ML19254F646

Response to Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee,Et Al Final Contentions.Objects to Contentions 1 & 2.Contention 3 Should Be Revised W/Specific Objections to Licensee Emmergency Preparedness

ML19254F646
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/31/1979
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19254F625	List: ML19254F624 ML19254F628 ML19254F630 ML19254F633 ML19254F635 ML19254F639 ML19254F641 ML19254F645 ML19254F646 ML19254F647 ML19254F649 ML19254F650 ML19254F651
References
NUDOCS 7911160151
Download: ML19254F646 (3)

Text

. .

October 31, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO FINAL CONTENTIONS OF NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP T.M.I. STEERING COMMITTEE, ET AL.

Contention No. 1. The Newberry Township T.M.I. Steering Com-mittee's concern is concentrated, for the purposes of this intervention, to the issue of the psychological and emotional impact upon the citizens of Newberry Township if reactivation of Unit Number 1 is authorized by the NRC in light of the re-cent accident of March 28, 1979. Operation of Unit Number 1 would be a constant reminder of the trauma which was experi-enced by members of the Committee throughouc the accident and the possibility that they would re-experience the same trauma if, in the future, a similar accident took place. It is averred that this is a health concern which involves the quality of the human environment, and therefore is embodied in the NEPA and thus is an issue and/or contention which is proper for the NRC to consider.

Licensee's Response Licensee objects to this contention. This contention attempts to raise the issue of psychological and emotional im-pacts. For the reasons set forth in Licensee's accompanying brief on this issue (see Licensee's Brief Opposing Admission of Psychological Distress Contentions), such a contention is not cognizable under either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Natjonal Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 7 -

7 911 16 0 18~ /

Contention No. 2. The individual petitioners contend that the psychological impact upon themselves as a result of the accident of March 28, 1979, is also an aspect which is rel-evant to the quality of the human environment and is embodied in the NEPA. Petitioners further contend that the psycho-logical fear generated in the public mind as a result of the March 28, 1979, accident has resulted in a de facto public bias and prejudice against the Newberry Township area with regard to the siting of new residential building, new busi-nesses, and the purchasing of the existing improved parcels of real estate within the Township. It is also contended that the threat of reactivation of Unit Number 1 has and will, in the future, continue to effect the above-enumerated eco-nomical concerns. Petitioners aver that these contentions concerning health and socio-economic aspects are embodied in the spirit and language of the NEPA.

Licensee's Response Licensee objects to this contention. This conten-tion attempts to raise the issue of psychological impact and resultant socio-economic impacts. For the reasons set forth in Licensee's accompanying brief on this issue (see Licensee's Brief Opposing Admission of Psychological Distress Contentions),

such a contention is not cognizable under either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. -

6 1a7

• Contention No. 3. Evacuation planning done by Metropolitan Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is inadequate to assure the safety of the public, particularly those per-sons who live within a five mile radius of the plant. Oper-ation of T.M.I. Unit Number 1 should not be resumed until a plan is in place for the evacuation of the public in the maximum area which could be affected by an accident.

Licensee's Response Licensee recognizes the right of petitioner to raise contentions relating to emergency planning. In accordance with the position set forth at Section B of Licensee's cover-ing memorandum, it is requested that the Board require peti-tioner to revise and resubmit this contention with specific objections to Licensee's emergency preparedness following peti-tioner's receipt of the updated Emergency Plan.

Dated: October 31, 1979 b 40