ML19294B538

Response in Opposition to Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York Request for Reconsideration of ASLB Third Special Prehearing Conference Order.No New Argument Presented Re Unspecified Emergency Planning Issues.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19294B538
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/20/1980
From:	Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003050052
Download: ML19294B538 (6)

Text

. .

February 20, 1980 s\g Tl /

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /[' j g xr n BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7 f e N 4 *Ny- ~

J/;9P /

Ls^ t :t' l s' s In the Matter of ) \ j, K

) ' / w.. . .

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY ANGRY The Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (" ANGRY")

has filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's Third Special Prehearing Conference Order. Cognizant of the Board's desire the parties not continue to argue and reargue matters already decided by the Board (see Tr. at 1601, 1604, 1605-06),

Licensee submits this brief opposition.

In its Third Special Prehearing Conference Order, the Board ruled that it "will accept emergency planning conten-tions which specify local circumstances raising questions about the adequacy of the Licensee's EPZs, but reject unspecified contentions which challenge the basic concept of the 10-mile and 50-mile EPZs" (p. 5). ANGRY Contention No. II(C) alleges that "emergenc-; planning capability should exist for all areas which could be adversely affected by the consequences of a nuclear accident. Such areas exist at distances up to one 8003050 ()[{))

hundred (100) miles from the reactor site."1/ Such a claim is precisely the sort of " unspecified" contention which the Board has ruled unacceptable.

In its reconsideration request, ANGRY presents no new argument not previously concidered and rejected by the Board.

Rather, it provides additional evidentiary support for'its claim that a 20-mile evacuation may have been considered during the TMI-2 accident. No one initially doubted that such considera-tions may have taken place. The relevant inquiry, and the one not addressed by ANGRY, is whether such considerations have a sufficient basis in fact. In the absence of any showing by ANGRY demonstrating some particular basis for evacuation plan-ning beyond 10 miles which is tied to plant or site specific considerations, the ANGRY contention remains " unspecified".

Indeed, the shallowness of ANGRY's analysis is evidenced by the fact that the Commission's adoption of the 10- and 50-mile EPZ's was in an October 18, 1979 Policy Statement (44 Fed. Reg. 61123 (October 23, 1979)), well after the TMI-2 accident and with full knowledge that consideration may have been given to a 20-mile evacuation during the accident. For these reasons the Board was correct in rejecting ANGRY Contention No. II (C) .

With respect to ANGRY Contention Nos. III ( A) (a) and III (B) (a) , the ANGRY motion is not actually for reconsideration, 1/

In its request for reconsideration, ANGRY for the first time offers to limit the thrust of this contention to twenty miles.

Regardless of whether the claim is that protective measures must be taken out to 100 miles or out to 20 miles, the logic under-lying the clain is still flawed.

~

but rather is a motion for leave to amend its contentions out of time. While ANGRY attempts to leave the impression that Conten-tion Nos. III ( A) (a) and III(B) (a) could have been read to be limited to " local circumstances", Licensee's review of the language used by ANGRY fails to indicate that such a possiLility was even lurking in the contentions. Instead, Contention Nos.

III (A) (a) and III(B) (a) represented attacks on the 10-mile EPZ which paralleled the claim in Contention No. II(C) . The Board was thus correct in rejecting these contentions.

As to the motion to amend the contentions, it ir un-timely and the criteria specified in 10 C.F.R. S 2. 714 (a) (1) (i)-

(v) justifying a late filing have not been demonstrated. No reason, let alone good cause, has been offered for the late fil-ing. In addition, any interests that ANGRY might seek to liti-gate in this area are protected fully since the Board already has admitted Sholly Contention No. 8(C) which raises issues similar to those which ANGRY now seeks to litigate. Efficiency during the hearing process, and the Board's desire that inter-venors consolidate positions through the use of lead parties, are not served by allowing intervenors to modify rejected con-tentions along the lines of other intervenors' contentions that previously have been admitted by the Board. ANGRY's request to amend Contention Nos. III(A) (a) and III(B) (a) should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, P TMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:

Rob 6rt E. Zah r Dated: February 20, 1980

February 20, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Res ta rt)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Opposition to Request for Reconsideration by ANGRY", were served upon those persons on the attached Servica List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day of February, 1980.

?

f/ h f

RobertE.jahler Dated: February 20, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Res tar t)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Ie/in, Esquire ChaiIran Msistant Counsel Atcmic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Ccrm'n Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Escuire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Ca missioners Board Panel Dauphin County CourtFouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and hhrket Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. 'Iburtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Escuire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission Office of Consumer Mvocate Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission Washington, D.C. 20555

Jordan D. Cunningham, Esqtnre Karin P. Sheldon, Escuire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclear T.M.I. Steering Ccriaittee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esqture Widoff Peager Selkowitz & Adler Fabert O. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 Chesapeake Energy Alliance Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 609 Mantpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Attorney for the Union of Concerned Chauncsy Keptord Scientists Jtriith i!. Johnsrud Sheldon, Hanton & Weiss Environmental Coalition cn Nuclear 1725 Eye Street, N.W. , Suite 506 Power Washington, D.C. 20006 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street Marvin I. Lewis Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Holly S. Keck Marjorie M. Aamodt Ingislatici Chainran R. D. 5 Anti-Nucleal Group Representing York Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 245 West Philtdelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404