ML20112G947
| ML20112G947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1985 |
| From: | Black R CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112G899 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8501160577 | |
| Download: ML20112G947 (23) | |
Text
.
4 January 11,1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'65 " ' O-NO *12 NUCLEAR REGUL \\ TORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINd'BdARD 3,-
ii-u.
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)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT G. BLACK, JR. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS' MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CCNC CONTENTION 2 AND EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-10 County of Wake
)
)
SS:
State of North Carolina
)
ROBERT G. BLACK, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
I am the Director-Emergency Preparedness for Applicant, Carolina Power &
Light Company. In my professional capacity, I have been personally involved in the development of the on-site and off-site emergency plans and procedures for the Shearon j
Harris Nuclear Power Plant for the past three and one-half years. Further, I have j
attended numerous industrial symposiums, am active in related professional associations, and have participated in numerous emergency exercises at operating nuclear plants. I am familiar with concepts related to sheltering to reduce radiation exposure through nuclear training in the U. S. Navy and through my work at CP&L (including coordinating the development of sections on shielding for the Final Safety Analysis Report of the Harris Plant). A current statement of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto as Attachment 1. My business address is Carolina Power & Light Company, P. O.
l l
l 8501160577 850114 PDR ADOCK 05000400 l
0 PDR
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and believe them to be true and correct. I make this Affidavit in response
~
to Conservation Council of North Carolina ("CCNC") Contention 2 and Eddleman Contention 57-C-10.
2.
The purpose of this Affidavit is to describe the actions that Applicants have token in response to the concerns raised in CCNC Contention 2 and Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, both of which deal with the efficacy of sheltering as a protective action in the event of an emergency at the Harris Plant.
- 3. CCNC Contention 2 asserts that " sheltering as a recommended response to the release of radiation is not adequate to protect the public health" due to the lack of insulation and the air exchange rate of the " typical rural house found around the plant site."
Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 asserts that the North Carolina Emergency Response Plan in Support of the Harris Plant (the "ERP" or "off-site plan") "provides no useful analysis or information on sheltering effectiveness" and does not comply with evaluation criterion II.J.10.m. of NUREG-0654 which requires information on " expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure.
In admitting Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, the Board explained that that criterion does not " call for a determination of the protection afforded by each potential shelter in the SHNPP plume EPZ." Instead, the Board suggested that " sound estimates of the protection afforded by potential shelters typical of the SHNPP plume EPZ" were needed.
4.
In order to address the issues raised in these contentions, Applicants commissioned a survey of the housing stock in the Harris plume EPZ to determine the relevant characteristics of " typical" housing.
This survey was conducted in late September 1984 under the direction of a fallout shelter analyst certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It concentrated on identifying those characteristics
. ~. _.
that are most relevant to the sheltering effectiveness of the housing; that is, the number of stories, presence or absence of a basement, and type of exterior finish. These factors are most important because the sheltering effectiveness of a structure is a function of the mass of material between the source of radiation and the person inside. The sheltering effectiveness will generally be greater for a building that is constructed of dense materials and in which there are a number of floors between the radiation source and the occupied area. Consequently, a home of brieli or similar construction generally provides more protection than one of wood frame construction. A two-story home generally provides more protection than a one-story home. Further, if a basement is available, it will provide even better protection. Because the materials used for thermal insulation (fiberglass, foams, rock wool and the like) have a low density, the amount of insulation in a home will have a negligible effect on the protection that the structure affords from external radiation.
- 5.
Included within the Harris EPZ are portions of four North Carolina counties:
Wake County, Lee County, Harnett County and Chatham County.
Survay data on structures in the EPZ portion of these counties were gathered using three methods:
Sampling of the property card file in the office of the Tax Supervisor, Chatham County; Accessing computerized information on taxable property in the Wake County Computer Center; and Field survey of buildings within the Harris EPZ.
Chatham and Wake Counties were chosen for tax record analysis because those counties contain approximately 87 percent of the 7,347 dwellings located within the EPZ. The field survey traversed all four counties.
- 6. To determine the characteristics of " typical" housing within Chatham County, the property card file, which is available for public access at the Tax Supervisor's office
{
in the Chatham County Courthouse, Pittsboro, North Carolina, was examined. The file contains a card for every piece of taxable real property in the county. It is arranged by
~
township and index map number. To determine which sections of the file represent property within the EPZ, a ten-mile radius from the Harris Plant was traced over an index map (available in the Tax Supervisor's office) of the county, and the index numbers were identified. By referring to another map which identified townships, one could identify the sections of the file which fell within the area of the EPZ. Property cards which pertain to property within the EPZ were retrieved, and data were recorded on residential property only. There were fewer than 10 commercial property cards among the approximately 1,000 cards retrieved. Every fifth card was then examined. If an inhabited house existed on the property, data were recorded from the card. If there were no house or no inhabited house on the property, the next card which pertained to property that contained an inhabited house was sampled. The fifth card from the last card from which data were recorded was then sampled. Using this methodology,187 residences within the Chatham County section of the EPZ were surveyed. Information on the number of stories, presence of a basement, and exterior wall type were recorded. This information is summari::ed in the table which is attached to this Affidavit as.
7.
The method of gathering information on housing characteristics for Wake County was somewhat different. Wake County maintains a computerized file containing much the same type of information found on the Chatham County property cards. The file contains information on all taxable real property in the county. The Wake County Computer Center, located in the Wake County Office Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, provided the required data.
Geographically, information in the computer file is accessible by tax map number. To determine which sections of the county are in the Harris EPZ, a ten-mile radius from the Harris Plant was traced over an index map. Tax I
5 districts located in the EPZ were then identified by number. The data elements and their relationships' necessary to describe the building characteristics required for the survey
~
were defined jointly with Wake County Computer Center personnel The Wake County Computer genter provided a printout showing the number of stories, exterior wall type and presence or absence of a basement for residential buildings.
Frequency of occurrence and percentage of total for each characteristic were also provided. The results are show". in the table which is appended to this Affidavit as Attachment 3.
6
- 8. In order to confirm the data derived from tax records in Wake and Chatham Counties and to obtain data from Harnett and Lee Counties, a field survey of housing within the plume EPZ was also conducted.
The following criteria were used in
. conducting this field survey:
(1)
Every fifth building on the right side of the road or street was surveyed from an automobile.
(2)
To be included in the survey, the building must be apparently habitable. Closed buildings which appeared in good repair were t
included in the survey, but obviously abandoned buildings were excluded.
(3)
Building types included in the survey were limited to residences, institutions (schools, churches, etc.), commercial structures and industrial facilities. Barns, machine sheds and the like were not included.
-(4)
Buildings surveyed must ha've direct access to the survey route.
- (5) y;.
Buildings surveyed must be clearly visible from the survey
_e i
r h-route. If not, the next clearly visible building was surveyed. '
- j. Each building was evaluated for a number of criteria l including the building, type
(.
p (residential, comm'ereikl, etc.),Immber of stories, type of exterior finish, d presence of l'
f, '.
/
t ' ;:
,1' s
- l
a basement. If no basement windows or doors were visible from the highway, it was assumed that no basement was present.
Survey routes were chosen on the basis of previous knowledge of the EPZ. All the two and three digit United States and North Carolina highways were surveyed, as were a number of the four-digit state roads. In addition, routes through the Towns of Apex, IIolly Springs and Fuquay-Varina were also surveyed. A total of 25 surveys was completed. The routes traveled, direction of travel, and number and type of buildings surveyed are shown in Attachment 4 to this Affidavit. Of the 166 buildings surveyed,130 (or 78%) were single-family homes. This includes nine mobile homes. Twenty-six (or 16%) ' were commercial structures, 7 (or 4%) were institutional buildings and the
(
rerbaining 3 buildings were, respectively, commercial / residential, industrial and multi-family residential. summarizes the relevant characteristics of the residential structures observed, excluding mobile homes.
- 9. As summarized in Attachments 2-5, the data gathered from the tax records and field survey provide information on what constitutes. i typical residential structure within the EPZ. The data are consistent with respect to those characteristics most determinative of the sheltering capacity of a structure. As shown in Attachment 2, the tax, records for Chatham County establish that the typical residence there is a single-fai$11y dwelling with the following attributes: ' single story-88 percent, no basement-89 percent, framre exterior-69 percent, or brick exterior-27 percent. Similarly, the data t
from the Wake County tax records shows that 88.7 percent of the single-family homes in the IIarris EPZ are one-story, 84.4 percent have no basement,56.6 perce.t are of frame, wood or clapboard exterior construction, and 33.6 percent have a brick, stone, concrete masonry or stucco exterior. This information is confirmed by the field survey data reflected in Attachments 4 and 5. Of the 121 single-family d'wellings (excluding mobile' S
homes) surveyed, 82 percent were single story, 43 percent llad a frame exterior, and 38 --
J percent had a brick exterior, and no basement was observed for 97 percent of the homes.
The slightly different percentages resulting from the field survey probably
~
represent differences in methodology. For eumple, the higher percentage of homes with no basement shown in the field survey probably reflects the diff'eulty in spotting a basement window or door from the highway in all instances. If no window or door were seen during the field survey, it was assumed that there was no basement. In any event, the data collected from county tax records and from the field survey are sufficiently similar that the characteristics of a " typical house" can be confidently identified.
4
- 10. The data on housing characteristics within the Harris EPZ are similar to those for the State of North Carolina as a whole with respect to the characteristics surveyed. to this Affidavit summarizes information from the National Association of Home Builders' Research Foundation on housing characteristics in North Carolina. As can be seen from that Attachment, the 1980 data show that 17 percent of the houses in North Carolina had basements.
Sixty-eight percent were one-story. Seventy-three percent had a frame or similar exterior wall, and 27 percent were brick, stone or other.
These percentages are similar to those shown for housing in the Harris EPZ. The information for the Harris EPZ is also generally comparable to data taken from the 1970 census survey which is contained in a Sandia Laboratories report on sheltering. That
{.
report shows that 16 percent of the homes in the southeast United States (which includes North Carolina) had basements and 59 percent were of brick construction. Aldrich et al.,
"Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents:
Sheltering Concepts with Existing Public and Private Structures," SAND 77-1725 (Feb.1978) at 25-l 31.
- 11. Based on the information in Attachments 2-5,it is concluded that the typical residential structure in.the Harris plume EPZ is a single story, single-family dwelling with either a wood or brick exterior and no basement. The results of the survey,_
commissioned by Applicants provide the necessary housing data to objectively assign sheltering effectiveness values to the " typical" residential structure in the EPZ. The
~
sheltering effectiveness of a structure is measured in terms of its Protection Factor (PF). The PF is the ratio of the radiation dose outside the structure to the dose inside.
It indicates the degree to which a structure would afford protection from a radiation release in comparison with no shelter at all. Thus, a building having a PF of I would not reduce radiation exposure at all compared to the absence of any shelter, while a building with a PF of 2 would reduce exposure by 50 percent.
- 12. Evaluation criterion J.10.m. of NUREG-0654 calls for a determination of the protection afforded in residential structures for both direct and inhalation exposure.
Direct exposure is that which results from radiation impinging directly on the human body and organs either from airborne or deposited nuclides. Airborne nuclides are the l
source of radiation in the air; exposure results when radiation (mainly in the form of gamma rays) is absorbed by the body. Deposited nuclides may be on the outside of the structure, such as on the roof or in the ground surrounding a building; radiation from these sources may penetrate a structure and the occupants inside. In contrast to direct exposure which results from radiation impinging directly upon the body and its organs, inhalation exposure results from breathing radioactive material in the air. In the event of an airborne release of radioactive material, the inhalation exposure to a person in a structure increases over time because air carrying radionuclides penetrates the building so that the concentration of radionuclides inside eventually approaches the outside concentration. How quickly this will occur depends upon the ventilation rate or air exchange rate of the structure.
- 13. The PFs of typical residential structures in the IIarris plume EPZ are known, both for direct and inhalation exposure. The PFs are derived from information contained in the United States Environmental Protection Agency document entitled " Protective..
Action Evaluation, Parts I and II, Evacuation and Shelter As Protective Actions Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases" (EPA 520/1-78-001A and B). This ZPA document is identified in evaluation criterion J.10.m. of NUREG-0654 as one report which may be considered in detetmining protection afforded by residential structures in the locale of a nuclear unit.
- 14. Attachment 7 to this Affidavit is a table which provides representative PFs of 1
residential structures typical of those in the EPZ for direct exposure. PFs are provided both for direct exposure to airborne nuclides and to deposited nuclides. The PFs are derived from information in EPA 520/1-78-001B on the degree of protection afforded by wood frame or brick single story homes without basements, which is the typical residential structure in the Harris EPZ. EPA 520/1-78-001B at 18,24. In EPA 520/1 001B, the level of protection is expressed in terms of the reduction factor or attenuation factor. The PFs shown in Attachment 7 are the reciprocal of the reduction factors or attenuation factors. Of course, the PFs only represent an average number for the general type of structure indicated and do not provide a basis for determining the level of protection afforded by any particular house.
For example, while Attachment 7 indicates that a typical single story brick home with no basement has a protection factor
- of 1.7 for direct exposure to airborne nuclides, a given~ house with those characteristics
. may provide more or less protection depending upon precisely how it is designed and constructed.
- 15. The level of protection afforded by a shelter for inhalation exposure depends upon two factors.
The first is the rate at which the concentration of airborne contaminants from a passing plume increases within the building. This is measured in terms of the ventilation rate (or air exchange rate). The ventilation rate is a measure of the number of exchanges of air between the outside of the structure and the inside of the structure during an hour. A structure with a low ventilation rate will p. ovide more
_9
protection from inhalation exposure because centaminated air from the outside will not be able to infiltrate as quickly. The second factor governing the level of protection from
~
inhalation exposure is the duration of time that a person stays in the structure during the passage of a radioactive plume. This is referred to as the immersion time.
- 16. The protection factor of a structure for inhalation exposure can be determined by evaluating the fraction of the radiation dose avoided by remaining in the structure.
For a structure with a given ventilation rate and for a given immersion time, the fraction of dose avoided can be calculated using mathematical equations which describe the concentration history of the airborne contaminants in the structure. Rather than present the fairly complex calculations in this Affidavit, I have taken a graph illustrating the results from an available reference. This graph, which is Attachment 8, is excerpted from a planning document issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The curve shown in the graph represents the fraction of dose avoided for various ventilation rates and immersion times.I The ventilation rate of residential structures, such as those found in the Harris EPZ, is known from information contained in EPA 520/1-78-001 A.
According to that document, residences that have rooms with windows or exterior doors on one or more sides have a ventilation rate of approximately one to two air exchanges per hour. EPA 520/1-78-001A at 8.
Using these ventilation rates, a range for the fraction of dose avoided can be estimated for various immersion times using the graph in. To estimate the fraction of dose avoided,it is necessary to determine the product of the ventilation rate (air exchanges / hour) and the immersion time (in hours).
Where this number intersects the curve on the graph, the fraction of dose avoided is shown on the vertical axis of the graph. For example, if the immersion time is five hours, the fraction of dose avoided would be approximately.2 with a ventilation rate of 4
IThe graph showing fraction of dose avoided assumes that a person either leaves the structure or ventilates the structure promptly or.ce the plume passes. __
1 one air exchange per hour and.1 for a ventilation rate of two air exchanges per hour.
17.
The relationship between the protection factor and the fraction of dose
~
avoided is given by the following mathematical equation:
PF = 1/(1-F)
Where PF = protection factor = ratio of dose outside the shelter to dose inside the shelter, and F = fraction of dose avoided by remaining in the shelter Based upon the estimated ventilation rate of one or two air exchanges per hour, the graph illustrating the fraction of dose avoided in Attachment 8 and the mathematteal relationship described above, estimated PFs of typical residential structures for Inhalation exposure are presented in Attachment 9 for various immersion times ranging from one-half hour to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />. As previously discussed, the figures in Attachment 9 show that the level of protection afforded by a structure from inhalation exposure is reduced over time.
j
- 18. In sum, the survey of housing characteristics provides sufficiently detailed information to identify a " typical" residential structure in the Harris EPZ and to allow a determination of the " expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for_ direct and inhalation exposure" in accordance with criterion J.10.m. of NUREG-0654. Inclusion of this information in the off-site emergency plan for the Harris Plant will conform with criterion J.10.m.2 Thus, the concerns raised by Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 have been fully addressed. In addition, a comparison of the relevant characteristics of housing within the EPZ with housing characteristics for the State of 2information on representative PFs of local housing is already contained in the on-site emergency plan. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan (Rev. 3,
' August 1984) at 4-5 4-6 t
4 a,
ev.,--
e e
3
---pq-y
+r,,-,wm 3w,-m-.-g-e,
- - -, -e--
, - = -,,...,-,-- ~,-, < -.
v.e-,-
.-w,-e-
,e 4.4---
=
I a
North Carolina as a whole and for the Southeast United States reveals no basis for suggesting that housing near the Harris site is substantially different in terms of
~
sheltering effectiveness from that in other geographic areas and near other nuclent plants. Consequently, the reason given in CCNC Contention 2 for entirely discounting in-place sheltering as an option for protective action is unsupported by the facts.
4 f,
Robert G. Black, J Subscribed and sworn to before me this //d day of January 1985.
goiinto,
g'k El..[{;g j
f 5
M d
Q/g* iU?I v l9.g W1g**,
.'. e -Notary Public
- 's,,b $$,,*,/
My commission expires: b 7 /f66 V
ATTACHMENT 1 Robert G. Black, Jr.
813 Silver Leaf Place Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (919) 782-8993 Education / Training University of Edinburgh, Scotland (1 year undergraduate study)
BIE Degree at Georgia Institute of Technology 1969 (Major:
Industrial Engineering)
Naval Nuclear Power School, Mare Island, California (6 months)
Naval Nuclear Power Prototype (SIW), Idaho (6 months)
Naval Submarine School, Groton, Connecticut Various Naval Courses Various Carolina Power & Light Company Management Training Courses Experience January 1981 to Present - Carolina Power & Light Company Director - Emergency Preparedness Promoted to Director - Emergency Preparedness, responsible for the overall direction and coordination of Corporate level emergency planning activities. This position reports directly to Corporate Management and supervises a staff of emergency preparedness specialists who formulate and recommend Corporate level emergency policies and programs; maintain and distribute the Corporate Emergency Plan (CEP) in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements; evaluate existing plans and emergency preparedness at nuclear facilities and recommends improvements and modifications to meet expanded regulatory requirements for emergency planning; provide project management support for the design, procurement, and construction of emergency facilities and, early warning systems; provide support in the selection, construction, and application of emergency response information and communication facilities; provide support for the development of emergency plans for hy ro plants in the event of dam failures; provide meteorological assessments to appropriate personnel within the Company during emergencies as well as during normal operating conditions; provide maintenance support for the Company's meteorological and seismological monitoring program; and serve as primary interface with regulatory agencies on emergency planning and related matters.
Special Assignment - Served as Exercise Director, Lead Controller, and Lead Evaluator on nine emergency preparedness exercises.
January 1977 to January 1981 - Carolina Power & Light Company, Nuclear Licensing Project Engineer Promoted to Project Engineer responsible for the nuclear licensing activities related to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP),
planned as a four-unit pressurized water reactor plant.
(243SEPU/krs)
Responsibilities included coordinating activities during the Construction Permit review of the SHNPP which involved responding to over 200 formal NRC questions in safety, environmental, and financial areas; preparing testimony to be used before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the Atomic Safety Licensing Board; and representing Carolina Power & Li ht Company in technical meetings E
held with the NRC Staff. Emphasis placed on system and plant design, industry codes and standards application, and construction procedures and techniques. A staff of two engineers and four technicians reported directly to me in this assignment.
Special Assignment - Coordinated the development, publication, and submittal of the Operating License Application, Final Safety Analysis Report, and Environmental Report-Operating License Stage, for the SHNPP.
Special Assignment - Chairman of Corporate SHNPP Action Item Management Team charged with the responsibility to ensure that commitments made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the SHNPP project are met.
January 1976 to January 1977 - Carolina Power & Light Company, Nuclear Licensing Project Engineer Promoted to Project Engineer responsible for nuclear licensing activities related to one operating boiling water reactor and to a separate boiling water reactor facility under construction at the Brunswick Steam Elcatric Plant. Responsibilities included coordinating the development of material obtained from the architect engineer (United Engineers), nuclear steam supply vendor (General Electric) and Carolina Power & Light Company personnel to meeting regulatory and corporate requirements. Particular emphasis was placed upon development of startup procedures, training and retraining programs, and plant technical specifications.
Special Assignments - Company co-representative on industry Mark I Containment and Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Owners' Groups.
September 1973 to January 1976 - Carolina Power & Light Company, Nuclear Licensing Senior Engineer Duties included coordination of various licensing activities associated with obtaining Operating Licenses for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Areas of responsibility included review of the engineering, construction, and operation of a boiling water reactor from a regulatory licensing standpoint. Emphasis during thir period was placed on final design considerations, preoperational test procedure and technical specification development; and preparation of material to be presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff.
(2435EPU/krs)
l.
Special Assignment - Represented the mid-east group of utilities including Carolina Power & Light Company and five neighboring utilities on a national committee to interface with the NRC concerning the initial development of Standard Technical Specifications for Boiling Water Reactors.
June 1969 to July 1973 - U. S. Naval Officer Served as Auxiliary Division Officer, Sonar Officer, First Lieutenant, and Waapons Officer on the U. S. Flying Fish (SSN673).
Licensed to operate and direct others in the aare operation and maintenance of pressurized water nuclear reactors. Trained in the safe operation, maintenance, and security for nuclear weapons.
Professional Affiliations Professional Engineers of North Carolina (registered in North Carolina)
American Nuclear Society Eastern Carolinas Section (Chairman)
American Nuclear Society - National Membership Committee Vice Chairman Naval Reserve Officers Association Commander U. S. Naval Reserve - Military Sealift Command (MSC) (qualified for command of MSC Office)
(2435EPU/krs)
ATTACHMENT 2 J
CHATHAM COUNTY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
- House Type Story Height Basement Exterior Wall Single Mobile
- Frame, Brick, Stucco, Family Home 1 Story 1-1/2 Story 2 Story Yes No Asbestos Shingles Concrete, Stone Aluminum Siding TOTAL 186 1
164 11 12 20 167 129 51 7
TOTAL %
99.5 0.5 87.7 5.9 6.4 10.7 89.3 69 27.3 3.7
- The Chatham County portion of the EPZ contains 1040 residences. See " Evacuation Time Estimates for the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant" (October 1983) at Figure 1-1 and Table 4-1. This survey was performed on cpproximately 1000 property cards, with data taken from 187 cards. Therefore, these data represent 18% of the houses in Chatham County.
I 1
e 9
l ATTACHMENT 3 WAKE COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES-CllARACTERISTICS*
Story lleight Basement Exterior Wall Total Total
- Frame, Brick. Stone Total i
Reported Reported
- Wood, Coner, Masonry, Aluminum, Stucco / Brick Reported I 1-1/2 2
2-1/2 - 3 1-3/4 Data **
Yes No Data **
Clap-Hoard Stucco Metal
& Frame Da t a" Frequency 3941 198 289 2
1 12 4443 706 3819 4525 2504 1490 254 180 4428
% Total 88.7 4.5 6.5
.04
.02
.24 100 15.6 84.4 100 56.6 33.6 5.7 4.1 100.0 Reported Data
- Single family homes account for 85% of the 5330 structures in the surveyed portion of Wake County.
- Totals differ because information on story height presence of basement andexterior wall construction is not available for every home surveyed.
1 I
a E
a
ATTACHFD!T 4
, so.vtv acuYts amo eetlevts susternas s eeev/
s sa o.e.
s.te..et
_ e.i s L.asta fr. I Total
_ ar i.,/
m Ce==.m ',las. t.i.
bl'a**"8 N#
ple.ni e., sic..
.ee t.
Cm==.relell e
o.l
_o.i I
a..i..e s.1 Jese*Ial a'
l us u a es 64 a 14.s tAsT/
9/10/94 sa 87eo sa 13ee um 64 4
4 3
3 es 64 s aC 55 s F.2 saum/
9/14/e4 at 55 Sa 1152 at 55 46 8
6 1
3 K ll 6 at 55 4 g,3 seuTu/
9/19/84 sa 8152 WS 4 ale
' at 55 8
4 3
I 4
DS tels US 4014 43*
SouTM/
9/19/84 IIC 55 sa 1485 WS 409 14 F
6 I
3 et et a uC 42 s 19.6 ut*/
9/19/84 ts 400 -
54 1538 6
la In6& s sa 1666 4 2.5..
at u 26 22 3
g SAST/
9/19/e4 la 1423 se 1002 sa 1466 6
I r
u 18,, a - u ',3 4 17.2 mu 9/19/34 sa tel2 us 64 sa Isli 28 22 3
3 4
at 758 s ut 7516 saum/
34 9/IS/M se lite vs 64 sc 75l 3
3
=
I no0at a 9
s SALan t noore s 8.5 st/
$/19,84 (is Arts) 3 Tunstall t neore 3
I 3
s TUmsfatt a 3 TVusYatt 4 8.4 19 CleTES ST, t WILLIAps SU/
9/19/s4 (IB APla)
( 4 55)
S fussTALL 3
'3 e touts a nase Il lie FUQuaf. A fusis 6 eT SOUTW/
9/19/34 T4aleA)
E SPflus 5 ffMIIs 4
4 I sPalms s lshot II (la ruguaf. t sparus a 8.5 usT/
9/19/s4 vaasain) 3 nate I status 3
3 Il sa 1812 a sa ll52 s 9.1 atsT/
9/19/s4 aC 55 sa 1853 sa til2 4
4 It sa It41 a sa 1848 a 5
namfu/
9/lf/04 se fell US 64 sa 3148 19 sa 100s a la 1000 s 6.7 soum/
9/19/34 US 64 sa Bell se less 5
A sa $166 a la Olse a I. I I
SAs?
$/2s/s4 la 1148 sa 1863 sa II68
_5
=
=
s sa 1143 s sa 8163 s
- 2. 0 seuru 9/2e/04 la 1866 la fell sa 1963 3
3 s
sa 1002 s se teet S 9/20/s4 sa fell se leal 6.7 seUTm/
sa 1002 - 3
)
D se 1621 a la 1429 s S/20/e4 se feet sa 1500 g,g RAsT/
se le25 I
I t
sa 8500 a la 1900 s St/
S/28/s4 la 8o02 sa 8504 33 sa l$es 3
3 F
se 1916 s se Otto a 5.8 soum/
9/20/04 la fell et 42
- Sa till 3
3 3
e a
se itej 6 sa 84e3 s J.8 se 14./
soum 9/re/s4 at 42 se stis 3
3 3
a w itse a se 141e a 37 sast/
9/2e/04 se 14e3 sa 1482 sa Isle 3
3 s
sa 1612 s se 14e2 s 1.9 asam/
9/le/84 sa 840s sa flee sa 1612 4
3 3
j sa llel a sa list S 0*I
$/28/04 88 *2 noem/
se alls se fiel a
Jt'at 132 9 666 lje 26 y
.e, g
g g
e V
i ATTACHMENT 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, EXCLUDING MOBILE HOMES (DERIVED FROM FIELD SURVEY OF SHNPP PLUME EPZ)
No.of Stories Basement Exterior Finish Wood Frame, Asbestos Board & Batten Aluminum Masonry Survey 1
1-1/2 2_
Yes No Clapboard Brick Stucco Stone Shingles or Other Wood Siding Block 1
3 1
1 3
2 2
2 7
1 8
4 3
1 3
3 3
2 1
4 4
3 7
4 3
5 19 1
20 7
8 3
2 6
3 2
1 4
2 2
1 7
14 5
1 18 12 2
1 2
2 8
2 1
3 2
1 9
1 1
1 10 3
3 3
11 4
4 2
1 1
12 2
.1 3
2 1
13 3
1 4
1 1
1 1
14 4
1 5
1 4
15 3
1 4
2 1
1 A
5 5
2 3
B 2
2 1
1 C
1 1
2 2
D 1
1 1
E 2
2 2
F 2
2 1
1 G
2 1
1 2
3 H
1 1
2 1
1 I
3 3
2 1
J 5
1 6
3 3
TOTAL 99 2
20 4
117 52 46 1
7 5
3 7
TOTALo 82% 2% 17 %
3% 97 %
43 %
38 %
1%
6%
4%
3%
6%
CRounded to nearest percent.
ATTACHMENT 6 i
SURVEY OF EXISTING HOME CHARACTERISTICS, NORTH CAROLINA
- Basement Story Height Exterior Wall Full / Partial No Plywood, Shingles Brick Basement Basement 1
2 Bilevel Solit Wood, frame, shakes Stone. Other 1979 16 %
84%
63 %
29 %
3%
5%
70%
30%
1980 17 %
83 %
68 %
21 %
5%
6%
73 %
27 %
CFr:m National Association of Home Builders' Research Foundation,1981 research results.
ATTACHMENT 7 REPRESENTATIVE PROTECTION FACTORS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TYP' CAL OF THOSE IN THE SHNPP PLUME EPZII)
FOR DIRECT RADIATION EXPOSURE STRUCTURE PROTECTION FACTOR Airborne Nuclides Deposited Nuclides Single-story wood frame house, no basement 1.1 2.5 Single-story brick house, no basement 1.7 5
(1) Source, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Protective Action Evaluation Part I, The Effcetiveness of Sheltering as a Protective Action Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases," EPA-520/75-001A (1978), at 18, 24. Note that the figures on sheltering effectiveness contained in EPA-520/1-78-001A are expressed as reduction factors or attenuation ' factors.
The protection factor numbers contained in this Attachment are the reciprocal of the EPA reduction factors or attenuation factors. The protection factor represents the ratio of the radiation dose outside the structure to the dose inside.
=
ATTACHMENT 8 m
I.0 8
...g
.......g
....1, o 6 I'
5 5
4 g
h, 30.i 58 :
G 6 y
E 2
0A1 O.1 2
4 681.0 2
4 6 0 10 2 4 6 4 100 IVE NTILATION RATE! a IIWWERSION Tlutt Effect of ventilation rate and immersion time on fraction of dose avoided. Ventilation rate is measured in air exchanges / hour and immersion time is in hours.( )
(1)
Source: Planning for Off-site Response to Radiation Accidents in Nuclear Facilities, Safety Series No. 55, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1981.
ATTACHMENT 9 REPRESENTATIVE PROTECTION FACTORS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TYPICAL OF THOSE IN THE SHNPP PLUME EPZ FOR INHALATION RADIATION EXPOSURE Immersion Time (Hours)
Protection Factor 0.5 5 - 2.5 1.0 2.5 - 1.7 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.7 - 1.3 5
1.2 - 1.1 10 1.1 - 1.06
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _