ML20024E360

Response to Fourth Set of Interrogatories Re Eddleman 75 & 83/84

ML20024E360
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/04/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20024E334	List: ML20024E333 ML20024E340 ML20024E360 ML20024E365
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308100284
Download: ML20024E360 (24)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA August h, 1983 s EUCMAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION

1. h, p nectn u BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 MD C Glenn Dr. O. Bri James H.ght o 6 l 03 6 C Carpenter  ?

James L. Kelley, Chairman 4 %fff[Envc4

. % /feweg O j

In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et s1 ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 ani 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

) OL Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' Fourth Set of Interrogatories, te Eddlenan 75 and 83/84 This response is filed under an extension of time OK'd by

@ Applicants' counsel Hill Carrow.

RESPONSE TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES 4-1(a) Objection. The sane objections made to General and in ny response to Applicants Motion to Comnel thereon Interrogatory 2 in my first two sets of answersAare incorecrated here by reference as if fully set out at this point.

In addition, this question's language "otherwise assisted you in answering" would call for identification of persons giving advice on strategy, legal theories, antal innressions and conclusions in making such advice; it would also call .for work vroduct relied upon to be identified as such. Both requests are objectionable on their fact under 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2).

Applicants show no exceptional circunstances (as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(h)(B) and 10 CFR 2.7h0(b)(2))

as to need for identification of any persons this interrogatory asks about. Hoover vs. US Dent of Interior, 611 F2d 1132 at 11h2, citing 8308100284 830904 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR

9 Berkwell V. Sturm Ruger Co., 79 F.R.D. h44 at 446 (D. Alaska 1978) and US v. John R.-piquette Corp, $2 F.R.D. 370 at 373 (D. Mich. 1971).

See also Perry v. W.S. Darley & Co., 54 F.R.D. 278 at 279-280; 1 In re Sinking of . Barge ' Ranger I', 92 F.R.D. 486, at 487-h89.

Since none of the persons asked about in this general interrogatory was consulted other than in preparation for trial in this case, their identities are not discoverable. Ranger I, supra, at 489; Ager V. Jane C. Stormant Hospital, 622 F.2d 496 (1980) at 502-503 Ager holds, at 503, that Rule 26(bf(4)(B) " precludes discovery against experts who were informally consulted in preparation for trial, but not retained or specially emoloyed." As far as this and past t sets of Applicants' interrogatories are concerned, none of the experts involved has been retained or specially employed. Thus, discovery of their identities is barred. See also Ager at 497 : determina tion of expert status rests first with the party resisting discovery; i if opposing party requests in camera review and the expert is found to have been only informally consulted, discovery is barred.

4-1(b) Facts and factual opinions will be identified.

Objection: To disclosure of work product, legal theories, imnr essions, conclusions, legal theories, strategy advice and the like: Rules of NRC,10 CFR 2.740(b)(2), preclude such discovery. Applicants show no unusual circumstances which might require diaclosure of such information.

4-1(c) Objection:(1) as to those providing strategy advice, legal theories, impressions, conclusions and the like, since this I information is not discoverable, the nanes of the norson(s) oroviding it cannot be discoverable. Apolicants show no unusual circumstances, which they must (see objections to parts (a) and (b) above), and no rationale whatsoever as to how the names of such persons night lead to admissible evidence which is not protected fron discovery.

- - _ . ~_ _

, Objection:(2) to part (1) asking for expertise or facts supnorting it. Determination of expertise is for the party resisting discovery.

Ager, quoted above. Applicants have not requested in camera review by the Board of this determination. As noted above, all exnerts to which this interrogatory apolies were informally consulted, not specially retained or employed. Where experts are informally consulted, no discovery is allowed. Ager, supra, at 503 Applicants haven't even attempted to make the proper showing required to get the nanes of people who were specially employed or retained, who are not going to testify at trial. (There are none such involved here).

None of the other experts, informally consulted, is expected to testify at hearing in this case.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(b)(h) says in part I

"(3) Experts informally consulted in preparation for trial but not retained. No discovery nay be had of the names or views of experts in this category". See Ager at 500-502. Experts who receive no fees are considered to be informally consulted. A m , 498-99. b No discovery means Applicants aren't entitled to the information l

they seek.

The Court in Ager said "We agree with the District Court that this preclusion (in Rule 26(b)(4)(B)) not only enconnasses information and opinions developed in anticipation of litigation, but also insulates discovery of the identity and other collateral information concerning experts consulted informally." (p.501, citations omitted)

This includes " expertise and facts supporting hims (sic) exnertise" (subpart (i) of 4-1(c)), facts " underlying any ' retained or specially l

enployed status' " (subpart (ii), and explanation of the "need to withhold such person's identity" (subpart (iii)(A)).

Obviously, giving the resume of a person would make it much 1

i 1

_g.

easier to identify that person. Thus, the informati on re expertise leads, not to admissible evidence, but to non-discoverable information (the identity of the expert). The same is true of information concerning the need to withhold such verson's identity.

Explaining that need even in general terns like " fears retaliation by X", gives clues as to who the person is, or narrows the field of possible persons who fit the available information.

The Ager decision ruled non-witness experts' names non-discoverable because disclosure of their names would subvert "the protective provisions of the rule concerning facts known or opinions held by such experts" (p.503). By similar reasoning, the collateral information requested by Applicants in interrogatory 4-1(c) for non-witness experts, if provided, would allow Applicants to subvert the protection Ager and the federal rules give to the names of such

( experts. The court did not use this reasoning, but did bar the discovery of collateral information: "In sun, we hold that the identity, and other collateral information concerning an exnert who is retained or specially ennloyed in anticipation of litightion, but not expected to be called as a witness at trial, is not discoverable except ..."upon a showing of exceptional circumstances l under which it is inpractical for the party seeking discovery to obhdin facts or opinions on the same subject by other neans",

which is a " heavy burden". (p.503). The protection of informally consulted persons, "no discovery", is even stronger.

4-1(c)(ii) there are no experts ' retained or specially employed' l

involved here. Objection as to disclosure of details undenlying that status, see above. I also object to disclosure of any contractual or employment provisions for such persons. Only the fact that the person is ' retained or specially employed' is discoverable under Ager

5 without a showing that A3311 cants (the party seeking discovery) are unable to obtain " facts or opinions on the sane subject by other means." Since Applicants have stated that they do have expertise and information available to then on all my contentions, including those asked about in this set of interrogatortes, they cannot make such a showing.

Since without that daowing, Applicants cannot get the names of any experts specially employed or retained in this proceeding, or knowledge of the facts or opinions known to such experts, there is no point in even asking this interrogatory.

The answer cannot lead to admissible evidence because the route to evidence (through the name of the retained expert to info known to the exnert or expert opinions) is barred by Anulicants' having admitted access to facts and oninions on the sane subject by other means.

(iii)(A) Objection. Need to withhold a person's nane is

~

collateral information the discovery of which for retained or specially emnloyed experts is barred by Ager (see at 503) and by l the facts discussed in the objection to (ii) above. All information concerning experts informally consulted is protected fron discovery under the same decision. (see at 502) Thus for this set, discovery is totally barred on this matter. It could only arise if, on a

.. showing of exceptional circumstances contrary to Applicants sworn response that they have access to expert opihions and information on each Eddleman contention in this case, the name of an exnert specially retained or enployed was ordered disclosed. Then I could object to that disclosure based on need to withhold the person's identity, but would seek that such information be exanined in camera by the Board and not delivered to Applicants, since

(as noted above) the very information about why the person's identity needs to be withheld (especially if stated fin detail' as Applicants ask) would tend to reveal that nerson's identity or make it much easier to figure out.

(iii)(B) Objection. The Board's 5-27-83 Order (see at 10-16) nowhere requires me to state the protection or urivilege I rely on in withholding the identity of any non-witness exnert. The re exnerts licensing board upheld my nosition gexcept that it would allow a showing of " exceptional circumstances" with resnect to a non-witness expert informally consulted (Order at 15). But Applicants' sworn response to my interrogatory G-5(a) is that they do have information and expertise available to them on all the Eddleman contentions admitted in this proceeding. As noted above (puh-5) that precludes their being able to make such a showing. Therefore the requested information is irrelevant. .

I have a feeling.this interrogatory may be an attempt to get me to weaken my position inadvertently through my. lack of legal expertise.

4-1(d): None. The licensing Board did not reouire me to identify such persons, only to demonstrate the annlicability of another privilege if I did not. (5-27-83 at 16) 4-2(a) Documents including facts will be nrovided. Documents including work product, legal theori.es, innressions or other information non-discoverable under 2.7h0(b)(2) will have all such information deleted on conies supplied. Nanes non-discoverable will be deleted.

Documents consisting solely of information non-discoverable under 2.740(b)(2) will not be identified. Identification of these docunents is irrelevant since the information they contain is not discoverable

- absent a showing of exceptional circumstances which Applicants cannot make under their resronses to my interrogatory G-5(a).

(see above at 6, 4-5 for reasonaing)

Documentary (b) Information not objected to above will be identified for each interrogatory resnonse to which it relates.

4-3(a) Objection. To the extent this interrogatory can be read to ask for work product, or other information including stragegy, advice, legal theories and other matters nrotected from disclosure under 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2), no information will be provided. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks the names of experts or any collateral information about then (including that which night be used to help identify them or any of them),

> it is objected to because such information (A) is not discoverable under Ager, supra (see objections above, to h-1(a),(c ), etc );

(B) is not discoverable because Applicants, in answer to G-5(a) of my interrogatories, preclude thenselves being able to nake the showing of exceptional circumstances recuired by 2.7h0(b)(2) and by Ager for experts specially retained and by the Board here (5-27-83 at 15-16) . Reasoning the sane as in (a) above, see above there and at p.6 and pp h-5 So f ar as I now know, there is no other information l

! not identified or objected to above, used. Objection to identifying or collateral information the name of an expert as a source" here is not necessary since the names of experts are asked about in interrogatories "above"

! in your questions, e.g. 4-2(a) tc. If any infornation source otherwise is used, answer or objection will be nade where it is used.

4-3(b) See last sentence of response above, to 4-3(a).

RESPONSE TO INTE"OGATORIES ON CONTENTION 75 75(4th)-1. From the FSAR, I can't get enough information to answer. Blocking the condenser would lead to benting steam to atmosphere (FSAR 10.1 and 10 4); to fully prevent access to the ultimate heat sink may require growth of Corbicula or other species including snails,(freshwater and brackish water snecies),

periwinkles, limnaea, planorbis or physa (etc) in the heat exchangers of the ultimate heat sink to the auxiliary reservoir.

In the opinion of expert " george Goe" ("GG:" will indicate this expert's opinions and judgments used in further answers herein),

Corbicula can live in the Harris condenser and could tolerate chlorination as soon as they have any shell; the other snecies as well as Corbicula listed or described above could live in the ultinate heat sink heat ex9 Hanger which "GG'.' describes as "an incubator". The more alkaline the lake side of the exchanger, the worse, up to moderate levels of alkalibity.

As to the condenser, the intake water will contain organic matter which the Corbicula can feed on; "GG:" Applicants' intake and circulating systems provide no means to prevent this. The Corbicula or mussels (which are more tolerant of interface conditions) could block the condenser either by sheer presence of so many of them (they are extremely prolific and would be living in a warmed environment with a continuous circulating food aunply), by dead individuals and their shells, or by a combination of living individuals attached to the walls, not attached to the walls, and shells of dead individuals. Other debris, for example snail egg masses that are a biochemical glue, could be pulled through Apolicants' intake and help foul the condensers. Ax11 this per "GG:".

Once the condenser can't work, venting stean to atmosehere or using the alternate heat exchangers (which may well be fouled, see above) are the only options.

Brackish water organisms can tolerate 75(4th)-2(a) "GG:"

varying chlorine levels. Some marine organisms can tolerate far lower levels than found in the sea, especially if there is i sodium present. Periwinkles, a chlorine gradient present and Although for example, could live with about 0.5 ppm chlorine.

a maintained level of a few ppm chlorine would prevent growth of most organisms, those which can shut off contact with water

$e.g. by closing their shells) can survive if the chlorination is not continuous, e.g. the hour a day in two 30 ninute sweens planned by Applicants. The eggs and larvae / embryo stages of the organisms (clams, snails, mussels, possibly others) identified under answer to 1 above (p.8) are impressively teugh and can probably survive chlorination -- at least, enough would survive that growth would start up if chlorination stooped, and growth could occur with periodic chlorination for sone individuals.

WE:All of the above assumes that chlorination is done regularly, and, e.g., doesn't ston during shutdowns or condenser naintenance.

I have elsewhere noted Applicants' two-year-nlus failure to chlorinate their RHR systens at Brunswick nuclear station, in soite of their having a planRHR andheat schedule exchangers for doing so, which lead to the filling of the mandanzams there with nussels and nollusks, rendering them non-functional.

(b) Yes, the species are endemic to NC; biofouling by buildun of organisns, accelerating corrosion, and egg nasses and detritus can occur ("GG:); have not yet determined if endemic to SHNPP but all could be introduced via mud, boats, neonle, shell collections, seawater dumped or used at homes, fishing nails (with water), etc.

Since they can be introduced, it almost doesn't matter if they are endenic near SHNPP now. GG: All these snecies are nvolific.

"GG:"

Inpossible to connletely specify. The egg and enbryo stages (c) of nost of these organisms can tolerate dryness, heat, chenicals and possibly freezing; nussels can tolerate oxygen and some dryness if neriodic; for the brackish and marine organisms, insufficient 01 and Na would be critical; 1 ppn is needed (or a gradient including this level) for most narine organisms; sone, like neriwinkle, can tolerate o.5 ppm; for bracknish water organisms, the limits can be lower. WE: Applicants ' documents show levels of 6.9 to 0.2 ppn with a residual level inside the plant of 0.5 ppn chlorine.

