ML20126M196
| ML20126M196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106120304 | |
| Download: ML20126M196 (14) | |
Text
,
BD 6/9/81
" a e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E %'% -t
- 2. }lJg ; -. 6'.
T Cm)..,U' " I O 19 Q * ~-
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,
gj): 7*,9 k, :
g Before Administrative Judges: * ,f, Ivan W. Smith, Chairman y '
Or. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda W. Little -
SER'e ,e g In the Matter of )
Nl
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)
Station, Unit 1) )
June 9,1981 CONFIRMATORY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON RULINGS MADE AT JUNE 4,1981 HEARING SESSION For the reasons stated on the record of the June 4,1981 hearing session, the board ruled on several pending motions, as follows:
- 1. The motion of UCS to require further evidence on the subject of ;
PORV block valve testing was denied. (Tr . 21, 836-38) . l
- 2. The motions of Mr. Sholly to take official notice of various matters, including portions of NUREG-0667 and a review of the B&W ICS analysis, were denied. (Tr. 21, 838-40) .
- 3. The motion of UCS to take official notice of the failure rates for diesel generators reported in WASH-1400 was denied. (Tr. 21, 840-41). I l
pg k N i
\
,- J c, .
nosnox4 L 4 @l4 gg+
e%f 5%
{
l i
l In addition, the board admitted licensee's Restart Report, as amended ,
through, amendment number 25, into evidence as licensee exhibit 1. Due to l i
the faci. that the Restart Report had been recently amended, its admission into evidence was made subject to a timely objection or other request for relief. (Tr. 21 830-35) . Any such motions received by the Chairman after ,
June 19,1981 will be untimely. The timeliness of motions received by ,
June 19 will be determined on an individual. basis. ,
Copies of the transcript pages referenced above, Tr. 21, 830-41, are ,
attached for the covenience of the parties.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A84 airman Ivan W. Smytn ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland June 9,1981 .
I v
.3,. - -- . _
. ,-..__m - , - , , , . - - e, - ,,,.. - - - . .,
21,830 1 M2. ZAHLI3s
.o-her item on my list was ;utting r
- - 2 the Licensees Es art Report into evidence.
, O 4
3 ER. TROWBRIDGE:- Mr. Chairman, we have the three
'I'.
A copies of the Rests:ct Report, four vclumes each in boxes in
.r.;22 = They have been updated through the last and r.Q; $ 5 the other room.
.h1 We could dump them on the 6 final amendment, Amendment 25.
.;7y3
, r.- .:.W If necessary, we e
Addy . ,
t 7 reporter 1:f she is able to handle them.
...., j
,i;.". ';
8 might go off the record and determine some other way of w;
9 deliverring' them.
5Mlc. .
Of course . th e one in the hea ring
.- y CHAIEMAN SEITH:
10 f :
W e don ' t k now if 11 room is a loaner copy from the Licensee.
12 that one is up to date or not.
I doubt if it is. ,
\
My understanding is that it does l
- .$ ' ' 13 EE. TR07BEIDGE:
have either Amendment 2n or 25 yet.
' " ' ' 14 not for does our copy in Bethesda.
15 CHAIRMAN SEITHs I
16 Therefore, it would be helpful if one of these three, if we it to the
- 17 conit take it and be responsible for delivering So if you could deliver one o-18 Secretary when ve finish it.
19 the three.
20 Tou probably don't have a lot of those , do you?
Just three copy of the Bestart 21 ER. TROE33:DGIs which have been completed with the 20 Report in the ether room P
23 n ew anendments put in and checked.
Y our request is for an additional copy?
24 CHA!3 MAN SM;;5:
Well, on: request is either if 25 CERSoN RE*oA 1NG COM9 &NV, !NO.
~ ' ~ - . . . . . - . . ., _
X@4 (882) 554 :345
.p 29,831 1 rou have an additional copy, yes, it would be helpful. If 2 rou do not have an additional, then if you could deliver one 3 of the three official exhibits to the Board for its use 4 d urin g the decision and we vocid then return it to the 5 Commission, th e S e cr et ary , when we are completed with it.
~
6 E-R . TROWBRIDGZ4 That is fine.
7 CHAIREAN SEITH2 The other two with coordination e with the reporter can be delivered to the Secretary.
8 CHAIREAN SEITH: Let's do that. We vill return 10 this one nov, constructively as of now, and then if you 11 could follow that procedure, give one of the updated ones to 12 us. Dr. Little has one completed through 24 25, as I 13 r e c all, is rather substantial, isn't it?
14 ER. TROWERIDGE: Yes.
l 1
15 CHAIREAN S!!IHs I think it would be very helpful i
16 if we could have one that we know to be com plete and '
17 accurate .
6 18 ER. T20WERIDGE4 I take'it the Board has received i 19 it in evidence. .. l t ! -
20 ER. AD1IR: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of j ll 21 comme,nts to make on that. The Co=monwealth of course II
-1 22 d o e sn ' t object to th e Restart Report being introduced into i
\
'J1 l
l 23 evidence. However, the Board is aware that it is a very l ?
I 24 dif ficcit document to keep up with all the in f o rm a;i o n .
25 Amendments 24 and 25 have come very, very recently, =_
s.---- u i - ma'r--wew-e *a A e-vew-W---*e-e w+e-e _tr-we--.*a-e-+**- . . . . - - - - -d
- i l
1 particularly Amendment 25. I know that 5 . Dornside ha s not 25.
2 had an-opportunity to review Amendment
,j;[ .
In addition, I wonid point out that the Restart
.-2 ;
3
.c r every party and every issue in the l
' Report affects probably
.{, ; of the parties aren't here to object, to i
- A. 5 proceeding and many l
.'::n be in Amendments 2u and 25 6 any ne'v information that might W.i.. . j I would propose is that we have perhaps
%*W 7 So what
.g .n 8 two.veeks, that the Restart Report be introduced i 7" q A the parties can file any written ,
.-vj p',=*
9Lconditionally and that
- t. ee time period.
10 consents or objections within that Er. Cha.irman, I think this falls 11 ER. TROWBRIDGI4 12 in the same category as the staff's Safety Evaluation TS AR vould in the no rmal o;ierating 13 Reports or as the PS AR c: that 14 license proceeding.
That is, I think it is sufficient was sent in under I believe 15 the Bestate Report was prepared,
.. of the officials. cf the company and 16 under oath and affidavit 17 that it belongs in evidence. a case Now, like the SERs, if a party makes out 18 in some way, eopening .of the proceeding 19 t ha t this calls f or It shouldn't happen here because 20 that is always fair game.
com;3.lation of amendments to l 21 the Restart Repo:t rea.11y is 22 it or a com pilation of the commitments we have made to the but !
. are nov reflected in SIRS and testimony, 23 staff which that there is something to be 24 von't rule out the possibility I think it should go ints 25 regarded as new material but CERSoN AEPoAttNG 00MP ANY. !NC, 2 20D 554 :345
- ~ ~- -~ ~ ~ ~ --- - -- _. , ~.
400 v1AGtNtA AVE S.W W ASMNG70N. 0.C 20C 4 (
29,833 i
4 i f .
1 evidence, I Well, I don't think there is an i 2 CHAIREAN SEITH: _
A motion to reopen a record normalir 3 objection to that. l than the request made by Er.
4 v.ould reqtire a larger shoving l the circumstances were 5 A dler . Perhaps when we consider what -l might be that that shovine is not so 6 of Amendment 25 it !;
7 graat that there is no practical difference . !
8 So I think the better approach is to receive it i f
a motion to reopen the record vocid have :
9 into avidence, but liness. These i
10 to be :cdged upon the normal standards of time l veichted so accurately that I can't see 11 thincs cannot be iil.
V E
12 which as One prejudicial or which is nonprejud c a p lnc 13 So it is received, '
D (The amended u Volumes of the ,
g.
14 Licensee's Bestar- Report, ):
6 15 (
previously identified as i i ,
16 1, vere l $
Licen see Exhibit No.
17 f f j received into evidence.) ) P 18 9l q l E . Chairman, I don't have anything 19 ER. ZAHLE34 "[l rl for schedulinc and sece tatters that i
[
20 else on =7 list but I
21 fall out of scheduling. in items. ! , -i 1 Did you say you have l l CH AIR E AN SE!!Hz i 22 ( .' '
23 an only down to 11. One is [l ER. ZAH1ER I think I said I had 13 i .
24 are So l;:
OVo ma tte rs tha t 26 S ch ed41100 aOd there a re i.f i
e ALOER$0N R$8cETINo OOMP ANY. !NO,
.s g
- ~ ~ ~ ~ - . . . , _ . _ ~ - - - ~ .. _
__ ~ - - - ~ . _.____. '*""^m 2m,
l
.. l
,c e
21,83u
]
1 intrinsically vound up with scheduling that it doesn't pay
- 7 2 to. discuss them unless we discuss scheduling.
"' 3 .
CHAIREAN SEITH: Ih e R esta.:t B e po rt has already
- .q.,
' been identified as Licensee Izhibit 1 at tran sc ript 2,881.
~~
5 .Ne1.1, is it the pleasure of the parties to try to gr .. -
~
.'... '6 irind up our business this evening?
1 a +! .
9 7 ER. TROWBRIDGE: That vocid be our preference
'. .; 8 IS. GAIL 3RADF0ED: Tes. ,
9 ES. STRAUBIs res, sir.
to CHAIEEAN SEITT., Everyone's.
11 EE. TROFBRIDGI4 Could I ask the Board, is it the
- 12 Board's intention todar to rule on the adequacy od the IIA? ,
13 CHAIREAN SEITH No. We do have some otbe:
q ,. .
14 pending motions, however, that we vant to rule on orally.
15 So let's take a 15-minute break and then we vill 16 come back sad tv about scheduling and clean up our other 17 motions.
18 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) l 19 l 20 t
21 22 23 24 25 l
l
- ' ' ' ~ " - -- - . . - . . .:...,,
- 21,835 1
CHAIRMAN SE!!B: We have some miscellaneous l
2 matters to clear ep. The Board is reconsidering its : cling >
3 on licensee's Exhibit i because of the unnecessa:7 4 com plexity to address the issues which have to be addressed 5 in a motion to reopen the evidentiar7 record, and because it 6 is not necessar7 to :nle in that fashion. We are going to 7 :eceive in evidence, subject to a tisely opportunity of any G 8 party to ask for relief.
1 9
EE. TROW 3 RIDGE s Understood. -1 10 CHAIEEAN SEITH: It is a procedural ; oblem, and /
11 it vill save a lot of writing. ,
>a
\)
12 (;he document referred to, ; ]l
-1 13 previously marked for identi-
.l
-l 14 fication as Lice ns ee 's j 15 Exhibit No. 1, was received t 16 in evidence.) I b
17 CHAIREAN SEITH. If you recali, on May 15, from 7 f
18 tra nscript pages 21,6u1 to .21,677, I served variously in th e f
19 absence of Dr. little and Dr. Jo:Etn as Spe cial Easter, and 20 also as th e Chairman of the Board ; esiding, ruling on the .
21 record when the Board is not in session.
22 I have read those transcript pages, and I have 23 recommended to the other two members of the Board that they !-
24 ac ::ately reflect the evidence received, and I recommended -
25 that the :ulings that I made be adopted by the Board. The l
l
. . . _ . . . _ . _ - . - . . . . _ _ , , _ _ . . _ _ ._ _ . , _ _ ~ . , _ , , , _ . _ , , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
~
J 21g836 {=
r b
w
?1 1 Board nov tecepts those transcript pages as the record of h i e
2 this proceeding, with the exception that Dr. Little vants to was here on page 21,662 So ve vili
!j V
3 knov vho Mr. Bennett t F
r
' cor:ect that transcript to show that it was E:. Brenner who .
Is
. 5 was here, and not 3:. Bennett. 3:. 3:enne: vas noted as '
et
. 6 being Mr. Bennett.
7 The block valve actions, we a:e denying the Union f
8 of Concerned Scientists' action based upon three the 9 considerations. One is the letter from Mr. Baxter that the block j 10 restart test planting specifica tion indicat es that >
11 valve vill be cycled with the PORY opened to confirm its ~
12 ability to close against flov, as he points that the:e is no 13 intent to pass solid water, or two-phased steam.
14 Another consideration is the evidentiary record which t 15 reflects th e role of the FORY and the ' block valve.
16 The third consideration is that it seems to be the 17 understanding of the parties that the test pecoram is '
18 beg inning , and we see no value in pu: suing the matter in an 19 evidentiary record right nov. However, it is possible that ,
l we !
20 when ve conside:
th e issue on th e me rits , af te: i 21 conside:ed the proposed findings, conside:ed the function of i 22 the ?O3V and the block valv e, that we might, in our initial !
l l
23 decision or before, probably in ot: initial decision, !
l 24 recommend to the Connission that the Connission direct the 1 t 25 staff -o report to the Commission conce rnin g th e re sults of i
i I A1. ER$cN REPORT!NG 00M8 ANY. iNO.
~ .-' ---
l t
21,837 I -
l
- 4 i
1 1 tests which would be relevant to this proceeding.
1 As I say, this is a tentative ruling, but the
'a'e j u st nov 3 Soa:d does have concerns about the issue.
we named that
' believe that for the three considerations that this 5 ther vill be resolved in the evid entiary record at -
6 time. i 7 ER. ADLER Could you possibly :epeat the first ,
i 8 g:ound, I did not catch all of it. .
9 CHAIREAN SEITH: There are th ree consid e:a tio n s 10 which lead us to conclude that we vill oct require evidence 11 to be presented on the issue now. You vant th o se th ree:
12 repeated ? -
13 ER. AD1ER: Just the first. ; <
I 14 CHAIRhAN SEITH: The first one is !:. Baxter's , i 15 letter of June i r,t , 1981, that the block valve vill be ! l l
to close 16 cycled with the PORY open to confi:n its ability
[
! l l
l 17 against flow. I Thank you.' :
18 EE. ADLIR: 1:
19 DR. II!!1I It was one of my nain concerns that 20 the block valve and P03Y that is actually in the T!I I be ,
21 d e m on st ra ted that it vill indeed opera te. The motions that 22 were raised concerning the adequacy of the flov r an c e t ests ,
23 and so on, vere of less concern conside rably that that they 24 =igh: reflect oc the safe r of the actual valve that is 25 there, and ve want to make sure that that block valve is
21,838 !
1 indeed test p: lor to restart. '
2 CHAIREAR SEITE:
In sum, ou: ruling on it refleets the problem is one that can be shifted .
3 our belief now that .
F r
4 f rom the short-term consideration to the long-term 5 consideration, pa.rtienla.:17 when you look at the *J1:ee .
i 6 considerations that we have .J.sted.'
7 Official notice - We have E:. Shelly's motion of ..
8 April 28, 1981, to take official, notice on portions of -
1981, with respect to a 9 NUEEG-0 6 67, and a motion of ' Ear 1st ,
L'i 10 OEC1 review of the E CW ana1Ysis of integrated control 41 11 system, in which he is largely concerned aboct a comparison 12 of draf ts with the cricinal .
13 The other item is the Palisades civil penalty
' 14 case, where it was alleged that there is an open valve, and '
tech specs can be violated t 15 h e vishe s to of ficial notice that i 16 b y human erret resulting in defeat of containment I , !
l 17 isolation.
18 This, I might note parenthentically because ve ,
1 l
',i i 19 vill not ce to it in on: : clin g , I an the Administrative i i l
ov er that case , . and indeed that is a l 20 lav Judge presiding 21 very en::ently contested issue, whether the facts he wishes 22 of ficially neticed are, in fact, undisputed.
The third category is the NER status report on 1 J
23 plants. As we ad vised the 24 feedvater transients in 3C7 are denying .h e =o ion for official 25 parties ez lier, ve e sRson asoc e nc : uoinv inc.
. - - - , _ e
~
21,839 l f I i
1
. 1 notice. The basi: problem with Mr. Shelly 's motion is that 2 it is opposed, and when this happens, for all practicti l l
3 purposes, the requests for official notice become very
..y..
.s*:t 4 similar t.o any other off er of evidence.
, n w a.
. W? ,.,~ .
5 We may officia.117. notice scientific f act.s within
.. c.w M.
c es:
r.2 d 6 the knowledge of the Commission as an expert bod 7, but in 7]),j.;;n. . .
7 those instances there must be a f ull opportunity to each
~
- h. E 1 i,/f44, 8 party adversely aff ected to controvert the fact. In this v., . ..
l .g . : 9 instance., not onir de ve have a failure of opportunity to
~~
10 controvert the facts, which were to be official 17 noticed,
- 11 but they are not limited to the category of scientific facts 12 within the knovidpe of the Commission as an expert body.
. .. 13 The,r e are zany items of opinion , and there is a vide a::ar 14 of data, r
15 There is also the type of official notice tha t we l s
16 can take in our proceedings, which equivalent to judicial' l 17 notice that may be taken by United States Courts, and those j 18 f acts must be facts which are not. subject to reasonable 19 dispcte , an d th a t they are general 17,known, c: capable of 20 accurate and readT determination by soc:ces the accuracy of
' 1 21 which cannot reasonabir be questioned. Of course, in this {
12 instance , the facts which !:. Shelly vocid have us ,
l 23 officially notice are reasonably dis;cted. l t
i 24 A p pa re n tly , E:. Shell y did not intend to pursue ,
25 the offer over objections, because he does not address ;
Accensos usc e nc Oc w ANv. e I
$ g +
21,840 1
either standard, nor does h e discuss any opportunity to :
2 controvert the facts he would have us officially notice, no:
3 does he iLscuss the Lssue of tLaeLLness. ^.l 4 I understand that when 5:. Sholly was informed of I 5 this ruling , he said that he vanted to eff ar- this evidence 1 6 nevertheless, and to have it in the rejected evidence file.
7 I prestse that he vill do that when he receives a copy of 8 o n: ruling. !
t t
9 The UCS motion vill have to f ail. The cotion f rom ;;.
to UCS relates to f ailure rates f or diesel generators as I 11 reported in WASH-1400. I don't have those papers. Did 'th e t
12 staf f file a paper in opposition to that official notice, c: ,
n; 13 did you make it orally? ',.
14 ER. TOUETIL10TTI: No, we have not yet filed a 15 res ponse . I think a response is due actually sometine after I
i 16 t od ay , and what we intended to do was simply to try to state !
17 our position c: ally here today. !
18 CHAIEEAN SEITE. Do you oppose it?
19 EE . TOUETILLOTTE: We oppose it, and we oppose it 20 f or basically the same legal reasons as stated in our Shelly 21 b ri e f .
22 CHAIEEAN SEITH: Of course , the licensee does, and 1
23 that goes back to the same problem, wheneve r there is I
24 opposition :e a request to take official notice, you run 1
25 into tra ditional e videntiary problems which pertain to the i l
1 l
l
'(,
' 21,841-1 UASE-1400 study, and in large degree those f acts are f airly 2 disputable, there is no opportunity to controvert them, they 3 are not facts which can be taken within the institutional 4 knowledge of the Commission. To: that reason, we must deny 5 the motion to take official notice.
s However, the Board thinks a note cf caution might 7 be appropriate here. Dr. Jordan, roc vill recall, was 8 sonevhat concerned about the testimony on the reliability of ,
l l
9 die sel generators , and be cross-examined on WASH-1u00.
10 :he:e is a possibility that when we begin to read the l l
}
11 p:cposed findings on the issue, that we night find that we l l
12 sight h a ve difficult in resolving the issue, or deciding the j
13 issue .
14 He have no inclination that var, but ve are just 15 going f rom our memory, from the testimony , and the 16 diffic lty with the testimony. When we read the proposed i 1
I 17 fin dingc , perhaps on: concerns vill be resolved, but perhaps l 18 they might not be.
19 Nov ve have the question of the thyroid.
20 DR. JOEDAN This has~'to do with the Board Order 21 of Zar 13th, and my calculation of the thy cid dose, which 22 ve asked fe: responses. We have recei ved responses from th e 23 staff and from the licensee. The licensee agreed, except 24 for possibly the value of the ene:cy of disintegration. !
25 nave no grief with the particular value ! used, and it makes I
l I
esaseN as*ocNo OcunNY. lNC,
. . "" " " - " * ,y,