ML19332B121
| ML19332B121 | |
| 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 8009260006 | |
| Download: ML19332B121 (11) | |
Text
, ~..
STAFF 09/23fgg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO STEVEN C. SHOLLY'S REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 4
i I.
Introduction On September 8, 1980, Intervenor Steven C. Sholly submitted a revision to
{
his emergency planning contention (Sholly Contention 8) in the captioned proceeding. This submission was made pursuant to the Licensing Board's (Board) " Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedule for Discovery and Contentions j
on Emergency Planning," issued July 15, 1980, in which the Board directed that expanded, specified or new proposed contentions based upon revision 2 to the Licensee's emergency plan were to be filed by September 8.
The NRC Staff's (Staff) answers to Mr. Sholly's revised contentions are set forth below.1!
II.
NRC Staff's Response to Revised Contentions Intervenor Sholly's revised emergency planning contentions of September 8, 1980 fall into four categories:
(1) contentions which are, in essence, m rely restatements of contentions previously filed by Mr. Sholly and admitted by 1/
At the Staff's request, the Licensing Board extended the time within which the Staff could file this' answer to September 23, 1980. Memo-randum and Order, September 17, 1980.
800926 n o6 4
the Licensing Board as issues in the restart proceeding; (2) contentions which are revisions and further specification, based on revision 2 to the Licensee's emergency plan or the NRC's new emergency planning regulations (45 Fed. Reg. 55402, August 19, 1980), of contentions previously filed by Mr. Sholly and admitted by the Licensing Board; (3) new contentions based on new information in revision 2 of the Licensee's emergency plan, in the new emergency planning regulations or arising from a July 16, 1980 test exercise involving Licensee, State and local planning; or (4) new contentions not clearly based on new information.
In the first category, Mr. Sholly has submitted Contentions 8.1.C (formerly designated and admitted as 8F), 8.I.E (formerly designated and admitted as 8H), 8.I.F (comprised of contentions formerly designated and admitted as 8J and 8S), 81.1 (formerly designated and admitted as 8Q), 8.I.K (formerly designated and admitted as 8W), 8.1.M (formerly designated and admitted as 82), 8.I.N (formerly designated and admitted as 8AA), and 8.I.O (formerly designated and admitted as 8BB).
Since all of these redesignated contentions were p.eviously admitted as issues in the restart proceeding and have not been sithdrawn by Mr. Sholly, they remain as issues and the Staff does not object to them now.
1 In the seconu egory, Mr. Sholly has submitted Contentions 8.1. A (a revision to a contentica formerly designated and admitted as 8A), 8.I.D (a revision to a contention formerly designated and admitted as 8.G), 8.I.G (a revision and consolidation of contentions formerly designated and admitted as 8L and 8S),
4.
2/ (a revision and consolidation of contentions formerly designated and 8.I.H admitted as 8N and 8U), 8.I.J (a revision and consolidation of contentions formerly designated and admitted as 8T and 8CC), and 8.I.P (a revision to a contention formerly designated and admitted as 8DD). These contentions are revisions to, and further specification of, previously admitted contentions based on new information in revision 2 of the Licensee's emergency plan or on the NRC's new emerFeucy planning regulations published in the Federal Register at 45 Fed. Reg. 51402 on August 19, 1980. While the Licensing Board's Order of July 15, 1980 provided that expanded, specified or new proposed conten-tions could be filed based upon revision 2 to the en,ergency plan and did not explicitly provide for filing new or revised contentions based on new, pre-viously unavailable information from sources other than revision 2 of the Licensee's plan, the existence of new information that was previously unavail-i able can provide good cause for the late amendment of contentions or the late filing of new contentions.
In the Staff's view, the promulgation of the new emergency planning regulations 3/ on August 19, 1980 does provide new information and requirements that could constitute good cause for late-filed contentions.4/
Accordingly, the Staff does not object to the admis-
-2/
The reference to the new emergency planning rule 10 CFR 8 50.47(b)(9) in the statement of contention 8.I.H at page 5 of "Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Revised Emergency Planning Contention (Contention #8)," Sep-tember 8, 1980 is in error.
Based on the text of this contention, it is clear that the reference should be to 10 CFR 8 50.47(b)(10).
