ML20058J546
| ML20058J546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1982 |
| From: | Bloch P, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8208110093 | |
| Download: ML20058J546 (19) | |
Text
_ - _ _
s
~
'. ~kN ' 00CM5fE0 E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d*.
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g.g19 g ]g.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD crrm nF 3rr"ciqY
~".".'....s Before Administrative Judges:
- l.1 a
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman SERVED AUG. 91982' Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon In the Matter of Docket Nos 50-15'5-0LA,
(SpentFuelPoolAmendment)~"
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant)
August 6, 1982 INITIAL DECISION (Concerning the Following Emergency Planning Contentions:
Adequacy of Emergency Planning Pamphlet's Treatment of Radiological Issues,
- and, Adequacy of Distribution of Emergency Planning Pamphlet)
This is the first of a series of initial decisions (10 CFR 2.760(a))
~
addressing issues heard in Boyne Falls, Michigan on June 7 through June 12, 1982.
The issues we decide today were selected for early determination in order to help to assure early, satisf actory distribution of an emergency planning pamphlet, designed to inform citizens of procedures to follow in case of an emergency at the Big Rock Point Plant (Big Rock).
Other issues will be ti eateo separately, in ensuing decisions, in order to expedite the consideration of the case.
We have before us the application of Consumers Power Company (applicant) for a license amenoment that would permit it to increase the capacity of the spent fuel pool that is located within the Nntainment building of its Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, which it has been operating since 1962.
The amendment, if granted, would permit 441 fuel assemblies to be stored in the pool, compared to the currently permitted 193 assemblies.
The emergency planning contentions were admitted to this proceeding after the Board concluded that Christa-Maria's " plausible arguments concern-0Ko!hO$f55 f'D PDR
Pamphlet:
2 ing both the presence of an increased inventory of radioactive products and the mechanisms of dispersal" had not been answered by applicant, LBP-82-32, April 20,1982, slip op, at 7.
See id. at 6 (intervenors have argued that the fuel pool inventory could be dispersed by an air crash, a supercritical-ity incident initiated by a drop of a spent-fuel transfer cask, or a super-criticality incident resulting from a prolonged loss of fuel-pool cooling during a TMI-type incident).
Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that a contention concerning inadequacies in the emergency plan should be admitted in this licensing amendment proceeding.
Although the events lead-ing to dispersal of the fuel pool may be highly unlikely, emergency plans are intended to cope with just such unlikely events.
Id,. at 7-8.
I THE CONTENTIONS AND APPLICABLE LAW The relevant portions of Christa-Maria Contention 9(2) and'. 9(3), as admitted to this proceeding, state:
Consumers Power Company (applicant) should improve its public infor-mation pamphlet to more adequately inform people about radiation hazards, particularly to children and pregnant women.
Applicant's public information pamphlet has not been properly distri-buted and should be redistributed.
Id. at 13.
The relevant regulations and staff guidance documents are portions of 10 CFR Part 50 and NUREG-0654.
Sections 50.54(q), 50.47(b)(5) and Appendix E to Part 50 are relevant to this proceeding.
Section 50.54(q) applies the emergency planning regulations to operating power reactors.
The other sec-s tions require that:
50.47(b)(5)[M]eans to provide early notification and clear instruc-tion to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone [must be]... established.
Pamphlet:
3 50.54(s)(2)(ii)
In determining whether a shutdown or other enforcement action is appropriate, the Commission shall take into account, among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Connission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly or that there are other compelling masons for continued operation.
The following er.cerpts from Appendix E to Part 50 also are relevant:
D. Notification Procedures 2.
Provisions shall be described for yearly dissemination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning information, such as the methods and times required for pub-lic notification and the protective actions planned if an accident occurs, general information as to the nature and effects of radia-tion, and a listing of local broadcast stations that will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.
Signs or other measures shall also be used to disseminate to any transi'ent popula-tion within the plume exposure jiathway EPZ appropriate information that would be helpful if an accident occurs.
In addition, NUREG-0654, which is cited in footnote 1 to Appendix E, contains the following guidance:
6.
Public Education and Information [ Evaluation Criterion 2.,
at 50:]
The public information program shall provide the permanent and transient adult population within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to become ' aware of the information annually.
The pro-grams should include provision for written material that is likely to be 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 ir, hotel s, 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 emer-gency or accident occurs. Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency informa-tion and guide the visitor to appropri ate radio and television frequencies.
Pamphlet:
4 APPENDIX 3, MEANS FOR PROVIDING PROMPT ALERTING AND NOTIFICATION OF RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE POPULATION lbeginning at p. 3-1J NRG and FEMA recognize that the responsibility for activating the prompt notification system called for in this section is properly the responsibility of State and local governments.
NRC and FEMA also recognize that the responsibility for demonstrating that such a system is in place rests with the facility licensee.
B.
Criteria for Acceptance [2.]
The minimum acceptable design objectives for coverage by the [ prompt notification] system are:
(b) 1he initial notification system will assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site.
Every year, or in conjunction with an exercise of the f acility, FEMA, in cooperation with the utility operator, and/or the State and local governments will take a statistical sample of the residents of all aree.s within about ten miles to assess the public's ability to hear the alerting sigrjal and their awareness of the mean-ing of the prompt notification message as well as the availability of information on wnat to do in an emergency.
Ine system plan must include a provision for corrective measures to provide reasonable assurance that coverage approaching the design objectives is main-t ained.
[Empnasis added.]
i II THE ACEQUACY Or THE PAMPHLET'S CONTENT The parties have presented us with a variety of factual arguments that, regrettably, have not been fully discussed in relation to the applica-ble regulations vid guidance.
In this section of the decision, we set forth our views of the regulatory materials, then we set forth the factual argu-ments of the parties; only then do we resolve the factual disputes in light of our legal conclusions.
A.
How the Regulatory Materials Apply The requirement that there be an emergency planning pamphlet is an irtrinsic part of the regulatory scheme requiring a proept notification system.
Its purpose is to give residents and transients the information l
Pamphlet:
5 they need to respond to audible al arm systems and to be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the importance of responding.
The purpose of the pamphlet is to communicate necessary information.
To do that, it must be clear, concise, and well-organized.
It also must be properly distributed, so that the people who need the information will be likely to receive it.
In the words of NUREG-0654, supra, it must give people "an adequate opportunity to become aware of the information annual-ly "
While the writing and distribution of a pamphlet may seem a simple matter, effective writing and effective distribution are not so simple.
The pamphlet is not to be judged aesthetically or academically, but by its abil-ity to communicate and to inform.
One attribute of an effective pamphlet is accuracy.
Important inac-curacies may become known and may detract from the credibility and the nec-essary acceptance of the pamphlet.
On the other hand, a pamphlet cannot exhaustively treat the subject of the effects of radiation and it all-too-easily can become too elaborate and extensive to communicate ef fectively.
If that were to occur, the pamphlet likely would go unread and its role as an action document would be defeated.
Our role is uncomfortable because it can easily be misunderstood or mischaracterized as that of censor.
However, we view ourselves as respon-sible only for seeing that necessary facts about the rapid response system are communicated, that there are no serious errors detracting from the credibility of the document, and that there are no serious omissions from the distributed material.
We are not censors, but limit our concern to matters that affect the document's ability to achieve its intended purpose.
We also are aware that each proposed addition to tne pamphlet must be viewed with caution because additions may cumulatively increase its bulk and complexity and reduce its ability to communicate.
Pamphlet: 6 We take some comfort that the regulations require annual, mnthodolo-gically sound ("a statistical sample") sampling of people living and working in the vicinity of the plant, to determine if they are aware of the meaning of the prompt notification signal and if they have information available to them about what to do in a radiological emergency.
In addition, corrective measures must be taken if the level of knowledge is substantially short of 100%, the level specified as an objective.
This survey requirement, proper-ly administered, can provide useful empirical information for improving the booklet's ability to "get through" the intended information.
We note also that the regulatory materials require that signs or other measures be used so that transients can obtain appropriate information.
Since the area of the Big Rock Plant has many summer and winter visitors, this requirement assumes increased importance.
In summary, the emergency planning pamphlet must be judged as an action document.
The key questions are whether it has been written and distributed in compliance with the regulations, which were designed to l
facilitate an effective evacuation, should one be' needed.
i 8.
Overall View of the Pamphlet To place intervenors' views about particular portions of the pamphlet in context, we have read the entire pamphlet with care.
Consumers Power Exhibit #5. This reading persuades us that the overall tone of the pamphlet is objective, that the level of language is direct and communicative, and that there are no glaring omissions or inaccuracies.
We agree with appli-cant's view that, af ter it makes the corrections that have been agreed to, the pamphlet will contain:
a balanced presentation of the following information: the sources of radiation and how radiation is measured; the presence and amount of l
l
Pamphlet:
7 background radiation from common sources, with illustrations; the effects of radiation on humans with specific attent in given to the extra sensitivity of unborn and young children to radiation and the uncertain health effects of low-level radiation; a description of a postulated accident with the aid of a diagram of a nuclear power reactor containment building; the influence of weather on a radiation release; the effects of the dominant radioactive materials which would likely by released during an accident; and a glossary of basic nuclear terms.
[ Footnote deleted.]
Consumers Power Company Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Subcontention (3) and that Portion of Subcontention (2) of Christa-Maria Contention 9 concerning the Emergency Planning Public Information Pamphlet (July 2, 1982) at 7 (Applicant's Findings).
In general, this pamphlet seems to be a substantial improvement over the pamphlet that was originally distributed and criticized by intervenors.
Consumers Power Exhibit #4.
i C.
Adequacy of Pamphlet as to Radiation Hazards
- 1. Changes Agreed to by Applicant The most important change in the pamphlet agreed to by applicant is that information at the top of Page 18 should be revised.
As written, that section merely reassured Big Rock's neighbors that plausible accidents could l
lead only to minimal doses.
Such an unmitigated reassurance might, however, l
have led people to disregard evacuation warnings.
After all, why respond when no harm could come to one anyway?
As a result of the Board's discus-sion with applicant's witness on this point (Tr. 1311-15), applicant has agreed to modify the section by adding the following language:
However, prudent emergency preparedness includes planning for less likely ' worst case' accidents in which larger, even life-threatening doses of radiation might be released with the five-mile EPZ.
Pamphlet: 8 Applicant's Motion to Supplement Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Out of Time (July 10, 1982) at 2.
We find this change acceptable.
Applicant also has agreed that its pamphlet, adapted from one devel-oped for the Palisades Nuclear Plant, should be nodified in a number of ways in order to adapt it to the Big Rock situation.
Hence, the containment building diagram in the pamphlet will be nodified to reflect the actual structure of Big Rock Point, which does not have a concrete containment.
Applicant's Findings at 10.
Maps obviously will need to reflect, accurate-ly, the local area.
Id. at 5.
Consumers Power's name, as publisher, will appear on the bottom of either page 1 or page 2 of the pamphlet. Appli-cant's Motion to Supplement at 2.
(The glossary definition of the EPZ and of MPD should be made geographically and factually correct.)
A number of changes were made from the original pamphlet in order to reflect the special situation of women and unborn children.
- Applicant's Findings at 5.
Because Christa-Maria a[gued that women of childbearing age might not always be aware of their pregnancy at the time of an accident, applicant also agreed to change page 17 of the pamphlet to read, " Women of j
childbearing age and women with very young children should be aware of the f act that, as compared with older children and adults, the unborn and very young children are especially sensitive to radiation."
Id.
Given the need for concise expression in the pamphlet, we believe that this change of word-ing is adequate to meet the point raised by Christa-Maria.
2.
Contested Allegations Christa-Maria has raised a number of questions concerning the adequa-cy of the emergency planning pamphlet that are not related to radiological questions.
We have considered these allegations and have decided that they are not of sufficient importance for us to regard them as important safety i
Pamphlet:
9 issues that we would take up in our discretion by analogy to 10 CFR 2.760a.
Consequently, we address only those questions relating to the admitted con-tentions.
(Christa-Maria's suggested findings concerning the training of public officials are relevant to its contention and need not be refiled; they are not relevant to this expedited decision, but will be considered with respect to this contention in a subsequent decision.)
Christa-Maria argues that the emergency planning pamphlet has not been submitted to FEMA for review, implying that a review is required.
How-ever, Christa-Maria has not presented any basis for us to make completion of a formal FEMA review a requirement in this license amendment proceeding.
FEMA reviews appear to be required only with respect to operating license proceedings.
For other proceedings, the Board need not obtain FEMA assistance in determining whether applicant has met the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b).
Christa-Maria's proposed finding 22 states that, "The pamphlet should be simplified and elaborated upon."
Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Christa-Maria contentions 9(2) and 9(3) (July 2, 1982) at 7 (Christa-Maria Findings).
We find this statement to be too gen-eral and to be internally inconsistent.
Christa-Maria also has asked for an expanded treatment of the differ-ences among alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Id.
Applicant responds that it has adequately treated the subject of sources of radiation on page 21 of
~
the pamphlet.
Consumers Power Exhibit #5.
In general, we agree.
- However, there is a remote chance that additional, longer-lived radioactive elements could be dispersed by an air crash or in-plant explosion.
To facilitate public response to such an event, the public should be informed that such releases are possible.
The following changes are necessary to accommodate this point:
Pamphlet:
10 Add the word, "probably" in the seventh text line on p. 21, so that it will read, " Iodine-131 probably would.... "
Add two new sentences at the end of the "What kind.
" section, reading:
"It is very unlikely, but possible, that other radioactive materials might be released. If this occurred you would receive spec-ific instructions about appropriate precautions."
Change the eighth line on p. 4 of the booklet to read, "Unless you receive more specific directions, the best course...
We believe any further amplification of the text, or the inclusion of a diagram of the human body (including effects of radiation on different organs), as suggested by Christa-Maria, would unduly complicate the pamphlet without providing information which would be helpful to public understanding of the need to evacuate, should that need arise.
Although providing addi-tional information about types of radiation might serve an important public-education goal, this Board's jurisdiction is limited to considera, tion of the
~
pamphlet as an emergency preparedness document, and its treatment of radia-tion is entirely appropriate for that subject.
Christa-Maria's concern that people should immediately go inside when they hear an alarm (see Christa-Maria Findings at 8,13) is consistent with applicant's own suggestions elsewhere in the pamphlet and would improve citizen response.
Hence, the second paragraph under " Local Alert", on p. 5, should be changed to read, "If you hear any of these signals, go inside where you may either listen to a warning on the public address system or may tune to local radio or television stations listed on Page [
] to learn what, if any, precautionary measures should be taken."
We do not consider the insertion of " routinely" on Figure 1, page 14, to be important enough for us to require a change, although applicant would be permitted to do so if it wished.
The suggestion would change the title 4
Pamphlet:
11 of the Figure from " Sources of radiation that people receive" to " Sources of radiation that people routinely receive."
This has the theoretical advan-tage that two entries in the table, " Fallout" and " Release from the nuclear industry" are routine current releases and would be increased by further atmospheric nuclear tests (or large leaks from underground tests) or by large-scale nuclear power-plant accidents.
We reject Christa-Maria's suggestion concerning the parallel between solar radiation and ionizing radiation.
The purpose of the section is to communicate the need to avoid excess exposure, just as you might avoid excess exposure to the sun.
There is no need to clarify this further by pointing out the dangers of excess expesure to sun.
That is not the subject of this pamphlet.
However, we accept in part Christa-Maria's objection to the paragraph on page 8 that compares releases from credible accidents to "thet amount you could receive during some routine diagnostic nuclear medicine applications."
