ML19220A654
| ML19220A654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1975 |
| From: | Luton E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904240050 | |
| Download: ML19220A654 (7) | |
Text
u.1..
4 W
l 0
O' KD 9 so\\u e
'+
DOCT M p
USNBC t
i n\\
SEP 12 iS7E >t/
UNITED St a _r ~ = CA wCIzAR REGUuTCRY CazSSICn 9
9 o...,,o.,,...
N.
m p/
s +.
EEFCEE 'IliE AT3*TC SAFrY 1'D LICENSING ECARD y
/J$
g/
%I l }
In the Matter of
)
)
IECFCLITA'! EDISCS CC7?ANY,
)
)
D x,t.e,...,0. p u-x0
_r 1 c.
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Statien,
)
Urdt 1)
)
s u c,..-.,,.a vT,t%. ~,..L
.%, w C,.,\\
w I.
Joint petitieners York Comittee for a Safe Envirc=ent, Citicens for a Safe Envirc=ent, and Envirc=. ental Coalition on Nuc'an" Ocwer (the " Petitioners"), seek leave to intervene in the pmceeding resulting i
from the Cc=1ssion's issuance of its " Order for Modificaticn of License" en Dece=ber 27, 1974. Tnat Cnier inposed certain restrictions en the operation of the captioned facility. Cn January 4,1974, the Ccmission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 were amended to add a new Section 50.46 which established final acceptance criteria for e ergency core cooling systens (ECOS), and a new Appendix K, which established "equired and acceptable features of ECCS evaluation models. For reactors such as Three Mile Island Unit 1, the a~end ents. required that the licensce submit to the Cc=1ssion an evalJ.ation utilicing a model in confocity with Appendix K, and dencnstr.tir.g that ECCS perfo rance viculd meet the criteria set forth in 350.46(b). After review of the licensees submis-d siens, the Regulatory Staff deterined that the.model and 'the evaluation were not in confc mity with the result.tc"y requi ements. S us, the
'h 001
?S0024o959 q
mm.
-c-Decer er 2'7,1974 "Crder for.".cdificaticn of License" i pcsed those re s 'v "' ~ ~.,.' c.s c.7 -=- = ^, ~^."
v^ c." *v
- v.. " e ' ' =-. d h,s"
- .".a. F.=3 '.' c o m.~/ S c.".",,o "ve e
a
-^
n r,~
.c.,
-,-.'.4,...
- ari v.... ~ o 4 7.-
,,.,,c...i e
.w-.
,'e C a. e.. s,,
c, oo 90 cso.ma
- w. a.
O u77 Ci e
c mv vvv
( e-v m-sw
- w..e
. 4 e.,,4 a
. 0 I., n s:u. L : (D '.....t m.w~a p a 4. 4
.,..,,s.ne.- -,,.. A, A e,-
2,,,
C n,. co...-.a g
~
.,,,m
)
w
-s s
.s e
t O 4,w, C.w A a, h,4 -en
,,.n.4 m n e,, 4.4C.,,.
.c.,,
T,,
- e...,e.r.
4, r n Ca e4
.a v
m..
..v.
U u,,,, e n/. 23,
.._s u
3
.~
19Tp. ".*..e ve 'v 4 "w.' .. o d...'."'.'
~a C' E. _' ed
.*v^." v. _a k
. a '.e ..s
. _a."a.. _4 "'_' .' e."
v
.o se c.,,.w. c....
Tr.
r> o no.,,a.e.,, ro,
-c.4.c.4,,,.,.4,,n c c.r e,, e..s a. n 4..,n4., e
- 4..+.,.e.
4.,,. by, 3
.,,y, a
u~
..~
m
.c "perscn whose interest : a'/ be affected" and offered a "heari.g with
,,a e pe,.,,.o.h4 - C-a.on..n -.
.ma.
2.4
. c, a. re.4 4...r. n 4 n uc,,
,,a c,.c e.. 4,.w.
.,. w,..e n
.-u w
.o o-ev.
ev e
.m provisic.s cf 10 CiR 2.714 cf the Ccm.issicn's ?ules of Practice". Fcr
..e
- c....,.a
, c.e n 4..,,ere.c, n p a. 4 4 c..o..,,
s.3 4w w
. ac o.,e.w,4, n >
e.444,, n.,s,
...m n~ r
.v.
.~
interest in this proceeding has been established in prior p.'oceedi.gs.
The.o"r'- Cv~....d " ea v..
."c c afe _.v_4"r...e.r.',. car,,.. 4 o,,w'A.i n
,,.".e c-a. a,,4
~3
" - c
- ^
e e-1 i,, e..o e t,:,,
.4 ~s.c.,, pe e,,w
,.,,,,, a..a is
<n,,. 4, a "Ve..,,.4 n wv. _a
- v. u.,
. i n..c C.
... D v u..
m
. vv G a.r.s.,,a t 4,,,e, u - e c v a w.c..
C,,.,.v,,,.,C s.e -,,
- 0... 4..
.,,v, - e e A.4 v. ~,o.,
,.,Cc' a,,vs ;u~- 4 6 3 a.,,~a
.e.
w
- v.. y
. p v
K s
v
- 5o_s4, a~d
'v-b a ".'"aa
.v 4.' =-
.~
slar4, U"4+
T 2, c-a"=
' - ~
e -. ---~ 14 "v-. ~e ""oc ead 4 "s,
a
~
e.
Docket 50-320. Citizens for a Safe F_ virc=ent participated in "'nree
. vile m7. era, L*n.4 4 1 - ew
- 4. - 1e 3 ve..
. c a,.o., w m_e v,4.c o, Cct' a+
,u-t ey',, a.,,a
.4 s
<l o.
.~
v c-m
.~ _
4-c n -. u t,:.,,,.,n~. sw.r, 4.,
4 u.n. c%.."C,a
.va.7e T n..a,,.,a,
%. 4 4.-
c e,n.,.,4 --c 4C n
.o., a. p.rO-a G
o e -
CO,,s e "v, "C C c' ' v
" C
?,.? "o.
"A.~a 2
p -
-.'.".'"C"'~.~o.iu'c'~'.
w" a' '..# *'.' v^..
v" 7 4' '~ l e a.".U ^*..'o."
ue pn 4,,4v o. pa4-,a
- 4..
wa r w-
. ~
.v.
aa- -.,_t.' a. 1 o.a.r e,
"v, 4,., 1,
<,r.d p e e,,w n,., c...,
Lv..4.-,
vum m
... w v vo 2 and 3 hearings."
d3 002
M.
3-The Regulatory Staff properly points out tr.at, " Simple reference to pa"ticipation in a pricr p"oceeding does not adecuately establish an
_4J.e e.mo, o...a
..u,,/.m c.c. c,,..n. a n w..
.- w w
- c
. u.e.,
,.., 0s. -.,- e.
u,.
_4 _2 -,w. a. 4..
..--v o
2 w
lo
- a."
,0. u m ^_^ d * - ~. ~ '. ' '., c ^ ~^.' us _4 c.7.4 s *..a.e.~ o ab _' e w.h.a."e, n '
".a.."a,.7 ^ '.
^
.e y
even an atte. pt is nade to establish that the interest relied upcn in
+ +.o..m...n e'm a
.- w
. w C m a a 4.. g-4e m1
.4.. w e.m.w-.-
w,+
4 v-w.s b o. a.c.o ot v..m.
m o p.
.. p w
..uw t: o e
a w
b,",
- m".e.' ~."~d 4.".' c~ a~ '..d ~. '. n..-d a..".cs".ed
- "'o-..- p.rcvead *.2 F.e cc ~~'um.da *"',
^
~
m u
Qe. J.4 n.. 4.e thu c'a P-en.45~.a n &.w4e.vio r m.
4 m vv4 n
II.
We proceed to e exa-Jr.aticn of each of the contenticns asserted by the Petiticners.
1.
The fi st center. tion (pa"agraph 2 of the Petition) asserts that "the Emergency Core Coo"ing System (ECCS) cha.ges required by the Atomic Energ Oc r.issicn C'rde " cf Dece~.ber 27, 1974, are tctally inadequate to protect the public *a the event of a loss of ecolant accident (I.CCA)."
It will be recalled that the changes req'd. red by the Mo<iificaticn Crder are intended to ascure confomance with the ECCS acceptance criteria.
This contention dces ac claim that the changes fail to essure such con-fo=2nce. Rather, the challenge is to the adec.uacy of the criteria themselves. Such a challenge rust be excluded in i.dividual reactcr licensiri; proceedi.L:.
See, e.g., Easten Ec'1sen Co. (Pilg"ir Nuclear Power Station), A:.la-33, Decenber 4,1972.
2.
The second centention (pa agraph 3 of the Petition) charge that n.w u
x=- S cea e~,. c ~> > n. a. =,.,..~c n o.,ve
..a-4-
.- u.m.La,. c,::
s we
.n e
- v. ~a u. _..,e,o ca u
years that have been brought abcut by the Interin Acccptance Criteria G'1 CU3
-u.
4 were based largely en ec puter redel changes which pcter.tially have little or no connection with the real ccr.diticns under which ECCS would be required to cperate." E oically, this challenge to the use of ccm-puter redeling techniques..-
- he prediction of ECCS perfc m.2.ce is a challenge to the ECCS acceptance criteria themselves, which are based upon the use of cc puter redeling to predict ECCS ccoli.g perforance.
Tne contentien is rejected as c."o'1erging the Cc=ission's rules regarding ECCS.
2 m...m w 4 "c u,-. c. u
...vn
( y- #, --,w w
.n, c.c y..
...o pe i4 4.on ) o m, m,.
. +,.
+. w
,, c.
- v..
o.
eo v..
v.w
...e c -,,, 4,, - rv~v~.e
.c.,. u.m.
v.
- 2. _ m m... 4., e o lar.a, T '..* *. 1, m.__oa**" ' es
.v^.
s myt..
v vp.
appea" to have a nnnual shutd..n capability," and then goes cn to '
e-t
..w.e c pe.4.m w4 _7s *.-/ c.c tw4-e m.,.... c nve 4...cn
- c. c ns+,.4
., ee
_o.
. o ccsu,.. e,,,-,o.
- 4. -
w,,
..~.
s a challenge to the ECCS criteria.e'. + a ranual shutdcwn capability is not required as a part of that criteria. Tne contention is rejected for that reason.
4.
Re fourth contention (paragsph 5 of the Petition) alleges that after the charges "equired by the Modificaticn Crder are rade, "the (ECCS) will still be i. adequate in the event of a pressu"e vessel failure."
This challenge to the adequacy of the ECCS cris'"4 n ~ct be rejected.
5 m...o.c> c w C-4... s e
n w,,.
Ayc,m ~.,w+-y.. U o.c x.e.ne 4,., se w.vav.)
c,.
e yoo v._,
. l. w.... v t.. w.
Three Mile ~sland, Unit 1, must be shut down imediately ar.d until ccm-plete deter.iratica cf ECCS workability" in several specified cir= star.ces hac 'ceen dercnstrated. Tnis challenge to the adec.uacy of ECCS is rejected.
63 004
..: a.
. IV.
The Atonic Safety and Licensing Ecard concludes that the " Petition
.m
..s
.w,.
(,-).wm.e,ve m..c..
_w.
e cc -.. w n.,..
c,,, r,..,e
, y..< v..i _, s..
a...
v.~.
m m.
fails to adec.uately set forth the interest of the Petitioners in this proceed'r.g, and (2) the petiticn fails to state any cententicn p"cperly cognicable in this proceeding. Tnerefcre, the petition and the request for het"'ng contained therein a"e hereby denied.
V.
In acco" dance with 10 CFR il2.714a, this Mer is appeoVhle by Petitioners on the questien of whether the petition to intervene should have been g"a.ted in whole or in part. Such appeal nust be mde to the Atenic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ecard within five (5) days afte" f
service of this Crder upon Petiticners.
Tt. appeal shal' te assened by the filing of a notice of appeal a-d an accc.panying supporting A.
brief. Any other pa"ty my file a brief in support of cr in cpposition 4
to the appeal within five (5)/ days of the service of the appeal.
/l
/
BY TE A'.ICMIC SAr::d A'O i
g % : c.sL,. a w w.D
.c - ~ -
y l
I k wYius) c! W Edwarc. Lutcri, C.airan i
Dated this 10th day of'Septe. der, 1975 at Ecthesda, Faryfand P
U., -. ulJ
/~
i m
t
,8 i
s i
UNITED STATES OF A'IERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY C0m!!SSIO:;
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO,
.'t,
)
)
)
(Three ' tile Island Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SER'.'TCE I hereby certify thet I have this day served the foregoing document (s).
upon each persen designated on the official servicp list cc= piled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Cc==ission in this proceeding in accordance uith the require =ents of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission's Rules and Regulations.
1 Dated at k'ashington, D C. this day of.d'/M 197 [.
v
. Y h $i$.h }.
.hb$N Off'iceso5 the Secretary of the Cor5Jssion e
k F%
63 006
[
'4 a
,T g
J
@~"
4 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA T
NUCLEAR REG'JIATORY CO:4ISSION i.
In the Matter of
)
~
}
i METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
Docket No.(S) 50-320 l
)
)
)
(Three Mile Island L' nit 2)
)
)
)
SERVICu LIST l
Edward Luton, Esq, Chairman George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Fittman, Potts & Trewbridge U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission 91C 17 th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20535 Washington, D. C.
20006 Frederic J. Coufal, Esq.
Mr. Richard B. Wells Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 353 North 24th Street i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc =ission Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Lawrence Sager Dr. E==eth A. Luebke Sager & Sager Associates Atomic Safe ty and Licensing Board 45 High Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Washington, D. C.
20555 Government Publication Secticn Jm=es Tourtellotte, Esq.
State Library of Pennsylvania Counsel for NRC Staff Education Building, Box 1601 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Harrisbu g, Pennsylvania 17126 Washington, D. C.
20555 S
8
-,