ML20039F216
| ML20039F216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1982 |
| From: | Christenbury E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Perry S Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201120200 | |
| Download: ML20039F216 (11) | |
Text
.......
n January 7, 1981 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
g Associate General Counsel d)
Federal Ercrgency Management Agency S
p 500 C. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20001 c C- @,
3 c
D QS?? T~
Attil L
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. E "U * s /
In the f*atter of d
~;# E C
h['
(Perry 'bclear Power Plant, l' nits 1 and 7)~
Pocket l'os. 50-440 OL, 50-441 OL l
Cear (*r. Perry:
This letter is to seek your assistance in answering certain interrogatories and docurent requests addressed by an intervenor group to the NRC Staff.
While recognizing that your Agency is not a party to NPC proceedings, we believe that your expertise would be of great assistance in responding to these natters. Such assistance would be consistent with what you have voluntarily agreed to do in the ;.3st.
In the ongoing Perrv operating license proceeding the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has admitted the following issue:
Issue #1 Applicants' mergency evacuatinn plans do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective neasures can and will be taken in the event of an energency.
The portions of the Poard's Orders of July 22 and September 9,1981, relevant to.this issue, are attached.
We request your assistance in troviding responses to the following interrogatories and requests:
i Interrocatory 13
!!UREG-0654, P.ev.1, at page 2 states:
" FEMA, NPC and other involved Federal agencies intend to use the guidance contained in this docunent in their individual and joint reviews of State and local government radiological mergency 820112O200 810107 PDR ADOCK 05000440 p
rp PDR omce)
~.0
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,q,, r,,,,,j SURNAMEh
................ ~......
..=.... a. a a a a -
- .a..a - a
..-a" "a"
aa*"-*"**
..- l.[.--a om)
~~~~~~,
~~
................ ~..
.... ~.... ~. - ~ ~.
-..a
....-a-NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFF1ClAL RECORD COPY usc e ni-sw uo-
response plans and preparedness, and of the plans and preparedness of NRC facility licensees."
Based en this staterient, respond to the following:
a)
Identify each and every "other involved Federal agencies" that will review any aspect of radiological enernencv response plans and preparedness for the Perry Nuclear power Plant.
b)
For each such acency named in response to "a" above, deronstrate (by enclosing appropriate copies of correspondence, Federal Peoister notices, or other appropriate documentation) that each intends to use fl4 REG-0554, Pev.1, as guidance for their reviews of radiolooical enercency response plans and preparedness.
{
c)
.For och agency naced in response to "a" above, discuss the technical and legal bases for each such agency to perfom its review of radiological enercency response plans and preparedness.
Interronatory 30
!!UREG-0654, Rev.1, at page 28 states that the inter-relationships between Federal agencies and their roles.in radiological energency response will be defined in a " National Radiological Erergency Preparedness Plan." Fully describe the current status of any such plan, and provide a copy of it.
Further, provide for each and every agency included within such a plan a copy of all procedures, nanuals, instructions, orders, and any other docurentation related to each agency's role and activities under the plan.
Your responses vould be of nost help if they could be provided to us by close of business on January 15, 1982.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Jares H. Thessin, Esq., on 492-7442.
Dist NRC Docket File Sincerely, PDR/LPDR Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto Olmstead Edvard S. Christenbury Rutberg~
Chief Fearing. Counsel ~
Vogler Chandler Attachnents: As Stated Thessin Chron FF(2)
Blume Wright
}
ASchwencer me4 L
.40, g,0,,,
,,,,,0 (g
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?,H uston
..y.,L.,
oment cua==e>
.............w....
......A............
.........l./8 21 / '..........
....1/.n /. 82
.....J../. 82 1/
om>
OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usa m m i m.
Nac ronu as co-ao) nacu cao.
V d
ations, CFUR is designated (SE os the lead party on Cite as 14 NRC 175 (1981) unwining to lead on these 1.BP-41-24 3 writing within twenty (20)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION e the June 16,1980 Order, 5 proceeding. Copies of this ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k
ced as sua sponte issues, and 1smmission and to the Office Before Artadalarrative Judges:
a Commission's June 2,1981 l
Peter 8. Bloch, Chairman yt constitute issues in this Dr. Jerry R. Kline 1 end they are dismissed as Mr. Frederick J. Shon 1 as issues at this time by the In the Matter of Mies of this Order dealing Docket Nos. 50440-OL sded to the Commission and ance with the Commission's CLEVELAND ELECTRIC 3MIC SAFETY AND ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
NG BOARD July 28,1981 E.
The Licensing Board issues a special prehearing conference order et J. Remick concerning the admission of parties, motions to dismiss and to stay I
STRATIVE JUDGE admissibility of contentions, and the adoption of special discovery procedures.
srd F. Cole RULES OF PRACI1CE: JURISDICIlON STRATIVE JUDGE The Commission has jurisdiction to license nuclear facilities located E Milla, Chairman within the United States. The fact that some emergency phnnmg a ti i i STRATIVE JUDGE J
required for licensing rray take place in Canada does not deprive th c v t es Commission ofjurisdiction.
e RULES OF PRACTICE: STANDLNG residence of members 125 miles from the reactor s Standing as a matter ofright.
e o 1
l 175 I
_M' I
A. E-.g y Planning Contentions (1)De Contendons Here are several related emergency planning contentions. Sunflower ithat the method of decontaminating affceted persons is not alleged:
adequately defined, d
s s e momton with cont nuous
[T]he emergency and evacuation plans for the subject facilities are ao ra i fatally defective in numerous respects including but not linuted to emergency whether population exposure levels may have risen o a madequacy of notification plans; deficiencies in radiation exposure dangerous level, measurement techniques, insufficient practical workability; no agree-t that the Radford calculation of radiation risks should result in I
ment with local response organizations as to cost and implementation recalculation of a variety of paramaters of the eme en la of plans and madequate notification of and information to media and including definitions of " contaminated areas " "emer ti i
residents within the ten (10) and fifty (50) mile radii.
levels,"" plume exposure pathway,"" protective action gu des," and i
l
- T8cncy P anning zones,"
ne Lake County Board of Commissioners seeks the Licensing Board's t
- Pa w to help on the " adequacy" of the emergency response plan which Applicant include the h E
has submitted to Lake County and wants "to independently verify all pathway oflodin 131' monitoring [of possible accidental releases of radioactivity] so that we can itha adequately provide our citizens with an emergency warning if any sampi s f m h
po ul and dangerous or unsafe releases of radiation from the Perry Nuclear Power tthat potassium iodide should be stock iled at receiving hospitals.
Plant occur." Furthermore, Robert E. Martin, president of the Board of (Mr K
. P Lake County Commissioners, stated at the conference that inte nors or, in o e i n e, d d n re te to rge IE *"*"8'I the development, capitalization, implementation and maintenance of a At the conference, Sunflower introduced further specification of its workable and adequate emergency response plan is beyond the emergency planning contention, mcluding the following points:
financial capabilities of Lake County.
t that thy City of Mentor has a road pattern with limited numbers of r utes m and out, and this would impede efficient evacuation, (Tr.145.)
tthat there are too few buses to serve schools in the emergency OCRE (3) is a contention that Applicant should distribute potassium l
iodide to every household within ten miles of the plant in order to help P anning zone and that there is as yet no agreement with the Regional Transit Authority or other localities to remedy this protect the thyroid gland and " help calm citizen fears during a nuclear situation, crisis i that there are not enough tow trucks, and Tod J. Kenney had not particularized his contentions prior to the Special
- I **I
- I".nteer fire fighters might prove inadequate in assisting Prehearing Conference. Ilowever, at the Board's invitation he managed in he evacuation of people who do not own automobiles.
during the conference to review the emergency planning sections of the i
FSAR and to present 14 points, complete with detailed references to the (2) Arguments W@ %gw FSAR, before the Conference adjourned. (Tr. 596-603). Then, at applicant's In its brief, prior to the extensive additional particulanzation which request, Mr. Kenney was required to submit his contentions m writing and occurred at the conference, Applicant opposed this contention rimaril to serve them on both applicant and stafT by Express Mail, which he has because there was no " basis" and there was a failure to cul done. Mr. Kenney's contentions included a reference to findmgs by Dr.
sulTiciently by explaining the nature of the alleged deficie cies. S Edward Radford concerning allegedly, ereased nsks from radiation concurred in the argument that intervenors' generalized assertions ofi
- m cxposure, and they also mclude the following allegations that went beyond or defectiveness are not admissible.
the allegations of the other intervenors:
In the course of the conference Applicant raised a series of questions tthat applicant's FSAR has not clearly defined the criteria used to concerning the specific facts raised by intervenors, including the adequacy determine who will receive special attention in an emergency, of radiation monitoring and the sufficiency of the number of buses to be 186 gg7
utilized. However, Applicent's principal problem with the conttalion was cy response phns. Htnce, Applicant considers that citation to the Radford that:
report does not provide any b: sis for challenging the emergency planning regulations and that it certainly provides no basis for challenging ney are claiming they do not have enough tow trucks; they don't have emergency plans made pursuant to the regulations. (Applicant's Brief at 36-school buses; too many schools,; too many hospitals. It couldjust go on 45.) Applicant also makes a variety of specific factual points about specific forever, and there is really no basis for him saying it's unworkable.
Kinney contentions. (Ibid.)
How do we draw the line and how do we come up with a specific For its part, Staff generally r.grces with Applicant but argues forcefully contention?
that the Radford article relates to a conflict over the shape of the dose-188.)
resp nse curve f r i n zing radiation and is not new. (StafT Comments at Applicant also was troubled because it is confident that agreements will I9')
be reached with localities concerning emergency planning and that the (3) Ceech incompleteness of current plans will be remedied. Consequently, Applicant Intervenors contentions on emergency planning were not presented as a suggested that these were the kind of issues on which new contentions single contention. However, viewed as a whole, these contentions raise might be admitted later in the proceedings but that it was inappropriate to many concerns about the off-site emergency planning process. These admit contentions about deficiencies which are likely to be cured. (Tr. 205-contentions, including the separately argued Potassium Iodide issue and the 208).
other separate contentions discussed in this section, are admissible as an In its "Brief on Contentions," filed July 6, Applicant continues to contend that Sunflower relies on " broad, conclusory allegations" that are r hg decision on admissibility, the Board d i the without basis. (At 6-7.) It also identifies a portion of the record as standing ficity factors. (Its review of those factors is set forth below.) For ease of for the proposition that intervenors were criticizing on-site emergency plans rather than the state and local off-site plans, which apparently have not yet bsequent reference, we shall refer to admitted contentions as " issues."
been filed. (Brief on Contentions at 7.)
is particular issue has been rephrased by the Board as follows-Staff, on the other hand, acknowledges specificity when intervenors ISSUE #1: Applicant's emergency plans do not pronde reasonable tttack the number of school buses available for evacuation, the lack of assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event agreements with local counties, the resistance of the counties to financing of an emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent a p ;y plans and the inadequacy of evacuation plans for certain damage to property.
hospitals. It asserts that, despite this specificity, there is no " basis" because the contentions rest on the "ipse dixit conclusionary statement of Sunflow-ne contentions combined in this generally phrased issue rassed a series er's counsel."(Comments on Contentions at 7.)
of specific factual concerns related to the overall proposition that the Applicant conceded that OCRE's contention concerning potassium emergency plan is not " workable." We interpret these contentions to apply iodide was admissible (Tr. 226); but StafTcontested the admissibility on the to state and local emergency plans, which have not yet been==pt-a d and ground that a letter of March 25,1981, from the Cm===iaion to Mr. Iou E.
to imply that Applicant has not yet filed plans that comply with NRC Gurfitta, contained a position of the Commission concermag potassium regulations found in Appendix E to Part 50. In particular, intervenors are iodide and precluded this Board from acting on this matter.
understood to have asserted that Applicant has not satisfied the reqare-I With respect to the Kenney contention concerning conclusions reached ment of Section III of Appendix E, that:
by Dr. Edward Radford about the effect of radiation on people. Applicant trgues that Radford's conclusions diverge from those reached by the
[ Applicant must]
demonstrate that the [ emergency) plans pronde majority of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) III report.
reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken j
However, Applicant further argues that even if Radford's conclusions are in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and l
mecapead as true they are consistent with the dose-effect estimates which prevent damage to property.
I formed the basis for Commission regulations and for Applicant's emergen-188 e
i litervenors also may be inferred to be alleging that Applicent his not on the Board. (Tr. 230.) The Board does not consider itself bound, end the p tassimn iodide considerations are therefore adnussible.
complied with the joint Commission-Federal Energy Management Agency Criteriefor Preparasion and Emluation of Rodological Emergency Responte In rev,ewmg the specificity factors, we determined that Issue #1 i
< Plans and Freparediess in Sayport of Nur/ car rowr Plants (NUREG-0654; satisfied specificity factor (1) because intervenors collectively demonstrated FEMA-REP-l; Rev.1) at $6,58 (criteria 8 and 9).
knowledge of Applicant's emergency plans, including a knowledge of the Wa have considered Staffs argument that an intervenor should not be planning process and of the relationship between the proposed plan an j permitted to establish basis through statements of counsel. (See Tr.188, reqmrernents of the sunoundm, g commumty. This knowledge is not i
l where Appbcant appears to agree with this argument.) Were this argument surpnsmg. Intervenors hve m the area of Perry, are well versed m sts traffic; limited to techmcal conclusions, it would be more persuasive. For example, patterns and facilities, and have raised a number of specific factual issues we would be unlikely to accept a bare contention on stress corrosion which, if accepted as true, cast substantial doubt on the overall workability cracking unsupported by any statement of authority. On the other hand, the of the emergency plan. Applicant's argument that petitioners did not l
regulations en emergency planning require that there be " reasonable understand the limited applicability of the on-site emergency plan included assur:.nce" of" appropriate measures.""Ihese are broad standards subject in the FSAR does not convince us that this contention shouki be exclu l
to differences of opinion. The lake County Disaster Services Agency, Factor (2)is satisfied because Applicant knows what is being challenged.
which has official planning responsibilities, made a statement supportive of We do not interpret the requirement of specificity of contentions to mean 224-225, 144-150.)
that only narrow issues can be raised. When, as here, intervenors challenge portsons of the contentions included in this issue. (Tr.
I i
'Ihere are other experts in emergency planning whose opinion may have the overall workability of an emergency plan, together with making a special evidentiary weight, but this is a subject on which even the man in number of narrower assertions concerning why it will not work, they cannot the street may have a credible opinion. We see no reason to require, at this be barred from their broader contention on the ground that it is not stage of the proceeding, that intervenors discione the experts they will call as specific. In the course of the special prehearin8 conference, Applicant and witnesses or that they otherwise disclose their evidence on an issue in which Staff learned specifically what intervenor asserts. That the assertson is oP nion plays so important a part. Such a requirement would exceed the broad does not prevent it from being asserted with specificity.
i standard established in GrandG=//
Factor (3) is satisfied because intervenors' specification of a number of Wa also reject Appbcant's plea to delay ruling on this contention. (See emergency plan particulars provided a res.soned basis for their overall Tr. 216.) Intervenors have given reasons for concern about the adequacy of challenge to the workability of the plan. It is not n===ry at this point for the loc.1 plan which will be filed. Furthermore, they are required to file us to inquire into the truthfulness of each of the portsculars. Indeed such an in9uiry *0uld lace u4 in the position of disregarding GrandGulfand A/Arar contentions now. If they fmd a current deficiency, it seems appropriate to P
admit the contention subject to dismissal through summaryjudgment if the Creek. While providing a " reasoned basis" for a techascal contention may deficiency is not cured.
at times require citation to a plausible authority, a reasoned basis does not
'Ihere is one aspect of the emergency ple.nning contentions which is not always require a citation. The workability of an emergency plan is the kind admissible. One of the arguments made by Sunflower at the hearing ofissue on which knowledgable local citizens can form a reasoned opuuon.
rppeared to challenge the suitability of the Perry site because of the In Particular, the Lake County Disaster Semces Agency has partacipated i highwsy patterns in Mentor. We do not believe that this contention raising doubts about the workability of the e.a.y.:y plan; and we do not i
properly raises the issue of site suitability, which was litigated at the think it appropriate to reject that Agency's opinion, particularly at this early stage of the proceedings.
construction permit stage.
However, we reject Staffs argument that the contention relating to Factor (4) is not applicable because the issue of prior litigation has not potassium iodide is barred because of the content of a letter of March 5, been raised. Factor (5) is not applicable because intervenors' contentions 1981 sent to Mr. leu E. Gurfitta by the Commission. (Tr. 226-230.) That could affect the outcome of the proceeding decisively. 'The regulations letter, which was not published for notice and comment and did not require a workable emergency plan. Factor (6) is not applicable because specifically bind this Board, simply refused to endorse use of potassium there was no showing of technical shortcomings of many parts of l
iodide at present. (Tr. 228.) Applicant does not consider this letter binding intervenors' showings.
190 191
the abandonment of recent nuclear power projects in the area w:s cited as On the other hand, the admission ofIssue 01 should not be interpreted an indication that such projects are generally now far less attractive as endorsing the accuracy ofintervenors assertions or the relevance of the financially than they have been in the past. (Tr. 244.)
Radford conclusions, which Mr. Kenney cited. In particular, intervenors Applicant's ability to provide properly for decommissioning is chal-will need to show the relationship between the Commission's emergency lenged by Sunflower because the size of the decommissioning surcharge planning regulations and evidence concerning increased estimates of the imposed by the Public Utility Commission of Ohio has allegedly become somi. tic effects of radiation.
inadequate due to inflation. (Tr. 245-246.) OCRE (7), a related contention, De admission of this broad issue should not necessarily be interpreted expresses the following broader concern with decommissioning:
as foreshadowing a full evidentiary hearing on this entire subject. Parties en A pHcanes dency wouM have cvailable a motion for summaryjudgment, and that procedure may be in e a enna a
yP aCC P
used to pare down this issue before hearino ne standard rovided in the be imperative for the health and safety of OCRE members and the P
rules for application to a motion for summary judgment is more rigorous publ.ic. Applicant will need to promptly m.stitute clean-up procedures than the standard applicable to the admission of contentions.
to reduce further public jeopardy while maintaining containment integrity throughout that clean.up. The current financial straits of B.FlaamcialR4
'"ity Contentions General Public Utilities (TMI) demonstrate that responsible and safe (1)Re Contentions perati n of a nuclear pl nt includes adequate preparation for such Sunflower alleged that Applicant lacks the financial resources to contmgencies.
complete, operate and decommission the Perry units. He principal source of its concern arises from alleged construction cost increases from a
[ Emphasis 8 original.]
planned total cost of $1.2 billion to current cost projections of $3.85 billion.
His contention, which the Board interprets to relate to clean-up as well (Tr. 235.) Sunflower cites Charles Kommov, an economist, for the as decommissioning, is buttressed by an OCRE concern that the public has proposition that the actual completed costs of Perry wdl be about $$.25 sufTered a series of" rotating rate hikes" and that the utlility could not look billion. (Tr. 236.) Additmnally, Sunflower states that there has been "a very to the public for further increases to pay for a cican-up, should one be subst:ntial change m the circumstances [and]. methods of financing and needed. (Tr. 250-251.)
the overall characteristics of the cash flow requirements" of Applicant.
(2) Arguments Opposing the Contentions (Ibid.) It cites a General Accounting Office study, EMD 8125, for the Applicant contends that its financial ability to complete construction is proposition that the utility industry in general has experienced a capital irrelevant at the operating license stage. It cites 10 C.F.R. I 50.33(f) as crunch arising from construction delays, sagging sales and sharply rising fuel costs. (Tr. 240.) It questions whether Applicant may have sufferred controlling. Hat section states:
financially from its participation in the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, if the application is for an operating license (for a commercial or whose construction costs are alleged to have increased from a $136 million industrial facility, the applicant shall show that it]. possesses or has origini.1 estimate to $650 million. (Tr. 241.)
reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the According to Sunflower, the Ohio utilities commission applies a rule estimated costs of operation for the period of the license. plus the which disallows from a utility rate base the cost of work in progress, prior to estimated costs of permanently shuttmg the facility down and 75 percent completion of construction. (Ibid.) Since both Perry units are mamtammg it in a safe condition.
less than 75 percent complete, this is alleged to have an important financial impact on Applicant and its partners in financing Perry. (Tr. 241-242.)
Applicant also argued in the course of the Conference that this section must Indeed, one of the partners, the Penn Power Company, is alleged to be be interpreted in light of Part B of Appendix C, which states:
h:vmg financial difficulties that could prevent it from accepting its full
[I]t will ordinarily be sufficient to show at the time of filing of the shire of the financin5 responsibilities. (Tr. 261-262) application, availability of resources sufTicient to cover estimated Backfitting of plants since the Hrce Mile Island accident has been a operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the substantial expense, and Sunflower alleges that there is a need to anticipate estimated costs of permanent shutdown and maintenance of the the need to finance further backfits in the future. (Tr. 242.) Furthermore, 193 192 l
D UNITEDSTATIS'8FAMERICA
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM4ISSION ATOMIC',$AFETY knD LICEN5 G BOARD Before Administrat_fy.e Judges:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman l
Dr. Jerry R. Kline i
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
)
CLEVELANDELECTRICILLUMINATINGCOMPANY,)
) Docket Nos. 50-440-OL
)
}
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
September 9, 1981
'MEMORANLUM AND ORDER CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ASHTABULA COUNTY AND OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER
(..
Sunflower Alliance, Inc., et al. (Sunflower), Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Applicant) and the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Staff) have filed objections to our Special
~
Prehearing Conference Order of July 28, 1981.
In addition, the Ashtabula County Comissioners and the Ashtabula County Disaster Agency (Ashtabula) have petitioned for admission as parties participant pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(c). The purpose of this memorandum and order is to analyze and resolve these motions.
I OBJECTIONS OF SUNFLOWER A.
Need for Power Sunflower objects to the exclusion of its contentions regarding the need for power and airplane crash probabilities,
'(
Perry Objections: 4 contentions. We also called for " reasons, supported by legal authorities, why issues included in the petitions should be considered relevant", but Sunflower did not make such a filing.)
We wish to reassure Sunflower that we welcome its participation in this proceeding and do not derogate its potential contribution. On the other hand, these will be tough minded proceedir.gs with difficult scientific l
and legal issues to resolve. When we set filing deadlines and request that specific briefs be filed, our requests are made in the interest of obtaining potentially valuable assistance in deciding issues correctly.
However difficult it may be for Sunflower to marshall its volunteers to fulfill these assigned tasks, we urge it to strain to do so.
Sunflower's success in informing the Board of its point of view will depend on its industry in complying fully with the Board's orders.
(
II OBJECTIONS OF APPLICANT A.
Emergency Planning Applicant objects to the emergency planning contention accepted by the Board as Issue il on two grounds.
First, it objects to the inclusion
~
within the contention of the assertions of Tod J. Kenney.
Second, it objects to the breadth and alleged vagueness of the contention.
First, we do not consider Mr. Kenney's. petition to be untimely. His initial filing of March 23, 1981, noticed his concern about " emergency plans".
Although he failed to particularize his contentions prior to the conference, we note that he is' without counsel.
We note also that certain issues which he raised seemed to us to be important safety contentions.
Consequently, we are loathe to make any ruling which would deprive this
Perry Objections: 5 proceeding of his potentially valuable contribution. Mr. Kenney should understand that in the succeeding portions of this proceeding there will be no excuses.
(See Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Salem Nuclear Generating Station 6 AEC 487, 489 (1973).) We are interested in solid legal and f actual argumentaticn, filed within established deadlines. Only by meeting our requirements will Mr. Kenney be able to demonstrate the validity of his views.
As to breadth and vr.gueness, our reasons for admitting such a broad (but not vague) contention are adequately stated in our prior order.
Intervenors added specificity both in their filings and at the prehearing conference. On the other hand, Applicant's point in footnote 8 to its pleading is well taken: the contention should track the latest version of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.
We also agree that the issue shoulo be limited to emergency evacuation plans. As discovery proceeds, we will expect intervenors, Staff and Applicant to further refine these issues and, where possible, to eliminate matters by stipulation.
Issue il should read:
ISSUE #1:
Applicant's emergency evacuation plans do not demonstrate that they provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency.
We also wish to clarify some procedural points relating to discovery and admissiblity for hearing, both for this issue and for others where we have indicated that intervenors still bear some burden prior to the hearing.
First, we urge the parties to meet informally in order to make the discovery process workable.
Second, we expect the parties to consider in good faith whether to stipulate that certain facts are genuinely in dispute and should be included in the hearing.
Third, if issues where intervenors bear a burden of proof are subject to motions for sumary disposition, the v
O y
.. Private Libraries (page 53) - please note that private libraries under EASY READER may not be stored on the MSS.
WATFIV (page 55) - a new version of the WATFIV FORTRAN compiler will be installed on January 18, 1982.
PL/1 (page 56) - on February 1,1982, Release 4.0 of the PL/1 optimizing compiler will become the production ve rsion.
As usual, there is a shortage of on-line space on the dedicated NRC packs AEC001, NRC001, and NRC002 (86,164,119 free tracks respectively). Past memorandums have conveyed our instructions and intentions on the monitoring of static data sets. Upon submitting the next pack condense procedures, static data sets are subject to being scratched without notice. To again assist the user community in monitoring their data sets, the Office of Management and Program Analysis (MPA) has developed a WYLBUR Command Procedure (CP) that will list all data sets on the aforementioned packs (with the DATED option) and all data sets on the NIH public packs. Printing locations for the resulting output are Remote 14 or Central. This CP can be modified to print at any desired location. The CP can be accessed under WYLBUR as follows:
"USE FROM &WDClBAD.LISTOS ON CAT"
" EXECUTE" (EX will suffice)
If there are any questions or assistance is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me on 492-8332.
,l'?A~-
, / ft y fr~ -
(( Automated Systems Branch J.'Barry Badini Office of Management and Program Analysis