ML19290D544
| ML19290D544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220148 | |
| Download: ML19290D544 (5) | |
Text
.
N
.f, y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
EO OC so A
59 h
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ljj VE.B \\
5 g
6#
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman g
n
/
Dr. Walter H. Jordan g
n@
.y Dr. Linda W. Little g
/
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
INTERIM ORDER ON LATE FILED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS (February 15, 1980)
Intervenors Mrs. Aamodt, Newberry Intervenors, and Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power have filed emergency planning contentions af ter the date provided by board order.
Although none of these intervenors has established good cause for late filing, because of certain mitigating factors and, for other reasons which will be discussed in a later memoranditm, the board in this instance, has considered these contentions on their merits without regard to their lateness.
In the meantime, so that the affected parties may proceed timely with discovery on emergency contentions, we list below the con-tentions which have been accepted by the board.
The later memorandum will detail the reasons why these contentions have been accepted and others rejected.
Because the board h'ad
- em e g
/W 8002s20
-2_
previously granted an extension of time to Newberry Intervenors for some emergency contentions, some, but not all, of the con-tentions accepted below were timely filed.
Mrs. Aamodt Mrs. Aamodt's Contention No. 4 as it has been amended by her " Comments" dated January 15, 1980 is accepted.
It will be construed in light of her explanation of the contention contained in her January 31 response to licensee's objection to the contention.
The board also accepts Mrs. Aamodt's Con-tention No. 5 regarding care or relocation of livestock.
The contention is not now sufficiently specific for litigation; Mrs. Aamodt will be expected to revise the contention for specificity after discovery.
The licensee is directed to assist Mrs. Aamodt in gathering the information to be contained in the Department of Agriculture Fixed Nuclear Facility Incident Plan.
Newberry Intervonors The board ruled upon Newberry Intervenors' earlier emergency planning contentions in the Third Special Prehearing Conference Order.
In i ts filing of January 11, 1980 Newberry files " Contention Number 3" with subparts 1 through 13.
The board renumbers Newberry's contentions to be consistent with its earlier numbering scheme.
Therefore Newberry's January 11 revised contentions will be Contention No. 3(d)(1) through (13).
The board accepted Newberry Contentions 3(d)(1) through (5), (7 ), and (9) through (12).
We reject Contentions 3(d)
(G), (8), and (13).
ECNP In its filing of January 7, 1980 ECNP submitted its
" revised cont i.on on emergency preparedness."
This is probabl'/ a reference to ECNP's original Contention No. 2, consideration of which was deferred pending the licensee's revision of its emergency response plans.
Pages 1 through G of ECNP's revis9d Contention No. 2 are general comments and a listing of some 21 alleged " assumptions" in licensco's plans.
These are not couched in a form useful as contentions, but could be considered as general bases for contentions.
On pages 7 through 13 of revised Contention No.
2, ECNP lists subcontentions numbered 1 through 38, which are generally in a form suitable for consideration as contentions.
The board designates them as Contentions 2-1 through 2-38.
The board accepts ECNP Contentions 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-20, 2-26, 2 2-30, 2-33, 2-3 6 a nd 2-3 8.
ECNP Contentions 2-2 and 2-4 are accepted for discovery but ECNP is required to provide more specificity following discovery.
Contention 2-7 is accepted, but only insofar as it asserts inadequacies in the licensee's plan for informing the public of possible releases.
Contention 2-30 is consolidated with Contention 2-20.
Chesapeake Energy Alliance (CEA)
The board accepted CEA's emergency planning Contentions No. 2 (b ) (c ) and (d) in the First Prehearing Conference Order.
However, CEA was required to address licensee's revised emergency response plans af ter which the board would reconsider CEA's contentions.
CEA was also urged by the board to redraft Contention No. 2 (c ).
Upon reconsideration of CEA's Contention No.2(b)(c) and (d), the board now dismisses them for default and for other reasons which will be explained in our later memorandum.
THE A'IDMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
%.h f y4#
~
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland February 15, 1980.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
This is to certify that I have today placed in the mail copies of the Licensing Board's INTERIM ORDER ON LATE FILED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS, dated February 15, 1980, addressed to the following parties to this proceeding.
Ms. Marj orie M. Aamodt R. D. #5 Coatesville, PA.
19320 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Fox, Farr & Cunningham 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA.
17110 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA.
16801 Mr. Robert Q. Pollard Chesapeake Energy Alliance 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, MD.
21218 In addition, I certify that I have today read the respectively relevant portions of the above identified Order to representatives of Intervenors Aamodt, Newberry Township T.M.I. Steering Committee, and Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power.
/
N W
Doris M. Moran Clerk to the Board February 15, 1980 Bethesda, Maryland