ML20080L373

Reply Opposing W Eddleman 830831 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 80 Re Mixing & Dispersion Models.Eddleman Contention 80 Should Be Decided in Util Favor

ML20080L373
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/27/1983
From:	Patricia Anderson CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20080L376	List: ML20080L373 ML20080L383 ML20080L394 ML20080L405
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309300275
Download: ML20080L373 (9)

Text

. . -

i

~

l 00CKETED USNRC 1 September 27, 1983 l '83 SEP 29 Pl2:23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CFFICE 0F SECREII.!

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETING & SERN.

CFJ NC'i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

• CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) -

AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL

' MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY -

) 50-401 OL

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO WELLS EDDLEMAN'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 80 On August 31, 1983, Intervenor Wells Eddleman filed his

" Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80." Mr. Eddleman's motion is based on the fact that Applicants' mixing and dispersion models do not take into account the effects of " rainout."1/ Mr. Eddleman asserts in his motion that if the effects of rainout were included in Applicants' model, the estimate of dose to the population around Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("SHNPP") would exceed the permissible limits for I

)

"/rainout" 1 Applicants understand Mr. Eddleman's use of the term to mean radioactive plume depletion by wet deposi-tion, including both " rainout" (wet deposition due to precipi-tation in clouds) and " washout" (wet deposition due to precipi-tation below clouds).

l 8309300275 830927

{DRADOCK 05000400 PDR

,s@

-- - yin --s -e ---v - - ~ + - * ----,-a - ---

I annual whole body and thyroid dose. Mr. Eddleman relies solely on quoted passages from a 1957 article by Maynard Sm'+h and Irving Singer designated as BNL-3391. In doing so, Mr. Eddleman demonstrates conclusively either his utter confusion in dealing with the technical aspects of mixing and dispersion models and their relationship to dose calculations or his willingness to dissemble by relying on passages from an article having no rele-vance to the issue presented in his Motion. . Mr . Smith (of Smith and Singer) expresses incredulity at Mr. Eddleman's use of his paper. See " Affidavit of Maynard E. Smith" (hereinafter " Smith Affidavit") attached hereto. The technical and factual inaccura-cy displayed by Mr. Eddleman's Motion lends support to Appli-cants' September 1 motion for summary disposition on all aspects of Eddleman Contention 80.

Applicants' reply to Mr. Eddleman's motion is supported by:

1. " Statement of Applicants' Position With Respect to Mr. Eddleman's ' State-ment of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard'";

4

2. " Affidavit of Brian D. McFeaters" and Exhibits A and B attached thereto;

3. " Affidavit of Maynard E. Smith" and Appendices A and B attached thereto;

, 4. " Applicants' Motion for Summary Dispo-sition of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 80 (Atmospheric Dispersion Model)" and supporting papers filed simultaneously with that motion.

l I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eddleman Contention 80 alleges that the mixing and dispersion models for radiological releases from SHNPP assume more complete dispersion than actually takes place because they do not take into account various meteorological conditions that could affect such dispersion. On September 1, 1983, Applicants filed their " Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 80 ( Atmospheric Dispersion Model-)" (here-inafter " Applicants' Motion"). Applicants' attempts to ascertain the focus of Mr. Eddleman's concerns through discov- i ery procedures are discussed in detail in that Motion. In sum-mary, Applicants believed as a result of discovery that Mr.

Eddleman's primary concern was with the immediate effects of rainout of radionuclides from a thunderstorm or other sudden and unexpected precipitation on a group of people who were di-rectly exposed to the precipitation. See " Wells Eddleman's Re-sponse to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," dated March 21, 1983, at 42 (re-sponding to Interrogatory 80-5(a) of Applicants' January 31, 1983 Interrogatories). Applicants' Motion responded, in part, to Mr. Eddleman's identification of this worst case scenario. ,

The technical paper and affidavits filed in support of that motion demonstrated conclusively that Applicants' estimates for immediate dose from accidental or routine releases would be less conservative if rainout were taken into account.

a On August 31, Mr. Eddleman filed his own " Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80" (herein-after "Eddleman Motion") on the rainout issue, seeking a Board order denying Applicants an operating license until they include rainout in their dispersion models. The Eddleman Motion corroborates Applicants' belief that Mr. Eddleman views rainout as the principal issue in Contention 80. However, the Eddleman Motion seems-to shift the emphasis,.for the first

-time, to concerns about estimates of annual or long term dose to the public. See Eddleman Motion at 2. The affidavits of Brian D. McFeaters and Maynard E. Smith, attached hereto address Mr. Eddleman's newly articulated concern and demon-strate conclusively that rainout cannot contribute signifi-cantly to annual population dose from radioactive emissions from SHNPP or result in dose in excess of the permissible limits contained in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. It is Ap-plicants' position that no material fact exists with respect to this issue and that complete summary disposition on Contention 80 in Applicants' favor is appropriate.

i . II. ARGUMENT The basis for Mr. Eddleman's Motion is his assertion that rainout can result in radionuclide deposition signifi-cantly in excess of that predicted in Applicants' models and, thus, result in dose that exceeds the permissible limits. Mr.

l Eddleman relies solely on Smith and Singer's " Diffusion and

(

i

. _ . , _ _ - . _ _ . - - , _ _ ~ _ . _ , ._ _ _ . _

Deposition In Relation To Reactor Safety Problems," a 1957 paper written as part of a study commissioned by the Atomic En-ergy Commission, as support for his position. As the attached affidavit prepared by Maynard E. Smith, co-author of the paper, demonstrates, Mr. Eddleman has completely misinterpreted the significance of that study. The paper cited by Mr. Eddleman l (and provided to him by Applicants during discovery) discusses the postulated diffusion and deposition by meteorological processes of a very rapid-release of 50% of the total fission product inventory from a gas-cooled nuclear power reactor after an accident which resulted in a breach of containment and rup-ture of the reactor vessel. Smith Affidavit at 1 5, 6. In contrasting the accident differion and deposition calculations with and without rainout, Smith and Singer were discussing a very short-term event, the important part of which would last no longer than an hour. The Smith and Singer paper sought to describe the combination of diffusion and rainfall that would maximize the deposition and dose calculations. Id. at 7. Mr Smith states emphatically that his 1957 paper lends no support to Mr. Eddleman's assertion that rainout can increase radionuclide deposition dramatically, except in the very re- ,

stricted context of the hypothetical scenario that he consid-ered. He states his opinion that no other document in the rep-utable scientific literature would support Mr. Eddleman's as-sertion. Smith Affidavit at 1 8.

~

l Mr. Eddleman has attempted, inappropriately, to use

! the conclusions concerning meteorological conditions which

, might concentrate radioactivity released from a hypothetical reactor accident to support his thesis that Applicants have

miscalculated annual deposition and dose from routine radioactivity releases from the SHNPP. As Mr. Smith stated succinctly "The two situations are simply not comparable." Id.

at 1 6. Thus, it is clear that Mr . Eddleman.has not sustained i

j -the burden of showing that there is no material fact about the j significance. of rainout on ieposition and ultimately on popula-l tion dose. Because Mr. Eddleman has not supported his position 4 with appropriate affidavits or other documentation, it is not incumbent on Applicants to submit affidavits in opposition to I

the Eddleman Motion. Comoare with Pennsylvania Power & Light Company & Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-81-8, 13 N.R.C. 335, 337 (1981) (requiring responsive affidavits where affidavits were submitted with motion). It is Applicants' position, how-ever, that there actually are no material questions of fact on i

the rainout issue, simply because rainout cannot contribute significantly to population dose under either accidental or routine conditions. Thus, Applicants have submitted the atta-l ched affidavit of Brian D. McFeaters to show that they are en-

titled to summary disposition in their favor on Contention 80.

The paper prepared by Mr. McFeaters and incorporated in his affidavit as Exhibit B demonstrates that under routine 1

i

_ .,__... _ _,m , - __ , . _ . -. r_, -__ ,__,_, _ - y __.r_ ,,_.m, ,,.,___,,,,_.m.-_,,,..r.y, , , , , , . , , . , , - - . , , _ , , - , . , , , , . -

ym_m, ...,, .

l

, release conditions, wet deposition from rainout does not i

contribute significantly to annual deposition of radionuclides i

to the ground and, thus, to dose to the public. The insignifi-cance of rainout during normal plant operations results from a j number of factors. First, it should be noted that the effec-tiveness of precipitation scavenging by rainout depends upon I

the size of the particles in the atmosphere. Larger particles are more likely to be " rained out" onto the ground. Exhibit ~B

'to McFeaters Affidavit (hereinafter " Exhibit B") at 3, Smith

! Affidavit at 5 6. During normal operations at SHNPP, however, the number of large particles released is reduced by J

filtration, thus decreasing the amount of large radioactive particulate available for scavenging. Id.

! As the McFeaters paper illustrates, the importance of rainout also is reduced by the fact that rainfall at SHNPP is fairly light and is uniformly distributed over an annual basis.

Exhibit B at 3-4. This conclusion was reached on the basis of years of data collected at SHNPP and was corroborated by data collected at other pertinent locations. Id. at 1-2. As the McFeaters paper states, the uniform distribution of rainfall throughout the year ensures that no single receptor will

! receive a disproportionate amount of wet deposition. Id. at 4.

The applicable regulatory guides do not require that rainout be

! taken into account unless a site has "a distinct rainy season which corresponds to the grazing season." Id., citing Regula-tory Guide 1.111. This is consistent with Mr. Smith's view of

,--.,,n.., n , ---, ,.,, - . . , - . . . . . . - . . - , , , -

.,,a , . _ , . - , , . . , ,_..,n,-,,-,.. . . . . - - - - - . . , . - - ~ -,.,n, , , , ,.-. , . , . . ..

. .. -. __- _ _ . - - =- - -. _ -_ . - ..- _.. . - .

i I

the minimal contribution of rainout to radionuclide deposition from routine emissions from a modern nuclear power plant.

Smith Affidavit at V 7, 9.

This assessment of the insignificance of rainout of radionuclide emissions from the SHNPP is supported by the cal-l culation performed in Exhibit B. Mr. McFeaters has calculated i

possible dose from rainout to the critical receptor designated j in Applicants' FSAR, a milk cow located 2900. meters north of r

'the plant. For that critical receptor the annual deposition attributable to rainout is only 1.8 x 10-107,2 , a value I

more than an order of magnitude less than that estimated from dry deposition. Exhibit B at 6. Thus, any additional deposi-tion contributed by rainout would be completely insignificant.

The affidavits of Mr. Smith and Mr. McFeaters demon-l strate conclusively that taking into account the possible effect of rainout will not increase annual dose calculations by i

a significant amount. Thus, it is clear that Mr. Eddleman's motion must be denied. Mr. McFeaters and Mr. Lei have previ-ously shown that dose from accidental conditions or immediate dose from exposure to a routine plume would not be increased by

~

rainout. McFeaters Affidavit, Lei Affidavit, filed in Support ,

of Applicants' Motion. Therefore, Eddleman Contention 80 is ripe for summary disposition in Applicants' favor on all 4

1 issues. Mr. Eddleman has introduced no evidence to the con-

trary.

(

l l l

'.-m---,,.---r-a --m.,,n=-,--~ r , -,v,. - -r -w--~~--.-----,.n- --

,,----,--wn,n--,-.- -v , ------n. -n.- , n-, --. .-m---, ,

III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing and upon the facts set forth in the Smith and McFeaters Affidavits and Statement of Appli-cants' Position on Eddleman's Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard, Wells Eddleman's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on Eddleman Contention 80 should be

! denied and Eddleman Contention 80 should be decided in Appli-cants' favor. -

Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

John H. O'Neill, Jr.

Pamela H. Anderson Counsel for Applicants SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000

~

l'

~

Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 26602 (919) 836-7707 Dated: September 27, 1983 I

_g_

l l

l