ML19320A819

Motion Seeking Extension of Discovery Period Re Commission 800516 Memorandum & order,CLI-80-16,& ASLB Response Concerning Hydrogen Control Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19320A819
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/09/1980
From:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CLI-80-16, NUDOCS 8007020648
Download: ML19320A819 (9)

Text

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .

.. g .

-

• SHOLLY, 6/9/80 7,/c UN~TED STATES OF AMERICA 2

- p 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p g

% USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 43 JUN 16 G80 > {1. 1 Office of the Secretary Docketing & Service 9 8

)

Brg In the Matter of

) g A

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)

INTE.RVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY MOTION REGARDING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON HYDROGEN CONTROL CONTENTIONS (Board, 5/30/80)

On 5/30/80, the Board responded to the Comission's Memorandum and Order of 5/16/80, CLI-80-16, which answered two questions certified by this Board to the Commission dealing with hydrogen gas control contentions. The Board responded to the Commission Order without benefit of input from any of the parties, especially from those parties whose interests are more directly involved, i.e., myself, UCS, and ANGRY.

I note from the outset that counsel for UCS, Ms. Ellyn Weiss, has moved the Comission to Reconsider their rulings made in CLI-80-16 (See UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 0F CLI.80-16, . ,

/.3 w: .C M 6/4/80), a motion which I support wholeheartedly. Nonetheless,'.I am compelled r ,, y ....

.. = ; e : ,

to respond to the Board's Order which goes beyond the Commission's,.dec.is,1,on and totally rewrites the Contention which I submitted, Sholly Contention #11.- _

The Commission's Order authorizes litigation of a contention which addresses the likelihood of an accident which would generate hydrogen in excess It would seem to me that it would be ._

~

of 10 CFR 50.44 design basis limits.

pointless to argue on this point, since the only conditions under~ which hydrogen "

80 dW" /

- SHOLLY, 6/9/80

. pr s e'

. / ..; -

-~~~

could be generated in excess of design limits would appear to be those conditions leading to the uncovering of the core (i.e. , a loss-of-coolant-accident, LOCA) .

Assuming the engineered safeguards systems are capable of preventing core uncovery (although this is not entirely clear), the question would appear to resolve into a litigation of the likelihood of operator interference with ECCS systems. -It would appear to be inconceivable that the participants in this proceeding could come to any reasonable estimate of the likelihood of this occurrence. The conditions which may lead to operator error in premature intervention in ECCS functioning are clearly so individualized with respect to the operators, the plant involved, and thh "mindset" of the operators at any given time when a LOCA occurs, that it seems to me to be pointless to argue on this point.

Clearly, operator interference with ECCS function can lead to the production of hydrogen beyond the 10 CFR 50.44 limits; the TMI-2 accident is proof positive of this fact. Simple written instructions to operators from the NRC will not preclude such an occurrence from happening again in the future, since operators can misinterpret the instructions, misinterpret plant conditions, and since instrumentation can fail or produce erroneous readings, any one of which could lead again to a large generation of hydrogen gas. Plant operators, as human beings, can be expected to undergo " single failures" and intervene inproperly in ECCS function.

The question, in my view, comes down to this: In the event of the production of large quantities of hydrogen with the inherent risk of combustion or explosion in the containment, how is the public health and safety best protected? There are a number of choices for action in this regard:

1. Procedures and systems could be lef t unchanged, relying i on containment purge to remove exce'ss hydrogen, with the l

I

SHOLLY, 6/9/80

/ ,

-CV _

implicit assumption of higher than 10 CFR 20 doses to the public, and perhaps higher than 10 CFR 100 doses (Ihiew'the atterdosehasbeingi=materialinthis instance--explanation later) .

2. Procedures and systems could be left unchanged, relying on the hydrogen recombiner to remove what hydrogen it can, permitting the remainder to combust or explode and relying on containment integrity to prevent high radiation doses t. t.he public.

3. Procedures and systems could be altered, adding additional

~

engineered safeguards or other systems which would mitigate either the results of combustion or explosion in containment, the results of containment purge, or reduce the likelihood of hydrogen combustion or explosion.

In my view, the first two alternatives are pointless. The doses in 10 CFR 100 are not meant to be acceptable under any circumstance. The are present in the regulations more as an academic exercise for conservative assumptions; i.e., assuming the worst, prove that these doses are not exceeded.

The doses in 10 CFR 100, if received by the general public, would result, almost certainly, . in the shutting down of every nuclear facility in the country, if not in the world. Such doses would not be politically acceptable, at the very least.

In my view, the only appropriate choice of action, in the absence of realistic probabilities of occurrence, is to take the conservative action, which  ;

1 in the present case would result in additional safeguards. The wording of the i

' Board's version of Sholly Contention #11 would appear to preclude following I

1 1

- / SHOLLY, 6/9/80

,.j

v- ,

such a path in the litigation of the issue. I am therefore, moving that the Board reconsider its ruling in its 5/30/80 Memorandum and Order and permit the substitution of the following as Revised Sholly Centention #11:

REVISED SHOLLY CONTENTION #11 It is contended that the TMI-2 accident clearly shows that the generation of hydrogen gas under conditions of a LOCA can, due to operator intervention, exceed the design limits specified in 10 CFR 50.44, and .that such hydrogen generation is beyond the capabilities of presently available hydrogen recombiner systems to adequately eliminate the potential for hydrogen combustion and/or explosion in containment. It is therefore contended that, absent a showing that in the event of a LOCA at IMI-1:

a. Substantial quantities of hydrogen (in excess of the design basis of 10 CFR 50.44) will not be generated..and

b. That, in the event of such generation of hydrogen, the hydrogen will not combust or explode, and

c. That, in the event of such generation and combustion or explosion, the containment has the ability to withstand the pressure resulting from such combustion or explosion (whether the pressure is below or above containment design pressure), thereby preventing releases of radiation to off-site areas in excess of 10 CFR 100 guidelines, additional measures are necessary to adequately protect the public health and safety. It is further contended that should additional l

SHOLLY, 6/9/80

, ,i .<y

-- - ~~

measures be necessary, these measures must be implemented and operational prior to Restart of TMI-1.

l In view of the circumstances surrounding the hydrogen gas control contentions and the substantial changes which have been necessary in wording due to Commission rulings, I move the Board to permit an additional period of discovery on this issue, in line with the following guidelicas:

a. A period of 14 days for original discovery requests to be submitted.

b. A period of up to 14 days to respond to these discovery requests.

c. A period of 7 days for follow-on discovery requests related to the original requests, with written explanation as to why the original response was inadequate, how the original response necessitated a follow-on discovery request, and if so, why the subject matter of that

' follow-on request could not have been anticipated at the time the original request was submitted.

d. A period of 7 days to respond to follow-on discovery requests.

This additional request for discovery will not materially alter the schedule for litigation, since this issue could easily be scheduled for

~

late in the proceeding if necessary.

Respectfully submitted, DATED: 9 June 1980 ,

pg4[, ,

Steven C. Sholly

p. , . . - - -- --

SHOLLY, 6/9/80 j

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L NUCLEAR REGULATORY C(EMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON CCE?ANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that single copies of INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY MOTION REGARDING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON HYDROGEN (DNTROL CONTENTIONS (Board, 5/30/80), were served upon the following by deposit in the mail, postage

, prepaid,_this 9th day of June 1980:

Mr. George F. Trowbridge, Esq. Holly Keck Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Anti-Nuclear Group Representing 1800 M Street, N.W. York ( ANGRY)

Washington, D.C. 20036 245 West Philadelphia Street York. PA 17404 Mr. Ivan W. Smith, Esq.

Chairman. Atomic Safety and Ms. Ellyn Weiss, Esq.

Licensing Board Panel UCS Attorney U.S. NRC Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Washington, D.C. 20555 1725 I Street, N.W. , Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. James R. Tourtellotte, Esq.

Board Panel OELD 881 West Outer Drive U.S. NRC Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little I further certify that a single copy of 5000 Hermitage Drive the aforementioned document was delivered Raleigh, NC 27612 to Mr. John Wilson of Licensee's staff at TMI for service to the remainder of the parties in this proceeding.

A -

r Steven C. Sholly 9 June 1980 .

. .c

/

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) .)

CERTIFICATE OF SURVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Motion Regarding Memorandum and Order on Hydrogen Control Contentions (Board, 5/30/80) dated June 9, 1980, which was hand delivered to Licensee at

'Three Mile 'aland Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on

, June 9, 1980, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, this 10th day of June, 1980.

ohn F. . Wilson Dated: June 10, 1980 O

e

.-- - , , - --.e.

- i[e% e, SE .

f & DOCKETED 4

,/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC

\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

~

4- JUN 161980 > -

1l BEFORE THE. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD " Office of the secretary Docksting & Service In the Matter of ) cp

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Docketing and Service Section Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Office of the Secretary Attorney for Newberry Township U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T.M.I. Steering Committee Washington, D. C. 20555 2320 North Second Street Ear'risburg, Pennsylvania 17110

- John A. Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Theodore A. Adler, Esquira -

Pennsylvania Public Utility Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Commission P. O. Box 1547 P. O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

• Steven C. Sholly Karin W. Carter, Esquire 304 South Market Street Assistant Attorney General Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Co=mor. wealth of Pennsylvania' 505 Emicutive House Karen Sheldon, Esquira P. O. Box 2357 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harris. burg, Pennsylvania 17120 Suite 506 1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20006 Assistant Solicitor County of Dauphin Robert Q. Pollard P. O. Box P Chesapeake Energy Alliance 407 North Front Street 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 John E. Minnich Chauncey Kepford Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Judith H. Johnsrud Commissioners Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Dauphin County Courthouse 433 Orlando Avenua Front and Market Streets State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17101 Marvin I. Lewis Walter W. Cohen, Esquire 6504 Bradford Terrace Consumer Advocate Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Department of Justice 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 ,

• Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed. .

~

• Marjorie M. Aamodt Susan Barley

_g' f R. D. 5 129 Cocoa Avenue Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033

• Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certif.icate of Service

~1s enclosed. .

i .

J e

e

.)

9 4

4 e

. - - - . , . , , )