ML20033B367
| ML20033B367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B363 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112010326 | |
| Download: ML20033B367 (43) | |
Text
4 e
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric
)
Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.
)
)
(Wm.
H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR. MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION RESPECTING CONTENTION 2 I.
Preliminary Statement Applicants, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., incorporate Section I of " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Certain Admitted Contentions," dated April 6, 1979.
II.
Statement of the Case Applicants incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1-14 of
" Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of an Initial Decision" dated April 24, 1981.
During the prehearing conference held on October 29-4 30, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board stated its understanding that Applicants would file this Motion for j
Summary Disposition relating to those subparts nf Contention i
2 which were not withdrawn at the prehearing conference (Tr.
I 4855).
Subparts (a) and (d) of Contention 2 were withdrawn at the prehearing conference (Tr. 4663, 4763) by Dr.
Fankhauser, the' contention's proponent.
i 8112010326 St4124' PDR ADOCK 05000358 0
PM Et_
. III.
Discussion of Contention 2 Contention 2 alleges certain inadequacies in Applicants' plans for monitoring routine radiological releases from the plant.
Whatever validity that this contention may have had when admitted as an issue, the specifics of the monitoring program, as fully set forth in the Application for an operat-ing license, have long since erased any factual question re-garding this contention.
The attached Affidavit of Greg C.
Ficke (hereinafter "Ficke, H__")
specifically addresses and refutes each of the subparts of the contention.
As discussed therein, the operational Environmental Radiological Monitor-ing Program for operation is based, with only minor modifica-tions, upon the preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program already successfully completed (Ficke, 52).
These programs are in turn based upon specific NRC guidance and experience gained during operation of other facilities (Ficke, 53).
Subpart 2(b) alleges that the environmental monitoring program is inadequate because no provision has been made for directly involving the citizenry in the vicinity of the site in the monitoring of plant activities.
If the term " plant activities" is read in its broadest senee, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, specifically, its Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to assure that the operation of the facility is in compliance l
L
O
_3-with the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC's Rules and Regulations and the facility operating license, including the technical specifications.
Specifically, with regard to the environmental monitor-ing, there is no NRC requirement to involve the citizenry in monitoring.
While the Applicants rely to some extent upon individuals to obtain samples for analysis, e.g.,
- milk, Applicanta are aware of no way in which the citizenry could be further involved in accordance with NRC requirements.
The procedures employed by the Applicants in their monitor-ing program and the independent analysis of samples by the NRC and its review of the results of the Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program assure its continuing effec-tiveness (Ficke, 512-5).
This subpart has no merit and summary disposition should be granted.
With regard to subsection 2 (c), the specific radio-active elements to be monitored are described in the Appli-cation (Ficke, 17).
These isotopes were selected based upon NRC requirements and experience gained during operation of nuclear facilities similar to the Zimmer Station (Ficke, 18).
Similarly, with regard to Contention 2 (e), there is no i
factual basis for the statement that the monitoring program is " vague and unclear," inasmuch as the specific monitoring program is set forth in the Application (Ficke, 119-10).
With regard to subcontention 2 (f), foodstuffs are, indeed, sampled and analyzed for their isotopic evaluation l
-=
in order to assure that the critical pathways for radiation exposure to man are adequately identified and monitored i
(Ficke, 111).
The foodstuffs and isotopes sampled, and the fact that the analyses are carried out utilizing standard techniques at the preset intervals assure that significant trends are identified and regulatory requirements are met.
Subpart 2 (g) states that there are no plans for a ring of monitor stations around the site to continuously monitor gaseous releases.
Contrary to the assertion, the Applicants will operate eight stations which continuously sample air for particulates and iodine for later analysis.
- Moreover, in addition to the eight thermoluminescent dosimeters ("TLD")
j at these stations, the Applicants will place another 32 TLDs around the site.
In addition, the NRC Staff has placed 40 TLDs around the site; the Commonwealth of Kentucky and State of Ohio have also placed approximately 37 TLDs around the Station (Ficke, 112).
This program as described in the l
Application and in the Ficke affidavit is fully in accord with all NRC requirements (Ficke, 512).
There is no NRC requirement that an applicant be capable of monitoring the radioactivity at points outside the facility boundary in a "real time,"
i.e.,
instantaneous, manner.
The NRC properly relies on monitoring of release paths and confirmatory monitoring, as represented by the environmental monitoring program, to assure that all regu-i latory requirements are met.
For this reason, summary f
disposition should be granted regarding this subpart.
i 4
-,-.~,-r.
.._.,.e.
.._._.,.,.-,..,,,v.
ys.~_.,-
.-v.
,,-,m
-. - - ~
-,w
.5-i However, while not a requirement of the NRC and not i
intended to be a component of the environmental monitoring program, the Applicants have committed to install a total of 15 remote detection locations around the Zimmer Station which will collect data on the instaneous levels of radio-i activity at those locations to be transmitted *r radio to the Station (Ficke, 113-V14).
Inasmuch as this system negates-the assertion that no ring of monitors exists, this represents an independent ground for the granting of summary disposition.
IV.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above and as set forth in the Ficke affidavit, no genuine issue of fact remains with regard to the subparts of Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 2 re-maining in contention, and the Applicants' instant motion for summary disposition should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN e
Troy B.
onner, Jr.
m 1
1 Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants November 24, 1981 1
m,. _,..
4
,6 STATE OF OHIO
)
)
SS.
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
)
AFFIDAVIT OF GREG C. FICKE Greg C. Ficke being first duly sworn according to law comes forward and states:
1.
My name is Greg C.
Ficke.
I-am an engineer for The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company.
In that capacity, I'am responsible for the review and coordination of the pre-operational and operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs and am coordinator of emergency planning for the Wm.
H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
I have re-viewed the interim and final reports' relating to preopera-tional environmental monitoring.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached and incorporated by reference herein.
I have reviewed each of the subparts of Dr.
Fankhauser's Contention 2 which have not been withdrawn.
The contention states in introductorf language that "the Applicant's plans for monitoring radiological releases from the plant are inadequate I have the following responses which demonstrate that this contention has no merit.
The points developed under each subpart heading apply equally to the other subsections of the. contention.
2 (b)
No provision _has been made for directly involving the citizenry in the vicinity of the site in the monitoring of the plant's activities.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _. t t
2.
Plans for monitoring radioactive releases from the Wm.
H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station ("Zimmer Station") are described in the Environmental Report 56.2 and Final Safety Analysis Report S11. 6.*
Monitoring requirements will be a part of the operating license for the Station in the form of Technical Specifications.
The preoperational and operational Environmental Radiological Manitoring Program conform to the NRC's Regulatory Guides 4.1 and 4.8 regarding the measur-ing, evaluating and reporting of environmental radiation levels.
The operational Environmental Radiological-Monitor-ing Program is based upon the experience gained during the conduct of the preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program which is summarized in Preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program, Wm.
H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Moscow, Ohio, Final Report, dated August 28, 1978, and sent to the Licensing Board and parties on September 19, 1978, which is incorporated by reference herein.
The successful conduct of the preoperational program gives assurance that the operational monitoring program which is almost identical can be successfully im-plemented.
The details of the implementation of the Environ-mental Radiological Monitoring Program, including sampling locations and techniques, counting procedures and accuracy of results are set forth therein.
- Copy of FSAR Sll.6 attached.
5 3.
The. release of radioactive materials from the Zimmer Station are governed.by the Technical Specifications.
which are, in turn,: based upon the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the guides on technical-specifications for limiting conditions for operation'found in Section IV of Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
Releases of radioactivity are continuously measured by radiation detection equipment, and release rates are continuously recorded.
4.
Information concerning the type and quantities of radioactivity released are reported to the NRC at intervals specified in the Technical Specifications.
These reports are reviewed by the NRC to ascertain whether regulatory-requirements have been met.
The reports, which are made available for public inspection, also provide a basis for evaluating the adequacy and performance of effluent treat-ment methods and controls.
5.
The operational Environmental Radiological Monitor-ing Program described in S11.6 of the FSAR, whose conduct will be a requirement of the Technical Specifications, the results of which are reported to the NRC, also verifies the magnitude of releases from the Station and the adequacy of effluent controls.
In addition, the NRC's Office'of Inspection and Enforcement performs regular inspections.
There are presently two Resident Inspectors situated at the Zimmer Station.
Announced and unannounced inspections of all station activities are conducted, including review and verification of records pertaining to the release of radio-active materials, as well as observation of on-going opera-tions.
.These inspection activities also include verifica-tion of the accuracy of the radiation detection equipment used as a basis for reporting releases of radioactive materials.
This is accomplished, in part, by comparing the results of split samples analyzed separately by the Ap-plicants and by the NRC on its equipment.
6.
These measures provide a sound basis for assuring that releases of radioactive materials from the Zimmer Station will be controlled, monitored, reported, and veri-fled such that all regulatory requirements are met.
Aside from the cooperation of citizens in obtaining environmental samples, further " involving the citizenry in the vicinity of the site" would not assist in the monitoring of the plant
-effluents.
In any event, the Applicants' operational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program meets or exceeds all NRC regulations and requirements.
2(c)
It is unclear from the Applicant's plans whether all radioactive emissions will be monitored or whether certain isotopes will be monitored.
7.
The Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program, the purpose of which is to establish pre-operational en-i vironmental radioactivity levels, and following plant start up, to monitor for any changes in environmental radioactivity
4 5-
-A levels attributable to Station operation, has been described in Paragraphs 2-6,. supra,' and meets all regulatory requirements.
The. isotopes and pathways that were' selected for monitoring were based upon NRC guidance and extensive experience gained at other operating reactors.
The operacional Environmental Radiolog. cal Monitoring Program is designed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.1 (Revision;l), and the~ relevant Branch Technical Position on the radiological portion of the environmental monitoring program (Rev.
1, November 1979) which' sets forth an acceptable radiological monitoring program.
Procedures for sample collection and analysis will be consistent with EPA's " Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance-Guide" (June 1972), and the appropriate Regulatory Guides.
8.
Based upon experience at other stations and at the Zimmer Station during the preoperational phase, the number, location and sampling frequency.of monitoring as shown in FSAR Table 11.6.5 provides a high degree of assurance that
~
data will be provided on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the environment in order to evaluate the relationship of quantities of radioactive material re-leased in effluents and resultant radiation doses to indi-viduals from probable pathways of exposure.
2 (e)
The statement by Applicants that monitoring shall be "as comprehensive as possible" is vague and monitoring matters are unclear.
-9.
The referenced statement "as comprehensive as possible" appears in FSAR Section 11.6.3, and was intended
i.
to characterize the Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program as presented'in FSAR Table 11.6-5 (which is.re-ferenced in FSAR Section 11. 6. 3).
The operational Environ-mental Radiological Monitoring Program, including location, frequency and type of analysis is fully described therein.
10.
Thus the assertion that the monitoring program is vague and unclear is entirely without foundation.
2 (f)
No monthly assay of isotopic concentration in food stuff are provided for.
11.
The Zimmer Station Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program does indeed include requirements for periodic isotopic evaluation of foodstuffs as shown in Table 11.6.5 at the time intervals specified therein.
Such food-stuffs include green leafy vegetation, domestic meat, milk, fish and poultry, and the methods of analysis include gamma spectrometric analysis, radiciodine, and strontium -89 and --
90 analysis, as appropriate.
These requirements were included based upon operating experience at other facilities, surveys and contacts done by the Applicants as part of the pre-operational programs and knowledge of the limiting pathways i
gained by extensive operating experience at other nuclear power plants.
The choice of foodstuffs is entirely adequate to monitor the expected critical pathways and in accordance with all regulatory requirements.
i.
2 (g)
There are no plans for a ring of monitoring stations around the site to continuously monitor gaseous releases.
12.
As previously discussed in response to Contentions 2(b), (c), and (e), the Environmental Radiological Monitor--
ing Program for the Zimmer Station, including the number and location of monitoring stations, will assure that data will be provided on measurable levels of radiation and radio-active material in the environment in order to evaluate the relation of quantities of radioactive material released in effluent and resulting radiological dose to individuals from probable pathways of exposure.
Specifically, with regard to this subpart, as shown on Table 11.6.5, there are eight air sampling station locations which continously collect samples for weekly analysis for particulates and iodines.
- Moreover, in addition to the eight thermoluminescent dosimeters ("TLD")
at these stations which are read quarterly, the Applicants will place another 32 TLD's around the site at least six months prior to fuel load.
The NRC has placed 40 TLD's around the site.
Moreover, the States of Ohio and Kentucky have placed approximately 37 TLD's around the site.
In addition, the liquid and gaseous release paths from the Zimmer Station are continously monitored to assure that all regulatory requirements are met (See 53, supra).
13.
While not a requirement of the NRC and not intended to be a component of the Environmental Radiological Monitor-ing Program, the Applicants, as a result of discussions with 6
governmental agencies, have agreed to provide a' ring _ system of "real time" radiation monitors surrounding.the Zimmer Station as schematically'shown in the attached diagram.
A total of 15 remote detector locations will be established around the Zimmer Station as shown on the attached map.
Seven locations will be located in Kentucky and eight in.
Ohio.
Because of electric power requirements, the remote locations will be where Prompt Notification System sirens or Environmental Monitoring Program Stations are situated.
See the attached figure for a description of the planned.loca-tion of the fifteen monitors.
14.
Data collected at each remote location will be transmitted by radio to the Station where it-would be stored in a computer and could be accessed, inter alia, in the control room.
See the attached schematic.
15.
In case of activation of the emergency plan, the stored data from these ring monitors as well as real time radiation measurements would be available to computer ter-minals via the microwave system in the Emergency Operations Facility and the Emergency Operation Centers for Ohio,
-Kentucky, Clermont County and in the City of Cincinnati's Columbia Control Center.
It must be emphasized that while this system might produce useful data and.would be used as appropriate, the other provisions of the emergency plans.for-
'l l f:l t
.. monitoring.would be relied upon in the first instance for
. decision-making-regarding protective actions.
This subpart of Contention 2 has no merit.
[ Executed Copy-Will Be Forwarded]
Greg C.
Ficke SWORN to before me this day of 1981.
Notary Public My Commission expires
4 a
QUALIFICATIONS GREG C.
FICKE THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY My name is Greg C.
Ficke and my business address is 139 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
I am presently employed by The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company.
I graduated from Miami University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Physics.
I re-ceived a Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering in 1976 from Ohio State University.
I have attended evening classes at the University of Cincinnati since 1978 and am pursuing a Master of Business Administration Degree.
From March 1976 to August 1977, I was employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporat on as an engineer.
During this period, I worked on various assignments in the areas of environmental analysis of radiological releases, in-plant exposure to airborne radioactive materials, and meteorological data analysis.
I have been employed by The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company since August, 1977 as an engineer in Licensing and Environmental Affairs Department.
In this capacity, I have been responsible for environmental radiological monitoring programs and emergency planning for the Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station.
I have attended various professional development courses during my employment with Bechtel and CG&E including
- l2 -
Bechtel Power Plant Design Course; FEMA _ Interagency Course in Radiological Emergency Response Planning for. Fixed Nuclear Facilities; General Electric. Company BWR Training Center Design Orientation Course and University of Cincinnati Hospital Preparation for the Management of Radiation Accidents.
4 I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio.
4-6 9
i t
l
FIGURE 1 l
l Detector Locations O30 L
16 1
026 3
0 O24 04 s O17 o
ZIMMER STATION O20 3 MILE Y
R ADIUS 07 0 22 J
014 019 1
6 LE i
RADIUS g Environmental }bnitoring i
Iccations i
O siren rocations I.
l L
y FIGURE 2 (TYPICAL OF 15)
HIGH RANGE PULSE DETECTOR COUNTER i
I N TERFAC E TELEMETRY LOGIC MODEM l
LOW RANGE PULSE DETECTOR COUNTER R EMOTE DETECTOR POWER 24 HOUR VHF RADIO I
MODULE SUPPLY BATTERY REC./TRANS j
PACK i
120 VAC POWER ANT NNA 10 AMP j
ZIMMER STATION COM M UN!C A-MI CROWAVE g
TION TOWER TO REC /TRANS N
(HILLTOP COMPUTER SITE)
/
1 PROCESSOR TELEMETRY F
i 1 ' __
MODEM i
l MICROWAVE VHF RADIO!-
i CENTRAL REC /TRANS REC /TRANS STATION I CONTROL TERM IN AL L
_I
ZPS-l FSAR r"
11.6 OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM To gain the proper perspective with respect to population exposure, it is important to docu=ent such factors as:
nor=al background radiation level, radioactive releases to the environment, population distribution around reactor sites, and the critical exposure pathways to the popula-tion. The offsite radiological monitoring program will provide measure-ments of radiation levels in the vicinity of the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (ZPS-1), both before and after it goes into oper-ation.
I A preliminary radiological survey was conducted at the ZPS-1 site in the summer of 1970.
Natural background radiation and concentrations of radioisotopes in various substances and important biota were measured and documented.
The preoperational environmental radiological monitoring program will begin 2 years before fuel loading and it will include the collection and analysis of samples and interpretation of the resultant data. The main objective of the preoperational program is to measure the back-ground levels, and their variations, of radiation and radioactivity in the environment. The data collected during the preoperational program shall be statistically reliable for comparison with data gathered by the operational monitoring program. Additionally, the preoperational program will serve to test the equipment, the sampling and analytical-procedures, and the suitability of selected sampling points and to investigate the overall statistical variability of the results.
The results of the preoperational program in conjunction with the ecological monitoring program will identify probable critical pathways and the associated indicator organisms or media.
The operational environmental radiological monitoring program will-be-gin after fuel loading.
It will be essentially the same as the pre-operational program.
Extent of modification will depend on the expe-i rience gained from the preeperational monitoring program. The
. objective of the operational monitoring program is to assess the actual or potential radiological impact on humans due to routine operation of the plant.
The details of the proposed preoperational radiological monitoring program are given in the following subsections.
11.6.1 Expected Backtround I
- he background radiation field is caused by the natural radioactive materials in the upper several inches of soil and rock, by cosmic radiation originating outside the earth's atmosphere, by fallout from nuclear weapons testing, and by operation of other nuclear facilities.
Background radiation varies widely from location to location, but the "s.
variation over time at any given location is relatively small. The major dose contribution is from cosmic rays and natural terrestrial 11.6-1 1
l
~
ZPS-1 radioactivity, both of which are generally constant over time.
The average dose rate due to terrestrial and cosmic radiation estimated by Oakley for the State of Ohio is 87 cres/yr (Reference 1).
One of the variable components of the background radiation is the long term radioactive fallout from nuclear weapon testing.
This contribution to the background radiation, due mainly to fission products with long half-lives, is decreasing with a half-life measured in tens of years.
Radioactive fallout level will fluctuate with the frequency of atmospher-ic nuclear weapons testing.
In the absence of additional nuclear weapons testing, the fallout dose will decrease.
Background radiological data collected during the preliminary survey are shown in this section.
A summary of the survey is shown in Table 11.6-1.
Sampling station locations are listed in Tables 11.6-2, 11.6-3, and 11.6-4 The procedures for radiometric analysis were in accordance with those recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (Reference 2).
11.6.1.1 The Terrestrial Environment Results of the radiochemical analysis af terrestrial samples are shown in Table 11.6-2.
Soil samples were collected from 10 different loca-tions.
Only the top 2 inches of soil were collected for analysis. A comparison of these soil samples with soil samples taken in May and July 1970 (preoperational conitoring) from the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant site, Kewaunee, Wisconsin, by Industrial BIO-TEST Laboratories, Inc.
(Reference 3), shows the following ranges of activity:
Activity (oCi/g)
ZPS-1 Kewaunee Gross alpha 11.96 - 13.31 0.54 - 10.14 Gross beta 13.45 - 39.53 25.5' - 40.33 Cesium-137 0-3.17 0.95 -
1.7S l
Strontium-90 0.05 - 0.82 0.46 -
1.32 Alpha radiation is emitted by radioactive decay products of uranien-233 and thorium-232.
Gross alpha level in the soil depends on the soil concentration of these naturally occurring radionuclides, and the soil concentration changes with the types of soil and rock and the coisture content of soil. Gross alpha levels at the ZPS-1 site and the Kewaunee site are within the ranges of normal variation.
Good correlation be-tween gross bets level is shown between the two sites.
Cesium-137 and strontium-90 are fallout procucts from nuclear weapon testing.
Soil concentrations of cesiu=-137 and strontium-90 at the two sites are within the normal range of variation.
v
ZPS-1 1
Radioactivity in vegetation samples may be conveniently interpreted in three groups:
grass and alfalfa, edible vegetables, and tobacco.
Ranges of radioactivity detected are as follows:
Activity (pC1/2)
Gross Alpha Gross Beta Strontium-90 Grass and alfalfa 0.05 - 0.19 22.84 - 28.60 0.35
- 1.27 Edible vegetables 0.00 - 0.04 15.52 - 42.62 0.0006 - 0.51 Tobacco 0.00 - 0.22 50.87 - 50.95 1.10
-1.41 Milk was radiochemically analyzed for strontium-89, strontium-90, cesium-137, iodine-131, barium-140, and potassium-40. The results are as follows:
Radioisotope Activity (pCi/ liter)
Strontium-89
< 0.1 Strontium-90 15.26 Iodine-131
<2 1'
Bariu=-140
<2
~'
Cesium-137 12.50 Potassium-40 1018 It is apparent from these data that potassium-40, a naturally occurring radioisotope, contributed almost all of the radioactivity in these milk samples. The cesium-137 and strontium-90 activities shown are higher than 12-month averages reported by the U.S. Public Health Service Laboratory (Reference 5).
Conventrations of calcium and potassium in milk are relatively constant.
Average values (Reference 6) and the values obtained from milk samples from the Alfred Weber farm are as follows:
Concentration (g/ liter)
Average Values Weber Farm (ZPS-1)
Calcium 1.16 + 0.08 1.24 Potassium 1.51 + 0.21 1.19 Because of the chemical similarities of strontium (Sr) and calcium (Ca)
A.-
and of cesium (Cs) and potassium (K), the body tends to absorb, retain, and utilize these similar elements in similar ways.
11.6-3
ZPS-1 The ratios of pCi Sr-90 to g Ca and pCi Cs-137 to g K were calculated to'be 12.3 and 10.5, respectively, in the milk analyzed. These values are similar to results obtained at Kewaunee (Reference 3).
Additional analyses for iodine-131 (I-131) were conducted.
Twenty liters of milk were passed through an anion exchange column to concen-trate any I-131 present, but none was detected. A thyroid gland from a freshly butchered beef animal from the Weldon Taublee farm, just north of the town of Felicity, Ohio, was analyzed for I-131.
If any I-131 was present, it was below the level of detection.
11.6.1.2 The Aquatic Environment Resultsaof the rad.achemical analysis of aquatic samples are shown in Tables 11.6-3 and 11.6-4.
Alpha and beta activities were determined in suspended solids, dissolved solids, and total residue for the water samples (Table 11.6-3).
The following ranges were obtained:
Activity (pCi/ liter)
Alpha Beta Suspended solids 0.17 - 0.75 0.01 - 16.49 Dissolved solids 0.00 - 0.42 1.62 - 27.19 Total residue 0.04 - 1.06 1.63 - 43.38 Data from analyses of samples collected by the Ohio and Kentucky Depart-ments of Health compare favorably with those given previously.
Values obtained by CRSANCO (Reference 7) for beta activity in the Ohio River vary from 0 to 5 pCi/ liter for suspended matter and from 0 to 14.4 pCi/ liter for dissolved material.
The values obtained from these samples compare favorably with the his-toric records. The only high value was obtained from rainwater that was probably contaminated because the sample was collected from roof runoff.
Figure 11.6-3 shows a scan of the gamma activity in cistern water.
Samples of bottom sediments from the Ohio River showed activity levels of 7.56 pCi/g (alpha), 17.66 pCi/g (beta), and nondetectable levels of strontium-89 and -90.
In contrast, analyses of bottom sediments from Stepstone Creek showed activity levels of 12.73 pCi/g (alpha) and 24.32 pCi/g (beta) (Table 11.6-4).
A ga==a scan for the bottom sediments resembles that for soil.
In addition to the potassium-40 peak, there are peaks for radium-226, thorien-238, and their daughter products (Figure 11.6-4).
11.6-4
ZPS-1 Comparison of the analyses of bottom organisms near ZPS-1 with data from the Kewaunee site show somewhat similar ranges in radioactivity (Reference 3).
Activity (pC1/g)
Kewaunee ZPS-1 Gross alpha 0.00 -
6.49 0.00 - 3.04 Gross beta 10.21 - 15.88 15.68 - 35.34 Periphyton (clime) sa=ples were taken at two locations.
The alpha activity ranged from 7.72 to 9.54 pCi/g, and the beta activity, frem 17.28 to 22.44 pCi/g.
These values also are similar to those obtained at Kewaunee (Reference 3).
The beta activity in slime is similar to that found in aquatic plants, bottom organisms and bottom sediments, but it is higher than that found in fish.
The radioactivity was also determined for the flesh and bones of fish (Table 11.6-4).
These data are quite similar to those obtained at Kewaunee (Reference 3) and the beta activity compares favorably to that found by CRSANCO (Reference 7).
A gac=a scan of the flesh of a catfish is shown in Figure 11.6-5.
The two isotopes identified but not quantified are naturally occurring potassium-40 and man-made cesium-137.
11.6.2 Critical Pathways Radioactive effluent from a nuclear power station is a potential source of. radiation exposure to people through a variety of pathways.
Figure 11.5-6 se=marizes these exposure pathways.
11.6.2.1 Airborne Releases The sources of airborne radioactivity are the gaseous radwaste system
(
and the building ventilation systems.
These atmospheric releases will be transported and diluted in a manner determined by the meteorological conditions.
