ML19321A627

Responds to Second Set of NRC Interrogatories.Objects to Majority of Questions & Affirms Position That NRC Evaluation of Emergency Plan Is Inadequate.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19321A627
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/18/1980
From:	Cunningham J FOX, FARR & CUNNINGHAM, NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP, YORK HAVEN, PA
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 8007230787
Download: ML19321A627 (7)

Text

s',

• • . . co O

DOCKETED q

~

USNRO

- OUL2 2 1980 p omana, -

k UNITED STATES OF AttERICA E E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fif11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M I In the Patter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, )

ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island, Unit #1) )

ANSWER TO SECOND SET OF NRC STAFF INTERR0GATORIES OF NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP

1. Objection. Objection to interrogatory #1 is that it is a general interrogatory, not solely related to the SER which was issued on June 16, 1980. This interrogatory is untimely, not solely related to the information contained in the SER and is general in nature and should have been served before the close of general discovery.

This interrogatory could have been posed by the Staff during general discovery and could have been updated as required by regulations upon the receipt of new information. The Staff has provided no justification or good cause for filing this interrogatory at this time. Therefore, an answer is not deemed to be necessary and none will be forthcoming unless so directed by the Board.

E THIS DOCUMENT CONTAI 8007280 ]hy

2. Objection. Objection to interrogatory #2 is that it is a general interrogatory, not solely related to the SER which was issued on June 16,.1980. This interrogatory is untimely, not solely related to the information contained in the SER and is general in nature and should have been served before the close of general discovery. This interrogatory could have been posed by the Staff during general ,

discovery and could have been updated as required by regulations upon the receipt of new information. The Staff has provided no justification or good cause for filing this interrogatory at this time. Therefore, an answer is not deemed to be necessary and none will be forthcoming unless so directed by the Board.

3. Objection. Objection to interrogatory #3 is that it is a general interrogatory, not solely related to the SER which was issued on June 16, 1980. This interrogatory is untimely, not solely related to the information contained in the SER and is general in nature and should have been served before the close of general discovery. This interrogatory could have been posed by the Staff during general discovery and could have been updated as required by regulations upon the receipt of new information. The Staff has provided no justification or good cause for filing this interrogatory at this time. Therefore, an answer is not deemed to be necessary and none will be forthcoming unless so directed by the Board, 3-1 It is Intervenor's position that the Emergency Plan as now drafted is i still deficient but not for the reason that there is no written l l

agreement between licensee and firefighters cr police officers; but, instead, it is Intervenor's cosittcn with respec; to the firefighters

- mentioned in the plen whmar na invinceal firefignters, all of

_1

! 'e .

whom would be volunteers, would respond if called upon. Investigations I

conducted by the Intervenor have discovered that during the incident which took place in 1979, many volun+aer firemen removed their families from the area and were not in the area for periods of time. It is Intervenor's position that it could be expected that in the event the a

situation arose wherein an emergency evacuation was ordered, it could be expected that volunteer firemen with families would r'irst seek to remove their families from the area and then possibly return to the area.

Moreover, if the situation arose which did not require an evacuation of the surrounding communities, there is some question as to whether a volunteer firefighter, who has no legal duty to answer a call for assistance, could be relied upon to answer a call if the assistance was required at licensee's site on Three Mile Island. The Emergency Plan drafted by the licensee makes the assumption that there would be a response in the event of a call for assistance. If the fire companies involved were governmental entities who would have a legal duty to respond to a call for assistance, Intervenor's contention would probably lack merit; however, in the light of Intervenor's investigation, it is Intervenor's contention that such reliance is not well placed. Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that whether or not written agreement between licensee and the firefighter exists is not the critical threshhold question but, instead, the critical point is whether the volunteer fire companies who have signed written agreements can deliver the firefighters if called upon for assistance.

3-2 The response to Paragraph 3-2 will be forwarded as soon as Intervenor has filed any new corte.otions besaa ucon fcergarcy P~ian P.2vis.icn 42 submitted by licensee. The resDc we s int-r.m cta y 3-2 will be D warderi at a time consistent with the future c.rder ev.pceted from toe Becca regarding t.

• e ,

the reinstitution of the Emergency Planning Contentions. Therefore, at this . time, Intervenor's response is "do not know", which response is consistent with the directives of the Board.

3-3 The response to interrogatory 3-3 at the present time is "do not know" which is compliance with the Board's directive. Intervenor will file a responsive answer to this interrogatory as soon as the person who is responsible for drafting this contention has been able to identify the documents and/or directive he relied upon in drafting this contention.

3-4 The response to interrogatory 3-4 is "yes". The Staff's evaluation of the licensee's Emergency Plan appears to be a summary of the on-site Plan of the licensee with a side reference to the Emergency Plans for those counties included within the ten mile EPZ. As is obvious from the summarization contained in the SER, the review of the county plans will not be completed by the Regional Advisory Committee until sometime in the summer of 1980 and are not reviewed or commented upon within the SER. Intervenor's contention at the present time is heavily directed at the alleged inadequacies of the Dauphin County and York County Emergency Plans and obviously we feel that there is an inadequacy in the SER since those plans have not been commented upon or apparently reviewed.

Moreover, Intervenor is of the position that no real attempt has been made by the Staff to articulate the specific reasons for their conclusion that the licensee is in compliance with items 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the August 9th Order. The Staff apparently has taken the position that, with regard to items 3(a), (b), and (c) of the August 9th order, as long as the minimum reoutrements of meut'se'd th the . rite ia scated thereir, is met by' the licensec,10.-4 r.re"1 h' .c. ha daer. Khiep i . Regaraing part 3(d) cf tha August 9th Order, it is Intervenor's p>s'i!on that the 4

SER as presently drafted by Staff does not assess the relationship of the State and Local plans to the licensee plans, nor does the Staff approach'the question of whether the relationship of the State and Local plans assure the capability to take emergency action. It is the Intervenor's position that, in order for effective emergency preparedness to exist, there must be realistic practical capability on behalf of both local organizations and licensee to effect emergency preparedness.

Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that the Staff's evaluation of the licensee's Emergency Plan is inadequate for the reasons stated above.

FOX, FARR & CUNNINGHAM By: m .

dan D._ u i ha( squire 320 No ec eet Harrisburg, P s 1vania 17110 717/238-6570 Dated: /

cl/ #

N $W

y 1 .' .

1 I

r

~

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

) S.S.:

COUNTY OF DAUPHIN

)

P a

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, in and for said Commonwealth and County, PATRICIA SMITH, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Second Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories of Newberry Township are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.

(' ' o C v

, //

CJ a

/ PATRICIA SMITH f atu(k 3 Sworn and subscribed to before me this[7 day of

, 1980

(

T -

I C1 NOTARY PUBLIC y ca w r. Bit %. Netw Mk

.,c  % m.,7.au Nanahme,PA M Coualf

.' ~

7 m

' ' 9

, . , g g_ @NRO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUL 2 2 f9g > C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T -71 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

p 4

tu In the Matter of: ) ~

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al .) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island, Unit #1) ) Restart CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to Second Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories was mailed First Class, postage prepaid, i

this 18th day of July , 1980 to the following: j

~

Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Chief, Docketing Service Section Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oakridge, Tenn. 37830 1

Dr. Linda W. Little )

500 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, N.C. 27612 George F, Trowbridge, Esq.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 James A. Tourtellotte Office of Exece+ive Le al Director U. S. Nuclear Regalat o sion Washington, D.C. 20555

'~,

, _/ , l<'/ ,_

k.

^

.- 18G[6 q.

. . 2320 Nort'.r $cer est O' harrisburtj! Penn$'ylvania 17110