ML19257D670

Response in Opposition to Licensee 801202 Objections to Revised Contention 8 Re Emergency Planning in Restart Proceeding.Alleges Deficiencies in Emergency Planning Implementing Procedures.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19257D670
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/07/1980
From:	Shally S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002050329
Download: ML19257D670 (13)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.

     ~      ~
                                                                           .[,                 N

• ~ . s

                       -                                              /-        ei p . -{ ~. . .
                                                                                  %m e , _'N.

s IQ A~s $ . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O 'N 907. ' ;I

                                                                      ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg es - y:t.: / BEFORE THE AT_QHIC SA ~ETY AND LICENSING BOAPD dl . In the Matter of MEIROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

                                        )            ( Res tar _e )

(Three Mlle Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY RESPONSE TO LICENSEE OBJECTIONS TO REVISED DERGENCY PLANNDU CONTENTION Steven C. Sholly, Intervenor, flied wLth the Board on 17 December 1979 his revised Emergency Planning Contention (Contention #8). Licensee filed his response, containing objections to certain subsections of Revised Contentton 48, on 2 December 1980. Intervenor heretn addresses those objections. Before responding to each specific objection, Intervenor here restates his positLon that it is absolutely necessary to have available for review a copy of Licensee's Emergency Plan Implementing Document, availability of which has been dented by Licensee. The EPID contains the sepcific procedures by which the Emergency Plan is implemented. The plan itself may be satisfactory, but if the Implementing Procedures themselves are faulty, the Emergency Plan is worthless . Licensee would have the Intervenors be sa:Ls fied'with only a Staff review of the EPID once the Emergency Plan has be e.- found adequate. This Ls not satisfactory in any way. L;censee "as posed no si=Llar objections to the review of numerous 1875 053 soon cr c 25 a 1

other operational procedures and there exists no good reason for not including a review of the Emergency Procedures within the fran0 work of this proceeding. Indeed, inadequate operationr1 procedures played a major role in the Unit 2 accident, and a major lesson learned from that accident, which was cited by the LLIF, was that operational procedures required improvement to assure the protection of pubite health and safety. Once the systems which prevent accidents from occurring in the first place break down and an accident occurs , the only thing protecting the public health and safety is the existence of an effective emergency plan, complete with procedures which assure that the plan is implemented on a timely basis . Availability of the EPID for review and revision of emergency planning contentions is an absolute necessity and this Intervenor continues to insist on tnis point. Intervenor now addresses the objection, raised to the various subparts of Revised Contention #8: S UEPA RT " C" Licensee mischaracterites th5 s subpart as an attack on the Commission's Policy Statement which adopted NUREG-0396 as the basis for emergency planning for nuclear power plants. As Licensee points out, the adequacy of the EFZ concept is the subject of an ongoing rulemaking proceeding and that proceeding is 1875 054

the propoer forum in which to pursue changes in Commission policy. What this subpart addresses is not the adequacy of the EPZ concept but rather the manner in which Licensee has applied the concept in his Emergency Plan. Licensee, in his 01/02/80 filing, quotes two of the major conclusions of the Report of the Task Force on Emergency Planning (NUREG-0396) in support of his position. These two phrases, taken alone, give the appearance that the TFEP supports a rigid application of the EPZ concept in such a manner that all nuclear power pl. ants will have a 10-mile Plume Exposure EFZ and a 50-mile Ingestion Exposure EPZ. These two conclusions , when examined in the light of what is written in the rest of the report, yield 1 an entirely different interpretation. In examining the contents of NUREG-0396, the following statements are found

1. "EPZs are designated as the areas for ehich planning is recommended to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the oublic in the event of an accident." ^(NUREG-0396 at page 11)

2. "It is expected that the judgment of the planner will be used in determining the precise size and shape of the EFZs considering local conditions such as demography, topography and land use characteristics, access routes, jurts-dictional boundaries, and arrangements with the nuclear facility operator.for notification and response assistance."

(NUREG-0396 at page 14) l'875 055

3. " Based on the information provided in Appendix I and the applicable PAGs a radius of about 10 miles was selected for the plu=e exposure pathway and a radius of about 50 miles was selected for the i:tgestion exposure pathway, as shown in table 1.

Although the radius for the EPZ implie. a circular area, the actual shape would depend uoan the characteristics of a carticular site." (NUPEG-0396 at page 16)

4. Specifically for the plume exposure pathway, an EPZ radius of about a 10-mile circular radius is given as guidance in Table 1 on page 17. This guidance is asterisked with reference to the bottom of the page to the following statement, " Judgment should be used in adopting this distance based upon consid-erations of local tanditions such as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jarisdiccional boundaries."

(NUP.EG-0396 at page 17) It is obvious from quotes 2, 3, and 6 above that the TFEP did not envision a rigid application of the 10- and 50-mile EPZs for all nuclear power plants , but rather that eacn site be examined within the context of the NUP3G-0396 guidelines and such local considerations as demcgraphy, topography, 17.nd use , acces s routes , and local jurisdictional boundaries , to determine if the simplest application of the EPZs (i.e. , a circular radius of 10 miles f or plume exposure and a circular radius of 50 miles for ingestion exposure) is sufficient to assure that prompt and effectice actions can be taken to protect the public in the 1875 056 event of an accident. It it the application of these principles in the Licensee's Emergency Plan which is at issue in Subpart C , not the adequacy of the EPZ concept itself as the Licensee misinterprets this

subpart to mean. S UBPART "D" Licensee states in his filing of 01/02/80 that is is previously stated that the proposed 10-mile EPZ is based in part on less severe core melt accidents. Nowhere within the Licensee's Emergency Plan has this Intervenor been able to locate any evidence that any core melt accident or any other Class 9 accident has been taken into consideration in determining the EPZs for plume and ingestion exposure pathways. If such discussion is in the Emergency Plan, Intervenor would appreciate being directed thereto. Inasmuch as considerations of C' ass 9 accidents are required by the implementation of the planning concepts in NUREG-u;96, this subpart is contended. Intervenor does not seek to require consideration of "more severe Class 9 accidents" cs is implied by the Licensee at page 13 of his 01/02/30 filing. This subpart seeks evidence that the required Class 9 considerations have indeed been incorporated into the EPZs proposed by the Licensee. This subpart is not an attack on the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ as i.nplied by the Ltcensee. Again, Licensee has grossly mischaracterized this Intervenor's contention in such a manner as to induce the Board to reject portions of this contention. 1875 057

Intervencr urges that the Board examine Subpart D before adopting the Licensee's obvious misinterpretation thereof. SUBPART "O" This subpart is a nearly identical restatement of an NRC criticism of the Licensee's Emergency Plan. Licensee's Emergency Plan attempts to address this issue in Section 8 , pages 8-1 through 8-10 of Amendment 6 to the " Restart Report." Intervenor's contention is that this discussion is insufficient to assure the effectiveness of the emergency plan throughout the operational ILfetime of Unit 1. The Licensee's Section 8 of the Emergency Plan itself is vague, contains insuffucient detail, and lacks the specificity necessary to determine that Licensee has adequately planned for changes to the Emergency Plan which will be necessitated by changing local conditions such as demography and access routes . SUBPART "S" This subpart is very specific as to the canner in which the letters of agreement and understanding are inadequate. To clear up any confusion on the pa rt of the Licensee as to which letters are referred i875 058

to in this subpart, none of the letters of agreement and understanding sufficiently reflect the concerns addressed in this subpart (i.e., specificity of assistance to be provided and mutually acceptable criteria for the implementation of such assistance). SUBPART "T" This subpart is somewhat vague. NUREG-0396 addresses the thrust of this subpart in two statements:

1. "The key to effective planning is good communication to authorities who know what they are going to do under pre-determined conditions." (at page 13)

2. "The time available for action is strongly related to the time consumed in notification that conditions exist that could cause a major release or that a major release is occurring." (at page 19)

It is in this light that this subpart is advanced. Licensee's Emergency Plan fails to acknowledge these conditions and the conditions addressed in this subpart of Contention 48. These issues are the crux of the situation which occurred in the Unit 2 accident with respect to the ability of the Licensee to recognize the existence of conditions which could lead to major releases of radiation into the environment, the time consumed by the Licensee from the initiation of obviously severe conditions to the notification of off-site authorities , and the conflicting information provided to those authorities on which to base their 1875 059

response to the conditions at the plant. This subpart addresses one of the so-called

 " mind-set" issues, specifically the unfounded confidence that all conditions which can lead to off-site releases will be recognited by plant operators in a timely manner and that notification of off-site authorities of such conditions will be accomplished in sufficient time to permit the implementation and completion of appropriate emergency responses. This is a philosophical issue which involves no specific portian of the Emergency Plan but rather the entirety thereof. Evidence presented on this issue during litigation will inevitably involve a judgment by the Board as to whether this issue has been adequately addressed by Licensee. Intervenor feels that this is an important issue within the context and deserving of pursuit in the proceedings.

If more detail and specificity are required, Intervenor will provide such at the direction of the Board. SUBPART "Z" This subpart again, in spite of Ltcensee's protest-ations to the contrary, does not attack a Commission regulation. Licensee has no reliable means by which to control access to the Susquehanna River within the exclusion area. If Licensee is depending upon the Ccast Guard for such access control, the letter of agreement i87S 060~

with the Coast Guard, on page 2 of Appendix C to the Emergency Plan, clearly undercuts the sufficiency of this approach wherein it is stated:

                     "It should be understood that most of our facilities are located at some distance away and are primarily oriented toward response in coastal and maritime areas.

Due to involvement in primary mission areas such as search and rescue, maritime pollution and fisheries law enforcement, a further delay may be encountered due to the time that would be involved in re-calling and redirecting Coast Guard resources, if warranted, to your area." It should be further noted that this letter is signed by the Chief of the Operations Division of the Third Coast Guard District in New York, NY. If Licensee ts depending upon State Police or local police to provide access control, none of the letters of agreement contained within the Emergency Plan so indicate. If it will assist in avoiding confusion for this subpart , Intervenor consents, at the Board's discretion, to the deletion of the word " legal" from this subpart (last sentence of Subpart Z, page 6 of Intervenor's submittal of 12/17/79). 1 S U3 PA P,T " EE" 1875 061 Intervenor hereby withdraws Subpart EE of Contention 48 and redesignates Subpart FF as Subpart EE and re-designates Subpart GG as Subpart FF to provide continuity within the alphabetical senece used

in this Contention. Respectfully submitted,

                                                       ).         ,.,

y ,J!'.o- . f. !r-il; , Steven C. Sholly fl DAAED: / January 1980 304 South Market St.' Mechanicsburg, PA L170 5 (717) 766-1857 566-3237 566-3238 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Steven C. Sholly, hereby certify that a single copy of INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SECLLY RF,SPONSE TO LICENSEE OBJECTIONS TO REVISED DIERGENCY PLANNI.'U CONTENTION was filed by hand delivery tc the IMI Observation Center, addressed to the Attenti.on Of Mr. John Wilson, as per the requirenents for service to other parties in this proceeding by the Licensee.

                                                           *            ^
                                      ,-            ,        .       i
                                         's.,'
                                          /       -                       .

Steven C. Sholly , p s 18/5 062

. ,s

                                                                             ,?  g . -

N '/c:\,

                                                                              .,   g'.T
                                                                      ,           U 53_"-           p 01-                             -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                                      ~"
                                                                            'jhN 1 4 s80 P             4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                              i 4       ?

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A';D LICENSING BOARD ms ,.,.e

                                                                                                  ?

D , se-s.. In the Matter of )

                                   )

METROPOLITX; EDIS0N CCMPX"-l ) (Res tart)

                                   )

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) CERT!FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Inter /enor Steven C. Sholly Response To Licensee Objections To Revised Energency Planning Contention dated January 7, 1980, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observa: ion Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, en Januarf 3, 1980 were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposi in the United States nail, postage paid, this 9th day of Januarf, 1980. f$$- nison

                                          /JonnF.

Dated: Januaz. 3, 1960 1875 063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REG-~ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

                                    )

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) L eket No. 50-289

                                    )                             (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Snith, Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Ato=ic Safety and Licensing Cc==onwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 2357 Co==ission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assis tan t Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin Board Panel P.O. Box ? 881 West Guter Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. M_innich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Cot =issioners 5000 Her=itage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Ja=es A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consu=er Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission Attorney for Newberry Township Washington, D.C. 20535 T.M.I. Steering Com=ittee 2320 North Second Street John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Public Utility Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Com=ission Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

• Person en whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.

i8/5 064

Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Chesapeake Energy Alliance Suite 506 609 Montpelier Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Baltinore, Maryland 21218 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chauncey Kepford Steven C. Sholly

• Judith H. Johnsrud 304 South Market Street Environ = ental Coalition on Nuclear Power Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Holly S. Keck Legislation Chair =an Marvin I. Lewis Anti-Nuclear Group Representing 6504 Bradford Terrace York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. 5 Karen Sheldon, Esquire Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Sheldon, Har=on & Weiss Suite 506 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Shaw, Pite=an, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20006 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

• Person on whose behalf service is being =ade. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.

i875 065 ,}}