ML20041A991

Response to New NRC Objections to Probabilistic Risk Assessment Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041A991
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/16/1982
From:	Dorsey J DORSEY, J.A., KEYSTONE ALLIANCE, LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8202230130
Download: ML20041A991 (6)

Text

, 1 .

t .

A!

~

U? :nh

?s >' n-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 22 R((? Jp p2 O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  :

PHILADELPHIA. ELECTRIC COMPANY  : Docket Hos. 50-Limerick Generating Station,  : 5 Units 1 and 2  : O,

( RECEIVED $3 RESPONSE OF LIMERICK ECOLOGY 7: FEB 2 21982m -

ACTION AND KEYSTONE ALLIANCE TO NEW (9 NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO PRA ~ CONTENTION A $j uumumwtreact N* maem g

st J 4

Limerick Ecology Action's Motion for Leave to File R to New NRC Staff Objections to PRA Contentions having been granted, Limerick Ecology Action and Keystone Alliance respond as follows:

A. Objections to Contentions Related to WASH-1400 The NRC. staff is newly opposing contentions I-8, -10,

-11, -12 , -19, -23, and -24 on the ground that they would necessitate extensive supplementation.of the., WASH-1400_ data base itself. Staff relies on SECY-81-25 (p. 9) , in which the PRA staff indicates _its-intent to discourage " fine tuning" of PRA analyses until a common methodology is developed, since the intent of the PRA requirement "should be to compare systems and not to demonstrate a new level of absolute risk for nuclear

~

power plants."

3%b3

. C LEA does not view its contentions as an attempt to obtain ll 8202230130 820216 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR

- .~

r -

'-1Wp.4 -

m.,,

' 2.

g.

a. demonstration of a new level of' absolute risk. -Rather, it

.is LEA's. position that the failure to include the analyses (as spelled out in LEA's contentions) in either WASH-1400 or the' Limerick PRA has'resulted in a document that does not present an accurate picture'of even comparative risk.

• It is very possible.that,one or more of the analyses that have been excluded from consideration, if included, would reveal new dominant accident sequences. Changes in the amounts of radioactivity released and/or the spectrum of radioisotopes released could be revealed in the new -accident sequences. Because of the.high population density in close proximity to the' Limerick site, .;

the consequences of an accident arising from a new-dominant sequence could be significantly increased, and early injuries. ';

and fatalitiesLin particular will not increase linearly.

Thus LEA contends that Limerick may pose a relatively greater threat ~

than has been assessed in the PRA as it currently exists. 3 LEA contends that such considerations as external events, '

equipment aging, etc., as spelled out in its contentions must be analysed in order to discover whether there are dominant accident sequences that have not been taken into account which could affect the ca'lculation of relative risk at Limerick. '

It should be noted also that in the PRAs presently being a,

conducted'for other nuclear power facilities, there is. considerable d

~ inconsistency in the scope of those studies. (See SECY-81-25, E..

g Enclosure 1, Table.) 1

'For instance, external events are being.

8::

considered'for Indian Pcint and 7. ion, which are in the highest g

6%

risk category --- Substantially Above Average (see SECY-81-25, b I

3.

~

Enclosure 2) -- along with Limerick, as well as for Oconee, which is in the second lowest risk category -- Average.

Yet external events have been excluded from consideration in the Limerick PRA. ,

t LEA contends that the staff policy of avoiding " fine i tuning," even if it were justified, is being applied with no apparent consistency or rationale for inconsistency.

I l.

B. Other Staff Obiections .

I-8.

In response to NRC staff's request for further clarification, j

I-8 is directed to the Limerick PRA only, and not to WASH-1400. t 5

I-10. y" LEA disagrees with the staff that the additional examples 5]

of control. room proximity errors should be classified as operator M

,si error rather than common mode failures. A common mode failure b El is one in which one initiating event causes more than one failure.

While LEA and the NRC may disagree semantically, the fact remains EE Eli that the PRA excludes consideration of failures that result from 3 m:.

layout (structural / spacial) proximity rather that functional d connection. Ij It is that exclusion to which LEA objects, regardless  :$

of what it is called. =

b N

I5

=

d 2.4','*

.n

,:a

'"4J.'.,

A

.. 4.

s+

~

I-24. The materia 1 submitted to the NRC by the Applicant on property damage consists'of a one-page response plus six graphs.

It is not possible to tell from the submission exactly what was included in the property damage calculation. LEA and Keystone assume that onsite damage, costs of replacement power, costs of onsite cleanup, medical costs, costs of replacing water supplies,

~

etc., were not included. Thus I-24 should be admitted as it .

- is presently drafted, until discovery can be pursued and the contention refined appropriately.

C. Conclusion For the reasons enumerated, LEA and Keystone Alliance believe that contentions I-8, -10, -11, -12, -19, -21, -23, 4

and -24 are admissible in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

' /

U

~

\

JUDITH A. DORSEY L/

1315 Walnut St., Suite 1632 i

Philadelphia, PA 19107 215 735-7200 Charles W. Elliott 123 N. 5th St., suite 101 Allentown, PA 18102 l

215 821-8100 Counsel for Limerick Ecology Action c-+ . - , ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0 0 ' -;E - ~

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoiq}g gesgon g of Limerick Ecology Action and Keystone Alliance-to New NRC C' n Staff Objections 1 tc i A Contentions were served 3' '

I le'p"oEiB

. . . . . a . rt in the US mail, firs- class, postage prepaid,.on February 16, 1982, upon the following:

Lawrence 3:enner, Chairman Accmic Safety andLicensing Scard Ad 'nistrative Judge Panel U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Nashinc:cn, DC 20555 Washing:cn, CC 20555 Atcmic and Safety and Licensing n.

2#

.-- .".=-d 7 Cote

- . .a.ec e a - - 3= .~.e -

l Administrative Judge U.S. NRC

".S. NRC Washing:cn, OC'20555 Washing:cn; DC 20555 Decketing and-Serrice 5ecticn s.

s- ca.a.

.M.c _ - ' s O'#_4 -m e c# ..".e ce r--- = w = -v,

, <,:---, a -- :- ._ ..e u udg e L, . s . N,C L'.S. NRC Washingten, DC 20555

.;c. e .. a:. . n . .. ,- mc ,ga 2 o-v.ece-. ac ,- , :.

. ...e.. =..

. aw s, 7-~.

a

-a . C c ...rc..wa = 1 ..".

. --- ^a # .on ' , D e'.

Office of Executive Legal 505 Executive "cuse

-- C--.- :O mc.x ;a:,

c. a.. ...>-O i-

. . .c. . . . :. .C ' . d .. .' . u.. ,

• a s.u..s

.. y. - - . , ,C

. s onvoso-aa1- .. % .ne,.,

.. _am.

-- . -. e

- - ,. . -- . a . , a ., :an.

- -- .m

..g,,

..,...a-,-

~,

--..a. -..c --

s e--, u,u, .

vm 4=: ---- na c. c~~ ns._,e 4

- ..c.,.cc, ,-

1747 Cennsylvania Ave., NW '1425 Strawberry Sr.

N. a s'.4 ..c. - - a. , m" . -u ' 0006 r. a - d -a-" u - ~- , 22 '-, i ' n.

..u..a ,

=,,,- a n e..

. . .. . 7 --.va-- 4. .

4 e

-. : a..

s-.

-*=

4- _s.-. 4 c e.e. a .s - -- - w 4 s e .1. .

$. a..-. t. . . .:. .

• 3

...---.a. . . . -- s-t

• M, de

,w, 4 7.- 7 - . = - . - -- - - , . . ,~.

. . o .

D#-=r - - . -

"4.cmas Ge '- skv. , D4-=c orv

.-.-.  : r o. , D.e..s.

e,

.= a s e-.e.. . , - - - ,%.. c ._. . ., - 4 .. ..

.r. --.

.,t-... =.a..x- 21c ,

.~.c c" s - m- "-a -

2..e - c- a .. .*. -.t : 1--d '.. . "4'-"

. . . _ - .= .a.c .

e.

. . -. -a g ., , : .n- -t129 =,-

. .a.wu-,,

2.:. .,.7170

=.c

. e . - ., . a. . . . -r

. 0.,. tie W. Wilson Goode

.. . .a..., . cx .,,6

.u. ...- v'2

- -. . , ... 7_.0 0 6.:., Managing Director City of Phila<ielphia nc... :- a. . . m. ns 4.,., r.an - . .

Philadelpi'ia, PA 19137

.t. .  ; g g ....

2- .a. :-

o .w. .--. .. . ,

.. -- .. ss.

. .. c e e r.. w r. --=,

-- ~~~

Il

-- .e. .

4.._ _ S.

9 1.*v*e .

e-,

. . - . =. . . s . ". = - v. , 7a .

. 2.-"... .".= w , : n. 1

- 0 0 .' ^,.,

s v.- ran. .,. 'ya e=ccse

,. 4 - .  ; .,,c..s_

.. .-0i

- . . ... s.

.. - . , , e - v.,. Robert. Sugarman , r sa

..u. .a - .,

Sugarman & Denwort.n ..

. . , - . .. .s , a_4 .,. ~ ~ ... ---

, s.; Suite 510

,' .' ' C - '.= ~. d- c a' 7 e . North American Bldg.

- . = =. . Ca'- ' =-=, n. -.'8801 ..

121 S. Broad St.

Phila. , P A 19107

, a

.u. . ..; - .. . a,.4 a-

4. : u9 ,*  : -,

- c--a - - .~..- .._ , c.-

O..k.- a. 1,, c. .:. 1.. 1. ,+ c

.. a .. s....u. . s.Ia.a.,- -

aw. ,

=CX :

.,..L,.._, .

,- c,-,

. . a ". s . gIC . C e e

-..m. y s .. .. . : , a . .c.

- - , ~

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

wa ,  :: te. 3 ,

3 .4 ..-- _ -

c...e.--a-

.1 .. ., - .-.. . .

5 a.a ci =ca, .A 15301

r. , , --. s :...  :

- r . .,. ., s

.. .. 1..,.-..

w-

...  ::  : .s 0 . .

.e. c.' - '- -

. ~, e- , = .c. a,.ec..:.. .:

.u. . 4 ....

- .e. e -

a- -' ' s -- , '

.. eg j

. .)4L ,

g

. a. . . - - - ., -:

-. _ v La * .

, ... :. _. ,.-- .. - - - . . .... .. e- .= c .=.

. .-.. w.