ML20040H431
| ML20040H431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1982 |
| From: | Frye J, Hooper F, Livingston M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8202180248 | |
| Download: ML20040H431 (14) | |
Text
ja.
DOWETED
.U D W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg VEB 17 mi:15 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- 4.,
Before Administrative Judges:-
Job:1 H Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. M. Stanley Livingston SERVED FEB 171982 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-358-0C CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1)
February 4 2
O bq, b
M d.
~ci.
\\
+
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ye
'40
}~
(Ruling on' Motions
~
4 f'u P
for Summary Disposition of Contention 2)
-s 6
~~
On November 24, 1981, Applicant served upon the parties herein its motion pursuant to 10 CFR 2.7.49, seeking summary disposition of those portions of Dr. David B. Fankhauser's Contention 2 which were not withdraw durit.g the prehearing conference held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 29-30, 1911.
Subsequently, on December-21, 1981, the NRC Staff filed its
" Motion for Summary Disposition of Dr. David B. Fankhauser's Contention 2(b), (c), (e), (f) and (g)".
As these two motions address precisely the same subject matter, the Board will consider them jointly.
y
~),
/
8202180248 820204 DRADOCK05000g
t
, In a-conference call held _on January 15, 1982, in which represent-atives for all parties participated, Counsel for Dr. Fankhauser indicated that his client did not intend to file an answer to either of these motions. For this reason, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749(a), this Board must deem all material facts set forth in the statements required to be served with motions for summary disposition to be admitted by Dr. Fankhauser.
Our inquiry may not stop there, however, for the fact that a party opposing summary disposition failed to submit evidence controverting the conclusions reached in documents submitted in support of a motion for l
summary disposition does not mean that the motion must be granted.
This Board must still determine that those material f acts set forth by Applicant and Staff suffice to meet their burdens of proof in establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material f act as to these matters raised by those remaining portions of Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 2.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 752 (1977).
The Board will consider each portion of Contentien 2 in turn.
"2(a)
(Withdrawn.)"
"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."
l
O
, In moving for summary' disposition, Applicant relies upon the affidavit of Greg C. Ficke, an engineer fnr Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, who is the coordinator of emergency planning for the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, and upon a copy of 11.6 of the FSAR for the Zimmer Sta-tion, which describes Applicant's operational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program.
As described in paragraphs 2-5 of Mr. Ficke's affidavit, the release of radioactive materials from the Zimmer plant is governed by 10 CFR Part 20 and the guides on Technical Specifications for placing limiting conditions on operation set out in s IV-of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Plans for monitoring the radioactive releases of the station are described in 6.2 of the Environmental Report (ER) and % 11.6 of the Final Safety AnalysisReport(FSAR). These monitoring requirements will be incorporated as a part of any operating license issued for the Zimmer plant in the form.
of Technical Specifications.
(Ficke Affidavit, pars. 2-3.)
The Technical Specifications require that information obtained through Applicant's operational Environmental Radiological Monitoring (ERM) Program be reported to the NRC at established intervals. This information is reviewed by the NRC Staff to determine whether regulatory requirements have j
been met and is used in evaluating the adequacy and performance of effluent treatment methods and controls.
These reports on radioactive releases are also made available for public inspection.
(Ficke Aff., par. 4.)
~
, In addition, the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) performs both announced and unannounced audits and inspections of the operation of the Zimmer Station. These include the review and verification of records pertaining to the release of radioactive materials, as well as the observation and verification of ongoing operations and monitoring pro-cedures through comparisons with results obtained using NRC monitoring equi pment.
(Ficke Aff., par. 5.)
The Applicant's preoperational and operational ERM Programs conform to NRC's Regulatory Guides 4.1 and 4.8 regarding the measuring, evaluating and reporting of environmental radiation levels. Applicant's operational program, set forth in FSAR % 11.6, is also based upon the experience gained while conducting its preoperational program, which is summarized in " Pre-operational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program, William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Moscow, Ohio, Final Report", dated August 28, 1978.
