ML20129H807

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Order Requiring Full Disclosure by PEMA of Evacuation Plan for State Correctional Inst at Graterford
ML20129H807
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/20/1984
From: Love A
GRATERFORD INMATES
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20129H806 List:
References
FOIA-85-304 NUDOCS 8507200454
Download: ML20129H807 (4)
v • d • e


Text

-

. f.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In tne Matter of  : .

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRICS COMPANY  :

(Limerick Generating Station,  : DOCKET NOS. 50-352 Units 1 and 2)  : 50-353 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION On October 23, 1979, theNuclearRegplatoryCommission published its Policy Statement on the Planning Basis for Emer-gancy Responses to Nuclear Power feactor Accidents (44 Fed. Reg. 61123). The Commission stated that it " concurs in and endorses for use the guidance contained in the NRC-EPA task force report,"

(Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, December 1978), NUREG-0396 -- in particular, that two Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) -should be esbablished around light water nuclear power plants. The EPZ for airborne exposure has a radius of about 10 miles; the EPZ for contaminated. food has a radius of about 50 miles. Predetermined protective action plans are needed for the EPZs. The exact size and shape of each EPZ will be de-cided by emergency planning officials after they consider the 8507200454850517[

PDR FOIA L ABEL85-304 PDR; 1

- -_ . . . r .. .r T.r..

specific conditions at each site. These distances are considered large enough to provide a response base which would support activity outside the planning zine should this ever be needed.

The Commission further stated that, following its Proposed Rule-making concerning additional regulations on emergency planning, it would provide additional guidance which would:

consider how local conditions such as demography, land use, and meteorology can influence the size and shape of the EPZs and ... address other issues, such as evacuation planning.

As a result of that Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission promulgatedthecurrentfinalruleonemergendf~ planning. (45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980), effectiva November 3, 1980.)

TheCommissioncitedwithapprovalin'AppendixE,theuse,. inter alia,of NUREG-0654 (Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants for Interim Use and Comment, January 1980) now revised as NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1) to provide ,

guidance in developing plans for coping with emergencies and NUREG-0396 for establishing emergency planning zones (EPZs). As far as EPZs are concerned, the Commission's final rule provides:

Generally, the plume exposure pathway-EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) in radius.

The exact size and configuration of-the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power re-

  • actor shall be determined in relation to ,

_2

- -. . m . ... .._... _. _.

.s local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topog-raphy, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.

10 C.F.R. 350.47 (c) (2) .

The State Correctional Institute at Graterford is located 8.3 miles from the Limerick facility (see Emergency Plan filed March 17, 1981 App. H $4.1, also attached as Exhibit "B").

Thus, it is the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency to coordinate the development of an evacuation plan for this facility. On December 13, 1984 incates' counsel received an unclassified plan in which "certain.information has been deleted from this copy of the Graterford plan for security reasons." Accompanying the plan were. to affidavits, one by Ralph J. Hippert, Deputy Director of PEMA, and one by Glen Jeffes, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections and a Request for Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information executed by Zori Feskin of the Governor's Energy Council (see attached Exhibits "C", "D" and "E").

The inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, through their attorney, take exception to this request.

In particular, we object to the analogy to site security plans.

10 C.F.R 2.790(d) specifically relates to site security, national security data and other sensitive data concerning the

!lnuclear power plant. The inmates fail to see the relevance of l

1 I

l e

a this section to the Graterford plan. Thus, it should not be'used as a basis for the confidentiality request.

The request for confidentiality also cites a case in support of their request, In the Matter of Pacific ~ Gas and Electric Company, 5 NRC 1398 (1973). 'This case involves the disclosure of a site security plan. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission allowed intervenors' counsel and experts to review the site security plan under a protective order. Inmates contend that the S.C.I.G. plan is less sensitive than the security plans for the site itself, and should not be held to a higher standard of confidentiality. .

Furthermore, the inmates object to the overly broad interpretations of confidential information. On page E-1-7, the capacity of the prison infirmary has been censored. Inmates believe that such information is already in the public domain and should not be subject to confidentiality.

Finally, the inmates are unable to adequately develop their contentions due to the confusion created by the prior evacuation plan and the subsequent unclassified plan. The initial plan indicates when evacuation will occur. The second plan dis-cusses the possibility of sheltering or evacuating, but does not provide any details regarding when each method would be utilized.

Therefore, the inmates respectfully request additional access before being required to submit their contentions. -

Respectfully submitted,

\ /1/ \ / ,

.!  ;~ }

T[ N /

XRGUS R. LOVE, ESQUIRE N Montgomery,/ County Legal Aid

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20129H807&oldid=2917367"