ML20065U032

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of E Branagan 821013 Deposition in Bethesda,Md Re Dose Estimates of Hiroshima & Nagasaki & Health Impacts. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20065U032
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 10/13/1982
From: Branagan E
JOINT APPLICANTS - CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR
To:
Shared Package
ML20065U023 List:
References
NUDOCS 8211030357
Download: ML20065U032 (35)
v • d • e


Text

.

f sm14 %

Opr[

1

~

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N

'r " ] ((

2 NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION

<r:

~ j ;q 3

---x 4 In The Matter of 5 UNITED STATES DEP ARTMENT OF ENERGY a

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Docket No. 50-537 6 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY a

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) 7 a

_-_---x 8

Bethesda, Maryland 9

Wednesday, October 13, 1982 10 Deposition of EDWARD BRANAGAN, called for 11 e xamina tion by counsel for Intervenors in the 12 above-entitled sction, pursuant. to notice, at the

(

13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Air Rights Building, 4550 14 Hon tgom e ry Avenue, Bethesda, Maryla'nd, commencing at 15 3:20 p.m.,

the witnesses being sworn by Bay Heer, a 16 notary public in ind for the State of Maryland, and the 17 p ro ceedings being taken down by Stenomask by Ray Heer 18 and transcribed under his direction, when were present 19 on behalf of the respective parties:

20 21 22

(.

1 i

l l

8211030357 821029 PDR ADOCK 05000537 G

PDR ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC,

s 2

(

1 APPEABANCES:

2 On behalf of Intervenors, Natural Resources

(

Defense Council and the Sierra Club 3

BABBARA A. FINA50HE, Esq.

4 THOMAS B. COCHRAN FLOYD SMITH 5

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N.W.,

Suite 600 6

Eashington, D.C.

20006 7

On behalf of the Department of Energy:

8 STAN ECHOLS, Esq.

Office of the General Couansel 9

Department of Energy Washington, D.C.

20585 10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

11 DANIEL SWANSON, Esq.

12 GEORGE HIZUNO,.Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director

(

13 U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Co mmissio n Washington, D.C.

14 On behalf of Project Management Corporation 15 TH05AS A.

SCHEUTZ, Esq.

16 Morgan, Lewis E Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.

17 Washington, D.C.

20036 18 19 20 21 22 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

4 4

3

~

/

1 C0N TENTS 2'

/

EIAMINATION BY

\\-

3 COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS, DEPOSITION OFs NBDC AND SIERRA CLUB 4

EDWARD BRANAGAN 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

('

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

!\\.. /

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345

8 4

4

(

i z E 2.s I I n I E E E 2 Whereupon, 3

EDWARD BRANAGAN, 4 called as s witness by counsel for the Intervenors and S having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was 6 examined and testified as follows 7

EIAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS, 8

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE FUND 9

AND THE SIERRA CLUB 10 BY HR. COCHRAN.

11 0

Dr. Branagan, refresh my memory of where the 12 genetic risks are documented in this.

(,

13 A

It is in section 5.7, and the discussion on 14 potential health impacts, pa rt of it, is on page 5-13, 15 5-14, 5-15, and then we pick it up agsin over on page.

16 5-19 through 21.

17 Q

And I recall reading section 5725, you relied 18 on the risk coefficients in the BEIR 1 report for l

19 occupational exposures, is that righ t?

20 A

That is correct.

l l

21 0

And your conclusion is that the BEIR 3 report' t

22 gives comparable values.

Is that the basis?

Why didn't t

t l

l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

o

'x 5

f 1 rou use the numbers in BEIR 3 rather than BEIR 17 2

A Well, if you usa the values in the BEIR 3 3 report which the majority of the BEIR 3 committee would 4 recommend you use, you would get numbers a little less 5 than what you actually get in the BEIR 1 report.

6 O

When you say the majority, you are talking 7 about the overall committee or the somatic risk 8 committee?

9 A

No, the National Academy of Sciences BEIR 3 10 committee.

They had presented several models in there 11 for estimating poten tial health impacts, an d the 12 majority of their members picked a certain model that

(

13 would give you lower impacts than the values in the BEIR 14 1 report.

