ML20042A438

Memorandum of Authorities,Briefing Admissibility of 28 Proposed Exhibits to Support Contention 8/9.List of Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20042A438
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/17/1982
From:	Larry Jones GILLESPIE & JONES, JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD
To:
References
NUDOCS 8203230419
Download: ML20042A438 (22)

Text

-

)'

• ~~

• 3fl})TO .

9Fp

~ ' '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,.2 d l"' D r,, ..

s r+ . . N.

BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING E 'i RD '@ '

10ARg g198r !:

5 nmv

$& S In the Matter of 6 [

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-(Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)

MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES Joint Intervenors, Oystershell Alliance, Inc. and Save Our Wetlands, Inc. (OA and SOWL) have been directed to brief the admissibility of some 28 exhibits which they propose to introduce as documentary support relating to their contention 8/9. A list of these items is attached as i Memorandum Exhibit A. All items except Item 7, which was withdrawn, t

%e furnished, in three mailings to Chairman Wolfe, counsel for i

l Applicant, and counsel for NRC Staff. Item 19, upon further consideration and reflection, is likewise withdrawn.

Considered from their factual content, the exhibits fall into three categories in terms of their logical connexity to Joint Intervenor's case.

Items 1-9 (item 7 being not considered) pertaining to the fundamental contention that Louisiana suffers from an excessive cancer burden which is

[

caused by certain known or suspected chemical ~ carcinogens which pervade 3

s

/ / I 8203230419 820317 PDR ADOCK 05000382 PDR

, :s ,

the local environment. Item 23 deals with cancer mortality caused by low level chemical carcinogens. Items 10-12 and items 17 and 18 deal with the molecular mechanisms which function in the creation of cancer. Items 14-16 deal with the observation of impact of low level radiation on general populations. Items 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 deal with observations of the synergistic efect caused by high and low levels of radiation. Item 28 is the sworn statement of Dr. Samuel Epstein, which, at this time, is considered as a further exhibit.

This brief will be organized in two sections. The first will deal with admissibility, pg se, of these items under the requiremen's of the Administrative Procedures Act and the NRC Rules of Prat.ut a. The second section will deal with the objection of Applicant that ah number of these proposed exhibits were not timely disclosed.

A. The Statutory Tests of Relevance and Materiality The Administrative Procedures Act, S USC 556(d) provides in pertinent part as follows: "Any oral or Jocumentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant matcrial or unduly repetitious evidence." This admissability rule is modified by the NRC's Rules of Practice, which provide in relevant part as follows: " Admissibility. Only relevant, material and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be

! admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be l segregated or excluded so far as is practicable". See 10 CFR 2.743(c).

It should be further noted that the only other regulatory requirement relating to Exhibits is S2.743(f) which deals with the number of copies o

introduced in evidence. Inherent in the concepts expressed in these

statutes and regulations is the principle that both oral and documentary evidence, whether characterized as hearsay or not, is admissible, so long as it is reliable, probative and substantial; regardless of whether or not such evidence might be admissible in jury trials. See K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, S14.05.

B. Relevance and Materiality Analysis of

. Proposed Exhibits The following is an item by item discussion of the perceived relevance and materiality of Joint Intervenors' proposed exhibits. For purposes of identification, they are numbered in sequence in accordance -

with Joint Intervenors' proposed Exhibit List; and are referred hereaf ter as "Ite m , " for purposes of uniformity.

Item 1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the United States, 1973-77, also known as the SEER report, is a report of the detailed incidence of and mortality from concer in the United States. The pertinent i

portions which are submitted deal with tile geographic basis of cancer, 1

comparing metropolitan New Orleans with selected other areas. This document forms the basis of a substantial portion of the pre-filed testimony of Dr. Velma Campbell concerning the higher cancer incidence and mortality among New Orleans area residents. It is, thus, both relevant and material in establishing a basic premise of Joint Interver.sr's case, namely, that southern Louisiana' is already subjected to a greater cancer risk than the U. S. population at large.

Item 2, Environemnt and Human Health, a literature survey prepared

~

by Dr. Velma Campbell, describes in its foreword the health risks which the 1

i author has determined to exist which threaten south Louisianians. It -

i l

includes in its bibliography several items as references which are also proposed joint intervenor exhibits, which we shall examine shortly. The document is relevant and material as providing the basis for Dr. Campbell's expertise in this area; as well as establishing the basis for her findings and conclusions as to the magnitude of enhanced health risks in southern Louisiana, items 3 through 6 and Item 8 are relevant and material, due to the fact that they explore the relationship between excessive cancer in Louisiana and such environmental hazards as occupational exposures; i.e.

Items 3 and 4, as does Item 6, which establishes a two-fold risk to oil refining and paper manufacturing workers in the incidence of pancreatic cancer mortality. Items 5 and 8 establish a significant risk for rectal cancer associated with ground water, including Missisippi River drinking water, and this information is confirmed by Item 8, which found a statistically significant relation between cancer mortality rates in Louisiana and drinking water obtained from the Mississippi River, which .

relationship was true for total caneers, cancer of the urinary organs, and cancer of the gastro-intestinal tract. These studies support the observation contained in Item 2, that " Correlations have been found with Mississippi River drinking water, wetland residence, employment in shipbuilding, refineries and petrochemical industries. Living within one mile of a petroleum refinery appears to double a person's chance of developing a malignancy. It is interesting that Louisiana has one of the lowest per capita consumption of cigarettes in the Southeast.". See Item 2,

p. iv. Finally, the causal relationship between the environmental factor of drinking water enhanced cancer incidence and mortality, further supported

by item 9, Carcinogenic Ilazards of Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water, which exhibit details the presence of known or suspected carcinogenic and organic chemicals, and prompted the authors to conclude, inter alia, that, "although these are relatively low levels of exposure, preliminary epidemiologie studies of aggregate populations in Louisiana, Ohio and New Jersey support the hypothesis that carcinogens in drinking water are related to human cancer." See Item 9, p. 327.

Item 23 is likewise material and relevant in proving the initial hypothesis that low-level carcinogen exposures are substantial public health risks. The ~ author identifies excessive cates of lung cancer and bladder cancer deaths among the residents of Niagara County, which are statistically significantly greater than the national norm.

In summary, it.is submitted that each of the proposed exhibits filed above is both relevant and material in the establishment of Joint Intervenors' initial hypothesis, that residents of Louisiana are at much greater risk than the general population as a result of environmental factors peculiar to Southeastern Louisiana, especially organic chemicals in drinking water and in the general environment, as evidenced by occupational risk studies of Dr. Gottlieb, et al.

t Items 10, 11 and 12 are both material and relevant to Joint Intervenors' case inasmuch as they set forth the working models by which l cancer cells .are grown in the human body. Item 11 expounds similar l

hypotheses of the molecular mechanism of cancer, both of which are important inasmuch as they deal with the capability of extremely low I levels of the radiation to induce cancerous cells.in the body. Likewise, Item 12 contains an overall discussion of the carcinogenic action of l

l l

?

= ,

radiation, including hypotheses of chromesomal damage "and somatic mutation caused within individual cells.

Items 17 and 18 deal with the interaction between radiation and known carcinogens which lead to the formation of carcinogenic cells. Item 17 also notes an enhanced production of malignancies stemming from the combination of radiation and carcinogens greater than cumulative effect of either agent acting alone. The relevance and materiality of these items is that they clearly establish a mechanism for the actual interaction between low-level radiation and low-level carcinogens acting within individual cells.

Items 13-16 represent a portion of the work authored by Joint Intervenors' witness, Dr. Carl Johnson. Dr. Johnson was, for a number of years, the county health officer for Jefferson County, Colorado; and these items, collectively, represent Dr. Johnson's observations of the hazards impmed by low-level radiation emitted by the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, located in Jefferson County, as well as other sources of low-level radiation located within the geographical area of Dr. Johnson's public health responsibility. These items are relevant and material, inasmuch as they reflect positive evidence of the low-level radiation hazard inflicted upon the people of the Jefferson County, Colorado area by levels of ' radiation asserted by regulatory authorities to be within permissible radiation release limits.

Items 20 and 21 are both material and relevant in establishing the synergistic principle as stated in the summary of Item 20, "A X C rats, in vihich continuous administration of diethylstilbestrol produces a high incidence of mammary carcinoma as opposed to their essentially zero e -, - - - . - - , -. - - . _

spontaneous incidence, were given radiation of one mammary chain while they were under the systemic influence of diethylstilbestrol. The animals irradiated without the diethylstilbestrol with the same dose and at. the same time, developed fewer mammary carcinomas after a much longer latent period (minimum, 75 weeks), but those animals irradiated while under the influence of the estrogen had many more mammary carcinomas (the first at 18 weeks) than those given the diethylstilbestrol alone. This is interpreted as substantial synergism between the modalities in mammary carcinogenesis." In Item 21, the author observes "It should be noted that radiation may act synergistically with other influences; e.g. the e. cess of  ;

lung cancer in U. S. uranium miners who are cigarette smokers is larger than would be predicted if the separate carcinogenic effects of mining alone and cigarette smoking alone were merely adaMive." (Lundin, et. al.

1969; Dahl,1970). Another example involving synergistic effects of X radiation and urethane in the induction of lymphomas in C57BL mice was interpreted as evidence for a multi-stage mechanism of carcinogenesis in this instance, with radiation serving as an initiating agent and urethane as i

a promoting agent (Berenblum and Tranin,1960)." See Item 21, p.~493. In view of the pre-filed testimony of applicant's witnesses that they do not l

perceive the existence of a synergistic effect; it would appear that the observations contained in these exhibits are highly relevant and most material to the establishment of Interveno,rs' case as it relates to the existence of a synergistic effect.

Ultimately, Joint Intervenors' arrive at the body of work attributed l

l to a prospective witness, Dr. Irwin D. J. Bross. Item 22 is an explanation l

of the operation of the synergistic mechanism by which genetic damage i

e

• from low-level radiation or chemical mutagens was caused. Clearly, on the basis of its contents, the item is highly relevant and material to establishing the existence of a synergistic mechanism which operates both at low levels of radiation and low levels of carcinogens. Item 24 is similarly relevant and material to the general issue of low-level radiation damage. As the author states, "Whrp the significant effects are used to estimate the doubling dose for genetic damage from ionizing radiation, the new estimate is about one rem." See Item 24, p. 2. The remainder of the item contains the rationale for these findings. The relevance and material of cumulative low dose genetic damage and health risks are inherent in the totality of the work.

Finally, Items 25, 26 and 27 consist of studies conducted by the author indicating- the existence of cumulative as well as a synergistic public health hazard caused to observed populations which have been exposed to presumably safe low levels of radiation. Since these exhibits all go to the heart of Joint Intervenors' , case, i.e., the existence of demonstrable health risk arising from extremely low levels of radiation, acting in combination with low level carcinogens, their use as exhibits is critical to the support of the testimony of plaintiff witnesses; and clearly should be relied upon as probative of the findings and conclusions expressed by their author. The sentiments expressed in these documents are as follows: "The official BEIR Estimates are about one lung cancer death per year per million persons per rem. But the PMS data show 189 lung cancer deaths per year per million persons per rem." See Item 25, p.1. In Item 26, the author observes:

"On the basis of present facts, the best 1980 estimate 'for the doubling dose for leukemia (or for blood cancers) would seem to be about 3.5 rads 4 rems. Ilowever, in view of the historical trends in the estimates of risks from ionizing radiation, the present estimate should be viewed with some caution. The hazards have been consistently misunderstood and the estimates have been drastically revised every generation.

Improvements in the data or the biostatistical techniques for analyzing the data might well result in the lowering of the estimate of the doubling dose to 1.0 rad or less. Ilence, in cost-benefit evaluation for the deployment of new radiological technology, the 3.5 rad estimate should be regarded as a minimum cost."

See Exhibit 26, p. 30.

Finally, in Exhibit 27, the author has observed:

"The new findings suggest that the estimate previously obtained by extrapolation from high dosage levels to low dose level underestimate the actual hazards by an order of magnitude. New dosage response curves indicate that linear extrapolation fails because it disregards the sub-groups in the general population that are particularly vulnerable to X-ray. . .

. the past risk-benefit calculations are based upon extrapolated estimates and require drastic revision.

See Item 27, p.1.

In conclusion, therefore, it is clear that the relevance and materiality of these last three items is undeniable and that they are clearly admissible

! as tending to be probative of essential elements of Joint Intervenors' case.

l Accordingly, it is submitted that admissibility has been amply established; and failure to admit any of these exhibits would be a mistake of such magnitude as to rise to reversible error.

B. Timeliness of Exhibit Disclosure There has been compliance with the discovery requirements in the Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings (10 CFR S2.1, et i sg.), and therefore, there is no basis for exclusion of any evidence recently disclosed to the Applicants. During the pre-hearing proceedings, a complete response was provided by Joint Intervenors to all requesM for

discovery. Under these circumstances, a party "who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is v.

under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired." (10 CFR S2.740(e)). There are, however, three exceptions to this rule:

(1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement his response with respect to any question directly addressed to (i) the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, and (ii) the identiy of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at the hearing, the subject matter on which he is expceted to testify, and the substance of his testimony.

(2) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response if he obtains information upon the basis of which (i) he knows that the response was incorrect when made, or (ii) he knows that the response though correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment.

(3) A duty to supplement responses may be imposed by order of the presiding officer or agreement of the parties, i

l Clearly, the first two exceptions are inapplicable to the present situation. The first exception applies only to the identiy and location of f persons, not technical articles or the other matters recently submitted in this proceeding. The second exception relates to responses that the party knew were incorrect at the time they were made or to the knowing concealment of information. Obviously, these conditions are not involved in the present circumstances.

I The only exception that arguably applies is (3), which refers to a duty to supplement " imposed by order of the presiding officers or agreement of the parties." While there has been no duty imposed by order of the presiding officer; the working relationship of counsel for the opposing parties has been such that full, frank and prompt disclosure have characterized the prior dealings between Applicant and Joint Intervenors.

This agreement was vague and amorphous as to the nature and scope of the obligation to supplement. Moreover, it did not specify the time within which supplementation of discovery responses was required. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be persua.?mb argued that Joint Intervenors have breached their duty to supplem< ,it when they provided copics of proposed exhibits commencing on March 9,1982.

Even assuming that there was a failure to supplement as required by an agreement of the parties, there is no explicit administrative authority to exclude relevant, material and reliable evidence in domestic licensing proceedings for the mere failure to comply with a discovery agreement.

The Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings contain no o

explicit provision permitting a presiding officer at a hjearing to exclude otherwise admissible evidence (defined in 10 CFR S2.743(c) as " relevant, material and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious) for failure of a party to supplement discovery responses or to meet other discovery obligations. Certainly, without explicit authority in the rules and regu-lations governing these proceedings, such extreme authority, which would deprive Joint Intervenors of the opportunity to submit important, otherwise

admissible evidence should not be implied. Where the authority to impose l such an extreme sanction for failure to meet discovery obligations is l

1 l

vested in a presiding officer, the pertinent regulations are clear and unequivocal (see e.g. 46 CFR 5502.210(b)(2)) allowing the presiding officer at a hearing before the Federal Maritime Commission to prohibit a party "from introducing designated matters as evidence" when there has been a ,

failure of a party to comply with a discovery order. The absence of such an explicit directive in the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a clear indication that such exclusionary power is not vested in the presiding officer.

Instead, the emphasis in the rules of the Commission is upon ensuring that a party has a reasonable opportunity to examine potentially admissible evidence and to prepare for cross-examination of it. Fcr example, even in the circumstances where written testimony has not be served fifteen (15) days in advance of the hearing, as required by 10 CFR 2.743(b), the presiding officer may permit the introduction of such testimony af ter the parties "have had a reasonable opportunity to examine it." Id. ,

The same rasoning has been applied to the introduction of written

~

exhibits. In Tennessee Value Authority (Hartsville, Nuclear Plant, Units I A, 2A,13 and 23, January 25,1977, ALAB-367), Nuclear Regulation Reporter, paragraph 30,139.11, at page 27,838, the staff sought to intro-duce into evidence on the last day of a hearing two tables. The Intervenors I

had only been served copies of these exhibits on the preceding day, and were notified of extensive changes in the figures in one of the exhibits on the very day of the hearing. The exhibits were introduced over the j -

objections of the intervenors that they needed at least two weeks to .

prepare a proper challenge to these exhibits.

i

f

'The Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board recognized that the provisions of 10 CFR S2.743(b) applied to exhibits as well as the testimony of witnesses and concluded that where intervenors only received the exhibits the night before, they "did not have the reasonable opportunity for examination of the evidence required by the rule." I_d., at page 27,838.

The Board went on to hold that the error in admitting the evidence was not prejudicial, because the comparative cost evidence contained in the exhibits "should not have made any difference in t', e result reached." Id, at page 27,839. The Board was primarily concerned that the brief time between service of thb technical exhibits and their submission .at _the hearing precluded the Intervenors from an opportunity for effective of adequate cross-examination. As the Board stated, "An attorney might not have been able to cross-examine on it adequately without the assistance of an expert to evaluate it, analyze the mathematics and suggest questions. As intervenors' counsel received the exhibits at 5:40 p.m. the evening before, he would probably not have had enough time to obtain the necessary axpert assistance before the hearing the next morning, even had he begun to try to obtain it immediately af ter being handed the dcauments. The fact that extensive changes in the numbers on Exhibit 10 were give1 to him the following morning only increased his difficulty in being able to cross-examine effectively. More-over, even had he been able to obtain the immediate services of an expert on the evening when he was given the exhibits for the purpose of preparing cross-examination, he would not have had enough time to prepare rebuttal evidence had he concluded it was necessary.'! Id.

Ilowever, the present case is easily distinguishable from the situation presented in liartsville, for the approving parties have had, under 10 CFR S2,743(b), "a reasonable opportunity to examine" the exhibits in question.

These exhibits were submitted beginning fif teen days prior to the hearing.

Thus, the parties, whose resources are substantially greakthan those of Joint Intervenors, have had more than adequate opportunity to obtain the necessary expert witnesses to review their materials and to prepare adequate cross-examination or, if necesary, rebuttal evidence.

Co.isequently, it is submitted that the argument of lack of timely disclosure is not supported by the authority of NRC commission practice.

In sum, there is no explicit authority in the Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings for a blanket exclusionary rule for failure of a party to supplement discovery responses. Rather, the procedure under the rules has been to determine whether the parties "have had a reasonable opportunity to examine" the supplementary information(19 CFR S2.743(b)),

i.e., whether they have been provided an adequate opportunity to prepare effective cross-examination of this material. The opposing parties have not been able to demonstrate the lack of a reasonable opportunity to examine these exhibits or to prepare adequate cross-examination. Nor does such a showir ' appear probable. Surely, the opposing parties, with the resources at their command, are in a position to obtain the necessary

expert assistance for the preparation of proper cross-examination of these exhibits. Under these circumstances, those exhibits which are otherwise admissible, under 10 CFR S2.743(c), may properly be introduced at the hearing.

Even assuming that there was a breach of Intervenors' duty to supplement their discovery responses and that the presiding officer has implicit authority to impose sanctions for such a breach, the exclusion of Joint Intervenors' otherwise admissible evidence is not justified in the circumstances of the present case. Even if the presiding officer determines that Joint Intervenors breached a duty to supplement their discovery responses, there is still no basis in the law for excluding the evidence that was not timely disclosed by Joint Intervenors. As discussed above, 10 CFR S2.740(e) is the pertinent rule regarding the supplementation of discovery responses in this proceeding. This rule tracks the language of Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been expressly considered by the Commission for guidance in discovery matters, Davis-Besse Nucler Power Station (November 26,1975; ALA 3-300) CCH Nuclear Regulation Reporter, paragraph 30,028.05, at page 27,185. See riso, Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 196, 7AEC 457,460 (1974), Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB 10, 4 AEC 390, 391 (1970), it is appropriate to look to judicial decisions discussing the circumstances under which evidence may be excluded at a trial because of a party's failure to supplement responses under Rule 26(e).

It is clear that the decision whether to exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge or, in the present situation, the presiding officer. See, e.g., Scott and Fetzger Company v. Pile, 643 F.2d 670,674 (9th Cir.,1981); Murphy v. Magnolia Electric Power Association, 639 F.2d 232,234-35 (5th Cir. 1981); Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. Macomber, Inc.,

o 601 F.2d 343,344 (8th Cir. 1979). While the precise factors to consider in the exercise of this discretion may vary, compare Murphy v. Magnolia Electric Power Association. supra, 639 F. 2d at 235 with Smith v. Ford Motor Company, 626 F. 2d 34,297 (10th Cir.1980), the crucial inquiry in all cases is whether the exclusion of evidence is clearly required to prevent undue prejudice to the opposing parties. Phil Crowley Steel Corporation v.

Macomber, supra, 601 F. 2d at 344. See also cases cited in Mooore's Federal Practice, Vol. IV, Sec. 26.01 (Cumulative Supplement 1981-32).

Moreover, the party seeking exclusion of evidence must demonstrate

~

prejudice or surprise in ' fact.- Smith v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 626 F.

2d at 797; Shelak v. White Motor Company, 581 F. 2d 1155,1159 (5th Cir.

1978). The requisite prejudice can only be established whewn the party can show that the admission of the evidence would deprive him of an opportunity to prepare effective cross-examination and to present rebuttal witnesses and exhibits. Scott and Fetzger Co. v. Dile, supra, 643 F. 2d at 673; Kastenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 575 F. 2d 564, 575 (5th Cir.1978), Shelak v. White Motor Company, supra, 581 F. 2d at 1159, Phil Crowley Steel Corporation v. Macomber, supra, 601 F. 2d at 345. Finally, "it is questionable'whether exclusion is the only proper penalty for failure

.o comply with the requirements (of Rule 26(e))." Price v. Lake Sales Supply R.M., Inc., 510 F. 2d 388, 395 (10th Cir.1974). Indeed, where appropriate, less drastic means, such as the granting of a continuance to a complaining party to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to meet the recently disclosed evidence, may be a proper means of curing any

, 'denionstrable prejudice .

Phil Crowley Steel Corporation v. Macomber, up_ra,601 F. 2d at 344; Smith v. Ford Motor Company, supra, i

l i

I

n conclusion, it has been shown that the burden of proof is on the party complaining of a lack of timely disclosure to show the mar.ner in which it has been prejudiced and to demonstrate such prejudice elcarly and convincingly. It is respectfully submitted that, under the authorities cited, opposing parties cannot meet this burden of proof. Hence, the argument concerning lack of prior disclosure of specific exhibits should be deemed lacking in merit.

Respectfully submitted GILLES & JONES'  ;

B /s i N YM RL.jJON JR.

Att ney (de Jo' Interv ors 11 Ridgelake ive Metairie, Lou ~ ana 70001 (504) 835- 3458

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf.11SSION ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER &' LIGHT COMPANY- Docket No. 50-382 - -

(Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, as coun.sel for Joint Intervenors, Oystershell Alliance,Inc. and Save Our Wetlands,Inc., herewith files the memorandum of authorities to the admissibility of proposd exhibits.

The undersigned further certifies that those parties whose names appear on the service list followed by n asterisk (*) have been served i

copies by express mail on this 17th of March .

s~ -

.A

L 1AN .JONp, .'

l l

. r-SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Ilarry Foreman

• Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Walter H. Jordan * .

881. West. Outer Drive .-

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nealear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing a - Service Section (three copies) -

Office of tb %retary U.S. Nuclear t egulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 -

Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire

• Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire and

• E. Blake, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 ,

1

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLkAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-382 (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Res 4ts) Program: Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the United States, 1973-77. National Cancer Institute, Monograph No. 57, Pp.1-187, Bethesda, MD 1978.

2. Campbell, Velma, Dr. Environment and Human Health. Office of Environmental Affairs. January,1981.

3. Gottlieb, M.S., Pickle, L. W., Plot, W. J., Fraumani, J. F. Lung

! Cancer in Louisiana: Death Certificate Analysis. Journal of

. National Cancer Institute, Vol. 63, No. 5, p.1131, November,1970.

4. Gottlieb, M.S., Stedman, R. B. Lung Cancer in Shipbuilding and Related Industries in Louisiana. Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 72, No. 9, p.1099, September,1979

5. Gottlieb, M.S., Carr, J. K., Morris, D. T. Cancer and Drinking Water in Louisiana: Colon and Rectum. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol.10, No. 2,1981, p.117. .

6. Pickle, L. W. , Gottlieb, M.S. Pancreatic Cancer Mortality in Louisiana. American Journal of Public Health,1980, Vol. 70, No. 3,

p. 256.

e

~;  ;

7. Pickle, L. W., Gottlieb, M. S. Louisiana Department of licalth &

lluman Resources, Public Ilealth Statistics, Infant Deaths by Parish, 1970-1980.

WITilDRAWN.

8. Page, T., liarris, R. H., et al. Drinking Water and Cancer Mortality in Louisiana. Science 193 (4247):55, July,1976.

9. Harris, R. H., Page, T., Reiches, N. A. Carcinogenic Hazards of Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water in Origins of Iluman Cancer.

Ed. by liiatt, Watson, Winsten, Vol. 4, Book A, p. 309, Cold Spring Ilarbor Laboratory,1977.

10. Pandit, Hemchandra. Biophysical Theory of Cancer. Unpublished.

11. Brodsky, A. A Stochastic Model of Carcinogenesis Incorporating Certain Observations from Chemical and Radiation Dose-Response Data. Ilealth Physics 35:421, August,1978.

12. Barnett, M. S. The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

Connecticut Medicine, Vol. 43 (#2):p.75, 2/79.

13. Jchnson, Carl, Dr. An Investigation of Brain Cancer, Melanoma in Employees of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant in Jefferson County, Colorado. Session Occupational Health & Safety Environ-ment and Radiological Health Sections of the Am. Pub. Health 109, November 3,1981.

14. Johnson, Carl Dr. Cancer Incidence in an Area Contaminated with Radionuclides Near a Nuclear Installation. Ambio, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Vol. 4,1981.

15. Johnson, Carl Dr. Contamination of Several Public Water Districts with Uranium Liquid Waste Discharges from an Uranium Mine; and .

Development of a New Permissable Concentration Limit for Uranium in Drinking Water. Radiological Health Section of the Am. Pub.

Health Assoc.,109th, Nov. 3,1981.

16. Johnson, Carl, Dr. Plutonium Hazard in Respirable Dust on the Surface of Soil. Science, Vol.193, pp. 488-490, August 6,1976.

17. DiPaolo, '. A. In Vitro Transformation: Interactions of Chemical Carcinogens and Radiation. Biology of Radiation Carcinogens, p.

335, ed. by J. M. Yuhas, R. W. Tennaut, J. D. Regan, Raven Press, 1976.

18. Greenstock, C. L.; Ruddock, G. W. Radiation Activation of Carcino-gens and the Role of OH and O Photochemistry and Photobiology, 2*

V,ol. 28, p. 877,1978.

19. Mancuso, T., Steward, A., et al. Radiation Exposures of Ilanford Workers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes. IIcatlh Physics, 33:369, 3 1977.

t .

20. Segaloff, A., Waxfield, W.S. The Syriergism Betweca Radiation and Estrogen in the Production of Mammary Cancer in the Rat. Cancer Research, 31:166, February,1971.

21. Upton, A. C. Radiation Effects in Origins of Human Cancer, Book A, Incidence of Cancer in Humans, Vol. 4, p. 477,1977.

22. Bross, I. D. J. A Simple Mechanism for Synergism in Genetic Damage from Low-Level Radiation or Chemical Mutagens. Unpublished paper,198 2.

23. Bross, I. D. J. Why the Assurances that the Water is " safe" have no Scientific Validity. Testimony submitted to Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation, Albany, N.Y. Submitted November 19, 1981.~

24. Bross, I. D. J. Letter to Ed., Health Physics, September 16,1981.

25. Bross, I. D. J., Driscoll, D. L. Paper presented at symposium on Effects on Humans of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Yale University School of Medicine, May 14, 1981.

26. Bross, I. D. J. A 1980 Reassesment of the Health Haards of Low Level Ionizing Radiation. Transcript of invited lecture presented at the University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, October 29, 1979.

27. Bross, I. D. J. A Dosage Response Curve for the One Rad Range:

Adult Risks from Diagnostic Radiation, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 69, No. 2, February,1979.

l l

t i