ML20040E271
| ML20040E271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1982 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202040106 | |
| Download: ML20040E271 (6) | |
Text
.
02/02/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\\\r I %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 03 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD RECEIVED D
In the Matter of
)
94 s
)
y FEB3 1982a 7II PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.50-35V Emim"numm
)
50-35 f k ' " E *"
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
'\\
/g Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LEA AND KEYSTONE ALLIANCE'S MEMORANDUM 0F CLARIFICATION 1.
INTRODUCTION At the Special Prehearing Conference held in Norristown, Pennsylvania, January 6-8, 1982, the Licensing Board requested that Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA") and Keystone Alliance (" Keystone") submit written clarification of a number of their proposed contentions concerning the Limerick Probabilistic Risk Assessment ("PRA").
Tr. 266-67.
In response to the Board's request, LEA and Keystone filed a MemorandumofClarification(" Memorandum")onJanuary 18, 1982, offering further explanation for fourteen of their proposed contentions. As explained below, NRC Staff does not oppose the admission of most of the proposed contentions as clarified in the Memorandum; however, based on the clarification provided, Staff believes that others, previously thought to be acceptable, are objectionable and thus now opposes their admission.
'*EMjiPEDoncun; uma e,bys 8202040106 820202 PDR ADOCK 05000352 jC )
i/
~"
II. DISCUSSION Staff did not previously and does not now oppose any of LEA / Keystone's proposed PRA contentions which assert a need for an explanation (or, in some instances, for further explanation) concerning the Limerick PRA's failure to address an item considered in WASH-1400.
The reason that Staff did not oppose the admission of these proposed contentions is that the applicant was requested to compare the risk of the Linerick plant with the WASH-1400 prototype BWR. Wherever the Limerick PRA fails tc make the comparison, it is reasonable to expect that the deviation will be explained. Therefore, Staff does not oppose clarified contentions I-4, I-7, I-13, 1-14 and I-30.
However, Staff now opposes, in part, proposed contentions I-8, I-10, I-11, I-12, I-19, I-21, I-23 and I-24, as those contentions (as clarified) would necessitate extensive supplementation of the WASH-1400 data base itself. Staff did not understand from LEA / Keystone's previous filings on the matter that those petitioners were alleging that certain omissions in WASH-1400 should be corrected in order that a better comparison between the WASH-1400 prototype BWR and Limerick Unit 1 could be made.
For reasons set forth in argument of Staff counsel at the Special Prehearing Conference, Staff does not regard the perfection of the WASH-1400 baseline to be an exercise which should properly be undertaken in
- connectionwiththisproceeding.1/
Also, Staff fonnerly opposed proposed contention I-18, but has withdrawn its opposition based un the rewording of that contention.
Staff offers the following additional comments concerning certain individual proposed contentions treated by LEA / Keystone in their 1
Memorandum.
I-8.
It is not clear to Staff whether LEA's allegation that the risk attributed to loss of offsite power is underestimated in the Limerick PRA is intended to apply to WASH-1400 as well. LEA should be required to clarify this aspect of the contention.
Except on this point, Staff finds LEA's clarification of its proposed contention I-8 useful and does not oppose admission of this contention.
1-10.
The Staff considers the example of control room switches and dials being in close proximity and possibly causing the wrong switch to be thrown or dial to be read to be an example of operator error rather than common-mode failure.
-1/
Tr. 230, 234-235. The Staff has also advised the Consnission in reporting on its implementation of the " Statement of Interim Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Ac.cident Considerations," 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (June 13, 1980):
In the near term, calculational refinements to " fine tune" the PRA analyses will be discouraged, since the basic intent (until development of a common PRA methodology for the NREP [ National Reliability Evaluation Program]) should be to compare systems and not to try tc demonstrate a new level of absolute risk for nuclear power plants.
SECY-81-25 "Perfonnance of Probabilistic Risk Assessment or Other Types of Special Analyses at High Population Density Sites" (January 12,1981), a copy of which was transmitted to the Board and parties with the " Affidavit of Albert Schwencer and Ashok C. Thadani Regarding Schedule for Staff Review of PRA."
_4 I-18. As Staff stated at the prehearing conference, it does not oppose the reworded contention. Tr. 285.
1-19. By its clarification, LEA appears to allege that an anlysis of the consequences of core "meltthrough" is required in this proceeding for both WASH-1400 and the Limerick PRA. We oppose the proposed contention insofar as it relates to the analysis of consequences in WASH-1400.
1-24. At the prehearing conference, the Board directed petitioner Keystone to address the additional information furnished by the applicant concerning property damage. Tr. 295. The petitioners have not done this. Both WASH-1400 and the Limerick PRA, as amended, address property damage but neither addresses other economic costs of an accident. Thus, the contention calls for a supplementation of the baseline study which would not be likely to produce useful information on the relative risk of Limerick as compared with the WASH-1400 prototype BWR. Accordingly, although Staff did not oppose this contention previously, it now opposes it.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Staff opposes the admission of certain of the proposed contentions as clarified.
Respectfully submitted, g,tl OG t
, ou Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2nd day of February,1982 t
UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION BEFORE THE AT0f11C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the !!atter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C0!!PANY Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LEA AND KEYSTONE ALLIANCE'S MEMORANDUM 0F CLARIFICATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served cn the?following by deposit in the United States. mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nucle 3r Regulatory Commission'.s internal mail system, this 2nd day of February, 1982:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairnan*
Nr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President A General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philadelphia Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 liarket Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Administrative Judge Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Dr. Peter A. Itorris*
Washington, D.C.
20006 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission tir. tiarvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 tir. Frar.h R. Romano Air and Hater Pollution Patrol Janes 11. Neill, Esq.
61 Forest Avenue Associate Counsel for Del-Aware l
Ambler, PA 19002 Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917 Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Joseph H. White III 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1632 11 South tierion Avenue f
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Bryn l'awr, PA 19010 9
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Walter W. Cohen Power Consumer Advocate Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud, Co-Director Office of Attorney General 433 Orlando Avenue 1425 Strawberry Square State College, PA 16801 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Thomas Gerusky, Director Robert W. Adler Bureau cf Radiation Protection Assistant Counsel Dept. of Environnental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DER Sth Floor, Fulton Bank Building 505 Executive House Third and Locust Streets P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Director Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
i Pennsylvania Energency Itanagement Consuners' Education and l
Agency Protective Association Basement, Transportation & Safety Sylvania House Building Juniper and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107 John Shniper Sugarman and Denworth' Heeting House Law Building & Gallery Suite 510 Mennonite Church Road, North American Building Schuylkill Road (Route 724) 121 South Broad Street Spring City, PA 19475 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Robert L. Anthony Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Friends of the Earth of the The National Lawyers Guild Delaware Valley Third Floor i
103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 1425 Walnut Street Hoylan, PA 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Alan J. Nogee Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
- The Keystone Alliance U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 3700 Chestnut Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Atonic Safety & Licensing Appeal W. Wilson Goode Panel
- Managing Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission City of Philadelphia Washington, D.C.
20555 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Secretary
- William A. Lochstet U.S. fluclear Regulatnry Conmission 119 E. Aaron Drive ATTH:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
State College, PA 16801 Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
123 N. 5th Street, Suite 101 Allentown, PA 18102
[
Ann P. Hodgdon O
Counsel for NRC Staff
- - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _