ML19269C855

Applicants' Response to Contentions in Suppl Petition to Intervene of Marsh,Et Al.Concludes That Latter Should Be Admitted as Intervenor W/Certain Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19269C855
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/26/1979
From:	Silberg J, Yuspeh A SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902140229
Download: ML19269C855 (13)

Text

NRC PUIHJC DOCUMENT R0ctf $.I k-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

[p f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,g'

'e s

,j -

'S *f' h

,?

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -

^Q

,: 1,\ \g cy In the Matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and )51-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF COLLEEN L'ARSH , ET AL.

On January 12, 1979, petitioners Colleen Marsh, et al. filed a Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene including a list of contentions. Pursuant to the Licensing Board's December 14, 1978 Order Scheduling Prehearing Conference, Applicants submit their response to petitioners' contentions.

Paragraph 1.A (Pump Flywheel Missiles)

This contention asserts that there is an unreasonable risk of harm to the health and safety of petitioners and others because Applicants' design has failed to resolve "the problem of pump fly-wheel missiles generated by coolant pump overspeed . . . . The contention further argues that the " electrical braking proposed by Applicant is not sufficient to prevent this problem." Appli-cants believe that the contention should be rejected. There are no flywheels in the recirculation pumps (i.e. " coolant pumps" mentioned in the contention) of the Susquehanna facility. Nor 7 9 0 2140 JLA%t

have Applicants proposed electrical braking in connection with the plant's recirculation pump. The contention appar-ently addresses an issue under study for pressurized water reactors, rather than boiling water reactors such as Susque-hanna. Thus, the NRC's report to Congress, "NRC Program for the Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0410 (January, 1978), p. C-28, describes Issue IIA-2 "PWR Pump Overspeed During a LOCA" as follows:

It is possible for a PWR primary coolant pump to overspeed if a large break occurs at the appropriate position in specific piping. Con-servative estimates indicate substantial over-speed and possible failure of components such as flywheels with the generation c2 missiles.

The problem is being approached analytically and experimentally with scaled pumps. The reliability of such protective measures as electrical braking of the pump motor is under study.

Thus, it would appear that petitioners have failed to provide a basis to support admfasion of this contention, as required by 10 CFR S2.714.

Paragraph 1.B (On-site Radioactive Waste Storage)

This contention asserts that Applicants have failed to adequately provide for safe storage, for periods of up to 10 to 15 years, of spent fuel and low-level radioactive wastes.

Applicants would not object to the admission of a contention as described in the preceeding sentence.

Paragraoh 1.C (Transportation of Radioactivp Materials)

This contention alleges that Applicants have failed to provide or demonstrate " safe transportation in connection

with the radioactive materials produced in connection with the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station."

The subject matter of the contention is covered by Commission regulations. This contention is a challenge to Federal regulations and should not be admitted. The environ-mental impacts of transporting radioactive materials in connection with facility operation are specified in 10 CFR Part 51, Table S-4. These impacts include those from trans-portation accidents as well as the exposure to transportation wo 'ers and the ge.teral public. Thus, the environmental impacts of transportation are covered by Commission regula-tion and cannot be litigated in individual licensing pro-ceedings. See, e.g. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) , LBP-75-33, 1 '7C 618, 619-620 (1975).

Furthermore, NRC and Departaient of Transportation regulations specify explicit safety requirements for the design of shipping containers as well as transportation procedures. See 10 CFR Part 71, 49 CFR Parts 171-178.

These regulations are designed to assure that transportation of radioactive materials does not adversely affect the public health and safety, notwithstanding the possibility of t.ansportation accidenus. Transportation of radioactive materials produced from operation of the Susquehanna facility must and will comply with these regulations. Petitioners' contention is also a challenge to these regulations and should therefore be rejected.

-4 -

Paragraph 1.D (In-vessel Sparcer Failure)

This contention asserts that Applicants' design " fails to solve the problem of flow-induced vibration in the core, thereby creating in-vessel sparger failure." Applicants would not object to the admission of this con).antion.

Paragraphs 2 and 4 These paragraphs do not appear to be contentions by themselves, but are rather somewhat different approaches to the specific issues identified in paragraphs 1.A-D. Appli-cants' responses to paragraphs 1.A-D thus apply to paragraphs 2 and 4.

Paragraph 3 (Price-Anderson Act)

This contention challenges "the protection of the Power Company under the Federal Price-Anderson .sct which limits its liability." The Price-Anderson Act limitation of liability has been upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court. Duke Power Co.

v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 39 (l>78). Challenges to the Price-Anderson Act statutory scheme are outside the scope of NRC licersing proceedings.

See, e.g. Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAR-218, 8 AEC 79, 81 (1974).

Paragraph 5.A (Output of Electricity)

This contention states that:

Applicants' proposed facilities are unreasonably costly and uneconomical both tr.- the Petitioners and the public [because] [t]he output of electric-

5-ity to be produced by the proposed facilities, in relation to cost, will be lower than electricity generated by existing forns of energy and there-fore more expensive to Petitioners and others.

Applicants object to the admission of this contention based upon its vagueness and lack of specificity. It is not clear what is meant by "the output of electricity . . . in relation to cost" being " lower." It is also not clear what is meant by " existing forms of energy"; certainly nuclear power is an

" existing form of energy. " Applicants cannot, based upon the contention as stated, prepare to litigate an issue since it is not possible to determine what that issue is. If the concern expressed in the contention is with the capacity factors used by Applicants, Applicants would not object to the adnission of a contention on that issue.

Paragraph 5.B (Decommissioning)

This contention asserts that Applicants have failed "to account for, or include, the expected cost of decommis-sioning . . . ." This allegation lacks any basis in that Applicants' Environmental Report does include the expected cost of decommissioning. See Environmental Report, p. 8.2-2.

The contention goes on to state that the cost of decom-missioning "is at least equal to the cost of construction and will be borne by future consumers and taxpayers." The question of who is to bear the cost is not relevant to any of the issues in this proceeding. The claim that the cost

will at least equal the construction cost can be read as a challenge to Applicants' projected costs. Applicants would not object co a contention based on this claim.

Paragraph 5.C (Excess Generating Capacity)

This contention asserts that because of high levels of reserves, Applicants "can meet the needs of its customers through existing f acilities and sources . . . . Applicants basically agree with these statements. Pennsylvania Power &

Light (PP&L) has, and will continue to have for some time, high reserve levels. Chapter 1 of Applicants' Environmentc1 Report-Operating Licensing Stage, describes this situation in detail. While these statements would ordinarily form the core of a valid contention, in this instance there is nothing to litigate since Applicants do not challenge the statements.

These statements can thus be considered as admissions by Applicants. See 10 CFR S2.742. These admissions, however, provide no basis for denying issuance of operating licenses.

As shown in Applicants' Environmental Report, cperation of the units is justified on economic grounds notwithstanding the reserve levels identified in the contention. See Environmental Report S1.1. Petitioners have not challenged this justification. Thus these statements, even if accepted as a contention, do not require hearing consideration.

Paragraph 5.D (Electric Rates)

This contention states that Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission regulations would result in a doubling of

PP&L's rates on completion of the Susquehanna facilities and that the cost of the Susquehanna plant would be borne by PP&L customers although the electricity will be sold outside PP&L's service area. The setting of electric rates is outside the jurisdiction of MRC and the scope of this pro-ceeding. Since the contention does not assert that the rate changes themselves would affect the need for the plant, no issue is presented which is appropriate to this hearing.

Paragraph 6 (Evacuation Procedures)

This contention argues that Applicants' emergency procedures are inadequate because of the failure to provide for evacuation drills and warnings. The Commission has rejected a petition for rulemaking which sought to require such drills and warnings. That Commission action mandates denial of this contention.

On August 6, 1975, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) requested that NRC require licensees to distribute emergency plan instructions to the public within a 40 mile radius of the facility, to disseminate information explaining these plans to the public, and to conduct actual evacuation drills at least annually. On July 7, 1977, the NRC denied the PIRG petition. See Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-50-14, 42 Fed. Reg. 36326 (1977). The denial was based upon the NRC's ana2 fsis "that the proposed rule would not further ensure the health and safety of the public, and in fact may increase the probability of injuries and

loss of life, in addition to causing other inconveniences and costs not commensurate with the benefit." 42 Fed. Reg.

at 36328. In view of this ruling by the Commission, the contention should not be admitted. See also Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2),

ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 197 (1978).

The January 12, 1979 Supplement does not explicitly refer back to the Petitioners' initial Petitien for Leave to Intervene and/or Request for Rehearing, dated September 7, 1978. Scme of the contentions included in the Petition are not included in the Supplement, while others appear in the Supplement in modified form. The contentions in the Petition are set forth in paragraphs 5A-H. Applicants' responses to these contentions are set forth below.

Paragraph 5.A (Violation of 10 CFR Part 20)

This paragraph is essentially identical to paragraph 4 in the Supplement. See Applicants' response to that contention.

Paragraph 5.B (Frecuency of Class 8 Accidents)

This centention alleges that " Class 8" accidents involving small pipe breaks and large pipe breaks "are common to the design of Applicants' facilities" and that releases resulting from these accidents "would be in quantities prohibited by 10 CFR S20.1 et seq."

The first part of the contentiea fails to present an issue suitable for litigation. While it states that certain

accident types "are common" and have a " great" probability or likelihood, it provides no basis for this statement. Such support is particularly appropriate since no Class 8 accident involving either a large pipe break or a small pipe break has ever occurred to a BWR such as the Susquehanna (or indeed to a PWR as well). This part of the contention should be denied absent some basis for Petitioners' assertions on the probability or likelihood of these accidents.

The second portion of the contention is a challenge to Commission regulations. Part 20 establishes limits on routine releases from reactors. It does not apply to severe accident situations. Dose limits for the severe accident case are specified in 10 CFR Part 100 and as shown in the Fina_ Safety Analysis, S15, the Susquehanna facility complies with these limits.

Paragraph 5.C (Reactor Coolant Pump Overspeed)

This paragraph seems to be the predecessor to the more specific paragraph 1.A in the Supplement. See Applicants' response to that contention.

Paragraph 5.D (Alienment of Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System Pumo)

This contention asserts that Applicants' had failed to ade-quately respond to an NRC Notice of Violation on alignment of a reactor core isolation cooling system pump. Applicants' believe that their response to this Notice of Violation, as described in PP&L's letter to NRC dated June 12, 1978, is

adequate. However, Applicants would not object to the admission of such a contention and will present testimony on

.the appropriateness and adequacy of Applicants' response.

Paragraph 5.E (Bergen Paterson Product Defects)

This contention claims that Applicants have inadequately responded to and- complied with Inspection & Enforcement Bulletin 78-10 on defects in hydraulic snubbers manufactured by Bergen Patterson. As Applicants' response to the I&E Bulletin stated, the Susquehanna project does not use any of the products identified in the Bulletin. See letter from N. W. Curtis, Vice President, PP&L, to NRC, dated August 14, 1978. The contention should be denied absenc sume basis that the Susquehanna facility does in fact use the Bergen Pr. terson products.

Paragraph 5.F (Existing Forms of Energy)

This paragraph seems to be the predecessor to the more specific paragraph 5.A in the Supplement. See Applicants' rLsponse to that contention.

Paragraph 5.G (Risk of Harm)

This centention asserts that operation of the Susquehanna facility " creates an unreasonable risk of harm . . . which outweighs [its] benefits . . . ." No information is provided on the nature of the harm, the magnitude of the risk, the types of benefits or their magnitude. The statement is not an adequate contention absent specificity and basis.

Paragraph 5.H (Evacuation Procedures)

This contention is identical to paragraph 6 of the Supplement. See Applicants' response to that contention.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in Applicants' September 21, 1978 Answer to " Petition for Leave to Intervene and/or Request for Hearing" submitted by Colleen Marsh and Eleven Other Individuals, Applicants respectfully submit that Colleen Marsh, et al. should be admitted as intervenors in this proceeding and that Paragraphs 1.B, l.D, and 5.B of the Supplement and paragraph 5.D of the Petition be admitted as the contentions of Colleen Marsh, et al.

Respectfully submitted, SEAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By -

Jay E. Silbefg Alan R. Yuspeh Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated: January 26, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )

and ) Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) 50-388

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing

" Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Colleen Marsh, et al." were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by hand, this 26th day of January, 1979, to all those on the attached Service List.

f-Alan R. Yuspsh f

Dated: January 26, 1979

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

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission Docketing a'nd Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Atomic Safety and Licensing Co-Director Board Panel Envi- nmental Coalition on U '. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Power Washington, D. C. 20555 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atcmic Safety and Licensing Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Board Panel c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 South River Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Board Panel ,y Post Office Box 377 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi;ssion R. D. 1 Washington, D. C. 20555 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Colleen Marsh Board Panel 558 A, R. D. #4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mt. Top,. Pennsylvania 18707 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bureau of Radiation Protection Board Panel Department of Environmental Resource U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Enecutive Legal Directar U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555