ML20155H175
| ML20155H175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1988 |
| From: | Baker G, Cooper W GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H117 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8810180309 | |
| Download: ML20155H175 (29) | |
Text
y 9
October 11, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-320-OLA
)
(Disposal of Accident-(Three Mlle Island Nuclear
)
Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2)
)
LICENSEE'S TESTIMONY OF DR. GARY G.
BAKER AND WILLIAM J. COOPER ON DOSE ASSESSMENTS AND MICROORGANISMS (CONTENTIONS 2, 3 AND Sd) l t
l
!!R l0 OC o
4 Q.1 Please state your name.
A.1 (GGB)
Gary G. Baker.
(WJC)
William J. Cooper.
Q.2 Dr. Baker, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.2 (GGB)
I am employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as Man-ager, Environmental Controls, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
In these positions, I am responsible for the environmental moni-toring and evaluation of activities at TMI.
Q.3 Please summarize your professional qualificaticas and experience relevant to this testimony.
A.3 (GGB)
I have a B.S. degree in Biology and earned the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Microbiology.
In 1978, I was an Instructor in Biology and Microbiology at Indiana Univer-sity of Pennsylvania.
In 1978 and 1979, I was an Environmental Scientist with Pennsylvania Electric Company, and in 1979 I began my employment with GPU Nuclear (and its predecessor) at TMI.
As an Environmental Scientist from 1979 to 1981, I designed and im-plemented radiological monitoring programs.
I was Radiological Programs Manager at TMI from 1981 to 1983, responsible for all phases of radiological environmental studies and monitoring pro-grams.
In my current position at TMI, which I have held since 1983, my primary responsibility is to ensure that plant opera-tions are in compliance with all relevant regulatory require-ments.
I am also currently an Instructor in Environmental
0 0
Microbiology at The Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg Campua, where I teach both undergraduate and graduate courses.
A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.
Q.4 Mr. Cooper, by whom are you employed, and what is your position?
A.4 (WJC)
I am employed by GPU Nuclear Corporation as an Environmental Scientist in the Environmental Controls Department at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
Q.5 Please sumnarize your professional qualifications and experience relevant to this testimony.
A.5 (WJC)
I have a B.S. degree in Chemistry from the Uni-versity of Maryland, and I am a certified Heai:h Physicist with over ten years of health physics experience.
From 1977 to 1980,
! vas a Health Physics Technician at The Johns Hopkins Universi-ty.
Since 1980, I have been employed by GPUN (and its predece:-
sor) in Health Physics positions at TMI.
In my current ocaitv>n, which I have held since 1985, my responsibilities include the TMI Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, and the develop-ment, maintenance and operation of routine effluent off-site dose calculational codes.
A complete s*.atement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.
-2
Q.6 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.6 (GGB, WJC)
We vill address the issues remaining on the radiological dose estimates off site for the GPUN proposal to evaporate the THI-2 Accident-Generated Water ("AGW") and for the alternative raised by the Joint Intervenors, involving on-site storage followed by disposal.
In particular, in response to Con-tention 2, we vill compare the dose consequences of the proposal and the alternative, and explain that strontium, not tritium, is the radioisotope of critical concern.
In response to Contention 5d, we vill explain how our dose modeling methodology takes into i
l account the effects of the tritium which vill be released during evaporation.
i (GGB)
I will also respond to Joint Intervenors' Material i
Statement of Fact No. 9, under Contention 3, by describing why any microorganisms present in the atmospheric release are of no 1
concern.
l Q.7 How is your testimony organized?
l
)
A.7 (GGB, WJC)
We vill first describe the calculational l
method used for dose assessments at TMI.
Second, we vill present the GPUN estimates of the doses to the maximally exposed hypo-thetical off-site person and to the off-site population, from the evaporation of the AGW.
Third, we vill assess the dose conse-quences of Joint Intervenors' alternative of further storage fol-loved by disposal, and compare it with GPUN's evaporation propos-al.
I
(
D
, _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -
O (GGB)
Finally, I will address the issue of microorganisms in the atmospheric release from evaporation.
Q.8 Please describe your dose assessment methodology.
A8 (GGB)
The primary environmental dose assessment com-puter code used by GPUN Environmental Controls is the Meteorolog-ical Information and Dose Assessment System (MIDAS).
This code, J
which is used for quarterly and semi-annual dose assessments sub-citted to the NRC with THI-l and THI-2 effluent reports, is l
designed to allow environmental dose assessment for chronic and acute exposures.
The routine release portion of the model pro-vides the dose assessment required to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I guidelines for plant releases, is based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, and uses atmospheric disper-rion calculations based on the Pasquill-Gifford method presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
MIDAS uses hourly averages of on-site meteorological data to calculate an integrated dispersion for the period of interest.
It integrates the dispersion over each hour into each of sixteen sectors at ten distances.
l l
The dispersion modeling derives the average airborne concen-tration, deposition rate from the plume, and ground plane concen-tration of each radionuclide in each sector as a function of time.
The dose due to direct exposure to radioactive material in I
the plume and deposited on the ground is determined by MIDAS di-rectly from these functions, using published conversion factors such as those in Tables E-6 and B-1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109.
4-
l i
The MIDAS code has been reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff.
It has also been reviewed by an Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board, in the THI-Restart proceeding in which TMIA was a party, and was found to be an acceptable code for assessing atmo-spherie dispersion and environmental dose.
l Q.9 What are some of the site-specific features used by the MIDAS code?
A.9 (WJC)
The code employs numerous cite specific files in order to provide a realistic model of tl.e releases.
For example, for atmospheric releases, the Unit 2 portion of the model consid-ers the following a.
Two separate release points with plant-specific charac-1 teristics including height of the vent stacks, diameter of the vents, linear flow rate from the vents, and building dimensions for vake effects, b.
Three diiferent methods of assessing plume rise, f
Plumes can be treated as ground level, elevated, or wake split.
The wake split method is normally used on the station vent and the ground method is normally used on other relecse points.
Wake split treatment causes the model to assess the degree of jet plume rise with each release cor.dition of meteorology and ventilation flov.
The model then treats a fraction of the release as an elevated release and the remainder as a ground
! t f
i t
r release to approximate the amcunt of the plume which is entrained by the building vake effect.
The evaporator was conservatively treated as a ground release, which generally produces the highest calculated doses because of lover mixing prior to ground contact of the plume.
c.
Seven enviro.1 mental exposure pathways.
The pathways included in the model are (1) human inhalation in the plume, (2) direct radiation to humans from the plume, (3) direct radiation to humans from radioactive materi-al deposited on the ground from the plume, (4) inges-tion by humans of vegetation grown on soil with ra-dionuclides in and on the soil which have been deposited from the plume, (5) ingestion by humans of
[
cov milk from animals which have consumed vegetation grown on soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, (6) ingestion by humans of goat milk from aninals which have :onsumed vegetation from soil which contains radionuclides deposited from the plume, and (7) ingestion by humans of meat from animals which have consumed vegetation grown in soil with plume de-posited radionuclides, d.
Actual residence locatiens.
The actual locations of residences or clusters of residences in the vicinity of the plant in each of the standard sixteen compass sectors are included in order to have actual locations of residents for the direct plume exposure, direct plume inhalation, and direct soil deposition exposure
- pathways, e.
Actual garden locations.
The actual location of the nearest garden in each of the sixteen standard compass sectors are included in the model.
Each resident fur-1 ther from the plant than the nearest garden is assumed to have a garden also.
This allows an assessment of the vegetation ingestion dose to humans based on actual land use around the plant.
The maximally exposed indi-vidual is assumed to reside in the location of highest plume inhalation and direct exposure and to eat food-J stuffs from the highest garden, even if that garden and the maximally-exposed in2ividual's residence are not in
)
the same location, f.
Actual milk animal locations.
The locations of all known animals used for milk for human consumption with-f in five miles of the plant are irwiuded, broken down into sixteen compass sectors.
This allows assessment of the cov and goat milk pathways based un the actual land use characteristics around the plant.
The maxi-mally exposed individual is assumed to drink cow milk and goat milk from the highest locations, even if the individual dces not at ually reside in those locations.
g.
Actual meat animals.
Locations of actual known meat animals within five miles of the plant are included to provide an assessment of the meat pathway dose based on actual land use around the plant.
The maximally ex-posed individual therefore lives at the location of highest plume and deposition direct exposure and inhalation exposure, while eating meat, milk, and vege-tation from the highest locations for those pathways even if they are not co-located.
l h.
Actual distances to the site boundary and actual ter-rain heights in the vicinity of the plant.
The use of the actual site boundary distance specifies where to begin assessment of the plume exposures.
The inclusion of terrain heights allows a better estimate of the dep-osition of radionuelides on the soil, since deposition is in part dependent on ground contact of the plume.
Q.10 How do you use the code to calculate ingestion and inhalation doses?
i A.10 (WJC)
Numerous parameters are used to estimate the transfer of radionuclides through the environment.
Since some of the pathways involve multiple environmental media and trophic l
levels, estimates of the concentrations in each trophic level are l
required to adequately estimate the environmental dose from all of the pathways.
For example, for the cow milk pathway, the model must first estimato the dispersion and deposition of the particulate radioactive material in the effluents onto the soil.
It then uses transfer coefficients from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 to estimate the concentration of radionuclides in vegeta-tion based on the amount in the soil.
Food consumption rates specific to cows are then applied to the vegetation to estimate the total amount of each radionuclide the milk animal consumes in a day, and transfer factors are applied to determine the concen-tration of the radionuclides in the milk.
The consumption rates (usage factors) and transfer factor used by MIDAS are those contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
These are generally experi-mentally derived factors selected by the NRC staff following a review of the applicable literature.
The MIDAS code estimates the quantity of each radionuclide ingested or inhaled by members of *.he public.
To provide greater accuracy, age specific parameters are ussd to specify the inges-tion of various foodstuffs and water and inhalation rates.
The offsite population is modelled by specifying four different age groups -- infants, children, teenagers, and adults -- each with specific ingestion and inhalation parameters.
Ingestion and inhalation factors for each age group are specified in table E-5 in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for the maximally exposed individual.
These are based on actual usage studies by the Department of Ag-riculture as well as on the "Raference Man" study in Internation-al Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 23.
) ___ __
When the ingestion and inhalation quantities have been cal-culated, conversion factors between the quantity of each nuclide ingested or inhaled and the 50-year integrated dose committment are applied.
These factors (Dose Conversion Factors or DCFF1, which are specific for each age group and radionuclide, represent an estimate of the dose per unit of radioactivity (i.e., mrem per picocurie).
The factors are provided in numerous publications from the NRC and other sources.
The primary sources in use for chronic (routine release) exposures are Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172, which are in turn based on ICRP publications, including ICRP Publication 2, ICRP Publication 10, and ICRP Pub-lication 23.
The DCFs in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREG-0172 have been calculated based on intake route (i.e., separately for inhalation and ingestion), age group, and isotope, using age spe-cific characteristics of body and organ size as well as biologi-cal half lives and differences in physiology of the different ages (such as GI/LLI transit times).
Biological half lives (the effective residence time of radionuclides in the body) are an in-tegral part of the derivation of the DCFs, as is the Quality Fac-tor of the radiation from each radionuclide., The Quality Factor (derived from the Relative Biological Effectiveness -- RBE) is a measure of the biological impact of radiation from a particular radionuclide as compared against a reference gamma source.
- Thus, the Dose Conversion Factors take into account the particular in-teraction of each radionuclide with the human body and permit !
l
\\
calculation of a dose equivalent that reasonably reflects the total relative effect.
"'he dose calculated by MIDAS is a 50-year dose commitment.
It is essentially an integration of the total dose possible to an individual following ingestion, inhalation, or exposure to a ra-i dionuclide for the following 50 years.
This accounts for the initial intake, the fraction of initial intake retained, the fraction of the initial intake deposited in the body tissues, and the r0moval of the deposited activity by biological removal and radioactive decay.
In most cases, the total residence time of the radionuclide in the body is much smaller than the 50-year in-I tegration time, and most of the calculated doae is delivered in a i
much shorter time.
Q.11 This hearing uniquely focuses upon the amount and ef-fccts of the tritium to be released during evaporation of the AGW.
How have you accounted 'or tritium in your dose assessment modeling?
A.ll (WJC)
There is considerable discussion in the litera-ture regarding the Quality Factor for tritium radiation which should be used.
ICRP Publication 2, on which the DCFs are based, used a factor of 1.7 as the Quality Factor for tritium's low en-I ergy beta radiation.
