ML19338E176

Response to Contentions Re Emergency Plan,Revision 2. Antinuclear Group Representing York Contention Iiia(L) Untimely.No New Info Presented in Newberry & Sc Sholly Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19338E176
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/18/1980
From:	Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8009250017
Download: ML19338E176 (13)

Text

- _ _

+ 'sa Lic 9/18/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLIAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS BASED UPON REVISION 2 OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN I. Introduction In its " Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedule For Discovery and Contentions On Emergency Planning" (July 15, 1980), the Board directed the filing of " expanded, specified or new proposed contentions based upon revision 2 to tha emergency plan" by September 8, 1980. The "Second Final Amended Contentions of Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee, et al.

To the Metropolitan Edison Emergency Plan; York County Protective Action Plan For The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant; and Dauphin County Fixed Nuclear Facility Incident Response Plen" were timely filed September 8, 1989. Newberry late filed, on September 11, another document of the same name which included eight additional contentions on the Dauphin County Plan. "Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Revised Emergency Planning Contention (Contention #8)" was filed on the Board, 8009250011 di

. .o NRC Staff, and Licensee by Express Mail on September 10, 1980, hand-delivered to the Commonwealth on September 11, 1980, and served by first class mail on all other parties on September 10, 1980. A " Reconsideration of Contentions By Intervenor Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York" was filed June 30, 1980.1 Liceensee resps nds herein to the emergency planning contentions set forth in these documents.

In the discussion which follows, Licensee first presents its arguments of general applicability to contentions as to which Licensee has interposed objections. Licensee then addresses each of its specific objections.

II. Discussion In its " Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedule For Discovery and Contentions On Emergency Planning" (July 15, 1980), the Board explicitly limited the September 8 opportunity for filing " expanded, specified or new proposed contentions" to contentions based upon Revision 2 to the Emergency Plan. The -

I expanded and new proposed contentions filed by intervenors I generally focus upon information that has been revised or )

included for the first time in Revision 2 of the Emergency Plan. However, in a few cases, contentions have been expanded or new contentions proposed which do not focus upon Revision 2 I

i 1 At the last prehearing conference, consideration of ANGRY's revised emergency planning contentions was deferred until after the September 8 filings. Tr. 2319-20.

l 1

l

. 4 of the-Emergency Plan, and which should therefore have been timely filed at some earlier peint in this proceeding. In such cases, Licensee objects to the contentions as untimely.

In addition, Licensee objects to some contentions as challenges to the new emergency planning rule. At the time the Board initially ruled on emergency planning contentions, the Commission had published for public comment (44 Fed. Reg. 54308

& 75167) proposed amendments to its emergency planning regula-tions. On August 11, 1980, the Commission ^'rmally issued the new emergency planning rule, which amends 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 70. The final rule was published at 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980).

Accordingly, Licensee here objects to contentions which constitute challenges to the new emergency planning rule in I

contravention of the Commission's Rules of Practice and established precedent.

III. ANGRY Contentions Licensee. raises the following objections or comments on the ANGRY emergency planning contentions:

(1) ANGRY's adoption of Sholly Contention No. 8C(e) -- In his most recent listing of contentions, Mr. Sholly has redesig-nated old Contention No. 8(C) as 8.I.B. In addition, the language of subpart 4 of that contention, which corresponded to old subpart (e), has been changed slightly from that presented

\

in the ANGRY listing of contentions. Licensee assumes ANGRY is adopting this ver ?.lon of the contention, and on that basis does not object to the contention.

(2) ANGRY CSctention No. IIIA(L) -- The language of the Emergency Plan referenced on p. 5-21 is i<ientical to language appearing on p. 5-18 of Revision 1 to the Emergency Plan.

Since this language is unchanged from that set forth in the Emergency Plan available to ANGRY since December 1979, the proposed contention is not based on new information contained in Revision 2 of the Plan and Licensee objects to the conten-tion as untimely.

IV. Newberry Contentions Newberry's Second Final Amended Contentions on emergency planning are contained in documents dated September 8 and 11, 1980. Although the September 11 filing is late, Licensee does not object to any of the contentions contained therein on grounds of lateness.

Licensee does, however, have a general concern with respect to all of the Newberry contentions. As framed in its i

filings, many of the contentions intertwine proper allegations with inappropriate factual material and legal argument.

Moreover, some of the numbered contentions make multiple and l unrelated allegations. Also, it appears that identical claims are repeated over and over. All of this makes it very .

difficult to respond to the Newberry contentions. It also is likely to make it very difficult to factually respond in an organized and concise manner to the allegations during the evidentiary hearings. Compounding the problem is the lack of a ready solution. At this late date Licensee is unwilling to have Newberry go back and redraft its pleading in a meaningful fashion.2 Putting this matter aside, listed below are Licensee's specific objections to the Newberry contentions.

(1) Preamble to Contention No. 3 -- To the extent the language demanding a plan for "the evacuation of the public in the m:ximum area which could be affected by an accident or incident" is intended to require evacuation plans beyond an area about 10 miles from the plant site, the contention is a ,

challenge to the Commission's new emergency planning rule (10 C.F.R. SS 50.47(c)(2), 50.54(s)(1) and Appendix E), and l Licensee therefore objects.

(2) York County Plan, Contention No. 28 -- This conten-tion incorporates by reference 15 contentions from Newberry's earlier filings, on the ground that "[t} hese contentions are still valid in light of the new Plan submitted by the York County Commissioners." This assertion is inaccurate. All of 2 Counsel for Licensee and Newberry have spoken about this problem, and have agreed to meet informally after the Board rules for the purpose of streamlining the Newberry contentions.

)

. E the referenced sections of the York County Plan in the old contentions are changed and renumbered in the new Plan. It is thus difficult if not impossible to correlate the old conten-tions with the new plan. In addition, in almost every instan-ce, the old contention duplicates (sometimes in identical language) new contentions set forth elsewhere in Newberry's filing.3 Licensee therefore objects to this contention.

(3) York County Plan, Pontention Nos. 29 through 39 --

All of these contentions contain general claims that some essential item is missing from the York County Plan. With i

respect to all of these items, the missing information also was l l

l not included in the earlier version of the Plan. Thus, i

Newberry was in as good a position in December, 1979, as it was l in September, 1980, to set forth these allegations. Since '

these contentions are not based on new information, Licensee l objects to them.

3 The one contention clearlv not covered by the new contentions is old Contention No. 3B(21) relating to mock evacuation drills. Licensee had previously opposed this contention on the ground that the Commission had earlier denied a rulemaking petition requesting that mock evacuation drills. Licensee renews its objection on the basis of the new emergency planning rule.Section IV.F.1 of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 states:

A full-scale exercise which tests as much of the licensee,

, State, and local emergency plans as is reasonably achie-vable without mandatory public participation shall be conduc-  ;

ted * * * * [ emphasis added.] '

l

T 1

(4) Licensee's Plan, Contention No. 2 -- Aside from '

changing the plan section reference, this contention merely repeats old Contention No. 3(d)(5). In its answer to Licensee Interrogatory No. 21 (see Newberry filing of August 25, 1980),

Newberry stated that it no longer maintains that the concerns set forth in Contention No. 3(d)(5) are valid. Licensee therefore oojects to this contention.

(5) Dauphin County Plan, Contention No. 12 -- This contention merely repeats old Contention No. 3(c)(1). In its answer to Licensee Interrogatory No. 13 (see Newberry filing of August 25, 1980), Newberry stated that it no longer maintains that the concerns set forth in Contention No. 3(c)(1) are valid. Licensee therefore objects to this contention.

(6) Dauphin County Plan, Contention No. 16 -- This contention makes a general allegation that certain information is not in the Dauphin County Plan. However, this information also was not in the earlier version of the Plan, and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 3 above, the contention should be rejected.

V. Sholly Contentions Licensee objects to the following emergency planning contentions submitted by Mr. Sholly:

(1) Sholly Contention No. 8(I)(L) -- Licensee objects to i this contention which asserts the need for a remote readout, l

i l

l l

. 4 real-time monitoring system. This contention is not based on new information, and, in fact, already has been alleged by both ANGnY (Contention No. IIF(l)) and ECNP (contention No. 2-13).4 (2) Sholly Contention Nos. 8(I)(Q) and (R) -- Both of these contentions allege that certain requirements of the new emergency planning rule be made conditions for restart.

However, the rule itself has transition provisions which specify the dates by which nuclear power plant licensees are to meet the requirements of the rule. These effective dates are binding on the Licensing Board. Licensee therefore objects to contentions which would require implementation dates other than those specified in the rule.

(3) Sholly Contention No. 8(II)(B)(1) & (4) -- To the extent these subcontentions are limited to the concerns set forth in Sholly Contention No. 8(II)(A), Licensee does not object. However, if these subcontentions are intended to mean that, as a general proposition, planning out to about 10 and 50 miles is inadequate, they challenge the Commission's new emergency plan rule and Licensee objects.

(4) Sholly Contention No. 8(II)(F) -- The requirements for FEMA and NRC reviews of state and local emergency plans, and the dates by which such reviews must be carried out, are specified in the new emergency planning rule. For the reason 4 The fact that Mr. Sholly may have raised this issue in one of his interrogaroty answers provides no basis for adding the untimely contention.

. m described in paragraph 2 above,. Licensee objects to making such reviews a condition to restart and therefore objects to the contention.

(5) Sholly Contention No. 8(II)(A) -- Licensee objects to this contention because it is not based on new information in Revision 2 to the Emergency Plan. The absence of municipal plans was apparent in December, 1979. In addition, the contention is a challenge to the new emergency planning rule which requires only one set of local plans -- i.e., the county level, or, where political subdivisions are different, the township, city or town level.

(6) Sholly Contention Nos. 8(III)(B) through (D) -- Until I now there have been no contentions relating to the Cumberland County Plan. Although that plan has been revised, Mr. Sholly's contentions are not dependent on new information in that plan and Licensee therefore objects.

(7) Sholly Contention Nos. 8(III)(E) through (G) -- These

, general contentions are not based on new information and Licensee therefore objects.

l

(8) Sholly Contention No. 8(III)(I) -- For the reasons described in. paragraph 4 above, Licensee objects to this contention.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By:

' Robert . Zahler Dated: September 13, 1980 1

September 18, 1980 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

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Contentions Based Upon Revision 2 of the Emergency Plan " were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by  !

deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 18th day of September, 1980.

l 7l L

95bert E. Za fer Dated: September 18, 1980.

, ~

UNITED STATES OF AE RICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart) i (Three Mile Island Nuclear )  !

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST

• Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Ievin, Esquire Gai man Assistant Counsel Atanic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Carm'n Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Comtission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555

• arin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney Genera'.

Atanic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel Post Offi Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Farrichurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little Gaiman, Dauphin Cbunty Board j Atanic Safety and Li nsing of Ccmnissioners Board Par.el Dauphin Cbunty Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Ca.m lina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101

• James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Iegal Director Ccnsumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Servim Section Office of the Secr : zy U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cnmi=sion Washington, D.C. 20555

• And by hand service on September 19, 1980.

- . ~ .

.

• e Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Williarn S. Jordan, III, Esquire Attorney for "rt-ny Township Attorney for People Against Nuclear T.M.I. Steering Omanittee Energy .

2320 North Second Street Hamon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A.~ Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Ibbert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H. Johnsrud '.

Scientists Envis.umantal Coalition on Nuclear Hamcn & Weiss -

Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Sholly Marvin I. Iewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsy]vania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Daniel M. Pell, Esquire Marjorie M. Aamodt Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York R. D. 5 32 South Beaver Street Coatesville, Pa g lvania '19320 York, Pennsylvania- 17401 i

4 u - ,. ---n.,,we --,.a --~,-,.,,,e.n ..r,,:-r,--cr-,-r --,,we- - - ~ -. ~v,~ , - - e--*