ML20205K558
| ML20205K558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1986 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#186-206 OL, NUDOCS 8602270534 | |
| Download: ML20205K558 (23) | |
Text
W+
)) ,
- e. 0-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOLMETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR NM FICL . ,
In the Matter of CHET ., ., j g CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN REPLY TO INTERVENORS' APPEAL FROM THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Alan D. Wasserman SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Counsel for Applicants Dated: February 24, 1986 r
8602270534 860224 PDR ADOCM 05000400 I Q PDR
[
3 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I. CCNC's Contentions 16, 17 and 18 Raise Issues Identical to Those Already Litigated in Conjunction With CCNC Contentions C.l(a) and C.l(b) During the Construction Permit Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. Litigation of CCNC Contentions 16, 17, and 18 Is Barred By the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. The Licensing Board Had Jurisdiction and Issued a Valid Judgment on the Merits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. The Issue Was Actually Litigated and Necessary to the Outcome, and CCNC was the_ Party that Raised and Litigated the Issue at the Construction Permit Proceeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Application of Collateral Estoppel is Proper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 I i
e TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)
CASES:
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 A.E.C. 203 (1974).................................... 10 Carolina Power & Light company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4),
LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C. 92 (1978)......;......... 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon' Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069 (1982)................... 5, 9 Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4),
ALAB-490, 8 N.R.C. 234 (1978)........................... 8 Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-85-ll, 21 N.R.C. 609 (1985)...................... 7, 8 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-76, 16 N.R.C. 1029 (1982)..................................... 11 Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-717, 17 N.R.C. 346 (1983).......................... 7 Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-673, 15 N.R.C. 688 (1982)................ 7 Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-378, 5 N.R.C. 557 (1977)..................................... 6 United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-82-23, 16 N.R.C. 412 (1982)................................... 10 i
o Page(s)
STATUTES:
Atomic Energy Act, 5 189, 42 U.S.C. 5 2239................... 8 REGULATIONS:
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b)......................................... 5 MISCELLANEOUS:
36 Fed. Reg. 23262 (December 7, 1971)........................ 8 37 Fed. Reg. 20344 (September 29, 1972)...................... 8
-lii-
Februnry 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 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) )
APPLICANTS' SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN REPLY TO INTERVENORS' APPEAL FROM THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS At the conclusion of oral argument in this proceeding held on February 5, 1986, the Appeal Board directed the parties to file a supplemental brief addressing the following question:
Are CCNC's Contentions 16, 17, and 18 barred from litigation in the Operating License proceeding by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or in accordance with the Commission's decision in A1 bama Power Company, CLI-74-12, 7 A.E.C. 203 (1974), are there any changed circumstances or public interest facters that preclude the operation of that doctrine in this instance?
Tr. 63.
For the reasons set forth below, CCNC's Contentions 16, 17, and 18 are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and should not be relitigated in this operating license pro-ceeding.
s
I. CCNC's Contentions 16, 17, and 18 Raise Issues Identical to Those Already Litigated in conjunction With CCNC Contentions C l(a) and C.l(b) During the Construction Permit Proceeding During the construction permit proceeding, CCNC introduced and litigated two contentions related to radiological moni-toring. Contention C.1(a) challenged, among other things, the adequacy of the Applicant's environmental monitoring and sur-veillance program regarding the number of monitoring sites and t?.e frequency of monitoring at the sites.1! Contention C.l(b) alleged that the proposed monitoring system was insufficient because it did not adequately give the " location, intensity, and flow of accidental radioactive emissions" into the atmo-sphere or into the water and provide " adequate warning" to residents outside of the plant site.2/
1/ Contention C.l(a) provided: The monitoring and surveil-lance program proposed by the Applicant is not adequate to assess fully the radiological consequences of the proposed plant and to take proper remedial action to protect the health and safety of the public. The surveillance program is deficient in that (1) there are too few monitoring sites; (2) the frequency of monitoring at these sites is too smalls (3) the preoperational monitoring will not have been conducted for a sufficient period of time to estab-lish and verify operational data; and (4) the monitoring proposed will not determine the concentrations and biolog-ical magnification of radioactivity of all affected plant and animal life in the food chain in the vicinity of the proposed plant.
