ML20105D426

Motion for Exemption from 10CFR50.47(a) & (B) Requirements Re Necessity of ASLB Consideration of Evacuation Provisions of Emergency Plan for State Correctional Inst of Graterford

ML20105D426
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/07/1985
From:	Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20106A000	List: ML20105D426 ML20106A027
References
CON-#185-483 OL, NUDOCS 8502110012
Download: ML20105D426 (16)

Text

'%

. A . .

A y oy UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h.*-i.

/f% 9. T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (h 4 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo -

tu -

In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia. Electric Company ) Docket No. 50-352 O' L

)

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Unit 1) ) ,

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS

- OF 10 C.F.R. S50.47(a) and (b) AS THEY RELATE TO THE NECESSITY OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CONSIDERATION OF EVACUATION PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN FOR THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OF GRATERFORD Preliminary Statement Pursuant to 10'C.F.R. S50.12,1/ Philadelphia Electric Company, Applicant in the captioned proceeding, moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or '

" Board") for an exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a) and (b)- to permit operation of the Limerick Generating Station at power levels greater than 5% of rated prior to the completion by the Board of its consideration of any contentions which it may admit related to the evacuation 1/ 10 CFR 550.12(a) reads in pertinent part:

The Commission may, upon application by any interested-person. or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not' endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public

. interest.

l m "u88A"o8888 %

0 b

k PDR .

L. &'

p un g':

provisions'of the radiological emergency plan for the State 2 Correctional. Institution of Graterford ("Graterford").S On September ~18, 1981, the National-Lawyers Guild filed s La. petition to' intervene in the captioned matter on behalf of

!certain inmates at Graterford. In response to a Board Order of < October- 14_, 1981, the National Lawyers Guild filed a

' Supplemental-Memorandum in support of its petition. In its

, June li -1982, Special Prehearing Conference Order, the

-Atomic Safety 'and1 Licensing Board ' admitted the Graterford

, . prisoners .as a party; to this proceeding.3_/ On April 20, 1984,. Lin . a' Special -- Prehearing Conference Order, the Board

granted:the_Graterford inmates 20. days after receipt of the evacuation. plan Jfor Gre.terford to submit specific.

. contentions. -Through'no fault of.ApplicantO the completion

~

e 'of the plan was! significantly delayed; It was not~until

, December'13, 1984, that - the Commonwealth sent counsel 'for f

2/L

~

The- Commission has . directed that, in' similar 4 Lcircumstances, requests for.! exemptions.be submitted to-

.the presiding ~ Licensing Board. 'Long Island Lighting Company f(Shoreham ' Nuclear. Power- Station, .. Unit- 1) , ..

CLI-84-8, 19.NRCJ1154,'1155:n;2 (1984).

3/. Philadelphia' Electric Compeg (Limerick ' Generating Station, Units ,1 and . 2) ,; . I BP-82-43A, 15 NRC. 1423,

-1446-47..(1982).'. . It-- found -- tha t the National 1 Lawyers Guil'd. had--no-: standing in ~its:-own right. I_d .at

'1442-4L.* '_

7

. 4/ The plan ;for oGraterford was drawn up by . PEMA and; the . .i x o

-Pennsylvania' Bureau -of Corrections without -any-j.S participation - from 1 Applicant. - See' t.he Affidavit of e .V.S;-Boyer,, attached' hereto.-

r .

1

^%

y, /

f G

--3 -

w the Graterford inmates an unclassified expurgated

(" sanitized") copy of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Co:.Tection's Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Graterford ("Graterford Plan").

On December 19, 1984, the Graterford inmates moved for an order requiring full disclosure by Pennsylvania of the Graterford Plan. They further moved that the time for submission of contentions be, measured from their receipt of an unexpurgated copy of the plan.

On January ' 29, 1985, after hearing oral argument on Graterford-inmates' motion for full disclosure and examining y_ - Mr. Erskind DeRamus, the Commonwealth's Deputy Commissioner

n of Corrections, on the matter, .the Board orally- denied

'Graterford inmates'~ motion for full disclosure and permitted

them - 20 days in' which to file . contentions based on the

- expurgated copy lof the plan. Tr. 20479-81.b At that time,

V .

it also denied Graterford inmates' motion for a stay of the Board's decision pending appeal. .Tr. 20842.

It is therefore obvious that it will not be possible to o

litigate'any contention related to.the Graterford plan which the Licensing Board may admit without significant delay in the' power ascension-test program and full power operation of n .

6,

5/

~ The Board' indicated that it would file a published' m  : memorandum and order memorializing its oral decision.

Tr. 20479. Noi further schedule beyond the 20 days allowed for_ _the submission ~ of contentions was established by?the Board.

N' __ _

\; '

Limerick Unit 1. Applicant estimates that this facility will be ready to proceed beyond the 5% power level to which it is limited by the present low power license by March 1, 1985. See the Affidavit of V. S. Boyer which is attached hereto.and incorporated herein by reference.

On January 29, 1985, the Licensing Board closed the record on all other offsite emergency planning contentions.

The Board ruled on January 24, 1985, that Applicant's

. proposed ' findings of fact and conclusions of law are to be received by February 20, 1984, that proposed findings by the NRC Staff, LEA / FOE, FEMA and the Commonwealth are due March 6, 1985, and that Applicant's reply findings are due March L 13, 1985. Tr.'20187.5/ Given the schedule for submission of proposed findings set by the Board, an initial decision authorizing full power operation could be issued by mid-April but. 'for the Graterford Plan being the subject of possible-future' hearings it the proceeding.1/

4 As. noted above, any contentions involving the Graterford prisoners cannot be considered for a substantial period of time and'certainly not on the schedule for issu-ance of a' full ' power ~ license discussed above. Any j

.6/. This was confirmed by..the~ Board'in Schedule for Filing of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (January 28, 1985).

L7/

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.764 (f) (2) , the Commission would thereaf ter decide whether the decision should become~ effective.

\a

a discovery, the preparation of testimony regarding any admitted contentions, the evidentiary hearing, the v',.nis sion of post-hearing pleadings and the time for preparation of an initial decision would prevent completion of this matter without significant delay. While this matter is being considered, for the reasons discussed below, which establish that no exposure of the Graterford prisoners could result from any event at Limerick except a core melt accident, in which any significant exposure is of the lowest probability, an exemption from the Commission's regulations to authorize full power operation is warranted.

Discussion In a decision involving, an exemption to permit site preparation activities pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 550.12(b), the Commission stated that it considers the use of the exemption

authority under 10._C.F.R. S50.12 as available in exigent circumstances. United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder. Reactor Plant), CLI-83-1, 17 NRC 1, 2 n.1 (1983). In that proceeding, the Commission summarized the circumstances it considers in evaluation whether exigent circumstances exist:

[U]nder Commission case law the Commission considers the totality of the

circumstances in determining whether to grant: an exemption, and . evaluates the exigency of the circumstances . in that overall determination. Exigent circumstances have been found where:

(1) further delay would deny the public of.. currently needed benefits.that would have been provided by timely completion of the facility but were-delayed due to L _ _

external factors, and would also result in additional otherwise avoidable costs; and (2) no alternative relief has been granted (in part) or is imminent.

Moreover, the Commission will weigh the exigent circumstances offered to justify an . exemption against the adverse environmental impacts associated with

. the proposed activities. Where the environmental impacts of the proposed activities are insignificant, but the potential adverse consequences of delay may be severe and an exemption will mitigate the effects of that delay, the case is strong for granting an exemption

- that will preserve the option of realizing

• nose benefits in spite of uncertainties in the need for prompt action. 8/

In Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ,. CLI-84-8, 19 NRC 1154, 1156 n.3 (1984), in addition to applying the " exigent circumstances" test to an

- exemption issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S5 0.12 (a) , the Commission discussed the factors that governed the exercise

~

of-its discretion in issuing an exemption

A reasoned exercise' of such discretion should take into account the equities of each' situation. These equities include the stage of the facility's life, any

. financial or economic hardships, any internal inconsistencies- in the regulation, . the applicant's good-faith effort to comply '

.h the regulation from which an exem- on is sought, the public interest.i. 'nce to- the Commission's regulati,n. :1 the safety significance of the issu _nvolved.

8/- .Id.-at 6. -Because the Clinch River case related to an exemption for- site preparation activities, .only' environmental impacts were considered. Here, health and safety matters, as opposed to. environmental concerns, are at. issue.

. i m

P

.O In Mississippi -Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-84-19, n.7, slip op. at 8 n.7 (October <25, 1984), the Commission directed its staff to

" continue- its practice of granting exemptions only after making- the findings required by. 10 C.F.R. S50.12 and documenting the information supporting its determination."

The Commission disavowed general use of the more stringent test- for granting exemptions announced in Shoreham, supra, as only applicable to the particular circumstances of that case'. Thus the Board must find that the issuance of the exemption is in the public interest and will not endanger life or property. Judged by this or even by any other previous standard, the issuance of the exemption is warranted.

~The Grant of the Exemption _is in the Public Interest _.

The Limerick facility will be physically ready to begin operations above 5% power by. March 1, 1985.--Affidavit of V.

S. :Boyer at Paragraph 3. The .only matter remaining to be heard involves evacuation of the Graterford -inmates. The exemption is being requested only:for the period of time in .

which the Commission considers any additional contentions.

As'the Licensing Board'is aware, Applicant has' attempted to assure _that all offsite emergency plans were prepared in a timely manner. It has made available consultants to assist

.offsite . authorities in the -preparation- of the plans.

i:

Affidavit of V. S. Boyer at Paragraph 2. Any delays in its preparation are beyond the control of Applicant.

It is self-evident that there will be financial hardships when there is a physically completed nuclear

-facility, standing unused and nonproductive because of licensing- delays. Such delays will increase the costs of Limerick Unit 1 by S28 million per month. This cost figure is made up of $23 millicn per month allowance for funds used during construction (":WUDC") and SS million per month

. operational, security and maintenence costs. In addition, the fuel costs of the Philadelphia Electric Company customers will be increased by $5 million a month for each month of delay. Any delays in the authorization for full power for Unit 1 can also impact on the restart of construction ' of Unit 2. The Pennsylvania .Public Utility Commission ("PUC") is presently holding ' hearings on whether construction at Unit 2 should be continued, but in compliance with an order issued by the PUC, construction of

. Unit 2 has been suspended until Unit 1 is placed in commercial _ operation. Affidavit of V. S. Boyer at Paragraphs-.4 and 5.

As discussed infra, the Licensing Board in the-

. - Waterford proceeding permitted - operation of that. facility without specific plans for evacuation of correctional

. institutions. bei'ng : required to be in place; sheltering was the ' accepted protective action to allow operation, with evacuation plans being developed during operation.

m'..

~ l l

L'

?

l Moreover, as discussed infra, any risks to the Graterford inmates associated with the requested exemption are extremely small. There is s bstantial compliance with the emergency planning requirements in that the Graterford plan, including provisions for evacuation, is complete.

All these factors demonstrate that the public interest strongly weighs in favor of the issuance of the exemption.

In addition to meeting the " exigent" circumstances test, as

-discussed below, Applicant also meets the other requirements for issuance of an exemption contained in 10 C.F.R.

_SSO.12(a).

Life or Property Would Not Be Endangered By Issuance of the Exemption Life or property _would not be endangered by issuance of

~

the reque'sted exemption.b As discussed below, and in

'further detail in the Affidavit - of E. Robert Schmidt and

-'Geoffrey D. Kaiser - Concerning the Risks to the Inmates of the State Correctional: Institute at Graterford Arising from

' Accidental Releases of ' Radioactive Material from Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 _("NUS Af fidavit") which is attached - hereto, and. incorporated Therein by reference, the probability- of requiring the implementation of the protective action of evacuation- by the inmates of

Graterford, which ~is 'approximately 8.3 miles east from the 9/j No common defense-and-security matters are involved.

rY-

. Limerick Generating Station, is extremely small. The population affected by this exemption is limited to the Graterford inmates. Indeed, as discussed in the NUS Affidavit at Paragraph 14, the hypothetical risk to such individuals is less than to a member of the public at that same distance in the same sector under similar circumstances. Moreover, the protective action of sheltering for the inmates in this particular facility is effective. NUS Affidavit at Paragraph 10.

The Graterford Plan'has now been completed and reviewed by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA").

Notwithstanding the _ fact that its provisions regarding evacuation have not been examined by the Licensing Board, there exist a number of reasons for confidence that the plan is ~ reasonable and capable of being implemented pending.

completion of any - possible Board review of certain of its provisions' relating to . evacuation. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in general, and PEMA, in particular, are experiencea in emergency planning relating to nuclear facilities. PEMA together with the Department of Corrections, has developed existing plans for other nuclear' power plants - in .the ' Commonwealth which . include provisions-for correctional institutions 'within the plume exposure

_10) 0 iTr. 20431, 20437.

H

&L -

+

EPZ.N There is. reason to conclude that the plan is capable

~

of being implemented even though matters related to

- evacuation have'not yet been heard.

'Further, there is no absolute requirement that evac-uation be an. element of emergency planning for Graterford.

In Louisiana- Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) , LBP-82-100, 16 NRC 1550, 1566 (1982), the Licensing Board approved the issuance of operat-Ling licenses based upon plans for sheltering alone for correctional facilities within the plume exposure EPZ and

-conditioned the -license on the development of emergency plans for evacuation. M. .As discussed in the NUS Affidavit at 10, because of the high protection factors which are present at Graterford, as determined by actual

- survey, sheltering is an adequate protective action for the

' inmates.

During..the period necessary for'the Board to complete its consideration oflany admitted. contention concerning the Graterford plan, the . risk to the Graterford prisoners is

~

extremely small. As-the Board is well aware, an extensive Lprobabilistic risk assessment - ("PRA")' was conducted for the.

Limerick Generating ' Station . - The methodology and' -- a s -

g. sumptions 'of this PRA l nere extensively litigated during_ a 4

M/ For example, the plan for the Three. Mile Island Nuclear Stati~on includes a plan for the Camp Hill Correctional Institution.

_dG.-

O N.

prior phase- of this proceeding.NI In its second Partial

! Initial Decision the Licensing Board found that the risk of operation of the Limerick Generating Station compared to natural occurring events was " clearly small."E In suprort of this' motion, Applicant has examined in detail the risk from severe, i.e., core melt, accidents as they-specifically relate to the Graterford prisoners using the methodologies and assumptions of the PRA which were O

' fully litigated. As discussed in the NUS Affidavit at

' Paragraph 7 ~, the . risk from anything other than a severe

" core melt"- accident (Class 9) , i.e., a design basis or lesser accident (Class 1 to 8) , would not result in the necessity for taking protective actions at distances of eigh". miles or . greater , the distance that Graterford is located' from- the facility. In this regard, the Env'ironmental' Report ~ -

Operating License Stage for the Limerick Generating Station at page 7.1-23 found with regard to'such Class 1 to 8 accidents:

! -a. The radiation ' e::posures that would result from~ the' : occurrence of accidents are gene rally .- lower than those- expected . from. . normal

. . operation,.and much lower.than that from natural background radiation.

/

12/

Philadelphia ~ Electric- Company _ (Limerick Generating Station,. Units 1 and 2) , LBP-84-31, 20~NRC 446,.550-598 (1984).

~M/. Limerick, supra, LBP-84-31, 20-NBC 446,-573 (1984).

y_ .

b. The population exposure from pos,sible station accidents is negligible when compared to the population exposure received from just the variation in natural background radiation, which overshadows the potential

. population exposure from any

. accident. considered.

c. Most of the radiation dose levels are so low as to be undetectable, even with the most sensitive modern radiation detection instruments.

o d. When these potential exposures are considered in conjunction with their. predicated frequencies of occurrence, it is judged that Class 1-8 . accidents are small contributors to public risk.

See also Final ~ Environmental Statement related to the Operation of- Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0974 (April, 1984) at 5-73.

The input to the analysis for the inmates is specific to 'Graterford, e.g., the distance from. Limerick to Graterford,.the' sector in which it was located and shielding factors. NUS Affidavit at Paragraphs 8-13. As discussed in-the .NUS Affidavit, Applicant considered the risk to the prisoners -by considering the risk ' of occurrence of the various sequences of events which recult in - releases from L core melt-type -accidents -and considering ' site. specific

meteorology.such as wind direction and diffusien parameters.

The actions to'be taken at Graterford 'were 'also modelled.

NUS Affidavit at Paragraph-13. The evaluation resulted in a determination ofLthe probability of exceeding the Protective A_

}

l>

i _

?

Action Guide for evacuation recommended by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and adopted by PEMA for use in its emergency planning. NUS Affidavit at Paragraph 7.

A number of' cases have been examined to both realistically look at the risk to the inmates and then to conservatively bound them. It should be noted that while a

" realistic" evaluation is being done, it is known to still be - extremely conservative for a number of reasons, e.g.,

present knowledge is that the source term used in the

-Limerick Severe Accident Risk Analysis is very conservative.EI The first two cases assume that the inmates leave the prison . 6 and 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> after notification of the need to evacuate and travel at 10 mph. These two values bound the 6-10 hours which the Department of Corrections has estimated for the- -time for the last inmate to leave the institution.E! The'next two cases are for 24 and.48-hour o delay. periods and demonstrate the very. low risk associated with these time; periods =in the implementat. ion of evacuation.

of'the Graterford immates. It is obvious that even without

'a plan for evacuation, ad hoc measures could be taken within these times.

M/ See NUS Affidavit at Paragraph 15,_particularly n.*.

M/ ~NUS Affidavit.at Paragraph 13.

Ti

.c.

?

, b

(

t 5

. As more fully discussed in the Affidavit, the probabil-ity ~of ' exceeding 5 rem, which is maximum whole body dose

- where sheltering is to be utilized and would therefore be

-8 the? threshold! for evacuation is 5.0 x 10 (1 chance in 20 million)=.for;a 6-hour evacuation delay time and 8.4 x 10-8 s,  : (11 chance 2 in 12 million) for an 10-hour evacuation delay time.: The probability of reaching a dose of 25 rem, which Dis Ith'e xlevel- below. which-- clinically detectable symptoms of radiation, is not detectable are 2.8 x 10 -9 (1 chance in 360 m'i llion)' for a 6-hour.. delay. time and 3.1 x 10 -9 (1 chance in 320 million) for a 10-h'our delay time.1_6,/

.The results.'show that'with regard to the probability of

. exceeding the PEMA PAG value of 5 rem for 24 and 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />

^

delays, the corresponding values are 1.1 x 10"

, (1 chance in

-8 l9 million) - and 1'. 3 x ' 10 (1 chance in 8 million), both

_ still' exceedingly small. 'As shown in Table-1 of the NUS~

20 - Affidavit,fthe : probability. of . exceeding 25 rem for the 24 I ' .and'-48 h ur delay cases is; 5.0 ~ x : 10-9 :(1 chance 'in . 200  !

-9 million)' Land'.9.2i.x .10 '(li chance. in' 110- million),.-

<- respectively..

The Atomic . Safety and'. Licensing Appeal : Board has held--

th'at ?if L the probability cof -an ; accident affecting 'a' nuclear 2 facility'was/less'than~10" ifor a-realistic calculation-and

~

l{

10-6 for a-; conservative. calculation, then:an applicant would 2+

1_6 / - Affidavit at' Paragraph.14 and' Table 1, thereto.

I

O 1

9 not be required to design a plant to a particular accident due to its low probability. Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-518, 9 NBC 14, 16 (1979). Thus, tested by such stan-dards, the probability of exceeding the 5 rem standard is so low that'it need not even be considered. EI Thus, viewed by any - perspective, the risk is extremely small and life and property will not be endangered.

O Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that the criteria of 10 C.F.R. S50.12 have been met and the requested relief should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Troy nner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn

-Counsel for. Applicant February 7,.1985 E / -In that proceeding, the Appeal Board also held that for an -event- meeting. its criteria, the " event is so unlikely that .its environmental impact need not be considered." Hope Creek,. supra, ALAB-518, 9 NRC 14, 39 (1979) . (citation - omitted) .

.o. .

W- .

. e --

L STATE OF MARYLAND  :

. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY  :

Affidavit of V. S. Boyer V. S. Boyer, being first duly sworn, states as follows:

1. 'My name is.V. S. Boyer. I am Senior Vice President,

. Nuclear Power of Philadelphia Electric Company, ("the 0.

Company"), owner and operator of the Limerick Generating Station. I have been deeply involved with the construction,' licensing, and operation of the Limerick Generating Station and oversee the efforts of

~the Company in :the area of Emergency. Planning for our

. nuclear generating stations. I am aware of the status of and responsibility for emergency planning . ef forts for the Limerick Generating Station on the part of the Commonwealth- of Pennsylvania, the Federal Emergency Managemeat Agency, local governments and the . Nuclear Regulato y Commission.

Annex 1 to . Appendix E of the Bureau of- Correction i s

~

2 .-

. Emergency. Plan -

the Radiological Emergency - Response.

Plan for the State Correctional s Institution of Graterford' ("Graterford Plan") has been prepared. by the

-Bureau .of Correction: of the Commonwealth of' 1 Pennsylvania. -Although- the~ Company has .provided.

assistance-to'many entities with radiological emergencv

, planning responsibilities,-- neither the Pennsylvania

?

4

_ .m

f _,_

Emergency Management Agency nor Bureau of Corrections requested the assistance of Philadelphia Electric Company in the development of the Graterford Plan. The Company is, however, providing certain equipment required for .the implementation of the plan and requested by the Commonwealth.

3. The. schedule for the power ascension phase of operation of Unit 1 of the Limerick Generating Station is such that the plant will be ready to proceed to power levels

. greater than allowed under our existing license by March 1, 1963.

4.. Delays in the is'suance of approval for proceeding to full. power will result in a delay in the commercial operation of.the unit.- Such delays will increase the c o s t's o f Limerick Unit 1. 'by $28 million per month.

This cost figure is made.up of $23 million per month 7

- AFUDC and ' $5 million per- month operational, security and' maintenance costs. In' addition, the fuel costs of the Company's- customers will be increased . by_ ~S15

~

.million a month. for each month of ' delay.

5. . .Any delays-in the authorization for full-power.for Unit

-1 mayL also impact'on the restart of, construction of

_' IUnit 2'. : 'The Pennsylvania Public Utility:Commi'ssion is presentlyf holding - hearings. on whether construction at Unit :x2 'should .be f continued, but in compliance- with a

,~ ,

ur s 2

y ..,=

_3 prior' order issued by the PUC construction of No. 2 unit has' been ' suspended until No.

1 is placed, in commercial operation.

/ Id* VY f h Senior Vide President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of February,-1985.

Am> M) . N nt.f

/ Notary Public

-MrenM. Thompson My commission expires:

July 1, 1986

~

N +

)

k._~ i ._