ML19345D883
| ML19345D883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012170748 | |
| Download: ML19345D883 (8) | |
Text
.
STAFI 12/09/80 j
Zi B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I2.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O-
??
u$
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
y
^
.i si w
2:
I v>
In the Matter of
)
o
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPA';Y, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR SHOLLY'S SPECIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PLANNINS CONTENTION REGARDING RELIANCE OF COUNTY PLANS ON MUNICIPAL RESOURCES 1.
INTRODUCTION At the hearing session on emergency planning issues on October 31, 1980, Sholly' Contention 8.III. A (redesignated as EP-19-A by Licensee)E was revised and admitted as an issue in the captioned proceeding. Admission of this contention was conditioned on specification of the particular reliance upon municipal resources asserted in the contention (Tr. 4483), with the conten-tion subiect to dismissal if adequate specification was not provided (Tr. 4480).
l l
On November 24, 1980, Intervenor Sholly submitted his " Specification of I
l Emergency Planning Contention Regarding Reliance of County Plans on Municipal Resources" (Specification) as directed by the Licensing Board (Tr. 4484).
The NRC Staff's response to Mr. Sholly's Specification is set forth below.
1/
The contention states that The county plans are inadequate due to the inadequacy of municipal resources and services needed for effectuation of the county plans.
- 0 12170 7'IT r--M--
g-y<
+--+-er+
+-
g-e-
e-y
- 4
--*v-er V
e-<"7 W +
pr W
"-wv' v' v
$=-
-t=r+r-
II.
NRC STAFF'S POSITION ON SPECIFICATION In his Specification, Mr. Sholly identifies in general terms those municipal resources and services which he contends are relied upon by county emergency plans and provides the bases for his assertion that such resources and services ought not to be relied upon by the counties.
Specifically, Mr. Sholly identifies county plan reliance upon (1) municipal police departments for traffic control and "related" services during an evacuation (Specification, p.2, item 1.);
(2) volunteer fire companies and ambulance crews for notification of the public, decontamination of vehicles,. and transportation and treatment of injured persons during an evacuation (Specification, p.3, item 2.);
(3) the provision of security services for evacuation (Specification, p.2, item 3.);
(4) private bus csapanies and school busses for transportation in an evacuation (Specification, pp.3-4, item 4.);
(5) Ham radios and local government conmunications networks for communications during an emergency (Specification, p.4, item 5.);
(6) the existence of mass care centers in host counties for housing evacuees (Specification, pp.4-5, item 6.);
. (7) the availability of tow trucks and gasoline trucks for use during an evacuation (Specification, p.5, item 7.);
(8) rrunicipal fire protection ~and ambulance services (Specification, p.5, item 8.);
(9) municipal rredical services (Specification, p.5, ite-s 8. and 9.);
and (10) the availability of radiation protection and decontamination equipment and personnel trained to utilize such equipment for use in an emegency (Specification, pp.5-6, iten 11.)
While Mr. Sholly has thus identified a number of municipal resources and services which are allegedly relied upon in county emergency plans, he has not identified the specific county plans, or portions thereof, which rely on i
such services or the municipalities upon whom such such reliance is placed.
For example:
(1) What county plans rely upon municipal police departments for I
traffic control and "related" services during an evacuation and what municipal police departments are being relied upon?
I l
(2) What county plans rely upon volunteer fire companies and ambulance crews for notification of the public, decontamination of vehicles, and transportation and treatment of injured persons and what specific fire.
I l
l companies and ambulance crews are being relied upon?
l
(3) What specific county plans provide for security following an evacuation and what municipalities are relied upon to provide such security?
(4) What county plans rely upon busses from private companies and school districts for transportation during an evacuation and what munici-palities are being relied upon to provide such busses?
(5) What county plans rely upon Ham radio communications and what local governmental communications networks are relied upon?
(6) What county plans rely on what specific mass care centers for which no prior arrangements have been made?
(7) What county plans specifically rely upon the availability of tow trucks and gasoline trucks for use during an evacuation?
f (8) What specific fire protection and ambulance services are relied upon in the county plans?
(9) What specific municipalities are to provide medical services relied upon in county plans?
4 (10) What county plans rely upon local governmental units to provide radiation protection and decontamination equipment and trained personnel to use the equipment and what local governmental units are relied upon to provide such equipment and personnel?
If the county emergency plans do, in fact, place reliance on those municipal resources and services generally identified by Mr. Sholly, each of the questions listed above might be av ved by a tedious reading and review of the county plans. However, it is Mr. Shelly who is alleging that county plans inappropriately place reliance on certain municipal resources and se rv ices.
In making such allegations and generally identifying the types of municipal resources and services relied upon, Mr. Sholly must have had specific county plans and specific municipalities in mind; otherwise, such allegations would be baseless. When the Licensing Board directed further specification of the contention in question, the Staff had anticipated that the specification would not only identify the general type of municipal services relied upon but indicate where in the county plans Mr. Sholly believes such reliance is manifested.2/ Such additional specification as
-2/
To some extent, other admitted contentions which are directed to some of the same types of county plan reliance on resources as specified by Mr. Sholly do cite specific county plans and portions of plans in which there is reliance on municipal services.
See, for example: ANGRY IIIB(F), Newberry York Plan 8 and 17_ and Newberry Dauphin Plan 9 with regard to reliance on municipal police department services; Newberry York Plan 18, Newberry Met. Ed. Plan 1 and Newberry Dauphin Plan 15 with regard to reliance on volunteer fire companies and ambulance services; Newberry York Plan 12 and 23 and Newberry Dauphin Plan 15 i
with regard to security during evacuation; ANGRY IIIC(10) with regard to the reliance on busses for transportation in an evacuation; A'1GRY IIIC(10), Newberry York Plan 4, 5, and 16, Newberry Dauphin Plan 3, 4, 6, and 17 with regard to reliance on Ham radio communications and local governmental communications networks; ANGRY'IIIC(10) and Newberry York Plan 31 with regard to reliance on mass care centers; Newberry York Plan 29 with regard to the availability of tow trucks; ANGRY IIIC(7),
ECNP 2-28, Newberry York Plan 36 and Newberry Dauphin Plan 10 with regard to reliance on medical services; and Newberry Met. Ed. Plan 5 with regard to the availability of radiation protection and decontami-nation equipment. Whether the county plans cited in these contentions are the source of the types of county plan reliance on municipal resources specified by Mr. Sholly is unclear.
would be provided by answers to the questions listed above would, in the Staff's view, result in identification of specific cases of offsite emer-gency planning where inadequacies may exist, and allow those areas to be directly addressed on the record.
In spite of the fact that additional specification of Sholly Contention 8.III. A, as outlined above, would be desirable and useful, it is the Staff's view that the contention, as currently specified, is litigible in general terms since Mr. Sholly has specified the types of municipal resources which are allegedly relied upon and which are of concern to him.E Accordingly, the Staff does not object to the admission of the contention as currently specified.
III.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is the Staff's view that additional specification of Sholly Contention 8.111.4 would be appropriate and useful.
At the same time, it is the Staff's view that the specification provided is sufficient to allow the contention to be litigated on general tems and, accordingly, the Staff does not object to admission of the contention as currently specified.
Respecfully submitted, f
n
^'If M. 9%
fwejR. Gray:
/J eply unsel for NR taff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of December,1980 3/
Without f urther specification of the contention, testimony addressing the contention may, of necessity, be general in nature and might not address specific county plan provisions and the resources of specific municipalities.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket.No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR SHOLLY'S SPECIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION REGARDING RELIANCE OF COUNTY PLANS ON MUNICIPAL RESOURCES" in the above-captioned proceeding have been
- erved on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 09th day of December, 1980:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.*
Mr. Steven C. Sholly Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky 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.
HLrrisburg, PA 17127 Columbia, SC 29202
Ms. Gail P. Bradford Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
ANGRY Fox, Farr and Cunningham 245 West Philadelphia Street 2320 North 2nd Street York, PA 17401 Harrisburg, PA 17110 John E. Minnich, Chairman Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler Dauphin County Courthouse P.O. Box 1547 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Ms. Ellyn P.. Weiss Robert Q. Pollard Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 609 Montpelier Street 1725 I Street, N.W.
Baltimore, MD 21218 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Thomas J. Germine Environmental Coalition on Deputy Attorney General Nuclear Power Division of Law - Room 316 433 Orlando Avenue 1100 Raymond' Boulevard State College, PA 16801 Newark, NJ 07102 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Panel
- Fastponement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2610 Grendon Drive Washington, DC 20555 Wilmington, DE 19808 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Panel (5)*
R.D. #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, DC 20555 John Levin, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section~(7)*
PA Public Utilities Commission Office of the Secretary Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, DC 20555' I
N D sep R. Gray
/-
uns for NRCJtaff
,