ML20141J282
| ML20141J282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1986 |
| From: | Rorem B APPLESEED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-925 OL, NUDOCS 8604280040 | |
| Download: ML20141J282 (17) | |
Text
,
e e
d Q.
UNITED STATES OF AMlIRICA
'7
\\\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
APR 26 NW I
- CCCCTING &
ac::sunca /-/
BEFOPE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3TCY NM N
/
In the Matter of
)
)
Occket Nos. 50-456-OL CCMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
50-457-01
)
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENORfS P90 POSED FIf0INGS ON EhERGENCY PLAPNING ISSUES Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.754, Intervenorc hereby files this Intervenor's Proposed Findings on Emergency Planning Issues.
Intervenor has organized this material in the following manner:
A.
Proposed Findings of Fact on Contention 1 (a)
(Pre-occident Puolic Information)
Findings 1-8 S.
Propcsed Findings of Fact on Contention 1 (a)
(Pre-accident Public Information) and Contention 1 (a)
(Offer of Proof Issue 2)
Findings 9-12 Intervenor has followed each proposed finding or grcup of proposed findings in A. and 8. with a short diccussion C.
Preposed Conclusions Cased on ProposedFindings of Fact i
8604280040 860421 l
gDR ADOCK 05000456 PDR 3
\\
A.
-Proposed Findings of Fact on Contention 1 (a) (Pre-accident Public Information)
Contention 1 (a) (Pre-accident Public Information) states:
Intervenor contends that an edquate emergency plan for the Braidwood Station should include the following:
(a) A program to periodically inform the public within the plume exposre pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) on how they aill be notified and what their initial actions should be in the event of a radiological emergency originating at the station.
_P_roposed Findings 1.
The only method by which the public within the Emergency Planning Zone will learn how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in the event of a radiological emergency originating at the station is the booklet entitled " Emergency
-Information - Braidwood."
Discussion on Findina 1 Applicant submitted only the booklet as an exhibit in the hearing on October 29, 1996 Applicant's witness Lawrence D. Butterfield, Jr.
stated in his testimony that the principal method for Informing the i
public is the publication and distribution of the booklet. He adds j
that "other means of communication to supplement the booklet are being considered in cooperation with the state." (Butterfield testimony on Contention 1 (a), page 7, A.10) i i
l
\\
l l
~
. i s
He later states " Commonwealth Edison is undertaking discussions with the appropriate state authorities to develop a sign for use in state recreational areas." He goes on to say that if this concept is accepted by the state, Commonwealth Edison Company will discuss with private camp and recreational area operators the placement of these signs in their areas. (Butterfield testimony on Contention 1 (a),
page 14, A.16) 1 in the Testimony of Lawrence D. Butterfield, Jr. and Jana S.
t
[
Fairow Regarding Contentions 1 (a) and 1 (b) (Emergency Planning),
witnesses respond to a direct question about.whether signs will be l
placed at recreational areas by answering:
A.82.
Yes.
Signs will be provided to each of the recreational areas Informing visitors of the purpose of 'the s trens l
and Instructing them to listen to either of the two EBS l
L Stations which will broadcast energency Information.
However, the exact wording of the signs was given by neither i
L Miss Fairow nor Mr. Butterfield.
(TR 734) To the extent that it i
was Incumbent upon the Applicant to present any other such pre-t l
i
[
acciden t information in its entirety for litigation, it cannot be l
l l
assumed there exists or will exist any other means than the booklet of Informing the public of how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in the event of a radiological emergency originating at the station.
l 1
l.
i 1
4
.,----.---rw
,--,.n,,_-,,,---,,,,-vr-.
m-e.
y w...s-,-.w
- -,.. ~.,. =. -, -.,. -,
,w+
,,wm
,v.w,.m-._.n,-
-,m,---
,r,
_4_
Furthermore, the signs, if used, would not constitute an acceptable part of a program to inform the public in accordance with Contention 1 (a) because Mr. Butterfleid stated in cross-examination that the signs "do not indicate why specifically the signs are there; that is, that you are in the Braidwood EPZ." (TR 734 15-17)
If the public is unaware of the possibility of a radiological emergency, then they are not properly informed on how they will be notified and what their Initial actions should be in such an emergency.
l 2.
Applicant's public information program assumes that the adult population is able to read.
l Discussion on FI.1 ding 2 l
Applicant did not conduct any studies on Illiteracy in the l
Emergency Planning Zone (TR 466 5-8) and did not Indicate any famill-arity with general Illiteracy studies.
Applicant also assumed that those who are visually impaired would either have someone to read the booklet to them, or would notify the State to be put on a special p rog ram.
(TR 477 12-25, 478 1-13) This assumption is hopeful at best.
There are people not legally blind, who are able to conduct their l
lives quite normally except for their inability to see clearly enough t
to read, Such people may be embarassed and will not let others know f
r.
iJ la-l l'
of their inability. Since such a person would not read the booklet and fill in the form requesting the state put him on a special i
program, Applicant has failed to provide a public information program
- which adequately informs him.
Similarly, those who are Illiterate are of ten in no hurry to make their inabilities known. Applicant has also failed to provide a public information program which adequately informs those people.
I
[
t i
3.
The booklet entitled " Emergency Information - Braldwood" does not address the nature of the danger of a radiological accident.
Olscussion on Finding 3 l-Section 8, " Radiation," of the booklet, describes what radiation is and how it is measured.
It also discusses the effect of the radia-tion from an average nuclear plant on a hypothetical person living for a year at the fence of the plant and the size of a radiation dose which would produce identifiable effects in the body.
The section does not discuss how radiation affects the body, or what amounts of radiation might be released from a nuclear plant in an accident.
Applicant's booklet states the importance of emergency prepared-ness: "But as with any potential emergency, your safety could depend
r e
on your preparedness." (Booklet inside cover, para. 2) l L
Typical preparedness programs on a variety of other potentially dangers attenyt to describe what the nature of the danger is.
Programs 1
on tornadoes and fires typically show the kind of. damage which tornadoes or fires can do; it is considered part of Impressing on an audience the inportance of taking emergency planning seriously.
Miss Fairow Indi-cated in re-cross-examination that
.A.
(WITNESS FAIROW)
Just recently -- I believe last l
week was Tornado Awareness Week, and Information was provided to the media so that they could broad-cast information.
j Some schools performed their own tornado drills, and our agency and the ESDA agencies at l
the county level go out and do programs as requested on tornadoes.
l Applicant has stated in several places in the emergency informa-tion booklet the unlikelihood of an accident occuring.
In order that the pubile not brush off the important information about evacuation contained in the booklet, those statements need to be balanced with a short description of how radiation adversely affects the body and what the possible consequences of nuclear accidents might be.
4 Appilcant has committed to modify the language of the booklet in its next issuance to include the following language as the last full paragraph of Section 8:
l l
If a nuclear plant accident were ever to occur, teans of specially-trained personnel would be sent to get even more detailed radiation readings all around the plant.
In most cases, there would be no excessive radiation.
if the ac-cident were serious, and could expose members of the pub-lic to 100 millirem or more of radiation, state plans call
-for protection of the public by taking shelter Indoors or by evacuation. The most probable form of radiation which could be found beyond the plant boundaries would be con-tained i s a cloud or plune. This cloud would move in the prevaillr3 wind direction and would dictate the areas for potential shelter or evacuation recommendations.
5.
The additional information as stated in Finding 4 does not resolve the plune issue, because the information concerning the radioactive plume is significant enough to deserve a separate paragraph.
6, - The additional information as stated in Finding 4 does not resolve the plume issue, because no possible physical characteristics or lack of characteristics of the radioactive plume are given.
7.
The additional information as stated in Finding 4 does not resolve the plume issue because such information should be keyee back to ear-lier passages or sections which are affected by it.
Olscussion on Findings 4-8 At the time of the October 29, 1986, hearing, there was no direct discussion of a radioactive plume anywhere in the emergency information
bookl et.
Applicant's witness, Mr. Butterfield, said that there is an obilque reference to a radioactive plume in the booklet:
A.
There is one, what I will call, oblique reference to it, in Section 4 where the map is, in the center of the book, there is an item under the last bullet, in an emergency stay tuned to.
The following paragraph, the last sen-tence says : Other routes than those above may be given on the radio depending on road and environmental condi-tions.
The reason that's i n there is because you chose that-depending on environmental -- and, by the way, we are intending to change that word to, in the future, weather because it is more understandable than environ-mental conditions, to weather conditions.
It In my opinion, that implies that in one direction or another because of plume or other weather conditions.
(TR 483 20-25, 484 1-9)
After more discussion on the radioactive plume (TR 485 1-25, 4861-25, 487 l-25), Judge Grossman asked Mr. Butterfield JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let's see if we can get a respon-sive answer to what I think you are driving at.
I believe the question is directed at asking I
wouldn't the public respond -- be more responsive to following the routes given on the radio if they were made aware of the fact that there is more than Just weather conditions involved, but that i
there is also radioactive plume which they ought l
to consider in following these conditions.
WITNESS:
In my opinion, yes.
r i,
L in re-direct questioning, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Butterfield l
about Commonwealth Edison's efforts to ensure the readability of the brochure.
Mr. Butterfield responded:
A.
As the emergency information brochure has evolved to its present state, persons under my direction l
L
have reviewed it fer readability, and have tried to make changes es they felt would make it more clear and readable to the people to whom it was intended to be sent.
Q.
Has that effort influenced the amount of detail presented in the brochtre?
A.
Not to any great extent to my knowledge.
It is primarily to simplify the words, to make it more clear. To provide standcut features. Make it more appealing.
(TR 490 0-19)
Intervcnce agrecs that it is important that the booklet be recdable. Because of this, Intervence feels that to cdd to the final paragraph in the section en radiation two sentences which introduce the concept of a radioactivo plume interferes with both the readability of the brochure and public understanding of the impor-tance of the infcrmation.
The language proposed by Applicant to discuss a radioactive plume is also deficient in that it does not describe what a plume or cloud might or might not look like.
In the first pcragraph in Section 8, radiation is described as invisible, silent, tasteless, cnd odorless.
The words " plume" and " cloud" carry definitc ideas of visibility, and the matter nay therefore be confusing to the public.
If tha term " weather conditions" is meanc to be inclusive of the concept of a radioactive plume, there should be some such indication in the copy in Section 4.
This might be accomplichcd by a pcrenthetical phrase following the sentenca quoted by Mr. Butterfield in TR 483 20-20:
Other routes than those above may be given on the rudio, depending on road and weather conditions.
(See Section 8 for a discussion on radiocctive plumco.)
10 -
l l
Otherwise, the reader of the booklet may not understand the oblique reference to a radioactive plume. He may respond to " weather' conditions" 1
cs he already understands the term and not follow the instructions given cn the radio os to evacuation routes.
l l
l i
l 8.
In Section 1 of the emergency infcrmation booklet, bullet 4, the 1
I i
first centence should read "You will be givr.n information and instruc-i 1
tions."
rather then "You will be given information and instructions if l
there is a real ecl1 for concern."
l Discussion on Finding 8 It was ellicited from cress-examination of the NPC staff witness, Mr. Garden Wenger, that there cre not instances in which the sirens arc
(
sounded without follow-up.
(TR 534-536) The most pertinent questions cnd answere proceedec as follows:
Q. ( B,v Ms. Rcrem)
In that case wouldn't, given that circno ar= not sounded without follow-up, that is on one of the radio stations, wouldn't the centence mcon the same thing if it said simply you will be given infor-mation and instructions period?
A.
Yes.
Judge Grossman: A further question is are those words "if there is a real cause for concern," misleading in that it cuggests that there are situations in which the siren will sound and no information and instructions will be given?
The witness: It would not be the case that the sirens would sound and there wouldn't be follow-up information.
Judge Grossman:
So that if you had ended ths sentence efter the bold letters, " instructions," you would be describing every situation. Bu t now isn't it true that with those further words in there, "if there is a real cause for
11 -
6 concarn," there is a suggsstion that there is another possibility that there is a case in which a siren will sound and no natructions will be given because there is no real call for concern?
The witness:
I believe I understand what you are saying.
If I may, the sirens would be sounded if there is o call for concern, meaning there will be infer-motion following for you to by chance take protective measures.
(TR 535 21-25, 536 1-22)
Applicant has orgued that the information in the booklet has been made as concise and readable as pousible. To the extent that the phrase "if there is a real call for concern" is misleading in Section 1 of the bcoklet, it should be eliminated.
I 9.
Applicant's means of distribution of the emergency preparedness bocklet (Emergency Information -- Braidwood) is deficient in that it t
1 does not cover all possible residents of the Emergency Planning Zone.
Oiscussion on Firsdl.,g 9 This issue was discussed at some length in the Octcber 29, 1985 l
hearing. (TR 480 12-25, 481, 482, 490 20-26, 491 1-5, 498 6-25, 499 1-10, 500 1-21. 504 20-25. 505, 506, 511 22-25, 512, 513 1-12)
Applicant argued that its method of dictribution of the bocklet, covering both billing and service cddresses, would assure that all households would receive a booklet.
Hcaever, cross-examination eetablished at least one instance where neither the billing nor the service addrcss copies of the booklet would reach an actual resident. If the owner of a residence, who should receiva either a booklet cent to billing address, or a booklet sent to
12 -
s service address, cr both, were absent cnd having mcil forwarded, any copies of the booklet would be forwarded to him.
A person who was subletting a rcoidence might not receive cny 1
copics of the booklet.
j
(
B.
Proposed Findings of Fact on Contention 1(a) (Pre-accident Public Information and Contention 1(a) (Offer of Proof Issue 2) i Contention 1 (a) (Pre-accident Public Information) states:
I Intervenor contends that an adequato cmcrgency plan for the Brcidwood Station should include the following:
(a) A program to periodically inform the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergancy Planning Zone (EPZ) on how they will bc notified and what their initial actions shoula be in the event of a radiological l
l cmergency originating at the station.
Contention 1 (a) (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 emergency 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 en emergency.
Proposed Findings 9.
Section 3 of the booklet entitled " Emergency Information --
Braidwood'*, bullet 2 states:
GATHER THE PEOPLE in your home TOGETHER.
If you have children or others at schools, hospitals, overnight
4a ll:
- compround or r arsing homes, 00 NOT try to pick l
them up. 'These facilities will be following their own L
evacuation proceduren, and you would probably miss connections. STAY TUBED to one of the radio stations listed earlier for information on where persons are being moved. Students, patients and nursing home
'~
residents will be accompanied by Staff to relocation centers. Their needs, including mediccl needs, will be provided for until they are reunited with their fcmilicc.
10.
Tne information provided in the booklet is not sufficient to i
deter individuals responsibic for school children or personc at rec-
. reational areas from attempting to pick them up.
11.
The information provided in the shelter and evacuation recommenda-tion messages reads, "All school children, ntraing home residents and hospital patients are being attended to by trained personnel. There is no need to go there to pick anyone up." (IFVIA Vol.
1, Ch. 2)
I 12.
The information provided in the shelter and evacuation recommer dation raessages is not sufficient to deter individuals responsible for school children or persons at recreational areas from attempting to pick them up.
Discussion on Findings 9-12 It can be assumed that there is en important basis for the instructions to not pick up children or others at schools or recree-tional facilities. Perhaps the moot obvious concern in that traffic might be tied up ed inpeded if people ars travelling in directions i
other than av ay from the plant.
~....
- - _. ~.,
In many of the small towns around the Braidwood plant, pcrsnta and other responsible parties mcy live within several blocks of the school, or several miles from recreational facilities. If they are familiar with their communities, they may realize that the buses which will evacuate their chilcren mcy be eight to twelvc miles away, and their concern with evacuating all members of their families as quickly as possible may leed them to ignoring the instructions.
This issue was covered at some length during cross-examination of Applicant's witness Miss Fairow. iTR 843-855, 1013-1015)
In both days of the March hearing Miss Fairow acknoulodged the reasonabic-f ness of parents wanting to pick their children up under circumstances such as that described above.
(TR 851 14-22, 1013 22-25, 1014 1-6)
If there is another concern in this iscue, such as fear of exposure to radiation to members of the public, the booklet should contain en explanation of the nature of the danger in such a way as to enhance the willingnecs of the public to follow instructions.
C.
Proposed Conclusions Based on Proposed Findings of Fact Intervenor urges the Licensing Board to require the Applicant to repair deficiencies in its public information program to correct the problems indicated in the Intervenor's Proposed Findings:
15 -
l ' s f.
1..
Applicant nhould develop other means of informing tho l
public, such as video presentations, slideshows, radio information programs, so that those who are not able to read are able to under-l stand the information necessary to assure that in the event of an emergency the public con and will be adequatcly protected.
2.
Applicant shculd develop and present a specific I
message to be used on signs within the EPZ, including information about why the signs and siren system exist.
3.
The booklet should be written to include some infermaticn on the nature of the danger in a nuclear accident.
l l
4.
Applicant should give a separate paragraph in Section 8 to the information on a radioactiveplume.
l f
5.
Applicant should include in this information ocmo dau-l l
cription of the possible physical characteristics of a radioactive plume.
6.
Applicant should key back the information on a radioactive plume to earlier passages which are affected by it.
7.
Applicant should omit the misiccding phrase "if tharc is a real cause for concern: in Section 1 bullet 4 of the booklet.
8.
Applictnt should make avcilable booklets for distribution i
l to new box holdars and those who receive their mail through general deli-I very.
'9.
Applicant;sbould_ develop _public-infocmation programo_which address specifically the issue of deterring parents and other responsible individbals from ignoring i.nstructions to dat pick up children or others at schools or recreational facilitics.
I i
l v
r -, -,
-n
, - n
@If 9 9'.
..., 1 9
^
Y pR25B86P {
"~~.;;_g3gg p2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
.gcc cY.NP.C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Co N
in the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-456-OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
50-457-OL
)
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CER_TIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of the attached intervenor's Proposed Findings on Emergency Planning issues were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, this 21st day of April,1986.
Heroert Grossman, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Law Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Sefety and Licensing Board Commiss on Pane 1 r
Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Law Judge George L. Edgar, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Nmean & Holtzinger, P.C.
Board 1615 L Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart Treby, Esqui re Elaine 1. Chan, Esqui re Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Office of the Executive Legal Administrative Law Judge Director 102 Oak Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 i
e
-9 Robert Guild, Esquire William Little, Director Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Esquire Braidwood Project Ticothy W. Wright, Ill, Esquire Region 111 BPI U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 109 North Dearborn Street 799 Roosevelt Road Suite 1300 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Janice A. Stevens Charles Jones, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Illinois Emergency Services 7920 Norfolk Avenue and Disaster Agency Phillips Building 110 East Adams Bethesda, MD 20814 Springfield, Illinois 62705 Joseph Gallo, Esqui re Elena Z. Kezells, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Three First National Plaza Suite 1100 Suite 5200 Washington, D.C. 20036 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Bridget 'Little Rorem Appleseed Representative 21 AprII 1986