15 Q

And how about the somatic risk panel?

How did 16 their values compare to the BEIR 1 values -- the somatic 17 risk panel of BEIR 37 18 A

That is what I was speaking to -- the somatic 19 risk.

20 Q

Just to refresh your memory, the somatic risk 21 panel was Radford's panel that wrote the minority report 22 to the full committee report.

ks ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

\\

6

(

1 A

Well, the majority of the members of the BEIR 2 3 committee recommended the lidium quadratic models,

( -

3 which resulted in lower estimates for the somatic risk 4 than the BEIR 1 report.

5 0

And the majority of the members of the somatic 6 risk committee, of which Radford chaired, recommended

7. higher risk coefficients; isn't that correct?

8 A

I can 't substantiate that.

My reading of the 9 BEIB 3 report is that the majority of the members 10 recommended the use of the linear quadratic model for 11 low LET radiation and not the linear dose response 12 model.

(

13 Q

A nd, in your opinion, is that the basis for 14 their argument being called into question by the recent 15 reevaluations of the Nagasaki ABCC data?

16 A

The basis for which argument?

17 Q

Chosing the linear quadratic, the quadratic 18 model in BEIH 3, the majority opinion.

19 A

I wouldn't characterize it the way you 20 characterized it.

21 Q

How would you characterize it?

22 A

I would characterize it that they are ALDERSON AEPoRTING COMPANY,INC,

s 7

1 reevaluating the dose estimates of Hiroshima and 2 Nagasaki and the committee is still out in regard to

(

3 just how the doses or the health impacts would change.

4 Just the preliminary, though --

5 Q

the preliminary data suggests that they 6 underestimated the doses previously?

7 A

The doses from what?

8 Q

To the victims at Nagasaki.

9 A

I'm not aware of that.

10 Q

Are you familiar with the literature on the 11 reevalua tion of the Nagasaki doses?

12 A

I'm familiar with some of the literature and

(

13 you have to be clear when you specify which doses you 14 are talking about.

l 15 Q

Well, what literature are you familiar with?

18 A

In regard to?

17 Q

The reevaluation of the Nagasaki dose data.

18 A

I have read some articles in Science magazine 19 regarding the reevaluation of the Nagasaki data, and I 20 attended a conference held at the Department of Energy, 21 I think it was last November, regarding the evaluations' 22 of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki data.

(.

ALCERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY, INC,

-__c o-m e m. ~m.cq

. 0 o mme.ma mo m eo

8

(

1 Q

And is it your view that the reevaluation --

2 what is your view with regard to the likelihood of i

\\ ~

3 having to reject the majority BEIR 3 opinion on the 4 bas'is of the reevaluation?

5 A

I would hesitate to give an opinion on that 6 until the reevaluation is complete.

It is preliminary 7 to that.

8 0

Then in the absence of that data you would say 9 that the BEIR 3 majority opinion carries with it some 10 signifirant uncertainty with regard to its validity?

11 A

Ho.

12 Q

Do you think it would be valid in any case, no

(,

13 matter what the Nagasaki reevaluations came out?

14 A

I think the estimates we presented here --

15 Q

I'm not asking about the estimates you 16 presented in there.

I'm asking about the BEIR 3 17 majority opinion on the effect of the reevaluation of 18 Nagasaki data.

19 A

The eff ect on what?

20 Q

I want to ask your opinion as to whether this 21 reevaluation of the Nagasaki data is likely to call into 22 question the vaiidity of the BEIB 3 majority opinion

(,

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

m o.a.... a.................

t 9

f 1 with regard to vhich dose model is most appropriate.

2 A

I would suggest that that question would be f

to the BEIE 3 committee and not myself.

L 3 better put 4

Q I'm sure it would.

I am asking your opinion, 5 though.

6 A

As I said. earlier, as near as I can tell, they 7 are just preliminary estimates on how the doses would be 8 revised and the final dose estimates have not been 9 presented yet, and it is too early to have an opinion 10 without the basic information.

11 Q

Am I correct in assuming, then, in your mind 12 it could go either way?

(

13 A

What could go either way?

14 Q

When you get the new evaluations, you might 15 then decide that the model assumed by the majority of 16 the BEIB 3 committee is no longer the most appropriate i

17 model, but the model assumed by the -- recommended in 18 the Radford dissent is the more appropriate.

19 A

It is a possibility.

20 Q

So there is at least that level of uncertainty 21 in terms of the BEIR 3 data; is that correct?

l 22 A

Ihere is uncertainty with regard to the BEIR 3 i

f

~..

ALDER $CN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

--~n n.e

..o.

...........-n

.............e..

10

(,'

1 data.

However, we bracketed that uncertainty in the 2 text of the draft supplement.

We gave ranges of the 3 uncertaint! estimates.

We did not use the linear 4 quadratic model in BEIR 3.

We used the linear model in e

5 the BEIR 1 committee, which is the more conservative 6 model.

7 Q

And that is the 135 cancer deaths per million 8 personrem?

9 A

Potentini cancer deaths, that is correct.

10 Q

On page 5-13, now, in your view, is there any 11 expert opinion that lies outside of that range of 12 estimates for the cancer risk coefficient, say high'er

(_

13 than 135 deaths per million personrem?

14 A

Yes.

15 0

And in your opinion, Dr. Morgan, one of the 16 experts -- is Dr. Morgan one of the experts that have a 17 larger -- that believes the risk coefficient should be 18 larger?

19 A

My undarstanding is he believes the risk 20 coefficient should be larger, the risk estimate should 21 be larger.

22 Q

And do you believe his analysis to be in s._

ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.

om a m mn m ann won

11

(

1 error?

2 A

I am not quite sure how I would characterize

./

3 it.

4 Q

Did Dr. Radford also believe that the risk 5 coefficient should be higher than you have assumed 6 here -- the cancer risk coefficient?

7 A

I'm not sure I would agree with that.

8 Q

Is Dr. Radford an expert in the field?

9 A

Dr. Radford is an expert in the field.

I'm 10 not sure if he would disagree with the ansvers that we 11 used because we did not use values that the majority of 12 the BEIR 3 committee recommended.

We used higher

(

13 values.-

14 Q

Does Dr. Goffman believe that the risk 15 coefficient should be larger than the value you have 16 used?

17 A

I think he does.

I couldn 't give you a 18 specific reference Dn that.

19 0

Is he an expert in this area?

20 A

I'm not sure how expert he is.

21 Q

In your opinion, is Dr. Goffman more of an 22 expert in the area of radiological health effects than g

i l

l l

'%s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

-m

- ~~mww as eeneo m nrutmoa

12

(

u 1 rou are?

2 A

I don 't know what his background his

(

3 background really in very much d,etail.

4 Q

Are you f amiliar with his work ?

5 A

Some of his work.

6 Q

IInve you read his latest book?

7 A

Parts of it.

8 Q

That's all one can expect, it's so thick.

9 (Laughter.)

10 Q

Does Dr. Tamplin believe that the risk 11 estimates -- the cancer risk coefficient is larger than 12 rou have assumed here?

13 A

I think he does.

l 14 Q

Is he an expert in the field?

l l

l 15 A

I'm not sure.

l 16 0

Does Alice Stewart believe that the risk 17 coefficient should be larger than the one you've assumed 18 here?.

19 A

I believe she does.

20 0

And is she an expert in the field?

l 21 A

Yes, I would say she is an expert in the field.

I 22 Q

And how about Dr. Mancuso?

l f(.-

l ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, e -m_m amo.m-

m. m _m.m.mme a-

13 1

A I don 't know Dr. Mancuso 's background very 2 auch.

I wouldn't be one to qualify whether or not they 3 are expert or how expert he is in the field.

He is 4 quite controversial.

5 Q

How about George Neal?

6 A

George Neal?

7 Q

Are you familiar with the publications by 8 Hancuso, Stewart and Neal?

9 A

Yes, I sm.

10 Q

Does George Keal believe that the cancer risk 11 coefficient is higher than the one you have assumed 12 here?

(

13 A

The papers that I'm f amiliar with, they do 14 give estimates higher than what we've used.

15 Q

In sumasry, is it fair to say that there are a 16 number of experts in the field tha t believe the cancer 17 risk coefficient should be higher than the one you have 18 assumed in this document?

19 A

I would say yes, if you interpret " number" to 20 nean more than one.

21 Q

Vell,. suppose I interpret it to mean more than-22 five?

(

ALDERSoN F4 PORTING COMPANY. INC.

14 I

~1 A

You could probably find five people who would 2 think the risk estimators would be higher than the ones

(

3 ve have estima ted.

How expert they are I am not quite 4 sure.

5 Q

Well, is it fair to say, then, that you don't 6.know the literature well enough to know whether this 135 7 cancer deaths per million personrem is a conservative 8 value?

9 A

No, that is not a correct statement.

It is a 10 conservative value.

11 Q

Iou believe it to be conservative despite the 12 fact that there are a number of experts in the field

(

13 that believe it ought to be larger?

14 A

Tes.

As I stated in the draft supplement, the l

15 risk estimaters that we have there are consistent with 16 the recommendations of the major radiation protection 17 organizations which consist of many individuals who have 18 had input into the deliberations for formulating risk 19 estimaters.

20 0

Could you tall me, other than the members of 21 the BEIR 3 committee, who has endorsed these risk

~

22 estimaters?

s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

. gm. m,0 0.

o.o.

o 0,_..o qoc.e.,

,mo, n,....

..ooo..eoa

t 15

/

1 A

I didn't say anyone specifically endorsed our 2 risk estimaters.

What I said is our risk estimaters are

(

3 consistent with the recommendations of the UNSCEAR 4 committee, the International Commission on Radiological 5 Protection, the Nitional Council on Radiation Protection 6,and Measurements, and both the BEIR 1 and the BEIE 3 7 committees.

8 Q

And because of that they are conservative and 9 all of these other folks are in error?

10 A

Is that a statement?

11 Q

I am asking you.

Do you agree with that

, 12 sta tem en t?

I mean, is that your conclusion ?

I" 13 A

My conclusion is that the values we used here 14 were conservative.

15 0

And if you conclude that the values used here 16 are conservative, doesn't it imply that these other 17 people's risk coefficients are in error?

18 A

It probably does.

19 Q

And yet you don't know the basis for their 20 conclusions?

21 A

I know the basis for some of their 22 conclusions.

~

i

\\.

f i

ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC,

~..__~-m

-~

16

?

1 Q

Do you know the basis for Dr. Morgan's 2 conclusions?

( '

3 A

Yes.

I testified at the summer hearing last 4 summer and Dr. Morgan also testified in the area of 5 health effects, and Leonard Hamilton from Brookhaven 6 also testified.

7 Q

Why is Dr. Morgan wrong?

8 A

Okay.

Right nov ve are talking very 9 generally.

l 10 0

Well, tell me why Dr. Morgan's estimate of the l

11 cancer coefficient is in error.

12 A

Wh at risk estimater are you talking about?

(

13 Q

The one you just agreed that was larger than 14 the 135 cancers per nillion personcem.

15

.A I would need a specific publication and a 16 specific ref erence in order to go into detail as to why l

l 17 I disagree with his estimates.

18 Q

Do you know of any risk estimates that Dr.

19 Morgan has made of cancer deaths?

20 A

I know of one that he had at the summer 21 hearing, which was more than a year ago.

l 22 Q

And what numbers did he use?

l l

l l

ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

_.. _.,po. 00 0 0.................... - -................

17 1

\\

1 A

I think it was on the order of about ten times 2 what we used here.

(

3 Q

And why is he in error?

4 A

I'a not prepared to go into that today.

5 Q

And could you tell me why Dr. Radford is in 6 e rror?

7 A

I don't believe I said Dr. Radford was in 8 error.

I think I indicated tha t his values "right quite 9 similar to the values we have included in the draft 10 supplement.

11 Q

I believe you indicated you didn' t know what 12 his values were.

Isn' t that more correct?

(

13 A

I know that he endorses the linear model 14 rather than the linear quadratic model, and if you do 15 use the linear model in either the BEIR 1 or the BEIR 3 16 reports, you get values very similar to what we have 17 here.

18 Q

And why is Dr. Goffman in error?

19 A

I have not ande a detailed study of Dr.

20 Goffman 's work.

21 Q

And why is Dr. Tamplin in error?

22 A

I have not made a datailed study of Dr.

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

18 s

(

1 Tamplin 's work.

2 Q

And why is Alice Stewart in error?

(

3 A

Once again, I have not made a detailed study 4 of her specific papers.

5 Q

And why is --

6 A

But I do know that they are much higher than 7 the values that you get from the major radiation 8 protections in the world.

9 Q

On that basis, could you have predicted the 10 theory of relativity in 19077 11 ER. SWANSON:

Objection, and that's a 12 frivol us question.

(

13 BI ER. COCHRAN:

(Resuming) 14 0

Answer the question.

He has objected for the 15 record.

16 MR. SWANSONs Tell him it's a frivolous 17 question.

18 THE WITNESSs I don't have any opinion on your 19 question.

20 BY MR. COCHRANs (Resuming) 21 Q

Do you have any basis for choosing 135 cancers 22 deaths per million personrem as opposed to a higher ks ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l

se vmrama aut an essw.pi@N. $.$. 20024 (202) 554-2345

19

(

1 value, other than the fact that it is consistent with 2 BEIR 1 and BEIR 37

(

3 A

Yes.

4 Q

And what is that?

5 A

It is slso -- it is consistant with the 6 UNSCEAR data.

It is consistent with the basic 7 epidemiological data, which is summarized in the United 8 Nations Scientific Committee on Radiation Report.

9 Q

How old is that report?

10 A

There are several UNSCEAR reports.

There was 11 one in 1972.

There was one in 1977, and th ere is a 12 draf t one now circulating.

(

13 0

Which report are you referring to?

14 A

The 1977 report.

15 0

And what risk coefficient did the y assign in 16 tha t?

-4 17 A

It is on the order of 10 potential cancer 18 fatalities per rem.

19 Q

And how was that number derived?

20 A

It was derived from many epidemiological 21 studies concerning the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 22 and the railuz dial painters -- many studies.

(

ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, m wmraw nnun an n nam uca m ao n o m o m aan m aa

20

(

1.

O Is it derived independently of the BEIR 1 and 2 BEIR 3 estimates, or did they just adopt one of those

(

3 other estimates?

y 4

A It was derived -- I don 't know what you mean 5 by " independently."

6 Q

Eell, did they derive it f rom these -- this 7 body of epidemiological information you referred to, o r 8 did they just adopt a number that the BEIR 1 or BEIR 3 9 committee had estimated?

10 A

No.

In that res pect they vere definitely 11 independent because they reviewed the basic 12 epidemiological d.ita themsel.ves.

k 13 Q

And whac else besides UNSCEAR?

14 A

The International Commission on Radiological 15 Protection.

16 Q

And what were their risk coefficients?

17 A

Their risk estimaters are contained in th e i

18 ICRP publication number 26.

19 Q

And what else besides the ICRP and DNSCEAR?

20 A

The National Council on Radiation Protections 21 and Measurements.

They also discuss the risk from 22 radiation in various reports.

5 AirERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

O 21

~

(

1 Q

'And where are their risk estimates published?

2 A

I think I gave a couple of references in

(

3 there.

There are many NCRP publications.

4 Q

Well, where do they give their cancer death 5 coefficient?

6 A

I couldn't give you a specific' reference for 7 risk estimater.

However, I could give you a number of 8 publications like NCHP report number 39, I believe it 9 is, NCRP report number 42, " Health Effects of 10 Alpha-Emitting Particles."

They discuss health impacts 11 from radiation.

12 Q

This 135 deaths, do you believe that is the

(,.

13 appropriata risk -- cancer risk coefficient to use in 14 estimating the potential cancers from routine, 15 accidental operations at the CRBR7 16 A

Well, as stated in the text there,I said that 17 was a conservative estimate to estimate the potential 18 impacts from radiation exposure.

19 Q

Is that the appropriate one to use -- this 20 conserva tive value or some lesser value or some larger 21 value?

~

22 A

I think this was the appropriate one to use.

8

(..

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

- - - - m '~necs"*

n'm*'*-

' * * * * ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~. * * * ~ ~ *

  • 22

(

1 That is why I chose that in this draft supplement.

2 Q

The 135 from BEIR 1,

did it come from the risk

(

3 associated' vith occupational exposure or from the total 4 population exposure, if you know?

I think I mentioned 5 something about that in my co m m en t s.

6 A

The 135 potential cancer deaths per million 7 persons is based upon the BEIR 1 report, which reviewed 8 epidemiological studies for many different groups that 9 vere exposed to radiation.

Some of those groups were 10 occupationally exposed.

Others were exposed members of 11 the general public -- for example in Hiroshima and 12 Nagasaki.

(,

13 Q

In Appendix J did you use that risk estimater 14 in calculating the health effects associated with the 15 accidents?

16 A

I did not work on Appendix'J.

17 Q

Do you know whether that risk estimater was 18 used?

19 A

I never reviewed Appendix J.

I don't know.

20 Q

Should I imply that the document used a 21 different risk estimater throughout the document than 22 the one presented in Chapter 5?

N.

l i

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, o

e-,,,e-on.

23 1

1 A

I would have to review Appendix J to see just 2 specifically what they have used here.

Based upon my

('

s-3 vork on environmental impact statements for othe 4 reactors, the risk estimaters that they use are 5 typically -- they are consistent with the values that we 6 have used.

7 Q

Did you use this risk estimater in terms of --

8 vell, am I correct in assuming that there are no cancer 9 death estir:ates in the section on routine releases, or 10 are there?

I just don't recall.

Appendir D, did you 11 apply this risk estimater?

12 A

To Appendix D?

(.

13 0

To the dosages to estimate the cancers in i

14 Appendix D.

15 A

Yes.

16 Q

But you don't know which risk estimater was 1

17 used 1n Appendix J?

l 18 A

I didn't use any risk estimaters in Appendix l

l 19 J.

20 Q

You don't know what the Staff used?

l 21 A

Not right now.

I haven't reviewed the l

22 specific appendix.

I have an idea of what they used, i

J l

l l

l l

l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, lNC, awarsavura-am memavacs ae w saneman-----------------

24 1 tha t they used values consistent with what we have used 2 in other parts of the document.

( '.

3 Q

Are you sure they didn't use the values from 4 WASH-14007 5

A They might have.

6 Q

Why do you say that is consistent?

7 A

Why do I say it is consistent?

8 0

Yes.

9 A

Because the values that we used were derived 10 from the BEIR 1 report.

l 11 Q

They are not the values in WASH-1400.

12 A

Th ey are derived.

Values in WASH-1400 were

(

13 derived from the BEIR 1 report, so it is a common 14 basis.

There are minor changes.

15 0

What do you call a " minor change"?

16 A

I think there was some differences in terms of l

17 the risk estimater for thyroid cancers.

18 Q

To your knowledge, though, they wouldn't be 19 off by a factor of five?

20 A

What wouldn't be off by a factor of five?

l l

21 Q

The cancer risk coefficient.

~

l 22 A

For what?

(-

l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, g

- m+mmw a es erran isam cswma

3 s

m 3-

~

1 25

.x.

l' Y

1 Q

That was applied in Appendix J as opposed'to

^

2 the.one that t-3 MR. SWANSON:

Objection.

He's already said he 4 doesu't know what was used in Appendix J.

5 ER. COCHRANs He said there were minor 6 differences.

I want to find out if " minor difference" 7 seans a fartor of five.

8 HR. SWANSON:

He gave you a guess on what was 9 done elsewhere and he told you he doesn 't know what is 10 in this Appendix.

l 11 MR. COCHRAN:

I want to find out what he means 12 when he says a " minor difference."

I don't know whether 13 minor difference to him means a factor of 100 or tec or l

14 five or none.

15 HR. SWANSON:

You can go on, but it is going 16 to be worthless.

He said he doesn't know.

17 BY MR. COCHRANs (Resuming) 18 Q

Io your knowledge, could the valu es 'used in 19 Appendix J be a factor of ten lower risk coefficient in 20 Appendix J than the one you have assumed here?

21 A

Well, you have to be careful with your

~

22 terminology.

You are talking about risk coefficients.

k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, m -mn non aw

.o, o es,..e,n. ne..,,..,e,..,y

r 26

[

1 I did not use risk coefficients.

I used risk 2 estimaters.

Risk coefficients are used to derive risk

('

3 estimaters.

A Q

Well, I will use whatever language you want to 5 use.

You define 135 potential deaths from cancer per l

6 million personrems as a risk estimater?

7 A

That is correct.

8 Q

Now could the risk estimater used in Appendix 9 J be lower than this number by a factor of ten?

10 A

I have not specifically reviewed the risk 11 estf s in this Appendix J.

'12 Q

Would you co.nsider a factor of ten a minor s.~- a

) (_

13 diffErsace?

~

b-14 ~~[~

A It depends upon a number of factors.

15 Q

Well, overall, in terms of --

A Okay.

For example, in the accident assessment 16

-s i

l 17 in WASH-1400 they do take into account other factors.

18 They take into account dose rate factors, which is in l

19 addition to the risk estima ter.

So if you zero in on 20 one-parameter, you have got to look at many things.

21 Q

What do you mean they "take into account dose s 22 rate factors" in W ASH-1400?

How. do they take into i

'N ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, e an aw wnowrwav e ae m age m ecoaaoa

O 27 f

1 account dose r.ca fac.7rs in WASH-1400 for the cancer 2 risk estimater?

3 A

They use a dose reduction f actor in estinating 4 the doses, and it's either the estimating'the doses or 5 in estimating the risk from the radiation in WASH-1400.

6 Q

And what is that factor?

7 A

It varies d6pending upon the dose rate.

8 Q

Is that the appropriate factor to apply in

~

9 calcula ting the accident risk?

10 A

Is what an appropriate factor?

11 Q

Ihe dose reduction factor that you referred to 12 that is used in WASH-1400 to account for dose rate 13 considerations.

14 A

Well, the concept of dose reduction factors 15 has been discussed in NCEP report nur.ber 64, and they 16 recommend the use of dose reduction factors, so the 17 concept is certainly appropriate.

That is why earlier I 18 said that the risk estimaters that we used in Chapter 19 5.7 of the d raf t supplements are conservative.

We do 20 not take into account dose reduction f actors.

21 Q

Are the dose estimaters used in Appendix J 22 conservative?

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

28

?

1 A

As I just said a number of times, Appendix 2 J -- I have not specifically read this Appendix J.

('

3 0

Who is responsible for supplying the dose 4 risk -- the risk estimaters, cancer risk estimaters that 5 were used in Appendix J7 6

A Well, I guess it would be the person who wrote 7 A,ppendix J did that analysis.

8 0

Are you responsible for the dose calculations 9 for other than Appendix J7 10 A

The calculated doses from fuel fabrication 11 facility, which was in Appendix D, from the fuel 12. rep ro cessin g plant, which is in Appendix D, and f rom the 13 reactor, which is in Appendix -- excuse me, Chapter 5.7.

s 14 Q

How about from decommissioning?

15 A

Decommissioning -- I did not calculate the 16 doses from decommissioning.

17 Q

Who did?

18 A

Frankly, I think we are getting into an area 19 here where the project manager would be better able to 20 answer.

Just perchance I happen to know.

Well, I'm not 21 aven quite sure who did that.

That would be more a 22 question for the project manager to answer.

(<

ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

o e

a

~.

29 f

1 Q

If you were assigned the task of calculating 2 the risks associated with decommissioning of a reactor 3 for which there are vario'us alternatives, what ' cancer 4 risk coefficient would you use?

5 A

The cancer risk coefficients that were used in 8 evaluating the doses from decommissioning vere the same 7 values that I used in Chapter 5.7.

I supplied those.

8 Q

And you would apply those.

Is it fair to say

~

9 that you believe -- well, first of all, are you familiar i

to with tha various ways one can decommission a nuclear 11 reactor -- entombzent and dismantling and so forth?

12 A

I'm generally f amiliar with it, but I am not 13 En expert in this tres.

e 14 Q

Are you familiar with the fact that some of 15 these involve allowing the plant to sort of be managed 18 for 150 years or so prior to dismantlement?

17 A

I'm generally familiar with that, but I would 18 refer to the -- I would give deference to the specific 19 Staff member who did those analyses.

1 l

20 Q

And if you were requested to calculate or work 1

l 21 on the team that calculated the dosages associated with' l

22 d ec ommissioning a plant which is entombed for 130 years t

(-

v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.

....o.

..............-...--....,v_._.

30 f

1 or 150 years, what risk coefficient would you use?

2 A

I did not -- I was not involved in calculating

(-

3 the doses.

4 0

I understand.

Ihis is a hypothetical 5 question.

If you were ass'igned the task of estimating 6 the health effects associated with decommissioning a 7 reactor by.this particular methodology whereby the 8 reacto. is entombed for 130 to 150 years and then 9 dissat.tled, what risk coefficient would you use?

10 A

I would use the ones that we have used in the 11 environmental impact statement.

12 Q

So you would use the 135 cadeer deaths per 13 million manren, calculate the dose to the people tha t 14 are decommissioning the reactor and then estimate the 15 number of deaths, is that correct?

16 A

I would use the estimater that we usen in the 17 draft supplement to estimate the potential cancer 18 f atalities f rom a decommissioning.

19 Q

And if you multiply that by the estimated 20 dosages in 150 years from now when you dismantle th e

~

21 reactor, is that correct?

22 A

I think that would give you an assessment of f(.

ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l

.m m.

.m..... _ _ _....................

~.

l 31

(

1 the impact..

2 Q

Is that, do you think, a better way to

(

3 estimate the health effects in 150 years?

4-A Pardon?

5 Q

Can you think of a more appropriate way to 6 estimate the health. effects associated with 7 decommissioning in 150 years?

8 A

There are other ways to do it.

I would do it 9 the way I just explained it.

10 (Counsel for NBDC conferring.)

11 ER. CDCHRANa That's all.

12 (Whereupon, at 3:55 o' clock p.m.,

the taking 13 of the instant deposition ceased.)

14 15 EDWARD BRANAGAN 16 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day 1982.

17 of 18 NOTARY PUBLIC 19 20 Hy commission expires 21 22 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,'NC, p sagamo.ove _ c w wamur.tnu _ n e onnea tenes au.sm

J

% ~.

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2

I, RAYMOND R. HERR III the officer before 3

whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that 4

the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition g

5 was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was E

6 taken by me by stenotype to the best of my ability and thereafter R

E 7

reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said depositiori X[

8 is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that d

9 I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of i

Cg 10

-the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; E

g 11 and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney is y

12 or coursel employed by the parties thereto, nor fimncially or

=l 13 otharwise interested in the outcome of the action.

i E

14 L

15 PN 5

Notary'Public in and for 5

& %h 4 r%M M

17 fail b

18 My Commission expires [viu

(, / 9 8(

5 19 8n l

20 21 l

23 24 l

l#%4TFa 00mCCURDIPNCP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LKETED

'MNRC 12 GH 29 P2':46

)

trrirr y SELRElARY In the Matter of

)

nocAlinG & SERVICE

)

BRANCH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery or first-class mail to the following:

      • Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 (2 copies)

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923

      • Mr.

Gustave A. Linenberger

' Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

        • Daniel Swanson, Esquire
        • Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 (2 copies)

,

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

  • Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 (3 copies)

William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Pearigen, Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies)

W., Suite 600 Washington, D. C.

20006 (2 copies)

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, M. W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C.

20006

~ Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esq.

Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge Menicipal Building P. O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S. W.

Room 6-B-256, Forrestal Building Washington, D. C.

20585 (2 copies)

    • Eldon V. C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N. W.,

Suite 805 Washington, D. C.

20036 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 MM A: -

Georg W. Edgar y Atto M y for Project Management Corporation DATED:

October 29, 1982

  • /

Denotes hand delivery to 1717 "H" Street, N.W.,

Washington, D. C.

  • 1/ Denotes hand delivery to indicated address.
      • / Denotes hand delivery to 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Md.
        • / Denotes hand delivery to 7735 Old Georgetown Road (Maryland National Bank Building), Bethesda, Maryland l

l

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065U032&oldid=4434946"