ML20084E733

Petition for Reconsideration of Ruling on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions.Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20084E733
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/28/1984
From:	Zitzer P LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405020492
Download: ML20084E733 (9)

Text

gri4 .

00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UDE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TI!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR $4 NSY ~2 A10:2<4 CFn0E N SECh7 In the Matter of  : 00critivit. $EP!"1

:DANCu PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY  :

Docket Nos. *0-352"O L'

.0-353

OL (Limerick Generating Station,  :

Units 1 and 2)  :

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF "0FFSITE" EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS FILED BY LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION Limerick Ecology Action (LEA), the lead intervenor on "offsite" emergency planning contentions in this proceeding respectfully requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reconsider its denial of the following contentions:

LEA-10, LEA-16, and LEA-26 In addition, LEA seeks a clarification of LEA-14, as more fully discussed in this filing. This request is in response to the Special Prehearing conference order served on April 23, R984.

LEA-10 On page 49 of the Board's ruling, it states, '"The S-taff, Applicant and the Commonwealth _all oppose admission _of these_ two contentions."h(LEA-10 and LEA-17) "It was LEA-10 that most imclined

_ub to consider deferring ruling on some of LEA's c o n t e n t ions: . "

The Board's Order further states, "Were we to litigate every item, even every sort of item, 1,isted in the many pages LEA

• attached to these two contentions, the litigation of the two would know mo

. bounds!'. The bottom of page 50 states that LEA failed to tell the

' Board exactly what it wanted to litigate in its suppiamentary filing of March 14, 1984. Therefore, LEA-10 is denied for lack of basis and specificity.

LEA feels compelled to ask the Board to review the transcript from the March 6, 1984 hearing in Philadelphia and respectf ully ref ers the Board to the following passages: '

8405020492 840420 V

• /

PDR ADOCK 05000352 PDR O

(TR 7736 lines 21-25 and continuing to TR 7737)

(Zi$ler:) " 'a' e would seek to be abic to litigate our concerns about the particular plans that have been listed here- and generally --

i well, I would hope that by the time we have litigation, we will have additional revisions of these plans that will provide a lot of this information...."

(TR 7738, line 25 and TR 7739, lines 1-6)

(FeYkin:) " Commonwealth, for the reasons I just s ta ted , would not object to the admissibility of the contention. Th c kind of detail that LEA provides here does provide the s oor t of information that could be litigated..."

(TR 7746, lines 24 & 25)

(Zi5$er:) "We never intended to litigate everything."

(TR 7747 to 7749 is a discussion of the reas oning f or deferral of contentions where information is still b cing developed)

Jud (BrennEer:) "llowe ve r , there seems to be s till areas withrin the draft plans--

not unexpectedly I suppose -- where there axe things to be developed. The significance of those things. to be developed .

is not ascertainable by this Board at this time. And in fact, it is probably not readily ascertainable by any of the parties, I will submit, because it is a function not- only of the indivi-dual items, but of the cumulative nature o f' the i tems . . . ."

4 (TR 7750 discusses the possibility of negoti ations to resolve items currently under development and in LE.A's view directly suggests that....(lines 16 & 17) and (lines. 23-25 and TR 7751) 1 " LEA X (LEA-10) would be one example we wou:1d put in that category..... On the other hand, perhaps rat admitting a contention now, but providing something later for the contention

to come back in, such as f urther development of a plan. But we are concerned that that method has some problems in terms of prejudicing LEA's interest, when they hnve in fact filed an otherwise admissible contention now. Whuch contentions contend lack of specificity is due to the lack of development of a plan, and not LEA's own fault in not specifying. So that's the problem."

Page 50 of the Board's Order implies that the Board was expecting LEA to discuss LEA-10 in its Supplementary Filing of Harch 14, 1984. While LEA was permitted to submit information relating to LEA-17 at that time, LEA was never instructed to provide additional information about LEA-10.

Furthermore, at the March 6th. hearing in Philadelphia, LEA attempted to olaborate its concerns about the-importance of items marked "TBD", par-ticularly with regard to medical facilities, and at that time was asked not to go through all the examples. (TR 7734 .line 18).

t Based on the discussion of the possibility of deferral of some of LEA's contentions which took place with LEA-10 cited as an example, LEA did not request any additional opportunity to provide suppicmental information on LEA-10. LEA expected the ruling on admissibility to be

! deferred pending respecification,af ter additional information was j available.

LEA hereby respectfully requests the Licensing Board to grant 4 its request for reconsideration of the ruling to deny LEA-10. We do not believe that the record in this proceeding would be burdened by such a decision, and wish to remind the Board of the record of

i. LEA's willingness to withdraw contentions that h ave bee'n s a tis fied . ~

' LEA firmly believes that unnecessary litigation is not in the best interests of any party to this proceeding; particularly for an all l'

volunteer organization such as LEA. We believe that such a decision would contribute to the development of a thorough record in this

] proceeding, in the event th a t any significant items still remained at the time appropriate for litigation.

]

We also wish to point out that the schedule for delivery of the supplemental filing to Washington D.C. on March 14th. did not allow

for significant discussion of LEA-17 with other parties. This was j because LEA had to spend 3 days (one included a snow storm which j resulted in the closing of all state offices) trying to compile a j list of day care and pre-school centers within the EPZ, as had been  !

i requested by the Board. This effort required trips to libraries in

] 3 counties at the same time that LEA was having discussions with PEMA i

on other contentions as well, most of which had to take place over j the weekend of March 12th. LEA is not trying to make excuses for

the fact that LEA-17 was not respecified further, but feels obligated

_ to establish that every possible effort was made to carry out the l Board's request.

l j LEA-14 LEA is stated to have withdrawn portions of this contention, 4 occording to page 63 of the Board's Ordor. The portion that was intended

, to be referred to by LEA has to deal

• with whether or not there is a l need to have a training' criteria' and ' accountability' program in the l actual plans; and not the issue of whether or not the training itself

is adequate. New information relating to the concerns of school district

! officials about the adequacy of training has recently become available.

! (See attached article containing statements f rom Upper Perkiomen School

] District of ficials) The adequacy of training remains a concern to LEA.

1 LEA-16 LEA is equally conc [rned that the inadequacies becoming appearant in the. training programs for public schools will also apply to the private schools, a concern that may be appropriately covered by LEA-14, which

has been admitted. LEA wishes to point out that there is a factual j dispute 'ab o u t the ' authorship' of the private school plans that have

, been drawn u. LEA has attached a list of the school plans that have

{ the wordo " prepared by" written on the cover. LEA disagrees with the characterization made by the Applicant and referred to by the Board on

~

the bottom of page 67. "We note that many private s chools . . . .hava d rawn up their own plans." LEA's concerns about thi's issue are discussed i in LEA-1, a mat ter which we are hope that all parties are aware of.

(i.e. Plans have been developed by Energy Consultants, Inc.)

i

RADIOLOGICAL EMERCEldCY RESPONSE PLANS (I:ERP'SJ FOR S CI!OOLS TilAT llAVE THE WORDS " PREPARED EY"'LISIED ON Tile COVER:

Downingtown Area Schnol D i s t r4 c t-1 Great Valley School District (LEA-16)

Owen J. Roberts School District (Chesco)

Phoenixville Area School District

-l Northern Chester Co. Technical School i Holy Trinity School Saint Ann School St. Rasil the Great School St. Joseph Kindergarten St. Mary of the Assumption Kimberton Farm School Liberty Forge School Upattinas Open Community School Valley Forge Christian Academy Valley Forge Christian College St. Gabriel's Hall Methacton School District

Perkiomen Valley School District Pottsgrove School District Pottstown School District i Souderton Area School District Spring-Ford Area School Dsitrict Upper Perkiomen School District Western Montgomery County Aren Vocational Technical School .., ,

Sacred Heart School St. Aloysius School St. Eleanor School St. Gabriel School St. Mary's School St. Peter's School St. Pius X High School Bright Spet Kindergnrten l

Chapel Christian Academy Collegeville Montessori Academy Greater Pottstown Christian Aenelemy j The Hill School New Life and Family Services, Inc.

Twin Acres Country Day School West-Mont Christian Academy Wyndcroft School Boyertown Area School District Daniel Boone Area School District ,

Lincoln School Montessori Academy of Pennsylvania Pine Forge Academy Pine Porge S.D.A. Elementary School Wayside Christian School, Inc. ,

u..

.. N f

> . -r -

l Y : \,th V i I Tf : IT,i VYi,!

j i'. 's M. 3 Yyi 's

% ";; V.:- .

? %l

. P) Nb $'

A Gannett Newspaper 1 Ud& &1 Y w per cepy aa nseesa sePage Sett& ike l!pper tklamek Yilley Sines l$99 y,g,,,g,y, y,,,g 33, ygg.)

Schoo officials claim no training given for

" ~

By W ATTARDO Bigebw's star , n, s comes on the Rhle this marmgency is not the heelsof twootherproblems which thel case at the present time, there wasga .

a Saa!! Wrtser .,%

district has faced regard ng the raa W regardlag the rumor. A g p g GAM Upper Perk- eM mMHal' ca.a s1 evesation plans Er! borough Township of5ctalwent so 3 m W w EE EUEE are 6putzag a statement issud by the Last vnaarb sapermaendent Dr. - ~

anery Camry OtSce of % far as to say at a pubhc meeting that ? "I wiulil not say that was tralalag. I ency PrW m that dut thosnas E. Persing q=,<tiaand the the high school was now inchded in don t raaM-r myself trained " Train-morseg of a draft evacmtw= plan far the evacuation contingency. ir.g* is not correct .as far as I'm P=manel kase beca tmmed h as emergency a the event of a anclear the Upper Perk =chaaN On the enver The EOP press release pubushed in concerned."

of a plan was the ctalm " Prepared by- Town and Country on Erch 7 stated at Pcuer M coger Perkwmen schocJ Distnet r that trainint based on emera Fry agreed with Bonekemper's and

-**at M ta a prus When the wording was ela,mwad, plans bemg prepared by countF Dietzel's assettlos "That's er-

• • '*" h YEOP M"'_v A I.ladley roneous " said Fry. ht's not true.

that the plan was *"prepard by" the beal governmental units, consists of The Mw. claans that trainine has., =chut district when to fact the distnet informatba relattag to the effects and

- y gave as some ldormatloa."

• • d 8' ""' 88-had had Ettle to do with the draft At the mah Co[ EOP measurement of rasation as weH as Bigelow and a maalarans A

drs school y p[,,,,,, ,wmi agr ha t0

,,,?, M@ hookap met trasa throughcat the cauary " Acet.r *

• to the three district '

that the plan shoidd M "pepared But three Unser Pert ad- 8x " % contactd the ani% of ofhetals. school personnel were given a_

evacuoua as k mi ntrators - Dr Cenr8' the drgt A Energy thw Inc. "presertaun' on the plans and, in the p ,w g g g

P Bo s e k em per. assistaat s uper- of **'15 Of Y """~'*'""*f- "we don't says M has begun radio-l I ar.re-Jc - FreJ o Egete anna =+--' who agreed to %

th W on h drdts rormaer that traman,- emergency respana* training to i

priset;al; aad Aatke,Y Frr- Bonekeeper Arzt ca===*ats.d about esmergency organizatacas should m ordica m et eminar ===-===nr m m pm - with h ,

pians aM -r= hash schno3 anacs- e of a tamp on whach the drMt. the EOP press release on Monday. occur at the I.imnick pises were M Unta a few weeks- "tve* of our people sock some Organisations acheduled le re-

• paa - say e.ere has been me such e training t* " ' m the W " circle d evaca. *EtePtion to that " he said. "They fire, police,

' m ed not n= hwie Upper Hanover didn't think they were trained." '"C"*- 8"*'38"CY ""d' Pebile A2 ttree school affmh naug=tems r

TW k as errr,t g a p ,g .!knekstriper said that Emergency works personnel, county and munid-i the EOP sra,-wer sayinggit was

.. a mule was found ce the maps and g,A,,,, Inc. put on a program for pal N and staff, employes of behe fac9 ties, communicatta=

.f t b 7 pen; gcorrect . y as far as a larger area d Pper the Haasver Township was tartadad la the - - - day._

, - M W a hbruary dispatches and those associated la the 1 I'" 'W esmergency anne. The Upper Perha the staff did not consider the program

. _ said that .

! At ass =e a the Aspute is - % ,,8*8' y .

Upper Pert- e hama m ames Insh School is lacasad la the - to be "a trainlag session" addsag, -

l; tem and staff h % herough d Red hie het a senaB ares "How could we be tralmed when the ei the sekwl estricts lead Eas la Anal plaa hasn't besa accepted yet and to be emned weg enomgin to hanSe pr + 2,a-. that magtt arw ennag a adjacent Upper llenover Township. we are sti!Iin a state of Sat. Training asetear accidest. In additica. Rasnor spread that the Upper is more than jisst gevlag leformaastam "

I)6etsel said the W d'w.

i larhmind ks the Est of wheak to be aat program was a " pre maastam -

, evemated la the ewest of a anclear

School has 'no tram. .mg, -

(Caestseed frees page 1)

Seid of agriculture- '

Bigelow and his assistant aald that Fry said the high school conW be tragatag differed with each group. i used as a host school for students from ,

Dey repeated that Upper Park "has the Montgarnery County Vo Tech in been tralmed "

1 Limerick. But legal agreements for the "I can't say if they weren't in

• boet school plan and a proposed mass assendance," he added, - care center have not been signed by Beelde the taeve of what cometitutes the school district making neither adequate training for a nuclest ernerg- anal Fry ernphastaed ency, high school prtndpal Fred Fry sew he wtB perudpete in the D6etsel naW the draft plan be beard dedelon on whether or not Green Lane reviewed during the presentation was Elernentary la to be evacuated in the "imponenble." event of a nuclear acddent. Fry said "De plan did not make sense," he his recommendadon wouW be based enid. "It was so complicated I can't on a decision by Marlborough Town-

{

romsonher it. I told them it was ship officials whether or not the ,

kaposelble." townshm wtU partidpate in drafting Dietaal said the plan caDed for emerke ty plans. (Green Lane .

someone to announce, through the Elementary is located Marlborough.!

high school latercom, that Lirnerick "They way they go wouW determine was havtag an emergenc7- wut we do," he said, "Can you imastoe the psale," he Fry said Limerick's avectsauon *

' sand. "If you have to think in a crials pinas are a long way from compleuon.

situation it is not going to work." "We're dealing with a very comples D6etsel crtudsed the draft sartag a problem. These are drafts and there more " practical" plan was naded. wu! be mistakes made along the way,"

uktag the situation to a Dre drill. be said. "It's like war you have to e adjust to the situation."

Dietsel aand school evacuouons work h==naa they are simple, practiced and as automatic response. , ,

"'Dey (the planners) have to de-velop a plan where you deal with people who might get emodonal. The procedure they were out!!ning to me was completely impossible," be said.

Each school official laterviewed emphaelsed that the plans are only in -

draft form and that no action can be taken metti they are approved by the Upper Peruomen SchoolBoard aftera public meetlag.

But many of basic poestbilities that might cecur tA the event of a wide spread nuclear evacuation have not I been agreed upon though the planisla a third draft.

While it is generaDy agreed (at this .

theel that the Upper Portiomen High school wouW act be eyecuated la ,.

evoet of an emergency, there are stiu queedoes regarding Green Laae Elenentary School and the use of the hig.: school as a toiocation conter.

i t

Bigenew saW lt is up to the school district to decide whether or not to everunte Green lane Elementary. He 1 also said that there is a proposal for the i high school to become a relocauon ,

conter for emergency services.

i

\

• f LEA-26 LEA requests reconsideration of the Board's decision to deny i

parts of this contention. While the Board finds that there is no liti-gable issue or deficiency cited by LEA about the prroposed airen cystem, LEA disagrees and attempted to bring these c:o n c e rns to the Doard's attention during the March 7th, hearing. LE.'A's concern's about " coverage" of the CPZ cannot be made more spec:1fic until additional information is made available. (TR 8119, lines 14 to 19)

We have no way to know if there are any ' gaps' in chie siren coverage until we are provided with information showing where sirens are to be installed. (TR 8117, lines 10-15). Local zohing clisputes remain I

unsettled, to the best of our knowledge. ,

LEA-26 questions the offectiveness of ' r o u t e -- a l e r t i n g ' as a

method of prompt notification in the event of a kn.own siren system failure. No party to this proceeding has disputed LEA's concern about the inoperability of the siren system resulting f rom a loss of AC power. (TR 8123, 8124) Applicant states that route mlerting is to be used as a backup measure in the event that the sf rens are inoper-able. (TR 8120).

It is likely that a large number of the sironis would be inoperable at once, due to a loss of AC power. Eventis that cause the failure of electrical power to the plant (thus c ausing or contributing to an accident) will also cause the f ai:1ure of the siren system. It is therefore important that the ef f eectiveness of

• l ' route alerting' be evaluated as not only a 's u p p le mton t a ry ' notifi-cation system, but as the primary prompt no tifica tioin me thod in the event of a loss of AC power, or in the alternative, tthat some other 1

supplementary notification method be available. Basent on the Limerick SARA, it is estimated that accident sequences involv; lng a loss of offsite power contribute to 25% (or one in four) accftdents leading to core malt. Of the 17 " dominant" accident acquenceM. 3 of tho top 6 and 4 of the top 9 arquences are s'aused by or ilnvolve a loss t

of offaite power. A significant f raction of such acefldents (about j

40%) invoive carthquakes in which the recovery of of ffsite power in time to prevent an accident is unlikelyt moreover, smch events would have a significant chance of cauaing accidenta in botth Limerick reactors. (Source: LCS-SARA, pages 12-23 thru 12-25)

The contention also states th a t ,"_t h e re is no de iso n s t ra t e d ndequate means to provide (early notification and) e Jear ins t ructions to the ooDulace within the. plum. Exponura EpZ". WhiTm this subject would also fall undcr the list of items "to be devaleped". LEA discussed this concern briefly at the hearing on March 7th. (TDI 8118, 11nos 9 to 13) At that time, we belioved that this would be contained in one of the contentions that would be admitted or def erred. However, cince LEA-10 was not admitted, this subject is no longer covered by any of LEA's admitted (or deferred) contentions. Without this information, the general public will lack any understanding of the meaning of the activation of the stren system, and will not know that they arc oupposed to turn on an EBS radio station. These ins t ruc tions must be understood by the general public in ordor for protec tive measures to be implomontable.

8

Docket No. 50-352

$0-353 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that Limerick Ecology Action's Patiedon f or s Reconsideration of the Atomic Safety and Licensing *arrd's Ruling on the admissibility of offsite emergency planning contentions and a Notice o'f Withdrawal of Appearance from Phy111e Zitzer, . . . . . .

on behalf of Limerick Ecology Action, have been served upon all parties to this proceeding on April 28th., 1984 by deposit in the United States mail.(first class, postage prepaid)

Respectfully submitted, n y v pyllisZitzer April 28, 1984 cc Service List e

O e

4 0

t

l l

l i

) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hh5 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 184Y ~2 4 crn;g e.. ,.

In the Matter of  :

00cxt yjgf, f yg*g,g,,

8 Docket Nos. 50-352 8'3ANCH  ;

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, e i

1 Units 1 and 2)  :

1

.l 4

{ UITilDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE 1

i Notice is hereby given that the undersigned withdraws ,

her appearance in the above captioned matte r. Limertick j Ecology Action will designate an appropriate re p la c.e me n t j . as soon as possible. S e r v i c e_ o f _ n.JJ _ i n f_o r_m. t,,l o n p r e va c n t l y 1

t b e i n r. s e r.t t o___L i me r i ck C c o l n_g v A c t i o.) _nt thc_ addree>n below i

should continua. Thin re f e rs__in part icular to all emiersency

]

a

$1anning related information,

! Respectfully submitted.

E Phy1Yis Zit se r 1

i Limerick EcoloAy Action l P.O. Box 761 (76 2 Queen Street)

Pottstown. Pa. 19464 215-326 9122 .

i l

, April 26, 1984

d

. ..,.. . . .w.w.....a.. . . . .

- - .m

, a w . .~.:.** .

t,.,.

l 4- f

O f C1 (h

.. .-- .-

\ LlD i. f s~

,o W s

,e**

s

.)A >h $_ . .

M

,======"*

6

_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _