ML20080N178

Contentions on Environ Assessment of Severe Accidents as Discussed in Des,Suppl 1.DES Does Not Include Consideration of Whole Range of Accident Scenarios Necessary to Produce cost-benefit Analysis.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20080N178
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/16/1984
From:	Elliot C LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8402220143
Download: ML20080N178 (16)

Text

f .

DCLHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 FEB 16 A10:24

- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD- , , . .

- , . L , q;v

In the Matter of )

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) '

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

LEA CONTENTIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS AS DISCUSSED IN THE NRC STAFF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 This document constitutes LEA's contentions on the NRC Staff DES, Supplement No. 1, and discussos the Catawba balancing test for " late filed" contentions. It is filed pursuant to the Board's order of January 20, 1984.

Catawba Balancing Test For Late-filed Contentions The Board has earlier directed the parties to address the factors set forth in the Catawba decisions,1 which factors the Board will then balance in determining whether or not so-called "lato-filod" contentions are admissible. The five factors cf 1C CFR 92.714 (a) (1) are as follows:

(i) good cause, if any, for failuro to file on time; (ii) the availability of other means whereby the petitioncr's interest will be protected;

1. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460-70 (1982): Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 18 NRC ,

, slip op, at 5-6 (July 1, 1983).

8402220143 040216 PDRADOCK05000gg a

40

(iii) the extent to which the petitioner's partici-pation may reasonably be expected to assist in development of a sound record; (iv) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; (v) the extent to which the petitioner's partici-pation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

The three-part test overlayed by the Appeal Board in Catawba (and affirmed by the Commission as appropriate in an admissibility determination) is that the contention:

(a) is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (b) could therefore not be advanced with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advanco of the public availability of the document; and (c) is tendered with the requisite degree of promptness once the document comes into existence and is accessible for public examination.

LET. is submitting its DES Supplement No. 1 contentions l

at this time in accordance with the Board's order of January 20, 1984, and addresses the five 2.714 (a) (1) factors as overlaid by the three-part test.

The DES consideration of severe accidents was prepared by the NRC Staff, after preparation and submission of the Appli-cant's licensing application, and therefore was not available to

3-intervenors for review at the time contentions were originally due in this proceeding. Consequently LEA has good cause for failure to file its DES contentions at that timo -- the document upon which the contentions are based was not available.

LEA's contentions are either based wholly on the DES or are contentions partially or totally carried over from PRA contentions previously submitted. (The Board and parties are all well aware of the evolution of the severe accident analysis from the Limerick PRA to SARA to the DES and that need not be reiterated here.) Thus, in fact, some of LEA's DES contentions are not "new" in the sense addressed in the Catcwba decisions.

The contentions are now being " tendered with the requisite degree of promptness, "since they arc being submitted according to the schedule ordered by the Board.

LEA has no other means to protect its interests as stated by those contentions, in that no other regulatory or judicial body has jurisdiction to hear these matters, either at the federal, state or local level. It .i s lhe NRC's duty, under itu licensing authority, to review all safety matters and to issue an adequate environmental impact statement related to licensing and operation of the facility, and that authority cannot be usurped by any other body.

Nor will LEA's interests be adequatcly protected by any party currently participating in this proceeding. None of the governmental entities participating presently can reasonably be expected to adequately represent LEA's interests, consider.ng the nature of the competing political and other interests that may L

F influence their decision-making. Only two other intervenors have the resources available to them to be represented by counsel, and the scope of their interests (for Del-AWARE, the matter of Point Pleasant, and for the Graterford prisoners, their own health and safety during an emergency at the Limerick facility) is very narrow.

LEA's participation in contentions related to the DES Chapter 5 can be expected to assist in developing a sound record, in that many of the issues LEA raises it has raised previously, in the context of the PRA and SARA. Thus LEA has demonstrated an interest in pursuing its issues ~to their conclusion. In addition, LEA has obtained expert assistance for pursuing many of its contentions, which, while not required for licensing proceedings, is an aid to the Board as well as to LEA.

Admission of LEA's DES contentions will broaden the issuer and delay the proceeding only in the broadest sense.

Ce r tai.41y , if the environmental risk numbers in the DEC are not litigated, litigation timo for this proceeding will'be shortened, llo w e v e r , LEA has not raised in these contentions any truly now issues. Rather, the focus of litigation has turned from the PRA to the DES, due to changes in the " rules of the game"-- due to new policy statements issued by the Commission. However, it is still LEA's intention to focus on mitigation /pravention of accidents during operation of the, facility. In that sense no-thing has changed and the scope of the proce'eding would not be broadened by admission of the DES contentions.

{-.

5-For the' reasons set forth, LEA believes that it is appropriate for the Board to admit its DES Chapter 5 contentions,

&c arv ( 46

) .- Charles W. Elliott 1101 Building Easton, Pennsylvania 18042

(215) 258-2374 e

0 e

d l

I

, , - - . . - . . . . . . _ . . , , . , . _ , . ~ , , , . , . . . . . . , _ , , , . - , . _ .

....,,_,m__-__ _ _ _ , - _ . - . _ . _ -, . _ . . , _ _ . . _ . , , - - . . - _ . . _

=

DES-1 (LEA)

The DES' severe accident consequence modeling assumes the relocation of the public from comtaminated areas beyond the 10 mile plume exposure EPZ. CDES, Supp. 1, pp 5-21 to 5-22). 1 Such an assumption in Limerick's case is implausible and without foundation in fact.

BASIS:

No planning exists or is presently contemplated for such a

" relocation". While NRC emergency planning guidance contemplates the possibility of ad hoc response beyond the approximato 10-mile plume exposure EPZ, in the case of Limerick such an ad hoc relo-cation beyond the 10-mile radius, even if limited to sectors of high contamination, is impracticable. The population in the year 2000 of sector SE between 10 and 25 miles from the reactor is 680,330 (SARA. p 10-33); of sector ESE, is 505,011 (SARA, p 10-33).- No procedont exists for the ad hoc "rolocation" of such numbers of people.

(Note: See also LEA SARA - 3) e

-,e,

7-DES -2 (LEA)

The DES' severe accident consequence modeling uses an assumption of a uniform two-hour evacuation delay time in its emergency response model. (DES, Supp. 1, pp S-21 to 5-22). This assumption understates the likely delay time for a high population density site such as Limerick. This understatement of delay time results in an understatement of Limerick's risk, because accident conse-quence calculations are sensitive to evacuation time delay as-sumptions.

BASIS:

NUREG/CR - 2300, "PRA Proceduros Guide", (Roview Draft) (Sept.

1981), Section E.2.3, p E-7.; Aldrich and Jones, "A Model of Public Evacuation for Atmospheric Radiological Releases",

SAND 78-009, (Sandia National Laboratory, Juno 1978). Based upon these authorities, a more appropriate delay time would be in excess of three hours, inasmuch as the EPA evacuation data l suggests a mean evacuation delay time of three hours.

l l

(Note: See also, SARA-4)

DES-3 (LEA)

The DES' severe accident consequence modeling fails to account for the probability that a portion of the population will fail to take protective action despite planning and instructions, thus understating the actual consequences of a severe accident at Limerick.

BASIS:

Hans and Sell estimate that a percentage of the population ranging from 6% to 50% will not evacuate despite instructions to do so. See, Hans and Sell, " Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation",

EPA - 520/6-74-002, U.S. EPA (June 1974) .

(Note: See also, SARA-4) l l

l l

I 1

r--

~

DES-4 (LEA)

All significant con..quences of severe accidents at Limerick must be fully disclosed and factored into the Limerick cost /

benefit analysis for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The DES' cost / benefit analysis fails to adequately consider certain consequences that will result from a severe accident at Limerick, and considers other conse-quences in a manner that conceals, rather than discloses, the environmental impact of a severe accident at Limerick.

BASIS:

(A) The DES Supplemont fails to adequately disclose or consider:

(1) Total latent health effects due to both intial and chronic radiation exposure, other than those resulting in fatalities, including genetic effects, non-fatal cancers, spontaneous abortions, and sterility (Sec , e.g . , DEIR I-III) ;

(2) The total land area in which crops will be inter-

' dicted; (3) The total land arca in which milk will bo intor-dicted;

~

(4) The socio-economic cost of compensation required for health effects induced by radiation exposure; l

(5) Industrial impacts beyond the first year following the accident, and quantification of costs beyond the " output loss" mentioned in DES, p 5-46; (6) The quantification of the cost of medical treat-ment of health effects; (7) The loss of important resources such as livestock, mineral resources, health care facilities, and scenic and aesthetic resources; (8) The population within the land areas to be inter-dicted.

