ML20104A212

Affidavit of DD Hulbert Re Emergency Plan Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone of 10 Miles.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20104A212
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/30/1985
From:	Hulbert D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20104A159	List: ML20104A158 ML20104A193 ML20104A212
References
OL, NUDOCS 8502010163
Download: ML20104A212 (7)

Text

P '

L.

i 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL D. HULBERT ON CONTENTION I

-County of Lake )

) ss State of Ohio )

Daniel D. Hulbert, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. 'I am presently Emergency Planning Coordinator, Perry Plant Technical-Department, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

-Company. My business address is 10 Center Road, Perry, Ohio 44081. In my position, I am responsible for developing, maintaining, and evaluating the Perry Nuclear Power Plant

. (PNPP) Emergency Plan, including coordinating emergency preparedness among various PNPP departments and developing emergency planning documents and specification of response requirements. .These responsibilities include the plans and instructions governing protective action recommendations such as off-site evacuation. A current statement of my professional i l' k AhOb4 PDh

[ 0-

'I 4-and technical qualifications is attached hereto. I have i personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and believe f

them to be true and correct. I make this affidavit in support of . Applicants'- Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention I.

2. Contention I is based on Sunflower's claim that Applicants' emergency plan does not contemplate evacuation beyond five miles of the plant. Sunflower also argues that "the-State of Ohio and the three affected counties evidently-have adopted these fallacious fundamentals lock, stock, and syndrome ...." Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No. 1, dated August 26, 1984, at 16.

3. The PNPP Emergency Plan has consistently had a plume exposure pathway EPZ of about ten miles, as called for by 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(2). See PNPP Emergency Plan, Rev. 3 at S 2.3 and Figure 2-4. All off-site plans have adopted the same EPZ.

Ashtabula Plan, App. 5; Geauga Plan, App. 2; Lake Plan, S 2, Figure 2-1; State Plan, Figures II-J-2 to -4, II-J-17.

4. Without any revision to the 10 mile planning basis in the PNPP Emergency Plan, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company in a letter dated March 10, 1982, suggested to the NRC that the NRC consider reevaluating the size of the 10 mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. The NRC responded by letter dated April 13, 1982 that it believed that it.was " premature to rethink the size of the emergency planning zone." Sunflower's claim that CEI is trying to unilaterally A: ,

4 2

-change'the: concept of.a 10 mile plume exposure pathway EPZ, Shnflower: August ~26,1984 Objections,.p. 15, is simply wrong.

5 . _- . Contrary to-Sunflower's claim, the PNPP Emergency

- Plan'does contemplate protective actions beyond five miles.

The~ primary process for determining protective action recommendations,. including recommendations for evacuation, is describe'd~in~5 6.4.2 of the PNPP1 Emergency Plan, as further

/'

detailed in. Emergency Plan Implementing Instructions.

Projected doses are calculated based upon radiological release rate information and meteorologicalEconditions. The projected doses are then compared-to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Protective Action Guideline values (" PAG's") to determineLthe appropriate protective action recommendations.

- Since'these. recommendations are. determined from dose calculations,1and.the Protective Action Guidelines recommend

- evacuation when projected doses exceed guideline values, the

' methodology of 5 6.4.2 obviously does not limit evacuation recommendations to 5 miles..

!6. Sunflower's contention is based on an' alternate procedure for. recommending protective actions described in 5 6.4.3 of the PNPP Emergency Plan. This procedure is. based on an assessment of' potential' releases based primarily on the Primary Containment Radiation-Monitoring system, with

< additional verification provided by. core and containment status

- 1ndications.

~

These readings are compared with curves shown on Figure 4-1 ofLthe PNPP Emergency Plan. Although the specific

.h.__.__-_m _.___._._____._________________m__.___m_,______.m _-_________m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

'l s

protective action recommendations associated with the Figure 4-1 curves extend only to 5 miles (PNPP Emergency Plan, p.

6-11), the Plan explicitly states at that same page that

" assessment activities will continue to determine'if additional protective actions p should be recommended."

V

~Alsolon the-same page, the Emergency Plan states

" Recommended protective actions may be extended depending on meteorological-conditions, population distribution, id condition of roads and major traffic ys."

In addition, all three County plans have been developed to implement protective actions throughout the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ, not just five miles. Ashtabula Plan, 5 J.2; Geauga Plan, 5 J-2; Lake County Plan, 5 J-04.

7. To avoid any possible confusion, Applicants have stated that Section 6.4.3 of the PNPP Emergency Plan will be amended in Revision 4 to add the following:

Additional Protective Action racommendations will be made for the entire EPZ as indicated by assessments performed in accordance with the [ Emergency Plan r

Implementing L Instructions]. Possible i protective action recommendations made by PNPP may range from no action necessary, to the evacuation of the entire 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone. Recommended protective actions may be extended or modified depending on population distribution, meteorological conditions, and conditions.of roads and major traffic ways, following discussions with County and State officials.

See letter from Murray Edelman, Vice President-Nuclear Group, CEI, to B.J. Youngblood, Division of Licensing, NRC, dated 1

January 16, 1985-(emphasis added).

L ---

-~

8. Sunflower incorrectly stated that its concern was shared by the NRC Staff as indicated by a January 11, 1984 letter to Applicants. Sunflower Alliance's Particularized Objections to Proposed Emergency Plans in Support of Issue No.

1,- dated August 26, 1984, at page 14. None of the comments of the Staff in its January 11, 1984 letter had anything to do with the 5 mile evacuation issue raised by Contention I.

9. In summary, Applicants' emergency plan, as well as the emergency plans of Lake, Ashtabula and Geauga Counties and the State of Ohio contemplate evacuation beyond a 5 mile radius of the Perry plant, bJ '

DANIEL D. HULBERT Subscribed to before and sworn14day me this of hiv44V , 1985.

M V .

[ otgry Publia/ (/

f JO$tPN C. $ZW!iXCW$KI

• Neterr PMe. state or es, em g My Commission Expires: vf esmm.asse ha.res my a, im

p, .

L9'  ;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.In the Matter of )

I.

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440

' ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441

)

'(Perry' Nuclear Power Plant, )

-Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby' certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Contention I," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts.As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Contention I" and " Affidavit of Daniel D. Hulbert on .

Contention I," were served this 30th day of January, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties listed on the attached Service List. #

4 '/ r .. v1/

Jay 5 .Alberg /

Datedt. January 30, 1985

../

w.

e I.

• I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ]

In the Matter of ) ',

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 .

L ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST 4

James P. Gleason, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Appeal Board Panel Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr.-Glenn O. Bright Colleen-P. Woodhead, Esquire

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of'the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Terry Lodge, Esquire Appeal Board Suite 105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appeal Board Lake County Administration U.S. Nuclear Re'gulatory Commission Center

' Washington, D.C. 20555 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety.and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board .

Board Panel U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Ms. Sue Hiatt Prosecuting Attorney 8275 Munson Avenue Ashtabula County Courthouse Mentor, Ohio 44060 Jefferson, Ohio 44047