ML19347D329
| ML19347D329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1981 |
| From: | Gotchy R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347D328 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103170109 | |
| Download: ML19347D329 (8) | |
Text
'
/
03/13/81 7 <
t UtilTED STATES OF APEP.IC A NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t'filSS10!l BEF0r.E THE AT0t'IC SAFETY AND LICEt!SitlG BOAPD In +'
- er o'
)
}
Docke t t'o. 50 /.66 l'nT.Tr" LITTI"~
- f. POPE'1 Cr."Pf t:Y
)
)
(f.llers Creet l'uclear Generating
)
Station, Unit !!o.1)
)
AFFICAVIT OF DR. REGII ALD L. GOTCHY CONCERT:1!:G It'TERVEN0RS ANSVER OPPOSIt!C t:RC STAFF's t'OTIO!! FOR SUMPARY DISPOSITI0t OF C0!!SOLIDATED CONTEt! TION (CUTTINGS 9, GRIFFITH 1, JOHilSTON 1, LEt't'ER 5)
In response to Intervenors filing of December 23, 1980 opposing the Staf f's Motion for Sunnary Disposition, I have reviewed the draft paper by Pr. Irwin D. J. Pross e-titled " A 1981 Reassessment of the Health Hazards of Low-level lonizing Radiation" (Oct. 9,1980).
Dr. Pross suggests that the collective positive findings of several recent studies cNtes TUTUTe'!TTecCDfo'deTs suu. as TfiosF I=6siid~in my-afGav it 6f l.ov. 26, Moi r
in support of the NRC staf f'~s !!otion for Summary Disposition of the subject'of th'e~
subject consolidated contention. He further agrees that the advice of competent P00R 01GML s w 3,,
2 professional radiobiologists and other life scientists is tainted due to a conflict of interest.
While the suggestion that competent professionals cannot be trusted to tell the truth is unworthly of coment, I will ncw show that Dr. Bross' health ef fects nodels are incorrect, and that the Intervenor's opposition is, therefore, without scientific me ri t.
Dr. Pross suggests that the collective positive findings of 15 studies (most of which are qualitative in nature) provides a sound basis for rejecting the collective wisdom of decades of studies of the ef fects of radiation on olants, anirals and hurans.
However, that wisdom co es from thousands of well documented animal experiments and human studies which have consistently shown that the risks from low-level radiation (doses approaching those on the order of background) are undetectable, and may even be zero for radiation of the type released as a result of the proposed Allens Creek Station (i.e., low LET radiation). While it is possible the conclusions of she vast majority of competent radiobiologists are wrong, the burden of proof is definitely on that small riinority with which he identifies.
A basic flaw in all the studies I have reviewed which claim to show an observed increase in cancer risk for doses in the range of natural background, is that if true, Y '~ *nirgqirmnren1rg ci n2_y:= wen-e-<venvy --D_r,-ygselecticr.-. \\
__of_leuremia 15 an_ exc_el_ lent _ezarple,3 nce-leykenis is t relatively rare _diseeceWeh__
i u
. t as been shown to be an early indicatcr of total cancer risk frne radiation exrnsure. Dr. Pross acrees that tFe dcublico dose (bis fiqure 3) for leukeria is en the orr'er o' r rads (or c rer for low LET radiation).
Consider that the spontanecos leut'e-ia rates 1! and typical radiation doses aronn 210 -111ien Arericans are as shown in the accompanyinq takle!'
A sirnle linear regression analysis of the data results in the ecuation:
Date of Leukeria "crtality q.2 - 0.21 Ocse (re-')
=
100,'I P persons in otber words, the slope is reqative, innlyinq that the risk decreases with increasing dose. Clearly, this is contrary to all the present beliefs recarding the cancer risk from exposure to low-level radiation. I!awever, when the correlation coef ficient is calculated (r = ri ( o X/cY ), the correlation is very poor, (0.121), confirring that there is no statistically sound relationship between leukenia rates and total norral radiation exposures (cosnic rays, terrestrial, fallout, TV viewing, redical and dental diagnostic X-rays, and use of radio-pharnaceuticals)
P: wever, before dismissing that, consider thi.t the average 1I Cancer facts and fiaures: 197n, trerican Cancer Society Inc., !!ew York,
t'.Y.
(1978).
2/
D. T. Oakley, !!atural Radiation Excosure in the t!nited States, U.S. E.P. A Peport OPP /SID 72-1, (June 1972).
- - _31, _,
,.tr,4 ts.L,-_tr +13 te s--o f_.lc r.fainc_'la di4+# nJ osc.s._f c.4"_.c- _L'r if ed__-.___ _ 7 notes, i m -s
.2.
~. Erpa.
iia
< -i U i i
.g9
,..6f-~the" Uni'ted ' 5ta tes'~ Col o~nial ~ Tires ~to 1970,~Dii~c~eiit4Hnial -- ~ ~ ~~
~
Edition, Part 1, Series A 29 42 (1976).
?003 unliilNAL
o
_4 lifetime radiation dose in the U.S. is on the order of 12 ren (ie, according to Eross about 2.4 doubling doses). Furthernore,16 million people living in the four states with 1owest doses (F1orida, Delaware, l'ississinnpi and Louisiana) receive an average ecse of 10.5 rer in their lifetire. Similarlv, the averaqe person in the four states with the highest doses (Colorado, ?!ew t'exico, Utah, and Myonino) receives an averace dose of 14.P ren in his lifetire. This 4.3 rer difference, according to Pross, should result in about an Pf? increase in the spontaneous leukenia rate. However, these large populations of Americans actually show a 26i decrease in leuke-ia nortality rate.
Clearly, sorething is wrong with Pross' esticate of the doubling dose for leuter.ia, ar.d it rust be ruch higher than ; re".
The analyses of Prs. "ross, Sternglass, Gofman and Tanplin, !'ancusn, et al, Colton and t'ajarian, and others Fave all been reviewed by accepted experts and found to be statistically weak.
In at least one case, data was selected to support con-clusions reacbed before the analysis was donek There is nothing in Dr. Pross' "10P1 reassessrent" which would change the conclusions reached in ny testinony in support of a sunrary disposition of the consolidated contention. However, since filinq of ry original testinony, the !!IOSH study I referred to (Portsnouth Shipyard workers) has been conpleted.
It found that the studies by Drs. ?!ajarian and Colton were flawed, and that a careful analysis of tFn
- -'O population of workers showed
- : :_ ; "- 7 ::::_ ;_ ;_ q ;
-_--~.;
~^
_f
~ _ _ _ _ _
~ ~~ L.
- -- _ _ _.: E~ L=_:
= - =~;
-' See, for exanple, the excerpts from the BEIP, I and III in ry filed testinony concerning t' EPA irpacts of low-level radiation ( Allens Creek) in response to con-solidated contention (Cunincs 9, Criffith 1, Johnston 1, Lemrer C).
P00R DHK
5 no correlation between cancer or bloot'. diseases and radiation exposure for data cellected to the present tine, even though the study bad a ""' nro5 ability of t'etecting tFe r. fold excess claired by Colton and l'ajarian, ven if the present expert estirates of the risk of leukeia (the only case are:ued r
by Press) were Ice by a factor of 70 as "rcss arnUes, the overall esti ate of carcer risk would only increasc by a factor of C.
Again, assuring that ware true, an individual's lifetire risk fro exposure to 3ppendix I Pesign Objectives roses would still be less than four in 10-tbousand fror 30 years of exnosure at 5 rilliren/ycar. TSc lifetire risk cf cancer rcrtality is about ore in five. An incrcrental increase in the risk of cancer cortality of less than 0.2* should not be a reasonable basis for challennine the t' EPA cost benefit balance for f.11ers Creek, or any other nuclear power plant.
e
..... ~. ~......... -.......
. + ~.. -.. -....
_ ~ ~... _ _~.. - -__
P00R ORMI
LEUrE"i4 RATES ANO LIFET!"E NORW L RA0!ATION DOSES 8Y STATE Lifetime Leakemig Total hatural Total '.i fet1*e Pcpula tion Rate /10
Background
Radiatio
- Oose State (milliens) persons frem) f re-)
- 1.
Alabama 3.75 5.33 6.68 11.3 2.
Alaska 0.439 2.28 7.36 12.0 3.
Artrona 2.43 5.14 8.03 12.0 4
Arkansas 2.21 9.C5 6.40 11.0 5.
California 22.4 G.25 6.76 11.2 6.
Colorado 2.73 5.49 11.2 15.8 7.
Connecticut 3.13 7.99 7.74 12.3 8.
Delaware 0.591 5.08 6.30 10.9 9.
District of Col.
0.672 5.95 6.63 11.2
- 7. 01 11.6
- 12. Ha waii 0.932 5.36 7.34 11.9
- 13. Idaro 0.897 7.80 8.68 13.3 14 Illinois 11.3 7.96 7.19 11.8
- 15. Indiane 5.38 6.51 7.43 12.0 16.
Iowa 2.89 12.1 7.56 12.1 17 Kansas 2.36 8.47 7.69 12.3
- 18. Kentucky 3.52 7.81 7.35 12.0
- 19. Louisana 4.00 6.25 5.73 10.3
- 20. Maine 1.11 7.21 7.39 12.0
- 21. Maryland 4.19 4.77 6.39 11.0
- 22. Ma ssac husetts 5.81 6.88 7.33 11.9
- 25. Mississippi 2.44 8.20 5.78 10.4
- 26. Missouri 4.72 5.47 7.42 12.0
- 27. Montana 0.778 7.71 8.61 13.2
- 28. Nebraska 1.58 9.49 7.70 12.3
- 29. Nevada 0.674 4.45 8.23 12.3
- 30. New Hampshire 0.881 7.95 7.46 12.1 31 New Jersey.
7.38 6.78 7.18 11.8
- 32. New Mexico 1.24 4.03 10.1 14.7
- 33. New York 17.8 7.87 7.32 11.9 34, North Carolina 5.64 6.21 7.03 11.6
- 38. North Dakota 0.663 7.54 7.78 12.4
- 36. Chio 10.7 7.01 7.37 12.0
- 37. Okla homa 2.88 6.94 7.62 12.2
- 38. Cregon 2.46 8.13 7.48 12.1 9 Pennsylvania 11.8 8.05 6.78 11.4 J
- 40. Rhode Island 0.928 6.47 7.15 11.8 41 South Carolina 2.95 5.C8 6.78 11.4
- 42. South Dakota 0.695 11.5 7.88 12.5
- 45. Utah 1.33 4.51 9.24 13.8
- 46. Vermont 0.494 8.10 7.45 12.1
- 47. Virginia 5.29 5.20 6.70-11.3
- 48. Washington-3.74 7.35 7.42 12.0
- 49. West Virginia 1.59 6.81 7.73 12.3
- 50. Wis onsin 4.71 6.90 7.46 12.1 51. Wyoming 0.426 4.69 10.1 14.7 U5 (Total)
W W
S.40 13.0
=
_=2--
....... _..... ways..ra f t:;taeTaceni:a l s, a re.;;nse.er.;roda:ts.4e.g y. col cr-TV)......
~. -. -. -. - - - - -. -.
7
.-y-
~-
v
'-~
UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM"!SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD P
In the "atter of
)
)
H0USTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPA'iY )
Docket No. 50-466
( Allens Creek Nucicar Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO TEXPIRG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS RULINGS DURING EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS, AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF VARIOUS ISSUES TO THE APPEAL BOARD," and " AFFIDAVIT OF DR. REGINALD L. GOTCHY CONCERNING INTERVENORS ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION (CUMINGS 9, GRIFFITH 1, JOHNSTON 1, LEMMER 5) in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 13th day of March,1981:
Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq., Chainaan*
Susan Plettnan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cominission P.O. Fox 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Route 3, Box 350A City of Wallis, TX 77485 k'atkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon. John R. Mikeska Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Austin County Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 310 Board Panel Bellville, TX 77418 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Doherty 4327 Alconbury Street The Honorable Ron Waters Houston, TX 77021 State Representative, District 79 3620 Washington Avenue, No. 362 Mr. Willian J. Schuessler Houston, TX 77007 5810 De. sell
[~~
.a_m; -; 9,' TWr.
J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Mr1SaTt's Mr. F.:H.ZPo dicf CIl!!2 2L I:212 -: :Zn One Shell Plaza 1814 Pine Village Houston, TX 77002 Houston, TX 77080 P00RDUIS'
Jack Ibw,an, Esq.
D. l'a rrack Lw enstein, Reis, flewman &
420 l'ulberry Lane Axel rad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. ficCorkle c/o Janes Scott, Jr., Esq.
5140 Darnell 13935 Ivynount Houston, lx 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 fir. Wayne Rentfro Rose"ary N. Lewaer P.O. Rox 1335 11'23 Oak Spring Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houstan, TX 7/043 Carro Hiniierstein Leotis Johnston 8739 Link Terrace 1407 Scenic Ridge Houston, TX 77025 Houston, TX 77043 lfargaret Rishop U.S. ';uclear Regulatory Connission J. riorgan Bishop Region IV, I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1030 Heuston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 502 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenbero, TX 77471 Robin Griffith Carolina Conn 1034 Sally Ann 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Mr. William Perrenod Atonic Safety and Licensing 4070 fierrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.:iission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Atonic Sa fety and Licensing U.S. "uclear Regulatory Cox1ission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
'lashington, DC 20555
_g n
,1-k -('"/ N Counsel for NRC Staff P00RBRFw