40 crls :: I am not sure that I can inued lately
answer the questlon • You want to know snat kind of 91 dinning ls
done in case a barge were to sink?
firls. Blair; well, essentlaliy the tirst question is: a C e
barges one transportation ſuo de for radlo active waste?
Drs. Sz. Morrisi; Yes-
*Its Blålr: Ukay • Nina t kind of contin gency plans ? I can
See the se fl 1 ſils and they are truly 1 in 9 ſ ess live drid it does usake
ſae a bei i ever . But it also makes ſhe wonder ap out the nual an
error that is in Wolved in Solà ething 1 1ke that, o ſice one of these
casks sink to the pot to in or the Unio Rlveſ • is lt going to stay
1ntact for the duration of the time lit is go iſ g to take to raise
1 t? does 1 t take a coup le of weeks or a couple of ſm on tins?
DEs. His Spengers. I might give You fair warning that Mr.
Blair is a Pulitzer Prize winner lin news photograpny aiia I think
he is waiting. He is looking tor a subjects You had best pe
car eIul with you r answer -
Dra. Sa. MQCrisis I can’t say specifically an at the
contingency planning for Soſa ething like that ls - it sould
depend on the situation, I guess. As far as in ether the cask
–341-
•ould stay in tact for the time it would take to ralse 1 L, I nave
every reas of to De Llewe that there is ſo difficulty the re. 3ut
I can't say from any specific Knowi edge win at difficult les there
Right be . -
tº ºvº
tn at of 1 glna 1 ly ae were told that it was s are to put this stuff
in 55-gal ion dru is and quulp it in the ocean. Then we were told
it wou id De O Kay it we put lºt in storage tanks or , better, in
undergro urid Salt for that lons- I "in just wonder ling, when the anole
nuclear was te question is really going to be solved?
Mrs. Blalp.3 UKay - what prompted ſay question is the ract
DLA. Es. Spenger: Did you want to respond to that, 0r.
łło r r is 2
DEs. Mokris: I think that at this point 1 d on ‘’t
necess at 1 ly want to respond directly to the question of a neſt are
we going to find a final resting ground for nuclear was tes. I
falght Say, just on a Specific polnt, that the re n as recentiy
been a 2 r og raia at Brookhaven to try to recover some of the 55
gallon dru as that were dumped in the ocean during the 50 °s.
They have successfu i ly recovered a few druths and the idea was to
see whether the re is any probleå, an ether the drums, la f act,
leaked. The ans der is no , they didn’t - The y didn’t tind any
probleſſ, with the drums that they did recover . But that is just
a sort of side-iight issue -
Dris H. Spence E.R. Dr. Haimilton, did you want to speak to
thls G r S oine oth et is Sue?
DEs La tia Hilton: Yes - I just wanted to speak to this
issue be cause i tſal nk it is terribly iap or tant, first of a 1 1, to
Separate transpo ſtation from the question of ultimate a as te
disposal - I th 1 ſix those are two Sep a cate issues • I trilink that
before anybody sould decide on using a site, the y would nave to
do a very thorough specific environmental analysis of all the
routes L J that S i te • I as Suſite that would be p 3 r t w I the
tº C GC eSS • * Q w y Q Li ſãeſ, tl Oil e d Se Weſ a £ till ſigs tºld t led d tile to
believe you are confusing a low-level waste with n ligh-level
is a Stee for exaſaple, the stuff that was dumped in the ocean ln
55-gallon a ruins was low-level waste. The y na We never du lap ed
high- ie wel was t e in 55-ga il on druins in the ocean - And west
Walley, or whatever it is, I always get confused about this
place in New York, the prop i elä there ls of low-level was te . It
is a los - level waste prop led that they haven "t be en a D le to
handie. I think the snole question of the S to rage of n ign- 1 evel
nuclear waste in this country is some thing that has a "t been
Settle d, as you point out. There new er is as a decision vis-a-v 1s
Lyons, Ransas. There is as a decis lon, lif ſhy ſhe ſaory serves ine
correctly, that the A totalc. Energy Coſaſh is slo n had declied to go
to “over-ground engineered storage, " Just at the time Mr.
~342–
Scnies sl n get to ok over the d g efic y - And the in to Snow tſi di the was
a really blºg, to u gri adál in is tra tor, he is a S go iſ g to S h ake thiſ, gs
Li Pe I be 11 eve Enlis ls a talſ app raisal of that - He said, "No,
we are g o iſng to Star t agal (i.” So he bears a Weſ y nea Vy Duc de in of
disrupt 1 mg that particular analysis aſid decision • And the next
tning that happened ls, agal n if my ill elu or y Serves Ine C or I ectly,
thls question of under ground S to I a ge at Kansas a 3S ſalse d as a
possibli i ty, but when they looked in to the are a, ag aſ t t c & a the
pupil C opp Osltl 9 ſl, the lſap or tant thing is that it turned out to
pe ſlot as geologically staple as the Y I list though tº SU lt was
never real i y seriously though t of as a solution. It was ralsed;
there is as a lot of public de Date about it; but it was aeve r put
forward as a definite proposition. And there has been a turtner
consider at lon, as you know, in the New Mexico are a a ſad those
tnings are still under conside ration - I thiſ, K if you look at
tne iatest report that has been issued by the Deutsch Coatal t tee,
you will find that they say, very specifical ly, that petuce they
Choose any indiv 1 dual site, and they de Clde to go to that
particular site, they are goln g to have to do so a e Luc tner
corroborative measur eiàents Defore they ſaake Lſ, e uit lińate
dec isl on • I th liak that is the status of it -- of the lauc lear
aaste disposal probleſh - What we have had, uſi for tuſh a tely , is
what happens trequently an en you nave a sort or crian gling
bureaucracy and you nave not exactly the best bra Lns of the
country concentrating on the problem of h 1 gn level was te
disposal from nuclear power plants because it nas not been an
over riding pressing issue. They have been ab Le to cope - itn it
on a teaporary basis - I think every body fee is this nas ied,
unfortunately, to a great deal of contus lon in the pug lic *s
Balnd. There has been a great ſuisperception of a nat this a no ie
thl ng is about . But I th link that lS real ly, a record of
bureaucratic bungling, rather than the technoi o glo a 1 p coole ta.
However, technological prop leſus still i do reinal n to De Solved and
detachstrated and snown - I think that is a very press in 9 lssue.
DEs. His $22ngeri Ailſ light, Dr - Râd to rd, would you like
to Cali i t qults of t ſi i S p E J C e SS P
DEs. Ea. Radford: I think we ought to put a 11 d on 1 t and
give our pane i a chance to take a break • *e are golfig to be
discussing this very issue to Horrow - all l Rowe w lli be nere to
talk about EPA’s view, for example •
–343–
SESSION V : HEALTH PROBLEMS IN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT
Wednesday morning, March 21, 1979
Moderator: Niel Wald, M.D.
Chairman Department of Radiation Health
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
HEALTH EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION
By
Edward P. Radford, M.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES
By
E. David Harward
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH EXPERIENCE IN NUCLEAR POWER
By
Robert B. Minogue
-344-
HEALTH EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADTATION
By
Edward P. Radford, M.D.
Professor of Environmental Epidemiology
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
–345–
HEALTH EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION
Edward P. Radford, M. D.
Professor of Environmental Epidemiology
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
In this presentation I shall restrict my remarks to the health effects of
low doses of ionizing radiation, such as those associated with most medical
uses as well as exposures occuring to workers in nuclear industries. In
general these cumulative exposures are well below 100 rem, or about 50 times
background or less.
The two effects of interest in this dose range are genetic mutations
resulting from irradiation of the germ cells in the gonads, and cancer producti
from irradiation of cells distributed throughout the body. Genetic damage will
be expressed only in the offspring of the irradiated persons; for some types
of mutations these may be manifested several generations after the event.
Cancer arising from irradiation, in contrast, affects directly the individuals
exposed. Another difference between the genetic and somatic effects is that
cancer (a somatic effect or one affecting all body cells except the germ cells)
usually life - threatening, whereas genetic effects may involve health impacts
that range from mild disturbances in specific body functions to crippling
though not necessarily life - threatening mental or physical disability.
These are some of the reasons that comparison of the health significance
of cancer induction with the genetic effects of radiation is difficult. Anoth
important factor is that we have virtually no direct evidence of genetic effec
Oſl man, most of the evidence being derived from animal experiments. In the
Case of cancer induction, on the other hand, We have a substantial body of
evidence obtained from study of human populations exposed to radiation for
various reasons.
- - –346–
I shall not discuss the genetic effects of radiation in detail, but it is
important to note that whereas in the 1950's genetic effects formed the chief
basis for radiation exposure limits to the general population, since the BEIR I
report in 1972, genetic effects have been considered to be of less importance
than cancer in terms of the total public health impact of radiation. This
circumstance arises not so much because genetic risks are now perceived as less
serious than was thought, but more because the cancer risks are recognized as more
significant now than previously. The chief reason for the rise in risk estimates
for cancer is the longer follow-up of exposed populations, which has brought
to light those radiation-induced cancers with long latent periods to development.
Ionizing radiation is not only the best-documented environmental human
carcinogen, but it also induces a wider range of cancer types than any other
single known agent. We now have about 40 studies of radiation-induced human
cancer which have shown an increased risk of cancers of many kinds. For each
Of the most important types of cancer induced by radiation we generally have
several separate studies, which permits comparisons of the excess cancer risk
per unit dose among these studies. By and large the different studies corro-
borate each other with respect to the particular cancer types under investiga-
tion, a circumstance that adds weight to the resulting risk estimates, especially
in view of the fact that the populations that have been studied are of different
ethnic backgrounds and the radiation exposure conditions have been different.
- Current estimates indicate that about 1 to 3 percent of all cancers in
the U.S. arise from background radiation exposure, on the basis that the linear
no-threshold dose-response curve applies. One to six percent of new genetic
mutations each generation are also ascribed to effects of background radiation.
This quantitative similarity between somatic and genetic effects of background
radiation is consistent with, but does not prove, the idea that mutation of
somatic cells is an important step in cancer induction.
. . . –347–
The sensitivity of various tissues of the body to cancer induction by
radiation varies considerably, but no obvious generalizations emerge in regard
to this sensitivity. Some cancers at sites known to be influenced by hormonal
factors are readily induced by radiation, e.g., female breast and thyroid, but
others are not, e.g., prostate and uterus. Tissues of mesodermal origin are
generally resistant to cancer induction by radiation, but myeloid leukemia is
3 ſ. exception. Mor does the induction of cancer correlate well with the normal
rate of cell proliferation; for example, the small intestine with its high
epithelial turnover rate is relatively resistant to radiation-induced Caln Cer".
Cancers associated with suppression of the immune system are not especially
radiation-sensitive, indicative that such suppression by radiation is not
crucial to radiation carcinogenesis. Considerations such as these emphasize
the complexity of the disease or diseases we know as cancer.
The major radiation-induced Carl CerS are defined by their relative sensitivit
to radiation induction, and by their natural frequency in the human population.
... Rare cancers that are highly sensitive to radiation induction, may be less
important that more common cancers that are only moderately sensitive to radiatio
Thus far, five types of cancer are the major factors in the cancer risk from
radiation exposure. These are cancers of the female breast, thyroid and lung,
leukemia and cancers of the alimentary tract, especially of the stomach and colo
In addition, there are a number of cancers whose induction by radiation is well-
documented, but the risk is relatively less important. These are cancers of the
pharynx, salivary glands, liver and biliary tract, pancreas, urinary tract,
nervous system, bone, skin and the lymphomas. For an additional group of sites
the magnitude of the radiation-induced cancer risk is uncertain. These include
the larynx, ovary, uterine cervix and connective tissues. Finally there are a
–348–
number of cancer types for which there is no evidence of an effect of radiation,
including cancers of the prostate, testis, corpus of the uterus, the mesentery and
mesothelium, and chronic lymphatic leukemia. The fact that such a large array
of types of human cancer have been shown to be induced by radiation suggests
that at high enough exposure and with long enough follow-up essentially any
cancer can be shown to be induced by radiation.
Fetuses, irradiated in utero are highly sensitive to development of certain
cancers, but this increased risk persists after birth only until about the age -
of puberty. After a brief radiation exposure to children or adults, granulocytic
and acute lymphatic leukemia as well as osteosarcomas (bone cancers) induced by
radiation have a short minimum latent period to appearance of the cancer of
two to five years, with eventual dying out of the effect in about 25 years. In
contrast all other radiation-induced cancers in adults have minimum latent periods
of about ten years or more, and with follow-up to the present, excess cancers
continue to appear as long as so years after radiation exposure.
The excess cancer risk from radiation is not necessarily proportional to
the "natural" risk, that is the relativº risk model does not apply in general,
but the effect of age at irradiation or age at cancer development is very impor-
«» tant, an observation suggesting that radiation enhances or triggers the action
of age-specific factors related to cancer induction, factors which are widespread
in the population. Figure l shows a schematic way of explaining the concepts of
absolute and relative cancer risks, as well as the concept of "expression time,"
that is the time that the excess risk is present during the life of the irradiated
person. In each graph the curved solid line is taken as the "normal" or Spontaneous
cancer rate related to age. The upper graphs illustrate the change in risk for
a cancer, such as leukemia, which is expressed only for a limited time. After
–349–
irradiation and a minimum latent period, the cancer rate in the irradiated popula.
tion then deviates from the spontaneous rate, but eventually returns back to it.
This difference in cancer rates permits us to calculate the increased lifetime
risk for that particular radiation dose. The right upper graph shows that if
the individuals are irradiated at an older age the risk may be greater, that
is, proportional to the spontaneous risk at that age. In this sense the risk
is "relative," in that it is proportional to the spontaneous rate.
The two lower graphs illustrate the case where the expression time is
assumed to last for the lifetime of the irradiated population. As in the first
graph, upper left, irradiation is at a young age. In one case, at the left,
the risk is assumed to stay constant, in terms of an elevated cancer rate,
throughout the rest of life. In the other, on the right, the risk is elevated
in proportion to the natural cancer risk. This latter model of the cancer effect
is called the "relative risk model" and gives higher estimates of the cancer
risk than the former, called the "absolute risk model."
Age at irradiation is thus an important factor affecting radiation risk.
Figure 2 shows this effect for the Japanese A-bomb survivors. On the right,
the excess cancers per unit radiation dose is plotted against age at irradiation.
The excess for leukemia is shown as well as the excess of all cancers except
leukemia. For leukemia the risk is high in childhood, decreases to a minimum
and then increases with advancing age. A similar pattern is shown for other
cancers. On the left the risk relative to the spontaneous rate is shown. This
decreases from the childhood period and then remains relatively constant, indica
ting that the relative risk model is appropriate.
Figure 3 shows the same type of information for a group of British patients
with an arthritic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, given deep X-ray therapy to
the spine for treatment of their symptoms. These patients have now been studie
-350–
for over 20 years, and have been found to have an increase in cancers of various
types. This increase is shown plotted against age at irradiation, and also
relative to the spontaneous rate (observed over expected ). A pattern similar
to the Japanese A-bomb survivors is evident. &
Recent evidence from human follow-up studies. Continue to be consistent with
the dose-response relationship for cancer induction being linear without a thres-
hold; new data showing excess risk of several types of cancer are now available
in the range of doses from a few rads to 50 rad. The evidence for a linear dose-
response curve for leukemia is less certain. Women have a greater total radiation-
induced cancer risk than men because of their greater sensitivity to breast and
thyroid cancer. We have reason to suspect, moreover, that some subsets of the
population are more sensitive to cancer induction by radiation, but the significance
of such groups On dose-response data for whole populations is not known at present.
Figure 4 shows recent dose-response data on lung cancer in Czechoslovakian
uranium miners, with excess cancer per 1000 miners plotted against radiation
exposure in terms of "working level months." This unit expresses the product
of the duration of underground exposure in months, times the concentration of
daughters of radon gas present at the work sites, given in a standard unit
called the "Working Level." It is the short-lived daughters that irradiate the
- bronchial tissue with alpha radiation and initiate bronchial cancers.
If you look carefully at the points at the lower doses, you will see that
they can be fitted with a curve that bends over slightly and is concave downward.
That is, lower doses are somewhat more effective per unit dose than the higher
doses. It is also of interest that recent data from other miner groups and the
Japanese-A-bomb survivors indicate cigarette smoking acts primarily to shorten
the latent period to onset of bronchial cancer, and that the combination of smoking
and radiation exposure leads to a cancer risk that is not much more than additive
for those two cancer inducers.
- –351–
Finally, I present dose-response data for the Japanese A-bomb survivors,
primarily because the information at low doses of radiation is quite extensive.
Figure 5 shows the data for leukemia in Hiroshima obtained from the Leukemia
Registry. Excess risk is plotted against the mean dose to the bone narrow,
with a correction to take account of the greater cancer-producing effect of
neutrons compared to gamma rays. The best fit to the data in the lower dose
range is a line with a slight upward curvature.
Figure 6 is the same plot for the Nagasaki survivors, with identical
lines drawn through the data points. Because the study group in Nagasaki is
so much smaller than in Hiroshima, the error limits for Nagasaki are larger,
and thus the precise dose-response relationship is less certain, but the curve
in Figure 6 is identical with that for Figure 5. -
Figure 7 shows the dose-response data for the incidence all the major
radiation-induced cancers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the period 1959-1970,
Or from 14 to 25 years after exposure. The straight lines are weighted regression
lines, and fit the data well. * -
In summary, we now have have a substantial body of human data which permits
us to estimate cancer risks from irradiation, at least under conditions similar
to those of the groups that have been studied. Our knowledge of possible genetic
effects of radiation is limited to extrapolation of results from animal studies,
but the numerical estimates of risk at low doses are similar for those of cancer,
In both cases we apply the linear, no-threshold dose-response curve, not because
the data conclusively prove its applicability, but because of experimental
support for this model and because no other approach fits the facts better at
this time.
-352- .
FIGURE 1
FINITE EXCESS RISK
til RADIATION. 2---,
Hº INDUCED Aſ
RADIATION. ~f~~
§ INDUCED cancers
Cº. CANCERS MINIMUM |
§ MINIMUM \__
2. LATENT A.
< PERIOD A Sº
O &
IRRADIATION AGE
LIFETIME EXCESS RISK
“ABSOLUTE RISK " * RELATIVE RISK."
*. - - Aftº
g *: RADIATION. A. . .
<!. * . . . -
Cº.
Q:
§ MINIMUM
2. LATEND
<C PERIOD
O , \
Some models of the effects of radiation exposure in relation to age. In
each of the four graphs, the spontaneous cancer rate for a group is assumed
to increase progressively with age, with the total age range covering the
lifetime of the individuals exposed.
Upper graphs, Left: Irradiation at a young age, and with the excess
cancer risk increasing and then decreasing after a period of time (finite
excess risk model). After a minimum latent period, usually several years,
before any cancer excess is observed, the excess number of cases is given
by the area under the dashed line. -
Right: Irradiation at an older age. The same time course of excess
cancers is observed but a greater effect is present because the older
individuals are more susceptible to radiation-induced cancer.
Lower graphs: Two possible results for radiation-induced cancers which
have an increased risk lasting for the individuals' lifetime. Left: After
the minimum latent period the cancer rate rises above but parallels the
spontaneous rate. Right: After the latent period the cancer rate increases
in proportion to the rising spontaneous rate. The former situation implies
that the excess risk does not change with the rising sensitivity to spon-
taneous development of cancer, and is sometimes referred to as the "absolute
risk" model. The latter case implies that those factors responsible for the
increasing spontaneous cancer rate are also active in enhancing the radiation
effect, and is referred to as the "relative risk" model. We do not yet know
which of these two models may apply for those cancer types that may show a
lifetime increased cancer risk after irradiation. -











-353–
FIGURE 2
24 ſº RELATIVE RISk ABSOLUTE RISK - 12
* - LEUKEM! A
20 k. - ALL CANCER - 10
- - - - Al-L, EX. LEUKEMi A
i
12$6
ºº
8
Sºo
* Risk of 100+ rad relative to 0-9 rad
Effect of age at radiation exposure on the subsequent cancer risk. Data
for leukemia (heavy solid lines), all cancer (light solid lines) and all
cancers except leukemia (dashed lines) for survivors of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Followup 1950–74. The data are plotted against
age at the time of the bombing (ATB) in 1945. - - '.
Right graph: Excess cancer deaths per million person-years per rad for
all exposed groups. Both for leukemia and for all cancers except leukemia
the minimum excess risk is observed in the 10–19 age group, and rises
progressively with age, in accord with the spontaneous rate among Japanese.
Left graph: Cancer risk for the heavily exposed group (100+ rad)
relative to the risk for the low-dose group (0–9 rad), equivalent to a
control group. For all cancers, the relative risk is highest in children
and remains comparatively unchanged in adults, although for leukemia there
is a suggestion of a minimum among the 35-50 year-old group. These results
support the relative risk model at least for the effect of age at the time
of radiation exposure.
Data from: Beebe, G.W., Kato, H. and Land C.E. "Mortality Experience of
Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–74." Radiation Effects Research Foundation,
Life Span Study Report 8, 1977.


–354-
FIGURE 3
S 29 80 69 G-#.
- 250
ro
:
2.0 - + 200 ;
cº-
.ſ 3,4-obs/exp. & \
X- * p -r * *
º Y. - 150 <
\, z:S
# : Fº *. • * _*
rº * , ,” g
3; 1.5 + Yor * H 100 :
c. º O-------- O *.
3. |- *
S wº
# Mº excess risk + 90 ×
1-0 |- ū † TJ T lº i 0
<25 25-34, 35-44. A5-51, >55 .
age at first treatment (years)
Effect of age at irradiation on subsequent cancer risk. Data are for
British patients with ankylosing spondylitis given x-ray treatment to
the spine and pelvis 1935–54. Follow-up to 1970. Data are plotted by
age at time of x-ray treatment; number of observed deaths along top of graph.
Closed circles and solid line, right ordinate: Excess cancer deaths
per 100,000 person-years at risk. The excess risk rises progressively
with age at exposure, in the same way that the spontaneous rate in the
general population does. -
Open circles and dashed line, left ordinate: Ratio of observed number
of cancer deaths to number expected from age-specific rates for British
population. The relative risk is highest for the youngest group, but is
relatively constant for the older groups. Again the data support the
relative risk model applied to the age at irradiation.
Data of Smith, P.G. and Doll, R. Age and time-dependent changes in the
rates of radiation induced cancers in patients following a single course
of x-ray treatment. Proc. Int. Atomic Energy Agency Symposium on late
biological effects of ionizing radiation. Paper LAEA-SM-224/711 Vienna,
1978. - -



–355–
FIGURE 4
IOC)
~ | i |
Q |OOT2CO &OC) 6OO
| l 1 -
Curnuloted exposure in WLM
Excess lung cancer risk from inhalation of radon daughters. Czechoslovakian
uranium miners studied from 1950 to 1973. Ordinate: Excess lung cancers/1000
miners. Abscissa: Exposure to inhaled alpha radiation in units of "Working
Level. Months," a unit which takes account of the radon daughter concentration
times the number of months of exposure during the work. Error bars represent
90% confidence limits.
Data of Ševc, J., Kunz, E. and Plaček, W. Lung cancer in uranium miners,
and long-term exposure to radon daughter products. Health Physics 30:
433–437, 1976. dºº- w Te

=356=
FIGURE 5
i I T i
CONFIDENCE LIMITS 80%
(NEUTRON RBE = 10)
O ſjö 200 300 400
MEAN BONE MARROW DOSE (REM)
Dose-response relationship between radiation exposure and leukemia risk,
Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors, Leukemia Registry data. Abscissa: Mean
bone marrow dose in rem, with assumption of a quality factor (RBE) of 10
for the neutron component of the exposure. Error bars are 80% confidence
limits for each point. Ordinate: Leukemia rate, cases per thousand
exposed. The straight line is fitted by eye, as is the curved line, which
appears to fit the data better. The point for the highest dose is not
included because it is probably in the dose range where cell-killing may
reduce the leukemia risk per unit dose.
Data from: Beebe, G.W., Kato, H. and Land C.E. "Mortality Experience of
Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–74." Radiation Effects Research Foundation,
Life Span Study Report 8, 1977.

–357–
FIGURE 6
3OH- * scE
CONFIDENCE LIMITS 80 % +
2
O
k-E
|O
(NEUTRON REE = 10)
O |00 200T 300
MEAN BONE MARROW DOSE (REM)
Same data for leukemia risk in Nagaski as for Hiroshima shown in Figure 5
The error limits are larger because the Nagasaki study group is much smal
than that for Hiroshima, but the same curve as for Hiroshima fits the dat
reasonably well. The neutron component of the Nagasaki bomb was small
compared to the Hiroshima bomb, but application of a quality factor of 10
for neutrons appears to be suitable to bring the data for the two cities
into consonance within the reliability of the data.
Data from: Beebe, G.W., Kato, H. and Land C.E. "Mortality Experience of
Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–74. "Radiation Effects Research Foundation,
Life Span Study Report 8, 1977.




–358–
FIGURE 7
7
Fº
7.
º
6
5
4
:
3
F-
3
HIROSHIMA 1959-1970 * * NAGASAK, 1959-1970
BOTH SEXES 2+ BOTH SEXES *
2
CONFIDENCE LIMITS 80 %
NEUTRON REE = 5
O ſoo 200 300 400 O |00 200 300 400
MEAN TISSUE DOSE (REM)
Dose-response relationship between radiation exposure and total cancer
incidence for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Data from tumor registries in
both cities, but ascertainment of cases more complete for Nagasaki than for
Hiroshima. Followup l959-1970. Abscissa: Mean tissue dose in rem, with .
assumption of a quality factor (RBE) for neutrons of 5. Ordinate: age-
adjusted cancer incidence, cases/1000/year. Error bars are 80% confidence
limits for each point. Straight lines through the points are weighted
regression lines. - - -
Data courtesy of Dr. C. E. Land


–359–
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES
By
E. David Harward
Environmental Projects Manager
Atomic Industrial Forum
-360-
Environmental Exposures from Nuclear Facilities
E. David Harward
Environmental Projects Manager
Atomic Industrial Forum
Presented at the
Symposium on Energy and Human Health:
Human Costs of Electric Power. Generation
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 19–21, 1979
After Dr. Radford asked me to speak at this conference the
other day, I started looking for the data which I thought might
best represent the environmental radiological impact of the nuclear
power industry. I came to the realization that radiation protection
now suffers from paper proliferation the way everything else does
with the enormous quantities of data now available. At that point
I also wondered whether I had contributed to the current flood of
data in my former role of bureaucrat with the Public Health Service
and EPA. In a paper before the l970 Annual Meeting of the Health
Physics Society, I had uttered the phrase". . . It is my opinion that
some of the public relation problems the nuclear power industry is
now facing could have been lessened if early in the game detailed
data from operating nuclear power plants had been made available
to the health and scientific community for interpretation to the
public in terms of radiation dose to people."
Now hopelessly caught up in a web perhaps partially of my own
spinning, I will attempt to bring you a perspective as to the
radiological impact of the generation of electric power by nuclear
energy. None of the data I am using have originated with the nuclear
industry; it is largely from the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the recent draft Interagency
–361–
• *
Radiation Task Force Report by the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare. At the risk of involving you in a numbers game, I
feel compelled to use these data as the only way in which such an
impact can reasonably be demonstrated. Qualitative comparisons are
helpful but generally inconclusive. Both quantitative and
qualitative analyses are, of course, open to argument. I have
attempted to use data that are representative and I believe, within
the range of values that are accepted by the majority of the
knowledgeable scientific community. -
I would like to show you a table that hopefully will help
place in perspective the total contribution of nuclear power
generation and its component parts to the total United States
population radiation exposure. The sources and the corresponding
cumulative doses in person-rems per year are from a table in the
recent HEW draft report of the Interagency Task Force on the
Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation: I have added two columns:
potential health effects and percent of total U.S. cancer deaths
that might be attributed to various sources of radiation using the
linear non-threshold concept. ' A conversion factor of lod potential
health effects for each million person-rems was used: Please note
that I carefully use the word "potential" when speaking of health
effects throughout these remarks. From this table, perhaps one
percent of the total of 390,000 U.S. cancer deaths per year might
be statistically attributable to radiation, of which roughly half
might be natural background related and nearly half related to the
healing arts, largely from the use of diagnostic X-rays. I say
this realizing there may be certain synergistic effects that are
not yet fully understood between radiation and other substances.
-362–
My remarks will be addressed to the nuclear power industry com-
ponent of this table which might account for some one-thousandth
of the total radiation-induced health effects to the general
public.
I would like to review the environmental radiation protection
standards and regulations that are applicable to the nuclear power
industry. Perhaps after this discussion, when you read the many
reports of federal agency overlaps in the control of radiation,
you will have a better understanding of what the problem is.
Table 2 shows the present basic U.S. radiation protection
guidance for the public developed by the former Federal Radiation
Council whose responsibilities were given to EPA with formation
of that Agency in 1970? These guides, in existence for many years,
are used by all federal agencies involved in protecting the general
public from radiation. Guides are also available for occupational
radiation exposure.
Table 3 shows the NRC objectives for light water reactor
waste treatment system design, Appendix I to lo CFR Part 50 4.
These guides were promulgated in 1975 after some three years of
public hearings. The NRC implements these numerical values as
operating limits in the technical specifications of the license
for each nuclear power plant in addition to reviewing the capability
of radwaste treatment systems design during the licensing process.
In addition, NRC regulates licensees according to lo CFR Part 20,
Standards for Protection Against Radiation.* Part 20 contains the
detailed regulations which must be followed by a licensee during
operations to assure public health and safety. Accompanied by
detailed isotopic analyses of effluents, a comprehensive environ-
mental surveillance program and reporting mechanism is provided.
–363–
After some seven years of development, the Environment
Protection Agency in 1977 promulgated their environmental
standards for the uranium fuel cycle (40 CFR 190) which are
being implemented by the NRC.” These are shown in Table 4.
These standards are effective December 1, 1979, except for
uranium milling operations (December 1, 1980) and krypton-85
and iodine-l29 which are effective January l, 1983. These
latter two standards (krypton-85 and iodine-l29) apply generally
to the fuel reprocessing component of the nuclear fuel cycle . .
which, of course, is currently non-operable under U.S. policy.
Another applicable EPA standard is the regulation for
public drinking water which is shown in Table 5.6 This is a
regulation to be implemented by state authorities but has been
incorporated into NRC model radiological technical specifications
3.S guidance to NRC licensees.
Table 6 shows two EPA authorities that are potentially
of real significance. Another layer of regulation was applied
to many industries including nuclear power in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 when radiological provisions were included
for the first time. The inclusion in the amendments of radiation
WàS not well-known at the time but the wording of the Committee
report made it clear that it was intentional.” EPA is now in the
process of determining how to implement this Act and certain
administrative actions must be taken by them by August, l'979.
Hopefully, NRC will be the regulating agency for this Act under
EPA auspices in the case of nuclear facilities; this appears to
be the direction things are headed. However, the Act also makes
it possible for states to control air emissions from these facili-
ties, undoubtedly a complicating factor. One state has already
-364–
taken initial steps to control such emissions.
Finally, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act contains
provisions for providing water quality guidance to states? An
example of the regulatory complication that could result is a
recent radioactivity guide for Great Lakes water developed by
EPA and the canadian authorities under the aegis of the Inter-
national Joint Commission? A radioactivity objective of one
mrem per year was written for Great Lakes water based on a con-
sumption of 2 liters per day. This objective potentially can be
used by states under FWPCA to establish water quality criteria,
thus inserting an additional regulatory layer.
Now that we have reviewed the various regulatory controls
imposed on nuclear facilities, let's look at some of the estimated
radiological impacts associated with the various components of
the nuclear fuel cycle listed in Table 710 These are listed in
their general order of occurrence during the operation of the
fuel cycle. You can see that over half of the impact might result
from fuel reprocessing which, as I mentioned earlier, is not
operating at the present time. The next highest impact results
from the mining of uranium, primarily through the release of radon.
Radon also is the major emission from the tailings resulting from
milling operations. If one uses the linear concept, the potential
health effects for each 800 MWe reactor and its part of the sup-
porting total fuel cycle are about 0.056 per year although this
number probably needs additional scrutiny...It might be slightly
higher. If one extrapolates this to the current number of operating
nuclear plants in the U.S., there is very close agreement with the
HEW draft report table which indicated some 5.6 potential health
effects in l978.
- –365-
It is of interest to discuss several specific radionuclides
resulting from the production of nuclear power because of their
unique properties and characteristics. The first radionuclide
in this category is radon-222, a naturally occurring radioactive
gas having a half-life of 3.8 days. It has been estimated that
some l ()0 million to 240 million curies are released to the U.S.
atmosphere each year, normally through the earth's crust. Many
factors influence the exposure of people to radon. Homes built
of concrete, stone or brick can have concentrations of radon three -
to Seven times greater than typical outside air. Things such as
agricultural practices, closing of windows in homes, home insula-
tion, whether the home uses natural gas or not (which contains
radon) may influence the levels of radon to which one is exposed.
Dr. Leonard Hamilton of Brookhaven National Laborator; has estimate
incremental doses from the fuel cycle using doses to the bronchial
epithelium reported by the United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR}} He has estimated that
the one year's operation of a l, 000 MWe nuclear power plant at a
capacity factor of 65 percent would result in an increased dose
to the bronchial epithelium of less than one-thousandth of a
mrem/year (2.5 x 154) from the mining and milling of uranium to fu
the plant. If one follows through Dr. Hamilton's assessment, the
risk of developing lung cancer from naturally emitted radon is
7 times greater than developing lung cancer from
about l. 5 x 10
radon resulting from the fuel cycle.
These data were presented before an NRC Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board at a hearing on the Perkins Nuclear station in
May, 1978. The Board ruled that the release and impact of
radon-222 associated with the uranium fuel cycle were insignifical
–366–
in striking the cost-benefit balance for the Perkins Station.
Nevertheless, there does remain some concern about the national
average impacts of radon resulting from man's disturbances of the
earth's surface from various activities such as mining of minerals.
EPA did not include radon in their uranium fuel cycle standard
mentioned earlier. However, that Agency is evaluating radon from
the standpoint of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the story on
that still remains to unfold. It should be mentioned that the
radiological impacts within close proximity of uranium mills are
of more concern because of the presence of tailings, and consider-
able effort is underway by NRC to control this source of radiation
exposure through stabilization of the tailings. I did not have
available to me a new report which should be issued shortly by
NRC which was prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory!” This
report will assess the radiological impact of radon-222 from
uranium mills and other sources and should be an important reference
on this subject and may clarify some of the uncertainties in this
all-ſea e -
Another radionuclide of some interest is carbon-l4 which is
produced in nuclear reactors, largely in the fuel, but also in
primary coolant. This nuclide may be potentially of greater dose
significance than krypton-85 for which EPA has established a
standard. However, since it is largely released during fuel
reprocessing which is not now being performed, there would be
time to more fully evaluate control techniques." Although there
is no present cost-effective control technology for carbon–l4
removal, it is belived that certain existing krypton-85 recovery
Systems can be used for its removal. There has been some concern
about the cost-effectiveness of krypton-85 control technology**
–367–
However, this doubt may completely vanish if these systems are
shown to have the capability for removing carbon-14 which is of
potentially greater dose significance. Carbon-l4 and radon-222
achieve their importance despite low per-capita doses largely
through the exercise of multiplication of these extremely small
doses by billions of people over long periods of time. Some
people believe it is necessary to consider these materials for
long periods because today's activities in the fuel cycle result
in continuing releases of radon-222 and the persistance of the
long-lived carbon-l.4.
I would like to leave with you some comments on the high-level
radioactive waste issue. Although Dr. Rowe will be addressing
this subject in depth later in the program, I think those aspects
relating to the radiological impact should be mentioned in this
review of nuclear facility impacts. EPA is now in the process of
completing a detailed impact analysis of high-level waste disposal
in connection with the development of an environmental radiation
standard. To my knowledge, it is the most detailed analysis
undertaken to date. They have evaluated the total radiation
impact over a period of lo, 000 years in a geological formation
under very pessimistic assumptions and have found that there
might be a potential lo 0-l, 000 health effects as a "high value"
over that period of time, with a "low value" four orders of
magnitude less. These were the numbers reported to the House
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment by EPA staff in
January.” Discussions with EPA staff personnel since that time
have indicated that their "high value" is probably closer to
50-100 potential health effects over 10,000 years or somewhere
in the order of one one-hundredth of a health effect per year.
–368–
Furthermore, EPA has reported what everyone with a knowledge of
plutonium behavior has known, that plutonium is highly immobile
in geologic formations and, as such, contributes less than one
percent to the total health impact of high-level waste disposal.
Thus, one of the most rigorous analyses available has shown that
geological storage of high-level wastes can be achieved safely
even under adverse conditions, although all efforts will be made
to choose the safest site possible. It appears that the major
remaining hurdle is to somehow get the U.S. waste disposal
project moving in a forward direction.
In closing, I would like to state that much has been done
to make nuclear power safe from an environmental and health
standpoint. The potential impacts are small and indeed at
least as small as other electrical energy alternatives. In
this connection, it is my opinion that comparative risk analyses
of the various energy options should be continued and refined.
From my experience in environmental health, I believe that
nuclear will come out well. However, whatever options are
chosen to generate electricity, I am convinced that this nation
will need the energy and need it badly in the near-term as well
as the long-term and is in every sense of the word a public
health benefit. The continued protection of the public health
in the process is uppermost as a priority, but the general
welfare of the public is also important, and that is coupled with
the availability of energy at a reasonable cost. I believe the
health impacts of all viable forms of energy can be made acceptable,
but without the necessary energy available, many people both here
and abroad may suffer needlessly.
–369–
| ||
* N0 1 10n03}} 3HnsodXį NO ILV IGwy! No dno89 ×
000'06，
· 280’h-ŻOºſi
GI000' 09'0
HT00' 09 "G
†100'0G'9T
#10' 0–GZ0' 009T-00T
9 ſq '0O08’T
GZ0'0| –00T
|
{|-
!
"}}}{{ºff}}ĐNIZ INO Į NO}};{º}}}||,}}}}}}}}}}|
O-}
|
|| 3H1 +Ö L HOd38
SHIVB(I 830NWO TwmNNŲ
VAG WOH + (131dV(IŲ
30 HB8wnN
TVLO I SL.03.43] HITVAH TV 11N310.}
|; ; ; , †
000 º 9
000 (9G
000 º G9I
000‘009’T-000’000’T
000’000’8T
000‘000 ºT
000’000’07
(KIUJ}}}}}}
HV3), H3g （SW3}-NOS833
-ſi ſſ Y-ſ{|
{----}Cſſ ſ
S10nq084 HEWnsNO3
Å983NȚ HV3TonN
ººſſſſſ|}}}|,}} }}}}}}}}
3
º INEWdOTHAH(I SNOdVEM
1mOTTw4
snoavāſ vāTonſ
S18|| 9N i TV3||
q30NVHNȚ ATTVO 100 TONH93||
GNmo89X0wg. Tvºn LVM
358 TŪS
8/6I - SHIVNI ISH HINSOdXE NOIIVIŅd0d TVENE)'S':[]


–370–
HV3A/WBHW DZI
X_L I T1 I OW – NO I 1\/ I CIV}} \} \{\/E|N
NO ILV Indod (I3sodX3 +0 +Tawws 3Tqw11nş
Hva√wał w OOG
NO I LVTndod Twº BN39 NI STVnq I A1 (INĮ
NOIIWTÍld0d TWHENH9 H0H SE(II/19 NOI 10310}{d NOII WICIWM
TION[100 NOI|\|[([\ſ\! T\}\}}[[H+
–371–
HVHA/w3&W GT
8VHA/WH8W GT
HVHA/WH&W G
8VHA/(IV&W 0Z
HVHA/(IV8W OT
8VHA/WH8w OT
8VHA/WB8W g
savulva TV woºd wouo Any ol HSO(|
| | salvino lava any sanidoroidvº
| | | TVn(IIA1(INI NV 30 NIXs ol āso(I
Twnq IAI (INI NV HO Adog TV101 ol āsoſ
§ IV N1 Hsod Vlaq
§ IV Ni Hsod VWWV)
(A8VGNnod 31 Is LV) slMan T443 swo aidoN
SAVMHIVá Tiv WOH3 NV380 ANV 01 asoſ
SAVMHLVd TTV WOHA Adog TV101 01 HSO(I
slNania-3 (IIſho IT
(qnnoºxovg
HAOqw (IHITadv) SLNan Taia Holovă8 HalwM 1H917 HOV3 NI Wyly 9N i i23W HO-
ſ
NO || || V83d O & O- SNO I LIGNOJ 9N I if WiT CINW SEA i33ſ 80 N9 ISBCI HO3 S3
9 TV9183WnN
09 LöVd H-0 01 01 | XI(IN3ddW
SN0; iWTſIQ3\} NOISSIWW00 AHOLWTIſ, 33}| \{WETOſlM

§
}| | | | |
HVHA HNO. NVHI HALVH89
SHA IT-3 TWH HL IM SĘCI I TOQNO I CIV}}
0 INV（InsNV8|| 9NILI IW3–WHATV JEHLO
(INV 69Z–Wn INOLT Td 40 SE I Hn9 ITT IW G '0
| | | | |
6ZI-HNICIO I JO SE I Hno ITT IW q
G8-NOldÅ HX 30 SB 1800 000 º Og
| NWHL SS.371 E 8 0 1 Å9?|B|N}}
TV3) I H13)3713 -10 || || WMV9 i 9 \}={c} |N|EWINOYJ I ANH T\/\{|NH9
OL STW I HELVW HAI 10wOICIWA JO ALI INVno TV10||
HVBA/W3 HW GZNV980 H3H10 ÅNW OL ºso(I
8V3A/W38W G/(I 108ÅHL OL 3S0(!
HV3A/W38W GZTwnq I AICINI NV HO AGI08 TV101 01 asoq
06I 18Wd }}-{0 0h
HT|0}\0 TH||-||Wf][NWH[] HH|| H0-ſ (THW (INWIS TWINE||WNOHHANH
THWHIHNH9 ÅONE|9\] N0 I 105|10}{d TWINE|WN0}} I \NE
–373–
IABLE 5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS
FOR RADIONUCLIDES IN DRINKING WATER
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
COMBINED RADIUM-226 AND RADIUM-228 5 PCI/LITER
- GRoss ALPHA Act IVITY 15 PCI/LITER
(ExcLUDING RADON AND URANIUM)
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION FROM
MAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDES (EXCLUDING ALPHA)
SHALL NOT PRODUCE DOSE TO TOTAL BODY OR
ANY INTERNAL ORGAN GREATER THAN H MREM/YEAR
(BASED ON 2 LITER PER DAY WATER INTAKE)
IABLE 5
OTHER EPA AUTHORITIES
WHICH IMPACT ON NUCLEAR FACILITIES
• CLEAN AIR Act AMENDMENTS OF 1977
• FEDERAL WATER Poll_UTION CONTROL ACT
GUIDANCE, TO STATES FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
–374-
}}}}}}LNWT）;
E
BMW 008 H3d S1033+5
HITVAH TVILN310） 960'O
--NV/
}}0 SW3W 8GG.
6'8
I'T
029
9900"|0
T9
8łI'0
ZZ0'0
6'9
ŞWEWENWRITTNETWIIWWC
3SOGI WCIOȘI TV10|| 31 IS-340
. — *
NO IL 1.13d HBX 0 I NOII 01 BSNOds38 JAVIS QIN WOH-]
|
TV101 AH1SnCINI
1NEW39VNV|| 31SVM
NO I LW18O4SNV8||
9N I SS3008d3}
39wHOLS THn+ q3LW I CIV88||
SLNānTH+] HOLOVEY, 83 LVM LH9 IT
tNoi Ivo 188v）, Tāng Zon
LNHWH01 HNȚ
NoisſãANO) ºn
ĐNI TT1||
9N IN I'W
INāNJāRŪJIETJAJTEITTHVETJTIN
\|\ſ|\-IMWº 008 HB|d | NHW11 WW00 HS00
HVEM DOI NOIIVIŅd0d'S':[] ([T]|\]\WIŁ SIĘ
ZIȚIȚWI

–375–
10.
ll.
l2.
REFERENCES
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Draft
Report: Interagency Task Force on the Health Effects of
Ionizing Radiation, February, 1979.
The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on
the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. National
Academy of Sciences National Research Council. November.
l972. (BEIR I) .
Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards. Report No. L. Federal Radiation
A-
Code of Federal Regulations. Title lC. Energy (Regulations
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Revised as of
January l, l979.
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Protection of
Environment. (Regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency). Revised as of July l, l977.
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation. EPA-
570/9-76-003. Office of Water Supply. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977.
Conference Report. Clean Air Act Amendments of l977. U.S.
House of Representatives Report No. 95-564. August 3, l'977.
Clean Water Act of 1977. Public Law 95-217, December 27,
1977. -
Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 65 - Tuesday, April 5, 1977,
pp. l8l.7l-l817.2. Department of State notice of report of the
International Working Group on Radioactivity Objective for
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Response to the Jeannine
Honicker Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action: An
Overview Regarding Radiation Exposure as Related to the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 1978.
Testimony before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of : Duke Power
Company, Perkins Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. STN 50-488,
50-489 and 50-490. May, l078.
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations.
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
1977 (Report to the General Assembly) .


–376–
l3.
lA .
lS.
l6.
Travis, C. C. et al. A Radiological Assessment of Radon-222
Released from Uranium Mills and Other Natural and Technologi-
cally Enhanced Sources. NUREG/CR-0573. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory report for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Public Health Considerations of Carbon-lº Discharges from
the Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Industry.
Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-3. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, July, l976.

Final Environmental Statement: 40CFR1.90 Environmental
Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations
of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle. EPA 520/4-76-016,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation
Programs. November l, l976. 4.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives, January 25, l'979. Dr.
James E. Martin and Mr. Daniel J. Egan, Jr., Waste Environ-
mental Standards Program, Environmental Protection Agency.
–377–
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH EXPERIENCE IN NUCLEAR POWER
By
Robert B. Minogue, Director
Office of Standards Development
and *
Abraham L. Eiss, Technical Assistant to the Director
Division of Engineering Standards
Office of Standards Development
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555
-378-
Occupational Health Experience in Nuclear Power”
Robert B. Minogue, Director
Office of Standards Development
and
Abraham L. Eiss, Technical Assistant to the Director
Division of Engineering Standards
Office of Standards Development
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555
Introduction
This symposium is addressing a question of great national concern:
"What are the public and occupational health aspects of relying on coal
and nuclear power for the generation of electricity?"
This morning's session is devoted to health problems in nuclear
power. Our earlier speakers (Dr. Radford and Mr. Harward) have
presented information on how radiation exposures are translated into
health effects and about the public health effects of nuclear power.
I have been asked to discuss occupational health experience in nuclear
power from the perspective of a regulator.
In considering occupational health aspects of any fuel cycle, one
should address all activities that must take place to obtain the fuel,
generate the power, and dispose of any waste materials. In nuclear power,
the principal activities are uranium mining, ore processing or milling,
fuel fabrication, power generation, and fuel storage and ultimate disposal.
*Presented at the Symposium on Energy and Human Health: Human Costs of
Electric Power Generation, sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh
and the Ohio River Basin Energy Study, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
on March 19–21, 1979.
–379–
- 2 -
In nuclear power, we can further divide occupational health effects
into two categories: radiation hazards and more conventional non-radiological
effects. Many of the non-radiological risks of the work place are comparable
regardless of the method used for power generation. Examples include
scalding, electrocution, exposure to toxic chemicals, falls from ladders
or scaffolds, and dropping of heavy loads. Others are not comparable.
For example, most of the non-radiological hazards from the mining and
transportation of any fuel are basically a function of the tonnage handled
and are therefore greater for fossil-fuel than for nuclear energy generation.
Exposure to airborne radioactivity in uranium mines has no direct counterpart
in fossil power generation, just as black lung in coal miners has no analog
in the nuclear area.
Since we in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are much more concerned
with radiological health and because the public interest and mine as well
is largely focused on the same area, I plan to spend most of my time this
morning discussing occupational radiation exposures to workers in the
nuclear field.
TO CFR Part 20 (Reference 1) contains NRC's standards for protection
against radiation. Under this rule, whole body doses are limited to
1.25 rem per calendar quarter unless the licensee has determined a worker's
lifetime accumulated occupational dose. In this case, the whole body dose
is limited to 3 rem per calendar quarter provided that the worker's
accumulated dose does not exceed 5(N-18) rems, where "N" is the worker's
age (SLIDE 1). You will recognize this as the basic Federal Radiation
–380-
- 3 -
Council standard, now under the cognizance of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Last month NRC published (Reference 2) a proposed rule
that woule eliminate the 5(N-18) dose averaging formula. The quarterly
dose limit would be 3 rem but the annual limit would be 5 rem in all
CaSBS .
More important than these limits is the requirement that all doses
must be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This basic concept
of ALARA is recognized in all radiation standards -- whether they are
set by international bodies such as the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) or U. S. authorities.
In nuclear power plants the ALARA requirement translates into a
broad program of actions and controls all directed toward reducing worker
exposure. A good ALARA program includes such things as plant design
and layout to facilitate maintenance; requirements on fuel cladding, water
treatment and purification systems to inhibit corrosion or reduce deposition;
controls on access to radiation areas; worker training; radiation surveys;
use of remote and semi-remote maintenance equipment; local decontamination
of surfaces; special ventilation systems; protective clothing, etc.; etc. --
in short a complex wide-ranging exposure control program.
In fact, ALARA programs are effective in these highly disciplined
engineering activities and wery few workers receive doses that approach
the limits. The next slide (References 3 and 4) (SLIDE 2) presents some
recent figures that show where we are. It is obvious that nuclear power
plants represent the major source of occupational exposure associated
–381—
- 4 -
with energy generation -- both in the number of workers affected and in
the average dose received. Workers at fuel fabrication and processing
facilities also receive significant doses, although they average less than
one-third those at nuclear power plants. Perhaps as important as the
average dose is the distribution of actual dose received by individuals.
This is shown for workers at power reactors and fuel facilities in the
next slide (Reference 3)(SLIDE 3). From this one might conclude that
there is no cause for concern since of the tens of thousands of workers .
in the nuclear field only a few hundred approach the exposure limits of
NRC's regulations.
However, I believe it is safe to say that most of us here do not
accept this view. Recent studies of the incidence of cancer among workers
exposed to radiation point to the possibility that the limits may be less
conservative than previously thought. While the data are not conclusive
on the quantitative effects of low-level radiation, I am personally
convinced that in the range of occupational exposures, say from 100 mill irem
to 5 rem per year, there is no threshold for radiation effects. We do
not know the precise relationship between dose and risk at low levels
of radiation. However, I believe it is wise that public health officials
concluded some years ago that there is a risk, and based exposure standards
on assumptions of a linear non-threshold dose response curve. The perception
that no radiation dose level is without risk is a key concept underlying ALARA.
Therefore, the regulatory requirement that exposures be kept as low as
reasonably achievable is of great importance. Simply stated, NRC's aim is
to eliminate unnecessary exposure and limit necessary exposures.
–382-
- 5 -
The ALARA control program can stress reduction of exposure to individuals
or total population exposure (Z dose x persons exposed) or both. The regulatory
approach to achieving ALARA depends on what relationship between exposure
and risk is assumed. This sketch, which was prepared by Dr. K. Z. Morgan
for recent testimony before a U. S. senate Subcommittee, may help me to
illustrate some of the possibilities. (SLIDE 4) (Reference 5). It illustrates
approaches to extrapolating data from observed effects on those exposed at
Hiroshima and others who have received high radiation doses, and from
limited epidemiological studies, animal studies, studies of the interaction
of radiation with body tissues, and observations On behavior of radioactive
material within the body. Beginning with data at high radiation levels,
the curves show extrapolation down to lower exposures assuming three possible
relationships. If the relationship is linear (Curve A), any reduction in
total man-rem would be accompanied by a reduction in health effects. If it
is sublinear (Curve B), reduction of individual doses at the higher levels
would yield health benefits even if this were accompanied by some increase in
total man-rem. If, however, the relationship is superlinear (Curve C), the
greatest health benefit would be achieved by reducing total man-rem rather
than individual doses. And, one would expect for Curve C as well as Curve A,
the so-called linear hypothesis, in the case of at least some activities, to see
an increase in health effects if the exposure limits were lowered since this
could result in more individuals being exposed and, as a result of expected
inefficiencies, more total man-rem. This would likely be the case in some
nuclear power plant activities such as maintenance and inservice inspection;
whereas one would expect little or no increase in total worker dose in
the field of nuclear medicine.
–383–
- 6 -
In effect, the NRC's regulatory stragety reflects an assumption
of a linear or superlinear relationship. That is we are encouraging the
reduction of both individual doses and total man-rem.
From the data I showed earlier (SLIDE 2), it is obvious that
the greatest room for improvement is in nuclear power plant operation
since it accounts for more than 90% of the total dose in the nuclear
power cycle. Also, the average exposure is three times that in any other
stage of the cycle. As more reactors have come on line, the total number
of man-rem has increased rapidly - from 14,000 in 1973 to 21, 000 in 1975,
and over 32,000 in 1977, the latest year for which data have been analyzed.
The exposure data can be expressed in man-rem per megawatt year
(SLIDE 5) (data from Reference 3). This has been relatively constant
with a small increase in exposure at boiling water reactors (BWRs)
being balanced by a decrease at pressurized water reactors (PWRs).
The radioactivity in nuclear power plants is initially confined
to the core - that is, within the fuel elements housed inside a shielded.
pressure vessel. With time two things occur. First, the intense neutron
radiation in the core converts atoms of material in the structure and in
the coolant to radioactive species. A certain fraction of both these is
carried outside the pressure vessel in the coolant to other parts of
the reactor system where they tend to be deposited on Whatever surfaces
are present. Second, some percentage of the fuel elements will develop
small Teaks with time, and some of the radioactive fuel and fission product
atoms in these fuel elements will also find their way into the coolant stream
and will be deposited on the reactor system surfaces. In general, the
more surface area exposed to the coolant in any reactor component, the
more important a radiation source it will become. Thus steam generators
–384-
- 7 -
and other heat exchangers that may have thousands of square feet of surface
area are particularly likely to contain large amounts of radioactive material.
Demineralizer resin beds used to maintain the purity of water in the
core also become a major source of radioactivity. These highly
radioactive components are a key element in occupational exposure.
Close approach by workers to perform maintenance or inspection could
result in significant exposure.
A11 of this was well known and was taken into account by the
designers and builders of nuclear power plants. The areas of high
radioactivity were shielded; and those areas routinely occupied by
plant personnel such as the control room were further shielded and/or
were located as far as possible from the major sources of radiation.
The next slide (SLIDE 6) (Reference 3) listing the percentage of
personnel dose by work function shows this. Routine operation and
refueling were recognized as important by the plant designers and the
ALARA approach was generally applied. Therefore, the doses received
in performance of those functions have been constant and relatively
small.
In the case of routine maintenance (for example, the repairing
of instruments and repacking of valves), control of exposures by the design
of nuclear power plants and by careful practice proved more difficult.
As a result, for several years this activity was the greatest contributor
to occupational exposure in nuclear power plants. By the mid-1970's
-385-
- 8 -
industry and regulators alike recognized the need for action. Consequently,
by improving shielding, equipment, and procedures, industry has substantially
reduced exposures from routine maintenance.
Exposures from three activities, however, have doubled in the past
few years. These are special maintenance (now the greatest contributor
to occupational exposure), inservice inspection, and waste processing. -
There have been several occurrences at nuclear power plants that
required special maintenance activities. For example, when in 1974 cracks in
stainless steel pipes were observed at the Dresden nuclear station, the
NRC ordered all operating BWRs to be shut down for inspection of similar
piping. Cracks were found at several other reactors. The affected piping
had to be repaired or replaced. And in each case the workers involved in
the inspection and repair received exposures.
Pressurized water reactors have had a history of corrosion-related
failures in the steam generators. This has resulted in the need for
workers to plug failed tubes and to remove some tubes for study. In
addition, this will shortly result in the full replacement of steam
generators in at least four units at two plants. Surry Unit l is
already shut down for this purpose. The extent of these failures
appears to have been unanticipated by the designers. They have been
one of the factors that caused the NRC to increase the required frequency
and extent of inservice inspections; this in turn has contributed to
the doubling of exposure from inservice inspection.
–386–
- 9 –
I mentioned that at least two utilities are planning to replace
steam generators. Although the principal driving force for these
replacements is economic, an important consideration is minimizing
radiation exposure to workers at those plants. At the Surry plant,
for example (SLIDE 7) (Reference 6), steam generator maintenance accounted
for more than 60% of all radiation exposure during 1977. The comparable
figure was 40% in 1975 and 1976 and only 6% in 1974, which was before the
problems had been observed. The total dose related to steam generator
maintenance had risen to 1400 man-rem in 1977. The plant's owners
estimate that replacement of the steam generators in both reactors at
Surry will result in about 4300 man-rem total exposure. If this number
is correct and it has the desired effect of eliminating exposures from
steam generator maintenance, the payback time for that 4300 man-rem dose
Will be about 3 years. Doses not suffered after that time will be the
"benefit" of the steam generator changeover. The replacement is therefore
claimed to be consistent with ALARA principles.
The NRC staff is taking a hard look at all the proposed activities
involved in the steam generator replacements to make sure that all
possible sources of exposure have been taken into account in the planning
and analyses and that the worker dose due to the replacement is in fact
ALARA.
The increase in worker exposure from waste management resulted directly
from an NRC decision in 1975 to establish ALARA guidelines for effTuents
–387–
- 10 -
released from nuclear power plants. These guidelines were issued as
Appendix I to Part 50 of the regulations (Reference 1). In order to
meet the Appendix I requirements, nuclear power plant operators have had
to retain more radioactive waste within the plant for longer periods; hence
the increase in worker exposure.
Although the examples I have given are from our experience with
nuclear power plants, NRC's approach to occupational exposure and its -
use of the ALARA concept applies to all the facilities and activities
that we regulate. As the earlier slide indicated, exposures are
relatively low at the fuel preparation and fabrication stages and, since
we have no active licensed reprocessing facilities in this country at
present, there are no exposures associated with that activity. In nuclear
power plants, the principal radiation hazard is exposure of the body
or parts of the body from an external source. In some fuel cycle
activities, a second potential hazard exists to a much greater degree
than in nuclear power plants; that is, inhalation or ingestion of
radioactive particles into the body by breathing or swallowing fine
particles dispersed in the air. This is of particular concern in fuel
facilities processing Plutonium. In these facilities special precautions
are taken, including isolation of the material in glove boxes or similar
enclosures, continuous monitoring, and the use of special clothing and
respirators.
–388–
- 11 -
Another problem that I would like to mention is how to control
exposures to workers employed at more than one facility during a quarter.
NRC deliberately places the burden of controlling access, monitoring workers,
and reporting exposures at a facility on the facility licensee. This,
however, does not take into account employees who moonlight on a second
job or who may leave one employer and go to work for another within the
same quarter. The records of each employer may show that the worker's
exposure is within acceptable limits; but the sum of all the exposures
may show that the worker has been exposed beyond the limits.
The Commission is now considering issuing a rule that would require
licensees to control total occupational dose for workers at their
facility. The licensee would be required to get from workers a statement
of exposure from outside sources during the quarter. Each terminating
worker would be furnished, on request, an estimate of the doses received.
The worker could then make this available to his next employer to help
ensure that he is not overexposed.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) recently
published the data presented in the next two slides (Reference 7)
(SLIDES 8 and 9). These data show that the radiation exposure received
by workers and the public from nuclear power is a small fraction of
the total received from other sources. Nevertheless, we believe that
any exposure may result in some risk and accordingly try to reduce
exposure to the lowest levels reasonably achievable.
–389–
- 12 -
Occupational exposure to radiation is a health hazard. As with
other public health hazards that cannot be completely eliminated, a
judgment must be made as to what level of exposure is acceptable.
Affected workers must have a basis for informed acceptance, that is,
workers should be aware that risks exist and of the extent of those
risks when they accept employment at nuclear facilities just as workers
at mines, steel mills, chemical plants, and so on should be aware of
the different risks facing them in their employment. Open discussion
of these risks, including meetings such as this, helps to contribute
to the informed judgments that must be made.
I would like to conclude by responding to a question that has been
asked several times of late; that is, In light of the current uncertainty
regarding the health effects of low-level radiation exposure, why doesn't
the NRC reduce the existing permissible radiation dose limits?
It is important to understand that dose levels such as the 5 rem per
year standard for workers, as used in regulatory practice, are upper
limits of permissible doses to individuals which, if exceeded, set off
a chain of regulatory actions such as investigations, reports, mandated
corrective actions, and possibly penalties. These levels should not be
taken as acceptable or safe in themselves; that is, a person is not in
immediate danger if he receives slightly more than the permissible level,
nor is he perfectly safe from adverse effects if he receives slightly
less than the permissible level.
–390–
- 13 -
Radiation dose standards, as applied by the NRC, are more correctly
characterized as a broad range of radiation control measures intended
to assure that actual doses received by individuals remain far below the
prescribed permissible dose limits. Experience has shown that these control
measures have been effective in keeping occupational exposures well
below the limits.
Even so, we have noted that the total collective dose to workers
in NRC-licensed activities has been steadily increasing during the past
few years. Further, we are aware of recent health studies that raise a
question as to whether current estimates of health effects are as
conservative as previously assumed. Because of these two points, we
have initiated several actions aimed at tightening up our radiation
standards to further reduce the collective dose.
We have proposed a rule change that would eliminate the special
provision that currently allows some workers to receive as much as
12 rem per year. We are in the final stages of a rule change that
would provide more effective control over doses received by workers who
move from one licensed facility to another and those who work at more
than one licensed facility at the same time. We are considering a rule
change that would strengthen our commitment to the "As Low As Reasonably
Achievable" (ALARA) concept for occupational exposures.
The NRC staff is also in the process of issuing a series of regulatory
guides to describe acceptable ALARA techniques for different types of
licensed activities and to help achieve better radiation exposure control.
–391-
- 14 -
We believe that it is these types of regulatory standards actions
that will be most meaningful , in a practical sense, in reducing radiatio
exposures. Lowering of the existing permissible dose limits is also
under consideration. However, by itself, such an action may not be
as effective as the tightening of radiation control measures discussed
above. . In fact, for some regulated activities Towering the limits might
be counterproductive, that is, it might increase the collective dose.
With respect to the permissible dose levels, we are currently
cooperating with EPA in its development of Federal guidance on
occupational exposures. We anticipate joint participation with EPA
and OSHA in a public hearing to be held later this year on the adequacy
of the present standards.
In summary, we are taking action to tighten up our regulatory
requirements to further reduce occupational exposures. We have not
concluded that the evidence presently available indicates an immediate
need to lower the present permissible dose levels; but we are, along
with EPA and OSHA, examining the adequacy of these present standards.
–392–
- I5 -
REFERENCES
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 - Energy, Chapter I - Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, revised as of January 1, 1978, Washington,
D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office (1978). *
44 FR 10388, Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 35, February 20, 1979.
"Occupational Radiation Exposure, Tenth Annual Report, 1977,
NUREG-0463, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1978).
EPA data from report to be published.
K. Z. Morgan, "Radiation Induced Cancer in Man", presented to the
Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services,
U. S. Senate, March 6, 1979.
Data compiled by NRC staff.
Summary of Work Group Reports of the Interagency Task Force on
Ionizing Radiation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
February 27, 1979.
—393–
(35) V S, HEXI HOM = N)
WEH (81-N)g >�-
E}{E}olNW\ON>| SI ESOC] CJE_L\/Tnnnoov-||
HE L'H\/[TO HVCI NETVO/WEIHe
H O
HE_1}+\/[\O HVCI NETVO/WEH GZ" |
asoa Nollvlavu ĐNILIWIT SNOILvınĐau oùN
ș
&
-394–
'9/61 HO4 SalvWILSH vď= };
"/.../6! HO-] \/ _L\/C] EESNEJOIT OHN/ī
| EĽ“Z€0ț7./'0€ezºvy v06'ıl | /[SLNvid HaMod uva-ionN
GZZ" |9ț7Ż’0#00'ſ. 96 ſy'||/T ĐNISSā0084
∞· CÌNV NOſ_L\/O||4.8\/-} ~130-）
00ț70/0’0ff99"G| ſty'ſ/; LNHWHOIBN= WnıNv Hn
G| 090'O00100€/* SınıW WnıNvun
WE H-NV/W(W3 H) GIBSOdXB GJESOdXB TV LOL· · ·
'ESOC]EISOH L H OH BISOG—·ALIAI LOV
a^|10=TT00 AGOR BIOHM NVBW su=X&OM HO HāgwnN
SHEIXIHOM HTO AO TETA-I HVEITOTIN “Sºn -JO EHTISOdXE NOI.LV/IC]\/H
Z ĢICII'ÍS
–395–
SLIDE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF WORKER EXPOSURE IN 1977
POWER REACTORS FUEL FABRICATION AND PROCESSING
* PERCENT OF THose q PERCENT OF THOSE
TOSE RANGE NUMBER OF RECEIVING NUMBER OF RECEIVING
REM, WORKERS MEASURABLE DOSE WORKERS MEASURABLE DOSE
NOT MEASURABLE 27,671 º 4,492 tºº
MEASURABLE BUT 15,523 35.0 4,533 65.0
& < 0.10
§
} 0.10 - 0.25 6,750 15.0 1,057 . 15.0
0.25 - 0.50 5,179 12.0 571 8.0
0.50 - 0.75 3,300 7.0 315 4.0
0.75 - 1.0 2,500 6.0 179 3.0
1 - 2 6,174 14.0 205 3.0
2 - 3 2,838 6.0 91 1.0
3 - 4 1,130 3.0 28 0.4
4 - 5 569 1.0 25 0.4
> 5 270 0.6 0 {).0)
PERCENTs Do NoT ADD to 100 DUETo Rounding.
SLIDE 4
CANCER INDUCTION AS A FUNCTION OF DOSE OF
Ionizing RADIATION FROM O TO 100 REM
0. 20 40 60 80 100
DOSE OF |ONIZING RADIATION (REM)

#

ETWEIZĶ-
9/6）9/6į.w/61 ） EZ6||Z/611/61 0/616961
|#|||----—-T0
•**~,
~,„--~~~~~~~）·A0" |
**~~~~ ----~--~*~,N-->----）.）//
° •،�••<)-S� -„º“
~, N.^ ~^" \�\,^/•
„£”.^_^-\^J.^/
^~„^\/
Nº/\----| 0°，
\/•
• • • • • TIT\/. v\ ! ）.
•••• • • H/WdV0•
^ <-&}/W8•
o'v
ua-ww/waſi-Nvw aevuāAv
$ ${Cİİ’ÍS
WIEH-NY/W
–398-
SLTDE 6
PERCENTAGES OF PERSONNEL DOSE BY WORK FUNCTION
WORK FUNCTION
PERCENT OF DOSE
1974 1975 1976 1977
REACTOR OPERATIONS wº
AND SURVE! LLANCE 14.0% 10.8% 10.2% 10.6%
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 45.4% 52.6% 31.0% 28.9%
|N-SERVICE | NSPECTION 2.7% 3.0% 6.0% 6.6%
SPECIAL MAINTENANCE 20.4% 19.0% 40.0% 41.4%
WASTE PROCESSING 3.5% 6.9% 5.0% 5.9%
REFUELING 14.0% 7.7% 7.9% 6.6%
#
SLIDE 7
| WBu-Nvw ('LSH) 9€e'y suo LvuaNā9 WV3Lsjo u Nawaovidau
gzg!!!| –�Olțy'ı！，//6||
09/'1|8" |} • /8?'||| || ſ.9/6||
009|9° 1!,8£9| 86€.G/61
00Z|| "№ț79 · ·9Źº ț7/61
dĘĘĢĢd Tvng!!!!!!!!!!Wau (węg. Nyw) g {}{}}： „ ,,
S38 ſh_LE15)\/\{ -1/\\/SHSOC]TV_LO_Ł●
：PHONVNALNIwW HOLVHaN39 WVH1s
Zº !/0£'Z° 098'||ŁŁ6||
Zº į.uț791'E* - EG/'Z9,16||
8°0\6ț79' 18ț76'||| 9161
G”O\ț7ț78g| L' | ț716||
H5OVH51/\\/Säsogivio，•
sNollvu， dontivº„~~~
SEISOC） 1 NV7"id-N|| Å!!!!!!S
–400-
SLIDE 8
9G|
G9ío
009'I – OOO'ſ
000'LI
000" |\
000’OZ
(SC1N\/SQOH. L. NI)
}}\/3},\ !！! -id SINE H-NOS!! Ed
SLOT1C]O}} d \} EINT SNOO
„W,5)\-]+ NH HVĚTOON
NO]. LOTNC]O}} d (JNV/
'ĐNILSEL ‘LNHW.dOTHAHO SNO&v=M
LȚIOTIT\/-|
SNOd\/E||W\ }{\/HT O ȚIN
S_L}{\/ 5) N ITV/EH
dāONVHNE ATTvolÐOTONHOHL
GNnoſſºxova IvùnıvN
HO!-|[\OS
\
8/6L - SELL\/|/\|||_LSE
Bunsodxa Nollwindod TvuāNāb 's'n
-401–
OG †*SNO||L\/d[\OOO HEIH_LO .
S LIDE 9
！ 8:0|�NOI Londoud GNV LNHWAOTHAIG
!SNOd\/?H/W \{\/?HT OTAN
8 | · SHOLOVHJ TvAVN
Z ! |-' ’ HOHvāsāſ
0G £�� AÐHANH HvāTonN
09.\ T\/|\.J.LSTICINĮ GNV 5) NI HD_LOV-HONVIN
08 -- Oț7\ S.Luv ĐNITVāH
(SCJNV/STOHL NI)�· ·
}}\/=},\, \} Eid SINH H-NOS}} EldHOH TROS
, {
… stol – salvwilsā āhnsodxa TvNolivanooo sºn
-402-
DISCUSS 10 N
SESSIUM W
Jet Ex. Rºsenz. ºldiversilty of Elttsburgini. I have tºo brief
questi O a Se Dr. Radford, you lind icated in your talk tſaat the
incidence of cancer from natural background would be in the
- **
order of one or three percent and Are Hard ard indicated, on his "
£1 rst si lde, that do out 1/2% of the carice r s 1n the population
would o e due to natural background. I "d l l Ke you to address
that. A not ner 1 teſt to r any of the panel ſhe dub ers would be that
on many of the graphs we "we seen net e to day we see erro C oa C S on
Iae asured healtn effects; to r example, linc idence o f is uke ſula.
ise very rarely see er r or pars associated with the dell wered
Goses • Could you indicate an at or der of in agill tu de these er cors
tal ght be 2
Drs. Radio.cg3. I’ll take the tirs t part and possibly Dave
Har war d alght want to cominent. The estimates I gave are based
on ſacre recent data than the 1972 data. In part, these data are
now published in the 1977 UNSCEAR Report an icn is in the open
literature • I think they lindicate the impact. of the "Curther
foliow-up effect, * if I can call it that. One o I the plg
probleſas in defiſhing the can cer risk from rad lation exposure n as
Deen, as I tried to ln dicate in ſity presentation, how > 1 of g is the
effect g o ljig to last witn in the population. If it lasts
throughout the lifet line of the ind lviduals, 1 t ſhe ans that the
r is KS are substantla 1 ly filga e C that if , as 1 In tº e case of
ieukemia, lt doesn’t last to r the 1 if et Lille of the lindividua 1 . I
thlnk tº a t previous risk * stimates nave, to a conside rap le
extent, made the assulap tion that the risk * 1 li last Galy for a
finite per lod of years and now we think that Rost cancers ºli i
not - Mr. Harward, do you want to coiniſtent on that?
Dagg Haçãacg3. I think the taple you’re refer r lag to is the
one that I got out of the HE A Draft inter agency Report, ºne c e l't
lndicated something iike roughly 50% or the radiation iſlduced
Caſh C eſ S in the United States, ſaign tº De due to in a tural
background • As to your coaia ent on the err or band be in g rather
sizable, I think this is generally the case ºf itn this kind of
thing a ſad err Q r D aſlds will th a factor of two when try in g to
interpret Some of these nullio ers is certainly not unc Diaiii on .
** *
–403–
DEs. RadigE.g.: Just to correct you, Dave • You lie ant a
1/23, ſh O L 50%.
Day? Haradrid; 1/2% of the total cancer deat ns, but about
50% of the to tal radiation induced deaths. If you i ook at the
HE a figures = 1 th about 4, 000 the or etl cally rad 1 at 1 oil induced
can cers per year, roughly 2, 000 are from natural background .
Drs. Rag forg: Can I Just respond to the dose issue. The
S9 e 3 Ke ſ p * T = RO Seil, is qu lite Correct that on e o f the pro b leſſas
tnat we nave in the epidem lo logy of a laos t any envili own ental
agent, is to define what the exposure nas actually be en - Noa,
the dose data that I used for the Japanese is based on the host
iſ e C eſt t tl SSue Cl O S #2S do talne d by the Ua Krld 9 e Matlona i
Lap of a to r y = F or the low dose end of the curve i think Line error
bars are I e i at 1 we ly Suai 1, D ecauses 1 t was huch a ore poss AD le to
define the snield ing characteristics of the individuals ano are
out as a y fºr Q in the poſio eplcenter, la contrast to the n ligner
doses win ere I think the uncertain tie S retaa1n so he anat nilga. So
I agree with your genera i po in tand ſlay be a e s no uld, it we had
the 1 ſhf 0 iſ ſºld ti Q ſa, 9 u t e ſ ſo I O d C S Oil the doses.
MEs. Rs. 1102414ei i "d like to add to what Dr. Radford has
Sald, looking at a differ ent exposed group - First or a 1 1, I
think there is a 1 ways a diff loul ty in trying to relate soue of
the epidemiological studies of exposed workers, or solae of the
Studies planned on sold lets, to the ſm edical exposure that the
people studied Ray have received. This is a matter of solae real
E Oil C. eſ ſle
Even as to the radiatlon exposure involved lil tſhe
activities Of these W & T 1 O Li S groups, the re 's a lot of
uncerta in ty. For the soldiers and other personnel lnvolved lin
the aea poſis test prograía, the external dos Lae try was at best
i liaited and the internal dos iſme try V erged on non exils teſt t. Thus
the re's a great deal of uncertainty as to An at the exposures
real ly a e re, a t i e as t in lily O p iſ 10 m .
Eve ſa añong the industria i r a diation workers that are
involved in highly disc 19 lined activities an ere the ALA&A
concept n as be en applied, ta ere is a great deai o f uncertainty
as to the doses received - Let the Just tick of f sota e o L the Key
9 olnts • F 1 rst, the low exposed part of the group you a liaost
have to drop from your data base because aſſad ng theſa ſaay de ſaany
ido C. Ket S is no I e Cel We G ſlo expo Süre of Sofile lſide terta lina Le low
eXp OS uſe s Below ad out 30 full lireia on the ti la padge, tile data
wer ges a n indeter in lmate • Even above that level there "s a great
deal of war latl on in the data that one gets back if you use one
of the cotainer clai do Siameter processing Services, in ter ins of the
doses reported. This 1s a u atter that we’re gly ling a great deal
of atten tid n to right now in the context of an ep Lueuilo iogy
–404–
teas lolity planning study ºnlch we we been a dadated by Congress
to do. I think it may be a statistica i war lation, ºut it 's
talriy a 1 de. The 9 oln't I" in trying to iiiake is there is, in fact,
a falrly large plus or ſuinus on the external exposures measured
Dy the £1 in badges and other per soilii el do Sliše ters used in the
industry •
The last P o lat I’d l l Ke to Ida Ke, iſi b c i et, relates to
lſh ternal do Slide try • That type of exposure is quite l lial te q in
the regu lated industry because it’s getae rally be en regarded as
soluewhat of a "no no" because of the recognized n ign level of
uncerta 1 m ty. There are a number of techniques triat are a 991 led,
D loassay techniques, for exa aple, for workers = no ſaay ſlave been
exposed to ln termal doses that I think are quite good. ''ne
dos liae try, Lil fact, is pro Dadly rather good be tº een theasured eats
or air saſapling systems and Dioassay - :
Dr. Wald: We "ll take somebody from the front • *nlie ne ‘’s
gettling the re, let the ſhe n tion that the Ichi Dan pro graia, the
Japanese reconstructed dos in e try prograla, felt that they had
arrived at some thing that was approx Liña tely plus or minus 25 to
50% of each individual 's exposure • Ehe other po irit I tialax has
to oe recognized is that the medical exposure r l’sk was as great
for people who received insignificant a e ap on S rad 1 at lo n in
H1 roshin a and Nagasaki because they all came under an A-poad
Surviv or S Co tapensation Law which p row 1 ded t Of taed 1cal
examinat Lons, so the lower the exposure from the weapon, the
proport lona tely greater influence the ſhe dical x-ray in the
following would have been •
Drs. Radfg.º.d3. If I may z Neil, I just want to point out
that V e Dy careful assess Haent of what the the dical X-ray
contribution nas been to various tissues-- and Lt "s by au ſă eans
uniform--has shown it’s not the anole body approach taat has
been taken into account. I’m not sure that all the data I
showed has built that in, but i think we can •
LC- Haldi 1 eS - Usually it Just sno as the we ago, is
exposure, but i think that "s a good polnt-
Drz. Ha Saenger, one of the JRB.E.S. Researchers: I aſu
interested particularly in the Ohio River Basin - in the b as in
we consulae so ſaethlng on the order of 400 ſhillion tons of coal a
ye aſ e. Coals 1 a the D as in contain othe to two parts per all llon
uranluia and thoriuſa oxides, in equill brium with the iſ decay
daughter S > jp on Coimbust 10 ſi the gas eous co ſap o ſhe ſits, tao iſ on and
radon, go out iſaia ediately- Soule of the other did tigh Le CS
apparently evaporate but the uranium and thorium appear to
reaal n = 1 th the ash. The question I’d like to direct to the
panel can be answered yes or no • Should de now be gin looking at
these as n pits the same way we're looking at alm e taillag areas
-405–
across the count I y 2
MEs darliaridi. I can take a stab at an at I know is going on
dbout the Sud Ject - I ſa ent loned eaſ iller the EPA iſng leiaentation
of the Clean Air Act Alaendſåents of 1977. They are looking at
tn is very closely through a Serles of contracts an u nave a
Substant la 1 packground of data over roughly iO years from tossil
fuel p i ants. I do Krio w tº ey are C onslder ling s h either or not to
include fossil plant radio active emissions a 1 thin the Clean Air
Act e By August or 1979, they nave to construct solae lasts of
various pollutants that would be covered under the Clean Air
AC to I won’t go in to what they are, out there are three
sections 1 in the Clean Air Act uſider w nich 9 oilu Laints can De
listed e This is under conside ratlon • I don’t know at an at
po int they at e liſh their work on lt -
Drs. His Spenceri. I would like the NRC representative to
answer the quest 1 on a - -- - - -
*Is Minogue: I really don’t feel that rails witn in the
range of fly regulatory expertise - I th link Mr. Hars a ra 1s
better qualified to answer that.
Drs. Wald: I think we have to a lio - yes, no or none of the
above - - --
urs ºlz. Hartnettz. University of £lling lisz. Chicaggs. I have
tºo quest loſis that are directed to the i as t two speakers. I was
Soſne what cont used oy what I though t w 2ſ e difier ent stateta e Ints.
I thought I heard the second speaker, ºr - Harsa ca, say that the
uranium in in ling and all ling pose greater hazards with respect to
radiation than did the nuclear power plant. And I thougnt I
flear d the last Speaker, Mr. Minogue, say just the opposite.
{ "d ilke to have that question cliar ified. The Second question
is directed to the last speaker, Mr. Mino gue • I believe oc, the
i as t s 11 de , if I read it right, Lt Sald that other occupations
show 50, 000 pers on-rels e er year, 2.0 L Le nuclear ene c ga sin o- ed
50, nuclear reactors 3, and nuclear weapons 0 - 8 - Does this
suggest that a worker in a Caſady factory or a professor in a
ci assroo a 1s exposed to in ore rad latlon than a worker in the
nuclear industry or in the ſauclear seapons industry?
MEs. Alºng gue: Let Iſle answer the Second ques t1 on tirst
because it is pretty S traign trora aru - what it suggests is that
there are a nuaper of people, tar larger nutao ers of people, in
So Be of these other occupations who are not generally regarded
as radiation s or kecs but ºn 0 are exposed in the work place to
radiation at leve is greate I trian that which at lse from aa tural
backgrouſa de Because there are Sø flaſhy of these , and if you
recognize the no-threshold concept, the to tal nuape c of aan-reſa
they receive is quite significant. This sould include pnosphate
–406-
workers, 1 t would include the alri in e Steward esses and so on •
ºf net e are large aum pers of these people •
DEs us flattnett. You did not he aſ, O Y that "a li other
occupations"-- you are tai Klſig about selected occup at 1911s. Is
that coſ I e C tº
*C. Milng que: The data I "in referring to is fro in time HEA
Repo E t → My understand iſ g o I the groups that they looked at was
tnat the y were a i 1 workers who are exposed to r ad lation at
nigner than Dackground levels because of the nature or their
occupati U (). The re are B any of the Se Wur Ke I S. The data is not
terrid i y good, put the re are very large nulli De Ts of these
is O L Kºeſ S a
Dr. J. Hartnett: You clarified that slide, but I think
as 1 t "'s stated on the Slide lit is ſals leading because it says
"o ther occupations • * - ** , ,
£rs. Minogue: Let the now reply to part of the first
que Stl’O ſº e Certa 1 ſhly I liſh teſided in no way to imply taat the
pupilc exposure prop leiu troia ſaill tallings is trilwla 1 - And I "a
So I r y if you read that into an at i Sal d - * Y tu º i C was
occupational exposure and the occupational exposure to racal at lon
of ial ill worker S 1s a very IIllno C prod leſh Coup are u to the
occupational exposure to nuclear power plant workers. F1 rst,
tnere is a large number of those people in the nuclear power
plants 7 and second ly, they are in he reſi tiy exposed to very nigh
rad lation levels. The is O C K they do in walch the y Ceceive
exposure is primarily related to ſual n tenance of critical sate ty
equipmeat; nonessentlal exposures are ratner e as lly ei Lulſh a ted -
They are, as a group, exposed to quite hign radiation is vels - I
as Socla t e ºlth theſa Ż. I’ve been exposed to those raci latl on
levels a Y self, aſid they "re quite hign -
MCs. Harlaaſ.g.: #e i la Just to Iurtner a ſligll ty. The tab fle
tn at i nad Oſ) the Scree ſi was I 0 [ e ſi V. l I O Ilia e i tā 1 e X2 us uſ e aui d
accordlſh g to the NRC data, the coin Dined in inling and all ling
populatl on dose represents a lltti e to etter trian a ly 3rd of the
to tal dose trom the entire nuclear fuel cycle • The on 1 y thing
that was nigher was the tue i reprocessing pupil C exposure winlch
I indicated, of course, is no ſhexl Staint at 9 resent, because of
the lack of fuel reprocess in g .
Mrs. Clson, destinghouse?. I have tºo questions I u like to
address to Dr. Radford. Flirst of all, 1 "In surprised at your
deriſal tio il of low level radl atlon • As I trulnk I unders to od you,
you said from 10 to 100 rads - Just a minute ago, thousn, Mr.
Minogue - as talking about nl:gn levels of radiation, ne was
talking ad out tive to fit teen. So my questlon is anat ad out
1 eV els 1 ess than, Say, ten rad. What are the eIf ects there?
–407–
Second ly, at these exposures of ten to one nuindred rads, is
tnere any difference in the rate of exposure? That is, 1s it
the sale gettl ſag a 50 rad dose in a few seconds, or a few
Illinutes, as lt is getting a titty rad dose spread over a year 2
QEA. Sadio Ed: Right, good questions • Really, the second
ques t10 a leads 1 m to the f l r st. The questlon of dose rate nas
been one that has been of considerabi e linterest and lap or tance
1n the radiation protection field • In other words, the point
you caised, if you get the radiatl on Stretched out oved titae,
let’s say accu hulate 50 rads that way, compared witn getting
zapped - ith 50 rads all at 3nce, does lt aake any altference in
the long teru et ſect? For the kinds or radl at loſi represented oy
alpha radlation, the human evidence suggests that stretch ltig out
the dose increases the risk per to tal accumulated dose. In at 's
to r so-cali led high LET radiation? that is, radiatioſ, ultin a
high ii near energy transfer - For low LET radiation, the
expeſ iii, ental data Strong i y Suggests that Stretching out the dose
reduces the risk per rad per to ta 1 accumulated uilt of dose.
And until 1 cofap aſ a Ll vely recently this has been rather the
accepted view in interpreting risks of relatively low doses. If
we use the linear nypothesis, and if we take no account of tae
So-called "dose cate effect" we is lll be owe rest laid ting the risk
I or low L. ET radi at 1 on, and poss libi Y over est iſ at ling it by a
Significant aff, O unt. I think follow-up of the occup at 1 orial
groups a nich nas now been stiaulated by a ſauſabe C of these receit
studies 1s going to help us out a lot on this - we nave solae
evidence is nich suggests that the dose rate erfect for even low
L. ET radl atlon is not as signl ti cant as is e though t it was, based
on the aniſhal data, and there are theoretical D easons way the
animal data al ght nave snown this ſucre readilly than the human
data • Briefly, these are the Coſaparlsons of the cancer risk
at islng in the woºden wino set e radiated D Y ti u or O S copy repeated iy
ower ſaan y laonths Or years, turn out to be a liaost ident led l is ltn.
the risks per unit dose that were obtained from so ſilen and were
treated £ O r ot net C Olid 1 ti Q nS and rece i Ve C1 a S 1 ng i = Close of
rad latio (, , 1 In the order of 10 J rad's or so, to tae or e as L tissue,
coiapaſ ed w 1 th the Japanese A-pollip suit Vly or data is ſhe in a gal n 1 t
was a single dose at relatively nign doses in this case, too .
So, the previously thought to be applicap le “dose rate effect
for low LET radiation" is not strongly supported by the numan
data at this time. In el ther case, botn for the n1 gn LeT
rad latlo a wn ich leads to an under estimate of the risk at low
dose rates, let 's say, and the low L. ET rad latl on is nich algh t
lead to an over estimate of the risk, the uncertain ty probably is
not very much greater than a factor of two - So, ir you" i 1
accept that degree of uncertainty, which L think se nave to
because of the data, then the dose rate effect D tº C O Bil e S
re iatively ſu in or e
–408-
DEa. - Ns. Haldi. Are you Spe Cl fl cally address in 9 tile
endpoint of cancer induction?
LEs. Radigtg: Yes, strictly cancer induct lon- up v i ously
for other e ſldg 0 in ts such as the kind that Dr - Aal d is
particularly late rested la, dose rate ula Kes a D1 g difference •
Mrs. tilingaue; L *d like to tuake a point in this courlection.
I appre C late the questioſa e C raising this. I noted the saille
difference in g o int of View when I listened to Dr. Rauf ord 's
Speech and ſåe ant to Co ſailieſt on lt in giviſig Hay own real acks, and
tnen neglected to . He and i don’t cut off at the said e g o in L.
wnen I talked about occupational levels or low - level exposure,
E ecogniz l ng what the aver age S are and I e C Q S Ill Zlſ, 9 tile turn over
in Jop assign a 2 ats and so on, I aſh definite ly thiſ klag or a
range that cuts off troia 10 to 20 reſu lite titae exposure. And
it ‘’s ci ear that Dr. Radford is looking at a ſauch broader span,
that is a uch nig ſner lifetiſae exposures •
Dr. Es Radforg: well, I'd like to cominent on that. I ‘’ſº
so cry I didn’t ansa e ſ that question be cause i tin in k l t 's an
1|ap or taſat one - if the dose rate effec L is ill nor, as I nave just
1ndicated, then lit doesn’t that ter - What we "re talking about is
total cuaulative dose up to particular age or time • Aſad the re
is 1 think, to C example, Iron packgroufid radiation exposure up
to age 50, you’ve accuſau lated tive rads - We 11, you "re already
at flve and you're going to add to that froãi your aedical
exposure an other four or flve rads • So you’re up to ten
already, and now we "re going above that with these other
exposures. So, alth regard to the general population, yes, de
are concerned in the range of an extra added dose of , ſhay be over
tne life time of an individual, a few cads • I agree that in the
ep laetalo i ogic data literature, we don’t have a lot of nard data
at those doses, and therefore we are extrapolatin g down ward
uslng Q ſle of these mode is in order to get an indication or what
effect the re all I be, say troia 10 to 20 to 30, to 50 raus, where
•e do ſº a V e S D B e data and is ſhe re the u a td aſ e a C tué i 1 ſ p & Co in lng
quite go 0 de
No ºi with regard to Mr. Minogue 's State aeſat ad out the
occupational exposures, tſa is gives ſue an opportunity oasic a liy
to ask the other panellsts a question - They used aggregated
data • in other words, they averaged over the industries. I
would like to nave them comment on the fact, and lt's my reading
of the NRC reports, that the per formance of differ ent reactors
within the same type of design and e Verythling else, is side iy
variable; 1 aean py a factor of almost 10. So that soae 9 lants
are restric tiſlg the iſ exposures to doſ ke Is Wet y ál ark ediy and
in deed are achieving what I consider to be an a diair able record,
where as otmer plants are not. When you average thea al Ł out,
obviously then, you set an in tertaediate value - The second tining
–409–
ls that if you lou & d t the d g g regate d d a la lú the US SCEAR Report
last year ( 1977 ), * or 1d4 ide, but even la the Unlted States, you
f ind triat ther e are substaſi ti al Subsets of the occupational
groups that nave now already accuſatil a ted 50 to 60 to 70 rads,
and presumably they are going to continue working - Triere are
so the of the for el gn plants that are n "I doing as we i 1 . Tne y are
up over 100 rads to lindlwl dual workers and I do a "t lae an ori i y one
worker -- i Ine an a few, at least per nap S 1 # of the total work
for ce. So when se taik about occupational exposures, we "re not
talk 1ng about five rads or ten raids - he "re taikling about 50
rads or 100 rads over the work ilfe of the individual. You
disagree, Bob 2 & -
MCs. Minºgue: Let me take the last point first- # eS, I
deflni tely disagree. There ſhay be a few individuals and receive
those levels but that’s siſap ly not true of the vast ſuajority of
the is C ſkei Se The other coinſhen t you ſuade ls, I think, an
1ſuportant one - There are d1 fferences aſao ng plants - Sohe of
these are clear ly due to different operating exper lences, so ſae
nave had ſhore problems than others. The older plants nave nad
SQ He Dulld-up Öf activity - Solue plants have nad ſaore
ino difications lag osed by the regulators than others. Aſld ill a ſly
of the differences can be attributed to this. But there are
differences that relate to the -- let us call it -- "tne i eve 1
or conviction" with a nich ALARA ls applied, and because of this
the staff of NRC has recommended to the Coſa ſuission that we trind
a regulatory traine work to put ſhore teeth in ALARA , liot from a
perception that hany or the companies haven 't done a very good
Job, because they have, but to get hold of the people sno aren’t
measuring up and bring them in to line as well - That element is
ci early there • It lism "t at 1 attributao is to differences in the
operating experience or ſha iſ tenance E equi iſ eſſents toſ the p i ants.
Tom Zeller, Indiana State University: I have two questions
for Dr. Radford - I walked lin a 11ttle iate on your taik, so lif
you add D essed these, I apologize - First of all, yout t igure of
na if a 3 e C C ef, t of cance C S / 1 he aſ you le (1 t 1 on in j na 1 f the
percent of the cancers are due to the packground radla ti on, ls
that what I was picking up?
Drs. Ragigſ.g3. No, I said one to three percent-
Igla Zelieri. Une to three--I'm wonderling no w you could ever
get that number with out just pia in guess lºng • Seco ſidiy, I "h
ſeally laterested snere you got that number . Dr - Gotta an 's
study, a ni cn is about teſt years old no s, estlina tes that the
to tal United States population is exposed to five a i Lllſ e a
dose--you’d end up alth thirty-two thousand excess caucers per
year or excess deaths, I don’t reſileiaper which - * Q as you’re
say ling that this is three orders of magnitude to o large a
fligure?
—410–
i) ca. 8d.1Lacis I " A ſhut Sure an ere the three orders of
lad 9 ſll Lü de C3 the Iſ Oifle -
TQ, a Zellet: You’re Say in g a thous and or two thousand at
background, which ls two ill ill reins, and he 's talk lag five
à li llſ e H S -
Dr. Radford: Five ſalli i reins n e calculated? No, I don’t
till ſl K S Q - I worked with Dr. Goff a an closely at war lous times
when ne was gener a ting those numbers and i do (, "t thiſ K that 's
cot rect - we can co ſue pack to that poiſi t- I would prete c s lap ly
to say that the estimate that I derived is based on the 11 near
hypothes ls, and I was care ful to say it - in other words, taking
the data ºs e nave at the higher doses and extrap o 1 at lay Cheſſa
do snward to what the individual gets over nis lite span troia
background radiation, i.eads to one to three percent of the
C & in C & T S e In terms of incidence that "s arouſld 600,000 cancers a
year, so lº to 3 & 1s 6,000 to 18, 000 that would be due to
background radiatio ſi <
toli 4slleti. When Dr. Goffman was genera ting tſ) O S e
nufüpers, I thought it was wilth regard to the accept apie
rad latl on lili, it a round the fence of the glaſn't - Isn’t that five
ſalll iſ en P
Drs. Radforg: No, that "s five nundred lai ilir eth-
TQR. Zeller. Ukay, so was that the tigure he was us in g?
DEx. Radio Ed: I believe so-
TQR. Zeller: is that figure in the o all par K =ith a mat ne
comes up witn? I’ve heard that figure disputed, ls any i as K.
Drs. Radiºtii: I think n is estimates is ere too high aid the
prlſh cipal ceason was that he ſhade the assumptloſ, tſia t all
C a ſlice r S 1 ſi Guce I D Y I ad l at luſh flá d the Saige S e ſ 5 lit lºw 1 t / ? Lila t t ne
percent increase in D is k of cancer of any type was 9 roº of t i on a 1
to the dose and was equal for all different can cers • i trilin K
that as Suſap ti on has beeſa Very tho Coughly coſt tradicted oy the
nuiuan data •
Tºgli Zellet: My Second question is--and hay be you ae intloned
thls also -- I didn’t near any thing about the recent Mancus J study
and the study of the Naval Shipyard workers that invo iwed, in
Doth cases, we cy low dosages - it’s peen la the media, but I
do n 't have the data on an at they were exposed to or how
significant were the nutaber of cancers • Do you is awe so ſue
lſit oria at l oil on that? Thank you •
–411-
D.C. Ragigſ 2: Okay, I 11 take that one, and i " i i let the
other pane lists add any comments they would like. I’ve
dl Scussed this with Ur - Mail cus O SO trils is , l in ſið say, te i li ſag
a tale out of our school • In ſay opinion, the Mancus J study
sh ows a relations n1 p of r1 SK of cance C to I ad lation e Aposure in
the w or K place, a L the i e Vels at snil cn those as of Ke L S were
expose J, D ut oth ly for one cancer type, ſaaiiie i y lau 1 tip i e lay e i otaa,
whlch i S a relatl V e i y iſ a C e, a 1 tſh ough C a P 1 d 1 y iſ C ſea $ in g iſl
lſhp O I taſı Cez type O L DO ſle ifi aſ I Oil Caſh C e I e
The other putative effect, an increase in 9 aſicſ eat a c cancer
in these workers, I do not D el leve Can be adequately ascribed to
the radl atl on ex 2 osure • I think it’s a linked et Lect and 1 tº s a
problem in our tile thou o logy of epideia lology that we t c e queſn't ly
cannot assign a single cause or even a direct cause to a
particular agent •
If you take the excess risk that these workers had, and I
agree that taer e was a Shall excess r l’sk, and compare 1 t to the
expected risk on the linear hypothes is that would be us r lved
Iron the figures that I used, lt couies out very close to what
you would nave expected. In deed, you would not nave expected
aii to De 1ſh a ultiple lay elona, out you would nave expected a
Scatter in g of Cancers, but unfortunate ly the epide dulo logic
technique is just not capable of detecting it.
So ſay tirst conclusion is that the Hanford data did not
show any unusually high risk in these workers. The Second
point, and I believe Dr. Mancuso agrees is ltn file on this, and I
nave repeatedly said this in public, Iny iſ ter pretatl Qſì of the
Hanford Study is that the exposures were reinar Kaply good,
reinarkably 10 we Here you had a plant that started out making
plutonium for military purposes way oack in the to r ties and went
through the whole range of nuclear technology including peaceful
uses and ſali itary uses and everything e1 Se, Start Lily from
abso iu te scratch alth relatively untrained personnel, and yet,
wn en you to o K at the exposure data iſ that plant, 1 t is
ext reta el Y 9 J J d - T fle a V e C d g e d'O Se Q We E the as J C K ling Se aſ a v I the
in dividuals, many of a nich were short, I agree, because they
were construction workers and they left, was only 1 - 8 Edds • And
Ailce Stewart he rself n as coiata ented to ſhe he c Surprise that so
few workers ever got ſhore than five rads a year • Wery few ever
did. So my conclusion is that this plant was extremely well run
troſa the health physics polnt of View, and I have nad occasl on
to congr a tui ate Are Herb Parker mino was the cºnieſ health
physicist at that plant for this fact • And l Indeed it any pody
were here from the union, i would tell the a you "We got a
well-run plant. All you have to make sure of ls that 1 t keeps
pe Lng well run. So with regard to the Hanford Study that "s lay
bottofa iine and laaype some of the other panells ts would sant to
Coiflái eſat on this e
–412-
The second polfit is the Por US ſao utn Navy Yard Study. Drs.
Najarlan and Co is on were Very careful in their paper, 2 up 11 shed
in Langet, to polnt out that lt was a prelial nary study * they
nad no do slae try. There is no possible way you can colàp are,
let’s say, the risks that we would derive it on the other studies
wner e = e do nave dosimetry • They are now l n the p C ocess of
collectl ng the do Slide try data and Dſ in 9 in g to get he E the data o (a
Lao r tality • I hope that lt will be 9 OSS idle for NIUSH and other
groups that are law olved in this Study , to Di end the lº data
to get he ſe So the Ports ſaduth Yard Study in no way says a fly thing
about whetner the I l SK is higher, 10 set of a nate
The Safile thing can be sald to r the Utaſh children and have
recently peen studied troll, and whose exposure to radiation was
from tailout from Doud testing. Again, no dos luetry is adequate
and it is prefaature to say anytning about that result e Acept for
one important thing - And that is they have to und an excess of
leukelaia in the children. This result suggests that the dose
response curve in children a 1 g nt conce 1 vap ly De d 1 ft er ent in
snape from the dose response curve in adults - As you no ticed, I
used the cuſ V l l iſ ear (10 Se respoils e Cuſ We to I the adu 1 ts,
prlūaſ k i y adults in the Jag å fåese data •
So I conclude that of all the , “recent studies that snow an
ln creased risk" none of theia rea i ly do - The only one is Dr.
B ross’s reana lys ls of the Tri-City Study of cn lidren irradiated
in uter O = I simply do not a gree s ith Ur - Bross taat n as data
shows what he says it shows- -
{}R_*. Mald: Do any of the panel Lists want to respond?
Panelist: I’d like to ſhake a comment about the first
question from the gentleſnail troln Indiana State • I aim I aiml llar
so ſhe what with D C - Gotfman 's projections • These were taa de
approximate i y ten years ago • And I think the Key thing to keep
in ſalnd is that those project lons, o f total cancer deatns, were
based on two hundred mill loſt people in the United States, each
De 1 ſig ex º osed to the five huſid C. ed all Li iſ eu º e ſ year - 1. I y Q Li
look at the actual exposures of the pub i ic, and I presente d
these la another for flat in oiae of ſay Sildes, you" li t lined that
the exposure, per capita, in the United States hist or lcally nas
been a el 1 less than 1 unillire ſa per year shich is akin to r 1 ding
an eiew a to r ſaay be ten tlaes a year la terms of the crldſ, ge in
Da CKgſ Qūn Cle I think you've got to keep lin iá iſld tile Se
projections of a lot of people to doses which caſt get
astronomically b ligz put it n as to be kept in perspective •
DEs wald: I think the tatalities troſa the crowd ling at the
fence post, if you put the whole United States population in,
will l pe auch nig her than any thing Dr - Gotf Bian conteiap lated .
–413–
Mrs. Pilnguus; 1 'd like to could ent on the work U L Drs.
Mancuso, Bross and Allce Stewart, and others, from a little
differ efit perspect live t c oil that of Dr. Radfur d - I a 3.
regulator and I have to ſaake some iſnia ediate decisions alth the
industry that it a regulating ſlow - As these studies began to
coule out, certa Lilly from the Beginning 1 recognized the Klind ot
ſhe thodolo glo ai cnal lenge that has been raised to s one of the
conclus loſis. Dr. Radford has identified a number of them nere,
and the statist icians, from a ſhatneta a tical point of view, nave
raised equally sharp Cha 1 lenges • However, the fact does reaa in
that these studies would indicate, and I referred to this twice
in ſty reihar KS, that the basis of the present radiation
protecti Om Standards perhap S is not qulte as coinservative as
Sofile of the regulators thought it was , iſ other 4 or ds, i et ‘’s
say it glves a 12 t Hore emphasis to the lup ortance of app i ying
the linear hypothesis iite raily as if you really me an it. So I
would say as far as what we on the NRC statD have done, between
the tº end analysis of exposures that I covered in lay remarks iſ,
Sofile de tall, and looking at these data a ſld CO tas ider liig
discussions we "we had, particularly with Drs • Bross and A iice
Stewart-- that these is ere factors in leading us to conclude that,
even tº ough there lilay still be uſace r talnty and the re cer talniy
is not widespread Scientl fic acceptance of the tinuings of these
research æ rs, there were enough Lindl catlons here that we as
regulators snould look hard to redoubling some of our ett or ts to
control exposure, whicn is an at we "re doing -
Joan Blairz Evansvilllez. Indianai Concerning day - orkers in
nuclear Plants and how that practice is going today wine re a
worker can come in and receive his year ly dose of radiation one
day and then, not work 1n the plant any more. Just an at is
happening Ln that level? -
Drs. Radfords. I did address the genetic effects of
radiation, and I do thiſ, k they are limportant- YO u were
apparently not here when I did address it. I think iny position
on the genetic effects is that you cannot re a 1 1 y auci th ea
direct is to the S Jill at 1 C cance r effects, the a dy the 1C KP ſi as
done, for example • They equate “nealth et Lects trous genetic
dańage" with the "health etfect from cancer induction." This a
real probi eſa and i know the genetic 1sts share this concern.
That does not me aſ that the genetic , etfects are ignored, tar
from it. I think what it tei is ſue is that we must be especially
conservative lin. I estrict ling exposures, espec lally to indiv 1 duals
who all 1 o'e 1ſt the chlld-bearing age or up to the titue of the
usual reproductive span of the individual. Une way to ln Lerpret
this is to restrict very sharply the exposures of young
in dividuals work in g in association = itn the radiation, an e ther
it "s in trie nuclear industry or she ther it’s lm general ladus try
as we "we near d about, or whether it "S in ſuedlcal ul S eS,
restrict 1 ng exposures of individuals sno are under the age of 35
—414–
as snarp 1 y as you can. I think there ls going to be undoubtedly
a lot of discuss lon in this area as Mr. Minogue’s review gets
under way. So I don’t mean to play down the genetic effects; I
tn link tney "re V e ſy real and, a S I try to liadicate
quan Lita t lue ly, they look as thougn they are iſ the Saue oal i
park in terås of percent effect. But you Just can "t coup are a
genetic change directly s itſ] a can Cet change •
JQinn Blair.: Have the re Deeſi studies do a e a D out the genetic
effects to date that a de qua tely addressed the problein, la your
Wle is 2
D.C. Radford: The nuſa aii Studies are plagued by the tact
that we don’t Know what the natural genetic load is ln tile nutaan
population to begin with . So if you doſi "t know ºn at the “no rālal
level" is, which we know very accurately for cancer, you see,
then if you look at a population like the Japanese poiâp
survivors or any other population of hufaan subjects, it 's aiiaost
lap oss 15 i e to detect whether environiaeſata 1 age ſit A, B, C or Đ
has been naving an effect of a genetic nature, lſl part, Le cause
it ſaay be expressed only in two or three gether a ti on S away and
that’s 60, 80 years from nois - So we're very sec lously 11 alted
by that problem • The Spider w O E t 3 I "fit famillar sl th Dr.
isnikawa 's, work. The studies of plant cells have shown that you
get detectable genetic effects down lm the range of a tea rads •
And l tº s one of the experimeſl tal pleces of evidence that
convinces us that the "linear no-thresno id dose response curve”
ls not just a Baathematical convenience but it has so ſae substance
in the o lo logica i sense - And l tº s not the only data, by any
ſtº è diſis, e.
Dr. Maldi. Bob, do you want to take the other question?
Mrs. Minogue: I’d like to cominent on the genetic question -
I didn’t mentio in it in ſay taik because Dr. Radford had covered
lt. I wouldn’t want to leave anybody is itn the ling ress loin that
we, as regulators, d is count the jetle tic p E O O Leſli - The L e ls a
tendency, I thiſ k, because of the relatively eas leſ exper lu ental
prop is a that the I es earche r S 1ſt this aſ e a teſld to talk lio St 1 y
about cancers, but the regulators recognize that the c e are other
adverse effects. In tact, I think it’s true that Souae of the
decision makers aſhon g ſay g redecessors back in the 50 's were ſao ce
concerne d isl th genetic effects in considering no as to treat low
levels of exposure • {}ne of the reasons they adopted this
principle of assuſalng the line at no - threshold ſilo del was more
Decause of their concern about genetic et tects ratne C Lilaſa
so flatl.c effects. As to the other question, I’li try to answer
it brief ly. It’s a coſaplex issue • L touched on the trans lent
worker issue--people ſmoonlighting and ſud wing tº on Job to jo o in
Hay remarks. But there 's another e leinent of this sno ct-term
COD Eſ a C t d Oſ Ke I Se I do not like the teria, and I don’t like to
–415–
use it, the 1 de a of “burial ng out people." That is so hetning that
1I it involves us lug iſ experienced or unsual iſ led workers is not
realiy to ie rap le Just on safety grounds, because the operations
that people do on these pian ts that involve exposures typically
are in Vol V ed in the Bial n tenance or repair of esseſ, tial safety
equip then t . The re ls real i y no tri Vlai exposure • So you want
nighiy qualified workers to do these jobs • If a licensee Degan
to run througn unsuall fied workers, just Pll in g up bodies to do
Joos, it would be counter to safety in the t1 rst place, and
secondly, would linvolve uriduly large coli ective doses . If the
I e gula to r y Stſ a te gy tnat 's a do 9 te G ë if P tº d Si Zé S I edu Cl Il g
collectl we doses, you would tend to catch this practice in that
context, that ls, the total number of the in involved in doln g a
Job is focused on and controlled , as well as exposures of
individuals; you tend to root out this sort of practice which
has occurred from time to tiſae in the past of “burnlag out”
in dividual so t kers. - * * *
Questlon: How did the NRC take that? was that solae thing
tney slapped the Coſap any oil the is tist and Sald you sn all not do
tn ls any a Q re?
Mrs. . R. Kilaquus: No, it’s not coatrary to the present
regulations • i don’t in ean to give that impression - L. et lae give
you a Specific exalapie. I think President Carter to ok part in
an operation i 1 ke this thany years ago • It's conce 1 vapie that
tnere migrat be some operation involved that required il title
specialized Skli i where a worker ſaignt be called on to go in and
do one job, and then ſhow e out again a ſad go back to his no raa i
Job outside the radiation field • It would be coſaple tely
acceptan le it that was part of a pro grata that led to the inlil linum
number of total man-reſi, which, in thy in ind, I equate to total
cancers - I t”s not that simple of a question to say, "weil, you
snouid never go this." That, I think, is not a sens in le atls wer.
But rather to select whatever Bao de causes the least public
iſſip a CU - That’s the basic bottola ll in e. What is the Dest a a y to
do a J J D that 1 ſi volves the least public health ille act aid
accoſap i is nes the sate ty goal º That "S the test we use -
Dra. Ris. . italia. Excuse me, I think se "li nave to let so the
other people ask questions • -
JQau. Blaic: I'd just like to say one brief thing- It
see as what I have heard today, as tar as health effects of
nuclear energy, 1s that "s okay to shoot now and ask quest lons
later be cause so lauch of this stuff d e really don’t know, and it
seems that even this disting ulsned paine l is nicn is inade up of
academic and industry and governia ent people doesn’t nave very
many of the ansai ers that the public is cry in g out for . #1 t ſh
tnis Klad of 2 o Llcy of Baakling pleaty of nuclear eaer gy to day,
and not knowing what’s going to napp en with it in 10 years, is a
–416–
po ilcy that ſaay get us into a lot of troubie in the loſis cu (1 -
I d 1 1ke to make a brief Coſaſa ent, if I Ray - I’ve been Very
lap resse a with what I’ve heard to day in an are a that is Very new
to the e Hoa, ever, I have to a dialt that the statist lca i
projections that you gentlemen are forced to Hake, are forced to
rely on, leaves me a little pit cold • It’s not souetnling 1 teel
I can snuggle up with and really get to know - 1 diff cotice rned
about an area that I think is raised specifically by the nuclear
power question and that 'S the are a of n e alth econoal ics. I "m
golng to just scratch the surface in my coaſaents, pecause it I
do anything a o Te, I " i i reveal lay pro to und 1 g no rance of the
subject flatter - I dia Concer ſled Wilt n the extſ eſa e C Q Sts that
a 9 tº € a I e Gi to be associated is ith ſlucie at power gener at ion,
particularly cap i tai outlay, operating arid maintenance, and also
so the of the internall zed costs 7 no petuily, the costs to pe
internalized, such as waste disposal and the potent lally
stagger l ng costs of decognaissio Illing plants 30 or 40 years from
now . There are two effects of that enor hous cost . Une is
potential rals l ng of the cost of electric 1 ty. I would refer
any one l n te rested in that to the ſea arks made by the gent leſaan
yester day from the Edison Pos e r Rese at Cn Institute E. lectric
Power, EPRI • Although I doll "t aecessar lly agree wil to the
conclusions he drew, he did I alse soille quest lons about an at are
the societal and health lap acts of increased electrical poser
costs • But in Ostly i "in in terested in the tact that ſaaking the
deter ſalſa a ti ons as to win at aſ e the iled itn lap acts or nuclear
poser generation, can’t be a a de in a vacuuä that this discuss lon
nas been contained in . I "in not say in g that that is a tault of
the people who put to getner the pro graill. It’s inev Ltdo ie unat
you’re trying to do, but I think it is iſſup of tant to polat out
that we, as a society, have very limited resources and that if
we decide to spend hundreds of all lions of dollars or Dl 11 lons
and billions and bill il ons of dollars on nuclear power
generation, that is ſadney we "re not golng to be able to spend on
nealth i S Sue S-- neal th p rotud tion, other at eas 9 L nealth
9 reven ti on, so ille O L L fle I a lº 1 y S tagger iſlg C Q St 9 I envir outſi e Inta 1
contro 1 - I gue SS shat I Just is ant to point out is that the
issues of nuſaan health costs of nuclear power generation are not
Just related to occupationai and coulinunity sate ty, but also
ralse the issue of resource allocation as a deteria inant of
neal the I think that’s a consideration of everything we "we
talked ap out in the last three days • But I think that, given
the staggering costs that nuclear power Huay result in, that it
ls most snarply ralsed in this issue - I just santed to polnt
that out . Thank you • -
DEs. Ms. Mald: Does any one want to co him ent?
–417-
Panelist: I "d like to Blake Several codilents • I’m not sure
that was a question. I think it was a short speech. First,
if ll challenge the assumption that the cost of decomials s1 onling a
nuclear power plant is staggering in terms of the cost of the
plant - f nat's slap ly not true. Much of the tecnia ol J gy of
de coinials slo ning these plan tS is already established and, in
fact, Sever a l n a we been de Co athlss loſt ed. But no re ling or tant, the
basic issue n e Te that I all go lng to talk as a p up 1 ic n e alth
regulator. I to und this conference 3 ſt extrao C (1 in a cliy
l ſiteſ eS E L ſh9 expeſ i en Ce e I had no idea how Severe the n e altn
propleſas were in the coal industry until I came to this meeting.
I would agree with and support any argument that sald Ene pud lic
health lup act of producing electrical energy and the use of
electrical energy should be fully conside red be to re oae goes
to rºard. But that he ans tui i y Conslder ed in all in odes, and I’ve
heard notning to persuade me that the issues I try to 9 rapp le
with 1 n R Y day-in-day-out job, in terms of controlling radiation
exposur P o oth to the workers and the public, are o e iiig aan died
any less we i 1 than those associated with coal - i nawe had
exactly the opposite impress lon. I’ve sat ſhe re and listened to
people talk about sulfates and a coiàp lete uncertainty as to what
the effects are, and so ſae suggestions that "so let 's ſhot set any
standards - we 11 just keep on dolng it • * I "we been a regulator
for a long time, and I found that sor t or discuss Lou quite
disturbing, personally. -
Jqila Blalº 3 May I ask a follow-up question?
DEs. Ns. Haid: Let’s give the panel a chance to respond.
I really can’t i et anyone nonopolize the question because there
are other questions •
£ade list: I’d like to also respond to the decominiss ioning
is Sue e There have been a nutaber of Studies by industry and oy
others a D out the cost of decomials slo ſhing and I have newer seen
anything that I consider to be a solid technical study triat
doesn’t put the deco ſiſal'ss 1 on l ng cost o E a nuclear power p Lan L at
a we ſy, very 19 = level a ſhe ſi Coup a red to the total cap i t d 1 outlay
that you re talk in g about in a plant - As far as the econo ſaics
of nuclear power, I think this is certainly War laple, dependling
on where you are in the country, anat the cost of coa L, an at the
cost of hydro, the availablilty, etc. I don’t see a lot of
nuclear power plants being ou li t w nece they "re not econoalcal.
in tact, we do a "t see very ſu any nuclear power plants peing
built, 2 eriod, right now - And I believe it we don’t get soiae
built, I think we "re goln g to have serious snoctages in this
country. And I say this also as a public health person and not
just as a reg resentative of the industry • I th link that the
public health benefits of adequate energy ls an essential
ing red lent to the United States, and to our we if are and he alth
overal is I guess that 's about it •
–418-
Dr. E. Radfºrd: I'd just like to add a very brief
co ament-- not to pro long this discussion • It is absolute Ly true
that the econo alc aspects of all these altern at 1 ves 3 iſ €
iſſip O C tail t . Thi S Sy tap OS luń was ſlo t d eS 1 g ſled to address these
except 1 in a very lial ted way, de il De rate ly because we waii ted the
neal th 1 R p 1 leat loſis give ſh the pro illnen Ce we think 1 t ſhas e I
would a gree that ultimately a 11 of our activities that lap act on
e 1. Liſleſ Liſle ge the T a 1 p up lic or the workers, ou gn L to oe
internal 1 zed ln the cost of that actiy 1 ty. And l as ſee that
it ’s far from being internalized - I don’t think it’s a de 4u a tely
ln ternal lzed in the nuclear industry, for O ſhe case. For
example, look at the ſalming ..probleſh an ich is still with us, and
wn lcn is not be ling adequately factor ed into the equat loſa, aſ y
ño re than the coal ſain in g issue ls in the coal cycle • So I
think de ’ve got to do it and one of the ways we do it, is by
getting a better handle on the hea i th effects, and that’s shat
ise "re try in g to do here - -
Rignard Ulrighz Group Adaluit. Slugu and E2klutionz.
tiltshutſid: I tº a Vē a question Coſì C et Illing tſhe exposure
informat i on for the people eiàp loyed in the 9 laſts • Uut of
70,000 workers, I think, the slide S no as 1 i , 000 workers
Tec el V lag in or e than one Ceſa • Now, I think, there are soue
people who do be i leve that one reſh could be a suf I ic lent
standard, that is the standard should be lowered frota 5 reins to
1 reſh per year • Now, witn those 70,000 workers, the re were
30, 000 or 25, 000 who didn’t get any exposure and certain others
who are probably not working in the critical areas - Are these
11,000 out of a much saalier group of critical dockers--are
tnere steata titters or soa e other group of who in there ace only
10,000, and right now 8,000 or 9, 000 of the ſū actually are
getting the 1 reſa exposure or more • The iſlap lication of this
health thing, if the standard is lose red, can nuclear power
plants keep running or can ſaost of theià keep running, a 1 1 of
them keep running, or sill they run out of workers? .
LEs ſis. Haig.: "noia are you address ling? A nose Silue was
it you described? I think it was iſ the regulation •
Panellisti. I think I can answer the questio (a rather
Driefly . I think it’s correct that of the group exposed to
greater than the 1 reſa cut of t, a large perce (a tag e of those are
nighly skilled workers that are associated with soiae of the
critical weid ing and inspect lons operations • These Skli is are
rather a laely available throughout the country. It 's a nign
level of skill that is relative ly availaole, I think •
Rignard Ulrich: So the re will be workers avaliao i e in
other in dustries that the nuclear industry would de ap le to
hl re?
–419–
Paſhalls... The troud i e is that I looked at this issue more
iro in the 991 at of view of what it is that produces the least
9 up lic health in 2 act - Running through Bi or e workers, if you
could so ſaeno is Rake them available, in ign tº la crease the total
collective exposure • frie perspective you’re ask lag ºne to answer
ls ſaor = that of industry • I would as Suſie they could tra lin
as elders 1 t all eise falls. That is ouldn’t accomplish any public
nealth goal •
RA. Ulrigh; I kind of suspect it's going to pe hard to
keep an industry go in g it it requires a heavy turnover of n lyn ly
skill led individuals. &
Banglls tº. I really doubt that Very Rucin- Tine cost of
these repairs in terms of the worker cost is ſuini scule cuſap ared
to the iſlw està ent in these giants. -
Ulcign: So they could keep a larger permanent work to ree?
May be that would be a solution-- it sould nave extra workers ano
O sº {}
Panellst: * orkers of this type typically work for war lous
contract G rse They t e not necessarily the elap lo y ees of the
utility •
Dr. Ms. Hald: We have time for one aore quest Lon.
sleſ. EY Rosen & University of Pittspurgh: My question to the
panel 1 s a Dout the differences lin estimated neal tri effects from
natural background which I raised eac lie C - I got the answer I
expected from the pane is what concerns the is that a new
inter agency report which is in draft form, makes use of
in to rulatl oil on Olological effects in Lon is several years penind
the times • It doesn’t draw on the UNSCEAR Report of 1977. it
obviously cannot dras on the new BEIR Report in 1 cm, I bellwe, is
due shortly . This is a document which I be il eve will be used
Stro I, J ly in the p O i 1 t lc al de C is loſt iſ a K1 ng proces S I e i ate q to
future C hanges 1 (1 I adl at 1 on exposure litial ts - People ilke Fiſ -
Minogue do not nave some of this in for ſaat lo n a wall ap le to the in
unless they go outside of their own agencies to gather lt. I
feel that this is detr linental to future policy haking.
DEs. Ms. Haldi. Anyone care to comment?
QEA. E. Radford. I’ll just coiament to your first point-
I" in not quite sure what your last point is as--that pecause de
know ſhore about radiatlon we should be less concerned an out lt,
Bao re concerned about it, or is nat? To answer your flirst
question, I do agree that the decision on the part ut the
technical staff who prepared the L. lb assi Report to use B E IR I
risks estimates a as, in ſay opinion, a mistake- I "a not quite
–420–
sure way they did it, except perhaps it was a Vai lable to the in in
a for a that they could use in their computer ruſhs ſhore readily
than per hag S so he of the other data that is as p OSS lo 1 y aval i able
to theſa. i thin K you "re r ignt. It ls out of date and it is
unt or tunate that the BEIR report did not cone out De I or e the
Li Dass i Report • In fact, I 'ta to id that oſae of the reas ons that
the L1b as Si &ep or t was de layed was because they were a a 1 Ling for
the B E I tº Rep O C t to Coſſi e out e. I "a crlal rulan of Line BEIR
Committee, and there fore I carry the onus of the fact that it
As nºt out - But a e re do lng our utſao St.
Nes Speakers. The second point is asſi "t to say that we should
go ahead witn nuclear po de r or coal power, I think ads to f the
decisions afie ad of us are not really sclentitic. They are going
to be political. I see issues peing raised here by soue of the
question ers that are purely political and I do nºt think that the
questions are very nealthy in nature • Let’s put it that way--at
least the reasons to r them being to rulu lated.
DEs. Ms. Hald, moderatºr: I think we've run out of our
tl ſhe ſo I questi Q ins and answers and I waſn't to thank the Speakers
for their very lucid presentations and the audience I or its
contributions to the discussion. Thank you •
–421–
SESSION WI: FUTURE AREAS OF CONCERN
Wednesday afternoon, March 21, 1979
Moderator: Wesley W. Posvar, Ph.D.
Chancellor
University of Pittsburgh
POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN THE PRODUCTION
OF SYNTHETIC FUELS FROM COAL
By *
Maurice A. Shapiro, Professor
LONG TERM HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
By
William D. Rowe, Ph.D.
AREAs of UNCERTAINTY IN ESTIMATES OF HEALTH RISKS
By
Leonard D. Hamilton, M.D., Ph.D.
-422-
POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC FUELS
FROM COAL
By
Maurice A. Shapiro, Professor
Carole S. Godfrey
Jan K. Wachter
and
George P. Kay
Environmental Health Engineering
Graduate School of Public Health
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
–423–
Introduction
The first commercial coal hydrogenation (liquefaction) plant was
built at Leuna, Germany in 1926. With the evolution in design improvements
for this plant, liquid fuel products were generated which were comparable
in composition to those derived from petroleum. Twelve additional German
coal hydrogenation plants were eventually built so as to compensate for
the lack of that country's oil and gas supplies. It was these hydrogenation
plants that during world War II supplied over 85% of the aviation gasoline.
used by the Luftwaffe. On March 8, 1979, the N.Y. Times reported that
the Sasol plant under construction in Secunda, South Africa will, in
1982, process 27 million tons of coal a year and produce 500 million
gallons of liquid fuel per year. The plant will employ 7,500 workers.
One of the key goals of the Administration's energy planning has
been the achievement of greater American independence from foreign oil
and gas supplies. The United States currently utilizes oil for 46% of
its energy needs, natural gas for 32%, while coal provides only 17% (1).
15
Since our known U.S. coal reserves (8000 x 10" Btu) far outweigh the
15 Btu), it is evident that the United States
U.S. oil reserves (200 X 10
will have to use coal or coal conversion products as a major means of
reaching such energy independence (2). -
Several governmental agencies have reported that the U. S. coal
reserve base is approximately 400 billion tons. . The Department of Energy
has estimated that by the year 2000, high- Btu gasification win Supply
15 I5
6.8 x 10" Btu's and low-Btu gasification 1.8 x 10" Btu's of energy (3).
–424-
Approximately 176 sites have already been identified in the U.S. each of
which have sufficient coal and water (large quantities of water are
required in the conversion process) to support the operations of a gasi-
fication plant (250 Mscf/day) for twenty years. If coal gasification and
liquefaction processes are expected to supply such vast quantities of
energy in the near future, it is imperative that potential health impacts
associated with synthetic fuel production be determined.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potential impacts of coal
conversion derived pollutants as they are transported and transformed in
air, water and soil and to ascertain the public and occupational health
consequences. * -
DRINKING WATER - POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS
The effluents from coal conversion processes are numerous, with
the majority of streams being relatively clean and thus amenable to
recycling and/or safe disposal. Some of the residues are contaminated
by toxic and mutagenic Substances and must be treated before discharge.
The generation of these by-products depends upon the interactions of major
factors in the design and operation of the coal conversion plant, such as
operating temperature, method of coal injection, and coal type. These
factors will affect the composition and ultimately the potential health
impacts of effluent streams derived from gasification and liquefaction
facilities. Based upon information obtained from existing pilot plants,
a full scale commercial gasification plant (250 Mscf/day of pipeline gas)
may be expected to generate between 0.4 and T.2 million gallons of liquid
discharge per day. As an example of the range of contamination loadings,
a coal gasification plant generates approximately 50-100 lbs of tar,
30–70 lbs of oil and naptha, and 8-12 lbs of phenols per ton of coal (4).
–425–
Some other constituents expected to be present in the wastewater include
ammonia, cyanates, thiocyanates, arylamines, aliphatic hydrocarbons,
mono- and polycyclic hydrocarbons, organic-sulfur compounds, carboxylic
acids, esters, furans, tetralins and organometallic complexes.
To assess possible pollutant concentrations which may enter potable
water supplies and thereby affect health, it is necessary to investigate
pollutant removal efficiencies of various treatment methodologies. Methods
which could be utilized to treat coal gasification wastewater include:
ammonia stripping, solvent extraction of phenols, biological oxidation of
phenols and other organic constituents, and possibly carbon adsorption
and chlorination. Ozonation will probably not play a major role in the
wastewater treatment Scheme due to its high cost and low efficiency (5).
- The concentration of pollutants remaining after wastewater treatment
are shown in Table 1. This information is based upon data obtained from
operating pilot coal gasification wastewater treatment plants or by
extrapolation of results derived from treatment plants serving similar
industries. Using the concentrations in Table I, it is possible to calcu-
late constituent concentrations of pollutants when dispersed and diluted
in specified receiving streams (Table 2). We chose specific locations on
the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers to reflect possible future sites for
coal gasification facilities. As can be seen in Table 2, during average
flow conditions, the constituents will probably be diluted to such an
extent that their contribution to environmental concentrations will be
negligible. However, during 7-day, 10-year low flow conditions, some
constituents will not be sufficiently diluted so as to comply with various
stream quality standards. For instance, during the 7-day, 10-year low flow
of the Monongahela River at Charleroi, Pa., the increase of phenol concen-
tration above background in the receiving water exceeds the recommended
–426-
lppb standard for surface waters (6). Table 2 does not take into account
the background levels of constituents in receiving streams. It is possible
that the increase of some constituents due to coal conversion Wastewater
when added to background concentrations may cause them to exceed water
quality standards. -
Even though the load of pollutants, When diluted with receiving stream
water will generally be reduced to very low levels, review of the literature
indicates that there are some classes of compounds which warrant concern.
The classes of major concern are organic contaminants, cyanate and
thiocyanate, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. -
Organic Contaminants. Monohydric and dihydric phenols are major
organic compounds in wastewater generated during coal gasification.
These phenols can be reduced to trace concentrations by biological
oxidation. Phenols in drinking water lead to significant taste and odor
* problems and possible health effects. It should be noted that chlorination
Of phenol containing water usually increases taste and odor problems due
to the lower odor thresholds associated with chlorinated analogs of
certain phenols. Polycylic phenols are present in lower concentrations
than monocyclic phenols. The efficiency Of removal of polycyclic phenol
by biological oxidation is less than that obtained for mono-and dihydric
phenols.
Monocyclic and polycyclic N-aromatics are present in small quantities
in coal gasification wastewater. The ingestion of pyridine (a major compound
in this class of organics) has been shown to cause liver and kidney damage (9).
Aliphatic acids may be present in coal conversion wastewaters at concer-
trations up to 700 mg/l, with acetic acid comprising approximately 85% of
this aliphatic acid section. In sufficiently dilute form, acetic acid is
–427–
not toxic nor are its acetates, such as potassium and sodium acetate.
Cyanide and Thiocyanate. Data on cyanide and thiocyanate concen-
trations in processed coal gasification wastewater is needed because of
these compounds' toxic properties. There are inconsistencies in the
literature regarding cyanide and thiocyanate quantities generated by
gasification operations. The same is true of the cyanide removal ef-
ficiencies of several treatment methods. Cyanide is present in coal
gasification wastewater at concentrations ranging from 0.01 and 2.28 mg/l,
and thiocyanate is present in raw coal gasification effluent in concen-
trations ranging from 20 to 400 mg/l. Given an average concentration Of
thiocyanate (150 ppm) and a practical removal efficiency of 70%, then
approximately 45 ppm of thiocyanate is expected to be present in treated
coal gasification wastewater. The average concentration of cyanide in
such treated wastewater is 0.6 mg/l. Reduction of cyanide concentrations
in wastewater has been reported to be as high as 90%. In general practice,
reduction of cyanide by biological oxidation is approximately 60%. Cyanide
at low concentrations (10 mg/l or less) is converted in the human body to
the less toxic thiocyanate species (8). Upon chlorination, either at a -
coal gasification plant or at a municipal water treatment plant, cyanide
is easily oxidized. The remaining concentration is below the health
effect threshold level. • *
- Ammonia. Approximately 80% of the nitrogen in the feed coal is
converted to ammonia during coal gasification. Some 20–22 ib of ammonia .
are generated per ton of coal gasified. The average concentration of
ammonia in gasification wastewater is 7500 mg/l. Ammonia stripping, lime
treatment and biological oxidation are expected to reduce ammonia concen-
trations in treated coal gasification wastewater to a range of 5-15 mg/l.
-428-
The presence of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate in potable water supplies results
in a variety of pollutional problems. Amonia and its oxidized analogs
are potential algal and microbial nutrients in water distribution systems.
Ammonia also increases the chlorine demand at water treatment plants which
practice free-residual chlorination. In addition, it increases the
biochemical oxygen demand in receiving waters.
The conversion of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate is a significant
occurrence due to the potential adverse effects of these compounds on
human health. The Well known fiealth fiazards of nitrites and nitrates in
drinking water are the induction of methemoglobinemia (especially in
infants) and the potential formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines. In
- infants, nitrite acts in Blood to oxidize hemoglobin to meteroglobin, d
form which cannot act as a carrier of oxygen to the tissues leading to
anoxia and possible death. The reported concentration of nitrate in Water
needed to induce methemoglobinemia varies from reference to reference.
However, very few cases have 5een related to drinking water containing less-
than 10 mg/ nitrate as nitrogen (iii. It is known that infants have been fed water
that contained larger amounts of nitrate without developing metheroglosinemia.
To assess the impact of nitrate in drinking water as a causal agent
Of methemoglobinemia, One must determine what other sources of nitrate in
the environment will be ingested. An "average" person has a total daily
nitrite-nitrate intake of approximately 110 mg, with vegetables contributing
over 80% of the total input (12). Water, on the other hand, contributes &
no nitrite and 0.7% nitrate as compared to other sources.
Upon dilution with stream or process water, the concentration of
ammonia would be considerably less than the 5–15 mg/l present in the
treated coal gasification wastewater. Assuming that all of this ammonia
–429–
is converted to nitrate, it is likely that the resulting concentration
would be below the threshold for methemoglobinemia. However, when the
contributions of nitrate and nitrite from diet, air and water supplies are
added, the amount of ammonia present in coal gasification effluents which
is then converted to nitrate and nitrite may exascerbate existing problems.
Adverse health impacts may also ensue when nitrates are converted to
carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in water. The contribution of nitrate
transformed to N-nitroso compounds in water compared with the amount
contributed by food ingestion has not been sufficiently well determined.
However, epidemiological studies have correlated the increased incidence
of gastric cancer with elevated nitrate levels (90–110 mg/1)in drinking
water (13).
Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide (His) has been reported as being
present in untreated coal gasification wastewater in a range of concentrations
from < 5 mg/ to 250 mg/l. Biological oxidation and acid gaS stripping have -
been reported to be 97% and 99% effective in removing H2S from wastewater.
The toxic properties of H2S are exerted in the undissociated form.
The extent of dissociation is largely dependent upon pH, with approximately
50% dissociation occurring at pH 7.0. If oxygen is present in the water
at concentrations above 0.025 mg/l, then H2S will probably be converted
into sulfate. If sulfide is not converted into sulfate, it would most
likely form insoluble metal sulfide complexes due to its strong ligand
properties.
SOLID: WASTES - POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS *
Solid Wastes along with contaminated liquids are generated during
coal conversion operations. Solid residues from coal gasification include
ash and char from the gasifier, desulfurization and wastewater treatment
–430–
sludges, and disposable catalysts. The volume of solids generated depends
on the characteristics of the feed coal and the conversion process. The
literature reports that typically a 250 Mscf/day gasifier will produce
3000-4000 tons/day of ash and char (14). These gasification solid wastes
contain higher concentrations of trace elements than the feed coal.
Somerville et al. (15) have shown that 81% by weight of the major and
trace inorganic elements in the feed coal exit with the ash. In the coal
ash, the major constituents are complexes of aluminum, calcium, iron,
•
potassium, magnesium, sodium and silicon.
The potential for trace element contamination of ground or surface
water by leachates derived from land-filled or ponded ash depends on the
chemical and physical characteristics of the stored sludge and ash, its
rate of application, the soil characteristics and the hydrological regime
of the area. Uptake and toxicity to flora and fauna (especially micro-
organisms) must be considered. The transport of trace elements in the
soil depends upon the rate of water movement, adsorption capacities and
chemical reactions taking place within the soil profile.
Trace elements sorbed on Soil Will be strongly held by some soils
and thus prevent rapid leaching of many elements into surface and ground
waters. Factors affecting trace element attenuation by soil include pH,
oxygen availability, soil particle size distribution, cation exchange
capacity, amount and type of hydroxides and oxides of Fe, Mn, and Al ,
pore size, and concentration of organic material, salt, and microorganisms.
The literature emphasizes a concern about the presence and behavior
in coal gasification ash of the following elements: arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, fluorine, mercury, sulfur, and selenium.
–431–
Arsenic. Health effects have been associated with the ingestion of
drinking water with high concentration of arsenic. In Antofagasta, Chile,
a city with a population of 100,000, drinking water was reported to contain
a weighted average arsenic concentration of approximately 600 g/l (16).
This high arsenic concentration was linked to a high incidence of cutaneous
skin lesions (145.5/100,000 for males and 168/100,000 for females). After
the installation of a water treatment plant, the arsenic content of the Water
was reduced to 80 ug/1, while the incidence of cutaneous skin lesions
dropped to 9.1/100,000 for males and 10/100,000 for females. Due to the
low concentration of arsenic present in coal gasification ash, it is
expected that most soils will have the ability to attenuate arsenic
sufficiently through such mechanisms as coprecipitation with sulfide,
ferric hydroxide, ferric chloride, and ferric sulfate. *
Cadmium. Food is the primary source of cadmium intake for man.
The total daily intake of cadmium from air, water, food, and tobacco -
ranges from 40-190 ug/day. Drinking Water contributes only a small
fraction (less than 5%) of the total (11). A variety of disease states
are thought to be influenced or caused by high levels of cadmium in
various organs. Chronic ingestion of cadmium at levels of greater than
600 ug/day has been reported to be responsible for the onset of
"Itai-itai" disease in Japan (11). Along with its kidney toxicity, there
has also been some indications in animal studies that cadmium is
carcinogenic and/or teratogenic. Cadmium is present in gasification ash
at a concentration of approximately 0.2ppm. Cadmium also has a very low
solubility in water. Due to these two factors, it does not seem likely
that cadmium in coal gasification and liquefaction ash would contami-
nate drinking water suppliès at levels which cause disease.
–432–
Chromium. Concentrations of chromium in natural waters are limited
by the low solubility of chromium (III) oxides. Very little infor-
mation is available on the average total daily intake of chromium, although
it appears to be slightly lower than the intake for cadmium. On the average,
approximately 0.04% (400 ppm) of coal gasification and liquefaction ash e
is composed of chromium. This is a significant fraction given the huge
amount of ash expected to be generated. There are many inconsistencies in
the literature regarding the renovation potential of soil for chromium.
However, even though chromium is relatevely insoluble in water, it is
considered a potential hazardous compound in ash due to the many
uncertainties about its behavior in the environment.
Fluoride. Fluoride, due to its anionic nature, is not attenuated
...to any great degree by the soil. The lethal dose of sodium fluoride for
man is 5 g (17). We know that teeth and bone are the most fluoride
sensitive tissues. National Academy of Sciences (ii) have concluded that
symptomatic skeletal fluorosis can occur at a level as low as 3 ppm.
They have also concluded that the possibility of fluoride causing adverse
effects such as allergic responses, mongolism, and cancer has not been *
adequately documented. *
Sulfur. Sulfur is one of the major components of coal gasification
ash. In anaerobic environments, sulfur is usually present as sulfide
(ST). In this species, it can easily form insoluble precipitates.
However, under aerobic conditions, sulfur is oxidized to sulfate (S0,"). *
National Academy of Sciences (11) have concluded that no adverse health
effects have been noted when the concentration of sulfate in water is less
than 500 mg/1. The observed physiological effect at concentrations
sº
–433–
greater than 1,000 mg/l is the induction of diarrhea.
Selenium. selenium is easily volatilized during gasification and emitted
to the atmosphere. Therefore, the amount of selenium in coal gasification
ash is very small and other sources of selenium (e.g. diet) will over-
shadow the possible contribution of selenium from coal gasification solid
residue. Mercury, likewise, is easily volatilized and can be emitted as
a vapor from coal gasification stacks. Therefore, its environmental effect
due to its presence in ash or sludge will be minimal. -- -
HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF AIR FOLLUTANTS .
Potential atmospheric pollutants from synthetic fue production arises
from the auxillary operations as well as the actual conversion process.
A list of some of the potentially hazardous substances follows in the
section dealing with occupational health problems. These Substances
may be present in coal conversion process streams; however, because of the
enclosed and pressurized nature of a gasification or liquifaction system,
air emissions during regular plant operations are expected to arise
mainly from the auxillary operations. During startup or in an emergency,
emissions could be of high rates but of short duration and, for
high-BTU gasification, are expected to be less than one percent of
the total plant air emissions. Emissions from the gasification process
itself would arise mainly from leaks in pump seals, joints, flanges,
compressors, etc., and from venting operations (18). Quantities of the
major gaseous effluent streams from the various processes are compared in
Table 3 with the corresponding streams from a large power plant using
recycled cooling water (19).
Because published data on emissions from coal conversion plants is
sparse (20) only auxillary operations were considered in the ERDA
Synthetic Fuels Commercialization Program Report (21) which estimated air
-434-
emissions from coal conversion plants. In order to make the resulting
pollutant loads meaningful , they were calculated for d conversion facility
that would produce enough fuel to support a 1000 MW power plant operating
at 33 percent efficienty. Table 4 indicates ambient air quality contribu-
tions of such a plant. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are shown in
the headings (21). Of interest is the rélative contribution of gasification
-- plants to ambient air quality. The ratio of sulfur dioxide derived from the
gasificiation plant to the Annual Average Standard ranged from.0.01 to 0.24;
• the NO, ratio ranged from 0.01 to 0.22; particulates from 0.0 to 0.3; and
hydrocarbons ranged from 0 to 0.04 of the Three Hour Maximum Standard.
Some of these amounts are important contributions to the ambient load.
The median and 90th percentile values for total suspended particulates
gathered by State and local air pollution control agencies are presented
in Table 5 along with the secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Values (22). Since the ambient air quality in certain
situations already exceeds the standard, the contribution of such a
gasification plant could add to the already high ambient levels.
Experimental "Hygas" bench scale results indicate that much of the
total flow of trace elements would get into downstream process systems
and eventually be removed in the gas quench, shift conversion, acid-gas
removal , or on catalyst surfaces. However, data from the Synthane pilot
plant gasifier indicate that a major fraction of trace elements concentrate
in the char residue which may be burned in the utility boiler, releasing
them to the atmosphere upon combustion. Therefore, the amount of trace
element concentration would be increased 4 to 5 times over that normally
emitted by a coal fed boiler of similar-size (23). The background concentration
-435-
could account for as much as one-third of the vanadium and one-tenth of
of several metals and the contribution from possible coal use projected
in the year 2020 is given in Table 6; potential violations of suggested
acceptable atmospheric trace element concentrations are primarily due to alread
higher background levels. In a report of the Argonne National Laboratory on coa
utilization in the Illinois River Basin, it is stated that the gastro-
intestimal tract, rather than the respiratory system, could be the most
significant route of entry for coal related air and waterborne trace ele-
ments. The significance of the gastrointestina tract is further enhanced
if dietary trace element intake were added. Moreover, uptake of trace
elements in food materials due to higher ambient levels in air may increase
such a contribution. In spite of this, projected coal utilization is not
anticipated as a prime contributor of trace element body-burden, but it
the chromium body burden in exposed populations (24).
Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for a substantial portion of
atmospheric contamination by mercury. Studies of persons occupationally
exposed indicated a dose-response relationship involving the nervous
system starting with concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/m3. Mercury, there-
fore, in ambient air probably represents little if any health problems for
- the general population (25). -
Also to be considered is the radiological impact of emissions due
to conversion processes. Based on results of analyses of coal, SRC solid
fuel, and flyash samples from both, the following observations were made:
1. Uranium levels were less than thorium in
all cases except for SRC particulates
--436-
2. Uranium and thorium were more concentrated
in particulate samples than in the coal
and SRC solid fuel
3. Literature cited in the report (26) indicated
that at least 90 percent of the uranium is
expected to be retained in the bottom ash and
collected fly ash - ~
The estimated level of U-238 expected to be discharged from a power
plant which combusts SRC solid fuel is 0.2 ug/m3 which is an order of
magnitude less than the 7 ug/m3 "general public" exposure standard for
air (26). *
Although many potentially hazardous materials are residues of the
coal conversion process, there is no direct, continuous atmospheric
emission of these substances (27). Concentrations of some organic com-
pounds found in an urban atmosphere, and also suspected present in coal
conversion process streams are shown in Table 7. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) can be readily absorbed by animals through ingestion,
inhalation, or skin contact (29); the carcinogenicity of PAH adsorbed onto
polycyclic organic material (POM) through inhalation has been documented
with experimental animals (30). However, in 1970,Bap concentrations in over
100 United States cities were one to two orders of magnitude less than 0.12
ug/m3, the suggested maximum concentration of atmospheric BP (31). Since
the coal conversion process is expected to be a more controlled system
than coking, its pollution contribution should be less.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
The first occupational cancers were reported as far back as 1775,
when the prevalence of scrotal cancer among British chimney sweeps was
determined to be eight times that of the general populace (32). Chimney
–437—
soot was identified as the suspected carcinogen. One hundred and thirty-two
years later, England officially acknowledged epitheliomatous cancer or
ulceration from exposure to pitch, tar, and tarry compounds as valid grounds
for workmen's compensation (33, 34). Today, industrial materials such as
soot, shale oil, certain aromatic amines, coal tar, and isopropyl oil,
among others, are recognized occupational carcinogens (35, 36). sº
Epidemiological evidence has conclusively shown that workers routinely
exposed to the combustion and/or distiſlation products of bituminous coal
run an increased risk of developing cancer of the skin or viscera
(37, 38, 39). - . * - - • º
Although large-scale coal hydrogenation plants were operated in
Germany in the 1920's, Britain in the 1930's and South Africa in the
1950's, the best insight we have into the potential health effects of
coal conversion is the result of a pilot plant operated at Institute,
West Virginia during most of the 1950's. This Union Carbide
facility produced chemicals via coal hydrogenation (liquefaction) with
& design capacity of 300 tons coal/day. Even before the Institute Plant
"went on line" in 1952, it was known that the facility would generate a
wide variety of chemicals, many which would pose potential acute or chronic
health hazards to the workers. Over two hundred individual chemicals Were
eventually identified from the Institute plant (40), the majority of which
fit into the following six classes of compounds:
a. ) aliphatic hydrocarbons
b. ) single ring aromatics
polynuclear aromatics
)
d. ) phenols
) aromatic amines
)
- N-heterocyclic aromatics
However, several inorganic gases as well as dusts and particulates were
also found to be present in the plant environment.
During the first two years of operation several intermediate and
final products of the Institute facility were painted on the skin of mice
to test for tumorigenicity (41). The light oil stren and its eight
fractions did not exhibit any tumorigenic activity. As a rule, these
light oil stream fractions have relatively low boiling ranges, phenolic
pitch being the only component separating above 260°C. Conversely, the :
process streams and residue boiling at higher temperatures (middle oil -
stream, light oil stream residue, pasting oil stream, and pitch product
stream) were all demonstrated to be highly carcinogenic to the skin of
mice. Carcinogens implicated by these results include polycyclic aromatics
such as phenanthrene (bp 339°C), perylene (sub 350–400°C), picene (bp 520°C),
and pyrene (bp 404°C) (42). The structural formulae of these and other
high boiling, polycyclic aromatic constituents of coal-tar are depicted
in Figure 1. - -
The Institute work force was thoroughly Warned of the results of the
animal studies in late 1952 and 1953. Moreover, the workers were provided
with safety education and changes of clothing during work. Despite these
precautions, cases of skin cancer were discovered among the work force.
Dr. R.J. Sexton, the plant's medical director, examined for five years
the 359 men regularly assigned to work the plant area. Sexton found nine
workers with one cutaneous Can Cey" each and one worker with two cutaneous
cancers as shown in Table 8. He also found forty workers with one cutaneous
precancerous lesion each as shown in Table 9 (34, 44). This incidence of
skin cancer is many times that of either West Virginia or the United
States (34). These skin abnormalities were believed to have resulted
-439–
from occupational exposure to coal tar, pitch, or high boiling-polycyclic
aromatics primarily via air-borne (vapor or condensed droplet)
contamination routes (45, 46).
In a study conducted by the Stanford Research Institute (44) nine of
the ten workers described in Table 8 and all forty workers listed in Table
9 were followed-up in order to determine their vital status as of July
1977. Of the ten workers originally diagnosed with skin cancer, two died
in the intervening period from causes other than cancer, two retired
(one of whom is ill with lung cancer), five Were still working, and one -
subject could not be found. Of the forty workers diagnosed with pre-
cancerous skin lesions, three died from causes other than cancer,
thirteen retired, twenty-three were still working, and one retiree was
hospitalized with Parkinson's disease and prostate cancer. The Stanford
researchers note: ę
tº gº º & 69 that the available data do not support the
initial hypothesis; that those workers exposed to
heavy streams of toxic materials from the coal hy-
drogenation process, with evidence of cancerous
skin lesions, may be at increased risk of developing
systemic carcinoma. This observation is based upon
a marked lack of cancer-related deaths or morbidity
in both the confirmed skin cancer group and the pre-
cursor group, after a latency period of 18–20 years.
Nonetheless, two additional facts merit consideration - a. ) that the
cohort under examination was small; and b. ) that the 309 workers who
did not exhibit lesions in the Sexton study (34) were not examined in
the Stanford study (44). Few health effect studies, other than the one
conducted at the Institute facility, have been reported. Hueper (47,48)
tested the carcinogenicity of Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch oils obtained
from the experimental coal hydrogenation-liquefaction facility at
Bruceton, Pennsylvania. Fractions were tested by repeated application
-440-
to the skin of mice and rabbits, and I.M. injections to the thighs of rats.
Eight of nine Bergius oil fractionation products were found to be
carcinogenic, the degree of carcinogenicity usually increasing with
boiling points. Fischer-Tropsch products were less carcinogenic and seemed
to have a narrower species and tissue susceptibility spectrum. &
Epidemiological studies of gasworks and coking operations (38, 39, 49, 50)
have provided some insight into the potential health effects of coal conversion
plants because the types of toxic chemicals present are similar. However;
coal conversion plants operate by necessity with good containment and
worker exposure to these agents is projected to be much less than in the -
aforementioned industries (42).
Researchers at Batteile-Columbus Laboratories (43) examined the potential
occupational health effects of three gasification processes: the high-pressure,
fixed-bed system; the atmospheric-pressure, entrained-suspension system; and the
atmospheric-pressure, fluidized bed system. In all of the gasification schemes
the greatest carcinogenic potential was determined to exist in the early process
stages, when the complex organic constituents of coal undergo structural degrad-
ation. It is during these early operations that the risk of Spills or leaks
must be minimized. In the later stages, the output of the gasifier approaches
a typical gas in composition and the carcinogenic potential is eliminated or *
minimized. Coal liquefaction processes pose a greater danger to the workers.
Sophisticated engineering and industrial hygiene programs will be required in
order to minimize worker contact, both dermal and respiratory, with organic
compounds such as phenanthrenes, pyrenes, l, 2-benzanthracenes, chrysenes, and
five-ringed compounds.
–441–
We believe that worker exposure at future commercial-scale,
conversion facilities will be maximal during shutdowns or equipment
modifications/replacements attempted during periods of operation. Under
such circumstances workers may be required to open process lines or enter
vessels. It is worth noting that most of the skin cancer subjects
reported by Sexton and shown in Table 8 were engaged in plant maintenance
at the Institute, W. Va. facility. Our major concern is the exposure of
such maintenance workers to the known carcinogens and cocarcinogens listed
in Table 10. Most of the other chemicals present, as well as physical
agents (heat and noise), can be dealt with by good industrial hygiene
practice.
-442-
Table 1. Representative Water Pollutant Loadings from a 250 Mscf/day Synthetic Natural Gas
Plant. Using Illinois #6 Coal
Untreated e - Treated (a) t Efficiency of
Treatment Based
on Loading Reduction (%)
Parameter - Conc. (mg/1) Loading (1b/day) Conc. (mg/l) Loading (1b/day)
TSS - 600 16, 500 20 550 97
pH 8, 6 sº 8.5 tº , tºº
Phenols 2,600 71,500 0.4 10 99-1-
Oil - 7,500 13,800 5 138 99-H.
COD º & 15,000 413,000 90 2,500 99
BOD 2,300 62, 400 14 375 99
NH3 8,000 220,000 7, 5 206 99-H
Cyanide 0.6 16.5 ‘.0.1 2.75 83
Total Solids 1,400 38,500 12 330 * e 99
Thiocyanate 150 4, 130 45 1, 239 . -- 70
Phosphate as P 2.5 69 * 0.3 8. 3 88
Chloride 500 13,800 25 e 688 95
Fluoride 56 l, 540 6 . 165 89
S04 g — 39,000 12. 1 334 99
Fe 3 82. 5 º wº gºe
Pb 3 82. 5 – tºº ſº
Mg 2 55 – tºº tºmº
Zn 0.06 1. 65 º º e wº
As 0.03 0.83 tºº * tºº º
Cu 0.02 0. 55 tºº \ º tºº
Cr 0.006 0.16 dºe {º tºº,
Cd 0.006 0.16 - - gº tºº
Mn 0.04 1.1 - gº – - tºº
Ni 0.03 0.83 tº º tº a "—
Al 0.8 22 ** tºº g tºº gº
Se 0.36 9, 9 “º º dºgº
Ba. 0.13 3. 6 tºº ū tº tºº
.
(a) Flow of condensate is approximately 5.0 cfs . -
Source: Adapted in part from Argonne National Laboratory (7).
#

f
, Table 2, Coal Gasification lastewater Constituent Reduction Via Receiving stream Dilution
- - Treated -
Constituent Condensate . . . Concentration (mg/1) of constituent after dilution with receiving
- Concentrations streams of the following flow rates (g): *r
(mg/1)(a)(b) - Monongahela River at Charleroi, PA Allegheny River at Kittanning, PA
|7-day, 10-year low flow Average flow 7-day, 10-year low flow Average ſicº;
(420 cfs) (8975 cfs). (2,700 cºs) (15,570 cfs)
TSS 20 0.23 0, 0010 . O. O37 O. OO63
Phenols 0.4 °. O. 005 O. OOO2 O. OOO7 (), COOl.
Oil 5 • . 0.06 0,003 O. Ol O, CO2
COD 90 1,0. O. O.5 O. 2 O. O.3
BOD lá 0.16 O. OO77 0.026 C. CO4.4
NH3 7.5 O, 087 0, OOAl 0.014, O. CC24
Cyånide 0.1 . 0,00l. O. OOOO6 O. OOO2 O. O.0CC3
Total Solids 12 0.14 0.0035 O, 022 O, CO33 |
Thiocyanate 45 O, 52 O, O25 O. O.83 O. Cl
Phosphate as P 0.3 0.003 O. OOO2 O, OOO7 O. OOOl
Chloride tº 25 0.29 , 0, Olć, O. 047 O. OO61.
Fluoride 6 O, O7 0.003 O. Ol O. O.02 |
(a) Assumed condensate flow of a
(b) Values obtained from Reference (
pproximately 5.0 cfs
(c) Receiving stream water assumed to contain zero concentration of parameter before addition of condensate;
complete dispersion is also assumed; 7-day, l
from Kay et al. (8).
0-year low flow an
•
- e
t
t
t
*
d average flow values were obtained
| -
TABLE 3, MAJOR GASEOUS EFFLUENT STREAMS (19)
+—
PROCESSES. GASEous EFFLUENT STREAMS, TON/DAY
C02 + FLUE GAS " C.T. AIR” NITRoger
'LOW- AND MEDIUM-
Bit"Aşiţation 1,900-19,200 '600,000-2,221,000 0-38,000
HIGH-BTU GAs IFI- - -
CAT ION lip,000–91,000 5||6,000–3,261,000 0–21,000
LIQUEFACTION 39,000–66,000 1,250,000-2,655,000 6,000-16,000
1,000 MWE POWER -
PLANT (EXAMPLE) 110,000 - 3,500,000 0
c Waste nitrogen streams from oxygen plants are usually clean,
SOURCE: Magee (19)
a Contains combustibles, sulfur compounds, and oxides of nitrogen,
b Effluent cooling tower air may contain volatile organic or inorganic
Compounds present from leaks or other sources,
#
TABLE 4. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CONTRIBUTIONS OF UNIT
HIGH-BTU FIXED-BED GASIFICATION PLANT (21)
Ambient Air Concentration (ug/m”)
- Nitrogen Hydro-(e)
Sulfur Dioxide * Dioxide Particulates carbons
Annual Avg. 24-Hr. Max. 3-Hr. Max. Annual Avg. Annual Avg. 24-Hr. Max, 3-Hr. Max.
(STD 80) (STD 365) (STD 1300 l (STD 100 (STD 60 (STD 150 (STD 160
Region/Distance ug/m2)") ug/h?)") ug/m2)") ug/m2)") ug/m2)") - ug/m2)") ug/m2)")
Appalachia
1 km from plant - - -
Stability Class B 19 6l 92 19 4. - 12 4.
Stability Class D l 3 4 l 18 60 O
5 km from plant • - -
Stability Class B 8 23 tº . 34 3 O. - 1. l
Stability Class D ll 34 50 10 3 - 9 2
Eastern Interior
# 1 km from plant s . . . - * *
§ Stability Class B 19 65 99 22 º 5 .- 16 6
| Stability Class D l 3 4 l 16 52 l
5 km from plant - º º -
Stability Class B 8 27 38 4 l - 2 1.
Stability Class D 11 34 53 ll 2 - 9 3
(a) These values are the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard values,
(b) These values are the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard values.
(c) Hydrocarbons are a precursor to the formation of photgchemical OXidants, The 1-hour secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standa, 1 for Oxidants is 160 ug/m”, -
Stability Classes refer to atmospheric stability; Class B is unstable; Class D is neutral.
Highest pollutant emiss," on rates which resulted from various coals were used in these cal- -
culations of ambient a r concentration, Possibly used control efficiencies of 99, 7% for
e removal, 25% NOX removal, 85% FGD, 95% for sulfur recovery, e



(22) vºd’ā’sºn loag pandepv
'913 's IONITTI (VNVI (INI (of H0 g
VIN 1981A (VIN 1981A ISHM (VINVATASNNad v
09 I ( , ) Wnwixwſ anoH-hz
. . . 09 ((ILS ÜVWM '03S) 39WAAAW TVſ NNW
G6 09 anvaſ. TwnNNV A No.193)
06 GG º yNVHM TwnNNW III No.1938
GZ2 - G9ſ (S311S Ogg Z) AT IV[I XV3d
06 99 (SHLIS 0622) NVHW TVſ NNW
H106 Nvidiſ
(gW/9m) t
(ZZ) S3LWT'ſ]]|}\!\!d (H(INH3SIIS TVí01 40 SNOILWHIN30N00. 9/6T 'G 318|V|
i
TABLE 6. BACKGROUND URBAN AND NON-URBAN AIR QUALITY AND PROJECTED:
3-HOUR AND 24-HOUR AIR QUALITY DUE TO PROJECTED 2020 COAL
UTILIZATION IN THE ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN (ug/m3)
As Be Cd Crº Cu Fe Hg Mn. Ni Pb Se V Zn
Continuous Exposure - -
Standard , 0.17 0.0066 0.17 (), 33 0, 33 - 0 , 0.3 16, 5 3.3 0 , 5 0, 66. 0, 17 3 : 3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Background Concentrations".
Annual average
Urban Air - .00002 .0025 .0054 .106 1.17 - .032” ,082 .886 - ,010 .32
Non-urban Air - .00001 .0001 .0028 .1264 , 24 - .007 , OO1 , 578 º ,001 , 10
concentrations due to 2020 Coal Utilization * * * * -
24-hr. maximum .00056 .000064 .00015 .00056 .00012 .21 .000013 .00098 .00054 .0029 .00032 ,00087 .0058
3-hr maximum ozº .0029 .008 oz. oogº 10.9 .067 on ,028 .192 ow ,046 .304
“From G. Ackland et al., "Air Quality Data for Metals 1970–1974 from the National Air Surveillance Networks,"
Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab, Research Park, North Carolina, EPA-600/4-76–041, August 1976.
b
Environmental Health Resource Center suggests a 24 Hour Average of 0.006 ug/m” based on synergram with
sulfur dioxide. . . t -
t
Adapted from Argonne National Laboratory (24).
#
(8Z) !>\!0! MgS : 3OHITOS
Z00' 0
800' 0
/000' 0
#00' 0
G00' 0
/G00' 0
3N3NO.809
ANATÅH3A (I º H (9) OZN3||
HN3TÅ834
3N3HLNW Hon T4
3N3HÅd (3) OZN39
3N38Åd (V) OZN39||
W/9n salvīnoi 18va JN8088IV
GNn0dW09
(8Z) BEHASOWIV MVH NVOI HWV 30V ENW HHI NI
SINQOdWOO OINV980 39HWT HWOS JO SNOI IWJ1N30N00 - Z HIRVI
–449–
IABLE 8 : CUTANEOUS CANCER CASEs. In 359 COAL HYDROGENATION WORKERS EXAMINED FOR FIVE YEARS
Length of Diagnoses
Subjects Job Exposure - - - º
Case Age Assignment ( months ) Body Site local Pathologist Out-of-Town Pathologist
| 30 Operations 4| Forearm, right Basal-cell Malherbe's calcifying
e carcinoma epithelioma
2 33 Maintenance 62 Cheek, left Basal-cell Basal-cell epithelioma
- - Carcinoma
3 29 Maintenance 12 Cheek, left Squamous-cell No pathology done,
carcinoma clinical diagnosis only
4 37 Maintenance 48 Buttock, left Squamous-cell Inverted foll icular
- carcinoma keratoma type of sebor-
rheic keratosis
5 43 Maintenance 108 Hand, left - Squamous-cell Squamous-cell carcinoma
§ 5 43 Maintenance l 32 Ear, right Mixed basal and Metatypical carcinoma
P - Squamous-cell,
- Carcinoma
6 34 Operations 83 Hand, left Intraepithelial BOWenoid keratosis
- - Squamous-cell
Carcinoma
7 46 Operations 83 Neck, postero- Squamous-cell Prickle-cell epithe-
- - lateral, right Carcinoma lioma -
8 40 Operations | || 6 Ear, right Squamous-cell Keratoacanthoma
- - carcinoma
9 33 Maintenance 60 Leg, left Keratosis Intraepithelial
Squamous-cell
Carcinoma
_m 10 38 Maintenance 72 Leg, right Keratosis Squamous-cell arcinº

mº-ºº-ººm

T A B L E 9
SMARY OF PENEROS (UNES
LESIONS AMNG 359 (OAL HYDROGENATION WORKERS"
- EXAMINED FOR FIVE YEARS
Number Mean
Of Subject's Length of Exposure (months)
Histological Diagnoses Cases Age Min. Max.
Pitch Acne" 3 30 10 7||
Chondrodermatitis" 3 : 33 3.5 52
helicis º º e
Keratoses” - - 17 . . 39 10 116
Keratoses 8 l|| 17 - 96
Acanthoses and hyper- 9 . || 0 5 108
keratoses ! - -
* White Males Only
1. Clinical Diagnoses Only * * |
2. Diagnoses by a single pathologist Only
(
SOURCE: Sexton (34) and SRI International (44).
#
TABLE 10
MAJOR CONSTITUENIS OF COAL CONMERSION PROCESS STREAMS AND BISSIOs
CONSTITUENIS PHYSICAL STATE OSHA STANDARD." 000UPATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS GAS OR WAPOR ÜNLIKELY THAT MOST WILL PRESENT
SIGNIFICANT HAZARD, EXCEPT FOR
DODECANE - A POTENTIATOR OF SKIN .
TUM0RIGENESIS BY Bap
GAS 50 PPM NO EVIDENCE OF ILL EFFECTS FROM
AMMONIA
AROMATIC AMINES
SINGLE-RING ARQMATICS
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON MONOXIDE
CARBONYL SULFIDE
HETEROCYCLIC AROMATICS
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
LIQUIDS OR SOLIDS
LIQUIDS AND SOLIDS
LIQUID
GAS
GAS
LIQUIDS AND SOLIDS
GAS
5 PPM FOR ANILINE AND
TOLUIDENE; NO SAFE LIMIT
FOR B-NAPTHYLAMINE AND
BENZIDENE
10 PPM FOR BENZENE
20 PPM
50 PPM
NO STANDARD
5 PPM FOR PYRIDINE; NO
STANDARD FOR ACRIDINE
5 PPM CEILING
PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO SUBIRRITANT
CONCENTRATIONS
ANTLINE & SUBSTITUTED BENZENES ARE
HIGHLY TOXIC; B–NAPTHYLAMINE AND
BENZIDENE ARE POTENT CARCINOGENS
WAPOR HAZARDS ARE ONLY LIKELY WITH
BENZENE AND RELATED COMPOUNDS OF
RELATIVELY LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
ACUTE EFFECTS WOULD ONLY BE RESULT
OF LARGE LEAK IN PROCESS STREAM;
CHRONIC POISONING IS MORE SERIOUS
, HAZARD
CHRONIC LOW-LEVEL EXPOSURE EFFECTS
ARE CONTROWERSIAL
LITTLE EVIDENCE OF HUMAN TOXICITY
ALTHOUGH IT IS PROBABLY LESS
HAZARDOUS THAN H2S
N-HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS ARE THE
ONES OF MAIN INTEREST (SKIN AND
MUCOUS MEMBRANE IRRITANTS,
POSSIBLE POTENTIATORS |
IRRITANT
#
CONSTITUENIS
TABLE 10 (CONT,)
NITROSAMINES
PHENOLS
POLYCYCLIC
AROMATICS
TRACE ELEMENTS - As,
Be, Cd, Pb, Mn, Hg,
Se, and Wa
SULFUR OXIDES
LIQUIDS & WAPORS
SOLIDS OR LIQUID
MIXTURES
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
GAS OR AEROSOL
EXCEPTIONALLY
DANGEROUS
CARCINOGEN
5 PPM
NO SAFE LIMITS
2(Be) - 500 (As, Va.)
ug m-2
PHYSICAL STATE OSHA STANDARD." 000UPATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
HYDROGEN SULEIDE GAS , ..., 20 PPM CEILING; STRONG IRRITANT; POSSIBLE
50 PPM 10 MIN. PEAK COAGENT FOR CARCINOGENS
MINERAL DUST & ASH PARTICULATE * * POSSIBLE WEHICLE FOR PAH
NICKEL CARBONYL LIQUID 7ug intº WAPOR INHALATION AFFECTS CNS
- & MAY INDUCE CHEMICAL
PNEUMONITIS
NITROGEN OXIDES GASES 5 PPM FOR N-DTOXIDE SOURCE OF NO, (SEE NEXT LINE)
IT HAS BEEN HYPOTHESIZED THAT
NOx FROM COMBUSTION MAY REACT
WITH WAPOR FROM GLYCOLAMINE
SCRUBBERS TO YIELD THESE
CARCINOGENS,
POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT OF
SKIN AND RESPIRATORY CARCINOGENS
WELL ESTABLISHED AS SKIN CARCINO-
GENS, LESS SO AS RESPIRATORY
CARCINOGENS. Ba P TS HIGHLY
CARCINOGENIC
PROBABLY NO ATMOSPHERI& HAZARD
IN VICINITY OF PLANT, BUT THEY
MAY POSE HAZARD TO WORKERS
CLEANING FILTERS. & STACK
DEPOSITS AND MAINTAINING
TOPS OF GASIFIERS
POSSIBLE COCARCINOGEN
*— TIME-WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
ADAPTED FROM ENVIRO CONTROL (12)
#
FIGURE 1.
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC CONSTITUENTS OF COAL-TAR
HOILING PO!NT FANGE
A30VE 300° C.
NONADECANE - CCCſ { - -
* * * * - BENZERYTHRENE
º METHYi-ANTHRACENE CHRYSE NE b. 430 ſm. 31?
Fluohanningne 1,2-aenzanfriñacENE
• TRUXENE
m 36%
º - SS -
º S.
W º
- |
! º:
ºts 2.
4,5-BENZPYRENE 2-phenyūnapHTHALENE
m 161-187. sº b. §5? – 356 m. IC3 - 305
exaz m los ºn 159 r
***"...”.”—Prenylprenol. 2-METHYLolphenylene
*s ,” Sø OCCC | | | b. 354 - 355 m. $9 b. - 319 OXIDE - b. 303-4
ANTHRACENE * - NAPHT HACENE *> → * - rn. 66
b. 54 Q m 2 IT m. $50 P!CENE
b. 520 m. 364
O Ori OH
CUC PYRENE 2-ºxonoºgena ºne 2-HYDROXYFLUORENE
2-METHYLFLUORENE - b 393 in 149 - HO, b 348
b 346 m 104 - -
- - 3-METHYLPHEN- 'N
CUCſ },2- BENZNAPHTH ACENE .* NTHRENE
TRIPHENYLENE b.<425 2. b. 350 m. 65 O
- 1,9-BENZOXANTHENE
3-METHYLFLUORENE TETRAHYDROFLUORANTHRENE • * 9 395 ºn 1 C 9
3) PHEN Afy T H R1OENE tº H.
b. 316 rn 8
- wn. W6 . . . .
" 2-PHENANTHROL * *** "'9" CC
* , to 395 - 396 NH: -
\ - º ſn 160- 169 -
º 2 - NAPH ſhi YL AM NE
D"PROANT**** 2,7-DiMertºlannihacene NAPHTHO-2,3-1,2:ANTHRACENE 9-meſºta phen- b. * 0.6 m i :2
b 3| 3 m los tº 223 b. c. 424 Anºthin;-- 354 -5 CQC)
- m 9
- | -NAPH THYL AM INE
- - PERYLENE . b. 30! an 50 :
| CH - m 265 |N Q CN HYDROACRIDINE
! 8 : OEC A T 3 OO ſn 169
| - - ACRIOENE Dibenzcoºgone CCſ
; | to ¥46 m | |0 2-NAPH I HONITRILE 22° SS
1,2-BENZFLUORENE A CIO | b 3.04 m 67 SS :
- 4,5-PHENANTHRYLENE- b. 4 |} ſm. 136 -
METHANE E CEO !. º 2 - METHYLCAR8A2OUE
- - “s CARBAZOLE - - - b S 6 Y m 259
b \5) ºn 16 CUCC 1.2 - BenzpyRENE DIPHENYLENE Sul-PHIDF e 322 m 243 S
- & b 333 ºn 97 ! : - -
CHRYSOGEN (n 176 - BENZCARBAZOl:E CEOſ
2, 3-BENZFLUORENE - - * - - ſº ** º- w
4. CRACKENE - - to 450 ºn 3 40 3-METHYLCARBAZOLE
b 415 m 209. - b 500 m 309 -310 b $6.5 on 20?
CH, CH,), CH,
b. 360 m 207 b. 440 ºn 250
2P 2 º'
C C w
rn 260-290






















#
References
l.
l0.
Reddy, G. Narender. Environmental Aspects of Coal Conversion---
Plant Siting and Cost of Pollution Control. Presented at
3rd Annual International Conference on Coal Gasification
and Liquefaction, School of Engineering, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, August , 1976.
Jolley, Robert L. , W. Wilson Pitt, Jr., and James E. Thompson.
Organics in Aqueous Process Streams of a Coal Conversion
Bench-Scale Unit Using the Hydrocarbonization Process : HPLC
and GC/MS analysis. Presented at the 1977 Environmental
Technology 23rd Annual Technical Meeting of the Institute
of Environmental Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, April, l977.
Griffin, R. A. and R. M. Schiller, J. J. Suloway, S. J. Russell,
W. F. Childers, and N. F. Shimp. Solubility and Toxicity of
Potential Pollutants in Solid Coal Wastes. Presented in .
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology III,
Environmental Protection Series, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hollywood, FA, September, 1977.
cited in Lee, M. L. , L. D. Hansen, R. Ahlgren, L. Phillips,
N. Mangelson, D. J. Eat ough, and R. L. Coates. Analytical
Study of the Effluents from a High Temperature Entrained
Flow . Gasifier. Presented at Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fossil Fuel Processing, American Chemical Society
175th National Meeting, Anaheim, CA, March, l978. ----
Neufeld, R. D. and A. A. Spinola. Ozonation of Coal Gasification
Plant Wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 12, No. 4, April 1978. -

Committee on Water Quality Criteria. Water Quality Criteria
l972. National Academy of Sciences and Engineering, Washing—
ton D. C. , 1972. - -
Regional Studies Program. National Coal Utilization Assessment .
A Preliminary Assessment of the Health and Environmental
Effects of Coal Utilization in the Midwest, Vol. 1. Energy
Scenarios, Technology Characterizations, Air and Water Resource
Impacts, and Health Effects. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois, January, l977.
Kay, G. P. , A. A. Sooky and M. A. Shapiro. Surface Hydrology
Baseline for PA Ohio River Basin Energy Survey Region. Ohio
River Basin Energy Study, Urbana, Illinois, l979.
Pollack, L. J., I. Finkelman, and A. J. Arieff. Toxicity of Pyridine
in Man. Arch. Intern. Med. 7 l; 95, 1953. *
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering . . . .
Water Quality Criteria , 1972. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1972.
–455–
ll.
l2.
l3.
l!.
l3.
16.
l7.
18.
l9.
20.
Safe Drinking Water Committee. Drinking Water and Health.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , 1977.
J. White, Jr. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
23:886, 1975.
Hill, M. J. , G. Hawksworth, and G. Tattersall. Bacterial,
Nitrosamines and Cancer of the Stomach. Br. J. Cancer
28:562–567, 1973.
Dickson, E. M. , R. W. Steele, E. E. Hughes, B. C. Walton, R. A. Zink,
P. D. Miller, J. W. Ryan, P. B. Simmon, B. Holt , R. K. White,
E. C. Harvey, R. Cooper, D. F. Phillips, and W. C. Stoneman.
Impacts of Synthetic Liquid Fuel Development — Automotive
Market, Volume TI, EPA-600/7–76-004b, U.S. E. P. A. , Washing—
ton, D.C., 1976.
Somerville, M. H. , J. L. Elder, and R. G. Todd. Trace Elements:
Analysis of Their Potential Impact from a Coal Gasification
Facility, Bullet in #77–05–EES-01, Engineering Experiment
Station, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North
Dakota. º:
Borgono, J. M. and R. Grieber. Epidemilogical Study of Arsenici
in the City of Antofagasta. In D. D. Hemphill, ed. Trace
Elements in Environmental Health. Proceedings of the
University of Missouri's 5th Annual Conference on Trace
Substances in Environmental Health, June 29-Julyl, 1971,
University of Missouri, Columbia. - e -
Goodman, L. S. and A. Gilman. The Pharmacological Basis of
Therapeutics, 5th ed. MacMillan Co., New York, New York,
1975 . . . * tº
Radian Corporation. A Western Regional Energy Development
Study (Draft); Austin, Texas. 1975
Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Impact , Efficiency and
Cost of Energy Supply and End Use , Volume II. Columbia,
Maryland. 1975. - - -
Magee, E. M. , et al. "Environmental Impact and R and D Needs
in Coal Conversion," In Sym. Proc. Env. Aspects of Fuel
Conv. Tech, II. U. S. EPA; Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina; June 1976. wº
Cavanaugh, G. , et al. Potentially Hazardous Emissions from th
Extraction and Processing of Coal and Oil, EPA-650/2-75-038
U. S. EPA; Washington, D.C.; 1975.
Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Impact , Efficiency
and Cost of Energy Supply and End Use , Volume II. Columbia,
Maryland, 1975. - * -
Radian Corporation. A Western Regional Energy Development
Study (Draft); Austin, Texas. 1975. º
–456–
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
31}.
35.
36.
ERDA Syn. Fuels Com. Prog. Draft Env. Prog. ERDA 1547.
U. S. Gov. Pt g; Wash. , D.C. ; Dec. 1975.
U. S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality and Emissions Trends
report l976, EPA-1,50/l–77–002. U. S. Gov. Prt g Office;
Washington, D. C. ; December 1977.
Argonne National Laboratory. National Coal Utilization
Assessment – An Integrated Assessment of Increased Coal
Use in the Midwest : Impacts and Constraints. Volume II.
ANA/AA-ll, (Draft), Argonne, Illinois, October, l977.
Ibid
American Thoracic Society, Medical Section of American Lung
Assoc. Health Effects of Air Pollution. 1978. -
Koester, Pamela A. and Warren H. Zieger. Analysis for Radio-
nuclides in SRC and Coal Combustion Samples. EPA-600/7–78–185.
U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C. September 1978.
ERDA. Syn. Fuels Com. Prog. (Draft) Env. Prog. ERDA-15 l; 7. U.S.
Gov. Prtg. Off. : Washington, D. C. ; Dec. 1975.
Sawicki, E. et al. "Quantitative Composition of Urban Atmos—
phere in Terms of Polynuclear AZA Heterocyclic Compounds
and Aliphatic and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, " Int.
J. Air Water Pollution. 9, 515. 1965.
EPA. "Scientific and Tech. Assessment Report on Particulate
Polycyclic Organic Material (PPOM). EPA-600/6–75–00l. 1975. .
Braunstein, H. M. et al. eds. Env., Health, and Control Aspects
of Coal Conversion: An Info. Overview, ORNL/EIS-94. ORNL;
Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 1977. -
Sawicki, E. et al. As in 28.
Pott, P. Chiurgical Observations. London : Hawes, Clarke , and
Collings, l'775. -
Henry, S. A. Cancer of the Scrotum in Relation to Occupation.
London: Oxford University Press, lgl;6.

Sexton, R. J. The Hazards to Health in the Hydrogenation of Coal —
IV. The Control Program and the Clinical Effects. Arch.
Environ. Health l ; 208–231 (1960).
Eckardt, R. E. Industrial Carcinogens. New York: Grune and
Stratton, Inc., l'959.
Weil, C. S. Quest for a Suspected Industrial Carcinogen A. M. A.
Arch. Indus. Hyg. 5: 535, (1952).
–457–
37.
38.
39.
l, 0.
Al.
l;2.
l;3.
l!!!.
l;5.
l;6.
l;7.
l;8.
Freudenthal, R.I., Lutz, G.A., and Mitchell, R. I. Carcinogeni
N
Schwartz, L. Occupational Dermatoses. In : Industrial Hygiene.
and Toxicology, Vol. I-General Principles. F. A. Patty (ed.
New York: Interscience Publishers, 1958.

Redmond, C. K. , Ciocci, A. , Lloyd, J. W. , and Ruch. H. W. Long-
Term Mortality Study of Steelworkers: XI. Mortality from
Malignant Neoplasms Among Coke Oven Workers. J. Occup. Med.
ll; ; 621-29, (1972). . .
Lloyd, J. W. Long-Term Mortality Study of Steelworkers: V.
Respiratory Cancer in Coke-Plant Workers, J. Occup. Med.
l3: 53-68 (1971). -
Secton, R. J. The Hazards to Health in the Hydrogenation of
Coal — I. An Introductory Statement on General Information
Process Description, and a Definition of the Problem. Arch
• Environ. Health l ; 181-186. (1960). -
Weil, C.S. and Condra, N. I. The Hazards to Health in the -
Hydrogenation of Coal-II. Carcinogenic Effect of Materials
Orl º Skin of Mice. Arch. Environ. Health l ; 187-193
(1960). sº-E-º-º-º:
Enviro Control, Inc. Recommended Health and Safety Guidelines
for Coal Gasification Pilot Plants. Interagency Energy-
Environment Research and Development Report. DHEW (NIOSH)
Pub. No. 78–120. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Potential of Coal and Coal Conversion Product S – A Battelle
Energy Program Report. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio, l975. *
Stanford Research Institute International, Quick Response
Evaluation of Energy Related Occupational Safety and
Health Programs – Task Order l ; Mortality Study of 50 Worke
Exposed to Coal Liquefaction Processes at a Union Carbide
Plant , Institute, West Virginia. Alan Palmer (Project
Director). Report prepared for NIOSH (Proj. No. 6ll, 6). Mer
Park, CA, l977. - -
Ketcham, N. H. and Norton, R.W. The Hazards to Health in the
Hydrogenation of Coal——III. The Industrial Hygiene Studie
Arch. Environ.: Health l; 194–207. (1960).
Eckardt, R. E. Hydrogenation of Coal. Arch. Environ. Health
l: 232–233 (1960).
Hueper, W.C. Experimental Carcinogenic Studies on Hydrogenat
Coal Oils--I. Bergius Oils. Ind. Med. Surg. 25 : 51-55 (l'9
Hueper, W. C. Experimental Carcinogenic Studies on Hydrogenate
Coal Oils — II. Fisher–Tropsch Oils. Ind. Med. Surg. 25:
H59-62 (1956).
--458–
l;9. Mazumdar, S. C., Redmond, C. , Sollecito, W., and Sussman, N.
An Epidemiological Study of Exposure to Coal Tar Pitch
Volatiles Among Coke Oven Workers . . J. Air Pollut. Control
As Soc. 25(4) 382–89 (1975)
50. Doll, R. , Fisher, R. E. W. , Gammon, E. J. , Gann, W., Hughes, G. O. ,
Tyrer, F. H. , and Wilson, W. Mortality of Gasworkers with
Special Reference to Cancers of the Lung and Bladder, Chronic
Bronchitis and Pneumoconiosis. Br. J . Indust . Med. 22: 1–12
(l'965) º
–459–
LONG TERM HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
By
William D. Rowe, Ph. D.
Former - Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Radiation Programs - EPA
Present - Visiting Professor Operations and
Analysis Department, School of
Business Administration
The American University
Washington, D. C.
–460-
The Long Term Health Implications of Radioactive Waste Disposal
Introduction
Any projection into the future is an extropolation
based upon experience and models or clairvoyance. In the
absence of reliable application of the latter, projections
will be no better than the models used. Thus any discussion
of the long term health impact of radioactive wastes depends --
upon a sequence of models from source terms to exposed popu-
lations and their capabilities.
The time interval of interest is that after institutional
controls are no longer expected to be maintained and longer.
That is, about lo O years to 10,000 or 100,000 years from the
present. Models for projections over such time periods
depend on major assumptions regarding the size and nature of
future societies as well as estimates of the future behavior
of nature and ecological systems. Thus the uncertainties in
such projections will be large; the question of whether the
uncertainties are critical can only be ascertained after
analysis is complete. The uncertainty of critical parameters
will, therefore, be dominant; but a limit analysis, i.e. ,
estimation of minimum, best estimate, and maximum ranges can
be very informative and useful. An attempt at this is made
here.
* ***** *-* * * * * *-* * *-*-*.*.*...w, r * * * * ***** w *-
4. **----- sº * * *-* -- - - war----wº... was rºw --w
***-- * * * * * ~~~~. -- ~~. ...----, ...
–461–
Models for Estimation
The array of models used for estimation of long term
impact begins with estimation of source terms for a 11 forms of
waste, i.e. high level and transuranic, mill tailings, and other
wastes. High 1evel wastes consists of fission products from
fuels reprocessing and unreprocessed spent fuel, or any other
materials whose activity level is high enough to cause acute ef-
fects with only ordinary precautions. Transuranic elements are
considered as a part of the high level waste problem since simi-
lar disposal methods may be used. Mill tailings are the residues
from the milling of uranium and thorium. Other wastes are a11
those whose effects are primarily chronic with ordinary precau-
tions, and includes such things as "low 1evel wastes," material
and rubble from decomissioning, or any thing else. Table 1
characterizes these by their volume and activity levels.
The second model involves the pathways to the environment
over time. There are three parts, 1) the selection of a dispo-
sal method and site with specified design objectives, 2) pathways
to the environment allowed by the design, 3) and pathway to the
environment from external events caused by man or nature. A
third model is required to convert exposure to health effects
for individuals and generic populations, and finally a fourth
model is required to specify the size and behavior of future
4.
populations and societies.
-462–
Each model is inter-related to assumptions in the
others and cannot be developed without such recognition.
Table 2 summarizes these models, the details will be
covered when the models are applied.
Source Terms
The long term impact of radioactive waste disposal
must be ºneasured after repositories are sealed or institu-
tional controls ended. Further, the impact of the total
practice must be ascertained, not that of a single
repository. For energy production by fission the amount
of waste generated for a typical 1000 MWe"/yr plant is summar:
rized in Table 3. More detailed estimates are available such as
those by Blomeke and Lee (i) but are not required for the
limit analysis attempted here. OECO and UNSCEAR esti-
mates based upon uranium reserves at reasonable cost, that
about lo, 000 GWe years are available from fission energy.
This may be increased by a factor of about three for use
of thorium and higher priced uranium. Use of broader
reactors can extend this to about a million GWe years to
a first approximation. Thus, the total practice for a
world population of 10 Billion (2 l/2 times our present
population) represents one kilowatt per person,
–463–
not per year, but totally, for uranium fission. This is
equivalent to 2 watt-years per year for 500 years. For
breeders this goes up to 200 watt-years per year for 500
years.
Table 4 estimates the total wastes from these prac-
tices. They provide a first cut for describing a total
health impact limit. However, they can only be used with
more detailed estimates. So far only one estimate of
health impact has been made for advanced disposal practices
for exposure at a significant level of detail. This is the
Environmental Protection Agency analysis of impact from
high level wastes for the purpose of establishing regulatory
standards. This analysis is based upon a base line, deep
geological repository with no planned releases, and forms
the basis for health impact estimates made here.
High Level Waste Analysis
The objective of the EPA study was the synthesis of
the probabilities and consequences all significant events
that might occur over a substantial period of time. The
results shown here are from congressional testimony given
by Dan Egan (2).
-464-
The analysis is based upon a model deep geologic reposi-
tory with no planned releases over its lifetime. Impact will
depend upon the designed repository to perform not as planned
or disturbances by external forces. Thus, only impacts from
"unplanned" inadequacies in repository design or "accidental"
disruptive events have been addressed. Only impacts which
might occur after final backfilling and sealing of the reposi-
tory have been investigated. Sealing of the repository is
established as the initial point of the time scale in which
the potential impacts are considered. The analysis addresses
total amounts of radioactivity which might be released to the
environment over various long time periods after repository
sealing. Most attention has been devoted to calculating
total impacts incurred over the first 10,000 years after
sealing- Radionuclide concentrations in various geologic Or
environmental pathways are generally not calculated. Thus,
this analysis is not directly relevant to determination of
radiation doses or health risks to individual members of a
population -
"Definition of a baseline geologic setting. Initially
this has been chosen as a bedded salt repository, with over-
and underlying aquicludes (relatively impermeable strata)
immediately adjacent to the repository strata, and aquifers
on the other side of both aquicludes-
Definition of a baseline repository design. The details
of the baseline repository design selected for analysis are
–465–
shown in Table 5. The repository was assumed to be a spent
unreprocessed fuel repository containing about 100,000 metric
tons of heavy metal (MTHM). It was also assumed that all the
spent fuel would have aged for approximately ten years after
reactor discharge before the repository was sealed " (2).
Sequences of events or process which could initiate
releases of radionuclides were identified by an extensive
study undertaken for EPA by Arthur D. Little, Inc. The events
were identified and the range of the rate of occurrence for
each event were made. Upper bound estimates and more realistic
lower value estimates were made for some 60 different sequences
of events and are categorized as shown in Table 6.
For releases to the air or land surface, the fraction is
the portion of the repository inventory directly expelled.
For releases to ground water pathways, the fraction represents
the portion of the inventory subjected to contact with, and
potential transport by, ground water. In addition, for releases
to ground water pathways, either the permeability of the flow
path resulting from the event is estimated or a water velocity
through the affected area was provided. A simple one-dimen-
sional ground water transport model, neglecting axial disper-
sion, was employed to approximate the flow of radionuclides
from the repository to surface water bodies. This model was
determined to be adequate, compared to more sophisticated
techniques, for the purpose of calculating total radioactivity
reaching the environment over long periods of time. Figure l
–466–
depicts the geometry employed in the model. Table 7 indicates
the various parameters used in the calculation, including the
retardation factors initially assigned to the various radio-
nuclides.
The radioactive releases have been translated to health
effects incurred by an assumed average population. Person-
rems to the various organs were calculated using average path-
way and population models developed by the EPA staff. These
were then converted to health effects using the l872 BEIR
estimates (4).These models are intended as representations of
pathways as they are currently understood. The health impacts
indicated are not intended as predictions of future effects,
unless future pathways and populations are assumed to be -
reasonably similar to those of today.
In order to develop probability and consequence data a
set of hypothesized event times was selected, based upon
establishing appropriate "event time periods." The occurrence
rate for each event chain was then integrated over this event
time period at arrive at a probability of that event occurring
within the period, with the specific event time being taken
as the midpoint of the period.
-467–
sº
consequences are developed with respect to the time OVer
which the environmental impact is being considered. For re-
leases which involve sudden removal of material from the
repository (releases to either air or land surface) the con-
sequences are assumed to occur at the event time. Releases
through ground water pathways would be drawn out over time
due both to the slowness of the ground water transport and
the dissolution of the radioactive waste. Dose commitments
over the time period of interest are then calculated.
Using the techniques outlined above, probability/
consequence data points are generated. These data have been
summarized in two ways. First, the sum of the products of
these data points is calculated. This result, which is
variously called the "expected value" of the environmental
impact, or the "risk", is an estimator of the health effects
"expected" within the dose commitment period of interest.
Second, the probability/ consequence points are depicted
graphically through the use of a "cumulative complementary
distribution function (ccdf)". Figure 2. indicates the two
methods used to su-marize the analysis.
"Figures 3 and 4 depict the format of the results
obtained by applyi-ng the above methodology to the "high
value" and "low value " occurrence rates provided by A. D.
Little. A primary purpose of this presentation is to focus
upon the format of this analytic methodology and its potential
usefulness for environmental standards, as opposed to the
numerical values off preliminary results which are still being
-468–
extensively reviewed. As a tool to encourage this, several
of the numerical parameters have been deleted from Figures
4 and 5. However, it can be noted that the sum of the pro-
ducts of probability and health effects (which will be termed
the "expected value" risk) for the 10,000 year period has been
in the range of 100-1000 for the "high value" rates, with the
"low value" rate results being about four orders of magnitudes
smallerº).
There are several observations which can be drawn from
Figure 3. First, over this 10,000 year period, with the
"high value" event chain rates estimated by A. D. Little,
it is virtually certain that some health effects will be
incurred from radionuclide releases. Thus, although no
"planned" releases are forecast, "unplanned" events or
"accidents" are expected sufficiently often that releases
up to a certain level could still be projected with a
probability approximating one. As Figure 4 indicates,
the situation relative to the "low value" rates is quite
different" (2).
Further, the bulk of the "expected value" risk is
attributable to ground water related pathways.
"This "expected value" risk can also be subdivided
according to the radionuclide causing the impact, and pre-
liminary results of such analyses are indicated in Table 8.
–469–
The dominance of technetium-99 is surprising only until one
considers its relatively high fission yield (on a gram-atom
basis), its long half-life (213,000 years), and its assumed
lack of sorption in geologic media. Many radionuclides
which have often been considered more characteristic of the
hazards of high-level waste (strontium-90, cesium-137,
plutonium-239, etc.) do not appear to se significant in
this analysis because either their short half-life (strontium-
90, cesium-lis 7) or their assumed strong sorption in geologie
media (plutonium and other actinides) prevent them from
reaching the accessible environment through ground water
pathways within 10,000 years (4).
The base line system used by EPA will accommodate
l()0,000 MTHM as shown in Table 5. Three such repositories
of this type would suffice for disposal of the total high
level waste of lo, 000 GWe-years of uranium fuel cycle
operation. (See first row and column of Table 4.) This
would mean an upper limit of 3000 health effects for the
total cycle and about 0.3 for the most optimistic estimate.
Table 9 summarizes this data.
In order to put these risks in perspective they may be
compared to a number of bench marks: which are shown in
Table 10. Even the upper level of risks from waste disposal
(0.3 per year for 10,000 years) is small compared to the
benchmarks.
-470-
Low Level Wastes
There have been no extensive studies conducted on the
long term impact of disposal of low level wastes, or mill
tailings to the extent carried out by EPA for high level
waste disposal. Thus, only a limit analysis can be made for
low level and mill tailings Wastes .
The IRG report indicates that there are l6 x 106 fe” of
low level waste at the six commercial sites in the
United States. About 35 times this volume of waste would
need to be disposed of under current schemes for l 0, 000
GWe years of operation although advanced volume reduction
would reduce this by a factor of 10. Greater amounts are
required for expanded fuel cycles.
Some of six commercial sites have been closed down
because releases to the environment have been greater than
expected. Thus some level of "planned" release may exist
if present methods are used for low-level disposal. More
important after institutional control lapses these sites
are subject to internal design failures and a whole array
of external factors, including erosion and human intrusion,
which are not as important in deep geological disposal.
This is also true for mill tailings disposal if by present
practices as well.
Without evaluation of all of these factors for different
disposal methods, no health impact evaluation is possible.
what I have chosen to do instead is to use Blomeke and Lee's (1)
estimates of the volume of air for dilution of a given
-471-
volume of material to concentrations specified in DOE (ERDA)
concentration guides as a measure possible impact, and then
to determine the decontamination (or retention) factor, d. f. ,
needed to bring the impact into the same ball park as those
for high level waste disposal. Thus, the "d. f." will be a
Iſle a SUlrºſe of the "effectiveness of containment" needed for a
repository. -
The total mass of the atmosphere has been estimated at
5. 2 x 1021 gms. (5)with a density of . 0.0122 gms/m” at Sea
level. This would indicate that a total volume of air at
24 3
about 4 x lot m”. Blomeke and Lee have used dilution factors
as follows. **
Non Transuranic Low
Level Wastes 1 x 10°m° Of air/mº waste
Mill Tailings - l. 6 x 101.9m3 Of air/mº Waste
For 10,000 GWe years, about 5 x 10°m.” of low waste dis-
posal and 8 x 101.4m3 for mill tailings accumulate for the
uranium fuel cycle (Table 4). For dilution this would re-
quire 5 x 10*"m” of air for low level waste and l. 3 x 102.5m.3
of air for mill tailings. For breeders 5 x 101.9m3 is required
*** -- * *-** * *-* =
-472-
for low level waste while tailings stay about the same. The
mill tailings dilution volume exceed that available in atmos-
phere just to meet DOE standards. Thus a retention factor of
three is required for mill tailings just to keep it at DOE
maximum levels. Mpc value for DOE standards are based upon
concentration guides of 500 mrem/yr to an individual, and
exposure to 1010 people of this level is 5 x 10° man rems/yr
or about 10° health effects per year based upon ICRP models.
This is a factor of 3.3 x 10° higher than the upper limit
estimate for the fuel cycle in Table 9. To achieve these
levels a retention factor of about 107 per year is required
for mill tailings over their lifetime. Low level waste
retention cannot be adduced in this way.
Thus in summary the retention factor for mill tailings
indicates that this may be the key disposal problem. Whether
the d. f. level can be achieved has yet to be determined. It
may be quite easy to do so, but at least this provides an
initial target for disposal retention capability. Retention
requirements for low level wastes may have to consider indi-
vidual exposures as a limitation.
This paper does not give definitive answers. There are
none. But high level wastes have limited health impact. Low
level waste impact has yet to be determined. Mill tailings
may be the real problem for waste disposal.
–473–
TABLE ll
Some Generic Waste Classifications
Waste
Type
High Level
Fission products
from Reprocessing
Spent Fuel Rods
Discrete Sources
Transurancies
Mill Tailings
Other Wastes
Low Level Waste
Rubble, etc.
Relative
Volume
Small to
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium to
Large
Exposure
Activity
Acute
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Tº
-474-
TABLE 2
\
Models Required for Health Impact Estimation
Source Terms
High Level - spent fuel or reprocessed
Low Level
Tailings and diffuse wastes
Pathways to the Environment
Disposal Method and Site
Designed Pathways
Unplanned Events
Exposure Health/Effect Determination
Dose Estimation – Internal and External
Population Commitments
Individual Doses
Future Population Model
Size and Growth
Protective Capability
–475-
TABLE 3
ANNUAL WASTE GENERATION RATEs (3)
(Normalized to an Average lo O0 MWe
Light Water Reactor)
spent Fuel Discharged 25.4 MT3BM/yr
(332 ft”/yr)
Low Level Waste, Generated Onsite l/
a) Present Experience y 45,000 ft*/yr
b) Design Basis 15,000 fe”/yr
c) Advanced volume Reduction 2/ 5,000 ft*/yr
Low Level Waste , Generated Offsite
a) Uranium Mill, Tailings Solutions 3/ 254,000 MT/yr
Tailings Solids 3/ • 96,000 MT/yr
b) UF3 conversion 1,200 ft”/yr
c) Enrichment- 3/, 4/ 50 fe”/yr
d) Fuel Fabrication * 750 ft.*/yr
Transuranic wastes, Generated Onsite and O
Offsite
NOTE: MT = Metric Tons
HM = Heavy Metals
1/ Roughly 40% of current volumes generated is contaminated
T trash.
2/ This estimate reflects the use of methods which are pre-
sently not economical Current, allowable activity levels
per package may preclude actual achievement of this level
in the future.
3/ These wastes are currently disposed of at the processing
facility sites,
4/ This value is based on gaseous diffusion technology. The
new centrifuge process could potentially generate more
(up to 2900 ft3/yr.
–476–
TABLE 4
SOME ROUGH ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FROM FISSION ENERGY PRODUCTION
Type of Waste
AMOUNT PRODUCED
Uranium Uranium & Thorium Breeders Units
10"GWe-yrs. 3x10"GWe-yrs. 10° GWe—yrs.
Spent Fuel 3x106 lxl07 3x108 ft 3
3x105 lxl OS 3x107 MT (HM)
Low Level Wastes-on site
A. Present Practice 5x108 2xl.09 5xl 0 1 0 ft 3
B. Design Basis 2xl.08 6x108 2xl.0 1 0 ft 3
C. Advanced Volume 5x107 2xl.08 5x109 ft 3
Reduction
Low Level Wastes-off site
A. Uranium (Thorium)
Tailings
Solutions (3x10% } lxlº') 3×10: . ) MT
6x101* 2xl.0 l 5 6xl Ol 6 ft 3
Solids fl:19% } 3xl 09 } lxı9: . ) MT
2xl.01 * 6x101 * 2xl.016 ft 3
B. UF Conversion lx107 2x107 ft 3
C. Enrichment 5x105 lxl.06 fit 3
D. Fuel Fabrication lx107 3xl O7 lxl O 9 ft 3
;
TABLE 5. PARAMETERS FOR BASELINE REPOSITORY (2)
High-Level
Solidified laste Spent Fuel
Depth of Repository Horizon (feet) 1,500 1,500
Mined Area (acres) 2,000 3,500
Capacity (canisters) 35,000 320,000
Total metric tons heavy metal *
(MTHM) charged to reactor 100,000 100,000
Specific Heat Input -
(kwacre) - maximum 150 º 60
-478- -
TABLE 6 . CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM FOR EVENT CHAINS
AND SOME TYPICAL EVENT CHAIN PARAMETERS (2)
&
“High Walue" "Low Walue"
Event 0ccurrence Occurrence
Rates Rates
(per year) (per year)
DIRECT ATMOSPHERIC RELEASEs (AIR)
Meteorite Impact 3 x 10° 10 3 x 10°ll
DIRECT RELEASES TO LAND SURFACE (LS)
O for 0-100 yrs
Gas/Oil Exploration 9 x 10-6 always 0
after 100 years.
CONVECTIVE RELEASES TO AQUIFER (AQ)
ranges from ranges from
Seismicity/Faulting 2 x 10-6 to 4 x 10^ll to
4 x 10-8 | x 10" l 3
CONVECTIVE RELEASES DIRECT TO SURFACE WATER (SW)
. ranges from ranges from
Breccia Pipes I x 10** to 5 x 10*10to
2 x 10"? 8 x 10°l 5
Fraction of
Repository
Involved
0.20
0.00002
0.91
0.002
–479–
TABLE 7. - PARAMETERS USED IN GROUND
WATER PATHWAY CALCULATIONS (2)
Permeability along Aquifer
10-11 cm/sec
or through fractured overburden: 1 x
Flow Gradient along Aquifer: g O. 1
Flow Gradient through fractured overburden: O. C. i
Retardation Factors for º
Significant Radionuclides: C - 1 ll 10
&P SR- 90 100
CS-137, 135 1000
I -129 1
TC- 99 1
NP-237 100
PU-238,239, 21.2 10000
AM-21, 1 1OOOO
CU-24 ll 3200
TABLE 8
- BREAKDOWN OF "EYPECTED WALUE" RISK
By RADIONUCLIDE (2)
Radionuclide tº Per cent of Impact
TC- 99 88
C - 11, 7
AM-21; 1 2
I -129 l
SR- 90 * less than 1
PU-239 less than 1
remaining
radionuclides imuch less than 1
–480–
TABLE 9
WASTE DISPOSAL FOR THE
RANGES OF HEALTH EFFECTS FROM HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
TOTAL FISSION ENERGY PRACTICE
l Repository Uranium Cycle Uranium & Thorium Breeders
Cycles
105 MTHM 3x105 MTHM 6xloº MTHM 3x107 MTHM
Upper Limit t
Health Effect 1000 3000 9 000 l 00, 000
Lower Limit
Health Effects 0.1 0.3 0. 9 l 0
#
TABLE 10
Some Radiation Risk Benchmarks
(Based upon EPA calculations) (3)
Risks From Nuclear Weapons Fallout
(Tritium, Cesium-l37, Carbon-14, Plutonium)
One Percent of Natural Background
Risks From Undisturbed Natural
Uranium Ore Bodies
Risks From Nuclear Energy Operation
(10,000 GWe years based upon 40 CFR 190)
700
l 00
10–15
200
30-60
health effects/yr.
health effects/yr.
health effects/yr.
health effects/yr.
(First l O0 years)
health effects/yr.
(Next 10,000 years)
#
(z) sºola dºneſ punojº ſo oſatuauºs ºſ išnºiſ
●Aº• ••（ 7 •Œ œ© ®�• ,º •„º• 0
•. :*~“ …, :?^»1， 2，�• s%<_}© 2„º GTS �r -� （y�→.º ºr º.>• •!!39 | now
• Jº •<•*•.•A， &· • • • • • • • ►•”�• • •” -，.º» sº,， …�~~ ~ ~-•º •?
30 nºlio ſ now
©77�
AUOI I SOd 38|
w 1vſ1$
\,
}A801 || S0438
Bonnoſ növ
..' , :.: ; ?--.* # 833 inov
ſºl 1 \\ 3 NO
* *

–483–
The PROBABILITY AND CŞişliğic: calcularED FOR EAch such EVENT SCENAR10
at then consinen and expressed in two ways; (2)
"expectep value’ -- o 3. CP, XCC.)
te -
‘complementasy cumulariye....,
Distribution function (ccDF)' --
2. P
FIGURE 2

-484–
&. , ， ， ）, e, aº ºs sé a s •
6.- ***
�, { }\}[191]
SLO:!-!！!E H.I.TV/EH
s.s.º. s., , ， , • • • • • • • •„ … sae eº . . • • • • • • • • •■■ ■ ■ºa e sºm ºº， eºs º， º №s • ~~~~).“ º. º º º. º. o. . . . . . . • • • •
№， №ºº ！'.* （ … （..~--~： ~~|-
(z) sānīva HĐIH, ŠINĒää Tiv
SEVRÅ 000'0170 WOHA SLO3443 Hunyº!！!
AllT1avaObid

-485-

« …***）}. . »...•ı , ， , , «s--~~~~ · · · · · · · ·，≤ %.:••• • • ** • ** * , ， ， , ; ::: º , e º .
* # B}}[1914
S LOE!！!！!E H.LTVEIH
e CA e º se suvass » • … • • • • ººººº ºº-ºº nº s g. º.
x, otº=tol(d) 3
*
••«» œ •••
(z) „Sāniſ’， ‘MOT, SINJAT TTV/
SHV3× 000’01:0 Wołłº slo3.443 H 1-1
\/（-||-||
• • • • • • •
*** • •）
*****-- • • • • „ ,
D
©
wº-
g-01
4.01
g-01
st
$2
p-01
# z-01
sºrº, ºs--- sº-ºº-ººrºººº-ºº-ºº-ººse sº-ºº... .sº
o
wº-
T
- sº
* *
§
cº-
*=
º * - * - s - sº , . *
ALITIgwāoud
–486–
References
J. O. Blomeke and C. W. Lee, "Projections of Wastes to Be
Generated" Proc. Management of Wastes from the LWR. Fuel
Cycle", ERDA CONF 76-0701.
Joint Statement of Dr. James E. Martin and Mr. Daniel J.
Egan, Jr., Waste Environmental Standards Program, Environ-
mental Protection Agency; before the Subcommittee on
Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insu-
lar Affairs, House of Representatives, January 25, 1979.

Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on
Nuclear Waste Management, TID-28817 (Draft), October 1978.

The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation, Report of the Advisory Committee on
The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, November
1972.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 56th. Edition by A:
Poldervarte.
*Calculated from Tables 11 and 12 of B1 omeke and Lee, (1).
-487–
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY IN ESTIMATES OF HEALTH RISKS
By
Leonard D. Hamilton, M.D., Ph.D.
Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division
National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Associated Universities, Inc.
Upton, New York 11973
–488–
INTRODUCTION
>Confusion is engendered in estimates of energy-entailed health risks by
the misundertstanding between objective measures of risk - which describe the
estimated real or actual risk of a process-and the subjective perception of
these risks; the subjective perception of risks colors much of the thinking of
most decision-makers and the public. The situation is worsened by propaganda
from special-interest groups. In asséssing health risks from energy production
and use, one must map where are the gaps in knowledge, yet necessarily basing
the assessment of state-of-the-art- information.
Another uncertainty is engendered by confusion as to how health assess-
ment enters into energy assessment. Estimates of health risks and their costs
are an essential in energy-policy along with (a) direct costs of energy produc-
tion; (b) other costs generated in a way similar to the assessment of health
costs; and (c) other politico-societal considerations. Figure l diagrams the
position of biomedical assessment in overall energy assessment. The demand for
energy by the consumer is the starting point. Nationally or regionally, this
demand can be met by varying combinations of existing energy-generating systems.
Or, if assessment of research on new energy systems is at the forefront of in-
terest and necessity, one must foretell how best to mix existing energy-genera—
ting systems and alternatives arising from research and development.
To measure the real health costs of various energy sources, one needs to
put them in the framework of logical, comprehensive energy analysis. Accord—
ingly, Figure 2 diagrams stages in energy production, distribution and use;
it permits coherent analysis of costs and hazards at each state. The diagram
includes: (1) hydropower; (2) nuclear fuel; (3) coal; (4) oil; (5) natural gas
and (6) new technologies to be developed. The steps in the fuel cycles com—
prise: (1) exploration and extraction; (2) refining and conversion; (3) trans-
port; (4) central station conversion; (5) transmission and distribution; (6)
– 489–
decentralized conversion; (7) conversion by final energy users. Most
of these process steps entail unique biomedical, environmental, and other
costs, some direct (e.g., risks of injury or death in mining), some in-
direct, (e.g., release of pollutants into air, water, thence into food chains,
etc.).
Such analysis helps: (1) to evaluate alternative energy policies with
due reference to health costs; (2) determine where money must be spent to re-
duce health costs; and (3) decide where to allocate research and development
funds for determining health and environmental costs.
This paper is concerned with several currently prominent uncertainties
in estimating health risks from electric-power generation: (1) health effects
of air pollution, especially acid sulfates and respirable particulates; and
(2) low-level radiation effects. With these uncertainties in mind, state-of-
the- art current assessments of various fuel cycles on a unit plant basis are
given and a method outlined for using these results in national or regional
energy assessment.
–490–
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
Coal combustion produces a wide range of air pollutants, including
particulates -- SO2, NOx, CO; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); and
trace metals, e.g. , iron, mercury, and cadmium - These primary pollutants
contribute to atmospheric chemical reactions producing secondary pollutants
such as ozone, sulfate, and nitrates. Because exposures to many pollutants
are simultaneous, it is difficult to assign damage by air pollution to
individual agents. Considerable evidence links sulfur-particulate air
pollution with health damage. *** It is currently hypothesized that the
causative agents are sulfate compounds produced by oxidation of SO2 in the
atmosphere. Table 1 summarizes the mechanisms that convert S02 to sulfates.
As seen, oxidation of S02 to sulfates depends on the presence of other
pollutants such as Nox, oxidants, heavy metal ions, and particulates.
There is much uncertainty in understanding the mechanisms by which SO2 is
oxidized to sulfate: the role of heterogeneous transformation processes (SO2
oxidation, S02-03-liquid-water interaction, S02-H2O2-liquid-water
interactions, SO2 oxidation of graphitic materials and other aerosols, etc.);
aerosol transformation (nucleation growth, gas-aerosol reactions); and
S02-free-radical reactions (OH, H02, organic radicals) all need research. The
fact: that presence of other pollutants determines the formation rate and the
final form of sulfate is important in underscoring the difficulty in ascribing
the health effects of air pollution to individual agents.
Particulate emissions from combustion are today largely controlled by
mechanical devices, e.g., cyclone, electrostatic precipitators, and,
occasionally, fabric filtration. The chemical composition of emitted aerosols
–491–
(particulates), especially surface composition, depends on their chemical
history and is poorly understood; the smaller sizes present disproportionately
more surface, and thus serve as an adsorption site for effiuent species in
post-combustion gases. An important consideration is that even after removal -
of most of the particulates, the oxidation of SO2 to sulfates in the atmosphere
results in the formation of secondary particulates in the respirable range
(<2pm down to submicrometer range). These persist longest in the atmosphere
and penetrate most into human airways since particle size is an important
variable that affects the site of deposition of sulfur oxides in the
respiratory tract and the size of the response. Figure 3 diagrams the effect
of particle size on deposition of particles in the respiratory tract. Small
particles are deposited deeper in the respiratory tract than large particles.
Support for the hypothesis linking sulfur-particulate air pollution with
health damage comes from many sources, the most dramatic from the major, amply
documented episodes of air pollution -- Meuse Valley in Belgium; Donora,
Pennsylvania; and London -- which clearly showed that air pollution, when
severe, caused widespread illness and death.
One of the worst air pollution disasters was in December 1952. A dense,
cold fog settled on London for four days, suddenly increasing deaths. Excess
deaths during the fog or shortly afterwards were estimated at 2,500-4,000 in
arease: London (population 8.3 million) - Table 2 gives figures for the
smaller area of the county of London. Deaths from bronchitis contributed most
to the rise in deaths. Deaths from other diseases with impaired respiratory
function also increased. There were increased deaths from heart disease,
presumably due to strain from impaired respiratory function or to a direct
effect. Death from other causes also increased; this residual mortality was
–492–
significant; it is unlikely that it was due to respiratory impairment. The
increases in mortality in London in 1952 were correlated with vast increases
in smoke shade and SO2, measured at the same time. Concentrations of smoke
shade were too great to be measured accurately; the 48-hour average of
* 4 - 5 mg/m3 at a central site is thus a conservative estimate.
Concentrations of SO2 were as high as 3.7 mg/m3 (48-hour average). Smoke
shade and so, were monitored in the United Kingdom since 1912; their choice
reflected the view that these were the important pollutants.
Figure 4 relates the incidence of chronic bronchisis to S0x precipitation
for several Japanese cities.* There is a linear correlation between chronic
bronchitis and Sox precipitation present even in the absence of smoking.
Smoking 11-20 cigarettes/day (curve a) or 1-10 cigarettes/day (curve b)
clearly exacerbates the effects of the SOx-
Figure 5 plots deaths in Oslo, Norway against weekly SO2 concentration.”
The relationship is linear. Since we know that 502 by itself does not kill or
cause chronic bronchitis, it is probably a chemical transformation product of
the S02 that is the crucial factor. The fact that Britons, Japanese, and
Norwegians succumb to damage from air pollution indicates the absence of
specific ethnic resistance. This is amply confirmed by results from the
United states Environmental Protection Agency's CHESS (Community Health and
Environmental surveillance System) studies.” -
Figures 6-8 give examples of the results of the CHESS studies. Figure 6
plots the percent excess acute lower respiratory disease in children against
annual average suspended sulfates concentration asſº) (studies in six
areas). Figure 7 plots aggravation of heart and lung disease in the elderly
(given as percent excess) against the 24-hour suspended sulfates concentration
–493–
(ug/m3) (studies in two areas). Figure 8 plots the percent excess mortality
rate in New York City in the 1960's against the 24-hour suspended sulfates
concentration (Hg/m3). For comparison, the figure includes data on excess
mortality in London in the 1950's and Oslo in the 1960's.
Although many have criticized these epidemiological studies and their
pollution measurements, and because of the uncertainties emphasized by these
criticisms, one cannot use the results of the CHESS studies to estimate
dose-effect relationships. Yet, despite all their limitations, the CHESS
studies provide weighty evidence that "sulfates" -- or something closely
related to them -- damage health. The data are compatible with the notion
that the more sulfate, the more damage.
A vast literature associates air pollution (smoke shade, total suspended
particulates, and SOx) with sickness and death. 1-3 Again, since one now
knows that it is not the SO2 which damages it is probably some chemical
transformant of S02 that is responsible: this is the material that forms a
respirable particulate that probably constitutes most of the smoke shade and
most of the noxious material in the respirable fraction of total suspended
particulates. This body of evidence supports the hypothesis that sulfates as
respirable particulates or something closely associated with them does the
damage-
Impressive evidence for damage by sulfates has come from laboratory
studies in animals. The acid sulfates proved the more irritating and toxicity
was also related to particle size (Table 3). 8,9
For perspective, Figure 9 plots the incidence of leukemia at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki against radiation (90% confidence limits)." The incidence of
various cancers in the atom-bomb survivors is among the most significant and
–494–
widely used data on current risk estimates of damage to health. Despite its
wide uncertainty (indicated by the spread in the 90% confidence limits and in
the uncertainties in the dose actually received by survivors), the data are
roughly compatible with linearity between dose and effect. Use of these data
for risk estimation of the health damage from the nuclear fuel cycle
necessitates extrapolation of damage induced by high doses given at high dose
rates down to extremely low doses of radiation given at low rates. Such
doses usually comprise a tiny fraction of a percent of natural background
radiation; it is impossible to discern any damage to health directly from this
natural background. In contrast, the addition of sulfates or related material
from fossil fuel combustion, especially in the United States east of the
Mississippi, adds to an ambient concentration of sulfates already very close
to the level at which clinical damage has been seen. There is thus less
uncertainty in this regard in the application of a sulfate-damage function
than in the application of the frequently very precisely calculated risk made
from radiation.
–495–
CRITICISMS BY OTHERS OF THE MULTI-CITY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Despite the overwhelming evidence linking air pollution and ill-health,
many uncertainties still attend the individual studies. Some have argued that
certain air pollutants are not bad for health. Special-interest groups have
focused on the weaknesses of one or more of these studies. Thus critics
analyzing regression studies of city (SMSA) mortality rates, typically of the
classic studies of Lave and Seskin, have discussed most of the formal
statistical difficulties attending any observational study. The most
important criticism is that an observational study only shows association, not
causation. The case for the quantitative relation between air pollution and
mortality rests on broader studies than observational studies. Eight types of
studies connect air pollution and mortality:
1. Multi-city regression studies”-14 (Lave and Seskin,
Hickey et al., Schwing and McDonald);
2. Detailed studies of mortality in a particular city 13-15
(Winkelstein et al. in Buffalo, Zeidberg et al. in
Nashville, and Gregor in Pittsburgh);
3. Studies of daily mortality and the association with daily
pollution levels in single cities 10, 16, 17 (Lave and Seskin,
Schimmel et al., Buechley);
4. Studies of disastrous air-pollution episodes and consequent
increased mortality”, 1% (London air pollution episodes);
5. Animal studies showing damage from air pollution
exposure 8,20,21 (Amdur, Frank, and others);
–496–
6. Morbidity studies -- in general these have dealt with
individuals rather than aggregates”,” (Ferris et al.,
Douglas);
7
. Occupational studies (see NIOSH criteria documents on
sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid);
8. Experiments with human subjects24-26 (Amdur, Frank).
Each type of study has its limitations. However, if one selects a
particular limitation, one can find other studies that do not have this
limitation.
Table 4 lists some issues that critics can raise. These include presence
or absence of randomization, population variables, socio-economic variables,
controls for smoking, confounding by "regional effects," and direct
applicability to the general population. One row in the table is devoted to
each problem, and a column to each method. The code P in a row and column
means that the problem specified by this row is not dealt with satisfactorily
directly or indirectly by the method specified in this column.
In human epidemiological studies, while experimental randomization (i.e. ,
deciding what pollution conditions an individual will be exposed to without
regard for his personal preference but solely on the basis of an arbitrary
mechanism, e.g., dice throwing) is necessary for valid causal inference, such
randomization is virtually impossible in large-scale, long-term studies
because one cannot dictate an individual's living conditions vis-à-vis
pollution so arbitrarily. Animal experiments and short-term human studies,
however, can be randomized. Such analyses, in fact, show that exposure to
specific pollutants damages health in animals and man-
–497–
The next three rows in Table 4 exemplify adjustments which, if made in
the analysis, might clarify the relationship between air pollution and
ill-health: adjustments for the racial and age-sex structure of the
population, possible socio-economic variables, and smoking. Since these
particular variables are reasonably constant from day to day, the daily
studies and studies of air-pollution episodes do not have these as serious
limitations, hence have adequately dealt with these problems. These factors
- are irrelevant in animal studies and in experiments on human beings because
appropriate randomization eliminates these issues directly.
The "regional effects" variables only affect the following studies:
multi-city, some morbidity, and some occupational. The single-city, daily
mortality, and episode studies deal with this problem by being
region-specific. The problem is irrelevant in experimental studies on animals
and man.
Only the occupational and experimental studies have problems with their
direct applicability to the general population.
In sum, there are two or more study methods that address each problem-
Workers who have applied the methods in the studies cited above overwhelmingly
agree in finding health damage. That human beings are, indeed damaged is
dramatically shown by air-pollution episodes, by the association between daily
pollution levels and mortality, the multi-city regression studies, and
experiments on human volunteers. This consistent mass of evidence impels the
assertion that air pollution injures health.
Criticisms of the Lave and Seskin work have raised two questions about
the sulfate data. First, that the "1960" data set includes data from earlier
years (back to 1957) to fill in missing data for many SMSA's. This is not a
–498–
problem. Were one studying the relation between daily air pollution peaks and
mortality on a given day, substitution of a different day's pollution data
would be unacceptable. Lave, however, examines differences in long-term
(annual) mortality rates among cities. The effect of pollution on the annual
mortality rate of a city depends on the long-term effect of pollution over
several years on the general health of the population. Lave's pollution data
are an index rather than a specific measure of pollution levels ºries the
year of death.
The second criticism of sulfate data is that bi-weekly and quarterly data
are mixed, causing a potential bias in the use of minimum and maximum numbers.
This is a valid criticism of Lave and Seskin, but not of the health-damage
functions derived by the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division
(BEAD) at Brookhaven. As documented,” the BEAD health-damage function is
based on annual average sulfate pollution levels -- an index unaffected by use
of bi-weekly or quarterly data. In the BEAD health-damage function, only
average sulfate levels are included because our analysis lead us to believe
that this was a better base than the minimum or maximum values reported by
Lave. Thus, many of the caveats of the critics of Lave and Seskin have
already been incorporated in the BEAD analysis.
–499–
BEAD PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS
To mass all uncertainties underlying the quantitative relationship
between the operation of a coal-fired power plant and damage to health, Morgan
and Morris made a comprehensive probabilistic analysis.” Sulfur air
pollution transport, dispersion, and impact were modeled from a 1,000-MWe coal
power plant to the population within an 80 km radius. A gaussian plume
dispersion model with linear sulfur chemistry was used with a linear
health-damage function. Important features of the model involving uncertainty
were: fraction sulfur emitted as S04, SO2 loss rate, $94 loss rate, S02 to
S04 conversion rate, health-damage function, the meteorological model. The
uncertainty in each of these variables was characterized by a probability
density function based on best available scientific judgment. This provides
not only the "estimate" but the estimate of a probability that a variable's
actual value may be given in amounts higher or lower than the "estimate. "
Essentially, these distributions are a description of the odds a knowledgeable
scientist might calculate if asked to bet on the outcome of a series of
definite experiments which would, at a future time, determine the true value.
of the variables. These probability density functions (pdfs) were then
combined in a simulation analysis to produce estimates of population exposure,
premature deaths (Figure 10), and person-years lost.
What are the advantages of characterizing uncertainty as pdfs based on
best scientific judgment over the use of classical statistical methods on
available data? Several:
1. In any instances, the best data comes from studies which have (often
unavoidably) serious flaws, e.g., design problems, unaccounted for variables,
-500-
etc. Classical statistical methods cannot clearly interpret results from such
studies.
2. Available data are often based on a subset of the total possible
universe that may not be representative, e.g., epidemiological studies on
certain population subgroups, airborne air chemistry studies on days when the
plane can fly, etc.
3. The need to combine results from various kinds of studies, e.g. ,
taking laboratory studies as well as those conducted in the "real world" into
account. Extrapolation from laboratory results demands more than classical
statistics can provide.
What important uncertainties were not quantified? The model itself and
the form of the parameters were assumed to be known. Both may be quite
different from that assumed. This was not explicitly dealt with and adds
uncertainty beyond that characterized. For example, a linear damage function
is assumed and no uncertainty due to possible alternative damage function
shape is considered.
-501–
THE DEFINITION OF THE HEALTH-DAMAGE FUNCTION
The health-damage function used links annual average sulfate exposure
with increased annual mortality rate. It does not represent the acute effects
of episodes but the long-term impact on the population of a continuing
environmental exposure. Although the sequence of events leading to this
impact on the population is unknown, long-term exposure to air pollution,
particularly in childhood, presumably increases susceptibility to respiratory
infection. A history of repeated respiratory infection, possibly coupled with
continued air pollution exposure, increases the prevalence of chronic
respiratory disease. This leads to more deaths from a broad range of
cardio-pulmonary diseases. Thus increase in air-pollution exposure degrades a
population's health; this is eventually reflected in mortality rate. Deaths
attributable to an air-pollution exposure in a given year do not necessarily
occur that same year, but are distributed over the lifetime of the exposed
population. We cannot yet estimate how these deaths are distributed in time.
Mortality estimates not only represent premature deaths, but years of
decreased respiratory function, perhaps disability before death. Since not
all induced respiratory diseases may result in premature death, the annual
incidence of new-disease cases is undoubtedly higher than the annual number of
deaths. Since the health-damage function is based on annual mortality rates,
each death attributed to air pollution represents at least one year of life
lost. Reasonable estimates of the age distribution of the deaths leads to the
conclusion that 5 to 15 years lost per attributed death are likely.
Under steady-state conditions, the deaths occurring over future years
attributable to pollution exposure this year equals the number of deaths
-502–
. occurring this year, due to the summated pollution exposure of all previous
years. Based partly on this, a linear health-damage function was drawn from
cross-sectional studies as a simplified way to estimate effects of alternative
energy strategies. By this simplified linear damage function, incremental
sulfate exposure this year inevitably increases health damage and premature
deaths. The incremental health damage is proportional to increaeatal sulfate
exposure and is independent of the total sulfate exposure under the linear
assumption. These estimated premature death, any be compared with total
deaths annually in the exposed population; this imparts perspective to the
estimates. This fraction might be taken as a rough estimate of the eventual
contribution to mortality of a continuing air-pollution exposure of that
level.; it is not the fraction of total deaths attributable to this level of
exposure occurring in the same year. -
It seems doubtful that the damage function is truly linear with no
threshold over the entire range of exposure. More likely, at low absolute
levels of exposure, the health impact of a unit increase in sulfate is
reduced. There may be a threshold below which there is no detectable health
damage. The data on which the dose-response function is based are from urban
areas with generally high background sulfate levels but, significantly, the
linear function is consistent with data from urban and rural areas with high-
and low-pollution levels. Use of a linear function te estimate effects of
small changes in sulfate levels in areas with high background levels seems
reasonable. Estimates of the effects of sustantial changes in background
levels, or of small changes in areas with low initial background levels,
increase the uncertainty in estimation of damage.
The health damage function described by Morgan et al.” ranges from 0 to
-503–
12 deaths per 105 per ug/m3 sulfate, with a median value of 3.7 (95%
confidence interval 0-11. 5). These estimates were derived by a subjective
analysis of data principally from correlation studies of the type conducted by
Lave and Seskin. These studies are subject to methodological and data
problems discussed in detail elsewhere. Standing alone, these studies are
inadequate to ascribe the observed effect to sulfate air pollution. In
concert with toxicological and epidemiological studies, however, they provide
a useful means of estimating the magnitude of the damage.
-504–
BEAD 's OWN ANALYSIS OF AIR POLLUTION AND ILL-HEALTH
Now at the same time as our re-analysis of data available in the
literature on the relationship between air pollution and ill-health, we have
developed our own data base for this purpose. This includes the total
mortality records in the United States for the years 1969, 1970, and 1971 from
the National Center for Health Statistics. There are roughly 2 million deaths
a year in this file; one is analyzing a total of 6 million deaths for the
entire 3, 100 counties of the United States, in contrast to the much smaller
number of deaths in the standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) in
the Lave and Seskin study. Moreover -- again in contrast to the SMSA studies
-- our data include the entire urban and rural portions of the United States.
We have also used the 1970 Census Data as a source of some socio-economic
variables, especially income. By including three years' total U.S. mortality,
and studying people exposed to a wider range of air pollution, one can be that
much more confident of the significance of the effects observed.
Our analysis, using these data on the relationship between air pollution
and health effects, has proceeded in three stages. In stage I all 3, 100
counties in the United States were aggregated into 192 groups based on 17
levels of income of the 1970 census and 21 levels of pollution expressed as
emissions per square mile. Income variables were represented by race-specific
median family income data from the 1970 census. Ideally, in relating air
pollution to health effects, one would like to know the actual dose to which
the population was exposed. Unfortunately, the dose of air pollution to the
population is not available; Lave and Seskin and other studies have used air
quality data (concentration of pollutant/m”) as surrogate for dose. The
-505–
incompleteness of the air quality data reduces their usefulness initially for
a nationwide study of health damage of air pollution. Thus, at this stage in
our analysis, we have used estimated emissions as surrogate for dose. This
variable varies by five orders of magnitude over urban and rural regions in
the United States. Thus, the "pollution" variable was represented by the
decimal logarithm of the calculated sulfur emissions (SOx) in tons per square
mile for 1970. This logarithmic transformation of emission has a more, normal
distribution than the raw estimates and was therefore preferred. The
mortality variable was represented by age-, race-, sex-, and cause-specific
mortality rates for 1969-1971. The multivariable statistical techniques
(multiple regression and path analysis) used provided distinct estimates of
the relationship of income level and pollution to mortality. The effects of
pollution and income were observed by age cohorts because it was then possible
to compute age-, race-, and sex-specific relationships that address the issue
of cost in terms of reduction of life span -- not simply total attributable
deaths.”
A striking feature of the analysis of the relationship of family income
to mortality39 is seen in Figure 11. The average family income in the 3,100
counties for non-whites is less than the average given for whites. This is
why we have concentrated in deriving our damage function from data on whites
only. One cannot include the non-whites: the impact of income on non-white
mortality is just overwhelming. In the 0-4, 5-14, as well as 45-54 age groups
there is a striking effect of family income on mortality rate with a notable
sex difference in all age groups applicable to non-whites and whites. In the
65-84 age group, as one might expect, the effect of income has leveled off,
although the differences in rates between males and females are still
–506–
apparent.
Figure 12 shows the relationship of income and pollution to mortality for
white males and females at all ages. The X-axis contains midpoints of
five-year age cohorts. The beta coefficient values for income and pollution
as predictors of mortality are graphed on the Y-axis. The beta coefficients
-- a standardized regression coefficient in a multiple regression equation --
quantify the strength of the relation between mortality at each age and the
indicated variable (income or pollution). A positive coefficient indicates
that an increase in the variable goes with increased mortality at that age,
while a negative coefficient indicates that increase in the variable goes with
a decrease in mortality at that age. Values near 1 or -1 typically represent
high association (the beta coefficient may exceed 1 in absolute value, so that
beta coefficients should not be interpreted as correlation coefficients). The
cross-hatched area indicates where the coefficient is not statistically
different from zero.31
Income generally tends to be negatively associated with mortality with
increasing age. This is particularly evident for white males, in whom income
maintains - and in fact increases — protection against mortality with
advancing age. Pollution for both sexes becomes more strongly associated with
mortality as age increases. The only exception is the 0-4 cohort where a
positive association with pollution is suspected. This finding suggests that
pollution may be especially damaging to infants, as measured by their
mortality, and deaths of the very young. Further research is needed.
Comparison of our calculated excess deaths with other research shows
striking similarities.” Winkelstein et al.” attributed approximately 14
deaths/100,000/ug TSP/m”. Lave and Seskin" calculated an order of magnitude
—507–
lower estimates of 0.9 deaths/100,000/ug TSP/m3 for white males 55-74. Since
both estimates are based on a measure of TSP rather than S04, certain
modifications of our data were necessary for comparison. The issue of
pollution equivalence was a difficult problem. Recent studies have estimated
that the S04 part of TSP varies by a wide range. 34,33 By assuming 25 to 80
percent to be a reasonable conversion range, We can convert our excess death
estimates to figures comparable with the winkelstein and Lave and Seskin
\
numbers. By a sºletely different approach, Morgan et al.” also calculated
excess deaths, however, since their estimates are based on an S04 measure of
pollution, no modification beyond differentiating between the relative
proportion of SO2 and SO4 in S0x was necessary. A modified version of the
Finch and Morris” comparison of excess deaths is found in Table 5.
Since emissions are not an ideal criterion of air quality in the second
stage of our analysis, we have used the air-quality data available in 1970
from the 248 EPA air-quality measurements for three pollutant species: S02,
S04, and total suspended particulates (TSP). As we have already noted, these
248 measuring stations fall far short of covering all 3, 100 counties in the
United States - the county was the unit of analysis in the first stage of our
analysis; and while major urban areas are monitored by one or more measuring
stations, rural areas, are sketchily monitored. In an attempt to surmount this
problem, i.e. , that only 221 counties had one or more EPA air-quality.
measuring stations in 1970, we have assumed that each EPA measuring station
provides good estimates of the pollution level for all those counties which
have similar emission and socio-economic characteristics. For this purpose we
have used the original 192 groups in the first stage of our analysis to
aggregate our data to give a population size large enough to calculate
-508–
statistically significant mortality rates. 34
Of these original 192 groups, 92 county groups contained at least one EPA
measuring station. In 44 of these 92 county groups, 50% or more of the
population reside in counties containing one or more measuring station.
Unfortunately, these 44 groups are more representative of polluted urban areas
in the U.S. and caution must be exercised when extrapolating these results to
the more sparsely represented rural populations. “ Nevertheless, as will be
seen from Figures 13–15, there is, in general, good agreement between the
age-specific damage function derived from the emission-mortality analysis from
stage 1 of our analysis and that obtained by using EPA measuring stations and
grouping emissions in counties without measuring stations with these, stage 2
of our analysis. The data agree reasonably with those derived by Lave and
Seskin and Morgan et al. for S04 and with Winkelstein and Lave and Seskin for
TSP. The difference in the damage function for S04 exposure derived from
stage I and stage II in age groups over 60 may be related to differences in
the size of the populations included in each stage, and the
underrepresentation of the rural population in stage II.
For perspective, it is worth noting that the National Academy of
Sciences, in its report on Saccharin, estimated the risk associated with the
equivalent of the consumption of one can of diet soda per day. Depending on
different mathematical models used, the estimate of risk varied by five orders
of magnitude.
—509–
LOW-LEVEL RADIATION EFFECTS
Except for accidental cases of acute high-level exposure, worries about
nuclear facilities center on possible damage by airborne or liquid effluents
and resultant low radiation doses to people nearby. Note almost all delayed
cancers from power-plant accidents in WASH-1400 are calculated to be also due
to low radiation doses (<l rad).
What - if any - are levels "safe, " "acceptable," and understandable to
the rºle But neither term can be quantitatively defined. In practice both
imply a definite but extremely small probability of risk.
There are now three ways of determining what dose-levels may be
considered tolerable. One determines at what dose level the risk of
detectable somatic or genetic radiation damage becomes Low enough to be
vanishingly small in comparison to the summated environmental insults
to somatic and gonadal cells due to "normal" causes encountered in a person's
lifetime, including background radiation, i.e., to nuclear radiation that
forms part of our natural environment, e.g., from potassium and cosmic rays,
and determines below what level any additional radiation exposure would result
in an insignificant increment in dosage. A cut-off or de minimus level of
risk (and therefore of dose) has also been suggested for general application
to the general population. Deaths of 1 x 10° to 1 x 10-2 per individual per
year have been proposed.
The difficulties in defining the effects of very low levels - a few
auliren per year or less - on the general population from the nuclear-fuel
cycle are two-fold. For one, no statistically valid experimental work is at
hand because of the virtually insurmountable difficulties imposed by the
–510–
necessarily large-scale, long-term nature of such experiments, e.g., a popula-
tion of P. million will have about P million live born children per generation
with “3.5% of them obviously genetically defective. Thus in several, say 3
generations there will be 10° P such defectives in the control population.
The population exposed at a few, say 3, mrem y-l will have had an excess ex-
posure of 0.10 rem by the mean age of child-bearing or conception (~30 y).
With an induction rate of genetic defects by radiation of 80 x 10-6 rem", 3.
population of P million will in 3 generations have had an excess of induced
defectives of 3P x 10° x 80 x 10-0 x 0.1 = 24 P extra defectives. For detec-
tion of this excess at 2 standard errors 24 P = * W (10° + 2 p. Hence
P = 700 million. Conditions on a very 1arge, genetically extremely homogeneous
population would have to be rigorously controlled and over several generations
to detect significant genetic changes. Even epidemiological studies on compara-
ble populations living exposed to different natural radiation levels have
proved inconclusive. It also would be imperative to establish a unique cause-
and-effect relationship--even were correlations between morbidity and radiation
exposure apparent--in order to rule out other causes, such as economic conditions,
nutritional factors, or improved diagnostic facilities due to better medical ser–
vices.
Another problem arises from the fact that, although it is easy to observe
deaths and malignancies such as observable at dose levels above 50-100 rad, it
is more difficult to observe minor incidences of illness in a much larger
population, such as might result from low-level exposures, and to distinguish
them unambiguously from similar illnesses that could be caused by a host of
other causes.
Due to these difficulties, a conservative approach is to take the
–51 l-
dose-effect values obtained at high-dose levels and to extrapolate them down
to low-dose levels. What is usually assumed is a linear relationship between
dose and effect, independent of dose rate, an assumption that appears to be
amply justified for acute use asse levels.
Several recent reports (Bross;35 Mancuso, Stewart and Kneale;36 and
Najarian”) have been interpreted by some people to indicate that the
co-cus employed risk estates, which are based on the UNSCEAR and seis
committee Reports, underestimate the risk of radiation at all levels. They
especially emphasize that the linear theory (that the risk per unit dose as
derived from available data at high levels of radiation dose holds all the wa
down to zero exposure dose) is not sufficiently conservative in estimating
risk at low doses but rather underestimates it.
Bross believes he has identified subgroups in the population which are
espcially sensitive to radiation damage. His belief derives from his analysi
of the Tri-State Leukemia survey, wherein he studied an association between
some "indicators of susceptibility" (viral infections, bacterial infections,
and allergy) shown by the leukemic child from birth until diagnosis of
leukemia. He concluded "the apparently harmful effects of antenatal
irradiation are greatly increased in certain susceptible subgroups of childr
possessing the indicators associated with a slightly higher intrinsic risk of
leukemia." However, reanalysis38 of his findings shows that children with
leukemia are simply more prone to viral and bacterial infections and allergi
before the clinical onset of the disease, i.e. , these indicators characteriz
the disease itself and do not relate to the child's inherent susceptibility
leukemia. The incidence of these diseases as part of the pre-leukemia phase
of Leukemia in children is well known in clinical hematology. Analysis of
... -- - - |
–512-
Bross' data shows that the incidence of these indicator diseases before the
clinical onset of leukemia is the same in children who had received no
irradiation in utero as in those who had. 38 The hypothesis of Bross, that
there is a susceptible portion of the population at higher risk of leukemia,
has also been challenged on the grounds that Bross' methods yield no way to
identify susceptible individuals ahead of time and so no way to test his
\
thesis.3%
More recently, Bross has suggested that the relatively small radiation
exposures from diagnostic X-rays in adults significantly increases the risk of
leukemia.” It appears that Bross assumes, in coming to this conclusion, that
in the *** of diagnostic X-rays, the incidence of heart disease and
leukemia is zero. “9, ** were this not the case the fact that the
"dose-response" curves of adults exposed to diagnostic X-rays are flat below
10 rad exposure would suggest a threshold. Indeed, a more conventional
relative risk analysis” found little or no increase in risk of leukemia from
a small number of diagnostic X-rays. Bross also assumes here that relative
risks are fixed and that the percentage of the population affected varies with
dose, i.e. , the basic response variable is the proportion of the irradiated
population affected by radiation. Conventional relative risk analyses assume .
that everyone is affected and that the relative risks vary with dose. The -
improvement made by Bross et al.'s approach is unclear. The position taken
here by Bross appears to be at odds with his earlier paper, in which he
postulated the existence of a sensitive subgroup of fixed size whose relative
Irisk of leukemia increased rapidly with increasing X-ray dose.
Finally, one should note that the leukemia risk (or "percent affected")
does increase dramatically in males (females appear to be unaffected) after
–513–
large numbers of diagnostic X-rays. However, the cause-effect relationship is
uncertain in that large numbers of diagnostic X-rays - ~ 40 or more within 1
years -- implies the presence of a disease state perhaps deriving from heart
disease or a preleukemic sensitivity to infections.
Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale2% have reported prelialaar; findings on the
work and survival experience of 24,939 male workers with 3,520 certified
deaths and of an unspecified number of female workers with 412 certified
deaths at the Hanford Works, Richland, Washington between 1943 and 1971. The
preliminary report, largely limited to analysis of data on the 3,520 male
deaths for which death certificates were available, claim to demonstrate a
radiation-induced excess of cancers, greater than linear models would
indicate. Their analysis has been widely criticized. Their report does not
state the actual individual doses received by Hanford workers who died of
cancer, only mean cumulative radiation doses. Besides, their study did not
take into account the calendar year in which the cancer began and made no
correction for the fact that the incidence of the cancers they were observing
in the Hanford workers also increased during the period of the study in the
population at large. Thus, Table ll in their publication, showing an increa
in cancer with increasing dose accumulated over increasing time, fails to a
into account that even in the absence of the increasing dose of radiation,
there is a similar increase in cancers they were finding in the U.S. as a
whole when plotted against increasing time. Other analyses of the same data
published by Marks et al. ** and by Hutchinson et al. 44 point to the
possibility of an association with the work experience for two cancer types:
cancer of the pancreas and multiple myeloma (multiple myeloma in whites is
increasing in the U.S. for no known reasons). There is no reported radiatio
|
–514–
relationship for lymphatic or haemopoietic cancers other than myeloma, i.e. ,
no excess of leukemias (which previous experience suggests should have been
most observable where radiation is a factor).
Since the specified radiation doses were very small, perhaps on the order
of a few rads, the cancer-doubling estimates found in the Mancuso, Stewart,
and Kneale paper have been strongly disputed. If the postulated small dose
actually caused a doubling of the spontaneous rate of cancers, then background
radiation would produce more than the numbers of cancer observed in the
population. It therefore appears that if these doubling doses are correct,
something other than radiation was the cause of the observed cancers. In the
light of these criticisms, Mancuso et al. now appear to have modified their
estimates of doubling doses and are quoting doubling doses of 2-150 rem.
Rajarian and Colton” estimated that since the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
(PNS) in New England began to service nuclear-powered ships in 1959, 20,000 -
people were employed there, of whom about 20% were exposed to radiation. From
3. search of death certificates 1959-77, 1,450 former PNS employees who had
died below age 80 were identified in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts.
To ascertain whether these ex-employees were radiation-exposed workers,
attempts were made to contact near relatives by telephone. This was
successful in 525 cases and it was established that 146 were probably exposed
to radiation during their workins life.
The authors show that, compared with mortality in U.S. white males for
1973, the observed numbers of cancers and leukemias were considerably greater
than those expected: for example, 56 cancer deaths were found in death
certificates of 146 ex-workers exposed to radiation; only 34.5 were expected.
—515–

In non-exposed workers there were 88 cancers; 79.7 were expected. For
leukemias there were 6 in the former radiation workers; only 1. I were
expected.
Najarian and Colton listed some inadequacies in their survey. It was an
analysis of deaths only; no information was available on the total population
at risk. There could be a bias in the information supplied by relatives.
They had no information on how long workers worked at the shipyard, how long
nuclear workers WJerſe exposed to radiation, and the amounts of radiation they
received. Consideration was not given to other toxic agents, such as
asbestos, smoking, industrial solvents which could have acted alone or
synergistically with radiation to cause the apparent excess deaths from cance
and leukemia.
There are other inadequacies in this survey. To exclude some of the
effects of other carcinogens, one must show that cancer frequencies increase
with increasing radiation exposure, but knowledge of the lifetime accumulate:
doses of the former employees was not available. . More importantly, if the
radiation work at PNS began only in 1959, it is unlikely that changes in
overall cancer frequency induced by radiation would appear before at least I
years after exposure, or after 5 years for leukemia, these being roughly
minimum latent periods for cancer induction. The data given * Najarian and
Colton can be divided into deaths during the periods from 1959–69, when
radiation effects would not be expected to appear, and 1970-77, when effects
might be expected. In 585 death certificates of persons who died between
1959–69, 24.6% had cancer listed as the cause of death. Considering the 33
radiation-exposed workers who died during this period, 13 or 39.4% of the
deaths were recorded as due to cancer. In 865 death certificates 1970-77,
|
–516–
25.7% had cancer as the cause of death; hence there was no significant
difference between the percentage of cancer deaths between the two periods for
all workers. For the 113 radiation-exposed workers, 43 or 38.1% of deaths in
the later period where due to cancer -- no more than in the earlier period
(39.4%).
RADIATION EXPOSED
CANCER Ž CANCER CANCER Ž CANCER
ALL DEATHS DEATHS DEATHS ALL DEATHS DEATHS DEATHS
l959-69 585 144 24.6 33 13 39.4
1970-77 _863 222. 25.7 113 43 38. I
1,450 366
The absence of any apparent latent period effect casts doubt on
conclusions about the contribution of radiation to the curiously high numbers
of cancer deaths among the radiation workers. **
In the aeanwhile, NIOSH made available to Drs. Najarian and Colton
radiation exposure data supplied by the U.S. Navy. On February 2, 1979, at a
symposium sponsored by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore,
Maryland, Drs. Najarian and Colton introduced these radiation exposures into
their PNS Study. At this time, they announced that in contrast with the -
original Lancet data, where 6 leukemia deaths were observed instead of l. 1
expected, it was found that two of the cases of leukemia had no history of
radiation exposure. One had less than 0.1 rem, which is what one receives
after one year's natural background. One received 15 rem, one 5 rem, and one
"not: numbered" -- probably less than 5 rem. The number of leukemias is now 3
instead of 1.1 expected. For all cancers the new data are:
-517-
CANCERS
EXPOSURE NUMBER OBSERVED EXPECTED RATIO
Less than 0.1 rem 64 17 13.5 1.26
From 0.1 to 0.99 50 16 10.5 1.53
Greater than 1 49 19 10.2 1.58
No exposure 358 92 7.49 1.24
Chi-square test shows no significant difference in the ratio among the
exposed levels at p = 0.10. Cochran's chi-square test for a linear
regression, which considers that the ratios increase in the expected direction -
shows no statistical significance at p = 0.05 but is significant at p = 0.10.
Early verification of these data is urgent.
A tentative list” of chemical and physical agents probably present at the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard during the past 25 years includes:
Acetone Chlorinated Diphenyls
Alcohols * chlorinated sentalene.
Amines arous Acid
Ammonia Chromium
Ammonium Hydroxide Coal Tar Wolatiles
Amyl Acetates Epichlorohydrin
Antimony Oxide. Ethyl Acetate
Asbestos & Ethylenediamine
Benzene - Fibrous Glass
1, 3, Butadiene Fluorides
Cadmium , - º Fungicides
Carbon Monoxide - Hydrogen Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride Hydrogen Cyanide
:* Personal communication: R. D. Zumwalde
–518-
Infrared light Sodium Hydroxide
Lead Titanium. Oxide
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Trichloroethylene
Mineral Wool Tri Sodium Phosphate
Nickel e Turpentine
Phenols - Ultra Violet Light
Polyvinyl Chloride Wood Preservatives
Radiofrequency (Microwave) Xylene
Silica (Quartz) Zinc Chromate
Comparison with Table 6, taken from Table 25: Common occupational
Carcinogens from Health and Work in America: A Chart Book, American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1975, underscores the difficulty in
assessing the effects of lo. levels of radiation in this worker population.
one must await the results of the complete survey being carried out by
the Center for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health before any conclusions can be drawn between exposure to radiation.
at PNS and risk of cancer.
Thus, although these claims of higher risks from the levels described by
Bross, Mancuso, Stewart, Kneale, and Najarian have become the subject of
considerable public debate, examination to date of their work does not support
these claims.
—519–
BEAD 'S APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTIES
BEAD at Brookhaven is assessing the health and environmental costs of
energy production and use. BEAD's methodology is straightforward. One starts
with compilation of pollutants from the energy system, then the various
pathways to man are traced. This task entails definition of transport
mechanisms, including chemical and biological conversions and varous transfers
through the biosphere to man. A quantitative evaluation is then made of
effects. This evaluation relies on information from epidemiological data,
field and laboratory studies, and biomedical research designed to elucidate
molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying responses to pollutants. Once
given the magnitude of energy flows through the system and the size of the
populations exposed, total health damage can be estimated. The framework of
the evaluation is provided by the energy-system models of the National Center
for Analysis of Energy Systems, of which BEAD is a part; this provides the
resources (including the required energy-flow projections) and the means of
integrating the results with a national energy policy-
Most energy models are based on aggregated national data or on large
regions, such as census regions. Health and environmental effects, however,
are highly location-dependent. The need for a high degree of geographical
disaggregation of emission data led us to develop a county-level energy and
emissions data base.” We maintain a file on sites of planned future energy
facilities. For assessment, the Regional Studies Division at the Center has
developed methods for siting future energy facilities associated with
long-term energy projections. Data on emissions from these sites are then fed
into large-scale meteorological-air chemistry transport models” to estimate
-520-
likely ambient air quality.
Risk assessment aims at improving the base for decision-making for policy
makers and public. The information upon which to base risk assessment is
often scanty. Even so, assembling available data, organizing them so as to
clarify choices among energy options, and gauging the uncertainties is a
useful aid to decision-making. Since decisions mean choices among different
technologies, standardized comparisons are essential to avoid poor choices.
For technologies producing the same form of energy, e.g., electricity, 3.
standardized unit of production or production rate can be used, e.g., a 1,000-
MWe power plant-year. When comparisons must extend across technologies
producing different energy forms, e.g. coal-electric vs. coal-gasification vs.
coal-liquefaction, the proper comparison is not always obvious. Indeed, there
may not be a totally satisfactory basis. Streams of electricity, gas, and oil
with the same energy content are not really equal: they are used by the
consumer for different purposes and with different efficiencies. As discussed
in the Introduction, this difficulty can be largely overcome by examining
different technological choices within the entire energy system meeting all
demands (Figure 2). Risk assessment must quantitatively assign risk to each
component of the energy system; valid comparisons can be made only between
entire fuel cycles or between entire alternative energy systems. While we are
not yet able to analyze completely environmental and health impacts with
quantitative data for the entire energy system, current economic- and
technology-oriented models use this integrated framework.”
The main difficulty in risk assessment lies in comparison of
qualitatively different risks. There may be trade-offs among air, water, and
land impacts; between short-term and long-term risks; or between extraordinary
-521-
and routine risks. In comparing coal and nuclear fuel cycles, for example,
the high probability of air pollution impacts from coal (although uncertain in
magnitude) must be compared with the low probability of catastrophic events
from nuclear energy. Quantitative analysis alone cannot tell how large a
certain, routine impact one is Willing to accept to avoid an unlikely
catastrophe. Risk assessment would help separate scientific issues from value
issues in these very thorny technological problems, thus helping the public
and political decision-makers clarify key value decisions.
Until recently, we concentrated on comparisons of the main sources of
electric power. Tables 7 and 8 summarize our preliminary estimates of health
effects on a unit-plant basis,”
assuming currently mandated environmental
controls. Table 7 shows a summary of the nuclear cycle effects on a
unit-plant basis. Table 8 shows our current estimates of the health effects
of the coal fuel cycle on a unit-plant basis. Most of our attention has been
directed to quantifying coal-mining accidents and occupational disease, coal
transport accidents, and air pollution from coal combustion.
Detailed Approach to Assessment
Some of the results of our assessments are incorporated into a
coordinated effort of several groups within the national laboratories in
support of a U.S. Department of Energy program called the National Coal
Utilization Assessment (NCUA).” The complete project is wide-ranging. It
may be useful to the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ones) to examine what -
from our point of view - is the main theme of the exercise, since the course
of ORBS must be somewhat similar. It consists of six steps:
1. Scenarios which span the range of energy policies to
be analyzed for specific future reference years were
-522-
designed.
2. Energy technology-economic analysis at the regional
level resulting in estimates of energy supply,
conversion, and use by fuel, sector, and region was
carried out.
3. Specific energy facilities were sited within each
region. This was done with models which consider
historical trends, resource availability, end use,
et Ce
4. Environmental transport models were run to convert
air-pollutant emissions to ambient concentrations.
The result was a geographical distribution of
air-quality contributions from energy use in each
scenario-reference year.
5. Population exposures were determined by overlaying the
pollution distribution produced in step 4 on mapped
population distribution. The result was the number of
people exposed to various levels of energy-generated
pollution. Although this has been applied only to
man, the same approach is expected to estimate
pollution exposure to crops and various natural
ecosystems.
6. Using dose-response functions developed independently,
the impact of population exposure was estimated.
Several aspect. of this approach are under further study. some examples:
(a) background pollution exposures from non-energy sources are an important
–523-
consideration that should be projected and analyzed -- attempts have been made
to do this but it greatly enlarges the required effort; (b) more opportunity
to consider environmental factors and alternative emission controls within the
technology-economic modeling of step 2; (c) opportunities to allow changes in
the technology-economic modeling based on the impacts calculated in step 6;
(d) expansion of the kinds of environmental modeling -- we are now working on
water-quality modeling; (e) expansion of receptor categories - mappings of
agricultural crops and endangered species are being integrated with pollution
level and siting mappings to identify potential assets; (f) flexibility -
each step is an independent process, products are available for review after
each step, and revision of the models in any one step can be easily
incorporated.
Simplified Approach to Assessment
The comprehensive approach requires much time, personnel, and
coordination. Frequently, quick, first-cut estimates must be made of the
effects of various policy options. To meet this need, we have used a unit
effects approach. Based on detailed case studies, we have developed impact
estimates for typical unit facilities, particularly power plants. If a
scenario calls for the equivalent of 50 1,000-MWe coal power riants, We assign
the impact to be 50 times the impact of our unit plant. We have used the unit
effects approach on national, regional, and multi-regional studies.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Environment, U.S. Department of Energy under contract EY-76–C–02-0016.
I thank my colleagues in the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment
Division (BEAD) Dr. S. R. Bozzo, Dr. S. J. Finch, Mr. K.M. Novak, Dr. S.C.
Morris, and Dr. J. Nagy for their work and helpful discussions.
-524–
2.
6.
REFERENCES
J. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Position Paper on Regulation of
Atmospheric Sulfates. Strategies and Air Standards Division, Office of
Air and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
USEPA-450/2-75-007. Washington, D.C., 1975.
Commission of Natural Resources/National Academy of Sciences/National
Research Council, Air Quality ana Stationary Source Emission Control,
prepared for the Senate Public Works Committee, Serial No. 94-4, March
1975.
Environmental Health Criteria 8, Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulate
Matter, published under the joint sponsorship of UNEP and WHO, World
Health organization, Geneva, 1979.
Nishiwaki, Y. , Tsunetoshi, Y. , Shimizu, T., Ueda, M., Nakayama, N.,
Takahashi, H., Ichinosawa, A., Kajihara, S. , Ohshino, A-, Ogino, M.,
and Sakaki, K., Atmospheric Contamination of Industrial Areas Including
Fossil-Fuel Power Stations, and a Method of Evaluating Possible Effects
on Inhabitants, IAEA-SM-146/16, IAEA, Vienna, 1971, p. 267.
Lindberg, W., General Air Pollution in Norway. visits av Røykskäderadet
(Smoke Damage Council), Oslo, 1968.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Consequences of Sulfur
Oxides, a Report from CHESS, 1970-71, Research Triangle Park, N.C., U.S.-
Government Printing Office 265PP (EPA 650/1-74-604), 1974.
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Report to the General
Assembly with annexes, United Nations, N.Y., 1977.
-525-
10.
11 -
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Amdur, M.O., Toxicological Guidelines for Research on Sulfur Oxides and
Particulates in Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Statistics and the
Environment (March 1976), Washington, D.C., American Statistical
Association, pp. 48-55, 1977.
Amdur, M.O. and Corn, M. , The Irritant Potency of Lime-Ammonium Sulfate
of Different Particle Sizes, Am. Indust. Hyg. Ass. J. 24:326, 1963.
Lave, L.B. and Seskin, E.P. , Air Pollution and Human Health, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1977.
Schwing, R. C. and McDonald, G. C. , Measures of Association of Some Air
Pollutants, Natural Ionizing Radiation and Cigarette Smoking with
Mortality Rates, The Science of the Total Environment 5:139-169, 1976.
Hickey, R.J., Boyce, D. E., Harner, E. B., and Clelland, R.C., Ecological
Statistical Studies Concerning Environmental Pollution and Chronic
Disease, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, Vol. GE-8,
pp. 186-202, Oct. 1970.
Winkelstein, W., Cantor, S., Davis, E.W., Maneri, C.S. and Mosher, W.E.,
The Relationship of Air Pollution and Economic Status to Total Mortality
and Selected Respiratory System Mortality in Men I: Suspended
Particulates, Arch. Environ. Health 14: 162-172, 1967.
Zeidberg, L. D., Horton, R.J.M., and Landau, E., The Nashville Air
Pollution Study: 5, Mortality from Diseases of the Respiratory System in
Relation to Air Pollution, Arch. Environ. Health 18:214-225, 1969.
Gregor, J. J. , Intra-urban Mortality and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA 600/5-77-009), Corvallis, Ore., 1977.
Schimmel, H. and Murawsky, T., SO2 - Harmful Pollutant or Air Quality
Indicator? , J - Air Poll. Cont. Assoc. 25:739–740, 1975.
—526–
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23 e
24.
25.
26.
Buechley, R., Riggan, W. B., Hasselblad, W. and Van Bruggen, J.B., SO2
Levels and Perturbations in Mortality -- A Study in the New York/New
Jersey Metropolis, Arch. Environ. Health 27: 134-137, 1973.
Stebbings, J. H. , Fogelman, D.G., McClain, K.E., and Townsend, M.C.,
Effect of the Pittsburº Air Pollution Episodes upon Pulmonary Function
in School Children, J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc. 26:547-553, 1976.
Schrenk, H.H., Heimann, H., Clayton, G. O. , Gafaer, W.M. and Wexler, H.,
Air Pollution, Donorra, Pennsylvania -- Epidemiology of the Unusual Smog
Episode of October 1948, Public Health Bull. (Fed. Sec. Agency,
Washington, D.C.), 306: 1-173, 1949.
Alarie, Y.C., Long-Term Exposure to Sulfur Dioxide, sulfuric Acid Mist,
Fly Ash and Their Mixtures, Arch. Environ. Health 30:254-262, 1973.
McJilton, C., Frank, R., and Charlson, R., 1973, Role of Relative
Humidity in the the Synergistic Effect of a Sulfur Dioxide-Aerosol
Mixture on the Lungs, Science, 182:503-504.
Ferris, B.G., Jr., Higgins, I.T.T., Higgins, M.W., and Peters, J.M.,
Chronic non-specific Respiratory Disease in Berlin, New Hampshire,
1961-1967, a Follow-Up Study, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 107: 110-122, 1973.
Douglas, J. W. B. and Waller, R.E., Air Pollution and Respiratory Infection
in Children, Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 2001): 1-8, 1966.
Frank, N. R. , Studies on the Effects of Acute Exposure to Sulfur Dioxide
in Human Subjects, Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 57 : 1029-33, 1964.
Amdur, M.O., Silverman, L. and Drinker, P., Inhalation of Sulfuric Acid
Mists by Human Subjects, Am. Med. Assoc. 6:305-313, 1952.
Hazucha, M. and Bates, D.V., Combined Effect of Ozone and SO2 on Human
Pulmonary Function, Nature 257:50, 1975.
-527-
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Finch, S.J. and Morris, S.C., Consistency of Reported Effects of Air
Pollution on Mortality, BNL 21808-R, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, N.Y., 1977. -
Morgan, M. G. , Morris, s.s., Meier, A.K., and Schenk, D. L.A., A
Probabilistic Methodology for Estimating Air Pollution Health Effects
from Coal-fired Power Plants, Energy Syst. Policy 2(33):28-309, 1978.
Bozzo, S.R., Novak, K. M., Gaidos, F. , Finch, S.J., and Hamilton, L-D-,
Health Effects of Energy Use, BEAD, National Center for Analysis of
Energy Systems, July 1978.
Bozzo, S.R., Galdos, F., Novak, K.M., and Hamilton, L.D., Medical Data
Base: A Tool for Studying the Relationship of Energy-Related Pollutants
to Ill Health, BNL 50840, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.,
1978.
Bozzo, S.R., Novak, K.M., Galdos, F. , Hakoopian, R- and Hamilton, L.D.,
Mortality, Migration, Income and Air Pollution: A Comparative Study,
Soc. Sci. and Med. Geog. , 13D (2), pp. 95-109, 1979.
Tanner, R.L., and Marlowe, W.H., size Discrimination and chemical
composition of Ambient Airborne Sulfate Particles by Diffusion Sampling
(in press), Atmospheric Environment, 1977. -
Weiss, R.E., et al., Sulfate Aerosol: Its Geographical Extent in the
Midwestern and Southeastern United States, Science, 193:979, 1977.
Bozzo, S.R. , Novak, K.M., Gaides, F • , and Hamilton, L.D., A Comparative
Study of Air Pollution Health Damage Using Different Pollution Data, in
preparation.
–528–
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Bross, I.D. and Natarjan, N., Leukemia from Low-Level Radiation:
Identification of Susceptible Children, New England Journal of Medicine
287: 107–110, 1972. -
Mancuso, T. F. , Stewart, A., and Kneale, G., Radiation Exposures of
Hanford Workers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes, Health Physics
33:369–85, 1977.
Najarian, T. and Colton, T., Mortality from Leukemia and Cancer in
Shipyard Nuclear Workers, The Lancet, May 13, 1978, p. 1018.
Smith, P. G. , Pike, M. C., and Hamiton, L.D. , Multiple Factors in
Leukaemogenesis, Letter to Editor, Brit. Med. J. 2:482-483, 1973.
Rothman, K. J., Review of Dr. Irwin Bross' Presentation on Radiation
Exposure and Cancer Risk, prepared for a public meeting of the low-level
effects of ionizing radiation sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1978; see also Letters to Editor,
Journal of the American Medical Association 238(1) : 1023-1024, 1977.
Bross, L. D.J. and Natarjan, N., Genetic Damage from Diagnostic Radiation,
J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 237:2399-2401, 1977.
Bross, I.D.J., Ball, M., Rzepko, T., and Laws, R.E., Preliminary Report
on Radiation and Heart Disease, J. of Med. , 9:3-15, 1978.
Ginevan, M.E., Nonlymphatic Leukemias and Adult Exposure to Diagnostic
X-rays: The Evidence Reconsidered, Health Physics, in press.
Marks, S., Gilbert, E. S., and Breitenstein, B.D., Cancer Mortality in
Hanford Workers, IAEA Symposium on the Latent Biological Effects of
Ionizing Irradiation, March 1978, IAEA SM-224.
*
–529–
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Hutchinson, G. B. , Jablon, S. , Land, C. E., and MacMahon, B., Review of
Report by Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale of Radiation Exposure of Hanford
Workers, Health Physics, in press.
Reissland, J.A. and Dolphin, G.W., A Review of Mortality from Leukemia
and Cancer in Shipyard Nuclear Workers by T. Najarian and T. Colton, The
Lancet, VI, p. 1018, 1978, National Radiology Protection Board (NRPB),
Harwell, Didcot, England, May 18, 1978.
Drysdale, F = R. and Calef, C.E., The Energetics of the United States of
America: An Atlas, BNL 50501-R, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
N.Y., 1977.
Meyers, R.E., Cederwall, R.T. , and Ohmstede, W. D., Modeling Regional
Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion: Some Environmental Applications, in
Advances in Environmental science and Engineering, in press.
Beller, M. et al., Energy Systems studies Program Annual Report -- Fiscal
Year 1976, BNL 50539, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y., 1976.
Hamilton, i.e., Testimony on Comparative Health Effects of the Coal and
Nuclear Fuel Cycles, in the Matter of the Power Authority of the State of
New York (Greene County Nuclear Power Plant), No. 50-549, Case 80066,
June 5-6, 1978, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transcript
pp. 18810-19130.
Morris, S.C. , Novak, K. M. , and Hamilton, L.D., Health Effects of Coal in
the National Energy Plan, in An Assessment of National Consequences of
Increased Coal Utilization Executive Summary, U.S. Department of Baerg,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Washington, D.C.,
TID-2945 (Vol. 2), pp. 12-1 to 12B-3, February, 1979.
—530–

|
rºle i. MECHANISMS THAT CONVERT SULFUR DIOXIDE TO SULFATES
Mechanism
0verall reaction
Factors on which
sulfate formation
primarily depends
-—
l. Direct photo-
oxidation
2. Indirect photo-
oxidation
3. Air oxidation in
liquid droplets
4. Catalyzed oxidation
in liquid droplets
5, Catalyzed oxidation
on dry surfaces
S02
S02
S02
NH3
S02
S02
liquid water
+ H2SO3
light, oxygen
Water * H2S04
mog, Water, N0
smog, water, nº • H2SO4
organic oxidants, *
hydroxyl radical (OH')
º H2S03
0xygen + :
— NH4+ S04
oxygen, liquid water,
heavy metal ions
Oxygen, particulate
S0.
H2SO
Carbon, Water 2SU4
Sulfur dioxide concen-
tration, sunlight
intensity.
Sulfur dioxide concen-
tration, organic oxi-
oxidant concentration,
Ammonia concentration
Concentration of heavy
metal (Fe, Mn.) ions
Carbon particle concen-
tration (surface area)
wº
#
TABLE 2.
INCREASE IN MORTALITY IN THE LONDON FOG OF DECEMBER 1952
SEASONAL PERCENTAGE
CAUSE NORM DEATHS OF TOTAL
OF (DEATHS IN WEEK EXCESS EXCESS
DEATH * PER WEEK) AFTER FOG DEATHS DEATHS
Bronchitis 75 70|| 629 39
Other lung diseases 98 366 268 17
Coronary artery dis–
ease , myocardial -
degeneration 206 525 319 2O
Other diseases 508 889 381 2 l;
Total 887 2|| 8 || 1597 100
Table 3. — Ranking of sulfates for irritant potency.
Compound 9% Increase Resistance/pig SO4/m”
H2SO4 0.410
Zn(NH4)2(SO4)2.” 0.135
Fe2(SO4)s” 0.106
ZnSO.” 0.079
(NH4)2SO.' 0.038
NH.HSO, 0.013
CuSO4 0.009
FeSO.” 0.003
MnSO.” —0,004
* Data of Amdur and Corn (1963).
* Data of Amdur and Underhill (1968).
-532–
TABLE 4
Enumeration of Strengths and Weakness Study Designs.
for
Air Pollution Health Effects

=|
tº
* * E.
-3
'º :C
É 5 :
* 3 à *H v-4
•r- •r-# Q) 4–1. r- &=
O Q) rºl wº º O r—iſ
•r- *} > •r-ţ O 2. $4 tº;
4–2 bO p- , ch Cpl. -5 4-1 £
P-4 C *} 3–4 sº Ö C •r-;
-j •r- º: O Q- C; O d
>. Cſ) ſº >. £º Kº) C <!
Randomize P P P P P P N N
Population. P P N P N P N NA.
Socio-Economic P P N P N P N. : NA
Smoking & - P P N P N P N NA
Direct Applicability to & } }
General Population N N N N | N P P P
Regional Effects e P N N P N P N N
P = possible problem 3.Te2.
N = design directly or indirectly controls for this factor
NA = not applicable
–533–
TABLE 5
Comparison of Attributable Pollution Death Estimates
- gº by Various Researchers
ºne cºme eme º sºme sºme sº ºne same cºme mese sº sº ºp sºº ºp emº uºmo sºme tº sºme sº sº sºme sº ºne wºme sºme tº sºme º smº ºne sºme ºne sm sºme ºus smºº sº emis sº º sº me tº * * * * * * ºr sº sº º sº º ºsº ºr ºr ºne ºe
Excess Deaths
(death x 10.5/ug
Researchers pollution type) Minimum Maximum
Winkelstein (1967) * * *
white males and females
ages 52-69 ug/TSP/m3 l4 - ØØ 10 - ØØ i8 - ØØ
Bozzo et - al. Q
white males and females
ages 50-69
ASSUMPTION: 253 SO4/TSP 2 - 29 Ø - 91 3 - 67
83; SO4/TSP 7 - 34 2.91 il - 76
Lave and Seskin (1977) *
white males and females
ages 45–64 ug/TSP/m3 Ø .9% Ø - 40 l - 40
Lave and Seskin (1977) *
white males 45–64, (ug SO4/m3), 4.41 —5 - 80 14 - 60
white females 45–64 (ug 504/m3) 8.1% 2.2% l4 - ØØ
Bozzo , et. al-
white males and females.
ages 45-64 -
ASSUMPTION: 25% so 4/TSP I - 68. Ø - 68 2. 69
82% SO4/TSP 5 - 38 2. i 6 8 - 59
Lave and Seskin (1977) -:
All ages, white male 4 - 89; -Ø - 50 lſº - 10
All ages, white female 9. 35 4 - 50 l4.2%
Morgan et. al. (1977 g
all ages (ug SC4/m3) 3.71% + 2) - ØØ ll - 47
Bozzo et - al. (l.877) .*
all ages (ug so.4/m3) 3 - 56 L - 16 5 - 9 5
wºmºy * * wº, ºy wºmºsºgºs sº ºr * * *
* Personal communication to S. Finch (in Finch and Morris 27)
** Median value
*** As calculated by Finch and Morris from Winkelstein's data
-534–
groups.
£ommon cancer inducing agents have been linked to various occupational

common occupationAL CARCINOGENs
Table 6

Agent Organ Affected Occupation
Wood Nasal cavity and sinuses Woodworkers
Leather Nasal cavity and sinuses; Leather and shoe workers
urinary bladder
Iron oxide Lung; larynx Iron ore miners; metal grinders and polishers
silver finishers; iron foundry workers
Nickel Nasal sinuses; lung Nickel smelters, mixers, and roasters:
- electrolysis workers
Arsenic Skin; lung; liver Miners; smelters; insecticide makers and
- sprayers; tanners; chemical workers; oil
refiners; vintners
Chromiurn Nasal cavity and sinuses; Chromium producers, processors, and users:
lung; iarynx acetylene and aniline workers; bleachers; glass,
pottery, and linoleum workers; battery makers
Asbestos Lung (pleural and peritoneal Miners; millers; textile, insulation, and
mesotheliorna)
shipyard workers
Nasal cavity; larynx; lung;
skin; scrotum
Petroleum, petroleum
coke, wax, creosote,
shale, and mineral oils
Contact with lubricating, cooling, paraffin or
wax fuel oils or coke; rubber fillers; retort
workers; textile weavers; diesel jet testers
Larynx; lung; trachea;
Mustard gas Mustard gas workers
bronchi
Vinyl chloride Liver; brain Tſ. Plastic workers
Bis-chloromethyl ether, Lung Chemical workers
chloromethyl methyl
ether
Isopropyl oil
Nasal cavity
isopropyl oil producers
Coal soot, coal tar,
other products of coal
combustion
Lung; larynx; skin;
scrotum; urinary bladder
Gashouse workers, stokers, and producers;
asphalt, coal tar, and pitch workers; coke oven
workers; miners; still cleaners
Benzene
Bone narrow
Explosives, benzene, or rubber cement workers:
distillers; dye users: painters; shoemakers
Auramine, benzidine,
alpha-Naphthylamine,
magenta, 4-Aminodiphenyl,
4-Nitrodiphenyl
Urinary bladder
Dyestuffs manufacturers and users: rubber
workers (pressmen, filtermen, laborers);
textile dyers; paint manufacturers
SOURCE:
National Cancer. Institute.
–535–
TABLE 7
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE EFFECTS SUMMARY
EFFECTS PER 0, 65 Gºly (E)
DEATHS DISEASE/INJURY
MINING -
PUBLIC - 0,08 0.03
WORKERS * *
RAD IATION INDUCED CANCER 0, 06 - 0.03
NON-RAD IATON INDUCED :
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE 0.07 - 0.14–2.8%
OCCUPATIONAL ACC IDENTS 0, 31 - 11.96
SUBTOTAL 0,52 - 12,21–14.87
PROCESSING
PUBLIC - - - 0,002 0.002
WORKERS - º - - -
RAD IATION INDUCED CANCER 0,031, - 0.031
OCCUPATIONAL ACC IDENTS 0,00; l. 3
SUBTOTAL 0.04 l, 31;
ELECTRICITY GENERALION
RouTINE PUBLIc - 0.017 0,017
WORKERS - -
RAD IATION INDUCED CANCER 0,07 0,07
OCCUPATIONAL ACC IDENTS 0.013 1.13
CATASTROPHIC AccIDENTS 0,1 –––
Subtotal - - 0.20 - 1,217
*BASED ON RATIO OF occupATIONAL DISEASE/DEATH IN COAL MINERs.
LOWER EST IMATE IS USED IN TOTAL,
-536–
TABLE 7 -
NUCLEAR FuEL CYCLE EFFECTS SUMMARY (conIINUED)
WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC 5, 1 x 10-5 5.1 x 10-5,
WoRKERS 7,45 x 10-4 7.5 x 10-4
SUBTOTAL 7.96 x 10" 7.95 x 10"
TRANSPORT
RouTINE PUBLIC 6, 1 x 10-4 6.1 x 10-4
WoRKERS -
RADIATION INDUCED CANCER - 8, 5 x 10-4 8, 5 x 10-4
OCCUPATIONAL ACC IDENTS - 0.01 . - 0.1
CATASTROPHIc AccIDENTS .
CANCERS 8, 3 x 10-5 to 8.3 x 10-5 TO
7.1 x 10-4 7.1 x 10-4
PROMPT DEATHS 2.1 x 10-7 TO
9.3 x 10-5
SUBTOTAL - 0.01 0.10
DECOMMISSION ING -
PUBLIC 5.3 x 10° 5.3 x 10−9
WoRKERS Z. -
RAD IATION INDUCED CANCER l, 2 x 10T.’ H.2 x 1073
OCCUPATIONAL ACC IDENTS 8,0 x 10-4 0.07
SUBTOTAL 5 x 10–3 - 0,07
TOTAL 0,77
11,9–17,6
-537-
TABLE 8
COAL FUEL CYCLE EFFECTS SUMMARY
(PER 1,000 MW PLANT-YEAR, 65% CAPACITY)
E-sºom
ToTAL 7.7–9.1
DEATHS DISEASE/INJURY
MINING! :
PUBLIC º gº ºrº º, º º
WoRKERS
ACC IDENTAL INJURY” 0, 6 l;2
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE 0,02–0,4 0.5—1.0
PROCESS ING
PUBLIC
WORKERS ... • -
ACC IDENTAL INJURY 0.05 2.9
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE sº tº ºb º-> <--> -->
TRANsport”
PUBLIC AND WORKERS
AccIDENTAL INJURY 0, 3–1, 3 1,2–5,9
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
PUBLIC
AIR POLLUTION (50 MI RADIUs)" 0, 6 (0–3) NOT ESTIMAT
AIR Pollution (TOTAL U.S.)” 6 (0–30) NOT EST IMAT
HORKERS *
ACC IDENTAL INJURY” 0, 1 (0.02–0, 3) 3,3 (2,7–L.
- |
-538–
TABLE 8
COAL FUEL CYCLE EFFECTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
#OTES:
l,
AssumES 62% UNDERGROUND, 38% surFACE MINING (THE RATIO OF
APPLACHIAN COAL PRODUCTION, SOURCE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES, HINERAL
YEARBOOK 1974, U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1976, Wol. 1,
PP, 367–76),
\
CoAL MINERS AccIDENTAL (NON-FATAL) INJURY (1965–75 MEN)
UNDERGROUND MINING - 27, 6 INJURIES PER 105 TONS
SURFACE M IN ING – 5, 2 INJURIES PER 10° TONS
[(27.5 x 0.62) + (5.2 x 0.33)] x 2.2 x 10% = 42 injuries PER
PLANT-YEAR
FROM HoRRIS AND NOVAK (REF, 61, P,13)
AssumEs RAIL TRANSPORT, 300 MILE TRIPS. RANGE IS DUE TO
DIFFERENT METHODS OF EST IMATION,
ASSUMES 5 MILLION PEOPLE WITHIN 50 MILE RADIUS, sul FUR OxIDE
EMISSION RATE OF 0, 12 LBS. S02 PER 10° BTU INPUT (LOW sul FUR
COAL COMBINED WITH 90% REMOVAL OF SULFUR IN FLUE GAs, RESULTs
ARE APPROxIMATELY LINEAR FOR S02 EMI SS IONS ,
ASSUMES TOTAL EFFECT 10x LOCAL EFFECT,
ESTIMATES FROM BERTOLETT AND Fox, WITH Poisson 95% conFIDENCE
LIMITS, - -
–539–
2.
3.
5.
LEGENDS TO FIGURES
The position of biomedical assessment in overall energy assessment.
Reference energy system, 1977, diagramming stages in energy production,
distribution and use.
Deposition in various portions of the lung and respiratory tract for
various size particle populations. Nasal-P stands for the nasopharyngeal
compartment, T-Bronchial for the tracheobronchial compartment, and
Pulmonary for the alveolar compartment.
Correlation between the prevalence of chronic bronchitis and sulfur oxide
precipitation (measured by PbO2 method) for differing smoking rates in
the subjects after correction for sex and age.
Total number of deaths for 156 winter weeks in Oslo, Norway (1958/9 to
1964/5) plotted against weekly mean concentration of S02.
Excess acute lower respiratory disease in children plotted against annual
average suspended sulfates concentration.
Aggravation of heart and lung disease in the elderly plotted against
24-hour suspended sulfates concentration.
Excess mortality rate in New York City in 1960 plotted against 24-hour
suspended sulfates concentration (includes data on excess mortality in
London in 1950's and Oslo in 1960's).
Excess leukemia mortality at Hiroshima and Nagasaki plotted against the
dose in rem (with 90% confidence limits). Kerma dose was converted to
effective absorbed dose. (The line is a least-square fit forced through
the origin deleting the two negative Nagasaki points. The slope is 49.90
deaths/10° person-rem with a standard deviation of 4.27.)
—540–
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
BEAD probability density functions representing the uncertainty in the
slope of the assumed linear damage function. The solid curve is the
subjective distribution. The dashed curve is the classical estimate
(student's t distribution with three degrees of freedom) obtained by
treating the results of four regression studies as independent
observations of the same slope.
Sex-, race-, age-specific mortality rates and family income, 1970.
The combined effects of income and pollution by age for white males and
females, total mortality.
Total deaths associated with S04 exposure (deaths/100,000/ug/SO4/year),
U.S. 1969-71 white males. Stage 1: Analysis based on emissions data.
Stage 2: Analysis based on air quality and related emissions data. Note
the average values given by Lave and Seskin and the results of the
probabilistic study from Morgan et al. for both sexes at all ages.
Total deaths associated with S04 exposure (deaths/100,000/g/sos.ſyear),
U.S. 1969-71 females. Stage 1: Analysis based on emissions data. Stage
2: Analysis based on air quality and related emissions data. Note the
average values given by Lave and Seskin and the results of the
probabilistic study from Morgan et al. for both sexes at all ages.
Total deaths associated with total suspended particulates exposure
(deaths/100,000/ug/TSP/year), U.S. 1969-1971 white males. Stage 1:
Analysis based on emissions data assuming TSP contains 25% S04. Stage 2:
Analysis based on air quality and related emissions data. For comparison
note values given by Winkelstein for age 50-69 and Lave and Seskin for
age 45-64.
–541–
W
ENERGY POLICY ASSESSMENT STRESSTNG BIOMEDICAL EFFECTS
"HERTBFFs .e. --
*CTSTöN-Fºs _---"
* VåRīāEEs—. e-a-dººr cos"?
ENERGY
| Policy
ASSÉ SSMENT
\, is
w. 8?
Owºss.
~& *85;
Alt 4 cº $42,
C Coš
Alt 3 TS
—sº- Alt 2 ~
Alt ||
EXISTING ENERGY RESIDUALS SOURCES OF
SYSTEMS f*.*.* SYSTEM fºi (POLLUTANTs) ‘i BIOMEDICAL
(ALTERNA- MIX DIRECT EFFECTS EFFECTS
TIVES) ---
* l
§
TRANSPORT
ENERGY twº- ENERGY R&D AND
DEMAND (NEW OPTIONS) FATE
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FIGURE 1
SOURCES OF EFFECTS. CN
AES THETICS
ANIMALS
VEGETATION
SOT T, ING
I A NID TISTS'
DAMAGE
AND COST
RELATION--
SHT PS
i
---. £ºrs
EFFECTs
BIOMEDICAL ASSESSMENT


#
Figure 2 REFERENCE ENERGY SYSTEM, YEAR 1977
|NUCLEAR FUELS -
266 - (.32) 0.85 2.75 (1.0) tº ºf
U23& U238 *º-sº cºmmasºmmemºc.ºº eaeºsºmºsºmeº- º - &
g * T ENRICH a FABRICATE TRUCK LWR AC IND MTR | Of
º *g -
LiCHTIN * * ***
**** ºtel ... *ſ, £9
724 (.91) 6.59 - Et-ECTRONIC DEVíCES
RENEWABLES (33) 975 ELECTRICITY - sº. O.2} {.57) à- a . () iſ: raxx... dº
HYDROPOWER !-------tºi------>easº ElBCTRoi Yºſic CEills" ERIMARY º, º T
- 3CHAP: { } { {{?” (), JS
{.{2} ooz sº Oi 3 (i.O), tº a Aft
iºnº-ºº: *...º. º - -y
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC {}{{\!\!. 8 .3 x 10" ſtif, i.
A) 3'ſ EEL' #2 & 3 x 10° TG!! S
O.O.Qiz OO!?
SOLAR *mºnº.m pe ps tº sº º º
THERMAL º-
!.5O O.O6 (H.O.) & {} (it. fº
- ſº -ºr
WOOO AND WASTE s "***------ * * Ac INDUCTION MOTOR.
"""------- W. º *s, -
"T"-->--- 2-tº- * * ss. O61 (2.75} - . ~! /6 $dº 39
\ º | *TU/Ufull 22 x 10"
FOSSIL FUELS $0.18 (33) - * 60) & tal ºz SQ F 'ſ ºt.,500
tºssmººsºººººººººº. 15.3O - ..! - *
*- - Iº. º. º, , ; ; ; ; ; * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ſº hºmas & *s, ************ **- SOLAR
COAL * , Ur 10CAL CLEAN UNIT TRAIN COAL STEAM ELECTRIC & Fºss. \ &gº
- **. º \\
$.22 . * WY: * **--> * * (too)}{EAT PUMP & ºl. •
. 3. * * *xºtr &º.
- EXPORTS # *, 263 (46) \ºa &EC Rés. NO OF tºt” (4 tº S 1.4 x 10°
Q.29 (.22) O.O6 f H Ş., Aeo tºo) tº COMM H i. ()Of Sºr’,\{E 27 x 10”
. - - J 4, sº ºf s-ºs-ºs---
| | A.Ş..ºf
&
18.31 f & *.*. 189 (55. Tº # 93C)
Aº. * *- & & gº sºsºsºs *— --> ** *...* … *-4 as: ſh
CRUDE OIL - -Ty OłL STEAM # , ; ; ," -*R*s -> GTUZūr T.J. To TT
ELECTRIC #,’ f ; ," ‘, ‘Sº 31 U/SQ. H 1 5.3-lo
|4 OO - |.78 , fº & *, *@-
JMPORTS (CRUDE) } lº * { f A. \, .#
- & *
w"'s & º * -
-*- #2"----isºtº-- **, *~~~~ *
IMPORTs (REFINED) #23, **-* *
(8.6% (8.06 Ž *, O2 (64) *A.
- - *
'3. . . . ." ‘. . . . .” -- * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. º.º.º.º.º. he a- • * * * ** * * * ****** * * = * * * *
NATURAL.GAs PiPEl_{NE 6 TANKER r - ~ 37] †--º
'... º. º. * * * * . .” \\, O.66 > (to) h a ...'... * Q
iMPORTS \ wº y º *:
W
WA. ha. O59 (75) ºn a *… -- -
Arepared ty.' - - gr wº - Tr wºgy
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ANALYSIS OF ENERGY SYSTEMS,
- i) ili BBQQKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY —h- 9.82 (HO) *—a . º -
iitii Associated UNIVERSITIES, INC. A - * TGASOLINE ENGINETICT * --~~~~
UNDER DOE COMTRACT NO. EY-76-C-02-0046 & Vt.}lict t <!, i l ; 1,08 it.”
MWOWES." 15 GF/VD.’ h- 220 (.10) h-
4 SOLID tićAſéAračworks 4 weal. Acrºwry. * CO41 gr wº GASTURBINE tº & ºccux:
& EMERGY/ZOWS ARE MAD/C4JED My Jo” Bru 460/F *accalasusmans ſº J/POLEUM *.*, - | Ağt fit.: tº . . . . . It?”.
E4C// £15A/EAVſ. COMWVERS/CW £A/7/C/&AWC/ESA/PE - J. . *, *. {{N} • Ait 8 * RJ"
//wpſcAréo ſwadºwrºssrs. tºasº M47 Lºſ G4S *, *, --~~~ 6.17 (.13) { } { } {
3. (AV005???/44. AROC&SS //547 OE Aſ4A/D /MCA (MOES *... ...a...sºmsºn A/UCLAA/? FUFA. * - gr w - ** ***** …a…: + e
46/?/CULTURE AA/04/AV/A/G A5 Wºlt AS 441 *cºnºmºus Mºſſº M24&AES * {{-C) ENGINE 1341% j \ ... “ - tº 9', a # ,”
orºsa /W/M/SW/?/44. /PEGU/º/M&A/PS. Bºassºs ELECTF/C/7 y *, i fºt.It. K it :, ; , ;, * . **
4. Wood Awd #24576 Woſ ſwclub:0 twroſac &WE&Gr - electºr * \ O 90 (.10) vºn M. ..., ºx tº
5. AV4/14816 &AW&Gr AS DEAE/AWFD 5Y SECOWO 14:47 # --ti-axis & Wé fù Y 54 frº/CES *- }-d *e allies. …~~~. …sº-e
CW ///5/PMODYA/AM/CŞ.
6. 504ſ: M/M88/75 CMV 7/#/S CHART ARE DER/VEO fºotſ
EA/G/WEEF/AWG 4A/At YSES.
TOTAL ENERGY, 1977
75.64 x lo” Bru
AVAILABLE ENERGY, 1977
6549, Io"Biu
57.24 x 10” Bru
5067 x lo”Btu
2973xloº Blu
14.59x IO*Btu
DEMAND
SECTOR
RESIDENTIAL B. COMMERCIAL,
Mi’,(.E i ! At it. . ;Uş E i t . ; ; , , .
INDUSTRIAL,
£i. (, ; it C in . . VE
INDUSTRIAL,
Ai 141ſ. A
INDUSTRIAL,
thºſ. o. iſ E £1.
ELECTRIFED MASS
TRANSPORTATION
RESIDENTIAL 6 COMMERCIAL,
A # CGI 1347 tº f {{{\|G .
RESIDENTIAL B. COMMERCIAL,
$'; ; , C.E i ! FAi
ti l ; ; / ti; ; ; ; ; 50 x 1. ."
F'ſ ſil it/ SC; ; T. 2(, ; ; , , ,
RESIDENTIAL 8, COMMERCIAL,
Młº, CE t i-Ai : i. (DijS it ºf At.
INDUSTRIAL,
# to C. t. [.S Ht. AT 8 hº! SCEI.L.ANíðfjº,
INDUSTRIAL,
f*E.T Rt jo.} {{..I.ſ. (CALS
TRANSPORTATION,
f*#’t i fjë $
TRANSPORTATION,
u’t j : Q&#3Bll &
…........ IRANSPORTATION,
* 1ſt f tº :: *:::1-e
PA “; "... f.;; 'N, U 9
! Jº f,' 'Q', 4.8
TRANSPORTATION,
tº 1:..., , it it.tv ... } {Alt.
TRANSPORTATION,





















#
–F=-→__
SNO?! DIWN
– RJ313 VN V/IC] N \/ [C]B W SS \/W
0! G
00| 09O’I G’0!’0 G0º0 10'O
- 544-
©T @_@
©IGIé
•º•º•
ȼ
d -- Ti V/SW/ N
NOI 10W 8.3 NO IIISOdžQ
gºź%€ 3\}[10] -!|- 06° 0

12}- X
11 H-
10H-
9 H.
8 H-
7 |-
5 º-
5 H-
4. |->
3H-
2H-
l º- -
sulphur oxides (mg/100 cm’-day)
f | | { f 3. złs zi-
0.5 = 1.01.= 15 20 25 : 3.0 4.
" *# "# 3 #2 *ā
g; ## ge #: z3
+3 5 § $2 >=
ti-
FIGURE 5
12O
sº
US
110F Primary Air
ºſe Quality &.
+: Stondoros
#
$3 Q
# 1OO sº O-
# sº 94 + O.O31 x (ug/m”)
94 + 89 x (ppm)
. C.
90
FIGURE 4
ops or of oz of 5 (ppm)
/*. I T W I | f
100° 200 300 400 500 500 700 (ug/m3)
weekly mean concentration of SO2

-545–
FIGURE 6
EXCESS ACUTE LOWER RESPIRATORY DISEASE IN CHILDREN
|
|
BASED ON STUDIES IN
Six AREAS.
C
C
O
©
co-l C) tº C, ;
5 10 20 25
ANNUALAVERAGE SUSPENDED SULFATES, p.3/m3


–546–
|
FIGURE 7
AGGRAVATION OF HEART AND LINE DISEASE IN THE ELDERLY.
70
50 Hº-
40H-e
30}-
20H-
I0H-
- I - | - l
& Q.
- f : & dº | -
10 . . 20 30 °
24-HOUR SUSPENDED SULFATES, g/m3
ſº
O.
C

–547–
i
FIGURE 8
2n}
I
S
IQ
|
o NEW YORK CITY, 1950's
A LONDON, 1950’s
C GSL0, 1950's
| |
' […]
| * ~ & cº; n = 2 * a L-crº
“y 25
5 10 13 20
24-HOUR SUSPENDED SULFATES, Pig/m3

–548–
25, OOO
2O,OOO
15,000
| O,OOO.
5,000
FIGURE 9
| |
e H|ROSH |M A
A NAGASAK
# 90 % CONFIDENCE LEVEL
| OO 2OO 3OO
- REM
4OO

–549–
çu/67- NOSHEd GOI HEd SHLWEG SSHOXE
o
0 i B\iff\{)[ -]
CNJ.
NO
gol ALSNEC AllTIGWGOHe

-550-
Figure
Ø-4 YRS.
lø.9-r
++++++
+
++
*; +++ M
#" : O
******* + tº #
*
7.5-k ** :* .."; A
* * * * L
:* I
* T
# Y
# R
- A
5.3—F `-- * É
oonooooooo. §, #. P
°ocoa,” CO E
goooooo {3 R
l
2.5- #
Ø
Ø.0 TI --- | }
4000.0 63%.0 800ſº sº; lº,000.0 12290.0
FAMILY INCOME IS70
_*
5-5, YRS -
28 .0-r - -je.
+
# ****
********** f M
++ - : O
f + #
21.0-4. #. A
L
I
T
- *. Y
...*...*...*:-——s *~ * R
** * •". A
14.9—1. * # #. T
# E
P
E
CO R
- OOODOOOOOOOOOOOOD oooooooº l
7.3-# - - Ø
Ø
Ø
£º * ºl
Ø. Ø | ſ |
49%. 3 6090.3 8009.9 løøøø.0 l2006.3
FAMILY INCOME 1979;

5–14 YRS.
l <º 2-r
.9–4. +
+
+
+
+.
++++++++++++
+
+ -
'* *H++k—.
********** # º *
* *...
:***ooooo, **
: °oo.
.3-4 ©OOOOOOOCCCXCCCº.
4000.4 6030.3 8303.2 I0000.0 l2009.9
FAMILY INCOME 1970 -
65-84 YRS.
lſ.jø .0-r
i * $
++++: • * ..'",
-e-"
75.3–1. ...”.” -r *-,
#.
***
...,x***** *******
** iº
50.0- - 3~~~
Ø.9 ſº i R
| | I }
4009.9 60%.3 8000.0 13039.3 l 2233.3
FAMILY INCOME 1979;
-------- White Male
+++++ Non White Male
Ooooo White Female
***** Non White Female
–551-
O 8 O /.O9O G O £7O92 O 2O |

/~^`，
__）~~
„º
| O’O < p/ _ ^
ET!\/WEI- BILIH NA NO I LOETTOed -----●
E TIV/ WB-j E L | H W E WOON | – – –
ET]\7 W E L | HMW NO į LſìT! THOd – – – –
E TIVW BIL IHM EWOON |
||| i|||
！www.ae „^_^ ~_/
«），
•）
21 3809] +
G “ O
O " |
SLNB 1013-300 &
–552–
i
FIGURE 13
Total deaths associated with S0 iſ šč%j U. S. 1969 – 7 1
( deaths/100,000 /ug/SO
/year
W H IT E MALES
l; 6 +
STAGE II
(Concentration
3 & 4 + Emission) #
30 +
STAGE I
(Emission)
22+ -
1 l; +
6+
º e g º ºs º Q sº es e º gº º gº ºp sº e º e º 'º e º ºr e º 'º p ∈ e º 'º e º 'º 9 tº e º e º & © e º e º 'º º sº. We e o e e o 'o ‘.......ºft.*.*#####....................-
. . . . Morgan et al. (both sexes)
sº º ºffº
~2 º Bez.
| | | | F- }
O 15 30 l;5 60 75 90
AGE


–553–
i
FIGURE 14
lot al. deaths associated with S04 ščíž;. U. S. 1969 - 7 1
( deaths/100,000/ug/SQ 7 year j --
W H L T E FEMALES
62+
STAGE II |
5 l; + (Concentration #
tº + Emission) |
#
l, 64. |
38 + |
30 + STAGE I
(Emission)
22+ H
#
1 l; +
Lave & Seskin tº ~
6+
º sº T Morgan et al. (both sexes)
#º
-2 *—
} } | | | }
O 15 30 l, 5 60 7 5 90

AGE
–554-
i
FIGURE 15
Total death S *:::::::::: U.S. 1969-71
with TSP exposure
( deaths/ 06, Ö607ug/išš7 year)
WHITE MALES
17+
1 l; + © º O C e º º O & © tº ºº e º 'º º O e º 'º gº gº e º e º 'º º gº 9 º' e tº @ Q @ 9 vº
Winkelstein.
1 1 +
STAGE II
- (Concentration
84. + Emission)
5 +
STAGE I
( Emission)
2+
sº........ © e o 9 º' Gº e º 'º' © º O p → ~ 9 @ º
assº” Lave & Seskin
- 1 *— —a —A _ —a
| | | | | `- |
O 15 30 l, 5 60 75 90
AGE

-555-
{} I SCUSS iſ] N
SESS IUN W I
uta. tiatt.dertz. Energy. Resources Centerz. Iniversity of
Illing liz and a leader Qi the JBāES 29 Fe Teauli. This question is
addressed to D C . Haſai 1 to n. Yesterday a e heard Iron Dr.
Mazumdar, reporting on the work of a colleague, that studies in
New York City showed that even though the S02 level decreased by
a facto I of flve, the re were no significant changes in deaths
related to S02. Can You rat lonalize that w 1 tº the results that
you Show ed?
ſlºts. Haſailt 23: That’s a very good quest 1 on and ſ " in a fraid
i didn’t ſuake thy Se iſ clear yester day ºne in I intervened atter sne
spoke. I think the reason for the lack of change in New York
City is due to the long-range transport of Sui ta t e or solae
chefalcal transformation product of the S02- 80 & of Su if a te in
New York City is for eign - Wery careful study has Deeſh do n e on
this. 30% is lag orted froid a reas of the United States west of
the Hudson River, unfortunately . Again, there "s another point I
thlink you have to nave some perspective on: de re looking at a
very tiny proportion of the annual death rate - The surst sort
of figures that we re getting from a ir pollution is only about
2% to 3% of the annual death rate • You "d be looking tor a very
tiny change on that particular point -
Dad 3satſ.<nanz. Jniversitz or lllinois 32b991. Qi tuallg
tealini. To the great I e I lef of every body present i na v e a
question, not a colàiaent. Dr - Rowie, I just Wonde red--you used
the ter a “worst case assuſap tion" in dealing with the deposition
of high level radioactive flater lais into salt caver ns. I was
wondering if anybody nas looked at the worst case assumption of
finding out that, in fact, it doesn’t work. And, in fact, we
Waay be stuck witn holding the hign level was teS as we current ly
are, in teaporary storage fac lilties • Has any oody done the sort
of in-depth analy's 1s that you did, which I was ter clii cally
lſap ressed with, t or that sort of "worst case" analys is 2
Drs. Rowe & Let Iae say, first, that I didn’t do tile
analysis -- it was done by the professiona iſ snile I was nea ding
the Office of Radiatlon Programs of EPA. They did look a t worst
Ca Se CO ſº S equie ſlic e Se The event mignt be a tallure of a certain
kind ºne re 50% of the total nate clal couid be released to the
—556–
environa ent, by the worst possible pathway • Tà is s as the a used
as a coſt Sequence theasure • An even more extreme case would
involve releas lag all the aval idole material - Then they do Iked
backwards, and tried to deter in line what Kinds of events C ou id
cause taat kind of consequences • They trieſi 0 egan to try to base
the prop apllity of such even tS upon n is torical data and houe is
to get soae idea of the 1ſ relative frequency - In a sense they
nave look ed at so a e s or St Case S or n a V1 ng Lil 1 S fla at e rial reach
the en V l r oniue Ints & Q w then, you as K and t is the p E ob letti i t w e do
notning. Refue aper, i only stated conditions tº oth the tlite the
repository was c 1 osed. There are also conditions up to true titae
that you put the ſaaterial in the repository • Time a a Jor
alt ter eace in coacept between those is that it we do the 4 of K to
put it in the repository liſh our gener at i ori, we are taking r isks
in our generation for benefits gained in our gener atlon • But in
the long teria, other than the in taaglbie bene rit of the
continuity or society, there is really no benefit to the tuture
generations, so a legacy remains - If we do nota in g, de leave it
as a 1 i aplli ty to £ the future • Unce produced, was Les are
nonproductive in our society • Under inflation, the worth of
product 1 v e i te flas goes up at the Sata e title tſie costs go up to
nandle theia • But to r no ſig E 0 ductive iteſus such as was tes, the
costs escalate and oecouie a Slignificant part of the econouy
wlthout any productivity • A good example, I think, are the 22
apan done d milli tailing piles la the West where Congress now has
voted 180 million dollars to ci ean theia up - That’s al
significant amount of money conside riſig how il t t le was spent to
put the a the re. Another exalap le is the culin piles in eastern
Pennsylvanlas These were put there at a Very low cost--now a e
can *t at t ord to a owe theſa and the land is not usan Le - The
problem is furtner exacerbated in that the balances we ſhake nave
to take into account not only the economic and the health impact
aspects, but also the equity aspects •
ſlal SääEEZſaan 2 May I just ask one quick follow-up question
because i "in ſlot qul te sure if I was unders to 0 d - what i "tº as king
ls that lºg lic lt in your analysis and aluch of the an a lyses 1 "ve
seen, 1s the assumption that there is a netnod to c s to F liag
high-iewel radlo active materials. wn at I "ſa say in g is, *Has
any body done the projected health effects into the tuture not
uslrig that as Suſa ption?" In D the C so ras, using the assuap tion
that, in fact, we never tind a satisfying way of S to cling high
level ſaater la is? Has anybody done the saiae Soct of projection
ln to the future of the nealth effects or that? T in at 's ºn at I
was as Klage.
Brºs. Rose: I don’t think such projections have been ſuade
for the to tal practice as I did. I think they "we do ae it for
waste we have al ceady accuſaulated, a relative ly a sia all aſuo unt,
put I do ſa 't knowl anat the effect would be foºt to tal practice •
–557–
DEs Saarltz Haſli would you care to speculate?
DEs. RQālā; I only can speculate on the social System
lin Wol We d - we a Ouid requite inst lit utlo ſhal controls to preserve
the integ Clty of present was tes, if a e leave the iſ in the to r a se
{ld We ſl O a e If we d1 d not n in g, and the institutional controls
Droke do a ſm to So he extent, a e is ould end up a i th cathedra is and
fll gn prl ests a ſound each I e PoS 1 to r y to Keep it safe. A d on ‘’t
Kū Ow the aſ Sº e Te
D.E. H. Spencerz one of the QRäßS. Cote team laengers: I
have so r Ked hard in this conference to try to see to 1 t that
issues that i t e i t relevant and lap ortant were not over looked.
I have one more I think we passed py - it goes as follows, wery
briefly - The San Diego air crash, Pacific Air lines F 11 gn c 182,
cockpit cre a contained three pilots and one t light engineer . At
the titae of the crash all three pilots, one of a hoa was just on
a Jump ride, were looking for the lignt plane - They alssed it,
obviously - PSA since has fio win two test flign ts under the exact
Saúl e conditions on the saille route, using a 172 separated oy 1000
feet iſ a lit space for safety purposes - Un both occasio ris, * itn
four people in the cockpit, they could not pick out tae 11 gnt
Plane against the background which was into the sun with slaoke
and haze, and six ſailes of v is lollity • I want to sad a you
people in a very quick set of slides, an at six ailes v is ip 1 lity
looks i ike, and then I have a ques t1u n to ask trie group in
relation to the health impact of this proble a • (FIRST SL IDE)
That’s Madison, Indiana from an altitude of 5,500 feet, the very
dead center of the Aſher 1 can ºil dwest, and the visio l l lty recorded
on that day was six alles • It seeins to ſae triat fr Q a the
standpoint of alt line safety alone, and esthetles, this question
of air 9 oilution in eed not be depated or argued any turtner. My
questioſa is why have is e not in this neal th analysis taken this
fisk to air traw e i et S into account?
ĐRs. 89.322. I* l i ſhake an attempt to address the prop lefă.
It you i o ox at the total per Spect iv e o I C L S K S Lil S J C L at # a rad
control of those risks, especially the lny O luntary ones a nicn
are imposed inequitably on people, we tend to eilip naslze all our
efforts on those which we can do soliletning about. E i the r
because they "re institutionally controllable or because they "re
technically controllable - we tend not to deal witn those which
are less tangip le. Gf ten for these the iſlanner in which we do
Solaeth ing about it requires changes in ilfestyle, or Cn anges in
our ano ie economic structure, and in the way we ilve. i think
this prop lem occurs throughout our Society, not just in the
9 articular case you c1 ted. This is a case in whlcrl tecnno logy
tlas fixes, and de Know how to ling ose those fixes • # e lift £3 O Sé
them through the FAA on particuliar air control towers lin alr
traffic control. They are a easurable and de-ap le. Now, if a not
suggesting that "'s the right approach - All I’m suggestlng is
that the institutio as address that which they can contro i, as
opposed to those they cannot, such as the case I or su if ur
–558–
dl oxide •
DEa. Speaceti i tº aſ t to din S㺠e C Lhat e I dil d [l
instruńent-rated p 1 lot cer titled for hign perfor üance alr craft
and I do n ° tº agree alth a thing you "We said.
Dr. Hamilton; I don’t want to get involved in that sort
of controversy because I’m very ſm in 1ſul of Blr Cn 3ay in . I was
very lap tessed by his feeling that we should try to u au et stadd
anat 's going on, and I it de lighted at your in ter V entid ſi u e cause
wn at you "we $n own ls, of course, exactly the distrip ution of
sulfates in the United States - I’ve got a couple of slides - we
don’t nau e the title to see time in but I Caſi assure you you could
superling ose "sulfates, " an at ever they are, on trios e En l ngs.
And, of course, we do kno is that they are responsible for loss of
wis idill ty. It is a wei i-estapi isned tact. The re nave Deen
Some beautiful studies done on this, and again I think that is a
very powerful argument for reducing the precursor of su if a tes,
wnlon is SO2. I would think, lù the light of this and Line io Lig
range transport, it’s a powerful arguia ent for new source
per for than c e standards, being establisned -
Drs. Rose: I Just ſlave one response - Naſae lyz I didia’t say
lt was the correct thing to do e i ſlapp eſt to agree is ith you
because I also fly a nigh performance aircraft in Yse it, open
cockpit as well. I happen to agree with you-- I'd ll Ke to see it
cleaned up. But I was just trying to sive an expian at loſt of any
society doesn’t seeſa to give equal weign tº to these triliigs •
That’s a ii-
£catessor Shapiro. I feel compie tely out of place here.
I a Just be tween two pilots and tacing one her e = L afu , it nout
any apology for the prograla, what’s on here, but I & Ould presuine
that if we really is ent in to ſueteorology and all of the other
aspects that are related to this View, we would have to nave had
not three days but 30 days of symposium . Hence, I would be
nappy li se Sno u1 d nave an O L ſleſ Syū 9 O Sluia O h til at 9 aſ ti Cºuld r
subject in relatl on to the Ohio River Basla Study oecause this
is of fundamental importance, but we restricted ourse ives • I
Delieve we should snow more concern for accidental injury and
death and agree witn the ſleed to evaluate such Liap acts - L
happen to beii eve that that lis also an area our school, for
exalapie, doesn’t etaphasize enough, and Ye t from the go in to f
view of 2 uplic. health n as trea endous lap acts.
MEs disgaz testinghouse; I have two questions for Dr -
Rokie - F 1 rst, I have a coiâne ſit • Dr. Rowe, you sald that the re
is no be nefit to future generations. I take issue altn that
because the benefit I See is that wie are 12 aw ling our future
generations ſhore oil, gas, and coal by burning uraniuſa to day.
My questions are both on the saiae slide • You snowed 10,000
gigawatt years of eiectric it y by burial ng ur aſhluia • Is that witn
or witno ut pluto a luſh recycle? Secondiy , then you Sno ded only 10
—559–
P
tl Bies as much to ſ 11 grit sate r reac to CS - A ſay shouldn’t taat pe
ind re ilke 00 t laes as illuch?
Qcs. Rose: The 10,000 glgawatt years are I or the burning
of ur aſh luſh in Our g resent £ue 1 cycle operation, with glutonium
recycle and th or luna, I extended that py a factor of three - sitſ,
the use of breed er reactors, I extended that by a tac to r u t 100.
The idea be ling that with tae ore e der reactor we ſuay or day not
get the preeding ratios we are talk ing ap out; so assua lag one
order of Blagnitude of uncerta in ty he re is not go lng to a t tect
the ti Ve or de C S of dagni tu de unced tai ſaty that I was talking
about at the endp0 iſl tº Rega I ding you ſ f l r St quest lon, I think
you mls unders tood ale. I didn’t say there was no value. I said
tnere was a value to the coil timulty of Society ºf 1 tſ, or a lit nout
gas and oil -
Ed Light. Aa2alachian Research and us tense Cundi 1 nave a
couple of questions for Dr - Haſailton. First of a 1 1, 1 r QRBES
is able to coine up witn some estinated sulfate conce atcations
for projected power plant eläission scenar los to r the next 20 or
30 years, and nave estliuates as far as the populations residing
in different a reas of different Sultate concentrations, could
tney use your estimates of sulfate mortality effects to colae up
with Soſa e projected in or tallty in this area?
QEA. Haſſailton? Yes, wery definitely -
Ed Light: The other question is : Could you suggest to us
how we could estiſlate the morbidity factors of naving taese
various suitate levels in the different are as around tile power
plants?
Drs. Hamiltons. Yes, I 'a very glad you “we asked the
Inor blalty question because I didn’t touch on that. I think that
you can use several laethods. First of a 1 i , we do have a rough
factor by a nich se ſaultiply ſhortality - if people are go in g to
dle troit a l r pollut 1 on , Ju I W lew lis that lt 1 S ſhot a haſ we sting
effect, our V Lew is that it is a chronic effect and we do nave
Soła e est làates o a person-year S lost - The other poln to E wile is ls
that one snould try to use solue of the Dest EPA est Lila tes,
guesses, for snorter per lods for acute effects. They dua’t have
such tal ngs for chronic effects but they nave theid calculated
potn to r TSP and for sulfates and, alth all the cave a ts that one
*1shes to include in the ſa, I believe UT A ſlas suggested that
they "re reasonable to use - I feel wie "re going to start trying
to use t (leſh, exalaining the uſic ertain ties in Voive d ºil th theia wery
clearly.
PLafa Shapiro. I’d like to ask Dr - Haſall ton to address
the pro D left that can be seen 1n the studies that he referred to
and studles in other areas of health effects a nich exnlp it a
siſallar kind of problem. Namely , that when se couduct the
analysils on a global basis, as when de evaluate relationships
-560–
*
between "sulfates" . and the and le population of the United
States, or a Very large population, y Qu opt 3 l in £ in eS 8
relationships which indicate a nealth daillage due to “sui Ia tes."
But when you start analyzing Sihaller aggregates, those kinds of
effects seeia to vanish or at least are reduced. ºn at 1s the
reason I or such t iſ dings?
QE2. Halallton: You" re not referring now to the actual use
of the daſha ge function; you are refer I in g to its der ly a tion.
The quest loſa lis a Very 1 In ter esting question that Prut ess or
Shap 1 ro nas raised, and it is one that was deſadastrated very
sharply by Llp fert's reanalysis of Lave and Seskin 's 4o rR using
the sa he air pollution moſal toring stations, aſid the data trou
that for the inner c 1 ty portion of the Standard de tº Qpo i litan
Statistical Areas. Llp fert detadastrated that when you restrict
the mortality to consideration of only people in the central
cl ty, this apparent correlation oetween “suit a te” and ia or tality,
this association, disappeared. You want ſay explanation for
that? 4 y explanation is very stral gattorward and slap le, as far
as Lave and Seskin's work and lts I e analysis. It is that when
y Gui restrict yourse if to the inner c 1 ty, you have very
powerful -- particularly for the period that we "re dealing Ai th --
socio-economic lap acts of the in ther-Clty poor - Taa L was a
per lod, by the say, when there was tre àe nd ous ſlota- w ſilte
in-algration in to those a reas - I have already Snown you that
the economic war lap le. as a ſu atter of tact, is a wery powerful
War lap le • I believe that is why it disappears • it i S
ln terest i ng that the a SSO Clation be tº een to tal suspended
particulates and to r tailty does not disappear in the iſlaer cliy.
I am not ap le to explain that differ ential thing - This Lave and
Seskln’s type of analysis, which is a multi-regression analysis,
is very sensltlve to time weignt of the different war lap les. If
you have a very powerful variable, which obviously couies out
when you go to the inner-cl ty, I think that explains ºn y that
disappeared. That objection, by the way, doesn’t app Ly to the
work of 8 ozzo, Galdos, Novak and Hamilton, which co wers the
e in tire C Q u Il try . -
BE.2fessor Shapiroi. But will ef, y o Li lis #2 £n e Standard
Metropoll tan Area as an area of study, You "re including a
treſſlendously variable Set of C iſ cliſms taſic eS, bo Ln £r O a
ſhe tecrological and frota 9 opulation density go in tS or V Lew -
where you locate your ſheasuring dew ices seeins to ae very
Lupo r taſ, t → So I can 't See ho is Y O U Can, On 2 ſle n and, nave lt
disappear and explain it of an econoaic basis, Dut Dineſ, it
appears ºnen you use this tremendous area • It just so the how
doesn’t jiake Sense to Iſle - -
QE2. Hamiltoni. well, you laade a We Ty good polnt of
uncertainty her 2 because we are using a single station? but
He re in creas ing trie sensltl V Lty of the analysis to p a ilution
because we are using a larger area, d iarger nor tall ty Dase, and
ise "re dataging out the effect of poverty - That sould be the
–561–
explan at lon. Let me just "say you’ve put your t inger on a very
lap or tail t are a o E uncertal ſity. The use, I or examp le, Lil our
analysis of only 248 stations to r the entire 3, 1 J0 countles,
even though we we gone througn a wery deliperate aggregation
analysis based on our previous work on emiss loas for all the
Countles, is not a desirab le thing - we a ire a dy know that there
is great uncerta inty anyway froſa one slingle alr pollution
mon l to r in an at ea and people 's outdoor diad 1 ſadoo C exposure.
But, You Know, that’s the Dest analys ls we can come up alth at
the 9 resent day. Until 1 we have studies where you have pers anal
tao ni to IS attached on people, and to 1 low the la to C the flex L 20 or
30 years, we "re not going to nave any oetter analysis. ºn at 's
ſay point. You "w e got to have soae assessment.
• Dr. Radførld: well, it seeins to ſue that to rely I or dauage
functions on a very blunt tool, which the multiple regression
analysis is, and which, as you know, is traugnt with a great
deal of contro versy and question as to whether, in ract, it
shows any correlation or not, and to ignore what i would call
ſauch laoſ e Specific studies, in which an attempt nas oe en liade to
directly relate exposure to sulfates, sulfur oxides, and so
to ctn, in are as in relative ly Sſaai 1 populations an ere you can
have sing 1e exposures, I think that is scient litically is a t very
Sound - the iſap f assion I have been left alta, especially by data
troń aui tip le regression analysis, the data age tunctions ace Just
ſlot Kilo ºne To assume that se can regulate sulfur eſſa iss ions on
the basis of health effects when the re is that auct, uncertainty,
I think from a regulatory standpoint, wi Ould be a disaster
because it would be shot down in the courts in nothing flat. A
po int tº at Dr - L. i. pptmann made yester day a as really re in to rced by
wn at you just saids. We ſhay be parking up the wrong tree. ahd t
we should be concerned an out are solae of these or oader effects,
the lap act of sulfur oxides combined altn ozone on plant i life,
as de li as things like Visibility, etc. f nese ſuay be ºn ere the
action is in terms of controlling power plant poilutants trom
coal burning - I would just 11ke to leave it on that note and
may be get a reaction from the panel, as to sne ther de can at
tn is St a 9 e iſ our regula to r y pro Ce 3.3, do anyth l ng on the D as is
of other than putative healt n effects, an icn a lot of us are
We Ty Liſle asy ab Out -
DE Haſall tons de ll, I’d like to answer Dr. Radford in
tn is a D ea • There are an over ºne lining ſaass of independent
studies, independeſat of these cross-sectional city studies, the
La V e and Seskin work, and our own aassive work in tals area.
They polnit undeniably to the fact that so ſhe trans tornation
products of S02 in urban atta osprlere is narmful to neal th . Now,
the tact that Dr. Ferris hasn’t seen lt in nis Stual i saſhgle in
the Six-Clty Studies, he has not been able to plck up a ſly thing
yet so tar, does n 't negate the fact that air pollution is pad
for you • There have oeen all these episodes. It raises solae
questions about dose / effect relationships - But ne nasa’t given
us any figures for an at would be the lower lińlt of E is k, as a
–562–
ſh atter or fact, that you al gnt be able to derive Irula n is
Studies • So, it seems to lie that if you need some quantitative
la easure of idia age, and I th link oile does in any assessilieſ, t, and
we "re not talking about instituting sulfate standards or dily
other, suppress the precursor of this ſlateria i, which is the
S02. And I don’t think anybody denies tº at . Dr. Ferr is
n lase if said that n e wanted to live alth the present S Lauda rös,
app are ſit 1 ye I don’t know what that meant, a ind you, since I
d on 't know whether n e uſe ant he das against ſlº is S O tiſſ C e
pe C to rig aſ] ce Stah Ciards or an at? He seeſa ed to avoid the Lissue as
to was tale r or not sulfate S 3 I Sofiae iſlater i a 1, re iated to the
oxidatio ſi of S 92, is haruful to autaaſi health - I do a "'t knoa •
I “d tike to near from so ſa ebody else on this -
D.E. Angelmanz. Graduate School of Public Häalth. Juiversity.
of Pittsburgh: I’d like to ask a question as a non-plio L, as a
nignly rated row er of D oats, and a peruser of water • in the
water field to day, there ls a considerable problem in setting
criteria - EPA is going through this exercise right lauw for
their i29 priority pollutants, in any of an ich, if not the
greatest majority, are, in fact, of concern from a chronic
nealth g o in t of View • Now, lauch or the discuss loli, a 1 tſhough not
ali, 1 n relation to air poilution to r the past three days, has
been focused on such things as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and particula tes, p resuſuably based oil their ſad re acute effect
£O ſi C eſſ ils e. I 'd like to ask perhaps Dr. Haſall to n or the others,
what nig n tº be the area of concern on alr pollution exposures for
these many eſai ssions of varying kinds or pollutants I cold power
generation, about which we probably similiar ly have very little
good in for aation regarding their nealth effects 3 and falght
these ultiſaat eiy prove to be of Such consider a D le Concerſ, that
even unen we can control Sońe of the inor e acute kinds of
pollutants, these others taign tº still end up be ling very laassive
in terms of their possible impact- -
DEs. Hamiltoni. I as Suſae you aſ e ſ ete C C ling LO CIlê
non-criteria pollutants, Stic Il a S polycyclic aſ O ſil at lc
hydroca E L oils and tº ace metals, etc. we li, let he put 1 L this
tidy e. £ Ile Strategy we have peeſ, a du o Cat in g in deal ling with this
tning, is that it you reduce particulates and S92, you all I also
reduce the trace the tals and polycy cilcs that are go in g to couie
out to o ( and also nitrogen oxide S) - As long as you do a
thorough job in ſain liaizing those things, You should garl passu
reduce these other possiple potential bad ac to cs - Ali i the
ſho de ling studies that have been done on trace at e tals, in
association sitn burning larger almounts of coal from fossll fuel
9 Q is eiſ plants, and for that matter, trom the poiy cyc i ic
aromatics, nave indicated that we don’t anticipate that the re
would be large amounts •
Drs. Rosie: Dr - Hainll to a used the word "strategy” iſ, what
he was talking abouts I, think that’a a good opportunity to
separate the technical information kaoui ledge and certaintles we
–563–
have trom an at I would call the social or poll tical oues • You
Drought up the prop leſſ of water pollution - it seeins to he in
the are a of water pollution we spend no re a0 ney than any place
else 1 m our econ oily to r pollution control, and very i 1 tºtle of lit
ls to r health effects--except I or the drinking water prop is a and
perhaps so ſhe part lcular contaminated are as . Aost of it is to r
in alntain ling or reclaiming our resources. I’m not ladicating
whether this expenditure is good or Dad, but a tremendous deal
of honey ls spent 1 In this are a for a unicipal treat Iſle at plants or
maln tenance of existing resources. The pro D leia is, a e do nd we
ilālted aſaounts of resources that we can put into taking care of
pollution. I think lt is possible to peg in to take out resource
estimate S and to look at our technical uncertain ties and to
deter a lú e, oased up Q In the C ange of Q uſ Liſl Certà lntles aid the
cost of control at different levels, ºne Ce we can best Spend our
resources; evera to ſtake judgiaents about the uncerta in ties • The
problem is that at the present time dil of our war lous pollution
laws are set up under different acts aſid we "re constralile d oy
the lins titutional constral nts. we naven "t looked a cruss our
Society to find out now to best allocate o uſ res oucces - we can
poss 1 b i y be girl a 1 th the technical uncerta in ties • It 's not just
the prop leia here for energy developia ent by 1 tself; I taluk it "s
across the board, a measure of how we address society in a
cost-e It ective ſu anner - -
- Professor Shapiroz. I’d like to take, if I unders tood you
correctly, S11 gh L issue with you and poliat out that in this area
of synthetic fuei production, or coal conversion to liqulu fuels
and gases, where we know that it produces dail, a glºſis iſ a tec lal, and
tnerefore we start not with the assuſaption of the cost of now
Hauch lt will cost to control, put that lºt we don’t Lnstitute
truiy preventive a easures, then se "li De way off beata saen it
goes on Streata • So I think there are areas, especially a mere we
start de novo, of a need of instituting the Dest, and e wea in a
sense an over-control, ratner than an unuer-control •
Đks. Egae: I tº ſlot necessari i y lin d is a gree illen t w ltn you,
except i recogn lze the fact that it’s Bluch A or e e i t e Ctlve to be
able to regulate at the De glnning than i t lis to try to Te Lc Q Il t .
Even for that reas on a lone I laight a gree slth you • But as a
second a spect, I think some of the practices that we "we accepted
ln the 9 as t nave been perhaps lax in tertas of pollution control.
Any new g I ocess coming 1 n, no àatter what it is, is now subject
to a different Scrutiny? and no matter an at we do, I suspect
our so cle ty will be more conservatlve • For c 1 gnt oc fu C a r on g,
I think it’s a fact of life -
E.g. Lalgût: I would like to bring up an issue - nich I
haven’t heard addressed yet, but Since one of the top ics o Il the
prograla this after noon is reſualning areas of uncertaliaty, I
tnink it is very relevant. That ls the question of the cls K of
an accident from a nuclear power plant - I think this ls a very
important issue for GRBES to address in tertas of what are the
–564–
health et tects and what is the probability of this occur ring -
One of the prlū āry reasons for GR3 &S Delſh g fo ruled , alau one of
the prla ary uses of the into r nation which will De gene E a ted by
URBES, ls to help decide now inuch a e is a ſit to 90 tos dras ſhu C ièar
and now much we want to go towards coal burning power pian tS in
the region. The expert op in ion we nave received so far in this
conterence, are suggestions that it a i i Seghents in the fuel
cycle g o according to standards, there really a c e ii "t we cy
significant nealth prop lems • I ſa ention mere that i alſº S Jäe what
leery De cause we’ve gotten mainly one side of the expert view on
tn is 1ssue, and 2 erhaps we have excluded a body of Op iſ lou from
people is itn ſhay be aſh equal stature as experts, win icii Ilay n d ve
altter ent ways of looking at Soſue of the Saſae data • But it this
ls true that the well-run nuclear iſ lants are not lauch of a
health r l’sk, what is the best intor Hiation we can develop in
terms of the risk of so ſae type of accl de ſit develop liag where
things don’t go according to standards and we have a big re 1 ease
of radlation from the plants?
Drs. Halāiliga: I’m very glad you nave asked that question.
I want to ago i oglze = The shortage of time p r evented use from
following the example of ay colleague tro in Brookha weſt, Dr.
Morris, and show ling you a till clip trom the China Syndroſae;
but I understand the film is on io cally, and I recolaſaend that as
the first a owe in answer to this question • But no s, Ser lously,
I was law oived, ay group was involved, and we had Dr - said uno
was also involved, in the rew is ion of the consequences of the
reactor safety report. I actually piayed a very in tec estling
in tertaediary role between the reactor safety tep ort group and
the American Physical Society group that was crl t iclz Lug the
I eacto C Safety report • I think we arc l wed, as far as the
blological consequences were concerned, at Solae I eason abie
àeeting or the almds and very for tuilate i y We nave oil the 9 anel,
to day, U T - Bill Roise, because he das the chap sno wrote the EPA
crltic 1s (a of that p art of the report • in a ſhy case, d e Ilo is nave
to live with the fact that tſi e report (ads Dee Il C e Vi e i e i by yet
another group, the Lewis Coſaſaittee, and essentla i ly anat the
Lewis Co a ſuittee said is that, on the an ole, the ſhe tho do iogy was
fine, but they felt the 1 limits of Lincer talſ, ty were greater • I
taean that ls the key issue that they calised. They also a ttacked
the use of these probabli 1 ties when you is eſ e Very uſic er tain,
when you reai i y didn’t know wine the r the re is as any truth Aſa L t or
not, and I thiſłk that is as a Very Serious criticism • Nose, wiith
that p olnt, I’d like to turn 1 t over -
Drs. Rose. Let the Just say I was a member of the Lewis
Coţāālt tee also e You Stated Your position Very c 1 eac i y - The
probleſa that I wanted to address in lay talk is one prop lea, that
of nign level is aste tor a nuclear situation • There are 10 ts of
prooleſas in nuclear energy • There are lots of 9 robi elas in coal
and oil as well. The probleins may not always be commensurate on
tne Saſae scale • Da the other nand, for the nuclear case, I
prought up a different problem: namely, that of the prooleai of
–565-
uls posing of uranium all 1 taillings • I think that "s an area that
nasn’t yet been solved. In the area of the accident situation,
the i.e is is Committee did state that the uncerta in ties were
greater than were stated in a A SH-1409 - But they could be either
say 2 tſi e y could be i ower as sell as n1 gner - I thiſhk we nave to
do SO Re H Q I e º O C K iſ tſha t are de
In the case of oil, foc exaluple, I think this is an ere we
have our n i gnest death rate per is n at ever energy ſheasure you want
to use - This occur S in the occupational aced, 3 ecause of loss
of tankers at sea, especially those under flags of convealence,
where the Countl ſag of the nuilloe r of people versus the use of
ol. 1, nas never realiy Dee a statistically added up in useful
#3 y Se
ſlts. Speſlge Es Unce again I want to go a long witn anat Dr.
Haāil to 1 Said ear iler • a e" we looked at Some of the suitate
data, and up through 1977 the saear of haze does superiapose
over the sulfate distribution • That’s not ſay reason for coming
Ile I e at the #10 in ent • Let’s suppose that we don’t nave the
Aancuso, Stewart, Nealy Report, or the study of the sn 19-yard
workers, or the problem of the crilldren in the desert subjected
to tall out tº on the Doiao test - Do you feel, Dr. Haſall ton,
based on our State or knowledge, that the reguiations are 4 eak,
St Cong, or so ſae where ln De tº ee ſl? Anat is your pro tess lonal
op inlon on that question? "
QE2. Häällton: We li, ay reaction was that I nave always
felt rather uncola for tap is with this D usiness of dividing the
year into quarters and allow ling peop Le Sońenow to get 12 rems a
year - i only discovered that relatl vely recentiy in my lite, as
a matter of fact. I feel that son enow or other we snould nave a
5 reſa a year standard • I like the principle of as io - as
reasonably achle vapie, snate ver it is - but I like even ſaore
ghat I we learned about the naval snip yards activities linsofar
as they ſlave had a for C iſ g o per atl on and I’ve seen the in reduce
the le Ve ... do - a to , I thiſlº. tſie t 19 uſ e > t LCKs lii iſly ill ind, do out 2
rem a year per person • I mean, that "'s lay of L-the-cuff c eactlon
to that question e
D.E. E.gsyati. Play I suggest, since we’re losing a lot of
our audience, a ſld I pell eve Our Speakers would be willi in g to
stay for further linforſaal discussion, that we we liſh lit ourse Lves
to one or two ſhore questions in this formal part or the
p C eSeſi ta t lo n >
Jonſ, Caiappell: There was a little talk about the Rasmussen
Report and I just wanted to ask and see if I can get my
lap ress lo n of it contifia e d- is lt true that the Rasa ussen
Report is still just about the ſaos t teliable accide in L s are ty
study aw a 1 lap le at this tiiue 2
–566–
DE. Haulitua. He 11, it is the most because it 's Ene on 17
O ſhe e it ’s also the least; which ever way You want to 100 K at
1 t → -
Jona Calappell: Ukay, now on the upper Dounds of the
uíl C eſtal Il ty/ can you, o a the D as ls of reactor opera Ll on to
date, set an upper bound on the prop aplli ty of an acc 1 deii tº :
Dr. Rose: There are two ways of looking at this pro o led
and the tirst is to recognize that there are differ eat Klſh ds of
reactors operating under different cond 1 tie as . The ques L. Lon ls,
can you lump them all together, including naval reactors, for
example, and use that as an upper lità it? I don’t know if you
can or not. I don’t think the differences have been looked in to
in tar enougn depth yet to Know if this is teasible • I couid
take, 2 erhaps, a group of reactors, operating under slallar
condlt1 on s, and De aple to set upper illults to c that particular
set of reactors alth some confidence--but to lump taefa all
together, i don’t Know yet if this ls prope I or Lilip roper .
Secondly, there is sometn lng else going on winlcn we nave yet to
He asure. This ls the whole operatio in iſlao edded in a regula to ry
Pſ OC eSS • when Soñi ething occurs, a tix is ſhade • This ſix ſaay
even lower the probabllity for the very low proo able accidents.
So we don’t Know yet what the effects of an on going regula to cy
process are on safety - Until we know that, we may riſid that
even our mistory of data bases is getting better--so it could go
eltner way - My answer would be that, in terms of upper ilia its,
we can take the mistory of collected data we presently nave and
lump it together and get some figure • whether that "s a good
estituate of ºn at is really going on Oc not is and the r question •
I thiſak Lt LS preſaature to say-
Dris. Hamiltºn: I’d like to tell a little story about the
use of the word, "botn.” The use of the so rol, "Do th”, i round
Since I came to this country, is grossly abused by Al any people;
lt ’s re d 1 acade mese. The only Correct use is 11 lus ti a tell of a
uar veious ſad Vle l n ºnlch Huā9 ſhrey Bo Jai t 9 layed, called “Be at
the Devi 1 - * Huāphrey was asked by a North African Poteata te
wnlon he thought was ſhore cnlc, a Roils Royce or a Caglliac •
Bogart said, "you should have poth." That ep 1 tonizes in y attl tude
toward this question of nuclear and coal, by the way, that I
wanted to get in to the record. From the health point or w les, I
think you can na We el ther - I see no thing 9 reveſ, ting coiatro i of
both of theia e qual iv is eli. It seeins to lae o ſº the n e dith point
of Vles, I would like to leave it on the record that I see
no thing to choose is ith theià. It’s possip le witn proper controls
tor both to reduce the health effects to really trivial
p C Q 9 OE L 1 0 ſlº, e.
DEs. Pos Matz. I think that’s a good adde rate tone on is nich
to end this discuss lon • I want to thank Professor Shapliſo, Dr.
Rowe and Dr. Hamilton for their excellent presentations • I "a
sure you will all join ille in this Sentiſaent - As a idyā any I
–567–
must Say I have n "t he dr Ci illucin here this atter ſlo on to give the
go J d cnee r , but i am very much lalp ressed by your concer as and by
tne expertise of the people lſ, this group - No w i would like to
call on U r > Radt ord to close the meeting .
Dra. Radford: Thank you, Chance 11 or Posvar - I will put it
in the record, and it is really relevant to a point that Ed
Ll sn't as Keds i don’t think everything is peacnes and creau in
the nuclear fuel cycle any ſhore than 1 thiſłk it "s peacnes and
creata ia the coal or oil or any of the others. I think we have
a lot of prop 1 ela areas. One of the things that I sense, at
least speaking personally, is that I can now sharp en ſay to cus on
ce ſ taln are as - For examig le, specifically, the occupational
hazards l n the nuclear Luel cycle • I think they are ſ el at 1 We ly
out of control, not si thistanding what Bop Milno gue said to day - I
think they have exeilp il fied the tact that the sort of sease,
*weli, everything 1s D. K., so we can go on dolag things the way
*e have been dol ſig" has been is or n out by history ; that a number
of the reactors, as well as per naps even some of the nuclear
facillt1 e s other than reactors, a re not achieving an at I
coſislder to be a safe level for the workers, while Solue of the
otners a re. Once you t lind out that some are, you ask the
questlo a wºny at era "t all of the ſa? Or, that note, I think 1 t is
appropriate to perhaps close true for taal portion of the session.
I want to thank all of the audience and all of the speakers and
moderators personally for their good work, and I personally am
looking forward to a review of this transcript because we do
want to incorporate all of this ſaater iai in the final report,
and it will influence the URBES Report unen it finally comes
out. Thank you a 11-
|||||||||||
5 02482
–568–
→
a！！！！！！！！！！！«
~]]
}
→ ***** ..
ºš，
ſº. * * *sraeſtressºrsraes！！！！！！！！！！
（**T**， &













* « <º º
§:№t.， ºtº: ſ
L • • • • • • • • •
. . . . • • • • • • • • •
！ſ （ *
• • • • • • g •
• • • • • № º
a ： » º
, , , º tº º
ſ ea é º £e ºg æ Œ œ
· º ：， ， ， º ：
º ， , , , ， º £8 j.ae ·-
-·g i øſ， º 25
！ ！！ %±
. ， ， ， ， ， ， ，