ML20213F997
| ML20213F997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1987 |
| From: | Callihan A, Cole R, Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3431 79-410-03-OL, 79-410-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8705180075 | |
| Download: ML20213F997 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b 34 3 ) 00CKETED usttRC I UNITED STATES Of AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION
'87 m 14 .P2 :40 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges %[cN7' 85'i
. , 11..
Herbert Grossman, Chainnan Richard F. Cole A. Dixon Callihan SERVED MAY 1419N
)
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL 50-457-OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ASLBP No. 79-410-03-0L (Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. I and 2)
May 13, 1987 PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES APPEARANCES On behalf of the Applicant:
GEORGE L. EDGAR, ESQUIRE THOMAS SCHMUTZ, ESQUIRE DONALD J. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
STUART TREBY, ESQUIRE ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQUIRE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQUIRE Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
DR DO 50 6
E. .
i On behalf of the Intervenor:
MS. BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM 117 North Linden Street P.O. Box 208 Essex, Illinois 60935 9
{
4 t
i f
I l
4
! l i
l l
.--,w -, . - - - - . - - - e*.,,,_ r----.---e.--ew_.,,e-_,-,,e,--,-.mer.- w -,-mve- -e.ry,--te- - --,-w -,->
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
> ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1 Before Administrative Judges Herbert Grossman, Chairman Richard F. Cole A. Dixon Callihan
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-456-OL
) 50-457-0L COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OL (BraidwoodStation,UnitNos.Iand2)
May 13, 1987
)
PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES In this Partial Initial Decision, the Board resolves all outstanding issues concerning offsite emergency planning favorably to the Applicant, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), subject to the condition that certain information specified by the Board be included in the next annual revision of Applicant's emergency information booklet.
4
--.m._
_2 Procedural History As finally refined for hearing, Intervenor Bridget Little Rorem's l
single, two-part contention concerning emergency planning stated:
- 1. Intervenor contends that an adequate emergency plan for the Braidwood Station should include the following:
(a) a program for informing the public within 10 miles of the Station of the means for obtaining instructions for evacuation or other protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency originating at the station; (b) assurance that institutions within 10 miles of the Station, such as nursing homes, can be evacuated or adequately protected in the event of a radiological emergency.
In August of 1985, Applicant moved to particularize the first part of this contention (referred to as Contention 1(a)), pointing out that the language could be construed as referring to a public information program to be implemented prior to an accident; or to notification of the public j at the time of an accident; or to both. A period of negotiations among the parties followed. When it became apparent that a stipulated l
particularization of Contention 1(a) could not be agreed upon, Applicant l
renewed its motion.
l A third part of the original contention,1(c), was dismissed by the Board. Prehearing Conference Order, August 1,1985, pp. 2-3.
By Memorandum and Order dated October 18, 1985, the Board restricted Contention 1(a) to pre-accident public education programs only. However, taking into account Intervenor's unfamiliarity with d legal requirements concerning the full disclosure of her case, the Board made its ruling expressly subject to reconsideration if Mrs. Rorem could present significant issues concerning public information programs other than at the pre-accident stage. Mrs. Rorem timely filed her request for reconsideration in the fonn of an offer of proof encompassing seven specific issues which were denominated Offer of Proof Issues 2-8.
When it became clear that Intervenor was unfamiliar with much of the factual background to these issues, as contained in Applicant's emergency plan, the Board directed the parties to embark on a schedule of filings and conferences aimed at resolving or clarifying the Offer of Proof issues for hearing. As a result of those efforts, Intervenor withdrew Offer of Proof issues 5, 7, and 8, and the remaining four i
issues were much more specifically defined and focused. By Memorandum
(
and Order dated January 31, 1986, the Board accepted Offer of Proof Issues 2, 3, 4 and 6 for litigation.
l Hearings on emergency planning issues were held on October 29, 1985, and March 11 and 12,1986. The record was closed at the end of the third day's session. At the October 29, 1985 hearing, Applicant presented the testimony of Lawrence D. Butterfield, Jr. Mr. Butterfield is the manager of Applicant's Nuclear Technical Services Department; has
been employed by Applicant for about nineteen years; and has been involved in emergency planning for at least the last six years.
(Testimony of Lawr'nce D. Butterfield, Jr. Concerning Contention 1(a),
ff. TR 465-B [hereafter Butterfield] and Supplemental Testimony of Lawrence D. Butterfield, Jr. On Rorem Contention 1(a), ff. Tr. 465-B
[hereafter Butterfield Supp.].) Staff presented the testimony of Gordon Wenger. Mr. Wenger is an Emergency Planning Specialist at FEMA Region V, and has held that position for the last six years. He is the Federal Team Leader for Radiological Emergency Preparedness Planning for Illinois and Indiana. (Testimony of Gordon Wenger Regarding Rorem Contention 1(a), ff. Tr. 518 [hereafter Wenger ff. Tr. 518].)
At the hearings in March 1986 Applicant presented the joint testimony of Mr. Butterfield and Jana Fairow, the Radiological Emergency Planning Supervisor of the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency. Ms. Fairow is responsible for developing, maintaining and supervising the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidants (IPRA) for all l
seven nuclear power stations in Illinois. (Testimony of Lawrence D.
f Butterfield, Jr., and Jana S. Fairow Regarding Contentions 1(a) and 1(b)
(Emergency Planning), ff. TR 690 [hereafter Butterfield/Fairow]). Staff presented additional testimony by Mr. Wenger (hereafter Wenger ff. Tr.
931). Intervenor sponsored no witnesses of her own, electing to develop her case through cross-examination.
Proposed findings on all issues were filed by the Applicant and Staff. Intervenor submitted findings only on Contention 1(a) and Offer of Proof Issue 2. Applicant, supported by the Staff, has moved for
' dismissal of Contention 1(b) and Offer of Proof Issues 3, 4, and 6.
Ruling on Contention 1(b) and Offer of Proof Issues 3, 4, and 6.
At the close of the prehearing conference conducted on July 23, 1985, the Board advised the parties that Proposed findings pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.754 are indeed required by this Board, and ... failure to file proposed findings is a default on any issue. (Tr. 272.)
Again, at the close of the hearings on March 12, 1986, at the urging of the Staff, we reminded the parties of their obligation to file such findings, and we specifically put Intervenor on notice that a failure to do so would result in penalties. (Tr. 1055.)
As indicated in our discussion above of the procedural background to the adoption of the pending emergency planning issues, the Board has i
been fully aware of the difficulties faced by a pro sjt ntervenor not fully conversant with our proceedings. We have endeavored to assure that Ms. Rorem has been advised of her obligations and has had ample opportunity to comply with them. In light of our repeated instructions concerning the filing of proposed findings, we must assume that
6-Intervenor intentionally omitted findings on Contention 1(b) and Offer of Proof Issues 3, 4, and 6, and that those issues have now been abandoned. Under such circumstances the Commission's Policy Statement
? on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings [CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981)]
authorizes us to refuse to rule on the abandoned issues, and 10 C.F.R. 9 2.754(b) permits a finding that on those issues Intervenor is in default. Accordingly, we hold that Contention 1(b) and Offer of Proof Issues 3, 4, and 6 need not be further considered by this Board, and Applicant's motion to dismiss those issues is granted.
Standard for Decision 4
Applicant has the burden of proving that its off-site emergency plan complies with the Comission's rules and guidance. Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-77, 16 NRC 1096 (1982). The regulations governing emergency planning are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E. Guidance for compliance with those rules is contained in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. " Criteria for
( Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980).
Applicant does not have to prove that every individual within the l
l planning area will be covered by the plan under every conceivable set of circumstances. See Long Island Lighting Co., (Shoreham Nuclear Power f Station, Unit 1), 21 NRC 644, 653 (1985). The Comission requires not l
l i
-7tW rF-4w-**- - y-mer-9 y -- m m w *+ 9 e*$ we'+r- -WvPNge9+i---ee---rw---w s-----ua,myy +wW-w+--+-- ---w m+-e--- er--s--ee-i-e-m,
perfection but rather prudent planning calculated to meet the needs of the affected population.
i With this standard in mind, we consider the remaining issues
, requiring decision.
}
i Contention 1(a) 4 Contention 1(a), as restricted by the Board, focuses on the
- adequacy of Applicant's plans for infonning the public within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), prior to the occurrence of an accident, of the proper steps to be taken in the event of an emergency originating
! at the Braidwood Station. Reduced to a syllogism, Interven)r's case on this contention can be stated as follows:
The only vehicle planned for the pre-accident dissemination of information to the public within the EPZ is the booklet entitled
" Emergency Information - Braidwood".2 Intervenor's Proposed Findings on Emergency Planning Issues, Finding 1.3 The booklet is i
2 Applicant's Emergency Planning Exhibit No.1, admitted at TR 465-B, referred to hereafter as "the booklet", and cited as " Booklet, -l 3
Intervenors filed 13 proposed findings numbered 1 through 12, l with two findings numbered "9". The first Finding 9 relates to I Contention 1(a);thesecondtoOfferofProofIssue2.
4 I
e
.-w- w ,,,w y -
-%.-- ..-.,,,,.------,.-.-r --- .,,,m,.m--- ...- - , - ,m m-.--,, ,-_m-, -. , , ,,.y-. ,--.-._,.-,e .,.-,
inadequate because (a) it is inaccessible to those who are illiterate or visually impaired (Ibid., Finding 2); (b) it does not address the nature of the danger of a radiological accident (Ibid.,
Finding 3);(c)itdoesnotprovideadequateinformationconcerning the nature of a radioactive plume (Ibid., Findings 4-7); (d) it contains misleading language concerning the provision of info'mation r and instructions over the radio in the event of a sounding of the Public Notification System sirens (Ibid., Finding 8); and (e) the plan for its distribution does not cover all possible EPZ residents (Ibid., Finding 9). Therefore, Applicant's pre-accident public information program is inadequate.
Our first observation is that Intervenor's major premise is overstated. Witnesses for both the Applicant and Staff testified that the overall public information program required by the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents includes provision for annual press briefings and the posting of signs giving information concerning the appropriate Emergency Broadcast Frequencies to be tuned to in the event of a sounding of sirens.4 These additional elements of the program both supplement and draw attention to the material provided in the booklet.
The booklet itself is not the only means for pre-accident education of EPZ residents.
4 Butterfield Supp., 5-6, A; Wenger ff. TR 518, 7.
Nevertheless, the same witnesses make it clear that the booklet is the cornerstone of the public information program.5 If it were seriously deficient, the program itself would almost certainly be inadequate as Intervenor asserts. The Board finds, however, that the booklet is adequate to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(7).
Visually Impaired and Reading Handicapped Adults Intervenor questions whether individuals who are visually impaired or illiterate, and therefore unable to read the booklet directly, will receive the pre-accident information they need. A number of provisions in the Applicant's plan for information dissemination suggest that they will; no evidence in the record indicates that they will not.
Applicant's program clearly does depend on some degree of cooperation among friends, relatives and co-workers that is beyond CECO's ability to control, but there is nothing in the record to suggest such reliance is unreasonable. Mr. Butterfield testified that he expected neighbors and members of the same household would share the information contained in the booklet with others needing help. (Tr.
478,482.) The preface to the booklet itself encourages members of households to share and discuss the information provided, and also S
See jt.l.
j Butterfield, 7-8.
1
---n- - , , . , - , - r ...-n, --, , - -- - - -
encourages enployers to advise their employees of its contents.
Booklet, 3. The distribution plan for the booklet calls for multiple copies to be delivered annually to major employers, schools, health care
> facilities and senior citizen centers. Butterfield, 13.
We find that these measures provide reasonable assurance that EPZ residents who are visually impaired or reading handicapped will receive adequate pre-accident information concerning measures to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Braidwood.
Explanation of the Danger of a Radiological Accident Section 7 of the booklet explains that waste products resulting from the production of energy by a nuclear power plant "could be hazardous and must be kept sealed away from the environment." Booklet,
- 14. If they were to escape the plant's containnent, they would emit radiation into the environment. Ibid.
Section 8 warns that " scientists believe that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, carries some risk" and "very large radiation doses ... may be directly harmful or even deadly." If a nuclear plant accident were serious, it advises, " state plans call for protection of the public by taking shelter indoors or by evacuation."
Booklet, 15.
+ .
We find this to be a reasonably balanced discussion of the danger of radiation resulting from an accident. Mr. Wenger testified that the information provided was sufficient to meet the requirements of NUREG-0654. Wenger ff 518, 3. We agree.
