ML20234D041

Clarifies Info in NRC Re How Exclusion Area for Plant Evaluated

ML20234D041
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/17/1987
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stanichak J STANICHAK, J.M.
References
NUDOCS 8709210500
Download: ML20234D041 (1)

Text

.. 1 g4 gS u

j

[(g#Mcg jg[g UNITED STATES

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'5 }'2 [ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% ,,,,

• September 17, 1987 a

Mr. Joseph Stanichak, Esq. ' i 700 Franklin Avenue Aliquippa, Pennsylvania! 15001

- Dear Mr. Stanichak-Your letter of August 28, 1987, reflects a misunderstanding'of the-informatio'n.

enclosed with our letter of August 25, 1987. - Perhaps the following comments-l . vill clarify how the exclusion area for the Beaver Valley Power Station was evaluated.

The Beaver Valley Power Station-(BVPS) exclusion boundary :is not defined by a 2000-foot radius from an epicenter at the BVPS-1 containment building as you; have concluded from the descriptive discussion in Enclosure 3 of our. August  ;

25th letter. Instead, it is irregular-in shape, origina'lly established for l Unit 1, but. encompassing exclusion zones for both Units. The' distance from.- J Unit 2 to the exclusion area boundary for various directional sectors were - j given in Enclosure 2, Table 2.3-38. i a

l- Atmospheric dilution factors (X/Q values), reflecting: relative doses, were,  !

determined considering mt.teorological conditions for each of ~ the sectors,f and i j these values are also included in Table 2.3-38. .The1 limiting sector, the ,

northwest sector, was then evaluated to determine that the doses.were.well' I within the guideline' doses given in 10 CFR 100.11 as~ indicated in.-Table 15;0-11.

1 The dose'in the northeast. direction at the exclusion boundary is about 1/4 of that calculated for the northwest sector. Accordingly, there_is no basis for a reevaluation of the exclusion boundary approved for the licensing of the  :

Beaver Valley plants.

Sincerely, O e mas . urley, 1 ect or-Office of Nuclear ea tc r' Regulation 1

~

8709210500 870917 4 PDR ADOCK 05000334

,. P PDR]j

e

1. REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS) i 1

' ACCESSION NBR:8709020132 DOC.DATE: 87/08/28 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET'O i.

FACIL:50-412 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, Duquesne Lignt C' 05000412 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ..

STANICHAK,J.M. Stanichak, J. M.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MURLEY,T.E. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director (Post 870411

SUBJECT:

Requests info re placement of epicenter in determination of exclusion-area. Regulations indicate that in evaluating. site,  ;

applicant should assume fussion procedure release from core, j leak rate from containment & meteorological conditions.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: YE03D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR )_ ENCL l SIZE: o/

TITLE: Request for NRR Action (e.g. 2.206 Petitions) & Related. Correspondence l

NOTES:LPDR'2cys Transcripts. LPDR 2cys PDR Documents. 05000412  ;

Application for permit renewal' filed. .j i

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL -

AME LTTR ENCL .;

PD1-4 LA i 1 D1-4 D 1 1 {

TAM,P 1 1 l INTERNAL: EDO/BRIDGERS 1 1 NRR DIR 1 1 l OGC/HDS1 1 1 OGC/ROED 1 REG FILE Of i 1 )

EXTERNAL: LPDR 1 1 NRC PDR 1 ., 1 NOTES: 2 h l

l l

l I

l 1

I l

l 12 ENCL h

14F.

' TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REGUIRED: LTTR

&> a

, JOSEPH M. STANICHAK ATTORNEY AT* LAW 700 FamascLIN AVENUE Auc1UtPPA. PENNSYLVANIA 15001 AnEA coor. 412 ;575 6670 August 28, 1987 United States ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555  ;

Attention: .Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

Re: George S. White, et. al. -v- Capco and/or Duquesne Light Company / Petition for Intervention on Licensing of l Beaver Valley No. 2/ Docket No. Prod. S Util. Fac. 50-412 Filed 83 Sep-6 P4:22 I Served Sept. 7,1983 I

Dear Mr. Murley:

May I take this opportunity to thank you for your response of j l August 25, 1987, with the attendant enclosures.

I have examined same to the best of my ability but do request  ;

information concerning the determination of the exclusion area.

Under 10 CFR, Section 100.11, the regulations indicate that in

evaluating the site, the applicant should assume a fussion procedure release from the core, leak rate from containment and meteorological conditions.

The epicenter of the exclusionary zone appears to have been determined according to the discretion of the applicant and your enclosure 3 indicates that the epicenter is around the Unit One containment building. My inquiry at this "

moment is whether or not this discretion is justified in ' light of the failure to take into account the first criteria of the core. If the epicenter would be the core reactor in Beaver Valley Unit 2 and a 2,000 foot radius utilized, then my clients, Mr. and Mrs. White, would be living within the confines of the exclusion area.

The applicant, by utilizing the epicenter of the containment buildings, embraces Phillis Island, that' is vacant land at this time, and consequently excludes Mr. and Mrs. White, who live within the area, f I bring this to your attention and request that you favor me with l a review as to the placement of the epicenter in the determination of the exclusion 1

I ..

97GirQ2Gi-32-070828  %

PDR ADDCK 05000412 II.

P PDR g r/b >

. 3 q

g, .

. o; l'

1 ly y United States' l Nuclear Regulatory Commission . _ . .

i L ' Attn: Mr. Murley, Director August 28, .L1987.

area utilizing the other technical' factors involve'd or, in othbr. words, can the applicant be accused of gerrymandering?

If this be gerrymandering and it.was induced'by fraud, suppression and possible obstruction,. violative of the Rules -and' Regu-lations of your Commission, will the' Commission. take' steps .for an inquiry L .or simply entertain a petition for vacation of the license previously granted?'

Thank you for your consideration.~-

.l Yours truly,-

Ll s

l -; 'm)1 k l JMS:gh foseph M. Stanichak j

u q

a

.1

.y q

1 a

iu I

. i 4

l

'l '

.i

.j

.j i

l: < , .

J

_.m

_.d_.__.L,__m_'__I ..