In support of its motion for summary disposition of Contention 2(b),
the NRC Staff relies upon the affidavit of W. Wayne Meinke, an NRC employee assigned to its Radiological Assessment Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, where he is responsible for the assessment of the radiological effects of nuclear plant effluents beyond the boundaries of the plant site.
In that capacity he will be responsible for the review and analysis of the effects of the effluents of the Zimmer plant.
. ~
The substance of Mr. Meinke's affidavit is largely comparable to Mr. Ficke's.
Mr. Meinke describes Applicant's radiological monitoring
)
program as being in accordance with NRC regulations and Regulatory Guides
_and notes that' the Staff has concluded that Applicant's continuing pre-operational environmental monitoring program is acceptable.
(Menke Affi-davit, pp. 5-7.)
He agrees that, as Contention 2(b) alleges, no provision i
has been made for directly involving citizenry of the Zinuner vicinity in radiological monitoring of the f acility's -activities, but the hRC has no such requirements. (Menke Aff., p. 7.)
i
)
Both Mr. Ficke's affidavit and s 11.6 of Applicant's FSAR contemplate that in the course of conducting its environmental monitoring activities in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.8, various environmental samples such as milk, will be obtained through the assistance of local residents (Ficke Aff., par. 6.), but these residents -apparently would not be involved i
in measuring or monitoring the amounts of radioactivity which may be present in such samples.
This Board concludes that there is no NRC requirement that the citizenry in the Zimmer area be involved in the monitoring of the plant's activities. The Applicant's operational environmental monitoring program therefore appears to comply with all NRC requirements.
Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 2(b) is therefore dismissed.
t
, "2(c)
It is unclear from the Applicant's plans whether all radioactive emissions will be monitored or whether certain isotopes will be monitored".
In support of its motion for summary disposition on Contention 2(c),
the Staff relies upon the affidavit of Phillip G. Stoddart, a senior nuclear engineer in the Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, Division of Systems. Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As is observed by Mr. Stoddart, the Apr'.icant's provisions for mon-itoring emissions of radioactive materials from the Zimmer plant are described in 7, 11 and 12, and Appendix L of the FSAR and are shown schematically in Figures 7.6-1, 7.6-2, 7.6-40 and 9.3-4 (sheet 5 of 5) in the FSAR.
(Stoddart Affidavit, p. 4.) This program is designed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.1 (Revision 1) and the' relevant Branch Technical Position on the radiologici portion of the environmental monitor-ing program (Revision 1, November 1979).
(Menke Aff., p. 7; Ficke Aff.,
par.
7.) Furthermore. the procedures for sample collection and analysis are consistent with EPA's " Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide" (June 1972), and the appropriate Regulatory Guides.
(Ficke Aff... par. 7.)
The range' capabilities of monitoring equipment, sampling equipment, and measurement and analytical facilities and procedures, provided by the
. Applicant for the monitoring of gaseous and liquid radioactive emissions from the plant, include the ccmplete spectrum of radioactivity concentra-tions from the detection and measurement of radionuclides naturally occur-ring in the environment, through radioactive materials expected to be released as a consequence of normal operation of the plant, during rela-tively minor upset conditions, and releases from a wide range of postulated' accidents.
(Stoddart Aff., p. 4.)
tiRC Regulatory Guides 1.21 and 1.97 and Standard Review Plan 11.5 specify standards for the continuous instrumented monitoring of radioactive noble gases, the continuous sampling of radioactive particulates and radio-iodines (followed by laboratory analysis and by gamma spectrum analysis for all detectable radionuclides), as well as the regular periodic sampling and analyses of tritium and gross alpha activity. This monitoring applies to release points at.Zimmer which are potential. sources of gaseous radio-activity.
(Stoddart Aff., pp. 4-5.)
The Zimmer effluent monitoring pro-gram provides for all of the abov.e and, in addition, provides continuous instrumented monitoring for halogens (iodines) and particulates (such as Cs-137 or Co-60).
With the variety of monitoring, sampling, and analysis programs provided at Zimmer, all environmentally significant radioactive gaseous emissions are monitored.
(Stoddart Aff., pp. 4-5. )
. Similarly, radioactive liquid release points are continusly monitored for gross radioactivitf in releases, with this monitoring supplemented by periodic sampling and laboratory analysis of effluents for identification of radionuclides in releases.
(Stoddart Aff., p. 5.)
4 i
The NRC Staff's review of the Applicant's plans for monitoring emis-l sions from the'Zimmer plant concludes that the Applicant has provided for the continuous instrumented monitoring, and for supplemental periodic sam-pling and radiological analysis, of all expected and potential radioactive releases from all of the potential plant release points by all of the man-itoring equipment and sampling and analysis techniques that the Staff con-siders to be practicable, necessary, and within the known state of the art, i
t (Stoddart Aff., p. 5.)
This Board concludes that Applicant's operational Environmental Mon-itoring Program complies with all NRC requirements as to the radioactive emissions to be monitored, and clearly specifies the monitoring equipment and sampling and analysis techniques to be employed. We find Contention 2(c) to be without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
"2(d)"
(Withdrawn.)
"2(e)
The statement by Applicants that monitoring shall be 'as ~ comprehensive as possible' is vague and monitoring
-matters are unclear".
I t
I I
4
_g.
In paragraph 9 of his affidavit, Mr. Ficke states for the Applicant that the reference to the phrase "as comprehensive as possible" in the above contention is drawn from FSAR 11.6.3, and was intended to charac-terize the ERM Program as presented in FSAR Table 11.6-5.
Mr. Stoddart states in his affidavit for the Staff, however, that "The phrase 'as com-prehensive as possible' apparently refers to a statement made by the appli-cant on page 6.2-3 of the app,licant's Environmental Report."
(Stoddart Aff., p. 6.)
Having exanined both of these sources, the Board believes that Mr.
Stoddart is in error as to the source of the phrase "as comprehensive as possible." While Applicant clearly makes.this assertion in FSAR 11.6.3, the phrase "as comprehensive as possible" does not appear on the page of Applicant's Environmental Report (ER) to whir.h Mr. Stoddart refers. This page instead describes Applicant's Operational Environmental Monitoring (OEM) Program as being "as comprehensive" as Applicant's Pre-operational Environmental Monitoring (EM) Program.
While it is theoretically possible to increse the " comprehensiveness" of the monitoring program, the Board cannot agree with Dr. Fankhauser that " monitoring matters are (made) unclear" by Applicant's single use of this phrase.
As noted above, Applicant's FSAR contains detailed provisions for the monitoring of radiological releases. Plainly, when the relevant
, portions of Applicant's FSAR are viewed in their entirety. Applicant's monitoring plans cannot be'said to be unclear.
Contention 2(e) is there-fore dismissed.
"2(f) No monthly assay of isotopic concentration in food stuffs are provided for".
As noted in paragraph 11 of Mr. Ficke's affidavit, Table 11.6-5 of Applicant's FSAR does provide for periodic evaluation of foodstuffs, although these evaluations are not necessarily scheduled upon a monthly basis.
The foodstuffs to be monitored include green leafy vegetation, domestic meat, milk, fish and poultry, as well as certain others. The methods of analysis included gamma spectrometric analysis, radiciodine, and strontium-89 and strontium-90 analysis, as deemed appropriate.
The Staff takes the position that monthly assays of area foodstuffs are not necessary and are not required by the NRC.
(Meinke Aff., p. 9.)
In f act, the bimonthly radioassay of milk proposed by Applicant will pro-vide a better indicator of the presence of contamination from the Zimmer facility than monthly assays of the foodstuffs themselves.
The radiciodine and other fission product ccntaminants that would deposit on the leafy vegetables are "r.ollected" and concentrated by the cow as it grazes and are secreted into the-cow's milk.
Thus, radioassay of the milk provides a very sound indicator of contamination over the area of vegetation habited by the cow.
(Meinke Aff., pp. 8-9.)
1
~ _..
~
1
.6 Furthermore, Applicant's FSAR Table 11.6-5 provides for a program of.
monitoring radionuclides which is virtually identical in both the cypes and frequencies of analysis to that which is set out in Table 2, " Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program," in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.8 at pp. 4.8.14-4.8.18.
(Ficke Aff., p. 6.)
Based upon both operating experience at other nuclear plants and upon surveys and contacts done by the Applicants as part of the.preoperational program, the Board concludes that the of thd choice of foodstuffs and critical pathways' to be monitored, and the methods of analysis chosen are
' adequate and comply with all NRC requirements.
Therefore, the Board finds that there is no merit to Contention 2(f) and it is dismissed.
"2(g) There are no plans for a ring of monitoring stations around the site to continuously monitor gaseous releases".
Parts 20 and 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations require j
that ERM Programs be established to provide ' data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs.
The primary monitoring of gaseous radioactive emissions from the vents and discharge points of the plant during normal operations is by the direct measurement of the radioactive content of the effluent streams.
(Meinke Aff., pp. 9-10.)
0
. To provide a backup during normal operations to the effluent monitors inside the plant, the Branch Technical Position of the NRC Radiological Assessment Branch sets forth guidance for an acceptable program for monitoring radioactive gaseous emissions outside of the plant boundaries.
(MeinkeAff.,p.10.)
Applicant has placed both eight air sampling stations in the area of the plant which continuously collect samples for weekly analysis of partic-
- ulates and iodines, and eight thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) which are read quarterly.
See FSAR, 11.6.
In addition, the NRC hcs placed 40 TLDs around the site, the states of Ohio-and Kentucky have placed approximately 37 more TLDs in the area, and Applicant plans to locate another 32 TLDs around the site at le.ast six months prior to fuel loading.
(Ficke Aff.,
par.12.)
According to the Meinke affidavit, the NRC regulations do not require, and the Staff finds no basis for requiring, during normal operations, a system or ring of continuously recording air monitors in the environs of a nuclear power plant to monitor airborne radioactive emissions.
The small amounts of airborne effluents that are released through vents and discharge points will be much dispersed and diluted by the time they reach unrestric-
'ted areas that are open to the public.
The measurement levels of such airborne emissions during normal operation are so low that they would be
O
. indistinguishable from the normal background radiations recorded by such a continuous monitoring system.
(Meinke Aff., p. 10.)
However, even though not required by NRC regulations, Applicant has agreed to install a ring of 15 "real time" radiation monitors at remote locations from the site.
Data collected via these monitors, which would be located where Prompt Notificat, ion System sirens or OEM Program stations are situated, will be transmitted by radio to the Zimmer plant.
Should the emergency plan be activated, the information collected through these sta-tions would.be available, via microwave, to computer terminals in the Emergency Operations Facility, in the Emergency Operation Centers for Ohio, Kentucky and Clermont County, and in the City of Cincinnati's Columbia Control Center.
(Ficke Aff., pars. 13-15.)
The Board concludes that Applicant's provisions for the monitoring of gaseous enissions from the Zimmer plan meet or exceed any applicable NRC monitoring requirements.
Furthermore, Applicant's agreement to install a ring of monitoring stations around the Zimmer site would likely moot this contention, were such "real time" monitoring required by the NRC.
Contention 2(g) is therefore dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the motions of Staff and Applicant's I
seeking summary disposition are hereby granted and all portions of Dr.
i e
6
a
. Fankhauser's Contention 2 which were not previously withdrawn are hereby dismissed, with prejudice.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h ' -N John ~HEFrye, III, Chairman ADM]ISTRATIVE JUDGE
% <v.~k 4- \\%sA Frank F. Hooper 4
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
'55%
A y
M. Stanley LJvingstor()
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Cincinnati, Ohio, this 4th day of February,1982.
e.
4