ML072120423

Limited Appearance Statement of Joseph J. Mangano

ML072120423
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/17/2007
From:	Mangano J Radiation & Public Health Project
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SECY RAS
References
50-400-LR, RAS 13944
Download: ML072120423 (10)

Text

PATTERNS OF RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS AND HEALTH TRENDS NEAR THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR REACTOR Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA Radiation and Public Health Project July 17,2007 DOCKETED USNRC July 17, 2007 (10:00am)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket No. 50-400-LR Introduction and Operating: Capacity.

The Shearon Harris nuclear power reactor is located in New Hill NC, in southwestern Wake County, about 20 miles from Raleigh.

On April 29, 1971, Carolina Power and Light announced plans to build three reactors at the site, but two were cancelled several years later.

On January 3, 1987, Shearon achieved initial criticality (began producing radioactivity),

and on May 2,

1987 it began commercial operations (reached full capacity and began selling electricity).

(Source:

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov).

Although Shearon Harris has operated for more than 20 years, it is the 1ihnewest of the 104 reactors in the United States.

Through 1998, Shearon Harris was closed 16% of the time due to various mechanical problems and routine maintenance.

But from 1999 to mid-2005, it was closed only 6% of the time.

(Source: u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov).

Radioactivitv Produced in Reactors.

All nuclear power plants operate by splitting uranium-235 atoms, which produces high heat that is transformed into electrical power.

The process of splitting, known as fission, also produces over 100 chemicals not found in nature.

These chemicals are the same cocktail produced in atomic bombs used in Japan in World War II, and in bomb tests worldwide (the U.S. conducted over 1100 such tests in Nevada and the South Pacific from 1946 to 1992).

Each fission product is radioactive.

When it enters the body through breathing and the food chain, it kills and injures healthy cells, which can lead to cancer and other immune-related diseases.

Each chemical, called isotopes, affects the body differently.

Iodine-131 attaches to the thyroid gland.

Strontium-90 seeks out the bone.

Cesium-13 7 disperses throughout the soft tissues.

Each isotope decays at a different rate.

Some decay quickly, and disappear within days or even hours.

But others decay much more slowly.

Strontium-90 has a half life of 29 years, while that of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years.

Thus, some of these chemicals will reside in the body for a lifetime.

These chemicals decay into "daughter products" of which some are also radioactive, before finally becoming non-radioactive, or stable.

The fetus, infant, and child are especially susceptible to the damage caused by fission products.

In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated the health risks to infants under age two are 10 times greater than those to adults.

Radioactive Emissions.

While most fission products are contained within a reactor and stored as high-level waste, all reactors must release radioactivity into the air and water in order to operate.

Some of these are routine ongoing emissions, some are accidental, and

some are scheduled (such as during refueling, which must be performed approximately every 18 months).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets annual emission limits for reactors, and requires utilities to measure and report them.

Shearon Harris has complied with regulatory limits in each year of its operation.

While emission levels are relatively low, there is considerable variation over time.

Annual airborne releases of all radioactive isotopes with a half life over eight days - and thus, most likely to enter the food chain -

ranged from 2 to 816 millicuries during the first seven years that Shearon Harris operated (see below).

ANNUAL AIRBORNE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR REACTOR, 1987-1993 Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1-131 and Em uents 4

46

')

77 47 816 181 1-131 and Effluents= radioactive chemicals with a half life >8 days in millicuries (one-millionth of a curie).

Source:

Tichler J, Doty K, Lucadamo K. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants.

Upton NY:

Brookhaven National Laboratory, compiled for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NUREG/CR-2907.

Annual Reports (comparative reports ceased after 1993).

Local Environmental Levels of Radioactivity.

The NRC also places limits on levels of radioactivity in the environment, i.e. the air, water, soil, and vegetation, near nuclear plants.

Utilities are required to measure such levels and report them to the NRC.

While radioactivity levels near Shearon Harris are all below regulatory limits, there is considerable variation over time.

One example of this variation occurred in 2004 in drinking water at two locations 6.2 and 17.2 miles from the reactor.

Levels of "gross beta," which constitutes all radioactive chemicals that emit beta particles (others emit alpha particles or gamma rays), were measured each month.

Levels steadily increased until by September they had doubled those detected in March, before leveling off.

Moreover, the 2004 average for the two sites of 4.95 and 4.82 are nearly double the U.S. average of 3.01.

At a site on the Shearon Harris grounds, the concentration of tritium (radioactive heavy hydrogen) in drinking water tripled during this time (see below).

2

There is some variation in each measurement.

But such consistent data near Shearon Harris strongly suggests that releases from the plant travel a distance of at least 17 miles, and are entering the local environment, and human bodies.

MONTHLY GROSS BETA ACTIVITY IN DRINKING WATER, 2004 TWO LOCA TJONS NEAR HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT Date January 12 February 9 March 11 April 12 May 13 June 13 July 12 August 16 September 13 October 11 November 11 December 13 ricocuries gross beta per liter Location 38 Location 40 4.19 3.47 4.74 4.18 3.38 2.77 5.08 5.18 4.85 3.49 5.12 5.02 5.59 6.07 6.66 6.62 7.00 5.77 (more than double March) 4.84 5.52 5.12 5.81 2.82 3.91 Yearly average 4.95 U.S. avg, 78 stations 2003 4.82 3.01 Location 38 is Cape Fear plant intake, 6.2 miles from Harris Location 40 is in Lillington on the Cape Fear River, 17.2 miles from Harris Sources:

Radiological Environmental Operating Amended Report, 2004, September 23,

2005,

\\vww.nrc.l!OV(local data).

Environmental Radiation Data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montgomery AL, Volumes 112and 116, www.epa.govinarel, Environmental Radiation Data (U.S. data).

MONTHL Y TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER, 2004 WATER TREATMENT BUILDING AT HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT (location 51)

Date January 12 February 9 March 11 April 12 May 13 June 13 July 12 August 16 September 13 October 11 November 11 December 13 Picocuries Tritium per liter 2200 2250 1850 1890 2160 3580 5150 (nearly triple March) 4610 4520 5400 5120 5240 Source: Radiological Environmental Operating Amended Report, 2004, September23, 2005, w\\vw.nrc.gov 3

Chan~es in Local Disease and Death Rates.

In 1990, the U.S. National Cancer Institute published the only national study examining changes in cancer before and after startup of nuclear plants.

Because the study was restricted only to nuclear plants operating before 1982, no data near the Shearon Harris plant was included.

Thus, there have been no studies by government or independent researchers on health patterns near the plant.

The NCI report typically defined the area near nuclear reactors as the one or two most proximate counties, often within 30 miles.

A logical selection of counties to study near Shearon Harris would include Durham and Wake Counties, as residents of both live within 30 miles of the plant.

Prevailing local winds from the southwest also mean that Durham and Wake Counties are downwind, and most likely to be exposed to releases.

The two counties have a growing population of over 1 million, a fourfold increase since the late 1950s.

The area has a poverty rate that is somewhat below the state and nation; an above-average household income level; and a highly-educated population (see below).

These demographic

factors, plus the availability of world class medical care in the Triangle area, suggest no obvious health risk for local residents.

POPULA TION OF DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTIES, 1950-2006 Year Durham Wake Total 101,639 136,450 238,089111,995 169,082 281,077132,681 228,453 361,134152,785 301,327 454,112181,835 423,380 605,215223,314 627,846 851,160 246,896 786,522 1,033,418 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.f!OV, Your Gateway to 2000 Census, State/County Quick Facts.

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTIES vs. N.C. AND U.S.

Characteristic Durham Wake N.C.

U.S.

10.9 9.7 5.3 11.1 83.0 89.3 78.1 80.4 40.1 43.9 22.5 24.4 14.9 9.2 13.8 12.7 44048 57846 40863 44334 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, www.censlls.gov, Your Gateway to 2000 Census, State/County Quick Facts.

Infant Deaths.

While all humans are affected by radiation

exposure, those most susceptible are the very

young, especially the developing

fetus, whose cells are duplicating at a very rapid rate.

Deaths to infants, especially those that occur shortly after birth, are often a result of problems during pregnancy.

The number of deaths to 4

infants in the first month of life from 1986 to 1987 rose in the two-county area from 69 to 97, an increase of 34% compared to a 2% increase for the rest of NOlih Carolina and a 4%

decline nationally (see below).

Because Shearon Harris began producing radioactivity on January 3, 1987, this can be considered as an initial before-and-after startup comparison.

NEONATAL MORTALITY RATE (DEATHS UNDER 28 DAYS)

DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. OTHER N.C. AND U.S., 1986-1987 Deaths < 28 days Live Births Deaths! 1000 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1987

% Ch Rate 20 25 2526 2664 7.92 9.38

+19 49 72 5389 5669 9.09 12.70

+40 69 97 7915 8333 8.72 11.64

+34 622 658 82339 85168 7.55 7.73

+ 2 25212 24627 3756547 3809394 6.71 6.46 4

Difference in rate change between two counties and U.S. significant at p<.04.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

Childhood Cancer.

Perhaps the most-studied disease near nuclear plants is childhood cancer.

As farback as the late 1950s, Dr. Alice Stewart demonstrated that as little as one pelvic X-ray to a pregnant woman nearly doubled the chance the child would die of cancer by age ten. (Stewart A et al. A survey of childhood malignanCies.

British Medical Journal 1958;i: 1495-1508).

Because Stewart identified children under age ten, and because the National Cancer Institute used the same age group as a category in its 1990 study, cancer in Durham and Wake County children under age ten can be analyzed.

For analyses of potential causes, using incidence of cancer is often more helpful than mortality, as advances in diagnosis and treatment allow most children afflicted with cancer to survive.

But no incidence data exists in North Carolina before 1990, thereby preventing any before-and-after comparison near Shearon Harris.

Current (1990-2003) data show Wake and Durham children have an incidence rate 10% above other North Carolina counties, based on 241 cases diagnosed (see below). No comparable data exists for the 50 states.

CANCER INCIDENCE RATE, CHILDREN AGE 0-9,1990-2003 DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. OTHER NORTH CAROLINA Area Durham County Wake County Total 2 Counties Other NC Cases 66 175 241 1862 Avg. Population 28,971 80,328 109,299 931,724 Cases/lOOO 16.27 15.56 15.75 14.27

% +!- Other NC

+14

+ 9

+10 Source: North Carolina State Cancer Registry, from special request, 2007.

5

Even though there are many fewer childhood cancer deaths than cases, the existence of a historical data base makes it possible to analyze rates before and after the startup of Shearon Harris.

From 1979-1987 to 1988-2004, the Durham/Wake childhood cancer mortality rate rose 51%, compared to a decline of 29% elsewhere in the state and nation (see below).

With a total of 71 local deaths after Shearon Harris startup, the increase is statistically significant.

Before startup, the local rate was well below state and national standards, but now it exceeds other North Carolina by 31% and the U.S. by 20%.

CANCER MORTALITY RATE, CHILDREN AGE 0-9 DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. OTHER NC AND US, 1979-1987 to 1988-2004 Area Durham County Wake County 2 counties OtherNC U.S.

Cancer Deaths 0-9 1979-87 1988-04 5

24 10 47 15 71 295 465 13931 21316 Pop. 0-9 Deaths/1 00000 1979-87 1988-04 1979-87 1988-04 % Ch Rate 188199 485984 2.66 4.94

+86 393400 1339445 2.54 3.51

+38 581599 1825429 2.58 3.89

+51 704068415.7m 4.19 2.96

-29 305.4 m 657.8 m 4.56 3.24

- 29 Difference in rate change between two counties and other NC/U.S. significant at p<.OOOI.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

ICD-9 codes include 140.0-239.9 (1979-1998).

ICD-IO codes include COO-D48.9 (1999-2004).

The 20 most populated U.S. counties account for about 19% of the U.S. total. Everyone of these counties experienced a reduction in childhood cancer mortality (between 19%

and 44%). In the period 1988-2004, the Durham/Wake rate was greater than that for each of the 20 counties (see below and appendix).

CANCER MORTALITY RATE, CHILDREN AGE 0-9 DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. 20 MOST POPULATED U.S. COUNTIES Area Durham/Wake NC OtherNC TOTAL20COS TOTAL U.S.

1988-2004 Deaths 0-9 71 465 4,387 21,316 1988-2004 Avg. Pop. 0-9 Deaths/1 00,000 107,378 3.89 923,636 2.96 7,624,289 3.38 38,696,270 3.24

% +/- U.S.

+20 9

+ 4 Area Durham/Wake NC OtherNC TOTAL20COS TOTAL U.S.

