ML20058E406
| ML20058E406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1982 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207280205 | |
| Download: ML20058E406 (16) | |
Text
..
00{fk nssa 7/26/02 21 g:'y '.~ 0
.g2 JL c-mr.EC[,t['
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL ~ BOARD..-
,,,..++"'
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289.
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S OBJECTION TO AND.
COMMENTS ON APPEAL BOARD ORDER DATED JULY 14, 1982 On July 14, 1982, the Appeal Board conderned with appeals on plant design and procedure issues posed a number of questions'to the Licensee and NRC Staff to be answered in the form of affidavits.
Licensee objects to one of the questions (Question III.E) as involving matters outside the scope of the restart hearing and governed by Commission regulations of generic applicability to operating nuclear power plants.
Licensee also comments on a number of other questions addressed to Licensee and the NRC Staff which appear to be outside the scope of issues on appeal or to involve compliance matters re-served to the NRC Staff and the Commission.
Os03 8207280205 B20726 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
I.
Objection to Question III.E Question III.E asks Licensee to provide "the current status of compliance by the licensee with CLI-80-21 for quali-fication of safety equipment for a harsh environment [.]
This information should include all of the parameters addressed by IE Bulletin 79-OlB and its Supplements, such as temperature, pressure, chemical spray, radiation, aging and humidity.
Also information concerning the environmental qualification of the various components of the emergency feedwater system should be provided with an estimate of the schedule for full qualifica-tion of this system."1!
Licensee's objection is to the Appeal Board's request for a status report on the compliance of all safety equipment (including the emergency feedwater system) with all of the param-eters for a harsh environment addressed in IE Bulletin 79-OlB.
This request inexplicably goes well beyond the evidentiary record considered by the Licensing Board and the scope of this special proceeding.
1/ Question III.E continues with an observation concerning the six conditions imposed by the Licensing Board in Paragraphs 1163 and 1168 of the PID, and inquires about the effect of a new Com-mission rule on Licensee's schedule for completion of equipment qualification.
Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment, 47 Fed. Reg. 28363 (June 30, 1982).
The interim rule, 10 C.F.R.
S 50c49, will have no effect upon Licensee's compliance with the six Licensing Board conditions--elements of which must be com-pleted prior to restart, and elements of which must be completed prior to exceeding 5% power operation--since Licensee does not plan to seek relief from those commitments.
As to Licensee's schedule for completion of equipment qualification pursuant to generic Commission requirements, Licensee will attempt to meet the schedule to be established by the Commission in the final version of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.49.
The Licensing Board heard evidence from-Licensee on the specific equipment qualification " lessons learned" from the TMI-2 accident and on the resultant corrective actions to be undertaken at TMI-1.
See Braulke, ff. Tr. 6820.
The Staff presented the results of a review, conducted especially for this proceeding, of the qualiffcation of equipment, required to safely shut down TMI-l following a loss of feedwater and small-break loss-of-coolant accident, to perform its safety function when subject to the environmental conditions to which it would be exposed during the period in which that safety function must be performed.
See Rosztoczy, ff. Tr. 21867.
Given the experience of the TMI-2 accident, however, the Licensing Board was uniquely interested in equipment qual-ification for high radiation levels.3/
PID, 1 1142.
While the IE Bulletin 79-OlB program includes qualification for design basis' radiation values (based upon release from the core of 100%
of the noble gases, 50% of the halogens, and 1% of the solidsd!),
the Staff's review for the harsh environment was not complete at the time of the hearing.
Consequently, the Licensing Board 2/ The Licensing Board's findings on submergence address what 1
Licensee advanced to be the equipment qualification lesson learned.
See PID, 11 1169-1174.
3/ Nevertheless, the uncontradicted evidence shows that the 1
environment inside containment during the TMI-2 accident, with respect to radiation, was below the levels associated with a design basis loss-of-coolant accident.
Braulke-1, ff.*Tr.
6820, at 6-8 and Table 3.
4/ Braulke-1, ff.-Tr. 6820, at 7, 8; Braulke-2, ff. Tr. 6820, at 2.
See also, PID, 1 1161. _-
required a Staff report to the Commission on Licensee's compli-ance with CLI-80-21, 11 N.R.C. 707 (1980), as it relates to safety equipment functioning in a radiological environment in a TMI-2 type accident.
PID, 1 1162.
Except for the parameters of submergence and radia-tion, the Licensing Board limited its conditions to the fruits of the Staff's review of small-break LOCA and loss of feedwater events.
While we do not appreciate the Licensing Board's interest in providing the Commission with an early report of the Staff's review of TMI-l equipment qualification for harsh radiation environments, at least this condition (as well as the others imposed) had, in the Licensing Board's view a nexus to the TMI-2 accident.E!
This basic nexus criterion was used by the Licensing Board throughout the proceeding in shaping the scope of the hearing,5I and has been cited with approval by the Commission.7/
Licensee should not now be requested to expand the hearing record as to environments, parameters and equipment previously ruled outside the scope of the proceeding.
In making its rulings on the scope of the hearing the Licensing Board also took into account that the subject of equipment qualification and related compliance schedules were 5/ At the same time, the Licensing Board stated that "[wle see no basis upon which to treat TMI-l differently than other oper-ating reactors on the issue of radiatio,n environmental qualifi-cation of electrical equipment."
PID, T 1161.
6/ See PID, 3 24, LBP-81-32, 14 N.R.C. 381, 394 (1981).
7/ Unpublished and unnumbered Commission order, March 14, 1980. __
at the time of the hearing the subject of a Commission order (CLI-80-21) adopting Staff guidelines, and compliance schedules applicable to all operating reactors.
These requirements were incorporated by an immediately effective amendment to the Tbi-1 operating license.
PID, 1 1148.
Since the close of the hear-ing the Commission has suspended the June 30, 1982, compliance date contained in CLI-80-21, pending issuance in the near future of final regulations.
47 Fed. Reg. 28363 (June 30, 1982).
It is important to recognize that The Commission has received, and the staff has evaluated, each operating plant licensee's justification for continued operation.
On the bases of these analyses, the Commission has determined that continued operation of these plants pending completion of the equip-ment qualification program, will not present undue risk to the public health and safety.
Id.
The Appeal Board should not attempt to duplicate this Staff / Commission review as it applies to.TMI-1.
Further, under these circumstances where Commission rulemaking is both active and imminent, it is entirely appropriate, quite apart from questions as to the proper scope of the hearing, for the Licens-ing Board and Appeal Board to defer the equipment qualification issue to Commission rulemaking.
See Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C.
79, 85 (1974); Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655, 14 N.R.C.
799, 816 (1981).
Our objection to Question III.E is a legal and' pro-cedural one.
However, we would also call to the Appeal Board's attention the practical consequences of its question, which encompasses the entire scope of the IE Bulletin 79-OlB program to date.
Licensee has filed three large and two smaller vol-umes of data on equipment qualification and some 10 supple-mental submittals.
NRC Staff review of this material is not complete and there are a number of outstanding requests to Licensee for additional information.
Licensee questions whether it is even feasible, much less appropriate, for the Appeal Board to inject itself into the review process.
If the Appeal Board disagrees with Licensee's objec-tion, we respectfully request that, in view of the Commission's active role in and close supervision of this special proceed-ing, the following question be certified to the Commission for its determination:
Should the Appeal Board in the TMI-l Restart proceeding inquire into the status of Licensee's compliance with CLI-80-21 for qualification of safety equipment for a harsh environment, to include information on all of the parameters addressed by IE Bulletin 79-OlB and its Supplements?
II.
Licensee Comments on Other Questions The purpose and relationship to the restart proceed-ing of a number of the Appeal Board's questions is unclear to Licensee.
Some questions suggest, however, that the Appeal Board means to address itself to matters of compliance and compliance schedules which, in Licensee's view, have been as-signed by the Commission to the NRC Staff or, in certain cases, _
to the, Commission itself.
In addition, the Appeal Board has addressed matters which, while the subject of the hearing below, have not been raised on appeal by any party.
It is Licensee's position that in this special proceeding the Appeal Board only has jurisdiction to carry out the responsibility specifically delegated to it by the Commission.
That respon-sibility is "to hear initial appeals in this proceeding."
CLI-81-19, 14 N.R.C.
304, 305 (1981).
We begin our discussion, where the restart hearing itself begins,with the Commission Order and Notice of Hearing dated August 9, 1979.
That Order, confirming an earlier Order dated July 2, 1979 suspended TMI-l's operating authority, effective immediately and without a prior opportunity for hearing.
The Order stipulated the con-ditions under which the Commission itself might authorize re-start of TMI-l after a public hearing.
Restart authorization could occur in either of two ways.
One of these (presently under consideration by the Commission) would be for the Com-mission, on the basis of a favorable recommendation from the Licensing Board assigned to conduct the hearing, to lift the immediate effectiveness of its July 2 and August 9 Orders.
