ML19351G367

Response Opposing Antinuclear Group Representing York 810206 Request for Reconsideration of Motion to Adopt Sholly Emergency Planning Contentions.Exceptional Circumstances to Justify Adoption Not Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19351G367
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/13/1981
From:	Zahler R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8102230591
Download: ML19351G367 (10)

Text

0-

% h O 'A

// N f- Lic 2/13/81 g _

4 g ' //b

. ,,) , #- c-\

h% 0 Igg 9 pgg i 7 gg * $2I Jg.9,,[.>8j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\

i c, Once Dec.etetof 28

' Sm ce 38",.M A

of jw i Bru c Ir.J?ARE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y4 p I u, In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ANGRY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS MOTION TO-ADOPT MR. SHOLLY'S EMERGENCY PLANNING CCNTENTIONS The procedural background of ANGRY's present reconsideration motion is fairly straightforward. On December 23, 1980, inter-venor Steven C. Sholly withdrew his Contention Nos. 8 (emergency planning) and 9 (radiation monitoring). ANGRY's legal representa-tive orally moved to adopt all of these contentions at the January 8, 1981 hearing session (Tr. 9995, 9997). With two exceptions, Licensee opposed this recuest in a filing dated January 19, 1981.b!

The Board issued a bench order on January 27, 1981, authorizing ANGRY to adopt Sholly Contention Nos. 8 (I) (B) , 8 (I) (I) and 9, but denying the rest of the ANGRY motion (Tr. 11,023-25). The matter was discussed again at.the February 4, 1981 hearing session

-1/

ANGRY's claim that Licensee's filing was untimely (at p. 3) is based on a misunderstanding of the Ccmmission's rules for computing time (see 10 C.F.R. S 2.710). ANGRY's gratuitous comments about the " busyness" of Licensee's counsel are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

3 5*0 810223089/.

G $8/

(Tr. 11,676-88), and ANGRY was given the opportunity to file an additional written motion in support cf its request (Tr. 11,677).

ANGRY filed such a paper on February 6, 1981, labeling it a re-quest for reconsideration. Licensee opposes the ANGRY request.

While designared a request for reconsideration, it is ap-parent that ANGRY's present motion is substantially different than its oral motion on January 8, 1981. At that time ANGRY sought the wholesale adoption of every emergency planning con-tention raised by Mr. Sholly. ANGRY now seeks to adopt nine of Mr. Shelly's contentien and to " exchange" one of its contentions for one of Mr. Sholly's.2/ Before addressing each of the conten-tions which ANGRY proposes to adopt, some general comments are in order.

In License.. view an intervenor does not have the "right" to adopt the contentions of a party who has withdrawn. Even if everyone of the Sholly contentions was unique --- which most emphatically is not the crse -- Licensee would oppose ANGRY's request. At this late stage in the proceeding, an exceptional shcwing must be made to justify the exceptional action of adopting large parts of another intervenor's case. ANGRY has not made such a showing.

While attempting to indicate that the problems it now faces

-2/

There is some confusion as to precisely which contentions ANGRY desires to adopt. The chart attached to the ANGRY filing lists Sholly Contention No. 9 (I) (H) as one which ANGRY wants to " keep",

but that contention is nowhere discussed in the text of ANGRY's filing; nor.is it included among the contentions attached to the back of the filing.

3-are due to arrangements between 2tr. Sholly and ANGRY to consoli-date, exactly the opposite is true. It is because intervenors in the emergency planning area have been unwilling to consolidate I that ANGRY now seeks to adopt Mr. Sholly's contentions. ! Had intervenors worked together earlier and developed a single con-solidated list of emergency planning contentions, the withdrawal of Mr. Sholly would not have affected the emergency planning por-tion of this proceeding. This is what Licensee proposed at the 4

meeting on December 19, 1980.

The charts attached to the back of ANGRY's filing represent Licensee's proposal to simplify issues. Licensee indicated at the meeting that under its proposal all intervenors cculd sponsor the single set of contentions so long as there was no duplication i

~

of cross-examination during the hearing. At the meeting Licensee explained the reasoning behind the deletions it was suggesting with the express understanding that at a later date the inter-venors would respond to.the presentation. Licensee has received no such response. Before he withdrew, Mr. Sholly informed Licensee that his input to the response was complete and all that remained was for ANGRY and Newberry to review that response.

For whatever reason, ANGRY has chosen not to participate further in this effort. Having been unwilling to consolidate when it did not suit its purposes, ANGRY should not new be able to reap 3/

~

ANGRY's claim that it has attempted to consolidate is belied by the sheer number of emergency planning contentions and Mr.

Shelly's candid concession that in the emergency planning area i there has not been much consolidation. Tr. 4483-84 and 4496.

.-.- ., , , - - ,,---.v, .,w---,- - - . , - - , ,,-,-,.+-cp , - - , , - - - .- , - , - , - - . - . , - f--e- --,- c y

all the advantages of such a process, without assuming any of the responsibilities that would have simplified the emergency planning area, by adopting Mr. Shelly's contentions. The Sholly contentions are discussed belcw.

A. Sholly Contention Nos. 8 (I) (F) and 8 (I) (G)

Both of these contentions deal with offsite support agencies and the letters of agreement between Licensee and such agencies.

ANGRY already has a contention precisely on this point, ANGRY Contention No. III(A) (D) (EP-4(B)), which goes to Licensee's letter agreements, as well as another contention going to York County arrangements, ANGRY Centention No. III (C) (10) (EP-6(D)).

Despite ANGRY's apparent lack of knowledge about the matter, Licensee asked extensive interrogatories abcut Contention No.

III( A) (D) (EP-4(B)) and received two sets of responses from Mr.

Pell. These responses were specifically addressed in Licensee's onsite emergency preparedness testimony. To now add the Sholly contentions would only cause unnecessary mischief. Indeed, some i of the deficiencies advanced by Mr. Sholly in his Contention No.

8 (I) (G) are not the same as the deficiencies identified by ANGRY in Mr. Fell's responses to interrogatories.

S. Sholly Contention No. 8(I)(J)

This contention deals with an assumed delay in accident

assessment time and the need for contingency plans should there i

be such a time delay-in accident assessment. Though not pre-cisely the same, ANGRY Contention No. III(A) (J) (1) (EP-4 (H) (1) )

i alleges that Licensee has failed to properly specify the criteria I

i for implementing protective actions because of a failure to set i

I forth the expected accident assessment time. Moreover, the under-

! i

, lying thrust of Mr. Sholly's contention goes to the effectiveness I

F

)

~

of changes that Licensee has made in plant instrumentation, training and human factors engineering, matters covered during  ;

other parts of this proceeding. To the extent the Sholly conten- l tion raises an emergency planning issue -- i.e., the impact on i I protective action opticns resulting from a delay in accident' i'

assessment, that issue is identical to the concern raised in ANGRY Contention No. III( A) (J) (1) (EP-4 (H) (1) ) .

i I

C. Shelly Contention No. 8 (II) (B)

I:

j This contention deals with two assumptions in the State Plan i

that are alleged to be unjustified. The validity of one-of the I

assumptions, relating to " unmet" needs, is also raised in ANGRY l Contention No. III(C) (12) (EP-6(F)). The other assumption, re-

lating to shelter of evacuees, is covered in the following Conten-i tions

ECNP 2-38 (EP-13 ) ; Newberry York 31 (EP-14(EE)); and .

Newberry Dauphin 1, 11 & 19 (EP-16(A), (L) & (S)). If ANGRY desires to litigate these matters it should be directed to con-solidate with ECNP and Newberry.

?

D. Sholly Contention No. 8 (II) (D)

This contention deals with evacuation time eatimates and i

l possible physical impediments to evacuation. ANGRY Contention No. III(B) (E) (2) (EP-5 (B) (2) ) raises precisely-the same issues.

t i

_g-E. Sholly Contention No. 8 (II) (G)

This contention challenges the adequacy of emergency plan drills by the State. ANGRY Contention "o. III(Al(H) (EP-4(F))

alleges that a state emergency drill should be conducted prior to restart. Newberry Contention Met Ed 5 (EP-15(D)) also chal-lenges the adequacy of the State emergency plan d' rill.

F. Sholly Contention No. 8 (III) (A)

This contention deals with the adequacy of municipal re-sources needed to effectuate the county plans. This contention was discussed during the October 31, 1980 prehearing conference (Tr. 4471-83), and at that time it was specifically noted that both ANGRY and Newberry have contentions in this area (Tr. 4479).

Nonetheless, the contention was admitted subject to Mr. Sholly specifying his concerns (Tr. 4480). Mr. Sholly filed such a specification on November 24, 1980. However, it did no more than identify generalized concerns about resources li5e police (security),

fire, ambulance, bus, communication, and mass care that already had been covered by specific cententions. Licensee sees no pur-pose in now allowing ANGRY to adopt a contention that is covered by a myriad of other contentions.

G. Sholly Contention Nos. 8(III)(E) and 8 (-III) (F)

Both of these contentions deal with early warning and noti-fication to the population at risk, including transients. ANGRY Contention No. III(B) (G) (1) (EP-5 (D) (1) ) raises precisely the same concern. In addition, there are numerous Newberry conten-tions in this area -- i.e., York 1, 2, 15, 19 & 32 (EP-14(A),

4 N-

l (3), (O), (T) & (FF)) and Dauphin 5 & 13 (EP-16(E) & (M) ) .

3 H. Sholly Contention No. 8 (I) (R) and ANGRY Contention

No. III( A) (E) (EP-4(C))

As ANGRY acknowledges, both of these contentions deal with the same subject. Since both Licensee and the NRC Staff have filed testimony in this area, Licensee. opposes a change in the word ag of the contention. As a practical matter, ANGRY will be free to pursue its concerns regardless of whether it "ex-changes" contentions.

WHEREFORE, ANGRY's request for reconsideration of its motion to adopt Mr. Sholly's emergency planning contentions should be denied.

i I

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: -

tL Robert r. Za51er '

Dated: February 13, 1981 J

d t:

,- .. , ,--.,,y. , . - - - -r -

9 , g . - - - _ w -----n -

A Lic 2/13/81

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD

}

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Respense to ANGRY Request for Reconsideration of its Motion to Adopt Mr.

Sholly's Emergency Planning Contentions", were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of February,1981.

Tobert E. isr Dated: February 13, 1981

=

4 e - - _ . w -- ,

+ -- ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Escuire Jchn A. Iavin, 'Me C:airran Assistant Ccursel Atcric Safety ard Licensi:n Pennsylvarla Public Utility Ca m'n Board Parel Pest office Bcx 3265 U.S. Nuclear Pegulater/ Camission Harrisburg, Pennsylvarla 17120 Washingten, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, " @ e Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Atterrey Geraral Atcmic Safety ard Licensi.g 505 Executive Ecuse Board Parel Pest Office acx 2357 881 West Cuter Drive Harrisburg, Perrsylvaria 17120 Cak Ridge, Terrassee 37830 Jchn E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little ChaLnan, Dauphin County "M Atamic Safety ard Li nsing of Camissicners Board Paral Dauphin County Ccurthcuse 5000 Eerrirage Drive Frcnt and Market Streets Raleigh, Ncrth Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Perrsylvarla 17101 James R. 'Iturtellette, Esquire Walter W. Cchen, 'MT Office cf the Executive Iagal Direc:cr Censumer Id xcate U. S. Nuclear Pegulaterf Ccrmissicn Office of Ccrsuner db.u'. ate Washi.g ten, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberrf Scuare Barrisburg, Penrsylvarla 17127 Docketing ard Serrh Secticn Office of the Secretarf U. S. Nuclear Pegulaterf Camissien Washingten, D.C. 20555

1 j.

J 1

o l

Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Gail Bradford Attorrey for Newberry 'Ibwnship Anti-Nuclear Grcup Pepresenting Ycrk T.M.I. Steering Camittee 245 West Philadelphia Street Fcx, Farr & Cunningham York, Perrsylvania 17404 2320 North Seccrd Street l Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Willian S. Jordan, III, Esquim Atter:uy for People Icairst Nuclear Ms. Icuise Bradford Energy

, 'D1I ALERr Paz:ncn & Weiss 315 Peffer Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Harrisburg, Perr.sylvania 17102 Washi. W n, D.C. 20006 Attorney Ger.eral of New Jersey Pcbert Q. Pollard Attn: ?.cmas J. Germine, Esquim 609 Mcntpelier Street .

! Deputy Attorney General Baltimore, Marylard 21218 '

1 Divisicn of Iaw - Pcan 316 1100 Raymond Bculevard Chauncey Kepford l Newark, New Jersey 07102 Judith H. Jchnsrud Envircrmental Coaliticn en Nuclear

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Pcwer Atterrey for the Unicn of Cercerned 433 Criando Avence i Scientists State College, Perrsylvarla 16801 Harncn & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Marvin I. Ieds Washingten, D.C. 20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Pb41=8alphia, Pennsylvarda 19149 Stew.n C. ShcIly

, Unicn of Ccncerred Scientists M1Lrjorie M.- Amodt l 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 601 R. D. 5 i Washington, D.C. 20006 Coatesville, Penrsylvania 19320 5

l I

I i

i l

--- , ,. -- . _ . . . , _ . _ - . . . . . . .. .- . - _ - - . - - . . - . . .- . - - . - . . . . _ - . .