ML19294B055

Request for Reconsideration of ASLB Refusal to Certify Contentions 16 & 20 Admissibility Question,In Light of SECY-79-594.NRC Position Inconsistent Re Classification of Incidents.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19294B055
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/08/1980
From:	Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002270074
Download: ML19294B055 (2)

Text

-

e. N

.t h D 900 3 A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '.h I-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION --

\ g$60

, g(,B Q[

$ /

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e5 /

D G!

\V In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The Union of Concerned Scientis ts requests the Board to reconsider its refusal to certify the question of the admissi-bility of UCS Contentions No. 16 and 20 in light of the attached staff document, SECY-79-594. UCS just received the document in response to an information request. Among other per tinent statements, it incl udes the following:

The staff now believes that the classi-fication system employed in the proposed annex should probably be abandoned. (c. 2)

UCS feels complete frustration. While the staff obviously realizes full well that the TMI accident demonstrated the bank-ruptcy of its present system of classifying accidents,1/ it continues to try to avoid its responsibility in this case to correct its error. Moreover, the staff never informed this Board that it had recommended abandoning its classification system. To the contrary, it has acted throughout this proceed-ing as if it continues to support the classification system and UCS had the burden of establishing some case-specific flaw in it as a threshold matter in order to maintain a contention.

1/ See also NUREG-0585, p. A A-15.

b'G 02 2 70 6 ] h

The nexus between the UCS Contention and TMI is abundantly clear and the enclosed document acknowledges it: The reason why the staff recommends abandoning its present practice is precisely because the accident disclosed its ceneric faules, not simply its failure to predict the precise TMI sequence of events.

If our contentions are inadmissible, there will be no record made on the real risks of a major reactor accident at TMI. We respectfully submit that, while technically correct, it's not a sufficient answer to note that the licensee bears the ultimate burden if the UCS contentions are later ruled on appeal to be admissible. By then, the pressure will be inexorable to permit the plant to resume operation and to resolve UCS's contention later.

In light of the inconsistencies in the staff's position

, and the resulting prejudice to UCS and in view of the fact that these issues go the heart of Commission policy, UCS again urges certification of these questions to the Comnission.

Resoectfully submitted,

,d 0 -

/lr ', 3 'd f v

Ellyn R. Weiss SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 PTas hi ng t on , D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 DATED: February 8, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON )

COMPANY, et al., ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island )

Nuclear Station, Unit )

No. 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing document entitled " Request for Reconsideration," postage prepaid this 8th day of February, 1980, to the following:

Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan i 881 W. Outer Drive /

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 sh 'q Dr. Linda W. Little ff, 4"6Rui. " 0 5000 Hermitage Drive -- -

' T. ? 2 Raleiegh, North Carolina 27612 (C.

c 76'i.' 'c 'gg ZI .e

+. oba, t.\

e- -

George F. Trowbridge, Esquire i C ,pq Sjgtlyff'tv,^

s.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge \l.3 1800 "M" Street, N.W. j

'/ ,-

Washington, D.C. 20006 C, James Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

,h6 Ellyn R7' Weiss

se am ea

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAsHIN GTON, D. C. 2o5s5 INFORMATION REPORT - -

FOR: The Cormissioners FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director _

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .

THRU: Executive Director for Operations , ,

SUBJECT:

CLASS 9 ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS ,

PURPOSE: To inform the Commission of staff activities relating to consideration of Class 9 accidents in NEPA and Safety Reviews.

BACKGROUND: 'By memorandum dated September 14, 1979 from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, to Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations, subject "SECY-78-137-Assessments of Relative

. Differences in Class 9 Accident Risks In Evaluations of Alternatives to Sites With High Population Densities,"

the staff was requested to discuss with the Commissioners:

(1) how it intends to define Class 9 and design basis accidents, (2) ' how these accidents will be included in reviews (and possibly re-reviews for existing plants),

and (3) how siting should be revised in light of Three Mile ~ Island. -

This paper is the initial response and outline of approach of the staff to this recuest. It has also been structured as a response to the related requests to the staff by the Commissioners which is contained in their Memorant ,and Order dated September 14, 1979, "In the Matter cf Offshore Power Systems." There the staff was requested (a) to provide recommendations on how the proposed Annex to Appendix D,10 CFR Part 50, might be modified, on an interim basis, to reflect developments since its publication in 1971 and to accord more fully with current staff policy in this area, until rulemaking on the subject of tne proposed Annex is completed, and (b) also in the interim to bring to the Commission's attention, any individual cases in which the staff

, believes the environmental consecuences of Class 9 accidents should be considered.

• SCCPE: To be fully responsive to these recuas' a c="

conclu encomp Atcmic DUPLICATE DOCUMENT _h anc sa. p-WS)- Entire document previously opment entered into system under:

g' Contac:: ANO e Q n.

riayne Houston, NR?, 4 8 I'27223 N o. of pages:

00'

• ^

2 . , ,

DISCUSSION: safety reviews as reported in staff Safety Evaluation (continueo) Reports and in environment ' reviews as reported in Staff Environmental Impact Statements is given in Enclosure 1.

The following discussion treats iri succession the staff approach to the three questions raised in the September 14th Chilk memorandum.

1. Classifyinc and Definino Accidents (a) NEpA Reviews (Environmental Imoact Statements)

The proposed Annex to Appendix D incorporated a system of classifying postulated accidents for NEPA purposes. As noted therein, "Since it is not practicable to consider all possible accidents, the spectrum of accidents, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious, is divided into classes." Thtitaff now believes that the cAassificatiotsystem_ employed in the propos'ed The principal

~

7r![e~_x3fipWQ.!5ba_b,.)y_ be abanconed.

^

reaschTfor this is that the staff feels that more realistic assessments of accident. risks can now be made as a result of developments in quantitative risk assessment techniques and 13

% th.p l.ight..of the Threelile . Island accident.

~

Therefore, the~ staff is g'iving serious con-

~

sideration to the utilization of a continuum -

representation'of the probability of exceeding selected environmental consequences based upon work which has been carried on by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Probabilistic Analysis Staff. This approach would reflect characteristics specific to classes of plants.

• e.g., BWR's, PWR's, various containments, and site specific population and atmospheric dispersion characteristics. f

.a c cid,e n kpp,s.s.i b.i l i_t i e s, .wou,l d,3e, r.a.ng e_o.. inc In future Environmental impact Statements, e; vents.

such a representation of accident risks would be accompanied by a suitable qualitative dis-cussion of a range of possible accidental events as well as the uncertainties associated with the risk computations.

The staff intends to develop for Ccmmission consideration a policy statement as an interim measure reflecting the above approach; such l statement to be transmitted to the Commission by January 1, 1950. It is anticipated that the policy statement would withdraw the 1971 proposed Annex, and also address the need for continuation of the rulemaking on this matter. .