ML20117H675

Response Opposing Eddleman Proposed Contentions 227-CC & 227-DD Re Brochure Evacuation Route Chart.Contentions Constitute Editing of Brochure & Therefore Not Litigable. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20117H675
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/09/1985
From:	Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-967 OL, NUDOCS 8505140376
Download: ML20117H675 (15)

Text

'160) f i

i Ma g g y85 U%RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I T5 MY 13 P3:01 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CTFICE OF SLcar i3wy C0Ch0\t<G A SLbVlu In the Matter of ) BRANCH

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear )

Power Plant) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EDDLEMAN PROPOSED CONTENTIONS ON BROCHURE EVACUATION ROUTE CHART I. INTRODUCTION l In "Eddleman Contentions Concerning Emergency Plan Bro-chure Additions Served 4/16/85" (filed April 29, 1985),

Mr. Eddleman proposes two new brochure contentional/ based on his review of the brochure's EPZ map and evacuation route chart served on the Board and the parties on April 16, 1985. Appli-cants respond heroin to Mr. Eddleman's two new proposed contentions.

_1/ Mr. Eddleman previously proposed 23 contentions (Eddleman 227-A through 227-W) assortedly baned on the bulk of the Harris emergency public information brochura, which was norved July 9, 1984. All but a part of one of those contentions woro re-jacted. See " Rulings On Specification of Eddleman Offnite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and On The Adminnibility of Eddleman Contentions On The Public Information Brochuro" (October 4, 1984). The solo admitted contention (Eddleman 227-S) has been nettled. See " Order Approving Sottlement of Eddleman 227-S" (January 7, 1985).

Dk kbOCK O go 2)3o 3

t . .

I II. DISCUSSION A. Applicable Standard For Admissibility of Contentions Applicants have previously discusred at length the general legal standards governing 'the admissibility of proposed conten-tions in an NRC licensing proceeding. See, e.g., " Applicants' Response To Eddleman Proposed Contentions on Brochure" (August 28, 1984), at 2-7, citing " Applicants' -Response to Sup-plement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman" (June 15, 1982), at 2-19. Accordingly, there is no need to here restate in full the Commission's requirements; rather, Applicants in-corporate by reference the above-cited briefs.

B. Regulations Applicable to Brochures The Commission's emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(7) and Part 50, Appendix E, l IV.D.2, estab- l t

lish the requirements for emergency preparedness public educa-tion. Section 50.47(b)(7) requires, in relevant part, that:

Information -[ bel made available to the pub-lic on a periodic basia on how they will be notified and what their initial actions should be in an emergency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining indoors) * * *.

Similarly, Part 50, Appendix E, 6 IV.D.2 requires the provision to the public of:

• *

• basic emergency planning information, such as the methods and times required for public notification and the protective ac-tions planned if an accident occurs, general information as to the nature and effects of radiation, and a listing of local broadcast

. stations that will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.

Emphasis supplied.

C. The Purpose of The Brochure Mr. Eddleman's two new proposed contentions are promised on a fundamental misperception of the role of the emergency public information brochure in the Commission's concept of operations for emergency management. The Commission's regula-tions on brochure content are purposely limited to the provi-sion of " basic emergency planning information" (see 10 C.F.R. 1 Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.2)). The brochure is thus not intended to duplicate or obviate the need for provision to the public of additional, detailed information and instructions at  ;

the time of an accident by emergency response personnel and the '

EBS system. As one licensing board has recognized:

The most important informational function of the brochure is to prepare people to turn on their radio and television stations upon the activation of the sirens * * *.

Louisiana Power & Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), LBP-83-27, 17 N.R.C. 949, 960 (1983), aff'd, ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C. 1321, 1331 (1983). This primary message -- when you hear the sirens, tune to your EBS station -- is repeatedly em-phasized throughout the brochure. See, o.a., pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 16 and the bottom of the page for each calendar month.2/

2/ These page references to the brochure reflect the re-pagination e'<plained in the April 16, 1985 letter from Appli-(Continued Next Page) w

r-  ;

4 See also Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60, 16 N.R.C. 540, 544 (1982) (purpose of brochure is "to give residents and transients the information they need to respond to audible alarm systems and to be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the importance of responding").

In short, contrary to Mr. Eddleman's apparent assumption, the purpose of the brochure is not to address in detail all possible contingencies, and to describe at length the " whys" and " wherefores" of all protective action options. Rather, the emphasis is on the provision of " basic" information through the brochure. The Commission's copcept of operations contemplates that further, detailed, accident-specific information and in-structions would be provided to the public by emergency workers and the EBS system at the time of an accident.

Indeed, the case law on point recognizes that the provi-sion of extensive detailed information in the brochure would be counterproductive.

[T]he level of detail for any of these sub-jacts [to be covered in the brochure]

should be consistent with the purpose for which it is intended. Overemphasis on de-tail may defeat the purpose of a public information program on emergency measures.

=

(Continued) cants' counsel to the Licensing Board. Thus, the current pages 14 and 16 were numbered pages 10 and 12 when the brochure was served in July 1984.

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1521 (1981). Further,

[A] pamphlet * *

• all-too-easily can be-come too elaborate and extensive to commu-

, nicate effectively. If that were to occur, the pamphlet likely would go unread and its role as an action document would be de-feated. * * * * [E]ach proposed addition to the pamphlet must be viewed with caution ,

because additions may cumulatively increase its bulk and complexity and reduce its ability to communicate.

Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60, 16 N.R.C. 540, 544-45 (1982).

Nor is absolute technical accuracy to be required. As one

-licensing board commented on a brochure:

While some of the information on radiation and upon nuclear power plants in general is not absolutely correct from a technical standpoint, any revisions made to secure absolute technical accuracy would render this information incomprehensible to the general public. *** [Tjo inflate [ mate-rial] to achieve textbook precision would defeat effective communication and would not enhance the public safety.

Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), LBP-83-27, 17 N.R.C. 949, 961-62 (1983), aff'd, ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C. 1321, 1331 (1983). See also South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),

LBP-82-57, 16 N.R.C. 477, 491 (1982) (provision of detailed information "regarding the characteristics and c'onsequences of nuclear accidents" is unnecessary).

F Q

D. The Role of The Licensing Board The jurisdiction of a licensing board is limited to review of the brochure as an emergency planning document, to be judged against the Commission's established standards, set forth in Section B above. See Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60, 16 N.R.C. 540, 548 (1982); Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), LBP-83-68, 18 N.R.C. 811, 943 (1983) (Licensing Board cannot demand more from brochure than regulatory requirements; " state-of-the-art" not' required).

Nor are scarce adjudicatory resources to be squandered on the line-by-line litigation of emergency public information brochures. As one licensing board has observed:

Our role is uncomfortable because it can easily be misunderstood or mischaracte-rized as that of censor. However, we view ourselves as responsible only for seeing that necessary facts about the rapid re-sponse system are communicated, that there are no serious errors detracting from the credibility of the document, and that there are no serious omissions from the distri-buted material. We are not censors, but limit our concern to matters that affect the document's ability to achieve its intended purpose.

Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60, 16 N.R.C. 540, 544 (1982) (emphasis supplied). This Licensing Board.has thrice ruled that it will not act as " editors" of the brochure, and will admit only contentions which identify

" gross" inadequacies in the brochure. See Tr. 829 (May 1-2, 1984 Prehearing Conference); " Rulings On Specification of

p-Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and on The Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions On The Public Information Brochure" (October 4, 1984) (" Brochure Order"), at 6; "Memoran-dum and Order (Ruling on Remaining Summary Disposition Mo-tions)" (April 24, 1985), at 6. Accord, Philadelphia Electric j Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. i 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL, " Memorandum and Order Ruling On Limerick Ecology Action's Petition For Reconsideration of Rulings On Ad-missibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions" (May 21, 1984), slip op. at 7 (expressly declining to " litigate the wording of brochures"). The Appeal Board has granted its im-primatur to this defined scope of review, ruling:

We doubt that unanimous agreement on every sentence of every brochure could ever be obtained. Such agreement is not required.

Educational material must be judged in its entirety.

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C. 1265, 1274 (1982) (emphasis supplied). As discussed below, Mr. Eddleman's two new proposed contentions can be fairly characterized as pure " editing" of the brochure. Certainly he has identified no " gross" omissions or inadequacies in the document.

s L- _ , I E. "The Five Factors" To be admitted, contentions filed " late" (as Eddleman 227-CC and Eddleman 227-DD have been) must also be assessed by balancing the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1). Applicants do not dispute that, on balance, a consideration of the 5 2.714(a)(1) factors does not weigh against admission of Eddleman 227-CC. However, as discussed below, Eddleman-227-DD is not based on newly-available informa-tion. Accordingly, Eddleman 227-DD must be rejected pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) as late-filed without " good cause."

See Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),

ALAB-431, 6 N.R.C. 460, 462 (1977) (emphasizing relatively greater weight to be accorded requirement for substantial jus-tification for lateness).

F. The Proposed Contentions

1. Proposed Contention 227-CC Proposed Contention 227-CC asserts that an evacuation of the Harris EPZ would result in " confusion" because "[t]he bro-chure evacuation route listings do not give complete directions to the shelters." According to Mr. Eddleman, "[s]pecific maps to the shelters, or clear directions to each, should be in the brochure, to avoid confusion." s Mr. Eddleman either misapprehends the purpose of the emer-gency public information brochure, or is simply unaware of the specific provisions in the offsite plans designed to ensure 4

t )

that evacuees are directed to the appropriate shelters outside the EPZ. Mr. Eddleman does not dispute (nor could he) that the brochure's evacuation route map and the chart of evacuation routes provide specific directions for the public from their homes inside the EPZ to safety outside the EPZ, all the way to the towns in which their shelters are located. Further, as discussed in Section C above, the purpose of the brochure is not to obviate the need for additional, more detailed instruc-tions to the public at the time of an emergency. Thus, upon arrival at the town where an evacuee's shelter is located, the evccuee will be channeled directly to the shelter via direc-tions provided by special " Evacuation Route" signs posted by the State Department of Transportation, and by traffic control personnel stationed along streets in the vicinity of the shel-ters at every point a turn is required.3/ Re: " Evacuation Route" signs, see, e.g., State Plan, Part 1, 6 III.J.l.a; Parts 2-5, 5 IV.E.7.c(3). Re: traffic control personnel, see, e.g.,

State Plan, Part 1, 6 III.C.2.g; Part 2, $$ III.D.4, III.Q.2; Part 3, $$ III.D.4, III.R.2.b; Part 4, $$ III.D.4, III.E.4, III.F.1.i; Part 5, 5 III.D.5.4/ Mr. Eddleman provides no basis whatsoever for the implication that the brochure, combined with 3/ As illustrated on the " Operations Map," the shelters are located on or near major roads designated as evacuation routes.

See State Plan, Annex I.

"/

4 All citations to the State Plan are to the April 1, 1985 Change 2" to that plan, served on the Board and the parties on May 8, 1985.

t

/

l these additional measures reflected in the State Plan, will be insufficient to assure that evacuees are properly directed to I-their shelters upon arrival in the towns where the shelters are located.

Moreover, as the Board here has previously recognized, I

" excessive detail in a brochure can diminish its usefulness."

See Brochure Order, at 6. The inclusion in the brochure of street-by-street directions from the city limits to the shel-ters -- as Mr. Eddleman' suggests -- would simply encumber the brochure and make it more dense and thus more difficult for unskilled readers, and iu in any event unnecessary given the more specific measures planned by the State and the counties. ,

Under these circumstances, Mr. Eddleman's proposed additions to the brochure amount to " editing" the brochure -- something this Board has refused to do.

2. Proposed Contention 227-DD Eddleman 227-DD characterizes as " inappropriate" the head-ing of the chart of evacuation routes and shelters, on the t

ground that the heading allegedly " fails to make adequate dis-tinction between evacuation and sheltering, and because it falsely implies that radioactive material cannot reach the shelters." As discussed in Section E above, th'e'short answer to this proposed contention is that it is more than eight months late, without good cause. The heading of which Mr. Eddleman complains - "How Will You Know Where To Go To Be

Safe?" -- was included on a mock-up of the chart when the bulk of the brochure was filed on July 9, 1984.5/ Accordingly, if Mr. Eddleman wished to challenge the heading of the chart, he l was required to do so by August 10, 1984. See LBP-84-29B, 20 N.R.C. 389, 406 (1984). For this reason alone, Eddleman 227-DD I must be rejected.

4 Further, it is unrealistic for Mr. Eddleman to level such criticisms at the chart heading in the abstract. Rather, the brochure must be judged in its entirety. See Three Mile Island, supra, ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C. at 1274 (1982) (educational j material such as brochure "must be judged in its entirety").

There is no basis for either the claim that, taken as a whole, the brochure (including the chart heading) fails to distinguish between evacuation and sheltering or that the brochure on the whole is misleading regarding the properties of radiation.

Moreover, while Mr. Eddleman is quick to criticize the language of the chart heading, he has failed to specify the language he would prefer. Again, in such circumstances, Mr. Eddleman's concern constitutes " editing" the brochure and is therefore not litigable. Eddleman 227-DD therefore must be rejected.

5/ Even the captions to the columns on the chart were includ-ed on the mock-up in July, 1984. Thus, it is only the subsone l designations, the evacuation routes, and the evacuation shel-l ters which are newly included in the brochure. And even that i information was previously available to the intervenors else-where.

l l l i

r

, - ~

O III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth above, Eddleman proposed Contentions 227-CC and 227-DD must be rejected.

Respectfully submitted, AM eM>>,

Thomis ' A. Baxt'ef, 'P'.C.d 9 Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l

(919) 836-8161 j i

Counsel for Applicants  ;

DATED: May 9, 1985 i

i k

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSSION l 00CKETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E MY 13 P3:01 In the Matter of )

) 0FFACE OF SECHt.TA6 y CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-4ffC6r.Jg ERVICf.'

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear )

Power Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Eddleman Proposed Contentions on Brochure Evacuation Route Chart" were served this 9th day of May, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties on the attached Service List.

Yd6 k 7 "Delissi 'A. ' WidcBay (

avn_m

• ' l o ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of . ) '

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) ) ,

SERVICE LIST 4

James L. Kelley, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John D. Runkle, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M Cn W of  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 North Carolina 307 Granville Road Mr. Glenn O. Bright chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Travis Payne, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Edelstein and Payne ,

Post Office Box 12607

• Dr. James H. Carpenter Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Richard D. Wilson Washington, D.C. 20555 729 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Janice E. Moore, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street ce xe Legal Director Durham, North Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section Carolina., Power & Light company Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 1551 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

F-Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ,

Mr. Robert P. Gruber .

Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 .

Spence W. Perry, Esquire s Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., suite 480 s Washington, D.C. 20740 '

Steven Rochlis, Esq. >

Regional Counsel '

FEMA '

1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 b