ML20070R072
| ML20070R072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1983 |
| From: | Cohen B CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., PITTSBURGH, UNIV. OF, PITTSBURGH, PA, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301270271 | |
| Download: ML20070R072 (46) | |
Text
--
q
[j(70 M/26 pyg 60
' UNITED STATES OF AMEEICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,.;x:
n..
ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD'"#fif~
hl
.Before Administrative. Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.--Shon Dr. Oscar.H. Paris
)
'Insthe Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
NEW YORK, INC.
)
50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP
~
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE-OF
)
~)
January 24, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
LICENSEES' TESTIMONY.
OF BERNARD L.
COHEN ON COMMISSION QUESTION 1 ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F.
Colarulli Brent L.
Brandenburg Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
L CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED i
OF NEW YORK, INC.
1899 L. Street, N.W.
I 4 Irving Place Washington, D.C.
20036 New York, New York 10003 (202) 466-7000 (212) 460-4600 l
l-i i
l
"~~
P301270271 830124 PDR ADOCK 05000247 T
PDR as03
~
't ih TABLE OF CONTEtiTS I.
Introduction.......................................
1 II.
A Catalog of Risks.................................
4 Table 1............................................
5 Figure 1...........................................
6 III. Risks of Nuclear Energy - In ' Perspective..........
11 IV. ' Acceptability of Risks Posed by Indian Point....... 14 V.
Spending Money to Reduce Risk.....................
16 VI.
Conclusions.......................................
25 Table 2...........................................
27 Appendix..........................................
28 R e f e r e n c e s........................................
31 f
I i
l i
i l
I L
r
. TESTIMONY ON RISK IN PERSPECTIVE I.
Introduction My name dls Bernard L.
Cohen.
I am a professor of phy-sics at the University of Pittsburgh, and have done research in the areas of nuclear physics as well as societal risks and risk aversion.
A statement of my professional qualifi-cations is attached.
This testimony addresses Commission Question 1 in this proceeding which asks:
-What risk may be posed by serious acci-dents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered.in' the plants' design basis, pending and after any improvements described in [ Commission Questions] (2) and (4)
.?
Thus, a principal objective of this proceeding is to deter-mine the level'of risk posed by the continued operation of Indian Point. - The licensees are simultaneously prese.nting testimony quantifying the risk using probabilistic risk assessment tools.
The meaning of the numbers used to express risk probabilistically can be difficult for some people to understand.
The purpose of my testimony is to provide a frame of reference for the estimates of risk posed
~
by. Indian Point, as well as to assess the reasonableness, desirability and necessity of pursuing certain further efforts to reduce the already low risk of Indian Point as determined in companion testimony.
4
--r.
m 1
a-m
4.
Onelof the major reasons.for public misunderstanding of the risk of Indian Point and-other nuclear power plants is
+
that the great majority of people do not understand-and quantify'the risks we face.
Most of us think and act as though life should be largely free of risk. -We view taking risks as foolhardy, irrational, and assiduously to be avoided.
Training children to avoid risk is an all-impor-tant duty of parenthood.
Risks imposed on us by others are
- generally' considered to be entirely unacceptable.
Unfortunately, everything we do involves risk (Ref. 1).
Therefare dangers ia every type of travel, but there are dangers in staying home -- 40 percent of all fatal accidents occur there (Ref. 2).
There are dangers in eating -- food
- is probably the most important cause of cancer and of sev-eral other diseases -- but most people eat more than neces-s a ry. - There are dangers in breathing -- air pollution pro-bably kills many, tens of thousands of Americans each year, and many diseases are contracted by inhaling germs -- but hardly-anyone uses filters'to avoid them.
There are dangers in working -- 12,000 Americans are killed each year in job-l related accidents (Ref. 2), and probably 10 times that num-t ber die from' job-related illnesses (Ref. 3) -- bu t mos t alternatives to working are even more dangerous.
There are i;
dangers in exercising and dangers in not getting enough exercise.
Risk is an unavoidable part of our everyday lives.
l
3 :
-This does not mecn-that we should not try to minimize-
~
Eour risks.. We cannot minimize our risks.by. simply avoiding _
those we. happen to think about.- For example, if one thinks about the risk.of airplane travel, _one might decide to go by automobile instead -- an alternative whicil would be many
. times more dangerous.. The'legical procedure for minimizing risks.is toLquantify all risks'and then choose those which are smaller'in preference to those which are larger.
The
- main obje'ct_of this testimony is to provide a framework for
-that process and to apply it to nuclear power risks.
~
There are many ways of expressing quantified risk, but here I will use just one:
the lossoof life expectancy (LLE), i e.,
the average amount by which one's life is j
shortened by the risk under consideration.
For example, statistics indicate (Ref. 4) that an average 40-year-old will live 'another 34.8 years, so if he takes a risk having a ll' percent ' chance of immediate f atality (and a 99 percent chance of'doing no harm), it causes an LLE of.348 years.1 The Aethods for calculating LLE are discussed in the Appen-dix. ~Of course, most risks are with us:to varying extents
.at all ages, and the effects of these risks must be added up over a lifetime, which makes the calculations somewhat com-plex.
A_ computer program was developed to perform the cal-cu'lations and to study extensively a wide variety of risks i
1.
.348 years = (.01 x-34.8) + (.99 x 0).
-4_
(Ref. 1). -Some of'the-results of this study are summarized
-in the next section, a listing of them-is given in Table 1,.
and a graphical representation is shown in Figure 1.
'II.
f( Catalog of Risks (Ref. 1)
A widely recognized risk is that of smoking cigarettes (Ref.-5)..
A person who smokes one pack per day incurs an LLE of 6.4 years if a male and 2.3 years if female; in the former ' case this figure corresponds to an LLE of 10 minutes
'for each~ cigarette smoked.
For non-inhalers the lifetime g
risk from one pack per day is 4.5 years for men and 0.6
~
years for women, while for.those who inhale deeply it is 8.6
. years for men and 4.6 years for women.
Giving up smoking reduces.these risks; after 5 years the LLE is reduced by 1/3, and af ter 10 years it is more than cut in half.
Cigar and pipe smoking-do little harm if there is no inhalation, but with inhalation the LLE is 1.4 years for pipes and 3.2 years'for cigars for men.
Another major risk over which we have some personal l
control' is being overweight. (Ref. 6) -- we lose about one i
month of life expectancyLfor each pound our weight is above average.1 For example, the LLE for 30 pounds overweight is 30 months or 2-1/2 " ears.
An assessment of the effect of 1.
Note that the average weight is not necessarily the l
optimum.
r
e Table 1.
Loss of Life Expectancies-(LLE)
(From selected sources)
Activity or risk Days LLE heart disease 2100 cigarettes (1 pack / day;. male-female average) 1600 working as'a coal miner 1100 980 cancer 900 30 lbs. overweight stroke 520 15 lbs. overweight ~
450 all accidents 435 400 Vietnam army duty
_350 living in southeastern U.S.
(SC,GA,AL,MS,LA)
. mining or construction work (due to accidents only) 320 motor vehicle accidents 200
-pneumonia, influenza 130 alcohol 130 homicide 90 occupational accidents (average) 74 small cars-(vs. standard size) 50 40 drowning 40 speed limit 55 -> o65 mph falls 39 poison + suffocation + asphyxiation 37 fire, burns-27 radiation worker, age 18-65 12 firearms 11 diet-drinks (one/ day throughout life) 2 all electric power in U.S.-(nuclear) (UCS) 1
- hurricanes, tornadoes 1
airline crashes 1
dam failures 0.5, all electric power in U.S. ( nuclear) (Govt. estimates) 0.03 spending lifetime near Indian Point 0.006 This number includes all Americans, even those who do not live near a nuclear power plant.
A e
s.4E>
a 1
~6-a
~*
+
'O
.i 6
8 3
a tare t
m g
,, ?
5
~
i A.
s,,.
g s5.,\\.
i 4
l #'g I
h f,
i c-2
!\\
~% \\'%
j
,_,lN e,
1 i
_j% \\
% 'A l
s%
r
+
.Ie
-c i
. h,
- 3 e
e
=
}
,'f 2
'!\\
,+,% \\g a
a T.
e s.
it t
t t
== w v.,
.4
%y%
)'
N, t
k i
%,W,
.I :
t
,)r.%g 1 i 1e.
4 d
l\\
4 lh
%g jt 1
i,p. * % w 1
1l
+m,%%..g.%
+
%,,A ' *%. %-
1i
%g
'j g%
.e s
~1 4.
i
over-eating shews that our weight-increases by'7 pounds for l
every 100 calorie increase in average daily food intake (Ref. 7).
That is, if an everweight person changes nothing about his eating and exercise habits except for eating one extra slice of bread and butter (100 calories) each day, he-will gain 7 pounds (gradually over a period.of about one year) and his life expectancy will be reduced by 7 months.
This works out to a 15 minute LLE for each 100 extra calor-
.ies eaten.
Any discussion of major rists.must include the tradi-tional leader, disease, (Ref. 8) which caused life expec-tancy early in this century to be 20 years less than at present.
Among individual maladies, heart disease with LLE-5.8 years, cancer with LLE-2.7 years, and stroke with LLE-
.1.1' years for men and 1.7 years for women are rated one, two, and three, respectively, followed by pneumonia and influenza with LLE-4-1/2 months, and cirrhosis of the liver and diabetes with LLEs slightly over 3 months each, the
.former occurring more in men and the latter occurring more in women by approximately 3 to 2 ratios.
The most highly publicized risks are those of being killed in accidents (Ref. 2), alt;.ough the actual danger is well below that of the risks discussed above.
The LLE from all accidents combined is 435 days (1.2 years).
Almos t '1/2 involve motor vehicles which render an LLE of 207 days,170 days while riding and 37 days as pedestrians.
Using small
r 8'-
-cars rather than standard size cars increases one's LLE by 50 days, and changing from standard size to large cars re-
~ duces it by an' equal amount.
Before the. national speed limit was reduced from 65 to 55 miles per hour, the total LLE was' 40 days higher.
on.the average, riding one mile in an automobile and crossing a street each have an LLE of 0.4 minutes, making them as dangerous as one puff on a cigarette
_ assuming 25 puffs to a cigarette), or an overweight person
(
eating 3 extra calories.
Accidental death rates vary greatly with geography (Ref. 9); they are 4 times higher-in Wyoming than in New 4
York State, the two extremes; the Northeast is generally the safest area while the Rocky Mountain region is generally the most dangerous.
We spend most of our time at home and at work, so that is where most of our non-travel-connected accidents occur (Ref. 2).
The LLE for accidents.in the home is 95 days, and for occupational accidents it is 74. days.
The latter number varies considerably from industry to industry, from about 300 days in mining, quarrying and construction to 30 days in
-ttade.
Nearly 1/2 of all workers are in manufacturing and service industries for which the LLE is 45 days.
Some showmanship activities are widely advertised as having very high accident potential, but judging from sta-tistical. experience, these dangers are exaggerated in the public-mind.
For example, (Ref. 10) professional aerialists
_9_
(tight-rope walkers, trapeze artists,_ aerial acrobats, and
'high pole balancers) receive an LLE of 5 days per year of participation, or-100 days from _ a 20-year career.
The risk is_ similar _ for automobile. and motorcycle racers of various sorts, so the' risk of accidental death in these professions is l'ess than in ordinary mining and construction work.
The most dangerous ~ profession involving thousands of'partici-pants is deep-sea diving with an LLE of 40 days per year of participation.
In addition to accidents, occupational exposure causes many diseases which af fect' a worker's life span, and in most cases these are much more important than accidents.
Coal miners _ generally live three 3 years less than the average man with the same socioeconomic status, and statistics are-similarly unfavorable for truckers, fishermen, ship workers, steel erectors, riggers, actors and musicians (perhaps due to irregular hours), policemen, and firemen.
On the other hand, there are occupational groups in which men live 1 year or more longer than average for their socioeconomic stand-ing, like postal workers, government of ficials, university professors, and gardeners.
Clearly one's choice of occupat-ion can have a large effect on one's life expectancy, ex-tending it several years.
The media have publicized the dangers of various indi-vidual substances.
Coffee is believed to cause bladder cancer, with an LLE of 6 days for regular users (Ref. 11).
1
'T.
~
,_ 10 _
e i
~
There iscsome evidence -that _ saccharin taay cause bladder -
cancert(Ref. 12); the LLE-from one diet soft drink every day
~
of"one's-: life is 2 days, but the weight gain from one extra non-diet -sof t drink ~ per day causes ian.LLE of 200 days.
Birth-control pills can cause= phlebitis;(Ref. 11) w'hich gives their users aut LLE of 5 days.
i
. Even very tiny risks 'otten receive extensive public-i ty._ ~Perhaps the best example was the' impending. fall of the orbiting Sky-Lab, which gave us an LLE of.002 seconds (Ref.
13).. The Three. Mile -Island nuclear power plant accident gave 'the -average Harrisburg area resident an LLE of 1.5 minutes-(.001 days).1 The risk of being struck.by lightning (Ref.15). gives ' us an LLE of 2'O hours.
1 i
Mass Scale (Catastrophe)-Risks one mayLthink that large catastrophes pose an-important
~
Lthreat' to us, but this is hardly the case. (Ref.15).
Hurri ^
canes and tornadoes combined.give the average American an'
[
c LLE of 1 day, aus do airline crashes.
Major fires and explo-
~ sions. ( those with 8 or more f atalities) give us an LLE of 0.7 days, and our LLE from massive chemical releases is only.
10.1-day.
The LLE from being sent to Vietnam during the war j.,
1.
- The average exposure to people in that area was 1.2 mrem-(Ref. 14).
The LLE for 1 mrem of radiation exposure is 1.2 minutes (see Appendix).
Thus, the LLE for 1.2 mrem is I:
(1.2 at 1.2)'%.1.5 minutes.
E 4
y or
- ~.,
6-r+
.,,..--...._--,-,,,...,,,_,-m.-
-,-,,r,--w-.
r,,,-,-
~ -.
was-2.0 years in the Marines, 1.1 years in the Army, 0.5 years in the Navy,' and 0.28 years in the Air Force.
Sona people say that risks which kill o:-9 person or a
- f ew people are not important, but only large catastrophes are worthy of consideration and must be avoided at all costs.
Media coverage is certainly focused upon catastro-phes or." potential" catastrophes.
Therefore, some people attribute great importance to the possibility of a reactor meltdown accident.
This argument is highly distorted.
The cancers from a hypothetical severe meltdown accident at Indian Point would increase,the cancer rate of those exposed by.02 percent whereas.the national average cancer rate is approximately 20 percent.
Testimony presented in this pro-
. ceeding by licensees demonstrates that the. risk of an acci-dent at Indian Point increasing this cancer rate is very small.
III.
Risks of Nuclear Energy -- In Perspective With the benefit of the perspective provided by quanti-l fying the risk of day-to-day life, I now. turn to Indian L
Point and other nuclear steam electric power plants and will evaluate them under the assumption that all the electricity now used in the United States were to be generated from nuclear power.
The calculations are simple and are f
- explained in the Appendix, but here I will only quote the results.
L l
-The mortality risk of living near the Indian Point plants has recently been calculated to be 1.2 x 10-8/ year.1 This is equivalent to an LLE of 0.006 days (9 minutes) from spending a lifetime in that area.2 According to the Reactor Safety (Rasmussen) Study (WASH 1400) (NUREG-75/014), the risk of nuclear reactor accidents would reduce the life expectancy for the average American by
.012 days or 18 minutes,3 whereas the estimate based upon the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS') assessed risk is 1.5 days (Ref. 16).
Because our LLE from being killed in accidents is now 435 days, it would be increased by.003 percent according to Rasmussen, or by 0.3 percent according to UCS.
If the risks of a meltdown art 20 times those given in the Rasmussen Study, the LLE is (20 x 18 minutes) =6 hours, and the LLS from accidents is increased by 0.6 per-cent.
This makes nuclear accidents thousands of times less dangerous than moving from-the Northeast to the West (where l
accident rates are much higher), an action taken in the last few decades by millions of Americans with little considerat-1.
Draft testimony to be submitted by licensees under Commission Question 5; subject to confirmation.
x 10-3.
The lifetime risk is 1.2 x 10-8/yr x 72 years = 8.6 The average victim loses about 20 years of life ex-pec so the average person loses (8.6 x 10-pancy (7300 days),
x 7300) = 0.006 days or 9 minutes.
3.
See Appendix for an explanation of the derivation of these numbers.
~.
r *-
ion?given to th'e added rish, -Yet: cuclear accidents are what
~
ia: great many.pecple are' worrying about.
Y i-If we compare these risks with 'some of those listed in
-Table 1, we see that were'a11' electricity in this country generated by nuclear. power plants, under the-assumption that meltdown r'sks are 20 times h'igher than those given by i
Rasmussen, nuclear power would present the same added health risk (UCS. estimates in brackets) as a regular smoker indulg-
-ing in 11 extra cigarette.every'9 months-[every 3 months), or as an overweight person increasing his weight by.24 ounces
[.8 ounces), or as raising the.U.S. highway speed limit from 55_ miles per hour to 55.1-[55.4] nilles per hour, and it is
- 10 0 ; times - [30 times] less of afdanger than switching from
' standard size to.small. cars.
-Indian Point 'and. nuclear power generally are being opposed because they are viewed as being too risky, but the bJst way for the parties to this. proceeding to ur.derstand a riskLis to compare it with other risks with which they are familiar.
These comparisons are also the best way for mem-bers of the general public to understand the risks of nuclear power.
The comparisons set forth in this testimony are the-all-important bottom 111ne in evaluating Commission
-Question 1 relating to the risk posed by the Indian Point oplants.
Ther.e comparisons show that the risk of' nuclear L
. 4
. power plants in general, and Indian Point in particular, is I
e
_ 14 excremely small compared to the everyday risks to which the public is exposed.
IV.~
Acceptability of Risks Posed by Indian Point
.The* purpose of the discussion presented above is to make the risks of the Indian Point nuclear power plants understandable.
Risks are best understood when compared to other risks with which we are f;.nillar.
But, what is not generally discussed is the question of whether toey are acceptable.
Acceptability includes factors other than the magnitude of risks.
For example, many people are more will!.ng to accept voluntary risks like skiing, auto racing, and mountain climbing thar. involuntary risks, and anti-nuclear activists are quick to point out that nuclear power presents an invol-untary risk to the public.
On the other hand, many other risks are involuntary, or at least have an important invol-I untary component.
In many if not most cases, a person's occupation is_ determined more by circumstances than by vol-l
[~
untary choice.
Riding in automobiles is hardly voluntary for most people, as they have no other way to get to work, I
to purchase food, and to participate in other normal activi-ties of life; evea if you avoid riding in automobiles, you ara still subject to accidents to pedestrians which account i.
for 20 percent of deaths from motor vehicle accidents.
Most L
other accidents are largely due to involuntary activit tes.
.~
.= -
.. 3-
~
Most drownings occur to children, but a parent cannot pre-
- venE?his child from going swimming without risking psycho-logical damage.
An appreciable fraction of.drownings. result from.taking ba!:hs.
Deaths from fires, burns, falls, poison-
' ings, suffocation, and. asphyxiation are also not usually due
- to ' voluntary. risk taking.
Some people are more.willing-to accept natural risks t
than man-made risks, but nearly all of the risks considered in this testimony are man-made..
Living with man-made risks
- is the price'we pay for'the benefits of civilization and, in my; opinion,- these benefits grossly outweigh the risks.
t An. appreciable number of early fatalities is expected in less than 1 percent of all meltdowns (Ref.15).
A comp-arable disaster.has already occurred from air pollution --
- j. -
an episode in London in 1952 in which there were 3500 extra deaths within a few days.
There are dam failure accidents-(Ref. 15)'which could kill 200,000 people within a few-hours,(and they are estimated-to be far more probable than a severe nuclear meltdown accident.
There are many potential causes of large loss of life anywhare. large numbers of people congregate.
A collapse of the upper tier of a sports stadium, a fire in a crowded theater,.and a poison' gas entering the ventilation system of
. a-large building (some buildings house 50,000 people) are a few examples.
The idea that a potential reactor meltdown h
._s-f*
e w
to e
wm-
,,,m+--
,.v.
,+,-sw.-
-.-y--
,., -. _,g-,
y,_
w 9,-3
.._.,,.,%m--e_,
.,m9.-.e, m
9 w
~y
f J.
I
. accident is uniquely or even unusually catastrophic is grossly erroneous.
'I-have a deeper objection to the idea that a catas-f trophic accident is more-important than a~1arger number of people. dying unnoticeably. ltn choosing betwe'en technologies
.on.the basis of health impact's, the total number of deaths should beithe. overriding consideration.
Anyone who does'not 4
agree should attempt to explain to the survivors of the victims that their loved ones had to die because people consider only_large catastrophes important.
I am certain
.that their explanation would gain little acceptance.
What risks are acceptable is not a scientific question;
.therefore, I as a scientist cannot claim expertise in this
-area.
I have merely presented the risks as they are, hope-fully in understandable terms.
If any citizen feels that the tens of: billions of dollars worth of electricity pro-
[
duced by nuclear power plants is-not worth the risk of a regular smoker smoking 1 extra cigarette every 9. months, or of an overweight person adding 1/4. ounce to his weight, or of raising-the national speed limit from 55 to 55.1 miles
[.
L
.per hour, he is entitled to that opinion.
I do not share r
Hi t.
L V.
- Spending Money to Reduce Risk (Ref. 17)
Another aspect of understanding risk is to consider L
l
_what society is doing -
or deciding not to do -- to reduce l
l..
I a
m-.
'1
-our risks.
It is unreasonable to spend a lot of money to
. reduce one risk,-such as attempting to reduce the risk at Indian Point.through the retrofitting of a filtered vented containment system (FVCS) or some other device, if we can reduce a greater risk much'more cheaply but do not.
I respectfully submit that it would be inappropriate for this Board to recommend Indian Point retrofits unlesL the cost per fatality avertei, data-(see below) available to the Board fully justifies such a course.
It may seem immoral and inhumane even to consider the monetary cost of saving lives, but the fact is that a great many of our risks can.be reduced by spending money.
A few years ago, air bags were offered as optional safety equip-ment on several types of automobiles, but they are no longer offered.because not enough people were willing to buy them.
They were proven to be effective and safe -- an esti-mated 15,000 lives per ytar would be saved and the average l.
American's life expectancy would be increased by 15 days if l
they were installed in all cars (Ref. 18).
There is no discomfort or inconvenience associated with them.
They have only one drawback -- they cost money.
Apparently Americans 1
did not feel that it was worth the money to reduce their i
risk of being killed or injured in an automobile accident.
There is a long list of other automobile safety fea-l~
tures.we can buy -- premium tires, improved lights, and rear window de-icers, to name a few.
We can spend money or fre-l quent. medical examinations, we can use only the best and most experienced doctors, we can buy elaborate fire protec-tion equipment for our homes, Sne can fly-and rent a car at our destination rather than drive on long trips, we can move to safer neighborhoods; the list is endless.
Each of these
~
alternatives also costs money.
In this section we consider how much it costs te save a life by spending money in vari-ous ways.
In some cases, when personal ef fort and time are also required, a reasonable monetary compensation will be added to the cost.
For example, obtaining a Pap smear to test for cervical cancer requires making an appointment and spending a'few minutes at the doctor's office, but most women would be willing to do equivalent chores for a payment of 5 dol-lars.
A Pap test costs about 10 dollars, so we add the 5 dollars for time and effort and arrive at a total cost of 15 dollars.
Each annual Pap test has one chance in 3,000 of saving a woman'c' life (Ref. 19) so for every 3,000 tests, costing (3000 x 15 dollars) = 45,000 dollars, a life is saved.
The_ average cost per life saved is then 45,000 dollars.
The above example is taken from a study (Ref. 17) com-pleted a few years ago in which all costs are given in 1975 dollars.
Other details of calculation are given in the Appendix, but here I will quote some of the other results of l
that study.
l
_39_
There is in fact'a' compelling reason for risk-reducing-decisionmaking to be; guided by " cost of saving lives" think-ings' society's resources are only' finite.
Because unlimited
~
~
' sums cannot be spent _on reducing risks in all areas, were we
-to' spend moneylon risk-reducing measures unwisely from the
' standpoint' of how effective they would: be, other reore needy and deserving alternatives will be-passed over.
If there were~ a smoke alarm in every home, it is esti-mated that 2,000 fewer people would die each year in-fires (Ref. 20).
Even with a generous allowance for costs of installation and maintenance, this works out to a life saved
- for' every 60,000. dollars spent, but only 20 percent of American homes'now have smoke alarms.-
lon the other hand, a great many Americans purchase
' premium tires to avert the danger of blowouts.
If everyone
'did, this would cost an aggregate of about 5 billion dollars
.per year and could; avert nearly all of the 1,800 fatalities per year which. result from blowouts, a cost of nearly 3 mi'-
c l
l lion. dollars per' life saved.
Many Americans buy larger cars than they need in order to achieve greater safety, although this decision costs approximately 6 million dollars per life 1 saved'(Ref,:17).
There are millions of Americans who purchased premium tires'with their new cars but did not order air bags, even though 'the air bags are 10 times more cost-ef fective.
The problem is that the American consumer does not calculate c
L 0>
'His actions are. governed by advertising cos t-ef f ectivenes s.
i 1 campaigns, s'alesmanship,. peer group pressures, and a host of other psychological and sociological' factors.
Measures could be taken'to in reasethe percentages of
~
women;who. receive annual 1 Pap.' smears this has been done in a.
f ew icit'ies including Louisville,- Toledo, Ostfold (Norway),
Aberdeen ~(Scotland),' and. Manchester '(England), and approxi-Emately;90. percent-participation in these cities was achieved
- by such measures as' sending personal letters of reminder or visits-by:p'ublic health nurses.-
These measures involve added. costs, but tests are cheaper when done in a large-1 scale program.(Ref. 19) -- a Mayo Clinic program conducted them for $3.50 in 'the 1960s and a British program conducted Lthem for $2 in 1970 -- so thousands of -lives could be saved each year at a~ cost below 50,000 dollars each.
There - are several other cancer-screening programs which I
could be implemented.
Fecal blood tests 1can detect cancer of the colon or rectum for as little as 10,000 dollars per
' life' saved-(Ref. 21).
Many more of these cancers could be
,~ detected 11n men aged 50.to 65 by annual' proctoscopic exam-4 inations (Ref. 22), saving a life for every 30,000 dollars
-- spent, but only one in-8 men this age now receive such exam-
~
inations.
~ Testing for high blood pressure has almost become.a fad Lin:this country, but the problem goes beyond detection..
' Treatment.is quite effective'but because the condition is t
- - -..,,, -. - - - ~
= - -
[
not.immediately~1ife threatening, many people ignore it.
A
- well-organized treatmentL program would save a life for every -
75,000? dollars invested (Ref. 23), with 1/2 of that cost compensating' patients for their inconvenience, but. such programs have'not been developed.
An especially effective approach to saving livas with medical care is the use of mobile intensive care' units I'
(MICU) (Ref. 24), well-eqcipped ambulances' carrying trained
. paramedics ready-to respond rapidly to a call for-help.
Experience in large cities has shown that MICUs save lives
_at an average cost of approximately 12,000 dollars, and l
However, for smal-consequently every: large city has them.
ler towns the cost increases, and when it reaches 30,000 dollars per life saved, the cost for a town with a popula-tion of 40,000, it is of ten considered too expensive (Ref. 2 5).
Ef fectively, it is decided that saving a life is not worth more 'than 30,000 dollars.
l To summarize these medical examples, there are several available programs which could save large numbers of lives for costs below 50,000 dollars each, and.many more for costs i'
.up to 100,000 dollars.per life saved.
These are, of course,
.American lives which may be our own.
Saving lives overseas is much cheaper.
Sending food to underdeveloped countries h
(Ref. 26) like India could effectively save one life for every 5,000 dollars-spent, and there is an immunization i
program in Indonesia which can save 300,000 lives at a cost
~w-
~
n
. Nw0
.-,w'-,,
,,,m.,
,.._,___.,..w
,7
- 2 2 --
of 30 million dollars, or 100 dollars per life saved (Ref. 27).
Health care is not our only means of spending money to save lives. - Over 35,000 Americans die inside automobiles each' year as a result of collisions, and over one million are seriously injured even though there are many ways in which this tell could be reduced by investing money in high-way or automobile safety devices.
To some extent these improvements have been made.
A number of new safety devices in automobiles were mandated by law between 1966 and 1974, and a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (Ref. 28) indicates that they have saved one ' life for every 140,000 dollars spent.
Unfortunately the program has ended.
In 1970-73 alone, 16 new safety measures in automobiles were mandated, but hardly any have been added j
since that time.
As noted previously, an air bag require-l l
ment which would cost 300,000 dollars per-life saved has not been implemented.
l There are many highway construction measures which could save lives.
For example, about-6,000 Americans die each year in collisions with guardrails, and there are guardrail construction techniques which could save most of them (Ref. 29).
The " National Highway Safety Needs Report" (Ref. 30), published in 1976, represented a federal govern-ment effort to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various highway safety measures.. It found that guardrail improve-
=
v x-
- ~ - -
.ments in selected locations could save over 300 lives per year at a cost of 34,000 dollars each.
Improvements in speed limit and hazard warning signs would save even more livescat a similar unit cost.
Other measures which would each save hundreds of lives per year at costs below 50,000 dollars per life include construction techniques to improve skid resistanae and better designed bridge rails and para-pets.
The use of standard techniques to avoid wrong way entrance onto freeways would save about 80 lives per year at that cost.
If we were willing to pay 100,000 dollars per life, we could save 680 lives per year with impact-absorbing devices at critical roadside points, and 325 lives per year by use-ing breakaway sign and lighting supports rather than rigid supports. on high-speed roadways.
It is estimated (Ref. 31) that high school courses in driver education avert approximately 6,000 fatalities per year and they cost less than 100,000 dollars per life saved, even if we include a 50 dollar payment to each student for his time and trouble.
Yet, there are recent indications that these programs are being cut to save costs.
Before leaving the area of traffic safety it should be pointed out that there are 40 serious injuries for every fatality in traffic accidents (Ref. 2), and the measures discussed would reduce the former as well as the latter.
I have erred on the high side in charging all of the costs to
24 -
lifesaving, f so the costs per -life saved are, lower than given in'the above discussion.
We have seenLthat some of our governmental agencies are forgoing _ opportunities for saving lives at costs below p
50,000 dollars, :and they are rarely willing to spend over 200,000: dollars.
But when radiation is involved, they has-E ten torspend much more.
The Environmental Protection Agency is now requiring that in cases in which the radium content i
is abnormally high in drinking water, special measures must be taken to remove a portion of it.
This measure, it esti-mates, corresponds to spending 2.5 million dollars per life s aved ( Re f. 3 2 )..
UCS/NYPIRG has suggested that a FVCS be installed at both Indian Point units.
They estimate the cost 1of such a
-device to be " tens of millions of dollars," which they acknowledge does not include research and development, down-time or_ other-related costs, and. thus is an understatement of the true full cost.
UCS/NYPIRG Testimony of Gordon R.
LThompson and Steven C. Sholly on Commission Question Two, c
Contentions 2.l(a) and 2.1(d) at 19 (Dec. 28, 1982).
For purposes of my analysis here, I have assumed the total cost of designing and installing a FVCS at Indian Point would be 50 million dollars for each unit.
The UCS/NYPIRG witnesses
-further estimate that the reduction in cancer deaths from this device wouldlbe approximately.90.
Id. at 16.
-+
r p-
,--w,.g-r--e
- - -,, - -, - r e-
,,w m-----,
.n.--n.m
25 -
Using the above. estimates and the expected latent fatalities of-1.7 x 10-1/ reactor-year for Indian Point Unit' 2~and 3.3 x 10-2/ reactor-year for Indian Point Unit 3 as determined in the Indian Point Probabilistic ' Safety Study
( Re f. 3 3 ), I have calculated a cost per fatality averted associated with the installation of a FVCS.
For Indian Point Unit 2, the cost per f atality averted is 10.9 million dollars,- and for Indian Point Unit 3, the cost per fatality averted is 56.1 million dollars.
A summary of the costs per life saved developed here, plus others fro Ref. 17, is shown in Table 2.
- Clearly, there are enormous wastes of money and of lives resulting-from the illogical inconsistency in our spending for life-saving.
Thousands of Americans die needlessly each year for-lack of money spent on medical programs and traffic safety, while the money which could save them is spent to save a single life-from radiction hazards.
VI.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing, I have shown that the risk from nuclear power, specifically Indian Point, is small compared to the everyday risks with which people are
-faced.
I have also shown that many more lives could be saved by taking the. money which would be spent on nuclear power plant modifications such as proposed by UCS/NYPIRG to this Licensing Board and using it to upgrade other areas,
I 26 -
1
-such as traffic safety ~and medical care, when the'same
~
expenditures would unquestionably. result in:a much greater saving of. American lives.=
i M
4 i.
i
,1 '
j t
}
4 1
i-
[
{.
F
- g -
r
,--e
,r------
.r=
,-rw-,
__-__,--,m
-r-
x Table'2.' Cost per fatality averted (1975 dollars)' implied by various societal activities (Ref.17)
S per fatality
~
Item avei;ted Further medical screening and care for Cervical cancer 25,000 Breast cancer 80,000 Lung cancer 70,000 Colorectal cancer Fecal blood tests 10,000 Proctosccpy.
30,000 Multiple' screening.
26,000 i
Hypertension control-75,000 Kidney dialysis 200,000 Mobile intensive care units 30,000 f9 Traffic safety Auto safety equipment - 1966-70 130,000 Steering mluren improvement 100,000
' Air bags (driver only) 320,000 Tire. inspection.
400,000 Rescue heliocpters 65,000 Passive 3-point harness 250,000 i
Passive. torso belt-knee bar -
110,000 Driver education -
90,000 Highway construc.-maint. practice 20,000 Regulatory and warning signs 34,000
~
. Guardrail improvements 34,000 Skid resistance-42,000 Bridge rails and parapets.
46,000 Wrong way entry avoidance 50,000 Inpact absorbing roadside dev.
108,000 Breakaway. sign, lighting posts 116,000 l
Median barrier iny w...-nt 228,000 Clear roadside recovery area' 284,000.
i
.M scellaneous non-radiation:
further expenditures for Innunization in Indonesia -
100 Food for overseas relief 5300 l-Smoke alarms ~ in hcmes 60,000 Higher pay for risky jobs 260,000 L
. Coal mine safety.
22,000,000 Other mine safety 34,000,000
' -Coke ftse standards 4,500,000 D
Air Force pilot safety 2,000,000-l7 Civili;m aircraft (France) 1,200,000 I~
Radiation-related activities-L
-Efforts to reduce radium in drinking water 2,500,000 l
Inproved medical X-ray equipnent' 3600 l.'
ICRP reconnendations. (Ref. 34) 320,000
-Better radwaste practics g=wral 10,000,000
'EVCS (at IP-2) 10,900,000 ENCS (at IP-3) -
56,100,000
- - Append x For those percons who are interested, I demonstrate here how to calculate some of the results quoted in this testimony.
First, calculate the LLE from. reactor accidents accord-
.ing to the Rasmussen Study (Ref. 9), which esticates one meltdown per 20,000 reactor-years of operation, and an aver-age of 400 fatalities per meltdown.
If all United States electricity were derived from nuclear power plants, approxi-mately 250 such plants would be required and we would have 250 reactor-years of operation each year.
We would expect an average of one meltdown every (20,000/250) = 80 years.
The average fatality rate is then (400/80) = 5 per year.
If the U.S. were to maintain its present population for a long
- time there would be,a total of approximately 3 million deaths from all causes each year, and (5/3 million) = 1.7 of every million deaths would be due to nuclear accidents.
Victims of nuclear accidents lose an average of 20 years of life ' expectancy (cancers from radiation usually develop 15 i
L to 50 years after exposure), giving the average American an LLE = 1.7 x.10-6 x 20 = 34 x 10-6 years; multiplying this by 365 days /yr x 24 hrs / day x 60 minutes / hour gives LLE = 18 minutes as quoted. previously for the Rasmussen Study.
The UCS estimates (Ref. 16) are one meltdown every 2000 reactor-years, with an average of 5000 deaths per melt-i down.
These numbers are 10 and 12.5 times higher, respec-l tively, than the Rasmussen estimates, so the LLE is larger by a f actor of 10 x 12.5 = 125.
Multiplying this number by 18 minutes yields 2250 minutes or 1.5 days.
Alternatively, one could perform the entire. calculation explained in the previous paragraph.
For major risks such as disease, smoking, and motor L
vehicle accidents, a " life' table" calculation must be per-formed.
(A computer program prepared for that purpose was used in all calculations from Ref. l.)
The correct way to calculate life expectancy is to devise a table with one line for each year of age.
Starting with a cohort of 1000 people at age 0, and introducing the average risk of death between age 0 and 1, the number dying in that age range and the number surviving to age 1 is calculated.
From the risk of death between eges 1 and_2, the number of these dying in that age range and the number surviving to age 2' is calcu-lated.
This procedure.is fellowed for all ages until all of the cohort has died.
The number dying at each age is multi-plied by the number of years lived (e,.3,.,
those dying be-tween ages 35 and 36 are construed as having lived 35.5 years), and the results are added to yield the total number of years lived by the original cohort of 1000 people.
Their life expectancy is this total divided by 1000.
To calculate the LLEufrom cancer, for example, the risk of death from cancer at each age is subtracted from the total risk of death at that age, and the above life table
calculation is repeated with these decreased risks.
This yields a' life expectancy if there were no deaths frota can-cer.
The difference between this result and the previous one is the LLE from cancer.
The comparisons of rioks are based upon the ratio of LLE._
For example, if one. pound of added weight.gives an overweight person an LLE of 30 days while the UCS estimate gives an LLE from reactor accidents of 1.5 days, gaining one pound is 30 t 1.5 = 20 times more dangerous, er gaining 1/20 of one pound must be equally dangerous.
Multiplying by 16
. ounces per pound gives 0.8 ounces as the weight gain result-ing in an equivalent risk.
As an example of calculating the cost per life saved, consider the use of. air bags.
According to Allstate Insur-ance Co. (Ref. 18) an air bag reduces the drivers' mortality rate.by 1.4 deaths per hundred million miles driven.
