ML20073R767
| ML20073R767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1983 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8305040544 | |
| Download: ML20073R767 (4) | |
Text
RM.ATED CORRESPONDENch April 28, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
%?lP NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 MY -3 A10 :16 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos.
50-440 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-441
)
(OL)
(Perry Nuclear Power Flant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
OCRE REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S MARCH 30, 1983 MEM0hANDUI/:
AND ORDER ON
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF ISSUE #9 On April 14, 1983 Applicants filed a Motion for heconsideration and Clarification of the Licensing Board's March 30, 1983 Memorandum and Order, which granted the NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue #9 (Polymer Degradution) with tne exception of an issue of fact dealing with Applicants ' inspection and maintenance prodram.
Applicants request that the Board reconsider its decision and grant the Staff's motion in its entirety.
Applicants also request clarifica-tion of the portion of the maard's Order requiring Applicants and Staff to file a stipulation that Applicants' environmental qualification program for electrical equipment be completed by Novemoer 1985.
Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CHE") hereby opposes O
OCHE is not opposing their gfApplicantsimotionforreconsideration.
motion for clarification.
=s The Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Urder identified Ap-
- 8
$a plicants' program for inspection and maintenance of polymers as a
@4 og genuine issue of fact since, assurances that such a program will be mmo adequate are insufficient to demonstrate that the plan (as yet unfiledJ po'D 9
i will in fact be adequate.
Applicants object to'this ruling since affidavits filed by NRC Staff wad i pplicar.ts indicated that, according to the affiants, a plan based on the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.33 is adequate for detecting polymer degradation.
Applicants also state that OCRE did not offer support fc_
s claim that such a program would not be adequate.
This is untrue; in its February 23 filing, OCRE stated that the general provisions described in the affidavits of Applicants' yet-to-be-filed inspe ction and maintenance program are insufficient and gave an example (the difficulty of inspecting electrical cable in conduit) illustrating the need for specific information before any judgement can be made on the plan's adequacy.
OCHE would repeat and affirm this argument. Regulatory Guide 1.33 merely provides generic guidance for operational quality assurance programs.
Regulatory Guide 1.33 does not addresa polymer degradation or the special procedures necessary to detect it, given the difficulties and uncertainties noted by the Licen-sing Board (see Memorandum and Order at 17-18).
Applicants claim that the Board's decision is inconsistent with Commission practice.
It is interesting to note that the Commission may be retninking its practices concerning quality assurance programs, l
at least for plants under construction.
The Commission, in a request (48 Fed. Reg. 9106,. March 3, 1983) for public comments on methods for improving quality assurance at reactors under construction, lists as one of five alternatives:
conditioning the issuance of construction permits for these facilities on a demonstration tnat the licensee is capable of managing an effective quality assurance and control procrum for tne facility.
This provision is no doubt necessitated by experience showing that
e 8
although any plan can look Sood on paper its implementation in practice is the true test of adequacy l/,Applicants, however, expect the Board to accept as adequate a plan which does not even exist on s
j paper.
5 This is precisely the difference between the polymer degradation issue and the Asiatic clams issue, which Applicants attempt to compare.
In the latter case, Applicants produced programs for aquatic monitoring and inspection, maintenance, and control of biofouling which might be caused by Corbicul,a.
These plans contained sufficient detail to l
determine their adequacy.
There is obviously no parallel oetween j
Issues 9 and 7.
Applicants' primary fear prompting their motion appears to 'bb, that fuel loading may os delayed if they must comply with the Board's Order.
OCHE suggests that these fears are unfounded.
As all parties are aware, Applicants have delayed fuel loading until December 1984.
l The NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel, in a report dated March 17, 1983, l
found that "the earliest possible date for Unit 1 fuel load is December 1984, and likely may'be at a later date."
The Panel found Applicantsi schedules to be optimistic and not realistic. Given tne pattern of slippage in Applicants' construction completion schedules, OCHE suspects l
that licensing activities, including the Licensing Board's March 30
_1/ Although this ex' ample pertains to the quality assurance of con-struction, operational programs similarly have need for improve-ment, as evidenced by the continual violations of these requirements as documented in the Licensee Event heport files.
i I
e
-,-,-------rm.,
.,y
,_._...,-.s,
-s
--w
_ - _ =
i Memorandum and Order, will not impact on fuel loading.
For all of the no' ove reasons, OCHE finds Applicants' motion to be without merit.
It must therefore be denied.
Hespectfully submitted, ff WY Susan L. Hiatt OCHE Hepresentative' 8275 Munson Rd.
Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the,for.eg.o_ing QCRE REPLY TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ^were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this J23'N day of April 1983 to those on the service list below.
w-W W SERVICE LIST
'*I Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulato'ry Comm'n 83 2 -3 Y'2eheland, OHi g 3 x 08159 Washington, D.C.
20555 44108 1
Dr. Jerry R..Kline Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 4
U.S. Nuclea.r Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Docketing & Service Section Offic'e of the Secretary l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C.
20555 James M.
Cut chin IV Esq.
Office of the Exec,utiv,e Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Jay Silberg, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safet'y and Licensin5 Appeal Board. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscion wn n hin t-ton, n.n.
20535
- _ _ _