ML20127J999

Exceptions to ASLB 850509 Order Granting Util Motion for Exemption from Requirement of 10CFR50.47(a) & (B).Util Should Not Be Allowed Exemption from Regulations.Exemption Not in Spirit of Regulations.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20127J999
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/21/1985
From:	Love A GRATERFORD INMATES, LOVETT & LINDER, LTD.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-087, CON-#285-87 NUDOCS 8505220009
Download: ML20127J999 (6)

Text

b%

e +

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR

[COMMISSICN A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'85 MY 21 A10:49 In the Matter of  :

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ffI'gCnEI G Si Vf : Docket Nos. 50-352 BRANCH 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,  :

i Units 1 and 2 1

EXCEPTIONS 'IO 'IHE BOARD'S ORDER GRANTING 'IHE IPPLICANT'S l0 TION FOR EXEMPrION FROM REQUIREMENT OF 10 CFR 50.47(a) and (b)

The Graterford inmates hereby take exception to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Ruling of May 9,1985. Said Ruling granted the applicant's Motion from an exemption of requirements regarding offsite emergency planning for a period of time when any remaining potential contentions of the Graterford inmates are to be considered by the Board. The inmates contend that said ruling is premature in that they have only now begun to have a meaningful input into the offsite emergency planning process and that they have a standing objection to any exemption granted from the rule making procedures. The inmates hereby submit this document in response to the Board's requests for comments to the May 9th decision within ten days of the date of this Order. The inmates incorporate by refernce their original Motion in Opposition to the granting of the. applicant's request for an exemption.

The inmates point out that they entered this matter formally on September 18, 1981 with a Petition to Intervene. After some procediral maneuvering, the 8505220009 850521 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR

l l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted the Graterford prisoners as an  ;

l intervenor in this party on June 1, 1982. At that time the inmates were ready '

to proceed with their concerns regarding the evacuation of themselves from SCIG.

Unfortunately, they did not receive anything further on which they could base their contentions until December 13, 1984. The inmates note that they had received numerous assurances over the years that a plan regarding the evacuation would be forthcoming at an unspecified future date. Time and time again the explanations changed as the inmates were informed that the plan had been revised numerous ;imes and was being reviewed by numerous parties. Upon finally receiving the December 13, 1984 plan, the inmates were distressed at the lack of any meaningful information regarding a potential radiological emergency evacuation and/or response plan. The inmates inmediately brought this matter to the attention of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board who ruled against them on January 29, 1985, denying their request for further di= closure and ordering them to submit contentions within the previously mandated twenty day time period.

The inmates complied with the Board's order and submitted their contentions.

However, they also appealed the decision and requested a stay, _ which was rejected again by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Their appeal was rejected by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on February 12, 1985, They suggested, however, that the parties attempt to work out a compromise using the concept of a protective order. All parties concerned with this matter met in Harrisburg on February 27th at the Appeals Board suggestion, in an attempt to work out a solution to this problem. After receiving assurances from the l

)

i l inmates, the Bureau of Corrections finally acquiesced and allowed the inmates' -

attorney and expert counsel to review a second evacuation plan which was in fact I accomplished on' March 18, 1985. The inmates note'that the second plan was more than three times the length of the original plan and contained considerably'less

~

censorship. 'Ihe inmates were satisfied upon this review that they had received

~

adequate disclosure on this issue. The inmates and other concerned parties then

~

met on March 22,-1985 in Harrisburg in an attempt to further resolve the differences between the parties and the concerns of the inmates. A considerable amount'~of progress was made at this time, however, numerous issues remained unresolved. The major issue was the inmates' right to restyle or . refile their

. contentions based upon a review of the second plan. The Licensing Board uncategorically denied the' inmates this opportunity. This forced the inmates to take an appeal to the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, which reversed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's . decision removing - the. inmates 'as intervenors.and their ~ decision allowed the' inmates time in which .to restyle

~

their contentions. .The Appeal Board set May 15, 1985 as the'date for the contentions to be updated. In the meantime, the applicant requested _an exenption fran the Graterford. matter, .an exemption which was granted' by ' this Board's ruling on'May 1, 1985. . The' inmates take exception to the Licensing Board's handling . of- this entire Graterford . issue. After being stalled and

~

stalled for overi three years they were finally given minimal information which was virtually incomprehensible. The inmates had'to appeal this Board's rulings ,

on two occasions 'in order to have the opportunity to provide meaningful input a V

+ 4 I

E into the emergency planning. Now that they have finally been granted the right to file their contentions based upon a comprehensible plan, the exemption is granted to the applicant regarding the inmates' contentions. The inmates believe the Licensing Board and/or the applicant has purposely put this issue off due to their reluctance to deal with the matter in an open and honest form.

The inmates contend that their issue presents serious problems for emergency planners and rather than deal with these problems the applicant and the Board have chosen to evade and delay. Now that the inmates have finally been granted the right for meaningful input, an exemption from the rules is granted. The inmates contend that this is not in the spirit with which the emergency planning regulations were mandated.

The inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford are currently housed there for violating the criminal code of Pennsylvania. No such exemptions have ever been granted from the criminal code of Pennsylvania and the inmates have a standing objection to any sort of exemption issued for any particular reason from the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission.

The inmates contend that as the Board has stated, financial wherewithal of certain individuals has allowed them the right tc obtain such exemptions. 'Ihe inmates request that as they have never been permitted to request exemptions from their crimes, the applicant should not be allowed exemptions from the duly authorized and promulgated regulations by the appropriate legislative bodies of our country.

Re tfully sutrni ,

Yl)h ANGUS R. OVE, Attorn f3r Inmates,

% IRESCIG i

1 i

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COH11SSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00tKETEC USNRC In the Matter of ,

PHIIADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 15 MY 21 A10:49

DOCKET Nos. 50-352 (Limerick Generating Station, _.

Units 1 and 2)  ; 50 -353 , . N SNVb gg'cEETE5G BRANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angus R. Iove, attorney for the Inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the EXCEPTIONS TO 111E BOARD'S ORDER GRANTING THE APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENT OF 10 CFR 50.47(a) and (b) was mailed to the following list on Friday, May 17, 1985, by first class mail, postage prepaid.

Administrative Judge Helen F. Hoyt Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Appeal. Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission U.S. Nuclear Reg. Cmmission Washingtoni D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry Harbour Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission 16th F1 Center Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 101 N. Broad St.

Phila. PA 19107-Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Docket & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington , D.C. 20555 (3 copies)

Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. Mr. Robert L. Anthony Counsel for NRC Staff 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Office of the Exec.. Legal Director Moylan, PA 19065 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 David Wersan, Esq.

Asst. Consumer Advocate Martha W. Bush, Esq. Office of Consumer Advocate Municipal Service Building 1425 Strawberry Sq.

15th & JFK Blvd. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107

i .. . . .

n '

AtomicSafety-& Licensing Board Panel Jay M. Gutierrez, Esquire-- ,

U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comission- U.S. Nuclear Reg. Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 ~ Region 1 631 Park Ave.

Frank Romano King of Prussia, PA 19406 61 Forest Avenue -

Ambler, PA 19002 Phyllis Zitzer-Limerick Ecology Action

' Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. P.O. Box 761

- Governor's Energy Council 762 Queen St.

P.O.1 Box 8010 ' Pottstown', PA 19464-

+

1625 N. Front Sti Harrisburg, PA 17105 ~ marles W. Elliott, Esq.

Counsel'for Limerick Ecology

' Mr; 'Ihomas Gerusky,_ Director _- -Action.

Bureau of Radiation Protection- 325 N. 10th St.

Dept. of Environmental Resources Easton, PA 18042 Fulton Bank Bldg. 5th F1.

Third. -:&olocust Sts.- Eugene J.'Bradley, Esq..

Harrisburg,-PA 17120 Counsel for.Phila. Electric Co.

2301 Market St.

Spence _W. Perry, Esquire Phila. PA 19101 Associate General Counsel FEMA, Room 840 Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

- 500 GT Street, SW V.P. and General Counsel Washington', D.C. 20472.

. Phila. Electric Co.

2301 Market St.

, James Wiggins Philadelphia, PA 19101 Sr. Resident Inspector U.S. -Nuclear Reg. Comission Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

P.O. Box 47 -

Comunity Legal Services, Inc. -

Sanatoga PA'19646 5219 Chestnut St.

Philadelphia, PA 19139 Timothy R.S. Campbell, Director Dept. of Bnergency- Services '

-14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 Director ~

Pa. Energency Management Agency Basement, Transportation &.SafetyiBldg.

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G.~ Otto, III, Esq.

Dept._of Corrections-Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17011-l Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. AM/Ad ~

Conner & Wettehahn mLOS R IDVB( ESyU1Ri;

. 1747 Penna. Ave, NW Suite 1050 Mon  : County Legal Aid Washington,LD.C. 20006 couns or Inmates, SCIG s

.. . . _ - . . . _ . ._ ____ _ _ _ . . _ _