ML20125B682
| ML20125B682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-353 LBP-85-14, NUDOCS 8506110500 | |
| Download: ML20125B682 (7) | |
Text
(%3 U.S.UUCLEAR REGUIATORY CMISdION.. ATOMIC SAFZTY AND LICE:.JIFG APPi4L 30..RD RF: PHILA.ELEC. CJ. Licorick Osn. Sta. Units 1 & 2 Docket No.
50-352,3530 L ANTHONY / FOE BRIZF IN 5UFFORT OF OUR AFFELL FROM THE ASLB THIRD PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-95-14,SMED 5/7/85, TO FOLLOW UF OUR N0TIFICATION OF APPEAL,5/10/85 June 6,1985 ASLB ERh0R IN RELATION TO FEh.A'sHOLE.
~ acknowledge an
- 1. On page 5 of LBP-85-14 (hereafter LPB-)
LB appears to inportent role for F.D'A in,"FER is required, in addition to any responsibilities under 44 CFR Part,350 for final,for=al approval.of State and local emergency plans, to provide ' findings and determinations.
LB thus accepts Q p vance of 8 "
44 CFR&350 to the offsite emergency planning process,and LB also cites the relation of "EOU" to the NRC and FEMA responsibilities.
We do not qu g iog tg g l ance (p.5) l cf 10 CFR '* 50 47 but we point out to theBoard, that NUREG-0654 has been de eted from that section of the Code,so it is no longer cited as "gErc ris(e guidance".
e (7n.1. page 425, 50.47 (b), citing (W) REG-0654,is not included E th@e"5
-50 47 b
j of Title 10 of the U.S.Codd, nor can we find it mentioned at all in-10 CFR-50 47 of the current 1/85 revision.)
We agree with the Board that NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1 l
Rev. I does offer guid nce,since it is cited,s guidan ce in 44 CFRe 350 which the a
l Board did cite. (LPB-p.5.)
I
- however,
- 2. We believe the Board,gerred in apparently focusing on NUREG-0654 to the exclusion of certain requirements of 44 CFR*350 ( " cenerally,the suidance and criteria for judging the adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency response plans i
cre contained in NUREG-0654."(LBP-p.5) ) As an example we find that the Board and l
FEMA allowed 'a serious violation of 44 CFR*350 7 (b) in the setting up of the Limerick l
EPZ.. Sect. 350 7 (b) states," the exact size and configuration. of the EPZs surround-ing a particular nuclear power. facility shall be determined by State and local gov-
~
crnments in consultation with FEMA and NRC.." (EmphsEicensing) is added The testimony of, l
i
(
FEMA witnesses Kinard and Asher on 1/25/85 before thogBoard prove that FEE'A ignored the requirement that it consult on "the exact size and configuration of the EPZ.."
about Trans. 20,234 : (,The witnesses were asked the reference to EPZ size,as affected by 3
demography,etc. in 10 CFR 50 47 (c) (2). The same conditions are listed in 44 CFR Q. (Anthony) Are you aware of,c 'yspecial aspects, demography, topography, character-an istics and access routes and jurisdictional boundaries,are you aware of some of those itene in relation to the EPZ for Limerick ?
A. (Asher) Only as they have been related to us by the state or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the department of tra sportation and PennDOT.
n Q. You me n you have no. responsibility to understa d or to help to see that these n
a
-- that the requirement is complied with ?
A. Our obligation,as defined in NUREG 0654,is, the choice of the size of the emer-
}
gency planning zone represents the judgment of the extent of detailed pisuning which must be performed to assure an adequate response base.
I That detailed planning we accept from PEMA and their expertise in PennDOT,and it is reviewed by the expert on our radiological assistance committee from the federal department of transportation.
This exchange proves FEMA's " hands off" position in relation to the Limerck EPZ, 85 S p[ b 8 M g nsibility under 44 CFR 350 7 (b) to consult.g i
and FD'A'r failm +n th PDR ADOCK 05000352 M[
PM- - -.
- \\)
G
h
-- 2 --
- 3. It a;;peprs,thorofora, that the Lissrick EPZ cas not determined in conformanco, cith FEMA regulations.
From this it follows that emergency planning, times for evac-untion and all aspects of the off-site plans are brought into doubt as to their abigtytobeimplementedsince the base from which they derive, the EPZ, was not cot with the consultation of FEMA,the U.S agency with ultimate.. authority and exper-3 time in the protection of the public in the event of a nuclear emergency.
Further cvidence of this faflure of FEMA to comply with 44 CFR 350 7 (b) is contained in a lotter from P.P.Giordano, FEMA Regional Director, to R.L. Anthony, 2/21/85, included as attachment 1.
Mr. Giordano says FEMA has no record of any " matter pertaining to the establishment of the Limerick..(EPZ)".
He cites NUSG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,Rev.1 to "the recommanded guidlines" but does not mention any FEMA responsibility under 44 CFR 350 7 (b) for the exact size and configuration of the EPZ,"etc., a b!$
- 4. We do not know the extent of the Licensing Board's or the Appeal Board's jurisdiction in regard to requiring FEMA compliance with 44 CFR 350,but we know that LB cut off our cross examin tion of the FEMA witnesses so that we were prevent-a cd from eliciting further evidence on the process of establishing the configuration EPZ (tr. 20,248 ) We refer the Bo rd to our appeal of 1/31/85 which was of tha a
not accepted by the Board,in which we asked the Board to require LB to set aside the findings schedule on emergency planning and to recall witnesses for further evidence.
We also call the Bo rd's attention to our Findings filed 3/2/85,"under protest since a
the record on emergency offsite planning is incomplete becanse of the cutting off of cur legitimate and essential opportunity to crossexamine witnesses,thereby prejudic-ing our case and depriving the record of evidence needed by the Board to make a fair and balanced decision on our contention.."
In LBP-85-14 LB apparently did not respond to our su*. mary in the last paregraph' of our Findings 3/2/85, "we think LB has a responsibility to review the performance of PEMA and FEMA in the discharging of their man dates under 10 CFR 50 47 and NUREG-0654". (And we add 44 CFR 350,which we did not have a chance to develop in the re-cord bec use we were cut off.) see tr.20,239, 20,242, 20,245 a
l l
In the light of FEMA's failure to constit on the setting up of the EPZ and i
PEMA's disregard of the requirements under the regulations abovepas they apply to the congested areas specified in LEA-24/ FOE-1, March Creek State Park /Exton area cod Valley Forge Park / King of Prussia area, we petition the Board to require these I
creas to be included in the EPZ (The first alternative inpara.2ofLEA-24/F0E-1).
Because the extent of EPZ is in question and because all emergency planning starts eith EPZ as a base,we petition the Board to require PEMA and the local authorities re-study the bounda ies of the EPZ61n consultation with FEMA as required,and to r
to include any changes in the emergency plans indicatg bgvgriations in %is recen-sidered EPZ.
We further petition the Board to remand a heari0g on LEA-24/F0E-1 all h
Eatters requiring the management of emergency traffic as it relates to the safety of workers, students sho::pers and transients who would be subject to spontaneous j
3 l-ovacuatione or planned efacuation as it would be worked out by townships and counties.
l
~
c
__ 3 __
5 on 12/5/84 Rangar Faoless of Valloy Forge Park tactified that he had nsver been consulted en including the Park in' tho EPZ cnd thoro is no record of th. National Park Service ever being consulted in rela tion to the extent of the EPZ,or inclusion of the Park,despite a section of the Park falling within the 10 mtle circle,&letterfromJ.W.Coleman,Jr.DirectoroftheMid-AtlanticRegionb/21/85 corroborates this. (See Attachment 2.)
From this it appe rs that FEMA failed also to a
ocmply wi th 44 CFR MO.3 (d) which specifies " a cooperative effort with State and local governments and other Federal agencies. ( Emphasis added )
Further evidence of FEMA.'s neglect of its responsibilities under 44 CFR 350 came from Mr. Asher when he was asked (tr. 20,238)"Q. Have you had any part of the deliberations that were considering whether that (the Park) should be included in talk about it at all ?
A.
Only from Q. Have you heard any/F0E findings page 3.)
the EPZ ?
A.
No.
. (See also Anthony you.(i.e. R. Anthony)
There is nothing in the record to show that FEYA ever opposed the inclusion of Valley Force Park in the EPZ and PEMA,significa tly, did not file any written n
kestlmonyoncontentionLEA-24/ FOE-1.,andweconcludethatPEMAbyitssilene es not contest the inclusion of the Park in the EPZ (See our findings,p. 2 and 3.)
We believe that the Board will find that there is overwhelming evidence in the record to support the inclusion of Valley Forge Park in the EPZ (Our findings P.3 & 4)
We petition the Board to order the inclusion of the Park in EPZ for the protection of the users of this park, almost 13 million in the year 1983. tr. 14,642.
6.
LB's decision is not only based on a EPZ that is flawed because it was set up in violation of FEMA regulations,but its decision is d g g e an Evacuation TimeEstimatepreparedbyEnergyConsgtantswhom
" to be 'ualified by AB found q
position, training and experience",and stated about the consultant Robert Klimm that it " relied on his testimony" yet this Time Estimate was not endorsed by the NRC witners, Dr.
Urbanik who was the only3b.D. traffic expert called to testify.
Ce cite here evidence from Dr.Urbanik's testimony which casts doubts on the relia-bility of Energy Consultants' time. estimate study and evacuation planning.
Tr. 19,226.
Dr.Urbanik was asked about the time estimates prepared by sur Assoc.
Q..."are you satisfied that adequate traffic access and tr ffic control points have a
been established to adequately m nage traffic in the areas of the EPZ as well as a
beyond the EFZ 7" A.
"No."
In his written testimony (p.3 Q.7,he was asked, "Is traffic beyond the EPZ un-canageable..? "
This changed the wording of the contention (p.2 A.5)"evacu tion a
of the ten mile rad'Aus will not be impeded by traffic congestion " to unmanageable.
Thus Dr.Urbanik's answers such as on tr. 19,228 are not relevant to the contention.
He was relevant,however, at 19,229 when he was asked whether his reservations" rela-t0d solely to areas outside the EPZ"." 1.
No. I Cuess I wouldn't cha acterize that r
as being exactly the case."
Dr.Urbanik stressed, tr. 19,231, " one has to look at outside the EPZ as a whole system of highways and that anyone that could relate needs to at least be considered.*
Tr. 19,238 "A.....If,in fact we have no way to control people getting on the Turn-pike on Exit 23,then an assumption-- an assumption has been made..."
"But there is nothing in the. plans to preclude them from getting on Interstate 76." (Pa Turnpike)
__4-_
(Dr.Urbcnik'o testimony centinuad.)
Dr.Urbanik went on to describe the variations that could cause (tr. 19,24 0 ) " a peak condition on the population side " and concluded that " we would have n list that would be so long that it would make the plan useless-- or the estimates use-less,I should say. "
It is,however,these peaks which could m ke the time estimate study useless.
a In his testimony Mr.R.Wagenma n responded to a question about KING of Prussia where n
he is the township ~ manager,"Q. so that at peak times there could be 300,000 individ-uals who would be shopping or working or visiting in the King of Prussia area?"
"A.
(tr.17,437)
Yes. That figure I have no problem accepting since the shopping m lls themselves, by their own estimate, during the peak shopping periods,each mall e
can get in eacess of 100,000 shoppers.
So within the mall itself,during a normal heavy shopping day,you could have approximately a quarter of a million shoppers."
These are apparently not isolated events but " normal heavy shopping " days.
It is this kind of traffic demand that could invalidate the time estimates for evac-untion.frum,and through Valley Forge Park / King of Prussia and Marsh Creek /Exton.
- 7. In addition Dr.Urbanik raised the question of traffic travelling through the EPZ at the time of a radiological emergency, (tr.19,238)
"A.
The Turnpike is being used as an ev cuation route." He points out that, " we can't ignore the a
some fact that there may be, people from beyond the EPZ using the Pennsylv nia Turnpike a
at the time that it is being desired to use it for evacuation.."
He points out that there will be independent choice of evacuation routes by evac-uating individuals.ltr. 19,237 ) These same routes,like the turnpike,and other through routes could already be carrying haffic through the EPZ at the time of an evacuation.
Dr. Urbanik cited the Turnpike,but what he said about traffic from
. beyond the EPZ meeting evacuation traffic and competing with thia applies to all g
gggggrgppprouteswhichtraversetheEPZ.
The significant ones,beside the Turn-pike are :
Route 422 which is a main through route from Philadelphia to Heading, 43 Pottsville and Sunbury; Rt. 100 from Wilmington and Test Chester to Allentown; Rt. 29 and Rt. 252 from Chester to Allentown; and Rt. 73 from North Phila. to Potts-ville and Williamsport.All of these routes through the EPZ carry a considerable proportionofthroughtrafficwhichcannotbeignored,asDr.Urbhnikclaims, correctly.
It is apparent,however that the Time Estimate Study took no account of this through traffic when it satimated access to these evacuation routes and movement along them.
Dr.Urbanik hints at ways to block off the Turnpike or regulate tr ffic on it but he does not conclude how much confusion or blockage this would a
cause, perhaps to the extent of slowing or halting all tr ffic.
Even less does a
dedved Dr.Urbanik project the impact on evacuation,from through traffic on the main arteries traversing the EPZ, but he could have had that in mind when he answered "No."
to the question on" adequate traffic access and traffic control points'ltr.
19,226,above.
Dr.Urbanik's opinion that people evacugting will choose their own evacuation routes (tr.19,230) above, seems to assure traffic blockades,even more inside the EPZ than outeide, as evacuees choose their own r6utes and destinations.
He sums
i'
-- 5 --
it up thus,tr. 19,238,
" A....The bacis of thic is, thora is -- you knon, experi-ence with evacuations would suggest that not everybody is going to use shelters, some folks are going to opt to go other places........And the concern I have is that people,you know, may do that. "
It appears significant that he says " people",
not some people which seems to indic te an appreciable number of evacuees.
a In its decision LB does not apply Dr.Urbanik's warnings to the whole fr mework a
of emergency evacuation plans and the time estimates.
It merely focused on the
'uggestion of traffic control points outside the EPZ.
We ask the Board to remedy s
this oversight and to give Dr.Urbanik's testimony on the. impact of through traffic proper weight.
and " folks.. going to opt to go other places" on evacuation from the EPZ u on the strength of Dr. Urbanik's testimony we ask the Board to require a new time study and a complete reconsideration of the emergency evacuation pla s. We ask the. Boafd n
to require LB to recall D.Urbanik as a witness so that the record can be completed.
Our crossexamination was cut off at tr. 19,271.
- 8. We ask the Board to decide whether LB in LBP-pp 15-19 fairly addressed our claims that our crossexamination was unfa(rly cut off,the record was left in-
~
complete and prejudice was used against our case by LB,therby damaging our rights as an intervenor. (See our findings p.1 )
We believe that LB used the pretext of LEA serving as lead intervenor on our contentions to unlawfully curtgil our parti-cipation. We believe that LB further showed prejudice in its decision by confusing our use of hea ing time with that of LEA.
r Because of our lack of legal training we submitted " appeals" to the Board during the course of the heprings because of our desperation over the violation of our rights by LB.
The Board reminded us that these should have been submitted as requests for directed certification.
We are appreciative of the Board 's thought-ful response of' 12/14/04 to our " appeal" of 12/10/84 We ask the Board to consider
~
again the record of abuses of the judicial process set forth in our 12/10 " appeal".
We also call the Board's attention to the instances of the cutting off of our cross-examination of witnesses Asher,Kinard,and Urbanik,(See above) and of Tagenmann (tr.17,456) and PEco's witness Kliam ( 1/4/85 hearing).
We ask the Board to find these serious abuses,and as such,must appropriately be assigned relief by a reopen-ing of the record and a recall of these witnesses.
SUMMARY
We petition the Board to reverse LB's decision on our contentions and to order LB to reopen the record and to recall the witnesses whose examin~ation by us was cut off,for further questioning. We petition the Board to require that the boundaries of the EPZ be again set up with full FEYA consultation,that the Valley Forge Park / King of Prussia and g CreekPark/Exton be included in the EPZ, and emergency plans be set up for these and integrated into re-formed total EPZ plan-3 cosURC-ALABJudges,ASLB,StaffCounsel, Docketing 8pectfu11ysubmitted, FE!!A,PEYA,PEco, LEA, Others on Serv. List Y-.
Boz 186 roylan,Pa 1906 s
__m
g a
Federal Emergency Management Agency 3u Region III 105 South 7th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 FES 211985 Mr. Robert L. Anthony Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065
Dear Mr. Anthony:
After a review of our files, we have found no correspondence, notes, drawings or any other matter pertaining to the establishment of the Limerick plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ).
As Messrs. Asher and Kinard testified during the recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings, FEMA Region III feels that the plume exposure EPZ delineated for Limerick meets the recommended guidelines established in the Introduction to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (copy attached).
If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely, r 'g g,d. vj D
's, u l-.s v ~'
m.
Paul P. Giordano Regional Director Enclosure ArrAc.H MG F I
1
[ "
United States Department of the Interior
'3 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MID-ATLANTIC ltEGION 143 SOUTH THIRD STREET PHILADELPHIA. PA.19106 K14 (MAR-PD)
February 21, 1985 Mr. Robert L. Anthony Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065
Dear Mr. Anthony:
This is 'in reply to your Freedom of Infortnation request of February 9,1985.
We have no information in our files, including the files at Valley Forge National Historical Park, on the Limerick nuclear plant, Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Department of the Interior's letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
As discussed, you are welcome to examine our complete files associated with Lime r ick.
Sincerely,
/
r wIM
_ _ t --
5, James W. Coleman, Jr.
Regional Director Enclosure cc:
Superintendent, Valley Forge NHP permwurr x s,4 d A
-