ML20005C053

Suppl to Response to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories on Joint Intervenors Contention 2.Results of Tritium Injections in Mice Supplied.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20005C053
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	11/09/1981
From:	Chackes K CHACKES & HOARE
To:	UNION ELECTRIC CO.
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111180332
Download: ML20005C053 (5)

Text

--

, PE' ;  ::E

. ) -

DXKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UStlRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING IMAlt0'I 12 P5 s2

,, SECRETARY In the Mutter of ) i mG 1 SERVICE

) 'RAtlCH UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483-OL

)

(Callaway Plant. Unit 1) )

JOINT INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES (SET NO.1) ON CONTENTION TWO Joint Intervenors hereby supplement their Response to Applicant's Interrogatories

. . . (Set No.1) to Joint Intervenors on Their Contention 2 as follows:

1. The attached page 65 was inadvertantly cinitted from some or all copies of the original response and should be inserted in the appropriate place.

2. A typographical error appears on page 60, the sixth line from the bottom.

The male estimated increase in mortality now reads ".4%-10%." It should read "4%-

10%" (deleting the decimal before the'4).

3. The following addition is made to the response to interrogatory no.1-3(1),

af ter the end of paragraph (p) on page 62:

(q) " Japanese A-Bomb Data Will be Revised," Science. Vol. 214, October 2,1981, pp. 31-32 (copy attached hereto).

Respectfully submitted, 9 CIIACKES AND IIOARE

- k61 i 110V 17 gggp 1

% %Mh g#

Renneth M. C'hackes u.s. $ si o ,4 lg Attorneys for Joint Intervenors G Q- 311 North Broadway

& y St. Louis, Missouri 63102

/ g, Y )- 314/241-7961 f

o?

g0 8111180332 811109 PDR ADOCK 05000483 C PDR k ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ..

Abstract Results: Mice injected with tritium (0.07 mci /g body wt) before birth (9 days after conception) had offspring showing "a significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs." (Table p. 247).

Four and one/ half month old offspring had substantially fewer ooctyes (Table 248). Also seminiferous epithelium in state t disintegration (p. 250). At 2 montles these offspring were fertile.

"After injection of 0.27 mci tritium /g neither sex appeared to be ferti?e at age 2 months." (p. 250).

"At 18 months the ovarian tumor incidence of exposed offspring was increased approximately 5-fold over controls." (p.

251). .

0.54 mci tritium /g caused 100% perinatal mortality.

0.54 mci tritium /g injected on days 7, 9,11, stunted foetuses, but malformations were negligible. (p. 251). Treatment of dams on days 7 and 9 led to resorption of embryos. Those injected with more than 0.81 mci /g all had resorbed embryos, some dams died.

(Table p. 244).

(j) Burki, et al. , " Tritiated Uracil, Tritiated Thymidine and Bromodeoxyurdine-Induced Mutations in Eucaryotic Cells," IAEA Vienna 1979, Vol.1, pp. 255-65.

Abstract Results: heast cells growing in tritiated uracil then exposed to very lose dose rates: 1 +-27.6 tritium decays /hr. Each decay equivalent to 2.6 rad. Determination of RBE affected by precise experimental conditions employed. "In particular, experiments with mammalian cells will be affected by " hot times" for mutagenesis in the cell cycle and " hot positions" within the 65

New:and Comm nt

' e -

3 Japane'se A-Bomb Data WilllBe Revised DOE conference marks the first step in a general overhaul of dose estimates; Academy of Sciences asked to help About 120 scientists gathered at a De- case assumptions of BEIR 111,it may be involving the DOE labs, the Defense partment of Energy (DOE) auditorium necessary to double the risk figures for Nuclear Agency, the National Academy on 15 and 16 September to try to clear up developing fatal cancer after exposure to of Sciences, and others in a coordinated some confusion about the effects of radi- the levels of gamma radiation present in atta.;k on dosimetry revisions.

