ML052900509

Supplemental Filing of Eric Joseph Epstein Re Indirect License Transfer of Three Mile Island, Unit 1, and Direct and Indirect License Transfers Re Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3

ML052900509
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/07/2005
From:	Epstein E - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/SECY/RAS
Byrdsong A T
References
-RFPFR, 50-277-LT, 50-278-LT, 50-289-LT, RAS 10591, RAS 10592
Download: ML052900509 (24)

Text

RAS 10591 RAS 10592 DOCKETED USNRC October 7, 2005 (9:00am)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Supplemental Filing of Eric Joseph Epstein's, Pro se, Request for a Public Hearing on the Application for Approval of the Indirect License Transfer of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit i Facility Operating License No. DPR-5o; NRC Docket No. 50-289 Supplemental Filing of Eric Joseph Epstein's, Pro se, Request for a Public Hearing on the Applications for Approval of the Direct License and Indirect License Transfers of Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming Amendments of Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3;

[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]

(MLo5o67o664)

Dated: October 7, 2005

~Thteep // SCy- 0.37 1

Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Secretary:

Enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies for filing of the "Supplemental Filing of Eric Joseph Epstein's, Pro se, Request for a Public Hearing on the Application for Approval of the Indirect License Transfer of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-5o NRC Docket No . 50-289" pursuant to 52 Pa. Code S 5.71, to intervene under the lo CFR NRC, Section 50: 80 § 2.309.

Also, enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies for filing of the "Supplemental Filing of Eric Joseph Epstein's, Pro se, Request for a Public Hearing on the Applications for Approval of the Direct License and Indirect License Transfers of Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming Amendments of Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; [Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]" to intervene under the 10 CFR NRC, Section 50: 80 § 2.309.

Copies have been served upon all parties of record as shown on the attached Certificate of Service.

ipect lysu E Ose e n, Pro se 41 Hill dale oad Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717)-541-1101 Phone (717)-541-5487 Fax ericepstein comcast.net DATED: October 7, 2005 2

I. Background On August 15, 2005 Eric Joseph Epstein's ("Epstein" or "Mr. Epstein"),

Pro se, filed a Request for a Public Hearing on the Application for Approval of the Indirect License Transfer of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-5o. NRC Docket No. 50-289.

On August 21, 2005 Eric Joseph Epstein's, Pro se, filed a Request for a Public Hearing on the Applications for Approval of the Direct License and Indirect License Transfers of Facility Operating Licenses and Conforming Amendments of Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; [Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278] (MLo5o67o664).

On August 24, 2005 AmerGen responded to Mr. Epstein's filing through the law firm of Winston & Strawn, LLP.

On September 15, 2005 Joint Petitioners filed an "Answer of Exelon Generation Company, LLC to Request for Hearing of Eric Joseph Epstein." The Joint Petitioners sought dismissal Mr. Epstein's Petition due lack of standing and contested all of the contentions.

However, the Joint Petitioners flawed and incomplete research failed to note precedent regarding standing in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings, including post reactor operator license proceedings at Three Mile Island-i (TMI).

The TMI Restart hearings were adjudicated before an Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASL&B) and a Special Master appointed by the Commission.

In fact, the Three Mile Island Restart hearings included the intervention of Norman and Marjorie Aamodt who resided in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, some fifty miles from Three Mile Island-i.

The Aamodts were afforded standing and recognized to have "concrete and particular" interests relating to "management issues" (i) in an NRC sanctioned proceeding that occurred six years after Three Mile Island-i had been licensed.

As the data submitted in footnote 2 clearly states, Coatesville is "approximately 50 miles form Three Miles Island" (2).

The NRC correctly deemed the standing of Norman and Marjorie Aamodt to fall within the Commission's established zone of "proximate" interests.

1 On August 9, 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission set up the ASL&B to hear managerial, technical and financial issues relating to the restart of Three Mile Island Unit-1. On March 6, 1980 NRC Commissioners directed the Board to examine 13 "specific management" issues.

The Aamodts, who resided approximately 5o miles from Three Mile Island, were accorded full intervention status on a post licensing proceeding.

Restart hearings reopened on operating cheating on October 2, 1981 and concluded on December 10, 1981. The NRC Special Master's report, released on April 28, 1982 found TMI managers, General Public Utilities, engaged in cheating and wrongdoing, the company's response and integrity were inadequate, GPU submitted "material false statements," and the company's training program was deemed ineffective and inadequate.

2 For relevant mileage comparisons, Mr. Epstein utilized MapQuest. The mileage from Exelon's Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) in Coatesville to Three Mile Island is 56.84 miles.

The mileage from Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station to the Coatesville EOF is 44.56 miles.

According to the NRC, the distance is close to 50 miles. "In accordance with NRC policy, any move of an EOF to a site more than 25 miles from a plant must be approved by the Commission. Specifically, AmerGen asked for permission to shift the Three Mile Island 1 EOF from its current location about 12 miles from the Middletown, Pa., plant to an EOF in Coatesville, Pa. That facility, located about 50 miles from Three Mile Island-i, already serves Limerick and Peach Bottom."(US NRC, No. 1-03-016) 4

Similar to the Aamodt intervention in the TMI Restart Hearings, Mr.

Epstein's contentions in the proposed Indirect and Direct License Transfers at Three Mile Island-i and Peach Bottom 2 & 3, relate directly to "management issues."

II. Recent Adverse Material Development Demonstrates That Three Mile -1 and Peach Bottom 2 & 3 Are Operating In Violation of Their Operating Licenses On September 30, 2005 Mr. Epstein obtained a copy of Michael Jamgochian's Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) relating to AmerGen and Exelon's emergency evacuation planning in Pennsylvania (See Exhibit 1). Mr.

Jamgochian is a senior Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff Member with 40 years of experience. Mr. Jamgochian concluded:

• The children in Pennsylvania are not safe during a nuclear emergency because they are unplanned for during an evacuation.

• The NRC 120 day count down for pulling all of Pennsylvania's nuclear power licenses should start immediately.

• Pennsylvania is not in compliance with the Federal Regulations requiring emergency planning for preschool children.

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been reaching a false finding for emergency planning compliance for the past 19 years.

• Petition for rulemaking PRM 50-79 "Emergency Planning for Preschool Children" should be approved and GM EV-2 should be codified into NRC Regulations.

Attached is a Constituent Service Request Form to Congressman Todd Russell Platts (19th District, Pennsylvania), and a letter to the NRC Commissioners. Mr. Epstein is formally seeking answers to questions raised by Michael Jamgochian's Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) from the NRC Commissioners (See Exhibit 2).

5

III. Conclusion Mr. Jamgochian's Differing Professional Opinion substantiates Mr.

Epstein's concerns about emergency preparedness relating to the Direct and Indirect Licenses Transfers proposed for Three Mile Island-1 (3) and the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 2 & 3 (4).

Currently, Three Mile Island-1 and Peach Bottom 2 & 3 are operating in violation of their licenses, and have been doing so for 19 years.

The DPO clearly undermines AmerGen's assertion that, "The emergency plans for AmerGen Units (i.e., Clinton Power Station, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, and Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1), will not be required to be revised as a result of the merger." (5)

In addition, Exelon's "No Significant Hazards Consideration" claims in the Company's Application for Approval of License Transfers" (March 3, 2005) for Peach Bottom 2 and 3 are no longer valid based on Michael Jamgochian's findings.

3 "Contention 8: AmerGen's training programs, procedures, and conduct of operations for Emergency Planning are in violation of federal regulations," (pp.

35-37.)

4 "Contention 7: Exelon's training programs, procedures, and conduct of operations for Emergency Planning are in violation of federal regulations," (p.

35).

5 Please refer to Exhibit 3. "Additional Information Regarding Links Transfer Applications, Pamela B. Cowan, Director - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, AmerGen Energy Company LLC, May 24, 2005).

6

Specifically,

...the physical security plans, emergency response plans, operator training and requalification programs, and the quality assurance plans are not substantively and materially changed by the proposed license transfers and amendments . Therefore, the proposed approvals do not...

involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. (5)

IV. Remedies

1) The NRC should hold the Indirect and Direct License transfers for Three Mile Island-1 and Peach Bottom 2 & 3 in abeyance until the licensees can bring their emergency plans into compliance with their operating licenses and NRC regulations;

2) The NRC should compel Exelon and AmerGen to establish that the corporate organizations proposed in the Indirect and Direct license transfers are able to comply with current emergency preparedness criteria as stipulated by their operating licenses;

3) Due to the the identified violations, the emergency plans at Three Mile Island-l and Peach Bottom 2 and 3 must be revised prior to the proposed merger in order to meet NRC licensing obligations; and,

4) Deadlines to resolve these issues should be set against the background of 19 years of noncompliance.

5 Please refer to Exhibit 4.

7

Respectfully submi d, (zeiSu Mitte Eric ose Ep in, Pro se 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717)-54i-1lol Phone (717)-541-5487 Fax ericepstein 0a comcast.net DATED: October 7, 2005 8

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the active participants named below by US mail and electronic mail.

,k,opev1fully fl~te EcJosef 1 , Pro se 4YO Hil dal, Road Harrisburg, A 17112 Office of the Secretary, Thomas S. O'Neill, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President & General Counsel Attn: Document Control Desk Exelon BSC Washington, DC 20555-0001 Exelon Nuclear (Original plus two copies) 4300 Winfield Road, Floor 5 HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Winfield, Illinois 60555 thomas.oneill@exeloncorp.com Kathryn L. Winsberg, Esquire Assistant General Counsel for David A. Repka, Esquire Reactor Programs Counsel for Exelon Generation, LLC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Winston & Strawn, LLP 11555 Rockville Pike 1700 K Street, NW Rockville, MD 20852 Washington, D.C. 20006-3817 klw@nrc.gov DRepka@winston.com cc: Susan Uttal, Esquire slu@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mr. George F. Dick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Manger, Section 2, Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555 GFD@NRC.GOV DATE: October 7, 2005 9

Erohibit 1 IN4RG FORM 680 U.-S. NUCLEAR REGULAT ORY COMMISSION -I FOP PROCESS1AIG USE 0AVLY

!(11-2002) 1OPO CASE NUNMEER jNRCMD 1IO.59 I DIFFERING1 PROFESSIONAL OPINION U __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ISRCTIONS: Prepare this form legibly and submit three copies to the address provi'ded in Block 14 below.

j3. NAME OF SUBMITTER 4.POSrITON TITLE 5.GRADE IW Mi c-a argc o-FFi-vsOIRICIE- IO-.BIDN inS no Nudlear Engine__

EgAILee STPS-15PRVSO

____ ____--I _ j5 INRR(Conrinue on Page 2 or .3as necessary) j 0-12-Al IStepharnieCoffin11DSCIETEPEETSTAINCODTOETO.E I bielipet hat FEM A and the State of PennsyAvania does not comply with FEMA, guidarnce that NRC ba--s it's Iicens-ing dEcisions onj belieaie that the criterla in FEM AGM -EV-2 must be codified into NRC's emergency planning regulation~-s, in order to permit the NRC tLo makeafinding that 'there isreasonableassurance that protectivlemeasures can and will betaken." I also beliievethat the 120 daydclck contained inl10CFR 50.54(s)(2-) should bje imeplemnented in Pen-nsylvania duringtheruiermaking. My bdiefsarebased1on thefact that in 45FR 55406, dated August 19, 1980 the Commiceaon stated that the NRC will "reviewtFEM A findinigs anid dtermiia-tionison the adecquat-y and capability of imnpleeni-itationi of St-ateand lcal-plans(and will)rnakedecisionswilth regard totheoverall -ta~teof e-rergency,preparednessi.e, integration of the iicengseads emerge--ncy preparedness as determined by the NRC and of the St'ate/iocalagovernme-nts ac determined by FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and issuance of operating licenses or CONTI NUED ON PAGE 2

11. DESCRIBE YOUR DIFFERING OPINION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE PRESENTED IN NRC: MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 10.1 59.

(Cont-nue on Page 2 or 3 as necessary.)

The Commission'sernerge-iy planning regulations, specifically 10 CFIR 50.47(a)(1), require that nuclear power plant licenseesdevelop arnd maintain emergency plansthat provide reasonab~le assurance that adequatteprotective actions can and will betaken for the protection of the public inan emergenicy. Section 50.47(a)(2) states that- the NRC will baise its findings regardingaadecqua-y of these plan-son arelie~vvby NRC of FEMA, who will determineif the plan-s are adequatLe and whether there is reasonable assu-rance that they can be implem-ented. NRC and FEM Apromnulgated NUREG-06541FEM A-REP-ilto pr-ovi dedetailed guidance on the devaop.me-it and implemiefntationcof these plans.

Appendix 4in NUREG-065,4 dtailsthe requiremrEntsfor the identification and planni~ng for special facility populations and schools. FEMA GuidanceMemporandum (GMA) EV-2, " ProtectiveActions For School Children," providesguidance to assist federal officialsin evaluating adequacy of stateand local government offsiteemergency plans and preparednes for protecting Scho~ol childreni during a radiological emergency. Theterm "schdool" refersto all public and private sinhools, pre-schools, and licensed day care ceriterswith 10 or more Students.

CONTi NUED ON PA GE 3

12. Checit (a) or (b) as 2ppropriate:

a. Thorough discussions of the issue(s) raised in item I1I have taken place within My ma1nagement cnaln; or D- b.The reasons why I cannot approach my immediate chain of command are:

SIGNATURE OP SUBMiTTER DATE 'SIGNATURE OF CO.SUBMITTER (if any) DATE

13. PROPOSED PANEL MEMBERS ARE (in priority order): 14. Submit thris form to:

1. Kathy Gibson Differing Professional Opinicons Program M.1anager

2. Cathy Han-ey Office of:

3. Frank Gillespie Mu'ail Stop: ________

i15. ACKNOWLEDGMENT SIGNATURE OF OIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS PROGRAM MANAGER (OPOPM)

T;HANK YOU FOR YOUR DIFFERING PROFESSIONALI OPINION. It will be carefuliy considered by a panel of experts, ir, accordance with the provisions of NRCMD E DTOFAK 10.1t59, and youw~ilIbe advised of any action taken.. Your..

interest inimproving NRC operations is appreciated. I YS 0N K1DTOFANWLDM T NR-- FORM 680 (11-20002) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was desisted using 1,-.Farms

jNRC FORM 680 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMN,16SION E(

1-2-00^2) -DIFFERING PROFESSI;ONAL OPINION (ContinUed)

=CONTilNUE ITEM 10 ITEM 11, Ai~iiOR ITEM 12 FROM PAGE l. indicate the biock numberto which this information applies.) I E preparfedness3, where appropriate based upon itsfindings and determinationswith respect to the adequacy of State and I local plans and the capabilities of StaRe and local governments to effectively implement these pians and preparedness H measures. Thesefindings and derermi nations wil i be provided to the NRC for use in it's licensing proces" In 45 FR 55403 dated August 19,1980, the Commission emphasized the importance of preplanning for emergencies by stating, "in H order to dischargeeffectivey its statutory responsibi Iities, the Commissiorn must know that proper means and procedures will bein placetoassesthecourseof an accident and itspotential severity, that NRCC and other appropriateauthorities and the publiowill benotified promptly, and that adequateprotectiveactionsin responseto actual or antiCilpat-cci conditionscan and will betaken." Sinceptember 2002,1 havebeen responsiblefor evaluatingthemeritsof a Petition I For Rulemaking (PRM -5079)" Emergency Planning For Nursery Schoois and Day Care Centers" After evaluating all H publiccommentsrecaved alongwith several discussionswith thepetitioners, FEMA, several stateand Ic-cal governments l I and NRC staff and managemenit. I developed a Commission paper recommending that the petition bedenied (SECY-0&0045, dated Mlarch 11, 2005). ThisSECY wasconcurred in by FEMA, NRC Officedirectorsand theEDO. I based E

e my recommendation to deny thispetition on my fundamental belief that cUrrent requirements and guidance., along with state and local government established emergency plansprovidereasonableassaranceof adeq-uateprotection of all membersof thepublic, includingall publicand privateschools, day carecentersand nurseryschools,in theevent of a 9

I nuclear power plant incident, and that no new regulationswererequired. The petition did raisequesionsabout mplementation and compl iancew ith relevant requiruements and guideli nes that were thought to be previously determined to be adequate in t he petitioner sst ate and local area. Accordi ngly, t he petiti on was recommended to the Commis son to be deni ed and forwar ded to FEM A for invetigati on into i mpleementat ion problems relati ng to the prepl anni ng of prtctiveactionsfor day carecentersand nursery schools. Becausethereal problem, isimplemrrentation and not I regul ations, FEMA committed to the NRC and the peitionersthat the implementation concerns relating to the eiements inM -EV-2 Wouid be fully dernonstrated and evaluated during the M ay 05 TM I exer cise. The dermonstration of the F T ernietnts in EV-_2for rnurser y saF-hools and dlay care:cernters was not ade-quate',y demonstr ated dur ing the TIVI aexfcse=.

Therefore, I can no longer support thestaff position todeny PRM 50-79. I believethat my current position isconfirmied by iettersfrom Pennsylvania and supported by thefollowing. Thepetitioner stated, and thecomment lettersfrom FEM A, O

i H

PEMA, Penn. Goveirnor anid theMayor of Harrisburg confirmed that the preplanned protective measuresfor publicand private elementary, middle and high schols is ver y different then the preplanned protective measuresfor l icenced day careand nursery schools Thisisnot consistent with NRC and FEMA'sregulationsand guidelines. FEMA'sGuidance Man-emorandum EV-2 requirethat state and loai emergency plans address, at a mini mum, preplanned transportation resourcesthat areto beavailablefor evacuating ali schools including day care arid nursery schools. Preplanned H evacuation reception and care centerswiil be established for ali schools, prepilanned alert and notification procedures are l tobbeestablishedfor ali schoolsandrpreplanned publicinformantionfor parerntsandguardiansof al schoolsiincludingday careand nursery schools. Thepetitioner stated that all of theaboveddoei not exist for nursery schoolsand day care 9 centersinPennsylvania. FEMA, PEMA, thePennsylvaniaGovernorandtheMayorofHarrisburghaveconfirmedlthat all of theaboveexist only for publiicandprivatedementary, middleor high schoolsand doesnot exist for nursery schools l E and day carece-nters. FEMA and PEMA hasdocumented that PEMA will notify day care and nursery schoolsof an E existing emergency but that it istheresponsibility of theday care and nurse-ry schoolsand the parentstotakethe necery protectiveactionsinstead of thestate or iccal government. In a letter dated Marh 24, 2005, the NRC tcd the petitionerthatprotetiveactionsfor-nursey schoolsinaccordancewithEV-2would beelvaluatedintheMay05TMi Fioffsi-te exe7oiss. TherEM Areport on the T M ixer cise diclnot show aneval LlatiO71 of all the requirai entts in EV-2 for I nursery schools or day care centers. l 2 BLOCK 11 CONTI NUED - Thestateand local government offsiteemergency piansshali address, at a minimum, H I preplanned transportation resourcesavailablefor evacuatingall schoolsincludingthelicensed day careand nursery sch--is ,pre~,iannedreczeptionarndcare--enteesfo-rallsichovolsi~ndudingdavcarean.-dnurs-eryschools~aler

s. .and

notification proceJuresfor all schools including day careand nursery schoolsand public information for parentsand H guardians of ail sho&ols indcuding day care and nursery school shildren. No evidence has been presented to showi that H I Pennsyivaniacompiieswiththeseemergeaicy pianniingrequirements Thecorisequerncesofnot codifying stateand locaI

£ governmlent speifi;c respo0nsibilities for day care and nursey sch~ool ch;!ildren is that thes children in Pennusylvania witlll not have preplannedr e-acuation capabilities in th evenrt of an emrergency. Theraf-ore the NRC would not beabletofi nd

'that "t*hereisreassonableassuranceth5at orot'Etive measurescan and Wtll bet.aken in theevent of an emerg-enc. Thus--

e requir ing NRC to implement the 120 day clod contained in 10 CFR 5.54(s)(2) and to grant the petition for rulemaking I (50-79) to codify the criteria contained in GM-EV-2. £

,.,I.

ONRC FORM 6B0 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMOSSION eNRJ.C1,1 10 159 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION I (Continued)

CONTINUE ITEM 10. iTEM I 1, ANDiOR ITEM 12 FROM PAGE 1. (indicate the block number to which this information applies.)

g The prctective actions that were desc-ibed in the TM1l exercise report for nursery schooclsand day care centers is that

' unicipaliti esin the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are the responsible offsite response organizt ionsfor notifying day j5carecerntersiocated in their g-graphical/politicaI boundariesin theeent of an incident ocurring at TM/i. The municipal plansand procelduresrequirethat daycarecentersbenotified of an incident at TMi at theAlert, SiteArea and General Emergency and/or when ProtectiveAction Decisionsareannounced."

G L TheTMIi Exercise report further stated that "E ach municipality hasa Notification and ResourcesM anual that list the I

I names, address, point of contact and phonenumber of theday carecentersicoated in their portion of the EPZ. Inevery case, the municipalities simulated notification of the day care centers in a timely manner pursuant to their codified plans and procedures"'. TheaboveTMI Exercisedescriptionsof how thestateand local governmentswill protect thehealth and safety of nursery school children taken in conjunction with thefoilowing quotefrom a FEMA letter dated April 29, 2004 to NRC, illustrates a definate lack of comp liance with the reguiations and guidelines.

a " Please keep in mind that day care centers and nursery schools are considered private business in the Commonwealth of E Pernnsylvaniaasopposedtoelnementary, middleand high schomlsthat areconsidered publicinstitutions. Aswasstated in a letter dated January 10, 2003, fror,-, theActing Director of thePe,,nsylvania Emergency vManagernen. Agency to the NRC,"Parentsarelegallyrequiredto sen-dtheir childrentopublicschols unlesstheyopttoenrollthem.inprivate institutions. The use of private day-carefaci lities isvoluntary on the parents. There is no legal requiremrent to send children to therm." Also from a FEMA letter dated July 29, 2004 to NRC "parents should revievv with day care centers I and nursery schoolsprocedures-and plansfor the-safety and protection of their children, the Commonwealth of e Pennsylvania Departmerit of Pubiic Welfareissued abulletin on December 27, 2003, rquiringday carecer-ta-stode.elop an EOP. Theenciosed Draft EOPfor Nursery *Schoolsdelineatesa listing of transportation providersand contact iistsfor 2 drivers." Also 7in a letter from PEMA tothepetitionersdated July 30, 2004, PEMA stated that "Child carefacilitiesare, for themost I part, privatebusinessentitieswho in conjunction with theparents, should as-umeresponsibility for thesafety of their charges. Local government will not treat thesebusiness any differently than it doesany other citizen- Especially in rural areas, municipal governm>.ent simply may not havetheresourcesto provideshelter. In sofar asmunicipal shelters areavailable, child careprovidersareencouraged tousethem". Also "Child carefaciiities are, for themost part, privateentitieswho should assumeresponsibility for their charges. As mentionedintheDayCareplanningguidcethat'sonPEMA'swabsite" ...themunicipal emergenc.ymanajertrerttageny I

L maybeabletohelp,butitLwon'tbeabletoguaranteethat youwillremTainin onegroupthuscor-mplicatingyour accountability problerns." Child day care providers should coordinatewith municipal government and decided whether tousgovernment-provided resources, or tomakeseparatearrangements'. Also" Careof their chargesisultimatelythe h responsibhility of the day care provider and the parents of the children".

"if timealiows, municipal offidaiswill issuea protectiveaction decision. Howvever, localized emergencdesor seweretimrE

. constraintsmay dictate that the day care facility operator must choose the most prudent course of action. The sampie plan on PEMA'sw website lists considerations(Part i i, Checklist A) that will help theday care provider to makethat decisi on".

I In a letter for the Mayor of Harrisburg to the NRC dated December 3,2002, he stated "The exclusion of such facilitie, in present Radiological Emergency Plans isan omission that iscertain to create confusion and chaos in theevent that an I e.acuati on would ever be order ed in one of the affected evac uation zones near a nucear poVer station. Parentsand others wouldd be atternpti ng to rearc the nursery schools and day care centers, which would almost certainly delay any prospect of their orderly evacuation. Further, nursery schoois and day care centers havethusfar gener ailIy not put into I piaceany evaclation plan, which meanstherewould bean on-siteconfusion regardingthesafety of thechiidrern, entrusted Ito thesefactities."

I Ali of the above documentation, aloro with the TM I exercise results leads meto conclude that state and Iocal eme-gency plansdo not address prepanned transportation resources availablefor elacuating all public and private schocils includi ng day caresand nursery schorilsestablishing preplanned reception and carecentersfor all publ ic and private schools including day care and nursery school has not been addressed and alert and notification proceduresfor thesE schools and public information for parents and guardians of day care and nursery school children has not been nra-ninnn-i

Ehibit 2 D A TE CO UNITSTITL,- fUENTP SERVIC-E FORM Conrressqal,' Todmd R. P tIts 59 IWest Louther Street 22 ChambersburgStreet 2209 East .MLarketStreet Carlisle, PA 17013 Gettysburg, PA 17325 York, PA 17402 (717) 249-0190 (717) 338-11919 (717) 600-1919 (717) 218-0190 Fax (717) 334-6314 Fax (717) 757-5001 F(ar Name: Larry Christian Address: 133 Pleasant View Terrace City: New Cumberland _ State: PA Zip: 170-70 Phone (H): 7 17-770-0852 (W)

Social Security Number:

Other Federal ID orT Claim Numbers:

Federal agency with which you have a problem: NTRC, FEMA & PEMA Please describe your probleni briefly: The attached Differing Professional Opinion frorml Senior NRC Engineer states that PA preschool children are without radiological preplanning and therefore reasonableh assurance cannot be given to the state of PA that preschool children are safe in the event of a radiological emergency.

What would you like Congressm.-ran Platts to do to help? Help me get answers from NRC regarding Michael Jamgochlian's Professional Differing Opinion.

JIr acerprdarnce wi-th Tistle 5, Section, 552(a), of the United States Code (1974 Privacy Act). .1hereby authorize Congressman T-odd R. Piatts and/or his staff to request assistance on my behalf in Connection with m.ty above named subject/problem with above named governmient agency. E authorize discussion of my records with Congressman Platts and/or his staff.

I.-.

Sianature:I

'S'iggnature: Date: 10/3/05

• • Under the terms of the Privacy Act, all constituent service requests must include a signature

• 1013/05 Regarding: Michael Jamgochian's Differing Professional Opinion Attention: Commnissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Honorable Commissioners,

Attached is a copy of Senior NRC Engineer Michael Jarngochian's Differing Professional Opinion (DPO).

As you must already know, this document indicates the following:

1. The children in PA are not safe during a nuclear emergency because they are unplanned for; and

2. The NRC 120 day count down for pulling ail of PA's nuclear power licenses should start immediately; and

3. PA never has, and continues not to comply with the Federal Regulations requiring emergency planning for preschool children, and

4. FEMA has been reaching a false finding for emergency planning compliance for the past 19 years; and

5. Our petition for rulemaking PRIM 50-79 "Emergency Planning for Preschool Children" should be approved and GM EV-2 should be codified into NRC Regulations; and

6. NRC Review of Public Comments on PRM 50-79 leads itself to believe that this violation is shared by other states.

Due to evidence we have submitted to you in support of our Petition PRM 50-79 you have had concrete and overwhelming evidence for more than 3 years that preschool children have not been preplanned for in the event of a radiological emergency.

Mr. Jamgochian was put in charge of reviewing the merits of our Petition PRM 50-79. His DPO indicates that his review of Petition PRM 50-79 has found that preschool children in PA are not preplanned for and the fundamental principals of our petition should be approved and codified in to NRC regulations.

Further, he finds that due to this evidence "reasonable assurance" cannot be met in the Commonwealth of PA at this time.

Due to this DPO, we the petitioners have several questions:

1. Can you, the Commissioners, state to us, Congressman Piatt's and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the preschool children in PA's EPZs are safe in the event of a nuclear emergency?

2. In a recent article published in the Harrisburg Patriot, PEMA Director Adrian King states He rejected JamTgochian's assertion that the regulations require state and local officials to provide transportation to evacuate preschoolers. Under Department of Public Welfare licensing requirements day-care centers must provide their own transportation.

Are Mr. King's conclusions correct?

3. What actions will you, the Commissioners, take to insure "reasonable assurance" can be met, and that tthe preschool children in PA are adequately planned for?

4. How could this dangerous situation have gone undetected by the NRC & F-MA for over 19 years?

5. Can you, the Commissioners, state to us, Congressman Platt's and the citizens of the United States that preschool children in ALL other states EPZs are safe?

6. Can you, the Commissioners supply us proof that this same oversight does not exist in ALL other states?

7. Do you, the Commissioners, agree that the fundamental principals of our Petition PRMI 50-79 should be codified into NRC regulations as Mr. jamgochian is recommending?

It's our position that the basic fundamental principals in Petition PRM 50-79 should be approved and codified into the NRC regulations as soon as possible so that the NRC can better insure that preschool children located in EPZs ail across the United States will have preplanned radiological emergency services.

Our experience has been that states will not do this on their own, accord.

Please respond to our questions respectfully submitted via Congressman Platts as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted via Congressman Platts, Lawrence T. Christian 133 Pleasant View Terrace, New Cumberland PA, 17070 6~6 Eric J. Epstein 4100 Hillsdale Road, Harrisburg PA 17112

• Mr Christian is author of US NRC Petition for Rulemaking PRM 50-79 "Radiological Emergency Planning for Preschool Children"

• "Mr. Epstein is the Coordinator of the EFMR Monitoring group, a nonpartisan community based organization established in 1992. EFMR monitors radiation levels at Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations, invests in community development, and sponsors remote robotics research.

Exhlibit 3 An Exelion Coinpany wwvw'oxeloneorpJccrm Nuclear AmerGern Energy Company, LC

~' VCX QU24, C.&L..t Warrenfiile, iL 6oos, RS-05-066 May 24, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 NHC Docket Nos, STN 50-456 and STN 50-457 Byron Station, Units t and 2 FacHity Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NIRC Docket Nos. $TN 50-454 and STN 50-455 Clinton Power Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 NRC Dociket No.51-41I Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Facility Operating Ucense No. DPR-2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 NRC Docket Nj._ 50-10, 50-237 and 50-249 LaZSae County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- i and NPF- 18 NRC Docket Nos. 50373 and 50-374 Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2 Facility Operating Ucense Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 NRC Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 NRC Docket No. 50-219 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Facility Operating License No, DPR-12 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-4-4 and DPR-56 NRC Docket Nos. 50-171. 50-277. and 50-278 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 24, 2005 Page 2 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 NRC Docket No. 50-289 Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 anrd DPR-48 NRC Docket Nos. 50295 and 50-304

Subject:

Additional Information Regarding License Transfer Applications

Reference:

Letter from NRC, "Additional Information for License Transfer Applications," to Exelon Generation Company, LLC and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC dated May 10, 2005 As documented in the referenced letter, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon Generation) and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) agreed to provide additional information to the NRC regarding the requests for license transfers associated with the proposed merger of Exelon Corporation and Public Service Enterprise Group. provides the additional information.

Included in Attachment t are the assumptions used in the development of the projected Income statement and, as described in the enclosed affidavit, Exelon Generation and AmerGen consider this confidential financial information. Accordingly, Exelon Generation and AmerGen. request this information be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with: 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4, 'PUblic inspections, Exemptions., Requests for Withholding." A non-proprietary version of Attachment 1, suitable for public disclosure, is provided as Attachment 2.

Ifyou have any questions about this letter, please contact Kenneth Ainger at (856) 339-2136.

