ML20111C475
| ML20111C475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1985 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-041, CON-#185-41 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8503150411 | |
| Download: ML20111C475 (7) | |
Text
. _
~..
\\
!0Q \\
~
u.t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [
C11tMarch 1985
~-
wmc NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION E MR 14 p,7; ;gg BEP0HE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGFBOARDe s
55N Glenn O. Bright
"*h Dr. James H. Carpenter 3R C4 Janes L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of
)
Docket-50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1)
ASLBP No. 82-1468-01
)
E Wells Eddleman's Response to Summary Disposition on Contentions 57-C-10, 30, 213-a and 215 This response deals with each contention separately but it is 1
combined in one document to save paper.
Lists of facts in dianute 4
are provided by each contention number, in an attached document.
Contention 57-C-10.
Neither Applicants nor FEMA even pretend to address the protection afforded in "other shelter" (besides homes ')
l even though it is obvious that persons in recreation areas, persons out shonping, and persons at workplaces would likely be required i
to shelter away from home.
This asnect of the contention has just' not been addressed, so it should stay in even were the motion and arguments of Applicants (and FEMA's support) be gt%nted.
- Moreover, the adequacy of the plant discussion of protective actions was not even addressed by FEMA (see Hawkins affidavit re 57-C-10, pn 2-3),
nor in Applicants' listing of " material facts as to which there is
,I no... issue to be heard on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10".
Thus, this issue is open.
The bases for protective action are not addressed in Applicants' affidavits.
i The FEMA affidavit (p.2) somewhat confusingly 1
Shelter PFs in hospitals and nursing homes were a separate contention j
B503150411 850311 PDR ADOCK 05000400
- PDR -
-[ 3-0
- - - - -- -~~
- rIfcro to "The r;quir:d bassa cnd oxosetsd local protection affordcd by sheltering and evacuation time estimates are stated and considered in the plan at pages 40,49,50 and 51".
That plus a " rubber stano" OK is all PEMA's discussion of the issue of usefulness of the PF information for and protective actions (e.g. sheltering, protection against radioactive gases, etc). Presuming they refer to Part 1 of the plan, nage k0 does not explain how PF's or protective actions other than sheltering figure into the use of the protective action guides.
PF's are not mentioned, nor are the effects of protective actions (sheltering etc) on dose estinates explicitly dealt with at all.
Page 42, following, provides no more information re these matters. P. 41 recommends actions, but gives no criteria for the " Protective actions decisions at the time of the incident" (footnote, n.ltl) that the olanners must nake taking "into consideration the imoact of existing constraints".
pp 49-51 mention 3 alternatives: sheltering in small or large structures, and evacuation.
The use of PFs or other protective action is not discussed there either.
Thus these are open issues.
Note that although the plan refers to sheltering in large structures, it does not include PF information for these structures according to FEMA and Aoplicants' documents on 57-c-lo summary disoosition.
Thus sumnary disposition on 57-c-10 should be denied on all the above issues.
As to the PFS of housing, Applicants did do a survey (which didn't involve getting out of the survey vehicles apparently (Black affidavit, p.7, lines 4 and 5) and excluded mobile homes (ibid, o.6, and of 1st full paragraph on that page).
Mobile homes obviously provide little a feAA if any shelter.
All shelters become much less useful after
- hours, A
a fact Applicants admit (Black affid, pp 10-11.
Sheltering only 10%
i effective af ter 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> ai2 air changes / hour).
Applicants did not derive air exchange data for actual housing in the Harris EPZ, but relied on an EPA document (Black affidavit, p.10). 'Besements are not in Black's plan data (attachment 8) tho they're the best shelters often.
m, _ _ _.. -.. _ _. _ _
3 Actual cir chango ratas for hou2ss in the Harris n1uma EPZ may bo much higher.
Air change rates for large buildings, tynically, are 5 to 10 4
air changes per hour.
Thus, although CP&L has finally nrovided some i
useful information on sheltering effectiveness for housing structures, the information on inhalation exnosure is not r elated to actual air exchange rates of Harris EPZ housing.
A nromise to incornorate the information on house structure PFs into the plan does not assure that the plan will include this information in a form useful for t
decisions on which protective actions to take in an emergency.
