ML20129H837
| ML20129H837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1985 |
| From: | Love A GRATERFORD INMATES |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129H806 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-304 NUDOCS 8507200479 | |
| Download: ML20129H837 (11) | |
Text
-__ --
ufs . '
C.
. ; 2 f q w . J 2lla}!5~
'/ lW
/o s~~--
au1%
~ . - - -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ' ,,; J3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN @RCARD
~ ,. M d 0 In the Matter of : Docket NoY i30-352 r . .
'50-353'.'
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY "
(Limerick Generating Station,
- Uni:s 1 and 2)
~
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF THE INMATES AT SCIG REGARDING FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE EVACUATION PLAN FOR SCIG I. INTRODUCTION On December 20, 1984, the in=ates at the Sca:e Correction-al Institute at Gra:erford, Pennsylvania, filed a Motion befora the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board requesting full disclosure of the evacuacion p1an for :he Scace Correctional Insti:ute at Graterford, Pennsylvania. On January 2, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Co= ission s:aff filed an Answer to said Mo: ion. The applicant and the Pennsylvania E=argency Manage =en: Associa:icn also filed responses. On January 22, 1985, during a public hocr-ing before the Board, Chairran Hoyt requested counsel for the inmates to respond to the N.R.L. staff request on page 5, which states, "...the inma:es should be required to specify the informa-tien they need, based on expert opinion, which is beyond thac provided in the ' sanitized' version." The purpose of :his
. supplemental motion is to respond to this question. .
"bD B507200479 850517 O PDR FOIA -
'I ABEL85-305 PDR .-
- = _ . _ -
' ^^ ^ ^~ ~
g_ ... ~ i. -
II. Inmates have retained John Case, Field Director of the Penn~sylvania Prison Society as their expert. E Initially, the inmates would 'like the record to reflect that they have retained the services of John Case to act as their expert in this matter. Mr. Case is currently the Field Director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society (see Vita attached as Exhibit A). .
III. The' inmates' expert, John Case, requests that all informa- !
tion contained in the unsanitized version of the evacuation plan is needed in order to ascertain the~ viability of'such.
The inmates' experc, John Case, served twenty-one years in the United Scaces Marine Corps (1942-62). During this period, he obtained a security racing of Top Secrec "Q". It is his opinion that all the informacion contained in the sanitized ver-sion is necessary to determine che viability of the plan. He further indicated that said macerial is secure in his hands due to his prior security clearances in the Marine Corps and his top secret rating. He also indicated that the unsanitized version contains virtually no useful information, therefore further in-quiries as to the type of information needed are premature.
Accordingly, the inmaces request full disclosure of the plan to I
__ , _. =-
l.
~
their expert and counsel. Sea Pacific Gas and Electric Company l (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-592 11'N.R.C. (1980).
- Respectfully submitted
- I M> J_-- Wl
' L3 R. 'COVr ESQUIRE Montgom '
rC ty Legal Aid i . .
l t
b h
e e
6 0
e 6
I l
4 5 R
1 i
I 4
i
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of : ' Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 '
hMILADELPHkAELECTRICCOMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, :
Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE certify I, Angus R. Love , accorney for Imates, .SCM, hereby that a crue and accurate copy of the Supplemental Motion of the Inmates at SCIG Regarding Full Disclosure of the Evacuation Plan 3
,for SCIG, in reference to the above-captioned matter, was mailed on January 28, 1985 via regular firsr class mail, postage prepaid, to the following list:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, Pres.
Administrative Judge Ms. Maureen Mulligan Atomic Safety and Licensing Limerick Ecology Action Board Panel 762 Queen Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cou: mission Pottstown, PA 19462 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Dr. Richard F. Cole V.P. and General Counsel Administrative Judge Philade17hia Electric Co. .
i Atomic Safety and Licensing 2301 Mar:r.at Street Board Panel Philadelphia, P A19101 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq. 1 Dr. Jerry Harbour Conner and Wetterhahn Administrative Judge 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W Atomic Safety and F icensing Washington, D.C. 20006 Board Panel Mr. Marvin I. Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 '
Mr. Frank R. Romano Air and Water Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 )
l l
7,y i
Joseph H. White, III Zori G. Forkin 15 Ardmore Avenue Governor's Energey Council l
. Ardmore, PA 19003 P.O. box 8010 '
1625 N. Front Street Martha W. Buxh, Esq. Harrisburg, PA 17105
- Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq. "
1500 Munici7al Services Bldg. Spence W. Perry, Esq.,
i 15th and JF1 Blvd. Associate General Counsel l Philadelphia, PA 19107 Federal Emerg. Managemt Agency Room 840, 500 C. Street, S.W.
Thomas Gerusky, Director Washington, D.C. 20472 ,
Bureau of Radiation Protection
! Dept. of Environmental Resources Robert J. Sugarman, Esq
> 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg. Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers l Third and Locust Streets 16th Fl. Center Plaza
! Harrisburg, PA 17120 101 N. Broad Straec i
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Director Pennsylvania Emergency James Wiggins Management Agency Sr. Resident Inspector Basement, Transportation & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conun.
, , Safety Bldg. P.O. Box 47 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Robert L. Anthony Atomic Safety and Licensing Friends of the Earth of Board Panel the Delaware Valley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Washington, D.C. 20555
-Moylan, PA 19065 -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Appeal Board Panel Brose & Poswistilo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
325 N. 10th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Easton, PA 18041 Docketing and Service Section David Wersan Office of the Secretary Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Office of Accorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 1425 Strawberry Square i Harrisburg, PA 17120 Gregory Minor MHB Technical Associates Jay Gutierrez 1723 Hamilton Avenue Regional Counsel San Jose, CA 95126 ark ue Timothy R.S. Campbell, Director i
King of Prussia,PA 19406 Department of Emerg. Services 14 East Biddle Street Steven P. Hershey, Esq. West Chester, PA 19380 Community Legal Services, Inc. ,
5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19139 ,
) :
N o /) & /W ANGUS R,/E0VEVESQRIRE :
Montgo try County Legal Aid
). .
s ,
7, .- ,.
.I - *
-l b l I
JOHN D. CASE l WCRX CXPERIENCE ,
Field Director, The Pennsylvania Prison Sociecy,
/
Mcy 1977 to present- Philadelphia, PA 19107 t l town, and December 1962 to 'N%rden, Bucks Councy Prison, Doy essimultane
.Fchruary 1977 Deparcment of Corrections l ia Member, Governor's Juscice Commission, Pennsy van 1969 to 1978 Jrnuary 1942 cc Privace to Major, Uniced Scaces Natine CorpsInscru .,
1954 co 1957 Staff School, Quancico, VA December 1962 custody C!ficar, Naval Prison, 1948 ca 1950 Porcsmouth, N.H.
Brig Cfficar, Marine Corps Dase, .
1960 to 1962 Camp LaJeuna, N.C. .
EXPERT WITNESS 1
s Nez vs Marila, U.S. District Court of Arizona, June 1970 870-216 Legislative-Execucive Task Force on Reorganizacion August 13, 1970 of Governmenc, Commonwealch of Pennsylvania i
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representat vas,
'Nay 29, 1971 Washington, D.C.
d Commictee on the Judiciary, Senace of the Unice June 22, 1972 Scaces, Washingcon, D.C.
Succan vs Washington, Civil Accion t77-0279, U.S.
July 1977 Discrict Courc for Discrict of Columbia 078-270, U. S.
il)
March 1979 Valencine vs Englehadc, Civil AccionDistrict '
Ippolico vs nowall, Civil Accion D78-0911, U.S.
September 1979 District Court for cho District of Now Jatscy (Atlantic County Jail) (Consent Decree) ll-Morrison vs Brennan, Civil Accion U.S.H77-0765 District conso 1980 dated with Civil Action M78-0628, Court for c Councy J 11), Consent Decree.
l Occabar 23, 1980 Lareau Vs Hanson, Civil Accion* HH-7 Connecticuc.
i il Smith vs Montgomery Councy and Commiss accion #80-4492, January 29, 1981 n4*erict of Ponnsylvania
, :. . ___r. _. w--mp er ~ y.. 3. g g .v a., _
.? , ,
j':
I - -
1-A
't '
EXPERT WITNESS s' Marcho 1980 j Davis vs H.G. Evatto Sheriff of Hamilton County Tennessee, Civil Action 11-79-200, U.S. District t
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee i 1980 ' Tammy Lee'o Tennessee,James et aio Earl ,Notehead, et al vs Bradley County, l
' Civil Action #1-80-28 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division (Consent Decree) l April, 1981 Laurie DeMier, et al vs Arlington County, Civil t
n Action #80-108G-Ao U.S. District Court, Eas tern
. District of Virginia (Consent Decree)
April ao 1981 Fisher vs A lington Countyr et al, Civil Action R80-1104, U.S. District Courto Eastern District of Virginia l August,1981 Pontate, at al vs Richard Troy of Joffctson County, Civil. Action MC75-0031-L(A), C79-0492-L (A ) , C79-0570-L (h) ,
U.S. District Courto ' Western District of Xantucky at s
Louisville July 3,1981 Rayacnd RK-78-1718, Lattisaw et al vs llughes, ot ' air Civil Action a
(Depos1clon) U.S. District Courto District of Maryland January, 1982 Early vs District of Columbia, Civil Action M1745178 and Civil Action R739579, Suportor Court of District af Cclumbia
- January, 1982 g Bland, at al vs Norvello Sheriff of St. Lucie County, Florida, et.alo Civil Action 180-8251-CIV-JCP, (80-0016-CIV-NAG-PJK), U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Fort Pierce Division, r (Consont Decree) k December, 1981 Billy Curtsinger, et al vs Billy Ray Shephard, at al of Dullitt Countyr Civil Action, RC80-0048-L(A), U.S.
District Court, Western District of Kentucky at Louisville r (Consent Decree)
~Natch la 1982 NCElverno et al vs County of Prince William, et al Civil Action R01-1049AN, U.S. District Court of Virginia, Alexandria Division Naga 1982.
Gary Hendricks vs Paul Davis et al, Civil Action o DHN-80-2028 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Februaryo 1984 Wheeler vs Sullivan et alo Civil Action M80-177-WRS o
U.S. District Court of the Districz of Delaware December 7: *1984 Michael Wayne Spivey vs Roy Banks, et al, Civil Action g82-1060-CRT, U.S. District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina o Raleigh Division A - - -
'h_. a .a *J _- .~%. - . . - . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
( _
m . . . 7 =- ,m
=
yg e.g nun p, :- y p i AW.uDS ,
I 1968 G. Howland Shaw Award of the National Jail Associa-tion, Jailer of the Year, presented at the American Correctional Association Convention San Francisco i 1975 Exemplary Project Award for Corrections, presented by the National Association of Counties 1976 Ambassador of the Ye'a ro presented by the Bucks County Chamloer of Commerce 1976 Liberty Bell Awardo Yobag Lawyers, Pennsylvania Bar Association 1977 Citizen of the Decade, presented by the Bucks County Association for Corrections and Rehabilitation 1977 Commendation from the Senate of Pennsylvania for nine years of service as a member of the Governor's Justice Commission PUDLIS!!ED ARTICLES January-February, 1965 Modern Corrections in Old County Jali, American Journal of Corrections i
1965 Citizen Participation in the County Jail, American Correctional Association Proceeding Septembera 1966 We Opera to a Salvage Bus'iness--Not a Junk Yard!
- Federal ProbaCLon Quarterly Decembar 1966 Citizen Participations An Experiment in Prison.
Coranunity Relations, Federal Probation Quartarly Marcha 1967 "Doing Time" in the Community Federal Probation Quarterly
, Spring-Summero 19G7 Incentives in a County Prison, Prison Journal i
January 8: 1969 Pennsylvania's County Prisons, a presentation to
^ Task Force on Corrections the Legislature of the o
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania June,1969 Raintogration of th~ offondor into the Couununitu i
February 9,1971 Does Anubody Realig Cate? Presented at New York University and published as a chapter in book Social Disabilities.
.; June 23o 1971 Testimonyo Committee on the Judiciary United States 1
House of Representatives Washington o D. C.
- January-February, 1973 Correctional Volunteers in Bucks County, The American
, Journal of CorrecClans t .
. "Ow.. -- -
~ w . v :=. - - - -- ,_ y
_-- y=- e .w ,
7 n. - , vta ~?;-;.m .n.y ,,
CC'NSULTANT CXPERIENCE AND STUDIES
,t 1968 to present Carcified Jail Consultanco Nacional Jail Associacion 1968 Jail Study, Dixon County, Sioux City, Nebraska 1969 Monroe County, Rochester, New York l . Rockland County, New York 1970 i
Namilcon County, Cin,ncinnaci, Ohio 1971 Jefferson Councy, Louis,ville, Xencucky 1973 Onondago County, Jamesville, New York
, 1974-1975 Burlington County, Mount Holly, New Jersey (consulcod l in planning cf new minimum security correccions concer) 1978 Columbia County, Bloomsburg, PA 1978 Lancascer Councy, Lancascar, PA 1981-1982 Dauphin, Lycoming, Westmoreland, Lackawanna Councias l SPCCrAL PROJECTS i 1964 Planned and opened Bucks County Rehabilicacion Cancor, minimum security inscicucion, first such inscicucion in any councy in chu United Sca.Lus.
1966 Assisted in preparacion of Chapter 3, Communicy Decencion Facility, of 1966 edicion of Manual of
- Correccional Scandards, American Correccional Associa cion.
1970-1971
' Member ad hoc ccaniccee on work release, American I
Correccional Associacion 1972 Member of team which conducted seven craining socinars (three days each) for sheriffs under sponsorship of Nacional Sheriffs Associacion 1973 Member of ad hoc commiccee of American Correccional
.i Associacion to cast accrodicacion procedurcs. Includud visics to several inscicucians to evaluace all aspects for accredicacion.
PROFCSSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Nacional Jail Associacion - Mas Director and past
- President. Now called American Jail Associacion,
. serving as Parliamentarian.
American Correctional Association - Former Director Pennsylvania Associacion on Probacion, Parole and .
Correccians Member, American Correccional Associacion - Local Docencion Commicceo
- _ _ _ 4~^ .- -.
- w. ,
__n . - ~ . . .. . .
. mm . , _ _ -. , , ., .
l.s . .
. Tkh!NINC' '
t January 1955 Instruccor Orientacion Course, Marine Corps School, i Quancico, VA February,1960 , Senior Officers Short Course in Military Justice January,1962 Correccional Administration Course, Class ti, Fort Gordon, Georgia i -
April to June,1962 Correccional Adminis' cration, American University, Washington, D. C. (2 months, full-time)
July, 1962 Course in Jail Management, Federal Jail Inspeccion Service, Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D. C.
November, 1962 Speed Reading Course, Marine Corps Base,
\
Camp LeJeune, N. C.
l .
c H 1964 Counseling of Inmaces, Public Service Inscicuce of Pennsylvania December, 1964 Clinical Criminology I, _ Public Servico Inscicuca, Department of Public Inscruccion, Harrisbury, PA May, 19QS Security and Discipline in Prison, Pubilc Servico Inscicuca June, 1965 Group and Case Counseling in Correccional Saccings, Pubilc Service Inscicuce June,1966 Cortcccional Counseling,'Psychocherapoucic Techniques, Public Service Inscicute January, 1967 Prison Scaff Development, Pubilc Service InscLCuce May, 1967 Nodern Approach to Administracion of Justice, Pennsylvania State University December, 1967 Advanced Course - Prison Security January, 1968 The Executive Workshop, Pennsylvania Adult Correccional Training Inscicute, Pennsylvania Scace Universicy August, 1968 Juvenile Behavior and Child Care, Pubilc Service Inscicuco 0ctober, 1968 Jail Management Correspondence Course, Jail Manage-ment Inscicuter Bureau of Prisons December, 1968 Group Counseling, Public Service Instituce O
e W.. -- --
mg& ws .,
- **nmf a -M
_ _ _ _ ~ - . ,.__ . . . , . , _ , , _m. : %_,
_ .. = . __ m a __ _ .c. , = _., r--_
. 1.
6
~
EC'JCATION .
1940 to 1942 After high school graduation (valedictorian) o,Z attended Fordham University, Bronx, New Yorke ,
on a combined athletic (football) and scholastic scholarship (Dean's List) . In 1942, Z enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. During my Marine Corps
,' careero I attended Fordham University and George Nashington College part-timer but did not complete
, the work required for a degree. .
e e e 8
9 k
4 m
E k
eo
+
p e 4 1
I
+ ' ^
ie 5_
~~-W-_-~~- % w ,p3y '.g gi^ ~ ,
p i}qj( .
- a l
~~~ -
ICES 17 4 7 P EN N S YLVAN I A AV EN UE. N W.
TaoTs cownsa.Ja. WAS HINGTON. D. C. 20006 ManEJ W STT E S E A NI
$$gg2 Eo E*II "m."oNo"w J333Ya M.Lav3BTT +
wiss 2 wicuots February 11, 1985
&#CN 4.Moost.Ja.* #30ar e33 3800 CoBERT u PURL
- p'*,3 canwuano o esennoarsu e
- 4,,g g m..-m...e Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
ur ~
Dr. Richat-d'.37. Cole'. -
Chairperson, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and4 Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corsission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 Ind 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 .
Dear Madam and Gentlemen:
In " Applicant's Motion for Exemption frem the Requirements of 10 C.F.P. 550.47(a) and (b) as They Relate to the Necessity of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Consideration of Evacuaticn Provisions of the Emergency Plan fer the State Correctional Institution of Graterford" (February 7, 1985) at page 8, line 12, the figure "S5 million a month" should read "$15 million a month." The Affidavit of V. S. Boyer at Paragraph 4, upon which the figure is based, is correct.
Sincerely, Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company MJW:sdd .
cc: Service List i
i h1hhb
- L l<1
-,,g -
-er y
, -3_
/p MONTGOMERV COUNY "L'EG L AID SERVI E * *",*[j,[a**[^((*
I A54414 -
MAIN OFFICE NORRISTOWN OFFICE 107 E. MAIN STREET POTTSTOWN OFFICE 4
NURRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 19401 248 KING STREET (215) 275-5400 POTTSTOWN. PENNSYLVANIA 19464 1215) 326-8280 i ett Ass aerty To: Norristown
- February 15, 1985 i
i Docket and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1
RE: In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-352 s
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the Proposed Contentions of the Graterford Inmates with Regard to the Evacuation Plan, in reference to the above-referenced matter.
Sincerely, Angus R. Love, Esquire ARL/mf Encls.
cc: Service List t
1 f l. -
f .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In Ehe Matter of : Docket No. 50-352 Philadelphia Electric Company :
(Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) :
PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF THE GRATERFORD INMATES WITH REGARD TO THE EVACUATION PLAN I. INTRODUCTION On September 18, 1981, the National Lawyers Guild, through Donald Bronstein, filed a petition to intervene in the above-captioned matter on behalf of certain inmates at Graterford. In response to a Board Order of October 14, 1981, the National Lawyers Guild filed a Supplementary Memorandum in support of its initial petition. On June 1, 1982 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted the Graterford prisoners as a party to this proceeding. See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2) LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1446 through 1447 (1982). On April 20, 1984, in a special-pre-hearing conference order, the Board granted the Graterford Inmates twenty days after receipt of the evacuation plan for Graterford to submit specific contentions. On December 13, 1984, three and a half years after their initial filing, the counsel for the inmates, Angus R. Love , who replaced Donald Bronstein, received from the Commonw a/lth the sanitized version of the Pennsylvania
( '
I 4
h ____s
---e _ _ . - _ _ ,
,. - .w : ELG= - ?
y;w : ~.~ ~ G;;v w '~- ~ q .v e:w Y
Bureau of Corrections radiological emergency response plan for Graterford. On December 19, 1984, the Graterford inmates moved for kan order requiring full disclosure of the Graterford plan to counsel or experts under a protective order or otherwise.
They further requested.and received an extension of time in which to file their contentions. On January 29, 1985, the Board denied the inmates Motion for Full Disclosure and ordered them to submit
-within twenty days their contentions based upon the-sanitized version of the plan. In response to said order, the inmates hereby submit their proposed contentions with regard to this plan. The inmates, however, reserve the right to file additional contentions if their appeal of the decision denying them and their expert access to the unsanitized plan is successful.
It is the inmates contention that there are no other persons or agencies available to represent their interests in this matter. They further state that input through their counsel and their expert, Major John Case, can contribute!to pro-
~
viding a reasonable assurance that the Graterford evacuation plan will work. To date there has been no demonstrative or varifiable evidence from any agency, including PEMA~,'.. as to the workability of this plan. The-inmates request the right to participate in this proceeding so as to bridge the gap between themselves and their administration and to quell inmate fears regarding their safety in the event of a nuclear emergency.- '
7 .' - _ - . --
t o r .,.
II. GENERAL CONTENTIONS A. There is no reasonable assurance that the evacuation plan will protect the staff and inmates at the State.
Correctional Institute at Graterford.
B. There is no reasonable assurance that the evacuation plan will provide a safe and secure evacuation from the State Correctional Institute at Graterford.
C. There is no reasonable assurance that the evacuation plan will provide for a safe and secure return to the State Correctional Institute at Graterford.
