ML20112J999
| ML20112J999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1985 |
| 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 | |
| ML20112J843 | List:
|
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8501180445 | |
| Download: ML20112J999 (14) | |
Text
e e
~g.
January 14, 1985 9pfD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'C5 <"" 17 P1 :58 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOERD f '
i 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 EPJ-4(d)
Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of EPJ Contention 4(d).
As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to EPJ Contention 4(d), and*
Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on EPJ Contention 4(d) as a matter of law.
This motion is supported by:
1.
" Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on EPJ-4(d)";
2.
" Affidavit of Jesse T.
Pugh, III on EPJ-4(d)" ("Pugh Affidavit");
3.
" Affidavit of Dennie S. Mileti on EPJ-4(d)"
("Mileti Affidavit");
/
B501180445 850114 PDR ADOCK 05000400' j
a PDR.
g
~
s y
w w
,w-g u,
vw
= -,
.e--
-e
I o
4.
" Affidavit of Robert D. Klimm on EPJ-4(d)"
"Klimm Affidavit"); and 5.
" Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions," (filed October 8, 1984).
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Emergency Planning Joint ("EPJ") Contention 4(d) was initially advanced as CHANGE Contention 29 in the " Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene of Intervenor CHANGE Regarding The North Carolina Emergency Response Plan (Feb. 1984) In Support of SENPP" (April 5, 1984), as Eddleman Contention 219 in " Wells Eddleman's Contentions on the Emergency Plan (2d Set)" (April 12, 1984), and as Wilson Contention 8(h) in the " Contentions of Richard Wilson Concerning North Carolina Emergency Response Plan" (April 13, 1984).1/
EPJ Contention 4(d) was admitted as a contention in this proceeding in the Board's August 3, 1984 " Memorandum and Order (Final Set of Rulings on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions, Ruling on Petition For Waiver of Need For Power Rule', and Notice of Upcoming Telephone Conference Call),"
LBP-84-29B, 20 N.R.C.
389, 420-21.
As admitted by the Board, EPJ-4(d) contends:
1/
These individual proposed contentions were superseded by each of the intervenors' designation as a sponsor of
-EPJ-4.
See August 3, 1984 " Memorandum and Order", 20 N.R.C.
at 421.
Section E4d of State Procedures (p. 47) is deficient because --
Most parents would demand to pick up their children at school.
The chaos at every school in the area would require all local law enforcement officers and several county officers to contain.
This factor is not mentioned in the plan.
CHANGE has been designated " lead intervenor" on EPJ-4.
Id.
Applicants have served one set of interrogatories and request for production of documents on CHANGE on the subject of EPJ-4(d).
See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Reques$ For Production of Documents To Intervenor CHANGE (First Set)" (August 9, 1984), at 10-11.
The " Response To Applicants' ' Emergency Planning Interrogatories To Intervenor CHANGE'" was filed September 18, 1984.
In addition, Applicants have served one set of interrogatories and request.for production of documents on the sponsors of EPJ-4(d) generally.
See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Sponsors of EPJ-1 [ sic; EPJ-3]
(CCNC), EPJ-4 (CHANGE), and EPJ-5 (Wilson)" (October 5, 1984),
at 1.3-15.
The " Response To Applicants' Emergency Planning Inte.togatories To CHANGE (5 Oct. 1984)" was filed November 9, 1984.
CHANGE filed its " Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents To Applicants" (including discovery requests on EPJ-4(d)) on October 8, 1984, at 4-5. t
O
" Applicants' Response To [ CHANGE] Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents [On Contentions EPJ-1, EPJ-2 and EPJ-4] was filed October 29, 1984.
In addition, Mr. Eddleman has served one set of interrogatories on the NRC Staff and FEMA on the subject of EPJ-4(d).
See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FFMA (6th Set)" (August 31, 1984), at 1-4.
" FEMA Response to Interrogatories Dated August 31, 1984 Propounded By Wells Eddleman" was filed on September 28, 1984.
The NRC Staff / FEMA filed no discovery requests on the subject of EPJ-4(d).
The last date for filing discovery on the contention was October 8, 1984.
Discovery on this contention is, therefore, complete.
EPJ Contention 4(d) 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 EPJ Contention 4(d) is ripe for summary disposition.
II.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS A.
Summary Disposition
" Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions," filed o
October 8, 1984, is fully applicable to this Motion and is incorporated by reference herein.
B.
Substantive Law The Commission's emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(10), require, in relevant part, that:
[a] range of protective
. actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for * *
- the public.
The regulations also require the preparation of "an analysis of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, the time required to evacuate *
- App. E, 6 IV.
III.
ARGUMENT Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that the instant motion for summary disposition of EPJ-4(d) should be granted.
Intervenors could neither (a) estimate the approximate percentage of parents they allege would go to the schools despite instructions to the contrary, nor (b) identify any actions they would take to address their concerns expressed in EPJ-4(d).
See Intervenors' 9/18/84 interrogatory responses, at Responses
[
29-2, 29-4, and 29-5; Intervenors' 11/9/84 interrogatory responses, at Responses EPJ-4(d)-2, EPJ-4(d)-4, and EPJ-4(d)-5.
.Nevertheless, Intervenors expressed concern that parents would ;
i I
L..
attempt to pick up their children at school in the event of an evacuation, and that evacuation would be hindered by "[t]raffic congestion at schools, [with] diversion of law enforcement and other emergency personnel" and "[clonfusion and crowding at schools."
See Intervenors' 9/18/84 interrogatory responses, at Response 29-3(a); Intervenors' 11/9/84 interrogatory responses, at Response EPJ-4(d)-3(a).
As explained below, Intervenors' concerns are unfounded.
The offsite emergency plans for Harris are designed to facilitate the expeditious evacuation of school children, directly from their schools within the EPZ to predesignated school evacuation shelters outside the EPZ.
In the event of an emergency at Harris, schools would be notified directly by appropriate authorities, so that warning and notification of school officials will precede (to some extent) public notification via the siren system.
Because the resources for use in school evacuation are at or in close proximity to the schools during the school day, school evacuation would be well underway -- perhaps even completed -- before parents could i
receive and react to notification of the emergency and travel to schools.
Pugh Affidavit, 13.
Further, both the emergency public information brochure l
and the EBS announcements for broadcast in the event of an l
evacuation will advise parents of the evacuation of the schools androf the shelter to which each school's students have been l
l l l L_
evacuated.
The brochure and the EBS announcements also will emphasize that parents should not attempt to pick up their children at school, but rather should pick them up at the appropriate evacuation shelter outside the EPZ.
Pugh Affidavit, 1 4.
These measures assure that, in the event of an evacuation due to an emergency at Harris, few -- if any --
parents would attempt to pick up their children at their schools within the EPZ.
Pugh Affidavit, 1 5; Mileti Affidavit, 1 6.
The sole bases for Intervenorf assumption that parents would disregard the instructions of the brochure and the EBS announcements not to go to the schools to pick up their children are "[g]eneral knowledge of human nature and family relationships" and "[h]uman experience, with family relationships in particular."2/
See Intervenors' 9/18/84 interrogatory responses, at Response to Interrogatory 29-1(c);
Intervenors' 11/9/84 interrogatory responses, at Response to Interrogatory EPJ-4(d)-1(c).
These general allegations of l
" human nature" and " human experience" are flatly disproven by i
l the expert testimony of Dr. Mileti and Mr. Pugh..Intervenors' l
i 2/
It is true that, in limited experience with early school dismissal due to " snow emergencies," some parents have picked up their children at school.
However, that past experience has no applicability here, since the TV and i
. radio broadcasts notifying the public of early school dis-missal due to weather conditions have never asked parents i
not to pick up their children at school.
Pugh Affidavit, L
1 5.
I l I
l l
o allegations have been similarly rejected in other cases where this issue has been raised.
As another licensing board has recognized:
[T]he public will comply with a plan and with instructions; but it is the lack of a plan or clear instructions that may present a problem.
- Therefore, to ensure the validity of an assumption that most parents will not rush to the schools to pick up their children, the plans
- must contain clear instructions for the evacuation of school children, and the public must be properly educated.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2),
LBP-83-68, 18 N.R.C. 811, 959-60 (1983).
