ML19332B119
| ML19332B119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332B118 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8009260004 | |
| Download: ML19332B119 (6) | |
Text
U STAFF 09/23/80 UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAtl EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO ECNP'S REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 2-2 AND 2-4 l
I.
Introduction On September 8,1980, Intervenor ECNP submitted revised emergency planning contentions 2-2 and 2-4.
This submission was made pursuant to the Licensing Board's (Board) " Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedu'e for Discovery and Contentions on Emergency Planning," issued on June 15, 1980, in which the Board directed that ECNP provide more specificity for these contentions by September 8.
The NRC Staff's (Staff) answers to ECNP revised Contentions 2-2 and 2-4 are set forth below.E I
I II.
NRC Staff's Response to Revised Contentions A.
ECNP 2-2 The thrust of EUd Contention 2-2, as originally proffered, was that the Licensee's plan and the plans of the five surrou: ing counties were not y
At the Staff's request, the Licensing Board extended the time within which the Staff could file this answer to September 23, 1980. liemo-randum and Order, September 17, 1980.
S '1092 60 OOA
i
. adequately coordinated as evidenced by the use of varied emergency planning zone distances for different plans.
Revised Contention 2-2 states as follows:
Contention 2-2 The TMI Plan is said to be based on a 10 mile radius for the plume exposure pathway, and a 50 mile radius for the ingestion exposure pa thway (p. 4.1-2 and 4.2-5).
The TMI Plan is said to be coordinated with all five counties within the 10 mile radius but there is no indication that the Tiil Plan is coordinated with any plans of counties within the 50 mile radius (p. 4.2-7).
It is further stated (p. 4.2-7) that the State and Cynty plans are coordinated, but the referenced section 4.5.3 fails to show in what ways the State and County plans are coordinated, and the After-Action Report and Evaluation of the Fixed fluclear Facility Exercise (July 16, 1980) suggests that the caordination of plans of the governmental agencies and Licensee is deficient.
Until those plans have proven workable to evacuate safely under varied and adverse conditions all persons whose health and safety might be affected within the designated Energency Planning Zones through live drills involving all potentially affected persons, the emergency plans must be gnsidered deficient and TMI-1 must not be pemitted to operate.-
In this revised contention, ECf1P has eliminated reference to the varying emergency planning distances and has instead asserted that there is no indication that the Licensee's plan is coordinated with any of the counties within the 50 mile radius ingestion exposure pathway, that there is no indication as to how State and county plans are coordinated, that the July 16,1980 test exercise demonstrated inadequate coordination of plans and that TMI-1 should not be pennitted to restart until the plans are proven to be workable by means of live drills. While ECf1P has expanded the 2/
The additional discussion following revised Contention 2-2 in "ECf1P Intervenors' Revised Revised Contentions on Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Response and Evacuation Planning" (September 8,1979) appears to be the basis for revised Contention 2-2 and not a part of the contention itself.
i I
y 2
3-
%O contention,3.] it has not, in the Staff's view, provided additional speci-ficity.]hus, ECflP asserts that the report on the July 16,1980 test
\\
exercise " suggests" coordination of plans is deficient yet Intervenor fails to identify the deficiencies which are of' concern to. it.
ECflP's principal objectfon is that the Licensee's plan does not indicate how Licensee, State and county planning within the 50 mile ingestion pathway is coordinated yet Intervenor has not identified the deficiencies in coordination in this -
regard nor made any assertion as to plan coordination provisions it believes to'be negessary.O ECflP was'given the opportunity to seek, through discovery, infonnation as to how the emergency plans of the Licensee and the governmental bodies were coordinated [o that Intervenor could, pursuant to the Board's direction, specifically identify the inadequacies in plan coordination which are of concern to it. Apparently having failed to avail itself of that oppor-tunity, ECfh has now submitted a Contention 2-2 which is broader and, in the Staff's view,1(ss specific than the contention originally proffered.
In short, ECf1P has not complied with the Board's direction that it specify Contention 2-2 but, instead, has _ submitted a revised contention that suffers 3/
Expansion of the contention apparently is based on new information (revision 2 of the Licensee's emergency plan, a report on the test exercise held on July 16, 1980 and a June 30,1980 FEf1A Report to the President) not available when Contention 2-2 was originally submitted.
_4f In contrast, see, e.g., Sholly Contentions 8E and 80 of December 17, 1979 which allege specific deficiencies in the coordination of plans.
J
1_
from the same basic infimity as the original one.
In these circumstances, it is the Staff's view that ECNP's revised Contention 2-2 should be rejected.E B.
ECNP 2-4 The thrust of ECNP Contention 2-4 as originally proffered was that, while the Licensee's emergency plan purports to classify emergency conditions in a manner compatible with the State and counties, the State and five counties surrounding TMI use different classification schemes.
Revised Contention 2-4 states as follows:
Contention 2-4 The TMI Plan provides a means for classifying emergency conditions in a manner that is not in conformance with the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and Counties to provide for the protection of the health and safety of their residents in the event of a radio-logical emergency at TMI affecting offsite populations.
The basis lies in the time delay pemitted to the Licensee under the interim guidance of NUREG-0610 relative to the fif teen minute notification requirement of the NRC Final Rule on Emergency Plan-ning. The basis lies also in the incompatibility of the immediate action recommendation for general emergency under NUREG-0610 and the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and Counties to provide for the protection of the health and safety of their citizens.
5/
The apparent thrust of ECNP's revised Contention 2-2 is similar to that of Intervenor Sholly's revised Contention 8, subpart I.H which identifies specific olleged inadequacies in planning coordination.
See "Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Revised Emergency Planning Contention (Contention #8),"
September 8,1980.
In the event ECNP revised Contention 2-2 is rejected, the Staff suggests that ECNP be permitted to adopt Sholly revised Conten-tion 8, subpart I.H and participate in the litigation of that contention through Mr. Sholly, should Sholly revised Contention 8, subpart I.H be accepted.
. ECNP's revised Contention 2-4 no longer refers to the incompatibility of the Licensee's emergency classification with those of the State and counties but, instead, asserts that the Licensee's classification system does not conform with the responsibilities of the State and counties because of the times provided for notification.
In the Staff's view, revised Contention 2-4 is so vague that the meaning of the contention is unclear. The asser-tion that the means of classifying emergency conditions doesn't conform to the responsibilities of the States and counties to protect their residents is nothing more than a generalized allegation which does not raise a concrete, litigable issue.
No further particularization is provided by the vague and confusing references to NUREG-0610 and the NRC's Final Rule on Emergency Planning. The specific incompatibilities between the Licensee's emergency classification scheme and those of the State and counties are not identified.
As with Contention 2-2, ECNP was given the opportunity to seek information so that it could particularize the incompatibilities between Licensee, State and county plans which are of concern to it.
Rather than further specifying Contention 2-4, as directed by the Board, ECNP has submitted a revised contention which is less specific than that originally proffered.
In these circumstances, it is the Staff's view that revised Contention 2-4 should be rejected.
III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it is the Staff's position that ECNP has failed to specify Contentions 2-2 and 2-4 as required by the Licensing Board and that e
e 6-revised Contentions 2-2 and 2-4 should be rejected.
Should ECNP Contention 2-2 be rejected, however, ECNP should be permitted to adopt Sholly revised Contention 8, subpart I.H which is similar but adequately specific.
Respectfully submitted,
%k W
t Jos ph R. Gra Co nsel for WRC S ff Dated at Bethesda,11aryland this 23rd day of September,1980 1
1 i
k
__r_.__m