ML20101E867

Motion Supporting Summary Disposition of Change-17 Based on Lack of Genuine Issue as to Matl Fact.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20101E867
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/21/1984
From:	Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20101E870	List: ML20101E867 ML20101E873 ML20101E881
References
CON-#484-766 OL, NUDOCS 8412260429
Download: ML20101E867 (11)

Text

h . . . . , . . . . . _

D;c mb,er 2}f 1984 f l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Opyj{ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA $ l DC 24 N0 09 s

C Of SECFiTU In the Matter of G CAROLINA POWER & LIGilT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

) . . . . . . . , .

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CilANGE-17 Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina East-ern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Cl!ANGE-17. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to CilANGE-17, and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on CIIANGE-17 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 !!eard on Cl!ANGE-17";

2. " Affidavit of Jesse T. Pugh, III on CilANGE-17"

("Pugh Affidavit"); and

3. " Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Mo-tions For Summary Dispositiori of Emergency Planning Contentions."

r7

\

Q) t 8412260429 g41221 gDRADOCK 05000400 PDR ,

m

F e

U I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND CHANGE Contention 17 was initially advanced in " Supple-ment to Petition For Leave to Intervene of Intervenor CHANGE Regarding the North Carolina Emergency Response Plan (February 1984) In Support of SHNPP" (April 5, 1984).

CHANGE-17 was admitted as a contention in this proceeding in the course of the May 2, 1984 prehearing conference. See Tr. 975-76, attached to " Order (Ruling on Various Procedural Questions and Various Procedural Questions and Eddleman Con-tention 15AA)" (May 10, 1984). As admitted by the Board, CHANGE-17 contends:

The plan does not provide adequate assur-ance that warning sirens would be heard by all citizens within the threatened area be-cause of hearing impairments.

Applicants have served one set of interrogatories and re-quest for production of documents on CHANGE on the subject of CHANGE-17. See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents To Intervenor CHANGE (First Set)" (August 9, 1984), at 6-8. " Response to Appli-cants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories to Intervenor CHANGE" was filed September 18, 1984. Neither CHANGE nor the NRC Staff flied any discovery requests on CHANGE-17. The last date for filing discovery on the contention was August 9, 1984. Discov-ery on this contention is, therefore, complete.

CHANGE Contention 17 is classified as an emergency plan-ning contention to be addressed in the hearings scheduled to r_

e commence June 18, 1985. Written direct testimony on the con-

' tention is scheduled to be filed June 3, 1985. Further, the Board has established January 14, 1985 as the last day for fil-ing summary disposition motions on this contention. Thus, the instant motion is timely, and CHANGE Contention 17 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 October 8, 1984, is fully applicable to this Motion and is in-corporated by reference herein.

B. Substantive Law The Commission's emergency plarcting regulations, at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(5), require, in relevant part, that:

• means to provide early notification * *

• to the populace within the plume exposare pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been es-tablished.

See also 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.3. As noted in footnote 1 to 10 C.F.R. S 50.47, this standard is further ad-dressed by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological' Emergency Response Plans and Pre-paredness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 1, November 1980).

L_

9

.NUREG-0654 Criterion E.6 provides, in relevant part:

Each organization shall es-tablish * *

• physical means, and the time required for notifying * *

• the pub-lic within the plume expo-sure pathway Emergency Plan-ning Zone. (See Appendix 3.)

Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654 sets forth the regulatory acceptance criteria for emergency public Alert and Notification Systems

("ANS"). These criteria establish, in relevant part, that the ANS as designed must provides a) Capability for providing * *

• an alert signal * *

• 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 l

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 population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.

NUREG-0654, at 3-3 (emphasis supplied). However these criteria are qualified:

! The design objective for the system shall be to meet the acceptance criteria of sec-tion B of this Appendix (quoted immediately above). This design objective does not, however, constitute a guarantee that early notification can be provided for everyone with 100% assurance or that the system when tested under actual field conditions will meet the design objective in all cases.

NUREG-0654, at 3-1.

a 1

l 6 l 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 CHANGE Contention 17 should be granted.

As discussed in Section II above, NUREG-0654, Appendix 3 pre-scribes the development of "special arrangements" for the noti-fication "within 45 minutes" of members of the public (such as the hearing-impaired) "who may not have received the initial

[ siren] notification." NUREG-0654, at 3-3. See also Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1),

LDP-84-26, 20 N.R.C. 53, 67, 94-95 (1984), (applying 45-minute criterion to notification of the hearing-impaired).

CHANGE's discovery responses (never supplemented) evidence its utter lack of bases for its contention. Indeed, CHANGE has failed to identify even a single change it would propose to make "in offsite emergency plans to provide adequate notifica-tion to the hearing-impaired population within the plume EPZ."l/ See " Response To Applicants' ' Emergency Planning In-terrogatories To Intervenor CHANGE'" (September 18, 1984), at Responses 17-1 to 17-6. In contrast, the " Affidavit of Jesse T. Pugh, III On CHANGE-17," filed herewith, amply demua-strates the sufficiency of the "special arrangements" being un-dortaken to provide for the identification and special, indi-vidual notification of the t aring-impaired in the Harris EPZ.

1/ Moreover, as discussed above, CHANGE filed no discovery whatsoever on this contention.

c ,

o e

The hearing-impaired individuals who might need special notification of an emergency at the Harris plant are being identified through the "special needs response card" included with the Harris " Safety Information" brochure (Pugh Affidavit, 5 3), which will be augmented with information provided by res-cue squads, fire departments, social service agencies and health care providers in the four-county area (Pugh Affidavit, 5 4). The list of hearing-impaired individuals will be com-pleted prior to fuel load, and will be updated annually, and with the receipt of each new special needs card (Pugh Affida-vit, 5 24). The current lists of hearing-impaired persons will be maintained in locations for ready availability to notifica-tion personnel in the event of an emergency. Pugh Affidavit, 5 5.

While the fixed siren system will be the primary means of public notification in an emergency, all four counties in the EPZ would dispatch vehicles immediately upon activation of the fixed sirens, to provide special notification of the hearing-impaired. As the predesignated special notification personnel drive their assigned routes in an emergency, they would stop at the addresses on the list of hearing-impaired persons, to provide those persons with special, individual no-tification of the emergency. Pugh Affidavit, 5 6. In addi-tion, EDS television broadcasts would include " crawl messages" (lines of text at the bottom of the TV screen) to provide emer-gency warnings and information to the hearing-impaired members of the general public. Pugh Affidavit, 1 23.

f -

6 Zones within the EPZ already have been divided into [

subzones within which the road mileage has been measured, and

(

-- within each zone or subzone -- county agencies have been as- }

signed responsibility for notification of the hearing-impaired. li Upon completion of the list of hearing-impaired persons, each responsible agency will drive its routes to determine the amount of time needed for notification. Pugh Affidavit, 1 7.

Sufficient vehicles and personnel have been identified to com-plete the notification of the hearing-impaired within 45 minutes, as prescribed in NUREG-0654, Appendix 3. Pugh Affida-vit, 11 6 n.3, 8-20. Each of the four counties has identified additional personnel (with vehicles) who would be available to augment the designated special notification personnel, if nec-essary. Pugh Affidavit, 1 21.

In summary, there is simply no basis in fact for CHANGE contention 17. The intervenor here has simply failed to dis-tinguish this case from others approving similar procedures for the identification and special notification of the hearing im-paired. Such "special arrangements" for the identification and special, individual notification of the hearing-impaired are.

sufficient to give the requisite " reasonable assurance" that those individuals would be promptly notified in an emergency.

See, e.g., Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Power Station, Units-1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. (September 18, 1984), slip op. at 65-66; Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-84-26, 20 N.R.C. 53, 67, 94-95 rc ]

y

'(1984); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-70, 16 N.R.C. 756, 773-75, 814 (1982), aff'd, ALAB-781, 20 N.R.C. (September 6, 1984); Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-30, 15 N.R.C. 771, 781, 816, aff'd, 16 N.R.C. 1530 (1982).

IV. CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the issue of the emergency notification of hearing-impaired men bers of the public, Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of CHANGE-17 should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, 1-^^ _ A h Th5 mat A.~ Baxtier, 'P.O. (/ '

Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha F. Flynn Dale E. Hollar Hill Carrow CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: December 21, 1984 L _ -. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

h i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AG2NCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of CilANGE-17," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be

!!eard on CHANGE-17," and "Af fidavit of Jesse T. Pugh, III on CilANGE-17" were served this 21st day of December, 1984, by de-posit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties listed on the attached Service List.

$ 1 A Mll, Deliss'a A. Ridgkay"T- Q

{

Dated: December 21, 1984 L-

t 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 )

Plar.t ) )

SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John D. Runkle, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Council of Washington, D.C. 20555 North Carolina 307 Granville Road Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Travis Payne, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Edelstein and Payne Post Office ix 12607 Dr. James H. Carpenter Raleigh, f .. Carolina 27605 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Richard D. Wilson Washington, D.C. 20555 729 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Janice E. Moore, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street f ice Exe ve Legal Director Durham, North Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section Carolina Power & Light Company Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 1551 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

.:. ,s

,. c,,

e 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. Fuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta= Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nucicar 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 l Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W. Perry,-Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740 Steven Rochlis, Esq.

Regional Counsel FEMA 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 '

p h

s.-k - -. . ,, .,, ,-,