ML20096B513
| ML20096B513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1984 |
| From: | Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409040173 | |
| Download: ML20096B513 (48) | |
Text
' ~
- ty
- . ,-y-c% .
_ .e .
, ,g 2+ ;,,2 ' , i August 28, 1984-
,' . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h'ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0A AG331 0 38 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) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EDDLEMAN PROPOSED CONTENTIONS ON BROCHURE I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to.the Licensing Board's August 3, 1984 " Final Set of Rulings on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions, Ruling On Petition For Waiver of Need For Power Ru '.e , and Notice of Upcoming Telephone Conference Call" (at page 25), Mr. Eddleman filed " Wells Eddleman's Contentions on Harris Emergency Plan Brochure," dated August 10, 1984. In that document, Mr. Eddleman proposes 23 additional emergency planning contentions, all assertedly based on the emergency public information brochure for the Harris plant. Applicants respond'herein to Mr. Eddleman's 23 new proposed contentions, I
l l
e409040173 840828
3>s03
s -
4-
' opposing the admission of all as lacking'in specificity or basis,_as late challenges to substantive emergency planning, as contemplating a levellof detail beyond that' required by the regulations, or-as mere " editing" of the brochure -- something this Board has' indicated it will not countenance.
II. DISCUSSION A. Applicable Standard For Admissibility of Contentions Applicants have previously discussed at length the general legal standards governing the admissibility of proposed conten-tions in an NRC licensing proceeding. See, e.g., " Applicants'
. Response to Supplement 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 simply summarize the general principles to be applied in determining the admissibility of the 23 Eddleman proposed contentions on the emergency public information bro-chure.
- 1. Bases with Reasonable Specificity
'The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.714(b), require that an intervenor include with proposed contentions "the bases for each contention set forth with rea-sonable specificity."
~ ;sn j l l
=
.There.are.several purposes which underlie the' Commission's'
~
standard.in section 2.714(b):
a A purpose of the' basis-for-contention requirement.in Section'2.714 is to help ~as-sure at the: pleading l stage.that-the' hearing,
, process;is not improperly invoked. ..Forlex--
~
. ample, a licensing proceeding before this agency is plainly not the proper' forum for
- S~ an: attack on' applicable requirements or.for
. ' challenges'to the basic structure of the -
Commission's regulatory process. .EAnother purpose is to help assure that.other par-ties are sufficiently.put on notice so that
- they will.know at least generally what they will have to defend-against or oppose.
Still another purpose is t,o assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication
.in the particular proceeding.- -In the final analysis,~there'must= ultimately be strict observance of the~ requirements governing intervention,.in order:that the adjudica- ,
- tory' process is. invoked only by those?per-sons who have real interests at stake'and
. who seek resolution of concrete issues.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, ,
. Units' 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. 13, 20-21~(1974) (footnotes omitted).
The notice aspect of the " bases with reasonable'specif-icity" requirement is a natural outgrowth of. fundamental no-fe tions.of fairness applied to the party with the burden of proof. The Atomic ~ Safety and Licensing Apeal Boar'd has ob-served:
13ut applicant is entitled to a-fair chance^
to defend. It is therefore. entitled to be told at'the' outset,'with clarity and 4
precision, What arguments are being-advanced and what relief is:being asked . . . . So is the. Board-below. It i-should,not be necessary to speculate about what a pleading'is supposed to mean. -
4 L -
3' p -
L ,
c . -
3
- "' --7 sumy* - - ' ' t"
- P ...
4
> e ..
Kansas Gas and-Electric Co. '(Wolf'CreeklGenerating' Station, Unit lNo. 1),'ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C. 559, 576 (1975) (emphasis-
. supplied; footnote omitted).
'Moreover',,the Licensing' Board is
~
entitled to adequate' notice'of'a-petitioner's: specific conten-tions'toienable it to' guard ~against the obstruction of its pro -
cesses. As the Supre'me Court has noted, in'NRC proceedings, L
- *
- it is incumbent-upon intervenors who-
, . wish to participate to. structure their. par-ticipation. so - that'it is meaningful, so that it' alerts'the agency to the interve-nors position and contention.* *
- Indeed, administrative proceedings should not be-a game or forum to engage in un-justified-obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to-matters that
. "ought to be" considered ~* * *.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978).
'Yet, important as the notice aspect of the standard is, the requirement for bases ~with reasonable specificity goes be-
. yond the " notice pleading" allowed in the federal courts, which has been found to be insufficient for NRC licensing proceed-4 ings. See Wolf Creek, supra, ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C. at 575, n.32 '
(1975). On th+ other hr.nd, the regulation does not. require the intervenor to detail the evidence which will be offered in sup-port of each proposed contention. Peach Bottom, supra, l ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974); see also Mississippi Power and 1
Light CO. .(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,-Units 1 and 2),
,, -ALAB-130, 6 A.E.C. 423, 426 (1973); Houston Lighting and Power
. . ~ . _
Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 548-49 (1980). In short, the standard falls somewhere in between, and "[t]he degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged initially _
involves the exercise of judgment on a case-by-case basis."
Peach Bottom, supra, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974).
There also are certain practical considerations which should play a particularly important role here in the Board's application of the " bases with reasonable specificity" standard
~
to a particular proposed contention --- beyond the question of whether the proposed contention provides clear and precise no- ~
tice of the issues on which Applicants may bear the burden of proof. First, the contention should refer to and address per-tinent documentation, available in the public domain, which is relevant to this facility. See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 j N.R.C. 175, 181-84 (1981), In the instant case, the Board de-ferred ruling on pre-emergency public information contentions filed prior to availability of the brochure, pending service of the brochure itself, and accorded intervenors the opportunity to file refined and additional contentions after reviewing the
.- brochure. Here, then, the requirement for specific reference A to relevant documentation applies with special force to the i brochure, but may also include applicable NRC Staff regulatory guides and other published reports. In addition, there should 1 ~
L
r-l 4 'be either a. reasonably logical'and-technically. credible expla-nation,: or a.pl'ausible and referenced authority for the factual assertions in the contentions. The intervenor's personal opin-ion-alonefie not. adequate.for this. purpose.'
In this regard, Applicants have an objection that-is ap-
-plicable to numerous proposed Eddleman brochure contentions.
Rather than repeating-this objection in response to each of the contentions, Applicants sta*:e the objection here, and will only refer to it in specific, egregious instances. Many of the Eddleman contentions are little more than broad and unsupported allegations that the brochure is inadequate in its treatment of a particular matter. In a number of instances, Mr. Eddleman neglects to-identify specific defects or inaccuracies, and fails to provide citations to the brochure'or other reference documents. A number of the contentions fault the brochure for its failure to include or consider a fact or an issue; however, often no supporting rationale is offered as to why this fact or
-issue should be considered. Moreover, while Mr. Eddleman is quick to criticize the language of the brochure, he has (almost without exception) failed to specify the language he would sub-stitute. His bald assertions, unsupported by factual detail or supporting legal basis, fail to meet the " bases with reasonable
-specificity" requirement of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b).
l
= -
l
e j 12 . Challenges to Regulations
~
.All_ rules and regulations of the Comission, and-the un-derlying bases for those rules and regulations, are immune to attack in an individual proceeding unless a petition is first I made to the Licensing Board for an exception or waiver. The l
_ sole' ground for a petition for waiver or exception is that spe-cial circumstances.with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the specific challenged rule or regulation (or provision thereof) would not
' serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopt-ed. The. petition must be accompanied by an affidavit in sup-port of_that basis for the petition. Opportunity is provided for other parties to respond to the petition, including the submission of reply affidavits. If the Licensing Board deter-
-mines that a prima facie showing has been made in support of waiver or exception, it must, before ruling, certify directly to the Commission for a determination on the matter. If the Licensing Board does not determine that such a prima facie.
showing has been made, it must deny the petition. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758; Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas. Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 89 (1974).
k . .
I B. Regulatory Standards Applicable'to Brochures The Commission's-emergency planning regulations, at 10 C.'F.R. 5 50.47(b)(7) and Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.2, estab-lish the requirements for emergency preparedness public educa-tion. Section 50.47(b)(7) requires, in relevant part, that:
Information [be] made available to the pub- ~
lic on a periodic basis 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, 5 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, gener-al information as to the nature and effects of' radiation, and a listing of local broad-cast stations that-will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.
The Commission's emergency planning regulations are sup-plemented by the regulatory guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 (Rev. 1, 11/80), " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Sup-port of Nuclear Power-Plants." NUREG-0654 Evaluation Criterion G.1 provides that emergency public information mate-rials shall address:
- a. . educational information on radiation;
- b. contact for additional information; b =
a tc. protective measures,.e.g., . evacuation routes and relocation centers, shel-tering, respiratory l protection, ra- i dioprotective drugs; and
'd . special.needs of the handicapped.
With very few exceptions, Mr.'Eddleman has completely ~ failed to-reference these applicable regulations and regulatory guidance in his proposed contentions.
C. The Purpose of-The Brochure The vast majority of Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions are premised on a fundamental misperception of the role of the emergency public information brochure in the Commission's con-
, cept $f. operations for emergency-management. The Commission's regulations on brochure content are purposely limited to the provision of " basic emergency planning information" (see 10 C.F.R.-Part 50, Appendix E, 6 IV.D.2). The brochure is thus not intended to duplicate or obviate the need for dissemination via the EBS sytem of extensive, detailed, scenario-specific information at the time of an accident. Rather, the purpose of the brochure is limited to " priming" the public to receive accident-specific information via EBS at the time of the emer-gency. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), LBP-83-27, 17 N.R.C. 949, 965 (1983), aff'd, ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C. 1321, 1331 (1983). Thus, p.
- -9
. . . _ - - ~ . - , _ _ -
f -:
i 1
> 1
- *
- the purpose _of a pre-emergency public information brochure is-informational /
educational. [ citation omitted). ****
-(T]he brochure is.not intended to motivate individuals to either evacuate cnr to follow certain procedures. ****. The most im-portant informational function of the bro-chure is to prepare people to turn on their radio and television stations upon the activation of the sirens in order to find out_what actions they might be asked'to take at:that time.
17 N.R.C. at 960 (emphasis-supplied). This primary message --
when you hear the sirens, tune to your EBS station -- is re-
.peatedly' emphasized throughout the brochure. See, e.g.,
pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 and the bottom of the page for each calendar month. See also Consumers Power Co. (Big hock Point Plant), LBP-82-60, 16 N.R.C. 540, 544 (1982) (purpose of bro-chure is "to give residents and transients the information they J
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 - and, most especially, the importance of tuning to an EBS station upon activation of the sirens. The Commission's concept of operations contemplates that further, detailed, accident-specific information and instructions would be broadcast as
n =- -
4 needed in the course of an emergency. See, e.g., Consolidated
- Edison Co. of-New York'(Indian Point,-Unit No. 2), LBP-83-68, 18 N.R.C. 811, 943 (1983)1(acknowledging the'"very different roles" of'the. brochure'and the EBS system).
kIndeed, the case law.on. point recognizes that the provi-sion'of.extens'ive detailed information in=the brochure would be counterproductive.
[T]he leveltof detail ~for any of these sub-jects [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.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 1
. Unit No. 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1521 (1981). Further,
[A] pamphlet cannot exhaustively treat the subject of the effects of radiation and it all-too-easily can become too elaborate.and extensive to communicate-effectively. If that were to occur, the pamphlet likely would go unread and its role as an action document would be defeated. **** [E]ach proposed addition to the pam,phlet must be viewed with caution because additions may-cumulatively increase its bulk and complex-ity 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
"c l N,
s i
s
'thisLinformation; incomprehensible.tolthe
~ general:public.;* * *' (T]o 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; 949E 961-62-(1983), aff'd,'
~
ALAB-753,n18.N.R.C.'1321, 1331-(1983). 'See also-South Carolina Electric & Gas'Co. (Virgil C.-Summer Nuclear Station,MUnit 1),
LBP-82-57, 16 N.R.C. 477, 4911(1982)'(provision of: detailed-information "regarding.tlie characteristics and consequences of.
nuclear accidents" is unnecessary).
D. The Role of The Licensing Board dhe jurisdiction of.a licensing boardtis 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:
_? M-
g m-. _ 7 _
q 7',
~
, j
.n ,
c Our role His uncomfortable becausefit-
~
, can easily be misunderstood or:mischaracte-
'rized as that of~ censor. ~However,1we view ourselves'as responsible only forLaeeing that ne'cessaryLfacts aboutithe' rapid re-
- sponse syst.em are communicated, that there areino' serious' errors. detracting:fromlthe.
credibility of the document,- and-.tliat. the re
- are no serious omissions from-theEdistri-buted material.- WeHare~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 lhas simi}arly indicated, at the May 1-2, 1984.Prehearing Conference, 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. Accord, Philadelphia Electric-Co. (Limerick-Generating Station, Units 1-
~
and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL, " Memorandum and Order Ruling On Limerick Ecology Action's Petidion For Reconsid-eration of Rulings On, Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Plan-ning Contentions" (May 21, 1984), slip op. at 7 (expressly declining to " litigate the wording of brochures"). The Appeal Board has granted its imprimatur to this defined scope of re-view, 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.
t a Metropolitan-Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, LUnit No- 1),'ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C. 1265, 1274 (1982) (emphasis
. supplied). 'As-discussed below,.the. vast majority of Mr'.
Eddleman's proposed contentions can be fairly characterized as pure." editing" of-the brochure. Certainly he has identified no
" gross" omissions or inadequacies in.the document.
E. The Proposed Contentions 1.
Proposed Contention 227-A Proposed Contention 277-A characterizes the brochure as
" deficient in discussing respiratory. protection measures" be-
~
cause it " fails to explain the best such means of protection, does not tell which means are relatively ineffective or totally ineffective, and does not give sufficient emphasis to respira-tory protection. Apparently, Mr. Eddleman advocates the inclu-sion in the brochure of detailed technical information about the relative effectiveness for respiratory protection of vari-ous materials, such as the analysis in NUREG/CR-2272, SAND-81-7143 (which he references). But, as discussed in Sec-tions B and C above, the Commission's regulations do not con-template the inclusion in the brochure of such detailed techni-cal discussions of protective actions. Rather, the emphasis is t
on the provision of " basic emergency planning information."
See 10~C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.2 (emphasis supplied).
'. , . ~ , _ - - .- - - - . _ ,_.__.-_,-m,__
4 Mr. Eddleman further asserts that the brochure should dis-cuss respirators as a means of respiratory protection for the
. general'public. This' portion of the proposed contention is in reality an attack on~ underlying substantive emergency planning, and is not an-attack on the brochure. As such, the proposed contention 1is late. The offsite emergency response plans have never included provisions for the use of respirators by-the general.public. Indeed, the plans contemplate only ad hoc re-spiratory protection int the general public. See, e.g., ERP, Part 2, 5 IV.S.f (referring to'" handkerchiefs over mduth");
. ERP, Annex D, Message A, Option D (advising anyone out of doors to " hold a-cloth over your nose and mouth"). Nor is there any regulatory basis for the use of respirators by the general pub-lic. Certainly Mr. Eddleman has not cited any other plant in the nation where respirators have been provided to the public within the plume EPZ, or discussed in a brochure as a means of respiratory protection for the general public. As such, this part of the proposed contention must be rejected as both late and lacking in regulatory basis. Finally, Mr. Eddleman's alle-gation that the brochure "does not give sufficient emphasis to respiratory protection" simply lacks the specificity required of a litigable contention. Accordingly, proposed Conten-tion 227-A must be rejected in its entirety.
t '~7- D . ~ . ~,
~
i- * : +
( , ,
ii94C <
' ~
7 2. - -Proposed / Contention 227-B '
~
Proposed ContentionL227-B criticize's the.brochuref"because Tit-doesn't'take sufficient account-of the need for, and most'
. effective _means of, sealing'around the respiratory protection'."-
+
~Mr. Eddleman> advocates inclusion in the' brochure of-information- -t
'about;the use*of pantyhose~"to attach the protection," as. dis- ,
cussed.in'NUREG/CR-2958.; But.Mr. Eddleman-has.not pointe'd to a
, TsIngle'.brochurefor.anoperating. plant-_which:inclu'desthe-information he' proposes to. include'in'the brochure here.
-Again,' as'setuforth-above,'theJCommission's emergency planning
- -regulations do not contemplatecthe' inclusion in the brochure of-
~
such-detailed'information about protective actions. If the'use
. of respiratory protection were'to_be indicated'in an emergency, detailed'information about that. protective action - including
.the. asserted need for " sealing" -- could be disseminated'via the emergency information broadcast at the time of the acci-dent. Proposed Contention 227-B must therefore be-rejected _as
. lacking in basis.
4 <
- , 3. Proposed Contention 227-C' Proposed. Contention.227-C is a compilation of numerous
~
- normative, non-specific assertions, such as "the brochure must assure that persons in the EPZ * *
- understand'the danger of a-nuclear accident as well as how to avoid it" and "[i]t is vital that the information concerning what to do in an emergency be-c l-p .
L
~
m -4 n im v-t 4- e ,e -scw>,e e-,--n - - -- - -,-or--n-w . , - - . . - , . ,,e ,----err---, - * .-,..e - - - - < , -
- a*
as clear and easy:to understand.as7possible." Broad allega-
~
'tions such as these lack the-specificity _ required of a-litigable contention under the commission's regulations and, as such, must be? rejected.
Mr. Eddleman does make the specific suggestion that the
' illustrations on page 1 be numbered "to make it clear that these'are steps in a sequential process." .But Mr. Eddleman's proposal itself evidences his own misapprehension of protective action options. The " steps" illustrated on page 1 are not nec-essarily " sequential." The third column summarizes "taking shelter" in place, while the fourth summarizes " evacuation."
And, in an emergency, the public will not necessarily "take shelter" before " evacuating." Similarly, the public may be advised to "take shelter" without ever being requested to
" evacuate." Thus, Mr. Eddleman's proposed change is lacking in basis. Moreover, contentions asserting the need to number pic-tures in the brochure amount to " editing" the brochure -- some-thing this Board has refused to do.
Similarly, Mr. Eddleman's suggested use of " positive lan-guage" also amounts to editing the brochure. Indeed, his sug-gested language differs little from that actually used on page 1 of the brochure. And he has provided no basis or au-l thority whatsoever for the implication that his suggested lan-guage is clearer or easier to understand than that actually used in the brochure.
1 l
i
'l
~
t
' Finally, to-the extent that proposed Contention 227-C can be-read to criticize-the brochure as not. recognizing the poten-tial utility in an. emergency of a " battery powered radio," the proposed contention lacks basis. Pictures of such radios are prominently. featured'on pages 1 and 3 of the brochure. In.ad-dition,'such radios are included.in the discussions of shel-
~
tering as a protective action (on page 4) and of evacuation (on page 5). For all these_ reasons, proposed Contention 227-C-must be rejected.
- 4. Proposed Contention 227-D Proposed Contention 227-D asserts a need for four identi-fied changes to page 1 of the brochure. First, Mr. Eddleman asserts that the paragraphs on school children in the third and fourth columns should include a reference to page 9 of the' bro-chure (which is the chart of all schools in the EPZ and the shelters to which they would evacuate). The short answer to this part of the proposed contention is that it amounts to
" editing", and is not properly the subject of litigation. In any event, there is no need to reference page 9 as Mr. Eddleman-suggests. Mr. Eddleman has failed to recognize that item 5 of the " fill-in" box on page 1 of the brochure, when completed, will include specific information about the. evacuation destina-tion of each family's school children. Moreover, that item in-cludes the reference to page 9 of the brochure. The first part
-of proposed Contention. 227-D must therefore be rejected.
l The.second part of proposed Contention 227-D-asserts that
'"[i]f day' care center children are to-be sheltered / evacuated, l this:should be stated." This is expressly stated on page 4 (with-respect to sheltering) and on pages 5 and 8 (with respect to evacuation). In addition, as noted-above, the " fill-in" box' on page 1 will include'the specific evacuation destination of each family's school children. And that item also includes a reference to page 9 of the brochure (which is the chart of all schools in the plume EPZ -- including. day care centers -- and the shelters to which they would evacuate). Thus, the second part of proposed Contention 227-D must be rejected as lacking
. in basis. Further, this subpart of the proposed contention too constitutes " editing" the brochure and is therefore not-litigable. ,
The third aspect of proposed Contention 227-D focuses on an asserted need to advise people that they should not take the time to shelter pets and livestock "when this may endanger their lives or health." Again, this part of the contention is premised on Mr. Eddleman's mistaken belief that the brochure should detail all possible contingencies in all possible cases.
Mr. Eddleman has simply confused the role of the brochure with that of the EBS sytem. The brochure need address such contingencies only very generally, by advising the public (on page 3) to "Do what your EBS station tells you to do. It could differ from what is in this booklet." Thus, if -- in the J
- 7 T y
judgment of emergency planning officials at the time of an accident -- it would be inappropriate to attempt to shelter pets and livestock, that judgment would be communicated to the public via the EBS system. The Commission's regulations simply do not require that all such contingencies be anticipated in advance and addressed in tl:e brochure.
The final assertion of proposed Contention 227-D is the suggestion that "[i]n the 4th column [on page 1] the necessity to sign in at the evacuation center should be underscored."
This part of the proposed contention must also be rejected as impermissible " editing." In any event, the words " Sign in" are already set in boldface type, for emphasis, and the " necessity to sign in at the evacuation conter" is further reiterated on page S. Thus, Mr. Eddleman's concern is baseless. According-ly, proposed Contention 227-D should be rejected in its entire-ty.
- 5. Proposed Contention 227-E Proposed Contention 227-E alleges that the brochure does not " explain * *
- the reason you close windows and doors, cut off fans, fires or heaters, etc." This, again, amounts to
" editing" the brochure, and is objectionable on that ground alone. But, in any event, page 4 explains:
Taking shelter is the best thing to do if radioactive air is expected to pass over your area soon.
i
, .= ..
l(Emphasis supplied). Further, page 11 explicitly states:
How could you-be exposed to radiation in an accident at the plant?' Radioactive
' material'could get into the air * * *. You could then be exposed to_it_in three ways.
'* _By-radiation in the air * * *.
' ~
- From breathing * *
- radioactive material.
(Emphasis supplied). Page 11 concludes:
~
You are not safe to stay outside while air with. radioactive materials passes'over you.
Taking shelter _is the safest-thing you can do until the wind carries the radioactive material away.
(Emphasis supplied). ;Thus, judged in its entirety, the bro-chure clearly communicates the concept Mr. Eddleman seeks to impress: that radioactive material-is carried in the air.
Thus, the first part of proposed Contention 227-E should be re-jected.
Secondly, Mr. Eddleman reiterates that the brochure does not "tell people how to effectively reduce breathing risk through * *
- breathing protective devices." This portion of proposed Contention 227-E is duplicative of proposed Conten-tione 227-A and 227-B (which Mr. Eddleman himself references).
The second part of proposed Contention 227-E must also be re-jected.
The last part of proposed Contention 227-E criticizes the brochure because it does not " advise persons staying indoors to
+ ,
A M: .
cu ,
- o y 161 -r
- adopt breathing prot'ection'." This is not a. brochure contention-i r ~
'at[all;/rather, it constitutes.an attack on substant'ive emer'
, m 3 , ;gency planning,and, as such,-is a: late filed' contention. The,
>; .Toffsite emergency plans-have never contemplatedLthe'use/of ad 4 hoc respiratory protection by sheltered persons. See e.g.,
JERP,iAnnex D,JMessage AI Op_tions:A-EL(expressly,limitingLthe a.. " = ,h a ce of' respiratory protection 1to those "out of doors"). :Mr.
. ~Eddleman has'.not even attempted to make'- 'and,'indeed,'cannot, make - I.th'e' requisite: showing of " goo'd cause"-to raise this
^
issue at $his late date. TAccordingly,.this part.of proposed Contention 227-E, like the rest of, proposed Contention 227-E,
[ must be-rejected.
- 6. Proposed ~ Contention 227-F.
The' thrust of proposed Contention 227-F is'that.the bro-l chure "doesn't; explain the necessity,to get~as far from walls
- and windows as possible." Mr. Eddleman further' advocates'a new item in the " fill-in" box on page 1, where people would_identi-fy their "in-home shelter." This suggestion amounts to
" editing" the brochure, and should-therefore be rejected.
Moreover, Mr. Eddleman clear?.y contemplates the inclusion in the brochure of detailed information about'the_ implementation
- of protective actions, while the Commission's emergency plan-ning. regulations require only the provision of " basic emergency planning information." See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, f IV.D.2 l ,
f' 1, -.
b_
~
~
.{ emphasis' supplied). -The-instruction-(on page 4) to "Go to a-room or basement with few:or no windows * * *" adequately.com-municates the basic / concept of shielding, as a practical mat-ter-. There:is simply:no requirement that the information presented.in the broch'ure be technically completely-accurate.
' ~
See:Section B and C, supra. Proposed Contention.227-F should therefore'also be rejected.
t
-7. Proposed Contention 227-G Proposed Contention 227-G is constituted primarily of a string of non-specific assertions. .Mr. Eddleman offers no
~bacis whatsoever for his assertion thatlpage 2 of.the brochure
. is "poorly organized, wordy [and] often stated in passive voice," and makes no specific proposals to implement these as-sertions. Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's assertion, the "important question" "Why not evacuate just to be extra-safe?" is answered quite directly on page 2: "Because that may.not be the safest thing." The question is answered at greater length in the-dis-cussion of sheltering on page 4 (e.g., "Taking shelter is the best thing to do if radioactive air is expected to pass over your area soon") and on page 11 (e.g., "Taking shelter is the safest thing you can do until the wind carries the radioactive material away.")
The rest of the proposed contention focuses on the se-
- quence of presentation of material already in the brochure and
7 l
[ .should therefore be rejected as-" editing." Moreover, Mr. l l
Eddleman is simply mistaken to the extent that he implies that ;
theibro'chure does not describe the' siren signal; indeed'the 3-to-5 minute signal is identified on page 1_and page 2 and in
. boldface on page-3_and on page 10 and at the bottom of the cal-endar page for each month., Siren system testing is discussed
~
at length on page 10 of the brochure. And, "back-up actions" (e.g., knocking-on doors) are discussed on page 2, after siren notification is described. Accordingly, proposed Conten-tion 227-G must be rejected as_ lacking in specificity and basis, and as seeking to " edit" the brochure.
- 8. Proposed Contention 227-H Proposed Contention 227-H is comprised of three separate suggestions. First, Mr. Eddleman suggests that "[t]he EBS Sta-tions list on page 3 should emphasize the 24-hour radio and TV stations." He has simply failed to note that the table on page 3 does indicate the 24-hour stations, by asterisk. Thus, the first part of the proposed contention must be rejected as lacking in basis.
The second part of the proposed contention alleges that the brochure "should emphasize the need to get hold of porta-ble, or.other battery powered radios * * * [in] a real emergen-cy." In fact, pictures of a portable radio are featured promi-nently on pages 1 and 3, and the utility of such radios is m i
_ =
-e .
0-
~
' addressed enspage 4 (with respect to sheltering) and on-page:S (with' respect to evacuation). This part of the proposed con-tention therefore lacks basis. Moreover, it constitutes
" editing" the brochure and is objectionable for that reason alone.
The last part of the proposed contention asserts that
"[t]he information in the long * *
- box at the bottom of the-page should be placed in a colored,~ prominent box higher on the page." This is." editing" in its purest form. In any event, the identified information is already highlighted by its place-ment in a box, to make it stand out from the rest of the text.
And, as indicated in counsel's July 9, 1984 letter transmitting the brochure, the final product "will be typeset and reproduced with professional offset equipment," to include use of color to highlight information such as that which Mr. Eddleman seeks to emphasize. For all these reasons, proposed Contention 227-H should be completely rejected.
- 9. Proposed Contention 227-I Proposed Contention 227-I has three elements, all of which are repetitive of concerns expressed in other proposed conten-tions. The first part of proposed Contention 227-I is that the brochure "should explain that people will be ordered to take shelter when they will get less radiation exposure by staying inside." This part of the proposed contention is duplicative i
I
j -
1, .
~
~'._ .: '
c 4
- ,; ~; .,
=
, offproposed? Cont'ention 227-G,Cand must:belrejected for the rea-Ja$ns Miscussed'above.
Thelsecond:partJo'f_proposedLCont'entionl227-I; asserts-that
, +
' Lt he brochurej"should emphasize the;importanc'e'of keeping outi
.s ~
loussidelair * * *-[ahd] staying'away from1the outside walls and--
~
' roof offsh'elters." This01s.duplicative of. proposed Conten--
~
1 Ltions 227-E and 227-F,tand:must beire'jected-for the reasons-
- discussed"above. IThis propose'd. contention again asserts that-
.the brochure 1should detail the use:of respiratory protection
-devices,:and is-to that extent duplicative1of proposed Conten-
~
Ltions 227-A and 227-B (which Mr..Eddleman himself= references),
and proposed Contention 227-E, and<should be' rejected for th'e reasons discussed above.
The last-part.of. proposed contention 227-I alleges that
~ "[pjeople shoul'd be encouraged to find their-best home shel-tering areas in advance." This part of the proposed contention is-duplicative of proposed Contention 227-F, and should be rejeted for the same reasons.
Accordingly, proposed Conten--
- tion 227-I must be. rejected in its entirety.
- 10. Proposed' Contention 227-J Proposed' Contention 227-J first alleges that the brochure.
does not " adequately explain how long ono.might possibly have-
- to' stay in shelter." In fact, the brochure (at page 4) ex-pressly instructs readers:
i.
I4 1
~
^
, F.
-- Stay in until the EBS-station-tells
-you it is-safe to go out. You might be asked _ to stay in for. 3 cn 4~ hours.
d Mr'. Eddleman-fails'to in'icate what he would substitute;'in-deed, it.is difficult to imagine what more might be said. As the brochure accurately-reflects, it.is impossible to predict in advance in-the-brochure how long the public might need to
- shelter in an-emergency. That-fact is necessarily dependent on
, the-specific facts of.an actual emergency, and must therefore i
be communicated to.the public via EBS. This part of the. pro-posed contention must therefore'be rejected as~1acking in spe- f cificity_and' basis.
Proposed Contention 227-J further suggests that people should be advised to leave their TVs on "very loud" or take their phones with them as they "take shelter." Again, Mr.
~ Eddleman seeks to " edit" the brochure. In any event, the bro-chure (at page 4) instructs the public to "[g]o to a room or basement * * *" and then advises:
Stay tuned to your EBS radio or TV station. You will get all news and 4
information that way.
The sequence in which-this material is presented, and the con-stant emphasis throughout the brochure on_the importance of the l EBS broadcasts, communicate in a practical way the need to be able to hear the broadcasts, ensuring that people will turn up their radios and TVs as loud as necessary. There is no basis for Mr. Eddleman's assertion that the public should be j l L
- 7. ,; , instructed.to carry theirfphones.with then around their homes.
The offsite emergency plans have never contemplated use of the telephone system'to provide emergency information to the.gener-al public. To the extent that Mr. Eddleman seeks to now raise
-that substantive-issue, he is impermissibly. late ~ . For these
- reasons, proposed Contention-227-J must be rejected.
- 11. Proposed Contention 227-K Proposed Contention 227-K asserts.the need to include in
~
the brochure "a risk-benefit instruction for sheltering pets or livestock." -This is duplicative of proposed Contention 227-D, and should be rejected for the same reasons. .Indeed, as a sub-stantive matter, the brochure repeatedly emphasizes the need to stay tuned to an EBS station throughout the emergency and in-structs the public (at the bottom of'page 3), to "Do what your EBS station tells you to do. It could differ from what is in i this booklet." Thus, if attempts to shelter pets and livestock were inappropriate due to the particular circumstances of an emergency, the public would be promptly informed at that time.
There is therefore no need to burden the brochure with addi-tional language to cover the specific contingency which Mr.
Eddleman raises. Proposed Contention 227-K must therefore be rejected as repetitive, and lacking in basis, l
I
f ..
- 12. Proposed Contention 227-L Proposed Contention 227-L is-composed of a number of broad, normative-assertions -- objectionable for lack of specificity -- and four general criticisms of the brochure.
'The thrust ~of the first criticism is that the public should be emphatically instructed to adhere 1to-the designated evacuation routes "even though some such'. routes look circuitous or turn odd directions." - .This portion of the proposed contention effectively seeks to " edit"'the brochure. The importance'of following a specific route'is reflected in the brochure by_the.
repeated instruction to follow a designated route (see, e.g.,
pages.1 and 5), by the inclusion in the brochure of both a chart and a map illustrating the' designated routes, and by in-
, structing the public to write in their precise evacuation route in the " fill-in" box on the first page. Mr. Eddleman provides i-no basis whatsoever for his assertion that more explicit direc-tions are required.
The second part of proposed Contention 227-L suggests that the brochure should address "[t]he need for contamination checks of vehicles during evacuation." However, the offsite
, plans have never contemplated veh cle monitoring during evacua-tion; there is therefore no basis for asserting that the sub-ject should be addressed in the brochure. Nor is there any basis for asserting that post-evacuation vehicle monitoring at the Evacuation Shelters need be discussed in the brochure,
?- ]
. j j
c .
- w -
since:al'1, members of the public are instruct'ed to report to the-
- Evacuation. Shelters'in all cases.
' ~
Thus,-the second part'of
.this proposed contention must also be rejected.
The third part of proposed Contention 227-L asserts.that-the brochure should address "[t]he importance of not driving too.fastsor trying to pass up other drivers" in an evacuation.
'Howeveri Mr. Eddleman fails to provide anyrbasis for his appar-ent1 assumption that traffic laws about yielding to-~ emergency vehicles, passing other vehicles, and speed limits will be altered in.an' emergency. : And certainly.he has providedLno reg-
~
ulatory basis for the implication th'at the public must be re-Lminded that it is-required to obey traffic officers and posted laws. Nor has he indicated.why necessary changes (if any) to i
existing traffic laws could not be communicated to the public via EBS at the' time of an emergency. Accordingly, this part cf proposed Contention 227-L must be rejected.
The final portion of proposed Contention 227-L asserts a 1
need for " instructions for the handicapped" beyond the "special 4
needs card" enclosed with the brochure. However, Mr. Eddleman fails to specify what "special instructions" he believes should be included in the brochure. Nor has he provided any regula-tory basis for his apparent assumption that more than the '?spe-cial needs card" is required. In any event, the brochure-(on pages 2 and 4) does recognize the possibility that some of
-those with special needs may need to request special assistance l
w t mv-- - ., .e +- cw y -,~w + pee r -,- - . . - - . g , -
g.
- at.the time of an emergency. The phone numbers of:the-respec-tive coun'ty_ emergency officials are.provided in the brochure- ,
_(on1page 13),'and a' blank for entry of theLspecific county
~
emergency assistance phone' number _~is included in the " fill-in"
~ box on the. summary page'(page 1).of the brochure,-to facilitate qu'ick reference by those in.need:of assistance.in'an emergency.
Proposed Contention 227-L must'therefore be rejected'in its en -
.tirety.
- 13 . Proposed Contention 227-M Proposed Contention 227-M first asserts that the brochure most detail, on page 5," why doors and vents.on cars should be
, closed and houses should be closed up." _This-part of the pro-posed contention constitutes " editing" and must therefore be rejected. The brochure must be judged in its entirety and, as discussed f.n reference to proposed Contention 227-E and 227-I above, the rationale behind actions such as closing windows and ventilation sources'is discussed throughout the brochure. Mr.
Eddleman fails to explain why the.information must be included
- on page 5 as well.
Proposed Contention 227-M next asserts that page 5 does not " explain respiratory protection well," and alleges that an
- . explanation such as that described in proposed Contentions 227-A and'227-B should bu included in the brochure. However, the offsite emergency plans do not contemplate the use of l
- u. .. .. . . -. - . -
'& y v, * ' ,
-j i
r l
~
respiratory protection during an evacuation'(although respira-etory; protection is_ recommended'for'those who must go outside~
during a sheltering advisory). See,_ e.g.,.ERP, Annex D, MessageLA,; Options C and E. 1Thus,_there is:no basis-for re-peating'information about respiratory ~ protection on1page 5 of the brochure. 'And, to the' extent.that Mr.'Eddleman now seeks to raise the substantive issue of respiratory protection during
- evacuation,cheLis late without " good cause."
Mr.-Eddleman also asserts that the proposed brochure should " advocate taping over. vents on cars whose vents don't seal tightly when closed." However,-he provides no regulatory basis.to support the imposition of such'a requirement, nor'does he point to other' brochures which include this information. As discussed in Section B and C above, the. Commission's!regula-tions do not contemplate the inclusion in the brochure of such detailed instructions. Rather, the emphasis is on the provi-sion of'" basic emergency planning in.#ormation." See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.D.2 (emphasis supplied).
Mr. Eddleman further alleges that the brochure-is defi-cient because-it does not discuss "the importance of not contaminating others, especially for evacuees who do not choose to go to the evacuation center." However, Mr. Eddleman misperceives the overall concept of operations. In an emergen-cy, all evacuees are instructed to report to desiganted Evacua-tion Shelters, even if they plan to stay elsewhere. See, e.g.,
h
( ." * -
pages:1, 5 and 8. Thus,:Mr. Eddleman's proposed addition to s
the brochure is devoid.of basis.
- Finally, bhr. Eddleman asserts that the brochure is defi-cientfin not " emphasizing the importance:of signing-in.at the
~
. evacuation center." To the contrary, the brochure properly em--
-phasizes theEimportance of signing in at Evacuation Shelters 1
via the repetition of that instruction.throughout the brochure.
See, e.g., pages 1,'S and.8. In addition, page 5 of the bro-chure further emphasizes'the importance'of signing in at the Evacuation Shelter by listing the reasons for signing in:1/
~"That way family and friends will know you are safe. Also,. you 1
can get. checked for radiation and treated if needed. After you sign in, you may stay at the Evacuation Shelter." Thus, there !
is no basis for Mr. Eddleman's claim that.the brochure fails to I emphasize the importance of signing in at Evacuation Shelters.
Proposed Contention 227-M must therefore be rejected.
l
- 14. Proposed Contention 227-N The primary thrust of proposed Contention 227-N'is the claim that the brochure does not address "the risks and bene-fits of taking time to provide for livestock." This part of 1/ Mr. Eddleman asserts that one of the reasons for signing in at the~ Evacuation-Shelter'is "for the purpose of making later insurance claims." But he has completely failed to explain how signing in at the Evacuation Shelter advances this objective. In.any event, that objective is not recognized by
'the Commission's emergency planning regulatory scheme.
7
/
.the_ proposed contention is duplicative of proposed Conten-tion 227-D, and must be rejected for the same reasons.
The second part of proposed Contention'227-N asserts that
.the brochure should explain that, at'the Evacuation Shelters,
" places for people with pets to stay will be found." However, this proposed contention _ constitutes a late challenge to sub-stantive emergency, planning. The offsite emergency plans make no provisions for assistance.in sheltering evacuated pets. To the extent that Mr. Eddleman seeks to now raise that substan-tive issue, he is impermisbibly late. -Moreover, Mr. Eddleman cites no regulatory basis for the requirement he would impose.
Indeed, there is absolutely no regulatory requirement-that pro-vision be made to shelter the pets of evacuees. Accordingly, proposed Contention 227-N must be rejected in its entirety.
- 15. Proposed Contention 227 Proposed Contention 227-0 asserts that the " accuracy, clearness, readability and usefulness" of the brochure map and the chart of school information are " crucial," and a different color should be used for each zone and its routes. The Licens-ing Board has already informed Mr. Eddleman that he need not anticipate the brochure information which is yet to be pro-l vided. Tr. 2203. This proposed contention must therefore be rejected as premature.
i'
m l
- 16. . Proposed Contention"227-P
~ Proposed Contention ~227-P,~like the las't-part of proposed Contention 227-L, has as its thrust the claim that.the brochure
.should-discuss in detail provisions for-the-handicapped, beyond
~
the'"special needs card." _ Proposed Contention 227-P should be-rejected for the same reasons as proposed Contention 227-L.
Moreover, Mr. Eddleman provides no basis whatsoever for his'im--
~
plicit~ assumption that-thel handicapped need to be affirmatively told to take_whatever protective measures they can take without help while they await assistance to implement protective ac-
'tions they cannot take alone. Proposed Contention.227-P.is therefore also objectionable as lacking in basis.
- 17. Proposed Contention 227-Q Proposed Contention 227-Q alleges that the information about sirens on page 10 is deficient because it does not refer-ence page 3 (EBS stations) or the " fill-in" box on page 1..This is pure " editing", and must therefore be rejected. Nor has Mr.
Eddleman provided any basis whatsoever for his apparent assump-tion that -- upon hearing the sirens -- members of the public will turn to page 10 of the brochure, rather than turning (1) immediately to an EBS station, or (2) to page 1 of the bro-chure, the summary (where the EBS stations will be identified in the " fill-in" box), or (3) to page 3 of the brochure, which lists the EBS stations. And, in any event, the time required
r
- go c ..m
.puz -
s.
.,8'
. < x
-. to flip 5through all the;pages^of.the' brochure.to: locate:the .
- list 1 of'.EBS ' stations . is 'incon' s equential. For all these rea--
sons,l proposed ContentionL227-Qimust be re'jected. ~
618. - Proposed Contention'227-R
. Proposed Contention 227-R attacks =theJdiscussion,of:gener--
-al~information about radiation.on page's'11 and 12 of the bro-
. chure"asj" unde'rstated, misleading.andvague." The thrust;of, thei: allegations is"that "thefdiscussion seemsito indicate that -!
~
- radiati~on'is-so' common 4that itts'almost OK,";and that the dis -
s cussion " ignores"' the work of Gofman- and Morgan ~ '?that. holds-
'that low-level exposure.is-potentially harmful."
Contrary t'o Mr. Eddleman's assertions,: the brochure does'
.not suggest.that radiation is^ acceptable. To the contrary, page 11 states unequivocally'that all~ exposure should;be mini-mized:
i Can-radiation be-harmful? Yes, that's why public health experts-say you should get as little as you can. That means you_.need-to-l- avoid the radiation that-could come from a nuclear' accident.
- (Emphasis supplied). Thus, there is.no basis whatsoever for Mr. Eddleman's assertion that the risks of radiation are "un-derstated."
Nor'has Mr. Eddleman provided any basis for his assertion that the iinclusion in the brochure of information about back-ground radiation is " misleading." Certainly he-has failed to J
( - . . , ..,'j _
,....,.,..,-......w .
..w.. __l______=-------.--
- ~
g+
y w.
r .
g i lexplainiwhysthis' brochure'shouldidiffer.from.so:many-others, which include :information1about background; radiation to place
- -inicontextiother information.on radiation.-
. Seece.g.,
- ;;-) i LPhiladelphia El'ectric Co.;(Limerick Generating. Station,: Units 11'
.and 2',: Docket Nos.;50-352-OLA.50-353'OL,." Memorandum and Order-
- Ruling On Limerick" Ecology Action's:PetitionLFor:Reconsid-'-
Eeration of Rulings 'On / Admissibility of Offsite ' Emergency Plan-ning, Contentions" (May. 21'7 1984),. slip op. (see section enti-'
tied "What'You'Should:Know About Radietion"Jin. attached brochure).
Mr. Eddleman'si arguments that the instruction ~tof "go to a 1
- place.with notradiation" is technically inaccurate,,and that the brochure should discuss the theories..of'Gofman and Morgan, are similarly' lacking in merit. :As. discussed in-Sections B and'
' Ciabove,'neither detailed information nor absolute technical accuracy are required :inJ a brochure.
[T]he primary purpose of these brochures is not to give i a. course in radiation biology, but to inform.the public what to listen for-
- 'and what to do in case of an emergency * * *.
~
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),.LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1525 (1981). 'Thus,_
there is no regulatory basiskfor these criticisms of the bro- -
chure. -Proposed. Contention 227-R should therefore also be re-V
, jected.
L '
g '
- O e
Lh' J
. j .f, 3
);-
-19. . Proposed Contention'227-S Th'e, basic thrusts of proposed Contention 227-S are.that
, :the brochure.should: explain that radiation "cannot be' detected by-any'of our senses," and that "[t]he nature of harmful health effects - genetic damage and cancer, other diseases".should be ,
. detai l'ed . -However, these criticisms of'the'brochureflack reg-ulatory_ basis. .As discussed more fully in Sections B~and C above, neither detailed information nor absolute technical ac-curacy are required in a brochure. Certainly th'ere is no requirement that-a brochure include detailed information on "the health-effects of_ ionizing radiation." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
.LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1522 (1981).
Mr. Eddleman's proposed Contention 227-S further asserts that " radiation detectors should be discussed" in the brochure.
However, Mr. Eddleman fails: to cite ' any regulatory basis which would require the inclusion of such information; nor does he explain how -- as a factua,1 matter -- the inclusion of such information in the brochure would advance public health and safety in an emergency. Indeed, it would logically seem that the inclusion in the brochure of the allegation that radiation monitoring equipment is "not always sensitive enough to tell
.you if you're in danger" (as he proposes) could have an adverse effect on public health and safety, by leading some members oof 1
the public_to consider monitoring futile, thus discouraging them from-reporting to Evacuation Shelters.
. t
ww .; - , -
p ,
.m ;g *}
- e- 9. ' .
c ,.
o [ finally,[thesuggestionthatthebrochurefailstoexplain
'"whyfyou shouldElisten:tofthe EBS"~is: absurd.. The' brochure <re-lpeatedly emphasizesLthat the-public?s iimmediateureaction upon.
- w. .
hearing the sirens sh'ould bestoLturn tolan EBS' station. As cpagefl offthe brochure explains,..the1public:should.then:
- 7 Stay tuned for' news.
- "If :there -is an' emergency Lyour1EBS station will:
tell you whattto do.
!Ast page l Lcontinues, ; the 'public _ should " Listen 'to find out if your?sub-zone _should t'ake shelter" and " Listen to find out-~if your sub-zone must' evacuate." .Further, page.4 of the brochure'
~
~
(discussing'" sheltering") explains that people ~should " Stay tunedIto your EBS radio or TV station. You will get all news and information.that way." And page-4-' continues, " Stay in until the EBS' station tells you it is safe to go out." Page'5 (discussing evacuation) advises the public to:
Listen to EBS stations for news about the emergency. Federal, state and local officials will be checking radi-ation. levels. They.will use'the EBS stations'to tell you when it is safe to go home.
Similar messages about the' reasons for staying tuned to an EBS station during an emergency are included.throughout the bro-chure. Mr. Eddleman's last criticism of the brochure is thus wholly lacking in merit. Accordingly, proposed Conten-
!: tion 227-S must be rejected.
O l' i is
,- i
. . - , . . . . . , . , . . . - . , , , , - -- , - - - ~ , - , - - , . , , . - , ,,e.- .,-e.. , -
r
[ , ..,: , ~
_47-~ m g ;' ' >
-c . _ ,
..ll T20.i iroposed Contentionn227-T
"_ '; Prhposed' Contention ?227-T criticizes the 1 brochure 'as :" con- l L, -
,- , ' ;fusingfand misleading-inJits discussion'of'nuclearfaccidents."- -
- u
[^ sm-According"to:Mr.-Eddl'eman, "[t]he reader should'be told that.
~
~
Sthe-pl' ant can release. radioactive.materialscand gases into;the=
c jair'during an accidentigand that the wind could carry it to l personsfin;the EPZ." "An'dp indeed,1page.11 of=the' brochure 4makes these1 precise points: '
How could you.be exposed to radiation in an 5
accident at the. plant? Radioactive material.
could~get into the air and water, causing a
. risk to;your health-if ye2 live near.the.
! Harris plant.
.(Emphasis supplied). And page 11 concludes:
You are not safe to: stay outside while air
- with radioactive material' passes'cVer you- .
Taking shelter-in:the safest. thing you can do until the wind carries the radioactive material away.
(EmphasisLsupplied). Thus, the first part of this proposed
, contention'is baseless.
L The-second part of the proposed' contention asserts that
"[t]he most important fact about nuclear! accidents is that they are possible. .That'o why evacuation plans exist." And, again,
~
the' brochure (at page 12) already expressly addresses this
. points-No< energy source can be' free of all risk
- even though such steps have been taken to
- l. make it safe. That-is why special' safety plans like these have been made.
f
}
+
r - * . . . .. - , .... a , .
4/ " .-
3 _
V y w n
St. JA nd,7similarly, page 13 explains: d
$c -This: booklet tells youtwhat to do if there.
- ~ is an emergency-at the Harris plant. An-s emergency:is:not likely.~Yetuto be sure-that'you will be safe, _ state and local.of-ficials have made.special plans to protect,
- you .- ,
Thi's exact same language is also included on the front cover of the brochure. The second halfEof proposed Contedtion 227-T'is c :thus also lacking in basis.. Accordingly, all of. proposed Con-
- -tention 227-T must be1 rejected.
- 21. . Proposed Contention 227-U
!: Proposed Contention 227-U-asserts that the brochure is-
" inadequate" because it (1).doesn't explain the amount of
' washing necessary for best decontamination, or that radiation detectors are needed to be sure it's off; (2) doesn't adequate-
} 'ly explain how to reduce exposure from breathing or swallowing * * *; (3) seems to imply evacuation is the only way
-to. deal-with " shine" and ground radiation." The entire cunten- t tion is objectionable on the general ground that Mr. Eddleman appears to seek to " edit" the brochure to include a level of detail and technical accuracy which is beyond the contemplation of the Commission's emergency planning regulations. See Sec-tions B and C, above. If it were necessary to communicate such i
2 detailed information to the public, it would be accomplished via EBS at the time of the emergency.
~.
Moreover, Mr. Eddleman fails to explain how -- as a factu-al matter'- .the inclusion of information about "the amount of
-l wash'ng-necessary i for best. decontamination" would advance pub-
, lic health and. safety.in an evacuation. Indeed, providing de -
-tailed informacion on the subject could actually adversely af-fect public health and safety, by discouraging some members of-the public.from reporting to Evacuation Shelters for monitoring and (if necessary) decontamination. .This part of the. proposed contention thus lacks basis.
Similarly, there is no basis for Mr. Eddleman's assertion
'that the brochure fails to address "how to reduce e-posure from breathing or swallowing." Respiratory protection is identifisd as a protective action on pages 1 and 4. Further, this part of the proposed contention is largely duplicative of proposed Con-tention 227-A, 227-B, 227-E, 227-I and 227-M.
Finally, Mr. Eddleman's suggestion that the brochure implies that evacuation is "the only way to deal with " shine" and ground radiation" is patently absurd. Read in its entire-ty, the brochure also provides an extensive, elementary expla-nation of the concept of "taking shelter," as discussed in the responses to proposed Contentions 227-E, 227-F, 227-I and 227-J. Mr. Eddleman provides absolutely no basis whatsoever for the asserted need to include the information about shel-tering on page 11~of the brochure as well. For all these rea-sons, proposed Contention 227-U should be rejected in its entirety.
j
., f) - .2; 3.0 220 'Proposad Contention 227-V
. Proposed Contention 227-V has as its general thrust Mr.
Eddleman's assertion'that "[i]nformation-on decontamination i
cshould be. highlighted,'and preventive measures and.first-aid
' procedures'for contamination'should be at least mentioned" in the brochure._ The proposed contention isLthus' essentially.
-duplicative of proposed: Contention 227-U, and must be rejected for the'same reasons.
. Further,.the. proposed contention alleges that "the
. undetectable nature of radiation-to the five normal senses" should be emphasized in-the brochure. This part of the pro-posed 1 contention is duplicative of-proposed Contention 227-S, and must be rejected for the same reasons. All of proposed' Contention 227-V should therefore be rejected.
- 23. Proposed Contention 227-W Proposed Contention 227-W asserts that page 12 is "perhaps confusing and misleading" for a number of very broad reasons,
.but fails to specify how the alleged faults should be remedied.
The proposed contention thus fails for lack of the specifity required of an admissible contention under the Commission's regulations. Moreover, the proposed contention lacks basis.
Contrary to the implication of the proposed contention, there is no~ inherent logical contradiction between statements about the safety standards for construction and operation if the 4
--n + -e+ , . - , ,m. + 4- - , -
. o eo; .
H '
- o. >
plant and statements'about the need for exercises'ofLemergency.
. plans'.- Rather, the statements illustrate " defense-in-depth"'--
~
.anTemphasis cnt both preventing. accidents and mitigating the consequencesjshould one occur.
Similarly, Mr. Eddleman provides nol basis for his apparent assumption that a single statement explaining that a serious accident'is!"not likely" will engender complacency in the pub-lic. 1He has simply lifted a single sentence out of the context of the rest of the brochure, . which amply describes protective measures for-the public in an, emergency. Indeed, page 12 makes t
the precise' point Mr. Eddleman urges:
No energy source canebe free of all risk even though such steps have been taken to make it safe. That is why special safety plans like these have'been made. They can
-help people who live near the plant to be safe if an emergency were ever to happen.
~
In case of an emergency,.you need to know this-booklet so you and your family can be safe. !
And Mr. Eddleman's criticism of the reference to other energy sources is mere " editing." For all these reasons, proposed Contention 227-W too must be rejected. 'I i
s_ g;.
c' .
III. CONCLUSION 1
~
For all the reasons set-forth above, Eddleman proposed i
-Contentions 227-A through 227-W must be rejected.
-l Respectfully submitted, 11 1 i'1_W_
Thdiniini A. Baxtek, P.t.{ y
~
Delissa A. Ridgway:
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.,20036
.(202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 j (919) 836-6517 Counsel for Applicants DATED: ' August 28, 1984 j
~ z .
4 4
O. J'-
c d
- l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSSION-
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ).
)
-CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY- ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear- )
Power Plant) .)
CERTIFICATE OF >ERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Eddleman Proposed Contentions on Brochure"'were served this 28th day of August, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties on the attached Ser-vice List. .
Ma YA41)/11A f "
t
?e~11ssa'S IT9dggy ' y ~
'4 j
L Y $
O UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lBEFORE 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 James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board M. Travis Payne, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edelstein and Payne Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Office of Executive 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
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 Commissin Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director ,
Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carclina 27602 ',
Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Fuite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740 3
--- --ii ..