ML17138B198
| ML17138B198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004080685 | |
| Download: ML17138B198 (18) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AM'RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Pari.s Glenn 0. Bright In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6c LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC. COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1'and 2)
)
Docket Nos.
50>>387 50-388 MEMORANDUM (M
hhhI80)
At the prehearing conference on March 20-21, 1980, the Board denied the Applicants'otions against ECNP and SEA, with the understanding that ECNP and SEA would supplement their, answers to the Applicants'nd Staff's interrogatories by May 1, 1980 (Tr.
552-53, 585).
We indicated that we would delineate the areas in which further answers were warranted.
We do so here.
1.
With respect to an assessment of releases of Radon-222, within the meaning of Contention 1A, we stated that, inasmuch as the Applicants had not furnished any analysis of Radon releases other than an adoption of the figures in Table S-3 (see ER,
$5.9),
the answers to interrogatories on this subject, previously furnished by ECNP and SEA were adequate, except that no analysis of the Staff's assessment of Radon releases, as included in the DES at
g4.5.5 (pp. 4-25 through 4-28),
has yet been supplied by either ECNP or SEA (Tr. 510-511).
Consistent with the supplementation requirements of 10 CFR 5Z-;.740(e),
ECNP and SEA (to the extent they are able to do so) must answer the Applicants'nterrogatories lA-1 through 1A-5 and the Staff's interro'gatories S-l.l through S-,l.ll, using the DES assessment as a basis for answers.
If particularized information has not been developed, at least a
generalized basis for the contention should be provided (Tr. 513).
2.
In responding to questions on Contention 1B, ECNP has identified Technetium-99 as an isotope the health effects of which it believes have not been adequately assessed.
Because Table S-3 of 10 CFR 551.20 has been amended to delete any quantity figure for Tc-99 releases, we indicated that Contention 1 should be amended to transfer Tc-99 from part 1B (challenge to health effects of releases) to part 1A (challenge both to health effects and quantities released).
Neither the Applicants nor Staff have provided any assessment of the releases of Tc-99; until an assess-ment is provided, ECNP and SEA need not indicate why the assess-
'ments of Tc-99 releases are erroneous.
(If they have developed information on Tc-99, they should of course identify it, but a failure at this time to have developed such information will not be considered by us as evidence, of default.)
Presumably the FES will include an assessment of the quantities and health effects of Tc-99 releases.
If so, discovery on that. subject could then
proceed on the schedule outlined in our March 6, 1979 Prehearing Conference Order (LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 327 (schedule items 6 and 7).
- 3. If ECNP or SEA have as'f May 1, 1980 identified. any isotopes other than Rn-222 or Tc-99 the health effects of which they wish to have considered,"
they should identify those isotopes an'd answer the Applicants'nterrogatories 1B-1 through 1B-4 and the Staff's interrogatories S-1.12 through S-1.15.
(To the extent that ECNP's answers to the Staff's interrogatories S-'1.11 through S-1.14, including the 50-year limitation, remain valid, ECNP may so states)
'Certain of ECNP's answers to the Applicants'nterrog-atories on Contention 2 were based on an incorrect assumption as to the relevance of Table S-3 to this contention (Tr. 525-26).
ECNP should answer Applicants'nterrogatory 2-1 using 55.2 of the Environmental Report as the source of information to be analyzed (Tr. 530-31).
(ECNP may, of course, identify any errors which it believes are present in
$5.2.)
ECNP should also update, if possible, its answers to interrogatories 2-2 (particularly with respect to the magnitude of health effects) and 2-9.
ECNP need not answer the Staff's interrogatories on Contention 2, inasmuch as they are limited to the health effects of releases not included in ECNP's original contention and ECNP has indicated it has no interest in litigating the health effects of Cs-137, Co-60, and
5.
In response to Applicants'nterrogatory 3-.1, ECNP should indicate whether, it accepts'the fuel requiremepts, stated in 55.7.3.1 of the ER (copies 'of which the Board provided to the parties at the conference)
(Tr. 531-.533); If it accepts that
- amount, no further. answer is required.
In response to interrog-atory 3-2, ECNP, if it wishes to 'rely'on the results of the NURE
- program, should indicate whether it will accept those results.
I ECNP should also provide'ore specifity in its response to interrogatory 3-3, if it can do so (see Tr. 547).
In response to interrogatory 3-6, ECNP should provide the missing element of its formula, by indicating that it will accept the number for a particular date (any date is adequate) as the starting point for calculations.
For interrogatory 3-,7.,
ECNP need not perform extensive research but might wish to define a generalized basis for its claim of higher fuel prices.
To the extent it has developed particularized calculations, it should furnish such information.
I 6.
With respect to Contention 4, ECNP's answer to Appli-cants'nterrogatory 4B-,1 appears adequate if one takes into
'account ECNP's February 11, 1980 response to the Applicants'ebruary 4,
1980 motion.
ECNP should affirm that it wishes to include this response as part of its answer.
In response to interrogatory 4B-2, ECNP shoul'd indicate whether it will accept
~ the listing of facilities in Table 1.1-8 of the ER (a copy of which was provided, to it by the. Board at the prehearing con-ference)
(Tr. 532, 533-.34).
- 7. If any party has answered any interrogatory by stating that it has no information or that 'it is developing information, it must supplement those answers to reflect any new information it acquires.
As but one example, ECNP has answered interrogatories on its Contention 18 in this manner.
The May 1 responses should reflect new information gained as of that date.
8.
The Board also declined to dismiss CAND from the proceed-ing but limited its contentions to those as to which it is the sole sponsor.
By May 1, CAND must answer all interrogatories to the extent it has information to do so, relating to the environ-mental contentions it is solely sponsoring i.e., Contentions 16 and 17 and the portion of Contention 2 concerning releases of Cesium-137, Cobalt-60, and chlorine (Tr. 706-707>
709-10).
At a later date, the Board will issue a prehearing conference order explaining the reasons for our rulings reflected above (as hwell as setting forth additional rulings and other matters dis-cussed at the conference).
.~ FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Dr. Oscar H. Par s, Mem er C ar es Bec oe e
C airman Mr. Bright, who is recovering from surgery following an
'accident, did not participate in the consideration or disposition of the matters discussed in this Memorandum.
Dated at Bethesda,
- Maryland, this 27th day of March, 1980.
$J+'VOW 4.
gs C
APR
~98O e (cote pNoe n$ @h Sauce 8
gooey stan BP James erfHns March 27> 1980 CO Nr. Be '~ Mr. Bright~ and Dr Paris ASLB f'r Susquehanna 1 and, 2 Docket $50-387~
388 USMC Mashington D,C 20555 Nr Bechhoefer, ICr Bright~ and, Dr Parist I attended the hearing on March 20 in the hope of being able to make a limited appearance statement
- However, due to another commitment and to the'lengthier thin expected hearing I missed my opportunity, I hope you will accept these written comments as ifI had, been able to present them~
I have several pointss the first is relatively minor~
I made s limited appearance statement to you in J'snuary~
1979>
regarding the use of the Rssmassen Report by PP8cL f'r public relations purposes At the lunch recess that dsy I asked Nr, Beehhoefer ifI would receive a reply. I think he said I would Maoh later I received a letter from Mr. Cutchin saying~ in effect> that neither the Staff nor PPScL needed to answer my statement unless it had a dir4et bearing on certain issues.
He then completely miseharaeterized my statement and, assured me my concerns were without support. I responded to clarify my position~ bat received no farther word Assuming that neither the Staff nor the Applicants were supposed, to respond because of Mr Cutchin's letter> I gave up~
Later still I read. by chance a copy of the Special Pre-hearing Conferenne Order of March 6 On page 77 it reads'During the special prehearing conference, we heard a number of limited appearance state'ments offered in socordanee with 10 CPR 2 715(a) ~
Me asked, the Applicant and/or Staff'o prepare responses to those statements not comprehended by the admitted contentions "
As I'e read. the contentions, there is none that mentions PPM 's public relations eampsigni That is a small matter> bat it does cause me to wonder about the good f'sith of the attorney for the Staff I'd like now to share with you several quotations that seem germane to this hearing.
On page 24 of'he Kemeny Commission Report reads the following comments "Mhst'e oonsider cruoial is vhether the proposed changes sre carried oat by the same organizations (unchanged)~
with the same kinds of practices snd the same attitudes that were prevalent prior to the accident, As long as proposed improvements are carried oat in a 'business as usual'tmosphere~
the fundamental changes necessitated, by the accident at Three Mile Island cannot be realized."
page 2
James L. Perkins So we must look to the HRC and the utidnity for improvements in attitude~ f'r true concern snd for a nev way On March 10, 1980'lan Parr~ the HRC project manager f'r the Susquehanna facilityg was quoted, in the Harrisburg Patriots "Shen you come out of' situation like that, (TNI) you'e a little bit punchy.
