ML20091J483

Joint Supplemental Contention Re Specific Emergency Plan for Southwest Charlotte,Nc.Affirmation of Svc Encl

ML20091J483
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/30/1984
From:	Guild R, Jeffrey Riley CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8406050526
Download: ML20091J483 (7)

Text

. _ _ _ _ .

~ -

&{/p ~

4 -

May 30, 1984 k UNITED STATES OF A.G ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W{NJD '" -

In the Matter,of

'g4 JU"-4 pg 59 DUKE POWER C0$PANY, et al.

Docket Nos. 50-413 1

50-kl4-1 1 (Catawba Nuclear Station, "

y g ,z, M -

Units 1 and 2) ~ ~ " ~

~

CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP AND PALMETTO ALLIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTION REGARDING SPECIFIC

[

a

__ EMERGENCY PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST CHARLOTTE

=

CESG/ Palmetto Contention 11 as initially filed (July 11, 1963) read, in part, Effective emergency planning should be required for the City of Gnarlotte, North Carolina in the event of a I

1 radiological emergency at the Catawba nuclear station

~ with the full range of protective actions considered including evacuation of the City's population. [ Emphasis supplied.]

_ This contentiv was revised by the initial ASLB and accepted. In 7

pertinent part it reads,

" The si s , and configuration of the northeast quadrant of plum'e l;xposure pathway emergency planning zone (Plume EPZ) surrounding the Catawba facility has not been properly determined by State and local officials in relation to local response needs and capabilities, as required by 10 CFR 50 47(c)(2). LEmphasis supplied.]

E E

The Intervenor's case on Contention 11 was presented to this E

Board on May 24, 1984 On Applictnt's motion part of the testimony, I prefiled by Intervenor's witness Jesse L. Riley, was struck. It i

included Questions and Answers 17 through 25 M.is testimony deals with specific planning for southwest Cha l':;" ad proposes a full m

range of protective actions that the plan may be effective. We E

believe that this testimony was within the scope of the revised I Contention 11 in that it was concerned with the local response needs F

and capabilities in relation to the size and configuration of tha proposed extension to the EPZ.

o 8406050526 840530 ~'

=

PDR ADOCK 05000413 0

- PDR b

i

In that this Board did not adopt that view in making its ruling to strike, CESG and FA now file late the following Contention 20 e

and a response to the five factor requirements of 10 CFR 2 714 (a).

A specific, effective emergency plan should be devised and implemented for that part of Charlotte within a 17 mile radius of the Catawba nuclear station.

Testimony in the ongoing ASLB proceeding establishes the prevailing wind direction from the station toward Charlotte.

A population in excess of 120,000 lives within this area.

The FES (NUREG-0921) estimates, for an observed Catawba weather sequence, and actual demography, a possible 24,000 1

early fatalities for a large release if persons residing between 10 and 25 miles from Catawba are not relocated in the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (p. F-3).

The guidance provided for planning states "The Task Force

[on Emergency Planning] concluded that the objective of emergency response,. plans should be to provide dose savings f6r a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs." And "The ability to best reduce exposure should determine the appropriate response," (NUREG-0396, pp. 5 and 13). Clearly the protection of southwest ,

Charlotte is required, although it extends past the "about 10 mile" radius considered for EPZ's, because it can be exposed to a significant radiation hazard which can be reduced by an appropriate response plan.

Testimony also shows the population density of southwest Charlotte to fall between 6 and 10 times that of the present EPZ. Evacuation will, consequently, be slower. Although evacuation, it was testified, of the present EPZ will take about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, that of southwes t Charlotte is estimated 'to require about 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.

The NRC staff's meteorology witness testified that under, some conditions a slightly dispersed release could reach southwest Charlotte in as-short a time as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

To minimize delays in the evacuation of those prospectively exposed to a radioactive plume:

1. The plume boundaries and rate of movement must be known. This should be the case under present emergency response plans.

2. People who can avoid exposure should evacuate. l 3 Evacuation roads lying in the plume pathway must be interdicted.

4 Evacuees must not be so delayed by traffic that the plume overtakes them.

5 People not in danger of plume exposure should l not interfere with legitimate evacues traffic. l

, 6. Those who will not have enough time to escape the plume must shelter until there is a sufficient reduction in plume intensity to make evacuation and relocation the course providing the most effective dose savings.

To realize this rational and specific plan for the minimization of dosage, the siren /EBS procedure will not be adequate. It will be necessary to provide specifde instructions to relatively small zones which will be responsive to the actual magnitude of the release, rate of release, and the instant meteorology.

Specific instructions as to whether to stay in, shelter a specific time and then relocate, or to evacuate within a specific time and by which of alternate routes can be provided by an appropriate computer-operated telephonic alert and notification system. Such systems have been given cognizance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, " Standard Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and No.tification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants," (FEMA-43/

September 1983, E.6.2 4 4, pp. E-15 & 16) .

Testimony by Applicant's expert acoustical witness, Dr.

Bassionni, shows that 100% alerting and notification is not likely to be realized by the siren /EBS system within the 15 minute /5 mile and 45 minute /EPZ radius guidelines (FEMA-43/ Seprember 1983, E.g.@, pp. E-4 & 5).

The combination of siren /EBS and an appropriately designed telephonic alert and notification system will much more nearly reach the objective of timely, 100% notification.

It is Intervenor's view that all five factors for late filing this Contention 20 are met. Cf. 10 CFR 2 714 (a).

(1) In Intervenor's view Contention 11, as originally drafted and submitted, and as revised by the initial ASLB, was concerned with an effective plan for Charlotte which would incorporate the full range of protective actions. Although the ASLB did not use this language, Intervenor understood its reference to local response needs and capabilities to have the same significance. Not until this ASLB struck Intervenor's testinony in this regard did it seem that the matter would not come to hearing.

e

_g_

l (2) No other means appear to affbrd the relief sought by Intervenors. The Applicant has expressed in unmistakable terms its opposition to the extension of the EPZ in its testimony. Although the Mecklenburg County Commission appointed an Emergency Management Planning Review Committee to consider this matter, among others, it has not taken a timely position in regard to representing the County before this ASLB. The County, even if it prefers inclusion of part of Charlotte in the EPZ, lacks the authority, which is reserved to FEMA and the NRC, to require the Applicant to make the outlays such a plan would require. The biannual change of the County Commission provides no assurance that timely implementation of such an extension will take place.

(3) .Intervenor believes that its participation to date in the instant proceeding has contributed to a sound record. Its participation in this regard would reasonably be expected further to contribute to a sound record.

(4) There is no other party to the proceeding on whom Intervenors can rely to make their case in this regard. Local and State officials have already testified for Applicant. There is no indication that any of them support Intervenor's position on the record.

(5) In Intervenor's view Contention 20 only includes matters whien it believed were subsumed under Contention ll. As to delaying the proceeding: Intervenors have already submitted their testimony on this matter. There is no surprise for either the Applicant or the Staff. Full discovery opportunities have been available to these parties--no further discovery is required. Intervenor submits that one half day of hearing during the week of June 5 should , without causing delay, permit developing a record on Contention 20.

i

1 Respectfully submitted, l

M 29 '

IesseL.Riley, ,

Litigative Chair, CESG l

Robert Guild Attorney for Palmetto Alliance Note: Due to time constraints an Affirmation of Service will follow. Copies are being dent to Board and parties by overnight mail or' hand delivered.

e j

l l

l

'1 1

l

m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Uf((

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'84 JJN -4 P 2 :59 In the Matter of )

) ~ ~

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Dockets Nos. 50 2 4i 3.i _ '

) ' 5 0 ,- 4 1.4 "

(Catawba Nuclear Station )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE ~ -

I hereby affirm that copies of " CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP AND PALMETTO ALLIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTION REGARDING SPECIFIC EMERGENCY PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST CHARLOTTE" in the above captioned matter were served by hand to the Applicant and by overnight express nail to Board members Margulies, Lazo, Hooper and Kelley May 30, 1984, and by deposit La the U.S. mail to the remainder of this service list June 1, 1964 Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel State of South Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 11549 Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Dr. Robert M. Lazo Dr. Frank F. Hooper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board University of Michigan Panel School of Natural Resources T. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

-Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman '

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Gsorge E. Johnson, Esq. Scott Stucky Office of the Executive Legal - Docketing and Service Section j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Jcmes L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Paul W. Purdom U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 235 Columbia Drive Usshington, D. C. 20555 De atur, Georgia 30030 l

l l

t A -,e- . - - -.- , - , . - - ,

'd' l K0rcn E. Long Don R. Willard Acciatant Attorney General Mecklenburg County Department N. C. Department of Justice of Environmental Health -

Pont Office Box 629 1200 Blythe Boulevard Raloigh, North Carolina 27602 Charlotte, NC 28203 Sp;nce Perry, Esq. J. Michael McGarry III Asecciate General Counsel Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.

. Federal Emergency Management Agency BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, Rcom 840 PURCELL & REYNOLDS 500 C street, S.W. 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

W2chington, D. C. 20472 Washington, .D. C. 20036 Albert V. Carr, Jr.

Ronald V. Shearin Duko Power Company

<-noat Office Box 33189

( Jharlotte, NC 28242 Dr. Richard F. Foster P. O. Box 4263 Respectfully submitted, Sunriver, Oregon 97702 q

0, c S /d :'o Jesse L. Riley,

- Litigative Chair, CESG O

i-I O