ML20100A431

Testimony of FEMA Re Admitted Portions of Deferred Contentions of Limerick Ecology Action.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20100A431
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/30/1984
From:	LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:
References
CON-#484-397 OL, NUDOCS 8412030589
Download: ML20100A431 (13)

Text

r .

g] .. '*

f k

C 2.,' ,',:E TED 7,4 :t 30 .BJ0:iG e

.,w  ;..... ..

..~.

~

r r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

r ~

• /

z .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r

In the Matter of )

) ,-

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) '

(Limerick Generating Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-352 0b Units I and 2 ) 50-353 o L, 5

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S TESTIMONY ON ADMITTED PORTIONS OF DEFERRED CONTENTIONS OF LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION ia e

f e

- e 8412030589 841130 PDR ADOCK 05000352 T PDR

, b ~d *

,(

< -. _ - -. u

9.

LEA-1 Q.

Is there no reasonable assurance that the present state of planning is predictive of final approval, or that the , plans are capable of being implemented?

A.

At this time FEMA does not have enough information to conclude with any certainty whether or not there is reasonable assurance that the present state of planning is predictive of final approval, or that the plans are capable of being implemented.44 CFR 350, " Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness", Section 350.7 says that when a state seeks formal review and approval, by FEMA, of the state's radiological emergency response plan the state shall submit on application for such review and approval to the appropriate FEMA Regional Director. "The application, in the form of a letter from the Governor or from such other state official as the Governor may designate, shall contain one copy of the completed state plan..." and "will also include plans of all appropriate local governments." '

In conversations with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, FEMA has been informed that PEMA will not submit th Limerick RERP plans for j

formal review until all loca.1 governments have " agreed to the plans, J i.e. have actually adopted the plans or have agreed, in principal, with the content of the plans and have expressed a willingness, in the event of an accident at Limerick to respond as called for in the plans. FEMA i d

agrees with this policy, as at each level of government (county, E s y m

u

municipality, school district) specific individuals and/or governing bodies are given the responsibility for the protection of their

-citizens' health and safety. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that they would be given a say in the procedures they will utilize in the event of an accident at Limerick, i.e. , the agreeing to, or the adoption of, their respective plans.

t

[

As part of the " Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and FEMA Relating to Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness", (copy attached) FEMA can, at any time, provide findings and determinations to the NRC " based upon plans currently available to FEMA or furnished to FEMA by the NRC."

If requested, FEMA would provide findings and determinations on the Limerick offsite plans,in as expeditious a manner as possible.

Planning'l Standard N. of NUREG-0654 and 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(14) call for periodic exercises to be conducted "to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities..."

FEMA has been concerned that municipalities representing approximately 44,500 people living within the plume exposure EPZ did not participate -

in the July 25 REP exercise'.

FEMA labeled this lack of full participation a " Category A" deficiency in its Exercise Evaluation Report. A supplemental exercise, involving nine of the ten a municipalities which FEMA regarded as non-participants in the July 25

% e d

N

? .

t l

exercise, along with Bucks County (a support county to Montgomery County), took place on November 20, 1984. FEMA observed these jurisdictions and will provide a report on the results of the exercise as soon as feasible.

LEA-2 Q.

Is there reasonable assurance that each principal response organization has sufficient staff to respond to and to augment its initial response on a 24-hour continual basis, or' chat the assigned staff can respond in a prompt manner in case of a radiological emergency at Limerick?

{ A. 9 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(1) calls for each principal. response organization to have " staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis." NUREG-0654, Planning Standard A. 4. calls for each a

principal organization to be " capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period." Principal organizations are defined in Appendix S to NUREG-0654 as " federal, state, local agencies or departments or executive offices and nuclear utilities (licensees) having' major or lead roles in emergency planning and preparedness.

Because the emergency response network established in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relies on the coordinated efforts of state, county and 4 4

municipal governments, along with school districts, FEMA regards municipal governments as principal organizations.

t R

• i Y.

1 C

e

In the April 1984 " Interim Findings on the Offsite Radiological Energency Response Plans for the Limerick Generating Station," FEMA established a " Category A" Deficiency that stated " twenty-four hour emergency response at the municipal level is not assured due to the fact that many staff positions are vacant, according to the latest municipal i

draft plans." The problem of lack of 24-hour staffing was confirmed in 1 sixteen municipalities during the July 25, 1984 REP exercise (see page 135 of the FEMA /RAC Exercise Evaluation Report, dated September 19, 1984, Summary of Category "A" Deficiencies). The Exercise Evaluation Report also revealed that certain municipalities had adequate staffing to respond to a' long-term emergency at Limerick but that the i

information, i.e., the names of response personnel, would have to be

!, officially recorded in the plans before FEMA would regard the situation as being resolved. -

1 I

1 According to information supplied by Energy Consultants, dated August I

~

i 27,1984', (copy attached) the staffing needs of most municipal EOCs had t

been dealt with through the assistance of Philadelphia Electric Company personnel. However, the. municipal plans su plied to TEMA by PEMA and

the July~ 25, 1984 Limerick REP exercise indicate that staffing of i

municipal EOCs remains an open issue. Therefore, there is not  !

l I- reasonable assurance that all risk municipalities have 24-hour staffing '

capability.

i

~

d i

i

. 0 s

, a C

61

• 5$

, 4".

b i

'1 ,

LEA-3 Q. - Does the Montgomery County RERP fail to provide reasonable assurance that the public will be adequately protected in that the Bucks County Support Plan, which is essential to the workability of the Montgomery County RERP, may not be approved?

A.

NUREG-0654, Planning Standard J.10. H. calls for " relocation centers in host area which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone," while Planning Standard J. 12 calls for each organization to " describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas."

10 CFR 50.47 (b)(10) seeks assurance that "a range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public."

t

" Mass care centers will provide public shelter to persons who,otherwise would have no place to stay during an evacuation of the plume exposure pathway EPZ due to an event at the Limerick Generating Station." (Annex L to the Montgomery County. Radiological Emergency Response Plan). Both the State RERP (Annex E, Appendix 10, page E-10-1) and the Montgomery County RERP (Annex L. page L-1) are based on the assumption that 50% of  ;

evacuees will need mass care support or services. Thus Montgomery County would require spaces for approximately $5,145 people. Annex L, h

Page L-2 of the Montgomery RERP calls for Bucks County to establish mass care centers for 24,441 of these individuals. E

e w

< N l

1 l

FEMA has received a copy of the July 17, 1984 letter from Bucks County Commissioners Carl F. Fonash and Lucille Trench to John Patten, Director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. The content of the letter leaves in some doubt whether Bucks County would be prepared to support Montgomery County's mass care needs in the event of an accident at Limerick. Bucks County did not participate in the July 25, 1984 Limerick RERP exercise but they did agree to participate in the supplemental exercise held on November 20, 1984 for those jurisdictions that did not participate in the July 25 exercise.

The Bucks County participation took place only after several different instances of confusion as to whether the county would participate. At a meeting to discuss the November 20 REP exercise, held on October 23, FEMA was informed that Bucks County would participate. In a subsequent conversation with PEMA, FEMA was told that Bucks County had decided not to be involved. Finally, on Monday, November 19 FEMA was informed that Bucks County would participate and FEMA assigned an observer to the

-- appropriate locations.

Bucks County's participation in the November 20, 1984 Radiological Emergency Response Exercise *gives some indication that Bucks County may establish reception and mass care centers in support of Montgomery i County in the event of an emergency at Limerick. However, FEMA has not been provided with any'information that would indicate that the

! statements of two of the Bucks County Commissioners, as expressed in the t i

' - 5 r.;

i ...

i ,

L

July 17, 1984 lette.r to John Patten, have changed. Therefore, FEMA cannot make a definitive statement at this point in time that Bucks County will implement their plan in support of Montgomery County in the event of an accident'at Limerick.

LEA-5 Q. Is there reasonable assurance that the emergency plans can be implemented since the emergency response organizations have failed to fully document the existence of appropriate letters of agreement with support organizations and agencies?

A.

10 CFR 50.47 (b)(3) calls for the identification of "other organizations capable of augmenting the planned response. . ." while NUREG-0654, Planning Standard c.4. states that "each organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities, organizations or individuals which can be relied Upon in an emergency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement."

~

The County plans acknowledge the need for certain letters of agreements with organizations that have agreed to provide support in the event of an accident at Limerick. When finalized these documents are to be included in Annex T to the respective county plans. Appropriate letters of agreements with municipalities and school districts are to be included in the respective municipal and school district plans. In most instances the draf t plans provided by PEMA do not include the referenced l

l

I letters of agreement. Therefore, based upon a review of the various '

RERP plans provided by PEMA to FEMA in December 1983, there is not  !

I reasonable assurance that the emergency plans can be implemented because the letters of agreement that are s' upposed to detail these resources are not contained in the plans.

LEA-23 Q. Are the draft County plans deficient because they do not contain reliable evacuation time estimates?

A.

10 CFR 50.47 (b)(10) calls for " guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency." One of these guidelines, as established by Planning Standard J. 10. I are " time e'stimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone."

For the Limerick EPZ, an Evacuation Time Estimate S[udy 4

was prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company by HMM Associates, Inc.

The fact that it took the Owen J. Roberts School District two hours rather than one to mobilize their buses for an early dismissal certainly '

throws some doubt onto the teference in the Evacuation Time Estimate Study (page 5-5) that "for school facilities, it was assumed that up to one hour may be required to assemble buses, transport vehicles to 3

schools and to load students onto buses."

3

.I

- i I Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 (page 4-2) states that "the number of permanent residents shall be estimated using the U.S. Census data or other

(

)

reliable data, adjusted as necesary, for growth." Therefore, a survey j can be an acceptable technique for measuring the transport-dependent population within the Limerick plume exposure pathway EPZ. FEMA is not familiar with the survey referenced on page 3-2 of the HMM Study and thus is not in a position at this time to judge the reliability of survey in comparison to the 1980 U. S. Census figures.

The two issues raised by LEA do not, in and of themselves, prove that the overall evacuation time estimates are inaccurate. However, at this time FEMA cannot make a definitive statement regarding the accuracy of the evacuation time estimates for the Limerick plume exposure pathway EPZ. ,

t 1

i 9

i 5

1 ~

l u:

E

\ Nb I

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

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

2'.:7.;r BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'd4

• i ':O A10 :1 In the Matter of ) .j. .

l )

Docket Nos. 50-352

@':~ -: . h.

Mi . , -

, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ~

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) '

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r

I hereby certify that copies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ,

Testimony on admitted portions of deferred contentions of Limerick Ecology Action in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail on the 28th day of November,1984, or as indicated by an asterisk by hand-delivery, on the 26th day of November,

! 1984:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mrf Ed' ward G. Bauer, Jr.

Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company

! U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq .

Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

, Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006*

Dr. Jerry Harbour Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Administrative Judge 6504 Bradford Terrace Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19149 I.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555*

Mr. Frank R. Romano Joseph H. White, III Air and Water Pollution Patrol 15 Ardmore Avenue 61 Forest Avenue Ardmore, PA 19003

( Ambler, PA 19002

i

?

l 2

Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President Ms. Maureen Mulligan Martha W. Bush, Esq.

'. Limerick Ecology Action Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

762 Queen' Street 1500 Municipal Services Bldg.

Pottstown, PA 19464* 15th and JFK Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 Thomas Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Zori G. Ferkin Dept. of Environmental Resources Governor's Energy Council 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building P.O. Box 8010 l

Third and Locust Streets 625 N. Front Street Harrisburg,,PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17105*

/

Director Pennsylvania Emergency Management Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Agency Department of Emergency Services Basement, Transportation & Safety 14 East Biddle Street Building West Chester, PA 19380 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert L. Anthony Friends of the Earth of the Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Delaware Valley Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 16th Floor Center Plaza Moylan, PA 19065 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Angus R., Love, Esq.

Montgomery County Legal Aid James Wiggins 1107 East Main Street Senior Resident Inspector Norristown, SPA 19401 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Charles W. Elliott, Esquire Brose & Poswistilo Atomic Safety and Licensing 1101 Building Board Panel lith & Northampton Streets U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Easton, PA 18042 Washington, D.C. 20555 David Wersan Consumer Advocate Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal .

Office of Attorney General Board Panel 1425 Strawberry Square U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay Gutierrez Regional Counsel Docketing and Service Section USNRC, Region I Office of the Secretary 631 Park Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

King of Prussia, PA 19406 Washington,D.C. 20555 a

Y a

n' ..

3 Steven P. Hershey, Esq. Gregory Minor Community Legal Services, Inc.

5219 Chestnut Street MHB Technical Associates Philadelphia, PA 19139 1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 s

~-

@t~duL li Michael B. Hirsch

/O Counsel for FEMA O

/

't

. D i

E r;

$$A L

8E M