ML20033C499
| ML20033C499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033C494 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112030325 | |
| Download: ML20033C499 (15) | |
Text
r-e 00CMETED USNRC December-1, 1981
,_ _ _,,_, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'I
- j' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
.x BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket No. 50-395 OL ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY
)
et al. (Virgil C.
Summer
)
Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
)
APPLICANTS' (1) REPLY TO INTERVENOR'S
" FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS" AND NRC STAFF'S
" PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU-SIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A SUPPLE-MENTAL PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES" AND (2)
MOTION TO STRIKE EXTRA-RECORD MATERIAL IN INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Applicants, in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.754, submit the following reply findings of fact and conclusions I
of law. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.730, Applicant's also move i
to strike material referred to in c; accompanying Intervenor's t
l proposed findings which is not part of the record.
I l
l I.
Motion to Strike Extra-Record Material Contained in Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Facts and (onclusions on Emergency Preparedness l
l 1.
The Applicant moves to strike those portions of the 1
Intervenor's proposed " Findings of Facts and Conclusions on l
Emergency Preparedness" which were not in evidence when the l
I record on Contention A8 (emergency planning) was closed September 24, 1981.
l l
O$000395 t
PDR l
F
. 2.
In his proposed findings, Intervenor references a document entitlec "Richland County-City of Columbia Disaster Operation Procedure #4 (DOP #4), Radiation Release Accident, V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station" dated October 5, 1981 (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 3) which document is attached to his proposed findings.
Intervenor also refers to a conversation between the Intervenor and Richlano County Shefiff Frank Powell (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 8) and a letter dated October 12, 1981 from Sheriff Powell to Hugh K. Boyd, Jr. in response to the Richland County Disaster Operation Procedure #4, which is also attached to his proposed findings.
(Intervencr's Proposed Findings, 8).
Neither of the two documents referenced by the Intervenor and attached to his proposed findings were identified or admitted into evidence during the evidentiary hearings on emergency planning.
Sheriff Powell did not file testimony nor was he a witness in the proceeding.
The Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine as to the content of either the documents or conversation referenced by the Intervenor.
Intervenor has not moved to reopen the record on emergency planning (See Tr. 4674) nor made the requisite showing in support thereof._1/
Accordingly, Applicants move the Board i
i to strike such referencee..
I 1/
The Licensing Board has the discretion to reopen the record to consider new evidence.
Its decision depends on appraisal of three factors: 1)
Is the motion timely?
2)
Does it address significant safety (or environmental)
(footnote continued on next page)
=
. II.
Reply to Intervenor's Findings of Facts and Conclusions on Emergency Preparednea:
3.
In his proposed findings and conclusions on emergency planning, Intervenor does not quarrel with the existence s
of adequate emergency plans for the V.C.
Summer Nuclear Station.
Rather, Intervenor is concerned primarily over implementation of the plans in the event of an emergency at the Summar plant.
(Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 1)
Specifically, Intervenor is concerned with the Applicant's ability to implement its emergency plans when implementation requires interface between the Applicant and state and local emergency response agencies.
4.
Intervenor's contention that off-site emergency plans could not be implemented adequately in an emergency situation is without support in the record.
(Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 1-3).
NRC Regulations in 10 C.r.R. I 50.47(a)(2) provide that the Commission will base its findings as to the adequacy of off-site emergency plans on review of the-Feaeral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determinations as (Footnote cont'd from previous page) issues?
3)
Might a different result have been reached had the newly proferred material been considered initially?
In the Matter of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-598 NRC (June 24, 1980); In the Matter of Kansas City Gas & Electric Co.,
et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978); In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973).
)
l l I to whether state and local plans are adequate and capable of implementation.
A FEMA finding constitutes a rebuttable presumption on the question of adequac,.
(10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(2)),
(See Letter from John E. Dickey, FEMA, to Brian K. Grimes, NRC, June 1, 1981, NRC Staff Exhibit 5).
The Acting Director of the Plans and Preparations Division of FEMA Region IV, Mr. Jack D.
Eichardson, testified that the plans would be effective in reducing injury and are capable of being implemented.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 155)
Mr. Richardson's assessment of the state and local emergency plans is supported by the testimony of the responsible officials of the various agencies that would be called upon to respond in the event of an emergency at the Summer plant.
(Tr. 2022, 2028, 2038-41
- 2057, 2092-93, 2228-29, 2151-53, 2168, 2185).
For further discuss-ion see Applicant's Proposed Findings on public notification (para. 73-85), transportation (para.86-113), decontamination (para 114-125), medical facilities (para. 126-143), and the emergency exercise (para. 149-164).
5.
Intervenor contends there is an obvious lack of prepared-ness by medical officials and l"ck of facilities to handle radiation injuries. (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 3-4).
This contentien is not supported by evidence in the record.
To the contrary, there is substantial evidence from the Applicant concerning the ability of local medical facilities
. to handle contaminated injured patients.
Applicant's chief witness on emergency planning, Mr. Kenneth R. Beale, testified concerning the decontamination capabilities of the various county organizations.
There are a total of 205 available showers in the four county area plus additional Army facili-ties at Fort Jackson for personnel decontamination.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 125).- Vehicle decontam-ination can be accomplished using firefighting equipment.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 124).
For complete discussion of decontamination cue Applicant's Proposed Findings para, 114-125.
Mr. Beale also testified as to the capability of medical facilities to handle and treat radiolo-gical patients.
Local hospitals in the four county area, including Moncrief Army Hospital, have the ability to treat 67 radiological patients at any one point in time.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 136).
There are multiple additional facilities in South Carolina, plus back-up capacity in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, and National Guard mobile hospital units. (Id.).
The Applicant stresses that once a radiological patient has been decontaminated, he may be admitted as an ordinary patient not requiring special facilities.
Based on the accident scenario postulated by Intervenor's 6.
witness Dr. Michio Kaku, Intervenor contends the Applicant 9
.-,-g.,
a
-a, y-
. would be unable to respond to the hypothesized accident in a timely fashion. (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 4-5).
There is no evidentiary support in the record that the Applicant would not adequately respond according to its emergency plan.
Dr. William R. Stratton, Dr. Robert J.
Budnitz, Mr. Kenneth R.
Beale, and Mr. Lewis Storz testified for the Applicant regarding Dr. Kaku's scenario.
Dr.
Stratton and Dr. Budnitz were critical of Dr. Kaku's testimony as being unreasonable, unrealistic, incorrect, out of date, and out of step with the majority of scientific opinion with respect to basic reactor physics, reactor operation, accident analyses, and ECCS analyses.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 214).
Both Dr. Budnitz and Dr. Stratton expitined that various post-TMI developments, notably enhanced operator training and hardware improvements, have reduced the prospects for a repetition of this accident (Tr. 4188-91, 4:44).
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 217).
Mr. Storz testified that the large break LOCA coupled with ECCS failure postulated by Dr. Kaku was a " spectacular" accident from an operator's standpoint calling into play programmed responses by plant personnel.
(Id., para 217).
Mr. Beale testified that consistent with NUREG 0654 2/ a large break LOCA and subsequent ECCS failure mandates virtually immediate declaration of a general emergency setting into motion both on-site and off-site emergency 2/
In October 1981, NUREG 0654 was adopted by the NRC as Reg. Guide 1.01, Rev.
2.
. plans.
(Tr. 4428), (Applicant's Proposed Findings, para.
217).
Mr. Beale and Mr. c'orz further testified as to the chain of command in the event of an emergency situation at the plant. (Tr. 4528-51).
The station emergency plan clearly sets forth the persons authorized to make emergency decisions. (Tr. 4560)
See Applicant's Proposed Findings para. 210-213 for comp?ete discussion on the on-site emergency tasponse.
7.
Intervenor n xt contends that state and local emergency plans are inadequate to assure protection, care, feeding, and possible evacuation of livestock. (Intervenor's Proposed Fingings, 6) This is contrary to evidence in the record.
Mr. William H.
Funchess, Clemson University Agricultural Extension Service, testified that he had been involved in emergency planning in the event of a nuclear accident and that he believed the plans were adequate.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings para. 167-168).
The testimony of Charles Howard Coleman, beef cattle and dairy farmer, does not contradict Mr. Funchess' testimony. (See Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 6).
Mr. Coleman testified that he had not spoken with either Clemson or the Applicant about his concerns and that he needed more information on the emergency plans.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 169).
8.
Intervenor contends that the Applicant has failed to discharge its responsibility to educate the public concerning "how, when, and why" to respond in the event of an accident
. at the Semmer plant. (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 6)
This is contrary to evidence in the record.
All of the various local.and state officials involved testified that public education programs had been undertaken which will be a continuing program in the future.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 41-50).
In addition, the Applicant's emergency information brochure describes the operation of the
'C.
Eummer Nuclear Station, effects of radiation, operation of the sirens, emergency broadcast system, evacuation sectors, and routes.
(See Id. para. 58-63).
Improvements are being made in the brochure, but even as presently written, it conforms to the requirements of Part II of NUREG 0654/ Reg. Guide 1.01.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 71).
9.
The Intervenor has repeatedly asserted that the public education program cannot be effective unless the public has a detailed underctanding of accident scenarios and possible i
i consequences of a nuclear release.
(Intervenor's Proposed l
Findings, 6-7).
The Intervenor's contention is controverted by evidence from the Applicant, NRC Staff, and his own witnesses.
State and local officials, subpoenaed by the Intervenor, testified that the pubic needs primarily to know l
what to do when notified of an emergency.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 41-50).
Mr. Brian K. Grimes, Mr.
Thomas A. Kevern, and Mr. Jack D.
Richardson, testifying for the NRC Staff, gave the opinion that education of the public j
1 l
L
. and emergency personnel should concentrate on what they should do and how they should protect themselves in an emergency.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 38, 39, 218).
Mr. Grimes stressed that the emphasis shculd be on carrying out assigned tasks, rather than knowledge of accident parameters or radiction effects.
(Id., para. 39).
Applicants' expert witnesses, Dr. Budnitz and Dr. Stratton concurred in this opinion.
(Id., para. 218).
10.
Intervenor contends that in the event of a power outage preventing operation of the sirens alternate means of notification would be inadequate to allow for timely evacua-tion of the EPZ.
(Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 7-8).
This is contrary to the testimony of the Applicant's witness Mr. Beale (Tr. 4511-15).
Intervenor's contention is also inconsistent with the testinony of his witnesses, Colonel De Loache and Colonel Boyd as to the effectiveness of alternate l
means of notification (See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 79).
To the extent Intervenor's contention is based on a conversation not part of the record it cannot provide the basis for a finding and references to the conversation should be stricken as discussed in Applicant's Motion to Strike, above.
11.
Intervenor contends the number and location of residents who would need evacuation assistance is "no more than a com-l puterized guesstimate."
(Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 9).
l l
lo
. This contention is without merit.
Intervenor's witness, Mr. Thomas E. Longshore, Jr. of Newberry County, testified that information on transportation disadvantaged individuals is on file with the Department of Social Services. (See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 89).
12.
Intervenor contends that failure to activate the EBS within the prescribed 15 minute time limit during the May 1 drill points out a major deficiency in the Applicant's rapid response to Dr. Kaku's scenario. (Intervenor's Proposed Findings, 9), (See Applicant's Proposed 71ndings, para. 216).
There is a major difference between the emergency drill conducted on May 1, 1931 and Dr. 1;aku's scenario.
The drill simulated a gradually deteriorating situation in which each of the four emergency levels was reached in sequence, as opposed to Dr. Kaku's drastic scenario which mandates immediate declaration of a general emergency. 3/ (See Applicant's Proposed Findings, parn. 151).
Once a general emergency is declared, the sirens will be activated within 15 minutes followed by broadcasts over the EBS.
(Applicants' Exhibit 30 (a) page 52A), (Applicants' Proposed Findings, para. 74-75).
13.
Intervenor makes six specific recommendations concerning the Applicant's emergency plans. (Intervenor's Proposed
/
In the event of a loss of coolant accident coupled with 3
ECCS failure, NUREG 0654/ Reg. Guide 1.01 requires that a general emergency be declared.
5
/ Findings, 9-10).
The Applicant is in general agreement with the NRC staff Proposed Findings relating to these recommenda-tions. (NRC Staff's Proposed Findings, para. 44-48).
- First, Intervenor recommends that a " clearer chain of management responsibility" be defined. (Intervenor's PLoposed Findings, 9).
Applicant agrees with the staff that no evidentiary basis for this recommendation exists.
On-site emergency responsi-bilities and chain of command are unambiguously defined as amplified by the testimony of Mr. Beale and Mr. Storz.
(Tr.
4528-4551).
Second, Intervenor recommends that the Applicant undertake a " serious educational effort" concerning accident scenarios and plant parameters.
As previously discussed, the Applicant, in conjunction with state and local officials have undertaken to educate those responsible for implementing
^
the emergency plans as to their role in the event of a nuclear accident at the Summer station and such efforts will continue in the future.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 37-50, 73-85,86-100, 114-125, 126-139, 149-164, 165-209).
None of the witnesses for the Applicant, NRC staff, or the Intervenor, with the exception of Dr. Kaku, believed it necessary or desirable to educate emergency workers in the specifics of accident analysis and radiation i
effects.
(See Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 38-50, 218).
Third, Intervenor recommends that the Applicant conduct a door to door public notification campaign. (Inter-venor's Proposed Findings, 10).
Applicant agrees with the
. NRC staff th this is beyond the scope of Contention A8.
(NRC Staff's Proposed Findings, para. 47).
Notwithstanding, the Apr'..nt has fulfilled the requirements of NUREG 0654 (Reg. Guide 1.01) with respect to the information brochure and intends to conduct a follow-up survey to assess publie understanding of the instructions contained in the brochure (Applicant's Proposed Findings, para. 69).
Fourth and fifth, Intervenor recommends that the Applicant install back-up battery power for the sirens and " black box fail safe" notification systems in each home situated in the EPZ.
Again, this recommendation is beyond the scope of contention A8 and is not required by NRC regulations.
In the event of e power outage, alternate means of notification are available through use of state and local emergency authorities.
(See Applicants Proposed Findings, para. 73-85).
Recommendation six involves agricultural considerations.
This has been addressed and is the subject of a program thrcugh the Agricultural Extension Service of Clemson University.
(See Id. para. 144-148).
CONCLUSION l
I For the foregoing reasons, the Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions on Emergency Preparedness should be rejected as not supported by the weight of the j
i evidence, and the Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and j
l l
l
Y h
' Conclusions of Law on Intervenor's Contention A8 Regarding Emergency Planning should be adopted as amply supported by
- the record.
Applicants have no objection to the proposed findings and conclusions of the NRC Staff.
Respectfully submitted, g
C os ih. B. Knq ts
-c
. Canford Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Applicants-Of Counsel:
Randolph R. Mahan General Attorney South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company 328 Main Street Columbia, South Carolina 29218 l
J a e UCLKETED UshRC 12/1/81 Appendix A to
'81 EC -2 A9 :31 Applicants' Reply Findings
'::E CF SECRETARY RnE 2:NG & SSUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONAL RECORD BRANCH Reference is made to the table of exhibits transmitted under cover cf our letter dated September 8, 1981.
This Supplement completes the decisional record in the proceeding to date.
For the entry under Board Exhibits, please add:
BOARD EXHIBITS Number Identified Received Description 6
2528 1/
An Earthquake Primer by Bruce Bolt.
For the entry under Intervenor Exhibits, please substitute:
INTERVENOR EXHIBITS 1
1437 4008 NRC Report 79-35.
2 1437 4008 Deposition - Mr. Whisennant.
3 1437 4008 Deposition - Mr. Forte.
4 1972 4008 Brochure - SCE&G Public Information.
5 2551 2/
Reserved - Cross-examination of Mr. Sherwin.
. For the entry under Applicants' Exhibits,.please add:
APPLICANTS' EXHIBITS Number Identified Received Description 38 4427 4440 Summary of Emergency Actions at the Virgil C.
Summer Nucidar Station based on Dr. Kaku's accident scenario, by Mr. Beale.
39 4506 4508 Corrected Version of Applicants' Exhibit 38.
40 4666 4666 Corrections to the Supplemental Testimony of Mr.
T.C. Nichols following Tr. 3783, regarding the analysis of cost to drain the Fairfield Pump Storage facility, Monticello Reservoir and refill.
1/
Identified but not received into evidence pending further argument and/or evidence on whether official notice is appropriate.
2/
Discussion appears on Tr. page 4008, however, final action is deferred.