ML20041E423
| ML20041E423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | Hamilton L, Kenning R, Mauro J JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203100508 | |
| Download: ML20041E423 (30) | |
Text
<
p- '+
4 CCf.KE TEp u-
"0? '" m -o , , , ..
3/9/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA q\ *1' -
\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gy -
_ 1; i;v e
~ n
'i-g Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinh]bo hh[' [@
x ~
N
- /x.
v
/ />
C; /.[T?jd .
In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
) (Operating License Proceeding)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 8/9 (Leonard D. Hamilton / John J. Mauro/ Ralph Kenning)
INTRODUCTION By Drs. Hamilton and Mauro and Mr. Kenning:
Joint Intervenors' Contention 8/9 asserts:
" Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the cumulative and/or synergistic I)SC$$
l $
l effects of low level radiation with environmental pollutants, known or sus- f pected to be carcinogens."
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Joint
- Intervenors' assertion. In short, it is our testimony that (1) l the effects of low-level releases from operation of Waterford 3 1
820310050s 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000302 T PDR l . - . _ - _ _ .
i a
have been assessed; (2) the assessment of effects due to releases .from the plant by its nature is an evaluation of the cumulative impact due to plant operation; (3) there is no evidence that synergistic effects will result from Waterford 3 low-level releases; and (4) even if it were postulated--
conservatively--that at the doses associated with Waterford 3 releases synergism could occur, its impact would be miniscule.
Our testimony is divided into several sections. Fir"st Dr. Mauro of Ebasco Services reviews the radiation exposure which persons living in the vicinity of Waterford 3 might receive due to the plant's low-level releases. His discussion includes both the maximum dose that a hypothetical person near the site boundary could receive and the expected doses for the general public. Dr. Mauro briefly describes sources and levels of general background radiation. Mr. Kenning of LP&L then describes the natural background radiation levels actually measured in the Waterford 3 area through the Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program. Finally, Dr. Hamilton of Brookhaven National Laboratory discusses the potential effect on the public due to radiation exposure from the Waterford 3 plant releases, taking into account cumulative or synergistic effects with other known carcinogens in the Waterford environs.
a OFFSITE RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM WATERFORD 3 LOW-LEVEL RELEASES By Dr. Mauro:
My name is John J. Mauro. I am the manager of Ebasco Services' Radiological Assessment Depar tment. Ebasco is Louisiana Power & Light's architect-engineer on Water ford 3.
Since joining Ebasco Services in 1973, I have been a consultant to Louisiana Power & Light Company in areas related to radia-tion protection. I hold a doctorate degree in Biology / Health Physics from New York University - Institute of Environmental Medicine and I am certified by the American Board of Health Physics. Attached is a detailed resume of my educational qualifications and professional experience.
For the past eight years I have been involved in assess-ments of the offsite doses which can be expected from operation of Waterford 3. This plant has been designed, and will be required to operate, such that offsite exposures to any individual will not exceed regulatory limits set forth in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (see Table 1). In order to provide assurance that these exposure limits are not exceeded, three separate levels of review and control are provided.
The first level is the series of conservative calculations performed by both LP&L and the NRC which demonstrate that the plant, as designed, is provided with adequate effluent con-trols. These analyses, presented in the Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) and in LP&L's Environmental
- c'
'; \
Report (ER), demonstrate that the plant will meet the Appendix j i
I exposure guidelines. !
The second. level of assurance is provided by the Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications (RETS) and their associated Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). These documents establish rigorous administrative procedures whereby radiological effluents will be discharged from the plant cnly in accordance with pre-established limits related to the'above I t
offsite exposure criteria.
The third level of assurance is the Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program. Under this program, environmental samples are taken and measurements made to document the levels and trends of radioactive materials and j radiation in the environment. If levels or trends indicate that the offsite exposure guidelines have been or may be exceeded, corrective action must be taken.
It should be understood that the Appendix I exposure guidelines summarized in Table 1 are design objectives under i NRC ALARA regulations. These levels are not expected.
Analyses performed by LP&L, as presented in Table 1, estimate .
exposures to a hypothetical, maximally exposed offsite individual to be much lower . Moreover, the hypothetical individual who might be exposed even to these predicted levels would have to be very determined. To obtain these doses, it is assumed that the individual remains all year long near the plant's site boundary at a location downwind of the plant under 4
0 prevailing wind conditions. In addition, the individual is assumed to obtain most of his vegetables from a backyard garden and all of his beef and milk from cattle and cows grazing in the vicinity of the plant. With regard to the aquatic pathways, the individual is assumed to obtain all his seafood and drinking water from the discharge canal of Waterford 3 and spend extended periods of time eleng the shoreline adjacent to the discharge canal. By comparison, the average individual in the areas surrounding the Waterford 3 site (which is probably the more sensible measure when talking about the combined effects of Waterford 3 releasas with other pollutants generally in the area) is expected to receive an annual whole body and thyroid gland dose due to Waterford 3 which is less than 0.01 mrem /yr.
GENERAL BACKGROUND RADIATION By Dr. Mauro:
Some perspective on these doses due to Waterford 3 releases is gained by contrasting them with existing background radiation. Individuals are exposed every day to ionizing radiation from natural and man-made sources. Both sources are not constant due to a variety of factors, as explained below.
Exposure from natural background radiation comes from cosmic radiation and terrestrial gamma radiation. Doses from cosmic sources vary with changes in altitude and latitude.
With the greatest attenuation occurring at sea level, the
4 o -
l earth's atmosphere provides a barrier to incoming cosmic rays. [
In rising from sea level to an elevation of 10,000 f t., the :
l cosmic radiation exposure increases by a factor of 3. The !
cosmic ray flux is also 10-20% higher at 50' latitude than at the equator due to the characteristics of the earth's magnetic .
field.
Doses from terrestrial sources vary with the underlying
?
geologic makeup of the earth's crust. Different mineral formations contain varying amounts of radioactivity depending {
t upon the concentration of radionuclides in the various rock.
[
Within the United States, the terrestrial gamma ray dose can ,
~
range from 15-35 mrem /yr for the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plains to 75-140 mrem /yr for the Colorado Plateau. Thus, an individual's annual radiation dose from natural background sources depends upon one's area of residence, travel habits and occupation, and can vary considerably, f
Individual exposure from man-made radiation comes from a variety of sources, and each varies with a person's lifestyle.
The major man-made dose contributor is medical diagnostic X-rays. Other contributors are nuclear fallout and consumer products. The average annual medical exposure is approximately 70 mrems. Obviously, an individual's annual dose from man-made radiation will vary greatly depending upon the need and availability of medical. radiation techniques.
Table 2 presents a summary of the radiation exposures from several natural and man-made sources. Also shown is the
o .
average dose calculated for the surrounding population due to Waterford 3 releases. As is apparent, the calculated values for exposure to the population due to Waterford 3 's operation will be ve y small compared to other natural and man-made sources of exposure. For example, if a person lives in a brick home, he will receive an additional 20 mrem /yr--some 2000 times more than the 0.01 mrem /yr which the average individual around the site will receive due to Waterford 3. The radiation exposure received by many individuals from~their televisions ,
may be 100 times greater than the average exposure due to Waterford 3.
By Mr. Kenning:
My name is Ralph Kenning. Since joining LP&L in Septem-ber,1975, I have devoted most of my time to the area of health physics. I currently am Health Physics Superintendent of Waterford 3. I am a graduate of LSU and hold a masters degree in health physics from' Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dr. Mauro has described generally the sources and levels of background radiation. Further perspective on the Waterford 3 low level releases and resultant exposures to the population can be gained by comparing those expected doses with presently existing background doses in the Waterford area in particular.
As Health Physics Superintendent for LP&L at the Waterford plant site, I have been in charge of gathering and compiling the background radiation levels at and around the Waterford 3 l ._ -.
site through LP&L's Preoperational Radiological Surveillance i
Program.
~
The Preoperational Radiological Surveillance Program is an NRC requirement. LP&L is required to gather two years of data on background radiation in the site environs. These data will be used as a baseline against which plant releases and effects can be measured after the plant becomes operational. To date, LP&L has already gathered more than three years of data.
Table 3 attached to this testimony contains the results of Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) measurements of background radiation during 1980 (the most recent compiled annual data package) and is representative of the data measured throughout the Preoperational Radiological Surveillance Program. The average background dose in the area is about 80 mrem /yr, according to our data from the Waterford area, although the variations in background doses'are considerable. At any one location, the exposures vary over the year. Between locations just a mile or two apart, the background dose varies considera-bly. Thus, at a point 3850' NE of the plant the annual mean gamma dose rate during 1980 was 69.2 mrem compared to 88.5 mrem at a point 4650' W of the plant. This variation of almost 20 mrem per year in background gamma dose alone is much greater than the exposure conservatively calculated for the maximum hypothetical individual .from all pathways due to Waterford 3 's releases; the variation in background radiation around Waterford 3 is some three orders of magnitude greater than the average, exposure expected from Waterford 3 releases.
e CUMULATIVE AND SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF WATERFORD 3 LOW-LEVEL RELEASES By Dr. Hamilton:
My name is Leonard D. Hamilton. I have been involved in assessing the risks ut .adiation for man for 35 years, and specifically the health effects of nuclear energy for electric power generation for 20 years. I presently am head of the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division in the National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc. I hold a Ph.D in experimental pathology from Cambridge University and a Doctor of Medicine degree from Oxford. Further details on my professional and educatio'nal background are included in my attached statement of Personal Qualifications. ;
Asked by LP&L to provide my views on Contention 8/9,'I have reviewed a -number of documents (many with which I have past familiarity), notably: (1) The material cited by the Joint Intervenors in support of this contention including M. M.
Elkind, Combined Effects, Ionizing Radiation, Issue Paper in Proceedings of the Public Meeting, March 10-11, 1980, Interagency Radiation Research Committee, and the references given in this paper; and V. L. Campbell, The Environment and l
Human Health in Louisiana, prepared for Office of Environmental l Affairs, City of New Orleans, January, 1981, and its annotated l
bibliography; and (2) The United States Nuclear Regulatory l
l Commission's Final Environmental Statement related to the 1
. I i
I Operation of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, f
NUREG-0779, September, 1981.
I find that the assessment of the potential radiological j impact on humans in the Final Environmental Statement, {
NUREG-0779, is conservative. My conclusion is that the radiation doses, and hence the health risk, of low-level :
i radiation from the Waterford plant--being a tiny fraction of !
the doses the population already receives annually from natural ~
background radiation, and smaller even than the existing variations in natural background radiation from external sources at different sites around the plant--are very small. 1 Even were one to assume that there is a cumulative and/or synergistic effect of low-level radiation with environmental pollutants, such environmental pollutants in the absence of Waterford 3 would already be interacting with natural back-ground radiation to produce their postulated " cumulative and/or synergistic effects." Since the amount of low-level radiation to be added by the Waterford plant will only be a tiny fraction u
l of the existing background radiation, and indeed since it will be even less than the differences in external doses individuals l
at present receive in the absence of Waterford 3 when .they l
l travel in the neighborhood of the plant, the contention that l
LP&L has failed to properly evaluate the cumulative and/or
, synergistic effects of low-level radiation is clearly without l
merit. Any such effects, if they occur at all, will be miniscule.
l
_lo_
i
Calculations of health effects must be based on risk estimates. Risk estimates are made by multiplying the estimated delivered dose of radiation by an established dose-response (damage) function. I have made such risk estimates for the health effects of the uranium, coal, and other fuel cycles based upon the annual incidence of effects to be expected from the operation of standard plants. The damage functions for radiation that I have used were derived from BEIR I (1972)(1), Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 1972 and 1977) (2,3), ,
and currently the BEIR III (1980)(4) reports. These are essentially the same reports relied on by the NRC Staff in the Final Environmental Statement, NUREG-0779.
The very low doses and dose rates given by natural background radiation in the environment, and the considerably lower doses that would be given at low dose rates by Waterford 3, are obviously. very much lower than those for which there are data on damage, e.g., tumor induction. However, to get a rough idea of risk, one assumes that the linear proportional dose and
( tumor induction observed at much higher doses and dose rates can be extrapolated down to the lowest doses and at all dose rates and that a threshold is absent. These assumptions imply two important corollaries:
- 1. A dose delivered over a long time is as biologically damaging as the same dose given over a short time. This is extremely conservative since it takes no account of the human body's repair of radiation damage. The presence of a repair
l mechanism means that doses spread over a long period are less damaging than doses spread over a short period. Thus, an i estimate that ignores the repair mechanism--for which a quantitative relationship cannot now be stated--is likely to be higher than the actual, but unknown, risk. Therefore, the assumption of linear proportionality down to the lowest doses and dose rates undoubtedly overestimates actual risk. ,
- 2. Doses to individuals can be totalled (collective dose) and then divided by the number of individuals exposed, thereby giving the mean individual dose which, multiplied by the rate of cancer induction, gives an estimated statistical risk per individual.