In that event TMI-1 would be allowed to restart subject to the outcome of appeals from the Licensing Board decision.
If the Commission did not lift its suspension order, restart would be contingent on Commission decision following the resolution of any appeals.
The Commission's later order assigning to the i
Appeal Board responsibility for hearing appeals, but leaving the final restart decision in the Commission's hands, did not alter fundamentally the two paths by which restart could occur.
Should the Commission decide (as urged by a number of intervenors) not to authorize restart on the basis of the l
Licensing Board's decisions but to await completion of the Appeal Board's appellate review, the Appeal Board's decision (s) would of course become a critical path item.
The length of that critical path will be directly affected by the scope and complexity of the Appeal Board's review.
l A.
Compliance Matters Division of responsibility on compliance matters under l
the Commission's August 9 Order can best be addressed by divid-i ing possible compliance matters into four different categories and discussing each individually.
1.
The simplest category consists of short-term pre-restart requirements imposed by the l
l Licensing Board where a determination of com-pliance requires no more than verification by the NRC Staff and certification to the Com-mission that the requirement has in fact been timely met.
Unless the Commission itself de-cides otherwise (see category 4 below), such requirements imposed by the Licensing Board must, under the Commission's August 9, 1979 /
Order, be met prior to restart.
There is no need for the Appeal Board to police this kind of requirement.
2.
The second category involves short-term pre-restart requirements when the pre-restart completion requirement date is clear but where some element of judgment has been left by the Licensing Board to the Staff as to the manner of implementing the requirement.
The August 9 Order deals explicitly with this situation.
The Order states that "[sl atis-factory completion of the required actions will be determined by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Licensing Board shall have authority to require staff to inform it of the detailed steps staff believes necessary to implement actions the Board may require and to approve or disapprove of such measures."A!
Thus'the Commission clearly intended the Licens-ing Board to have broad discretion in determin-ing the level and detail of compliance actions and, conversely, in determining the extent to which it would rely on Staff determinations.
8/ CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141, 149 (1979).
9/ Id. at 148..
l 4
o We do not believe that in adding the Appeal Board to hear appeals the Commission meant to withdraw any of its delegation of author-ity to the Licensing Board.
3.
A third category of compliance items involves long-term requirements imposed by the Board which need not be completed prior to restart but as to which a finding of reasonable prog-i ress must be made.
Here it is clear that the Licensing Board must itself make the reason-able progress determination as a part of its initial review.10/
No provision is contained in the Commission's August 9 Order for moni-toring subsequent progress on long-term requirements.
It is, however, a reasonable reading of the Order, consistent with its i
other provisions, that the Commission meant the NRC Staff to assume this function.
Cer-
' tainly this is the view of the Licensing Board which stated in its decision its belief that "the record amply demonstrates that the Staff will require or ascertain that the reasonable progress we have found continues to be made with respect to the long-term items."11/
10/ Id. at 146.
4 11/ PID, 1 1210.
' l
_a.,
. _ _., _ - ~., _.,,, -
4.
The fourth category consists of NUREG-0737 requirements imposed by the Licensing Board as pre-restart conditions consistent with the compliance schedules which, at the time of the restart hearing, had been established for other operating reactors.
By Order dated March 23, 1981, the Commission recognized that developments subsequent to the close of the hearing record might make it impossible to meet the then established schedules on all action items and expressly reserved to itself the flexibility to adjust action senedules on a case-by-case basis.12/
Any request for re-lief under the Commission's Order will be directed to the Commission itself and is out-side the scope of the hearing and appeals.
B.
Matters Not on Appeal As indicated above, some of the Appeal Board questions appear to involve matters which were covered in the restart hearing but which are not the subject of any of the exceptions by parties to the proceeding.
Licensee does not believe that the Commission intended the Appeal Board to extend its review beyond hearing appeals by the parties from the Licensing Board decision.
12/ CLI 81-3, 13 NRC 291, 295-6 (1981).
See also PID, December 14, 1981, 1 1219.
A 5
i
\\
s la A
In this special; proceeding, unlike construction per-mit and operating license proc'eedings
'the role of the Appeal s,
Board is established solely by Cosmission order rather than by Commission regulations.
In its original brder,an
' Notice of Hearing, dated August 9, 1979, the Commission (1) directed that the record of the hearing before the Licensing Board be certi-fied to the Commission itself for review, (2) provided that any party might take an appeal directly with the Commission, and
^
(3) specified that Commission review of the initial decision would be conducted in accordance with.Section 2.770 of the Com-mission's Rules of Practice.13/
Section 2.770 in turn provides in pertinent part that the " Commission will ordinarily. consider the whole record on review, but may limit the issues to be re-viewed and consider only findings and; conclusions to which exceptions have been filed."
Thus from the outset the 'Comznission made it clear that, beyond,roling on appeals, the Commission retained the discretion to decide what other issues, if any, might require or warrant its review.
In its subsequent Order of August 20, 1981,14/ the Commission took cognizance of the unanticipated length of the restart hearing and the size of the hearing record and decided to establish an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boa [dL"to hear initial appeals in this proceeding."
In so doing the Com-mission explained "its concern that the appeals be hAndIed 13/ CLI 79-8, 10 NRC 141, 147 (197').
9 14/ CLI 81-19, August 20, 1981..
efficiently and agency resources be used effectively in this important proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)
Nothing in the Order suggests that the Commission meant the Appeal Board to extend its review beyond the appeals into other aspects of the proceeding.
x Accordingly Licensee submits that the Appeal Board should confine its review to the multiple exceptions filed by the parties to the Licensing Board's decision.
This would be consistent in Licensee's view with the Commission's most recent Order dated July 16, 1982,15/ indicating the Commission's intent itself to review any important uncontested issues in the pro-ceeding.
In the interest of time, Licensee intends to answer all of the Appeal Board questions addressed to Licensee (except Question III.E discussed above).
Licensee requests, however, that the Appeal Board review carefully Licensee's comments and views on the scope of the Appeal Board's responsibilities and that time be set aside at the September 1, 1982, oral argument for discussion of any differences that may exist.
Respectfully submitted,
- SHAW, MAN, P TTS TROWBRIDGE
$l
_ lY
/ l g orgf F.'TrowEridge, P.
Dated: July 26, 1982 y
15/ CLI 82-12, July 16, 1982. -_
Lican co 7/26/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Objection to and Comments on Appeal Board Order Dated July 14, 1982,"
dated July 26 1982, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or as indicated by asterisk, by personal service this 26th day of July, 1982.
b/
A4A/
J MGeoheF. Tbowbridge,
.C.
Dated: July 26, 1982 l
UNITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEEORE THE ATOMIC SAFETI AND' LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ME:rBOPOLITAN EDISON CIMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SEWICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chaiman
- Administrative Judge Gary J. Biles U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Otmmission Chaiman, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Washingtcn, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctmmission Victor Gilinsky, hinsicmer Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C - iasion Washington, D.C.
20555
- Administrative Judge John H. Buck Atcmic Safety and Limnsing Appeal Board John F. Ahearne, C%mnissicner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C%mmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h 4=sion Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Administrative Judge Lawrence R. Quarles 1hcmas M. Boberts, Cemniasioner Atcmic Safety and Li nsing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C%mmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h iasion Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James K. Asselstine, Ctumissicner
- Administrative Judge Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemniasion Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washingtcn, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory N iasion Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Chairman, Atcmic Safety and
- Joseph Gray, Esquire (4)
Licensing Board Office of the Executive Iegal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory hinsion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory hinsica Washingtcn, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Walter H. Jordan Docketing and Service Section (3)
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctmnission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Linda W. Little Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccnmissicn Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Washington, D.C.
20555
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory hissicn Harmon & Weiss Washingtm, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Rabert Adler 5Lg'4re Karin W. Carter, Esquire Steven C. Sholly Assistant Attorney General thion of Otacerned Scientists Ot2monwealth of Pennsylvania 1346 Cuur:cticut Avenue, N.W. 41101 505 Executive House Washingtcm, D.C.
20036 P. O. Box 2357 Harr4chity, PA 17120 Gail Phelps ANGRY John A. Levin, Esquire 245 West Philadalphia Street Assistant Counsel York, PA 17404 Pennsylvania Public Utility Ommission P. O. Box 3265 Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Harrisburg, PA 17120 R.D. 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Etxx, Farr & Cunningham Imise Bradford 2320 North Secaid Street
'IMI ALERP Harrisburg, PA 17110 1011 Green Street Harrisburg,,PA 17102 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Harmon & Weiss Gauncey Kepford
~1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Judith J. Johnsrud Washington, D.C.
20006 Environmental N1ition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State Cbilege, PA 16801 i
i y
_,.-,-