ML20070R188
| ML20070R188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1983 |
| From: | Baxter T METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-708, NUDOCS 8301270326 | |
| Download: ML20070R188 (15) | |
Text
..
7 7hD J/ftg5 January 24, 1983 410:5p
- ~._.
,J p: ,.
~
UNITED STATES.0F 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 REPLY TO THE UCS RESPONSE TO ALAB-708 AND.TO THE UCS REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE On Hednesday, January 19, 1983, intervenor Union of Concerned Scientists filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board assigned to the design issues in this proceeding a
~
pleading entitled " Union o'f Concerned Scientists' Response to
'ALAB-708 and Request'for Modification of Schedule" (hereinaf-ter, the "UCS Response"). On the same day, the Appeal Board directed that any comments Licensee might wish to file on the UCS Response must be received by the Appeal Board before the close of business on Monday, January 24, 1983.
The UCS pleading includes three distinct requests with respect to the reopening of the record directed by this board's r y DR ADO O D
QSO
-Memorandum'and Order dated December 29, 1982 (ALAB-708): (1) that the schedule for filing of UCS testimony and commencement of the hearing be extended; (2)_that the scope of the reopened proceeding be expanded to_ include additional matters UCS believes should be addressed; and-(3) that the NRC Staff be ordered to produce witnesses from EG&G. In addition, UCS makes several gratuitous so-called " substantive comments" on ALAB-708 which bear no apparent relationship to the three requests for relief. See UCS Response at 3-4 (section 1 of the UCS
" Substantive Comments"), 5-10 (section 3, most of section 4, and sections 5 and 6). Licensee opposes each of the UCS requests, and addresses separately the UCS substantive com-ments.
I. Proposed Schedule Modification Pursuant to the Appeal Board's Order of January 18, 1983:
All supplemental written testimony shall be in our hands and in the hands of l other parties no later than the close of L business, Wednesday, February 16, 1983.
The evidentiary hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on_ Tuesday, March 1, 1983.
Briefs shall be in our hands no later than close of business, Monday, March 21, 1983.
l UCS now requests that it be permitted to file direct testimony
- int March 16, 1983 (i.e., one month after the Staff and Licensee), and ". . . that the' hearing sessions and deadline i for proposed findings be established by the Board to follow that date." UCS Response at 3.
f
l l
l UCS has advanced no basis here for a departure'from the well-established. Commission practice -- followed below by the Licensing Board -- of a common deadline for the filing of direct written. testimony by all parties.1/ See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(b). UCS complains that it is unreasonable to expect UCS to be able to present direct testimony by February 16 because UCS will not know the positions of Licensee and the Staff until then. To the extent UCS is in the dark about the positions of the other parties, the same can be said of the capability of those parties to anticipate any UCS testimony.
Further, UCS confuses the role of direct testimony with the. rebuttal process which occurs during the hearing itself.
~It is the purpose of filing direct testimony in advance of hearing that each party -- including its counsel, technical advisers and witnesses -- know in advance the basic positions to be taken by each witness, and prepare so as to proceed expeditiously in the hearicg. See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-379, 5 N.R.C. 565, 569 l
1/ While Licensee opposes any extension of the testimony filing date for UCS, we also note that the UCS request for an entire month in which to reflect on the testimony of Licensee and the-Staff flagrantly ignores this board's stated intent
". . . to proceed promptly to supplement the record and to com-plete the appellate process in this phase of the case."
ALAB-708, slip op. at 44. At the same time, UCS has urged the Commission to postpone its immediate effectiveness decision until the Appeal Board's concerns are resolved. See Comm. Tr.
74A-78 (Nov. 9, 1982). Finally, it is noteworthy that UCS pre-sents this extraordinary request without an accompanying com-mitment that it will in fact file direct testimony.
l I
(1977); 37 Fed. Reg. 15,127, 15,129 (1972) (Commission statement of considerations upon promulgation of amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 2). It is not expected that parties should be in position to file rebuttal testimony in advance of hearing.2/
If UCS can make a case, at the hearing, for the proposition that written rebuttal testimony is necessary in spite of the opportunity for cross-examination, a motion should be presented to the Appeal Board at that time, when the question is not academic, but may be judged in the light of real facts showing the need by the movant and substantial benefit to the resolu-tion of the Appeal Board's concerns.3/
II. Proposed Expansion of the Reopened Proceeding In its 45-page Memorandum and Order of December 29, 1982, the Appeal Board identified the bases for its belief that the 2/ Further, if a staggered filing schedule were considered, UCS would not necessarily be last. See Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3),
ALAB-377, 5 N.R.C. 430, 431'(1977). In fact, where nonsimul-l taneous filings are required, as with proposed findings of fact, the party with the burden of proof has the last word.
See 10 C.F.R. $ 2.754(a)(3).
3/ UCS also implies that no opportunity for discovery has been provided with respect to the RELAPS code or the B&W Appendix K code. See UCS Response at 2. The fact is, however, that UCS had the opportunity to pursue discovery on the B&W code, amd did so, prior to the Licensing Board hearings. See, e.g., Licensee's Response to UCS's First Set of Interrogatories, answer to Interrogatory No. 80 (January 25, 1980). Substantial information on the RELAPS code, which is not new, already has been provided in Board Notification BN-82-107-(Oct. 22, 1982).
l t
existing record is unclear as to whether adequate core decay heat removal can be assured for TMI-1 in the event of a loss of main feedwater or a small break loss of coolant accident. The Board ". . . concluded; therefore, that a limited reopening of the record is required to facilitate our prompt resolution of these matters." ALAB-708, slip op, at 3; see also id. at 42.
Eleven requests for supplemental testimony were delineated by the Appeal Board to address its concerns with the existing record. Id. at 42-44. The scope of the reopened proceeding is limited, then, to thle scope of the direct testimony requested by the Appeal Board.
UCS now moves the Appeal Board to expand.the scope of the reopened proceeding in the following ways:
Add a question directed specifically toward establishing whether adequate operator training and procedures _ exist for decay heat removal, including use of the boiler-condenser mode, feed and bleed, transition between boiler-condenser and feed and bleed, and use of the high point vents; and Add a question specifically directed toward establishing whether the RELAPS code is able to accurately predict plant behavior following a loss of main feedwater or small break loss of coolant accident at TMI-1, including the adequacy of decay heat removal using the boiler-condenser mode or feed and bleed and the effects of RCS high point vent operation.
UCS Response at 10-11.
Licensee opposes the UCS motion. The Appeal Board has termed this reopening a " limited" one for good reason. The
2
~
. BoardJhas before it the Licensing-Board's. Initial Decision and i the substantial underiving record , the. briefs of and oral arguments.by the parties on appeal, and the parties' views, filedLon November 22,'1982, on the~ Board's-preliminary views and concerns, . expressed in its Memorandum and Order of November 5, 1982. While UO3 certainly is' entitled to participate in this reopened proceeding, the Appeal Board has not reached a decision'yet on'the' design issues and' clearly is in a position-on its own to limit, and rightly should limit,.the reopened j hearing to those matters necessary for the Appeal Board to reach a final. decision. There has not been a broad invitation for~ parties to advance evidence with respect to any systems,. ,
components,: procedures or operator training which arguably relate to decay heat removal capability at'TMI-1.
Consequently, the UCS request to-add'to the scope of the reopened proceeding constitutes a motion to reopen the record, and UCS'has-not addressed the standards by which such motions must be judged. See Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C.
320, 338 (1978). Nevertheless, we will address the merits of the two UCS requests to reopen the record.
The first request is based upon the frequently rehearsed UCS argument that adherence to plant operating procedures purportedly will preclude the establishment of a condenser surface for boiler-condenser cooling and put the system into feed and bleed operation.4/ UCS Response at 4-5. This is the J
e 4/ UCS erroneously implies here that feed and bleed cooling is present whenever HPI is in operation and a relief valve is (Continued Next Page)
subject offUCS Exception 7, which has been briefed and argued, and'which Licensee has shown to be in error. See Licensee's Brief-in'Opposihion . . . ,.May 10, 1982, at161.5/ Further,
'the record on plant procedures and operator training for decay. .
heat: removal during a small-break LOCA or main feedwater transient is already complete, and was available for chrllenge by;UCS before~the Licensing Board as well as.on appeal. The ,
B&W small break operating guidelines are in evidence (Licensee Ex. 12), as are several-relevant TMI-1 operating and emergency procedures. See, e.g., Licensee Ex. 48, which includes detailed instructions (beyond.HPI initiation) on bringing the plant to a cold shut-down condition-following a small-break LOCA. See also Licensee Ex. 49 (loss of feedwater). The record also. includes the Staff's findings that Licensee's
[ small-break LOCA. procedures and training are-in compliance with the: requirements of NUREG-0578 item 2.1.9.a, and'that the (Continued).
!- ' lifted. .Howeve r, feed and bleed cooling, as the term has been
<- : used throughout this proceeding, refers to the situation where no feedwater is available.(i.e., the steam-generator is not p
available as'a heat sink). See, in-this proceeding, LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211,'1227-28 (1 608), 1230 (1 619) (1981).
t I-j5/
s As we point out in our brief, emergency feedwater enters the steam generator at a very high point which is close to the top of~the tube sheet, so that even though the "still" water
- level cnr the ' secondary side could be below the primary level, there would still be a-heat transfer surface available by the difference between-the elevation of the emergency feedwater
. entry point'and the level of the primary system. Tr. 4933-34 (Jensen).
J a
w , - - . - . - . , . , - , . , - , . . . . . - - . . . - . . . - . - - . - - - - --
procedures adequately reflect the B&W guidelines. Staff Ex. 1 at'C1-14, 15. This record-shows that in fact there is no operator action, beyond the initial raising of the steam generator. level, necessary to establish boiler-condenser cooling.
The UCS request on the RELAP5 code is simply anomalous and unsupported. UCS appears to challenge the Appeal Board's potential reliance upon Staff analyses, using RELAP5, of feed and bleed cooling at TMI-1. The UCS argument, as best we understand it, is that no computer code, even one verified on a scaled' experimental facility, is a reliable predictor of adequate core cooling with feed and bleed. See UCS Response at
- 7. It is a mystery, then, as to what additional evidence UCS seeks. In any event, Licensee understands Appeal Board Item 10 to be aimed toward an assessment of the adequacy of the RELAPS code. The UCS request, then, is unnecessary.
. III. Proposed Directive that the Staff l Produce Designated Witnesses l
L UCS requests the Appeal Board to direct the Staff to produce witnesses from EG&G to discuss the relevant Semiscale tests and their interpretation of the significance of the test
- results. UCS Response at 11. The basis for the request l
amounts to nothing more than the expectation by UCS that the Staff'c own witnesses will not agree with UCS on the implica-tions of those tests. The UCS request is both premature and I
without basis. The Staff, like other parties, has the right to
. offer-witnesses of its own choosing. Before directing that other witnesses be presented, the Appeal Board first would have to provide the Staff every opportunity -- following interroga-tion of the witness (es) advanced -- to explain, correct or supplement its testimony as it sees fit. See South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-663, 14.N.R.C. 1140 (1981).
IV. Other UCS Comments on ALAB-708 In its pleading of January 19, 1983, UCS offers several comments on.the Appeal Board's. Memorandum and Order of December 29, 1982 (ALAB-708), unaccompanied by any request for relief.
While Licensee would not expect the Appeal Board to rule on these gratuitous UCS statements, we nevertheless offer a brief recitation of Licensee's position in response.
UCS expresses its disagreement with the-Appeal Board's
! conclusion that-the manual control capability provided at TMI'-1 for the emergency feedwater flow control valves is sufficient for restart. UCS Response at 3; ALAB-708, slip op. at 13, 14.
In support of its argument,6/ UCS postulates a main steam line break. accident -- a scenario totally lacking nexus to the TMI-2 accident -- in which the Main Steam Line Rupture Detection System (MSLRDS) functions properly in isolating main feedwater 6/ This UCS argument is not new. See UCS Exception 104.
l l
,e w - +
to the affected steam generator while, at the same time, malfunctioning by isolating main feedwater to the intact steam generator.2/ Although the initiating event assumed by UCS is not a simple loss of main feedwater event, the end result would be the same: the control room operators would be aware of the demand on the EFW systemg/ and would be able to control the EFW flow' control valve manually either from the control' room or locally at the valve itself.
UCS asserts that the potential exists for a net inventory loss during any feed and bleed operation at TMI-1, pointing to '
the Semiscale tests and the purported absence of a demonstra-tion that there is a successful feed and bleed pressure band for TMI-1. UCS Response at 4-6. UCS continues to ignore ,
Licensee Exhibit 9, the B&W generic analysis of feed and bleed 2/ This scenario postulated by UCS is absurd. It stretches the imagination to assume that a system, even a non-safety-grade system, can both properly perform and undergo a failure at the same time. Of course, it has long been recog-nized that the upgrade of the MSLRDS to safety-grade is a long-term action. See Licensee Ex. 15 at 11. UCS is also in error when it states that a main steam line break in contain-ment requires isolation of all feedwater to the affected steam generator to prevent overpressurization of containment. See UCS Response at 3. Cavitating venturis have been added to the EFW system to regulate flow and prevent overpressurization.
See Licensee's Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's Order of July 14, 1982 (August 12, 1982), at 20 and Attachment A.
g/ The TMI-1 control room has two diverse indications of EFW flow to the intact steam generator: safety-grade EFW flow indicators and redundant, eingle-failure-proof steam generator level indicators. See Licensee Ex. 15 at 6, 7; Staff Ex. 1 at C8-39; Staff Ex. 14 at 38.
cooling, which is bounding for all B&W 177-FA lowered-loop plants, such as TMI-1. In that analysis, both pressurizer code safety valves are assumed to be full open at 2575 psig (103% of setpoint), and only one HPI train is assumed to operate, with initiation after 20 minutes. Licensee Ex. 9 at 2. That analysis shows that the reactor coolant level remains above the core throughout the transient. See Licensee Ex. 9, Fig. 5 (showing reactor coolant system liquid volume; at 8900 seconds, when HPI flow exceeds the boil-off rate, the reactor coolant system begins to refill).
With respect to the seismic qualification of the EFW system, Licensee merely records its agreement with the Appeal Board's observation that the issue is outside the scope of this proceeding. See ALAB-708, slip op. at 7, n.5; UCS Response at 7-8.
In its final " comment," UCS mounts a confusing argument which purports to show that the Appeal Board misunderstands its role and authority. See UCS Response at 9-10. UCS attacks here the Appeal Board's observation that it is not free to I
alter regulatory requirements established by the Commission.
i
[ See ALAB-708, slip op. at 21, n.35. UCS erroneously construes this Commission regulation (requiring the installation of hot leg high point vents as a iaeans for removing noncondensible i gases) as the equivalent of a Staff recommendation. Clearly,
! this proceeding is aimed at determining the necessity and l
sufficiency of the recommendations made by the Director of e
m , m - - - - - - ,n ---n - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - -
Nuclear Reactor Regulation. In the holding attacked by UCS, however, the Appeal Board was deferring, as it must, to the Commission itself.9/
V. Conclusion For all of_the foregoing reasons, the UCS requests for 4
relief, presented in its pleading of_ January 19, 1983, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW,1PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE o ,
George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Straet, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
, (202) 822-1090 9/ We should also note that UCS failed to bring a hydrogen control contention to trial under~the terms set by the Commission. See, in this proceeding, LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C.
1211, 1224 (1981),
r
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 Reply to the UCS Response to ALAB-708 and to the UCS Request for Modification of Scnedule" were served this 24th day of January, 1983, b; hand delivery upon the parties identified by an asterisk and by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the other parties on the attached Service List.
"-- 0 l Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
i l
~
\
a 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) )
SERVICE LIST
- Gary J. Edles, Esquire James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire dialman Office of the Executive Legal Director Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary
- Dr. John H. Buck U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemniasion Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory remniasion John A. Iavin, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant (bunael Pennsylvania Public Utility Cemniasion
- Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy P.O. Box 3265 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h ission Ibbert Adler, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 505 Executive House Ivan W. Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 2357 Omirm n Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Ccumission Ms. Icuise Bradford Washingten, D.C. 20555 'IMI ALERT l
1011 Green Street L Dr. Walter H. Jordan Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire 881 West Outer Drive Harmon & Weiss Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Linda W. Little Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Steven C. Sholly Panel Union of Concerned Scientists 5000 Hemitage Drive 1346 Connecticut Avenue,. N.W., Suite 1101 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Washington, D.C. 20036
\
Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire .
2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 ANGRY /'IMI PIBC 1037'Maclay Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 diauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Envirormental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State (bliege, Pennsylvania 16801 Marjorie M. Aamodt R. D. 5 Coatesville, Pennsylvada 19320 4
\