ML20215J632

Brief Supporting Appeal of Suppl to Third Partial Initial Decision Served on 860909.Board Timing in Serving Decision Rendered Issue Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215J632
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/20/1986
From:	Mulligan M, Stone D LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#486-1250 OL, NUDOCS 8610270126
Download: ML20215J632 (20)

Text

.

. .. p DOLMETED l' 3 NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COSBfISSION

'86 0CT 24 All :38 BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL CFFICE Ci ~ .,..

00Ch E iiN, ',

eva BR Al;CH

____________________________________)

In the Matter of PilILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )

)

Docket .Mers0 }0.35a0_353 OL OL

)

(Limerick Generating Station )

Units 1 S 2) )

BRIEF IN SUPPCRT OF APPEAL CF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD P.I.D.

ON BEHALF OF LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.

I Respect 1'ully submitted, October 20, 1986

) 017i5 .350.'8 .

O l 3'ZH ." I'.11117El C.'" EEHAI.2 3 13ZR K E2';i'Ti .,CTIO.

8610270126 861020 PDR ADOCK 05000352 l C, G PDR \

TABLE OF CCNTENTS page I. I n tr o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I II. The record supoorts the issuance of a license condi tion to verify aspects of the li censee 's bus driver proposal .......................... 3 III. A _Ilcense condi tion is needed since the testimony of local, county, and state officials assumes PECo future compliance as if i ts proposal were stipulated to, whi ch the record shows to be an unp rove n as sump ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. No showing made that the PECo drivers wi ll be enrolled by name, phone number, and address as n e e de d b y the Cou n t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

v. In that the long-term or permanent solution testified to remains as yet unspecified, no conclu-sion can be drawn about i ts providing reasonab le assurance .................................... 9 VI. Board errors in limi ting school superintendent l

testimony lead to ASLS misinterpretation of their position.................................... 10 l

VII. The pool of 200 PECo volunteer drivers not properly regarded both as a solution to the two districts driver shortfall and as just part of the overall County resources for all dri ve rs . . . . . . . 12 l

VIII. Conclusion:

License condi tion needed and l

warranted..................................... 15 l

In trodu cti on By way of introduction, LEA refers to its descriotion of events leading up to the start of hearings on the bus driver issue remanded back to the ASLB by ALAB-836 ( See LEA Prooosed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Par-tial Ini ti a l Deci sion Re lating to Remanded Bus Dri ver Limeri ck Offsi te Emergency Plannino Contention pages one and two, and including the section Background from ALAB-836 on page three )

To that LEA would add the following re lating to the ASLB's Supp lement to Thi rd Parti a l Ini tial Decision served Seotember 9, 1986:

Contrary to Judge Hoyt's representation at DR21351,20 the ASLB di d not como lete i ts findi ngs unti l at least September 5 as dated on the ASLB Supp lement to the 3rd P.I .D. but then di d not serve them unti l September 9 as a lso indicated on the same page. The Findings were mai led to LEA and received later. The si gni fi cance of tnis is seen in reference to LEA's argument for a License condi tion to be issued at the opening of school on Seat 3 and 4, which i f not met cou ld have led to the . temporary suspension

~

of plant operation unti l that li cense condi ti on cou ld be met.

The Board's timing in serving its decision rendered the issue moot. LEA notes to that the ASLB Findings were signed by just two of the presi ding judges, wi th Dr. Cole's Dama not e

present. LEA resoects and va lues Dr. Cole's parti cioation and wonders if that lack of a si gnature indicates less than fu l l agreement wi th the ASLB Findings, or less than fu ll involvement i n thei r deve loomen*. and fi na l form.

Dage one

I As LEA argued in i ts orooosed Findings of Fact at 31, a predictive finding by the ASLS at this stage of full-power clant operation

. is not appropriate. More than one year after fu ll power , and almost two years after a low power license was granted seems a sufficient time for emergency plan deficiencies, even allowing for regulatory flexibility as is implicit in the predictive finding rule orlor to a full power license, to be addressed. The Li censee had since May 1986 to address the ALAB's remanded issue and in fact was forewarned at that time that the issue should be resolved prior to the resumption of school in the Fall of 1986. Nonetheless, LEA has shown that the Licensee has failed to meet even its own goa l of 200 volunteer drivers by the start of school in September of thi s year. The ' timi ng of the ASLS's order whi ch is marked as having been ser ved on September 9 and was received by LEA in the mail a couple of days later,perhaps rendered that part of LEA's argument practically moot since the Licensee's testimony had indi cated comp li ance by mi d to la te September. However we don't know, and in any event the timing of procedura l matters in this case should not affect the legal basis for a li cense condi ti on.

i page,two i _ _

_ _ . _ _ ..~ _ _ _ - - - - . - - -- -- -

THE RECCRD SUPPCRTS THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE CCNDf TION TO VERIFY ASPECTS OF THE LICENSEE'S SUS ORIVER PRCPCS AL ASLB Fi nding 18 is contradicted by the record underlying LEA Prooosed Finding cf Fact # 21 and 22. The re cord i n-di cates that less than one half of the proposed PECo volun-teers wi ll be trained, tested, and qualified by the end of August 1986 ( Monday Aug 25th with no testing testified to as scheduled thereafter and an intervening 3 day holiday weekend before the start of school on Sept 3 and 4th)

Part I of LEA's proposed Li cense Condi ti on on page 13 of LEA's Proposed Findings remains lega lly and factua l ly warranted by the record in this case. The timing of legal and procedua l ma tters such as the ASLB Supo lement to the 3rd P.I.O. can not affect this. For that matter, there exists no evidence that the schedule testified to by the Licensee was followed either and that today there exists the cool of trained, l i ce nse d , and enrolled bus driver volunteers that all Parties were using as an assumption in reviev;f ng the Li censee's Proposa l or the various versions of i t.(LEA FF 30)

A Li cense condi ti on can do no harm and at wors t cou ld be moot.

But the record stands as i t did,and no wi tness except the Li censee te s ti fi e d that they expected comp li ance wi th the Li censee's Proposa l, or had any objecti on to a Li cense Condi ti on.

oage three

Time and time again the ASLS made no effort to answer LEA's specific arguments in its proposed findings of fact. Whatever the meri ts of those arguments and proposed findings, and granted that in a case of this sort certain points may not be entire ly clear to the reviewing . board thus, as a practical matter, preventing its review of every point; nonetheless, in this instance, Judge Hoyt made no attempt to answer LEA's arguments or otherwise explain why she did not. For example :

The ASLB in i ts Supo lement to the 3rd.P.I .O. made no reference to, nor di d they argue wi th the underlying reasoning which led LEA to p ropose,a five part Li cense

'Condi ti on on page 12 and 13 of LEA's Findings of Fact.

LEA contends that give the record in evidence in this case, or the lack of evidence as the case may be, and given certain oost-hearing cub li c events such as the Federa l indi ctments of PECo's Limeri 'c Securi ty Contractor for among other things, falsifying records reouf red by the NRC re la ted to on-si te Emergency Planning: that as a result of these factors this five part li ense condi ti on, or some thi ng very much like it y is warranted. It should be noted that PECo has not fired the Securi ty Contractor and that the violations were apparently directed at speeding uo the Limerick fu l l-o owe r li cense . LEA be lieves tha t the Li ensee will say or aopear to do anything to satisfy the NRC, but the follow through i n to the rea l work-a _ day wor l d is something eIse. LEA notes that the YCH Securi ty violations were l ooke d' at by the NRC and offi ci a l action taken.

Dage f our

A LICENSE COND7TICN IS NEEDED SINCE TESTIMCNY OF LCCAL, COUNTY, AND STATE OFFICI ALS ASSUMES PECO FUTURE CCMPLI ANCE AS IF ITS PROPOS AL WERE STIPULATED TO, WHICH THE RECCR0 SHOWS TO BE AN UNPROVEN ASSUVPTION ASLB Finding # 29 overstates the actua l si tuati on. PEMA's Mr. Hippert FF TR 21265 at 3 testifies that on June 30, 1986 PEMA stated in an answer directed at the ASLB that the Licen-see's proposa l was acceptab le " based upon assurances from the Li censee that a ll condi tions and provisions contained i n the stipu lati on and accompanyi ng June 27, 1986 le tter. . .

wou ld remain in effect unti l a complete long-term resoluti on is reached."

Of course as outlined in LEA's proposed F.F. #2 page 2 that proposal was changed by the Licensee af ter June 27, 1986.

Mr. Hippert at TR 21267 at 23 testifies that he is " basi cally" satisfied that there are adequate provisions based " on the stipu lati on made by the Li censee" Of course, as Judge Hoyt no te d in another context ( TR 21259 at 14 ) " LEA rejected out of hand that sticulation that was prooosed by the li censee and , therefore, it has no bearing on this hearing at this point... " Again LEA would make a distinction between a wi tness finding the licensee's proposal adeouate based on the assumption that i t wou ld be carried cut by PECo as if stipu late d to, and any predi ction or expectati on that the program would in fact be carried out as proposed both in the near term and long term fu ture. See LEA FF # 30.

As noted i n that proposed Finding of Fact Mr. Campbe l l, the Chester County Emergency Coordinator,testi fied that he is satisfied wi th the licensee's proposed solution only

" Provi ded they fo l low through wi th "ha t they commi tted to perform." Camobell 79 21231 at 3 and 7. page five

The concern here of LEA is that the reviewing State and Local officials are acting as though they have reached a binding stipulation or agreement wi th PECo for the li censee to continue providing a pool of 2oo emoloyee drivers for as long as they, the pub li c offi cia ls, fee l i t is needed. There is nothing, however, except one PECo official's testimony .

that the Comoany wi ll do that. Indi vi dua l company offi cia ls may come and go. After some not too lengthy peri od of time, PEco cou l d we l l , if the ASLB Supp lement to the 3rd P.I.D.

shou ld stand unammended, argue and act as if ASLS Findings 30-34 and the wording " far more than enough" in Finding 29, gi ves PECo the ri ght to wi thdrqw a l l or part of i ts volunteer driver cool on the basis that other resources are avai lab le to the Counties. Since LEA or other intervenors would not at that point be readi ly enti tled to l i ti ga te the adequacy of those other resources since the ASLB Supolement to the 3rd P.I .D. wou ld s tand as i s , the effect of PECo's proposed Interim bus driver pool and the State and Local offi ci a ls unwarranted assumption that it will exist as long as the State and Loca l offi cia ls want i t to, wi ll be to remove the proper right to contest and li ti gate the subject of ALAS 836 remanded issues.

oage six

A Li cense Condi ti on imposed by this ALA3 wou ld serve to correct this. Fol lowing such a Li cense Condi ti on, the state of affairs which all testimony by Local and State officials assumes to be true, will in fact and in law be true. Such a condi ticn would ensure too that local offi ci a ls would use this 200 driver cool for the purposes envisioned by ALAB-836. -

Wi thout such a license condition what could hapoen over a ceriod of time is that much of the PECO 200 driver cool would become commi tted to other uses in the emergency planning, so that the 4 to I ratio which the Licensee claims i ts proposal provt des over the survey indicated driver shortfall would in fact not hold true even if the unmet driver needs of the two schcol distri cts at issue here were at the 55 driver leve l rather than at the 88 driver number testified to by PEMA witness Mr. Hippert on page 3 of his prefi led testimony. (see LEA FF.6&7 )

That is, as time passes by what was found to be adequate by the re v'l ewi ng offi ci a ls i f PECO wou ld in fact carry out i ts proposal to provide bus drivers, could well change as the counties de liberate ly, or de facto,come to re ly on this PEco pool of volunteers for other olanning purposes besides the Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts Districts. Since this pool of 200 drivers was deve loped by the Licensee specifica lly to meet the remanded issue, and was reviewed in that light by the responsible State and Federal officials, a li cen + condi tion is needed to reflect that fact.

Dage seven l

NO SHONING MADE THAT THE PECO DRIVERS' WILL BE ENROLLED SY NAME, PHONE NUMBER, AND ADDRESS AS NEEDED BY THE COUNTIES Contrary to the ASLS's Finding # 15, no testimony was offered by by anyone that the PECo employees wi ll be en-rolled by the Counties as emergency management volunteers.

The County EMC at the ci ted transetript locations testi fied that they would want to enroll them, but that thi s had not yet been done. No indication was given by them or by the Li censee's wi tnesses Boyer-Bradshaw that assurances had or would be given that this enrollment was to be done. In fact, the Licensee objected to this line of questioning throughout.

( TR Boyer and Bradshaw FF TR 21189 at 4-5; Camobe ll TR 21246, 21230-l ; Bi ge low, TR 21232, 21249 ) Also LEA crocosed Findings of Fact #16 andl7.

Based upon Camobell TR 21246 at ll and Bigelow 21249 l-II, and language there such as " once they are enrolled", it can be seen that the County can only contact the PECo volunteers di re ct ly, as opposed to at work through PECo i tse lf, when and if PECo provides the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the puroorted volunteers to the Counties.

I This oroblem is related closely to the fact that in supposedly providing LEA and the Parties wi th a li s t of the l

prooosed volunteers, PECo instead provided the raw volunteer forms which rather incongruously lack addresses and phone numbers. This is perhaos another case where for rhatever l

reason the Licensee through clever manoeuvring created for i tse lf more troub le that i t was worth. Part of LEA's Proposed l

j License condi tion would redress this by ensuring that the proposed volunteers were enrolled Just like any others in the County Emergency Management Cffi ce. See page si xteen #1 page eight

a IN THAT THE LCNG-TERM CR PERMANT SOLUTICN TESTIFIED TO REMAINS AS YET UNSPECIFIED, NO CCNCLUSICN CAN BE DRAWN ABCUT ITS PRCVIDING REASCNABLE ASSURANCE The nature of the permanent solution is as yet unknown.

Consequently LEA could not and can not li ti ga te i t. Such li tigation should be deferred as would that involving a con-tention about a draft plan sti ll too unformed to be possible l to li ti gate.

Campbell TR 21237-21239 Claypool 21321 at 2 Welliver 2132oatl4 No proof was shown that the final or oermanent solution which, as testified to by the County Emergency Management Coordinator at TR 21252, would commence development this Fall ( 1986), wou ld, at such time as the completion of that oermanent solution would oermi t the Licensee to end its volunteer driyer program, in fact provide reasonab le assurance i tse lf that the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford School Districts chi ldren could be protected.

Judge Hoyt atTR21227,ll seemed to make the point in her l questioning that PECO's volunteer dri ver orogram cou ld be regarded as oermanent, but that is not what the County and State author-i ties have said. ( TR 21237 at 18 Hippert TR .ff 212650o 3-5 )

! page nine

30ARD ERRORS IN LIMITING SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT TESTIMONY LEAD TO ASLB MISINTERPRETATICN CF THEIR POSITION The first part of ASLB Finding # 28 is incorret. The tran-script ci tation does not indicate that the superintendents had received in their view adequate assurance. At vari ous other locations in the transcriot Dr. Claypool and Dr. Welliver s tate thei r actua l cosi tion. ( Claypo l TR 21342, 21318 at 19, 21316 at 13-17; We lliver TR 21348 at 24; see LEA Proposed Findings of Fact # 30 in the middle of oage ll. )

It was only because Judge Hoyt explici tly set limits to l

their testimony by relating in the school superintendents' presence her own, and what LEA contends is an incorrect, view of what the school superintendents responsibi li ties are.

( T9 21329 at 25, 21331 at I, and the di scussion genera lly until Judge Hoyt's sustains the Licensee's objections at TR 21334' a t 13. ) Judge Hoyt a lso incorrectly prevented school superindent testimony as as to anything beyond simole numbers of drivers ( TR 21335-2121337a t 6 )

Contrary to this view of very limi ted resooncibi li ty of the school superintendents, LEA would ooint out Dr.

Clayoool's and Dr. We lliver's own description at Claypool Tr. 21311 a t 9 and We lli ver 21311 atl3. Despi te Judge Hoyt's posi tion, i t was up to these wi tnesses to speak for themse lves as to how far their resoonsibi li ties extend, wi th resoect to the bus drivers for their school chi l dren.

Nonetheless, Judge Hoyt goes on at TR 21348 to ask both Suoerintendents a general questi on about thei r acceotance or re jecti on of PECo's oroposed p lan. The y answer that based on what they have been told, the clan would page ten

seem adeoua te. Ime li ci t i n thei r answers i s Judge Hoyt's caveat as to their limi ted roles. They have already been prevented from testifying as to whether their responsibili ty goes beyond Just reviewing the Licensee's proposal as if it were a " given".

Dr. Clayoool School Suoerintendent for the Owen J Roberts School District is concerned about the time i t wou ld take to implement an evacuation using PECo volunteer drivers from outsi de the di stri ct. That i s why he i s re lyi ng on the Distri ct's

" Plan A " which is a Limerick Evacuation Plan based on early dismissal of students back to their own homes.( Claypool TR21322st7 )

At TR 21322 at 2 Dr. Claypool quotes a time of 45 minutes to

~

I hour for buses to assemble under the Plan a early dismissal strategy. Later at TR 21325 at to Dr. Clayoool testifies to a time of an hour to an hour and a half. But Judge Hoyt prevented this line of ouestioning from continuing te elici t time information and how that would fi t in wi th the PECo volunteer dri ver oroposa l and the time estima tes contained therein. ' TR 21328 at 13 Comp li cating thi s matter i s the Cwen J. Robert's c lan for early dismissal, which according to Judge Hoyt at TR 21327 at l-6 and in the ASLB Findings at 28 are not to be regarded as an evacuation plan under the meaning of these hearings. Clearly the record shows that the Owen J. Roberts School District is relying on Plan A for the ouroose of responding to a Limerick Emergency. ( Claypool TR 21322 at 9 )

Judge Hoyt did not allow LEA to oursue this issue by per-emotori ly ruling that Plan A was not an evacuation plan. TR 21327, page eleven

The ASL9's 3rd P.I .D. supplement does not address the point that LEA made in reference to the School Of strict surveys being no longer ne:3ssari ly current or vali d. To assume, as the Board Findings seem to, that in view of this) the survey results _

still hold and indicate the maximum number of unmet needs, is wi thout foundation. No one knows in the post- Chernobyl; post-Limerick full power operation environment, what % of the regular school district drivers would in fact state that they would drive in the event of a Limerick emergency. LEA Proposed Finding #13 Again 3 ft is not up to LEA to show that, once the re levant School Supertendents have expressed some uncertainty about the current va li di ty of the survey resu lts, that that uncertainty must mean t"at. less rather than mvre regular school bus drivers are now wi lling to drive. Rather the burden i s on the Li censee.

THE PCCL OF 200 PECO VOLUNTEER ORIVERS NOT PROPERLY REGARDED SOTH AS A SOLUTION TO THE TilO DISTRICTS DRIVER SHORTFALL AND AS JUST PART CF THE OVERALL COUNTY RESOURCES FOR ALL USES The PECo volunteer drivers can't both form a pool of drivers i de di ca te d to solving the Cwen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford j p o ten ti a l s hor t-f a l l of reguiIr School Olstrict drivers and also be just a regular part of the overall County resources.

Hoyt rules incorrectly at TR 21334 at 13. See LEA oroposed Finding # I4 I

oage twelve

The Board can't on the one hand prevent LEA from pursuing the issue of adecuacy of the buses supposed to be available to the counties, while on the other hand eliciting and using what purports to be new and current information that a certain excess number of drivers and buses exists, Darticularly in Montgomery County. Insofar as this is supposed to be new information i t is beyondthis Board's own defini tion of what the issue remanded by ALAB-836 is. Insofar as this is the same basi c information as was presented in the original 3rd P.I.D. based on those earlier hearings, ALAB-836 has already taken that into account in its ruling ordering the remand.

Having prevented LEA from asking questions about the overall County driver and bus resources, the ASLB goes on to wri te Findings which wi th parti cu lari ty purport to say what those resources are, and how they somehow contribute to reasonable assurance. ASLB Findings og 7 Hoyt 7921244 at 5 ASLB Findings

1. 32,33,34 There is a problem in this generalized strategy of excess.

Th a t i s , it is not emergency olanning merely to show that there are lots of people who could be called upon to perform an emergency p lanni ng functi on. Rather proper olanning reoufres the speci fi c assi gnment of responsibi li ties to soeci fi c organizati ons or individuals in so far as possible for the most efficient and effective evacuation. LEA Finding # 24 Soard Finding 32 is inaporopriate in view of the Board's own ru ling that thi s remanded i ssue is limi ted to I) drivers not huses and2) the two scnool districts, not all di s tri cts.

ASLS Findings og 7 oage thirteen

Wi th reference to ASLB Finding #30 that the Emergency Management Coordinators,upon whose opinions this finding is based, he ld the same views for the came reasons at the time of the original hearings. It was this view which the ALAB i n effect overru led in ALAB-836. Nothing is served by its f

repeti tion here in the ASL3's Supplement to the 3rc P.I.D.

except as an attempt to say something about the ASLS's original findings prior to ALAB-836 .

~

Judge Hoyt interferes wi th LEA's legi timate questions about the 1985-1986 school year ( Hoyt TR 21242 at 25 to TR 21243 at

10) Then she goes on to ask the same so?t of questions from her point of view at TR 21262 at 15. Finally, she goes on to write a Finding # 30 based on the answer to her cuestions in an area she already ruled at TR 21243 was irrelevant and im-permissable for LEA to pursue. LEA must ask the questi on s is this fair and objective or is the Judge betraying here some personal agenda perhaos concerned wi th reaffirming her own previous view overturned by ALAB-836.

Similarly, Judge Hoyt pursued ques tioni ng a t TR21348-l TR 21349 about the va li di ty of the surveys af ter LEA had a l-ready e li ci ted the Suoerintendenti views at TR 21342-21343.

I

(

l l

oage fourteen t .- -

k One of the most serious losues raised by the record is that of how the pool of 200 PECo employee drivers are to be provided with buses. No satisfactory means was testified to. Since any bus reaching the staging areas in Berwyn or exxon at Lion-vi lle must reach there driven by someone, it is hard to see how the 200 drivers are usefu ll at all. The limiting factor on their usefullness seems like ly to be the arrival of the buses they are supposed to drive. And if a bus reaches the staging area driven by someone, why is i t that that dri ver who is already with the bus wi ll not just continue to drive?

In that case what advantage is there in having the PECo drivers there at a l l? LEA Fi ndi ng#27,28,29,# 10, l l Hoyt TR 21244 at 5, Campbell TR21236 10-18 ASLS Findi ng of Fact page 7 a lso #22 CONCLUSICN: LICENSE CONDITICN NEEDED AND WA99 ANTED LEA contends that the oreceding Brief in Succort of Acceal of the Sucolement to the Third P.I.D. raises sufficient doubt about reasonable assurance wi th respect to those two school t

J distri cts heard on remand from ALA8-836 to warrant a mult-oart li cense condi ti on. Lack of an affirmative showing by the Li censee appart from i ts own asserti on upon whi ch others re lied wi thout indeoendent means to veri fy, ASLS errors in limi ti ng and affecting the testimony so as to render the hearings less than suffi ciently determinative, and fina lly the absence of any comoelling reason not to issue a li cense condi ti on in view of the Li censee's burden of croof, a ll contribute to the need for such a ru ling. LEA includes here i ts own orocosed version of a five part license condi tion as was fi led as cage 13 of LEA's  ;

Prooosed Findings of Fact. That orocosed condi ti on is succorted by the prooosed findings l i s te d in the footnote , as we l l as by other orocosed findings and thi s Appea l Srf ef.

cage fifteen

The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and FEMA is to verify the immediate and ongoing compliance with the following Limerick Operating License Conditions.

1) That the full complement of 200 PECo volunteers is trained, licensed, and enrolled by name and address and phone number at their respective County Emergency management Offices prior to the continued operation Of the Limerick Powdr Station while school is in session at the two school districts considered here on remand; and

2) That the Counties develop and assign sufficient buses from a specific and timely source not previously comitted to a use under the Limerick Emergency Plan,in order to reasonably assure that upon arrival at the Berwyn or Exxon marshalling area the proposed PECo volunteers would in fact have a bus to drive schoolchildren with. A person with a Class 4 License in his or her pocket does not become a real schoolbus driver under any reasonable understanding of these emergency plans without the corresponding bus to drive. ;and 31 That the Counties and school districts immediately pursue a permanent and longterm solution to the two school district's survery-indicated shortfall of drivers by utilizing conventional and local options, not extraordinary and less reliable utility provided ones; and 4)That a new set of surveys be conducted for the Owen J. Roberts and the Spring-Ford School Districts in order to update the unmet driver needs and either confirm or dispel the " cloud of doubt" caused by the earlier survey outcome ; and

5) That if ghe 200 PECo volunteers are in fact to be used as part of a general pool available to any school district with a driver shortfall,that immediate steps be taken to ascertain by surveys what if any previously undetected busdriver needs could be expected in those schools as well; so that PECo as needed could voluntarily enlarge its volunteer driver pool or alternatively proceed to hearings if needed based on that new information.

Basis for the preceding proposed license conditions 1 LEA proposed findings 5 22, 30 2~ LEA proposed findings 6, 10,24 -30

3. LEA Proposed findings 23-30' 4 LEA proposed findings 13, 14 , 20 5' LEA prposed findings 14., 24 , 30 page sfxteen

1

• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

, Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Christine N. Kohl, Chairman [hkg l Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '86 R:7 24 All:38 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 U F.2 " c-" ~ ' '

• 00 '

Spence W. Perry, Esq. Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy N Itfh'!

General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Appeal Board Management Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Commission Washington, DC 20472 Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas Gerusky, Director Gary J. Edles Bureau of Radiation Atomic Safety and Licensing Protection Appeal Board

, Department of Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Resources Commission 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20555 Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency James Wiggins Management Agency Senior Resident Inspector B151 - Transportation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Safety Building Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 P. O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

325 N. 10th Street Mark Goodwin, Esq. Easton, PA 18042 Philadelphia Emergency Management Agency

- P. O. Box 3321 Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esq.

Harrisburg, PA 17105-3321 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue A. Lindley Bigelcw King of Prussia, PA 19406 Coordinator of Emergency Preparedness Timothy R.S. Campbell Montgomery County Director 50 Eagleville Road Department of Emergency Eagleville, PA 19403 Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.

Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011

9 e

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 Caneral 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 Angus 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. City of Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg. 15th and JFK Mr. Robert L. Anthony Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Friends of the Earth of the Delaware Valley 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 I hereby certify that cooles of this Brief in Succort of Acceal of the Suco lement to the Thi rd Parti a l Ini ti a l Decision dated October 20th, 1986 have been served upon the oreceding Parties by deposi t in the Uni ted States mal l, first class, this day of October 20, 1986.