ML20077Q303

Reply to NRC & Ucs 830830 Responses to Commission 830805 Order on Whether Scope of Hearing Includes Concerns Raised Re Need for Rapid Primary Sys Depressurization Capability in Pwrs.Agrees W/Nrc Response.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077Q303
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/14/1983
From:	Baxter T METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8309160060
Download: ML20077Q303 (8)

Text

. . . . - __ . - . _ _. . - - . -_

September 14, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA notyp,EO l

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION " b BEFORE THE COMMISSION g3 sty 15 pa20 In the Matter of ) c- SECn ?y".'

f 7._,..-

, cmg ?. SEP i

} s

~

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 563[8h

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S REPLY TO THE RESPONSES OF OTHER PARTIES TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF AUGUST 5, 1983 In an Order issued on August 5, 1983, the Commission requested briefs from the parties on: (1) whether the concerns raised by 4

BN-83-47 (Board Notification Regarding the Need for' Rapid Primary System Depressurization Capability in PWR's, April 4, 1983) are outside the scope of the TMI-1 adjudicatory proceeding; and (2) whether, if they are within the scope of the proceeding, the information contained in BN-83-47 warrants reopening the record sua sponte. The Commission directed that the parties have twenty-five days from the date of the Order to provide their briefs, and I

fifteen days thereafter to provide any reply briefs.

On August 30, 1983, Licensee, the NRC Staff, and intervenor l

l Union of Concerned Scientists filed responses to the Commission Order of August 5, 1983. Licensee herein submits its reply to the responses filed by the NRC Staff and UCS.

l l

I l

t 8309160060 830914 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR gb h

3 I. NRC Staff Response Licensee and the NRC Staff, in their August 30 pleadings, both answered in the negative the two questions posed by the Commission -- i.e., both took the positions that the concerns raised by BN-83-47 are outside the scope of the TMI-1 Restart adjudicatory hearing and, in any event, the information contained in BN-83-47 does not warrant sua sponte reopening of the record.

Accordingly, Licensee is in substantial agreement with the Staff's response to the Commission's Order of August 5, 1983.1/

II. UCS Response Pursuing any opportunity to escape from the decisions below in which the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board have rejected the UCS contentions, UCS has responded to the two narrow questions posed in the Commission's Order of August 5, 1983 with an unrelated, wholesale repetition of the UCS litigative position in the design phase of this proceeding. The UCS Response addresses the following subjects which have no relationship whatsoever to the Order or the concerns raised in BN-83-47:

l r 1/ EIt is particularly useful that the Staff now has corrected the Appeal Board's mistaken conclusion that the Staff has i

changed its position in this proceeding on whether the PORV

! must meet all safety-grade criteria. Compare ALAB-724, 17 N.R.C.

, slip op, at 3 (April 20, 1983), with NRC Staff's Brief in Response to Commission's Order Dated August 5, 1983, at 4, n.5 (Aug. 30, 1983).

l f

o Design of the pressurizer heaters; o- Feed and bleed cooling'with the PORV;2/

o Seismic qualification.of the Emergency Feedwater System;3 /

o General standards for requiring components, systems and i structures to meet safety-grade design criteria.

In response to these misplaced presentations, Licensee relies upon the decisions of the Licensing and Appeal Boards, rendered on the basis of the evidentiary record.4/

When UCS does address the questions posed by the Commission, UCS mischaracterizes what the Staff has said in BN-83-47, ignores the consistent holdings on the scope of this proceeding, and attempts to define the scope of the proceeding in terms of its arguments below rather than addressing the adjsdicators' decisions on the relevance of those positions.

2/ Feed and bleed cooling, which Licensee and the Staf f addressed Eelow in the context of events beyond the design basis, is nowhere mentioned in BN-83-47, which addresses mitigation of design basis steam generator tube rupture events. It is true that on appeal UCS attempted, in its brief, to relate the then-recent Ginna incident to the use of the pressurizer safety valves for feed and bleed cooling.

That argument, not presented to the Licensing Board and wholly with-out evidentiary support, makes no more technical sense now. In any event, the wild arguments UCS makes on appeal, and which it now strains without further success to explain, do not define the scope of this proceeding.

3/ UCS continues to flaunt the Commission's holding that this sub-

[ 3ect is outside the scope of the TMI-l Restart proceeding. See (March 4, 1983).

CLI-83-5, 17 N.R.C. Further, UCS ignores l BN-83-123 (Aug. 22, 1983).

l l 4/ Both Boards reviewed the evidence advanced by UCS and concluded that the PORV at TMI-l need not be safety-grade, except in its role as a part of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary. LBP i 59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1282, (1981); ALAB-729, 17 N.R.C. , slip op.

l at 111 (.ay M 26, 1983).

1 I -_ . _ _ - . _ . . . . _ _ , . _ _ , - ,_, - _ _ . . - - _ - _ , ..--, - . . - . . - . _ _ , _- ,_._

The following facts cannot be disputed: (1) no party raised a contention on the adequacy of the PORV or any other components or systems to mitigate steam generator tube rupture events; (2) UCS did not advance steam generator tube rupture events as a basis for its Contention 5, which asserts that the PORV should be safety-grade.5/ Consequently, the tortured UCS discussions of its attempt to relate steam generator tube ruptures to the role of pressurizer heaters in maintaining natural circulation is of no avail. It is undeniable that the concerns raised in BN-83-47 are totally foreign to the TMI-l Restart proceeding as it has been tried and decided to date.

UCS also represents that BN-83-47 establishes a new Staff position on UCS Contention 5. See UCS Response at 4. It clearly does not, as the Staff states in its response to the Commission's Order. The Notification explicitly states that the implications of the review for operating reactors are still under consideration by the Staff, and that no recommendations have been made. Further, the Notification indicates that the Staff needs additional information to determine if some of its concerns are even valid.5/

5/ UCS concedes that "[t]he evidence before the Atomic Safety and l Eicensing Board on Contention 5 did not deal with steam generator

! tube ruptures." UCS Response at 6. This statement applies as well l to the direct testimony of UCS witness Pollard. It is at best mysterious, then, that UCS asserts " ...the Licensee and Staff were successful in preventing the information contained in BN-83-47 from reaching the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board." Id. at 8. Not only was the information not available, but presentation of the theory was not attempted by UCS in support of its PORV contention.

i

! 6/ In addition, the Notification does not represent a Staff position l since CRGR review has not been accomplished. See BN-83-110 (Aug. 26, 1983).

t i

i

Subsequently, in Board Notification 83-110 (Aug. 26, 1983),

the Staff has clarified its position, previously expressed in BN-83-47, to indicate that there may be means, short of meeting safety-grade design criteria for the PORV, by which an applicant may justify the acceptability of its depressurization capability in the face of a design basis steam generator tube rupture event.

With respect to operating reactors, the Staff has stated that it will address this issue in the same manner as other potential backfit requirements.

In conclusion, the UCS Response, which reflects an almost studied effort to confuse, largely does not address the questions posed by the Commission and fails to establish any nexus between the possible role of the PORV in steam generator tube rupture mitigation and the specific TMI-2 accident scenario.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

~7C 4. d&

George F. Trowbridge, P.C.

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 Dated: September 14, 1983 l

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 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 Responses Of Other Parties To The Commission's Order Of August 5, 1983" were served this 14th day of September, 1983, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.

A

, 6rg F. Trolbridge,P[C.

Dated: September 14, 1983 l

p

, . . . - . - - . . . _ . . . . . . . , _ _ . . - . _ . , _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . - . . - - . - - _ _ _ . - ~ .

UNITED STATES OE' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIOiISSION In the Matter of ) ,

) .

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Chair an Nunzic J. Palladinc Dr. Regirs.1d L. GotcT U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccr:nission Atric Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Soard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cw..ission C-a.issioner Victor Gilinsky Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nucla>* Pegulate:y Canrissicn Washingten, D.C. 20555 Ivan %. Smith, Escuire c2iman Cannissicner Ja:ms K. Asselstine Beard Atric U.S. Nucla=- Safety and Pegulatory Lice . sing?ission Cen U.S. Ntriear Regulatory Cc:nnission Washingt=n, D.C. 20555 Washing m , D.C. 20555 Ccc:rissicner Frederick M. Bernthal Dr. Wal'a.: H. Jordan U.S. Nuclear 7agulatory Contrissicn Atc:ric Safety a-d Licensing Scard Washingten, D.C. 20555 Panel 881 West Outer Drive Ccrissicner 'L5aras M. Ecberts Oak Ridge, Te.nessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanu.ssion Washingten, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little Atric Safety and Licensing Bed Docketing and Service Section Panel Office of the Secretary 5000 Heritage Drive -

U.S. Nucla** Fagulatcry Cc:nrission Paleigh, North Ca:clina 27612 Washington, D.C. 20555 James M. Cutchin, IV, Escuire l Gary J. Edles,"Siddi:E ~- Office of the Executive Legal Director Chai=an

~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~

U.S. Nuclam- Regulatcry C-a.ission i

Atric Safety and Licensing Appa*1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cannission Jchn A. Ievin, Esquire Washing:cn, D.C. 20555 Assis's.nt Cot =sel Pennsylvania Public Utilty C a.issica Dr. Jc'.n H. Buck P.O. Box 3265

( Harrisbur=, Pennsylvania 17120 Atric Safety and Licensinc An.ceal l 5:ard Panel D:uglas R. Blaney, Es? lire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc Irissicn Washing:cn, D.C. 20555 C"lef Counsel l

Cem .ent cf EnviIorIMn*'1 EesCurCes l

514 Executive Ecuse, P.O. Ecx 2357 Ha:ris'=c.rg, Pennsylvania 17120 l

Jordan D. Cunningh m , Esquire 2320 North Second Street l Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Ms. Iouise Bradford l UMI AIERT l 1011 Green Street i Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon & Weiss i 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Steven C. ShcIly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1101 Washington, D.C. 20036 ANGRY /'IMI PIRC 1037 Maclay Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 Willi m S. Jordan, III, Esquire  :

Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Envirormental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Marjorie M. Aamcdt R. D. 5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320

/