ML19263A725

Forwards Revised Language to Motion to Plead Matter in Controversy Filed 780905.Areas Remaining for ASLB Resolution Are Identified

ML19263A725
Person / Time
Site:	Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant
Issue date:	12/15/1978
From:	Daugherty T OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (SUBS. OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRI
To:	Kornblith L, Schink D, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7901020185
Download: ML19263A725 (11)

Text

-

~

,' . - '~;r ROOli ,

j' bi$

Y..

Cffshora Power Systems ._

~~--

December 15, 1978 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

'Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr., Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David R. Schink, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Oceanography Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Offshore Power Systems, Docket No. STN 50-437 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board:

In correspondence to the Board with copies to the parties dated November 9 and November 29, 1975, the Applicant advised the status of negotiations on revised language respecting the Motion to Plead a Matter in Controversy, et al, previously filed by the Applicant on September 5, 1978.

By attachment to this letter, the Applicant sets forth the revised language and also advises the Board of those areas in which agreement has not been reached. For the convenience of the Board and the parties the attachment sets forth the entire text of the Matter in Controversy employing the same paragraph numbers used in the original

?901020185 -

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, et al December 15, 1978 Page No. Two Motion. At the end of the text is a statement of the areas where agreement has not been reached and where the offices of the Board are sought for resolution.

As the Board is no doubt aware, the Commission by Order dated December 8, 1978 has agreed to accept certification of ALAB-489 and 500 respecting the question of including an environmental analysis of a Class 9 accident in this proceeding.

The December 8 Order also sets forth a briefing schedule that leads the Applicant to believe that early resolution of the Class 9 question is contemplated. The Applicant, therefore, believes that it may be prudent for the Board to treat the Matter in Controversy as a pending subject under advisement rather than ruling now since subsequent. Commission action with respect to ALAB-489 and 500 may render the Matter in Controversy moot.

The Regulatory Staff joins in advising the Board regarding the revised language in the attachment respecting the Matter in Con-troversy and the identification of those areas remaining for Board resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

@kDaughezI5, T. M.

A. 1 f Counsel for the Applicant Offshore Power Systems TMD:jb cc: All Parties per the Attached Service List.

ATTACHMENT TO DECEMBER 15, 1978 LETTER OF APPLICANT TO THE BOARD I. Statement of the Matter in Controversy, Revised Language Applicant, Offshore Power Systems, hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") to admit as a matter in controversy in this proceeding the following:

The two environmental conditions proposed by the Regulatory Staff in the Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Part III, NUREG 0127, Revision 1 (hereinafcer referred to as "RDES-III") should not be included as con-ditions to the Manufacturing License of Applicant because the proposed conditions are without technical justification, are based on environmental impact assessments which employ improperly conservative rather than realistic evaluation methods, are premised on comparisons between land based nuclear plants (LBPs) and floating nuclear plants (FNPs) which are biased against floating nuclear plants, and their imposi-tion would constitute arbitrary, capricious and unlawful action by the Commission.

The two such environmental conditions proposed by the Regulatory Staff in RDES-III at page xiv are:

"d. The applicant shall replace the concrete pad beneath the reactor vessel with a material that provides increased resistance to a melt-through by the reactor core and which does not react with core-debris to form a large volume of gases. Any such feature shall not compromise other safety requirements for the facility."

"e. The siting of floating nuclear plants in estuarine and riverine waters is precluded unless such sites are appropriately modified in an environ-mentally acceptable manner so as to insure timely source interdiction of radioactive material, and limit the introduction of such material into the surrounding water body in the event of a' core-melt accident."

In support of and as bases for a matter in controversy, the Applicant alleges:

1. The Staff, contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Commission policy, uses conservative rather than realistic assumptions as follows:

(a) The Staff assumed that 80% of the sump fluid and its associated radioactivity could be released to basin water and that 50% of the radioactivity in core debris could be leached to basin water in the one week assumed to be necessary for effective source interdiction, RDES-III, p. 3-11. The Applicant contends that the values assumed by the Staff for release of sump radioactivity and for release of radioactivity from core debris via leaching in the one week before effective source inter-diction can be accomplished do not represent realistic values.

(b) The Staff states on pages 3-41 of RDES-III that the radiological impacts for a postulated core melt for an FNP in an estuary were assumed to extend for 200 linear miles of shoreline and as a conservative upperbound time limit to last up to 100 years. The Applicant contends that these assumptions do not represent realistic values and lead to significantly overestimating the radiological impacts via liquid pathways for postulated core-melt accidents.

(c) The strong overstatement retained as a con-servatism for estimating the marine-related econcmic impact of a postulated FNP core-melt accident in an estuary as stated on p. 3-41 of RDES-III.

(d) Estimating dose impacts via seafood pathways for FNP estuarine sites by doubly counting dose from water column and sediments.

(e) The technical basis for assuming degraded ECCS performance is inadequate and that such degraded performance was assumed to the point of ECCS failure.

2. The Staff comparison of LBPs and FNPs is biased against FNPs for reasons which include:

(a) The risk comparison is distorted in that-it unduly emphasizes subsets of the Class 9 .

accident scenarios which are not the dominant contributors to overall risk.

(b) Liquid pathways consequences for LBP lake and small river sites were not included.

(c) The air pathway analysis was based upon '

realistic assumptions in calculating con-sequences while the liquid pathway analysis was based upon conservative assumptions for such consequences, resulting in a distorted conclusion regarding the contribution of liquid pathw ays to overall risk.

(d) The effectiveness of liquid pathway inter-diction for the FNP was arbitrarily limited such that it was not applied in the risk analysis if individual doses were less than 0.5 Rem (see p. 3-11 of RDES-III) even though RDES-III states interdiction to achieve lowered dose levels consistent with the best available technology is likely (see

p. 3-38 of RDES-III).

_4

(e) Source interdiction for licensed LBPs was unjustifiably assumed consistently effective, thus precluding release of radioactivity to the hydrosphere.

3. The Staff's basis for concluding that the environmental risks via liquid pathways from FNPs are un-acceptable is arbitrary and not supported by evidence as shown by:

(a) The overall risks from core-melt accidents at FNPs fall within the range of overall risks for existing LBPs.

(b) Imposing environmental conditions based solely upon an evaluation of the comparison of FNP and LBP liquid pathway consequences, without any comparison to other societal risks, resulting in a design penalty for the FNP to account for consequences which are both remote and speculative and not required r>v1rer NEPA.

.c- *e fact that monetized risks from an FNP frcG a core-melt accident are of the same magnitude as for normal operation of an FNP.

(d) A lack of due recognition of the fact that credible (i.e., less severe than Class 9) accidents are less severe for FNPs than for LBPs, and that only credible accidents should be considered in imposing environmental conditions.

(e) The Staff's overall cost-benefit analysis is inadequate because the Staff failed to consider the specific costs and benefits associated with the imposition of environmental conditions (d) and (e) set forth at p. xiv of RDES-III,

4. The second environmental condition (RDES-III, page xiv at paragraph e) relating to riverine and estuarine siting is imposed in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix M, in that it is site-specific.

II. Areas of Revised Language Where Agreement Was Not Reached and Board Resolution is Sought

1. There is not agreement that the statement of the Matter in Controversy as set forth in this attachment in the single-spaced, double-indented portion at paragraph I supra is an adequate and accurate summary of the bases of such statement.

2. There is not agreement with respect to the wording of 1(e).

3. There is not agreement with respect to the wording of 3(b).

4. There is not agreement with respect to the following phrase in 3 (d) :

"and that only credible accidents should be considered in imposing environmental conditions."

OPS SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Martin G. Malsch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Stephen M. Schinki, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marc R. Staenberg, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael W. Grainey, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Dr. David R. Schink, Member U. S. Nuclear R'egulatory Commission

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C. 20555 Department of Oceanography Texas A & M University Barton Z. Cowan, Esquire College Station, Texas 77840 John R. Kenrick, Esquire Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr., Member Forty-second Floor Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board 600 Grant Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C. 20555 Thomas M. Daugherty, Esquire Dr. David L. Hetrick, Alternate Member Offshore Power Systems Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 8000 Arlington Expressway Professor of Nuclear Engineering P. O. Box 8000 The University of Arizona Jacksonvil.e, Florida 32211 Tucson, Arizona 85721 Carl Valore, Jr., Escuire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire, Chairman Valore, McAllister, DeBrier, Aron Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel & Westmoreland U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mainland Professional Plaza Washington, D. C. 20555 535 Tilton Road P. O. Box 152 Richard S. Salzman, Cha'rman Northfield, New Jersey 08225 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard M. Hluchan, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Dr. John H. Buck, Member Department of Law and Public Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Division of Law - State House Annex U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Washington, D. C. 20555 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Michael C. Farrar, Member Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 917 Fifteenth Street, N. W.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C. 20005 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. William Pntter, Esquire Chief Hearing Counsel Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Office of the Executive Legal Director State of New Jersey U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 520 East State Street Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 141 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Director (2)

Division of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Page 1 of 2

. . George B. Ward Nuclear Power Plant Committee City Hall Brigantine, New Jersey 08203 Mr. Harold P. Abrams, President Atlantic County Citizens Council ,-

on Environment 9100 Amherst Avenue Margate, New Jersey 08402 Dr. Willard W. Rosenberg, Chairman Energy Comnittee Atlantic County Citizens Council on Environment 8 North Rumson Avenue Margate, New Jersey 08402 Mr. John H. Williamson Energy Committee Atlantic County Citizens Council on Environment 211 Forest Drive Linwood, New Jersey 08221 Page 2 of 2