ML20112A158
| ML20112A158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1985 |
| From: | Read D CHAPEL HILL ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP EFFORT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-077, CON-#185-77 OL, NUDOCS 8503180189 | |
| Download: ML20112A158 (5) | |
Text
N3 f>f2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~S3 c-0 NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION r
siff'4 Esc.~
sigp.+,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn 0. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of
)
Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.
)
50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
March 11, 1985 CHANGE RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR sui: MARY DISiOSITION EPJ-1 AND EPJ 4 On December 10, 1984, January 11, 1985, and January 14, 1985 Applicants served various motions for summary disposition of emergency planning contentions EPJ-1 and EPJ 4. On 27 February 1985 the NRC Staff / FEMA responded in support of these motions. CHAIGE now responds in opposition.
Legal Discussion The underlying legal principles are by nou well familiar to the Bocni, and should not bc belabored further. Suffice it to say that the burden is on Apolicants to prove the non-exist-ence of any genuine issue of fact, regardless of whether Inter-8e Q@
venors come forward with any evidence; Applicants' papers are kk to be sertuinized carefully, and $ntervenors' treated indulgent-ly; summary disposition is a drag # tic remedy, and doubts should W
$5 beresolvedinfavorofthenon-hovant.Thisisespeciallytrue
@8 in the area of emergency plannin'g, where the planning guidelines
~
-g, serve only as a basis for later' decision-making, and where ithe l
fs o ca ma.o plan is to be the basis for extension of emergency response (J
)
actions outside the EPZ in the event such extension is made 1
l necessary by subsequent events.
l
o Page 2 o
2 EPJ 4(a)
Applicants rely primarily on the testimony of Dennis
- 13. Mileti' in support of their contention that the age of high school student bus drivers would have no bearing on their abil-ity. to perform emergency duties. See Mileti affidavit on EPJ-i:
4(a), January 11, 1985 at 3 4. " Historically, high school students have demonstrated particular willingness to volun-
-teer for emergency work..." Id. at 3., is a ggod example of the kind of' statements included in Mileti's affidavit. However, even overlooking the fact that experience with reactions to appeals for volunteer help in emergencies-differs from the type of situation presented here, in which high school students would in effect be drafted into service in an existing emerg-ency, Intervenors are unable to determine on what historical basis Mileti founds this sort of assertion. Intervenors will concede that Mileti has a great deal of general experience i
in assessing human _ response, but examination of his affidavit and professional qualifications does not reveal-how, if at all, that general experience applies to the narrow question at hand, or how it is superior to the general experience with human conduct Intervenors have acquired'during similar life spans,
'in dealing with youth under pressure. Mileti further assumes that training will be made available to high svhool bus drivers
. hich will help assure their reliability in an emrgency. Id w
at 4-5. Finally, although the reliability and quality of a driver's performance may not be dependent on parental auth-L orization, parental authorization and approval are certainly r
important in considering issues of this nature and still are e
lef t untreated by Applicants' motion. The " extensive regulatory
- requirementf cited by Applicants, Motion at 5, appear to be
- at most a minimal paper requirement of little reliability or application in emergency conditions. In short, Applicants have not made a' showing sufficient to justify sumnary disposition of this portion of the contention.
- j;
+ - ~,., -
, + - - -,
--.--------w-,,.,n,,,,,,,
-m e
,,,,----w,v,----r-s----=~-,-,4.-
, - - ~ ~,
Page 3 EPJ 4(b)
Again Applicants rely on the affidavit of Mileti, and again, while the list of his publications is lengthy, it does not appear how, if at at all, that list relates to the sweeping generalizations made relative to the subject matter at hand.
Mileti refers to his affidavit in support of Applicants' motion on EPJ-3, but the same problem is apparent there, and the resultant difficulty in formulating a specific response.
In neither is any specific authority cited to support the contentions advanced by Mileti.
EPJ 4(c)
Assuming'that the assumptions relied on are realized, Applicants' motion appears to resolve the concerns addressed by Ethis portion of the contention.
)
EPJ 4(d)
The affudavit of Pugh, at 2, and affidavit of Klimm, at 2, in support of this motion assume that parents will arrive at schools at the earliest within the latest time period (15 minutes) from notification, while schools will successfully be evacuated at the latest within the maximum time estimates r
(15 minutes) given by school authorities. Pugh affidavit at 3 This leaves a margin of error of approkimately zero, hardly an adequat'e range for planning purposes. These convenient assumptione erroneously negate the sneed to consider the effect of converging traffic on schools in the immediate post-general notification period. Intervenors note that the Board has already received testimony from concerned parents (' t the limited a
appearance secsion) that they would probably attempt to : pick up their children at school,' in the event of an emergency.
?
i
i a
Page 4 EPJ-1 It appears that the concerns of the contention have been adequately addressed, insofar as it addresses the effects of snow and ability of the State to clear the snow and ice from the roads. Implicit in the contention, and nefer express-ly contradicted in Intervenors' response to Applicants' Interro6.atories (17 September 1984) or addressed in Applicants motion, is the effect of snou arai ;ce on the ability of drivers of coorly equipped cars to deal with tr acherous conditions and the ensuing difficulty in effectively clearing roads within the time paraneters specified. This problem remains unaddressed, and Intervenors contend that this motion should be denied accordi gly.
,r.
if
/
/
i j.-
Daniel F. Read PO Box 2151 Raleigh, : 0 27602 4
A y
e.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR EBOULMORY COMMISSION In the Matter of CAB 0 LINA POWEB & LIGHT CO.
Dockets at al., Shearori Barris Nuclosr Plant, Units 1 & 2 ' 50 400,
' 50 401 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CHA M E
'OM dd W ft llCN.U Cir %, Ship.
E C'l
'l d [ f3 Y were served this Il day of E <h
, 198 C, by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-olpse postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names appear below, except those whose names are marked with an asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by b ' o l ilif c James L. Kelley Atomic Safety a, Licensing BosalEsq./Mr. Glenn O. Bright /Dr. James Carpenter U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Conunission (one each)
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Thomas Baxter, Esq.
~
Shaw Pittman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800,M St. NW, Potts & Trowbdge.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. John D. Bunkle Bobert -Pa-Gruberr, Dir.
Conservation Council of North Carolina Public Staff, NCUC 307 Granville Road P.O. Box 991 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 hieighi~NC 27602
% M. Travis Payne, Esq.
Mr. Wells Eddleman Edelstein and Payne 718-A Iredell Street P.O. Box 12M3 Baleigh, NC 27605 Durham, NC 27705 Dr. Richard D. Wilson Buthanne-Miller ASLB-Panni 729 Hunter Street Apex, NC 27502
<USNBO A shingtonrDC 20555 Richard E. Jones Bradley W. Jones Assoc. General Counsel, CP&L Beg. Counsel USNBC Beg II PO Box 1551 101 Marietta St, NW Suite 2900 el 27 Atlanta, GA 30303 4
[
/l dam 61 P. Read V CHANGE P.O. Box 2151 Baleigh, NC 27602