ML19291C071
| ML19291C071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1980 |
| From: | Swanson D, Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19291C072 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001170031 | |
| Download: ML19291C071 (9) | |
Text
W 01/10/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO UCS INTERROGATORIES On December 21, 1979, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) sent a set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff, consisting of 189 separate requests for information.
Although 10 CFR H 2.720(h)(2)(ii), which governs interrogatories to the Staff, does not set a time limit within which the Staff must respond to such discovery, the Staff is submitting this preliminary response to the UCS interrogatories at this time.
In light of the large number of requests for in f orr at ion, the limited time which the Staff had to prepare responses in light of the holidays, the devotion of a great deal of Staff energy to the preparation of its evaluation of the licensee's compliance with the NRC Order of August 9, 1979, and the fact that the Staff does not yet have a position developed on many of the issues raised by the questions, the Staff is not providing a substantive response to the vast majority of the interrogatories. However, for each question that is not objected to, the Staff has indicated where the information requested will be set forth with the exception of numbers 168 through 186, which will be responsed to at a later date.
In light of the length of the discovery request, and the prel!minary nature of this response, the Staff has not restated the interrogatories, but refers to them by the numbering system provided by UCS in its discovery request.
In responding to the interrogatories, the Staff will not identify documents and i788 322 8001170([)
t
, studies which were not relied upon by the Staff as requested by UCS such as in interrogatory number 5, as such material is not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding within the meaning of 10 CFR h 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
In addition, such a request is unduly burdensome.
The Staff also objects to providing other than final NRC records and documents such as handwritten notes and drafts, as these materials are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.790(a).
As to those interrogatories to which the Staff has noted that review is still under way. the Staff reserves the right to object if, during its review, the Staff determines that the subject matter of the interrogatories is irrelevant or etherwise objectionable.
With respect to portions "D" and "E" of the requested response to each interro-gatory, the Staff states the following.
The Staff has not had the opportunity to determine whe-'ier independent contractors are engaged in research hearing on issues covered in each interrogatory.
For many of the interrogatories, the Staff has noted that it is still reviewing that portion of the licensee's response to the Commission's order dealing with the subject matter raised in the interroga-tories.
lurther research by the Staff or by contractors on subject matters related to TMI-l will be noted in the SE, its supplement, or supplemental testimony covering the subject matter.
The Staff has not yet determined who its witnesses will be on the various subject matters in this proceeding.
Althouch specific individuals have noted their participation in preparing this Response, they are not necessarily going to be the Staff witnesses testifying on the subjects covered in their responses.
Affidavits are attached to the Response by the individuals who prepared the responses with the exception of those interrogatories to which the Staff objects and Interrogatory No. 137, for which the Staff is providing a copy of a pleading submitted in another proceeding.
Finally, none of the affidavits are signed.
Signed affidavits will be provided in the near future.
j[]}}
s . Interrogatories 1-4, as well as the same preliminary questions for each UCS contention, are not being responded to in this document as the Staff has not developed a position yet regarding the UCS contentions. These questions will be responded to in supplemental testimony. The Staff objects to interrogatory number 5 for the reasons noted above. INTERROGATORY Nt'MBER
RESPONSE
Contention 1. Nos. 6.-13. The Staff position on the subject matter covered by these questions will be contained in supplemental testimony. Contention 2. 19 Response will be set forth in supplemental testimon'. 20. Response will be set forth in the Staff's safety eval-uation of the licensee's compliance with NRC Order of August 9, 1979 (SE) and in supplemental testimony. 21. Respense will be in supplemental testimony. 22. Reactor coolant pumps will not comply with GDC 17. 23. Reactor coolant pumps will not comply with IEE 279. 24 Reactor coolant pumps will not comply with GDCs 2 and 4. 25. Matter is under review; response will be set forth in supplemental testimony. Contention 3. 31., 32. Response will be in supplemental testimony. Contention 4. 38. Response will be set forth in the SE prepared by the NRC Staff. 34 Response will be set forth in supplemental testimony. Contention 5. 45.-47 Response will be set forth in supplemental testimony. 1788 324
, 48., 49. Response will be set forth in the SE. Contention 6. 55. Response will be set forth in supplemental testimony. 56. This matter is currently under review; a response will be set forth in a supplement to the SE prepared by the NRC Staff. 57.-59. This matter will be reviewed at a later time based on information in a generic report to be submitted by the licensee. An answer will be provided in supplemental testimony. 60. Response will be set forth in the SE or in supple-mental testimony. Centention 7. 66 Yes, some of the short and/or long term measures recommended by the Staff will provide instrumenta-tion to directly measure the water level in the fuel assemblies. A more complete respense will be set forth in the SE, 67. Not applicable. 68. This issue is under review; a response will be given in an SE supplement. 69.-71. The training program to inform reactor operators of new procedures is described in the licensee's restart report. The Staff's analysis of the program will be contained in a supplement to the SE. 73. Response will be set forth in the SE. 74. This issue is under review; a response will be provided in supplemental testimony. Contention 8. 80., 81. This matter is currently under review, a response will be provided in supplemental testimony or an SE supple-ment. 82. Response will be set forth in the SE. Contention 9. 88., 89. The NRC Staff objects to these interrogatories as being unrelated to this proceeding. The relationship between 1.47 and TMI-1, which is relevant, is asked for in the next interrogatory. 1788 325
e . 90. No. TMI-1 does not comply with Regulatory Guide 1.47. A more complete answer will be provided in supplemental testimony. 91. Yes, it is the Staff's position that TMI-1 can be operated safely without being in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.47. A more complete answer will be provided in supplemental testimony. Contention 10. 97., 98. Responses will be provided in supplemental testimony. 99. Yes, it is the Staff's position that a TMI-2 operator prevented a protection system action from going to completion. 100. Response wil! be set forth in supplemental testimony. Contention 11. 106. L 107. Response wil be set forth in SE and in supplemental testimony; however, Staff review of hydrogen capacity was based on limits set forth in 10 CFR M 50.46(b)(3). Contention 12. 113. - 120. Response will be in supplemental testimony. 121. Matter is under review; response will be in supplemental testimony. 122., 123. The Staf f objects to these interrogatories as being unrelated to this proceeding. The relationship between TMI-1 and IEEE-323-1974, which is relevant, is apparently not being asked for in these questions. (See No. 124.) 124 - 127. Response will be in supplemental testimony. Contention 13. 133. - 136. Matter is under review; response will be set fcrth in supplemental testimony. 137. In the Salem Unit 1 proceeding, the Staff in a pleading adopted the language of the proposed Annex to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D in defining what constitutes a Class 9 accident. ("NRC Staff Response to Board Ques-tion No. 4 Regarding the occurrence of a Class 9 Accident at Three Mile Island," dated 8/24/79, p. 2). A copy of the Staff pleading is attached. 1788 326
. 135. Prior to the TMI-2 accident, the Staff had not developed an opinion of the probability of the occurrence of the exact sequence of events which occurred at TMI-2. 139. The portions of NUREG-1585 referred to in the interro-gatory deal with defense in depth. All of the members of the TMI Lessons Learned Task Force contributed to some extent in the preparation of the report on the subject. The members of the Task Force are listed on page vil of the Task Force's " Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations" (NUREG-0578), a copy of which was provided to you. 140. - 142. proposed rulemaking of generic subjects is unrelated to this proceeding. Accordingly, the Staff objects to these interrogatories. 143. Yes. 144. The Staff has made a recommendation regarding the formu-lation of requirements for design features that could mitigate the consequences core-melt accidents: "Public safety may be enhanced and individual and societal risk reduced by developing and implementing a phased program to include, in safety reviews, consideration of core degrada-tion and melting beyond the design basis. The program phases are (1) short-and medium-term actions for coping and implementation; (2) research programs to develop additional needed information; and (3) a rulemaking proceeding to establish long-term policy, goals, and requirements related to accidents involving core damage greater than the present design basis. The recommendation is contained in " Action Plans For Implementing Recommendations of the President's Com-mission and Other Studies of TMI-2 Accident," Draft NUREG-0660, 12/10/79. at pp. II.B-1-13, a copy of which is attached. 145. - 147. The Staff objects to these interrogatories, all of which question the Commission's rationale for not per-mitting the general consideration of Class 9 accidents at land-based plants. UCS may not properly probe into the basis for the proposed Annex to 10 CFR Part 50, App. D. which provides the staadard for not considering Class 9 accidents, and which was left intact by the latest Commission pronouncement on the subject in the Offshore Power Systems case (referenced in interroga-tory Nos. 147.-149.). }fbb
I t 148., 149. The Staff objects to these interrogatories on the ground that they probe into generic matters not specifically related to this proceeding. To the extent that UCS is inquiring into whether the Staff will recommend that any environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents be con-sidered in this proceeding, that answer will be provided in response to the Board's "Frist Special Prehearing Conference Order" dated 12/18/79. Contention 14 155. - 157. Matter is under review; response will be in supplemental testimony. 158. - 159. No; the explanation for the response will be in supple-mental testimony. 160., 161. Response will be set forth in supplemental testimony. 162. Matter is under review; response will be in SE and its supplements, as well as supplenental testimony. Contention 16 To be provided. Respectfully submitted, -fL,,.. Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff s / /< s- ' ?..,- ,/. .I t '~, \\ s' .n Lucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of January, 1980 1788 32B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-289 ) (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, ) Unit 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO UCS INTERROG-ATORIES" with attachments in the above-captioned proceeding have been served or. the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of January, 1980: Ivan W. Smith, Esq.* Mr. Steven C. Sholly Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thoraas Gerusky Dr. Wa l t e r 11. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection 881 W. Out e r Dr iv.- Department of Environmental Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Resources P.O. Box 2063 Dr. Linda W. Little liarrisburg, PA 17120 5000 liermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace George F. Trowbridge, Esq. Philadelphia, PA 19149 Shaw, Pittman, Potts 6 Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W. Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, DC 20006 ATTN: J.G. lierbein, Vice President Karin W. Carter, Esq. P.O. Box 542 505 Executive llouse Reading, PA 19603 P.O. Box 2357 Ilarrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. #3, Box 3521 lionorable Mark Cohen Etters, PA 17319 512 E-3 Main Capital Building liarrisburg, PA 17120 j[)) }2h Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Department of Justice Strawberry Square, 14th Floor llarrisburg, PA 17127
, Robert L. Knupp, Esq. Holly S. Keck Assistant Solicitor Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Knupp and Andrews York P.O. Box P 245 W. Philadelphia Street 407 h. Front Street York, PA 17404 Harrisburg, PA 17108 John Levin, Esq. John E. Minnich, Chairman PA Public Utilities Commission Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Box 3265 Dauphin County Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17120 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq. Fox, Farr and Cunningham Robert D. Pollard 2320 North 2nd Street Chesapeak Energy Alliance Harrisburg, PA 17110 609 Montpeller Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Theodore A. Adler, Esq. Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler Chauncey Kepford P. O. Box 1547 Judith H. Johnsrud Harrisburg, PA 17105 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss 433 Orlando Avenue Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman 6 Weius State College, PA In801 1725 I Street, N.W. Suite 506 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Washington, DC 20006 Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2610 Grendon Drive Panel
- Wilnington, DE 19808 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Karen Sheldon Sheldon, lia rmon, Roisman & Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1725 1 Street, N.W.
Panel (5)* Suite 506 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Docketing and Service Section (7)* R.D. <! S Office of the Secretary Coatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1788 330 Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff
V[p).q (;, UNilED SIA1LS Or /".r.RICA 8/P/./79 I;UCLfl." i.EG"lld OMY CO:'.'ISS]C: DEFORI. Tili AirGIC 5/ FETY A*;D L ICP;$! :S IWAPD in t!a l'atter of ) ) PUDLIL 5:7llCE ELECTi: C & ) Docket i;o. 50-272 GAS CF'Pl..r ) proposed Issu:'nr.e of ic.end:.ent ) to lacility Opetetird License ( S a l..
- c,. i c.. e 6cnc rc t in:;
) !l0. DPR-70 Station, linit !;0. IT ) f;RC ST/.i F R:v0'..~.E TO BO'i:D feUE5T10N :;'. 4 REGARD!.G THE OCCURhE*;CE OF A CLASS 9 ACCIDE'iT Al liiRF r e,1, g J SL7,,3 Duri rn ti.e uurse 0." th; present procc c dir '., the Conrd r:de irmuiry of ti.o Staff as to whether the accidcc.' at tha ihree t'ile Islatd facility w s c Class 9 cctidsiit. Spccifically, thn Dm d directed that the Stef f resr e' to the follo.in series of questirn: ree::rJ1n:' this oc currence: The proposed i m - te Ip; andi> D,10 CFR fr.rt 50, ap; ecrs to definc c Class 9 accic:n . s ec:uem t of failu'" 6.hich are rare severe the:n thc w:icn the s6f ety foetures of the plant cre ces;ync.i to a ec c :. t. 1Fe sequ:n..c cf failures at ihree *:ile Islat ' rrecoced a breach of the con-tairr'r n* and a release vi radi tic. wnich could not be prevented by the safety f eatures. '?as the ecturrenco at Three.".ile Islcnd therefore
- c. Cicss 9 accidant? 'hs the risk to the health and sdety and the envirotrrent "rer: ate in probability" or "extrerely lo.i" at Three liile Island, as those teras are used in the f.nnex?
The Staff has no.t completed its response to the Board's inquiry, and submits its vie.!c herein. DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under: hh, h/)]h ANO r No. of pages: h 1788 331 E
c.\\g e k I
- v,7, Uf.'li! D i,T All S
,4, fJUC L L /.It it CGUL A ! ORY CO!.".*l0LIO!J [, '.. c ',' I W A',r t i r.c.1 o r, o c. 20L4 ( AllG 101970 ,,. 4 4 I:0'll TO: Guy 11. Curir.in'ha:,, III, Actir.g Ceputy Chief lleering Counstl fr.T Roger J. !!att:.on, Director, Tiil-2 Lesson: Learried Tcsh Force Sl'CJ.E CT : '!9/.".D (UESTIC:. C0::Cfr.:;I!!G CLASS 9 ACCIDE:!TS In re r.or..r t o your requr st of July 27, 1979, I have attached our restor. e to t! : Salen. speiit fuel pool Cocrd qucstion on Class 9 accidents. / 7 ~o J J,U w. ~ ) a v,J. fu,ittson, Director .w " \\ Roger ll11-2 Lessons learned Task Force Encl or.u re : As S t a t t r' cc: Carr ' i t;' Ja n i c c "a.; - Cary h ch !!a l i l'c :, e r_' a flohr rt li r. w John $!nt.l c. John Gui: ct Fred Ander.un \\ DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under: ANO No. of pages:}}