ML19224A456
| ML19224A456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Trowbridge G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902050321 | |
| Download: ML19224A456 (11) | |
Text
Januarv 10, 1979
^
NRC pgg.
u..;c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
Docket No. 50-320 et al
)
)
.~-
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generating Station, Unit 2)
)
-f c.
e f
l
.c s,
.~
a
~I y a
-l t
's J,. j D'}
s N
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO PRESENT WITNESSES ON
'f 9
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PATTERNS Ad i * *-
On December 27, 1978, Intervenors filed with the Appeal Board a motion to present witnesses on aircraft flight patterns at Harrisburg International Airport (HIA).
The motion makes two requests.
First, it requests permission to offer evidence by three named individuals to the effect that out of an aggre-gate of nine landings at HIA in commercial jet aircraft weigh-ing less than 200,000 pounds, seven involved a runway approach in whi h the aircraft flew over the TMI site.
Second, it re-quests that the Appeal Board require Staff counsel to "make good his offer" to subpoena all TWA pilots who have landed at HIA in aircraft larger than 200,000 pounds, presumably so thar they may give testimony and/or be questioned on landing flight patterns.
Applicants address these two requests separately be-low.
'ff^1(M MoaoschQ C_
Recuest to Present Three Additional Witnesses At the outset it needs to be stressed that the Board has already advised Intervenors of its doubts concerning the relevance of testimony about the flight paths of aircraft weighing less than 200,000 pounds (Tr. 267, 269, 273-4) and made clear the burden on Intervenors to establish the rele-vancy of any supplemental testimony to the only issue before the Board, i.e.
the probability of a crash by an aircraft larger than 200,000 pounds on TMI-2 (Tr. 289).
Intervenors proffer four explanations for the rele-vancy of their proposed testimony on flight patterns of smaller commercial jets.
None of these explanations establishes the relevance of the proposed testimony to this proceeding.
1.
Intervenors allege that the testimony offered by Intervenors with respect to commercial jet aircraft weighing less than 200,000 pounds is the first testimony demonstrating the occurrence of overflights of the TMI site and is the only testimony fully responsive to the Corumission's Order of Sep-tember 15, 1978, requesting information on "whether, and if so, how often, the Three Mile Islanc site is overflown."
Appli-cants disagree.
Read in context, the Commission's instructions contemplated information related to overflights by large air-
- craft, i.e.
those over 200,000 pounds.
The Ccmmission's focus on large aircraft is evident in Sections I and II of the Com-mission's instructions, which specifically refer to large aircraft 3
J.p' A9 4
o 2
in requesting information on U.S.
crash data and on the number of operations and type of aircraft at HIA.
Section IV of the instructions, requesting information on landing and takeoff pacterns, does not repeat the reference to the size of aircraft of interest.
It is illogical to assume, however, that the Com-mission sought information only for large aircraft as to the number of operations and type of aircraft at HIA but then switched its interest to the flight patterns of smaller aircraft.
Furthermore, contrary to Intervenors' assertion, the FAA wit-nesses did in fact address the Commission's question directly in their testimony.
They stated that there were no records on file as to how many aircraft, if any, overfly the TMI site, and went on to testify that under normal takeoff and landing pro-cedures, a heavy aircraft would not overfly the TMI site. (Syers and Coval, p.
42) 2.
Intervenors allege that the supplemental testimony will contradict the " impression" given hy the prepared testi-mony of Applicants' witness Wright and Staff witnesses Byers and Coval, adding that all of these witnesses " stated in their prepared testinony that overflights of TMI by the kinds of air-craft in which the Intervenors' three witnesses have flown simply do not occur."
Intervenors' allegation is untrue and rests on a mischaracterization of the prepared testimony.
The only prepared testimony by Applicants' witness and by the two FAA controllers concerning landing and takeoff patterns for
".3 ~ 7_C 3 3
commercial jet aircraft expressly referenced aircraft larger than 200,000 pounds.
(Wright, pp. 8-9; Byers and Coval, p. 42)
Intervenors concede that their three proposed witnesses flew in aircraft lighter than 200,000 pounds.
The worst that can be said of the prepara? testimony is that Figures 1 and 2 of Applicants' testimony and Attachments 1 and 2 to Attachment 7 of the Staff testimony showing traffic patterns for HIA, along with the accompanying text referencing them, were unclear as to the size of aircraft to which they applied.
While Wright's testimony clearly stated that these patterns do not apply to aircraft larger than 200,000 pounds, the prepared testimony could have left the impression that they described the pre-scribed flight patterns of smaller commercial jet aircraft.
Any confusion which may have been created by these diagrams was, however, dispelled by the testimony of Byers, in response to Intervenors' cross-examination, explaining that the traffic patterns shown in the diagrams applied only to touch and go operations for light aircraft and did not apply to DC-9 and larger aircraft.
(Tr. 260)*
In the course of the hearing before the Appeal Board, Dr. Kepford advanced a similar argument (not repeated in his motion) based on the oral rather than prepared testimony of the FAA witness.
Dr. Kepford apparently understood the FAA witnesses to have testified during cross-examination to a " rigid" requirement that all ccmmercial jets approach the runway along the runway centerline from a distance of eight miles or more from the end of the runway.
He then requested permission to present witnesses to contradict the FAA testimony.
It is understandable that Dr. Kepford may have mis-understood initially the testimony of witness Coval (continued on page 5) 4 1 1.04
3.
Apparently on the basis of the proposed testimony with respect to the landing patterns of smaller commercial jet flight paths, Dr. Kepford would open up a new issue not pre-viously raised by Intervenors, i.e.
the capability of TMI-2 to withstand the impact of an aircraft weighing less than the 200,000 pound design basis aircraft but trave ling at more than the design basis speed of 200 knots.
His justification for raising tnis new issue is that the "new information" proposed to be introduced by Intervenors' three witnesses to the effect that "the TMI site is located under a frequented aircraft glide path" mandates a modification of the " aircraft crash probability rates previously calculated by both the Staff and Applicant."
Applicants see no connection between the information which Intervenors seek to adduce on flight paths for the smaller com-mercial jet aircraft and the speed at which a crash might occur.
The testimony shows that impact speed information is available for 70% of all the landing and takeoff accidents for all air carriers over the past 22 years; that the mean impact speed was 126 knots; that only two hits occurred at speeds above 180 knots; (Continued from page 4) that "all airlines are required to fly IFR regardless."
(Tr. 262)
Coval subsequently clarified his testimony by explaining that this meant that such aircraft were under FAA air traffic jurisdiction, not that they nec-essarily made an instrument landing or followed an 1.:strument landing approach.
In gccd weather the FAA controller at Capitol City may simply vector an air-craft to a point where its pilot can see HIA and the pilot then selects his own visual approach path.
(Tr.
263-4, 301-5)
Thus there is no conflict between Caval's testimony and Dr. Kepford's proposed testimony that smaller commercial jets sometimes overfly the TMI-2 site.
5 i ~ IQ)
and that the highest impact speed was 200 knots.
(Vallance, p.
3 and Table 17; Tr. 55)
Intervenors do not explain how in the face of this testimony they propose to support the specu-lation that impact speeds might exceed 200 knots due to "the aircraft's engines and/or from an acceleration due to gravity."
Nor is it apparent why in any event Intervenors' non sequitur would justify raising the issue at this late date.
4.
Lastly, Intervenors seek once again to question the ability of TMI-2 to withstand even a design basis acaldent.
The Appeal Board has already ruled that this question is out-side the scope of this proceeding.
(Tr. 489-90, 497-8; see also ALAB-486, slip op. 49 and footnote 36)
Nevertheless, Applicants cannot leave unchallenged Intervenors' assertion that no testimony supporting the ability of the plant to with-stand a design basis accident was ever presented to the Licens-ing Board.
Intervenors' sole contention before the Licensing Board in connection with potential air crashes was concerned exclusively with crashes by an aircraft weighing more than the design basis aircraft.
There was therefore no occasion fc -
Applicants and the Staff to prepare special testimony demon-strating compliance with the design criteria.
Applicants and the Staff did, however, offer in evidence Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report (Applicants' Exhibit No. 1) and the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (Staff Exhibit No. 2), both of which discuss the ability of TMI-2 to meet its structural
% ~ 1.Cu 6
design criteria with respect to aircrash protection.
(FS AR,
Vol.
3, App. 3-A; SER, S 2.2)
The Licenut..g o rd's attention was specifically directed to the existence of this material in the record.
(Tr. 532-4)
Both the Applicants and the Staff offered, if desired by the Board, to produce witnesses who could discuss the structural design of TMI-2 in relation to aircrash protection design criteria (Tr. 643, 726), although not the consequences of the impact of a large than design basis impact.
(Tr. 640-1, 72E 9)
The Licens_..
Board did not find it necessary to take up the offers.
Accordingly, Applicants oppose Intervenors' first re-quest to present testimony by three named witnesses on the landing flight path of small commercial jets.
Recuest to Subpoena TWA Pilots Applicants believe that the Appeal Board would be justi-fied on a number of grounds in refusing Intervenors' request that the hearing be reconvened for testimony by TWA pilots on the flight paths of large aircraft using HIA.
First, Inter-venors are late in requesting such testimony, and have presented no compelling justification for their failure to pursue the matter on a timely basis.
Second, the conclusory statements contained in the affidavits by Drs. Johnsrud and Kepford relat-ing to their informal conversations with an unidentified TWA pilot and flight enginect leave a great deal of rocm for doubt
-o - n r e:
<> - \\ if
,,/
as to what these TWA employees would actually testify if called.
Third, even assuming that large aircraft have on occasion over-flown the TMI site, such testimony would not necessarily be in-consistent with the testimony of the FAA witnesses as to the normal landing and takeoff paths for large aircraft.
Finally, again assuming that the proposed testimony would be as characterized by Intervenors, the affidavits on their face do not furnish a basis for Intervehors' allegation of " routine" overflights of the TMI site by large ccmmercial jet aircraft.
In evaluating the relevance of Intervenors' proposed testimony to the central issue in this proceeding, it is important to recognize that although both Applicants' and Staff's witnesses testified that large aircraf t typically land and take off along the runway centerline and do'nct turn close to the end of the runway, the models employed by both the Applicants and the Staff are based on historical accident data covering a 22-year period and including accidents by all sizes of air carriers with diverse flight paths.
The spatial correlations are calculated on the basis of these diverse flight paths.
Intervenors' motion contains, however, the allegation that both the Applicants and Staff have intentionally withheld and concealed information frcm the Appeal Board.
Insofar as this allegation relates to the flight paths of small commercial jets, we have already explained in this response why this
' 8f ' '.C 8 l
a
allegation is both incorrect and irrelevant, and Applicants are content to rest their answer to the allegation of concealment of such information on those grounds.
Intervenors' allegation that Applicants concealed information on the routine flight paths of large aircraft is a different matter.
The existence of a routine flight path by large commercial jets directly over TMI would be relevant to the proceeding.
Whether or not the affidavits support the existence of such routine flights, Inter-venors are accusing Applicants and the Staff of concealing rel-evant information from the Board.
Under these circumstances Applicants would favor an order by the Appeal Board asking the Staff to supplement the record with testimony or statements ob-tained directly from TWA pilots.
We fully expect that the TWA pilots will confirm the testimony'already in the record con-cerning the normal flight paths of large aircraft.
In taking this position, we do not believe any massive undertaking is re-quired; the record can be adequately supplemented without going to the unreasonaole and infeasible extreme of requiring the Staff to subpcena all TWA pilots who have landed at HIA in large aircraft.
Respectfully submitteu, SHAW, PTTTMMT, PCTTS & *RCWBRIDGE h/
/8
- / /
~
W George F. Trowbridg/
Dated: January 10, 1979 9
January 10, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P2GULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY,
)
Docket No. 50-320 et al
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Generating Station, Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Motion to Present Witnesses on Aircraft Flight Patterns," dated January 10, 1979, were served upon those persons listed on the attached Service List this 10th day of January, 1979.
Those persons whose names are marked with an asterisk were served personally, and those unmarked were served by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
m
_ mldu
--/
Ge6rge F. 'Trowbr.idge/
Dated:
January 10, 1979
-3~ ~ 110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 2efore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
METECPOLITAN EDISCN CCMPANY. et al
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
SERVICE LIST
- Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Lawrence J.
Chandler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of the Executive Legal Director Scard U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Camnission Washington, D.C.
20555 Was hington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Chauncey R.
Kepford
- Dr. W.
Reed Johnson, Member 433 Orlando Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karin W.
Carter, Esq., Assistant Washington, D.C.
20555 Attorney General Office of Enforcement
- Jerome E.
Sharf=an, Esq., Member Department of Environmental Resources Atemic Safety and Licensing Appeal 709 Health and Welfare Building Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Nashington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission Washington, D,C.
20555 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board P anel Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'ission Washington, D.C.
20555 Decketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Ernest O.
Salo U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Professor, Fisheries Research Washington, D.C.
20555 Institute, WH-10 University of Washington Seattle, Washingten 98195
-3 444..
L. '..