ML19350F155

Petition,On Behalf of 18 Licensees Operating &/Or Constructing Nuclear Power Plants,Requesting 13-month Extension Until 830729 for Qualification of safety-related Electrical Equipment Per NUREG-0588 (CLI-80-21)

ML19350F155
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Oconee, Mcguire, Indian Point, Catawba, Harris, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Grand Gulf, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Prairie Island, Columbia, Brunswick, Surry, North Anna, Turkey Point, Robinson, San Onofre, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Quad Cities, Zion, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000496, 05000497, 05000502, 05000471, 05000484, Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop, Perkins, Cherokee, Green County
Issue date:	06/22/1981
From:	Reynolds N ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO., BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO., BOSTON EDISON CO., CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO., DUQUESNE LIGHT CO., FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES, NORTHERN STATES POWER CO., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.), WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO., YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19350F156	List: ML19350F155 ML19350F169
References
RTR-NUREG-0588, RTR-NUREG-588 CLI-80-21, TAC-42493, NUDOCS 8106240280
Download: ML19350F155 (7)

Text

r 6/upt 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,/

/

BEFORE THE COMHIFSION j

N

• \\

w ij'V Qq m 22 m " $ j d.

In the Matter of

)

e, I.I omen d8**

)

3

?p@

/

CLI-80-21, COMMISSION

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

)

g/

/

f.,

A

)

\\g m

PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CLI-80-21 This petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is filed on behalf of 18 NRC Iicensees 1/ that are operating and/or constructing approximately 60 nuclear power reactors pursuant to licenses issued by the NRC.

The petition seeks a thirteen month extension of the June 30, 1982, deadline established by the Commission in CLI-80-21, by which "all safety-related electrical equipment in. operating plants shall be qualified to the DOR Guidelines or NUREG-0588." 2_/

-1/ The petitioners are Arkansas Power & Light Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Boston Edison Company, Carolina Power & Light Compan, Commonwealth Edison Company, Duke Power Company, Duquesne Light Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Northeast Utilities, Northern States Power Company, Power Authority of the State of New York, Southern California Edison Company, Texas Utilities Generating Company, Virginia Electric & Power Company, Washington Public Power Supply System, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Yankee Atomic Electric Company.

2/ 11 NRC 707, 715 (1980).

The DOR Guidelines are the

" Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification

'D.502

~

of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors"

.1 issued by the NRC Division of Operating Reactors, and NUREG-0588 is the " Interim Staff Position on Environmental / [

Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment."

l 8106240 h

I

~.

- I.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE PETITION The petition calls upon the Commission to exercise its inherent authority to consider petitions for generic relief as a matter of discretion.

It invokes the same Commission authority and discretion that the Commission exercised in entertaining and disposing of the petitions filed oy the Union of Concerned Scientists concerning the issues of equip-ment qualification and fire protection. 3/

The Commission should entertain the petition because it seeks generic relief (which is not available elsewhere) from the deadline imposed by the Commission itself.

Since the Commission knposed the deadline, the Staff has taken the position that it "is not authorized to grant relief" from the deadline. 4/

In addition, it is n. cst appropriate from regulatory policy and resource standpoints that the Commission enterir2n the petition and resolve the deadl!ne matter generically (at least at this stage of the process), since it is clear that few, if any, licensees can meet the June 30, 1982 deadline.

The alternative is for the is;ue to be fragmented in case-by-case adjudications before lower tribunals which may or may 3/ CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707 (1980); CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400 (1978);

~

See Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-81-12, 13 NRC (Slip op. at p.

, n.1)

(June 15, 1981).

4/ January 19, 1981, Generic Letter 81-05 from Darrell G.

Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, To All Licensees of Operating Plants and Applicants for Operating Licenses and Holders of Construction Permits.

I L

not believe that they have jurisdiction to alter a deadline imposed by the Commission.

If those tribunals determine th a,t they have such jurisdiction, the likely result without generic guidance from the Commission would be the severe and undue taxing of an already overburdened NRC Staff, the Licensing Board Panel, and these licensees.

If those tri-bunals determine tha t they lack such jurisdiction, then an impasse would be reached and the legitimate concerns and reasonable requests of the regulated community vould receive no consideration (absent piecemeal referrals or certifications to the Commission).

Given these considera-tions, the best approach is for the Commission to exercise its discretion and entertain the petition.

II.

BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED In CLI-80-21, the Commission sought to impose the DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588 as "the requirements which licensees and applicants must meet" in order to demonstrate that Class IE equipment is environmentally qualified in accordance with General Design Criterion 4 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. 5/

In doing so, the Commission established a stringent schedule which placed significant burdans on the resources and manpower of the NRC Staff and these NRC licensees.

That schedule directed the Staf f "to complete its review of environmental qualification, including the publication of Safety Evaluation Reports by February 1, 1981."

The 5/ 11 NRC at 711.

l l

. Commission scheduled an additional 17 months beyond that date (ugtil June 30, 1982) for these licensees to qualify Class IE equipment in accordance with the Commission's direction.

Despite the significant efforts of the NRC Staff and these NRC licensees, it now is clear that the June 30, 1982, deadline cannot be met by any of these licensees to which it applies.

si.,ce the issuance of CLI-80-21 on May 1

27, 1980, these licensees have expend:f hundreds of man-years and tens of millions of dollars in an effort to meet the stringent schedule and technical requirements mandated in CLI-80-21.

Yet it is clear that compliance by the deadline is an impossibility. 6/

In contrast to the Commission's apparent expectations when it established the deadline, the Staff review process has become a broad and complicated task which has taken more time than contemplated.

The Commission apparently contemplated a round of licensee submittals, followed by Staff issuant,e of Safety Evaluation Reports ("SERs") which contained dutxcitive guidance on compliance.

In fact, the process has not worked in that manner.

Pursuant to orders modifying operating licenses issued in October and November 1980, these NRC licensees have prepared licensee qualification submittals for all operating l

6/

See affidavit of W. Wade Larson, Vice President

~

of Engineering Planning and Management, Inc., attached hereto as Attachment A.

5-reactors which were filed on or before November 1, 1980.

These NRC licensees also have prepared responses pursuant to.10 C. F. R. $50.54(f) to the Staff's list of potential deficiencies issued between late February and mid-March 1981.

Safety Evaluation Reports on the environnental qualification issue were issued in late May and early June 1981.

Those SERs identified Class IE equipment (if any) which required imr.:ediate corrective action (Appendix A to SERs), Class IE equipment as to which additional information or corrective action was required (Appendix B to SERs), and Class IE equipment which was considered acceptable or conditionally acceptable (Appendix C to SERs).

In all SERs, there was a substantial number of Appendir. B and C items which,whi s not necessarily unqualified, required additional information.

The SERs required the submittal of this additional information within ninety days of receipt of SERs, a period which will end in late August or early September 1981.

Af ter this additional information is evaluated by the NRC Staff, its conclusiona vill be provided in supplemental SERs 7/ (a process which likely will tab six months).

Only then will these licensees have the appropriate regulatory guidance to proceed with qualification, ceplacement, or reanalysis of Class IE equipment found by the Staff to i

require further action. And only at that point can the 7/

See SERs, ((4.2 and 4.3.

y

~:

i

- 17-month period contemplated by the Commission in CLI-80-21 for licensee compliance following completion of the Staff review begin to run. 8/

obviously, when the commission issued CLI-80-21, it foresaw a much simpler Staff review than has been necessary.

While the Staff has proceeded with all deliberate speed to fulfill the instructions of the Commission in this complex and important area, it simply has not been afforded the time necessary to complete its tasks on the schedule contemplated.

Nor have the delays experienced been attri-butable to shortcomings of these licensees, since each deadline imposed by the Staff in orders modifying operating licenses has been met.

In short, CLI-80-21 was based or. a series of assumptions regarding the length of time needed by the Staff to carry out the directiv.es addressed to it and for licensees to meet the requirements the Staff was to impose on them.

These assumptions have proven to be significantly understated.

III.

RELIEF REQUESTED In view of the foregoing, petitioners request that the commission extend the June 30, 1982, deadline established I

i I

-8/ The Staff in its SER transmittal letters noted that CLI-80-21 required that all Class IE equipment be qualified by June 30, 1982, but that the SERs addressed only such equipment exposed to harsh environments.

The Staff advised that "[t]he NRC review ef fort for the equipment l'n mild environments will be addressed by separate correspondence."

The instant petition relates i

only to compliance with CLI-80-21 as it relates to harsh environments.

in CLI-80-21 to July 29, 1983, a thirteen month extension.

This would account for the unforeseen magnitude of the task imposed on the NRC Staff and these NRC licensees by CLI-80-21, and the fact that the milestone necessary to provide the definitive direction of the regulator to these licensees will be attained thirteen months later than anticipated. 9/

Respect ly st mitted,

\\$

I

~

1 Nichola Reynolds DEBEVO' E(jLIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel to Arkansas Power & Light Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Boston Edison Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Duha Power Company, Duquesne Light Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Mississippi Power & Light Cenpany, Northeast Utilities, Northern States Power Company, Power Authority of the State of New York, Southern California Edison Company, Texas Utilities Generating Company, Virginia Electric & Power Company, Washington Public, Power Supply System, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company.

June 22, 1981

~/ The thirteen month extension is designed te account for 9

the delay from February 1, 1981 (the milestone for completion of Staff review) until March 1, 1982, when the supplemental SERs should be available (allowing six months for issuance of the supplemental SERs following receipt of the responses to SERs).

The seventeen month period contemplated in CLI-80-21 for licensee compliance upon completion of Staff review is calculated from March 1,

1982 to July 29, 1983.

This request for a deadline extension assumes' arguendo the adequacy of the seventeen month period for license compliance.

of course, factors such as the unavailability of qualified equipment or testing facilities may necessitate later case-by-case or generic reviews of the adequacy of that period.

- -. <