ML20093D692

Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 154.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20093D692
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/08/1984
From:	Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20093D652	List: ML20093D650 ML20093D656 ML20093D662 ML20093D670 ML20093D676 ML20093D692 ML20093D696 ML20093D701
References
OL, NUDOCS 8410110340
Download: ML20093D692 (12)

Text

n-C '. .

b' Octob6&CEJEa984 USNHC I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 84 00T 10 A11:10

' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' Or Ecajm t .. pr A 'E >

1 In the Matter of' )

)

CAROLINA POWER'& LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH' CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' MOTIO!! FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN-154 Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina East-ern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 154. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Eddleman Con' ten-

- tion 154, and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Eddleman-154 as a matter of law.

, This motion is supported by:

1. " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Eddleman-154";

2. " Affidavit of Robert G. Black, Jr. on Eddleman-154" (" Black Affidavit"); and

-3. " Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Mo-tions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions."

8410110340 841008 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR _

lmi -

-l -- - ,

, - i

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

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As admitted by the Board in its " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Proposed On-Site Emergency Plan-ning Contentions)" (November 1, 1983), at 5, Eddleman-154 contends:

Plant operators are assigned to make the dose assessments (see Table 2.2.3, page 2).

These personnel are unquali-fied to make the detailed judgments that may be re-quired by the procedures for dose estimating, given in Annex B of the SEP.

As a basis for his contention, Mr. Eddleman asserted:

Annex B says the health physics staff should do the job. But they are not des-ignated to do it initially.

The complexity of judgment .

required in Annex B speaks for itself -- it is beyond the training, as far as the SEP establishes, of ordinary reactor operators. More-over, there are no educa-t tional or other requirements for operators that assure they will exercise good judgment in dealing with this complex task under the pressure of accident condi-tions, especially in acci-dents.that proceed rapidly to general emergency status.

" Wells Eddleman's Contentions re CP&L Site Emergency Plan" (May 2, 1983).

Applicants served one set of interrogatories and request for production of documents on Mr. Eddleman on the subject of Eddleman-154. See " Applicants' Emergency Planning

=

u e

i s

_, [

Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents To In-

.tervenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)".(August 9, 1984), at 16-19.. " Wells Eddleman's Response'to' Applicants' 8-09-84 Em'er-l >

.gency. Planning Interrogatories" was filed September'7, 1984.i n .

1. 1 Neither Mr.'Eddleman'nor the NRC= Staff filed any discovery re-5 .!

y/['questsonEddleman-154.

y:

Thelast[ateforfilingdiscoveryon

( y ,

J,'[ the contention was August 9;s1984.~' Discovery on this conten-

't  ! '

-tion'is, therefore, complete.

4{

1 3

j --

Eddleman Contention 154 is classified as an emergency '

planning contention to be addressed in the hearings scheduled to commence in early February, 1985. Written direct testimony on theLcontention is scheduled to be fi}Ied January'21, 1985.

~

Further,;the Board has established November 1,' 1984 as the last l s <

,s dayofor filing summary disposition motions.on.this contentio'n. , ,1

/N -

Thus, the instant motion is timely,'and Eddleman Contention,154 o Ac t

e is ripe'for summary disposition.

s II. GOVERNING LEGAL' STANDARDS A. Summary Disposition

" Applicants' Memorandum.of Law In. Support of Motions For JR a Summary' Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions," filed, c

contemporaneously with this Motion, is fully applici.ble to thise>

Motion and is incorporated by' reference herein'.

, II,;

_ - [:" B. Substantive Law 1

lThe Commission's regulations,~at 10 C.F.R. SS 55.21 and 55.22, define the required content of operator and senior oper-

.ator written examinations to include questions on, inter alia':

e' V.

/

(

t C

I j Standard-and emergency operating procedures for the

-facility.and plant.

See 10 C.F.R. 5 55.21(j) (emphasis. supplied). In addition, the 4

operating.(" hands-on") test administered to operator and senior operatorcandid,ates,hursuantto10C.F.R. 5 55.23, requires no . i ..

E themLto demonstrate, linter alia, an understanding of:

?

i

-The emergency plan for the facili+;y, including the op-erator:s or senior opera-

. tor's responsibility to de-cide whether the plan should be executed'and the duties assigned'under the plan.

'n --See 10? C.F.R. $ 55.23(k)(emphasis supplied).

-In# dddition, the Commi'ssion's emergency planning regula-I tions, at 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(.b)(15), require that:

3, .

l

' - ~

Radiological. emergency re- .

sponse training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in an emergen-cy.

In particular, the emergency planning regulations expressly re-7, quire. provision for.both specialized initial training and peri-

-l.

odic retraining of numerous categories of emergency personnel,

-including:

Personnel responsible for accident assessment,

-including control room ' shift personnel.

