ML20093H642

Comments on Staff Presentation at Commission 841002 Meeting. Commission Should Conclude Proceedings Due to Inescapable Conclusion That Facility Safe to Operate & Poses No Undue Risk to Public.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093H642
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/15/1984
From:	Brandenburg B, Colarulli P CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
References
CON-#484-493 SP, NUDOCS 8410160337
Download: ML20093H642 (14)

Text

Il b ' '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'hC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS: 15 P4:23 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts

n-James K. Asselstine '

Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.

)

In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) Docke t Nos .

NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )

NEW YORK ) October 15, 1984 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

LICENSEES' COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 2, 1984 COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING INDIAN POINT Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Power Authority), licensees of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, respectively, hereby respond to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) invitation to submit comments on Staff's October 2, 1984 presentation to the Commission.

Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission to All Parties in the Indian Point Special Proceeding (Oct.

4, 1984).

I. Staff's Assessment of Overall Risk Licensees agree with Staf f's conclusion that "[t] he 8410160337 841015 PDR ADOCK 05000247 3 sos

t -

• overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to no undue risk...(at Indian Point]." Continuation of 9/5 Discussion of Indian Point Probabilistic Risk Assessment at 58 (Oct. 2, 1984) ( Discussion Continuation) . Even accounting for uncertainties in Staff's and licensees' probabilistic risk F

assessments-(:PRAs), the assignment of high risks at Indian Point "is largely out of the question." Id.1 Staff was able to reach this conclusion using WASH 1400-type source terms, which the Staff acknowledges overstate potential accident consequences.

Licensees agree with Staff that the " main finding" is the "very good performance of the containment." Discussion Continuation at 62-63. As Commissioner Asselstine noted, Staf f's conclusion regarding the high level of safety at Indian Point was based on sound engineering evidence, as well as "the discipline of PRA." Id. at 72-73; see id. at 56-57.2

1. Concern for these uncertainties is further reduced by the fact that licensees presented testimony demonstrating that the early and latent fatality risks at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are far below the Commission's Preliminary Safety Goals. See Licensees' Testimony of Dennis C. Bley, Donald F. Paddleford, Thomas E. Potter, and Dennis C.

Richardson on Commission Question Five at 5-7 (Table 1); cf.

Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operation of i Nuclear Power Plants, 48 Fed. Reg. 10,773, 10,774 (1983). l 1

2. Licensees note that the large margin of safety at '

l Indian Point, even considering uncertainties in the PRAs, i and the fact that conclusions regarding the safety of the

[ plants also rely on standard engineering analyses provide a l

l l

F , .

Because all analyses, whether based on standard engineering studies and judgment or on state-of-the-art probabilistic methodology, show the safety level at Indian Point to be high, licensees fully support Staff's conclusion that further plant modifications or backfits are not warranted. Id. at 66; Summary of Staff Testimony on the Risk at the Indian Point Special Proceeding (Continued from September 5, 1984) at 8.4 (Oct. 2, 1984) (Summary).

Although Staff " searched high and low to find cost-effective prevention or mitigation systems that we might advocate,"

Discussion Continuation at 31, it noted that "most of the attributes that we had hoped to achieve through containment backfits [are] already present in the design" at Indian Point. Id. at 6.

II. A Filtered Vented Containment System is Unwarranted In particular, licensees agree with Staff's conclusions regarding a filtered vented containment system (EVCS).

Stnff noted that the value of such a system is "very plant specific" and that with "the type of containment that Indian Point has, it doesn' t add that much to . . . safety." Id.

at 12-13. A FVCS would be of "most value . . . where rather rapid overpressurization failure to containment would be

" satisfactory response" to the Union of Concerned Scientists' concerns regarding PRA. See Union of Concerned Scientists' Comments on Staff Briefing Concerning Indian Point Probabilistic Risk Assessment at 3 (Sept. 25, 1984).

- . _ . . - . - . _ . - . - - . -v- ,- ,, ,.

l expected," id. at 13, whereas at Indian Point, gradual

-overpressurization, although exceedingly remote, is the most likely failure mode. Direct Testimony of James F. Meyer and W. Trevor Pratt Concerning Commission Question 1, at III.B-40; Licensees' Testimony on Commission Question One and Board Question 1.1 and Contention 1.1, at 89 ( Licensees' Testimony on Question One). In addition, a FVCS would not be effective in the case of the V sequence, which accounts for more than 90 percent of the early fatality risk at Indian Point. Licensees' Testimony of Dennis C. Bley and

~ Dennis C. Richardson on Contentions 2.l(a) and 2.l(d) at 8 (Bley/ Richardson Testimony).

Licensees and Staff agree that the cost of a FVCS would be " substantial" and not justified by its marginal risk reduction effect. Discussion Continuation at 9; see Summary at 8.4. There are also considerable uncertainties regarding both the cost assessment of this mitigative feature and its effectiveness in reducing risk. Id. at 8.3; Discussion Continuation at 9, 17. Staff and licensees also agree that the addition of this feature at Indian Point would add its own attendant risks. Discussion Continuation at 16-17; Bley/ Richardson Testimony at 18-19. For the reasons set forth by Staff, Discussion Continuation at 16-17, such a device could even result in a dimunition of safety levels.

No effort was made to quantify the significant attendant t

l l

i

risks associated with a FVCS.

Staff also stated that the calculations in their safety assessment "over-predict the residual risk and therefore over-predict the incentive for further risk reduction." Id.

at 14-15. Licensees' witnesses presented testimony demon-strating that a. seismic collapse of the containments could not occur under conditions caused by any credible seismic event in the Indian Point vicinity, see Power Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact 81; Con Edison's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.1-83, and Staff has now " verified that there is merit in their [ licensees'] analysis and that the seismic threat to containment was in fact exaggerated." Discussion Continuatign at 15-16. Modifications have been implemented at Indian Point, such as the strengthening of the ceiling panels in the control room, which further reduce the risk calculations originally reported by Staff. Id. at 15; see Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study (IPPSS) , Amendment 2, at 7.2-14A-1 through 7.2-14A-2, 7.2-21 through 7.2-21A-1

( April 198 4) .

Additionally, a reduction in the estimate of "the old WASH 1400 style. source terms," Discussion Continuation at 14, currently used by Staff would significantly lower the value of any mitigative feature. Staff stated that "if source terms come down . . . then the value of the mitigation backfits could be substantially less than we

estimated in the hearing." Id. Staff i: "now more confident than we were in the hearing that the licensee [s']

3 position on..-

. . reduced source terms has some merit." '

Id. Specifically, licensees' witnesses demonstrated that using more realistic' source terms reduces the potential

-worth of a mitigative device by a factor of 10. Licensees' Testimony of William R. Stratton, Walton A. Rodger, and Thomas E. Potter on Question One at 63-64.

-Licensees and Staff agree that the absolute risk at Indian Point is low, Discussion of Indian Point Probabilistic Risk Assessment at 69 (Sept. 5, 1984);

Licensees' Testimony on Question one at 23, that neither

- plant "is an out1[iler in the sense of being outside. the i spectrum of what one would find in other plants licensed-to operate by the (Clommission," Discussion Continuation at 51, and that Indian Point does not " require () any special treatment." Id. at 66. For the foregoing reasons, licensees oppose "a continuous search for backfit," id. at 50, which could be a "never ending process." Id. at 54.

l III. A Safety Assurance Program is Not Appropriate Licensees likewise are opposed to the compulsory imposition of the Safety Assurance Program (SAP) proposed by i

Staff. Licensees contend that imposition of a SAP on a non-generic basis at just a few plants with low absolute risks and which, by Staff's own admission, do not merit "special l

treatment," is inappropriate.1 Additionally, as Chairman Palladino and Commissioner Zech noted, this " program" is "ill-defined," requires more " background" and " specificity,"

and a clearer statement of what Staf f is "trying to do" with such a program. Id. at 77-79. Staff stated that if licensees are ordered to implement SAP it "would be the first time that the [Clemmission would have used its regulatory authority . . . to impose one." Id. at 40.

Further, many of the issues SAP is intended to address are generic, id., and should be addressed in a broader context by the Commission. Because all core cooling and containment cooling systems would have to fail to cause an overpressurization of containment, many of the issues addressed in SAP, e.g., aging of equipment and operator training, have minimal impact on public health risk. See Licensees' Comments on the Recommendations of the Indian Point Special Proceeding Licensing Board at 12-15 ( Fe b . 6, 1984); Summary at 10.3-10.6.

1. Adoption of a SAP would require a showing of

" substantial, additional protection which is required for the public health and safety." 10 C . F .R . S 5 0.109 ( 19 8 4 ) ;

see 4 6 ' Fed. Reg . 16,90 0, 16,902 (1984). Licensee objections

, to the imposition of a backfit would require an assessment l by Staff of the costs and benefits of the proposed requirement. 46 Fed. Reg. at 16,904.

I I

l - . ,-, - - - - . , - , . , - - , . - - , , ,.----.,--,--n--, -c - --- -- --n, r,- -, -- - -

l l

1 The genesis of "this program, according to Staff, was its concern that licensees' PRA might-not be used to maintain plant safety. Discussion Continuation at 41.

Staff acknowledged, however, that "[t]here is some evidence that they were making broader use of it, and more of their personnel are aware of it." Id. In fact, IPPSS has not

" sat on a shelf." Since IPPSS was submitted to the Commission in March 1982, two amendments to the original document have been submitted, Amendment 1 in January 1983, and Amendment 2 in April 1984. IPPSS, which involved more than two years (50 man years) of intensive effort, has already been us,,ed by the Power Authority in its continuing research on source terms. See Risk Management Associates and New York Power Authority, Source Term Safety Assessment, Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (July 10, 1984). This work was presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittees on Class 9 Accidents and on Indian Point on July 23, 1984. As Staff noted, licensees have already used IPPSS to modify the plants. Discussion Continuation at 23. Licensees submit that th31r use of IPPSS should continue on a voluntary, not compulsory, basis.

l l

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

E IV. Conclusion

~

It has been more than five years since the_ Union of

. Concerned Scientists filed its petition, a year and a half since the hearings ended, and a year since the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its recommendations, in which it found no basis for curtailing the operations Indian Point plants. The record in these proceedings is complete. All

, parties are in agreement that further testimony or i

submissions are unnecessary. The inescapable conclusion, l upon consideration of the record, is that Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are operated safely, pose no undue risk to the public health, and require no further physical or a

producedural modifications. Licensees, submit, therefore, that the Commission should conclude these proceedings.

Othe rwis e , the Commission may have embarked on a "never ending process."

i

.k

.- ._ _ _ . , _ _ . _ . , _,_ ~ _ , ____ - ._ ____ , - __ ~ . _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ , _ . . - _ , _ . . . _ , . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ _ , , _ . _ . . - _ ,

l l

Respectfully submitted,

/M V Brent L. -Brandenburg(/ /v" h b

Charles Mortfan, Jr.

A m' Assistant General Counsel Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC. 1899 L Street, N.W.

Licensee of Indian Point Washington, D.C. 20036 Unit 2 (202) 466-7000 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Stephen L. Baum (212) 460-4600 General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 5 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commissioners:

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.

)

In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos .

NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ) October 15, 1984-NEW YORK )

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 15th day

• of October 1984, I caused a copy of Licensees' Comments on October 2, 1984 4

Commission Meeting Regarding Indian Point to be served by hand on those marked with an asterisk, and by first class mail, postage prepaid, on all others:

• Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman

• Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts

• Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Commissioner James K. Asselstine Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l l

James P. Gleason, Chairman Charles M. Pratt, Esq.

Administrative Judge Stephen L. Baum, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority of the 513 Gilmoure Drive State of New York Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Janice Moore, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company Commission of New York, Inc.

Washington, D.C. 20555 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003

• Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Joan Holt, Project Director Washington, D.C. 20006 Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research Charles A. Scheine r, Co-Cha'irperson Group Westchester People's Action 9 Murray Street Coalition, Inc.

New York, New York 10007 P.O. Box 488 White Plains, New York 10602 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.

New York University Law School Alan Latman, Esq.

423 Vanderbilt Hall 44 Sunset Drive 40 Washington Square South Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 New York, New York 10012 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Charles J. Maikish, Esq. Steve Leipzig, Esq.

Litigation Division Environmental Protection Bureau The Port Authority of New York New York State Attorney and New Jersey General's Office One World Trade Center Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 New York, New York 10047 Andrew P. O'Rourke Westchester County Executive 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.

New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248 l l

1

._. _= . . . _ _ . - _ _ . _ . _

d

. Marc L. Parris, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing  ;

Eric Thorsen, Esq. Board Panel i County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CountyLof Rockland Washington, D.C. 20555 11 New-Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About Indian Washington, D.C. 20555 Point

. P.O. Box 125 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky.

Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Member of the County Legislature Westchester County Renee Schwartz, Esq. County Office Building Paul Chessin, Esq. White Plains, New York 10601 Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.

Margaret Oppel, Esq. Zipporah S. Fleisher Botein, Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg West' Branch Conservation 200 Park Avenue Association New York, New York 10166 443 Buena Vista Road

, Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Member of the Council of the Mayor George V. Begany City of New York Village of Buchanan District #4 236 Tate Avenue City Hall Buchanan, New York 10511 New York, New York 10007i Judith Kessler, Coordinator Greater New York Council Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy on Energy 300 New Hemstead Road j c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New City, New York 10956 l New York University

! 26 Stuyvesant Street David H. Pikus, Esq.

i New York, New York 10003 Richard F. Czaja, Esq.

s Shea & Gould Joan Miles 330 Madison Avenue i Indian Point Coordinator New York, New York 10017 New York City Audubon Society 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.

New York, New York 10010 New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

Richard M. Hartzman, Esq. 9 Murray Street, 3rd Floor Lorna Salzman New York, New York 10007 Mid-Atlantic Representative

< Friends of the Earth, Inc. David R. Lewis , Esq.

208 West 13th Street Atomic Safety and New York, New York 10011 Licensing Board Panel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '

Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Commission I General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555

, New York State Energy Of fice 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

,m.__,...-....,.-.,mm .,,,._m_m. .m._m.,.m.-.

l Mr. Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological Emergency

-Preparedness Group Empire' State Plaza Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Craig~Kaplan, Esq.

National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 Michael D. Diederich, Jr. , Esq.

Attorney-At-Law 11 South Highland Avenue (Route 9W)

Nyack, New York 10960 Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1101 Washington, D.C. 20036 Spence W. Perry .

Of fice of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency

• 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Stewart-M. Glass Regional Counsel Room 1349 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Staff Attorney f New York Public Interest Research Group 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Jonathan L. Levine, Esq.

P. O. Box 280 New City, New York 10958 O

l k

Jos ph J. Le- ,].

- ,. . __. - - . , -