ML20005A445
| ML20005A445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1981 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A442 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106300340 | |
| Download: ML20005A445 (7) | |
Text
, -= a, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
(Brunswick Steam Elec:ric Plant, ) Docket Nos. 50-325 & 50-324 Unit Nos. I and 2) )
PETITION FOR HEARING ON ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.204 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ("CP&L" or
" Licenses") hereby requests a hearing for the purpose of reviewing the terms and conditions of the Order for Modification ' Licer.4e for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Udt No. 1 and Unit No. 2 dated October 24, 19 80, as said Orders have been expanded and modified by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Safety Evaluation Report ("SER") pertaining to the environmental qualification of safety-related electrical squipment for each unit which was transmitted to Licensee by letter dated June 3,1981 and ' received on June 5, 1981. The issues raised for consideration are (1) whether Licensee is required to comply with the SER, and, if so, whether the SER properly interprets and applies the D0R guidelines referenced in the October 24, 1980 Orders and (2) whether all safety-related electrical equipment should be qualified by June 30, 1982 as required by Section IV of the October 24, 1980 Orders for Modification and the SER letter of transmittal.
I.
Backarcund The events leading up to the issuance of the October 24, 1980 Orders for Modification are succinctly summarized in the Orders as follows:
On November 4,1977, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed with the t'ommission a " Petition for Emergency and Ren.edial Relief." Tia petition sought action in two areas: fire protection foi electrical cables, and environmental qualification of electrical components.
y 1 ()6 3 083Y%L m
By Memorandum and Order dated April 13 1978 (7 NRC 400), the Commission denied certain aspects of the petition and, with respect to other aspects, ordered the NRC staff to take several related actions. UCS filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 2,1978.
By Memorandum and Order, dated May 23, 1980 (11 NRC 707 (1980)], the Commission reaffirmed its April 13, 1978 deciaion regarding the possible shutdown of operating reactors. However, the Commission's May 23, 1980 decision directed licensees and the NRC staff to undertake certain actions.
' With respect to environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, the Commission determined that the provisions of the two staff documents -
the Division of Operating Reactors " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" (DOR Guidelines) and NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," December 1979.. ." form the requirements which licensees and applicants must meet in order to satisfy those aspects of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A General Design Criterion (GDC-4),
which relate to environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment." The Commission directed, for replacement parts in operating plants, "unless there are sound reasons to the contrary, the 1974 standard in NUREG-0588 will apply." The Commission .
also directed the staff to complete its review of . .
the information sought from licensees by Bulletin .79-01B...and to complete its review of environmental .
qualification of safety-related electrical equipment in all operating plants, including the publicatior.
of Safety Evaluation Reports, by February 1. 1981.
The Commission imposed a deadline that, "by no later than June 30, 1982 all safety-related electrical equipment in all operating plants shall be qualified to the DOR Guidelines or NUREG-05bS." [At 1-2; emphs. sis added, footnote critted].
By way of implementing the Commission's May 23, 1980 Order to the Staff--it has no direct applicability to Licensees--the October 24th Orders for Modification required CP&L no later than June 30, 1982 to qualify all safety-related electrical equipment to the standards in the Division of Operating Reactors Guidelines l
for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment i
in Operating Reactors (" DOR Guidelines") or NUREG-0588 Interim Staff Position l on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment (December i
l
1979) ("NUREG-0588") . It is clear that only the DOR Guidelines apply to operating plants. The two exceptions are replacement equipment and equipment wh.ch does not meet DOR Guidelines. In those two situations NUREG-0588 must be followed. It is also clear that' timely issuance of the SER was , and is, an integral and essential part of the over-all regulatory scheme contemplated by the Commission in its May 23, 1980 Order to the Staff. See 11 NRC 714-15.
II.
Licensee Has Right to a Hearing Af ter Icauance of the SER but Prior to Modification of Equipment A quick reading of the Commission's May 23, 1980 Order shows that standards for the environmental qualification of electrical equipment are in a state of flux and subject to change. See 11 NRC 711-12. In light of this , the Commission sought in its Order to accomplish three things. First, it sought to force the gathering of necessary data to permit a complete Staff review of the statas of the environmental qualification of electrical equipment at each operating plant. Second, it sought to force the Staff to complete by an early date its plant by plant evaluation, which the Commission obvioucly believed was taking too long. Third, it sought to force Licensees to expeditiously correct deficiencies identified in the Staff SER. These are sequential steps designed to lead to early assurance of full qualification of essential electrical equipment. If modifications were intended by the Commission to be made bafore the Staff review was completed, there of course would have been no urgency or need for setting a February 1,1981 deadline for the completion of SER's.
