ML20076L327
| ML20076L327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Bielawski A, Copeland V COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307190126 | |
| Download: ML20076L327 (19) | |
Text
-
s.
,V-9 1/'R N I
83.
Dr.te ys
(
R:,,,4 W
p g \\g# y j
E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lW N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
pJ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARIV)
Ev#
(
In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO DAARE/ SAFE
.AND ROCKFORD LWV'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2. 754 (a) (3) and the August 18, 1982 Stipulation of the parties, Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") submits the following reply to "DAARE/ SAFE and Rockford LWV Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Emergency Planning"..nereafter "Intervenors' Proposed Findings").
As discussed in detail below, Intervenors' Proposed Findings are not adequately supported by the record and therefore should not be adopted by the Board.
The Evacuation Time Study
.Intervenors commence by criticizing the authors of the Evacuation Time Study for their purported intransigeance.
Intervenors state that "there was an extreme reluctance on the part of the authors of_the evacuation time study.to.
concede that errors in the study could have consequences for the health and safety of the public if the study was put to 8307190126 830715 PDR ADOCK 05000454' G.
r 3
6 use."
Further, they state that "Ms. McCluskey recoiled with an absolute denial of such a possibility."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, pp. 3-4.)
A concise reading of the record indicates that Ms. McCluskey was reluctant only in admitting that there were errors in the study.
(Tr. 4854.)
Ms. McCluskey testified that different assumptions or conditions at the time of the incident may have an effect on the time estimates.
Accepting the premise that it could take longer evacuate the area because of the specific circumstances at the time of the incident, Ms. McCluskey did agree that it was possible for people to receive a greater exposure.
(Tr.
4854.)
Thus, Intervenors' apparent attempt to undermine the credibility of the authors of the study is not supportable.
Alternative Assumptions The thrust of the Intervenors' Proposed Findings regarding the alternative assumptions used in the Evacuation-Time Study are directed toward what they perceive to be a lack of consideration given to the rural nature of the Byron Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ").
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, pp. 4-7.)
Specifically, they attempt to challenge the basis for the relatively long preparation and mobilization time used in the Evacuation Time Study, though they seem to agree'that a longer than average preparation and mobilization time is warranted for the Byron area.
(Intervenors' Propcled i
l t
I i
\\ Findings, p. 5.)
Dr. Horst testified that a major source of data for the Study included information on the number of people that live in the area as well as how they are distributed throughout the area and the population of special facilities and transients.
(Tr. 5013.)
In acquiring the data concerning the population around the Byron plant, County and State Officials who are familiar with the area were consulted to determine how long it would take the local population to prepare for an evacuation.
(Tr. 5013-5014.)
Further, the averade public response times for receiving warning, leaving work, traveling home, and evacuating the home, have been favorably reviewed by Ogle County and IESDA Officials.
(Applicant's Exhibit 18, p.
4-3.)
Ms. McCluskey also indicated that the Evacuation Time Study incorporated the experience of evacuations in similar types of rural areas.
(Tr. 5016.)
Thus, contrary to Intervenors' suggestion the record clearly indicates the assumptions used in the Evacuation Time Study regarding preparation and mobilization are well founded and
-supportable.
Peak Populations and Behavioral Aspects With respect to transient populations, Intervenors accept in part the observation of Ms. McCluskey that, in an evacuation, transients unfamiliar with the Byron area will i
be able to determine that they are mistakenly heading in the 9
y r
-p-
-t?
, direction of the Byron plant if they are heading opposite the crowd.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 10 and finding no. 29; Tr. 4879.)
However, Intervenors conclude that this observation implies that persons will seek more congested areas, thus contradicting the assumption of the Dynamic Route Selection model that persons will choose a less congested path in an evacuation.
(In tervenors ' Proposed Findings, pp. 10-11.)
Hence, Intervenors argue that conflicting assumptions are present in the Evacuation Time Study.
The authors of the study testified that no such contradiction exists.
As Ms. McCluskey stated, persons evacuating the EPZ are certainly not going to head in a direction opposite of the crowd.
However, neither will they necessarily join in a congested line of traffic when it is apparent that an alternate route is available.
(Tr. 4879; see also Tr. 4881-4884.)
Thus, there is no inherent contradiction in the assumptions that transients will be able to find their way by following others and that persons will seek-less congested routes in evacuating.
Intervenors state that "a concept of Dynamic Route Selection...only accounts for one tendency (avoiding congestion) and thus tends to optimize traffic flow."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p.
11.).Dr. Horst did concede that this tendency does present an optimization to a certain extent i
. ~but'he declined to characterize it as optimal i.e. the
~
i k
.qu c est time estimate that could be achieved.
(Tr. 4875.)
He stated the concept of Dynamic Route Selection accounts for~a preference to get to the perimeter of the EPZ and for the traffic conditions at a particular intersection at-a given time.:
(Tr. 4868.)
As Dr. Horst stated, the Dynamic Route Selection model allows for an adjustment based on the situation found at the intersections by the drivers and
-thus, to that extent, it allows some optimization in the
' evacuation time. -
(Tr. 4876.)
Moreover, it should be noted that.Intervenors fail to account for the fact'that under the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the= Illinois State Police will perform evacuation traffic control duties that will prevent access to routes leading to the plant and direct people away rrom the plant.
(IPRA Vol.
- 6, Applicant's Exhibit No. 19, VI (1), pp. 21,_27; see-also a
IPRA Vol.
I, Applicant's Exhibit No. 21, I(6), pp. 25-37.)
Thus,' contrary to Intervenors' apparent belief, transient drivers;would likely receive instructions regarding optimal
- evacuation' routes.
Clearly, these consideration lend additional support for the use of the' Dynamic Route Selection model used in'this Study.
With respect to-the behaviorfof parents of school 1-e
+
e
~
~
m
- - e r,<n
,a
..... -~
, children, Intervenors state that "the evacuation time study's authors are convinced of the adequacy of planning documents in assuring parents that school children will be taken care of even though they are both unfamiliar with the public information brochures distributed to area residents which contain instructions for parents of school children and which may or may not have offered the necessary assurances."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 12 and findings nos. 37, 38.)
This is plainly not a fair characterization of the record.
Contrary to Intervenors' assertion, Dr. Horst and Ms. McCluskey were not testifying as to the adequacy of the information which will be provided to parents of school children, but rather were merely stating that it is assumed that appropriate information will be provided to the parents and that parents will thus be informed of the proper actions to take in an emergency in regard to their children.
(Tr.
5011, 4999 (marked as 4998). )
Ms. McCluskey stated that, if parents are informed of how their children will be evacuated, the expected behavior is that the parents will find assurance from such information and will act accordingly.
(Tr. 4999 (marked as 4998).)
The adequacy of the public information brochures which include such information for parents is the subject of a stipulated commitment between the parties and thus not properly before the Licensing Board.
(See Stipulation,
~
dated March 30, 1983, Commitments "R" and "T".)
. With. respect to the expected behavior of the general' population, Intervenors claim to have " attempted to establish that the unlikelihood of panic during a radiological disaster as assumed by the evacuation time study has not been provenzand secondly,'that given the breadth and diversity of-human behavior, the authors' descriptions of human behavior in' assumptions and supporting testimony are not only. unreasonable but irresponsible."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 14.)
However, Intervenors failed to' introduce any-substantive evidence which would refute the assumption that people will not resort to widespread panic in a radiological emergency.
The authors of the Study supported their assumptions with credible authorities and, in the case of one of the witnesses, personal firsthand experience with an evacuation in an emergency situation.
(McCluskey & Horst, Applicant Prepared Testimony, at 7, ff. Tr. 4834; Tr. 4890-4893.)
They can hardly be considered to have been unreasonable and irresponsible in making these assumptions.
The witnesses. stated that, based on the conclusion-of an EPA report regarding actual evacuation' experiences, the idea that people will panic has not been borne out in reality and further that'" insofar as wild flight is concerned-the opposite behavioral pattern in most disasters is far more likely."
(McCluskey and Horst, Applicant Prepared Testimony, at 7, ff. Tr. 4834.). Without regard to the
+ --
w y
, testimony that was presented, Intervenors question whether the " opposite behavioral pattern" to wild flight is not in fact complete passivity and nonresponsivness.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p.
14 and finding no. 44.)
Ms. McCluskey testified that, in the context of the EPA report, the opposite behavioral pattern is the one that is detailed in the study, i.e. people respond to an emergency situation in a controlled manner, although not with complete calm.
(Tr. 4865-4866.)
Intervenors assert that the authors of the Evacuation Time Study "have largely denied the existance and impact of some middle ground between ' wild flight' and the ' opposite behavioral pattern'."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p.
15.)
To the contrary, the authors testifed that the Study does not rule out the presence of stress factors in an evacuation and the possibility that incidents of hysteria or panicked behavior could occur.
(Tr. 4888, 4894.)
- However, they did testify that the study assumes that as a group people will act rationally and with a relatively controlled behavioral pattern in an emergency situation.
(Tr. 4867.)
Finally, Intervenors baldly assert that evidence was presented and testimony given to support the conclusion that people will act in a way contrary to the behavior assumed by the evacuation time study.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 15.)
Intervenors fail to cite any finding or any portion of the transcript in support of this assertion
, and indeed there is no such support to be found in the record.
Weather Characteristics Intervenors contend that the Evacuation Time Study does not adequately identify the adverse weather conditions to permit the responsible decision makers to utilize the conclusions of the report in regard to increased evacuation time <under such conditions.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, pp. 16-17.)
Contrary to Intervenors' suggestion, it is not necessary for the responsible decision makers to know what a 70 percent roadway capacity looks like or the precise conditions that trigger such a reduction in roadway capacity.
It is only necessary that the decision makers understand the sensitivity of_the time estimates presented-in the Study to adverse weather conditions.
(Tr. 4961, 4966, 4978.)
The Study plainly identifies adverse weather as including those
" conditions that may impair visibility and or traction such as light snow, icing, rain or fog."
(Applicant's Exhibit 18, p. 2-3.)
Thus, it is only necessary for the responsible decision makers to determine that such conditions exist and at that point' utilize the adverse weather time estimates presented in the Study.
_J
- ~
Emergency Medical Services With respect to paragraph-3 of the Revised Emergency' Planning' Contention, Intervenors challenge the competence of Applicant's_ evidence regarding the medical
. arrangements for contaiminated injured persons.
Specifically, they express concern that Dr. John Golden, who presented
= evidence on-Applicant's arrangements with the Rockford
- Memorial Hospital, is not a medical doctor and did not personally make the arrangements with that facility.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, pp. 20-21 and findings nos.
62-63.)-
However, Intervenors do not refute the fact that Applicant's medical _ personnel were involved in the selection o
- of-and arrangements made with the Rockford Memorial Hospital.
(Tr. 5046-5049, 5071.)
Dr. Golden visited the Rockford Memorial Hospital and determined for himself that adequate arrangments were being made at-that facility.
As a professional-health _ physicist and head of Applicant's emergency planning department, Dr. Golden is obviously qualified and compentent to express the views of Commonwealth Edison' Company, including its medical personnel, regarding the adequacy of arrangements which have been made for contaminated' injured persons.
Intervenors_ express concern that the beds in the emergency room designated for care of contaminated injured t
persons will not be_ isolated from eachiother, thus suggesting j.
- an.inabilityfto prevent the spread of contamination.
(Intervenors'!
v g
y 2-3 --
t v
v, T
. Proposed Findings, p. 21 and finding no. 66.)
Dr. Golden testified that such isolation will not be necessary since no loose contamination will be present in the emergency room.
(Tr. 5054).
Further, despite the fact.that Dr. Golden could not state for certain whether the Northwestern Memorial Hospital is capable of treating internal contamination (Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p.
21 and finding no. 68),
he expressed confidence that facilities that can provide such treatment can be found.
It should also be noted that assistance in evaluation and treatment of contamination and radiation injuries is available from several sources:
the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Radiation Management Corporation, and Applicant's own Radiation Protection and Chemistry Department.
(Golden, Applicant Prepared Testimony, Epp. 6-7 and Exhibit 6 thereto, ff. Tr. 5035; Ed, Applicant Prepared Testimony, p. 9, ff. Tr. 5174.)
There is no dispute that the draft Byron plan identifies six ambulance services in or near the EPZ that are to provide support in a radiological emergency, including the transportation of contaminated injured persons.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 22 and finding no. 75.)
- However, Intervenors argue that the responses of five of those ambulance
~ services to Intervenors' survey show that these services are
~
not prepared to fulfill their responsibility, pointing to a lack of " written protocols" and equipment.
(Intervenors'
. Proposed Findings, p.
22 and findings no. 73.)
Further, in regard to the ambulance service associated with the Byron Fire Protection District (the one that did not respond to the survey and with which Applicant has made arrangements for services for its onsite personnel), Intervenors assert that the present revision of the Byron plan shows "some shortage of equipment."
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, pp. 21-22 and finding no. 72.)
Regardless of whether these conclusions are correct, it is clear that Intervenors' concerns are premature.
The State witnesses clearly explained that planning and training will include all of the listed ambulance services.
(Smith, Applicant Prepared Testimony, pp. 3-4, ff. Tr. 5170; Applicant's Exhibit No. 21; Ed, Applicant Prepared Testimony, pp. 13-14, ff. Tr. 5174.)
The Intervenors' ambulance survey was conducted ahead of the State's schedule for planning and training and accordingly can not be used to draw conclusions regarding the eventual state of preparedness of the ambulance services.
The experience of the State planners with planning and training and their committment to provide such planning and training for the emergency response groups near Byron, including the ambulance services, provides reasonable assurance that the ambulance services will be prepared to fulfill their emergency responsibilities under the Byron plan.
.s
- Selection of Protective Measures Intervenors have apparently abandoned the position advocated during the course of the hearings that the specific sheltering capabilities of each structure in the EPZ should be assessed.
Intervenors now propose that in view of the fact that the generic sheltering efficiency factor utilized by Applicant and the State may be conservative, an assessment of the shielding capabilities for " major structures in the Byron EPZ with emphasis on school buildings and nursing homes" should be conducted.
As Dr. Golden made clear during the course of his testimony, this information would be of little benefit to decision-makers. If mobilization and transportation to structures within.the EPZ is possible, the desired protective action would be to evacuate the affected sectors to locations outside the EPZ.
(Tr. 5145).
- Thus, there is no-reasonable basis for requiring that the Applicant perform an assessment of the shielding capabilities of major structures within the EPZ, as suggested by Intervenors. !
With respect to the distribution of potassium iodide (KI), Intervenors simply disagree with the State of
~/
We would point out that with respect to protective actions regarding homebound'and nursing home patients, Commitment M~ contained in the Emergency Planning Stipulation requires that.IPRA include adequate provisions for alternative protective action in the event evacuation-of these-populations is infeasible.
It may well'be that such provisions would include specific assessments of shielding capabilities of certain structures within the EPZ for those special populations.
In any event,
-the issue is at this time is not properly before the Board.
a- - - --
n*
. Illinois' policy which limits the distribution of this drug to the general public.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings,
- p. 28).
As Mr. Ed, of the Illinois Department'of Nuclear Safety made clear during the hearings, in view of the limited effectiveness of the KI, the administrative difficulties of monitoring general distribution of the drug and possible dangers of misuse or adverse reaction, the State has determined that public health and safety considerations warrant distributing this drug only to those members of the population who would most likely be present within the EPZ after an evacuation has been ordered.
(Ed, Applicant Prepared Testimony, p. 13 and thereto, ff. Tr. 5174).
This policy is obviously quite reasonable.
Moreover, there is nothing in the record which controverts this conclusion.
For these reasons, Applicant submits the Intervenors' findings and conclusions regarding KI be rejected by the Board.
Volunteers In regard to subcontention 10 regarding the emergency plan's reliance on volunteers, Intervenors cite the planning standard found in 10 C.F.R. 50. 47 (b) (1) as applicable.
(Intervenors' Proposed Findings, p. 30.)
However, that standard does not address volunteers nor staffing of support groups.
It requires only that support
, organizations be established and that each principal organ-ization have staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis.
The guidance found in NUREG-0654 indicates that a " principal" organization is that agency "having major or lead roles in emergency planning and preparedness".
(Board Exhibit No.
3, p.
5-1, emphasis in original.)
Thus, there is no specific requirement that the staff of the support organizations which utilize volunteers be identified, only that such support organization be establishei.
See also 10 C.F.R.
- 50. 47 (b) (3).
However, Applicant does not refute.the proposition that there must be reasonable assurance that the support organizations can fulfill their assigned responsibilities, which necessarily entails a consideration of the reliability of volunteers.
Despite their assertions, Intervenors failed to present any substantial evidence that could rebut the experiences of the witnesses from the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency, Mr.. Jones and Mr. Smith, that attest to the reliability of volunteers in emergencies.
(Jones, Applicant Prepared Testimony, pp.
5-6, ff. Tr. 5444; Smith, Applicant Prepared Testimony, pp.
5-6, ff. Tr. 5170).
As both witnesses testified, proper training assures that volunteers will respond effectively when the situation arises.
(Ibid.)
(The adequacy of the training program is the subject of a stipulated commitment between the. parties.
. See the Stipulation, dated March 30, 1983, Commitment "D".)
The training sessions for volunteers will provide state planners an opportunity to assess the willingness of in-dividual volunteers to carry out their assigned responsibilities, during a radiological emergency.
If it becomes apparent that certain volunteers will not cooperate in such an emergency, it is not reasonable to expect that the State planners will continue to rely on those volunteers who express a reluctance or refusal to cooperate.
To the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that the State planners will adjust their plans accordingly.-
(See,
- e. g., Tr. 5206).
Thus, the State's experience with volunteers and the training process provide reasonable assurance that response organizations will carry out their assigned responsibilites.
Communications with Emergency Response Organizations As all parties to this proceeding recognize, the scheduling of the operating license hearings and of the development of the Byron emergency plans are such that it is not at all surprising that, at the time of the hearings, not all of the concerns of individuals who may be called,
upon in the event of an emergency had been addressed and resolved.
However, it is also clear from the record that there is a well-conceived plan and schedule for the development
- of the Byron emergency plan, and that response organizations will have input into the development of the plan.
There is nothing in the record which reasonably supports a contrary conclusion.
Thus, the eviLnce clearly supports a predictive finding that there is reasonable assurance that the concerns raised by paragraph 13 of the Revised Emergency Planning Contention will be resolved prior to the operation of the Byron facility.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that Intervenors' Proposed Findings on emergency planning issues not be accepted by the Board.
Respectfully submitted, bl J N/
Ad Alan P.
Bielawski 14 &
G c,pe Q Victor Copeldnd Two of the Attorneys for COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Michael I.
Miller Alan P.
Bielawski Victor G. Copeland ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 5200 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500
r::.:
a.
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)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company, certifies that he filed the original and two copies of the attached " Applicant's Reply to DAARE/ SAFE l
and Rockford LWV's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Emergency Planning" with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served a copy of the same on each of the persons at the addresses shown on the attached service list.
Service on the Secretary and all parties, unless otherwise indicated, was made by deposit in the U.S.
Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 15th day of July, 1983..
YYl One of-the attorn#ys for Commonwealth Edison Company (
l ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
'Three-First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 l
=
SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 lut. Ivan W. Smith Secretary Administrative Judge and Attn: Chief', Docketing and Chairman' Service Section
. Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Betty Johnson Washington, D.C.
20555 1907 Stratford Lane 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 843 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington,ED.C. '20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Douglass W. Cassel,-Jr.
. Union Carbide Corporation Jane whicher.
P.O.
Box Y BPI Oak' Ridge, Tennessee 37830
. Suite 1300 109 N. Dearborn Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Chicago, Illinois 60602 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, Illinois 60621
~
U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.