ML19305D009
| ML19305D009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1980 |
| From: | Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305D002 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004110546 | |
| Download: ML19305D009 (10) | |
Text
_ _ __.
s' Sholly, 80.03.03 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
=
In the Matter of G
4 Doc
-289 &
MEIROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et (Three Mlle Island, Unit 1)
)
27 gfg 1 0,m,,;,p kfy*@*7 INIERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY MOTION TO COMPELL LICENSEE y< <
E.-@-s
, RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES Licensee flied objections to two Intervenor Sholly interrogatories on 25 February 1980 (see " Licensee's Further Objections to the Second Set of Interrogatories From Steven C. Sholly" ).
Intervenor Sholly herein finds the objections without merit and moves the Board to compell Licensee to respond by 17 March 1980.
Interroaatorv 08-019 NUREG-0396 at page I-4 concludes that discussion of a spectrum of accidents in Classes 1 through 8 is too limited in scope to be useful in emergency planning.
Identify each statement in Ltcensee's Emergency Plan which takes into account any accident beyond the design basis of TMI-1.
Specify how Licen-see's Emergency Plan takes into account accidents beyond the design basts for TMI-1, particularly with reference to assumptions utilized in determining i
the time available for identification of an accident, assessment of the seriousness of the accident, notification of off-site authorttles, implementation of protective actions, and confirmation of the com-pletion of the protective actions.
Discusston Licensee objects to this interrogatory on a number of counts, all of which appear to be related to Licensee's 80 041109flo
. claim that answering the interrogatory would prove " unduly burdensome" (see Licensee's Objections, 02/25/80, page 2).
Absent a grant from the Board of a protective order (see 10 CFR 2.740(c), (f)), Licensee's claim is without merit under the regulations and, as a response to Interrogatory 08-019, constitutes a failure to respond as defined in 10 CFR 2.740(f).
This alone would be sufficient grounds for a motion to compell a response, but there are additional considerations mitigating in favor of an Order to Compell.
Licensee objects that being required to identify "each statement" would be unduly burdensome.
Licensee appears to have had a change of heart regarding such requests, having used such language liberally in Licensee's interrogatories to the various intervenors (see Licensee interrogatories to ECNP, Sholly, TMIA, ANGRY, AAMODTS, CEA, etc., dated 18 and 21 January 1980).
If Licensee truly believed that such requests are unduly burdensome, then such requests would not have been made to the various intervenor parties in this proceeding.
Licensee is certainly, by virtue of the size of its legal and technical staffs, in a far better position to respond to such requests than are the intervenors.
Licensee goes one step further, however, in asserting that being required to identify each statement in the Emergency Plan which addresses Class 9 accidents would serve "little purpose" (see Licensee's Objections, 02/25/80,
. page 2).
This is simply not true.
NUREG-0396 quite clearly requires consideration of accidents beyond the design basis in determining the sufficiency of emergency planning.
Given this fact, which has not been contested by any party, including the Licensee, it is not unreasonable to inquire as to how Licensee has met this requirement.
For Licensee to assert that this Intervenor is in as good a position to ider.tify such considerations as the Licensee is absurd and is an attempt to conduct litigation by surprise.
Licensee would have this Intervenor wade through reams of trrelevant data and in' formation in order to extract the basis fac consideration j
of Class 9 accidents in Licensee's Emergency Plan, and then present' such information in litigation in order to support this Intervenor's position.
Presumably, at that point, t
Licensee would come forward and identify the inf ormation sought by this interrogatory.
Such an approach is contrary to the conduct of NRC proceedings.
This Intervenor _s clearly entitled to know what Licensee considers to be its representation of Class 9 considerations in its Emergency Plan.
Licensee takes a final step in the objection to Interro-gatory 08-019 in attempting to link Lt with Contention 8D which was rejected, with certain provisos, by the Board in the Third Special Prehearing Conference Order.
While the first part of the interrogatory (" Identify each statement in Licensee's Emergency Plan which takes into account any l
accident beyond the design basts of TMI-1.") may be construed 1
. as resulting from Contention 8D, it also has a great deal to do with Contentions 8H and 8T.
The second part of Interro-gatory 08-019 is also drawn from Contentions 8H and 8T, especially the latter since accidents beyond the design basis for TMI-1 are likely to present complex phenomena and symptoms which are not readily recognizable (this was clearly the case in the TMI-2 accident).
In summary, Licensee has no basis for arguing against this interrogatory on grounds of undue burden.
In addition, Licensee has cited no other substantive grounds upon which to object to this interrogatory.
Since there has been advanced no basis for objection to this interrogatory which Licensee apparen'tly intends not to file a full and substantive response, this Intervenor hereby moves the Board to compell Licensee to file a full response to Interrogatory 08-019 by 17 March 1980 (this motion is made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f)).
Interrogatorv 08-024 l
Specify any and all assumptions upon which the TMI Emergency Plan is based.
Discuss each such assump-tion and explain why it is appropriate and what it's basis is in fact.
r Discussion In any plan such as the TMI Emergency Plan, there exists a set of assumptions upon which such a plan is based.
Such 1
a starting point is necessary if the plan is to have coherent
. and mutually supportive subparts, and if the plan is to have a clear purpose which is carried throughout the plan.
Certainly, for a plan involving so many agencies, including state, local, and federal governments, and covering so many types of emergency situations, there must exist a set ob basis assumptions upon which the plan is based.
These assumptions are what is being sought through Interrogatory 08-024.
For Licensee to state that "(t)here is no conceivable manner in which Licensee can identify all assumptions that may have been made in developing the Emergency Plan" (see Licensee's Objections, 02/25/80, page
- 3) is incredible.
This implies that Licensee is not aware of the assumptions upon which it's Emergency Plan has been based.
Certatnly, no one can completely evaluate the sufficiency of Ltcensee's efforts in emergency planning without knowing the set of assumptions upon which the plan is based.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in response to Interro-gatory 16a from Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY) had no difficulty in identifying the assumptions upon which evacuation time estimates were based (see Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Response to Interrogatories (First Set) of Antt-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY), 02/15/80, l
at pages 11-12).
Inasmuch as emergency plans are very i
sensitive to assumptions made in their development, knowledge
~
. i of the assumptions used in developing the Emergency Plan i
ts absolutely necessary for a full evaluation of such a
[
plan.
Licensee's discussion in the Objections filed 02/25/80 i
serves only to attempt to confuse the issue.
It is totally irrelevant whether Licensee's understanding of such assumptions is different from my understanding of the assumptions: Lt is also irrelevant whether this Intervenor i
is capable of analyzing the Emergency Plan and deriving the assumptions.
Ltcensee developed the Plan and must of necessity have identified the assumptions upon which the plan is based.
Again, Licensee appears to be adopting the litigation by surprise tactic, a tactic which totally contrary to the conduct of these proceedings.
Licensee has a responsibility to inform this Intervenor of the assumptions upon which the Emergency Plan is based before the litigation phase of this proceeding, rather than holding off on revealing such assumptions untti testimony is flied.
It appears that Licensee is attempting to avold answering a potentially embarassing interrogatory.
Ltcensee has objected on the ground of undue burden.
Again it is pointed out that such objections are responsive to interrogatories only under the umbrella of a protective order from the Board, an order which Ltcensee has netther sought nor obtained with reference to this interrogatory.
l l
, Licensee has therefore failed to respond to this interrogatory as required.
Intervenor Sholly therefore moves the Board to compell Licensee to respond fully and substantively to Interrogatory 08-024 by 17 March 1980, such a motton being based upon 10 CFR 2.740(f).
DATED:
3 March 1980 Respectfully submitted,
' J?s d
Steven C. Sholly y 304 South Market Street Mechantesburg, PA 17055 h--717-766-1857 w--717-566-3237 t
i i
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO> MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
~
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three liile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Notice of Entry Upon the Premises of TMI-1 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.741(a)(2) of Steven C. Sholly dated March 3, 1980, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 4, 1980, t
were serv.ed upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, this 5th day of March, 1980.
Y$,d-dohn F. Wilson Dated: March 5, 1980 0 \\ \\S*I[%
+,
y\\
3.' '
\\ ',.
t4:q
'N '
.9 '
O.-
i h.e g ' ' l'
,s C!:h,N '. '
~ }.'] -
~~~
D '-
},b,
EA 2/j eso... -
p-b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLElR REGULATORY CO.'D1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Co=monwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 2357 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin Board Panel P.O. Box P 881 West Outer Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Commissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvanik 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Attorney for Newberry Township 1
Washington, D.C.
20555 T.M.I. Steering Committee 2320 North Second Street John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Public Utility Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Commission Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
- Person on whose behalf service is being made.
Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.
Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard 6
Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Chesapeake Energy Alliance Suite 506 609 Montpelier Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Washington, D.C.
20006 Chauncey Kepford Steven C. Sholly
- Judith H. Johnsrud 304 South Market Street Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Marvin I. Lewis Anti-Nuclear Group Representing 6504 Bradford Terrace York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. 5 Karen Sheldon, Esquire Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Suite 506 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire 1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C.
20006 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
- Person on whose behalf service is being made.
Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.
i
.