ML20101S869

Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention M Re Installation of Independent Data Monitoring Sys in Emergency Planning Zone.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20101S869
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/01/1985
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20101S871	List: ML20101S869 ML20101S892 ML20101S904 ML20101S921
References
CON-#185-410 OL, NUDOCS 8502050687
Download: ML20101S869 (8)

Text

Ey/o:

a .

K

. j February 1, 1985  !

00CKETED Jh,; c UEITED STATES OF' AMERICA 63 FEB -5 A9 sg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD;c;nn - h.. I : '

. A ACH In the Matter of )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-440 O(-

ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-4416/,,

~

)_

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR-

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION M The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power. Company, and The Toledo Edison Company (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749, for summary disposition in' Applicants' favor of Contention M. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Contention M, and Applicants are i

entitled to a' decision in their favor on Contention M as a i

l 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 Contention M";

l-

2. " Affidavit of Richard R. Bowers on Contention M" i

~(" Bowers Affidavit");

3. " Affidavit of Ronald W. Smith on Contention.M" l (" Smith Affidavit"); and 14 .Section II.A[of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Issue 14"'(January 14, 1985)=(articulating the-legal standards applicable to a motion for summary disposition).

-, hhO a

4 -

3 SO3

J I '. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND '

Prior to the availability of offsite emergency plans for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone ("EPZ") for the Perry Nuclear. Power Plant, the Board admitted a very broad etaergency planning contention, Issue 1:

Applicants' emergency evacuation plans do not. demonstrate that they provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency.

See-LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 175, 189 (1981), as modified by LBP-81-35, 14 N.R.C. 682, 686 (1981). The Board subsequently noted that the words " State and local" should be substituted for the word " Applicants'" in the wording of the contention.

See LBP-84-28, 20 N.R.C. 129, 130 n.1 (1984).

After well-developed offsite plans had been publicly available for some time, Applicants (with the support of the Staff) moved for a Board order requiring the particularization of the broad contention. The Board granted Applicants' motion, directing Intervenor to "specify in a written filing the specific inadequacies alleged to exist in the draft local and State emergency plans * * *." See LBP-84-28, 20 N.R.C. at 132.

Contention M was initially advanced'in " Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections To Proposed Emergency Plans In Support of Issue No. I" (August.20, 1984). Over the opposition of. Applicants and the Staff, the Board admitted a form of that contention. As admitted by the Board,1/

jb/ The Board. expressly rejected all allegations of the proposed contention which are not included in the (Continued next page) y - - - -

6

. Contention'M alleges:

Independent Data Monitoring Systems should be installed within all counties in the

-Emergency Planning Zone'(EPZ).

" Memorandum and Order (Admissibility of Contentions on Energency Plans and Motion To' Dismiss)" (January 10, 1985), at 6.

'As the Board has noted, discovery on emergency _ planning

~

issues in this proceeding has been completed. See January 10, 1983 Memorandum and Order, at 5. Further, the schedule proposed by Applicants establishes February 5, 1985 as_the last day for filing summary disposition motions. See January 18, 1985. Letter, Counsel for Applicants to Licensing Board.

Accordingly, the instant motion is timely, and Contention M is ripe for summary disposition.

II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS i

i A. Summary Disposition Section II.A of " Appl'icants'-Motion For Summary Disposition of. Issue 14" (January 14, 1985) sets forth the legal standards applicable to a motion for summary disposition.

The discussion there is fully applicuble to this Motion and is incorporated by~ reference herein.

.i x - ,

(Continued)

-l contention as framed-by the Board. See' January 10, 1985 Memorandum and Order, at 5.

, -J F

-l

n 1 ,

l B. Substantive Law

-The Commission's emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(8) and (9), require that:

[a]dequate emergency facilities and

-equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained.

[ajdequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in-use.

These planning standards are further addressed by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation

-of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 1, November 1980).

Evaluation Criteria H.7 states that Each organization, where appropriate, shall provide equipment for offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the

~

nuclear plant. (emphasis added)

Evaluation Criterion I.7 states that:

Each organization shall describe the capability and resources for field monitoring with the plume exposure.

Emergency Planning Zone which are an-intrinsic part of the concept of operations

for the facility.

