ML19249B326
| ML19249B326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249B316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUREG-0265, NUREG-265, NUDOCS 7909040270 | |
| Download: ML19249B326 (7) | |
Text
__
NUREG-0255 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT related to operation of i
THE WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR P0'AER STATION l
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company Dayton Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-358 Published:
June 1977 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t
W 7909 04 0 J 70 i
- M A-# O"II5 N N N )$k5AN d $rN ?-N M [M.7 W Ur?.'l*[*,6:VEN-Nik O' ?v_Di _
5-1E i
t
?
GAS'EOUS EFFLUENT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LIQUID q$
e y 3 EFFLUENT
=
}
[ l fO S
- c e
5
't
,)
S o
t c
o t-
[
0 4
c, Direct s,
Irradiation [
S
%,'o 3
3 E'
b j
P o
o u
a
~
N-FUEL TRANSPORT 3
f >" >..e."E/G i
Shorehne E D.g'u, to f'r-- ---
% osur, og* r. pw{,
isd%t ***
r
~~
s t
si,,
+.. r. o..
ria,,
F, # 5$ $ @ Q @ g Cs**
4 dg@ees
'4.
~ 4,d
~
8)c
- o e
s*
- 8 T
~ - - - '
~
\\
,,gavo" e
g,A
. = -
p L
.= j
~. -
g, m~
~=
~
A 8
4 1 s
...$}W ~.
- x. ~.,
8 3
5 l
inge5" "i n'*o y1 c
Tg~
l
~
ed
/
w--
r Fig. 5.3.
Exposure Pat. ways to Man
.r.,- g, ;. n. ~
eIJ Ws P I i__g
C 7.5-:'d 5 5 ;1 5. g 7 Js g. 5 d r. 7 -' " T @ c "~y m'*",
... n n -
n -. ~ :, -e a y u n.-.;p.
mgy
...~c x.
,- w i w e
_~
.., ~...
N 5-17 h
Inhalaticn cf air a.nd ingestien of feed (and water) containing tritium, C-14, radi cesium and radiciodice are estimated to account for essentially all of total body radiaticn dose comitments to individual 5 and to the population within 50 miles of the station.
5.4.1.2 Cose Comitments fr= Padicactive Releases to the Atmcschere 9
.c Radicactive effluents released to the at esphere from the facility will result in small radiation
- y 00ses to the public. Staff estimates of the expected gaseous and particulate releases listed in
.g Table 3.7, and the site meteorological considerations discussed in Section 2.4 of this statement r
r
...d su rarized in Tacle 5.5, were used te estimate radiation coses to individuals and populations, y
The results of the calculations are discussed tel0w.
5.p
.Q
.e- (
- t.
TABLE 5.5 J
a
SUMMARY
CF A~POSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS AND DEPOSITION
,.h,
VALUES FOR SELECTED LCCATICNS NEAR THE ZIMMER
- t NUCLEAR FCWER STATICN
.e I s
I Relative
'I Location S et,rc e I/O (sec/m 1 deccsition (m-2) y J
Nearest
- site A
5.9 E-07 3.3 E-00
'E' land bouncary B
3.5 E-C6 2.0 E-C3
'f C (ncrtheast 1.C5 mi.)
C 4.7 E-C6 2.7 E-08 4f
+4 Nearest residence A
1.9 E-07 1.3 E-CS 2
((.
and garden B
1.5 E-C6 1.1 E-07 (rcrth 0.S2 mi. )
C 2.2 E-C6 1.5 E-07 4E E-Nearest farm and A
2.0 E-C3 1.9 E-09 a
milk animal 2
2.S E-07 1.8 E-CS
.g g-(southeast 0.75 mi.)
C 3.9 E-07 2.5 E-CS 44 Nearrt" refers to that type of location where the highest radiation cose
- d. h is expected to occur f rom all appropriate pathways.
y t v.
Source A is continucus plant vent-50urce S is mechanical vacuum pump - 4 times / year for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
[{
Scurce C is dry well purge - 24 times / year for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
a Il fr-98
'W.
.?
Radiation 0:se Comitments to Individuals ME 25 ine predicted cose ccmitments to " maximum" indivicuals at the offsite locations wnere doses are
'e 5 a "ected to be largest are listed in Table 5.6.
A maximum individual is assumed to consume well
.C acve average quantities of the f:0ds considered (see Table A-2 in Regulatory Guide 1.109).
The standard NEC mocels were used with the following modificattens in order to realistically model if features of the facility design and the site envirens:
4{
1.
ine fracticn of the year that milk and meat animals are on pasture was assumed to be 0.5 i f.
instead of 1.0.
4 p'
'kli 2.
The fraction of green leafy '.egetables grown locally was assu~ed to be 0.25 instead of 1.0.
h.
r.
.,m-
'1-Radia tion Cose Comitments to Pecula tiens J tL ', ; '. G p O
4t a.
The estimated annual radiation dose c0mit:-ent to the. population (within 50 miles) for the Zimer
%a 3..
N; clear Power Station from gaseous and particulate releases were based "cn the projected site Li.
f5W
. p.
ft
11-8 1
The Comission has compiled occupational radiation exposure experience from cperating nuclear power plants (NURiG-0109, "Occu;ational Radiation Exposure at Light-Water-Cooled Pcwer Reactors" 1959-1975). These data indicate that the average dose to all cnsite personnel at a typical large operating nuclear plant has been about 450 man-rens/ year per unit.
In any given year, for any given plant, this dose may be nigher or lower depending on several factors. Highar doses ma.' result f rom unexpected maintenance, repairs, or inspection. Lower coses may result from an I'
un tsually trouble-free operating year. For example, the range of values obtained for 1974 was 4;
f*om 18 man-rees for the icwest plant value to the highest value of 1224 man-rems. On the basis cf these data, the value of 500 man-rems still represents a reasonable basis for extrapolating 4,
oo the future for similar reactors, with regard to the total genetic impact cf occupational dose i
d.
per plant on the pcpulation. It is a misinterpretation of the data in Table 5.7 to consider fi that it is a number that the staff is willing to pemit. It is simply the staff's best estimate of the envircreental impact from occupational expcsure at Zimer.
J.t t
The pemissible exposure at Zimer for occupational exposure is set by the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. Staff review of the safety analysis report is c rrently in progress. This review y
.I includes an evaluation of the radiation protection program for Zimer. On the basis of that
".w, review, staff expects that the plant can be operated within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable.
J 4 e r s.
W.
11.5.8 Excessive Occu ational Execsure (DSF, A-32)
^$.F The staff has reviewed the Mancuso, Stewart and Kneale study and has concluded that the paper does not warrant regulatory action at this time to charge either the dose limiting regulations L
of 10 CFR Part 20 or the methods of analysis of radiation effects now in use by the staff.
f There is continued assurance that activities licensed in accordance with the current regulations provide protection of the health and safety of the ;ublic and radiation workers. A complete j!
review of this subject is in the NRC Public Document Room in a letter frcm D J Mattson, Director,
}t Division of Siting Health and Safeguards Standards to Dr. Thomas Mancuso, University of Pittsburgh.
dated December 2, 1976.
1 4
Maasured Radiation Levels at Moscow El wntary School (CEF, A-32) 11.5.9
- n 15 As part of their analysis to snew com:liance with A;pendix I, staff considers all occupyable 1.*
locations in the vicinity of the site. The cistances to tne scncol and several other houses in
'45 the edge of Mosccw were measured, and the corresponding at Ospheric dispersion f actors were di calculated. Since the calculated dose at some houses was higher than at the school, it was not specifically mentioned in tne staff's tabulation of locations for rraximum individual exposures.
4;
- U In the ER at Table 6.1-8, there is an air monitoring station for Mosc?w. Since there are small T
eifferences in che calculated doses at several of tne lccations in town, tne precise location is not significant.
Mc. eve, if the to.,n pref ers a location on the school grounds and the security a
(
of the equipment can be ensured in some manner, the monitor could be 1.ated there. This monitor would of course sense both radiation from the noble gas plume in the vicinity ar d the exposure f j, from N-16 in the turbine building.
~
i Predicted " Shine" Dose Rate at the Elementary Schcol (OSF,A-32) l!.5.10 g
~1W The environmental statement has given a generically-determined dose rate of 20 mrem /yr at 0.4 i
3 mile. The staff estimates that a representative distance from the turbine to the school is 0.5 mile, which will reduce the dose considerably. In addition, children will occupy the school approximately 1/4 cf the time during 9 months of the year, while the 20 mrem /yr dose assu es r
continuous occupation. The overall effects of these factors will reduce the dose about a facter
.f 10 belcw the 20 mrem /yr figure.
4 y
11.5.11 Shine From Scent Fuel Storace (DSF, A-33) 4 The fuel storage pool has such a depth of water above the tops of the fuel elements that even i
the dose immediately over the pool is acceptable for the clant work force. By the t.me the H
radiation has scatterei and attenuated at the distance of the nearest site boundary (over 1700 feet from the reactor bailding) the levels are so low as to be inconsequential even when comDared d
to the other very low doses expected f rom the plant.
-+
1 r y. \\o f n)Q Jss.,
4 wMirs% fhmiig;mqiggggvggy;ggg g
PROFESSIONAL O'UALIFICATIONS HARRY E. P. KRUG RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR RTGULATORY COMMISSION I.
SUMMARY
I joined the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis.Sion (NRC) in 1974 as a Project Manager responsible for the management, organization, technical coordination and presentatisn before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
and Atcmic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLB) of nuclear reactor safety reviews for assigned applications.
I have served as Project Manager for the San Joaquin Nuclear Project, Browns Ferry Unit 3, Hatch Unit 2, Hartsville Nuclear Pcwer Station and the GESSAR 233 Nuclear Island Project and a number of technical review assignments.
In Marcn 1976, I joined the Accident Analysis Branch of the NRC.
My work included the analysis of various postulated internal and external hazards to nuclear power stations with emphasis on aircraft hazards, anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), secondary side accidents and radiation environmental qualification of equipment and coatings.
Special assignments included testifying on plant capacity factors, Mark III drywell testing programs and projections of plant uranium requirements.
Since September of 1978, I have been assigned to the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch where I am responsible for the review and evaluation of environmental reports of existing and proposed nuclear power facilities; including, when necessary, special generic and case-by-case technical analysis and the presentation of the staff findings.
My background includes a B.S. in Marine-Mechanical Engineering (1955) and a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (1961).
My 22 years of experience includes 4 years of power plant operation and 3 years of radiation methods development.
In 1969 I left Westinghouse Electric Corporation as a Fellow Engineer after 8 years of nuclear reactor analysis and reactor design and shielding methods development and technical project coordination.
In 1974, I completed two years as Supervisor of Nuclear Engineering for Illinois Power Co.
I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Naval Engineers and the Health Physics Society.
I am a commercial pilot with instrument, single engine land and sea, and multiengine ratings.
I hold a U.S. Coast Guard License as a Merchant Marine Engineering Officer and am a Professional Nuclear Engineer registered in the state of California.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO'i BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD In the Matter of
)
}
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-358 COMPANY, et _al.
)
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No.1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SER'! ICE I hereby certify that copies of the direct testimony of Harry Krug regarding Contention 6, the ability of the Zimmer facility to meet the objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I at the Moscow Elementary School, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 1st day of June,1979:
Charles Sechnoefer, Esc., Chairma. "
Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 3454 Cornell Place Scard Panel Cincinnati, Ohio a5220 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Peter Heile, Eso.
Assistant City Solicitor Dr. Frank F Hooper Room 21a, City Hall Schoci of Natura! Resources Cincinnati, Onio a5220 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Timothy S. Hogan, Jr., Chairman Board of Carmissioners Mr. Glenn 0. Bricht*
50 Market Street Atomic Safety anS Licensing Clermont County Board Panel Batavia, Ohio 45103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.
Clermont County Community Council Troy B. Conner, Esq.
Box 181 Conner, Moore and Corber Satavia, Ohio 45103 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006
[
[
v }
, A.b. =
- r.o r
... William J. "oran, Esq.
Atomic ScT:ty and Licensing General Counsel Aopeal Board
- Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission P.O. Box 960 Washington, D. C.
20555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Dou etina and Service Section*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secratary Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear neculatory Coa:aission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
?/ S'
/
f
/1 A/,aM ?dMin Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff h.i
- , 4 S*
O
.J L>e.' U r [ars, w