I

A . _ - ____m A S

(B) By treating some environmental costs in a CCDP format and treating other quantifiable costs in a non-quantitative, subjective manner, the DES format obscures the total impact of severe accidents at Limerick.

(C) The DES cost / benefit summary (DES Supplement No.1, p 6-1) ignores all severe accident impacts other than the incompletely calculated adverse radiological health effects.

(Note: See also SARA-5) e

. _ 11 -

DES-5' (LEA)

The env'ironmental risk of accidents durina operation of the Limerick ' facility as proposed for licensing is significant, and preventative and/or mitigative alternatives to the design, mode of operation, pr,ocedures, and for number of reactors presently proposed must be considered for purposes of coupliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and with 10 CFR SS51. 20 (b) , 51. 21,' 51. 2 3 (c) and 51.26. None have been considered.

BASIS At the construction permit stage, the environmental review of proposed plant operation did not include a comprehensive review of the risk posed by seveco accidents at Limorick, pursuant to Commission policy of that era. The Commission's S tatement of Interim Policy, " Nuclear Power Plant Accident

! ' Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," 45 FR 40101 et seg. (Interim Policy on Severe Accidents l

Under NEPA), altered that policy and mandated a review of tho

" environmental risks (impacts) attributable to accidents at the f

particular f acility. Id. at 40103.

By issuing its Interim Policy Statement on Severe Accidents Under NEPA, the Commission has in effect made the threshold determination regarding the significance of the risk of severe accidents. -From the requirement to include j

I such consideration in its NEPA review flows the requirement to censider alternatives to reduce or avoid impacts. 10 CFR SS51.20(b), 51.21, 51.23(c) and 51.26.

t l

In any case, in its Interim Policy Statement on Severe. Accidents Under NEPA, the Commission directs the Staff to "take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant

' early consideration of either' additional features or other actions which would . prevent or mitigate the consequer.ces of serious accidents." Id. at 40103. Limerick has been so identified, due to the abnormally large population surrounding the site--

Philadelphia Electric Company is the first applicant for an operating license to have been required, as part of its applica-tion, to submit a cevere accident risk assessment (PRA/ SARA).

The risk at Limerick exceeds that posed by the Reactor Safety Study BWR, and all other reactors for which risk assess-ments have been performed with the sole exception of the Indian Point facility. .See DES, pp 5-56 to-5-60. Intervenors contend M

that the risk is significant.enough, even if one accepts the DES

- risk estimates as.accurato, to warrant a detailed examination of alternatives to the present facility design and operation pro-posed for licensing, as required by 10 CPR 0051.20(b), 51.21, 51.23(c) and 51.26, and by:NEPA. 10 CPR gg51.20 (b) and 51.23(c),

respectively,. require that the applicant's environmental report and the Staff's environmental impact statement " include a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental L(and~other) effects of the facility and the alternatives available

'for reducing or avoiding adverse' environmental (or other) effects."

(Emphasis added.)

o _.___

The Staff and its contractors are investigating design alternatives for' Limerick which reduce the adverse environmental effects of severe accident?, See NUREG/CR-2666, Chapter 7, "Furcher Considerations of Mitigative Features for Specific Plants:

Limerick',' ano documentation of studies under NRC Contract NRC-03-83-092, attached to LEA's earlier filing of October 10, 1983, " LEA's Reply to Applicant and Staff Response to Severe Accident Risk Assessment Contentions". An examination of cost-offective alternatives which would reduce the adverse environ-mental consequences of the licensing action is therefore feasible, and mandated by the~ Commission's regulations, and by NEPA.

These alternatives should be considered in the Staff's NEPA review. LEA incorporatos hereby the legal arguments set forth in " LEA's Reply to Applicant and Staff Response to Severe Accident Rick Assessment Contentions", and the FOIA documents attached to that reply.

_ 14 _

DES-6 (LEA)

The DES'does not include a consideration of the whole range of accident scenarios necessary to produce a reliable and realistic cost-benefit analysis, and thus does not comply with NEPA, the Commission's Interim Policy Statement on Severo Accidents Under.NEPA, or 10 CFR 8851.20 (b) , 51. 21, 51. 2 3 (c) and 51.26.

BASIS (a) Sabotage, both externally and internally initiated, during both construction and operation, was not included. (See, excerpt from Sholly, Steven,

" Report on Review of Severe Accident Risk Assess-ment, Limerick Generating Station," UCS, August, 1983, attached to LEA's SARA contention filing.)

(b) liuman errors of commission during accident or transient mitigation were not included.

(Note: See also SARA-7) e

00thETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 14 FEB 16 A10:24 In the Matter of )

) LFFICE cf SELAtW3, Philadelphia F.loctric Company ) prAEHET$ g N O-3G2

)

5 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) . )

CER5'IhICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that " LEA Contentions on the Environmental Assessment of Severe Accidents As Discussed In the NRC Staff Draft Environmental State-nent, Supplenent No.1" have been served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid, on February 13, 1984; those marked with an asterisk

(*) were served by Express Mail on the same date.

• 1.a w c o n u o ll r o n n o r , Nuy. (2) A toanic Hal'u ty and 1.luonni.ny -

Ai uniti o !!n I!o by anni 1,1cun u llig Ajapua i l'a sin i IJoard ll . S . Nuclear Itogulatory ll . H . Nuclear Hogulatory Coinininaion Coinuiin nion Washington, 13 . C . 20550 Wi Hhington, D.C. 20555 Doukotiny atit! Hurvico Doution

• ler. Iticliard P. Colo Atoinic O l? f i c o o l' tinu Ucurotaily Halluty and Liconning U.S. Nuclour Rogulatory l'tou rd Cotinnission U.S. Nuclear 1(ogtila tory Wa nliilig tosi, 1) . C . 20GDG Conun i un i oli W.i::li i nell e en , la.t'. M(l's'e,

• Ann l'. Ilotlililt en , Muil.

Co ti t u;u .I I ol' liltu Gl il i

• 10 . I'<

• l i a A. Mo Ti n Atonnie O li l? ico o l' l ino Mxoun t i vi.

M.il ta ty inid 1. i cu n u i. ity 1.cyal IJ i. rt.u l.o r llou rd U.S. Nuulua r 1(ogu l.a tory U.S. Nuclcar Regulatory Comniin cion Coininisnion Washington, 1) . C . 2055G W.utlii ng ton , D.C. 205G5

• Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, H. W. -

Washington, D. ',C, 20006

Atomic Sofoty and Licensing Steven P. tiershey , Esq.

Board Fanel Community Legal

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Servicen, Inc.

Commission Law Center West North Washington, D.C. 20555 5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19139 Philad.elphia Electric Company ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Angus Love, Esq. 101 East Vice President & Main Str.nct Norristown, PA General Counsel 19401 2301 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano Ardmore, PA 19003 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

. Sugarman & Denworth Suite Mr. Robert L. Anthony 510 North American Building Friends of the Earth of 121 South Broad Street the Delaware Valley Philadelphia, PA 19107 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Basement, Transportation 6504 nradford Torraco and Safety Building -

Philedciphia, PA 19149 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phyllis Zitzer, Esq. Martha W. 11u n h , Eny, leimurick ~,cology Action Kathryn S. lcwis, Usy.

P.O. Box 761 City of Philadelphia 762 Queen Street Municipal Services aldg.

Pottstown, PA 19464 15th and JFK Blvd.

Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. Philadelphia, PA 19107 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sponco W. Perry, Esq.

l Region I Associate Concral Counsol 631 Park Avenue Federal Emergency King of Prussia, PA 19406 Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. U40 Zori G. Forkin, Esq. Washington, DC 20472 l Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Thomas Gerusky, Director l

Governor's Energy Council Bureau of Radiation 1625 N. Front Street Protection l Ilarrisburg, PA 17102 Department of Environmental Resourcon I .lamon Wiggins 5th Floor, Pul ton llank 151d9 Senior Resident Inspector Third and I,ocust Stroots U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1-garrisburg, PA 17120 Commission '

P.O. Box 47

• I Sanatoga, PA '19464 ,

l

^

u / W Nk.d l

.