10 C.F.R; Part 50, App. E, '$ IV. F.

^

.;[

As.noted in footnote 1 to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47, the standards

' embodied in the Commission's emergency pl'anning regulations are

'further-addressed by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For

/

1 Preparation.and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response

' Plans and Preparedness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 1, November 1980). NUREG-0654 Criterion 0.2 provides, in relevant part:

The training program for members of the onsite emer-gency organization shall, besides classroom training, include practical drills in which each individual demon-strates ability to perform his assigned emergency func-tion.

, NUREG-0654 Criterion 0.4 further provides:

Eaua organization shall es-tablish a training program for instructing and quali-fying personnel who will im-plement radiological emer-gency response plans. The specialized. initial training ,

and periodic retraining pro-grams * *

• shall be pro-vided [for) * * *:

b. Personnel responsible for accident assessment.

Finally, NUREG-0654 Criterion 0.5 provides that:

Each organization shall pro-vide for the initial and an-nual retraining of personnel with emergency response resp'raibilities.

The Commission's emergency planning regulations further L

mandate that:

Periodic exercises are (will be ) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities, peri-odic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and

c i

_s.

i

~

deficiencies. identified as a result of-exercises or idrills are (will be) cor-rected.

c See,10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(14). Similarly, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F requires, in relevant part, that:

The plan shall' describe pro-visions for the conduct of emergency preparedness exer-cises. Exercises shall test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing pro-cedures and methods, **

• and ensure that emergency organization personnel.are ,

familiar with their duties.

.(Emphasis supplied). These plann.ing standards are implemented.

through NUREG-0654-Evcluation Criteria N.l'through N.5, which detail-the necessary provisions for emergency preparedness ex-ercises and drills, t

III. ' ARGUMENT ,

Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards.to the facts of this case, it is. clear that the instant motion for summary disposition of Eddleman Contention 154 should be granted. As discussed in Section I above, Mr. Eddleman's con-tention was admitted solely.on the basis of his concern that reactor' operators would be unable to "make the detailed judg-ments that may be required by the procedures for dose estimating, given in Annex B of the SEP" (emphasis supplied).

• In the basis for his contention, Mr..Eddleman emphasized the

" complexity of judgment required in Annex B." Mr. Eddleman's concern'is thus premised on the faulty assumption that Annex B l

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

t

. of the onsite emergency plan constitutes the " procedures" for dose projection for use by operators in an emergency.

Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's assertions, Annex B merely pro-vides.the technical basis for dose projection, and is not a procedure. Annex B describes the theory behind the algorithm which provides the basis for the dose projection procedures which are used by operators. assigned to perform dose projec-

.tions. Black Affidavit, 1.3. The actual dose projection pro-cedures themselves are included in " Plant Emergency Procedures

(" PEP"] For SEMPP" (Plant Operating Manual, Volume 2, Book 5),

provided to the parties under cover letter to the NRC dated September 12, 1984. Black Affidavit, V 10. Mr. Eddleman's concern about an operator's ability to use Annex B as a procedure.to perform dosd projection calculations is thus base-

--less. Accordingly, the Board should summarily dismiss Eddleman-154 on that ground alone.

Moreover, the dose projection procedures which are used-by the operators do not involve- the " complexity of judgment" with which Mr. Eddleman is concerned. Black' Affidavit, V1 2, 4.

Indeed, no dose projection calculations at all are necessary to I' make initial protective action recommendations to offsite au-thorities. Instead, a flow chart (Figure 4.5-1 of the onsite

plan) is used to make recommendations based upon plant condi-tions as-determined by Emergency Action Levels ("EALs"). Black Affidavit, V 5-7.

/

- 6 After:this initial' recommendation'is made, it is confirmed Lthrough dose ~ projection calculations. Black Affidavit, 1 8.

These calculations may be performed either by using the ERFIS computerE(Bitck Affidavit, 1 9) or by using a pocket calculator

~

-(Black Affidavit,.1 10). A step-by-step " cookbook"-type'proce-dure has been developed for the~ manual method of performing dose projection calculations. Black Affidavit, 1 10. The dose

. projection procedures for use by the Harris operators -- like those in use at other operating nuclear plants across the na-tion --~are written to. require no detailed operator judgment.

Black Affidavit, 1. 4. Thus, regardless of whether the dose projectionicalculations .are performed.using a computer or a i

pocket calculator, the procedures. involve no detailed operator judgment. Black: Affidavit, 11-2, 4, 9, 11, 18.

t The Reactor Operatorf("RO") and Senior Reactor Operator

("SRO") written examinations administered to all. license candi-

' dates are required to include questions on plant emergency op-erating. procedures,' including the PEPS. See 10 C.F.R. 95 55.21,'55.22. In addition, the operating (" hands-on") test administered to RO and SRO license candidates requires them to

' demonstrate, inter-alia, an understanding of "[t]he emergency s

-plan for the facility, including *'*

• the duties assigned underftheLplan." See 10 C.F.R. Es55.23(k).

The Commission's regulations and emergency planning guid-ance further require the provision of radiological emergency response training for the onsite emergency organization. See s .

k:

o .

t, ,

10'C.F.R. $ 50.47(b)(15); NUREG-0654, Criterion 0.5. The reg-ulations specifically require both specialized initial training and periodic retraining of "[p]ersonnel responsible for acci-dent assessment, including control room shift personnel. See

.10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E, 6 IV.F. This-includes. dose projec-tion. personnel. See also.NUREG-0654, Criterion 0.4.

In compliance with these standards,.all personnel who may be~ assigned to perform dose projections receive training in the methods used to perform those projections. This training in-cludes working' sample problems. The operators must demonstrate a; satisfactory understanding of the steps.of the dose projec-tion procedures, and must provide correct answers to the prob-

'lems using the procedures. Black Affidavit, 1 12. The NRC

- Staff has approved the description of Applicants? training pro- ,

gram, as contained.in the onsite plan. Black Affidavit, 1 17.

In addition to classroom training, NUREG-0654 Criterion 0.2'-also provides-for " practical drills in which.each individ-ual-demonstrates ability-to perform his assigned emergency function." See a.1.so-l'O C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(14) (requiring con-duct of periodic drills "to develop and maintain key skills").

In compliance with these standards, a number of practice drills will be conducted. Performance of dose projection calculaticns using the procedures will be critiqued by controller / evaluators

- : knowledgeable in the subject. Black Affidavit, V 13. One practice drill for the pre-licensing exercise will be a re-hearsal driij using a complete scenario (including release d

. 1 I -

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

r c -

\

data, dose projection data, and complete message sheets). This '

drill _will be conducted like the full-scale exercise, using  !

controller / evaluators. Dose projection calculations performed

.by the operators will be compared against the correct answers

' included.in the drill scenario. Black Affidavit, 1 14.

Finally, the Commission's regulations and regulatory guid-ance mandate the conduct of periodic exercises to " ensure that

. emergency organization personnel are familiar with their du-

~ ties." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F. See also 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b).(14); NUREG-0654 Criteria N.1-N.5. In accor-dance with these. standards, a full-scale exercise will be con-ducted prior to operation of the Harris plant above 5% power.

This exercise will once again test the shift operators' dose projection capabilities. The full-scale exercise will be ob-

~

served and scored by federal evaluators. Black Affidavit, 11 15-16. The NRC Staff has approved the description of Appli-cants' program of-drills and exercises, as contained in the onsite plan. Black Affidavit, 1 17.

In summary,.the basis for Eddleman-154 -- Mr. Eddleman's concern that Annex B of the onsite plan is too complex for use by' operators in projecting doses -- lacks merit, because. Annex B 1:s not.a dose projection procedure. Eddleman-154 should be dismissed.for that reason alone. In any event, initial protec-tive action recommendations are based on plant conditions; dose calculations are not required. After the initial recommendation

-is made, operators project doses using step-by-step procedures

~

J l

x .

(like those in use at.other plants across the nation), which are written to require no detailed operator judgment. All per-sonnel who may be assigned to perform dose projection calcula-

- tions receive training in the dose projection procedures, and have their knowledge tested through practice problems, drills, and exercises.

There.is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Harris operators will be unable to perform dose projection calcula-tions using the applicable procedures. Mr. Eddleman's personal skepticism about the abilities of operators to be trained to perform the calculations is simpl.y insufficient to trigger an evidentiary hearing. .He cannot avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or suspicions, or on the hope that at the hearing Applicants' evidence may be discredited or that "some- .

thing may turn up." See Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station,_ Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, 248 (1975). Thus, even as to the ability of the operators to per-form dose projection calculations using the applicable proce-dures--(rather than Annex B) --

which is not the thrust of the contention as admitted -- there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

11-n v - , - - - - ,

r - e --, , , , . . . . , ,, ,,.,~~~,,,,---w~ ----,-,--r- ~ , - - - - , - .-- -

i-

~-

IV. CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the issue of the abilities of the Harris operators to perform dose projections, Applicants' Motion For' Summary Dispo-sition of Eddleman-154 should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

1. 12% F did Thomas A. Baxter,' PUC. (/

Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha F. Flynn Dale E. Hollar Hill Carrow CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY '

P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: October 8, 1984 p