Deaths/IOO,OOO(Deaths) 1979-1987 1988-2004 2.58 (15) 3.89 ( 71) 4.19 (295) 2.96 (465) 4.82 (2624) 3.38 ( 4387) 4.56 (13931) 3.24 (21316)

% ChRate

+51

- 29

- 30

- 29 Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

lCD-to codes include COO-D48.9.

6

Cancer in Adults.

Most U.S. states did not have a reliable cancer incidence registry until about 1990.

In recent

years, the federal government has attempted to produce comparative incidence data for all states.

The web site for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now makes available 1999-2002 incidence data for 38 states (including North Carolina) plus the District of Columbia, accounting for about 85% of the total U.S. population.

It also includes data for 55 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), including RaleighJCary, which includes Franklin, Johnston, and Wake Counties (Wake accounts for about 80% of the population in this group).

While incidence cannot be compared before and after Shearon Harris

startup, it is possible to examine how current rates in the RaleighJCary area compare to the rest of the state.

For all cancers, the Raleigh/Cary incidence rate is 1% lower (includes all persons, adjusted for age). But for most radiation-sensitive cancers, incidence is higher, including thyroid cancer which is sensitive to radioactive iodine, (+27%).

Other cancers of the bone and blood forming organs, sensitive to bone-seeking elements such as strontium, also exceed rates for the rest of the state (see below).

This pattern should be considered unusual in an area where the rate of most cancers is similar to the state.

CANCER INCIDENCE RATE, SELECTED CANCERS, 1999-2002 RALEIGH/CARY METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA vs. OTHER NC Cancer All Raleigh/CaTV MSA Cases Cases/l 00,000 8030 423.7 Other North Carolina Cases Cases/l 00,000 94,935 428.4

% Ral/Cary

+/- Oth NC 1

Cancers Most Sensitive to Radiation Bone/joint 22 0.98 Breast (F) 1458 132.3 Hodgkin's 68 2.7 Leukemia 200 10.3 Myeloma 82 4.6 Non-Hodgkins 347 17.6 Thyroid 145 6.1 177 14,790 551 2,066 1,074 3,719 1,062 0.80 121.5 2.5 9.4 4.9 15.5 4.8

+23

+ 9

+11

+ 9

- 6

+15

+27 Other Most Common Cancers Lung 1097 Prostate (M) 1194 Colon 562 Bladder 297 Melanoma 308 Kidney/renal 215 61.6 157.0 32.2 17.4 14.2 11.2 15,284 14,749 7,771 4,024 3,083 2,689 68.9 153.1 35.5 18.3 13.9 12.1

- 11

+ 3 9

5

+ 2

- 7 Raleigh/Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area includes Franklin, Johnston, and Wake Counties.

Estimated 2006 population for this area is 994,551 (Franklin = 55,886, Johnston = 152,143, Wake = 786,522).

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://wonder.cdc.gov, National Association of Cancer Registries).

Data not reported for the year 2000.

Rates adjusted to 2000 U.S. standard population.

7

Trends in mortality for all ages can also be measured.

The National Cancer Institute study compared local death rates near nuclear plants to U.S. rates every five years, using the Standard MOliaIity Ratio (SMR), or local versus national.

The following shows five year trends in SMR for Durham/Wake vs. the U.S. The local rate before Shearon Harris began operating was slightly above the U.S. (SMR over 1.00), and slightly below the U.S. after startup (SMR below 1.00).

CANCER MORTALITY RATE, ALL CANCERS, FIVE-YEAR PERIODS DURHAM/WAKE COUNTIES vs. U.S., 1979-2004 Period 1979-83 1984-88 1989-93 1994-98 1999-03 2004 Wake/Durham Ratell 00,000 (Cases) 213.3 (3525) 220.2 (4221) 218.0 (4915) 209.0 (5630) 194.0 (6021) 187.6 (1294)

U.S. RateIlOO,OOO 210.3 214.6 217.4 209.4 200.6 190.4 SMR 1.014 1.026 1.003 0.998 0.967 0.985 Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

ICD-9 codes include 140.0-239.9 (1979-98), ICD-I 0 codes include COO-D48.9 (1999-04).

Discussion.

The data presented in this report document a wide variation over time in radioactive emissions from Shearon Harris into the environment, and similar wide variations in the environmental concentrations of this radioactivity near the plant, and at least as far as 17 miles away.

It also shows an unexpected 51% rise in child cancer mortality in Wake and Durham Counties after the reactor began operating, compared to a 29% decrease in the state and nation, as well as elevated local incidence levels of several radiosensitive cancers.

While one cannot automatically conclude there is a cause-and..:effect link between Shearon Harris emissions and local cancer rates, questions are raised by the data.

The fact that no studies of local cancer rates near the plant have been conducted in its two decades of operation calls strongly for health officials to undertake such studies.

These will provide important information on the operating performance of Shearon

Harris, especially as federal officials consider proposals to extend the license of the existing reactor for 20 additional years to 2047 and to build two new reactors at the site are.

8

2,028,778 1,859,678 1,782,650 1,761,411 1,678,421 1,576,541 1,564,798 1,559,148 1,479,331 1,471,724 u.s. COUNTIES WITH LARGEST POPULATIONS (as of July 1,2003)

1. Los Angeles CA 9,871,506

11. Wayne MI

2. Cook IL 5.351,552

12. San Bernardino CA

3. Harris TX 3,596,086

13. Riverside CA

4. Maricopa AZ 3,389,260

14. King WA

5. Orange CA 2,957,766

15. Santa Clara CA

6. San Diego CA 2,930,886

16. Clark NV

7. Kings NY 2,472,523

17. New York NY

8. Dallas TX 2,284,096

18. Tarrant TX

9. Miami-Dade FL 2,253,362

19. Philadelphia PA

10. Queens NY 2,225,486

20. Middlesex MA TOTAL 54,095,003 (19% of U.S.)

Source: u.S. Census Bureau, www.census.f!OV, your gateway to the 2000 census, State/County quick facts.

CANCER MORTALITY RATE, CHILDREN AGE 0-9,1988-2004 DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. 20 MOST POPULATED U.S. COUNTIES County Deaths 0-9 Avg. Pop. 0-9 Deathsll 00,000

% +/- U.S.

71 107,378 3.89

+20 465 923,636 2.96

- 9 985 1,515,515 3.82

+18 100 154,683 3.80

+17 129 210,449 3.61

+11 223 371,405 3.53

+ 9 318 536,172 3.49

+ 8 138 236,469 3.43

+ 6 238 407,864 3.43

+ 6 125 219,135 3.36

+ 4 442 781,868 3.33

+ 3 234 417,257 3.30

+ 2 190 339,365 3.29

+ 2 136 244,659 3.27

+ 1 181 327,966 3.25

+ 0 235 425,188 3.25

+ 0 95 181,698 3.08 5

149 298,661 2.93

-10 149 298,727 2.93

-10 107 218,162 2.89

- 11 l"')

269,367 2.88

-11 rkNV 81 168,979 2.82

- 13 4387 7,624,289 3.38

+ 4 21,316 38,696,270 3.24 http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

ICD-IO codes include COO-D48.9.

9

CHANGE IN CANCER MORTALITY RATE, CHILDREN AGE 0-9 DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY vs. 20 MOST POPULATED U.S. COUNTIES 1979-1987 to 1988-2004 Deaths/1 00,000 (Deaths) ounty 1979-1987 1988-2004

% ChRate2.58 ( 15) 3.89 ( 71)

+51 4.19 (295) 2.96 (465)

- 29 4.69 (504) 3.82 (985)

- 19 557 ( 69) 3.80 (100)

- 32 4.50 ( 69) 3.61 (129)

- 20 4.85 (150) 3.53 (223)

- 27 5.21 (210) 3.49 (318)

- 33 5.52 ( 96) 3.43 (138)

- 38 5.13 (133) 3.43 (238)

- 33 4.28 ( 85) 3.36 (125)

- 21 4.23 (291) 3.33 (442)

- 21 4.93 (130) 3.30 (234)

- 33 4.68 (113) 3.29 (190)

- 30 4.70 ( 52) 3.27 (136)

- 30 4.63 (141) 3.25 (181)

- 30 5.71 (132) 3.25 (235)

- 43 4.77 ( 69) 3.08 ( 95)

- 35 5.48 ( 87) 2.93 (149)

- 28 5.19 (102) 2.93 (149)

- 44 4.15 ( 58) 2.89 (107)

- 30 5.12 (104) 2.88 (132)

- 44 4.17 ( 29) 2.82(81)

- 32 4.82 (2624) 3.38 (4387)

- 30 4.56(13931) 3.24(21316)

-29 urce: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause *of death.

ICD-IO codes include COO-D48.9.

10