ML20038A952
| ML20038A952 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1981 |
| From: | Pasciak W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111240508 | |
| Download: ML20038A952 (25) | |
Text
-
gfachF J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Hatter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF DR. WALTER J. PASCIAK ON CONTENTION 9 (OFF-SITE RADIOLOGICAL DOSE CALCULATIONS AND HEALTH EFFECTS)
Q1.
By whan are you employed and describe the work you perform?
A1.
I am a section leader in the Radiological Assessment Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regalation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Washington, D.C., 20555. As section leader of the Radiological Impacts Section of the Radiological Assessment Branch, I prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the Staff's assessments of the off-site radiological impacts of radioactive effluents from n" clear power plants and also evaluate the more complex issues relating to radi logical environmental impacts' associated with nuclear power plant operations. A copy of my statenent of professional qualifi-cations is attached.
Q2. What is the nature of the responsibilities you have had regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station?
A2.
I performed the Staff's assessment of the off-site radiological impacts of Comanche Peak operation.
8111240508 81112f PDR ADOCK 05000445.
1 T
POR
. Q3. What is the scope of the subject matter addressed in your testimony?
A3.
I have been asked to address Contention 9, which states that:
" Applicants have failed to make any effort to determine t:1e effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary. Various transport mechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclusion boundary."
My testimony will verify that the effects of radioactive releases on the general public beyond the exclusion boundary have been considered.
1 Q4. Have the Applicants and tne NRC Staff (Staff) determined the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than for an individual residing near or at the exclusion boundary?
A4. Yes.
Both the Applicants in the Environmental Report-0perating License Stage (ER-OL) and the Staff in the " Final Environnental Statement related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2" (NUREG-0775), September, 1981, present results of dose calculations for the location where maximum exposure is likely to occur and for the entire human population residing within a fifty-mile radius of the plant. The Applicants listed the results of their calculations for the mnimum exposed individual in Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5 of the Environmental Report.
The Staff j
presented the final results of its calculations for the maximum exposed individual in FES 6 5.8.1., " Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation", Table 5.9.
The Applicants' population dose estimates i
are listed in Table 5.2-6 of the ER, and the Staff's population dose estimates are presented in Table 5.10 of the FES.
I prepared those
~
. parts of.FES 6 5.8.1. relating to off-site radiological impacts of Comanche Peak operation (the relevant parts of FES 9 5.8.1. are included as an attacivnent to this affidavit and their contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge).
J QS.
Are the maximum exposed individual dose estimates made by the Appli-cants and the Staff for locations where the highest doses would_ be expected to occur?
1 A5. Yes. The maximum exposed individual dose estimates made by the Applicants and by the Staff were made for locations where they would be expected to be highest rather than locations chosen arbitrarily, such as the exclusion area boundary locations. The locations, for example, are chosen in the following manner:
For the cow milk pathway, or for the vegetable consumption pathway, the dose calcu-i lations were made for the actual farm or garden located where the highest doses would be expected to occur.
For external exposures, dose estimates were made ;for the location outside the exclusion area l
where the highest doses fran that pathway would be expected to occur.
For the ground ;:,ine pathway, dose estimates were made at the actual l
residence where estinates from this pathway would be expected to be highest.
l l
Q6. What transport mechanisms were taken into consideration in both the maximum exposed individual calculation and the 50-mile population dose calculations?
L
. AS. Atmospheric transport from the point of release to the receptor point was taken into consideration by means of modeling techniques described in USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev.1, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," July 1977.
Historical meteorological data were input to these models.
In j
addition, radioactive decay in transport within plants and milk animals and bioconcentration within plants and milk animals was taken into consideration. These transport models are described in USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculations of Annual Doses To fian
~
From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents For The Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I,"
Revision 1, July 1977.
Q7. Do 10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 50 (Appendix I) and Reg. Guides 1.111 and 1.145 require that the Applicants and the Staff determine health effects of radioactivity resulting from nomal releases of radioactivity other than at the exclusion boundary?
A7.
No.
10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 50 (Appendix I) and Reg. Guides 1.111 4
and 1.145 do not require the Applicants or the NRC Staff to estimate health effects off-site from nucl' ear power plants due to routine l
releases of radioactivity.
Notwithstanding, as par t of the Staff's evaluation of the environmental impacts of Comanche Peak operation, the Staff estimated health effects for the population residing
_E_
within a 50-mile radius of the plant and for the entire U.S.
popula tion. These estimates are presented in 5 5.8.1.5 of the FES.
Attachment:
FES % 5.8.1 (relevant portions) s e
e a
DR. WALTER J. PASCIAK PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am a Section Leader in the Radiological Assessment Branch, Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555.
I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1971 from New York University.
While at New York University my coursework was heavily concentrated in physics and mathema'ics.
I also took courses in biology, physiology, and organic chemistry.
In July,1971 I began my doctoral
~
studies at the Johns Hopkins University, Department of Biophysics. While in the Department of Biophysics I took courses in advanced physiology, biochemistry, and other aspects of biophysics.
I completed my doctoral studies in Environmental Engineering and I received my Ph.D in 1974.
While working on my doctoral research I took nunerous courses in ecology and environmental engineering including sanitary engineering, air and water pollution, and hydraulics.
Since joining NRC I have continued my academic training at Catholic University, and received a M.S. degree in Nuclear Engineering from that institution in 1981.
I began my career at the NRC in August, 1974, as an Aquatic Scientist in the Environmental Specialists Branch.
During this period I i
was responsible for several cases involving various stages of the l
licensing of nuclear power plants and provided input for environmental i
impact statements and also reviewe'd statements wri' ten by others.
From December 1975 through Ibrch 1979 I worked for the Division of Operating Reactors as an Environmental Scientist and had case responsibility for 34 operating reactors.
In that position I was involved in the followup of plant operational data to determine the accuracy of oredicted impacts.
Between August,1974 and ltarch,1979, I was the lead reviewer for the evaluation of aquatic population models which NRC was using in its j
licensing process.
From itarch 1979, through the present I have been assigned to the Radiological ssessment Branch and have been heavily involved in mathematical modeling of radionuclides in the environment.
fly present position is that of Section Leader, Radiological Impacts Section.
From 11 arch,1979 through about March,1981 I was assigned to projects relating to the assessment of doses around Three Mile Island resulting from the accident.
Early after the accident the Ad Hoc j
Interagency Dose Assessment Group was formed to assess the health impact of the accident.
I provided input to this group in the form of dose estimates due to the Xe-133 releases that occurred during the first several days of the accident.
The results of these estimates appear in NUREG-0558, "Populat*on Dose and Health Impact of Tl11-2",Itay 1979.
The method I used to estimate the doses was described in a paper I prepared with some colleagues which was submittec and accepted for publication i the Journal of the llealth Physics Society.
Early after the accident I also reviewed all the radiological relea'ses that were made to the Susquehanna River.
Dose calculations were made for consumption of water -
and fishes.
In addition to these studies, I provided extensive technical input to the Commission's Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENO) Deter-mination for TMI-2, and I developed dose estimates for the Kr-85 purge, and I did all the offsite dose calculations for the Programmatic Environ-mental Impact Statement for Tl11-2 decontamination activities.
My input to the EN0 Determination is in Appendix E of NUREG-0637, " Report tc the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission from the Staff Panel on the Commission's Determination of an Extraordinary ?!uclear.0ccurrence," January 1980. fly dose calculations for the purge are contained in NlfREG-0662, " Final Environmental Assessment for Decontcmination of the Three !!ile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere, Vols. I and 2," May 1980, and qy j
i input for the assessment of the programmatic decontamination activities is contained in the NUREG-0683, " Programmatic Environmental Inpact Statenent related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28, 1979 accident, Three fiile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2."
From March, 1979 to the present, I have also been involved in numerous other activities, including the review of radiological impacts of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station.
1 1
3 S
w ----
-~e-,
NUREG-0775 Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50416 Texas Utilities Generating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation September 1981 a'
%...../
e l
6
---,-g-
,c w-,
m r- - +, - + -
4 e
4-,-
w-
a 5.8 Radiological Impacts 5.8.1 Normal Operation
- 5. 8.1.1 Exposure Pathways The enviromental pathways considered in this section are shown in Figure 5.1.
The specific pathways evaluated were:
1.
Direct radiation from the plant 2.
Gaseous effluents a.
Immersion in the gaseaus plume b.
Inhalation of iodines and particulates Ingestion of iodines and particulates through the milk-cow, goat, c.
meat-animal, and vegetation pathwais d.
Radiation from iodines and particulates deposited on the ground 3.
Liquid effluents a.
Drinking water
~
b.
Ingestion of fish c.
Shoreline activities, boating, and swimming in water containing radioactive effluents 5-16 G
GASEOUS EFFLUENT NUCLC AR POWER PLANT ii A \\
l
/ll7gj i
s p[
W UQUID i
1 P~
EFFLUENT 1
1I g
/
"* M
[
"S
{y
(
i T. t\\
s SW q _. _.
S.a g
e, terms at.on j,
/
L, s
FUEL TRANSPORT -
~'
r s4[
- 4 "N
' 'rMtpGOOO v**
c96 cabG 4f
[
,,pse
~
i g,A y
\\
~}
l
- 4 j
{
$.j,-.. c...T 1
4 i }
l
~
~l 4_
=
s Figure.5.1.
Exposure Pathways to Man.
e 5-17 l
l 9
"Only those pathways associated with gaseous effluents that were reported to exist at a single location were combir.ed to calculate the total exposure to a maximally exposed individual.
Pathways associated with liquid effluents were combined without regard to location but were assumed to be associated with a maxinally exposed individual other than the individual associated with gaseous-effluent pathways.
The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation doses to individuals near the station and to the population within an 80-km radius of the station, resulting from station operation, are discussed in detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Use of these models, with additional assumptions for environmental pathways leading to exposure to populations outside the 80-km radius, is described in Appendix B.
5.8.1.2 Dose Commitet" :
General Population The quantities of radioactive material that may be released annually from the station are estimated based on the description of the radwaste systems given in the ER-OL (Sec. 3.5) and the Final Safety Analysis Report using the calcula-tional model and parameters described in NUREG-0017 (Ref. 14). The applicant's site and environmental data provided in the ER-OL and in subsequent answers to staff questions (ER-OL, Amend.1) are used extensively in the dose calcula-tions.
Using these quantities of radioactive materials released and exposure-pathway information, the dose commitments to individuals and the population are estimated. Population doses are based on the projected population distri-bution in the year 2020.
The dose commitments given in this environmental statement represent the total dose received over a period of 50 years follcwing the intake of radioactivity for one year under the conditions existing 15 years after the station begins operation.
For younger age groups, changes in organ mass with age after the initial intake of radioactivity are accounted for in a stepwise manner.
In the analysis of all effluent radionuclides released from the station, tritium, carbon-14, and strontium were found to account for essentially all total-body dose commitments to individuals and the population within 80 km of the station.
DoseCommitmentsfromRadioactiveReleasestdtheAtmosphere Radioactise effluents released to the atmosphere from CPSES will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. The NRC staff estimates of the expected gaseous and particulate releases listed in Table 5.6, and the site meteorological considerations discussed in Section 4.3.3 and summarized i
in Table 5.7, were used to estimate radiation doses to individuals and popula-tions. The results of the dalculations are discussed below.
Radiation Dose Commitments to Individuals.
Individual receptor locations and pathway locations considered for the maximum individual are listed in Table 5.8..
The estimated dose commitments to the maximum individual from radioiodine and particulate releases at selected offsite locations, and the maximum annual beta and gamma air doses and maximum total-body and skin doses to an individual 1
5-18 i
a
Table 5.6 Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from CPSES Units 1 and 2 (C1/yr per reactor)
Unit Vent Turbine-Bldg Vent Nuclides Continuous Periodict1 Continuous Total Ar-41 25 12 92 25 Kr-83m t3 t3 t3 t3 Kr-85m 3
2 t8 5
Kr-85 t3 260 13 260 Kr-87 1
13 t3 1
Kc-88 7
2 t3 9
Kr 'M t3 13 18 t2 Xe-131m t3 11 t
11 3
Xe-133m 3
19 t3 22 Xe-133 180 1900 t3 2100 Xe-135m t
t3 3
18 18 Xe-135 10 10 t3 20 3
3 Xe-137 t
t t3 3
1 Xe-138 t3 18 t3 t3 Total, noble gases 2400 Co-60 1.8(-4)t*
4.5(-3) t2 4,7( 3)
Co-58 6.0(-5) 1.5(-3) t2 1.6(-3)
Fe-59 6.0(-4) 1.5(-2) t2 1.6(-2)
Mn-54 2.7(-4) 7.0(-3) t2 7.3(-3)
Cs-137 1.3(-5) 3.3(-4) 12 3.4(-4)
Cs-134 2.4(-6) 6.0(-5) 12 6.2(-5)
Sr-90 1.8('4) 4.5(-3) 12 4,7(.3)
Sr-89
- 3. 0(-4) 7.5(-3) 12 7.8(-3)
Total, particulates 4.3(-2) 1.6(-4) 7.6(-3)
I-131 7.2(-3) 2.0(-4) 1-133 1.0(-2) 2.4(-4) 2.3(-4) 1.1(-2)
C-14 8
12 12 8
H-3 1100 t2 T2 1100 t1 Periodic increase in releases 24 times per year for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> duration.
12 Less than 1% of total for nuclide.
3 t
Less than 1.0 Ci/yr.
14 Exponential notation:
1.8(-4) = 1.8 x 10 4 5-19 9
Table 5.7 Summary of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors and Deposition Values for Maximum Site Boundary and Receptor locations near CPSESt1 Relative Location t2 x/Q (s/m )t3 3
Deposition (m.2)
Site boundary (NNW, 1.29 mi)t*
3.64(-6)t5 Nearest residence (W, 1.55 mi) 8.64(-7) 2.07(-9)
Nearest garden (W, 1.55 mi) 8.64(-7) 2.07(-9)
Nearest milk cow (WNW, 1.89 mi) 7.91(-7) 2.33(-9)
Nearest milk goat (N, 3.37 mi) 3.32(-7) 1.52(-9)
Nearest meat animal (ESE, 2.12 mi) 4.11(-7) 8.61(-10) t1 Values are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from depositien, where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev.1,
" Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," July 1977.
2
" Nearest" refers to that type of location where the t
highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.
Annual avarage atmospheric rel'tive concentrations t3 a
I (x/Q) were computed using the onsite meteorological data for May 15, 1972 to May 15, 1976. The analysis was done with a constant mean wind-direction model according to the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111.,
14 To convert th km, multiply by 1.6093.
t Exponential notation: 3.64('6) = 3.64 x 10 8 5
5-20 I
gn..-
Tablo 5.8 Receptor and Pathway locations
,onsidered for Selecting Maximum-Individual Dose Commitments location Sector Distance (mi)t1 2
NNW 1.29 Site boundaryt Residence W
1.55 Garden W
1.55 Milk ccw WNW 1.89 Milk goat N
3.37 Meat animal ESE 2.12 11 To convert to km, multiply by 1.6093.
12 Beta and gamma air doses and total-body and skin doses from noble gases are determined at the site boundary.
s at the maximum site boundary, are presented in Tables 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11.
The maximum individual is assumed to consume well-above-average quantities of the foods considered (see T,ble E-5 in Regylatory Guide 1.109).
a Radiation Oose Commitments to Populations. ' The estimated annual radiation-dose commitments to the population within 60 km of CPSES from gaseous and p:rticulate i
releases are shown in Tables 5.10 and 5.11.
Beyond 80 km the doses were evaluated using average population densities and food-production values as l
5-21 l
Table 5.9.
Annual Dose Corrnitr.ents to a !hxioura Individual near CPSES O qe (s. ret /jr ter unit)
Total locationti Pat?=ay Body 5ktn Thyroid Bone Liver tidney Lung
%tte Cases in Oaseoss [ff1wents t
Ofrect radiation Site tcu dary)t(hw,1.29 at ts from pl.aet*
0.075 0.19 n
lpedire aed Particulates in Caseous Efftyents
~
nearest s1te boundary Gre.ad deposit 0.057 0.057 0.057 (hw.1.29st)
InPalation 0.17 0.18 0.051 Total 0.23(T)ts 0.24(T) 0.11(T)
Searest garden and res1:ence Groved depostt 0.000 0.006 0.008 (w. 1.55 at)
Inhalattan 0.046 0.045 0.013 Yegeta51e cons. motion 0.43 0.33 1.3 Totai 0.a8(C) 0.3a(C) 1.3(C)
Nearest e11k cow Ground depostt 0.0009 0.0089 0.0089 (bw 1.89si)
In alation 0.038 0.042 0.012 a
Vegetable cons eption 0.42 0.31 1.3 C:=-eilt consweptio.
0.14 0.21 0.43 Total 0.61(c) 0.57(C) 1.8(C) mearest etik goat Grou d deposit 0.0058 0.0058 C.0058 n
(N. 3.37 st)
Inhalation 0.01 7 0.011 0.0051 Vegetable conse ; tion 0.21 0.70 Gcat-ef.k cons.nentton 0.093 0.29 0.d Total 0.33(C) 0.31(!)
0.93(C)
Nearest seat aniast Geownd deposit 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 (E5E. 2.12 al)
Innalattoa 0.02 0.022 0.0063 Yegeta ble cons.mation 0.2
- 0. 01 6 0.62 Meat cons.aption 0.01 8 0.018 0.063 Total 0.24(C)
.,0.059(C) 0.69(C)
- s tigwfd (*flueats (adults)
Nearest drinting mate = at SCR Water ingestfon 0.64 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.63 0.62 Nearest fish at SCR Fish ingestida 1.23 0.02 1.02 1.65 0.58 0.20 l
I t1
- hearest* refees to the location ehere the highest radiation dose to an individual from all l
applicable pat
- ways has been estimated.
l
,2 Ae ers to the site-boundary location enere the highest radiation doses sie to gaseous efflaes r
Rave been estimated to occur.
ts 76 convert to ts. multiply by 1.6093.
t" Canna and beta air doses (erad/yr per unit) at the site boundary are 0.12 ani 0.28. respectively.
.s cases are for the age group that results in the hig*est dose: T = teen. C = child. ! = infant.
5-22 1
e
Table 5.10 Calculated Dose Commitments to a Maximum Individual and the Population from CPSES Operationti Maximum-Individual Doses Appendix I Calculated Desian Objective
' Dose Annual Doso per Reactor Unit Liquid effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem 1.9 mrem Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem 2.3 mrem (liver)
Noble gas effluente (at site boundary)
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad 0.12 mrad Beta dose in air 20 mrad 0.28 mrad Dose to total body of an individual 5 mres 0.08 mrem Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem 0.19 mrem 2
Radioiodine and particulatest Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem 1.8 mrem (bone, child)
Population Doses Within 80 km Total Body Thyroid Annual Dose for Both Units (person-rem)
Natural-background radiationt8
'. 150,000 Liquid effluents 41 70 l
Noble gas effluents O.38 0.38 l
Radiciodine and particulates 8.44 8.86 11 Appendix I design objectives from Sections II.A, II.8, II.C, and II.D of l
Appendix I,10 CFR Part.50; considers doses to maximum individual and population per reactor unit.
From 40 F.R 19442, 5 May 1975.
2 t
Carbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
13 " Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP-SID-72-:., June 1972; using the average back-ground dose for Texas of 74 mrem /yr, and year-2020 projected population
(
of 2,080,000.
l l
l 5-23 m
Table 5.11 Calculated Dose Commitments to a Maximum Individual and Activity Releases from Operation of CPSES Units 1 and 2t1 Annual Dose per Site RM-50-2 DesignObjective Calcula'ed Liquid effluents Dose to total body or any organ from all pathways 5 mrem 4.6 mrem Activity-release estimate, excluding tritium (Ci/ unit) 5 0.16 Noble gas effluents (at site boundary)
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad 0.24 mrad Beta dose in air 20 mrad 0.56 mrad Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem 0.16 mrem 2
Radiciodine and particulatest Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem 3.6 mrem I-131 activity release (Ci/ unit) 1 0.091 t1 Guides on design objectives proposed by the NRC staff on l
20 February 1974. Considers doses to individuals from all units on site.
From " Concluding Statement of Position of the Regu-l latory Staff," Docket No. RM-50-2, 20 February 1974, pp. 25-30, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Also published as Annex to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
12 Carbon-14 and trit'ium have been added to this category for the purpose of dose estimates, but not included in the " activity release" category.
e 5-24 l
i e
discussed in Appendix 8.
Esticated dose comitmants to the U.S. populatten are shown in Table 5.12.
Background-radiation doses are provided for t v-pirison.
As shown in the table, the dose commitments frcm atmospheric releases fruc CPSES during normal operation represent a small increase in the normal population dose due to background-radiation sources.
Dose Commitments from Radioactive-Liquid Releases to the ifydrosphere.
Radioactive ef fluents released to the hydrosphere from CPSES during normal operation will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations.
Staff estimates of the expected liquid releases listed in Table 5.13, and the site hydrological considerations discussed in Section 4.3.2 and summarized in Table 5.14, were used to estimate radiation-dose commitments to individuals and populations.
The results of the calculations are discussed below.
Radiation Oose Commitments to Individuals.
The estimated dose commitments to the maximum individual from liquid'rileases at selected offsite locations are listed in Tables 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11.
The maximum individual is assumed to consume well-above-average quantities of the foods considered and spend more time at the shoreline than the average person (see Table E-5 in Regulatory Guide 1.109).
Radia'.fon Oose Commitments to Populations.
The estimated annual radiatien-dose commitments to the population within 80 Tun of CPSES from liquid releases are shown in Tables 5.10 and 5.11.
Oose commitments beyond 80 km were based on the assumptions discussed in Appendix B.
Estimated dose commitments to the U.S. population are shewn in Table 5.12.
Background-radiation doses are provided for comparison. As shown in the table, the dose commitments from liquid releases from CPSES during normal operation represent a small increase in the normal population dose dua to background-radiation sources.
Dose Commitments from Direct Radiation Radiation fields are produced within the station as a result of radioactivity cc7tained within the reactor and its associated components. Direct radiation from sources within the station are due primarily to nitrogen-16, a radionue'ide produced in the reactor core.
Because the primary coolant of a pressurizeu water reactor (PWR) such as CPSES is contained in a heavily shielded area of tie station, dose rates in the vicinity of PWRs are generally undetectable
/,less than 5 mrem /yr).
Low-level-radioactivity storage containers outside the station are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 arem/yr at the site boundary.
l 5-25 g
w t--
y-
--w--
,-p-
Table 5.12 Annual Total-Body Population-Dose Commitments in the Year 2000 Category U.S. Population-Dose Commitment Natural-background radiationt1 26,249,400 (person-rem /yr)
Comanche Peak operation (person-rem /yr per site)
Plant workers 880t2 j
General public Gaseous effluents 90 Liquid effluentst3 41 Transportation of fuel and waste 14 t1
'i ng the average U.S. background dose (100 mrem /yr) and year-2000 5-'jected U.S. population from " Population Estimates and Projec-ti s," Series II, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 541, February 1975.
12 Particular plants have experienced average lifetime annual doses as high as 1300 person-rem per unit (" Final Environmental Statement Steam Generator Repair at Surry Power Station, Unit No. 1,"
NUREG-0692, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). The average reactor annual dose is 440 person-rem.
t3 80-km population dose.
s i
s l
l
~
6 1
1 l
e l
5-26 bwg
t 9
i i
1 j
- 5.8.1.3 Radiological Imp 6ct on Man The actual radiological impact associated with operation of CPSES will depend, in part, on the manner in which the radioactive-waste-treatment system is 5-29
-e 8
Table 5.15.
Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuet and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power ReactorP Normal Conditions of Transport Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit) 260 MJ/h Weight (governed by Federal or state restrictions) 33,000 kg per truck; 90 Mg per cask per rail car Traffic density Truck Less than 1 per day Rail less than 3 per month Estimated Range of Dose Cumulative Dose Number of to Exposed to Exposed Population Exposed Persons Individualst8 (person-rem per reac-3 Population Exposed (mrem per reactor year) tor year)t Transportation 200 0.01 to 300 4
workers Gar. oral public Onlookers 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 3
Along route 600,000 0.0001 to 0.6 Accidents in Transport Environmental Risk Radiological effects Smallti Common (nonradiological) causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury in 10 reactor years; $475 property damage per reactor year.
12 Data supporting this table are given in the Conimission's " Environmental Survey of Trans-portation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1238, December l
1972 and Supp. I, NUREG 75/038, April 1975.
l 12 The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of l
radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5000 millirems per year for individuals as a result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirems per year for indiviltuals in the general population.
The dose to
~
individuals due to average naturtl-background. radiation is about 130 millirems per year.
[The value "130 millirems per year" given in this footnote is not in current use. About 100 millfrems per year is the value currently used as the dose due to average natural-background radiation in the United States.]
18 Person-rem is an expression for the summation of whole-body doses to individuals in a group.
Thus, if each member of a population group of 1000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if two people each were to receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirems), the total cumulative dose in each case would be 1 person-rem.
14 Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation acci-dants cannot currently be numerically quantified, the risk remains small regardless of whether it is being applied to a single-reactor or multireactor -ite.
5-30 O
crorated.
Based on an evaluation of the potential performance of the radio-active waste system, the staf f concludes that the system as proposed is capable of meeting the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and those of RM-50-2 contained in the annex to Appendix I.
The applicant chose to show compliance with the design objectives of Rl-50-2 as an optional method of demonstrating compliance with the cost-benefit section of Appendix I, Section 11.0.
Tables 5.10 and 5.11 compare the calculated maximum Individual doses with the dose design objectives. However, because station operation will be governed by operating-license technical specifications and because these specifications will be based on the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Table 5.10), the actual radiological impact of station operation may result in dores close to the dose design objectives. Even if this situation exists the, individual doses will still be very small when compared with natural-background doses (about 100 mrem /yr) or with the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. As a result, the staff concludes that there will be no measurable radiological impact on man from routine operation of the station.
Effective December 1,1979 the applicant became subject to 40 CFR Part 190,
" Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,"
(EPA).
These standards specify that the annual dose equivalent not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ of any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, except radon and its daughters, to the general environment from uranium-fuel-cycle operations and radiation from these operations.
s e
a e
G f
i t
5-31 e
9
- 5. 8.1. 5 Radiation-Induced Health Ef fects on !!an Radiological doses to the general public and to the station work force may result in:
1.
Late somatic effects in the form of fatal and nonfatal cancer in vasious body organs--following age and organ-specific latency periods--of the exposed population, and 2.
Fatal and nonfatal genetic disorders in the future generations of the exposed pcpulation.
~
Because of the random occurrence of these effects, calculations are based on population dose (person-rem). Absolute risk estimators of about 140 deaths from expression of latent cancer in various body organs per million total-body person-rem in the exposed population, and about 260 cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million total-body person-rem in the future generations of the exposed population, were derived from the 1972 BEIR report (Ref.19) and WASH-1400.
This derivation assumes a linear and nonthreshold dose /effect relationship at all sublethal dose levels. Using these risk estimators and 1025 person-rem as the annual population dose due to generating electricity at CPSES (Table 5.12), the staff calculates that there may occur 0.14 car.cer death in the exposed population and 0.27 genetic disorder in all future genera-tions of the exposed population for each year of station operation. Most of the public radiation risk (85%) is borne by workers in the station, i.e.,
0.12 cancer death and 0.23 genetic disorder. Assuming that the average annual dose comitment per nuclear worker at CPSES will be in the same range as that at other similarly sized PWRs, the staff estimates an average worker dose of about I rem /yr.
The estimated fatality-incidence rate of nuclear plant workers due to occupa-tional radiation exposure is compared with risks to other occupational groups in Table 5.16.
In terms of job-related fatalities, the occupational risk associated with the industry wide average radiation dose (i.e. 14 potential premature deaths per 0.1 million man year) is slightly larger than the average private-sector risk (i.e. 10 premature deaths per 0.1 million man year). However, the risk to nuclear plant workers from radiation exposure is lower than the risk for a number of other groups as described in Table.5.16.
It should be pointed out that the fatality-incidence rate given in Table 5.16 for nuclear plant workers l
is a conservative estimate (i.e. the actual risk may be much less than the estimate), whereas the rates for other groups are based on known instances of l
job-related fatalities.
In addition, the rate for nuclear plant workers includes only radiation-related fatalities.
Based on the above comparisons, the staff concludes that the risk to the dverage nuclear plant worker is withintherangeofrisksassociatedwithlotheroccupations,andisacceptable.
The risks to the exposed population (i.e. 0.14 possible cancer death and 0.27 potential genetic disorder for each year of operation) due to radioactive I
effluents from the reactor are a very small fraction of the estimated occur-rence of 3600 cancer deaths in the U.S. population (year-2000 basis) and 7000 genetic disorders in future generations of the U.S. population (year-2000 5-32 I
l
' basis) due to each year of exposure to natural-background radiation There-fore, the staf f concludes that the health impact to the general public due to routine operation of the station wil? be undetectable.
k e
e o
e e
9 4
e 5-34 9