ML20010C593

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Emergency Planning Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20010C593
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	08/13/1981
From:	Johnsrud J Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
To:
References
NUDOCS 8108200222
Download: ML20010C593 (9)

Text

_ __

a- ,

-0

$c101 s

g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!'JtISSIO*.

Before the Atomic Srrecy and Licensino Board In the !!atter of )

Metropolitan Edison Co. , et al. Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile -Island, Unit'T)- )

) (Restart)

~' /

[4 h s k ENVIRONMErlTAL C0ALITION O'l NUCLEAR P0'<fER'S PROPOSED FI !DI';GS OF FACT A'iD CO*;CLUSIO!4S OF LAWS ON E!'ERGENCY PL!t;ING ISSUES D

t, g ~()

h sr w

Table of Contents page I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . ,s...... . . . . ... 1 II Fi n d i n gs ~ of Fa ct . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III Con cl us i on s o f L aw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 is s D501

'0x .5 p, . - -

j \(d;\ / / l 87

/.U3171981 > N . . .

,s

& (:-

~

- ~;. h

, O'

'I] in\ 's \]? y

-s ,

.8108200222 310813'~

-gDRADOCK 05000289 PDR m . .

.t

,e Q

Y s

m ' -- 171981 > mld

, I Introducti

l. The Proposed Findings of Fact an$11s G of Law here submitted d ConcSsaont on behalf of Intervenors Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) are

, brief and, in the view of these Intervenors, inadequate to the need in conse-quence of 1) the refusal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide transcripts, other procedural assistance, of funding to public interest citizen intervenors; 2) the lengthy delay in and incomplete delivery of tran-scripts of this proceeding to the Local Public Documents Room; and 3) insufficient availability of private funding or time for the ECNP Legal Representative to prepare complete Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Emergency Planning Issues.

2. The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power adopts the Proposed Pindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Emergency Planning issues which are being submitted on behalf of several intervening parties by Lead Intervenors Newberry Township TMI Steering Cor.nittee (Newberry) and Anti-Muclear Group Representing York, (ANGRY) except where such Findings may contradict Findings submitted here by ECNP, in which instance ECNP adopts the latter.

3. ECNP al.io adopts here the portion of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entitled " Legal Standards on Emergency Planning Issues" submitted by the Co.monwealth of Pennsylvania, except in any instances which contradict the Conclusions of Law submitted by Newberry, ANGRY, or ECi1P, in which cases ECNP adopts the latter positions, or except in any other instances noted herein.

4. With this filing, in part, ECNP preserves its rights to participate as a full party in any appeals relating to emergency planning issues raised in this proceeding. .

< II Findings of Fact

5. These brief findings supplement the findings adopted by EC'!P.

-6. Basic to the protection of the public in the event of a radiological emergency is avoidance of exposure to radiation. IlRC Staff witness Brian-Grimes stated that it is reasonable to conclude from discussion of acceptable .

and unacceptable doses to the public. (Tr. 15, 187-15, 193, Grimes) that the NRC draws no numerical distinction between that which is an acceptable dose under accident conditions and that which is an unacceptable dose. (Tr. 15, 19 at 14. See correction of error in the record, Tr.18, 630 at 16-20). Since

. there is, as the witness here testified, no numerical dose level or cutoff at -

which NRC would reauire evacuation, as opposed to sheltering, there is no

' ~

assurance that the statutory requirement for the protection of the public health and safety can or will be met.

/. In the emergency planning guidance document, " Criteria for the Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Prepardedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Pav.1,1980 (NUREG-0654)(identified as Staff Exhibit 7 admitted into evidencc),

Appendix 1, at p.1 states, in describing the four Emergency Action Levels:

The general emergency class involves actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with the potential for loss of contain.nent. The imediate action for this class is sheltering (staying inside) rather than evacuation until an assessment can be ma'de that (1) an evacuation is indicated and (2) an evacuation, if indicated, can be completed prior to signi-cant release and transport of radioactive material to the affected areas.

8. NRC Staff witness Grimes stated that "any amount of radiation-is damaging. (Tr.15,191 at 14).

9. Thus, in the absence of a specification by NRC witnes's Grimes or others of a maximum dose which members of the public are permitted by NRC ,

to receive before being evacuated in the course of a general emergency, the

7 t

< s

~

l: .

guidance which is required by the flRC Final Rule to be used .in Licensee emergency response preparedness in fact gives a reasonable expectation that emergency plans will not provide adequate protection of the public health an'd safety as is required by law. The Board therefore must find that reason-4 able assurance of compliance with the law as well as the ilRC regulations and the Commission's August 9,1979, Order has not been demonstrated by the Suspended Licensee.

10. The NRC does not set time limitations upon the licensee for recogni-tion and determination of any given level of accident severity. (Tr. 15,175 at 15,16, Chesnut). Adequately prompt notification of State and Local authorities to initiate emergency protective actions is therefore contingent upon the capability of and integrity of licensee plant operators to recognize and properly evaluate the standard initiating conditions for each Emergency Action Level (Tr. 15, 174-80, Grimes and Chesnut)(Also NUREG-0554, Appendix 1)..

11. The Environmental Protection Agency's Protective Action Cuides are designed for the assessment of projected dose to the public rather than potential dose cormitnent during the course of an accident. (Tr. 15, 184, 187-8), Chesnut and Grimes). A recent cox;unication has brought to the attention of ECNP an NRC Staff memo that was quoted as recommending for TMI and other reactors that the Protective Action Guidelines should in fact be -

based upon potential dose commitments, relative to potential radiation release levels, rather than upon projected dose to the public based upon a release source tem. (flRC Staff memorandum dated September 28, 1979, from the Deputy Director of NRC Region 1 Office to Mr. James H. Sniezck, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, entitled "TMI Radiological Investigation Team Recommendation for Long-term TMI Improvements and/or Other Power Reactor Sites.")

The record of this proceeding should be reopened to introduce testimony and this document into evidence with respect to the adequacy of the EPA PAG's to provide adequate protection of the health and safety of the public. NRC Staff L

V

. x- .

recomendations:for additional emergency response capability asut be but has not been, introduced into this

. cord before a finding of adequacy of emergency response planning can-be reached by this Board.(See also Molholt. '

--testimony 1-3, ff Tr.19, 690).

i E

f:

[!

b$

=

EI 2

. 1e =

, Y1 12.

n..

??

=

=-

If.i' OI t

p. 2 a

E i?

55 p-I6 h:e

• ~

f..':1

-l' l3.'.'

i#iIf

=

.N.k 6

".' ~ ..d r ;:.ru

!!?.?.?

,4

III Conchsions 'of Law

12. -The fundamental laws governing this Board's decision are the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which require-the Comission to protect the public health and safety, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires consideration of all environmental effects for the full period of toxicity of any pollutants in taking of a Federal action.

13 Even more fundamental to this Board's decision-making authority under the Atomic Energy, Energy Reorganization, and National Environmental Policy Acts 'are Constitutional guarantees of all citizens.

14 Specific governance- of the Board's decision lies in the Commission's '

August 9,1979, Order an i Notice of Hearing (CLI-79-8; 10 NRC 141) and the Coranission's August 19,1980, Final Rule on Emergency Planning (45 FR55, 40?'

wherein are established that the Board must consider both the necessity and the sufficiency of the short-tem and lona-tem requirements and that the Licensee must comply fully with the requirements of the Final P.ule prior to being granted pemission by the Counission to opera e TMI Unit 1.

15 This Board's consideration of the issues and evidence in tnis .

proceeding is based upon 10 CFP. 2.732 that the Suspended Licens_ bears t!.e full burden of proof that all requirements have been fully and properly met.

16 Under the Final Rule on Emergency Planning, this Board is required to base its findings and conclusions on unequivocal demonstration by the Suspended Licensee that there is reasonable assurance that protective measures adequate to protect the health and safety of the public not only can but will g carried out in the event of a radiological emergency at Three Mile Island.

17 The Board bases its decision with respect to emergency response issues on an understanding that the Coranission does not in its Final Rule.

. 1 m . . . .. . .

and cannot under the Ato.. tic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, delegate its statutory authority and responsibility to evaluate and ultimately deter -

mine the adequacy of Licensee, State, and Local emergency response capability to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the !'emorandun of Understanding-between NRC and FE!'A recognizes that the ulticate locus of responsibility lies with the Comission.

18. The Board concludes that the Suspended Licensee has not met fully its burden of proof to demonstrate that emergency response planning for TMI-l can and will provide a reasonable degree of assurance that the public health and safety will be properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency-at Three Mile Island.

19. The Board finds that all deficiencies and irajequate demonstrations of the workability must be corrected and proof of cort action supplied before a,pproval for restart of TtC 1 by the Commission can be granted. The Board recomends that the Commissi.. a ..y the Suspended Licensee's request to operate TMI-1.

Respectfully submitted,

/hr Y /), ! Y V

/ / <

Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud,

, Co-Director, ECNP Dated this /f>$d ay of August,1981

+

.. l

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of EtlVIR0:l"E'lTAL C0ALITIO:10:1 !!UCLEAR PO!!ER'S PROPOSED FI?!DII'GS OF FACT A*10 C0:!CLUSIO:1S OF LA',! 0:1 Ef<ERGE!!CY PLA't: LING ISSUES hav'a been served on the follo.J: ng parties by deposit in the U.S. Mails,

, first class, postage paid, this /f > day of August,1981.

. / Ar/// /dswh #

JudithH.JoInsrud Ivan W. Suith, Esq., Administrative lis. !!arjorie M. Aamodt Judge, R.D. b Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Coatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Mr. Thomas Gerusky ~

Washington, D.C. 20555 Bureau of Radiation Protection

- Ur. tialter H. Jordan, Aduinistrative Dept. of Environmental Resources Judce P.O. Box 2063 -

U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washi'gton, D.C. 20555

. Mr.11arvin I. Lewis Dr. Linda W. Little, Administrative 6504 Bradford Terrace Judge . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 U.S. Ndclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.'20555

. George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, .

1800 M Street,it.W.

I!ashington, D.C. 20006 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. 3; Box 3521 Robert Adler Esq. Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 5U5 Executiv,e House P. O. Box 2357 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Department of Justice Strawberry Square,14th Floor Honorable Mark Cohen Harrisbur,g, Pennsylvania 17127 512 0-3 ttain Capital Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 ,

/

44D,

!u %m\. m 9 i-

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

^'

.,ggi y 4

{

yg'/ ,

.s- -

~ .

Thomas J. Germine - -

Deputy Attarney Gene'ral -

Division of Law - Room 316 --

.1100 Raymond bouis ~ '

Newark, New Jc

' Allen T.. Carcer, cnairman John Levin Esq.

Joint legislative Committee on Energy. Pennsylvania,Public Utilities Comm.

• Pos: Office Box 142 Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Suite 513 Senate Gressette Building ,

Columbia, South. Carolina 29202 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

Fox, Farr and Cunningham Robert Q. Pollard 2320 North 2nd Street 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Baltimore, Maryland 21218

- - Louise Bradford 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 its. E)1yn R. Weiss Harmon & Ueiss ,

, ils. F rieca Berryhill, Chairman 1725 I Street, N.W. -

! Coalition for. Nuclear Power Plant Suite 506 Postponement Uashington, D.C. 20006 2610 Grendon Drive Mr. Steven C. Sholly Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Union of Concerned Scientists 1725 I Street, N.W.

Gail P. Bradford Suite 601 ANGRY Washington, D.C. 20006 245 W. Philadelphia St.

York, Pennsylvania 17401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Re0ulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Tourtell' tte James M. Cutchin, IV 4 Secretary .

Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Noolear Regulatory Commission I ATTH: ' Chief, Docketing & Service Br. ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l,

William S. Jordan. III Esq.

l

. Harmon & We.ss 1725 I Street, N.W. ,

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 I

9 i

.-,- --. - -. - . . - - . - - - . .