ML20116N772

Response to Applicant 850114 Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 213 Re Emergency Planning.Motion Should Be Granted

ML20116N772
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/02/1985
From:	Rochlis S Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20116N775	List: ML20116N772 ML20116N777
References
CON-#285-876 OL, NUDOCS 8505070343
Download: ML20116N772 (6)

Text

.%76 May 2, 1985 um i

_I I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i v, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

DOLMETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

'85 MY -6 Pl2 :06 In the Matter of CAROLINA )

POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 0FFICE OF SECRtTAb i and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400-OL 00CKETING & SEPVlu BRANCH MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear. )

Power Plants Units 1 and 2 )

~

~

FEMA STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 213 I. INTRODUCTION On January 14, 1985, the Applicants moved for summary disposition on Eddleman 212, (hereinafter Applicants' Motion) pursuant to 10 CFR E2.749 of the Commission's regulations. .

On that date, the Applicants requested that the Board hold the Motion in abeyance and toll the parties' response times, pending~

availabilihy of a technical report from Acoustic Technology, Inc.

(ATI)'.on the fixed siren alert system for Harris Lake. The NRC Staff filed a response on behalf-of the NRC and FEMA on February 6, 1985 indicating that it had no objection to tolling _

the parties response times. Mr. Eddleman did not file an ob-jection to the Applicants' request. ATI's report, " Analysis and Evaluation of Siren Notification For Boaters, Waterskiers, and Swimmers on Harris Lake" (March 1985) was served on the-parties concurrent with Applicants' Supplement to Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 213 (April 5,_1985). FEMA staff

' ~

8505070343 850502 /\

PDR ALOCK 05000400 fl Q PDR t s

, .. . .. . . . . .. .- . = -

Y '

o

. supports the Applicants' Motion For. Summary Disposition on the '

grounds that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material

!; fact, and".that the Applicants are entitled to a- favorable judg-ment.as a matter'of' law.

II. ' BACKGROUND

. Eddleman 213 was' admitted as a contention in this proceeding insthe Board's Memorandum and. Order (Further Rulings on Admissi-bility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Submitted by Intervenor Eddleman)- (June 14, 1984). As. admitted by the Board, l Eddleman 213 contends:

1 The-boater notification plan-(part 5, p. 15) does not. include the Harris-Lake, does not i

p guarantee sufficient boats or personnel to

. conduct warnings, and in particular makes no provisions for boat ~or traffic accidents

-during evacuation of potentially thousands of: boaters.from-the.. lake. This violates 10 .

C.F.R. '50.47(a)(1) which requires ~ appropriate

. s

' 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 pro-

, gress at Harris. Logically,--adverse conse-quences to boaters can be reduced"by reducing-the' number of boaters. The-same logic applies even more to swimmers-and water-skiers who

, will be harder to get out.

I The Board, in admitting the contention, indicated that essential-

..ly, 2131 alleged that there'should be analogous provisions for the Harris. reservoir (analogous to the Boater Notification Provisions

^

for Jordan Lake contained in Annex G of-the Emergency Response Plan).

o ' r.

M 'Eddleman ~ served' two' sets of interrogatories on 'the NRC

-Staff / FEMA on the subject ofLEddleman.213. .See " Wells Eddleman's:

f /

6

, 8

~3-b Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (4th Set, dated June 29, 1984 and 5th Set, dated August 9, 1984). The FEMA Staff Re-

'sponse was filed on August 14 , 1984 and September 18, 1984 re-spectively.

III. ARGUMENT A. . Standards for Summary Disposition

.FDU4 staff response to Applicants' previous Memoranda of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions previously filed is fully applicable to this Motion and is incorporated by reference herein.

B. There is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact to be Heard with Respect to Eddleman 213.

Section 50.47 of NRC's Emergency Planning Rule (10 CFR, Part 50) and NUREG .0654 / FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, November 1980,

" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emer-gency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" are used by FEMA pursuant - to 44 CFR 5350 (a) in reviewing, evaluating,.and approving State and local radiologi-cal emergency plans and preparedness.

10 CFR E50.47 (b) (5) provides in pertinent'part:

...means to provide early notification-and clear instruction to the populace within'the' plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning

' Zone have been established. (See also 44 CFR 5350.5 (a) (5)) .

. NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Criterion E.6 provides in pertinent

' part:

1 O

O

~ g r w , -

J Each organization shall establish admini-strative and physical means, and the time t., required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.

(See Appendix 3).

Appendix 3 to NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 provides:

The initial notification when appropriate, of the affected population within the plume ex-posure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) must be: completed in a manner consistent with assuring the public. health and safety.

The design objective for the system shall be to meet the acceptance criteria of Section B of this Appendix.

Section B.2 of Appendix 3 provides:

The minimum acceptable design objectives for coverage-by the system are:

a) Capability for providing both an alert signal and an informational or instruc-

tional message to the population on an area wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes.

b) The initial notification system will assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site, c) Special arrangements will be made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the pop-ulation who may not have received the initial notification >wi~ thin the entire plume exposure EPZ.

j FEMA staff, in response to Mr. Eddleman's 5th Set of inter--

rogatories stated "that a plan for Harris Lake similar to the plan for' Jordan' Lake should be included.in the emergency plan-ning for Lake Harris". According to the affidavit of Thomas I.

Hawkins, FEMA Emergency-Management Program Specialist, FEMA.

Region IV staff received a revised copy of-the North Carolina-Emergency Response Plan in Support of the'Shearon Harris Nuclear

-.' - g ,

Power' Plant,.Feb.-1984, Rev. 1, Sept. 1984 in October 1984.

'The revised. plan contains Annex J, " Warning and Notification of: Boaters On Harris Lake and the Surrounding Recreation Areas" l(Attached ascExhibit.1 hereto).

Annex 1J provides at-III.D.:

'The warning and notification of boaters on the-lake within a 10' mile radius of the sShearon Harris Plant will be accomplished

.using fixed sirens, a boat'and one emer-

gency vehicle equipped with siren and PA system,. red smoke signals, a fixed winged aircraft and a helecopter.

These' provisions are analogous to the provisions contained'in Annex G:(Boater Notification for Jordan Lake) of'the Emergency Response Plan.

Although the Board's focus in admitting contention 213 was on a' plan.for Harris Lake similar to the Lake Jordan i

Notification-Plan, the Applicants have committed to an enhanced-siren system of 10 additional sirens as the primary

means of-notification to comply;with'the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 950.47(b)(5) and Section B.2, Appendix 3, NUREG 1- 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and to erect 15 instructional billboards'in o prominent' locations around Harris Lake. The-instructional billboards.will' advise recreational users that;upon siren i-alert or the sending off!of flares, persons are to leave the lake immediately and turn on radios and-televisions for

! instructions. (See Supplemental Affidavitlof Robert G.-Black, Jr;).

lit is-the opinion of'the FEMA Staff that the' questions-j -- raised by the Board in admitting Eddleman Contention 213 have

~

f been resolved, Land that the' Applicants-are entitled to Summary e

. m _ + . ,r,.-. -  % , , , ,-

~

~

l

~ Disposition aus a matter of law. Annex J to the ERP coupled with.an, g enhanced siren system resolve the issues surrounding

~

the contention as admitted by the Board.

IV. ' CONCLUSION ,

Based on.the foregoing discussion, the Applicants' Motion

=

forcSummary Disposition should be granted.-

Respectfully submitted, ,

t L

STEVEN M. ROCHLIS

, Regional Counsel Federal Emergency' Management Agency E

4 1

i 2

f 1

4 i

l s

1.

f L' ,

1

'I

_. ,