ML20140D123
| ML20140D123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1986 |
| From: | Rorem B ROREM, B. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-868 OL, NUDOCS 8601290152 | |
| Download: ML20140D123 (13) | |
Text
y u 3
' a>
A.
~yr >
r
$ LUITED STATES OF AbERICA s M h4 n g6" A El4
. NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COFMISSION Y -
+
STI cc 6
gg rA# TN $
BENRE 'I1IE A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ks 4 In the butter of ) '1 -
)
00MmNWEAI!I11 EDISON COMPANY ).
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457
{
(Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 )
REPLY 'IO APPLICAffr AND NRC STAFF BUTIONS mR SIM4ARY DISPOSITIONS ON OFFER OF PROOF ISSUES Pursuant to the Board order dated O:tober 29, 1985, Intervenor Bridget Little Roran subnits this reply to Cormonwealth Edison Company's and- the NRC Staff's notions for sumury dispositions on offer of proof issues, dated Decanber 4,1985, and Dt h. 19, 1985, respectively. Intervenor Bridget Little Ibrem hereby op-poses the notions before the Board by Conmonwealth Edison Company and the NRC Staff on Offor of Proof issues 2, 3, 4, and 6. Intervenor does not oppose the motion on Offer of Proof issues 5, 7, and 8. Intervenor has annexed to this answer a short statement and discussion, organized by issue, of the naterial facts as to which there exists a genuine' issue to be heard at the Board's hearing.
10 CFR 2.749(d) provides in part that a notion for sumury disposition on the pleadings shall be granted if it appear from the record that there is no genuine issue as to an material fact and that the noving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
Staff and Applicant have supported their notions with affidavits. Never-theless,10 O'R 2.749(b) should not be understood to require that the Board must grant those notions unless Intervenor subnits counter affidavits sufficient to sixw that there is a material fact in issue. Even if Intervenor fails to subnit any af-fidavits for sono issues the notions should be denied unless the affidavits subnit -
ted by Staff and Applicant are sufficient to meet the burden of proof which the law law places upon them:
Where the evidentiary nutter in support of the notion does not estab-lish the absence of a genuine issue, sumury judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary nutter is presented.
8601290152 8601'21 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G PDR \ h b\ m3
ion requested by the Board. This reply to Applicant and NFC Staff bbtions is sub-mitted in best effort at meeting the Board's expectation. Applicant's notion to particularize Contention 1(a) directly interfered with Intnrvenor's ability to review the State plan. An adequate response to Applicant's program for public notification has regtured a full familiarization with all provisions of the State plan due to the interrelationships between it's parts. This has required longer than nine weeks to acconplish in fact, and was simply not possible to accomplish -
in the week following the Board's October 18, 1985, Order.
Finally, the argunent presented by Staff in it's notions, that Intervenor has raised new contentions which fall outside the Ibren Contention 1(a) as contained on page 1 of the Board's October 18, 1985, Order, fails to make sense to Intervenor.
As the Board points out at the top of page 2 of it's October 18, 1985 Order, the cont-ention listed could reasonably be interpretated to refer to either a public infor-mation program prior to an accident, or during one. All issues contained herein and in the Offer of Proof fall within one of those two categories. . ,.
e 4
i
Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157 (emphasis added) . Intervenor recognizes that the situation with respect to the issues identified in Intervenor's Offer of Proof differs greatly in that the Doard's consideration of them is in. light of issues to admit into .this proceeding, rather than admitted issues. While the purpose of summry disposition is to ensure that only contested issues are subnitted to the Board for hearing, this purpose is met by weccling out frivolous and dilatory claims. Based upon the receipt from Applicant of information inadvertantly absent from Intervenor's copies of the State planning volumes, and the closer scrutiny of it's issues, Intervenor has struck several of.the Offer issues. The issues presented by Intervenor herein represent serious and specific doubts it has concerning the adequacy of public information during an emergency, and meet the criteria established in the October 18, 1985 Order.
PROCEDURAL MERITS OFFER OF PROOF Intervenor's October 25,-1985, Offer. of Proof set .forth seven apparent and-significant deficiencies in Applicant's program for notification of the public at the tim of an accident at the Braidwood Station. Appl $cantinthe discussion of it's procedural objections to the Offer of Proof coritained in it's motions would minimize the significance of these issues ad hoc. Applicant critizes Issue 2 upon it the basis that would imply that the State emergency plan contains no recemnendation mssages relating to evacuation and shelter. Intervenor would merely reiterate it's statemnt made at the October 29, 1985 hearing, that Issue 2 was developed by it upon the incorrect assumption that the IPRA copy provided Intenienor was intact and whole, and in fact, contained no such scripts. With recent provision of the absent scripts having been mde Intervenor has attmpted successfully'to narrow the issue
~
with regard to thcm. Each response contained herein to Applicant and Staff bbtions spells out specific significant facts with respect to each issue.
Intervenor was not able to present such specific issues as contained here-in, prior to this date due to it's unfamiliarity as to the degree of particularizat-
A. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 2 Offer of Proof Issue 2 states:
Applicant must develop and denenstrate its cap'bility to p'rovide through scripts and/or other nodia infornation, substantive ener-gency informtion to adequately inform the public of energency informtion 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 energency and to effectively re-enter the affected zone in the event of an energency.
I%TERIAL FACPS AS TO WilICII TIIERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE 10 BE IIEAIO
- 1. The pre-scripted EBS nessages contained in IPRA-State General Plan, Chapter 2, " Concept of Operations", IPRA-Braidwood Standard Operating Procedure
(" SOP")-8, "Braidwood Station EPZ Sheltering and Evacuation-General Population" are 'the sole neans relied upon to provide energency infornation to the public.
None of the shelter or evacuation reconnendation nessages contained in those two volunes of the State pgan contain general instruction as to what action to take, or what provisions will be made if you or a nember of your household is at a recreat-ional site at the tine these nessages are broadcast. (IPRA, Vol. 1, Ch. 2; VII, SOP 8)
- 2. None of the shelter or evacuation reconnendation nessages contained in the State plan provide instruction as to what to do if you are a transient in the EPZ at the tine of an mergency and you do not have a hone, workplace, or hone or business of a friend in which to shelter, r other fixed location. (IPRA, Vol. 1, Ch. 2; Vol. VII, SOP-8)
- 3. The infornution provided in the shelter and evacuation reconuendation nessages concerning school children, nursing home tutients and luspital patients is not sufficient to deter individuals responsible for tluse persons frun going to or calling the facilities. The infornution provided reads, "All school children, nur-sing hone residents and hospital natients are being attended to by trained personnel.
There is no need to go there to pick anyone up." As read, the statments provide
no assurance to the listener that the facilities will assume full responsibility for the sheltering and evacuation of persons at their location, or that trained personnel will accompany persons throughout the emergency. The statements also fail to deter in that no explanation is given to persons as to why they should rot call or go to the facilities. (IPRA, Vol. 1, Ch. 2; Vol. VII, SOP-8) 4, The evacuation reconuendation messages in IPRA, Vol. VII, SOP-8, At-tachnent C include the instruction directing persons to proceed to' the nest con-venient congregate care shelter in the assigned host conmunity to which they evac-uate, or "...If you have friends or relatives residing at least twenty miles away from you in one of the general directions to be used in your evacuation, you may elect to go there. ..". . The Fairow affidavit discusses and describes the re-entry recormendation nessages to be found in SOP-ll, "Braidwood Station EPZ Re-entry".
Broadcasting of the evacuation recamendation messages will result in the locating of evacuees to rural areas of the counties and througlout entire host cmmunit-ies, as well to congregate care shelters in those conmunities. No provision is made in SOP-ll for the release of the re-entry messages by tedia stations throughout the Braidwood ingestion zone so as to assure that persons who are sheltered in priv-ate homes and rural areas as well as congregate care shelters in lost conmunities, will receive notification of the re-entry reconmendations. SOP-11 assigns Grundy, Will, and Kankakee ESDA county coordinators responsibility for public re-entry not-ification, in conjunction with the Joint Public Informtion Center (JPIC) . The ad-ditional cooperation of the Livingston, IaSalle, Kane, and Kendall county ESDA coord-inators would have to be obtained to ensure notification of all evacuees. A nodia contact list for each county would aleo' facilitate effective notification. ~(Fairow affidavit, pages, 7-8; SOP-ll)
DISCUSSION Infornation is provided to the public during an emergency to ensure that
the public will be able to follow mergency instructions with a muunun of confusion and delay. While it is unrealistic to mke mergency infornation so detailed as to provide for all circumstances, adequate 'inforuntion is required to fit the comon i
daily situations of the nnjority of the public, to ensure that the greater of it will respond offectively. The State plan includes no provisions for infonning the public that persons at recreational sites will be provided for by authorities in the event of an energency. A significant portion of the population of the Braidwood public is likely to be at a recreational location at any given tine, particularly seasonally. The State plan sinuld include infornation provided to the public to indicate that persons at recreational locations will have special arrangments nnde to shelter and evacuate them. 'This to be similar to information to be released con-corning persons at special facilities. Additionally, nore adequate infornution is required to be provided concerning the nature of special arrangenents to be made for persons at special facilities such as sclools and hospitals and the recreational areas. The infornation contained in SOP-8, Attachment C., fails to give assurance that persons at special facilities, etc., will be safely sheltered and evacuated by authorities, without the assistance of other family nembers. Houselolds require to know that facilities will assune full responsibility for the wellfare of persons at their location, and that provisions exist for locations such as recreational areas.
Failing that assurance, parents are likely to tie up school phone lines, or create confusion in school parking lots attanpting to pick their children upon from school, for example. A general instruction should also be included in the public inform-ation for the individual who happens to be in the EPZ on a transient basis who is not familiar with the area, and nny . simply be driving through it. He or she would not have a hme, place of work, or business', or any of these of a friend in which 1
to shelter or evacuate from. A general instruction directing him to seek out the 1.
nearest residence or place of business, even if it.is not his own, would be required.
i
. l
. I
, Persons evacuating the EPZ are directed in SOP-08, to congregate care shelters in host cormunitities, or to shelter in the homes of friends' or relatives residing twenty miles or nore from. their hme, in.the general direction they are assigned to evacuate in. The provisions in SOP-ll, do not ensure that all evac-uees will receive notification of the re-entry reammendations, as it makes provis-ion for the notification of only three counties via the EBS stations in those count-
'ies. As persons.who locate in rural areas or the residences of friends .in other conmunities, will not be located in congregate care shelters, general provision must be made to notify all media stations througlout the ingestion zone. This could be facilitated through the use of nodia contact lists for each county.
NOIE: (With respect to this last factual issue which Intervenor raises in connection with Offer of Proof, Issue 2, Intervenor defines " ingestion pathway zone" as it .is cormonly defined, in reference to the 50-mile zone around a nuclear power plant. Intervenor defines the term in this nanner in connection to Issue 2 because, in its final analysis of this State plan Intervenor believes there exists a genuine material fact to be heard as described above, which in the practical sense must be.
resolved for re-entry to function effectively. Intervenor understands that the'pos-ition it takes on this>defination is different from it's position regarding it at the October 29, 1985 hearing. (Tr. 389)* Intervenor subnits this last factual issue to the consideration of the Board's determination as to whether it may be admitted to this proceding with the change in defination as noted, upon the basis that where-as it may be the position of Applicant and Staff that it exceeds Cbmmission require-nents, the ingestion zone is contained as guidance criteria in NUREG-0654, and inso-faras re-entry is an important part of the Braidwood Plan this factual issue must be resolved for the plan to function properly.)
(bntrary to the position of Applicant and imC Staff that there exists no significant factual issue to be heard with respect to Offer of Proof, Issue 2, Inter-venor raises the above four factual issues which describe at least four deficiencies in Applicant's capability to provide sustantive emergency information, and/or adeq-uately inform the public during an cnergency.
B. OFFER OF PDOOF ISSUE 3 1
Offer of Proof Issue 3 states:
Applicant must dcnonstrate its capability to adequately inform residential and transient populations withrn the EPZ in the event j of an energency so as to enable the populations to effectively
_._ __ . - - . _ _ _ ~ . , . . _ - - . -
evacuate or shelter including developtent of the specific means and content of such connunications to specific populations.
MATERIAL FACPS AS 70 WIIICII TIERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE YO BE HEARD
- 1. The warning messages to be broadcast over the electronic siren public address system and over nobile public address systems, as contained in IPRA-Braid-wood SOP-6, are deficient in that they contain no instruction as to how to shelter.
The public address warning scripts assune listeners have radios available to them that they can use to tune into the designated EBS station. The scripts contain no instruction as to what action persons sMuld take if they have no radio available to them. The warning scripts should contain a standard instruction which can be adapt-ed to each location addressed, to indicate the closest location or authority persons can request additional infornation from concerning sheltering or evacuation. .(IPRA,.
Vol. VII, SOP-6, Attachments C and D)
DISCUSSION The warning dessages to be broadcast over the electronic siren public ad-dress system and over nobile public address systems, as written and contained in SOP-6 provide no instructional infornation as to hcw to shelter. The information provided is designed to direct persons to EBS instructions regarding sheltering and evacuation. As such the nessages are deficient as they nuke no provision for in-dividuals who would be located in recreational facilities with little or no shelter-1 ing capability, as to how to direct such persons on action to take if sheltering is required. The nessages also contain the assumption that all persons in the EPZ have ' access to a radio which to use to tune into an EBS station. Transient popul-tions -in the EPZ at the tine of an accident are nost likely to be located in recreat-ional areas. Assumptions that all EPZ persons will have access to a radio are nost likely to hold true with respect to resident-ial p:pulations, but not recreational
~ populations. To avoid persons concluding that their sole source of information with
i l
i I
y respect to sheltering and evacuation is an EBS Station, instructional phases ought to be added to these scripts to direct persons to the nearest -location or authority
~
from winm they can obtain infornatiion on how to shelter and evacuate.
t C. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 4 Offer of Proof Issue 4 states:
The program for rotification of the public at the time of an ac-cident is deficient in that it provides no means of informing em-ployers in the EPZ as to what ' actions they should take witlf res-pect to facility shutdown, sheltering, or the . release of sployee personnel in the event that evacuation is required.
bWITRIAL F1C1'S AS 'ID MIIGI THERE EXISTS . A GENUINE ISSUE '10. BE HEARD
- 1. IPRA, Vol., VII, SOP-8, " Sheltering and Evacuation, General Population",
Sectioil 4.1 (E) 1, assigns county ESDA coordinators to, " coordinate with the munici-pal ESDA Coordinators / Mayors to detemine that provisions are being made to shelter or evacuate the affected transient populations." (including major industries) SOP-8 contains no other provisions with respect to mployers. IPRA, Vol. VII, SOP-10, i
Sheltering, Evacuation, Re-entry - Special Cbncerns', contains no provisions with respect to enployers. There are no provisions in the Braidwood emergency plan regard-ing ecployers except the provision in SOP-8 and the listing of employers attached to SOP-8. IPRA, Vol. VII, is deficient in that it contains no provision for a short instruction messa^ge to be' given to employers at the time they are contacted in ac-cordance with SOP-8, to inform them as to what actions tiny should take with respect to facility shutdown (i.e. whether they slould clone down the facility, or take steps to just minimize operations to avoid danage to equipment or nuchinery if re-quired.) sheltering (i. e. where best location to. shelter, and best neans to prevent
ingress.) and the release of sployee personnel in the event that evacuation is re-quired.
DISCUSSION Intervenor raised this issue in it's Offer of Proof after reviewing IPRA, Vol. VII, etc., (all plan volumes) because the Braidwood plan had no provision for mployers to receive informtion specific to their needs as special facilities, 1
other than the notification contained in SOP-8, which would occur in an mergency situation which might not allow adequate tim to respond to mployer questions. Al-though sployers are regarded in the state plan as special facilities, IPRA, Vol.
VII does not devote to mployers the attention to the detail of the substance of the information that it provides to other special facilities. Major industries, such as are present in the Braidwood EPZ often require special shut down operations-to minimize damage to equipmnt or machinery, etc. A short instructional message 2
to be given to mployers at the time they'are contacted in accordance with SOP-8',
. could be developed to address the points raised in material fact 1.
D. OFFER OF PROOF ISSUE 6 Offer of Proof Issue 6 states:
i Applicant's public information program is deficient in that it fails to set out the means by which the public will be infonmd during an i emergency of re-entry protective masures to be followed by the pub-4 lic in an mergency and the content of such neans with respect to in-formation concerning decontamination and interdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, dairy and livestock, and field and garden crops.
MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WIIICH THERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE 'IO BE HEARD
- l. IPRA-SOP-ll contains no information or instructions concerning Ine to I
' deal with decontamination and interdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, dairy -
- and livestock, and field and garden crops, except the provision that additional
- instructions may be provided concerning them at the tine of re-entry. (IPRA, Vol.
VII, SOP-ll)
- 2. IPRA, Vol. VII, SOP-ll contains no information or instructions concern-ing the information described in material fact one from the Illinois Departm2nt of Agriculture,J Illinois Environmental Protection. Agency, or the Illinois Department of Public IIcalth. A short instructional statem2nt should be included in the re-entry message of SOP-ll to state that information regarding decontamuntion and in-terdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, and care of affectcd dairy and livestock,
- will be provided to persons in the affected areas .via EDS stations or contact from authorities, if required. The statem2nt should also indicate information would also be provided concerning field ard garden crops. (IPIM, Vol. VII, SOP-ll)
DISCUSSION Applicant and Staff bbtions are . deficient with respect to their present-ations concerning Offer of Proof Issue 6 insofar as, while they set.out the means by which the public will be infonned during an enrgency of re-entry protective
.nuasures, they fail upon their face to set out or-indicate the content of such means with respect to infornution concerning decontarunation and interdiction of foodstuffs, water supplies, dairy and livestock, and field and garden crops. IPRT, Vol. VII, SOP-ll contains no such information, nor is it attached to the plan by means of a statenent from any of the agencies listed above in material issue 2. While it is not realistic to expect detailed information to be released to the public via the re-entry messages concerntng the specific hazards associated with each of the potentially affected itans described in material issue 2, a short instruction re-garding than is possible. The statem2nt sinuld indicate that once the assessannt of each is completed, rotification concerning each will be forthornng. The means of notification should be' described. The instruction would serve to alert persons.
to a potential hazard, and at the same tima indicate to them that they slould re-main on the alert for the relevant rotification.
~
4 CONCLUSION f
Intervenor's Offer of Proof Issues meet the criteria of particularization specified in the Licensing Board's October 18, 1985 Board Order with respect to the submission of such issues by Intervenor. All of the issues contained herein raise significant . issues with respect to the means and adequacy of infornung the public of i
emergency information during an accident. Ebr all of the reasons raised herein, the Offer of Proof should be accepted with respect to contested issues.
i Respectfully sulrtitted, Bridget11.ittle Ibrem, for 2, Intervenors t
i Bridget Ibran 117 North idnden Essex, II. 60935 (815) 365-4451 i
l' i
,,--a..-%--.--- 7, ->.--5.. .,,w,g,_, ,. , - - , . .---,_w --,.7. p -.,p_.,p., 7%,. __ , ,, _w-,y--p_m,. -
--m-+w.,- F' ""r-----'-~'='s*PT * -'=P
7 M
IEITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR REGUIA'IORY COM4ISSICN BEFORE 'IllE A'IOMIC SAFETIY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mitter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 CDtDMEALTII EDISON COMPANY ) 50-457
)
(Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 )
CERr1FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of INTERVENOR'S REPLY 'IO APPLICANT AND NRC STAFF M7fIONS FDR SUlHARY DISPOSITIONS ON OFFER OF PROOF ISSUES were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the Unitcd States mail, first-class postage pre-paid, unless otherwise indicated, this 21 st day of January,1986.
Herbert Grossman, Judge
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
- Mr. William L. Clements Judge
- Chief, Docketing and Services 102 Oak Lane U.S. NRC -
_ 0ak Ridge, Tenn. 37830 Washington, D. C. 20555 4
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Stuart Treby, Elaine Chan
- US NRC Office of Executive Legal Washington, D. C. 20555 Director U.S. NRC Douglass Cassel, BPI Suite 1300 Washington, D. C. 20555 1 109 N. Dearborn St.
- Chicago, II. 60602 George L. Edgar Newman and Holtzinger 1615 L. St. N. W Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 sent express mail *
~
Yo )
Bridget tle Rorem for Inte Menors I
l