ML19209B438

Town of Gardiner,Ny Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re Town of Gardiner 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Recommend Town of Gardiner as Intervenor & Extend Intervention Limit from 50 to 200 Miles

ML19209B438
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	08/02/1979
From:	Keeping W, Straus D GARDINER, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML19209B436	List: ML19209B435 ML19209B438
References
NUDOCS 7910090716
Download: ML19209B438 (9)

Text

__.

. .o,\shii

. \ D

• f UNITED STATES CF MERIG f 4,,N ,4hp ,,

NUCLEAR RIGJIAICRY COMISSICU p

s- e 7, th'#

%f N' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f.:. 3 Joint P:tceedings

)

In the Matter of 1 NEW YORK ELEL'TRIC & GAS CCRPCRATIOti )

) DOCKET !CS. Sni 50-596 AND IONG ISIAND LIGHTING CCMPlaT )

) STN 50-597 (New Haven 1 and 2 Nuclear Pcse Plants) )

) -

State of New York Department of Public Service Board of Electric Generation Siting and the E:rtirement

)

In the Matter of )

NEW YORK ELECTRIC AND GAS CCPORATION )

)

)

AND IOG ISIAND LIGHTING CCMPAhT ) CASE 80008

)

)

(New Eaven 1 and 2 Nmlaw Power Plants) )

)

)

ICWN CF GRDINER RESR2;SE TO NRC STAFF AND APPLICANT BRIEFS CDCERNING ATEED PETITION TO D7TERVDZ FII2D JUIll 13, 1979 1117 031 7910 090 7gg

Staff recomend that our a: tended petition to intervene by right in the Nea Haven cases (5/11/79) be denied for want of standing to intervene. Staff rejects our claim of being 'affected' by isotcpe radiation frcm an accidental release at New Eaven ccr: parable or wrse than Three Mile Island-2 (M-2) . This recomren-dation is based en expert testirony from NRC staff Irmber Charles Ferrell. We dispute the conclusions of staff and the simih* conclusions of applicant regard-ing our standing in the New Haven cases. We believe that staff, and particularly staff's expert, has not adequately respnded to our amended petition. We will give reasons for this mnclusion in this brief. We request that the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board grant us standing based on the measural rMmtion attribut-able to M-2 found 200 miles away frcm T-2 scma 4 weeks after the event. We further request that the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board in their decision to grant us standing also expand the geographical area norrally c:nsidered 'affected' based on the measured radiation resulting frcm an actual event rather than the arbitrary '50 miles' established two years ago in the oft cited 7.VA Watts Bar case.

F :m case law, staff agrees that standing should exist fcr 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 amen".ed petition 133 to intervene we indicated that the rms'*.er:ent of Xe at Albany, New York, 200 miles frcm the presumed release point, TMI-2, 4 weeks after the event, sined that a similar or wrse accident at New Esven would affect the citizers of Gardirer.

In their brief, staff disputes this suggestien, depeniing on expe.rt testineny, concluding that a M type of accident at New Haven would not "significantly" affect the citizens of Gardiner based on the rep rted 133Xe reasurement at Albany on May 2,1979. Staff and censultant have gratuitously aMM the concept of 1117 032

' significance' which isn't in the qteted AIAS-125 and NIAB-183 decisions.

Furthe=cre, neither staff rcr consultant define 'significant' They, rather, baldly assert that the increase in radiation above background is "not significant" (brief, p 4; affidavit p 1 aM p 6)despite abundant medical evidence that 1cw levels of radiation are ' super-effective' as a function of dese in causing bio-logical effects such as cancer ( 1979, Science, v 204, pp 155-164). Mr Ferrall appears to be an experienced health physicist; he should kncv of these researches and address them in his affidavit.

Mr. Ferrall and sta'f reintain that the neasured radiation dose from 133Xe at Albany was much less than background, which w must live with, and is, there-fore, ret significant. This conclusion cbfuscates the fact that radiation acts cumulatively. 'ihe background radiation to which we are all exposed does, in fact, cause a fracticn of humn mm, a fracticn of human birth defects, a fraction of humn mutations, a fracticn of total human ai w se and death. Any increase in radiation expcsure would ingease hiraan diwee ar:d death. at leant propertion-ately. Mr. Ferrell appears to be an experie"ced hea'.t physicist; he should know this and address these facts in his affidavit.

1117 033 In his a##Wvit, Mr. Ferrall attends only to the rescrt of 133Xe at Albany msured by the New Yor'c State Dept. of Health. In fact, the New York Sta'a Dept.

of Health didn't mnure any other isotopes. We indicated clearly ir_ cur amended petition to inteLm that 133Xe is ret mm11y found in the atmcsphere, is a normal fission prtduct, and rest p:cbably resulted frcm the cperation of a nuclear reactor (fallout f:rm weapons tests might also give 133Xe bot the isotcpe has a short half life and no atrospheric or vented underground tests wre rescrted near the May 2, maasursent) . Both staff and applicant (pp 2-3, and p 11 of respective briefs) inply that we rmst prove that the measured 133Xe came frcm SiI-2 before

- + w - , u -

inplication because, if the 133Xe didn't cxxm frcra 'IMI-2 or weapons tests, it must have ccme frt.n no::aal reactor operation; maybe Indian Point, or Fitrpatrick, cr Nine Mile Point, or Verrent Yankee, et other epting reactor nearer Albany and of distance ctr= arable (rot identical) to the distance between Gardiner and New Haven. If the measured 133 Xe didn't ccme frtru the 3/28/79 'lMI-2 incident, then staff and applicant would be forced to cerclude that reunaa. option of New Haven 1 and 2 could lead to increased radiation in Gardirar. Howver, since s

it would be from norral operation rather than a singular incident, the total radiation to which w muld be ex;esed muld be nnch greater.

We suggested in cur amended petiticn to intervene ("... exposure of Gardirar-ites...to even rcre radiatien than Albanians...") that those closer to an incident muld receive nere radiation than those fr-ther away. In fact, maybe this is at the . base of the Watts Bar ruling under dispute here. There are tse aspects cen-cerning the relative aucunt of radiation received frcm a chmin11y inactive substance such as 133Xe:

111,/ 034

1. since the isotope is dispersed frcm a point throtsh an approxi: ate F&#.ere near the point of release, it will beccce less concen-trated as it nuves away frczn the point of release;

2. cince it takes time for the radioisotope to nove frcm point of ralem to point of measurenent, sczne decay will have occured and '

the iscL 9 activity will be less than when it was released.

Mr. Ferrall alludes to #2 in his 45 (a##Wvit, p 3) . We canrot agree with his conclusion that 133Xe ceasured at Albany was simply what might be called the

' worldwide' dispersal of 'IMI-2 isotope releases. First, the ' worldwide' disnersal wculd be stratospMc, not tropospheric, and Xeren shouldn't fall out. Semnd, it seers doubtful (we're wil1%g to be corrected by the NRC which nay have the data) that the entire atrosphere of the planet has 133Xe at a level 2% of the background at ALany- a mh4=m cencentration frcm ccr:plete dispersal through the atresphere. But this is a necessary corollary of Mr. Fenell's conclusion

_4_

adopted by staff. Cw. sider also the ratter isotope de,y. The New York Dept. of Health masuremnt was about 4 weeks after the M-2 incident (precise tires of release and measurcnent are rot k:an) . This is 28/5.27 = 5.313 half lives of 133X e. 'Ihe atoms reasured at Albany near May 2, muld have been 25313 = 39.75 time as active on March 28,; this corresponds to 80% of the Albany backg=und.

ML11tiply the ratio of atrospheric mlum to volume of atrosphere measured by the New York Dept, of Health by the calculated activity of the 133Xe en March 28, to apprcximate the total 133Xe released from M-2. In a second calculation, divide the result of the first by the fraction of total fission produc^s in Babcock and Wilcox reacters which 1s 133 Xe, the result should be the total radioactiv1ty released in the M-2 incident (within an order of ragnitude) . F:rm the total radioactivity and the distributi-on of fissien products, it should be p ssible to ml<hte the mss of products released at M-2 assumina, of course, tPat the conclusion of Mr. Ferrell and staff that 133Xe masured at Albany was an exarple of worldwide distributien of the the M-2 release. If the result is betwen 0.1 and 10% (2 orders of nagr.itude) of the mss of 23 % plus 238g (wtd.ch fissions when converted to 239 Pu), we might begin to accept Mr. Ferrell's crnclusion. If not, then we kould hope that Mr. Ferrell and staff would withdraw their cenclusion.

l i l .,l 0, 3 5 Mr. Ferrell and staff conclude that Albanians were exposed to a tiny fraction of annual backgracund. They think, apparently, that the e.xposure was limited to the time of measuremnt. However, expsure might have been considerably greater, not only because of the increased radimetivity closer to the tire of release (see above) but also because the 133 Xe may have been irradiating Albanians for a nonth instead of an hour (the time of exposure used by Mr. Ferrell) . The length of ex;osure sculd depend en how fast the 133Xe reachai Albany frem M -2. It doesn't seen possible to h%e this exactly, but estimation of lower limits is feasible. Assume that Albany is 200 miles frem M-2 and that nevere.T - <

133X e is through the at::csphere near the earth's surface (t:orcspheric) . We krrw that surface winds- atrospheric I:ovment- near the surface can reach as high as 50 mph in these parts (nonthly storrs) . But icwr wind velocities are rcre w...un.

Let's assume an average wini speed of 10r:ph. Then, 200mi./10gh = 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> which 133Xe frcm M -1 to Albany.

is p:obably near the minim e transit time for the Further <-almlations of total 133Xe radiation of Albany are tspting but probably not mrranted due to lack of inforration. Ecwever, the point should be clear.

Albanians and tMse living closer to 'IMI-2 may have received a considerably greater svyrtion of background than Mr. Fanell calculates or the New York State Dept.

of Healtn indicated f:cm their single, late, measuremnt.

In our amended petitien to intervene, we clearly indicated that the neasured 133Xe was a mininun ("... dose in Albany was a minin:m"); we see no rmen to change that cenclusion and regret that Mr. Wrrell, who should haow these things as an experiaW health physicist, and staff chose to ignore our con.:1usion. Father, they erpha. sized hcw small the radiation dcse was in Albany based on a single, short tern, measurestent weeks after the causative incident witPaat any censideration of the ratters taken up here. 'Ihis is deceptive.

111,7 036 In cur anended petition to intervene, w clearly ir iraated that the 133xe measured in Albany was the only isotope measured but that different isotcpes had '

also been released at TMI-2 and were prebebly as widely dispersed in tra atresphere, ground and surface waters, in soils, and in the focd cPain which supper +a our existence. These other isotopes in different states of matter were sirply not ireaeared. Mr. Ferral' c.cse to igrcre this point as well and inplicitly assu:ed 5

133Xe anc. then only that the only source of '24I-2 based radiation in Albany was for an hcur on May 2,. Again, this is deceptive. Scrte of these other isotopes have longer half lives than 133X e and scne are concentrated in particular htran tissues

( U5 nl ,

. 6-biologically active because of this concentration. A scod health physicist will

. W ze these ell established facts and res;cnd. Likely he would agree tPat the measured 133Xe radiation at Albany, 200 miles from M-2 was a rini.m and that the actual radiation dose to sensitive tissues in the human pcpulation at.

Albany was greater than he had originally calculated based on a single isotope mamired in an hour and after passage of 5 Palf lives.

But how much greater? And was it 'significant'? Would the citizens of Gardiner be "affected" by a New Haven incident? '!he concept that staff advances is, really, that if the dose of radiation is small enough it will not ' affect" the huran popu-lation no matter 1rw large or how long eriosed- tha dose will be " insignificant".

(And it realns fur staff to define and defend whatever that dose is; the brief centained nary a mentien of the limi-t of significance) . We naintain that ag, dose of radiation above the oW ray plus terrestrial plus blommiated 40K (and including m'b1 radiation) is significant. In the eve-t that radiaticn to which a person is exposed penetrates a cell er is released within a cell, darage w4i' occur which can lead to cell death cr to changed genotype which can lead to disease and death of the affected individual. By advanci.W the concept of " insignificant" radiatica dese, staff is defining a class of radiation released to or in lls which has no o effect. We deny that such a class of radiation exists. We believe trat the burden of proof is en staff to detenstrate that there is a radiatien threshold below which there is no biolcgical effect, what could a defined as an " insignificant" dose. Failing that, we believe that staff must recc: mend and the Atcrcic Safety and Licensing Board agree to admit the ".t:wn of Gardiner as Intervenor g right in SW-596 arsi SM-597 and in their finding to extend the geographical limit for inter-vention frun 50 miles to 200 miles based upon evide.nce (rather than guesswerk as in htts Bar) arising fran the M-2 incident. -

_7-FURIEER 1htciSE 'IO APPLICANr'S ER.HT OF 7/13/79 We have alre ady discussed % logical consequences of quastioning the seura of 133Xe measured at AlF 'ny Lund r applicant's brief. Applicant ccrcplab.s at our suggesti~a discusse. above. On p 11 "...rere recordation or detection...of an event sct.: . f es frcm .he event render.s tle consequences of the event significant at the location of the detection." Applicant then discusses an aralogy which he thinks represents our point "... seismic events that are neasurable.. .even tens of thousands of miles away frcm the earthquake... igm the hec.'th and safety of persons located at any point of measurement or detection."

4plicant's analogy is a poor one in ' chat he attributes the cause of inpaiM health and safety to the phenomenon of observation in atta:pting a reductio ad absurdum. Applicant's nore serious point seer:s to be that sirple meammt of radioisotopes at Albany doesn't prove that any harm will cme to persons at Albany.

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

We couldn't- ever- prove that a peJ.cular atcm of 133Xe disintegrated in a par-Hmlw cell of a particular person and -M that cell to grew cut of centrol through nutation of a growth antrol gene taking over the material of the persens body and weakening him so that pnenia ensues and the person dies (a hypothetical but rest plaimible ==1 chain). But we can and do naintain that 13h (or other isotopes) could disintegrate.....and the persen dies' There is rbundant evidence co m

ca that radiation can be a precipitating cause of cancer....of huran disease and N

death. 'Ihe "-arement" to 'which applimt attributes cai'ulity in his analogy [

~

denonstrates the presence of substances- radioisotopes- which could initiate such a causal chain; not the reasuremnt but the thing neasured. The causal chain as described could not occur without the radioisotope. So the isotope (whether measured or not is irrelevant but the measurenent alerts us to the proMbilities) is necessary

(and it ray be sufficient, also) to " affect the health and safety of persons lwated at (the) point of measurenent".

On ppu and 12(in two places), applicant questions the ccrc.petence of the authors of the amerxied petition to intervene and of this brief. 'Ihis is nest un-fortunate since the points we rake are verifiable and should stand on their nerits.

'Iheir valir ity a

shouldn't depend on the mede.eials of those who write them. We can supply our credentials if M wishes; however, we suggest that he ocnsult his own experts and if he finds anything unsupported or unsuppertable or if he finds a clear error (not just a difference of cpinion) in our amended petition or this brief, then he ray better question our competence. .

$k '

dLW Wi u m Keeping, Su w._ m mr T

a0 ~e David straus j~

Envi.mtal Ccmnission Gardiner, New York August 2,1979 1117 039