ation on the people who !ived through the Japanese blasts. (No one spoke Thiessen told the throng at German-the atomic blasts at Hiroshima ard about nonfatal cancer.) Using less than town that this research was of"the high-Nagasaki. The confusion arose earlier worst-case assumptions, the risk for con- est priority" and would not be affected this year when two physicists at the tracting fatal cancer would increase by a by cutbacks in the budget. Lat:r he Lawrence Livermore National Labora- factor of 0.) or less. Several speakers estimated privately that "not an awful tory-William Loewe and Edgar Men- pointed out that revisions of this size fall lot of mouy will be involvedan the delsobr>--challenged the accuracy of ed within the uncertainty limits given for order of i2 million over 2 years for a isting ridiation data (Science, 22 May, BEIR 111, and therefore should surprise complete reassessment" of the Japanese

p. 900, and 19 June, p.1364). no one. Yet there is other esidence, as data.

The subject is controversial because Land himself agrees, indicating that the The N ational Academy of Sciences, the Japanese bomb survivors have pro- revisions in the risk figures could be according to staffers there, will probably sided the best data on what happens to different, and possibly larger than a fac- a'pprove the creation of a new oversight humans when they are exposed to low tor of 2. committe: requested by DOE. It will levels of radiaton. Revising the dose J. W. Thiessen, director of DOE's help the government patch together the measurements from Japan, w hich is now disision of human health and assess- disparate pieces of research being done being done, will affect a great body of ments, approved the funding for the here and in Japan. The Academy serses research, in'cluding the radiation hazard meeting. It was held at the old Atomic as the liaison between the U.S. gosern-estimates published in 1980 by the Na- Energy Cortunission building in German- ment and the Japanese, who are sensi-tional Academy of Sciences in a report town, Maryland. Thiessen said he had tive about how their bomb data are used.

on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Ra- several purposes in mind. One was to For example, they do not want to con-diation, known also as BEIR 111. About bring the debate on dosimetry into the tribute to any military endeavor.

5100 million has been inv ested already in the data from Japan, making it the most _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - . _ _

precious single source of information in NIIh7 ugh the meeting. goers made fewThiessen told the throng at Germantown that this recomrlendations, they agreed that the research was of "the highest priority" and would ince iN"5 can no longer c "s $e"e] not be affected by cutbacks in the budget.

accurate and should be revised in the ~ ~

~

light of research done at Livermore, two other na:ional laboratories, and two pri-vate consulting firms.' open and make a record of the proceed- The Japanese have already created The chief impact of the new re>earch ings for the public. He hoped this would three scientific committees to review the is to suggest that neutron radiation had lend credibility to any work that comes information. One reason they are con-little measurable effect on the people of later. Thiessen also wanted to bring to- cerned, according to Seymour Jablon of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The implica- gether eseryone insolved in this debate the Academy's staff, is that the gosern-tions are (i) that it may be possible to to learn w here their differences lie. Most ment allows the bomb survivors certain combine the populations of the two cities important, he wanted to be given a map rnedical and other benefits based on the for epide niological purposes and treat telling him what kind of research shoulJ extent of injury received. The news that them as a single record of the effect of be funded in the future. the dose estimates might be changed has gamma radiation, and (ii) that very little At the end of the session, Thiessen created a sensation in Japan.

human data will now be available for said he had not been gisen the "com- Several participants in the conference judging the relative toxicity of neutrons plete road map" he wanted, but was in addition to Thiessen w ere surprised to as compared with gamma rays. pleased to fmd more agreement than he find how little the physicists differ on the Speakers at the meeting warned that it had expected. "There was much less basic work to be done. The author of the is too early to know how the revisions contrmersy between different workers old dose calculations, John Ausier of the will affect hazard estimates. However, than appeared initially," he said. "We Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said several people cited a preliminary te..t of have a reasonably good idea about the that he sensed there was a consensus to the new data, carried out by Charles amount of work to be done now. He move ahead quickly. Esen though he Land of the National Cancer Institute. will meet with other agency ofhcials m occasionally felt an impulse to speak up According to this work, using the worst- the next 2 months and draw up a plan for his old research, he said. "I hase scit sct.. vnt a : NTm R m n e u n. : om e cmna e m s s u u 1 %

tried to keep quiet for the last year," radiation through models of the atmo- erably smaller doses in fact thin they .

