NUREG-0265, Affidavit Re Evaluation of Radioactive Releases.Contrary to Fankhauser Contention 6,concludes Applicant Meets Design Objectives of App I to 10CFR50 & Dose Level at Moscow Elementary School Acceptable
| ML19249B315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | Krug H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249B316 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0265, RTR-NUREG-265 NUDOCS 7909040261 | |
| Download: ML19249B315 (3) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC>' MISSION SEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
) gg p.
..C m. W",5'd FOM t-u In the Matter ot_
)
CINCINT:ATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-353 g a COMPANY, et. al.
)
(William H. Z'umer Nuclear
)
Q Lc2 Power Station)
)
y ghg g
C JUM ' I353 9 AFFIDAVIT OF HARRY E. P. KRUG, CR.
g RADI0 ACTIVE RELEASES FROM
/,
{5/
b//
WILLIAM H. ZIS"<ER ',c LEAR PO'.;ER STATION I, Harry E. P. Krug, Jr., do state that:
1.
My name is Harry E. P. Krug, Jr., and I am an Environmental Radiation Analyst of the Radiological Impact Section of the Radiological Assessmelt Branch, in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My Statement of Professional Qualifications is attached as Exhibit A.
2.
As part o' the review cf the Radiological Impact Section, the environmental doses resulting from the expected releases of radioactive naterial in liquid and gaseous effluents were evaluated by me.
3.
Dr.
Fankhauser has raised the following contention:
Contention 6 The Applicants will not meet the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 because the dose levels to the children at the Moscow Elementary 'chool will exceed those which are permissible.
My testimony addresses this contention.
30201.3 7 (jM8"1b b 7 909 040 Ne /
2 Rescons_e The c:.er page, and pages 5-16, 5-17 and 11-8 of the Final Eivironmental Statement (FES) related to the operation or the Zimmer Station are attached. Sections 11.5.9 and 11.5.1C on page 11-8 of the FES explain my position with respect to this contention. Table 5-5 on page 5-17 of the FES summarizes atmcspheric dispersion and deposition factors for the maximum or critical locations.
In evaluating Acpendix I, the transport of radioactivity is calculated in all directions for both atmospheric and licuid releases.
When these are recorted, it is usual practice to report the locations where the highest doses to actual persons are expected.
These locations are maximum or critical locations and are determined by fincing those locations where the highest values of atmospheric dispersion and deposition are cal-culated to occur, provided that the lcration has an occucancy factor established by the presence of a perscn, a cow or a garder.
The exception to this is the site boundary air dose which is determined for the maximum location independent of any occupancy factor. As previously stated, the maximum locations are reported in Table 5.a of the FES (attached).
The Moscow Elementary School is not included because i*. is not a maximum location.
30;'01<1
3 In summary, my evaluation of the Zimmer Station shows that, contrary to Contention 6 of Dr.
Fankhauser, the applicant meets the dose design objectives of Appendix I at the Moscow Elementa.y School.
/ /
fi i/
I I l'Ne I;
l'$ i i
\\ A
_.M r~~'
f i
Harry E. P. Krug, Jr.,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of June,1979.
0 n
}j?
.M jr m.c, l d/s.
. l !.x tuSm Notary' Puolic, State of Maryland My Commission Expires:
- u l, / ff'd1
/
d s2 %,* t*~e $,* J. G