Information Concerning a Radioactive Plume At the hearing on March 12, 1986, Mr. Butterfield testified that he had developed language concerning the potential for radioactivity to move offsite in the form of a plume or cloud, and that he proposed to include this information in the final paragraph of Section 8 of the booklet. (Tr. 1026-1027.) In her proposed findings, Ms. Rorem asserts that this information is so important that it ought to have a paragraph of its own (Finding 5); that it should be cross-referenced to other sections (Finding 7)andthatadditionalinformationdescribingthe physical characteristics of the plume should be added (Finding 6).
- The Board strongly agrees that inclusion in the booklet of more
- complete information concerning the nature and movement of a radioactive plume is essential, and will serve to maximize the likelihood of public compliance with emergency instructions. For example, despite the fact that Section 8 of the booklet warns that radiation is " invisible, silent, tasteless and odorless", the terms " plume" and " cloud" ordinarily connote visible phenomena. It is conceivable, therefore, that some individuals considering disregarding evacuation instructions
(such as parents with children in nearby schools or recreation areas)
(see Tr. 1016) might be tempted to do so by the absence of any sign of a
" radiation cloud".
Mr. Butterfield testified that plume movement is dependent on wind direction and that weather is the primary factor in deciding upon appropriate evacuation routes. (Tr. 488-489.) Unless this nexus is explained in the booklet, logically selected routes may appear totally irrational to the members of the public expected to abide by them. Some reference to the manner in which evacuation routes are chosen should be included in Section 3 of the booklet where evacuation instructions are given.
Applicant has comitted to include in the next revision of the booklet additional information concerning the potential for movement of radiation in the form of a cloud or plume and the importance of wind direction in determining that movement. (Tr. 1026-1027.) The Board will require as a condition to its ruling on this issue that Applicant abide by that consnitment; that additional language be included to explain the possible characteristics of the plume; and that information about the relationship between weather and evacuation routes be included specifically in the section of the booklet dealing with evacuation (currently Section 3).
z _
Misleading Language Concerning Emergency Broadcasts In her Finding 8, Intervenor argues that because Mr. Wenger
- testified that there would be no case in which the Public Notification System sirens would be sounded without follow-up information being broadcast over the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) (Tr. 536), the statement'in Section 1 of the booklet that instructions will be broadcast "if there is a real call for concern" is misleading. In the context of the full line of questioning in which his comment occurs, hcuever, it appears that Mr. Wenger is talking about a deliberate initiation of the sirens in response to an occurrence that might require energency action (See, e.g., Tr. 533). The "real call for concern" language, on the other hand, when read in the context of the entire Section 1 of the booklet, seems intended to differentiate between an emergency activation of the system and a test or other non-emergency sounding. Since only activation of the system for a genuine emergency would be a "real call for concern", and only such emergency siren soundings would be accompanied by information broadcast over EBS stations, the booklet is not misleading.
In fact, the real problem with the language complained of by Intervenor is that it is accurate. If sirens are activated deliberately for test purposes or inadvertently because of human error or equipment malfunction, no information will necessarily be broad ast over EBS stations because there is no "real call for concern". This is
unfortunate. The Public Notification System is intended to convey a sense of emergency. Such a message necessarily creates anxiety. The public deserves relief from that anxiety, when possible, just as it deserves assistance when the emergency is real. Morev.ar, repeated soundings without follow-up might well have a " cry wolf" erfect, eventually diminishing the effectiveness of the system.
Nevertheless, because the system is the responsibility of the State of Illinois and not the Applicant, and because there is no basis in the record for our concluding that the information dissemination policy as presented is contrary to Commission regulations or otherwise inimical to safety, we can order no change. We do, though, strongly urge the Applicant as a user of the system to seek to modify that policy.
Distribution of the Booklet Despite extensive cross-examination on this issue, Intervenor l
i j identified only one situation in which an individual might not receive a mail-distributed booklet: if the owner of a property were subletting, and still paying the electric bill, and were having all nail to the property forwarded, and were not disposed to advise the subtenant of the i booklet, then the subtenant might never receive a copy. (Tr.512-513.)
l l This unlikely possibility becomes even more implausible when the l
l person's opportunity to obtain the booklet through his or her employer, school or health care facility is taken into account. Butterfield,13.
90 We find that the Applicant's plan provides reasonable assurance that individuals within the EPZ will receive copies of the booklet.
) Offer of Proof Issue 2 As admitted for hearing, Offer of Proof Issue 2 reads:
Applicant must develop and demonstrate its capability to provide through scripts and/or other media information, substantive emergency information to adequately infonn 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 an emergency.
Intervenor's proposed findings 9-126 focus on the adequacy of warnings contained in the booklet and in pre-scripted broadcasts to deter individuals responsible for school children or persons in hospitals, nursing homes or recreational areas from attempting to pick them up when instructions to evacuate are given. Ms. Fairow, on cross-examination, acknowledged that despite these warnings, it was not unreasonable to assume that some parents might attempt to pick up their i
children at school or recreational areas. (Tr.851,1016.)
l l
I 6 This reference is to the second of the two findings numbered l
l l
l l
l
e.
As we stated above, the Commission's regulations require the formulation of a plan providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. They cannot and do not require contingencies to accommodate every conceivable set of circumstances. In this case, the warning language used in the booklet, and mimicked in the pre-scripted broadcasts, directs parents not to attempt to pick up their children; warns them that they will probably miss connections if they do try; and assures them that the children are being cared for by trained personnel.
Booklet, 7. Intervenor suggests that the danger of non-compliance with instructions might be emphasized, but there is no record evidence that this approach would be more effective, and it is at least as plausible that an emphasis on danger would exacerbate parental fears and provoke irrational action.
Regardless, the language in question has been drafted by individuals experienced in emergency planning and has been found to be appropriate by FEMA (Wenger ff. 580, 3). We find no basis in the record for requiring that it be modified.
Conclusion The Board concludes that with respect to all matters in controversy, the off-site emergency response plan for the Braidwood
- - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
Station complies with the applicable provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and provides reasonable assurance that
. adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
) radiological emergency; provided, that Applicant shall include in the next annual revision of its booklet, " Emergency Information - Braidwood" a discussion of (a) the physical characteristics of a radioactive plume; (b) the significance of wind speed and direction in the movement of the plume; and (c) the relationship between weather conditions and the selection of optimum evacuation routes, the latter topic to be covered in the section of the booklet dealing with evacuation.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.760 of the Comission's Rules of Practice, this partial initial decision shall become effective imediately. It will constitute the final decision of the Comission forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762 or the Comission directs otherwise. See also 10 C.F.R. 99 2.764, 2.785 and 2.786.
Any party may take an appeal from this decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Partial Initial Decision. Each appellant must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal [ forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant]. Within thirty (30) days after the period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants [ forty (40) days in the case of the Staff], a party who is
not an appellant may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal of any other party. A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief only regardless of the number of appellants' briefs filed (See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762.)
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
%Idw Herbert Grossman, Chairman
{
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE m/ A A. Dixon Callihan
~
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of May,1987
T Appendix A EXHIBIT LIST EXHIBIT NO. TITLE MARKED FOR 10 0FFERED ADMITTED Applicant's 1 Emergency Information 465A 465A 465B Brochure, Braidwood
) Station 2 Testimony of Lawrence D. 683 689 690 Butterfield, Jr. and Jana S. Fairow Regard-ingContentions1(a) and 1(b) (Emergency Planning) 3 Illinois Plan for 683 693 693 Radiological Acci-dents (IPRA),
Volume 1 State General Plan, Rev. 2, June 1985 4 IPRA, Volume VII Pre- 684 693 693 liminary Rev. O, August, 1985 5 IPRA, Volume VII Standard 684 693 693 Operating Procedures, Preliminary Rev. O, August 1985 6 Coruronwealth Edison Company, 685 693 693 Generating Stations Emergency Plan (GSEP),
Revision 5. July 1985 7 GSEP, Braidwood Annex, 685 693 693 Revision 0, October 1984 8 GSEP, Braidwood Annex, 685 693 693 Revision 1, March, 1986 Intervenor's Braidwood Final Environ- 750 Not mental Statement, Offered NUREG-1026, June 1984 TR1058
- p. 5-58 and Appendix F Staff's None