ML19327A587

Consolidation Proposal,Based on Intervenors' Discussions. Addresses Emergency Planning,Psychological Stress,Hydrogen Control,Financial Issues,Inadequate Core Cooling & Class 9 Accidents

ML19327A587
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/29/1980
From:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19327A583	List: ML19327A582 ML19327A585 ML19327A587 ML19327A590 ML19327A593 ML19327A595 ML19327A597
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008060423
Download: ML19327A587 (4)

Text

L ,. _ . _ .._ _ -. .__ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ ,

e,

' SHOLLY, 7/29/80 tu (v3 s 9 N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' /

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DCCGIED USfmc q,4 A

Before the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board ,

g 3 j jg g OfU:8 eit!:3 S,W '/

) E DecitS q & Se e s /

)

- Smch y In the Matter of

) -

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, 'ET AL. > Docket No. 50-289

) (RESTART)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)

INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE CONSOLIDATION PROPOSAL BY THE INTERVENORS Pursuant to the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PREHEARING CONFERENCE OF MAY 13, 1980 at page 7, I am filing this Report to the Board on consolidation of parties and issues. Before I get to the specific proposals, there are a number of general i matters which most be addressed, l i

First of all, -I must make it clear to the non-Intervenor parties to this 1

proceeding that considerable effort has been expended by all of the Intervenors in attempting to reach reasonable agreements on consolidation. Intervenors have  !

met on seven separate occasions since October 1979 to discuss the issue of 1 1

consolidation. Such meetings have typically involved meeting on weekends, usually Saturdays, thus causing the Intervenors to give up some of their limited free time with their friends and family to such meetings. The consolidation meetings have required several hours preparation in advance of the meecing, and the actual meetings. have ranged in length from 213 to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. In the coure: of preparing for and attending these meetings, considerabic expense has bcen involved, particularly where the Intervenors are represented by counsel and/or in cases where travel in excess of 25 miles has been involved.

8 00806 OLQ$

/

~

SHOLLY, 7/29/80

~

Secondly, while there may appear to be numerous contentions and iss es where consolidation would be simple, this is not the case for a number of reasons.

. The legal relationships (including responsibility for payment of counsel) among the s

Intervenor' groups, individuals, and their counsel make such consolidation difficult.

In addition, while some Intervenors may share issues, the bases for their contentions on these issues, their interest in these issues, and their approach to these issues combine to make full consolidation impossible.

Finally, as a general principle, the Intervenors f avor the following approach to consolidation. The Intervenors have been and will continue to cooperate on an informal basis to avoid duplicative efforts. The Intervenors, except where specific proposals are herein advanced, will prc.sent a coordinate case in litigation, but reserve the right to present their own witnesses, and the right to non-repetitive cross-examination. The Intervenors feel that the Board is possessed of sufficient authority to control cross-examination if and when it becomes repetitive, and that this approach is far better than depriving any Intervenor of the right to use cross-examination or direct evidence to best i support their cases.

I The Intervenors propose the following specific consolidation proposals:

I 1

EMERGENCY PLANNING h l

.~  :

It is not possible at this juncture to finalize consolidation 1 plans on th'is issue because the contentions have not been finalized (Parties have until 8 September 1980 to file expanded, specified or new proposed contentions on emergency planning pursuant to MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RESUMING SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTENTIONS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING, dated 15 July 1980) . The Intervenors therefore defer final consolidation plans on this issue until af ter the filing date for revised, expanded, and/or proposed new contentions on emergency

o . ._ _

- - - - ~ - - -

s s

SHOLLY, 7/29/80 planning. There are three parties with general emergency planning issues ,

which have been in contact regarding how to proceed on this issue, these be?.ng NEWBERRY, ANGRY, and SHOLLY. The KAMODTS have a contention which addresses the agricultural aspects of emergency planning. These four i

parties will cooperate to the extent necessary to present a coherent cass and to avoid duplicative testimony and cross-examination. The i

I geographic areas covered by each of these Intervenors may also be divided among them, but this has not been finalized.

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS The Intervenors note that action on the admissibility of this issue remains to be taken by the Commissioners. Nonetheless, the Intervenors have come to the following understanding. PANE and NEWBERRY are clearly in the lead on this issue and both are preparing expert testimony on the issue. PANE and NEWBERRY have been cooperating to the extent required to avoid duplicative testimony and cross-examination. Both PANE and NEWBERRY will present direct evidence; PANE will be the lead party, NEWBERRY vill, however, present its own expert witnesses. Both parties will conduct cross-examination which will be non-repetitive.

To the best of my knowledge, the remaining Intervenor parties are deferring to PANE and NEWBERRY on this issue and will not present direct evidence and will not conduct cross-examination.

HYDROGEN CONTROL The Union of Concerned Scientists will be the lead counsel on this issue,-however SHOLLY will reserve the right to present expert witnesses on his portion of the issue,.namely the installation of a rapid

[ filtration system on the cor.cainment purge system. SHOLLY also reserves

p -. -

- . - . - . - .~ - . .

, SHOLLY, 7/29/80 the right to conduct non-repetitive cross-examination on all aspects of this issue. ANGRY defers to UCS and SHOLLY on this issue.

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL ISSUES i

j TMIA is the lead counsel on both issues. Other parties reserve I

die right to conduct ncn-repetitive cross-examination on issues covered I

j by'.their contentions.

DETECTION OF INADEQUATE CORE COOLING UCS is the lead counsel on this issue. SHOLLY reserves the right to conduct non-repetitive cross-examination.

ECCS BYPASS AND OVERRIDE UCS is the lead counsel on this issue. SHOLLY reserves the right to conduct non-repetitive cross-examluation.

\

c.

CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS The three parties with Class 9 contentions (UCS, SHOLLY, ECNP) are approaching the issue from different pathways. Each reserves the right to present direct evidence and conduct non-repetitive cross-examination.

These represent the issues upon which agreement has been reached on consolidation. The representations made herein are strictly my own, based on discussions in meetings with other partiee, and represent the agreements reached at those meetings. - Intervenors who disagree with these representations should so notify the Board as provided for in the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Any mistakes made in this regard are deeply regretted.

DATE: 29 July 1980 M1 Steven Sholly /r/