ML20133P471
| ML20133P471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1985 |
| From: | Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133P475 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#385-225 OL, NUDOCS 8508140333 | |
| Download: ML20133P471 (10) | |
Text
Ob August 9,1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ggg g USt.!!c a
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'85 E 13 A10:25 In the Matter of
)
cFr:g cc er,_
)
00CKETmGNik7ir i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 BRANCH et al.
)
50-425
)
(0L)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFE RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 7 (GROUNDWATER)
I.
INTRODUCTION On July 15, 1985, Applicants filed a Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention 7 alleging that Applicants have failed to assure that the groundwater below the Vogtle site will not be contaminated.
For the reasons presented below and in the attached Affadavit of Gary B. Staley, the Staff submits that Applicants' Motion should be granted.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION The Staff previously set forth the applicable legal standards governing motions for sumary disposition in its July 26, 1985 " Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10.3 (Cables inMulticonductorConfigurations)"(atpp.1-3).
In order to avoid 8508140333 850809 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G
PDR 45<0
2_
unnecessary repetition, that discussion is incorporated by reference herein.
III. APPLICANTS' MOTION A.
Overview In its Order of September 5, 1984, the Board admitted Joint Intervenors' Contention 7, which reads:
Applicant has not adequately addressed the value of the groundwater below the plant site and fails to provide adequate assurance that the groundwater will not be contaminated as required by 10 CFR 51.20(a), (b), and (c), 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), and 10 CFR 100.10(c)(3).
In admitting Contention 7, the' Board indicated that the gravamen of Intervenors' contention was the possibility that an accidental spill of radioactive water at the site could result in contamination of the shallow, and possibly the deeper, aquifers under the site. Moreover, the Board indicated a concern that contaminants might travel from the shallow aquifer to the deeper aquifers and also stated a need to determine whether there were one or two deep aquifers under the site and, if two, whether the deep aquifers are hydraulically connected.
The issue of potential groundwater contamination in the event of accidental releases of radioactivity was discussed in both the Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Vogtle facility. As is discussed below, the Staff concluded that releases in the event of design basis accidents would not exceed 10 CFR Part 20 requirements in either the shallow or deep aquifers. The Staff also considered the effects of a beyond design basis event (a core melt
accident), and determined that the Vogtle site is comparable to other licensed sites in terms of the potential effects of accidents upon groundwater.
Before addressing the potential for groundwater contamination at Vogtle, the Staff wishes to comment on the regulatory requirements cited in Contention 7.
Section 51.20 requires that the Commission perform an environmental impact statement for various actions; the Staff has performed such an environmental impact statement for the Vogtle facility.
Section 50.34(a) describes the required technical contents of,
construction permit applications; this is an operating license proceeding, and the Applicants have addressed the issue of groundwater in their licensing submittals to the NRC. Finally,Section100.10(c)(3) states that special precautions should be planned if a "significant quantity" of contaminants might find their way into local water sources.
This last regulation clearly requires a threshhold finding that "significant quantities" of contaminants be released into local water sources.
In our view, the proper focus of this contention is the level of contaminants that might find their way into groundwater in the event of an accident at the Vogtle facility.
10 CFR Part 100 establishes limits for accidental releases. Lower limits are set forth in Part 20 for releases to unrestricted areas during routine operation. As will be shown below, the Staff has compared the releases associated with the enveloping accident for Vogtle (in terms of groundwater contamination) with the limits contained in Part 20. Since the limits for Part 20 are not exceeded in the event of an accidental release, operation of Vogtle insofar as groundvater contamination is concerned will not result in the
exceedance of Part 100 requirements in the event of an accidental release.
B.
Description of the Vogtle Site The groundwater underneath the Vogtle site consists of both unconfined (water table) and confined (artesian) aquifers. A water table aquifer is one in which groundwater possesses a free surface open to the atmosphere; an artesian aquifer is one in which gro'undwater is confined under pressure by overlying and underlying aquitardsor aquicludes.
Staley Affidavit, t 5.
d The water table aquifer at Vogtle occurs in the Utley Limestone and IrwintonSandMemberoftheBarnwellGroup.1/ This aquifer is perched atop the Blue Bluff marl member of the Lisbon Formation. There are two artesian aquifers located under the site. The upper of these two aquifers is of the Tertiary system; the lower is the Cretaceous aquifer in the Tuscaloosa Formation. Both of these aquifers are located below the Blue Bluff marl; although they are distinct aquifers, the two confined aquifers are hydraulically connected to each other.
Staley Affidavit, it 6-7.
The marl separating the water table and artesian aquifers is approximately seventy feet thick. This marl is continuous at the Vogtle site and is classified as an aquiclude (an aquitard slows the flow of 1/
A more detailed description of the geology underneath the Vogtle site can be found in the FES (pages 4-11 and 4-12) and the SER
~
(pages 2-22 e_t, seq.).
groundwater; an'aquiclude is essentially impermeable to water flow). A number of boreholes have been drilled through the marl at the site. All inactive holes except three have been grouted by pumping cement slurry throughout tue hole, assuring that no voids are present. The other three inactive boreholes do not have any record of having been grouted.
However, even if not grouted, these boreholes should not be exposed to any possible accidental spill at the site because of their location.
