ML20076J166
| ML20076J166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1983 |
| From: | Copeland V COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8306200350 | |
| Download: ML20076J166 (47) | |
Text
l yi.
7g 1
3 c.
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE S$f8 COUNSELORS AT LAW p
,, j JUN d N b I 4
THREE FIR $T NATONAL PLAZA ff CHICAGO. ILUNOl$ 60602 pOf th%
R RTT bN 4
TA E
.N W June 14, 1983 Secretary Attn:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL and 50-455 OL
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find enclosed for filing with the Commission three copies of the following documents:
1.
Memorandum, dated April 6, 1983, to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, from Alan P.
Bielawski, Steven Goldberg and Bryan Savage, regarding the Emergency Planning Stipulation; 2.
Stipulation, dated 3/30/83, executed by Commonwealth Edison Company, DAARE/ SAFE, and the Rockford League of Women Voters; with two attachments - one stating the amended and consolidated emergency planning contention and the other stating the commit-ments that have been made regarding that contention; and 3.
Stipulation, undated, executed by Commonwealth Edison Company and NRC Staff.
At the request of the Licensing Board in the referenced proceeding, we are providing these copies to the l
l i
I 1
8306200350 830614 l
PDR ADOCK 05000454 0
PDR O
\\b
Secretary, U.S. NRC June 14, 1983 Page 2 Secretary to accomplish their formal filing.
These documents were previously served on the parties.
l Very truly yours, (Yr1 A
Victor G. Copeland One of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company VGC:mbn Enclosure cc:
Per attached service list, with or without enclosure as indicated.
4 I
SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Mr. Ivan W. Smith
- Secretary Administrative Judge and Chairman Attn:
Chief, Docketing and Atomic Safety and Licensing Service Section
. Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 428 Washington, D.C.
20555 East West / West Towers Bldg.
4350 East West Highway lis. Betty Johnson Bethesda, MD 20114 1907 Stratford Line Rockford, Illinois 61107 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Diane Chavez Board Panel SAFE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 326 North Avon Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Rockford, Illinois 61103
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Bruce von Zellen Board Panel Department of Biological Sciences U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northern Illinois University Washington, D.C.
20555 DeKalb, Illinois 60115
- Chief Hearing Counsel Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Office of the Executive Isham, Lincoln & Beale Legal Director Suite 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
Dr. A Dixon Callihan Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
l Union Carbide Corporation Jane Whicher l
P.O.
Box Y BPI Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 1300 l
109 N. Dearborn l
Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Chicago, IL 60602 l
Ms. Mitzi A. Young Office of the Executive Legal Ms. Patricia Morrison Director 5568 Thunderidge Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockford, Illinois 61107 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. David Thomas
- Atomic Safety and Licensing 77 South Wacker Appeal Board Panel Chicago, IL 60621 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 With enclosure All others without enclosure
MEMORANDUM C.
TO:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station Operating License Docket Nos. 50-454 OL, 50-455 OL)
FROM:
Alan P. Bielawski, Steven Goldberg and Bryan Savage
SUBJECT:
Emergency Planning Stipulation DATE:
April 6, 1983 The following is a chronology of events that led to the signing of the Stipulations regarding emergency planning contentions:
1.
In 1979, DAARE/ SAFE and the Rockford League of Women Voters were admitted as Intervenors in the Byron Station operating license proceedings. Both parties filed emergency planning contentions which were admitted as contested issues.
2.
Early on,' Commonwealth Edison Company served interrogations on these parties seeking to discover the facts on which Intervenors intended to rely in support of their contentions, and identification of any documentary or expert evidence in support thereof. Ultimately, the League's failure to respond 4
to Edison's discovery led to the League's dismissal as a Party by the Licensing Beerd. The Licensing Board's 1.
L decision was eventually reversed by the Appeal Board, though the Appeal Board limited issues that the League could pursue
(.
at the hearings.
For its part, DAARE/ SAFE's response to the interrogatories consisted in large part of an identification i
.n
---,-,,--.----.r-..
n=,
.--.n
~
. (
of various generic studies and reports regarding emergency planning; witnesses which DAARE/ SAFE intended to present in support of its contention were not identified.
3.
In mid-December, 1982, upon its publication, Intervenors were given access to a copy of the initial draft of the State of Illinois site specific emergency plan for Byron which consists of approximately 600 pages and was provided a copy of Edison's Evacuation Time Estimate Study. A copy of the State of Illinois plan was given to Intervenors in early January 1983.
4.
Within two weeks of the start of the evidentiary hearings (March 1,1983), Intervenors filed nine affidavits of s
individuals it intended to call as witnesses at the hearings,
(
identified a number of additional individuals it intended to subpoena, and filed an " Amended and Consolidated" contention it sought to substitute for its existing emergency planning contentions. The Amended and Consolidated l
contention consisted of 13 subparts which focused more specifically upon the evidence Intervenors intended to present at the hearings on emergency planning matters.
5.
Edison and the NRC Staff objected to the admission of 1
Intervenors' late filed contention and its attempt to present witnesses at the hearing who had not been previously identified, claiming that Intervenors' failure to provide notice at an earlier date of its intentions severely
(
prejudiced Edison's and the Staff's ability to present an effective response at the hearings.
Intervenors claimed that they identified witnesses and filed their new contention as
o k soon as possible after receipt of the site specific emergency planning documents identified in paragraph 3 above.
In the course of oral argument during the initial days of the hearings, the parties informed the Board that they were willing to discuss settlement possibilities. As a result the Board postponed deciding the dispute.
~
6.
Following approximately three weeks of negotiation, the
. parties agreed upon a settlement.- The parties agreed that they would litigate certain of the issues raised in Intervenors' amended and consolidated contention.
In large measure, the issues selected for litigation concern disputes regarding interpretation of regulatory requirements and differences of opinion concerning methodological and philosophical approaches to emergency planning as wel? as certain factual disputes. The parties agreed that they would attempt to resolve the other issues informally. For the most part, these issues involved questions regarding the availability of emergency planning resources and steps that would be taken prior to conducting the FEMA emergency exercise. The mechanism selected for informal resolution consisted of Edison's making commitments to demonstrate to Intervenors, before the facility exceeded 5% power, that certain required aspects of the emergency plan were in place.
Based on Edison's agreement to make these commitments, Intervenors agreed not to pursue litigation of various
(
subparts of its amended and consolidated contentions.
t-i.
- 4. 7.
Intervenors desired access to the Licensing Board to resolve any questions regarding whether Edison had satisfied its commitments. Inasmuch as the Board might be asked to resolve any such question following the Board's issuance of an initial decision authorizing full power operation and following the issuance of such a license by the NRC, the parties were concerned that the Board might not have the jurisdiction to
'4 conduct such post-licensing proceedings.
Edison and Intervenors agreed that in view of the jurisdictional question, the Board should seek an order from the Commission which would grant the Board appropriate jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation.
8.
The Staff agreed with the substantive objective of the
(
Applicant-Intervenor stipulation. The Staff did not agree with the procedural vehicle for implementing that objective.
The Applicant-Intervenor stipulation is predicated on the presumptive inability of the Licensing Board to entertain a post-initial decision motion to reopen the record and formally
(
requests the Board (via the certification route) to obtain the necessary jurisdiction from the Commission pursuant to
[
section 2.717.
The proposed Staff stipulation is predicated on the presumptive ability of the Board to retain jurisdiction over a motion (to amend contentions in this case) filed prior to its rendition of an initial decision, which decision is specifically conditioned on the eventual
{
post-decisional disposition of such motion.
I
,g
. The Staff believes that its proposed stipulation conforms with established NRC practice and procedure and would obviate J
the : necessity to pursue the exceptional course of formally certifying the jurisdictional issue raised in the Applicant-i Intervenor' stipulation to the Commission. The Staff position on the Applicant-Intervenor stipulation is also influenced
+ e by the opinion that resort to formal Commission certification t
is premature given the distinct possibility that the subject 4
e matter of the stipulation can be resolved in such a timeframe s
that it would not adversely affect plant operational readiness and during the pendency of the case before the Board.
/
9.
Intervenors are concerned about the manner in which Staff's stipulation addresses the jurisdictional question because it s
h.
relies upon a mere presumption that the Licensing Board will
(
have jurisdictiion if, the Intervenors submit a petition to reopen the hearing.
Intervenors therefore prefer that the jurisdictional question be certified to the Commission and that the Commission confer appropriate jurisdiction on the Licansing Board to enforce the Applicant-Intervenor
'i stipulation. However, if*=the C'ommission provides adequate I
assurance to Intervenors that the Board is authorized to enforce the Staff stipulation, Intervenors are willing to join that stipulation.
[,
10.
During the April I heiaring session, the Board offered to
~
elicit an informal opinion from the Commission or its officers
(
on the acceptability of either the Applicant-Intervenor stipulation or proposed Staff stipulation, or both. The parties have no objection to such a course of action.
]
3/30/83
{
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter.of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2)
)
1 STIPULATION The DeKalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy, the Sinnissippi Alliance For the Environment, the Rockford League of Women Voters (hereinafter' jointly referred to as "Intervenors"), Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison") and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff
(
(" Staff") agree and stipulate that the issues raised in Intervenors' emergency planning contentions, previously admitted in this proceeding, and the " Amended and Consolidate" emergency planning contentien, which Intervenors seek to have admitted in this proceeding, should be resolved in the following manner.
1.
WITHDRAWAL OF OLD CONTENTIONS.
Intervenors agree to withdraw DAARE/ SAFE Contention 3 and League I
Contentions 19 and 108 previously admitted as contested issues in j
this_ proceeding.
1 l
(i
. 2.
WITHDRAWAL OF OPPOSITION TO ADMISSION OF PORTIONS OF AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED CONTENTIONS.
Edison and the Staff agree to withdraw their opposition except as provided in paragraph 2(a) below, to the admission of Intervenors' amended and consolidated contentions, as worded in Attachment I hereto.
(a) Edison and the Staff object to the admission of til and T12 on the ground that these paragraphs constitute challenges to Commission regulations.
Intervonors agree that these paragraphs constitute challenges to Commission regulations and that they have not made the showing of special circumstances as required by 10 CFR $2.758 to permit litigation of these issues in this proceeding._/
(
(b)
Intervenors agree to withdraw 12(1) as an issue to be litigated in this proceeding.
3.
LITIGATION OF CONTENTIONS.
(a) Beginning the week of April 18, 1983, the parties agree to litigate the following paragraphs, or
- _/
Intervenors' willingness to reword 112 as a challenge to the Commission's regulations is based on Edison's agreeing to Commitment W, included in Attachment 2.
(-
. portions of paragraphs, set forth in Attachment 1:
(1) 12(c), (e) and (k)
(ii) 13 (iii) 18 (iv) 110 (v) 113 (b) By March 18, 1983 the parties will provide the names of witnesses they expect to call for the purposes of litigating the issues raised in the paragraphs identified in 3(a) above.
(c) By March 23, 1983 the parties agree to file any discovery requests pertaining to the issues identified in 3(a) above.
Discovery shall be limited to document production and deposition requests. The parties agree to cooperate in providing such discovery so as to enable litigation of the issues identified in 3(a) above.
(d) The parties agree to file any prefiled testimony, or supplement existing prefiled testimony, on the issues identified in 3(a) above by April 11, 1983.
(c) Edison and the NRC Staff agree not to object to the admission of the affidavits bearing on emergency planning issues which have previously been filed by Intervenors based upon any alleged discovery violations.
Edison and the NRC Staff reserve the right to object to the admission of the affidavits, or portions thereof, into the hearing record on all other grounds (e.g., relevance of testimony to contentions, hearsay,
{
cumulative nature of testimony, etc.).
h
. 4.
PROCESS FOR INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF REMAINING CONTENTIONS.
(a)
Intervenors agree not to litigate the issues raised in the following paragraphs, contained in Attachment 1, based on Edison's agreement to satisfy the commitments attached as Attachment 2 (hereinaf ter " Commitments").
(i) 11 (ii) 12(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h), (j ), (1),
(m), and (n)
(iii) 54 (iv) 15 (v) 56 (vi) 57 (vii) 19 (b) Edison and Intervenors agree to cooperate in good faith to resolve questions regarding the manner in which Edison intends to meet the Commitments.
Such good faith cooperation shall include:
(i) Scheduling meetings between CECO and Intervenors on a regular basis to exchange information so as to permit Intervenors' independent assessment that progress on satisfying Commitments is being made.
Edison also agrees to make available to Intervenors relevant amergency i
planning documents which are available to Edison and to procure relevant documents which are not in its '
possession but which can be obtained.
In addition, Edison will provide Intervenors with projected completion dates for resolving Commitments when formulated.
L.
. (
(ii) Use of Edison's best efforts to provide Intervenors access on a regular basis to emergency planning officials, so as to permit Intervenors' independent assessment that resolution of emergency planning issues is progressing.
(c)
Edison agrees that the Commitments will be satisfied before the Byron Station exceeds 5% power.
(d) The parties recognize the possibility that they may ultimately disagree as to whether Edison has met, or can or will meet, all the Commitments in the time frame providea in 4(c) above.
If this occurs Intervenors may request that the Licensing Board resolve said disagreement as provided in paragraph 6 of this s
Stipulation.
Edison agrees to notify Intervenors in writing when it believes a Commitment has been satisfied and to set forth in reasonable detail the basis for such belief. Edison further agrees to provide such a notice with respect to all of the Commitments no later than 15 days after the issuance of findings by FEMA on which the NRC Staff relies to permit operation of the Byron Station at a level above 5% power.
Intervenors agree to notify Edison in writing within 15 days of their receipt of a notice from Edison that a Commitment has been satisfied, of Intervenor's agreement
(-
. or disagreement whether the Commitment has been satisfied.
If, despite having exercised reasonable diligence, it is not possible for Intervenors to determine whether a Commitment has been met within the 15 day period, Intervenors will so notify Edison. By failing to notify Edison of their disagreement, or inability to determine disagreement, or by submitting a notice that they agree that a Commitment has been satisfied, Intervenors will have waived any rights they may have had with respect to litigating the Commitments in question.
5.
EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF INITIAL DECISION.
If the Board issues a decision in favor of Edison with respect to (1) the issues litigated pursuant to paragraph 3 above, and (2) all other non-emergency planning issues, then, except as provided in paragraph 6 below, Intervenors agree not to obj ect, before the Licensing Board or any other judicial or administrative forum, to Board authorization that a full power operating license be issued or to NRC issuance of a full power license based on a claim that the provisions of paragraph 4 have not been complied with.
6.
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE COMMITMENTS.
I (a) Except as provided herein, Intervenors may petition the Board for a hearing at any time they believe Edison has not met or l
l can or will not satisfy a Commitment. No later than 30 days af ter Intervenors' receipt of the notice from Edison, required by section 4(d) of this Stipulation, which establishes that Edison believes that all Commitments have been satisfied.
. Intervenors may petition the Licensing Board for a hearing on the issue whether Edison has satisfied any of the Commitments. This 30' day period may be extended only on a showing by Intervenors that despite exercising due diligence in determining whether a Commitment has been satisfied, it was not possible for Intervenors to establish Edison's failure.to satisfy a Commitment within the 30 day period.
(i)
Intervenors shall be entitled to a hearing if, based on its petition and supporting affidavits, it makes a prima facie showing that Edison has not satisfied or will not or cannot satisfy one or more of the Commitments.
If the Board decides Intervenors are entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether Edison has satisfied a Commitment, the parties shall be entitled to move for summary disposition of that
(
issue.
(ii)
Intervenors may also petition the Licensing Board to order that operation of Byron be restricted to 5% power prior to a full evidentiary hearing on the question whether Edison has satisfied a Commitment. The Board may enter such an order if it finds, based on Intervenors' petition and Edison's and the Staff's responses thereto, that Intervenors have made a strong-showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits, that Intervenors' interests will be irreparably injured unless the order is. granted, and that the public interest requires the issuance of such an order.
. (iii)
If the Licensing Board grants Intervenors a hearing pursuant to 6(a) (1) above, and following the hearing, the Board finds that Edison has failed to satisfy the Commitment in question, it may enter such orders as may be appropriate. Edison recognizes that such an order may require that a Commitment be satisfied or that Edison restrict operation of Byron to a level not to exceed 5% power. The burden of proof in any hearings pursuant to this section shall be as provided in 10 CFR $2.732.
(iv) All orders, rulings, and decisions, entered pursuant to this Stipulation shall be subject to full appellate rights.
(b) The parties recognize that the process described in 6(a) above may result in the Licensing Board holding hearings and seeking to enforce Commitments following the issuance of an initial decision by the Board authorizing the issuance of a full power operating license for the Byron Station and following the issuance of such a license by the NRC.
In the opinion of the r
j parties, there is significant doubt as to whether the Commission's Rules of Practice (specifically 10 CFR $2.717) and pertinent Commission decisions grant the Licensing Board the l
jurisdiction to order such hearings or restrict operation of a licensed facility. However, 10 CFR $2.717 contemplates that the Commission may modify the Licensing Board's jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances. Accordingly, the parties agree
(
to jointly petition the Licensing Board to certify the question to the Commission and to request that the Commission grant the l
Licensing Board the jurisdiction necessary to fulfill the l
l
T provisions of this Stipulation.
By approving this Stipulation the Licensing Board signifies its willingness to certify the question to the Commission seeking appropriate jurisdiction.
7.
INTENT OF THE PARTIES.
The parties agree to proceed in good faith to attempt to accomplish the purposes of this Stipulation.
i i
s
-w i
i I
l I
l h
f' t
t
-__..-%,.s
,.,.,,,,,,,,,__4,
,.y m._
,y y
. COMMONWEALTH ISO
.0MPANY Date:
C 7)
By:
v
-/
W DAARE/ SAFE d((/Y[fr'b By:
NM WA Date:
I J
ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS By:
Sk. f./
/f[g3
_, j,:
Date:
!! o y
NRC STAFF By:
Date:
L
ATTACHMENT 1 The Emergency Plans for the Byron Station contains the following defects which will prohibit the Atomic Licensing and Safety Board from making the findings of fact required by 10 CFR Sections 50.47 (a), 50.57 (a) (3) (i), and 50.57 (a) (6):
1.
In violation of 10 CFR Section 50.47 (b) (10), the evacuation plans for public and private schools within the EPZ do not adequately address the fact that these schools lack the comrunication systems necessary to initiate and coordinate an evacuation; that they lack a sufficient number of buses and support personnel to conduct a safe evacuation; that they cannot coordinate their efforts during an evacuation in order
(
to render mutual aid; and that there is no reliable means of notifying school administrators that an evacuation should be conducted.
2.
In violation of 10 CFR Section 50.47 (b) (10), Commonwealth Edison's " Evacuation Time Estimates for the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone of the Byron Nuclear Generating Station" does not conform to NUREG 0654, Appendix 4 and will not provide accurate or useful guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency because the study:
(a) uses fallacious transient population figures; (b) does not indicate all of the actual assumptions which underlie the time estimates;
(c) does not address the relative significance of alternative assumptions; (d) does not make evacuation time estimates for each special facility on an individual basis; (e) does not consider the impact of peak populations, including behavioral aspects; (f) does not make any substantial recommendations for actions that could be taken to significantly improve evacuation time; (g) does not contain comments from the principle organizations resulting from their review of a draft time estimate study; (h) does not translate population data into auto-owning and trcnsportation-dependent groups; (1) does not give attention to special services required by households not owning autos; (j) does not describe the means of transportation available to each special facility; (k) does not use site weather characteristics as presented in 1
the FSAR; (1) falsely claims to have obtained mobilization and loading times for special facilities from administrators of those facilities; (m) incorrectly assumes that IPRA Byron, Revision 0 has made adequate provisions for the evacuation of special facilities and the general populace; and
. (n) makes further assumptions which contradict IPRA Byron, Revision 0, and the Byron Annex to the GSEP.
3.
In violation of 10 CRF Section 50.47 (b) (12), emergency planning for the Byron Station EPZ does not sufficiently address the fact that there are inadequate medical facilities to provide the equipment and trained personnel necessary to care for contaminated injured persons; that there are insufficient procedures for the screening, treatment, and isolation of persons sustaining radiological injuries; and that there is an insufficient number of materials, supplies, equipment, and vehicles to provide for the transportation of injured persons during a radiological disaster.
4.
In violation of 10 CRF Section 50.47 (b) (10) the emergency planning for the Byron Station fails to include an adequate means for protecting those persons requiring special transportation considerations. The proposed evacuation plans state that local school districts, the Oregon police, and the Oregon Ambulance Service will provide transportation for camps, homebound and nursing home patients, and other special concerns despite the fact that all three of these organizations are i
l already burdened with responsibilities which overestimate their l
l capabilities and overtax their resources. Furthermore,
[
conprehensive lists of shut-in populations and their specific l
l transportation needs are not available; there has been no i
l
{
analysis conducted regarding the feasibility of sheltering or
r l
. as protective action. There are no provisions for relocation of those whose medical needs require hospitalization. There is no differentiation of host facilities to meet specific needs of individual populations. There are no provisions in the plans concerning the method to be used in distributing radioprotective drugs to mobility impaired individuals.
5.
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (1), (2), (3), and (12), the emergency planning for the Byron Station and the Byron Station EPZ does not include written agreements identifying the emergency measures to be provided and mutually accepted criteria for the implementation of procedures by support organizations having an emergency response role either inside
(
or outside the EPZ.
6.
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (15), radiological emergency response training has not been provided to all response organizations and individuals who may be called upon to assist in an emergency, viz., directors and coordinators of the i
response organizations; first aid and rescue personnel; local support services personnel; medical support personnel; and those offsite organizations having mutual aid agreements with local agencies.
7.
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (7), emergency planning for the Byron Statio.n has yet to include adequate dissemination of accurate information to the public regarding the effects of
{_
radiation, protective measures to be taken during an emergency,
. or the special needs of the handicapped; nor has adequate assurance been presented as to the method, manner, and text of.
the publications to be posted for the information of the transient populations.
8.
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (10), emergency plans are incapable of offering sufficient guidance for the choice of protective actions during an. emergency since applicant and state planners have yet to adequately determine the local protection afforded (in dose reduction) by various protective measures including evacuation, sheltering, and radioactive prophylaxis.
9.
In violation of 10 CRF 50.47 (b) (5) and (6), emergency
(
planning for the Byron Station does not adequately provide for notification or communication of and between emergency response organizations and personnel so as to assure that communications necessary to timely and prompt evacuation can be implemented effectively.
l 10.
The emergency planning relies too heavily upon volunteer personnel to effect an evacuation. The emergency plans fail to l'
indicate the number of volunteer personnel who are necessary or available to perform the responsibilities assigned to them.
Furthermore, the plans do not:
(a) assess the availability of volunteers during hours in which many are employed outside the EPZ; I
~
{
(b) take into consideration inevitable personal conflicts in the responses of volunteers who have families in the EPZ; and
)
. (c) give consideration to the possibility that some volunteers who might perform well in non-radiological disasters might refuse to participate in a radiological disaster at the Byron Station.
11.
The Licensing Board cannot make findings regarding the adequacy of emergency planning for Byron until after the plans have been tested during an exercise and until after FEMA has issued its findings regarding the plan.
12.
Emergency planning beyond the EPZ is a recognition of the residual risk associated with major reactor accidents whose consequences could exceed those associated with so-called design basis events. Because the major metropolitan areas which are located beyond 10 miles from Byron in the Byron region are not included in the plume exposure EPZ, the emergency plans are inadequate.
13.
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (1), the emergency plans, specific tasks, and responsibilities have been formulated without sufficient communication between planning officials and primary and support response organizations so as to enable said organizations to fulfill their assigned roles.
L
.-n l
ATTACHMENT 2 Commitments Regarding Proposed Emergency Planning Contention 1 Coal:
1.
To demonstrate that all public and private schools within the plume exposure EPZ have been identified and that the transportation and l
communication resources necessary to secomplish evacuation are available and provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of students is adequately protected.
Commitments:
A.
Demonstrate that the school officials who would be called upon to effectuate evacuation of the specific school population have been identified, and informed of the details of the evacuation plan applicable,
(
to his/her assigned responsibilities and that there is reasonable assurance that they will be able to fulfill such responsibilities.
B.
Demo...trate that adequate notification facilities exist to notify school officials that it may be necessary to implement protective measures.
C.
Demonstrate that adequate communications facilities exist to enable the local emergency response officials to contact and coordinate the activities of others whose assistance is necessary to effectuate evacuation of the school population.
D.
Demonstrate that adequate transportation resources to effectuate school evacuation are available, such that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of students is adequately protected.
2/1
E.
Where effecting evacuation is dependent upon utilization of resources other than those of the specific school district, demonstrate that these resources are available, that plans include the means to
~
coordinate such mutual aid and that those responsible for the resources are informed and capable of executing their role in the emergency plan.
+
i l
l l
k i
/2 I
Commitments Regarding Proposed
(
Emergency Planning Contention 2(a),
(b), (d), (f), (g), (h), (j), (1), (m) and (n).
Goal II.
To demonstrate that the estimates contained in " Evacuation Time Estimates for the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone of the Byron Nuclear Generating Station", including any changes, modifications or supplements thereto, provide a reasonable basis for recommending and deciding on protective actions.
Commitments F.
Demonstrate that the transient population figures used in the study are representative of conditions which are likely to exist during an evacuation.
G.
Demonstrate that the principal assumptions used in developing
(
the estimates are stated and defensible.
H.
Demonstrate that specific recommendations for actions that could significantly improve evacuation time have been considered where feasible, or that such consideration is not warranted.
I.
Demonstrate that comments with respect to the evacuation study from the principal emergency response organizations (Illinois ESDA and Ogle County ESDA) have been solicited and that the study takes these l
comments into consideration.
J.
Demonstrate that the assumptions regarding the availability of autos to permanent residents are justified and that public transport-dependent populations have been considered in devising the estimates.
(
2/3
~.
K.
Demonstrate that there are no inconsistencies between the study and applicable portions of IPRA and 'sSEP which would significantly impact the reliability of the estimates.
L..
Demonstrate that an Annex to the Evacuation Time Estimates a
Study has been developed which presents specific evacuation feasibility analyses for appropriate special facilities such that there is reasonable i
assurance that in the event of an evacuation of a special facility the health and safety of its residents can be adequately protected, i
(
't i
e 4
)
(-
2/4
Commitments Regarding Proposed
{
Emergency Planning Contention 4 Goal III.
To demonstrate that IPRA includes guidelines for the choice of protective actions which adequately address concerns relating to protective measures-to be taken for special transportation-dependent populations.
Commitments M.
Demonstrate that IPRA includes adequate provisions for alternate protective actions, in the event evacuation of homebound and nursing home patients is infeasible.
N.
Demonstrate that there has been assessment of the number and location of special transportation-dependent individuals and that this
(
information is available to Ogle County emergency response officials.
O.
Demonstrate that, in the event evacuation of homebound and nursing home patients is necessary for those individuals whose medical needs require special care, there is reasonable assurance that adequate facilities to safely transport and host these individuals are available.
- l 9
2/5
(-
1
-,--c w
Commitment Regarding
{
Proposed Emergency Planning Contention 6 Commitment P.
Demonstrate that adequate radiological emergency rsponse training has been made available and retraining will be made available to all response organizations and individuals who may be called upon to assist in an emergency, viz., directors and coordinators of the response organizations; first aid and rescue personnel; local support services personnel; medical support personnel; and those other offsite organizations identified in IPRA having mutual aid agreements or arrangements with local agencies.
~
(
2/6 L
l
T Commitments Regarding Proposed
(
Emergency Planning Contention 7 Coal IV.
To demonstrate that there are adequate provisions to make accurate information available to the public regarding emergency planning.
Commitments Q.
Demonstrate that the public has received and will continue to receive on a periodic basis educational information on radiation.
R.
Demonstrate that the public has received and will continue to receive on a periodic basis accurate information regarding the protective measures to be taken during an emergency.
(
S.
Demonstrate that the public has received and will continue to receive on a periodic basis accurate information regarding special measures with respect to handicapped individuals to be taken during an emergency.
T.
Demonstrate that adequate information has been made available and will be available on a periodic basis to transient populations.
2/7
~
Commitments Regarding Emergency Planning Contention 9 i
Commitments U.
Demonstrate that there are adequate resources and procedures to effectuate notification by Edison of state and county emergency response organizations, and for notification of emergency personnel by these organizations.
V.
Demonstrate that adequate communications capabilities exist for the Ogle County Emergency response organization.
i s
(
[.
t t
I i
2/8
. ~.
e Commitment Regarding Emergency
{
Planning Contention 12 Commitment:
W.(a)
Edison agrees to contact and make its personnel with knowledge of the Byron emergency plan available to the mayors of Rochelle, Dixon and Rockford to discuss emergency planning measures.
Specifically, Edison agrees to discuss concerns identified by these officials related to emergency planning for Byron.
In order to aid these officials in identifying concerns, Edison will send the mayor of Rochelle, Dixon and Rockford the following information:
(i) a description and explanation of protective and parallel actions to be taken during an emergency; (ii) a description and explanation of what would be required of each of the cities if they were designated as a host for
(
evacuees; (iii) a description and explanation of measures to be taken by the state for the ingestion exposure pathway; i
(iv) relevant information on the planning bases for IPRA; and l
(v) the complete procedure for protection and parallel i
actions to be followed by the city of Oregon.
(b) Demonstrate that the Byron Statio-public information brochure has been made available to the mayors of Rockford, Rochelle and Dixon.
(c) Edison further agrees to critically review any material, plans I
or proposals about protection action submitted to them by the mayors of Rockford, Rochelle and Dixon.
l l (
2/9
e (d) Edison further agrees to demonstrate that it has developed an i
adequate procedure to assure that as new mayors of these communities take office they will be provided with the information described above and i
that Edison will make its personnel available to discuss emergency s
WNb planning issues.
J
\\
m~
s Y
5 J* %,
~.
\\
e.-
+
?-(
'y 3+
t.
g k?
- N<.
~
t
\\
,.'s
\\.s s.-
L y*
s v.
, k..
,L-3, s
1
^
3,,
g
,t a
s g
g
- I s
e, s.
w a
t i t
- }
s' k
.p t -.
l b.
p, -
o l
\\
a l
'N t
s.
l..
\\
l J
g f
\\
e g
g h
\\
4.*
7
. p g-s 3
,,1 -
,~
J'
- A g
N m
a su
'*?.1 ?
's I
i w
- k(
[
2/.ib "
"~Y*[
t,,
.. h I
4 9 KA l
\\
x ;
\\ L n\\
s, 7
\\
e s'g, 8'
T k, g g
..i k. - -
-, _ ~.-Am.
. A..
2.
r Commitment Regarding
{
Emergency Planning Contention 5 Commitment:
iX.
Demonstrate that there exist appropriate agreements and arrangements between Edison and those individuals and organizations who will provide emergency services to the Byron facility.
s:
~~
s x
\\
S
- /
s.
4 f
y; e-f-
s, s~
~
2/11
'. S.
i s
b 5.
. s W.:,
n
.+
c' 4
e-
~
-i, Additional Co Anitments Regarding
/
'{
.i-Emergency Pltining Contention 4 i
j
'Y.
Demonstrate that IPRA includes adequate provisions to effectuate the evacuation of recreati,on areas with identifiable
-transport-dependent populations such that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of these individuals is adequately protected.
Z.
Demonstrate that IPRA includes reasonable provisions.to effectuate the evacuation of transport-dep'endeat-individusls.
i t
!/
/<
- F I'
,a i
h i
\\
i k
1 2
.' ]
i e
'i k
k I
r i
2/12
r~
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station.
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
STIPULATION The DeKalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy, the Sinnissippi Alliance For the Environment, the Rockford League of Women Voters (hereinaf ter jointly referred to as "Intervenors") Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison") and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Staff
(
(" Staff") agree and stipulate that the issues raised in Intervenors' emergency planning contentions, previously admitted in this proceeding, and in the Intervenors' " Motion to Amend and Consolidate." emergency planning contentions (" Motion to Amend"), dated February 21, 1983, should be resolved in the following manner.
1.
WITHDRAWAL OF OLD CONTENTIONS.
Intervenors agree to withdraw DAARE/ SAFE Contention 3 and l
League Contentions 19 and 108 previously admitted as contested issues in I
this proceeding.
l t_
f 2.
WITHDRAWAL OF OPPOSITION TO GRANT OF MOTION TO AMEND, IN PART, AND REQUEST TO DEFER RULING ON BALANCE OF MOTION.
The amended and consolidated contentions proposed in the Intervenors' Motion to Amend are set forth in Attachment I hereto.
Edison and the Staff agree to withdraw their opposition, except as provided in paragraph 2(a) below, to the admission of those Intervenors' amended and consolidated contentions demonimated in paragraph 3(a) below.
Edison and the Staff agree to withdraw their opposition to the i
admission of any or all of those proposed amended and consolidated contentions demonimated in paragraph 4(a) below for which Intervenors may seek an eventual ruling pursuant to paragraph 6 below.
(a)
Edison and Staff object to the admission of 111 and 112 i
on the ground that these paragraphs constitute challenges' to Commission regulations.
Intervenors agree that these paragraphs constitute challenges to Commission regulations and that they have not made the showing of I
special circumstances as required by 10 CFR $2.758 to I
l permit litigation of these issues in this proceeding._/
I (b)
Intervenors agree to withdraw 12(i) as an issue to be litigated in this proceeding.
(c) The parties request deferral of a ruling on the admissibility of the balance of the proposed amended and l
l
_,/
Intervenors' willingness to reword 112 as a challenge to the I
Commission's regulations is based on Edison's agrecing to l
Commitment, W, included in Attachment 2.
F consolidated contentions, demonimated in paragraph 4(a) below, in furtherance of their informal resolution as provided in paragraph 4(a) below.
3.
LITICATION OF CONTENTIONS.
(a) Beginning the week of April 18, 1983, the parties agree to litigate the following paragraphs, or portions of paragraphs, set forth in Attachment 1:
(i) 12(c), (e) and (k)
(ii) 13 (iii) 18 (iv) 110 (v) 113 (b) The parties have provided to one another the names of witnesses they expect to call for the purposes of litigating the issues raised in the paragraphs identified in 3(a) above.
(c) The parties have filed any discovery requests pertaining to the issues identified in 3(a) above. Discovery shall be limited to document production and deposition requests. The parties agree to cooperate in providing such discovery so as to enable litigation of the issues identified in 3(a) above.
(d) The parties agree to file any prefiled testimony, or supplement existing prefiled testimony, on the issues identified in 3(a) above by April 11, 1983.
r
. (e) Edison and the NRC Staff agree not to object to the admission of the affidavits bearing on emergency planning issues which have previously been filed by Intervenors based upon any alleged discovery violations. Edison and the NRC Staff reserve the right to object to the admission of the affidavits, or portions thereof, into the hearing record on all other grounds (e.g., relevance of testimony to cententions, hearsay, cumulative nature of testimony, etc.).
4.
PROCESS FOR INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF REMAINING PROPOSED CONTENTIONS.
(a) Attached as Attachment 2 is a list of commitments (hereinafter " Commitments") which, if met by Edison, will
{
accommodate Intervenors' concerns raised in the following paragraphs and thereby eliminate any need for their admission as contested issues in this proceeding.
(i) T1 (ii) 12(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h),
(j ), (1), (m.), and (n)
(iii)
T4 (iv) 15 (v) 56 (vi) T7 (vii) 19 Intervenors' therefore agree not to seek a Licensing Board ruling on the admission of these paragraphs of the proposed amended contentions except as provided in Seccion 6 below.
L s
F
. (b)
Edison and Intervenors agree to cooperate in good faith to resolve questions regarding the manner in which Edison intends to meet the Commitments.
Such good faith cooperation shall include:
(i) Scheduling meetings between CECO and Intervenors on a regular basis to exchange information so as to permit Intervenors' independent assessment that progress on satisfying Commitments is being made.
Edison also agrees to make available to Intervenors relevant emergency planning documents which are available to Edison and to procure relevant documents which are not in its possession which can be obtained.
In addition, Edison will provide Intervenors with projected completion dates for resolving Commitments when formulated.
(ii) Use of Edison's best efforts to provide Intervenors access on a regular basis to emergency planning officials, so as to permit Intervenors' independent assessment that resolution of emergency planning issues is progressing.
(c) Edison agrees that the Commitments will be satisfied before the Byron Station exceeds 5% power.
(d) The parties recognize the possibility that they may ultimately disagree as to whether Edison has met, or can l
or will meet, all the Commitments in the time frame
{
provided in 4(c) above.
If this occurs Intervenors may request that the Licensing Board rule on the
m
. (
admissibility of the underlying proposed contentions as provided in paragraph 6 of this Stipulation. Edison agrees to notify Intervenors in writing when it believes a Commitment has been satisfied and to set forth in reasonabic detail the basis for such belief.
Edison further agrees to provide such a notice with respect to all of the Commitments no later than 15 days after the issuance of findings by FEMA on which the NRC Staff relies to permit operation of the Byron Station at a level above 5% power.
Intervenors agree to notify Edison in writing within 15 days of their receipt of a notice from Edison that a Commitment has been satisfied, of Intervenors' agreement or disagreement whether the
(
Commitment has been satisified.
If despite exercising reasonabic diligence, it is not possibic for Intervenors to determine whether a Commitment has been met within the 15 day period, Intervenors will so notify Edison.
By failing to notify Edison of their disagreement, or
(
inability to determine disagreement, or by submitting a 1
notice that they agree that a Commitment has been
(
satisfied, Intervenors will have waived any rights they may have had with respect to litigating the Commitments
[
in question.
l l
l
. 5.
EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF INITIAL DECISION.
If the Board issues a decision in favor of Edison with respect to (1) the issues litigated pursuant to paragraph 3 above, and (2) all other non-emergency planning issues, and subject to the license condition set forth in paragraph 6(b) below than, except as provided in paragraph 6 below, Intervenore agree not to object, before the Licensing Board or any other judicial or administrative forum, to Board authorization that a full power operating license be issued or to NRC issuance of a full power license based on a claim that the provisions of paragraph 4 have not been complied with.
6.
FINAL DISPOSITION OF OUTSTANDING PORTION OF MOTION TO AMEND.
(a) Except as provided herein, Intervenors may request this Licensing Board in writing to rule on the outstanding portion of the Intervenors' Motion to Amend and to reopen the record for a hearing at anytime on the issue whether Edison has not met or can or will not satisfy any commitment (s) relative to the proposed contentions demonimated in section 4(a) above. Not withstanding the foregoing, no later than 30 days after Intervenor's receipt of the notice from Edison, required by Section 4(d) of this Stipulation, which establishes that Edison believes that all Commitments have been satisfied, Intervenors may request the Licensing Board in writing to rule on the outstanding portion of Intervenors' Motion to Amend and to reopen the record for a hearing on the issue whether Edison has satisfied any of the Commitments l
relative to the proposed Contentions denominated in
I
) section 4(a) above. This 30 day period may be extended only on a showing by Intervenors that despite exercising due diligence in determining whether a Commitment has been satisfied, it was not possible for Intcrvenors to establish Edison's failure to satisfy a Commitment within the 30 day period.
In the absence of any such request, the motion shall be deemed withdrawn and a Licensing Board decision entered accordingly.
(i)
Intervenors shall be entitled to reopen the record for a further hearing if, based on its request and supporting affidavits, it makes a prima facie showing that Edison has not satisfied one or more of the Commitments. The parties shall be afforded an opportunity to move for summary disposition of the issues raised in Intervenors' request.
(ii)
Intervenors may also petition the Licensing Board to order that operation of Byron be restricted to 5%
1 power prior to a full evidentiary hearing on the question whether Edison has satisfied a Commitment.
l The Board may enter such an order if it finds, based on Intervenors' petition and Edison's and the Staff's responses thereto, that Intervenors have made a strong showing that they are likely to 1
prevail on the merits, that Intervenors' interest will be irreparably injured unless the order is granted, and that the public interest requires the issuance of such an order.
r
. (iii)
If the Licensing Board grants Intervenors' motion to reopen the record for litigation of the Commitment (s) pursuant to 6(a)(i) above, and following the hearing, the Board finds that Edison has failed to satisfy the Commitment (s) in question, it may enter such orders as may be appropriate.
Edison recognizes that such an order may require that a Commitment (s) be satisfied or that Edison restrict operation of Byron to a level not to exceed 5% power. The burden of proof in any hearing pursuant to this section shall be as provided in 10 CFR 52.732.
(iv)
All orders, rulings, and decisions, entered pursuant to this stipulation shall be subject to full appellate rights.
4 (b) The parties recognize that the process described in 6(a) above entails the retention of Licensing Board jurisdiction over elements of Intervenors' Motion to Amend and may result in a reopening of the record and a further hearing following the issuance of an initial decision by the Board authorizing the issuance of a full power operating license for the Byron Station and following the issuance of such a license by the NRC.
The parties therefore agree that any such initial decision shall be subject to the following express license condition:
The issuance of this initial decision shall be subject to the final disposition of the Intervenors' pending motion to amend
r
. emergency planning contentions, dated February 21, 1963, and the outcome of any further proceeding thereon. The final disposition of said motion shall be memorialized in the form of a supplemental initial decision.
- =g l
l l
l l
r 9
/
4 s
i
. 7.
INTENT OF THE PARTIES.
The parties agree to proceed in good faith to attempt to accomplish the purposes of this Stipulation.
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY BY DATE r
93 c/
/
/
DAARE/ SAFE BY DATE ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS BY DATE NRC STAFF BY N
+~7-#3 DATE l
I
/
i
-