ML20041A076
| ML20041A076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1982 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202190060 | |
| Download: ML20041A076 (7) | |
Text
v s
}'
s r
DOCKETED c) 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION RECgyg g
'82 FEB 18 A7 k FEB2 g
~
{b
[7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD brr u
-r-DC7.1 n,t<
sQ
' q, J it? W:
/
In the Matter of
)
' Al
)
~ METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Ibstart)
('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' RESPONSE TO THE STAFF'S PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT PIAN In its PID of December 14, 1981, the Board directed the Staff to provide "the details of its enforcement plan" for ensuring the enforcement of Licensee commitments, Staff requirements, and Board-required conditions that the Board relied upon in recomending that 'IMI-1 be permitted to restart. (PID 1217)
In UCS's view, the Staff's respons d to the Board's directions is on its face grossly inadequate.
The Staff has done little more than restate the requirements listed by the Board in paragraph 1218 of the PID.
'Ihe fact is that,- as of now, there is no comprehensive listing of the many Licensee commitments _/ and Staff requirements upon which the Board relied and which the 2
Board stated are of safety significance. (PID 1204)
As to these Licensee commitments and Staff requirements,/, the Board ruled that it "should not depend 3
7 " Staff Response to Licensing Board's Directive to Report Details of Its Enforcement Plan in the Form of a Supplemental Initial Decision,"
dated February 1, 1982. Hereinafter, " Staff Ibsponse".
-2/ - See the broad definition of " licensee comitments" in n.150 at p.316 and the textual discussion at paragraphs 1199-1218 of the PID.
3/ - Note that "(e]xcept in a few instances specifically discussed in context, there is no difference between a Licensee commitment and a Staff requirement; the Licensee has comitted to the Staf f requirements." (PID 1199) 60[/
8202190060 820217 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
PDR j
0
- e
.n.
- upon the recordkeeping requirement of 10 CFR 50.59(b) to be assured that those comitments are enforced." (Id.)
Yet if the Staff's proposal is adopted as stated, that will be precisely the situation.
Without a -listing of those Licensee comitments (including the Staff regirements which the Licensee comitted to meet) upon which the Board relied for "[vlirtually every major determination in favor of restarting T4I-l...,"
one cannot even begin to address the question of whether the Staff's enforcement plan is adequate. (PID 1202)
Even if the Staff had the inclination to the review the record with the objective of making such a list, how could the Staff or any other party know whether the list included all the significant comitments relied upon by the Board?
UCS believes that this listing must at this point come from the Board.
One cannot perform a sensible review to determine whether the Staff's proposed license conditions and technical specifications provide the necessary level of enforceability until the technical commitments which the Board relied upon, i.e., those commitments upon which the Board's conclusion that restart should be authori19d is premised, have. been identified.
While the above represents UCS's principal coments on the Staff Response, there are some otwious deficiencies - in the substance of the Staff's proposed enforcement plan which is vague and in some cases directly inconsistent with the Partial Initial Decision.
We will illustrate the deficiencies by giving only a few examples.
Just considering those Licensee commitments, Staff requirements, and Board-required conditions that the Staff has proposed to enforc(, the lack of 1
y
,o -
specificity in the Staff's proposed enforcement plan renders it useless as a means for judging the adequacy of the enforcement.
For example, the Staff proposes a license condition concerning the power supplies for the pressurizer level instrumentation. (Staff Response at 2)
Ibwever, the Staff proposal does not specify whether operability of the pressurizer level instrumentation itself will be a limiting condition for operation [10 CFR 50.36(c) (2)] and, if so, how many of the pressurizer level instrments must be operable.
Likewise, the Staff does not address the surveillance requirements, if any, to be imposed to assure that the limiting condition of operation will be met. [10 CFR 50.36(c) (3)]
We Staff proposal also does not specify whether any pressurizer level instrtrnents may be lost due to failure of the ICS/NNI power supply and, if loss of some instrtments is acceptable, the nuMr of pressurizer level instrunents whose loss from that cause is acceptable.
%ese are extremely important factors because "upg rad ing" the power power supply may result in little or no improvement in the reliability of the pressurizer level instrumentation if it is not required to be operable, is not periodically tested and calibrated, is not environmentally qualified, or if a single failure disables all or all but one pressurizer level instrument.
UCS does not necessarily fault the Staff for the this situation.
We Co:rrnonwealth proposed the uprading of the power supply apparently without considering the extent of improvement, if any, in the reliability of the pressurizer level instrtrnentation.
Se Commonwealth did not propose any limiting conditions for operation or surveillance requirements to be included in the technical specifications.
Se Cortrnonwealth also apparer.tly did not evaluate the environmental qualification of this instrumentation or the effects
of a single failure af ter the power supply " upgrading" which it would consider acceptable.
%e Board in turn apparently adopted the Commonwealth's proposal solely because the Licensee did not object to it.
We Board did not articulate any reasoning.to explain why the proposal was both necessary and sufficient to allow restart. (PID 1001)
Were are also a number sections of the Staff's proposed enforcement plan that are inconsistent with the PID.
For example, the Staff proposes a license condition requiring, among other things, " upgrades of the main steam rupture detection system.
to safety grade." (Staff Response at 3)
%e Staff proposes that this upgrade be done "(plrior to startup following Cycle 6 refueling...." (Id.)
In contrast, the Board requires that this modification
.i be implemented as soon as possible after restart. (PID 1064)
Furthermore, althotqh-the Staff acknowledges (Staff Response at 6) the Board's requirement that the Licensee propose a long-term solution prior to restart (PID 1064), the Staff simply ignores the Board's requirement that "the Staff shall certify to the Commission that the Licensee has made reasonable progress in initiating its program for the long-term solution." (Id.)
%ere is no discussion whatever of the substance of a program to resolve this safety problem, much less information by which one could judge whether " reasonable progress" has been made.
Another example of an inconsistency between the Staff's proposed j
enforcement plan and the PID involves the requirements applicable to resolving l
l the systems interaction issue.
Although the Board clearly directed that 'IMI-l l
I "shall" be included in the generic reviews of systems interaction (PID 1000, 1003f.), the Staff responds now by disclosing that it is not imposing a l
requirement to conduct such studies generically (contrary to the impression t
l
,s which it sotqht to leave during the proceeding). 'Ihe Staff apparently therefore concludes that it. need do -no systems interaction study for 'IMI-1.
(Staff Response at 8, 9)
Respectfully submitted, e
r
'Ellyn R. Weiss.
Harmon & Weiss
'1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for the Union of Concerned Scientists Dated: February 17, 1982
9 i
UNITED STATES'OF-AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.In the. Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket.No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that' copies of " UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' RESPONSE TO THE STAFF'S PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT PLAN" have been served on the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 17th-day of February 1982.
- Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and' Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
- Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Linda W..Little Commission
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive
- - Pete r - Brad fo rd, Commissioner-Raleigh, North Carolina.27612 U.
S.. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Professor Gary'L. Milhollin Washing ton D.C.
20555 1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711
- ' John Ahearne, Commissioner U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Judge Gary J.
Edles, Chairman Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory
- Thomas Roberts, Commissioner Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Wa sh i ng to n,
D.C.
20555
- Judge John H.
Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Judge Christine N.
Kohl Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
(-
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
e t
- Judge Regina 1.d L. Gotchy Mr. Marvin I.
Lewis Atomic ' Safety and ' Licensing 6504 Bradford Terrace Appeal Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 1914; U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Gail B.
Phelps Washington D.C.
20555 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt' R.D.
- 5 Mr. Robe r t Q. Pollard Coatsville, Pennsylvania 19320' 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Robert Adler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
- Mr. Steven C.
Sholly 505 Executive House Union of Concerned Scientists P.O.
Box 2357 1346 Connecticut Ave., NW Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, DC 20036 Louise Bradford
- Counsel for NRC Staff Three Mile Island Alert Of fice of Executive. Legal 325 Peffer Street Director Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Walter W.
Cohen, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square George F.
Trowbridge, Esq.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Shaw, Pittman,'Potts &
Trowbridge Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
180 0 M Street, N.W.
Fox, Farr & Cunningham Washington, D.C.
20036 2320 North-Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Thomas J. Germaine, Esq.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Deputy Attorney General-Commission Division of Law - Room 316 Washing ton, D.C.
20555 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07102 Dr. Judith H.
Johnsrud Dr. Chauncey Kepford Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue
- Hand delivered to l.
State College, PA 16801 1717 H Strect, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
- William ~S.
Jordan, III,
- Hand delivered to Esq.
l-Harmon & Weiss East-West Highway 1725 Eye St.,
N.W.,
Suite 506 Bethesdas, MD Washington, D.C.
20006
- Hand delivered to John A.
Levin, Esq.
indicated address.
-Assistant Counsel l
Pennsylvania Public Utility i
Commission P.O.
Box 3265 lia r r isburg, Pennsylvania 17120
[