2/ Contention C.1(b) provided: The proposed monitoring sys-tem is inadequate in that provisions are not made for con-tinuous and widespread monitoring sufficient to give the location, intensity, and flow of accidental radioactive emissions into the atmosphere or into the water system, and to provide for adequate warning plans to the residents affected outside the immediate area of the proposed plant site.
. s
~ , , . . :.a .
L ,
Hearings were held on these contentions in 1974, ar;d testimony was taken from wit;nbsses of fered by Applic nt and the AEC staff. Tr. 1020-1200 (0ct. 8-9, 1974).
Counsel for CCNC
- / r cross-examined Applicant's witness on Contention C.l(a), but offered no independent evidence. Tr . 10 3.3.-110 0 . CCNC pro-vided its own witnesses to testify concerning Contention -
C.l(b). Tr. 1149, 1280. It became apparent'during the course 7 of the hearing that CCNC was' seeking to test the ability of the ,
environmental surveillaned progrsm to promptly detect and to .
warn of increases in radiation due to abnormal occurrences. M CCNC's witness proposed a network of off-site monitors that would continuously monitor the environment and ins'tantaneously warn of increases in radiation. N
~
The Licensing Board issued 1ts, initial dec sibn on January 4, 1978. Carolina Power &' Light Coppany (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), LDP 78-4, 7 N.R.C. 92 (1978). With regard to CCNC Contention C.l(a), the 3f Although the scope of testimony was broad, counsel ques-tioned Applicant's witness several times specific 611y con-cerning frequency of sampling at the environmental sur-veillance program monitoring sites. Cf'.-Tr. 1047-48r 1053; 1059; 1065; 1075.
4/ For example, on cross-examination of Applicant's witnesi, counsel for CCNC repeatedly inquired as to the purpose of the environmental surveillance program if not to monitor and detect abnormal releases. Cl. Tr. 1052, 1065. Coun-sel also specifically asked why the monitors could not be connected with a " warning system". Tr. 1079.
Sj See Outline of Supplemental Testimony of Carlos G. Bell, following Tr. 1155.
~
I .
Licensing Board reviewed the evidence and testimony and found L that " Applicant's radiological surveillance program is adequate i o i
from the standpoint of the number of sampling locations and the ;
l l frequency of sampling." Id. at 123. The Board also found that ;
with regard to Contention c.1(b), "the Applicant's proposed i
monitoring systems will permit adequate warning of residents outside of the immediate area of the plant site, should the need for such warning arise". Id. at 127. The Board noted that the environmental surveillance program evaluated in connection i with Contention C.1(a) was "not intended to be an emergency l
monitoring system", id. at 125, but rather was intended to de- [
tect changes and evaluate "long-term trends of radionuclide concentrations in the environment around a nuclear facility",
id. at 122. This program is distinguished from the effluent :
radiation monitoring system (Contention c.1(b)) which is intended to warn of radiation hazards and malfunctions which could lead to health hazards or plant damage. Id. at 125. ,
Despite the findings of the Licensing Board at the con- !
l l struction permit stage, CCNC proposed three contentions for l litigation at the operating license hearing concerning Appli-1 cants' environmental monitoring and surveillance program. Con-tention 16 challenges the frequency of sampling at sample point f
26 (the spillway from the reservoir). Contention 17 challenges j t
the number of ground water monitoring wells and the frequency and type of proposed testing, and contention 18 challenges the !
I frequency of sampling at the Lillington Water Supply intako :
i F
i t
U
=.
i
~ .
(sampling point 40). Although the Contentions are addressed to particular sampling points, they raise the same issues which have already been addressed in the construction permit proceed-ing.
A simple reading of the contentions shows that CCNC is seeking to litigate various aspects of the environmental sur-veillance program (e.g., frequency of sampling, number of moni-toring points) from the standpoint of whether the program pro-vides adequate warnings of releases of radiation so that prompt corrective action can be taken. See e.g., Contentions 16 and 17 (tests are needed "so that corrective ueasures can be taken as soon as radiation levels are greater than background"); Con-tention 18 (" monthly composite sampling will not monitor the immediate presence of radioactive materials in the drinking water"). / This is precisely the same issue which was previ-ously litigated and resolved by the Licensing Board at the con-
. struction permit stage. As the Licensing Board concluded after 6/ 'The 5icensing Board, in rejecting CCNC Contentions 16, 17 and 18 in this proceeding, found that the contentions "in-accurately ascribe to the sample points in question, a function which those points are not intended to perform"
., and that the monitoring function of ensuring the safety of
, people near the sample points wou?d be performed by anoth-er system. LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C.'at 2082. Applicants continue to view this ruling by the Licensing Board as re-flecting a correct application of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b). The Licensing Board appropriately rejected contentions challenging the effluent monitoring system where CCNC clearly ignored, in advancing bases for its proposed Contentions 16, 17, and 18, the application
/information describing that system.
i t
the construction permit hearing, the environmental monitoring program was not intended to serve this type of function. These concerns instead pertain more to the adequacy of the Appli-cant's effluent radiation monitoring system, which was also litigated and found to be adequate in conjunction with CCNC Contention C.l(b). LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C. at 1224-27. To the ex-tent Contentions 16, 17, and 18 do relate to the proper func-tions of the environmental monitoring program, this issue was also previously litigated at the construction permit stage in conjunction with Contention C.l(a).1!
II. Litigation of CCNC Contentions 16, 17, and 18 Is Barred By the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion) prevents a party from litigating in a subsequent proceeding the same issue which it has already litigated (and lost) in an earlier proceeding.
See Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, 7/ The three sampling points at issue in Contentions 16, 17, and 18 were in the environmental surveillance program as litigated in the construction permit proceeding. Compare Excerpts from Table 2.8-1 from Tr. following 1020, attached as Exhibit 1, with Excerpts from Table 4.1 of Applicants' Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (August, 1984), attached as Exhibit 2. Some minor changes in sampling frequencies and techniques have been made to enhance the program since the issues were litigated, see Exhibits 1 and 2, but CCNC is not challenging the signifi-cance of these changes to the purposes of the program.
Rather they are challenging, for the second time, whether the program provides timely warning of increases in radia-tion of the sampled media -- a purpose for which the pro-gram was not intended.
l-
Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-378, 5 N.R.C. 557, 561 (1977).
Litigability of issues at the operating license stage of NRC proceedings "is determined with reference to conventional res judicata and collateral estoppel principles." Southern California Edison Company, (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Sta-tion, Units 2 and ?), ALAB-717, 17 N.R.C. 346, 353-54 (1983).
Pour elements must be present in order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply: (1) the prior tribunal must have jurisdiction to render the previous decision; (2) the issue must have been resolved as part of a valid judgment on the mer-its; (3) the issue must have been actually litigated and neces-sary to the outcome of the first action; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted must have been a party to the earlier litigation. Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-673, 15 N.R.C. 688, 694-96 (1982); commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-85-ll, 21 N.R.C. 609, 620 (1985). Since each of these ele-ments is present here, and since the same concerns raised in Contentions 16, 17, and 18 were already litigated in connection with CCNC Contentions C.l(a) and C.l(b) at the construction permit hearing, CCNC Contentions 16, 17, and 18 are barred by collateral estoppel.
A. The Licensing Board Had Jurisdiction and Issued a Valid Judgment on the Merits No serious question exists concerning the Licensing Board's jurisdiction over the construction permit proceeding.
Applicant filed its application for the construction permit for Shearon Harris on June 7, 1971. 36 Fed. Reg. 23262 (December 7, 1971). Notice of hearing on the construction per-mit application appeared at 37 Fed. Reg. 20344 (September 29, 1972). The hearings were held by the Licensing Board pursuant to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, and its initial deci-sion on CCNC's contentions was rendered pursuant to applicable NRC regulations. These facts demonstrate that jurisdiction was proper. See Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), supra, 21 N.R.C. at 614-615.
Similarly, there is no question that the Licensing Board's initial decision constituted a valid final judgment on the mer-its. The initial decision was appealed by CCNC to the Appeal Board, and the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board deci-sion in all relevant respects. Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4),
ALAB-490, 8 N.R.C. 234, 244 (1978). No further appeals were taken.
B. The Issue Was Actually Litigated and Necessary to the Outcome, and CCNC Was the Party that Raised and Litigated the Issue at the Construction Permit Proceeding CCNC filed a petiton to intervene in the construction per-mit proceeding and was admitted as intervenor. See LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C..at 95. Contentiens C.1(a) and C.l(b) were proposed for litigation by CCNC. Id. Hearings were held on these conten-tions on October 8 and 9, 1974, and all parties offered 4
evidence and testimony, and were permitted to cross-examine opposing witnesses concerning these contentions. Tr.
1022-1200. The Licensing Board was required to, and did, ren-der a decision on the merits of these issues pursuant to the Commission'a regulations and the Atomic Energy Act. It is thus indisputable that CCNC raised the environmental surveillance and monitoring issues at the construction permit stage and that these issues were actually litigated and necessary to the Li-censing Board's decision. It is also indisputable that CCNC is an intervenor in the instant operating license hearing and is seeking to again raise these issues. See Carolina Power _A Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069 (1982) (admitting CCNC as an intervenor in the operating license proceeding and denying CCNC proposed contentions 16, 17, and 18.)
8/
. C. Application of Collateral Estoppel is Proper Contentions 16, 17, and 18 seek to raise at the operating license stage the same issues already raised and litigated dur-ing the construction permit proceeding. All of the 8/ Applicants argued in their brief on appeal of LBP-82-119A that Contentions 16, 17, and 18 were properly rejected be-cause CCNC misunderstood the purpose of the monitoring program and thus had not advanced a meaningful deficiency in accordance with the requirements for contentions.
Applicants' Brief in Reply to Intervenors' Appeal from the Partial Initial Decision on Environmental Contentions (May 9, 1985) at 32-33.
requirements for collateral estoppel are present, and thus the doctrine should be applied.
Collateral estoppel, if otherwise appropriate, need not apply if there is a " particularized showing of such changed circumstances or public interest factors" so as to warrant relitigation of an issue. Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 A.E.C. 203, 204 (1974). See also United States Department of Energy, et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-82-23, 16 N.R.C.
412, 420 (1982)(res judicata need not be applied by an adminis-trative agency where there are overriding policy interests which favor relitigation). However, neither factor is present here.
CCNC's contentions do not concern, and are not directed towards any changed circumstances. Now, as in the construction permit stage, CCNC is trying to argue that the environmental surveillance system is inadequate for the purpose of immediate-ly detecting increases in radiation so that prompt remedial ac-tion can be taken. Now, as during the earlier proceeding, the objective of the program is still "the detection of changes and evaluation of long-term trends of radionuclide concentrations in the environment around the facility." LBP-78-4, 7 N.R.C. at 122. The program is still "not intended to be an emergency monitoring system". Id. at 125. No circumstances have changed in the interim which would alter the conclusions reached by the construction permit Licensing Board.
As illustrated in Exhibits 1 and 2, some details of Appli-cants' environmental program have changed since the construc-tion permit proceeding. Particularly, the frequency of certain tests conducted at the sampling points which are the subjects of Contentions 16, 17, and 18 have been changed, some tests being conducted more often, and other tests less often.E! The adequacy of these particular char.ges is not being challenged by CCNC. CCNC is not contending, for example, that a decrease in the frequency from a weekly basis to a quarterly basis of gross beta analysis of samples from t . e spillway (Sample Point 26) affects the ability of the monitor to detect long term changes in radiation levels in the environment. Instead, CCNC is still contending that sampling frequencies are inadequate for the purpose of detecting "the immediate presence" of radioactive materials. Contention 18. As discussed earlier, and as decid-ed by the Licensing Board at the construction permit stage, this was not, and is not, the function of the environmental surveillance program. In the absence of new information, col-lateral estoppel bars an intervenor from raising the same issues in the operating license proceeding that were raised in the construction permit stage of this proceeding. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-76, 16 N.R.C. 1029, 1044 (1982).
9/ The Lillington water supply monitoring point has been moved from the water supply intake to a U.S. Geological Survey gauging station a short distance downstream. See Exhibit 2. The point was moved so that electricity could be provided for the sampling apparatus. See Applicant's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, 5 4.1.12 (August, 1984).
Applicants are unaware of, and CCNC has not yet shown, the presence of any overriding questions of public interest which might warrant relitigation of the environmental surveillance program. Accordingly, collateral estoppel bars CCNC from relitigating the issues raised in Contentions 16, 17, and 18.
III. Conclusion Contentions 16, 17, and 18 raise the same issues that were previously litigated and adjudicated during the construction permit proceeding. Since all of the requirements of collateral estoppel are met, and since no questions of overriding public interest and no relevant changed circumstances are present, these Contentions are barred from relitigation.
Respectfully submitted, By: w- ,
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Alan D. Nasserman 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) 836-8161 Counsel for Applicants Dated: February 24, 1986 o
s
) . m TABLE 2.8-1 PkEOPERATIONAL RAD 1011CICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MDNITORING PROGRAM SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Sampling Fre(uency Sample Analysis Sample Type Samplina Point & Dvacription Air Samples (8) Plant exclusio.i area Weekly (1) Gross beta (Particulatt & boundary (NE, SE, NW, SW)
(2) Cross alpha oa one set per todine) 1-Fuquay-Varana quarter 1-Apes (3) Quarterly compoalte f or isotopic identification 1-R leigh 1-Sanford (28)- 5-Air mampling locations Quarterly l2 Air k.sJtation Tth 4-Plant eactustun area r adium M 8-1 to $ miis radtua 8-7 to !O mile radius h
r O'
Weekly (1) Cross beta "
F Surface Water (7) Main reservoir near tlie intake (2) Quarterly composite at each 2 1-Nin reservoir near plant discharge 7 1- N its reservoir location for tritium
' 1-Discharge f rom main reservoir (3) Quarterly composite at each M ea location for isotopic 1-Cape Fear River - Upstream identification 1-Cape Fear River - Downstream L1111ngton Water Supply Hunthly Same as surf ace water CruunJuster * (5) We!! at plant alte 14uquay-Varina Nnic ipal Supply 1-Ito!!y Spr ings Nnic ipal Supply 1-Private Well near tant shore ut Lake 2 1-Private Well in vicinity of Corinth Cross beta Botton Sediments (5) Nin reservoir near plant discharge Quarterly isotopic identification 1-Nin reservoir 1-Buckhorn Creek 1-Cape Fear River - Upstreasi (Not affected by plant effluents) 1-Cape Fear River - Downstream a .
k ,, c, . . . , .
7
.U 9
i TABLE 2.8-1 continued Sample Analysis Sataple Type Sampiing Point & Description Sampling Frequency 27 10 (4) Main reservoir near plant dis- Quarterly Cross beta Aquatic Vegetation isotcpic identification charge 1-Main reservoir 1-Cape Fear River - Upst ream 1-Cape Fear River - Downst ream 27 t L .h ( 3) Main reservoir near plant l- Quarterly Gross beta y discharge isotopic identification e I-Main reservoir 1-Cape Fear River Sr-89 & 90 (3) Dairy 2 miles north Monthly Gross beta less K-40 Milk I-131, Sr-89, Sr-90 1-Dairy 2 miles east
- l-Dairy 7 miles south Local tuod crops 2 times during Cross beta l10 Faod Crops (2) - Isotopic identification (i.eaty vegetables) growing season 1.ocally grown meat Annually if a Cross beta 77 Meat Products (!) -
source can be isotopic identification located Sr-89 & 90 1.ocal tobacco l' arm 3 times during Cross beta g Tobacco (1) - isotopic identification
- gr wing season Sr-89 & 90 p
m o
n y Note: Isotopic identification is 27
- by Gamma Spectrometry.
o e
j TABLE 4.1 (continued)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MDNITORING PROGRAM Sample Exposure Pathway Point Sample Point, Description Sampilng and Analysis and/or Sample ID No. Distance, and Direction Collection Frequency Frequency Analysis 48 SR f 1142. 1.5 mi. fran Continuous measurement Quarterly Gamma Dose intersection of SR # 1141. with an integrated N. sector, 4.5 mi. from readout at least -
. m site. Once per quarter. s-49 0.4 mi. S on SR # 1127 from Continuous measurement Quarterly e-Gamma Dose US 1 intersection. NE sec- with an integrated #
tor, 2.6 mi. from site. readout at least "
once per quarter.
50 SR # 1127 W. from inter- Continuous measurement Quarterly Gasuna Dose section SR # 1115 and 1130. with an integrated
~
ESE sector, 2.8 mi. fran readout at least site. Once per quarter.
53 SR # 1972 N frun inter- Continuous measurement Quarterly Gaauna Dose section of SR # 1910 and with an integrated SR # 1972. HW sector, 5.5 readout at least miles from site. Once per quarter
- 3. Waterborne
- a. Sur face 26 Spillway on liain Res. Composite sample 5 Honthly ' Gross Beta Water S. sector, 4.6 mi. from collected over a Monthly Gamma Isotopic 4 site. period of < 31 days. Quarterly Tritium 3 11 Cape fear Steani Electric Composite sample 5 Honthly Gross Beta Plant intake Stru collected over a Monthly Gamma Isotopic 4 (Controlstation)gture period of < 31 days. Quarterly Tritium I Wu .iatur, 6.1 mi, from 1 I s-t 4-10 f
s 6 TABLE 4.1 (continued)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Sample Exposure Pathway Point Sample Point, Description Sampling and Analysis cad /or Sample 10 No. Distance, and Direction Collection Frequency Frequency Analysis 40 US Geological Survey gauging Composite sample 5 Monthly I-131 station. Lillington, at collected over a Monthly Gamma Isotopic4 intersection of NC 210 and period of < 31 days. Quarterly Tritium the Cape fear River. SSE sector ~ 17 mi froin site.
- b. Groundwater 39 On site deep well Grab sample Quarterly Gaamia Isotopic 4 in the proximity of quarterly Quarterly Tritium the diabase dikes. SSW sector 0.7 al. of site.
- c. Drinking 38 Cape fear Steam Composite sample 5 1-131 On 1-131 Electric Plant Intake over two-week period each compo-Structurg(Control if I-131 analysis is sitewheg Station) . WSW sector, performed, monthly the dose 6.1 mi. from site. composite otherwise calculated for the consumption of the water >
15 greater than 1 arem per yr.
Monthly Gross Beta Monthly Gamma Isotopic 4 Quarterly Tritium I.
40 US Geological Survey gauging See Sample Point 38 See Sample See Sample i ststion. Lillington, at Point 38 Point 38 t intersection of NC 210 and the i spe Icar R ver. I
..,i.,e 1 / .n i f inn sitc 4-Ia l
m M
February 24, 1986 00CMETED USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16 REB 26 R2:45 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFILE 0; s i 00CMEi m c. 6 siu' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARbRANCH 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) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Second Sup-plemental Brief In Reply To Intervenors' Appeal From The Par-tial Initial Decision On Environmental Contentions" were served this 24th day of February, 1986, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
Alan D. Wasserm'an
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TER ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l
In the Matter of ) I
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTE CAROLINA EASTERN )
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Earris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
SERVICE LIST
~
.- Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Charles A. Barth, Esquire Chairman Janice E. Moore, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of Executive Legal Directo Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel F. Road, President CRANGE Mr. Howard A. Wilber P.O. Box 2151 Atomic Safety and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 22 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John D. Runkle, Esquire Conservation Council of James L. Kelley, Esquire North Carolina A om Chapel Hill, North Carol. s ;'S'4 Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 M. Travis Payne, Esquire Edelstein and Payne Hr. Glenn O. Bright P.O. Box 12607 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Raleigh, North Carolina .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard D. Wilson 729 Hunter Street Dr. James R. Carpenter Apex, North Carolina 2'* .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
e Mr. Wells Eddleman 806 Parker Street Durham, NC 27701 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1551 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 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 H. A. Cole, Jr., Esquire Special Deputy Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 1