ML19327A500

Positions Formulated as of 800725.Class 9 Accident Scenarios Re Sholly Contention 17 & Environ Coalition on Nuclear Power Contention 4 Must Be Admitted.Urges Presentation of Evidence Re Emergency Response Improvement.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19327A500
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/31/1980
From:	Carter K PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008060276
Download: ML19327A500 (12)

Text

a

• PA 7/31/80 4

C3 0)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( 4 NUCLEAR PEGULATORY CQNISSIQ1 g.

BEFORE THE ATQ4IC SAFETY AND LICDSING BOARD 2 g 4 @ e, - i In the Matter of ) 0 77 METROPOLITAN EDISQ4 COMPRE, ) I*

f

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart) ' M"- J Station,UnitNo.1) )

CDbtDE.ALTH OF PENISYLVANIA'S REPORT I Q1 POSITIONS FORMJIATED BASED ON INFOIh*'IQ1 AVAILABIE AS OF JULY 25, 1980 t

u The Atcxnic Safety and Licensing Becrd has requested Ccxmenwealth agencies participating in the above-captioned proceeding to serve by July 31, 1980 a report on those positions they have adopted " based on inforration then available."1 This report respends to that request, and is divided into two parts. The first outlines the general nature of the role the Cocro: wealth has elected to play at this stage of the proceeding.

The second part of this report enumerates those specific issues on nich Pennsylvania has elected to take a positicn at this time. In adopting this posture, Pennsylvania in no way i:: plies a waiver of its additional rights to participate as set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) .

I. CCtt0tWALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S GEERAL PIAN OF PARTICIPATIQ4.

Failure to adopt a concrete position on scoe issues does not preclude active participation by Ccnmmealth attorneys with respect to all issues in the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) allcus the representatives of state agencies:

a reasonable opportunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witresses, and advise the Ccmrission without requiring the representative to take a position i with respect to the issue. Such participants ray also file l proposed findings and exceptions pursuant to 552.754 and '

2.762 and petitions for review by the Cocr:ission pursuant to 52.786. .

l

-l

1. bbmcrandu:n and Order on Pre-hearing Conference on May 13, 1980 (May 22, 1980), at 8.

soasooo 2g G- s ./, 1

• I

, PA 7/31/80 e

This general participation will take the following forms:

(1) Independent of the substantive issues involved in the pro-caeding, Fennsylvania desires that the Board's decisions be made on the i

basis of a full, fair and accurate record. Therefore, Pen:ssylvada .

intends to introduce evidence in areas of state expertise, including -

evidence on issues on which Pennsylvania has not taken a position.

~

(2) Pernsylvania will exercise freely its right to cross-exrine {

witnesses in an effort to inprove the quality and credibility of the l record.

(3) Pennsylvania reserves its right to take positions on critical procedural issues. Again, this posture is based on the Cmcenwealth's interest in the fairness and cmpleteness of the record. For instance, although Pennsylvania ackncwledges the limited jurisdiction of the Board and the requirment that evidence be relevant, material, and reliable, it' hopes that 10 C.F.R. f 2.743 will be construed liberally so that all pertinent information will be weighed.2

. (4) Pennsylvania will adopt a strong position on all questions of burden of proof. The general rule established by 10 C.F.R. 52.732 is .

.i that "the applicant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof." Essentially, Metropolitan Edison is seeking an order pern:itting it to restart the Unit 1 reactor.3 The burden of proof thus is clearly l on the licensee to dem:nstrate that such an order would be censistent

2. 10 C.F.R. 52.743(a) provides: "Every party to a proceeding shall have the right to present such oral or documentary evidence and conduct such cross-examination as may be recuired for full and true disclosure of the facts." (ephasis added). The tiRC's August 9, 1979 Order and Notice of Hearing instructed that "the Licensing Board should exercise 3 its authority to seek to ensure that it receives all information necessary -

to a thorough investigation and resolution of the questions before it."

(p. 11).

3. August 9,1979 Order and Notice of Hearing at 8,15. .

PA 7/31/80 ,

with the public health, safety, and interest. Specifically, the August 9 NRC order expressly inposes upon the licensee the burden of demonstrating ,

that a nuser of conditions are met prior to restart.' As to the specific actions required by the NRC order, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation renders the initial decision regarding the empletion of "short-term" actions and the achieveent of reasonable progress toward the empletion 1 of "long-term" actions. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania believes that the i

burden of proof is ultimately on the licensee to demonstrate that sixh j i

actions have been satisfactorily empleted.  :

(5) The unique status afforded to state agencies by 5274 of-the  :

Atomic Energy Act and 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) enables Pennsylvania to reserve  !

I judgment on any question of fact or issue of law on which it currently ,

elects not to adopt a position. Pennsylvania hereby reserves its right to file proposed findings of fact and exceptions and to participate actively ,

in the-Cmmission review regardless of the position it adepts on a particular issue at this stage of the proceeding.5 Pennsylvania adopts this position

. due to its status as a representative of the public interest6 and its desire to reserve judgment regarding issues on which there currently exists insufficient evidence to render a rational decision.

II. SPECIFIC POSITIONS OF THE CatDMEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BASED ON IhTORMATION AVAIIABIZ AT IHIS TIME.

For the purpose of issue identification, this report follcus the organization suggested in "Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Becarnendations on

4. Id._ at 6-7.

5. See In re Gulf States Utilities Co. , A1AB-317, March 4,1976, re rinted

Ln 2 NUC. REG.10:.r. (CCH) 130, 053.02.

~

6. See In re EXXON Nuclear 6. , Inc. , A1AB-447, Dec.13,1977, reprinted rn 2 RUC. REG. to:.v. (CW) 130, 255 (concurring opinion of Salzman, h r, ASIAB).

~ 1

PA 7/31/80 Contention Grouping" (May 19, 1980), with the addition of one category entitled " Emergency Planning."

Pennsylvania agrees with a nucber of the contentions raised by the intervenors. Pennsylvania's extent of agreement with these contentions, however, fits into two categories: Grouc A: he contention is valid and has not been addressed adequately by the August 9,1979 NRC Order or subsequent staff review; both the licensee and the NRC staff bear a heavy burden of demmstrating that these cencerns are adequately addressed prior to restart; Grouc B: he centention states a valid and necessary prerequisite to restart, but has been addressed adequately by a required NRC action; however, the licensee still bears the burden of proving full ccupliance with this condition prior to restart.

B e omission of a contentien from one of these two categories does

. not imply disagreement with that contentien at this time. Rather, failure to adopt a position sinply means that the Cocummalth currently i has no opinion with respect to that ccatention. As stated earlier, Pennsylvania reserves its right to take a position on these issues as more infer: ration becanes available.

Class 9 Accidents.

Pennsylvania believes tha.t the accident scenaries set forth in Sholly Cententica 17 and ECNP Centention 4 are possible and should be addressed. However, since other possible scenaries may lead to a Class 9 accident, this concern cannot be addressed fully by rerely litigating these scenarios. Berefore, a reevaluation in light of the M -2 accident of the NRC's method of determining Wich possible accidents fall within the design basis is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance that a Class 9 accident will not occur at M-1.

-4

PA 7/31/80 9

Group A Contentions - Sholly 17 EGP 4 UG 13 Human Factors.

The IRC Order addresses these concerna as they relate to a M -2 tvoe accident. ,

Group B Contentions - Sholly 15 ANGRY Sc Radiation Monitoring.

It nust be demonstrated that the inadequacies in Licensee's management of radiation nonitoring durire the M-2 accident will not be repeated at M -1. The Licensee should be required to finalize its

~

detailed errvircrnental nonitoring prorja:n and to give it wide public disse =ination as a means of alleviating psychological stress.

Grouc A Contention - Sholly 9 Grouc B Contention - Sholly 5 Qualification of Camponents and Controls.

Since certain essential instruments failed due to flooded areas after

. the M-2 accident, this type of accident-induced environmental conditions rust be evaluated for essential safety-related instruments prior to M -1 restart.

Group A Contentions - LU 12 Group B Contentions - UCS 3 UCS 4 UCS 5 Financial Issues.

It is critical that the Licensee dercastrate its financial' ability

~

- to cperate M-1 sinultaneously with the M-2 clearmp. It should be noted, however, that M-1 restart, absent another accident, would probably improve rather than impair Licensee's financial health.

Group A Contentions - GA 9 7MIA 6

+

PA 7/31/80 NEPA.

Pennsylvania urges the Board to decide the question of whether an EIS is required as early as possible in this proceeding to avoid potential further delay in final resolution of the restart petition.

IDCA Analysis.

The Licensee cust danonstrate that it has Inade appropriate changes at M-1 in accordance with the generic evaluation of small break 10CA's for Babcock and Wilccx-designed reactors (NL' REG-0565) .

Grouc B Contentiers - LES 8 EGP le Hydrogen Gas Control.

'Ihe Licensee has demonstrated that hydrogen control is manageable for a design basis H)CA but not for potential Class 9 accidents.

Grouc'A Contentions - Shelly 11 liCS 11 Grous B Contentions - ANGRY 5a Ooerator Training.

The accelerated operator training progra:n appears to satisfy the

. concerns generated by the M-2 accident.

Group B Contentions - Aa::odt 2 .

M -1/ M -2 Separation. I Although waste storage separation issues appear to have been addressed adequately by NPC requirements i= posed thus far, the Licensee nust dmon-strate that absolute ccupliance can be and will be reached.

Grouc B Contentiens - CEA 5 i CEA 6 MA7 Pennsylvania is also extranely concerned that the issue of the cumlative offsite radiation doses frcxn the simultaneous operation of  ;

i M-1 and decontamination of M-2 will not be addressed adequately in 1

~

. ~ . . - ..

PA 7/31/80 light of the withdrawal of MA cententions 1 and 2 and tht removal of E GP Contention 5. It should be adequately da:cnstrated that the probability of accidents at M-2 cleanup which ray exceed the 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix I limits is low ccapared to the probability of an accident at M -1 which could exceed these li=its. It shculd be noted that M-2 cleanup is an essential acti.vity while M-1 restart is cotional.

Containment Isolation.

It is not clear whether the reactor building sump line receives a containment isolation signal.

Grouc A Contentions - Sholly 1, point 2 Grouc B Contentions - Sholly 1, point 1 Plant Ccncuter Systen.

It nust be deonstrated that the ccrputer-related difficulties that occurred during the M-2 accident are not repeated at M-1, althcugh the ccuputer should rrain a suppleental information systen rather than a primanf safety-related systen.

Group A Contentions - Sholly 13 ECNP la ECCS Bvpass.

Procedural changes rather than technical modifications are nest uppropriate to prevent an operator ECCS Bypass.

Grouc B Cententions - Sholly 3 UCS 10 Instrumentation.

Ihe dcensee has not cccritted. itself to a design that will provide an unarbiguous indication of the degree of inadequate core cooling.

Group B Contentions - ANGRY Sb UCS 7 ECNP Ic, d Sholly 6b I

PA 7/31/80 Emergency Plaming.

Because of the recent revisica of the emergency plans (distributed to the parties in June), the consequent suspension by the. Board of the schedule as it applies to emergency plaming issues, and the setting of a new dad 14e for final contentions, the Ccuromealth understands that it is not required to take a position on emergency plaming issues at this time. However, even in the absence of final contentions, the Camorw.alth can address two i=pertant points.

First, although Pennsylvania agrees that expediency is desirable, it also views the adequacy of federal, state and local emergency plaming and response capabilities as an essential prerequisite to the restart of 'IMI-1.

'Iherefore, consideration of the energency plaming issues should be extended so that all relevant information can be analyzed thcroughly. 'Ihe pending prmulgation of the final NRC emergency planning regulations (44 Fed.

Reg. 75167 (1979)) argues in favor of postpcasnent until the regulatory structure is clarified. Moreover, the lack of NRC staff analysis of Licensee's Revised Frergency Plan makes a ccnplete analysis of the Plan's adequacy impossible. Although the September 8, 1980 deadline for ccatenticas7 annears adequate at this time, additicnal discovery periods should be provided as new infor=aticn beccmes available. In any case, Pennsylvania intends to request additional time to form 21 ate its positions en the revised contentions after the Septe er 8 deadline, as it has received with respect to the other issues in the proceeding.

Second, Pemsylvania is concerned that the record will be 'incmplete unless the NRC staff presents evidence to deronstrate that federal emergency res' pense capabilities have been improved since the 'IMI-2

7. Memorandum and Order Resuming Schedule For Discovery and Cententions on Emergency Plaming (July 15, 1980).

e

PA 7/31/80 accident. This is not a generic concern but one Wich was sHmnlated by specific federal actions during the BE-2 accident. For exa::ple, through-out the accident NRC officials experienced difficulty in receiving and ccumunicating accurate informatien to and from the Licensee and the appropriate stace agencies. , As a result, a nurber of incorrect and conflicting reccrrnendations were received by state officials. ' Ibis confusion may be compounded by the continuing presence at the site of NRC officials monitoring DE-2 cleanup operations. The opinions of these on-site officials may conflict with information or instructions received frcm NRC headquarters. No documents or plans have been produced to demonstrate that such potential conflicts will be corrected prior to restart and to analyze 4 ether or hcw these changes will affect the state's emergency response. Pennsylvania expects that federal witnesses and other evidence will be presented to prove that the BE-2 n:ishaps will not be repeated at a potential DE-1 accident.

& ' bY a t'[T &

KARIN W. CARTER Assistant Attorney General Cumusealth of Pennsylvania

-9

PA 7/31/80 UNITED SIAIES OF AMERICA 4 NUCL.AR REGULATORY CDt141SSION (

'M1 hello \\

EEFORE 71E A70t41C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD D Aus 41980

• C In the Matter of )

Office of the Seerstay

-12

) #

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON 00t@INY, ) g $ 'g

• 7

) Docket No. 50-289 4 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Res, art) w iro Station, Unit lio. 1) )

w ir1CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the attached Cummalth of Pennsylvania's Report en Positions Form.tlated Based on Information Available as of July 25, 1980 was mailed, postage prepaid, this 31st day of July, 1980, to the persons on the attached Service List.

AI (

KARIN W. CARIER d- l Assistant Attorney General

w.

UNITED STATES OF AFERICA NUCLEAR REGULAIORY CatESSION BEFORE THE AIQ EC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

FEIROPOLITAN EDISON CDEANY, )

) Docket Ib. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST

. George F. Trowbridge,. Esquire Theodore A. Adler, Esquire

.. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler 1800 M Street, N.W. P. O. Box 1547 Washington, D.C. 20006 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Ivan W. Smith, Esquire

~

R.D. #5 . Chairman Coatesville, Pemsylvania 19320 Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mission Ms. Holly S. Keck, leg. Chairtran Washington, D.C. 20555 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY) Dr. Walter H. Jordan

-245 W. Philadelphia Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel York, Pemsylvania 17404 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Dr. Linda W. Little Plant Postponement Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 2610 Grendon Drive 5000 Hermitage Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Raleigh, Ibrth Carolina 27612 Mr. Robert Q. Pollard Docketing and Service Section 609 Montpelier Street Office of the Secretary Balitrore, Maryland 21218 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Consumer Advocate Ellyn R. Weiss Department of Justice Sheldon, Harmon, Rois:ran & Weiss Stras erry Square, 14th Floor 1725 I Street, N.W.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. (PANE)

Enviwou=utal Coalition on Nuclear Sheldon, Harrt:rn, Roisman & Weiss

. Power 1725 I Street, N.W. , Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Mr. Steven C. Shelly Office of the Executive legal 304 South Market Street Director -

Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrm.ssion Washington, D.C. 20555 I

s John A. lavin, Esquire Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Assistant Counsel Attorney for Newberry Township Pennsylvania Public Utility T.M.I. Steering Comittee Comission 2320 lbrth Second Street P.O. Box 3265 lbrrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 ,

Parvin I. Isis Robert L. Knupp, Esquire 6504 Bradford Terrace Assistant Solicitor '

Philadelphia, Pemsylvania 19149 County of Dauphin P.O. Box P Jane Lee 407 North Front Street R.D. 3, Box 3521 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Etters, Pemsylvania 17319 John E. Minnich Chairrran, Dauphin County-Board of Cotraissioners Dauphin County Courthouse Frcr.t and Market Streets Farrisburg, Pemsylvania 17101 1

l

~

M v