ML19344A183
| ML19344A183 | |
| 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 | |
| ML19344A184 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008060517 | |
| Download: ML19344A183 (5) | |
Text
__
4
\\
~
/p
\\**,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
o WASH 4NGToN, D. C. 20555 y,
a
[
March 16, 1977 1
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
. Washington, DC _20555
Subject:
ADDITIONAL REQUESP EOR INEORMATION FROM THE MIDIAND AS&IB
Dear Mr. Howden:
i
~ The Comittee has received an additional recjuest from the Atomic Safety
~
and Licensing Board in the Midland case for further elaboration and
" treatment" of matters mentioned in the Comittee's Supplemental Report to you of November 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 mat l
recent AS&IB ' request, dated January 28, 1977, is attached.
{
Although the Comittee-is willing to provide reasonable and necessary clarification of its recomendations and opinions, we believe that the Board in this case has misinterpreted the Aeschliman decision and has
}
embarked on a course which, if pursued, could involve the Comittee in an unnecessary and potentially unending series of requests for clari-i fication and elaboration of its reports, in connection with not only
^
the Midland proceeding, but other proceedings as well. 'Ihe Board's j
"three areas of comment" are addressed below:
I.
I i
4 The Board notes two specific paragraphs of interest to the Midland pro-ceeding in a set of ACRS meeting minutes (106th ACRS meeting held l
February 6-8, 1969) during which the Midland project was discussed, and the Board requests "further' coment under the rules, set forth,in the -
Aeschliman case" regarding these two paragraphs "as well as any other
' matters of concern' (including any matters mentioned in furnished or L
unfurnished minutes)" and requests that these matters be treated fully by the Comittee in accordance with the following excerpt from Aeschliman vs. NRC:
~
"At a minimum, the ACRS report should have provided a short explanation, understandable to a layman, of the additional matters.of concern to the Comittee, and a cross-reference i
to the previous reports in whicli those problems, and the measures proposed to solve them, e re developed-in more detail."
l8008060 & f.
0 h(
1
7 i.'
1
' N
).
i j.
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 i
[
In the op. inion of the Comittee, the Board has incorrectly concluded that all. topics discussed during an ACRS review, and recorded in the meeting t
b minutos, are " matters of concern" to the Comittee in the context of the i
AM,chliman 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 Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976, in language
" understandable to the layman" as required by the Aeschliman decision.
j Many other itens of interest are documente.d and discussed during the course of an ACRS review and are not identified as matters of concern in the ACRS
}
report. Some of these itens are considered satisfactory or are adequately resolved by amendment of the application or other means during the review process. Some represent points of general infornation, 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 oon-4 sidered by the Comittee but was limited (see Attachment 2) to those matters l
identified in ACRS reports as items of concern. 'Ib require that the ACRS
]
address in its report every item discussed or considered during the course of a review is inpractical and unnecessary.
4 For exanple, the suitability of. the Midland Plant for the proposed. Midland' i
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, i
1969, and April 9, May 8, June 11-13, and September 17-19, 1970; appropriate l-safety features yere included in the design for this reactor at this site.
The minutes of these meetings have been in the public domain since 1974.
i.
t II.
'l This section of the Board's request deals with th'e substance of'the.
Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976 and requests that the Co;=ittee further clarify one of its recomendations, specifically, I
that the Comittee specify the " danger" that is of concern if instru-mentation and control. are not separated; further describe the type of separation required (e.g.,. physical or other); and specify a standard for confornance.
s j
The Board further notes that this illustration is only an exanple of an -
area where a problem nay exist and further elaboration of other matters may also be required.
4 9
i W
4 "y--
<Sr=-
ww e-m-*-
e w-
-e
~- or*,*wn-
-swepw-m-**'e w-=w w ow -e ma-hv-<
wwwww--=e
--+m-ures re-w ww ere w
-w= we -
-rev-tme-w+---w-v==
m s
j Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 4
i i
The Comittee appreciates the Board's desire and interest in understanding 3
- the issues identified by the Comittee but does not agree with the method j
being used to develop this understanding. The Comittee's Supplemental Report dated November 18,1976 did provide a brief description of the items j
considered to have been problems by the Comittee and specific cross ref-i erences to other applicable cases, as required by the Court in Aeschliman
]
vs. NRC.
The desire for additional clarification by the Board with respect to spe-l cific questions of this natu'a is best served by:
- Exmination of the rea)rd related to the Midland review and the review of other cases specifically cross-referenced ~
by the Comittee.
l Discussion with the NRC Staff who participate in the i
comittee's revit.w process, are thoroughly familiar with the problems and issues involved, and are participants in the hearings.
1 l
The example chosen by the Board is itself a case in point. The matter of
- I separation of control and protection instrumentation relates to reducing the probability of failure due to a comon cause and is dealt with gener-i ically by Section 7.3 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan, which provides guidance to Staff reviewers; the Comittee provided a specific reference, 4
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 j
" cross-reference to the previous reports in which those 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 i
the matter of Three Mile Island, Unit 1, deals directly with this ACRS concern in Section 7.5, " Separation of Control and Protection Systems" 1
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.
l 1
' In general, we believe that examination of the implementation of the Com-3 mittee's advice and of any resulting changes in the application are best i
j' left to the NBC Staff which plays a direct role in the hearing, and that any evidence relating to such matters should be sought from them. Indeed, i
i 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 judicial ~ review. Under Comission rules, when ACRS conclusions are con-troverted, a factual record is compiled anew before the Licensing Board."
L J
t
)
]'
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 16, 1977 7
4 We NRC Staff (previously, the AEC Regulatory Staff) has routinely ad-k dressed itself to the coments and recomendations in ACRS. reports for i
many years as part of the NRC hearing process. A typical examp2.3 is to be found in Suppleent 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 4
in the ACRS report of August 14, 1973.
j III.
l h is section of the Midland Board's most recent request points to per-ceived." ambiguities" resulting from an exanination of several ACRS reports provided as references in the Committee's Supplemental Report i
of November 18, 1976. S e Board notes that those references contain
" ambiguities" similar to the ones cited by the Court in Aeschliaan and i
points, by way of exatple, to the Comittee's reference to "other problems" in it's Hutchinson Island report of March 12, 1970. Se j
Board asks that any of the dother proolems" which apply to Midland be identified and described as the Court directed.
he Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976 was provided as ordered by the Court to ideritify those "other problems" which had been considered applicable to the Midland Plant at the time of the CP review and which were noted-generically in the ACRS report of Jme 18,
-Any items not so identified in the Comittee's November 18, 1976 1970.
report were not considered applicable to Midland during the CP review.
j, he Comittee'will be in a position to update this list and address
.the current status of specific items when it has conpleted its review for an Operating License for the Midland Plant. Bis review has not yet been scheduled.
In sumary, the Comittee believes that the response already provided in its Supplemental' Report of November 18, 1976, fully meets the re-quirements of the Aeschliman Court since:
(1) he Court requested claboration only of those items referred to in the Comittee's original report as "other problems" and no others.
- (2) he Comittee's Supplemental Report t.! November 18, 1976, did provide a "short explanation understandable to a layman of the additional matters of concern to the j
Comnittee 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 Aeschliman decision.
y e-i
,.,,.4c
-,.~~%
--,.-e-,,--,,.-,r.cw.
--,-%w,,.m-w.wr-,wo,~.-,,
ev.n,, w 4- - -.
,--.,-,.-.-,-,--.,---v..isee
-e=
I-
m
~
4 Honorable Marcus A. Rowde'n March 16, 1977 k3) The Comittee's Supplemental Report of November 18, 1976, fully identified all additional rnatters 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. Bender Optirman Attachments:
1.
F. J. Coufal, Chairman, AS&LB letter to M; Bender, ACRS, dated January 28, 1977.
2.
Excerpt from the decision in Aeschliman vs. NRC.
e e
e l
9 9
v
-,wr
,,.,,1-,,,-,
rw.-
,>-y
-