They also use sodiun hydroxide in the olant. "GG :" NaOH will give sodium ions that the salt-tolerant organisms need. t11e work of A. Krogh gives the details about ion netalolism of such creatures.

75-(4th)-3(a) Yes. (WE and "GG:")

"GG:"

(b) mussels, other clans, freshwater snails, and other species listed or described in resnonse to 75-1 above can do it. Egg cases /

masses of freshwate" snails are in a biological nedlun that is a very good glue -- can coat intake screens and be pulled inside the clant to foul surfaces. A heat exchanger is an ideal environment for mussels. Circulated water, warnth, oxygen (aeration in cooling towers) is also ideal for mollusks (snails etc ); good for clans etc.

As noted above, these creatures are endemic to NC and can easily be introduced to the Harris plant if not there already. id [' ! A The environnental conditions of a complex ecosysten like the cooling towers / cower-plant / lake is subject to numerous influences.

Analysis down to the finest detail (ecological, energy, biochenical, I biophysicil, etc) is necessary to assure that imbalances won't lead, e.g., to a snail bloom or disproportionate increase in clans or l

mussels. Such an analysis would have to be a systens analysis i

with full consideration of criticalities, cascade a phenomens, i

I l

t

- all possible perturbations of the system (including those from the plant operating, starting up, shutting down, shifting nower, as well as weather, biological and ecological perturbattions, nutrient levels, organia inputs, energy input / output and so on), with the use of catastronhe theory since these are not the kinds of ecosystems that can be analyzed by linear or higher-order functions.

Cascaded phenonena necessitate the use of catastronhe theory (which is a mathematical theory not necessarily tied to catastrophe, but able to analyze cascades and phenomena where changes are not tied to past thenomena in simple fashion and are not reversible, e.g. as in population bloons of snails or clans or nussels ) .

It is necessary to do such an analysis to nreclude the result of a bloomed (ranid increase in) population of creatures that can biofoul the Harris condenser and 9HR and heat sinks of any kind that have any connection to lakes.

(c) "GG:" Without the analysis desevibed sketchily above (as to what nethods and fineness of detail recuired and some dsta required), no sinple answer to this question is nossible. The organisms involved are quite prolific and they or their embryo / egg phases can survive significant environnental changes of all sorts (as stated in resnonse to 2(a ) above, p.9 ) . There is no sinnle way, including chlorination of unspecified neriodicity or chlorination or the periodicity planned by Apnlicants, to guarantee these organisms will not survive. They will surely be able to survive in the Harris lakes (with the nossible excention of those for which there isn't enough NaC1, though salt levels in the Harris lakes have not been analzed (salt level info WE; rest: "GG"). Only neriwinkles and marine and some brackish water organisms would reouire salt.

The question is so general that this is the best answer we can now give. To the extent it calls for research, WE objects.

I don't have to do this kind of extensive research to answer.

Supniement to 3(b) and objection: Mussels, snails are endemic to SHNPP area. There are many species. Likewise for clans able to live in fresh water; there are about 50,000 kinds of mollusks. Freshwater slugs are also endemic to SENPP area --

again, many kinds. Linnaea, a bivalve, may be here; ulanorbis and physa are possibilities.

The methods of biofouling are as described above, nlus the bodies and eggs of slugs (which would be killed by chlorine in the olant, but which could get through the intake screens).

Answer to (c) applies to these -- can't specify conditions under which they couldn't survive without complex analysis; above answers give what we know.

Objection: To providing a list of the species involved; to providing detailed information for each snecies. We do not hav e the information in this forn; it would be burdensone in the extreme to produce it (reviewing thousands of species, field surveys, doing my own field surveys or having then done, doing considerable research). The general answers above are what we know, and apoly gsnerally to the species under the conditions given (e.g. freshwater, certain chlorine levels, etc).

"GG:" '

75-4th-4(a) Snails, clams (inci Corbicula), slugs , and j other organisme which have an attaching foot or can cenent themselves in place. Objection: To providing a list. Burdensome. See 3(b) n.12.

l (b) "GG:" In general, those that can Attach would have no l

i trouble attaching to the netal or concrete (nine walls) inside 1

the plant.WEIn addition to this opinion, which "GG" believes is l

l connon knowledge, the TVA Corbicula expert whose paper CP&L

, supplied me mentions attachment of them twice. I already gave I Hill Carrow the references in a meeting in June (the 13th). Objection:

i To doing further research or answering for each snecies

The above answer (75-4th-h(b)), p.12) anplies to species so characterized. It's what we know.

