ML20038C018

Objects to TB Conner 811109 Ltr Requesting Immediate Return of All Copies of Fault Trees Prepared as Part of Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment,As Improper & Unlawful.Request Constitutes Demand for Termination of NRC Review

ML20038C018
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/13/1981
From:	Elliott C THOMAS & HAIR
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NUDOCS 8112090424
Download: ML20038C018 (3)

Text

-  ;

THOMAS AND HAIR.m ATTORNEYS AT LAW '" U C sulTE 101 123 NORTH FIFTH STREET .

ALLENToWN PENNsYLVANIM 8 EB -7 P4 :20 M . - , TELE *NONE JOHN P. THOM AS - e"# 7 - ,' 7.5,.

CH ARLES J. H AIR (2153821 8100 l P E N N A. N.Y.I bY"A CH ARLES W. ELLIOTT BRANCH WILLIAM M. THOMAS November 13, 1981

, Of s

\

Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for

/Q (4( w

[gT .

operations -j 493 7 - j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory a DE03 . ,7 ;; ;

Commission ki u+"MS,# q N

Washington,D.C. 20555 1 ,3 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Dircks:

I am in receipt of a copy of correspondence dated Noverter 9, 1981, to you from Troy B. Conner, Esquire, Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company regarding the transmission of detailed fault trees prepared as part of the Limerick Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and his request that all copies of the fault trees be returned to the Company immediately. As Mr. Conner's letter notes, as co-counsel for Limerick Ecology Action, petitioner to intervene in the Limerick proceeding, I requested access t,o the fault trees to permit expert review.

Mr. Conner's request for immediate return of all copies of fault trees is clearly improper and unlawful.

As you kndw, the Commission required PRAs to be performed for Indian Point, Zion, and Limerick due to the potential for disproportionate societal risk created by these plans' proximity to high population areas. The Commission required the PRAs to be performed and submitted to it as necessary for staff review of these plants, including Limerick. See April 30, 1980 Memorandum for Mr. Denton, D3 i

Director, NR'R from Brian Grimes.

g$ '

, I,

-8112090424 811113 -

PDR ADOCK 05000352 PDR r i

Mr. William J. Dircks November 13, 1981 Mr. Conner's request for return of all copies of the PRA constitutes a demand for termination of staff review of vital information necessary for a determination of whether the operation of Limerick poses an undue risk to the public. Mr. Conner's request for termination of this staff review is accompanied by no justifying reasons other than a bald claim that this information, provided to the NRC by its request for a safety review, is now to be conside, red

" proprietary".

That was not the reason for which PECO originally requested the fault trees be withheld. The original request to withhold the fault trees was specifically based on " security reasons," under S 2.790 (d). It is now apparent that the Commission itself considers such a " security" claim to be meritless.

I note also that while Mr. Conner requests the return of the copies of the fault trees which were submitted to the Commission, and which have been in the pocsession of the Commission for many months now, that the fault trees are already subject to Limerick Ecology Action's request for access to them, which I forwarded by letter dated October 27, 1981. I attach a copy of that request.

Philadelphia Electric Company is apparently attempting to subvert the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by untimely requesting return of all copies of the fault trees even though the fault trees are already subject to an FOIA claim for' access. I must insist that the Commission retain the fault trees pending its determination of Limerick Ecology Action's request for access.

In addition, with respect to the merits of the

• claim of Philadelphia Electric Company that the fault trees

.. are " proprietary", I would like to briefly note that:

(1) PECO's earlier reliance on " security reasons" as a reason to withhold the fault trees belies its late-asserted belief that the information is "prcprietary" information of GE; (2) It is difficult to conceive how fault trees, generated as part of a risk assessment, constitutes anything other than safety information which it is within the Commission's power to require; I , x

Mr . William J..Dircks November 13, 1981 (3) Philadelphia Electric Company offers nothing upon which its claim that the fault trees as proprietary can be justified. In fact, assuming that " proprietary" means

" trade secrets and commercial or financial information"-

within the meaning of 10 CFR S 2.79 (a) (4), such a claim is patently false, given the essential nature of fault trees.

In fact, Limerick Ecology Action has information which would lead one to the conclusion that the sole reason for PECO's attempt to prohibit public disclosure of the fault trees is to permit it to sell them for financial gain to subsequent owners of GE reactors. -

For all of these reasons, I request that the Commission reject Philadelphia Electric Company's demand that the Commission terminate the review and return all copies of the fault trees; I further renew my request on behalf of Limerick Ecology Action that I have access to these fault trees.

Very truly yours,

,, ac e b., Y CHARLES W. ELLIOTT CWE:seh cc: Harold R. Denton ,

Judy Dorsey Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire O

e r

.-_. . - . _ . -_ __ _ - , _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._.