ML20081E009

Response to Util Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Ii.Veracity of All General Facts Disputed.List of Matters in Dispute on Contention II & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20081E009
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/28/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W., JOINT INTERVENORS - SHEARON HARRIS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20081E011	List: ML20081E009 ML20081E048 ML20081E064
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311010431
Download: ML20081E009 (12)

Text

~

00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC

, October 28 1983 NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION 83 OCT 31 A10:41 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f[cckT : b Glenn O. Bright WN Dr. Janes H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-b68-01

) OL Joint Intervenors ' Resnonse to Applicants ' Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention II This resnonse is filed under an extension of time annroved by Anplicants' attorney Baxtarand Staff attorney Barth, orally anneoved by Judge Bright in Jodge Kelley's absence, of 2 days.

Joint Intervenors recognize that for purposes of this nroceeding, facts we do not here refute are deemed admitted. But we emnhasize that we do not concede that Applicants' " facts" are actually true.

We here concentrate on the " General Facts", none of which appears to be accurate. We stand on our discovery rasnonses, but add the following:

As to " General Fact"("GF" hereinafter) 1, claiming that long-term somatic and genetic health effects have not been seriously underestimated, it appears to rest on Fabrikant's affidavit at pp 76-78. Fabrikant claims that Gofman's " worst case" is a 140% increase in cancers per rad (n.77).

But Gofman himself, in citing his cancer estimates vs. BEIRs (Radiation and Human Health,1981,p.3114, gives the following estimates:

8311010431 831028 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR.

Gofman's Table (p.314) of Cancer Deaths per Million Person-Rem BEIR (1979, p.342) "' relative risk"'* 177-353 BEIR (1979, p.342) " absolute risk"* 70-12h UNSCEAR (p.h14,1977) 100 Gofman 3,771

• methodologies It is very obvious from the above that Gofman's estimate for a

" population of mixed ages" (Gofman, p.314) such as would be living around the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power plant, is more than ten times the highest of the BEIR estimates. Applicants fail to refute this fact.

If the real cancer rate is more than ten times as high (ten times as many deaths result, as Gofman states, ibid. ), dhat is a " serious underestimate". Applicants' misstatements in affidavits or otherwise cannot paper over this disnuted issue of fact.

Applicants' own affidavit (Fabrikant, p.78) gives Gorman's genetic damage estimate as 3 2 to over 18 times BEIR-IIIIs estimates.

If Gofman is right, the underestimate is serious.

Gofman is not the only author to make such estimates, though we had not received documentation cited below until about a week ago.

Rosalie Berte11 (Journal of Japanese Scientists, 18 (2), p.16ff (1983),

copy appended hereto) gives age and sex-adjusted estimates of excess cancers per 10,000 nan (sic)-rem, 5.3 to 15.8 times UNScEAR(s 1977 estimates and about 2 to over 5 times BEIR-III's estimates. While Joint Intervenors believe Gofman's anproach (non-age-adjusted) reflects the cancer and other radiation-induced health effects that would be seen in a real population (which is not full of healthy l

l 25-year-olds only, but includes all ages, both sexes, and all kinds of I

i l people), this estimate also refutes Applicants' GF 1.

cancer Applicants persist (Fabrikant at 76-78) in comparing deaths ,

and genetic defects resulting from Harris to the level of such

expected in the general population, and arguing the increase isn't much.

Of course, it is to those who die or are otherwise harmed. But it is also inappropriate, as the costGbenefit balance in this case is rpt between the Harris Nuclear Plant and all other causes of cancer or (

genetic damage, but between the Harris niant's claimed electricity output, and the cancer deaths and other damage (e.g. genetic ) resulting from its operation. Applicants should be arguing that the deaths are

" worth it" to get the electricity. But in that argument, an increase of 10 or more times in the deaths (Berte11, op. cit. , ouotes Gofman 's estimates as 12 to 14 times BEIR*III's for cancer deaths), or genetic defects (up to 18 times, Der Applicants ' rendering of Gofman, see p.2 above), could tilt the balance. Applicants simply fail to address this issue.

The same Berte11 article cited above (p.2) also shows that looking at deaths 11-30 yrs.

BEIR-III limited the latency period considered,' .

af ter exnosure, only. Berte11's paper (p.1, bottom) points out that this method leaves out " leukemias, lymphomas, bone or brain cancers expected to occur prior to the 'll years af ter exnosure' cut-off.

It also fails to count those tumors which occur more than 30 years after exposure." This succinctly refutes "GF" #2, which claims that BEIR-III " correctly understood the latency periods for cancer".

The estimates of BEIR-III are clearly based on inacorrect assumntions, including no more cancers af ter 30 years, and no cancers before 11 years after radiation exposure.

Another paper by Berte11 (received last week), Radiation

! Exposure and Human Snecies Survival (Environmental Health Review 6/1981, pp43-52, points out that BEIR-I and III fail to deal with "The question of mild mutations, slow degradation of the gene nool, l

l and slow species death (associated) with increased nuclear technology" as raised by Hermann Muller (J. Am. Pub Health Assn,196h, her reference 1)

Applicants ' sunnort of " General Facts" 4,5,6 and 7 is of the "you haven't proved it enough to convince US" variety. Bo th Drs . -

Morgan (whose qualifications and record, including heading both the ICRP and the NCRP, are at least as impressive as Dr. Fabrikant's),

and Gofman believe that a supralinear hynothesis is more consistent with low-level radiation exposure's actual health effects, than is the BEIR-III analysis. See Gofman 1981, pp 334-7,372-379,380-385,467-468, 673-679, 697, and 401-402; Morgan 1978 (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 40:30-40, Sent 1978). Anplicants claim (Fabrikant affidavit at 36) that Morgan is wrong because he relies on the work of Mancuso, Stewart, Kneale and others, which they claim is " thoroughly discredited".

l l But, since a health physicist of Morgan's stature relies on some of this work (his conclusion on M*SoK is that the criticisms do not undercut the basic conclusion that low-level radiation is more dangerous than had been believed, see e.g.1978 op cit above), it is not correct to say that this work is " discredited". Rathear, the problem anpears to arise from the nuclear industry's desire to discredit its critics. Applicants' witness Fabrikant claims (p.37) that all the authorities relied on by Joint Intervenors are simply giving "the authors ' current personal interpretation of old data which have been available for years or decades", and thus are wrong.

But what BEIR*III does is the same thing, relying heavily on the A-bomb survivors and other "old data" and giving its authors' interprestations.

Applicants do not acknowledge the scientific controversy between Morgan, Gofman, Berte11 et al as a real issue, but the citations to scientific papers given above and in Joint Intervenors ' discovery responses are real issues of fact. Apolicants' affiant's opinion otherwise is just an opinion, not a f act.

. _g_

Applicants ' "GF" #8 rests on wishful thinking, i.e. that there will be found some cures for cancer and (all) genetic defects so that the long-term haalth effects of the radioactive emissions from fueling (and mining, milling, converting and fabricating fuel for)

Harris and running it will just vanish at some point. Applicants offer no facts to show that such cures will be found, beyond the amount of money spent in research on these issues. Much money could be snent on nerpetual motion machine research also, but that doesn't mean one can be found (or that if one were "found" it would be economical or affordable or workable). Likewise for future cancer and genetic research: there is no guarantee that a workable, affordable and practical cure for these problems will be found. Aunlicants admit the central fact: health effects of nuclear plants continue long af ter the nuclear plant shuts down. Their arguments don't alter this fact -- they just seek to prevent it from being looked at.

As to GF #9, Morgan observed in a review of Sternglass' work on the cancer rates near Shippingport, PA, that there wasn' t good enough data to prove the case one way or another, but that the nuclear plant was the logical source for increased radioactive material localized in that area (See Bull.At. Sci., 1978 article cited above). Recent news reports say that cancer rates near the Savannah Riber Plant ( a federal nuclear facility also claimed by its operatows to be operating safely) have soared and are among the highest l

in South Carolina; before opening of SFP, cancer rates in those same areas were among the lowest in South Carolina.

As to "GF" 10, Applicants fail to show that the NFC Translation 520 estimates would not exceed NRC's even af ter NUREG*0668's alleged errors were " corrected". Further, NUREG-0668 isn't a final document.

It has not been peer reviewed. Applicants appear to think that's OK when a document favors their position.

"GF" 11 and 13 are inaccurate as stated in the references to NRC Translation $20. NRC claims that they just use the elements ignores the fact that elements occur in valence states, which does affect their reactivity and thus their chemical uptake by living organisms. NRC's statement, vlus the Washington Post 11/11/79, if anything add credence to the contention that NRC ignored the more chemically reactive forms of radionuclides in its models.

"GF"' 12 relies on an affidavit claiming health effects will be LESS when radionuclides are transported into the lungs.

This contradicts Applicants' affidavit by Wayne Lei (re Eddleman 80, 9/1/83) at page 2 which states "'a larger dose of radiation will be received by inhalation of gaseous particulates than from any other nossible distribution pathway." Annlicants can't have it both ways. They are also silly to suggest that a radionuclide attached to a microparticulate from coal-fired nower uroduction (e.g. 0.2 microns) would increase the size of the particulate enough to measurably affect its likelihood of being brought into the lung (e.g. to the alveoli) or retained there.

"GF" 14 is a basic misreading of the contention. The omission of dose from some nuclides (which Applicants admit is done) is PART of the underestimate in NRC models. Applicants do not distrurb the basic fact that omitting nuclides from dose estimates makes those estimates less (See, e.g. LEAF study of Wisconsin radionuclides exposure, Methodologies for the Study of Low-Level Padiation, as cited in our discovery resnonses. )

l "GF" 15 is directly contradicted by nublished naners by Berte11 l

l and others as cited in our discovery to Applicants. Since it relates l

to 37B more than to Joint II, we adopt here Eddleman's Response to Summary Disposition on 37B.

I

{

"GF" 16 is simply the opinion of Aeolicants ' affiant and a number of groups like BEIR (Though some members of BEIR, like Radford, believe that BEIR underestimates). Acolicants seem to believe that no scientific controversy exists when a majority opinion is one way and a few scientists go the other. Both the Prine-winning 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine (to a scientist whose work was ridiculed when she originally published it), and the example of scientists from Copernicus and Galileo to Einstein show how illogical this is. The controversy is about facts, not just oninions, and the fact that scientists disagree shows there are genuine issues of fact.

Contrary to" Specific Facts" 20 and 21, genetic and radiation damage to workers at the niant 60es affect the oublic, both by intermarriage (via offspring) and because the workers are neonle too.

! "SF" 22 is pretty well demolished by Gofman, as shown on discovery.

"SF" 23 ignores alpha emitters and assumes that all l

Harris radiation releases will be " normal", an unsunnorted idea.

"SF" 25 is clearly false. Alpha emitters have serious health effects, the mostobvious being lung cancer from inhalation of alpha. emitters or particles to which altha emitters are attached.

"SF" 28 is irrelevant given the radiation-related comuonents of other diseases, though this is morerelevant to Eddleman 37B.

"SF" 29,30 and 31 are false or irrelevant. Chromosome damage in humans has been detected at very low radiation doses. Not every i

genetic effect has the same proportionality to dose that other genetic defects may have. SHNPP " routine" operation seems to imply no accidents of a minor nature, but actual operating nuclear nlants have such accidents often and sometimes release radiation in excess (e.g. CP&L's Brunswick plant was fined by NRC for unmonitored uncontrolled release of radiation).

"SF" 32 is contradicted by the MSK studies and Gofman's study of the Hanford radiation data, both of which have been nublished in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Of note, Gofman took the doubling dose approach in his neer-reviewed article in Health Physics on the Hanford workers. Gofman shows (Radiation and Human Health,1981, pp 36h-366) that this is equivalent to his cancer-dose methodology in his 1981 book, using a simnle conversion.

Thus, Anplicants are wrong to claim that Gofman's methodology has been discredited.