Respectfully, 5' y Pamela B. Cowan Director - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Attachments Enclosure

Indirect License Transfers," dated March 3, 2005. Tables 1 and 2 provide names and titles of officers of Exelon Generation and Exelon Ventures Company, LLC, respectively. The mailing address of the officers of Exeion Generation is 300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348. Exelon Generation is organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The mailing address of the officers of Exelon Ventures Company, LLC is 10 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. Exelon Ventures Company, LLC is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. The officers of Exelon Generation (except one officer as denoted on Table 1 and the officers of Exelon Ventures Company, LLC are U.S. citizens. Exelon Generation and AmerGen provide the information in Tables 1 and 2 as an organizational snapshot and note that periodic organizational title and staff changes will necessarily after some of the nam-nes and titles before the license transfers are finalized. With respect to Exelon Electric & Gas, as described in the applications mentioned above, the new Board of Directors will be nominated at a ratio of two-thirds by Exelon Corporation and one-third by Public Service Enterprise Group and any change to its officers will be made once the merger is completed. We will provide the names, addresses, and citizenship of the directors and principle officers of Exelon Electric & Gas following consumnmnation of the merger.

6. The assumptions that were used in the development of the projected income statement.

Response

Tables 3 and 4 contain assumptions used in the projected income statement for Exelon Generation post-merger. The net annual mean rating, net capacity factor, refueling outages, and site expenses are provided for the nuclear units.

7. A statement related to the AmerGen submittal confirming that the emergency plans will not be affected by the merger.

Response

The emergency plans for the AmerGen units (i.e., Clinton Power Station, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) will not be required to be revised as a result of the merger. However, with the objective of improving emergency preparedness post-merger, a revision to the emergency plan for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station may be proposed as a result of integrating the Salem and Hope Creek Genterating Stations irto the Exelon GenerationrAmerGen fleet.

2

Exhilit 4

____ ___ ___ ___ ___E xe I(5n Exelon Generation wwv.exeioncoTp.comN 4300 Winfield Road Nuclear

'Avar lvir 11E.1' u 7, RS-05-025 10 CFR 50.90 March 3, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-2, DPR-19 and DPR-25 NRC Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237 and 50-249 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-1 1 and NPF-1 8 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50374 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 NRC Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-12, DPR-44 and DPR-56 NRC Docket Nos. 50-171, 50-277, and 50-273 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 NRC Docket Noss 50-254 and 50-265 Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos- DPR-39 and DPR-48 NRC Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304

Subject:

Application for Approval of License Transfers In accordance with 10 CFR 50.80, "Transfer of licenses," Exelon Generation Company, LLC

E. Environmental Considerations This application, and the accompanying administrative license amendments for Peach Bottom, are exempt from environmental review because they fall within the categorical exclusion of 10 CFR 51.22, "Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review," paragraph (c)(21). This application does no more than request approvals of indirect and direct license transfers and conforming license amendments for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3. Additionally, the proposed license transfers and conforming license amendments do not involve any amendment or other change that would directly affect the actual operation of the facilities involved in any substantive way. The proposed transfers and amendments do not involve an increase in the amounts, or a change in the types, of any radiological effluents that may be allowed to be released off-site, and do not involve any increase in the amounts or change in the types of any non-radiological effluents that may be released off-site. Further, no increase in the individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure is involved.

F. No Significant Hazards Consideration Consistent with the generic determination in 10 CFR 2.1315, 'Generic determination regarding license amendments to reflect transfers," paragraph (a), the proposed license transfers and conforming license amendments for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 involve no significant hazards consideration.

The proposed conforming license amendments for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 also delete specific license conditions relating to the terms and conditions of decommissioning trust agreements in place of these license conditions, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1) will apply. As stated in 10 CFR 50.75(h)(4), deletion of those license conditions involves no significant hazards consideration.

The transfers and proposed amendments do not involve any change in the design or licensing basis, plant configuration, or operation of the referenced nuclear stations. All Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in Technical Specifications remain unchanged. Also, the physical security plans, emergency response plans, operator training and requalification programs, and the quality assurance plans are not substantively and materially changed by the proposed license transfers and amendments, Therefore, the proposed approvals do not: (1) involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from the accidents previously evaluated; or (3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

iV. OTHER REGULATORY APPROVALS AND SCHEDULE The merger is conditioned upon, among other things, the approval by shareholders of both companies and a number of regulatory approvals or reviews by federal and state energy authorities. These include, in addition to the NRC, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Illinois Commerce Commission (notice filing only),

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and either the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission, depending upon which agency reviews the anti-trust aspects of the merger. The companies intend to seek shareholder 6