ML20030E026
| ML20030E026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Branagan E, Struckmeyer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030E021 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109170300 | |
| Download: ML20030E026 (30) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-387 0.L.
)
50-388 0.L.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
4LLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES, INC.
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
~
TESTIMONY OF EDhARD F. BRANAGAN, JR. AND RICHARD K. STRUCKMEYER REGARDING CONTENTION 1 Q.l. Could you please state your names and affiliations.
A.
My.:ame is Edward F. Branagan, Jr.
I am a Radiological Physicist with the Radiological Assessment Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
A copy of my professional qualifications is Attactr.ent A.
A.
My name is Richard K. Struckmeyer.
I am an Environmental Analyst with the Radiological Assessment Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
A copy of my professional qualifications is Attachment B.
Q.2.
Dr. Branagan, do your responsibilities include evaluatin.; dose health effect models for the NRC?
A.
Yes.
Q.3.
Dr. Branagan, what is the purpose of this testimony?
A.
My testimony will address a portion of contention 1.
Contention 1, in part, concerns the radiological Sealth effects that may result from Tecnnetium-99 (Tc-99) relearas from the fuel cycle. My testimony ls designed to address the population dose commitments (hereinafter referred to as population doses) and health effects '. hat may result from Tc-99 gaseous relaases, and liquid releases into a model river system.
Dr. Struckmeyer's testimony is concerned specifically with the population dose; from 8109170300 810915 PDR ADOCK 05000387 T
. exposures to liquid releases of Tc-99 into the Gulf of Mexico and the world's oceans (i.e., pp. 2-8 of Attar.hment 0).
Q.4.
How were population doses from Tc-99 releases estimated?
A.
Potential population doses from Tc-99 releases were estimated in several steps. First, the quantities of Tc-99 released to the tiosphere from three fuel cycle options on a per reference reactor year * (RRY) basis were estimated. Second, population aoses per unit release (Curie (C1)) of Tc-99 to the air, and population doses per Ci of Tc-99 released to the water were estimated. Third, population doses per RRY were estimated by summing the population dose per RRY from airborne releases of Tc 39 with the popuiation dose per RRY from liquid releases of'Tc-99.
The population 1:se per RRY from airborne releases of Tc-99 is equal to the product of the quantity of Tc-99 released in gaseous form per RRY and the population dose per Ci cf Tc-99 released to the air. The population dose per RRY from liquid reletses of Tc-99 is equal to the product of the quantity ]f Tc-99 released in liquid form per RRY and the population dese per Ci of Tc-99 released to the water.
Q.5.
How were the quantities of Tc-99 releases determined?
A.
Estimated quantities of Tc-99 releases per RRY 9ere taken from testimony by Dr. Fred D. Fisher of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.I Estimated quantities of Tc-99 releases to the air and the water per RRY are summarized in Table C.l. Since the quantities of Tc-99 per RRY released from the fuel cycl? depend on the type of fuel cycle, Tc-99 releases per RRY ware estimated for thrce fuel cycle opt;ons:
no reprocessing; uranium only recycle; and plutonium and uranium recycle. Since Tc-99 has a long physical half-life (i.e., Tl/2 = 210,000 years), quantities of Tc-99 releases in gaseous and liquid form from three fuel
- A reference reactor year is defined as a model 1000-MWe light-water-cooled reactor operating at an annual capacity factor of 80%.
1 4 cycle options were estimated for two times:
(1) a prompt release, in units of Ci/RRY, for cumulative releases during the first 2000 years; and (2) an assumed persistent annual release, in unitt of Ci/yr/RRY, for release time periods beyond 2000 years. The assumed persistent annual release was a liquid release o Tc-99 from a high level waste repository. Persistent annual releases are limited 'o the amount cf Tc-99 placed initially in the repository (i.e., about 390 Ci/RRY).
Q.6.
How were population doses per Ci of Tc-99 released into the air and water estimated?
A.
Population doses per Ci of Tc-99 released were estimated for all appropriate pathways (see Figure 1). The RABGAD and LADTAP computer codes were used to estimate per ilation doses per Ci of Tc-99 to the air and water, respectively.2,3 The parameters that were used in the computer runs were taken largely from the Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Ovido Fupl in Light Water Cooled Reactors (GESM0, NUREG-0002).2 The values for the parameters and the bases for these vs.tues are described in more detail in Attachment D.
Population doses per Ci of Tc-99 were estimated over two environmental dose conrdt-ment
- periods (i.e.,100 years and 1000 years).
Q.7.
How were population doses per RRY calculated?
I A.
Pooulation doses per RRY were estima*.ed by multiplying the quantities of Tc-99 released in gaseous and liquid form (Attachment C) by the population doses I
per Ci of Tc-99 releared in gaseous and liquid form (Attachment D. Table 0.6).
l
- The environmental dose commitment (EDC) is the integrated population dose for a saecific time period (e.g.,100 or 1000 years);
i.e., it represents the sum of l
the annual population doses for the total time period specified.
t
Since quantities of Tc-99 released were given for taa release times (i.e., a prompt release for cum'ulative releases during the first 2000 years,and a persistent annual release for beyond 2000 years), population doses were calculated for prompt releases and an assumed persistent annual release.
Q.8.
How were potential health effects estimated?
A.
Potential health effects were estimated by mul't'iplying the populatioa dose per RRY by sanatic (i.e., cancer) and genetic risk estimators.
Q.9.
What risk estimators were used by the Staff in estimating potential health effects?
A.
The risk estimators used by the staff were based on models described in a National Academy of Sciences report entitled "The Effect on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation".
This report is known informally as the BEIR I Report after ',ts authoring Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The BEIR I Report consisted of a comprehensive review and reevaluation of the scientific basis of radiation exposure on humans by scientists who were eminent in their fields. The following risk estimators were used to estimate potential health effects: about 140 potential deaths from cancer pte million person-rem and about 260 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rem. The cancer fatality risk estimates are based on the
" absolute risk" model de'aribed in BEIR I.
Higher estimates can be developed by use o' the " relative risk" model along with the assunption that risk prevails for the duration of life. This would produce risk values up to about four times greater than those used in this testimony. The NRC staff regards this as n reasonable upper limit to the range of uncertainty.
The lower limit of the range would
. be zero. The BEIR III Report estimates that the number of potential nonfatal cancers would be approximately 1.5 to 2 times the number of potential fatal cancers.5 The range of uncertainty in the genetic risk estimates extends a factor of about 6 above and 4 below the preceeding value of about 260 potential cases of all foms of genetic disorders per million person-rems.,
It should be noted that the preceding t isk estimators are consistent with the.
recommendations of a number of recognized radiation protection organizations, sJch as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the National Council on Radiatior: Protection and Measurementr(NCRP), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).6-8 Q.10. Why were population doses evaluated for environmental dose commitment perioos only as long as 1000 yearsi A.
The Staff has not estimated population doses and health effects for longer environmental dose commitment time periods oecause predictions over time periods even as great as 100 years are suoject to great uncertainties. These uncertainties result from but are not limited to political and social considerations, population size and competing health risk characteristics, and, for time periods on the order uf thousands of years, geologic and climatologic effects. However, the Staff has estimated population doses and potential health effects duo to assumed persistent annual releases from high level wastes beyond 2000 years for the sake of complete-ness.
. Q.ll. What are the population doses from ic-99 releases from the fuel cycle?
A.
Population doses for prompt and assumed persistent releases of Tc-99 per RRY are given in Tables 1 and 2, respective;y. The population doses in Table 1 are for the fuel cycle option that results in the highest populattan doses per RRY for Tc-99 rel ea ses. The total body risk equivalent population dose is about 5 person-rem /RRY fna prompt releases. Population doses are given in' units of total body risk equivalent dose
- to estimate the number of potential deaths due to cancer, and in Units of genetically significant dose to estimate the number of potential genetic disorders in future generations of the exposed population.
Population doses for assumed persistent releases of Tc-99 from a high level waste repository beyond 2000 years are given in Table 2 for the fuel cycle option that results in the highest population dose. The annual total body risk equivalent population dose (i.e., about 4 x 10-3 person-rem /yr/RRY) *s about 1000 times less than the total hady risk equivalent population dose for the first 2000 years (i.e., 5 person-rem /RRY).
The total body risk equivalent population doses for both 100 year and 1000 year environmental dose ccmmitment times are about' the same because almost all of the population doses are received in the first 100 years.
- Total body risk equivalent dose is the sum of the total body dosf ani each organ dose multiplied by the ratio of the mortality risk per organ-rem to the morta'.ity risk per person-rem total body.
m
.m
1 0.12. What are the number of potential cancer fatalitics that may rest t from Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle?
l A.
The number of potentN :ancer fatalities that may result frem prompt and assumed persistent releases of Tc-99 per RRY from the fuel cycle are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. There may occur about 0.0007 cancer fatslities/RR',' due to prompt releases of Tc-99. The number of potentini cancer, fatalities from each assumed annual release of Tc-99 from a 5:igh level waste repository for time periods beyond 2000 years (i.e., about 5 x 10-7 potential fatal cancers /yr/RRY) is about 1400 times less than the cumulative value for prompt releases during the first 2000 years (i.e., about 7 : 10-4 potential fatal cancers /RRY).
Q.13. What are the number of potential genetic disorders that may result from Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle?
A.
The number of potential genetic disorders that may result from prompt and persistent releases of Tc-99/RRY from the fuel cycle are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. There may occur about 0.00006 genetic disorders /RRY due to prompt releases of Tc-99. The number of potential genetic disorders from each assumed release of Tc-99 from the fuel cycle for time periods beyond 2000 years (i.e., about 2 x 10-8 potential genetic disorders /yr/RRY) is about 3000 times less than the cumulative value for prorpt releases during the first 2000 years (i.e., abcut 6 x 10-5 potential genetic disorders /RRY).
Q.14. How does the population dose from Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle presented in the FES compare with the estimates in this testimony?
A.
In the FES (p. 4-33), the Staff estimated that the population dose from expost.re to potential releases of Tc-99 from the fuel cycle should not exceed 100 person-rem /RRY. The present analysis indicates that the total body risk equivalent dose is about 5 person-rem /RRY. Consequently, the population dose from Tc-99 releases in the FES are more cmservative than those presented in this testimony.
a 8-Q.15. How do the health effect estimates due to exposure to D-99 releases from the fuel cycle in the FES compare with the estimates in this testimony?
A.
The value of 0.01 potential cancer deaths (over a 100 year period) in the FES (p. 4-34) is a more conservative estimate. The present estimate indicates the risk of cancer mortality per RRY (over' periods of 10^ years into the future) is less T.han I chance in a thousand. Since these aealth effect estimates are based on an assumed linear dost response model at very low dose-rates, it is very possible that the actual risks may be much lower, ano even include zero (see SEIR III, p. 139).5 i
Q.16. Does the present analysis support the earlier conclusions of the S-3 Hearing Board concerning the radiological impacts from Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle *?
a A.
Yes. The S-3 Hearing Board concluded that the health effects estimate due to an assumed prompt total release of I-l?: before closure of a waste repository were conservative, and tended to compensate for the omission of Tc-99 from 9
Tabl e S-3.
The drc ft Appendix A narrative to Table S-3 indicates the population dose for I-129 is about 40 person-rem (total body risk equivalent), or about 8 times that for Tc-99 over the same periods of time. Consequently, the present analysis supports the earlier conclusions of the S-3 Hearing Board.
Q.17. How do the population doses from exposure to Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle compare with the U.S. population dose from exposure to natural background radhtion?
A.
The population dose from exposure to Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle (i.e., about 5 person-rem /RRY over 100 and 1000 years) are a small fraction of the U.S. populationdose from exposure to natural background radiation (i.e., about 3 billion person-rem and 30 billion person-rem over 100 and 1000 years, respectively).
- Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Effects,0f the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Docket No. RM 50-3, Octacer 26,1978, p. 67.
-9 Q.18. How do tne radiological i.npacts from exposure to Tc-99 from the fuel cycle per RRY affect the cost-bb efit balance?
A.
The population dose per RRY (i.e., about 5 person-rem, total body risk equivalent) from Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle is about 13 of the population dose (i.e., about 640 person-rem, total bcdy) for the rest of the fuel cycle.
Consequently, the radiological impacts from exposure to Tc-99 releases from the ruel cycle have an insfr3nificant effect on the cost-benefit balance.
Attachments :
A. Professional Qualifications of E. Branagan B. Professional Qualifications of R. Struckmeyer C. Releases of Tc-99 per reference reactor year from fuel cycle fs_cilities D. Population doses per unit release of Tc-99 frm airborne and liquid effluents Tabl es:
- 1. Population Doses and Potential Health Effects for Prompt Releases of Tc-99 from the F.el Cycle
- 2. Population Doses and Potential Health Effects for Persistent Releases of Tc-99 from the Fuel Cycle C.l. Releases of Tc-99 per RRY from Fuel Cycle Options D.1. Parameters for Estimating Doses from Liguid Releases of Tc-99 to the Model River D.2. Fish & Intertebrate Harvest Data for Gulf of Mexico D.3. Annual Harvest of Seafood for U.S. Consumption from World's Oceans D.4. Population Doses Per Ci of Tc-99 Release 0.5. Summary of Population Doses Per Ci of Tc-99 Released from Fuel Cycle Facilities 0.6. Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates Figures:
- 1. Exposure Pathways to Man U.l.
Tc-99 Population Exposure Model
. Refere,ces 1.
Testimony by Dr. Fred D. Fisher dated September 15, 1981, 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Jtatement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 3xide Fuel in Light-Wa'ser-Cooled Reactor;," NUREG-0002, Washington, D.C., August 1976.*
3.
" User's Manual for LADTAF II-A Computer Pr'ogram for Calculating Radiation
~ posure to Man from Routine Release of Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents."
x D.B. Simpson, B. L. McGill, NUREG/CR-1276, May 1980."
4.
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,"
BEIR I Report, NAS-NRC,1712.
5.
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ic,izing Radiation, BEIR III," National Academy of Sciences,1980.
6.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, " Recommendations of the International Connission on Radiological Protection," ICRP Publication 26, January 1977.
7.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, "Revies of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy," 1CRP Report No. 43, January 1975.
8.
United Nations Scicatific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, l
" Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," 1977.
l 9.
Appendix A, Narrative Explanation of Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environ-mental Data, FR 15154, Vol. 46 No. 42, Wed. March 4,1981, Table II, p.15173.
i-
_..,.._,__.,.-_,___,,_,,_..,,.m...__.,
~
l l
TABLE 1.
POPULATION DOSES AND POTENTIAL llEALill EFFECTS FOR PROMPT RELEASES OF TC-99 8
FROM Tile FUEL CYCLE Population Dose, person-ran/RRY Potential ilealth Effec'.s/RRY Quanity Released, Cl/RRY Total Sody Risk Genetically Significant Cancer Genetic Gaseous Liquid Equivalent Doseb nose Mortality Defects
(
0.14 1.2 4.8 0.25 6.SE-4 6.46-5 l
a Population doses and potcntial health ef fects are for the fuel cycle option that results in the highest population doses for Tc-99 releases per RRY.
brotal body risk equivalent dose ir the sun of the total body dose, and each organ dose multiplied by the ratio of the s.
mortality risk per organ-run to t;.u mortality risk per person-rem total body.
l 9%
1 l
]
2 I
1 I
TABLE 2.
POPULATION DOSES AND POTENTIAL llEALTH EFFECTS FOR PERSISTENT RELEASES OF TC-99 FROM Tile FUEL CYCLEa r
Annu Quanity Releasedgt,C1/yr/RRY Population Dose, person-isii/yr/RRY Potential !!ealth Effects /yr/RRY
)
i Gaseous liquid Total Body Risk Genetically Significant Cancer Genetic
]
Equivalent DoseC Dese Nrtality liefects 0
3.9 E-3 3.8E-3 8.2E-5 52 E-7 2.lE-8 i
" Population doses and potential health effects are for the fuel cycle option that results in 'the i.lghest pop-Jlation doses for Tc-99 releases per RRY. It should be noted that there is great uncertainty in projecting doses and heaMh ef fects for time perfods of even 100 years. Population doses and potential health effects are presented for; persistent releases beyond 2000 i
ye:rs for the sake of completeness.
bP rsistent releases of Tc-99 are limitea to the amount of Tc-99 placed initially in the repository (i.e., about 390 Cl/RRY).
6 c.
The total body risk equivalent dose is the sum of the total b',dy dose, and each organ dose multiplied by the ratio of the mortality risk pcr organ-rem to the mortality risk per person-ran total bod;r, a
i I
l i
h
4 l
GASEOUS EFFLUENT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 5
l' M
f -g(
pb
-a g LlOUID c
s ii g gx f :.
x EFFLUENT 5
g o
s e
,i d s,; s;
%-~
s i
N DIS,o,.
~
Shorgim g
+NQ&
ro n
/
Atpamee o*
pp cube &&
.O an f
4 1
/
\\
c~...
s x
[d ~ IM' /
_[_
v 1
c
-J o
DD Y
@A:b rig. 1:
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN e
4
_.. ~ _. _
ATTACHMENT A Professional Qualifications My name is Edward F. Branagan, Jr.
I am a Radiological Physicist with the Radiological Assessment Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Presently, I am responsible for evaluating the environmental radiological impacts from nuclear pwer reactors.
In particular, I am responsible for evaluating radioecological models and health effect models for use in reactor licensing.
I have been with the Radiological Assessment Branch for about 2 years.
I received a B.A. in Physics from Catholic University in 1969, an M.A. in Science Teaching from Catholic University in 1970, and a Ph.D. in Radiation Biophy:,ics from Kansas Univertity in 1976.
While completing my course work for my Ph.D., I was an instructor of Radiation Technology at Haskell Junior Colley. My research work was in the area.o.f DNA base damage, and was sup-ported by a U.S. Public Health Service tranineeship. My dissertation was entitled " Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscony of Gamma-Irradiated DNA Bases."
Since joining the NRC in 1976, I have been with both the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
In NM55 I was involved in project management and technical work.
I was the project manager for two contracts that the NRC had with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These contracts were concerned with estimating radiation dosos from radon-222 and radium-226 releases from uranium mills.
As part of my work on NRC's Draft Generic Environmental I > pact Statement on Uranium Milling (DGEIS), I calculated health effects from uranium mill tailings.
Upor publication of the DGEIS, I presented a paper entitled " Health Effects of Urar.ium Mining and Milling for Commercial Nuclear Power" at a Conference on Health Implications of New Energy Technologies.
Since joining NRR, I have worked on several projects: (1) managed and main author t.f a report entitled
" Staff Review of 'Radioecological Assessment of the Wyhl Nuclear Power Plant'"
(NUREG-0668), (2) served as a technical contact on an NRC contract with Argonne Natic.ial Laboratory involving develo,: ment of a computer program to calculate health effects from radiation, (3) serveo as a technical monitor on an NRC contract with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory involving estimated and eeasured concentrations of radionuclides in the environment; (4) served as a l
l technical monitor on an NRC contract with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory con-cerning a literature review of values for parameters in terrestrial radionuclide i
transport models; and (5) served as a technical monitor with Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning a statistical analysis of dose estimates via food pathways.
l Presently, I am a member of the Health Physics Society and the American Associ-l ation for the Advancement of Science.
I I
l l
l t_ _.
__,_.__.._.--?---
- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ' ~ " - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d Attachment B PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Dr. R. K. Struckmeyer My name is Richard K. Struckmeyer.
I am an Environmental Analyst enployed by the Radiological Assessnent Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation.
I am responsible for reviewing and evaluating the radiological impacts on the environment from proposed and existing nuclear power plants, and review of utilities' emergency plans with regard to their effactiveness for offsite dose assessment.
I received a B.S. degree in Physics from Bowling Green University in 1970, and M.S. and Ph.D degrecs in Bionucleonics from Purdue University in 1972 and 1976, respectively.
I have 41/2 years of professional experience in health physics and environmental assessment. From February,1977, to April,1978, I was snployed by Ebasco Services, Inc., where my major responsibilities concerned dose calculations, specification of health physics instrumentation, and reco.nmendation of in-plant radiological monitoring instrumentation.
For the next three years, until March of 1981, I held a position as a health physicist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. My duties included assessment of potential radiation doses due to hypothetical releases from a model high-level radioactive waste repository and preparation of guidance on offsite emergency instrumentation for assessment of radiological impacts of nuclear incidents. Since joining the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in March of this year, I have had responsibilities in three major areas: dose assessment calculations, analysis of radiological impacts of both operating and proposed nuclear power plants on the environment, and evaluation of sections of emergency plans pertaining to offsite radiological impacts.
I am a member of Sigma Xi (Research Society of North America) and the Health Physics Society, and a past member of the American Nuclear Society and the hurrican Association for the Advancement of Science.
l l
(
ATTACHMENT C P
RELEASES OF TECHNETIUM-99 PER REFERENCE REACTOR YEAR (RRY)
FROM FUEL f..-:LE OPTIONS Table C.1 contains a summary of the estimated quantities of Tc-99 releases in gaseous and liquid form per RRY.
Es+.imated quantities of Tc-99 releases per RRY are given for the three Fuel Cycle options evaluated in NUREG-0002:
(1) no reprocessing; (2) uranium only-recyde; and (3) plutonium and uranium recycle. These release estimates were taken fron' testimony by Dr. Fred D. Fisher of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
1 l
9 i
O
+
m
i 1
i TABLE C.1 i
RELLASES OF TC-99 PER REFERENCE REACTOR YEAR (RRY) FROM FUEL CvrLE OPTIONS i
1 Quantity of Tc-99 from fuel Cycle Option i
Uranium Only Plutonium and Uranium Type of Release No-Reprocessing Recycle Recycle Gaseous #
Cumulative (0-2000 yrs),Ci/RRY 0.14 0.14 i
Liquid i
Cumulative (0-2000 yrs),Ci/RRY 3.2E-5 1.16 1.16 Persistent (beyond 2000 yrs)b 3.9E-3 3.9E-3 3.9E-3 C1/yr/RRY i
"No gaseous releases of Tc 99 per RRY are <:Apected to occur beyond the first 100 years.
7
$ Persistent releases of Tc-99 are limited to the amount of rc-99 placed initially in the l
repository (i.e., about 390 Ci/RRY).
i l
I 1
I k
r
ATTACHMENT D POPULATION DOSES PER UNIT RELEASE OF TECHNETIUM-99 FROM AIRBORNE AND LIQUID EFFLUENTS A.
Description of Dose Models The pathway model used for this assessment is shown in Figure D.l.
Population doses per Ci of Tc-99 released from fuel cycle facilities were estimated for airborne and liquid releases over environmental. dose commitment (EDC) times of 100 and 1000 years.
Airborne Releases The model facility is assumed to release Tc-99 to the atmosphere (gaseous) over a period of one-year. Atmospheric releases are assumed to be transported with a mean speed of 2 meters per second over a 1,500 mile pathway, deposited on vegetation (deposition velocity of 1.0 cm/sec) with subsequent uptake by milk and meat animals.
No remnval mechanisms are assumed during the first 100 years (radioactive decay is negligible) except normal weathering from crops to soil (weathering half-life of 13 days).
In addition, populations are exposed to Tc-99 by inhalation and submersion in the plume during its initial passage. Since Tc-99 is a pure beta-emitter, there are no significant external exposure pathways from Tc-99 deposited on soil either directly or by weatnering from plant surfaces following deposition and food path-way uptake over subsequent years. One-hundred years after deposition, all of the Tc '9 is assumed to runoff into a model river where additional exposures are considered. The resuspension model assumes relatively minor atmospheric resuspension after the first year. The computational code used for these calculations is the RABGAD code originally developed for use in the " Generic Environmental Impact State-ment on the use of Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants",
(GESMO).I
2-The principal characteristics of the land and populations downwind from the facility are as follows:
2 Population Density 160 people / mile 2
Annual food crup production:
100 kg/ day / mile 2
Annual milk production 90 liters / day / mile 65 kg/ day [ nile 2 Annual mut production Liquid Releases l
The model facility is assumed to release Tc-99 to a water body over a period of one year.
The receiving water body is assumed to be part of a medium sized I
river system that moves 500 miles before entering the Gulf of Mexico. The computational code used for the dore calculations was LADTAF (See NUREG-0002,Section II.J for detailt)I. Along its journey to the Gulf of Mexico, the Tc-99 is a source of additional humaa exposures as a result of ingestion in drinking water, fish and invertebrates, as well as in irrigated food crops, and through milk and meat animals grazing on irrigated croos. All of the Tc-99 is conserystively assumed to return to the river system in runoff prior to entering the Gulf of Mexico (1 year residency) and finally mixing in the world's oceans.
Soild waste: from the model facility are assumed to be disposed of in a low level waste burial or in a high level waste repository (see accompanying testimony by Dr. Fred Fisher, NMSS).2 As Dr. Fisher noted, current NRC criteria for a high. level waste repository will require no release of Tc-99 to grour.dwater for at least 2,000 years. Thereafter. the seepage would be very small over geologic periocs, 40' m
. and if the repository is well-sited, should not result in significant uptake by human populations. Low level wastes, on the other hand, are placed in subsurface trenches which are subject to leaching by surface precipitation over periods of centuries or longer.
In order to be conservative, it was assumed that all of the Tc-99 in low level waste per RRY would leach to the model river system during the first year of burial.
The principal characteristics of the hydrologic model are shown below for the model river, the Gulf of Mexico, and the world's oceans.
A.
Model River - See Table 0.1.
B.
Gulf of Mexico
- 1. Tc-99 is conservatively assumed to mix only in the top 75 meters of the 17 cirr;1ating (and productive) water of the Gulf cf Mexico (1.1 x 10 liters)and remain there without dilution for one full year before being swept into the world's oceans by the Gulf Current. Thus, the concentration of Tc-99 in biota is high for one year, then falls to the same level as the rest of the worlds' oceans for the balance of the environmental dose commitment period (99 to 999 years).
- 2. The annual harvests of the fish and invertebrates that were used to estimate population doses from ingestion of Tc-99 in seafood from the Gulf of Mexico are given in Table D.2.
Annual harvest rates were de i ed from Tables D-2 and
1]
ii,
a e
M. M.
M.
d) 0 0
0 0 0
et 0
0 0
0 0
del 0
0 0
0 0
efl t
a 2
8 0
0 0
M M.
