ML20128E264
| ML20128E264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-660 ALAB-809, OL, NUDOCS 8507050297 | |
| Download: ML20128E264 (1) | |
Text
'
U.S. HUCLEAR HEG!)LATORY C0fai10.; ION RSs PHILA. ELEC. CO.
Limerick generating 3ta. Unita 1 & 2 Docket d.50-352,3530L June 29, g0 R.L.INTHONY/F0E AUSER OPPOSINC RdiUSiT F0il dXPEDITED REVIEii 0F AL'.b"809 AND R8 LIEF, ON6/20/81_,.
85
-3 Af0:06 BY PHILA.ELEC.
0 Anthony /F0E files this ausner in opposition to NRC review of ALAB-909 as pro-vided under 10 CFR 2 786 (b) (3),as follows in our rebuttal of PEChht[s'5 b[f}/20.
- 1. ALAB correctly applied both 10 CPR 50.12 and 50 47 in itsdecido7$Y6/17/85, ALAB-809.(PECoRequest,6/20/85,p.l.)Wedisagree nith PECo. Both sections apply.
- 2. (PECo p2.) HRC should refuse to grant any of the three alternative requests for relief. Both #1 and # 2 go ngainst NRC's decision in CLI-85-11; # 3 should be refused because a new emergency exercise is essentin1. Craterford has not been inclu-dad in a full scale exercise, wor has King of Prussia since traffic control was set up.
- 3. (PEco p.3.) AB did not err in waiting for he rings on the Graterford conten-n tions because the adequacy of the ensrgency plans have not yet been determined,and (p.4) without a hearing LB is not in compliance with NRC's instructions in CLI 81-8.
- 4. (PEco p.5.) " Financial loses"are not to be considered under NRC,so do not applyc AB did not establish an " additional requirement" and,therefore,did not commit legal error. (PEco p.6.)
AB did not assert " form over substance" when it correctly stated that there was no hearing record to review and consequently it was not in a position to evaluate deficiencies.
NRC itself raised "important questions regarding the hear-ing rights of the Inantes" in CLI-85-ll.
In addition the contentions of the Inmates may further be expanded as indicated in A.R. Love's submission on behalf of the In-mates,6/24/05,toDocketandServiceSection,"ExceptionstotheBoard'sorderof 6/12/05"
- p. r
- 5. (PEco p.8.) AB did not deny due process,as is evidenced by PEco's request here.
Nor did AB usurp NRC's rule making prerogative.
If there was denini of due process, Lt was in LB'.s failure to weigh the arguments of the parties,as pointed out by AB in ALAB 809,p.13,n.13 g
- 6. (PEco p.10) We do not agree that the Inmates' rights could be assured without a hearing and that AB should have reviewed the briefs instead of remanding.
We do ago not agree that PECo's hearing rights were violated,because PECo had the opportunity g:d: to file its brief and has taken advantage of the chance to request NRC review.
k 7
We assert that AB noted properly in remanding the Inmates' contentions to 4:
LB, but the contentions LB accepted do not cover the extent of emergency protection needed for their safety or the extent of the deficiencies in the State's plans as so.o shown in the Inmates'" Exceptions to the Board's order of June 12,1985(See parn.4 above) 8.
We call NRC' attention to the points raised in our filings with LB and AB included as Attachments 1, 2, a d 3: 3/15/05 " Motion in Opposition..", 3/27/05 " Add-n itional Statement in Opposition",nnd 6/7/85 "Brief in Support of Our Appeal ". We believe the points above support NRC in a refusal of review and we ask this.
ocs AB Judges, LB Judges, Staff Counsel, Docketing, Respectfully submitted, PEco, FEMA,PEMA, A. Love,0thers on serv. list.
g g f, g //---
U.S. DUCLEAR HEGULATORY C0Zt.ISSIO:s... ATO:.IIC SAFETY AhD LICiniSII;G BOARD Re PHILA. ELEC. CO. Limerick Nucient Gen.Stn.
D H CKETED 50-352, 353 USNRC "nrch 15,1985 AliTif 0DY/F0E ilOTION IN OPPOSITION TO PEco 'S 4.Mf10:i W H MEQTg!,GN0% 10 CFR 50 47 PROVISIONS FOR EIRGENCY AUD bVACUe. TION _ PLANNIUG k ' SNLTahF0WUyllIdONERS AhD STAFF.
CFFK" F % r Intervenor Anthony /F0E registero our oppositibiritogranting an exemption to PECo from the requiremento of 10 CFR 50 47 and 42 U.S.C 2231 for planning for a radiological emergency at Limerick in relation to the prisonoro and staff of the Penna, maximum security prioon at Graterford,vlich 10 within the EPZ.
We move the Bo rd to deny thio exemption and to not up n schedule of discovery and a
to throughly exploro emergency pla s for Gratorford and to relate these honringo n
to tho omergency plans for the other entition in the EPZ and adjacent to it.
- 1. The population concentration at the prison, an estimated average of 2,400, along with the potontial threat to the community from accidental relence of prio-onora nrilvictimizing of local rooidento makes A complete, workable,cafo plan for Graterford one of the key links in protecting the public in the event of a radio-logien1 emergency at the Limerick plant.
- 2. Thore is such a close interreintion between onfe energency pinnning for the communitico in,and ndjacent to the EPZ,nnd Graterford that no opernting lic-enno should be granted until both plano are approved and demonstrated no workable.
Prosently there io no nosurance that any plan enn be made workablo. The Proposed Findings uubmitted by !.!c. Z.G.Ferkin on 3/6/85 state (p.2.) "..the Commonwoolth does not choose to certify at this timo that the plano are adequato and c ppble a
of being implementod".
- 3. Furthermore, the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings, 3/7/85, place n condition on the current plano,that the tootimony of FEh'A witness,T.Urbanik,be implemented for trnffic control pointo beyond the EPZ oo that ov cuation traffic can " continue n
to move". (URC Findings Parn. 6,16,37),Urbanik specifies " south and enot of EPZ."
Grnterford evacuation would have to move south and enot away from the plant. Safe pinnning for Graterford cannot be nonured without the addition of theco controlo.
4 We adopt and ondorno all the pointo in Gratorford Inmates' "otion in Opposition to Applicant'a Motion for Exemption,oubmitted by their councol Angua H. Love. We include the Inmates' Motion in its entirety by reference hore. We alao ondorno !'ajor John Cane, Field Director of the Pennsylvanin Prinon Society, no n qualified export.
- 5. We ndd the pointo that follow no occontini conoiderations which must be explored in dincovery and n pro-honring procco,nnd resolved through testimony c
nnd findingn in honrings before nny opernting licanoo can bo touuod.
- 6. The timing of n Gratorford evncu tion la crucial.
Would FE!.'J, nu tho riz e a
b NY $
(Ib
.2 it at an early stnge of c Linerick eterconey in order to avoid conflict with evacuntion traffic from EPZ7 How many and what kind of pricovern would be nasicn-ed for eprly evacuation ?
- 7. The impact of a partial,early evacu tion would tie up staff a d have the a
n potential to cause a panic among prisoners.
- 8. A postponoment of Graterford evacuation to an advanced stage of a Limerick emergency would pose aggravgted problema such as the prob 1ematic cha ge of n
staff shifts with guards having to moko plans for their families and homes r ther than reporting for work.
a 9
In addition the lovel of tension in the prison would rise rap' idly with the first radio and TV news of a Limerick emergency and with the pressure on the staff to organize for: a possible ovacuation.
- 10. Any rele ne of prisonora from' locked cella under auch tension could create n
panic conditions,even with additional personnel.
The potential for injuries and deaths would be high,both inmatos and guards.
11.
Perhaps even more inevitable could be the potential for panic a d riot n
if radiation should be carried by the wind in the direction of the prison and mecouros undertaken to mensure the levels in the prison and to protect and trent the staff on a priority bacio.
- 12. A decision not to evacuate prisoners and to rely on sheltering in the build-ings could pose perhapo te grentoot throat to the cafety of priooners and staff since the potential for riot and possibly a mann jail break would be high. Such an eventuality would bring great da ger to the community.
n
- 13. In conclusion we state that the interrelation between emergency plans for d Graterford the whole EPZ"Es so complex that neither can be succoonful without full consider-ation of the mutual impacts.
The implications for the public must be completely studied and resolved in a complete hearing process.
The hazards involved in planning for Graterford must be considered through testimony and public partici-pm, tion.
The public must understand the riako,and concent to the enfest plan that can be devloed.
- 14. We repeat our motion that the Board deny PEco's motion for an exemption in reintion to Graterford prioon and its inm tes and staff, and that the Board give a
the required weight to these emergency pinna by setting up n full discovery and hearing procedure.
We further move that the Board postpone any dociaion on emergency plans for the whole EPZ until the honring proceso on Graterford emer-gency pinnning has been completed and the two napooto have been coordinated into a workable whole.
/
Staff Counsel, Docketing dory.HH Pec W sy g gd, g oc NHC LB JudgesI A.Lo'y'o, PEco, PEMAI FEMA othero on Serv. Liot.
Bor 186 Moylan,Pn. 19065
~
ATTACH @CD T* I %
.U.S. DUCLEAR RLGULATORY C E IS3IOli..
AT0aIC CAFsTY AliD LICEUSILG BOARD Re PHILA.ELEC. CO.
Limerick Nuclear Gen. Sta.
DOCKET d 50- 352, 353 ADDITIOuAL STATdEliT Ili OPPOSITIoh TO PSCO's 1.0TI0a TO EXI :FT GRATERFORD PRIJON FROM REQUIREMENTS _OF 10CFR 50.4_7 onEMEdGiGCY PLANNLiG.AY R. hhE04Y/F0E.
14 arch 27, 1995 On 3/15/85 Anthony /F0E filed a motion in oppositio%jto gEQ3'g g on of 2/7/85 to exempt theGreterford Prison inmates and staff from the requirements of 10 CFR 50 47 for evacuation and emergency planning QM. Ifs linerick plant.
C WG & SEgyg.
We are restating herewith our motion in opposition to grantl%3 this exemption NC with the providbg of additional arguments as follows :
- 1. Untti The Graterford Prison Inmates are allowed complete access to the the total ovacuation and emergency plans prepared for them by PEMA,and have been free to file contentions on these plans and have them accepted and considered in inevidentia y hearings, there can be no assurance that the total plans for the r
EPZ can be successfully implemented.
- 2. The NRC Staff precented a number of reserv tions about PEco's motion in a
itsResponsedated3/18/85,concludingwith(p.12.),"
...it would be inappropri-ate at this time for the Licensing Board to consider the Applicant s motion for exemption..."
- 3. We give due weight,and believe ASLB should also, to the Staff's (NT Re P+)
s (p.8.) that Fg'A has been assigned"Icad responsibility " by Presidential Order, and (p.9.) NRC, base. its findings on FEUA findings, and FEMA has not reviewed or evalu ted the Graterford plans.
n
- 4. It seems inconceivable that ASLB would consider circumventing the Presi-dential Order by cutting FE'/.A out of the review process by granting FEco's motion.
- 5. The exemption would discredit the whole process to protect the public via workable emergency plans since the plant could operate up to full power without the Graterford plan,upon which the success of EPZ evacup. tion depends intersecting prison traffic.
becauce of the routing of evacu tion traffic east and south and north, g a
- 6. Up to now it appegra that FEMA has not taken part in any of ASLB's pre-he rings. FEMA was not listed in the Harrisburg conferences of 2/27/85 or a
3/22/85 FEMA is not included in ASLB's Protective Order of 3/20/85 This raises a serious question about FEMA's. participation and the ability of NRC to make a decision on the workebility of the Graterford plan and the whole EPZ plan.
Unless PEMA is included,the Graterford plan cannot be valid,nor the public protected.
- 7. We agree with the Staff that NUREG-0396 takes into account core melt accidents and'still requires " offsite plaus for protective me sures out to about n
10 miles " (NRC Resp. p 10).
We agree with the Staff that PECo has no basis for arguing that emergency planning for thd Inmates is not needed due to low probability.
(p.10,11,12). We agree that it would be inappropriate "for the Licensing Board to onnsider the use of the exemption authority under 10 CFR 50.12." (p. 9 )
$7 MOD E N I
.7 h)
M gj '/ f2;dMbQ---
-- 2 --
8.
We wish to enll the Bo rd's attention to the Commonwenlth'n rebuttal a
of pEco's cinim that prison evacuation pinnning in not nn "nbsolute requirement ".
(Conmonwenith Heaponse to Applie nt's Itotion, 3/15/05(H!'A Reap. ) p. 7.)
de n
adree with PatA that Jnterford, 16 URC 1550,1566, cited by pECo, contrary to PECo's position, " expressly conditioned issu nce of the operating license on de-a velopment of prison evacuation plans."
(PEMA Resp. p.8.)
- 9. We agree with PEMA that formulation of workable pl,nna for Gratorford and a carrying through of a caglete hearing process on Inmate contentions will not result in "aignificant delny"to the operation of the Limerick plant (pE!'A Hesp+
- p. 3.) And we agree that " exigent circumstances " do not exist in this case.(p.2) 10.
We endorce FEMA's position that it " does not believe exigent circum-stances are pren nt in thia cace and thus does not support Applienn t 's flotion e
for an exemption.." ( p.8.)
11.
We en11 the Board's attention to nn applicatinn to the Dolnware River Basin Commionion by pECo dated 3/15/85, forwnrded to the members of the' hsrd on 3/19/85 by Ilark J.Wetterhahn.
We believe this application for supplemental cool-ing water for the Limerick plant proves that the controling factor in the rise of porer output is not an emergency plan for the Craterford Inmates but the avail-ability of cooling water (See letter, E.G.Dauer to Susan Weisman, DRBC 3/15/85,
- p. 1.)
PECo's npplication to D4BC includes an affidavit by Vincent S. Boyer,3/15/85 This affidnvit invalida tos V.S. Boyer's offidavit of 3/14/05 oubmitted to the Board by M.J.Wetterhnhn 3/19/05 na on attachment to " Applicant's Motion for Ex-caption.." (re.Graterford).
In the 3/15 affidavit f.ir.Boyer anya, "the Plant will be ready to proceed to power levela greater than allowed under our existing license by the end of March,1985 (para. 2.) and (parn.3.) " In order to proceed with the power ascension program for Unit 1 after the issuance of n full power license by the NRC,it is necessary to have in place a supplemen'tal cooling water supply".
12.
It is apparent f g g g r} 3/15/85 affidn it that the reatriction v
on operating the reactor is not n Craterford plan but the la k of cooling water.
a c
- 13. The application to DHBC for cooling water from tha Schuylkill River is a PECo move which prompts the question:why was the elaborate and coatly plan to water from Pt.Ple aant ever undertriken by PECo and approved by DRBC ? We pump n
are certain that DRBC will not back down from its protective restriction on the une of Schuylkill water for supplemental cooling, even temporarily.
The process involved with the applio tion will tnke weeks and probgbly months. In that time n
there will be ample opportunity to nrrive at emergency plano for Graterford. Hence no exerption should be granted by ASLB.
- 14. PEco's proposal to substitute monitoring of dianolved oxygen levelo in 0
placeofthe59FtempergtureconatraintintheychuylkillRiver(3/15/05PECo appliention to DRBC) Anthony /Foeenvironmentally unn d;awill bring controveray and almont 10 (Attachmant 1.
le t t e r t oDTt certain denial. The procena could be protract d. This will hold up power accension.
A further restriction on Schuylkill water could come from the current rnin shortage.
Cor NHC A. Lov ngh,ers on g g Sgat.PECo,PERA, FEMA, Respectfully nubmitted, Docket v.
v.
g x16
U.S.NUCLEAit REGULATORY CC?JMISSIGH.
. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE:.JIhG AFPSAL BOARD a - -
HE: FHILA ELhC.CO. Limerick Gen.3tn. Unita 1
'c 2 LOCKuT Uc.:
50-352,353 ANTHONY / FOS BnIEF IN SUFFORT OF OUR APTEAL OF 6/2/85 y
7 J's UdDdl I!!P'sE-2..El; TING IT3 Git!iiT OF EXd..PTION FR0i 100FR 50 47 (n.) (b) Ah OMIZING LICE M.
Juno 7,1985
\\7eareinreceiptoftheBoard'sOrderof6/3/85gtgtg3 MM fing s hod-th ule for the above apponis.
'.Yo are complying with this curt iled timing although a
it imposos hardships on us not to be subject to the.Nytutb~rytutilow nce of 30 days.
a XLU% r ym t Lonco our brief will be limited for the most nart to mato5EALCelrondy submitted.
her6 No believo,honover,that the Board will find the neight requirod to convince the 3
Board to reverso LB's decision granting the exemption from 10 CFR 50 47 (a) (b),
and its authorization of the issuance of a full power license.
- 1. We incorpornto here all of our brief submitted to the Botird,dnted 6/6/05, on LB's Partini Initial Decision on Offsite Emergency PlannLng for Limerick.
This brief shows that the Limerick EPZ was set up without the participation of FDIA,requiredunder 44 CFR 350 7 (b)
PECo's ovacuation timo study estimates and the uso of ovacuation routes were thrown into question by the testimony of the NRC witness,nnd non pinns will have to be drann up to include Valloy Forgo Park /
King of Prussia and !!arsh CrookPark/Cxton areas in the EPZ,and the boundaries of the EPC will have to be reconsidorod,and revised ovacuation pinns for the wholo EPZ rastudied and submitted to the review and henring process. Since the evacu-ntion plans for thS Gratorford prisoners is dependent on the configuration of the EPZ and the plans for the wholo EPZ, those plans will havd to be re-worked in reintion to revised ovacuation plans for the total EPZ.
Wo believe that this means nnd valid plans for evacuation of the EPZ no longer are in hand the process for EPZ 3
and Graterford ovacuation will have to be reconstituted.
Henco a plan for Grater-ford will be in aboyance and an exemption cannot bo granted nor nuthorization to issue n licenso granted, as we trust the Board will find.
- 2. Furthermore no incorporate here our motion of 3/15/05 in opposition to PHCo's motion for an exemption for Gratorford and no stross espocially the danger to the EPZ community and the greater community from a panic at the prison and the escapo of dancorous prisoners at a timo of high tension during an evacuation of the EP3.
3 The "tablo Top" exerciso for Gr terforddid not satisfy 44 CFR 350.2 (j) a in respect to the number of personnel trained and involved, i.e. " emergency person-nel are ongnged in sufficient numbers to verify the capability to respond..."
- 4. Sinco thore is no record of FEMA participation in the Graterfo2d pro-honring process or the Protectivo Order of3/20/05, LB nnd FEMA did not comply with the requiremients of 44 CPR 350 3 (d) "Cooporativo effort with stato and loani,etc.,
and 44 CPR 351.20 (n) through (1) " establish policy and provido londer hip,"etc.
s Jud eslMLA,, A.Lovo, Uthe rs o,n Gory.Lb, t.
Hespectf 11y submitt FE$fA, AfjLB Gtnff Counsel Docketin cc AB
~10j b_
y],a n, ['n.1 65
- PEco, e
3 r 106 g
l g g g---p g 77% C}- @ g f T* 3