See also, e.g.,
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-70, 16 N.R.C.
756, 823 (1982), aff'd, ALAB-781, 20 N.R.C. 819 (1984); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear i
Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. 933, 995 (1984).
Thus, there is no creditable basis for the assertion that parents would generally disregard instructions to the contrary and attempt to pick up their children at school in the event of an emergency at Harris.
However, even if parents did go to the schools to pick up their children in an emergency, school evacuation would not be seriously impeded.
Bus traffic (and other school evacuation D
A vehicles) would be routed away from school campuses by separate exits not readily accessible to parent drivers.
- Moreover, officials at each of the schools are prepared to provide traffic control to direct buses and other school evacuatien vehicles out of the loading area, if necessary.
Pugh Affidavit, 11 6-7.
And any parents who did attempt to pick up their children at school would conduct themselves in an orderly manner.
Mileti Affidavit, 1 2,
4.
Accordingly, contrary to Intervenors' assumption, even if parents did go to the schools, there would be no need for " diversion of law enforcement and other emergency personnel."
Ncr would the evacuation of the general population be impeded by parents' attempts to pick up their children at school.
The evacuation time estimate study ("ETE")
incorporated a broad range of preparation / mobilization times, and simulated the traffic friction on the evacuation roadway network which would be associated with preparation / mobilization activities involving pre-evacuation travel.
Therefore, even if some parents did attempt to pick up their children at their schoels in an emergency, that behavior would not significantly affect the evacuation times provided in the ETE.
Klimm Affidavit, 11 2-5.
I I
In summary, there is simply no basis in fact for EPJ Contention 4(d).
Due to the procedures for direct notification of schools in the event of an emergency, school evacuation
_g.
I-
would be well underway -- perhaps even completed -- before parents could arrive at schools.
Further, both the brochure and the EBS announcements will emphasize that parents should not attempt to pick up their children at school, but should instead pick them up outside the EPZ.
With these measures, few
-- if any -- parents would attempt to pick up their children at their schools.
However, even if parents do go to the schools, school evacuation will not be impeded, since school evacuation vehicles will be routed away from campus through separate exits, and traffic control personnel will be available if needed.
Nor would parents' attempts to pick up their children at school have any significant affect on evacuation times.
Pugh Affidavit, 1 7; Mileti Affidavit, 1 6; Klimm Affidavit, 1 5.
The intervenor sponsors of EPJ-4(d) cannot avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or suspicions, or on the hope that at the hearing Applicants' evidence may be discredited or that "something may turn up."
See Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, 248 (1975).
The intervenors here have simply failed to distinguish this case from the body of NRC case law s
recognizing that -- provided parents are informed of the plans for the evacuation of their children -- parents generally would not attempt to pick up their children at school in an emergency.
- See, e.g.,
Indian Point, supra; Diablo Canyon, supra; Catawba, supra. i
4 IV.
CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the issue of parents' attempts to pick up school children and the effect on evacuation, Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition ~of EPJ-4(d) should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Yd'1b L
Thomas 'A.
Baxter, P.C.V k
Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWDRIDGE 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:
January 14, 1985 __
7 4-'
e n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I' y
- n.g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BUSRD r v 4 7 mt h"lXE In the Matter of
)
[,
2;]
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of EPJ-4(d)," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on EPJ-4(d)," " Affidavit of Jesse T. Pugh, III on EPJ-4(d)," " Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti on EPJ-4(d)," and
" Affidavit of Robert D. Klimm on EPJ-4(d)" were served this 14th day of January, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties listed on the attached t
Service List.
A9dk.
h Defisia A. Ridt way U
(
J Dated:
January 14, 1985
o 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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)
)
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 30 G
nv 1 e Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board M. Travis Payne, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edelstein and Payne Washington, D.C.
20555 Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 f ice Exe e Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E.
Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Docketing and Service Section Post Office Box 1551 Office of the Secretary Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo l
University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W.
Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA i
500 C Street, S.W.,
Suite 480 Washington,.D.C.
20740 Steven Rochlis, Esq.
Regional Counsel FEMA t
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 l
l l
. _ - - - -. _.. _, _ - _. - - _ - _ _ _