ML20058G732

Summarizes Concern Over ANI Application of NUREG/CR-2850 Re Population Dose & to Request That NRC Consider Making Change to Method in Population Dose Being Calculated in NUREG/CR-2850 Consistent W/Previously Published Statements

ML20058G732
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	11/30/1993
From:	Mcmeekin T DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-2850 NUDOCS 9312100108
Download: ML20058G732 (6)

Text

%#.

11.

1 7,_

T C Maru.m Duke 1%gr Cwreany McGuire hudear Generation Department Vice President

!!?00 Hagers Terry Road (MGulA)

(704)S75-4800 Huntesri!!e, At2?O78 8985 (IO4)STS 4809 fax DUKEPOWER November 30, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555

Subject:

Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.: 50-369 and 50-370 Change to Method in which Population Dose is being Calculated in NUREG/CR-2850 Gentlemen:

This letter is provided to summarize McGuire's concern over American Nuclear Insurers' (ANI) application of NUREG/CR-2850 concerning population dose, and to request that the NRC consider making a change to the method in which the population dose is being calculated in NUI;EG/CR-2850 that is consi.c'.ent with previously published NRC Folicy Statements.

'As shown in Attachment 1 from NUREG/CR-2850, McGuire has the highest calculated population dose of any nuclear station in the country. This single component of Subfactor 3. Environmental Releases, is adding a significant cost to McGuire's annual ANI insurance premium

(= $63,000, see Attachment 2).

About 99% of the total calculated population dose at McGuire is from liquid effluent releases.

More than 95% of the calculated liquid population dose is through the Drinking Water pathway because the Charlotte water intake-is within the 50-mile radius

.{

cut-off assumed in NUREG/CR-2850.

~

The NRC has published information in the - Federal Register (Vol.'55, No. 128, 713/90) stating that when the maximum individual dose is calculated to be less.

than 0.1 mrem then the population dose from that particular: pathway should be

.j considered zero for risk assessment applications.

Specifically_ the. Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy states that: "For purposes of this policy,

'j individual total effective dose equivalents less than 0.1 mrem per year do not

.j need to be considered'in the estimation of collective dose.

The Commission

+

believes consideration of Individual doses below 0.1 mrem per year imputes a

)

sense of significance and certainty of their magnitude that is not justified.

)

considering the inherent uncertainties in dose and risk estimates associated with potentially-exempt p ractice s. " The individual dose from the Drinking Water 9312100108 931130 f

PDR ADOCK 05000369 [&

D./

I P

PDR

.w w--

. J h

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 30, 1993 Page 2 l

pathway for McGuire is calculated by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (NUREG/CR-2850) to be well below 0.1 mrem; therefore, per the BRC Policy Statement, the Drinking Water pathway should be removed as a contributor to McGuire's population dose l

calculation. The Fish Consumption pathway as well as the Airborne pathways would t

still contribute to McG'. ire's population dose since the maximum individual dose from those pathways ir greater than 0.1 mrem.

i Duke recognizes that the BRC Policy Statement has been retracted, but the reasons l

were not due to the technical validity of what was published.

Applying the technical basis of the BRC Policy Statement to NUREG/CR-2850 concerning l

population dose would have little, if any, effect on the other stations that are considered in the study, since of the 71 sites, 43 are already assumed to have ZERO dose for the Drinking Water pathway.

For many of the remaining sites the l

Drinking Water pathway is a small contributor to their overall population dose.

{

Discussions with Pacific Northwest and confirmed by the NRC staff indicate that

[

l NUREG/CR-2850 was not intended to be used in the current ANI application.

A population dose study for insurance risk assessment purposes would surely include

[

the 0.1 mrem cut-off as discussed above. Therefore, Duke Power requests that the

{

NRC notify Pacific Northwest Laboratory that the 0.1 mrem individual dose cut-off a

is to be used in performing the population dose calculations in NUREG/CR-2850.

This change should not adversely affect other stations, and will have the benefit

{

of appropriately reducing population dose "out-11ers".

4 I

Duke Power would benefit immediately upon your approval of this proposed action l

since it has been indicat?d to Duke Power that ANI would prorate and reimburse

{

I us part of our premium for the last billing cycle.

i We look forward to receiving your response.

If you have any questions, please l

contact P.T. Vu at (704) 875-4302 or Caryl Ingram at (704) 382-4496.

t Very truly yours, j

-t i

i f(hIL]

T.C. McMeekin

.I i

l 1

i i

~..

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

1 8

F r

'l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

November 30, 1993 Page 4 l

bxc M.S. Tuckman g

G.W. Grier j

G.A. Copp l

K.S. Isley (EC050)

C.D. Ingram (EC07D)

L.E. Loucks (EC07D) l R.M. Glover (EC07D) l G.D. Gilbert

.[

R.O. Sbarpe l

P.T. Vu File: 801.01 i

.I.i f

!j

.i i'r h

h i

?

-i i

i

?

i

l l

l

~

i l

U.S. Nuc. lear Regulatory Commission l

November 30, 1993' j

Page 3 l

CD1/PTV/popdose Attachments i

t xc:

Mr. S.D. Ebneter Regional Administrator - Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 l

{

Atlanta, Geogia 30323 t

t Mr. V. Nerses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, Mail Stop 9H3

.l Washinton, D.C.

20555 Lj l

Mr. G. Maxwell

~l Senior Resident Inspector j

McGuire Nuclear Station f

t i

I 1

s 8

_j

ATTACHMENT 1

\\

~

TABLE 7.

Average Population Doses for Last Three Years, person-rem i

Site 1987 1988 1989 Averene McGuire 15.17 16.17 14 15.

F Simner 4.

13.

5.9

.7. 7 l

Zion 6.1 7.2 0.76 4.7 Natch 5.0 6.4 0.36 3.9 Debnee 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9 Nitistone 1.2 0.22 10.

3.8 craidwood

<0.01 1.1 8.0 3.0 i

Hope Creek 4.5 1.1 1.7 2.4 Indian Point 6.2 0.43 0.51 2.4 i

Clinton 0.83 4.0 1.6 2.2 Calvert CL'iffs 2.7 1.7 2.0 2.1 r

oyster Creek 1.5 2.2 2.6 2.1 l

Haddam Neck 0.90 0.54 4.8 2.1 Harris 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Perry-0.06 0.18 4.1 1.4 Catawt>a 1.4 1.6 0.85 1.3 Kewaunee 0.72 1.3 1.3 1.1 Limerick O.94 0.25 2.0 1.1 i

Big Rock Point 0.74 0.85 1.6 1.1 t

Browns Ferry 1.6 1.2 0.39 1.1 Worth Anne 1.7 0.04 1.3 1.0 Arkansas one 1.7 1.0 0.33 1.0 Salem 1.2 0.94 0.77 0.96 Peach Bottom 2.1 0.33 0.33 0.91 LaSatte 0.54 0.27 0.06 0.87 San Onofre 1.4 0.50 0.63 0.86 Surry 1.0 0.51 0.93 0.83 Sequoyah 0.16 0.28 1.5 0.65 Waterford 0.83 0.54 0.40 0.59

+

Three Mite Istard 0.23,'2 0.34 1.1 0.56

'(

St. Lucie 0.50-O.36 0.74 0.53 Lacrosse 0.82 0.41

• 0.21 0.48 i

Crystal River 0.72 0.20 -

0.47 0.46 Yankee Rowe 0.15 5 0.49' O.19 0.44 Davis-Besse 0.14 0.02 1.0 0.39 t

Ft. Cathom 0.28 0.34 0.52 0.38 i

Wotf Creek 0.14 0'19 0.79 0.37 i

Cook 0.62 0 22 0.18 0.34 l

Farley 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.32 Ginna 0.32 0.23 0.31 0.29 Pato Verde 0.16 0.20 0.49 0.28 l

Nine Mile Point 0.51 0.21 0.04 0.25

{

Beaver Valley 0.23 0.13 0.34 0.24 i

3 Brunswick 0.62 0.04 0.04 0.23 Monticetto 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.19 Rancho Seco 0.01 0.08 0.44 0.18 Patisades 0.28 0.21 0.04*

0.18 Turkey Point 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.17 -

l Dresden 0.14 0.11 0.24 0.16 fitzptrick 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.14 i

WP-2 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.12 j

Prairie Is1ard 0.03 0.08 0.22 -

0.11 r

Byron 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.11 l

South Texas 0.17 0.02 a 0.10 0.,0h.

Robinson 0.17 0.06 0.10 Susquehanna 0.05 0.03 0.j8 0.09 Ouad Cities 0.08 0.06~

0.09 0.08 i

Trojen 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.07 Vogtle 0.01 0.02-0.18

' 0 07 l

Point Beach 0.06 0.05

'O.06 0:06 Vermont Yankee 0.02 0.06 0.07' 0.05 l

Ouene Arnold 0.07 0.06

<0.01 0.04 Termi

<0.01 0.01 0.12 0.04 i

Pilgrim 0.01

<0.01 0.07 0.03 Cattaway 0.02 0.01 0.03

'O.02

~ Olablo Canyon 0.02 0.02 0.01

~ 0.02 i

Maine Yankee 0.03 0.01

<0.01 0.02 Shoreham 0.03

<0.01

<0.01 -

0.01 River Bend

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01 0.01 Cooper 0.01 0.01

<0.01

<0.01 Grand Cutf

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01 Seabrook

<0.01

<0.01 I

J h

,m-

r A11 Mbittlth 1 4

+

i Marsh & McLennan Nuclear

}

1166 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-2774 Telephone 212 345 6000 July 23, 1993 hdARSH &

h4CLENNAN t

Mr. Caryl Ingram Senior Engineer Duke Power Company General Mail Facility I-85 Charlotte, NC 28242-0001 Attention: Nuclear Services Division EC07D

{

t Re: McGuire Station ANI ERF Subfactor 3

Dear Caryl,

[

Enclosed please find a graph prepared by the ANI engineers which i

shows the estimated dollar savings for McGuire Units I & II at various pop dose figures.

These estima'tes are based on the savings that would have been present.hhd McGuire achieved these pop dose figures as the weighted aveiFage for the years

'87,

'88, l

'89.

Please call ne if you have any comments or questions.

Regards, l

Lester R.

yward, Jr.

Assistant ice President LH enc.

i c:

D.

House K. Gannaway

, pf

.l

)

i 1

1 l

, o

~.,,o.x nuum,sw. u m.

e.a

~

Engneering Rating Factor (Final 1992)

Population Dose Cost Savings Estimate" McGuire (PWR-D) 60.000 i

50.000 l

40.000

~

R lao.So

}

unit i wa 820#o0 Unit 2

~

......to** # "

30p00 i

\\

.....c..

i.

i o

0 1.0 2

4.

5 6

poptation 0**'

ff i

7.97 Quartiles * (PWR-D)

Unit 2 -

unit 1 4

Ts Y,

4 :

{$<(_

0.605 +'

i $J ;

-es

.,j 1 ")

gp3Q

!dfyl

{

0.449 + '

8 l[

I m.al-c:

-i,,

ga 6

4 0.0738 +

42h ff,)

4 ih;M @ S9 st k19

~

n 221 ae :TE7 b'b;j-3 S10L u

g 9 :q I

m!IiFis?. P Pffl M E G R M Nb b

1 st Guartil.

2nd ouartito 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile

• Based on Rnal 1992 Three Year Weighted Average Data ('87,'88.*89)

".,u.

.mun

?

sit 9UR8 R3

.i 8

5 8FD sb% ;j#POF'

.. _,