Moreover, even if these holes were exposed to contamination, there are no wells between the ungrouted holes and the Savannah River (toward which the confined aquifers flow), and any contamination would be safely diluted by the river before reaching any potable water source. The Staff believes that the existence of boreholes at the site does not affect the impermeability of the marl and the Staff has concluded that any radiation 4
released in surface spills is extremely unlikely to reach the confined aquifers.
Staley Affidavit, 1 14.
B.
Analysis of Potential Accidental Releases The Staff has performed an analysis to assess the effect of a design i
basis accidental release of radiation on groundwater quality at Vogtle.
l This analysis is described in Section 2.4.13 of the SER.
It involves the postulated rupture of the Waste Evaporation Concentrate Holdup Tank (WECHT) and subsequent migration of radioactive contaminants through the groundwater pathway.
This particular spill evaluation envelopes all f
other potential design basis accidents in terms of the effect upon l
groundwater.
Staley Affidavit, 1 9-10.
i i
i
Details of the analysis of the WECHT rupture, including the many conservatisms used in the analysis, are contained in the Staley Affidavit (at li 9-13) and in the SER (pp. 2-34 through 2-36). This conservative analysts indicated that contaminants could reach the nearest surface spring in fifteen years, but all critical radionuclides would meet 10 CFR Part 20 requirements before leaving the plant backfill. Any contamination would be diluted to well below Part 20 limits before reaching any potable water intake.
The Staff has also considered the effects of a WECHT rupture on the confined aquifers underneath Vogtle.
Even assuming some degree of permeabilitythroughthemarl,allofthecriticalradionucIideswouldbe reduced to levels well below Part 20 requirements before reaching the i
upper confined aquifer.
Staley Affidavit, 11 12-13.
In another analysis, the Staff considered the effects of a core-melt accident upon groundwater at Vogtle.
This accident is not a design basis event. Details of this analysis can be found at pages 5-49 through 5-55 of the FES. The transmitted fractions for the more important radionuclides at Vogtle were compared to the transmitted fractions for the river site in the Staff's " Liquid Pathway Generic Study" (NUREG-0440). The results indicate that groundwater contamination at Vogtle in the event of a beyond design basis accident would be less than at the generic site considered in NUREG-0440.
FES at 5-54; Staley Affidavit, 1 16. The contamination of the confined aquifers in the event of a core melt accident would meet Part 20 limits within one thousand feet of the release point, well before any potable wells would be encountered. Staley Affidavit,1 17. This analysis indicates that
Vogtle fares well in terms of potential groundwater contamination when compared te other river sites.
Id. at 1 16.
The analyses described above show that potential groundwater contamination at Vogtle has been adequately considered, and that the site in this.espect is an acceptable one. The Staff has concluded that it is very unlikely that any radioactive releases to groundwater pathways at Vogtle would contaminate the confined aquifers beneath the marl, and that releases to the water table aquifer would not contaminate any existing potable water supplies. Staley Affidavit, 11 8,19.
One further point needs to be addressed. Joint Intervenors have previously voiced a concern that groundwater contamination has occurred attheSavannahRiverPlant(SRP)inSouthCarolina.
From this, they apparently assume that similar contamination will occur at Vogtle.
This proceeding is concerned with operation of the Vogtle facility, not SRP; any litigation of groundwater contamination must focus on the Vogtle facility.El To date, the Staff has not seen any challenge by Joint Intervenors to the material contained in the SER and FES that would raise a material factual issue appropriate for litigation in this proceeding.
2/
The Staff has not perfonned a detailed study of the potential for groundwater contamination at SRP. Nonetheless, the Staff is aware of two possible significant differences between Vogtle and SRP with respect to groundwater contamination. SRP apparently uses seepa y basins and burial grounds; such basins and burial grounds are not used at Vogtle. Moreover, the aquiclude lying above the confined aquifers at SRP may not be continuous throughout the site and is much thinner than the marl at Vogtle. Staley Affidavit, 1 18.
It has simply not been established that there is any reason to believe that the groundwater situation at SRP is relevant to the issue raised by Contention 7:
the potential for groundwater contamination at Vogtle.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons presented above, in the attached Affidavit of Gary Staley, and in the FES and SER, the Staff submits that potential groundwater contamination at Vogtle has been adequately considered, and that the site is an acceptable one in this regard. Joint Intervenors have raised no factual challenge to the groundwater contamination analyses performed for Vogtle. The Staff therefore submits that Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention 7 should be granted.
a Respectfully submitted,
//aGr/k-Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of August, 1985 t
c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0((((T,ED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'85 #3G 13 AH)26 In the Matter of
((9'Tfrtr--'
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 et al.
50-425 i
(0L)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS'M0 TION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 7 (GROUNDWATER)" and related documents in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 9th day of August, 1985.
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman
- Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Bradley Jones, Esq.
Administrative Judge Region 1 Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel Suite 3100 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Atlanta, GA 30303 Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.
Douglas C. Teper David R. Lewis, Esq.
1253 Lenox Circle Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atlanta, GA 30306 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 i
i
_ _ _ - _. _ ~ _ _ _. - _ _. _._
..__-__,__,__m.,
O Atomic Safety and Licensing Laurie Fowler, Esq.
Board Panel
- 218 Flora Ave. NE.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, GA 30307 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulartory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James E. Joiner, Esq.
Ruble A. Thomas Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Southern Company Services, Inc.
& Ashmore P.O. Box 2625 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Birmingham,,AL 35202 Candler Building, Suite 1400 Atlanta, GA 30043 Tim Johnson Executive Director Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia 175 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303 b
/
Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff
-