ML20211E645
| ML20211E645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Love A GRATERFORD INMATES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY LEGAL AID SERVICE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-564 OL, NUDOCS 8606160207 | |
| Download: ML20211E645 (5) | |
Text
<
y
\\.-
N f
V
['
Q l'
i
^#
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
(
,.g'hax NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
w g
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board s
/
h-In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY l
(Limerick Generating Station, 50-352, 50-353 0 6 Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
GRATERFORD INMATES' RESPONSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 3, 1986 AND NOW comes Thomas Martin and the Graterford Inmates, through their attorney, Angus R. Love, who respond to the June 3, 1986 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board regard-ing the above-captioned matter.
This response will cover the seven points addressed in said Order.
1.
Graterford inmates contend that Plan 2 was never formally submitted as a matter of record in this proceeding.
Plan 2 was reviewed by inmates' counsel and expert under the Protective Order of the Court at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford.
Inmates have not seen said plan since.
Thus, they a
do not believe it was introduced or admitted into evidence at the' hearing.
2.
Graterford inmates state that they are satisfied l
with the disclosure aspects of Plan 2.
Whether or not the plan should have been part of the record, is a decision that the inmates will leave to this Panel.
8606160207 860611 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
PDR Tso3
- g
)
3.
With respect to the Protective Order regarding the plan, it is the inmates' contention that the Licensing Board's Order of March 27, 1985 entitled, Memorandum and Order (opening f
transcript of February 27, 1985 in-camera conference on Grater-l ford RERP) settled this issue.
Inmates contend that the opening i
of the conference removed the Protective Order with respect to all information that had been revealed and discussed.
Inmates were operating under the assumption that the issues brought forth[
by themselves and the material obtained from the plan were not deemed to be sensitive by the Department of Corrections.
- Thus, I
they operated under the assumption from that date on that these matters were no longer subject to the Protective Order of the Court.
4.
See No. 3.
j 5.
No.
I 6.
Due to lack of funds and lack of procedures for individuals without access to funds, Graterford inmates were unable to obtain copies of the transcript in question, and thus cannot comment accordingly.
thehearing,l 7.
With respect to the exhibits offered at the inmates recall a discussion during which they offered said exhibits into evidence.
A review of the transcripts of the two days of hearings fails to reveal said conversation.
Thus, the inmates believe the conversation was not recorded by the court reporter.
With respect to the five exhibits, the inmates contend
'f I
that Exhibit 1, which was characterized as 4.1 Graterford Prison,,
was admitted into evidence as an exhibit of the Applicant as Appendix H to the Limerick Generating Station Emergency Plan and i
later superceded by Exhibit E-67, revision No. 10 to the Emergency Plan (see Tr. 20,891).
The inmates know, however, that their request for admission of this exhibit was rejected.
With respect to Exhibit 2 through 5, it is the inmates understanding that all were -
offered and admitted into evidence with the exception of No. 4.
l l
After much discussion regarding this exhibit, the inmates withdrew the letter as an exhibit due to the confusion surrounding the discovery process.
The inmates also note with respect to Exhibit 5, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania offered the title and
{
i j
back page of said exhibit as their exhibit G-1 for purposes of i
authenticating said report.
The inmates also contend that they attempted to offer into evidence the statement of Thomas Martin (see enclosed) however, said exhibit was rejected (see Tr. 2,900,
1 2,921).
j Respectfully submitted, i
d l
Angus R. Love; E quire l
l r.
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of PHIALDELPHIA ELECTRIC' COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
- Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
1 l
l I,
Angus R. Love, attorney for the Inmates at the State:
I Correctional Institute at Graterford, hereby certify that a true landcorrectcopyoftheGRATERFORDINMATES' RESPONSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 3,1986 was maileck I
to the following list on Wednesday, June 11, 1986, by first class!
mail, postage prepaid.
Administrative Judge Helen F. Hoyt Robert W. Sugarman, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers H U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16th F1., Center Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 101 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Administrative Judge Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Docket & Service Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
(3 copies)
Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Mr. Robert L. Anthony Office of the Executive Legal Director 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Moylan, PA 19065 Washington, D.C. 20555 David Wersan, Esq.
Martha W. Buxh, Esquire Asst. Consumer Advocate Municipal Services Building Office of Consumer Advocate 15th & JFK Blvd.
1425 Strawberry Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
o Frank Ranano Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
61 Forest Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conm.
Ambler, PA 19002 Region 1 s
631 Park Avenue Zori G. Ferkin, Esquire King of Prussia, PA 19406 Governor's Energy Council
)
i P.O. Box 8010 Phyllis Zitzer 1625 N. Front St.
Limerick Ecology Action Harrisburg, PA 17105 P.O. Box 761 i
l 762 Queen St.
] Mr. Romas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 h Bureau of Radiation Protection
!! Dept. of Environmetnal Resources Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
j i Fulton Bank Bldg., 5th F1.
Counsel for Limerick Ecology I
'Ihird & tocust Sts.
Action Harrisburg, PA 17120 325 N. 10th Street Easton, PA 18042 i
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
4 FEMA, Room 840 Counsel for Philadelphia Electric h 500 CT St., SW 2301 Market St.
[ Washington, D.C. 20472 Philadelphia, PA 19101 i
James Wiggins Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
i
, Sr. Resident Inspector V.P. and General Counsel ll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conm.
Philadelphia Electric Co.
4 P.O. Box 47 2301 Market St.
I Sanatoga, PA 19464 I.
Philadelphia, PA 19101 Timothy R.S. Campbell, Director Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
I Dept. of Emergency Services Ccmuunity Legal Services, Inc.
j 14 East Biddle Street 5219 Chestnut St.
West Chester, PA 19380 Philadelphia, PA 19139 Director Penna. Emergency Management Agency l
Basement, Transportation &:.Sdfety Bldg.
! Harrisburg, PA 17120 M LM,
I Arthur E. Gowran
%dGUS~R.
)VE, ESQUIRE l
U.S. Dept.of Justice Montgome y County Legal Aid Appellate Section Land Division Counsel f r Inmates, SCIG 10th & Penna. Ave. NW Washington, D.C.
40530 Theodore G. Otto, III, Esq.
Dept. of Corrections Office of Chief counsel P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esq.
Conner & Wettehahn 1747 Penna. Ave. NW Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Docket Nos 50-352, 50-353 j'
N]
Units 1 and 2)
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MARTIN j
'i I, THOMAS MARTIN do hereby depose and say that the l
i following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infor I,mation and belief.
I a
~
i I am currently incarcerated in the State Correct-l ional Institute at Graterford, which is located at P. O. Box li 244, Grateford, PA 19426.
My Institutional Number is F-8253.
I i
am currently serving a life sentence.
I have been interested in j
il the above-captioned matter for several years now as I am 1
i i
a resident within the 10-mile E.P.Z. surrounding the Limerick j
Generating Station.
As a resident of Graterford, I am also under the custody and control of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania !
I f due to the life sentence.
"Le lrison in which I am currently h
l I! housed in 8.3 miles from t m - serick Generating Facility.
As a I' long time resident of this area and as an individual who is not I free to make my own decisions in the event of a nuclear emer-gency, I believe that my comments should be made a part of the record in the above-captioned licensing proceedings.
5L o,._u,
l My initial concerns involve the radiological emer-gency response plan for the Graterford Facility.
I would like
~
l to state that I have some reservations about certain aspects of i
q I
.l the estimated time of evacuation.
These reservations are based upon my impressions as an inmate at the Facility in question.
i
- l
] In particular, I refer to the 30 minute lock-down time that is I
i! suggested by the flow chart.
I believe that this 30 minute time 4
l
] frame may be too conservative given the complexities of an i
evacuation during a nuclear incident.
It is my understanding O
I
[;that 30 minutes represents the time to lock the Institution down il lunder normal operating procedures.
It is my opinion as an i
sj inmate who has undergone numerous other emergency lock-down ll
!! situations at Graterford that such a lock-down under such condi-4 i
tions would take a considerably longer period of time.
I would i
i jsuggest that this commission review the prior emergency situ-jiations that I have undergone.
The ones that I believe would be f
ti i
!! helpful include the March 20th death of Captain Felix Mokychik i
d
[ which occurred during the second shift on that date.
The second 4
incident involves a disturbance on C-Block on January 19, 1982, l
d ji during the Super Bowl.
The incident occurred during the first j
i t
j and second shifts.
The third incident I refer to is the Septem-
. ber 12, 1983 power failure which occurred at 5:25 P.M.
The l
l
', fourth incident I refer to took place on the week of February l
l 23, 1984, when another power failure occurred.
The fifth inci-1
dent took place in October of 1981 during the hostage siege.
I believe that a review of the log book entries for the various blocks would indicate that the lock-down times during these incidents took considerably longer than 30 periods.
It is my i
l recollection of these incidents that said lock-down periods were I in fact longer than the estimated 30 minutes.
I I would also like to comment on the estimated time l
9 of arrival for the buses.
This flow chart indicates that a time frame of two to four hours is expected before the buses arrive I at the Institution.
It is my understanding of this evacution I
plan that the general public will be evacuating simultaneously with the institutionalized personnel.
It is my belief that it will be exceedingly difficult for the buses coming into the area !
e due to the evacuation of the general public which will be hap-pening simultaneously.
I expect that the buses may encounter l
I certain difficulties, i.e. congestion, road blocks, spontaneous I
l l
evacuation.
Thus, I do not believe that the 2 to 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> esti-l l
i jmateforbuses traveling from as far as 190 miles to the Insti-l ltutionisaccurate.
l to comment briefly on the training 'l I would also like aspects of the contentions filed by the Graterford inmates.
I am concerned that the training to be provided to the civilian l bus drivers be as thorough as possible.
I believe the train-t ing is the key to a successful evacuation plan.
In particular, I.
m
a e
i I refer to Plan of Instruction #7, which is entitled dissymmetry !
i and decontamination seminar for emergency personnel.
The only i
document with which my attorney has been provided and has since l given me a copy of includes merely an attachment labeled Attach-I ment A, which consists of 9 questions.
I do not understand the I
i i
nature of the seminar in that all that is asked are a series of l
I questions.
I also believe that the civilian personnel should be y trained in the custody and control of inmate population.
I think this would help them to understand their functions better I
and to carry them out in a professional manner.
j i
l l
l l
L v) i l
5
. THOMAS MARTIN i
- i l
ll ti i[SworntoandSubscribed I
Before me, this $ Y day of M
1985.
l z
f,th)
WM l/
NOTARYPUBLIC/
PATRICIA G. MEYERSOLIC OF MONT!10MERY COUNTV 4 NMA9Y POM1 COMVtSSION EAPlRES JAN. U.1988
....