ML19257B474
| ML19257B474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257B473 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001160371 | |
| Download: ML19257B474 (4) | |
Text
&
UNITED STATES OF AtiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T'
oeg8 C CP.M:5'SIONERS:
gT Wcy.t-0e m-
~.
Jcseph M. Hendrie, Chairman
- j.j"'", g [9
'f f etcr Gilinsky g
,1cnaro i. rannedy
?eter A 3racford N
p f
ss' John F. Ahea ne 4v; *d
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-34t-
)
PCRTLAfiD GENERAL ELECTRIC CCt1PANY,
)
(Proposed Amendment to Facility
.e.1 al.
)
Operating License NPF-1 *w (Trojan !!uclear Plant)
)
MEMCRANDU;i AND GRDER T.e Nuclear Regulatcry Commission has decided not to review the cecision :f its
- ceal Boart in ALAB-531.
9 !;RC 263 (March 21,1979).
De decisi:n not t-review ALAB-531, as is always the case '.een review is declined, should not be taken to express ?.ny particula. view cn tne merits of any issue raised in this decisior.
Foustc-Lichtico and P wer Cor any (Scuth Texas Project, Units 1 an:
2l, CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 1303,1308 (1977).
Finally, the parties should n:te that ir resocnse to the remand of the Prai-ie Island decision by the U.S. Court of A:oeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in State of Minnesota v. NRC,
.2c
, Mc. 75-1269 (D.C. Cir. May 23, 1979), the Commission has ordered a ceneric proceeding wnich will focus on some of the issues raised by this d eci sion.
For the Commisiton n!
f i
f SAtVEL J. CHILI Secretary of the Commission i
Oatec ar gshingtcn, CC,
-<s rg _ay ofOc=ee,1979 1766 336 80 01168 Kl
SEP;? ATE VIEWS OF C051'SIONER 3RACFORD This case raisas the issue of when a safety commitment made by an applicant in an coerating license proceeding should become a technical saecificatien and tnerefore a condition of the operating license.
It is an issue of importar.:e because the standard adopted will partially govern the extent to which applicants must comply with their own commit-ments, on which the Boards, the NRC staff, and other parties have relied.
Non-cccpliance wi-" = -ehnical specification would recuire soecifi:
i : mediate action ny the licensee, pro ably involving reports to tne C:m.ission.
Enforce en: ac-icn could follow.
If on the other hand, a ccm.itmen coes not become a technical specification, the licensee may crerate the facility in non-cenformity with the cemitment, unless scecifically directed.otherwise by the Commission or its staff, as long as the non-: nfor-ity c:es not involve an unreviewed safety cuestion as defined by the re ulations.' The non-confonnities must be reported to the Com-ission an.ually.
Additionally, if a commitment is recuired to be: cme a tecnnical s;ecification, tnen any change in that technical s:ecificati:n rec.; ires an o;erating license amendment for which an interested party may request a hearing as of right.
Atomic Energy Act, gy Section 189, 42 U.S.C. 2239.
(g e- --
us,u m.
5'.,
0C.719 137:
D.fi %
An urreviewe safety q;estion occurs "(i) if the probacility cf
\\
cc:u rence c me : nsecuences of an accident er mal # unction cf N
D 9
ec;i: ment im:c.an c safety :reviously evaluated in the safet.
i anal sis re: r: may be increasac; or (ii) if a possibility for 'an
/
a icer.t or ca'.#un:: ion of a ci#ferent type dan any evaluated creviously in me safety analysis report may be created; or (i.ii) if me marci. :# safety is defined and the basis for any tec'hdical spe:ificati:n is recucad."
J[ff g7 The fact is that a safety commitment which was not a technical soecification might not be complied with if the licensee decided that the non-cenformance was not an unreviewed safety question and if NRC review did not catch indications to the contrary.
Accordingly, the standard which is used for determining when a commitment should become a technical specification is crucial.
The Appeal Board concluded that:
"[T]he contemplation of both the Act and the regulations is that technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the imposition of rigid conditions and limitations upon reactor operations is deemed necessary to obviate the cossibility of an abnomal situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the cubiic health and safety."
9 NRC 253, at 273.
It is not clear that the "k. mediate threat" standard is consistent with the recuirements of the At mic Energy Act.
The plain tenns of Section 182(a) may recuire that the technical specifications include more than those commitments relating tc immediate safety threats.
Before a licensee can significantly depar: from the procedures and specifications which form
- ne basis for granting the original license, the public as well as the Ccemission should have an c?portunity to review the proposed changes.
The Apoeal Board's ruling that periodic NRC review is adequate to assure safety wnen the licensee makes changes that do not involve immediate threats overlooks the fact that no public right to a hearing exists unless the matters at issue are technical specifications..
Given the importance of the issue and the significant uncertainty surrounding the Appeal Board's decision, the Commission decision not to take review shirks its duty to oversee the adjudicatory process.
The asser:icn that the issue should be considered generically ignores the fact that tnese parties shcule have a right to a decision reflectinc 1766 338
f' nil Comnission policy now.
The Commission's failure :o review denies Cregor. such a decision in this case.
It leaves in place a questionable standard to be applied pending the outcome of the generic review.
Past C mission inacticn on issues of this type shows that this period of tira could run for years.*
Furthermore, the Commission has not even cc:citted itself to a rulemaking on this issue where all interested persons, including Gregon, could participate.
It has only ordered a brisfin; by tne Commission staff, one of the parties in this case.
In sr.or, :he :canission has cgain resorted to the pattern of refusing t:
cecide an inmediately pending question, frustrating the immediate con-cer.s of Orsgon anc those of other parties in future cases in wnicn tne A paal Boar: standard will ce applied pending the out:::e of a prolon;ed generi: res'ew.
Commissioner Gil'insky agrees with the opinions expressed in these separate vie s.
- n 1971 the Ccamission published for comment a proposed rule cealin; with how Class 9 accidents should te oeal: with in en-cironmental itoa : s a:ements.
To date, tne Commission his nei:ner ado::E: nor rejected ne procosed rule.
1766 339