ML19347C177

Response to NRC 800923 Objections to Sholly Contention 8 Re Emergency Planning as Revised 800908.Existence of 20-mile Plans Does Not Remove Licensee Obligation to Evaluate Plume Exposure Pathway Zone.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19347C177
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/07/1980
From:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8010160763
Download: ML19347C177 (7)

Text

"

SH0LLY, 10/7/80 O

• D 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtilSSION '

4- OQ 4 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardP Offge g g , N >-h l l

9

[Serece p

) 4 In the Matter of ) A I

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,--ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-289

) (RESTART)

(Three tiile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) )

)

INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION (CONTENTION *8) l l

The following constitutes my response to the objections raised by the NRC Staff (09/23/80) to Sholly Contention #8 as revised on 9/8/80.

Contention 8.I.B(4)

Licensee has consistently responded to interrogatories on this subject that it has made no independent evaluation of the adequacy of the prooosed circular,10-mile radius, Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ. The.

Commonwealth has also made no independent evaluation of the adequacy of such an EPZ for TMI; rather, the Commonwealth has taken an identical approach with respect to every nuclear facility on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (i .e., the Commonwealth has specified EPZ's of 10 and 50 miles radius for the Plume Exposure Pathway and Ingestion Exposure Pathway, respectively). In fact, these EPZ's are embodied in Annex E of the Commonwealth's Emergency Plan in the assumptions upon which the plan

1) SOB 3010160763 3 /

is based.

Licensee's line of questioning in his most recent set of '

interrogatories on Revision 2 to his Emergency Plan quite obviously i

reveals Licensee's intent to rely on the mere existence of 20-mile l l

evacuation plans as a substitute for independently assessing the l adequacy of the proposed 10-mile radius circular EPZ for Plume Exposure l Pathway. For instance:

1 "4. With respect to proposed Contention No. 8(C), do contend that the preplanning done by the countfas in connection with their 20-mile evacuation plans

! is inadequate to resolve your concerns? If so, explain i the basis of that conclusion." j "9. (c) Explain why the 20-mile evacuation plan set forth in the emergency response plan for Lancaster County is inadequate to resolve your concerns."

(TAKEN FR0ti " Licensee's Interrogatories to Intervenor Steven C. Sho11y on Revision 2 of Licensee's Emergency Plan,7/29/80)

Licensee, in response to interrogatories from Intervenor Sinolly, states quite clearly its intent to accept a rigid application of the EPZ concept (i.e., the simplest application being a 10-mile curcular EPZ for Plume Exposure Pathway)

" Licensee has performed no formal analysis or evaluation of this information. Licensee, however, believes that the EPZ boundaries used by PEMA, and the factors considered in developing those boundaries, are consistent with NRC guidance provided in NUREG-0396, NUREG-0654, thr. NP,C Policy Statement on EPZ, and the emergency plan 11ng rule recently adopted by the Commi-sion."

-(TAKEN FROM " Licensee's Response to Interrogatories From Steven C. Sholly on Revision 2 of the Emergency Plan, 8/12/80) 1 Licensee cites in its response the assumptions from Annex E of tne Commonwealth's Emergency Plan as support for its position. Not a single

4 government agency.nor the utility has evaluated the TMI site specifically to determine the adequacy of the proposed 10-mile circular EPZ for the Plume Exposure Pathway. The Licensee's position, as well as the Commonwealth's (apparently), is that the existence of 20-mile evacuation plans relieves them of their responsibility to establish an adequate Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ based on prevailing local conditions.

The croposed contention is not vague in the least, in this light.

I It quite directly asserts that Licensee depends on the 20-mile plans as a substitute for evaluating the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ; it asserts that l to the extent that this is true, the adequacy of the 20-mile plans must be established as a condition of restart. The mere existence of 20-mile plans does not remove Licensee's obligation to evaluate the Plume Exposure Pathway EPI, nor does it prove, as a fact, that such an evaluation is not 1 necessary. For the 20-mile plans to serve as a substitute for the establishment  !

of a site-specific Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, based on prevailing local 1 I

conditions as specified in the emergency planning rule, their adequacy must be established prior to restart.

This proposed contention should be accepted for litigation as it is written.

}

Contention 8.I.G(14-23)

The organizations are specified in Licensee's Emergency Plan as l 1

providing radiological assistance to- the Licensee in an emergency (see

, l Revision 2 to Licensee's Emergency Plan, Table 11). Licensee is dependent 4

on these organizations for specific personnel and resources. Given the '

1 intent embodied in ilUREG-0654, it is clearly desirable to have agreement

. letters with these organizations so that it is clear that arrangements

4 have been made, that the arrangements are sufficiently detailed so that both parties and the public know what to expect, and so that it is very clear exactly what services are to be provided, when they are to be provided, and under what conditions. It is entirely appropriate that letters of agreement be executed. The contention should be accepted for litigation.

Contention 8. I.L This issue is dealt with fully in my response to Licensee's objections to the same contention (see pages 1-5, Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Response to Licensee Objections to Revised Emergency Planning Contention, 9/23/80).

Contention 8.III.A The revised county plans contain, to the best of my knowledge, for the first time, a single emergency plan at a smaller political jurisdiction than county--the Emergency plan for the Borough of Mechar.icsburg which is contained in the Cumberland County Emergency Plan.

I had fully expected that all municipalities would have submitted their plans for inclusion in the revised emergency plans for the various counti es . These local municipality emergency plans would not have been included in earlier plans because they had not been dra f:ed.

It appears now that either these plans will not be written, or that there is a prevailing view at the Commonwealt5 and Licensee leve.

that such plans are' unnecessary to permit' a finding of adequacy of offsite emergency planning. The position.taken by this contention is that it should be clearly established on the record that (a) such plans are not needed, or -(b) such plans are needed, have been reviewed, and

have been found to be adequate. This question snould not be left hanging.

l It requires an answer, and should be, therefore, litigated during the proceedi ng.

. Should the Board rule that the contention as drafted is late-filed, in view of the issue which it raises, I request that the Board adopt it as a Board question.

DATED: 7 October 1980 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Steven C. Sholly" 4

'f .

~

~ ei p i.:::-

& po:*mD 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g3ge NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O .

OCi 14 G9G > 7'3 _

Docket 50-289 (RESTART)

[ offi:e cf the Sm '

Dodd: & Sec 8 C3 Enne' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g d I s, g I certify by my signature below that single copies of:

INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SH0LLY RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF CBJECTIONS TO REVISED EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION (CONTENTION #8) were served upon the persons on this service list by deposit in the l United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on this '

7th day of October ,198,p_.

1 a Cdid Steven C. Sholly Evan W. Smith, Eso. John A. Levin, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Assistant Counsel Licensing Board Panel Pa. Public Utility Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P0 Sox 3265 Washington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, ?A 17120 j Dr. Walter H. Jordan Karin~ W. Carter, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panai Assistant Attorney General 881 West Guter Drive 505 Executive House Oak Ridge, TN 37330 PO Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dr. Linda W. Little Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Wal ter W. Cohen , Esc. l 5000 Hermitage Drive Consumer Advocate Raleigh, NC 27612 Office of tne Consumer Advocate 14th Floor, Strawcerry Square James R. Tourtellotte, Esq. Harrisburg, PA 17127 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Docketing and Service Secticn Office of the Secretary Thr.odore A. Adler, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PO Box 1547 Washginton, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17105

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Judith H. Johnsrud Harmon and Weiss 433 Or;ando Avenue 1725 I Street, NW State College, PA 16801 Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Daniel M. Pell, Esq. Philadelphia, PA 19149 32 South Beaver Street York, PA 17401 Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. #5 William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Coatesville, PA 19320 Harmon and Weiss -

1725 I street, NW George F. T awbridge , Esq.

Suite 506 Shaw, Pi:: man, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C.. 20006 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Robert Q. Pollard 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, MD 21218 -

P 4

6 a

$ 's

- - __