ML20028A339

Application for Subpoena Directing Executive Director of Operations to Appear for Deposition Re Rockford League of Women Voters Contentions 63,53,54 & 77 & Use of Term Important to Safety. Draft Subpoena Encl

ML20028A339
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/15/1982
From:	Gallo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20028A336	List: ML20028A335 ML20028A339
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211180364
Download: ML20028A339 (9)

Text

4

, 11/15/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-454-OL

) 50-455-OL (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.720 (h) (2) (i) , Common-wealth Edison Company (" Applicant" ) hereby applies to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue the attached subpoena to the NRC Executive Director of Operations, comman-ding him or his designee (s) to appear to give testimh y on deposition at the time and place indicated in the attached subpoena. In support of this Application, Licensee states:

1. The testimony of the Executive Director of Operations or his designee (s) are sought in connection with the Rockford League of Women Voters' Contentions 63, 53, 54 and 77. Each of these contentione refers to the term "important to safety" as an NRC safety classification of reactor structures, systems, and components. For example, Contention 63 asserts that "[a]ll systems and components' which can citner cause or aggravate an accident or can be called upon to mitigate an accident must be identified and classified as components important to safety and required to meet all safety-grade design criteria." (emphasis added).

~ ~ ~

8211180364 EE1115 i PDR ADOCK 05000454 l O '

PDR ,_

e

2. On November 20, 1981, Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a memorandum to his staff (copy attached as Exhibit A) which appears to plow new ground on the use of the term "important to safety" as compared to the terms " safety related" and "non-safety related". This memorandum and its implications have been the subject of at least two licensing proceedings, namely, the hearings involving the restart of TMI, Unit 1 and the operating license hearings involving the Shoreham case.1 In each case, the NRC Staff advanced a position, based on the Denton memorandum, different from the utilities' understanding of the term "important to safety." Likewise, in the instant case, Applicant fails to understand the Staff's interpretation and use of that term as it may be applied to the Byron case.

Moreover, the Rockford League of Women Voters have made it clear that they intend to inquire into this matter. For

! these reasons, it is essential that discovery by deposition be i

! had of the NRC Staff in order to enable Applicant to address l

Contentions 63, 53, 54 and 77.

l 1/ See rebuttal testimony of NRC Staff witness, James H.

Conran, Sr., filed in Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No.

l 50-322 (OL).

2/ See Interrogatory No. 2 (a) of the " League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois' First Interrogatories to, and Accompanying Request for Documents From, Commonwealth Edison Co.," dated October 16, 1982; and Answers of Rockford League of Women Voters To First Round of Interrogatories of Commonwealth Edison Company, dated July 6, 1982, specifically the answer concerning i Contentions 28 and 63.

3. This Application For Subpoena leaves to the Executive Director of Operations the discretion to identify the witness or witnesses to be proferred. However, it seems obvious that Messrs. Denton and Conran have direct personal knowledge of the matters sought to be discovered. Applicant has confidence that the Executive Director will select his witnesses wisely; nevertheless, Applicant reserves the right, should it be necessary, to file for further subpoenas to take testimony on deposition of "particular named NRC employees."

10 C.F.R. S 2.720 (h) (2) .

4. This Application For Subpoena has been dis-cussed with counsel for the NRC Staff; and although he has taken no position with respect to the Application, he has requested that it be made in lieu of any informal vehicle, such as a Notice of Deposition.

Based on the foregoing, Applicant has established the relevance of the Staff's testimony to issues admitted in this proceeding; and Applicant respectfully requests that its

" Application for Subpoena" be granted and that the Licensing Board issue the attached subpoena. ,

Respectfully submitted, Qn b gg/ Joseph Gal ~10 ~

One of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated: November 15, 1982

. Exhibit A 4.,

' b* UNITED STATES *

-_', _NUCLEAR REGULATORY wAsmucTon. c. c.2csss COMMISSION

;.w n. .

MA,j., , - - - - r- -

/ . - r- r. . - - - NOV 2 01c31- '~

- cT. : *

....*. q,-:.l.$*Y:AW.: . -;. ~ ..

=E'

? c. ~ - a -y , * & ['

l gscRANDUM FOR: All NRR Personnel

, ,, ..x . ..;c. -

l .. ~

Harold R. Denton, Director

• Y'.'. ' *-

i FROM:

- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation- . . _ . ..

. . c . .-... .

SUBJECTi . . . . .. STANDARD DEFINITIONS FOR COMMONLY-USED -

SAFETY CLAS t

~ : stRns' Litigation of one of the ' rincipal p issues in the TMI-1 Restart Hearing brought to light the fact that 'there is not complete consistency among all elements of .

l the NRR staff in the application of safety classification terms used frequently in the conduct of NRR's safety review and licensing activities. More specifi-cally, it appears that terms "important to safety," " safety grade," and " safety--

related" have been used at times interchangeably, or in. ways not completely

! consistent with the definitions and " sage of such terms in the regulations, and which db not fully reflect the intr .. rf the regulations o,r current licensing practica. 3. . ._ y . . y . . .__ _ .

Efforts have been underway for some months now to develop guidanci for.the

_, . - consistent usage of these terms. 'These. efforts have included: (a)' review of .

a large number of Reg Guides and SRP's, in confunction with parts of.the regula-tions upon which they are based, for consistency in the application of safety y classification terminology, (2) extensive discussions among cognizant NRR, RES i (Stds. Devel.) and ELD representatives regarding proper interpretation and application of such terms, including consideration of alternative " standard" definitions and (3) consultation with the cognizant ACRS Subcommittee regarding l these matters, and consideration by the full ACRS as well .

As a. result of these efforts, I am endorsing and prescribing for use by'albNRR personnel the standard definitions set forth in the enclosure to this letter.

It should be noted that in connection with long-term efforts to develop means for ranking reactor plant systems with respect to degree of importance to safety, and in conne:: tion with related efforts to develop a graded Q.A. approach in reactor licensing, the general question of safety classifications and safety classification

! terminologies will be reexamined; and this could result in changes to .the defini-I tions set forth in the enclosure or perhaps in development of a completely new scheme in this regard. For the time being, however, the definitions in the en-closure should be considered " standard" and should be applied consistently by all NRR personnel in all aspects of our safety review and licensing activities and

- should be appropriately reflected in cur regulatory guidance documents.

F ,

A-1

f

,J. personnel .f. . . . . .

_ . . ,* = e .- ,Q. .*

.".. v

.: .. ,. '.?.

=k.+... . . . . .a . .h : . . -. i. .d..

' v - w

' (l:-.

p.p.

.~

je is expected that minor editorial... revisions will have to be made to some ' ...-

gisting Reg Guides and SRF's in order to make their wording consistent witif -

these definitions',T You should review the regulatory' guidance documents within '

~ your 'piirviefin this' re~ gard and' recommend the necessary changes; it is not -

expected that this will . involve extensive revision efforts. ~ I iant to make

'~ clear that my interest here is"only in establishing ' consistency in the' language

~

~

7" ssed by ail cognizant g'roups within NRR in expressing.our technical requirements.

It is not my intention by this"acti6n to dictate .new technicalkequirements, to modify existing technical ~ reqiiirements, o' to'broadin the exist,ing scope of ' .. r . . .

[f  ;

NRR l i censi n g revi ew; -- i- . . E

.. .. n .. m . .

~ . : r .. . . .... . r . u c. . -

• • ~

. ' "' . - - ".'.7. y = :- .;; -

- n. .'- ..: -== '-

.LL -

.i. .

~

. a . ..a .

..............r..

. ..... . , . . ,.... 4--

. . . . . ... .... - =

, . - - :. ;a . ; . . .

=t- . :- - - . . . .

. . - Harold R. Denton, Director

... . .-- . p. 2.-_.".".'... ,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure : *:.. O.. - - $=h ~ " '

7

~

Definition..,..;. .of Terms --,r.--,.,,,,-------

- ~~ . . . _..? - -

.. v. . -- --

. .y.:.

- , .. - . .m, --> .

7. . .

o

( ,

1 .

1 t

l l

. -= z. .- . -

A ~

Tr -

l .

I i

..A - 2 . _ .

. .) .

- w -

_ . . . .: . +-.

. ..~

- *'.- . :s - -

3.;..::~. ... ... .."?:-

. s . . . . - --m . .

-  ::ww . -

..,e.. L s.;;3.c r.;-y ,; e: #-.'..;. . .-..--..

.g . . .

. . . J k: .: .r. -.

. .= x.

.M;.::.: .s E.5-c. . :

~.: s:..: ,.. 0E71 NIT1 0N '0FwTERMS *. w

-. &.~.*m-. -

--9... .--

/

-. -- ...

. = . - . . . :.v -. .

n : .. . .

K 5a'fb,..:-g:: ;=c s ,.aw- .-h ;*.$  :.Y 0d $$ b $k -*.th_";: N: Y 5. -.:~.T- % n i:. h' .y* A:. . N

~

~

" ' ' ^:

V: .an ., ,..,:..--- lD i Criieiia)' ;see first r .-c,-

( ~-r. .. *-

o Ce inition - Fmm.10 CFR .50, Appendix

.a-g.+y. A. Gene.

: -%. ra . -e.s. ru .. gn. ,-..-..

r c z. e ~-

.paagra ph. o f ".Introduct. on.,n., ,...y~

. ,. 7 . .. ......s- . .

. . , . = .

.  : :. ~ .r

,, =Those structures ,~',systemspand'. . components that. provide reasonable assurance Meat.thf. facility 'can be opiir~ated without' "undue risk to the,' health ' and safety _

. . of the publ i c'." W.?v"?' -"~~' " . .s .:.: * . '.~-"i ~

^ " - --

g-6=.m -

.:-c .m.&. u . :-s . L .. ':n;v..z:

N Ence=pa's.ds ' th'e 'bfoad 'clis's of plant. features', covered (not necessar'ily "

. v.---- ~

".P

-;"exolfeit'ry) in the General Design Criteria, that contribute in important way "' .

.T. o safe operation and protection of the pt.blic in all phases and . aspects of facility operatier.-(i'.e., normal operadon and transient control as well as acci dent mi ti ga d en) . . . . -E..,..? - - '--i 5 .- ..

- . . . . , - . - : u-

. . , .m ..

... -

- :n. .

Includes. Safety Gr .ade:

m

~ ~ . (or Safe'ty-Related) as a subset.

e .x... .

w.; , . :... r. - .- -

. .. r_..

• v=:.= e.

~ Safety-Re1a: ted ??. : m:;-, .wan;-t..

. . . . ^

- + e- .x.v.s: u .. - =-e-

'.~ . -== :: =- ; -

.._--:-._ w y n r- m m '< -~. . . - . . .

see sections III.(c)', VI.a.('l), and

" ele~fidNn .IFro'm"ld OR 100',' . . . . . . ..

hpendix A -

h._ .

.# Those st5ucture, systems, or components designed to remain functional for

.- the SSE (also termed ' safety features') necessary to assure recuired safety * -

funcdons, i.e.:

(1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) ths capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe

. shutdown conditi on; or i

.~. g.. y ,

(3) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in po*ential off-site exposures comparable to the -

guideline exposures of this part.

3 Subset of "Important to Safety" e Regulatory Guide 1.29 providesan WR-eeneric, function-oriented lisdng of

" safety-related" structures, systems, ano components necoed to provide or perform

• required safety functions Additional informadori (e.g., NESS type, .

SOP design A-E, etc.) is needed to generate the complete listing of safety-relatad ISC's for any soecific facility. .

- . ..- ::- , e .

Notti Tne term " safety-related"f. al so appears in 10' CFR 50, Appendix B (Q.A. Program Requirements); however, in that con

• ext it is framed dis . ' in somewhat different language than its definition in 10 CFR 100. -

Appendix A. That difference in language between the two appendices has- contributed to confusion and misunderstanding regarding the exact -

~

meaning of "safetyJ.related" A and revision its relationship to the language to "important of Appendix to safety" and " safety-grade."

B has been proposed *to clarify this situation and remove any ambiguity in the. meaning of these ter:ts. . . - _ .

Y . ..

. . . .g. .. -

Sa fety-Gra de , , ' .. : .,

..a

• 3 * . . . . . ..-.,e

. as

.e .

'. erm no.. use expl citly. in ,. .regulatlo.. .  !

ns..but widely used/ applied by staff #

racess. - .n. . . . . . . . - - - . . . .

w and i.ndustry .i.n safet. .r. evi e.w. .

. . . : n_ : .

1

- . . :. = .. . . .n. .._.. .m. . . . .. . s.:.::;.. . .. . . : . . ..-. - .:. .:. :-.s. . ,- : .

. .. ,.a.

~

,.s . ; e :qu . val ent '.:, ,w..:..o " safety-Relatad," bothi .e... tar.us apply to the same subset 7.~, %. ~

• * ' . " - of the broad .. class "Important to saf. ety,'

. s.u

.n. n. . . . . .

... :. , :.. =,s.

.....,. . . . . . . ....+. . . . 1 n. .,.,. . .a.

.......a. ... . - . . . . .

..:.n .: . .a._= = - . -- ...

r . ..-.

.. p.:... ...=. .-. . = - . :

.- ..,.=- .

.,w.- ,:.. e

. a .,-

~ :-./.'; -=~

. 1.:..a

. . .v=...*

.w . =.

= .... . 4. . m. . . .. *

.~ . ~ ..' ,.

. . . . ;!..;' ;... ss*1

. .s..n .:- -

-...- -me

... ~

.' v

,w *h * .-

. - s. n. .. . . - - s.;  : -. . . - .

1. .

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

.s .~. .

~......=-r:

.s....,,,.

. . . . r u.

7 .

. . ; . ;;,,..h. s .. -:;.J g i --s . .. - .

l ..

.a- e. r ,. . . a. .. *v.. a. .,e'-.*.~ ". ...

.s

. - , . . . . . , . u. ...

.s. .

.: .c . .

.=. , .

m.,.. .

~.u. er.= . . .

..w.. s..,.*. .s .s.. . .,. ..

..>?.,,..

. . ,. . .. .7..s . .....,f.: . : . , ,

.a .--;m.

4. , , ,

., . .r . ,., .

N N .. * .. . . . .

. . . . , .. *_.* ..a.-*. ,. U . ..

N..-.. -

l

.. p. .

- -r; - - . .:-. .. .. ..

, _ j ,,,.'re... . . ,

. . K.~ , . , . .. .(s .. .g vs. ., .. ..-J._-- . .* . -

j

• ? . .

. .. ... . . . ..d ,- ; ..,'

,. 5, -, .. .

...- *t. ;r .

...s.J.... 4. .. .. ... a.. , ... . . . . .

I l

. a .

).;L

,a.*. ., .-

..,y....,...

-a

..,,,,;~. . ..i.,... .

...y ,

. f.

7. ..

1 . . .

l . . .

o. .

A - *A'*-

I

.ej.

(

a' .

.t n. . -. .. .

... . . , ... s- . . . . , ,., .. . . . . .

i

.su -

1 .

.,

• 4

. .. C

.. ..,. . . .s,

• . .*..  ;.rr.n.:- .

.3'.

gggg . .

. , . . f; ,.

. - . = e

~

• A-4 .

. . . . . . . * . - . *-.*a .* . = . .

F k

3nitch f5ta2Es af Arnerfra NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0515 FISSION O

In the rnatter of:

• COMMONWEALTII EDISON COMPANY (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) >- DOCKET NO. 50-4 54-OL 50-455-OL TO The Executive Director of Operations or his designee (s)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 YOU ARE HEREBY CO5DIANDED to appear ....a,t,,,t,hg.,,9,,f f, igg p,,g,f,,,J,gh,a,g,,,,,,

Id n.c.Q A n.. . A ...E.9 a.th...ll 2.0.. 99.n.n9.c.t i.c.u t...A,vg,n,y g,,,,,N,.,W,.,,,,,,@ u,i t 9,,,8,,4,Q,,,,,,,,,,

in th e c i t y o f ..ya s, h,i,n, g tp,n ,, ,,,D, f,,C, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , ,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,

on the....... 2.4,th,, day a f,,,,,,Ng, yep,@p,r,,,,, ,,,,19,8,,2.......a t.... 9..:.3,Q.......... 0'clo ek A . hi.

t o t es t ify o n b e half o f ....K h9...U.R,C,,, S,t,a,,f f,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,_ ,

in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule. The undersigned requests that said documents be made available at the offices of the NRC for inspection and review prior to the date of the deposition and in any event no later than the morning of November 23, 1982.

BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY gr.OR.NEY FOR Commonwea1th ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,39,,.,,,,,,,,,

r.dison Company Joseoh Gallo, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale TEl.EPHONE (202) 833-9730 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (i) pres, dant ofjscer or. af he is unvastacia, the On monon made promptly, and in any ownt Cammission may (1) quasn or modify the sub-31 or before the nme specsfied sn the stebpoena poena if it it unressonable or requires evidence for compliance by the person to whom the sub- not relevent to env matter sn issue, or (:) con-poena is directed, and on nonce to the party at Carton demat of t'It monon on just and reasonable watt snstance the subpoens was issued, the terms.

y-Schedule

1. All documents, in the custody of the NRC in either draft or final form, concerning the formulation of Mr. Harold R. Denton's November 20, 1982 memorandum to all NRR Personnel. This request includes any drafts of the November 20, 1982 memorandum which were written during the formulation of the document.

2. All documents, in the custody of the NRC in either draft or final forms, concerning the standard defini-tions for commonly-used safety classification terms written as a result of or in response to the direction of Mr. Harold R.

Denton's November 20, 1982 memorandum to all NRR Personnel.

This request includes any documents suggesting that the subject of Denton's memorandum be considered through rule-making.

l l