ML20054F627
| ML20054F627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1982 |
| From: | Wangler M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054F597 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206170168 | |
| Download: ML20054F627 (4) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'\\
E-BEFORE Tdt ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
In the Matter of ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et al
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL
)
(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL E. WANGLER REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION (Prairie Alliance Contention 11(b))
Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Michael E. Wangler.
I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a health physicist in the Division of Systems Integration, Radiological Assessment Branch. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Prairie Alliance Contention 11(b), which reads as follows:
"The effects of low-level radiation to be released from Clinton Unit I has not been adequately assessed and considered in the following aspects:
b.
The residual risks of low-level radiation which will result from the release of radionuclides from Clinton Unit I has not been but should be, adequately assessed and factored into the NEPA cost-benefit analysis for Clinton Unit 1.
Q.
Does the NRC address residual risk in its environmental statements?
0206170168 820611 PDR ADOCK 0"700461 T
. A.
Residual risk is not a commonly used term; however, the NRC does address incrementgl risk.
Incremental risk is above that which is 6
(.
expected from common occurrences, such as incremental risk f' rom radiation.
Q.
Did the NRC address the incremental risks associated with the release of radionuclides from Clinton, Unit 1 and was this analysis factored into a cost-benefit analysis?
A.
Yes.
In Section 5.9.3 and associated Appendices C and D of the Clinton FES (NUREG-0854) the incremental risks associated with the impacts and dose commitments to the general public from liquid and gaseous releases are discussed. Radiation exposure is assessed to a distance of 50 miles for liquid and gaseous releases.
In addition, for gaseous effluents the total population radiation exposure includes exposure to the population east of Clinton to a distance of 1050 miles (east coast distance) because fo the easterly nature of winds in the U.S.
Estimates of dose commitments are calculated and presented in Appendix C of the FES. Total body doses for the general public are not expected to exceed 0.04 person-rems from liquid effluents and 27 person-rems from gaseous effluents. These doses were used to determine the incremental risk of releases of radioactive materials.
In estimating the incremental risk, risk estimators based on BEIR I models I were used.
I 1/
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" (BEIR I), Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, November 1972. A risk estimator is an i
empirically determined value for estimating the number of cancers l
or genetic effects for a given amount of radiation.
? Values of 135 potential deaths of cancer per million person-rems and 258 potential cases of al1 forms of genetic disorders per million person-b rems were used as risk estimators.
Accordingly, for the general public the estimated number of-expected cancers is 0.004 and the estimated number of genetic disorders is 0.008 due to annusi effluent releases at Clinton Unit 1.
These estimates are very small fractions of the estimated incidence of actual cancer fatalities (20%) and genetic disorders (6%) presently seen in the U.S. populations.2/
Thus, it is concluded that the incremental risk to the public health and safety from exposure to radiation from normal operation of Clinton Unit I will be very small. Additionally, because of the small risk involved, it is also concluded that the costs associated with the adverse radiological health effects will be small (See Table 6.1 in the Clinton FES).
-2/
Ibid. and " Cancer Facts and Figures 1979," American Cancer Society, B7E.
1
Michael E. Wangler g
Professional Qualifications
(-
Radiological Assessment Branch Division of Systems Integration My name is Michael E. Wangler, I am a health physicist employed by the Radio-logical Assessment Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
I am.
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the radiological impacts on the environment from proposed and existing nuclear power plants.
I received a B.A. degree in Physics from University of Dallas in 1969, and a M.S. degree in physics from University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1971.
I have had over 10 years of professional experience in hehlth physics. From 1971 to 1973 I was employed as a technical assistant to the Radiation Safety officer at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst where my principal duty was to ensure that the campus radioiosotope users complied with University and
~
federal standards for radiation safety.
In that capacity I performed routine surveys of user facilities and conducted periodic training sessions for users.
In addition, I monitor d environmental radiation in and evaluated the impact on the environs near the Vermont Yankee reactor site at Vernon, VT.
For the period 1973 to 1979 I was employed as a Radiological Health Specialist k
for the New York State Department of Health. My principal duties were in the radiation equipment control program where I investigated radiation exposure to workers and the public, consulted with county health organizations in radiolo-gical health matters, and inspected facilities using radiation equipment and radioactive materials.
In 1979 I accepted a position with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Office of Standards Development where my principal duties included deve-laping rules and guides in the safe handling and use of medical, industrial, and consumer products, and managing technical contracts and performing risk analyses in these areas., In January of 1982 I joined the staff of the Radio-logical Assessment Branch where I have had responsibilities in dose assessment l
calculations, analysis of radiological impacts of both operating and proposed nuclear power plants on the environment, assessment of radiation exposure con-sequences of accidents 'at operating reactors, and development of a dose assess-ment system for radiological emergency conditions.
I am a member of the Health Physics Society.
c
.-