ML19338F155
| ML19338F155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1980 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338F156 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8010070576 | |
| Download: ML19338F155 (6) | |
Text
,
10/02/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n'UCLEAR REGULATORY C0F"ISSI0ft BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER C0ffPAfiY Docket No. 50-466 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO TEXPIRG MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 50 AND IN SUPPORT OF APPLICAfiT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF TEXPIRG ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 50 1.
INTRODUCTION On August 6,1980, TEXPIRG filed a motion seeking summary disposition of Additional Contention 50. This contention was also the subject of a motion for summary disposition filed by the Applicant on August 4,1980.
The contention basically asserts that aircraft exposed to emissions from ACNCS may suffer failure or degradation of guidance systems, the so-called " latching" phenomenon, resulting in air crashes.
In support of its motion, TEXPIRG set forth a statement of material facts submitted by its attorney which basically cc:icludes that because radiation can cause a defect in the electronic equip-ment on an aircraf t, the operation of ACNGS would increase the probability of an airp. lane crash at or near the proposed site.
8010070 5 7 C 1
- The Applicant's motion to summarily dispose of this contention, on the other hand, is supported by the affidavit of Dr. James R. Sumpter, an individual with expertise in the matters addressed by the contention.
Dr. Sumpter con-cludes that the purported theory of " latching" has no basis in fact because (1) there has been no documented instance of an air crash due to this phe-nomenon, and (2) there is no basic of support for such a phenomenon in the scientific literature.
Indeed, Dr. Sumpter points out that the theory of
" latching" is unfounded because although ions may be attracted into circuits with a complementary electrical charge, aircraf t guidance systems perfont reliably in the presence of natural ionization at concentrations many times greater 1 9 those that might be produced by ACNGS emissions.
Thus, Appli-cant subir that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be litigated with respect to this issue and that summary disposition should be granted.
II. DISCUSSION The NRC Staff supports Applicant's motion for summary disposition on this issue and, conversely, opposes TEXPIRG': motion for summary disposition on the same issue.
First, we oppose TEXPIRG's motion because it is abundantly clear that a party seeking summary judgment, not the party opposing it, must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-433, 6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977) citing Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970);
J. Moore,Jederal Practice, Vol. 6, Ch. 56, para. 56.15[3] (2nd ed.1966).
To meet this burden, the movant must eliminate any real doubt as to the
existence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Poller v. Columbia Broad-casting Co., Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962); Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.,
321 U.S. 620, 627 (1954).
The record and affidavits supporting and opposing the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974) and cases cited therein at pp. 878-79.
The opposing party need not show that he would prevail on the issues but only that there are genuine issues to be tried.
American !!ano-facturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcastina-Paramount Theaters, Inc.,
388 F.2d 272, 280 (2d Cir. 1967).
Based on the toregoing legal standards, we submit that TEXPIRG has not met its burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact with respect to this contention..Its motion for summary disposition is merely accompanied by a statement of material facts which is not attested to by an individual who certifies that he or she is competent to testify on the matters stated therein.
See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749(b).
The statement of material facts is an unsworn document and, I
therefore, entitled to no evidentiary weight in the consideration of this i
motion.
Perry, supra, at 755-756. Accordingly, we submit that TEXPIRG's failure to support its motion by properly sworn and competent evidence in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. % 2.749 is a fatal defect and that the motion must be denied.
On the ot.her hand, the Staff supports the Applicant's motion for summary disposition of this contention on " latching" for the reasons set forth in the attached affidavit of Messrs. Read, Sinsigalli and Ferrell.
Dr. Read is
a member of the Accident Analysis Branch Division of Systems Integration, and has calculated radiation levels resulting from a postulated severe I
reactor accident in response to this contention.
Mr. Sinsicalli is a member of the Siting Analysis Branch of the Division of Engineering and has analy-zed radiation effects on electronic systems both for the NRC and in his previous employment with the General Electric Company where he was, among other things, responsible for the establishment of systems survivability requirements for the Space Division, a consultant for environmental effects to the Manned Orbital Laboratory Program, responsible for satellite surviva-bility in hostile environments, and Manager, Physics, Radiation Effects Operation, Electronics Lab.
He has conducted Transient Radiation Effects Studies on Electronic Systems which is directly pertinent to the allegations contained in this contention. Mr. Ferrell is also a member of the Siting Analysis Branch and has evaluated radiation effects on electronic systems.
The attached affidavit sets forth the following facts:
0 1.
A pulse dose rate of 10 rads /sec. is required to adversely affect semiconductor devices.
6 2.
A total dose rate of 10 rads is required to produce changes in the operation of these components.
3.
A maximum plume radiation level during nonnal p' ant operation at Big Rock Point nuclear reactor (the reactor referenced by TEXPIRG)
.is 9 to 11 X 10-6
'bour.
4.
Aircraft are designed to operate at cosmic radiation levels of 60
-6 to 600 X 10 r/ hour.
5.
Thus, aircraf t are designed to operate at radiation levels approxi-mately 3 to 30 times greater than those levels experienced during normal reactor operation.
6.
Also, the radiation field of a nonnally operating reactor is esti-13 mated to be about a factor of 10 times less than the dose rates considered to produce electronic equipment malfunction.
7.
If it t assumed that the entire end-of-1;'e inventory of gaseous fission products of a reactor is dispersed af ter an accident, the maximum hypothetical radiation dose rate (pulse) of an aircraft entering the radioactive cloud is 0.69 r/sec. which is a factor of 140,000 below the dose rate required to cause electronic equipment malfunction.
4 8.
The maximum total dose received by an aircraft flying through the radioactive cloud would be approximately 3.1 rads.
This is a 5
factor of 3.2 X 10 below the total dose required to produce slight malfunctions in electronic components.
Based on the foregoing facts, the affiants conclude that both the dose rate
' pulse) and total dose resulting from normal reactor operation as well as a hypothetical accidental release, are insufficient to cause an electronic malfunction in aircraf t.
They therefore conclude that this contention on
" latching" is unsupported in fact and that no genuine issue exists.
nr 7
w r
6-t III. CONCLUSION r
The NRC Staff submits that summary disposition on this contention should be granted as a matter of law because there is no genuine issue of material j
fact to be litigated.
Respectfully submitted,
- 2/Mr 02 1
Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of October,1980 J
J 4
4 1.
l i
i i
4 J
~
1 i
_ _ _ _ _