ML19337A843

Ucs Interrogatories Requesting Clarification of NUREG-0578 Based on New Info

ML19337A843
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/25/1980
From:	Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:
Shared Package
ML19337A840	List: ML19337A839 ML19337A841 ML19337A842 ML19337A843
References
NUDOCS 8009300423
Download: ML19337A843 (10)

Text

-- . c. { ag

. O\ g C)

[' S-

"S 2 '230 )

s '

c

\

en. .e,

' r i i '.--

• 4/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '\. .

Ns >;i.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

• )

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station )

Unit 1) )

)

)

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INTERROGATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF BASED ON NEW INFORMATION Pursuant to 10 CFR SS2.740 (b) and 2.720 (h) (2) (ii) , the Intervenor Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") requests that the attached Interrogatories be answered fully, in' writing, and 1 1

under oath by any members of the Staff who have personal know- l ledge thereof. The answer to each interrogatory should contain the name(s) and identification of the person (s) supplying the answer whether or not he or she has verified the answer.

These interrogatories are based on new information contained in the September 5, 1980 letter (and its enclosures) from Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing to all licensees and applicants on the subject of.." Preliminary Clarification of TMI l .

..s BSDesoo &

a

e Action Plan Requirements." UCS became aware of the existence of this letter on or about September 16, 1980, but was unable to obtain a complete copy until September 19, 1980.

We have indicated at the end of each interrogatory some of the UCS Contentions that encompass the subject matter inquired of. In responding to interrogatories that request the bases for a requirement, please node that it is not necessary to include a discussion of whether TMI-1 meets the requirement.

In the interest of avoiding any future delay in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, UCS is willing to discuss with the Staff any aspect of these interrogatories in order to obviate the need for follow up interrogatories, objections, or motions to compel.

INTERROGATORIES

1. Item 2.1.1 of NUREG-0578 has been " clarified" in the September 5, 1980 version of Item II.E.3.1 of NUREG-0660 with a new requirement that redundant. heater

~

capacity must be provided.

l A copy was received in UCS' counsel's office on or about September 15, but she was out of town from September 15-19 and did not see the letter until her return on Septem-ber 22.

=e e

1 s -

V

a. What is the basis for this new requirement?

b. Does the Staff now take the position that functioning

~ ~~

of the pressurizer heaters from the onsite power supply is important to safety? .

c. If the answer to b. is no, explain why redundancy is required for components that are unimportant to safety and specify the Commission's regulation (s) tl at require (s) redundancy of non-safety related components.

d. If the answer to b. is no, oive examples of other instances where redundancy was required for com-ponents classified as non-safety related and

_ explain the basis for.or purpose of each such

~: ~

t- requirement.

(UCS Contentions 3, 4, and 14)

2. Item 2.1.2 of NUREG-0578 has been " clarified" in the September 5, 1980 version of Item'II.D.1 of NUREG-0660 with a new requirement for testing of the PORV block valve. -

a. What is the basis for this new requirement?

b. Does the Staff take the position that isolation of a stuck open or leaking PORV is a function that

.% = ,

I

• F 6

--* - ~

x . . . . . . - , ,- .

* ^

o

_4_ .

is important to safety? Explain the reasons for your answer.

2 _. .

<y

~

' ~

+

eyIf 'thf.ia,nswer tojp~~_~fisJyks u explaih,why. redundant .

~

block or isolation valves, classified as safety ~

grade and automatically closed, are not required.

d. If the answer to b. is no, explain why testing of the PORV block valve is required and specify the Commission's regulation (s) that require (s) such testing of non-safety grade components.

(UCS Contentions 5, 6, and 14)

3. Item 2.1.3.a of NUREG-0578 has been " clarified" in the September 5, 1980 version of Item II.D.3 of NUREG-0660 by noting that t51e relief and safety Ia~1ve po$ition indication should be seismically and environmentally qualified. In contrast, the TMI-l Restart Evaluation Report (NDREG- 068 0) notes that, if the sai.smic and environmental qualification requirements will not be met by January 1, 1980 (sic), a proposed qualification schedule should be provided. (Page C8-12).

a. Explain the reasons for the difference between the " clarification" in the September 5, 1980 letter and the TMI-l Restart 'Evalua tion.

, 6

/ -

, M Y ^ l~.~, : 3 .'-l. _

--.c-a d~ - - - :- .a -+--v.A h E se- -:-D :a. h 2

s

~

b. If the response to a.. includes a reference to r_ - - -

backup methods' for _indire_ctly determ.ining.. relief - 2- 4

- ..~. .

c.... .;: .

- :- i 1 ' ,c4;-- N- . r.

~

. _ . ' . . safety -valve-position., d.escribe the extent ' ton

~~

.m---.__

~ ~

.y

~ h ~ _;; -'Ljjahi~ch that back6'p equipment meets safety. grade .' ~

_ . + . .. .: ..

~

' ~ ~

requirements, iWeluding' seismic and environmental I~

~ ~ ~

~. - -- - - --- --

-~ ---'.;~_

~

5 2 qualification '~rcquirements. ;- (Please state exp1'icitly_

~ ~~ '

whether the response applies to the position indi -

cation for the relief valve, safety valve, or both.)

. - - . . - . .. .. , . . ... . . ....=. ..

~

- - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~" -

. 'iscS Conien~tions-5.and 1s) " ~ .

._ ~ . -

4. The part of Item 2.1.3.b of NUREG-0578 which addresses

, new instrumentation for in,dication of inadequate core ._ ,

- - - - -- ~

....:..'.~.. - - , .-~

. . . . - - -cooling has been." clarified" in,the Septeh.ber J,.,1980

" " ~ '

version ~of Item II.F.'2 o~f NUREG-0660 with a new req ~uire-ment. The new clarification Item No. 7 states that all instrumentation in the final inadequate core cooling monitoring system must be evaluated for conformance to Regulatory' Guide 1.97, Revision 2. In addition, Clarifi-cation Item No. 6 has been changed.

a. Explain the reasons for the difference between Clarification Item No. 6 on page C8-20 of the

. TMI-l Restart Evaluation and that in the September l

5, ,1980.ve~rs. ion of Item II.F. 2 of NUREG-0660. ~

l

.t ...

O 4

4

__. , . . . 7,,

._. . a ~. ..~..w

~

- . . _ ..._,,..a._.. .. _ . .

. , , . z

~ '....._. - . . .

~ . . .

. y: .

_ S. : _ .

.~_- - . -- .

c b., Does the- Staff propose to apply Clarification -

~

~~

2- .1 --

-7._ -. '- -Utem 'No'.' . k~of .the Sehtember 3, .l98 0 ver's5.on .of .-

~

_- ,- r -

~

i~ ~ $_'

I. te.m' If.~f. 2 T)f' NURE'G- 0 6 6 0 -t.6 ~ TMI-l'? .I. ~~If- notl

._;- why not? -- 2 . ---

= -- -

. T. - - .- -

_7. . . _ _.. _ . - ._,. - - ..

2 0:7- y, u Provi5e *a copyn of iRegu'I.atory Gtilde 1. 9"I fekision -

2 (or the most recent' draft of it), a copy of all

~

^^. . ' . -.

_...___.;- . ~ --3 2 l- .__~._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ , .

documents exchanged with the nuclear industry at

.  : - ~ ~ z - . .- -- _,--- . . ._ .. _ _

i ~. . . the September 25 - 26, 1980 meeting held in Colorado ~

_-- a.

. . _ . . " . . . _ .to discuss Revision . . . . .

2^, and a'co'py"of the-Staff's -

~ .

~~ ~~ '

4

- ] . minutes and/or su5 mary of th5t meeting. - _.

~

~(UCS Contention 7) -

s . . " . - e. . . . .;. . .,

~~ ^

5. - Item h l.-4 '.._ofK;;nEG-057 8 has - bocn " clarified" in the.c

~

~

September 5, 198'O'v'ersion of Item II.E.4.2 of NUREG-0660 with two new requirements -(Positions 5 and 6). and sub-stantive changes to the clarification items.

a. What are the bases for the new requirements set

' ~

- ' l. 'f- .

- forth ~in Positions 5 and' 6 Of 'the~ September 5, tn_

1980 version of Item II.E.4.2 of NUREG-0660?

~

b. Discuss the reasons for the changes in the Septem- -

ber 5, 1980 Clarification Items compared to those set forth on page C8-22 of the TMI-l Restart , ,

Evaluation. l 1

. \

. * '- - . s s gm ,

o o Ju oJuuSU.k m

~ .

v _...; % . : " :e -

.<...M  ; .;_j . 1. ' ..: .

.~

,. . . . . . +. .

g. ,

- * - - ~

s. 1,..,.-.w_..........,.~e..-. ._ , g . _ . . ,

-e.:c . . ". . .:. .

-m ,,;

s

. =. 4_ '

.7. -

"_c. , Provide a_ copy of_Regula_tosty, Guide-1.141,'~ Revision' .T'-.-

~

. .- ~,.; . . -

e...-. -. ..

~~. % 1. . .i - 'T ' ~.1 --

or', if; it 'lias notc.b'eeli issued, 3he:mos.t recent c ; #-

. . .n. . . . -c. . . ._ ._: : . . __--

J ~ ~~ 2 ~ ~~

.- - ... draft made..~ available. to the nuclear industry. _ ~ _ 7,~

~~d. . Jrovide a. copy of, the additional guidance on the ._

~' ~

~

classification,of essential:vs. nonessential A.-

~ - - .. . ...;.... .

. . . . - .- - , r. . . . , . . . .. . . . . . .

. systems mentioned in the new Clarificaticn Item .. - ~

No. 4. . _ _ . . .

..:._._-2_. .,:...._.. _ - _ . _ . . . _

(UCS Contentions 10 and 14).- - -- -- - - - -- ---' '

2.-

--. ' .. . - ~_  :." a

~

._= . .. . _

J6. Itiems 2.1.7.a and 2.1.'7.b.of NUREG-0578 have been " clarified" -

- -- - - ~- -

in the September.5, 1980 version of. Item II.E.1.2 o_f~ ,.

~

_-.- 7 u. .

NUREG-0660 by'specifying~those reqd.u.ements ir of IEEE :_Std..

_..--_._-_-..-_.,._.._._n . .

- . ~ . . - ., . .,_~ . _. ._ .

.. . 279-1971 which must be. met to-comply with the.positicn

'I.~'. .

' ~~'

- . .that aiIt.omfEi'c .- . . . . - . _ ' initi'ation' of 4G .. and . Ais- ~ fic.e ' indica tion 7 '

--+

must. meet. safety...grado requirements...i _ . .

.. . - . . ..m.-

a. For each requirement of Section 4 of IEEE Std 279-1971 which is not listed in the Clarification section

. hhcr. - ;S~ 19.9 ."i. . 4 d_.i u n. b f "E tor. II . E .1.-2.l 5.,'

~

. ,9e f Z L.O',7 f? .- JJ ttf~ tho' S pt: -

.. of NUREG-0660, explain..the^ basis for noti listing the requircr:nt.s (Please ancinr. separately for . .; .

. v .:.. .

the automatic initiation function and the flow indication or state that the answer applies.to -

both.)

D T ED j[j\\

90N O i- A T

a o.it 8 e + g

• e

. .,. , ,y .

a

~:.. . w;, :..

...a.::

- y. : .,;. ; , . , .

w. , . . .

g,--- . . -

~..c.,.,

. . . . T.. . '-

.o

. . . . wr

.a.u.n. - . . - .

m ,. .

1...~.-

r. v; ,.. -~~

. . . . . : ., a .

..' ..- . =:: - m.--.y-m .h --- c +..z-- :..:::g_~ .y-. . ,

/

=m_ .

-8 ..

. . r . . . . . . .. . - . .. . . . ~ . . -

. ; r. .. . . ~ -

.1 . . . - c .:. w..

