ML19330A926

Response to NRC Interrogatories Based on Safety Evaluation. Submits Items Supporting Allegation That Licensee Is Not Technically Qualified.Intervenor Will Rely on Current Financial Statements Re Contention 6.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19330A926
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/21/1980
From:	Widoff M THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, WIDOFF, REAGER, SELKOWITZ & ADLER
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8007290779
Download: ML19330A926 (9)

Text

-- _ _ _ -

f -

^*

• -

,

'. . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

-

(Restart) 3 D

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) ON \

Station, Unit No.1) ) ca p CCClGTED TMIA'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S -

t!SNRC JUC 2 31960

• Offic3

)

~

--

//

INTERROGATORIES BASED ON THE SER OcW5q acf the hg,7

'

% E.7.nc.'s t

@

t Interrogatory No.1 Identify by author, title, date of publication and publisher, all books, docu-ments, and papers you intend at this time to employ or rely upon in presenting your direct case on:

a. Contention 5 ,

b. Contention 6

.

c. Contention 7 ,

TMIA's Response TMIA has previously objected to this interrogatory as being untimely.

Interrogatory No. 2 Identify by author, title, date of publication and publisher, all books. docu-ments, or papers that you intend at this time to employ or rely upon in conducting your cross-examination of prospective NRC witnesses testifying in connection with:

o\g 8 0072 0 e 77f &

_ _ - _

,

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

-- - -_

_ _ .-- _ _ _ , _

• . .-

.

.

a. Contention 5

b. Contention 6

c. Contention 7

'

TMIA's Response TMIA has previously objected to this interrogatory as being untimely.

Interrogatory No.1 If the representations made in: .

a. Contentren 5

b. Contention 6

c. Contention 7 are based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the NRC Staff or the Licensee which you contend are deficient, specify what documents (and the par-ticular portions) you regard as deficient and explain why they are deficient.

TMIA's Response ,

TMIA has previously objected to this interrogatory as being untimely.

.I Interrogatory No. 5-1 Do you believe that the revised facility procedures as described in the Restait Report and analyzed in the SER (see pages C6-15 and C6-16) are adequate to insure that necessary maintenance and repairs are performed at TMI-l?

If the answer above is "no," what procedures would you want 'mplemented

' to see that proper maintenance is performed? Please identify the documents which

!

!

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-

,

.-

.

support your position.

TMIA's Response The Staff has not yet verified the adequacy of the revisions made by Licensee (pg. C6-15) . Also, the Staff has not performed the audit procedures mentioned on

. page C6-16. Until these procedures have been completed, TMIA cannot determine if the revised procedures are adequate to insure that necessary maintenance and repairs will be perSrmed at TMI-1.

Additionally, the Staff did not include A.P.1407-1 " Station Corrective Main-tenance Procedure" in its procedure review. "The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidance to all plant personnelin the perfonnance of corrective main-tenance" (A.P.1407-1 pg. 30) . This procedure must be reviewed to insure proper identification and timely correction cf maintenance problems.

Most importantly, the Staff should audit Licensee's past performance in fol-lowing A.P.1407-1. TMIA's first and second installment of responses to Licensee's interrogatories (Attachment "A") identify work requests where the pr6per proce-dure for timely correction of identified problems was not followec.

.

Interrogatory No. 5-2 Specify the " violations" cf NRC regulations referred to in Contention 5 that you intend to rely on in support of your contention in this proceeding and which are not adequately addressed in the SER. In so specifying, identify the NRC regulation for each instance that you contend was violated, and the source cf your information that " violations" cccurred.

. _ .

.

..

.

TMIA's Response It is contended that Licensee has pursued a course cf conduct that is in viola-tion of 10 CFR 50.57,10 CFR 50.40,10 CFR 50.36,10 CFR 50.40,10 CFR 50.71, 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, thereby demonstrating that Licensee is not " technically . . .

qualified to" operate TMI Unit 1 "without endangering the health and safety of the public." This course of conduct includes:

a. deferring maintenance and repair beyond the point established by its own

,

procedures (see A.P.1407);

b. disregarding the importance cf maintenance in safely operating a nuclear plant in that it:

1. uses supervisory and other personnel to perform maintenance;

2. drastically cut the maintenance budget;

3. fails to follow its own maintenance procedures for the timely correc-

. _ - - - - -

tion of maintenance problems;

4. fails to keep accurate maintenance records;

5. has inadequate and understaffed QA/QC programs;

,

'

6. extensively uses overtime in performing maintenance.

Assurances given by Licensee's employees and officials as well as assurances given in the SER that all NRC regulations have been and/or will be adhered to are not credible. The same employees and officials who were responsible for the violations numerated above remain in responsible positions with Licensee.

Reorganization of the same people does not correct the problem.

,

- -

.

.

Under these circumstances, Licensee cannot demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it is " technically . . . qualified to" operacc TMI Unit 1 "with-out endangering the health and safety of the public."

TMIA's response to Licensee's Interrogatories Installment I and 2 contain the evidence which TMIA will rely upon in proving " violations" of the above requia-tions .

Interrogatory No. 5-3 Is it your position that regardless of the new facil! y procedures (see pages C6-15 and C6-16), Licensee will be unable to properly maintain TMI-1 and to operate that unit safely? If so, explain in detail the basis for your position and identify the documents which support your position.

.

TMIA's Response Detailed technical procedures are worthless in insuring safe plant operation if management fails to implement these procedures. Item 1 and Item 4(a) of Appendix .

A of NRC Investigation Report Number 50-320/79-10 represt.nt two instances where Licensee failed to follow prescribed procedures. These failures contributed to the ,

TMI-2 accident.

TMIA's discovery has revealed hundreds of other instances where Licensee failed to proceed in the manner mandated by NRC regulations. Each work request identified in TMIA's response to Licensee's Interrogatories Installment I and 2 represents an occasion where maintenance was deferred beyond the time period established by the assigned priority.

l L

.

-

.

.

.

The violations mentioned above prove that the management responsible for Unit 1 fails to follow the procedures required for the safe operation of TMI-1.

Procedural and organizational changes will not correct this problem. Based on the past conduct of Licensee, the current management cannot be trusted to imple-ment any procedures.

f Interrogatory No. 5-4 Do you believe that the Staff's evaluation of the Licensee's compliance with Order Item 6 is inadequate in any way? If so, describe in detail each cf those inadequacies and identify the documents which support your position.

,TMIA's Response The Staff admits that "our evaluation of the issues covered in both of the Orders is incomplete." TMIA cannot assess the adequacy of the Staff's evaluation until the SER is completed.

Interrogatory No. 6-1 Specify the technical changes referred to in your Contention 6, part 1, which

.

are not accounted for in Chapter C7 of the SER and which you intend to rely upon

>

in support of your contention. Specify the total cost of these changes that you assume in arriving at your conclusion that Metropolitan Edison Company does not possess the requisite financial qualifications, and identify the scurce for each assumed change. -

TMIA's Response TMIA will rely on the technical change and/or financial protection require-

• '

. l l

• !

ments required by the NRC in proving Contention 6. Both Part l'and 2 of Con-tention 6 are examples of areas that may require substantial capital expenditures by Licensee, depending on what requirements are levied by the Commission.

To the extent that these areas may not require substantial capital expenditures, TMIA will not rely upon them in proving Licensec's financial incapacity.

TMIA's Contention 6 addresses Licensee's ability to raise capital either through internally generated funds or through capital markets to meet all of its needs, whatever those needs may be. TMIA will rely on the most current finan-cial statements of the Licensee, the financial data to be submitted to the Pennsyl-vania Public Utility Commission in the rate increase request recently announced, and any other standard financial information available to the general public, such as Standard and Poors, Moody's Investor Services, Saloman Brothers and similar publications.

Interrogatory No. 6-2 Specify the " mandated design changes" referred to in part 2 of your conten-tion 6 which are not accounted for in Chapter C7 cf the SER and which you intend .

to rely on in support of your contention, to the extent that they are not already encompassed by part 1 of contention 6. Specify the total cost of these design changes that you assume in arriving at your conclusion that Metropolitan Edison Company does not possess the requisite financial qualifications, and identify the source of your assumed design cost for sach change.

TMIA's Response See response to 6-1.

-

.

. .

. .

Interrogatory No. 6-3 Specify the cost to Metropolitan Edison Company that you assume for changes in the financial protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 140 which are not accounted

'

for in Chapter C7 of the SER that you refer to in part 2 of your contention 6.

Identify the ecact source of the cost that you specify in response to the first part of this interrogatory.

TMIA's Response See response to 6-1.

< TMIA is in the process of withdrawing Contention 7 because of limited financial resources. Therefore, it is not answering any questions concerning Contention 7.

.

Respectfully submitted, WIDOF REAGER LKOWITZ & ADLER, P.C.

. f By: .

'

i /)[/7

-

,

/ M' ark P.Vlidoff T/

(/

/ . O . B ox 1547

-

Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717) 763-1383 Dated: July 21,1980

.

_

... .

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, TMIA's Response To NRC Staff's Interrogatories Based On The SER, to be placed in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to the persons listed below:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman .

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Linda W. Little 49y'\^% y% ,

5000 Hermitage Drive .'- d.

Raleigh, NC 27612 # CCC: m 'O

,. CW '%

George F . Trowbridge, Esquire i- g% 2 S fogg * $

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

[,'r ~;

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Q 0,'{] f'4 ,,;c;\

.

-

Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

.

Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

/

.h!' Mark P. Widoffj i pg

"/ (

k Dated: July 21,1980 I

!

I

l

,