ML19206A151
| ML19206A151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904180332 | |
| Download: ML19206A151 (6) | |
Text
.
,m..
sh g
godC3 b'
W 7
Ig
.O, 31 l ;@.
5, kO
- l~l N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA eg/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION O
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Soard y'
.s In the Matter of Metropolitan Edisor Company, et al.
Docket No. 50-320 Three Mile Island duclear Station, Unit 2 INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE ApCEARANCE OF 'HC'dAS GERUSXY Intervenors move that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) direct that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard (Licensing Board) request that the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania produce Thomas Gerusky, Director of Radiological Health of the Commonwealth, as a witness in the remanded proceedings.
The Intervenors submit that both the Commonwealth and the Applicant have withheld inforration from the other parties and the Licensing Board which would tend to contradict the testimonies of various Staff, Commonwealth, and Applicant witnesses :encerning the ability of the Commonwealth's Bureau of Radiological Health (SRH) to respond to an emergency which may occur at a nuclear power plant. This infor ation, stated in the proceedings of an Environmental Protection Agency workshop, was one of the large number of publicly available reports that the Applicant has not supplied the NRC, in violation of 10 CFR 51.20 (d).
In a recent public statement, Gerusky has also contradicted the implica-tions of witnesses for the Applicant (testimony, after tr. 757) that he ano memoers of his staff are on 24-hour call for emergency response. Connonweal th Witness Molloy, the Dauphin County Civil Oefense Director, emphasized the importance of his reliance on Mr. Gerusky's organization for infornation and advice (tr.1363). Gerusky has also indicated publicly that the Bureau has 79041803 3 2 43 C
. suffered a manpower loss since the date of the EPA document.
The testimony o'f Gerusky is important to this proceeding because only he can provide the accurate details of the capabilities of his buread to respond in a nuclear emergency. He can assess his manpower capabilites and responsi-bili ti es. Obtaining this kind of infor-ation from the head of the organi:ation upon which the public must depend for its safety and infor-ation in the event of a radiological emergency is necessary and critical to this proceeding.
In its Initial Decision (I.D.), the Licensing Board assumed, without support on the record, that there would be other groups which could pick up the slack if BRH was unable to perform (I.D., Para. 64).
However, it must be remembered that the Applicant may not be relied upon, as the Staff Witnesses stated (tr. 1075-90), due to the Seabrook Decision, ALAB-3g0. This decision, and others preceding it, limit the Applicant's responsibility to the area within the Low Population Zone (LPZ). The unwiilingness of the Applicant to assume broader responsibilities is evident in the " Applicant's Response to Intervenors' Exceptions" in this proceeding, February 17, 1978 (Para. 39). No other group or agency was identified by the Board or in the record which could be depended upon to de* pond in a timely manner to a radiological emergency at TMI-2.
The Intervenors must, point out that they do not hcve the resources available to pay the witness fees in accordance with 10 CFR 2.720(d). The Intervenors suggest that the parties who illegally withheld the infor nation upon which this motion is based be assessed these fees, if these cat are found to be necessary.
At first reading, the letter of April 10, 1978, from Romayne M. Skrutsky, writing for the Appeal Board, to the Intervenors' representative Dr. Chauncey e - 5.8
~
. Kepford, seemed simply outrageous.
It seemed unnecessary for the Appeal Board to demand tnat the I'ntervenors account fully for every circumstance wnich precluded the meeting of an arbitrarily determined, unnecessarily brief, and unimportant deadline. Suosequent readings, however, reminded the Intervenors that they were dealing with the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. That explained everything. The fact that the Intervenors were unable to meet the deadline and so notified the Appeal Soard was ignored. Instead, the Appeal Board chose to place pointless obstacles in front of the already over-hassied and resource-depleted In!arvences and their representative. Such a course is much easier for the regulatory agency than facing up to the fraudulent deceptions perpetrated on the parties and the public by the Commission in the raden-222 issue. It is easier to flog the Intervenors for failing to meet a deadline, arbitrarily imposed, whose extension would prejudice no other party in this proceeding, than to face the certainty that at least two parties to this proceeding have withheld material evidence from the other parties and the Licensing Scard.
This dishonest concealment of vital information concerning the inadequacy of the emergency response capability is the subject of the motion wnich the Intarvenors were unable to file on time, having so notified the Board, and which Intervenors now file through this motion.
Tais harassment of the Intervenors also has the soothing effect of removir.g from the Appeal Board's consciousness the question of why a motion was necessary in the first place. The prejudicial errors of the Connonwealth and the Applicant in withholding this information apparently draws no notice this Appeal Board. Surely an order from the Appeal Scard demanding a thorough explanation from the Commanuealth and Applicant, in addition to an order,
(((3 ~ $3Cb)
~
4 sua sconte, for the production of Gerusky as a witness, would be in order.