-. . . ..... . . ~ . . ... . .

.- .w. Jbr -Is-it.the Staff's position that'AFW flow indication-~ ".

. ~ . ~ . . - - ~ .. .-,-:- _..

- ~ ~ . -.m. -

~

. -he..pr6tection" system .as.~ diffined in > ~^ : ~'.

3;. - ... . ~

- . _ . -. . . , , . _ . . . . . - .. i.s 'part.'6. f .-

Ja . ,., ,., . --

m _ . _.

- .y c7....W IEEE S_td 279-19717..--If so ? plcase-explain f ul.1;. -- .._~. . ..

~^

~..

. the bases 1for that position.- .If. .

not, explain ~the~. .

' reasons for applying-protection.' system requirements --.

~

. < . -.7

..-~ --..

2

.~ ;--.-

- - - -=-

- ; . : - ~ ~. - ' .: .. :- ' . - . .

, --. to equ' . ipment that is not part of the protection. . . .

~ . ,

, . . . ..~ .- . . _ . .. .. . . . _ . ..

system. ... _.

~ - .

~ .(UCS,wContentions 7, 9,10 and 14) -

-, ..;;T ~ . . .

~ . + . ., . . . . , . . . ..

.- . . -.~ ~ . .

~ .. .

.r The Union ~of ~- -

l'oncerned Scientists .

I y .. .. .

,--- .: .,,.,e. .

w. .

.:,._ x....

. . - _, a ..

..~...._,. - . .

. . . ~ . . .

._ ~_.-

.._. ..n.-..

(,,,,_-,.

. ,.,j-.... .

m

. -. . . . .z . ,. _ ..

. - . . . . . . .. . l . ,,., ,.._,~_. -.- ,

s. . .

e. - . 311. 1 n R ; ..alss . . . . .; ' .

~

~~~". , ,.;- -

. .;c SHELDON, HARMON.& WEISS

, . 3 . ;.  :-

1725'T Street, N.W. --

Suite 506

.' Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 ,

.. . .2 . ....

. .. .:. :. . :. , ..; .. .. . ,:.a . ... .. m + : . & . v . z-- .  :.. =

_ . .~~.~...,,.,-..-,.a. ......:..

.. . . 25.1980_.,.

. . Da.to : September.;

, , . ,2.. .

m.s..

. .. . . ~ . . . ,

7- . ..u..

v

e. j -

6. k - -.

. .  % .y _

e . .

u.4, O

g.

e dD' C .. .O 4

e

~, e

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *

)

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON ) Docket No. 50-289 COMPANY, - et _al., )

~

(Three Mile Island )

Nuclear Station, Unit )

l No. 1) )

l )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Direct Testimony of Robert D. Pollard on Behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists Regarding UCS Contention No. 3," " Direct Testimony of Robert D.

Pollard on Behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists Regarding UCS Contention No. 10," and " Union of Concerned Scientists Inter-rogatories to the NRC Staff Based on New Information," have been mailed postage pre paid this 25th day of September, 1980, to the l following parties:

l I

g._

Secretary of the Commission (3) Mr. Steven C. Sholly s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 304 South Merket Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attn: Chief, Docketing & Service Section ,

James A. Tourtellotte, Esq. Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq. .

Of fice of the Exec. Lbga Fox-l - Farr & Cunningh'a'm U.S. Nuclear Regulatory'.1 Director Commis s ion 2320 North Second Streah Washi,ngton, D.g. 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17110 ',

Karin W. Carter, Esquire Frieda Berryhill

• Assistant Attorney General Coalition for Nuclear Power ..

• 505 Executive House Postponement, ,

P.O. Box 2357 -

2610 Grendon Drive Harrisburg, PA 17120 Wilmingtoq, Delawate 19802 Daniel M. Pell Walter W. Cohen, C'onsumer Adv. '

32 South Beaver Street

• Department of Ju'tices York, Pennsylvania- 17401 -

Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17127

~

. .)

Q .

• 9 .

.c L