ML20112J974

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 213 Re Exclusion of Harris Lake in Boater Notification Plan.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicants Entitled to Favorable Decision
ML20112J974
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/05/1985
From: Ridgway D
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20112J975 List:
References
CON-#285-434 OL, NUDOCS 8504090279
Download: ML20112J974 (7)


Text

.

LW)

April 5, 1985 D." - i T E D t :c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%5 AR?-8 4156 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKETiliG & SERvlCE BRANCH 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' SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN 213 Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency

(" Applicants") hereby supplement their January 14, 1985 motion,l/ pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 213.

As discussed in the Je..uzey 14, 1985 motion, as supple-mented herein, there is ao genuine issue as to any fact materi-al to Eddleman Contention 213, and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Eddleman Contention 213 as a matter of law.

-1/

This pleading does not supplant the January 14, 1985 mo-tion, but merely provides additional information subse-quently developed, as well as argument relevant thereto.

0 8504090279 850405 cC?}

PDR ADOCK 05000400

)

O PDR

As supplemenced, this motion is supported by:

1.

" Applicants' Supplemental Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue Tc Be Heard on Eddleman 213";

2.

" Supplemental Affidavit of M. Reada Bassiouni on Eddleman 213" (" Supplemental Bassiouni Affidavit");

3.

" Supplemental Affidavit of Robert G. Black, Jr. on Eddleman 213" (" Supplemental Black Affidavit");

4.

" Analysis and Evaluation of Siren Notification For Boaters, Waterskiers, and Swimmers on Harris Lake" (March 1985); and 5.

All papers filed in support of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 213 and Motion To Toll Parties' Response Times" (January 14, 1985).

I.

INTRODUCTION As admitted by the Board, Eddleman 213 conte'nds:

The boater notification plan (part 5, p.

15) does not include the Harris Lake, does not guarantee sufficient boats or personnel to conduct warnings, and in particular makes no provisions for boat or traffic ac-cidents during evacuation of potentially thousands of boaters from the lake.

This violates 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) which re-quires appropriate protective measures.

Such measures should include limiting the number of boaters on the lake when the Harris reactor is critical or whenever fuel handling operations are'in progress at Harris.

Logically, adverse consequences to boaters can be reduced by reducing the num-ber of boaters.

The same logic applies even more to swimmers and water-skiers who will be harder to get out.

Applicants' January 14, 1985 motion acknowledged the fact that the currently installed siren system would not provide ad-equate notification to some recreational users of Harris Lake, and stated that Applicants would augment the system as..

necessary to provide such notification.

Because Applicants were at the time in the process of contracting with Acoustic Technology, Inc. ("ATI") to analyze and evaluate the alerting of swimmers, boaters, and waterskiets on Harris Lake, and be-cause ATI's report was scheduled for issuance in early Spring 1985, Applicants' January 14, 1985 motion requested that the Board hold Applicants' metion for summary disposition of Eddleman 213 in abeyance, and toll all parties' response times, pending availability of the ATI report.

The NRC Staff answered in support of Applicants' request.

See "NRC Staff Response To Applicants' Motion For The Tolling of The Parties' Responses To Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman Conten-tion 213" (February 6, 1985).

Mr. Eddleman did not file an op-position to Applicants' request.

ATI's report, " Analysis and Evaluation of Siren Notifica-tion For Boaters, Waterskiers, and Swimmers on Harris Lake" (March 1985) has now issued, and is being served herewith on all parties.

Accordingly, upon the receipt of responses from Mr. Eddleman and the NRC Staff / FEMA (or the expiration of the time for filing such responses),2/ Eddleman Contention 213 is ripe for summary disposition.

2/

The NRC Staff / FEMA response is due May 2, 1985, with Mr.

~

Eddleman's response due May 13, 1985...

  • = ~

II.

ARGUMENT 4

I Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 213 should be granted.

-Carolina Power & Light Company contracted with ATI to analyze and evaluate the alerting of swimmers, boaters, and waterskiers on Harris Lake, and to prepare a report, " Analysis and Evalua-tion of Siren Notification For Boaters, Waterskiers, and Swimmers On Harris Lake" (March 1985), which documents the 1

analysis of the warning system design for alerting such popula-tions.

Bassiouni Supplemental Affidavit, 1 2; Black Supplemen-tal Affidavit, 1 2.

Based on the methodology described in great detail in the March 1985 report, ATI developed a proposal to enhance the ex-I isting system of sirens installed throughout the Harris plume Emergency Planning Zone, to assure siren notification of I

swimmers, boaters, and waterskiers on Harris Lake, As docu-mented in the report, ATI's proposed siren configuration of ten additional sirens (activated for a total of 10 minutes) would i

provide essentially 100 percent notification to people on

~

Harris Lake within 15 minutes, in full compliance with 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(5) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.3.3/

See Bassiouni Supplemental Affidavit, 1 3; Black 3/

10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(5) requires, in' relevant part, that:-

(Continued next page) t

_4_

l e

n --

1

\\

Supplemental Affidavit,L1 3.

CP&L has committed to install these ten additional sirens.

Black Supplemental Affidavit, 1 3.

In addition, 15 billboards are being erected in prominent locations around Harris Lake-(for example, on roads. leading to the Lake, and at the Harris Visitors' Center, and at each of the.public boat ramps) prior to fuel load.

The instructional message on the billboards will advise that, upon emergency no-tification by sirens, or colored smoke or flares,d/ persons are to leave the lake immediately and to turn on radios or'televi-sions for information and instructions.

Black Supplemental Af-fidavit, 1 4.

'The use of such signs in circumstances such as these is expressly contemplated by the Commission's emergency planning regulations:

(Continued) l

  • *'* means to provide early notification * *
  • to the populace-within the plume exposure pathway Emer-gency Planning Zone have been established.

.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.D.3 further provides, in i

relevant part,-that'"[t]he design objective of the prompt pub-lic notification' system shall be to have the capability to'es-sentially complete the initial notification of'the public *~*

  • within~about 15 minutes."

i 4/

Given the comprehensive coverage of the siren system for notification'of persons on Harris Lake, Applicants need not (and do not) rely upon the use of colored smcke and-i flares to meet the notification requirements'of the Com-mission's emergency planning regulations.

Nevertheless, i

colored smoke and flares might be used (in addition to the siren system) in the event of an actual emergency. !

t

~'

~

Signs * * *>shall * *

  • be used to dissemi-nate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate in-formation that would be helpful if an acci-dent occurs.

.i 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, S TV.D.2.

See also Kansas Gas &

l Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),

LBP-84-26, 20 N.R.C. 53, 68, 96 (1984) (approving the use of similar billboards at a public reservoir / recreation area).

These provisions for the alert and notification of pers,ns on Harris Lake obviate the need for restrictive measures suct.

i as those suggested in Eddleman 213, e.g.,

limiting the number of boaters, swimmers, and waterskiers on the lake "when the Harris reactor is critical or whenever fuel handling operations i

are-in progress at Harris."

Black Supplemental Affidavit, T 5.

In sum, there simply is no genuine issue as to any fact materi-j al to Eddleman 213.

i 4

III.

CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the subject of Applicants' compliance with the emer-t gency planning regulations applicable to the notification of boaters, waterskiers, and swimmers on Harris Lake, Applicants' f

l 4

I 6

i t

8 4,

i -

--.-,r

.i-_.-..r-

_o.

,,,7

--e e -,

.p wmy..

Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 213 should be

~

granted.

Respectfully submitted, i

I L k. f mans _A Thomas A. Baxter, PV C. 'l Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW,-PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Dale E.

Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated:

April 5, 1985 4

7-t e+

)

m en h-.

u-e-

9

+-

a-