ML19331A463
| ML19331A463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Bender M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A462 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007170709 | |
| Download: ML19331A463 (5) | |
Text
_ __
O h#'
UNITED OTATES Cs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSit
[.I S
WA3HINGToN, D. C. 20555 y
1 k hk.,
March 16,1977 h,M,*,V Bonorable Marcus A. Rowden-E Chairman Co U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
ADDITIONAL REQUE.ST MR INMRMATION FROM THE MIDIAND AS&LB
~
Dear Mr. Powden:
The Conmittee has received an additiona_l_ request from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Midland case for further elaboration and
" treat =ent" of matters mentioned in the Ccumittee's Supplemental Report to you of Noverrber 18, 1976 and attachments thereto. That report, you may recall, was written in response to a previous request which followed directly from the decision in Aeschliman ~vs. NRC. A copy of the most recent AS&LB request, dated January 28, 1977, is attached.
Although the Cocmittee is willing to provide reasonab1n ard necessary clarification of its recoczandations and opinions, w believe that the Board in this case has misinterpreted the Aeschliman decision and has embarked oc a course which, if pursued, could involve the Cocmittee in an unnecessary and potentially unending series of requests for clari-fication and elaboration of its reports, in connection with not only the Midland proceeding, but other proceedings as well. 'Ihe Board's "three areas of comment" are addressed below:
I.
/
The Board notes two specific paragraphs of interest to the Midland pro-ceeding in a set of ACRS meeting minutes (106th ACRS meeting held February 6-8, 1969) during which the Midland project was discussed, and the Board requests "further conment under the rules set forth in the Aeschliman case" regarding these two paragraphs "as well as any other
' matters of concern' (including any matters menticned in furnished or unfurnished minutes)" and requests that these matters be treated fully by the Conmittee in accordance with the following excerpt from Aeschliman vs. NRC:
"At a minimum, the ACES report should have provided a short explanation, understandable to a layran, of the additional matters of concern to the Cocmittee, and a cross-reference to the previous reports in which those problems, and the measures proposed to solve then, were developed in more detail."
8007170- [
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 In the cpinion of the Comittee, the Board has incorrectly concluded that all topics discussed during an ACRS review, and recorded in the meeting minutes, are " matters of concern" to the Comittee in the context of the Aeschliman decision.
" Items of concern" to the ACRS at the completion of its review are identified in the Comittee's report and have been explained in the Conmittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976, in language
" understandable to the layman" as required by the Aeschliman decision.
Many other items of interest are documented and discussed during the course of an ACRS review and are not identified as ratters of concern in the ACRS report. Some of these items are considered satisfactory or are adequately resolved by amendment of,the application or other means during the review process.
Some represent points of gener10" information, some represent matters that the Comittee explores on a generic basis.
It should be noted that the Aeschliman decision did not address the con-tent of ACRS meeting minutes or other information available to or con-sidered by the Comittee but wac limited,(see Attachment 2) to those matters identified in ACRS reports as itens of concern. To require that the ACRS address in its report every item discussed or considered during the course of a review is impractical and unnecessary.
For exanple, the' suitability of the Midland Plant for the proposed Midland site was discussed at length during six Subcomittee meetings held on January 22 and February 4, 1969, and March 24, April 24, June 10, and Septenber 14, 1970, and at five full Comittee meetings held on February 6, 1969, and April 9, May 8, June 11-13, and Septerber 17-19, 1970; appropriate safety features were included in the design for this reactor at this site.
The minutes of these meetings have been in the public domain since 1974.
1 II.
This section of the Board's request deals with fhe substance of the Comittee's Supplemental Report of Novenber 18, 1976 and requests that the Comittee further clarify one of its recomendations, specifically, that the Comittee specify the " danger" that is of concern if instru-mentation and control are not separated; further describe thz type of separation required (e.g., physical or other); and specify a standard for conformance.
' The Board further notes that this illustration is only an exacple of an area where a problem may exist and further elaboration of other matters may also be required.
-,._y
.n
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 The Comittee appreciates the Board's desire and interest in understanding the issues identified by the Comittee but does not agree with the method being used to develop this understanding. The Comittee's Supplemental Report dated November 18,1976 did provide a brief description of the items considered to have been problems by the Comittee and specific cross ref-erences to other applicable cases, as required by the Court in Aeschliman vs. NBC.
The desire for additional clarification by the Board with respect to spa-cific questions of this nature is best served by:
i
- Exm ination of the record related to the Midland review and the review of other cases specifically cross-referenced by the Comittee.
- Discussion with the NRC Staff who participate in the Comittee's review process, are thoroughly familiar with the problems and issues involved, and are participants in the hearings.
The example chosen by the Board is itself a case in point. The matter of 3
separation of control and protection instrumentation relates to reducing the probability of failure due to a comon.cause and is dealt with gener-ically by Section 7.3 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan, which provides guidance to Staff reviewers; the Comittee provided a specific reference, in its November 18, 1976 Supplemental Report, to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, in response to the Court's order to provide a
" cross-reference to the orevious reports in which these problems and the measures proposed to solve them were developed in more detail." The July 11, 1973 Safety Evaluation of the then Directorate of Licensing in the matter of Three Mile Island, Unit 1, deals directly with this AGS concern in Section 7.5, " Separation of Control and Protection Systems" and the Comittee's August 14, 1973 report on operation of Three Mile Island, Unit 1, indicates that this matter was no longer of concern for the Three Mile Island case.
In the Midland case, the Comittee will review the adequacy of the final design as it exists at the time it re-views the Midland Plant for an operating license.
In general, we believe that examination of the implementation of the Com-mittee's advice and of any resulting changes in the application are best left to the NRC Staff which plays a direct role in the hearing, and that any evidence relating to such matters should be sought from them. Indeed, the Court in Aeschliman itself notes, "This is not to say that an ACRS report must contain detailed factual findings of the kind necessary to aid l
judicial review. Under Comission rules, when ACRS conclusions are con-l troverted, a factual record is conpiled anew before the Licensing Board."
1
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977
@e NRC Staff (previously, the AEC Regulatory Staff) has routinely ad -
dressed itself to the coments and recocmendations in ACES reports for many years as part of the NRC hearing process. A typical exarple is to be found in Supplement No.1 to the Directorate of Licensing's Safety Evaluation for Three Mile Island, Unit 1, dated October 15, 1973.
Chapter 4 of that document is addressed entirely to the issues raised in the ACRS report of August 14, 1973.
III.
ThissectionoftheMidlandBoard'smos[recentrequestpointstoper-ceived " ambiguities" resulting from an examination of several ACES reports provided as references in the Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976. We Board notes that those references contain
" ambiguities" similar to the ones cited by the Court in Aeschliman and points, by way of example, to the Comittee's reference to "other problems" in it's Hutchinson Island report of March 12, 1970. We Board asks that any of the "other problems" which apply to Midland be identified and described as the Court directed.
The Conmittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976 was provided as ordered by the Court to identify those "other problems" which had been considered applicable to the Midland Plant at the tire of the CP review and which were noted generically in the ACRS report of June 18, 1970. Any items not so identified in the Ccemittee's November 18, 1976 report were not considered applicable to Midland during the CP review.
The Cmmittee will be in a position to up: late this list and address the current status of specific items when it has corpleted its review '
for an Operating License for the Midland Plant. @is review has not yet been scheduled.
In sumary, the Comittee believes that the response already provided in its Supplemental Report of Novec:ber 18, 1976, fully meets the re-quirements of the Aaschlir:an Court since:
(1) he Court requested elaboration only of those items referred to in the Cocmittee's original report as "other problems" and no others.
(2) 2e ux:mittee's Supplemental Report of Noveder 18, 1976, did provide a "short explanation understandable to a layman of the additional ::atters of concern to the Comittee and a cross-reference to the previous reports in which those problems, and the measures proposed to solve them, were developed in more detail" as specifically directed by the Aeschli=an decision.
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 (3) The Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976, fully identified all additional matters of concern to the Comittee during its CP review of the Midland Project.
The ACRS does not feel that any further clarification of its reports on Midland is necessary.
Sincerely yours,
(
'M. Ender i
Chairman Attachments:
1.
F. J. Coufal, Chairman, AS&LB letter to M. Bender, ACPS, dated January 28, 1977.
2.
Excerpt from the decision in Aeschliran vs. NBC.
1 i
O
- - -