ML20091G604

Testimony of Jj Mauro & Sf Marschke on Joint Contention Ii(C) Re Radiological Dose Calculations.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20091G604
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/31/1984
From:	Marschke S, Mauro J EBASCO SERVICES, INC., ENVIROSPHERE CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20091G548	List: ML20091G546 ML20091G556 ML20091G577 ML20091G604
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406040324
Download: ML20091G604 (47)

Text

.

8 o .,. ..

R E! 'J " <'/ ' P'. J.'C R!QQ ,

09[l,lM.JD e c.

. ~? rm .n ,

May 31, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. MAURO AND STEPHEN F. MARSCHKE ON JOINT CONTENTION II(c)

(RADIOLOGICAL EOSE CALCULATIONS) l i

l' l-i 8406040324 840531 PDR ADOCK 0S000400 T _ ___

PM

.m_

1

. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction............................................ 1 II. Population Doses and Risks. .......................... 4 A. Current Values in the FES.......................... 4 B. Population Doses and Risk for the Life of the Plant.......................................... 6 C. Comparison of Population Doses and Risks for the Operating Life of the Plant to Doses and Risks from Natural Background Radiation........ 7 III. Exposure of the Maximum Individual...................... 9 A. Current Values in the FES.......................... 9 B. Maximum Individual Doses for the Life of the Plant......................................... 12 C. Comparison of Doses and Risks for the Operating Life of the Plant to the Maximally Exposed Individual Relative to Background Radiation.......'.*13 IV. Conclusions............................................ 14 Attachment 1A -

Resume of John J. Mauro Attachment IB - Resume of Stephen F. Marschke Attachment 2A -

Table D-7 of the Harris Plant FES Attachment 2B -

Table D-9 of the Harris Plant FES Attachment 3 -

Exposures for Residual Radioactivity Following Plant Shutdown r Attachment 4 -

Conservacitrism in the Dose Calculations Attachment 5 -

Table D-6 of the Harris Plant FES Attachment 6 -

Estimate of Individual Dosos and Risks References i

l

[

-i-L ,

I. Introduction My name is John J. Mauro. I am the Director of the Radio-logical Assessment and Health Physics Department of Enviro-sphere Company, a division of Ebasco Services, Inc. Ebasco is the architect-engineeer for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. As indicated in Attachment 1A to this testimony, I have a doctorate in biology and radiological health and am a cer-tified health physicist. I have worked for the last twelve years in the field of radiological assessment, and have written a number of publications in this field.

My name is Stephen F. Marschke. I am Principal Radiologi-cal Assessment Engineer at Envirosphere Company. As indicated in Attachment 1B, I have a bachelors degree in nuclear engi-neering. I have worked for ten years in.the field of radiological assessment.

We have assisted Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) in the preparation of the radiological assessments contained in the Harris Plant Environmental Report (ER). We also have re-viewed the Draft and Final Environmental Statemente.(DES and F5S) prepared by the !!RC Staff which assess the environmental impacts of operation of the Harris Plant. The radiological dose calculations that are included in the ER, the DES and the FES rely on the methodology specified in Reg. Guide 1.109.

The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the issues raised by the Joint Intervenors' Contention II(c) which remain in controversy.

m _

. Contention-II(c) states:

The long term somatic and genetic health effects of radiation releases from the facility during normal operations, even where such releases are within existing guidelines, have been seriously underestimated for the following reasons . . . c) the work of Gofman and Caldicott shows that the NRC has errone-ously estimated the health effects of low-level radiation by examining effects over an arbitrarily short period of time compared to the length of time the radionuclides will be causing health and genetic damage.

In its' Memorandum and Order dated January 27, 1984, as supple-mented by its Memorandum and Order dated March 15, 1984, the Licensing Board partially denied Applicants' motion for summary disposition on Joint Contention II(c). In doing so, the Board

-limited the issues to be litigated to "whether the NRC staff should confine itself, as it has done in this case, to computa-tions of annual doses.and effects," and "whether it would be more appropriate te disclose the total risk represented by the life of the plant." Tne Board also rulou that the time period over which doses should be calculated should not include geo-logic time periods.

This testimony, prepared in response to the Beard's b  : January 27 and March 15 Orders, is designed to. accomplish three

, objectives:

1) 'to briefly describe the' method used in' the FES'and the ER for calculating radiological. doses and risks, and to

-explain the reasons forfcharacterizing the offsite impacts of these. doses ~on.an annual basis; a,

,- a

2) to quantify the impacts in terms of the life of the plant; and

3) to demonstrate that the impact of radiation released from the Harris Plant on the population and the maximally ex-posed individual over the life of the plant are vanishingly small relative to background radiation.

In evaluating doses from Harris Plant radiological re-leases, consideration must be given both to the population dose, i.e., the sum of the individual doses, and to the dose to the. hypothetical maximally exposed individual. These two dif-

'ferent ways of assess'ng i dose are used in order to insure that (1) regulatory limits, which are designed to protect the indi-vidual,=are met; and (2) the risk to the population as a whole is understood. In response to the Board's Order, this testi-mony is based on the calculation of doses to the population from 40 years of plant operation. The calculation includes

. consideration of any residual exposures from releases during I

the life of the plant (40 years) for a period of 100 years

after plant operation ceases. The highly speculative doses ac-l l

crued over geologic time periods are excluded. Doses to the maximally exposed individual are expressed in terms of lifatime dose from the 40-year operating life of the plant. As with population doses, the maximum individual doses are calculated on the basis of exposure to radionuclides released over a 40-year plant life, and idun individual's exposure to residual radioactivity in'the' environment after the plant ceases operation.

This testimony is divided into two sections. The first

~

section addresses the doses and risks to the 50-mile and U.S.

populations; the second section addresses the doses and risks to the maximally exposed individual.

II. Population Doses and Risks A.

Current Values in the FES Table D-7 of the FES, which is included as Attachment 2A to this testimony, presents the whole body and thyroid popula-

i. tion doses within 50 miles (80 km) of the Harris Plant on an l annualized basis. Separate values are provided for doses from liquid effluents, and from noble gases, radioiodines and particulates in the gaseous effluents. Table D-9 of the FES, which is included as Attachment 2B, summarizes annual U.S. pop-ulation doses from the Harris Plant and from natural background radiation.

l The doses from the liquid effluents are from the ingestion of sport and. commercial fish harvested from the main reservoir t

j and from the Cape Fear River. The values are calculated by as-suming the' annual source term, presented in Table D-1 of the FES, is diluted in the reservoir. The calculation also. assumes

~

that the. reservoir water overflows to the Cape Fear-River, l.

L .where it is mixed.in the river flow. Fish..in the reservoir and the Cape Fear River;are assumed to reconcentrate the Tradionuclides to varying degrees, depending on the element; the fish then<are harvest $d and consumed.

-4 -

., - 6w ,3 - - - , - - - - . - _ , - - _

The doses from the gaseous effluent include external expo-sure from air submersion and deposited radioactivity, and in-ternal exposure from inhalation and the ingestion of contami-nated vegetables, milk and beef. These exposures are presented in Table D-7 for an 80 km radius from the plant, and in Table D-9 for the U.S. population. ,

1 The annual population doses from operation of the Harris Plant are compared to the annual doses from background radia-tion in Tables D-7 and D-9. This comparison also could have been presented on the basis of plant life. Since,the annual doses represent the average annual dose over the life of the plant, the annual dose may be multiplied by 40 to estimate the cumulative dose from the operating life of the plant. There are no regulatory or other limits established for population doses; consequently, in order to evaluate their significance, population doses from nuclear power plants are compared with annual natural background population doses. It is also conve-nient to annualize doses from the Harris Plant because, for the purpose of NEPA assessment, the impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle are generically expressed on an annual basis (see Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51), and are compared to the benefits of I

the facility, which also are annualized. In sum, annualizing doses from the Harris Plant facilitates the assessment of the significance of those doses and provides a reasonable represen-tation of the radiological impacts of plant operation.

i 1

1 l

B. Population Doses and Risk for the Life of the Plant i Life-of-the-plant population doses can be obtained'by mul-tiplying the values in Tables D-7 and D-9 by the assumed 40-year plant life and adding in the residual dose to the popula-

! tion due to radionuclides which reside in the environment after plant operation terminates. The annual doses contained in the FES would change to reflect the population doses for the life of the plant as follows:

Table 1 */

Annual Whole Body 40-Year Whole Body Person-rems Person-rems Pathway 80 km U.S. 80 km U.S.

Liquid- 1.7 1.7 68 68 Gaseous 13.7 24 556 1670 Total 15.4 25.7 624 1738 Natural Bkgd 180,000 26,000,000 7,200,000 1,040,000,000

• / The number of significant digits is not intended to indicate the degree of calculational accuracy, but is provided to facil-itate independent verification of the tabulated values.

Attachment 3 to this testimony demonstrates that the total additional-dose to the population within 50 miles of the plant and to the U.S. population due to residual radioactivity in the environment is about 8 person-rems and 706 person-rems, respec-l-

l tively,.over a 100-year period following plant shutdown. Con-i sidering that this residual dose is relatively small and in light of the numerous conservatisms inherent in the calculation l

I

~

of annual dose during operation (see Attachment 4), the residu- l

~

al doses following plant operation are not significant. Ac-cordingly, the 50-mile and U.S. population doses due to the op-erating life of the plant may be estimated by multiplying the annual doses presented in the FES by 40.

Similarly, the U.S. population health risk of 0.008 cancer deaths per year, referred to on page 5-35 of the FES, is multiplied by a factor of 40 to yield the risks due to the op-erating life of the facility. The result is 0.32 cancer deaths associated with the operating life of a two-unit plant, which means 0.16 cancer deaths for the single unit Harris Plant.

C. Comparison of Population Doses and Risks for the Operating Life of the Plant to Doses and Risks from Natural Background Radiation As indicated in Table 2, the risk to the population as a whole due to the cumulative exposures associated with 40 years of operation is many thousands of times smaller than the risks due to natural background radiation over the same period of time.

. ~

, Table 2 - Doses & Risks (Fatalities) 1 Population Average Individual Source of Dose Exposure (Person-Rems) Risk Dose (Rems) Risk 40 yr opera-tion

~4 -8 50-mile

• 624 0.10 3.5 x 10 5.0 x 10

-6 ~9 U.S.** 1738 0.25 7.0 x 10 1.0 x 10 Natural Bkgd over 40 year

~4 50-mile 7,200,000 1,000 4 6.0 x 10

~4 U.S. 1,040,000,000 150,000 4 6.0 x 10

• For 50-mile radius, the exposed population is assumed to be 1.8 million people.

• • For U.S., the exposed population is assumed to be 260 mil-lion people.

Iable 2 also reveals that the cumulative. risk to the 50-i i

mile population (0.10)'and the.U.S. population (0.25) due to 40-years'of-plant operation is less than one cancer fatality.

In fact, the above.results reveal that the best estimate of the number of cancer fatalities due to plant operation for 40 years is zero. This number can be compared to both the-expected num-ber of' cancer fatalities over 40 years in the U.S., which is over 10 million,1/ and.the expected number of cancer fatalities l' 1/ There are:approximately 190 cancer fatalities per year per l 100,000 people in the United States (Cancer Facts and Figures, 1984), and there are approximately 260 million people in the U.S.

l

-e-S

,. ,m,, ,- .y- - --.- , , , ~ ,-w- , . - ,--

-. . . . - ~ ~ . . . . __. .

within a 50-mile radius of the facility over 40 years, which is

- over.100,000.2/

III. Exposure of the Maximum Individual

- A. Current Values in the FES l Table D-6 of the FES (provided in Attachment 5 of this testimony) presents the annual dose commitment to the hypothe-tical maximally exposed individual. Prior to the performance of the dose calculations, a land use suryey was performed to identify the l'ocations of residents and food ingestion pathways near the Harris Plant site. The result of this survey is the identification of the limiting exposure pathways and their lo-

) cations, i.e., the locations with the potential for the highest exposure. As for most, sites, the important radiation exposure pathways are inhalation, direct exposure, and the ingestion of 4

vegetables, milk and beef. The limiting locations typically are farms or gardens closest to the plant. The limiting loca-tions for each pathway are those~ presented-in Table D-6.

Table D-6 presents doses for 4 locations.

(1) The first location is the nearest site boundary (2.1 km north of the plant). This is the offsite location with the greatest potential for exposure from routine gaseous effluent,

and although no one resides there, doses ~are provided for two 2/ There will be approximately 1.8 million people'in the 50-mile plant. vicinity at the year 2000.

s i

reasons.- First, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 sets a limit on the annual air dose offsite. Second, should a person reside at that location some time in the future, it is desirable to de-I termine annual exposures which may be expected. Thus, this lo-cation establishes the limiting benchmark for calculated annual offsite doses.

2 (2) The second location is the residence that is actually

. nearest to the plant site (2.7 km NNE).3/ At this location, individuals may be expected to receive exposure from inhalation and ground deposition. In addition, it is likely that the resident will have a backyard garden. Accordingly, the expo-sure from vegetable consumption is considered.

j (3) The third location (2.9 km N) is the closest farm on which milk cows and beef cattle are exposed by consuming grass contaminated by deposited radionuclides.

(4) At the fourth location (7.4 km NNW), the closest milk goat pathway is considered.

At each location, and for each pathway at that location, doses are calculated for four age groups (adult, teen, child and infant) and for eight organs (bone, liver, total body, thy-roid, kidney, lung, GI tract, and skin). The doses are l presented in this way because the dose limits in Appendix I to l

l 10 CFR 50 are expressed in terms of total body and organ doses.

i l

3/ There-is a typograhical error in Table D-6. As noted in Table D-2 of the FES and Table 5.2.2-1 of the ER, the nearest

~

i residence and garden is located 2.7 1:m NNE.

l l

l' m _ _ - - -

l In Table D-6, the highest doses from these calculations are '

tabulated.

Table D-6 is useful in determining the maximum dose to the f

critical. organs via each pathway for the critical age groups.

In order to determine the maximum dose to an individual, the doses in Table D-6 must be summed. Thus, for example, the highest dose to any organ for any age group is to the-infant thyroid-gland due to the consumption of milk at the nearest cow milk location. In order to determine the infant's total thy-roid dose, which is the maximum and, hence, limiting organ dose, the exposure to the thyroid from inhalation (0.22 mrem /yr), ground deposition (0.20 mrem /yr) and milk consumption j (4.19 mrem /yr), must-be combined, yielding 4.6 mrem /yr. This

$ is the value reported in Table D-7 of the FES as the limiting

" dose to any organ from all pathways." Table D-7 compares the calculated annual commitments for the maximally exposed indi-I vidual to the Appendix I design objectives.

-The doses from the liquid effluent pathways are determined in very much the same manner as those for the gaseous pathway.

However, the analysis is simpler because all exposures, except for drinking water, are conservatively assumed to occur at the plant' liquid effluent discharge area. This location is se-lected because it is possible that people will fish there.

Since drinkidg water is not taken from the reservoir, the-r closest source of drinking water,.which is at Lillington, is assumed in the dose calculations.

4 11-i>, y c -r ,c-a y- v. . ,e.w . , , . ... ,

B. Maximum Individual Doses for the Life of the Plant The previous discussion reveals that the annual doses in the FES are for selected organs and age groups at selected lo-cations. Accordingly, the maximum dose to an individual over the operating life of the plant cannot be obtained by directly multiplying the values in Table D-6 by 40. Doing so would be unrealistically conservative because it would mean, for exam-

ple, that an infant remains an infant for 40 years. Instead, a calculation was performed to determine the doses to an individ-ual who receives the maximum lifetime exposure because he is initially exposed at birth and lives his entire life in the vi-cinity of the plant. The calculation takes into consideration changes in internal dosimetry and feeding habits as the indi-vidual grows to an adult. In order to simplify this calcula-4 tion, it is conservatively assumed that a family resides at the nearest site boundary and obtains its beef, milk and vegetables at that location, drinks water from Lillington and fishes near the discharge area. It is also assumed that the individual.re-mains at this location for a period of 70 years, which is taken as his life expectancy. The results of the analysis, presented in Attachment 6, are stated in terms of the annual dose to each l

organ and age group for each pathway.

As indicated in Attachment'6, the maximum lifetime whole

- body radiation dose to an individual from the 40-year operation 4

of the Harris Plant is 130 mrem. This figure was obtained by l

l l

1 j

l i

)

multiplying the annual doses for each age group by the number of years the individual is in that age group while the plant is operating,4/ and then summing these values. To this number is added the residual dose after plant shutdown (from 41 to 70 years). The calculated risk of cancer inortality from this ex-

~

posure is estimated to be about 2x10 (0.00002). This risk was-calculated using the age specific cancer risk coeffi-cients and the methodology presented in BEIR I. Attachment 6 briefly describes this calculational method.

C. Comparison of Doses and Risks for the Operating Life of the Plant to the Maximally Exposed Individual Relative to Background Radiation The above section indicates that the lifetime dose to the maximally exposed individual due to a 40-year operating life of the facility is 130 mrem. This dose appropriately is compared to that individual's 40-year and lifetime doses from natural background radiation, which is 4,000 and 7,000 mrem, respec-tively.

The maximum individual's calculated lifetime risk of dying of canchr from radiation released from the plant and from natu-ral background radiation is about 2x10-5 (0.00002) and

-3 l

1x10 (0.001), respectively. The risk posed by operation of the Harris Plant also can be compared to the average risk of dying of cancer from other causes of about 2x10-1 (0.2).

l 4/ Infant 0-1 year Child 1-11 years Teen 11-17 years Adult 17-40 years r

L t.

IV. Conclusions The calculated cumulative radiation exposures to the 50-milo population and U.S. population due to operation of the Harris Plant is demonstrated to be less than one ten-thousandth of the doses to these populations due to background radiation over the plant lifetime. The calculated lifetime whole body dose to the individual maximally exposed to the Harris Plant's operation, assuming a 40-year plant operating life, is 130 mrem, which is about two one-hundredths of the lifetime dose from' natural background radiation.

Based on these calculations, it is reasonable to conclude that even using extremely conservative calculation assumptions, the offsite radiation doses and associated health risks to individuals and the population from normal operation of Shearon Harris are vanishingly small and are, in our opinion, totally insignificant.

l

! .l .

ATTICIMENT 1A l

(

Restane JOHN J MAURO Education: BS - Long Island University 1963 MS - New York University 1970 .

PhD - New York University Medical Center - Institute of

' Environmental Medicine 1973 Awards: - Alvin Gruder Memorial Award for Excellence in Biological Sciences

- Member of the Optimates Society for Academic Achievement

- Founder's Day Award for Doctoral Dissertation Societies: - Health Physics Society

- American National Standards Committee on Emergency Planning Certifications: Certified by the American Board of Health Physics Consultancies: - Radiological Health Bureau of the California Office of Emergency Services

- Battelle Memorial Institute

- Louisiana Power and Light Company

- Shaw Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge

- EG&G Idaho

- Union Carbide Corporation - Nuclear Division Current Position: Director of the Radiological Assessment and Health Physics Department of Envirosphere Company in New York City.

Stanary of While a graduate student at the Institute of Environmental Professional Medicine of New York University, I was also a full-time Experience: Research Assistant from 1970 to 1973. In this position I

' assisted Principal Investigators on numerous research projects on the ecology and radioecology of the lower Hudson River Estuary. These activities included the collection of aquatic organisms from the estuary to determine species abundance and diversity, the life history of white perch and the concentration of radionuclides in aquatic organisms, water and sediment.

These activities also included experimentation into the ability l

of microorganisms collected from the Hudson River sediment to organify inorganic mercury.

In addition to my responsibilities as Research Assistant, I l was a full-time graduate student, studying environmental i

health, health physics and radioecology. My doctoral research was on the radioecological behavior of Cs-137 in the lower Hudson River Estuary. Research for my thesis covered a three-year peric.1 which included extensive field studies and lab-ortatory experimentation to identify and mathematically model the uptake and elimination of Cs-137 by aquatic organisms.

I

> 1

O After receiving my doctoral degree in 1973 I joined Ebasco l Services as a Radiological Assessment Engineer. Ebasco

' Services is a major architect-engineer-constructor for power generating facilities. My initial responsibilities at Eh sco were to evaluate the radionuclide release rates from proposed and operating nuclear power facilities under nomal plant operation and following postulated accidents, and to detemine the radiation exposures and health risks to workers and members of the nearby general population. In this capacity I developed several models for perfoming radiological impact assessment, and have prepared the radiological impact assessment sections

of license applications.

4

, Since joining Ebasco I have held positions of iricreasing responsibility, and am currently Director of the Radiological Assessment and Health Physics Department in Envirosphere Company, the Nuclear 1.icensing and Environmental Health Division of Ebasco Services. In this position I report directly to the Vice President of Nuclear Operations and, I

am responsible "or all radiological health and emergency planning services provided by Envirosphere Company. I manage a technical staff of 10 senior level consultants with advanced degrees in nuclear and biological sciences, with a combined 150 years of professional experience in technological risk management. .

My responsibilities as Director of the department are divided i

into radiologi.:a1 health consulting (40%), project management

' (30%), marketing and business development (20%), and department administration (10%). A brief description of each of these areas of responsibilities follows.

-Though my management responsibilities have increased considerably since joining Ebasco, I continue to personally provide consulting services to our clients. These services include the analysis of radiological source tems, environmental transport, radio-I ecoloqy, internal and external dosimetry, health risk assessment, radio' ogical surveillance, emergency planning, regulatery analysis and the preparation and defense of expert testiemny on these subjects. Recently I have also locome involved in the evaluation of toxic chemical hazards at industrial sites and low-level radioactive waste management. These services have been provided for a large number of clients representing the nuclear power industry and federal and state agencies and their subcontractors.

l I

{'

l l

I have also managed several consulting contracts in the areas l cf radiological and chemical toxicology, health physics, and l

emergency planning. A detailed description of these projects j will be provided upon request. Most of these projects have (

- been of a multidisciplined nature and included participation l of specialists in the areas of toxicology, nuclear engineering, mathematical modelling, meteorology, hydrology and computer

- sciences. On these projects I had overall resoonsibility i

for budget, schedule and technical quality of deliverables.

As director of the Radiological Assessment and Health Physics Department, I am also responsible for developing and meeting an annual budget. The Ludget includes staff and non-staff salaries and out-of-pocket expenses for client billable work.

- department overhead and business development. My effectiveness as Director is judged by my ability to achieve or, exceed the i

budget for billable work and to effectively control non-billable expenses. Non-billable expenses include business development, training and publications, presentations, participation on .

standards comittees and other professional practices. ! l have responsibility for hiring new staff and for staff perfomance review, promotions and merit increases. In this capacity I am assisted by 2 department managers who report directly to me.

Publications and Mauro, J J and M E Wrenn 1972. A Review of Radiocesium in i Presentations: Aquatic Biota. Presented at the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting Las Vegas, Nevadt, June 12-16,1972.

Mauro, J J and M E Wrenn 1973. Reasons for the Absence of l

a Trophic Level Effect for Radiocesium in the Hudson River Estuary. Presented at the IRPA meeting held in Washington, D C in October. Published in the proceedings of that meeting.

L Mauro, J J and J Porrovecchio 1976. Numerical Criteria for In-plant As Low as is Reasanably Achievable. In " Operational Health Physics". Proceedings of the 9th Mid-Year Topical Symposiun of the Health Physics Society.

Mauro, J J. D Michlewicz and A Letizia 1977. Evaluation of Environmental Dosimetry Models for Applicabil!.y tu Possible Radioactive Waste Repository Discharges, Y/0WI/5US-77/45705.

Mauro, J J 1978. Comparison of Gaseous Effluent Standards

- for Nuclear and Fossile Fuel Power Production Facilities.

Proceedings of the December 1979 Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society.

J Thomas, J J Mauro, J Ryniker and R Fellman 1979. Airborne l

i Uranium. Its Concentration and Toxicity in Urani w Unrichment Facilities, K/P0/SUB -79/31057/1, February.

.~. _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . , . . _

T -4 a

~

Lind K E. Mauro, J J J D Levine, L Yemin, H J Howe, Jr and C W Pierce 1979. Safety Related.Research Required to Support Future Fusion Research Reactors. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society-San Francisco, November, 1979.

~

O'Donnell E P, and Mauro J J 1979. A Cost-Benefit Comparison of Nuclear and Nonnuclear Health and Safety Protective Measures and Regulations. Nuclear Safety, Vol 20 No. 5 September-October,1979.

Mauro, J J 1980. A Real Time Computer Program for Offsite Radiological Impact Assessment. Presented at the 1980 Annual r

Meeting of the American Nuclear Society. TANSAO 34 1-899.

Bhatia R, Mauro, J J and G Martin 1980. Effects of Contain-i ment Purge on the Consequences of a loss of Coolant Accident.

Presented at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society. TANSAO 34 1-899.

Marschke S and Mauro, J J 1980. Radiocesium Transport Into Reservoir Bottom Sediments - A Licensing Approach. Presented l at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the ANS. TANSAO 34 1-899.

Mauro, J J and D Michlewicz 1981. Deployment Concepts for Real Time Environmental Dosimetry Systems. Presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society.

Mauro, J J and E P 0'Donnell 1982. The Role of the Architect /

Engineer in the Emergency Planning Process. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society. June i 6-10,1982.

t Mauro, J J and W R Rish 1982. Dealing with Uncertainties l

in Examining Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants. In NUREG-CP-0027. Proceedings of the International Meeting on Thermal Reactor Safety, j

s Mauro, J J S Schaffer, J Ryniker, and J Roetzer. Survey of Chemical and Radiological Indices Evaluating Toxicity.

National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program.

00E/LLW-177. March, 1983.

' Vold E, J J Mauro and D Michlewicz 1984. Dose Projection for Nuclear Emergency Response on a Microcomputer. Published in " Computer App'ications in Health Physics." Proceedings i

of the Health Physics Midyear Topical Meeting, Pasco, Washington. February 5-9, 1984.

Mauro, J J. S Schaffer, W Rish and J Parry. Application of Probabilistic Techniques to Dose and Risk Assessment

' Performed by EPA in' Support of 40 CFR 191. Submitted for Publication.

.- - - - - - = , _ . - - . .

a P l ATTACHMENT 1B i

STEPHEN F. MARSCHKE Principal Engineer

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE (Since 1973)

Total experience - Ten years in the area of radiological impact assessment and nuclear engineering.

Professional Affiliations - American Nuclear Society i

Health Physics Society Ecological Society of America Education - B.S., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1973 - Nuclear Engineering Harvard School of Public Health, 1980 -

Planning for Nuclear Emergencies REPRESENTATIVE ENVIROSPHERE PROJECT EXPERIENCE (1977-1978, Since 1979)

Radiological Assessment Engineer

. Lead radiological assessment engineer on the develop' ment team i

for Envirosphere's real time dose assessment computer program, CEPADAS. As such, responsibilities include: -

development of specifications, i

j review of input from other disciplines, performing quality assurance, writing user's manuals, and training utility operators.

4 One of the principal authors of the report " Decommissioning Re-quirements for Nuclear Waste Repository Licensing" for the of-fice of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Prepared the alternative waste disposal concepts, radiological impact sections of the Environmental Impact Statement - DOE /EIS-0046F.

i Other responsibilities include performing the analyses and

, - preparation of the radiological impact sections of Safety Anal-ysis Report Chapters 11 and 15 and Environmental Impact Report Chapters 5 and 7. Performs cost-benefit analyses to determine

- the most advantageous mode of radwaste system design, calculat-

! ing both the'in-plant and'offsite radiological impacts.

l

. _ , . . . . , , . . . , - . , . . - . . , _ , , , . - . , _ , , , - - . , , , . . , , . , , ,_.,,r,., , _ , ,

-Responds to questions from the various regulatory agencies con-i' cerning the radiological safety of LWR's, both domestic and foreign. Performs studies to determine the environmental and t

radiological consequences of decommissioning nuclear facili-

ties. Developed Emergency Plans and Ir;1ementing Procedures  !

l- for nuclear plants. Determine the ef#ect on reservoir ra-c dionuclide concentration of the transfer of radionuclides to sediment.

1 PRIOR EXPERIENCE Ralph M. Parsons Company

Nuclear Engineer (1 year) i Assigned to the design of a nuclear fuels reprocessing facili-ty. Duties included the determination of individual component

! and area gamma shielding requirements. Performed analyses to

determine the proper design for shield wall piping, instrumen-j tation and HVAC penetrations. Was responsible for developing acceptable designs for access labyrinths. Determined the dose i rate above a spent fuel storage pool from the spent fuel, the l contaminated water and "skyshined.

l United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

! Nuclear Engineer (4 years)

! Responsible for performing the radiological analyses of various postulated accidents in both PWR and HTGR systems. These anal-yses included the determination of the radiological impact at the site boundary and to control room personnel. Determined

, inplant shielding requirements. Performed site radiological evaluation studies to determine which of a number of alterna-i tive sites was the preferred site and for a given site which of the NSSS would be the preferred system. Performed studies for j

the HTGR to determine the offsite effects of various modes of operation of the containment ventilation system and the waste gas management system. Responsible for the determination of fuel cycle costs for a number of nuclear fuel bid evaluations.

From June 1975 to the termination of the project, was the Coordinating Engineer between the Nuclear Staff and HTGR proj-j ect. As such, directed the flow of all work between the proj-j ect and the staff.

i i

Publications

! Kang, C.S., R.L. Simard, S.F. Marschke and J.W. Trost 1976.

Fuel bid evaluation, UEC-NSR-003-0, Proprietary report, August.

j Marschke, S.F., J.J. Mauro 1980. Radiocesium transport into reservoir bottom sedimentu - a licensing approach. Presented i at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, June.

l i

i e

l 4

1 1 . .

~

Attachment 2A Table D-7 of the SHNPP FES Table D- 7 Calculated Appendix I dose commitments to a maxima'ly exposed individual and to the population from operation of the Harris nuclear plant Annual Dose per Reactor Unit Individual Appendix I Calculated Design Objectives

• Doses **

Liquid effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 areas 1.6 areas Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mress 2.1 areas (liver)

Noble gas effluents (at site boundary)

Gamma dose in air 10 mrads 0.3 mrads

. Beta dase in air 20 mrads 0.8 mrads Dose to total body of an individual 5 areas 0.2 areas 0.6 areas Dose to skin of an individual 15 mress j Radiciodines and particulates***

Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 areas 4.6 areas (thyroid)

Population Within 80 km Total B$d[ Thyroid (person ress) (person-ress)

Natural background radiationt 180,000 .

Liquid effluents 1.7 0.04 Noble gas affluents 1.7 1.7 Radiciodine and particulates 12 22 l

l

• Design Objectives from Sections II.A II.8, II.C and II.D of Appendix I, 10 CFR 50 consider doses to maximally exposed individual and to population l

per reactor unit. *

** Numerical values in this column were obtained by summing appropriate values

in Table D-6. Locations resulting in maximum deses are represented here.

• • • Carbon-14 and tritism have been added to this category, t" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP-SID-72-1, June 1972; using the average background dose for North Carolina of 100 aress/yr, and year 2000 projected j population of 1,750,000.

Shearon Harris FES' D-10

Attachment 2D i

Table D-9 Annual total-body population dose commitments, 1

year 2000 (both units) .

~ ,

~^

U.S. population dose commitment, i

Category person rems /yr Natural background radiation

• 26,000,000*

Radiation from Harris Units 1 and 2 (combined) operation Plant workers 1000 General public:

Liquid effluents ** 3.5 Gaseous affluents 48 Transportation of fuel and waste 6

• Using the average U.S. background dose (100 mren/yr) and year 2000 projected U.S. population from "Popula-4 tion Estimates and Projections," Series II, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 704, July 1977.

• • 80-km (50-mile) population dose j See Errata to FES dated January 12, 1984 r

4 i

l-l l

6 l

l Shearon Harris FES D-12

Attachment 3 Exposures from Residual Radioactivity  ;

Following Plant Shutdown In the main text of this testimony, the population dose from 40 years of plant operation is presentea. The dose was obtained by multiplying the annual dose in the FES by 40 and adding in the residual dose due to radionuclides which remain in the environment after the plant terminates operation. In this attachment, an estimate is made of the integrated popula-

+

tion dose due to these radionuclides over a 100-year period

, following plant shutdown (after'40 years of operation).

1 q

Li~uid Effluents The population doses in the FES for the liquid pathway are presented in Appendix D and discussed in Appendix B13E the FES.

The methods and assumptions used by the NRC : Staff to calculate population doses are as follows. The annual radionuclide re-leases in the liquid effluent listed in Table D-4'of the FES

! are assumed to be mixed in the circulating water discharge.

The discharge water is assumed to mix in the. reservoir and flow

l. into the Cape Fear River where it mixes and is transported downstream. Commercial fishing,.as estimated in Appendix.I of l

i the FES, is~ assumed to be taking place. The total commercial and sports fishing harvest in the reservoir and Cape Fear River

!- 3-1

,n ,,.--.n,-- --m, - - , ,w.w_-- ,- -

l is conservatively estimated by the NRC Staff to be about 46,000

~

.kg/yr.

l The harvested fish are assumed to reconcentrate the radio-nuclides in the water in accordance with the reconcentration h factors listed in Table A-1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109, and are assumed to be ingested and the population doses calculated using the dose conversion factors listed in Tables E-11 to E-14 of Regulatory _ Guide 1.109. As indicated in Table D-7 of the FES, the results of this calculation yields a 50-mile popula-tion dose of 1.7 person-rems / year to the whole body and 0.04 person-rems / year to the thyroid gland.

! Assuming a 40-year plant operating life, the population

-dose integrated over the life of the plant may be simply esti-

mated by multiplying the annual dose by 40. This approach, however, neglects the population dose which may be' delivered by radionuclides which remain in the environment after the plant r terminates' operation. The radionuclides which could contribute i to this residual dose are those with a half life that is rela-tively long, i.e., comparable to the operating life of the plant. There are several radionuclides that fall into this category,-including Cs-137 (Tl/2 = 30'yr), Cs-134 (T1/2 = 3.4

! yrs), Co-60 (T1/2 = 5 yrs); H-3 (Tl/2 = 12.6 yrs), and Sr-90 (T1/2 = 27.7 yrs). However, except for-tritium (H-3), these radionuclides will be bound to the sediments in the reservoir i arxi Cape Fear River, after termination of operation, where they i will. decay away. Thus, it is only tritium that remains in i

3-2

l

, solution and delivers a' dose to the population. This tritium

~ ~

-will mix uniformly in the world oceans and become part of the water cycle. The global dose commitment from tritium is

-3 l

10 person-rems /Ci released (Benison; NUREG-0597). The

! dose to the population in.the 50-mile vicinity of the plant is obtained by calculating the individual dose and then multi-plying that figure by the 50-mile population size. Assuming a 40-year operating life and 370 Ci/yr released (see Table D-4 of 1

the FES), the additional dose is less than 0.01 person-rems to the population within 50 miles of the plant. Similarly, the i.

residual dose is less than 1 person-rems to the U.S. popula-1 I

tion.

Gaseous Effluents The 50-mile population doses from the gaseous effluents I are estimated in Table D-7 of the FES to be 13.7 person-rems /

year. In these' calculations, the gaseous effluents in Table i

D-1 of the FES are assumed to disperse in the atmosphere. As t

the radionuclides are transported they decay, deposit onto the ground and are further diluted in the atmosphere. Individuals-located in the vicinity of the plant can receive external expo-

{ sure from the passing airborne activity or from deposited ac-

tivity on the ground. The population also can receive internal exposure from inhalation and the ingestion of foods contami-nated from deposited radionuclides.

3-3

Assuming a 40-year plant operating life, the population dose integrated over the life of the plant may be estimated by multiplying the annual dose by 40. This approach, however, ne-glects the population dose which may be delivered by long-lived radionuclides which will remain in the environment after plant operation ceases, which includes Kr-85 (10 yr T1/2), H-3 (12.6 yr T1/2), C-14 (Tl/2 = 5730 yrs) and several particulate radionuclides.

Krypton 85 is a noble gas which may be assumed to mix uni-formly in the global atmosphere and deliver an external dose until it decays away within about 100 years. The 50-mile and U.S. population doses due to this residual activity are about 2x10~4 (0.0002) person-rems and 3x10-2 (0.03) person-rems, respectively (Benison, NUREG-0597).

The residual population dose from tritium in the gaseous effluent may be calculated in the same manner as that in the liquid effluent since it will also become part of the global water cycle. The 50-mile and U.S. population doses from this source of tritium are about 0.01 and 1 povson-rems, respective-ly.

Particulate radionuclides include Cenium-137, Cesium-134 Strontium-90 and Cobalt-60. Within 50 miles of the plant, these radionuclides will all deposit onto the land and decay away within 100 years following plant shutdown. During this time, these radionuclides will reside in the soil and contrib-ute to external exposure from direct radiation, and internal 3-4 L .

l l

exposure due to ingestion of foods contaminated via root uptake. Table A presents the residual population doses for these radionuclides via these pathways. In summary, from plant shutdown to 100 years after plant shutdown, there is a residual particulate dose of 4.2 person-rems.

TABLE A Population Dose (person-rems)

External -

Exposure Internal Exposure Vegetables Milk Beef Total

-2 -2 -3 Cs-137 3 1.5x10 3.3x10 7.0x10 3.1

-4 ~4 -4 -1 Cs-134 1.Ox10 -1 2.9x10 6.5x10 1.3x10 1.0x10

~4 -5 ~4 Co-60 1 1.2x10 2.6x10 1.5x10 1.0 3.7x10 ~4

-3 -3 -3 Sr-90 - 6.2x10 1.0x10 7.6x10

-2 -2 -3 Total 4.1 2.2x10 3.5x10 7.7x10 4.2 Carbon 14 has a 5,820 year half life and, thus, will re-side in the environment for a long period of time after plant operation ceases. In order tv calculate the residual dose from carbon-14, it may be assumed that the Carbon-14 uniformly mixes in the troposphere and slightly changes the specific activity of the carbon cycle. The 100-year dose to the population with-in 50 miles of the plant and to the U.S. population from Carbon-14 is estimated to be about 4 person-rems and 700 person-rems, respectively. (Killough, NUREG-0597).

3-5 m

Summary  :

1 As indicated in Table B, the total residual radiation doses accumulated for 100 years after the Harris Plant has ceased operating both by the populace living within 50 miles of

, the plant and by the entire U.S. population are 8 person-rems and 706 person-rems, respectively.

Table B Residual (100 year post-operation) dose (person-rems)

Isotope 50 Mile U.S. Population H-3 0.2 2 i

Kr-85 0.0002 0.03 Particulates 4.2 4.2 C-14 4 700 i

Total 8 706 1

4 4

9 3-6 L .

Attachment 4 Conservatism in the Dose Calculations In the main text of this testimony, it is stated that the population' dose due to residual radioactivity in the environ-ment following plant shutdown is relatively small compared to the dose during operation, and that this residual dose may be ignored because it is more than accounted for by the conserva-tism in the calculation of dose during operation. This attach-ment describes some of the more important conservatisms.

The calculation of the doses in the FES and the ER consist of a three-step process, each with varying degrees of inherent conservatism. The following presents a brief description of some of the more importan,t conservative assumptions in each step.

Source Terms The first step in the calculation of individual and popu-lation doses is to estimate the liquid and gaseous radionuclide release rate (i.e., source term). The source term, as estimat-ed using the standard methods described in Regulatory Guide-1.112, is based on 0.12% failed fuel. However, operating expe-rience over the four-year period 1978-1981 reveals a percentage of failed fuel of about 0.01% (NUREG-0633, NUREG/CR-1818, NUREG/CR-2410, NUREG/CR-3001). As a result, the radionuclide

+

1. ~

4-1

~ . _ _

concentrations in primary coolant are much lower than assumed, resulting in much lower radionuclide release rates. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 compare the measured radioiodine release rates in gas-eous and liquid effluents at operating PWRs with the estimated values. Actual measured releases are many times smaller than those predicted using standard methods.

Dispersion The second step in the calculation of individual and popu-lation doses is to determine the concentration of the released radionuclides in the environment. For gaseous releases, dis-persion is calculated using the methods described in Regulatory Guide 1.111 which have been demonstrated to be conservative (Gogolak, et al; Miller and Hoffman). For aquatic releases, dispersion is calculated using the methods described in Regula-tory Guide 1.113. Those methods take no credit for removal of radionuclides by sedimentation, resulting in an overestimate of the concentration of many radionuclides in water (Marschke and Mauro).

Dose Calculation In calculating the dose to the individual and population, numerous assumptions are made which tend to overestimate the dose. Some of these assumptions are: (1) no reduction in dose is taken for removal of radionuclides from foods during prepa-ration; (2) no reduction of dose is taken for removal of 4-2 l

m -

radionuclides from drinking' water due to treatment; and (3) no reduction of dose is taken for the weathering of radionu.clides from the soil.

0 4-3 L1

l Table 4-1 '

. l l AIRBORNE RADIOIODINE SOURCE TERMS l

. 1,3 PREDICTED MEASURED (Ci/Tr)2 UNIT (C1/Yr - unit) Average Range Arkansas 1 .048 .14 .003 .74

, Arkansas 2 .17 .0047 .0047 Beaver Valley .014 .021 .0001 .072 Calvert Cliffs (2 units) .25 .27 .035-1.0 Crystal River .12 .0071 .0025 .019 Davis-Bosse .12 .0021 .00026 .0057 D.C. Cook (2 units) .10 .028 .005 .055 Ft. Calhoun .065 .011 .0016 .02 Haddam Neek .04 .019 .0017 .05 H.E. Robinson - .063 .0004 .3

Xndian Point 1 & 2 .36 .22 .005 .81 Indian Point 3 -

.0084 .0039 .013 J.M. Farley .049 .032 .022 .041

, Kewaunee -

.081 .12 .00062 .66 Maine Yankee -

.14 .0021 .94 Millstone 2 .105 .0059 .0 .013 North Anna 1 .095 .045 .032 .057 Oconee (3 units) . ~. 0 .062 .0033 .18 Palisades .79 .1 .01 .38 Point Beach (2 units) -

.049 .0025 .28 Prairie Island .137 .0093 .0009 .021 Rancho Seco -

.013 .005 .032 R.F. Ginna .11 .039 .01 .17 Salem .21 .016 .0 .04 San Onofre -

.17 .00014-1.6 St. Lucie 1 1.0 .22 .01 .52

Surry 2.1 .097 .0076 .35 TMI 1 -

.035 .01 .14 Troj an .24 .028 .01 .051 Turkey Point (2 units) .80 .44 .03-1.8 Yankee Rowe - .077 .0 .53 Zion (2 units) -

.20 .033 .005 .07 Average (Ci/Yr-unit) .34 ci/yr-unit.065 ci/yr-unit .

FOOTNOTES I

l (1) The predicted values were obtained from the FES for each l Plant and are based on calculations performed by tha NRC using industry wide standard methods. The values are for I-131 except where indicated.

l (2) The average and range are inclusive over the years of l operation from 1970.to 1979. The values are a slight overestimate because they include I-131 and particulates with .

half lives greater than 8 days.

(3) Value-not available is denoted by " ". -

4-4

-. ._. __. - __. - . _ _ _ _ _ :- _ a. - -

~,. , ,

. Table 4-2 I-131 RELEASES IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS IN 1979

! PREDICTED (1,3) MEASURED (2)

PLANT (Ci/Yr-Unit) (Ci/Yr)

)

Arkansas 1 9.2 .28 l

.26 Arkansas 2 .24 Beaver Valley 1 .34 .0008 Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 (2 units) .27 .65 D.C. Cook 1 & 2 (2 units) .47 .012 Crystal River 3 2.0 *

.06 Davis-Besse 1 2.37 .0035 J.M. Farley 1 .48 .0013 Ft. Calhoun 1 1.8 .019 R.E. Ginna 1 . 2.7 .0093 Haddam Neck 1 .36 .067 Indian Point 1 & 2 (2 units) 2.06 .079 Indian Point 3 - .059 Kewaunee *51

. .00059 Maine Yankee 1 - .41 Millstone 2 .9 .12 North Anna 1 1.2 .16 -

Ocon6e 1, 2 & 3 (2 units)(?) .2 .14 Palisades 1 - .00038 Point Beach 1 & 2 (2 units) - .088

.00076 Prarie Is. 1 & 2 (2 units) 3.8 Rancho Seco 1 0 .O H.B. Robinson 2 - .0037 Salem 1 1.43 .019 San onofre 1 - .025 St. Lucia 1 .17 .048 Surry 1 & 2 (2 units) 12.15 .064 TMI 1 .

- .14 Trojan 1 .21 .012 Turkey Pt. 3 & 4 (2 units) 10.2 .020 .

Yankee Rowe 1 - .0041 Zion 1 & 2 (2 units) .81 .011 Average (Ci/Yr-unit) 2.1 .065 (1) From the Final Environmental Statement

! (2) From NUREG/CR-2227 (3) Value not avwilable is denoted by " ". -

1 4-5

, i

- Attachment 5 l

Table D-6 Annual dose commitments to a maximally exposed individual near the Harris plant Location Pathway Doses (aress/yr per unit, except as noted)

Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents Gamma Air Dose Beta Air Dose Total Body Skin (arads/yr/ unit) (erads/yr/ unit) l Nearest site Direct radiation 0,20 0.57 0.33 0.81 boundary

• from plume (2.1 km, N)

Iodine and Particulates in Gaseous Effluents **

Total Body . Organ Nearest *** site Gros:. : deposition 0.44 (T) 0.44 (C) (thyroid) boundary Inhal uton 0.24 (T) 0.56 (C) (thyroid)

(2.1 km, N)

Nearest residence Ground deposition 0.26 (C) 0.26 (C) (bone) and garden Inhalation 0.13 (C) 0.003 (C) (bone)

(2.3 km, NNW) Vegetable consumption 0.49 (C) 1.13 (C) (bone)

Nearest milk cow Ground deposition 0.20 (C) 0.20 (I) (thyroid) cnd meat animal Inhalation 0.11 (C) 0.22 (I) (thyroid)

(2.9 km, N) Vegetable constamption 0.41 (C) N/A Cow milk consumption 0.18 (C) 4.19 (I) (thyroid)

Meat consumption 0.04 (C) N/A Nearest milk goat Ground deposition 0.016 (C) 0.016 (I) (thyroid)

(7.4 km, NNW) Inhalation 0.014 (C) 0.027 (I) (thyroid)

Vegetable consumption 0.052 (C) -

(I) (thyroid)

Goat milk constaption 0.035 (C) 0.43 (I) (thyroid)

Liquid Effluents **

Total Body Organ Nearest drinking Water ingestion 0.007 (A) 0.01 (C) (liver) water at Lillington Nearest fish at . Fish constaption 1.7 (A) 2.3 (A) (liver)

! plant discharge area g Nearest shore Shoreline recreation 0.002 (A) 0.002 -(A) (liver)

I access near plant j discharge area

"" Nearest" refers to that site boundary location where the highest radiation doses as a result of gaseous effluents have been estimated to occur.

• • Doses are for age group and organ that result in the highest cumulative dose for the location: A= adult, T= teen, C= child, I= infant. Calculations were made for these age groups and for the following organs: gastrointestinal tract, bone, liver, kidney, thyroid, lung, and skin.

E**" Nearest" refers to the location where the highest radiation dose to an individual from all applicable pathways has been estimated.

Shearon Harris FES D-9

- - , + . - - - - - - - - - -

)

Attachment 6 i L

Estimate of Individual Doses and Risks In the main text of this testimony, the lifetime doses and risks to the maximally exposed individual are presented. The values include doses due to the releases from the plant during the 40-year life of the plant and doses due to residual radioactivity in the environment following plant shutdown.

This Attachment presents the bases for these values.

In order to derive the maximum lifetime coses to an indi-vidual, it is assumed that at the time of plant start-up, a family with a newborne infant resides at the site boundary at the location of the highest average annual atmospheric disper-sion factor. It is also assumed that the family has a, backyard garden and milk and beef cows grazing on their property.

Table 6-1 presents the annual doses during plant operation for the maximum individual during infancy, childhood, teens and

- adulthood. The doses are presented for each organ. The life-time dose due to annual plant operation is obtained by multi-pising the dose by the number of years the individual is in

each age category and then summing the doses. -This covers the t

L 40-year period of plant operations. To this is added the addi-j tional dose from residual radioactivity in the environment fol-

~

lowing' shutdown. This residual exposure is assumed to continue until .tdun individual is 70 ' years old.- Using this calculation

' method, the maximum lifetime whole body dose is. estimated to-be 6-1 s _ _ -

o .

about 130 mrem. The lifetime risk of death to the individual due to this lifetime exposure is calculated to be about 2x10-5 (0.00002). This value is obtained by summing the lifetime risk associated with each year of exposure. These, in turn, were obtained by multiplying the age specific annual dose (described above) by the age specific risk coefficients. The age specific risk coefficients, presented in Table 6-2, were derived using the methods described in BEIR I for a linear dose response model.

6-2

\i _.

- 1

(--

I i

)

? Table'6-1 ANNUAL,ADHLI leOnt.G (NkrH/ YEAR) {

g nAsrnus l IING SKIN T.DDDY DI-TRACT DONE LIVFR hTDNEY THYROID PATHWAY

_-_ .. .g= =--__+.._.64..._..-+-.-_..._.+.-_...,--__----+---...--_+.....e..+

PLUNE I 2.59F-01 1 2.58E-01 1 2.50E-01 1 2.500-01 8 2.f.pE 03 e 2.50E-01 e 2 660-01-+4.--- 6 4.44E-01___.+I 3 _. -_ +.-_-- _ ..+ -- -_. .+-- .-- -_.4 . .. _ 4. ........,_-- . - +----

GROUND I 7.07E-02 I 7.07E-02 1 7.07E-02 f 7.07F-02 g. 8 7.07E-07

... . .. 4-e 7.07E-02

- - - _ - . + -e- 7.07F-02 1 8.290-02

-- .-+-- ...-_ - + I 4--__ .. -+ - --. .. +-- ._ -__4--

t 7.?5r.01 f 9.13r.-01 p-_7.17E-01 I 7.13F-01 I

'g VEr.FT t 7.40E-01 9 7.23E-01 1 1.63E+00 t 7.46r-01 ;._...-.....g ..__ . ._.._q...._.----+

_ .._-_ ; .... . ..q--- ....+._-. ..,-_4-- _.. ..

g HEAT e 1.R9E-01 1 1.89E-01 1 6.33E-01 1 1.89F-01 e 1 8/I-01 ! 2.16E-01 ------6-----

e 1.06E-01-+---------+

0 1.86E-01 I

._.t______-_+-------...+-...-_q__..._.t--------+--

MIL K I 2.99E-(#1 1 2.80E-01 1 7.05E-01 1 3.07F _ .--.

01 8q._._..

2.910-01--g e 1.11E400

--...,. 9 2.. Ill.--E-01--4.-_.-_

9 2.79E-01-+f

. _____4 ...__-.. 4 ___ . ___+ ... ..-__+

3 INHA4. I 2 34E-01 f 2.33E-01 1 3.76E-03 I 2.350 01 e 2. 34 E- 01 8 4.94E-01 1 2.40E-01 f 2.31E-01 1

-- . . t .. . 4_ . . -+_----- - e ....t.---------+----------+----------+---------+

g TGIAL i 1. 79f'4 00 1 1.75E600 1 3.30E+00 f 1.8trtoo t 1.77E400 Iq--.3.06E+00

....-_q_ l 1.77E400--+-_-__.-_

1 2.16E400+t

.- ~....q--___ __ +___.--- 4-_ ... . _+ .--_.4....... .

g LIQUID hibNrY THYROID I UNG SKIN PATHWAY T.DODY DI-TRACT PONE LIVrR

--+---------+----------+

....-...4...-..-4-----------+-----------4---------4----------+---- t g DRINK I 6.400-03 t 6.210-03 1 7.23E-04 1 6.59E-03

-- : .,--_.._ .. t.

I 4.33E-03

.--..g... 4 6.97E-03+1 6 24E-03

....--+--____.-- .-. . +I_0.

.....-__+

........_-_-g- I FISH e 1 61E400 e 5.74E-02 1 1.2?Et00 f 2.17F600 e 7.79F-01 9 4.45E-02 l 2.521*-01

.._-g---_-- . , ....--.. 4__ ..--___+_

1 0.

.. ..+....__. .+

__. ... -g__. -

___g_-_. __ .. , .-

g SHORF ! 1.160-03 0 1.16E-03 1 1.16E-03 1 1 16E-03 8 1.16E-03 e 1 16E-03 --....+1 .. 1.16E-03 f 1 35E-03 I

...----..q.._..-----;----___---+----------q--.---.---+----.--__-q. --+-_.-- .. _4 g TDIAL f 1.62F100 f 6.48E-02 1 1.22E+00 t t._----..

2.1RE400 _t---....-_ s 7.35E-01 9 5.25E-02 I 2 59E-01 -4.---_

--...._t---.--- 1 1.35E-03 - . 94

..-. . +_ _. _.- g.____ --4 ..... _-.

g TOTAL k!DNFY THYROID t.UNG SKIN GI-TRACT BONE LIVFR PATHWAY

. ....+T.90DY

.._ .. ;.. ..-. .+. -. - --_;. ---- _.-+---_.. .. + . -__... ;_ ... ._.4. --....__4 TOT Al . t 3.41F400 l 1.82E600 t 4.5?Et00 l 3.90E400 t 2.500f00 e 3.llEt00 f 2 03E+00 1 2 16E400 t

+....___ -+..--.4._.-----t------------4---------4------------+------4 g

• O

- - - ....g____. .

. tg b

I .

D, 4

0 .

q.

i- .

ANNilAL TErleAnrR Ispnf S (Hl.:FH/YrAR)

D- oASr0us PATHWAY- T.90DY GI-TRACT DONE LIVER t. IliNEY THYROID 1.HNG SKIN

_w___ .+- -----p__.._...p______.__,. .__. _p___.. ___p____ _p.._______+

'g _______ -

PLilNE I 2.58E 9 2.58E 0 2.5HE-01 s 2.58f.-01 e ?.!.fiE-01 9 2.58E-01 l 2.66E-01 1 6.64E-01 8

_________+______-01____+.__.._-01 ____4._ .______+-- .---6----------i ------+---------d+----------+

g- GROUND f 7.07E-02'i 7.07E-02 5 7 07E-02 1 7.070-0? e 7.07E.02 9 7.07E-02 p.. 1 7.07E-02 8 8.29E-02 I

___ . p . .___ +

___- _ .+__ ._ __ + _______4. ._______p __ .. p.... . .. p__ ____

-YEGET I 1.02E+00 1 1.00E+40 1 2 71E+00 f 1.05EtOO t 1.0tE400 9 1.16E400 1 1.0DE400-p 8 9.94E-01

__ _____+

I

.________p. ___p_________e__ p _______ p_ ...____,---- _ __ o g NEAT I 1.44E-01 e 1.44E-01 1 5.34E-01 1 1 45E-01 e 1. 4.lE-01 ! 1.64E-01 l 1.43E 01 f 1.42E-01 I

_ . - -+__ __---_.p___4_________p______p...____4- _+___..__ __. p _______ _ +

g MIt.K I 4.58E-01 9 4.40E-OS I 1.30E+00 t 4.86E-01 9 4.60E-Ol __.p__--

8 1.76Ef00-p1 4.43E-01 l 4.37E -01 I

..___p_.. __ __+

_______ + - =t. -

___p________ +_ _ _____4 INHAl. t 2.35E-01 1 2.34E-01 f 4.77F-03 8 2.38F-01 ! 2.36r 01.8 5 61E-01 1 2.57E-01 1 2.33E-01 I r _ - . _ p_____- +-- ._____+_.- _t -___g.._...__e__________t---- -p_ -_ w d TOIAL t 2.19E+00.1 2.15E+00 1 4.8510400 1 2.25E I OO t 2.1DE400 8 3 97E400 l 2 10E+00 1 2.55E400 1

_____4- .-___4._________4 _________g._________4..______ 6- -+=- +----------+ .

O' LIOUID PATilWAY T.90DY DI-TRACT DONE LIVF R KIDNEY THYROID LUNO SKIN

__ ___ + . ___ 4- _____.p..____.p___.____+.__....4_- p_________+ __ _+

DRINK I 4.5?E-03 9 4 30E 1'?.15E-04 f 4.74E-03 9 4.49E-03 8 4.95E-03 I 4.42E-03 1 0. t

, .____ ____+__..______+.______-03 ___+-_________+-___.--___+ -c _-t_---

.+- -+.___. _+

8 9 14E-01 8 4.29E-02 1 1.290400 1 2.22E000 9 7.apr-01 9 3.90E-02 1 2.91E-01 1 0. I

g FTSH

- p _______ +.___-___ .+ __-__._ _t--__ - _ = __ p __ __ .+

- - - .__.4_____..4____.p...-..

SHORE ! 6.47F 8 6.47E-03 1 6.47E-03 1 6.47F- 03 ! 6.47E-03 9 6.47E-03 t 6.47E-03 _p

______p__--

1 7.55E-03 0

._ ..._ ._ e__.. ._-03 -__e_______p.________e..___......_....,- _+

l9 TOIAL s 9.250-01 t 5.39E-02 1 1.10E+00 t 2.23F 100 e 7.49E-01 e 5.04E-02 1 3.02E-01 1 7.55E-03 I

._____+___...__p.___.-+____..+._____i--_______g______p ---+- = -+,

' TOTAL PATHWAY T.90DY GT-TRACT BONE t.IVF R ATIMrY THYROTD LUNG SKIM

..___.._p_ i.______ __ p . _ ____ p ___.._-..-.4..._..'... . p _________ e _ ____p____. +

9 Till AL I 9 250-01 ! 2.70E400 1 6.170600 t 4.4RF l 00 -p_....__ e 7.Y3Fl00.e.4.0?F400 t  ?.40E600 t 2.56E+00 t

. . _ p ___= g__ ___

_+___ .__+.-__ . p . . .p_ ______+_ ____ +

N

!.% B J*

O

l ts

,y' u

i 9

0 Ie

- -~ . - . . - - -

h

• ANNUAL CHil.D DOSFS (MRrH/ YEAR)

GABEDUS AIDNEY THYROID LUNG SKIN T.90DY DI-TRACT BONE LIVER -+ +

PATHWAY ________.q-_________g__________+_____-

_________4._________+__________+-_____- -4 PLUME '_2______+__________+

5RE-01 1 2 58E-01 1 2 59E-01 1 2.59E-01

_________,__________+_ __ - 9

- + 2.5RE-01

_ 8 2.50E-01 1 2.66E-01

--_+__________+._________+ 1 6 64E-01 1

_________t_ 7.07E-02 ! 7.07E-02 5 7.07E-02 f 0 2BE-02 1 DROUND f 7.07E-02 I 7 07E-02 1 7.07E-02 1 7.07E-02 f -----+=~--------+

_________4._________+__________+_______---+------ - t -- --- - --- + ---------- + -- -- 2 E f 00 9 2.01E+00 1 VEBET e 2.04E400 1 2 02E404 I 6.5(E400 f 2.10E400 f 2 04F

-__+__________+__________+__________,- 400 9 -2.27E+00

- .,__=- e 2.0

=_+__________+._________+

_________+_--

. MEAT I 2.45E-01 l 2 44E-01 1 1 00E+00 f 2.47E-01 t 2 450-01 1 2.76E-01 l 2.44E-01 -+----------+ 9 2.44E-01 1

_________4__________+_________+_________4______---+--------+----------+---- ..

MILK- I 9 32E-01 1 9.14E-01-_____+_-

f 3.19E400 f 9.96E-01 f 9.51E-01 8 -_+_____

--+._________p__________+____ 3.53E400 _+__________+

t 9.23E-01 1 9.14E-01 I *

) _________4 _________+-

INHAL I 2.07E-01

_________,- ______+_

1 2.04E-01

- - _ _ + - _ _ f_ .5.73E-03

_ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ f_ _2.10E-01

_ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _!_ 2.09F_01 _1

. 5.83E-01 1 2.?4E-01 1 2.06E-01 1

_ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ __+-_________+.

=__+

1 1.11E+01 l 3.88El00 1 3.77Ef00 e 4.99E400 1 3_________+-_________4 75E400 1 4.12E+00 I .

y TOTAL i 3.75E400 1 3.71E400_+-_.________+__________p_____..____+ _________+

_________+__________+_-. .

LIOUID KIDNEY THYROID LijNG SKIN ,

T.90pY DI-TRACT BONE LIVER --___4.___ __4 ,

PATHWAY __________g.____-____+__________+--

f

_____..___g__________t__________+__________+I 9.11E-03.9 R.6tE-03 1 9.75E-03 I R.45E-03 1 0.

___+________._,

DRINK I R.50E-03 9 8.30E-03_4._________4._________q___-______+__________4.__=

I 6.1RE-04 ,

_________+____= _-+-_ - _

0.. t l FISH t 3.5GE-01 9 2.16E-02 f 1.59Ef00 1 1 93E600 1 4.22E-01 1 3.79E-02

-__4_______-__q_________q._==_ 9 2.30E-01 1

=_+__________+--________+ l 3 _________4..__..__-_+__________+___=.

SHORE ! 1.35E-03 f 1 35E-03 i 1.35E-03 f 1 35E-03 f 1,35E-03 ! 1.35E-03 -+- 1 1.35E-03 1 1.5Hf-03 1

=______+__________+

____.___t.,________+_ --+- _____+__________t_____-__-_>____-

9 TOTAL 3 650-01 l'3.13E-02 --__+1_________+__________,__________+__________,_____

1.59E400 f 1.94El00 t 6.3?E-Ol ! 4.90E-02 t 2.40E-01-3l 1.5HE-03 ----+ 1

_________,I __________+_ is i -

e TOTAL KIDNf:Y THYROID LUNG SKIN PONE LIVER l' T.DoleY GI-TRACT --+- ----t----------+

PATHUAY

_______--t---------+- ---+--------+----------l----------f---=-

TOTAL I 4.120400 1 3.75Ef00

_________q_ ________+__=

f 1.27F401 f 5.83r800 1 4.41F 100

-___+__---____-+._____--_-+--_-_-----p--.. 1 7.04E+00 1 3.99E600 1 4 12E600 1 ,bb'

---4__--______+__________+

' LJ Oi,

'O - ttu ,

e e>*

l 20

• I e

O 4

9 i

+

D

}E ANNUAL INrANI DOSES (MRfM/ YEAR)

GASEOUS *

)' PATHWAY T.DODY GI-TRACT BONE LIVFR KIDNFY TilYROID 1HNG SKIN

--.------+---...----+-- __----+--.-------+ --- +- --....--+-- .+. ... +_ ....+.

) PLUNE I 2.58E-01 I.2.58E-01 1 2.5AE-01 1 2.58E-01 e 2.500-01 9 2.SSE-01 l 2.66E-01 f 6.64E-01 f+,

-.---....+------....+-.__ ---+----- 4.------. -t ...--t..--------+----------+----..--.

OROUND-l 7.07E-02 I 7.07E-02 I 7.07E-02 I 7.07E-02 9 7.07E-02

• 7.07E-02 I 7.07E-02 I 8.28E-02 f

. --. ...q__ .......+----------+-_- - +-_.. __-__,...- .......-.--------+ _- - . . . + - - . ---+.

)-

---

..' +I 1.77E+00 NILK

.- -- . +l 1.75E400. -1+6.23Et00 l'1.91E400 t t.000400 8 R.09Et00 f 1.76E400 9 1.74E+00 1

- - - . - . . + - . . . . - . . - + - . . . . . - + - - _ _---4.--------.+--..+.

T INHAL i 1 19E-01 1 1.19E-01 1 3.40E-03 f 1 22E-01 f 1.20E-01 1 4.64E-01 f 1.3tE-01 1 1.18E-01 I J . ._..--+ -_---_q.--.-----+---...+_--------q-.......--+..-..---+-.-.. -+.-_ --.+.

TOTAL I 2 22Ef00 1 2 20E+00 1 4.56E400 1 2 36E400 f 2.?nt.400 8 8.80E600 1 2 23Et00 f 2 60E+00 t y

--- ..---+--------..v -- . +-.===___ _4..--.....t...-----+----..---+----------+-.-------+

LIOUID PATHWAY T.90pY . GI-TRACT BONE LIVER hlDNEY TilVROID LUNG SKIN g -+- ..-- --+ ...,

. . . . . . + . - - . . - - . . + _ _ _ -= ..+-- .. = -+ =----.-g.......t--..

BRINK I 1.2HE-02 1 1 27E-02 1 9 92E-04 l 1.42E-02 f 1.3tE-02 ' l.60E-02 1 1.28E-02 I 0.  !

---4 .... - .+. --+_ _. ---+-- -- --- ----6-------- -------+--------+

TOTAL- t 1 2RE-02 1 1 27E-02 1 9.9?r-04 f 1.4?E- 0? e 1.3tE-02 8 f.60E-02 f 1.2RE-02 I 0. 8

---

+ --.

--+----------+-----....-4 --.---g-----..- -4~..--= =+--- +- --+

0 .

TOTAL

• PATHWAY T. BODY GI-TRACT BONE LIVER KIDNEY THYROID LilNG SKIN

=-. t . .. g.. -------+---..- + ---6-----------4----------+----------+--- --+ ,

TOTAL f 2.?3rl00 f 2 21E400 1 6.56E400 f 2.37E400 1 2.24f800 8 0.90E400 l 2.24E400 1 2.60E+00 I

........g..-6-----------+----------+-------------1-----------1------------+------ -+-----------+

1 4

e t

! i 1 eCh O

.0, t-h i .sh

8

'e 0

. ,, n Table 6-2 l Age Specific Fatal Cancer Risk Coefficients Age Risk of Fatal Cancer / Person-Rem

• O O.5 x 10-3 0-4 1.0 x 10-4 5-9 1.0 x 10-4 10-14 2.4 x 10-4 15-19 2.4 x 10-4 20-24 1.9 x 10-4 25-29 1.6 x 10-4 30-34 1.4 x 10-4 35-39 1.1 x 10-4 40-44 0,9 x 10-4 45-49 0.6 x 10-4 50-54 2.8 x 10-5 55-59 1.0 x 10-5 60 0.5 x 10-5

• Values derived from Table 3-2 of the BEIR I Report. The time of risk, or plateau, was assumed to last the duration of life following the specified latent period which was assumed to begin at the midpoint of each age interval. Lifetime was as-sumed to be 70 years. For those age groups in Table 3-2 which were given a specific plateau duration, the specified value was used or that portion of it which did not exceed the 70 year age cutoff point.

I l'

I 6-3 c.

I

b References Beninson, D. 1974. Population. Doses Resulting From Radionuclides of Worldwide Distribution. In " Population Dose Evaluation and Standards for Man and His Environment."

IAEA/SM-184/8.

Cancer Facts and Figures, 1984. American Cancer Society.

Gogolak, C.V. et al, 1981. Calculated and Observed Kr-85 Con-centrations within 10 km of the Savannah River Chemical Separa-tion Facilities,-Atmospheric Environment: 15, 497-507.

Killough, G.G. 1980. A Dynamic Model for Estimating Radiation Dose to the World Population from Releases of C-14 to the Atmo-sphere. Health Physics 38: 269-300.

Marschke, S. and J. Mauro, 1980. Radiocesium Transport into Reservoir Bottom Sediment -A Licensing Approach. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 34: 126.

Miller,-C.W. and F.O. Hoffman 1978. Transactions.of the Ameri-can Nuclear Society; 30: 122.

NUREG-0597, User's Guide to GASPAR Code, 1980.

NUREG-0633, Fuel Performance Annual Report for the Period Through December, 1978.

NUREG/CR-1818, Fuel Performance Annual Report, 1979.

NUREG/CR-2410, Fuel Performance Annual Report, 1980.

NUREG/CR-3001, Fuel Performance Annual Report, 1981.

I l

i:

-- ,y. - g - % .y._ . ,.4.

. , . , . . .m 9 , .m . , , , ,

e

~

" v .. .:

.v ~ -

. ,J M rt] {-

U3NitC i

May 31, 1984

'84 JUN -4 A11 :25 l

l. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :Ffe- c IS'Epj 00C$iisG NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

-(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' letter to the Appeal Board and " Applicants' Testimony of Leonard D. Hamilton on Wells Eddleman's Contention 8F(l) (Table S-3 Coal Particulates)," " Applicants' Testimony of John J. Mauro and Steven A. Schaffer on Joint Contention II(e) (Fly Ash)" and

" Applicants' Testimony of John J. Mauro and Stephen F. Marschke on Joint Contention II(c) (Radiological Dose Calculations)"

were served this 31st' day of May, 1984, by deposit in the U.S.

mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the atta-ched Service List and by hand delivery on June 1 to the parties

. identified by one asterisk.

l

0. mBw Deborah B. Bauser-

4 t

i e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST 1

Janes L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Rtrikle, Esquire 1 i

Atcznic Safety and Limnsing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission 307 Granville Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission P.O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh,. North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atanic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street '

j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Otanission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Mr. Wells Eddleman Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Janice E. Moore, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Imgal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Otanission Richard E. Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555

• Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section Carolina Power & Light Ccmpany P.O. Box 1551 Office of the-Secretary -Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Governor's Waste Management Board OfANGE/ELP 513 Al % rle Building 5707 Waycross Street 325 North Salisbury. Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

4

( 1

? 1 1

i l

Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ommission Region II 101 Marrietta Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 t

i Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atanic Safety and Licensing Boa.M. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director l Public Staff - NCUC l P.O. Box 991 l Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 1

l

?

e l

t l

- - , -,e , - , , - --n -n , , , - , -- , ,m-,e r- - -

-v -y,~ - , --