You have expended so much effort in a very narrow area How we are tr'~ing to relearn how we vere doi business before~"~emphasi8 and parenthetical comment mine I suggest to you that the Staff~
upon vhich you rely f'r support and upon whose judgement. the neigh-bors of Susquehanna msy someday have to rely'or their well-being~
hss not learned the lessons of TKE~
On the national level this wss commented upon by'emeny on page
$6z
'%ith its present organization~ staff snd attitudes the HRC is unable to fulfillits responsibility for providing an acceptable level of safety f'r nuclear power plants "
(On a personal level~ this was reconfirmed. by my experienaa at the special prehearing oonferenoe last veek, As I took notes for Dr. Johnsrud, I was startled to have a Staff attorney shout st her right over my head.
Uninformed though I msy be, it certainly'eems that requests for a party'o refrain from interrupting should be directed to the chairman or at least politely to the individual~
Suoh behavior does not seem to represent changes in attitude which are positive~)
Of sll these quotes and, thoughts>
perhaps the best summstii.on vas offered by'itchell Rogovin in The Prognosis on page 171'He sre not reassured'by what ve see so far."
So> here we sre in another licensing situation.
The Applicants had. moved to throv out one intervenor snd, exclude tvo others from oral participation in making the record complete
>hat haa been the method used, to bring a'bout this aitistion'P It certainly seems that the attempt hss been made to bury the representatives under massive requests for information, Ask them to list every document snd every conversation they've ever hsd pertaining to low-level rsdiatiohu Ask them the names of the Applicants'lants~
and then ask them where they go% that information Ask them for information that no one knows such as the amount of radon due to the plant should it ever be alloed to operate.
And then~
when the answer is we don't know~ or this is unreasonable'he response hss been to demand the answer again and to threaten the intervenors vith expulsion. I don't think the attitudes of the utility seem to have changed much either ~
I
James L. Perkfns page 3
(please excuse the change zn type f'ace)
I'd like to ask you to do something positive ~
Here is a utility, PPRL, which:
- 1) does not need thc power.
Annually this company sells outside its service area 30 percent or more of the total kvrh it sells to its customers.
Furthermore, it is thc only viinter peaking member of its P-J-TZ conglomerate, to the best of'y knowledged
- 2) has spent about 1.6 billion dollars to date, but has announced that its current estimates call for an additional 1.6 billion dollars.
and
- 3) in d.ebatcs and talks throughout the state has been represented by its public relations people as continuing to build thc plant f'r eco-nomic 'reasons only.
On several occasions 1
have heard PP8:L spokcsmcn say that in 1968 the company's forecasts ind.icatcd. they would. need the plant, but that novi they don'.
These "representatives say the company must keep building in ord.er to recoup. thc past investment.
The question of the nccd for povicr is real, but is not onc that can be addressed by thc present Public Utility
- Commission. lt is a question that ought to be addressed.
novi, ih light of the sales records of'he last fevr years.
and PP8cL's notable record as conservation proponents's long as the construction permit for Susquehanna is in place, PAL feels the vieight of'he millstone around its neck.
The company must keep constructing the unneeded and. phonomonally expensive plant.
So, for the people of the upper Susquehanna valley, for PPFrL and f'r all PP8cL customers, I ask you to suspend.
the construction permit for Susquehanna until an independent aud.iting team is given freedoms fund311g and access to PP&L records to assess the company's need. f'r povier and to assess the conseauences and explore viith thc Pennsylvania Public UtilityCommission alte natives to the consequences of' permanent halt to the construction.
Xf it is not in your power to suspend.
the construction permit, I ask that you recommend to thc NHC Commissioners su@his suspense:bn-"-without prejudice.
1 viould truly like to see PP8:L back in the public's favor and freed from this folly.
PS Best viishes for Mr. Bright's recovery soon.'~>
p I~ssc drop
~c lo>r 8 cavd so Box 1378 State Coll<<c, PA 16801
~is
/g, g<v.vr <. (p~.
'4
0 gjk)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Glenn O. Bright 4'ic~
usNRo gAR 278~~ ~
g gf @g QQ'gal g'g~g gc Sa5l<~
c.
Qg ~5 Qy/ j (Xo v
In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6c LIGHT COMPANY
'nd ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 50-388 MEMORANDUM (M hhJ80)
At the prehearing conference on March 20-21,
- 1980, the Board denied the Applicants'otions against ECNP and SEA, with the understanding that ECNP and SEA would supplement their. answers to the Applicants'nd Staff's interrogatories by May 1, 1980 (Tr.
552-53, 585).
We indicated that we would delineate the areas in which further answers were warranted.
We do so here.
1.
With respect to an assessment of releases of Radon-222, within the meaning of Contention lA, we stated that, inasmuch as the Applicants had not furnished any analysis of Radon releases other than an adoption of the figures in Table S-3 (see ER, 55.9),
the answers to interrogatories on this subject previously furnished by ECNP and SEA were adequate, except that no analysis of the Staff's assessment of Radon releases, as included in the DES at
g4.5.5 (pp. 4-25 through 4-28),= has yet been supplied by either ECNP or SEA (Tr. 510-511);
Consistent with the supplementation requirements of 10 CFR,$ 2.;-=740(e),
ECNP, and, SEA (to the extent they are able to do so) must answer the Applicants'nterrogatories 1A-1 through 1A-5 and the Staff's interrogatories S-l.l through S-.l.ll, using the DES assessment as a basis for answers.
If particularized information has not been developed, at least a
generalized basis for the contention should be provided (Tr.. 513).
2.
In responding to questions on Contention 1B, ECNP has identified Technetium-99 as an isotope the health effects of which it believes have not been adequately assessed.
, Because Table S-3 of 10 CFR
$51.20 has been amended to delete any quantity figure for Tc-99 releases, we indicated that Contention 1 should be amended to transfer Tc-99 from part 1B (challenge to health effects of releases) to part 1A (challenge both to. health effects and quantities released).
Neither the Applicants nor Staff have provided any assessment of the releases of Tc-99; until an assess-ment is provided, ECNP and SEA need not indicate why the assess-ments of Tc-99 releases are erroneous.
(If they have developed information on Tc-99, they should of course identify it, but a failure at this time to have developed such information will'ot be considered by us as evidence of default.)
Presumably the FES will include an assessment of the quantities and health effects of Tc-99 releases.
If so, discovery on that subject could then
3 proceed on the schedule outlined in our March 6, 1979 Prehearing Conference Order (LBP-79-6, 9
NRC 291, 327 (schedule items 6 and 7).
3.
Xf ECNP or SEA have as of May 1, 1980 identified any isotopes other than Rn-222 or Tc-99 the health effects of which they wish to have considered, they should -identify those isotopes and answer the Applicants'nterrogatories 1B-1 through 1B-4 and the Staff's interrogatories S-1.12 through S-l;15.
(To the extent that ECNP's answers to the Staff's interrogatories S-1;11 through S-1.14, including the.50-year limitation, remain valid, ECNP may.so state
.)
4.
Certain of ECNP's answers to the Applicants'nterrog-atories on Contention 2 were based on an incorrect assumption as to the relevance of Table S-3 to this contention (Tr. 525-26).
ECNP should answer Applicants'nterrogatory 2-1 using
$5.2 of the Environmental Report as the source of information to be analyzed (Tr. 530-31).
(ECNP may; of course, identify any errors which it believes are present in
$5.2.)
-ECNP should also update, if possible, its answers to interrogatories 2-2 (particularly with respect to the magnitude of health effects) and 2-9.
ECNP need
\\
not answer the Staff's interrogatories on Contention 2, inasmuch as they are limited to the health effects of releases not included in ECNP's original contention and ECNP has indicated it has no interest in litigating the health effects of Cs-137, Co-60, and
5.
In response to Applicants'nterrogatory 3-1, ECNP should indicate whether it accepts the fuel requiremepts, stated in
$5.7.3.1 of the ER (copies of which the Board provided to the parties at the conference)
(Tr. 531-533); If it-accepts that
- amount, no further answer is,required.
In response to interrog-atory 3>>2, ECNP, if it wishes to rely on the results of the NURE
- program, should.indicate whether it will accept those results.
ECNP should also'provide more specifi'ty in its response to interrogatory 3-3, if it can do so (see Tr. 547).
In response to interrogatory 3-6, ECNP should provide the missing element of its formula, by indicating that it will accept the number for a particular date.(any date is adequate) as the starting point for calculations.
For interrogatory 3-7, ECNP need not perfoxm extensive research but might wish to define a generalized basis for its claim of higher fuel prices.
To the extent it has developed particularized calculations, it should furnish such information.
6.
With xespect to Contention 4, ECNP.'s answer to Appli-cants'nterrogatory 4B-1 appears adequate if one takes into 1
account ECNP's February 11, 1980 response to the Applicants'ebruary 4,
1980 motion.
ECNP should affirm that it wishes to include this response as part of its answer.
In response to intexrogatory 4B-2, ECNP should indicate whe'ther it will accept
the listing of facilities in Table 1.1-8 of the ER (a copy of which was provided to it by the Board at the preheax'ing con-ference)
(Tr. 532, 533-,34).
- 7. If any party has answered any interrogatory by stating that it has no informati'on or that it is developing information, it must supplement those'nswers to reflect any new information it acquixes.
As but one example, ECNP has answered interrogatories on its Contention 18 in this manner.
The Nay 1 responses'hould reflect new information gained as of that date.
8.
The Board also declined to dismiss CAND from the proceed-ing but limited its contentions to those as to which it is the.
sole sponsor.
By. May 1, CAND must answer all interrogatories to the extent it has information to do so, relating to the environ-mental contentions it is 'solely sponsoring i.e.,
Contentions 16 and 17 and the portion of Contention 2 concerning releases of Cesium-137, Cobalt-60, and chlox'ine
.(Tr 7'06-707
> 709" 10)
~
At a later date, the Board will issue a prehearing conference order explaining the reasons for our rulings reflected above (as well as setting forth additional rulings and other matters dis-cussed at the conference).
-0 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Dr. Oscar H. Par s, Mem er C ar es Bec oe e
. C a rman Mr. Bright, who is recovering from surgery following an
- accident, did not participate in the consideration or disposition of the matters discussed in this Memorandum.
Dated at Bethesda,
- Maryland, this 27th day of March, 1980.
0 MAR g@98O ~
~ " ".t the Qgg~
.:-': < Sse1ce
- ich Docket No 50-$20 UNITED STATES 0 AtGZICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COYiHISSION In. the Matter of
)
)
ILMHOPOLITMEDISON COMP'QE',
EZ AL..
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear:
)
Station, Unit. No
. 2.)
).
HE UEST FOR. HEARING.
Pursuant to the Commission.'-s Order'f 2/1 1:/80 and the provisions of 10, CZB 2. 71.4,, I, Steven C.. Sholly~ hereby fi3e this request for. a hearing on vlhether the requirements set.
forth irr. the. proposeL.Technica3.
Specifications are both.
necessary and. sufficient. for the maintenance of the facility to protect'he public health and: safety 'and minimize the danger to life and; property~ andiwhether the provisions of this Order.. would. significantly affect the quality, of the human environment..
I am. a resident, of Mechanicsburg~
which is within. fifteen.. miles of. the TMI;Z facility,, and. am.'employed at present. in. Eershey, which is some eight. miles di.stant,.
Most. of the places, to which I. trave1 within. the norma conduct.
of daily living are within. fifteen..miles of the faciU.ty.
I have,, in addition. established,. standing in. the TMI.-l Hestar t.-
Proceeding My intex:est in. this proceeding is that of a. private citizere. concerned. with. the fin.".axcia1, technica1, and. management, competance of. Metropolitan. Edison Company to..safely. maintaux the TMI-2 reactor in safe conziguration..
The proposed Technica3 Specifications as propounded in..~ppendix I to. the Commission!s-
Order of 2/1.1!/80 do not, take sufficient consideration of the unique hazards posed by. the continuing accident at Th" ee MQ.e Island Unit 2;, nor do the proposed Technica1. Specifications take adequate note of the profound. inability O'". Metropolitan Edison. Company to write technically,'ufficient. procedures I
for operating TMI-2~ to provide for sufficient trai~g of.
reactor operators to. implement proper procedures and ensure coz pliance with. Technical. Specifications,.
or to provide the technical.,; financia1,.
and.. management skil1s required to safely',
conduct operations at. TMI'-2 while the plank is in. the so-called
'iHecovery Mode" of operations.
The proposed. Technical Specifications provide for insufficient'onitoring~. survei11ance and reporting requirements..
The public. health. and,.'safety is not adeauately protected.
by, the proposed. T'echnicaZ. Specifications, anL. theref.ore rep-resent an; insufficient basis for ensuring the safe operation.
of TNI:-2.;.
Because oZ this,. the liklinood. of. significant impact on the human envircmment. is very hiigh,. unacceptably SQo-A. copy of.. this request for hearing has been. sent to the Commission~s Executive Legal Director and. to the Counsel for." the Licensee DMZ3.:
21; March 1;98Q; Hespectfully submitted, Steven..C..
S o
$04 South Market St.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Ph.
(717)'66-1.857