ML19320A823

Reconsideration of Contentions,Withdrawing Prior Contentions 2,7,10 & 12,modifying Contentions 1,5,6,8,9,11,14,16,& 17 & Retaining Contentions 3,4,13 & 15.Draft of Revised Contentions & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19320A823
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/05/1980
From:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007020651
Download: ML19320A823 (15)

Text

f SHOLLY, 6/5/ g 7 -

c"

.- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

/ DOCKETED D

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0F.4ISSION , USNRC ,

Zi'

~

JUN 131980 > '. 9 BEFORE 'nIE -ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gtka et the WM paisting & W ;>

$ granch In the Matter of }

) g C9 (D

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY es t (Three Mile Islar.d Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) )

INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY RECONSIDERATICN OF CONTENTIONS

. l The Board's Order of 22 May 1980 specifies the date for the filing of -

a reconsideration of contentions by parties in this proceeding. Based upon ,

the Board's Order, this filing would be due 45 days af ter service of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) . This Intervenor has had the ratter of reconsideration of contentions under evaluation for several weeks. Rather than waiting unnecessarily for the filing deadline, the reconsideration of l

contentiot s is being filed now so that parties are advised of my intentions l 1

at teh earlisst possible date. The contentions fall into a number of categories and will be handled individually within each of the respectiva categories. ,.,.

4. _ .; c ,v .

'Wsi::::? . . . . . .

22 ? :. :: [ , ~. . ' ~

CONTENTIONS TO BE WITHDRAWN

. 2,t.wg . ,

Contention #2--QUALIFICATION OF PORV AND CODE SAFETY VALTES --

This contention deals with the compliance of the reactor-- . coolant pressure.. .-

~

boundary with the General Design Criteria of 10 CFR Fart -~

SA,~ispecially the - -. . . ,

PORV and Code Safety Valves. The contention also add'resses the- need.f.or _ ___ ,

appropriate qualifications testing f or these valves prior to the Restart of

$ S 03 -

, *00'r on65l S*//

- =

,, RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS ,~ 2,- SHOLLY, 6/5/80 m .- ..

TMI-1. ,

These issues will be addressed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in direct testimony and cross-examination with regards to UCS Contentions

1. 5 and #6. It is apparent after assessing my resources that I will not be able to contribute significantly to the record on this issue, and therefore I am withdrawing this contention. I am confidant that any contribution to the record on this issue which I can make can be successfully channeled through Counsel for UCS, Ms. Ellyn Weiss.

. Contention #7-COMPLETENESS OF LOCA ANALYSIS This contention calls into question the completeness of Licensee's LOCA analysis with reference to compliance with Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50 requirements. The issues covered by this contention are adequately addressed by UCS Contentien #8. As with Contention #2 above, I feel that UCS will be making the most substantial contribution to the record on this issue through their technical witness, tir. Robert D. Pollard. Again, I am confidant that I can work with UCS in addressing this issue; I am therefore withdrawing this contention from consideration.

Contention #10--NEPA AND SEPARATION ISSUES The first part of this contention calls for an environmental impact analysis of the cleanup of TMI-2 with regards to the impact on operations of TMI-1. The Commission has committed to and is in the process of preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement covering all aspects of the TMI-2 cleanup. I do not feel competant to address the legal issues involved, especially when there are litigants in the proceeding represented by legal

,, - -<v

- . ~

RECONSIDERATICH OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80 J

. AY -

• counsel with experience in this very issue. I defer to their expertise on this issue. The remainder of Contention #10 addresses the management issue, namely that the Licensee should be required to show competancy to both operate TMI-1 safely and at the same time perform the cleanup of TMI-2. This portion of the contention will be combined with Contention #14 which also addresses the management issue. I feel that this will simplify the issue with respect to my contentions and will be a more efficient way of handling the management issues. I am therefore withdrawing Contention #10 from consideration in part, and combining portions of it with Contention #14. The effect of this will be that Contention #10 will not exist for litigation. I Contention #12-NEPA AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS CONSIDERATIONS  !

l l

This contention calls for an environmental impact statement on the l Restart of TMI-1. This issue is again a legal issue which other better i qualified litigants will address. With respect to the psychological distress l

issue, I am confidant that Newberry Township TMI Steering Committee and 1 People Against Nuclear Energy will satisfactorily address the issue. I am further confidant that any input which I may have regarding NEPA and psychological distress issues can be handled internally anong the intervenors by my cooperation with other intervenors whose contentions deal with the same issues. I do not intend to actively pursue this contention; therefore, I am requesting that Contention #12 be withdrawn from consideration.

CONTENTIONS TO BE MODIFIED OR FURITIER SPECIFlED .

Contention #1-CONTAINMENT ISOLATION ,

Most of the issues raised by Contention #1 have been addressed by Licensee committ.ents, NRC requirements, and responses to interrogatories.

RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80 J'

, _ . ~ .!

There are two remaining issues within this contention to be addressed. One is a safety-grade high radiation containment isolation signal for the reactor building vent and purge system. The other is a similar safety-grade high radiation isolation signal for the containment sump discharge line into the Auxiliary Building. Therefore, Contention #1 will be redraf ted along these lines. A safety-grade high radiation signal for the vent and purge system has been proposed by the B & W Transient Response Task Force in NUREG-0667 (See Draf t, NUREG-0667, page 5-64) . Should this reco==endation become a requirement, Contention #1 can be further simplified by deleting the reference to this signal. A draft proposal for revised Contention #1 is attached to this filing for review by the parties.

Contention #5--RADIATION MONITORING In response to Interrogatory 5-1 from Licensee, Ivoluntarily restricted the scope of Contention #5 to the ranges of the radiation monitoring instruments in effluent discharge pathways. Therefore, Contention #5 will be redraf ted to reflect this narrowing of scope. A draft proposal for Contention #5 is attached to this filing.

Contention #6-DESIGN CONSIDERATICNS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ,

Upon reviewing this contention, I find that the concerns raised by the first part of te contention have either been answered or will be addressed by other parties to the proceeding, principally UCS and ECNP. I am therefore deleting the fir'st part of the contention and redraf ting the second part of the contention to make it grammatically consistent. A revised version of Contention #6 is attached to this filing. ,

i

.R$CONSIDERATIONOFCONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80 Contention #8-EMERGENCY PIANNING New emergency plana for the Commonwealth, the five counties surrounding TNE, and the Licensee are due to be filed with the parties early in June. It would be somewhat premature to fully reconsider the subparts of this contention for that very reason, since the revised plans may very well answer some of the concerns addressed by Contention #8, and could also raise new concerns. I have every intention of pursuing this contention during the proceedings. There is one subpart of this contention which is due for additional specification, specifically Contention #8C. A draft versiod of revised Contention #8C is attached to this filing. It should be noted, however, that the new emergency plans may alter even this subpart of Contention #8.

' Contention #9--ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING This contention was withheld from final ruling by the Board pending revision based on receipt of revised Licensee plans. As of this date, I am unaware that Licensee has revised these plans. I intend to pursue this issue in the proceeding, and therefore request the the Board rule on its acceptance.

I am satisfied at this point with the wording of the contention as it was submitted;. revision of the contention is a possibility if Licensee submits a revised environmental radiation mor.t 'er$2g plan in the new emergency plan filings due soon.

Contention #11--HYDROGEN CONTROL ,

l In an Order dated 5/30/80, the Board revised this contention to reflect the results of the Commission's Order of 5/16/80 (CLI'-80-15) . This contention will be handled in a separate filing in conformance with the Board's Order.

A

f RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80 M ...

Contention #14-MANAGEMENT ISSUES As previously indicated herein, I am combining aspects of Contention #10 l

with Contention #14 for the sake of simplicity. As a result of a Commissioners' ruling (CLI-80-5), I will further specify this contention by accepting the issues raised by the Comissioners' Order. A draft version of revised Contention

1. 14 is attached to this filing.

Contention #16--INTERNAL SECURITY / SEPARATION ISSUES This contention is subject to continuing negotiations between myself and the Licensee. It is conveivable that Licensee comitments regarding access from TMI-2 to TMI-1 will address the concerns upon which this contention is based. A draf t version of revised Contention #16 or a filing indicating the disposition of the contention will be forthcoming very soon.

Contention #17-CLASS NINE ACCIDENT CONSIDERATIONS According to a telephone conversation with Mr. Mack Cutchins of NRC Staff, the Staff's Class 9 filing is in the mails at this date; I am therefore deferring revision of this contention until I have had time to review the Staff's filing, which according to Mr. Cutchins is some 80 pages long. This contention will retuire eventual revision to conform with the manner in which it was accepted by the Board (i.e. , I filed it originally as a NEPA review contention, but the Bcard accepted it on an accident analysis basis) .

\

e

~

RECONSIDERATION'0F CONTENTIONS SHOI.LY, 6/5/80 ,

/

_3 V CONTENTIONS TO BE RETAINED IN THEIR PRESENT FORM

, Contention #3--ECCS OPERATING PROCEDURES AND HYDROGEN GENERATION This contention is being retained temporarily pending the outcome of the filings by the parties concerning the Board's hydrogen gas control Order.

It is conceivable that this contention will be combined with Contention #11, but this is not yet clear.

Contention #4-RADIATION MONITORING AND RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT This contention will be retained in its present form. It is conceivable -

i that revisions may be necessitated by newly filed emergency plans when these plans become available.

4 Contention #13-COMPUTER ISSUES  !

This contention will be retained as is for litigation. It is conceivable that it could be combined with Contention #15, but this must be discussed. I intend to pursue this issue, i.e., the sufficiency of Licensee's control room computer, in the proceeding.

Contention #15--HUMAN FACTORS QUESTIONS

) - This contention will be retained as is for litigation.

REVISED CONTENTIONS AND OTHER MATTERS 4 l

l Revised contentions are attached to this filing as Appendix A. I have contacted Mr. Smith (telephone call, 6/4/80) regarding Contention #14, which w e -- .- - - , .--e. - r, gw., , - --- -n -

RECONSIDERATI W OF CONTENTI W S SHOLLY, 6/5/80

.. /

in its revised form may be regarded as a broadening of the contention, rather than a further specification. Mr. Smith assured me that in either event, this filing will be accepted as timely.

I will be prepared to discuss the revised contentions with the Board, the Staff, the Licensee, and interested parties; contact by telephone is Preferable to an " avalanche of paperwork" regarding these revised contentions.

Respectfully submitted, h '

Steven C. Sholly work--717/233/4241, 233-6 home--717/766-1857 DATED: 5 June 1980 l

~t -

e- - - , . - , - - - - - , - - , . - - - r--

j c' SHOLLY, 6/5/80 7j- Appendix A DRAFT REVISED CONTENTIONS CONTENTION #1 It is contended that in order to adequately protect the public health and safety, the containnent isolation signals for TMI-1 must include the following:

1. A safety-grade high radiation signal for the reactor building vent and purge system.

2. A safety-grade high radiation signal for the reactor building sump discharge piping. .

It is further contended that such additions to the containment isolation signals must be made prior to the Restart Of TMI-1 in order to adequately protect the public health and safety.

Contention #5 It is contended that Licensee has not provided radiation monitoring instruments in effluent discharge pathways which are capable of remaining on-scale during anticipated operational occurrences, postulated accidents, and Class 9 accidents as specified in Contention #17.

It is further contended that the insufficiency in range of these instruments prevents the Licensee from making sufficiently accurate predictions of the quantities of radiation which are being released from TMI-1, and that this places the public health and safety at significant risk because such information

.is required by public officials and plant operators to provide the basis for decisions on the need for protective actions.

It is further contended that protection of public health and safety requires that the .high-range effluent monitoring system be installed priqr to r-_

. . i RECONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80

/

_;/

Restart of THI-1, and that the high-range effluent monitoring system be capable of remaining on-scale under conditions specified in this contention.

Contention #6 It is contended that the short-term actions identified in the Commission's Order and Notice of Hearing dated 9 August 1979 are insufficient to provide the requisite reasonable assurance of operation without endangering public health and safety because they do not include the following items:

a. Completion- of a failure mode and effects snalysis (FMEA)* of the Integrated Control System,

b. Completion of the installation of instrumentation for the detection of inadequate core cooling.

c. Completion of the installation of the hydrogen gas control penetrations of the containment.

d. Completion of the review of the basis for recombiner use.

Contention #8C The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's specification of and Licensee's acceptance of a 10-mile circular Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the plume exposure pathway is inadequate to protect the public health and safety and fails to meet the guidelines set forth in NUREG-0396 (an endorsed in NUREG-0654) because such an EPZ f ails to account for the following local cenditions which should have been considered in establishing the plume EPZ:

a. The ten-mile radius runs through the City of Harrisburg near the southern end of the city. Due to the large concentration of population in Harrisburg, and the .

relatively large contribution to the population dose e

RECO'NSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80

/

f (in man-rems) from an accident at TMI-1 which the city could be expected to make, the entire city of Harrisburg should be included within the plume EPZ.

b. The heavily populated area around and including the City of York falls within approximately 9 to 15 miles of TNI. Due to the large concentration of population in this atea, the relatively large commitment to total population dose which the area could be expected to make, the City of York and the surrounding urbanized area should be included within the Plume EP2.

c. The proposed plume EPZ cuts across numerous jurisdictional boundaries. Any political jurisdiction at the township, city, borough, town, or village level, which is crossed by the proposed 10-mile circular EPZ should have its entire geographic extent included within th'e plume EPZ.

In addition, it is contended that the plans of the Licensee, the Commonwealth, and the counties within the proposed 10-mile EPZ do not contain nor do they reference information, studies, or data which wculd substantiate the ability of the Licensee to initiate information flow and the ability of the appropriate agencies to implement protective actions and the ability of these agencies to successfully carryout these protect:.ve actions with respect to the following:

a. The plans do not sufficiently address the capabilities of proposed access and egress routes to carry the planned

. numbers of vehicles in the event that evacuation is chosen as a protective action, particularly if there 'is a general evacuation of all or most of the EPZ.

- - , - - n. -

~ .

EECCt!SIDERATICN OF CONTENTIONS SHOLLY, 6/5/80

b. The plans do not sufficiently address the possible conflicts in use of access and egress routes in the event that a general evacuation of the EPZ is implemented as a protective action.

Contention #14 The Licensee's management capability, in terms of organizational, staffing, and technical capabilities, is not sufficient to permit safe operation of TMI-1 while simultaneously conducting the cleanup operations at THI-2. In addition, the following specific deficiencies in Licensee's management capability are contended:

a. Licensee's administrative structure, both at the plant and corporate levels, is not appropriately organized so as to assure safe operation of TMI-1 while conducting cleanup operations at TMI-2.

b. Licensee's operations and technical staffs are not sufficiently qualified to safely operate TEI-1.

c. Licensee's Health Physics program is not appropriately organized, nor is it staffed with sufficiently qualified individuals to ensure safe operation of THI-1.

d. Licensee has not made sufficient provision for qualified individuals to provide safety reviews of and operational advice regarding TMI-1.

e; Licensee's maintenance program is insiffuciently staffed and inappropriately organized for the purpose of safely operating l THI-1. -

n 4

e e

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD 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 Intervenor Steven C. Sholly

)

Reconsideration of Contentions dated June 5, 1980, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on June 6,1980, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, this 9th day of June, 1980.

ZM4 -

hn F. Wilson Dated: June 9, 1980 o

g)

,+ =

. y y

/ DOCKUID UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRG ,.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I 3gy -6

&' JUH 1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Othce o ce y Q5 Sm**

G In the Matter of ) dt c)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1)

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O.-Box 2357 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin

. Board Panel P.O. Box P 881 West Outer Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Commissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice -

' 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Washington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, Pennsylvanih 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney for Newberry Township Washington, D.C. 20555 T.M.1. Steering Committee 2320 North Second Street John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Public Utility Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Commission Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

• Pqrson on.whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.

Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss ,

Judith H. Johnsrud suite 506 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W. 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C7 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801

• Steven C. Sholly Marvin I. Lewis 304 South }brket Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 ' Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Holly S. Keck Marjorie M. Aamodt Legislation Chairman R. D. 5 AL i-Nuclear Group Representing Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 York 245 West. Philadelphia Street George F. Trowbridge, Esquire York, Pennsylvania 17404 Shaw, Pitt=an, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Karen Sheldon, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20036 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Suite 506 Susan Barley 1725 Eye Street, N.W. 129 Cocoa Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033 Robert Q. Pollard Chesapeake Energy Alliance 609. Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218

• Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.

4

-- -r- ._