ML20212K514
| ML20212K514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1987 |
| From: | Vogler B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2306 OL, NUDOCS 8701290097 | |
| Download: ML20212K514 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
23o6 00CMETED t":w:c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P1 :15 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL. BOARD I.eI
.,i In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-352 dd
)
50-353 -Cd.
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF TIIE NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO THE ORATERFORD INMATES APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S SUPPLEMENT TO FOURTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION Benjamin II. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney January 23, 1987 3 50 P tm '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEstR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
l RESPONSE OF TIiB NBC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRATERFORD INMATES APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S SUPPLEMENT TO FOURTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION I
i l
Benjamin II. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney s
January 23, 1987 l
1
TABLE OJ CINIENIS P,ag I.
INIB7X)CTKN..................................................
1 II. IlAGGEX2O....................................................
1 III. DIS WSSK N....................................................
5 1.
De Irmates Have Failed to Establish hat Rey Did Not Peceive A Fair and Inpart ial Hearing.....................
5 2.
It Was Not Error For De Licensing Board 'Ib Rely Upon he Revised Call-L) Systen Described By Superintendent Z imne rman.................................................
10 3.
D e Graterford Radiological Bnergency Response Plan Provides A Reasonable Assurance Rat Sufficient Man-power Can Be Mobilized For An Orderly Evacuation Of W e SCIG..................................................
11 IV. CINCWS I CN....................................................
17 i
. Table of Authorities AININISIRATIVE IECISICNS Page_
Duke Power Cocpany, (Catawba Nuclear Station, mits 1 and 2), ALAB-813, 22 NRC 59, 74 & N.69 (1985)........................
8 Houston Lighting and Power Cmpany, (South Texas Project, Ihits 1 and 2 ), MAB-7 9 9, 21 NRC 3 6 0, 3 76 (19 8 5).............................
7 Philadelpia Electric Canpany (Limerick Generating Station, Ihits 1 and 2) CL1-86-18, 24 NRC (1986).................................
10 Philadelphia Electric Cocpany (Limerick Generating Station, Ihits 1 and 2), AIAB-845 24 NRC (1986)...................................
1,3,7, 8,12 Philadelphia Electric Cmpany (Limerick Generating Station, thits 1 and 2 ), IBP-8 5 2 5, 2 2 NRC 101, ( 19 8 5 )................................
2 Philadelphia Electric Conpany (Limerick Generating Station, Uhits 1 and 2), Supplement to Fourth Partial Initial Decision, Slip op.,
(Novmber 10, 1986)..................................................
4,6,13 16 RECULATICNS 10 C.F.R. I 2.704....................................................
16 10 C.F.R. I 2.718....................................................
5 I
{
m UNITED STATES OF AMEP.ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
l Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF TI!E NRC STAFF IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRATERFORD INMATES APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S SUPPLEMENT TO FOURTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION
(
I.
INTRODUCTION On December 9,1986, the Inmates of the State Correctional Institu-l tion at Graterford (SCIG) filed a brief in support of their appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Supplement to its Fourth Partial Ini-tial Decision (PID).
The Inmates' appeal involves the remanded conten-tion on manpower mobilization at the SCIG in the event of a need for an evacuation because of a radiological emergency at the Limerick Generating Station (LGS).
For the reasons discussed below, the NRC staff (Staff) opposes the Inmates' appeal and urges that the decision of the Licensing Board be affirmed.
II. BACKGROUND l
On August 28, 1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board II (Appeal Board) issued ALAB-845. -
In ALAB-845, the Appeal Board 1/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-845, 24 NRC (August 28, 1986).
./..
decided the appeals of the Inmates from the Licensing Board's Fourth Partial Initial Decision - and the Licensing Board's earlier rejection of 8
some of the Inmates' proffered contentions.
The Appeal Board affirmed the Fourth PID in all respects except for the Licensing Board's rejection of the Inmates' contention concerning manpower mobilization.
The rejection of this contention was reversed and the matter remanded to l
the Licensing Board.
The inmates' remanded manpower mobilization con-tention alleges that:
[t]here is no reasonable assurance that the call up system to be utilized in the event of a nuclear emergency in order to mobilize the entire work force of the State Correctional Insti-tute [ sic] at Graterford will achieve its designated purpose.
Proposed Revised Contentions (Play 13, 1985) at 2.
(
In the event of a radiological emergency at the LGS requiring an evacuation, the SCIG Rcdiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) pro-vided for the mobilization of its off-duty employees by utilizing the com-mercial telephone lines through a pyramiding telephone call-up system.
The Inmates' contention focused on the possible failure of the plan if the commercial telephone lines become overburdened during such an emergen-cy.
The Inmates had relied upon the testimony of Richard T. Brown, Chairman, Lower Providence Township Board of Supervisors, who testified
^
in connection with another phase of this proceeding that during a past emergency (Hurricane Agnes), the local commercial telephone network was overburdened and its service impaired.
Brown, Tr. 18,149-150.
The Appeal Board determined that:
-2/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-25, 22 NRC 101 (1985).
-3/
Licensing Board Order of June 12,1985 (Unpublished), reconsidera-tion denied, Licensing Board Order of July 2, 1985 (unpublished).
l
The contention clearly raises an issue that can be the proper subject for litigation in an operating Ifeense proceeding -- the 7..
adequacy of the communications system to be used in the event of an emergency.
(footnote omitted) ALAB-845 at 8.
The Appeal Board noted that although the concerns raised by Mr. Brown had been dealt with in the context of the notification of Emergency Operation Center personnel, the overall adequacy of the public telephone network had not been directly addressed at the hearing, nor had Mr. Brown's testimony in that regard been refuted.
ALAB-845 at 11.
The matter to be resolved in the remanded proceeding was the adequacy of the telephone call-up system in the event of an overload of the public telephone network.
The Appeal Board also noted in remanding this issue to the Licensing Board that it had in ALAB-845 affirmed the Licensing Board's decision as to the Estimated Time of Evacuation (ETE) for the SCIG.
Accordingly, it directed the Licensir g Board and the parties in the course of their consideration on remuari of the Inmates' manpower mobilization contention to determine what effect, if any, the resolution of j
that issue had on the ETE for the SCIG.
ALAB-845 at 41.
In order to schedule a hearing in connection with the remanded is-sue, the Licensing Board held a conference call with the parties on September 3,1986. At the conclusion of the conference call the Licensing Board determined that it would hold a hearing on the remanded contention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 22, 1986.
Because of the short time period involved, the Licensing Board also ruled that there would be no prefiled testimony; that witness lists should be exchanged no l
= _
later than September 12, 1986; and that discovery would begin immediately. U The hearing was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 22, 1986.
Five witnesses presented " live" testimony at the hearing.
Richard A.
Buell, District Manager, Network Technical Services, Bell l
Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, and Charles A. Zimmerman, Superin-tendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, testified on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Richard T.
B rown, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Lower Providence Town-ship, and a Communications Technician, American Telephone and Tele-graph Corporation, and William Miller, Manager, Switching Services, Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, testified at the request of the In-mates.
Mr. James R.
Asher, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) testified on behalf of FEMA.
On November 10, 1986, the Licensing Board issued its Supplement to the Fourth PID and found that:
.. [I]n the context of the litigated contention, and, on the basis of the record before it that there is reasonable assur-ance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at the Limerick Generating Station that requires the evacuation of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, the call-up system will achieve its designated purpose to notify any off-duty security personnel needed to implement the evacua-tion, and that our previous decisip on evacuation time esti-mates for the SCIO is unaffected. -
-4/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Order at 1, (September 4,1986).
5/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Supplement to Fourth Partial Initial Decision, slip oy, at 7, (November 10, 1986). See also, Id., slip op, at 24.
a
= =:
On December 9, 1986, the Inmates f11ed their brief in support of their appeal of the Licensing Board's Supplement to the Fourth PID.
III.
DISCUSSION The Inmates' appeal involves three major areas in which they allege that the Licensing Board erred in its Supplement to the Fourth PID:
(1) the Inmates failed to receive their rights to a fair and impartial tribu-0 nal as guaranteed by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.718 - and the Constitution of the United States; (2) Whether it was error for the Licensing Board to rely upon the revised call-up system; and (3) the modified SCIG RERP fails to provide a reasonable assurance that sufficient manpower can be mobilized l
for an orderly evacuation.
