ML19340D140

Testimony Re Tx Pirg Contention 1(f) Re Population Risks. Pp 1-8

ML19340D140
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/18/1980
From:	Hamilton L BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:
Shared Package
ML19340D136	List: ML19340D135 ML19340D137 ML19340D140
References
NUDOCS 8012290167
Download: ML19340D140 (8)

Text

• ll'

, Dncember 18, 1980 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

() 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

5 In the Matter of )

)

6 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466

)

7 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

8 )

9 10 TESTIMONY OF LEONARD D. HAMILTON RELATING TO TEXPIRG CONTENTION 1(f) (POPULATION RISKS) 11 12 Q. Please state your name and place of employment.

13 A. My name is Leonard D. Hamilton and I am employed as 14 Head of the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment 15 Division in the National Center for Analysis of Energy 16 Systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated 17 Universities, Inc., Upton, New York 11973.

18 Q. Please describe your educational background and 19 professional qualifications.

l 20 A. A statement of my education and professional qualifica-21 tions is attached to my testimony submitted on Doggett 22 contention 1(b) (Bishop contention 13).

23 Q. Are you familiar with Intervenor TexPirg's contention 24 1(f) relating to comparative risks from radioactive l

i 25 releases to the population surrounding the Allens Creek l

26 site (ACNGS) and the South Texas Project site (STP)?

l 27 A. Yes, I have reviewed this contention.

28 Q. Have you performed any analysis of such comparative risks?

i I

l l _- 80127,90$.g . - . .. . .- _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ ._ _

O  !

1 A. Yes. I have analyzed and compared the projected doses 2 to the population surrounding both ACNGS and STP from 3 routine low level radioactive releases and from assumed 4 accidental radioactive releases.

5 O. Dr. Hamilton, with respect to routine low level radio-6 active releases, would you explain your analysis and 7 comparison of the risks to the population between the 8 two sites.

9 A. Yes. The South Texas Project consists of two pressurized 10- water reactors (PWR) of 1250 MM(e) each, for a total 11 capacity of 2500 MW(e) . The predicted annual whole 12 body doses to the population within 50 miles of the STP t 13 site, as set forth in the NRC Staff's Final Environmental 14 Statement for STP, are 6.67 man-rem.1/ If one scales the 15 STP project down to the capacity of the ACNGS, Unit 1 16 (1146 MWe), the resulting figure is 3.06 man-rem. In 17 comparison, the summed whole body dose within 50 miles 18 projected at the Allens Creek site is 32.72 man-rom. !

19 Table 1 sets forth the anticipated health effects 20 associated with these doses from routine emissions:

21 22 1/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement - South Texas Project Units 23 1 and 2, NUREG-75/019, March 1975, p. 5-19.

24 2/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement -

25 Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG-0470, August 1978, pp. S.5-27, 30.

26 This figure includes 3 man-rems from transportation of fuel and wastes to and from the reactor.

27 28 _ _ . _ .

o -

Excess Cancers Table 1 Attributable to 1! Plant and Site Whole Body Doses one year of (Man-rem'/ year) plant operation 2

3 1146 MW BWR at 9.6 10- cases Allens Creek site 32.72 5.2 10 deaths 4

-4 5 1146 MW PWR at 9.0 10 -4 cases South Texas site 3.06 4.8 10 deaths 6

7 difference 29.66 8.7 10_ cases 4.7 10 deaths 8

9 '

O. What is the basis of your calculations set forth in the 10 column titled " Excess Cancers?"

11 A. The basis for these calculations is explained in 12 detail on pages 7-8 of my testimony submitted on Doggett contention 1(b) (Bishop 13) . For convenience, these 13 14 pages of my testimony are attached hereto as Attachment 1.

15 Q. Have you calculated the differences in excess cancer

); cases and excess deaths at the two sites due to routine 17 low level radioactive releases?

1? A. Yes. Over a 30 year plant lifetime, the difference 19 between the estimated doses at STP and ACNGS amounts to 20 about 0.26 excess cancer cases of which 0.14 are excess 21 deaths.

22 Q. Turning now to assumed accidental radioactive releases, 23 would you explain your analysis and comparison of the l

24 risks to the population between the two sites.

25 A. Yes. The NRC Staff has assumed that the largest

! 26 whole-body population dose out to 50 miles from an 27 accident at the South Texas Project site is due to a 28 large break loss-of-coolant accident and is estimated

. , . , _ . . , _ , . _ . . ~ , ,

O I to be l'O man-rem.d! When this man-rem dose is scaled to 2 a 1146 MWe plant, the resulting dose is 156 man-rems. The 3 corresponding highest dose figure at the ACNGS site is 4 also from the same type of assumed accident (LOCA-large 5 pipe break) and is estimated to be 29 man-rem.1! Thus, 6 the assumed accident doses at the STP site will be slightly 7 higher than the doses at the ACNGS site. Table 2 sets 8 forth the health effects of such releases.

9 Table 2 Excess Cancers Attributable to Whole Body Dose the Accident 10- Plant and Site g,,,_7, )

11

-3 12 1146 MW BWR at 8.5 10 c,,,,

-3 Allens Creek site 29 4.6 10 deaths 13 14 1146 MW PWR at 4.6 cases 10[2 deaths South Texas site 156 2.5 10 15 16 -2 difference 127 - 3.7 10 -2 c,,,,

- 2.0 10 deaths

,7 A

18 Q. Is the basis for the calculations set forth in the 19 column titled " Excess Cancers" the same as the " Excess 20 Cancers" column in Table l?

21 A. Yes. As I stated previously, the basis for these 22 calculations is described more fully on pages 7-8 of my 23 testimony submitted on Doggett contention 1(b) (Bishop i 24 13). These pages are reproduced in Attachment 1.

25 26 27 3/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/019, on. cit.,

p. 7-2.

28 4/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0470, on. cit.,

p. S.7-2.

l l

e o -

1 1 Q. Dr. Hamilton, what conclusions have you reached with 2 respect to the risks to the population surrounding the 3 ACNGS and STP sites based upon the figures in Tables 4 1 and 2?

5 A. As can be seen from these tables, the number of 6; excess cancer cases and excess deaths resulting from 1

7 routine and accidental radioactive releases at ACNGS 8 and STP are extremely minute. With routine releases, 9J the difference between the numbers at ACNGS and STP 10 amount to about 0.26 excess cancer cases and 0.14 excess 11 deaths over the thirty year plant lifetime. This 12 difference is, again, quite small and insignificant.

13 With assumed accidental releases, the difference 14 between the numbers at two sites weighs slightly in favor 15 of ACNGS, but, again, the difference is essentially 16 insignificant. In either event, no appreciable threat 17 to the health of the population from radioactive releases 18 may be expected at either site.

l 19 Q. As you state in your testimony, the man-rem dose f

20 figures resulting frem routine low level and assumed

21 accidental radioactive releases used in Tables 1 and 2 for l

l 22 ACNGS are taken from the ACNGS Final Supplement to the l 23 Final Environmental Statement. Have you reviewed the I

i 24 more recent population projections for ACNGS as set i

25 forth in the testimony of William T. White?

26 A. Yes. I have examined the differences between the 27 population estimates used in the Allens Creek Final l 28 Supplement and the new Rice Center - Dames and Moore l

-S-

. _ - - . , _ , - . ~ . _

o 1 figures.

2 Q. What effect, if any, do the new population projec-3 tions have on your analysis?

4 A. In general the new population estimates are about 5 -

30% higher than those used in the Final Supplement on 61 which our radiat ion effects calculations are based, i

7 Therefore, it is possible that my radiation effects 8 estimates may be low by about 20 to 30%. However, 9 given the uncertainties inherent in estimating future populations, and more importantly, the very slight 10lt.1 11l health effects in any case, this difference, in my 12' opinion, is insignificant.

13 O. Does that conclude your testimony?

14 A. Yes, it does.

15 16 17 18 19 l 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 l

l 26 27 28 l

l

o I Attachment 1 l

l BEIR III suggests that the dose-response function may be 2 quadratic at low' dose r ates for low LET radiation, but ree-3 ommends the use of line ar dose response functions as a conser-4 vative method in estima :ing risks. The BEIR III (1980) results 5 are slightly lower but essentially the same as BEIR I (1972).

6 o. with the above-desezibed assumptions, can you calculate 7 i the risk to a populatica from radiation exposure?

I 8d A. Yes. With these ass umptions , one can calculate an 9 estimate of the expecte:. number of cancers in a population 10 -

following radiation exposure. These assumptions underlie 11  :

the estimates of cancern after radiation from the nuclear 12 3 fuel cycle. For the effects of nuclear oower, our 13 principal reference for exposure data are Table s-3 14 (10 CFR 51) and GESMO [ 9].

15 o. Please describe your calculation in greater detail.

16 A. The cancer risk estimators used in the remainder of this 17 testimony are derived from the BEIR III study [20].

18 The results of the absolute risk model were used. Since, 19 except in the case of a possible accident, the exposure 20 is continuous in nature to one rad per year were chosen 21 rather than a single exposure of 10 rad. The model for 22 which the low-level low-LET radiation dose-response is 23 linear with no threshold (as opposed to the quadratic 24 and linear quadratic models with or without threshold) 25 was chosen for two reasons: (1) it is considered to be 26 conservative on the high side, by the DEIR III committee 27 and (2) it is the only one which can be applied when only 28 collective population doses are available (as opposed to

, o '

1 population dose distributions). Two distinct populations l

2 .

at risk are considered: (1) the general public consisting 3 of all ages and both sexes, and (2) an occupational popula-4 tion consisting of essentially all males between the ages 5 of 20 and 65.

6 The risk estimators for whole body low-LET exposure 7 for leukemia and bone cancer incidence (and mortality) 8' are taken from BEIR III page 256. The other cancer risk estimators for mortality are from p. 259 and incidence 9l.

10' from p. 271 (the Nagasaki Tumor Registry results).

11 12 CANCER RISK PER 10 RAD 13 (Whole body low-LET exposure) 14 Population Incidence- Mortality 15 occupational 225 102 16 Public 293 158 17 The lung cancer risk to the occupational population 18 is derived from figures presented in BEIR III p. 390. The 19 male population age distribution and life expentancy are 20 combined with the risk at time of diagnosis and a latent 21 period of ten years resulting in a risk estimator of 93 22 cases per 10 6 rem lung dose.

23 Q. What is your estimate of the genetic effects which 24 would result from radiata on from the nuclear fuel cycle?

25 A. No genetic effects htve been demonstrated in the 26 offspring of irradiated.? uman populations; there are 27 thus no direct quantitatj ve data available for man.

28 i 8- <

<