-3/
In the same vein, the July 16, 1980 test exercise involving Licensee, State and county emergency planning organizations could provide new information, not previously available, that would constitute good cause for late-filed contentions on problems and concerns identified from that test exercise.
-4/
Apart from good cause for late _ filing of contentions, the oth r four factors for late filings set forth in 10 CFR 8 2.714(a) are generally considered to determine if the late-filing should be accepted.
Mr. Sholly j
(CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE)
sion of Mr. Sholly's revised or new contentions based on the emergency planning t '
regulations simply because such contentions have been filed late in the course j
of the proceeding.
4 i
e f
In the Staff's view, Mr. Sho11y's revised Contentions 8.I.A, 8.I.D, 8.I.H, I
j 8.I.J and 8.I.P raise issues which are appropriate for consideration in l
this proceeding and are set forth with adequate specificity. Accordingly, i,
the Staff does not object to the admission of these contentions.
The Staff's l
view is the same with regard to revised Contention 8.I.G with the exception 1
of subparts (14) through (23) of that contention.
In revised Contention 8.I.G, Intervenor asserts that certain " letters of agreement and understanding" in d
the Licensee's emergency plan are defective for various reasons.
In sub-j sections (14) through (23), Intervenor lists various entities and organiza-tions for which no letter of agreement has been provided and as to which it-r I
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 1 did not address these= factors in submitting revised or new contentions which are based on new information from a source other than revision 2 to the Licensee's emergency plan. Nevertheless, it is the Staff's view that the only factor clearly weighing against admitting such revised or new contentions is the fifth one - the extent to which such new or revised contentions will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
It does appear that the admission of new or revised contentions that are based, for example, on the new emergency planning regulations will result in a broadening of the emergency planning issues and could possibly result in the need for additional time to prepare for the hearing on emergency planning issues.
At the same time, there is good cause for the submission of new or revised contentions based on such previously unavailable infor-mation and the litigation of such contentions should-result in the
_ development ofLa better record on the adequacy of emergency planning than would otherwise be the case.
Thus, it is the Staff's view that
'the potential for broadening the issues or possibly delaying the hearing of emergency planning issues does not preclude admission of late-filed 1
contentions.which are based on new information.
I
^
is asserted there should be a letter of agreement.-/ With regard to subsections 5
(14) through (23) of revised Contention 8.I.G, no basis of any sort is i
presented as to why there should be letters of agreement between the Licensee and the entities listed in these subsections. Obviously there is an unlimited number of agencies and organizations with which the Licensee has no letter of acreement as to emergency services to be provided.
There is, however, no necd to have letters of agreement with every organization and entity in such a list.
Consequently, it is the Staff's view that the reasons why (bases) it is asserted that there should be letters of agreement between the Licensee and those entities listed in subsections (14) through (23) must be presente/.
so that the parties will be alerted to what they must defend against or oppose.
Philadelphia Electric Compar.y, et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 6 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
Since no basis has
)
been presented, the Staff objects to the admission of subsections (14) through (23) of revised Contention 8.I.G.
I In the third category, Mr. Sholly has submitted Contentions 8.I.B, 8.I.Q, 8.I.R, 8.II.A, 8.II.B, 8.II.C. 8.II.D, 8.II.E, 8.II.F, 8.II.G, 8.III.B.
8.III.C, 8.III.D, 8.III.E, 8.III.F, 8.III.G, 8.III.H and 8.III.I.
Each of these contentions is new and appears to be based on revision 2 of the Licensee's
--5/
In the statement of Contention 8.I.G, there is no indication that the alleged defect with regard to subsections "(15) EPA" and "(16) Babcock and Wilcox" is the absence of letters of agreement between the Licensee and these entities.
In a telephone conversation between Mr. Sholly and Staff counsel on September 16, 1980, Mr. Sholly indicated that his intent was to allege that there are no letters of agreement between Licensee and EPA and Babcock and Wilcox and that there should be such letters.
. emergency plan,6/ the new requirements of the NRC's new emergency planning regulations or new information arising from the July 16, 1980 test exercise involving Licensee, State and county emergency planning. As to those new contentions or parts of new contentions based on the new emergency planning rule or the results of the July test exercise, there is good cause for raising such contentions now and the Staff will not object to such contentions simply on the ground _that they have been raised late in the course of the proceeding.
4 In the Staff's view, Mr. Sho11y's new Contentions 8.I.Q, 8.I.R, 8.II.A through 8.II.G, and 8.III.B through 8.III.I raise issues which are appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and are set forth with adequate specifi-city. Accordingly, the Staff does..ot object to the admission of these con-tentions. The Staff's view is the same with regard to revised Contention 8.I.B. except for subsection (4) that contention which states:
(4) To the extent that the L 2ensee relies upot the decision of county officials in tl-Three Mile Isle d area to develop and maintain a 20-mile emergency response apability as a 1
substitute for making a determination that the 10-mile circular EPZ is adequate, the adequacy of.uch a 20-mile l
capability must be established as a condit.on to the restart of TMI-1.
1 The quoted allegations are vague and do not define the alleged deficiencies in the Licensee's emergency planning which are of concot, to Intervenor.
For example, those parts of the Licensee's emergency plan associated with
-6/
Note that revision 2 of the Licensee's plan contains or incorporates revised and updated versions of State and county plans which were not available in previous revisions of the Licensee's plan.
Consequently, revision 2 to the Licensee's plan can appropriately give rise to new or amended contentions directed to the adequacy of the revised and updated State and county plans as well as to contentions directed to the Licensee's revised plan.
. county development of a 20-mile emergency response capability should be identi-fied so that the parties are put on notice as to the precise deficiencies that are being alleged. As presently constituted, Contention 8.I.B(4) is basically vague speculation that the Licensee may rely on a county's 20-m,'.le emergency response capability in lieu of determining that a 10-mile EPZ is adequate.
In the Staff's view, subsection (4) of Contention 8.1.B lacks specificity and should not be admitted as an issue in the restart proceeding.
Finally, in the fourth category, Mr. Sholly has submitted Contentions 8.I.L and 8.III.A.
Both of these contentions are new but do not appear to be based in any way upon information that was not available when initial emer-gency planning contentions were to be filed in December 1979.
Proposed Contention 8.1.L states:
Licensee's Emergency Plan fails to provide assurance that timely radiation dose readings can be obtained from off-site locations in the event of an emergency at TMI-1.
The most rapid and reliable means of accomplishing this goal is a remotely-read, real-time gamma dose monitoring system.
Such a system would give instantaneous gamma dose readouts in each sector of the Plume Exposure EPZ out to a distance of 10 miles or the outer boundary of the Plume Exposure EPZ, whichever is greater.
Such a system should be required as a condition of restart.
It is not apparent what new information not previously available gave rise to this contention at this stage of the proceeding.
In fact, on January 7, 1980 Intervenor ECNP filed a contention (ECNP Contention 2-13) which is 1
y
- ~,
similar in substance to Mr. Sho11y's new Contention 8.1.L.1 ECNP's conten-
-tion was admitted as an issue in the Licensing Board's " Interim Order on Late Filed Emergency Planning Contentions" of February 15, 1980.
In view of the similarities between Mr. Sholly's new Contention 8.I.L and ECNP 2-13, it is obvious that Mr. Sholly could have raised this contention at the same time ECNP 2-13 was filed.
Mr. Sholly has not indicated why he has delayed in filing this contention and has not shown good cause for the late filing.
There appears to be no good cause and the Staff, therefore, objects to the admission of new Contention 8.I.L on the ground that it is inexcusably late.
Proposed Contention 8.III.A states:
No emergency response plans for political jurisdictions smaller than a county have been served upon the parties to this pro-ceeding.
If the position of the Licensee and the Commonwealth is that such plans are not necessary to a finding of adequacy of emergency preparedness in support of TMI-1, this position should be made known as should be the basis for this position.
Until it is clearly established that (1) either the plans of local governments are not needed in order to judge the adequacy of emergency preparedness, or (2) such plans are served on the parties and are established as being sufficient, restart of TMI-1 must be denied.
-7/
ECNP Contention 2-13 reads:
ECNP submits that reliable assesaments of offsite conditions and dose rates cannot be made frcam the TMI site without an extensive array of live, real time, offsite radiation detec-tors.
The Plan admits to the pc ssibility of off-scale monitors with the expectation of using " contingency dose relase factors".
Contingency dose release factors are, however, not defined.
This eventuality, along with the complexities of offsite dose projections and estimations from inside the site and the associated errors and opportunities for miscalculations under emergency conditions render offsite detectors a necessary safety device.
Furthermore, live, offsite detectors could have
' direct output terminals at various State and County sites, and thereby bypass the cumbersome time-consuming reporting pro-cedures outlined by the suspended licensee.
O I Again, it:is not apparent what new information, from revision 2 of the Licensee's
- plan or any other source, not previously available gave rise to this contention
.at this stage of the proceeding. To the Staff's knowledge, the alleged defect of lack of emergency plans for political jurisdictions smaller than counties has existed since the inception of the restart proceeding with the issuance of the Commission's Order of August 9, 1979.
Mr. Sho11y's proposed Conten-I I
tion 8.III. A is, thus, not based cn1 new information and should have been raised at the time initial emergency planning contentions were to be filed i
4 in December 1979.
Mr. Sholly does not attempt to justify the late filing of this contention and, indeed, there appears to be no good cause for the untimeliness.
The Staff, therefore, objects to the admission of new Con-tention 8.III.A on the ground that it is inexcusably late.
i-l
- III. Conclusion-(
Based on the foregoing, the Staff does not object to the admission of Inter-a venor Sho11y's restated, revised and new Contentions 8.I.A, 8.I.B(1)-(3)',
8.I.C through 8.I.F. 8.I.G(1)-(13), 8.I.H through 8.I.K, 8.I.M through 8.I.R,
'8.II.A through 8.II.G, and 8.III.B through 8.III.I.
The Staff does object to the admission of proposed Contentions 8.I.B(4), 8.I.G(14)-(23), 8.I.L, and
}
8.III.A for the reasons stated.
i Respectfully submitted, j
bd.2 htt-i osep R. Gray I
/ oun el for NRG Staf Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of September, 1980
[!i; r
1
+,w--
u
.-y.
o~--,
my.
.w w v
.-w..-
-,w-,,
-,r.m,w,wv+-.--,--,
y.,...~r
--%vwv,-,,.
.-v.,w-
. UNI' ED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AT.,
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO INTERVENOR MEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS AND STAFF REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF STATUS OF INTERVENOR'S PREVIOUSLY ADltITTED CONTENTIONS"; "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO ENCP'S REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNIJG CONTENTIONS 2-2 AND 2-4" and "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO STEVEN C. SHOLLY'S REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear kegu-latory Commission's internal mail system, this 23rd day of September, 1980:
1 Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.*
Mr. Steven C. Sholly l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg. PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerosky Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection 881 W. Outer Drive Department of Environmental Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Resources P.O. Box 2063 Dr.' Linda W. Little Harrisburg, PA 17120 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, DC 20006 ATTN:
J.G. Herbein, Vice President Karin W. Carter, Esq.
P.O. Box 542 505 Executive House Reading, PA 19603 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. #3, Box 3521 Honorable Mark Cohen Etters, PA 17319 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Senator Allen R. Carter, Chairman Joint Legislative Committee on Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Energy Department of Justice Post Office Box 142 Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Suite 513 Senate Gressette Bldg.
Harrisburg, PA 17127 Columbia, SC 29202
Holly S. Keck John Levin, Esq.
Anti-Nuclear Group Representing PA Public Utilities Commission York Box 3265 245 W. Philadelphia Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 York, PA 17404 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
John E. Minnich, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners 2320 North 2nd Street Dauphin County Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17110 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101 Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard P. O. Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 Baltimore, MD 21218 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Chauncey Kepford Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Judith H. Johnsrud 1725 I Street, N.W.
Environmental Coalition on Suite 506 Nuclear Power Washington, DC 20006 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Washington, DC 20555 Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Wilmington, DE 19808 Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Faren Sheldon Washington, DC 20555 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss i
1725 1 Street, N.W.
Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Suite 506 Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D.
- 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 In addition, a copy was hand-delivered to the office of Chairman Ivan W.
Smith this 23rd day of September, 1980.
</
sepfR. Gray ounsel for NRC taf
_