ML20094A656
| ML20094A656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1984 |
| From: | Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094A658 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#484-947 OL, NUDOCS 8411060491 | |
| Download: ML20094A656 (22) | |
Text
'O t
m 79 p m C 7 X 3NDENCE
! C Q'. " E TED Nove'berm 2, 1984
- ei ' ~' -5 P ? T 3 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 )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN 57-C-3 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. $ 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Eddleman Contention 57-C-3, and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 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 Heard on Eddleman 57-C-3";
8411060491 041102 PDR ADOCK 05000400 BEo3
-c W1
- s-
- 5. " Applicants' Memorandum of Law'In Support of-Mo-tions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning ,
Contentions," (filed Octobur 8,-1984).
I .- . PROCEDURAL ~ BACKGROUND Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 was admitted as a contention
~
in this proceeding in the Board'c " Memorandum and Order (Further Rulings;on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Plan-
.ning Contentions Submitted by Intervenor Eddleman)" 'I (June 14, 1984), at 14. As admitted by the Board, Eddleman-57-C-3 contends:
The plan does not have provisions for notification at night, e.g.
in the hours between 1 am and 6 am when most people living near the plant would normally be-asleep. Nor does the plan assure
.~
that they would be timely awak-ened to take sheltering action,.
as e.g. on a summer night when many might have windows open or air conditioners on. The plan should-provide automatic phone-dialing equipment to trans-mit an emergency message to all households in the EPZ for Harris, asking people to alert their phoneless neighbors.1/
1/ The precise language of this contention is the subject of the " Joint Stipulation Codifying Certain Admitted Contentions," which accompanied the " Joint Motion For Approval of Stipulation Codifying Certain Admitted Con-tentions" (October 12, 1984), presently pending.before the Board.
4
_.a__-_,____ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ,
% e g
, Applicants'haveLaervedione set.of' interrogatories:and 're-t:r quest for production of. documents on Mr. Eddleman.on the sub-fject'of Eddleman 57-C-3. See " Applicants' Emergency Planning
. Interrogatories'and Request For Production of-Documents To In--
tervenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)"~(August'9, 1984),_at 7-10.
" Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' 8-09-84 Emergency Planning Interrogatories" was filed September 7, 1984. _Mr.
Eddleman has served two sets of interrogatories on the Appli-cants on the subject'of Eddleman 57-C-3. See " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants, et. a(. (Ninth Set)"
(June'29, 1984), at 9-10; and " Wells Eddleman's General Inter-rogatories to Applicants,_et. al. (Tenth Set)" (August 9, 1984), at 10-13. " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories-to Applicants (Ninth Set)" was filed July 25, 1984; " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's Gener--
al Interrogatories to Applicants (Tenth Set)" was filed September _7, 1984; and " Applicants' Supplemental Response to Eddleman Interrogatory No. 57-C-3-3(b)" was filed on September 20, 1984. Mr. Eddleman has served two sets of interrogatories on the NRC Staff and FEMA on the' subject of Eddleman 57-C-3.
- See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (Fourth Set)" (June 29, 1984) at 4-5; and " Wells Eddleman's In-terrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (Fifth Set)" (August 9, 1984), at 5-8. " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Pro-pounded by Intervenor Wells Eddleman" was filed on August 14, 1984, and " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by e
^ ,.
3 +
,; a LWells- Eddleman'! was . filed on September _-7, _1984.' -Th'e NRC
' ' Staff / FEMA'did not' file.any. discovery requests on the subject
~
of~Eddleman'57-C-3. 'The-Board-established deadline for filing-Ldiscovery'on the contention was August 9, 1984. Discovery on.
4 this contention is,1therefore,_ complete. Accordingly, the in-stant ' motion'. is -timely,;:and Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 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 Oct'ober 8, 1984,Lis fully applicable to this Motion and is in-corporated by reference herein.
B. Substantive Law The Commission's emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(5), require, in relevant part, that:
- means to provide early notification * *
- to'the populace within the plume exposure 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. 5 50.47, this standard is further addressed by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness In Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 1, i November 1980),
4 l
l
_4 b
_
- l-2
-NUREG-0654 Criterion 1E.6 provides, in' relevant part:
Each organization shalles-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 provide 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 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 re-ceived the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.
NUREG-0654, at 3-3. 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 quarantee that early notification can be provided for everyone.
with 100% assurance er that the system when tested under actual field conditions will meet the design objective in all cases.
NUREG-0654, at 3-1 (emphasis supplied).
~
NUREG-0654 establishes numerical design criteria for fixed siren systems, which are discussed in greater detail in t
ir' b s.
- FEMA-43, " Standard Guide For The Evaluation of Alert and Noti- '
fidation Systems For? Nuclear Power' Plants" -(September 1983).2/
These' guidance documents: provide-that an' applicant may -- at
' its. option,-- either.(a) design-its siren system adopting cer-
.tain population ^ density-dependent assumptions spe'cified in~the guidance documents regarding average daytime ambient sound lev-els, or (b) design'its system based on its actual measurements of average daytime ambient sound levels. See NUREG-0654, at 3-10 to 3-12; FEMA-43, at E-6 to E-8. ' FEMA-43 states unequivo-cally:
The NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 criteria, as quoted earlier, are satisfied when * *
- for those~ geographical. areas to be covered.by fixed sirens, either (a) the expected siren sound level generally exceeds 70 dBC where the population density exceeds 2,000 persons per square mile and 60 dBC in other in-habited areas, or (b) the expected siren sound level generally exceeds the aver-age measured daytime ambient sound levels by 10 dB.
FEMA-43, at E-7 to E-8.
The numerical critera specified in NUREG-0654 and FEMA-43 are based on the regulatory agencies' studies which established that "50 db(a) is a conservative estimate of the average" day-2/ As FEMA-43 recognizes, applicants are permitted to em-ploy any of a number of means to alert the public.
"The means of alert is at the option of the licensee."
FEMA-43, at E-3.
L
, 1 l
~. -i time' ambient in areas with" population below 2000. persons /per .
~
. square' mile." 'See NUREG-0654, at 3-10. The NRC/ FEMA' guidance
. contemplates that "10'db above average' daytime ambient back--
. ground.should be a target level for the design of an adequate siren system." See NUREG-0654, 'at' 3-8. .(The 50 db ambient plus the 10 db differential produces the 60 db criteria for areas of population -density under 2000 persons per . square mile.) As explained in NUREG-0654:
The 10 db dissonant differential is a con-servative use of~the 9Edb differential which is discussed in FEMA document CPG-1-17 [" Outdoor Warning Systems Guide" (March 1980)]. Research has shown that a person is capable of being alerted by such-
-a differential above or below the back-ground ambient.in the case of a predomi-nantly narrow band 300 to 800 Hz emitted by large sirens.
The 10 db' differential above daytime ambient is meant to provide a distin-guishable signal inside.of average residen-tial construction under average conditions.
Where special individual cases require a higher alerting signal [as, e.g., in cases of noisy indu.* rial operations (see NUREG-0654, at 3-8)), it should be provided by other means than a generally distributed acoustic signal.
NUREG-0654, at 3-9 (emphasis in the original). Thus, the nu-merical criteria established in NUREG-0654 and FEMA-43 reflect the regulatory agencies' consideration of sound attenuation in-side residential structures.
t_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w:
o I
1 1
7 Finally, "the siren system must.be enhanced by other alerting methods" onl'y "[w]here the estimated siren' sound level
?does not. generally l meet the:specified level based eithercon population density or-a 10 dB differential between the measured-
-average ambient; sound and estimated siren sound level."-
FEMA-43, at E-8.
'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.Eddleman. Contention 57-C-3-should be granted. The~ apparent thrust'of Mr. Eddleman's contention is tuat special iaessacua (abv.v and boycr.1 *he pi t., red A? ert and Notification System of fixed. sirens) must be-taken to provide for night-time notification of the general public within the plume EPZ; in particular, Eddleman 57-C-3 advocates the pro-curement and installation of " automatic phone-dialing equip-ment"-for notification of "all households in the EPZ." So framed, the contention is -- in effect -- a thinly-veiled'chal-lenge to the regulatory basis of the Commission's emergency planning regulations and guidance on public notification. As FEMA has pointed out to Mr. Eddleman:
Special provisions for noti-
-fication during normal sleeping hours * *
- are not s required under FEMA guidelines.
E . . _ - . . _ - _m._ ,_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - , - - _ - _ . _ _ . . _ _ - , _ .-- _ . -
r s
" FEMA Sta'ff Response To Interrogatories Propounded By Interve-nor Wells Eddleman" (September 7, 1984) (response to Interroga-tory 57-C-3-6(b)). Eddleman 57-C-3 is thus based on a faulty premise.
As discussed in Section II above, NUREG-0654 and FEMA-4'3
~
are the basic guidelines for the design of a prompt notifica-tion system for alerting the public within the EPZ. These guidelines address the various methods of alerting, such as outdoor warning sirens, tone alert radios, and automatic tele-phone dialers. See Bassiouni Affidavit, 13. 'As explained in footnote 1 above, the means of alert selected (from among the~
methods discussed in the guidance) is at the option of the licensee. Thus, provided that the means selected is imple-mented in a manner to meet cae rega.ato;f :g_t:rit, Mr.
Eddleman is not free to argue that another available method might be better. Moreover, federal guidance dces not requirn redundant notification systems for the geners.1 public (i.e.,
siren systems to alert the public when it is outdoors, combined with tone alert radios or automatic telephone dialers to alert ,
- the public when it is indoors). See Bassiouni Affidavit, 3.
Certainly, as FEMA has pointed out to Mr. Eddleman:
FEMA guidelines do not re-quire * *
- automatic phone-dialing equipment.
" FEMA Staff Response To Interrogatories Propounded By Interve-nor Wells Eddleman" (August 14, 1984) (response to General Interrogatory 1).
.g.
u -
1 ".
~
'1 74y ,. a; g.
i $
r '
m },:
%. .r, ,
y i.4 *1
, 5 Kf ',M g . ~i.- -
({
1 : The federal guidance does not specify criteria forLnight--
t- Ltime alerting. However,.it'does establish design criteria for aa; 4 E') ~ public alertisyst' ems bhsed' on population' density' and ambient x - ,
~
background noise -- specified as the average measured outdoor daytime (period between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) ambient sound lev-els. (one. reason.that' daytime' ambient is.specified rather than:
nighttime ambient is bebause the ambient' noise
- level during the daytime is substantiallyjhigher thpn the level-at nighttime).
As discussed in Sectio'n II above, the. federal guidance provides t -
that a-siren 1 system may be designed'so that the siren sound level either provides 60/70 dBC acoustic alert. coverage (de -
pending on the population density of the area)'or provides 10t dBC-above the average outdoor dapcime ambient' sound level. See generally Bassiouni Affidavit, 1 .4 . As noted in Section II, these numerical criteria reflect the regulatory agencies' con-sideration of sound attenuation ~inside residential structures.
Accord, Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N,.R.C. - (September 18, 1984), slip op. at 72 (1 29) ("We conclude that * *
- the reduced sound levels to people indoors were considered in est'ablishing.these FEMA ,
guidelines").
Applicants have selected a fixed siren system to serve as the primary means of public n6tification in the event of an emergency at the Harris plant.. Pugh Affidavit, 1 2. The siren s/ stem -design within the Harris EPZ consists af 62 high-power electromechanical sirens 1 rated 125 dBC at 100 feet),
'< k
'l W
D
7 I
strategically placed throughout'the EPZ'to provide optimal Bassiouni Affidavit, V 5.
alert coverage to inhabited areas.3/
l
{ CP&L contracted with Acous' tic Technology,'Inc. ("ATI").to ana-I lyze and evaluate this' siren system. Bassiouni Affidavit,'V 2.
Evaluation of the acoustic coverage of the siren warning system l, was accomplished using.a. computer model developed by ATI, 4/
i and field measurements of the ambient sound levels. The com-puter model analysis, performed in accordance with the specifi-cations of FEMA-43, demonstrates that the siren system has'been l
l designed to provide the required 60' and 70 dBC public alert l
coverage for most inhabited areas within the EPZ. Bassiouni I Affidavit, V 6. In accordance with the regulatory guidance, l Apex and Fuquay-Varina -- the only areas of the EPZ with more 3/. It is of.no moment that the siren system _s not yet fully installed. As the Appeal Board has pointed out:
l [I]nstallation and testing l of the siren system is pre-l cisely the type of matter t for which the Commission be-l lieves predictive findings can suffice at this stage.
l Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, l- -Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076, 1105 (1983).
l 4/ Dr. Bassiouni and his company (ATI) have provided similar technical services to many nuclear utilities. See Bassiouni Affidavit,.1 1, and attached statement of pro-fe ssional' qualifications . ATI's computer model has proven to be ext *.emely accurate through extensive field t sting.
See Bassiouni Affidavit, H 6 n. 1; Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C.
l (September 18, 1984), slip op. at 61 ( 6). See also Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam' Electric Sta-tion, Unit 3), LBP-82-100, 16 N.R.C. 1550, 1577 (S 24)
(1982).
l C_ __ . . _ _ . _ -
7 . _ . - . .--
l' +
- m. ~ '.
- ).
F. -
r
- . 7 2
f l thanL2,000. persons per square mile -- are' covered by 70 dBC f, fg contours.-l Pugh Affidavit, 117ln.' 1; Bassiouni Affidavit, 1 6 ~.
Ar ambient-background noisb survey was' conducted in accor-
-dance with FEMA-43 to document the average measured outdoor ambient s'ound level in areas ~ located outside the 60 dBC-con-tours, in order to asses's'the siren system's ability to meet
' '[
the 10 dB above ambient criterion in areas not covered by'60/70
~
dBC coverage. Each inhabited area not covered by a 60 dB sig-2 i nal was investigated individually.
~
Outdoor daytime: ambient sound levels were measured-in thecrange of 24.dB to.39 dB; the average was therefore conservatively established as'40 dB, and the 50.dBC acoustic coverage of the sirens was.compu'ted. This ana'ysis clearly demonstrates that the entire Harris EPZ is covered by a 50 dBC siren contour. Accordingly, all-areas out-side'the 60.dBC contours meet the 10 da above ambient criteri-on. Bassiouni Affidavit, 7. Thus, r.he proposed siren system complies with the NUREG-0654/ FEMA-43 guidelines and the appli-cable federal regulations for prompt notification of the gener-al public in an emergency. Bassiouni Affidavit, 1 8.
Summary-disposition of Eddleman 57-C-3 is warranted on the basis of the above-stated facts alone; for,-as discussed-in Section II above, the, siren system must be enhanced by other alerting.. methods'only'"[w]here the estimated siren sound level
-does not generally meet the-specified level based either on l -
population density or a 10 dB differential * * * ." FEMA-43, at E-8. .In.any' event,~ although not required, offsite emergency l
l I
i P
^
k- ._:
Y 4
s.. _
response off'icials'would provide additional public notification of an emergency at the Harris plant through an. extensive system of mobile-alerting. '(A similar mobile alerting system;was re-cently discussed, with approval, in Duke' Power Co. (Catawba Nu-
- clear Station',' Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37,.20 N.R.C.
(September 18, 1984),- slip op. at 64-65 ( 1 11-12)). Thus, in all four counties within the Harris EPZ, vehicles with flashing
' lights, sirens and/or public address systems will be immediate-ly dispatched upon the activation of the fixed sirens, toipro-vide additional public warning by driving predesignated routes 4
within the EPZ. Pugh Affidavit, .1 2 .
A thorough analysis has been performed to ensure that the entire EPZ will be covered by this mobile alerting system.
Zones within the EPZ have been subdivided into subcones within' which the road mileage has been measured. The roads have been assigned to specific county agencies, and the routes planned out. Estimates have been made of~the time.needed for notifica-4 tion, and all routes are being driven to confirm these esti-l mates. The estimates include the time needed for emergency personnel to reach their duty posts to begin the notification process, based upon actual experience. In addition, it has been determined that there are sufficient vehicles and person-nel to perform the mobile alerting in a timely manner. This conclusion applies.to both daytime and nighttime (1 a.m. to 6 a.m.) conditions. The times for-completion of route alerting would range from approximately 20 to 45 minutes, depending on
-- .A,' , wnw, , , , - - -
n - ,, -+ ,- . -
e the subzone.5/ Pugh Affidavit, S1 3-16. Of course, because the fixed siren system is the primary means of public notifica-tion within the plume EFZ, and because the fixed siren system fully meets the Commission's regulations, the mobile alerting system is not subject to the time limits that the Commission regulations and guidance impose on the primary notification system (here, the fixed siren system). See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL, " Memorandum and Order Ruling On Limerick Ecology Action's Petition For Reconsideration of Rulings On Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Conten-tions" (May 21, 1984), slip op. at 6 (" route alerting" not sub-ject to regulatory time limits where fixed siren system is pri-mary notification system). Indeed, as observed above, the very performance of mobile alerting is redundant and beyond the requirements of Commission regulations, under the circumstances presented here.
5/ Based on FEMA / Regional Assistance Committee ("RAC") com-ments from the May 15-16, 1984 plan review, resources for route alerting were reassessed and re-allocated (from what is reflected in the offsite plan), to provide the present realistic estimates of notification time. It is important to recognize that determining the " average speed" of a no-tification vehicle from data such as that presented here would be very misleading, since vehicle speed can vary dramatically over a given route. For example, vehicles notifying rural areas can travel at normal speeds for most of their routes, slowing and stopping only in inhabited areas. Thus, the " average speed" of a notification vehi-cle in a rural area would be much higher than the " average speed" of such a vehicle in a town (which would travel slowly along its entire route). As noted above, the times provided here are based on the knowledge of the local agencies, and are being confirmed by drivers timing the routes. Pugh Affidavit, S 3.
L_ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -
e.
In addition to'the predesignated personnel assigned'to perform mobile alerting, each of.the four counties has'identi -
-fied additional personnel'(with equipment) who would:be avail-able to augment the' designated' mobile alerting personnel, if necessary. 'Pugh Affidavit,'1~17. Further,,if public officials-determine that only a portion of the EPZ needs to be alerted by
, the fixed siren system and mobile alerting, the warning times
'could be reduced by concentrating the' identified mobile alerting resources in smaller. operational areas. Pugh Affida-
- vit, 1 18. .The flashing lights, sirens and/or PA systems of g mobile alerting vehicles passing by the homes of the EPZ resi-
~
. dents would alert most members of the public who might not have.
heard the fixed sirens. Pugh Affidavit, 19.
In addition to the two means.of direct (formal) notifica-tion discussed above (the fixed. siren system and mobile alerting), the general public can be expected to be notified of 1-an emergency through a wide variety of indirect means. See generally Mileti Affidavit, 1 2-8; Pugh Affidavit, 11 19-20.
The existence and efficacy of such means of indirect notifica-tion are recognized in Commission case law. See, e.g.,
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
, Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-46, 15 N.R.C. 1531, 1534-35 (1982); Duke Power-Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. (September 18, 1984),' slip op. at 1
64.(11.10,12), 72 (1 29). Historically, many people in emergencies have first learned of emergencies from other
g .. . . , . -
lp 7.-
N
, w . . . . .
p members:of'the public. 'Mileti' Affidavit, 13. ' Thus, in the:
~
- event of an emergency at.the HarrisJplant, those who receive-
-5ormal, direct"no't fication of an emerge'ncy at-Harris.would seek ~ confirmation of.the warning from.others who might or might not.as yet' have learned'of the: emergency. 'Mileti' Affidavit, v L 1' 5. -Similarly,1 in' emergencies,' neighbors, friends and family-
-- and even-total strangers -- check on one another and offer
. assistance id'it-is needed; Accordingly, people who have been
. awakened in the night and. received notification of an emergency ,
at Harris generally can be expected to notify neighbors whose.
- houses are still dark and where no one appears to be stirring.
, Mileti Affidavit, 1.6.
4 Finally, the high level of activity which-would.be associ-i-
ated with an' emergency at Harris would have a strong " ripple
} effect," generally alerting members of the public to seek'addi-i-
t tional information about the events taking place, even if1they
- had not been directly warned by either-the fixed sirens, the j . mobile alerting system, or another member of the public. .In 1
[ other words, the activities of other residents who have already 1,
received notification (turning on the lights in their homes, .,
~
perhaps preparing to evacuate, or even the stream of traffic
-driving out of the EPZ) would awaken (if necessary) and alert most members of=the public who may not yet have been warned, and cause them'to seek' additional information about what is
- going on (for-example, by. turning _on the TV or radio, or by talking to' neighbors). Mileti Affidavit, 1 7. See also Pugh Affidavit, t 19.
t t
m.
a -.- we p.- 7+ u li p q 9e+- q.' .,.m', --q i, e - w.-m+ m9 -+ y g4 ? .-en 94ees g. , .rp,+, 9t-e-9
. _ ~ .. .< .
v
' ,~
s- <
,1 Following the initial fixed siren and backup (mobile alerting), warnings,' law enforcement and other official vehicies would be'in the areaLto: ensure' complete evacuation or other
~
~
protective action,~and to provide security.
They will.be in- I structed,to' check premises'where no protective action activity'
~
is evident. Pugh Affidavit, 19. Thus, for example, emergen-cy workers would provide individual notification to anyone ob-
. served to "have windows open or air conditioners on" when shel-tering was recommended.
In summary, the fixed siren system serves as the primary public alerting system within the Harris EPZ, and is designed to immediately warn all areas within the EPZ. This system
-fully meets the Commission's regulatory criteria >for crergency public notification. Accordingly, Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 should be dismissed for this reason alone. 17 any event, each of the four counties within.the EPZ has in. place a comprehen-sive plan for mobile alerting to provide additional notifica-tion to the general public. In each county, fire, police, sheriff's department, and/or rescue personnel have been desig-nated~and have agreed to drive predetermined routes, in vehi-cles with flashing lights, sirens, and/or public address sys-tems to alert the EPZ residents. The direct means of
. notification (the fixed siren system and the mobile alerting system) -- combined with the public activity in response to no-tification -- would assure adequate notification of the general public within the EPZ.
-w s - .-
n-e
~
4 -
m io . '
-There:is~no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Harris fixed' siren system will not meet the Commission's requirements for alert ~and notification systems. Any. dissatisfaction =with the Commission's requirements which Mr. Eddleman may harbor is.
simply. insufficient to trigger an evidentiary-hearing. Accord-
- n ..
ingly, there is-no genuine issue as to any fact-material to-Eddleman 57-C-3. .
IV. CONCLUSION Bec.ause there is no genuine issue of material fact to be p heard on-the issue of Applicants' compliance with the'applica-
- ~
.ble regulatory guidance on emergency public notification,-
Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 57-C-3 i should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, AdhkL bL<kliV Th6mhs A. Bakter, 'P . CU G 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 J
Dale E. Hollar' Hill Carrow CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: November 2, 1984 e ;
, . . . ,, y - , -r., ~ ,--- - , , - - 4, -
s.
e UNITED STATES-OF-AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE TOMIC' 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 _)
Plant) ')
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-e I hereby certify that copies of~" Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 57-C-3," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As'To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Eddleman 57-C-3," " Affidavit of M. Reada Bassiouni'.on Eddleman-57-C-3,"'" Affidavit.of Jesse T. Pugh, III on Eddleman 57-C-3," and " Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti on Eddleman 57-C-3" were served this 2d day of Novemb'er, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class,. postage prepaid, upon the parties
' listed on the attached Service List.
~ YA+NA a djJ Deli'ssh A. Ridgsay~ ~ ,'
. Dated: November 2, 1984 e - - --n e < e - - 2 -v"-
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 )
Plant) )
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 2751 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety _and Licensing Board M. Travis Payne, . Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edelstein and Payne Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Office of Executive Legal Director Durham, North Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Occketing and Service Section Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 1551 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Pcst Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i
I l
r t.
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 Commiss,in Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. -20555 ;
1 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director ,
Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 )
Raleigh, . North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Ecx 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FE!*.A 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740
-