ML19206B339

Informs Commission of Aslab Decision ALAB-486 for Which Petition for Review Has Been Field.Decision Concerned Emergency Plans & Risk of Heavy Aircraft Crashing Into Plant

ML19206B339
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/06/1978
From:	Eilperin S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
References
SECY-A-78-068, SECY-A-78-68, NUDOCS 7905090226
Download: ML19206B339 (13)

Text

.

h.

.ECY-A-78-68

_Feptemaer 6,1973 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATO3Y COMMIS0lON ADJUDICATORY l TEM COMMISSIONER ACTION

c..

e. w.o. u v,...m. o., 4 - m. m.. a,

-v.

r..m..

.. 2.,y.. o r. a.

z_, - o. _<.., q,_,.4., 4 _ v,.-

q w

_y Sub.*ect:

RE7IE'd CF ALA3 436 (In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.)

~.c.'~...,

".". 4 'e

.: _2 r_ _e, 4

.t.

m.w m__

..L4 _,, T,, o.r.d

'IL' c _' c_ _o."

C"^-

.i

.o__

Purpose:

"o inform the Cctmission of an Appeal Board Decision for which a pecition for review has been filed, but which, in my opinion, should not be reviewed.

2. o_,l _ a_.d

~s a

E:cp ire s :

September 3, 1973 S u=~.a r-1 In ALA3 h86, decided Ju'.y 19, 1973, the n,yp 2_-

=, c. a,. a.

m m_,<. _4 m_.^. _ a w.e

<,o..~.e.2

.e-3,

m mo c p. a.

p a C.a.m _ n n

~ n,- c,a, w..e. n.a,a_s

_ s S,u. a.,,, a.

a

.n-a m

.v m

o C.#

- e _." o_

1. .. ". " '.# ' a. ".a~ a.

". b.." m. a_

.M. _'.'L -

• ^

a

-.7 S

'"a 5 _.

.v T_ 3 _ o.r.a

],,..d.

a3

-._/

O. h. g +- y - -.r..

3

r. g.y

? 4 q

'o J

J ope"ation.

m w o_ * - - o_ c '

omav-e r 4,, 4...r.

n o.,,.v e m.e..

an ney

-- a

-y_.._,

~...

=...a.

..u.,.

...n

. c o,m e c.

a..a..--o_.~,,,

y__..o

.au o.

e s

- _. n. - a.c.

(_4.m.

a. o. a.,.

o_ m

_4,a r. v.c a

..o_ -

],

n.

.- 3..- c..c w, n

_<.r.,

w.. m_

a n n, a_ v.nc

. w. m.m.

a

-a 0.

3

• /

or c4.

,,.,2.ma.

A..a. : _ a c a w /... m_.. - m a.r. a.,. a,. m a.

v

_g

_0

, 0,, :

4

-m -

.as

_m__

.. - ~.

e..a r o e w n.

o.v., a_ n_ v e d. ".m. _

w

=

-a.'.'.^.

w n_ u.' d.

" a_

. ' ' '. _' c d.

a.. ^.

y x a u-m_ a

. a y a

e

.m m_, 4.. e.. a_.m,,

.._.,_4m_.s,

.. m.

m...c_

mo.a

<. -, x,.

,a

_m s

n m.

a c ~... ' a_.c ^_ a_ c _'.=. _' v'.~. w.h ' ' ". ~..'. e~.". ". " a.

a ^. m.. ^- _' ^ a. a.

. ' ~ " ".a"._',.v.

y.

.e. C Y J. 0. t :

i nis paper is identical to t

,. o r. : ac :

advance ;0 pies, which were delivered to A Commissicner offices by 03C cn SepteWhU.,

[p;r Peter ^. Crane, GC c

m.[. y 5

s L.)

f.

l

.z ;_

g

e

t. g

.y. - + v a

.q f.

Lv-Q gw.

wg

- m.%

2-

.- -- s. ; ;. 3. w,.,

o tw.'

N t,

y

. ~~ ~.-

c j _ }. d y

[,f d$

M' i

L

o

-we.e.r.4 w s.. s,m,,

e., an u.

a... w o. e _,.w A 4w.

m ov e

the Appeal Board found che record adequate to suppor' the Licensing Boa"c's 9 4.e p t1.n s.

ns

~vs v H. a.

m w4 mw e

v.

..o4 ol m.a.n v. a s h c s,,

".i.."..h a.." s "v.#

• h.a.

.A"y "y

c..'

kcwo.y "3 a.'.' '..b.." a. a.. a a

• C a.w A.Pc Len A s u,.P.P.4 m. 4 c..e. *.

4.nce.ns.m~oen4oa~

2

.J q

v i a.

m.

. im and amb.4 -,, 4

• 4 o s

.41.,

..w. o. n o e c.w A. c. ta.,.w _c.e.

e...

m 2

.Pu,.w w

w

.a

...e,,..o o. 4.e 3,. o o.

u,.a,,.c.

b,",

.".a.

. w w

v v

n p p e a.L O., C a.w A 4 * ~ e.7 9 9

n = * 'Io. w.

• w o.n.

h,.

&..k. o.

mn u

wc 3

m.I v

.u vg 2,c a.a.

mho.

aypea.,

n, a.w A d 4,/ _ m 4AoA r.4 n. o. n o.e. i e n

e -.

.c e

a m

on the question of whether to suspend

+>o v c o n _n e 4.e.g

,.4 c a.". o a.

c, e n.d 4.".3~ 'h_o*

k. a. a." d ". ~.

e

.. 3 v...

C1..irman Rosenthal and Dr. Johnson, in t he. majority, fcund no need to suscend a*4c". of

".ka.

".' a.v,, o v a."

.V..".

Shn.~.'~..a.".'s o*y e.'n 3 g

o v.m d4sspe.+.

~

A petition for Commission review of ALAB uS6 was filed on August 3 by Chauncey Kepford, w o e w o s e.e a>.e.3-

~..y e

. i. o.w,I o_.n.c n s, C.4. 4, e e.s g.

Pnw

.v.

a

.Q. a P e- '*. \\v 4.w o e m. p n.-

a.c. A.

V. o ys '.4 l' C m..n...t +. o. o.

.P o w e.

v v....

a Safe Environment.

His petition das d.4noc%o d.o e..w o.

4s o-,_, o s a.4weIm.c.o.

v. n s..

w 2

,w w

risks, emergency plans, and the funding of

.e.vv... a 7 0. s.

P.a. o p ci.w. s '.'.' a d c ".

M' u g u s s

.D '

ow c

"ca a

~

v-.

kn s'

.\\'p r' c a.P P de. A *- %.. c.

p e p. 4 n o e.~., s

,a,.w ~ o u'

~~

1 v,y u n o.

d..v A

. u.

y

~.

3 A o. n.4.a.1 oP

.~Z o. e.rv.At-e e ~. 4 ~. 4 n e..

mw u

m a y vi y

4 c

J T o p e,,",

a _4 w,

^

P o

Q 4 T,s.

o s C i t s a...- e

...m...,-

w vi us.

ng a

.i.

...an Q,.

dv c.a].

d'.

Ren

.O, n o.n A a

u.m. m.. w.pwn J

Va a

M 744 r.

',f. C.. v.- 4 e w 4 *,,

.. n. w..e. m,.

w 9 h. o.

5 t O. L,

d., a.c. A a. A O. o +s+ J. o. d 0 7.o.n.

e w n. 4 4 c_ e.

. n' = =,

.4

p. v v c.

mu.

" l a." '. s ".lu o" "v b e-d a s # ~ 7. a. d.

" v" *1..hs'.a.".d A_.'."

y e

v m

m

.4[

• b. o. v a.n o.

.q.d "s h 4.q c w o e.b p 3 a v e n c.e.4 e. d#.e.

n

,f

.--m m

IO 6 a n n. o o.O 3.e.

a.4 w e p w.

mw 7P ss v.

AJ m..4 7 o_ s Ao u n c_.e. A.

v v

,yw y

m 3

4

.e. $~

f. e

& b. o.

7. o, dea'-*

v.

v.

g 4.%

. w c.P.P 4. e's T.

.- b. o.

eP

• O v.i w*

./

e n n k n h.4 1.* *. j.. n.P

-w L.a n

pv.P D'

e,

• 4,,a,.'.c.

<.. o.

aw a

y C.

w-w y.vvGv v

• g o..dg.h. *.

p1 Oc

^9 Jc y

..wwg 3.4 w e.'c..r. o.

.6

1. o. g g "..b. c.e..'..

e s.

.y

, nJ _ f f,

e

.i n., n ^ O, G. ^ n 'vv)

"y-."

,"j w' " 3

's.". a

\\*

..eL a

a a C m.e J A c. e$.- Ee o,.,n e..

S o.w o A

• mm A

A. m..e/.sc h n % ' a.

e v u. +

.w s

~~

v.

.dw

-M sVW Uww.

w o r e.iJwo q e o n.JQ'.

e.n n..- o p

• J c o

m. o p q,a. w o *C.

w %%.

w twpw p

W w w d

..w

.i w

mw

~ V.*' _ d

^

J 4 1, Q.

4a

,, r. u -.w s.h..w o. o.

.4 7o,

'.n,...

e a.

--Q

• w y

wwJ ab i,w=

9 J U..e.sv.

g o.n. A 4e

'a w a

• a. A 2 *-

pe c..

DW w

+w*

id. g

,t a

.d

.Jvw W M

/

elJ

~h*'..

g a

-7

c..e. $. o D**$..s.)

m. e..n o.

• b. p r.

qUq0 a.c. A

e..n 9$

t

~1 L. t, U

3 C, n s o_.-. u., i,_,..o

. 4., o a-

.c.--.

r u. o.

d4.- o_n e.,..

v o.c

..w. o. -,a.m. 4 2 9 a,,

p m,,.4 o.s us..

n2 2

s.

e the clant has been desiened to withstand the crash of a 200,000 lb. plane at 200 knots.

The issue is whether the crash of a b.a o v.' a.."

"..k. a n 0 0 6, n 0 0.' k. ^ 1 o.n.e

( s "m _.".

o a s e

s g-a Boeing 707, a DC-10, or a C-5A) is less p.m n b a b, e v..o...

4,,..

s w.

. 0,n 0 0, n n 0,e.,

s..o_ 2.

0 vs y

The probability of an air crash is the product of three factors; the nunber of operations (i.e.,

a takeoff or landing)

-. o_.a _o.e

~ u.o o,anv ~.4..a s t n o.

~.4..a. s w h o_

v.

v. -

" areal crash probacility" (i.e.,

the likelihood that a plane will crash into any location of a given area).

In assess-ing the risk of present and future crashes at TMI-2, one factor is undisputed:

the area of the plant.

'dith respect to the number of heavy aircraft operations at the TMI end of the runway, there is agree-ment on prese t levels:

511 or at most e;00 ge, yon.

.a.o w o_.r e.m, 4 4 s u.,., o_ n,

o

a..a.wia

,o,n.

.c.,,,._

a.oc4, la-

. 4.,.,

. e,t o_

a.

. g. u

..a.

v.-

breach the 1 in 10,000,000 per year crash nx,w4,4 a2

y. ~... ] avan u.md w

,-o

~o_na, a.-

c.o

,,, u,.

r. _

. ~..

e. 4 o_ s h c *. h E n.

• b o.

.m..o. h. h.o d s o.# pnod466 4 o n.

e

.u m

nnd 4-

. w o.

c.a

.eo no,s

2.. w 2_.r. A.

u...

.i m.u. a., o s ~ d S.e.e 4, b,,..ea n. ~,.- ~. o A c ~ o.n.,.. a.. o_

4-I a

a.MpQ---

c.M.Q e.h.

pMobah.J7 4 h. ].,

.h.o.. O Q.M o.O E n.

u

^ou."se o ".' o.r. a.

4.=

'.' ' - a..' ]-

", a_

w ". a_.". 4*

~^

v e

. A

~

crashes.

In the TMI-2 record there are s o_./._.,.2.,

v.c

,, G. v,-.,.a. e.. w.. Q

,-4

-C-.0 v

3 a0...$

A 4.P Po n o_ p.".

• q q %.n..d re g g 3

.a m. A 6= m e,, m & o f GC

.. g s"-'u--

w o u.4.c.r

.m a. n..

a*P"sa A

o o.#

d o " a~.

• ".a.

n' "y " n o '

y On wA

' a i, e. 4 4 m.

.d'.J g.ecqva,3

~..E p

~w D

w

• A..r.3-sv

.a

'v a. % 3..

s a b.ar a a

• p n J s *v.dn o-n o..,.n *..J v.r o_,.]

7 o. n - a_

o

.3

e..,a, m..i v -. bow e.9 C w p m k..o s C n C h, ww. o_ d d. *..h. 4 n C n.. o _

4

• Q v

v h o.,.O

m...J7 o_

m.e

• =.b. o.

. a n.. d o..

o_ n.d c..d n.

, o.n o_

w,e a n 3

j

.3 s

u

.O.w o n.- 4.. e V.e. c

• b.. o_

w o.m.. o 4.e. 4.e. {,-

p w o..q }. o c

• e.8 e

v ',f n

wE w.

.,..wed

.N e

k e 7 O S. o_

,.[ J...h. #..]

Q

e..Q.M.M r,,* *.7

-.a_.

C ' S.e. 3*

• • h. o_

Ow Q

y.

r 2.*.H.

v.P q

m e

s..j a

• r o.x ",o_.r.m.AAq.

' 4' o.n. o.

n_.2

• . %.. o_

6 p

u.

. j

.. v s *.

w o. n o. r..

d. o. a ( _',"; 4 0

7. O ', - )

.e., b.n.g e

h. o_ c.. ", y~

vv c

u A>,~, -

a..n. A a w

.a.. n_.- e. ~.

..m m..e.. =_ w a-n e c_

.a U-

-. a s

.e...

a

.Q v v a. e n c-

• -.b. o b* o w w 4.c, h.,a,.w $-.

• J a-,,w

."L.. e n w

• w w,, r.. y o g. r Qw

-Q a.

e.

yv.

s 3 -

O

.Q

..m

• b. o_

"..T.*_*,

n.'o.n. *v w

v.

p -

n e. o_ -.m. ~s -

%. p e m, A o n.? q 32 "s %.

. a ~ n. '.

a..m n_.2A c_.e. "<w~

A q

MP M

v.

J w

e

') A 7 't }

L '1 L*

It H

o.f U'. S. c c _.m..o.w o. 4 _c l c o.w w._ o_.n a _4.w c.w _o.O h. _n J

J the continental U.S. between 1956 and 1965; the other includes " destruct" accidents of U.S.

carriers, in the U.S.

wwnca,

-D o. *v w e o_ r.

.i c, A ana 1 c ~I J.

T. w.o.

a.M.d o a

v.v-m sv CGwwe*2 4.a4,Gw.O on

-wo-h w-*o-4r n.4 ~ w ewee

$.Aw.

G

% D..

• Cww0

.4

.u w

^

1 c b' c _19 '/

• w.o_.n. 1 0 ~/ 2

.1 C, ~I p.

N a. ' *. h a.."

• ha.

l

~

7ina r~

a

_o wd r.e w

-.n. s n o.w *s y.co c t<' s a d "-.".

u--

ns_e a

u

-u

.v.

yu

+

u a

• u.a.

.e C*v u u. c ~ ~u.

d _o

• a e a s o. s

.4 o. v o u

o 2

-e vu u4 A

11. won *o.

PP i.

m _o & m

.S n 5 4 m a V e s u% A ~ % o..n A

q o

um v

eu crash rates in the 1968-1975 period than between 1956-1965; althcugh 1972-1975 data shows a lower rate than for 1963-

,n, l y t.,.

The result of the two data bases, and d _4.c.c

.w o. n * *. e n h-4 q,m, o s

.e o,/ a,,, c v

.w. 3

.w. o...,

4

~

o m.

nn v.

.e

=_ w.4 d a s o e c 'e ". " a v'

" a ' u e. s." v^."

• k. a. ""ob-

^

y.

ability of a crash into TMI-2.

The applicants' primary analysis, using the later data, yields a probability of 3 x 10-9 Its backu,p analysis yields c4~nwo.

o.c _ x.

_7 ^s - I, bu'v * * '. "..". 3 "." a.

3.

o n

• n o.

A c y-o o,

o"d o -- -

..ajo"4.]'

.h,c u

.k.*.

u.n.d"- _',y v

s b.4.4 n-

'C e. n c o - o.

4 bo u s s,u...o. s

• s u _ ~, C w. o. e.s.o. s o

e ac 4_47__1 xv e u,n _4.en.n.. _7 a4,*wm G e.e b,, *. p d

.4.w. _ 30o 4

v.

_. c i. C."..

• b a.

a. ".d o.#

"u." w o ",

wha.."a__os.

_o c vu s

.".c e. e d ",.^ s "

c." o s t.a s

• o k.a.

g oo.a.... a

..iu o k.

r.. u..

4-n,u, v e, A

.w o w w ~W..m o,n

,o c

o v 1. o.

.w.

.V

w. w

\\

0 MQw v

maw "o o u u-d a." s" o.' 'v"a 10 =."c).

a" o " ' _' v^ c.".

Q '

,y_

~

u-2 n w 4 ~ J e.u l o s e _4

,, s _o.n. 3 a.

e o w 7 _4 o_ n 6

v. _ e _. o mu*.e, q

.n u

data, was 2.6 x 10-3.

The Appeal Scard

".o s " e.".' v^ "....a d _'. s w"

2.. a ' s" s _4 s, e Q _'.". 3 u -

^

y

. w. a. - a_. k o d e o.". ".. a.

c ~e c~.".d _o -d e v _' a_ w O ' '.".,

~

4 a

-v m

m

-.e. dm _ p e

• 4... a. o o-anysu n.w o h o h 4 '. _4 *..

_o ~. h. Q, c

._ h

. v -v a

,s y

10-0 at current levels. All four analyses cw w.n..

- w o.

,4, e.c

.s. o,.. - G _4.w y., o.**m. m w Ilk --.,Q vW w..

• _ Q sw v w C. / j C

C.w o s n 4.r.g-

.A.n t v

• b. o.

e l o n. *, *o kp a

c*

v.n e

u p. m.

w v.

ms w _4 - p. 4 q

.w o. s~u l o o "'.]

s' "a _# d A. '.'.".e s.

a

-- a

o. n. _o,d d p w

v.?

o m. k 4 ~,, 2 n

-t 2

o

-~c pes-n 2

34*

s*.-O

-.e.

o. 0 <. -

Ds-*

• O s

6. 6 v 4m c

1) y

• w myyw

..Q

.. e..m.

6 %. C Myywg'_

Gma.nAf-

m.. m.m..

gnnggw-w 1

s.

m eng wvu a

Q s

_ '. " _ ' ' y" s.#."2

'. u'* o 'e w u.".

b.a o v'*

o._#."*."C."*,

ha

- - s r " a.." o -

w v.4 n r -

c,

w. o...u. -

o..r. A

.e

• w v.. o.

n,, r...l _c.,

w o. = e. w.

vud a

v

.a.

j...

-03AO e o..w

,7 p o n

/

• b. o.

• . o. <..' o ~. -

.e s h.W. 4 w.b.

a.O O V

s,.

a y

w <

a o.9 3

• h g *a

• h. o.

cA

-n,qmo g.O e.l e.n *.

r.e n. ~. o. n.

• 4.r.

- s

-u o g--wj y -

e

_o _ w.. o. d )

6 u. o a w o c h.

m.w. y,c. h.d.

sj

' 1 h o.

w o. o. n.

g.4

• ,o*

'J

~..

w a,

3 v

w.

y w

c2 c1

t-would be 2.3 x 10-I, or more than twice the level of probability deemed accept-able by the Standard Review Plan.

The record must clearly be reopened, there-

.co " a_, '. o d e *. a.".._' u" a.

_n. wpm = ".." u. m ".a.

.l a v a..'

of operations plant protection -ust be re-evaluated.

a' '.

• b a_

s a...a.

'v '... e,

• h. a.

d4.t'#a.."a."..a.

k a. o w a_ a_.n vu v

the data bases has illustrated the need for a sound, uniform data base, and the reopened hearing can provide this.

The hearing will be conducted by the Appeal Board itself.

In determining whether the plant should be allo'aed to operate in the interim (estimated at about six months), all members of the Appeal Board agree that the legal test is whether there is reasonable assurance that the plant can operate safely at the coming six months' air traffic levels.

The majority observes that despite the inconsistencies in the data all four calculations comfortably indicate that in this period regulatory guidelines o n a _+ _. n.e.c.o.

_2.- a.

.m.. a..

a _, n n,a 3.u.

~. u _

n s

a u

data now available does not segregate unscheduled from scheduled cperations, or provide crash rates on the C-5A*/,

the"e is no "eason to think that this information would change probabilities s < s~<.e t cau./,

.a < ~n..n a s n e c

~ o p. a s a. n. ~.

n+,

u a

- e i

w w w a.# O.4 c 7 pt/ g 7 s.

n c n. o.v A _4.n.e~

w h o_

• e fn.J*

-S v

n_./.

.m mu

_4 e

6. h. e

1. . 4.m.~o.e.c_cpssa.n/.

d. o t.ro_ _7 e n

_1 7,,,

• m c

0;+

o

.u vy adequate data base, there is resscnable assu"ance of safety, and no need to delay operation of the plant.

p.> C.- d a.n..t.e. u.a-o.e

~ho_

e-v.m. n...a c s.. a.. u n

a M... Q.

..M nO yy.-Q-C a *M My.M 89F. u.

ws.a" OPQMQ" Q

M s4 WN u

sp...<~.5 74 AQMepm V =..M M o n. b 4e.q 1 ? Q e.M.

Q SO 4

a wv.

W

.M-w.O.O. ww M t 9.M. P. gN 4

• • V we4Dsd gab 44 w h. o.

e p n. A. c e. v j.e n

69

. '. =.w*ba.n b o..o. n 4.n m a s.

yw.

6 Y*

e.r

'o a

wa&

4 i60 s &

hm

.P w.y e

a

.pana 6 %. c.m a e

msgm%hVA.n k?a A

dj mm A

w j.

..w.

w W4 w

w w

my V mw

• C s us.w o m m o 6 b. G wq6 ga Quwn" m n a.n a.

• Js. m.e a4..'.'

m*+o Aev-sa new vpw v 4 av s 4_/

T. a s g A' n e a n.'

h Ong U

m em

- w..n d m g n. A.

• b n. *s

• b. o.

I.4 o. p n. c.a.. g O^cw pp-a

-w-.4

b. c 4 4

A s s44 s.

w Jm.n a p w w o n

• 1 7 d a e. e4cd 4.4 v # e V.n a

m*6 4e b.

-ko e.r ha n v r p e. n w q w

4 O

&w -.

.w w d ej Jwa w 4 Wj w.4w Aw w 4,. V e.

ei.,

mn eveA,.m~4 p r.

e.P Aa n en V"s;d m.m a m h.

.m a s U.

vuww w a~

w.

v wwww vas v

40.

a w wDe t

Lt L.

-c present an undue risk to public health and safety.

Point Beach and Zion.

Wisconsin Electric ?cwe" Co. (Point Beach duclear Plan, Unit 2), CLI-73 4, 6 AEC 6, 7 (1973); Conconwealth Edison Co. (Cicn Station,' Units 1 and 2),

ALA3-135, 7 AEC 200 (1974).

3.

Summary of Apceal Ecard Dissent.

Mr. Sharfman in dissent first noted his c"msh. *ssua.

h.a d

- -.- n. - o.c '.

-w2*

. h. o.

2 4

.o

- a. e_.- o..

.u-.

first been raised only at the operating license stage.

After satisfying himself (as the maj ority implicitly had) that the 2ateness of the day did not forecicse con-sideration of the issua, he turned to the facts and gave no credence to any of the aircraft crash analyses.

