ML20154L321
| ML20154L321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1986 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154L325 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-354 OL, NUDOCS 8603110444 | |
| Download: ML20154L321 (5) | |
Text
March 6,1986 00LMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'98 Mio -7 p4 :32 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Fl 0F $hepriagy IING A LvfCf.
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-424
--et al.
)
50-425
)
(OL)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO " APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION EP-2/EP-2(c) (USE OF NOAA TONE ALERT RADIOS)"
I.
Introduction On' February 14, 1986, Applicants filed a ' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint. Intervenors' Contention EP-2 /EP-2 (c).
This contention involves the question of "* whether Applicants' should be allovicd to use the
[ National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
-Administration] NOAA Weather Radio alerting system or [be] required to utilize some other form of radio alerting system". O
" Memorandum and Order (Huling on Joint Intervenors' Proposed Contentions on Emergency Planning)" dated August 12, 1985.
For the reasons presented below and in the attached Affidavit of Cheryl L. Stovall, an Emergency Management Program Specialist in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the NRC Staff submits that Applicants' Motion should be granted.
1_/
The Contention, as originally proposed by Intervenors and as admitted by the Licensing Board, is set out at pp. 2-3 of Applicants' Motion.
p B603110444 e60306 PDR ADOCK 05000424
]
9 PDR
d,
II.
Legal Standards Governing Summary Disposition The
'st aff previously set forth the applicabic legal standards governing motions ~ for summary c.isposition in its July 26,1985 " Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10.3 (Cables in Multiconductor Configurations)" (at pp.
1-3).
In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, thet discussion is incorporated by reference
/
herein.
III.
Applicants' Motion A.
Background
The background events lending to the filing of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition are set forth at pp. 2-4 of Applicants' Motion. Staff has reviewed Applicants' description of these events and, in order to avoid unnecessary, repetition, agrees with and adopts the " background" statement set out in Applicants' Motion.
B.
Basis for Staff's Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition The Staff supports Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition for the reasons set out in the attached Affidavit of Cheryl L. Stovall, the FEMA Emergency Manegement Program Specialist charged with reviewing emergency response planning in Georgia.
Ms. Stovall's Affidavit sets forth the NUREG 0654 Planning Standards and evaluation criteria applicable to the contention in question.
Stovall Affidavit at I 3.
The standard for alerting systems requires that:
[Each organization shall establish administrative and physical
- means, and the time required for nctifying and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
(See Appendix 3).
It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate
that such means exists,
regardless of who implements this requirement.
It shall be the responsibility of the State and local governments to activate such a system.
The Stovall Affidavit, at I 4, also discusses the criteria for Tone Alert P. adios which is found in E.6.2.3 on page 13 of FEMA-REP-10.
Ms. Stovall's Affidavit, at 95 5 and 6, respectively, goes on to describe the Burke County Radiological Plan (prepared in January,1985) and the j
State of South Carolina Plan for Vogtle (prepared in January,1986). As noted by Ms. Stovall, the former plan does not include the additional siren systen ' identified in 5 10 of the David Keast Affidavit (I(cast Affidavit), which is attached to Applicants' Motion, while the latter plan does reference the siren system. M.
As further indicated by fis. Stovall, at I 7 of her Affidavit, she has reviewed the Kcast Affidavit which states as regards NOAA Tone ' Alert Radios in f 6 thereof, that " extensive operating experience with NOAA weather radios demonstrates that they do not go off frequently without reason."
Ms. Stovall states she has no reason to question this statement, although she also recognires that some people may disconnect the NOAA I
radios.
Id.
Ilowever, she has no information to indicate that a different tone alert radio system is more reliable than the NOAA tone alert radio proposed by Applicants. M.
More importantly in the context of whether or not Applicants' Motion should be granted, Ms. Stovall further notes that the Keast Affidavit in f 10 states that Georgia Power Company is installing a fixed siren system s
throughout the Vogtle Energency Planning Zone (EPZ).
M.
The Keast Affidavit indicates that the design of the siren system provides a minimum of 60 dBC coverage to all residents within the EPZ.
M.
As also noted
~
i
-e---
t----,v
.---e- - ~
,r
._,--s-ur--m--x-
--w-y.
,---m,,--,.-
--n e - m -w
,,,w--
--n--
,-------ev,-
- = -,w-
.4 -
by Ms. Stovall, provided the proposed siren system design meets the 60 dDC criteria, the siren system can be considered an additional primary I
notification system.
Id.
Thus, the Contention originally proposed by Intervenors, and as admitted by the Board, is now moot by virtue of Applicants' proposal to install a fixed siren system throughout the Vogtle EPZ.SI While a technical evaluation of the Applicants' proposed siren system a
has not been performed by FEMA, ILis. Stovall does state that she is I
unaware of any other nuclear power plant in the southeastern United States that has both tone alert radios and 60 dBC siren system coverage throughout the entire 10-mile EPZ.
M.
Additionally, the States of Georgh and South Carolina, parts of which are within the Vogtle EPZ, identify route alerting as a backup notification system.
Stovall Affidavit at I 8.
She also notes that informal notification (word of mouth) and EDS messages provide a means of notification which supplement the tone alert and siren systems.
Id.
On this basis the FEMA reviewer has concluded thet Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition should be granted.
IV.
Conclusion For the reasons presented above, and in the attached affidavit of Cheryl L.
Stovall, the Staff submits that the Joint Intervenors have
-2/
In the event Intervenors wish to challenge the adequacy of the propesal to install a fixed siren system throughout the Vogtle EPZ, they*must file specific proposed contentions with statements of beses within a reasonable time and address the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714(a)(1).
-Sce, Duke' Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), C11-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1045-47 (1983).
,c, raised no material' issue of fact as regards Contention EP-2/EP-2(c). 3_/
The Staff therefore submits that the Motion for Summary Disposition of this contention should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, A M Bernard M.
ordenick Coune..I for NRC Staff Dated at Dethesda, Maryland this O day of March,1986
-3/
Staff
- has reviewed " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Whicl'1 no Genuine issue Exists to be lleard [ete]" and as to paragraphs 1,
2, 4,
13, 14 and 15 agree with the statement in question.
As to paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 0, 10, 11, and 12, the Staff has no reason to disagree with the statement in question.