ML20214L486
| ML20214L486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1986 |
| From: | Harbour J, Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-633 ALAB-836, OL, NUDOCS 8609100190 | |
| Download: ML20214L486 (22) | |
Text
e DOLKETE:
U$NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'86 SEP -9 A10:26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARDh0CkETflv[5INMI((
f BRANCH BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Jerry Harbour g g _,9 g In the Matter of PHILACELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 50-353-OL (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
) September 5, 1986 SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (On Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions)
APPEARANCESS Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq., Robert M. Rader, Esq. and Nils N. Nichols, Esq., of Conner ti Wetterhahn, P.C., Washington, D.C. for Philadelphia Electric Company.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., for the NRC Staff.
Mark L. Goodwin, Esq., Pennsylvania Emergency Vanagement Agency, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Michael Hirsch, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., for FEMA.
Maureen Mulligan and David Stone, for Limerick Ecology Action.
8609100190 860905 DR ADOCK 0500 2
[ [d){
.o - w TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Introduction...........................................
3 II. Findings of Fact.......................................
8 A.
Development of Licensee's Volunteer Employee Bus Driver Pool..........................
8 B.
Es timated Need for Addi tional Drivers.............
10 C.
Employee Bus Driver Training and Qualification.....
12 D.
Time Respone Estimates............................
14 E.
Ongoing Availability of Licensee's cmployee B u s D ri ve r Pool...................................
15 F.
Additional Sources of Bus Drivers.................
18 G.
Alleged Conflicts In Volunteer Responsibilities...
19 H.
Conclusion........................................
20 4
III. Conclusions of Law.....................................
20 IV. Order..................................................
21
O s I.
INTRODUCTION This is a supplement to the Third Partial Initial Decision ("PID"),
issued on May 2,
1985 by this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board" or " Board") after consideration of offsite emergency planning issues in the operating license proceeding for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
(" Limerick").1/
The Third PID disposed of all offsite emergency planning contentions, except those raised by the inmates of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford,2_/ in favor of Applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (now Licensee).
Following the conclusion of all hearings on contested issues, the Licensing Board authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue full power operating licenses for Limerick, consistent with the Board's decisions in this case and upon making requisite findings with respect to matters not embraced in its decisions.2/
The Commission thereafter denied motions to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decisions on offsite emergency planning and preparedness and 1/
See Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, UriTts 1 and 2), LBP-85-14, 21 hRC 1219 (1985).
-2/
Emergency planning and preparedness for the inmates was the subject of our Fourth PID in Limerick, su ra, LBP-85-25, 22 NRC 101 (1985).
The Fourth PID found in favor o pplicant on all issues but has been remanded on the issue of adequacy (of the comunication system to be used in an emergency at the SCIG ALAB-845, August 28,1985).
3/
Id. at 116.
Although the hearings on contested issues involved F6th Units 1 and 2 of Limerick, a full power operating license was issued only for Unit 1 inasmuch as Unit 2 has not yet been completed.
C.
ordered that the authorization for issuance of a full power license be made immediately effective.4/
Various parties have appealed the Com-mission's action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Those appeals have been consolidated and held in abeyance pending completion of final agency action by the Commission in this proceeding.5_/
In the interim, the Appeal Board reviewed this Board's Third PID, which it affirmed in ALAB-836, with two exceptions.6_/ As to the first matter, the Appeal Board required the NRC Staff to verify establishment of additional traffic control measures at one point along the perimeter of the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone ("EPZ") for Limerick.1/ No further action by this Board was ordered on this matter.
On the second matter, the Appeal Board held that two driver surveys conducted by the Superintendents of the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts " raise [d] a legitimate question whether there is reasonable assurance that an adequate number of drivers would respond in an emergency" related to Limerick.8_/
Therefore, the Appeal Board remanded for further hearings before this Board relating to its finding 4_/
Limerick, supra, CLI-85-15, 22 NRC 184 (1985).
5/
See generally Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. NRC, No. 85-3431; Tfi"omas Martin v. NRC, No. 85-3444; Robert L. Anthony v. NRC, No.
~
85-3605; and Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. NRC, No. 86-3314.
-6/
See Limerick, supra, ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479 (1986).
On July 24 T966, the Commission declined to review ALAB-836.
Z/
H.at497,522.
8/
Id. at 518-19.
as 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."E By Order dated May 22, 1986, this Board directed Licensee, as the party with the burden of proof, to submit its proposal for resolution of the remanded issue, which Licensee filed on June 16, 1986.
In its Order, the Board invited coments on the proposal by the other parties, which were also filed. At a conference call on July 17, 1986, the Board and parties discussed, inter alia, a schedule for a hearing and designation of witnesses.
On July 21, 1986, the Board issued a Notice of Hearing and an Order establishing a schedule for filing testimony, the conduct of evidentiary hearings and filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties.
A hearing was held on August 18 and 22,1986 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on the remanded issue.
Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were filed by the Licensee, NRC Staff, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Intervenor, LEA.
In its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its Findings (Nos. 1-3 (pages 1-3)), LEA raised objections to the scheduling of the hearing and complained that it " suffers certain disadvantages in the accelerated hearing process, including reduced preparation time and time for filings...."
However, this complaint is not supported by the record.
Indeed, LEA, who did not file any prefiled testimony, inserted personal activities of one of its representatives as early as the July 9/
Id. at 522.
l 17, 1986 conference as a bar to preparation for a hearing to be held more than a month later. Mulligan, Tr. 21139, 21153. LEA now complains that it could not sample drivers "from a universe of 570..." because PECo reduced the number of volunteers it was providing from 570 to about 200 names.
LEA had agreed that it wanted to sample 10 of PEco's employees who would be bus driver volunteers.
Tr. 21147, lines 8-15.
How the reduction in number of volunteers was material is unexplained.
No PECo employees were apparently ever deposed; no representation was made in the hearings of August 18 or August 22 that LEA selected ten driver applicants or ever contacted them.
The Board notes here these acts as indicative of this Intervenor's raising concerns and then having been provided with the opportunity to prepare its case, making inaccurate claims that the very opportunity to prepare is the source of yet another problem.
This Intervenor had ample time to have prepared but did little to provide support for its concerns.
Although it is clear to all that the Licensee has the burden of proof, an Intervenor after raising a concern must at least provide something, no matter how small, to explain and support the basis of its concern.
LEA misstated the basis of this remand as being concerned with a
" properly conducted statistical survey which caused this bus driver issue to be remanded in the [first] place." LEA Proposed Findings, page 2.
The Board, however, has interpreted the remand as a concern of the Appeal Board in ALAB 836 that bus drivers be available for the two school districts in sufficient numbers to effect the evacuation and this we have done. As to the adequacy of bus driver availability, the Appeal Board found a deficiency in the record only with regard to the number of bus drivers a
. s for the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts.EI Thus, this Board was not required or authorized by the Appeal Board to explore anew the adequacy of bus driver availability for school districts other than Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford.
Nor was the Board to take further evidence on the adequacy of buses, as distinct from the availability of drivers, necessary to evacuate the two school districts at issue.
For all school districts within the Limerick EPZ, including the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts, the Appeal Board has upheld the findings of this Board that there is reasonable assurance of enough buses to evacu-ate schools in Montgomery County and Chester County.E/ Therefore, the Board in this limited remand hearing sustained as proper the parties' objections to questions by LEA which exceeded the scope of this proceed-ing.
10/ Id. at 515-20.
11/ Id. at 512-15.
. r J
II. FINDINGS OF FACT A.
Development Of Licensee's Volunteer Employee Bus Driver Pool 1.
Plans to evacuate the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts are two aspects of the overall efforts by Comonwealth, county and local officials, assisted by Licensee and its consultants, to maintain adequate emergency planning and preparedness for Limerick.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 1.
2.
Since the close of the record relating to the offsite emergen-cy planning phase of the proceeding, Licensee has continued to cooperate with Comonwealth, county and local officials in developing additional emergency response resources for all aspects of planning and prepared-4 ness.
These efforts have included the enlistment of Licensee's employ-ees who have stated a willingness to participate as volunteers in implementing various aspects of the offsite plans.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 2.
3.
Following the Appeal Board's remand as to whether an adequate number of drivers would be available for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts, the Licensee's representatives discussed how to resolve the remanded issue with the responsible county and Commonwealth officials.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 2-3.
j
~
4.
Timothy R. S. Campbell is the Director of Emergency Services for Chester County, and A. Lindley Bigelow is the Coordinator of Emer-gency Preparedness for Montgomery County.
Both officials previously testified in this proceeding with regard to offsite emergency planning and preparedness for their respective counties.
As a result of the 1
O w remand, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bigelow met with Licensee's representatives and corresponded by t:0 sphone with PEMA representatives as to the provision for drivers for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts. Campbell, Tr. 21229-30; Bigelow, Tr. 21231-32.
