ML19326A900
| ML19326A900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1971 |
| From: | Rogers L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326A898 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050795 | |
| Download: ML19326A900 (31) | |
Text
__
/.-
o TESTIMONY OF LESTER ROGERS DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RADIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL, DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION The construction and operation of nuclear power plants in the United States is carried out under a comprehensive Federal program of licensing and regulation administered by the Atomic Energy Commission. The program is designed to protect health and safety from exposure to ionizing radiation that may result from radio-activity reaching the environment either from accidental releases or in effluents released during the normal operation of nuclear i
facili ties. This testimony is limited to a discussion of regulations that apply to the controlled mlease of radioactivity in air and wate r.
The mgulatory framework for controlling levels of radioactivity in effluents from nuclear power plants is set out in the Commission's mgulations Part 20 and Part 50 published under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation", sets the general standards for protection against radiation, including limits on levels of radioactivity released to the environment.
Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities", establishes i
8003050f Y
. general design, construction, and operating requirements for nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities.
It also sets forth requirements for obtaining a pennit to construct and a license to operate a nuclear power plant. Each of these regulations, their interrelationship in controlling releases of radioactivity to the environ-ment, and their inplementation in the licensing pmcess will be discussed.
Basis of AEC Regulatory Standards An understanding of the integrity of the system within which radiation protection standards have been developed is fundamental to an understanding and evaluation of the validity of the standards.
The formal procedure and scientific bases f0r developing and establishing standards for protection against ionizing radiation are
.among the most comprehensive of any applied to environmental stresses.
The scientific information required in radiation protection standards setting activities is developed through investigations and analyses by the medical and scientific communities throughout the world and pmvides the basis for reconinendations by various standards setting bodies. The NationaI Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Medical Research Council in the United Vsingdom, and the United Nations-Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation have played
, a particularly outstanding role in evaluating the available data on biological effects and estimating risks from exposure to ionizing radia tion. These bodies have issued comprehensive reports on the biological effects of ionizing radiation that form, in large part, the scientific basis for the standards.
The general radiation protection standards, applicable to all licensed activities, set forth in Part 20 were first published as an effective regulation in 1957. At the outset the Part 20 mgulation w;s based on the mcomendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Comission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Since 1959.of ficial guidance for control of exposums to radiation has been provided to Federal agencies through recommendations of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), established in 1959. The FRC is directed to advise the President "... with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards...".
The basic mcommendations of the FRC, NCRP and ICRP are mutually compatible.
The Federal Radiation Council recomends a radiation protection guide of 0.5 mm per year for whole body exposure of individual members of the public.
For the total population, it is reccmmended that the average genetically significant exposure should not exceed 5 rems in 30 years or an average annual exposure of 170 mrems per year.
\\
i
. - For purposes of controlling levels of radioactivity in the environment, the Federal Radiation Council provides that, as an operational technique, where it is impractical to determine individual
. radiation doses, exposures will be considered to meet radiation protection guides, if the estimated average doses to a suitable sample of the exposed population do not exceed one-third of the radiation protection guides applicable to individual members of the public or 170 mrens per year for whole body exposure. The FRC guides are not intended to apply to radiation exposure resulting from natural background or the purposeful exposure of patients by practi tioners of the healing arts.
In discussing these standards, it is helpful to compare them with radiation exposures that we all incur from natural background radiation.
Such a comparison appears in Exhibi t I.
In addition to the numerical guidance on dose limits, ICRP, NCRP and FRC have generally recommended that exposure to radiation be kept as low as practicable. The ICRP adds "... that i t is important to ensure that no single type of population exposure takes up a disproportionate share of the total."
The ICRP and NCRP have published tables of recommended maximum permissible concentratbns of radionuclides in air and water.
These concentrations are estimated to be the highest concentrations of the respective radionuclides which may be permitted in air or water used continuously by an average of " standard" man without resulting
, in a radiation dose that would exceed a maximum permissible occupational dose.
For application to individual members of the general public these limits are reduced by a factor of 10.
In its Report No.1, the Federal Radiation Council recommended that concentration guides then in use by Federal agencies, i.e., the maximum permissible concentrations published by the ICRP or NCRP, be used on an interim basis. In its Report No. 2, the FRC included specific guidance for exposures of the general public to strontium-89, strontium-90, iodine-131, and radium-226 that differed from the then current recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP. Subsequent nodifications of ICRP and NCRP limits have eliminated some of these di ffe rences.
These are the basic guidelines within which the AEC regulations to control releases of radioactivity to the environment have been formula ted.
It is noted that under the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 which became effective on December 2,1970, the functions of the FRC were transferred to the new Environmental Protection Agency. Also transferred to EPA is that part of the AEC's authority, as administered by its Division of Radiation Protection Standards, to develop and set generally applicable environmental radiation standards for the protection of the general environment. The AEC continues to have i
)
l
, the responsibility for the implementation and enforcement through its licensing and regulatory authority of the radiation standards developed by EPA.
Part 20 Provisions on Releases of Radioactivi ty in Effluents The objectives of the Commission's regulato.ry program as related to the protection of the environment from releases of radioactivity in effluents from the nornal operation of nuclear facilities are:
(1) to limit releases of radioactivity to the environment from each nuclear facility or other licensed activity so that exposures of the general public to ionizing radiation from the cumulative effects of all licensed atomic energy activities, when added to exposures from other sources, are not likely to exceed radiat1)n protection guides recommended by the FRC and approved by the President; (2) to provide reasonable assurance that levels of radioactivity added to the environment are well below levels that could
., result in perceptible adverse effects on the ecology of the environment; and (3) to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate efforts are made to keep releases of radioactive materials in i
effluents to unrestricted areas as far below limits specified in the regulations as practicable.
For purposes of regulation, the AEC has considered it impractical to impose legal limits on licensees expressed as dose to individuals in the population or to population groups. Rather, regulatory requirenents are formulated as limits on concentrations and/or quantities of radioactivity in air and water effluents released to the envi ronment. The mquirements am designed to provide reasonable assurance that resultant exposures of individual members of the public generally and of the population as a whole from nuclear activities from all important pathways of exposure are well within recommended radiation protection guides.
Arpendix B to Part 20 regulations lists, for approximately 250 radionuclides, limits on concentrations in air and water which, with few exceptions, are one-tenth of the most restrictive maximum
w
-9_
The radiation dose limits recommended by the ICRP and NCRP and the radiation protection guides established by the Federal Radiation Council apply to total exposures to all sources of radiation except natural background and medical procedums.
The limi ts applied by the AEC under the provisions of Part 20, to concentrations of radio-activity in effluents make it inprobable that radiation doses to the public from such radioactivity will exceed small fractions of limits applicable to total exposures from all sources of interest.
It is i
necessary, however, for the AEC and other mgulatory agencies to keep in mind the possibility that some combination of separately regulated sources of exposure might result in total doses in excess of these limi ts. This possibility is of especial concern in the regulation of nuclear facilities (e.g., uranium processing mills, reactor fuel chemical reprocessing plants and nuclear power plants) which may release large volumes of air or water containing a mixture of radionuclides.
In such cases the total quantity of each type of radionuclide released may be more critical with respect to limiting exposures of the public than are concentrations in effluent air and water.
w Part 20 clearly recognizes this concern in providing that, in addition to limiting concentrations in effluent streams, the Comission may limit total quantities of radioactive materials mieased in effluents during a specified period of time if it appears that in any situation the daily intake of radioactive material from all pathways of e(posure (air, food and water), by a suitable sample of an e' posed population group, averaged over a period not exceeding one year would otherwise exceed the daily intake resulting from continuous exposure to air or water containing one-third the concentration of radioactive material specified as limits in the regulations.
In effect, this provision would limit the dose to the critical organ of the suitable sample of an exposed population group from all sources of exposure to one-third the dose limit for individuals in the population recomended by the FRC, NCRP and ICRP.
~ '
It is intended that this provision of the regulation be implemented in the licensing process if it appears likely that sufficiently large quantity of radioactivity will be mieased that exposures to people offsite will be a significant fraction of radiation protection guides.
In such cases, it would be necessary to make an assessment.of the types and quantities of radionuclides released, their chemical and physical behavior in the environment, including reconcentration factors, important pathways to j
humans, population groups likely to be exposed and predicted doses to such groups. Quantity limits based on such a study would then be derived so that actual exposures to the public from all pathways would be well within radiation protection guides.
. For some nuclear activities it may not be practicable to comply with the concentration limits at the point of release from a restricted area as specified in the mgulation. The regulation provides for Commission approval of concentration limits higher than those specified in the regulation on a case-by-case basis provided the applicant demonstrates that he has made a reasonable effort to minimize the radioactivity contained in effluents to unrestricted areas and that exposures of individuals and of a suitable sample of exposed population groups do not exceed the exposure criteria specified in the mgulation.
In administering the regulatory program, the Connission also subscribes to the general principle that, within radiation protection guides, radiation exposures to the public should be kept as low as practi cable. This general principle has been a central one in the field of radiation protection and the nuclear industry for many years.
Experience shows that licensees have generally kept exposures to radiation and releases of radioactivity in effluents to levels that are well below Part 20 limits.
j The Commission published on December 3,1970, amendments to Part 20 that expresses in the regulation the intent that consistent with FRC guidance all AEC licensees should make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as far below the limits specified in Part 20 as practicable.
I will later discuss amendments to Part 50 that were published at the sane time to improve the regulatory framework to further assure that radioactivity in effluent releases from nuclear power reactors are maintained as low as practicable.
The implementation of this general principle will help to assure that any one class of activity does not centribute a Jisproportionate share of total exposure to the public and the cumulative effects of all sources of exposures will remain well within radiation protection gui des.
a
, Apolication of Part 20 and Part 50 in Licensing fluclear Power Plants I have discussed the Part 20 general standards for the control of radioactivity in effluents released to the environment from nuclear faci li ties. I would now like to discuss more specifically how these standards are applied in the licensing process for nuclear power plants.
The Part 50 regulation requires a utility to apply to the Commission for a permit to construct and for a license to operate a nuclear facility.
Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant is required to provide detailed information concerning the proposed site including population distribution near the site, meteorology, hydrology, and special environmental conditions. For liquid effluents the information includes an analysis of surface drainage, dilution provioed in bodies of water, water usage and possible reconcentration of radionuclides in aquatic life that may be an important pathway to exposure of people.
For gaseous effluents information is provided on such factors as wind speed, wind direction and persistence', severe weather conditions and topograptic effects. Information on the design and operation of radioactive waste treatment and fission product removal systems is also provi ded. Preoperational and operational monitoring programs for both onsite and offsite are described in detail to demonstrate that reliable data will be developed on any increase in environmental levels of radioactivi ty. This information is provided to demonstrate that radioactive material from both accidental and normal releases ca1 be controlled.
s The proposed te is evaluated by the regulatory staff to ascertain its suitability for a specific nuclear power station. As a practical matter Lne suitability of a site for a particular reactor is governed primarily by considerations related to accidental releases. The waste treatment technology available for controlling planned routine releases is capable of limiting the quantities of radioactivity to such low levels that such releases are not an important factor in site selection.
However, the detailed environmental data developed are useful for eva'iuating the consequences of either accidental or normal releases of radioactivi ty.
The information on envircnmental parameters and the design of the waste treatment system submitted by the applicant is analyzed and in many areas independent calculations, based on conservative models, are performed to verify the validity of the applicant's conclusions.
The expertise of other Federal agencies in such fields as meteorology, hydrology, and ecology is brought to bear in the safety reviews.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations are requested on potential radiological effects on aquatic life and wildlife, the technical capabilities of the U. S. Geological Survey I
3 15 -
is regularly used with mspect to the hydrological aspects of the site and of the U. S. Weather Bureau wi th respect to meteorology.
Experts from AEC national la 'ra*nries, universities and private organizations are routinely consulted on special problems.
The design of the reactor and environmental aspects of its operation are also reviewed by the independent statutory Advisory Conunittee on Reactor Safeguards.
Derivation of Limits on Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaeeous Effluents In licensing the operation of a nuclear power plant, an upper operating limit is established in the license on concentrations or quantities of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents.
Where several nuclear power reactors or other nuclear facilities are located on a single site, the combined releases of radioactivity from normal operations fmm all facilities at that site may not exceed Part 20 limits or facility license cenditions implementing these limits.
This means that for gaseous releases the cumulative total release limit established for the site would be the sane regardless of the number of reactors located on the site (i.e., as the number of facilities at the site increases, the internal limits on the several facilities are adjusted so that the total release limit for the site is not exceeded). The Part 20 limits on concentrations of radionuclides in liquid effluents released from the site are also the same regardless of the nunter of reactors on a site.
~
m
. I want to emphasize that the release limits established in the license as technical specifications are upper limits beyond which the reactor is not allowed to operate. The Part 50 regulation as amended effective January 2,1971 provides, among other things, that in order to keep mieases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during nomal mactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as practicable, each license authorizing operation of a nuclear power reactor will include technical specifications requiring that operating procedures for the control of effluents be established and followed and that equipment installed in the radioactive waste system be maintained and used. The technical specifications will also require the submission of a mport to the Commission every six (6) months specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous six (6) months of operation, and such other infomation as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases.
If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting I
pertad am significantly above design objectives, the report shall cover this specifically. On the basis of such reports and any additional
)
information the Comission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to time mquim the licensee to take such action as'be Commission deems appropriate.
In establishing and implementing the operating procedures, the licensee shall be guided by the following considerations: Expe rience with the design, construction and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that compliance with the technical specifications described above will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents at small percentages of the limits specified in Part 20 and the operating license. At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than such small percentages, but still within the limits specified in Part 20 and the operating license.
It is expected that in using this operational flexibility under unusual operating conditions, the licensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents as low as practicable.
O
Noble Gases External exposure from gaseous releases is due almost entirely to isotopes of the noble gases of xenon and krypton.
In deriving the release rate limits, " annual average site meteorology" based on site data is determined and a total dilution factor is derived from the meteorology, topography, stack air flow and elevation and site boundary dis tance. The release rate is deri.ved so as to limit the annual average exposure rate at the site boundary or at the point of maximum ground level exposure offsite (whichever is more nastrictive) to not more than 500 millirems per year from external radiation. This means that if the reactor were releasing radioactive gases at the limit, an individual present outdoors on the site boundary or other point of highest exposure rate offsite 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 365 days a year is not likely to receive an external whole body exposure in excess of 500 millirems per year.
Nuclear power reactor was te treatment sys tems are designed to limit releases of radioactivity in effluents to small percentages of AEC li mi ts.
It is not expected that actual releases will approach the upper limits during normal operations. However, it is of interest to
. examine theoretical estimates of the potential annual average radiation dose that the population living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants could receive if the plants did release noble gases at the limit.
Values of the dose from zero altitude releases of beta-emitting isotopes typical of pressurized water reactors (PWR) and 100-meter stack releases of gamma-emitting isotopes typical of boiling water reactors (BWR) normalized for a dose rate of 500 millirens per year at a site boundary distance of 500 meters (.31 miles) are shown in Exhibi t II.
The dose rates shown are for outdoors. Gamma dose rates indoors would be less perhaps by a factor of two depending on the shielding properties of the building. The dose rates become smaller with increasing distance from the source. At a distance of 15 miles the theoretical dose rates are about 2.5 millirems per year for a BWR and about 1 millirem per year for a PWR.
At distances beyond 30 miles and 20 miles, respectively, the dose rates are less than 1 millirem per year.
The theoretical average annual dose to the population living in the vicinity of these power plants, if noble gases were released at the limit, are functions of the population distribution with respect to the wind direction frequency distributions and the distance from the emitting i
point from the site boundary where the controlling dose rate of 500 l
. millirens per year exists (dose rates at other locations on the site boundary would be equal to or less than 500 millirens per year). Using realistic population distributions and wind direction frequencies for 13 different power reactor sites, the theoretical average population dose rate for the whole population included within a circle with a radius of 50 miles of these plants would be approximately 1 millirem per year.
Operating experience for thirteen (13) nuclear power plants in 1969 is shown in Exhibit III.
This experience shows that eight (8) of the plants released less than 0.1 percent of the limit; three (3) plants released 1 percent (1%) or less of the limit; one (1) plant released 3.6 percent of the limit; and one (1) plant released 31 percent of the limit. It is estimated that average exposures ;o the total population living within a radius of 50 miles of these plants were less than one-one hundredth (0.01) of 1 millirem.
Radioiodine and Particulate Air Releases To control exposures from airborne radioactive materials that may enter terrestria' food chains, the calculations of stack release limits for halogens (primarily radioiodines), and particulates with a half-life greater than 3 days include a reduction factor of 700 applied to Part 20 e
e r
w
. air concentrations. These materials are released in such small amounts that they contribute very little to external exposure or to exposure by inhalation of the materials in air. Although this factor of 700 was derived for iodine-131 in milk, it is applied as a measure of conservatism to all radionuclides in particulate form with a half-life greater than 3 days. The release rate for iodine-131 is sufficiently conservative that an individual could mceive his entire milk supply from cows grazing near the point of highest iodine deposition. The radiation exposure to the thyroid of such an individual would be less than 1.5 mms per year. Experience has shown that actual releases of iodine from power reactors have been less than a few percent of limits.
Environmental monitoring programs around power reactors have shown no measurable exposures to the public from iodine-131 or particulates.
Liquid Releases Licenses _ authorizing the operation of nuclear power reactors limit concentrations in liquid effluents in the condenser coolant discharge canal prior to release offsite to concentrations given in Appendix B, Part 20. The concentration permitted for any one radio:sotcpe must take into account other radioisotopes that may be present. Under this
. requirement an individual member of the general public could obtain all his drinking water from the power reactor condenser coolant discharge canal without exceeding radiation protection guides developed by the FRC, the NCRP and the ICRP.
If the licensee desires to compute the gross activity limit taking into account only those radionuclides known to be present in the mixture, he must determine the radioisotopic composition of the radioactivity in the effluent. The licensee may elect to forego some or all of such determinations if he uses more restrictive limits which assume that all of the unidentified radioisotopes in the mixture have the same concentration limit as does the most restrictive radioisotope which has not been determined to be absent from the unidentified portion of the mi xture.
-7 The limit of 1 x 10 uc/ml selected by most of the licensees is sufficiently restrictive that it can be used for any mixture of fission and corrosion products without any identification of the specific radio-nuclides present in the mixture. The typical radionuclides present in water effluents from power reactors are such that, if the licensee wishes to identify them and measure their concentrations by radioisotopic analysis, limits which are less restrictive than 1 x 10-7 uc/ml by a factor of 100 or more could be selected.
a
. A rough assessment can be made of the potential exposure through drinking water supply and food pathways from radioactivity released in liquid effluents by considering the isotopic ratios of the principal radionuclides present in water cooled power reactor liquid effluents (e.g., Cs-137,1-131,1-133, Sr-90, Sr-89, Na-24, Bala-140, Mo-99, Co-60, Co-58, Mn-56, Cr-51), known reconcentration factors in salt and fresh water organisms, and dietary habits. Such an assessment indicates that if the concentration of racionuclides commonly present in power reactor effluents do not exceed an annual average concentration of 1 x 10-7 uc/ml, in the condenser coolant discharge canal, the value used by most operating power reactors, no environmental dilution would be required to permit an i:.dividual to obtain his entire drinking water supply from the effluent and ingest 150 grams of fish per day, grown in the effluent, (an average of one-half pound per meal for approximately 240 meals per year) without exceeding about one-third the FRC radiation protection guide for an individual in the population.
Quantities of effluent water returned to the environment from nuclear power reactors are so large that the quantities of radioactivi ty which the operator of the reactor is likely to release in water result
l
, - in concentratons very small compared to the limits specified in the regul ations.
Taking into account the large factors of environmental dilution normally available, the quantities of radionuclides released are generally too small to result in measurable exposures of the public from any pathway of exposure. Environmental monitoring programs carried out by licensees, State Health Departments, the Division of Environmental Radiation (formerly the Bureau of Radiological Health of the U. S. Public Health Service), and the AEC confirm this assessment.
For this reason, it has not been necessary to apply specific quantity limits, in addition to concentration limits, on effluents from power plants.
i l
l
- 2S -
Summary of Experience and Measures to Keep Radioactivity in Effluents As Low As Practicable In summary, experience with licensed light water cooled power mactors to date shows that radioactivity in water and air effluents have generally been kept at less than a few percent of the limits speci fied in Part 20. Environmental monitoring programs and detailed studies carried out in the environs of nuclear power plants by licensees,
State Health Departments, the Division of Environmental Radiation (formerly the Bureau of Radiological Health of the U. S. Public Health Service), and the Atomic Energy Coninission have in most cases mvealed little or no increase in environmental radioactivity resulting from plant operations.
The Commission published on December 3,1970, amendments to its regulations to become effective on January 2,1971, that will help to further assure that radioactivity in effluent releases is indeed maintained as low as practicable by requiring:
(1) that a description of the design objectives and the waste treatnent equipment and handling technology that will be included in the design of power reactors to keep levels of radioactivity in effluents as low as practicable be included in each application for a permit to construct a power mactor; 1
1 1
q
+9 (2) that waste treatment equipment installed in the reactor be maintained and used during operation of the reactor; and (3) that the licensee mport on a semi-annual basis the quantities of radioactivity released in air and liquid effluents and specifically cover in the report any releases significantly above design objectives. On the basis of such mports and other information, the Commission may from time to time require the licensee to take such action as the Commissian deems appropriate.
We are confident that the design and operation of nuclear power plants within these requirements will assure that radiation exposures to the public living in the near vicinity of these plants from radioactivity mieased in effluents will be less than a few percent of exposures from n.itural background radiation. Average annual exposures to the total U. S. population from this source of exposure are not likely to exceed a small fraction of 1 millirem.
Attachments :
EXilIBIT I
- Radiation Exposures (Comparative Information)
EXilIBIT ~ II
- Dose Rates as a Function of Distance for a BWR and a PWR Normalized to Give 500 Mrem / Year at 0.31 Miles EXHIBIT III Experience on Releases of Radioactive Material in Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents - 1961
EXHIDIT I REM - Radiation Dose Unit MILLIREM - 1/1000 of a Rem RADIATION EXPOSURES (COMPARATIVE INFORMATION)
ANNUAL WHOLE BODY EXPOSURES FROM NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION (Cosmic Radiation; Radioactivity in Rocks, Soi1, Building Materials, Radicactivity in Body)
United States70-200 Millirem
(.07.2 Rem)
Special Areas Average Population Brazil - Monazite Sand Amas 500 Millirem 30,000
(.5 Rem)
India - Monazite Sand Areas 1300 Millirem 100,000 (1.3 Rem)
France - Granitic, schistous, 180-350 Milli rem 7,000,000 (one-sandstone amas
(.18
.35 Rem) sixth French population)
FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL (FRC) GUIDES - ANNUAL WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE Occupational Exposure 5000 Millirem (5 Rem)
Individual in Population 500 Millimm (.5 Rem)
Suitable Sample Population Group 170 Millirem (.17 Rem)
FIRST DETECTABLE CLINICAL EFFECTS - ACUTE WHOLE BODY EXPOSURES 25.000 - 100,000 Mi1li rem (25 - 100 Rem)
ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE TO COSMIC RADI ATION FROM LIVING IN DENVER, COLORADO, RATHER THAN PORT CLINTON, OHIO About 70 Millirem Per Year ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE FROM LIVING IN A STONE OR BRICK HOUSE AS CONARED TO A WOODEN HOUSE Generally higher by values that range up to more than 50 millirem per year.
ANNUAL WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE FROM TYPICAL OPERATING POWER REACTOR TO PERSONS LIVING NEAR SITE B0UNDARY Persons living near site boundary 5 Millirem (.005 Rem)
Average to persons living within 4 miles Less than 1 Millirem (.001 Rem)
i-EXilIBIT II
?!GURE 1 - DOSE RATES AS A TUICTION OF DISTANCE FOR A BWR AND A PWR NORMAL.IZED TO GIVE 500 MREM / YEAR AT 0.31 MILES.
3 10 i
3 4 ss7s,i e
4 sevs:
a s
4 s.7ssi
.. j ~._... t.. _.4_1 a 8 2.
_L.L. 4
. - w
.u
... w.4. d-
- ?..
w 4. I.. -
y_....
. {.... i.
't I
y lt='i l ' j.
.. j.... _ _. {
.e _.
6 i
I I
i k r- '
. -- I,-c eI h.- '. l ' ' 1 -
i' I-- L '
-4 b <
5
._._. :. - '. ]I a_ p. j_
i 1
.o
- . T L _t.
4 - _,....
3
,m-
.j -
e.; l.. i
,_._[.r-a-p-p-
- -- + ;
i.:i
,. g _,.. _.
---.--l-'----
.. l l
p:i,......l : :
. p., } } i j l
j ; F,-l:
... t._ [__. 2.__'.' ;
'. l.
' p' L
I '- -
3
_. a_
..g i
.a.
BWR with 100 meter stack gI,
..l__.'..
i
- ; b.
' l. '! ' t
. I. __,_N. (primarily gama emitters) '-
lI l!
i l
l 1
,i
......-..._.4._.,._.
...r
,. _...__:.._...a..
. r- -
r-
- i.....:- -. J. _ I.. -- - -- l _- 1p...., _:_ l ;.: :- '
.'1,--
...\\
. _. _.; _. 4
-r T
-+-'o l.;
Ii:
i i
t 6
0, 5
w
-: 4'-'
-a
. _a
_}.
- ...,. 3 1.i ;.. _...._
_i.i :t t.;..
!,i.
4
..,.. 7 1
12-
..t
! -- 111 ii
-1 1 - - -
f
- a-I![+-4.. Ar _j..!.! ' T ' l,-..i,__..
3
.r ;--!
- -i-H
=
.. j.
4,.. !
[.
!. l-l :: : :
- i p-
._; p
.a
. _ i..
I i. 8.
i. -
i
. TI.
- _4_
_ A_...4...
i
- a.. '. --
l,
- u.,
l,
- _:.. _:.. : a.
. _. - - :.x.
1._
!.,l-1' r....
. 3
.,.l e.i l g.
- ,v 1
. i.
' 10 i
PWR wi th no s tack 3
? _1_.i _4.
- - - *-.,. _:_.,t_.t g
5 ;_ _..,.. (_p ri ma ri ly be ta emi tte rs )_._..
y_i__j.y; _,
7 - :-
7, _.4..j a, q.-
4
... y 7 7...;,
4.,
p e-s
-- -- - - L J 4-----
o
. s..
l 1_. _i.i., :
4 -__7..
7.- _ [ j,;_i.
- P.
1
- :t
\\
1 l
l s e i..
i t
i
?
.*t**,
l -
lf,--*
- l*
l a..'**-
=,
h= l-
}
.._.'_.: _t
,1 L'
9 3
r 1
t i
3 -
+9 4
]
g 3-
.I g
..,. ):....
.J.
p i
t..
1 a
l.
3 6-t.
t..
i a
L. i. pl '.
- - l'i '
- -l I.,4
.{:. -N V5.
. h+.-
' M l4l-.'c=-
u-
.. J;.%
-.'t -
8 g
,. 4,.
l I
.f t
--'....,,,_.g e
0 4
10,-,'
'.4 i'
-r s.-
- = g. ;..
-4...;-..t_ n,.t.. g....
.. ~ -
- ,s,
4.-..
.. 6 i
i i-bi 1.-
.'.t-1-'*
~y a.
I 9._
1 i__
r_j-1.3;..
r-6,. 4. -
s o
i
- - l i
.l-4 r.-
--,'j 5
t.
.: u. -
t
- t.
i 4
- r. j'..,T-t,., r,1,
_ _. r-,
, r; 1 rw--" I
... q _
g -
..,., ; q 5._. j,. ;..
- 7ggj, 3
y.g; i._... l
'.3..
l l.;ij]i s
._.! p a:-___
. g_.
l_
_.-.ll.4
-__ L.
i,.. m i,
i- QE.-
8 I
- j t'.1"l lii]. iE r
'I
- 'E..
"1,. !
. l,.:.i.,..,.-.
.,i
?
i:
i v_.:..::
_ = -
_.. i...
..)
.t 10 1 4,l...
4 a
l
.2 i
10-1 0
1 2
10 10 10 Distance - elles
EXHIBIT III EXPERIENCE ON RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EFFLUENTS - 1969 TABLE I - RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVITY FROM POWER REACTORS IN LIQUIO EFFLUENTS,1969 MIXED FISSION & CORROSION PRODUCTS TRITIUM Concentration Released Limi tif Percent of Released Facili ty (C1)
(10-7 pCi/ml)
Limit /
(Ci)
Percent of WC I 2
3 DRESDEN 1 9.5 1
22
~6
< 0.001 SAN ON0FRE 8
1 14 3500 0.2 hut 00LDT BAY 1.5 1
8.7
< 5
< 0.001 NINE MILE POINT 0.9 1
8.2 1
< 0.001 BIG ROCK 12 22 5.6 28 0.01 OYSTER CREEK 0.48 1
4.1 5
0.001 SAXTON 0.01 1
2.5 1
0.008 INDI AN POINT 1 28 37 1.5 1100 0.07 CONN. YANKEE 12 12 1.4 5200 0.24 GINNA 0.02 1
0.4 1
< 0.001 LA CROSSE 8.5 300 0.11
~ 25 0.003 YANKEE 0.019 1
0.07 1200 0.14 PEACH BOTTOM
< 0.001 1
0.002 40 0.031
. EXHIBIT III TABLE II - RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY FROM POWER REACTORS IN GASE0US EFFLUENTS,1969 NOBLE AND ACTIVATION GASES HALOGENS AND PARTICULATES Curies Percentage of Curies Percentage of Facili ty Released Permissible $/
Permissible Released Permissible 5/
Permissible ORESDEN 1 800,000 22,000,000 3.6 0.26 85 0.3 SAN ON0FRE 260 567,000 n.045
<= 0.0001 0.8
< 0.001 HUMBOLOT BAY 490,000 1,560,000 31 0.65 5.6 12 NINE MILE POINT 55 25,800,000
<= 0.001
- 0.001 63
-: 0.001 BIG ROCK 200,000 31,000,000 0.65 0.2 38 0.53 OYSTER CREEK 7,000 9,450,000 0.075 0.003 126 0.002 SAXTON 1
3,750 0.035
< 0.0001 10
< 0.001 IN0lAN POINT 1 600 5,360,000 0.01 0.025 7.6 0.33 CONN. YANKEE 190 18,900 1
0.001 0.27 0.37 GINNA
< 1 360,000
< 0.001
< 0.0001 1.7
< 2.001 LA CROSSE 480 480,000 0.1
<= 0.063 1.6
-: 4 YANKEE 4
6,600 0.062
< 0.0001 0.03 0.01 PEACH BOTTOM 72 189,000 0.038
< 0.0006 0.12
< 0.5
. EXHIBIT III TABLE III - COWARISON OF EFFLUENTS 1 % 7-1969 LIQUIDS GASES Curies Released Curies Released
/
Facility 1969 1968 1%7 1969 1968 1967 DRESDEN 1 9.5 6
4.3 800,000 240,000 260,000 SAN ONOFRE 8
1.5 0.32 260 4.8 4
HUN OLDT BAY 1.5 3.2 3.1 490,000 897,000 900,000 BIG ROCK 12 7.9 10 200,000 232,000 264,000 SAXTON 0.01 0.009 0.02 1
18.6 22 INDIAN POINT 1 28 34.6 28 600 55.2 23
!.ONN. YANKEE 12 3.8 0.39 190 3.7 0.02 LA GROSSE 8.5 0.074
< 0.005 480
<1
<5 YANKEE 0.019 0.009 0.056 4
0.66 2.3 PEACH BOTTOM
< 0.001
< 0.001 0.002 72 108 7.5 s
- -