ML20024A087

Response to NRC Use of Facility PRA & Limerick Ecology Action Response to ASLB 830516 Memorandum & Order Confirming Schedules.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20024A087
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/10/1983
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8306150393
Download: ML20024A087 (11)

Text

o 00CKETED U2RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '83 JUN 13 N0:32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO "THE NRC STAFF'S USE OF LIMERICK PRA AND LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF MAY 16, 1983" The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Confirming Schedules Established During Prehearing Conference (May 16, 1983) (" Order Confirming Schedules")

permits Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, to file a response to "The NRC Staff's Use of Limerick PRA" (" Staff Use of PRA") which is appended to the NRC Staff response to the Licensing Board's Order of May 16, 1983 and Limerick l Ecology Action Response to Licensing Board's Order of May 16, 1983 (May 31, 1983).1 To follow the Board's direc-tive of avoiding repetition, the Applicant will, to the i

extent possible, reference its comprehensive treatment of probabilistic risk assessments in licensing contained in 1/ Order Confirming Schedules at 6.

o 8306150393 830610

)

PDR 9 ADOCK 05000352 PDR L

Applicant's Answer to the Further Particularization of Intervenors' Conditionally Admitted Contentions (April 27, 1983) (" Applicant's Answer").

The NRC Staff's Use o~f Limerick PRA In response to the Licensing Board's inquiry, the Staff states that to the extent such information has some signifi-cant relationship to the Limerick design, it will use information derived from its review of other PRAs to test the reasonableness of data and assumptions used in and conclusions resulting from the Limerick PRA. Applicant has no quarrel with this approach; however, it must be understood that the ultimate uses to which the PRA may be put in the licensing process are not broadened by such a comparison of specific data, models or significant se-

-quences. The use of information from other PRAs to test the reasonableness of data in the Limerick PRA is certainly a recognized method for determining whether the Limerick PRA fulfills a legitimate regulatory purpose. That does not mean, however, that the use of such comparative data or

'information opens up a subsidiary question of what the risk from the Limerick Station is compared to that from another facility. As discussed in Applicant's Answer, this use has been prohibited by the Commission.3/

2_/ Staff Use of PRA at 1.

3_/ Applicant's Answer at 15.

4 In the second part of its reply, the Staff states that it will compare the overall risk of Limerick with the overall risk of other facilities to assess whether the risk at Limerick is significantly greater than that associated with other reactor facilities, in general, with the ultimate goal of determining whether the risk of Limerick is dispro-portionate.4/ The Commission has found that PRAs which have been carried out are not comparable. The assumptions and methodology are sufficiently different such as to prevent a direct comparison.5/

In recognition of this, an early part of the two year review which the Commission has mandated prior to even any decision on the use of PRAs in licensing is to prepare a reference document that describes the current status of knowledge concerning the risks of plants licensed in the United States. The Commission found that it was essential that a reference document be prepared and receive peer review so that the Staff, licensees and public have, inter alia, a common base of information on the dominant contribu-tors to the probability of core-melt and to the public risk 4/ Staff Use of PRA at 1-2. The Staff has repeatedly stated that it has no present basis to believe that this is the case.

5/ For example, some use mean values for expressing the results while others use medians. The methods of calculating and expressing uncertainties may also differ markedly.

and the usefulness of PRA as a technique.b Thus, to the extent the staff wishes to compare the Limerick facility with another facility utilizing probabilistic risk assess-ment techniques, this is, in Applicant's view, an improper procedure for judging the licensability of Limerick. This comparison is not a permissible issue before the Licensing Board.

In its latest pleading, the Staff has failed to demark the boundary between its responsibilities in attempting to improve the licensing process, e.g., fulfilling the require-ments of the Commission for the two year study mandated by the Statement of Policy, . and its role in determining the licensability of the Limerick Station under the Commission's present regulations.7/ As Applicant has discussed previ-ously, in the hypothetical case that the NRC Staff finds that the risk of Limerick is significantly greater than for other reactor facilities, even though the Limerick Generat-ing Station meets all present deterministic regulatory requirements, the only permissible course is for the Staff to bring such to the attention of the Commissioners outside of the hearing process.8/

6/ Safety Goal Policy Statement, 48 Fed. Reg. at 10779.

7/

~

The Staff did make that distinction in its prior statement on the matter, Statement of the NRC Staff's Use of Limerick PRA at 2-3 (April 13, 1983).

8/ Applicant's Answer at 18-19.

If assuming, arcuendo, that matters related to the environmental impact of the Limerick Station are before this Board, the Applicant does agree with the Staff that the proper question is whether the environmental impacts of Limerick are outweighed by the benefits of the operation of Limerick._ This judgment clearly does not involve any comparison between the Limerick Generating Station and any other facility.

LEA's Position on the Use of-PRA Applicant takes issue with the central theme of LEA's position that the Commission intended to split the consid-erations of actual numerical safety goals from the consid-eration of probabilistic risk assessment methodology in licensing.9/ Rather, it is Applicant's view that the Commission has found that the PRA methodology is not an appropriate tool for implementation of the NRC regulations as part of the licensing of particular facilities at this time. Thus, Applicant submits that the Commission's policy statement acts as a bar to the present use of PRA methodolo-gy in licensing, as well to the consideration of how such results would meet or exceed some proposed safety goals.

The Commission has stated that "[t]he Staff should continue to use conformance to regulatory requirements as 9/ Limerick Ecology Action's Response to Licensing Board's order of May 16, 1983 at 6-7.

the exclusive licensing basis for plants."10/ This is a clear ratification of the use of the present regulations as a basis for licensing. Certainly probabilistic risk assecs-ment methodology is not part of the current regulations nor has it been used generally in assessing conformance with the regulations.11/

To emphasize this point, the Commission expressed satisfaction with its current regulations and the ability of existing methodology to assess compliance with such regu-lations:

To provide adequate protection of the 3

public health and safety, current NRC regulations require conservatism in design, construction, testing, operation and maintenance or nuclear power plants.

A defense-in-depth approach is mandated in order to prevent accidents from happeninT2 pnd to mitigate their conse-quences.

LEA points to a number of general regulations which it claims are authority for its hypothesis. It completely i fails to give a single example of the use of PRA methodology 9

in NRC licensing. To the contrary, as previously discussed, the Commission's regulations are essentially deterministic M/ Emphasis supplied. Safety Goal Policy Statement, 48 Fed. Reg. at 10775.

M/ Nor could it be. For example, the utilize the single failure concept present regulations while consideration of multiple failures are inherent in a PRA methodology.

12/ Id.

4 in nature. The Commission has over a substantial pericd of time set up the body of regulations and interpretations and guidance which, taken in their entirety, answer questions as to whether the general regulation cited by LEA are met, including the reasonable assurance, and the substantial additional protection standards.13/ -

In summary, the present Commission regulations and PRA methodology are divergent and inconsistent. The latter cannot be used to assess compli-ance with the former.

Response to Specific Contentions In order to avoid repetition, Applicant has only commented where it has perceived a change in LEA's position.

Unless discussed herein, Applicant's position on each contentions is unchanged from that stated in Applicant's Answer.

Contention I-8. In effect, LEA attempts to incorporate the Brookhaven National Laboratory comment regarding the probability of the loss of offsite power as its contention, but provides no independent basis therefore. LEA assumes that if Brookhaven's calculation is adopted, this contention wculd be satisfied. Applicant remains of the view that this does not present a litigable contention.

Contention I-ll. Even as revised, Applicant submits that this is an improper contention. As previously 13/ See also Applicant's Answer at 16-18 and n.26 at 16.

discussed, the licensability of the Limerick Station is not dependent upon a ccmparison with other facilities. There is no Commission requirement that Limerick be compared with plants surrounded by " average sized populations" whatever that may reveal. In any event, this contention is entirely speculative in that it makes no assertion that the effects of equipment aging would actually present any problem at the Limerick Station.

Contention I-12. This contention remains similarly speculative in that no " poor construction practices" have been specifically identified at Limerick. There is no assertion as to how such hypothesized practices could or should be taken into account. This contention is specula-tive, lacks specificity and basis and should be denied.

New PRA Contention 4. Applicant's position remains unchanged. Intervenor LEA has not provided a basis for this contention.

As a final matter, LEA volunteers to have its consul-tant respond to any questions the Board may wish to ask regarding the PRA. Applicant does not quite understand why LEA's consultant could not participate directly in the preparation and review of LEA's pleadings. In any event, Applicant submits that LEA's consultant should only be heard

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

9-l as a witness, under oath, with the other parties having their procedural rights in place. We submit that this  :

i i

. request should.be denied.

i Respectfully submitted, j CONNER & WETTERHAHN, .P C.

t h '

)

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Applicant.

June 10, 1983 i

+

f I

a 1

4 4

4

[

4 e

T 1

4 W -

-rf f.,_.. . , . -- ,,.w'. , ._ww..,. ,,,,.,r_, , , . - , , , , , , . , . . _ , , - , . _ , , - , , , , . _ - - _w,. . _ . , _ . - . - . . . ,e,.,..

UNITED STATES OF A1 ERICA <

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!O1ISSION In the Matter of ) .;'

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generatidg Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'I he'reby certify. that copies of " Applicant's Response to 'The NRC~ Staff's Use of Limerick Ecology Action Response x to Licensing Board's Order of !!ay 16, 1983'" dated June ^10, 1983, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 10th day of, June, 1983: .

JudgexLawrence Brenner (2)* Docketing and Service Section -

JAtonic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Boa'rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 4 '

Commission' Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.- 20555 '

Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. - -

Judge. Richard F. Cole

• Elaine I. Chan, Esq. -'

Atomid. Safety and Licensing s, Counsel for NRC Scaff Board ' Office of the Executive' ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U,.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 , Commission' Washington,~D.C.. # 20555 Judge Peter'A. Morris

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Lic'

ens'ing -

Beard Board Panel ,

U.S INuclear-Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Commission -

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555' ,i

, i Atomic Safety and-Licensing Philadelphia Electric Company ,

Appeal Panel ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice President &

Commission- General Counsel z washington, D.C. 20555 2301 Market St'reet - e Philadelphia, PA 19101_

' /

t c Hand Delivered

/ .

J .!

/

L r  ? , a a

• Mr. Frank R. Romano David Wersan, Esq. Consumer 61 Forest Avenue Assistant Advocate Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Cffica of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square

'Mr. Robert L. Anthony Harrisburg, PA 17120 Friends of the Earth of ,

the Delaware Valley Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

P. O. Box 186 Community Legal 103 Vernon Lane Services, Inc.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Law Center North Central Beury Bldg.

Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 3701 North Broad Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19140 Philadelphia, PA 19149 Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.

Judith A. Dorsey, Esq. 1425 Walnut Street 1315 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Suite 1632 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 8 North Warner Avenue Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Brose and Postwistilo 1101 Building Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

lith & Northampton Streets Sugarman & Denworth Suite Easton, PA 18042 510 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Jacqueline I. Ruttenberg Philadelphia, PA 19107 Keysteon Alliance 3700 Chestnut Street Director, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation Thomas Y. Au, Esq. and Safety Building Assistant Counsel Harrisburg, PA 17120 ,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DER Martha W. Bush, Esq.

505 Executive House P.O. Box Kathryn S. Lewis, Er.q.

2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 City of Philadelphia ,

Munici5cl Services Bldg.

15tP a.. JFK Blvd.

Thomas Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Dh3 ^ sds ip'nia , PA 19107 Protection Department of Environmental Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mefk J. Wetternann