ML19269B155
| ML19269B155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1985 |
| From: | Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-958 NUDOCS 8503110223 | |
| Download: ML19269B155 (12) | |
Text
9 59.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMEISSION . . . . A'10MIC SAFETY AN D LICENSING BOARD-Re PHILA. ELECTRIC CO. Limerick Nuclear Gen.Sta. Units 1 & 2. Docket #'$0-352,353
'Narch 2,1985 ROBERT L. ANTHONY / F0E FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON OFF-SITE EEERGENCY Pt t AND COMPLAINT THAT OUR MOTION OF Y23415 TO REVISE SCHEDULE WAS DENI"ET.T LB DENIAL OP OUR INTERVENOR RIGHTS IN ZEEhGENCY PIENNING HEARINGS i g() ,.g We are filing our findings under protest since the 2ecord on e site planning is incomplete because of the cutting off of our legitimattk h iW e
g essential opportunity to crossexamine witnesses,thereby prejud. icing our case and depriving the record of evidence needed by the Board to make a fair and balanced ..
decision on our contention. designated LEA-24/F0E-1. '4w.,
We asserted to the Board on several ocegions that the Board's rulings on denying us crossexamination time sub J ected 3 to very curtailed opportunity by assigning LEA the examination function for .our contention, under the pretert of " lead" intervenor for LEA, an errangement set up only as an administrative devios during pre-hearing contacts. We never agreed to relinquishing any of our he aring rights as an independent intervenor. We protested during the hearings the Board's arbi-trary actions to curtail our participation,which amounted to a conscious move to silence us. (See tr. 14,030 to 14,041 as an example )
Judge Hoyt reve a led what appe a red to be some of the motivation for this unfair pressure put on us when she said, tr.14,041, '.'.all of us are being pushed to get time. We have commitments as to when we have to write decisions .. "
Purther evidence of Commission pressure comes from the tran script of the NRC meet-ing in Washington, 1/8/85 in which the time schedule for an operating license for Limerick was under discussion,in the comment of Chairman Palladino (page 30),
..this says four months. I was counting at modt three months. "
The detnils of the prejudice done our intervention in the off-site planning are set forth in our statement to tMBoard 1/29/85 (Exhibit A.)grg Because of this prejudice we moved to set aside the findings schedule and recall witneses, in order to complete the record. Our motion was denied by the Board, 1/29/85 J
So'g Purther details of the Board's arbitrary curbing of our participation are set forth oo in our appe als to the NRC Appeal Boa rd, dated 12/10/84,and 1/31/85, included as gg Exhibits B and C. , and Exhibit D, our motion to LB of 12/2/84.
05 BLOCKING OF EVACUATION ROUTES THROU3H 7 ALLEY FORGE PARE AND EING OF PRUdSIA 88 7
a PEC's testimony and that of PEMA and FEMA did not s ubstantiste that EMM As!ce's gg assumption that the evacuations via Rt.252 and Rt.363 would not be impeded by traffic 2"O in panic proportions, spontaneously evacuating from King of Prussia and the Rt. 202 corridor. Ranger Fewlass from Valley Forge Park testified that the Park would allow evacuation traffic through the park on Rt,23 although that is not a designated
. 3{ 5%m
. -- 2 .-
evacuation route. This would obviously add to the traffic congestion and block-ages. Tr. 14,592.
Mr.Waggenman, township aman ger of Upper Merion, testified on 1/8/85 as to the critical traffic congestion in the township and the threat of ever growing traffic from the new construction in King of Prussia and the township. He referred to the traffic tie-ups on Rt. 363 and Rt. 202. PECo demonstrated in its exhibit E-92 how the evacuation traffic on Et. 363 would be narrowed to single file in making tw 270 degree turns via clover legf ramps onto Rt.202 and from #202 onto See Fewlass 688 tr. 14,Wagge)nman testified further that evacuation traffic the Schuy kill Expreesw,ay. Mr.
would conflict with and have to cross eastbound traffic on # 202 turning right onto the Erpressway ramp toward Philadelphia. To sum up the traffic pressures in King of Prussia he gave as an example the two malls each of which has parking for over 100,000 cars,and all these spacea are filled on peak days.
The relation of the svecuation routes to Valley Forge Park and King of Prussia are demonstrated in the accompany 4,ng diagram, (Exhibit E ) which indicates the conflicting forces, evacuation traffic routes from the EP2 vs. spontan eous,unplan-ned, panic evacuation from the Park and King of Prussia on the announcement of a nuclear emergency at Limerick. (Fewlass tr. 14,609 )
The hearings on Contention LEA-24/ F0E-1 did not produce the " assurance" specified in the contention
... that plans for evacuation of the tem mile radius will not be im-peded by traffic congestion in the vicinity of March Creek State Park ExtonareaandValleyForgePark,Kingoy,f(ggsiaarea.
In fact the opposite finding resulted from the testimony:/oqp Park and King of Prussia area will be tied up,perhaps almost completely tied up,in the event of an alarm from Limerick.
SETTING OF THE LIMITS FOn THE EXTENT OF THE EPZ.
The other part of the Contention states:
These areas should either be included in the Emergency Planning Zone or adequate plans for traffic control and direction should be made to avoid adverse effects on EPZ evacuation.
PEMA did not submit prefiled testimony on LEA-24/F0E-1. We conclude this to mean that PEMA did not choose to contest this contention,and apparently does not maintain that evacuation traffic will not be impeded in Valley Forge Park and K.of P.
3 We conclude,also, that PDtA is not opposed to the inclusion of Valley Forge Park in the EPZ. From the record we do not see any proof that traffic control outside the EPZ would assure safe evacuation of the EPZ although we do not disagree with Mr. Urbanik who testified for FEMA on 1/18/85, that there should be a study of this control ouside the EPZ. This might be done in addition to including Valley Forge Park in the EPZ, but we believe that the evidence from the hearing in that this Pa r k must be included if the safety of the visitors there is to be provided for, and if their safe evacuation is to be coordinated with other movement out of the EPZ. See Feslass testimony, tr. 14, f 4 2, on park use, a 12,986,258, total figure 1983.'
A consideration of the southern boundar y of the EPZ came into the hearing before the Hearing Board on 3/5/84. Judge Brenner pointed out that the EPZ was as much as 12 miles in places, tr.7618. Ms.Ferkin indicated that the Penna. Turn-pike was a most prominent boundary. tr. 7619 Judge Brenner said that traffic evacuation in relation to King of P spia should be taken into account and demography (i.e.K. of P. and Valley Forge Park.
gwas one of the factors in 10gFR 50.4 (c) (2), tr.7619 and 7620. The NRC counsel also called attention to EPZ boundaries already beyond 10 miles, tr. 7621,7622,7623.
When the question of Valley Forge Park in the EPZ came up wip g e f g witnesses on 1/25/85, we asked whether the southern gb0 h3hhh '^
the Penna. Turnpike as a boundary for a number of milespand whether Valley Forge Park did not show up as a piece taken out or a dent in the EPZ. Mr. Asher agreed that he saw an irregular line there, tr. 20,239,. Again at ,tr.20,242, Mr.Asher did not know why the Park had been left out of the RPZ nor did he think he was able to testify as to whether it should be included. PEMA raised the point of it p.80.
being worthwhile to include it in. the EPZ , tr. 14,019. Pre-hearing order 4/20/94 In his testimony for FEMA Mr.Urbanik said that there was nothing to preclude Valley Forge Park from being included in the EPZ, tr. 19,264 PEMA's map 3 Exhibit E-92shows three townghggn the EPZ,Chester County,ex-tending up to 11 to 12 miles and East Nantmeal grom 2 to 2f miles beyond the 10 mile circle . In Montgomery County the map shows Douglas township at about 2i miles beyond the ten mile circle, Lower Providence about 2 miles and Skippack be-tween 1 and 2 miles. In comparison to these townships the map showsValley Forge Park with a section in the 9 to 10 mile range,the bulk of the park within 10 to 12 miles and the visitor center at about 11y miles. We assert that PD'A failed to comply with 100 REG -0654,Rev.1. and 10 CFR 50.47 by not affording Valley Forge Park the opportunity to be included in EPZ. Ranger Fewlass testified 12/5 that the Park had never been given this choice or the chance to be included in an emergency evac-entity uation plan, despite the requirement that any governmental wi s th part of its ares within the 10 mile circle should be given the choice to be included. The Park staff knew an area was within 10 miles, tr. 14,649,650,(54,and 655. Fewlass met with PEMA 11/7/84 to verify this, tr. 14,666. We moved to include it, tr. 14,633 on 12/5/82
-- 4 --
an On 12/8/84 se followed up our vertal motion for, order that Yalley Forge be in-cluded in euergency planning,with a written motion to LB to require PEMA to in-olude Valley Force Park in the EPZ ,and when LB denied this motion, 1/10/85,ve filed an appeal with the Appeal Board 1/17/85,.( Exhibits F and 0 ).
