ML19269E375

Requests Denial of Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Plants 790427 Motion Re Consideration of Class 9 Accidents. NRC Policy Provides That Class 9 Accidents Need Not Be Considered in Eis.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19269E375
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	05/11/1979
From:	Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906280017
Download: ML19269E375 (3)

Text

.

/ Of N

NRC PUBLIC DOGUEET ROOM D1 ~~

6--

~

gy$ N '\x$$3 9 # -

d$ f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT -

) Docket Nos. 50-522 CCMPANY, et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) May 11, 1979 Units 1 and 2) ) --

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SCANP

" MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING REVIEW OF STAFF POSITION REGARDING RELEVANCE OF CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS AND RENEWING MOTION TO CONSIDER CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS" At the prehearing conference held on April 24, 1979, inter-venor Skagitoniana Concerned About Nuclear Plants (SCANP) dis-tributed copies of an unsigned, undated " Motion for Order Directing Review of Staff Position Regarding Relevance of Class 9 Accidents and Renewing Motion to Consider Class 9 Acci-dents" (motion). This motion was later served formally by mail on April 27, 1979. Specifically, SCANP requests the Licensing Board to direct the staff to review all matters at issue in this proceeding, and to report back to the Licensing Board and the other parties in a reasonable time, (such as 90 days), with respect to whether or not:

2171 170 7 9 0 6 2 8 ChC)/ 27 0

-5

1. The staff position on any issue in this proceeding should be modified to reflect a con-sideration of the Three Mile Island accident, and if so, when such modification can be expected.

2. Whether it would be appropriate to sup-plement the original EIS and supplemental EIS, to account for, discuss, disclose, and analyze, the consequences of Class 9 accidents, or at least, the actual consequences of the Three Mile Island accident, with respect to licensing this site.

In addition, SCANP also asks that the Board rule that the actual and potential consequences of the Three Mile Island accident, and of the potential for such an accident at the Skagit site, be considered in this proceeding, and evidence be received accordingly, and that intervenors be entitled to maintain their con-tention J9.1 Motion, pp. 2-3. The motion, however, is without merit and the requested relief should, therefore, be denied.

The phrase " Class 9 accident" is a term of art stemming from a 1971 Commission proposal to adopt standard assumptions concerning nuclear power plant accidents for use in preparing environmental impact statements. Proposed Annex to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, 36 Fed. Reg. 22851 (December 1, 1971);

ISCANP's reference to their " contention J9" is confus-ing. Contention J.9 has already been allowed as a matter in controversy in this proceeding. See SCANP Contentions (follows Tr. 67). Cn December 3, 1975 SCANP did file a motion to amend their contention J.7 so as to extend its scope to include con-sideration of Class 9 accidents. That motion was denied by the Licensing Board. See Tr. 4854-55.

2171 171

1 Nuclear Regulation Recorter (CCH) V 7469; see also, 39 Fed.

Reg. 26279 (July 18, 1974). The accidents grouped in Class 9 are'of the most severe kind, involving occurrences such as

" breach of containment" and " core-melt" accidents. Although the consequences of a Class 9 accident might be extremely severe, the likelihood of one occurring is deemed to be so improbable that a nuclear power plant need not be designed with protective systems or safety features to guard against it.

Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 209 (1978), cert. accepted by the Comm'n, 8 NRC --

(Dec. 8, 1978) [ hereinafter offshore Power Systems).

Commission policy also provides that Class 9 accidents need not be considered in 'he NRC's environmental impact statements absent a showing -- not made here -- that special circumstances render a Class 9 accident credible or more likely at the reactors in question than at power reactors generally.

Offshore Power Systems, 8 NRC 209-10; Duke Power Comoany (Catawba, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 415-16 (1976).

This policy, which has been upheld consistently in court deci-sions,2 is based on the judgment that their likelihcod is 2See, e.c., California Environmental Study Group v. AEC, 510 FTIH 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 2171 172

sufficiently remote so as to make the environmental risk extremely small. Offshore Power Systems, 8 NRC 212-14.

In support of its mot.on, SCANP relies entirely on the recent occurrence at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI 2) . According to the motion:

In view of the recent incident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, the basis for staff's refusal to consider the Class 9 accident in connection with safety analysis, and environ-mental impact statement preparation, has dis-appeared. The Three Mile Island incident was an actual or potential Class 9 accident.

Motion, p. 1.

SCANP has made no showing, however, that the incident at TMI 2 involved anything like a Class 9 accident. In fact, although the TMI 2 inci' dent is still under investigation, it appears that no " breach of containment" or " core-melt" occurred. Board Notification - Nuclear Incident at Three Mile Island - Supplement (BN-79-17C) April 17, 1979; PNO-79-67V, April 15, 1979. Furthermore, it would be for the Commission, F.2d 622, 632n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rev'd on other crounds, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1137 (1978).

2171 173

not the Licensing Board, to change the Commission's policy respecting consideration of Class 9 accidents, should the facts ultimately 'so warrant.

Additionally, SCANP has not even attempted to relate what happened at TMI 2 to the proposed Skagit facility. This is not surprising, however, since TMI 2 and Skagit are of basically different design. The former employs a pressurized water reactor, while the latter will use boiling water reactors. As a result, the sequence of events which occurred at TMI 2 would be physically impossible at the Skagit facility. In sum, there has been no showing that either the events at TMI-2 or their consequences would be relevant here.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the motion is wholly witnout basis. SCANP has completely failed to show either why the TMI 2 incident calls for a change in Commission policy with respect to consideration of Class 9 accidents or, in particu-lar, how that incident or its consequences relate to the Skagit 2171 174

-s-

facility or could be relevant to this proceeding. Accordingly, the motion and the requested relief should be denied.

DATED: May 11, 1979.

Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSE, &W IAMS ByC #W '

F. Theodore Thomsen Attorneys for Applicants 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 Of Counsel:

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washing ton, D. C. 20036 Phone (202) 862-8400 2171 175

pI4

. 1 \

9 4

V. eg7 :7 g # >4 3 b

4% 9, i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a @ '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) -

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.

et al. )

) 50-522 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project,- ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )

) May 11, 1979 .

CERTIFICATE OF, SERVICE I hereby certify that the following:

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SCANP "MO"' ION FOR ORDER DIRECTING REVIEW OF STAFF POSITION REGARD.NG RELEVANCE OF CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS AND RENEWING MOTION TO CONSIDER CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shcwn on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on May 11, 1979 with proper postage a# fixed for first class mail.

DATED: May 11, 1979.

% p) )<WA'- ^x F. Theodore Themsen Counsel for Puget Sound Pcwer &

Light Company 1900 Washington Suilding Seattle, Washington 93101 2171 176

Date: 5/11/79

[

Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Energy Facility Site Evaluation 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Council Washington, D.C. 20036 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert C. Schofield, Director School of Natural Resources Skagit County Planning Department University of Michigan 120 West Kincaid Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Portland, OR 97204 A'tomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Washington, D. C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. John H. Buck, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Warren Hastings, Esq.

Appeal Board Associate Corporate Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Michael C. Farrar, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing CFSP and FOB Appeal Board E. Stachon & L. Marbet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Boring, OR 97009 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald Martens, Consul Washington, D. C. 20555 412 Plaza 600 (original and 20 copies) 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, WA 98101 Richard L. Black, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staf f Donald S. Means _

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 277 Office of the Executive Legal La Conner, WA 98257 Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummend & Smith Roger M. Leed, Esq. 1400 Public Service Building 1 L1 Fourth Ave. Bldg. 4610 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Portland, OR 97204 Russell W. Busch, Esq. Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Evergreen Legal Services Assistant Attorney General 520 Smith Tower Temple of Justice 506 Second Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98104 7j jJJ 5/7/79

. _ _ _ _ .