In the dissent's view each of the four analyses was flawed, four times zero equals zero, and it was improper to draw any conclusion frca the fact that all fcur analyses point to regu-

'o' 4da

. -. c. /

s~"m _ m _'.4..a s

b. e.4.. e~.. a. *..

m..". a.da a A

u v.

baee u_2A.

e.c *. 4.m.e 1,a A a.

.t e.p m.m m..a. _aou n.n.

C _ a*

s m

crash rates and on conparative crash rates e

- n.u.a d v _, a. s a.n.s

,, s v.u.a s,, a_ s_

.e _ _s.u.n s.

n u_

om v.

3 This, in the dissent's view, negated the

." o b a" 4 ' 4 ". ] d a.

a..".. '.". a ' a.r. s."." c... w.k. ' o "..

e

' h e j" w a..- a.

d." o v. n,

-.- d - " a.. 7 u d a. d.

=.'.'..d*

.s~

o e.

u of reasonable assurance of safety even

--.-4,-

. m o.

, 4.. 4 ~.,. a.

a,,

- a.., a a o.r ua e.e,a, u o..

.n

...s

.u e

W o o _n _d e ~.

m b o.

co.n*

o.,sa 2 _n -,2 e o-n' a *

- _J A

--a

-3 v _ 3

.m

• b o.

m..c4 m w J 6.., fs. s a.

c.P v v.n. s p..t _a

• 4 e m s n.

e o v..

s

%^

.w m

e n n % a %.4 _1 _4../.P t.e.& _4.n. o~ ~

2*-

_4 e n.e.

c uc.w a.

u, e

.o y.

v 0

y 4..y-vy.,,, s e

n..e wm e - a..d a.- s

2. 0...

o..,t

2..

mm.

.a.n.s. a..r.r. n. ~ _< n a., s, g a. v. _< a A

_4

e. ya.n g

n_..

a u

cpportunity to crcss-exami.ie the dose v ^v r. n a. "q". u

a. s v #

k.o. n vj" 2.4 " a " o.". c"osk.

an^

^

o u

T*

C.04..s

k. 2 *. h. o.

a C. w a n

.h.a e 1

i.

j wa.

v. a r.

oW=J.A c

4 h,r

• k. o.

. a. n.. *we.

w. a. n 1 a.r. *...e

-...rau Vj

...L e

y-*

. - b. a. r.

4-

.e b. a. p-e'

• 3 A.

A wo6*

O u d y. r. A.

Vy.noW e.r. ~ )

amo.

h

. w..r. o..

w

-,,-ea.

a

• b. o.

, 4 o. n. e..c a.

6..a w n.

oA

.n o. a u J.' y k j..

w o..n e e n

e..d

b.. o.

ev.

e a.c. s. e,.

• o 'f.

e.e a

nv

.ma~.2 a

m vu

)

n,

,e a.

vi..

2b L

1

7 Ct,er ssues.

n i

22 All members of the Appeal Board agree with the Licensing Board

,n the issues of emer-gency plans and intervenor funding.

The Board rejects the in+e"venors' claims that live drills are essential, and that responsible officiais need special exper-tise in radiological effects, finding ample testimony to the contrary in the record.

The Board also rej ects the intervenors '

claim that these emer~ enc.y plans violate e

the Price-Anderson Act.

The Board's 'ind-ing that the emergency plans are adequate is attacked by the intervenors, who assert that it relies on officials' bland promises and ignores the real consequences of a real accident.

Applicant and staff invoke the two-board rule as precluding Com-mission review, and argue that the Board's decision is amply supported by the record.

'dith respect to intervenor funding, the Board observes that its denial of a request for funds is dictated by the Com-mission's generic resolution of this question in 1976.

This position is challenged by the intervenor and sup-a

-gy.

ca,~-

n..d 5~2.0.c.

2--,4

,o *e sf.

y. v v

III.

CGC Analysis.

m..,1o o.c

~ h e

~.u.- a_ a _ s o u,o --o

, 4 - a s. u s,,

• u. o.

.aw w

e-.a_..s __ p...e.s_no,.,

-, a.n. D

< n

-a

-.. a.u..a4

.s-e a

w e--

^ ' * *. e.- v a ". ".." s - - c _' a n.~.'," d o

".o *v

v. n_." ", ' "..

v.

w.

w-

- o_,<r.ea_ w.

m..w.o.cac on-aa

a... a..- - o n.

n

_cn.-ws f,-a..3 3

3.

y is a factual issue on which both the r _< c o_ n. 0 _.,. e- :-a-a.

a.n.a

~ u.e A - g w _m _, : v a. a.

a

.. o_.- a_

.v

_v-.

v.

g 4 "i c o..o, _' a_. e

.a. 3." a_ a_..e....

7. ".. a.

• wo -b v a"d.

~

rule (10 CFB 2.736(b)(4)(ii)) prope"ly

,,nn,,,

o_ O, c -..

.&. Q D.,,A

..4 vv 4

J

_ c.,[

.o

. x. *, D 4

--.,a ODWw y.ww*u v

.. s w s v

w.

3

. hono_

p. -

D M W E J -.n. w m a _'

.O

'c.

a.be*c

• 4 o

e q, o

4 m w eq

s. w.

b4 w.

. V mWwM_

V D, o '.# 's'r

'. a..

'v" a 2_ "i ".C. ' a~ a_ d.

"..".o_

.' ".' 3.." v a.".F " v '

. v

.^

a w.

c i cn -

.r4 n, c

• o.

47 4e.m.

• b. 4.o*

• k. a_

s..a _ w - o & & w j e

a. D ra.

m

,v e w.. D W e V e. w s we

=

We s.

w h.o_

O..n <_ 3 o _ M.r. a _ w e - r.

Avs wy i a*

w.

4_r.g. 4

.g-

- w a..

a. O v A 2

v..

w.

v -

w

.a 3

• 4 a _.m. Y w e n.sa m

• h. o_ e.

1 9 q

4n W.

4 m_ m e m e..W m.

a b. o.

d o

ac w

w Dw w

w d ad WV a v. o..n. *s

.O

c..e.

