ML19209A578

Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Response Inadequate.Requests ASLB Expand Geographical Area Under Consideration,Based on Radiation Measured During Actual Event

ML19209A578
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	08/02/1979
From:	Keeping W, Straus D GARDINER, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML19209A575	List: ML19209A574 ML19209A578
References
NUDOCS 7910050017
Download: ML19209A578 (8)

Text

'

LSq g V- 4 UNITED STATES CF N! ERICA h , ,/ sgh 4., f

.~ f </h' If IUCLEAR PIIRTI1 DORY CDMISSIQi g, p (+?#

Before the Atmic Safety and Licensing Bcard k f 6 Joint Proceedings

)>

In the Matter of 1 NEW YORK ELEETRIC & GM COPPORATIO1 )

) DOCKEP NOS. STN 50-596 RO IONG ISIAND LIGIIPING CCMPANY )

) SI'4 50-597 (Mcw Itaven 1 and 2 Nuclear Power Plants) )

)

State of New York Departnent of Public Service Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Envirnnnent

)

In the Matter of )

NUi YORK EIECTRIC RO GAS COPORATICU )

)

)

NO IftX3 ISIMO LIGHTING CCMPANY ) CASE 80003

)

)

(New !!aven 1 and 2 Nuclear Ihrr Plants) )

)

)

'IUti OF CTSDINER RESECNSE 'IO NRC STAFF AND APPLICRC' BPlEFS C0tCERNING IMIOED PLTITION TO INPERVENE FILED JULY 13, 1979 7 910050 O(2.,-

1108 2/7

Staff rectmmnd that our amended petition to intervene by right in the New Haven cases (5/11/79) be denied for want of standing to intervene. Staff rejects our claim of being 'affected' by isotope radiation' fran an accidental release at New Haven caparable or worse than Three Mile Island-2 (EiI-2) . This reccrmen-dation is based on expert testinony from NFC staff rember Charles Ferrell. We dispute the conclusions of staff and the sinilar conclusions of applicant regard-ing our standing in the New Haven cases. We believe that staff, and particularly staff's expert, has not adequately responded to our amended petition. We will give reasons for this conclusion in this brief. We request that the Atmic Safety and Licensing Board grant us standing based on the measured radiation attribut-able to TE-2 found 200 miles away fran DJ-2 sone 4 weeks after the event. We further request that the Atanic Safety and Licensin7 Board in their decision to grant us starding also expand thn gcographical area nornully considered 'affectcd' based on the measured radiation resulting frcm an actual event rather than the arbitrary '50 miles' established the years ago in the oft cited M Watts Bar case.

Fran case law, staff agrees that standing should exist for organizations "within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products." (reference 6, staff brief 7/13/79) . In our amended petition 133 to intervene we indicated that the measurannt of Xe at Albany, N w York, 200 miles from the prestred release point, 21I-2, 4 weeks after the event, showed that a similar er worse accident at New Hsven would affect the citizens of Gardiner.

In their brief, t,*2ff disputes this suggestion, depending on expert testirreny, concluling that a TE type of accident at New Haven would rot "significantly" affect the citizens of Gardiner based on the reported 133Xe reasurerut at Albany on May 2,1979. Staff ard consultant have gratuitously added the concept of Il08 278

' significance' which isn't in the quoted AIAB-125 and AIAB-183 decisions.

Furthemore, neither staff nor consultant define 'significant' 'Ihey, rather, baldly assert that the increase in radiation above background is "not significant" (brief, p 4; affidavit p 1 and p 6)despite abundant nudical evidence that low levels of radiation are ' super-offective' as a function of dose in causing bicr-logical effects such as cancer ( 1979, Science, v 204, pp 155-164) . Mr Ferrell appears to be an experienced health physicist; he should know of these researches and address thua in his affidavit.

Mr. Ferrell and staff maintain that the measured radiation dose frcen 133 Xe at Alhany was much less than background, which w must live with, and is, there-fore, not significant. This conclusion obfuscates the fact that radiation acts cumulatively. The background radiation to which we are all exposed does, in fact, cause a fraction of human cancers, a fraction of human birth defects, a fraction of human mutations, a fraction of total human disease and death. Any increase in radiation exposure would increase humn disease and death. at least proportion-ately. Mr. Ferrell appars to be an experienced health physicist; he should krod this and address these facts in his affidavit.

I108 2/9 In his affidavit, Mr. Ferrell attends only to the report of 133Xe at Albany measured by the Ncw York State Dept. of Health. In fact, the Tea York State Dept.

of Health didn't measure any other isotcpes. We indicated clearly in our cended petition to intervene that 133Xe is rot nourally found in the atmcephere, is a norral fission product, and nest probably resulted fran the operation of a nuclear reactor (fallout fmn weapons tests might also give 133Xe but the isotope has a short half life and to atres:heric or vented underground tests mre reported near the Shy 2, measurerent) . Both staff and applicant (pp 2-3, and p 11 of respective briefs) inply that we must prove that the measured 133Xe caru *mn BE-2 before "dr argunent has validity. We suggest that both staff and applicant rethirA this

drplication because, if the 133Xe didn't cxre frm 91I-2 or weapons tests, it must have ccne frcrn norml reactor operation; ma}be Irriian Point, or Fitzpatrick, or Nine Milo Point, or Vernent Yankee, ot other operating reactor nearer Albany and of distance comparable (not identical) to the distance betaren Gardiner and Ncf Ibven. If the recasured 133Xe didn't ccrn frtra the 3/28/79 31I-2 incident, then staff and applicant would be forced to conclude that norml operation of New Ibven 1 and 2 could lead to increascd radiation in Gordircr. l'omver, since it would be frtra norml operation rather than a singular ircident, the total radiation to which we would be exposed would be much greater.

We sugges+ ad in cur amendcd petition to intervene (. .. exposure of Gardiner-ites...to even nere radiation tha:s Albanians. ..") that those closer to an incident a

would receive nere radiation than Mrse further away. In fact, maybe this is at the base of tic Watts Ear ruling under dispute here. TMre are too aspccts con-cerning the relative enount of radiation received frcrn a chenically ractive substar.ce such as 1333e:

1. since the isotcpe is disperscd frca a point through an approxirate hcnisphere near the point of release, it will beare less concen-tratcd as it moves away frca the point of release;

2. since it takes tine for the radioisotope to nove frczn scint of release to point of measurement, scme dccay will have occured and the isotope activity will be less than when it was released.

Mr. Ferrell alludes to #2 in his #5 (affidavit, p 3) . We cannot agree with his conclusion that 133Xe reasured at Albany was sirply wtat might be called the

' worldwide' dispersal of TMI-2 isotope releases. First, the ' worldwide' dispersal would be stratospheric, not tropospheric, and Xeren shouldn't fall out. Secord, it cces doubtful (w're willing to be corrected by the NIC khich ray have the data) that the entire atnesphere of the planet has 133Xe at a level 2% of the background at Albany- a minimurn concentration from c:rrplete dispersal tFzough the atssphere. But this is a necessary corollary of Mr. Ferrell's conclusion i108 280

_4_

adopted by staff. Consider also the natter isotope decay. The New York Dept. of Health neasuremnt was about 4 weks after the 'lMI-2 incident (precise tines of release and reasuremnt are not kncun) . This is 28/5.27 = 5.313 half lives of 133X e. The atoms neasured at Albany near May 2, muld have been 25313 = 39.75 tine as active en Parch 28,; this corresponds to 80% of the Alhany background.

Multiply the ratio of atrospheric mlum to volum of atrosphere measured by the Mcw York Dept. of Health by the calculated activity of the I N e on March 28, to approxinute the total 133Xe released frcm 'NI-2. In a second calculation, divide the result of the first by the fraction of total fission products in Babcock and Wilcox reactors which is 133Xe, the result should be the total radioactivity released in the 'IMI-2 incident (within an order of nagnitude) . Frcn the total radioactivity and the distributi-on of fission products, it should be possible to calculate the ness of products released at 'IMI-2 ,assuning, of course, that the conclusion of Mr. Ferrell and staff that 133Xe neasured at Albany was an exanple of worldwide distribution of the the 'IMI-2 release. If the result is between 0.1 and 10% (2 orders of nugnitude) of the nass of 235U plus 238U (which fissions when converted to 239Pu), we might begin to accept Mr. Ferrell's conclusion. If not, then we muld hope that Mr. Ferrell and staff would withdraw their conclusion.

1108 281 Mr. Ferrell and staff mnclude that Ahnians wre exposed to a tiny fraction of annual backgraound. 'Ihey think, apparently, that the exposure was linited to the tine of measurcrcnt. However, exposure ndght have been considerably greater, not only because of the increased radioactivity closer to the tine of release (see above) but also because the 133Xe nay have been irradiating Albanians for a nonth instead of at hour (the tire of exposure used by Mr. Ferrell) . The length of expotmre muld depend on how fast the 133 Xe reachcd Albany frcm ':MI-2. It doesn't secn possible to determine this exactly, but estinaticn of lowr limits is feasible. Assme that Albany is 200 miles frun 'IMI-2 and that novemnt of

133X e is through the atnesphere near the earth's surface (tropospheric) . We kncw that surface winds- atnespheric rrovement- near the surface can reach as high as 50 mph in these parts (nonthly storrs) . But lower wird velocities are nore cormon.

Iet's assume an average wind speed of 10 mph. Then, 200mi./10nph = 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> which 133Xe h M -2 to h y.

is probably near the minimum transit time for the 133Xe radiation of Albany are tempting but probably Further calculations of total not warranted due to lack of inforration. However, the point sh3uld be clear.

Albanians and those living closer to M -2 may have received a considerably greater proportion of background than Mr. Ferrell calculates or the New York State Dept.

of Health indicated from their single, late, measurenent.

In our anrnded petition to intervene, we clearly indicated that the nuasured 133Xe was a minimum ("... dose in Albany was a minirtua"); we see no reason to change that conclusion and regret that Mr. Ferrell, wto should know these things as an experienced health physicist, and staff chose to ignore our corrlusion. Father, they cephasized how small the radiation dose was in Abany based en a single, short term, neasursunt weeks after the causative incident without any consideration of the matters taken up here. This is deceptive.

1108 282 133Xe In our anended petition to intervene, m clearly indicated that the measured in Albany was the only ism cpe measured but that different isotopes had also been released at TMI-2 and were probably as widely dispersed in the atrosphere, ground and surface waters, in soils, and in the food chain which supports our existence. These other isotopes in different states of matter were sinply not measured. Mr. Ferrell chose to ignore this point as well and inplicitly asstxred 133Xe and then only that the only source of 'IMI-2 based radiation in Albany was for an hour on May 2,. Again, this is deceptive. Sono of these other isotopes ham longer half lives than 133Xe and sme are concentrated in particular human tissucs (e.g. 125I and 131 I in thyroid; 90 rSin bones and teeth) bearting much nere

biologically active because of this mncentration. A good health physicist will recognize these well established facts ad respond. Likely he would agree that the measured 133Xe radiation at Albany, 200 miles frm SII-2 was a minimu and that the actual radiation dose to sensitive tissues in the human population at Albany was greater than he had originally calculated based on a single isotope measured in an hour and after passage of 5 half lives.

But how much greater? And was it 'significant'? Would the citizens of Gardiner be "affected" by a New Haven incident? 7tc concept that staff advances is, really, that if the dose of radiation is small enough it will not " affect" the human popu-lation no matter b:s large or how lonc exposed- the dose will he " insignificant".

(And it rercains for staff to define and defend whatever that dose is; the brief contained nary a nention of the limi-t of significance) . We maintain that aryL dose 40K (and of radiation above the cosmic ray plus terrestrial plus bicaccumulated including medical radiation) is significant. In the event that rmdiation to which a person is exposed penetrates a cell or is released within a cell, damage will occur which can lead to cell death or to changed genotype which can lead to disease and death of the affected individual. By advancing the concept of " insignificant" radiation dose, staff is defining a class of radiation released to or in cells which has no effect. We deny that such a class of radiation exists. We believe that the burden of prcof is on staff to dcornstrate that there is a radiation threshold below which there is no biological effect, what could he defined as an "iraignificant" dose. Failing that, we believe that staff must reocxmend and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board agree to admit the Town of Gardiner as Intervenor by richt in S'IN-596 and SIN-597 and in their finding to extend the geographical limit for inter-vention frcm 50 miles to 200 miles based upon evidence (rather than guesswork as in Watts Bar) arising frcm the 21I-2 incident.

1108 283

_7_

HSTHER RESPCt;SE 'IO AFPLICAW'S BRIEF OF 7/13/79 We have already discussed the logical consequences of questioning the source of 133Xe measured at Alhmy fcund in applicant's brief. Applicant ccraplains at our suggestions discussed above. On p 11 "...mre recordation or detection...of an event sem miles frcrn the event renders tre consequences of the event significant at the location of the detection." Applicant then discusses an analogy which he thinks represents our point ".. . seismic events that are masurable.. .even tens of thousands of miles away frcm the earthquake... impairs the health and safety of persons located at any point of measurenent or detection."

Applicant's analogy is a poor one in that he attributes the cause of impaired health and safety to the phermenon of obxrvation in atterpring a reductio ad absurdum. Applicant's nore serious point sears to be Wat simple measurerent of radioisotopes at Albany dcesn't prove that any harm will conn to persons at Albany.

(This is, of course, a variant on the radiation threshold cr " insignificant" dose argurent of staff, see above) . We must agree with applicant as far as he goes.

We couldn't- ever- prove that a particular atom of 133Xe disintegrated in a par-ticular cell of a particular person and caused that cell to grcw out of control through mutation of a growth control gene taking over the material of the persons PG 2 and weakening him so that pnetmenia ensues and the person dies (a hypothetical but most plausible causal chain) . But we can and do maintain that 133Xe (or other isotopes) could disintegrate... ..and the person dies! 'Ihere is abundant evidence that radiation can be a precipitating cause of cancer....of huran disease and death. 'Ihd "ncasurement" to which applicant attributes causality in his analogy deTonstrates the presence of substances- radioisotopes- which could initiate such a causal chain; not the measureent but the thing neasured. The causal chain as described could not occur without the radioisotooe. So the isotope (whether measured or not is irrelevant but the measurwent alerts us to the prcbabilities) is necessary 1i08 284

-g-(and it may be sufficient, also) to " affect the health and safety of persons loacatcxi at (the) point of treasurment".

On ppll and 12(in two places), applicant questions the cmpetence of the authors of the amended patition to intervene and of this brief. This is most un-fortunate since the points we nnke are verifiable and should stand on their merits.

'Iheir validity shouldn't depend on the credentials of those who write them. We can supply our credentials if M1 wishes; however, we suggest that he consult his own c>:perts and if he finds anything unsupported or unsupportable or if he finds a clear error (not just a difference of opinion) in our amended petition or this brief, then he nuy 1:etter question our cmpetence.

\ 4-1 --M/W WillinM Keeping, Supervisor N

-sd -~r ..

David Straus j~~~

Envircrrental Connission Gardiner, New York August 2,1979 1108 285