ML20128C999

Motion Opposing Applicant 850624 Motion for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.1 Re Conduct of Full Participation Exercise within 1 Yr of Issuance of Full Power OL

ML20128C999
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/28/1985
From:	Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20128C997	List: ML20128C994 ML20128C999
References
OL, NUDOCS 8507030734
Download: ML20128C999 (7)

Text

.

e 0 05 0 0 BROAD AXE, PA. June 28, 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 BEFORE THE .\UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

In the Matter Of - - - - -

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-352 (Limerick Generating Station 50-353 L' nits 1 and 2)

AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL / ROMANO OPPOSES 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 AWPP/ Romano comments on Applicant's own inadequate support for its motion for exemption in the captioned motion dated June 24, 1985 As per page 2, the fact that Applicant presumed too much and was negligent to the point of causing its own delays does not prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from its duty to protect the public in withholding licensing and denying exemption from exercise participa-tion re instant motion. Further, the drill was not a full participa-tion emergency preparedness exercise on the one hand, and what exer-cise did take place was really a failure on the other hand in that schools and townships did not all take part.

Applicant states that "At that time, it was reasonable to ex-poet that a full-power licenso would issue for Uni

• 1 of Limerick well within one year". AWPP/ Romano points to the Fpecified inade-quacies listed in its June 11, 1985 Drief re Gratorford Inmates.

Applicant continues " Construction of Unit I was essentially com-plete and all outstanding issues other than thoso relating to offsite emergency planning had been litigated and decided or submitted for decision". Again the Applicant took too much for granted. AWPP/Ro-mano has yet to hear the decision of the Appeal Board re its Conton-tions IV and VI.

0507030734 050702 DH ADOCKOD00pgj2

AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.

(2)

AWPP/ Romano's reply to Applicants Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

While the Applicant appeals to circumstances that did not de-velop to its liking, AWPP finds no specificity of fact that would be in favor of protection of the public in allowing the Applicant to put the cart before the horse.

AWPP states the filing on Feb. 7, 1985 for an exemption seeking relief from the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a) and (b) as it re-lated to Graterford's plan and the Provisional and Final Order dated May 24, 1985 was improper.

In describing the Importance of Action by the Commission upon the requested exemptions, the Applicant seeks to avoid the import-ance of the curcial safety aspects of 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendex E,Section IV.F".1, inparticular because of the known inadequacy of the July 25, 1984 drill. Because the sheltering option which was inado-quately publicized requires studies such as air passage and air fil-tering action as it relates to radioactive particulates, and more particularly studies on stopping action of varying construction again-st gamma rays, no exemption should be granted to bypass perhaps the most lethal aspect of emergency planning.

On page 6 of Applicant's June 24, 1985 Motion for Exemption re Full Participation as per 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.

F.1, Applicant seems to plead for full power operation in the public interest to supply needed power. Applicant has 30% over capacity without Limerick. While the Applicant attempts to influence the Com-mission with the argument that the full power license will save rate payers 1.5 million dollars por day AWPP/ Romano sees it as Applicant's concern for its loss of 1.5 million por day which should not stampedo the Commission into changing exemption rules re exemption require-monts which the Applicant knows to be general practico.

In opposition to page 6 statement AWPP/ Romano sees no proof that "There are no hazards to the public health and safety in grant-ing the requested exemption". Further, the non-tested, non publi-

AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrol BROAD E,PA.

AWPP/Rorano's reply to Applicant's Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

cized sheltering option makes Limerick a hazard to the public health and safety.

AWPP calls attention to the fact that virtually hundreds of Li-cense Event Reports detail errors of personnel of all levels that suggest lack of horse sense--and heads-up operation. As late as the June 12, 1985 report to P.E. from Thomas T. Martin re inspections of January 25 to March 8, 1985, such as 84-18-01; 84-18-07 do not at all indicate Limerick is ready for operation. Examples of unbelievable carelessness that might occur in other industry but must not occur at the nuclear reactor because of its lethal consequences: Sco In-spection Report No. 52-352/84-66, T, Martin to S. Daltroff, PECO of Jan. 14, 1985. Tho' response by P.E. of March 13, 1985 after over two months shows lack of concern enough to indicate that even after the NRC inspecpor pointed out the deficient items, eight of the many de-ficiencies were not yet corrected: see page 2 and 3 of P.E.'s Attach-ment responses (No. 7) ; see page 4 item 13. page 5 item 14 and 15, as an index of what in tolerated at Limerick which would call for firing in my own laboratory, also sco page 7, item 20 and response. The seventh grador neophyte science performance would be laughable if it wasn't critical to the safety of thousands of people. The P.E. responses (ex-cuses) are absolutely indications of a totally all thumbs mindset that must not be allowed to take place in an activity where any little mis-take can become a big mistake...an accident. I fool the Commission should have an unbiased committoo of Chemists and Chemical Enginoots go over overy Licensoo Event Report and NRC Inspection report since January 1, 1985 to give an unbiased report on how such deficiencies comparo with general acceptable procinion in handling, sampling and testing operations.

On page 7, lino 2 and 3, the Applicant statos: "The dolay in 11-tigating this matter has been entirely beyond Applicant's control" but the unbelievable carolossness just dotalled also seems to bo be-yond the Applicant's control--and in reason enough to withhold all

AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.

(4)

AWPP/Remano's Opposition to Applicants Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

exemptions, and require total adherence because of demonstrated carelessness and even contempt for correction when deficiencies have been pointed out.

While the forgoing describes the careless mindset that can con-tribute to the need of a very workable evacuation system (not just plan), in its " Discussion" re the "One year before issuance affair" page 9, the Applicant states in the relevant facts of 10 C.F.R., 550.

47 (c) (1) : " Failure to moot the applicable standards set forth in par-agraph (b) of this section may result in the Commission declining to issue an operating license", AWPP responds that the Applicant admits the Comminnion can declino to insuo an operating liconne. The stato-mont also states the Applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate ta the natisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in quantion. No where in Appli-cant's pleading has Applicant corrected significant deficiencies, in particular the " death trap", unpublicized, untanted " sheltering" op-tion to a " workable ovacuation plan" to givo " reasonable annuranco' that the public will bo protected proporly.

On page 10 the Applicant again stated: "Thore are no deficion-cien in omorgency planning for Limerick", even though thora aro roamn of records indicating the name carolons and disorganized unroad,iness which, nevertholoss, on May 21, 1985 FEMA, stated was "adoquato".

AWPP states!that"in'the cano whero thousands of livos could be at stake because of "sholtoring" which neither Applicant nor FEMA pub-licized or tonted, adoquato moann good onough. But AWPP nays good enough in not good enought AWPP calin for the Comminnion to call for completo comp 11anco to the lottor becauno of Applicant's runh-ruch psycology, which in evident in documented carolonanoon and wrong atti-tudo workmon. The Comminnion must call for comploto complianco to protect people who may be forced to run for their livon if a hasty docinion the Applicant wanta is mado.

AIR and WATER W ]> Pollution Patrol BROAD PA.

AWPP/ Romano's opposition to Applicant's Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

On page 12 the Applicant tells of the "40 hearing days and 8,500 transcript pages". AWPP calls for the Commission to check on the meager sentence or two related to " sheltering" as it relates to hav-ing allowed the public to know what sheltering really means. Nor did all those hearing days test out the knQwn death-trap characteristics of sheltering in a General Emergency Accident in ordinary houses.

On page 13, the number seeming to be prophetic, the willingness of the Applicant to exposo people for its own selfish interest is evi-dent in the totaly erroneous statement that "the record thus amply dom-onstrates that there are no deficiencies in emergency planning for Lim-orick, significant or otherwise".

On page 14, ~2nd paragraph AWPP counters that local responso organ-izations, such as the municipalition and school districts have not ado-quately boon notified ro " sheltering", therefore, contrary to what App-licant statos, local plano are not in consonanco since thoro han boon no oxorcise or drill relating to this life and death aspect of emor-goney responno to a nuclear accident in which ovacuation will be un-workablo.

On page 16, the Applicant relatos to FEMA's experience in testing proparodness of agencies. It staton such tonto of agencion, including the Bureau of Radiation Protection, gives further annurance of ongoing readinons. Ilowever, AWPP reminds the Comminnion that Margaret Reilly, Chief of the Pa. Dureau of Radiation Protection tontified befor'o the ASLB that "sholtoring might bo protectivo for only up to 2 hourn." R6 the 2 hourn, Montgomory County's Emorgoney Co-ordinator (who cortainly must bo in consonance with FEMA) when asked by AWPP/ Romano--What do peoplo do attor 2 hourn, ho rospondod: "They have a problom". That is a cuplablo ronponso that firnt provon the Applicant is unaware of the doficiencias in the ovacuation plan, and nocondly borders on crim-inal contempt for livan of thounando nurrounding Limorick.

On pago 17, the Applicant discunnon what it fooln in extonnivo

AIR and WATER W Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.

(6)

AWPP/ Romano's Opposition to Applicant's Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

training , however, of those 500 training sessions and 8,500 trained individuals, AWPP calls on the Commission to require Applicant to state how many sessions were devoted to " sheltering", and how many sessions were devoted to how the public should be told of sheltering, and how many oessions were devoted to explaining how long radioactive particulates could bo breathed, and to what degree six to twelve inch walls of homes could be made to stop intenso gamma radiation re-leased in a general emergency accident. Also how many sessions woro devoted to explaining that "sholtoring" might possibly be protective for only up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. Finally, and it could be final, what train-ing was give those 8,500 people on how they would handle panicked thousands as'2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> approachen and the emergency raido warns it's too dangorous to go into the outsido air. Whilo AWPP asks those quantions following absurd statomonto that scom to give those quantions a light tono, AWPP is noriously talking about death or life-long in-jury physical and psycological which could be f ar worno than now in the courts following the first TMI accident.

An an examplo of what in tormed " good faith", The Applicant stat-on on page 19 that it "han modo availablo planning and traffic engin-ocring consultanto to annist offnito authorition in the devolopment of the plano and ovaucation timo estimaton". The evacuation timo on-timaton that woro mado by P.E.'s traffic ongincoring consultanto in-i volved watching football fann after a gamo in Philadelphia, thin toot l

lacked ovary significant paramotor that a quality annuranco tant should havo. Thoro woro no panic or fright as thorn will bo when the nirono go off--onpocially at night, onpocially with jammad or blizzard bloc-kod roada. For the Applicant to accopt that totalyr non-ropranontat-ivo tent of ovacuation timo, with polico on overy cornar and tho ono-way tiroad Stroot traffic with lights fixed to expidito traffic, again demonntraton, an do many other anpoets of the untiro Limorick nitu-ation, tho deficiency in managomont. AWPP calin for tho comminnion

AIR and WATER

< . - Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE. PA.

(7)

AWPP/ Romano's Opposition to Applicant's Motion of 6/24/85 continued:

to avoid dependance on such ovacuation timing tests that further indi-cate weakness or inapplicability of other paramotors in the evacuation plan which even Paul Partle, Chairman of the Montgomery County Comm-insioners (where Limerick is located) who said he has "no faith" in evacuation. -

AWPP states that whereas the Applicant has 30% over capacity and that Applicant mismanagement han driven the cost of electricity to the point where industries of the area find it cost offectivo to go in-to co-generation of their own power making loss nood for any Limorick reactor, and wherono forogoing statomonto of AWPP, beyond a shadow of a doubt indicato granting of an exemption will not be "in the public interont" and will' ondanger constitutional aspects of life and propor-ty, AWPP calin for the Commissioners to deny any oxomption or other request whi'ch puts the public at rink. AWPP calla for the Comminnion to ask "will the public bo nafor without the granting of oxomption nought by the Applicant?"

Conclunion For roanons not forth above, AWPP/ Romano submits that the critor-ia for an oxemption under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.12(1) and 50.47 (c) (1) havo NOT boon mot and that the .requestod relief should NOT be granted. Tho innuanco of the full-powor oporating liennno on or before July 25, 1985 would appear to be ronponding to a caroloon domand by the Applicant banod on nolfish monetary interont, whoroan it in the duty of the Comminaion to put the unfoty of the public firot.

Ronpoctfully nubmittod, AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL rRR/jch Frank R. Romano, Chairman 61 Foront Avo.

Amblor, Pa. 19002 I cortify tho abovo han boon servod upon tho latont Dorvico Lint.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __- - -