ML19309G198
| ML19309G198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Sholly AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005050121 | |
| Download: ML19309G198 (11) | |
Text
_
8005050 /1l p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g} g/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
s AMMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
y Ivan W. Smith, Chairman APR ;3;ggg, zT Dr. Walter H. Jordan
{
Office cf the h7
'O Dr. Linda W. Little Occhting a g s
Smch s'
1, /.,
l#'>'
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SHOLLY MOTION % COMPEL ANSWERS BY LICENSEE M CONTENTION 15 INTERROGA% RIES (April 18, 1980)
Introduction This ruling disposes of those portions of intervenor Sholly's Motion to Compel, dated March 19, 1980, which relate to the interrogatories on Contention 15.
Other aspects of that same Motion to Compel filed by Mr. Sholly, which relate to his Contention 16, will be rul'ed upon in another board order.
The licensee filed an answer to Mr. Sholly's Motion to Compel on March 31, 1980.
Sholly Contention 15 states :
It is contended that the design of the Unit 1 Control Room, instrumentation, and controls is such that operators cannot maintain system variables and systems within prescribed operating ranges during feedwater transients and LOCA's.
It is further contended that this violates the provisions of GDC 13 regarding instrumentation and controls.
It is contended that in view of the numerous operating difficulties encountered with Unit 2, and the similarities in design and construction between Units 1 and 2, a thorough human factors engineering review of Unit l's Control Room is called for in order to provide assurance that the operator-instrumentation
, 1 interface is such that the operators can exercise adequate control over the reactor and prevent offsite consequences from anti-cipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents.
It is further contended that in order to assure maximum protection for the public health and safety, the human factors engineering review and any necessary changes recommended as a result of this review must be completed prior to restart.
Neither the Motion to Compel filed by Mr. Sholly nor the answer filed by the licensee were very helpful in assisting the board in resolving the discovery disputes on the individual interrogatories.
Mr. Sholly grouped large numbers of his interrogatories on Contention 15 together in the Motion to Compel and asserted generally, without explanation, that contrary to the licensee's objections, the questions were relevant and within the scope of the contention.
The motion did contain a general introductory statement on the scope of the contention but this provides little assistance to the board when it comes down to the detailed and,in this case, painstaking work of reviewing the many interrogatories seriatim for their particular relevance to the contention.
It is the function of a motion to compel to do more than in effect simply ref.terate the movant's desire that his interroga-l tories be answered.
It is incumbent upon the movant to present arguments in support of the motion which, as applied to this instance, specifically articulate the relevance of the i
e
. i particular interrogatory to the contention.
Although we fault l
the licensee less in light of the nature of the motion to compel described above, it could have been more helpful also both in its original objections to the interrogatories and in l
its answer to the motion to compel.
Notwithstanding the above infirmities, the'.loard has carefully on its own examined each interrogatory filed un
- ~;'tention 15 for which Mr. Sholly seeks to compel the licensee's answer.
This has taken us much more time than we have to devote to discovery disputes, particularly where the parties have failed to fully carry out their obligations in this matter.
Due to the volume of the material involved in this and other orders which we are currently preparing, although we have given each interrogatory
)
careful attention in deciding whether it is relevant to the contention and should be answered, our rulings are presented in summary form below.
Ohe aspect of the dispute between the licensee and Mr. Sholly is that the licensee asserts that the contention is related exclusively to the enginearing design of the control room and that therefore interrogatories which seek information that is related to procedures by which the reactor operators operate the controls are outside the scope of the contention and need not be answered.
At times, the licensee uses this in almost a Catch-22 situation by asserting in effect that some informa-tion which Mr. Sholly seeks is beyond control room design because
i it can be addressed by writing proper operating procedures and that since this is so it does not relate to design per se,.
We rule that Mr. Sholly's Contention 15 cannot be read so narrowly.
The issue of Contention 15 relates to the interface j
between the control room operators and the design of the control room.
The procedures the control room operator must follow relate to this since they provide the guidance by which the operator interfaces with the instrumentation and controls.
Accordingly, we rule that the contention includes within its ambit an inquiry into operating procedures, but only those operating procedures which are related to the interface of the operator and the control room instrumentation and controls.
Many of Mr. Sholly's interrogatories, on the other hand, imply a view of his Contention 15 which is too broad and beyond the scope of the contention.
The contention does not embrace operating procedures in the abstract which are not specifically tied or related to the interface between the operator and control room instrumentation and controls.
In addition, the contention does not embrace within its ambit the abstract issue of operator training.
We understand that aspects of operator training can be relevant to operating procedures which can in turn be relevant to the interface issue of Contention 15.
However this does not mean that interrogatories which seek broad information on operator training in the abstract are within the scope of the contention.
l l
. Rulings on Interrogatories 15-006:
We limit this interrogatory to control room operating procedures which involve control room operator interface with control room instrumentation and controls.
As so limited the interrogatory should be answered.
15-009:
Outside the scope of the contention - no answer is required.
15-010:
The interrogatory, asking for "all factual bases and assumptions" is too broad.
The board can envision a virtually endless series of major and minor assumptions upon which the control room design was based.
However we will modify the interrogatory to one of asking the licensee whether a compilation of assumptions and bases upon which the control room design was based actually exists and if so to produce it.
The licensee is not required to perform an analysis to develop such a compilation if one does not already exist.
15-024:
This interrogatory is clearly and directly related to important aspects of the contention and should be answered.
~
15-026:
This interrogatory lacks relevance to and is beyond the scope of the contention and need not be answered.
l 15-027:
This interrogatory lacks relevance to and is beyond the scope of the contention and need not be answered.
i
. 15-028:
This interrogatory is relevant to the contention 1
and should be answered.
15-030:
It is not clear to the board what information this contention is requesting and the motion to compel does nothing to elucidate.
Accordingly the relevance to the con-tention is not discernible by us and the interrogatory need not be answered.
15-031:
This interrogatory is not relevant to Contention 15.
Mr. Sholly in the motion to compel argues in the alterna-tive that it is cognizable under Contention 16.
No answer is l
required under Contention 15 for lack of relevance.
For reasons that will appear in our order on interrogatories relevant to Contention 16 no ruling on the specific interroga-tory related to Contention 16 is made at this time.
15-032:
While the information which Mr. Sholly seeks could be relevant to his contention, it is not incumbent upon the licensee to go through all Ldcensee Event Reports (LER) and NRC Inspection Reports for TMI-l to provide the requested information.
(The LER's are organized as to failure modes, e.g.,
operator error.)
It is our impression that the LER's
.and NRC Inspection Reports are available in the Local Public Document Rooms.
If the documents are not so available they.
1 shall be made available to Mr. Sholly by the staff and/or the licensee.
. 15-033:
The first sentence of the interrogatory is permitted as limited to information related to operating manuals and other operating practices and procedures.
The second part which asks in effect for identification of every-thing else which is not immediately available is unreasonable.
This type of negative cannot be properly requested.
By getting the information on what is available, Mr. Sholly will also know what is not available to the reactor operators.
15-034:
As we understand it, there is nothing left for the board to rule on.
Mr. Sholly has withdrawn the last part of the interrogatory related to the safety grade qualification of the pressurizer.
Licensee in its response to the motion to compel has agreed to respond to the other portions of the interroga-tory.
15-036:
This interrogatory is relevant and should be answered.
15-037:
This interrogatory is outside the scope of the contention and need not be answered.
15-038:
This interrogatory is outside the scope of the contention and need not be answered.
15-041:
This interrogatory is relevant because here what is sought is a specific aspect of the training program which relates to the subject of the contention - interface of the i
control room operator with the control room instrumentation and controls.
i
~
. 15-042:
This interrogatory is beyond the scope of the l
contention and need not be answered.
15-044:
This interrogatory is substantially beyond the bounds of the contention.
While specifics within this interrogatory could have been relevant to the contention, there is nothing in the interrogatory as stated which is adequately tied to aspects of the contention.
Accordingly it need not be answered.
15-049:
Mr. Sholly does not articulate a strong argument in support of this interrogatory and at first blush it could appear to be related to proper maintenance and operational Q/A rather than the subject of Contention 15.
However the board compels an answer to this interrogatory because we discern a relationship to operator interface with instrumentation and controls if indicator lights do not function properly.
(See NUREG-CR/1270, Vol. 1, p. 39 which discusses the problem that the design of certain instruments are such that extinguished lights are used as positive indication of system status.)
15-053:
We agree with licensee that the interrogatory is overly broad especially since by this stage of the pro-ceeding Mr. Sholly has substantially more information upon which to base an interrogatory.
However this is certainly a very important area since some of the apparent problems in TMI-2 were the results of critical operating parameters having
. to be inferred from associated parameters rather than being directly available.
Accordingly, we grant Mr. Sholly 5 days from the date of service of this order to be more specific and seek the information requested by 15-053 only as to those specific operating parameters that he seriously intends to litigate.
For example, two parameters of obvious interest since the TMI-2 accident are the position of the PORV and the level of coolant in the core.
15-061:
As propounded, this interrogatory is too broad and beyond the scope of the contention.
However this subject is of great interest to the board with respect to both the subject of Mr. Sholly's Contention 15 and the general area of licensee competence and qualifications.
Accordingly, we direct that the interrogatory be answered by the licensee as limited to identifying any mechanisms within licensee's organization which:
provide a systematic review of operator performance related to interface with control room design of instrumentation and controls ; and which provide suggestions for improvements in control room design and operating procedures and training programs which are related to operator interface with control room instrumentation and controls.15-062, 15-063,15-064, 15-065,15-066, 15-067 and 15-068:
Answer not required; relevance to the contention is not apparent.
15-069:
The board re'ognized a relationship between the c
interrogatory and the contention.
However, the interrogatory
. raises aspects of the contention which have an insufficient nexus to the accident at TMI-2 as far as we can determine and Mr. Sholly has not demonstrated any such nexus.
Answer not required.
15-070:
Answer is required.
This is an important issue of the interface between procedures and control room design.15-071 and 15-072:
These interrogatories relate to the adequacy of operator training in the abstract, It is not a question of interface between procedures and the contro' room design of TMI-1.
Answers are not required.
15-073:
Although the board in examining NUREG/CR-1270, Vol. 1,
- p. 97, can discern a possible relationship between the references made by Mr. Sholly and the contention, the interrogatory as posed by Mr. Sholly does not demonstrate relevance to the contention.
It is not our prerogative to design Mr. Sholly's interrogatories for him nor is it consistent with due process to the licensee to assist Mr. Sholly unduly in I
l l
his discovery.
i 15-074:
No answer required.
The interrogatory is limited to operator training.
The relationship to the subject matter of Contention 15 is not apparent to the board.
15-075:
An answer is required.
However, the answer may be limited to a review of data relevant to operator interface with control room controls and instrumentation.
i l
, Licensee is directed to file its response to the interroga-tories to which the board has directed a response within 10 days following the service of this order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland April 18, 1980
'