ML19263F059
| ML19263F059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120341 | |
| Download: ML19263F059 (10) | |
Text
e.'
10/24/79 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, Docket No. 50-320 E A,,!;
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MENORANDUM REGARDING RESCHEDULING HEARING ON AIRCRAFT CRASH PROBABILITY ISSUE By Memorandum dated October 18, 1979, the Appeal Board requested the Staff to provide a supplemental memorandum elaborating on its position as set forth in the NRC Staff's Memorandum Regarding Rescheduling Hearing on Air-craft Crash Probability Issue, dated October 17, 1979.
Specifically, the Appeal Board seeks further explanation of "(1) which of the factors identi-fied in Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539, 547 (1975), the Staff believes have a bearing" on rescheduling the subject hearing; and "(2) why the Staff considers that it will be better able to evaluate these factors in 30 days than it is now." The Appeal Board further inquired as to the Staff's perceived relation-ship between rescheduling the subject hearing and "(1) whether a hearing is or is not to be held on the EPICOR-II issue or (2) the outcome of such a hearing if held."
2220 314 3
7911120
I.
THE DOUGLAS POINT FACTORS The Appeal Board, in Douglas Point set out three factors which it believed should be considered and weighed in reaching any detennination whether to go forward with an evidentiary hearing relating to the licensing of a facility where the operation of the facility has been delayed substantially into the fu ture. The three factors were:
1.
the likelihood that findings made will retain their validity; 2.
the advantage to the public and to the litigants in having an early, though possibly inconclusive, resolution of issue; and 3.
the possible prejudice to any of the litigants.
While the Staff recognizes that there are significant factual differences between the Douglas Point case and this one, in our opinion, the criteria for going forward with an evidentiary hearing announced in Douglas Point are pertinent and applicable here.
In the TMI-2 proceeding, we are confronted with a facility which will not be operable in the foreseeable future.
Indeed, the condition of the reactor and associated equipment and systems within the reactor building is largely unknown; at best, the Staff estimates that cleanup and recovery operations would take several years.
Fu rthermore, the Licensee's authority to operate the facility except in its present mode - natural convection circulation - was suspended by Order of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on July 20, 1979.
For these reasons, there appears to be little need or urgency to resolve the aircraft crash probability issue at this time; this is certainly a situation in which the 2220 315
Licensee does not require the operating authority provided by its license for several years.
Focusing now on the Douglas Point factors identified above, the Staff believes that each is relevant to the rescheduling question.
1.
The likelihood that the findings made will retain their validity.
The probability analyses presented by the Licensee and Staff are both pre-dicated upon aircraft crash and operations data, variables subject to change with time, even though they are intended to form the basis for a Technical Specification which is to be effective for the duration of plant operation.
Although the impact of updated data on the presentations made at the hearing in December 1978 cannot be quantified without analysis, it seems evident that the respective crash rates developed by the parties may be subject to change if either or both the number of crashes and/or operations is changed.
Indeed, the Licensee's testimony, relying most heavily on the last five years' data in the final analysis, would appear most sensitive to such pertu rbations. One must, therefore, ask first, whether the evidence pre-sented in December 1978 (and prepared sometime in advance) must itself be updated, Commonwealth Edison Company (La Salle County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-153, 6 AEC 821, 823-824 (1973), and second, whether the parties are reasonably. confident that any findings made now will remain valid at such time in the future that THI-2 might be authorized to resume operation or if it would be preferable to resolve this matter more closely in time to resumption of operation even if findings made now would remain 2220 316
valid, so that they would be based on the most current data available at a time when they have meaning in the context of an operating facility.
The thirty-day deferral suggested by the Staff in its Memorandum of October 17, 1979 would enable the parties to address the foregoing in order to pemit a determination of whether findings made in the near future would retain their val idi ty.
2.
The advantage to the public and to the litigants in having an early, though possibly inconclusive resolution of the issues,. The Staff does recognize that there are cogent reasons in favor af going forward. As pointed out by the Licensee in its October 12, 1979 response to the Appeal Board's September 10, 1979 Memorandum, the aircraft crash probability issue is a matter of importance and the relative freshness of the issue in the minds of the Appeal Board and participants and of the evidence thusfar presented may well diminish with time.
Ultimately, if THI-2 is to operate again, this issue will have to be resolved.
However, one must also consider whether there would be any advantage to the public in going forward in the near future. The Appeal Board majority in Metropolitan Edison Company et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, (1978),
expressed its satisfaction that, alth.gh more needed to be done with respect to the long-tem probability assessment, hence, the need to reopen the record, "the probability of a crash of a heavy airplane which would affect public health and safety appears to be acceptably low at present levels of air traffic." (Id. at 48.) Considering what is at issue in this case, viz.
"whether there is a probability of greater thac 10' that an aircraft will 2220 317
9,
strike a safety-related feature of the facility and damage it to such an extent that there are releases of radioactive materials resulting in dose levels in excess of those specified in 10 CFR Part 100" (Jd. at 47, emphasis added), the condition of the plant and the evidence of record, which suggests that the probability of the crash of a heavy aircraf t will be lower than the 10" level certainly in the near future, there appears to be nothing tha' need be done by the Appeal Board on this issue at this time to assure the protection of the public health and safety. On the other side of the ques-tion of advantage to the public, is the question of whether there would be an advantage in not going forward in this time frame on this issue; that is, would the public health and safety be better served if the efforts of the Staff were devoted to other TMI-related endeavors. The Staff would answer this question in the affimative.
Given the status of the facility in both physical and legal tems, it seems unlikely that this issue is of any true consequence at this time.
Accordingly, while there would appear to be no -dvantage to the public in rescheduling this hearing now for the reasons discussed above, the thirty-day deferral suggested by the Steff would pemit a detemination of whether the second aspect of this factor, advantage to the litigants, militates in favor of going forward at this time nonetheless. To fully consider this aspect, the concerns expressed below should be balanced with the benefits identified above.
2220 318
3.
The possible prejudice to the litigants. Against the advantage to the litigants noted above, one must balance any prejudice that would result in rescheduling a hearir.g at this time.
In considering the time commitments of the other parties, we reiterate what was suggested in our October 17 Memorandum with respect to the possibility of a hearing in the relatively immediate future in connection with EPICOR-II. Although we do not question the Appeal Board's sensitivity to the potential conflict in scheduling any hearing in this matter with any hearing that may be ordered respecting EPICOR-II (and any other proceedings relating to TMIM), it is the Staff's view that the iminence of these other matters, which involve or may involve each of the parties to this proceeding and their respective counsel or representative, casts real doubt on the value of now rescheduling a hearing which because of other, more pressing matters, may well have to be deferred for sor..e significant period of time. Within thirty days, however, the Staff expects to be in a better position to know whether and to what extent the parties will, in fact, be otherwise involved since, with respect to EPICOR-II, requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene are to be filed by November 5,10'2_/ and with respect to THI-1, a ruling on petitions for 2
y Such as, for example, the hearing to be f ald on the resumption of operation of TMI-l and that which may result in the near future regarding the imposition of new and revised Technical Specifications for TMI-2 as reflected in the July 20, 1979 Order of the Directoi, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, suspending the Licensee's operating authority.
2f We do note the likelihood that Intervenors in this proceeding will seek to participate in the EPICOR-II matter in light of the request filed by them on May 16, 1979, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.206.
2220 319
leave to intervene is expected on or about November 9,1979.U Thus, rather than now engaging in an attempt at rescheduling the subject hearing, the Staff has recommended a thirty-day deferral of this question.
II.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOUGLAS POINT FACTORS AND EPICOR-II.
The Appeal Board has inquired as to "the possible relationship between one or more of the Douglas Point factors... and (1) whether a hearing is or is not to be held on the EPICOR-II issue or (2) the outcome of such a hearing if held." As noted aiove, the only direct relationship between the Douglas Point factors and whether a hearing on EPICOR-II is or is not held relates to the availability of the participants in this proceeding in the near future if a hearing on EPICOR-II is in fact held, and the advantage to the public in according that and certain other activities priority given the status of TMI-2. We concede that the fonner concern is obviated by the Appeal Board's recognition of a potential scheduling conflict but see no merit in now scheduling a hearing which in a short time may well have to be rescheduled.
With respect to the relai.fonship of the Douglas Point factors and the outcome of any hearing held on EPICOR-II, the Staff did not intend to suggest that any such relationship necessarily existed. What is intended, however, is the suggestion that the Staff would consider any hearing in connection with EPICOR-II to have priority wer rescheduling a hearing on aircraf t crash y
Both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Intervenors have filed petitions.
2220 320
probabilities in view of the immediacy of the problem and potential impact on the health and safety of the public and environment attendant to the fomer.
III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff reiterates its recomendation that any consideration of rescheduling a hearing on the aircraft crash probability issue be deferred for thirty days.
Res etfully submitted, JJA A>> d fd Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of October,1979 2220 321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RECARDING RESCHEDULING HEARING ON AIRCRAFT CRASH PROBABILITY ISSUE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asteri'k, through deposit in the s
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of October, 1979:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Atomic Safety and Licensing Appa:1 Citizens for a Safe Environment Board 433 Orlando Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission State College, PA 16801 Washington, DC 20555 Karin W. Carter Assistant Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
- Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of Enforcement Bo.d Dept. of Environmental Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 709 Health and Welfare Building Washington, DC 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dr. John H. Buck, Member
- George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Judith H. Johnsrud Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
433 Orlando Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State College, PA 16801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pan el*
Dr. Ernest O. Salo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Professor, Fisheries Research Washington, DC 20555 Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal University of Washington Panel (5)*
Seattle, WA 98195 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 2220 322
...a James A. Humphre's, III Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber 115 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602
~~
Dockt. ting and Service Section (5)*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
__E_A Lakrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff 2220
.23