ML19294B045

Request for Reconsideration of ASLB 800125 Third Special Prehearing Conference Order Re Admissibility of Intervenor Contentions Ii(C),Iii(A) & Iii(B)(A).Modifies Contention III (A)(A) Re Emergency Zone Inadequacy.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19294B045
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/04/1980
From:	Bowers J ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002270065
Download: ML19294B045 (5)

Text

- *

, , g

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8/ A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g odpf89 y ,

-

ev -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING JOAR A

CI

's& @ 'I

a. G)hv?9 49  :

In the Matter of ) ( V- V y METROPOLITAN EDISCN CCMPANY ) Docket No. 3 289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) ) gog;c7;""' st

) PROD. & UTIL FAC.. .T,D.k ANTI-NUCEEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK REQUEST FOR EECONSIDERATION OF PORTIONS OF THIRD SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER Ihtervenor Anti-Sucicar Group Representing York requests this Board to rasensider its rulings on the adcissibility cf ANGRY conten ions Nos. II(C),

III(A)(a), and III(B)(a) contained in its third Spec;al Prehearing Conference Order dated January 25, 1980.

I. Centention II(C): Cha11ence to Sufficiency c.: 10-Mile EPZ Tor Reasons C1csely Related To TMI-2 Accident In its Third Prehearing Conference Order this Board held that it would

" accept energency planning contentions which specify local circiestances raising questions about the adequacy of the licensee's EPZ's...' The Board referenced the NRC's citation of examples of such " local conditions" in its December 19 Preposed Rulecaking, i.e.," demography, topography, land characteris-tics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries." In ANGRY's judgment the exclusion frem this proceeding of all erergency planning contentions challenging the adequacy of a 10-mile EPZ fer reasons other that " local circur: stances" as defined above, rogardless of their relatica t( the TMI-2 accident, would be irreconcilabic with previous positions tr...en by this Dcard as te the scope cf this precceding.

ANGRY f ails to comprehend the Ecard's uacxplained characterization cf the basis for contentien II(C), the serious censideration by emergoney Ianning efficials of protective er %s for persons outside a 10-mile ta.ilus of TI, as " illogical." The evidence of such consideration in the

.

800227006 , .

. , .

Report of the Office of Chief Lounsel on Energency Respenst to the < sident's Cocimission on the Accident at Three Mile Island is abundant. On March 30 NRC Chair =an Hendrie stated that the apprcpriate response to an atmospheric release caused by core uncovery would be " evacuation er population n about a 20-mile downwind range. c;"' (Peport , supra, p.68). Later in the day in the course of a converestien with Pennsylvania Governor Thornburg Chairican th ,drie reiterated that "'if we expected getting a fairly husky release,' the eVa.:uation mig'.4C' extend 20 miles" (Id, p. 79). On March 31 during a meeting a HEW officials on the "public health consideraticus" of the accident Dr. Art a r l'p ton ,

Director of the National Cancer Institute and "the Department's leading Lpert on radiation" recommended a 20-mile evacuation and was supported in this view by cn official of the Nationcl Institute of Ecalth (Id, p.93,41 On the basis of these discussiens HEW Secretary Califano stated that "'at a minfrun' the popu-lation within 20 tiles of the plant should te notified ' publicly ar.d officia11y' t o b .? prepared to evacuate..." (Id, r. 95). On April 1, fellow ng c consultation wi'.h an NRC of ficial, HEW of ficials recoemer ded that :

. . .all persona within a 20 r..ile reilus of the plse be brought to a state of readines- fcr f r:tediate evac-untion, if necessary; and that iodide s(lution bc ,available for rapid distributien within that area upon order by Public Health authorities . . . (Id , p. 124)

Finally, on April 2, Dr. Donald Frederic': son, Dir : tor of the 5'ational Institutes of Health, iscued a recorandum recorrendir.g thrt ,:otassium iodide "be availabih to all persons within a 20-mile radius of the plant within an hour'siootice" (Id , p.136 ANGRY submits that the foregoing evidence, based at it is upon potential radiolo-

,ical cenacquences of the 'D I-2 accident, is manifestly r, levant no a proper determination of the adequacy of the licensee's emergency response capability for TXI-1. In a report prepared for the President's Council on Environmental leality "Some Long-Tern Concequences of Hypothet ical Major Releases of Radio-cetivity To The Atcosphere Frem Three Mile Island," dated September 7, 1979,

.

Dr. Jan Beyca states:

...energency planning out to 20 efles to decrease '.he population rad'ation dose in this area shoulu be considered necessity in light of the Three Mile Esland incilent. (p. D-5)

The foregoing evidence also establishes a clear a al close nexus between the issac ANGRY seeks to raisc in its contention II(~ ) and the TMI-2 accident, thus satidfying the principal criterion for acceptance of contentions adopted by this Board in its First Frchcaring Conference Order. A show.ng that crergency planning capability to a distanc'c greater than 10 miles frca the reactor was appropriate and necessary within the specific circumstances of the TMI-2 accident vould cast sericus doubt on the sufficiency of such capability tr a distance of only 10 miles f or DG-1, as required by the NFC's August 9 Order. For purposes of clarity and focus ANCRY agrees to litit the thrust of its contention II(C) to 20 miles as the distance to which crergency respoise capability should be dcveloped and icplerented. So limited, it is aopropriate for litigation in this proceeding.

l!. Centention III(A)(a): Challence to _ Sufficiency of 10-Mile _.EPZ_P2 sed Upon Local Conditions ANCRY also has sctious concerns over the adequacy of a 3 '-mile EP". that etc= from the " local circunctances" specified in tle Board's Third Specia Prehearing Conference Order. Perhaps the cost irpc rtant of the se is the fact that a 10-rile EFZ for TMI stops just chort of tht city of York, a major metro-pclitan area with a population of approximately 50,000, a county prico ,

tuc hospitals with a co=bined bed capacity of ever 750, and 15 Dursing hotes ith a cerbined capacity of over 1500, all within five to ten *:lles of the auter perineter of the area over which the ' EC's August 9 Order requires the 1.censee to extend its crergency response cccability. Similar :e na r' s auld ce rade conderning ihrrisburg. ANG2Y cenceJes that it dic not specify

hese concerno in its superseding contention III(i)(a). Accordingly, ANCRY

'. Nevertheless, ANCRY respectfully rec.gestI that renditional acceptance based

.

.

modifies its superseding contention III(A)(a) to read as follows:

The licensee's adoption in its Emergency Plan (at p. 2 *)

of an E=crgency Planning Zone (EPZ) uniformly defined by a 10-mile radial distance from the reactor site is inadequate in that it reflects no consideration of the unique characteristiC8f the surrounding environs in tcres of demography, tcpography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.

, In particular, effective crergency response capability requires the inclusion within the EPZ of the two nearby pcpulation centers of York and !!trrisburg.

III. Contention III(E)(a): Cha11erge to Suf ficiezey_ af 10-Mile Limit To Emergency Respense Capability of Cotronwealth of Pennsylvania ANGRY modifies this coatention in the sane ranner as indicated above

__ t--

in relation to the licenece's 10-mile EPZ so as to cl.111enge the sufficiency of the 10-edle limit to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvt,ia's emergency response capability for the sate reasens.

IV. Cenclusion For the resscos stated abcve, A::GRY requests the Board to reconsider its rulings and to admit ANCRY cententions Nos. II(C), III(A)(a), and III(B)(a),

as nodified.

Reepectfu12y sub'itted, Anti-Nuc1 av oup Reprerenting York s

E' k TAD F s_Joth sow rs 245 W. Philadelphic St.

York, Pa. 17404 DATE: February 4, 1980

. (Continued fro: previous page) upen a narrcwing cf the scope .f the contention to ratters within the scope ef the preccedi: g as defined by the Board, es was done I n t h.3 cases cf UCS contentions 'cs. 9, 10, and 14, wculd hc e been preferable te cutright rej e cticn .

.

.

UNITED STATES OF A*fERIC/.

NUCLEAR REGULA1 DRY CO"JtISSION DEFORE THE ATO!!IC SAFETY AND LICEI: SING COARD To t he matter of )

)

"::Tn0POLITAN EDISON CO.\!PANY ) Docket No. 50-280

)

(Three ' file Island Nuclear Stat ion, )

Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I hereby cert if y that I have this 4th day of February, 1030, serv ed copics of the foregoing Request for Reconsid erat ion ca each of the following persons by deposit in the United St at es ma il, post age prepaid.

Ivan W. Smith, Esq. noc ket i ng an't Serv ice Fec t io n

.1:enic Saf ety and Licensing Board Of f ice of t he Sec ret ary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l' . S . Puclear Regulatory Cormission O sh i r.gt on, D.C. 20555 Fa sh i n gt o n , D .C . 20555 Dr. a l t e r H . Jo rd.i n

,

Jam 3s /. . Tou rtell ot te, Esq.

861 ?. Out er Drive Of f ice of Execut ive Legal Direct or Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U .S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washinrton, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

5000 Hermitage Drive Shaw, Pi ttman , Pot t s & Trowbridg E al c ich, North C arolina 27C12 1300 '.! Street, !* . W .

Tasnington, D.C. 20006

-

e ,

.

,

y* , ,. . f ' ~ "s %

Hol l y S. Eech

1. by s

. at e,1 : February 4, 3C30 ff t 7 j

= . H

-

t9" FE'= "E go d ne W"I /

g %cs b :G '8!

6 Err.ch /

% 4

"