ML20137B315

Answer Opposing Eddleman 851104 Motion to Subpoena M Bassouni as Witness on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. Alternative Request If Motion Upheld Is to Reconvene Hearing by Dec 1985.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20137B315
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/22/1985
From:	Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#485-287 OL, NUDOCS 8511260239
Download: ML20137B315 (33)

Text

-- - - - - . - - -

' Y >-

~

• AL^tE n ozu w u m November 22, 1985

~

h

's tavag

( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- OI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rh 'g .

- @y;cn0< / ' s,.,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA-POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

'(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power- )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO WELLS EDDLEMAN'S MOTION TO SUBPOENA DR. M. READA BASSIOUNI ET AL.

AS WITNESSES ON EDDLEMAN' CONTENTION 57-C-3 I. Introduction On November 4, 1985, on the opening day of evidentiary hearings on his Contention.57-C-3 (Night-Time Notification),

Mr. Eddleman orally requested'that the' Board issue a subpoena to compel the appearance of Dr. M. Reada Bassiouni of Acoustic Technology, Inc. ("ATI")1/ to testify as a witness either for

.the Board or for Mr. Eddleman. Mr. Eddleman represented that, in a five-minute telephone conversation earlier that morning, 1/. ATI has analyzed the siren system for Shearon Harris (as well'as the other CP&L nuclear facilities) and has prepared the documentation submitted to FEMA by CP&L to demonstrate that the system meets the criteria and guidance in' FEMA-43 and Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654. Tr. 9407-08.

8511260239 851122 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR DS03

0 y

Dr. Bassiouni expressed some strong disagreements with the testimony filed by Applicants 2/ and the NRC Staff / FEMA. Tr.

9362, 9364-65, 9413.

\

During the first recess, CP&L's Manager of Emergency Pre-paredness, Mr. Robert Black, spoke with Dr. Bassiouni, who re-ported that he had only " thumbed through" the testimony,1/ and i that he did not tell Mr. Eddleman he had concerns with it. Tr.

9409. In light of this contradiction, and the absence of any detailed showing as to what testimony would be elicited if the record were held open, Applicants opposed Mr. Eddleman's re-quest. Tr. 9408-10, 9418-19. Applicants also objected to the suggestion that the Board might request Dr. Bassiouni to under-take a review of the testimony, if he had not already done so.

In. Applicants' view, the only potential issue before the Board was an assessment of the factual accuracy of the basis for Mr.

Eddleman's request -- i.e., that Dr. Bassiouni had serious dis-agreements with the testimony. Tr. 9415-16.

The Board subsequently proposed that the Chairman tele-phone Dr. Bassiouni to make certain inquiries, possibly leading to a telephone conference the next day. Tr. 9468-70. Appli-cants and FEMA objected to only one feature of the proposal --

2/ It later became clear, however, that Dr. Bassiouni did not review' Applicants' testimony.

3/ Applicants' pre-filed testimony, absent witness qualifica-tions, is 47 pages in length. FEMA's testimony totals 113 pages.

'the suggestion (Tr. 9468-69) that if Dr. Bassiouni has not had enough opportunity to review the testimony, then the Board would' request that he proceed to do so. Tr. 9505-06. Never-thekess,thetelephoneconversationbetweentheChairmanand Dr. Bassiouni resulted in an understanding that Dr. Bassiouni would expand his "one rather quick reading" of the testimony, on the basis of which he felt there were aspects with which he did disagree, in'o t a more careful review during the remainder of that day and the next. Tr. 9555-56.

Near the end of the second hearing session, Dr. Bassiouni presented by telephone the results of his review of the FEMA testimony, and the parties were afforded the opportunity to ask clarifying questions.1/ Tr. 9867-86. The Board then directed Mr. Eddleman to renew his request in writing by November 12, and provided other parties with the opportunity to reply on or

.before November 22, 1985. Tr. 9890-92. The Board further stated that it would give the matter priority consideration.

-Tr. 9892.

On November 12, 1985, Mr. Eddleman filed his " Motion to Subpoena Dr. M. Reada Bassiouni'et 91. as Witnesses on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3" (the "Eddleman Motion"). Mr. Eddleman 1/ In addition, by letter of November 15, 1985, to the Board, with copies to the Service' List, counsel for the NRC Staff dis-tributed a written version of the review (the "Bassiouni State-ment"), a copy of a study cited therein (the " German Study"),

and'a copy of a November 11, 1985 letter from Dr. Bassiouni to Staff. counsel.

~.

requests that the Board subpoena Dr. Bassiouni and five'other ATI personnel, and Mr. Furr and Mr. Black of CP&L, either as Bogrd witnes'ses or as witnesses for Mr. Eddleman.

Applicants oppose the Eddleman Motion. The answer below first argues that Dr. Bassiouni and his colleagues should not be called as Board witnesses. Second, we present the basis for our opposition to the request to subpoena these individuals as witnesses for Mr. Eddleman. Third, Applicants present an alternative for consideration, which would accommodate Appli-cants' opposition to further hearings, but provide the Board and Mr. Eddleman with access to the fruits of Dr. Bassiouni's review. Finally, we argue against the request to call Mr. Furr and Mr. Black as witnesses, and urge that if further hearings are granted, they be held promptly.

Several somewhat collateral points need to be made before moving to the substance of Applicants' answer to the Eddleman Motion. First, while Dr. Bassiouni's review addressed only the FEMA testimony, Applicants consider the positions taken in the Bassiouni Statement to be, in their effect, adverse to Appli-cants $ Second, Applicants do not presently intend to call Dr.

Bassiouni, or anyone else for that matter,E/ to present further testimony on this issue. Third, Applicants do not consider there to be a contractual bar which would prevent ATI personnel 5/ If a further hearing is held, however, Applicants likely would need to present rebuttal witnesses.

' fG-

-e>

from-complying with.any subpoena issued by the Board. Neither have Applicants acted to direct or to influence ATI personnel in heir communications or activities in response to the' Board and other parties.

! II. Dr. Bassiouni and his Colleagues should Not be Called as Board Witnesses Licensing boards may take the extraordinary action of calling their own witness (es) . . . only~after (i) giving the parties to the proceeding every fair opportunity to clarify or supplement their previous testimony, and (ii) showing why it I cannot reach an informed decision without independent witness-es." South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-710, 17 N.R.C. 25, 27-28 (1983)

~(footnote omitted). In addition, the Appeal Board has observed that the use of independent experts for the purpose of apprais-t

, ing the Staff's evidence conflicts with the basic structure of NRC licensing proceedings -- a framework which gives the Staff, as a representative of the public interest, a dominant role in assessing the safety of. involved facilities.E/ That role would I

be undermined, the Appeal Board held, by adding in effect an-other party to audit, and perhaps duplicate, the Staff's work.

1/ While in this instance it is FEMA's evidence which is at

, issue, with respect to off-site emergency preparedness FEMA has essentially the same role in NRC proceedings which the NRC Staff'has as to other matters.

l 5-4 l

s

- -- ,--w,,, m + , _,.-ce. -,-,,-r, -,m r~-.6 ., -..,m., ,.m..---, ,, -_------._,m-r. -_.--,--.,-,.y,- ,+,s. , -,--- ,,

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-663, 14 N.R.C. 1140, 1156 (1981), review declined, CLI-82-10, 15 N.R.C. 1377 (1982).

i Where he addresses the Summer decisions, Mr. Eddleman ar-gues that since Dr. Bassiouni appears to dispute the FEMA testimony, there is not a " deficiency" in the sense that it can be cured by any additional evidence from FEMA or Applicants.

Eddleman Motion at 8. Applicants agree that the mere potential of contradictory evidence does not establish that a' deficiency exists in the record. Indeed, there are a host of experts available on many' subjects who have differing opinions to one degree or another. All parties have the opportunity prior to hearing to seek out their own experts and to present their testimony. The-mere fact that there may be some element of disagreement by one acoustician who was not presented by any party, does not create a deficiency in the record. Licensing boards do not decide issues by a vote among all available ex-perts.1/

Applicants categorically reject the notion that a board must seek out contradictory evidence, not advanced by a party to the case in testimony, in order to reach an informed 2/ There are a number of consulting firms which advise utilities on their siren systems, as well as acousticians else-where in the corporate, research and academic communities. Any number of them might have views on aspects of the contention before the Board.

. - - . . -.. . . . - . ~ . -

decision. 'Cf. Eddleman. Motion at 8. On the other hand,-if the Board perceives a specific-deficiency in the record, under Summer-it must provide FEMA and/or Applicants with an opportu-F \

nity to address the specific issue or concern. In short, nei-

'ther of the two conditions outlined in the Summer standard are present here, and the Board should not call its own witnesses.

LMr. Eddleman devotes the bulk of his argument on Board witnesses to a futile attempt to distinguish the holdings in Summer. Eddleman Motion at 5-8. While the argument is not en-tirely clear, it appears that Mr. Eddleman finds it important that in Summer the licensing board was pursuing evidence some-what on its own, whereas-here Mr. Eddleman contends that he has been actively pursuing relevant information and has been Lthwarted by Applicants' alleged withholding of that informa-r tion.

It is irrelevant whether the idea of calling a Board wit-ness: occurs first to the Board or to one of the parties. The i

ultimate action would be the same,E/ and the Summer standard l applies.

Neither do the holdings in Summer establish an exception for instances of alleged suppressed evidence. In any event, 1/ The Board cannot act as an arm of one of the parties in If the Board advancing that party's presentation of evidence.

were to call a witness, it would have to be for the Board's own -

reasons -- even if that action had been requested initially by s a party.

! _7_

a f

J i

s--,-s w-r,,-ee--e.,-----.-

e e --- -+ > -,--y-.- .-eg

< , , , e,-e,--,-e-f .-.,--w-------w--- ,w..%., -e--- - . - - . - - , - y -,,r- , - -, -. _.- - -,,-.-,e,.c,

. there has been no suppression of evidence or withholding of information. Applicants do not agree that through the discov-erzvehicleof interrogatories, and the duty to supplement re-sponses, Mr. Eddleman can establish an affirmative duty on Applicants to advise him every time they encounter a piece of information which in Mr. Eddleman's view might advance his own cause. Moreover, the general interrogatory Mr. Eddleman dis-cusses seeks information contradictory to Applicants' answers to other interrogatories -- yet he cites no interrogatory answer which is contradicted by Dr. Bassiouni. Finally, Appli-cants do not consider that they had firm contradictory informa-tion from Dr. Bassiouni, who has not analyzed the siren system for night-time conditions or assessed the other elements of the analysis ultimately presented in Applicants' testimony (e.a.,

structural attenuation, census and demographic data, air-conditioner and storm window data).E/ While Dr. Bassiouni had at various times expressed an opinion on some of-these mat-ters, we considered it to be tentative. This assessment was confirmed by our last meeting with Dr. Bassiouni, at CP&L of-fices on August 6, 1985, at which he expressed the opinion that he could support the effectiveness of the planned Harris siren 9/ In the " Affidavit of M. Reada Bassiouni on Eddleman 57-C-3," dated November 2, 1984, at 1 8, Dr. Bassiouni conclud-ed that " .. . the proposed siren warning system design complies with the NUREG-0654/ FEMA-43 guidelines (and the appli-cable federal regulations) to alert essentially 100% of the population within.the plume EPZ within 15 minutes."

system against-Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. Applicants did not hear further from Dr. Bassiouni on this subject until Mr.

Ed% eman's request at the hearing.

In any case, the discovery argument is irrelevant and pro-vides no basis for ignoring the explicit holding of the Summer decisions. There is no basis here for calling Dr. Bassiouni and his colleagues as Board witnesses.1S/

III. Dr. Bassiouni'and his Colleagues Should Not be Subpoenaed The Commission's regulations, at 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720, autho-rize the issuance of subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses. The regulations specifically contem-plate that the issuing orficer may (but need not) require a prior showing of " general relevance" of the testimony. Alter-natively, the issuing officer may simply issue the subpoena without any prior showing, and await the filing of a motion to quash (if any) to determine the relevance of the testimony sought.11/ Moreover, the regulations note that the issuing 10/ In addition, Applicants consider the request for testimony of five members of the ATI staff, in addition to Dr. Bassiouni, to be excessive -- either as witnesses called by the Board or for Mr. Eddleman. No doubt this could be burdensome for ATI, and Mr. Eddleman has advanced no basis for calling such a large number of witnesses.

11/ In considering previous requests for subpoenas, this Li-censing Board has " cut through" the pleading stages contem-plated by the subpoena process -- eliminating the motion to (Continued next page)

_g_

officer is-not t.o " attempt to determine the admissibility of the evidence." See 10 C.F.R. SS 2.720(a), 2.720(f). However, thq regulations on subpoenas cannot be read in a vacuum.

In support of previous subpoena requests, Mr. Eddleman has argued that the Board is obligated to issue subpoenas upon a showing of general relevance,-and then can only deny the re-quests if they are unreasonable -- a concept which governs mo-tionsito quash. In connection with the appearance of witnesses to present testimony at an evidentiary hearing session, the Board has rejected Mr. Eddleman's argument as based upon a too narrow reading of the Board's authority. Quoting from 10 C.F.R. 5 2.757(a), the Board has observed that to prevent un-necessary delays or an unnecessarily large record, it may limit the number of witnesses whose testimony may be cumulative. In the Board's view, with which Applicants agree, this allows the Board to make judgments in advance on whether testimony will be

. cumulative. Tr. 3190.

While the. exercise of such judgment may be difficult in advance of a hearing (before the Board has heard the testimony of other witnesses),_that limitation is not present here, where the evidentiary hearings have actually been completed. Indeed,

.(Continued)-

quash and answer filings in the interests of expedition -- and considering all arguments pro and con prior to ruling on the subpoena request. Applicants understand that the same proce-dure is being followed here.

the Board also has essentially the direct testimony which the subpoenaed witnesses would present -- the "ATI Review of Pre-Fi ed testimony, Eddleman Contention 57-C-3" ("Bassiouni State-men "), at Tr. 9867-79, and served by Staff counsel on November ~ 15, 1985. Similarly, under these circumstances, no party is prejudiced by Board consideration of the admissibility of proffered testimony in advance of convening a hearing --

particularly considering the potential-time, expense, and bur-den on all parties which may be avoided.

A. Part I of the Bassiouni Statement is Irrelevant Part I of the Bassiouni Statement is essentially a defense of his computer model. See Bassiouni Statement at 3-5. How-ever, because FEMA-43, " Standard Guide For The Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems" (1983), provides for the use of average summer daytime conditions in modeling siren sound prop-agation (Lee Testimony at 1912/; FEMA-43 at E-7), Dr.

Bassiouni's analysis of the Harris siren system was based on average summer daytime conditions. In contrast, Eddleman 57-C-3. postulates summer nicht-time conditions, which necessar-ily involves different meteorological parameters. Accordingly, neither Applicants nor--the NRC Staff / FEMA based their testimony on Eddleman 57-C-3 on Dr. Bassiouni's FEMA-43 analysis.

12/ " Testimony of Van M. Lee Regarding Eddleman Contention 57-C-3," ff. Tr. 9690 (" Lee Testimony").

Instead, Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA each performed sepa-rate analyses, using summer night-time conditions. Lee Testi-moq at 22; Keast Testimony at 10-11.11/ Under these circum-stances, Dr. Bassiouni's computer model bears no relevance to Eddleman 57-C-3, the sole contested issue before the Board.

I Similarly, Dr. Bassiouni disputes the conservatism of the "10 dB per distance doubled" rule-of-thumb. See Bassiouni Statement at 5. But, again, any differences of opinion on this i subject are irrelevant to the resolution of Eddleman 57-C-3.

The FEMA testimony did discuss the rule-of-thumb generally, in the context of explaining the various ways in which siren sound propagation can be assessed. But the record is quite clear that neither Applicants nor the NRC Staff / FEMA based their analyses in response to Eddleman 57-C-3 on the "10 dB per dis-tance doubled" rule-of-thumb. Rather, as noted above, each performed a separate sophisticated computer analysis of the Harris siren system, modeling summer night-time conditions.

The validity of the 10 dB rule-of-thumb is therefore of no mo-ment. Accordingly, because Mr. Eddleman has failed to -- and cannot -- demonstrate the relevance of Part I of the Bassiouni Statement, that part of the statement cannot serve as a basis for Mr. Eddleman's subpoena request.

13/- " Testimony of David N. Keast, Alvin H. Joyner and Dennis S. Mileti On Eddleman 57-C-3," ff. Tr. 9375 ("Keast Testi-mony").

B. Parts II and III of the Bassiouni Statement Are Not Proper Rebuttal Applicants object to Parts II and III of the Bassiouni Statement as a basis for the subpoena request, on the grounds that they are not true rebuttal. Specifically, Dr. Bassiouni asserts that a 1962 German study of "the effectiveness of air raid sirens for alerting a sleeping population * *

• concluded that a'60 dB signal was necessary for 60% alerting." See Bassiouni Statement at 5-6, referrino to "Abschlussbericht" (Institut fur Phonetik und Kommunikationsforschung der Universitat Bonn, 1962) (" German Study"). However, comparison of these figures to those used by Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA reveals that the conclusions of the German Study are actually less conservative than the figures used by Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA. In otner words, use of the German fig-ures would show a greater percentage of the population awakened than would use of the data relied upon by Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA. This can readily be determined from the exist-ing record.

For example, to compare the results of the German Study to the NRC Staff / FEMA analysis, one must convert sound level into SEL. Assuming that the 60 dB reference in the German Study is to C-weighting (as opposed to A-weighting),11/ approximately 3 11/ It is unclear whether the German Study used A-weighting or C-weighting. For the sake of this analysis, Applicants have (Continued next page) decibels must be subtracted to convert dBC to dBA: 60 dBC minus 3 equals 57 dBA. Lee Testimony at 23-25. Next, the 1-migtesirendurationapparentlyusedintheGermantests (see German Study at 32-61) must be converted to seconds, and plug-ged into the formula in the Kryter Testimony. Thus, the SEL for the 1-minute siren sounding in the German tests can be cal-culated by adding 18 dB to the peak dBA level. (1 minute = 60 seconds). See Kryter Testimony at 19.1E/ Adding 18 dB to 57 dBA yields an SEL of 75. Figure 7A of the Kryter testimony (page 25) indicates that an SEL of 75 can be expected to awaken about 38% of those between 18 and 34 years of age, about 43% of those between 35 and 54 years old, and about 52% of those 55 years of age and older -- compared to the 60% indicated by the German Study.

Similarly, to compare the results of the German Study to Applicants' analysis, one must convert sound level into EPNdB.

First, a tone correction of 10 dB and an onset correction of 3 dB must be added to 60 dB. Then, the 1-minute siren duration (Continued) assumed that the German Study used C-weighting, since A-weighting was not widely used in 1962. In any event, the comparison of Applicants' analysis to the German Study would not be affected in any way if the German Study actually used A-weighting; and, while the difference would be narrowed, the NRC Staff / FEMA analysis would still be conservative relative to the German Study.

11/ " Testimony of Karl D. Kryter Regarding Eddleman Contention 57-C-3," ff. Tr. 9690 ("Kryter Testimony").

~_ .

used in the German Study must be converted to half-seconds, and plugged into the formula in the Kryter Testimony, at page 19.

Thgs, the EPNdB for the 1-minute siren sounding in the German tests can be calculated by adding 60 dB plus 10 dB plus 3 dB plus 21 dB, to yield 94 EPNdB. See Tr. 9502. Figure 2 of Applicants' Exhibit 4815/ indicates that 94 EPNdB can be ex-pected to awaken about 36% of the population -- again, in con-trast to the 60% stated by the German Study.

In short, because the German Study referred to in Part II of the Bassiouni Statement is in fact less conservative than the analyses performed by Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA, that part of the Statement cannot be characterized as rebuttal testimony. Indeed, if anything, it would appear to support Applicants' case. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented here, the Board should consider Part II of the Bassiouni Statement to be cumulative, and therefore inadequate as a basis for the Eddleman Motion.

Nor can Mr. Eddleman fairly characterize Part III of the Bassiouni Statement, on informal notification, as rebuttal testimony. Rebuttal testimony is, by definition, testimony which could not have been introduced as part of a party's direct case. See cenerally Wicmore on Evidence, Vol. 6 at 672.

16/ EPA 600/1-77-010, " Measurements of Noise Levels and Their Relative Accuracy in Predicting Objective and Subjectiva Re-sponses to Noise During Sleep," by Jerome S. Lukas.

Since direct testimony is filed simultaneously in NRC proceed-ings, rebuttal is proper to respond to matters which could not reasonably have been anticipated'to appear in the other par-

\

ties' direct cases.12/

The direct testimony on Eddleman 57-C-3 was due on October

. 18, 1985. Any direct case Mr. Eddleman had should have been filed then. The direct case due at that time would have in-cluded-his positions on the elements of the other parties' cases that reasonably could have been anticipated -- for exam-ple, from discovery or summary disposition or whatever other means.

Here, Mr. Eddleman has been on notice for a full year that Applicants place reliance on informal notification processes in meeting the Commission's regulations on public alerting and no-tification in an emergency. Indeed, " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 57-C-3" (filed November 2, 1984) included an affidavit by Dr. Dennis Mileti on the sub-f ject. Accordingly, because Mr. Eddleman cannot claim surprite that " informal notification" was an element of other parties' direct cases, Part III of the Bassiouni Statement cannot be ccasidered proper rebuttal testimony, and should not now be heard.

i 12/ Otherwise, parties could freely fail to file a direct case

'in compliance with the requirements for filing testimony in writing in advance of a hearing (10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(b)), and merely present their direct case orally at the hearing as "re-buttal" - and at the same time inhibit other parties' prepara-

' tion for cross-examination.

C. Parts II and III of the Bassiouni Statement Are Not Sufficiently Reliable Applicants further object to Parts II and III of the BahgiouniStatementonthegroundthat they do not meet the Commission's standards for reliable testimony. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(c).

As discussed above, Part II of the Bassiouni Statement is a brief summary of the asserted results of a 1962 German Study.

However, when the Board requested (through Staff counsel) a copy of that study, Dr. Bassiouni provided a copy in German, with only the captions on the tables and graphs translated.

Applicants are not aware that Dr. Bassiouni or anyone on the ATI staff read German. If that is true, it would appear.that the Bassiouni Statement was based solely on the tables and graphs of this apparently unpublished paper, with no considera-tion of the explanatory (untranslated) text of the study.1E/

l Accordingly, because Part II of the Bassiouni Statement appears to be based on data read out of context, that part of the r statement should not be heard because it is not sufficiently reliable.

Part III of the Bassiouni Statement, on informal notifica-tion, is similarly objectionable. As Judge Kelley observed 11/ Under these circumstances, it is not clear how the pro-posed witnesses could stand cross-examination on the German study -- for example, to explain precisely how the tests were conducted.

(see Tr. 9865), Dr. Bassiouni has no apparent expertise in di-saster sociology. See also " Resume of Dr. M. Reada Bassiouni,"

atgachedtotheBassiouniAffidavit filed with " Applicants' Mo-

\

tion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 57-C-3" (November 2, 1984).1E/ Part III of the statement is thus also objection-able as unreliable, for lack of sponsoring expertise.

In any event, to the extent that Dr. Bassiouni can be con-sidered to have the requisite expertise in disaster sociology, the position taken in Part III of the written statement is strongly undermined by prior published statements. In an arti-cle (a copy of which is attached to this answer) entitled

" Prompt Notification of 100% of People in the EPZ," authored by Dr. Bassiouni and published in Power Engineerina (September 1983), at pages 47-49, Dr. Bassiouni attests to the efficacy and predictability of informal notification, explaining:

It is difficult to guarantee 100% no-tification by purely physical means under any circumstances. This is true even when specially designed alert systems are in-stalled within the 10-mile EPZ. For 100%

alerting, it is essential to take into con-sideration some complex physical and sociological factors and capitalize on them.

Reprint, at 1. According to Dr. Bassiouni:

19/ Applicants' summary disposition motion was not based on an analysis of awakening residents during summer night-time condi-tions, but rather upon a demonstration that the siren system complied with available federal guidance.

i

0 A computer analysis of alerting in an EPZ was run to illustrate the effectiveness of multiple notification'and cascading con-cepts associated with word-of-mouth commu-g nications. The analysis used a data set 5 for a hypothetical EPZ. It showed the me-chanical COA (" chance-of-alert") from si-rens alone was 71% for this model.

• *

• The significant finding about the cascade effect is that if even a small percentage of alerted people attempts to alert others, the final COA is very high.

For example, if only 20% of those per-sons alerted by sirens each notifies four new people, the resulting COA is close to 99%.

Reprint, at 2-3. Dr. Bassiouni concludes:

Obviously the word-of-mouth notifica-tion concept is too important to ignore.

Siren systems for alerting the public should be designed or modified to capital-ize on this natural phenomenon by which the final incremental alerting can be achieved.

Reprint, at 3. This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the assertion in the Bassiouni Statement that "ATI does not believe that [ informal alerting] should be heavily relied upon to vali-date the effectiveness of nighttime notification." Under these circumstances, Part III of the Bassiouni Statement is insuffi-ciently reliable.

D. The Subpoena Request Is Untimely And Would Impose Undue Burden and Excense On Other Parties Mr. Eddleman's request to subpoena Dr. Bassiouni and his assistants must be rejected as untimely. Mr. Eddleman argues

strenuously that his time to seek subpoenas ran from the time he received the alleged anonymous tip, virtually on the eve of th evidentiary hearings. Butoan intervenor is not permitted to simply wait for his case to drop into his lap. To.the con-trary, Mr. Eddleman had an affirmative obligation to promptly seek out witnesses for any direct or rebuttal case he wished to make. Thus, Mr. Eddleman's time to seek these subpoenas ran-(at the latest) from his receipt of Applicants' testimony on

-Eddleman 57-C-3 (served October 18, 1985) -- at which point he was on notice that Dr. Bassiouni would not be appearing on be--

half of Applicants at the evidentiary hearings on Eddleman 57-C-3.

Indeed, had Mr. Eddleman acted promptly, his request might have been viewed in quite a different procedural light. Had Mr. Eddleman' cont' acted Dr. Bassiouni in mid-October, arrange-ments could have been made for Dr. Bassiouni to appear at the November 4 hearings; or, if Dr. Bassiouni was unavailable that week, the evidentiary hearings might have been briefly post-poned, so that all testimony offered on Eddleman 57-C-3 could-be considered in a single hearing.

As it is, Mr. Eddleman's last minute request for subpoenas

-- literally at the opening of the hearing itself -- cannot be countenanced. As the Appeal Board has observed:

A licensing board, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.718, has broad authority to' regulate the course of a proceeding, and has a specific duty to "take appropriate-action to avoid-delay, and to maintain order."

- . - . - . . - = _ . - . - . - - - . . . . _ - -- . - - - -

4 i

' Lono Island Liahtina Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),

ALAB-39,.4 A.E.C. 727 (1971) (upholding denial of motion to I postpone hearing). _Under the circumstances presented here, the Board\'s duty "to avoid delay, and to maintain order" mandates rejection of Mr.-Eddleman's request for subpoenas.

Both Applicants and the NRC Staff / FEMA presented panels of prestigious experts from across the country, at least some of whom (presumably) would have to return for any further eviden-tiary hearings on this issue. The burden and expense of ,

reconvening these experts, as well as the Board and the parties

- (including two federal agencies) -- with counsel, must not be

. minimized. Moreover, as the Appeal Board has emphasized

l' The difficulties usually attendant upon i

scheduling these cases -- where there are three-member boards, several parties (some

, with multiple counsel) and numerous wit-nesses to be considered -- bulk large l

Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

I ALAB-395, 5 N.R.C. 772, 780 (1977). To indulge Mr. Eddleman,

the Board would be required to place undue burden and expense on the other parties -- burden ard expense which clearly could 4

l have been avoided by Mr. Eddleman. Accordingly, the subpoena i

request must be rejected as untimely.

IV. Recelot of Evidence Without a Hearina While Applicants urge denial of the Eddleman Motion for the reasons seg forth herein, in the interest of accommodation v -.- -- s-~,, --,,se .m., ea-,-w.,--, ,n,-r,vv.,,u- - - , - . , - - , , . . , . . - , - - ,--,-,,,-.e n.-w ->-r , - - - ~w -e--w.-- -------o,,wes. - - _ - ,

we advance an alternative for the Board's consideration.

Applicants would agree to the admission into evidence, without hegring,of: the Bassiouni Statement (as if presented under oath); the German' Study;2E/ and the Bassiouni article in Power Encineerino. Applicants proposal does not include the receipt into evidence of less than the testimony and two documents identified'.-

This alternative would avoid the burden, expense and delay

. .- 't -r .

of a hearing, while at the same time providing some evidentiary access to Dr. Bassiouni's positions. While the party with the burden of proof, Applicants would agree to waive their right to cross-examine Dr. Bassiouni. Since Mr. Eddleman is attempting to call Dr. Bassiouni to support his contention, Applicants as-sume Mr. Eddleman has no interest in impeaching Dr. Bassiouni's testimony through cross-examination. With respect to the Bassiouni Statement, Mr. Eddleman had the opportunity, as well, to ask clarifying questions in the conference call at the hear-ing.

If the parties wish to express a position on this proposed alternative, Applicants request that they do so expeditiously.

12/ Applicants recognize that the receipt into evidence of a document mostly untranslated is somewhat strange, but we assume that Dr. Bassiouni employed and relied upon this document in the form provided. Applicants do not have any other version.

~. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. - _- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ .

V. The Board Should Not Issue Subpoenas for the Testimony of Mr. Furr or Mr. Black Mr. Robert G. Black, Jr. is CP&L's Manager of Emergency Preparedness. Mr. Ben J. Furr, to whom Mr. Black reports, is CP&L's Vice President-Operations Training. Mr. Eddleman's re-

• quest-fori he t issuance of a subpoena to compel the appearance of Messrs. Furr and Black was'not. raised during or prior to the hearing. Applicants do not understand the record to have been held open on~Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 other than to consider the request for the appearance of Dr. Bassiouni. As to the ap-pearance'of any other person, the Eddleman Motion constitutes a post-hearing motion to reopen the record. Mr. Eddleman has at-tempted no showing that he meets the standards applicable.to .

such a motion.

As the Appeal Board has recently emphasized, a motion to reopen must be timely and address a significant safety or envi-ronmental issue. It must also show that a different result might have been reached had the newly proferred material been t

considered initially. Further, bare allegations are not enough. The new material in support of a motion to reopen must

!' be tantamount-to evidence. Louisiana Power & Licht Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, 22 N.R.C.

5, 13-14 (1985), and cases cited therein.21/

21/ Essentially the same principles apply to a motion to re- ,

open filed after the record is closed, but prior to issuance of (Continued next page)

! l 1

i

-.y. .- .-,,,.,..m,__

-- yam _.~.%,-.. v . w m % ww. . - m ,,,,, -n. ._.,,,w,-,._v,m._,

Mr. Eddleman requests the testimony of Messrs. Furr and Black in order to seek evidence to substantiate a "tip" from an an nymous person who allegedly told Mr. Eddleman that FEMA of-ficials were putting pressure on CP&L not to take additional measures, such as adding sirens, to enhance the effectiveness of the_EPZ prompt public notification system. Eddleman Motion.

at 2. If true, Mr. Eddleman concludes that doubt would be cast on the impartiality of FEMA's management. Id. at 4.

It is difficult to conjure up a more insubstantial basis upon which to suggest convening a reopened hearing. NRC hear-ings typically are not set to assess the validity of mere ru-mors, and particularly where, even if true, they do not involve a significant safety issue and could not affect the outcome.

If called, Mr. Furr and Mr. Black would testify that FEMA has not placed such pressure on CP&L. Neither is it apparent that if someone from FEMA wished to do so, for reasons which are difficult to imagine,22/ any leverage exists to inhibit CP&L from adding sirens. It is not logical to suggest that a FEMA employee might threaten to withhold approval of a system (Continued) the initial decision. Ege Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 N.R.C. 775, 804 (1979).

12/ It does not follow, for example, that any action CP&L might take to enhance its notification system at' Harris would undermine FEMA's position that the presently proposed system is adequate. There could be other, valid reasons why CP&L could choose to exceed the requirements of FEMA's guidance.

.5 l

with more, rather-than fewer, sirens. Finally, it is the testimony of the FEMA witnesses which is before the Board, not th impartiality of FEMA management. There is no reason to speculate that Mr. Eddleman's rumor, even if true, affects the credibility of those witnesses. Certainly, Mr. Eddleman made no attempt to establish any such bias when he had the opportu-nity to cross-examine the FEMA witnesses.

Even if this request were judged by the standard for issuing subpoenas alone, and not under the standard for reopen-ing the-record, the request fails because, for the reasons stated above, the testimony would not be relevant to the issues before the Board.

VI. Conclusion The Eddleman Motion should be denied or, in the alterna-tive, the Board could receive additional evidence without convening a hearing. If, however, the Board disagrees with Applicants' answer and grants the Eddleman Motion in some man-ner, then Applicants respectfully and urgently request that any reconvened hearing be held promptly -- i.e., in December, 1985, to be followed by expedited briefing and decision-making. A nearly five-month delay in the commencement of the hearing on this contention was incurred at the request of FEMA. Further delay in the Board's resolution of this contention could seri-ously prejudice Applicants. If the Board were to rule against Applicants on the merits, both the public interest and Appli-cants' interests would be served by the issuance of such a de-cision as soon as possible -- so that the orderly startup of the\Harris Plant is not stayed by the need to implement last-minute corrective measures.

Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones f Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 Counsal, for Applicants Dated: November 22, 1985 1

s Prompt notification of 100% ,

of people in the EPZ

~

4-By M. READA BASSIOUNf, Acoustic Technology, Inc. 's's T

3 A

i Reprinted from POWER ENGINEERING, September 1983, Pages 4749.

C Copyright by TechnCal Pubbshing, A Division of Dun.Donnelley Pubhshing Corp.,

A Company of The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation,1983-all rights reserved.

l 1

Prompt notification of 100*o of peop e in the EPZ

,- Present federal guidelines for prompt alerting of all people

b. In the 10-mile emergency planning zone would require a physical system, such as sirens, costing $40 million or more..

This cost could be cut drastically by factoring in the word-of mouth alerting that would take place By M. READA BASSIOUNI, Acoustic Technology, Inc.

, ,- 3 r

Nuclear 7 tant licensees are required by

• law to pr em.ie physcal means to alert the -

May be ]

public in the event of an emergency at a . .  ;

plant. If 00% notificaten of the public is * /888 thdn f . l t.u be schieved solely by physical means, e 60 dBC  ;

such as carens and tone alert receivers. *

%' the coat of the system would be $40 . .

CO W O"' * * . . . 60 dBC million or more. In contrast, the present .

siren systems installed at nuclear plants .

typcally cost $1 million. They, however, +

• g80 dBC are dcAvied to provide 60 DOC outdoor *

. [S/rart . * * . ' 8 7 acouate coverage in the IOfnile emer-gency planning zone (EPZ). Depending j

+j

{*

• • • e{f*.*.'*e on circumstances, some people may not . ' S0 dBC j .,.

