ML20137X076

Reply Opposing Bl Rorem 851025 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 851018 Memorandum & Order in Form of Offer of Proof. Offer of Proof Fails to Raise Any Significant Matters. Js Fairow Affidavit Encl

ML20137X076
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	12/04/1985
From:	Copeland V, Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20137X082	List: ML20137X076 ML20137X100
References
CON-#485-415 OL, NUDOCS 8512100408
Download: ML20137X076 (33)

Text

.}

December 4, 1985 CJCKETEc U%?c

'85 DEC -9 p11 :33 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY; COMMISSION 0004 rna IU ~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AN5f'DfbENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

)

Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457 ()

(Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) )

REPLY TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF AN OFFER OF PROOF Pursuant to the Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board"), dated October 29, 1985 (Tr. 422-23), Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") submits this Reply in opposition to Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al. ("Ms. Rorem") motion for reconsideration in the form of an offer of proof, dated October 25, 1985. Intervenors' Motion seeks reconsideration of the Licensing Board's October 18, 1985

' Memorandum and Order. In that Order, the Licensing Board granted Applicant's motion to particularize Contention 1(a) by limiting the scope of the contention to an inquiry into the public education and information program implemented prior to an accident. However, the Licensing Board granted Ms. Rorem a further opportunity to expand the issues under Contention 1(a) to include the emergency planning program for notification of the public at the time of an accident provided Ms. Rorem G512100409 DR 851204 ADOCK 05000456

' *3( ~>~(

PDR N _-__ - -

submitted evidence of alleged deficiencies raising significant issues. (Memorandum and Order, Granting Applicant's Motion to Particularize Rorem Contention 1(a), Subject to Reconsideration, dated October 18, 1985, pp. 2 and 5.) The Licensing Board's Order provided that any such offer of evidence be submitted by Ms. Rorem in a motion for reconsideration in the form of an offer of proof (hereinafter called " Offer of Proof").

Ms. Rorem timely filed her Offer of Proof on October 25, 1985. Seven additional issues were proffered for litigation. The Licensing Board heard arguments in opposition to the Offer of Proof from Applicant and the NRC Staff during the evidentiary hearing held on October 29, 1985. However, the Licensing Board declined to rule on the basis of the oral arguments presented; and instead reserved its decision on Ms.

Rorem's Offer of Proof. (Tr. 422.) The Licensing Board directed the Applicant and the NRC Staff to submit their positions in writing and to include include factual information that addressed the substance of Ms. Rorem's issues. The material addressing the substance of Ms. Rorem's~ allegations was to be structured in the nature of a motion for summary disposition. This Reply presents Applicant's procedural objections to Intervenors' Motion and then addresses the substance of the allegations in a manner similar to motions for summary dispositions. (10 C.F.R. $ 2.749.)

O I. Procedural Objections A. Ms. Rorem's Offer of Proof Failed to Comply With the Licensing Board's Order The Licensing Board's Order of October 18, uneqivocally placed on Ms. Rorem "the burden of coming forward [in a motion for reconsideration in the form of an offer of proof] with evidence of alleged deficiencies in the program for notifica-tion of the public at the time of an accident." (Order, p. 2.)

Ms. Rorem was required "to come forward with significant issues." Ms. Rorem has failed to plead any evidence and thereby she has failed to identify any significant issue.

Thus, Ms. Rorem's Offer of Proof fails to comply with the standard established by the Board.

Instead, the Offer of Proof sets forth seven general allegations criticizing the emergency plans for Braidwood Station for failing to address certain matters adequately.

However, no specific deficiencies are identified by Ms. Rorem.

For example, Issue 2 asserts that scripts needed to notify the public effectively of a recommendation to evacuate must be developed. The express implication of this allegation is that the State emergency plan contains no such scripts. In fact it does. (Tr. 386.) Likewise, Issue 3 asserts that the State Plan does not provide adequately for the means to inform the public of an emergency so that effective protective actions

~

can be taken. Again, Ms. Rorem fails to provide any identi-fication of the shortcomings they perceive in the ample discussion on this' subject set forth in the State Plan.

These general allegations do not meet the standard set out'in the Board's Order for " coming forward with evidence of alleged deficiencies raising "significant issues." Therefore, Ms. Rorem's Offer of Proof should be rejected.

It was suggested that Ms. Rorem could not meet the standard set out in the Licensing Board's October 18 Order because of a lack of time to review the State emergency plan.

This argument lacks merit. The State emergency plan which consists of two volumes, including the Standard operating Procedures applicable to Braidwood, were delivered to Ms. Rorem on August 12, 1985. This Plan is the came document cited by Ms. Jana Fairow in her' affidavit which is enclosed with this Reply and discussed infra.

Thus, Ms. Rorem had the State emergency plan about nine weeks prior to the October 25 deadline' imposed by the Licensing Board for filing her Offer of Proof. Nine weeks is ample time to enable Ms. Rorem to read the portions of the plan pertinent 'o the emergency planning program for the notifica-tion of the public at the time of an accident. Nine weeks is ample time for Ms. Rorem to determine whether the statements in the plan on this subject are deficient. Nine weeks is ample time to raise significant issues as required by the Licensing Board's Order.

The only explanation. offered by Ms. Rorem is that the filing of Applicant's' motion to particularize Contention 1(a) interfered with here ability to review the State plan. That excuse is specious. Although Applicant's motion was filed on August 15, 1985, Ms. Rorem was not required to respond to the motion until after October 2, 1985 when Applicant reinstated the motion after the failure of settlement negotiations. She replied on October 8. Thus, six days at most was devoted to her reply. Some time was expended attempting to reach settlement on this matter. However, most of it was spent by Applicant and the NRC Staff in futile attempts to reach Ms.

Rorem by telephone. The actual time spent negotiating did not exceed eight hours. Thus, Ms. Rorem's position that the filing of the motion to particularize prevented her from completing her review of the State plan is untenable. This conclusion is incontrovertible given the fact that she only had to review that portion of the plan devoted to the program for the notification of the public at the time of an accident by the October 25 deadline.

B. Offer of Proof Issue 8 Is Beyond The Scope of the Licensing Board's October 18 Order Permitting Reconsideration The Licensing Board's October 18, 1985 Order limited Ms. Rorem's right to expand the issues under Contention 1(a) to issues concerning public information programs other than at the pre-accident stage. Ms. Rorem's Issue 8 exceeds this stricture.

4

T' .

o' r

Issue 8 criticizes the State plan because of an alleged lack of communication among emergency planning officials with respect to the notification of host communities of the need to open relocation center because of an emergency.

The thrust of Contention 1(a) involves information and education programs for the benefit of the public. The Contention does not extend to perceived problems among emergency planning officials. Hence, Issue 8 is beyond the scope of the Licensing Board's Order and it should be rejected for this additional reason.

II. Evidentiary Presentation Establishing That None of the Issues In The Offer of Proof Present S{gnificant Issues.

The Licensing Board directed that the Replies to the offer of Proof provide substantive information in the nature of a motion for summary disposition. Such a motion is not applicable in this case since none of the issues offered by Ms. Rorem has been admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding. However, consistent with the direction of the Licensing Board, Applicant has adopted concepts from 10 C.F.R.

F

$ 2.749 and fas hioned an analogous approach.

The affidavit of Ms. Jana S. Fairow is attached to this Reply as Exhibit A. Ms. Fairow is the Radiological Emergency Planning Supervisor for the Illinois Emergency Services and Diaster Agency. She is responsible for developing

1 the Illinois Plan for Radiological accidents for the seven nuclear power stations in Illinois, including Braidwood Station.

Ms. Fairow addresses each of Ms. Rorem's seven issues on their merits. In addition, an issue-by-issue analysis similar to a Statement of Material Facts is presented with supporting argument. The Fairow Affidavit together with the supporting analysis and argument establishes that none of the Offer of Proof issues raise any significant issues warranting admission as an issue in controversy in this proceeding.

A. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 2 Offer of Proof Issue 2 states:

Applicant must develop and demonstrate its capability to provide through scripts and/or other media information, substantive emergency information to adequately inform the public of emer-gency information in the event of an accident at the Braidwood Station through all radio, TV or EBS stations in the ingestion pathway zone, so as to enable the public to effectively evacuate in the event of an emergency and to effectively re-enter the affected zone in the event of an emergency.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. The offsite emergency plan for Braidwood Station is comprised of Volumes I and VII of the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents ("IPRA"). Volume I is the State General Plan which provides a general overview of IPRA and estabitshes the responsibility of the State agencies involved in responding to a radiological accident. (Volume I will be referred to hereafter as "IPRA-State General Plan".) Volume VII of IPRA is the site-specific volume for Braidwood Station which provides implementation of IPRA to the Braidwood Station plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone ("EPZ"). Volume VII addresses the responsibilities of the local governments concerned and explain the emergency response actions to be taken in the event of a radiological accident at Braidwood Station. Volume VII includes a set of Standard Operating Procedures (" SOPS") which detail procedures to be followed in responding to the accident.

(Volume VII will be referred to hereafter as "IPRA-Braidwood".)

(Fairow Affidavit, 1 3.)

2. The IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 2, " Concept of Operations," contains pre-scripted evacuation recommendation messages for use by the Governor. These messages are general in nature and inform the public that evacuation has been recommended for a portion of the EPZ. The message further instructs evacuees to pack clothing medical supplies and food for special diets and to stay tuned to the Emergency Broadcast System ("EBS") radio station for information from a county representative on the recommendation to evacuate and routes to be used. (Fairow Affidavit, SH 5-6.)

3. The IPRA-Braidwood Standard Operating Procedure

(" SOP")-8 contains about 51 pre-scripted evacuation recommenda-tion messages for use by the counties that may be affected.

Each of these messages is directed to a different geographic area. These messages describe the area affected by the evacua-tion recommendation and also provide the following information as applicable: 1) the evacuation routes to be used; 2) the cities where shelters are being opened; 3) the facilities being used as shelters; 4)'the specific shelter to which each school within the affected area is bein,g relocated; 5) instructions to pack clothing, medical supplies and food for special diets; 6) a telephone number for mobility-impaired persons, who have not made pre-arrangements, to call for assistance; 7) instructions for persons who need public transportation; 8) instructions for pet owners. The county Emergency Services and Disaster Agency

("ESDA") Coordinators may add any situation-specific information necessary. (Fairow Affidavit, 11 5, 7-8.)

4. The IPRA-Braidwood SOPS contain pre-scripted messages for use when the public is advised that it is safe to re-enter an evacuated area. There are two types of pre-scripted re-entry messages: unrestricted and restricted.

The unrestricted re-entry message instructs evacuees that the entire evacuated area is safe for re-entry while the message for the restricted re-entry informs evacuees that only a i portion of the evacuated area may be re-entered. The latter message describes the area that is safe for re-entry and the area that is not safe. That information will be added to the i pre-scripted message, at the time re-entry is recommended, by the county ESDA coordinator after consultation with the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ("IDNS"). The restricted l

.g.

r l

l re-entry message also informs evacuees who may not re-enter I

that shelters will remain open to accommodate them. Both the unrestricted and the restricted re-entry messages provide the following information to returnees: 1) the re-entry routes to be used; 2) instructions for persons who need transportation for re-entry; and 3) a telephone number for persons who require speciel assistance. Additional instructions on precautionary information for returnees may be added by the county ESDA Coordinators. (Fairow Affidavit, 15, 9.)

5. The State and the counties will issue press releases regarding emergency activities simultaneously with the issuance of Emergency Broadcast System messages. These press releases will not provide specific information with regard to the evacuation but will inform the public via radio, television and newspapers that an' evacuation was recommended for a portion of the EPZ. Press releases may also describe the other actions taken by State and County governments in response to the accident. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 10.)

Discussion offer of Proof Issue 2 challenges the existence and adequacy of means such as pre-scripted messages and other media information used to inform the public so that they can be effectively evacuated in the event that an evacuation is directed as a result of an accident at Braidwood Station and thereafter allowed to re-enter the evacuated area. The term i

l l

5

" demonstrate" as used in Issue 2 requires only a showing of the  ;

i existence and adequacy of provision in the emergency plan for i Braidwood Station and does not require any actual exercise.

(Tr. 435). The reference to " ingestion pathway zone" in Issue 2 is intended to mean " plume exposure pathway EPZ". -(Tr. 435.)

Jana S. Fairow is the Radiological Emergency Plan-ning Supervisor for the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency ("IESDA"). As such, Ms. Fairow is intimately i

l familiar with the offsite emergency plan for Braidwood Station, i

j which is comprised of IPRA-State General Plan and IPRA-Braidwood. As Ms. Fairow explains, the offsite emergency ,

plan contains about 51 pre-scripted messages for use during a l radiological emergency. These pre-scripted messages are found in IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 2. " Concept of Operations",

and IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8. The pre-scripted messages include messages regarding evacuation and re-entry. The pre-scripted evacuation messages and re-entry messages convey the essential

. information necessary for the public to effectively respond to the recommended action. Press releases will also be issued to ,

alert the public that an evacuation or re-entry recommendation is in effect.

No significant issug have been raised by Ms. Rorem in offer of Proof Issue 2 which controvert the facts established in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairow. The evidence plainly demon-strates contrary to Issue 2 that provisions for scripts and other media information exist in the State plan for Braidwood

.m.-_.-_..__ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ , - - - - _ _ . _ _ , ,.- _ .,-, _ _ . _ ,... ,. - -_ m

Station. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest that these provisions are in any way deficient.

B. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 3 Offer of Proof Issue 3 states:

Applicant must demonstrate its capability to adequately inform residential and transient populations within the EPZ in the event of an emergency so as to enable the populations to effectively evacuate or shelter including development of the specific means and content of such communications to specific populations.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. The utility, the State, and the counties of the Braidwood Station EPZ are linked by a dedicated telephone network known as the Nuclear Accident Reporting System

("NARS"). NARS is monitored 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day at the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency ("IESDA") Dispatch Center, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ("IDNS")

Radiological Emergency Assessment Center ("REAC"), and des-ignated police or sheriff's dispatchers in each of the three counties of the Braidwood Station EPZ. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 12.)

2. Radiological accidents are expected to be slow developing. Once the utility knows of any situation that could lead to serious consequences, the utility will inform IESDA and IDNS via NARS. IESDA will, in turn, notify the county

(

dispatchers via NARS of the situation at Braidwood Station.

The dispatchers will call their respective county ESDA coordinators who will activate their emergency operating centers ("EOCs") and their emergency response personnel as necessary. Provisions exist in the plan to notify and mobi-lize county officials on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis and to maintain EOC operations around the clock. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 13.) ,

3. The authority to issue a protective action recommendation such as take-shelter or evacuate ultimately rests with the Governor of the State of Illinois. Once the decision to recommend a protective action has been made, IESDA will inform the counties in the EPZ of the recommendation via NARS. Within 15 minutes after this notification, the counties will activate the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) station and the Prompt Notification System. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 14.)

4. The Braidwood Station EPZ Prompt Notification System is an outdoor warning system consisting of mechanical and electronic sirens located throughout the EPZ which alert the public to tune their radios to the local EBS station. The Prompt Notification System is described in IPRA-Braidwood, Chapter 1, " General Information". The Prompt Notification System for the Braidwood Station EPZ is designed to be audible outdoors throughout the entire EPZ. The electronic. sirens located near recreational areas are equipped with public address capability. Specific instructions for activation of the Prompt Notification System are provided in IPRA-Braidwood SOP-6, "Braidwood Station EPZ Prompt Notification System". As a backup to the sirens, public announcements will be made over mobile public address systems on emergency response vehicles, such as police cars and fire trucks. (Fairov Affidavit, 1 15.)

5. Warning messages for the counties to broadcast over the electronic siren public address system and over mobile public address systems are provided in IPRA-Braidwood SOP-6.

The electronic sirer. warning messages inform listeners that the -

Governor has recommended evacuation of the area and that they should proceed to their vehicles and prepare to evacuate.

Listeners are instructed to tune their radios to the EBS station. The mobile public address warning scripts advise listeners of the protective action recommendation and to tune to the EBS station. (Fairow Affidavit, V 16.)

6. The EBS station for the Braidwood EPZ broad-casts over two frequencies: 1340 AM (WJOL) and 96.7 FM.

(WLLI). The method by which the EBS station is activated is outlined in IPRA-Braidwood Chapter 1, " General Information".

The State of Illinois and the three counties of the EPZ will provide messages to the EBS station by telephone after sheltering or evacuation has been recommended. The radio station will record and broadcast the four messages. The EBS station designated for Braidwood will relay the emergency information to nearby EBS affiliate stations. The counties within the EPZ may also notify other local radio stations of the emergency information. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 17.)

7. The pre-scripted EBS messages for evacuation recommendation are described in Applicant's Statement regard-ing_ Offer of Proof Issue 2. Pre-scripted messages for take shelter recommendations are also provided in IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 and IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 2, " Concept of Operations." Like the evacuation messages, the take shelter messages indicate the affected area by geographical and political boundary descriptions. The take shelter messages provide the following instructions: 1) close doors and windows and turn off all heating and cooling systems that bring in air from the outside; 2) refrain from using the telephone except for an eScrgency; 3) refrain from going to schools, nursing i homes and hospitals to pick up persons; 4) stay out of the affected area if not within the area; 5) prepare for a possible evacuation without going outside; and 6) stay tuned to the EBS radio station. The county ESDA Coordinators may add situation-specific information to the message. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 18.)

8. IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 also provides that "special facilities" are to be notified of the protective action recommendations. These facilities include locations where transients are likely to be found, such as recreational areas, hotels, motels, and industries. These facilities are listed in Attachments F, G and H to SOP-8 by sector and distance. These attachments also identify the county or municipality which 4

• ensures that the protective action is implemented at each facility. In addition, the public address capability of the electronic siren system that is installed in recreational areas, warns people using these public facilities. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 19.)

Discussion Offer of Proof Issue 3 challenges the adequacy of IPRA to provide for the means to inform residential and transient populations in order to effect a protective action of sheltering or evacuation which has been recommended in response to an accident at Braidwood Station. As with Issue 2, the term

" demonstrate" requires only a showing of the adequacy of the provisions in the plan and does not require any actual exercise.

(Ir. 435.)

As explained by Ms. Fairow, the utility and the responsible State and county organizations are all linked via a dedicated telephone network. The purpose and operation of NARS is explained in IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 7, "Communica-tions". If the Governor determines that either sheltering or evacuation are warranted, that recommendation would be transmitted to the counties via NARS. Within 15 minutes of receiving the recommendation, the counties will activate the EBS station and the Prompt Notification system.

The Prompt Notification System is described in IPRA-Braidwood, Chapter 1, " General Information". The sirens of the Prompt Notification System will alert the populace to tune to their EBS station. The sirens near recreational areas a

ok l

l I

will have public address capability which will be used to advise listeners of the protective action recommendation.

Similar messages will be carried over mobile public address systems on emergency response vehicles.

Activation of the EBS station is described in IPRA-Braidwood, Chapter 1, " General Information". The EBS Station for the Braidwood Station EPZ broadcasts over both AM and FM frequencies. The EBS station will broadcast messages from the State and the counties regarding the recommended protective action. The scripts for these messages are found in IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 2, " Concept of Operation" and IFRA-Braidwood SOP-8. The pre-scripted messages identify the affected area and convey the essential information ne'cessary for the public to effectively respond to the protective action recommendation.

No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorems in Offer of Proof Issue 3 which controvert the facts estab-lished in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairow. The evidence plainly demonstrates that contrary to Issue 2, provisions exist in State plan for Braidwood Station to adequately inform residential and transient populations of the need to evacuate or to take shelter. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest that these provisions are deficient.

l i

C. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 4 Offer of Proof Issue 4 states:

The program for notification of the public at the time of an accident is deficient in that it provides no means of informing employers in the EPZ as to what actions they should take with respect to facility shutdown, shelter-ing, or the release of employee person-nel in the event that evacuation is required.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. Evacuation and sheltering recommendations for employers are the same as for the general public. Employers would receive notification of protective action recommendations through the Prompt Notification System and the EBS. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 21.)

2. IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 provides that county and municipal officials are responsible for notifying employers to assure that provisions are made to shelter or evacuate affected "special facilities" which include businesses in the EPZ.

Attachments F, G, and H to SOP-8 identify 18 businesses in the Braidwood Station EPZ. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 21.)

Discussion offer of Proof Issue 4 challenges the existence and adequacy of the means, as set forth in IPRA, of informing employers within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, at the time of

e an accident, of actions to be taken in the event that either sheltering or evacuation protective actions are ordered.

As explained by Ms. Fairow, employers will receive the same evacuation and sheltering recommendations as the general public over the Prompt Notification System and the EBS. Additionally, IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 provides that the counties and municipalities will notify identified businesses and ensure that the protective actions are being implemented there.

No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorem in Offer of Proof Issue 3 which controvert the facts estab-lished in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairow. The evidence plainly demonstrates that contrary to Issue 4, provisions exist in the offsite emergency plan for Braidwood Station to adequately notify employees in the EPZ of protective action measures.

Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest that these provisions are deficient.

D. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 5 Offer of Proof Issue 5 states:

Applicant's arrangements for provision and exchange of emergency information to news media during an emergency is deficient in that it fails to designate a spokesperson in each principal organization who should have access to all necessary information and it fails to provide for the timely and accurate exchange of such information.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. The IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 8, "Public Information" and IPRA-Braidwood, Chapters 2, 3, and 4 indicate that the Governor is the official spokesperson for the State.

IDNS and IESDA each have designated Public Information Officers

(" PIOS") who assist the Governor in this responsibility.

IPRA-Braidwood, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 also identifies by title a spokesperson for each county and municipality concerned.

(Fairow Affidavit, 1 23.)

2. Commonwealth Edison's Generating Stations Emergency Plan ("GSEP") identifies their spokesperson.

(Supplemental Testimony of Lawrence D. Butterfield, Jr., ff.

Tr. 465-B, p.3.)

3. The Governor will have access to operational information from IESDA and technical information from IDNS.

The IESDA and IDNS PIOS will also have access to information directly form their respective organizations. IDNS has access to technical information about any accident through direct contact with the IDNS liaison at the Technical Support Center and Emergency Operations Facility as described in IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 5. The county and municipal spokespersons will have direct contact with the responsible officials for their respective county.or municipality. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 24.)

4. The IESDA and IDNS PIOS independently prepare information summaries with the assistance of Illinois Informa-tion Service personnel. The IESDA and IDNS PIOS submit the information summaries to the Governor's Press Office and to each other. The Governor's Press Office submits their pre-

-pared news releases to IESDA and ISNS for verification before they are disseminated. The State press releases are issued via commercial telephone facsimile machine to the State public information personnel at the Joint Public Information Center

("JPIC"). The State PIOS at the JPIC will share the press releases with public information personnel from the utility, contiguous states and the Federal government present at the JPIC. The press releases will be shared with county spokes-persons via commercial telephone fascimile machine. The county spokespersons coordinate with the municipal spokespersons regarding emergency response activities at the municipal level. The county then coordinates press releases with the JPIC. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 25.)

DISCUSSION Offer of Proof Issue 5 challenges the existence in

'IP:RA of information that during an emergency adequately (i) designates a spokesperson for Commonwealth Edison Company and State and local government emergency planning organizations, (ii) provides access for these spokespersons to all necessary information, and (iii) provides for the timely and accurate exchange of such information.

As Ms. Fairow explains, IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 8,'"Public Information" and IPRA-Braidwood, Chapters 2, 3 and 4, identify spokespersons for the State and the county and municipal governments. In his prepared Supplemental Testimony at the October 29 hearings, Mr. Butterfield indicated that Applicant's GSEP identifies a spokesperson for the Applicant.

Ms. Fairow's affidavit shows that the spokespersons for the principal organizations will have access to timely and accurate information, either directly from within their respective organizations or through the free and ready ex-change of information between the organizations. Press releases will be transmitted from the Governors press office to the JPIC via commercial telephone facsimile machine.

No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorem in Offer of Proof Issue 5 which controvert the facts estab-lished in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairow and in the testimony of Mr. Butterfield. The evidence plainly demonstrates that contrary to Issue 5, provisions exist in the emergency plans for Braidwood Station that designate spokespersons who have access to the timely and accurate exchange of necessary information. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest that the provisions are deficient.

{

E. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 6 Offer of Proof I~ssue 6 states:

Applicant's public information program is deficient in that it fails to set out the means by which the public will be informed during an emergency of re-entry protective measures to be followed by the public in an emergency and the content of such means with respect to information concerning decontamination and interdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, dairy and livestock, and field and, garden crops.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. Pre-scripted messages for use when re-entry to an evacuated area may be recommended are found in IPRA-Braidwood SOP-11. As indicated in those scripts, the county ESDA Coordinator may add special instructions or precautionary information to the message. Any such additional information will be provided to the county ESDA Coordinator by IDNS. The special instructions or precautionary information may consist of instructions to deal with decontamination and interdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, dairy and livestock, and field and garden crops. (Fairow Affidavit, 11 9, 27.)

2. IDNS obtains information concerning the type and extent of radioactive contamination and acts as the coordinat-ing agency for a number of State agencies which would perform technical functions in the event of an emergency. The Illinois Department of Agriculture is responsible for monitoring agricultural and horticultural products. The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for monitoring municipal water supplies for contamination. Illinois Depart-ment of Public Health responsibilities include identifying and disposing of contaminated milk and food products. Those activities of the three agencies are at the request and under the direction of IDNS. (Fairow Affidavit, 27.)

Discussion Offer of Proof Issue 6 challenges the existence in IPRA of adequate means for informing the public of any neces-shry protective measures that might be needed at the time that re-entry is recommended, after evacuation has occurred and after the emergency has ended.

As Ms. Fairow explains, the pre-scripted messages found in IPRA-Braidwood SOP-11 that will be used to advise the public of a re-entry recommendation provide for the inclusion of additional information regarding any restrictions or protective measures that may be necessary. That additional information will be provided by IDNS which wil.1 monitor the type and extent of radioactive contamination. IDNS also coordinates with other state agencies which will have technical functions during an emergency such as monitoring agricultural products, water supplies and food products.

No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorem in Offer of Proof Issue 6 which controvert the facts established P

in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairow. The evidence plainly demon-strates that contrary to Issue 6, provisions exist in the State plan for Braidwood Station to provide information regarding re-entry protective measures. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest the provisions are deficient.

F. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 7 Offer of Proof issue 7 states:

Applicant's public information program is deficient in that it fails to set out the means by which those segments of the population which lack mobility will be informed as to sheltering procedures and available means of transport in the event of an emergency.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard

1. IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 provides that the county ESDA coordinators will coordinate with municipal officials to establish points of assembly for the general public requiring transportation and to provide buses for the evacuation. These assembly points will be broadcast in a supplemental EBS message. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 29.)

2. Schools and' day care centers are provided for under IPRA-Braidwood SOP-9, "Braidwood Station EPZ Sheltering and Evacuation - Schools." The occupants of these facilities d

do not " lack mobility" because transportation planning is established in advance of the direction to evacuate. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 29.)

3. As indicated in the IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 8, the Braidwood Public Information Booklet is used to facilitate identification of persons with special needs such as those who lack mobility due to physical impairment. Each Booklet contains a self-addressed, postage-paid business reply card on which the recipient may indicate any special problems that they may have, such as hearing or walking difficulties or other medical problems. When the card is received, IESDA contacts the sender to ascertain their specific problem and needs. If that person will require special assistance during an emergency, their name, address, tele}; hone number and impairment is identified on a list maintained by the county ESDA Coordinator. Persons on the list are arranged by sector and distance from the Braidwood Station so that those persons in an affected area can be easily identified. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 30.)

4. The Braidwood Public Information Booklet also provides instructions to disabled persons in the event of an evacuation. For those disabled persons who have previously identified themselves to officials, the Booklet advises that special services will be provided. For those disabled persons who have not previously identified themselves to officials, the Booklet advises them to notify officials over the special emergency phone numbers that will be broadcast on the radio.

The EBS messages for evacuation instruct disabled persons to call the telephone number provid i for special assistance.

(Fairow Affidavit, S 31.)

5. IPRA-Braidwood SOP-10, "Braidwood Station EPZ Sheltering, Evacuation and Re-entry - Special Concarns,"

provides guidelines for sheltering and evacuating "special concerns" located within the EPZ. "Special concerns" are those facilities or persons which require special evacuation considerations and/or have transportation needs. The Braidwood EPZ "special concerns" consist of one nursing home, several senior citizens centers and physically impaired individuals.

Attachments to SOP-10 contain specific instructions for the sheltering and evacuation of the nursing home and each senior citizens center. The municipal ESDA coordinator is responsible for notifying the facility of the situation and for providing transportation for an evacuation. Attachment B to SOP-10 contains instructions for sheltering and evacuating physically impaired individuals who live in a private residence. The individuals in an affected area are identified by each county on their Mobility Impaired Transportation List and are notified of the protective action recommendation by either the county or the municipality where the reside. Transportation needs are assessed and provided to the disabled persons by the county or municipality responsible for the notification. (Fairow Affidavit, V 32.)

i l

6. Persons who lack mobility will be relocated with the general population in congregate care shelters when possible. However, SOP-10 provides that individuals who have special health care needs will be taken to facilities able to meet those needs, i.e., hospital or nursing home. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 33.)

Discussion Issue 7 challenges the existence in IPRA of adequate means to inform the population in the plume exposure pathway EPZ who lack mobility of sheltering procedures and the avail-able means of transportation in the event of an evacuation.

Ms. Fairow distinguishes two categories of persons who lack mobility: those who are physically healthy but do not have personal transportation and those who lack mobility because of a physical impairment. Ms. Fairow explains that for those who lack transportation, IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8 provides that county ESDA Coordinators will arrange for buses to provide transportion and establish assembly points where those persons requiring such transportation can be picked up. The location of the assembly points will be broadcast over the EBS station.

As indicated in the IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 8, persons who lack mobility because of a physical impairment are identified to the County ESDA Coordinator by use of the reply cards found in the Public Information Booklets. The County ESDA Coordinator will maintain a list compiled from the

cards which will be used at the time of an emergency to provide the necessary assistance. For disabled persons who have not sent in a reply card, the Booklet advises them to listen for a special emergency phone number where they can call for assistance. That number will be broadcast at the time of an emergency over the EBS station.

IPRA-Braidwood SOP-lO "Blaidwood Station EPZ Sheltering, Evacuation and Re-Entry - Special Concerns" provides guidance for the evacuation and sheltering of "special concerns". In the Braidwood EPZ, these "specal concerns" are

comprised of one nursing home, two senior citizen centers, and physically impaired persons in private residences.

1 No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorem in Offer of Proof Issue 7 which controvert the facts established in the Affidavit of Ms.' Fairow. The evidence plainly demonstrates that contrary to Issue 7, provisions exist in the State plan for Braidwood Station to inform persons who lack mobility of actions to be taken in the event protective. action measures are recommended. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which suggest these provisions are deficient.

G. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 8 Offer of Proof Issue 8 states:

Applicant's public information program does not adequately describe means by which cities and responsible officials located outside the EPZ will be notified of an emergency and given adequate

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

4 information concerning-the emergency assistance to responsible organizations within the EPZ.

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Significant Issue To Be Heard <

l. IPRA-Braidwood, Chapter 1, " General Information",

provides that congregate care sheltering will be coordinated by i

the Regional IESDA Coordinators in conjunction with the local ESDA Coordinators for the host communities. The Regional IESDA Coordinators for Regions 2, 3, 5 and 7 will be notified of an accident at Braidwood Station by the IESDA Dispatcher. These Regional IESDA Coordinators are responsible for contacting the countyjESDA coordinators and the American Red Cross represen-

tatives for those counties which may be receiving evacuees and requesting the county ESDA Coordinators to notify their municipal ESDA coordinators. (Fairow Affidavit, V 35.)

2. When preparing for a possible evacuation, the county ESDA Coordinator determines the total affected popu-lation and the required shelters by completing the Congregate Care Shelter-Selection Worksheet, which is Attachment B to IPRA-Braidwood SOP-8. The county ESDA Coordinator will contact the Regional IESDA Coordinator who will determine the avail-ability of the required shelters. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 36.)

3. Once an evacuation has been recommended, these same lines of communications will be used to alert local ESDA Coordinators to begin opening and staffing shelters. Host communities will be responsible for directing. evacuation s

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , ,- , - - , . . - , , . . .,._-,n..,- , -- . _ - _ -

,m_-,

E traffic once it reaches their city limits and guiding that traffic from the evacuation routes to the appropriate shelters.

The host community ESDA coordinators will relay information to their Regional IESDA Coordinator on the status of the shelter-ing process. This information will be provided to the State i EOC staff and relayed to the evacuating county ESDA coordinator through the Regional IESDA Coordinator. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 37.)

4. IDNS will have personnel available at the congregate care shelters to handle any problems unique to a radiological accident. (Fairow Affidavit, 1 38.)

Discussion i

Offer of Proof Issue 8 challenges the existence in IPRA of adequate means'whereby emergency planning officials responsible for relocation centers will.be advised of an emergency at Braidwood Station requiring evacuation and the required activation of these centers, so that these officials can provide the necessary emergency assistance.

As Ms. Fairow's affidavit explains, IPRA-Braidwood, Chapter 1, " General Information", provides that the Regional ESDA Coordinator will determine the availability of shelters and manage their use. IDNS personnel will be on hand at the congregate care shelters to handle any problems particular to a radiological accident.

1

No significant issues have been raised by Ms. Rorem in Offer of Proof Issue 8 which controvert the facts estab-lished in the Affidavit of Ms. Fairew. The evidence plainly demonstrates that. contrary to Issue 8, provisions exist in the State plan for Braidwood Station for notifying responsible emergency planning officials located in host communities when they will be called upon to open relocation centers. Further, Ms. Rorem has not raised any factual issues which would suggest these provisions are deficient.

I I

l l- .

III. Conclusion I

Ms. Rorem's Offer of Proof Issues fail to meet the burden imposed on Ms. Rorem with rvspect to the submission of such issues by the Licensing Board's October 18 Order; and in any event, Issue 8 exceeds the limits imposed by the Licensing Board, Moreover, as the Affidavit of Jana Fairow demonstrates, none of Ms. Rorem's issues raise any significant matters. For all of these reasons, Ms. Rorem's Offer of Proof should be rejected. -

Respectfully submitted, M/ L/GL Jos ph Gafj.o /

bk W b, C-Victor G. Copeland '

i i

Two of the Attorneys for Applicant l COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 840 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9730 j Dated: December 4, 1985 l

l l

l L