ML19296B984
| ML19296B984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002250005 | |
| Download: ML19296B984 (9) | |
Text
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
)
/
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
/.
)
/r.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
[--
~
y'! '
t Unit 1)
)
L~. !
Q. fl
\\:
/'~
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP
v' TMI STEERING COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND Fl1RTHER AND FINAL AMENDED CONTENTIONS On January ll,1980, the Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee, et al.
(Newberry) filed two pleadings: one entitled "Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee's Request for an Extension of Time to File a Revised Contention to Revision 1 of the Emergency Plan Submitted by Licensee" and one setting out its "Further and Final Amended Contentions" with respect to Metropolitan Edison Company's Emergency Plan.
In response to these pleadings the NRC l
Staff first addresses its procedural concerns and then sets forth its position on the merits of Newberry's revised contentions.
I.
Procedural Issues By a letter dated December 21, 1979, Newberry requested the Licensing Board to grant it an extension of time until January 28, 1980 to file revised con-tentions on emergency planning. The Licensing Board on January 8,1980 granted Newberry an extension until Ja.tuary 14, 1980 to file emergency planning con-tentions based on new information contained in the licensee's revised Emergency Plan.
(Memorandum and Order, Slip op. at 5). At the same time, the Board denied Newberry's request for an extension to file contentions based on infor-mation previously available to it. (Id.). When Newberry filed its contentions and its request for an extension of time on January 11, 1980, it apparently was not cognizant of the Board's January 8,1980 Order. Thus, insofar as Newberry's 8 0022 50 g g~
. January 11,1980 contentions are based on new information, they are timely filed and its January 11, 1980 request for an extension is superfluous.
In-sofar as the Newberry contentions filed January 11,1980 are based on infor-mation previously available, however, the Licensing Board has already denied Newberry's request for an extension of time.
(I_d,.). It is the NRC Staff's position that most of the contentions filed on January 11, 1980 are based on information available to Newberry since late October -1/
and that these conten-tions should not be admitted absent a showing of good cause under 10 CFR 12.714(a)(1).
The licensee submitted its original Emergency Plan with Amendment 4 to its
" Report in Response to NRC Staff Recommended Requirements for Restart of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1" (Restart report). The Emergency Plan and the Amendment were sent to all Intervenors on October 31, 1979.
Amendment 6 to the Restart report contained major revisions to the licensee's Emergency Plan and was sent to all Intervenors on November 28, 1979. Amend-ment 6, according to the licensee, contains the most recent version of the Emergency Plan. (" Licensee's Response to Request by ECNP for an Extension of Time", dated December 31,1979, p. 2).
Although Newberry states that some of their January 11, 1980 contentions could not have been raised earlier, upon examination of these contentions it is the position of the Staff that only Subsection (12) is based on new information.
All of the other contentions could have been presented after review of the original Emergency Plan submitted by the licensee in late October. Thus, Sub-section (12) should be considered timely filed as it is based on information contained in Amendment 6.
The remainder of the contentions are based on information previously available to Newberry, are not timely filed, and should not be admitted unless good cause is shown.
1/ Only Subsection (12) of Newberry's recent filing appears to be based on new information.
3-The regulations state that non-timely filings will not be entertained unless it is determined that the petition or request should be granted based upon a balancing of five factors:
(1) Good cause, 'if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Late filed contentions are to be censidered as late filings to which these standards must be applied.
(Memorandum and Order, January 8,1980, Slip op, at 7).
It is evident that Newberry has not met the first factor, the good cause requirement. Newberry's only justification for late filing is that it did not have time to determine what changes the licensee had made in the original Emergency Plan and to frame its contentions accordingly. Because all of its contentions, with the exception of Subsection (12), were based on the original Plan which was sent October 31, 1979 and not on Amendment 6, this argument is not persuasive. Newberry had from approximately October 31, 1979 to December 19, 1979 to frame its contentions.
Other intervenors have been able to meet this deadline. ~2/
Newberry has shown no good cause for late filing.
2_/ Detailed emergency planning contentions have been filed by Steven C.
Sholly (December 17, 1979), Union of Concerned Scientists (December 18, 1979) and Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (December 18,1979).
4-Absent a showing of good cause, the burden of justifying the late filing based on the other 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a)(1) factors is greater than where good cause has been shown. Nuclear Fuel Services, et al. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), C1.I-75-4,1 NRC 273 (1975). Newberry has failed to even address the other four factors.
In any event, it is the Staff's view
~
that those factors do not, on balance, favor acceptance of Newberry's late-filed contentions.
It appears that other intervenors will adequately represent Newberry's interest in this proceeding since many of the concerns raised by Newberry in its non-timely contentions are also raised in the timely filed contentions of other intervenors.
(See, e.o., "Petitior.er's Revised Emergency Planning Contention By Steven C. Sholly, Petitioner", dated December 17, 1979).
Thus, Newberry does not meet the fourth requirement in the consideration of ' untimely filings.
The other three factors under 10 C.F.R.12.714(a)(1), however, appear to favor to some extent acceptance of the late-filed contentions. Newberry cannot pro-tect its interest in this proceeding in any way other than by direct partici-pation.
In addition, Newberry has demonstrated its interest and ability to assist in the development of a sound record.
Finally, Newberry's submittal of its emergency planning contention will cause no delay in this proceeding.
In conclusion, the NRC Staff believes that Newberry's revised emergency planning contentions filed January 11, 1980, with the exception of Subsection (12), were not timely.
Further, Newberry has made no showing of good cause for the late filing and does not appear to have met its burden with respect to the other requirements M 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1). The Staff realizes, however, that-the balancing of
. the five factors is a close question and in the event the Board should find that the late-filed Newberry contentions should be entertained, the NRC Staff has provided its response to the merits of those contentions.
II. Substantive Resconse Newberry submitted its final revisions to its original emergency planning contentions on January 11, 1980. The NRC Staff has no objections to the following subsections of Newberry's revised Contention 3: (1),(2),(3),
(5), (7), (11), and (12).
It is the Staff's view that these contentions raise litigable issues within the scope of the proceeding and are set forth with adequate specificity and basis. The Staff position on the remainder of the subsections is set forth below.
Subsection (4)
Althcugh the second sentence is confusing and its meaning unclear, the Staff has no objection if Newberry is asserting that all emergency plans relating to licensee's Plan at TMI should be uniform in order to avoid confusion in the event of an emergency and that a date certain be set for the correlation of differing emergency plans.
Subsection (6)
This subsection is impermissibly vague because it fails to s9ecify what inadequacies Newberry sees in the licensee's security force as it is presently staffed. Further, this subsection states no basis for the conclusion that the security force at TMI is inadequate.
. Subsection (8)
Newberry's subcontention that the licensee should have adequate firefighting personnel to fight fires which might precipitate an alert, onsite emergency, or general' emergency condition is not an emergency planning contention and, in the Staff's view, is outside the scope of this proceeding.
If, however, Newberry is contending that there should be no reliance on local fire companies to participate both in emergency plan activities (e.g., evacuations) and in fighting fires on the site, the NRC Staff has no objection.
Subsection (9)
The Staff objects to that part of Newberry's subcontention (9) which concludes that most local municipalities are not aware of their responsibility to develop a separate emergency plan. There is no basis for this conclusion.
The Staff has no objection to the remainder of the subsection.
Subsection (10)
The Staff objects to the part of subcontention (10) which questions who is to be responsible for purchasing certain equipment. Such a question is not
(
part of the emergency planning issue and thus is outside the scope of this proceeding.
Subsection (13)
The Staff objects to that part of Newberry's subcontention (13) which would l
require county and local defense directors to attend emergency planning l
programs. There is no legal basis for such a requirement. The Staff also j
objects to that part of the subsection which states that extensive emergency radiation drills should be required annually; there is no basis for this conclusion.
l
7 Further, the last paragraph of Subsection (13) should not be considered as part of the contention. This paragraph represents only Newberry's
" suggestion" that the licensee propose, apparently to the appropriate departments of transportation, that routes of evacuation be clearly marked.
III. Conclusion The NRC Staff position on the timeliness of Newberry's filing and on the substance of its revised Contention 3 is set forth above. The Staff believes that the majority of the January ll,1980 contentions were not timely filed and that Newberry has not made the requisite showing under 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1).
If, however, the Board decides to entertain the late-filed. contentions, the Staff supports the admission of those subsections of Contention 3 which identify specific allegations of deficiencies in the licensee's Emergency Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
/?
/
Y' v'
f f i)/////ff[ ?(Y R >ss.U ',4 Lucinda Low Swartz rgf
~
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of January 1980, I
i G
- *mm e 4
L'NITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPAW, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
)
Unit 1) 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FURTHER AND FINAL AMENDED CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the folicwing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicat
" an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ir...enal mail system, this 25th day of January 1980:
Ivan W.,S=ith, Esq.*
Mr. Steven C. Shelly Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection 881 W. Outer Drive Department of Environ = ental Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Resources P.O. Box 2063 Dr. Linda W. Little Harrisburg, PA 17120 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, DC 20006 ATTN:
J.G. Herbein, Vice President Karin W. Carter, Esq.
P.O. Box 542 505 Executive House Reading, PA 19603 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. #3, Box 3521 Honorable Park Cohen Etters, PA 17319 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Department of Justice Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17127 O
ene g
. ' Robert Q. Pollard s
E g
1 ance h 1 ar Group' Representing Baltimore, MD 21218 245 W. Philadelphia Street Y rk, PA 17404 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud John Levin, Esq.
Environmental Coalition on PA Public Utilities Commission
"'I'*# # ""#
Box 3265
^"*"""
Harrisburg, FA 17120 State -College, PA 16801
. Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant 2320 North 2nd Street Postponement Harrisburg, PA 17110 2610 Grendon Drive Wilmingt n, DE 19808 Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler Ms. Karen Sheldon P. O. Box 1547 Sheldon, Harmon, Rois=an & Weiss Harrisburg, PA 17105 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Ms. Ellyn R.' Veiss Washington, DC 20006
. Sheldon, Harmon, Roissan & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Suite 506 R.D. #5 Washington, DC 20006 Coatesville, PA 19320 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. Panc1*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
C
/n[a a <d w (La Office of the Secretary Lucinda~ Low Swartz j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, DC 20555