Both BEIR Committees (1972 and 1980) and UNSCEAR (1972 and 1977) noted that estimates of risk from exposure to low-level Linear Energy Transfer ("LET") radiation (the type emitted from LWRs) based essentially on the above assumptions represent upper-boundary estimates (i.e., overestimates of the actual risk). This means that the actual numbers of cancers induced by these very low doses of radiation, given at very low dose r.ates,.will be lower than the estimates and may be zero.
As Dr. Mauro has pointed out, operation of Waterford 3 is l governed by certain regulatory standards designed to keep releases of radioactive materials and hence doses of radiation and health effects as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The ALARA standard was adopted by the Commission in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 in 1975, after a lengthy rulemaking proceeding initiated in 1971, which included consideration of the potential health risks of low-level ionizing radiation (5).
The Staff's calculated annual doses to a maximally exposed P
individual from operation of Waterford 3 in the Final Environ-mental Statement are below the Appendix I Design Objectives; their calculated doses to the general population are several I
orders of magnitude less than the dose to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual .
Comparison of the radiological doses due to Waterford 3's releases with the doses in which synergism has been experimen-tally observed, is instructive. The experiments which have shown, for example: X-Irradiation Enhancement of Transformation by Benzo (a) Pyrene in Hamster Embryo Cells (6),
Enhancement of X-Ray Transformation by 10-0-Tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate in a cloned Line of C3H Mouse Embryo Cells (7), and Modification of Urethan-Lung Tumor Incidence by Low X-Radiation Doses, Cortisone, and Transfusion of Isogenic Lymphocytes (8), were all carried out with doses of radiation that are four to five orders of magnitude (i.e., 10,000 to 100,000 times) higher than the dose of radiation to the maximally exposed individual from Waterford 3. Similarly, the experiments which have shown, for example, Synergistic Interactions of Various Doses of Diethylstilbestrol and X-Irradiation on Mammary Neoplasia in Female ACI Rats (9), and Synergism of Estrogens and X-Rays in Mammary Carcinogenesis in Female ACI Rats (10), were carried out with doses of radiation
four to five orders of magnitude higher than the doses of radiation to the maximally exposed individual from Waterford 3.
r Synergism has also been detected between a chemical carcinogen and estrogen (11). All of these studies involved dose rates ;
billions of times greater than the dose rates associated with i
releases frcm Waterford 3 operation.
While it is correct to say, as Elkind concluded, "that we are unable to predict responses in humans due to combined action because of our incomplete caderstanding of individual and combined responses of radiation and other agents in experimental systems," one can by conservative assessment put upper boundaries to the likely effects, and one can certainly
, circumscribe their relative and therefore practical signifi-cance.
All laboratory experiments in animal cells or other systems that have demonstrated the carcinogenicity of certain chemicals were carried out in the presence of, and therefore together with the effects of, low-level radiation from natural background radiation. Thus the results obtained in all these experiments already include the cumulative and/or synergistic effects of these carcinogenic chemicals, if any, together with l low-level radiation at a dose rate due to background radiation.
Similarly, if one were to accept the hypothesis that the increase in some cancers in Louisiana above the national rates is due to the presence of environmental pollutants, this incr. ease in cancer would also represent the effects of these
i environmental pollutants together with any cumulative and/or t
synergistic effect they may have together with low-level radiation from all sources of natural background radiation i external and internal given at a rate of about 100 mrem a year. [
It follows - therefore that the tiny incremental addition of ;
low-level doses of radiation at low dose rates from Waterford 3 .
cannot meaningfully increase any cumulative and/or synergistic !
effects environmental pollutants would have above those that !
they already are inducing together with existing low-level- ;
background radiation.
f f
i e
1
REFERENCES (1) Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR I), The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., November 1972.
(2) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1972), Ionizing Radiation:.
Levels and Effects, Vols. 1 & 2, Report to the General Assembly, with Annexes, United Nations, New York, 1972.
(3) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1977), Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Report to the General Assembly, with Annexes, United Nations, New York, 1977.
(4) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR III), The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiations, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., May 1980.. j (5) Final Environmental Statement Concerning Proposed Rule {
Making Action, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and i Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion i "As Low As Practicable" for Radioactive Material in j Lig ht-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,"
WASH-1248 (July, 1973), pp. 1-17 to 1-25, pp. 5-1 to 5-15, and pp. 58-1 to 58-19.
(6) DiPaolo, J.A., Donovan, P.J., and Nelson, R.L.,
X-Irradiation Enhancement of Transformation by Benzo (a)
Pyrene in Hamster Embryo Cells, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 68:
1734-1737, 1971.
