ML19220C243
| ML19220C243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1977 |
| From: | Fess G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904300092 | |
| Download: ML19220C243 (7) | |
Text
g 09/09/_77 UNITED STATES CF AhiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'.IbiISSION BEFORE THE ATOhiIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ECARD In the hiatter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS MOTION TO HAVE MOTION RECONSIDERED 1
By motion dated August 27, 1977, / the Intervenors in this proceedirg, Citi-zens for a Safe Environment and York Committee for a Safe Environment, have requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (' Licensing Board)
reconsider an earlier motion by Intervenors dated April 15, 1977, which was 2/
denied by the Licensing Bosrd's Order of August 9,1977, and that the Licensing Board reopen the record for the receipt of further testimony with respect to certain matters which were the subject of Intervenors' April 15, 1977 motion. The only basis assigned to Intervenors' request for a recon-sideration and the reopening of the record is the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's (" Appeal Board") decision in Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al., (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
-1/ The Certi:icate of Service indicates that the motion was mailed one day later. on August 23, 1977.
2/
~
~
- This order confirmed the Licenring Board's May 13, 1977 oral ruling denying the motion (Tr.1548-9).
7
~
n c,
(; O JJJ 7 9 0 4 3 0 009A g
ALAB-429, dated August 24, 1977. For the reasons following, the Staff urges that the Intervenors' August 27, 1977 motion be denied.
Intervenors' April 15, 1977 motion requested that the Licensing Board require 3/
the Applicants to prcduce a witness to give certain testimony-claimed to be relevant to Contention 5. /
4 As the Licensing Board noted in its August 9,1977 Order denying that motion, a fair reading of that cor..... tion is to say that the TMI-2 facility is not capable of withstanding the impact of aircrait larger than the design basis aircraft, which reasonably frequent Harrisburg International 5/
Airpor t. - Since the Applicants conceded that the facility is not designed to withstand the impact of larger than design basis aircraft, the Licensing Board Intervenors requested (1) that a witness address the current state of the art with regard to the design, construction, and quali:ication testing of steel reinforced concrete structures for protection against the impact of large aircraft, and (2) that the witness be prepared to discuss the consequences to the nuclear safety related strue" from the impact of a large fully loaded aircraft, such as a Lockheed C-5A or a Boeing 747 at TMI-2.
-4/ Contention No. 5 states the following:
"The centainment structure and other buildings designed to withstand certain aircraft impact events are of inadequate strength to withstand the impa-. of airplanes which can reasonably be expected to frequent Harrisburg Internatienal Airport. Both the Boeing 747 and the Lockheed C-5A are reasonably expected to frequen'. Harris-burg International Airport and greatl'f exceed the Kinetic energy set for the design consideration.
-5/ Licensing Board's Order, dated August 9,1977, at pp.1-2.
7 7 ?.
n:,
Q,
~
~
found that testimony with respect tc, the state of the art in ec,nstructing concrete structures to withstand the impact of such aircraft would serve no useful 6/
purpose.- The Li:ensing Beard went on to find that [iln c: aiming that a discussion of the consequences of a strike of a larger than design basis air-craft is necessary, Intervenors apparently take the position that such a strike 7/
should have been :ensidered a design basis event."-
In making its deter-mination that such consequences need not be considered, the Licensing Board correctly noted that Intervencrs neither presented evidence to show why this accident should be a design basis, nor did thef seriously undercut the evi-dence of both the Applicants and the Staff that the probability of an aircraft larger than design basis striking T'.II-2 is less than 10 per year --8/
-7 Since
-7 the uncontridicted evidence established the 10 per year impact probability, the Licensing Board concluded that 'under the Commission's scheme of regulation, Applicants for licenses are not required to be concerned nith 9/
the consequences of extremely improbable accident events as this.-
The Appeal Board's decision in the Hope Creek proceeding has done n: thing to call the Licensing Board's reasoning m this case into question. In the
-6/ Id., p. 2.
7/
- I_d.
-3/ Id., p. 3.
-9/
Id., p. 4.
nn 00 JJs
4 Eoce Creek decision, the Appeal Board explicitly found that the accident being considered in that case should be included in the design of the plant "ur'ess it can be established that such an event has an exceedingly low probability of 10/
oc currenc e. "- The Appeal Board accepted 'the guideline probability values
-0 set forth in NUREG-75/037 (10 fcr a realistic calculaticn and 10 ior _ con-4 servative calculation) which would permit an applicant not to design a plant 11/
to withstand a particular accident due to its low probability.'
' This is the same rationale which the Licensing Board used in the instant proceeding.
The reasons for the Appeal Board's decision in Hooe Creek are detailed in ALAB-429 ard summari:ed in the following excert from that opinion:
"But the record reveals conflictine evidence regarding data used to determine some of the individual probabilit'f actors, cor. fusion in f
the assumptions that were made in celecting data, and failure to consult a number of sources of information that might have been used to aid in the calculation of other of the probabihty factors."12/ (emphasis added)
-10/ Hoce Creek, slip op. at p. 9.
-11/ Id. NUREG-75/087 is the NRC Stafi's Standard.leview Plan which Etablishes the 10-7 criteria.
-12/
Hoce Creek, slip op, at pp.10-11.
,y hh
_g_
None of these factors are present in the TMI-2 case. The evidence is clear and 13/
uncontradic;cd. - The Staff, therefore, urges that Intervenors' August 27, 1977 motion be denied.
-13/ Testimony of John Vallance, following Tr. 511; Testimony of Jaccues Read, following Tr. 617, Respectfully submitted, G asm A s
Gregory Fess Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Marylar.d this 9th day of September,1977
<=
, ~
bh J
e
UNITED STATES OF A',fERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO?.iPANY,
)
)
)
(Three Liile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO IN'"ERVENORS MOTION TO HAVE MOTION RECONSIDERED" in the above-captior.ed proceeding have been served on the follo*Mng by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 9th day of September,1977:
Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman
- Karin W. Carter, Assistant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20555 Department of Environmental Resourc es Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
709 Health and Welfare Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Dr. Ernest O. Salo 1800 M S tr eet, N. W.
Professor, Fisheries Research Washington, D. C. 20036 Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries Ms. Judith H. Johnsrud University of Washington 433 Orlando Avenue Seattle, Washington 98195 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Dr. Chauncey R. Kepicrd Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Citi:: ens for a Safe Environment Panel
- 433 Orlando Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Washington, D. C. 20555 3o i
D j
J
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 e
i Gregor' Fess Counsel for LC Staff e
5 bb J.),