- w w. a.a. r. w qmod a.*

d

• 4 *

.h. m Q

e. rw v C1 w

• Q <

.s am ba n

- 4 s

3

. 24.' w "s ~

m a. m m _ m. 4 p

~ %. a *

• M. a.

q*ca.*s P

e w v g.

w -

s

.s v.

v d-saw -

24 245

8 provides a waiver of defenses by the licensee, and requires only that a claimant establish that his injury resulted from a radiological accident.

Moreover, the applicants are not the sole source'of radiological information and indeed the Act does not bar access to the applicant's inforration.

Funding of intervenors, a matter decided by the Commissica in a 197o rulemaking, ought properly to be addressed on a generic basis -- through legislative recc=mendation or rulemaking -- rather than in the context of this case.

With respect to the central issue -- the probability of an air crash -- the question of whether to grant review is closer. Althcugh the two-bcard rule T.ay be seen as applying to the factual question of present levels of crash risk, thus counseling against Commission "eview, it may also be argued that an important issue of law or polic" is s

"a.*sa_d k"

• " a.

"s"a e s *..* m r. n.e'..h a.

a_ v d d a n *.

• _o.""

es...

s sureness needed to suppcrt operating license safety findings.

As such, Commission review would be consistent ei t h n

,0 C R 2.tec(.so; 4)( ).

Co...t-a.,

v-s

~. u. e a o - u, ~.,_

u_ a_ ~.,4 a_ a.n.

-.._, o<.n.a. s-ay u.n. A.

d.4 e s e n.".

c,n

".%.a.

a.a.

m.m _2 ~ %.

4s a,u, a_

.a m

o.

m 4,

o m

n

• u*.b. a. W. h. a. w.'

a_ w a_

4 n.

a -

.n a c A.n d.

h_ps a

.ow p a

J P

~

.P 4.m. A.,

e 4.. s~

w.a u 2w a

. l o.., s cc

-.4

. o.c.c.4,

.b.e v c v a w.4.,.~. m e n. -

a, 2

u u cc v.a. m...,

2.a - o..> ~,

e.-een

.r/,

a w

v c

ss

.. a is 1 in 10,000,000 per year or less.

We

. w w

.g 4 ' h '. h.. a e V w

"n. w y' c.".' W g -he*

J - *~

e,_.oo o

r W.

wW

.J ma reasonable and legally sound to take

<. n. V V 24,-i,.b

.w. o.e, g.

-w,-

2 -_. - c - 1,,

w. wVa.

W w

Gw W V..uW a

.w 4.

a.e.c.1 e r m a s, ". %.. C,a, 5 4.

m

~k 5.m p s. e. A. a. f.

2.m.

@. 4 ?.? a. m a_ e ~

~

~u.

..* s ja d.Q*.a haapa O e. d a c..e. m A.J J

.O.Os.w a. e. b p c..i a. n 7 -Q.

s a

it w

_. u e.

. s w.4 n.e a.7

• p o..h n. 4 Cti a. m0 3 6

4.e.A.J a. c. ~ a_

. b.. u, y. c c a..r. ~s oa me w

s-a a

-w y. o u o b.4 7.J. 4 a. q g.n o_

+4. *s...d e mw J

b osmay-sv'nhqh s.

v--

.i

--v u.7 e +

. s. < a. c.

j. ' a.

- 3. c. a.

~. %. c s

.4,

.J,

c q

c~w sv w

abi

• 6m t a-a 6 b. c.

w a. n e c.r. a d

b. a a.n.d.e. ;r

.n o c. a v.r.w w. a r+

su a

w v.

wyw a

y c.a p a q aw w D. ~Jq6cA b e, 4

6.L. p

• rsan*Q I

• et Q=

66 w..n. w g dj w w w W w 4

.C WV W

a..W w.

d

.h, 6 *

• w o.

• vo q O.*'.Jp a +Wr a. ' D O

A v. c a b.

.a m.r Sna.

as a.

s.

w.

tw i

L 't L *

o, p"obabilities, to develop a sounder, m..r re a.

n v...g r a.'n. a m e R wr a.

A a &. a b _O s e

.*'e n An_

m. p s,r 4.n. e~

ame

. c.

m conclusions about present risks as well.

m.w.a. f _, c *

• m.,.

h.

4 xmev e.

eco--

.4..n 2

.m m

respect to p"esent risks is desirable is h o v. a v a_.",

o.

a o..c e s e _* c ".

• .'^._2 * - k. a.

..o.,

e "r " a s e.n v." a. c o. m

_ s

_.n n d a c.u.a r. a.

.' o "... a.

"d w

e.n a_ s e n b.

, 4 m.. 4

• e A. euweosa.s.

y

.g y

Na s e a_

.c. a_ 3 _o.'. n.# # " u. _* * -] 4..

" ~b a_

.A e p a. o '

Board's making its own calculations based on the Standard Review Plan.

It is well established that where the"e are inadequacies in the analysis below, the Appeal Board may T.ake its own study 2.nd a..a, /, s 4.e.

cu ~ n.e - a_ c o. a.

.u.a. v a., + h. a.

r m

Appeal Ecard 2 sed the calculational ethods set cut in the Standard Review Plan, which was agreed by all parties to h a v e ' k.a.." o " ^. e o. "aeu'a

_4-s

^r.

.k..a_

a _'."

su crash probabilities issue.

We see no

.. a.., 4 4n a.

a 4 s s e u- *m, s c _, 2 _4.m..

• w2 a _e.n. c a.

e m

ou_.

the Standard Review Plan was not spon-sored by any witness, reliance cn it was 4 m..m r - a.

_.g.-y N, e a 3 ". a a_ wd.5 b.a_

n.. o 4 '. " _4 * "

k. _o,..".o u 3.b.

m o

y

+%e v.a n. o.m A.

u c a_ s m.e.

_t e.c 1,, A a.

.c a 3.m a_ 3.. a A A

+

em

~

~n*

e data on unscheduled vs. scheduled ai"-

,, o r. a..

c.n-wam._

v._2 n me*a.

e--.

2.a,,

o c..

• .na_

a cf the C-5;. (data which would be p"c-v.i d a_ d.'. - k. a.

" a_ c - a_.. a_ d

h. a_ n.~ _*.. ~ ),

..".a..-a_

_a m

y m. _

3 in o " a.o e c.a.

. o b a_.' _' a ". e

'r. _o,

b._o "s '. 3-c u '.h g*-

'g e t t _1 A

.og.*l*

_4.]

g.4 m e. e.0 4 m o_.n. *. _' j 4

w er UN d

_v fe m_.

.h _4 ~.h. a..n c.n o m b e.nnhoh_414*4a_

q*

e.n a. q p r. *.

e

_au y. _

.._ a y

a.4 w

• n p..O.9_4L,

' a_,v. a_, s.

_ s

.r.c

a. d n n

• h,.

4 w,

e.

.uj A.

b.h. C.. 4.e

• h. a.

a*A

m. v.e. *. h a.Ac n.

m*

a 4**

e a_ m y tg a *.M a. d.PCw

• h. a.-

4

. A 6

a w a_ n p a..n. a. d k a _a n _d.e.3 3

• h e e.t s.m..h e w p +'

L,

% r*.

^

u v.4

.a w

v.

v u

C e e n p %. 4 e.n.a a *.

~v >.. eT..V..T a.n. A c.P

• %. a_

mu.e.e,r a ]e e

y

.m

.v a e. 4....a.

a. A e a.

QC 4

• m e

a a

.V

_a 6

ws.

h N_. ]Y

-.N.

_-a..e..

(

N

_3. h. a.

O.

.u.

m_

uw

~ d _ a m.

e w a. n a. d a..r. e.

p p m. m.. _="

J

• h a.

@v a. d, ~e _ n e. a

m..'

a 4

qa me w ei v.

y.

a em e m a r. a 4 w ra c

m kv~

~. V. a.

c. a. m.

~.4 sv

~p e

c. n a. a.

v..

me acyu vs.

ag.

' a 6 - _'

• a..n. __

.Tk

~3 e v.. a... a.n

• %. a..n a.

w a. _2 '

• v ' _

_w b _l a.

n e e g.n c e n. a.

. b. a.

7_ _0.r *

,e_'_'_

d o

s.

m e a..n n

• 2 y

y g.Pa_ _' e r g h. _J_ a.

c.e. o ' + r a_j a.4 -

J

.m e.m.. e 'y_a.a4

,.0 e

q j

c

.v w t'.

A, n.de. 3~.., *.l.m a.

eeam26 4 n e. a.

_~.e

+ h. a.

n.4 O

n c.

a.

y.

L 't L 'r i

.0 Point Beach, the Commission reversed an Appeal Boa"d decision allowing short-term operation at 75% of power during the pendency of a remanded Licensinz Board hearing on a safety issue.

Noting that the Appeal Board had earlier found that the record supported operation at 20% of power, the Commission reinstated that lower level.

The maj ority appears to view operation of TMI-2 during *he pendency of the reopened hearing as comparable to operation of 20% of power in Point Beach.

The dissent views operation of TMI-2 at this time as comparable to the operation of the Point Beach facility at 75% of power that was disapproved.

The anc.licability of Point v

Beach thus turns on whether one agrees with the majority or the dissent on the question of whether there is a basis in the record for operation of TMI-2 at this time.

As indicated, we agree with the maj ority that there is such a basis.

Zion, which the dissent believes to have u

a..n.

d a

.S a a. d

.4.. c c,.. a. c ~., j,

s.- a_

.. a.,.

y, ee v

m approximates the facts of this case.

There m,s

.u.a.-,_, ~. w. a

-. m,.e.e a..a.

o 2eg 4 c a n.

e-a_.ev.,.a_ a n.

. v m

calculations on a safety issue that indicated the plant was acceptably safe.

m. h o_ m,

a-w

-o

. o_ m o_,. w. o_

4 n....,._ n s. s,

o_so s.

v to the Licensing Board for access to information they deemed necessary to evaluate the validity of these calcula-tions was improperly denied.

In Zicn,

. x.e n - - o 2., Oc e. a.

s

.-,a,,,,, o s 2

. 2.. a-

.o,,

ye--

the intervenors to obtain the informa-

-4n..

.m o s*. 4,,, O.7 )..

aV. r..ema - w o.e.

w..a c.

w u s.Aw 3

o a

vv c o a a,.

v.V y

w

• vw ww

.m a_.1 4 a. A 4.P "v.%. a ~w 4.m..P s m....a + 4s. e.n.

?

m.k. e.e* a h "v >. a.

c ve

-a v.

f A U..C. u s. O M.s O.P.

...a_

c" O. O_ - s' '

. w m 'a' h.

C 7 O

v6 i

v

. m ',' O O

-v g o n_.n 4 e.g e.n.n o n

• O p+ -

a.n o. n y y. o.'

d O+

w

w. u. A eep s

v s.

s g,

06,, e. u4 n',

v y. * - s.4 e.r.

• 6

.npcaon

• ww e-awc&

m

%. 0 t4 w.av

-c s a.

v

.g.w..e.7 "w.".C a-a v.

.a"".'.c.."

y"." ^e C o o d..#.. e~ s~

" v' ^ 2-3 L 'h 0 0

jl tU L 't

place:

"The record as a whole reflects no substantive basis upon which either we might conclude, or-the Licensing Board might have concluded, that the containment pressure calculations were sufficiently erroneous so that a safety problem is presenced.

Further, the intervenors have not urged that anything in the eviden-tiary record in its present state casts doubt upon the correctness of those calculations.

Rather, inter-venors' position is that as a result of the cuashing of their subpoena, they have not had access to sufficient information to evaluate to their satis-faction whether or not the containment pressure calculations are correct --

a position we have found meritorious."

7 AEC 240, 242 (emphasis supplied)

In Zion, t 'r < calculations of applicant a..s s. _,.e.e

<d no~v, s.o..e,o.a_ w A _r.r.e s4~,4e1-an

. o 3u_

cantly, whereas the calculations in this

,g w c u, e a s. 4

- d _4.c ca_ n

..a.n k e _,,,.

m. w. a_c e, ct.,, _2 _

a m3 tiens cannot be said to be free frc= doubt,

= s ". m" a.

d.# s e a..n e o.'.". *. s

^"a.

.". e ~ a " *. " e '. a s s,

e m

• ha.

v.i,c oi w h.o 7J aw O

cn

'.c _id _d e.-

4-

6. k.. o

• c

v. -

m 3

o

.e

• a*ha.na.

% %.a..o.nowA 4.e m.4 n o 6. p s 6.%.a &.

" %.p r a_

.o 5

E ~

w v

.m

~ _

e -3 _P a_

• s**e. w m b, a_ m..,

r e a..w c 6. 4 e n c o.n.

.e.o e w a_ s a n6 0-3 y..

vy

- m.. e.p p

.a.h. _4 _7 a.

• k.a_

ann *4 e.

-...O 4.wm....f

• 4 a_ s

.J.n.

• b.. p 4e.

proceeding below are addressed.

a

.c 4.,. n,

v o.4. o-u n

.4.e., w.

• w

... a.

..,2 4 c,, 4

.. a.. a-

...s dissent disagree is whether the analysis n.o w 4 yw,,,a 4

• _..n_ d m u - e.,. a m. 4.,_ G; n, ~M r.. wn*w

• w, md v

JG w

www kvV..

J..w

" " v^ b a "v.#.'.d ' 7

^#

a c." _S " h.

4 ".~o

"..d.7

? '.". 5 ". h. a 'v p.

e.

_e m.e g

n. w.o 3..

4.q

• p v

- h N f. _?

7

m. '.n. a..o 2 v.2*,_/

e C _4.n. *s.

-w e

s y

u 7

J An m m w w a. n. *w. + +

• h. g e p a.m. m. 4 q q e*,*

Q.4

• J e. $m

~

w b. w wv..

J3 s1 w

vv

.ww.v.

y s..

e o.1 4 n,--]

. O-vu

+<--aas-4

• m a,co',9=a

..n. 4 J,. J A,, g ',. e. 4 *,

oh J

y o.aa-.

a.

.a s

M.,e,.*.

i j $.M.. *.

C*.Q-Q

..M. u

• T.*udQ.J3 a

M iM JO Q v

v w

4..-_Gw w.M.

4Aa v.

2'-

1

• m v e u..r. v 4.e.

m e. a.

.Q

.. /. 2

. r 2

c.?.Pa_., * ~ %. a.

am wCp

- }

sv w

w s s.

P v.#

C... n

r. a. w 4...J*

m

.w v.

= n a*,,j w..

v...

AA w.. - Q..f. &.

wQwQQw*0

...G.O.

h.h. y

..M.W..Q Q*Q A

A Q

QAQ QM

. s ww.-<

p t'.P f +ep r.a_ O s eci, 7 a 4

so - ~~

4.e. 6 m' a w a - -.n c b.7 +.

b,5 w d a r. _

an~

J -.

ec q

~%

s-

)

wJ.

w.

sw a

2 - n. a e.e s

- - a a '. u n

.w A

~,[a

• >a

-me a~a

=,V ww WV M

Ou

.w W..w

_VVde d enr WE4*

w wb Jb L 'h O 9

L 't tI

,o t h. o

• o.

c - a." o

_d.. ~ _' _4 ' a..n 0 a,

...a_

_4 suad, _' o g-a m

sacrosant.

We believe the dissent's assertion is of doubtful applicability to this case.

Contrary to the dissent's asse"tions, the maj ority 's decision permit-ting the plant to ope" ate is based on a finding of reasonable assurance of safety, founded on the record.

We see nothing in the maj ority's <:'ecision to suggest that its result is instead founded on an undue regard for the fact that the plant is operating.

Cn its facts, therefore, we consider this case an unsuitable vehicle for the Commission to address the wisdom of the immediate effectiveness rule.

The case turns on the weight one gives to the several but somewhat flawed air-craft crash analyses at present traffic levels.

The number of operations is

~4

~a*

n 3.ve.

as 4s

• mk. a_ *a."3

.o." a -

c..'4' - 2 1

presents.

At issue is the soundness of probabilit~ assessments for off-course J

ai" craft crashes.

While the Appeal Ecard maj ority noted the flawen data base, it also noted that in the most

• ~

. a. c a.... i - ] =- =.= - a. " _do d

.r.e '. a s _4 ". 3 ' a.

^ " o c k..

a

~.

- -.e. A t m. 3-e.m n o

~ a ?. a_ e.P.e

..c A.Pa _1_1 a_.n.

.t.e e.r.

a n a

~

i a ea so distant from a runway as is

e..,".I

- 4

.o.-

m.. o.-. s u m.w,,~

u 3

2

-4 4

n _4, p c i.

u,g_.._

1 yp.

cx 0.

..w. a..

.E 2,,.,m, a _-

_4 s o-,., a_

_4 s...

s-the kind of issue the Commission should

" = v' a.w, a s "y

^- _* n _' _' ]' w "..a " e.

• ". a..Ae-ao_'

---"d-

=co a

e--

-cyow.4*.,

h.as 3_,o_n c_vo-' m.- p

~4.,

a**

• 4

-.. a..r. v _ o e.

s. e mu

.s m

o

" h.a EQe*-

b. O -_o

• b. e.

• a_ a b.n. _J v o.n

..A_.m..b o_ n

.e_4 ~ u b

s o,

.v u

_4 6 m.e. d.

4s yc*.

n 'c.

_Jc i., o-1_

_A.n. ownew.

c m

e,

.%a n o..

a n. a = ~ a..,..

m. u. = -

.s. a. C n-.... >. o _s. n.

s a.n.,,,

u. a. - a > ~..a n.

.e - -

v e

-w e

n.

~.

review cf ALAE 486.

c.= =-

0.. - u.a.

- a., w... a... a,.<,.

2 s

e n.. C,a, *- -

e. 5, _.. ~.

-v a.

. a,#

a..d C.

h_M="4.::

e w

w..

M

'g.

h J

.. ~ ~

Q + a y 'n a.e w.

e

-C2.'y--..e.,

_ n a nd qm*

w v _ _J w _..n L 't Lv

. Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, September 8,1978.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT September 7,1978, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

SECY NOTE:

If the Commission so desires, this paper has been tentatively scheduled for discussion on Thursday afternoon, September 7,1978.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Secretariat 7A 7b}

ct L ~-