PIMA AND FEMA MUST ACT TO INCLUDE YALLEY FORGE PAPI IN THE XPZ When Mr.Goodwin, counsel for PEMA on 1/3/85 submitted a corrected map on PEMA's behalf, E-92, to indicate,as Mr.Pewlass had insisted,that part of Valley Forge Park was within the 10 mile circle, he took particular pains to " correct" the boundary of EPZ so that no part of the Park on the Southwest corner should be shown as included in the EPZ. We interpreted this to indicate a sensitivity on the part of PEXA which we had suspected froe other evidence. We believe that for a number of reasons the EPZ formation omitted Valley Forge Park as a governmental entity because of its status as a federal jurisdiction and because of the possible complications of integrating it into county and to wnship plans. .We believe this was a serious mistake,espedially in the light of more than 13 million people who use the park in a year. The Board must find that Valley Forge Park be included in the EPZ and made a part of an emergency evacuation plan.
Valley Forge Park should be included in the EPZ and evacua tion plans must be made for the populous and congested King of Prussia area .if PEMA and FEMAare n to be in compliance with 10 CPR 50 47, especially (c) (2),but not limited to this,and the following sections of NUREG-0654,Rev.1. D 2. ( 1p. 10 & 11), D d . , TABLE 1.& 2. ,
E. (p. 19,20,21 )
RESPONSIBILITY OF FEMA AND PEMA FOR SAFE EMERGENCY PLANNING We think LB has a responsibility to review the performance of PEMA and FEMA in the die-harging of their mandates under 10/CFR 50.47 and FUREG-0654. It must weigh the possible conflict of interest which we r ised a in questioning FEMA's witness Urban ik,tr.19266. The Board must weigh FEEA k apparent sponsorship of a li-conseF {gy Limerick as indicated in the subject of E.L. Jordan,NRC, letter to R.W.
Primm,al2/26/84," FEEA Support er ERC Lice 0 sing of Limerick Generating Station".
tr.20,229. FEMA holds the key as to whether the public will be protected,tr.20,228.
Both PEMA and FEMA neglected their responsibility by not insisting on Valley Forge Park in the EPZ, tr. 20,230,231,233,242,243,. FEMA witnesses indicated inpdequate response by the agency to its responsibilities,tr. 20,234,239,242,243,244,245,and an avoidance of its independent judgment and responsibility, 20.246,247 We were cut off from completing our examination of FEMA witnesses, tr.20,248, but the evidence is conclusive that the Board must find that Valley Forge Park be included in the ETZ and the Eing of Prussia area be made a part of Limerick off-site emergency planning.
cct NRC LB Judges, Staff Counsel, Docketing Serv. Res ectfully su FEEA,PEMA,PEco, LEA.others on Serv. List. kg Bo - koylan, a. 19065
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COLTISSION ... ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Res PHILA. ELEC. CO. Limerisk Generating Sta. Units 1 & 2 Docket 1: 50-352,353 Ja'n. 29,19,85 STATEMENT BY R.L. ANTHONY /F0E Re HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND MOTION LB TO RECONSIDER THE FINDId SCHEDULE AND MOTION TO RECALL WITNESSES ON WHO CROSS EXAMINATION WE WERE CUT OFF. . .,.,,
[I STATEMENT.
4 On 1/25/85 eur eress examination of FEEA witnesses was-eut f ,
at one half hour. Inorderfortherecordtobesempleteandforth{
have adequate informa tion en our contention en which to make a decision 88 which we seuld base findings, we needed at le a st another hour. , Weinformedhh Board and were overruled. We asked to make g statement and this roguest was denied by the Board. .,
~
We now state that the record on our emergency planning sentention i ineemplete because of the arbitrary and unrea sona ble limitations put on our eress examination of witnesses by the Board. This constitutes espricious and prejudicial action en the part of the Begrd . The Board thereby denied us due process in this hen ring and violated our rishts to be heard on the threats to our health , safety and interests,ruaranteed to citizens under NEPA and the Atomie Energy Act.
There is evidense to show that this prejudice to our rights imposed by the Board eeuld have been motivated by pressure to sseed up thw hearing and to arrive at a feverable,early decision to enable PECe to operate Limerisk as seen as low power testing is sempleted. We quote the Board's statement as evidence of pressure for a speed up (tr. 14,041, 16-22)," ..all of us are being pushed to get time. We have commitments as to when we have to write decisions. " Further indication of NRC pressure to speed up the license process comes from the trans-oript of the Coccission's meeting 1/8/85 On page 29 Chairman Palladino, in a discussion of the Limerisk sc hedule, says, " Maybe you could enliEkten me as to why it takes se long and then, presumably,the Commission would have another 30 days for its effectiveness decision. " On page 30 (1) he somments further... --
" this says four months. I was eeunting at most three months. "
These remarks hint at the pressure under which the Board has been operating,from the top down.
We claim that this stessure and the pressure that the Board crea ted for itsel resulted in egrtailed eress examination time, dictated by the Beard,and this deprived us of our rights as a eitizen intervener to question the witnesses and thereby build n eemplete record on our centention. This is a denial of due erecess and our rights to be heard under NEPA and AEA. We claim thnt the Board subverted the judicial process and caused prejudice against our ease. We,therefore, new petition the Board to review its prejudiced rulings and make restitution to us as specified below.
f x H i te t r A
. 2 .. ...
MOTION 1. We move that the Board rosa,11 witnesses whose eroes examinatica was out off in an unreasenable, arbitrary and prejudicini m3nner by the Begrd with the result that the record is incomplete and injustice was done to the interveners' presentation of eententions. Specifically we gave the Board to re,eall witnesses Klimm, Fowlass, Wagenmann, Urbanik, PEMA and FEMA witnesses,and the witnesses from Montgomery County whom we did not examine at all, and to provide us time to adequately eress examine these witnesses.
EOTIcN 2. We move that the Beard set aside the findings schedule whieb it set up and to re-schedule new findings dates following the the additional testimony of the recalled witnesses.
ect NRC LB Judges,Coun'sel.Docketting Serv. Respectfully submitted, PEC e", PEMA, FEMA
- LEA', FliILA. , ethers en g' Serv. List.
Box 186, Moylan,Pa. 1906, (1.) Excerpt 'from lutC January 8,1985 Commission Meeting transcript,orovided by theSecretary1/25/85 30 1 period.
2 CEAIPMAN PALIADINO: Well, I guess I was thinking 8 30 days for the first step, 60 days -- this says four months'.
4 I,was counting at most three months.
5 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Weil, in the normal course, two 6 months for findings and two months for a decision. But here 7 in terms of alerting the Commission to potential problems, 8 here there are a number of circumstances whe're the emergency 8 plans for the different counties and m=4eipalities have not 10 been approved, adopted, by the counties yet.
11 FEMA,,I 12nderstand, has not conspleted their review 12 until such time as the counties have adopted theirs. So, 13 the testimony that FEMA is going to be operating will be 14 somewhat dependent on that.
15 so, there are a number of potanti als for delay in
4" U.S. hDCLEAR REGULATORY CO:/. MISSION. . .LTOMIC SAFETY & UCEN$ LNG APMAL 88ARD RE: PHILA. ELECTRIC CO. Limerick Gen. Stat., Unite li 2 DOCKET No. $0-352,353 De'e. 10,1994 APPEAL BY R.L. ANTHONY /F0E FROM TEE ORAL RULING OF THr.: LICENSING flgf3/84 BOARD DENYING OLRXOTION OF 12/2/84 ON OUR EXAMIliATION RIGHTS, AND RICALL OF n $3S KLIEM.
A10 .-
Anthony / FOS seele relief from the Appeal Benrd from prejudicial and cap 07 brrg-ricioussuppressionofourrightsasanindependentintervenor@gdr[ asipe witnesses testifying en our accepted contentions,by the Licensing bee 4W On#
12/2/84 we filed a motion with LB as a result of unf air and arbitrary rulings, especially en 11/80/84,by LB,rultnis which prevented our cross examination of witnesses testifying en our emergency planning contentions. A copy et the .
motion is enclosed. 7e assert the rulings of LB were prejudicial and improper in the following respects.
- 1. #e were ordered to channet ear examination through a " lead" intervenor in spite of our status as an accepted intervenor with a contention,F0E 1. ,
which was accepted in a LB erder in July 1984 and combined without er choice, for LB convenience,as LEA 24-F0E 1.
- 2. LB refused to permit us to cross examine witnesses en our contention with equal time and equal status with LEA. This stiffled our opportunities to be included in the record and thereby created a curtailed and unfair record.
- 3. LB defied and compromised proper judicial procedure by suggesting and further pressuring us, a citizen, pre se intervenor to yield time to the Common-wealth Stterney, tr.14,030,14,031. We were cut off in our exa mination and were not allowed to return to the witness despite our legitimata plea to be heard.
Furthermore thie LB action put the Commonwealth attorney in a position which is impermissible for a judicial board.
- 4. LB's position stated by the chairperson, tr. 14,041, appears to be a direct denial of proper and fair administrative court precedure (lines 16-22)
"All of us are being pushed to get time. We have commitments as to when we have to write decisions." It appears from this statement that the time limit for tre hearing en energency ev a cuation planning for Limerick has been estab-lished and the LB is pressuring the interveners to curtail their examinations to fit within these limits. This indicates a position .contra ry to Constitutional gua rentees of due process and a fair hearing fcr citizen representatives,and perhaps for all the parties in these proceedings.
7e move the Bogrd order LB to remove any deadline limit, guarantee Anthony /
FSB's participation as an indepen:!ent intarrener,and allow recall of witnesses in whose examin a tion Anthen//F0E was cut off. Res submit + d, cc NRC Counsel, Docketing,PEMA, FEMA,LB JudgesPhila.Elec. peQfull 4, N
LEA, City. L @(~ C
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0h' MISSION. . . ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Re PHILA. ELECTRIC 00. Limerisk Gen.Sta. Units 1 & 2 DOCKET No. 50- 352,353 I Jan. 31, 1985 I
ft APPEAL FROM H.L. ANTHONY /F0E TO THC APPEAL BOARD FROM THEESSES. ORAL DENI 0F OUR MOTIONS OF 1/29/85 to SET ASIDE THE FIhDING SCHEDULE & RECALL W D MR -6 BACKGROUND. During the hearings in Philadelphia en off-site amorrency ,dJ07 ning for a radiological emergency at the Limerick pl.nt the Hkh 6 gylied erejudicial and arbitrary time restraints and other biased pressur8 ROC Eifen f interveners who were thereby prevented f rom carrying out an orderly cross exem-ination of witnesses. Time was restricted in a dictat,orial manner wkth the N *. . s . . I result that our eross examination wSs out off and the record is'iie'eobing,17 in-complete and faulty. The Bo.rd and the Parties will be denied many crucial 'it'eme which were excluded beenuse of the Board cutting off cross examination.
There is evidence in the hea rint record of the board's stated pressure to meet a deadline on submitting its decision. To thus aircumvent due process mnd fair judicial proceedure amounts to subversion of the judicial process. In addi-tien there is a hint as to the source of some of the eressure in the transeriet of a recent Commission meetine in which the time needed to complete the process of licensing Limerick was discussed with the implied goal of speeding up the out-esce ( See transcript,NRC 1/8/85 ps. 28 to 37, served on us 1/25/85 )
RELIEF. On 1/29/05 Anthony /F0E submitted motions to LB to request that LB eerrect some of the prejudice and injustice done our contentions by the denial of due process and a fair hearing guaranteed to citizens under NEPA and AEA. Our metiene to act aside the findings schedule .nd to reca ll witnesses where our
- cross examination had been cut off were summarily denied in an eral ruling by LB en1/29/95 We hereby petition the Appeal Board to reassert out rights to a fair hear-and to reverse the decision of the Licensing Board and order the findings sched-that ule be set aside an d,we be afforded the ensortunity to have the LB recall wit-nesses where our examination was cut off, to complete our cross examination.
5- -
cc8 NRC LB Judges, Counsel,Docketins Serv. Reseectfully sub=itted, PEC o', PEMI, FEMA', LEA and others en Serv. List.
' ~
kg f , /hg Box 186 !/oylan ,Pa. 19065 P.S. Attention of Ms. C.J. Shoemaker,See. AB.
- In response to the ABorderof1/16/85,we inform you that R.L. Anthony will wresent argument at the hearirg en 3/4/E5 for Anthony /F0E ,
0h r$ ' 0 Y exsterr C '
.Lih .. . . . ~ ... . . .. . . . . . . . .... s...... .o..
.. .c , ....i dS PHILA ELEC. CO. Limerick Generattag Sts. Units 1 & 2 DOCr d ) 50-352,353
'Dec. 2.1984 R.L. ANTHONY /F0E MOTION TO PRESERYS INTE37ENOR'S ME EXA'/INATION dI3HT34; LTJ9 MOTION TO RECALL PECO'S WITNESS KLIMX FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING SY INTE.419Nt0t.
- 1. At the hearing on 11/30/84 Intervenor Anthony /F0E was pNssMMb/18tG6 stion from Board the Boardto cutheshort that Yield his cross his time to examination the Commoanealth of attorney.
Mr.Klimm 000K with the sugY ,
SHANCh We assert that this suggestion from the Board,and its urging was entirely inappropriate and not in keeping with proper judicial practice. In addition we call the Board's attention to guarantees of citizou participation as a fundamen-tal Principle of both NEPA and AEA. The Bogrd's suggestion that a lay, citizen intervenor yield his cross examination time to the professional attorney of a a state egency applies a dampesing , unfair pressure against sueb a volunteer in-tervenor. It is also as impermissible suggeotion to submit to as attorney.
- 2. Asa result of this Board pressure en the intervenor and the Board's order terminating his cross examination of Mr Klimm, the intervenor was set able to complete his cross examination as he stated va the record. He was aise pre-vewted from makinga-cross examination of the witness when the Board directed the representative of LEA to serve as the exclusive examiner ou re-cross .
Anthony /F0E's contenties on emergewey planning in relation to V,11ey Forge Park and King of Prussia was accepted by the .Licehsing Beard in the first auther-izing of Limerick couteattens and was combined with LEA cententies only at the Board's order on some administrative basis and without our choice. There is no authority whatever to merge the two intervenors and we insist en our separate rights to cross examine witnesses whose testiceny bears on our contenties. Any channeling of our examination through a " lead " intervener is not legitimate and is un a cceptable. We move that the Board respect and guarantee our rights as an intervener.
3 Siwce we were prevented 'ay the Board from completing our croso examina-tion of Mr.Klims we move that the Board recall Mr.Klims for our further examina-tien. It is apperett that several avenues that are of considerable weiglt for a complete record were left up in the air. The question of existing traffic (flow) ou evacuations routes was left unfluished. Judge Cole,for instance, asked ihether it was reasonable to assume zero flow on Route 202,and the answer was incomplete.
Te have further questione en flow and peak re-flow into EPZ aftar au slert. Another
, en item,among others,that was not covered was Exhibit B 68 which we reserved the right to get more detail at the time it was introduced. We , therefor, move that the Board recall Mr.Klimm and ef ford us the opportunity to complete our ex amina tion.
cc2 NhC Counsel, Docke ting Serv. Reape tfully su'emi ted,_ .
PE'TA FEMA C o n n e r & #e t terh ahn ,
Commonwe rA 4t %
, a lth, City g g g ex 3 186 Moylan,Fa. 19065
y m ., y a s e - e, . n e a r . ~ a ., s a s ..,.rr.v ..< -
. ~ - ~ - - -
iA t tctd c;,ioMi re v C sM1TH n e.W L6A (Fe o 24 p.L, M g g Y,, g . m .
t*Qtt'Frut' To get an impression of the si:e of this responsibility, Y2n Po M ' 4 6.dc CP PfRvu r,-) .
/;bvT845e traffic and use figures for Valley Iorge Park are included, g and the means of e=ergency exit are related to the use and ceak congestion on the expressways and major highways adjacent to the park. The park records show the total use of the park by 11 1/2 million individuals in a year, including visitors, co==uters, groups, and recreational users. Complete e=ergency-plans must be in order, to protect these people. This fact has not been addres sed by PECO, nor has the impact of Limerick on the park as a national historic monu=ent. (see contention V-1.)
f6175 ro wt* g ww.;
gg a a i SC$YLKILL RwCR v74.LErY gr q,T 4 2n l were rm ewswa.g -.
UI ***) RT 72.Y (20 0) l/0 /lli A i APm nMW IIP I: NWA 5 p m os n c. r' w y Y -
( 7, 5 ) ccwLKIL" l .
W"" / dump PL.A e & D SF,4 u.ADe N r; (".
knur *hD l c 9rt'i Mc es o m PM t L TTL Mc V g t.,
n3 ccO y/u te
( 4, 3c o) p / if (S)iMs -
$ 9+h (L)l}$
+12 2. l4)
,1T. 331 s /
s Gio,Soo) \\). ,'*
Mi. sis ,
e .
- ~ . _ _ _ -
, v, N 4 *
. .o.
/ 27 vu,.5+4/dxpr uF#t KI:
% rein , ~ _
$2e, coo) ,
af,re. m .
67 S 'f 4 (#e e t :gvvLK5L' 79L%s.iW Qi 2.R 7 ',,c) .c y 7(,
pr 3c [2 Y' N b * )
n Sc.N u vL Wl a R WLft O Ces33hs*t< M M K6Y *, (V&HICLh$) M&AG hMLV iT2A I:(qC teuni T , .
(PAsao PNJ Der + tWPf W6 P'tcun** ) '
, go, 654+tf6(I k M
U.S. NUCLEAR 4:ULATORY COMMI53 ION.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSDG BOARD l' AU PHILA.ELEC. 00. Limerick Gen. Sta. Units 1 & 2. DOCKET No. 50-352,555 Dee.8 1984 R.L. ANTHONY /FOR WOTION TO INCLUDE VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL PARE IN EMERG Y 37ACUA.
TION PIANNDO FOR LIMERICKSFP LEKESTING VERBAL MOTION OF 12/5/64 ( MN Mr. T.J. Feslass, chief ranger for Valley Forre Nat. Park, ibi estimony before LB en 12-/5/84 said that be forwarded a map to PDL1 in February 9(4g the Park whiah had a 10. mile are showing parts of the Park in f .g artheart Nc-
~
tien within lip 2. (Tr.14,655). He also said thst he met with P * $(ada en 11/7/84 to discuss this matter. (Tr.* 14,666) Ee showed a version of4 M WiAf herg. Evac . Esp dated 7/84 which he pointed out,showed a park of Valley Forge Park in the N.E. within the 10 mile arc, contrary to thhTA 6/83
wh'ich places all of the Park outside the arc. (tr.14,655) Er.rewlass furth'er +4(ttfied that he received a telephone call from John Cunnington,a PECe consultant who also worked with PEMA, en 2/10/84. Mr.Cunnington inf ormed him that al) of Lower PRO 7-idence Teunship was within the EPZ and all of the Park on the east side of the Schuylkill River is in that township (tr.14,695). Mr.Fewlass testified that Park plans for that section in Lower Providence " include some major develop-ments in the way of recreation". Tr. 14,696. Mr.Fewlass said that Er,Cunnington inquired about the type of developmeet in thSt part of the Park and the number of potential shelters. -
The testi=eny outlined above shoes conclusively that PEMA knew at least by Februa ry 1994 that part of Valley Forge Park was within the EPZ and issued a revised kap in July 1984 showing part of the Park inside the EPZ. In Itcht of these f acts we assert thatPD'A withheld from NRC and all the parties and agencies involved this information and has not yet issued to us a revised version of its evacuation map. We assert that PEMA in this manner was a party to mis-information which could be interpreted as deception. We are not suggesting at this time thttt this was deliberate deception, but we de e ssert that the piejudice to the prepara tion of our contention en the safety of visitors in the Fark in the event of a r a diolorien1 emergency was equally damaging.
We niso call to the Board's attention that NRC regulations provide a choice f or jurisdictions which hav e part of their area within the 10 mile circle, to elect to be tueluded in emergency evacuation planning. There is no evidence to show that Valley Forge Park, a U.S. entity, was offered the choice to be includ-ed in emergency planning. Mr .Fewlass testified that no emergency planning representative had been designated for the Park and there is no emergency plan for a Limerick radiological emergency. Tr.14,607 He aise testified that a study of the effed of spontaneoue eveeuation frea King of Prussia en the safety of Park visitore in the event of a Limerick emergency "would be worthwh11e".Tr.14,609 He was asked atsut the effect of sponta,eous evacuation from the St.202 and 252 corridors on Park safety. He thought a study "would be advantageous. The dimen-sions of the evacuation problen for the Park is highlichted by Mr.Feelass' testi-meny that in 1993 the total visitors added up to 12,986,259 . Tr.14,642.
We assert thatPD'1 evacuation plans are not in accordance with NRC regulations in that Valley Forge Park,shich has part of its area within the 10 mile circle is not included in the EPZ end in emergency evacudt ion p1,nning. 7e move that the Board recuire F3.1 to include Valley Forge Park in the EPZ and formulate an emerrency evacuation plan for the Park.
a 'C n e an ' fete'raYn,
- A,Ph .' J e as
- a. ._ .
j,m . ,
U.S.NSCLEAR REGULLTORY COMMISSION. . . ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPELL 30ARB Re: PHILA. ELEC. 00. Limerick Cen.Sta. Units 1 & 2. Decket no. 50-352,353 Jan. 17, 1985 APPEAL BY R.L. ANTEONY/POE FROM THE CRAL RULING BY L3 ON 1/10/85, DENYING OUR MOTION OF 12/8/84 TO INCLUDE VALLEY PORGE PARE IN EMERGENCY EVICUATION PLANNING.
On.12/8/84 R.L. Anthony /F0E submitted a motion to L3 to include Valley Forge National Park in the Limerisk EPZ and emergency eveduation planning as a sensequence of new information supplied by Chief Ranger T.J.Fewlass in testi-meny before LB en 12/5/84. LB denied our motion 8 Tr. 17,506 23-25 Mr. Fowlass testified that part of the Fark is within the 10 mile radius and that he ,hadsupplieda m ps to PEMA to prove this and that PEE 1 had revisdd its m6ps but had not notified the Parties. We asseft that this prejudiced our pre-paration of our contention en the safety of visitors in the Park and all the Parties' eensideration of the adequacy of emergeney planning in ease of a nueleer emerceney at timeriek.
We assert that Valley Forge National Park as a governmental entity with the responsibility for the safety of thousande of visitors,with part of its area within the 10 mile zone,should have been given the choice to be included in emergency planning in neeerdance with NRC regtlations. Mr.Fewlass testified that this choice was never effered.
We move that the Appeal Seard reverse LB's decision and order Va'. ley Forge Park be given the espertunity to be included in the EPZ and emergsney evacuation planning. We petition the Beard to order L5 te hold a hearing on including the Park in EPZ,should the Beard not decide to order Valley Forge Park included,en the basis of our motion and the record of the L3 hearing in Philadelphia in December 1984 ecs NRC Staff, Decketing Serv. LB Judges Respectfully submitted.
PEMA , FD'.1, C o n n e r & We t t e rh a h n , LEA ,
Ot hers en service list. ~
E t b Box 186 Weylan,Pa. 19065
}[2Cbf l CD ( 7~ ($