ML19269E380
| ML19269E380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1979 |
| From: | Heile W, Luebbers T CINCINNATI, OH |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906280031 | |
| Download: ML19269E380 (9) | |
Text
'
PII.AQ Cor.aESPO.YDng
//
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$yN-
. 0!9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
g%
g k'I' NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM IIm C
In the Matter of DOCKET NO. 50-358 THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station)
INTERVENOR, CITY OF CINCINNATI'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT Intervenor, City of Cincinnati, through its City Solicitor, hereby submits the attached response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
h
[
~ '
J 'p os: p {...
THOMAS A.
LUEBBERS City Solicitor s'
1
/
t<
. /.--
i f '/
/
-r.
'd. PETER HEILE Assistant City Solicitor 2169 340 May 2, 19'T9 7 9 b b 2 8 n D3/ $
ARGUMENT In their Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 6, 1979, Applicants have argued that the following contention submitted by Dr. Fankhauser and accepted by the Board, is without merit:
(2D)
No monitoring readouts are provided at the city water works.
It is unclear from the Applicants' motion whether an attempt was thereby made to deal directly with the various contentions raised by the City o; Cincinnati regsrding the need for continuous water non-itoring.
If Applicants are contending that the admitted Fankhauser contention referred to is interpreted to mean "no continuous monitor-ing readouts are provided at the city water works" then Applicants' motion against such a monitoring system is contrary to the city's I
. position on this point, and must be addressed.
Clearly, the City of Cincinnati supports the contention that the granting of an oper-ating license to the Zinmer Station without the installation of a continuous monitoring device and attendant telemetering and readout mechanisms at the city's raw water intake in the Ohio River poses a serious threat to the health and safety of the city's, and indeed, the entire county's drinking water consumers, and would be contrary to the applicable rules and regulations of the NRC pertaining to the safe operation of a nuclear power station.
The sole arguments advanced by the Applicants in suppcrt of their motion to remove this contention are that (a) the radiological monitoring program of the plant providing fcr =cnthly analysis of water samples taken at the raw water intake is adequate protecticn, and (b) in any event, no instrument-capable of measuring continu-ously at " Appendix I" levels are currently available.
In advancing 2169 341 --
this argument, Applicants readily admit that analysis will be per-formed on the samples taken but once per month, while it is recog-nized that the city draws its raw water from this intake for virtually its entire drinking water supply continuously.
Simply stated, Applicants offer the drinking water consumers of this ccm-munity the promise that they will faithfully analyze and determine the radioactive content of the water which they have been drinking for the past month.
At this point, it isn't even clehr that this information will then be conveyed to the city in a timely fashion, if at all.
The fact is that the Applicants' proposed water monitoring at the city's raw water intake, while necessary, is clearly incapable of providing any early warning notification and data in advance of the contamination of our drinking water distribution system which will enable officials of the Cincinnati water works sufficient time or data to evaluate the seriousness of, or to react to, any planned or unplanned releases from the Zimmer Station's discharge line into the Ohio River, a duty which is charged primarily to the officials of the Cincinnati water works rather than Applicants' officials.
As has been identified in earlier filings by this intervenor, the city's raw water intake is approximately 19 miles downstream of the ri=mer Station's discharge line.
At the very least, a system of early detection and warning to enable water works officials to carry out their responsibilities to provide safe drinking water requires
- 1) a continuous grcss gamma monitoring device at the station's dis-charge line and 2) a similar device at the city's raw water intake, to provide city personnel the capacity to deternine the general activity levels of any discharge in excess of Part 20 limitaticns, its duration and dilution at the point that the discharge reaches 2169 342
the water intake, and information as to when the spill has substan-tially passed the city's intake line.
Without a continuous gamma radiation monitor at the city's raw water intake, the system is in-complete in that information as to when the discharge has substan-tially passed the intake point will be unavailable.
The city recognizes the Applicants' assertion regarding the limitation of the " state of the art" as regards the measuring sensitivity of existing gross gamma monitoring devices available today for installation.
But even admitting for the sake of discus-sion that Applicants' assertions were true, these devices would give an early indication of plant discharges in excess of Part 20 limita-tions, in most systems, directly to the city the minute such a re-lease occurred, and would allow the city time to take supplementary samples to measure down to specific levels of activity through laboratory analysis, and would tell the city how long the discharge lasted and when it essentially passed its raw water intakes.
Ad-ditionally, these devices would clearly signal to the city the im-minence of a potentially major problem at the station, automatically.
In a situation such as waterborne river radiation, where it is per-haps easiest to prevent the contamination of an entire drinking water supply with early detection by the simple act of closing the water intakes until the danger has passed, it is incomprehensible to the City of Cincinnati that a nuclear power staticn with the potential for contaminated liquid discharges could prepose any less scphisticated system of early detecticn and warning and expect to be licensed for operation by this Cc= mission; the technology is there, the expense is minimal, and the benefits are cbvicus.
It is the city's hope that if Applicants' assertions are correct, advances in technclogy will previde continuous monitoring instrumentaticn capable of 2169 343
_a_
measuring to Appendix I levels and beyond, if, indeed, such instru-mentation is not available today.
But to discard what has been characterized as the best available technology as useless when it clearly would provide autcmatic signalling of the imminence of a potential threat to a major drinking water supply system, particularly when the cost of such a system is minimal, is truly absurd, and not contemplated by the mandates of the NRC requiring a showing of the capacity for safe operation of nuclear power stations prior to re-ceiving an operating license.
For these reasons, we must oppose applicants' motion for summary disposition of this contention.
Respectfully submitted,
/
!\\
m-: ' s r.
s
, : ew.,.
THOMAS A. -LUEBBERS ' c' ' >
City Solicitor bL
.{
'.~! b-W.
PETER HEILE Assistant City Solicitor Attorneys for Intervenor City of Cincinnati Room 214, City Hall Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone:
513-352-3337 2169 344
-n.m-
s fl
..-9.P.h
- : =ec : m _
% #,,7 g 5
%&go [,'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposi~ tion dated May 2, 1979 were sent, postage prepaid, by ordinary United States Mail to the fol-fu,/ day of May, 1979:
lowing on this Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
William J. Moran, Esq.
Chair =an, Atomic Safety and General Counsel Licensing Board Cincinnati Gas & Electric U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Company Commission Post Office Box 960 Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C. 45201 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Mr. Chase R. Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Board Office of the Secretary School of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory University of Michigan Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Cetsission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cctmission Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Counsel for the NRC Staff Office of the Executive Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
Legal Director Attorney at Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3454 Ccrnell Place Ccmmission Cincinnati, Chio 45220 Washington, D. C. 20555 2169 345
John D. Woliver, Esq.
Clermont County Community Council Box 181 Batavia, Ohio 45103 Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 e
g W.
PETER REILE Assistant City Solicitor i
2169 346
% c,,,'4p o
/'
t
'ID,1-tej,$$
3 Nb
( ',(. S N,\\o l7 [ad STATE OF OHIO
)
e.n%h
) SS:
\\'.,
a*j COUNTY OF HAMILTON)
P ic' William V. Donaldson, being first duly cautioned and sworn, hereby states the following:
I am the City Manager of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Cincinnati Water Works Department is under my supervision and control, and is delegated the responsibility of providing safe potable drinking water for the inhabitants of the City of Cincin-nati and, by contract, to the inhabit-
- s of Hamilton County and other surrounding communities.
In order to provide a reasonable margin of safety from in-filtration of radioactive contaminants into the city's drinking water supply system, it is essential that the City of Cincinnati have the best available monitoring and early warning detection system to determine potential discharges from the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station located approximately 19 miles upstream from the city's raw water intake situated in the Ohio River prior to infil-tration of the city's drinking water supply.
One such component of any early detection and warning system, the need for which arises out of the operation of the Zimmer Nuclear Station, is the positioning of continuous monitoring devices for gross gamma radia-tion =cnitoring both at the discharge line of the staticn, and the raw water intake line of the City of Cincinnati which will provide automatic transmission of data regarding the discharges frca the power station to the City of Cincinnati, and the radioactive cen-taminant levels cf water passing the city's raw water intake in 2169 347
the event of any major planned or unplanned releases frem the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
Any system which provides only for monthly analysis of samples taken at the City of Cincinnati's raw water intake is grossly in-adequate in providing the necessary monitoring, detection, and early warning information needed to intelligently safeguard the.
quality of the city's drinking water supply.
R 90. ~.wasca
~v Williari V Donaldson City Manager 1
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
/
,4
/
day of May, 1979
,/
,/
I t!
l,* /,
Notary Public
,,..._,..-.g,.
-- e t-,
- y.
c.....m_.......~..--
216?
',48
.