ML19270H642

Requests Extension of Time to Respond to NRC Brief on Rulemakings,Per 791114 Prehearing Conference.Urges Issuance of EIS Containing Study of Class 9 Accident.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19270H642
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/30/1979
From:	Aamodt M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Jordan W, Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7912310142
Download: ML19270H642 (6)

Text

-

ks l

Lnewhill Farm, Rural Celivery 5 Lpringdell Road, Ecx 42C Coatet ville, . ennsylvani a IS32r McVember 30, 1575

! van t . Lmith, Esqui.re, Chairnan Atemic Cafety and Iicensi.ne neard .c -

7-'*L.

U.L. Nuclear Regulatory Co.ni.csion - (4 9

Uashington, L. C. 2C555 dc[$)~ 6, 'l

+sa '

Lr. V alter h. Jordan, Meneer !25 Atomic Lafety and licensing toard $ $73 > Ty i 3% gqq -

eel i est cuter Lrive  ;$ e* t?1,w,,-

Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37f30 ' *"~ud" .#

s Cr. ;inda i. little, Tetber 4 Atcmic ! afety and Iicensing Esard sf 1 "'

5c cc herritage Crive 9.aleich, North Carolina 27612 in the 5.atter of kETROFCIITAN El;IiCN CCL AIN. Three Mile Island Nuclear Ltation, Unit No. 1 Locket No. Sr-EES (Restart,'

Ccar it.r. Chairnan and Members of the Eoard:

At the ; rehearing conference in harrisburg, McVenter 14,1C75,

etiti.cners were given the o;;crtunity to respond to the Nuclear F.egulatory Commi.ssion Ltaff brief en rulenakings and to substantiate request for an Environnental Impact itatement (E!i' to be made prior to the Three-isile Island Nuclear 1tation Unit 1 (Ti.!-1' restart hearing, presently scheduled for February, IcEC.

Jetitioner has experienced some delayed preparation of this response,perscnal hence is diff*

re culties which have the s ervicing of this response and additional tir. questing e te add toleniency in for reasons request of an EIL.

Fetitioner also desires to respond to a letter, discussed at that meeting, addressed to the Eoard on November 13, IS7c regarding the licensee's intervenors. offer te prov3.de duplication and service of documents for Additionally, petitioner wishes to discuss connents cade by the Ecard at that t.eting relative to provision for legal counsel for inter-vencrs.

-~

1.

Regarding the NRC Erief on the Effect of Rulenakings upon the Issues cf the TV.I-l cuspension ;-roceedi.ng, petitioner is in agreement with staff's conclusions regarding ruleaakings. It is respectfully suggested or engoing that evidence rulemaking bybrcught forv.ard in the hearing may at.d subsequent the Comnission. Erring on the side of duplicity wculd appear a better course that could result from oversights. due to the serious and grave consequences

2. Regarding the Novemoer 13, 1979 letter of thaw, Pittman, Fotts and Troweridge, counsel for licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company, to the Ecard, petitioner objects to certain stipulations:

7012310 l QQ,(y

^

2 Page 2, Nunoer 3 of this letter requires intervenors to " hand deliver" a cocv of the document to be duplicated and serviced to Eiddletcwn, Pa.

(Opticn A) or Washington, D. C. (Cption m during ncrmal wcrking hours er en Face 3, Muncer 4, te deliver by Express Mail (Cption C) . Federal, E >.p re s s (Cption D} or com.carcole reliable mess enger service to t achi ngton, D. C. office of counsel. (Cption designation those of petitioner.,

icensee states refusal to accept de18very by ordinary natl.

Assuming preparation of intervenor's documents in Coaterville, Fa. ,

Cptien A and n would require frem three to five hours if autcmobile and fuel were available, or as much as double that tinc if public transportati cn were used. Option C is not available at Ceatesville, the clcsest U. E.

T est Office offering this service being at King of Frussia, Fa. , distant apprcximately one hour driving time. Cost of Express " ail is (7 5c cer c

n'ound. Option D, Federal Express, is less viable frsm Coatesville, the earest office being in Kilmington, Delaware, with cost of a Courier Jack Envelope ceing $17 50. Documents nailed by Federal Express on Fr'. day would not te guaranteed delivery until noon on 7:onday.

The Fostmaster at Coatesville, Fa. estimates that regular mail service ordinarily takes no mcre than ene additional day over Express Mail. Lince regular nail service nas been used for service of nearly all documents relating to this hearing, it would seem (if this offer is intended as interpreted oy staff at the harrisburg neeting} that if an intervenor, by necessity, would channel documents through the licensee, that this should not be prevented by e>.traordinary requirements for delivery, that by this same letter of Novemoer 13, the licensee has ackncwledged intervenors need assistance in duplicating and distributing corres-pondence in order to minimise delay of he hearing process. however, the Irocessing of correspondence through the licensee would shorten the time available licensee to theintervenors "first look"toand meet deadlines for response. It would give the response. advantages gained from this in making their wculd workIntervenors' in favor of licensee need forinsecretarial and financial assistance the proceeding. Fetitioner, therefore, requests the board and financial assistance. for advice in regard to licensee letter of November 13

3. Regarding legal and other assistance to intervenors , petitioner refers Intervencrs, to URC Etaff Response to .'etiticn to T eek NRC Funding for Consumer Novemeer 21, ic 79, that (;. sce T . :cu;sti.:n requi re -

p e r. . -

to petition the licensing board to certify the question to the Conniesion ...

At the Harrisourg meeting, the Ecard stated that petitioners had pre-sented themselves hczever, it would seem in a sophisticated to petitioner manner that in that did not require counsel.

levei, full and proper tools are necessary. If,ursuing any jcb at its best therefere, anv contention i c. deemed worthy to be w orked, and that work is required to' be acccepli.ched thrcugh inplenentlegal process, for all werkers. it would appear that legal counsel is a necercary For i.ntervencrs to perfccm in a manner a' nd with ex;ertise that has required lawyers years cf preparation and experience, or te theaddress hearing,their time to meet denand of other schedules, as well as those of or to meet these requirements frcm inadequate funds would, it seems, not be in the best interest of an expeditious and complete it would see= to petitioner that the sacrifi.ce requirbd of intervenors would not be in accord with the traditional fairness of the courts.

et I ' ~~

I 1

Further evidence of the arpropriatenezr cf local councel fcr all is the uce of many such councel by licenree, Nhc and teard, cIthcUCh all have

any dis tingui.ched ccienti.ste , environmentalists . etc. at emplcyces or cr.oers. These ceunsel n'.11 be a:rking with h'.I b :ar.* ng as thei.r pr' ary

.crk arca.

petiticner, therefore, respectfully requettc the Ecard to certi.fy thic question to the Conmissien.

4 Due to 4.11 nets of petiti ener, heli. day celebratien including a fanily trip last weekend, and business commit?.ents of fantly, peti ttener s as not aole by this day to visit recource centers provi.ded by licencee and staff to prepare a brief in sup;. ort of an Invir.:nmental Impact itatenent. Petitioner requests additional tine to 1repare evidence,

.hile entering Lection 5 at area of *.nterect.

5 Regarding the need for an :nvironmental Impact itatement.

etitioner wiches to put before the Ecard Cententi cn 7 frcs ;cge 3 of sreads, etiticninfer Interventien of Marjorie M. Aamodt, cctccer 22, 1579 thich part

"l(CFRIC O.11(b (3l rules that the combined routine releases frcm more than one reactor at a single site cannet exceed the naminun allewaole releares , implying acknewledgement (by the Ecard of the total radiation dete to the envircnment."

Petitioner understands from a Discovery P.eeting with staff that li censing has troceeded en a site oy site casio, hcz ever Rules and F.egulaticns , Iart 2C , itandards for i rotection I. gainst Radiation acknow-ledges the limiting factor of " prior dese" (2r.1r2; for workere. The cunulative nature cf radiation is well-established and accepted. Tetitione

rcrores that these concepts were not incerf orated to include the residente in the fifty mile area around the cite when the final Environmental

. tatement for TMI_1 and 2 was prepared in December, 1972.

Fetitioner's residence in t outhern Chester County is at the center of a perimeter of nuclear operaticn and construction, invclving a total of fcurteen plants within 23 tc'4E miles.

This area has received fallout frem prev 5ous atmospheric testi.ng, particularly the Chinese fallout of 1577 (43. FR5E75( .

Petitioner requests that an EIt include study of " prior and total dose" of residents within fifty miles of TMI-1. The final Envircnmental tatement for TMI-l and 2 (NUREG-(552, page V-25. paragraph 5; acknew-ltdges the concept of total dose, referring to "comoined dose to all

~ individuals living within fifty miles of the station" (regarding gasecus

" effluents } , how ever the concept war not truly applied in a manner which accessed the true, and in fact, exposure and Iroposed expcsure of the public.

Petitioner fearfully and humbly calls attention of the Board to the geographical situation, present and proposed, which may be unique, and for which there may be little er no ;rccedent and requests discreti on-ary acticn purcuant to ICCFR2.EC1, leaning on the argunents of staff.

(NRC Brief on the Effect of Rulenakings upon the Iscues of 'the ir.I-l luspension Treceeding, November 16, 1979:

k that risks of Icw-level ionitf.ng radiation n'cht beitudies since the Dece through footnote:

extrapolation from effects of h! her E deses. greater than determ'r.ec (NUAEG-C 55F , :. age L9 Tren page 51 of tnis sane study ecnes the c r.nbre .sarni.ng:

Icw "The exact numerical value for the risk of genetic injury from doses in man is uncertain."

Therefere the restart of Ti!I-1 does involve a "najor Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment"(iiaticnal i Environmental Policy Act of 1505), and we request the teard tc rule that a final envircnnental statment be required bero e restart of T!'.I-1.

The principle basis kncv.n to petitioner is F.anly v. Kleindienst 471F2dc23 (2d Cir. l$72), 412 UiscE (1973; where ccurt held (471F2d at EJC-31} :

should normally be required to review. . . . the agency in charge , althcugh ves ted .cith of ..... the prcycsed action in the light action itself, j ncludinc the cunulative harmenvironmental effects of the the aosolute quantitative adverse that results frca i ts cen-

_tricution to existine adverse conditi ens or uses in the affected area.

• In addition, the recently promulfsted regulaticns by the Council on Envircnmental Quality implementing e trovisions of tiEiA stated:

" Agencies shall prepare supplements to either craft or final environ-mental inpact statements if . . . . There are si nifi cant nev. circumstances er infornation prepcsed relevant action to environmental concerns and tearing on the er its impacts."

(4CCFR15C2.9(c)(1})

.Lecause it has been the policy of the Board to consider Class 9 accidents outside of the review process in licensing procedures, and parallely cutside the scope of all heretofore prepared envircnmental statements , it is evident that the events asscciated with the TMI-2 failure provided many new circumstances and provided much new information relevant of 77.I-1.to environmental ccncerns which cear en the propcsed reopening Petitioner and family request the assurance of an environmental statement that takes into account the total accumulated and projected radiati on exposure of perscns , animals and food supply. In addition, since and cuildingsthe life with investment of petitioner tne ' nuclear and family is in the land, animals circle' descrioed (a situation that is ccnnon to many farm families in this circle', petitioner requests that the ecmoined probacility of nuclear accident, including class 9 accidents, ce studied, witn resolution of compensation for less or depreciatien.

Respectfully suomitted, n

, rA /_ {. '/ . ,. '

" %'.Y Marjorie b". Aamodt s

Enphasis that of petitlener cc: Attached Eervice :ist Mm**

s e E'

TSSI  %

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,1 c.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L '- 05-L 5 B7W70 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h.'  ;-*:',WC.T

b dp' A

/ . *-'

In the Matter of )

)

.iETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing rennsylvania Public Utility

' Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 3265 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Karin W. Carter, Esquire ~

Atomic Safety and* Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Com=cnwealth of Pennsylvania 881 West Outer Drive 505 Executive House Oak Ridge, Tennessee P. O. Box 2357 37330 r;arrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Linda W. Little Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Atemic Safety and Licensing Assistant Solicitor Board Panel County of Dauphin 5000 Hermitage Drive D. O. Box P Peleigh, North' Carolina 27612 407 North Front Street James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Office of the Executive Legal John E. Minnich Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Dauphin County Board

- Commission of Ccmmissioners Washington, D.C. Dauphin County Courthouse 20555 Front and Market Streets Docketing and Service Section Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Office of the Secretary Walter W. Cohen, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regult. tory Consumer Advocate Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 O%

ape e

• e=**"

Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Karen Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss i T.M.I. Steering Committee Suite 506 j 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Robert O. Pollard Widoff Reager Selkowit: & Adler Chesapeake Energy Alliance P. O. Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Judith H. Johnsrud Suite 506 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Environmental Coalition on Washington, D.C. Nuclear Power 20006 433 Orlando Avenue Steven C. Sholly State College, Pennsylvania 16801 '

304 South Market Street Marvin I. Lewis Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 6504 Bradford Terrace Frieda Berryhill Chairman, Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement UebrgeiF.Trewor-idge, Esquire 2610 Glendon Drive ShaQ, Dittman, Fotts & Trewbridge Wilmington, Delaware 19808 lEcciE' .Stieet , N . k. .'. naa - - ~ 10 i.ashington, D. C. 20036 Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 ,

m o O m * * .

mm e

I 6

-