The Staff does not believe that any of the Inmates' allegations have merit and will discuss each of them in turn below.
t t
1.
The Inmates IIave Failed To Establish That They Did Not Receive A Fair And Impartial Hearing The Inmates' initial allegations are directed to the Licensing Board's conduct of this proceeding.
They claim that they have been denied their rights to a fair and impartial hearing that is guaranteed by 10 C.F.R.
Section 2.718 of the Commission's regulations and by the Constitution of the United States. Appeal Brief at 4-8.
The Inmates offer several exam-ples as to how they believe the Licensing Board denied them their right to a fair and impartial hearinrr.
l
-6/
10 C.F.R. I 2.718 states in relevant part: A presiding officer has a duty to conduct a fair and impartial hearing according to law, to take appropriate action to avoid delay and to maintain order....
They begin by reciting the various obstacles and restrictions they encountered during the case-in-chief in 1985, just to participate in this proceeding in the first instance; they complain about the expedited dis-covery schedule set by the Licensing Board for this remanded proceed-ing; the denial of subpoena requests for documents relating to telephone communications during the Three Mile Island accident; the allowance by the Licensing Board for ad hoc decision making by the Pennsylvania De-partment of Corrections and the overall " inherent hostility" of the Licens-their rights. O ing Board, which has combined to deny the Inmates Appeal Brief at 7-8.
With regard to the expedited schedule for this remanded proceeding, on September 3,1986, the Licensing Board, in response to ALAB-845 held a conference call to discuss a hearing schedule for the remanded issue.
During the conference call the Licensing Board noted that the various schedules of the three Board members for other hearings would not permit a hearing for this remanded issue until sometime in 1987 unless it were heard promptly.
Supplement to Fourth PID at 6, fn. 4;
- Hoyt, Tr. 21,373-374.
During the conference call, the Licensing Board sought 1
the views of the parties and then advised that due to its own schedule complications, it would hold a hearing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 22, 1986.
The Licensing Board also advlsed that due to the short time period no prefiled testimony would be ordered; that witness lists should be exchanged no later than September 12, 1986; and that 7/
The Inmates' allegations regarding ad hoc decision making is also a separate basis for their appeal and is the subject of a separate dis-cussion by the Staff, infra.
l
_7_
EI discovery should begin immediately. -
During the conference call the Inmates voiced an objection to the schedule proposed but offered no rea-sons, other than a general complaint, to support a need for additional time. Love, Tr. 21,373-374.
Without more, and under the circumstance extant at the time the Licensing Board set the schedule, it was not reversible error for the Li--
censing Board to schedule the hearing for September 22, 1986.
This hearing raised a contention proffered by the Inmates and they have not claimed that they were precluded from developing their case as a result of l
the hearing schedule.
In fact, they presented testimony in support of their position and cross-examined the witnesses presented by the Com-i monwealth and FEMA.
They have _ not indicated in what way the post-ponement of the hearing would have provided them with an opportunity to present any evidence different from that presented or otherwise affected the preparation of their case. U This is not the first time the Inmates have claimed unfairness and lack of impartiality on appeal in this proceeding.
In their appeal of the Licensing Board's Fourth PID the Inmates' concluding arguments were directed at the Licensing Board's conduct of the proceeding. The Appeal Board, in ALAB-845, rejected their claim stating:
Where the circumstances warrant it, the Commission's regulations clearly permit the adjudicatory boards to shorten the time otherwise authorized for each of the matters about which the inmates complain.
See, eg,
10 C.F.R. Il 2.711(a), 2.754(a).
See also Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-8, 13
-8/
Philadelphia Electric Company, (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) Order at 1, (September 4,1986).
l 9/
See, Houston Lighting and Power (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 376 (1985).
l ll+
. ~,
F NRC 452, 453 (1981).
Expedition, of course, should not be at the expense of fairness.
But despite their generalized claims of unfairness, the inmates pro-vide no evidence in their brief of specific harm.
In-deed, all the parties were subject to the same time constraints, and the inmates agreed with the schedule at the time the Licensing Board proposed it.
See Tr. 20,729, 20,741-42.
See also Tr. 20,899.
It is thus too late now to complain about it.
Duke Power Co.
~
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-813, 22 l
NRC 59, 74 & n.69 (1985). ALAB-845 at 49-50.
The reasons set forth by the Appeal Board in its denial of the Inmates almost identical claim in ALAB-845 also are applicable here.
The Staff submits the Inmates have not made a case for holding that the Licensing Board abused its discretion and commited reversible error in setting the hearing date.
This aspect of the Inmates' appeal should be dismissed.
l.
With regard to the Licensing Board's denial of the Inmates' request for subpoenas and Ifmitations on their cross-examination of witnesses, the Inmates maintain that this action by the Licensing Board is another exam-ple of their unfair and impartial treatment.
Appeal Brief at 7-8.
The Staff disagrees.
Although the Inmates' subpoena reonest was dated September 16, 1986, it was not received by the Licensing Board until Friday, September 19, 1986, just prior to the hearing scheduled for the following Monday.
In response to this late filed request, the Licensing Board initiated a conference call on September 19, 1986, in order to ex-i, piore further the request.
See, Hoyt, Tr. 21,415-418.
The Inmates failed to establish that the subpoenaed parties, the Bell System of Penn-sylvania and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, had any of the docucients sought by the Inmates or that the documents were relevant to the remanded issue.
The Licensing Board was correct in denying the Inmates' request for subpoenas.
l
\\
S.
The Inmates' complaint about the curtailment of testimony involves the limitation of the testimony of a Bell Telephone employee concerning the TMI accident.
This witness appeared on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and during cross-examination testified that he had no personal knowledge of the Three Mile Island accident.
- Buell, Tr. 21,414. Thereafter, further testimony by this witness concerning the i
response of the telephone system during the accident at Three Mile Island was not allowed by the Licensing Board. b Subsequently, another witness, Mr. Richard T. Brown, an A T and T employee, appearing on behalf of the Inmates did testify about his knowledge of the telephone system during the Three Mile Island accident.
Mr. Brown testifled that at the time of the TMI incident there were dial tone delays in the Middletown central office, but was unable to state even roughly the pro-portion of all subscribers that experienced a dial tone delay.
He also testified that the Middletown office was using antiquated " step-by-step" switching equipment at the time of the TMI incident. Brown, Tr. 21,529, 21,533-34.
Although the Inmates were unable to relate the accident at TMI to an emergency at the LGS, it is clear that the Inmates were not denied the opportunity to pursue this issue.
l
-10/ It should be noted that counsel for the Inmates discussed with wit-ness Buell his testimony before the hearing and was aware of his lack of personal knowledge of the telephone response during the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and did not pursue his interest with an-other individual referred to him by Mr. Buell.
- Love, Tr. 21,415-416.
l In view of the above, the Inmates have failed to support their alle-gations of unfairness and partiality by the Licensing Board b
The Inmates' claims in this regard are without merit.
2.
It Was Not Error For The Licensing Board To Rely Upon The Revised Call-up System Deccribed By Superintendent Zimmerman The Inmates allege that it was improper for the Licensing Board to rely upon the call-up system described by Superintendent Zimmerman 1-during his testimony for its findings that there was reasonable assurance that off duty personnel will be mobilized in the event an evacuation of the SCIG is required.
The Inmates also assert that the Licensing Board's admission of Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony contributed to a denial of their rights and en impartial hearing.
See, footnote 6, supra.
As with their prior arrntments concerning their rights to an impartial hearing, the Inmates begin their discussion with a complex history of this proceeding.
Appeal Drief at 8-9.
The issues raised by the Inmates con-cerning this history were thoroughly discussed and resolvsd in ALAB-8d5.
The main thrust of the Inmates concern about the instant proceeding involves Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony about how the t
call-up system actually is utilized in the event of the need for a mobiliza-l tion of SCIG personnel.
While it is true that the testimony of Superin-tendent Zimmerman at this hearing presented revised procedures that will be utilized during a call-up and that these procedures were different than those previously given to the parties by SCIG officials, the Inmates failed
-11/ The Inmates also complain about er aarte filings allegedly made to the Licensing Board by Robert IT. Taer, Esq., Counsel for the Licensee. This allegation was the subject of a separate litigation and rejected by the Commission.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick l
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-18, 24 NRC (1986).
'to point out at the hearing or in their appeal brief how they were denied a fair opportunity to develop their position or how they were harmed in the development of their case by the revised testimony.
They were ad-vised that Superintendent Zimmerman would be the Department of Correc-t tions' witness and they were in attendance at the hearing when Superintendent Zimmerman testified to the revisions in the call-up proce-dures and cross-examined him on this issue.
The introduction of this testimony did not appear to inhibit the Inmates from pursuing their cause.
They fail to allege, much less establish, how they were preju-i diced by this testimony.
Accordingly, the Staff submits that the Inmates have failed to estab-lish that there was any error by the Licensing Board to rely upon the call-up system described by Superintendent Zimmerman. I2,/
3.
The Graterford Radiological Emergency Response Plan Provides A Reasonable Assurance That Sufficient Manpower Can Be Mobilized i
For An Orderly Evacuation Of The SCIO i
The Inmates maintain that because Superintendent Zimmerman's testi-mony revising the SCIG evacuation plan was " unauthorized" they will use his " original authorized and approved" version of the SCIG manpower 1
mobilization plan (Appeal Brief at 14) that was originally presented to the r
Licensing Board during the case-in-chief in 1985, to support their con-tention that the SCIG manpower mobilization plan is insufficient to carry out an orderly evacuation.
Id.
In response to this position, the Staff 12/ Inmates also assert that changes in the SCIG RERP without documen-tation in the revision page of the plan and without approval from i
l FEMA render the changes invalid. Appeal Brief at 10.
No authority is given for this position nor could the Staff find any support for this argument.
However, it should be noted that, as indicated in-fra, the changes have been incorporated into the plan and FEMA fias liiBicated its satisfaction with the procedures as modified.
4
{
notes that there is no evidence or other record support for the Inmates' position that Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony, given at the remand-ed hearing, was unauthorized.
Indeed, the revised testimony was pre-sented at the hearing under oath by the Superintendent of the SCIG in the presence of counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Subsequently, by Analyzer Returned to Svc.W/|letter dated October 1,1986]], counsel for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in response to the order of the Licensing Board at the hearing (Hoyt, Tr. 21,564-66) advised the Licensing Board and the parties that the revised call-up system for noti-fying off-duty correctional officers reflected in Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony, which is actually in use and will be used in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick, had been incorporated into the Graterford emergency plan b The Inmates were present at the hearing, participated in the nroceeding, including the cross-examination of Superintendent Zimmerman, did not object to his testimony and did not claim surprise or injury to their position as a result of his testimony.
They also failed to request additional time or seek a continuance. As the Appeal Board noted in ALAB-845:
"But despite their generalized claims of unfairness, the inmates provide no evidence in their brief of specific harm... It is thus too late now to complain about it", ALAB-845, Slip op, at 49-50.
There is no point to now consider a manpower mobilization plan that was presented in 1985 when that plan has been replaced.
The plan that was testified to at the remanded hearing and discussed by the parties and 13/ Letter, October 1, 1986, from Theodore G.
Otto, III Pennsylvania
~
Department of Corrections, to fielen F. Hoyt, Chairperson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
. the Licensing Board was found to provide reasonable assurance that ade-quate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency at _ Limerick.
Supplement to Fourth PID at 24.
The evidence relied upon by the Licensing Board in reaching its finding and about which the Inmates complain relates primarily to the limited number of off-duty SCIG staff needed to carry out an orderly evacuation, the nature of the telephone equipment and alternatives to telephone use, and the testimony of the FEMA witness.
Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony at the hearing indicated that during the time period of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM there is adequate staff on duty to effectuate an orderly evacuation of the SCIG.
Zimmerman, 4
Tr. 21,452, 21,469, 21,495.
Thus, only during the 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM time frame, when the Inmates are locked down in the cells would addition-al off-duty staff have to be called to supplement the on-duty staff to help in implementing the evacuation.
Id. Tr. 21,451-54.
Superintendent Zimmerman said that approximately fifteen percent of the total staff or less than 100 individuals would have to be called to duty during this time period. Id. Tr. 21,496-97.
Although the capacity exists to utilize the " pyramid" system of noti-i fication found in the SCIG emergency plan, SCIG officials have found it more practical and efficient to notify off-duty officer staff directly from a centralized control center within the Institution.
Zimmerman, Tr. 21,454, 21,471-73.
Superintendent Zimmerman said that his staff utilizes this i
in-house telephone system to call its administration and management people at their homes and that these people have telephone call lists of all their employees.
Id.
This call-up system has been found to be more efficient than the original pyramid call-up procedure.
Zimmerman, Tr. 21,454. In
^
..t the opinion of Superintendent Zimmerman, the revised call-up procedures
- are routinely tested under actual emergency conditions because of inci-dents at the institution and there has never been any indication the re-vised call-up procedures would not operate as anticipated.
He said that more than enough off-duty support staff have reported for duty during i
these incidents and, further, in his opinion the revised system meets the estimated evacuation time estimates of one-to-two hours for the calling of off-duty personnel.
Id. Tr. 21,468.
In addition to the above revised call-up system, Superintendent Zimmerman also testified to alternative methods for mobilizing SCIG manpower in the event telephone delays are experienced.
lie said one alternative would be to call in additional De-partment of Corrections staff on the evacuation buses being furnished from support institutions.
Zimmerman, Tr. 21,461-62.
Another alterna-tive would be to have the call-up originate from the Department of Cor-rections Office in Harrisburg, where the call-up sheets and telephone i
L numbers for personnel needed to be called are also maintained.
Id.
The Pennsylvania State Police radio could also be utilized to circumvent tele-phone delays by contacting other correctional institutions or local county emergency planning agencies and radio systems.
Id. Tr. 21,460-62.
l*
Finally, Superintendent Zimmerman noted that his off-duty staff will be i
l, called during the " alert" stage of any radiological emergency, which is' i
prior to general emergency stage when sirens are sounded to warn the public of the emergency and thus the telephone system is not likely to be overburdened.
Zimmerman, Tr. 21,506.
See also, Asher, Tr. 21,555.
Testimony at the remanded hearing relied upon by the Licensing l
Board showed that Bell of Pennsylvania engineers its central office switching systems to provide a grade of service it estimates will be
44e required for a particular period.
Each switching office is upgraded ap-proximately every two to three years to handle increased load and to uti-lize the most up-to-date equipment. Buell, Tr. 21,388-90. The telephone system is designed for a busy hour on a busy day in the busy season, which-normally occurs in the winter.
Id. at 21,424.
Telephone usage from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM is never the busiest part of the day; in fact telephone use during this time period is minimal..
Id. at 21,409-10; B rown, Tr. 21,532; Miller, Tr. 21,548, 21,5511.
Bell's objective is to provide a dial tone within three seconds to ninety-seven percent of its customers.
If there is an overload, calls are not be handled as quickly as under normal conditions, but this does not mean the system is inopera-tive.
Although some callers would experience delay, eventually all calls would be completed. Buell, Tr. 21,430-31.
James R. Asher, Emergency Itanagement Program Specialist, Division m
of Natural and Technological Hazards, Region III, TEMA, testified that he is unaware of any nuclear power plant which does not utilize commercial l
telephone lines to notify its off-duty emergency workers.
- Asher, Tr. 21,557.
He also advised that FEMA utilizes commercial telephone lines to notify its emergency response teams and that its call-down system is similar to that in use at Graterford.
Id. at 21,556. Mr. Asher said that -
to his knowledge there has never been an instance in which FEMA has not been able to notify its staff.
Id. at 21,557.
Based on his review of the testimony and the SCIG emergency response plans, Mr. Asher testified that he is satisfied that there is a reasonable assurance that in the event of a radiological emergency at the LGS any off-duty personnel needed to implement the emergency plan can and will be notified.
- Asher, Tr. 21,555.
..-....,._.,..y._,,
=
. Based upon the a ve information the Licensing Board found in its Supplement to its Fourth PID reasonable assurance that the revised SCIG call-up' system will achieve its designated purpose to notify any off-duty personnel needed to implement the evacuation.
Supplement to the Fourth PID, Slip op. at 12.
As noted earlier herein, the Inmates were at the hearing during the presentation of this testimony and had the opportunity to cross examine the Commonwealth's and FEMA witnesses, object to their presentations to the Licensing Board or seek disqualification of the Li-l censing Board itself pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.704 b of the Commission's rules.
They did none of the above.
Instead, on appeal, they characterize the changes as being ad hoc in nature and the altera-tions to the manpower mobilization plan as unauthorized and contend that this establishes a continuing pattern of hostility and prejudice on the part i
of the Licensing Board towards the Inmates.
Appeal Brief at 10-12, 16.
They seek to revert to evidence that was addressed at the emergency planning hearings in 1985 to support their position on the unreliability of the call-up system and thus ignore the changes that have taken place l
since that time.
In Staff's view the Licensing Board's findings in its Supplement to the Fourth PID is based upon reliable and probative evi-dence and should be sustained by the Appeal Board.
-14/ 10 C.F.R.
I 2.704 states in relevant part:
"(c) If a party deems the presiding officer or a designated member of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to be disqualified he may move that the presiding officer or the board member disqualify himself..."
I IV.
CONCLUSION In view of the above, the Inmates have not established how failure to have the revised plan before the hearing has precluded them from pre-paring for, or participating in the hearing.
In particular, the Inmates have not shown how information concerning the changes in the call-up system prevented them from devleoping their position with respect to overloading the commerical telephone lines dt: ring an emergency at Limer-ick.
Furthermore, the Inmates have not indicated how they were injured in their ability to participate in the hearing with regard to the revised call-up system.
The record amply supports the conclusion that regard-less of which call-up system was utilized by the SCIG there should be no problem in mobilizing the manpower for an evacuation.
Accordingly, the Staff submits that the Inmates' appeal is without merit and the Licensing Board's Supplement to the Fourth PID should be affirmed.
l Respectfully submitted,
(
f
- f/A Q
,y enjamin H. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of January,1987 i
lk.I" c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P1 :15 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD DiiC F
- 4' '.
_, 4.
ref g In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF IN OPPO-SITION TO THE CRATERFORD INMATES APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S SUPPLEMENT TO FOURTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail sys-tem, this 23rd day of January,1987:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2)
Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C.
20555*
Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Dichard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
l Adminictrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555*
Washington, D.C.
20006 i
Dr. Jerry Harbour Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Administrative Judge Ms. Maureen Mulligan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Limerick Ecology Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 762 Queen Street j
Washington, D.C.
20555*
Pottstown, PA 19464 Mr. Frank R. Romano Charles E. Rainey, Jr., Esq.
Air and Water Pollution Patrol Chief Assistant City Solicitor l
61 Forest Avenue Law Department, City of Philadelphia Ambler, PA 19002 One Reading Center 1101 Market Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 l
l
Thomas Gerusky, Director Barry 141. Hartman Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 300 N. 2nd Street Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Director Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Pennsylvania Emergency Management General Counsel Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportstion & Safety Room 840 Building 500 C Street, S.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, D.C.
20472 Robert L. Anthony Gene Kelly Friends of the Earth of the Senior Resident Inspector Delaware Valley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 P.O. Box 47 Moylan, PA 19065 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Atomic Safety and Licensing Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Board Panel Department of Emergency Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 East Biddle Street j
Washington, D.C.
20555*
West Chester, PA 19380 Davis Wersan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Consumer Advocate Board Panel Office of Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1425 Strawberry Square Washington, D.C.
20555*
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section l
Jay Gutierrez Office of the Secretary Regional Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission USNRC, Region I Washington, D.C.
20555*
631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Angus R. Love, Esq.
Montgomery County Legal Aid Theodore G. Otto,111 107 East Main Street Chief Counsel Norristown, PA 19401 Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections P. O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17011 i
/
+
l Benjamin H. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney i
i
. _.. _ _ _ _ _