ML20040D361
| ML20040D361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1982 |
| From: | Milhollin G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010218 | |
| Download: ML20040D361 (4) | |
Text
m g.
p
- t.(%
'I, N
/-
a p 3' -
~
- }+[ %~ %
A i
s m,
.U.M TED ATES OF AMERICA i
' 'NMNNVCLl%R REGUtATORY COMMISSION
't 4 e-o
~
D h RELGP/IA ', IC SAFNTY AND LICENSING BOARD T2 J{!! 28 P1 :20 J
f:
Mil ? 91902,*s i 7
4
' ore' Administr'ative Judges:
g g ' i.,
% n2:s rmm cass,[9 '/, a Dr.iry"L. Milhollin, Ghairman t;c2i.m s siz
- q. 2 8f W8 E 9
David R. 2 Schink MN b
Dr. Feter' A. Morris A
/
g g
.g,
'D 13 s
~
UERVED Ju 281982 In the Matter of 3
, W. '
s, r
i
- THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY J otktt No.,50-341 t
4
, p.r%(Operating /_icensg) 3'*,
,(Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, r
4 Y\\s A,anuary'27a 1982w
~
,. Unit ~2}, -
h.
ei i
-(
2 k
MEMORANDUM AND' ORDER \\'.-
y n
L
,a-
.: s-
~
This Memorandum'{andQrder decides a motion by the NRC,3taf f for' i,
3
, 4 ss, s
g
-" % summary disposition 61 Cpntention 5, which is one"of the three 40ntentions 3
m s-3 s.,
s )emaining.in this,prCceeding.
The Staff fri the motion on Noveniber 16, t
o 1981..The App hcants, Detroit Edison E t s,.et al., responded in support
- 3 s
m
>,7 of the motion on December 11, 1981.
The fnteryenor' who advanced Contentian n
l = ~-
4<
+ "..
~
5, Citizens for\\ a. ployment and Energy, hass nouesponded to the motion.
T s
.. s Thetimefor.,rpspChshtstexpir'ef.N[%,
Content on 5 reads as f 110ws:
9 l
The des 1hl1}of the radiation monitoriEggsystig s in'fufficient and j
g t.
I
\\
incomplete os specified below to, adequ&tely monitor radiation A
N..
4 x
. rele,ases- (a) to; demonstratq, auring,normaFoperation, 4nfcrmance
~
r x% '
l s
a ',i with Pard -20 and Appendix I to 10 C(9 Part 50 and '(b.) "to. fmp;le-g
,, -eh 1, n.m S
^
ment the,.offsite protective &ct' ions :follp. wing accidents. set for.th s,
in thel Applicant's, emergency 'p}an.
T'.w deficiencies of the radi-i a
s ationchc,itoringsys'temare:
j
' +
(
y -Therei,snocontinuc,asmonitoringsh,temonthe
"( a) s t
g g,, i lake (for air and water) that can;be read remotely; and g
y
'w 8202010218 820127 k'
i m
PDR ADOCK 0S000341 G
PDR y#
' p' {
3 V
't
fc' l,
i
! !: G
{'
~
(b) There is no continuous monitoring system s
at the site boundary that can be read remotely.
In effect, Contention 5 asserts that remotely read radiation monitors 1
at the Fermi 2 site boundary, and on Lake Erie, are necessary in order for the Applicant to comply with NRC regulations. These regulations are 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (Appendix I).
The monitoring system which the Applicant proposes to use does not include such monitors.
Part 20 imposes upon the Applicant a general obliqation to make
" surveys." These surveys are those "necessary for him to comply with the regulations...." The regulations referred to are those which limit radiation exposure of individuals (10 C.F.R. 20.201(b)).
Part 50 (Appendix I) requires the Applicant to " establish an appropriate surveillance and monitoring program..." This program must
" provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents..." and must " provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the environment...."
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, IV.B.
As both the Staff and the Applicant point out, neither of these provisions specifically requires monitors which can be read remotely.
In an affidavit in support of the Staff's motion, Dr. Wayne Meinke, who is a technical reviewer in the Staff's Radiological Assessment Branch, states that the monitoring system proposed by the Applicant is fully adequate to satisfy the requirements of Part 20 and Part 50.
He describes the Applicant's system in great detail, relying on the sections of the Staff's Final Environmental Statement for Fermi 2 in which that system is presented.
He also states that monitors which can be read remotely have l
a F
_.3 -
not been shown capable of providing useful, timely information.
Dr.
Meinke's conclusions are supported by Dr. Gerald R. Davidson, a physicist whose affidavit was supplied by the Applicant.
Dr. Javidson, who specializes in the subject of radiation monitorir>g instruments, describes the deficiencies of monitors which can be read remotely.
He concludes that the system proposed by the Applicant would not be significantly enhanced by such monitors.
The Staff filed its motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.749. That provision authorizes summary disposition of a contention if the filings in the proceeding show that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."
10 C.F.R. 2.749(d). Parties may show the absence of such an issue by filing affidavits, as the Staff and the Applicant have done here. Under 10 C.F.R. 2.74.9(a), the moving party's statement of material facts "will, be deemed to be admitted unless controverted...by the opposing party."
When one considers the requirements of 2.749, and compares the affidavits of Dr. Meinke and Dr. Davidson to the language of Contention 5 and Parts 20 and 50, it is obvious that the Staff's motion must be granted. The affidavits present the Applicant's monitoring systen in full; they describe how that system works and why it satisfies the regulations; they also state that the monitors proposed by the intervenor cannot be shown to enhance the Applicant's system.
Since Parts 20 and 50 do not require any particular kind of monitors, it is incumbent upon the intervenor to allege at least one f act which supports his contention.
In the absence of such an allegation, 2.749 requires that the Staff's conclusions upon the adequacy of the proposed system be accepted. We are
o
/ bound to apply % 2.749 as it is written.
The Staff's motion is hereby granted.
Contention 5 is dismissed.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIf4G BOARD hh $ Y.
Gary L. Milhollin
'/
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of January, 1982 1
l l
t
_