III. SPECIFIC BASES FOR CONTENTIONS A. Transportation.
- 1. There is no reasonable assurance that PEMA has made arrangements to provide the sufficient number of buses, vans ambulances and drivers for said vehicles necessary to implement an evacuation from SCIG. On January 2, 1985, Ralph Hibbert of PEHA , testified that PEMA has not been involved in negotiations for buses and drivers for a Limerick evacuation with any bus provider, other than SEPTA (TR. 19609). The negotiations with SEPTA are still ongoing and have not come to any agreement.
Furthermore, there has been no information provided to suggest that any arrangements for any vehicles have been made for the Graterford evacuation. Mr. Hibbert testified that "We (PEMA) have not completed all the arrangements for meeting the unmet needs. When we do complete them, we will assure that there is
-3r ; :3V' D.%X_
~~
w
- - 1
.s U
ll b
! a driver for each bus. Otherwise, obviously the bus is useless."
h (TR. 19,566).
,i
~
'2 . There is no reasonable assurance that two ambu-lances will be adequate to transport non-ambulatory and communi-cable disease patients (See Evacuation Plan page E-1-11, 4(4) ).
There is no assurance that two ambulances will be sufficient to transport all the non-ambulatory and communicable disease patients at SCIG. SCIG frequently treats patients with hepatitis, which is a communicable disease and there are a multitude of non-ambulatory persons currently housed in SCIG. There is no basis for assuming that two ambulances will be sufficient to carry out this task. Ralph Hibbert testified on January 22, 1985 that there are currently an unmet need for 134 ambulances for Chester and Montgomery Counties with 40 reserve ambulances be requested by Montgomery County. (See TR 19,578). Thus, the need for two or more ambulances for the Graterford evacuation will further burden this unmet need. Mr. Hibbert further testified that PEEMA is currently negotiating with the Pennsylvania Department of Health in an attempt to meet this unmet need, however, there is no assurance that an agreement has been reached which will provide the necessary ambulances in order to conduct the evacuation of not only the counties but also the State Correctional Institute at Graterford.
- 3. The inmates cite 10 CFR 50.47 a(1) and 2(b) 1, 2, 8; NUREG 0654, Criteria A.4, C.4, A.2 (a) as the basis for this contention.
l._. . _ . . _ _ _ . .
.: ma :. . M a' _
- ~
l B. Preparation for Evacuation.
- 1. Manpower (a)There is no reasonable assurance that the manpower needed to conduct the evacuation will be available at the time necessary to implement the evauation plan. The inmates note that there is a significant disparity between the number of cor-rectional officers on duty during the three shifts at the SCIG.
If the evacuation were to occur during the night shift, there is no assurance that there would be adequate personnel to conduct said evacuation. -
(b)There is no reasonable assurance that the Pennsyl-vania National Guard can be mobilized in time to carry out their responsibilities of the evacuation (See Evacuation Plan page E-1-10 (5) ). Ralph Hibbert testified on January 22, 1985 that "It takes awhile to mobilize the National Guard." (TR 19,567)
The Montgomery County draft RERP Number 7 states that the average mobilization and deployment time for the National Guard units assigned to Montgomery County is approximately six to eight hours after order by the governor to state active duty. (Annex H, Sec-tion IV.A) Furthermore, there has been no assurance as to what battalion of the National Guard will be assigned to the Graterford evacuation. It is already expected that it will take from six to ten hours before the last prisoner is ready to leave SCIG (See Applicant's Motion for Exemption from the Requirements of 10 CFR -
1 50.47 (a) and (b) as they relate to the Necessity of Atomic l l
1 l
I I __ . . .
l
.a. ;_ g... .2...... .
Safety and Licensing Board Consideration of Evacuation Provisions of t'he Emergency Plan for the State Correctional Institute of Graterford. Attached to said Motion Affidavit of Robert Schmidt and Geoffrey Kaiser, page 7, paragraph 13 relating to a private communication between. Theodore Otto, III and G. D. Kaiser on 1/31/85. This information further raises the inmates concern regarding the mobilization and evacuation time necessary to complete a safe and secure evacuation of Graterford. There is also no reasonable assurance that the Pennsylvania State Police will be available to conduct their duties as mentioned on page E-1-10 (5) of the Evacuation Plan. The inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 5'O.47(a)l, (b)l, 5, 6, 7 and 15; NUREG 0654; Criteria A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, C.4, G.1, and M.l.
- 2. Security Equipment There is no reasonable assurance that there will be a sufficient number of shackles, leg irons, handcuffs and weapons necessary to provide a safe and secure evacuation for inmates and staff alike. There is no reasonable assurance that the current number of shackles currently available at SCIG for day to day operations will be sufficient to conduct an evacuation of 2,500 inmates in the event of a nuclear emergency.
Among the inmate population are 365 individuals serving life sentences, 45 individuals serving sentences of twenty years or more, and 10 individuals who are scheduled for execution. (See Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections 1983 Annual
us -
= .
. , . , ._, , . =
Statistical Report.) Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 dFR 50.47(a)1, 2, (b)8. .
j
- 3. Communications Equipment There is no reasonable assurance that there will be a sufficient number of racios and other consnuncation equipment necessary to conduct a safe and secure evacuation of the SCIG.
(See page E-1-8 (m, n, c) ). Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (a)1 and 2, 2(b)5, 6.
- 4. Radiological Equipment :
There is no reasonable assurance that there will be sufficient amount of radiological equipment, such as KI and dos 6 meters available to safeguard the inmate and staff population during an nuclear emergency, where the potential for prolonged exposure to radio activity exists. (See page E-1-8 (m, n, o).)
Giventhewiderangeofscenariosthatcouldexistintheavbnt of a nuclear emergency, and there being no reasonable assurance that there will, in fact, be an evacuation of the prisoners at this time, the inmates request that.there be sufficient supplies KI, dos 6 meters and any other necessary radiological equipment for :
the entire 2,500 inmate population. Plaintiffs cite as a basis f for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (a)1 and 2, and (b)8, 11.
C. Notification to the Public.
There is no reasonable assurance that the inmate population at SCIG will be notified in the event of an incident -
at'the Limerick Generating Station. In light of this, the
- . - - =
l i
I l
inmates request that the use of sirens or radiological monitoring devi'ces be installed at SCIG. Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (a)1, 2 (b)5, 6, 7.
D. Medical Services There is no reasonable assurance that medical services will be provided to individuals contaminated by radiation. In-mates cite as a basis for this 10 CFR 50.47 (b)12.
E. Monitoring There is no reasonable assurance that monitoring at SCIG will occur in the event of an accident at the Limerick Generating Station. (See page E-1-10 of the Evacuation Plan.)
Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (b)9, 11.
F. Simulated Evacuation Plan Exercise There is no reasonable assurance that the proposed' tabletop exercise of the evacuation plan without any input or movement from the inmates, their counsel or their expert is adequate to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47 (b)l4 G. Training There is no reasonable assurance that SCIG personnel, drivers (once identified), and the Pennsylvania State Police will receive any training in preparedness for a nuclear emergency.at SCIG. Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (b)l5.
_a_
l
~H. Recovery and Reentry There is no reasonable assurance that there is any plans forla safe and secure recovery and reentry to SCIC. Inmates in-corporate by reference all contentions regarding the evacuation to a reentry. Furthermore, there is no provisions for testing at the site in order to assure that it is safe for the inmate population to return to SCIG. Inmates cite as a basis for this contention 10 CFR 50.47 (b)l3.
I. . Sheltering There is no reasonable assurance that there will be an evacuation of inmates in the event of an incident at the Limerick Generating Station (See page E-1-4, (3) of Evacuation Plan.) The inmates are concerned as to what criteria will be used in the decision on whether to evacuate or shelter and at this time has no reasonable assurance as to what those criteria may be. Further-more, the description of a monitoring of the " institutional climate" (See E-1-10 (8)) is too subjective and open-ended to be a rational basis for which to determine whether to shelter or evacuate.
J. General Concept of Evacuation There is no reasonable assurance that the general con-cept of evacuation as outlined in Attachment A page E-1-A-1 will provide for the safety and security of inmates and SCIG per-sonnel during said evacuation.
m_.___.._ ..
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the inmates respect-fuliy request that their proposed contentions be admitted by the Licensing Board and they request the right to oral argument on this issue if the Board deems it necessary.
Respectfully Submitte ANOVK.
^ > > A).0 A b. '
IVE. ESQUIRE' Attorney for the Inmates at the State C rrtetional Institute at Graterf r
.~
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board InbheMatterof : Docket No. 50-352 Philadelphia Electric Company :
(Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Proposed Contentions of the Graterford Inmates with Regard to the Evacuation Plan was sent to the Service List, with three (3) copies to the Docket and Service Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555, first class, postage-prepaid on February 15, 1985.
/ ,
d /
' ANGUS R. OVE, E# QUIRE ' N-Attorne for Inmates, State Correc odal Institute at Grater or
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ = - - = - - --
- 7
[*. * "
p i
M MONTGOMERY C6bNik LEGAL AfD SEIUff~
~
'"*(('j,["",[**
85a t461 neAIN OFFICE NOARISTOWN OFFICE '
j 107 E. MAIN STREET POTTSTOWN OFFICE -
uanaisrown. PE==svwA=iA is40' 244 KING STREET eOTTsTown, PEwasywA= A sum (2151 275 5400 1216) 326 8200 -
f PLEASE REPLY 70: Norristown February 15, 1985 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '
i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company l
Limerick Generating Stations Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 ASLBP No. 81-465-07 To: / Administrative Judge Helen F. Hoyt, chairperson '
Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Jerry Harbour
Dear Judges:
1 I am writing to you in reference to an Order issued on Feburary 8, 1985 entitled Order Setting Reply Date to Ao Motion for Exemption from the Requirements of 10 CFR 50'plicant's -47(a) ~ and (b) as they Relate to the Necessity of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Consideration'of Evacuation Procedures Provisions of the Emergency Plan for the State Correctional Institute at Graterford.
As the counsel for the inmates at Graterford, in the above-captioned matter, I would like to request an extension of time in which to answer the Ap111 cant's Motion for an exemption from the require-ments of 10 CR 50-47(a) and (b) as they relate to the necessity '
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board consideration of evacua-tion provisions of the emergency plan of the State Correctional Institute of Graterford.
. on February 8, 1985. I amI currently have received this motion in my office attempting to meet two addi-tional deadlines regarding the s'ame matter. First is the filing of contentions on behalf of my clients which must be done no later than February 25, 1985. I am further appealing an Order issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on February 12, 1985 regard.
ing my request to review ~the unsanitized evacuation plan compiled by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections. "
In light of these two matters I would request that the ten b
' ~
'~ ~~ '
. . , .. & ~',', 1 4
1.
f .
Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board
- Page 2 February 15, 1985 day requirement under 10 CFR 2.730(b) be extended an additional twenty days in order for me to respond to the applicant's Motion in full.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, p..
Sincerely,
[.
.J
/Al w0 s R. / Love , sq re J
cc: Service List 1
i-
. , , , , _ , , + ,,.
, e .
i . . .
l i
.u/ ,
- ;,/+-- .
C f'4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W IH20 P2:11
. BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES: or er ege;.7,' .
85u530) Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson C m ,7. .
Dr. Richard F. Cole 8R.g A#0h 4n Jerry Harbour MVG)pgg In the Matter of "*
Docket Nos. 50'3Y IL
) 50-353-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 81-465-07 OL (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) )
) February 19, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Conference on Full Disclosure of Evacuation Plan for the Graterford Maximum Security Facility)
The Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board dated February 12, 1985, encouraged the parties to this proceeding (Inmates of the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute at Graterford and the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections) ". . .to attempt to find some middle ground that would accomodate the obvious competing interests at stake here." In order to provide a forum for th'e
~
parties to accomodate the Appeal Board's suggested course, this Board will convene an M camera conference on February 27, 1985, at 9:00 a.m.,
Harristown II, 333 Market Street, 4th Floor Conference Room, Harrisburg, PA 17108.
Because of the probability that the sensitive nature of the issues .
under discussion could restrict a full, frank and open discussion, the Board will limit attendance at this closed conference to the h b D V]
,_,__.,m.-- --
e . -
l , ,
f .
i
- 2 following named parties: Applicant counsel, NRC Staff counsel. FEMA counsel, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania counsel (with representative officials of PEMA and Department of Corrections), and counsel for the
- Graterford prisoners and their designated expert witnpss -John c D. Case.
This closed conference will be transcribed verbatim. However, the transcript will be sealed unless after completion of the conference and upon a good cause showing by a participating party the transcript could be opened.
FORTHEATOMICSAFETYAND L KENSIN BOARD ,
/
0g s: sor Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpers n Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of February,1985.
~
4 2
l l
'MLW 5 e ..J .
- ~ ~ ~ '