ML20058D722
| ML20058D722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1982 |
| From: | Copeland V, Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D711 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207270327 | |
| Download: ML20058D722 (12) | |
Text
'
t.-
'A '
0{$EJE0 7/22/82
'[ '
, 7:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.'~?r-
. s. g.,,,
& n.w.,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-
,+
In the matter of
)
% ---... A....m,....;,,,
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CHRISTA-MARIA CONTENTIONS 9(2) AND 9(3)
Pursuant to filing schedule submitted by counsel for the NRC Staff, as modified at the request of Christa-Maria, et al. ("Intervenors"), /
1 Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") submits the following reply to "Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Christa-Maria Contentions 9(2) and 9(3)" submitted by Intervenors dated July 2, 1982.
Licensee generally opposes the findings proposed by Intervenors.
Licensee's specific responses to individual findings are set forth below and are limited to those cases which we believe additional comments from Licensee may be
. helpful to the Licensing Board.
1/
The filing schedule calls for replies to be filed 20 days after the filing of the affirmative findings.
In Licensee's July 10, 1982 " Motion to Supplement Findings i
of Fact and Conclusions of Law Out of Time", counsel for Licensee inadvertently stated July 23, 1982 as the due date for replies.
The due date is properly July 22, 1982.
8207270327 820722 PDR ADOCK 05000155 Q
to.
Intervenors' Finding No.
Licensee's Reply 1 through 10 The adequacy of the 1981 distribution is irrelevant in view of the fact that Licensee intends to distribute the new pamphlet in an entirely different manner using a professsional 2/
service and the U.S. mail.-
12 Intervenors attack the credibilty of the Loomis Testimony on the planned distribution of the new pamphlet.
First, they urge that the lack of a written contract between Licensee and the organization responsible for the direct mailing, Professional Business Services of Petoskey, Michigan, somehow suggests a less than complete commitment to effect delivery of the new pamphlet.
Mr. Loomis testified that an oral contract exists between Licensee and Professional Business Services. /
3 l
2/
" Testimony of Phillip B. Loomis with Respect to Certain Subcontentions of Christa-Maria's Contention 9 Regarding l
Emergency Planning", following transcript page ("Tr.")
1038, (hereinafter "Loomis Testimony"), p. 6; Tr. 1103-l 1104; see also " Consumers Power Company Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law on Subcontention (3) and that Portion of Subcontention (2) of Christa-Maria Contention 9 Concerning the Emergency Planning Public Information Pamphlet" (hereinafter " Licensee's Proposed Findings") 1s 15, 16.
3/
Tr. 1103-1104.
i
Intervenors' Finding No.
Licensee's Reply The Licensing Board should take official notice of the fact that business transactions are conducted continuously on the basis of oral agreements.
No adverse inference, as suggested by Intervenors, can reasonably be drawn from Licensee's use of this universal practice.
Intervenors also argue that the distribution of the first pamphlet was inadequate and that such a result again reflects adversely on Licensee's commitment to provide for adequate distribution of the new pamphlet.
This allegation is not supported by the record.
The burden of establishing the inadequacy of the methods used to distribute the first pamphlet, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of Licensee's witnesses, rests with Intervenors.
They failed to establish that residents within the EPZ, in fact, failed to receive their pamphlets.
Finally, Intervenors' suggestion in their finding 3 that the return of a large number of pamphlets by Mr. Muma establishes that residents within the 5 mile EPZ did not
Intervenors' Finding No.
Licensee's Reply receive their copies is unfounded.
Mr. Loomis testified that Mr. Muma returned approximately 4
9000 pamphlets. /
Both Mr. Muma and Mr.
Loomis testified that over 20,000 pamphlets were originally delivered to Mr. Muma for dis-tribution.5/
Based on the population of the EPZ as stated by Mr. Bement6/
the returned pamphlets were obviously extras NUREG - 0654 makes clear that the public information program is a joint responsibility among the licensee and state and local authorities.7/
The first pamphlet was proposed and distributed in accordance with these guidelines.
- Thus, assuming arguendo that the first pamphlet was not adequately distributed, the breakdown occurred at the local level, namely with Emergency Services Directors for the local counties, and no l
adverse inference can be imputed to Licensee's l
plans for distributing the new pamphlet.
13 The Intervenors' concern that the pamphlet will not reach the seasonal population is mooted by the testimony of Mr. Loomis who 4/
Tr. 1067-1068.
l
}/
Tr. 1068, 1361.
6/
Tr. 926.
7/
NUREG - 0654, pp. 49-50.
Intervenors' Findings No.
Licensee's Reply available in a residence during an emergency.
Updated information shall be disseminated at least annually.
Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, posted notices or other means, placed in hotels, motels, gasoline stations and phone booths) shall also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that would be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs.
Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies.
In the formulation of these guidelines, the NRC Staff and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(" FEMA") left implementation of its guidelines to the broad discretion of the emergency planners, i.e. the state and local governments and NRC licensees.
Contrary to the Intervenors' suggestion, there is no standard in NUREG - 0654 for the distribution of public information pamphlets.
Distribution methods are left to the emergency planners who are guided in this regard by reasoned judgment.
Direct mailing by U.S. mail is a reasonable method of distribution.
Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that residents will receive the pamphlets sent to them through
Intervenors' Finding No.
Licensee's Reply the mail.
Hence, the survey suggested by the Intervenors is unnecessary.
Intervenors failed to present any evidence which would question the efficacy of the U.S. Postal System and thus failed to establish the need for a survey.
17, 18 Licensee understood the Licensing Board's request for expedited findings to relate only to the contentions insofar as they concerned the public information pamphlet.
The Licensee intends to address the education of local public and school offgeials on radiation matters in its findings regarding the other emergency planning issues to be filed by July 30, 1982.
19 FEMA does not require NRC licensees and license applicants to submit the public information pamphlet for its review.
Any review by FEMA is voluntary depending on the desires of FEMA and the state and local planning organizations.9/
20 Intervenors raise several points in this proposed finding.
Among these, they assert that 9/
Tr. 997.
Intervenors' Findings No.
Licensee's Reply class nine accidents are not considered for l
emergency planning purposes, the pamphlet assumes no containment failure, and the diagram in the pamphlet inaccurately shows a containment with a concrete shielding.
The testimony of Roger Sinderman indicates that Licensee intends to modify the containment diagram to accurately reflect that the Big Rock Point has only a steel containment building.10/
As provided in the guidelines of NUREG -
0654, emergency planning considers a wide range of accident sequences which include core melt accidents, often referred to as class nine accidents, and also include the worst possible accident regardless of their extremely low likelihood.11/
In conformance with this planning basis which would include class nine accidents and containment failure, i
10/
Tr. 1298.
See also Licensee's Proposed Findings, t 9, fn. 17.
11/
NUREG - 0654, pp. 6-7.
l
O,
Intervenor's Finding No.
Licensee's Reply Licensee will include language in the pamphlet that contemplates such events.
The language will appear on page 18 of the new pamphlet and read as follows:
If you lived right at the plant site boundary, the amount of radiation you could receive as the result of most plausible accidents is comparable to the amount you could receive during some routine diagnostic nuclear medicine applications.
However, prudent emergency prepardness includes planning for less likely ' worst case' accidents in which larger, even life-threatening doses of radiation might be released within the five-mile EPZ._1_2/
22 As explained in the testimony of Roger Sinderman, an explanation of alpha, beta and gamma radiation in the glossary would not serve the pamphlet's purpose of conveying the essential emergency planning information.
Exposure of the public in a radiological emergency would l
be limited primarily to gamma radiation and a l
certain amount of beta radiation, both of l
l which interact with tissue in a similar 13/
manner.--
--12/
" Affidavit of Roger Sinderman" submitted July 10, 1982, as Exhibit A to Licensee's " Motion to Supplement j
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Out of Time," p.3, 1 3.
--13/
Tr. 1300-1301.
See also Licensee's Proposed Findings t 10.
l l
Intervenors' Finding No.
Licensee's Reply 23 Suggested Changes Nos.
1, 4, 11 As indicated in the record, Licensee intends to make changes in the emergency pamphlet to identify Licensee's role in the pamphlet, to address early evacuation of children and pregnant women, and to accurately portray the containment building.14/
23 Suggested Change No. 6 Mr. Sinderman testified that a change to address the possibility of skin cancer from exposure to the sun would not be relevant to the purpose of the pamphlet.
The analogy between sunlight and radiation provided in the pamphlet was provided to illustrate in a commonly understood manner that longer exposure to either leads to more severe effects.- /
15 l
--14/
Tr. 1033-1034, 1297-1298.
See also Licensee's Proposed Findings, 1 7, and fns. 8, 17.
15/
Tr. 1306-1307.
See also Licensee's Proposed Findings, t 12.
i l.
Intervenor's Finding No.
Licensee's Reply 23 Suggested Changes Nos.
2, 3,
5, 7,
8, 9,
10, 12 Intervenors apparently make no effort to segregate these proposed changes which are without any support whatsoever in the record from their other suggested changes which were introduced in testimony.
Intervenors offered no evidence in the course of the hearings for the necessity of these changes.
An attempt to supplement the record with these suggested changes at this late date is clearly improper.
In any event, suggested change No. 2 is of no consequence since Licensee intends to delete that section of the pamphlet on pages 3 and 4 to which the change was suggested.16/
In regard to Suggested Change No.
8, as indicated in the Licensee's reply to Intervenor's Finding No. 20 above, the pamphlet is being modified on page 18 to include language which
--16/
" Affidavit of Roger W. Sinderman", submitted July 10, 1982 as Exhibit A to Licensee's " Motion to Supplement Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law out of Time,"
p.
2, 1 2E.
I,
Intervenor's Finding No.
Licensee's Reply suggests preparing for unlikely worst case accidents.
Intervenor's Suggested Change No.
8 is irrelevant.
Respectfully submitted, AT1A.M 0!YGC A
y I
(
YA h_
b:
Two of the Attorn6ys for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated:
July 22, 1982
. ~, -
--n.---