"SF"s 37 (and especially 38) are opinions, not facts. If the claims "do not serve as a basis for questioning the BEIR analyses", why did Anulicants sticulate to the admissibility of Joint Contention II? ,

"'SPs" 41-k3 are based on misreading of our discovery resnonses.

We cited snecific facts, not the overall views of various authors, as supporting our view.

"SF"' 46 is directly contradicted by Gofman, 1981 op cit, pp846-847. Gofman says the " mutational connonent" concent is wrong and also critiques the BEIR estimates on other grounds.

"SF" 47 is contradicted directly by Berte11, Environmental ,

Health Review, June 1981 (copy annended) p.43 "SF" 48 ends with a false conclusion " scientific evidence does not warrant adoption" of suoralinearity. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not an appronriate standard for conservative estinates of radiation health effects. Rather, the higher estimates suggested by the data should be used.

"SF"s 49 and 50 are judgments of Applicants and their affiants, i not facts. There is no scientific " consensus" on radiation health effects, l

l and the idea that a majority view of scientists would determine facts is silly.

_9 "SPs"51-453 again are based on misreadings of Joint Intervernors' 8

discovery.

"SF" 54 is directly contradicted by NRC Translation $20 and is nor covered by the " refutation" of NUREG-0668.

"SF" 55 is a conclusion / opinion contradicted by Gofman and Morgan, at least as to the accuracy of BEIR's consideration of alpha radiation. See our discovery resnonses.

"SP" 56 makes no sense. If the sources cited do not suonort the contention, why did Apolicants stinulate to admitting it?

"SF" 58 is wrong in that K.Z. Morgan, when on a commission of inouiry into Sternglass' allegations re Shinningrort PA, observed that the defect was that there wasn't good enough health record-keening to confirm or deny Sternglass' basic charge that the reactor was leading to radiation-induced health effects near it.

"SF" 60 is not true; some authorities (e.g. Morgan) regard Johnson's work as credible.

"SF" 61 supports 37B in that vain and suffering of victims of radiation induced diseases is not considered in Harris NEPA cost-benefit analysis, but that is Eddleman's contmention.

"SF" 62 is emuhatically false, see GF 1 above for details .

"SF" 63 is false, see Berte11, J. Japanese Sci., though it appears Aunlicants didn't know of this cite (as we didn't) when they filed their motion. Berte11 has also made such estimates.

"SF" 64 is most false, see Gofman 1981 p.31h as cited under GF 1.

"SF" 65 is incomplete: the range of underestimate given by Gofman is from a minimum of about 3x up to about 20x.

"SF" 66 is irrelevant: The health effects of Harris plant l

radiation are prouerly conpared to its alleged benefit, electridty.

"SF" 67 is just "GF" 8 restated: it's refuted above.

"SF" 71 is false in that normal operation of Harris is assumed.

l "'SF" 72 is contradicted by Auplicants' stinulation to Joint II(c)

"SF" 73 is irrelevant, except insofar as the calculational I parameters and dose conversion factors are underestimates as t explained in NRC translation 520, and to that extent it is false and misleading.

"SF" 7h is false, see e.g. "GF" 12, p.6 above.

"SF" 729 is wishful thinking, not a fact; further, under supralinearity this imbalance would lead to an increase in effects (higher effects per rem at lowen-than average dose would nore than offset lower effects per rem at higher than average dose, since the slone of the dose-resnonse curve is declining as dose increases).

"SF" 87 shows that, cohtrary to "GF" 12, there was No consideration of fly ash by Apolicants or Staff in dose estimates. Lei affidavit for Aunlicants, p.2 9/1/83 (cited above re "GF" 12) contradicts this alleged " facts": Applicants vs. Applicants, one nust be wrong.

"SF" 82 is false, see Thuillier article cited by Eddleman in opposing sunmary disposition of Eddleman 80.

"SF" 83-84 are not so,e.g. denosition on food and narticles remaining there is not taken into account.

"SF" 88 is false in its second sentence (or misleading) in that radionuclides adborbed on ash particles won't increase size significantly enough to interfere with entrance into the deen lung.

"SF" 89 is false because macrophages tend to eat these in-soluble particles in the lung (see Aranyi et al, as cited in discovery).

• NOTE: Daniel F. Read advised me 10-27 by nhone that he is seeking an extension of time until 10-31 to file Joint Intervenors' memorandum of law in resnonse to summary d isnotition on Joint II.

He stated he had tried assiduously to reach me earlier, without success.

l For Joint ntervenors, l f, & ZZt&-

Wells Eddleman i

I

. LIST OF MATTERS IN DISPUTE ON JOINT CONTENTION II In deference to my tyning speed and the press of time, I

I request the following be accented as such a list, as detailed briefly in Joint Intervenors' response to Sumnary Disposition on Joint II:

Alleged General Facts 1 thru 16 inclusive are in disnute.

Specific facts 89,88,87,8h,83,82,79,74,73,72,71,67,66,65,6h, 63 , 62 , 61, 60, 58, 56,55,5h , 53 ,52, 51, 50 ,49 , h 8 , h7 ,46 , h3 ,42 , hl , 38, 37 , 32 ,

c 31,30,29,28,25,23,22,21, and 20 are in disnute or nisleading and/or irrelevant as stated in the Resnonse to Summary Disnosition on Joint II.

The most critical disnutes are:

1. Gofnan gives estimates of cancer death risk more than 10 times those of BEIR-III, not 1.4 times (Rad & Hunan Health 1981, n.31h).

2. Both Gornan's and Berte11's estimates of cancer deaths, and Gofman's estinates of genetic health effects, due to radiation are significantly higher than those of BEIR-III, NRC or Anolicants.

3 The work of the authors cited to sunoort Joint Contention II (for admission and on discovery) is not discredited, e.g. the eninently qualified health physicist K.Z. Morgan credits supralinearity, the higher risk shown by the Mancuso-Stewart-Kneale studies, etc.

48. Anolicants improperly seek to comnare radiation-related health effects of Harris nuclear plant operation to other health effects, instead of to the OBenefit" of Harris electricity.

5. NRC models do use less reactive forms of radionuclides in figuring transfer factors.

6. Health effects from radiation associated with oneration of Harris will last for millions of pears; the 100-1000 year period considered, or the 40-year period of operation, both give less effects.

7. Applicants misread snecific facts cited on discovery (e.g. by Rossi, Padford) as statements of sunport for Joint Intervernors '

overall position. Science is a matter of f acts, not an oninion noll, t -. .. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• NUCLIAR REGULATORT COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLIKA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. )) Dockets 50-h00 Shearen Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2 and 50leh01 0.L.

CERTIFICATE 0F SEitVICE I hereby certify that copies of Joint Inteavenors] Fennonse to Summary Disposition Motion on Joint Contention II. W E Wesnonse (ditto)

SAVb&e *hirebEi "8hyQp vQ NrC1 [bydepositin the US Mail, first-c. ass postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are parked with an asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by same means.

enclosing one cony of referenced documente to the Bonnd. Stuef' own and Anplicants, and 3 conies to N9C Docketing and Service

• Judges James Kelley, 01onn Bright and Jams Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555

• George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ILuthanne G. Miller 1800 M St. NW ASLB Panel Washington, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2055 5

• office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.

Attn Docke ts 50-400/hol 0.L. 10B Bridle Run USNRC Chanel Hill NC 2751h Washington DC 2o555 Dan Read

, Docketing and Service Section[3K) CEAfE /ELP Attn Dockets 50-hoo/hol o.L. Box 52h Office of the Secretary Chapel Hill NC 2751h j USNRC Washington DC 20555 Robert eruber, ax.e. Dir.

Public Staff,Aox 991 John Runkle Raleigh, RIT 27602 CCNC 3o7 Granville Rd .

l Chapel Hill Nc 2751k Bradley W. Jones USNRC Region II

'Travi s Payne 101 Marietta St.

Edelstein & Payne Atlanta GA 30303 Mox 12601 Raleigh NC 276o5 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by h I

) 729 Hunter St.

! Apex NC 27502