ML19206A568

Denies Intervenors Motion Compeling Applicants to Produce Witnesses to Give Testimony Relevant to Contention 5.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19206A568
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/08/1977
From:	Luton E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 7904200150
Download: ML19206A568 (6)

Text

-

I d ;9g 3 e

g9,Vs,s 9 L

U'i!~ID STA~ES OF AMERICA L

NUCLEAR REGi".ATORY CCP'4ISSICN

cu iice In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY,

)

JERSEY CENTRAL PC'JER & LIGH CCMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-320 AND

)

PENNSYL'IANIA ELECTRIC CCMPA'iY

)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,

)

Uni 2)

)

CREER T-T- 7 7 37 notion dated April 15, 1977, ebe Inte venors scught to have this Board cc=cel the Applicants to produce ri:nesses to give certain testimen r claimed to be "ralevant to Contentien 5."

'Je denied that notion orally at the evidentiary hearing held on May 18, 1977, indicating that a = itten order setting forth our reasons for denial would be issued at a later tira.

This Order accceplishes that purpose.

Contention No. 5 acates the following-

The containment structure and other buildings de. signed to withstand certain aircraf t impact eve:.cs are of inadequate strength to wichstand the inpact of airplanes which can reasonably be expected to frequen: Harrisburg International ai port.

Both the Boeing 747 and the Lockheed C-5A are reasonably expected to frequen Harrisburg International Air:cr: and greatly exceed the Kinetic energy set for the design cens ideration. f f a

'Je chink an accurate and fair restatement of the contention is to say that the

~'d'

' #aci'_ity is not capable c#

~

v,

.. ~. >

7904200/50 r

@ withstanding the impact of aircraf: larger than the design basis aircraft, which reasonably frequen: Harrisburg Inter-national Airporr.

Tne witnesses sought would be asked to give testi=cny that a)

. address (es] the current state of the ar:

with regard to the design, construction, and qualifica:icn testing of steel reinforced concrete structures for protection against the i= pact of large aircraft" and b)

.. discuss [es] the consequences, if any, to the nuclear safety related structures frc=

the inpact of a large, fully loaded aircraft,-

such as a Lockheed C-5A cr a Boeing 747, at Three Mile Island Uni 2."

It is conceded by the Applicants that the plant is not designed to withstand the impact of aircraft such as Lockheed C-5A or the Boeing 747 (Tr. 323, Tr. 548)

Thus, testimony going to that =atter (i.e., testi=cny about the " design, construction, and qualifica:ica testing of stcel reinforced concrete structures"), would serve no useful purpose in this p ro c eedin~, except insofar as i: might supper the discussion e

scught by b), above.

In claiming that a discussion of the consequences of a strike of a larger than design basis aircraf is necessary, Intervenors apparently take the position hc: such a strike should have been considered a design basis event.

But e

v.io O

O Intervenors have presented nothing Oc show why thi. =ight be so; nor have they seriously undercut the evidence on this

-oint nresented bv the othar parties.

Both the Applicants e

e and the Staff have responded to Intervenors' :otion relying upon evidence of record.

That evidence calculates the probability that an aircraf: larger than design basis operating at Harrisburg International Airport would strike TM1-2.

That probability was determined to be less than 10-7 per year, Such a probability was then deemed sufficiently low as not to warrant its consideration in the design of the plant.

Thus, no analysis of the consequences of such an occurrence was required to be perfor=ed.

For its position in this regard, Staff relied upon its Standard Review Plan (NUREG-75/087)

The Plan provides, in pertir.ent parts, as follows.

,,The identi: cation or cesign casis events resulting from the presence of hazardous carerials or activities in the vicinity of the plant is accept-able if the design basis events include each postulated type of accident for which a realistic estimate of potential exposures in excess of the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines exegeds the NRC Staff obJ' ective of ac. c. roximatelv. 10-/ o.er vear."

Section 2.2.3, Part II.

"The plant is considered adequately designed agains:

aircraft hazards if the probability of aircraf:

accidents resulting in radiological consecuences greater than 10 CFR Par: 100 exposure guicelines is less than abcut 10-/ per year."

See:icn 3.5.l.6,

?ar:

LL.

C4

...t

_ s.

The Standard Revias 71an is not a Ccc=ission regulation.

However, the approach stated there does reflect accepted Cccmission practice.

Lon2 Island Lizheinz Cc=cany (Shcreham Nuclear Power Station), ALA3-156, 6 AEC 331, 845-46; Cc=nen-wealth Edisen Ceccanv, (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), 6 AEC 361, 337-91.

We adhere to that practice here.

The evidence sufficiently de=cnstrates a probability of less than 10-'

per year for a strike of a larger than design basis aircraft upon the TM1-2 facility.

It is our view that under the Coc=ission's sche =e of regulation, Applicants for licenses are not required Oc be concerned with the consequences of extre=ely i= probable accident events such as this (proposed annex to 10 CFR Par: 50, Appendix D, 36 Fed. Rez. 22851)

Accordingly, testi=ony regarding the consequences of a strike by an aircraft larger than the design basis aircraft will not be required For the foregoing reascus, the nation is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

O n

.u..r_. A.Cu.m.C eA:_ t.v a.i],

m as i

LICENSING 30ARD G

e m

r-scward Lucen, Chairman Dated at 3ethesda, Maryland this 5th day of August 1977

~

n,

(" j

T-~

e.r 2 c '... r.:,

p. r..

n.,,

3.s.-s i.-

w

,,L.,...,.,-,..y:a v... c - v.~. C s,,.. -...2-v..:.a i

\\

I

.ho.

v. w....,n.

/

)

,,..,. s).,r. )

3C, 0

.n.,u-c r.....

J L 4 0. y,,,n..s :

)

s wG.

.w r--

0 s J u L s m....

s r.

.i. r.

)

)

r_., 4..

.a.,)

s, r, m, o....

)

)

)

5 ~ o ". *L L"-

Cr,,":s 6'.r. L oca r e r.

6 n ~

m I hereby certify that I have this da:. served the fore;cins de: ment (s) upon c ch person designated on the official service li-: cc piled by the Office of the Secrc:ary of :he Cc ::ission in this croceedi:'; in accordance uith the requirements of Sectica 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Suclear Regulatory Cermission's Rules and h gulations.

Dated at !ashington,

".C.

this fi ra w ~ v%

g 3./ O.e.

u -(.xa-'

s.c 7 /

I

/

l

/

s d, m

\\, -l

~\\

'f ~

~

-l c

j '

/

O e

• h

%* j/

Q

u. O

L.,..__, n.._ -. -.._......c..s.

..i._,

s.

s.-,.,

....--.m.

. c L _.. c. a.

s....

u. -.u 3 w. -

s a,

i

-.n u..-..,.

)

_,,,_c.

u.. _3..,

s, so _,...,. _

..o.

n,,.

.u.. m a. r,.....ci t y....

u su.

s-.

.:...o.

(...,,

~,s._i _,

ta.

a...

..u.-.

r 3.

c-Dr. Chaunce'/ ?. I'epferd r s...a, a.m. o.,

..., Cr_, ando..vcnue usoa 2..

a.o 4c.ea _: e t.. a,._a v 4 e,..s 4..

m -

y

- " a C *' ' e < "- > = o

• ~ ' - - ' "-

't=

e--

/

U. S. !;uclear Regulator / Coc=ission u

Washing:ca, D. C. 20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Ato:ic Saf et/ end L:. censing " card Ecnorable Karin. Carter U. S. !!uclear Regula::ry Corr.issier Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.

20555 Cffice of Enforce =en:

.e,ea.t e,,, o -

r,,.<.-

,.,.a, o.,,a. c t.

s rs

.v.

Dr. Ernes: 0. Salo 709 'dealth and Welf are.uilding Professer Harrisburg, Pennsylvar a 17120 Fisheries Research Institute, Td-10 College of Fisherie3 Miss Mary 7. Southard Universi:/. cf Washington Citizens for a Safe Environment

.sas.ng On vmJ

?.0. Box,03

,,,. a.

h; o ea tt_, e,,

e Harri sb urg, Pennsylvania 17103 Geor;e F. Erewbridga, Esq.

S h..aw,

o..<. _ _2.,..,

o. -.._ s,. -. b. 4. " 3 e G.,,e---='3-b_'.'-'-i-...c-.'__-.-

z.

_~

2,.,...,. _. :

W e

N

. O

~

• w.%m-=

- e.

o 9.

..-......e.

y p

s 1

I e

ee e

.y M

I i J..{

D e.n M. m. m,,,Q. pJ * ?,

t.

i

.a i

-\\ \\ "( r a, - N

.'A l

c,

g. o Q,

a.

(4f

.)

h.%3M ft1.Ah p-e i

c. 5> y w ; L a j

i 3

L,,.

.i.ii

..(

e g)

)

m u>j

....