ML19254F624

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Petitioners' Amended Contentions Filed Per ASLB 790921 Memorandum & Order.Rejects Certain Contentions as Outside Scope of Proceeding.Accepts Certain Contentions W/Conditions.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19254F624
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/31/1979
From: Trowbridge G
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19254F625 List:
References
NUDOCS 7911160099
Download: ML19254F624 (11)
v • d • e


Text

,

C pyyLIC DOCuny '

as cv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  %

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 gcm U$NIC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

0': OCT 31 1978 >

T p;'w2 h

& usa ,i k

In the 'latter of ) A

) b m

24 METROPOLITAN 7ISON cOK (NY ) Docket No. 50-2

) (Restart)

,three Milt isnd Nuclear )

9 ta tic .1, Ur do. 1) )

\

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' AMENDED PETITIONS Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 1979, each of the petitioners to intervene in this proceeding (except the Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement) has filed an amended petition specifying peti-tioner's contentions and, in the case of petitioners Marvin Lewis and Marjorie Aamodt, whose standing to intervene has not yet been determined by the Board, addressing further petition-er's interest in the proceeding. Licensee's answers to each of the amended petitions are attached to this Response.

By way of introduction to Licensee's answers to peti-tioners' contentions, it is important that the Board and other participants in the proceeding understand fully the grounds on which Licensee objects to certain contentions as well as Li-censee's reasons for not objecting at this time to certain other contentions.

7((} 

                                                                +
7911160 097 G

A. Licensee's Objection to Certain Contentions as Outside the Scope of the Proceeding. Licensee's authority to operate Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1) was suspended by the Com-mission by Order dated July 2, 1979 (hereinaf ter July 2 Order) , effective immediately, pending the resolution of the issues specified in the Commission's Order and Notice of Hearing dated August 9, 1979 (hereinafter August 9 Order). The bases for such suspension were expressly defined in the August 9 Order. It is Licensee's position that consistent with the in-tent of the Commission's July 2 and August 9 Orders the scope of this hearing should be confined to the bases for suspension. Contentions outside this scope must be rejected as attempts to burden the hearing and prolong the shutdown of TMI-1 with safety or environmental issues not directly related to the bases for suspension and for which other forums are provided by the Commission's Rules of Practice, namely requests for NRC action under Section 2.206 or for rulemaking under Section 2.802. We begin with the Commission's July 2 Order requir-ing that TMI-1 be shut down until further order of the Commis-sion and requiring that a hearing precede restart of the facility. The stated basis for the shut down order was "the variety of issues raised by the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 facility" and the fact that as a result of the accident "the Commission lacks the requisitp reasonable assurance that 

                                                                                   '16 039

the same licensee's Three Mile Island Unit No. 1 facility, a nuclear power reactor of similar design, can be operated with-out endangering the health and safety of the public." Thus the July 2 Order expressly tied the basis for suspension to the TMI-2 accident. Further, it promised a further order by the Commission "specifying in detail the basis for its concern." Section II of the subsequent August 9 Order refers again to the recitation in the July 2 Order that the Commission presently lacks the requisite reasonable assurance that TMI-l can be operated without endangering the public health and safety and specifically enumerates "the bases for that conclusion" (pp. 2-5). These bases fall into two categories--those common to other B&W reactors and those concerned with the unique cir-cumstances at TMI. The Commission's concerns in the first category are generally described in the August 9 Order (pp . 3-4) and relate both to the sensitivity of B&W designed reactors to certain off-normal transient conditions originating in the secondary system and the avoidance of errors that occurred dur-ing the TMI-2 accident. These concerns are further specified in documents referenced in the Order, i.e. a series of I&E Bul-letins issued to owners of B&W reactors (I&E Bulletins 79-05, 79-05A, 79-05B and 79-05C) and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Status Report to the Commission of April 23, 1979. 

              +                                    7'6 040 Concerns in the second category were specifically enumerated as (1) potential interaction between Unit 1 and the damaged Unit 2,   (2) questions about the management capa-bilities and technical resources of Metropolitan Edison, in-cluding the impact of the Unit 2 accident on these, (31 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 (pp. 4-5).

By its own terms, the August 9 Order " establishes procedures for a hearing and decision on the particular issues identified in Section V of the Order" (p. 2). The issues listed in Section V (p . 12) in turn relate solely to the neces-sity and sufficiency of certain "short term" and "long term" actions recommended by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion. As explained in the Order both the short term and long term recommendations were made by the Director "to resolve the concerns" stated in the Order and to " permit a finding of rea-sonable assurance that the facility can safely resume operation" (pp. 5 and 7). Thus the only reasonable reading of the August 9 Order is that the issues to be considered in this hearing relate only to the necessity and sufficiency of the Director's recommendations to resolve the concerns identifiec 4 the Com-mission as the bases for suspension of operation of TMI-1 It was not the Comnission's intention to encompass in this hearing, _,_ 7'6-041

thereby prolonging the suspension of TMI-l's operating author-ity, issues which may be of concern to petitioners to intervene and which may bear on the safety of nuclear reactors, but which do not relate to the bases for suspension. The Commission did not intend that all lessons which may be learned from the TMI-2 accident be the subject of this hearing. The Commission was aware, for example, of Staff con-cerns identified in NUREG-0578 which would be considered at a later date, including those deferred for treatment in the final report of the Lessons Learned Task Force. These concerns were not, however, the bases for the suspension of operation of TMI-l or other B&W reactors. The August 9 Order expressly recognizes that there may be additional long-term requirements imposed on operating reactors and provides a mechanism by which the Com-mission may if deemed necessary add those requirements which it considers relevant to the restart of TMI-l to the issues spec-ified for the hearing. Section IV of the August 9 Order (p. 9) provides if during the pendency of this hearing the Cammission issues immediately effective orders against other licensees - imposing requirements with respect to other long-term actions, the Commission will, to the extent appropriate in the circum-stances, issue orders, effective immediately, to require that Licensee demonstrate reasonable progress toward completion of such other actions as a condition to restart. 

                                                6 04?

B. Licensee's Conditional Acceptance of Certain Contentions. A number of contentions advanced by petitioners to intervene relate in general to the issues raised by the Staff's recommended short and long term actions but lack the specific-ity and basis ordinarily expected in NRC licensing proceedings. The reasons for this are both obvious and justifiable. Unlike the normal licensing prcceeding, where petitioners have avail-able to them the applicant's Safety Analysis Report and Envi-ronmental Report and can reasonably be expected to frame their contentions to address the information provided in these docu-ments, petitior.ers have only recently received the first in-stallment of Licensee's Restart Report indicating how Licensee proposes to respond to the short and long term actions recom-mended by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Thus, for example, petitioners do not yet have Licensee's updated emergency plans or Licensee's program for augmented off-site monitoring. The degree of speciticity and basis to be required at this point must take this situation into account. Licensee will, however, propose at the Special Prehearing Conference on November 8-9 that with respect to certain specified contentions the Board require the contentions to be revised and resubmitted to the Board at a later time after petitioners have received the relevant section of Licensee's Restart Report describing Licensee's response to the Staff 5s recommended actions. Licensee 

                                                  '16 043 and other parties would then have an opportunity to object to the revised contentions for lack of specificity or basis. Each of the contentions which Licensee proposes to be encompassed by this procedure is marked with an asterisk (*) in Licensee's responses to the contentions of individual petitioners attached hereto.

Several petitioners have pointed out that the reports of the Kemeny Commission or other investigative groups, or other materials not yet available such as the final report of the Lessons Learned Task Force, may contain new information which justifies supplemental contentions. Licensee acknowledges this possibility and the provision in the Commission's Rules of Prac-tice for the admission of late contentions for good cause shown. Licensee will, however, propose at the Special Prehearing Con-ference on November 8-9 that the Board fix a date, such as 30 days after publication of the document in question, by which a motion to admit supplemental contentions based on any such docu-ment must be filed. Licensee calls the Board's attention to the fact that in reciting petitioners' contentions along with its responses thereto we have taken the liberty of correcting obvious typograph-ical errors. Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PI TMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By bj ~ 

                                                 /$4W       ./
                                ;)/" GG6rg6 F. Trowbridge/

Dated: October 31, 1979 

                                                    '7,6 044 Attachments: See page 8 Attachments:

Licensee's Response to Final Contentions of: Union of Concerned Scientists Eavironmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York Chesapeake Environmental Alliance, Inc. Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. Steven C. Sholly People Against Nuclear Energy Newberry Township T.M.I. Steering Committee, et al. Licensee's Resoonse to Amended Petition for Intervention and Final Contentions of Marjorie A. Aamodt Licensee's Response to Amended Petition for Intervention and Final Contentions of Marvin I. Lewis Licensee's Brief Opposing Admission of Psychological Distress Contentions Licensee's Brief on the Issue of Preparing a FES Prior to TMI-l Restart 

                                         6 049 October 31, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e

In the Matter of ) 

                                     )

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 

                                     )           (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1). ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Petitioners' Amended Petitions," dated October 31, 1979, with attachments, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mc.il, postage pre-paid, this 31st day of October, 1979. NJ ' N / 

                                ' h[   G[orge F. Trowbridge!

716 046 Dated: October 31, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) 

                                     )

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 

                                     )               (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 3265 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House 881 West Outer Drive P. O. Box 2357 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Linda W. Little Robert L. Knupp, Esquis.e Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Solicitor Board Panel County of Dauphin 5000 Hermitage Drive P. O. Box P Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 407 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal John E. Minnich Director Chairman, Dauphin County Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of Commissioners Commission Dauphin County Courthouse Washington, D.C. 20555 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Walter W. Cohen, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consumer Advocate Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 1746 047

Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Karen Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss T.M.I. Steering Committee Suite 506 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Chesapeake Energy Alliance P. O. Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn heirs, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Judith H. Johnsrud Suite 506 Environmental Coalition on 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Nuclear Power Washington, D.C. 20006 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street Marvin I. Lewis Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Frieda Berryhill Chairman, Coalition for Nuclear Marjorie M. Aamodt Power Plant Postponament R. D. 5 2610 Glendon Driva Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York  : 7a 245 West Philadelphia Street 6 048 York, Pennsylvania 17404 

                                  }}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19254F624&oldid=2517078"