ML19336A337
| ML19336A337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham J FOX, FARR & CUNNINGHAM, NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8010220526 | |
| Download: ML19336A337 (6) | |
Text
'
f s%
,,o 5
i s
~.. _
~'
gh i
e t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 01950 > b }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
C'yq.7:L~. v,pe,.g 5
c w BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M'y
../
\\
\\
/,%
N i
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON' COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart) l (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
[
Station, Unit No.1)
)
f 4 --
[
h!
l INTERVEh0R NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING LOMMITTEE'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S ANSWER AND LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO j
INTERVENOR NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE'S REVISED EMERGENCY PLANN LG CONTENTIONS l
I.
INTRODUCTION 1
Intervenor, Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee hereby files a i
response to the objections of Licensee and Staff; however, because of serious
]
i l
funding ptoblems, Intervenor's counsel cannot devcte the time necessary to a I
~ detailed response to the objections of the Staff and Licensee. Therefore, the i
following is a general response to the objections of both Licensee and Staff as to the revised contentions raised by Intervenor.
II.
INTERVENOR NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE'S RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS OF LICENSEE AND STAFF j
It is Intervenor's position as regards the Staff's objections to I
Contention #3 that until and unless the Commonweelth of Pennsylvania can i
j guarantee that there will be training exercises that will assure that there will be a state of on-site and off-site emergency preparedness than can give reasonable assurance that adequate pr otective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the Contention is still valid and falls within the scope of this proceeding. Concerning Contention #12, it is Intervenor's position that'the Contention represents a question of fact that it would be [$
4
//
80102205)(o g
appropriatt for this hearing to hear testimony regarding this matter and that it deals with an issue of whether the state of off-site emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be i
taken in the event of a radiclogical emergency.
Regarding the admission of Contention #13, it is agreed that the Contention is repetitive and the contention could be either stricken or redrafted.
Contentions 15 and 29 both raise questions of fact. Contention #15 raises a question of whether the number of ambulances available for evacuation is sufficient; the question of specification and conflicts is a question of proof to be decided at hearing. Therefore, it is argued that Contention #15 is acceptable as drafted. Wher Contention #19 was drafted, it was the belief that without a catalog being attached to a county emergency plan, there is absolutely no way that the plan justifies reliance upon tow trucks being used as specified in the plan. It is Intervenor's position that the catalog is necessary in order to support the plan because without such a catalog there.is absolutely no way to determine whether the plan justifiably relies upon the existence of such i
tow trucks. Therefore, it is Intervenor's contention that the Contention is with basis and therefore admissible.
Contention #18 of the Revised Contentions is argued by Intervenor to be admissible on the grounds that a basis for the Contention is warranted in that it can be generally assumed that security in the area will be needed in order to insure that mass transportation vehicles are not diverted to other areas than those assigned and that in an area as large as York County within the 20-mile EPZ, two mass transportation staging areas are not sufficient.
It is a question of fact as to whether the plan is sufficiently drafted to provide a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency and that issue is for the.
fl.b Board to decide. Therefore, it is Intervenor's position that Contention #18 should admitted.
As concerns Licensee's objections to the Contentions, Licensee i
stressed the same issues raised by Staff that Newberry's Revised, specified
+
i newly proposed Contentions contain legal argument, raised unrelated concerns I
and issues within the same Contentions and, in some instances, replicate issues raised in other new Contentions. During a telephone conference with Licensee's counsel, Robert Zahler, it was agreed between parties that a conference in the future would take place in which Licensee and Intervenor would attempt to further condense and specify Intervenor's Contentions.
It is Intervenor's I
position that the Contentions as drafted are valid and are suitable for hearing.
i l
Intervenor has no opposition to meeting with Licensee in order to streamline and redraft various Contentions.
Specifically, the objections raised by Licensee to preamble Conten-tion #3 is averred to challenge the Commission's new emergency planning rule, i,
but, instead, represents a continuing concern by Intervenor that even those l
outside of the 10-mile EPZ will substantially affect the evacuation of those within the 10-mile EPZ, and,therefore, it is contended that the preamble is not t
objectionable.
Contention #28 of the York County Plan is further discussed in Section IV of this response.
j As regards Contention #29 through #39 of the York County Plan, it is Intervenor's position that the redraft of the York County Plan contains new infomation regarding the items listed in Contentions 29 through 39 and that Licensee has indicated that there is in each of these Contentions some missing item that was not contained in the York County Plan. It is Intervenor's position that the Contention #29 through #39 are based on new infomation
3 contained in the Emergency Plan and, therefore, could not have been raised earlier and that the Contentions are based on new information.
The objection to Intervenor's Contention #2 of Licensee's plan is
\\
adnitted and is hereby voluntarily stricken.
Contention #12 of the Dauphin County Plan is hereby voluntarily stricken.
f Contention #16 of the Dauphin County Plan is averred to ba valid in i
that the new plan submitted by Dauphin County included many new variables regarding staging and evacuation of the general public. It is inherent that in any of these operations, the new Dauphin County Plan assumes optimum weathea conditions. This is new information contained in the new plan and is a valid point to be raised in this Contention regardless of wheiher the same factor was 1
present in the former plan submitted by Dauphin County.
i IV.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS CGnTENTIONS RAISED BY INTERVENOR, j
. NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP TMI STEERING COMMITTEE, et al I
Intervenor, Newberry Township TMI Steering Canmittee,- is taking the position that the Contentions as previously a6nitted in its first filing are still ~1n effect and valid with the exceptions of the following Contentions:
i 3B(19),3C(1),3D(3),3D(4),3D(5). It is recognized by the Intervenor that there may remain certain inconsistencies between the original Contentions and y
]
the plans now in place. It is Intervenor's position that incorporation by i
reference of the previously admitted Contentions into the new Contentions in order to preserve the same.
Intervenor assumes that at the meeting between Intervenor and Licensee that ample opportunity will be afforded for Licensee and Intervenor to discuss among themselves the propriety and relevancy of previous Contentions raised by Intervanor in light of the new plans now in place. Therefore, in order to protect its position until such conference takes place, Intervenor, Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee, et al, takes the
.r,
position that the status of the original Contentions raised by it are still in place and in issue.
i V.
CONCLUSION j
Based upon the foregoing, Intervent r, Newberry Township TMI Steering i
Committee, objects to the objections raised by Staff to Contention 3 and all of i
Contentions 12,13 and 29 of the York County Plan and to the portion of Conten-tion 15 and all of the Contention 18 of the Dauphin County Plan. Based on the foregoing, Intervenor, Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee, hereby objects to the objections of Licensee to the preamble to Contention 3, Contention 28 of the York County Plan and Contentions 29 through 39 of the York County Plan and t
Contention 16 of the Dauphin County Plan. Concerning Contention 2 of Licensee Plan and Contention 12 of the Dauphin County Plan, Intervenor hereby agrees to strike the Contentions.
]
Respectfully submitted:
i
. r, FOX,FfRR&CUNNIpGHAp 1
, lab.Af -b
,k.f;yb.<1 b u?ll-n.1 m
/
Jordan D. Cunningham, Es. quire v2320 North Second Straat Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 717/238-6570 October 16, 1980
, +
w
,y
,~.-r
-y4-,-,.
e w,1
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 et al.
TThree Mile Island Nuclear Restart Station, Unit No.1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Intervenor Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee's Response to NRC Staff's Answer and Licensee's Answer to Intervenor Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee's Revised Emergency Planning Contentions was mailed First Class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of October,1980, to the following:
Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attn: Chief, Docketing S' rvice Section,
e I
Ivan W. Smith, Chaiman
_,,,,g Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~ " ~..
p U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9-J Washington, D. C.
20555 O'T 2 0 $60 > r j T
.T C:"enf the Secretry Dr. Walter H. Jordan me 3tsi:s 881 West Outer Drive Ec;2/
Oakridge, Tenn. 37830 f ca to Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hemitage Drive Raleigh, N. C.
27612 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 James A. Tourte11otte 4
Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- -;I 3
- //
I ' -(,Y
/,
Wl!44 l mw% 44L-
/ Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire t
.