ML20096B866

Responses to Discovery on Emergency Planning Contentions (First Set).Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20096B866
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	Runkle J CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409040401
Download: ML20096B866 (9)

Text

r,~ - .. '

o-t$

r :~ M August 31, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LMETED BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O"D In the Matter of ) 84 SEP -4 A11 :10

)

Carolina Power & Light Company )

And North Carolina Eastern Municipal ) Docket!{heo.

M 50-400:

S Ela. 0L Power Agency )

)

(Shearon liarris Nuclear Power Plant) )

CONSERVATION COUNCIL'S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ON EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS (FIRST SET)

On August 9,1984, Applicants filed its first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents to Intervenor, Conservation Council.

During a phone conversation with Applicants' counsel for this matter, Delissa Ridgway, Counsel for the Conservation Council was informed that discovery was already over for these contentions which were admittied during the prehearing conference of May 1 and 2, 1984 We are planning to request a clarification of this during the upcoming hearings on the management contention. It is our position that discovery on all of the emergency contentions began. August 2, 1984, especially as there is ample time between that date and the proposed hearing date to allow several rounds of discovery plus any motions for summary judgment.

General Interrogatories 1(a). Contention 2--at the time the interrogatory was formulated, the allegations arose from discussions with various members of the Conservation Council who live in or near the 10-mile EPZ.

Contention 8--the contention was formulated after a telephone conservation with Dayne Brown, Head of the Radiation Protection Section (RPS), Department 8409040401 840631 PDRADOCK05000g0 p o o),

a

3

.ec L;  :

Page 2'

-of Human. Resources (NC),'1330 St.-Mary's Street, Raleigh, NC 27611 (919/733-E ~4283).

(b)' Contention 2--not applicable.

Contention 8--all' of the facts in the contention.

(c) not applicable.

I I 2(a), none.at this time.

(b). not applicable.

3 3(a). Contention 2--none designated at this time.

Contention 8--Dayne Brown (see response to #1); Johnny James, staff person at the RPS, same address as above.

~(b). see response to 3(a).

(c). Prefiled testimony has not been prepared yet.

I

j. 4(a). Cititation to documents will be made in the responses to specific f

interrogatories to follow.

(b). not applicable. .

f l' (c). not applicable.

l 5(a). see response to 4(a).

l l (b). see response to 4(a).

6(a). Other sources of information will be so identified in the l- responses to specific interrogatories to follow.

( (b). not applicable.

7(a). A listing of documents we intend to use during the hearing will be filed with any prefiled testimony. Documents which may be used during cross-examination of the witnesses of the other parties cannot be identified L-

Page 3 until the other parties have prefiled testimony.

(b) not applicable.

Interrogatories on Contention 2 (Inadequacy of Sheltering) 2-1(a). 10 CFR 650.47(b)(10) so states, although we are not sure what Applicants wish to ascertain by adding emphasic.

(b). Yes.

(c). No, although it might be an option depending on the circumstances.

(d).-(f). It is our position that although sheltering may be an option which might fall under a range of protective actions, it does not meet the requirements of $50.47(b)(10) unless it also meets the requirements of the

$50.47(a)(1) adequacy test.

2-2(a) NUREG 0654; the 8/1/84 CAO report on emergency planning around nuclear facilities: 10 CFR 650.47(a)(1) and (b)(10).

(b). See the response to 2-1(d)-(f) above. The GAO report states that af ter two hours the air inside a home and outside contain the same amount of radioactive material.

(c). See the response to 2-2(b).

2-3(a). Not at this time. We have not studied this although there is likely to be a difference in houses found in the northeastern part of the country.

(b). Not applicable.

(c). Not applicable.

2-4(a). We are negotiating with university researchers to conduct a study of the housing stock within the 10-mile EPZ. These researchers were unavailable until late last week when the university went into session.

= -. -

~ Page 4' Y

f(b). See the response.to (a) above.-

2-6~. The CA01 report demonstrates this to be true. Local builders'and~ c

energy consultants confirm that this is likely.

2-7. Reliance or sheltering as the primary-protective action ' misleads.

the public into believing that they will.be safe:in their homes.

