ML20023A842
| ML20023A842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1982 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Callihan D, Foster R, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210200071 | |
| Download: ML20023A842 (2) | |
Text
._
.p n October 18, '.982 James ~L. Kelley, Chairman Dr. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Union Carbide Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box Y Washington, D. C.
20555 Dak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F. Foster Administrative Judge P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97702 In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Dear Administrative Judges:
'The Licensing Board asked the Staff several questions at the second special prehearing conference on October 7 and 8 pertaining to consideration of risks from the McGuire. facility, (raised in connection with Palmetto /CESG Contention 11) and the scope of evacuation costs included in Table 5.11 of the DES (raised in connection with Palmetto /CESG Contention 18), as to which the Staff agreed to report back to the Board. The Staff herewith provides the requested answers. The Staff has taken the liberty of para-phrasing the Board's questions and supplied answers. The pertinent passages from the hearing transcript are cited after the questions.
Question 1 Does the Staff consider the risks of accidents at McGuire when evaluating the risk to the public of accidents at Catawba? (Tr. 562)
Response
No.
In the Catawba DES evaluation of the risk to the public from accidents at Catawba, the risks of accidents at the McGuire facility were not considered.
Question 2 Was the risk of accidents at McGuire not considered because of the particular geography or because of Commission policy? (Tr. 572) er 8210200071 Cr t
n e
Response-The risk of' severe accidents occurring at McGuire is not considered in the Catawba Environmental Impact Statement as a matter of policy, and is not based upon the particular geography of the site. The analysis of severe accidents performed for purposes of the EIS is directed only to the incremental costs of beyond design basis accidents for the proposed action, in this case the licensing of Catawba. This comports with the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (June 13,1980) (the EIS should contain " reasoned consideration of the environmental risks (impacts) attributable to accidents at the particular facility or facilities within the scope of each such statement"), and 10 CFR Section 51.23(c) (the DES "will include a preliminary cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental and other effects of the facility..").
Question 3 Do the costs enumerated in Table 5.11 include costs for evacuation of Charlotte? (Tr. 607, 609)
Response
No. The data included in Table 5.11 includes, as a maximum, costs of evacua-tion of the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ for the Catawba facility.
This would not include Charlotte. The pertinent passage discussing this matter is found in Appendix F of the DES, at page F-3, and reads as follows:
The model has the same provision for calculation of the economic cost associated with implementation of evacuation as in the original RSS model. For this purpose, the model assumes that for atmospheric releases of durations 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, or less, all people living within a circular area of 5-mi rcdius centered at the reactor plus all people within a 45 angular sector within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and centered on the downwind direction will be evacuated and temporarily relocated. However, if the duration of release would exceed 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, the cost of evacuation is based on the assumption that all people within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ would be evacuated and temporarily relocated. For either of these situations, the cost of evacuation and relocation is assumed to be $125 (1980 dollar) per person which included cost of food and temporary sheltering for a period of 1 week.
See also the discussion referring to Table 5.11 on page 5_40.
Sincerely, s
George E. Johnson Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service list
)
g OFC :0 ELD
-:0
)
___:L NAME::GJoh o p1 :J riy d@lNM__* ___ __-- * -
A A
u