A car driven 50,000 miles has a probability of saving a life of 1.4 x (50,000/100,000,000) = 1/1500, one chance in 1500.
i This air bag would cost approximately 200 dollars, so the cost per life sa red is 200 dollars divided by 1/1500, oc l
300,000 dollars.
For every 1500 cars equipped with an air bag, an average of one life would be saved; the cost would then be 1500 x 200 dollars = 300,000 dollars to save one life.
I I
l L.
.. 1 I
REFERENCES 1.
.B.L.-Cohen and.I.S. Lee,:A. Catalog of. Risks, Health Physics 36, 707 (1979).
2.-
National Safety council, " Accident Facts," Chicago, IL i
-(published annually).
3.
B.L. Cohen, Perspective oon Occupational Mortality Risks, Health Physics -40, 703 (1981).
- 4.
U.G. BureauL of Census, Vital Statistics of the Udited l
States (published annually).
5.
H.A.'Kahn, "The Dorn Study of Smoking and Mortality Among U.S. Veterans," in National Cancer Institute Monograph 19 (Edited by W. Haeaszel), U.S. Department of Health, Education and. Welfare (1966).
b F,.C.
Hammond, " Smoking in Relation to the Death Rates i'
of one Million Men and Women," in National Cancer Institute Monograpn 19 (Edited by W. Haenszel), U.S.
J Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1966).
PHS (U.S. Public Health Service), "The Health Consequences of Smoking -- A Public Health Service Review -- 1967" (1967).
g Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, " Statistical
- 6..
- Bulletin," Society of Actuaries, Build and Blood Pressure. Study (1959).
-7.
.B.L.c Cohen, Body Weight 'ais an-Application of Energy Conservation, Am. Jour. Phys. 45, 867 (1977).
8.
U.S. Bureau of Census', " Statistical Abstract of the-4 1
United States -- 1975"-(1975).
2.
NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics), " State Life Tables, 1969-71," DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 75-1151-(1975).
10.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, " Statistical Bulletin," Hazardous Occupations and Avocations (Mar.
1974).
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, " Statistical
- Bulletin," Fatalities in Motor Vehicle-Racing (Dec.
1976).
---4 m
11.
NSF (National Science Foundation) Science and Technology Policy Office Report, " Chemicals and Health" (1973).
12.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), in 42 Federal Register 20,001 ( Apr.15,1977); also press release.
13.
Unpublished calculations by author.
14.
Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Special Inquiry Group, M.
Rogovin (Director), "Three Mile Island: A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public" (1980).
15.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014 (1975).
16.
. Union of Concerned Scientists, "The Risks of Nuclear
. Power' Reactors," H.W. Kendall (Director) Cambridge, MA (1977).
17.
B.L. Cohen, Society's Valuation of Life Saving in Radiation Protection and Other Contexts, Health Physics 28, 33 (1980).
18.
A.R. 'Karr, " Saga of the Air Bag," The Wall Street
~ Journal, Reprinted.in Insurance Inst. for Highway Safety, Status Report 11, 18 (Nov. 30, 1976).
L.M. Patrick, " Passive and Active Restraint Systems --
Performance and Benefit-Cost Comparison," Soc.
Automotive Eng. Transactions, Paper 750389 (1975).
W. Stork, "The Cost Ef fectiveness of International Vehicle Regulations," Automotive Engineering-(Mar.
1973, p.32).
19.
L.
Dickinson, " Evaluation of.the Effectiveness of l
Cytologic Screening for Cervical Cancer," Mayo Clinic Proc. 47, 550 (Aug. 1972).
J.B. Thorn, J.E.
Macgregor, E.M.
Russell, and K.
Swanson, " Costs of Detecting and Treating Cancer of the Uterine Cervix in North East Scotland in 1971," Lancet (Mar. 2 2, 1975, p.674 ).
R.J. Walton, " Cervical Cancer Screening Programs:
The Walton Report," Canadian ~ Med. Assn. Jr. 114, No. 11, (June 5, 1976).
R.N. Grosse, " Cost-Benefit Analysks of Health Service,"
Ann. Am. Acad. 399, 89 (1972).
l1
4 y
k JEC (Joint Economic Committee), U.S.. Congress, "The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditure:
The P.'B System"-(1969).
S.E.
Rhoads, "How Much Should We Spend to Save Lives?,"
The Public Interest (Spring 1978, p.74 ).
- 2 0..
J.P. Ruchinskas, "rivate' communications giving
_ generally accepted value,' General Electric Co.,
Housewares Div. Bridgeport, CT (1978).
21.
M. Kristein, "EconoLic Issues in Prevention," Prev.
Med. 6, 252 (1977).
2 2. -
R.J. Bdit, " Sigmoidoscopy in Detection and Diagnosis of the Asymptomatic. Individual," Cancer 28, 121 (1971).
V.A. Gilbertson, " Proctosigmoidoscopy and Polypectomy in Reducing the Incidence of Rectal Cancer," Cancer 34, No. 3 Supplement, p.936 (1974).
R.N. Grosse, " Cost-Benefit Analysis of Health Service,"
Ann. Am; Acad. 399, 89 (1972).
23.
J. Stamler, R.
Stamler, W. F.
Riedlinger, G. Algera, and R.H.-Roberts, " Hypertension Screening of One Million Americans," J. AMA 235, 2299 (1976).
J.
Stokes and D.C. Carmichael, "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Modern Hypertension Control," National Heart and Lung Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (1975).
24.
R. Zeckhauser and D.
Shepard, "Where Now for Saving
, Lives," Law and _ Contemporary Problems 40, No. 5, p.5
-(1976).
f J.P. Acton, " Evaluating Public Programs to Save Lives:
The Case of Heart Attacks," Rand Corp.-Report R-950-RC, l
Los Angeles, CA (1973).
- 25.
J..Riordan, Private. communication, Health Services Adm., Washington, DC (1979).
- 26. ' B. Ward, Paper presented at UNICEF New World Food Conference, Rome (1974).
I.
- E. Egan, Private communication, Catholic Relief Services, New York (1977).
See also Ref. 17.
.27.
H.N.
Barnum, "An Economic Analysis of an Expanded Program of Immunization in Indonesia," U.
of Michigan Report (1978).
28.
General Accounting Of fice,
" Effectiveness, Benefits and Costs of. Federal Safety Standards for Protection of Passenger Car Occupants," Washington, DC (1976).
29.
J.W. Sparks, " Development of an Ef fective Highway Safety Program," Traf fic Engineering (Jan.1977, p.3 0).
30.
U.S. Department of Transportation, "The National Highway Safety Needs Report" (1976).
31.
R.C. Schwing, " Expenditures to Reduce Mortality Risk and Increase Longevity," General Motors Research Laboratory Report GMR-2353-A (1978).
32.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Report EPA-570/9-76-00, Washington, DC (197').
33.
Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study (Mar.1982).
34.
ICRP (International Council on Radiation Protection),
" Implications of Commission Recommendations That-Doses Be As Low As Reasonably Achievable," Publication No. 22 (1973).
.~
Resume < Bernard L. Cohen r
Birth: Pittsburgh, PA-
- June 4,1924 ~
1 Education: 'B.S., Case-Western Reserve Univ.,
1944 M.S., University of Pittsburgh. - 1947
(-
D.Sc... Carnegie-Mellon Univ., - 1950 L.
' Employment: '
Permanent positions-
'1950-58: Oak Ridge National Laboratory-
- Group Leader for" Cyclotron Research 1958 - present: University.of Pittsburgh
- Professor, of Physics
- Adjunct Prof. of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
- Director, Scaife Nuclear Laboratory (1965-78)
Temporary positions (1-9 months)
-1959-60 General Atomic Co., La Jolla, CA
~1962
' Institute for Defense Analysis,-Washington, DC 1965 Brookhaven National Laboratory 1969-Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1971-Stanford University
~
1974-75 Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, Tennessee s
+
1975-Electric Power. Research Institete, Palo Alto, CA i
1978-79 ;Argonne National Laboratory Offices -l Awards:-
j Chairman, Am. Physical Society Div. of Nuclear Physics, 1974-75 Chairman,. Am. ' Nuclear Society Div. of Environmental Sciences, 1980-81 Landauer Award (Health Physics) - 1980
.Am.. Physical Society Bonner Prize.- 1981
-Books"suihored:
. Heart 'of:the ' Atom, Doubleday '(1967)
- Concepts of Nuclear Physics, McGrcw-Hill (1971)
Nuciaar Science and Society, Doubleday (1974) a
- Publications':
about 200 articles in Scientific journals about.30 articles in other journals about 120 invited papers at Scientific meetings about 300. invited visiting lectures at Universities, laboratories, etc.
'Research Areas:
' Nuclear physics Health effects of radiation
- Environmental: impacts of energy production Societal-risks and risk aversion
~
s 4
O 9
--wwN-
,-e m
e w-gr.
e
-'.-r-'--
g -
Pe i--
w
-w
-r T
g
Recent Publications - B. L. Cohen Impacts of the Nuclear Energy Industry on Human Health and Safety, B.L.
. Cohen The American Scientist. Sept.-Oct.1976, p. 550.
Conclusions of the BEIR and UNSCEAR Reports on Radiation Effects per Han-rem, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 30, 351 (1976).
Search for the Double-Direct (p.2p) Reaction-at 17 MeV, L.Shabason, B.L.
Cohen, and T. Congedo, Phys. Rev. C15, 260 (1977).
Compound Nucleus (a,p) and (p,p') Reactions on Odd-A Nuclei in the Ni Region, K.C. Chan, L. Shabason, B.L. Cohen, J. Alzona and T. Congedo, Phys. Rev. C15,1698 (1977).
High Level Waste from Light Water Reactors, B.L. Cohen, Rev. Mod. Phys.
4_9_, 1 (1977).
Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 32,359(1977).
Body Weight as an Application of Energy Conservation, B.L. Cohen, Am.
Jour. Physics 45, 867 (1977).
Methods for Calculating Population Dose from \\tmospheric Dispersion of Radioactivity, B.L. Cohen, H. N. Jow, and I.S. Lee, Health Physics 34, 569 (1978).
Profiling Hydrogen in Materials Using Ion Beams, J.F. Ziegier + 19 authors including B.L. Cohen, Nucl. Instr. Meth. 149, 19 (1978).
A Generic Hazard Evaluation of Low Level Waste Burial Grounds, B.L. Cohen and H.N. Jow, Nuclear Technology, 41, 381 (1978).
The Relative Risks of Saccharin and Calorie Ingestion, B.L. Cohen, Science 199,,983(1978); Nature 271, 492 (1978).
Cross Sections, B.L. Cohen in " Handbook of Radiation Measurement and Pro-tection", A. Brodsk; (Ed.), Chem. Rubber Co. (1978).
Health Risks of Nuclear Power, B.L. Cohen, The Physics Teacher, Ncy. 1978,
- p. 526.
Laws of Statistics Ignored by Statisticians, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 35, 582 (1978).
Indoor-Outdoor Relationshy for Air Particulate of Outdoor Origin, J.
Alzor.a. B.L. Cohen H. Rudolph, H.N. Jow, and J.O. Frohliger, Atmosph.
Env.13,1, 55 (1979).
The BEIR Report Relative Risk and Absolute Risk Models for Estimating Effects of Low Level Radiation, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 37, 509 (1979).
~
. Kecent publications - B.L. Cohen (cont'd) and I.S. Lee, A Catalog of Risks, B.L. CohengHealth Physics 36, 707 (1979).
Radon: Characteristics, Natural Occurrence, Technological Enhancement, and Health Effects, Progress in Nuclear Energy 4, 1 (1979).
Methods for Predicting the Effectiveness of Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, B.L. Cohen, Nucl. Instr. Meth. 164, 595 (1979).
Radioactive Waste Disposal, B.L. Cohen, in " Handbook of Radiation Measure-ment and Protection", A. Erodsky (Ed.), Chem Rubber Co. (in print) 1952.
Tests of the Linearity Assumption in the Dose-Effect Relationship for Radiation-Induced Cancer, A.F. Cohen and B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 38, 53 (1980).
. Protection from Being InJoors Against Inhalation of Suspended Particulate of Outdoor Origin, Atmosph. Environment 14, 1,83 (1980).
The Low Level Radiation Link to Cancer of the Pancreas, Health Physics 38, 712 (1980).
Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste, Nuclear Technology 47, 163 (1980).
Society's Valuation of Life Saving in Radiation Protection and other Contexts, Health Physic 1; 38, 33 (1980).
Occupational Risks of Radiation Workers, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics (L),
39, 121 (1980).
Final State Interaction in (3He,2He) Reactions, T.V. Congedo, I.S. Lee-Fan, and B.L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. C2_2,, 985 (1980).
2 Compound Nucleus Contribution and Even-Odd Effect for (3He,p) Reactions in the Nickel Region, I.S. Lee, B.L. Cohen, and T. Congedo, Nuclear Physics A344, 409 (1980).
Analysis, Critique, and Re-evaluation of High Level Waste Water Intrusion Scenario Studies B.L. Cohen Nuclear Technology 48, 63 (1980).
The Cancer Risk from Low Level Radiation, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 39, 659 (1980).
Health Effects of Radon from Insulation of Buildings, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 39, 937 (1980).
The Role of Radon in Comparisons of Environmental Effects of Nuclear Energy, Coal Burning, and Phosphate Mining, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 40, 19 (1981).
Perspective on Occupational Mortality Risks, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics
'40, 703 (1981).
Recent publications - B.L. Cohen (cont'd)
Radon Daughter Exposure to Uranium Miners, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 42, 449 (1982).
Plutonium Containment, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 40, 76 (1981).
Proposals on Use of the BEIR-III Report in Environmental Assessments,
.B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 41, 769 (1981).
Effects of ICRP-30 and BEIR-III on Hazard Estimates for High Level Radio-active Waste, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 42, 133 (1982).
Long Term Waste Problems from Electricity Production, Science (submitted).
Health Effects of Radon from Coal Burning, Healch Physics 42, 725 (1982).
Failures and Critique of the BEIR-III Lung Cancer Risk Estimates, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 42, 267 (1982).
Breeder Reactors - A Renewable Energy Source, B.L. Cohen, Am. Jour. Phys.
(inprint).
Physics of the Nuclear Reactor Meltdown Accident, B.L. Cohen, Nuclear Science
& Eng. 80, 47 (1982).
Health Effects of Radon Emissions from Uranium Mill Tailings, B.L. Cohen, Health Physics 42, 695 (1982).
Limitations and Problems in Deriving Risk Estimates for' Low-level Radiation Exposure, Yale Jour. Biol. & Med. $4, 329 (1981).
Long Tenn Consequences of the Linear-No Threshold Dose-Response Relationship for Chemical Carcinogens, Risk Analysis, Vol.1, No. 4 (1982.).
Applications of ICRP-30, ICRP-23, and Radioactive Waste Risk Assessment Tech-niques to Chemical Carcinogens, Health Phys. 42, 753 (1982).
Theory and P actice of Radon Monitoring by Adsorption in Charcoal, Health Physics (submitted).
Large Scintillation Cells for High Sensitivity Radon Monitoring, f{ealth Physies (submitted).
Perspective on Genetic Effects of Radiation, Health Phys. (submitted).
Discounting in Assessment of Future Radiation Effects. Health Physics (submitted).
Health Risks from Electricity Generation, Connents on Molec. Cellular Biophys.(in print).
e Articles in Popular Journals - B. L. Cohen Learning to Live with Radiation, Science Digest, April 1975, p. 61.