III. ARGUMENT 4 Applying the Commission's summary' disposition standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that the instant motion for summary disposition of. Contention M should be granted. The contention claimsithat " independent-[ radiation]~ data monitoring

i7---

f a systems" should be installed in all countics within the plume exposure pathway EPZ.2/ Sunflower's initial filing made clear that it wanted each of the three plume exposure ~ pathway

~

counties to install their own fixed radiation monitoring systems. Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No. 1, dated August 20, 1984, at 17-18.

As a starting point, it is clear that the State of Ohio has a substantial radiation monitoring capability, independent of the off-site radiation monitoring capability provided by Applicants. Smith Affidavit, 11 3-9. This capability includes three' field monitoring teams, each fully equipped and capable of monitoring high, mid and low range gamma radiation, alpha and beta radiation, as well as air sampling for radioiodine and particulates. Id, if 5, 7. The teams have communications capabilities with county emergency operation centers and the plant Emergency Operations Facility. Id, 1 6. By moving from point to point (using predesignated monitoring points), the teams' measurements form a picture of any radiation plume.

Id., T 5. The teams are sufficient in number, equipment and communications capability to effectively track the radiation plume independent of Perry Plant's rad'iation monitoring capability. Id., 1 8.

2/ Although the language of the contention itself refers to-

"all counties within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)",

it is. clear that (as in the case of Contention.0), "any-application of this contention beyond the 10-mile area is outside the-scope of Issue I." January 10, 1985 Memorandum and ordar, at 6.

4

( .

In addition, Federal agencies also have radiation monitoring capability which is independent of both the State -

and Atplicants. Id., 1'9.

There is not, ts Sunflower would argue, any regulatory requirement or guidsace calling for the installation of independent radiation monitoring systems within the three-counties. No NRC regulation calls for such systems. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. 55-50.47(b)(8) and (9), which require " adequate emergency facilities and equipment" and " adequate ... systems and equipment" to assess and monitor off-site consequences.

Nor do the Evaluation Criteria of NUREG-0654 include such a requirement'. Criterion H.7 calls for each organization, where appropriate, to provide for off-site radiation monitoring equipment. . This criterion does not require-fixed' monitoring as Sunflower would require. Par does it demand that'each off-site county have-such equipment. Only where it is appropriate is such equipment requirnd. As described above, the strong, independent radiation monitoring capability of the State of Ohio makes it aprropriate for the counties to rely en that capability, without the necessity of.providing their own.

Similarly, Criterion I.7, which calls for each organization to

. describe the capability and resources for field monitoring, does not require each. county to have its own capability and' resources. Smith Affidavit, 1[ 3. It is appropriate for the counties to describe the field monitoring capability by referring to that of the State, as was done by the three

J k

a

=. counties-and found acceptable by the Federal Emergency Management' Agency.- Smith Affida. s,14, n.1.

Wholly apart from the existence of an independent radiation monitoring capability and the' lack of regulatory

~

_ guidance requiring each county to have its own monitoring-

capability, the Affidavit of Richard Bowers demonstrates that the kind of fixed radiation monitoring capability. sought Int Sunflower is impractical and:less effective:than the monitoring capability already provided. More than 100 fixed monitoring locations would be needed for.the Perry plume exposure pathway EPZ. Bowers Affidavit, 1 2. The repair,l maintenance and cost of such a system would be substantial. Id. FEMA recommends against such a system. FEMA-REP-2, Guidance on Off-Site Emergency Radiation Monitoring Systems (September 1980), Bowers Affidavit, 1 2. Mobile monitoring teams are more effective in evaluating radiation relsases because they can follow the plume, measure it precisely, and locate it accurately. Bowers Affidavit, 11 3, 5.

Finally, CEI, NRC and the State of Ohio have' fixed-radiation monitoring systems in the nature of thermoluminescent dosimeters arrayed in rings throughout the plume exposure

~

pathway EPZ. Id., 1 6. The NRC and State systems are independent radiation monitoring systems as called for bylthe contention.

t

. .. ~ .

I i

-e l

,. IV. CONCLUSION

~Because~there~is no_ genuine issue of material' fact to be ,

heard.on the' issue of. independent radiation. monitoring-systems, Applicants'-Motion For Summary Disposition'of Contention M

-should be granted.

,, Respectfully. submitted,

, P Ja - Si:. berg, P.C.  :

).

PIT" MAN, POTTS & M OWBRIDGF..

SHA 1800 Street,-N.W.

wash ngton, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 I

Counsel for' Applicants Dated: February:1, 1985 4

4 1

-'y- ,v "V q-4 e m -