(7) Kennedy, A.R., Mondal, S., Heidelberger, C. and Little, J.B., Enhancement of X-Ray Transformation by 10-0-Tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate in a cloned'Line of C3H Mouse Embryo Cells, Cancer Research 38: 439-443, 1978.
(8) Cole, L.J. and'Foley, W.A., Modification of Urethan-Lung Tumor Incidence by Low X-Radiation Doses, Cortisone, and Transfusion of Isogenic Lymphocytes, Radiation Research 39: 391-399, 1969.~
(9) Stone, J.P., Holtzman, S. and Shellabarger, C.J.,
Synergistic Interactions of Various Doses of Diethyl-stilbestrol and X-Irradiation on Mammary Neoplasia in Female ACI Rats, Cancer Research 40: 3966-3972, 1980.
t I _ .-- -- -
(10) Holtzman, S., Ston6, J.P. and Shellabarger, C.J.,
Synergism of Estrogens and X-Rays in Mammary Carcino-genesis in Female ACI Rats, JNCI, 67: 455-459, 1981.
(11) Shellabarger, C.J., McKnig ht , B., Stone, J.P., and Holtzman, S., Interaction of Dimethylbenzanthracene and Diethylstilbestrol on Mammary Adenocarcinoma Formation in Female ACI Rats, Cancer Research 40: 1808-1811, 1980.
4
..,.n_. , - . . , _ , - - - - . - . - . - - . -. -_,- - ----
3 TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF NRC EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOUND IN ;
ANNEX TO APPENDIX I TO 10 C.F.R. Part 50, AND WATERFORD 3 ESTIMATED RELEASES AND DOSES * '
f REGULATORY LIMIT WATERFORD 3 ESTIMATED RELEASES AND DOSES
- 1. Whole body or crgan dose from radioactive material in liquid -
effluent should not exceed:
0.14 mrem /yr whole body 5 mrem /yr 0.41 mrem /yr thyroid ,
- 2. Total radioactive material, except tritium and dissolved
. noble gases, should not exceed:
, 5 Ci/yr 0.25 Ci/yr
- 3. Air dose due to noble gases at site boundary should not exceed:
10 mrad /yr gamma 1.16 mrad /yr gamma 20 mrad /yr beta 3.44 mrad /yr beta
- 4. Dose due to noble gases should not exceed:
5 mrem /yr whole body 0.63 mrem /yr whole body 15 mrem /yr skin 1.9 mrem /yr skin
- 5. Organ doses due to radioactive iodine or particulates in gaseous effluent should not exceed:
15 mrem /yr 9.8 mrem /yr
- 6. Quantity of I-131 in gaseous effluent should not exceed:
1 Ci/yr 0.019 Ci/yr l
l
- Waterford 3 Operating License Stage Environmental Report, Chapter 5 and Appendix 3-1.
l _ _ _
t
?
?
t TABLE 2 [
WHOLE BODY EXPOSURES FROM NATURAL AND MAN-MADE SOURCES AND CALCULATED OFFSITE EXPOSURE DUE TO WATERFORD 3 III Natural Average Background in U.S. 102 mrem /yr !
Additional whole body dose from living in brick house instead of a wooden house 20 mrem /yr (2)
Round trip flight from New York !
City to Los Angeles 1.9 mrem II '
Diagnostic chest X-rays (series of 2-3 X-rays) 40 mrem (2)
Dental X-ray (per exposure) 2.9 mrem (2) -
Exposure to color television sets 1 mrem /yr Exposure to tritium dial' watch 0.5 mrem /yr I}
Average Individual Dose due to
, Waterford 3 <0.01 mrem /yr (3)
(1) BEIR Report, p. 12 (1972)
(2) UNSCEAR, pp. 13, 51, 83, 99, 310, 319 (1977)
(3) Based on 7.6 man rem per year divided by 2.1 x 106 people
TA13LE 3 CllHUI.ATIVE CMtMA DOSE AT Waterford Site - 1980*
(mrem)
Total Destion Jan Feb Har Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1980
=1 E 800' 6.39 7.3 7.27 7.G7 7.23 7.13 G.54 6.59 7.88 6.77 7.26 6.43 84.10
=2 ESE 1600' 6.00 7.81 7.29 6.99 6.45 6.72 6.32 5.89 6.84 6.92 7.10 5.87 80.59
-3 SSW 3400' 6.21 7.88 7.45 7.29 7.88 6.93 6.37. 6.50 6.50 6.97 6.45 7.15 83.22 44 SW 5250' 5.92 8.25 7.08 6.n8 7.61 6.79 6.45 7.10 6.03 6.96 5.94 7.23 82.34
-5 W 3600' 6.37 7.10 7.37 7.48 6.69 6.77 6.57 6.50 6.94 6.81 7.03 6.45 82.34
-6 H.4650' 7.05 7.52 8.03 7.55 7.71 7.19 7.74 6.91 7.59 7.07 7.39 6.61 88.48
-7 Nttw2900' 5.49 7.07 6.61 6.31 5.97 6.02 5.73 5.72 5.30 5.96 5.26 6.09 71.83 8 IIE 3850' 5.20 7.21 6.38 6.12 6.41 5.59 5.60 5.42 5.35 5.73 5.42 5.75 69.20 9 ENE 4400' 6.3? G,. 0 3 7.21 5.46 6.56 7.46 6.92 7.29 7.09 7.67 6.90 7.48 84,10
-10 flE 1200' 6.40 7.13 7.37 5.77 6.60 5.94 6.24 5.77 6.75 6.19 6.19 5.56 76.21 11 SE 7.7 ml 5.45 7.67 7.45 7.32 6.23 6.32 6.30 6.36 5.37 6.61 5.65 6.31 77.09 12 S 10.5 ml 4.86 7.37 6.56 5.50 6.07 4.51 8.98 5.23 5.64 5.33 5.03 5.59 70.96 13 E 4.2 ml 6.07 7.05 7.16 7.58 6.68 6.65 6.02 6.16 6.75 6.81 6.65 6.34 79.72
-14 NtM 5. 4 ml 5.45 6.83 6.51 7.06 5.86 6.3G 5.72 6.09 5.97 6.18 5.64 5.67 73.58 15 IM. 4 4 00 ' 6.38 8.54 7.88 7.68 7.47 6.72 6.92 6.61 7.74 7.10 7.27 6.54 86.72
- Derived from data provided in LPsL Waterford SES Unit 3 Preoperational Radiological Surveillant e Program January 1980 - December 1980. Report No. 14: April 1981 Prepared by Interex Corp.
1 1
I i
I DR. L. D. HAMILTON PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS My name is Leonte d 3. Hamilton. My address is: 6 Childs Lane, Setauket, New York 11733, I am, among other responsibilities, Head of the Biomedical and Environme .al Assessment Division in the National Center for Analysis of Energy Sys6sas at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, ":w York 11973. The Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division is jc*.ntly sponsored by the Department of Energy and Environment and Media:' fepartment at Brook-haven. The Biomedical and Environmental Assessmcas Division (BEAD) aims at developing a realistic assessment of biomedicat nod environmental effects of energy production and use. All forms of ene:3y, including i
electric power generation using fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, 6nJ aew technologies, are assessed. The Biomedical Environmental Assessment Division is the lead group in the Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program, Human Health and Assessment Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, assessing the health and environmental effects of energy pro-duction and use and among other responsibilities is charged with pro-ducing a health and environmental effects assessment of the National Energy Plan.
I have been involved in assessing the risks of radiation for man for 35 years, specifically the health effects of nuclear energy for electric power generation for 20 years, and the assessment of the com-parative health effects from various energy sources for the past 8 years.
The Biomedical and Environmental Assessment activity formally began in July, 1973; for the past and present year our level of effort is 204 man-months annually.
n..-... .
I received'my Bachelor of Arts in 1943 and qualified in medicine from Oxford University in 1945. I am a registered medical practitioner in the United Kingdom and licensed physician in New York State. After several positions in university hospitals, which included a position as Resident Medical Officer at the Radiotherapeutic Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, during which time I was concerned with the manage-ment of cancer patients undergoing treatment with' radiation, I proceeded to research at Cambridge University on histological studies of the mechanism of the action of therapeutic doses of ionizing radiation for which I received my Ph.D. in experimental pathology in 1952. In the meanwhi)a, in 1951, I had received my Doctor of Medicine degree from Oxford; this is a senior medical qualification in the United Kingdom, roughly equivalent to Diplomate in Internal Medicine in the United States.
I am also a Diplomate of the American Board of Pathology (Hematology).
From 1950-1964, I spent 14 years on the research staff of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and on the clinical staff of Memorial Hospital in New York being Associate Member and Head, Isotope Studies Section at the Institute and Assistant Attending Physician, Depart-ment of Medicine at Memorial. During this time I was also a member of the faculty of Cornell University Medical College and a Visiting Physician, Cornell Division, Bellevue Hospital. Since then I have maintained a
- c. u nuing association with the Sloan-Kettering Institute as Associate Scientist.
At the Institute my laboratory research was on the molecular structure of the genetic material (DNA) and the cells in man concerned with the immune mechanism. I provided the DNA on which the proof of the
double-helical structure of DNA is based, and was one of the first to establish the long life of the immune cells in man. My clinical work in Memorial Hospital involved research on the treatment of patients afflicted with cancer and leukemia with new chemical agents and also with new applications of radiation therapy.
In 1964 I joined the scientific staff of Brookhaven National Laboratory as Senior Scientist and Head, Division of Microbiology, and Attending Physician, Hospital of the Medical Research Center. Since 1973 I have been Head of the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Group which in 1976 became a Division of the National Center of Analysis of Energy Systems.
, At Brookhaven I continued my laboratory research begun at Sloan-Kettering. In addition, since my Visiting Fellowship at St. Catherine's College, Oxford 1972-73, I have been concerned with placing all risks in ,
life in perspective; and since becoming Head of the Biomedical and Environ-mental Assessment activity in 1973, particularly with the assessment of the hazards associated with different energy sources and their use. Our group has the lead responsibility to DOE for the assessment of health and environ-mental effects from various energy systems, and of coordinating such assessments in national laboratories, universities and research institutes in the United States.
My interest in the risks of radiation for man began with my Ph.D.
work in Cambridge in 1946 and, since DNA and the immune system are prime targets of radiation damage, has continued throughout my laboratory.research.
I was associated informally with the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) almost since its inception in 1957, served as Consultant, Office of the Under-Secretaries for Special Political i
l _ _ _
Aff airs (UNSCEAR),1c60-92, and was responsible for the first draf t of the somatic effects of ral.iation in the 1962 report. This section covers the effects of radiation in inducing leukemia and cancer in man.
I have reviewed most of the working papers of UNSCEAR since then. I was a meaber of the National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences (NRC-NAS) Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, Subcom-mittee on Hematologic Effects, 1960-64, the NRC-NAS Solar Energy Research Institute Workshop, 1975, the NRC-NAS Committee on Environmental Decision Making, Steering Committee on Environmental Mo'nitoring, Panel on Effects Monitoring 1975-76, the NRC-NAS Health Effects Resource Group, Risk
. Impact Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES) 1975-80, the NRC-NAS Panel on the Trace Element Geochemistry of Coal Resource Development Related to Health 1976-80, and the NRC-NAS Committee on Research Needs on the Health Effects of Fossil Fuel Com-bustion Products, 1976-80.
I was a member of the Mayor's Technical Advisory Committee on Radia-tion, New York City, since 1963 until its end, December, 1977, and have been d member of the Technical Advisory Committee on Radiation to the Commissioner of Health of the City of New York since August, 1978.
Since 1972, I was a Consultant to the Environment Directorate, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; since 1976 served as DOE (formerly ERDA) Representative in the U.S. Delegation to the Environment Committee and U.S. delegate to the Joint Environment-Energy Steering Group. I was a member of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) International Panels of Experts on the Environmental Impacts of Production, Transportation, and Use of Fossil Fuel 1978, on the Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Energy 1978-79, on Renewable Sources l
-S-of Energy and the Environment 1980, and on the Comparative Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Different Sources of Energy, 1980. I was a member of the Beijer Institute, UNEP, and USSR Commission for UNEP International Workshop on Environmental Implications and Strategies for Expanded Coal Utilization, 1980.
I am currently a member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health overview group, supervising the epidemiological study of the employees at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard where an alleged increase in leukemia was reported by Najarian and Colton in 1978, and a Consultant to the Division of Environmental Health, World Health Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program on the comparative health effects of different energy sources.
I have begun an international cooperative program under the International Atomic Energy Agency - Coordinated Research Program on Improvement of Methodology of Epidemiological Studies of Health Impacts From Low-Level Ionizing Radiations, with special attention to, among other issues, additiveness and synergism of other environmental pollutants with low-level radiation.
I have been Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York since 1968 and I am currently a member of the American Association for Cancer Research, American Scciety for Clinical Investigation (emeritus),
American Association of Pathologists, Inc., the Harvey Society, and the British Medical Association.
I have published more than 150 scientific papers, including many reports assessing the hazards of various energy sources.
JOHN J. MAURO Manager, Radiological Assessment Department Ebasco Services, Inc.
Education: B.S., Biology, Long Island University, 1967.
M.S., Biology / Health Physics, New York University, 1970.
Ph.D., Health Physics, New York University Institute of Environmental Medicine, 1973.
Experience: 1973 to Present: Dr. Mauro has been a member of Ebasco's Radiological Impact Assessment Department and is presently Manager of that department. In this capacity, Dr. Mauro is responsible for all offsite health physics and emergency planning consulting services offered by Ebasco. These services include:
(1) the analysis of radionuclide source terms and impacts associated with routine
, operations and hypothetical accidents at nuclear power plants; (2) the development ^
of emergency plans; and, (3) the design of environmental radiological surveillance programs for Ebasco's nuclear power clients.
Dr. Mauro has provided these and additional .
services for 10 nuclear power facilities.
Dr. Mauro's involvement with the Waterford 3 project has included: (1) Preparation of those ' sections of the Safety Analysis Reports (both PSAR and FSAR) and Environmental Reports which deal with the analysis of radionuclide release rates and offsite doses due to routine operation of Waterford 3 and under hypothetical accident conditions; (2) Design of the environmental radiological surveillance program; (3) Preparation'of the Radiological Environmental Technical Speci-fications and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual; and, (4) Preparation of portions of the Waterford 3 Emergency Plan.
1970-1973: Research Assistant, New York University. Performed research activities related to the ecology of the Hudson River.
Professional Affiliations: Certified by the American Board of Health Physics.
a I
J. J. Mauro ,
Page 2 Representative Publications: Mauro, J. J. and M. E. Wrenn." Reasons for the Absence of a Trophic Level Effect for Radiocesium in the Hudson River Estuary,"
IRPA Proceedings, Washington, D.C., October 1973.
Mauro, J. J., Michlewicz and A. Letizia.
" Evaluation of Environmental Dosimetr'y Models for Applicability to Possible Radioactive Waste Repository Discharges," Department of Energy, Y/OWI/SUB-77/45705, September, 1977.
Mauro, J. J., J. Thomas, J. Ryniker and R.
Fellman. " Airborne Uranium, Its Concentration and Toxicity in Uranium Enrichment Facilities,"
Department of Energy, K/PO/SUB-79/31057/1, February, 1979.
Mauro, J. J. and E.P. O'Donnell. "A Cost-Benefit Comparison of Nuclear and Nonnuclear Health and Safety Protective Measures and Regulations,"
Nuclear Safety, Vol. 20, No. 5, September-October, 1979.
RALPH W. KENNINO STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Education: B.S., Astrophysics, Louisiana State University, 1972.
M.S., Astrophysics, Louisiana State University, 1974.
M.S., Health Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1975.
Additional professional courses in radiological emergency '
response planning and coordination, health physics, and ,
environmental radiation surveillance.
Experience: September 1975 to Present: Louisiana Power & Light Company Since joining LP&L in 1975, and af ter completing some initial training programs, I have been responsible for the on-going radiological surveillance program and for the development and administration of the Waterford 3 health physics department and program. In addition to my work at the Waterford 3 site, I have spent two years gaining hands-on health physics ex-perience at other nuclear plants, including Arkansas Nuclear One and Two and Saint Lucie 1 during periods of heightened health physics activity at those plants. I presently am Health Physics Superintendent of Waterford 3.
Professional Louisiana Nuclear Society Affiliations: Edison Electric Institute Health Physics Committee National and Deep South Chapter of Health Physics Society 1
e l
a 3/9/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore-going APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 8/9 (Leonard D. Hamilton / John J. Mauro/ Ralph Kenning) was deposited with the United States Postal Service for Express Mail delivery tomorrow, March 9, 1982, to those persons on the attached service list designated by two asterisks (**) preceding their names; and will be hand-delivered tomorrow, March 9, 1982, to those persons on the attached service list with one asterisk (*) preceding their names.
Q L /k'A,$.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Applicant DATED: March 8, 1982.
I
1
' l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the~ Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
) *
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
SERVICE LIST
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire ** Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esquire Administrative Judge Post Office Box 9216 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Metairie, LA 70055 ;
Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ** Luke B. Fontena, Esquire Commission 824 Esplanade Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 New Orleans, LA 70116
- Dr. Harry Foreman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing !
Administrative Judge Board Panel Director, Center for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Population Studies Commission Box 395, Mayo Washington, D.C. 20555 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission 881 West Outer Drive Washington, D.C. 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 .
- Docketing & Service Section (3)
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire (4) Office of the Secretary Office of the Executive L.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4