Similarly, an order demanding an explanation of the Comission's repeated lying to everyone for years about the quantity of radon-222 associated with each year's operation of a nuclear power plant w. Jid be appropriate and-necessary to demonstrate the impartiality of the Appeal Scard and its good faith intent to resolve the radon issue on the basis of the full disclosure of the facts.
Tne reason for the non-prejudicial tardiness is that the thirteen-year-old automobile of Dr. Kepford suffered an engine failure in January,1978. Extreme financial restraints, including those imposed by the Comission's refusal of intervenor financing, had precluded earlier repair. The arrival of warmer weather allowed Dr. Kepford to extract the engine from his car, and the ten days in Virginia offered a place and opportunity to overhaul the engine. The complication which arose during that time was the necessity to overhaul also the engine of the automobile he was depending upon in the interim. Upon his return to State College, Pennsylvania, a major failure in the heating :ystem left his residence without heat or hot water for nearly a week. Repairing these problems in the plumbing system fully occupied h.s time. As a result of these and other unanticipated time-consuming events, the Intervenors were unable to file this motion by April 10, 1978.
It should also be noted that the Appeal Board itself contributed to the tardiness in two ways. The Board created confusion by mentioning this matter in ALA8-465, but neglecting to specify any deadlinec thereby giving an impression that the deadline was not definite, since it was arbitrary anyway, since it was only orally communicated to the Intervenors, and since nothing depended on that date suggested by the Board. Secondly, the transcript of the Maren 23, 1978,
~
argument before the Appeal Scard did not arrive until April 3,1978, which was 49 210
. rather late to be of help in formulating the motion to meet the original April 10 deadline..This transcript had been requested by Intervenors and had been premised by the Acpeal Board in confor ance witn the provision of transcript by tne Licensing Board. Without this transcript, it was unreasonaole to expect the Inter /enors to formulate a motion as important as this one in a timely fashion.
Lastly, the Intervenors have recently obtained new evidence which indicater that the Co:miission has cc:miitted fraud in' the granting of the operating licenst!
for TMI-2. This new evidence, in tne form of official Cc:miission documents, will soon be identified and described in a forthcoming motion. Therefore, the Inter /enors caution the other parties not to interpret this present motion to mean that the Intervenors acprove of or will not contest the continued illegal operation of TMI-2 (this illegality being a consequence of an incomplete Final Environmental Statement, due to the absence of consideration of long-term health effects, an incomplete cost-benefit analysis, Gotchy supplemental testimony not.
finalized, plus a record insufficient to allow the granting of a license as shown by the Appeal Board's decision to remand, etc.)
~
Respectfully submitted, i::. G.'
Chauncey Xepford April 16, 1978 Representative of the Intervenors 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 49 211
34 44 0 c,r y.._
-u n.., %
. 4eg CERTIFICATE _OF SERVICE
~
I herecy.. certify that c00ies of INTERVENCRS' MOTION TO CCMPet THE APDEARANCE OF TWCMAS GERUSXY have been tervec on tne folicwing Ey deposit in One U.5. MATE, Fi rs t Ci a s s, thi s n-tn day of April, ]978.
Edward Lutoa, Esc., Ch a irma n George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safet.v and !iceestag Board Shaw, Fittman, Fotta L U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Co==ission Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 2C555 15C0 M Street, N.N.
Wastington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomie.52fety and I.icensi g Soard Atomic Safety L Licensing U.S.
- uclear Regula:ory Cora.sission Soard 7snel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.C. Nuclear Rsgul'.2 tory Cc==ission Dr. Ernest O. Salo Washington, D.C. 2C555 Frofessor. Tinh= ries Research
!=stitute, Wi*-10 Ato-1c Onfety and *icensing College of Fisneries Appeal Soard Caiversity of wasnington U.S. Nuclese Regulatory Sa a ttle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ka rin W. Carter, Asst. Attorney General Office of Inforce ent Docketing and Service Cepart=ent of Eavironmental Resources Section 709 Health and Velfare 3uilding Office of the Secretary Earrisburg, Tennav1vania 17120 U.S. Nuclear Kerala tory Com=1 nica Washincton, D.C.
20555 alan S. Rosenthal,.sc., Chair.an, t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appecl Panel 2.farv U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission J. McGurces Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20cc5 Nuclear segulatory vossisaica Wassington, D.C.
2C553 Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member.
At mic Safety and Licensing Apceal Panel Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq., Mem::er U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Washington 0.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 205 s Oh 3
m
/y f/ fill /W/ /d.f fI Gy~*
q C.%""cey Le;Q:'i~ s
~7 NSt 5
Sepresentative of the 7.=terve=crs
[
s.:-$ %
L33 0:1ando Ave.
f. N., #
State College, h.16c01 y
eJ*' f
/.
A mt a
L
- .a. use