5.
At a meeting on June 5,1986 with Licensee's representatives, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bigelow determined that an immediate solution would be for volunteer Licensee employees to qualify and act as bus drivers until the counties or the Comonwealth have obtained drivers from other sources.
Mr. Campbell decided that the designated marshalling center for volunteers to drive buses for Chester County would be in the Exton area at the Exxon Systems facility in Lionville.
Mr. Bigelow decided that the designated marshalling center for Montgomery County would be the Licensee's Berwyn Transportation Center.
The matter was then discussed with Ralph J.
Hippert, Director of Plans & Preparedness, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, who agreed to the proposal as an imediate solution. Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 2-3; Boyer, Tr. 21194; Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 2; Campbell, Tr. 21230; Bigelow, Tr. 21232.
6.
In Pennsylvania, a Class 4 driver's license is required for operation of a school bus.
There are three prerequisites for obtaining a Pennsylvania Class 4 license: (1) possession of a Class 4 learner's pemit which requires passing a physical examination; (2) classroom and vehicle training; and (3) passing a driver's examination administered by the State Police.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 3.
7.
In order to determine the number of enployees who potentially might wish to volunteer to drive school buses in the event of an emer-gency, Licensee collated a list of volunteer employees who could respond
O,
to bus marshalling centers within a reasonable period.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 3.
8.
Each volunteer was asked to execute a volunteer sheet.
The supervisors of the volunteers were asked to estimate how long it would take the volunteers to reach the marshalling centers based upon their knowledge of their personnel's work locations.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff.
Tr. 21189 at 3-4.
9.
Based upon discussions with Licensee's representatives, the responsible planning agencies agreed that a total of 200 employee volunteers, to be used by both Montgomery and Chester Counties, would be more than sufficient to meet any anticipated need for the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts.
A list of the names of the remaining volunteer employees is being maintained on file so that in the event they may be needed as replacements for those already trained, they can be made available.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 4; Boyer, Tr. 21195.
B.
Estimated Need for Additional Drivers 10.
The witnesses proffered by the parties differed to some degree in their calculation of the potential for unmet driver needs in the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts.
Ralph J.
Hippert, now the Director of the Office of Plans and Preparedness for PEMA, previously testified in this proceeding on offsite emergency planning and preparedness by the Commonwealth for Limerick.
As the responsible pEMA official, Mr. Hippert calculated the potential bus driver shortage for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts by consulting their respective plans and determining the
number of buses available to those school districts.
He then compared the number of available buses with the results of the bus driver surveys previously conducted by those school districts.
By subtracting the number of drivers surveyed who had explicitly stated that they would participate in an emergency from the number of buses available to each district, he determined the potential driver shortage.
Hippert, Tr.
21275-77.
11.
Based on his examination of the current Spring-Ford Area School District emergency plan, and assuming the validity of a bus driver survey of the Custer Bus Ccmpany conducted by Spring-Ford Superintendent Welliver, Mr. Hippert calculated that Spring-Ford would experience a shortage of no more than 28 drivers in the event of a school evacuation because of a radiological accident at Limerick.
Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 1.
12.
Based on his examination of the current Owen J. Roberts School District plan, and assuming the validity of a bus driver survey conducted at the request of the Owen J. Roberts Citizens Task Force of the Gross Bus Company drivers, Mr. Hippert calculated that Owen J.
Roberts would experience a shortage of eight bus drivers if a school evacuation were necessary.
Id., at 2.
13.
Thus, accepting the results of the bus driver surveys for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts, Mr. Hippert determined that there would be a shortage of 36 drivers for the buses routinely provided by the two bus companies surveyed.
Licensee's employee driver pool is more than five times this number.
I_d.; Hippert, Tr. 21266-67.
14.
Another calculation of the maximum number of bus drivers who would be required to replace regularly assigned drivers for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts in the event of an emergency at Limerick is the difference between the numbei of previously surveyed drivers who explicitly stated that they would drive buses in an emergency and the total driver force for those districts.
This results in a maximum unmet need of 52 bus drivers for the two school districts and produces about a 4:1 ratio between Licensee's volunteer drivers and unmet driver needs for Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts.
Asher and Kinard, ff. Tr. 21279 at 3 Kinard, Tr. 21284-85.
FEMA would find satisfactory an arrangement for a volunteer driver pool which would provide a one-to-one ratio between volunteers and reported unmet needs for drivers.
Kinard, Tr. 21284.
15.
Licensee has coordinated its bus driver employee efforts with the Chester County Department of Emergency Services and the Montgomery County Office of Emergency Preparedness.
Both counties have agreed to the program for the use of Licensee's employee volunteers to receive Class 4 bus driver training and respond in the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick and will enroll the volunteers as emergency management volunteers.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 4-5; Campbell, Tr. 21246, 21230-31; Bigelow, Tr. 21232, 21249.
C.
Employee Bus Driver Training and Qualification 16.
Initially, instructor training was provided by the Chester County Intermediate Unit, which is a regional governmental cooperative
that provides services to local school districts.
Licensee and vendor employees received training as instructors which qualifies them to teach other driver volunteers.
Training of 21 instructors began July 15, 1986, and was completed July 23, 1986. These instructors have conducted classroom training of other volunteers in groups of approximately thirty. The State Police have conducted Class 4 driver tests at Berwyn.
The training of all volunteers has included the same training offered drivers for all school districts and school bus providers.
(See Appl.
Exh. E-64, Training Module for Bus Drivers.).Boyer and Bradshaw, ff.
Tr. 21189 at 5.
17.
The schedule for training and testing is as follows:
two groups totaling 54 volunteers completed training August 8,1986; two
(
other groups totaling 47 completed training on August 15, 1986; and four other groups totaling 66 will have completed training in August 1986.
The remainder totaling 33 will complete training in September 1986, subject to possible unavailability due to illness or other r.$ason.
Driver testing sessions were conducted by the State Police on August '11.
and 18,1986 and groups of 23 and 35 volunteers were issued Class 4 licenses.
Forty-five were scheduled for driver testinh on August 25, 1986.
As of August 22, 1986, 155 had completed tra'ining.
Driver testing will continue into September as classroom training \\ s completed.
i h
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 5; Boyer, Tr. 21197, Boyer, Tr.
^
21296.
t i
18.
Licensee anticipates that approximately three quarters of the 200 volunteer driver pool will be trained, tested and qualiffed by the end of August, i.e., prior to the start of school after Labor Day.
Driver testing of others who could not be scheduled because of work
\\
s
assignments or vacations will be completed in early September.
- Boyer, Tr. 21197-98.
Licensee expects to have the total pool of 200 employee volunteers trained and qualified by mid-September.
Boyer, Tr. 21198, 21217.
19.
At the hearing, the responsible FEMA officials reviewed Licensee's driver training and qualification schedule and expressed their professional opinion that FEMA's conclusions of reasonable assur-ance would not be affected by the updated testinony on driver training and testing provided by Licensee.
Kinard, Tr. 21289.
In the judgment of those officials, there is no problem if less than the total of 200 volunteer employees are trained and qualified by the start of school in 1986.
Kinard, Tr. 21283.
D.
Time Response Estimates.
20.
Since the 200 volunteers could be used for either Chester or Montgomery County, Licensee has developed estimates of the time required 3
for the volunteers to report to both Exxon and Berwyn.
Licensee determined that 55 could reach Exxon (in Chester County) in 30 minutes or less; an additional 111 within 30 to 60 minutes and 34 more within 60 to 90 minutes.
For Berwyn (in Montgomery County), 148 would be available in 30 minutes or less; an additional 27 within 30 to 60 minutes and 25 within 90 minutes. Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 6.
21.
In soliciting volunteers, Licensee attempted to select as many volunteers as reasonable from its Berwyn Transportation Center, because those volunteers would be immediately available.
Boyer, Tr. 21213-14.
Fifty-five volunteers of the 200 driver pool are regularly stationed at
Berwyn and would therefore be immediately available.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 6.
In the event of an emergency at Limerick, Chester and Montgomery Counties will contact Licensee so that drivers will be in place, even before the counties have determined whether any unmet need exists.
Campbell, Tr. 21245; Bigelow, Tr. 21247.
22.
As volunteers, Licensee's employees are county emergency workers and it is therefore the responsibility of the county to trans-port the volunteers to bus locations.
Nonetheless, Licensee wf11 coordinate with each county and assist upon request in transporting its volunteer drivers to the buses.
Boyer, Tr. 21215; Kankus, Tr. 21217.
LEA solicited testimony regarding buses which may be taken home by a number of the regularly assigned drivers for the Owen J. Roberts School District. Dr. Claypool confirmed in his testimony that he had, however, considered this particular practice in evaluating the bus driver survey results and calculating overall bus driver needs.
Claypool, Tr. 21339, 21341.
The number of buses reported as available from the Gross Bus Company in the Owen J. Roberts School District RERP, ' dated December 30, 1985,is26(outof43). Hippert, ff. 21265, at 2.
E.
Ongoing Availability of Licensee's Employee Bus Driver Pool 23.
Licensee has conrnitted to Montgomery and Chester Counties that i
it will make its bus driver employee volunteers available under the arrangements discussed above until provision is made by the responsible planning authorities for bus driver personnel from other sources.
Accordingly, Licensee's arrangements will remain in full force and effect until notification that Licensee's employee volunteers are no l
l
, 0 longer required.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 6; Boyer, Tr.
21221, 21227; Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 3.
Each volunteer employee understands that he is agreeing to be available indefinitely until replaced by some other source of drivers.
Boyer, Tr. 21218.
24.
Licensee's Director of Emergency Preparedness will be advised by the Personnel Department whenever a volunteer retires, dies or otherwise leaves the employment of the Company.
Kankus, Tr. 21224.
Also, Licensee's bus driver volunteer list will be reviewed periodically in a manner similar to which Licensee's onsite emergency worker list is routinely reviewed.
This will ensure that individual employees are contacted by their supervisors to determine that they continue to be available for volunteer service.
Volunteer lists for offsite emergency plans are updated on an annual basis and Licensee will probably follow the same schedule for its bus driver volunteers.
Kankus, Tr, 21224.
25.
Licensee intends to continue its training and qualification program to obtain about 220 Class 4 drivers.
This will provide a reserve to replace volunteers who transfer, retire or are otherwise l
unavailable. Boyer, Tr. 21212, 21220.
l 26.
In his capacity as an employee and Senior Vice President -
Nuclear of the Philadelphia Electric Company, Mr. Boyer has had exten-sive experience with its employees.
He expressed confidence that if an employee has stated that he will carticipate in an emergency response by driving a bus in the event that school evacuation is required, he will
(
do so. Boyer, ff. Tr. 21189 at 6.
l 27.
FEMA testified that the volunteer driver pool made available by Licensee and agreed to by PEMA provides reasonable assurance that, in i
the event of an emergency at the Limerick Generating Station, an
(
1 VMF"
-- ~=
adequate number of volunteers will be available to fill any unmet needs for bus drivers in the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts. Asher and Kinard, ff. Tr. 21279 at 4; Tr. 21282-83.
28.
Dr. Welliver on behalf of the Spring-Ford Area School District and Dr. Claypool on behalf of the Owen J.
Roberts School District testified that they had discussed their bus driver surveys with their respective county planning representatives and received adequate assurance that a sufficient number of drivers would be provided in the event of an emergency.
Welliver and Claypool, Tr. 21316-18.
An early dismissal of students to their homes by the Owen J.
Roberts School District, preliminary to an actual evacuation order, would utilize the school district's regularly assigned drivers and buses, and would not rely on Licensee volunteers to drive the buses.
Claypool, 21322-26.
Hence, the Board finds that this procedure is not relevant to bus driver availability to carry out an evacuation ordered by the responsible Commonwealth or County official.
29.
Based on the arrangements by Licensee to make available a pool of 200 volunteer employee drivers, there will be far more than enough volunteer bus drivers to provide support to the Chester County and Montgomery County emergency planning agencies as needed for the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts in the event regularly assigned drivers fail to respond.
Boyer and Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 21189 at 6-7; Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 3, Tr. 21267-68; Asher and Kinard, ff.
Tr. 21279 at 4.
F.
Additional Sources of Bus Drivers 30.
Even before creation of Licensee's volunteer employee driver pool, Montgomery and Chester Counties could have satisfied any unmet needs of the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts, respectively, from other sources.
Bigelow and Campbell, Tr. 21263.
31.
While the availability of volunteer bus drivers from Licens-ee's employee force provides reasonable assurance of bus driver availability for the Spring-Ford Area and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts, Licensee's provision of its volunteer employees as bus drivers is but one tool of many that will be utilized by the counties to meet the unmet needs of their municipalities.
Because emergency planning is a dynamic process, other resources may become available.
Campbel1, Tr. 21237-38.
32.
The Montgomery County Office of Emergency Preparedness has surveyed all bus providers, public and private, in Montgomery County.
It has either written or verbal assurances that those providers will, to the best of their availability, provide buses and drivers upon request.
Bigelow, Tr. 21254.
On this basis, the current Montgomery County plan lists total resources for all school districts in the EPZ and their bus providers as 1,783 vehicles with 1,919 full or part-time drivers. These reported assets far exceed evacuation requirements of 534 vehicles and drivers for the entire transportation-dependent population of Montgomery County within the Limerick EPZ.
Hippert, ff. Tr. 21265 at 4; Bigelow, Tr. 21254.
33.
Similarly, other arrangements could be made for Chester County schools within the Limerick EPZ to optimize utilization of school district bus and driver resources and thereby eliminate the necessity
. 4 for Licensee's driver pool.
The Director of Emergency Services for Chester County is conducting a survey to obtain additional volunteer drivers from fire companies whose personnel are not otherwise assigned responsibilities under their municipality's emergency plan.
- Bradshaw, Tr. 21221; Campbell, Tr. 21238.
34.
The Downingtown School District lies outside the EPZ, but has students who live within the EPZ.
Downingtown is under contract with a private bus company for 57 buses.
By delaying its normal dismissal time, Downingtown could make its buses and drivers available to satisfy any shortage for the Owen J.
Roberts School District.
- Indeed, Downingtown's bus provider is already under agreement with Chester County to supply school buses and drivers upon request.
Hippert, ff.
Tr. 21265 at 4-5; Campbell, Tr. 21252-53; Appl. Exh. E-51.
G.
Alleged Conflicts In Volunteer Responsibilities.
35.
LEA.aised the potential for conflicting responsibilities if some employee volunteer drivers have already agreed to serve as a volunteer in some other capacity in a radiological emergency. The Board is satisfied, however, that Licensee has adequately ensured against this contingency. As volunteer employee forms came in from the various field offices, they were reviewed at Licensce's headquarters against current municipal. emergency plans to determine whether any volunteer driver was already a volunteer at any municipal emergency operations center.
Kankus, Tr. 2'1201; Bradshaw, Tr. 21209.
36.
As to other forms of volunteer service, such as a radio opera-tor, ambulance driver or fireman, there is no potential problem with dual responsibilities in the event of a radiological emergency at
$ 4 Limerick.
During bus driver training, the instructors discuss various offsite emergency responsibilities with the trainees.
To date, with about half of all volunteers trained, the instructors have not encoun-tered a single instance in which a trainee has a conflicting respon-sibility. Bradshaw, Tr. 21209.
37.
Additionally, it is not Licensee's policy to release its employees to perform volunteer services in their home towns, for exam-ple, to fight fires.
Kankus, Tr. 21204; Bradshaw, Tr. 21209-10.
Therefore, local fire companies, ambulance services and the like are not presently including Licensee's employees as those who would be available under local emergency plans.
Kankus, Tr. 21205.
H.
Conclusion 38.
Based on the evidentiary record before us, this Board finds reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at the Limerick Generating Station, there will be an adequate number of bus drivers to effectuate an evacuation of the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In reaching this decision, the Board has considered all the evi-dence of the parties and the entire record of this proceeding on the
~
remanded bus driver availability issue, including all proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties.
Based upon a review of that record and the foregoing Findings of Fact, which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, the Board, j
l 1
9 o with respect to the issue in controversy before us, reaches the follow-ing conclusion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.760a:
Licensee's arrangements for maintaining a pool of 200 or more bus drivers to assist in an evacuation of the Owen J.
Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts, in conjunction with plans and resources already in place that would be utilized by the responsible county and school district authorities, meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47, and Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, as well as the criteria of NUREG-0654, and provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures for those school districts can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
IV. ORDER WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Rules of Practice of the Commission, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED that:
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.760(a) of the Consnission's Rules of Practice, this Supplement to the Third Partial Initial Decision will constitute the final decision of the Commission forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F. R.
62.762 or the Comission directs otherwise.
See also 10 l
C.F.R. 652.764, 2.785 and 2.786.
Any party may take an appeal from this Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Decision.
Each appellant must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant).
Within thirty (30) days after the period l
?.
has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an appellant may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal of any other party.
A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief regardless of the number of appellant briefs filed. See 10 C.F.R. 62.762(c).
THE ATOMI SAFETY AND LICEN NG BOARD l
/)
w!A ^./vy Helen 2
Hoyt,Chairpq)on ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE id-W
/ rry Hafbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 5th day of September 1986.
I i