Data on annual average meteorological conditions are l
therefore used in the assessing of radiation exposure to the population around the station and in locating the monitoring stations.
i The following populat.on exposure pathways are consider <d for atmospher-l ic releases:
l a.
atmospheric discharge whole-body external exposure and inhalation, j
b.*
atmospheric discharge deposition on grass cattle milk ~
man, and (goat) ~
meat -
l L
l
[
11.6-5
ZPS-1 deposition on soil c.
atmospheric discharge
+
g plant
+
+
' ' =an animal
The expected external whole-body and skin doses are largely the result of the radioactive noble gas released from the sources listed previous-ly.
Discharge of other radionuclides in the gaseous effluents will nor= ally be negligible. However, due to the concentration effect of.
iodine in the thyroid, the grass-cow / goat-milk food chain. pathway should be considered as one of the critical pathways. The dose rates to critical organs from consuming leafy vegetables or livestock (path-way in Item c} grown near the site boundary, however, are expected to be negligible. This pathway is not considered to be a critical pathway.
The significance of each of these potential pathways will be detecnined by the environ = ental monitoring programs.
The sampling media, locations, and frequency are given in Subsection 11.6.3.
4 11.6.2.2 Liquid Releases During routine operation of the station, small quantities of radio-nuclides will be released to the Ohio River with the service water.
Release of these radionuclides to the environment presents the potential of radiation exposure to people, plants, and animals.
-'s.
The various exposure pathways that cust be considered include:
a.
liquid discharge water
- whole-body exposure to man from recreational activities, b.
liquid discharge water aquatic species internal exposure to man from consumption, and c.
liquid discharge water
. consumption of drinking water.
An individual swimming submerged in such water would receive a dose i
from the beta and ga=ma radiation emitted from the radionuclides in j
the water.
A person boating on water containing the discharged radio-active waste would be exposed to the emitted gamma radiation.
As the L
recreational dose depends directly on the duration of exposure, this pathway can be considered as a controllable pathway of exposure.
l Some aquatic biota concentrate radionuclides to levels in excess of the concentrations in the aquatic environment.
Concentration or bio-accumulation factors are defined as the ratio of the concentration of I
an element in biota to that in water, and they are used to describe the concentration effect. The critical organ for this pathway depends on the type of radionuclides present in the edible portion of the aquatic organisms. The radiation dose to the individual is expected to be small because the concentration of radionuclides in the Ohio River will be very small.
(
11.6-6
ZPS-1 REVISION 11 JUNE 1976 The radionuclides in drinking water could cause the largest dose to an individual.
Since the Ohio River is not used as a source of drinking water for more than 20 miles downstream of the ZPS-1 site, the drinking-water dose is expected to be insignificant (<l.9 x 10-5 =re /yr) to the whole l 3 ll) body).
However, in confor=ing with the conservative approach used in this FSAR to analyze the radiological effect on the environment due to ZPS-1 operation, this pathway will be evaluated near the discharge canal.
Environmental monitoring data will be used to determine the critical exposure pathway.
The radiological impact due to the liquid radwaste effluent is expected to be insignificant.
11.6.2.3 Assumptions for Dose Calculations The pathways of exposure for liquid releases include direct exposure to water and the ingestion of water and food containing radionuclides.
The dose from submersion in water is based on the asst =ption that the radionuclides are uniformly distributed throughout the water and that the point considered is several ga==a-ray mean free paths below the surface.
In this case, the same quantity of energy is released and
' deposited per unit volume of water, and the dose rate to the individual will be approxicately the same as that to water at the point considered.
In the cases of boating and fishing, direct radiation from the water cust also be considered, and the dose to the individual can be approxi-
=ated by relating it to the esticated ga==a source strength of water and an appropriate geometry factor.
The calculated or measured concentrations of radionuclides in water and food are the bases for the internal dose estimated for ingestion.
Examples of dose calculation cethods are included in Subsection 11.6.2.4 The critical pathways considered for gaseous releases include direct exposure from a cloud of radioactive gases, inhalation, and consumption of foods containing radionuclides.
Finite cloud ga==a dose and infinite cloud (i==ersion) beta dose calculations were =ade, based on an elevated release of 100 meters for wind speeds less than 3 =/sec and ground level releases for higher wind speeds.
In addition, site =eteorological data l
and ple=e buoyancy characteristics, decay of radionuclides as they are carried away from the release point, and building wake corrections are also taken into account.
Inhalation and food chain doses depend on the a=ount of radionuclide intake per time period.
The dose calculation models are shown in Subsection 11.6.2.4 Doses estimated based on the design-basis source terms and the dose calculation =odels in Subsection 11.6.2.4 were used in Sections 11.2 and 11.3 11.6.2.4 Dose Calculation Momels Standard dose calculation models (Reference S) will be used to esti= ate the radiation doses to humans from normal plant operation.
These mathe=atical models, together with the assu=ptions used in each model, 11.6-7 L
l ZPS-1 e
are given in this subsection and they are equivalent to the'ones given in the Final Environmental Statement concerning the as-low-as-practicable criterion for light-water-cooled reactor effluents (References 9).
11.6.2.4.1 Aquatic Pathways Radiation dose rates to various organs of an adult from liq'uid' effluent could be estimated with these models.
Exposure pathways considered are listed as follows:
a.
Drinking Water Pathway IQRh (DR)
= 1119 E l
ii tM exp (- A e ) U D pr t (.F /
E gE E i#
E where:
(DR)pr = total dose rate to organ r from all nuclides in pathway p (cres/hr)
R
= reconcentration factor fct nuclide i t
Qi
= release rate of nuclide 1 (C1/yr) 3 m
F
= flow rate of liquid effluent (ft /sec)
/
M
= mixing ratio at point of exposure p
t
= transit time from release to point of exposure p
A1
= decay constant of nuclide i 1119
= constant to convert C1/yr per ft3/see to pC1/ liter D
= dose factor ipr U
= usage (exposure rate or intake rate) p b.
Internal Dose from Consumprion of Aquatic Foods UM pp (DR)pr " 1119 E
D 8'
(~A Ci p)
Q R(3b ipr i
F i
where:
Bip
= bicaccumulation facto: for nuclide i in pathway p (pC1/kg per pC1/ liter)
J 11.6-8
~
ZPS-1
/~'
c.
Excesure to Shoreline Deposits (DR)pr = U ISD p i i ipr and U M Wg g
~
CDR)pr = 111,900 pp QRT1 i exp (-l tp) i F
1-(1-exp (-\\ f)
)D t
1 where:
Wg = shore width factor T = radiological half-life of isotope 1 (days) t = length of ti=e the sedi=ent is exposed to the contaminated water (plant life used) d.
Dose from Swi==ing and Boating
~
CDR)pr " 1119 9"
r 0RD exp (- A t )
igg p
where:
1 for swi==ing and 2 for boating
,s K
=
(
p 11.6.2.4.2 At=ospheric Pathways Air i==ersion dose is the critical pathway.
Due to the different pene-trating ability of ga==a and beta radiation, different organs of an adult were used as the critical organs of exposure (Reference 10) 1.e.,
the whole body for ga=ma and the skin for beta.
The doses were esti=ated based on the following =odels:
a.
Ga==a Whole Body Dose Wind Stability Speeds Types D = 3.156 x 1010 : On (F )i f
tj y
m -
I
?
0.01 f x
d i
Energy Photons in Groups Group k I
DRF Z
(A's E )E k
k k
I where:
Qm
= release rate for nuclide a Ci/sec (F )i = radiodecay factor for decay during transit at wind d
speed i o.
F
= joint frequency of occurrence in the sector of inter-13 est for wind speed i and atmospheric stability class j (%)
11.6-9
ZPS-1 REVISION 77 SEPTEMBER 1981 DRE
= dose rate factor for kth energy group, integrated over the sector volume, seven Pasquill stability classes and 14 wind speeds
= abundance of photon 1 in energy group k,(photons /
Lc k
a 2
disintegration)
E
= energy fc photon t in' energy group k (Mev/ photon) k Z
D
= gamma whole body dose (crad/ year) b.
Beta Skin Dose Wind Stability Speeds Types (F )1 I
(DRF )
E D, = 1/2 I a1 Q I
d g
g i
i 3
'(DRFg)ij = beta dose rate factor for semi-infinite cloud t
Eg
= average beta energy per disintegration (Mav/ dis)
The population dose (san-res/yr) was obtained by multiplying the gamma whole body dose rate by the number of people in each sector.
11.6.2.4.3 Airborne Radiciodine Pathways The hu=an thyroid exhibits a significant capacity to concentrate ingested or inhaled iodine.
Radiciodine released in the gaseous effluent from normal plant operation could reach the nucan thyroid via several differ-ent pathways.
These pathways, together with their dose calculation models, are given in Regulatory Guide 1.42 (Revision 1).
77 The following assu=ptions were used in chese equations for estimating deses:
Values Assigned Parameter Population Individual F
27.9 ft3/sec 27.9 ft /sec 3
M 0.25 0.25 p
W 0.1 0.1
(*g (swi=mirg) 1 1
, (boating) 2 2
U (drinking) 440 1/yr 440 1/yr p (fish) 18 kg/yr 18 kg/yr (invm. sh.. tu?
18 kg/yr (r x e i r-axposure) 2 hr/yr 500 hr/yr (s
ee 4 hr/yr 100 hr/yr (bt.:ing) 4 hr/yr 100 hr/yr t
0 0
p
-s 11.6-10
~
ZPS-1 REVISION 77' SEPTEMBER 1981 11.6.3 Samoling Media, Locations, and Frecuency Preoperational radiological monitoring will be initiated at the ZPS-1 site 2 years before fuel loading.
Table 11.6-5 presents the preopera-tional environmental radiological monitoring program proposed for ZPS-1.
The types of. samples collected will establish the background radio-nuclide concentrations in the various components _'of the critical exposure pathways to man (Subsection 11.6.2).
The frequencies of sa=ple collec-tion and the duration of the program will be sufficient to document natural fluctuation in these levels; multiple sampling sites will assess spatial variations prior to station operation.
In general, the preoperational program will be designed with the guide-lines given in Regulatory Guide 4.1 (Revision 1), ICRP Publication 7 77 (Reference 12i (1965), and EPA's " Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide" (Reference 12).
The operational environmental monitoring program will be essentially the same as the preoperational program, and it will be initiated after fuel loading on site.
During the initial stage of plant operation, the monitoring program will be as comprehensive as possible in an attempt to verify any projected correlations between radioactive effluents and levels in environmental media.
Table 11.6-6 shows the proposed expansion to the preoperational program for opera-tional monitoring.
If levels in environmental media are shown to be sufficiently low and if good-correlations are shown to exist between predicted and actual levels in the environ = ental media, the operational program will then be reduced with emphasis on indicator organisms and
~
(
selected media.
Compliance with regulations could then be shown based on plant effluent data, environmeatal radionuclide transfer models, and dose calculation =c'als.
11.6.4 Analytical Sensitivity Procedures for sample collection and analysis will be consistent with EPS's " Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide" (Reference 12)
(June 1972), HEW's "Radicassay Procedures for Environmental Samples" (Reference 2) (1967), AEC's "EASL Procedures Manual" (Reference 13)
(1972), and regulatory guides (e.g., Regulatory Guide 4.3 (Revision 0),
7,'
" Measurements of Radionuclides in the Environment - Analysis of I-131 in Milk").
The analytical sensitivity one can achieve is a function i
of sample size, sample activity, sample counting time, and counter effi-ciency.
Minimu a detectable levels for ZPS-1 samples will be comparable to, or better than those given in the EPA's surveillance guide (Refer-ence 12) with the exception of I-131 in milk (0.5 pCi/ liter + 25%).
11.6.5 Data Analvsis and presentation i
11.6.5.1 Statistical Aeolications Statistical procedures are used in environmental surveillance to give three kinds of information:
estimates of average concentracian levels, hypotheses tests that concentration levels are below specified limits, j
and deter =ination of real trends of concentration levels over a pericd of time.
11.6-11 1
2pS,1 Esti=ates of Concentration It is difficult to deter =ine accurately how =uch confidence should be placed in estinates of environ = ental concentrations without a knowledge of the environ = ental variability, the sa=pling variability, and the analytical variability.
The size of any proposed environmental surveil-lance program will reflect the postulated or experienced variability of the environment and the transport medium.
The application of these principles to the surveillance program will be dependent upon the medium sampled.
Individual sa ple and analytical variability are routinely tested as part of the quality control procedures; such testing, it is assumed here, will be performed by the applicant or his agent.
Replica-tion (taking = ore than one sa=ple) over time and place is required to esti= ate environmental variability.
Replication of individual sa=ples (taking more than one sample at each time and place) is required to estimate sa=pling variability.
Replication of analyses (making more than one laboratory determination per sa=ple) is necessary to determine =ea-sure=ent variability, but it is not always sufficient because of problems such as nonuniform aliquots of heterogeneous samples.
The accuracy and precision of the annual mean concentration esti=ates are also dependent upon how the samples are handled after they are collected.
They are, thus, dependent upon the sample handling and analytical pro-cedures used locally, and they usually can be estimated through labora-tory quality control studies.
Care in following written sample handling gm and analytical procedural guides can help i= prove accuracy, and duplicate
),,
analyses of each sample can i= prove precision of esti=ation.
Validity of the annual mean concentration esti= ate is mainly dependent upon the sa pling procedures used, in the sense that the sampling appa-ratus should be capable of collecting representative sa=ples.
It is assuced that the anal /tical procedures are capable of measuring the con-centration levels of the isotopes of interest.
The recuired minimum analytical detection level (MADL) should be 2 v' Background for each nuclide-cedium combination.
Revisions of MADL's may be necessary from ti=e to time if indicated by results of sa ples from " unaffected areas."
Tests of Hvootheses and Trends l
Tests of hvrotheses require an esti= ate of the sa=pline and analytical vari-ability and an assu=ption about the for= of the statistical distribution of the population of values of interest, except when nonpara=etric statistical tests are used.
In the absence of specific knowledge or information to the contrary, the assu=ption cay be =ade that environ = ental data follow a log-nor=al distribution (Reference 14).
Sisilarly, trend lines, composed of estimates of time and/or place concentration levels, require esti=ates of variability to convey the degree of confidence to be placed in them.
Trend evaluation is a pri=ary usage of the environmental data.
~he pre-j operational survey will provide initial esti=ates of background levels with statistical confidence intervals for each contaminant-=edium combina-tion.
Operational experience may subsequently show certain measure =ents 11.6-12
ZPS-1 e
/~'
which are consistently higher than background, for which new confidence intervals will be calculated.
In either case, confirmed measure =ents falling outside previously determined confidence intervals will be investigated for possible changes in effluent release rates or in sam-pling and measurement procedures.
In this way, long-term accumulations may be indicated which would require eventual action-to reduce effluent release rates.
It is especially i=portant, with required detection levels and action guides based on background measurements, that atten-tion be given to annual cycles and long-term changes in background levels determined by the preoperational survey program.
Data from the remote locations, assumed to be unaffected by facility operation, will be reviewed routinely for any such evidence.
Isotopic ratios will be most useful in determining plant sources from other potential sources of changing environmental conditions.
11.6.5.2 Data Presentation Reports of environ = ental data will include the folleving infor=ation for each location and analysis:
the =aximum, =ini=um, annual average, stan-dard deviation, and number of measurements for the year.
All results will be reported in tabulated form.
Text caterial will include a description of the facility, local land usage and unique food or cultural practices, esti=ates of composite caximum and population doses, and com-parisons of these doses with predicted values based on plant effluent, meteorological, and hydrological data.
Any unusual results or changes in the routine surveillance program will also be documented in the report.
\\.,
11.6.6 Program Statistical Sensitivity The statistical sensitivity of the overall environ = ental radiation non-itoring program is dependent upon the sensitivity of its subsystems.
Variability and bias for environ = ental sources are high compared to that attainable in controlled laboratory experi=ents or even in measurements for accountability control of nuclear =aterials.
Since the levels to be measured approach the detection limits of the instruments used, this inherently poor =easure=ent precision and accuracy will be difficult to improve in =ost areas except by taking larger and larger samples.
This approach =ay be costly and i= practical.
The environmental variability is uncontrollable, but its effect on statistical esti=ates and tests of hypotheses can be reduced by careful design of the sampling scheme.
An esti= ate of the program's sensitivity and its adequacy will be pos-sible when the infor ation obtained in the preoperational radiological
=enitoring program and the =eceorological program becoces available.
i's_.
11.6-13
ZPS-1 e
11.6.7.
References 1
1.
D. T. Oakley, " Natural Radiation in the United States," U. S.
Environ = ental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,1972.
2.
U. S. Public Health Service, " Radioassay Procedures for Environ-
= ental Sa=ples," Bureau of Radiological Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
3.
Industrial BIO-TEST Laboratories, Inc., Annual Report, Environs Monitoring Program, Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, Kewaunee, Wisconsin, Septe=Ber 1969 to August 1970, 1970.
4.
U. S. Depcrement of Health, Education, and Welfare, Radiological Health Data -and Reports, Volu=e II, Nu=ber 5, pp. 255-263, May 1970.
5.
U. S. Depart =ent of Health, Education, and Welfare, Radiological Health Data and Reports, Volume II, Nu=ber 7, p. 340, July 1970.
6.
U. S. Depart =ent of Health, Education, and Welfare, Radiological' Health Data and Reports, Volu=e II, Nu=ber 2, p. 21, February 1970.
7.
University of Louisinna, ORSANCO - Radioactivity Project VI Report for the period fro: July 1, 1964 through June 30, 1965, 1965.
8.
International Co==1ssion on Radiological Protection, Recort of ICRR
^
Co=sittee on Per=issible Dose for Internal Radiation, ICRP Publication No. 2, Perga=on Press, New York,1959.
J 9.
Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission, " Final Environmental Statement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action:
Nu=erical Guides for Design Objectives and Li=iting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion
' As Low as Practicable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Racer-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," Analvtical Models and Calculations, Volu=e 2, July 1973.
10.
D. L. Strenge and E. C. Watson, "KRONIC - A Co= cuter Program for Calculatine Annual Averaze External Doses from Chronic Atmoscheric Releases of Radionuclides," BNWL-3-264, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, June 1973.
11.
International Co==ission on Radiological Protection, Princicles of Environmental Monitorine Related to the Handling of Radioactive Material, ICRP Publication 7, 1965.
12.
U. S. Environ = ental Protection Agency, Environ = ental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide, ORP/SID 72-7, June 1972.
13.
J. H. Harley, Editor, EASL Procedures Manual, HASL-300, U. S.
Atomic Energy Cc==ission Health and Safety Laboratory, 1972.
14.
J. P. Corley et al., " Environmental Surveillance for Fuel Fabrica-tion Plants," BNWL-1723, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, April 1973.
,j 11.6-14
l' (7
3 TAllLE 11. 6-1
SUMMARY
OF Tile PRELIMINARY RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY RADI0 ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION NUMBER OF SAMPLES TYPE OF ANALYSIS MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN Ambient Background (mrem /yr)
Calculation and-72.8 Ganuna Well Water (pCi/1) 1 Cross Alpha 0.75 Gross lieta 1.63 Trititun 394 Sr-90 NA*
Surface Water (pC1/1) 2 Gross Alpha 0.82 0.52 0.67 Cross lieta 4.82 4.74 4.78 n
U Tritfum 619 615 617 O!
6 Sr-90 NA NA NA h
l C
Precipitation (pCi/1) 1 Gross Alpha 1.06 Gross Beta 43.88**
Tritium 364 Sr-90 3.75 Milk (pCI/1) 1 Sr-89
<0.1 Sr-90 15.26 Ca-137
.12.50 1-131
<2 Ba-140
<2 K-40 1018
- NA - Not analyzed
- Possible contomination from roof runoff
Dl ',
e
') -
NO 0
04 8 85 5 9' 01 71 9
I N
- 4. D 6 02166 54 0 8 1.D C t 3012 T
A A E 02N 0300 01 000 020NN 0004 R
M 3 <
1 <
TN E
C 6
N M
4 4
02 0
O U
- 0. D 2
1 0510.D C M I
02N 0300 0500N YN 1 <
T I
1 M
1
'I TC M A
U 6*
04 5 25 13 D M 06
- 7. *D 3 29146 I
I D X 02N 1301 00012 A A 5 <
R M S
)
I t
S e
Y w
L
(
A a
a a
5 a
a N
h a h a h a 9 h a h a A
pt pt pt pt pt l e l e l e b
l e l e
)
O 7
/
7 d
ss3 ss90 ss905 ss903 ss90 E
ss1 ss89 ss899 ss891 ss89 t
P oo-oo - -
oo- - -
oo- - -
oo - -
n Y
rr s r r rr r rrr r rr rrs r rrr o
T GGC GGSS GGSSZ CCSSC GCSS C
(
1 6
1 1
SE E.
L P
l B
M A
A T
S FO 2
2 0
1 1
1 R
E B
M U
N de d
t
)
)
)
g e
a r
l g
)
g
/
)
/
g
/
1 g
a u
l c
I
/
1 C
/
c l
C i
C p
L e
a p
c p
(
C
(
p
(
p j
c t
(
e
(
t t
h n
l s
e o
c e
o o
e n
i s
n W
N l
o t
u o
F B
a M
B
/
t D
C h
h e
f f
s s
g e
e N
N 1
i i
e e
e F
F V
B B
pg
(
- . t TABLE 11.6-1 (Cont'd)
RADI0 ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION t; UMBER OF SAMPLES TYPE OF ANAL.YSIS MAXIMllM MINIMUM HEAN Eggs (pC1/g) 1 Gross Alpha 0.346 Gross Beta 28,95 Sr-89
<0.1 Sr-90 0.008 Ilottom Organisms (pCi/g) 4 Gross Alpha 3.04 0
1.74 Cross Beta 35.34 15.68 22.81 Slime (pci/g) 2 Gross Alpha 9.54 7.22 8.63 Gross Beta 22.44 17.28 19.86 11 0 : tom Sediments (pc1/g) 2 Gross Alpha 12.78 7.56 10.17 Gross lieta 24.82 17.66 21.24 Sr-89 0
0 0
<.1
<.1
<.1 g
Cs-137 ND ND ND 4
Soil (pC1/g) 10 Gross Alpha 18.31 11.96 15.23 Gross lieta 39.53 18.45 28.06-Sr-89
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1 Sr-90 0.82 0.05 0.34 Cs-137 3.17 ND 0.31 Zr-95 + Nb-95 NC ND 40 L
'{
4 we
I s
\\
/
- s e
e TAB 11 11.6-2 kAHBOACTIVITY IN 1k%MFSiklA1, SANplDS SANith ACTIVITY, M:l/t (f*f WLh.HT)
DAtl.
CROSS CkOSS NimM R SANplE lA)CAflON Zs-9)
OH i t rie b Al l'H A litT A Se-M9 Nr-9H Cs-137 Ntr9)
Soll i Sott LJwin Nana Fana, Felicity, Ohle 7-29-/u 15.5% + 4.58 25.68 + ) 69
( 0. 5 s0.1 ND hDee Sull 2 Soll Same as No. I 7-24-70 15.S9 1 4.S9 22.84 1 l.64
< 0.1 0.26 &.34 ND Nis Soll )
Soll kalpli llouses Faimi, Fault kidge Road, near Ftlicity 7-29-70 11.1) f 4.18 22.72 + 1.4) 40.1 0.201 8)
Nu NCa**
hil 4 Soll AlfreJ W bes Fasm, h6 and Fruit his.e kvad 7m )0- 70 16.40 f 4.59 86.45 1 3.28 40.8 U.161 34 ND ND Soll S Soll Malph WinJit ken!Juswe, near pt. Isabel, Ohlo 7-30-70 l).46 + 4.66 24 65 1 1.77 40.1 0.uS +.18 Nb Hb Soll 6 Sull hou t e 6. ns.e s-Caantowu, Ktututky 7+30-70 16.76 f 4.6%
l's.S) f 4. 37
- 0.1 U. *,8 6.61 1.17 ND Suit 7 Soll Near l'e st le C r uv e, kes.t us k y 7-10-70 16.11 1 4.97
- 15. 10 + j.77
- H.1 0.852 1 19 NO NC Sull d Soll YNCA Camp, near Msntus, Essatusky 740-70 lb.60 1 4.60 iS. b6 1 4.01
<O.4 U.)) 1 24 ND Nb Soli 9 Sull little inJian Cattk koad, neas kitlam.nJ, Ohiu 7-30 70 12.22 t 4.2) 11.68 + 4.18
<u.I O.18 4~.22 ND NO Soll 10 Soll Oualte 7-)n-70 11.96}4.49 11.50}4.4) 40.1 NAA NC Nu Vegetattun i lum.ituen Same as Soll Nu.
a 7 7U (Jay) 0.00 1 0.30 42.02 + 2.66
- 0.5 H.006 4.0 57 NA ND (wet) 0.00 4 0.10 1.04 + 0.19
= 0. 8 U.004 1 001 NA ND Vegetatives 2 Cusu Same en Soll N.
2 7-29-70 0.0) + 0.lu I S.Sl + l.8 7
<0.4 0.127 t.02) NA U.5)
Vegetattun )
Tobacco Same as Soll No, t
7-29-70 0. 04) 4 0.30
$0.87}S.30 su.'
l.10 [.66 NA NC Vegetation 4 Gaass Same as Soll No. 4 7-10-7u 0.84 + 0.19 Pl.60 + 2.87
<0.8 1.27 4 04 NA 2.6)
Wegetation $
putatuta S me.c as Sull No. S C
7 70 (Jsy) 0.04 6 0.8) 21.60 + 2.0) 40.8 0.04 +.U2 NA NO (wet) 0.007 +.02 4. Ot. + 0. 8 %
40.8 0.007 6 005 NA ND k
Vegstattuu 6 Creas S anne as Sull No. 6 7-10-70 0.16 + 0.26 ~
71.60}2.47
<O,8 U.87 [.ON NA 2.30 L
V gttattuu 7 Tubac co Same as Sull No. 7 7-10-70 0.22 + 0.46 Su.9% + 2.68
<0.1 1.48 t.09 NA NC
~
Vt gu t a t i ves e Alfalfa Saame as Soll No. a e
7-10-70 0.05}O.84 22.H4}1.03
- U.!
O. '1% }.0%
Vrgelation 9 Cabl.ag e Same as soll W. 9 7 30-70 (Jay) 0.00 t 0.10 29.01 1 2.uo
<u.!
O.54 1.u6 NA ND NA NC (w t) 0.00 e 0.10 1.Il + 0.11 40.8 0.029 +. dol NA Nu Vugstattun 10 Ges==
Same as Sull No. 10 7-10-70 0.09 1 0.45' 26.90}2.18
- 0.1 0.5) {.07 NA 4.45 Asl 1 Beef Sea e a s Su l l No. 4 7-30 70 0.00 6 U.10 2.54 t U.45
<0.1 Nb NC NA Nascle but! 2 Beel Bone Same as Soll No. 4 7-10-70 0.37 + 1.2) 10.08 6 2.04
<0.1 4.29 1 26 NA NA kggs tygs Nickels Fasm, 756 Fruit kidge HuaJ 7-30-70 (Ja y ) 0.146 + 0.69 28.9% f 2.18
<0.1 0.00s f.01) NA NA (wet) 0.088 + u.05 1.17 1 U.u9
<0.1 0.0027 e.00) NA NA Nalk N&lk Smase as 5918 No. 4 7-10-70 NAaAea NA
<0.1 15.26 +.Sd 12.S0 t).S NA (pC1/l)
(pC1/l)
(PCl/l)
- NA - Not analy2=J eaNb - Not detected
- NC - Detected, put calculateJ (usually becau== uf wesy low activity) ananothts analysea indit at ed the following at t ivitie s: 1-!)I auJ Ba-140, 2 pCl/II K-40, told 1 $$ pCl/l; potasali.m. l.19 g/Il calc luas, 124./l
m b
k,,
)
j 4
TAB 1.E 11,6-3 f
A_QUATIC SAMPl.ES -
ACTIVITY
- It! 'ufPLES OF WATER COI.LECTED NEAR SITE AI. Pila BETA o
SUSPENDED DISS0lNED TOTAI.
SUSPENDED DISSOLVED TOTA 1, SAMPLE Sol.II)S SOLIDS RESIDUE SOI.lDS SOLIDS RESIDUE TRITIUM **
SH-90 01:1 0 River 0.17 i.11 0.35 1 40 0.52 i.41 0,38 1 0,15 4,36 1 0,63 4,74 i.65 0,619 f,026 NA***
f Ohio River 0.42 1 24 0.38 i.59 0,82 i 64 0,40 1 0.23 4,42 1 0,58 4.82 +.62 0,615 i 026 NA I
Rainwater 0.75 1 36 0.31 1 23 1.06 1 43 16,49 1 1,15t 27,19.1 1,31t 43,88 i,17t 0,364 i.020 3,75 1 67 i
Well Water 0.33 1 19 0.42 1 61 0,75 1 64 0,01 1 0,19 1,62 1 0,53 1,63 +.56 0,394 1 020 NA y
3 Cistern Water 0.40 i.10 0.00 t.10 0.04 +.10 1,62 + 0.31 11.29 + 0.71 12,91 1,77 0,547 1 024 2,28 +.59 4
- Activity given fu pCf/1. The error is for the 95% confidence level.
- Acttvity given in pC1/mi
- NA = Not Analyzed t Possible contamination from roof runoff
~ -
\\
/>
k
()
-.T l
s o
e TABLE 11.6-4 AQUATIC SAMPLES -
ACTIVITY
- IN PERIPilYTON (SLIME),110TTOM ORGANISMS AND SEDIMENTS, AND FISil SAMPLE CROSS ALPilA GROSS BETA SR-89 SR-90 CS-137 Slime 1 7.72 1 3.54 22.44 1 4.04 NA**
NA NA Slime 2 9.54 1 3.79 17.28 1 3.79 NA NA NA llottom Organisms 1 1.73 1 3.73 19.01 1 4.71 NA NA NA Ilottom Organisms 2 3.04 + 3.05 15.68 + 2.77 NA NA NA liottom Organisms 3 0
21.23 1 3.16 NA NA NA Bottom Organisms 4 2.02 1 4.06' 35.34 1 4.48 NA NA NA h
p Fish (Catfish Flesh) 0 2.0410.10 (wet)
NA NA ND***
6 Fish (Catfish - Bone) 1.00 1 1.58 3.24 1 1.68 0
1.03 1 13 NA
,8.
4 Fish (Minnows -
0 29.79 + 4.16 (ash) 0 1.35 +.23 ND lione and Flesh)
~
Fish (Carp - Flesh) 0 2.76 1 0.17 (wet)
NA NA ND Fish (Carp - Boite) 0 3.64 1 2.01 0
1.08'i.27 NA llottom Sediments 1 7.56 1 6.95 17.66 1 5.29 0
<0.1 ND (Ohio River)
Bottom Sediments 2 12.78 1 8.70 24.82 1 5.93 0
<0.1 ND (Stepstone Creek)
- Activity is given pCi/g dry weight unless indicated otherwise.
'the error is for the 95% confidence level.
- NA = Not analyzed C**
ND = Not detected
k e
s.
^O J e
TABl.E 11.6-5 PREOPERATIONAL t.NVI IONMENTAL RADIGIDCICAR. MONITORING PROGRAH SAMPl.INC STATION ANALYSIS TYPE JMPLE TYtg
. SAMPLING SIATION l.OCATIQlj NUMfWH
(.0LLECTION FitEOUENCI AND tREQUEllCI A.
Air Monitoring h gram Air particulate Onsite, 0.2 miles WIN of vent stack l
Continuous sampler operation Weekly gross beta Onsite, 0.2 miles ESE'of vent stack 2
with sample e,ollection weekly Quarterly ganna in Moscow, Ohio, 0,5 miles S of vent stack 4
or as required by dust spectromytric Across river, 0.7 miles WSW of vent stack 7
loading-whichever is more analysis and Heteorological tower 1.0 miles NE of vent stack 3
frequent.
Strontium -89 in Hentor, Ky., 2.0 miles tM of vent stack 6
and -90 analysis N.ar Falmouth, Ky., 13.1 miles SSW of station 8
on composites.
Near Higgensport, Ohio, 17.2 miles ESE of station 5
Airbor.e iodine Same as air particulates stations Continuous Sampler operation 1-131 analysis.
with canister collection weekly.
The rinolumini scent dosimeter Same as air partirulates stations Quarterly Integrated gansa dose 8.
Ter rest rial Hgn,a or_ing Progreen
} i 31 On N
Green leafy vegetable 0.3 miles N of vent stack 32 -
Annually at harvest Canna spec t ro-y I
Local farm, Ohio, l.4 miles NE of station 16 metric analysis l Rural residence, Ky., 18.7 miles SE of station 27 Radioiodine 1.ocal farm, Ky., 22.4 miles SSW of station 29 analysis.
3(,
2 Heat Local farm, Ohio, 3.0 miles N of station 18 Semi-annually Canna spect ro-
' metric analysis, Local farm, Ohio, ).4 miles E of station 21 Local farm, Ohio.. 6.1 miles InfE or station 23
-on edible portion Local f a na, Ohio, 10.7 miles E of station 22 Local farm, Kr., 11.8 miles E of station I?
3 Milk tii l k f rom local farm, Ohio, 3.4 miles E of station 21 Honthly Camma spectro g Hilk from local farm, Ky., 4.2 miles WtN of station 20 metric analysis Hilk from local farm, Ky., 4,7 miles NW of station 28 Radiciodine anal-Hilk f rois local farm. Ky., 5.1 railes IN of station 24 ysis Milk from local faim, Ohio, 6.1 miles 144E of station 23 Strontium -89 8Q Hilk fruin local farm, Ohio, 10.7 miles E of station 22 and -90 analysis.
y$,
Grass f roin 0.76 miles SE of vent stack 31 lj M Grass frore 0.8 miles N of vent stack 30 y@'
Wildlife Animal taken 4.5 miles N of station 25. Annually.
Camma spectro g Animal taken 13.0 miles E of station 26 metric analysis on edible partion 4
Croundwater Onsite well 0.1 miles SE of vent stack 13 Quarterly Ca==a spectro j Local well, Moscow, Ohio, 0.5 miles S of vent stack 15 metric analysis I.ocal well, Point Pleasant, Ohio, 2.0 miles P84W of vent Tritium analysis, stack 14 Local well,liiggensport, Ohio, )?.2 miles ESE of station 5
r O
s TABLE !!.6-5 (Cont'd)
SAMPLING STATION ANAL.YSIS TYPE SAHt'I.E TYPE SAMPl.ING STATION IJK:ATION NtiMHt:R COI.I.ECIl0N FRtOllt:NCY ANI) Fit Follt NCY Soil Same as air pasticulates stations once Canasa spectro g metric analysts Struntium -89 and
-90 analysis.
C.
Aeluatic Honitorin d g ram u
4 Surf ace w.ater Onsitg, service water discharge Itume. 0.2 miles W of vent stack 9
Ceaposite sampling with Camuna spectro-g Ohio Niver, tenio, upst ream at S bounJary of site, 0.4 miles monthly collection metric analysis ;
SSW of vent stack 10 Cross beta chio Niver, Ohio, river mile 445, 2.0 miles Np of station Quarterly composite Cincinnati water works, 18.8 miles NW of site 12 for Tritium anJ Strontium -89 and -90 Bottom sediments Benthic ensite, service water dischange fiume. 0.2 miles W of vent s org:anisms, and stime s tac k 9
Semiannually Camma spectro g Ohio River, Ohio, upstseam at S boundary of site, 0.4 miles metric analysis ;
Ssw of vent stack 10 Cross beta; b
Ohio River, Ohio, niver mile 445, 2.0 miles NNW of station Strontium -89 and -90 en e
Fish Same as buttom mediments, Benthic organisms, and slime station Semiannually Cassna spectro-g metric analysis ;
M g
causs beta; Strontium -89 and -90
'l 1
1 d5' Cauena spectrometric analysis means the iJentification and qu ntification of gammaa emitting radionuclides that may
( <
k{ 0, be attributable to the tacility.
E l
Monthly sampling of FeeJstuffs and Fusage may lee substituted for Heat samples.
3 l
If milk is not ubtainabic or sufficient for analysis, grass or foJJer samples will be collected for analyais, j
r j
4' theme samples uilt be collected and analyzed only during the second year of the preoperational monitoring program.
1 Automatis; water samplera will lee instal trJ 6 smanths leef ore f-
- aading.
l
ZPs.1
(.
ADDITION TO PREOPERATIONAL MONITORING FOR OPERATIONAL MONITORING l
SAFPLE TYPE FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION 3-Milk Semi:nonthIy.
soil once per 3 years i
4 1 -
i i
i
' m, 3
L l
t i
i i
i i.
i i
5 h
11.6-23
.. y,i :. "
D..d. J. ' D b'.
m
-mem--
n-m.
..mpq*'g'n2wn U. A
....C s' ;' x'.'~. -'. ~ "u a x' ". C.o.":
r ^." ". ~ c~ c~
C ".
f
.w s e v
2 i.
,. u..,_
~..,_u_=__-
n.=.
)
)
- u.,.
w...-...,_-
C.,, u 4
. =,,-- :-
n:
n n_,,,, _ v
_0 o.
s-u m... y =,.,;., =_ -
2,
)
)
(...
=
a.
-...a-
~ c _,_,.. = o..a_ _u
)
c.=-4-.)
)
C__,...,.._.-
v-
.,._c.
I hereby certify that copies of the following, all dated November 24, 1981, in the ci.ptioned matter, ha /e been served upon those listed below by deposit in the United States mail tcis 24th day of Ncvember, 1981:
1.
Applicants' Motion For Summar.v Dis.cosition a s e c *- 4.". ~3 Cv^.". t a n
- 4 c.". ',-
x-e 2.
Applicants' Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard Respectinc.
Cou-w n 4on 9,.
a m
3.
Applicants' Memorandum In Support Of Their Motion For Summarv Disposition Respecting Contention 2-s 1
4.
Affidavit Of Greg C.
Ficke.
, i,, A a v 0... =... r -, a.
Tr;
= -.-s_;
m
.. = -..... =...
.Lcenstn=,cara.~--
..w...-_
- 1 C %.., : ~~ 2 e.,
.s-..-_
s 2
e ;
a---;,
p A
as,
-a-z anez Licensing Eoard "u.S.
v,u
'=_5
.32_
"_ n-
'v. c.
V. L, C 2. 3 _, O =, -.. ' 3
-./
F
- s.,...
- - -..e - v.
t u--
- +-
..~.. O b 4 m.
~~
.c--..
4 --
r.d a a- % _.. n s.
s.L.
/UxK~
~
m
^
- ^
,,'32.::
sO e
u
-n a a-w 4.. _.....,
u u..
C w..,. m -
- 1..
2, 2
. w.,
r-a
--- =..
-an a-
~ -,. = = --
- n-
_u,
- v. =. o. -_-_=-~_
2.,
~:--
a' A m.. i.e. 2 0. - o _,, a_
- 7. A. a.
- - - - 2_
...c_
2_ _,,- 4. 2_
n
-u e-
~
s
--_c.,
2-A e,-_,
a.-r..-
.o. c -.,-
.eqa_,Lrec Scard z
L:. a.
v.. _ m, a_ n -
=.a__ L,,_. -..
c.. c.,. =
- v. 4 a.. _- 3,-- -
o--~~.a vetrission c
w ac-
,.--m-
" n.4 " c_...c. " "_ "; C _#
.V 4 ' '* # ~ ".".
' ' a o.b, _4. ~ ~_ m~..,
D.. w.
_7.^%: :
r
- -w c._- w o,
.u.
w.. 4, 2 a C y-s.
r.. _;
~ ?.
.u. n v =.., -. =. ~..
=
- - - =..
a--
=-1m.
e-
.u...c.---_v
- v- :3_c-c_,o_-2, c -...s 2_ _:
em..w me.
14.. :.
--.4-n m b. a_
,4.._
....=__ eus u qe-s
-u--
-,a.
,._: - 2
- T i m_
_ s -.--
1005 Calle Largo C o m _: a n _.
w..
..=_.s---
37501
..n.
y
..ic^
s,..,
- r. m_,.. a_ ~
o - u v^
_ c.s C.,...c L m.4
- e... C a_
- 2..
m,,,
a_d-w----
.a.
-.. c
.,:n_.f
,,A r 4 n =..= 4 - -
A, r. unase a. a:ecnens
-3 Accral Board r o c s a_ ~_ _
4-4
_=a__. - =.
- _- n.- n_ u..
.-3 =.. -
n.s.
,.., T a_ n -
- _r_-,,1 a, _ _.,
pa Co. mission c_. ce
_-... o_
v
.-m-u
7 so--m.--
U.D.
"4L, 'm=-
o.m_
's---y w
---w-Wa e.ii ng to n,
D.C.
20:_30 Ccnmission a e.u :.n
.t.
,0:..=.;
u-
.u-.
- Cocies also hand del vered to Judge Frye.
r
/
- e. w 4-
..4, 2
c2 c
- w. a --...2
.. m. e.. - w
, ; i., A n44 7
.3. 3, - 4.., r a- ~.
o r4
. z c m_., s.i..q n'
y- =-.=. ' 3 c =.. " 3 =.. 2 7
.A s a.' a"- =... 1..".v
..o_
- u =. =- _,= T L.S.
- v..,.,.,.,., e 2 O. m_ -.,,-
- 2.., 4, -
,.4.m,.-.,,.
Cr. 4 z 4 -.,
n :. 4 - 4,.
4,-
-.. a
.r., v - -... =..,.--:...
--u-..
v.
.q, s.,.a...~
o..,
D.C.
'.0._._._
0._ __ '..- s_
2.
o...c_ v c' 2.. m
.=.1 3
e
' 00
.c.. C ' = 4..
.c.~..s s..
., a..m..v,.-,
~ _,...,,.m...s..f
., v.., 0,_
a
.s.1. s.
.'d. = - v_.,=_ c e _-
Box 270 Gan--a
.r.
om-
- -. 4. a,.,.r a.
Route 2
-~
=~
'3 - a e < 4. _ _4.-. ~.'.____..c_.,-.r
--v Cal'.fornia, Kentuckv.
41007 c 1 =,.......
w-.......,
d.. :
- G*r,, )
.?.t a.'.. Csvza A
a.
w..
w
~
~n.. w e :.s.
D a.r
. 4 e-m.q, ~ ~, ~,.
O a.,1./ 4 3, y,,1C
.,3,3 e ~yg i u.4-
- n ~ n.,-.. s y 21.
n v
73
- a.4...
Cw '.. a. s. c w
C.h. 4 O
- 3., C J 9 -
a d a 3,
, 2 u,
-f
-n..
iJu ea-
- 2...
~~aTA~n.
V'
.r.c ~,.
---..w, w
- 7. 7 A.
7uSw
- v. a 4,
- b.
D.. se 2
w C.4.. 4..... m u. 4., n.%. _4o
,a7O7_
v b
v O. . D.
."s.,.~.
a C.i s......., w e' m,.,..
V, C C ~..~.."%...#. "j vs
(* v.,..4.7 m
w
- v... 101
.'i.
- c-a w,s.
2 F>b..4 O 3 1 0 't n
-a-
.-p
/
/
/
..ed.,,..,.,..._.
.g.,..
...