because it seemed proper for younger sphere at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. were assigned. Because so many were in scientists to refme the work he started. Small adjustments may be made tt, take the factory, it is possible that they may -

"We knew at the time that the answer into account the shiciding provided by hase skewed the Nagasaki data, under-we had (in 1%5] wasn't good enough," natural terrain. Then the big problem stating the effects of the radiation in the he said,"but we had an answer, and the appears. The effects of shielding provid- middle range of doses.

funding dried up." He predicted that ed by buildings will have to be complete- In addition, several researchers, in-the revision could be dene in a year or ly reexamined. Last of all, the physicists cluding Jess Marcum of R & D Asso-tw o. m!! have to calculate the shielding effect ciates, of Marina Del Rey, California, The physicists working on the new of human tissue. have concluded that the effects of build-estimates seemed to be in general agree- No great changes, other than those ing shielding were generally understated ment on this point as well. George Kerr already mentioned, are expected to throughout the old dose calculations. A of Oak Ridge said: **A couple of years come out of most of this work. However, preliminary look, according to Loewe ago there were large discrepancies in the the building factor may produce some- and Marcum, suggests that structures dosimetry" when different blast data thing unanticipated. For example, Mi- absorbed 1.6 times more gamma radia-were used to estimate effects. "These chael Bender, a radiobiologist at the tion than was thought.

discrepancies have been worked on. . . Brookhaven National Laboratory, said It is important to note that the prelimi-The end is now in sight. We know what he , as surprised to-leam in conversa- nary guesses about the impact of this p the problems are and they can be solg ed tions at this meeting that a " substantial research do not take into account the e in a timely fashion. He later explained portion" of the people in one category in errors in building shielding. This applies,

. that he meant 2 years. Loewe of Liver. Nagasaki may have been tagged with for example, to Charles Land's study.

more and Dean Kaul of Science Applica- wrong doses because of an arbitrary de- He says that he thinks that "they haven't tions. Inc., of Schaumburg, Illinois, who cision about buildings. When the original got the shic. ding done yet," and believes i

have made independent revisions of the calculations were made, it seemed too it is too early to make any general state-data, both seemed confident that their difficult to estimate the effect of shiciding ments about the size of the change in l

work would soon be finished. in every case, so that, as in one particu- oserall risk estimates. As shielding fac-There was general agreement on lar example-a large group of workers in tors are reexamined, doses for individual which tasks should be undertaken first. the Mi tsubishi steel factory in Nagasa- sursisors may thange dramatically, Step one is to determine more precisely ki---people were at times simply assigned shifting data points up and down the the radioactive output of the bombs us- the dose they would have receised had scale in an unpredictable way. Only after ing data w hich have been kept classified they been standing outside.The Mitsubi- all of these individual cases base been until now. Work on this has begun at the shi building was made of steel and con- revised will it be possible to get a clear Los Alamos National Laboratory. Com- crete and contained some heavy machin- picture of the entire Hiroshima-Nagasaki

' puters will be used to " transport" the cry. The people inside received consid- experience.-Ettor ManmAtt l

1 l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

-)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No.- STN 50-483-OL

)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify thct copies of Joint Intervenors Supplement to Response to Applicant's Interrogatories (Set No.1) on Contention Two have been served on the t

following by deposit in the United States mail this 9th day of November,1981.

4 James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring, MD 20901 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .

i Dr. Jerry R. Kline

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{ Washington, D.C. 20555 f Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 i

Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

, Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20535 b ke W.

Renneth 11. ( intekes l Cif W K53 \ N D IIO.\ R P l