Objection to "all facts" request: To research all these facts would be burdensome. Applicants can look un which organisms can attach as readily as we can. There are a massive amount of facts about the attachment of organisms which are readily available to Applicants to research. We don't have to do research to answer que stions . If I get nove information, I'll sunply it.

75-4th (5)(a): "00:" This question is so vague it is very difficult to answer with any exactitude. The tining, amount, concentration, extent in time of anplication, and Veriod for chlorine is not given. Gradients of chlorine are not addressed.

I No light levels or exuosure to sunlight are given. The presence of chemicals that can react with chlorine is not specified. Diffusion curves, decomposition curves, oxygen levels, recirculation not given.

Nevertheless, here's a response based on this vague question:

Slugs will probably die. If there 's a chlorine gradient, clams and anything else with a shell can just close up and could probably survive. Clam foot cement is not destructible by chlorine.

(So, even if the clan dies, it stays attached).

The glochidia, eggs and embryo stages of the organisms identified in response to the above interrogatories can probably survive chlorine applications at any level Applicants have described l for Harris. At least, some will survive. These organisms are very prolific.

l (b) The question is so vague it is impossible to state l "all facts". "GG:" The facts are given in (a) above and other responses above; these are also my opinions as an -exnert.

Objection: To research to further answer . Anplicants have their own experts & researchers who can do it as easily as we can.

RESPONSES ON 83/84 83/84-4th(1)(a) Yes.

(b) I'm still trying to find the reference. I anticipate producing a supplement on carcinogens soon, in resnonse to past interrogatories on this contention (there are lots), and will try to cover this in that supniement.

"GG:" For any earcinogen, there is no aqouous concentration below which it cannot " elicit a enneerous response in humans".

A single molecule can cause or promote a cancer. There is great complexity in the reactions of chlorine in bio-systems with organics, and it is very difficult to analyze (emphasis "GG"s). Thus you cannot specify such a level (other than zero).

4th (2)(a) WE &"GG": Yes. But see (c) below.

(b) "GG:" It can occur wherever light is not, given the presence of ammonia and chlorine. WE: Applicants clain light levels will be very low in the lower parts of the reservoir.

"GG:" If it's a muddy lake, NC1) can be present.

(c) Note ("GG:) that organic matter can react with NCL3 in the absence of light.

"GG:"

83-84-4th 3(a) Question is virtually incomprehensibly vague.

However, it appears to imply the presence of organie sarban and 0.2 mg/l (apa) free available chlorine as assumptions. Under these conditions, halogenated organic compounds can form. Only one molecule would be necessary to cause a r.ancer; higher concentrations simply increase the risk.

"GO:"

(b) Chlorine is highly reactive -- especially free available chlorine. It reacts with organic compounds. Cancers can be caused by incredibly small amounts of chlorinated organic chemicals,

e.g. chlorinated dioxins, kenone. The resulting cancers can take 20 years to show up. Single ion can have cascaded effects that can shut down cells, kill them possibly, and cause mutations, and trigger or promote cancer. See later answers, e.g.

to 4(b), 5(b) & (c), 6(c) (b), 8(e)19(e),11(a),12(a),13(a) & (b),

i parcinogenicity of dioxin is also admitted in EPA draft renort on dioxin risks. A level of 1 ttillionth of a gram per cubic foot (about 3 x 10~1b kg/m3 or g/1) can cause 9 cases of cancer ner 100,000 persons exnosed. The assessment for dioxins in water

~

was that any more than 2.1 x 10 parts dioxin ner vart of water is an unacceptable risk to humans. These are for chlorinated dioxins. As noted above, we think the risk levels should be lower, but note that one nolecule of a dioxin can have a molecular weight of around 200 to 400. Thus, one molecule of dioxin in a gran of water is about 2 x 10-21 parts by weight, so the EPA unaccentable risk level is about 1000 molecules per milliliter. We think one l molecule of a chlorinated dioxin is an excessive risk. See discussion 1

above and as referenced. There are over 70 chlorinated dioxins, l

of which anparently the most toxic is 2,3,7,8 TCDD.

l l

83/84-hth-h(a) What regulations? This question is l

hypothetical and very vague . There may be no regulations, l

e.g. for dioxins (chlorinated) or for other dangerous chlorinated chemicals at Harris, including carcinogenic ones.

"GG :"' Nevertheless, the answer is Yes. Dioxin and kepone are l carcinogenic in far smaller quantities than these regulations now set.

A single molecule event can cause cancer (one molecule can cause it).

One ion can ounch through membrances on nerve cells and cause casecaded reactions (including disease and disorders). Cascaded reactions in cells and the human body can involve serious trouble.

For example, if the affected cell is a snern or an ovun, genetic defects or birth defects can result.

(b) "GG:" See resnonse to (a) a bove. A lifetime of exnerience dealing with carcinogenesis and ecosystems biology underlies the answer and it is impossible to specify all facts sunporting it.

The assumptions made are not known to be true by either WE or "GG".

"GG :"

There is also the matter of effluents being bio-concentrated and of reactions within bacteria, algae, and other living organisms that take in chlorinated chemicals discharged by Harris or produced at Harris. The potential range of such reactions is very large as is the number and type of notential nroducts. Mo=e detail in answers to 83/8h-6th parts below.

The impossibility to specify all facts (stated above) is an objection. Reason is that we don't have tine to do the work to dig out all the facts the expert knows and which inforn the expert judgment. The basis for the answer is reasonably given; though more facts do sunport it, it 's burdensome and requiring us to undertake research to list then all.

83/8h-hth-$(a) We assume that you nean the concentrations in the effluents by themselves; otherwise this would be a dunlicate of the ouestion 4(a) above for chlorinated chenicals. Again, this question is so vague that we cannot give a general answer that covers all the nossibilities. What effluents? What regulations?

We provide the following infornation as an attempat to respond:

"GG:" All radioactive effluents are carcinogens, in any quantity; trihalomethanes are; others -- see resnor,se to 8(a) & 9(a) below. WE: Analysis incomolote. Would need to run Thilly forward-mutation test on all the effluent species to answer ("GG:" th$s test is the onh you need to run as the Ames back-nutatf on test will clso

"GG:" (provided the info) pick up mutagens and some toxins). See past response on the enhanced toxicity and mobility onf chlorinated connounds, as it affedts their ability to be carcinogenic (increases it).

Chlorine reacts to fo*n numerous stable compounds with organic matter (e.g. as found in lake water to be drawn in for cooling tower use at Harris).

The above answer and others herein are based on WE's under.

standing from Anulicants' counsel Hill Carro w (8/1/83 by phone) that the words ". cause carcinogenicity" means" start a cancer" or "cause a cancer". "GG"s opitions and judgments use that meaning.

"GG:"

(b) In addition to the known carcinogenicity of chemicals referenced or and radiochemicalsg eited above, it is known that 001 is a prcmoter of cancer. This hypochlorite ion is what Applicants will be chlorinating with at Harris.

"GG:"

(c) Innossible to snecify all the effluents due to reaction-among them; this recuires extensive analysis and research. Once you identify all the possible effluent snecies you need to run a Thilly forward-mutation test (under good scientific practice) on each one to see if it's carcinogenic. If it is, one molecule is all it takes to cause or promote cancer. See resnonses to h(a) and (b) above, pp 15-16. Time of exnosure -- irrelevant if there is exnosure internally (to a cell or the body).

(d) "GG:" If an crganism has an immune system, as fish, birds, and manmals do, then that organism has a cancer process like the one in humans. If an organism has no innune systen, result of exposure will probably be (direct) death, not a cancer.

The information i s the sane as for humans as stated and referenced above. As you move up the food chain (s), concentrations of these chlorinated and other chenicals increase. It only takes one

molecule to cause (or promoto) cance .

Fish use their skin as an effective " lung" which takes un chemicals fron and exchanges ions with water. There is also the problem of chemical reactions with chlorine (and annonia and hydrazine) and organic chemicals inside bacteria, algae or other living creatures, which can forn carcinogenic chenicals.

See response to parts of 11 below re bacteria (etc) " helper effects" which are ways these reactions can be facilitated by living creatures and their biochenistry and uptake of connounds present in their food or water..

Objection 1 To listing species. I've already resolved this once with Anolicants. Anything that has an innuna systen and takes in water or food containing these chemicals (carcinogens) can get cancer. The chemicals can also cause disease or death in all living beings, with or without innune systems. (This is also opinion of "GG")

83/84-4th-6(a) "GG :" Denends on energy state of the products. Sone are stable. Stable comnounds are formed by chlorine in reaction with organic natter (as will occur at Harris).

Stable ones will persist into the Cape Fear; less stable ones ny persist into the lake. Dioxins and ketone are ouite stable, to give scne exannles. WE: So are PCBs.

Objection: To listing. It's burdensone and requires research Applicants can as eas".ly do themselves into the stability of various i

( chlorinated connounds.

j (i) see above too; free chlorine and chlorine residgmauals will enter the reservoir. (ii) see above too; "GG:" free chlorine should not make it to the cape Fear. But its conrounds can, and can react there.

l -

d (b) there may be some confusion caused by the word "nersist" persist for how long? indefinitely? Free chlorine will not nersist indefinitely; "GG:" It'll go into the air. Residual chlorine and chlorinated chemicals can either persist or react indefinitely in the reservoir unless they release chlorine to the air or are moved out of the reservoir, e.g. into the Cane Fear.

Combined chlorine stays in the water. Chlorine connouhds forned in dark places in the plant can be stable through the lake and ito the river.

As to the snecifics inquited about in (1) through (iv) that seeks research by use which CD&L can do as well. To the extent not answered above, we answer "GG:" evanoration is irrelevant since many chlorine connounds don't evaporate at all; and I object to doing the research for CP&L which has extensive resources and has experts and information available on this subject.

(see their response to my general interrogatory 5(a)).

(c) Answer and objection are same as to (b) above.

1 Stable conpounds will get into the river. Free chlorine will not get that far if the lake is aerated (as we exnect it will be).

l I Comnounds and chlorine in organisms can get into the "iven from I the plant and the cooling lake whenever water is discharged from l

l the lake.

We haven't done this analysis. Itts irrelevant 83/84-4th-7 (a ) .

l for two reasons: "GG:" the connounds formed by chlorine in the presence of organic matter from a lake (or in the Harris plant) are different from those that would be formed in a swinning pool or municipal water system where that organic natter should be removed before chlorination. Available organics, esnecially ones l

from matter decaying in the lake, make the conrounds peonic are exposed to different in these scenarios.

WE: Second reason it's irrelevant is that a conparison of one risk to another is improper. The added risk due to Harris is there regardless of what level of other risks peonle are exuosed to.

83/8h-hth-8(a) "dG:" (and WE concurs) All the radioactive ones.

trihalonethanes, toluene, dioxins (chlorinated), kenone. Of these, trihalonethanes are susnected carcinogens and the others are.

If any 1,h dioxane is discharged, it is an extrene carcinogen too.

(A supnlement on carcinogens is coming). Note that the chemicals in SENPP discharges can include products of reactions in the plant.

This could lead to nany carcinogens being uresent, esnecially chlorinated ones. WE believes (basis, the article not yet found) that NHC1 , NH 01 and NC1 are carcinogens.

2 2 3 (b) Burdensome. Objection: The information is readily availabic in the literature and we have not assenbled it.

(c) We have not established levels. Analysis not connlete yet.

"GG:"

As noted in above resnonse, this is a very connlex analysis, which may well be beyond the resources WE has available.

(d) Look at (c).

(e ) "GG:" Depends on statistics of exrosure. Fron a systens viewnoint (the correct one to use) there is no way to snecify such a level for connounds to w hich humans are exnosed.

(f) Expert opinion; conmon knowledge in science; research on one-noleculo and one-ion events in carcinogenesis and cascaded reactions.

(g) A lifetime of experience in modeling, dynamics of ecosystens, cascaded systems, biology and carcinogenesis (anong other things),

I underlies the expert oninions . Burdensone to senarate out the i i

specific facts; objection to that an6 to revealing information which would tend to identify the expert "GG:" who believes that

. the above info will not reveal "GG"s identity and suurlied it for this answer explicitly on that basis.

83/84-4th-9(a) "GG:" (and WE) All of them.

(b) "GG:" All radioactive materials are carcinogens. In addition, trihalomethanes, chlorinated dioxins, chemicals identified in above resnonses, tritium inducing breaks in DNA (this last is also exnert opinion of "Wes Woe" who has been infornally consulted re power plant effluents and other natters not inquired about here).

WE: See also NRC resnonse to Eddlenan interrogatories on this contention, June, 1983 I see no need to retyne the info here.

(c) Objection: Haven't done the research, and nuch of the info I nossess was sunnlied by CP&L. They can wesearch it f

as well as I can. A list of other carcinogens is coming in a supplement. -- WE.

(d) Look at (c).

83.84-hth-10(a) Objection: to naking a list: Bundensone and I haven't done the research; info is equally a vailable to CP&L.

I still have to locate sene docunents re this.

2 PARTIAL ANSWER: Generally, chlorinated organics, heavy netals, coal particulates (U, Pb, CR, Cd, As , etc) see documents identified j for Eddleman 8F, 6-20-83 filing re DEIS. Above is oninion of "GG" as to carcinogenicity or suspected carcinogenicity (suspedted annlies to the chlorinated organics that are not carcinogens known).

(b) Sources cited, see also response to 8(f) and (g) n 20 above.

Objection: Carcinogenicity information is readily available in Dublic literature. I shouldn't have to look it un for CP&L.

(q) a new list will be in a supelenent when I have time to dig the information out of sources. Objection: To listing concentrations

the reactions are conplex and concentrations are not fixed. See 83/84-1(b) resoonse above for excert opinion on this.