]
Thus, summary disposition on 57-C-10 should be c ompletely denied and Applicants /PEMA at hearing should address the whole contention i
including how the information on PPs for homuses in the EPZ will be used to assure protection of public health and safety in a nucien?
j radiation release from the Harris plant.
There is now, at best, only i
un-crossemanined opinion on a thin factual basis, and nromise to nut j
some information into the plan.
This is far from the assurance required by 10 CPR 50.47 that effective protectimmive action can and will be taken.
i Contention 30.
The Applicants /YEMA argument rests on torturing the English language so that a plain requirement to include information l
in the plan " vanishes" in their misguided view.
This can be seen most easily in contrast to their treatment of similar language in i
Contention 57-01-10, just discussed.
57-C-10 quotes NUREG-0654 II.J.10.m t
that the plan shall include * * * "m. The bases for the choice of t
i recommended protective actions * * *. This shall include expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter..."
(emphasis added)
The Applicants' response is to develop PP data for homes (inadoquate, i
as noted above, and not including odher structures used for shelter) and to promise to include it in the plan.
(FEMA says they don't believe I
the information must be included.
This is clearly irrational.
The plain words of NUREG-0654 mean what they day.
See GUAMD V. NRC i
i
, j (slip opinion), DC Circuit,1985 NUREG-0654 II.J.10.e is directly similar to II.J.10.m.
"e", the basis for Sontention 30, says the plan must include "e. Provisions for the use of radioprotective drugs * *
- including quantities, storage and means of distribution".
But here Anplicants argue the words should be cast differently.
By analogy, in II.J.10.m they would argue that only the " bases for... expected local protection" should be included.
But they don't argue that, daey provide some information on protection factors.
What makes sense there (and they argue just as literally on 213-a) makes sense here.
t Applicants' tortured reading would actually be "Drovisions for...
including quantitites, storage and means of distribution".
Clearly the completed plan would not include provisions to include things.
It would (as the words say7 include them.
Moreover, the preposition "for" already has an object:
"the use of radioprotective druga".
It is clear that these nrovisions must be included in the plan.
But to what do the " quantities, storage and means of distribution" anply?
Clearly not to "nrovisions": would it make sense for the plan to include " quantities, storage and means of distribution" of provisions for the use of radioprotective drugs?
certainly not.
Nor can it be " quantities of the use of radioprotective i
drugs".
It is clear that "NUREo-0654 II.J.10.Je is talking about
" quantities, storage and means of distribution"of radionrotective drugs.
i A.
. lack of disapproval as a.n incidential issue in a 2.206 petition denial, as.
argue the Staff (motion, contmention 30, i
p.9) is simply inapplicable and obviously no nrecedent.
This illustrates the weakness of the Staff /PEMA/ Applicant argument, as does the i
contention that PEMA's position is not plainly erroneous.
As shown above, it is a plain error and a omosition not teken by Aeolicants j
on the very similar language of 57-C-10 l
5 The motion to dismiss contention 30 should be denied.
At hearing, the plan should either be revised to include minimum quantities effective (shelf-life not yet exnired) adequate to orovide radioprotective drugs to those whose evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult, or the adequacy of those quantities should be shown and that determination should be included in the plan.
Without such facts included in the plan, the requirement to assure that adequate and timely orotective action can and will be taken, cannot be met re the quantities of radioprotective drugs required by NUREG-0654 II.J.10.e to be included in the Harris emergency response plan.
213-a.
Both Applicants and FEMA admit that the listing of inplementing procedures in the plan is incomplete.
They say it will be updated.
So by their own admission the contention is true, even as they characterize it.
(see Applicants' notion, p.8; Staff /PEMa sunport, p.8)
It is thus clear that not all the innlementing procedures are in the plan, and until the amendment is oroduced it will not be clear that all sections of the olan have imnlementing urocedures, including all the county plans.
Contention 215(3).
Auplicants and Staff /PEMA both seen to dodge the issue.
The assumption that households without behicles evacuate at the rate of one vehicle per household contradicts the plant assumptior that they will evacuate with neighbors.
It also makes the evacuation tine estimates longer, by increasing the number of vehicles on the reads.
Moreover, it assumes that those households without transnort who are net evacuating with nei hbors will cone out also at the rate of one vehicle E
per household.
Staff affiant Urbanik admits these facts (affidavit, p.3) but provides no substantitation for his assertion that the effect would be "not significant" or that it would not affect evacuation / sheltering decisions.
LISTS cf FACTS in DTSDUT (co ibined to c va p:,nav)
I 57-c-lo.
i 1.
Expected protection or large structures other than houses, i
("other shelter") by PFs for direct & inhalation exnosure is not a ddressed 2.
Other protective actions are not discussed, and the adequacy of the plan's discussion and information on sheltering effectiveness and other nrotective actions is not established.
3 The way PFs enter into the basis and decision on reconnending protective actions is not stated in the sections of the nian concerning protective action decisions.
14 The inhalation PF comp 4nents have not been established on air change rates measured from housing typical of that in the Harris i
EPZ.
5 Sheltering effectiveness for airborne dosse (both inhalation and direct exoosure inside a shelter) has not been established, nor are its effective time limits (auprox 10 air changes) made clear j
in the plan.
6.
Use of structure PFs for housing in the EPZ is not made clear as a it is involved in protective action decisions in the plan.
7 Both mobile homes and basements are excluded from the elen information (see Black Affid. attachment 8)(& Black affid, p.6) though i
basenents are of ten the best shelters available & mobile homes are nearly useless as shelters.
i' Contention 30:
- 1. The plan does not include the quantities of radioprotective drugs available for administration to those who may not be able to be evacuated immediately, or whose evacuation is difficult, i
2.
The adequacy of the quantities of radioprotective drugs available for an emergency at Harris is not established in the plan.
i 213a Not all nrocedures for implementing the Plan are listed l
in the Harris emergency response plan, the presence of imolementing procedures for all ps.rts of the plan, has not been determined.
i 215(3):
The assumption that households without trananortation 3
l will evacuate at the rate of one vehicle per household (a) contradicts the plan's assumptions that these neoole will evacuate with neighbors, and (b) increases estimates of evacuation time, erroneousl
- 2. Staff estimates of the significance of such effects ( y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLFAR RE,ULATORY C0!9tISCION In the matter of CAROLIKA FOWER is LIGHT CO. It al. )
Docket 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1-
)
0.L.
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE 2 hereby certify that copies of Wells Eddleman's Resgonse to Summary Dieposition on Contentions
$7-C-10, 30, 213-a and 215-3 Tnd' statements or facts in dispute on these contentions HAVE been served this 11 day of March 198_5, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are isrked with l
an asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by i
Judges Ja tes Kelley, 01onn Bright and Janas Carpenter (1 egy each)
Atenic Safety and Licenairg Board US Nuclear Megulatory Connission Washington DC 20555 i
George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)
)
Shaw, Pittman, Fotts & Trowbridge R uthanne O. Miller i
1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel Washington, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2C55 5 Spence W. Ferry N[d $ cst.$""8#
Office of the Executive Legal Director i
Attn Docke ts 50-400/k010.L.
as ngton DC 20555 0 q Washington De 20740 Dan Read Docketing and Service Section (3x)
CEA!!CE/FLP Attn Docke ts 50-k00/L01 0.L.
NC 27606 Office of the Secretary Waleigh,y707 Waveross USNRC j
Washington DC 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Mst. Bd.
(E plan only) 511 Albenarle B1dg Jchn Munkle Steve Rochinis 325 N. salisbury st.
CCNC FE!'A-Suite 700 Raleigh, NC 27611 1
307 oranville Rd 1371 Peachtree St.NE l
Chapel Hill Ne 2751k Atlanta GA 30309 Bradley W. Jones Robert Gruber USNRC Region II Travi s Payne Exec. Directop 101 Marietta St.
Edelstein & Fayne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 1
Sex 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Maleish NC 27602 Richard Wilson, M.D.
Certified by h
729 Munter St.
Apex NC 27502 l
4 i
--_o_,
...._,---.-,-.-_-___-_~,,_m--r-
-