ML20002A207

Reply in Opposition to Licensee 800918 Response Objecting to Contention III a (L) Re Emergency Plan.New Concerns Re Governmental Responsibility for Mandatory Emergency Requirements Critical to Restart.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20002A207
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/13/1980
From:	Pell D ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK, PELL, D.M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8011050158
Download: ML20002A207 (4)

Text

,

• ANGRY 10/13/80

.- - -~ '# ,

r w, s> ..

sr..,

v

. .r;.,.' Ocr.

7~

s

!:4 , ;.

s -,

s ?: .. 3E .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \'" (%~ ' h[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '\ '*

- 1 '* $. %. 57Y s

~*s '

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'gg.gw e.dv#

In the Matter-of  :

Metropolitan-Edison Company  : Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear  : (Restart)

Station, Unit No. 1)  :

ANGRY'S REPLY TO LICENSEE'S OBJECTIONS TO ITS CONTENTIONS BASED UPON REVISION TWO OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN -

On September 18, 1980, licensee filed two objections to ANGRY contentions relating to revision two of licensee 's emergency plan.

The first objection set forth on page three of that filing was not really an objection and states that the licensee assumes that ANGRY is adopting Mr. Sholly's version of his contention 8(c) now re-designated 8.IB. If this assumption is correct, then ANGRY has no further statement to make on the matter; since this would appear to answer licensee's concern with respect to Mr.

Sholly's old contention number 8 (c) now re-designated as contention 8.IB.

With respect to licensee's objection to ANGRY contention number III A(L), AUGRY's response to this objection is that the language of the EP in revision one and in revision two speaks for itself. The fact that the language has not changed decs not =can that this contention is not in response to new information. The p 68 9 .

25 # l b u11 ggg ;, l5g & (

s&Am. pry '

. sabihn:4vr

\

j contention does not rely s'olely on what the licensee states at Page 5-21 of revision two of its emergency plan. The contention addresses a primary concern of ANGRY which is backed up by the Emergency Planning Services Code of Pennsylvania and of the various regulatory guidance provided by the Commission that local government plans be coordinated with those of the licensee and that local government plans be adequate to meet an emergency at Three-Mile Island with offsite radiological consequences.

In the sease that the licensee revised its emergency plan and then subminted new county plans attached to it as exhibits, these new county plans (which in turn contained draft plans fo; local municipalities) was new information upon which ANGRY had a right and still has a right on which to file new contentions. That is to say, while the language remains the same from revision one to revision two, the information attached to revision two with regard to county plans and with regard to local plans contains significantly new information. Therefore, in the context of this new information, the statement at Page 5-21 of revision two of the EP takes on new significance which it did not have prior to the submission of the emergency plan of the licensee, revision two.

Moreover, the contention goes to the heart of emergency planning at Three-Mile Island. The county plans attached to

.m n .. . 2 ~

e

wtr:enatov aQge.a '

. l["

4 revision two of the emergency plan as set forth in the contention itself, make clear that governmental units are responsible for numerous mandatory emergency planning requirements which include dissemination of explanatory information to the public, meeting the special transportation needs of persons with impaired mobility, and providing for the warning of persons not within hearing range of sirens. These concerns are so critical to the question of whether or not Three-Mile Island Unit one should be permitted to restart that ANGRY submits that even i'#%there is a t

technical deficiency with respect to this contention (which it in no way admits), the Board ought to overlook same if any should exist since the Board is charged with the responsibility of protecting the public health, safety and welfare.

i

.f It is evident that if local municipalities have not generated adequate emergency planning at the time of restart, i

this Board could not meet its obligation to the public and to the commission to safeguard the public health and safety.

ANGRY would respectfully remind this Board that both in existing nuclear guidance and in existing county plans, local municipalities are given the primary responsibility for moving the population at risk and for warning them and advising them as to appropriate protective actions. In, the event of a TMI-2 type l

-~ se :~ ss~r..s-s n w: ~n - -

-;nmg :vgr , l n:.;swy .

we. n.hk my-g e...J

^

.l[bY

. Dr r

accident occurring at TMI-l following restart, if these provisions have not been adequately investigated, a great human tragedy could easily occur.

In light of the foregoing, ANGRY respectfully requests this Board to overrule the objection of the licensee to ANGRY's ,

contention number III A(L) .

Respectfully submitted,

~

~

by: u3': :t. 2 t _ : / 1

!-l. .[ ':) i.f.(~ -

taniel M. Fell, Esquire Attorney for ANGRY 32 South Beaver Street York, PA 17401 (717) 845-6291 mm o 3 0

e w S. J bgi..Vw6 ,i y ;w', "

w' q.

t t r r W<v  ! c! 'l d.'

y. ,

Gb d Qi 1 N ,jki9 d<I bN I,

!bl$=.:CSr4-  :

$ E

_4_

_ . - . .