|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
'^ -
f -L.y
[
/ .
,% q UNITED STATES OF AMERIC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO>D1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
MEIROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
AMENDMEST -TO PETITION TO IhTERVENE IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COF01ISSION ON THE ACCIDEST AT THREE MILE ISLAST During the Special Prehearing Conference, the Board, without specifically ruling thereon, entertained discussion on a ti ne limit for new contentions to be raised following publication of major investigative reports into the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident. A limit of 30 days following publication was suggested by the Licensee.
Absent speci.fic gui. dance from the Board, Steven C.
Sholly, Petitioner, hereby submits the following additional contentions in keeping with the spi.rit of the di.scussion regarding the above-mentioned time limits. These contentions raise issues addressed in the Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mi.le Island and the various Technical Staff Analysis Reports. Petitioner requests approval of the Board to admit these contenti.ons for review and comment by the Staff, the Licensee, and interested parties and Petitioners.
7912210 )
~
Contention # 16 It is contended that Unit 1 is not adequately protected against sabotage by an " insider" , i.e., someone working on the island. It is further contended that the so-called two-man rule requiring that no one person be allowed in a Type I vital area without another person accompanying him has not yet been implemented. It is further contended that under circumstances where the Unit 2 facility will be undergoing decontamination and restoration, and at least 1,500 persons have unescorted access to the island, the internal security situation is unmanageable and represents an undue risk to public health and safety ecause certain sabotage events have the potential for severe off-site consequences. It is contended that until an adequate internal security system is established, Unit 1 should not be permitted to restart.
Basis for Contention #'16 This contention is drawn from Technical Report Number 19, Pre and Post-Accident Security Status at Three Mile Island, in Technical Staff Analvsis Renort Summarv, written by the Staff of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. The President's Commission apparently commissioned a study by the Los Alamos Scienti,fic Laboratory, headed by Donald G. Rose, of the securi.ty status at 'Three.
1637~-247
Mile Island. The study is summarized in the Su=arv document with the following conclusions :
A. External security has been enhanced, but internal security is poor.
B. The internal security situation is made worse by the decontamination and restoration activities at Unit 2 because 1,500 persons have unescorted access to the island, with 500 of those assigned to Unit 1.
C. The study considered sabotage to be any act resulting in the unplanned release of radioac-tivity or the compromise of plant radiological safety. The adversary was considered to be a knowledgeable insider possessing explosives.
The study concluded "that successful sabotage can be performed at either Unit 1 or Unit 2."
D. Although many successful sabotage acts would "probably not result in significant radiation release to the public", there are apparently several that would result in severe off-site consequences.
The likelihood of such sabotage attempts is unquantifiable in mathematical terms at present; however, there is a history of acts of sabotage at nuclear power plants , most recently occurring at the Surry facility at which several employees 1637 2?I8
poured caustic chemicals on fuel rods .
Further, to the best of the Petitioner's knowledge, the Licensee has not completed an evaluation of all personnel having access to the island in terms of stress fitness, psychological fitness, criminal records, and drug / alcohol abuse. It is clear from NUREG-0600 at page I-1-33 that the operational staff is under a high degree of emotional stress. It is quite probable that such stress is also present in other personnel categories, including maintenance, technicians, and supervisory personnel.
Finally, the unique circumstances surrounding the accident, the proximity of Units 1 and 2, the heightened sense of pubitc disteust of the Licensee (and the NRC and state government, for that mr.tter), and the likelihood of acts of civil disobediance s!iould the Unit I reactor be restarted, all mitigate in tavor of strengthened internal security at Three Mile Island. The conclusions of a security study done by a reputable organization such as LASL are not easily dismissed.
Licensee will possibly object to this contention as being outside the scope of this proceeding. In the interest of avoiding delay accompanied by filing answers to objections, Petitioner offers the following'as the nexus between the accident and the restart hearing. The Commission's Order and' 1637 249
Notice of Hearing dated 9 August 1979 at page 4 discusses the unique circumstances at Three Mile Island which require the resolution of certain safety concerns prior to restart.
While sabotage was not among those concerns listed in the Commission's Order, the Order stated that these safety" concerns result from:
"(1) potential interaction between Unit I and the damaged Unit 2, (2) questions about the management capabilities and technical resources of Metropolitan Edison, including the impact of the Unit 2 accident on these, (3) the potential effect of operations necessary to decontaminate the Unit 2 facility on Unit 1, and (4) recognized deficiencies in emergency plans and station operating procedures."
It is clear from the LASL study su:mnary that the situation at Unit 2 clearly impacts on the overall internal security situation at Three Mile Island, and that the existing security mechanisms in force will be greatly strained with the extra numbers of persons on the site as a result of the decontamination activities at Unit 2. In fact, the LASL study cites the current situation as unmanageable. There is a clear relationship between the Unit 2 accident at Three Mile
Island and the issue of internal security.
1637 2150
Contention # 17 It is contended that in the light of the Unit 2 accident, which has been declared by the NRC Staff to be a Class 9 accident, it is no longer credible to conclude that Class 9 accidents have an acceptably low frequency of occurrence. In addition to the specific circumstances of the Unit 2 accident, it is contended that there are many clear and close analogues to the Unit 2 accident which would be Class 9 accidents and could have environmental and radiological impacts in excess of those experienced in the case of the Unit 2 accident. It is therefore contended that the impact of Class 9 accidents, having been dealt with in a cursory manner in the Three Mile Island Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0552) , must be thoroughly described and evaluated for environmental impact in a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Inasmuch as Class 9 accidents are by their very nature both quantitatively and qualitatively different and their effects on the public health and safety could by the NRC's own admission be severe, it is additionally contended that the evaluation of Class 9 accidents under NEPA must be completed prior to restart in order to assure adequate protection for public health and safety. The clear and close analogues to the Unit 2 accident which should, 1637 251
.m_ o.e- em -- '~ * * . .ws e
at a minimum, be evaluated as described neretofore in this contention are as follows. These accidents postulate a recurrence of a Unit 2 TMI-type Class 9 accident and then assume an additional action, malfunction, or circumstance.
A. Deliberate venting of the containment building to control hydrogen gas concentrations , with the release, as a result, of the radioactivity in gaseous and particulate form which is in the containment. This venting could be assumed to be deliberate, or could be assumed to be necessary due to the failure of a hydrogen recombiner and the need for action before the second redundant recombiner could be installed.
The deliberate venting of the containment could also be considered to be the result of a deliberate act of sabotage.
B. Given the facts associated with diesel generator inoperability as presented in Section 4.17, pages I-4-74 through I-4-76, of NUREG-0600, assume loss of site power.
C. Assume the accident occurs in the same manner, but at a time when the plant is approaching a refueling shutdown with a full core inventory of fission products such as would be found after the first part of the core had undergone its total pexosure in the core.
D. Begin with the accident as described in "C."
immediately above and vent the containment as in " A." above.
E. Assume the other reactor at the site is operating at full power when the accident occurs and assess the impact. of the lack of additional personnel and facilities which were available because Unit 1 was shutdown at the time of the Unit 2 accident.
F. Assume that the valve used to vent the make-up tank at 0700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> on 30 March 1979 sticks and fails to close on remote command, thus; venting radiation continuously to the environment.
1637 252..
Basis for Contention v 17 The discussion of Class 9 accidents in the Final Environ-mental Impact Statement on Three Mlle Island (NUREG-0552) is contained on pages VI-2 and VI-3. NUREG-0552 notes that Class 9 accidents involve failures more severe than the design basts. It further states that although their conse-quences could be severe, the probability of their occurrence is so small that their environmental risk ts extremely low.
The reasons given for the confidence in this low environmental risk are defense in depth (multiple physical barriers),
quality assurance, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative design.
It is now clear that the basis for this discussion and degree of conftdence in the low probability of Class 9 accidents and their off-stte consequences no longer exists as a result of the Unit 2 accident. Multiple physical barriers were defeated by operator actions during the Unit 2 accident resulting in the release of over 10 million curies of radioactivity to the environmen'c. Design conserv-atism ts certainly lacking in certain areas of the plant ,
particularly in those areas cited by the Commission in its Order and Notice of Hearing dated 9 August 1979 at page 3. The quality assurance and surveillance and testing
~
programs at Three Mlle Island have been brought under scrutiny 1637 253'
by the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mlle Island and have been found to be defictent.
In answers to other Class 9 contenttons, the Licensee has objected to a re-evaluation of Class 9 accidents on the grounds that the consequences of the only existing Class 9 accident were less than certain unspecified accidents of lesser class ~es and that other accident sequences which might be classified as Class 9 are hypothetical and need not be constdered.
This response ignores the issue. Class 9 accidents are by their very nature unique--they are quantitatively and qualitatively different from other types of accidents.
In other accident classes, plant safety systems are assumed to work as designed and only a single-failure event ts considered credible. Only in a Class 9 accident is the plant assumed not to work as designed. The consequences of Class 9 accidents may well be equal to or less than certain lesser accidents, but this is no reason for falling to evaluate them. Clear and close analogues to the Unit 2 accident are hypothetical only to the extent that they have not yet occurred. The same could have been said of the Unit 2 accident prior to March 28, 1979. Labelling an accident sequence hypothetical does not lessen Lts changes of occurring.
The Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report, NUREG-0578, states at page A-37, "It can also be shown, however '
~
1637 254
the potential releases from postulated accidents may be several orders of magnitude higher than was encountered at TMI." It is therefore clear that Class 9 accidents have the capability of producing more serious off-site consequences than were experienced at Three Mlle Island.
Such consequences should, as a result of their environmental importance, be evaluated in a supplement to the TMI EIS.
The Licensee has pointed out, without specLfic reference, that the Unit 2 accident resulted in lower doses to the public from radiation exposure than certain other lesser accidents, principally in Class E. It is unclear exactly what accidents are being cited by the Licensee. In Table 20 of the TMI FES (NUREG-0552) on page VI-6, the man-re n dose to the population within 50 miles of TMI frem the most serious accident, a large break LCCA, is given as 1000 man-rems. The man-rem dose to the same population from the Unit 2 accident is cLted by the President's Commission Staff as being 2000 man-rems. It is clear that such an accident should be evaluated in terms of its environmental impact, and so should other similar accidents.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
~
DATED: 29 November 1979
- s. .
Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-1857 1637 2$5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY CCSD11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC Sate.1Y AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
MEIROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Do WM t }
(Three Mlle Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have served upon the following individual a single copy of AMENDMENT TO PETITION TO INIERVENE IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORTS OF THE PRESIDENI'S COMMISSION ON 2)
THE ACCIDENI AT THREE MILE ISLAND this 3Dth day of November 1979 in accordance with the terms set forth in the Licensee's offer to the Board in its communication of 13 November 1979 regarding duplication and filing of documents in this proceeding:
Three Mile Island Observation Center Middletown, Pennsylvania Attention: Mr. John Wilson Steven C. Sholly
- =
1s37 236 yS -
- ,%r:
- w. .a A g}- ,Q ,5
,. 3 J
Wp ll," *
Date: Nove=ber 30, 1979 UNITED STATES OF M! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO>S!ISSION BEFORE THE AT0!!!C S AFETY A';D LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
- !ETROPOLITM' EDISON COMPM;Y Docket . M-289
)
(Three Mile Islan'd Nuclear )
Station, Unic No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Amend =ent To Petition To Intervene In Response To The Reports Of The President's Co==ission On The Accident At Three Mile Island of Steven C. Sholly, dated 29 November 1979, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on November 29, 1979, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States = ail, postage paid, this 30th day of Nove=ber, 1979.
n f$fY
/JohnF. Wilson Dated: November 30, 1979
/N 1 I.
p f $
$, - g S i r
g 06 g .' ~
- c. - @
(# .-
M s el e 1637 257
U'11TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEF0FE THE ATOMIC S AFEn' A';D LICENSITG BOARD In the Matter of )
Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire- Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U. S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 2357 Cocnission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin Board Panel P. O. Box P 881 West Outer Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Commissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and >brket Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocsission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14r5 Floor, Strawberry Square HL.risburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney for Newberry Township Washington, D.C. 20555 T.M.I. Steering Committee 2320 North Second Street John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Public Utility Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Commission Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler P. O. Box 3265 P. O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Captificaqe of '
Service is enclosed. .
1637 258 s
__ - _ = _
m-h e e. e e e.ns-- +,-M *O + y Wyg
Ellyn Weiss, Es'uire g Robert Q. Pollard
..s-L Sheldon, Har=cn'& Weiss Chesapeake Energy Alliance Suite 506 609 Montpelier S treet 1725 Eye Street,.N.W. Balti= ore, Maryland 21218 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chauncey Kepford
- Steven C. Sholly Judith H. Johnsrud -
304 South Market Street Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16301 Frieda Berryhill ,
Chair =an, Coalition for Nuclear Marvin I. Lewis Power Plant Postpone =ent 6504 3radford Terrace 2610 Glendon Drive Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Wil=ington, Delaware 19808 Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R. D. 5 Legislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York Jane Lee 245 West Philadelphia Street R. D. 3 Box 3521 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Karen Sheldon, Esquire George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Sheldon, Har=on & Weiss Shaw, Pitt=an, Potts & Trowbridge Suite 506 1800 M Street, N.W.
1725 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20006
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.
.' f 1637 259
. _