ML20008E018

Formulation of Unresolved Emergency Planning Questions & Consequences of Subsequent Resolution of Issues.Submitted for Immediate Attention to Facilitate Preparation of Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20008E018
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/20/1980
From:	Adler R, Carter K PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8010240069
Download: ML20008E018 (7)

Text

Q(f20,I9?0 8Ll 14 REMTED CORRESPOMCE k %UsNn~

-9 UNITED STATES T # ERICA ~~

Ocr22 NUCEAR REGULATORY 0@t4ISSIW f Cfff kbp BEFORE 1HE A104IC SAFEIY AND LICEtEEE BOARD 13 W //

In the Matter of ) ~ 4

)

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON Ca!PANY, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Thrm Mile Island tbclear ) (Restart)

Station, thit No.1) )

0@t0NWEAL1H OF PENNSYLVANIA'S EUMJIATION OF

• UNRESOLVED DERGENCY PLANNING QUESTIOtB Introduction The Ccx:monwealth of Pennsylvania notes apparent unresolved disagreenents at:nng parties concerning the scope and timing of hearings on energency planning issues. The Cerm,nwealth considers the resolution of these issues to be a matter requiring the Board's iMinte attention because we are unable to proceed in preparing our testimony absent. further Board guidance. We presently can neither advise our prospective witnesses what the scope of their direct testimony should be nor describe to thn the allowable sco;,e of cross-examination that they should be prepared to undergo. Undoubtedly, other parties are faced with the same difficulty.

The purpose of this statement is to fortrulate, in a manner helpful to the Board and the parties, the unresolved energency planning questions and to note sane of the consequences of resolving these issues. It is not our purpose at this time to state our position on these questions.

We expect to do that in oral argument at the October 30 session of this proceeding.

Q9 eh h so2024ooq

l 1

Questions

1. Wat standards are to be used in this prncMng to judge the adequacy of emergency planning (Reg. Guide 1.101, NUREG-0654, or the independent judgmme of the Eoard)?

The NRC staff and Licensee have already disagreed (at the August 13 Prehearing Conference) on the extent to which NUREG-%54 and the Comission's new emergency planning regulations affect the smpe of the August 9 Cmmission order. The Comission order requires Licensee to

" upgrade emergency plans to satisfy Regulatory Guide 1.101 with special attention to action level criteria based on plant parameters." The order also requires the Licensee to take long-term actions which, "though they need not be resolved prior to resmption of operation at Three Mile Island Unit 1, nust be satisfactorily addressed in a timely manner." One of these items is to " extend the capability to take appropriate emergency actions for the population around the site to a distance of ten miles."

Be new NRC emergency planning regulations and NUREE-0654 establish a set on-site and off-site emergency response capabilities and dates by which all nuclear power plants nust emply. How does this new regulatory structure affect the meaning of such phrases as " satisfactorily addressed in a timely manner" and " capability to take appropriate emergency actions"?

Does " upgrade emergency plans" refer only to the coupleteness and acceptability of the plan docuents themselves or does it also require a judgment about whether the plans can be inplemented and whether that inplementation capability could be brought below the threshold of acceptability by climatic changes or cutbacks in emergency response staff levels?

The Canmonwealth, as noted on page 11 of its position paper of October 6, anticipates that a line of questions will be directed at its witnesses

asking how projected evacuation Hmaa will be affected by various l

)

adverse weather conditions. Are such questions within the scope of 1 4

this proceeding? If so, what kind of weather-dependent analysis methodology is considered reliable and who should perform the analysis?

2. What level of off-site emergency planning cust be reviewed and evaluated in this proceeding (state, county, nunicipal)?

The Camdssion's August 9 order referred to " State / local" plans without defining " local". 'Ihe same is true of the new NRC mergency reponse regulations. FDR apparently intends to review emergency planning at the nunicipal level as well as at the state and county levels; and see intervenors apparently intend to present witnesses regarding the nunicipal level of emergency response capability. Yet, the parties have been served only with state and county emergency plans. Moreover, with the exception of Dauphin County, which has been inactive although admitted as an intervenor, no poliHeal subdivision of Pennsylvania has been a party to this proceeding. Parties who wish to subpoena nunicipal witnesses will need to know which, if any, nunicipal plans or planners are considered relevant to this proceeding by virtue of nunicipal size, location, or other characteristics.

3. Who is responsible for applying the standards and making the initial determination of adequacy at each level of plarning discussed in question 2 (FHR or NRC)?

According to the affidavit of Thomas Novak submitted as the NRC staff response to the September 17, 1980 MemorandLxn and Order, the NRC believes that its authority to evaluate off-site emergency preparedness has been transferred to EDR. If that understanding is correct, then the only emergency planning issues for which a completed SER (let alone testimony) l l

will soon be available are the on-site emergency response issues dich apparently conprise the 50 contentions still regarded as within NRC's jurisdiction. Moreover, the affidavit of m 's John W. McConnell advised the Cannonwealth for the first time that we have not yet submitted to m our " final" plan. What we thought was our formal plan submission

. (submitted to m on June 10, 1980, and distributed to the parties shortly thereafter) is apparently considered by N to be a "second draft". Similarly, the conments which we are now awaiting from N are apparently not to be FEMA's official evaluation of the plan (as we had thought), but rather are to be considered conments to be used by the Comonwealth in assembling yet another " final submission to FEMA". Mr.

McConnell's affidavit therefore raises a question as to who is an authoritative spokesman for M and how reliable the agency's estimates of empletion dates are.

Clearly, the resolution of the issue of FDfA's role in this proceeding and the establishment of some reliable channels of conmunication with that agency will have a profound effect on the scheduling of hearings on the emergency planning contentions.

Respectfully submitted, e-- /

& (d LP) Jv%

KARIN W. CAint.K ROBERT W. ADER Assistant Attorneys Gawral Commnwealth of Pennsylvania Dated: October 20, 1980

d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCEAR REGUUGRY CDtGSSION BEFORE THE A'IDEC SAFE 1Y AND LI NSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

MEIROPOLITAN EDISW 03fANY, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, thit No.1) )

CERTIFICA3E OF SERVIG I hereby certify that a copy of the attached "Comonwealth of Pensylvania's Formi1=H<vt of thresolved Emergency Planning Questions" was mailed, postage prepaid, to the persons on the attached service list.

{}t l (l'- O

~ '

b KARIN W. CARex Assistant Attorney General Camonwealth of Pennsylvania Dated: October 20, 1980

.. ~.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10 CLEAR REGULATORY 02t!ISSION BEEURE THE ATOfIC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

NEIROPOLITAN EDISON C@!PANY, )

) Docket Ib. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler 1800 M Street, N.W. P. O. Box 1547 Washington, D.C. 20006 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Ivan W. Smith, Esquire R.D. if5 Chairman Coatesville, Pemsylvania 19320 Atomic Safety and Licensing &'ard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Ms. Holly S. Keck, leg. Chairman Washigton, D.C. 20555 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (AtKRY) Dr. Walter H. Jordan 245 W. Philadelphia Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel York, Pennsylvania 17404 881 West Outer Drive Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Dr. Linda W. Little Plant Postponement Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 2610 Grendon Drive 5000 Hermitage Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Mr. Robert Q. Pollard Docketing and Service Section 609 Montpelier Street Office of the Secretary Balitnere, Maryland 21218 U.S. Nuclear Regulacory Concu.ssion Washington, D.C. 20555 Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Consuner Adwcate Ellyn R. Weiss Department of Justice Sheldon, Faraon, Roisman & Weiss Strawberry Square, 14th Floor 1725 I Street, N.W.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. (PANE)

Emimmmental Coalition on Nuclear Sheldon, Harnon, Roisman & Weiss Power 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801-James A. Tourcellotte, Esquire Mr. Steven C. Sholly Office of the Executive I2 gal 304 South Market Street Director Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 -

t _..

. . D John A. Imvin, Esquire Jordan D. Cumingham, Esquire Assistant Counsel Attorney for Ikkerry Tcuuhip Pennsylvania Public Utilief T.M.I. 5teering Cemittee Comission 2320 iU th Second Street P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17110 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17120 Marvin I. leais Rob =.rt L. Knupp, Esquire 6504 Bradford Terrace Assistant Solicitor Philadelphia, Pemsylvania 19149 Coutty of Dauphin P.O. Box P Jane Ime 407 North Front Street R.D. 3, Box 3521 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Etters, Pemsyhania 17319 John E. Minnich Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Comissicners -

Dauphin Countf Courthouse Front and Market Streets Hariisburg, Pemsylvania 17101 1

i I

1 l

l

_ _