ML20073K423
| ML20073K423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1983 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304200268 | |
| Download: ML20073K423 (17) | |
Text
1 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CCtKETED rpT'
)
In the Matter of 3 g g ()
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Dock et tio. 50-289
)
(Rektart)
(Three Mile Island tiuclear
)
Station, Unit ?Io. 1)
)
)
Ut1 ION OF CONCERT 1ED SCIENTISTS PRELIMI!!ARY COMMENTS Oil " REVIEW OF B&W-GPU TRIAL COURT RECORD" ATID REQUEST FOR ADDITIOIIAL TIME At the direction of the Commission, a team of 11RC Staff personnel headed by Victor Stello, Director of the office of Inspection and Enforcement, undertook to review the trial transcript in the lawsuit between GPU and B&W related to liability for the TMI-2 accident.
That case was settled after GPU had concluded presenting its evidence; B&W had only begin presenting its case.
The trial record was about 7400 pages in length with some 600 exhibits.
Commission Briefing on Staff Review of GPU v.
B&W, Public Meeting, April 16, 1983 p.8.
Hereinafter " Briefing."
Mr. Stello and his team,four in all, took three nonths of full time effort to perform this task.
Briefing, p.14-15,17 Ten weeks was required just to read the transcript.
Id. at 15.
They did not review any of the exhibits that had been m$$
prepared but not introduced into the record. Id. at 18.
-Na WQ
@8 The 21 page report prepared by Mr. Stello is utterly enO inscrutable.
While referencing without diferentiation
$t no 00 literally thousands of pages of transcript on certain subjects n<
Q
[
()
ma.o
m
.g
..g
. (see " Appendix C, Information Overview"), the report itself contains no citations whatever to support its conclusions /
Indeed, the report contains precious little discussion of the trial transcript at all; it simply states-over and over again variations on the general conclusion that nothing in the trial transcript changes the staf f's earlier views, without informing the reader of what is in the trial transcript.
It moves in confusing fashion from discussing the trial to discussing earlier conclusions, often '_eaving the reader wondering where the former leaves off and the latter begins.
Mr. Stello argues that it was not " reasonable" to expect his team to lay out the issues and explain how they were resolved because the task would be too difficult and time consuming.
Briefing, p.
55-56.
We sympathize with the difficulty of_the task.
The Commission should be aware however, that tasks at least this difficult and time-consuming are routinely required of intervenors (and other parties) in comparable and even shorter time frames.
The transcript in
- / Commissioner Roberts stated:
"I like the format of the report.
I don't want to read footnotes and citations of page of transcripts, and we either trust you people to do a decent job and come up with an honest report, or we don't."
- nriefing, p.88.
Commissioner Roberts overlooks the f act that the staff is a party to the Restart proceeding; it's views are entitled to no gr eater " tr ust" than those of any other party.
l
. the Restart proceeding is well over 20,000 pages in length, plus exhibits, and parties were required to prepare detailed findings of fact (UCS's alone were 250 pages long) doing exactly what Mr. Stello found unreasonable - laying out the testimony with transcript citations on each significant issue and providing a rationale based on the record for its appropriate resolution.
UCS, for one, would have much appreciated the services of four people full time over 3 months to do that job; our resources were far less.
Such findings are required in order to allow the decision-maker to reach a rational decision.
The report produced by Mr. Stello, in contrast, does not provide a basis for a rational decision.
It must either be accepted on faith or not at all.
The parties were given two weeks, until April 18, 1983 to comment on the Stello Report.
This time is obviously grossly insufficient.
UCS has barely begun to review the transcripts which are available only in the Public Document Room during normal working hours.
(Pr oposed Findings for the Appeal Board reopened hearing ordered by ALAN-708 related to means for decay heat removal were due on April 12, 1983.
The two weeks would have been insufficients even if there were no other conflicting deadlines).
Since Stello's report does not give transcript citations, we have no choice but to review all of the relevant material.
Considering that Mr. Stello and his staff took three
{
n
-y
. months, the parties are surely entitled to much more than two weeks.
UCS therefore requests an additional 6 weeks to comment on the Stello report and the effect of the trial transcripts on the issues relevant to restart of TMI-1.'
The following additional preliminary comments are offered on the Stello report itself:
1.
The rationale provided f or failure to review exhibits not introduced at trial is unconvincing.
Mr. Stello states that he decided not to review the 80 depositions and 1767 exhibits prepared but not introduced because GPU had presumably preser.ted its best issues and B&W had a full opportunity to respond.
Stello report, p.3.
considering that the trial was settled before B&W had presented the major part of its case, this conclusion is unwarranted.
Mr. Arnold's opinion that no significant new information is contained in that material (Briefing p.
29-31) is hardly convincing; the President of GPU is surely not the best source of information on the nature of B&W's evidence.
2.
The discussion of HPI initiation is at best confusing and at worst misleading.
Nowhere does the Stello report disclose that, as late as May, 1982, all three operators-Zewe, Frederick and Faust were apparently still telling the story that HPI had been initiated at 5:41.
See attached pages 2801 - 2805, trial transcripts.
The operators " insisted" this was the case when GPU added it to
n
=
. the accident sequence.
Tr. 2785, attached.
While stello discusses the general conclusions to the contrary of previous reports, no convincing explanation is offered for why one should disbelieve the contemporary, of ten r epeated recollection of all three operators, two of whom apparently only lost their recollection of this in the few months preceding the trial when it became disadvantageous for their employer in the context ot the trial to have it concluded that IIPI was initiated.
This issue is a complex one that is not even remotely adequately reviewed'in the report which fails to note, for example, that the " analysis" now claimed to refute the operators' contemporary testimony was not even commissioned by GPU until mid-Lecember, 1982.
3.
There is an inherent conflict of interest presented in having the Staff review the trial transcript for the purpose of determining whether it affects the issues relevant to restart of TMI-l.
The Staff is an adversary party in the restart hearing.
It has allied itself with GPU on virtually every issue and supports immediate restart.
The correctness of its previous judgments are threfore unavoidably at issue when the staff is asked to review the trial transcript to advise the commission on whether any questions affecting restart are raised therein.
4.
The " discussion" of the question of GPU's possible falsification of leak rate calculations constitutes a total evasion of this crucial issue.
There is, in fact, no discussion at all of the relevant testimony.
w,
_6-This is a matter, moreover, where the deposition and exhibits not introduced into trial would likely be critical, since B&W had not presented its case.
Stello dismisses the issue by stating that the trial record material "does not add substantially to the information of which the NRC is already aware."
Stello report at 18.
Of course, no illumination of the nature of the information already available to NRC is provided.
The fact that this matter has been referred to the Justice Department in no way diminishes NRC's responsibility to ensure that GPU management and its operators are fit to operate TMI-1.
This is one of the most important issues in the restart proceeding.
If GPU systematically falsified leak rate information and operated TMI-2 when its license required it to be shut down, all of which B&W claimed, then GPU is not a fit licensee.
This issue compels full scrutiny by the Commission.
Stello's treatment of the question is astonishingly cavalier.
Conclusion UCS requests an additional six weeks to provide comments on the Stello report and the GPU and B&W trial material.
Respectfully submitted
/
F
,[
\\
-n I
j
~
j q_
-2
~ >
Ellyn/R. Weiss HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 Dated:
April 18, 1983
v UNITED STitTES OP' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COLMETED LW In the Matter of
)
j
'83 APR 18 PS:16 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Do.chet No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear (Restart)
Station, Unit No. l)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies er UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS P R ELI!!IN AR Y COMMENTS O t; " REVIEW OF B 2iW-G P U TRIA'. COURT RECORD" AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME were mailed to the following by first-claas mail, or by hand were indicated by :. a t e r i s k, this 16th day of April, 1983
- Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Dr. Walter H.
Jordan U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Cotmnis sion Board Pane]
Washington, DC 20555 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830
- Victor Gilinsky, Conun i.s s ion e r U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Linda W.
Little Comminsion Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive
- John Ahearne, Conunis sioner Raleigh, NC 27612 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge Gary L.
Milhollin Washington, DC 20555 4412 Greenwich Parkway, NW Washington, DC 20007
- Thomas Robe r t s, Conunissione r U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory
- Judge Gary J.
- Edles, Commission Chairman Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- James Asselstine, Conunis s ione r U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Judge John H.
Buck Ivan W.
Smith, Chairnan Atomic Safety and Licensing At.omic Safety and Licensing Ts,opeal Board Panel Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.
S.
Nuclear Rdqu i a t.o ry Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 m
. ** Judge Christine N.
Kohl
- Counnel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Li.ce ns i ng of Eice of I:xecutive Legal Appeal Board Panel Di rec to r U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Judge Reginal d L.
Gotchy
- Dochetinq and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing' Office of the Secretary Appeal Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comainston Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- George F Trewbridge, Esq.
Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt Shaw, Pit. man, Potts &
R.
D.
- 5 Trowbridge Coatsville, PA 19320 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Robert Adler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Public Information and 505 Executive Ilouse Resource Center P.
O.
Box 2357 1037 Maclay Street liarrisburg, PA 17102 IIarrisburg, PA 17103 Louise Bradford
'~
Three Mile Island Alert S
325 Peffer Street g
')
r I
llarrisburg, PA 17102 l#'
L-
/
/ -
Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esq.
Fox, Farr & Cunningham Iland delivered to 1717 !!
2320 North Second Street Ilarrisburg, PA 17110 Street,NW, Washington, DC.
llanc! delivered to 4350 East-Dr. Judith II. Johnsrud l
Dr. Chauncey Kopford West. Ili ghway, Botnesda, MD.
l Environmental Coalition on Iland delivered t o Maryland Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue National Bank I!uilding, State College, PA 16801 Bo t.hn s d a, MD.
liand delivered to indicated John A.
Levin, Esq.
l Assistant Councel address.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Conmu s sion Post Office Box 3265 IIarrisburg, PIs 17120 Ms. Gail B.
Phelps 245 West Philadelphia Street Jork, PA 17404
- ~}glii, TOM ii;rxu j.'Ibf
.!ddf-306
^
jbp t7 2cwe-cross 2801 I
1 on full at 5:40 at the time the reactor coolant pumps were
[m
~
2 turned off, do you remenber that?
(-
3 A.
Yes, sir.
po
.+.-e 4
- 0..
And isn't it a fact that sometime between the 5
time you had told people at Met.Ed, you and Mr. Frederick 6
and Mr. Faust, about the reinitiation of HPI at 5:40 at the 7
time that the reactor coolant-pumps were turned off,
-.... -. _. _... ~. _ _ _ _. _...,
8.
sonctine between then and the time that you gave your
(
9
' deposition in May of 1982, people, somebody had shown you 10 various studies that had been done after the accident in an 11 effort to determine whether or not high pressure injection 12 had been reinitiated at 5:40 and stayed on?
13 A.
Yes, that is correct.
i
{(.
(
14 0
And isn't it correct that as of May 1992 you had 15 not seen any -- it was your best recollection, independent l
16 of any study that you had been shown but just as you sat j
17 there in the deposition thinking back to the events as they I
18 occurred on March 2F, 1979, putting all of the studies out
)
19 of your mind and just thinking about your own memory, your
s-20 memory was that high pressure injection was reinitiated at 21 5:40?
22 A.
What I stated to them is what I believed to be i
23 true at that time.
24 Q.
And what you remembered then, putting any 1
I,r i
25 studies aside, just your own personal recollection, trying 4
{
SoUTHIAN D!$TRICT REPORTERS. u.3. CCURTHOUSE FoLEY SQUAJE. NEW YORK. N.Y. - 79t.1020 r
-, ~,,,,.,,, - -
...m.-_.__-r-..-
,w e.
n
-C',.
./'
.f.*? ~
jbp t7 7 ' Zewe-cross 2802 y
I to M ink back as to'what actually happened that day, your
/
i 2
best recol]ection at that time in'May 1932 three years 3
after the accident, was that'high pressure injection was 4
ted at 5:40; isn't that correct?
'5 A.-
That's what I stated there.
i 6
Q.'.
-And that-was the truth' l.
- s.... --
L 7
A.
At t ne it was, certainly.
i a 8
O.
And isn't it also true that even then with all'
,m,.,--.-.-.--..-
9 the studies that you had been shown, you had not been shown '
~.
10 any study that indicated to you that HPI did not come on'at
........y.~-
11 5:40 and then was turned off within five minutes afterwards?
12 A.
Could I have that read back?
13 THE COURT:
You may.
S
~ 's, '
14 (Record read) 15 A.
I don' t remember.
e.ee.%
16
-(Continued on next page) 17 19 J
19 20 21
~
22 23 24 s
i-25 s.
SotTnERN DISTRICT R.EPORTTRS.U 5. CoURTBoUSE FoLEY SQUARE. NEW YoKK. N.Y. - 7H.1320
.. -, ~,-
-.-,.e-.-.
,ww..
.n.,---,
7
.ee-,
-..r---.-.
g., - --,-; --.
r-.-
y
~
Ih 28 Zewe - cross 2803 t-1 Q.
Let me-read a question and answer at page 822, I:
r.
i b
2 starting about the middle of the page:
3 "Q.
You told us that you have seen or heard certain anakyses and certain studies that 4
about were made.
5 "A.
Yes.
1 6
"Q.-
Putting those aside for the moment, 7
whatever they show they show, Iamjustaskingh[u, 8
independent of those studies, just in terms of the 9
recollection that you personally have about this situation, 10 has your personal recollection ever changed since you gave 11 the testimony that we. referred to earlier and made the 12 notations that we referred to earlier this morning?
s 13 "A.
What I stated earlier is what I remember.
14 "Q.
Well, I think I understand that answer, 15 but just so we can make it clear, do I understand correctly 16 that what you remember personally, sitting here today, is 17 that at the time the second set of reactor coolant pumps
=
18 were turned off, HPI was reinitiated at full flow?
4 19 "A.
As I recall what I._ remembered March 28, l/
20 1979, that we did high pressure injection at or about the
/
7 21 time we secured.the second two pumps."
\\
22 Continuing:
"But, I cannot void myself of 23 everything else that has happened and what is fact from
~
24 other sources.
That is what I re ember, yes, it hasn't 25 changed."
(
i l
SOUTHERN DISTP!CT PFPORTFRt U.S COURTHOUSE FOLE Y 5QUARE. NEW YOR K. N Y -. % H1020 l
e
i Ih t0 Zewe - cross 2804 1
Were you asked that question and did you give fII 2
that answer?
s 3
A.
What time was that?
4 Q.
May 28, 1982.
5 A.
I believe that is correct, yes.
6 Q.
And the truth is, was then as you rememberfd it,
(
a-~~~
7 independent of the studies, whatever you had been shown, 8
the'~ truth as you remembered it in May '82 was that you did 9
initiate liPI at 5:40?
10 l A.
Here again, I don't know.
What I said there is 11 what I believed at the time.
12 Q.
Then just one last question on this, reading s
i l
J 13 l from page 837:
I s
14 !
"Q.
Did you see any studies that demonstrated I
15 that HPI could not have come on at 1,000 gallons per minute 16 at 5:40, stayed on for five minutes or less at that rate, I
17 i.
and then continued after that po in t at a flow rate of 500 1
18,
gallons per minute or less?
I 19 "A.
I don't recall.
I i
"Q.
One way or the other?
l 20 4
i 21 1
"A.
No.
Your question doesn't recall anything l
any analysis relating to that that I can recall one 22 that 23 way or the other."
l I
24 Do you remember being asked those questions and i
l g iv i ng those answers?
j 25 i
I i
sot nu r n:m:n ein em. s c:a w, ;i rouysw m srwyou sv
_,,.m I
l
3 w, :7 a -
n,s -
I 1h t8 Zewe - cross-2805
~
1 A.
I believe I did, yes.
.c v
2
- 0. -
So it is fair to say, isn't it, Mr. Zewe, -tha t 3
in May, just six months.ago,.-. your recollection was, 4
ind'ependent of studies, that it had happened'at 5:40 and 5
u hadn't seen or.couldn't rece11' seeing-any study that
. ~. -
6
'showed that it could not have gone~o.n at 5:40 and been on 7
five minutes or less, as the GPU chronology indicates?
8 A.
Again, what I have stated there is what I 9 l believed to be true at that t i.r.o.
10 Q.
Now, just a couple more questions, Mr. Zewe, on 11 this subject.
You said that when the IIPI first came on i
12 automatically at a few minutes after 2a lot of alarms went
~(
13
~ off and some white lights and then there was some-kind of special diesel alarm that went off.
Do you remember that?
14 15 A.
Yes, sir.
16 0
It made'a different noise than everything else?
17 A.
Yes, sir.
- 18 0.
Did you dispatch.an auxiliary operator down to 19 someplace to turn it off because you couldn't turn it-off 20 from the control room?
i 21 A.
I had that done through the control room 22 operato rs, yes.
l 23 Q.
Somebody sent somebody down to do whatever you i
24 have to do to silence that special horn that was going, 25 right?
i 4
50UTitT AN DISTRICT # EFOR Tf RV U.S COURT} LOU 5L FOLEY $QUARE. NEW YORK N Y. - 1911023 i
/ F Lktu ri 's, [ ' 2 M -8 L
@2 aq [/h M
/
t lh t6 2 ewe - cross 2783 l
l 1
reactor coolant pumps had been tripped, the operators had C
2 manually initiated full high pressure injection?
3 A.
Yes, it was.
4 Q.
And you also, did you not, wanted the sequence 5
of events to reflect the fact in'the status por tion that 6
HPI was on at full with both pumps 1-A and 1-C running?
7 A.
I don't recall if I made that statement or not 8
in relationship to the status o f the pumps.
~
~.
9 Q.
Okay,-but putting that aside for the moment, we
&,,~'
l' If will come back to that in a second, it clearly was your
/
position in July that the sequence of events should state 1
L I
e 2
that IIPI was manually initiated at full at the time the l
\\
- 3 secona set of pumps, reactor coolant pumps, were turned off at 5:40, right?
l 14 :
1 15 A.
Yes, sir.
16 Q.
And that was Mr. Frederick's position and that 17 was Mr. Faust's position as well, right?
18 A.
As I recall, we did -- the three of us cgreed to
$i 19 that fact, yes.
,c h
Q.
And now we are in July, right?
I 21 A.
Yes, it is.
22 Q.
There came a time, did there not, when the 23 manual injection of II PI at 5:40 was in fact inserted into 24 the draft sequence of events?
s 25 A.
As I recall, it was, yes.
50UTHE R' DI5TRICT P LMRTTE U S COURTHO' it FOLF Y SQU AR E. '.E N YCR K
'J Y
?91.1023
m x
lh tG' Zewe - cross 2784 1
Q.
Directing your attention to Exhibit 689, do you 2
have that in front of you?
3 A.
Yes, I do.
4 Q.
That's up in the upper right hand corner it says 5
"REV-1,"
does it not?
6 A.
Yes, it does.
7 Q.
July 16, 1979, is that right?
Have I got the B
t ight date?
9 A.
I can't read the date on this one.
10 THE COURT:
There in a hole punched over the 11 date.
12 Q.
Why don't we turn to page 27.
13 THE COURT:
There you can see the 16th.
.(. i h
14 Q.
Have you got page 27, Mr. Zewe?
15 A.
Yes, I do.
16 Q.
That says July 16, does it not?
17 A.
Yes, it does.
i i
18 Q.
Do yo u se e the entry at the top of the page 19 about the reactor coolant pumps being turned off?
I 20 A.
Yes, I do.
I 21 Q.
And right under that, now in the typed sequence i
22 of events, it says, does it not, at 0141, "the operator l
23 manually initiated high pressure injection to supply l
24 additional cooling water to the reactor core.
Makeup pump l
25 1-C started.
. Makeup pumps 1-A and 1-C are operating."
~_
i
$oUtitTR N N57RIC T R[inkTTPs t' $ O A T T P' oJH i
FOLLY 5Qt'ARE MW YOkt Ni 7 91 1.3.m
lh t6 Zewe - cross I
2785 1
Do you see that?
i i
If l
2 A.
Yes, I do.
3 Q.
Then do you see the handwritten notes in the f
4 right there next to that entry?
l-5 A.
Yes, I do.
I
~
r, 6
Q.
' It 1
says "Zewe, Faust and Frederick insist this 7
is the case;" correct?
8 A.
That's what..it looks like here, yes.
... ~...
H 9
Q.
Do you know whose writing that is?
l 13 A.
Not offhand, r.o.
11 Q.
Do you see the name in the upper right hand 12 corner of the front page, does that say "R.
Long"?
(
13 A.
Yes, it does.
14 Q.
Was he someone who worked for Mr. Keaton?
15 A.
I don't recall who Mr. Lo ng wo r k ed for at this 16 time.
17 Q.
He was part of the CPU organization?
18 A.
Yes, he was.
19 Q.
He was working on putting together this sequence 20 of events?
21 A.
I don't recall Mr. Lo ng 's involvement in this 22 document at the time.
23 Q.
It is correct, is it not, Mr. Zewe, that in July 24 1979 you and Mr. Faust and Mr. Frederick were insisting I'
)that high pressure injection had been put on at 5:40 at the 25 l
$0D TMF 31' I'l51 R gr } p E rf >P TTP N l' 5 COliP THr PJ$f FeLIY 5QUARE NEW YORK NY - 191. t"N
m 1
1h t6 Zewe - cross 2786 1
time the two reactor coolant pumps were turned off?
'C 2
A.
That is correct.
3 (Continued on next page.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 i
14 i
l 15 i
16 17 I
I 18 I
I 19 l
20 21 22 i
23 i
I 24 I
b
-~
25 50L' T H T R '- 0 B 7 F.1C 1 P ih '* T F R s l'.5 Cot 'RTil'.R if FOLEY 5Q('ARE NE W YORK NY 79610N
.