ML20080D531

Answer Opposing Util & NRC Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 11,17 & 27.Many Substantial & Matl Issues of Fact Exist Affecting Public Health & Safety & Environ. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080D531
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	08/26/1983
From:	Guild R GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080D524	List: ML20080D521 ML20080D531
References
NUDOCS 8308300486
Download: ML20080D531 (25)

Text

4 O

lires L eti *;t alt". ..I f ir.u 'r s s?.i Nuclear Rurj u l at ory Conun t su i on l

O!iEG O[.J. tj[L OIOil O_ G[)EE Ty_ON D _ L I C[ Np _I IJg_ fjO A RD l In the Matttm of )

) Docket Nou. 50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, eL9_. 1 ) 50-414

) 1 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ) August 26, l'3G3 Units 1 and 2) )

)

PALMETTO ALLI ANCE ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMNARY DISPOSITION REGARDING CONTENTIONS 11, 17, and 27 pursuant to 10 Cl H Section 2.749, 9altnetto Alliance hereby annworn . .p nt.n i rin t h e M. .t i . r.n hy O p p i i r a r.t *. (..c r;u r.no a r y Dscponittori of Contenti.>re, 1/ and it / arvi tin? Glaf t' n Not ionq tor Sumraary Dinnonstion of Cont ent i onu : 1, 17 and .r/. Pa l roo t t a Alliance urgos thic A t orn i c tiafety and L i c o n o t nt) boaru tv deny theue Mottono for Gur. ira.u y Dinnonition .>n the sp ound t. h a t t herr.

exact roany subctant ial and raa t er i a l inuuen of fact affecting the public health and safety and the environment regarding operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station with respect to thew contentions that cannot be i~ully er acequately resolved except by live test irnony anc cross-exarni nat t on on the record in a public hearing. In support of thin answer Palmetto Alliance offers the following authority, discunston and statements and asks this 8308300486 830026 PDR ADOCK 05000413 O PDR

e Iso.wel to connadi.e < ! n . .c. .v. .i y s l o p. .. . i t. t . n . L t . a 3 r.i. .ny , arr.we..h t..

int error 4at .e lec, the Oppitcant'n Ianal ' a f e.t y O ria l y<, i n Report (F Hall) , the NHC Utall'n Galvty Lvaluation l<en. .r t . S hlIJ and Dr.i f t

('

(DCB) and Final L nv i ronraent a l St a t er.ierit o (FEG), and o u t:h .:thee pleadings, d o e uroe nt e , and raat t e r's of record a. appr.: pr i a t e.

In its nera i na l dectusan estahlinhirit) t hi> pr i rici p l en for considerativn or reo., ento ftr u uroraary ,j ud t:ernent , which pr itic i pi eu are " appropriate for use in deterraining raot ions for curataary disposition unuce the NitC Rules of PractIcu," Publig_5ggvice; Ggr.ggggy_gf _Ngw_Ugsgsh i re3._gt.__dl ( See!)r c.ok S t at i s.-n, Ur:1tn 1 a rid 2), LDP-74-36, 7AEC 877, 878 (1974), the Unatoc Staten Suprerne Court inutructs t;h a t the burden of proving the absence of any ger.uine incue to be heard ceraains with tne rooving party:

Where the evidentiary saat t er in nupport of the root ton d . srm i n .t nt.t sibi i nh i h r- abenicn ..r a ipsonis.o i c u ne ,

. , u r.na. u y ,j o h n .n . .n l i.m .L lie . ih n s eil e .v i *i . t i ,i n . ..pp..yng i .v 1 :1e*nt i ary ra.it t i.6- i. g o .* a *i e t ed ,

6ddiGB9'd V- Ei- li _;'.C9MS n . And._Cy._, d98 U. S. 144, 160 ( l':170 ) .

And in weighing the evident iary raatt er in support of the taotion

. . . . the inferences to tie drawn frora tne uncerlying facts contained in (the roov i ng onrty's) raaterials rauct be viewed in the light roost favorable to the party opposing the raot ion.

1 Jd t, 398 U. G. at 1G8-159.

Paltnetto Alliance urges that weighed on this scale subraittals by e

e

'))ip t t e.u it . . .n eil line 14 t ? t ' .R al i l' a L 1 I.u. .t i. .i ( ..! ..uplivet iinj Lino extresau refaedy vi s us.ti.i. u y d 1

• po ra t t, t . i s .

In t h 1 L. pi . t r e*tli nst ..o a p p l a c a t, A v .r. f ..P aut sier i t y to oper.ite the Catawh.t Nucle ar Ul a t i . .n, Lini t.. t . i r.d .f, Hpp l t e.iret .., 1)ulee Power Corapany et. al., carry t rie i.t l t i raa t e hurtst$r- of proof of e nt i t 1 esaunt to %uch neceeuary 1icerwet, 10 Ci-ii 6cet 2 on .;:. / a.*, an icell a r. t h s' tiorden ..n i e .. .n o. t r. c. .i .t. i .e.v e r .v r.s t . .eii ti) . .t her p.irtto .

Tunr.eut.co Va l l ey siu t. hor i t y (llarluv111e Nuclear lil.uit ) 6h Ob - 4Ga, 7 NRC 341, 3bS, 300 (1970). That taurden upon Applicants on particular issuec, such as the consideration of alternativeu under the National Eriv i ronraent a l Policy Act (NEPO), raay tse triggered by an Intervonor showing sufficient only to require reasonable ra i nta t o inqu2ie turther. g'engory;_ y agB ee_Nuclogt I2930C GiKD9C0t_100 v. N R Ol),. 43b U. G. 519, SU4d, TJ led. 2d.

4 GO, 'J O UCt. 119/ ( l 'J / u ) .

O curaraiu y ,j ud g elae nt to neither a saethod of avoidiriq the necoquity of proving o nt . . c a ".e nor a tlover procedural g arab i t where a clairaant can urii f t to h i t, adveruary his burden of provf on one or raor e insuun (cit at ion ornit ted ) . . . . The general rule in thin Cosara i nn i on in that 'the f)pplscant or the proponent of an Order h a r. the burden vf proor' (citaLion omstted). .

. 2,. i. n t t, caue, tho Opplicants were a l u. s proponer.tn of

. . . surarnary d i spon t b ion.

GlGVGla0!i 151Md.ClG 111MM1DeliDG_G9995!OL('k t3 1. (Perry i

Nuclear Power Plant, lJnitn 1 und .2 ) nLOD-443, G NRC 741, 703 ( l'3 77 ) .

i.

Au stated.by the Licensing Board considering rootions for l

surcraary disposit ion l'n the Big _Boch 29101 spent fuel pool anienderaent proceeding, 4 ._

e

) ils 4:1 ' a i . .s e . . . . i t siint . t i y s i a .g e. . 41 L t . .r. e. .o e in. .6 t J.i t, t . " .I tes )

t re the h15 tory of a ca%e. If rau t t oiit. .tre tr.o rt*adily J riin L e'), oubbt arst 4.11 ..41i.6 y ..t. e .n ev t re n issit rst .n l n....ut". saay hi * ** Hel tided f a a .f.i tfit. St r 10 i.6 . 6 t t. e a s t s .'.i . they att < o r v e. ,

. t ro l' 1re . .. .i .it .

. # lie.c o . .i ro u r t e.te- p. .wi . i . lal.neil ra a t il e l. t ee .

porta l l' t cil .. . .ps i .il t. tel l ti .i a le . f e.e t v43 s t i 1, .t i. .. t : s ! li.is t.

boon s'erded1ed. I re %uch .i c.tus. L her L usah11*.a.bl. ra sca y f' a l j to livu up to atu apportant u t, a t u t c ry rm.p,sunu t 'a l l i t y t o protect the pub l ic ua f et y anr1 the env i ronraen c . See Cf?H9E.t .i.[_(Lu;_Qt t"jj,deo t,' n_gc.;pigipu l c.n on the Accident at T.DC87fl._l.'lllt? _ _l p l .a nd . . .( t. 9 7 9). , Je h n,_ G., Keinon y , _ Ch a t r n a n . e t .

2733._E81s.

C90L Ltf90CD._29dEC. Cetgp.3 Oy (Diq Hock Point P1 ant) LBp-2-8, 15 NRC 2'99 (1902).

PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTION 27 f

MATERIAL FACTR AS TO WHICH THERE IS A GLNIUNL ISSUE TO BE HEARD l

j

1. The cc.nt ont i on i. not c o n c e r n e ri only with q a n ec.i e;.

relences of radioactivity of noch severity a. to caune rauanurable nealth effeelu for pi r . . . .n. . o u nc..tott t. v at in.r ohi .e i n c.ultat1.6. I c. .ia the releace.

2. Releases frorn the plant of suff'icient raa Oni t ude to pose a risk of racasurable health ef fects to raurabers of the public could occur without suhntantial notice.

3. Such release ciuld occur without being detecced.

4. In the event of an eraerDency at the Catawba Plant which rai ght result in a gaceous release of radioactivity of such 5-l

e neverity a*~, tr> c o u ,e? iae.v.orab le hu.il tle .n l l et:L t. Iur pi r ". u m, exponed to at oraupher ic t'adiatton f rota the i e l e.v,e, Control Roora peruonnel, baued on anfveraation avaliable tv t h e ra , roay not effectively project the raa gn i t uele and extent of of downwind doen

, raten.

G. Thoue pro jectt d (10 5.

• cate o, annenu otin'r i n forraa t a c.., ia. i y

', not be available to thre persons ren,,onsiblo for rur:oraraend i ng appropriate action to protect the publit health and safety.

i G. The offuite inf'orraat ion received f rota F'1 eld Monitoring Tearns raay be crit ical in developing a recortraended pretectivo action for the public in the event of an craurgency at Catawba whien raight result in a gaseous release of radioactivity of such severity as to cau*se raeauurable health ef fects for persons exponed to atraospher ic raolatson f rora the releane.

/. Ihe in orraaLlun received i rota the eieid Nona tve my I e.un ,

raay not be taerely confirtaatory in nature.

O. Applicants' of fcito rooni tora r g nyutera wa11 not col 1oct intorraation conututently within an accuracy range of plus, or rainuu d44% in the event o f- eraergency. Thin a s 'no t fance accurate than the systera proposed oy Paltaetto Alliance.

9. Applicants' of fsite raonitoring nytera will not track the gaseous plu'de as it rooven during the course of an eraergency. The systera proposed by palrautto Alliance is raore likely to do no.

10. Applicants' of f uite toonttoring systera is not able to effectively collect inforraat ion regarding lodine deposition during an ernergency situation. The synt era proposed by Palrant to 2

{

l l

[

• t, ,,

y .

' a -

n

. \

"n 411lanco i t; ;>:u ru 1 ila r 1 y Lo du m ). M s

, 11. p a l tan t*t o 0111ancu't, systera i ci c oro p r Oc.e d of eq u i praent td4 Oather data, t ra r.o.a l t it to t hi- p l a n t, , and urocon It, which in nvt unut, ally corop l e x . The offeetIve cr>A1,4bi3itv of ,

< that eq u i proun t in e cey,1: a b l i o. .

12. In3tho ;vr'nt ' .t. im erao rtp ric y at Catawba, i n f .rd.at i on collected by t ho1 F t e l d :Mmel t,.f.e t nq T earau will ngt be in the harldu

> ,t. .

of the appropriate o f l it e [a . d wi t h i n .;0 diA .a i r o i t. e. . .

13. Applicant ' n of fuite raonitorin9 sys t ero fails to coroply

- a 1

with 10 CFR E0. 4 / (b) (4) and J9). -

14. The contention does not-asser't that Appliconts' eraorg ency responso plan is inadequate because ernergency response personnel would not rely upon of f st te real-t irac raoni t ors for 4 intorraat ion upon which to bane protettive renconse in the event of a rautological occident.

s,

15. Use of raonitor readings ond.coytrol rocra alarrat. tcA indicate significant variations in too status of plant parat.Ators L raay not provide plant eneratoru or sDhorvisors with sufficient s w ,

inforraat ion to roake 'ef femt tve judger, ents regarcing the existence and seriousness of emergency conditions a<nd the protectivte .,

acttons to recor:raend t . : o f f s i L e

.e ut hori c i eb,. -y '

16. Plant raonitors and comput er-ass i st ed trend analysis of i

pr irac indicators raay not provide the operator with currori,:

(instantaneous) in forraat ion 3 so that plant cor.ditions are effectively analyzed, the situated effectively classified, response tearns ef fect ively alerted, and protective.. action

m e - ', - _ ,

' , -* s,

+

n ,

am-nf

--Q Occiasagal.> t a a .n+; e i 1 oc t, a v o 1 y . .e i ec t eet s an a L tido 1 y ra. i n ni

• r .

'- 17. Linder es.ierr.tency cond t t.1onc, i.io b a l e s. ion i t or t ny t uniac wtth b al ~t iran raoni t uru, "..uapl i ng etpe l ninent and e.edivS raay not be m . y eIkoctavely dtspatched of(nate in order tu nuevey erfeetively and raear.ut*o tne degree and extent of .iny radioauttvn o l osao releaned fi ora the p l c.n t .

18. On tt.o ba c.1 u .4 repari n o t' Iocation and r v a l--t trae roonitc r read ingu frora the racolle raonitoring t earas traversing the p l urae, the plant operat or raay not be able to update ar.d refine the al grae project ions previously r. tace.

19.\ J the appearance of pl utae indicat ions on of fsite raonitors raay provide tne critical i n f orraat i on for raaking effective recormaendat ionc and t a s.i n g t i roo l y protective actions.

Gio. On NHC-1unded ".tudy on the nuufulnour. or real-ttr..e

(

in._.n i t. o t . u r.d e r a c c i d e n t. contt a t t .n', d t.o ' . n. 4 t. ..tlectively n u p pac t. ,

i the evneluuton that there are l art:e uncert a i nt y 1actoru at.coc i at ed with their oraployraunt and that "it highly questionable that a fixed st at ion einergency racni toring s y u t ura o l' 16-3.2 u n i t e, can provide sutficiently rullable technical i n f orraat i on to be or use in a decision 7aaking process in the event of an eraorgency situation."

21. A study puolished by the At on11e Industrial Forura does not ettectively support the conclusion that "using data frora an environs raonitoring systera to project dose rates at other locations" accurately would be extrernely cif ficult and in sorae i

cases irapossible because it would require accurately knowing (a)

-O-

e ui ther plurae centerlia' 41 6e rate or l ot.; a l l u r e of the teltuae centerline relative to the detectoru; LLO effective heights of all ruleases; (c) enon yy cvmoonationu of releaseu; (d) uh i rie cor.tributions; (e) rae t eoro l og i ca l s t a b i 1 i t y c l at.u, and (f) local taeteorological ph o noranna.

22. Incufficient factual baniu exist for the NRC St af f's agreement with its contractor's evaluat ion (a) that tne une of fixed of fsite raonitoring systera to deterraine the raagnitude of an unmonitored release in the preuence of a raonitored release is would not generally serve a useful function due to high uncorbainty tactoru, ano (b) that iL zu unlikely that a 16 .32 unit system of fixed monitor station "would provice sufficiently rtliable technical inforraation lo of use in a d eac t u l e nta a k 2 n q proceUG 1re line evi'nt of on i'ini crje'rit y '.t Liia l i..r..

.2 a . A t inu 1 f a e t e

• e t i . i s; t. ii . : I a.e . A u :=x L L.. m q ,j n. .r L Llin' 'it.ifi'*.

Concluulon that whilu Opplicaistu' plan for unang mobile teams with real-t isau raoni tors will ausiul a re updattny and refining provisions in plume project ions, of f si t e real-t ime raonitors' wi l l (

not raaterialllly annist racet i ng the regulatory requireraent for timely. alerting of offerte authorities and recommending initial l

protective actions.

24. Appl icant s' i n--p l a n t raoni t or system and Eroergency Act ion Levelu, based on obuervable and raeauuraaolo indications in the control room, may not, in conforraance with 10 CFR Gection S0.47, portai t effective forecasting of an unplannea release, determining its isotopic content, effective projecting of tne magnitude of

<3 -.

=

7 releasu, and, ui tti .vailable i. e t eo r . . i rm i c a l tia t a, port .i t ettett ve l' U c o t:1Me nt.j a t, l or s* 4 >rs p r Y.t Q c t A VO at;Llote. a re .it!V it.Ci- vi t'a d 210 a r ', r y o a

r'elease t' r o m p A a r.t Gate.

ICG t..U N I E N T L O N 11 MATERIAL FnCTS AS 10 Win Cii THCRE Ib A GENUINE 16 SL'E TO EC HERRD

1. In the FEG the Gtaff presented neveral conclusions inappropiatoly baucci on itu ac c i d e nt, evie w me rit for Catwwba a l o r.e .

l i .is ipij n e n i. e f a,

• t it a l n . t j ii n. . i ( it t i n c e. c i e l c ast f..i iti r: 4 i .8 s e ' t: 3 . . i . =. I i n si t t i n c4 o i iv i r. .i ii n o .1..t 1 i . .o i .r .s..'iii...t- L- i.i.s1i", t li.s 1 i iis o i- .o.- ....

.pecial ._. i unt(pie ricciuir.t.uin+. ali. .u t t. l i .

• i1. i t a w t i a uits- .u iti i *n v i r. o ir, it wouAu warrant special ultigation featurou for Catawba; that r i s, k t> of early f at all';y aro cmall in comparinori w:th ranks of early fatality from other human activitleu; tnat topulation e x pos uret.,

and latent cancer fatality riu;m ate ecuparable to tnoue from normal operation. The Staff has not cdecuately cemonstrated that thout concluolons would not be changed witn or without consideration of McGuire risks in additton to the risk of Catawba. The presentation of accident riukn in the FES in not a reasonable one and tne cost-benefit consider at ionc should be

I ci. u itj r.d to 1 1 l et t s i! l i t i ve t .m tilei .it. i . .n ..! Mi lin a i s. e i nto..

2. lhe U t a f P ' .. analy..lu of McGuire riuku to inadequato nince it han failed to per forra the ki red of detailed risk calculation for McGuire which it has pe c t ortued for Catawba.  ;

3. The tecnnical support for the risk values presented oy the staff is either l acu i nr1 or confused. The staff has faileci to adequately t'ernonct eat e on the banis of d i f f erer.cru in d1Gtance and probability of wir.d b1cwing to Charlotte that the risk to an individual at Charlotte of early fatality and of l at eret cancer fatality frora operation of both plants was only slightly greater tnan frora Catai/aba alone. Thc= Staft has failed to deconstrate that the uiting of four reactors in close prox t ra i t y to Charlotte together with other cite enaracterictics including traffic pattorno, deraography .anri reeteorology do not re f l ect uuch special on unique ci reuraut ar.ces about the Catawba nite . ;. r environo a t. to warrat,t cpecial ra i t i g at i on f' eat ures. Tae Staff has failed to deraor.ct rat e t h at the populatten at rink of early fatalsty t r uea operation of Catawba i r, not the carou au the population at risk of early f atality frota operat ion of McGuire.

DEG CO!S,O f1ON 17 MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE.TO BE HEARD

1. The NHC Staf: i na p pro;)i at o l y pertcrued a "rralistic" a ucen t raun t of the envitontental oflect% o r ..t den a t;n bau1%

acC1 dent aL5ufJ1 r.TJ Met UcroloG 1Ca l d1GperGlon Cond i t I Cer'S wh1Ch "are an average valued determined by actual si t e measurcreent o. "

2. The NRC inapprop ately anneccec the environmental effectn of severe (clann 9) accidents by falling to isolate and evaluate actual nite specific saet eoro l o g i ca l conditior.n reflect ing the extre:ae, but frequently encountered, conditions of at raon ph eri c inversions and quiet air. The Staff inaopropiately ernpl oyed a stratified sampling plan of less severe, average, and.

perhaps, scrae extreme weather conditions reflected in the average s ara p l e. The acuerted use by the Stapt of extremely poor "near worse case" seteorolnqical cor.'l t t i on', i r. a l. c. na t i t y .ir.a l yu t u arap l y comvi, ,t. r it o- t. h e roa3.. aoluie,-

vi eso p 1. ,y i n y *,och a u..uin p t i c,i a. In the environmental analybin of accident i rapac t u.

d. The Cor.na l nc i v n ' s M t.,a t :2 ment _gi lpt,gt'11,[b21,1cy wh i ch requiren an enviroranent al a u s e c, tlu4 ,a n ticorm t e. r i ni : h. .n i hv per....- Itvino c l i .no t.. Itu.

Catawha far: 11ty wh.., un t s tuo l y, are thre alenoit hy t. h e health conocque'neen of a mvrer acc i dent a t: itu- noachv two in. t Mciintre faci 1ity. Oc 'or t ri inal1y f3 led Di'S i:ont ent 1 < n 11 read:

O oub.tanttal part <.f the populatton placed at rinte by nuclear operations at and relating to CateJoa are also placed at ric.k by similar operations at McGuire. n realistic assessment of Catawba will take into consideration the l':c G u i r o rink. The c uram i n g of probabilit ies is practiced in tne DES .in regard to providing an cetimate of One precability- of the consequences of severe accidents, "If the probability of sustaining a total loss of the original facility is taken as the ggg of the occurrence of a core-melt accident (tne nye of the probabilities for ten categories in Taole 5.10), then..." There is no corresponding concept in the CP FES.

.u p e .e < ! W 3 1. l i 4: I s e s?..n,1.a r. .i .. t e r ve$i v.t" Tlse 1.1. ? . i c i n y 16 .. u N +

19h. U'dce al p. 10.

and obt.orved tis 2t... Decetaber 1, t h e I i:1 at tou l gt, . i i. m a i linuta, L . . r e t. . . i n . . .#.s e r e e vsjret 4. J o n of arppeqate r i .de t. o the p er.p l o w h r. 1ive betw.mn t h etto Properly oone, . .u en u. evatuatton two nuclear c i t eu.

t the chancen over t i rce. lhat " worst would portray wou l ci

t. h e two re l a n t, < .

eace" people .ar v. Itve hr t worn .A result or a serivun suffer sor, e hoa a t h conuequence as the cites, t, a k i n g into account occident at eithcr of the sites and the distances of people f rora each of otner relevant factorG.

to its analynic of In the FES the St af f raade no roodi ficat ion

6. '3. 4, to 1

Env i ronraent al Irapacts of postulated Accidents, Section.

rernedy these orarai nsi ons , treated DES Contention 11 an a corament ,

and oreurent ed only the torne response contained at page '3 '3 .

In I t n idaren . J'4, 1983 Moraorandura and Order (Making Further Ibil so.t on I .n e t , . u uac .t a e s ' i .t ri t i . .i .m > the I i . rnu i r.o i n ..u d

.idra i t t ed t. h e fir.t t o. . . .e : rs t i .i ,i 1 "..

r.t' l aiT. I1 . wa t i:. .rar.u.n t e nt au t h i.;

f ol town on t he ? St a f 1 ' .. r e. .p. n min t..

cont eret ion:

The Gt a ' f's corarnent in renponue to LiG-11 app. ears at explanattors of hew pa n t' ') - 9 o f t hi s i MG. It i nc l utie. s an one can irggregate the risks ponLd by severe accidenti, to a particular cororauni t y ulteated in the vicinity of niten. In response to the two or raore reactor

(;ont ent i on and an an ex arap l e of the roethodology, the as the coraraun1*;y of interest and Staff usec Charlotte sites.

and McGuire cc the reactor Catawbc here, is Unfortunately, the e x arapl e, as presented un: sat isf act ory. The kind of detailed risk calculations McGuire; as a raad e for Catawca were not raade for i

n irnu l t aneous accidents in

1. Nete: The Staff need not consider the Board does not consider areas at both facilities, which credible.

- 14 .-

t

O result, the Sta/r' ad to a s .; u m e that the McGuire risbn were e nu pa ra ble- t... I h. " . t . ..i t ator.91.i a t. < t e t i va l en t, d i t: ancoc. Moreovr>r, tnu date presented for Catawba on page ') ') dot % not 'aa t c h t rnat 01 t irpare. i9 on par}e Fa - f,G . F u r t t u irn.o re, tho pe rcer.t a qo i t a' r l .mi

• in ca r.cor 1 t dk a t t, r t tiu t. eti L.4 Mc-tut t i'e (10f. More t. % i r i I:atawbal s t.

the enti ot the Sta11'.* c o s.im e n t aplu'arr- at eri d . , wtth the.

risk (lata n i vt're previounty ( t oo t no t. e orn i t t ed ) . While thlu new raa t t er ut sud. , . oroi* ubetul 1 J r; lit o rf the conoh t ned risks represented by McGuire and Catawba, the technical uupport tur t. h e vatue yiven 1., etther I acu t io) or confused. In any event, the roeritu of thir, dispute between the incervenceu and the Statf will have to be clarified and resolved on the record. We admit the t'irst two concencen of DCS-11 and discovery on them roay commence. Having caid nomething on tn1u sub,)ect in the "Responceu tu Commentc" section of the FES, the Staff did not see fit to malte any reviuionn in the raa i n t ex t of the FES, notwitnutanding the board's suggeution that "the FES should, at a mi nimura, contaan uome reccynition of aggregate risks to the people who live between"

, Catawba and McGuire. Order o f- December 1, 1983 at 18.

Even if one accepts the Staf f' u apparent thesis - that there are no significant i ncreraent a l rinxs from McGuire the text of the FEG should at least say that clearly. A t. presently written, the reader is l e t't to guess wnether the " p rot.1a b 111 st.1 c Aucou umen t of Severe Oc c i d e n t, s " dancun*non a t. fEU Ch. b, pp. iG 40, t. a k e. .

int o acc. oint any i rn.comorit a i eiube icom McGu1ro.

Oturtar1y, we t. L t : t1 a lauch .: . r e 1. u a t. y an part of Lta-Gtat'f'n "rebani l i n a ia)" d i . a s e .% 1.' o n in -

sli il>..ral t a 1 of 1 t. l a .

1 DE S. Order at 9. ngain, the "Neupon e- to Corarae nt n "

noctinn containn nomr. holpioi iiiforicat t on, but the identical murky p r o'.e r e a p I> e a r t in Oppendix E. We do not !<now wh e t. n o r the Otaf f' n apparent unwillingneun t..

raa Re cnanges and clartfications in the FCC text (except to correct c.enceded nial may .e e r r o r r.) n t eran from miuplaced pride of authornhip, bureaucratic inertia, or comething else. It is regrettabe, whatever the reason. In any cace, chould D E S-- 1 1 he o u t.t a i ne d in sorae raea u u re, our findingu will have t. h e ofrect of amending the FEG accordingly. Sgt-10 CF R 50. 52 ( o) (d) .

M ._pp. 2-4.

In its August 1, 1983 Motion for Suramary Disposit ion of DES Contention 11 the NRC Staff presents the Affidavit of Jocelyn 4.

Mitchell of t he Comraission' n Staff Occident Evaluation Branch,

WTin .ippart rit j y pa q f . .is.It M t I ha' .it a :tle eif . i no l y ' . t . I. .i' ( .i t . iwha as ett  !.

u r e u e n t. the op z iit on G. I t a l n:a r. , t.n t e t vi t iie t ir.u ic h , w! i . 3 t vui t hr.-

that none of these co nc l u u l ont, (regardinu environmental '

t ropact s ) be changer: wi t a) vr without considiaration of McGuire rinks in addition to tne risks of Catawba.

Therefore, the presentation 3t accident ricks in the FES in a reasonab1e one ano cent-bent f i t conuidorationn remain t he uarae. (Offloavit at p.8.) fheir affidavit a t eritpt s to uupply an explanations at tnin late day for the " murky" res pontse t o coraraent s at p. 9-9 of the FES.

However, "the... reader i t, " c,t i 1 1 " 1 < ' t to guenc whether the (Staf f's assessrnent of severe accidents FES)" takes into account ar:y i ncreraent a l r i tius frora McGuire.

Naren 24, 1983; Meraorand um and Order at p. 4.

Palmetto Alliance submits that the valicity of tne Staff's severe accident assenument - to 2ncluce consiceration of NcGuire incremental risk - an well an t o r- validity of the s t a f f ' t.

Illustrative e x anip l e os .uch cons 1ducattvii or. cuiit a l e.ed in s t ti renponue to comment 11 at U. 9 -9 '

..t the fLG .utnt be open to question through croun exarnanation ot- these Offlantu on the record at a hearing in th1L proceaning. T he St af t's Mot ion for Gurarnary Disposition or DhG C,ontention 11 stiould be denied.

DES CONTENTION 17 DISCUSSION Palmetto Alliance oppoces motions for suramary disposition of

.. l l

1

,p . i n t l'i '4 i< 6'a le.n t t .. lit ' t ' . . i e l s

• i e t. i . . i . t/ ! I t eaal by h. . I o fliip t i s anL *.

and the NHC .iL a s f . I n noppor t, of i t, t . raot s on l'or *2ummary d i uy n i t i . .n. t 'u i n?U ULali pim onL t. the afIadaviL 4 1 .l..t e l y n (n.

M .* *,c h e l l of the Statl' Occidein kvaluation Branch who to responsible for environrnental review of accidents for the Catawba Plant. Kennetn C. Dempsey and Jaraes E. Fairobent also of the Dranch. Applicants procent no affidavit in support of their motion.

DES Contention 17 asuerts that the NRC Staff failed to properly evaluate too impacts of accidents at Catawba by falling to explicitly evaluate accident impacts uncer extreme, but

.i c oro m o n , weather conditions of inversion and slow air moverment:

The DES in concerned with environmental impacts.

presumably these are best represented as the entire ranDe fi'OM trivial to serious, in conjunction with the estimatcu of likelhood. The DES averagen mi t tvn vit.q t cal r ond i t i one. in ite rwn*,i dera t i on e f' accidentC, G. 9. 4. b. Uecause a t muc ph t e r'i c iriversions and 4 quiet air are a vcu y cora aon f na t eiro t r. thic cort i on, accident currieq uenceu should be cateulated for the extreme cond i t t or. of inverston and very niow air moV Qrele n t .

In the matter of assessing serious accidentO, the env i ronmen t, a 1 anwmptionn arn cumplee and aqain do not appear to consider extreme weather, p. f> - 5/ . "Ihe DES, which ciffern froid the CD FES in c.xisiooring sover '

accidents, is at fault in nit considering the full range of radioloDical impacts by not considering extreme, but frequently encountered, weather conditions.

In..ite December 1, 1982 Memorandum and Order the Licensing Doard adrai t ted DES- 17 an orginally framed with the following observations:

DES-17 contendt that the- DES does not properly

Uvalitato lupactm 4 dou t gre hantu a ra s civer accident.

bei.3uGU lt d .M .' . s avl J.'d . l a t. f * . .i r af f .t ri.t l y. 4 ? t ho .(f 3 r,3 9,._t e t, * ,

artnum i nrl cu t ren..? u r'a i; h o r , inppiic. int- . t od isu' f;t a f f d i u a sj ret ., f .neo% s t.y Ltu t r i n. pus e .i - ...:. i. h e , t e .. h e . i s to u ;e,rt , th. . u r :e p t. Lht. c. .r.t 4.s i t i . .n . . . tin ; .e s . . t. y .1 wi i . i t, wa s act.ua l ly dor.e a:an be renolved on the t'e c o r d .

J d.. a t

p. 21.

The FEG made n; ex01icit a l t.orat i on of 1tr vnviron aent a l analyntu to comedy t. h o deficiency el.timon by intervonoen in DEPc17. No ac97. owl er.g nient of conuideration of a r. c t c o n t impacto under auch extreme weather conditions is inclucec in tne FE5 text. An the Board r.otes in its harch 24, l'383 Memorandum and Order, ' making *further rulings on Environmental Contentionn):

The Staf# has included a brief comment on DES-17 (FEG at 3-12), t h t= enly DEG contention we adr.ittee without qualification. While this comment provides s on.a cdditional informatie.n about the Gla r f' n approach, it doeu not represent .i tiants for rejecting tne I t al rn*Vot e r . _ t' .t e l s *t il n .t e, lil 'i 1' 'a l . a n .. l- ein.6'itanesp*.!.

T r t ., , at p. 5.

I Nothinq c6ntainnd in tne a r ri umt.nt or S t: .*i f f ' s a f f t (iav i t t -

. r,uppor t i ng Not:on., for Guwwn'y Dinpon it ion vi DE3 CunLi.ntton 17 alters Intervonorn criticium, or the need t. recruire NRC Staf f defense oi their accident annessment methocology on the record at a hearing in this procevoing with an opportun:ty for crons-examination. The Apolicant and Graff pacers confirm that no explicit conr.ideration modo r. f accident impacts during extreme weather . condit ions e:ccept as such extrumo weather concitions are captured in the averaging or sampling of meteorologicirl data for p

- 1G -

t the plant ,it. livw stn , in.oi Ca!Iy, 'l.s-

. .r.<- ..*ha1tLy a r.d apparent ease et expttel' cont,l ot u at. n on 4t o ut:in extresco weather cond i t. ivn*, iu .naaly > vi t ec h 11 in U .c o i .t us,; i . n by Iip p 11 c h n t, n :

4 "E n t rorim Me t t,vd . ; vryy i,

. e< ns di'ruti in t. h o !.L.itl'. Gate-y nnaly:,iu or Denign Daut0 Occ i dent </ , " f h ipl i ca r.L ' <, iao t i nn at p. 10.

In roak i r.g t hm;e caletilationu, rauch raore conservative a E c urapt i onn were ren d e to the courne t a keri Dy the accident and t. h e prevailing conditionn. ( Gge, SE A,

hapter 15) These assurapt ions incluoe near worst cane t.m t eoro l ot; i ca l d1<pernion cond2 tion (a " den i']n heat ner condition") which produce " calculated doses at the EA19 CExclusion Area of Boundary 3 that woulc not be exceedeci rnor e thsn five percent of the t i rae 5ccause of other me t e orol orj ical conditions at tne uite." (~ES, po.

9-1._). In other words, the raet eoro l ot; 1 ca l clopersion conditionn at the cite would be raore favorable than tne

" design weather condition" used in these calculations at least 93% of the t irac. Thus 1, 0 the e x t er:t that e x t rerce weather conditions such an inverulon ano very slow a i ry raovetaent are cororco n in the area, they were ,

repreGented in the 'i.UVr r i t y of the "ceG1gn weather contj i t ion" c o l e c t r ct , antt would produce h l qhes r .t lf ?q l aled P.ttital teen t h i .s * .

,T,tj t a t pp. 11-10. If the NRC Btaff obviouuly accepted the propriet y o f esploy i ng c,iu'h " w o rr.t cane" waatru r conditAnc.e for purpoGei eif t h i '~ Cl !l .u sa l y'i i ' .. ]L , tlait'i, ' . im u.1 , t? l ean ]y tini workable and appropriate analynin to perform for nurposes or a t.a l yc l i g; explicitly the environtoental Irvaeta of low i

probabili ty/extrerae cc.nneque ice events cuch as severe accidentu at required by t he Corem i nulon' <, S t.at sp.y;nt m_19t tring.211GL 45 Fed. Reg. 4 e 101, Jur.e 13, 1980. Pa t r.ic t t o nl1 lance urgen that the Motions for G utaraa ry Dii,uonation of I)EG Contention 17 by Applicants and the NtiC Staff be denied anc that this reatter be

.o

4

<>'. l.n ri . .. . l u t . . .o uith Iive- Li. .t i m..r.) 1v t ila .  :( .il ! .il I i.o et ., vo the record at a h r'ar 2 t ig.

CONTSNTION 27 DISCUSSION Palmetto Alliance opposes Applicants a r.c St af f' s s'ot ions for Sumraary Disposition cf Palmetto Contention 27. This contention, which urgen that a syntem of fixed real t t :ae ueni t ore ne placed around the Cat.swun ntte t..e u.. o in eu.:.r pu ,cy c o r.o 2 L 2..n u wan adm2tted by the Licer+1ng Doard .in follown:

The Applscantu sho. tid be required to plate real t uc.e mnnitorn capable .;> f reading gamma radiation leveln around the site in order to provide emergericy

. .per a l t i o . .. ps.e ..rin.l with at.f.. cia.it.si.si i u < pii ri it t.. u.C 4 -

docinionc r.eceunary to reaconably annure the healtn anu cafety of Lne p uts) ti- nra ler ec.nd i L i one. ..r - r.id s olog i ca l r e l*3 a s e to the environment. The thermoluminescent docimetern are only accurated within about + or -

3 M.

and only provide a posii_hge annosument. Palraetto urgen that when all the smol<e and thunder of Applicant , and Staff posturing is cleared away what eraerg en is the classic genuine lusue requiring testimony anc cross-examinat ic n-- a nearing-- for recol ut ion.

As referenceo by Applicants own affiant, Mary L. Birch, Duke's System Radwaste Engineer, the

e 1

l I

uh t t:(f.s t.Q6'y .at ie eg e t t .. .ei .i * . y ' i M.e af I 6 ,< 4 -* f a s '. s 8 L t 1.0 -

in< 'e n A !. < .s A r e rj tat a s ionn ha% been rejLcted p r i ra.nr i l y o u t of Cost ConGiCerations:

Ihe (" e tj e t a l inti . .iges cy lauP i os c. - un Eraerger cy Inntrur.rnbation for th ic l e a r Incidenc-, at Fixeo Fact 1itiec ce.nu1ocred tho ec.nc e p t of aaking (ueled riit?a* Atr e Mt N et'. (.I i, l 'e t * {f; ..t. e 11)'tt 1.er . .e i s'at! I c r eud 1 i di ?

concentrationn i r. the pl urae wi t n a t y s t'em of fixed raonitoring l ocat :.ono an a saethod of ent ir.:at i ng the dispersal of the p l urae arid i' v e projecting exposure pattorno. This conc e p t, w a t, rejecte] because of the large Duraber of sopnisticated detectors and the the maintenance, telemet ry for cuch a Lyo t era . . .

repair and calibra'.lon of cucn syst erau would be yocy E92I.lY and hi2 CL1_ E2_.1M 9 t J.1X_ _iD _ YiUM__9 f __1bG __ilG Gid CD$

utsbat2ilit_y ( er.'ph a:,i u adc ed )

Biren affidavit at p. 10, ciuot ing FEMA-rep-2, " Guidance on Offsite Ercergency Radiation Moacurer. tent Sy st era s, pnace 1 - Airbourne releace," Septemaer 1980.

I n c tp3 i. .c ! .if t tio n e ie- .t wt t t vu ti. . t. t . .) .-

t . .i ' h ua: iia r y Dicpoei t. t u n rif Ud ntonit itet s .? / iipplicant, provido the a i f i d.tv i t. n r.f :

Gerald E. Vaughn, who alent ri tsuu hi5 ra pon".1bi11tten an t. h e Uncovery Manager tv.c raakinq prot ce t,2 ve ne t, 2 .s n receorci .ralat 2 onn in -

an ernergency; C. W. Gravo., Catawha Uuper2ntendsnt of tJoeratzone, who doccribea i n ferraa t i on availaole to co ni. r o l room peruonnel in the event of a likely accicent; Michael G. T uc kraan, the Catawna Superintendent of Technical Gervices who describes the use of the Field Monitor Tearon who reeasure dose raten in an accidental relcane; and Mico 141 rch who criticizes the sy nt era propoced by palraetto Alliance. The Staff presents the affidavit of Gerald E.

151 ra. . rid . , ..t i.fi ? D$v. . oi vi i ut .r g ei .c y r'r<>p.o t'<h a > . wi n u in recponnibir i.. t. e cl i n i c a l review of toe Catawoa t.rae r g e n c y P l arin i ng ; and, Ldwaru I. 1.< c a n a g a n , Jr., isualth Physicist wno critiques the . ra a f u l nc >. . t. .f real t i r.'e roon i t o r t. uncer accicent ecnditions. P:a l r.:e t t u Alliance urgen the board to consicer the n;'p11 cant s ar:d O t a t f ' t, t.io v i n g papero and at t acriraent u an ara p l y reflecting the factual d i s p ut tm r mi. tiring litigation of Contention 27. Ec also urge tne Poard's reference carectly to discovery rempcricca f r c ro Palmetto Alliance to cerogatories regarding Contention 27 for an uncistortec a nti accurate reflection of 1 n b ervenor' s position on this contention. Such recponnec are cated Acri1 19 and .May 27, 190's. Furtner, Pa l erat t o Plliance ur r;es referer.ce to the ciucovery deposition of Mary L.

Dirch conducLed by Pa l rnet t o 011 l ance May 11, 1903 reflectirig ner deucri pt l or. of Opplit.mt- propv ed savii t t vr i t .r;  : y s t. eia Ior u .3 0 at Latawba under acc i d e n t; conditions. In c.n o r t , stripped of App 11cantu d t.. t o r t t u n u , va l ene t t ._. O i l i a r i.:o uc r.u , that the presen t raoni tori ng sy nt era pripp ed by A pp l i c avit < > be au r.nent ec Oy the inctallation or a sy c t era of taxed re.i t t i tc o rao n i t o r i n g stations around the facility of the noet described in (anc criticised as to coutly) the NRC contract stucy " An Guseccrcent of Offsite, Real Tirae Dos- Mea s ureraent Syst eras for Eraor gency Situations,"

NUREG/CR-CG% (1902) and ac are installed at sorne seven nuclear mtations as identified in Table 8 on p.47 of that study.

Applicants asuert that offuite data will not ce necessary in c raer g ency situaticns in order t o raake initial recoraraend at i on for 3 3 __

protectav.* acLivn % 1 rtee 2rr plant ntoni L. .e i r. j oata and ;>1 ant pararneter infor raat ion w111 provide operating persone.cl with all nonded i n f orraa t i un.

However, the i ra cort an t point made in Mr. Vaughn' n affidavit i% that ht* recororcend a t i ons w l,l i be raade on the basis of cro wettvf releases. N' r . Vaughre will not in for. vat n un t rora Field P oni t or i ng I r> aron a, tne rely on basis for inittal recoraraenda ;. l e or ot proterriva-action. Instead the data frora tne Field P'on i t or i n g Team is used (uhould a renease occur) to conr rc the earlier projections upon whicn initial protectiva actioni, worry b y, ed to ceterfalno wh re t h er a ny,_,ad(J i t_ loga J, OC d.i.f1CCCD1._gro t oct i ve raeasures ta l r',h_ t_ _ ,,b e _ ,,D e c_ e G G a r y ,

and to provide inforraat ion on hhich '3 ubseq ue nt remedial reeasuren rai gnt be made (ercphanis added)

Applicants Motion at p. S.

Mn. Birch confirms that primary reliance for recommmended protective ar; tion in initially placed upon t ra p l an t i ro.t rinornt a t i . .n. he r ua t .m uir, e i . oa hru N.w iI, 1 ml., e tcps. : : t i . .n :

( .6 W. .ii l e l you i n 1 i s., i . I t. pcuden.t i.irrty ..r. t. i n i f it 1il Ma n t t o r i n tj 'l e u rm;, to e tabi15h the pr 1 ro ary i nf errant t on c oi..;.>r n i n g m:.urrai t erro or d con trer.t va L i oi s? O. No. I ha -

raon i t.or L earn doec r e.. t provide that i n f orraa t i c.n. T h a *.

i n f o rro a t i d n 1% av.islablo in Llui er.nt r u i evora. D. l aow do you iaean toe term " c e n t i rra , " as you une it, Mt.

D i rel)? O. Lj5 t nt) LlH' i.ui'e~e* L er ht i n i t o 't.I. s t n u n ai nd litt

• raeteorological corditions, you woulc De able to calculate what the cora11t s onn uhould be by con f i r ra i n t) it. We want to go out there and cec anat it is. Q.

Why would you want to conf i rra that i t i f orraa t i on? A. I wouldn' t want to trunt one nuraber for al1 information, talking about raov ing persons, poscibily and the environment.

Birch' Deposition, at p. 63.

Ms. Birch's concern is wel1 olaced and reinforces the iraportance of the availability of of fsite raonitoring information 4 r. Lho o v e n t. vi i .t t..i' . o a : i d t s i l. . W!i.it .oc. L h ta pu...)b:1tLy ..I u nroon i t ored re l eace " fiv- ur s p l anned rel.'acc points ..ther t n are the unit vent ano steara c urap valve? What of the tallure of the apparent ly non redunciant a f f'l uer.t st reara raona torir.a nardware at these locations? Q2n, 14 ' ren ' s deposition at p. 40. and tno recorarnencat ion of Duke Power Cor.ipany' n TriI Taur. Force or installation of such redundant nign ranqc raoni t ors, L4 i r c h ' s deposition at pp. 42-44.

And, what about the near cuddere release perra i t t i n g no prior craergency rr.cbili zat ion of on site staff or Fiela Monitoring Tearas ? Even A;3pl icant e pir. Vaughn acknowledges i rap l i c i t ly tnis possibililty:

It is ifa port ant to know that in__alr Jggt __c11_. ,cangs where protective actiori raust be recoraraenaca , a release will not occur cuadenly.

Vaughn Offtdavit at p. a.

Applicantu' Mr. T uc k raan acknowledges t.ial (1 eld <,tationing of the Monitoring Tearon will take two hoorn at night -- - certainly too lonD to _ out aira priraary roonitorinr1 data for efroctIve protectIvo action under many senariou. Tuckraan Af f idavit at p.

3.

Palraetto Allionace urges tnat it is abundantly clear tnat n1any substant ial and raat eri a l issues of_ fact effecting the puolic health and safety wien respect to subject raat ter of Content ien 27 reraa i n in dispute and can only be resolvec througn the evaluation of live test iraony, tested by cross-exarninat ion, frora the recora a

w at a h n a:- i n g . We urge that A p p l i c itnt e,' 'nc Staff'c Notions for G ur,mia ry .D 1 opon 1 t on ..f'

. ('ontint1.n .c / Mr d o n i ec.

o LONCLUSUjN ,

t'-or tim Nire g e l s e.) reason'3 l>u lt,u2t t._ Al 1 t ance uin;e . that the Motions for Summary Dispocition of Contsant ionc DEC 11 a r.cf 17 and 27 be cenled.

+

uJ a- - - - - - - -

Hober t Guild P. O. box 12'#:37 l

Ch a r i c e.,t on , S. C. d' N i e l

Counnel ror Pa liaet t o a l I i m ico l

1 August 26, 1982 L]

LINITP.D STATIM OF AMi.H WA a

NUCLEAR ltEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station, ) August 26 , 1982 Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PALMETTO ALLIANCE ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' AND STAFF'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON CONTENTIONS 11, 17 and 27.

in the above captioned matters, have been served upon the follow-ing by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, onthis&loNayof k , 198 .

James L. Kelley, Chairman Chairrran Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atcmic Safety and Licensing Aopeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comtission U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washincrton, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Henry A. Presler Union Carbide Corporation Charlotte-Me::klenbura Environmental Coal.-

P.O. Box Y 943 Henley Place Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 CharloLLe, N.C. 20207 Dr. Richard R. Foster J. Michael M;arry, III, Esc.

P.O. Box 4263 Debevoise & Liber:ran Sunriver, Oregon 97701 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Chairman Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Jesse L. Riley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.C. 20555 Charlotte, N.C. 28207 George E. Johnson, Esc. Scott Stucky

. Office of the Executive Local Director Docketing and Service Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camtission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William L. Porter, Esc. Carol F. Kagan, Attorney Albert V. Carr, Jr. , Esq. 'Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ellen T. Ruff, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission Duke Power Carpany Washington, D. C. 20555

- P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N.C. 28242 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney Cencral 8d h dj State of South Carolina

/D P.O. Box 11549 nob @t Guild Columbia, S.C. 29211 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance, In .

1,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _