ML20084R110
| ML20084R110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1984 |
| From: | Smolen H PHILADELPHIA, PA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R102 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8405220155 | |
| Download: ML20084R110 (14) | |
Text
.
i 00CKETED U%RC i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
'84 NAY 21 P!2:15 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES h[.[',$[,
a i
Lawrence Brenner, Chairman j
Dr. Richard F. Cole i
Dr. Peter A. Morris In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 50-353-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY h
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
T i
REVISED ISSUES OF CONCERN OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IN THE AREA 0F EMERGENCY PLANNING i
CITY - 1 Thi: issue of concern combines previously filed City - 1, City - 2 and
(
t City - 6 insofar as they relate to the sampling, prevention and control of the distribution of contaminated foods, foodstuffs and agricultural products into i
I the City of Philadelphia.
1 More specifically, the State Plan fails to designate the Access j
Control Points at which food and agricultural products moving from and through the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ toward and into the City of Philadelphia i
Ingestion Exposure Pathway will be stopped and the food and agricultural products sampled arid tested.
i In this regard, the State had previously represented that at the Access Control Points, State police will perform the function of stopping the movement and thereaf ter, appropriate State officials would test, sample and take d
ir' f
- However, appropriate protective actiong such as impoundment destruction, etc.
the City has been informed that, as of the date of this filing, the Access Control Points have not yet been designated; that such designation will be made by the Counties in the Plume Exposure EPZ; that only main evacuation routes will be manned by State police to perform the required functions; and that at non-evacuation routes, municipal authorities of the Counties within the Plume EPZ will be requested to perform the required functions.
Thus, the State Plan fails to provide adequate protection for the public in the Ingestion Exposure EPZ since it presently lacks any planning to prevent the distribution of contaminated foods, foodstuffs and agricultural Without such a plan, products from entering Philadelphia from the Plume EPZ.
there can be no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR
$$50.47(a), (b) and Ic)(2), and NURm-0654, $II.J,9 and 11.
The standard set forth in 10 CFR 550.47 (a) (2) requirasthat State and local emergency plans be adequate and that there be reasonable assurance that they can be Laplemented.
10 CFR $50.47 (b) (10) specifically imposes the requirement that
... protection actions for the ingestion exposure i
pathway EPZ' appropriate to the locale have been developed.
In 10 CFR $50.47 (c) (2), it is stated that The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such actions as are appropriate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
The planning standards set forth in NUREG-0654, III.A. at pp. 31 et seq.
require, inter alia, that each plan provide for the assignment of responsibilities.for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee and by
4 P
the State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones, and further, that the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations are established and that each principal response organization has I
staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuing basis.
f NUREG-0654, TII.J.11 at p. 64 provides that 1,
Each State shall specify the protective measures to be used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protecting the public from consumption of contaminated foodstuffs...The plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination, for estimating the dose commitment j
consequences of uncontrolled, ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion and preservation.
i-The State Plan, in its present form, fails to specify Access Control i
Points where foods, foodstuffs and agricultural products moving from and through l
i the Plume EPZ toward and into Philadelphia will be stopped, sampled, tested and, 3
if necessary, impounded and destroyed.
Instead, the State. intends to rely on i
the Plume Counties to designate those points sometime in the future.
As to i
manning these points, the State will only man the main evacuation routes, and j
This is i
will rely on the Plume Counties for manning the non-evacution routes.
?
j totally inadequate since there is no assurance that Access Control Points will ever be designated; that they will be adequate; and 'that the Counties will be willing to, and have the resources to man the non-evacuation routes and perform i
1 3
)
the required functions. Thus, there is no assurance that adequate protection measures can and will be taken to protect the public.
I i
CITY - 3 The State Plan provides for sampling and notification associated with t
water contamination (Appendix 17, llIII, 2; IV, B and C), but does not provide T
sufficient and adequate guidance for:
' j
l l
~
(a) protecting existing sg plios from contmaination (b) preventing the use of contaminated m eer (c) alternative sources of water for the City of Philadelphia.
l
'1he thrust of the City's concern here is that the State Plan does not contain a proper and adequate water trer pmt model. Moreover, the Plan contemplates measurement of Schuylkill River water contamination at too late a stage; does not provide for an alternative source of water for Philadelphia; and does not i
t contain a decontamination plan. All of these items are hereiriafter more fully discussed. 'Ihus, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate pro-i tective actions can and will be taken in the event of a radiological
{'
emergency as required under 10 CFR $ 50.47 (a), (b) and (c)(2).
j NUIEG-06%, $I.D., Planning Basis, b, Ingestion Exposure Pathway, page 4
10, specifically provides, inter.alia, that "(f)or the ingestion exposure
{
pathway, the planning effort involves the identification of major exposure pathways from contaminated food and water and the associated control and interdiction points and methods."
l Moreover, NURErcO6%,Section II. J at' page 59 requires, inter alia, i
that "(g)uidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, 4
consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place and protective i
actions for the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ ayyivpriate to the locale have been developed."
Ebrther, NJREG-06%,Section II, J.11 at page 64 provides, inter. alia, i
}
that '.'(t)he Plan shall identify procedures for detecting contamination, for i
estimating dose canniement consequences of uncontrolled ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impourdnent, decontamination, processing, i'
decay', product diversion and preservation."
A water transport model of the Schuylkill River from the Limerick site i
to the City of Philadelphia's water system intakes is necessary to fulfill <
. this mandate. '.'Ihe State and County response organizations nust be able to accurately t
1
,,.y.,
_I 3- -. -n
.mv.,..,,..
+ ~ ~. - _ _,.. -.
predict the inpact and consequenc:s on Philadelphia's water supply cf any "non-routine" liquid discharge and/or contaminants frczn precipitation or run-off after an accident. This model is required in order for ayyivyciate emergency measures to be inplemented.
Althotsh the State recognizes the inportance of such a model and has requested PECO to supply same, a proper and sufficient model has not yet Without been supplied, nor incorporated or provided for in the State Plan.
a yivper water transport model, the State Plan fails to demonstrate.the capability and means of implementing reasonable protective measures. Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that pronpt effective action can and will be taken to protect the public.
10CFR$5b.47(a),(b)and(c)(2).
Under date of May 15, 1984, PECO did submit to the City an analysis of the effect of a liquid release from the Limerick Generating Station. This l
analysis, however, does not and cannot be a substitute for a proper and sufficient water transport model. The PECO analysis, inter alia, does not provide a model by which the City can predict the concentration of radioactive contaminants at the City's water intakes under various hydrologic and climatic conditions under a variety of radiological discharges at Limerick.
In addition, the PE00 subnission fails to deal with precipitation or run-off of radiological contaminants released into the air. Further, inasmuch as the PECO analysis is a highly technical doctsnent, it requires additional time to have it reviewed, studied and analyzed. Other serious deficiencies may be discovered upon further technical analysis, and the City respectfully requests and reserves the right to raise those deficiencies inchis proceeding,.
Moreover, the State Plan is inadequate in the area of monitoring, sampling and testing Scluylkill River water. More particularly, the State has preliminarily defined an " abnormal discharge" into the Schuylkill at i
Limerick as one where the Maxintsn Pemissible Concentration of radiological J
5
contaminants could occur at the outfall of the Limerick Plant.
It is only at this stage that the State contenplates ccmnencement of monitoring, sampling, testing and reporting, despite the fact that the State recognizes arxl has stated that such an "abnomal discharge" could result in a concentra-tion at the City Water Department's intakes of approximately the U.S.
EPA Safe Drinking Water Interim Standards. 'Ihis means that the City of Philadelphia could be in violation of the Jafe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
$ 300 f et seq.,'should the concentration of radiological contaminants exceed the above-mentioned standards.
Clearly, analysis by the state should be initiated at a significantly lower discharge concentration. That is to say, measurement and analysis of a discharge should ccmnence whenever the potential impact on the City's water intakes could result in a significantly lower percentage of the maximan pennissible concentration.
'Iherefore, the State Plan is inadequate because it calls for measurement to ecmnence den the maxirun pe:mtssible ' concentration could be reached. 'Ihus, there is no reasorable assurance that a<!cquate protective actions can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Moreover, to be legally adequate, the State Plan nust be based upon the protective action guides (PAGs) and other criteria referred to in NURIT,-0654 at Section 11, J. 9 at page 61 and at page 6, footnote 3.
The PAG guides are set forth with specificity at page 1.30 of the Kant$al of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents, T.D. -12 September 1981, miA (" PAG Hanual") and reccmnend action in the Ingestion Exposure Pathway, as follows:
APPROXIMATE INITIATION TIME EMSURE PA'I1MAY ACTION TO BE INITIATED 4-48 hours Drinking Water cut off contaminated supplies, lubstitute frcm other sources 12-14 days Drinking Water Filter, domineralize As to water control, the PAC Kinual (pp. 1.47,1.48) provides that the planner consider protective actions to :
- 1. Prevent contamination - In this regard, a water transport model is crucial.
6
-.:. j
,y
,7l 7 9 y
.ju
,,; e 7
g 9 y..j ry
i i,
2.
Decontaminate water - Although on May 14, 1984 the State supplied some written references on this subject, the State Plan makes no I
provision for water supply and water system decontamination, nor has it been i
demonstrated that the State has the capability or resources to perform said 4
functions. Thisissue is discussed in more detail in City-7.
s 3.
Condemn use of water for consumption - No alternative supply or prediction of the period of contamination is in place to date.
4.
Provide alternative sources - In this regard, the State i
The State 1
Plan does not provide alternative sources of water for Philadelphia.
j has correctly recognized this as a problem and did arrange a conference on 1
May 14, 1984 of officials from the City Water Department and two (2) suburban l
water companies, together with representatives of the State Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Management and Radiation Protection, j
At that time various optione were discussed, i.e.,
interconnections, water b
trucks, preliminary studies, resources, etc.
The State is considering development of a plan as to how Philadelphia 1
could be provided with an alternative water supply, the costs thereof, the resources available. The State will request PECO to participate in the effort.
Nevertheless, at the present time, no provision or plan exists for an alternate l.
water supply for Philadelphia.
5.
Ration Supplies - In this regard, the State Plan does not provide a plan for rationing water.
l 6.
Substitution of other beverages - The State Plan does not t
consider or to uske provision for such substitution.
j See 7.
Importing water from other uncontaminated area -
discussion under (4) above. (Provide alternative sources) 1 7
.--w----
--e.
..~,..
, -,, ~..
.y--
-,,.------,w.
.,-w
.--,-.,,---e.,
-e a
l>i 4
- 8. ' Designation of-critical users - In this regard, the State Plan is likewise silent.
~
Thus, the City has a continuing, concern regarding these issues since the Plan does not provide reas'onable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be takea as required by 10 CFR 550.47 and NUREG-0654.
CITY - 4 Withdrawn i
,f
'r CITY - 5 Withdrawn' e
CITY - 6 Withdrawn CITY - 7 The State Plan does not provide adquate guidance'for recovery actions.
More specifically, the~ State'Plin does not rEovide guidance or information and
,r#
makes no provision for decontamination of the City's water supply and water This is discussed under City 3 abSve.
i distribution system.
Appendix #18 bf-tte State Plan, entitled-Re-entry and [ Recovery, is v.
silent on this point. Appendix 12, Section'12.3, Recovery, discusses reinstatementofmilk,produceandwater,butdoesnotprovidA,for
~
decontamination of water supplies and water distribttioS system, nor does it v
provide assurance that resources are available to implement such a recovery t.
Thus, the State Plan fails to comply with the planning standard of action.
NUREG-0654,Section II, M. (p. 70) wh' ch requires planning for recovery be developed.
~
Nothing contained in 10 CFR S 50.47.;. (b) (13) relieves the State of y.s (
That recovery planning, responsibil'ity 'in thef 'ngestion Exposure Pathway.
I Section provides as follow ~: 7'<
\\
~
u (b) The onsite and, except' as provided in paragraph-(d) of this section, offsite emergency
~
response rians for nuclear power reactors must
~
meet the f611oving standards:*
4 s
'+f O
\\
9 (13) General. plans for ygc,overygand reentry _
J are developed.
fp 1
8 l
,/
s.
?"*
s
-~__
Moreover, NUREG-0654,Section II.J.11 at p. 64 specifically provides, inter alia, that the plan shall identify procedures for decontamination and processing. As aforesaid, the PAG Manual at page 1.30 refers to demineralization of drinking water as a protective action.
In addition, at pp.
1.49 and 1.50 of the PAG Manual, decontamination of water, milk and food is a recommended restorative action (PAG Manual, Section 1.6.3.9, c., pp. 1.48, 1.49 and 1.50). The PAG Manual further states that The movement of radionuclides along several pathways involving milk, food and water may result in prolonged contamination. :Each of these elements may require processing to remove radiocative contaminants prior to consumption.
In each case, the rationuclide concentrations would be reduced to levels 'as low as practicable' commensurate with treatment costs.
(p. 1.49, 1.50 PAGs)
The State Plan does not provide for decontamination and gives no consideration to costs of treatment'and the availability and willingness of the While I
State to provide and/or obtain the financial resources for-this function.
funding and technical assistance are not directly addressed in NUREG-0654, nevertheless, it is recognized in the document. Thus, at p. 25 it is stated, i
inter alia, that funding and technical assistance
... is a subject which must be discussed between the individual nuclear facilities and the involved ~
State and local governments who must prepare emergency plans to support the nuclear facilities.
The nuclear utility may have an incentive based on t
l
_its own self-interest as well as its respon-i sibility to provide' electric power, to assist in
~
providing manpower, items of equipment,-or other resources that the State and local governments may need but are unable to provide.
CITY - 8 Withdrawn.
l
-9
CITY - 9 There is presently no agreement, as required, between PECO and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania identifying "the emergency measures to be mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation" and specifying "the arrangement for exchange of information."
This Agreement is required under NUREG-0654, $ II.A.3. (p. 32) which provides, with respect to both the Plume and Ingestion Exposure Pathways, as follows:
Each Plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of operations developed between Federal, State and local agencies and other support organizations having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones.
The agreement shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of information.
[Empnasis supplied]
The City is concerned, since without an emergency measures and implementation agreement, there is no assurance that the protective measures can be implemented by the Commonwealth and the local agencies and other support organizations in an emergency. Thus, there is no assurance that the Plan can and will be implemented as required by 10 CFR 50.47 (a) and (b)(3). See alsa NUREG-0654 5 II.B.9. (p. 39) and S II.L.l. (p. 69).
CITY - 10 Withdrawn.
CITY - 11 Withdrawn.
CITY - 12 Withdrawn.
WHEREFm E, The City of Philadelphia requests the following:
1 1.
That the aforesaid issues and concerns be included within the scope of the instant proceeding ;-and 10
2.
h t this Honorable Board require that the emergency plans encompassing the City of Philadelphia be amended'and revised in a manner consistent with the aforesaid concerns.
3.
he this Honorable Board find that the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan-Annex E, in its present form, is inadequate in those areas hereinabove mentioned, as relates to the City of Philadelphia, and that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and #111 be taken in the event of a radiological emergency; 4.
Such other action as this Honorable Board deems necessary and just to ensure the safety of the citizens of Philadelphia.
CITY OF PHI 1ADELPHIA BARBARA W. MATHER, City Solicitor TYLER E. WREN, Divisional Deputy City Solicitor MARTHA W. BUSH, Deputy City Solicitor i
HERBERT SMOLEN, Leputy City Solicitor-1 HERBERT SMOLEN
-l Date: May 18, 1984
-. 11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ATOMIC SAFE 1Y AND LICENSING BOARD JNkc" BERRE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES Lawrence Brenner, Chairman P/2:;5 Dr. Richard F. Cole crg Dr. Peter A. Morris CCCl[r5 q v.
gg nr.
In the Matter of:
PHI 1ADELPHIA ELECIRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS.
50-352-OL 50-353-OL (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Revised Issues of Concern of the City of Philadelphia in the Area of Emergency Planning in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following persons named on the attached service list by hand delivery or by Federal Express Mail, or by causing the same to be deposited in envelopes _ addressed to said persons, first class, postage prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.
Respectfully submitted, I
_ =
HERBERT SM0lIN, Deputy City Solicitor i
Dated: May 18, 1984 l
,?
SERVICE LIST Honorable lawrence Bremer (FE)
Mr. Frank R. Romano Administrative Law Judge 61 Forest Avenue Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cm mission Washington, D. C.
20555 Honorable Richard F. Cole (FE)
Mr. Gregory Minor Administrative law Judge M{B Technical Associates Atanic Safety & Licensing Boarti 1723 Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D. C. 20555 Honorable Peter A. Morris (FE)
Eugene J. Bradley Administrative Law Judge Philadelphia Electric Cmpany Atomic Safety & Licensing Boarti Associate General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission 2301 Market Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Docketing & Service Section Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Office of the Secretary Vice-President & General Counsel U. S. I;uclear Regulatory Cm mission Philadelphia Electric Capany Washington, D. C. 20555 2301 Market Street Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire (FE)
O.E.L.D.
Mr. Vincent Boyer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Senior Vice President Washington, D. C. 20555.
Nuclear Operations Philadelp11a Electric Company Mark Wetterbahn, Esquire (FE) 2301 Market Street Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Nils N. Nicholas, Esquire Conner & Wetterhahn Mr. J. T. Robb, N2-1 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Philarialphia Electric Cmpany Washington, D.C. 20006 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Robert L. Anthony 103 Vernon Lane Honorable lawrence Coughlin Moyland, Pennsylvania 19065 House of Reprecentatives Corgress of the United Sta'tes Phyllis Zitzer Washington, D.C. 20515 Limerick Ecology Action Po r Office Box 761 Frank Hippart, Director Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Pennsylvania Energency Management Agency 3-151 Zori G. Ferkin (FE)
'D ansportation and Safety Building.
Assistant Counsel Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Governor's Energy Council 1625 North Front Street Roger B. Reynold, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 8010 324 Swede Street Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17125 Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401
.-m
~
i Timothy R. S. Canpbell Mr. Marvin I.14wis Department of Energency Serives 6504 Bradford Terrace 14 East Biddle Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380 Frederic M. Wentz Comty Solicitor County of Montgcznery Courthouse Norristown, Pemsylvania 19404 Angus love, Esquire 101 East Main Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 8 North Warner Avenue Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010 Robert L. Sugarman, Esquire Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 Charles W. Illiott, Esquire 1101 Building Easton, Pennsylvania 18042 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel Federal Snergency Managment Agency Room 840 500 C. Street, S. W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 U. S. N. R. C. Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Thomas Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Dept. of Envirormental Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building Third & Iocust Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Washington, D. C. 20555 i-9