ML20112G967

Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 57-C-10.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicants Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20112G967
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/14/1985
From:	Hollar D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20112G899	List: ML20112G897 ML20112G929 ML20112G947 ML20112G955 ML20112G967 ML20112G975
References
OL, NUDOCS 8501160582
Download: ML20112G967 (9)

Text

.

O 7_-7 -

January 14,1985 _

• 03 s CD:)2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ._ _

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI 'G BOAlkD 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) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-10

~

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Wells Eddleman's Contention 57-C-10. For the reasons explained herein, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to this Contention and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on this Contention as a matter of law.

In support of this Motion, Applicants rely upon the Affidavit of Robert G. Black, Jr.

In Support of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition of CCNC Contention 2 and Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, Affidavit of Jesse T. Pugh, III in Support of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition of CCNC Contention 2 and Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of kkb 0

0 PDR

Motions for Summary Disposition on Emergency Planning Contentions, and the pleadings and discovery filed in this procet. ding regarding Eddleman Contention 57-C-10. -

II. B A C K G R O U N D On February 28, 1984, Applicants served a copy of the North Carolina Emergency Response Plan in Support of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (February 1984)(the "ERP" or "off-site emergency plan") on the parties to this proceeding.I In response to the ERP, intervenor Wells Eddleman proffered a number of proposed contentions including Eddleman Contention 57-C-10. Mr. Eddleman's original contention faulted the ERP both for not sufficiently addressing accidents releasing ground level plumes and for providing "no useful analysis or information on sheltering effectiveness." " Wells Eddleman's Contentions on the Emergency Plan (2d Set)"(April 12,1984) at 7. In its June 14, 1984 Order, the Licensing Board rejected that part of proposed Contention 57-C-10 '

which concerned ground plumes. "Further Rulings on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Submitted by Intervenor Eddleman" (.~une 14, 1984) at 17.

However, the Board admitted a portion of the proposed contention which deals with an analysis of expected local sheltering protection. The Board explained its ruling as follows:

[W]e admit that part of 57-C-10 which concerns inclusion in the State plan of expected local sheltering protection. . . . [Elvaluation criterion J.10.m does, on its face, call for inclusion of such analysis in the State plan. The plan "shall include" "[t]he bases for the cholee of recommended protective actions . . . This shall include expected local protection factors afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure." The State plan is content to cite certain federal documents as setting out the bases for choosing between sheltering and evacuation. (See State ERP, IV.E.10.) J.10.m does say the document cited by the Plan "may be considered in determining protection afforded" (NUREG-0654, at 64 n.2), but it is not clear from the State ERP that the protection spoken of has,in fact, 1

Revision 1 of the ERP was issued in September 1984. A copy was served on the Board and the parties on October 3,1984.

been determined. Nor does it appear that the cited documents would be readily usable during an emergency. Either J.10.m is to be met, or, since it is not a regulation, it must be shown that the way sheltering factors are treated in the State ERP provides a basis for the findings requisite to issuance of a license. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,937 (1981). We assume that what II.J.10.m and 57-C-10, in turn, call for is not a determination of the protection afforded by each potential shelter in the SHNPP plume EPZ. Nothing we see in II.J.10.m or the documents it cites for use in determining local protection suggests such an approach. Rather, what would appear to be needed are sound estimates of the protection afforded by potential shelters typical of the SHNPP plume EPZ. . . .

A principal aim of 57-C-10 as admitted is to assure that sheltering effectiveness is determined in the State ERP, not left to determination during an emergency.

June 14,1984 Ruling, supra, at 17-18.

The Board did not state precisely the wording of the admitted Eddleman Contention j

57-C-10. However, the Applicants, Mr. Eddleman and the NRC Staff entered into a stipulation codifying Eddleman 57-C-10. See " Joint Stipulation Codifying Certain -

Admitted Contentions" (October 12,1984) at 3. The Board granted the joint motion of the parties approving the stipulation. See " Order Approving Joint Stipulation Codifying Certain Admitted Contentions" (December 6,1984). As stipulated by the parties and approved by the Board, Eddleman 57-C-10 contends:

The State Plan (PT 1 pp 45-46 and 50-53) provides no useful analysis or information on shelte:ing effectiveness; but without knowledge of sheltering effectiveness, the decision on that option versus evacuation will be illinformed and quite possibly wrong. The plan's discussion of protective actions is mostly a list of them and a little handwaving - it's hopelessly inadequate. The plan, for potential shelters typical of those in the SHNPP plume EPZ, does not comply with Evaluation Criterion J.10.m of NUREG-0654, which calls for inclusion in the plan of " expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure. . . ."

Pursuant to the schedule agreed upon at the prehearing conference, discovery requests on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 were due by August 9,1984, and responses were due on August J0,1984. Applicants filed one set of interrogatories and request for production of documents regarding this Contention on Mr. Eddleman. See " Applicants'

- -- ----i---ii p 9/ o o @, IMAGE EVALUATION ////p d g?ffy y@ TEST TARGET (MT-3) T gy,,y> g.,</(,4(p  ;

+ %ggy 1

1.0 E2M y l} UE l.I l M l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 15')m m >

4 6" >

+<3,@n $$ %rf 4S*A'/b 4\g

% % 7// '%

Y/ les

,~++$# >

~s

Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)" (August 9,1984) at 11-13. Mr. Eddleman -

responded on September 7,1984 pursuant to an extension of time from the Board. See

" Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' 8-09-84 Emergency Planning Interrogatories" (September 7,1984) at 5-8 Mr. Eddleman filed two sets of interrogatories regarding this Contention on Applicants. See " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power & Light et al. (9th Set)" (June 29,1984) at 11-12; and " Wells Eddleman's GeneralInterrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power & Light et al. (10th Set)"(August 9, 1984) at 14-16. Applicants responded to the first set on July 25, 1984 and to the second set on September 7,1984. Mr. Eddleman filed two sets of interrogatories on the NRC Staff and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (4th Set)"(June 29,1984) at 6-7; and

" Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (5th Set)" (August 9,1984) at 9-11. Responses were provided on August 7,1984 and September 18,1984, respectively.

See " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Intervenor Wells Eddleman" (August 7,1984) at 11-12; and " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Intervenor Wells Eddleman" (September 18,1984) at 7-10. Thus, discovery on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 is complete.

Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 is classified as an emergency planning contention to be addressed in the hearings scheduled to commence June 18, 1985. Written direct testimony on the Contention is scheduled to be filed June 3,1985. Further, the Board and the parties have established January 14, 1985 as the last day for filing summary disposition motions on this Contention. Thus, the instant motion is timely, and Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 is ripe for summary disposition.

4 Ill. APPLICABLE LAW The well-defined standards applicable to motions for summary disposition under 10 ~

C.F.R. 52.749 are discussed in detail in Applicants' Merarandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition on Emergency Planning Contentions filed in this

[ proceeding on October 8,1984. Applicants rely upon the discussion therein, which is incorporated by reference, and upon the discussion herein regarding the application of those standards to Eddleman Contention 57-C#10.

The NRC's emergency planning rule,10 C.F.R. S 50.47 and App. E, requires that 4

off-site emergency plans include a range of protective actions in the event of an accident at a commercial nuclear reactor. Among the standards that such plans must meet are the following:

A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. .

Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency p - consistent with Federal guidance are developed and in place . . .

4 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(bX10).

Detailed evaluation criteria for off-site emergency plans are contained in a

, document issued jointly by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

" Criteria For Preparation And Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans And e

Preparedness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 (November 1980). As relateo to Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 and the provisions of the emergency planning rule quoted above, evaluation criterion J.10.m. specifies that off-

. site emergency plans should include:

g The bases for the' choice of recommended protective actions from the plume e

exposure pathway during emergency conditions. This shall include expected local

" protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates, (fotnote omitted)

NUREG-0654 at 64. In a footnote to criterion J.10.m., three reports which "may be

- considered in determining protection afforded" are identified. Among these reports is a

~

5-A j 4 e v ~,.r-- ,egn v. ,.,,v,,-, . ~ , . .,,_-..m ,, ,,--,v.m.,_.,_n_,m-,-- -, , , - . , . , . , _ , . . , ,-_,rn.-

{- .

i United States Environmental Protection Agency document entitled " Protective Action _

Evaluation, Part II, Evacuation And Sheltering As Protective Actions Against Nuclear -

4 Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases" (EPA 520/1-78-001B). I_d. d IV. ARGUMENT A. Sound Estimates of the Level of Protection Afforded by Potential Shelters Typical of the Harris EPZ Are Known.

In admitting Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, the Licensing Board indicated that

, what is needed to comply with criterion J.10.m. in NUREG-0654 are " sound estimates of the protection afforded by potential shelters typical of the SHNPP plume EPZ." June 14, i 1984 Ruling supra, at 18. In order to address the Board's ruling, Applicants commissioned a survey of housing in the EPZ to determine what is a " typical" shelter. The methodology for conducting this survey is described in Mr. Black's Affidavit. Black Affidavit,114-i

8. Based upon tax records and the results of a field survey, it was concluded that a ,

typical residence in the Harris EPZ is a single-family, single story house of wood or brick l exterior construction and with no basement. Black Affidavit,111.

Based upon the survey results, there are sufficient data to objectively assign l sheltering effectiveness values to " typical" shelters in the EPZ. Sheltering effectiveness

, is measured in terms of the Protection Factor (PF) of a shelter. Black Affidavit,111.

, In accordance with criterion J.10.m. of NUREG-0654, the PFs of typical residential structures have been determined both for direct and inhalation radiation exposure. The c PFs were derived from information contained in an Environmental Protection Agency guidance document, EPA 520/1-78-001A and B, the use of which has been approved by the NRC in NUREG-06S4. See discussion in Section III, supra. Black Affidavit,113. Using information in . this document, Attachment 7 to the Black Affidavit provides representative PFs of residential structures typical of those in the EPZ for direct I exposure. PFs are provided both for direct exposure to airborne nuclides and to l

I' -deposited nuclides. Black Affidavit,114 and Attachment 7.

E

The level of protection afforded by a shelter for inhalation exposure depends upon --

the ventilation rate and the immersion time. 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. The immersion time is the period of time that a person stays in i

, the structure during the passage of a radioactive plume. Black Affidavit,115. Using guidance in EPA 520/1-78-001A, it is known that the typical ventilation rate for a residence having characteristics like those in the Harris EPZ is approximately one or two air exchanges per hour. Given that information, the PF for inhalation exposure can be i

determined for various immersion times. Black Affidavit, 1116-17. A table showing representative protection factors of residences for inhalation exposure at immersion times ranging from one-half hour to ten hours is provided as Attachment 9 to Mr. Black's i' Affidavit.

In sum, based upon information obtained from the housing survey, Applicants have i developed sound estimates of the level of protection afforded by residential structures i for direct and inhalation exposure.

B. The Off-site Emergency Plan Will Be Amended to Provide Information on the Level of Protection For Direct and Inhalation Exposure.

i The results of Applicants' survey of housing in the Harris EPZ and the PFs I' calculated for that housing have been reviewed by Jesse T. Pugh, III, Director of the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (DEM). Pugh Affidavit,12. - Based upon his review, DEM has accepted the results of the housing survey and the protection factor estimates for typical housing in the EPZ. Pugh Affidavit,13. Mr. Pugh has committed to amending the ERP to include information obtained from the housing i

i survey. Estimated protection factors of typical residential structures will be listed in the ERP. Pugh Affidavit,13. With the inclusion .of this information, the ERP will comply with evaluation criteria J.10.m. by providing information on the " expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation L ._

exposure."2 That information will be available to officials who will decide what protective action to take in the event of an accident at the Harris Plant. ,Id,.

C. There Is No Iuue of Material Fact and Applicants Are Entitled to a Decision in Their Favor As a Matter of Law on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10.

Because sound estimates of the level of protection afforded by typical residential structures in the Harris EPZ have been developed and tnis information will be included in the ERP, the concerns raised in Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, as articulated by the Board, have been fully addressed. Information on sheltering effectiveness will be available in the ERP itself and can be used by those who will decide what protective action to take during an emergency. Accordingly, there is no issue of material fact remaining for resolution in a hearing on Eddleman Contention 57-C-10. Applicants are entitled to a favorable decision on this Motion as a matter of law.

V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that this Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 57-C-10 be granted.

2To address the Board's Order admitting Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, Applicants conducted a housing survey and the ERP will be amended to include the PFs of a typical residence even though the Federal Emergecy Management Agency Staff stated during discovery that such information was not required by FEMA guidelines. In discussing

! Contention 57-C-10, the FEMA Staff stated:

FEMA guidelines do not require estimates of the protection afforded by potential shelters. We agree that a PF survey of typical residential units has not been made, but do not think such a survey would be meaningful. The bases for the choice of recommended protective actions is stated in the State plan (page 50); therefore, NUREG 0654 requirement J.10.m. is met.

" FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Intervenor Wells Eddleman" (August 7,1984) at 1.

l l

A This 14th day of January 1985.

Respectfully submitted, o

Dale E. Hollar, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 Attorneys for Applicants:

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Delissa A. Ridgway, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000

~

Richard E. Jones, Esq. .

Samantha Francis Flynn, Esq.

Carolina Power & Light Company  :

' Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517

-