ML19341D453

Brief,In Form of Pleading,Proposing That ASLB Make Listed Rulings on Emergency Planning Issues.Emergency Plans Must Comply w/NUREG-0654 & Gain FEMA Approval Prior to Restart. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19341D453
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/24/1981
From:	Bradford G ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8103050615
Download: ML19341D453 (10)

Text

._

, ANGRY 2/24/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fj

[

@ l 2,/ i 1 i ~ ac ?

% M BEFORETHEATOM(p\ XL%2CENSINGBOARD h q , , , ,,, , , .

In the Matter of b}i0\)w{h9

-;  % ?A h-h.,.,.

k "* gfgrc=f,'f,,. 0 1 $ h b m'

, METROPOLITAN EDIS G O Docket 50-289 -

(TMI-1)' N ' @

I A ERIEF OF INTERVENOR ANGFY ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES Intervenor ANGRY proposes that the Board make the following rulings on emergency planning issues for clarification of long-and short-tcrm issues on emergency planning:

a) Licen: lee 's and State , County and Municipal Energency Flanninr nust fully comply with NUREG 065h, as a chort-term recuirenent, prior to restart of TMI-1.

b) Full FEMA approval on Licensee 's and State , County and Municipal Emergency Planning, and full FEMA antroval of tha NRC's internal Emerrency Plannine nust be obtained prior to restart and prior to the close of the Record in this proceeding.

(The Board ruled at the First Special Prehearing Conference that ANGRY had preva31ed on the Merits of ANGRY I )

The development and effectuation of adequate and effectiva Emergency Response F1-.s by the licensee anti by state and local Fovernnental units are necessary for the pub}ic health and safety to be adequately protected afid therefore should be made a tre-condition te the restart of TMI-1. (Emphasis added.)

" Reasonable Compliance" or " Reasonable Progress" is not an appropriate standard in this proceeding after April 1, 1981.

c) TMI-1 restart permission will not be granted "unless the NRC (/ FEMA) can make a favorable finding that the integration of onsite and offsite emcrgency plannin7 provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective mearures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological omergency." (44 FR 55h03)

(emphasis added.) d S

8188050G[g j i

L

d) NUREG 0654 has suprueeded RG 1.101 (44 FR 55402) and therefore NUREG 0654 is the applicable standard cited in the short-term Order. Further, NUREG 0654 calls for capability for emergency response actions to a distance of 10 miles around the site, the long-term item is therefore a short-term pre-restart taquirement.

Discussion or the above nronosed Board rulines The primary thought that the Board should keep in mind in considering emergency preparedness in the Tr.I area is that we residents of the TMI area are unique among residents near all reactors in the United States. TMI residents have had to participate in a partial evacuation that was as disorganized, chaotic and terrifyip.g an event as any event that any civilian population of that cire (more than a quarter nillion people curt within 10 milec) has gone through in peacetime in this country.

Mt St Helens, for example, caused more damage and in ediate lors of life, many people had to leave their homes there forever, but residents were not advised that the volcano poced "nc der er to the public health and safety." ..e' were so advised, while cimultaneously receiving a barrage of contradic tory advice and information on the increasing danger. Feychological strece, while not a formal issue in this proceeding, is an undeniable fact of the condition, even now two years later, of area citizens.

Central Pennsylvanians are by and large a traditional and

__ conservative lot-- many, if not most area folks live a lifestyle decades if not centuries out of step with the more urban pcrts of.the country. It will take a long, long time for area people to overcome their distrust of the credibility of those-- the

! licensee, the NRC or stat.and local officialH- who are responsible for implementing protective action decisions.

Emergency planning must meet hiFh standards of adequacy and must be fully effectuated before restart can be permitted. And, this finding of adequacy must be made in fully public hearings--

not just fixed to the Staff's approval after deficiencies are found through public hearings.

We request to the Board that you find a way-- perhaps through 1

a recommendation to the Commission-- for full public participation of intervenors and State agencies in the certification of tne corrective " fixes" of emercency plannine deficiencies. Fublic confidence requires this.

.It is the position of this intervenor that the Licensee's operating permit for unit one is suspended, and that therefore the licensee must meet standards set for age oreratine licenses in 44 FR 55402. Prior to the accident, Pennsylvania's and the county plans did not have Federal concurrance. *1he accident Cemonstated graphically that the Licenseeb and State / local p.lans were woefully inadequate to protect the public health and cafety. In light of these prnven deficiencies, the fact that t he licensee had im operating permit at that time should not be held to be persuasive reason to allow the licensee to be treated as arS te licensees of operating reactors. The plans pricr to the accident were not just par;ially flawed they were a complece total failure when called into action. The licensee deserves no special "gnnifather clause" type of consideration for havinc operated a nuclear plant without emergency planning provisions in place and adequate. Rather, they deserve to b5 held to an even stricter standard than any other licensee for the prevar failure to trovide for protective actions in the tast.

If public confidence is to be restored there can be no short cuts taken. Evacuation planning cannot work at all without public confidence. Machinery and hardware will function without human belief in its working, but plans dependant on hundreds of volunteers and thousands of citizam cannot work without the

~ confidence and cooperation of the people. The people are the machinery of emergency response. If that confidence and cooperation of the people involved cannot be obtained, the reactor cannot be operated. ~~

It is the position of this intervenor that Ahe issues of

~

public confidence and cooperation in the event of an emergency must be addressed in the hearings. Many intervenor contentions i attack the presumotion of the willingness of volunteers to do their part or to not panic. For example, ANGRY and Sholly have developed detailed critiques of the letters of agreement.

3

\

. )

'lle question whether these form letters adequately show informed intentions on the part of the organizations depended upon, and we also question whether even with the best of intentions ahead of time these individuals will perform their assigred duties under the stress of a repeged stressful occurrance.

It is the position of this intervenor that the issue of psychological stress as related to the impl$nentation of emergency planning proceedures should be heard in this hearing as a necessarv part cf the Record on emergency planning. And,

' it follows from that that if FEMA /3taff testimony on impLamentation of protective actiam hinres on their assertion that " people will cooperate" or that " volunteers will be willing to drive busses and neglect their own families" or that " people will not panic" or that " experience in other areas shows that people in this area will obey directions and not panic," then the Record will be not only incomplete but lop-sided and unfair without intervenor testimony on psychological strees as related to emergency planning. Conversely, if intervenor testinony is not to be heard on psychological stress ac related to emergency planning, than FEMA / Staff or Licensee testi orv, especially testimony from witnesses not qualified to speak on ps.tcholcrical stress, cannot be adnitted to the Record if it in any measure is based on assumrtione or assertions about attitudes in the Dublic.

AUGRY VII: the adecuacy of NRC emercency resuonse plans ilithout further arguing the admissibility of ANGRY VII on which the Board has not yet ruled, we submit that NRC response 4 is a necesasry part of the total picture and that other levels of planning nnot be sufficient without adequate and appropriate actions by Cie NRC at the time of an emergency. We note also that this is a point where the Commonwealth agrees with ANGRY.

Status of negotiations and arreements amonc parties Licensee stands alone in many areas.

ANGRY has attended all required Emergency Planning conferences, j

i and not found the occasions very helpful to clarifying the issues or to working together among all parties to simplify presentation I

i 1 t

of the complex issues involved in a way that will provide a concise, clear, easily understood, and full record. With our severe resource limitationc intervenors have as much interest as any party in making a concise and full record with as little hearing time and volume of paperwork as possible.

We do not, however,want our hours and hours of volunteer work in studying plans to be lost to the record of this hearing.

ANGRY dutifully studied licensee's and Commonwealth's sugerstions about which ANGRY contentions might be dropped. We dropped both that Commonwealth suggested, and we were not able to agree with Mr. Zahler's reasoning on any of the other suggestions.

Recommendations for receivine evidence on Enerrenev Flannine The Board should supoena the Energency Operations Directors of each of the five counties surrounding the plant. ANGRY is not able to provide Mr. Randy Curry, York's EC Director fcr several reasons: he does not .apresent our point of view as our witness, we cannot afford to pay him, he has refused to cooperate voluntarily (even if the first two conditions were net }

and York County Solicitor Gordon Roe has stated to us that York would resist even a supoena from ANGRY. The Board will renerber that the Board supoenaed Mr. Curry for our deposition in Sept.

Other county directors are also requested because the status of the other plans is as important as York's. ANGRY only worked on York's because we live in York and it seemed enough to take on. Special problems and general problems exist in the other four T unty p M s as well.

ANGRY requests permission to use expert cross-examination help. We will have a number of citizens assisting who have studied a particular part and who are members of ANGRY. We also request permission, pursuant to 10 CFR 2 733, to provide expert cross from two people who are not members of ANGRY: Steven Sholly of UCS, and Richard Pollack, Director of the Critical Mass Energy Project, 215 Pennsylvania Avenue , S .E. , Washington, D.C . . Mr.

Follack's credentials will be supplied later.

5 1

Order of eresentations of issues The Staff has worked closely with us in separating issues and related contentions into logical groups. We surgest that these groups be ordered into the sequence that events would take in accident conditions, and the Staff has agreed. There are areas of interface between the Licensee and State where ANGRY and the Staff agreed that it would be logical and a good.f clearer, pres'entation to provide testimony from both sides of the communicatien link in proximity in the hearings.

Licensee apparently intends to provide its witnesses only once.

We think this may not be sufficient and will not make for the clearest presentation of the record.

If licensee needs to provide its witness >once we request that all of the Emergency Planning issues be heard in straight secuence and not divided by on/offsite. The division between on/offrite has always been a fuzzy area. It night be better to drop that dictinction now and hear all energency planninr testinony in secuence. .le see no advantage to the distinction, and see that separatinr pieces of the energency planning record will make the record harder to understand and harder to create concicely.

.!e recuest that the Ecard consider " clean-ur" testinony or other issues starting March 3, and starting Emergency Planning on/offite on March 16 or thereabouts.

ANGRY will have some exhibits to present which we will try to offer well in advance so that parties can study them and avoid the need for our presenting a sponsoring witness on emergency planning details. Staff and FEMA thought this might work as a productive way of presenting information, while avoiding a string of school superintendants, bus drivers, etc.

as witnesses at the hearing.

We heartfully recommend that the Board allow cross and recross

" rounds" on each contended issue, not on a whole panel or a l whole " book" of testimony at once. The Board is dealing with inexperienced interrenors, we would be helped and the record would be helped by our taking smaller issues at a time, going the rounds on an issue, and then starting again on a new round at a second issue. ANGRY and Commonwealth agree on this.

6

We also would like the Board to consider changing the standard schedule days of the hearing to include evenings and Saturdays. We are not suggesting evenings and Saturdays in addition to the Tuesdays through Fridays now used. We would 'like to be able to provide greater participation from our members who have waked on the Flans but who cannot come to the hearings because of day jobs. Saturday hearinEs in place of a weekday hearing would be appreciated.

/CCRY contacted Mrs. Aanodt about this brief and has been authorized by Mrs. Aamodt to state that she agrees with the sections on the proposed rulings that the Boaro should make and on the discussion of those rulings, and that she wishes the Board to accept this stdhment on her behalf as her answer to the Board'n February 9, 1981 Order.

Respectfullysubbited, f'il Cp F. Bradfonb, legal representative for the Anti-Nuclear Group Representinc York, Inc.

Feb 24, 1981 Served by hand to parties present at the hearings.

7

_= .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 501289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Brief of Intervenor ANGRY on Emergency Planning Issues, which was hand delivered to Licensee's hearing office by Gail Bradford on February 24, 1981, were served upon the parties identified on the attached Service List by Ceposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 25th day of February, 1981.

jar >> sfWVV '

J f

%g 'GEggg'e F. Trowbridge /

Dated: February 25, 1981 i

d l

I 1

. 1

.- )

l l

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC.'OCSSICS BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY ANO LICENS!NG BCAPO In the Matter of )

)

METRCPCLITAN EDISCN CCMPANY ) Dc:ket Nc. 50- EF

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel At mic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Cer.-

Beard Panel P st Office B:x 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatery C =missien Harrtsburg, Pennsylvania '712 _

Washingt:n, C.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jcrdan Assistant Attorney Genera; At==i: Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Ecard Panel P:st Office Box 2257 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvan.1 ' 12-Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37530 John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. Tourte11otte, Esquire (4) Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square 1 1

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (3)

Office of the Secretary D. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

j Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Fox, Farr & Cunningham Harmon & Weiss 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Washington, D. C. 20006 Ms. Louise Bradford Robert Q. Pollard TMI ALERT 609 Montpelier Street 315 Peffer Street Balt.imore, Maryland 21218

, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Harmon & Weiss Judith Johnsrud ,

1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear '

Washington, D. C. 20006 Power 433 Orlando Avenue Steven C. Sholly State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Union of Concerned Scientists 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 601 Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D. C. 20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford ANGRY Marjorie M. Aamodt 245 West Philadelphia Street R. D. 5 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Attorney General of New Jersey Attention: Thomas J. Germine, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07102

!