The Potentialities of Terrorism, Bul. Atomic Scient., June 1976, p. 34 Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Power Due to Radon Emissions, Bul. Atom.
Scient., Feb.1976, p. 61.
Some Issues in the Nuclear Power Controversy, Public Util. Fortnightly 98, 4, 31 (Aug. 31,1976).
- Storing Radioactive Waste Need Not be a Problem, Nucl. Eng. Int., Sept.1976.
Plutonium Toxicity, Nucl. Eng. Int., Nov.1976, p. 35.
Health Risks from Nuclear Waste, AFL-CIO, Viewpoint, 3rd Quarter,1976, p.10.
The Terrorist Threat, Nucl. Eng. Int., Feb.1977.
Are Nuclear Side Effects Hazardous to your Health, Family Health, Jan.1977, p.52.
The Case for the Breeder Reactor, National Review, Sept. 16,1977, p.1044.
Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Reactors, Scientific American, June 1977, p.21.
A Tale of Two Wastes,B.L. Cohen, Commentary, Nov.1978, p.63.
Weighing the Risks of Life Today, B.L. Cohen, Los Angeles Times Syndicate, (June,1978).
Cancer and Low Level Radiation, B.L. Cohen, Bul. of Atomic Scientists, Feb., 1979, p.53; follow-up letter Dec. 1979, p.56.
l Understanding a Trillion Dollar Question, B.L. Cohen, and R. Brookhiser, National Review, P.142 (Feb., 1979).
Living Can Be Hazardous to Your Health, B.L. Cohen, Catholic Digest, p.110 L
(March,1979).
l l
The Situation at West Valley, B.L. Cohen, Public Utilities Fortnightly, Sept. 27, 1979, p.26.
Far Greater Dangers than Nuclear, Jour. Am. Scient. Affil., June 1980, p.89.
Radiation Fantasies, Reason, March 1980, p.24.
l
+
Articles in Popular Journals - B.L. Cohen (cont'd)
Nuclear Energy, B.L. Cohen, Chapter in book by W.T. Hyde (in print).
How Dangerous is a Nuclear Reactor Meltdown?, B.L. Cohen, National Review, Vol. 33, p.667 (June 12,1981).
How Much Are We Willing to Spend to Save a Life, Public Utilities Fortnightly, Nov. 1981, p.22.
The Storage of Radioactive Waste, The Milisary Engineer, March 1981, p. 96.
Health Effects of Radiation, Chapter in book by Jennifer Trainer, Norton (New York) 1982.
The Risks You Run, Consumer's Research, May 1981, p.16.
Q and A on Waste, Nuclear Industry 28, p. 28 (1981).
How Dangerous is Radiation?, Ascent, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1981).
High Level Radioactive Waste, Natural Resources Journal, Oct.1981, p. 703.
Radiation Pollution ind Cancer: Comparative Risks and Proof, Cato Journal (in print).
Is Nuclear Power Too Risky?, The American Legion, Jan. 1982, p. 16.
Genetic Effects.of Radiation, Ascent, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 8 (1982).
Journalism and Nuclear Power, Commentary (submitted).
o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETYEAND LICENSING BOARD
- Before Administrative Judges:
James P..Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr.' Oscar H. Paris
)
-In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
N BL YORK, INC.
)
50-247 SP (Indian Point,. Unit No. 2)
)
50-286~SP 4
)
POWER' AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF.
)
Jan. 24, 1983 NEW YORK
)
- (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 24th day of January, 1983, I' caused a copy of Licensees' Testimony of Bernard L.~
Cohen
.on Commission Question-1 to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:
l t
i i
s -..
__,---r
e
-7am30 P.: Glongon, Chairman Charles M.~Pratt, Esq.
_ ; Administrative 'J udge Stephen L.
Baum, Esq.
Atsmic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority-of the 513 Gilmoure Drive State of New York Silver Spring, Maryland -20901 10 Columbus Circle New York,'New York 10019 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon
' Administrative' Judge Janice Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
Nuclear-Regulatory Office of the. Executive
. Commission Legal-Director
+
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Administrative Judge Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
fAtomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company
' Commission of New York, Inc.
Washington ^, D.C.
20555 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Mr. Ernest E.
Hill Administrative Judge Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
- Lawrence Livermore National William S. Jordan,-III, Esq.
- Laboratory Harmon and Weiss University-of California 1725 I. Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 P. O.
Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C.
20006
'Livermore, CA 94550 Charles A.
Scheiner,1Co-Chairperson Docketing and Service Branch Westchester People's Action LOffice of the Secretary Coalition, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 488 t-
' Washington, D.C.
.20555 White Plains, New York 10602 Joan Holt, Project Director Alan Latman, Esq.
r Indian Point Project' 44 Sunset Drive New York Public: Interest Research Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 i
Group 9 'Murray_ Street.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
New York,-New' York 10007 Steve Leipzig, Esq.
Environmental Protection Bareau Jeffrey.M. Blum, Esq.
New York State Attorney New York University Law School General's Office 423 Vanderbilt-Hall Two World Trade Center L40 WashingtonJSquare South New York, New York 10047
-New York, New-York 10012 Alfred B.
Del Bello Charles J._Maikish,.Esq.
Westchester County Executive i
Litigation Division Westchester County l
The Port-Authority of Hew York 148 Martine Avenue-
- and New Jersey-White Plains, New York 10601 One World Trade Center-New York, New York 10048 Andrew S.
Roffe, Esq.
New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248 l
t
. -,Marc L.~Parri:s, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Eric Thorsen, Esq.,
Board Panel
~
County Attorney' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County of Rockland Washington, D.C.
20555 ll.New'Hempstead Road New City,.New York 10956-
-Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel i
Phyllis Rodriguez,- Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About Indian Washington, D.C.
20555 Point IN O. Box 125 Honorable Richard L._Brodsky Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Member of-the County Legislature Westchester County Renee Schwartz, Erg.
County Office Building Paul Chessin,'Esq.
White Plains, New York 10601 Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
. Margaret Oppel, -Esq.
~
Zipporah S.
Fleisher Botein, -Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg West Branch Conservation 200 Park Avenue' Association New York,-New. York 10166 443 Buena Vista' Road New City, New York-10956
-Honorable Ruth W.
Messinger Member of-the Council of the Mayor George V.
Begany City of New York Village of Buchanan District #4 236 Tate Avenue City. Hall Buchanan, New York 10511 t
New York, New York 10007 Judith 1Kessler, Coordinator Greater New York Council Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy 300 New Hemstead Road on_ Energy ic/o Dean R.
Corren, Director New City, New York 10956 New York University:
26 Stuyvesant Street David H.
Pikus,_Esq.
New= York, New York'10003 Richard F.
Czaja, Esq.
Shea & Gould Joan Miles' 330 Madison Avenue Indian: Point Coordinator New York, New York 10017
.New York City.Audubon Society l
71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
New York, New York.10010 Johnson & George 528 Iowa Avenue Richard-M. Hartzman, Esq.
Zowa City, Iowa 52240 Lorna:Salzman Mid-Atlantic Representative Ruthanne 13. Miller, Esq.
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Atomic Safety and 208 West _13th Street Licensing Board Panel New York, New York 10011 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stanley B.
Klimberg, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
' General Counsel New York' State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany,'New York 12223 O
'Mr. Donald Dnvidoff' Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire State Plaza Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany,-New York 12237 Craig"Kaplan,_.Esq.
National Emerguncy-Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fif th Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 Michael D.
Dieoerich, Jr., Esq.
- Fi tg e rald, Lynch & Diederich 24 Central Drive Stony Point, New York 10980 Steven C.
Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1101 Washington, D.C.
20036 Spence W.
Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel Room 1349 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Staff Attorney New York Public Interest Research Group i
l 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Jonathan L.
Levine, Esq.
l P. O.
Box 280' L
New City, New York 10958 i
0 h [ n4$$d m 1
r l
Paul F.
Colarulli
/44' i.
I l..
l'