I 31so object because it's burdensone. Our position is that if the chemical occurs in any concentration (other than zero) it increases the risk to hunans and other living things fron cancer and disease. (WE and "GG").

(d) Look at (c) and resnonses above re carcinogenesis.

"GG:"

(e) See response -to 8(e) p.20 above. Canit specify any level without extensive tests (e.g. Thilly forward-mutation test on every conpound present or nossible) and a bio- and eco-systens approach. One nolecule is enough to initiate or promote cancer.

You are dealing with cascaded ecosystens and biosystens here, so effects can be very large from a tiny cause.

(f) Objection, burdensome. "GG:" We'd have to list libraries full.

See above resnonses for answer and position / opinion re carcinogenesis etc.

(g) Objection, burdensone. See objection to (f) above and expert opinion there. Partial answer: "GG:" The history of that field is (extensive). For exannle, the work of Lavori, the statistician, re cadniun -- good exanple of tiny cause with complex effects. See also the work of Rene Thon et al on catastronhe theory; this field encompasses chemistry, biology and chysics.

Lifetine of experience of "GG" underlies this opinion and those inquired about in this interrogatory. I object to detailitg it as (1) burdensome (2) likely to reveal the identity of "GG",

which Apolicants are not entitled to. Since this collateral information would tend to identify"GG", its disclosure is Drohibited under Ager, :ee objections above, p 503 etc. Anplicants have experts and info available to then on this subject, and "GG" is only being informally consulted, so (sane case) they can't get identification of "GG" at all.

83/84-hth-11(a). "GG" Impossible to specify due to connlexity of possible reactions and vagueness of ouestion. A joint reaction (or reaction sequence) would be nossible, especially in bacteria.

See resnonse to (c ) below.

(b) Look at (a) and (c).

(c) "GG:" Bacteria concentrate many conrounds, working from the parts per nillion level at the interface. Closed systen in the bacteria can allow further concentration and reactions.

Potential and nhotoactivated reactions -- too many nossibilities to analyze a level of concentration of (1) (ii) or (iii) for.

Denends on tenneratures, time, helner cell nhenonena, other bacteria effects (e.g. concentration), bioconverter reactions; an9onia forms conplexes with metals (e.g. Hg, Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe, etc);

Chlorine and hydrazine will always react. Annonia and chloramines can react with oxygen in organic. comrounds and biosystems.

The above is common knowledge in biochenistry and systens.

Objection.: To doing the research needed to answer the question literally. It s burdensone, we haven't done it, and CP&L can do their own research with their vast resources.

(e) Objection: Burdensone. "GG"'s lifetine of experience in the field -- see (10(e) and 8(e)) above. (partial answer) 83/8h-hth-12(a). Hill Carrow, counsel for Applicants, told me 8.1.83 that the " concentration ... (I) reconnend" neans

" recommend or reocxgnize as safe". WE & "GG:" None.

"GG :" What you need is a different tyne of discharging systen to elininate discharge of these compounds. A standing aeration tank in full light (with argon lanns etc to dunlicate solar spectrum at night) will probab'y take care of the chlorine. Stable NN) "b I6shggeEb89e 8thihrations.

c One nolecule's too nuch.

This is oninion of "GG" as well as WE. - .-

-2h-83/Sh-hth-13(a). This is vague as to the standawds, but we can answer. "GG" and WE: Yes. Chlorinated compounds are a risk at any level. So are radioactive materials.

(b) Objection, burdensone. For radioactive materials see Gofman, Radiation and Hunan Health; Caldiciobt, Nuclear Madness; Nader & Abbots, The Menace of Atonic Energy; EAF, Accidents Will Happen; Berger, Nuclear power, the Unviable Option; Olson, Unacceptable Risk; for chlorinated chemicals see the literature on carcinogenicity; solubility enhancement and reactivity caused by chlorination well known. Oninion of "GG".

Existence of cascade nhenomena, analphylactic shock, venons etc.

• 83.8h-hth-lh(a)(1) Haw River Assenbly study; NC DU"CD nonitoring; (ii) UNC nonitoring for Corps of Engineers (iii) DIGCD nonitoring?

(iv),(v) not sure; there would be non-point runoff and coal narticulates at any rate.

(b) Don't have then in hand -- will look and supolenent.

• continuation of 13(b) above: chemicals like venons triggering comnlex events in biosystens; chenical and ion interference with these and l

feritilization; similar phenonena sunnort the single-event being enough te cause cancer or nronote it.

I i 1 hereby affirn that the above answers are true and correct I

to the best of ny knowledge and belief. I will lend CP&L any docunents l

identified above for inspection and copying. Contact ne for time and place agreenent on reasonable terns. -

August h, 1983 Wells Eddleman