ML20127L449
| ML20127L449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1985 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-565 OL, NUDOCS 8506280022 | |
| Download: ML20127L449 (35) | |
Text
N i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission DeCKETED USNRC In the Matter of
)
'85 JUN 24 P4 52
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-3520L-
)
5 0e:353..,
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
{If h p, $ M ;
gg Units 1 and 2)
)
6 RANCH APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF 10 C.F.R. PART 50, APPENDIX E, SECTION IV.F.1, FOR THE CONDUCT OF A FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A FULL-POWER OPERATING LICENSE Pr'eliminary Statiement Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
SS50.12 (a) and 50.47 (c) (1),M Philadelphia Electric Company, Applicant in the captioned 1/
In ALAB-809, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board held that to obtain a temporary exemption from emergency planning requirements under 10 C.F.R. 550.47, an applicant must not only meet the specific provisions for emergency planning exemptions under S50.47 (c) (1),
but must also meet the criteria under Section 50.12(a),
which apply to Part 50 in general.
See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 l
and 2), ALAB-809, 21 NRC (June 17, 1985)
(slip op.
at 9).
In a related
- filing, Applicant has petitioned the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.786 tor review, l
inter alia, of whether both regulations must be met for l
the grant of the requested exemption.
See Applicant's Request for Expedited Review of ALAB-809 and other Emergency Relief (June 20, 1985).
Although Applicant contends in its petition that exemptions from emergency planning requirements can be granted by authority of (Footnote Continued) 8506280022 850624 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O
PDR g
9
e.
proceeding, moves the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Com-mission") for an exemption from the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F.1, for the conduct of a full participation emergency planning exercise within one year before the issuance or a full-power operating license for Unit 1, Limerick Generating Station (" Limerick"). 2_/
In anticipation of obtaining a full-power operating license for Limerick in early 1985, the Federal government and the Commonwealth ot Pennsylvania conducted a
full participation emergency preparedness exercise testing the licensee, State and local plans for Limerick pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix.E,Section IV.F.1 on July 2.5,1984.
(Footnote Continued)
Section 50.47 (c) (1) alone, Applicant has necessarily addressed the criteria of both sections in its instant request.
2/
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 provides that:
1.
A full participation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after July 13, 1982.
This exercise shall be conducted within 1
year before the issuance of the first operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first factor, and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ.
[ Emphasis added.]
a.
At that time, it was reasonable to expect that a full-power operating license would issue for Unit 1 of Limerick well within one year.
Construction of Unit 1 was essentially complete and all outstanding issues other than those relat-ing to offsite emergency planning had been litigated and decided or submitted for decision.
In
- fact, the litigation of all offsite emergency planning issues, except those relating to the State Correc-tional Institute at Graterford ("Graterford"), was concluded I
on January 29, 1985.M Development of this plan was solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
l Submission and litigation of the Gratertord contentions.
could not occur beforeliand solely for reasons absolutely
~
i beyond Applicant's control in that an emergency plan for Graterford was unavailable from the Commonwealth until December 13, 1984.M Obviously, this delay cannot be attributed to the Applicant.
-3/
All offsite emergency planning contentions other than those relating to Gratertord were resolved in Applicant's favor in the Licensing Board's Third Partial Initial Decision ("PID").
See Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
1985), appeal pending.
All other issues relating to Limerick were resolved in Applicant's favor in the Board's First and Second PID's.
See Limerick,
dism. o_n remand 7 LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446 (1984), appeal pending.
4_/
See Applicant's Request for Expedited Review of ALAB-809 and Other Emergency Relief at 4 n.7 (June 20, 1985).
.o '
D On February 7, 1985, Applicant filed a motion for an exemption with the Licensing Board seeking relief from the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a) and (b) to permit opera-tion of Limerick at power levels greater than five percent of rated power prior to the Licensing Board's disposition of any contentions on the Graterford plan which might be admitted. !
After the parties had fully briefed this issue, the Licensing Board provisionally granted a
temporary exemption from emergency planning requirements for Graterford on May 9, 1985,dI which it r.ade final in an Order dated May 24, 1985.1I Following direction trom the Commis-sioners to review the grant expeditiously,8/ the Appeal Board vacated and remanded tiiis matter 'to the I;icensing l
5/
See Applicant's Motion for Exemption from the Requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S50.47(a) and (b) as They Relate to the Necessity of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Consideration of Evacuation Provisions of the Emergency Plan for the State Correctional Institution of Graterford (February 7, 1985).
6/
Limerick, supra, ' Order Granting Applicant's Motion for i
Exemption from Requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a) and (b) for a Period of Time Any Potential Contentions of Remaining Party We Considered by the Board" (May 9,
1985).
7/
Limerick, supra, " Board's Order Implementing its Grant
.~
of Applicant's Motion for Exemption from Requirement of 10 C.F.R.
S50.47(a) and (b) for a Period of Time Contentions of Graterford Inmates are Considered by the Board - Authorization for Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Issue Full Power License" (May 24, 1985).
8/
Limerick, supra, CLI-85-11, 21 NRC (June 11, 1985).
Board in ALAB-809, holding, inter alia, that the criteria of 9
10 C.F.R. S50.12(a) had not been addressed As contemplated by ALAB-809, Applicant has filed with the Licensing Board a renewed request for a temporary exemption from emergency planning requirements for Graterford as related to the two admitted contentions.
Applicant is also pursuing the alternative of a petition for expedited review and related emergency relief before the Commissioners. b Importance of Action By the Commissioners Upon the Requested Exemption As a result of these delays in the licensing process,
- it is now very. doubtful, because.~of procedural, 'not s'ubstian '
- tive, obstacles, that the NRC will issue a
full-power license on or before July 25, 1985.
Thus, completion ot another full participation exercise prior to the issuance of the license will be required, unless an exemption is gran-ted.
Accordingly, Applicant seeks an exemption from the one-year requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,
9/
Limerick, supra, ALAB-809, 21 NRC (June 17, 1985)
(slip op. at 10).
,1_Of See Applicant's Renewed Motion for an Exemption from the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50. 47 (a) and (b) as They Relate to the Two Contentions Admitted on Behalf of the Graterford Prisoners During the Period Necessary for Litigation (June 20, 1985).
11/
See Applicant's Request for Expedited Review of ALAB-809 and Other Emergency Relief (June 20, 1985).
6-Section IV.F.1, to extend the one-year period up to such time as a
full-power operating license is issued for Limerick.
It has been Commission practice in recent years to delegate consideration of exemption requests in contested cases to the presiding licensing board.
In this instance, however, the time required for such referral and pleadings thereon, together with the time required for a ruling by the Licensing Board and review by the Appeal Board, would make any attempt to expedite licensing in this case meaningless.
Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Commission retain Jurisdiction and grant the requested exemption if.the other alterna'tives sought cannot 'be granted in' time for the issuance of a full-power license on or before July 25, 1985.
As discussed below, four salient points mandate prompt action by the Commissioners:
'There are no hazards to the public health and safety in granting the requested exemption.
The same exemption has been granted for the Byron and Waterford facilities for the same reasons cited by Applicant here.
'Alltestingnecessaryfortheissuanceofafull-powehr license has been complete since March 1985 and Limerick is ready to proceed to full power.
'Only a very discrete adjudicatory matter remains to be resolved before issuance of a full-power operating license, which results from the Commission's Order
dated June 12, 1985 and the subsequent decision in ALAB-809.E The delay in litigating this matter has been entirely beyond Applicant's control.
In the unlikely event that the intervenor were to demonstrate any actual deficiency in the Commonwealth's plan, it certainly would be correctly forthwith.
- Eliminating delay in commercial operations at Limerick will save ratepayers and shareholders approximately S1.5 million per d.ay.E!
The exemption requested by Applicant for Limerick is the same which the Commission has previously granted for the Byron and Waterford facilities.
As in this instance, the app'licants in those cases relied upon earlier full-participation emergency exercises in which FEMA M/
Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order," CLI-85-ll, 21 NRC (June 11, 1985).
The Commission directed the Appeal Board to consider whether any hearing rights of the Graterford inmates had been violated.
In ALAB-809, the Appeal Board held that "a
grant of an exemption does not deprive the inmates of their right to be heard I
(at the formal
- hearing, it necessary, or through written filings) on their admissible contentions."
Limerick, supra, ALAB-809, 21 NRC (June 17, 1985)
(slip op. at 13 n.12).
The Appeal Board further stated that "through the exemption regulations which no party here challenges per se the Commission has recognized that some circumstances might warrant license issuance despite an applicant's inability to l
satisfy all regulatory requirements."
Id.
Therefore, the requested exemption will not impair in any way the procedural rights of any
- party, including the Graterford inmates.
M/
See page 18, infra.
determined that onsite and offsite capabilities had been adequately established.
In fact, FEMA's conclusions in the Waterford proceeding were based upon "the schedule of corrective actions to the identified deficiencies" in offsite preparednessMI in contrast to the complete correc-tion of identified deficiencies for Limerick.
As here, both applicants in the Byron and Waterford cases also relied upon the participation by the State in other exercises and the scheduling of various drills to test onsite capabilities for the interim period.E!
In each case, the Staff granted that the requested exemption, finding compliance with applicable exemption requirements.
4 14/
Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Waterford Steam Electric
- Station, Unit No.
3, NUREG-0787, at 13-1, (Supp. No. 10) (March 1985).
15/
Id. at 13-1 to 13-2; Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,
NUREG-0876, at 13-1 to 13-2 (Supp. No.
6)
(February 1985).
Similarly, the following drills, which are a part of the ongoing Emergency Preparedness Program for Limerick, will be held in the period prior to the scheduled exercise for April 1986:
(a) monthly l
communication drills with the State and local agencies; l
(b) a plant environmental and radiological monitoring l
- drill, involving field monitoring and analysis activiites; (c) a health physics drill involving response to, and analysis ot, simulated elevated airborne and liquid
- samples, and direct radiation measurements in the environment; (d) practice exercises for the emergency response organization using the emergency response facilities.
l i
.- ~_ --._
4..
Discussion I.
Applicant Has Independently Satisfied Each Of The Three Alternative Factors Under 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (c) (1).
Section 50.47(c) (1)E! provides in relevant part that:
Failure to meet the applicable stan-dards set forth in paragraph (b)-of this section may result in the Commission declining to issue an operating license;
- however, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate. to the satisfaction of the Commission that deticiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken
- promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation.
The NRC has broad. authority'ko' grant.an exemption.such' as that sought here.
For example, in Shoreham, the Commis-sion held that an exemption under Section 50.47(c) (1) could be obtained even "in the absence of State and local govern-i ment-approved plans" because the NRC "has the ultimate authority to determine whether [the] submission is suffi-cient to meet the prerequisites for the issuance of an operating license."E!
Moreover, as the Appeal Board noted in ALAB-809, the three factors to be considered under Section 50.47 (c) (1) are i
16/
Applicant discusses the factors under Section 50.47 (c) (1) first because that regulation specifically pertains to emergency planning requirements.
17/
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-13, 17 NRC 741, 743 (1983).
l l
l
_ 10 _
stated in the disjunctive.EI Thus, an applicant qualifies for an exemption from emergency planning requirements under Section 50.47(b) if it has met any of the three standards i
set forth in the regulation.
A.
There are no deficiencies in emergency planning for Limerick.
A full participation exercise to test the licens-ee, State and local emergency plans for Limerick was con-ducted on July 25, 1984.
That exercise identitied several Category A deficiencies, which are deficiencies "of the type that would cause a finding that offsite emergency prepared-ness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that
, appropriate protective measures can be taken to protect the.
health ~ and ' safety or the publ'ic living in the vi'cinit$y of the Limerick Generating Station in the event of a radio-logical emergency."El Since the initial
- exercise, however, a
number of l
remedial exercises have been conducted to verify correction of deficiencies in pertinent portions of the plans.
These exercises have demonstrated that all Category A deficiencies have been eliminated,2_0/ thus leading to the formal finding M/
Limerick, supra, ALAB-809, 21 NRC (June 17, 1985)
(slip op. at 10).
M/
Federal Emergency Management Agency and Regional Assistance Committee, Region III, Exercise Evaluation Report at 134 (September 19, 1984).
20/
A supplemental exercise was conducted on November 20, (Footnote Continued)
by FEMA, the agency with expertise and responsibility under 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (2),
on May 21, 1985 that "offsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness is now adequate to provide reasonable assurance that protective measures can be implemented to protect the public health and (Footnote Continued) 1984 for those municipalities and the one support county which did not participate in the July 25, 1984 exercise.
FEMA found that all participants in this exercise adequately demonstrated their capability to respond to a
radiological emergency.
See Federal Emergency Management
- Agency, Region
- III, Exercise Evaluation Report at 30-38 (December.7, 1984).
' A l supplemental exercise' to demonstrate'the ability to implement the Graterford emergency plan was conducted on March 7, 1985, in which the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the State Correctional -Institution at Graterford and PEMA participated.
As a result of this exercise, FEMA found that the Graterford authorities
" adequately demonstrated an understanding of the emergency response procedures and the ability to adequately implement them.
Memorandum from Richard W.
Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA to Edward L.
- Jordan, Director, Division' of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering
- Response, Office or i
Inspection and Enforcement, NRC (March 27, 1985).
l l
On April 10,
- 1985, a
supplemental exercise was l
conducted to allow participation by the risk school j
districts and South Coventry Township.
As set forth in i
its Exercise Evaluation Report, FEMA found that all L
participating jurisdictions " performed in an adequate manner."
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region III, Exercise Evaluation Report at i (April 18, 1985).
Finally, a remedial exercise conducted on April 22, 1985 demonstrated the adequacy or onsite and offsite alert and notitication capabilities at Limerick.
Federal Emergency Management
- Agency, Region
- III, Exercise Evaluation Report at 1 (April 25, 1985).
safety in the event of a radiological emergency at the Limerick Generating Station."
The Licensing Board's Second
/
and Third Partial 4
Initial Decisions ("PID's")E independently determined that there are no deficiencies in emergency planning for Limerick.
In concluding that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, both onsite and offsite, in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick, the Licensing Board decided numerous contentions broadly ranging the spectrum of emergency planning requirements for Limerick.
The Board heard extensive testimony from near.ly one hundre'd witnesses, covering some 40 hearing days and 8,500
~
t l
transcript pages; reviewed emergency plans for the Limerick facility -as well as some 61
- county, municipal, school i
4 district and supporting jurisdictions in and adjacent to the Limerick EPZ; and made extensive factual tindings of several hundred pages to support its determination that no f
l 21/
Memorandum from Richard W.
Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA, to Edward L. Jordan, Director, Division l
of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, NRC at 2 (May 21, l
1985).
2_2_/ Limerick, supra, LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446 (1984), appeal pending.
2_3_/
Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (1985), appeal pending.
significant deficiencies in planning exist.DI The validity of the Board's findings is enhanced by the Appeal Board's recent denial of a stay or the Second and Third PID's.
The Appeal Board rejected each of the substantive attacks upon the Licensing Board's findings and conclusions and held that there was "no cause.
to doubt the Licensing Board's 4
reasonable assurance finding" as to the workability of local plans.2_5,/
The Appeal Board therefore tound "no error that stay."El The record thus amply demon-would warrant a strates that there are no deficiencies in emergency planning for Limerick, significant or otherwise.
B.
Adequate interim compensating actions have been taken.
Since the July 25, l'984 exerc'ise, FEMA has conducted
~
an ongoing review of the adequacy of emergency planning for i
Limerick.
These supplemental and remedial exercises have included participation by the major umbrella organizations M/
The Board did require verification of plans to implement traffic control measures outside the EPZ and satisfaction of unmet municipal staffing needs for 24-hour operation prior to operation above 5% power.
See Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
T9TS)
(slip op.
at 304-05).
Verification of those conditions has been received by FEMA.
See Memorandum from Richard W.
Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA to Edward L.
- Jordan, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, Ottice of Inspection and Enforcement, NRC (May 30, 1985).
25/
Limerick, supra, ALAB-808, 21 NRC (1985) (slip op.
at 7).
26/
Id. at 8.
l that would respond to an emergency at Limerick, i.e.,
PEMA and the risk counties.
As the organizations having princi-pal responsibility for responding to an emergency at
- Limerick, their satisfactory participation in the recent exercises continues to demonstrate their tull and adequate l
capabilities.
l l
As to local response organizations, such as the munic-1palities and school districts, their plans have been t
developed based upon planning principles and guidance i
i l
provided by PEMA and the risk counties.27/
Local plans are therefore in consonance with State and county plans as well l
as each other and would be similarly. implement.ed. in. an_
actual emergency.
The workability of these plans'has been confirmed in recent exercisesE and thus reflects overall preparedness on the part of the entire emergency planning i
zone.
- Thus, there is no need for another wholesale f
l exercise.29/
Taken
- together, these measures constitute l
l M/
See, Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
l 1985) (slip op. at 246-49).
M/
See note 20, supra.
l M/
The only deficiency identified by the Licensing Board in this
- respect, relating to the 24-hour response capability of various municipalities, has been corrected as contirmed by FEMA.
See Memorandum from l
Richard W.
Krimm, Assistant Associate Director, Ottice l
of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA to Edward L.
- Jordan, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering
- Response, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, NRC at 3 (May 21, 1985).
l
adequate compensating actions in lieu of another exercise prior to the issuance of a full-power operating license for Limerick.
Also, the adequacy of emergency planning and prepared-ness at Graterford (the only remaining adjudicatory issue on two admitted contentions) 3_0,/ has been fully demonstrated by virtue of a supplemental exercise on March 7,
1985.
As confirmed by FEMA in its written evaluation of the exercise, which simulated a full-scale evacuation of the facility, the Department of Correction authorities have adequately demon-strated their ability to implement the Graterford plan in
,the event of a radiological emergency at. Limerick.E '
Reliance upon existing planning and prepared' ness ' for Limerick is supported by the Commission's conclusions in the recent rulemaking which resulted in a relaxation of the annual exercise requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix i
l E, to permit an exercise once every two years.
In adopting this change, the Commission stated:
f-FEMA has had almost 3 years of experience with evaluating State and local government radiological emergency planning and preparedness.
With tew exceptions, this experience has revealed a significant increase in the level of State and local government radiological preparedness as demonstrated in joint M/
See Limerick, supra, " Order Admitting Certain Revised Contentions of the Graterford Inmates and Denying Others" at 6, 9 (June 12, 1985).
H/
See note 20, supra.
exercises.
FEMA has evaluated approxi-mately 150 exercises.
In only five instances did FEMA determine that State and local governments did not demon-strate adequate preparedness.
The Commission believe that this enhanced level of preparedness should be recog-nized by allowing State and local governments to exercise jointly with utilities on a biennial frequency. 32)
Thus, the Commission's reasoning in amending the exercise treguency requirement fully supports the limited exemption requested here.
The commissioners should also consider other interim compensating actions which have been or will be taken in the torm of other exercises in the Commonwealth.
In this regard,/ FEMA has scheduled a full participation ex reise for -
the Three Mile Island facility for November 1985.3_3,/
l
- Moreover, a full participation exercise was held at the i
Susquehanna facility on May 1,
1985.
Inasmuch as those exercises have tested and will test the preparedness of agencies with State-wide responsibilities, such as PEMA and I
the Bureau of Radiation Protection, further assurance exists of their ongoing readiness.
3_2]
Emergency Planning and Preparedness, 49 Fed.
Reg.
27733, 27735 (July 6, 1984).
-33/
See letter from James R.
Asher, Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee, Region III, FEMA to Roberta A.
- Kankus, Philadelphia Electric Company (January 21, 1985)
(copy attached).
It is noted that Berks County l
will participate in the Three Mile Island exercise.
It l
1s also noted that Chester County participated in the October 1984 exercise for the Peach Bottom facility.
1 I
i l
_ 17 _
Finally, it is very noteworthy that the development of training for Limerick offsite emergency personnel has proceeded full pace as anticipated such that a ready state of preparedness has now been attained.
As of this time, there have been over 500 training sessions for Limerick EPZ emergency response personnel, resulting in the training of approximately 8,500 individuals, some of whom have been discipline. E This training trained in more than one extends to school administrators and staff; emergency workers such as local police, fire and ambulance personnel; staff for Emergency Operations Centers; radiation monitoring personnel and others with emergency. response functions.
C.
There are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation.
The Limerick facility completed its low-power testing program in late March, 1985 and has been ready to begin operations above 5% power since that time.
The only matters remaining to be heard are two contentions on the 34/
See Memorandum of Robert Bradshaw, dated June 21, 1985 (attached).
The memorandum's chart reflects more than 10,000 trained; some were trained at more than one session.
Mr. Bradshaw is the Limerick Project Manager for Energy Consultants, which was retained by Applicant i
to assist jurisdictions within the EPZ in preparing their emergency plans.
Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
1985)
(slip op. at 12-13).
The Board
- found, based upon their consultant and liaison responsibilities, that Mr. Bradshaw and other Energy Consultant witnesses " possess detailed knowledge of the emergency plans and training programs," and further found those witnesses "to be qualified by position, training and experience to explain the status and content of those plans."
I_d.
at 13.
d
Graterford emergency plan relating to a radiological hazards orientation for bus and ambulance drivers and possible adjustment of the 6-10 hour evacuation time estimate for Graterford. b An exemption has been requested by the Applicant for the period necessary to complete litigation of those contentions.3_6,/
It is self-evident that there will be financial hard-ships when there is a completely constructed nuclear facili-ty, standing unused and nonproductive because of licensing delays.
Such delays will increase the costs of Limerick Unit 1 by approximately $49 million per month.
This cost figure is comprised of $24 million per month allowance for
- fund's used during consEruction ( " AFUDC.") ; $10 million per
~
~
month operational, security and maintenance costs; and $15 million a month in increased fuel costs of the Philadelphia Electric Company customers. b Further delay in the authorization for full power for i
l Unit 1 will also impact the restart of construction ot Unit 2.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ("PUC") is i
3_5)
See note 30, supra.
l 36/
As stated in note 1,
- supra, Applicant is seeking expedited review and reversal of ALAB-809, but has also renewed its request betore the Licensing Board, as directed by ALAB-809, for an exemption related to the two Graterford contentions.
See note 10, supra.
3_7)
Affidavit of V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, Philadelphia Electric Company at 15 (March 14, 1985).
presently deciding whether construction at Unit 2 should be continued, but in compliance with an order issued by the PUC, construction of Unit 2 has been suspended until Unit 1 is placed in commercial operation.EI In a recent policy statement relating to emergency planning, the Commission stated that an applicant's " good faith" could provide a basis for finding "other compelling reasons" to avoid a delay in full-power operating license issuance.E!
As the Commission is aware, Applicant has provided con tderable assistance to assure that offsite emergency planning meets all regulatory requirements and
,that full preparedness would be achieved consistent with.
~
anticipated' issuance of a tull-power operating 11cehse.
Specifically, Applicant has made available planning and l
trattic engineering consultants to assist offsite author-i ities in the development of the plans and evacuation time estimates.
As noted, as of this time, there have been over 500 training sessions resulting in the training of l
l L
l 3_8)
Affidavit of V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, Philadelphia Electric Company at 1 5 (February 7, 1985).
t l
M/
Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50. 47 (b) (12), 50 Fed. Reg. 20892, 20894 (May 21, 1985).
4_0)
Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
1985) l (slip op. at 12-13, 21-22, 246-49).
l
approximately 8,500 emergency response personnel.4I/
Applicant has also provided extensive physical resources requested by offsite authorities in order for the counties, j
municipalities and school districts to achieve the state of preparedness required under 10 C.F.R.
S50.47 and NUREG-0654.S!
Moreover, Applicant has attempted to facilitate plan development and preparedness at Graterford (the real source of the need for an exemption) by providing needed monitor-ing, security and communications equipment and reimbursing g/
See page 17, supra.
4_2,/
In a letter dated February 1,
1984 from V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear
- Power, Philadelphia Electric. Company to Robert J.
- Thompson, Chairman, Chester County Board of Commissioners, Applicant committed the support ot its planning consultant and agreed to reimburse the County for the costs of drills, plan
- updates, public meetings and hearings and incidental costs in an actual emergency; resource needs for County, police, fire, ambulance, medic unit and route alerting teams; and resource needs for the Chester County Emergency Operations Center.
See also Letter of January 15, 1985 from V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear
- Power, Philadelphia Electric Company, to Timothy R.
S.
Campbell, Director of Emergency Services, Chester County (Applicant will reimburse bus operators and other emergency workers for incremental expenses incurred during and because or their participation in Limerick-related emergencies or drills (Applicant's Exhibit E-102) ) ;
Letter of September 13, 1984 from Ralph J.
- Hippert, Deputy Director, Office of Plans and Preparedness, PEMA, to V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear
- Power, Philadelphia Electric Company (enclosing agreement in which Applicant agreed to fund the procurement of 10,000 thermoluminescent dosimeters and 9,000 self-reading dosimeters (Applicant's Exhibit E-104)).
4 *.
personnel training costs.EI Applicant has also offered to provide training for bus drivers who would transport evacu-ated inmates in an emergency.44/
All of the planning assistance which Applicant has provided to the emergency planning zone jurisdictions, including Graterford, demonstrates its
" good faith" and t
therefore constitutes "other compelling reasons" for grant-ing the requested exemption.
Delay in preparation and l
testing of the Graterford emergency plan, with resultant delay in issuance or a tull-power operating license, has been beyond the control of Applicant.
.II.
Applicant Has Also Met,The' Requirements-For An. Exemption Under.10 C.F.R; ~S50.12 (a).
-s Applicant has also met the requirements for issuance of an exemption contained in 10 C.F.R.
S50.12(a), which pro-vides in relevant part:
The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are au-thorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense r
and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
43/
See Letters of November 6 and December 4, 1984 from V.
S.
- Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear
- Power, Philadelphia Electric Company, to L.
P.
Benning, Chief of Security / Safety, Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections.
M/
See Applicant's Answer to Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions of the Graterford Prisoners at 4 n.3 (April 4, 1985).
A.
The requested exemption is authorized by law.
It is indisputable that the Commission has authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a_s amended, to make rules and I
regulations governing the issuance or tull-power operating licenses.El In construing the " authorized by law" require-ment of Section 50.12(a) in its proposed rulemaking to revise that provision, the Commission stated:
As in the existing rule, an exemption t
must be " authorized by law."
Apart from the very fact of granting the exemption relief
- itself, the granting of the exemption cannot be violation of other applicable
- laws, such as the Atomic Energy Act, or the National Environ-mental Policy Act.M/
' The Commission has,. of' course,.aiready-declared 'y its '
b~
adoption of Section 50.47 (c) (1) that it has authority to grant temporary exemptions from emergency planning require-ments.
It has utilized that authority at least in Byron and watertord, discussed above.
B.
Issuance of the exemption will not endanger life or b
property or the common detense and security.
As discussed above, there are no deficiencies, significant or otherwise, in the various offsite emergency plans.
Further, interim compensating measures nave been taken to protect the health i
and safety of the public within the Limerick EPZ by virtue 45/
See Section 161(p) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 52201 (p).
g/
Proposed Rule [on Specific Exemptions Under 10 C.F.R.
Part 50], 50 Fed. Reg. 16506, 16508 (April 26, 1985).
,.._-...-,,,_,--,-,.,,w.
,w
,--.n,,.--,..v..,
t of the supplemental and remedial exercises, which demon-i.
strate, on a continuing basis, the adequacy of planning and preparedness as required under 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a) and (b).
Those facts are equally applicable in determining that the grant of the exemption will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
i As the Commission stated in recent rulemaking to amend l
l~
the procedure for granting exemptions under 10 C.F.R. 550.12(a), consideration of this factor under the existing regulation basically involves an evaluation of the safety implications of the requested exemption.
The Commission explained:
l In a departure from the text of the existing rule, the proposed rule would require a
finding that the exemption will not "present an undue risk to the public health and satety" and would be
" consistent with the common derense and security."
These criteria provide an explicit recognition of traditional staff practice in evaluating the safety implications of a particular exemption.
It is anticipated that this evaluation l
will consider such factors as compensa-tory measures, length of time that the exemption will be in effect, and stage of plant operation (i.e.,
fuel loading, low
- power, full
- power, etc.).
The Commission believes that the "not endanger" language in the current rule was never intended to emnody any special standards for exemptions that differed from the statutory standards that licensing must provide adequate pro-tection to the health and safety of the public and be in accord with the common defense and security.
The "no undue l
l risk" standard of the proposed rule is a l
refinement of the statutory standard l
l l
l
that reflects current staff practice in the exemptions area. E /
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the same consid-erations which demonstrate the absence of any deficiency in planning and the existence of interim compensating measures under Section 50.47 (c) (1) likewise establish that the requested exemption will pose no undue risk to the public in terms of the traditional safety analysis under Section 50.12(a).
As discussed more fully above, a full participation exercise was conducted on July 25, 1984, which, as supple-mented by more recent exercises, has wholly demonstrated the
~ de'fl.ciencies.
- Moreover, as' correction of -al1 ' identified many witnesses testified during the ortsite emergency planning' hearings before the Licensing Board, municipalities and school districts have greatly improved their capabil-ities to respond to an emergency at Limerick since the July 25, 1984 exercise.EI Additionally, a
great number of emergency response workers have been recruited and trained since the earlier exercise such that the various Emergency Operations Centers are now fully staffed.El 41/ (Proposed Rule [on Specific Exemptions Under 10 C.F.R.
Part 50], 50 Fed. Reg. 16506, 16508 (April 26, 1985).
M/
See Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,
1985) (slip op. at 75-156, 241-295).
49/
Id. at 230-36.
As stated in note 29, supra, FEMA has
]
(Footnote Continued) m_,,
The public health and safety will therefore be fully protected in the event of a
radiological emergency at Limerick it the exemption is granted.
A minor adjustment in the one-year full participation exercise requirement will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security under these circumstances.
C.
The grant ot an exemption is in the public inter-est.
The public interest strongly favors grant of an exemption from the requirement that another full participa-tion emergency drill be held it a tull-power operating license is not authorized for Limerick by July 25, 1985.
,First, the continuing conduct and evaluation of exercises by FEMA n'egates the need for any exercise in advan'ce of ' the next scheduled exercise for Limerick in April 1986.
Sub-stantial costs and resource commitments would be incurred by another exercise.
Aside trom Applicant, the participating and reviewing agencies could more profitably apply those resources elsewhere. b l
(Footnote Continued) veritied that all previously unmet municipal staffing needs for 24-hour operation have been satisfied.
50/
This was, of course, a major consideration in amending
""~
the exercise requirement to provide for a two-year frequency after licensing.
See Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities; Frequency and Participation of Exercises, 48 Fed. Reg. 33307 (July 21, 1983) (citing " disproportionate amount of
- Federal, State, local government and licensee resources" then committed to once-a-year exercises).
i
o 1
f 26 -
y
.i l
Second, the bosts which will result to Applicant and its customers because of any further c'e'$ay in the licensing of Limerick would be truly st'aggering.
Delay would also o
forestall restart of construction of ^ Unit 2.
The public,,
interest in expeditious licensing v'ery strongly favors remedy @g a situation in which a fully constructed nuclear facility would not be:prodqctive because of licensing delays which cost the Applicant and its custom,ers an estimated $49 millionLam$ nth.b The Commission has so stated in declar-ing its policy "to expedite the hearing process" and " avoid or reduce [the cost of delays] whenever measures are av' ail-able that do not compromise the Commission's fundamental
/
c'ommitment'to a fair and. thorough hearing process."
In J.
short, the public interest favors the full-power licensing of Limerick as soon as possible to begin commercial op-erations phomptly.
l/
v s
Third, the public interest in full and fair hearings will be unattected by granting the exemption because, as noted above, the grant of an exempticn will not deprive any party, incl uding ',.the Graterford im..tes, of their hearing 6
51/
See page 18, supra.
M/
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceed _ings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453 (1981).
j, s
J O
E
\\
rights.E Accordingly, the public interest favors grant of the exemption in every respect.
Conclusion For the reasons set torth above, Applicant submits that the criteria for an exemption under both the provisions of 10 C.F.R. SS 50.12 (1) and 50.47 (c) (1) have been met and that the requested relief should be granted.
The Commissioners should grant the requested relief if it cannot grant any other alternative which would permit the issuance of the full-power operating license on or before July 25, 1985.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
Tro nner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols Counsel for Applicant June 24, 1985 i
l l
53/
See note 12, supra.
l o
l f
5^
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
og 4
)
US O
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-35%
dOY24 p4 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
Y OF e
/ c,9
'[
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3
I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion for an Exemption from the Requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F.1, for the Conduct. of a Full Participation Exercise Within One Year Before the Issuance of a Full-Power Operating License" dated June 24, 1985 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 24th day,.of June, 1985:
- Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
- Lando W.
Zech, Jr.,
Office of the Secretary Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Nunzio J..Palladino, Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Thomas M.
- Roberts, Commissioner Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- James K. Asselstine, Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gary J. Edles Commission Atomic Safety and Licensingt Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Frederick M. Bernthal, Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory
' Commission Washington, D.C.
205b5 l
- Hand Delivery l
o,
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Angus Love, Esq. 107 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Sugarman; E,sq.
Robert J.
Board. Panel-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Sugarman, Denworth &
Commission Hellegers Washington, D.C.
20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 ATTN:
Edward G.
Bauer, Jr.
Vice President &
Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 l
- Mr. Frank R. Romano l
61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. L'ewis, Esq. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK
- Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 l
Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 i
l Hand Delivery
- Federal Express I
1 i
e.
Charles W.
Elliott, Esq.
- Spence W. Perry, Esq.
325 N.
10th Street Associate General Counsel Easton, PA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency
- Phyllis Zitzer, Esq.
500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection
' *
- Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.
Department of Environmental Assistant Counsel Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Governor's Energy Council Third and Locust Streets 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17102 James Wiggins Jay.M. Gutierrez, Esq. U.S.
Senior Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission-631 Park Avenue P. O. Box 47 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sanatoga, PA 19464
- Timothy R.S. Campbell
.Mr; Ralph Hippert' Director Pennsylvania Emergency Department of Emergency Management Agency Services B151 - Transportation 14 East Biddle Street Safety Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O.
Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 i
Robert M.
Rader i
i l
- Federal Express i
x x Energy Consutants MEMOR-ANDUM Distribution J'
n:.7.RoberttBradshaw ont Limeriik Project Manager June 21, 1985 LIMERICK OFFSITE TRAINING Attached is a copy of Energy Consultant's Limerick Training Report and a susmary of Limerick Training conducted through June 21, 1985.
If you have any questions on this material, please contact me or Bob Patterson at 215/495-7300, i
RTB/dit
-DT621.851 Attachment Distribution:
Donald Taylor John Shannon Rick Kinard
-Vince S. Boyer Roberta Kankus Robert L. Reber Timothy R.S. Campbell A. Lindley Bigelow l
9 9
O n....-
,---s-
- r_g LIMERICK TRAINING REPORT f 0F CLASSES /f TRAINED l
CLASS Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June TYPE 1983 1984 1985 1985 1985 1985
, 1985 1985 TOTALS Schoo_1_ St_a ff School Admin.
School Bus EW.I
_EW II aQIL_,,,
i PSP ECC I EOC 11 AGR RAD./ MON.
REC./CEN.
Disp.
Health. Care TOTALS 1
i
?
I t
Limerick Training Report - May/ June l
May 1985 k
Date Location Tyg Students I.
5/13 Haverford Fire Dept Radiological 27 f
Monitoring
[.
5/20 Sudsbury/Pomeroy F.D.
Radiological 17 p
Monitoring g
5/31 Whitepain Township P.D..
Traffic Center 20 F
(EWII) i f
June 1_985 6/10 Bryn Mawr Fire Dept.
Radiological 5
Monitoring LL s'
I l
l 1
- 1
.,,,,,,,,,,,,3
M Federal Emergency Management Agency RE010N HI January 21,1985 dA$
'##j g
k'q,,
1
(
Ms Roberta A; Kankus l
Philadelphia Electric Company l
2301 Market Street 57 1 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Dear Ms,
Kankust Enclosed for your information and plannin9 purposes is a copy of the Exercisa Schedule for 1985/1986.
As in the past, any requests to change an exercise date will be submitted in writing to the Regional Assistance Committee Chairman so that changes will be coordinated with all agencies participating in thesexercise.
Sincerely.
l James R. Asher a
Chairman Regional Assistance Committee Enclosure I
l l
e L<
e o
m.
-T Tr P K~ f^~
a h
s.
9 s
~
!r*l l, t
.e-I
~v
-l 9I 8
=
J.
l 0
g
'l 3
jl1 g
ji' s ^
e p:
.i n
J
.t
-i.
- s
=.
__: r I,
I l'a
=
jQ l 2 11
.n
_ y I..
g y
4 m
s>.
_I_
p+.
T h l
a ty;.
l
_ 5 y-l 5
7
_ g
~t
~
5
.x
. g*
ll
.)
- r g,,;,g e,.,,
N g
s f.' 'l
_ I
- g E
J y_r R
3
_s a
_5 l
l
__l l
l
_E t
,4 l
E
>n
}
a =,. es.
tt
~-
..a.vge-a 4
m a
s e
I
.e 3
m w
a E"::
4 a
-=-J.
4 h+. y.
-,,.. )
W ':*v.