ML20205A744
| ML20205A744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1985 |
| From: | Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#285-695 82-472-03-OL, 82-472-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8504260061 | |
| Download: ML20205A744 (10) | |
Text
h.0 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00ggCTEC u
Before Administrative Judges:
15 APR 24 A!1:46 James L. Kelley, Chairman Dr. James H. Carpenter GFFICE OF SECRiiA6 r G1enn 0. Bright 00CKETING & SERVICf.
BRANCH SERVED APR 24 gg
)
In the !!atter of
)
Docket No. 50-400-0L
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
and
)
NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL
)
POWER AGENCY
)
April 24, 1985
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Remaining Summary Disposition Motions)
By various pleadings filed over some months, the Applicants have moved under 10 CFR S 2.749 for summary disposition of all admitted offsite emergency planning contentions not settled or withdrawn.1 In order to facilitate planning and preparation by the parties, we announced our rulings on the first eleven of the Applicants' motions for summary disposition on February 27, 1985 and said that at a later date, l
l probably in the anticipated Partial Initial Decision, we would supply the reasons for each granted motion.
We do likewise tooay with all but I Intervenor Wilson sought leave to withdraw his Contention 11 by a January 10, 1985 motion, which is unopposed. We grant Dr. Wilson's motion.
8504260061 850424 i
PDR ADOCK 05000400 O
PDR 2
~
. two of the remaining motions for summary dispositions.
The Applicants have requested that we defer ruling on two of these contentions, EPJ-2 and Eddleman 213, to await the Applicants' submission of further documents.
The Applicants informed us by phone on August 18, 1985 that the State has changed its policy on the mechanics of providing transportation for people without cars; to reflect this change the Applicants wish to submit an amended affidavit in support of their motion for -summary disposition of EPJ-2.
They asked that we defer ruling on Eddleman 213 until after a report on the proposed alert system for boaters, swimers, and waterskiers on Harris Lake has issued.
See Applicants' January 14, 1985 motion at 11-12.
We are deferring ruling r
on both of these contentions.
The report on the proposed alert system has issued and has now been distributed to the Board and the parties as a document in support of the Applicants' April 5,1985 " Supplement to Motion for Sumary Disposition of Eddleman 213".
The NRC Staff / FEMA response is due May 2,1985, and Mr. Eddleman's response is due May 13, 1985.
For reasons we will give at a later date, we hereby grant the i
motions on the contentions listed below.
We then explain why we are denying in part the motions on EPJ-4(b) and Eddleman 57-C-10.
Eddleman 30 (quantities of KI)
Eddleman 213a (implementing procedures) i l
Eddleman 215(3) (conservatism in the evacuation time l
l estimates) l CCNC 2 (adequacy of sheltering) l l
.. EPJ-3 (response of volunteers)
EPJ-4(a), (c), and (d) (evacuation of schools)
EPJ-5 (transportation for the non-ambulatory)
EPJ-V (inspection and calibration of air monitors and samplers)
EPJ-VI (accuracy and timeliness of radiation monitoring systems)
Wilson 12(b)(2) and (3) (evacuation time estimates)
Eddleman 57-C-10 Although we are denying the motions for summary disposition on Eddleman 57-C-10 and EPJ-4(b), we are ruling out litigation (in substance, partially granting the motion) on certain issues otherwise raised by those contentions.
We rule out the issue of the protection factors afforded by the types of housing prevalent in the Harris plume EPZ.
In response to 57-C-10, the Applicants undertook a well-designed, well-executed, and thoroughly documented review of these protection factors.
Mr. Eddleman criticizes several features of the Applicants' review, but his criticisms have too little substance to justify a ruli?g that there exists any genuine issue about the adequacy of the Applicants' review.
For example, Mr.
Eddleman claims that the Applicants' field survey of homes and other structures in the plume EPZ was deficient because the surveyors worked from inside their automobiles and excluded mobile homes.
Eddleman Response at 2.
However, Mr.
. Eddleman does not explain, and no reason is apparent, why there would have bee'n any need for the surveyors to get out of their automobiles.
Two of the aspects of a building which make a substantial difference in its effectiveness as a shelter -- the number of stories it has and its exterior finish (Black Affidavit at 3) -- are clearly visible from the street, unless the building itself is not clearly visible from the street, and such buildings were excluded from the survey.
_Id. at 5.
The other relevant aspect of a building -- whether it has a basement --
is not always clearly visible from the street (jd. at 7), and thus the field survey yields a higher percentage of homes without basements than the survey of county tax records does.
I d_.
However, Mr. Eddleman does not dispute affiant Black's conclusion that the two percentages were similar enough to permit identification of the characteristics of the kinds of housing prevalent in the plume EPZ.
See id.;
see also the confirmatory results in Attachment 6 (from the National Associajion of Home Builders' Research Foundation 1981 research results).
As for r.obile homes, they were not excluded from the survey (See id. at 6.).
They were, however, explicitly excluded from the tabulation of characteristics of single family homes, which appears in Attachment 5 to Mr. Black's affidavit; but to have included mobile homes in that tabulation would only have reinforced the already clear conclusion that most homes in the plume EPZ are single-storied, without basement, and finished on the outside with something other than brick, stone, or masonry block.
. Another of Mr. ' Eddleman's criticisms of the Applicants' review of sheltering in the plume EPZ is that because they relied on figures in an EPA document to detennine the protection structures in the Harris plume EPZ would provide against inhalation
- exposure, the Applicants' conclusions on inhalation exposure (See Attachment 9.) are "not related to actual air exchanges rates of Harris EPZ housing." Eddleman Response at 3.
However, the figures the Applicants drew from the EPA document,
" Protective Action Evaluation Part I,
Evacuation and Sheltering as Protective Actions against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases" (EPA 520/1-78-0018), apply to all residences that have rooms with windows or exterior doors on one or more sides.
Black Affidavit at 10.
Since probably every house in the Harris plume EPZ fits this description, it is not true that the Applicants' conclusions, which depend on these figures, are not related to housing in the Harris EPZ.
Perhaps Mr. Eddleman would like data on the number of doors and windows per room, and the like.
But there is no reg;1ation or guidance in NUREG-0654 calling for such detailed data.
- Indeed, NUREG-0654 explicitly says that EPA 520/1-78-001A, a companion document to the one at issue here, may be used in determining the protection factors afforded by local sheltering.
Moreover, more detailed data would not, according to the EPA document the Applicants used, produce significantly different results.
See Black Affidavit at 10.
Mr. Eddleman also claims that there is no reasonable assurance that the protection factors the Applicants have calculated will be put in the emergency plans in a form useful for decisions on protective actions.
e
. Eddleman Response at 3.
These-protection factors are set out in Attachments 7 and 9 to Mr. Black's Affidavit in formats probably much like the fomats in which they will appear in the emergency plans.
Mr.
Eddleman does not say, nor do we see, what there is in the formats of these two attachments which would stand in the way of their usefulness.
Moreover, just as we would not act as editors of the public information brochure (See our October 4,1984 Rulings at 6-7.), so too we will not be editors of tables of protection factors.
The one issue which remains concerning the Applicants' review of typical sheltering in the Harris plume EPZ is the adequacy of the Applicants' review of sheltering other than single-family residential.
As Mr.
Eddleman points out (See his Response at 1.),
Evaluation Criterion J.10.m of NUREG-0654 calls for determining expected local protection afforded not only by single family units, but also by "other shelter".
Both the Applicants' field survey and their survey of tax records included counts of commercial, industrial, and other similar buildings.
See Black Affidavit at 3, 5-6.
The Applicants also did a thorough survey to determine which areas in each hospital, nursing home, and home care facility in the plume EPZ afforded the best protection factors (The survey did not, apparently, assign numerical values to any of the protection factors.).
See Applicants' December 12, 1984 Motion for_ Sumary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 57-C-13, and accompanying affidavits.
But apparently the Applicants have not determined what protection factors are afforded by typical institutional structures l
l (schools,
- churches, etc.),
commercial structures, and industrial l
l l
n
\\
~
facilities in~the plume EPZ. 'According to the Applicants' field survey,
- such-buildings constitute only about 20% of the buildings in the plume EPZ. - However, - given the - size. of such buildings, at the time of a radiological emergency to which sheltering was the right response, they r
well could have in them far more than 20% of the population of the plume
- EPZ' As we said when we first admitted this contention, the Applicants i
should either conform to Evaluation Criterion J.10.m., or show that the
.way protection factors afforded by buildings other than single-family i
dwellings are treated now in the State emergency plan produces a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures would be taken in J
a radiological emergency.2 l
2 p
Mr. Eddleman has two other arguments against granting the motion for summary disposition on 57-C-10.
Both are, in effect, attempts to i
raise new. issues at this late stage of the proceeding. He says that the affidavits in support of the motion address neither the adequacy of the State plan's discussion of protective actions, nor the bases for protective action.
See Eddleman Response at'1.
Evaluation Criterion
. J.10.m'does say that the State plans shall include the bases for the choice of recommended protective actions, but the-only such bases any version of Contention'57-C-10 ever said were lacking were data on sheltering. Thus, by the argument that the affidavits do not address the bases for protective action, Mr. Eddleman is, in effect, raising a j
new issue, and raising it without adequate specificity. The Contention does fault the State plan's discussion of protective actions, calling it l
- "mostly a list of them and a little handwaving." But, as our ruling on the admissibility of the Contention shows, we have regarded criticism of the plan's discussion of protective actions as specified by the rest of the Contention, not as a separate element of the Contention.
See our June 14, 1984 Further Rulings at 16-18.
Had this vague criticism been l
presented to us as a separate element, we would have ruled against its admission.
b r,,---
e y--,-
,w,,--,-,.~,
,_-m,
,,y c., -
.--m..,-e%-,,
ww.w.,m.,-w.,m,,m.-..,,.%--,-e-y
-v.m,-,,
.-w,,.-,-.,..
.. EPJ-4(b)
As we did with Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, we deny the motion for sumary disposition of EPJ-4(b) but rule out litigation of certain issues otherwise raised by the Contention.
We deny the motion largely because adult drivers of school buses, unlike the student drivars considered under EPJ-4(a), on which we granted summary dispositf an, would very likely not already be at the schools when they were called upon to evacuate the schools, and are more likely than the student drivers are to have family obligations.
Thus, in a radiological emergency which made evacuation necessary, adult drivers would very likely have the opportunity student drivers would not have -- to weigh conflicting obligations.
In his affidavit in support of the motion for summary disposition of EPJ-4(b), Dr. Mileti claims, without citations to the research on which he purports to be basing his claims, that the adult drivers can be expected to perform the duties assigned them under the emergency plans.
The Intervenors should have an opportunity to conduct cross-examination to determine the strength of these claims.
We rule out litigation on whether the wages the adult drivers are paid and the education they've received are so low that they "cannot be trusted" to perform their public duties competently in an emergency.
The Intervenors still have not specified the wage and education levels of the adult drivers who would be helping to evacuate schools in the plume EPZ.
More important, the Intervenors have cited nothing other than " general experience" to support the somewhat insulting proposition
--,--,,n.,,
,,. - ~
_g.
that one's willingness to perform a public duty well is a function of one's wages and the number of years one has spent in school.
Scheduling Matters.
Hearings on the remaining emergency planning contentions are presently scheduled to begin on June 18.
From our present perspective, the Board is prepared to proceed on or shortly after that date.
The exact date for commencing what we expect will be relatively brief emergency planning hearings might depend upon the availability of desirable hearing space.
Discovery on the drug use contention closes on May 1.
Depending on whether a summary disposition motion is filed, it may be possible to hold any necessary hearings on that contention shortly after the emergency planning hearing.
Further scheduling on the harassment question awaits completion of the OI investigation.
However, in view of the fact that discovery on Contention 41-G will soon close, the Board and parties might have some tentative scheduling discussion of that issue as well.
Under these circumstances, we are scheduling a telephone conference call for Friday, May 3,1985 to discuss the above scheduling matters.
e
. This is the only notice of the conference you will receive.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Om W%
Mmes L. Kelley, Chairman U
- DMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 14 0
James H. CarpgKter INISTRATIVE JUDGE 0
W Glenn O. Bright' g
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland April 24, 1985