ML20078F752
| ML20078F752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1983 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078F754 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310110150 | |
| Download: ML20078F752 (50) | |
Text
. ._ . .. .- --
ll i m n = co==.. ngu[
I- _-
, October 5, 19fi3 00CKETED UStlRC UNITSD STATES OF AMERICA ~6 All:25 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,j
(. ~
";,, , , ": r, --
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l In the Matter of )
I
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL
, AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
1 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 29/30 (Appendix I Compliance)
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Jeffrey J.A. Gibbs
- l t
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
- Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Counsel for Applicants 4
8310110150 831005 PDR ADOCK 05000400 G PDR TyD
-)v1.2.
e . -_-
5 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............ 2 II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS......................... 6 A. Summary Disposition.......................... 6 B. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I................ 6 III. ARGUMENT.......................................... 9 A. - Introduction................................. 9 B. The Source Term Calculation.................. 15 C. The Filtration System........................ 20 D. The Dispersion Calculation................... 25
- 1. Atmospheric Dispersion.................. 25 1
.; 2. Aquatic Dispersion...................... 30 E. The Dose Calculation......................... 35 F. The Monitoring System........................ 42 IV. CONCLUSION........................................ 47 i-4 J
w e +y*-+ yy=* --
w--y4y--r-ei--- w=-& --,-wp-Ny g e 3 ---g- e egw* g--rap----e^~+-ry- 97+ e emwmee.-* P w Y
i October 5, 1983
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 29/30 (Appendix I Compliance)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, Carolina Power & Light Com-pany and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency ("Appli-cants") move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 29/30.
Summary Disposition of this Motion is appropriate in th~at there is no genuine issue of fact to be heard with respect to Conten-tion 29/30 and Applicants are therefore entitled to a decision in their favor as a matter of law.
This Motion is supported by:
(1) " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts on Eddleman Contention 29/30 as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard (Appendix I Compliance)";
(2) " Affidavit of John J. Mauro and Guy Martin, Jr in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 29/30" (" Joint Affidavit");
(3) " Affidavit of Thomas J. Grant in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 29/30" (" Grant Affi-davit");
(4) " Affidavit of Ronald L. Shearin in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposi-tion of Eddleman Contention 29/30"
("Shearin Affidavit");
(5) All pleadings and other papers previously filed by the parties in this proceeding and other documents referenced herein.
l I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eddleman Contention 29/30, as-admitted, states:
Applicants have underestimated radiciodine releases during normal operations and have not demonstrated that normal radiciodine releases will not exceed Appendix I limit-ations.
" Applicants' Motion for Codification of Admitted Contentions,"
Appendix A at 16 (December 17, 1982). This form of Eddleman
~
Contention 29/30 was adopted by the Board in its " Memorandum and Order (Addressing Applicants' Motion for Codification)" at 1-2 (January 17, 1983) (" Memorandum and Order on Codifica-tion"). Neither Intervenor Eddleman nor the NRC Staff objected
. 4 to Applicants' proposed codification. " Wells'Eddleman's Response to Applicants' ' Motion for Codification of Admitted.
Contentions'" (January 3, 1983); "NRC Staff Response to Appli-cants' Motion for Codification of Admitted Contentions" (January 6, 1983).
The codified form of Contention 29/30 originated from the Board's acceptance of limited segments of Contentions 29 and 30 as originally proposed by Mr. Eddleman. See " Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Confer-ence)" at 46-47 (September 22, 1982) (" Memorandum and Order on Admissibility"). Applicants simply abstracted the Board's statement on the contention from the Memorandum and Order on i Admissibility, and in their Motion for Codification requested Board clarification as to which specific aspects of these two contentions had been accepted for litigation by the Board.1/
Motion for Codification at 2-3, 8. The Board accepted Appli-cants' codification as proposed without elaboration. Memoran-dum and Order on Codification at 1-2.
l Applicants, the Staff and Mr. Eddleman conducted discovery by way of interrogatories; the final day for the filing of re-sponses to the second and last round of interrogatories on Eddleman Contention 29-30 was August 19, 1983.2/ Applicants l
1/ Proposed Contentions 29 and 30 were consolidated in the admitted Contention 29/30. Memorandum and Order on Admissibil-ity at 46-47; Memorandum and Order on Codification at 1.
2/ Discovery has included Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to Applicants, Second Set dated April 22, 1983 and Fourth Set (Continued Next Page)
_~ - - _ _ - -. . . . - _ , _ - . _ . -_- , . _. . - - - . . , , - . - .
have been served Intervenor Eddleman's " Motion to Compel Dis-covery and Certificate of Negotiations Re Interrogatories on Eddleman 29/37B (2d Round)" (September 8, 1983) to which Appli-cants filed their Answer on September 23, 1983. Intervenor Eddleman's Motion to Compel constitutes the sole unresolved discovery issue pending on Contention 29/30.
The existence of this unresolved dispute does not preclude the Board's grant of summary disposition on this contention.
Discovery on Contention 29/30 has been permissible since its admission in September of 1982. See Memorandum and Order on Admissibility at 1, 46-47. Mr. Eddleman delayed presenting his first round discovery request on this contention until April 22, 1983 and his second round of discovery request on July 20, 1983. Mr. Eddleman's unilateral delay in issuing his first round discovery request until exactly seven months after Con-tention 29/30 was admitted by the Board exhibits little urgency 1
(Continued) dated July 20, 1983, Applicants' Interrogatories to Wells Eddleman, Second Set, dated March 9, 1983 and Fifth Set dated July 20, 1983, Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to the NRC Staff dated May 6, 1983, NRC Staff Interrogatories to Wells Eddleman, dated March 18, 1983 and responses thereto. Appli-cants have filed two supplements to their responses to Interve-nor's first round of interrogatories on August 24, 1983 and Septamber 26, 1983. Intervenor's Motion to Compel Discovery regarding Applicants' responses to Intervenors' second round of interrogatories is pending before the Board.
N
on his part. Contention 29/30 could have been the subject of a summary disposition motion at any time after the date for con-clusion of discovery. Mr. Eddleman has been aware since ap-proximately January 6, 1983 of the date for the conclusion of discovery on Contention 29/30 and he has failed diligently to pursue discovery at his own risk. See Letter of Thomas A.
Baxter to the Board (January 14, 1983) (discussing summary dis-position ~ schedules). September 30, 1983 was established as the last day for the filing of a summary disposition motion on Con-tention 29/30. " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Spent Fuel Transportation Contentions and Miscellaneous Motions)" at 17-18 (August 24, 1983) (" Memorandum and Order on Miscellaneous Motions"). This Board should not reward Intervenor's lack of diligence in discovery by allowing a further delay in the reso-lution of Applicants'-Motion for Summary Disposition on Conten-tion 29/30.3/
3/ Two of the interrogatories disette sed in Intervenor's Motion to Compel are subject to this Board's prior determina-tion on Intervenor's first Motion to Compel, a third interroga-tory is manifestly irrelevant as determined by this Board's prior Order, and only one interrogatory is genuinely at issue.
See " Applicants' Answer to Intervenor Eddleman's Motion to Compel Discovery re Interrogatories on Eddleman 29/37B (Second Round)," dated September 23, 1983.
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS A. Summary Disposition
" Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions For Summary Disposition on Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/94," filed September '., 1983, is fully ap-plicable to this Motion and is incorporated by reference herein.
B. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (" Appendix I") provides numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions of operation to assist Applicants for an operating license for
] a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in meeting the re-i quirement that raditactive material in effluents to unre-stricted areas be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
Compliance with Appendix I involves a demonstration that the plant design provides reasonable assurance that the liquid and gaseous effluents released will be below levels resulting in offsite exposures in excess of the Appendix I design objec-tives. Appendix I provides that such demonstration shall be made "by calculational procedures based upon models and data such that the actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated, all uncertainities being considered together."
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, S III.A.1.
4 ,
, , - - - - - . , -e-1 -s4 w-- _ _ - - - -
.- .,y --,.,p.,.
,,%,-,y.-,,,,.g-,vm-_,w9 .._mm-_--, py ,.7 we ,y9- -
,m 7, 9, , - - - , -, .i---
In adopting the numerical guides contained in Appendix I, the Commission acknowledged that the "use of calculational pro-cedures based at least partially upon hypotheses is unavoid-able" in demonstrating Appendix I compliance. Rulemaking Hearing; Numerical Guides For Design Objectives In Limiting Conditions For Operations To Meet The Criterion "As Low As Practicable" For Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, CLI-75-5, 1 N.R.C. 277, 334 (1975) ("RM-50-2"). The Commission also determined that the calculational procedures and underlying hypotheses need not be unnecessarily conservative, but rather the Commission strongly favored that the " calculational methods be realistic, which in ,
turn has influenced our adoption of particular numerical guideline values for dose objectives." Id. at 336. In practical terms, the Commission embraced the concept of using j "as realistic a model for characterizing natural phenomena, j
including plant performance," as an applicant considered useful in demonstrating Appendix I compliance. Id. at 337. The
- Commission encouraged this approach because it had adopted con-servative Appendix I guidelines against which the estimates would be compared to establish compliance. Furthermore, the
- Commission was aware that "[m]easured levels of environmental radioactivity are generally small in comparison with values calculated from known or presumed release rates." Id. at 326.
The calculational methodology by which demonstration of compliance is performed has been standardized and is set forth in a series of NRC Regulatory Guides.4/ In addition, the NRC has an ongoing data collection and assessment program to deter-mine whether changes to the standardized methods are warranted.
1 .
Joint Affidavit at 5.
Applicants' mathematical modeling need be no more complex than necessary to demonstrate that SHNPP complies with Appendix I. "There is no regulatory necessity for performing the most i
realistic dose estimates that are technologically achievable if a less complex and less expensive analysis can be made to dem-onstrate compliance with licensing requirements." RM-50-2 at 339.
i Applicants are therefore only required to demonstrate com-pliance with Appendix I through computational models, utilizing data representing the physical characteristics of the plant and environment, which predict a realistic dose estimate. It is 4/ Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to
- Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I";
Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from LighteWater-Cooled Reactors"; Regulatory Guide 1.112, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Re-actors"; Regulatory Guide 1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents From Accidental And Routine Reactor Releases For The Purpose of Implementing Appendix I."
- ~ - .,, , -- , . , , . - , . , , ~ , . , . , , . , - . - , , , , . . - . , , , , - . - _ . , , . - - - . - . , . . - , -, . . , , , , , , . , - - , ,
I this demonstration of compliance with radiciodine release aspects of Appendix I that Contention 29/30 challenges.
III. ARGUMENT A. Introduction Both Applicants and the NRC Staff performed Appendix I calculations using the same methodology as set forth in appli-cable Regulatory Guides. The methodology is based on histori-cal nuclear plant operating experience and takes into account the full range of normal operating experiences, including an-ticipated operational occurrences. The first step of the meth-odology is to calculate the Source Term, or the radionuclides, including radiciodines, estimated released in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operations. The second step is to calculate the atmospheric dispersion and aquatic dilution of the released radionuclides. The third step is to calculate the radiation doses to the general public attributable to the radionuclides dispersed in the environment. This, in turn, in-volves calculation of concentrations of radionuclides in envi-ronmental pathways and the radiological doses to receptors.
Joint Affidavit at 1 8.
The results of Applicants' calculations are set forth in the Harris Environmental Report ("ER") at S 5.2. The Staff's independent calculations are reported in the Draft
_g_
Environmental Impact Statement (" DES") at 5 5.9.3.2 and Appendix D. Specifically focusing on release of radioiodines, Applicants calculated the annual atmospheric release of I-131 would be 0.09 curies / year (ER, Table 5.2.5-2) and the Staff calculated a value of 0.16 curies / year (DES, Appendix D, Table D-8). The RM-50-2 design objective, as set forth in the Annex to Appendix I, is 2 curies / year. Both Applicants and the Staff calculate the I-131 releases to be more than an order of magni-tude less than the design objective. Thus any differences i
_ between the two calculations are without significance.5/ Fur-thermore, it is uncontroverted that predicted releases are on the average many times greater than actual operating experi-ence. Joint Affidavit at 1 8, Attachments 3 and 4; see RM-50-2 at 326.
Contention 29/30, as admitted, by its own terms is limited to "radiciodine releases." The first part of the contention i
alleges that " Applicants have underestimated radiciodine l
5/ Mr. Eddleman attempts to attach significance to the cif-ference between Applicants' and the Staff's estimate. At the time of the preparation of the DES, the Staff's review was 2
based on incomplete information and only partial credit was
, allowed for removal of radioiodines by one of the radioactive waste handling systems. The NRC Staff has since completed its review of that system and has revised its Source Term calcula-tion. This revised estimate will be published in the Final En-vironmental Statement and is expected to be virtually identical to Applicants' estimate. Joint Affidavit at V 25.
I i
i
. . - - - , , _ , , , _ . _ , .-.,,_.~__._y _ - . . .._m,.m .,-%,. ,,-r ..,..--,.x ._. . - . , , -
, , , - . _ _ - - , , . . . , . . . , ~ -
. _ . . ... - _ - . ~ . _ - - - . _ . _ - - - - . . . - - . .. _ . _ - - -
releases during normal operations." The second part of the contention contends that Applicants "have not demonstrated that 1
normal radiciodine releases will not exceed Appendix I limita- <
tions."s/ Yet, during the course of discovery Mr. Eddleman at-tempted.to expand the scope of Contention 29/30 to include at-mospheric dispersion modeling (already the subject of Eddleman Contention 80), aquatic dilution of radiciodines after release,
, dose calculations (included, in part, in Joint Intervenors Con-tention II and Eddleman Contention 373 on health effects), and i
i in-plant and environmental monitoring of radiciodine releases.
Many, if not a majority of the allegations go beyond what Ap-plicants would submit is a fair reading of the scope of Conten-i tion 29/30 2/
Applicants have divided Mr. Eddleman's many allegations into five functional areas:
1"
- 1. The Source Term Calculation
- 2. The Filtration System
- s/ In admitting certain aspects of originally proposed Con-tentions 29 and 30, the Board stated
- "The Contentions, howev-er, also allege that releases will exceed Appendix I releases;
- if proved, this would present a serious safety concern; accord-i ingly, this part of the Contention is accepted." Memorandum and Order on Admissibility at 46.
Z/ The Board specifically rejected those aspects of original-ly proposed Contentions 29 and 30 that addressed health effects and radiological monitoring. Id. 1
, ,nm w -ww< < ,w,,w-- e, mv-,qwmm,vwr---~,--..,-----,.. -,.~e,w -y,-,mw- -~,-v,v,-,w-.,r.,nn~-g g-,,-,v--~w , rv se,-
- 3. The Dispersion Calculation i
- 4. The Dose Calculation
- 5. The Monitoring Systems Applicants submit that only those allegations included in the first two functional areas are fairly included within the scope of Contention 29/30: (1) the source term calculation (which estimates radiciodine releases) and (2) the filtration system (the efficiency of which is taken into account in calculating radioiodine releases). Allegations regarding the dispersion calculation go to what happens to the radiciodine after release. Allegations regarding the dose calculation go to the potential impact of radicio' dine releases. Allegations with respect to the Monitoring Systems go to Applicants' ability to
]
determine what was released. Therefore, Applicants propose that the Board rule on the demonstration made in the first two sections of this argument regarding the Source Term and filtration system and find that the allegations set forth in the remaining three sections are outside the scope of Conten-tion 29/30. If the Board does not agree with Applicants that l every allegation discussed in the last three sections of this argument is outside the scope of Contention 29/30, Applicants
! plead, in the alternative, that the Board find that any such 1
allegation is without merit and that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
i l
L
I Each allegation made by Mr. Eddleman in the context of Contention 29/30 during the discovery process is without merit.
In most cases Mr. Eddleman provides no basis for his allega-tions. The allegations themselves are fraught with technical inaccuracies which indicate Mr. Eddleman's fundamental misun-derstanding of this issue. Where Mr. Eddleman attempts to support his allegations, he either misuses referenced material or relies on materials that have been thoroughly discredited within the scientific community. Applicants demonstrate in this Motion that Mr. Eddleman's allegations are without merit i and that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding each such allegation.
While Mr. Eddleman has taken a scatter-shot approach to Contention 29/30, he never actually alleges that Applicants' Appendix I calculations of releases of radiciodines from the Harris Plant will actually exceed Appendix I guidelines. See Eddleman' Response to Applicants' Interrogatory No. 18. Rather, Mr.'Eddleman for various. reasons alleges that Applicants' cal-culations underestimate the actual exposure of an individual
'from radiciodine releases "when all exposure pathways are con-I sidered and all uncertainties are considered together." Id.
He never attempts to quantify the alleged underestimation of radioiodine releases and the resultant exposure.g/ Mr.
g/ "I have not calculated the extent to which Applicants have underestimated radiciodine releases during normal operations." -
Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-19(a).
Eddleman never comes to grips with the fact that Applicants and the NRC Staff have independently performed the calculations which demonstrate Appendix I compliance, utilizing standardized methodology approved by the NRC Staff, which historically have significantly overestimated actual releases of radionuclides.
This calculation, of course, includes releases of radiciodines.
These uncontroverted facts, as will be demonstrated herein --
that the releases have been calculated by both Applicants and NRC Staff to be significantly below Appendix I guides, that the methodology used has universal acceptance within the nuclear industry and has been endorsed by the NRC, and that historical empirical data clearly demonstrate that the estimated releases utilizing the standardized methodology consistently overpredict radiciodine releases when compared with actual measured releases -- in and of themselves are sufficient to compel sum- ,
mary disposition of Contention 29/30.
In responding to Mr. Eddleman's allegations and in demonstrating the Applicants' compliance with Appendix I, Ap-plicants rely on the sworn statements of John J. Mauro, Director, and Guy Martin, Jr., Manager, of the Radiological As-sessment and Health Physics Department of Envirosphere Company, a division of Ebasco Services, Inc. Dr. Mauro and Mr. Martin supervised Applicants' Appendix I calculations and, as demon-strated by their resumes (Joint Affidavit at Attachments 1 and
2), they have extensive experience in this area. Applicants also rely on the sworn affidavits of Dr. Thomas J. Grant, and Ronald L. Shearin. Dr. Grant is Supervising Radiation Protection Engineer for the Harris Project, employed by Ebasco Services, Inc., the architect-engineer for the Harris Plant.
He is responsible for the design and procurement of the radia-tion monitoring system. Mr. Shearin is employed by Carolina Power & Light Company and is responsible for development and i
establishment of the environmental monitoring system. !
B. The Source Term Calculation Demonstration of Appendix I compliance initially requires calculation of the Source Term. The Source Term calculation consists of a quantitative evaluation of radionuclide releases, including radiciodines, which are produced by the plant and released into the environment. The Source Term considers all radionuclides which are potentially available for release to the environment during the full range of normal plant opera-tions, including " anticipated operational occurrences." Antic-ipated operational occurrences would include leakages and malfunctions which, based on industry experience, can be ex-
- pected.in the course of normal operations. Joint Affidavit at I 1 8.
Historical empirical data form the basis for the standard-ized Source Term equation embodied in a computer program known 4
1 4 .
as the Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Code (" GALE Code"). See NUREG-OOl7, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents From Pressurized Water Reac-tors," at 6 1.1. The GALE Code Source Term takes into account plant specific design features, resulting in an individualized estimate of radionuclide releases. Joint Affidavit at 1 7.
Applicants' calculation of the Source Term was made utilizing the methodology contained in NUREG-OOl7 and Regulatory Guide 1.112. Id. at 1 6.
l Use of the Gale Code to calculate the Source Term is 3 widely accepted; it is used almost exclusively throughout the nuclear industry to demonstrate compliance with Appendix I.
Id. at 7. While the intent of the Source Term calculation is to provide a realistic estimate of radionuclide releases, em-pirical studies have shown that predicted releases are on the average many times greater than actual operating experience.
Id. at 18, Attachments 3 and 4.
, Intervenor Eddleman, by various statements in discovery, has alleged the following with regard to Applicants' Source f Term calculations:
(1) Nuclear power plants generally exceed al-1 lowable releases. Eddleman Response to Ap-plicants' General Interrogatory 1 at 2; (2) Applicants' Source Term calculation ignores the contribution of leaks to releases.
Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interroga-tory 29-22;
(3) Applicants' Source Term calculation, de-rived from the NUREG-0017 equation, does not account for individual plant variations in radiciodine releases. Eddleman Re-sponses to Applicants' Interrogatories 29-5 and 29-31; (4) The factors used to modify the standardized Source Term equation in NUREG-0017 are too lenient in light of the problems experi-enced at Carolina Power & Light Company's other plants with regard to failed fuel percentages. Eddleman Response to NRC Staff Interrogatory No. 15; and (5) Applicants' Source Term calculation ignores the affects of dacaying radiciodines such as Xenon which produce additional radioiodines. Eddleman Responses to Appli-cants' Interrogatories 29-17, 29-20(f),
29-31, 29-35, 29-56 and NRC Staff Inter-rogatory 19.
We address each of these allegations, seriatim, below.
(1) Mr. Eddleman's position that nuclear power plants generally exceed allowable releases is categorically refuted by the extensive surveillance programs undertaken by the NRC and by the operational experience upon which the standardized Source Term model in NUREG-0017 is founded. Joint Affidavit V 8, Attachments 3 and 4. Furthermore, such an allegation can be viewed as an attempt to attack the implementation guidance l contained in 5 III of Appendix I. Constituting such an attack, l it must be rejected as impermissible. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
1
! (2) & (3) Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's unsupported allega-tions, the data upon which the NUREG-0017 Gale Code program is based reflects actual historical release data gathered from operating nuclear power plants, including equipment leakages.
NUREG-OO17 at 5 1. Plant specific design features are taken into account. Joint Affidavit at 17.
] (4) The assumptions regarding the failed fuel percentage for the Source Term calculation are based upon standard primary J
coolant concentration values recommended by the NRC. Joint Af-fidavit at 1 14; NUREG-OO17 at Table 2-3. These recommenda-tions reflect operational experience over a three and a half year period from 1970 to 1973 at 18 different operating PWR's.
Id. Any particular plant may be above or below the average utilized; however, the NRC's ongoing program to track fuel per-formance trends has indicated that the average percent of
- failed fuel is declining due to improvements in fuel fab-rication, management methods and water chemistry control.
Therefore, although the factor utilized to calculate the Shearon Harris Source Term was an average failed fuel factor based on operational experience, this recent operational data
! indicates that even this average factor is somewhat conserva-tive. Joint Affidavit at 15. Because of differences in fuel design, between the older Robinson Plant, the Brunswick BWR Plant and Harris, and because of improvements in fuel fab-
~
rication and management methods and water chemistry control,
. the failed fuel history of Robinson and BYunswick bears no
. relevance to calculation of the Harris Source Term.9/
9/ This Board has already determined that, because of design differences between the Robinson and the Harris Plants, infor-(Continued Next Page)
mom %, a m, a _ _#A. m , - _g2-- .A - e __a - __ La- _. m- em..a_ u .4..+--4 e
5 l
t 4
1 I
I f
i I
f I
f
(5) Mr. Eddleman also believes that Applicants' Source Term calculation is defective because it excludes the effect of the radioactive decay of higher isotopes into radiciodine. Mr.
Eddleman specifically refere to the decay of xenon gas isotopes into radiciodine. Eddleman Responses to Applicants Interrogatories 29-17 and 27-31(a). Xenon, a noble gas, does not decay into radioicdine; rather iodines decay to xenon.10/
Joint Affidavit at 16.
In fact, the radiciodine Source Term takes into account radiciodine resulting both from direct fissioning of uranium in the core and from the decay of tellurium, a radionuclide produced in the fissioning process. Joint Affidavit at 19, Attachment 5. Furthermore, regardless of the source of radiciodines, their release is estimated based on historical operational data, and consequently all radiciodines are accounted for. Intervenor Eddleman is in error when he asserts that Applicants' dose calculation does not consider the daugh-ter products of decaying radionuclides. In fact, most (Continued) mation regarding Robinson'c fuel failure limitations is irrele-vant to Contention 29/30. See Memorandum and Order on Miscellaneous Motions at 10.
10/ Such a fundamental scientific error on Intervenor's part exhibits his lack of basis in a stark and conclusive manner.
419-
radiciodines do result from decay of primary fission pro'ucts. d Id.
The only other theoretical contribution to radiciodine in the environment would arise from the decay of tellurium subsequent to release. The releases of tellurium are so small, and its half-life so short, that its decay subsequent to release does not contribute meaningful.ly to the radiciodine Source Term. Its contribution to dose would be even less.
Joint Affidavit at 1 20, 21.
C. The Filtration System The Harris air filtration system is described in consider-
.. able detail in the Joint Affidavit at 24 and Attachment 6.
- The air fi.ltration system consists of filter casings,
, prefilters, High Efficiency Particulate Air ("HEPA") filters, charcoal adsorbers, fans and instrumentation. The system is designed and fabricated in excess of minimum requirements of industry standards and guidelines to ensure the highest possi-ble filtration efficiency. Id.
Applicants' Source Term for radioiodine in gaseous effluents includes only an assumed 90% reduction factor, due to the effects of the SHNPP filtration system. Joint Affidavit at V 22. This filtration factor was conservatively derived from the historical data contained in NUREG-0017 and underestimates
. the actual operational efficiencies of such filtration systems, which exceed 99%. Joint Affidavit at Attachment 6 (page 9).
---,,un..,,,, ,w,-,,,- - - - - ,.,-- - - ,.--n.---.
-m - - , - - - - , -+ e.a-.n,,- ,m.,- ---y, .m,---- .,,,-,w.e - ..m-,nn --,.,-,mg- --,n--
Intervenor Eddleman has alleged that:
i (1) The Shearon Harris filters may not be as efficient as estimated by Appli-cants in their Appendix I compliance i calculations. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' General Interrogatory No. 1 and Interrogatory 29-3.
(2) Gasket and fitting failures will allow radiciodines to leak past Applicants filtration systems. Eddleman Re-sponses to Applicants' General Inter-rogatory 1 and Interrogatories 29-3, 29-19, 29-24, 29-25, 29-26, 29-27 and 29-30; i (1) When asked in a second round of interrogatories if he maintained that the radiciodine filtering capability of the Harris Plant is overstated, Mr. Eddleman was unable to provide any basis. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-23(a). Since Mr. Eddleman is not sure that he maintains his f allegation and provides no basis for it, it is difficult to respond. In response to his concerns regarding usage time of filters, actual in-place usage time of the'HEPA Air filters will be much less than their life expectancy under normal envi-l ronmental operating conditions. A quality assurance program l
will be adopted to ensure filters are changed on schedule and are not subjected to premature wear. Joint Affidavit at 1 23 and Attachment 6 (pages 10,11). As noted above, actual opera-tional efficiencies of filtration systems exceed 99%.
4
(2) Intervenor Eddleman has also alleged that gasket and seal failures, due to distortion, embrittlement and cracking resulting from radiation exposures, will allow radiciodine to leak past Applicants' filtration system. The only filter unit gaskets and seals, which could be subject to deterioration due to thermal, radiation or humidity conditions, are at the Prefilters and HEPA filters where the particulate matter is trapped. The charcoal adsorber section where the gaseous radiciodines are trapped is of all-welded, gasketless construc-tion. The access doors have gaskets which are not directly lo-cated in the air stream and which have an estimated life of more than 40 years. These gaskets, nonetheless, will be inspected for deterioration and wear every time the filters are inspected or replaced. Beyond that, the filter unit housings are maintained under negative pressure during operations and no leakage of contaminated air to the outside is possible even if a leak exists in the door gasket. Joint Affidavit at Attach-ment 6 (pages 10-11). Thus even with a deterioration of seals or gaskets, radiciodines could not escape.
Mr. Eddleman bases his allegations regarding seal degrada-tion on three reports which allegedly document such effects in 1
materials which he maintains to be similar to those used by Ap-plicants in filtration system seals.11/ The studies which Mr.
11/ Mr. Eddleman cites to NUREG/CR-2157, 2763 and 2877 and ar-ticles by Clough and Gillen. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatories 29-25, 29-26.
Eddleman cites are inappropriate for comparison to Applicants' filtration system seals because (1) they are based on materials which are dissimilar to those utilized by Applicants, (2) the materials break-down is the result of radiation exposures which result in integrated doses far in excess of those which will be experienced by Applicants' filtration systems, and (3) the
~
studies simply do not reach the conclusions asserted by Mr.
Eddleman. Joint Affidavit at 26, 27, 28; Grant Affidavit at V 9. The filtration system utilizes welding and steel uurupe-nents to minimize the number and extent of gasket materials utilized. Joint Affidavit at Attachment 6. Applicants' gasket material is composed of neoprene, Cohrlastic R-1048 and Grade Medium Silicone Rubber. Id. at Attachment 6 (pages 1 and 2).
None of these materials is cimilar to those upon which the three studies are based. Grant Affidavit at V 9. The smallest integrated radiation dosage experienced by the tested material in the reports cited by Mr. Eddleman exceeds the lifetime doses that will be experienced by SHNPP filter gasket material by a factor of more than one thousand. Id. at 27.
Mr. Eddleman also ignores the inspection program to which Applicants are committed by FSAR S 1.8, as required by Regula-tory Guide 1.140. This inspection program will ensure that routine inspections undertaken at the time of filter bed re-placement will discover any embrittlement cracking or O
I
distortion which would constitute a threat to the pneumatic integrity of the filtration systems. Id.; Grant Affidavit at 1 9.
Mr. Eddleman maintains that he has "no evidence that Ap-plicants will carry out inspections per Reg. Guide 1.140 or that these inspections will detect degradation of sealers prior to leakage." Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-27(e). As noted above, Applicants have committed to the in-spections mandated by Regulatory Guide 1.140 in FSAR 5 1.8.
Mr. Eddleman cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact relying upon the mere speculation. Culf States Utility Co.
(River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, ..
248 (1975). He must produce acceptable evidence concerning a fact material to Applicants' demonstration of Appendix I com-pliance, and that evidence must be sufficient to create a genu-ine issue of material fact. 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(d).12/
12/ Mr. Eddleman also speculates that if degradation is de-tected in seals and gaskets, Applicants will not replace those degraded seals and gaskets. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-27(e). Mr. Eddleman's conclusion, based on shear speculation, is contradicted by his concession that he possesses no evidence of, and has not asserted that, CP&L will act intentionally to operate the Harris facility in violation of Appendix I. Eddleman Response to NRC Staff Interrogatory No. 15.
D. The Disr_prsion Calculation Applicants' Appendix I compliance estimate assumes that the radiciodines in the Source Term are released to the envi-ronment. Once released, the exact pathways and concentrations that the radiciodines follow are determined by the dispersion aspects of these releases. Applicants' dispersion calculations are governed by Regulatory Guide 1.111 for the atmospheric medium and Regulatory Guide 1.113 for the aquatic environment.
As discussed previously, Applicants submit that allegations regarding diepersion calculations are outside the scope of Con-tention 29/30.
- 1. The Atmospheric Dispersion. Applicants have elsewhere described in detail the atmospheric dispersion model used for both routine and accidental release assessment of radionuclides. In doing so, Applicants have responded to the alleged inadequacies of their dispersion model that were raised by Mr. Eddleman and have demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to the validity of the dispersion model.13/
l 13/ See " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Inter-venor Wells Eddleman's Contention 80 (Atmospheric Dispersion Model)," dated September 1, 1983, supported by (1) " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Eddleman Contention 80," (2) " Affidavit of Brian D. McFeaters in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 80" (hereinafter "First McFeaters Affidavit"), (3) " Affidavit of (Continued Next Page) i i
. . . .- - . . - - - -- _-- .- .- . . . _ - . - ~ - _.
i Eddleman Contention 80 alleges that the mixing and disper-
- sion models for radiological releases from the Shear'on Harris Nuclear Power Plant assume more complete dispersion than actu-ally takes place because they do not take into account various meteorological conditions that could affect such dispersion.
Mr. Eddleman's allegations in support of his Contention 29/30 regarding Applicants' atmospheric dispersion models are a subset of the allegations in the more broadly worded Contention
- 80. Here the issue is limited to radiciodine releases during (Continued)
Wayne Lei in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposi-tion of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 80"; "Appli-cants' Reply to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80," dated September 27, 1983, supported by (1) " Statement of Applicants' Position with
] '
Respect to Mr. Eddleman's ' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard,'" (2) " Affidavit of Brian D. McFeaters in Support of Applicants Reply to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80" (hereinafter "Second McFeaters Affidavit"), (3)
" Affidavit of Maynard E. Smith in Support of Applicants' Reply to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on i
Eddleman Contention 80" (hereinafter " Smith Affidavit"). The NRC Staff supported Applicants' position regarding the validity of their atmospheric dispersion model. See "NRC Staff Response in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 80, And in Opposition to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 80," filed September 26, 1983; supported by (1) " Affidavit of Irwin Spickler in Support of Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 80" (hereinafter "Spickler Affidavit"), (2) "Affida-vit of Edward F. Branagan, Jr. in Support of Summary Disposi-tion of Eddleman Contention 80," (3) " Affidavit of Kenneth C.
Dempsey in Support of Summary Disposition of Eddleman Conten-tion 80."
i i
4 i
- - i , , ee. m , ,.-,-,-----r-.e ,,,a.w,_m, ,w % 3, . ,~- m ---%.r . - . , , ,,,..,,--y-,--..nm-e,~y- -v.-.w,,,--,--- -,-w
-. -. - - _ =_. -
normal operations. Therefore, Applicants rely on their previous submittals in their Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 80 and their Reply to Mr. Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition and the Supporting Response and Af-fidavits of the Staff in support thereof, which demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of Applicants' dispersion model.
Intervenor Eddleman has attacked Applicants' atmospheric dispersion model by alleging that:
(1) The meteorological data gathered is insuf-ficient to adequately represent the area's meteorological variations. Eddleman Re-sponses to Applicants Interrogatories 29-6, 29-41, 29-42, 29-67; (2) The atmospheric estimate does not adequate-ly account for the effects of precipitation
(" washout"). Eddleman Responses to Appli-cants' Interrogatories 29-48 and 29-45; j (3) Applicants have failed to account for plume
^
i concentration effects as a result of build-ing " wakes" and other phenomena. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' Interrogatories No. 29-5, 27-33, 29-43, 29-44 and 29-48.
(1) Applicants' atmospheric dispersion estimates for rou-tine releases from the Harris Plant are determined by using a Gaussian plume model based on Regulatory Guide 1.111. The appropriateness of and conservatisms built into Applicants' at-mospheric dispersion model are without question. First McFeaters Affidavit, Exhibit B; Smith Affidavit at 1 9; w--y w ~, .,.v-. - _,, ,p ,r
.,-----4,,m,- gm -v , - - - , ,. ---*,----,--r--- .
ymym,~-g-m=-- --p-,,+-ro-- gy mp- v-m-w -.ny ,o.wy ny.~-- -- - ---
Spickler Affidavit at H 8,9. Applicants' atmospheric dispersion model utilized site specific meteorological data ob-tained at the Harris site meteorological monitoring station during the period from January 1976 through December 1978.
Second McFeaters Affidavit, Exhibit B at 1. This particular duration of atmospheric data collection is specified in Regula-tory Guide 1.70. The three years of meteorological data (which integrate the sensor signals for each 15 minute interval) were compared with historical records from various reporting services, including the data from the Raleigh-Durham airport and Cooperative Weather Observer Network, and with data col-lected at the on-site monitoring system at the Harris Plant site from January 1979 to date. All of the information reviewed confirms the representativeness of the three years of data used in the atmospheric dispersion model. Second McFeaters Affidavit, Exhibit B at 1-2. There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the sufficiency of the data used by Applicants in the atmospheric dispersion model.
(2) Mr. Eddleman's allegations regarding the effects of
" washout" or " rainout" on atmospheric dispersion and deposition of radionuclides out of a plume have been treated extensively in " Applicants' Reply to Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80" and by the Staff's Response thereto. Wet deposition of radionuclides out 8
4
' l of a plume by either " rainout" (due to precipitation in clouds) :
or " washout" (due to precipitation below clouds) is appropriate
! to take into account at a site with "a distinct rainy season
- which corresponds to the grazing season." Second McFeaters Af-fidavit, Exhibit B at 4; Spickler Affidavit at 1 8. The Harris site does not have a distinct rainy season during the grazing j season; in such cases wet deposition has been found to be of little significance in considering dispersion and deposition of routine emissions over the period of a year because of their infrequent and random occurrence. Id.; Smith Affidavit at
, 11 7,9; Spickler Affidavit at 1 9.
1
, (3) Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's allegations, Applicants do 1'
take into account the building wake effect in their atmospheric
- dispersion model. The building wake effect results in a pre-diction of greater dispersion and lower concentrations in a ra-dioactive plume. Applicants' model contains a building wake factor that uses the smallest cross-sectional area of the reac- .
tor building, thus substantially lessening the importance of predicted wake effect. As a result, actual concentrations that might occur are significantly overpredicted, contributing to the conservatism of Applicants' model. First McFeaters Affida-vi t , Exhibit B at 12-13, 24-25.
l
- f
~ ner,e-gm <ms. -ry--g-pg-y--,r- w-- e v > n - e v e-s v -p---- -,wv yw o rg.m g . ----,-~~w-,-w, +.wne.y, ,w-n,wm. -.p--., <,,,,-,,,-w -~,,,-m - ~ , - am w--ww-,-,- =w--e
- 2. Aquatic Discersion. Applicants have determined the aquatic dispersion of released radiciodines in the Shearon Harris Reservoir according to equation 43 of Regulatory Guide 1.113. Joint Affidavit at 29. Equation 43 assumes that radioiodine is removed from the reservoir only by radiological decay and by disenarge to an outlet, in this case the Cape Fear River. Id. Equation 43 also assumes steady-state dispersion of the released radiciodines throughout the reservoir and complete mixing of the released effluents. Id. at 34. Sedi-mentation and chemical interaction of radiciodines with other materials has not been incorporated in Applicants' estimate since chemical interaction of radiciodines with other materials would result in an increase in sedimentation, or the settling out of the radioiodine compounds into the underlying sediment.
This effect would decrease Applicants' estimate of radiciodine concentrations in the reservoir.14/ Joint Affidavit at 14/ Sedimentation effects are taken into account, however, when determining doses from exposure to shoreline deposits and sedimentation as discussed in the dose calculation, at Section II.E., infra, according to Regulatory Guide 1.109, equation A-5. See Joint Affidavit at V 31, n.7. An additional conser-vatism is therefore provided by Applicants, ignoring the effect of sedimentation in calculating radiciodine concentrations in the Harris reservoir but considering the effects of such sedi-mentation in determining dose exposure at the reservoir site.
Applicants would be completely justified in taking into account sedimentation in calculating radiciodine concentrations since sedimentation effects are among those natural phenomena specif-ically recognized by the Commission as appropriate for modi-fying Appendix I calculations. RM-50-2 at 337 (Item (1)(d)).
.\
11 31-33.
As stated in Regulatory Guide 1.113, the steady-state com-pletely mixed model is most suitable for long lived radionuclides. Joint Affidavit at 34. Short-lived radionuclides =such' as I-131 do not lend themselves to accurate (prediction and modeling of the distribution of their activity
- due to their rapid decay; however, equation 43 of Regulatory
, Guide 1.113 does predict the total amount of activity due to
- such short-lived' radionuclides in the Harris reservoir.
Id.
The range of concentrations expected in the Harris reservoir i
and the concentration of radionuclides in the cooling tower discharge are contained in' Table 5.2.2-3 of the ER. -
From this
, s Table, Applicants.have utilized the average radiciodine concen-thation expected in the Harris reservoir in order to determine 4 -
4 radiciodine concentrations in fish.15/ Joint Affidavit at I w 1 35.
l 15/ The radioiodine concentrations in fish are needed to calculate the doses attributable to the ingestion pathway
- through the consumption of fish from the Harris Reservoir.
Regulatory Guide 1.109 Appendix'A.2.b. at Table A-1. By utilizing the average _ concentration in the Harris Reservoir to determine the concentration of'radioiodines in fish, Applicants
-have assumed that the ~ fish would spend as much ti'me in water a . gcontaining less than average concentrations as in water containing more than aver' age concentrations. Joint Affidavit
.at 1 35. In view of the small area of the aquatic " plume" rel-ative to the size of the Harris reservoir, such an assumption is/a reasonable and conservative approach to estimating the radiciodine concentrations in fish resulting from radiciodine releases to the reservoir itself. Joint Affidavit at 1 36.
x 3
'-~ t a
k n ~ n, --e- -,,m ,a a m-r- , w-, . - - - - - + - - --sew,r--wm,s - -w -e.--, m--w,-- r-m- ~~e---- m e ev - v s-- r m n, e ,s ---,-~w.ss*~wrm- m
Intervenor Eddleman has alleged that Applicants' aquatic dispersion calculations underestimate the amount of radiciodine concentrations in the Harris reservoir and that "no model in that Regulatory Guide for impoundments appears to be appropriate for Harris's (sic) reservoir." Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-10(a). Intervenor Eddleman attributes the inappropriateness of the Regulatory Guide models to:
(1) Failure to consider the effects of chemical interaction by radiciodines.
Eddleman Responses to Applicants' Interrogatories 29-10 and 29-56; (2) Neglect of stratification within the reservoir and their assumption of uniform concentrations. Eddleman Re-sponses to Applicants' Interrogatories 29-10 and 29-57; (3) The treatment accorded short half-life
.radiciodines, such as I-131. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-10; and (4) Neglect of " bioconcentration" of the radioiodines. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' Intarrogatories 29-55, 29-56 and 29-57.
I
- (1) Intervenor Eddleman's allegations with regard to the effects of chemical interaction of radiciodines and stratifica-tion within the Harris Reservoir is self- d r feating. As L discussed above, the chemical interec',an < the radiciodines with other materials would simply decrease the radiciodine i
~32-l l
i I
concentration level within the Harris Reservoir due to the settling out, or sedimentation, of radiciodines chemically com-bined with other materials in the water. Joint Affidavit at 1 31. There are no effects of chemical. interaction of radiciodines within the Harris Reservoir which would lead to underestimation of radioiodine concentrations in the Harris Reservoir as alleged by Intervenor Eddleman. Id.
(2) In a similar fashion, stratification, if-it occurred within the reservoir, would simply have no effect on calculated concentrations. The effluent discharge point into the Harris Reservoir is a subterranean pipe below the surface of the res-ervoir. See ER S 5.2.1.2.1. Stratification, if it occurred,
-would result in thermal barriers separating the Harris Reser-voir into different horizontal layers of water distinguished by their temperatures. Joint Affidvit at 32. The effect of a subsurface warm water discharge point into a stratified reser-voir would result in disrupting the integrity of the tempera-ture layers and an increase in localized mixing activity. This would reduce the localized concentrations of radiciodines and have no effect on the average concentration in the reservoir.
Id.
Consequently, the effects of chemical reactions between released radiciodines and other compounds in the Harris Reser-voir would reduce the radiciodine concentrations for the i -
. - - - - .-_ ._ ___. . _ ... _-- ... , _ .--__._._._ ~- _ ___ _ . _ ..__ _ ._ _ - _ _ ~ _ _ . . -
aquatic medium and render Applicants aquatic dispersion calculations less conservative than they are at the present time.ls/ Joint Affidavit at 3.
(3) As discussed above, short-lived radionuclides do not lend themselves to an accurate prediction and modeling of the distribution of their activity due to their rapid decay. The
~
total amount of activity due to short-lived isotopes is modeled. Joint Affidavit at 1 34. When asked to provide the analytical basis for his position and to state how he would change the dispersion model to take into account his concerns regarding short-lived isotopes, Mr. Eddleman simply responded:
"I have not determined this, but the ability to handle short-halflife substances like I-131 is a preprerequisite (sic) to the adequacy of any such model for radiciodine levels." In fact, the total amount of activity is modeled. Because of the short-lived nature of such isotopes, modeling their distribu-tion would not be consequential to radioiodine concentrations in the Reservoir, even if such a model were developed. Mr.
Eddleman has not provided any basis for a challenge to that model.
Ig/ An evaluation of the limited data presently available to Applicants from their Harris Reservoir monitoring program indi-cates that no stratification occurs within the Harris lake; however, should such stratification occur, it would only lead to greater localized dispersion. Joint Affidavit at 1 31, n.8.
l !
J e
(4) Mr. Eddleman's concerns with " bioconcentration" are addressed in Section E. infra regarding the dose calculations.
E. The Dose Calculation Applicants' calculation of the dose to the public from releases of radiciodine from the Harris Plant is in strict conformance with the methodology contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Joint Affidavit at 37. Applicants' analysis of the dose estimate is contained in 5 5.2.2 of the ER. Applicants i
dose calculation utilizes the dose factors contained in Regula-tory Guide 1.109. Id. The calculated doses at critical loca-tions are contained in ER Table 5.2.5-2 as required by the Annex to Appendix I. Applicants' dose estimates include expo-sure resulting from direct radiation, ingestion including meat, poultry, and fish from the Harris Reservoir, recreational activities, ingestion of local and home-grown vegetables, and E
anticipated uses of water drawn from the Harris Reservoir. See ER S 5.2. Applicants' dose calculation does not include doses i-resulting from exposure to the lungs through inhalation of radioioidines because the thyroid is the critical organ and 3
such lung exposure has been determined to be negligible. Joint Affidavit at 1 40.12/
17/ This determination was verified by the study conducted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection
("ICRP."), which determined that the critical human organ con-tinues to be the thyroid, and dosage due to inhalation would be (Continued Next Page)
Regulatory Guide 1.109 requires that 90% of the exposure be accounted for. Joint Affidavit at 10. This rule creates a presumption that if 90% of exposure is accounted for, the dose analysis may be considered adequate and complete. Id.
This conclusion in the Regulatory Guide is reasonable because numerous conservative factors are built into the various model parameters utilized to determine the dose calculation. Joint Affidavit at 11 11, 41, 45. Such conservatism more than com-pensates for the negligible amounts of dose exposure thereby ignored from numerous inconsequential pathways.18/
Intervenor Eddleman contends that Applicants dose calcula-tion:
(1) Ignores the effects of wet deposition. Re-sponses to Applicants' Interrogatories 29-12, and 29-17; (2) Ignores evidence presented by the Heidelberg study, NRC Translation 520, which indicates that the transfer factors for radiciodines from the aquatic and atmo-spheric environment to materials ingested
~
and inhaled by humans, have been signifi-cantly understated. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-12; (Continued)
- significantly greater to the thyroid than to the lung. Joint Affidavit at 1 40.
18/ See also " Affidavit of G. Hoyt Whipple in Support of Ap-plicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Contention II" at VV 7, 8.
(3) Has utilitzed models which use scientif-ically defective methodology as reported by a Washington Post article of November 11, 1979. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' General Interrogatory 1 and Interrogatory 29-12; (4) Has not accounted for all pathways which can contribute doses to human beings at the critical locations. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' General Interrogatory 1 and Interrogatories 29-12 and 29-17; (5) Has underestimated the doses due to con-sumption of leafy green vegetables, such as collard greens. Eddleman Response to Ap-plicants' Interrogatory 29-20; and (6) Has used NRC guidance to calculate dose which underestimates the actual dose.
Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interroga-tory 29-20.
Applicants contend that each allegation is clearly outside the t scope of Contention 29/30.
(1) As discussed in connection with Applicants' atmo-opheric dispersion estimates, wet deposition of radionuclides contributes an insignificant amount to total concentration of radioactivity-on the ground over the course of a year. See Section III.D.1, infra. Any effect on Applicants' dose calcu-lation due to wet deposition would be negligible as shown by
! the calculations contained in the Second McFeaters Affidavit, Exhibit B at 4. Since the contribution of wet deposition, to radioiodine concentrations is negligible, Applicants' dose cal-culations do not and need not specifically account for wet f
I
deposition, consistent with the general rule established by Regulatory Guide 1.109, which requires that 90% of the exposure be accounted for. Joint Affidavit at 1 10.
(2) & (3) Intervenor Eddleman, relying on the so called "Heidelberg Report," or NRC Translation 520, also alleges that Applicants' transfer factors for radioiodine pathways resulting in human exposure are grossly understated. The transfer factors utilized by Applicants were also alleged by Mr.
Eddleman to be based on defective experiments as reported in a Washington Post article of November 11, 1979. As that article actually relies upon the information contained in the Heidelberg Report, both of Mr. Eddleman's allegations ulti-mately rely on that report.
The constant of proportionality (" uptake factor" or
" transfer factor") used by Applicants is found in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and is based on extensive scientific surveys and studies. Joint Affidavit at 11 11, 37, 38. Contrary to Mr.
Eddleman's Washington Post article and the Heidelberg Report, the measurements made of the concentration of radionuclides and stable elements in plants and soils to derive the transfer factors were taken from soils from natural settings (agricul-tural soils, meadows, forests and gardens -- not sterilized >
soils as alleged by Intervenor) and plants collected from the natural environment (not from transplanted plants given
-+---m y m -n- w-~ m .m v , m m 9., -
- - -P.- -
1 4
insufficient time to accumulate radionuclides as alleged by Intervenor). Id. at 1 38.
I Any reliance on the Heidelberg Report is misplaced. The
- Heidelberg Report has been.the recipient of wide-spread and universal scientific criticism by highly respectable interna-tional governmental and private agencies because of its many inaccuracies, misleading treatment of available data and other methodological flaws, to the extent that it has been thoroughly discredited in the scientific community.19/ Joint Affidavit at 1 39; see also Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1496-97 (1981) (rejecting analysis based on the Heidelberg Report).
I 1
19/ See Attachment 7 to the Joint Affidavit for a summary of the criticisms and exposed shortcomings of the Heidelberg study by both American and German institutions, including a're-cantation of the report's conclusions by one of its joint authors in a German administrative court. The authors of the Report were university students who represented themselves as being sponsored by Heidelberg University, contrary to fact and against the direct instructions of the President of the Univer-7 sity. The Report has been soundly discredited and severely
- criticized by the Ministerium Fur Arbeit Gesundheit Und Sozialordung Baden (the German Government Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Agency), Dr. E.K.F. Brutz, Dean of the Faculty of Bi-
! ology of the University of Heidelberg, the National
! Radiological Protection Board of England, and the NRC Staff, which published a review of the Heidelberg study, NUREG-0668,
" Staff Review of Radioecological Assessment of the Wyh1 Nuclear 1
Power Plant: Analysis of the Report Prepared by the University !
of Heidelberg, West Germany (Draft Summary Report)."
t i
= -
d Among other defective shortcomings, the Heidelberg Report utilized a Source Term greatly in excess of any experienced by U.S. operating plants, utilized soil to plant concentration factors (uptake factors) not supported by the literature cited for them and utilized dose conversion factors far in excess of those supportable by experimental data. Joint Affidavit at 1 39 and Attachment 7. The report also selectively combined atmospheric dispersion data in an irrational manner compounding the effects of meteorological phenomena to create atmospheric I
dispersion factors in error by a multiple of ten or more. Id.
~
at Attachment 7.
(4) Mr. Eddleman faults Applicants for not taking into account all pathways which can contribute any increment, howev-er insignificant or negligible, to Applicants' dose calcula-tion. When asked what was his basis for this assertion, Mr.
Eddleman responded: " Appendix I is basis, you need to because wherever radionuclides can go and be uptaken, they will be.
Appendix I requires an estimate including all possible path-ways, not just mo-st of them." Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-68(a)(vii). Of course, this is simply not true. As discussed above, unless a pathway has the potential to contribute significantly to the exposures, they need not be included in dose calculations. Joint Affidavit at 10; RM-50-2 at 339. Applicants and the NRC Staff have considered 9
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ . _ _ ~ _--.-__ - . - - _ _ - _ - , _ _ _ .
all significant pathways. Mr. Eddleman has not suggested a pathway of significance that was omitted.
(5) Mr. Eddleman challenges Applicants' estimates with regard to the human ingestion of green leafy vegetables, spe-
.cifically collard greens. Mr. Eddleman misconstrues Appli-cants' estimate as based upon a limited period of sixty days for_ consumption. Mr. Eddleman's allegation is based upon a fundamental misconception regarding this sixty day period. Ap-plicants have constructed their estimate of exposure due to human ingestion of green leafy vegetables, including collard greens, based upon a growing season of sixty days, not a consumption season of sixty days. Joint Affidavit at 1 44.
This sixty day growing period is conservative in nature (be-cause it overestimates the time vegetables will actually be growing above the soil in a garden) and adequately accounts for all deposition which would occur on all green leafy vegetables which would be consumed by humans.20/ Id.
20/ The assumptions in the vegetable consumption dose calcula-tion attest to the conservatisms inherent in the methodology.
For an adult, the assumption is made that he consumes 64 kg/ year of leafy vegetables, all of which are assumed to be ob-tained from the backyard garden. It is assumed that no radioiodines are removed in the course of food preparation and cooking. Joint Affidavit at 1 43. As a further conservatism, the maximum individual exposures from airborne releases is a summation of ell dose pathways. Notwithstanding the fact that the maximum ?.ocation for meat and milk pathway is different than the max d mum location for crop pathway, the dose calcula-tion makes the impossible assumption that the maximum individual lives in both maximum exposure locations at once.
Id. at 1 45.
(6) Finally, Mr. Eddleman alleges that "no NRC guidance which I know does not contribute to the underestimate of radioiodine releases," without support or evidence for his con-clusion. Eddleman Response to Applicants' Interrogatory 29-20(e). Applicants have utilized NRC guidance which is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Joint Affidavit at 1 37.