• hear these trens. * .

A computer program develooed by * . .

J

,00dBC Acoustc Technology,' inc. shows how

• 100% notification can be accomplished by a system costing much less than $40 .

million. This would be done by transfer

• Residences nng some of the alerting burden from the -

mechanical system to the socciogical force of wordef-mouth it is difficult to guarantee 100% notifi-nten by purely physical rneans under Figure 1. Representation of siren location in an emergency planning tone ( EPZ) showeg

. Any circumstances. This is true even typicW sound low contours. A seren generally is placed in the most censmy populated ares

, when specially designed alert systems o, ,ts coverage. The is called the core zone.

are installed within the 10-mile EPZ. For 100% alerting, it is essential to take into consideration some complex physical ditional numbers of people increases. methods are derived to account for the and sociological factors and capitalize on 2. The documented effectiveness of effect of siren duration on improving them. Neither the NRC's NUREG4654 mass evacuatens which have been done COA. For each type of background noise, gudelines nor the Federal Eir ipcy without 100% aren alert coverage. i n., urban or rural, and weather condi-Maregoment Agency's evaluation guide 3. The existing emergency capabilities tion, a correlation coefficient is generated provide for consideration of these for notifying the public. w'tich desenbes the tendency of back-factors. 4. The effect of wordet mouth commu- ground noise levels to repeat prevous Existing federal guidelines assume that neaten among readects of the EPZ. pattems. An algonthm based on probabil-people will be aler+ed only by sirens or 1. Muth,#e act!vaten. The chance-of- ity theory then is used to evaluate the some other dierting devce if, however, alert (COA) by seren depends on the COA for multiple activatens. TNs ap-any of the people in the EPZ are indoors difference between the siren sound level proach is described more fully in at the time of the alert, it may be difficult and the background sound level. If this NUREG / CR-2654.

for them to hear the sren signal because difference exceeds a certain threshold 2. Mass evacuation Jans srens. Table of substantial sound attenuation thrcugh limit, typically 10 dB, the siren is audible. t presents instances of mass evacua-

$ building structures, and competition from Generally the aren level is fixed, while lions done without 100% siren coverage.

' sounds inside the structures. background noise vanes randomly with A review of such instances raises the Sockhg6 cal factors *nech should be titre. Hence. COA depends on the frac- questen of how the alert effectiveness considt red in the emergency notification hon of the time that the background noise was nearty 100% without scphisticated

• siren systems. Naturalty, TV and rado systernian decrease the costs of such is below the siren level minus the thresh-systems drastically. These factors old difference. Multiple activation in- messages reached many people, as did include creases that fraction of time, and, there- emergency vehcles with bullhoms and 1: The effect of multiple activations on fore, the COA is higher. portable trens. We must assume, how-the neren notification capability. With each By examining background ooise as a ever, that it was only because of the activation, the poseability of retifying ada random process over time, statistical wordef mouth factor that 100% notifca-

~

SECTION OF THE EPZ OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (sound coverage may be less than 60 dBC in some areas)

Core "A" ..; '

r00d8C f

m

'sMi . .

80 d.

N a j,*,,",,',Q', Core 8" N

_,s...

coverage area 60 dBC **

• 60asc N g:.'

k 80 d8C

-  % ,6a ': . q.

$r6

., t00d8C seen&, s Wi< ?.

\  ;  !

.e:

.e -

, Q 'ren lh

%U 4 f;

'W

.[ *l

.y. f.

e Y.-: *Qm

, l 9.

- g >*

• Siren 1

..... r... C.,e e mas,rn o,.

or,scuroon e o orsone er seren e covereer area i

roo c8C' e 80d8C / l 60 dBC Figure 2. Representation of three sten locations in three core zones of an EPZ. Dashed hnes indicate word-of4nouth notification among people witnin a aren's area of coverage, sohd knas indicate word-of<nouth notification to other areas of the EPZ.

tion was achieved. heard a siren they woe 'd attempt to notify (stationary or rotating), duration of the

3. Existing emergency capability. Most at least one other parun by telephone or siren signal, its dBC level, and all impor-areas of the country have methods for in person. Note the word " attempt." It is tant attnbutes of the particular scenario handling emergency stuations through safe to assume that not all attempts will such as background noise level and police and fire departments and civil de- be successful, and this success-rate fac- climate.

fense offices. The possbility exists for for is included in the calculations as part The EPZ is divided into radial sectors using their resources-police cars, amer- of the multiple notification effect. which fan out from the plant. There may gency vehicles, helicopters, etc.-for Assuming a national average of four be four, eight, twelve, or more sectors, emergency notification. Usually regula- persons per household, two telephone depending on the complexity of the siren tors do not consider these resources calls by an alerted person could alert distnbution, if a single sector has a COA when evaluating waming system desgns. eight more people. The word " tele- that is significantly lower than the others.

4. Word-of-mouth alerting. There is phone" is used to include all word-of- one or more test srens can be added to a well-documented evidence that people in mouth communications. Some calls may model of the problem sector. The com-a disaster situation will attempt to notify be useless, e.g., where people who were puter then can simulate the effect of the relatives, fnends, and neighbors. This called already had heard the sirens. This added siren (s) on the overall COA.

word-of<nouth factor has been incorpo- is considered in the mathematical model rated 'n a mathematical probabilities ap- Another assumption is that people any- Word-of-mouth proves effective proach for use in a computer analysis of where in the EPZ may call anyone else in A computer analysis of alerting in an EPZ promp' alerting in actual nuclear plant the EPZ, regardless of how loud the siren was run to illustrate the effectiveness of EPZs. sounds to them, or which siren they multiple notification and cascading con-Figure 1 shows a typical siren installed heard. Therefore, geographic COA distri- cepts associated with word-of-mouth in an EPZ. Sirens are spread out over the butions from the mechanical saren system communications. The analysis used a EPZ, and Denerally one is located in each and the population distnbutions are in- data set for a hypothetical EPZ It showed of the most densely populated areas. puts into the calculation. the mechanical COA from sirens alone These are called core areas. All sirens Multiple word-of-mouth notification oc- was 71% for this rnodel. A sensitivity have sound level ratings of 115-125 dBC curs when an alerted person calls more analysis was run to determine the COA at 100 ft from the siren, and all people than one friend or relative. A cascade effect for varying word-of-mouth factors.

within the 100 dBC contour are guaran- results if the alerted person calls two Figure 3 shows the results of this anal-toed a 100% COA. people, each of whom then notifies two ysis. It is reasonable to expect four levels Figure 2 illustrates wordof-mouth on- more, then these four people each notify of cascading. The first cascade level is hancement within vanous sound cover- two more, and so on. This cascade effect the percent initially alerted by the sirens age zones. Several recent polls were tak- is incorporated in the calculation. who, in tum, alert others. The newly alert-en in typical communities within an EPZ. Another input is the mechanical COA ed people will alert others. This is the and 60% of those polled said that if they which takes into account the type of siren second cascade. This repeats two more

s Table 1, Selected instances of large-scale evacuations.*

No of people Location Dats Cause evacuated Time Baton flouge, Louisiana

• 9/9/65 Chemical 150,000 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Transport Crewe Couer, 8/2/61 Chemical 13,000 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> Bartonville, Accident Marquet3e, and North P4in, Illinois

• Glendora? Mississippi

• 9/11/69 Chemical 35,000 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Transport accident Jef forson County, Texas 8 9/3/61 Hurricane 200.000 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Lafourche Parish, Louisiana

• 9/11/61 Hurricane 23.000 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> Los Angeles, California

• 2/9/71 Earthquake 80,000 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> l Potential dam break (5.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />)*

Mississauga, 11/11/79 Chemical 216,000 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> Ontario, Canada ' Transoort accident (phased evacuation) 3, Mobile, Alabama' 3/15/55 Civil Defense exercise 37,000 1.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> (school children)

• Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

• 9/3/61 Hurricane 20.000 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Portland, Oregon 5 12/7/55 Civil Defense exercise 101.000 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> St. Mary Parish, Louisiana' 9/ /64 Hurricane 40.500 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> Texas City, Texas 8 9/3/61 Hurricane 24.000 2.5 hotrs Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania' 6/23/72 Flood 75.000 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> Sources;

a. Strope. Walmer E., Devanev. John F., and Nehnav4lsa, Jim, "importance of Preparatory Measures in Disaster Evacuations." Mass Emergencies, 2 (1977), pp.1 17.

b. Albort. M chsei 8.. Segaloff. Louis. and Steadman, Frank M., Task Silence: The Post M,dniet Alarm and Evacuation of four Communities Affected by An Ammonia Gas Release, University of Pennsylvania institute for Cooperative Research (1962).

c. Hans. Joseph M. Jr. and Sell, Thomas C., Evacuation R,sks An Evaluation. U S. Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental Research Center. Las Vegas, Nevada (1974).

d. Treadwell, Mottie. Hurricane Carfs. U.S. Department of Defense / Office of Civd Defense, Region V Denton, Texas (1961).

e. Burrows, Douglas K., Emergency Evacuation of the City of Mississauga," Royal Canadian Mounted police Garerre, 42 (1980), nos. 7 and 8, pp.1 17.

f. Hansen, Elsie. " School Evacuation ' Success'." The Mobde Register. March 16.1955

• Courrew of Soutpera cantorn a Eaison times, with the number of people alerted drawing closer to 100% with each 100 Cascade.

[ Each curve in Figure 3 is plotted as the COA vs the percent of the alerted popula-

"

• E" ***'"

90

/

n=4 n a Numeer of communication. The sWnt finding n=3 cascades about the cascade effect is that if even a d n=2 small percentage of alerted people at-8*# tempts to alert others, the final COA is g gg

,& very high.

{= -

["f$'^f7 strens only = 7;g For example,if only 20% of those per-sons alerted by sirens eaua notifies four 70 new people, the resulting COA is close to g 99%. Since the company's polling found that 60% of people in the EPZ would participate in the alerting effort, the word-60 of. mouth communications clearly will bnng the COA to essentiaily 100% with any well-designed 60 dBC outdoor siren

' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . system. h concept can be sW fun 50 ther to quantify its more important as-10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 pects for 100% COA in specific EPZs.

% of alerted popu/ation participating ,

on word-oF. mouth notification tion concept is too important to ignore.

Siren systems for alerting the public should be designed or modified to capital-i:e on this natural phenomenon by which Figure 3.Chanceof-eiert (COA) over an untire EPZ plotted as a function of the percent- the final incremental alerting can be ages of eiened peopie who participate in wordofeouth notificaten of other housenoids in achieved. The savings in equipment costs the EPZ. The plot is for four consecutive cascades of notrhcation. The first cascade is those who are alerted by the seren system. Those they alert are the second cascade, and so on. If in an EPZ can bein. the millions of dollars.

only 20% of the first emee=<t= notify four otner people, the COA over tne entire EPZ Compared with desagns based on federal approaches 99% et the fourth e==ra<t= guidelines which assume 100% COA with iT c,T 6;c41 systems only. END g' - - - - -

9 November 22, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

, . (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Wells Eddleman's Motion to Subpoena Dr. M. Reada Bassiouni et al. as Witnesses on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3" were served this 22nd day of November, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties identified on the attached Service List.

4 Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

9

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina .

Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and' Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice'E. Moore, Esquire 806 Parker Street Office of Executive Legal Director Durham, NC 27701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Richard E. Jones, Esquire Office of the Secretary Vice President and Senior Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & Light Company Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Dr. Linda W. Little CHANGE Governor's Waste Management Board P.O. Box 2151 513 Albemarle Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carclina 27611

s Bradley W. Jones,-Esquire U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regfon II 101\MarriettaStreet Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff,- NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 H. A. Cole, Jr., Esquire Special Deputy Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27501 Joseph Flynn, Esquire FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740 Steven Rochlis, Esquire Regional Counsel FE!!A 1371-Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 4