While there was opportunity for requesting a hearing at the time the October 24 Orders for Modification were issued, it was not possible at tt tt time to identify all issues in dispute since the full Staff requirements could not be ascertained until the SER had been issued. Moreover, until the Staff position became known it was not possible to iscertain whether.
necessary modifications could be made by June 30, 1982. Consequently, a hearing prior at least to ascertaining the Staff's initial position would be without substance or meaning. It follows, therefore, that an opportunity for hearing must be made available af ter the publication of the SER and prior to the time significant expenditures to achieve compliance by June 30, 1982 are required (assuming, for the sake of argument, that compliance is physically possible by that date, which may not be the case) .
III.
The SER Modifies and Expands the October 24 Orders for Modification and Raises Material Issues which Require Hearing and Review There are serious questions surrounding the validity of the conclusions reached in the SER. If it accurately reflects the intent of the October 24,1960 Orders for Modification, it greatly expands the scope of the requirements beyond ,those which reasonably could be assumed from a mere reading of the Orders and the DOR guidelines. Among other things,
- 1. The SER requires that equipment be qualified to a different, and more conservative, maximum temperature than required by the DOR guidelines.
1 Indeed, CP&L understands that the few Licensees who did request hearings at the i time the October 24, 1980 Order for Modification sas issued have been told to wait until 30 days after the SER is issued and to renew the request at that time.
In fact, the most appropriate time for nearing may be followins the Staff's review of the additional response it has required Licensee to suu.:.ft within 90 days from the date of 'eceipt of the SER. However, due to the lateness of the Staff's SER for Brunswick (which was to havc been available by February l
1,1981) postponing a hearing on the reasonab'.eness and necessity of the June 30, 1982 final compliance date seriously prejudices Licensee.
l l
- 2. The SER totally ignores important information previously supplied to the staff, is not explanatory of said deficiencies, and is contradictory within itself, thus causing confusion for the Licensee. For example, the SER acknowledges that Brunswick does not utilize chemical spray within containment.
Yet, in at least forty different instances, equipment
- - is declared to be deficient due to not being qualified for chemical spray. In other instances. NRC concerns with the Licensee's qualificction method are indicated; however, no specific deficiencies are noted. It is necessary that specific noncompliance be identified before the Licensee can determire a plan for corrective actions.
- 3. The SER transmittal letter asserts that the Licensee is responsible for assuring "that the qualification deadline is met for all safety-related equipment" and that "Scaff review of [ Licensee's] response to the SER should not delay any action which is required in order to meet the decdline." The SER, however, is to a large extent in the nature of a request for information, euch of which has been supplied already but not reviewed, rather than the definitive description of the correctite action required to be completed by June 30, 1982 which the Commisalon's l
l May 23,1980 Orders contemplated. The SER, therefore, vastly expands the scope of the October 24, 1980 Orders for Modification by expecting corrective action to precede definitive Staff guidance.
-5 1
I
- 4. The SER requires a listing of control room display instrumentation referred to in plant Emergency Procedures, and justification if the equipment is not considered to be safety-related. IE Bulletin 79-01B only requires infor-macion on equipment subject to a harsh environment. - Control room instrumentation is not subjected. to such an environment. .
Additionally. the assertion that an instrument is safety-related because it is mentioned in an Emergency Procedure goes far beyond the' scope of the May 23 and October 24 Orders and IE Bulletin 79-013.
i Under the circumstances, and in view of the confusion which prevails, a hearing is absolutely necessary in order to determine precisely what is now required by the October 24, 1980 Orders for Modification and to' determine the earliest date compliance can reasonabl" be required.
IV. .
Conclusion
, Because new end material issues of fact, law and discretion have been
'i raised by the issuance of the Staff SER for Brunswick Unit Nos.1 and 2, CP&L is entitled to a hearing as a matter of right pursuant to 10 CFR $2.204.
CP&L is further entitled to a hearing as a matter of administrative due process in order to obtain declaratory relief and to test the reasonableness of rbe June 30,1982 compliance deadline in light of the belated, incomplete, and imprecise SER, since the Commission clearly contemplated that a detailed SER would be available to Licensee for definitive guidance prior to taking corrective action.
Finally, and in the alternative, Licenace respectfully prays for leave l
to file a late request for hearing on the original iseuance of the October j..
~
24 Order for Modification based on good cause shown and the changed circisnstances 4
occasioned by the untimely and incomplete nature of the SER.
Respectfully submitted, e
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAhT By: -
Richard E. Jones Associate General Counsel Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: 919/836-6517 Dated thisM ' ll day of June,1981.
d 9
4
. . . _ . - . . . _ _ _ . . - - . .