ML19309G611
| ML19309G611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G607 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005070222 | |
| Download: ML19309G611 (11) | |
Text
.
80050702.2.2
()
G-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 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
!!OTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF UCS CONTENTION NO. 15 In its Prehearing Conference Order of December 18, 1979, the Board rejected UCS Contention No. 15, although neither the Staff nor the Licensee had objected to its admissibility.
The te xt of the contention is as follows:
- \\
The measures identified by the staff in g
NUREG-0578 and the Commission's Ord.er of p
August 9, 1979 include many which will not DCc;Gt33 r' i be implemented until after the plant has trug~,
'J resumed operation and some which will not I:
Apg 41980 > [c '
even be identified until some unspecified Of5ca cf fhe Secrc time in the future.
No justification has U;Chii 3Smic been provided for concluding that the 4
plant can safely operate in the period Ey(')
\\ O while these corrective actions are being 4
E identified and prior to their implementa-tion.
The public health and safety demands that all safety problems identified by the accident be corrected prior to resumption of operation at TMI-1.
The Board rejected the contention on the following grounds:
If the contention is meant to question the basic concept of the Commission in its Order of August 9 concerning the short term /
long term approach to the proposed restart we reject the contention because it is
l l l
beyond our jurisdiction.
If, as counsel j
stated at the prehearing conference, the contention is meant to cover'all of the issues which have not been independently challenged by UCS as a catch all conten-tion, we reject it on the basis that without any justification, it lacks speci-ficity.
On March 14, 1989, the Commission issued an order noting the Board's rulings on UCS Contention No. 15 and Sholly Contention No.
6, and stating, i_nter alia:
We wish to make it clear that it was intended by the Commission that any party to the proceeding may raise an issue whether one or more safety concerns, not specifically listed as "short term" in the Commission's August 9, 1979 Order and Notice of Hearing, should be satisfactorily resolved prior to start-up.
It seems clear, then, that to the extent that the Board had interpreted the division of items in the Commission's August 9 Order into short or long-term to represent an unchallengeable
" basic concept," the Commission has corrected that misunderstanding.
The timing of each plant and procedural modification, as well as their necessity and sufficiency, are litigable in this prdceeding'.
This Board subsequently issued a Memorandum and Order (March 28, 1980), stating that the UCS contention " failed under traditional tests for litigable contentions, and still fails with the guidance provided by the Commission's March 14 Order."
The Board said that
"[i]f UCS had designated specific 'long term' actions it wished to litig ate as being required before operating the plant, as did Mr. Sholly, the board would have given favorable consideration l
. to ths contention."
In the light of the most recent statement by the Board, it would appear that UCS may not have clearly communicated the meaning of its Contention No. 15 to the Board.
The following description of the contention was provided by Counsel at the Prehearing Conference:
[In] Contention 15, UCS contends that the various short and long-term measures iden-tified by the Staff ought all to be resol-ved prior to operation of TMI-1.
(Tr. 332)
UCS intended to incorporate the items identified by the staff as Lessons Learned from TMI but which were not ordered to be completed prior to start-up of TMI-1.
These include the Category B items of Table B-1 in NUREG-0578 and those listed in Table A-1, Final Recommendation's of TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force, in NUREG-0585.1/ The items were not individually spelled out because we believed that the licensee and staff understood the thrust of the contention.
We regret that using the shorthand phrase "long-term measures identified by the staff" appears to have misled the Board.
UCS' Contention 15 claims that the "long-term" (category B) measures specified in Table B-1 of NUREG-05 78 and those contained in Table A-1 of NUREG-0585 must each be accomplished prior to start-up of i
the plant in order to ensure the protection of the public health and safety.
I With this clarification, Contention 15 is clearly authorized l
by the Commission's Order of March 14, since it claims that specific safety concerns tied directly to the accident but "not specifically listed as 'short term' should be satisfactorily resolved prior to start-up."
(Id, p.
1)
UCS therefore moves the Board 1/ Copies of both Tables are attached.
T
-m 4J a
1 J----
4 a-A-
_4_
1 to admit the contention.
UCS also requests the Board to allow it 21 days to serve discovery requests on the contention.
Respectfully submitted, J
_.n
~._
Ellyn R.
Weiss SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
4 i
Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833_9070 J
DATED:
April 4, 1980 1
i i
i 4
i f
I-i I.
TABLE A-1.
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE Report Chapter and Recommendations Category Section 1.
Personnel qualifications and training 1.1 Utility management involvement I
2.3.1 l
1.2 Training programs I
2.3.3 1.3 In plant drills I
2.3.3, 2.3.8 1.4 Operator licensing I
2.3.1, 2.3.2 1.5 NRC staff coordination I
2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 1.6 Licensed operator qualifications I
2.3.1, 2.3.2 1.7 Licensee technical and management support I
2.3.2 1.8 Licensing of additional operating personnel I
2.3.1, 2.3.2 2.
Staffing of control room I
2.3.5 3.
Working hours I
2.3.5 4:
Emergency procedures I
2.3.4 5.
Verification of correct performance of operating activities I/II 2.3.6 6.
Evaluation of operating experience 6.1 Nationwide network I
2.3.7 6.2 Providing information to operators I
2.3.7 7.
Man-machine interface 7.1 Control room reviews I
2.3.5, 2.3,8
- 7. 2 Plant safety status display I
2.3.5, 2.3.8 7.3 Disturbance analysis systems II 2.3.5, 2.3.8 A-2
..:-.=
=
=:. a m..
- .:.: a u s.v
... 2 w;,6 s.
TABLE A-1.
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE (Cont'd)
Report Chapter and Recommendations Category Section 7.4 Manual versus automatic operations II 2.1, 2.3.5 7.5 Standard control room design 11 2.3.5, 2.3.8 8.
Reliability assessments of final designs I
3.2 9.
Review of safety classifications and Qualifications I
3.2 10.
Design features for core-damage and II 3.3 core-melt accidents 11.
Safety goal for reactor regulation I
4.1 12.
Staff review objectives II 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 13.
NRR Emergency Response Team I
4.5 A-3 l
l.
\\
I l
TABLE B-1.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPERATING PLANTS AND PLANTS IN C'L REVIEW Position Sect.
Abbreviated Position Implementat{on No.
Title Description Category 2.1.1 Emergency Power Suppiy Complete implementa-A Requirement tion.
2.1.2 Relief and Safety Valve Submit program descrip-A Testing tion and schedule.
Complete' test program.
By July 1981b 1
2.1.3.a Direct Indication of Complete implementation.
A Valve Position 2.1.3.b Instrumentation for Develop procedures and A
Inadequate Core Cooling describe existing instr.
New instr. design, sub-A cooling meter installation, and implementation schedule.
Complete new instr.
B installation.
2.1.4 Diverse Containment Complete implementation.
A Isolation 2.1.5.a Dedicated H Control Description and imple-A 2
Penetrations mentation schedule.
G Complete installation.
B i
aCategory A:
Implementation complete by January 1,1980, or prior to OL Category B:
Implementation complete by January 1, 1981.
bRelief and safety valve testing shall be satisfactorily completed for all plants prior to receiving an operati.ng license after July 1,1982.
L s x
\\
'g t
, -)
Q*
.. 7. u.... -....... i i
,/
^#/
B-2
/ at \\s i
l l
ll 0
t1 ll TABLE B-1 (Continued) 6 Position T,
Sect.
Abbreviated Position Implementatjon
- ,l l
No.
Title Description Category 2.1.5.b Rulemaking to Require Inert Vermont Yankee Inerting BWR Containments and Hatch 2.
Design and equipment to inert new Mark I and II containments.
Inert new Mark I and II containments.
2.1.5.c Combustible Gas Control Rulemaking to require i
Recombiner capability of installing E
recombiners.
i l
l Review procedures and B
j bases for recombiner use.
i 2.1.6.a Systems Integrity for Immediate leak A
i High Radioactivity reduction program.
[
f Preventive maintenance A
program.
2.1.6.b Plant Shielding Review Complete the' design A
review.
I f
Implement plant B
modifications.
l i
j aCategory A:
Implementation complete by January 1,1980, or prior to OL Category B:
Implementation complete by January 1, 1981.
t
- Implementation schedules will be established by the Comraission in the course of the immediately effective rulemaking.
The Task Force recommends that the rulemaking process be initiated promptly.
i B-3 l/
~
TABLE B-1 (Continued)
Position Sect.
Abbreviated Position Implementat{on No.
Title Description Category 2.1.7.a Auto Initiation of Complete implementation A
Auxiliary Feed of control grade.
Complete implementation B
for safety grade.
2.1.7.b Auxiliary Feed Flow Complete implementation.
A Indication 2.1.8.a Post-Accident Sampling Design review complete.
A Preparation of A
revised procedures.
Implement plant B
modifications.
Description of proposed A
modification.
2.1.8.b High_ Range Effluent Installation complete..
8 Monitor 2.1.8.c Improved Iodine Complete implementation.
A Instrumentation 2.1.9 Transient & Accident Complete analyses, Analysis procedures & training.
aCategiry A:
Implementation complete by January 1,1980, or prior to OL Category B:
Implementation complete by January 1, 1981.
- Analyses, procedural changes, and operating training shall be provided by all operating plant licensees and applicants for operating licenses following the schedule in Table B-2.
1 B-4 l
~
~
f r..,$
j i
N TABLE B-1 (Continued) 1 i
I ;$
Posi tion l
Ssct.
Abbreviated Position Implementat{on
<gh No.
Title Description Category g
Q Jj i 2.2.1.a Shift Supervisor Complete implementation.
A
?
Responsibilities 3
/
2?.
2.2.1.b Shift Safety Engineer Shift technical advisor A
yj
'W on duty.
s Complete training.
B 2.2.1.c.
Shift Turnover Completo implementation.
A ti i x k
- 5 Procedures j
i 3 2.2.2.a Control Room Access Complete implementation.
A 37 Control l'
l l
}
f 2.2.2.b Onsite Technical Establish center.
A l
Support Center R
l
{
[4 Upgrade to meet all B
requirements.
h
.., )j 2.2.2.c Onsite Operational Complete implementation.
A Support Center 2.2.3 Rulemaking to Revise Tech. Spec. change.
{$
LCOs for Safety System y
Availability p.,,f s.
r Category A:
Implementation complete by January 1,1980, or prior to OL hk a
Category B:
Implementation complete by January 1,1981.
I; 3 t
e
- Implementation schedules will be established by the Commission in the b$
course of the immediately effective rulemaking.
The Task Force recommends
['r' L that the rulemaking process ba initiated promptly.
[jh w
Ip -
l y
1 R..
g; y
lb m
Is h h;
l B-5 ii; U i$l
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
~ ~ - -
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island
)
Nuclear Station, Unit
)
No. 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Union of Concerned Scientists Motion for Reconsideration of Admissibility of UCS Contention No. 15 was mailed first class postage prepaid this 4th day of April, 1980ito the following parties:
Secretary of the Commission
- ATTN:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel N
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q)
Washington, D.C.
20555 p
DOCXETE e
Dr. Walter H. Jordan USN20 881 W. Outer Drive
?;
APR a1980 > I'>
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Offi:e cf ths Secrebr; Ddq3}hk Senics /,,
Dr. Linda W. Little "t
/
5000 Hermitage Drive Raleiegh, North Carolir.a 27612 OJ /
p3 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire e
l Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge I
1800 "M" Street, N.W.
1 Washington, D.C.
20006 James Tourtellotte, Esquire
~
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
/'
7 Ellyn R.
Weiss
- Hand-delivered l