ML19309C532

Objections to Intervenor Sc Sholly Fourth Set of Interrogatories & Document Requests.Intervenor Requests Info Not within Scope of Contentions 15 & 16.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19309C532
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/11/1980
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8004080720
Download: ML19309C532 (12)

Text

__ _ __ ..

., ;* March 11, 1980

• A.

p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION A l'ocq[f e

. 14R s , . "  %

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA A if,ec r,

q, Ca:c, %

/

In the Matter of )  ;:s j )

j METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S OBJECTIONS TO SHOLLY FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO LICENSEE Licensee objects for the reasons stated below to Interrogatory Nos.16-008 through 16-015,15-006, 15-009,15-010, 15-024 through 15-028,15-030 through 15-033,15-034 (in part) ,15-036 through 15-038,15-041, 15-042,15-044, 15-049,15-053, and 15-061 through 15-075, as contained in Intervenor Steven C. Sholly Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests to Licensee, dated February 25, 1980.

Interrogatories Nos.16-008 through 16-015.

In all of these interrogatories, Intervenor Sholly asks Licensee to provide information which.is outside the scopo of Intervenor Sholly's Contention 16. That contention is limited to consideration of an alleged insider . security threat to TMI-l from personnel-associated with decontamination 80940'80 }{C

and restoration at TMI-2. As previously stated by Licensee in response to Intervenor Sholly's second and third sets of interrogatories, Contention No. 16 (as allowed by the Board in its order of January 11, 1980, subsequently clarified by the Board's order of January 25, 1980) does not encompass the broad issues of internal security at Units 1 or 2, or the adequacy of Licensee's security plans or procedures, generally. Nevertheless, Intervenor Sholly persists in ask-ing Licensee to respond to interrogatories exceedingly beyond the permissible scope of inquiry. Such information is not at issue or subject to discovery in this proceeding.

Interrogatory No.16-008 requests information about Licensee's Security Plan generally, including security hard-ware design criteria, performance specifications, and hardware specifications; design criteria for all tamper indicating seals in Type I Vital Areas; types of locks utilized in preventing access to Type I Vital Areas; security staffing requirements; arrangements for offsite response units; Licensee's audit methods; and Licensee's security testing and inspection methods.

Interrogatory No.16-009 requests the names and last known addresses of all Licensee security employees, whether at Unit 1 or 2 or both, who have resigned, been asked to re-sign, or quit since March 28, 1979.

Interrogatory No.16-010 requests a chronological list of any and all attempted, suspected attempted or threatened acts of sabotage, and thefts or suspected threats of security-related documents with respect to both TMI-1 and 2.

Interrogatory No.16-011 asks Licensee to explain how its physical protection system and security organization protects against internal sabotage.

Interrogatory No.16-012 requests the date by which Licensee will implement the physical search requirements of 10 CFR 73. 55 (d) (1) .

Interrogatory No.16-013 asks Licensee to state un-equivocally that all unoccupied vital areas are locked and protected by an active intrusion alarm system.

Interrogatory No.16-014 asks Licensee to specify, describe and explain any and all occasions on which it has been cited for violation of NRC security regulations.

Interrogatory No.16-015 asks Licensee to provide evidence on a number of aspects of its ' security training pro-gram, including training in tactics and force, the recognition of sabotage devices and equipment, protected area security procedures and practices, industrial sabotage, the operation of access control systems, contraband control techniques and detection systems, security procedures after component failures, the use of and defense against "incapactating (sic] agents",

hostage situations, the response to confirmed attempted sabo-tage, _and special problems associated with inside-initiated sabotage.

All of the information requested by the foregoing interrogatories is outside the scope of Contention 16 and therefore not discoverable.

Interrogatories Nos.15-006, 15-009 and 15-010.

These interrogatories concern (a) the role of plant operators in the development of operating procedures, (b)

Licensee's policy .egarding housekeeping duties in the control room, and (c) Licensee's policies regarding operator conduct and dress while on duty. Contention no. 15 to which these interrogatories relate is concerned only with control room de-sign and with operator-instrumentation interface. Interroga-tories Nos.15-006, 15-009 and 15-010 are outside the scope of the contention.

Interrogatory No.15-024.

This interrogatory inquires into the possibility that procedures specify one measurement unit while the meas-urement unit on display in the control room is in another l

type of unit. If such a situation were to exist, modifica-l tion of the procedure is all that would be required to correct ,

1 the situation. The interrogatory cannot reasonably be read I

as relating to the adequacy of control room design and is therefore outside the scope of the contention.

l 1

4_

=.

1

, Interrogatory Nos.15-025 through 15-028.

j These interrogatories relate to (a) time spent by  !

operators during watch turnover,-(b) the composition of re-i i actor operator shifts, (c) restrictions on operator overtime,

. and (d) operator training on the differences between the 4

l TMI-l control room and the training simulator. None of these subjects falls within the scope of a contention limited to 1

4 control room design and operator-instrumentation interface.

i Interrogatory Nos.15-030 through 15-033.

{-

I These interrogatories cover such diverse questions as (a) the use of' fault tree analysis in assessing accident conditions, (b) whether the window separating the shift super-visor's office from the control room area is bullet-resisting, (c) identification of all LER's and NRC Inspection Reports {

involving human error, and (d) identification of information ,

available at the operator's desk in the TMI-l control room and of procedures and manufacturers' manuals not so available.-

The questions are outside the scope of Contention 15.

t Interrogatory No.15-034.

Licensee does not object to-so much of this inter- ,

l rogatory as seeks information on the means to be utilized to 1

assure that operators know the status of the -PORV. on the

.pressuri zer and whether this-means is single-failure proof, t-H l

1

Licensee does object to the question as to whether the pres-surizer itself is safety grade and if not, why not. The latter inquiries have nothing to do with control room design.

Interrogatory No.15-036.

This interrogatory questions possible discrepan-cies in nomenclatures between procedures associated with the pressurizer PORV and associated block valve and the labels on the control room panels. For the same reasons as speci-fied in connection with Interrogatory No.15-024, the question belongs under the heading of procedures rather than control room design and is therefore outside the scope of Contention 15.

Interrogatory Nos.15-037 and 15-038.

These interrogatories request assurance that re-actor operators will not bypass engineered safeguards follow-ing a turbine trip and that "the mindset problem" associated with avoiding solid water conditions in the pressurizer will be avoided by retraining of reactor operators. They are out-side the scope of Contention 15.

Interrogatory Nos.15-041, 15-042 and 15-044.

Each of these interrogatories relates to operator training and not control room design and is therefore outside the scope of Contention 15.

t j-i Interrogatory No.15-049.

This interrogatory requests Licensee's policies  ;

and procedures regarding the replacement of-burned-out alarm I and control indicator lights. The interrogatory questions .

[ Licensee's operating practices rather than the control room I i R design and is outside the scope of Contention 15.

1 Interrogatory No.15-053.

I This interrogatory asks "to what extent must critical operating parameters be inferred from changes in associated parameters, rather than such parameters being available directly at the control' panel." It further requests discussion on the i

resulting potential for operator error and operator training i 1

I to prevent error. The interrogatory is overly broad in calling- j for all unspecified " critical operating parameters." No effort; I has been made to explain the parameters as to which information'  :

is sought or to identify those parameters claimed to have a i

nexus with the TMI-2 accident.

! Interrogatory No.15-061. >

This interrogatory seeks information on mechanisms

.within Licensee's organization to. provide a systematic review ,

of operator performance and to_ provide suggestions for improve-

~

monts in control room design, operating procedures'and train-  ;

ing programs. Licensee objects-to the interrogatory as outside the scope of Contention 15 except as Lit relates to -mechanisms to provide. suggestions for improvement in control room design.

1 i

I i

t

- e Interrogatory Nos.15-062 through 15-068.

These interrogatories are exclusively concerned with operating procedures, except for Interrogatory No.15-067 which deals with both operating procedures and oper-ator training. They are outside the scope of Contention 15.

Interrogatory No.15-069.

Licensee has no objection to this interrogatory insofar as it calls for physical and medical standards or limitations imposed on reactor operators by the design and layout of the TMI-l control room. Licensee objects to the interrogatory as outside the scope of Contention 15 insofar as it calls for other physical and medical standards for reactor operators.

Interrogatory Nos.15-070 through 15-074.

Each of these interrogatories is concerned only with operator training and is therefore outside the scope of Contention 15.

Interrogatory No.15-075.

This interrogatory questions whether human factor engineering perspectives have been incorporated into Li-censee's review of LER's, Abnormal Occurrence Reports and other operational data relevant to control room operations.

It is not addressed to control room design and is therefore outside the scope of Contention 15.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, ITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE swAL 4,eorge h'. Trowbrdige G

Dated: March 11, 1980 l

l l

9_

l l

March 11, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLElsR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) ( Res ta rt)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Objec-tions to Sholly Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests to Licensee," dated March 11, 1980, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this llth day of March, 1980.

.v J '

N

• i

/

Gcorge F. Trowbridge Dated: March 11, 1980 i

I l

l l

l i

. - . _ . -. - . = _ . . _. . . . . . -.

,  ?~

C i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 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 John A. Levin, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel d

Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm:

Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.

~

20555

• i Karin W. Carter, Esquire

Dr. Walter.H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General

} Atomic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House l Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.l l Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 l l John E. Minnich Dr. Linda W. Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board E  !

Atomic Safety and. Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse l 4 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4) Walter W.-Cohen, Esquire l Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Office of Consumer Advocate  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square =

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania '17127-i Docketing and Service Section (21)

Office of the' Secretary

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4

t J

4

• s

- Jcrdan D. Cunningham, Esquire Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against T.M.I. Steering Committee Nuclear Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowit: & Adler Robert e Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland- 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H. Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Nuclear Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 1680j Washingron, D.C. 20006 Steven C. Sholly ~ Marvin I. Lewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt R. D. 5 Holly S. Keck Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Leg _4sla.4on

.. C.na4 rman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 l

l I

e

-.