ML20024B719
| ML20024B719 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1983 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024B704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307110273 | |
| Download: ML20024B719 (10) | |
Text
_
- bl f
July 7,1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON 4ISSION BEFORF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPA51Y, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF MOTION FOR SUWiARY DISPOSITION OF DES CONTENTION 17 I.
INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff moves the Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.749 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, for summary disposition in its favor of DES Contention 17. This contention states that:
The DES is concerned with environmental impacts. Presumably these are best represented as the entire range from trivial to serious, in conjunction with the estimates of likelihood. The DES averages meteorological conditions in its consideration of accidents, 5.9.4.5.
Because atmospheric inversions and quiet air are a very comon feature in this region, accident consequences should be calculated for the extreme condition of inversion and very slow air
, movement.
In the matter of assessing serious accidents, the environmental assumptions are complex and again do not appear to consider extreme weather, p. 5-37. The DES, which differs from the CP FES in considering severe accidents, is at fault in not considering the full range of radiological impacts by not considering extreme, but frequently encountered, weather conditions.
As grounds for its motion, the Staff asserts that the attached affidavit of Jocelyn A. Mitchell, Kenneth C. Dempsey, and James E. Fairobent together with other papers filed in this proceeding, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to DES Contention 17 and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
r307110273 830700 DR ADOCK 05000
II. DISCUSSION A.
Comission Standards for Sumar3 Disposition The Comission's Rules of Practice provide that sumary disposition of any matter involved in an operating license proceeding shall be granted if the moving papers, together with the other papers filed in the proceeding, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 10 CFR 2.749(d). The use of sumary disposition has been encouraged by the Comission and the Appeal Board to avoid unnecessary hearings on contentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
EA, Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 457 (1981); Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Crect Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 550-551 (1980); and Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1and2),ALAB-107,6AEC.188,194(1973); aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6AEC241,'242(1973); aff'd sub nom BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C.
Cir.'1974). A material fact is one that may affect the outcome of the l
litigation. Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Management Co., 553 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977).
When a motion for summary disposition is made and supported by affidavit, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere l
allegations or denials of his answer but must set forth specific facts such as would be admissible in evidence that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. 10CFR2.749(b). All material facts e
mm...,....,
c.
,c c__ a --
set forth in the statement of material facts required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of material facts required to be served by the opposing party. 10CFR2.749(a). Any answers supporting or opposing a motion for sumary disposition must be served within twenty (20) days after service of the motion.
Id_.
If no answer properly showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is filed, the decision sought by the moving party, if properly supported, shall be rendered. 10CFR2.749(b).
B.
The Staff's Affidavit and Statement of Material Facts Fully Support Sumary Disposition of DES Contention 17 The accompanying Staff _ affidavit and statement of material facts
' demonstrate that there are no genuine factual issues to be litigated as to any fact material to the legal question as to whether the Staff has satisfied its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),NRCregulationsimplementingtherequirementsofthatAct,and Commission requirements with respect to Staff evaluation of environmental impacts of severe accidents. As a result, the Staff is entitled to a decision as a matter of law and DES Contention 17 should be dismissed.
l Section102(2)(C)(1)ofNEPAprovidesthat,"tothefullestextent i
possible," Federal agencies shall include, with respect to proposed major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement of the environmental impact. This NEPA requirement, however, has been interpreted in NRC decisions to be subject to a " rule of reason." Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and2),ALAB-573,10NRC775,779(1979), relying on NRDC v. Morton, 1
- _... -... _ _ _ - ~ _. - - _. _...., _ _..... _. _. _ _ _.. _, _ _ _ -.. _ _.. _ _... _ _. _... _.
458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C. Cir.1972). Thus, "'an EIS need not discuss renete and highly speculative consequences.... A reasonably thorough discussion of the significant asi.ects of the probable environmental 1
consequences is all that is rquired by an EIS.'"
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Hope Creek Generuing Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-518, 9 WRC 14, 38-39 (1979) (quoting from Trout Unlimited v.
Morton, 509 F.2d 1276,1283 (9th Cir.1974)).