M.
aw 6
9 5
0 0
- gor, 2
8 6
1 iC y r /
1 4
8 4
0 rk s 1
3 y
e Il it h
M(
t dL o
ee t
dft 2, m.
d o
e a
0 0
0 0
0 t ee 0
0 0
0 0
al m 0
0 0
0 0
0 e
ct s
M. m.
m.
it r 0
1 0
0 0
ray 3
4 2
6 0
a rC/
1 e
2 e
,n i
2 a
6 4
e6 1
l f
e e(
B r
e
- m. m.
m n _ 0 0
0 0 0
doj 0 0
0 0
0 b
0 eir 0
0 0
0 t.
tt y o
m4 m.
o 0
aaf 0 0
0 l
0 et ep1 1
8 7
s
- e, 6
0 1
4 t
S r gk f
3 t
6 7
6 d c E
r e l_
iV 1
2 5
S e
A m0 E
u0 e
0 s *2 L
g 0
0 0 0 0 M0 m.
0 E
a 6
3 0
0 0
s s
8 7
4 0
0 R
gU) as n
s 2
1 2
0 0
0 m
a 3
i qr 6
6 1
5 D
mnu i.
w 1
3 I
tot o s
th 1
Ua wa(
a e QR So wt I E B
a LV d
9 r I
n 9
- w a
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
co O
e l0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
n RL FE i es 8
3 0,
0 0
0 0
0 Tl l gr f
eau 2
7 4
0 0
0 0
rso 2
0 3
0 0
m I. r D
SO ot h 2
5 0
1 3
i 1
5 1
EH h
(
7 e S
1 S
- v D
) i Dl Ar i
E T
eL 1
(
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 L
G B
NU let r 3
6 4
0 0
0 0
0 Jl e ay 1
9 5,
0 0
a A
I I tC/
Vi 1
2 5
9 9
m T
T' idh g 1
I t
~
A9 E sk i
i(
M9 en
~
F I -
l i TC 0
b ST r _
0 ae E
e naL 0 0,
Th t
F t
oW 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
RO it O
gh 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 2 e 0,
F lanp 0r 0
io 4
1 8
0 0
0 0
0 e uk e 3
3 3
S pnp 1
1 3
6 1 1
0h oi(
Pr _
2
- w RE D
G T
Ed E
t
)
R e M
i s
Uh ser A
nmu 1
3 5
1 0
0 0
N s 3
8 0
rih 1
18 6
3 r
R al o 1
2 1
A me I
(
P ot ra n
or f w 1
8 5
9 o
itt ne l
1 3
9 6
0 uc i
2 5
s eg l a ef D
k r aa tl ee}
gcl rad 1
5 0
0 0
0 0
ea ane 5
4 8
5 5
5 5
r et 1
2 3
4 af A i ("
o vs D
srg 0
0 0
0 en d
0 0
0 0
0 la en s
ti 0
0 2
hh 0 0
0 0
0 0
o 3
4 5
c 6
1 0
0 0
0 t
3 mn a1 e*
0
- i. i R(
0 3
6 3
2 3
4 t
rg n e iPb e
e p
=.
. D-7, and page D-9 of the " Liquid Pathway Generic Study".3 The upper bound i
of the range of values given for the commercial Sarvest of finfish was used to estimate doses.
- 3. Bioaccumulation factors fo,- Tc-99 in the marine en.ironment are taken 4
from USNRC Regulatory GL'ide 1.109 (1977), Rev.1:
Fish 10 Ci/k; C1/ liter Invertebrates:
50 C1/kg Ci/ liter C.
World's Oceans 1.
Tc-99 swept from the Gulf of Mexico is assumed to mix instantaneously in the top 75 meters of the world's circulating water (2,6 x 10l9 liters),
and remain there without further removal, except for radioactive decay, for the remainder of the 100- or 1000-year EDC period.
2.
The annual harvests of seafood for U.S. consumption that were used to estimate population doses from ingestion of Tc-99 in the world's oceans are given in Table 0.3.
The harvest data is from NUREG-0440, Table D-1.
3.
The preceding bioaccumulation factors fc-Tc-99 in the marine environment were used to estimate doses.
1
s Table J.2 FISH AND INVERTEBRATE HARVEST DATA FOR GULF 0F f4EXICO Annual Annual Edible Annual Harvest Harvest Edible b Density Edible Density Harvest (kg/ha/y)
Fraction (kg/ha/y)
(kg/y) commercial harvest:
~
~
finfish 4.7 0.53 2.5 1.7 x 107 crustacea 6.2 0.26
- 1. 6 7
mollusks 1.0 1.0 1.0 recreational harvest:
finfish 76 0.53 40 1.2 x 108 i
crustacea 8.8 0.26 2.3 invertebrates
- 2. 3 6.7 x 106 mollusks no data 1.0 aFrom Tables 0-2 and 0-7, and p. D-9 of NUREG-0440, Ref. 3.
annual harvest rate = edible harvest (kg/ha/y) x area of marine fishing waters (ha) commercial harvest area = 6,9 x 10 6 a
recreational harvest area = 2.9 x 10 ha
.l m
7-i TABLE D.3 ANNUAL HARVEST OF SEAFOOD FOR U.S. CONSUMPTION ~FROM WORLOS' OCEANSa Source of Annyal Harvest Edible AnnualEdibge Seafood (10D kd/y)
Fraction Harvest (10 kg/y)
(a) Commei cial Finfish :
640 0.53 340 Shellfish:
410 1.0b 410 (b) 3ecreational Finftsh :
730 0.53 390 Shellfish:
200 (assumed) 1.0b 200 (assumed) l (c)
Imports (1973)
Finfish :
950 1.0 a50 Shellfish:
140 1.0b T40 Total Fintish 1680 Shellfish :
750
- Derived from Table D-1 of NUREG-0440, Ref. 3.
These are ccc;bined weights of crustacea and mollusks: all of the values for mollusks are edible; only 26% of the weight of crustacea is edible. This is a conservative assumption.
d
+
= - ' '
T v-p-ny c
y-,-~
,e,-
m,-g4
,g,,
- TABLE 0.4 POP'JLATION 00SES PER CI 0F TC-99 RELEASE,100 YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE COMMITMENTa i sulation Dose, person-rem /Ci of Tc-99 Pathway Total Sody Bone Liver Kidney Lung GI-LL I A.
Gaseous Pathway
~
Inhalation 1.6E-4 3.2E-4 4.9E-4 5.4E-4 2.4E-1 1.6E-2 Ingestion of Food Fruit i Vegetables 8.3E-2 1.7E-1
- 2. 5 E-1 3.l E0 2.5E-2 8.3E0 Mil k
- 1. 3 E-1 2.6E 1 3.9E-1 4.9E0 3.9E-2
- 1. 3 E+1 Meat 1.3E0 2.7E0 4.0E0
- 5. 0E+1 4.0E-1 1.3E+2 Subtotal:
1.6E0 3.1 E0 4.7E0
- 5. 8 E+1
- 7. l E-1 1.6E+2 3.
Model Riverb:
Ingestion of Water S.9E-3
- 1. 5 E-2 2.lE-2
- 2. 3 E-1 1.9E-3 7.2E-Ingestion of Irrigated Food Fruit & Vegetables 6.5E-3 1.6E-2 2.4E-2
- 3. 0 E-1 2.lE-3 7.9E-1 Milk 4.7E-3 1.2E-2 1.8E-2 2.2E-1 1.5E-3
-5.7E-1 Meat 3.6E-3 9.lE-2
- 1. 3 E-1 1.7E0 1.1E-2 A.4E0 Ingestion of Fish 2.3E-6 5.8E-6 8.5E-6 1.lE-4 7.3E-7 2.8E-4 Su btotal :
2.lE-2 1.3E-1 1.9E-1 2.5E0 1.7E-2 6.5E0 b
C.
Gulf of Mexico :
Ingestion of finfish 7.5E-8 1.9E-7
- 2. 3 E-7 3.5E-6 2.4E-8 9.1E-6 Ingestion of Shellfish 4.0E-7 1.0E-6 1.5E-6 1.9E-5 1.3E-7 4.9E-5 Subtotal :
4.8E-7 1.2E-6 1.8E-6 2.3E-5 1.5E-7 5.8E-5 D.
World's Oceansb:
Ingestion of finfish
- 3. 4 E-6 9 1E-6 1.2E-5 1.5E-4 1.0E-6 3.9E-4 Ingestion of Shellfish 7.2E-6
..dE-5 2.7E-5 3.4E-4 2.3E-6 3.8E-4 Subtotal :
1.lE-5 2.6E-5 3.9E-5 4.9E-4
- 3. 3 E-6 1.3E-3 aPopulation doses are based on Tc-99 remaining 100 years on the land for gaseous release, ' year in the model river and Gulf of Mexico for a liquid release, and 99' years in :he oceans for a liquid release. The 100 year EDC from ingestion of Tc-99
. in the oceans is about 10 times the 100 year EDC.
bPopulation doses from exposure to Tc-99 while swimming or on the shoreline would be less than one-tenth of the subtotals.
. B.
Population Dose Commitments Population dose per Cerie of Tc-99 released are given in detail in Table D.4 for the various pathways of exposure and are summarized in Table D.5.
The body organs receiving the highest dora from exposure to either liquid or gaseous releases of Tc-99 are the gastro-intestional tract and the lower large intestine (i.e., GI-LLI) and the kidney (see tota 1 population doses in Table 0.5).
However, all the organ doses can be converted to a total body risk equivalent dose (i.e., the dose given to an individual organ that entails the same lifetime risk of cancer mortality as the total body dose alone). That is done by multiplying each organ dose by the ratio of the risk /[erson-rem to that craan by the risk /
person-rem to the total body.
The organ risk estimators fo; continuous exposure were derived from the National 5
Academy of Sciences BEIR I Report, and are given in Table D.6.
For example, the total body risk equivalent dose from a dose of 1 person-rem to the GI-LLI wou' d be 0.13 person-rem (i.e.,1 person-rem (0.13)). The total body risk equ vale-dose from gaseous and liquid releases o# Tc-99 is about 15 person-rem /Ci, ai d l
0.98 person-rem /Ci, respectively. Si ce the potential population dose from exposure to Tc-99 in the world's oceans over a 1000 year time period is very small l
compared with the more prompt doses from exposure to Tc-99 from the atmospheric, river and Gulf of Mexico pathways, the population doses per Ci of Tc-99 released to the air and the water are essentially identical for 100 year and 1000 year, environmental dose commitment time periods.
i
TABLE D.S.
SUMMARY
OF h)PULATION DOSES PER CURIE RELEASE OF d
TC-99 FROM FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES Population Dose, person-run per Ci of Tc-99 Release Total Body Risk Release Mode / Pathway Total Body Bone Liver Kidney Lung GI-LLI Equivalent Dose baseous Atmosphere 1.6 3.1 4.7 58 0.71 160 River 0.021 0.13 0.19 2.5 0.017 6.5 Gulf of Mexico
< 10-3
< 10-3
< 10-3
<10-3 10-3
<10-3 Worlds Oceans
< 10-3
< 10-3
< 10-3
- 0. 004
< 10-3 0.013 Total =
1.6 3.2 4.9 60 0.73 170 26.5 l
l l
Liquid River 0.021 0.13 0.19 2.5 0.01Z 6.5
-3
< 10-3
<103
< 10-3 Gulf of Mexico
< 10-3
< 10-3
<10 a
World's Oceans
< 10-3 410-3
<10-3 0.005
< 10-3 0.013 5
i e
Total =
0.021 0.13 0.19 2.5 0.017 6.5 0.98 a Population doses from gaseous releases.of Tc-99 are base.d on the sum of doscs from exposure to Tc-99 renaining i
100 years on land,1 year in the river, I year in the Gulf of Mexico, and 898 years in the world oceans. Poptilation doses from 11guld releases of Tc-99 are based on the sum of the doses from exposure to Tc-99 for 1 year in the river, I year in the Gulf of Mexico, and 998 years in the world's oceans.
9
\\
TABLE D.6.
CANCER MORTALITY RISK ESTIMATORS" Exposed Career Mortality Risk Ratiob Organ Escimator, potential fatal 0
ca.1cers per 10 person-rem bonec 35.3 0.26 lung 22.2 0.16 GI-LLI 17.0 0.13 otherd 60.5 0.45 total body 135 1.0 aCancer mortality risk estimators are derived from the SEIR I Report.
bThe ratio is equal to the cancer mortality risk estimator for a particular organ divided by the cancer mortality risk estimator for total body exposure.
c Includes leukemia and bone.
The risk estimators for the 'idney and liver are assumed to be 6% and 12%,
respectively of the all other category; the corresponding ratio for the kidney and liver is 0.027 and 0.054, respectively.
12 -
References 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," NUREG-0002, Washington, D. C., August 1976.
2.
Testimony by Dr. Fred D. Fisher dated September 15, 1981.
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Liqdid. Pathway Generic Study,"
NUREG-0440, February 1978.
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.1,
" Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor l
Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I" October 1977.
5.
"The -Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,"
BEIR I Report, NAS-NRC,1972.
e t
4
.---m
..-r-,
rw.-
,..e-:-.
m-
,+w m
y-
m I
I l
l ItalALATION AND I
SUBHERSION i
d%
I l
DEFOSITION ON INCESTION OF l
gx;p, Foop
) FOOD CROFS.
ATMOSPilERE
) CROFS, kid thef of,hIknri t
l is ss i
gaseous INGESTION OF releases
^
DRINKINC WATER l
~r MODEL 500-HILE 0
WORLD'S.CEANS'
- DE' M' liquid releases RIVER SYSTEM i
}
ICm
)
l CYCLE FACILITY
) (1 year EDC)
(1 year EDC)
.(100 to -1000) year EDC)
[
l INCESTION OF l
n FISH AND INVERTE8RA'.*ES solid f
easten V
EXPOSURE OF sr 1r ggggg HICH LEVEL LOW LEVEL
?
WASTE BURIAL WASTE BURIAL
)
CROUND WATER l
l (no releases (g ompt releau. )
t
,far 2.000 yre)
Mixing restricted to the top 75 aneters of the water column. This is the t
approximate depth of the circulating erd productive water in the world's l
l oceans (D. Jacobs, " Sources of Tritia and its Behaviour Upon Release to e
W the Environment". AEC Critical Review Series. U.S. Atomic Energy Consission 1968).
Iigure D.l: Technettum-99 Population Exposure Model
Professional Qualificaticas l'y name is E&ard F. Granagan, Jr.
Radiological Assessment Granch in the Of fice of N5dio' logical Phys I am a Presently, I am responsibic for evaluating the en iuc1cir Reactor R irpacts from nuclear power reactors.
v ronmental radiological evaluating radioccological models and health effect mod lIn part liccasing.
I have been with the Radiological Assessment Granch e s for use in reac. tor years.
or about 2 I received a B.A.
Science Teaching from Catholic University in 1970in Phy
, an M.A. in '
Sicphysics from Kansas University in 1976
, and a Ph. D. in Radiation for my Th.D., I was an instrucQr of Radiation TechWhile completing m College.
ported by a U.S. Public Health Service tranincesh and was sup-e ent*tled " Nuclear Magnatic Resonance Spectroscopy of GamMy d Easet "
ma-Irradiated DNA
~
Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and wit e Of fice of Nuclear Regulati.ca (NRR).
I was the project man.ger for two centracts tha wo rk.
Rid;c Natienal Laboratory.
n cal radon-222 and radiu:.-225 releases from with Dak radiatica doses fro.?
a part of my '-ork on NRC's Draft Generic Environmental Impact St Uranium Milling (DGEIS), I calculated health effect As.
J'pon publication of the DGEIS, I presented a paper a ement on' s from uranium mill tailings.
Uranium Mining and Milling for Commercial Nuclear Pentitled " Health E Health' Implications of New Energy Technologies ower" at a Conference on worted on several projects:
Since joining NRR, I have
" Staff Review of 'Radioecological As:essment of th(1) managed and (NUREG-0563), (2) served as a technical contact on ae Vyhl Nuclear health effects from radiation, (3) served as a tech u er program to calculate measured concentrations of radionuclides in the en v ng estimated and technical monitor on an NRC contract with Lawrenc ronment (4) served as a e livermore; Laboratory con-cerning a literature review served as a technical monitor with D transport models and (5 Laboratory ccacer;ning a s)tatis tical analysis of dose ation for the Advancement of Science. Presently, I e y cnd the American Associ-
\\
i O