ML20038C056

Testimony of Bt Lancaster Re Effect of Radioactive Releases Beyond Facility Exclusion Boundary.Contribution of Total Population Dose Attributable to Plant Gaseous Radioactive Effluents Will Be Negligible Fraction of Population Dose

ML20038C056
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/20/1981
From:	Lancaster B TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20038C053	List: ML20038C052 ML20038C054 ML20038C055 ML20038C056 ML20038C057 ML20038C058 ML20038C059 ML20038C061 ML20038C063 ML20038C064
References
NUDOCS 8112090497
Download: ML20038C056 (11)

Text

-- -.

5

/, DOLKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'81 NOV 23 P12:12 7 "-}{CQy

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

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.

- ) 50-446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam r

.lectric )

Station, Units 1 aFd 2) )

TESTIMONY OF B0BBY T. LANCASTER REGARDING THE EFFECT OF RADI0 ACTIVE RELEASES BEYOND THE COMANCHE PEAK EXCLUSION BOUNDARY Q. Please state your name, residence and educational and professional qualifications.

A. My name is Bobby T. Lancaster. I reside in Cleburne, Texas. I am the Radiation Protection Engineer for Texas Utilities Generating Company. A statement of my educational and professional qualifications is included as Attachment A.

Q. What is the subject of your testimony?

A. The following testimony concerns the effect of potential radioactive releases from the Comanche Peak plant on the general public beyond the exclusion boundary. I will describe the Applicants' atmospheric transport and diffusion models which are used in the assessment of the potential annual radiation doses to individuals and to the public beyond the exclusion area boundary from routine and postulated short-tenn (accident) releases of 8112090497 811120' DR ADOCK 05000

a radioactive materials and gaseous effluents from Comanche Peak.

I will also describe the individual and population doses I estimated by the Applicants to result from those gaseous ef fluents.

Q. Do you have personal knowledge of the methodology used by the Applicants to assess the annual radiation doses to individuals and to the public from gaseous radioactive effluents from Comanche Peak?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is the basis of your knowledge?

A.

As Radiation Protection Engineer for TUGCO, I am responsible for the development of the operational radiation protection program for Comanche Peak. I have been involved in the detelopment of that program for the last seven years. In addition, I participated in the development of the FSAR and ER for Comanche Peak, and confirmed the compatability of those documents with appropriate NRC regulatory guidance.

Q. What model does the Applicants use in estimating the transport and dispersion of routine releases of radioactive raaterials in gaseous effluents from Comanche Peak?

A. Applicants have employed the Gaussian dispersion model described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, assuming a ground-level release mode. Applicants have also included correction factors for the effects of the containment building wake and terrain surrounding Comanche Peak as described in Regulatory 09'de 1.111.

. ~__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2 Q. Did the Applicants employ site-specific meteorological data in calculating the dispersion characteristics of gaseous radioactive

. effluents?

A. Yes, the diffusion estimates made by the Applicants are based on an on-site meteorological data record gathe' red from May 15, 1972 to May 14, 1976. Applicants gathered on-site meteorological data for a period of 4 full years, rather than the one year specified in NRC guidance, in order to measure the parameters needed to evaluate the dispersion characteristics for both routine and accidental releases of radionuclides. This meteorological program was designed in accordance with the guidance set forth in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23. This program is described in Section 6.1.3.1 of the Applicants' Environmental Report-0perating License Stage (ER-OLS).

Q. Do the Applicants use the same atmospheric dispersion models for.

both short-term and long-tenn releases?

A. No. Applicants employ different models for calculating the dispersion of radioactive gaseous effluents from Comanche Peak.

These models employ the same basic dispersion equations, i.e., a Gaussian dispersion model assuming ground-level releases. For short-tenn (accidental) releases, Applicants have employed atmospheric dispersion models in accordance with the criteria set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.4. Diffusion calculations for routine releases of radioactive gaseous effluents are performed in accordance with the guidance set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.111.

Q. What are the diffusion models employed for predicting dispersion of short-tenn (accidental) releases of gaseous radioactive effluents?

A. The diffusion models employed for these releases are designed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.4. The diffusion model for releases of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or less employs a continuous release, center line, point source Gaussian dispersion equation. As for releases beyond the first 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, dispersion of radioactive effluents are estimated using an equation which recognf zes the tendency for winds to meander throughout a direction sector during such longer time periods. Both models assume a release point at ground level, thereby realizing no advantage for effluent emmissions from elevated release points.

Q. What is the diffusion model employed for predicting dispersion of routine releases of gaseous radioactive ef fluents?

A. Using the on-site meteorological data record, average annual dilution factors were calculated using the techinque presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111. Ground-level release modes were assumed in making these calculations. Since the site is located in open terrain with gently rolling hills, the terrain correction factor described in Regulatory Guide 1.111 for open terrain is employed.

Q. What additional site-specific correction factors do the Applicants employ in their dispersion calculations?

A. Applicants use a building wake correction factor which is

appropriate for use when ground-level releases are being ,

evaluated, pursuant to Regulatory Guide 1.111.

, -, . , . , . . ~ . . . - , - , . . . - , , ,

Q. How did the Applicants calculate the doses to individuals from gaseous radiological effluents from Comanche Peak?

A. n oses te individuals from gaseous pathways are discussed in ER-OLS 5 5.2.5.2. These results were obtained from the GASPAR computer code which is based on the computational techniques presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Dilution factors for atmoshperic pathways were calculated according to methods prescribed in Regulatory Guide 1.111 as discussed above.

Q. Who developed the GASPAR computer code?

A. The Radiological Assessment Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission developed and distributed the GASPAR computer code.

Q. Has this computer code been approved by the NRC for use in calculating individual and population doses from gaseous exposure pathways.

A. Ye s. The code is distributed by the NRC for calculations of both individual and population annual doses from gaseous exposure pathways for the purpose of evaluating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

Q. What are the gaseous pathways for which Applicants have computed individual doses?

A. Applicants calculated estimated doses to individuals from several pathways, as discussed ER-OLS 35 .2.4.2. These pathways are cloud

( submersion, ground contamination, inhalation, and vegetable, milk, and meat ingestion pathways.

Q. How were maximum estimated doses to individuals calculated for each of the gaseous pathways described above?

l

A. Maximum estimated doses to individuals from cloud submersion were evaluated at the location at the site boundary with the least atmoshperic dilution based on the dispersion calculations described above and at two residences; one 1.55 miles west and the other 1.95 miles west-northwest of the plant. The location at the site boundary for which maximum individual doses were calculated is 1.29 miles from the plant in the north-northwest sector. The maximum total body doses calculated for the three locations are listed in Table 1 attached to this testimony.

Maximum estimated doses from radioactive material deposited on the ground were also detennined at the same three locations as described above. These doses are listed in Table 1.

The maximum doses from the air inhalation pathway are also calculated at these same three locations. The maximum organ dose to an individual at any of these locations is expected to be to an adult's thyroid gland. The adult thyroid doses are listed in Table 1.

The maximum estimated doses to individuals from vegetable consumption are calculated at the location of the two residences listed above, at which gardens are assumed to be located. These doses are listed in Table 1. The total body doses at these locations are also listed in Table 1.

Maximum estimated doses to individuals from milk consumption have also been calculated for both milk cows and goats in the vicinity of the plant. The maximum doses at those locations are

also expected to occur to infants. These doses are listed in Table 1.

The meat pathway for which maximum estimated doses were calculated are based on the consumption of beef raised at a location 2.12 miles east-southeast of the plant where Applicants have discovered yearlings among beef cattle. The estimated maximum organ dose to an individual and estimated total-body dose are listed in Table 1.

Q. Have Applicants also perfonned calculations to determine the population doses from gaseous effluents?

A. App 1tcants calculated population doses from gaseous effluents resulting from the same pathways for which individual doses were calculated, namely, cloud submersion, ground contamination, air inhalation, and vegetable, milk and meat ingestion pathways.

Q. What are the annual population doses calculated by Applicants and how do those doses compare to the doses which will occur from backgrcund radiation?

A. The annual population doses calculated will be only a small percentage of the 100 mrem /yr total-body dose from naturally occuring environmental background radiation anticipated for the population in the region around te Comanche Peak site. Exposure of each of the 1.45 million people that are expected to reside within 50-mile radius of the plant in the year 2000 to the naturally occurring background radiation would result in a population dose of 1.45 x 10 5man-rem. ER-OLS 55.2.4.2. In contrast, the total-body man-rem dose from Comanche Peak to the l

l l

l

same population in the year 2000 is expected to be 3.77 man-rem.

Accordingly, the contribution to the total population dose attributable to gaseous radioactive effluents from Comanche Peak will be a negligible fraction of the population dose resulting from naturally occuring background radiation.

1 l

l l

l l

I

. . . . . _ . , . , _ _ . mo._,,.__.._,,,._,,,........,.m,_._ . . - , . .

Attachment A BOBBY T. LANCA5TER STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION: Radiation Protection Engineer FORMAL EDUCATION: 1969, B.S. Biology, Baylor University EPXERIENCE:

1901 - Present Texas Utilities Generating Company, Comanche Peak <

Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas, Radiation Protection Engineer, Engineering Department. '

Activities include the development of procedures and programs for Radiation Protection and Emergency Planning, and selection of appropriate instruments and equipment.

1974 - 1981 Texas Utilities Generating Company, Como ,che Peak Steam Electric Station, Chemistry and Health Physics Engineer. Activities included the development of procedures and programs for Radiation Protection, Emergency Planning, Environmental Monitoring and Chemistry, selection of instruments and equipment, and operational review and input to station design.

1974 - 1974 Texas Utilities Generating Company, Big Brown Steam Electric Station, Fairfield, Texas, Environmental Technician, Environmental Research Department.

Activities included implementing the air and aquatic monitoring programs.

1970 - 1974 Industrial ' Generating Company, Big Brown Steam Electric Station, Fairfield, Texas, Results Technician, Results Department. Activities included various duties in the areas of chemistry, instrumentation, and lignite analysis for support of start-up and operation of two 575 MW generating units.

',, 1970 - 1970 Texas Electric Service Company, Handley Plant, Fort Work, Texas, Chemical Technician. Activities

included routine power plant chemistry and water treatment.

1966 - 1970 A. O. Smith Corporation, Waco, Texas, . Quality Assurance Laboratory Technician. Activities included the implementation of the chemical and physical testing programs.

1963 - 1966 North American Aviation, McGregor, Texas, Quality Assurance Laboratory Technician, Quality Control Department. Activities included the chemical analyses and testing of solid prope11ent.

TABLE 1 ,

Maximum Estimated Individual Doses from

~

Gaseous Exposure Pathways from Comanche Peak Maximum Organ Total Body Dose Pathway Location Dose (mrem /yr)

Dose Organ (mrem /yr)

Cloud Submersion Site Boundary Skin 3.39 x 10 -1 1.19 x 10-1 (1.29 miles NNW)

Residence Skin 7.92 x 10-2 2.79 x 10-2 (1.55 miles W)

Residence Skin 7.82 x 10-2 2.75 x 10-2 (1.95 miles WNW)

Ground Plane Site Boundary 2.56 x 10-2 Contamination Skin 2.19 x 10-2 (1.29 miles NNW)

Residence Skin 4.92 x 10-3 4.20 x 10-3 (1.55 miles W)

Residence Skin 5.13 x 10 -3 4.37 x 10 -3 (1.95 miles WNW)

Air Inhalation Site Boundary 3.53 x 10-1 Adult 2.87 x 10-1 (1.29 miles NNW) Thyroid Residence Adult 8.24 x 10 (1.55 miles W) Thyroid Residence Adult 8.11 x 10-2 (1.95 r.iles WNW) Thyroid i

TABLE 1 continued Maximum Organ Total Body Dose  ;

Pathway Location Dose (mrem /yr)  ;

Dose Organ (mrem /yr)

Vegetable Ingestion Garden Child's 2.89 x 10- 2.01 x 10-1 (1.55 miles W) Thyroid Garden Child's 3.10 x 10-1 2.11 x 10-1 (1.89 miles WNW) Thyroid Cow's Milk Ingestion Milk cow Infant's 1.33 1.21 x 10-1 (1.56 miles W) Thyroid Milk cow Infant's 1.48 1.28 x 10-1 (1.89 miles WNW) Thyroid Goats' Milk Domestic Goat Infant's 7.82 x 10-1 8.57 x 10-2 Ingestion (4.18 miles N) Thyroid .

Brush Goat Infant's 1.23 1.24 x 10-1 (3.37 miles N) Thyroid Meat Ingestion Beef Cattle Adult 1.35 x 10 -2 1.12 x 10-2 (2.12 miles ESE) Thyroid i