This guidance and the models contained within it, have been subjected to exceptional and intensive scientific scrutiny re-sulting in favorable conclusions reaarding the adequacy of that guidance. Id. at 1 11.
Empirical studies have demonstrated the calculational methodology to be conservative. Id. at 1 11, 46, 47, Attach- ,
ments 3 and 4.
F. The Monitoring System The Harris Plant contains two separate monitoring systems, one in-plant for effluent monitoring and one external to the site for monitoring the environment. The in-plant fixed Radia-tion Monitoring System includes monitors designed to assess radioiodine releases from the Plant. Grant Affidavit at 1 3.
The system and individual monitors are described in detail in the Harris FSAR, $$ 11.5 and 12.3.4. All gaseous effluent release points are monitored either directly or indirectly.
The radiciodine monitoring system is also equipped with the ca-pability to obtain grab samples from each effluent point to
assess offsite releases when the monitoring system is not operational. The system and monitors are designed to ensure that an accurate assessment of offsite releases can be made.
Grant Affidavit at 1 19.
Applicants' environmental monitoring system is composed of .
both atmospheric and aquatic samplers. These samplers are de-scribed in the Shearin Affidavit at V 2, 8, 9. The environ-mental monitoring system is designed to provide data on measur-able levels of radioactive materials in the environment to en-able Applicants to estimate dose equivalents from radioiodine releases at the Harris Plant. Id. at 13.
Critical locations for environmental samplers are ini-tially dete.rmined according to the guidelines contained in NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants." Annual land use surveys will be conducted to ensure a continuing ability to de-termine critical locations, notwithstanding changes in use of unrestricted areas surrounding the Plant. Id. at 11.
These programs for effluent monitoring and environmental monitoring are designed to meet the requirements of Appendix I, S IV. B.
With respect to Applicants' monitoring systems, Mr.
Eddleman has alleged:
(1) Monitoring systems will not monitor all radiciodines either in-plant or in the environment because of fitting and gasket failures. Eddleman Responses to Appli-cants' General Interrogatory 1 and Inter-rogatory 29-3; (2) Applicants' monitoring system cannot function with humidity present at the SENPP site. Eddleman Responses to NRC Staff Interrogatories 16 and 19, Applicants' In-terrogatory 29-34; and (3) Applicants' monitoring system will fail to accurately measure released radiciodines due to the fact that all potential release points are not monitored, regardless of the quantities which are potentially releasable from those points. Eddleman Responses to Applicants' General Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatories 29-3, 29-17, 29-24 (as sup-plemented by 29-28), 29-28, and NRC Staff Interrogatory 19.
Again, Applicants submit that these allegations raise issues outside the scope of Contention 29/30.
(1) Intervenor Eddleman maintains that Applicants' moni-toring system will suffer from the same leaks from seals and gaskets that threaten Applicants' filtration system. See Section III.C(2) supra. The choice of materials used in, and design and testing of, monitors are aimed at preventing filter bypass or any other leakage prior to detection. Grant Affida-vit at 1 S. Applicants' monitoring system contains "O" rings seals composed of "Buna-N" rubber and neoprene. These materials have been tested to determine their resistance to ra-
] diation damage. Id. at V 6. These "O" rings in normal operation will be subjected to an integrated dose of I
-~ , , - - - - -
. - - . - . -y , . - - , - _ . - -_ ,_ ,, . - , _ . - - - , --,.r .. - __ - -- -
~_m-
radioactivity consisting of one one-thousandth of that required to produce any degradation. Id.
Again, Intervenor's reliance on certain reports of material degradations are misplaced as the cited reports refer to different materials and a much harsher environment. See Section III.C.(2) supra. The "O" ring seals will be visually inspected at each filter change and will be replaced if signs of wear and damage are noted. Grant Affidavit at 11 7, 9. As an additional safeguard, any leakage which would occur in certain neoprene seals in the monitoring systems would be de-tected by a vacuum differential pressure switch and displayed on the Radiation Monitoring Systems Display Console. Id. at 1 7; FSAR S 11.5.2.3.1.
(2) Mr. Eddleman has also alleged that Applicants' moni-toring system cannot accurately or adequately function due to the high humidity naturally occurring at the Harris site. Mr.
Eddleman maintains that the natural humidity at the Shearon Harris site is "quite high on average" and will be further ag-gravated by the presence of Jordan Lake. Eddleman Response to Interrogatory 29-34(b).
The monitoring system is designed to operate in a 95% hu-midity environment. The humidity which could interfere with 1
radiciodine monitoring systems is not naturally occurring hu-midity, but condensed water vapor in the effluent streams to be
=
. monitored. Grant Affidavit at 11 12, 13. Sample lines to all gaseous effluent monitors are heat traced to preclude any pos-sibility of condensing liquid. Id. at 1 12. For moisture laden or steam exhaust streams, gross activity is monitored and concentration of iodines and particulates are calculated based on known ratios. Sampling provides verification of the calcu-lations. Id. at 1 13.
(3) Mr. Eddleman has also alleged that Applicants have not demonstrated an ability to operate the Harris Plant within the guidelines of Appendix I because all potential release points for radioiodines at the Shearon Harris Plant are not monitored.
All significant gaseous effluent release points are moni-tored in compliance with NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," $ 11.5, Table 1. Grant Affidavit at 1 16. Releases from insignificant gaseous effluent release points are accounted for by indirect measurement techniques and routine sampling. Id. at 11 16, 17; see also FSAR $$ 9.3.2.2.2 and 16.2; Technical Specifications 3.7.1.4, 4.7.1.4 and Table 4.7-1. Every gaseous effluent stream is equipped with a manual sampling capability allowing for periodic evaluation and analysis of radioiodine activity, should the monitoring system be shutdown for an extended time period. Grant Affidavit at
,..~
. 1 18. Therefore, all gaseous effluent release points are monitored either directly or indirectly and an accurate assess-ment of offsite releases can be made. Id. at V 19.
IV. CONCLUSION Applicants respectfully submit that there is no material issue of fact with regard to any aspect of Eddleman Contention 29/30. The methodology used by both Applicants and the NRC Staff is set forth in NRC Regulatory Guides and other NRC pro-mulgated guidance, which have been subjected to thorough scien-tific scrutiny and have been universally accepted.in the nucle-ar scientific community. Dr. Mauro and Mr. Martin, who super-vised the Appendix I calculations performed for the Harris Plant, have responded, in their affidavit, to the unsupported attacks on the Appendix I methodology advanced by Mr. Eddleman.
Based on the Joint Affidavit and the affidavits of Dr. Grant and Mr. Shearin, it is clear that Mr. Eddleman's allegations are without merit. Furthermore, Mr. Eddleman's allegations regarding the dispersion models, dose calculations and moni-toring systems are manifestly outside the scope of
- Contention 29/30.
I But, even if Mr. Eddleman were correct in faulting some aspect of Applicants' calculations, on a theoretical basis, it
,-.-.-w . --,-.~.e , _ , , , -. . - . . . , , , . ,.,. , ..- g,., ,,,,,.n-, , - . , - - -,
e..- i l
is an uncontroverted fact that the methodology results in a conservative estimate of radiciodine releases. Empirical data conclusively supports the calculations. Both Applicants and the NRC Staff have calculated that I-131 releases from the Harris Plant will be an order of magnitude less than the Appendix I guide. Based on historical data, the actual releases are likely to be even less.
For all of the above reasons, summary disposition of Contentin 29/30 is appropriate at this time.
esp ctfully sqymitte Thdmas A. Baxter, P.C( 1 John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Je frey J.A. Gibbs S
()
W PITTMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-100 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 26602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: October 5, 1983
- > - , w-- -
- ,y - -.-#- ,, , - - - - - , - y ,. -