ML20155G757
| ML20155G757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155G762 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#286-036, CON-#286-36 OL, NUDOCS 8605070118 | |
| Download: ML20155G757 (7) | |
Text
, g3(J UNITF.D STATES OF AMERICA rmCI. EAR REGULATORY COM?!!SSION $
MY ~S bli:
~
4g DFFCRE TiiE A"'OP"r SAFETY AND LICENSid* BOARD
-4,
~ 'g Y'k'I In the Matter of
)
)
[C GEORGIA PCPTER CCMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 et M.
)
50-425
)
(OL)
(Vertle Electric Col.erating Plant,
)
I' nits 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAl:F RESPONSE TC APTLICANTS' P'OTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF SUM?tARY DISPOSITIO!? OF IFTERVENOR'S CON,'I EliTICF FP-2 /EP-2(C) (USE OF NOAA TO)'E ALERT RADIOS) 1.
Introduction On April 1",
198f, Applicants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Atomic Fafety and Licensing Board's April 4, 1986 " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on f.'otion for Summary Disposition of Intervener's Contention EF-2/TP-?(c) (l's.t. of NOAA Tone Alert Pedios))".
The Donrd in its April 4th Order denied " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-2/EP-?(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Padios" which v:rs filed or February 14, 1986.
The Board ruled that there were genuine issues of fact to be heard in connectiori with the centention in (;uestion.
Applicante, for the reasons discussed in their motion for reconsideraticn and based upon additional information supplied in the "Supplemer.tal A ffidavit of Da /id N.
Keest on Contention EP-2/EP-2(c)" which accompanied the motion, seeks reconsideration of the Foard's Order denying sumenry disporftion of Contention EP-2/EP-2(c).
8605070118 860502 q
Fcr the reascra r.et forth below and in the attached (supplemental)
A ffidavit of Cheryl L.
Stovall, an Emergency Management Program Specialist in the Tcderal Emergency Manegement Agency, (FEMA), the NRC staff (Steff) supports Applicants' motion for reconsideration.
11.
Discussion Dack tround A.
t Tl'e back ground events leading to the admission of Contention EP-2/EP-2(e) are set out at pages 2-3 of Applicants' motion.
Staff has reviewed Applicants' description of these events and, in order to avoid unnecessary repetition,
agreer with and adopts the " background" Atuternent set out in Applicants' motien.
P. Pnsis fer f tnff's Support of Applicants' Itotion for Reconsideration The Staff r.upperta Applicants' motion for reconsideration of the Decrd's April 14, 1986 Crder for the reasons set out in Applicants' motion arf in the attached (supplemental) Affidavit of Cheryl L. Stovall.
As noted by Applicants (notion at page 3), the issue presented by Contention TP-2/EP-2(c), RF P('rritted by the Doard, is the ure of the UCAA tere alcrt system versus "some other form of radio alerting system." Thus, the focus cf the contention is on the question of whether or not scre other type of tene alert radios might be prefernble to NOAA fone alert radies due to the use of the MOAA systen for weather emergencier.
In its August 12,19F5 "Menorandum and Order (Dulin[r on Joint Intervencrs' Proposed Contention cn Emergency Plannirg)" at page 12, the Board stated its concern as to the frequency of activation of the NOAA tone alert radios due to severe weather, and the possibility that
some members of the public might turn off their NOAA radios to avoid weather emergency broadcasts which were not applicable to their area.
The " Affidavit of David N.
Keast on Contention EP-2/EP-?(c)" ("Keast A ffidavit"), filed in support of Applicants' motion, attempted to address those concerns.
As Mr. Keast noted in supporting Applicants' motion for summary disposition, the automatic activation of the FOAA radios within the EPZ due to weather conditicns will be limited to those storm " watches" and
" warnings" directiv applicable to the four counties in the EPZ, as well as the Georgia counties of Screven and Jenkins.
Keast Affidavit, at i 7.
A detailed analysis of National Weather Service data was performed.
This analys!c indicated that NOAA weather radios within the EPZ would be activated approximately 25 times per year (on average) due to severe weather.
Keast Affidavit, at 5 8.
Mr. Keast observed that approximately 03% of the storm watches and warnings occur between 6:00 a.m.
and midnight. when any disruptive effect of a severe weather message not applict.ble to an individuel listener would be minimized.
Keast Affidavit, at S 0.
AF fttrther rioted by Applicants (motion at pages 4-5), in its April 4 Order, the Board acknowledged Mr. Keast's analyses and observations, but expressed the view that the percentage of storm watches and warnings between 6:00 p.m. and midnight "would be of greater relevance" due to the asserted pattern of convective storms.
The Board further stated that "[i]t would not he unusual for many residents of the four rural counties in the EPZ to retire for the night in advance of midnight
- April 4 Order, at 10.
Applicants have submitted with their
motion for reconsideration a " Supplemental Affidavit of David N. Keast on Contention EP-2 / EP-2 (c)"
("Keast Supplemental Affidavit").
This Affidavit, provides a 24-hour, hour-by-hour breakdown for the issuance of storm watches and warnings.
Keast Supplemental Affidavit, at 1 3.
Applicants assert that the supplemental information provided by Mr. Keast demonstrates that, even assuming an EPZ resident goes to bed as early as 9:00 p.m.
and arises at 6:00 a.m., a total of only approximately four tone alert activations would occur during his sleeping hours over an entire year.
Kcast Supplemental Affidavit, at f 3; Keast Affidavit,
a t 'I 9.
rhere is no indication, according to Mr. Keast, that the predicted automatic activation pattern for the NOAA weather radios in the Vogtle EPZ will be likely to cause any significant number of households to turn off their radios.
I* cast Affidavit, at f 9.
Mr. Kcast further emphasizes that there is no reason to believe that members of the public would be more likely to retain and use some other type of radio system.
Keast Affidavit, et M 9.
FEP'A is in accord with the information presented by Mr. Reast.
The FEMA Affiant previously acknowledged "that some people may disconnect the NOAA radios".
But, like Mr. Keast, the FEPTA Affiant stressed that there is no indication that this is more likely to occur with NOAA radios then with some other type of tone alert system.
See " Affidavit of FEMA Energency Management Program Specialist Cheryl L. Stovell In Support of Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (ilse of NOAA Tone Alert Radios)" ("Stovall A ffidavit"), at S 7.
Thus, there is no basis for the premise that NOAA
[
tene alert radios are more likely to be turned off than other types of tone l
i
a*ert radies.
Applicants argue at page 6 of their motion that because Contention EP-2 / EP-?(c) is limited to the use of the NOAA tone alert ryster versus ','some other form of radio alerting system," the absence of cy affirmative evidence to suggest that other types of tone alert radios arc more likely to be "on" than are NOAA radios points to summary disperition of Contention CP-2/EP-2(c) in Applicants' favor.
FElFA agrees.
See a*tached Ftovall Supplemental A ffidavit, at f 4.
In the Fta ff's view, the information originally provided by Applicant and now supplcnonted by the motion for reconsideration resolves in Applicants' favor il e issue admitted by the Board.
florecver, nr tbc Staff has previously noted, Contention FP-2/EP-2(h) dealing with residents turning off tcne alert radios has become immaterial with Apllicants' commitment to also provide for a 60 FPC siren system O
througliout the EP7.
Stovall Supplemental Affidavit, at 55 4 &
6.
'~hir fired riren system is not merely a back-up for the tone alert radios but a rer?undant primary notitiention which will also provide required notificetion to the public.
Keast Supplemental Affidavit, at ! 4; Stovall Suppler'ertal A ffidavit, at if 3 & 5; Stovall Affidavit, at i "; Feast Affidevit, at f 10.
FEMA has concluder' that the sircn syster and the NCAA tcne alert radios combine to meet the recuirements of the regulations.
Stovall Supplemental Affidavit, at f 5; Stovall initial 1_/
The Commission's emergency planning regulations require that "(G)
Provisions crist for prompt communications.
. to the public."
10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b).
Under Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to 10 C.F.E. Part 50, this notification system shall have a design objective "to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway TP7 within about 15 minutes".
Af fidavit, et f 8.
These FEMA conclusions constitute a " rebuttable presumption on questionn of adequacy and implementation cepsbility" of caergency plans.
10 C.F.R. I 50.47(s)(?).
Although the intervenors heve lcrown of the use of sirens, as well as tone alert radios since at least February 14, 1986, when Applicarts filed their motion to dismiss r
Contention EP-?(c), Intervencrs have not questioned that this augmented r.ctH1 cation system meets the requirements of the Commissien's
- /
regulations. 1 Thus summary disposition of the contention would be appropriete as there is no allegation, let alone eviderce, that the preechtly prepcsed public notifiention syster' does not fully meet the applicable rer;uirer>crts of the Comminsion's regulations. El J
t i
~2/
Absent findings of a significent basis to question the FEMA corelusion a Board would seem not to have authority to question the FET.iA conclusion.
See generally Louisiana Power
& Light Co.
(Waterford Steam Electric Station',OI11t 3), CL1-8 0-), 23 NRC 1, 7
(1980)
(providing that Boards may not er' bark on sua spente inquirics cbsent " specific facts indicating that there ls a serious, safety, environroental, or ccmtron defense and security matte r. ").
3/
In Carclina Power & Light Co.
(Shearon Harris Fuclear Plant,
LE P-P6-11, 23 'NRC (Slip op. at 164, April 28,1080.), the Board i
considered a combined tone rilert and stron systeri and concluded:
- Applicants' proposed use of tone alert radios in combination with the siren system and, with considera-tion of the effects of " informal alerting", should result in ar aggregate alerting level of 98.5%.
The Ecard i'
(FOOTFOTF COMTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) i
III. Conclusion For the reasons presented above, and in the attached supplemental Affidavit of Cheryl L.
Stovall, the Staff supports Applicants' April 17, 10F0 tretion fc1 reconsideration.
Respectfully subtr.itted, fle z" V
,, g n s
[}
Dernard Pl. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Deted at Pethesda, faaryltnd this 2nd day of May,1986 l
l l
j (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FPCP' PREVIOUS PACE) concludes that the independence and partial redundancy of the siren and radio systems demonstrate compliance with the requirement of " essentially 1001," alerting in 15 minutes in the first 5 miles of the Ilarrin EPZ.
_