2-8. The Applicants could readily weatherize and insulate all'of.the

. deficient houses in the 10-mile EPZ for roughly $200-300,000 ($80 - 150 per home). .This can'be accomplished through low-cost loans, direct application, or organizing volunteer groups.

l l

l L~

e-

.O l- Page 5 Contention 8 (Radiation Protection Section) 8-1(a). A recently hired taff member of the RPS, Johnny James, is currently identifying training, experience, and roles in emergency planning exercises of the entire staff of the RPS. He will use this to develop a training and planning scheme to be used by the RPS and which will point out strengths and weaknesses in the RPS training program.

(b). Training of RPS staff has been relatively unsystematic and it is difficult to project actual training which will be received in the near future.

8-2(a). In the Emergency Plan, the RPS is expected to fill the following positions during an emergency at the Harris plants provide comraunication and technical support at its own office, provide personnel for the SERT, provide personnel for each of the four command posts, staff at least one of the mobile radiation protection labs, staff at least two survey teams, operate the TLD reading system, provide trained medical physicists at shelters, provide for automobile and equipment decontamination, inform other agencies and states of the status of the emergency, coordinate volunteer efforts, and provide a liaison between state government and the Applicants.

(b) urrently there 17 technical staff members of the RPS with another position to be filled. There are an additional 6 non-technical support staff and the RPS can also call on 3 staff members in the NC Division of Emergency Management and a lab person from Health Services. The RPS can also call on volunteers from TOREV of the NC Chapter of llealth Physics; a pool of volunteers is currently being developed. Over the course of several days, RPS can request further assistance from the Southern States Hutual Radiation Assistance Plan (SSMRAP). (ii). The limiting factor is not so much the number of staff as it is the number of staff trained adequately to respond to site specific

g; , . . . - _ _

f ',.

 : Page 8 E

Conclusion I IWe are willing to amplify any of the above responses, either by phone I

-or in writing. We do not have anyone at this time to. attest to the accuracy g

of our responses to the interrogatories-in Contention 2; full responses to

- these questions can only be given after our study of the housing. stock in the 10-mile EPZ. As soon as we contract out this study, we will notify the l.

Applicants of when they will able to obtain a copy of the study.

It is our intent to distribute a copy of these responses to Dayne Brown for his review. We will ask him to attest to those answers he agrees with and to provide any further information or disagreements with Counsel's

~ characterization of his statements. We expect to be able to do this sometime during the first week of the hearing on the management contention.-

Respectfully ubmitted,

' /.

['JohnRunkle Counsel- for the Conservation Council of NC 307 Granville Road Chapel lii11, NC 27514 i 919/942-7935 l

This is the 31st day of August, 1984.

i l

l h

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Conservation Council's Responses to Discovery on Emergency Planning Contentions (First Set) were served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, o~r~ by hand delivery.

James L. Kelley Richard E. Jones Atomic Safety & L1 censing Board Vice President--CP&L US Nuclear Regulatory Commission PO Box 1551 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, NC 27602 Glenn O. Bright Robert Gruber same address Public Staff, Utilities Commission PO Box 991 Dr. James H. Carpenter Raleigh, NC 27602 same address Thomas Baxter Docketing and Service (3cc) Delissa A. Ridgway Office of the Secretary Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles A. Barth Dr. Linda Little Office of the Executive Legal Director Governor's Waste Management Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street, Room 513 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 Daniel F. Read PO Box 2151 Raleigh, NC 27602 M. Travis Payne Ashn Runkle PO Box 12643 General Counsel Raleigh, NC 27605 Conservation Council of NC 307 Granville Road Dr. Richard D. Wilson Chapel Hill, NC 27514 729 Hunter Street Apex, NC 27502 This is the day of August, 1984.

Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham, NC 27705 Bradley W. Jones cc. Dayne Brown, Head, Radiation US NRC--Region II Protection Section 101 Marrietta Street A an a, A 03 Division of Emergency Managenent Department of Crime Control &

Spence W. Perry " " **I Associate General Counsel I j

FEMA l

500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740

% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _