ML20198H498
| ML20198H498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1986 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198H504 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-894 OL, NUDOCS 8601310045 | |
| Download: ML20198H498 (6) | |
Text
e %YS
~
.l j
,s January 28, 198'6
'W
(./
i hD N30igpga.!3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
a,,,
p j
- I g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARb / 4.y. j In the Matter of
)
l
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (LIMITED REOPENING OF THE RECORD ON EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-3)
On January 16, 1986, the Board sua sponte issued a " Memo-1 randum and Order (Limited Reopening of the Record on Eddleman contention 57-C-3)" (hereafter " Memorandum and Order").
The Board stated that its concerns generally focus on the number of people who would be alerted by the sirens in different parts of the EPZ, depending upon which set of arousal data (Horonjeff or the German study) is used.
The record is not being reopened on actual sound levels in the EPZ.
Furthermore, the record is not being re-opened on " informal notification" or on mo-bile alerting.
Memorandum and Order at 1.
The Board provided its tentative views, subject to party comments, id. at 2-8, and identified six limited subjects for further evidentiary presentations at the reopened hearing.
Id. at 8-11.
In a telephone conference 0601310045 060120 PDFt ADOCK ObOOO400 0
PDit lfI ')
on January 23, 1986, the parties (Mr. Eddleman, Applicants, the North Carolina Attorney General, the NRC Staff and FEPA) agreed to, and the Board adopted, the following schedule for the re-opened hearing Witnesses identified:
February 7 Any subpoena requests filed:
February 12 Testimony and exhibits on Item 6 filed:
February 18 Testimony and exhibits on all other subjects filed:
February 21 Evidentiary hearing:
March 4 Order (Setting Times for Prehearing Filings and Hearing),
January 24, 1986.
Applicants now move that the Board reconsider the portions of the Memorandum and Order which request supplemental evidence other than that called for by Item No. 6, on potential alerting system augmentation within the first five miles of the EPZ.
It is important, however, that this motion not cause any delay in the schedule identified above, and that parties continue to ad-here to the schedule while the Board considers the motion.
Applicants do not seek, and indeed would oppose, any suspension of the schedule.
This motion seeks to advance, not to delay, the resolution of Eddleman Contention 57-C-3.
The basis for the motion is new information which has be-come available since the Board issited its Memorandum and Order on January 16.
In particular, on January 23, 1986, Applicants announced CP&L's decision to augment the alerting system within I
the first five miles of the epi with a tone alert radio system, which will be doncribed in Appiteants' evidence respensive to l
-2
Item No. 6 of the Memorandum and Order.
Tr. 10,269.
As explained below, this CP&L decision, reached in an effort to advance the resolution of Eddleman Contention 57-C-3, should obviate the need for other evidence.
Since the hearing is being reopened on the Board's own initiative, and not at the request of any party, the Board is free to decide now, in view of the changed circumstances, that some of the information called for in the Memorandum and Order would not affect the re-sult reached on the contention.
See Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, 22 N.R.C. 5, 13-14,1985).
First, Applicants contend that their evidence in response to Item No. 6 will establish beyond question that there will be the capability to alert essentially 100% of the residents in the first five miles of the EPZ under the night-time conditions postulated by Eddleman Contention 57-C-3.
Applicants' evidence will show the following:
1)
Applicants will distribute tone alert radio receivers, designed to receive radio signals broadcast by the National Weather Service, to residents living within a five-mile radius of the Harris Plant.
Applicants will develop a program to iden-tify new residents moving into the area, and to distribute receivers to them.
One receiver will be distributed to each house-hold.
The receiver will be a Realistic Weatheradio Alert III, Model No.12-140 (manufactured for Radio Shack, a division of Tandy Corporation) or a receiver with t
comparable features and notification capa-bilities.
The receiver is capable of op-erating on both ordinary house current and a standard 9-volt battery as a back-up.
It is capable of automatically sounding an i
alert signal and voice message upon receipt
] - - - - - - -
of a radio signal from the National Weather Service.
2)
Applicants or the responsible State / local emergency planning officials will enter into an agreement with the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion whe'reby NOAA will broadcast a radio signal through the National Weather Service in the event of an emergency at the Harris Plant requiring public notification.
From its facilities at the Raleigh-Durham Air-port, the National Weather Service has the ability to control transmitters in Durham I
and Fayetteville.
Transmissions from both of these transmitters cover the geographi-cal area surrounding the Harris Plant.
The National Weather Service has the capability to broadcast a signal within 15 minutes after State / local emergency planning agen-cies are notified that an emergency condi-tion exists requiring public notification, as sp3cified in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App.
E, S III.D.
3)
Applicants will develop a program to test the receivers on at least an annual basis.
Applicants will also establish a program to maintain and repair the receiv-era.
4)
Applicants' existing public edu-cation program for residents of the Harris EPZ will be modified as necessary to pro-vide information on the radio receivers.
The public information program will de-scribe the usage of the radio receivers, the frequency of and metholodogy for testing the receivers, suggested placement of the receivers within the home, the main-tenance program, and telephone numbers for repair and replacement.
The other items of additional evidence called for by the Memorandum and Order are now only relevant, in light of Appli-cants' decision, to an assessment of arousal capability in the 5 to 10 mile area of the EPZ.
Given the Board's stated views on the evidence, the resolution of the other items in the t !
l
Memorandum and Order would be at best an academic exercise --
which could not affect the result reached on the contention.
In particular, the Board has accepted Applicants' predic-tions of siren sound propagation at night (Applicants' Ex. 46).
Memorandum and Order at 5.
At the same time, the Board has de-cided not to rely upon the sleep awakening studies used by Applicants (Applicants' Ex. 48 -- the Lukas report), but rather to rely upon the study by Horonjeff et al., used by NRC Staff / FEMA witness Kryter.
Id.
It is clear from the existing record that the use of Horonjeff instead of Lukas will result in higher probabilities of arousal.
Tr. 9927 (Kryter).
It is also clear that if the German or Krallman study were used, the probability of arousal computed would be even higher yet.1/
Since Applicants, using Lukas, predicted that 88% of EPZ households would be alerted within 15 minutes,2/ it follows that more than 88% would be predicted to be alerted if Horonjeff were used in Applicants' analysis, and that a significantly greater percentage would re-sult if the Krallman data were employed.
The question posed by this motion ist given the system enhancement which is being undertaken in the first 5 miles of the EPZ, is it likely to 1/
See Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Eddleman 57-C-3 (Night-Time Notification) at 29-30 (1
- 34) (Dec. 9, 1985).
2/
The 88% is comprised of 69% from the sirens, 3% for those already awake, and 16% for informal notification.
Id. at 11 29, 46.
, l
f affect the outcome on Eddleman 57-C-3 if additional evidence is heard in an effort to determine precisely how much above 88%
predicted alerting would be obtained in the 5 to 10 mile area?
Applicants answer.this question in the nenative.3/
Respectfully submitted, k.
W Thomas A.
- Baxter, P.C.
Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1090 Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 Counsel for Applicants Dated:
January 28, 1986 3/
It is true that Applicants did not present separate re-sults for the first and second 5-mile areas of the EPZ.
Be-cause the sirens were sited to meet the design criteria of FEMA-43 throughout the entire EPZ, and because in the calcula-tions the various assumptions on sound attenuation and indoor background noise levels were uniformly distributed among the housing stock, it is reasonable to assume that similar alerting percentages would be obtained for the two areas.
If it is viewed to be necessary to confirm this' assumption, the calcula-tion can be readily performed from the data in evidence.
Since the hearing, Applicants' witness Keast calculated, using Lukas, that the sirens alone would alert 69.4% of the households in the first 5 miles.
Since he had calculated 69% for the entire EPZ, Mr. Keast's calculation confirms the similarity between the two areas.
Indeed, if there is any variance, the overall alerted percentage may be greater than 88% (using Lukas) in the second 5 miles, where the Board concludes that informal notifi-cation is likely to be more effective.
Memorandum and Order at
- 4.,