ML20117P001
| ML20117P001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1985 |
| From: | Zitzer P LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-044, CON-#285-44 NUDOCS 8505200342 | |
| Download: ML20117P001 (20) | |
Text
-
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CMETED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD USNRC
'85 MAY 17 A11:08 In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352
$$[Ck 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE ASLB'S ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR THE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (LEA), lead intervenor on offsite emergency planning issues in the above captioned proceeding, hereby respectfully moves the Appeal Board for a Stay of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Third Partial Initial Decision on Offsite Emergency Planning which authorizes the issuance of a full power operating license for the Limerick Generating Station. LEA received a copy of the ASLB Decision indicating it was served on May 7,1985, and isiresponding to the Board's Order through a Notice of Appeal filed on May 15, 1985 (previously served on the parties) and by the filing of this request for a stay of the Board's Order.
Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Q 2.788(a), LEA has responded with the required 10 days from service.
Respectfullysubmitte4 May 16, 1985 PhylliT Zitzer President of Limerick Ecology Action g5200342050516 ADOCK 05000352 g
PDR Y
2 9
h ThefThird Partial Initial Decisic'n on Offsite Emergency Planning does not address LEA's Findings of Fact which are soundly based on the evidentiary record relevant to the admitted contentions. In other cases, the ASLB does not' explain the basis or the reasoning for the inferences it draws which are not supported by the record.
This Motion for a Stay of the ASLB Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Full Power Operating License (above 5% of rated power) includes a discussion of s;veral issues which LEA will develop further in its Brief in Support of Appeal.
A full and exhaustive presentation of all grounds for appeal cannot be made within the time and space constraints of this Motion.
In particular, due to the remaining deficiencies identified by FEMA as still unresolved, LEA will clearly establish that the proposed!!1ocal RERP's (the vast majority of which are not adopted or accepted by the respective local jurisdictions) do not provide a basis for making a predictive finding that there is reasonable assurance that protective measures can an'd will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick.
The lack of available and adequate cooling water in the Schuylkill River during the current drought emergency make it impossible for PECO to carry out its testing program it the present time. Full consideration of LEA's Appeal and Granting l
a. Stay of the ASLB Decision Authorizing the Issuance of a Full Power Operating License will not cause irreparable harm to the Applicant, who is prevented in any case, from embarking on a full power testing program at this time due to insufficient
- );,
~'
-t 3 : > S,
- Q.
t F
s u.h -
m 1
y x
i c.nd unstable water supply,' at-a minim'um, pending action by the Delaware River n
/, %I Basin Commission:to allocate and ' approve the use of additional temporary water g
[forL Philadelphia' Electric's'use at Limerick, beyond that already approved under r,
t
'DRBC' Do'cket D-69-21MCP. (Final) (Revised).
m
.N
.Grahting LEA's Motion for a' Stay and full consideration of LEA's Appeal prior et J
g.. to al full power.. license. issuance.would have no adverse economic impact on the pub]ic. because there is.sufficientdlbetricity-avIilable to PECO at cheaper costi-7
)
through the. Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland In'terconnection (PJM Grid). Furthermore, n.
- it~ is only,the. Applicant whose interests could be even reasonably construed to be
'j j
. adversely.affected-by LEA's request for a' Stay. Yet. Philadelphia Electric's g
X Linterests are. solely economic in nature -- concerns which, as this Appeal Board L
q has expressly notsd; are:"not within the proper scope of issues litigated in
- NRC. proceedings".1/ Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station)-
I't ASLB-783, NRC (November 5, 1984)', slip. op_.~p. 5 (rejecting such concerns
~
-in the context of a stay of a license).
t
'Tof the extent-that such solely economic interests are deemed cognizable, LEA submits that $heLinterest. in the health and safety of the public must necessarily Loutweigh th'e rionetary and private interests of the utility, w
a.
,6 lV (.17Indeed',': it; wouldbe arbitrary and capricious for the Commission
~ 'Eo! consider claims of economic harm to the utility caused by a licensing delay,Lyet exclude claims of' economic harm to the rate-
?
payers:and the-public occasioned by the licensing of a nuclear facility, which like Limerick, the need for which is dubious at ibest.
If the Appeal Board intends to consider such claims of economic -harm to the utility, LEA respectfully requests an oppor-tunity to' set forth the economic harm to its membership and the public resulting-fromrfacility licensing and operation.
~
' ^
~
~.
4
(.
Thus, the issuance of a Stay of the ASLB's-Third Partial Initial Decision and full consideration of LEA's Appeal prior to the issuance of a license for operation above 5% of-rated power can only benefit the public safety and cannot irreparably harm the public or the Applicant due to the water supply shortage and the aviilability of more economic electric supply alternatives.
In so far as portions of the proposed evacuation plans do not yet provide reasonable assurance that, protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a radiological emergency, operation of the Limerick Generating Station above 5% power constitutes an undue and unnecessary hazard to the public and to members of. Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
LEA's Brief in Support of its Appeal of the ASLB's authorization for the issuance of a full power operating license will further demonstrate that the record does not support.the ASLB's predictive finding that there'is reasonable
' assurance that the-publicican and will be protected by the proposed evacuation plans.
Furthermore, the ASCB has improperly delegated its responsibility to the NRC Staff, through the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to recejve and make a determination on_the verification of the license condition imposed by the ASLB's Order with regard to the implementation of traffic control in the King of Prussia area. The Board does not state what process will be used to detennine that there is " sufficient"aassurance "that all the traffic evacuating along
g _
the Route 363-to-Pennsylvania Turnpike can continue to move upon~ reaching the EPZ boundary". The delegation of this determination to the NRC staff precludes any participation bytimerick Ecology Action, Inc. in any_ adjudicatory proceedings
.where there would be an opportunity for testimony under oath and cross-examina' tion of witnesses, thus circumventing the adjudicatory safeguards entitled to LEA,and its members.
Issuance of a full power operating license based upon the ASLB's Third
~
Partial Initial Decision'would result in much-irreparable harm to Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. and its members living within the EPZ or outside the EPZ, especially
.to the south an'd east in the King of Prissua area. It is essential that LEA's Appeal be heard, or at least considered, prior to any further licensing action.
Specifically, LEA requests the At6mic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to stay the ASLB's Order authorizing the issuance of a full power operating license.
The Board erredsin assuming in Board Finding 70 that "a far greater number of traffic access and control points" were already in place in the EPZ than would be needed in the King of Prussia-Valley Forge area or south of the EPZ since Dr. Urbanik testified that in his professional opinion, the number perhaps wouldn't.be as significant as the number in teh EPZ, but "that's speculation.
You would have to sit down and count up the numbers". (LEA Finding 159, Dr.
Urbanik'TR 19,208) i h.
6 -
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not provided the NRC with a. determination that the Limerick Off-site RERP's are adequate and capable of being implemented. On April 16, 1985 Donald Hassell, Counsel for the NRC St'aff served the parties to this proceeding with copies of three Memorandums dated March 29, April 9 and April 10 concerning FEMA's Supplemental Interim Finding on Offsite Radiological Emergency Preparedness for the Limerick Generating Station. Based on the identified deficiencies, FEMA's memo stated that the local offsite emergency response plans developed for incidents at the Limerick Generating Station are inadequate and not capable of being implemented. In response, Mr.
Edward Jordan, Director of the NRC's Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engin-eering Response requested that FEMA advise the NRC of the schedule for resolution of the four:rdmaining deficiencies as soon as practical...." resolution of these offsite issues is 6n the critical path to issuance of a full power license for
. the Limerick Generating Station." (see Attachment 1)
/'
In particQ1ar, the record in this proceeding is not sufficient for the Board to ignore FEMA's concern with regard -to unmet needs for buses and ambulances.
Chester County requires 132 buses and 80 ambulances; and Montgomery County requires 12 buses and 82 ambulances. (See deficiency #2, Attachment 1)
Furthermore, the July 25.and Nov. 20 Limerick Exercise participation is not predictive that municipalities or school districts will achieve a " reasonable
" assurance" standard of emergency preparedness for radiological emergencies. No legal
. connection can be drawn between drill participation in a practice drill and the
- endorsement, approval and workability of a proposed RERP in a real emergency.
- 7 '-
The two license conditions ordered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Third Partial Initial Decision on Offsite Emergency Planning are issues which require additional adjudicatory proceedings to verify r s61ution, prior to full power licensing.
Procedural errors made by the ASLB tend to cause the scope of the King of Prussia traffic problems to be understated in the record during the hearings, although clear indications exist as to the scale of what needs to be done. (See LEA Findings 39,40,41,42,43,44,52-54,56,65,156,157,158) In addition, Mr. Anthony'5~ ( representa-
-tive)of F0E) consolidation with LEA resulted 'ihrnumerous procedural problems which
' prevented LEA from fully developing the record on several critical issues. Mr.
Anthony prevented a stip01ation agreed to by all parties expect himself with regard to admission of LEA Exhibit E-56, the Upper Merion Township-wide Traffic Study, although LEA had been designated as ' lead' intervenor for LEA-24/F0E-1. Furthermore, following Mr. Anthony's direct examination of Mr. Wagenmann, the Upper Merion Township Manager,
-LEA had no opportunity for cross-examination on the direct testimony. After Mr. Stone :
protested the ASLB's ruling, he was permitted to cross-examine only on the narrow issue of the Upper Merion Township-wide Traffic Study.
Authorization to exceed 5% power at Limerick prior to a verifiable resolution of-the identified traffic control concerned addressed by thb testimony of Dr. Urbanik and other withesses would seriously endanger that part of the public which would attempt to evacuate from the EPZ on those evacuation corridors. At least one serious error.was. found in' the Applicant's ETE 5tudy which sends traffic south (west) on Route 202,-but does not simulate the effect of that traffic from King of Prussia on other traffic using Route 202 from Phoehixville and other townships. Should emergency management officials attempt to use the HMM ETE as a basis for decisionmaking without i-
g the. implementation of the: corrective' traffic c6ntrol arrangements, much irreparable harm'would be done.
LEA's traffic.c6ntentions, the vaildity of.which was accepted only in part by the ASLB, in fact' involves a network of major highways and evacuation corridors,
-and.the-'interelationship of EPZ and non-EPZ traffic using these roads previous to and.during'an evacuation.
The Board's procedrual errors in limiting the litigation, for example, in precluding. testimony.as-tor. spontaneous evacuation outside the EPZ as it would affect the ability of-EPZ traffic to use Upper Merion evacuation' corridors, or by not admitUng eviden'ce indicative of the scale of the problem, such as. exclusion of relevany portions 'of the Upper Merion and Uwchlan Township Traffic Studies (LEA '
Exhbs. E-56 and E-46) tended to unduly narrow and understate in.the record the scale of the traffic problems actually present.
The. Board's Findings overlook evidence from the Chester County portion of the Valley Forge-King 'of Prussia area, particularly in Schuylkill Township and the Phoenixville area. The NRC Staff's witness, Dr. Urbanik, testified that traffic control in~ areas fairly remote from the King of Prussia area could :. adversely'~
affect;the ability of ERZ traffic to use key evacuation routes just outside the EPZ, which would back up into the EPZ during an evacuation'if these corridors were filled beyond capacity. (See LEA Findings 39-41)
- 9 The principle discussed by Dr. Urbanik with respect to the Downingtown exit-of
.the Pa. Turnpike would apply to similar limited access highways t'raversing the King
.of Prussia' area and used as evacuation route links, such as Routes 202 and 363, the County Line Expressway, the Schuylkill Expressway, and the new Schuylkill extention-Pottstown expressway. However, its application is a relatively complicated matter requiring much local participation and local traffic knowledge. Furthermore, the commitment of local officials to implement a planning assumption that non-EPZ traffic would be prevented from using the major highways in the King of Prussia area ~ prior to and during an EPZ-evacuation isteritical to determining that there is reasonable assurance of plan workability and implementability in this area.
According to the PEMA/PENNDOT Evacuation Map, dated June 1983 (LEA Exhb E-16, received into evidence as part of Comm. Exhb E-1), some 9499 cars are assigned to the basic Route 363-Turnpike svacoation corridor. In addition, 4222 care are assigned to Route 252 through the-western part of Valley' Forge Park and onto Route 202 where an additional 3421 cars merge from other parts of Chester County. As
~
indicated in Appl. Exhb. E-67, the ETE assigns a portion of the Route 363-County Line Expressway traffic to Route 202 west, but does not simulate numerically its effect on the other Route 202 west traffic, since no link is calculated between that last traffic node and the first Route 202 traffic node from the Chester County EPZ traffic.
Testimony in evidence indicates that approximately 40,000 workers and up to 200,000 shoppers are in the King of Prussia area on heavy shopping days. Furthermore, addition of EPZ traffic attracted onto the new Schuylkill Extension-Pottstown Express-way instead of the previously designated old Route 202 corridor (which does not enter
_ -10 _
r King of Prussia) would increase the problem since the new expressway connects right into King of Prussia. 4615 cars are presently assigned to old route 422 and must be prevented from entering the new Schuylkill extension.
The ASLB ' acknowledges that the thrust of LEA-2 is "that unmstimunicipal staffing needs preclud'e a reasonable assurance that-the requirement in 10 CFR j 50.47(b)(i), i.e., that each principal response organization has sufficient staff for inicial and continuous response, will be met. (Board Finding 507)
The ASLB further-acknowledges the validity of LEA's concerns as stated in this contention by concluding that prior to operation above 5% of rated power FEMA must receive verification of satisfaction of the unmet staffing needs. (Board Finding 524). However, the Board ignores the' testimony of FEMA's witness Mr.
Kinnard at TR 20,166 wi[ich states that the names of response personnel would have to be officially recorded in the plans before FEMA would regard the situation asbeingresolved.IIstead,inBoardFinding523,theASLBstatesthatMr.Kinard testified that he would accept PECO's consultant, Mr. Bradshaw's testimony regarding current staffing of thb various jurisdictions subject to verification by thb jurisdiction involved.and that with such verification the " Category A" deficiency stated in its April 1984. Interim Findings would be satisfied and resolved.
Kinard TR 20253-57. Itsis unclear what procedure will be used to verify that this unmet need has been resolved, and whether or not LEA will have an opportunity to review and comment on the information provided within the context of aniadjudicatory proceeding.
u
11 -
i Furthermore, LEA believes the ASLB should give more weight to the signifi-cance of the identified manicipal staffing deficiencies. As stated in 10 CFR L5 50.47(b)(1), municiph1 staffing is a critical part of evacuation plan
~
workability and implementability. The license condition imposed by thb ASLB is only,a partial recognition of.the fact that most of the Applicant \\s volunteers who participated in-the. July 25 Exercise are not now included in the municipal plans ~ as suitable volunteers. Therefore, a FEMA evaluation on the sufficiency of-municipal staffing based on the July 25 Exercise may be hopelessly outdated.
' Evidence in this' record shows that the 400 PEC0 " volunteers" who participated at the municipal level in the July 25 Exercise have largely, with the exception of_50 or so, not been accepted or incorporated into local municipal staffing positions. A review of the FEMA evaluation ~ combining the levels of staffing in the July 25 and November 20 Exercises indicates that~ the combination of these two staffing levels cannot reflect-the current situation, since, according to the Applicants' witnesses own testimony, most of the PECO " volunteers" used last summer'are not.being used by the municipalities.
LEA Contention 1, which addresses the status of adoptability and implementa-bility of the RERP's was improperly dismissed by the ASLB in its Third Partial Initial Decision, based largely on the provisions of' Penna. P.L. 1332, which all municipal and school district witnesses said they would try notetopviol-ste, regard-less~of whether problems with the>RERP's were still, in their own view; unresolved in their jurisdictions. It is improper for the Board to make a predictive finding of reasonable assurance based on good intentions to attempt to comply with a general state' emergency planning law, since it is really the state of adoptability and
=
e
~
implementability which the municipalit'y or school district has actually' achieved that can be-reasonably relied upon to predict a state of adequate preparedness.
It is clear that the mere inter,t of a -local jurisdiction to work on the problems that it has so far identified, does not provide' sufficient basis for an assumption that the problems will necessarily be resolved;or that new problems won't be
~
discovered as the plan is reviewed and readied for adoption. It is particularly
'significant that even now, only a few of the 43 municipalities within the Limerick EPZ have adopted a radiological-emergency response plan, despite the testimony-provided by Energy Consultants that review and consideration for adoption was to occur from February to April 1985. In addition, the testimony provided by government officials subpoenaed by LEA indicates that many public officials not critical of local plans had delegated responsibility for the plan development to others, but had not yet begun.any substantive plan review. The record does.not indict.te the results of that local review, except for the second or thirdhand testirrony pro-vided by Energy Consultants. Under current NRC precedent, LEA understands that plan adoption.is not necessarily a prerequisite to NRC approval for full power operation, nonetheless, significant deficiencies which exist at.the municipal level, and which are judged to be serious enough by the responsible municipal officials to preclude plan workability and adoption cannot be dismissed proforma by the ASLB, FEMA or PEMA. 'Furthemore, additional. hearings are necessary to determine compliance with the 2 license conditions imposed by the ASLB's Order.with regard to (1) the verifiability of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> municipal staffing capabilities and (2) local traffic con-trol anrangements, especially as they affect the King of Prussia evacuation Cor-ridors,:and the more urbanized areas east and south of the EPZ as wsil as (3) to
q--
- 13 evaluate the status of implementability and adoptability of municipal RERP's
.where problems were identified during testimony on this record which would preclude workability of the respective RERP, or where a lack of sufficient knowledge or readiness resulted in uncertainty whether the RERP could be implemented.
Specific examples to be con'sidered are the comunications problems addressed in the testimony of Lower Providence Supervisor Chairman Richard T. Brown at TR 18,151 &
TR 18,134 and Mr. Harry Miller, Lower Providence Twp. Fire Chief at TR 18,142 which would ~predlude implementability of the Lower Providence Twp. RERP. LEA will provide
-other examples in its Appeal Brief.
Clearly, the ASLB erred in arguing in Board Finding 36 that verification of the
. lists of transport dependent individuals was performed during the July 25 and November 20 Exercises, since it is impossible to determine who is not on a particular list by calling everyone whose name is actually listed. LEA's assertion that the-
. list -is incomplete,'especially in urban areas, by way of a comparison with-the U.S. Census Estimates indicates, and is not even remotely countered by spot -
checking the incomplete list-of those needing transportation which does not exist,
< based upon responses mailed back to a one time mail survey sent to households billed
-by Philadelphia Electric Company. If the U.S. Census estimates are closer to the fact, then the number of buses needed for urban areas such as Pottstown and Phoenix-ville is-greatly understated. Buses and drivers to provide transportation must-g
.come from the pool of buses already being used for schools and other transport
. dependent needs. The ASLB's statement that double counting could occur if the U.S. Census Estimate data was used for p.lanning purposes does not negate its close l
14 -
correspon'dence between the U.S. Census date and the actual survey results'in more rural and affluent areas. (Board Finding 42)
There is no assurance that the transport dependent population in the EPZ has been
-a'dequately. identified or planned for in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick. The earlier drafts' of the RERP's show a large discrepency between the survey done by Energy Consultants and the 1980 U.S. Census data. This is especially true in the. Boroughs of Phoenixville and Pottstown. (LEA Exhb E-40-42)
Individuals with questions were advised to contact the county office of emergency management.-(Bradshaw TR 17,191) This in no way addresses those who have not been identified because they do not have a PEC0 utility bill coming to their residence.
The first evidence that the surveys sent out with Energy Consultant's assistance n were faulty was recorded by various witnesses who directed day care centers. The survey that began "
Dear Residents" was overlooked by the day care,
nursery and pre-school centers in the three county area. The: development of a Model Day Care RERP is a step in the right direction,-but does still not address the question of whether or not their transp)rtation needs have been identified and planned for.
Under the Pennsylvania Commonwealth system of government, the counties have no legal ~ authority over the municipalities, but each has its own responsibilities with'the municipalities being more fdndamental. Therefore, the testimony of the County Emergency Coordinators can at best be limited to the county RERP, which is in a coordinating and supplementary function, rather than in an implementary
- role. The existence of P.L.1332 and the law adibing tendencies of public officials proves nothing about the proposed RERP's. In addition, P.L.1332 clearly shows the pre-eminent role of the municipality in the Commonwealth of Pa. with regard to general emergency planning.
15 -
4 LEA Findings 312-317 make it clea'r inaquoting from the testimony of Montgomery County' Commissioner Chairman Paul Bartle that adoption of the proposed Montgomery County RERP is 'not certain and that in fact Chairman Bartle has "little faith" that a V.
winter nights evacuation of 60,000 Montgomery County residents could be done bu't that as the conditions improved "you are going to get more out safely". Mr. Bartle was incorrect incorrect in using'the figure 60,000, when in' fact, the p6pulation figures contained in Appl. Exhb E-67 indicate 153,184 people for a winter week day population in Montgomery County and 124,496 for a winter week night scenario, such as he de-scribes. A knowledge of the true population and larger dimensions of the problem can be reasonably be expected to increase Chairman Bartle's concerns, who stated, "I will use my own good common sense and judgement in the end to detennine what I would do". (Bartle TR 18,620) Furthermore, Montgomery County has a history and a record of opposing Limerick, according to Chairman Bartle (Bartle TR 18,680, LEA Exhb'E-55) Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there is reasonable assurance that the Montgomery County RERP will be-judged to be workable and adoptable by local authorities, especially in such aspects as the King of Prussia Traffic plan, =
ir5plementation"of the Bucks County Support Plan, provision of buses and drivers for school evacuation, estimation of the transport dependent population and the provision of necessary transportation resources, telephone coninunications reliability.
- such as the concerns of Lower Providence Twp. officials, and matters pertaining to
- the provision of sufficient ambulance resources. Based on these concerns, there is no basis to make a predictive finding that the Montgomery County RERP can and will
~
be. implemented, as the Applicant contends, and the ASLB seems to accept.
Through procedural errors and rulings which unduly limited,' constrained, or narrowed th'e scope of the emergency response planning litigation, the ASLB prevented LEA-from fully challenging and developing a thorough record on unworkable aspects of the RERP's.
e s
.. ~
15 -
Time limits for cross-examination imposed by the ASLB towards the end of the hearings were not adequately weighted towards the importance of witnesses or the number of contentions covered by a particular witness's testimony. Therefore, while there may have been ample time for cross-examination of s6me witnesses whose testimony was relatively minor, in most cases there was insifficient time to develop a thorough record with regard to the testimony of PEMA and FEMA witnesses and Dr. Urbanik, the NRC Staff's witness on ' traffic issues relating to LEA-24/F0E-1.
LEA att.empted repeatedly to obtain the requisite time for key witnesses with testi-m ny on multiple contentions, and maintains that the extended cross-examination of Energy Consultants conducted by LEA, which the Board cites as the reason for time limits thereafter being imposed, was in fact directly proportional to 'the weight both the Applicant and the Board would give to their testimony 'and.the.degres to which the Applicant would rely upon that testimony to attempt to prove its case. Clearly, in the beginning of the hearings, some time was used while LEA's representatives were adjusting to the hearing format, but it was most often the Applicant's objections which contributed to~ delay, often at the most critical times in cross-examination.
The-record shows that such objections, even when ' sustained by the ASLB were often groundless and led to more confusion and imprecision than would have otherwise occurred.
For al'l of the foreg55g reasons, Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. respectfully requests the Appeal Board to issue a Stay of the ASLB's T1'rd Partial Initial Decision, pending consideration of the matters contained in this Motion, and as supplemented by LEA's Brief on its Appeal of the ASLB's Order.
Respectfullysubmitteg, May 16, 1985 Phylli itzer, LEA President
~
. [# 18 %'o e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
k t
WAAMINGToN, D. C. 206E6 r.,****t)
ATTACHMENT 1
_ MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richa'rd W. Krim Assistant Associate Director Offfce of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERIM FINDING ON OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL EHERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR THE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION This is to ac' knowledge rifceipt of your April 9,1985 memorandum regarding all of the remaining offsite deficiencies in emergency planning and preparedness for the Limerick Generating Station.
After reviewing the information in the memorandum and discussing it with your staff, we have arrived at the following understanding:
1 Two deficiencies which were identified at the July 25, 1984 Limerick exercise are being addressed at the April 10, 1985 remedial exercise.
These are:
1.
Testing of evacuation plans for the school districts; and 2.
Participation by South Coventry Township, with Chester County performing compensatory responsibilities.
I understand that FEMA has made a judgment on the methods to address the remaining plan and exercise deficiencies and you are currently discussing' them with the State of Pennsylvania to determine a schedule for their resolution.
These remaining deficiencies and their dispositions, according to our under-standing are:
1.
The 24-hour emergency response capability in South Coventry Township which remains deficient due to staffing problems.
l Resolution of this deficiency can be accomplished through a plan revision.
2.
Unmet needs regarding buses and ambulances.
Chester County requires 132 buses and 80 ambulances; and Montgomery County requires 12 buses and 82 ambulances.
l Resolution of this deficiency can be. accomplished through a plan revision.
E
~
Richard W. Krimm.
c 3.
The process for establishing access control points remains incomplete.
I
~
~'
~
~
Resolution sf this deficiency can be accomplished through a plan revision.
~ 4.
Testing o~f the ale t and notification process as well as the Berks County
' Emergency Broadcast System capability.
Resolution of this deficiency must be accomplished by demonstration at a limited scope remedial drill or exercise.
'~.
I appreciate the timely status information and encourage you to press forward for early resolution of these deficiencies.
Please advise me of the schedule for resolution of the four remaining deficiencies as soon as practical.
As you -
are aware, resolution of these offsite issues is on the critical path to issuance of a full power license for the Limerick Generating Station.
(
L g
~ A dward Jordan, Director Divisi of Emergency Preparedness and gineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement q
cc:
T. Murley, RI H. Thomspon, NRR E. Christenbury, ELD 0
w O
+1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B0 RD DOLKETED USNRC In.the Matter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352 15 MY 17 A11:08 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) 0FFICE OF SECREfAH 00CKEifftG & SERVICf.
BRANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LEA's " MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE ASLB
~
ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF-A FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR
-THE' LIMERICK GENERATING STATION" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail,.this 16th. day of May, 1965:
Judge Helen Hoyt, Chairwoman' Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Benjamin 41.'Vogler, Esq.
' Administrative Judge Donald:Hassell, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry Harbour Washington, D.C'.' 20555 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Troy B.. Conner. Esq.
Commission '
Conner and Wetterhahn Washington, D.C. 20555 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. NW-Washington, D.C. 20006 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Attn: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Commission VP and General Counsel
. Washington, D.C. 20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Spence W. Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Associate General Counsel Commission FEMA Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20555' 500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472 9
s e
+
t ZorihFerkin,Esq. -
Angus Love, Esq.
Governor's Energy Council Montg. Co. Legal Aid P.O. Box 8010-101 East Main Street 1625 Front Street Norristown, Pa. 19401 Harrisburg, Pa. 17105 Robert Anthony /F0E Thomas Gerusky,-Director P.O. Box 186 Bureau of Radiation Protection 103 Vernon Lane DER, 'Sth Floor, Fulton Bldg.
Moylan, Pa. 19065 Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Charles Elliott, Esq.
325 N.
10th Street J. Gutierrez, Esq.
Easton, Pa. 18042 U.S. NRC Region' 1 631 Park Ave.
Robert Sugarman,-Esq.
King of. Prussia, Pa. 19406 Sugarman & Denworth
.101 N.
Broad Street Ralph Hippert-16th. Floor John-Patten Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Pa. Emergency Management Agency B-151, Transportation &
Frank Romano Safety Building 61 Forest Ave.
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
. Ambler, Pa. 19002 Timothy Campbell,. Director Chester County, Dept. of Emergency Services
~
14 East Biddle Street West Chester, Pa. 19380 Phyllis Zitzer, President May 16, 1985 t
Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
l I
l l
L