ML20072B724
| ML20072B724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1983 |
| From: | Jordan W, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072B699 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303070145 | |
| Download: ML20072B724 (9) | |
Text
.
6 UCS 3/4/83 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)
)
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' MOTION TO DEFER REOPENED HEARING PENDING RESOLUTION OF BOARD NOTIFICATION 83-21 AND FURTHER DISCOVERY By Order of December 29, 1982, the Appeal Board reopened the TMI-1 restart proceeding with respect to the adequacy of provisions for decay heat removal in the event of a loss of main feedwater or a small break LOCA at THI-1.
ALAB-708, 16 NRC (December 29, 1982).
By subsequent orders, the Board directed that the Staff and Licensee file their testimony by February 16, 1983 (unpublished Order, January 6, 1983, slip opinion at p. 6), pe mitted UCS to file a motion for rebuttal testimony at the close of the reopened hearing upon a showing of good cause and need to addrMs genuine surprises (Id. at p.
5; unpublished Order, February 7, 1983, slip opinion at 3), and ordered that the evidentiary hearing commence on March 7, 1983. (Unpublished Notice, February 28,1983, at 1)
Board Notification No. BN-83-21 (hereinafter BN-83-21), which was not received by the Union of Concerned Scientists until March 2, 1983, demonstrates that the Staff is now reevaluating the substantive positions taken in its prefiled testimony in this proceeding.
As a result of this development, UCS 8303070145 830304 FP3 ADOCK 05000289 O
y, f y
~
N
,3
,,\\
=
g moves that the evidentiary hearing be deferred pending resolution of.the Staff's position.
UCS requests the following relier:
(1) the evidentiary hearing ' L should be deferred until after the Staff has resolved the differences between the information in the BN-83-21 and its position as stated in its prefiled testimony; (2) the parties should be required to advise the Board, within two days after receiving the Sta ff's resolution of its position, as to the I
j appropriate hearing schedule, including the deadline for filing any further a
1 3
testimony and the need for any further discovery.
1 l
j DISCUSSION i
In ALAB-706, the Board directed the parties to address three ways in which its concerns about boiler-condenser might be resolved:
(1) the use of vents in the hot leg high points; (2) reliance upon the boiler-condenser process; and (3) reliance upon feed and bleed.
ALAB-708 S1. op. at 10.
The Board posed 11 j
specific questions to be addressed by the Staff and/or Licensee.
Questions 1-3 1
relate to the use of the vents.
Questions 4-8 relate to reliance upon the i
boiler-condenser.
Questions 9-11 relate to the use of feed and bleed.
Id. at 43-44 I
Based on a review of the prefiled testimony, it appears that of these three l
major substantive issues, the adequacy of the boiler-condenser process is by far the most important to the Licensee and Staff.
Well over half of the prefileo j
testimony of those parties addresses this issue, and it appears to be the major j
concern of the Board in light of the extensive discussion in ALAB-708.
In their l
testimony filed on February 16, 1983, the Staff and Licensee have argued that the boiler-condenser process is adequate and meets the Board's concerns.
The staff has evaluated the mechanism involved in the boiler-condenser heat transfer process and has concluded that the condensing surface that would be available would be capable of removing all decay heat generated by the core if an adequate supply of feedwater were available.
Staff Testimony at 6.
l l
3-t The. foregoing analyses demonstrate the adequacy of the boiler-condenser cooling mode to remove decay heat at TMI-1. A heat transfer nnalysis of the steam generator provides yet a further illustration of that capability.
In addition, experimental data is discussed which supports this conclusion from the analyses.
Licensee Testimony of Robert C. Jones, Jr. in P?sponse to ALAB-708, Issue Nos. 4-7, at 11.
IMreover, Licensee auJ Staff maintain that the boiler-condenser process, rather than feed and bleed or use of the high point vents to restore liquid natural circulation, will be relied upon for decay heat removal when the particular need arises.1#
New information contained in BN-83-21 requires either a significant revision of the Staff's position and the prefiled testimony, or further discovery to provide the parties with a thorough understanding of why the testimony should not be revised in light of the new information.
The Staff issued the Board Notification on February 18, 1983 According to the mailer in which UCS received this document it was mailed on February 24, i
1983 UCS received it on March 2, 1983. The Board Notification involves the adequacy of decay heat removal at B&W-designed reactors.
The information on which it is based appears in the trial transcript resulting from the GPU-B&W lawsuit.
According to BN-83-21, the Staff has id en ti fied "potentially significant information" concerning "the ability of B&W-designed reactors to achieve and maintain natural circulation using the steam generators."
BN-83-21 at 6-7.
1/ In addition, it appears from the testimony that reliance upon the vents is no longer a serious issue. The Staff finds the vents to be inadequate for the intended purpose (Staff Testimony at 2-3), and the Licensee apparently does not intend to rely upon them.
Licensee's Testimony of Robert C. Jones, Jr. and Louis C. Laneta in Response to ALAB-708 Issue No. 2.
2_/
BN-83-21 has several attached memoranda and enclosures.
We will cite the Board Notification by page number beginning with the first page as it was received by UCS. The first page of this version is headed by the date February 18, 1983, followed by the following:
"0RBf4 DISTRIBUTION FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. BN-83-21.
RE: TMI-1 Decay Heat Removal by Steam Generators."
l
_t4 t
Thi s is precisely the issue now before the Board with respect to the boiler-condenser.
The Staff anticipates completing its evaluation of the information "within a few weeks" of the date of the Board Notification. BN-83-21 at 6.
We do not know whether the Staff has completed its evaluation.
The Staff has given no indication either through a subsequent Board Notification or any other filing, of when the evaluation will be completed or of the results of the Staff's evaluation.
The in formation in the Board Notification concerns two separate issues, either of which could prevent adequate performance of the boiler-condenser if it is relied upon for decay heat removal.
First, it now appears-that overcooling considerations dictate that the steam generator levels should not be raised to 95% on the operating range for all accidents involving loss of forced-circulation.
BN-83-21 at 7-8.
The record to date contains analyses of decay heat removal that are based upon having steam generator levels at 95% on the operating range.
Second, although the testimony filed by the Staff and the Licensee assumes that emergency feedwater will reach all or most of the steam generator tubes, recent test data show that it will not, so that the cooling effect will be considerably lowcr than that assumed by the Staff and Licensee.
Id. at 8-9.
According to the Board Notification, the Staff intends to report back to the Board after completing its evaluation.
Since no such report has appeared, and since the Staff has not revised the testimony filed with this Board -or otherwise clarified the situation, it appears that the Staff has not yet completed its evaluation of these issues. In this circumstance, it is entirely premature to proceed with an evidentiary hearing with respect to the boiler-condenser.
The Staff is reevaluating its own position, so that its testimony as filed may well be changed.
The situation is comparable to that in
-S-which the Safety Evaluation Report has not yet been filed.
Without the Staff's final position, an issue cannot be disposed of by the Board. Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LB P-77-20, 5 NRC 680, 681 (1977).
Accordingly, it is a waste of time to proceed on this issue next week.
In addition, whatever position the Staff may ultimately reach, ths Board Notification raises serious and complex questions that deserve thorough treatment here.
If the Staff and the Licensee maintain their positions, it will be essential to determine why they. have done so in light of the information in this Board Noti fication.
This will require examination of the data and information underlying the Board Notification, and perhaps consultation with the individuals identified in the Board Noti fication.
Indeed, unless the Staff adopts their positions, those individuals should certainly be called as witnesses in this proceeding by the Board if not by the Staff.
It is significant that the " concerns" which are the subject of BN-83-21 were discussed in a civil trial in which the Licensee was the plaintiff.
In addition, Dr.
Lahey testified in the civil trial on behalf of the Licensee.
Certainly the Licensee should be required to explain to this Board the apparent contradiction between its testimony here and its testimony in the civil trial.
Furthermore, if the test data showing that emergency feedwater will reach only a few percent of the tubes was disclosed in the civil trial, Licensee should explain why that information was not promptly brought to the attention of the Board and parties in this proceeding.
The complexity of the technical issues, the need to examine the. underlying data, and the possible involvement of additional witnesses, all require both J
deferral of this evidentiary hearing and the initiation of discovery to assure a full airing of this matter.
It would be impossible for UCS to participate effectively in this litigation on five days notice of this significant new
t in formation.
It would also be impossible for UCS to participate without adequate discovery.
Otherwise, UCS would have to rely on the Licensee and the Staff to disclose all the relevant information which is available.
For these reasons, we urge the Board to grant the following relief:
- 1. The evidentiary hearing should be deferred indefinitely until the Staff has completed the evaluation discussed in the Board Notification and has forwarded its analysis and conclusions to the Board and the parties.
- 2. Two days after r_ecei pt of the Staff's analysis and conclusions, the parties should file recommendations concerning the schedule for appropriate further proceedings, including discovery.
If a party seeks discovery, it should
)
explain the specific purpose of the discovery and the method to be employed.
In any event, if discovery is not needed, the evidentiary hearing should be scheduled no earlier than two weeks after receipt of the Staff's analysis, or after receipt of any revised prefiled testimony, whichever is later.
Our first request for relief follows from the previous discussion.
We propose the second as a means of allowing the Board and the parties the flexibility to take the appropriate course depending upon the position ultimately taken by the Staff and Licensee on these issues.
In particular, we I
see no need to argue now about the need for discovery or the time that will be required.
Without the Staff's evaluation. Board consideration of that issue is as premature as its consideration of the substance with respect to the boiler condenser cooling mode.
Although the in formation in the Board Notification involves only the boiler condenser cooling mode, our prayer for relief seeks deferral of the entire evidentiary hearing.
While it is pos.sible to proceed with consideration of Questions 1-3 and 9-11 ( ALAB-708 at 43-44) next week, UCS believes that would be an unwise and wasteful approach.
The boiler-condenser issue dominates this
_7_
reopened proceeding.
It will undoubtedly take up most of the hearing time, while the other issues will take up relatively little.
Judicial economy dictates that all be tried together, rather than bringing the Board, the parties, and all of the relevant experts and others together twice.
In addition, the effort expended by all parties, particularly the Staff, with respect to the other issues in a hearing next week, would only delay resolution of the major boiler-condenser concerns.
Accordingly, we urge that the entire evidentiary proceeding be deferred.
Finally, in light of the demands placed upon us by the recent and extremely late receipt of this new information, UCS requests that if the evidentiary.
hearing is to proceed en any matters next week, it begin on Wednesday, March 9.
Although the Staff apparently prepared the Board Notification on February 18, as we have stated it did not mail the Board Notification to UCS until at February 24 at the earliest. We did not receive it until March 2.
The information is of such significance that we have lost two full days of time that is essential to prepare for the evidentiary hearing itself.
Had the Board Notification been sent and received earlier, we might have been able to recover a day or two.
In this circumstance, we are not able to.
Thus, if the hearing is to be held at all next week on any issues, we urge that it begin on Wednesday.
Respectfully submitted, rg/C-
/W 7
f Ellyn, R. Weiss
/(4 General Counsel Union of Concerned Sci HTTsts
.6-ZYhd William S g dan, III Harmon & Veiss 1725 Eye St.,
N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 DATED: March 4, 1983
(
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 Y
)
(Rastart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
i Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' MOTION TO DEFER REOPENED HEARING PENDING RESOLUTION OF BOARD NOTIFICATION 83-21 AND FURTHER DISCOVERY" have been served on the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 4th day of March 1983 O
Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Dr. Linda W. Little U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive John Ahearne, Commissioner Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(
Washington, D.C. 20555 Professor Gary L. Milhollin l
4412 Greenwich Parkway James Asselstine Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 r
Thomas Roberts, Commissioner
- Judge John H. Buck U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing j
Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Washington D.C. 20555 F
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Judge Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Washington D.C. 20555 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing l.
Board Panel
- Judge Christine N. Kohl 881 West Outer Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- *w
*o.--w g
y 7,,_.
g 9,-.y
,y-y p
p yi-y
-p,9
.,-g,
- Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt Ms. Gail B. Phelps R.D. #5 245 West Philadelphia Street Coatsville, Pennsylvania 19320 York, Pennsylvania 17404
- Robert Adler, Esq.
'88 Steven C. Sholly Assistant Attorney General Union of Concerned Scientists I
SOS Executive House 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 2357 Suite 1101 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20036 Louise Bradford
- Joseph R. Gray Three Mile Island Alert Office of Executive Legal Director 325 Perfer Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
- George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Fox, Farr & Cunningham Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2320 North Second Street 1800 M Street, N.W.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Docketing and Service Section Dr. Chauncey Kepford Office of the Secretary Environmental Coalition on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Power Washington, D.C. 20555 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 William S. Jordan, III Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
'/
Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 John A. Levin, Esq.
- Hand delivered to 4350 East-West Hwy.,
Assistant Counsel Bethesda, Maryland.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
- By telecopier and first class mail.
P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 n' Hand delivered to indicated address.
ease Hand delivered to 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland.
t