ML19339A077
| ML19339A077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1976 |
| From: | Hollander C, Sidebotham D NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SAFE POWER FOR MAINE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A076 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010310721 | |
| Download: ML19339A077 (6) | |
Text
.--
(~
f s
BEPORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COMXISSION In the Matter of Yr." ZEE ROUE NUCLEAR P2 ACTOR
)
Docket No. 50-27 and VERZONT YD."4EE NUCLEAR P2 ACTOR Docket No. 50-271 and Y.AINE YMTZEE NUCLEAR IEACTOR
)
Docket No. 50-309 LTJ ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, INC.
AND SAFE POUER FOR MAINE P2 QUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SUOW CAUSE Parsuant to $ 2.206 and $ 2.202 (f), the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,Inc.(NECNP)andSafePowerforMaine(SPM)herebyrequestthatan crder to show cauce be issued, effective icrediately, against Yankee Rowe, 7er=nt Yankee and Maine Yankee to revoke or suspend their operating licenses
=til such time as the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is satisfied thattheseplantsareinconpliancewith10CFR950.36(a),
50.36(c)(3) and (5), their technical specifications, and Design Criterion No.1 (10CFRPart50AppendixA).
In cn April 9,1976 letter to Mr. D. E. Vandenburg, Vice President of Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Victor Stello, Jr., Director of the Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, wrote:
8uoan 72/
a 1..
V i
l.
?ne purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention specific facts on the inordinate prolonged efforts to bring about docketing by Yankee Ato:ic Electric Cc:pany of an acceptable operational Quality Assurance Progrs=
and to request Yankee's action for a more titely completion of these efforts.
On February 22, 1973, Yankee sub=itted its " Operational Qurslity Assurance Manual" for Yankee-Rowe for our review.
In our letter dated June 19, 1974, we advised you that your sub=ittal was not sufficient to provide an operational QA progrcs description that met current NRC requirements and we included a request for additional info =ation. Daring a meeting on September 24, 1974, your staff agreed either to provide the info =ation by Nove=ber 1,1974, for Yankee Rowe or to sub=it by Kay 1, 1975, a topical QA program that could be applied to all Yankee facilities.
In April 1975, Yankee sub=itted a revised report which described your operational QA progra= for the Yankee-Rowe facility. However, you advised us that upon our acceptance of this QA program it would also be applied to your Kaine Yankee and Vemont Yankee facilities. ':terefore, we considered it appropriate to include the report in our topical report review program.
Fro our review of your sub ittal, we found it inadequate to satisfy the NRC's requirecents for an acceptable QA program description.
Daring a ceeting on March 16, 1976, your staff indicated that because of shortage of =anpower... Yankee was unable to meet the March 1, 1976, date for submittal of the revised topical QA program and they proposed an extension of the submittal date to January 1, 1977.
In light of the above facts, farther delay of your sub=ittal of the revised topical QA program as proposed by your staff is unacceptable to us. We believe that with reasonable effort your submittal can be significantly crpedited. We therefore request that you sub=it the revised QA progra= description not later than August 1,1976.
_3_
Mr. Stollo's state =ent that the three plants have no acceptable Quality I
Assurance Progra: represents the Staff's dete=ination that they are not in co:pliance with the required Quality Assurance arogram, Criterion No.1 i
(10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A), and also with 10 CFR 9 50.36 (a), and 50.36(c)(3)and(5).
The significance of hcving an approved quality assurance plan as a precondition to continued operation of a facility cannot be overstated. In 3
Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, AIA3 - 124, RAI - 7/-5, 358, 361, the Appeal Board held that:
...(T)heStaffstressedthat"qualityassurancefordesign,
=anufacture and operation" is one of the crucial factors which pe mits a high degree of assurance that potential accidents have an extro:ely low probability (Staff's ProposedFindings,p.16).
L'e share the Staff's expres:ed concern for proper quality as::urance.
In light of the paramount importance of quality assurance matters, we are reviedrg on our own motion the Board's rejection of the proposed quality assurance findings.
The Appeal Board goes on to cite a portion of its decision in the =atter of
]
Consu=ers Power Co. (Fddland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB - 106, RAI 3, p.182(March 26,1979):
No QA program is self-executing. Thus, irre:;pective of how cc=prehensive it :ay appear en paper, the progra:
will be essentially without value unless it is ti=ely, continuously and properly imple:ented. This being so, it sec=s to us to follow that it is not enough for a licensing board to satisfy itself that, if i=ple=ented, the progra doccribed in the PSAR will adequately protect the health and safety of the public. At least where, as here, there has been a legiti ate question raised in the
course of the proceeding, the board must go on to inquire into whether there is, in fact, a reasonable assurance that the applicant and its architect-engineer will carry out the program in accordsnee with its terms.
And, if the inquiry leads it to conclude that the record does not per=it an affinative finding on that score, it then becomes the board's responsibility to take whatever action is required -- including possibly the outright denial of the construction per=it - tc provide some measure of assurance that there will not be an improperly constructed facility which might present safety proble=s.
(E=phasis in original; footnote c itted.)
Af ter this quote from Midland,' the Appeal Soard for Vemont Yankee went on to conclude, Ver:ont Yankee Nucl~ ear Power Corporation,curra, at page 362:
Here, for all that 'ppears in the record, the situation is just a
as serious as that presented in Midlnnd. While we were concerned there that a satisfactorily-drawn program was not being implemented, here there is no record evidence that a satisfactory progras even exists. What appears in the record is that, at least as late as January 10, 1973, when the staff filed its proposed findings, the program was believed to be unsatisfactory in a nunber of significant respects. Yet the plant had been operating since September 7,1972, and had been authorized to operate at full power since October 1972.
In these circumstances, we need not deterrine whether the Licensing Board was technically correct in its view inat the October 25 letter was not in the record. In all events, the' Board should have resolved this most grave =atter which had been raised by the parties -- reopening the record, if dee=ed necessary for this purpose, on its own motion.3 In light of this finding, the Appeal Board concluded in Vermont Yanken Nuclear Corporation, Power /suora at p. 362:
3
... In our view the Board... r:n,ld have refused to authorize wereresolvedontherecord;gtnequalityassurancematters issuance ~of the license unti it might well have gone beyond that and considered reopening the proceedings which had led to the authorization of the te=porary license.
Thus, an acceptable QA progra= is a crucial condition for finding reasonable l
4 i.
act.urance of adequate protection for the public health and safety. Ynile these reactors may have had such reasonable assurance when they were first allowed to operate, they do not have it now. As the Suprese Court observed in Power Reactor Development Co. vs.
ElectricalVorkersInt',Ly 367U.S.396,408(1961):
... Nuclear reactors are fast-developing and fast-changing.
Ynat is up to date now may not, probably will not, be as acceptable tomorrow.
This principle is codified in 10 CFR Section 50.100 authorizing inter alla revocation of an operating license where facts becoce known subsequent to its issuance which, if they had been known originally, would have prevented the issuance of the operating license. Clearly, Mr. Stello's conclusion that the Yankee Atomic quality assurance program is not acceptable is such a subsequent arising fact which would have prevented a previous issuance of a license.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporat'c o sutra; Consumers Power Company, (Kidland),sunrn.
Yankee Ato:ic's letter of April 27, 1976 to the NRC indicates that they are unable to decide what is required of them to have an acceptable quality assurance program. This confusion does not relieve the= of the consequences which we urge here but makes those consequences even = ore imperative. If there is no standard which can be cet and which establishes an adequate QA program, then not only is Yankee Ato:ic operating illedally but so is every other reactor in the count:y. The absence of a standard of acceptroility for quality assurance, given the crucial role that quality assurance plays in reactor safety, is a totally unacceptable situation. The Atomic Energy Act requires that the NRC
4 adopt regulations "in order to enable it to find" that there is adequate protection for the health and safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. Section 2232 (a). If no clear requirc ent exists for the quality casurance program for reactors, then these all currently operating reactors and the NRC are in violation of the explicit requirements of the Ato:ic Energy Act.
The Staff knows that it can not now accept Yankee Ato:ic's quality assurance program. Therefore it is clear that if 1.asign Criterion No.1 and also 10CFR650.36(a)and 50.36(c)(3)and(5)areproperlyapplied,the unavoidable conclusion is that Yanlee Ato ic ziuclear plants must be, shut down now until they can comply with safety regulations, We now request, in the face of these findings and based upon them, that the Regulatory Staff i::ediately issue a show cause order to Yankee Rowe, FaineYankeeandVer:ontYankee,andpursuanttoSection2.202(f), order
-heir inrediate shutdown, Vertont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation ALA3 - 138,
?Z 7, 520, 528 - 29 Respectfully submitted, kA hc_, !
di.w-31ana P. Sidebotham, President New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc.
Box 637 Brattleboro, Ver=ont 05301 (802)257-0336 h
Cali Eollander, President Safe Power for Maine Stockten Spd ngs, Maine 04931 (207)S67-3666 June 11,1976