ML20140F988

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Reopened Issues Concerning Eddleman Contention 57-C-3.Applicant Proposed Siren Sys Adequate to Awaken Sleeping People within 5 Mile Radius of Plant.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20140F988
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	03/26/1986
From:	Johari Moore, Rochlis S Federal Emergency Management Agency, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-609 OL, NUDOCS 8604010235
Download: ML20140F988 (31)

Text

y . . .

(,0 . ..

• "NNEYkB 1986 ,

USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _, _

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.WIISS?PF IM'131 f" 5 BEFORE THE A'"OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIMG BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGIIT )

COMPAFY AND NORTH CAROLINA .) Pocket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWFR )

AGENCY )

)

(Shenron liarris 1:uclear Power Plant) )

NRC STAFF / FEMA PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON RFOPENED ISSUES CONCERNING EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-3

l. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C . F. R . 5 2.754 of the Commission's regulations the NRC Str ff/ FEMA submit their nroposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning' the issues reopened by the Licensing Board relcting to Eddleman Contention 57-C-3.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 was originally admitted by the Licensing Board in its Order of June 14, 1994. "Further Rulings or

! Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Submitted by Intervenor Eddleman" et 14. Applicants filed e motion for summary disposition of the contention which was denied by the Board.

" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Eleven Summary Disposition Motions)"

c

! Februery 27, 1985. IIearings were held on the contention on November l

l 4-5, 1985. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed by Applicants , Intervenor Eddleman , the Attorney General of North ,

/ DESIGFTATED ORIGINAL ,

Cortified By j f . , , ,

m np;, -

i 2_ .J Carolinn and. the NRC Staff / FE:" A . " Applicants' Proposed Firidings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Eddleman 57-C-3 (Night-time Fotification)" (December 9, 1985); "Plells Eddleman's Proposed Findings and Conclusions on Contention 57-C-3 (Nighttime Alerting and

!?otification)" (December 16,1985); " Attorney General's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3

(!!ight-time Notification)" (December 16, 1985); "NRC Staff / FEMA Ptoposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Eddleman Contention 5 -C-3 (Nighttime Notification)" (December 23, 1985). Applicants filed reply findings. " Applicants' Ileply to Other Parties' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 (Night-time Notification)" (.'anuary G ,1986) .

.. On .!anuary 10, 10E4, the Board issued its " Memorandum and Order (Limited ; Reopening of the Racord on Fddleman Contention 57-C-3)"

[ hereinafter Memorandum and Order]. In its Order the Board set forth six issues on which it wished to he ar further testimony from the parties.

AlthEuch each item in the Order 'was directed to a specific party, the Doard made it clear that other parties could address any of the items if they wished to do so. f ?emorandum and Order at 8. liearings were held on the reopened issues on March 4-5, 1986. At the end of the hearings the Board ordered all parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tr. 10847.

III. FIFDINGS OF FACT A. Probability Of Awakening Of People In The 5-10 Mile Area Of The EPZ

3. The first issue raised by the Board for the purpose of this /

limited reopened hearing states, in pertinent part:

• "We ask the Applicant to carry out technical analyses; of the probable siren arousal frequencies in the 5-10 mile area of the FPZ, using both the Horonjeff et al.

data and the Krallmann data as the Board has doneT" Memorandum and Order at 8.

4. Applicants presented testimony on this issue. " Additional Testimony of David N. Keast on Eddleman 57-C-3 (Night-time Notification)" ff. Tr. 10471 [ Hereinafter Keast ) . No other party presented direct evidence on this issue.

5. Mr. Keast performed the Applicants' analysis of the capability of the Perris siren system to notify the people in the EPZ at night which was presented at the % earings on November 4-5, 1985. " Testimony of i

David M. Uedst, Alvin 11 . Joyner and Dennis S. Mileti on Eddleman 57-C-3 (Night-time Notification)" ff. Tr. 9375. As the Board noted in its Order of January if, 19a3, the portions of Applicants' analysis which

~

concerned actucl sound levels in the EPZ, informal notification, and mobile alerting were not to be considered again at the reopened hearing.

Mencrandum and Order at 1.

6. Mr. Keast determined the percentage of households which would be alerted directly by the sirens in the area from 5 miles from the plant i to the bourdary of the EPZ by first counting the houses with vario is siren sound exposures within five miles of the plant, and subtracting that number from Applicants' original household estimates to obtain the number of houses witi various exposures between five miles and the boundary of the EPZ. Keast , ff. Tr 10471 at 7 Applicants' count of the number of houses w!!hin the first five miles is higher than' that presented by the Board in its Order. This difference occurred because Applicants' count l was performed using h}gher legibility inaps than those provided in I t

a

- - . - - . - - - _ - . . . - - . _ . - , , , .n - , , , , . --p . - , , . , _ . _ . . , _ . , . ., , , _ - ,

D Applicents' Exhibit 46. In addition , there were some errors 2 made in plotting house locations on Applicants' Exhibit 46. Id. at 3-4, 9. In the interest of accuracy, Applicants provided a revised Exhibit 46 which was admitted into evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 46A. Tr.10471. Applicants' witness concludes that the difference in house counts does not significant!y affect the computations performed. by the Board in its order of January 16. Id. at 9. The Board agrees.

7. Applicants determined the total number of houses within the first five miles to be 589, and the number of houses outside five miles to bc 0,33F. 1: east, ff. Tr.10471 at Attachment C.

8. Applicants' witness then computed the awakening probabilities (fractiers awakened) for each of the 19 sire'n exposures. These probab!iities were computed separately using the Horonjeff and Krallmann sleep-awakening curves as requested by the Board. Keast ff. Tr.10471 at 7. The sum of the products of the number of houses with each sound exposure times the fraction awakened for that exposure results in the total number of households awakened. Id. at 7, Attachment D.

9. In making his calculations Applicants' witness considered eight classifications for houses. Keast ft . Tr. 10471 at Attachment D. The sound attenuation values to indoors for each house classification are subtracted from the outdoor anund levels to determine the indoor sound i

levels. Id. at 8. These levels are then compared to the appropriate indoor background noise levels. Applicants' witness notes that in some cases at the lower siren sound levels, the signal to noise difference of

~

10dB occurs. This affects the value for the integration over the peak of I

the siren sound. Id.

+

i

.s. -

10. Applicants' witness then added adjustments for -A-weighting and a time duration based upon 10 minutes of siren operation to obtain the SEL value. Applicants' witness next read the fractions awakened for one person at each SEL level from the Horonjeff and Krallmann curves on Figure 1 of the Board's January 16 order. Keast ff. Tr 10471 at 8.

Applicants' witness also computed the fractions for awakening one of teto people, one of three people and one of four people. Applicants weighted these ru ults by tbc U.S. census data on family sizes for the EPZ to determine awakening probabilities for the census family size mix. When multiplied by the corresponding fractions of homes in each of the eight classes of houses, the result is the fraction of houses awakened in each class assuming the census family size distribution. The sum of these eight fractions is the total fraction awakened, or the effective awakening probability for Ji given outdoor siren sound level, d. at 8-9,

11. As a result of these calculations Applicants' witness concluc'es that awakening percentages inside of five miles, outside of five miles, and for the entire EPZ are all within approximately 1% of each other when the same computational methods and assumptions are applied. Keast , ff. Tr.

10471 et 11.

I?. Applicants' witness estimated that using the Horonjeff data 75%

of the households between five miles from the plant and the boundary of the EPZ would be awakened directly by the sirens. Adding 3% to this estimate for people already awake at night, Applicants' witness concluded that 78% of the households would be directly alerted. Reast, ff. Tr 10471 at 5-6. Using the Kra11mann data from Figure 1 of the Board's order Applicants' witness estimated that 88% of the households in the area of

o

-c-

• five miles to the boundary of the EPZ would be awakened. Addf'ng 1% for those already awake Applicants' witness concluded that about 89% of the households would be directly alerted by the sirens. M. at 6. O

13. Applicants' witness pointed out that his calculation methods and assumptions lead to awakening percentages that are 8 to 10% higher than the Dorrd's percentages, even when the Board's sleep-awakening 1elationshipr, are applied. Keast, ff. Tr.10471 at 10. The largest single factor accounting for 6% to 7% of the difference is the difference in assumpt!ons about the number of alertable persons in a household. The Board's distribution is bcsed on Dr. Nehnevajsa's testimony which in turn is ba-d on national date for 1978, and which eliminates all persons under the age of 18 as potentially alertable. M. at 11. Applicants' witness used data on fen!!y size which were derived from the 1980 census for the EPZ. Applican'ts' witness points to Dr. Nehnevajsa's statement that the 1980 census data are the best estimates possible on the socio-demographic statistics for the EPZ. M. Applicants' witness considers these data more representative than national data for the development of a distribution of alertable persons in householda for the Shearon Harris EPZ. M.

14. Applicants' witness also believes that eliminating those household members ~under the age of from the alertable population is a i

very conservative assumption. Keast , ff. Tr. 10471 at 12. Applicants' I

, 1/ Using Dr. Mileti's calculational methodology for facilitated informal alerting, Applicants' witness calculated that about 92% of households

, would be alerted by direct and informal means using the Horonjeff sleep-awakening curve, and that about 97% of all households would

, be alerted by direct and informal means using the Krallman

sleep-awakening curve within ' 15 minutes of the sounding of the sirens Keast, ff. Tr.10471 at 6.

i

o witness believes that the av ahening even of young children would awaken their parents, or by their activity would lead to the awakening of their 1 parents who would , in turn hear and interpret the sirens. d.

Therefore , Applicants' witness believes that his distribution of a:ertable persons per household is more realistic than that employed by Dr.

Nehnevajsa and used by the Board. Id.

15. The. renr.ining difference between the Board's and Applicants' estimates is, according to Applicantr.' witness attributable to the greater detail he used in the breakdown of house conditions. Keast , ff. Tr.

10471 at 10.

If. During examination by the Board Dr. Karl D. Kryter, witness i

for FEMA, stnted it as his opinion that, purely from the standpoint of being aroused by the siren , he recommended the cut off point for alertable people at age 18. *his recommendation was based on his opinion that mest people under the age of 18 would be living with on the average two adults, and that , according to the sleep-awakening curves and the age ' function , the adults would be more easily awakened. Kryter' Tr.

10568-60.

17. Under Board examination both Applicants' witness and FEflA's witness concluded that the Krallmann data are the data which are the nest pertinent data to the issue before the Board . Kryter, Tr.

4 10551-10554; Kcast, Tr. 10554-10555. Dr. Kryter recommended that the Krallmann data between the hours of 0-1:15 A.M. be used because it is conservative. Kryter, Tr. 10552. Dr. Kryter concluded during BosN1 l r

~

examination that the use of the Krallmann data from 0-1:15 A.M. would result in a 20 percentage point difference for a given indoor SEL between i

l

. _g_

I l

the Erallmann dato and the cnalysis FEMA made of the Horonjeff test transmission line noise data in FET.lA's previous testimony. Kryter, Tr.

10553. Dr. Kryter further stated his belief that the Krallmann data are severel orders of magnitude more relevant both in terms of validity due to the stimull involved in the sleep response measure, the way the response l was measured, and in terms of reliability due to the number of subjects involved and the range of ages of the subjects. Kryter, Tr.

10550-10554.

lE. The Board finds that the percentage of households in the area from 5 miles to the bourdary of the EPZ which would be directly alerted by the !!arris, sirens as calculated by applicants is a reasonable estimate.

This estir. c would be lowered somewhat using FEPIA's assumption that the number of alertsble persons should be limited to those 18 years of age and older. Ilowever, the Board finds that even considering a iange of utirrates from approximately 81.5% as the Board calculated for the firr.t five miles , to approximateb- 88% for the remainder of the EPZ as calc 61ated by the Applicante (or 89% assuming some people are already awr.ke) , the Harris system is sufficient to satisfy 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendi:: E of the Commission's regulations with respect to those people living in the area from 5 miles from the Harris site to the boundary of the EPZ.

B. Review And Comparison Of The Krallmann and Horonieff Data

19. In the second issue in its Order of January 16, 1980, the Board requested that an NRC/ FEMA witness review the Krallmann report, and discuss the psychoacoustic reasons for the differences in arousal

/

probabilities as forecast in the FEMA testimony and those/ arousals reported by Dr. Krallmann. Memorandum and Order at 9.

20. In response to the Board's request , FEMA presented the testinony of Dr. Karl D. Kryter, an expert in Psychoacoustics who had forecast FEMA'S original arousal probabilities based on the data of Iloronjeff et al. " Testimony of Karl D. Kryter Concerning Memorandum and Order (Limited Reopening of the Record on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3)" ff. Tr. 10479 [ hereinafter, Kryterl . No other party presented any direct evidence on this item.

21 After comparing the IIoronjeff et al. and Krallmann data, Dr. Kryter concluded that the differences in arousal between the two studies arise primarily from several fa ctors . The two factors which account for most of the difference are, according to Dr. Kryter, saliency and habituatione. Kryter, ff. Tr.10479 at 15.

22. Saliency refers to the noticeability of a particular noise. Dr.

Kryter concludes that, according to conventional loudness data, the siren noise used by Krallmann and the test transmission line noise of Horonjeff should be equal in loudness because they are of an equal SEL, and both have significant amounts of unmashed energy -in the mid-to-high frequencies. K ryter , ff Tr. 104"9 at 8, 9. Yet , Dr. Kryter notes, there is approximately a 17 dB greater effective arousability for a given SEL uttributable to the Krallmann siren as shown in the curve depicting

the 0-1

15 A.M. period of the Krallmann study. M . at 8. Dr. Kryter i attributes this difference to saliency. Id. at 9. This means that the siren noi[e is more noticeable and hence more sleep arousing than the i

~

/

broadei spectrum test transmission line noise even when both rioises are equally loud. M.

23. From ~ experience Dr. Kryter has noted that the presence of some pure-tone frequency components in a broad-band noise caused the noise to be judged as being significantly more objectionable than loud.

Kryter, ff. Tr. 10479 at 9. The degree to which this was the case, according to Dr. Kryter, depended upon the tone-to-background noise ratio and the frequency of the tone. M. Dr. Kryter testified that a correction of up to 9 dB should be added to the dBA level of the siren signal in order to properly assers its judged noisiness as compared to thct of a broad band noise of the same dBA or PNDB level. Id. This correction, along with that for exposure-habituation makes the Krallmann data cno the Horonjeff data for test trantmission line noise consistent.

Id.

1

24. The next importent Psychoacoustic factor which, Dr. Kryter testified , explains the difference between the Horonjeff and Krallmann data is that of habituation. Kryter, ff. Tr.10470 at 11. According to Dr. - Kryter, the subjects in the Krallmann study participated in the experiment for up to four nights, while the subjects in the Horonjeff study participated in the experiment for twenty-one consecutive nights.

Id. It is Dr. Kryter's view that there is some habituation leading to reduced arousal, to noises according. to the number of nights involved.

Id. at Figure 4. Figure 4 demonstrates that if the Krallmann data represent the average arousability over two nights, the average of the first , second, third and fourth nights, that the Krallmann study continued for fourteen nights averaged to the seventh night, the ,

~y -

! arousability percentages would have dropped by about ten liercentage points. This drop would be equivalent to about an eight dD difference in SEL. d

_I_d. at 11. For comparison purposes it would be, according to Dr.

Kryter, appropriate to either adjust the lloronjeff data upward by 10 percentage points or the Krallmann data downward by 10 percentage points to allow for equal habituation to the experimental conditions. ,Id .

Powever, Dr. Kryter makes it clear that for purposes of estimating arousal from the sirens in the Shearon IIarris EPZ, it may be proper to use the Krallmann curve without this adjustment. Id. He bases his conclusion on his view that to a large extent, the people in the EPZ will not be habitgated to sleep arousal by the siren signal, although they would be more habituated -to the sleeping arrangements by being in their cwn beds. Id.

25. In light of his comparison, Dr. Kryter has recommended that, for purposes of estimating the arousal by the Farris sirenF , the sleep-awakening curve of Krallmann for the hours of 0-1:15 A .M. be used. Kryter, ff. Tr.10470 at 16. Dr. Kryter believes that use of this curve compensates , for comparison ' purposes with IIoronjeff, for differences in . sleeping arrangements. . Therefore , Dr. Kryter concludes 1

that the Krallmann and Horonjeff studies can be compared and reconciled on e psychoacoustic basis. Id. at 15.

C. Whether The Kryter approximation For Converting dBA To SEL Significantly Understates The Actual Acoustic Stimulus Of The Sirens Functioning

26. In its January 16, 1986 Order the Board noted that its review of the directionality chacteristics of the flodel FST 1000 sirens submitted

/

by Applicants at the Board's request, suggests th'at the Kryter approximation for converting dBA to SEL might significantly understate the actual acoustic stimulus of the functioning sirens. filemorandum and Order at 9.

27. Both the Applicants and FEfIA addressed this issue in their direct testimony. Keast ff. Tr.10471 at 13-19; Kryter ff. Tr.10479 at 18-?T. Neither the Attorney General of North Carolina nor Intervenor Eddleman presented any direct evidence on this issue.

26. Both Applicants' witness and FEMA's witness concluded that the possible conservatism achieved using the Kryter approximation for conversion of. peak dBA to SEL would be no more than 1 dB. Kryter, ff.

Tr.10479 at 20; Kcast, ff. Tr.10471. at 18-10. The Board agrees with their conclusion.

D. Cost And Feasibility Of A Tone Alert System t.'ithin The First Five Miles Of the EPZ -

, '! D . In its Order of January 16, 1986, the Board requested that the Applicants provide cost and feasibility informetion on a system which would supplement the siren system within the first five miles of the EPZ.

Alemorandum and. Order at 10-11. At that time Applicants had not proposed any system in addition to the sirens in that area. During a conference enll the Applicants informed the Board that they intend to supplement the siren system within a five mile radius of the plant with tone alert radios. Tr.10269. In light of that decision, at the hearing Applicantt moved for a declaratory ruling by the Board that testimony on telephone systems is irrelevant and ou' side the scope of this proceeding.

T Tr. 10443-10446. This motion was based on previous Commission I

e precedent which indicates that it is for an Applicant to propose the systems in the plant they wish to use, and for the Licensing Board to determine whether the proposal is sufficient to satisfy the Commission's regulations. Tr. 10443, 10445,

30. 'The Board considered Applicants' Motion and determined that the only supplemental system to be considered at the hearing was Applicants' proposed tone alert radio system. Tr. 10481 -104 83.

31. Applicants and Intervenor Eddlemen offered testimony on this issue. The Applicants presented the testimony of Mr. I!. Ralph Goodwin, Mr. Alvin H. Joyner, Mr. David N. Keast and Mr. Dewey B. Overman ,

II, on this nyatter. " Testimony of H. Ralph Goodwin, Alvin H. Joyner, David N. Keast and Eewey B. Overman II on Eddleman' Contention 57-C-3 (Nighttime Notification)" ff. Tr. 10723 [ hereinafter Goodwin et al . } .

Intervenor EddJeman offered the testimony of Mr. Jesse Riley. Eddleman Exhibit 75. The majority of Mr. Riley's testimony was st ricken.

I cwever, one paragraph was admitted without cross-examination.

Tr. '10708-10709.

3.' . Mr. Goodwin is employed by Applicant Carolina Power and Light Company as a Senior Specialist, Emergency Preparedness. - Goodwin et al.

ff. . Tr. 10723 at 2. In connection with this issue, Mr. Goodwin was responsible for coordinating the development of information concerning neans to supplement the public notification provided by the existing sirea system in the Harris EPZ, including the tone alert radio system proposed

-by Applicants. Id. Mr. Overman is employed by Carolina Power and Light Company ac a Principal Engineer-Telecommunications Engineering.

M. at 3. He is responsible for, among other things, reviewing vendor i

n .. _ .. -_ - .

I proposals for communications systems, preparing specifications, (planning, scheduling, and procuring the systems. M.

33. After conducting an evaluation of the possibility of distributing tone niert radios to all households within a 5-mile radius of the liarris plant, Applicants have concluded that such a system would be a practical means to providt. ;Imely notification to the targeted households, and that such a systen would provide excellent coverage in order to alert people in this area at night. Goodwin et al. ff. Tr.10,7?3 at 4-8.

34. The factors Applicants considered in their evaluation were: the ability of the systen to provide broad, rapid coverage, public reaction to the proposed f system, its technical feasibility , the time required for installing such a system, and its cost. Goodwin 'et al. ff. Tr.10723 at 4.

4 3F. In determining whether it would be possible to distribute tone alert radios within a 5-mile radius of Harris, Applicants found that the 4

area is within the primary coverage of two transmitters already maintained by the. National Weather Service (NWS) for use in transmitting routine weather forecasts and alert signals in the event of an emergency weather con dition. I d_. at 6. Applicants also found that there were receivers commercially available which were capable of receiving the NWS alert signals . M. Thc National Weather Service, which is an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides i

continuous weather forecasts from facilities at the Raleigh-Durham Airport which control transmitters in Durham and Fayett'eville , North Carolina.

I Goodwin et al. ff. Tr.10723 at d . The NWS has agreed to broadcast an alert signal from these transmitters which would activate the tone alert

m radios in the event of an emergency at Harris requiring public notification. I, d .

36. Applicants have performed tests and measurements to determine whether the signnis from these transmitters would be adequate to activate the tone of the radio. Goodwin et al. ff. Tr. 10723 at 15. They employed several of the receivers they have chosen to use for the program to determine through a receiver sensitivity test the minimum amount of signal which would be required to set off the alarm. Id. Field strength measurements were taken to determine the amount of radio signal present at a given location. These measurements were taken of signals frcm both , transmitters. Numerous locations considered to be representative of the propagation conditions in the 5-mile radius were selected for the taking of measurements. These measurements were taken during the day and at night between the hours of 1:00 A.P.I. and 6:00 A.?!. They were taken at low ground elevations where homes are located.

Measurements were also taken inside homes during the day. M. at 16.

These measurements were compared with the frequency strength, and it v e .<- found that the signal strength at every location exceeded .the level necesse. < set off the alarm by a considerable margin. Id.

37. The radio chosen for use by Applicants is the Realistic h'eatheradio Alert III Model No.12-140, manufactured for Radio Shack, a division of Tandy Corporation, or one with comparable features. Goodwin et al. ff. Tr. 10723 at 10. This receiver is capable of operating on house current or on a 9-volt battery as a backup. If power to the radio is interrupted it automatically switches to the battery and continues to operate. .Id. h' hen in an efort standby position, the receiver is capable

?

1

- I of automatically sounding an alarm tone and voice message upon teceipt of the radio signal from the NWS. Id. The receiver can operate on any of three frequencies which the NWS uses. Id. at 10-11. The alarm on the receiver operates at full volume regardless of the volume setting for the voice message. M. at 11. The receiver has an alert lock feature which causes the alarm to sound continuously until manually reset. There is a 1

test button on the receiver to allow the owner to check for proper operation of the alarm at any time. Id. Applicants have determined that the receiver they have chosen is available in sufficient quantities and within the time frame needed to implement the program. Id. at 6.

Applicent s' wi,iness estimated that the radios could be procured within abcut 30 days, thus allowing the implementation of the program before the Harris fuel load date. Id. at 8.

38 Applicants have testified that the use of a system relying on the NWS system would be advantageous , because the NWS system has already received wide public. seceptance. In addition, many individuals will 'already be familiar with the system in connection with weather alerts.

Goodwin et al. ff. Tr. 10723 at 9. The NWS system has been in use across the country for approximately a decade, and is a proven technology. M. Applicants' witness testified that as of 1983, forty-six million radio receivers had been sold since 1978, and that NWS continues to report high levels of public support. Id. at 10. Applicants expect this. system to be popular with Harris saea residents because of its utility on a routine basis in connection with the agricultural and recreational activities within the EPZ. M.

- 17

30. In evaluating the cost of such a program, Applicants determined that it would cost approximately $28,000 to purchase radio receivers for each household within a 5-mile radius of flarris and an adequate number ,

of spares. Although Applicants have not calculated the precise costs assceinted with the distribution of the radios and the development of a public information program to educate the residents, they estimate that

. the initial distribution would cost about $27,000, and the development of the public education program would cost about $25,000. Therefore, the establishment of the system ~would cost approximately $80,000. Goodwin et nl. ff. Tr.10723 at 7. This cost estimate does not include the costs of maintaining argt repairing the receivers, replacing them, and maintaining an ongoing public education program. Id. During the hearing Intervenor Eddleman had questions concerning Applicants' ability to insure operability of the receivers over time, and the speed with which problems with the radios would be detected. Applicants' witnesses first discussed the maintenance program CP&L intends to institute. All receivers will be tested before distribution to make sure they meet sensitivity specifications and that they are in good working order.

Goodwin et al. ff. Tr.10723 at 21. If upon receipt the receiver does not appear to work, the resident will be able to call the company. A company representative will talk with the resident to determine whether the radio is properly situated and adjusted. If it is determined that the radio is not working, it will be replaced promptly. Id. The receivers l will be tested at least annually. NWS will send a signal at a designated time, and residents will be asked to monitor their receivers. If they are inoperable, residents will be able to get them replaced or repaired by ,

I dialing a designated phone number. Id. et 20. Batteries will also be l

L mailed to residents annually with instructions on how to replace the old battery. Id. at 21. During the hearing Counsel for Applicant , in response to a comment by the Board committed to maintain a list of those persons whose radios are being repaired or replaced, and notify them by telephone in the event of an emergency. Hollar, Tr.10874.

40. Applicants' witness testified he did not believe problems with radios would go undetected for long periods of time for several reasons.

First, there is a red light de'ioting the radio is operating properly and awaiting the alert tone. Also, Applicants' witness noted the existence of the self-test , feature . A resident can also depress the weather bar to obtain a broadcast. Overman , Tr. 10875-76. ~In ad dition , NWS has twenty to twenty-five alerts per year during which it broadcasts an alert t6ne. Finally,: NWS sends out a test tone weekly between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and noon. Overman, Tr. 10876-10877.

41. Applicants also described in detail their proposal for distribution of the receivers and the public education program they intend to institute. Applicants will use maps to establish the five-mile area boundary. Lists of customers will be developed and verified by a field survey. Each account in the area will be given a code which will be entered into the Applicants' computer. The code will appear on meter reading documents which will enable readers to confirm that each residence in the 5-mile area has been identified. Goodwin et al. ff.

Tr.10723 at' 17. Electrical inspections and field engineering work required for the establishment of electrical service will allow the early identification of. new dwellings. Id. When a customer disconnects his

service the code will r.emain on the account record. When another customer applies for service, a message will appear on the computer and a receiver will be taade available to that customer. M. at 17-18. Records will be maintaine', to show the date of distribution of a receiver, the date of issuance of the last replacement battery and how many batteries have been used. Id.

42. Contact will be made with n responsible adult by a company representative trained to explain operation of the receiver, to suggest the

~ best locr. tion for it , and to answer questions about operation of the program. Goodwin et cl. ff. Tr.10723 at 18. Public information about operating location and maintenance instructions will also be in materials dhtributed to the residents. Id.

43. As an ongoing public information method, operational pamphlets will be distributed to residents annually. Goodrin et al. ff. Tr.10723 at

19. The safety Information Calendar and the Children's Drochure will be revised to contain information about the radios. The llarris newsletter distributed about the time of distribution of the radios will contain inforraation about the tone alert radio program, and the newsletter will periodically remind people of important information about the program.

- M. at 19-20. Before distribution there will be a release to the news media. M . at 20.

44. Applicants have provided estimates of the number of households with radios which would be alerted by those radios in the event of an emergency. Assuming that 50% of the bedrooms in the EPZ will contain two sleeping adults, Applicants have concluded that 92% of the sleeping households in which they are installed will be alerted by the radios.

l

This calculation was made using the Lukas sleep-awakeni:ng data.

Ccodwin et al. ff. Tr.10723 at 12. Thic n'.imber would increase to 99.5%

using the Erallmann data. M. at Attachment D.

45. Applicants' witness noted that FEMA had found through surveys at the Fort St. Vrain facility that a certain percentsge of the radios were inoperable or not being used properly. The first survey yielded a 33.8%

group of people not using their radios properly. A subsequent survey, presunably after the institution of an improved public education program, found only 13.6% of people not using the radios properly. Using these percentages and the Krallmann sleep-awakening curve, Applicants' witness concluded tha3 96.5 and 98.3% of the households would be alerted directly respectively. Keast, Tr.10725; Keast ff. Tr.10723 at 14.

46. The Board finds that Applicants have proposed an adequate supplemental s3 ts' em to achieve notification of essentially 100% of the f population within five mile of the Harris plant within 15 minutes.

47. The Board finds .th at Applicants have proposed an adequate metlfoc' of distribution and public education to ensure that residents are familiarized with the operation of the radio and the purposes of the program.

48. The Board finds the Applicants' commitment to keep a list of those with radios under repair and to notify them by telephone in the event of an emergency to be acceptable.

E. Applicants' Proposed Findings

~

49. On March 18, 1986, Applicants filed Proposed Findings of Fact on the issues which were the subject of the reopened hearing.

e

" Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of? Law on Reopened Ilcarings on Eddleman 57-C-3 (Night-time Notification)." The NRC Staff /FEf.lA has identified no findings on which further comment is necessary. With respect to Finding 24 f.n.11, the NRC Staff / FEMA has discussed its position concerning the number of altertable persons in paragraph 1G supra. ,

F. Attorney General's Propo_ sed Findings

50. On flarch 19, 1986, the. Attorney General of North Carolina (attorney General) filed proposed findings on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. "Attprney General's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or Fddleman Contention 5 7- C-3. " b The Attorney General's

. Proposed Findings should be rejected for the reasons set forth below.

51. Proposed Findings 1-13 are merely a repetition of the Proposed Findings filed by the Attornev General after the Hearings in November of 1985. These Proposed Findings are beyond the scope of this reopened Pearing. All of these findings relate to the determination of outdoor sound levels. This issue was the subject of the evidentiary hearings which took place on November 4-5, 1985. It was specifically excluded by ,

l the Board in its Order of January 16, 1986 reopening the hearings on l

Contention 57-C-3 for a limited purpose. Memorandum and Order at 1.

The Attorney General ignores the provisions of the Board's Order in his l

-2/ These proposed findings were not filed in accordance with the j Board's Order during the Hearing. First of all they were mailed on

March 19,1986 by regular mail to the Staff. It was explicitly stated I at the HearinF that the Proposed Findings were to be in the hands of the Staff by March 19, 1986. Tr. 10846-47. The Staff is unaware of any extension of time being granted to the Attorney General.

I I

Proposed Findings. Since these Pr.oposed Findings are identical to those previously filed by the Attorney General, we incorporate our response to those findings herein.

52. Prcposed Finding 14 refers to the reliability of informal notification. This again was an issue litigated during the November Hearings , and was specifically excluded from consideration in the reopened !! earings. Iliemorandum and Order at 1. There was extensive tertimony presented at the November liearings by recognized experts ccncerning; informal notification. The Attorney General ignores this testimony in Proposed Finding 14, and makes broad generalizations unsupported by any evidence of record in this proceeding. Therefore ,

~

this finding should br rejected.

53. Proposed Finding 15 clearly mischaracterizes the purpose of the hearings which took place on T.1 arch 4-5, 1986. In this finding the Attorney Ceneral would have the Board find that the testimony during the March 4-5 Hearings did not directly address Dr. Bassiouni's concerns, altho' ugh the hearing was held to do so. As is demonstrated by the Board's Order of January 16, 1986, the hearing was not, in fact, held to address Dr. Bassionni's concerns, but rather was held to address certain Board questions. These questions were adequately addressed by the party requested by the Board to do so, and the Attorney General has not challenged with record citations any of the testimony presented during that hearings. Therefore, this Finding should be rejected.

54. The Attorney General's Proposed Finding 17 is a statement of his opinion that immediate notification of persons is necessary at night.

This finding thould be rejected since it has no evidentiary support in the ,

I record. The regulations allow about 15 minutes for essential com'pletion of notification, without a distinction between daytime and nighttime , and make no reference to immediate notification. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Apperdix E $ IV.D.3. There is no evidence in the record of this reopened hearing of which the Staff is aware which supports the Attorney General's thesis that there will be delays at night not present in the drytime, thus requiring some stricter standard of notification .

Therefore, this finding should be rejected.

55. Proposed Finding 18 should also be rejected. Since the regulatiors require that initial notification of the residents within the EPZ be essentially < complete within about '15 minutes, the question of whether such notification is necessary or unnecessary to protect the health and safety of the public is irrelevant. If the Attorney General means this as some sort of fnterpretation of that regulation, the Proposed Finding's vagrueness precludes its adoption as such an interpretation. In addition, this proposed finding makes no mention of any of the issues which were the $ubject of the reopened hearing.

56. Proposed Finding 19 suggests that if tone alert radios were provided throughnut the EPZ, at least 1,000 more households would be likely to receive notification of an emergency. Once again, there are no citations to the record to support this calculation. However, even if the calculation were correct, it does not relate to the issue before the Board.

The issue is whether the Applicants' proposed system meets the Commission's regulations. The Attorney General has not established that the Applicants' system , as proposed, does not meet those regulations.

Therofore, this finding is not relevant to the issue before the Board and should be rejected.

57. Proposed Finding 20 is merely a general statement , without record citation, that the health and safety of the residents requires that Applicants extend their tone alert program to the entire EPZ. There is no evidence that such an extension would be required to satisfy the Commission's regulations or guidance and the Attorney General points to nonc. Therefore, this proposed finding should be rejected.

58. Proposed Finding 21 would have the Board require a public education program which is essentially identical to that already proposed by Applicants. The Attorney General chooses to ignore Applicants' testimony on this matter. This program would, according to the Attorney General, be applied to the entire EPZ. As discussed above, there is no evidence to support the distribution of tone alert radios throughout the entire EPZ. Ilence , there is no need for such an education program throughout the EPZ. There are teto provisions of the plan which differ from Applicants' . testimony. The first is that the Attorney General would require an " appropriate" educational program in , area schools . The contents of the program are not defined by the Attorney General.

Applicants in their program have testified that they will revise the childrens brochure to include information about the tone alert program.

Goodwin et al. ff. Tr 10723 at 19. There is no regulatory requirement j that a special educational program be provided at area schools for school children. See, Kansas Gas t. Electric Company, et al. 01olf Creek Generating Station , Unit 1) LDP-84-26, 20 FF.C 53, 69-70 (1984).

l l Therefore , this portion of the proposed finding should be rejected.

1 i

,m.s _

,.c. _. _ , _ . . ___m. m._ .,.,,r -._,.r, __ _ ..

59. Finally , in proposed Finding 21 the Attorney General w'ould require at least. annual testing of the radios and retesting if the percentage of operability fell below 87%. Applicants have testified that they will maintain the level of operability in their program above 66%.

Gocdwin, Tr. 10888. At that level of operability Applicants calculated that 96.59 of the population within five miles of the plant would be alerted by mechanical means. Keast, Tr. 10725. If the percentage of operability of the radios were increased from 66% to 87%, the percentage

, of hcusehcids which would be alerted would only increase to 98.3%. Id.

This amounts to an increase of only 1.8%. This small difference does not provide support for the imposition of the 87% standard of operability advocated by the Attorney General. For all of these reasons Finding 21

~

j should be rejected.

60. Finding 22 is almost identical to the Attorney General's previous findings . This finding lacks any citation to the record and any evidentiary support. In addition , the adequacy of the criteria in FEMA-43 is not at issue in this proceeding. The finding feils to make any reference to the actual nighttiac r.otification analyses performed by Appheants and FEMA and thus should be rejected.

C. Eddleman Proposed Findings

61. Intervenor Eddlemen also filed proposed findings on the issues which were the subject of the reopened hearing. " Wells Eddleman's f

/

. - :'6 - .-

Preposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention 57-C-3

( Alert / Notification) (Reopened)" (Plarch 19, 1986). U

62. The Staff first takes issue with Mr. E,ddleman's Proposed Findings 4 and 5. In these findings Mr. Eddleman argues that opntially 1009, of the population must be alerted within the entire EPZ within 15 minutes, that any deviation from this criterion outside of five miles from the plant would have to be justified.on the grounds of cost-effectiveness, and that Applicants have not conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the use of tone alert radios within either- the first five miles or within the E-10 mile area. These findings do not comply with the interpretation of the Commission's gegulations and guidance as set - forth by the Commission in Final Rule On Emergency Planning, CLI-80-40, 12' NRC 636, 647 (1980).

In that decision the Commission made it clear that it never assumed 100%

effectiveness of notification of the public. It also indicated that the gridance as developed by the NRC Staff and FEfiA contemplated a difference in the percentage of coverage by the notification system which must' be provided to the area within 5 miles of the plant, and from 5-10 miles from the plant. As the Commission noted , while the guidance provides for coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the plant within 15 minutes, there is no specific percentage provided for coverage within 15 minutes of the area from 5-10 miles of the plant.

Id. Thus, there is no basis for ?!r. Eddleman's statement that the

" essentially 100%" criterion applies throughout the entire EPZ. Mr.

3/ Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings we,re properly filed pursuant to an extension of time he requested and which was granted orally by the Board. ,,

w- -. . , . - ,. , - , . - - , , , -

- 2i -  :

Eddleman's argument that Applicants must justify any deviation from the

" essentially 100%" criterion on a cost-effectiveness basis is without merit.

The Commission indicated that the lack of any specific percentage of coverage within 15 minutes for the 5-10 mile area was deliberate, and done to allor: Applicants to design a cost-effective system. There are no regulatory requirements compelling Applicants to provide an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the alert and notification system they choose to instell. Rather , they must show that the system they chose meets the Commission's regulations as interpreted through its guidance. IIere Applicants have chosen a siren system. All that they are required to show is that the system meets the Commission's regulations as interpreted by Commission precedent and guidance. These rbgulations and guidance do not have a specific percentage requirement for coverage of the area from 5-10 miles:from the Plant.

63. It is difficult to understand why filr . Eddleman finds a cost-benefit analysis of the use of tone alert radios within the first or secohd five miles to be necessary. Applicants have made a proposal supported by estimates of the effectiveness of the proposed system in alniing the population. T.fr. Eddleman does not appear to challenge these estimates. The Applicants' system as proposed meets the regulations.

Thus, these proposed findings should be rejected.

64. Eddleman Proposed Finding 7 should be rejected as unsupported by the evidence. While Mr. Eddleman cites to Mr. Riley's statement that inoperability of tone alert radios would not be readily detected, he ignores Applicants' testimony concerning the numerous methods available to detect problems with the radios and Applicants' maintenance program.

I

Goodwin et al. ff. Tr. 10723 at 20-21; Overman, Tr. 10875-76.: In light of the evidence presented by Applicants, Eddleman Proposed Finding 7 should be rejected.

05. In Proposed Finding 8 Mr. Eddlemen appears to be arguing, despite his doubts about the operability of tone alerts, for the expansion of . Applicants' tone alert program to the 5-10 mile area of the EPZ.

Ilowever , he does not provide a reasoned analysis to support such an exparsion. Applicants have testified that using the Krallmann data, 88%

of the households from 5 miles to the boundary of the EPZ would be alerted by sirens alone. Keast , ff. Tr. 10471 at 6. In his proposed findings B'r. Eddleman does not challenge this estimate with any evidence.

IIe does not show that the system as proposed b'y Applicants would not meet the Cc.mmission's regulations. Therefore , even though he might perceive a better way of meeting those regulations, consideration of such an alternative is not requirer', nor is it relevant to the issue before the Board. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-188, 7 AEC 323, 339 (1974). Therefore, Mr.

Eddleman's proposed Finding 8 should be rejected.

66. Eddleman Proposed Finding 9 would have the Board question Applicants' witness's credibility, and the credibility of his estimates. IIe l argues that Applicants' highest estimates were not credible because of Dr.

Kryter's testimony that the German data were likely from a siren recorded outside of a building. This argument ignores the evidence of record.

Applicants' witness testified that whether the Krallmann sound spectrum were indEr or outdoor spectrum would not make a signif. cant difference in arousability. Keast , Tr. 10547. Mr. Eddleman does not challenge this e

i

I conclusion with any evidence of record in this proceeding. Mr.iEddleman also argues .that Mr. Keast's credibility should be questioned because of some errors he is alleged .to have made. The mere fact that a witness made an error on the stand , even if true, would not affect his credibility. Therefore, this proposed finding should be rejected.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

67. The Board concludes that the Applicants' proposed siren system is adequate to awaken sleeping people at night between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. and to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E Section IV.D with respect to those people living in ihe area from five miles from the Harris plant to the boundary of the Harris EPZ.

68. The Board concludes that the siren system as originally proposed or astsupplemented by the issuance of_ tone alert radios to all of the households within a five-mile radius of the Harris facility is adequate to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E Section IV.D and' Commission precedent in Final Rule on Emergency Planning.

CLI-F 0-4 0, 12 NRC 63G (1980), and to satisfy the guidance of NUREG-0654 / FEMA Rep. 1 Rev. I for notification of essentially 100% of the population within five miles of the plant within 15 minutes.

Respectfully Submitted:

bh I Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Steven M. Rochlis b M(Ek ObI /

Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency.

t Dated at Bethesda, Maryland ,

this 26th day of March,1986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

- In the Matter of )~

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )

COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )

AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )

l i

CERTIFICATE OF SEPVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF / FEMA PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REOPENED ISSUED CONCERNING EDDLEMAN CONTENTION / 57-C-3" in the abowcaptioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail first class, or (*)

through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, thic 26th day .of f.! arch,1986:

James L. KcIley, Chairman

• Richard D. Wilsen, M.D.

729 Hunter Street Administrative Jur*ge Atenic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 P!r. IGlenn O. Bright

• Travis Payne, Esq.

Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh , NC 27005 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James II. Carpenter

• Dr. Linda Little Administrative Judge Governor's Waste Management Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Albermaric Euilding U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 4

Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive Coordinator CHANGE Conservation Counsel of North Carolina

. P.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.

Raleigh, N.C 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 l

Steven Rochlis, Esq. H. Jor;ph Flynn, Esq'.

Regional Counsel Associate General Counsel FEMA Office of General Counsel 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. FEMA Atlanta, GA 30309 500 C Street, S.W. Rm 840 Washington, DC 20472 Ator,ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bradley W. Jones, Esq.

Board Panel

• Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St. , N.W. Suite 2900 Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Public Staff - NCUC John H. O'Neill, Jr. , Esq .

P.O. Box 991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27602 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 812 Yency Strpet Panel

• Durhe NC '27701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esq. H. A. Cole, Jr. , Esq.

Associate General Counsel Special Deputy Attorney General Carolina Powerla Light Company Antitrust Division P.O. Box 1551 Office of Attorney General Raleigh, NC 27602 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, NC 27601

[Janice l[ O [

E. Moore k ['II N b Counsel for NRC Staff I  :

-_ _ _