ML19347B729
| ML19347B729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1980 |
| From: | Tourtellotte J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347B730 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010150591 | |
| Download: ML19347B729 (11) | |
Text
7 7.
,\\
~
fp g g 4 10J Q > h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
h's NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Of t
, gad -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
STAFF RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDEP, 0F SEPTEMBER 17, 1980 Attached is the affidavit of Thomas M. Novak responding to the Board's Memorandum and Order of September 17, 1980.
The affidavit is self-explanato,y and Mr. Novak will be present to answer further Board inquiries at the hearings to be held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on October 15, 1980.
14
(
t y
James R. Tourtellotte Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel h
8010150591
'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, et a1. )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS M. NOVAK I, Thomas M. Novak, being duly sworn, do depose and state:
1.
I am the Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, Division of Licensing,.
Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am responsible for the project management of operating reactors, including Three Mile Island, Unit 1.
2.
The attached Response to the Board's Memorandum and Order of September 17, 1980 was prepared.under my direct supervision and control, and I adopt it as nty own.
I certify that the information therein is true and accurate to the best of-my knowledge.
r*o 47 s
Thomas M. Novak
. Subscribed and sworn to before me thi^ 10th day of October 1980 0
,fw
'.f [j /L {:< l 8 tin ut dit; t.
i Notary /Public My Comission expires:
July.1, 1982 s
RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 17,.1980 The staff offers the infornation below in response to the Board's directive to
" report to the Board the schedule it (the staff) intends to follow in preparing for the remainder of this proceeding (after September 15) and the reasons for the schedule". Details of our schedule and the basis and reasons for the dates are presented as required by the September 17 Order.
In some cases, responsibility for delay in-filing testimony or issuing documents admittedly rests with the staff.
In others, events outside our control, including delays by other parties, cause or contribute to staff delays.
In all cases, we wish to assure the Board that within the limits of our resources and considering other valid and pressing demands on those resources, we have attempted and will continue to attempt to meet all schedules and, failing that, to minimize delays in accordance with the Commission's directive to expedite these-proceedings.
The staff believes that the schedules called out herein will not further delay the hearing.
Where time spans after some event outside the control of the staff are identified rather than a fixed date, reasonable predictions of timing of those events also indicate that no further delay would occur.
s
,,m,
Schedele for Outstanding Items Item Schedule 4
Testimony - Group A, Subgroup 1 & 2 September 25, 1980 UCS-1 (complete) i UCS-2 UCS-8 ECNP-13 UCS-10 SHOLLY-3 i
UCS-3 i.
UCS-5 Testimony - Group A, _ Subgroup 2 October 2, 1980 UCS-12 partial (Final Testimony will be (complete)
UCS-14 filed March 2, 1981)
UCS-6 SH0LLY-13 ECNP-la UCS-9 ECNP-lc ECNP-ld Testimony -' Group A. Subgroup lb,1c (Inadequate Core Cooling) November 30, 1980 UCS-7
/NGRY-V(B)
SHOLLY-6b Reasons for this schedule are contained ir. the discussion on Late Reporting below and in the affidavit of Thomas Novak filed with the Board and parties on September 15, 1980.
Testimony - Group A, Subgcoup 29 (Control Room Design)
November 30, 1980 SH0LLY-15 ANGRY-V(C)
Reasons -for this schedule are contained in the discussion on Late Reporting
-below and in the~ affidavit of Thomas Novak filed with the Board and -
. parties-on September 15, 1980. The schedule above is contingent on the results of a. meeting presently scheduled-for October 10, 1980 between
'the staff and licensee-froni which the staff expects to develop the necessary inforretion to-complete its response to the contentions.
Testimony - Group A, Subgroup 3a (Class 9)
November 30, 1980 UCS-13 SHOLLY-17 ECNP-4b & c This item was not included in the Board Order, but the following information is presented for completeness.
In its June 3 " Memorandum on NRC Staff Accident Sequences Report", the Board indicated what information it desired in addition to that already filed in the staff's "TMI-1 Poten-tial Core Damage Accident Sequences and Preventive and Mitigative Measures".
The Board indicated its concerns in this area and its desire to have these concerns addressed in written testimony. Der continuing desire to respond meaningfully to the Boarj's concerns in this area, recognizing the compleuty of the issues involved, and our efforts to explain our position on these issues has resulted in the schedule indicated above for filing staff testimony.
No consideration has yet been given to the effect on the proceedings, if any, of the Proposed Rule on hydrogen control or the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on degraded or melted cores.
(FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 45, No.
193, October 2,1980, pps. 65466-65477.)
Testimony - Group A, Subgroup 3b (Hydrogen)
In accordarce with the Board Memorandum and Order of Prehearing Conference of August 12-13,1980, " litigation on post-accident hydrogen control issues continues to be deferred".
Schedules will be developed "when the matter becomes ripe for further actions".
~
r I
l.
b Responses to Board Questions l
l
- This item is not included in the Board Order, but for i
completeness we note that the staff-intends to file responses to those Board Questions in the September 8 Memorandum and Order required by October 15, 1980, by that date.
No response is re,uired by the staff on Questions 4 and 10.
Response to Questions 2 and 9 l
. is not required by October 15; the staff intends to respond by October 31, l
1980. Responses to Board Questions accompanying specific contentions in that order have been addressed in the testimony on these contentions except as-follows:
Contention UCS-8, Board Question.
Res;,nse will be filed by October 31, 1980.
Contention UCS-12, Board Questions 2 and 3.
Responses to these Questions will be filed by October 31, 1980.
l
{
Board Question 11 was served on September 29, 1980.
The staff will file'its response to this question by October 31, 1980.
Testimony and SER Suppplement - Group C (Emergency Planning)-
Testimony and an SER supplement: on emergency planning based on the requirements of the revised rule (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) and the l
guidance in NUREG-0654 are being prepared by both the staff -
i l
l
4_
and FEMA.
In accordance with the Presidential Directive of December 7,1979 and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and FEMA, FEMA will review and evaluate the preparedness of the state and. local governments offsite and will provide NRC with its findings. NRC will then make a final determination on the overall state of emergency preparedness of the licensee and state and local governments.
For the staff portion of contentions presently admitted (approximately 50),
draft testimony has been prepared and is in the process of being finalized with staff management and counsel.
However, newly proposed contentions by intervenors, the time needed to prepare the staff response to thes proposals, and the time needed to respond to those new contentions ultimately admitted, has delayed and will further delay completion of this task.
Testimony on presently admitted contentions is therefore now scheduled for_ filing by Decemter 15, 1980.
Completion of the staff portion of the SER is constrained by lack of responses by licensee to the 22 staff questions of September 9,1980.. A draft SER has been prepared but is not considered appropriate for issuance until the open areas represented by staff. questions are resolved.
The SER will be issued six weeks after receipt of responses by the licensee to staff questions.
b-
, r FEMA is respor.sible for the preparation of testimony on approximately 100 contentions and for the offsite emergency preparedness portion of the SER supplement.
They are proceeding with this effort, but _ as of this date they have not provided. responses to our requests for commitments on their schedule for completion.
l Because of the number of contentions for which FEMA will prepare responses and the scope of their-portion of the SER, and the effort anti-cipated in finalization of this information among FEMA, NRC staff, and counsel, we estimate that this testimony can be filed within two to three months from receipt of input from FEMA.
Testimony and SER - Group D (Management)
AAMODT-2 ANGRY-4 TMIA-5 l
SH0LLY-14 CEA-13 l
3/6/80 Commission Order Items 1-12 l
Ar noted in the Board's September 17 Memorandum and Order, the SER l
supplement on management issues was reported on August 13 to be scheduled for about November 1.
Information on which this report was l
l based did not consider the presentation by TMIA of its case on Contention 5 at the beginning of the hearing, since the Board made the decision to l
-do this on that same day, August 13.
It has since become evident that l
the presentation by TMI A might indeed take considerable time, perhaps several weeks. NRC counsel on this issue also is counsel for the entire management issue.
He and certain key _ staff personnel involved in preparation
~
.of the-SER supplement and testimony on' management issues will have to direct their attention-to the hearing during TMIA's presentation. In' addi-l-
(
tion,- delays in staff's completion of reports on the extensive IE inspec-
9
. tions in the management area are causing corresponding delays in both the SER supplement and testimony, which will be based in large measure on these detailed reports.
Based on the above, our schedule for completing both the management SER supplement and testimony -is now four weeks after completion of TMIA's case on Contention 5, with ANGRY-4 and TMI A-5 six weeks after that time.
Item 6 of the March 6, 1980 Commission Order will-be completed on the same schedule as the financial SER supplement as discussed below.
Testimony and SER - Group E (Financial)
On August 13, staff counsel reported that our schedule aate for the SER supplement on financial issues was about December 1.
This was based on receipt of an acceptable. financial plan on August 14, on early.
responses to staff questions by the licensee, and on expectation of a continuation of the financial situation then existing.
The licensee pre-sented a draft financial plan at a meeting on August 14, and agreed to submit responses to our questions on August 28 and September 15.
Based on this commitment, we then expected to be able to issue an SER supplement and testimony on financial issues by November 15.
However, we have not yet received responses from the licensee to our questions.nor have we received a schedule for submittal of'such responses.
Because of rece;it actions by the pennsylvania PUC and other events, the licensees' financial status is not clear at this time.
As a result of these factors, our schedule for financial testimony and SER supplement cannot be specified at this time.
- However, L
we-could provide such testimony and SER supplement within eight weeks of l
-receipt of responses by the licensee to our questions.
t
2 SER - Open Items in Order Items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, Including Lessons Learned Category A Response by the licensee to SER open issues, including those in Order Item 8, Lessons Learned, had been promised by the licensee in its May 28 letter to ~be completed between June 16 and December 15, 1980, with all but three by. September 15.
By the time of the prehearing conference, licensee verbal commitments for submittals addressing many of these issues was August 30, which was the basis for staff counsel's report tc the Board that an SER wseld be available about November 1.
To date, we have received no submittals on these issues.
On October 8, we received an updated schedule for receipt of additional information, with dates varying from October 15 to June 1981.
We have not had time to evaluate that schedule prior to preparing this filing. It should also be noted that the hearing itself on Group A & B items will probably tie up staff personnel involved in reviewing the submittals when received.
Allowing time to review the submittals, prepare requests for additional information, receive such information from the licensee, prepare supplement inputs, and issue the supplement, and giving reasonable consideration to the effect of the hearing on personnel availability.
we expect to issue an SER supplement in this area nine weeks after receipt of the bulk of submittals on open issues.
Late Reporting The Board expressed interest in an explanation from the " technical staff as to'why it could not have reported until the closing hours of the due date that it was unable to meet the September 15 filing date for written testimony" promised by that date.
[
The technical. staff had been-workin'g on written testimony for considerable time prior to September 15, 1980 with the firm conviction that the filing date would be met. _ It was only during the week of September 8 that the
T technical staff realized counsel's' strong ' conviction that some of-its proposed t estimony fell short because of legal requirements. The judgment that not all testimony met the requirements for filing was made by legal counsel late on September 9, but meetings continued between the technical and legal staff on September 10,11 and 12th in an atteapt to complete all promised testimony for September 15 filing. On September 11, when staff counsel advised the Licensing Board that staff would probably not be able to file all of its testimony, the technical staff had not yet considered a schedule for filing testimony in the future.
At a meeting at midday on September 12 between senior staff and counsel, counsel's view as to adequacy of the testimony prevailed and counsel and staff agreed on the specific testimony to be filed on September 15. Over that weekend members of the staff defined the schedule for the remainder of the testimony and prepared the affidavit of Thomas Novak filed with the Board and parties on September 15.
If this sequence of actions caused inconvenience to the Board or~ the parties, the staff apologizes.- It should be clear, however, that the technical staff did not intend such a result and worked as diligently as it could in the circumstances to provide information so that the Licensing Board and the parties could be informed of the change in status of the testimony at the earliest possible date.
l l'
(
-