Comission regulations require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for issuance of an operating license. 10 CFR Section51.5(a)(2). An EIS prepared in connection with the issuance of an operating license must address " matters which differ from, or which reflect new information in addition to, those matters discussed" in the Final Environemntal Statement prepared in connection with the issuance of the construction permit. 10CFRSection51.23(e). Further, with respect to evaluation of the risks of severe accidents, the Comission has required the Staff's environmental impact statements to include a reasoned consideration of the environmental risks
,(impacts) attributable to accidents at the particular facility or facilities within the scope of each such statement.
In the analysis and discussion of such risks, approximately equal attention shall be given to the probability of occurrence of releases and to the probability of occurrence of the environmental consequences of those releases.
t 45 Fed. M. 40101, June 13, 1980.
The Staff's affidavit discusses in detail the mar.ner in which the Staff considered meteorological conditions in its analyses of design I
basis accidents and severe accidents. As shown therein, and contrary to the thrust of DES Contention 17, the Staff consideration of meteorology j
is " reasonably thorough" and, with respect specifically to the severe accident analyses, provides the " reasoned consideration" and gives the
.. ~
_. _..... =
appropriate weight to the " probability of occurrence of the environmental consequeri,e5 of... releases." It also shows why Intervencrs' contention that tne Staff should have relied principally or soley upon extrema meteorological conditions would have given inappropriate weight to remote and speculative consequences, thereby distorting the " reasoned consideration" of risks directed by the Commission.
III. CONCLUSION There being no genuine issue as to any material fact and inasmuch as decision in favor of the Staff's position is required as a matter of law, the Staff requests that DES Contention 17 be dismissed.
Res ctfully submitt,ed, orge. Joh on Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland j
this*/*dayof
, 1983 l
l l
l i
.~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD 1.
DES Contention 17 is in two parts: First, it asserts that the Staff's environmental impact statement (EIS) should calculate the consequences of design basis accidents based on "the extreme condition
~
of inversion and very slow air movement." Second, it asserts that the Staff's EIS should consider " extreme, but frequently encountered, weather conditions" in its consideration of the radiological impacts of severe (beyonddesignbasis) accidents. Affidavit, 1 5.
2.
The Staff interprets its mandate in performing environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and -
implementing regulations to require a reasonably thorough discussion of l
environmental consequences, but not to require discussion of remote or highly speculative consequences. -Affidavit. 1 6.
3.
The Commission's Statement of Interim Policy requires the Staff EIS to include " reasoned consideration of environmental risks (impacts) attributable to accidents" giving equal attention "to the probability of occurrence of releases and to the probability of occurrence of the environmental consequences of those releases."
l l
[
fl*
y
,,_i....,.,,.___,__,"___*..J.!Zf.,Cm._,_,,..
,_ _ _,!.. *,,4_!._ _ :. _.. LM __.,,'* _, C_" 1.,_,
l
- ^
2-
'4.
In the FES analyses of design basis accidents, the Staff used "average" meteorological conditions to arrive at " realistic" doses (p.
5-35, Table 5.9); it also used "very poor" meteorological assumptions to obtain conservative estimates of individual exposures. Affidavit, 1 9.
5.
The Staff's conservative dose estimates for design basis accidents use onsite meteorological data considered representative of the
(
site and vicinity. Affidavit, 1 10.
6.
The atmospheric dispersion model used for the Staff's i
"conservativedose"evaluationobtainsrelativeconcentration(X/Q)
- values which are large enough to be exceeded no more than 5% of the time
- at the exclusion area boundary or outer edge of the low population F
l zone. Affidavit, 1 10.
I.
7.
Highconcentration(lowdispersion)valuesareproducedby stable atmospheric conditions and low wind speeds. Affidavit, 1 10, 8.
Onsite data shows stable atmospheric conditions accompanied by l
low wind speeds occur with a relatively high frequency at Catawba.
l l
Affidavit, 1 10.
9.
By using atmospheric concentration values only infrequently exceeded, and by using meteorological data with a high frequency of stableconditions(acconpaniedbylowwindspeeds)whichproducehigh concentration values, the " conservative" evaluation of DBA releases considers "the extreme condition of inversion and very slow air movement." Affidavit, 1 10.
- 10. The FES considers the foregoing analysis as providing an upper bound for off-site doses for design basis accidents using conservative meteorological assumptions. Affidavit, 1 11.
1 v,
, w
.-,g,- -,, -
mw,-
,,,-,i y
,.4,.
-g3,m.vp,,R---,-,.wn._,
- p
.y,w.,.
y,
-,-a-.9
-w_,,__
....ye.-.,.
--y-
- 11. The same postulated DBAs, analyzed with conservative meteorological assumptions, were analyzed using " average" meteorological conditions, yielding " realistic" offsite doses lower than those yielded in the " conservative" analysis. Affidavit, 1 12.
- 12. Since the " realistic". analyses use representative onsite
. data', these also consider the relatively high frequency of stable atmospheric conditions accompanied by low wind speeds. Affidavit, 1 12.
i.
- 13. The consideration of both average and very poor meteorological conditions enables the Staff to estimate both the most expected and bounding exposure values for DBAs. This treatment fully satisfied the requirement of providing a reasonably thorough discussion of environmental impacts under NEPA. Affidavit, 1 13.
- 14. The Staff's consideration of meteorological conditions in its evaluation of severe accidents was based upon a sampling technique yielding 91 meteorological sequences ranging in duration from 10 to 200 consecutive hours, based on hourly data from the site over a full year, l
and starting (:very four days (on 13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> intervals). Affidavit 1 14, 15.
?15. This sampling technique was evaluated by the authors of WASH-1400; they concluded that sampling beyond 90 sequences was not warranted because the statistics show that differences (produced by larger samples). are within the uncertainties of the consequence model.
Affidavit, 1 15.
- 16. This data produced statistics showing not only the mean consequences along the probability density function, which is the most important for a reasoned consideration of risk, but also the variance and third or fourth moments. These latter statistics serve to oescribe the sufficiency of the sample to detemine the " tail" or peak behavior of the function. Affidavit, 1 15.
=. - -. - ~... ~.
- 17. The mean values of selected measures of risk (e.g., early and latent fatalities and costs) as well as impacts at selected probability levels, are shown in Tables 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13 of the FES. Affidavit,
-1 15.
18.
In the Staff's discussion of uncertainties introduced into the assessment of severe accidents by the meteorological sampling scheme, it was indicated that even with impioved sampling, important uncertainties would remain from other sources. Affidavit, 1 16.
19.- Nevertheless, the Staff's judgment was that the risk results are a reasonable analysis and that uncertainty bounds would likely be over a factor of 10, but not so large as a factor of 100. Secti:n 5.9.4.5(7). Affidavit, 1 16.
- 20. The Staff therefore satisfied its obligation to provide
" reasoned" and " thorough" consideration of meteorological conditions in its evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents.
Affidcvit, 1 17.
i
- 21. Reliance, either principally or soley, upon " worst-case" meteorological conditions, whether due to atmospheric inversions or other, " extreme", conditions suggested by Intervenors would give inappropriate weight to remote or speculative consequences, thereby distorting the reasoned consideration of risks. Affidavit, 1 18.
I
- 22. Use of values for meteorological and other parameters more extreme than those used in the conservative DBA analyses is neither necessary nor desirable because such values would represent a class of accidents with vanishingly small probability of occurrence. Affidavit, 1 19.
-- - - m.
=. _.. _..2_2u._r.r - n.z.
5-
- 23. With respect to severe accident analyses, in view of the fact that (1) the meteorological data obtained through the sampling scheme employed is sufficient to obtain the probability density functions of accident impacts, (2) the probability range of impacts is sufficiently broad to provide a reasoned evaluation of risks, and (3) the uncertainties introduced by the sampling scheme have been accounted for, no additional meaningful infonnation would be gained by a separate assessment of the probability and consequences of extremely low likelihood events. AffirMvit, 1 20.
b
._..__,,.,,.._m m.... _ _.,. -..
_-,.r.
.,_,-,.m.y.,,,ye.,,,.,
- _ __-e.,
.. -. -.,,,,,,.,,