ML20127L813

Forwards Revised Page 11 to Correct Typo in Applicant Renewed Motion for Exemption from 10CFR50.47(a) Requirements Per Two Contentions Admitted on Behalf of Graterford Prisoners During Litigation Period

ML20127L813
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/20/1985
From:	Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Cole R, Harbour J, Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-564 OL, NUDOCS 8506280147
Download: ML20127L813 (2)

Text

.

\\

LAW OFFICES CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

17 4 7 P E N N S Y LVA N I A AV E N U E, N. W.

WAS!!!NOTON D. C. 20000 TBoy B. CONNER aN MARE J. wETTERNARN BOBERT M. RADER DOUotAs E.OLSON JCsSICA H. IAVERTY war.= x. wicnOL=

June 20, 1985 BOBERT N, PURL f2021833 3500 CCENMARD O. BECHNOEFER CABLE DDR OHLaw USNRC Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.

Dr. Richard F. Cole 85 JUN 24 Pl2:02 Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0FFICE OF SEUikiM.

Commission Commission 00CKETING & SERVIM BRANCH Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353dL.

Dear Board Members:

e Enclosed is a revised page 11 to correct a typograph-ical error in Applicant's Renewed Motion for an Exemption i

From the Requirements of 10 C.F.R.

S50.47(a) and (b) as They l

Relate to the Two Contentions Admitted on Behalf of the Graterford Prisoners During the Period Necessary for Litiga-l tion.

In addition, Applicant's certificate of service is

[

hereby amended to certify that a copy of Applicant's Renewed Motion was served upon Miss Phyllis Zitzer, LEA, by Federal Express on June 20, 1985.

Sincerely, f

Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant RMR/dlf Enclosure i

85062801478506h52 O

i PDR ADOCK 0500 h

R 3

o 5

and drivers to evacuate Graterford inmates in a radiological emergency.EI While training would offer drivers a general orientation and overview of radiological hazards and emer-gency management principles, no special training is neces-sary for drivers to understand and fulfill their roles in an actual emergency.El Thus, the interim absence of training for drivers in no way establishes any defect in the workability or implementability of the Graterford plan.

Similarly, although the Graterford Prisoners have questioned the validity of the six to ten-hour evacuation time estimate, the Commission's regulations do not mandate that an. evacuation must be accomplished within any particu-lar tiime frame.

Rather, ~ evacuation time estimates are utilized to support protective action recommendations by the responsible authorities in a

radiological emergency.EI

-20/

See

Response

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections to Requests for Information, Exhibits A-D (March 15, 1985).

i 21/

See Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,

l T51i5)

(slip op. at 155).

For example, training would i

not include route assignments.

Id.

i i

22/

Cincinnati Gas Electric Company (Wm.

H.

Zimmer

~~

Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-727, 17 NRC 760, 770 (1983).

See also Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2, 1985) (slip op. at 31-32), Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power l

Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-29B, 20 NRC 389, 419 (1984).

i 2_3)

Limerick, supra, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2,

1985)

(slip op. at 32).

l 1

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _