ML19341C275
| ML19341C275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103020589 | |
| Download: ML19341C275 (7) | |
Text
~
9t
~
UNIIED STATES OF AMERICA
//
NUCEAR REGULATORY C@t41SSION Docsa m p 3
,. 3 m
uswac 5
^z
^
FEB 2 61981 >
cmce of m %se,6ce M ATWIC SAFE 1Y AND LICENSING BOARD Docheting &
Before AMnistrative Judges:
Inn W. Smith, CbMmm g
C Dr. Walter H. Jordan e
y Dr. Linda W. Little
=
rees Nf/
In the Matter of
)
)
E*IROPOLITAN EDISON CQiP/5T
)
Docket No. 50-289 (Resm)
(Three Mile Island N'mlear Station, Unit No. 1)
)
February 25, 1981 MESDRANDEM AND ORDER ON RGRY'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS KTTION TO ADOPr SEVERAL OF MR. SHOLLY'S DERGENCY PLANNING CONIENTIONS On December 23, 1980, Mr. Sholly withdrew his emergency planning con-tentions (numbered under his series of Contention 8 subparts) and his contention 9 (radiation nonitoring). ANGRY sought tc adopt Mr. Sholly's withdran contentions (Tr. 9995-97, January 8,1981). The board permitted ANGRY to adopt Sholly Contention 8 I B (local factors affecting 10-mile radius EPZ), 8 I I (continuing assurance of effectiveness of emergency plan),
and 9 (radiation nonitoring).
Pursuant to the invitation of the board (Tr. 11,676-88, February 4, 1981), ANGRY filed a request for reconsideration on February 6,1981. ANGRY now seeks to adopt Sholly Contentions: 8 I F, 8 I G, 8 I J, 8 II B, 8 II D, 8 II G, 8 III A, 8 III E, 8 III F, and 8 I R.
In apparent response to the board's concern that ANGRY not broadly seek to adopt contentions withdran pson S
l l
2-by Mr. Sholly which are duplicative of contentions remaining in the pro-ceeding, ANGRY states that with the exception of 8 I R, none of the con-tentions are duplicated in ANGRY's contentions.
The February 13, 1981 response of the licensee on the other hand calls ocr attention to contentions of ANGRY and other parties which licensee finds identical or sidlar to the Sholly contentions nich ANGRY seeks to adopt.
The board has carefully made the conparison and concludes that in nost cases the contentions are indeed quite similar, but not necessarily identical.
Khere this is the case, we do not permit ANGRY to adopt the Sholly contention.
However, we wish to assure that such denial will not preclude appropriate consideration of those aspects of the above-listed Sholly contentions which differ from existing contentions. Therefore, we will not sustain an objec-tion to testimony (whether direct, on cross-examination, or otherwise) on the grounds of being beyond the scope of the existing contentions, if it can be justified as being within the scope of the withdrawn Sholly conten-tions. In effect, this ccrports with licensee's belief in the similarity of the contentions without requiring parties who do not wish to do so to make written changes to thei prepared written testimxty. The particular cententions are discussed below:
1.
Sholly 8 I F and 8 I G Sholly 8 I G concerns letters of agreement between licensee and other organizations, as does EP-4(B) (ANGRY IIIA(D)). EP-6(D) (AWAY IIIC(10)) is e
a
. 4 similar, but relates to the York County Plan. The organizations and alleged defects in the letters are not the same in the M m Y contentions and Sholly 8 I G.
Sholly 8 I F deals with support services provided by con-tractors, which is somewhat different than support of independent entities through letters of agreement.
2.' Sho11v 8 I J This contention, dealing with delay in accident assessment tire, is similar to EP-4(H)(1) (MEY IIIA(J)(1)) alleging that licensee's plan fails to set forth the criteria or infor: ration for expected accident assess-ment time. However, the thrust of the Sholly contention is sacehat different and broader, involving the alleged lack of basis for a 10-minute time period assumed in licensee's plan and the alleged need for contin-gencies for coping with a failure to prmptly recognize and declare an mergency.
3.
Sholly 8 II B The contention alleges that three assumptions in the Cmuonwealth's plan (Annex E) are without basis, viz:
(1) that Federal agencies will provida for "umet" needs on a timely basis; (2) evacuees will remain outside a risk area for at least three days; and (3) at least 50 percent of the evacuees will make their own arrangements for sheltering.
The umet resource requirements in EP-6(F) (MX;RY IIIC(12)) involves the York County Plan and are not necessarily directed to the same unmet needs for which the Lcxmxrwealth will rely upon Federal agencies.
1
' EP-13 (ECE 2-38) and EP-16(A), (L), and (S) (Newberry Dauphin 1, 11, and 19) deal with the same evacuation assumptions as assxptions 2 and 3 of the Sholly contention, but they are directed to some of the County plans, rather than the Cmronwealth's plan. We do not agree with licensee that EP-14(EE) (Newberry York 31) relating to auxiliary paar and heating of shelters is close to this Sholly contention.
As on the other Sholly contentions which ANGRY seeks to adopt, we rule that Sholly Contention 8 II '3 may not be adopted per se, but may be looked to in order to justify the scope of permissible testimony on the " unmet needs" portion of EP-67), EP-13, and EP-16(A), (L), and (S). However, ANGRY nust coordinate any testimony it seeks to adduce on assu::ptions 2 and 3 in the Sholly contention through Newberry since Newberry is the active intervenor with contentions (EP-16(A), (L), and (S)) dealing with these aspects.
4.
Sholly 8 II D This contention involves evacuation time estimates and physical inpedi-ments to evacuation. It is very similar to EP-5(B)(2) (ANGRY IIIB(E)(2))
but not' precisely the same as stated by licensee. The Sholly contention includes seasonal changes in traffic flow (caused, for instance, by the State Farm Show or by tourist traffic), whereas ANGRY's contention, in ccrn-mon with the Sholly contention, includes rush hour traffic and inclement weather.
e
~
5.
Sholly 8 II G This contention relates to the adequacy of energency plan drills by the Ccanonwealth. This general topic is also the subject of EP-4(F)
(ANGRY IIIA(H)) and EP-15(D) (Newberry Met-Ed 5). However, the thrust of the Sholly contention is a little different, in that in part it is directed to the need for unannounced drills to assure the correction of alleged inadequacies in the June 16, 1980 drill regarding the Health Department and the relationship of PE % and BRP.
6.
Sholly 8 III E and F Subpart E alleges a failure of the five county plans to demonstrate the ability to meet the requirenents of prompt notification of the public within the EPZ. Subpart F relates to notification of transients. These appear to be almost the same as EP-5(D)(1) (ANGRY IIIB(G)(1)), as noted by licensee, although the language of the Sholly contention is clearer.
i 4
l 7.
Sholly 8 I R ANGRY seeks to exchange its contention EP-4(C) (ANGRY IIIA(E)) for l
the Sho'ly contention. We see little substantive difference between these l
I centsmHnns which deal with dissemination of information on protective actions to the public on a periodic basis. The Sho11y contention focuses on the licensee's responsibilities,
- areas the ANGRY contention is l
directed to the counties' responsibility.
l l
6-In ruling that ANGRY may not adopt the Sholly contentions discussed above, but pemitting the specified withdrawn Sholly contentions to serve as support for the scope of permissible testimony, we have effected a cw p wise. ANGRY did not properly assable all of its other contentions which were similar to the Sholly contention it sought to adopt. Indeed, its bare statement that the contentions were not duplicative was incorrect.
The licensee assenbled contentions which were simi.lar and we appreciate this assistance. However, it was left to us to examine closely whether there were some differences between ANGRY's existig contentions and the Sholly contentions it sought to adopt. This was a task which M1GRY, as the movant, should have perfomed.
We have chosen to effect a cccorcx:dse, in addition to our reasoning discussed at the outset, because the argunents of the effect of attenpted consolidation on ANGRY's position cut both ways.
It is correct, as argued by licensee, that had full consolidation in its purest fem been achieved, all intervenors may have had all cmbined energency planning contentions (albeit with lead intervenors designated for different areas). Had this consolidation occurred, the withdrawal of Mr. Sholly from the energency planning area would not have resulted in the removal of energency planning contentions. On the other hand, it may also be valid for ANGRY to assert that in infomally working with Mr. Sholly, it refrained from restating certain aspects of Mr. Sholly's contentions in its own contentions. In es.epting this possibility, we are giving ANGRY the benefit of the doubt, since in reality the ca:parison we have performed above shows little such 4
M a
~
self-restraint with respect to the Sholly contentions it seeks to adopt in the instant request for reconsideration.
8.
5nolly 8 III A The only contention which we treat differently is Sholly 8 III A.
This contention very generally alleges that county plans are i W.te due to inadequate nnicipal resources. It was ad:::itted, as licensee points cut, subject to better specification (Tr. 4471-83). It was then noted, and is still correct, that both ANGRY and Newterry have specific contentions in this area.
W. Sholly filed his specification on Noven-ber 24, 1980. Licensee characterizes this filing as being only an identification of generalized concerns about a list of parHmlar -
resources, eg., police, fire, ambulance, etc.
We do not have to reach the question of whether Mr. Sholly's specifi-cation of Nove:iber 24, 1980 corrected the defect of vaguener.s to deter-mine that ANGRY could not have relied on Mr. Sholly's specification, which was developed and filed after its deadline for cententions, to forbear filing its own identical contentions. Furthermore, as licensea points out, there de many ad::itted cententions an1 5g with alleged inadequacies of n:nicipal resources. Accordingly, as noted above, this contention is denied totally and may not serve as guidance for the secpe of testLony on this subject.
EUR THE AIWIC SAFEIY AND ISING BOARD s>#
, Chairman Ivan W. SdliCf ~ ~
AIICIISGATIVE JUDGE PA% burg, Pennsylvania
~
February 25, 1981
.