ML19296C974
| ML19296C974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1980 |
| From: | Singer L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002290157 | |
| Download: ML19296C974 (7) | |
Text
.
02/26/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PORTIONS OF THIRD SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER I.
Introduction In its February 4,1980 Request for Reconsideration of Portions of the Third Special Prehearing Conference Order (Request),d/ nti-Nuclear Group Representing A
York (ANGRY) has requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reconsider its rulings in its Third Special Prehearing Conference Order (Order), dated January 25, 1980 on the admissibility of ANGRY contentions II(c), III(A)(a) and III(B)(a).
In its Order the Board rejected all three of these contentions, which generally challenge the sufficiency of a 10-mile radius for emergency evacuation in the event of a nuclear accident.-2_/
Unlike the Board, the Staff had no objection to contention II(C) with the limituton that the phrases "TMI-2-type (Class 9)" and " consequences of a nuclear dI " Request for Reconsideration" is actually a [nisnomer for what in actuality should be called an objection to a special prehearing conference order under 10 C.F.R. 62.751a(d).
Under this section, parties should file objections to such an order within five (5) days after service of the order.
-./
2 F!nal contention II(C) originally claimed that the 10-mile emergency evacu-ation radius is insufficient, a fact demonstrated by consideration of a 20-mile evacuation radius during the TMI-2 accident. ANGRY further asserted that a 100-mile radius is necessary. See Contentions of Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY) at 2-3 (October 22, 1979).
FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
\\55 8002200 i'
- accident" are interpreted as " offer [ing] the March 28 events at TMI-2 as a credible accident." See NRC Staff Brief in Response to Contentions at 15 (October 31,1979). However, the Staff, as did the Board, rejected contentions III(A)(a) and III(B)(a) as not presenting litigable issues. See id. and NRC Staff Response to Revised Contentions at 6 (January 8,1980). The Staff, in explanation of its objection to these two contentions, emphasized the fact that ANGRY had failed to identify aileged specific inadequacies inherent in the use of a 10-mile evacuation distance.
See NRC Staff Response to Revised Contentions at 2-3 (January 8,1980).
II.
Staff Position on ANGRY's Request If ANGRY had not altered its contentions, the Staff's earlier position re-garding the admissibility of objectionable contentions would also remain unchanged.
ANGRY has, however, revised the two contentions that were originally found objectionable by the Staff.
In view of the fact that the revisions of con-tentions III(A)(a) and III(B)(a) have provided the previously lacking specificity, S
FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Revised contention III(A)(a) states that licensee's adoption of a 10-mile radius for emergency planning lacks substantial basis in both logic and fact.
The contention cites Regulatory Guide 1.70, !il3.3.1 as a basis for its assertion. See ANGRY Revised Contentior.s (1) Regarding Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Licensee Emergency Plans and (2) In Light of Newly Received Information at 2 (December 18, 1979).
Revised contention III(B)(a) asse:ts that the Connonwealth of Pennsylvania's Disaster Operations Plan, Annex E and the Bureau of Radiation Protection Plan for Nuclear Power Generating Station incidents are inadequate and in-effective due to the assumptian that the 10-mile radius includes an adequate safety margin that precludes the need for evacuation of institutions, facilities or people beyond the 10-mile radius. See Revised Contentions at 6-7 (December 18,1979).
- the Staff would ordinarily support ANGRY's request.S The December 19, 1979 deadline for submittiri revised emergency planning contentions has passed, however, necessitating the appropriate inquiry under 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a)(1).
As explained in detail in NRC Staff Response to ECNP Intervenors' Revised Contention on Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Response, dated January 28, 1980 (Staff Respont ), a party wishing to make or hav'1g made an untimely filing before the Board has the burden of presenting its case on the following five factors delineated in section 2.714(a)(1):
(i) 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.J S n reference to contention II(C) the Staff agrees with the Board that the I
mere consideration of a 20-mile radius during the March 28, 1979 accident does not demonstrate the insufficiency of a 10-mile radius, just like con-sideration of a 5-mile radius during the accident would not necessitate the conclusion that reference co a 10-mile radius at this time is over-inclusive.
Yet the Staff still has no objection to admission of this contention as stated above and views previous consideration of a 20-mile radius as evi-dence that might be useful in proving the insufficiency of a 10-mile radius.
Moreover, the Staff would have suggested that contention II(C) be con-solidated with III(A)(a), bec.use the latter contention provides a basis fcr the former.
Finally, the reference in contention III(B)(a) to the basis provided in contention III(A)(a) would rertfer the Staff's earlier objection to contention III(B)(a) obsolete.
S For a discussion of the levels of proof nec'essary for an intervenor to prevail under this section, see Staff Response, supra at 3-5.
Where the admissibility of an important contention that is relevant to the issues in the proceeding is under review, the ultimate detemination to be reached by the Board, however, is whether other parties in this hearing have raised similar contentions so that the contention will be heard and decided by the Board. See Staff Response, supra at 5-6.
The subject matter of ANGRY's contentions II(C) and III(A)(a), which discuss the licensee's use of a 10-mile radius for emergency evacuation planning, is addressed by Sholly contention 8(c). The Board admitted contention 8(c) upon the condition that the contention be made more specific during the course of discovery. See Order at 8.
Because ANGRY's concerns about the use of a 10-mile radius in licensee's plan will be considered by the Board pursuant to Sholly contention 8(c), it is the position of the Staff that ANGRY contentions II(C) and III(A)(a) have not met the tests under section 2.714(a)(1) and should therefore be disallowed by the Board.
The concern expressed in ANGRY contention III(B)(a), however, which questions the use of a 10-mile radius in the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan and the Bureau of Radiation Protection Plan, is not duplicated by the contentions raised by any of the other parties. The Staff therefore does not oppose ANGRY's Request only to the extent that contention III(B)(a) be admitted with reference to contention III(A)(a), which defines the basis of contentionIII(B)(a).
- III. Conclusion Within the framework of its Request ANGRY has, in essence, submitted new revised emergency planning contentions subsequent to the December 19, 1979 deadline established for raising such contentions. The ' late filing of these amended contentions, which necessitates review under section 2.714(a)(1),
leads the Staff to conclude that only contention III(B)(a) should be admitted due to the unique claims that it raises. Only to this extent does the Staff not object to ANGRY's Request.
Respectfully submitted, la h M & 21 9
Lisa N. Singer Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of February, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPNiY,
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PORTIONS OF THIRD SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 26th day of February,1980:
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Ellyn Weiss, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Sheldon Harmon, Roisman & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission he50 Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. Steven C. Sholly 881 W. Outer Drive 304 South Market Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. Thomas Gerusky Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
P.O. Box 2063 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20005 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Phila del phia,
Pennsylvania 19149 505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Metropolitan Edison Company Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Attn:
J. G. Herbein, Vice President P.O. Box 542 Honoracle Mark Cohen 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Ms. Jane Lee Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 R.D. 3; Box 3521 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319
c.
Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Holly S. Keck Department of Justice Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Strawberry Square,14th Floor York Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 245 W. Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Robert L. Knupp, Esq.
Assistant Solicitor John Levin, Esq.
Knupp and Andrews Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
P.O. Box P Box 3265 407 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
John E. Minnich, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners 2320 North 2nd Street Dauphin Coun;y Courthouse Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Front and Market Sts.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.17101 Ms.KathyMc0aughin Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 23 South 21st Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104 Washington, D. C.
20555 s Marjorie M. Aamodt Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C.
20555 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Karen Sheldon Washington, D. C.
20555 Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, N. W.
Robert Q. Pollard Suite 506 Chesapeak Energy Alliance Was.hington, D. C.
20006
'609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 ld a A l S h arl Liss t.. Singer
/~
Counsel for NRC Staff
>