ML20214G751
| ML20214G751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Edles G, Kohl C, Wilbur H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1632 OL, NUDOCS 8611260180 | |
| Download: ML20214G751 (29) | |
Text
[ N' b
u 'C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1b gy 24 P4'40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingAppealPBoar'dI' ~
7 DDGW u jMM Christine N. Kohl, Chairman .
Howard A. Wilbur Gary J. Edles In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 b L-
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
LICENSEE'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.
Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for the Licensee
. Philadelphia Electric Company Of Counsel:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Eugene J. Bradley '
2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 8611260180 861121 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000352 PDR y)S W
TABLE OF CONTENTS
, Page Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I. License Conditions Are Unnecessary To Assure The Ongoing Availability Of Licensee's Volunteer Bus Driver Pool . . . 3 II. The Licensing Board Did Not Err In Limiting The Testimony Of The School District Superintendents . . . . . . . . 8 III. Providing The Names And Addresses Of Licensee's Volunteer Drivers To The County Planning Agencies Is Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IV. LEA Was Not Precluded From Inquiring Into Overall Bus Resources Available To Montgomery County And Chester County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 i
{
l i
t l -
1-I l
l i
I
, - - ,e- -
.,,,-.,-n~ - - , - - - , .,,e,-. ,>c- ,-
e e n-- --e n-e-e , -- r-w,- , . - - , , - - . - - - - - ,
1 l
l 1
l
)
TABLE OF CITATIONS Page Cases Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), CLI-85-6, 21 NRC 1043 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-845, 24 NRC (August 28, 1986) . . . . . 2 ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 17
" Supplement To The Fourth Partial Initial Decision i
Relating To The Remanded Contention Regarding Manpower Mobilization At The State Correctional Institution At Graterford" (November 10, 1986) . . 2
" Supplement To Third Partial Initial Decision (ion Of f site Emergency Planning Contentions)"
(September 5, 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim LBP-85-25, 22 NRC 101 (1985) . . . . . . . . . , 2 LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . 2, 9, 10, 11, 21 i
NRC Regulations 10 C.F.R. 52.202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b) (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 C.F.R. S50.54 (s) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- ii -
Page Miscellaneous Letter from D. Stone and M. Mulligan to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (August 10, 1986) . . . 15 NUREG-0654 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 12, 15 1
J 1
V 4
1
- iii -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 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, )
Units 1 and 2) )
LICENSEE'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION Preliminary Statement On September 18, 1986, intervenor Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA") filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") ,
dated September 5, 1986,1 which resulted from the remand ordered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") in ALAB-836.2/
ALAB-836 affirmed the Licensing Board's Third PID, relating to offsite emergency planning and preparedness for
~
1/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , " Supplement To Third Partial Initial Decision (On Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions) " (September 5, 1986) (" Third PID Supplement").
-2/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479, 522 (1986). By Order dated July 24, 1986, the Commission declined to review ALAB-836.
l l
l
1 the Limerick Generating Station (" Limerick") , - except with regard to " reasonable assurance of the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate students in the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts School Districts."A In the Third PID Supplement, which resulted from the hearing on remand, the Licensing Board found that such reasonable assurance does exist, based upon a new bus driver volunteer plan approved by the Commonwealth and counties and imple-mented by the Licensee.
In its brief filed October 20, 1986, LEA does not assert that any factual or legal error requires reversal of the Third PID Supplement. Rather, LEA argues that the Appeal Board should impose a number of license conditions.
As discussed below, however, LEA has not pointed to any Commission regulation or planning guidance standard on 3/ Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1985). The Third PID did not encompass offsite emergency planning for the State Correctional Institution at Graterford.
That was the subject of a separate hearing which resulted in the Fourth PID. Limericke supra, LBP-85-25, 22 NRC 101 (1985). That decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board, except for one remanded issue, in Limerick, supra, ALAB-845, 24 NRC (August 28, 1986). A hearing on the issue remanded by ALAB-845 was held on September 22, 1986 and a Supplement to the Fourth PID, finding in favor of the Licensee, was filed on November 10, 1986. Limerick, supra, " Supplement To The Fourth Partial Initial Decision Relating To The Remanded Contention Regarding Manpower Mobilization At The State Correctional Institution at Graterford" (November 10, 1986).
4_/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 522.
, , - , - - - - - a , -- - - - - - - , - - , , - -- , - , - -
emergency planning which has not been met so as to require imposition of license conditions. In fact, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that more than enough bus drivers will be available for the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford School Districts in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick.
Argument I. License Conditions Are Unnecessary To Assure The Ongoing Availability Of Licensee's Volunteer Bus Driver Pool LEA's principal argument on appeal is that not all of the 200 or more volunteers comprising Licensee's bus driver pool had been trained, tested and licensed at the time of the hearing, and that the Licensing Board had only the Licensee's promise that the program would be completed.5/
This argument boils down to nothing more than a challenge to the credibility and weight accorded the testimony by the Licensing Board. -
5/ LEA Brief at 3, 6 (October 20, 1986).
6/ The Appeal Board's statement in Shearon Harris applies here:
The Licensing Board made its findings based on . . . expert testimony and those findings are thorough, fully supported by the record, and address all the significant matters raised by the intervenors during their cross-examination of these expert witnesses. As we have previously stated, "we are not free to disregard (Footnote Continued) i
Licensee's testimony was undisputed, and the Licensing .
Board found, that as of August 15, 1986, 58 volunteers had been fully qualified and licensed as bus drivers; that as of August 22, 1986, 155 had completed training; and that 45 were scheduled for driver testing on August 25, 1986.1 Licensee committed to continuing its training and testing program into September 1986, as necessary. On this basis, Licensee reasonably anticipated that approximately three-quarters of the 200-driver pool would be qualified prior to school opening in the fall.8-(Footnote Continued) the fact that the Licenisng Boards are the Commission's primary fact finding tribunals." Rather, when we review factual findings like those under challenge, we will overturn them only where "we are convinced that the record compels a different result." Here, the record compels only the result reached by the Licensing Board.
Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 530-31 (1986). As in that case, LEA has attempted "to construct [its] argument by selectively referencing and quoting the Licensing Board's findings." M. at 531.
7/ Third PID Supplement at 13.
8/ Id. The difficulty in completing training and testing prior to that time was adequately explained by conflicting work assignments and summer vacations. Id.
at 13-14. It is of no consequence that the entire driver pool was not completely established as of the start of school, given the number of drivers who were , Q qualified at that point, the total number needed to e meet the driver shortfall in Spring-Ford and .Owen J. e Roberts School Districts and the projected time ~
[
necessary to complete driver training and testing. :
l (Footnote Continued) i l
l l
1 Therefore, there was ample probative and reliable ;
evidence to demonstrate that the volunteer bus driver pro-gram, well in progress at the time of the hearing, would shortly be fully in place.1 As a practical matter, Licens-ee's volunteer bus driver pool now consists of 234 fully trained, qualified and licensed drivers. Further, bus driver training classes have been scheduled for January 1987 for another group of volunteers. In this regard, Licensee's witnesses testifiett' that internal procedures had been adopted to ensure regular updating of its list of volunteers, just as it does for its own onsite emergency workers. b (Footnote Continued)
Evidently, LEA did not believe the situation to be as critical as it new suggests because it did not move for a stay, as it has in the past. At this juncture, the point is moot.,
9/ LEA argues that predictive findings as to the availability of sufficient bus drivers to evacuate Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts schools are "not appropriate" because the plant is in operation. LEA Brief at 2 (October 20, 1986). Given the advanced status of driver training and testing at the time of the hearing, Licensee does not agree that the Licensing Board's findings of reasonable assurance were indeed
" predictive." In any event, LEA cites no precedent to l support its distinction between licensed and unlicensed l plants. It appears, for example, that predictive
- findings would be suitable for proceedings involving operating plants instituted pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(s). See Consolidated Edison Company of New York
' (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) , CLI-85-6, 21 NRC 1043, I
1086-88 (1985).
I
! l0/ Third PID Supplement at 16. As a result of the training program, each employee volunteer understands (Footnote Continued) l l
l l _ . -- -
The Board also relied upon the testimony of the respon-sible Montgomery County and Chester County planning offi-cials and the Director of Plans and Preparedness for the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA"). Their unrebutted testimony was that Licensee closely coordinated with them its plan to create a volunteer bus driver pool and that they agreed to the proposal as an adequate solution.N The reviewers provided by Region III of the Federal Emergen-cy Management Agency (" FEMA") likewise concurred that this commitment by Licensee and acceptance by the counties and PEMA gave reasonable assurance of the ongoing availability of the volunteer bus driver pool.12/
Given Licensee's unequivocal commitment to maintain its volunteer driver pool, unless and until replaced by some other source of drivers, there is no need for any license (Footnote Continued) that he is agreeing to be available indefinitely until replaced by some other source of drivers. M.
11/ Id. at 8-9.
---12/ Id. at 16-17.
LEA distinguishes between the adequacy of the volunteer driver pool as proposed per stipulation and as litigated. See LEA Brief at 5-6 (October 20, 1986). It is irrelevant that Licensee first created a volunteer driver pool, agreed upon by Montgomery and Chester Counties and PEMA, and then proposed it to LEA and the other parties in the form of a stipulation to settle LEA's contention. The unrebutted testimony overwhelmingly proved the adequacy of this measure and its ongoing availability, despite LEA's rejection of the stipulated settlement.
_7_
condition.EI Ongoing oversight by federal and Commonwealth officials, including routine exercises, ensures continuance of this volunteer pool, as does the Licensee's self-interest in maintaining its operating license.14/
Nor is there merit to LEA's claim that the Licensing Board's findings are inconclusive because no " final or permanent solution" has yet been devised for assuring bus drivers for Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts School Dis-
{
tricts.N! The responsible county and PEMA witnesses all agreed that Licensee's volunteer driver pool must remain
- available indefinitely, unless and until replaced by another source of drivers. As PEMA's witness stated, "the Licensee has no alternative but to maintain the driver pool indefinitely" until another source becomes available M/ Nothing in the record even remotely suggests that PECO has asserted any "right to withdraw all or part of its
, volunteer driver pool on the basis that other resources are available to the Counties." LEA Brief at 6 r (October 20, 1986). Licensee has committed to make its l employee volunteers available until the responsible governmental authorities, not Licensee, determine that the employee volunteer pool is no longer needed. Third .
PID Supplement at 15-16. The fact that Montgomery County, Chester County and PEMA officials might.later agree to relieve Licensee of its responsibility for maintaining a volunteer driver pool certainly does not render the arrangement inadequate. That situation would be just like any other rearrangement or updating of planning resources by the responsible Commonwealth and county officials in replacing one resource with another.
M/ See 10 C.F.R. SS2.202 and 50.54 (s) .
' 1_5) LEA Brief at 9 (October 20, 1986).
_, , _ _ - . . . , . . - . . . , . , . . , . , . _ , , _ . . . , , ,.___._.,_,,,,y, , . ,_ - . _ . _ , , . , , , - , ., y._,y, , , , , _ ..,_.,.,, - . ,m. _ _,, _, ,
(Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 3) .EI Given the ongoing i
availability of Licensee's volunteer driver pool, describing it as interim or long-term is pointless.
II. The Licensing Board Did Not Err In Limiting The Testimony Of The School District Superintendents As the Licensing Board correctly noted at the outset of its decision, the scope of the remanded-proceeding was very.
narrow, inasmuch as it was limited to the adequacy of bus driver availability for the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts i School Districts. Conversely, the hearing did not encompass the adequacy of bus driver availability for other districts -
{ or the number of buses necessary to evacuate the two school i districts at issue.EI LEA admits that the Spring-Ford and Owen . J . Roberts Superintendents received assurances from their respective l county planning officials that an adequate number of bus drivers would be available. Neither Superintendent l'
i 1
M/ The Chester County witness refused to characterize the arrangement ~ as either permanent or temporary, but simply stated that it was one tool which could be l utilized at this time (Campbell, Tr. 21237). -The l Montgomery County witness simply answered in the I
affirmative when asked whether he was satisfied with
! the arrangement and did not characterize it in any fashion (Bigelow, Tr. 21232) .
H/ Third i)ID Supplement at 6-7.
- ^ -- . - _ . - - - - - _ . - _ - , - _ . _ . - . - - - . - _ - - -.
questioned the reliability of that representation.EI LEA does not challenge this basic finding.E Instead, LEA complains that the Superintendents should have been permitted to testify about their "responsibil-ities."El- The issues LEA wished to raise, however, were well beyond the scope of the remand. For example, LEA asked whether " bus drivers [are] being assigned to [Owen J.
Roberts] as a result of the survey" (Tr. 21334) and inquired about " concerns that PECO volunteers from outside the area might not know the roads very well when they evacuate schoolchildren" (Tr. 21331). These lines of inquiry were irrelevant es discussed below.
With regard to the means by which the county planning agencies would assign drivers in an actual emergency, the Licensing Board previously found, and the Appeal Board at least implicitly agreed, that there is no planning standard which requires preassignment of buses and drivers to a particular school.E Although Montgomery County, for example, made certain worksheet " assignments" to evaluate 18/ Id. at 17.
19/ See LEA Brief at 10-11 (October 20, 1986).
20/ Id. at 10.
21/ Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219, 1275-76 (1984), aff'd, ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 513-15.
overall bus and driver availability versus need, those paper assignments were not final in any sense. b Likewise, Licensee's volunteer bus driver pool was created to meet the particular needs of the Spring-Fcrd and Owen J. Roberts School Districts, but there is no legal requirement, planning guidance in NUREG-0654 or statement in the county plans themselves which compels preassignment of Licensee's volunteer pool to those school districts.
Whether or not the Superintendents agreed with that princi-ple, which was the focus of LEA's questions to those wit-nesses, was therefore irrelevant to the narrow remand issue.
The Board correctly excluded such testimony.
The drivers' knowledge of local roads was also irrele-vant. Inasmuch as non-school district drivers will not be preassigned to particular schools, tl.ey may or may not be familiar with the roadway network of the school district to which they are assigned at the time of an actual emergency.
County planners testified at the earlier hearings that
"[t] raining does not include route assignments. Bus drivers would be given their assignment to evacuate a particular facility or segment of the population at the time of an actual emergency." E 22/ See 21 NRC at 1275.
23/ Id. at 1318 (emphasis added).
_ 11 _
As PEMA testified, drivers unfamiliar with their assigned routes would be provided with strip maps, which is the standard practice throughout Pennsylvania for all five nuclear power plants. FEMA agreed that the use of such maps would be sufficient to provide drivers with directions to their assigned locations.E Accordingly, there is no basis to distinguish Licensee's drivers from any other non-school district driver assigned to evacuate Spring-Ford or Owen J.
Roberts schoolchildren.
LEA also asserts that Owen J. Roberts School District Superintendent Claypool should have been permitted to testify whether Licensee's volunteer drivers would assist in carrying out an "early dismissal" of school students even prior to an order of evacuation.25/ But Superintendent Claypool testified that an early dismissal would utilize the district's buses and drivers, which would be recalled to the main campuses upon "the first communication from the
[Chester County Department of) Emergency Services" (Claypool, Tr. 21322). Hence, the "early dismissal" policy described by Dr. Claypool will rely upon the district's routinely available buses, as it does in the case of any other early dismissal for non-radiological emergencies.
24/ Id.
M/ LEA Brief at 11 (October 20, 1986).
l
f~ Further, an early school dismissal is not an evacuation (i.e., a protective action) within the context of emergency planning and preparedness requirements of the NRC's regu-lations or planning guidance under NUREG-0654.26/ The availability of Licensee's volunteer drivers to assist in an early dismissal is therefore irrelevant. Even assuming that the Owen J. Roberts School District would call upon Chester County for extra buses to help with an early dismissal, which Dr. Claypool did not assume (Claypool, Tr. 21325),
there is no reason why Licensee's volunteer drivers in particular would have to respond to this pre-evacuation request.
Finally, LEA claims error because the Licensing Board did not address its assertion that the school district ~
surveys which resulted in the remand are "no longer neces-sarily current or valid." b LEA argues that the previous l-I 1
26/ Dr. Claypool testified that an early dismissal would be implemented unless permission were denied by Chester County. Only if an early dismissal were not implemented would the district then communicate with the county as to unmet needs, i.e., how many
- non-district buses must be supplied for an evacuation (Claypool, Tr. 21322-23).
27/ LEA Brief at 12 (October 20, 1986). To the contrary, the Licensing Board answered this claim at the outset.,
Third PID Supplement at 6.
A licensing board has no obligation, of course, to address every proposed finding it rejects or considers unnecessary for its decision.
i
- . . _ , , _ . , . . - _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ , , . _ . _ , _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . ...__ .._ .__..__ . ~. ,__,_. ___ __ __ _ . _ . ,
13 -
surveys "are no longer reliable," citing the testimony of Spring-Ford School District Superintendent Welliver.EI Far from expressing a need for further surveys, Dr.
Welliver in fact repudiated the reliability of bus driver surveys, including the very survey which resulted in remand.
Dr. Welliver stated that he does not " consider the results of any survey as presently being valid" (Welliver, Tr.
21313-14) and later explained:
I consider [the survey] to be an exercise in futility. I'm more con-cerned about the number of buses that park in the school door in the event of need than I am someone's perception of their actions well in advance of an emergency. [Welliver, Tr. 21343, 21348]
Accordingly, Dr. Welliver had every right-to base his testimony regarding Spring-Ford's unmet need for bus drivers upon the number of buses operated by the school district's bus provider versus the total number of buses needed for a one-lift evacuation (Welliver, Tr. 21313). Put differently, ALAB-836 did not require Licensee to update the earlier surveys of school district bus drivers, but only to show that an adequate number of drivers would be available.E I
, 28/ LEA Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 7 (August 29, 1986), citing Welliver, Tr. 21343.
29/ It is also significant that Dr. Claypool, like Dr.
Welliver, apparently saw no point in updating the 1983 survey of bus drivers employed by the bus provider for the Owen J. Roberts School District.- Dr. Claypool simply stated that "[a]Il parties agreed that [the 1983 (Footnote Continued)
I 4
4 e
- - --p -, -g. -- n, ----r,-----,r,-----n a--- w-e-gr..,- -
emn -m > w wr- - --,-.,,,,,,n e,- ,- , -- en
III. Providing The Names And Addresses Of Licensee's Volunteer Drivers To The County Planning Agencies Is Not Required LEA asserts that Licensee's arrangements for creating a volunteer driver pool of its own employees are deficient because it was not demonstrated that the counties have completed whatever formalities they deem appropriate for designation of emergency workers.30/ This is irrelevant to the remanded issue. Licensee has created a pool of volunteer drivers which the responsible planning agencies, including the counties, have found acceptable.bI Nothing in the record even suggests that the availability of Licensee's volunteers depends upon any formal designation by the counties. To the contrary, both the Montgomery County and Chester County spokesmen testified that they would contact Licensee, not individual volunteers, if drivers were needed. (Campbell, Tr. 21245-46; Bigelow, Tr. 21247).3_2/
(Footnote Continued) survey results] were the unmet needs, based on the survey" (Claypool, Tr. 21313). In later testimony, Dr.
Claypool likewise indicated no inclination to update the survey (Claypool, Tr. 21341-42).
- 30) LEA Brief at 8 (October 20, 1986).
31/ See page 6, supra.
H/ The Chester County witness testified that he would contact volunteers individually only "if necessary" (Campbell, Tr. 21246), but did not explain why it might be necessary. LEA errs in stating that Licensee objected to this general line of testimony. LEA Brief at 8. The transcript pages cited by LEA either do not contain any objections by Licensee or an objection to (Footnote Continued)
)
1 .
Moreover, there is no regulatory requirement or plan-
- ning guidance which necessitates a support organization to identify its personnel to external organizations.33/
Licensee'n arrangements for providing additional bus drivers to the counties for use by the school districts is, in this respect, no different than the commitment from bus providers and other school districts to assist in'an emergency. Those organizations have not been required to provide the names and addresses of their drivers.
LEA also complains that it received, in response to a
_ subpoena request, -34/ bus driver volunteer forms which did not have each volunteer's address and phone number.35/ LEA does not explain how this discovery request relates to the
- " volunteer enrollment" issue it has raised, or how it was prejudiced in the presentation of its case because it did i
not.have the names and addresses of Licensee's volunteers.
Indeed, LEA's allegations are disingenuous because LEA never sought to interview or depose any of the volunteers (Tr.
(Footnote Continued) this particular line of inquiry. In any event, LEA cites no objection sustained by the Licensing Board.
33_/3 See 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b) (3) ; NUREG-0654, Criterion C.4.
-34/ See Letter dated August 10, 1986 from D. Stone and M.
Mulligan to the Licensing Board, requesting issuance of a subpoena for three categories of documents possessed by Licensee and also requesting subpoenas for Dr.
Welliver and Dr. Claypool.
- 35,/ LEA Brief at 8 (October 20, 1986).
.g,_., .e. . . _ . . . _, _,, , ..,___,_,_,.-,..,-.._-y-y..m,, ,,,.,,y. ., .,r.-.. ,-._v-,-.. ,me .. .
21163). In fact, LEA never even designated the 15 represen-tative volunteers it had a right to select from the total pool, whom Licensee agreed to make available to LEA for interviews or depositions.
Moreover, at a conference call among the Board and parties on August 14, 1986, LEA agreed to accept the volunteer forms in satisfaction of its subpoena request (Tr.
21162-63). Cn August 15, 1986, Licensee delivered copies of the 200 volunteer forms to LEA, as promised (Tr. 21167). At no time did LEA assert that this voluntary production of documents did not meet the parties' agreement during the conference call on August 14, 1986. These facts were recounted by the Licensing Board Chairman (Tr. 21174) and Licensee's counsel (Tr. 21175-76) at the hearing without dissent from LEA's representatives.
IV. LEA Was Not Precluded From Inquiring Into Overall Bus Resources Available To Montgomery County And Chester County LEA is concerned that county planning authorities could come to rely upon Licensee's volunteer driver pool "for other planning purposes besides the Spring-Ford and Owen J.
Roberts Districts."E There is, however, no legal require-ment under the NRC's regulations that a special group of 36/ Id. at 7 (October 20, 1986).
l
)
drivers be set aside and designated rolely for those two school districts.EI Nor is that action compelled by ALAB-836. The Appeal Board simply determined that there are adequate buses for an evacuation of schoolchildren, except for the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts School Districts.E! LEA offers no evidence that other county resources already in place would be displaced by Licensee's volunteers. In fact, the record establishes that overall bus resources have increased, not decreased, since the initial hearings and decisions on offsite emergency planning and preparedness for Limerick. E Thus, Licensee's volunteer bus driver pool was estab-lished to meet an identified shortage of drivers for two particular school districts,EI but the Chester County and Montgomery County. witnesses testified that Licensee's volun-teers might be called upon to respond to other bus driver needs (Campbell and Bigelow, Tr. 21249). Conversely, there are other Chester County and liontgomery County resources to meet unmet needs for bus drivers in the Spring-Ford and Owen i
37/ See pages 9-10, supra.
M/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 515-20.
M/ Third PID Supplement at 18, 40/ Id. at 8-9.
l
J. Roberts School Districts, aside from Licensee's pool of volunteer drivers.b!
For these reasons, LEA errs in asserting that overall county resources should not have been considered by the Licensing Board in determining whether the driver shortfall in the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts School Districts had been satisfied. Contrary to LEA's suggestion,b! the Licensing Board at no time limited LEA's cross-examination of witnesses on overall county bus and driver resources.b!
What the Licensing Boird ruled at the outset, rather, was that LEA would not be permitted to relitigate "the adequacy of bus driver availability for school districts other than Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford." -!
LEA's personal attacks upon the integrity of the Licensing Board's presiding officer are abusive and 41/ Id. at 18-19.
M/ LEA Brief at 13 (October 20, 1986).
M/ The Licensing Board's ruling which LEA cites at Tr.
21334 does not support its point. The Licensing Board sustained an objection when LEA asked Superintendent Claypool to state whether it was "a concern" to him that Licensee's volunteers "would be part of a general pool" (Tr. 21332). The basis of that objection was that the planning concept of pooled resources, _i.e.,
assignment of buses and drivers only at the time of an actual emergency, was previously litigated and approved in the initial hearings. See pages 9-10, supra.
M/ Third PID Supplement at 7.
a unjustified.E! LEA asked the Chester County witness questions as to his concern whether, prior to remand, "the most efficient optimum plan wasn't in place during that time" (Tr. 21240) and whether "tne most efficient plan wasn't in effect" for the upcoming school year (Tr.
21242-43) (emphasis added) . The Board correctly disallowed this examination because "[w]hether or not [the plan for evacuating Owen J. Roberts schoolchildren] was efficient is of no consequence" (Tr. 21243) (emphasis added) . All that mattered was the " basis upon wnich to make the reasonable assurance finding" (Tr. 21243).
Later, Judge Hoyt asked the Chester County and Montgomery County witnesses whether the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford School Districts, respectively, could have been evacuated without the existence of Licensee's volunteer driver pool (Tr. 21262-63). Both county representatives answered in the affirmative (Campbell and Bigelow, Tr.
21263). This merely established that other resources currently exist to meet any bus driver shortage in those school districts, aside from Licensee's contribution.N!
4_5,/ See LEA Brief at 14 (Octobsr 20, 1986).
M/ Third PID Supplement at 18. We do not understand LEA's complaint that the Chairman questioned the Superintendents about their bus driver surveys. LEA Brief at 14 (October 20, 1986). LEA did not object to these questions, nor do they claim on appeal that the questions were improper or prejudicial. Licensee (Footnote Continued) i i
- ,_~ ._ ~ , - - , - - - , . - -
Even assuming that a valid distinction between the questions by the Board and LEA could not be made, no prejudicial error resulted. The capability to evacuate the school districts this year can be determined on the basis of the current plans and evidentiary record.
Finally, LEA asserts that the record does not adequate-ly establish the means by which Licensee's volunteer drivers will be provided with buses. This apparently stems from LEA's misperception that each school bus used to evacuate the Spring-Ford or Owen J. Roberts School District will be driven to the staging area at Berwyn for Montgomery County or Exxon fcr Chester County and driven from there by the volunteer driver to the evacuating school.
This is not the case. It is each county's responsibil-ity to transport the volunteers to bus locations, although Licensee will coordinate with the counties and assist them in transporting its volunteer drivers to the bus depots. b At the time of an emergency, buses operated by the Owen J.
Roberts !;chool District will be recalled to its main campus-es if not already there (Claypool, Tr. 21322; Campbell, Tr.
(Footnote Continued) believes that the Superintendents should not have been permitted to offer their opinion on whether the evacuation plan for each school district is adequate to protect schoolchildren (Tr. 21342-43) as this very broad inquiry exceeded the scope of remand. The Board, however, overruled Licensee's objection. Hence, LEA has no legitimate claim of error or bias.
41/ Third PID Supplement at 15.
. 7. . .-
1 21244). At .. that- time, the Superintendent will inform Chester County of the number of buses or drivers needed. If
).
buses, and not just drivers, were needed, a bus and driver
! would be provided by Chester County as a unit, just as it would in response to any other school- district's unmet need.N! If only drivers were requested, Chester County will provide those drivers from the Exxon staging area (Campbell, Tr. 21236).
Busou and drivers for Spring-Ford will be provided by Custer's Garage (Welliver, Tr. 21313). Montgomery County would meet any shortage of buses in the same way by provid-ing- a bus and driver as a unit.N! If only drivers were needed, it would be up to Montgomery County to transport volunteer drivers to Custer's Garage, althoigh Licensee has .
j stated its willingness to cooperate in transporting volun-teers to bus locations (Kankus, Tr. 21302-03).N! Thus, a j
i i
48/ See Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC at 1270, 1280, j 12T3-89. As the initial hearings established, Chester
- County and Montgomery County plans treat a bus and i driver as a single unit, which would be dispatched in the event of a reported unmet need for buses. M. at 1320-21.
49/ See note 48, supra.
, 50/ As a practical matter, Licensee's volunteers will be responding from their work locations (Third PID Supplement at 10) and will therefore have quick access to company-assigned or personal vehicles which they
, could drive directly to bus locations without County
- transportation, if necessary. In particular, 55 of the original 200 volunteers (now 234) are regularly l (Footnote Continued) t
single bus could transport Licensee's volunteer drivers from Berwyn or Exxon to either school district's bus location.
Conclusion For the reasor.s discussed above, the Licensing Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law in its Third PID Supplement are supported by substantial, reliable and proba-tive evidence. There is no basis for any finding of factual or legal error, nor is there any justification for imposing license conditions relating to the availability of bus drivers for the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts School Districts. The decision of the Licensing Board should therefore be affirmed in all respects.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
~T g t. % w.[Wd*
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols Counsel for the Licensee November 21, 1986 (Footnote Continued) stationed at Berwyn, the transportation marshalling center for Montgomery County. M. at 14-15. Those drivers could be immediately dispatched.
I s
- -. -, --. - -_ - . - - _ _ _ . - ~ . , . - - - - , _ . . - - , . .- . . . - -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00L493 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U "
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeag agerMi P4 :48 In the Matter of )
) 0FFICL s' " m Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket NosD0Bil45,2p
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
^
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Brief in Opposition to Appeal by Limerick Ecology Action of the Supplement to Third Partial Initial Decision," dated November 21, 1986 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 21st day of November, 1986:
Christine N. Kohl, Esq. Dr. Richard F. Cole Chairman Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Appeal Board Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Howard A. Wilbur Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licencing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Helen F. Hoyt, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairperson Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
-Commission '
Washington, D.C. 20555
- l l
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq. Angus Love, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff 107 East Main Street Office of the General Norristown, PA 19401 Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Commission Sugarran, Denworth &
Washington, D.C. 20555 Hellegers 16th Floor, Center Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing 101 N. Broad Street Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 20555 Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation Philadelphia Electric Company and Safety Building ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Vice President &
General Counsel Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
2301 Market Street City of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19101 Municipal Services Bldg.
15th and JFK Blvd.
Mr. Frank R. Romano Philadelphia, PA 19107 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
General Counsel Mr. Robert L. Anthony Friends Federal Emergency of the Earth of Management Agency the Delaware Valley 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Washington, DC 20472 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Thomas Gerusky, Director Miss Maureen Mulligan Limerick Bureau of Radiation Ecology Action P.O. Box 761 Protection 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA Department of Environmental 19464 Resources
- Sth Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Third and Locust Streets 325 N. 10th Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Easton, PA 18012 Gene Kelly Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission P.O. Bcx 47 Region I Sanatoga, FA 19464 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406
8 i
' s, Mark L. Goodwin, Esq.
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 3321 Harrisburg, PA 17105-3321 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 Mr. Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency B151 - Transportation Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto,JEsq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 l
1 ,%
Nils N. Nicnols h
1 1
- -