Factors ranging from one to three are com-mon in the literature, and recent National Council on Ra-diological Protection and Measurements (NCRP) publications recom-mend a Quality Factor of one.
The use of a Quality Factor of 1
0 e
1.7, as GPUN does, vill produce a calculated dose which is simply a factor of 1.7 times that computed using a Quality Factor of one.
Tritium is also a special case in the calculation of off-site doses because of the ability of the skin to freely exchange water with the atmosphere.
Typically, about one-half of the tritium intake from exposure to atmospheric tritiated water (HTO), which is tha form of tritium in the accident generated water, is through absorption through the skin.
The total intake of tritium used in the model for airborne tritium is, therefore, the sum of the amount innaled and the amount absorbed through the skin.
This additional intake of tritium through the skin is ac-counted for in the Dose Conversion Factor for inhalation.
In the case of tritium, the biological half life of the
. vater fract i'n is on the order of 10 days.
Additional compact-ments for tritium with half lives as long as about 130 days and 250 days also exist, but these include only a small fraction (less than 10%) of the tritium in the body and do not in fact contribute significantly to the actual dose commitment.
NCRP Publication 62 explains that the dose from the three compartment model for tritium, (which accounts for the fractions of tritium in the body which exist as free water, labile-freely exchangeable organic, and tightly bound organic hydrogen) is only about four percent higher than that from the free water only.
In addition, the NCRP 63 indicates that the dose to the cell nucleus associated with the chromosomal structures is trivial compared to that from the tritiated water in the cell.
Thus the majority of the dose from tritium is incurred within a fee weeks following the exposure from the tritium existing as free water in the body.
The Dose Conversion Factor for tritium used by GPUN's model em-ploys the effective half life for tritiated water recommended in ICRP Publication 10.
The dose factors are designed for use for chronic (i.e., slow uptake) exposures from releases from nuclear facilities.
These factors provide a committed dose, integrated over the lifetime of the individual.
Q.12 What has GPUN calculated to be the off-site doses from the proposed evaporation of the AGW7 A.12 (GGB)
The radiological consequences to the public from the controlled, atmospheric release of the evaporated AGW have been determined by estimating the dose to both the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person and to the total exposed population.
The dose to the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person is a conservative (over-estimated) assessment of the exposure to a member of the public, as requ red by Appendix I to 8
10 C.F.R. Part 50, using Regulatory Guide 1.109 dose methodology.
The maximally exposed hypothetical individual is assumed to be a person in the maximum inhalation location who consumes meat, veg-etables and milk from each of the other maximum dose pathway lo-cations.
The estimated dose to the cotal exposed population is a more representative assessment of the radiological consequences resulting from evaporation of the AGW.,
The MIDAS code was used to calculate the estimated doses to the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person for the dura-tion of the evaporation process (taking into account, as well, the extent of processing / reprocess'.ng of the AGW).
The dose to the bone is estimated to be 3.6 mrem, while the total body dose is estimated to be 2.0 mrem.
These doses, which are not annual doses but rather estimates for the duration of the evaporation process, still are well below the annual guideline of 15 mrem given in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, for exposure from air-borne releases.
MIDA3 was again utilized to estimate the dose to the popula-tion.
In addition to estimating the inhalation and ingestion doses to the 2.2 million people within a 50-mile radius of TMI-2, the code also estimates the ingestion dose to an additional 13 million people assumed to be fed agricultural produce exported from within the 50-mile radius.
The total exposure to the popu-lation from evaporation of the AGW is estimated to be 25 person-rem to the bone, and 18 person-rem to the total body.
For nim-plicity, in calculating an average ve have applied the total population dose (to 15.2 million) to the 2.2 million people liv-ing within 50 miles.
This yields a conservative (i.e., upper bound) average exposure to a member of the 50-mile population of 0.011 mrem to the bone and 0.008 mrem to the total body.
Since the evaporation process vill take more than one year, the annual population doses are less than the values I just reported.
As I explained earlier, the conservatisms built into the calculations performed by GPUN provide an upper-bound estimate of the environmental dose from AGW evaporation.
The actual doses are likely to ba much smaller than those calculated.
Q.13 Are these doses from the evaporation proposal signifi-cant in your view?
A.13 (GGB)
No.
The insignificance of these doses is evi-dent.
The 3.6 mrem dose calculated to be delivered to the bone is actually incurred over the life of the maximally exposed indi-vidual, and not in the one to two year period of the evaporation process.
The actual average dose rate from the strontium to the maximally exposed person would be less than 0.1 mrem per year.
Compared to this 0.1 mrem estimated annual bone dose from stron-tium and the 1.2 mrem total tritium dose that the maximally ex-posed individual might receive from the evaporation of the AGW, the average individual in the THI area vill receive 300 mrem per year from natural radiation (about 70 mrem from direct radiation from the soil and cosmic rays, 30 mrem from internal natural ra-dioactivity and weapons fallout and 200 mrem whole body equiva-lent from radon daughters) each year.
The maximum individual critical organ dose to the bone is less than 0.03% of the natu-rally occurring whole body radiation the average member of the population would receive during the 50-year integration period.
The whole body dose from tritium is about 0.01% of the natural whole body dose. -
The variability of individual doses is quite large.
Radon doses alone can vary by factors of ten depending on the individ-ual's home conditions.
Direct radiation from cosmic and terres-trial sources can also vary.
Differences in the local geology can easily change the local terrestrial dose rate by a factor of two, as is routinely seen in the direct radiation monitoring by TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter) conducted by GPUN around Three Mile Island.
Normal environmental exposure levels from direct radiation of 40 to 90 mrem per year are common, depending on the location monitored.
The additional dose to the maximally exposed individual from ovaporation is far below the normal environmental i
dose variability, and the additional dose to the average off-site individual is thousands of times smaller.
Q.14 Have you considered the radiological consequences of I
Joint Intervenors' alternative of AGW storage followed by dispos-al?
A.14 (GGB)
Yes.
The apparent benefit of this alternative is that it provides time for the radionuclides in the AGW to decay further.
Over a 30-year period, the strontium and cesium curie content would decrease by approximately a factor of two.
j The tritium content would decrease by a factor of about six over k
the same time period.
However, based on the off-site dose l
assessment performed by GPUN, this decrease in tritium would not have a significant effect on the dose assessment because the critical organ and isotope are strontium dose to the bone.
Given the curie content of strontium, a decrease by a ' actor of two will not reduce the dose to any significant degree.
This is be-cause the doses are already so very lov that such a decrease in the source term is not meaningful.
Q.15 An identified material issue of fact for this hearing is whether strontium or tritium is.ne critical radioisotope.
Please expand upon the bases for your testimony that the critical l
isotope is strontium.
l 1
A.15 (GGB)
Strontium-90, in contrast to tritium, has a very long biological half life, on the order of 15 years, and is not eliminated f rom the body completely even af ter the 50-year 1
3 integration period.
In addition, strontium-90 has a higher ener-4 gy beta, two betas per decay (including yttrium-90), and concen-I trates in a single organ (bone).
As a result, the strontium in f
the evaporator effluent vill provide the dominant contribution to 1
i the dose to the maximally exposed hypothetical off-site individ-ual, about 3.6 mrem to the bone.
Tritium contributes 1.2 of the 2.0 mrem total body dose to the maximum individual.
Q.16 on page 20 of its August 25, 1988 Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board discussed the issue of whether stron-tium or tritium would be dominant after 30 years of additional storage of the AGW.
The Board observes that "(i]f evaporation were the method of disposal at that time, the strontium would not be released, but would be concentrated in the evaporator bottoms."
Is that observation correct?
A.16 (GGB)
Almost.
As Mr. Buchanan established in his af-fidavit earlier in this case on Contention 4, the evaporator sys-tem will achieve a decontamination factor of at least 1,000 (ex-cept for tritium, all of which will be released).
Consequently, at least 99.9% of the strontium-90 in the processed AGW, whether now or in 30 years, vill be concentrated in the evaporator bot-toms.
It is assumed, however, that 0.1% will carry over and be released to the atmosphere.
This 0.1% of the available strontium-90 is utilized in our dose calculations.
Q.17 Have you quantitatively assessed what the doses would be if the AGW were evaporated after 30 years of additional stor-age?
A.17 (GGB)
It is not possible to estimate, with any rea-sonable degree of accuracy, the potential off-site dose. commit-ment for evaporation of the AGW following 30 years of additional decay.
As I explained earlier, the MIDAS code utilized for envi-ronmental dose assessments is based upon current land use and population distribution.
Year-to-year changes in residences and land use are incorporated into these calculational models, and are based upon extensive GPUN surveys -- more extensive ti.sn those required by the TMI-2 license Technical Specifications.
Since the dose is dependent upon the maximum pathways -- includ-ing the maximum garden, cow milk and goat milk pathways -- any change in the land use may significantly affect the dose commit-ment to the maximally exposed individual.
I If one made the assumption that all off-site parameters of land use and population distribution remained exactly the same as they are in 1988, then 30 years of decay would affect the doces i
to the maximally exposed off-site person and to the population.
In the case of the critical organ dose from strontium-90, the bone dose could be expected to be reduced by a factor of two as a result of the passage of about one half life of strontium-90.
The whole body dose to the maximum individual vould be reduced f rom the 2.0 mrem f rcm all radionuclides (1.2 mrem of which is from tritium) to abow*. 0.7 mrem, a reduction to about one-third.
The maximally exposed hypothetical off-site person would receive a bone dose of 1.8 mrem over the individual'- life (instead of 3.6 mrem), which represents an average annual dose of less than 0.05 mrem (instead of less than 0.1 mrem from evaporation nov).
Similarly, after 30 years the average exposure to the bone to a member of the population vould be one-half of the currently proj-
)
ected 0.011 mrem, and the whole body dose would be one-third of 3
the currently projected 0.008 mrem.
In reality, changes in land use could actually result in dose projections 30 years from nov which are higher than current estimates -- that is, the effects of decay could easily be offset by other factors.
In my opinion, then, it is clearly not prudent I
to postpone AGW disposal for the mere hope that off-site doses vill be reduced from their already insignificant values to even lower ones. -.
Q.18 Dr. Baker, as an experienced environnental scientist, I
how do you compare the evaporation proposal with Joint Interve-nors' alternative of further storage followed by disposal of the AGW7 l
A.18 (GGB)
It appears to me that the choice hinges upon an assessment of the dose savings achieved from radiological decay during a further storage period, and the cost of the further storage.
I could not endorse the Joint Intervenors' alternative i
1 i
for any further cost, let alone for the significant costs presented in Mr. Buchanan's testimony.
I start from the posi-tion, which I have explained, that the off-site doses which are conservatively projected to result from the evaporation process are by any standard miniscule and insignificant.
It would be to-tally unjustified to store this water for 30 years in the hope that land usage vill not change and the doses would be one-half' of their already extremely lov levels.
I must emphasize that these dose levels are so lov that they are within the range of uncertainty of state-of-the-art dose assessment methodology and radiological monitoring.
Half of nothing is still nothing.
From an environmental cost / benefit standpoint, the evaporation propos-al is the clearly preferred solution for disposal of the AGW.
Q.19 At page 36 of its August 25, 1988 Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board held that Joint Intervenors' Material Statement of Fact No. 9, under Contention 3, put into contest the evaluation of microorganisms in the AGW.
In their Statement, the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Joint Intervenors cite an NRC Staff discovery response for the proposition that water boiling at 212*F would kill the microorga-nisms.
Yet, according to Joint Intervenors, the evaporator will operate at a temperature of 131'F.
Therefore, Joint Intervenors conclude that a quantity of the microorganisms vill be contained in water droplets to be released to the environment, and their release must be evaluated because of possible pathogen problems.
Dr. Baker, have you evaluated this concern?
A.19 (GGB)
Yes.
The microorganisms associated with the AGW have been studied and determined to be typical environmental microbes.
They are not considered to be primary pathogens and do not pose a health threat to the workers or tha general popula-i tion.
Further, there are several factors which virtually pre-clude pathogen survival in the environment.
First, the microorganisme.in the AGW can be traced to three J
principal sources:
the Susquehanna River, hydraulic fluid from defueling tools, and the general airborne environment.
None of I
these sources yield a primary pathogenic population.
Human i
patbogenic microorganismt, are transmitted principally from fecal l
I contamination and/ov vector mediated transfer.
These microorga-i nisms are very fastidious relative to their nutritional and envi-ronmental needs.
Consequently, they do not survive in the gener-i al environment outside the human body.
Second, studies conducted on aerosols emitted from cooling towers supplied with secondary sewage effluent confirm that i
l.
I i i i
l l
4 t
airborne transmission of pathogens is not a significant threat to either the workers at the plants or to the surrounding popula-tions.
(Adams et. al., 1978.)
Third, natural blocidal activity, such as the lethal effects of ultraviolet light and dessication, prevent the long-term sur-vival and growth of most microorganisms.
Here, the salt-concentrating effects of the evaporative process (i.e., boron) vill in itself be biocidal.
Finally, when they cite the Preliminary System Description (Feb. 26, 1988) for an evaporator operating temperature of 131*F, Joint Intervenors are referring only to the evaporator section, which operates under a vacuum.
As that document states in sever-al places, the vaporizer section vill heat the distillate to ap-proximately 240*F.
This temperatura is lethal to virtually all microorganisms.
Pathogenic microorganisms are susceptible to the lethal effects of heat above normal body temperature.
The micro-organisms that can withstand temperatures at this 'kvel are not pathogenic to humans.
References NUREG-0172, "Age-Specific Radiation Dose Commitment Factors For a One Year Chronic Intake," G.
R. Hoenes, J. K. Saldat (November 1977).
Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculations Of Annual Doses To Man From 4
Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents For The Purpose Of Evaluating Compliance With 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1 j
(October 1977),
i Regulatory Guide 1.111, "Hethods For Estimating Atmospheric Transplant And Dispersion Of Gateous Effluents In Routine Re-leases From Light-Water-cooled Reactors," Rev. 1 (July 1977).
ICRP Publication 2, "Report Of Committee II On Permissible Dose For Internal Radiation" (1959).
l ICRP Publication 10, "Evaluation Of Radiation Doses To Body Tis-sues From Internal Contamination Due To Occupational Exposure" (December 1986).
ICRP Publication 23, "Reference Han Anatomical, Physiological And Metabolic Characteristics (April 1975).
i NCRP Report No. 62, "Tritium In The Environment," (March 3, 1979).
NCRP Report No. 63, "Tritium And Other Radionuclide Labeled Or-ganic Compounds Incorporated In Generic Materials," (March 30, l
1979).
Adams, A.
P.,
- Garbett, M.,
Rees, H.
B.,
and Lewis, B.
G.,
"Bacte-rial Aerosals from Cooling Towers," Journal, Water Pollution control Federation, pp. 2362-69 (October 1978).
ATTActe!ENT 1 GARY G. BAKER, PH.D.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 1983 to Manacer of Environmental controls-Three Mlle Present Island GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Primary responsibility is to ensare that plant operations are in compliance with all relevant regulatory agencies.
Also coordinate planning for the dismantlement of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility.
i Environmental Controls Operations... Staffing... Budget Planning /!mplementation... Policy j
Design /Reviev...Public Relations.. 0ffsite Emergency Plan Response... Environmental / Radiological Surveys Programs...
a 1
4 1981 to Radiolocical Procrams Manacer-Thrge Mile 1983 island i
j GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown, PA Responsible for all phases of radiological environmental studies and monitoring programs.
Contract i
Administration... Professional i
Testimony... Environmental Assessment t
Coordinator...Public Relations... Management j
Interface...
l 1979 to Environmental Scientist !!-Three Mile Island j
1981 GPU NUCLEAR, Middletown. PA Designed and implemented radiological monitoring programt.
Evaluate Exisiting Systems... Evaluate Data... Monitor Commercial 1
La bo r a to r i es... Manag ene n t Reports...
I i
i M
e
1978 to Environmental Scientist !!!-Pennsv1vania 1979 Elect r(s Active in all aspects of biological stuides and monitoring program for ten coal fired and two hydroelectric facilities.
Program Evaluation... Design / conduct Studies...!nterpret/ Report Technical Data...
1978 instructoi
!NDIANA UNIVERS!TY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Indiana, PA Taught General Biology and Microbiology at an undergraduate level.
other I served as a consultant to the educational and business community in Central Pennsylvania addressing microbiology problems and graduate student programs.
EDUCATION 1978 Ph.D.-Environmental Microbiolocy WEST VIRGIN!A UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV 1975 M.S.-Environmental Microbioloov WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, Morgantown, WV 1971 5.S.-Biolocy l
~
MORRIS KARVEY COLLEGE, Charlestown, WV 1966 to Biolocy 1968 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Salt Lake City, UT l
l l
[
i i
2 M
ATt\\CRMENT 2 RESUME William J. Coopor i
GPU Nuclear Corp Threc Mile Island Nuclear Station PO Box 480 Middletown Pa 17057 i
Eduestion BS Chemistry 1977 University of Maryland, college Park Maryland i
Additional courses:
1986 Health Physics Summer School - External Dosimetry 1987 contracted class - Internal Dosimetry /ICRP30 1983/1984 Dickinson College, Carlisle - Health Physics, 2 semesters 1980 Penn State University - Radiation Shielding 1 semester 1978 The Johns Hopkinc University - Radiation, Biology (audit)
Experience:
1985 to 'present - Environmental Scientist, GPU Environmental controls operate and control the TMI Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) including all phases of design, development and operation of existing and new sagling regimes. Operate and maintain the environmental Thermoluminescent dosimetry program.
Support the TMI Energency plan by developing and operatlng emergency offsite dose calculational meu ods and computer codes.
Develop, maintain, and operate routine affluent offsite dose calculation codes to provide assessment of dose committaents from normal plant effluents and to provide a priori dose estimates for licensing documents.
1983 to 1985 - Radiological Engineer, GPU Radiological Controls.
Provide engineering support and review of inplant work plans to ensure work conducted in radiologically controlled areas is
" A LARA". Review individual tasks as well as system designs for incorporation of features to minimize exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. Was prima.7 GPU Radiological Engineer for the defueling system design at TMI-2. Also responsible for internal dose assessment for workers, shielding design, and the development of the policy to provide access into the TMI-2 reactor building without respiratory protection. Support the emergency plan by performing of fsite dose assessment, and controlling the in-plant radiological personnel.
l l
i O
1 1981 to 1983 - Radiological Controls Foreman, GPU Radiological I
controls. Supervise and control up to about 30 in-plant radiological controls technicians. Review and approve all in plant work in radiologically controllad areas. Provide i
guidance for workers on exposure controls, approve protective measures (eg clothing). Support the emergency plan b performing offsite dose assessment until arrival of the Rad. En inser and inplant radiological control and technician supervis on during emergencies. Temporary duty in Unit-1 to support inplant radiological controls during the OTSG kinetic expansion repair 1980 to 1981 - Radiological Controls Technician, GPU Radiological controls. Provide inplant support during routine and emergenc conditions to work crews in radiologically controlled areas. y Conduct surveys and perform ef fluent sampling. Supervise other technicisns in the absence of the foreman. Performed first post-accident surveys of the TMI-2 reactor vessel head, refueling canal, and polar crane.
1977 to 1980 - health Physics Technician, The. Johns Hopkins University Homewood Campus, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland was only Health Physic technician on Homewood Campus, with several dozen indipendent laboratories using radioisotope tracers in biological and chemical research as well as sealed sources, irradiators, and diffraction and fluor 6scence x-ray machines, in geology, materials science, and physica research.
were not in use at the time.gy Van-de Graff accelerators which The campus also had MEV 6ner Responsible for external and internal dosimetry, effluent control, waste packaging and shipping, periodic laboratory surveys and inspections to enforce license compliance for sovreral dozen authorized users on the licenses and as many as 400 individual workers. Also assisted users with radioinotope conuting problems and developed the iodine-125, tritiva, and phosphorus-32 bioassay program.
Assisted professor of biology in his bioluminescent organism (photobiology) research with opectral analysis, phytoplankton culture media, devoloped radioactive single photon visible light spectral calibration sources. Began research program to attempt to demonstrate non-lethal biologicsl effect of low-level radiation by irradiation of bioluminescent organisms (not completed at time of resignation).
1 Papers:
Angular and absolute response to xenon-133 of a Thermoluminescent Dosimater used for Environmental Monitoring (in preparation)
A Siepified Air Tritium Sampler (in preparation) l
--c
Professional societies:
Plenary Member - Health Physics Society Member - American Nucle.ar Society Member - Susquehanna Valley Chapter of the Health Physics Society Member - Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Nuclear Society and 1958-1989 treasurer Member - American Acade:ay of Health Physics Professional Certifications:
Certified Health Physicist - Achieved "Comprehensive" certification by the American Board of Health Physics in 1985 i
i 4
I
.