The word routine, as used by applicant, includes "a rectalinear scan of the thyroid gland in which the patient is injected with iodine 131."
Tr. 1312.
We consider this to be somewhat misleading, howeser.
Such a test would be routine for the medical community; but it is not routine for a patient. The word " routine" is more likely to connote a chest x-ray or dent al x-ray, which are the routine tests with which people are most familiar.
Hence, the word " routine" should be deleted.
It is not necessary for applicant to state that health effects are proportional to " cumulative radiation dose" rather than to " radiation dose."
See Pamphlet at 18.
No important ambiguity is presently involved.
Similar-ly, page 21 discusses radioactive elements likely to be released.
We are requiring applicant to add two sentences to this page about the risk of
Pamphlet:
12 dangerous releases; we see no reason also to require a discussion of the plant's radioactive materials inventory.
Christa-Maria's last recommendation is meritorious.
We have decided that the section beginning, "What if I am instructed to evacuate?" (Pam-phlet at 8) should begin with the sentence, "Since an accident's severity and the wind's direction determine the pattern of radiation releases during an emergency, radio, TV and public address systems will advise you whether to evacuate and what routes to take."
This new sentence would help to communicate what appears to be an important purpose of this section of the pamphlet, to tell people a special reason to listen for emergency messages
--that they may be in an area where they would be expected to evacuate because they are in a potentially dangerous area, downwind of the plant.
However, the addition of this one sentence does not entirely resolve this question.
To carry out Christa-Maria's suggestion consistently, the section should read:
If you are within five miles of Big Rock, there is a remote possibil-ity that you might be required to evacuate certain areas downwind from the plant.
If you are asked to evacuate, first put on a dust mask or breathe through a damp handkerchief to filter out any dust in the air.
Gather up a change of clothing, personal toilet articles, blankets or sleeping bags for each member of your family, special baby formulas and any special medications you or your family may need, as you would in preparation for a short trip, unless otherwise advised by local government.
l Secure your property as if you were going on a short vacation.
As you leave, lock all doors and tie a white handkerchief or piece of cloth on your mailbox or doorknob so that emergency response person-nel will know you have evacuated.
Get into your car or other vehicle, close the windows and vents and drive slowly and safely either to your Reception Center described on Page 9, or to the home of friends or relatives at least 15 miles from the Plant.
If you have room in your car, take neighbors who have no means of transpor-t ation.
l l
l l
Pamphlet:
13 Evacuation, which is only a remote possibility, generally will be advisable only for the area within five miles from the plant, in an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consisting of the following municipali-ties:
in Van Buren County - Bangor, Covert, Geneva, Hartford, and South Haven Townships and the Cities of South Haven and Bangor; in Berrien County - the Cities and Townships of Coloma and Watervliet, respectively, and Hagar Township; and in Allegan County - Casco Township.
We note that applicant plans to delete the pamphlet section, " Nuclear Plant Safety and Emergency Planning." Affidavit of Roger W. Sinderman, sub-mitted July 10, 1982 at 2, 1 2E.
This deletion has not been opposed and is acceptable.
It should contribute to the pamphlet's ability to communicate by eliminating irrelevant material.
III ADEQUACY OF DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLET t
A.
Applicable Regulatory Materials Review of the regulatory materials set forth in Part I, above, indi-cates that the NRC requires, as a condition to the issuance of an operating license, that an applicant demonstrate that "means to provide early notifi-cation and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure path-way Emergency Planning Zone have been established."
The plan must provide an adequate opportunity for both the permanent and adult population to become awa're of the information annually.
NUREG-0654 at 50.
Signs or other notices shall be used to inform transients of how they can become better informed about emergency planning information.
B.
Analysis of Adequacy of Distribution Much of the controversy about the distribution of the emergency plan-ning pamphlet revolved around the distribution of an earlier version of the p amphlet.
Consumers Power Exhibit #4. However, the new pamphlet will be
Pamphlet:
14 distributed directly by the applicant and the alleged inadequacy of the prior distribution is therefore of no direct relevance to whether the new pamphlet wi11 be properly distributed by the applicant.
Tr.1038, Loomis Testimony at 3-6.
The deficiencies are, however, relevant to the adequacy of plans for the county Emergency Service Directors to distribute the pam-phlet to public places such as motels, Chambers of Commerce and city and county buildings.
Christa-Maria has several objections to plans for distribution of the new pamphlet.
Their first objection, which we consider wholly devoid of merit, is that applicants have not signed a written contract for the mailing they plan to make.
There is no serious question about the availability of a local firm willing and able to contract for such a mailing.
Christa-Maria's principal concern, that transients may not learn what to do in an emergency, has merit.
Although Mr. Danny B. Benient, who is an emergency management specialist for FEMA, presented somewhat vague testi-mony on the point, it appears that between 33% and 50% of the population I
within five miles of the plant is seasonal or transient.
Tr. 835-838.
The exact number of transients who rent quarters and who therefore would not receive a direct mailing is not clear from the record, but it is undoubtedly substanti al.
Transients do not have an opportunity to become adequately informed about the emergency plan.
Mr. Bement testified that ger:erally emergency planning pamphlets were not distributed to guests in motels, in part because the motel owners fear that distributing pamphlets to the rooms might adver-sely affect business.
Tr. 846.
In a couple of motels in which booklets were placed in rooms, they were " picked up and carried out" or "were over time aged and discolored or no longer in useable form." Tr. 1010.
Although there is some emergency planning information on the back inside cover of the l
l l
Pamphlet:
15 telephone book in Charlevoix County, motel guests are not given any informa-tion that would direct them to that information in an emergency.
Tr. 1010-1012, 1020-1021.
Mr. Bement's testimony that people will naturally open a telephone book to the back inside cover is totally lacking in credibility.
Tr. 1020-1021.
Mr. Bement suggested that, in an emergency, motel operators might be able to assure that motel guests would learn what to do.
However, there is no testimony that these owners have specific action plans about how to accomplish
- that, that they have supplies of booklets available for distribution in an emergency, that guests could be expected to learn about the dangers of radiation rapidly enough to benefit from the entel owner's emergency action, or that a substantial percentage of the guests would be expected to be in their rooms, where they could be reached, when an emergen-cy occurs.
See Tr. 846.
t We find that the distribution of the old pamphlet was a hit-or-miss proposition. About 60 to 75 percent of the pamphlets that were printed were not distributed.
Testimony of Mr. Earl Muma, Charlevoix County Planning Director, Tr. 1361. Mr. Loomis said that about 9,000 pamphlets were return-ed, but we consider Mr. Muma's reference to numbers of boxes of pamphlets to be more tangible and credible.
Cf. Tr. 1067-1068.
The pamphlets were sup-posed to be distributed to homes by boy scouts, but Mr. Muma does not know how many boy scouts worked on the project or whether the pamphlets were dis-tributed to houses.
Tr. 1369, 1373.
Although a map in Mr. Muma's office was marked to indicate progress on the distribution project, Mr. Muma does I
not know who marked the map.
Tr.
1366.
There apparently was no effort made by anyone to ascertain the extent of the deliveries made by the boy scouts.
Mr. Bement, who works for FEMA, relied on Mr. Muma to find out l
whether the pamphlet was distributed. Tr. 840, 850.
Pamphlet:
16 We conclude, based on a reading of the entire record on this conten-tion, that the local officials responsible for emergency planning and the Consumers Power officials who are responsible for assuring the NRC that an effective plan is in place, have worked conscientiously on tasks intended to fulfill individual requirements imposed by the regulations.
- However, whether because of lack of resources or lack of commitment, these officials have not developed information that would let them know whether the tasks they initiated have been effectively carried out.
They were concerned that steps were taken to fulfill the requirement that a pamphlet be distributed, but they did not find out how well those steps were carried out or whether the pamphlet was received.
Under these circumstances we have little confidence in the proposed method of distributing the new pamphlet,to public places and to transients.
Given the history of official concern about the effectiveness 0;f emergency planning, we also were not overly surprised to discover that the details of the mailirg to seasonal residents have not been thought through.
Mr.
Loomis, who is the Consumers Power official who will be responsible for pamphlet distribution, has arranged for a sumer mailing to addressees on the " summer list," which reflects the largest seasonal population for the area.
Tr. 1133, 1140-1141, 1150-1151.
If the mailing were delayed until winter, the winter list would of course be used.
Tr. 1151.
But, as Christa-Maria has pointed out, " Distribution in the winter will not reach summer-only residents and in the summer will not reach winter-only resi-dents."
Christa-Maria Findings at 4,113.
Applicant, in its Reply at 5, recognizes the need to make this supplement al mailing to the seasonal residents who are not included in the first mailing.
(Mr. Loomis, at Tr.
1150-1152, showed a partial appreciation of this need.)
Pamphlet:
17 Furthermore, there is no resolution of how transients should be in-formed about radiation hazards (a function of the pamphlet but not the tele-phone book) or about how to find emergency evacuation information on the inside back cover of the telephone book.
We find that the regulations do not require distribution of the pamphlet to transients, but do require that
" signs or other measures" be used to direct transients to appropriate infor-mation.
(This contention was intended to address the distribution of infor-mation to transients and the failure to use " signs or other measures" there-fore falls within the ambit of the admitted contention.)
Applicant must resolve the outstanding problems of distribution of the pamphlet and getting basic information to transients either by satisfy-ing the Beard's concerns or by demonstrating that adequate interim measures are being taken to resolve the open is, sues concerning distribution of the emergency planning pamphlet. See 10 CFR 5.54(s)(2)(ii) and 50.'47 ( c)(1).
IV MISCELLANE0US MATTER l
Through informal discussions sponsored by the Board, the parties have agreed that the emergency pamphlet should be modified by placing early warn-ing information--including the meaning of the siren signal and a map of the evacuation routes--in a more prominent position at the beginning of the p amphlet.
The Board is gratified that this matter was accomplished in a cooperative spirit.
It does, however, have one further suggesticn: that information about monthly siren testing should be included in this promin-ently pl:tced material so that people may learn about these exercises in l
advance rather then becoming acclimated to sirens and developing a habit of disregarding them.
We expect that this suggestion will prove as acceptable to the parties as did our prior suggestion.
l l
l
O Pamphlet:
18 0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 6th day of August 1982 ORDERED:
(1)
Consumers Power Company's (applicant) Emergency Planning Pamph-let shall be modified from the draft contained in Exhibit 5 pursuant to this decision.
Changes to be made include:
(a) Each of the changes agreed to by applicant, as set forth in Section II C. 1. of this decision, (b) Changes indicated in Section II C.
- 2. of this decision, in order to indicate the possiblity of, release of radioactive elements not presently discussed in the text, t
(c)
Alterations of the text labelled " Local Alert", as indi-cated in Section II. C. 2. of this decision, to indicate the first action citizens should take when hearing an alert signal, (d)
Deletion of the word " routine" from page 8 of the draf t pamphlet, as indicated in Section II. C. 2. of this decision, and (e) Editing indicated in Section I C. 2. of this decision, in order to more clearly state the reason evacuation plans may depend on wind direction.
(2) Applicant shall promptly distribute the revised emergency pamph-let pursuant to its plans, but a subsequent supplementary mailing should also be made to seasonal winter residents.
(3) Applicant shall promptly submit evidence demonstrating its com-pliance with regulatory principles governing the distribution of information
Pamphlet:
19 to transients and to public places, as discussed in Section III B. of this decision.
(4) Within ten (10) days after service of this decision, a party may appeal by the filing of exceptions to the decision or any part thereof, pur-suant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.762, which imposes requirements of con-ciseness and particularity and provides for the subsequent filing of appeal briefs.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i/t Weter E. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
(~LAf \\
Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judge
- )
0/
Of/fbs/
Mr. Frederick J. Shd'n, Administrative Judga Bethesda, Maryland
[