ML20195B468

Memorandum & Order Granting Applicant 860214 Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention EP-2/EP-2(C) Re Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios.Served on 860527

ML20195B468
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/22/1986
From:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
CON-#286-293 84-499-01-0L, 84-499-1-L, OL, NUDOCS 8605290340
Download: ML20195B468 (6)

Text

9 bN 4

/ h. D 7# y j f,}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /g g $Bb" g!

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C t>

Before Administrative Judges:

- C Qxc @c 4 o$h s g CD Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Sl

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL)

) 50-425(0L)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et'~ al. )

) (ASLBP 84-499-01-OL)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) May 22, 1986

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of Tone Alert Radios))

Introduction and Background By Memorandum and Order dated April 4, 1986 (April 4 Order) the Board denied " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios)"

which had been filed on February 14, 1986. The Contention questioned whether NOAA wea!..ler radios were an adequate means of alerting persons within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of a radiological emergency at Plant ic,tle. On April 17, 1986 Applicants filed " Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios)" (Applicants' e605290340 860522 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G PDR 3302-

C 3

2 Motion). The Staff filed the "NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios)" (Staff Response) on May 2,1986, in which it supported Applicants' Motion. No response to Applicants' Motion was filed by Intervenor Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE), nor did Intervenors respond to Applicants' initial motion for sumary disposition.

Applicants' Motion was supported by the " Supplemental Affidavit of David N. Keast on Contention EP-2/EP-2(c)" (Keast Affidavit) dated April 16, 1986. The Staff Response was supported by the. " Affidavit of FEMA Emergency Management Program Specialist Cheryl L. Stovall in Support of Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios)" (Stovall Affidavit) dated April 22, 1986.

As initially proposed the then Joint Intervenors Contention EP-2 alleged generally:

Applicants fail to show that provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and the public as required by 10CFR50.47(b)(6).

More specifically, EP-2(c) asserted:

The plant provides for notification of the public in the Plume Exposure Pathway by use of tone alert radio receivers installed in each household in the EPZ. This provision ignores the fact that these devices are often shut off permanently by residents who become aggravated by its tendency to go off frequently without reason.

" Joint Intervenors' Revised Contention Relating to Emergency Response" (June 24, 2986), at 3. In our Memorandum and Order dated August 12,

3 3

1985 (August 12 Order), which admitted Contention EP-2/EP-2(c), the concern was expressed that residents in the EPZ might turn off their NOAA tone alert radios because they became annoyed by emergency storm watches and warnings being broadcast because of storms threatening areas within the broadcast range of the NOAA weather radio station at Bush Field but outside the Vogtle EPZ. Accordingly we admitted the Contention "for the purpose of litigating whether Applicants should be allowed to use the NOAA Weather Radio alerting system or required to utilize some other form of radio alerting system." August 12 Order, at

16. In our April 4 Order denying the motion for summary disposition we found that this issue remained unresolved because, while Applicants had shown that 93% of the storm watches and warnings Broadcast from the NOAA weather radio at Bush Field have occurred between 6:00 a.m. and midnight, the more relevant statistic would be the percentage of warnings that occurred between 6:00 p.m. and midnight. It was also opined that it might be expected that many residents of the rural areas in the EPZ would retire for the night in advance of midr .it, and consequently might be inclined to turn off their NOAA tone alert radios if the weather station at Bush Field wer2 broadcasting a series of storm watches or warnings for various locations within the broadcast area but not relevant to areas within the EPZ. April 4 Order, at 9-10.

Discussion In support of Applicants Motion requesting reconsideration, Affiant Keast has provided additional information which satisfies the concern

a 4

about the NOAA tone alert radios.1 The Affidavit provides a 24-hour, hour-by-hour breakdown of the Bush Field NOAA weather radio warnings based on data for the period January 1, 1980 through September 30, 1985 (69 months, or 5.75 years). Keast Affidavit, at 2-3. These data clearly show that storm watches and warnings were clustered between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Very few such warnings were broadcast between 10:00 p.m. and noon the following day. Id., at 3. Further, the fixed siren system being installed in the EPZ provides a second, redundant primary notification system. Id., at 4.

Affiant Stovall notes that the data provided by Affiant Keast indicate that between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., approximately 4 tone alert activations have occurred per year in the EPZ; she does not believe that this activation pattern would be likely to cause significant numbers of households to disable their NOAA tone alert radios. Affiant Stovall states, further, that the addition of the 60 dBC siren system should alert the majority of any EPZ residents who do not receive the NOAA signal, and in addition the Emergency Broadcast System, informal notification, and route alerting should alert those, EPZ 1

The Appeal Board has found that it is proper, on a motion for summary disposition where the Licensing Board has found that a party has not submitted necessary evidence, to allow that party to make a proper submission. See: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

74T,(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 N.R.C.

752(1977).

k 5

residents who are not alerted by either the NOAA radio or the fixed siren system. Stovall Affidavit, at 3.

Finally, we note that Affiant Keast stated (on April 16, 1986) that no other nuclear plant in the country has two primary public alert / notification systems. Keast Affidavit, at 4. Apparently unknown to Affiant Keast at the time he prepared his affidavit was the fact that a combination of tone alert radios and fixed siren system was being installed at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. Staff Response, n. 3 at

6. In that case, the Board, after hearing a thorough ventilation of the issue, found that the combination of siren and radio systems would comply with the requirement of " essentially 100%" alerting within 15 minutes in the first 5 miles of the Harris EPZ. Carolina Power & Light Co. Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, LBP-86-11, 23 NRC (Slip.Op.at 163, April 28, 1986).

Conclusion We find that Applicants and Staff / FEMA have established, without contradiction, that the activation pattern of NOAA weather radio storm 2

In our April 4 Order we questioned whether the installation of the siren system indicated a lack of confidence by Applicants in the NOAA tone alert system. In response, Applicants state that the redundant alert notification system was being installed to unequivocally lay the issue of public notification to rest and thereby minimize the risk of delay. Applicants Motion, n.5 at 7.

o 4

6 alerts at Bush Field is not likely to cause significant numbers of EPZ residents to disable their tone alert radios. Furthermore, those who might disable their radios should be alerted by the fixed sirens or one of the secondary alerting procedures. We conclude that Applicants and Staff have satisfactorily resolved the concerns set forth in this contention. There remain no genuine issues of fact left for litigation, and the Contention is rendered moot. Applicants are entitled to a decision as a matter of law.

ORDER Based upon all of the foregoing, it is this 22nd day of May 1986 ordered:

(1) That Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) (Use of NOAA Tone Alert Radios) is granted; (2) That Applicants' request for summary disposition of Contention EP-2/EP-2(c) is granted and the Contention is hereby dismissed.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Morton B. Marguli's,e CKAirman ADMINISTRATIV AW JUDGE w .uv ave A.'Linenberg , Jr.

AD INISTRATIVE JU Oz cw R hs Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland