ML20034H184

Discusses Director Decision Under 10CFR2.206 (Metropolitan Edison Co) (DD-80-16)

ML20034H184
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	05/02/1980
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML18058B973	List: ML18058B972 ML20030B346 ML20031C827 ML20032A269 ML20033D367 ML20033D368 ML20033D369 ML20033D370 ML20033D371 ML20033D372 ML20034H176 ML20034H184 ML20034H207 ML20034H244 ML20034H247 ML20034H249 ML20034H251 ML20034H258 ML20034H273 ML20034H334 ML20034H484 ML20034H538 ML20034H550 ML20034J038 ML20034J051
References
FOIA-92-436 2.206, SECY-A-80-065, SECY-A-80-65, NUDOCS 9303160142
Download: ML20034H184 (34)

Text

.

.3.

UNITED 31 Attl 6e

(*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMIS$loN y

44 ADJUDICATORY ITEM SECY-. 80-65 j

Mey 2,1980 d

5, 1

i COMMISSIONER ACTION The ccmaission For:

i Frem:

Martin G. Malsch

.I.

Deputy General Counsel

Subject:

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.205 (METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPAN'J) (DD-80 '16 )

4 J,

Facilitv:

Three Mile Island, Unit 2 3

Review Time Expires:

May 13, 1980 (as extended)

=

Discussions on April 27, 1979 Dr. Chauncey Kepford, on behalf i

of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power i

(ECMP), petitioned the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regu.'.ation (NRR) for emergency action in regard to d

any a'lterations of the " experimental and operatione 4

status of Three Mile Island, Unit 2.

The petition was supplemented by ECNP on May 16, 1979.

On April 16, 1980, 1/ the Director, NRR, responded to Dr. Kepford's requests granting them in part and denying them in part.

2 e

,C 1

L /..

f ECNP's various requests and the s'

' Director's response are discussed below.

~

I In the April 27 petition Dr. Kepford asked that "a public hearing be held prior to any further sciormation in this record v;as deMed experittentation at TMI-2."

The Director inter-in accordance with the freedom cf Ir.fc:mation preted " experimentation" to include the transition Act, exemptions S'

to natural circulation to cool the reactor core.

This transition was safely performed on April 27, F0!A-17 - V.76 ---

1979, the sa.oe day ECNP filed its petition, thus 1

Ho explanation is given for. the one year lapse between the JJ filing of the original petition and the Director's response. ~

We agree, however, that the'neerd for " emergency action" in no longer an issue, regardless of whether it may have been

'i valid at the time of the request.

$$2

{

~

9303160142 921207 9 2i

~

l

~

1 r

PDR FO!A GILINSK92-436 PDR

i 1

UP(

i 'l effectively mooting the question of a prior hearing.. )_/

s In~ regard to holding a public hearing prior to j

taking dther experimental action at.TMI-2, the Director noted that Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires the Commission to grant a hearing to any person.affected by a proceeding to grant, suspend, revoke or amend a license.

The Director noted that the Commission has in fact offered hearings in connection with various orders related to changes at TMI. 4/

lj Dr. Kepford f arther requested that a full safety evaluation be carried out prior to other changes.

in the plant's status.

In the Director's view, the safety evaluation reports and environmental j

evaluations cecompanying all the major proposed i

i' actions at TMI established a sufficient technical basis for the changes ordared.

t Dr. Kepford also requested that ECNP be informed j

prior to any further experimentation or altera-tions to the facility.

The Director believes that the current notification of NRC actions through the existing service and distribution list (which includes Dr. Kepford}-is. sufficient to keep Dr.

Kepford informed in advance of all actions except those recuiring immediate action.

In its supple-mental request, ECNP also asked to be furnished with copies of all materials pertinent to "the

~

ongoing crisis at TAI-2.*

Because ECNP has access.

to all these materials.in the NRC's Public Document i

Rooms and receives copies of documents as a par-ticipant in the TMI-1 proceeding, the Director saw i

no reason for ECNP to receive special treatment in i

r terms of service of materials.

l 1

4 In response to ECNP's request for evecuation in i

4 the event that the experimentation at TMI-1 should result in loss of control, the Director noted l

initially that State and local officials and not.

the NRC have authority to order an evacuation.

In addition, since the reactor is currently in a 77'.i j

"9

-vu 3/

The adequacy of natural convective ecoling is also an admitted contention in the THI-1 restart hearing to which ECNP is a party.

~

4/

ECNP is a party in the THI-1 restart proceeding and has formally requested a hearing based on a February 11, 1980 order.

)

~

l

3 Q

stable state, the Director does not anticipate

~

the need for evacuation in the near future.

In 2

the event that evacuation should be necessary during the clean-up operation, it is not clear what course of action the Director would follow.

In any event, the Director has taken steps to upgrade emergency planning at TMI in the revised emergency plan for Unit I which is expected to be the same as the new plan for Unit 2.

The Director also found no reason to deploy " live, real-time" radiation detectors in a 40-mile radius around the reactor site as requested because he believes that the existing radiation monitoring is adequate for current operations and will be augmented if necessary in the future.

For similar reasons the Director also denied the request for an adjudicatory hearing on the radiation monitoring techniques.

In addition, the Director noted that ECNP may raise the adequacy of monitoring techniques in the TMI-1 hearings to which it is now a party.

The Director deemed ECNP's request for the NRC to publicly announce future planned releases of radio active materials from Unit 2 as essentially granted.

The Commission has prohibited significant future planned releasec without pri..ccmmission approval..

and the concomitant formal authorization would be publicly announced before.paanned releases. 5/

In its May 16, 1979 supplement ECNP nakes numerous additional requests, including a request to prohibit further radioactive releases pending conclusion of a hearing on the issues raised in its two petitions.

The Director denied the request for a special hearing, noting that a number of the issues raised by ECNP relate to the need to evaluate the environ-mental consequences of actions at THI-2.

To the extent that the Commission has committed itself to preparing an environmental impact statement on decontanination and waste disposal, the Director believes that this portion of ECNP's request has been granted.

In the Director's view, ECNP's concern for public participation will be met by the opportunity for public comment on the draft EIS. i ECNP also asked for a public hearing on the

" capability and intent" of Metropolitan Edison in 5/

See Commission statements, 44 F.R.

67738 and Order, 45 F.R.

11282.

y r

operating TMI-2~within NRC's' regulations ~and-in j

. performing clean-upfoperations. _Toithe extent that'ENCP's concerns.come within the " management i

capability" contentions'of the TMI-1 restart' j

' proceeding (including.one admitted-contention-1 raised bv ECNP), the same.-issues will be litigated j

in an adjudicatory hearing on TMI I restart.

The Director saw no reasonJto institute'aEseparate l

proceeding to examine the same-issues.-

I f

I The Director also turned' down ECNP's request to conduct a. hearing on the-possible neg11 ent role i

9 of the' Commission and on the Commission.s ' capability and. intent

• to obey governing -law and regulations.-

Me notad that the Commission's role'has been 1

extensively:axamined in numerous studiosiand.

investigations conducted outside the Commission.

i In-the Director's opinion these other forums, in particular Congress,-are more-appropriate places to register these more generalized concerns about-t the Commission.

l Finally, the Director-axplained that in suspending ~[r !

Metropolitan Edison's operating license for TMI-2,-

the Commission ha, 'aiready taken-one of thei actions requested by Dr. Kopford when he asked that the

'l Commission explore whether THI-2's license should 1

be temporarily or permanently withdrawn.

Order.

l for Modification of License No. DPR-73 (July.20, 1979), published la 44'F.R. 45271 (Aug. 1,-1979).-

e.e e i

~

l i

i Recomraendation s I

fy~ )

N h

~

F Martin G. Malsch l

Deputy General Counsel-l C

Attachments:

4

- g*;

1.

ECNP Petition

.,. t

.j 2.-

ECNP Supplement 3.

Director's Decision i

s l

1

.r 9...

Ccmmissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, May 13, 1980.

t Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the. Commissioners NLT May 8.1980, with an information copy to.the Office of the Secretary.

If t

the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for " analytical' f

review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of j

when comments may be expected.

(

'I f

DISTRIBUTION i

Commissioners Commission Staff Offices i

Exec Dir for Operations Secretariat 3

l 1

!.i f

t i

l l

y + 4,.

5 I..

4-d* 7 j

d i

i 5

I 4

t s, -.

,f.

4 L

i ef**,,.-

t t.*.*.!

t

.cs g..

? t$., #

4,,-.

i

t. ;,...

.:ry,

-, 2K i

.u ;g

/.

.n, s..*

f,*

y

- 4W s

f k m c m.,

u b

-

• w;,g >,.;

,.t.,J_.g.h' f

, e w..,.,

3. ~Q sfg -

5 -

..~;.AttaChBEnt 1 JiQp[ !

. c.:.;.,,n.

3 s

.

T.'?.r.- cy' i

r

. - ;, m ~ -. p

,. sp

e. ~ :

JCL '.-

S.

e e

i,.p..Q -

t kh g-s W>

.s

_a t 9 n., f, - {4 i

q.... w..

t

,N

=

n.,.k t

ps.

?

'e s o

4

.'%0Qls..

i w t u.; 3

.hQ * *ME.

r.. f',e-? M: -

.+

pd t

i

. ~.J.., e. ? = o,4..

9d' 4

"4 ga

~

E so,

'p,

- b

,~ ; >

p % g -g/*fy

,.eR n,;.' -

,i. ~

y h.'n

.,i:;

s' -

.t*lkqw;f m'

S...

a

,,..e..*.j,-

-*i gg g

O v

?(..

l

~s.

.r,

..w 4...~.

4a e.

,~.R.fae.%g

% ' =:. -,' '

+

T

.rp,y.,..,.

7,

.,p 4..

-,. 'a 4

.,s's.,=-

6,4,

.f

=P 3

O et a

• iit

,.4[

p

, &* W i*'t'...a.

..r....

. s, ~ +> a.m. -),.

. c scr ~w

~.

A)?.p* -Q'. 4',4 % e %tM, <.

• % 4 *r. s' L. * '

L. t

• e.r * ' Y j."*.* ?. *..';1

• Q ni ' '..

~

==-s**

-- w 5

s'.

.J

• • Y*;.,4 ' ' f ".

r

-r N.

~

u.h....

OI.$ h*S'f L"N-rt.,Y.8~.1%..a$+[.E Mr.[v. ~

d i.

...' /

n*i

• n ',

.e..

1lg.s,.. Q. *n........-

n.-

-zlb;.w, y.4

'..*O.-*

,.a..'.,.,,;.

.-4.%

y

-. ~ ;

s. p q.=

p y.,,.n...,

• t.

4 Q[-

A..,*

. *.g g.-

-.,. %. n

- ;lk.e4 ';;ep'tr.#

• p

• K ',* g

• • • 1 1),

s;

_r

's.aehs s.

t

.- ? ^. % a v r,...,.3 g q.

...a,,-

'~

tsQs

).g'qh4. :,.w F:.;r.

.e% -.. p 7.-

~*

m... ~;<.EW,Wb ;%y ii:?

~

~-;

..;~.,l:'n.

nc

.V w:,

O. w,,p'!n.m.'r y,-. D..{',...

s v

~yhc e>M.1.9

.?.

' *.,,.,'*

• r.9,~.. J'g.,. i - --

o [ ~A..:U,,ir '

.% + D..,

t W, si.

'. )*.

,o

+

.a-y

%..s g a ff' a

. gre L' i *' n.,

• • 8.* *"f.* *.h,A.WVje,a * * -..',*p e

s Q Q,^f..j".,p.

w

. ~lb...s.;5 - ; J.,G_.Iy a.M~ * *e.;;&K *.Q)' $ 457*. * %,FC5P

< t.fi ' f, l

, g +,.

• V ".e a

f L*

. l f:';p;,.?.

Qg s'~**

L;p;C..

~.' L,

.:.::4. 5 *

~

r v.

,x s rw.

.ex

.c..

r.; 8. ?.L Q<.,, y.,s.,.,~,

n,z*g.:wM,. xse w

2 a x L. -:. ~... 2.

w ::&.-

s

.. x..., n..

1. n cg

(.

u.

4 4M Wo.WW'** N FG-46 -, -

w

-w" y

-" "'- - ' ' ~ - ' - -

f 4

6

• b}

=

('

DLCEtst3

/

1

+'

g 3

b

-] tsPR 2.7 G79

'D WITED STATE.5 CF AMIRICA

~4 pgx,

}WCLEAR P5U1ATOR% C0K2SSION stuuct sinoca fIA SCCY-M:C-42 L.;.. 2

. ; g, 93

.n

• e

)

In the Mntter cf

)

.... l:,g

)

ETROPOLITAN DISON CO'9Ahf, i,al.

Docket flo. 50-320 t

)

(Th ee Mile Island Nucisar Statien, Unit 2)

)

I Rmt;i ~T TO TE DIRECTOR OF ITUCLDG R;CTOR R:::' ' tTION FOR g'E.ODiCI ACTICN ET TE NUCLD2 RLNIATORI CC'C*ISSIC:

Ibis is an c=ergency re

.2 cst for inne:!icte action by the Nuclear Regulatory Cc:nission (13C),

brought under Sec., '.202Aa)(1) a=d 2.205(a) t of the Cc::.issica's ?.ules and under Sec.186,,.a e w. nicf ths Ator.ic ::.ncrgy Act (A:3) 3 a.s anended.

As a res101, of tne near estastrephe at the 'Itree 1ile I: land Nacle e venerating Statiet, L' nit z t T.'a-2) on Me.rch 28, 1979, extensive de. age to the reactor core of R2-2 has been reported (See, for exa.ple testincey of I'r. Darry11 itse:thut before the Subco-.ittee on Hucles.r Regulation of the Se:: Ate C

.ittee on Ta ironnent and Public t'orks, April 10,1979, sad 13C IE &alletin 79-0M, aan April, 1979.

See also Us.shington Post, Ap:116,,1.Vl9.)

h ents which have been publicly repcrted =!.nce a. bout April h,197y, hava succested a stable situation with fissien ; oduct decay heat beb; sledy t t adet.:ately renoted frc: the dar. aged core of C'J-2.

':he p.r.::e of this c::er;;erey petition is to resaest the Cc-i: sic. to hold ;ablic he.-i

Trict to

~

tetivstien cf sq pl. ins to. iter in a r. exy the c :. rc.

(i.e., :.s of April 23,19'lf) e: perir.c.tal r..d eperr.ti:.n:.1 c-. u: cf C 2-2 n:

1:

teceriance with the publichen Tech.ic.1 !;ecificaticns of 7.2-2 U.pper.d5 A

.[

I F

to a c ens e i.o.

u..s-o, z e.a aq 4, a.n.-

The Inter tenors cbserve that the Rules of the Cc=is: ion contsir.

procedures for the nodificatic.n of a licen:c, n>difica tion of the tech.ie:1 specifications,..nd for e. erinental pro ra.s.at licensed facilities.

See v

.,[

Parts 50'.5Me), (f), (h), (n); 50.f 9 (a), (b/, (c); and 50 90, 50.91, and i.

50.100.

Interest The Intervenors 1.n the 2 2-2 Operatir License proceeding uhich is not yet co.pleted--the Tcrk Cc=-J ttee for a Safc hvironnent.n:i the Citicens for a Safe hvirement (both of which are menber groups of th'e hvirc:=, ental Coc.lition en Nuclear rower (OCN?>--have =enbers, a s does ECN/, uno live in tne vicinit/ cf TF2-2, within a distace of about 0.75 nile cc the facility.

These Intsrve.nors, now to be joined by their p. rent organization, SC:i?, are fully a..ze of the health d:ngent of centinuing releases of radioactive utterials fron.this nuclear facili*y and believe that any procedural or opera-their ticnal changes fro = the, status cuo ray be azceedirgly dangercus ta i

health and safety, includirc the possibility of death by acute radiation injury', should the proposed eroeri= ental pro:edures or operations fail or initiate further damage to the reactor.

These Interrenors a d ?etitiosers assert that their interest vill be affected by future experinentations at 32-Concerns of the Interveners

~

Sarious viol,tions of the Technical Specifications (Tech. Specs.)

a 1.

by the licensee have sires.4y occu.-red which have led t,o the cu: rent degraded conditicas of the D2-2 reactor core.

Any change frc:2 the current reactor cor cooling re thod either to convective cooling ce to the use of higher pu= ping sp eed, now com titutes a new axperi= ental situation whose safety inplications i

are 5:nexplored 2nd unerchated, and a.:ry such chtnge or chs tges in procedures and operations are therefore not covered by the Tech. fpecs. of the Operating License presently in effect.

I e

G e

J.[

.k',J

~

i 2.

D.te to the degraded conditien of the co re and uncertainty d instrc.ontation ecurecies, there is no accurance that convective coolirq p

can or vill rcnove decay heat rapidly encugn fron those regions where i

cool.nt water flow ranges fron being restricted to,being blocked. We h

possible censemaence of a failure of convective cooling =v be the necessity of restarting the p=p er p=ps, currently in operation, or the restarting i'

of additions 1 pu=ps, which could lead to uneralut ted consequences, such as a disniptien or rearrang=ent of what re=ains of dsanged fuel pellets. 'Ibe potential exists fer a possible rapid reactivity insertien, folloued by a catastrophic nucler exeesien or runauay; these potenti:1 results of altered procedures regire full safety evaluatica prior to undertaking any change in

[

' the cooling node.

[

3.

A further consequence of the failu e of convective cooling =27 be core crrerheating, acconpa.ied by scre fuel red cladding reactics with water f

and stes=.

'this reaction produces not only 1=rge qur.ntities of hydrogen gas, but also is n' potential source of Inrge.ancunts d energy.

There i s a possibility, if the reactica begi.ns, that this energy can be generat'ed at a rate fa. ster then this heat c n be re=oved by convective cooling.

Again, a

=

need to restart p==oing rcy lead to u-Jntended, and potentially catastrophic, consemences, yet unevaluated as required by 130 rules and the Ate =ic Daergy Act.

h.

Dae to the unusual ab4'4ty of the hydrogen aten and nelecule to penetrate and cccbine with rany metals, the possibility exis'ts' tSa.. due t.. _

t, o

the la.rge q=ntitiesof hydrogen pres ent in the presrre vessel under relative high pressures (perhaps up to 2003 p.s.i./ and te.-ceratures in the neighber-hood of 500 to 600 degrees F. an or about Earch Jf,1979, thron;h April 2,19 considerable gnntities of hydrogen may have penet ated, an d subsecuently e=brittled, the presrre vessal.

As a resul, of this posd.ble c=brittlenet, the reacter presraevessel may acv not have the st actral capability of

~

withstanding presrari:stien, she-ali pressurintien becene necessa y due to e

insc.*ficie.t'.y eval.c ted expcri. ental procedures.

5 Si.nilarly, the hich hydre:en cressures, codined with re.latively ij i high t=ocr?.tures, ney have caused ly:1rogen chbrittic ent of unexidiced j

fuel clad ire.

y k

6.

As a res.:lt of the fuel cisddin;- steen reaction already en:pleted

[

and associated high te::peratures (ICCOP. to perhaps 3033 degrees F.) the intern H

structural c==penent: of the top areas of the core may be sericusly ves:cened 62e to oxidation or er.brittlenent. /. gain, should reflooding of the cera prove

, necessa:7, if convective cooling frDs, unut.cipated new erc6fems cnd mevaluated res:lts nay occur, nene the least of which may be the ree'e.'Qy h

an=cunced core 1Lft phcnc cncn identL!ied in Babcock and YL1cox reactors.

Relief Reauested 3

c / s.'.* riv, e s s.*

• A~.r *~r*. '-

1.

he Interrenors recuest that a. Safety Evr.luation Report be r.:ade

^

l svailable to the I=tervencr3 and to the publin prior to a::7 furthcr

{

t :Perinentation at 22-2 vhich na7 affect the health and safety cf the public.

3e 2.

The Interrenors reques t that a public hearing be held prior to n=y further e qcrine *atica at 212-2.

j l

3.

The Interveners request that they and their special censultant be infer::ed prier to arce tc.rther expednentation or change of licensed procedures or other alteratics of the facility which r.sy affect the hsalth and safety of the public.

t h.

The Inte reners also req::est that, prior to a::7 further czperinen-tation at 32-2, the public be evacuated fro = a ;y areas that venid be affected; sho.01 the ex >eri=ent fail and centrcl of the reactor be lost.

9 9

O l

~

w. -. - _..

i

)

{~

5 2he Intervcnors request that an array of live, real-ti.e radiation

[

1. J detectors be depicyed is the vicinity cf Z:I-2 and crat to a radius cf LO tile: to neasure radiation levels in areas where e.xpos.:res. currently take f

plces but are not measured by the Co:r.issien.

j 6.

• ihe InteNeners renuest that the'I30 order and rigidly enferee an i

imediate halt to the continui.ng unannerenced releases of radioactive n:,terial !

^

frca U*l-2, :nd that public ennounce=ent be reccired prior to ar;7 fu-t'.er

[

k planned releases of r@* oactive raterials fren OC

't.

7.

Lastly, in crder to sive time and to er:edite ratters, Interveners requsst that all cc. anications be directed to the s::therized representative i !

s the Inten eners, Dr. Chauncey Kepford, h33 Orlando Avenue, State Cellege, Pa.

L g

,(81L) 237-3903, sad, si: altaneously, to the speciel censultant of the Interve Dr. Richard Webb, 4B56111th St., Toledo, 051o 10611 (L19) 729-232h A@ To '

M y

CCV!J5EL D 3A.NESE i RcSERT MRf ESQ, //58 f/rVE 57 d Sol hflufheir l PCronsYLMNIR l*)l07, (.2n') Q]- qqg, (g

%3.pf g Respectfully sub=itted,

~

. ca, bf*kY 0

Chauncey a. reptord h33 Orlando State college, A.16S::1

~

(Bik) 237-3900 t

J Dated this 27 day of April,1979.

s J Y f i s u ' /;' " ' ' h i 17.e & /er~s nws yrwh {s Iig aa L.u a y

R. $

r (.: hoe a.s./ D &. I b l.e.p n "*:u' ac o ~ %<^!h

}

f

. a : ' ;," A j '' ^ ' ""# ~

u % J.~ -:.'., s p +; +t o.s a/h,. Na (..: s..

f,.:..'.. !.. i ? c, M 7 'i..% h m D-ic... 4.- a.... ' % s." : a '

/

}

cs:sa N,.:llc x., Z~, 4 a.;-..... s, D,. C c..a.

ui G.

(

b I

4

.I, f

.c_

i 1, -

t i

?

(

I

.a s

b 1

J E

p

+

i i

1 t

J r

1 1

.i s

s-

,v b

n.

)

.s w

t

,.it B

-f

..,.s...g i :

. - -tr 5.

,a e.

2

• 2.,.r y M.- '.r:'

i a -

a...:. : s :

r t

nA,,,.'.a.r,.c):.. -

~ %....st.,e w.r5....

2

.~

. p 1..

t

. A s..?.. - i

. w.. - I

~

.s.' -

.m

)

o t

F i

4

- o,

-7

?

. ia,.,

.' * '+

.y.7..a.n. :.

+...n, 1

.* -s-

. =.

. i.

4.-. M,.:.j; ;. -

,c4,..:.,

v ;. -

q.#..w- ' v=

e r

v

.,b,..,. -....,,*.

...as =,

<e 4

4 r,.p.

.e r

e.

- 3r.

• m i

., ' *g.

.s--

s-s v,,-

4

,t f..

.. g-.

-+f s.*

,s s

s

- r.. -

e A,' e.

.,a

..E.'.

. er

.. u ;

+

7 9S,

2. ~.

o.3 s~,

a mi

)..

,*, b;,g

.f s-

a..

.a

.y ;..,,

f i

It I

. i... : '.

1.,

UNITD STA~IS OF AMT_S.ICA NUCEAR R.EGULATOKI CCM)C5SI01

• 1 i

E_

)

~

In the Matter of

)

KE3,0?OI.lTA9 EDISON C0K?fi!, et. al.

.i Docket No. 50-320 l

y

'j l

(Three Mile Isla.nd Nuclear Station,

)

J Unit 2)

P I

i SU??LD3 ITAI, PETITION To T.E DUICTC'. OF NUC2AR FI. ACTO:. ES-JIATIQ{

n e

TC&

d 1

D2'P.ODCI ACTICi r

i TN 30D'CTIQi l

J This is a supple.nent to the Interrenors' Eecuest to the Directer of Nuclea.r Reactor Rerulation for E grrenev Aetien by the Noelear Rerulatory Ce issioh, herein, "Recuert," decke*dd at 3:30 p.m., April 27, 1979 f

Despite the urgent need for relief requested in that emergency petition,

. i~l-the receipt of that petition has yet (May 15,1979) not even been acknowl-l e.dged by the Directer of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

This supplement to the April 27,1979 _ Request is now suh itted because of the crisis ca.used by the March 25, 1978, catas-of the continuing natur trophe at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2. (TMI-2).

Through a series of operater errors, includir.g violations of the Technical Specifications (Tech. Specs.), instranental failures, and basic design deficiencies, initiated by a loss of feedvater to both steam generatcrs at 00 a.m., March 28, the sequence of events over the sixteen er so follo'-ing L:

i honra at ':C-2 brought the residents of Cent al Pennr/ vsela rceh closer 1

f to a, potentially uncontrolled, uncontrol".able, and unco:.41.able cere melt,-

dcnm than the public had heretofoM been led to believe was possible.

t

{

f r

-2 t

e Large releases of radioactive r.aterials to the environnent have alter.dy a

t oe:crred. P.s P4rgaret Reilly, cf the Cc nonwealth's Ecreau of Padiological l

Prote: tion, stated publicly on P.ay 13, 1979, that seme dozens of curies of El I '"- and "r.1111cns of ccries of n:ble gases" had already,been released fr:st 1

[

the badly ta. aged T'C-2 facility.

(See Tech. Specs., Radiclogical, LirJiting Conditions for Operation, Sec. 2 3 2.)

Centraq to the scething assurances of NRC Staff and Applicant in their prqared testi.menies during the evidentian hearings which led t.o the licens-ing of *::C-2, when an amergen:y actually arose, no one was prepared to respond promptly and adeqcaT,ely to protect the health and safety of the pcblic.

j One serious conseqcence of this lack of preparation has been the wholly isa.de-qcate radiatien rcnitoring in the early days of the a.ccident, a deficiency which re-4ns today largely unchanged.

(See Testi.c=y of Robert B. Finogue, Director cf the h?.C Office of Standards fevelopment, before the Energy Sub-com..ittee of the Goverr. ment Affairs Cov.ittee of the U.S. Senate, pay 8,1979.)

In addition, there has been no objective atta ft to estinate ez:posures to the

~

public which occcrred dcring those early days of the accident when envi.-on.

r. ental monitering was so unconscionably deficient for so long a period of time, l

even thecgh that mini a.1 ronitoring nay have met ERC rinimal standards.

It is ir.portant to observe that the inforration which has been and is being cade available to the public concerning radi.ation exposass ha.s been argi is inconsistent, risleading, and ir4ccurate. For example, according to i

the "AdF.oc Popalation Dose Assessment Group" 7. sport, April 15,197F, the ma21.an tots.1 dose received by ar.y individual was estimated to be 66 r.illi:wn e

(rre.n), th c:gtect the corse of the accident until April 7,1979. heve er, tt.e tigre r.ast be c=. pared with popalatien expos; es diseassed in the videly cc:.-.ed F4 ch 30,1979 clesed neeting of the Co.:.issieners cf the D.C.

4 On this norning of March 30, the liconsee-operator, Metropolitan Edison, per=itted the escape of very large quantity of radicactive gases ever a period of onc or two hours. Dose rates on the ground vere estimated to be about 120 ree-/ho r, for nere than an hour.

In addition, in a pahlic meeting on May 3,1979, Mr. Thonas M. Gensky, Director cf the Bareau of Radiological Pretection cf penraykr.ia, reported that at 7:30 a.n., March 28, 1979, the dose rate in the dor.e of the contad.n.

neat structcre was 600 roentgens per hocr (R/hr). At that time,,the containnect struct re vs.s not isolated, and radioactive ga.ses were esaping.

Mr. Gerusky said the resulting projected dose rate in Goldsboro, sitcsted due vest of the plant aM toward which the wind was then bleving, was 10 P/hr.

Acccrding to "h elir.inar/ Sequence of Events: M -2 accident of March 26, i

1979," r.ene frc= R.L. Icng to R.C. Arnold, the conttire.ent structure vs.: not isolated until 7:56 a.n., March 28, 1979 f

It shocid also be noted tr.at the "Ad Hoc' report contAins an average value of 0.19 nR/ day, or 0.008 rR/ hour, as the background radiation e.Iposure in this area of Pere.sylvania.. This value is based on the: elu inescent i

i desincter (TlD ) readings in the general vicinity cf 'DC-2 for the calendar year 1977 (/dHoc report, p 12) and should be compared with the "backgroand' exposure ra*es dissaninated to the press and pablic after the March 26 accident.

In PNO-79-6?AD, dated April 23, 1979, the h?.C reported offsite readings were

" consistent with nomal background levels (0.02 d./hrP This value of 0.02 n.RAr is 2.5 tims the 1977 average htekground value reported by the 'Ad Ho:" group.

Turthernere, the Ad Hoc report uses an ate.espheric dispersien nodel which dictates that doses fall off with cie.ance a::crding to a r.inus 1.5 pcVer law beyor.d a 10 nile distanes fror.M.J.

':?.e exposure d ata preser.w!.

t m

~,

~

4 in this Ad Hoc report do not sc; port this model.

From the h7.0 dat4 in Table 3-5, throcgh 3-10, meager and wholly insufficient though they are, it is obvious that in rany directions exposcres do not decrease according to the r.inus 1.5 power law. In nanerous directions, the data abov that arposures not enly do not decrease with distance, they increase with distanea from SC-2.

(See, for exarple, Table 3-6, T.xposures 1.n the North sector; Table 3-9, 3

T_xposures in the Secth Sector.) No justification is offered in the AdHoc 1

report for the use of this patently defective distance decay mod'el which is

-?

It t,an not supported by even the shallow data base revealed in this repcrt.

only be concluded that the obvicts pc: pose of thi.s inappropriate model is to 4

conceal the r.agnitude cf population exposcres beycad 10 ciles from 'DC-2.

Tro= a.cci. dent sequences re.les sed tr/ the NRC, it sete.s clear that large i

qua.ntities cf primary coolant vatar vere vented through the e.lectrce.atic 7

4 relief valve (DG) s.fter the initial period when the core vts uncovered.

j k

In this initial period of up to two hours, when decay heat was higher than l,

A in latar periods, fuel cladding.and stea : reaction are believed to have It has been sar.gested that the reaction cons =ed appzcximately,

a occurred.

k LO percent of the total quantity of fuel cladding in the core (See ' Core f

5 De. age Assess:.ent for "J'I-2," EP.C Memorandca free R.0. Meyer to Roger J.

j Mattson, April 13, 1979, p.tge B). This vou'd tend to suggest that in the I

upper region of the core, which war uncovered for the longest ti.e4,

[t coes.

plete oxidation of at Isast sera feel cladding occurred, exposing the fcel material to the cooling water.

j As a reruit, it is crident that fission products which vere even

~ ~ -

sli-htly selable in pri,-ary coolant water under tne prevail 5; high prest:re 5

sr.d tigh te perat. re cenditions vo:14 have been leached cat of the ertp:sof f

1 fuel, and s;bsequently rolsasad to the contaireent c=p through the I:.'".

tI

,)

k 3

a t

.,c.

Ccnsequently, it is probable that the large quantities of water released 1.nto the contairnent structcre-reportedly over LCC,CCO gallons--.have high_

fission prodcet levels measared in tens er hundreds of microcaries per r.111111ter ( fi/nl).

Both the volar.e and the probable high level of conta..ination cd this water exceed the clear.ap capabilities of the reacter coolant letdevn systen fer an enti.re year's opera. tion of that systen (See 2:2-2 Final Safety A.nalysis F.eport, Tables 11.2-5, 11.2-6a, and Figure 11.2-3). lne Inte'rvenors are pa cicula.rly disWM by tha numerocs announcenents and ra::cre that the dumping of this hign-level vaste water, pcrified or not, into the Sasque-hanna River is in:cinent. While conceptually it nry be possible for the licensee-operator to upgrade thi.s letdoc systen to tres.t at least saperficially the conta inated water, there ha.s been no publicly-disclosed disenssion or evaluation of that capability or of the probabilities a.nd consequences of a.ny accidents, spills, or leaks which might take place dcring the proposed release of this water to the river. Sinila.rly, there.ha.s been no publicly-dirclosed justification for the licensee-operator's sudden rush to process a.nd du,p this high-level vaste water as quic$.ly as pcssible into the River and into the Chesapeake Bay.

Further:cre, there hss been no mention or evalua-tien of alteiv.ative methods of removing, storing, or disposing of this contaninated wat4r.

The consequences of da::: ping ary of the vaste water in the prin.ary coolant syste'n or contal. ent baser.ent co 1d be cata. strophic to the health and the econenic vell-being of the r.a=y cen. anities which obtain drinki.r4

~

8 water fro..the Sasquehanna Eiver. Mditionally, since the Sesquehar.nz Ei* er is tne najor fresn-vatar source fer Chesapeake 2 y, a leak of even a few han-dred gallons cf the radioactiva contain ent vater into the river eccid pretent the use of this Bay s.s a fishery for many yea s to co=4 i

t

ZSSL'ES FOR CC!SIL.~?.ATIC!

As a rescit of the above, the Intervenors in the still ongoing operating license proceeding for D2-2, now joined by their parent organiza-i tien, the Inviron. ental Coalition on Ncelear Pcver (IC??), urgently request that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation recognize the gravity of the consequences of releases of these radioactive naterials frem SH-2.

In this context, the Interrenors also urgently request that the Director order that a public evidentiary bearir4 with avorn testinonies and full oppcrtur.ity for cross-exanhation be held in Harrisburg to openly and candidly ventilate the following issues:

I 1.

The nudity cf the population exposure estimates made to date in whole or in part by the NRC, including an acecan+-

ing for the nanerous inconsistencies and contradictions sach as those discussed above.

2.

"he entire scope of the preposed release into the Sasquehanna River of the high-level conta.~.inated water, purified or not, presently contained, or anticipated to be contaninated, at DC-2.

l i

4 3

The possible range of accidents and accidental discharges to the P.iver and the full rance of consequences--econonic, environnental, and health-fro such discharges.

L.

The capability and intent ofihe licens'eeoperator of M-2,

~

to prevent niner or large-scale " inadvertent

• conta ination of the River, in view of the events since March 26, 1979.

5 The cape ility and intent of the licensesoperator of L2-2 i

to obey tne rules of the Commissh i and all applicable I

statues related to any operations at M-2, in view of the events since March 26, 1979 6 ', The capability ara intent of the Commission to ensure that (a) the 2.0es of the Com isston will be fally obeyed, (b) the applicable statcsc, including the Atomic Energy Act of 195h, as a anded, the Inergy 7.corcanization Act of 197L, and the National Envirer. ental Polic-y Act cf 1969 vill be fcily obeyed,

., 45 (c) tr.e Cer.irsion er so.e otter Tedert.1 ager.cy vill previce fer r.pniterhc capabilitier to de.4r.ine radicactive cor.ta.ht:. ion levels vr.ereter 5.isque-nannt River water vi".1 be vitr4 rte.-. fer dist-ibution fer drinking water, irrigation, industrial pro-cessing, or other purpotec prior to any further releases of presently contanhated water at D2-2, parified or not, to the River,

i 6.

continued

^

(d) the Cerr.ission er sc.e other Tederal agency vill provide for adequate nonitorin ctpabilities to detect elevated levels of caseo:s and particulate conta.inaticn fro. DC-2, prier to any s bsequent releases of airb:rne radioactive r.aterials.

One results tab;1ated in the AdHo de.nens rate the need for a nach nere extensive andreport e.phat versatile enviren.csit:rin;; capability to nach greater distances fren L2-2.

7.

of the National Environ ental Policy Act of 1969.The The events whien nave iranspired since Il arch 26, 1979, including, but not 11.ited to, the enormous releases of lodine-13 and noble gases, the threat of an 1.inent core neltdown, the releases of con-taninated vater which have already occurred, the threat of future reletss of conta.inated water which are or may not be anticipated, the threat of future releases of radioactive particulates--all go far beyond the events discussed in the Fina.1 Sapple.ent to the 71nal 2.nvironnental Statenent of De cember,1976.

The possible enviro.nental inpacts of fetcre planned activities and unplanned or accidental ones at D2-2 suggest that enviror.. ental statenent is required for L2-2.

8.

The method no:!e, conveyance capabilities, roctes, and des *dnations of the unusaally high-level de inerali e: vastes to be generated at T.C-2, and the ultimate nethod of disposal of the vastes, includinn a diseassion of accidents or leaks and the resulting consequences at any stage of this process.

9.

The pessible negligent role of the Co rission in licensing 2C-2 to operate, in:1;dini; the approval of the reactor design as befr.;; acceptable to protect the health and safety of the pablic, and the granting cf an optrating license to the licensce-kn: wing that the licenser,-eperator had insufficient operatcr technical experience and cap.bilities to operate L2-2 safely.

10.

The question of whether or not the cperating license shodd be te=porarily or pe:-.anently withdrsvn from the licensee-cperater cf StI-2 for gross viclations of the Cem.ission's rcles at.d of the operating license spe:Lfications and operating conditicas for LC-2.

See Sec.166 et the At= ie Eneri;y Act of 19%, as anended, and the rcles cited in the ?.e:cest of Aprilstates and the secti:ns of the Cs.. issie 27, 1979.

e 3

+

RIQUI.ST FCR PN 1.

The Interveners hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 7 from the Jpril 27, 1979 Reecest contained i

under the heading, ?.elief Reecested, ind, in addition 2.

The Intenenors request that the Co-.ission ; ohibit and prevent a.r;y further releases of radioactive raterials to the environ.nent, gaseous, airberne, particciates, or in liquid for=, until twenty (20) days af ter

]

final action by the Con.ission on thir supple:4nta.1 petition, to enable the Intervenors and other a.ffect4d ns..bers of the public to' seek injune-tive relief in the courts. See, for c.xa +1e, ICC.F.R. 20.601.

3.

Pc.e Intenenors request that the Cce:=ission prohibit and prevent any further releases of radioactive raterials to the environnent, gaseou.s, airbcrne particulates, er in liquid tom, until twenty (20) days after final action by the Coc=ission on the Recuest of April 27, 1979, to eriable the Intervencrs to seek injunctive relief in the Courte.

See 10 C.F.R. 20.601.

L.

The Interveners request that the Co:=ission prohibit ard prevent any farther reletses of radioactive natorials, gaseous, airb'orne partica-Intes, or liquid, until tuenty (20) days af ter the cor.pletion of an evidentia.ry hearing in Earrisburg, Pa., open to the public, with svern t4stimonies and full opportunity for cross-exas:ination to examine the 1.ssuea raised in this aupplenental petition and Rmcest of April 27, 1979.

5.

The Icterveners request tAs Cor=ission 1:nediately inform the Intervenors by Tirst Clas Ka.11 of ar;y and all relsasea cf radica.ct!ve mat 4 rials, gassocs, pa.rticulates, or liqui.d, fran L2-2 vaich occcr subsequent to the receipt of this s;pplanen*,41 petition.

3 E-6.

The Int 4Nanors request t. hat the Cortission mail to the Intervanors in a tirJ27 fas..10n cef es of all caterials which are psrtinent tc the i

issues rs.ised in this sapple. ants.1 petition and the ongoing crisis at DE-2, includir.g, bat not linit4d to l

6.

(c.) the past or present condition of 22-2, since F.ech 26, 1979 (b) all environnental radioactivity ;..onitoring data pertaining to the accident at M -2, data already collected and

~ dditional data as it is collected in the future a

(c) all planned activities, procedures, or processes at M-2 which have the potential for releases of radio ^ active f

materials to the env' onrent.

J (d) all planned reodifications of equip ent, processes, or structures at D2-2 (e) all planned cleanup operations inside ariy buildings contar:inated during cr subsequent to the DU-2 accident (f) all chenical and isotopic analyses of contar.inated areas and volunes, including prir.a.ry coolant water, water in the 1ont24 w nt su=p, and air in the contaim-ment struew.re, and all subsequent and related analyses.

Respectfully sub:itted, Cnauncey Kepf.

Representative of tt.s Interva.w s L33 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16S01

[fg [k/7/f 1-51L-237-3900 l

l O

4 a

we b

i

. s w

1 3.,-

.i n.W.,. >

A J.**

'4h

.~,r

' M,:.v 3

g.

t

.. we }*

.. N:

' u..

. -@g%

1

• - d..

• j i N. *.-)

.. s. -.'T.Ef

='

Pr

. Y.).A i-2..j i*g

./-

+

T g

L

(

s-a ;,.

. ci

.f

.r w. g 5 k gW..

'- t

, a

..s

.y. e

• s:.... Q s (Cr.

2

' i

t..y 4 Q

t '.

2g QW,., f W*, :

1* ""~;_ '-;w -*r. Mt t.d.Mnt 3 sfS.MLN.'

M.-

Q,eQ9%

. - : n.

.y

,w:a.g Qiq.Q p

,

+, * ; ; ;' L

~

1

~,x

.v

~.

, J.. "....**

. g'. K*

n y*4

.44 n..* ; s

.yy v.

w.

y..,p

, *. _ r.} -.,nj-..

m '. (

QF,

>y

1. s,,,,S m.*

S' t

/

'.%.;e,y~f

.' t, m. J.,.9

,;s'.' N,W af.?

?

=-

.,;. g...

~

.~'

ng c

~-

g

. J4g,,w g

n-e.,.

• • ?

4

..h,.,c,,74 4

"f,.o.

uq,y p.q.* l iY j.I.,*,L Mi@:< *y

. W.$.,$

, :n

%r W. f e,ad -

.,.r. v. s.e,.4 c

. -. ', p< -* u, t, -(.

%. (s p1M h[.

t

.. u. T N; -

.m-e

,..R '4..e.-'s.'.

'..,, '., '. 1

.-4+t

.w';t,.

14 s ;g 1

e e

x y-. ~..,j w

1

,,. f a'.'l.Q; *

,1 '.o.i

. ;. t. **;d..,,

s.7 *.....

3. e 4.

.. f.. -. -

j *g - ;,.,.

e,,

-

• s.g.' 4

.i #f.

, v 1*. v e

?

.-J-.

~,

i./ J.'

.,*44i

, y.i

., f.".,,.; '.s'T ' "';

• , ( *,

gr!.r,** 4. -. f*c

.+

?- '

a, a..

• ar,*

g,..,,,.;

• ya + :.,

t, g, 3

4" e4

~u A, %, r.

.c g,.,.p M,'

s,[..,$y.0e.,ki-

....... %, '; '

• M, { " 3

. ; *+. ~. *' i IN -

4*

• d*

4..

,, wr;s - p*g-[.

...*,[d; N',,,Mhr.9 b,

. -fT d;.hi. *' $.r. 4 f 'A < 7

' *,*C U-

~

.*1,

.:~ '.'

k J.if 'r

• r "; ?

• 3.'d-

.. c.pt Q'v.-d'.?'*f k'i%gG*.4,gltj..f...vss, 4..~.

&.y $c %p.

-e-3-

y

-k:, w..

\\ n'%

3

." h 9

3 &, : e m y gas e+

w w

yW y.

. e,s..> }.

.p w' $r y=. m..;r.t.g n.. u s k.. *...

4,

,ob.e..*.

-s ms

=.

.r

. N '

q f-

[*

[;*

• f, $g lm,. s Q - w,. p..,,.! n..> c~t w. s >. w u a

• ;hy

. v..

s..,

.,f.... m. n... e s,.u. m.

. ~e-~

.,.. w.

p

-. ~..~.Q fr : a. af*. 3*

..f <..

e '?,

.w W* ','& *g". C.h. ' 'h}..g$ ' *

.,O v

-s

?.)*'.f./ =

• **C+'

k.

, yQ /?*

,c.

..,,..,.t..-s..v*

4. s* e. 1 g '..-

4.,..

en

- se L** W.1 f *

,.'*er,,4. T,*ay?,y-e.lLl,*,,.'ss.~~%.'C.n.n'&..fn(s- -

a,.

~. *

. 9y

- d..

.p.-o'...

.&; 4

,0,~,

A*a hj

~ *

• ..n,-..,.

,.1...o p.< '4 2..,

s er,-

-1

..s.,

4

...v,.w

,-e.

.* v 3.-... *.

, s

,,y:

+

gjl T.*,.e

, <j 1,,..u.n. f wg,,.... ~. h A.Q.

. 1.wJ

.e a

-6 r

1. > -

~*

s

>en...

y&

s'

... 1,

• • .,. m%

f f;

? ?

k., -

b.

Ws

~

?'

'l e-

I i

1. "':D L t2'q, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7j 3,(3

{

wa.umotos.c c. rosss g

k *...

• e#

April 16, 1980 Docket No. 50-320 Dr. Chauxey Kepford 433 Orlar do Avenue State College, Fennsyt vania 16501 9

Dear Mr. Kepford:

By petitions dated April 27 and May 16, 1979, yw requested pursuaot to 10 CFR 2.206 that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Reg 21ation take certain action with respect to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Statiot<, Unit No. 2.

For the reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decistor under 10 CFR 2.206", your petition has been g* anted in part and denied in part.

A copy of this decision will Se filed with the Secretary for the Comission's review in acc.ordancs with 10 CFR 2.205(c). A ccpy of the notice that will be published in the Federal _ Register is also enclosed.

Sincerely.

+Y Harold R. Der; ton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regalstion Eaclosures:

1. ' Director'r Decision under 10 CFR 2.206" 2.

Notice cc w/ enclosures:

Dr. Richard Webb 2858111th Street Toledo, Ohio 43611 Robert Gary, Esq.

1138 Pine St net, #307 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19:07 Mr. R. C. Arnold, Sr., Vice President Metropolitan Edison Corpany 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 (w/t r.cocint) t George F. Trowbridge, Esq, Shaw, Pitten, Potts & Tro,1 bridge 1800 M Street, NA Washington, D. C.

20036

'w/ incoming)

i 4".-

i DD 1 l

l

.f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

CFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION HAROLD R. DERTON, DIRECTOR

-)

In the Matter of-

)

3

)

1 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-320 (Thrt.e Mile Island Nuclear

)

(10 CFR 2.206)

Station, Unit 2)

)

- DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 1

By petition dated April 27.-1979 Dr. Chauncey Kepford requested on behalf of l

i the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) that the Director of Nuclear-Reactor Regulation institute public hearings prior to_any alteration of the

" experimental and operational status" of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) l reactor. Dr. Ktpford filed a supplemental petition dated May-16,1979, which j

expanded the scope of ECNP's original request for-relief. Notice was published in the Federal Register, 44 FR 40986 (1979), that ECNP's petitions were being.

^

~"

^'

considered under 10 CFR 2.206. '

The bases for ECNP's petitions concern the status of the damaged Unit 2 j

reactor in the aftemath of the accident of March 28, 1979, at Three Mile Island.

ECNP's April 27th petition was directed primarily at the conversion to natural-convective circulation cooling of. the damaged reactor core, although ECNP c

apparently intended its petition to extend to all future actions of the Comission l

concerning TMI-2. The May 16th petition cited additional concerns regarding j

radiation monitoring and waste disposal.

ECNP's petitions were styled as requests for " emergency action". To the

-l::

extent that the petitions requested could be said to require " emergency action".

(e.g.,

to prevent the unassessed release of contaminated water) the staff believes l

l

_m i

l

O

+

that the Connis'. ion has taken action essentially along the course ECNP requested.

i This decision addresses the requests for relief found in ECNP's two petitions.

For. the reasons stated in this decision, ECNP's petitions have been granted in

[

part and are denied in part.

THE APRIL 27th PETITION The main thrust of the April 27th petition is ECNP's request that "a public s

1 hearing be held prior to any further experimentation at TMI-2" (Petition at 4).

While " experimentation" is not explicitly defined in the petition. ECNP was concerned at the tire about the transition to natural circulation to cool the I

damaged reactor core. On April 27, 1979, the sare day ECNP submitted its petition.

the transition to natural circulation was safely perforced. See " Abnormal Occurrence Event; Nuclear Accident at Three Mile Island," 44 FR 45803, 45807 (1979).

Prior to the initiation of the transition, the staff had evaluated the proposal to cool the damaged reactor core by natural convective circulation and had concluded that the transition could be accomplished with minimal risk to public

~

health r nd safety. The staff's evaluation was reported in NUREG-0557, " Evaluation-of Long-Term Post-Accident Core Cooling of Three Mile Island Unit 2."

In the proceeding - to which ECNP is a party - being held on the restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1, the Board has admitted contentions regarding the adequacy of natural convective circulation cooling, First Special Prehearing Conference Order at 20. (Docket No. 50-289 Dec. 8,1979) (UCS contentions 1 and 21.

i ECNP apparently intended its demand for public hearings prior to further

" experimentation" at TMI-2 to extend beyond the transition to natural convective i

i circulation cooling of the core.

In assessing this request, the staff can only assume that, by the term " experimentation". ECNP means those actions requiring the j

i

. ~..

Commissien's formal approval, i.e., license arendments and orc'ers oftheCommission.1/ Of course, cte Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as smended, requires the Commission to grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected in any proceeding "for the granting, suspending, revoking or amending of any license".

Section 189a., 42 U.S.C. 2239(a). Although the Commission must grant a hearing upon the demand of any person who has an interest affected by a proceeding to grant, suspend, revoke or amend a license, every such proposed action does not require notico and hearing prior to the effectiveness of the proposed action. 2/ In taking action at its own initiative, the Conmission has the authority - indeed, the responsibility - to order the modification, suspension or revocation of a license when Dublic health, safety, and interest so requires.10 CFR 2.202(f), 2.204. See Nuclear Engineering Campany, Inc.,

CLI-79-6, 9 NRC 673 (1979). Although administrative procedure normally contemplates the holding of required hearings prior to the effectiveness of proposed actions, it is inappropriate, in view of the potential need for the Commission to take emergency action, to promise unequivocally in response to ECNp's petition that I

1/

The Commission's regulations contemplate that certain changes in a facility or in procedures and certain tests or experiments ray be conducted by the licensee without the Commission's prior approval. Such changes, tests, or experiments ray not involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in technical specifications. 10 CFR SD.59(a)(1).

2/

See Sections 186b. and 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. 2236(b) and 2239(a); 10 CFR 2.202(f) and 2.204 b

I v.

=

4 i

hearings will be held before any action is ta;:en at TMI-2. 3_/

^

The Comission has offered in fact the opportunity to request a hearing in connection with various orders related to the Three Mile Island reactors. #/- To the extent that ECNP believes it has an interest affected by various Comission proceedings, it is incir. bent upon ECNP to request a hearing under applicable orders cr other notices.

~

In connection with any further " experimentation" at T*H 4, ECNP requested that a " Safety Evaluation report" be made available prior te wh further

" experimentation". Of course, the Comission must establish a technical basis for issuing an order or for issuing a license amendment requested by a licensee.

See e.e.,10 CFR 2.105(b), 2.100(b), 2.202(a)(1).

The Comission has in fact made available safety evaluation reports and environmental evaluations which have accompanied major proposed actions. All future safety evaluation reports i

3/

Under Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act the holding-of hearings is -

mandatory only on applications for a construction permit under Section 103, 104b. or 104c. Of course, persons who demand a hearing as a matter of right in proceedinas must establish that they are adversely affected by the proposed action.

Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), Comission Memorandum and Order (Docket Nos. 50-546 & 50-547, March 13,1980); Portland General Electric Comoany (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976);

Nuclear Eneineering Company (Sheffield Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737 (1978).

4/

SeeOrder(Feb. 11,1980), published in 45 F.R. 11282 (1980); Order for t

~

Rooification of License (Oct. 18, 1979), published in 44 F.R. 61277 (1979);

Order and. Notice of Hearing, CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141 (1979) (THI-1 Restart Proceeding). ECNP has intervened in the Unit 1 restart proceeding, and l

in a request dated March 15, 1980, has asked for a hearing on the Order l

i of February 11, 1980.

)

t l

l

~

or other docunents which establish the technical base 5 for proposed actions will be publicly available.

ECNP also requests that it "be informed prior to any further experimentation or change of licensed procedures or other alteration of the facility which may affect the health and safety of the public". Dr. Kepford, who filed the petition on behalf of ECNP, has been on the distribution list for orders and other formal actions of the Commission with respect to TM?-2. Orders or other relevant notices have also been published in the Federal Recister. To the extent that the public health, safety or interest requires Commission Orders to be insediately effective, ECNP would of course not receive notice prior to the effectiveness of such actions, nor is ECNP entitled to such notice as a matter of law.

Prior to further " experimentation" at TMI-2 ECNP asks that the public be evacuated from areas that would be affected "should the experiment fail and control of the reactor be lost".

In the first instance, it should be noted that the Commission does not have the authority to order evacuation of the population surround-ing a reactor site. This authority rests with responsible Stete and local officials.

The Commission advises these officials as appropriate in energency circumstances.

In all events ECNP simply presents no basis for this request. The TMI-2 reactor is in a stable state, and the authorized activities at the site do not involve risks to the public that warrant evacuation.

In its fif th request for relief in the April 27th petition, ECNP asks that the Commission deploy " live, real-time" radiation detectors in a 40 mile radius around the Three Mile Island site.

ECNP provides no reasons for

. ;.~~

instituting such a program. Radiological enviremnental monitoring conducted by the licensee and by State and federal agencies in the area surrounding the Three

6-Mile Island site is described in the "Envirorrnental Assessment for Decontamiriation of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere" (NUREG-0662, i

March 1980). To the extent that additional or different capabilities are required in the future, particularly for future decontamination operations, the Comission will ensure that appropriate capabilities are provided.

Finally, ECNP requested that the Commission require public announcement of future planned releases of radioactive materials from Unit 2.

In view of its Staterents of May 25, 1979, and November 21, 1979 (published in 44 F.R. 67738) and the Order of February 11,1980 (45 F.R.11282), the Comission has essentially granted this request. The Comission has prohibited various decontamination i

activities that might result in planned releases of radioactive materials until such activities have been approved by the Comission. Any such authorization would j

be by its very nature a matter of public record and as such would be " publicly announced" as ECNP requests.

THE MAY 16th PETITION

~

Dr. Kepford expanded on ECNP's April 27th request for relief in a supple-mental petition dated May 16, 1979. ECNP primarily requests in the May 16th petition that the Comission prohibit further releases of radioactive materials i

from TMI-2 pending the conclusion of a hearing on the issues raised in ECNP's two petitions.

In the first instance, ECNP is not legally entitled to a hearing on its petitions. M Porter County Chapter of the Iraak Walton teacue v. NDC, 606 F.2d 1363

[

7 J/

Similarly, a final decision on ECNP's petition is not required orter to issuing.T an authorization to undertake decontamination operations.

See Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

DD-80-7 Decision at 2 n.4 (Docket No. 50-346, Jan. 17, 1980); cf. Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station). CLT!79-7, 9 NRC 600, bel U979).

7 (D.C. Cir.1979); Illinois v. NRC, 591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir.1979). As to some of of the issues, e.o., whether the Comission was " negligent" in licensing TMI-2 and whether the operating license should be permanently revoked. ECNP establishes no basis for prohibiting planned releases pending conclusion of a hearing on these issues. ECNP bears the burden of showing why consideration of such issues is necessary prior to the comencement of controlled releases as part of a decontamination i

program. See Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), DD-79-17,10 NRC 613 (1979).

Moreover, ECNP presents no convincing rationale for instituting a special hearing to consider the issues in its petitions, regardless of the timing of-ary

~

such hearing. A number of these issues (2, 3, 7 and 8 in the May 16th petition) relate directly to the need to evaluate the envirorcental consegences of proposals to decontaminate the TNI-2 facility and to dispose of various gaseous, liquid or solid wastes. The Comission has already expressed its intent to prepare an cnviremental inpact statement. "Stateent of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programatic Environmental Impact Statement", 44 FR 67738 (Nov. 27, 1979).

In its " Statement" the Comission noted that:

l In the Comission's judpent an overall study of the decontamination and disposal process will assist the Comission in carrying out its regulatory responsi-bilities under the Atomic Energy Act to protect the public health and safety as decontamination progresses.

It will also be in keeping with the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act to engage the public on the Comission's decision-making process, and to focus on enviromental issues and alternatives before comitments to specific clean-up choices are made.

,W.

The Comission cautioned, however, that:

The develo;rnent of a programatic impact statement will r>ot preclude prompt Comission action when needed. The I!

e

~-~. -.

l y

1. E

.8-Ht

.{

~

Comission does recognize, however, that as with its 3

1 Epice-II approval action, any action taken in the -

abs:nce of an overall impact: statement will lead. to arguments that there has been an inadequate environmental' l

analysis, even where the-Comission's action itself-is

- supported by an environmental assessment..As in' settling j

upon the scope of. the programatic. impact statement, CEO can. lend assistance here.

For example'should-the 1

Commission before completing its programatic statement i

j.

decide that it is in the best interest of the public health and safety to decontaminate the high level waste water now in the contairunent building, or to purge that butiding

• 3 of its radioactive gases.: the Comission will consider CE0's advice as to the Commission's NEPA responsibilities.

Moreover, as stated in the Comission's May 25-statement, any action of'this kind will not be taken-until it has undergone an environmental review, and furthermore with 1

opportunity for pubite comment provided.

i However, consistent with our May 25 Statenent, we recognize that there may be emergency situations, not now foreseen.

which should they occur would require rapid action. To a

the extent practicable the Comission will consult with CEQ in these situations as well.

I The staff believes, therefore, that the Commission is already embarked on a.

t i

course that will satisfy the petitioner's concerns, i.e., that waste disposal

[

is carefully assessed and that the Ccamission provide a mechanism for public m t 1

0 participation in the decision-eaking process. To the extent that such releases j

require further order, ECNP may have a right to demand a' hearing,-if one of.its members has an interest affected by such order within the meaning of section' 189a.-

,j of the. Atomic Energy Act.

l!

Several other issues (1, 6(c), and (d)) proposed for hearing in the lt

~

'May 16th petition concern the validity of population exposure estimates and

.the " intent" of the Comission to ensure that adequate radiation monitoring 4

-capabilities will be provided. The' staff does not perceive a need to hold a 1

n.

a n

hearing to explore the conclusions reached in the Ad Hoc Population Dose j

.' Assessment Group's report, " Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident y

I i

a

a 9

1 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station" (NUREC-0558, May 1979), nor does ECNP provide particular reanas, other than its dissatisfaction with the report, why i

such a hearing should be held.

ECNP's concern with the adequacy of radiation i

monitoring appears to be directed primarily at assurance of adequate capabilities t

during decontamination operations. Of course, the Comission intends to assure that adequate monitoring is conducted du ing all phases of decontamination.

In this regard, the staff described the program for radiological environ $ ental j

t monitoring that will be provided if decontanination of the reactor building i

atmosphere through containment venting is approved. See "Envirorrnental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit. Reactor Building Atwasphere",

Ch. 7 (NUREG-0662, March 1980). To the extent that additional or different capabilities are required for future operations, the Comission will assure that appropriate capabilities are provided. If monitoring issues are relevant to future

?

proceedings in which ECNP has intervened. ECNP may of course raise such issues. The staff sees no need to institute a special hearing on radiation monitoring.

I; l.

ECNP also wants the Comission to convene a hearing on the ' management capability" of Metropolitan Edison (issues 4 and 5 in May 16th petition). To the extent that this issue has current relevance, that issue has been admitted in the fom of various contentions in the TMI-1 restart proceeding. The Comission has provided further guidance on the :,: ope of that issue in its Order of March 6, 1980 (CLI-80-5, Docket No. 50 W ECNP itself has raised and had admitted such a contention in that proceeding. The staff sees no reason, therefore, to institute another proceeding to consider the issue. To the extent that such an f

i issue may be relevant to other hearings that may be held concerning THI-2, A

i intervenors would have an opportunity to raise contentions concerning " management fi f

r capability".

ECNP also desires a hearing on "the possible negligent role of the l

l' t

i

?

Comission in licensing TMI-2".

Apart from ECNP's failure to state the basis for or purpose of a hearing on this issue, the staff nctet that the Comission's exercise of its responsibilities has been the subject of intense public scrutiny by the Congress and the President's Comission on the Accident at Three Mile Island.

Such forums, particularly the Congress, are more appropriate for conducting an inquiry into the Comission's regulatory practices.

In a similar vein is ENCP's request (issue 6(a) and (b) in the May 16th petition) that the Comiss' ion conduct hearings on its " capability and intent" to obey its governing statutes and its regulations.

It is unreasonable to suggest that the Comission should hold hearings to detemine whether it will obey the law, If ECNP believes that the Comission has not fulfilled its responsibilities or has violated its rules or federal statutes.

ECNP has appropriate remedies in the federal courts.

Lastly, ECNP wishes that the Comission institute a hearing on whether the

'A TMI-2 operating license should be " temporarily or pemanently withdrawn" from Metropolitan Edison for " gross violations" of the Comission's regulations and Itcense conditions. The Comission has already suspended the operating authority A

J in License No. DPR-73 for the TMI-2 facility. Order for Modification of License (July 20, 1979), published in,44 FR 45271 (Aug.1,1979). The question whether this operating authority should be permanently revoked is a question for another day.

I The Comission's imediate concern is safe decontamination and disposal of wastes from Three Mile Island Unit 2.

In its final requests in the May 16th petition, ECNP asks that it be infomed of all releases of radioactive materials and that it be furnished copies 4

of all materials pertinent to "t% ongoing crisis at TMI-2".

Information concern-5 ing Three Mile Island is available to ECNP and other members of the public in the E

g Comission's oublic document roons in Washington, D. C. and in Harrisburg, l

per.nsyl va ni a. The Comission has made public announcements and made available infer.ation concerning radioactive releases from THI-2.

ECNP has been on the d'steibution list for orders and other significant documents related to TMI-2.

- a particicant in the TPI-1 restart proceeding, ECNP receives documents relevant l

t

.3 nat proceeding. In effect ECNP asks that it become another public document j

room for conceivably all naterials related to Three Mile Island. ECNP, offers no rassons why it should be accorded such a special status. To the extent that ECNP wishes to obtain infornation it has not received, that information is generally

+

available to ECNP, as it is to any other member of the public, in the Comission's public document rooms.

J CANCLUSION 4

i As descrited in this decision, the staff believes that the Conmission has v

esse.tially satisfied some of the petitioner's concerns.

The staff finds no basis af th restect to the petitioner's other requests to take the recuested action. This dec sice does not bar ECNP, assuming it has an interest affected within the neaning r

of the Atomic Energy Act, fron seeking intervention or hearings j

icn 1*C3.

r in 'uture proceedings to raise sin 11ar issues.

I copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's reviev:,n accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Comission's regulations.

As trovided in 10 CR 2.296(c), this decision will constitute the final action of the j

ssion twenty (29 days af ter the date of issuance, unless the Comission on its rom own notion irstitutes a review of this decision within that time.

t

,,,.7

,7 h

Ha'rold R. Denton, Director 1

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j

Dated c Eethesda, ".aryland this d ay of April, 1980.

l l,

v.,-

7