ML20128G689
| ML20128G689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#285-186 OL, NUDOCS 8505300270 | |
| Download: ML20128G689 (22) | |
Text
, . .- - - __.
.g
(.-
May 28, 1985 j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD 00CKETED USNRC LIn the Matter of )
) *85 MY 29 Pl2:i7 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352b c -
.(Limerick Generating Station, ((0CkEifrIG EPV .
Units'-1 and 2). , , ) .
SRANCH NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ANTHONY /F0E PETITION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE BASIS OF NEW INFORMATION IN APPLICANT'S SEMI-ANNUAL EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT OF FEBRUARY,1985 I. INTRODUCTION .
On May 7,1985, Applicant filed an " Answer to Petition By
- Anthony / Friends of the Ear'ht to Reopen the Record Based on Information' Relating to Offsite Effluent Releases",'to which was attached a document'
' consisting of a single page, entitled " Petition by Anthony /F0E to' Reopen the Record on the Basis of. New Information initiila. Elec. Co.'s Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report', Feb. 1985" dated April 30, 1985.- On May 8, 1985, the Licensing Board issued an Order in which it stated that it had determined that the Board had not been served with Mr. Anthony /F0E's
- (hereafter. "F0E") Petition and that it assumed that such service failure
.had resulted in other parties not receiving copies of the Petition. 1/ The Board therefore extended until.May 22, 1985, the time for replying to the r.
t.
,. 1/ The Board's assumption is correct insofar as the Staff's copy is l' concerned; the Staff has not yet been served by F0E with a copy of
.the petition dated April 30, 1985.
I 8505300270 850528 PDR ADOCM 05000352 C O^
PDR Q ,/
l t
3
, Petition and directed that responding parties file their replies with the Board, in hand, by close of business on tha't day.
On May 17,1985, F0E filed a " Response to the Board's Order of May 8, 1985 . . . and Response to Applica'nt's Answer To Our Petition," (Supple-mental Petition). The Licensing Board extended the time for responding to the Petition until May 28, 1985, and directed that responses be filed with the Board, in hand, by close of business on that day. U Order .
(Anthony /F0E Petition to Reopen Based on Applicant's Effluent Release Report),May 21, 1985. For the reasons discussed below, the Staff opposes both the Petition and the Supplemental Petition to reopen the record.
i II. DISCUSSION In the Petition, F0E asserts that the Applicant's. methods for calcu-lating doses at the site boundaries are not in keeping with the Commis-sion's regulations. Specifically, F0E alleges that the Applicant should have used the nearest approaches to the plant,.i.e., the railroad right-of-way and the Schuylkill River, both of which traverse the site, rather
-2/ The Licensing Board's assertion of jurisdiction over the two '
Pet.itions is proper. As the Appeal Board stated in Perkins, "it is for the Licensing Board to consider ab initio whether it is empowered to grant relief whiBi has been specifically sought of it. Every tribunal - whether judicial or administrative - possesses the inherent right (indeed, the duty) to determine in the first instance the bounds of its own jurisdiction. . . ."
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),"
ALAB-591, 11 NRC 741, 742 (1980). Moreover, tfie Licensing Board in this proceeding should find jurisdiction to rule on the Petitions in that the subject matter raised in them is not before the Appeal Board. See p. 7, n.5, infra.
4 3-than the site boundaries in calculating exposures to individuals. F0E also alleges that the Applicant should have used a same-day ingestion assumption rather than a one-day-delay ingestion assumption in making calculations regarding the fish-ingestion pathw'ay. Further, F0E alleges that changes made in Revision 1 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) will result in substantial increases in' radiation risk to the public.
A. F0E's Petitions do not meet the Commission's standards .
for reopening a record.
The Commission's standards for determining whether to reopen a closed record are well-established; the three-part test is:
- 1) Is the motion timely?
- 2) Does it address significant safety (or environmental) .
issues?
. 3) Might a different result have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially?
Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station,
' Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 NRC 1321, 1324 (1983); Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-738,18 t'RC 177, 180 (1983).
(1) Timeliness -
F0E's Petitions are not timely. Even if F0E's allegations were based on information not available before the issuance of Applicant's Semi-Annual Effluent Releases Report of February 1985, which F0E states that it received on April 2,1985, the Petition would be lacking in the requisite timeliness, as the Petition was filed almost'a full [ month after the subject report was made available to F0E. However, the concerns that F0E expresses regarding distances used in dose calculations and the assumptions used in e
' fish consumption calculations are not related to changes in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) dated Februa'ry,1985. These calculations are unchanged from the o-iginal 0DCM submitted to the NRC on September 14, 1984, and approved by the NRC staff on October 3, 1984. /
In addressing the standards for reopening, F0E states that "PECO's effluent report is new material which we coulo not have had earlier." F0E's concerns, however, do not relate to the effluent releases report but to the revised ODCM attached to'th'at report ~. As discussed above, the Petition would be untimely even-if the primary concern expressed were with the changes in the report. To the extent that F0E's concern centers not on the revised ODCM but on information in a document issued in September, 1984, the Petition is.
all the more untimely. O (2) k'hether the Petitions raise a significant safety issue F0E states that "our health and safety are in danger." However, F0E has not pointed to any safety regulation that in its opinion the Applicant might have violated in making the cajculations complained of and in making the changes documented in the note from G. M. Leitch to R. A.
~.
-3/ The Staff's records indicate that F0E received copies of both the
_ Applicant's submission and the Staff document approving it.
4/ .The Staff agrees with the Applicant that the methodology to which F0E now objects is unchanged since the application was filed. See
' "Applicant's Answer . . .," May 7, 1985 at 4. The Staff also notes that F0E's concern might have been raised in reference to the DES /FES, which discusses tisese matters at length in Section 5.9 and in Appendix D.- If F0E wished to. challenge the Staff's conclusibn i that "there will be no measurable radiological' impact on any member of the public from routine operation of the Limerick facility,"
(FES, 5-48) F0E should have come forward at the tiae the DES was issued.
5-Mulford, dated January 28, 1985 (Attachment D1 to the Semi-Annual' Effluent Releases Report), which covers the revised'0DCM. F0E asserts that the Applicant's statement in Attachment D1, that the modification' of the con-tainment purge isolation set point' basis will " allow LGS flexibility . . . .
in set point for isolation," " amounts to degrading the standards, with sub-stantial increases in radiation risk to the public." F0E Petition. F0E states that "[it] petition [s] against this degrading, and also against the
~
modifications of release po' int weighting factor, and the averaging of emissions from north and south stacks." In an Affidavit attached to this Response, Marie T. Mil'ar, Radiation Specialist in Region I, states that, contrary to the allagations made by F0E, The changes to the ODCM, transmitted by Philadelphia Electric Company to NRC Region I on February 28, 1985, in accordance with Limerick Technical Specification Section 6.14.2, are consistent with the Cornission's regulations in 10 CFR 20 and the Licensee's Technical Specifications and do not increase the radiation risk to the public. ... The new setpoint for the containment purge isolation cited in the ODCM agrees with the trio setpoint requirement in Technical Specification, Section T3.3.2 - 2C. In my review of the. equations used in the revised method to determine alarm setpoints for the North and Sc:lth vent monitors, I determined that the revised method rep' resents a refinemen+. of the previously approved calculation method. The revised method allows the setpoints to be deter-mined rnore efficiently by the licensee. The revised method continues to demonstrate compliance with Technical Specifica- '~~
tions and assures 10 CFR 20 limits will not be exceeded. In addition, the releases from the North and South Vents are
. calculated based on the fractional contribution from both verts. The above method does not. average releases from the vents.
Accordingly, with regard to changes in the ODCM, F0E is factually incorrect in asserting that emissions have been averaged and has not pointed to any violation of NRC regulations or' demonstrated how any significant safety issue is raised by the referenced changes.
4
F0E's allegations concerning error in the site boundaries uskd in cal-culating set points and assumptions concern'ing fish consumption are addressed in the attached affidavit of Dr. Edward F. Branagan, Jr. of the Radiological
^
Assessment Branch. Dr. Branagan states that, contrary to F0E's allega-tions, the site boundaries listed in the ODCM, Rev. I are appropriate for limiting exposure to radioactive effluents (Paragraph 6 of the Affida-vit). He -states that the doses from eating fish are not underestimated ,
either. because of the ass'um'ption as to where ' fish are caught or'because of the assumption of a one day delay before consumption (Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Affidavit). Further, Dr. Branagan states that, contrary to F0E's allegations, the assumptions on which the Applicant's calculations are based'are consistent with the Staff's recommendations in Reg. Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (Paragraph 8of-the. Affidavit).
b Based upon the Affidavits of Ms. Miller and Dr. Branagan, it is the Staff's conclusion that F0E's Petitions raise no significant safety issue and fail to point to any inconsistency with the, Commission's regulations regarding offsite dose calculations.
(3) Whether a different result might have been reached The third criterion that a petitioner for reopening must address- ~
- is wheth'er a different result might have been reached if' the newly proffered material had been considered initially. F0E makes the bare assertion that "a totally different result, with lowered radiation isolation setpoints, will result from calculations based on the findings above." F0E has,not set forth any basis for this assertion and, as demohstrated by the attached Affidavits, there is no basis for such an assertion. Therefore, F0E has y 4
7-failed to demonstrate how the information in its Petitions would affect any finding made by the Licensing Board in 'this proceeding. E/
(4) Summary.
In summary, F0E's petiti'on is not timely; it does not raise any significant safety issue; and consideration of the matters raised would not change the results reached in the proceeding. Thus, the petition fails to satisfy the criteria for reopening and should be denied for that reasori a]one.
B. F0E has not satisfied 'the five criteria for admitting a late contention.
A' party seeking to raise a new, previously uncontested issue through a motion to reopen the record must satisfy not only the standards for reopen-
~
ing but also the late-filed contention criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. .
9 2.714(a)(1), 5/ Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
-5/ Although no contentions regarding routine releases were litigated in this proceeding, the Licensing Board did make findings concerning the calculation and monitoring of routine. releases offsite in its Second Partial-Initial Decision, LBP-84-3,1, 20 NRC 446 at 540-42 (1984). See especially F.F. E E-93, where the Board made find-ings regarding routine releases in order to distinguish monitoring of such releases from that associated with accident conditions.
These findings would not be affected by any information in F0E's Petitions. ~
r 6/- Section 2.714(a)(1) provides that nontimely petitions to intervene l or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determina-
, . tion by the Licensing Board that the petition or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors:
(i) good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means to protect peti-tioner's interest; l
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l
G
, Plants, Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-39, 16 NRC 1712, 1714-15 (1982), including the Catawba Appeal Board's three part test 'for good cause. E Although F0E did not address the five factors in the original Petition, it has addressed them in its Supplemental Petition.'
(1) Good Cause F0E-states that it could not have known of PEC0's proposal to modify. isolation set points until it was provided with PEC0's Semi-Annual.
Effluent Releases Report. As discussed above, F0E's contention ~1s not wholly dependent upon the content of Revision I to the ODCM, but depends primarily on material previously available, namely the ODCM as submitted in September, 1984. Additionally, aspects of the Petition could have been raised much earlier based on information in the Application documents (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
(iii) the extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist,in developing a sound record; '
(iv) the extent to which existing parties will represent.
the petitioner's interest; and (v) the extent to which petitioner's participation will '
broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
-7/ The Catawba Appeal Board's three part test for good cause requires a finding that the late-filed contention: "(1) is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (2) could not therefore be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document; and (3) is tendered with the' requisite degree of promptness once the document comes into" existence and is accessible for public examination." Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Stat %n, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 469 (1982); affirmed 'vant part, 17 NRC 1041 at 1047 (1983).
p
. I and in the FES. The i: Sues could, therefore, have been advanced earlier.
Further, F0E delayed for almost a full month after receiving Revision I to the ODCM before filing its new contention. Therefore, F0E has not satisfied any part of the Catawba ' good cause test and this factor weighs against F0E.
(2) Availability of other means to protect petitioner's interest The second factor required to be considered pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)'is availability 'of other means to protect petitioner's interest.
F0E states in its Supplemental Petition that there is no other means to protect its interest. As the Staff discusses, infra, there is no sound basis for F0E's assertion that the matters raised in the Petitions affect its interest. However, the Staff concedes that there is no other means available to protect what F0E perceives to be its interest. From this perspective, this factor weighs in F0E's favor.
(3) Assistance in development of a sound record F0E's Petition on its face demonstraps that party's lack of knowledge of the matter that it seeks to litigate. F0E states "our health and safety are in danger because the methods for calculating dosages at the site boundaries are not in keeping with the regulations. . . " How- -
ever, F0E fails to state what regulation it perceives to be violated and how the public's health and safety is threatened. F0E has offered nothing to show that its participation on the issue it seeks to raise would assist in the development of a sound record. .
In its Supplemental Petition, F0E states that it has secured
-the services of an expert to testify on the health consequences of radia-tion exposure to the public at 900 feet from the plant. The witness is
. - -- r ., , . ,
, . . . . - . -- - .- - . - .. - ~
identified as Dr. Bruce Molholt, a geneticist and microbiologist who is a Professor in.the~ Department of Health Educa' tion at Temple University in Philadelphia. F0E-indicates that Dr. Molholt will testify on the health effects of exposure to radiation f' rom nuclear reactor effluents as related
- to levels, duration and distance from the release points.
L A petitioner addressing the third criterion should " set out with 4
! as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, ,
Liden'tify.its prospective' witnesses and summarize its proposed testimony
.... Vague assertions regarding petitioner's ability . . . are insuf-ficient." Mississippi Power & Light Co. -(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16'NRC 1725, 1730 (1982). F0E's statements re-garding .the proposed testimony of Dr. Molholt are too vague to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(iii), as interpreted in Grand Gulf regarding assistance it development of a sound record. Particularly in light of the lack of safety significance of the matters F0E seeks to raise, its Supplemental Petition fails to identify thp,information Dr. Molholt
!- would bring before-this Board that would justify a reopening of the record.
Thus, this factor weighs against F0E.
(4) Representation by existing parties - -
Although F0E has addressed this factor under "other means",.the i Staff understands F0E's statement that "we cannot rely on the NRC for this"
, to refer to F0E's feeling that the Staff will not represent F0E's interest-
, as expressed in the. Petitions. Assuming that some real interest is at. stake, ,
- the Staff agrees that F0E's interest is not represented by existing parties and that this factor, therefore, weighs in F0E's favor, i
Y A- ,,q w -=m._,__.m - , ..-.,,,,,,-6. .- r ., , , . ..- - .. . -m , , , -+_.,,-.y, .r,, g ,- .,we, . - - . r-,e+
, (5) Delay and broadening of the issues F0E asserts that "this petition w'ill [not] add significant delay since the license for the plant is currently held up by energency planning, water supply and safety evaluation'." The fifth standard, however, relates to delay inL the proceeding ar.d only one of the issues identified by F0E, emergency planning, is still pending before this Licensing Board. Speci-fically, except for the limited remand concerning emergency planning for .
the Graterford Prisoners,' a'll issues'before the Licensing Board'have been decided. The Staff concludes, therefore, that there is a distinct possi-bility that reopening to hear the issues asserted in F0E's Petitions would
' delay the proceeding. A reopening would clearly broaden the issues in the proceeding. Thus, this factor weighs against F0E.
(6) Balancing the five factors On balance, a consideration of the factors for admission of late-filed contentions weighs heavily against the granting of F0E's Petitions.
C. F0E fails to state a contention with the requisite basis and
' specificity.
The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. G 2.714(b) require that a petitioner set forth the basis for each proposed contention with reason- ~.
able specificity. F0E has not explicitly stated a contention, much less set forth a basis with specificity. As discussed above, with respect to safety significance, F0E has failed to set forth a basis for its assertion
-tt;at "our health and safety are in danger." Thus, F0E has failed to pro-vide a basis for a contention based on the matters raised in its Petitions.
.a 12 -
III. CONCLUSION As discussed above, F0E has failed to'make the showing required of a party seeking to reopen the record. F0E has also failed to satisfy the five factors for admission of a la'te-filed contention and the basis and specificity requirements for the admission of a contention. Accordingly, F0E's Petition, as supplemented, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, .
E oc h Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff-Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of May, 1985- .
t 4
4 r ,--g ,- - - , - - - - ,--w-
, n- --
-n -,- - . - , -
y
.u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO,MMISSION .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the _ Matter of' )-
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352
)- 50-353~
~
- (LimerickGeneratingStation, )
Units'Iand2) )
- AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD F. BRANAGAN, JR.
.I, Edward F. Branagan, Jr., being duly sworn, state as follows:
- 1. .I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a iSectionLeaderintheRadiologicalAssessmentBranchoftheDivisionof Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As a Section Leader in the Radiological' Assessment Branch, I am responsible for evalu-ating the environmental radiological impacts resulting from the operation
" ' of nuclear power reactors.- In particular, I am responsible for evaluating radioecologicalmodelsand.healtheffectsmode[ls'for.use_inreactor-licens-
_. ing and operations. A copy _ of my professional qualifications is attached to this affidavit.
2.- The purpose of this affidavit is to address the allegations-n concerning the dose calculation methodology used in the licensee's Off-f site Dose Calculation Manual. These allegations were raised'in the "Pe-
- tition by Anthony /F0E To Reopen the Record on the Basis of New Information in Phila. Elec. Co.-'s Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report, February 1985",
~
' dated April 30,1985 (hereinafter F0E Petition).
I a
,f!
o
'h.
u
- 3. Specifically, this affidavit addresses F0E's allegations that:
(1) "the site boundaries on which they [the' set points used to control
? radioactive effluents] are based . . . are in error"; (2) doses from eating' fish are underestimated bec'ause fish could be caught at the liquid effluent outlet; and (3) doses from eating fish are underestimated because
,the licensee has assumed a "one day delay," whereas fish could be eaten
-on the-same day. .
4.- In a ' letter from W. M. Alden, Philadelphia Electric Company to T. E. Murley, USNRC, Region I, dated February 28, 1985, the licensee pro-vided.the staff with Revision 1 to the "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for the-Limerick Generating. Station, Units 1 and 2," dated February 25, 1985 .
(hereinafter ODCM, Rev.1). The 'DCM, Rev. 1 replaced an NRC staff reviewed
' document dated September 14, 1984 (hereinafter ODCM, Rev. 0).
- 5. The ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used to estimate doses from exposure to radioactive effluents from routine releases from nuclear power plants. The dose calculation methods that are acceptable to. the NRC staff are described in a report entitled " Preparation of Radio-
-logical Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants" NUREG-0133 (1978). NUREG-0133 in turn refers to USNRC Regulatory Guide -
1.109', " Calculation of Annual Doses from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for~ the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I," Rev. 1, 19'/;
- 6. F0E states that the site boundaries of 790m and 762m are 1,n error because individuals can approach closer to th& site via the railroad right-of-way and the Schuylkill River. These site boundaries are used in
.the calculation of. doses from routine radioactive gaseous releases to
3-determine permissible release levels. F0E refers to pp. 5-10 of the ODCM, Rev. I for the site boundary distances; how'ever, the same distances are given on pp. 7-13 of the ODCM, Rev. O. The Staff is aware that individu-als may be exposed at these closer' locations; however, in the Final Environ-mental Statement related to operation of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0974),' April 1984, and in reviewing the Applicant's ODCM, Rev. O, the Staff considered that it was unlikely that these locations would be more limiting in d'ose calculations than the site boundary for the following reasons. The dose for an individual is equal to the product of the concentration of the radionuclide in the medium of interest (je.g.,j air, meat, or milk) and the occupancy time (or in the case of meat and milk the quantity of food ingested), as well as many other factors. Although it is possible that the concentration of the radionuclide in air may be slightly greater at the locations identified by F?., the occupancy times for these locations would typically be only a small fraction of a year as compared with the much higher occupancy time assumed for the individual i
at the site boundary. (FES, Appendix D, p. D-2.) In addition, there are no permanent residences, gardens, milk animals' or meat animals at the closer locations suggested by F0E. Exposure to direct radiation from radioactiver liquid effluents was also evaluated in the FES (see Table D-6, p. D-9) and found to be negligible. In. summary, the site boundaries listed in the ODCM, Rev. I are appropriate for limiting exposure to radioactive effluents. -
- 7. F0E states that doses from eating fish ard underestimated because fish could be caught at the effluent outlet, and refers to Figure VI.A.1 on p. 19 of the ODCM, Rev. 1. The methodology used to estimate doses e
from ingesting fish is described in 5 II.B, pp. 2-4, and S VII, p'. 34 of the ODCM, Rev. 1. Contrary to F0E's' assert' ion that the dose from ingesting fish was based on catching fish 1.9 miles from the plant, a review of these pages indicates that the dose from' ingesting fish is based on catching fish at the plar.t discharge point (i.e., effluent outlet).
- 8. F0E states that doses from eating fish are underestimated because the licensee has assumed a "one day delay," whereas fish could be eaten on the same day. The "one day' delay" i~s described as follows in a^ footnote to Table II.A.1, p. 4, of the ODCM, Rev. 1: "These factors are decayed
'for one day to account for the time between effluent release and inges-tion of fish by the maximum exposed individual, an adult." The "one day delay" factor is not new information. The preceding quotation appears
- as a footnote to Table II.A.1, p. 6, of the ODCM, Rev. O. The Staff has recommended a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> delay period to take into account the radionuclide decay during food preparation (See Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.1,1977, pp. 2, 12.and 69). While it is possible that an individual would eat fish that had been caught on the same day, it is unlikely that the entire quantity of fish assumed to be ingested (21 Kg/yr) would be eaten on the same day that it is caught. The Staff, tnerefore, considers the Licensee's assumpti'on to be appropriate. Notwithstanding, a shorter delay (e.g., 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) would result.in less than a 10% increase in dose via this pathway.
- 9. In conclusion, the information provided on which F0E's petition is based concerning the location of the site boundary, the catching of fish in the vicinity of the plant discharge point, and the "one day delay" prior
. to eating fish is not new information. The values for these parameters f
e 9
-- -w , . - - --c- +, ee.
5-as provided in the ODCM, Rev.1 are appropriate for limiting expo'sures to radioactive effluents.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of ry knowledge.
s
, Edward F. Branagan, Jr. '
Subscribed and sworn to before me this % day of % g , 1985 w\hk\\
h6ns -
~
. - Notary Fublic " " .
My comission expires:7 l t l 2(o 8 cu %
&& L si h,. ? ;'
9 9
i a
9
rr g . - ,
a
- x
'5Y ,
y: '
- + .
, -EDWARD F. BRANAGAN, JR.
>y 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
' ~
i PR0FESSIONAL'00ALIFICATIONS- ,
.From: April.1979 'to the present, I have been employed in the Radiological Assess-ment Branch:in the Office-of ~ Nuclear Reactor Regulation of = the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(NRC). As a Section Leader in the Radiological Assessment:
~ Branch, I .am responsible for evaluating the environmental radiological impacts '
~
~
resulting from the operation of nuclear power reactors. In particulare I am:
- ' responsible for evaluating rad.ioecological models and health effect models .for s
use.in. reactor licensing. ' ,
In additionito my duties involving the evaluation of radiological impacts from nuclear reactors, my duties in the Radiological Assessment Branch have included the following: (1) I. managed and- was the principal . author of a report entitled-
~
StaffqReview of lRadioecological Assessment of the Wyhl -Nuclear Power Plant'"
. (NUREG-0668);1(2) I served.as a technical contact on an NRC contract with -
g ' Argonne National Laboratory involving development of a computer program to - .
calculate 1 health effects from radiation;'(3) I served as the project manager on
~
1 an NRC contract with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory involving" estimated-and measured concentrations of-radionuclides in the environment; (4) I served fas'the' project' manager on an NRC. contract with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
<cmcer.ning a literature review of- values for parameters in ' terrestrial radio- -
nuclide. transport models; and-(5) I s'erved .as the project manager on an NRC w Econtract with Dak Ridge Natio'nal . Laboratory'concerning a statistical analysis Jof. dose: estimates via food pthways.
' From 1976 -to April.19/9,' I was . employed by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material
. i: Safety and Safeguards, where I,was involved in project management and ~ technical 1
. work. I served as.:the project manager for the NRC in connection with the'NRC's estimation' of radiation-' doses from radon-222 and radium-226 releases lfrom. uran c ium mills,cin coordination with Dak Ridge National Laboratory which'servedfas
- the. NRC ' contractor.; As part of my work on NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement'on Uranium Milling (GEIS) I estimated health'_ effects from. uranium imill tailings. . . Upon publication of- the GEIS, 'I presented a paper entitled
" Health Effects of Uranium Mining and Milling for Commercial; Nuclear Power" at a Conference.on Health. Implications of New Energy Technologies.'
'I received a B.A. in Physics from Catholic University in 1969, an M.A. in Science Teaching from Catholic University in 1970, and a Ph.D. in Radiation Biophysics.
1 from Kansas University in 1976. _While completing my course work for my Ph.D.,
!I was antinstructor of Radiation Technology at Haskell, Junior' College in Lawrence.
- -Kansas.7 My. doctoral research work was in the~ area of DNA base damage,' and was
- supported by a'U.S. Public Health Service traineeship; my doctoral dissertation
> ;was/ entitled " Nuclear Magnetic- Resonance Spectroscopy of, Gamma-Irradiated DNA .
sBases."
~ 'IJam-a member of the Health Physics Society.
s.
E
. 05/27/P5 :12:25 : NRC REG 1 to.C10 0a2 UNITED STATES OF l AMERICA .
CCLEAR REGULATORY ..
'C09'I53109
___m-i BEFORE THE;ATOHC iSAFETY AND LICENSING BDARD In the Matter of- '. *- )
)
- THILADELPHIF ELECTRIC COMPANY ~ . D
- ket N:5.- 50-352
. 353
. (Limerick Generating Station, ,
1 Units 1 and 2)
. ~ AFFDAVIT '0F PARTE:T. MLLER I,' Harie'T; Mikler,ibeing duly; sworn,. state fas' follows:
1.! I men employed by. th4 U.S.: Nuclear .Reguhtery Consission as a Radiation Spectslist-in the SVR Redistion Safety 3ection,2Emergers:y Pre-e eparecness and ' Radiological? Protection Brar.ch. Division of Radiatt=n Safety *
. and' Safeguards : Region I.
- L have;been: employed by the: NRC for Togr and a
- ' half years and am responsible for inspecting nuclear' ponr. fac11 Tty 31reisees'
- emergency preparedness and radiolmpical control programs *. I I fiavel a Master
' .cf Sciente- degree in' Radtstion $cience' arid a Bachelor tt Arts itirCnesistry t frcm :.Rutgers Univ'ersity :tn New Brunswice, Nw Jersey ahd camden, New Jersey, e :respectively, s
. 2. The purrese nf this' aff.fdavit 15 tef ad:?ess the techriical st,fii-
- ficance of the Febnary ':l925 Revtsion ;1 to the Limerick :Offsite Ds'se' Cal-culat%rr Mandal (03CP)". : The changes tt the 00CM that we a subraitted by I'
Philadelphia Electric fcapany (tha tlicensee.) to NRC Region ;I fed February 28 . ,
- 1985, Jr
- accordance vith timerScr Techntcal Specification:Section 6.714.2,'
. are consistent with the Commission's. regulations in 'Io CFR 20, l
i l
er
. . _ - . . . _ . _ _,_m . . - . . . - , . ., _ _
- ! 25G45 12:25 'NRC REG 1 NO.010 - 023'
- . . . : . . , ,g_
~
i > and the .licen'see's Technicc1 Specifications and to not increase the
- radiation risk :to the 'pubitc.; The bases for 'this . finding; are set iforth
- ' below. -
3.! .The new setpoint for the, containment purge isolation. cited in
- the CXM ogrees eith the snip setpotet requiremient in Technical $pecifica-
- tion,section 73.3.2 - 20. In wy restes ef. the w(uations used in the t rsvisedirethod eto determine alare setpoints for tha 1 North and Scuth vent a ' monitors,:!: determined that: the revised siethod represants' a refinement of
~~
- - the previously approved caltvlation methode The' revised meth-d allows the s ' setp: ts to be determined moore ef.ficiently by the licenses. The revised
- i est ntinues se demonstrate compliance vith Technicil Specifications 2 , and . assures ID CFR 20 limit's 'will no.t :be exceeded, iIn addition,- the releases from the North and South Tents are calculated based on the-fractional
- + contribution -from bath' vents. The above method does not average ~ releases
- ': from the verts.
- 4. !* hereby c'ertify that the foregoing is true and correet to the
- 1 best of my knowledge.
h eiEL. T % ' k
- Marie T. f,ttller ~
s t subscribed and. sworn to'before a me thisygf( day of . Pfay 1985 7 Notary Public ..
- My'conutssionexpirds: M NN -
. /. tg.... .\ . .,.. ' ,e
, fj;&.}R%;.,; \s
.i *;
s, e
l
' ';;;;\h.;% '..y i
- ?ek,,' , ?.a /*,*. '
,, ,,,0 .
( i '." bis! 2. N' ,
[
I 1
I i
i I
._-.7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of '
) UNkc
' PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 '85 liAY 29 P12:17 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
cracE OF SECREIAM 00CKETggE8VICI.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ANTHONY /F0E PETITION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON THE BASIS OF NEW INFORMATION IN APPLICANT'S SEMI-ANNUAL EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT OF FEBRUARY, 1985" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the Jnited States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the
. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system or by hand-delivery as indicated by two asterisks, this 28th day of May,1985:
, Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson'(2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555** Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole T'roy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.
Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C. 20555** Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Administrative Judge ~6504 Bradford Terrace Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19149
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555** Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano Ardmore, PA 19003 Air and Water Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Martha W. Bush, Esq.
Ambler, PA 19002 Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
1500 Municipal Services Bldg.
Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President 15th and JFK Blvd.
Ms. Maureen Mulligan. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Limerick Ecology Action 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA 19464 9
9 r- ~
4
.g,
- *g l
. Thomas Gerusky, Director- Zori G. Ferkin Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council .
Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 1625 N. Front Street Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 .
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Director Associate General Counsel Pennsylvania Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Room 840
- Basement, Transportation & Safety 500 C Street, S.W.
Building Washington, D.C. 20472 Harrisburg, PA 17120 ,
, Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony Sugarman, Denworth 8 Hellegers Friends of the Earth of the 16th Floor Center Plaza Delaware Valley 101 North Broad Street 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Philadelphia, PA 19107
' Moylan, PA 19065' James Wiggins Angus R. Love, Esq. . . .
Senior Resident Inspector .
Montgomery County Legal Aid U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
107 East Main Street P.O. Box 47 Norristown, PA 19401 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Charles W. Elliote, Esq. ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Brose & Poswistilo Board Panel
- 325 N.-10 Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Easton, PA 18042 Washington, D.C. 20555*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal David Wersan , Board Panel
-Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555*
1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary ~~ '
Jay Gutierrez .U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional' Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555*
. USNRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue Gregory Minor King of Prussia, PA 19406 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Steven P. Hershey, Esq. San Jose, CA 95125 Corrnunity Legal Services, Inc.
5219 Chestnut Street Timothy R. S. Campbell,' Director Philadelphia, PA 19139 Departrhent of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380
^
g . (Jy.-
Ahn P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff (
m