ML19260E109
| ML19260E109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1980 |
| From: | Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260E105 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130374 | |
| Download: ML19260E109 (16) | |
Text
i f
h' \
UNITED STATES OF A31 ERICA NUCLEAP PEGi'LATORY CGDlISSIC?i BEFnPP Ti[E .TTr eU C SAFETY *? D 1.IC E':STNG FO\RD In the 'htter of )
) ' * > ~
METROPOLITAN EDISON C _~ 31PA . t )
) ( Her> mrt )
(Thren Mile island, l'r. i t 1) )
CERTT FICyrE C E' SHVfCE I hereby certify tluit a s i.nr;1e copy o f INTERVENOR STEVEM C. SIIDI.LY RESPO'sS E TO FIRST SET OF NRC ST AFF INT EPP CGAT CP. l ES , dated 17 January 1930, was 1.and deli.vered to the Three Mile Islan<1 Observation Center;, addres ed to .
~
the Attention of Mr. J ohn 'Wils on , on this -
day of January 1980 101- servi.co to the other parti.es to this proceedir.;; under the tel m of the Li.censee for such servico.
Steven C. Sholly 8002130 3Di
c.;:2
. ,;; y, 0 1.: ns.n - :-
, [ ,.
- . ,/
.:n
/ . ;, ^ 7, ~,^
UNITED STATES OE AMERICA kJ NUCLEAR REGULATOR't' COMMISSION
![\, ,
-*W *4 A* 7 5 1; a y I q f 1 o'T % . T. , i (*
h 5 s
,e '
r (s - o n r o , '1 n . ', T, ') ys.Tt , r"*. ," a ' r T * , -.>i.a. ' ., n u) a[ x c
} )> T *w 'm ?"
. '"t' c'. s .
N. . ' - ..
N
.-Q -s O '
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-239 r on
,e tm"' pr,a. . rt .:, a' c1a1.r v.e, c.~,,.tmmn.v, v. )
m t
( p, a ,. s ,.,. u .)
(Three Mile 1. 31n n ri , Uni.t 1) )
1 NEERVENM ST EVE., U . SHOLLY FIRST Sf1 UE INEEFiiULATORIES TO NCC ST AFF Purs ua nt to 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ti), Interw2nor Steven C. Shol1, di rt et: th f oll owi n:, imterrat atorie > to tna ,
NHC Stalf. ..oute a s peci. fi c i.n d i v i.d ua l 1. s requested to respond, thi.s im clearly noted al ong wi.th the reason for such a request. I n t err oi;at o r i.e' are numbered according to the contenti.on wi.th whi.ch they are connected, L.e., the interroc,atory neobered 10-3 would be the third question related to Contontion 410.
1 - vi i.1 1 U ni. L 1 at IMI be required to conforr wi.th Standard Revi.ew Plan Section 6.2.4, " C o nt a l. n o o n t Isolation S y s t em" pri.or to restz.rt? IE not, why not?
1-2--Does the Staf f consi. der the contai rment ia ol at i on system at IME-1 to be i n con formance wi.th GCC 16, 50, and 547 Explai.n why or why r.ot .
1-3--Is it Sta f f's pos i.t ton t ha t the centaint nt i ; o l ut i. o a :
S yh tem c '_ TM f - 1 s hould be :.ac e.f'it ted c o p ro'/ i. de tor automati.c isolation on d i ve r.s o e i y,rals ? If not, why nor?
1-4--Han Sta f f est irated the quant i t3 o f ra d i.a t i. o n ,.h i. ch >..<a s released to it : e nvi.ronrce nt an a d i_ ro et result of fai. lure of t!'e Uni.t 2 cantairc.cnt to isolate and preven' the pumping of the n actor but1 dint m ap t o t he atn:i li.ar-bui l di.vg ? Ii so, pro Lde thia data. IE not, wi.11 Sta f f provtda s u':h a a e t i.r at i.o n J.n tes ti:aony?
2- 1 --N U!EG - 0 ~;78 at p:.7,e A - 7 c on:c.en t s , wtth regard to the PORV in the pre ~ suri2er at D1I-2, "It is not clear whether these past instances of 1.raproper operation res ul t ed frorn i r aduquate qt ali.fi. cati.on of the valve or from a tas t e u 1reli.ahi.11.t y o f t he valve des i.gn . " Does Staff now kna'., whi.ch of thes e alternati.ves i. s the case? If so, whten one.v 2-2--Has Staf f recei.ved f rom the Licensee details concernimg the quali.fi cation tes t i.ng program i or the pressuri zar PO RV , conduct of which 1.s requi. red by a reconanondati.on from the Lessons Learned Task Force? If so, i.de nt i. f r documents relati ng t o this natter. I f not , will this quali.f tent i.on tes ti ag proc, rara be requi. red to be complete n ,,
n r i.o t to restarr: I t. not, why not; 3-1--Under what conditi.ons t;ould Staf f consider it appre, i. a t t -
for reactor operators to deD at th:' e m.ergen cy core cooltr.g system at l'n i t 1 by either reducipe, fl ow rate or turning
. *4E
3-2--He S ta t f est i c ated the tr.aximu:: pressure which Unit l',
react or contai rn nt wi.ll wi.thstand before failur>'? 3f so, provi de thi.: data. If provided, is tht' pressure d r Cil l t! r L ll3 n , eqik1l to, Or lOH' tlia n t }1e l'ro.s 'it iJe p r O V i.(IC.l I, t ile d'.'* C O n.:! t i. ' > il o f hVd t'f ' r'rl c., < 5 bili. ' . a o ul. d rf1S ill l LFCP a ILCtdl-Wilte r I. i! C t i. O n 'J. LO d Tt2J C t J.011
,c o o t. 0 > >. o f t he m tal 1.n tne core.
3-3-'8 > Staf f revi e ,ed Li em: n< e < ' ', procedurea udtich govern the u,o o! l l'e ECCS at th :i t l? 1 so, has Staff found that the res: sod ptocedure .J 11 p rov"nt de eat o f th ECCS under condi t i or ,s ' : e re s uch de f eet t in the coJe l'ecoming I } 5 ) C O ', t } T.'( ' d ?. c - ,
O poC L [ y t,ile f i rO CO Q(ll O b wh.lCh heIC F U V I C ' '. O G, .
3-4 -Ts it Sta f f' ', posit ion that l'n i. t I complie' with GDC 35 with regard to metal-water rt act i.Ons followlnt, an U CA?
Explai n your anwer.
4-1--Identity the document (s) whi cli represent thu L i. c e n n e e ' s radi.Olegi. cal r:.oni. t ori t t, p rog ra:a.
4 -h ill Sta f f requi re on- s i t e p roces r> i.ne, o f TLD 's for the rad lOlO[,i. Cal F=On i.r ori.rg p rog raPJ for oiF-SitO lOCatio7S an a condi cion of re ;tarr? If uOt, explain t.'rf.
6 - D:n > , t !;' , < > e:s i. s t- a t 1. : m - 1 Loi.t w i. ti ti.1 > 'c!!! ch Li.co rm eo
'EUMt inf0FQ Hiate anel local elUt hOrit i 15 Gl UU7 ril d i J1.1. 0 0 1 CxpOSt11~OS hill.Cl a re :iulCinb frOI; an CiCCldent? II JO, i dOilt [ . ; LI' 'l l I tb I. u a ild 1. t 5 5 O UTC(' . OGU: I,i COIw( 7' Ili O thO C '~l J s ' Ifil l [ t ; O F "!GOt [!:L L lic .,(? 3 l . ;',1. t : i .
f
_q.
4-6--Is Li.consee r equi red t o have radiation r.cmicortn s devices at tne followi ng di tances and, if so, ..lu t is the basis f or det errai ning the n'mber , tyce, end r di.a1 distri.bution of t h w moni.t or : 3 -10 rriles , 30-20 ties, 20-50 m les?
5- 1 -- A ccordtr.g t o NUREG -0 573 at page A-37, " .i recor.t survey of custing gaseous effluent rnonitcri.6 capabi li.ti.es 0:
operati.ng plants shon that less t.han 20 percent of operati.ng plants bave raoni.t ors that .ould have stayed on scale under the condi ti.ons o f the T>!I acci. dent . It enn also ce sho.gn, ho.teve r , that the potential releases f ro:n postulated accidents cay be several oiders of magni.tude hi smr than was encountered at TF11. Under such circumstances, none of the effluent c..on i t o r: now in servi ce at any operating plant would re::ai.n on s cale."
With regards to this quotati.on fr om the Lessons Learned Task Force, an%er the following questi.ons :
A. What i. s total anount of radiati.on
. . o relea sed durtng tn,o ;;.ntt 7 a- cc i.u,ent :
B. What is the total amount of radi.ati.on released in the fi.rst 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the Unit 2 acci. dent ?
C. What ir the renxi. mum releas e ra te (i.n CL/sec) duri.ng the Unit 2 accident'.'
D. Ident i.f: the pos tulated 7.cci.de nt in which the releases o f radi.ati_on ra) ne several orders of magnitude hi.cher than the Unit 2 accidant and identi.f" the e a ti. rated quantiti es which could be released as well as an esti?nte of the iP.aX i 'P.u2 release rate.
e
-a-E. Did the et'F1trnt: n'on i.t o ri r t , s: smm for Untt 1 di s pi, t:s a n:, off-scalo ru a d i.1.t f duc tim , the Unim 2 acci dent ? IE so, spoei fy.
F. Does Li.censee aov; have i. a place ,a Uni.t 1 ef f1tten non t t ori. n; :> m t e' s w :i ch are capable of s t avi ne on-s cale bacNer condit i ons of a Unit 2 acci d nE? h G. I f not , bl11 surb <'.tein 're cp li 'ed e a pre c o n :h. tton of researm :
o ",. .! titov wri' not,
' ill i II(it Y r3 - z - -h .;:a r 1 :,
4 - > . .. ,.
,.tscl 7.
.t.31 a i f- s pontton reg ratrg . c or.p i l an c 4 01 11 wit h GDC 64" ES:plai n vout- answer.
6- 1 --W! at i. 3 St..'E p o s i. t i.o n rt-card i ni, wiien t.ha lti.t;1i- rai q;e efFlu J moni L uri n - 0 :. ; tem n,ust t.:- i nstalled?
6-2--Dous St a E E nian t o rec ui.re de ;i i o e n char.o's to Dit-1 to counter the fi ve features li st ed i n Cont enti.on 16 ?
o It. n o t. , '.ny not. , I f t,0 , s acel f.y.
7-1--Do~ Licens '
n ow cor pl y '.d th 10 C FR 30 Appondix K rerpti.ru n t s ? 11 not, s peci f y short eorci n;;s .
8-1 --Can 1.t er nsee's Emergency Plan 1.o f ully evalt:ated wi thour reviewi ng the Fr orgoney Plan Implementin' Proceduros?
E'.:pla i.n '/o':r a n ,';o r .
8-2--Dnes ti cor s.o m ' s E":orgonef Plan cant.ti n s uf E t ci.ent infor- inton a I)o ut' C l'.' ' I *lg O S t i. o r! 5 ?X p o: ' :PO Ud t I' 'a 'y' ENY ll nUU, what 9
.L n ,t o r: 'ill .Lon .15 1 .
-} a C r.1 ng .
O-3--I.dC t i. I y a:i'v FW UiEOCOntS ECga? d}.ng ClP' T.O('d t. O r up d'I C t ni',
letters o f a g rOn Cilt a nd '; ;de ri t c.'id i I!g o f 1 l:0 t yp(! 'illi cI' .
are appended to Licensee's Emergency Plan.
8-4--Has Licensee suffi.ci.ently justi.fied his choi.ce of a 10-mi.le circular EPZ for Plume Exposure in hi.s Emergency Plan? Explai.n your answer.
8-5--Does Li.censee's Ew.orgency Plan take suf fi.ci.ent note of Class 9 accidents as per di.ucussion 1.n NUREG-0396?
Explai.n your answer.
8-6--What i.s Staf f's posi. tion regardi.ng the need for a larger than 10-mi.le Plume Exposure EPZ due to the large populati.on within 10 mi.les of TMI?
8 -Ca n Li.censee meet the 15-minute ti.me li.mi.t for noti.fyi.ng the publi.c in the event of an emergency at the Uni.t I reactor?
8-8--What i.s Staf f's posi.ti.on on the reliabi.li.ty of the means which Licensee has chosen to control access to Exclusion Area for TMI-l (i.e. , noti.fication of Coast Guard)?
S-9 -Does Li.censee's emergency classifi. cati.on scheme meet the cri.teria speci.fied in NUREG-0610?
9-1 --Iden fi.ty documents whi.ch show the l ocati.ons of the radiation monitori.ng devices uti.li. zed in the Li.censee's Radi.ologi. cal Environmental Monitori.ng Program.
9-2--Does Li.censee now hate the capability of rapidly deployi.nc
. dditi.onal radiation moni.toring devi ces 1n the event of an acci. dent at Uni.t I? If not , s peci.fy short comings .
-7 10-1--Has Staff evaluated the i.mpact of Uni.t 2 decontami nati on procedures on acti.vi. ties at Unit I? If not, why not?
If so, speci.fy whi ch acti.vi.t ies were evaluated and the outcomes of the evaluations, 10-2--Will total separati.on of Units 1 and 2 be required of the Li.cennee as a precondi.ti.on of restart?
11-1--How much hydrogen was produced due to clad metal-water reacti on and radi.ol ysi.s during the Unit 2 accident?
11-2--What percentage of the clad metal reacted to form hydrogen gas i.n the Unit 2 acci. dent?
11-3--What is the maximum pressure the reactor vessel can withstand without catastrophi.e rai. lure ( for Uni.t 1)?
11-4--Does there now exist a hydrogen gas control system whi.ch could have prevented the hydrogen combusti.on whi.ch occurred duri.ng the Uni.t 2 acci. dent? II so, speci fy each such type of system.
11-5--Wi.11 Licensee be requi. red to i nstall hydrogen recombi.ners at Un i.t 1 as a precondition or restart? If not, why not?
12-1--When will starr' Environmental Impact Assessment be completed?
13-1--Identi fy all requi.rr ruent , wi thin NRC regulati.ons relatimg to the Uni.t 1 computer.
13-2--For each requirement listed in response to interrogatory 13-1, assess Licensee's compliance.
13-3--Has Staff required computer systems at nuclear reactors to meet GDC 13 requirements? If so, specify, particularly with respect to Unit 1. If not, why not?
13-4--Will Licensee be required to meet GDC 13 criteria for Unit l's computer prior to restart? If not, why not?
13-5--Will Licensee be required to provide for redundancy in Unit l's computer and printout capabilities prior to restart? If not , why not?
14-1--Identify documents which list all NRC Inspection Reports and LER's with regard to Units 1 and 2, and, if possible, provide copies of such documents.
14-2--Define the phrase " management and administrative capabilities."
15-1--According to NUREG-0616 at page 3, " Human factors played a key role in the precursor events, in the accident scenario, in the response to the accident, and in many other related aspects. Human factors are involved in the perception of the precursor events in the man-machine interface, and in the operators' response to the event. Human factors appear to be a fertile area for consideration. Training and technical qualifications are the most commonly used approaches to influencin6 human
factors. This area, which is not well understood, should be better developed."
With regards to this quote, respond to the following questions:
A. Identify all NRC Staff and contractor / consultant work in the area of human factors , specifiying both past and present work, and identifying all such work by principal investigators and the availability or preliminary and final reports on such work.
B. Is the Standards Development branch of NRC or any other branch of NRC contemplating regulatory guidance in the area of human factors? If no, why not? If so, explain.
C. Identify by name and branch within NRC persons with specialization in the area of human factors, including human factors engineering, psychology (as it relates to perceptions of reactor operators), man-machine interface specialists, and control room design specialists.
D. To what extent have the persons named in "C" above participated in reviews of Unit 1 either for Operating Licensee or for the Restart Report documents? Be specific as possible.
15-2--Is Staff aware of the EPIR report involved with Human Factors Engineering in reactor control rooms (EPRI Report #NP309)? If so, to what extent does Staff feel that this report identifies possible problems in the design and layout of the control room at Unit I?
15-3--NUREG-0616 identifies Recc ;amendation 2.7-3 on page 72-73 of NUREG-0616. Does Staff plan to implement this recommendation? If not, why not? If so, in what manner?
15-4--In NUREG-0616 at page 9 it is stated, " Increased emphasis should be placed on understanding human factors as they relate to safety and security. . ." .
Specify the manner (s) which human factors impacts upon security considerations.
16-1--Identify all studies underway or completed which deal with security (Internal security) at Three Mlle Island Unit 1. Include authors' names and titles of reports.
16-2--WL11 Licensee be required to implement the "two-man rule" prior to restart? If not, why not?
16-3--There is in the NRC local PDR at the State Library in Harrisburg a file which contains a " Routing and Transmittal Slip" dated 4/20/79 from A.L. Eiss to R.G . Smith with copies to R. B. Minogue, G . A . Arlotto ,
K.R. Goller, and A .L. Eiss. Under remarks, this memo
states, " Enclosed are scopes prepared by the SD Staff on Categories A and B Regulatory Guides that are being considered for revision based on the TMI incident."
One of the items within this packet of information submitted with this memo is a document entitled
" PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR SAFEGUARDS STANDARDS BRANCH" whien lists several planned studies. These studies are:
A. "TA contract to provide standards for psychological assessment of security personnel."
B. "TA contract to provide standards for a Continuing Observation Program" to provide an industry useable behavioral observation program.
C. " Personnel Access / Exit Control of Authorized Individuals at Nuclear Power Reactors".
D. " Secure Communications to Nuclear Fixed-Sice Facilities".
Have these studies commenced? Have they been completed?
Identify who is working on these studies, their expected completion dates, and the availability of preliminary or final reports on these studies.
17-1--To what extent has Staf f's accident analysis procedure included analysis of Class 9 accidents?
17-2--Define Class 9 accidents.
17-3--Is consideration of Class 9 accidents, including the specific scenarios in Contention #17, included in the Staff's Environmental Impact Assessment of the TMI restart?
If not , why not?
17-4--To what extent have the following features been included in Staff's accident analysis for Unit 1:
A. Multiple failures, especially multiple failures of engineered safety features.
B. Deliberate acts of sabotage by insiders.
C. Operator error in responding to accidents and transients .?
Respectfully submitted,
.+-
. . ., ,w '
,,Jr e. . . , , - . -
Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street h--717-766-1857 w--717-566-3237 DATED: 17 January 1980 566-3238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
oc e o 0-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY p
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a single copy of INTERVENOR STEVEN C. SHOLLY FIRST SET OF INTERROGATJRIES TO NRC STAFF, dated 17 January 1980, was hand delisered to the Three Mile Island Observation Center, addressed to the Attention of Mr. John Wilson, on this 21st day of January 1980 for service to the other parties to this proceeding under the terms of tne Licensee for such service.
h $!p ./
/
I Steven C. Sholly
(-)
m iso w u w ~.w w w G- h 00C us@U P b ggB0 F 5' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD \
o \/ F
% ;c In the Matter of )
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY e ar (Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenor Stephen C. Sholly Response to First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories and Intervenor Stephen C. Sholly First Set of Interrogatories to NRC Staff both dated January 17, 1980, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on January 21, 1980 were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, this 22nd day of January, 1980.
[JohnF. Wilson Dated: January 22, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 2357 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin Board Panel P.O. Box P 881 West Outer Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Funnich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Commissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney for Newberry Township Washington, D.C. 20555 T.M.I. Steering Committee 2320 North Second Street John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Coun. eel Pennsylvania P.:lic Utility Theodore A. Adler, Esquira Commission Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.
Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Robert Q. Pollard Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Chesapeake Energy Alliance Suite 506 609 Montpelier Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chauncey Kepford Steven C. Sholly
- Judith H. Johnsrud 304 South Market Street Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 433 Orlando Avenue Holly S. Keck State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Legislation Chairman Marvin I. Lewis Anti-Nuclear Group Representing 6504 Bradford Terrace York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' 19149 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. 5 Karen Sheldon, Esquire Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Sheldon, harmon & Weit e Suite 506 1725 Eye Street, N.W. George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20006 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.