ML19320D004

Requests Lifting of Suspension of Prehearing Activities. Repts on 800711 Emergency Planning Meeting.Revisions Made After Briefing & Discovery on Scope of Emergency Plan Issues May Generate Addl Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19320D004
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/14/1980
From:	Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007180421
Download: ML19320D004 (9)

Text

.

Lic 7/14/80 /

/- 6p' 4 LOgggd3  !

/4 p so

,-11 j . m53 V -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lN M + ' ~g -

c- t .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  %", .

N

/) / ~/

s In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S REPORT ON EMERGENCY PLANNING MEETING A meeting among parties to the TMI-l Restart proceeding was held from.6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 11, 1980, for the pur-pose of discussing Revision 2 to Licensee's Emergency Plan. At-tached hereto is a list of people attending that meeting. As indicated in Licensee's memorandum of July 3, 1980, topics dis-cussed at the meeting included the general structure and content of Licensee's Emergency Plan and the specific changes made in Revision 2 to the Plan. In addition, substantial time was spent responding to questions raised about the Emergency Plan.

The Board's Memorandum of July 7, 1980 directed the parties to discuss a schedule for lifting the emergency planning suspen-sion. Licensee proposed that revised contentions based upon new material in the Emergency Plan be filed on July 31, 1980. This date was chosen for a number of reasons. It is 20 days after the meeting and the Board had earlier been of the view that 20 days was a sufficient time within which to amend emergency planning 8007180 h

contentions. Memorandum and Order (May 22, 1980), at p. 14. As a result of the July 11 meeting, the concerns raised in the Board's Memorandum and Order of June 19, 1980 over the difficulty of sort-ing new material from old material should be eased. Similarly, the concerns expressed by the Board with respect to the possible burden from revising emergency planning contentions while digest-ing material contained in the NRC Staff SER and " Class 9" sequence report have greatly subsided with the passing of time. Indeed, one of the intervening parties, ANGRY, filed revised emergency planning contentions on the schedule initially set by the Board.

The final factor which favors a July 31 date for revised conten-tions is that such a deadline will permit Licensee to respond to any objectionable contentions prior to the Final Prehearing Con-ference scheduled for August 12, 1980, and to have the mar.ar re-solved in the subsequent prehearing ccnference order. In this manner work on cmergency planning will be able to continue in parallel with the rest of the prehearing activities and will not be on a separate track. This is especially important since emergency planning is an area totally resolved in the NRC Staff SER and therefore ripe for adjudication. Any schedule which sets revised emergency planning contentions after July 31 is likely to result in delayed consideration o'f those matters.

Newberry Township Steering Committee ("Newberry") proposed that revised emergency planning contentions be due by August 31, 1980. In support of this date Newberry and the other intervening parties raised several points. First, it was believed that addi-t

tional time was necessary to review the Emergency Plan. This is especially true of the state and county plans which also were sub-stantially revised. Second, since the NRC's rulemaking on emer-gency planning is likely to issue sometime this summer, the August 31 date would allow consideration of the final rule during the framing of revised contentions. Third, it is likely that on the basis of NUREG-0654, FEMA and NRC will release further evalua-tions of the state / county and Licensee emergency plans during the summer which should be considered during the drafting of revised contentions. These views were joined in by ANGRY, Mr. and Mrs.

Aamodt and Mr. Sholly.1 / The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took no position on the schedule, although it did indicate that the time within which it could take a position on the emergency planning contentions varied depending on the deadline set.2 /

In response to the alternative proposal, Licensee indicated at the meeting that it did not believe the reasons advanced for an August 31 date supported such an extended schedule. The avail-ability of new material, whether it be a final rulemaking or addi-

-1/

Although Mr. Sholly was unable to attend the meeting due to a commitment in the TMI-2 Technical Specification proceeding, the undersigned counsel spoke with Mr. Sholly on the morning of July l 14 to get his views on the schedule.

2/

~

Due to the absence of the Governor, Karin Carter, Esquire, indi-cated that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania probably would not be i able to take a position on the revised emergency planning conten- l tions for three or four weeks following a July 31 submittal; the time would be 10 days to two weeks following an August 31 sub-mittal.

1

tional governmental reports on the adequacy of emergency planning, should be dealt with within the structure of the Board's May 5, 1980 Memorandum and Order, and should not provide a reason for de-laying the revision of emergency planning contentions. The Board early on recognized that the pending emergency planning rulemaking might require changes in approach (see Third Special Prehearing Conference Order (January 25, 1980), at p. 5), but there never has been an indication that consideration of the issues might be de-layed pending the results of the rulemaking (compare First Special Prehearing Conference Order (December 18, 1979), at p. 18). Nor does the magnitude of the changes in the emergency plans of Licensee, the state and five counties warrant extending the deadline until August 31. The parties are familiar with the structure and organization of the emergency plans. There has been extensive briefing on the scope of emergency plan contentions and there has been substantial discovery in this area. The revisions made in June 1980 were for the purpose of upgrading the plans. While this does not preclude revised contentions, it is not likely that the new material will generate substantial additional contentions.

This report has been reviewed by Jordan Cunningham, Esquire, and the undersigned counsel has been authorized to state that, in Mr. Cunningham's view, the report accurately reflects the discus-sion during the July 11 meeting. Licensee therefore requests that the suspension on emergency planning prehearing activities be

lifted in accordance with a schedule to be set by the Board.3 /

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: ,

(R.obert E 3ahler Dated: July 14, 1980 J

-3/

The Board should be aware that Licensee's Motion to Require Further Specification of Contentions of ECNP (dated June 23, 1980) is outstanding and resolution of that motion may affect the scheduling of emergency planning matters.

l l

l I

l l

EMERGENCY PLANNING MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST July 11, 1980 Name Representing Mr. Norman Aamodt Aamodt Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt Aamodt Ms. Gail Bradford ANGRY Karin Carter, Esquire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Jordan Cunningham, Esquire Newberry Mr. Bruce Smith Newberry

• Ms. Phyllis Zitzer ECNP

• Mr. Marvin Lewis Lewis Robert Zahler, Esquire Licensee Mr. George Giangi Licensee Mr. Alexis Tsaggaris Licensee Mr. Gautam Sen Licensee

• Arrived part way through meeting.

l l

l l

1 F As g c- s Lic 7/14/80 Doegg3

. Uswc .g JUL1 71999 'l :_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ge g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION & seg I

q, och 4, /

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b) '

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Report on Emergency Planning Meeting" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, post-age prepaid, this 14th day of July, 1980.

D Robert E. ahld~r Dated: July 14, 1980 i

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

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST

• Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Adhistant Counsel ~

Atcznic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Puolic Utility Ca m'n Board Padel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h insion Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mishington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atanic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Office Box 2357

' 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, 2 nnessee 37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little Cbaiman, Dauphin County Board Atcznic Safety and Licensing of Cmmiasioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. '1burtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Iagal Director Consumer Mvocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission 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 h insion

. Washington, D.C. 20555

• An additional copy was hand-served on July 15, 1980.

~

Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Ne % ' Township Attorney for People Against Nuclear ,

T.M.I. Steering Ocnnittee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sbaldmn, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006

'Iheodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Ibbert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Pentpelier Street Harr4 =hirg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltinere, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concernad Judith H. JohnsrJ:1 Scientists Envimme_ntal Cbalition on Nuclear Sheldon, Har: Ton & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Strmt, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Sholly Marvin I. Iewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Machanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 PMladalphia, Penmpylvania 19149 -_

Cail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R. D. 5 Legislation Chaiman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadalphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 l

t i

{

l