ML20215B572
| ML20215B572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1986 |
| From: | Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0931, CON-#486-931 ALAB-845, OL, NUDOCS 8610060660 | |
| Download: ML20215B572 (10) | |
Text
4 W
00CKETED I
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFMISSION ET - 2 P4 :58 Before the Ca missien GFFICE Or ^ET-
':v CCCYCiUm n :>
J In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Cmpany
)
Docket Nos. 50-352 - #'
)
50-353 -eA (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
LICENSEE'S OPPOSITION TO GRATEREDRD INMATES' PLTITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-845 Preliminary Statement on September 12, 1986, intervenor Graterford inmates petitioned the Cmmission for review of ALAB-845, issued August 28,1986.1!
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.786 (b) (3), Licensee Philadelphia Electric Cmpany
(" Licensee") opposes the inmates' request because they have failed to show that AIAB-845 is erroneous with respect tc'seiy important question of fact, law or Cmmission policy.
The Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") thoroughly reviewed the decisions of the presiding Atm.ic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") with respect to the two contentions admitted for a hearing and the other contentions denied for lack of cmpliance with the Cmmission's require-ments for specificity and bases.
Its rulings on these issues need not be reviewed and should not be disturbed.
1/
Philadelphia Electric Cmpany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-845, 24 NFC (August 28, 1986).
8610060660 860'/24 PDR ADOCK 05000352 C
Argument 4
1.
Civilian bus
- driver training.
The inmates had anple oppor-tunity to refine this contention to their liking in the very terms they-requested prior to its admission for a hearing.
Contrary to the in-mates' assertion, their contention was not " narrowed" by the Licensing Board, but was admitted precisely in the form prW by the inmates.2/
As the inmates concede even now, the text of the contention as admitted asserted a lack of " reasonable assurance that emergency response train-l' ing will be offered to civilian personnel.
. such as civilian bus 1
Therefore, the Appeal Board in ALAB-845 correctly drivers.
sustained the decision by the Licensing Board not to permit the inmates i
to expand at hearing their admitted contention on whether civilian bus 1
driver training would be offered.
The distinction explained by the Appeal Board was not a mere
" discussion of sauntics" as the inmates contend,U ut rather affirma-b tion of a fundamental principle.
An intervenor nust be held to the terms of its own contentions because an applicant is entitled to know what allegations it nust meet in order to carry its burden of proof.
For this reason, the Appeal Board was clearly correct in holding that the inmates, like any other intervenor, were bound by the literal terms 1
2_/
AIAB-845 at 31.
-3/
Graterford Inmates' Petition for Peview at 6 (September 11, 1986)
(enphasis added).
a 4/
Id. at 3.
i 2
.n.,
n
.,.-...-,,.n-_,._,,,.n,_,-,
.,,.n.-,---,
of their own contentions.b!
It would have been highly prejudicial to the other parties to permit an expansion of the inmates' contention at the hearing.
2.
Graterford Evacuation Time Estimates. As the imates acknowl-edge, their claims of error on this issue boil down to a disagreenent as to the weight properly accorded contradictory testinony.
Although the inmates cortplain of a " lack of coordination between the various parties" so as to enable one to " reconcile" different evacuation time estimates
("ETE's") given at different times by different individuals,b the Appeal Board explained that there were sound reasons for the differences in the estimates.
In any event, the ETE by Graterford Superintendent Zinmerman, the one relied upon by the Ccmnonwealth, was found by the Appeal Board to be anply supported by the record and reasonable.
The Appeal Board also explained in ALAB-845 why the testimony of Mr. Morris, the inmates' witness on time estimates, was unpersuasive.E Further, the inmates' challenge to the testimony of the FDiA witness is irrelevant. Both the Licensing Board and Appeal Board relied primarily upon the testimony of Superintendent Zinnerman, who had " firsthand knowledge of the mechanics of the plan and the operations of SCIG,"S! to support his estimates.
The Appeal Board simply stated that Mr.
5/
AIAB-845 at 31.
1/
Graterford Inmates' Petition for Review at 7 (Septerrber 11, 1986).
7/
ALAB-845 at 38-42.
8/
Id. at 40.
9/
Id.
1 J
_4-Leibennan, FDR's witness and an acknowledged expert in traffic engi-
)
neering and evacuation plans for nuclear power plants, analyzed Superin-tendent Zimnerman's time estimates and found than reasonable and sme-what conservative.10/
3.
Input of Correctional Officers.
As the Appeal Board stated, the inmates initially contended that there is no reasonable assurance that the union representing the correctional officers is aware of the guards' role in an evacuation.
It correctly held that the contention, however, provided "no basis whatsoever for doubting that the correction-al officers at SCIG are adequately informed about their duties during an emergencyatLimerick."N Even now, no basis for the inmates' proposi-tion has been given.
Also, there is no merit to the new twist suggested by the inmates that "a workable plan depends upon approval of the participants in the plan,"12/ in this case, the guards.
Although a workable plan requires knowledge and participation on the part of those who will inplement the plan, approval by a union representing plan workers is neither necessary to make the plan work nor required by regulation.
In any event, the 10/
Id.
Accordingly, there is no substance to the imates' cmplaint that Mr. Ieibman lacked " previous experience in evacuating penal institutions."
Graterford Inmates' Petition for Review at 8 (Septaber 11, 1986).
Certainly, Mr. Morris himself had no such experience, or even general experience with regard to traffic flow analysis in connection with an evacuation plan for a nuclear power plant.
AIAB-845 at 40.
Conversely, Superintendent Zimnerman was anply qualified to provide the various time cmponents of the overall evacuation time estimates for Graterford.
H/ AIAB-845 at 16.
M/ Graterford Inmates' Petition for Review at 9 (Septaber 11, 1986).
_5-O contention lacks specificity and bases to show that the guards, at any time, desired to have input into the planning process or, for whatever reason, did not " approve" the plan or would refuse to inplement it.
Moreover, neither the guards nor their union are parties to this pro-ceeding (Tr. 20624-25), and nowhere have the inmates demonstrated standing to represent any interest of the guards.EI 4.
Sinulated Evacuation Plan Exercises.
The only error claimed by the inmates now is that "the exercise failed to identify specific personnel" at Graterford involved in the exercise.EI
'1here is no such requirement, however, under the Camission's regulationM or regulato-ry guidance.EI Moreover, the inmates abandoned this issue before the Appeal Board and cannot raise it now. E 5.
Hypothetical Panic.
The inmates claim that planning should include "a thorough analyses (sic] of all potential disruptive scenarios during a contenplated evacuation."E The Appeal Board correctly found this contention to lack a sufficiently specific basis for admission.
M/ Eg., Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NBC 525, 530-31 (1977).
M/ Graterford Inmates' Petition for Review at 10 (September 11, 1986).
M/ 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b) (14) (requiring periodic exercises to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities and correction of identified deficiencies).
M/ NUREG-0654, Criterion A.2.a requires only that organizations specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title.
As to the content of an exercice
- scenario, Criterion N.3 makes no requirement that exercise participants be named.
H/ See AMB-845 at 23 n. 21, 18/ Graterford Inmates' Petition for Review at 10 (Septenber 11, 1986).
4
,m,
The Graterford plan " recognizes and addresses the special security needs of the facility in the event of a radiological mergency at Limerick, as well as possible stresses on the imates and the workforce."E This obliged the imates to ccme forward with particularized bases to over-cme the reasonable assumption that a specially trained paramilitary force such as the guards "would or could not restrain the inmates in a manner that would permit inpleentation of the plan."E The NRC has no special expertise in the operation of penal institutions and should not substitute its judgment for that of State authorities assigned respon-sibility for prison security.
6.
Fairness of the Hearing. The inmates cite a number of cases pertaining to the constitut Lunal rights of inmates before the courts to contest their convictions or the terms and conditions of inprisonment.
Those decisions are inapposite because none of the constitutional provisions for the protection of the accused or convicted guarantee access to hearings before the Comission. 'Ihat right is secured solely by Section 189 of the Atmic Energy Act of 1954, as, amended, 42 U.S.C.
S2239.
By the same token, no provision of the Act or the Comnission's regulations entitles the inmates or any other intervenor claiming indigent status the right to free transcripts. The Ccmnission long ago settled this matter in a formal statement suspending the rule which had theretofore permitted licensing boards to provide free transcripts to g/ AIAB-845 at 27.
1 20/ Id. at 28 (enphasis in original).
.. - - - -, ~ -
intervenors.
This action resulted frcm a formal opinion of the Ccmp-troller General on the legality of this use of appropriated funds by the NBC. Since, then, Congress has not chosen to authorize the NBC to fund intervenors through this or any other mechanism.2_1/ Additionally, the inmates failed to raise this point before the Appeal Board and are therefore precluded from pursuing this claim of error. The Appeal Board reviewed other claims of unfairness and properly rejected then.2_2/
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Graterford inmates have failed to raise any important question of fact, law or Ccmnission policy which merits review by the Comnission.
Its petition should therefore be denied.
Respectfully hitted, CONNER & WETITERHAHN, P.C.
D q,v
(
Tro B. Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols Counsel for Licensee September 24, 1986 21/ 46 Fed. Reg. 13681 (February 24, 1981).
g / ALAB-845 at 46-50.
_=
3n i
1
!-b' i
00(.KE TED USNRC i
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 0CT -2 P4 58
'In the Matter of
)
0FFICE 0r 3;c,,t ify,
)
DOCKET F A SERVICI' J
Philadelphia Electric Company
). Docket Nos. 50-NCH
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
t j
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Opposition To Graterford Inmates' Petition For Review of ALAB-845,"'
4 dated September 24, 1986 in the captioned matter have been l
served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 24th day of September, 1986:
5 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Kenneth Carr, Commissioner Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 4
Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman U.S. Nuclear Appeal Board i
Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
Commission Washington, Commission i
D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 1
l Thomas M. Roberts, Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Commissioner Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- James K. Asselstine, i
Commissioner Gary J. Edles U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
i commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I
Commission i
' Frederick M. Bernthal, Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 t
I i
l-
5.
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board U.S.
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the General Dr. Jerry Harbour Counsel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Angut Love, Esq.
107 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Norristown, PA 19401 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert J.
Sugarman, Esq.
Commission Sugarman & Hellegers Washington, D.C.
20555 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia Electric Company Philadelphia, PA 19107 ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President &
Director, Pennsylvania General Counsel Emergency Management Agency 2301 Market Street Basement, Transportation Philadelphia, PA 19101 and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Frank R.
Romano 61 Forest Avenue Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 City of Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg.
Mr. Robert L. Anthony 15th and JFK Blvd.
Friends of the Earth of Philadelphia, PA 19107 the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
325 N.
10th Street General Counsel Easton, FA 18042 Federal Emergency Management Agency Maureen Mulligan 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Limerick Ecology Action Washington, DC 20472 P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Pottstown, PA 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Mark Goodwin, Esq.
Department of Environmental Philadelphia Emergency Resources Management Agency 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
P. O. Box 3321 Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105-3321 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Gene Kelly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Senior Resident Inspector Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 631 Park Avenue Commission King of Prussia, PA 19406 P. O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Mr. Ralph Hippert Department of Emergency Pennsylvania Emergency Services Management Agency 14 East Biddle Street B151 - Transportation West Chester, PA 19380 Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 a
o#
i f
Rader~
Robert M.
_ _. _,. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ -.