ML19210E878
| ML19210E878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1979 |
| From: | Mulkey M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130130 | |
| Download: ML19210E878 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12/3/79 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM"ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, et _al.,
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF UCS AND THIA AND TO STEVEN SHOLLY'S PETITION FOR EXCEPTION TO 10 C.F.R. 550.44 INTRODUCTION Fince the Special Prehearing Conference, the NRC Staff has received amended contentions from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Three Mile Island-Alert (TMIA), relating to Class 9 accidents and the plant security plan respectively.
In addition, Steven Sholly has filed a petition and supporting affidavit in accordance with 10 C.F.R.12.758 which seeks an exception to the application of 10 C.F.R. 150.44 in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, we oppose the admission of the two amended contentions. We support the certification to the Commission of Mr. Sholly's petition and explain more fully below our position regarding the consideration of hyarogen control issues.
DISCUSSION 154'3 340 Amended ' Contention of UCS UCS has amended its Contention No.13, relating to design of the facility against " Class 9" accidents, so that it now contends that the Staff's method h
7912130 13 O
of determining which accidents must be included within the design basis is in-adequate. We oppose the amended contention as outside the scope of the proceedini and impermissibly vague.
UCS does not identify any features of particular accidents or even any general characteristics of accidents with regard to which the Staff's analytical approach is flawed. The contention appears to~ apply to the analysis of all accidents, including those unrelated in any way to the accident at TMI-2 on March 28.
Because of the failure to particularize or to identify the manner in which the determination of design basis accidents is flawed, the contention is not liti-gabl e.
Even if these particulars are identified, only those which are connected to the bases for suspension of operation of TMI-1 would fall within the scope of this proceeding.
Amended Contention of TMIA TMIA has amended its Contention No. 4, relating to allegations of civil dis-turbance associated with any restart of TMI-1, so that it now alleges that plans for security at the facility are inadequate to deal with the disruptions predicted by TMIA. We oppose this contention as outside the scope of the proceeding and lacking in basis.
In the first place, the contention relates partly to the security of TMI-2 and the adequacy of plans to protect it from civil disturbances. While we recognize that the security plan for TMI-1 is a plan which also covers Unit 2, allegations of inadequate security at Unit 2 are clearly outside the scope of the proceeding.
154334r
The remaining focus of the contention, alleging inadequate security planning for Unit 1, is also outside the scope of the proceeding. We understand that the contention is, in a sense, linked to the March 28 accident because TMIA believes that the accident will prompt civil disruption in the event of re-newed operation of Unit 1.
However, TMIA identifies nothing about the acci-dent which indicates inadequacy of the security plan, and we know of no such link.
In order for a reactor to be licensed to operate, the adequacy of the
~1/
security plan is expected to include certain possible disturbances, although there need be no consideration of protection against domestic "well-armed terrorist groups."-2/
Further, we can identify nothing about the Commission's Orders suspending operation of TMI-1 and establishing the mechanisms for determining that sus-pension could be terminated which relates in any way to the adequacy of security for the facility.
If TMIA knows of bases for believing that operation of the facility should be suspended because of inadequate provisions for security, the i:ppropriate mechanism to bring this to the Comission would be by filing a request for action under 10 C.F.R. 52.206.
No bases for the allegations that security is threatened have so far been articulated by TMIA, and this fact also renders the contention inadmissible.
1/ Trustees of Columbia University, ALAB-3, 4 AEC 349, 353 (1970).
2/ Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2)
XLAB-197R, 7 AEC 826, 830 (1974).
lkh [2
Steven Sholly's Petition for Exception to 10 C.F.R. E50.44 d
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.758, Mr. Sholly has petitioned that the rule in 550.44 not apply to this proceeding for reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit.
The NRC Staff agrees with Mr. Sholly that the matter of hydrogen control is an important safety issue highlighted by the events of the March 28 accident at TMI Unit 2.
The " Lessons Learned" Task Force has recommended that the Commission approach this issue through rulemaking. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation did not recommend this issue as a matter which must be resolved in connection with any restart of TMI Unit 1, and the Commission's August 9 Order does not, therefore, identify it among the short-term or long-term requirements.
The Director does intend to endorse the recommendation of the Lessons Learned Task Force that rulemaking be commenced in this matter and that the question be resolved industry-wide for all operating reactors.
Although it is the NRC Staff's position that the Commission should resolve the hydrogen control question through generic rulemaking and not treat TMI-1 differently from other operating reactors with respect to this issue, we support the certification of Mr. Sholly's petition to the Commission. Since the Commission has not yet issued any notice of proposed rulemaking in this area, the Board cannot conclude that the Commission has determined to proceed with generic resolution of the issue.
Consequently, it is appropriate to determine whether the Commission desires that 10 C.F.R. 550.44 continue to apply to this facility pending rulemaking changes to the regulation.
1543 343
CONCLUSION t
For the reasons explained above, the NRC Staff opposes the admission of UCS amended Contention 13 ar.d TMIA amended Contention 4.
We support the certifi-cation to the Commission.of Mr. Sholly's petition for an exception to 10 C.F.R. 950.44 for this proceeding, although it is the Staff's position that the Com-mission should undertake rulemaking to resolve the hydrogen control issue on a generic basis.
Respectfully submitted, bit cu-Marcia E. Mulkey Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of December,1979.'
1543344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY,
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify ti,at copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDED CONTENTIONS OF UCS AND TMIA AND TO STEVEN SHOLLY'S PETITION FOR EXCEPTION TO 10 C.F.R. 950.44" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, lhroubh deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 3rd day of December,1979.
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Ell n Weiss, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel y25
$t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. Steven C. Sholly 881 W. Outer Drive 304 South Market Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. Thomas Gerusky Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
P.O. Box 2063 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Metropolitan Edison Company Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Attn:
J. G. Herbein, Vice President P.O. Box 542 Honorable Mark Cohen 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Ms. Jane Lee 1c43 345 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 R.D. 3; Box 3521
- J Etters, Pennsylvania 17319
1.' alter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Holly S. Keck Department of Justice Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Strawberry Square,14th Floor York Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 245 W. Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Robert L. Knupp, Esq.
Assistant Solicitor John Levin, Esq.
Knupp and Andrews Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
P.O. Box P Box 3265 407 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
John E. Minnich, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Dauphin Co. Board of Comissioners 2320 North 2nd Street Dauphin County Courthouse Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Front and Market Sts.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.17101 Theodore A. Adler, esq.
- Atomic Safe,t,y and Licensing Appeal Board Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Post Office Box 1547 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Washington, D. C.
20555 I
"' ^
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Rb" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Karen Sheldon Washington, D. C.
20555 Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss 1725 I Street, N. W.
Robert Q. Pollard Suite 506 Chesapeak Energy Alliance Washington, D. C.
20006
'609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive Lk Wilmington, Delaware 19808 t cu Marcia E. Mulkey
/
Counsel for NRC Staff 1543 346