ML20077H969

Reply to Util & NRC 830725 & 0802 Answers to Limerick Ecology Action Respecification of Contention I-42.Contention Should Be Admitted as Specified.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077H969
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/09/1983
From:	Dorsey J DORSEY, J.A., LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8308120129
Download: ML20077H969 (8)

Text

I I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,[.EI gC

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '83 f g j f g ,

In the Matter of  : CFF;;E cc eq . ,

OCCASI):GI s[,,/ji}

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY -

Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,  :

Units 1 and 2)  :

LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION'S REPLY TO APPLICANT AND STAFF ANSWERS TO LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION' S RESPECIFICATION OF CONTENTION I-42 In July of 1983, Limerick Ecology Action (LEA) filed its respecification of contention I-42, as ordered by the Board in its May 16, 1983 Memorandum and Order, and to which Applicant and Staff responded on July 25 and August 2, respectively.

LEA herein replies to those responses.

I. Scope of Environmental Qualification Procram/ Report J

Applicant argues that development of its Environmental Qualification Report (EQ Report) predated the new Environmental Qualification Rule (EQ Rule) of January 21, 1983,1 and that due to this fact, some of the terminology used in the report is

" confusing" in that it misrepresents the intended scope of the document.

LEA does not find it at all confusing. Quite the contrary. -

Since neither the new EQ Rule nor its expanded recuirements are even mentioned in section 1 of the Applicant's EQ Report, which section describes the EQ criteria applicable to Limerick, LEA

1. 10 CFR 550.49 G

( T308120129 830909 PDR ADOCK 05C00352 2

i

2.

does not find use of the term " safety-related" throughout the report confusing -- use of that term is completely consistent with the criteria documents used by the Applicant to measure its regulatory compliance.

Applicant states that its Philadelphia Electric Company Q*5 Component Classification Program Rules will clear up the confusion on this matter. Unfortunately, according to the Applicant, the company contracted _to perform analyses for the Applicant (Quadrex Corporation), has taken the position

~

~

that its classification ru1es"are proprieEary, and that they will not be made'ava'ilablei to LEA'or-its consultant, even

~

under a protective: agreement; unti1 contenti~on I-42 is admitted

~

by -the Board. It may well-be -that -the -document would resolve the issue of the scope of the Applicant's EQ program, but without the document, LEA cannot of c,ourse make,such a determination.

LEA requests that the Board make no final admissibility determi-nation that would prejudice its rights:regarding this contention until it has had the opportunity to review the proprietary document in question. Any aid _the Board can offer to expedite this matter wou'ld be appreciated, since at.this point in time LEA has no formal discovery rights for obtaining the document.

Admission of the contention is,..of course, one option -- and the -

appropriate one as far as LEA is concerned.

II. EQ Report Ecuipment List In discussions at the May 9-11, 1983 prehearing conference, it was LEA's understanding that the EQ Report, when submitted to the parties shortly thereafter, would contain the complete

3.

list of equipment! to be qualified, though other portions of the Report would n't be compldte (for'instancs, EQRRs~would not

be available for all equipment listed). Furthermore, it was the Applicant's position at that time that the EQ Report would be sufficiently complete that' respdcificatiion 'of ' contention I-42 would be appropriate a5ter a peUiod of time se~t' for review of

~ ~ ~

~~ ~

the document by' LEA.

It is now the' pplidan't's 'p'osidion tU ti' thei ~ equipmenE list (Appendix B) is apprdximately'90% comp 1ste, and that the' pUocess o'f dentidicatio'n of ek'uip~rient fdr [5cidsUon in the lis't hdd not

~

been con $pleted when Eh'5 report was 5ubmitted -- that identification

~

LEA ' notes tUat this is ' dot!' t e first time ~that ths positiion

~

taken by the Applicant regarding completeness of a licensing document,'and the acEual status of the document, have not coincided (Applicant stated at the May9-ll prehearing conference, in no uncertain' terms, that its on-site emercency plan was complete and ready for review -- that was noti the case'. ). While it'is no doubt' beneficial to the Applicant for intervenors and their consultants to waste

~

time and money reviewing incomplete documents for multiple re-specifications, LEA'does not believe that a war of attrition contributes to sound decision-making regarding the licensing

! of the Limerick nuclear reactors.

Again, LEA requests that no final admissibility determination be made on this contention that would prejudice the right of LEA

4.

to pursue the matter of environmental qualification of electrical equipment, prior to the availab'ility of the complete equipment list.

III. Nature of System / Component /Ecuipment Review The Applicant alleges that LEA has not provided any basis

' ~ ' ~~ '

for suggesting that feedwater control, mergency e lighting and communications systems, the plant process computer, and computer software are "important to safety" and need to be qualified under 10 CFR 550.49.

LEA points out that'the examples given in its contention were examples of systems or equipment that should be reviewed for inclusion, not that they, as whole systems, should be

'~

included. In order to determine what equipment falls into category (b) (2) of the EQ Rule,2 both safety-related and non-safety-

~~

related systems mdst be reviewed, since either might contain l

non-safety-related components, the failure of which could prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions.

Again, the Applicant's proprietary Q*5 Component Classifi-cation Program Rules, if they were available, would presumably i

reveal the scope of the search made for category (b) (2) equipment.

l It is LEA's position, contrary to that of the Staff and Applicant, .

that in light of Applicant's failure to address the new EQ Rule in its EQ Report, the burden is upon the Applicant to show that the requirements of the rule have been met. The suggestion that LEA should at this point be limited to alleging specific omissions in the equipment qualification list and the reasons they should be included, totally ignores the broader allegation intended by

2. 10 CFR 550.49 (b) (2) - -

5.

[ this contention -- that the Applicant's EQ program doe's not -

address the new requirements of the. January 21, 1983 EQ Rule.

It is a simple matter, as already evidenced by Applicant's treatment of omission of squib valves, for the Applicant to treat omissions of particular pieces of. equipment by adding .. . .

3 them to the list, without addressing.the larger.and more _ _

important.issu.e of.why.they were omi.tted.. _ LEA..has, absolutely no evidence, based on_the Applicant's EQ. Report, that.the omissions that LEA might find in the equipment list are isolated

! mistakes and not a failu.re.to look.for. category (b)

.. (2) equipment .

in the first. instance _.. . . _ __ . .

a_ .

! Additionally,.both.the Applicant and Staff object-to. LEA's

. = -

.= . . . . . . - - - .

suggestion that a human interaction review is necessary to determine which equipment failures migh.t mislead the operator, I

since nowhere in the new EQ Rule is there an explicit requirement _ _ , _

to do such a review. _

It is LEA's position that. consideration of whether or not a failure would produce potentially misleading information is an essential part of identifying equipment.important to safety.

i one way the failure of non-safety-related. equipment could prevent.

l .

satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions (10 CFR 550.49 (b) (2)) .

is by.providing information that could mislead the operator. Thus,

! consideration of that possibility is inherent in identifying category (b) (2) equipment. Likewise, a human interaction review

l 6.

is inherent in any comprehensive determination of what types of equipment failures might mislead an operator by providing misleading information. Without such a review, the Applicant cannot assure that all category (b) (2) equipment has been identified.

Staff's position is that since the phrase " mislead the operator" appears only in sections (i) (4) and (5) of the EQ Rule, an analysis to determine which equipment failures will mislead the operator is required only in those instances where equipment qualification will not be completed prior to granting of an operating license. LEA finds it difficult to believe that that was the intention of the Commission in promulgation of the rule, given the potential seriousness of operator error in the exacerbation of accidents. Staff's reading of the rule is un-necessarily and improperly narrow -- in effect, taking some of the " guts" from what was meant to be a comprehensive treatment of the problem of electrical equipment failure in harsh environmental conditions. ,

IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated, the Board should admit contention I-42 as respecified.

-ted, Respectf,ulfy s bm' J 1 A. orsey-CWarles W. Elliott Counsel for Limerick Ecology Action August 9, 1983

DOCKETED UStuRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Limerick Ecology lction)s'83 Alr 11 A1 :26 Reply to Applicant and Staff Answers to Limerick Ecol g g [g g,g 3RAN Respecification of Contention I-42 was served, by U.S. mall, CH upon the following*:

~

t

- _ . i: 1:=

y

• Lawrence ^Brenner~, Chairman '~ Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board Administrative. Judge Panel .. -

~U.~S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~~~ "

U.S. Nuclear Regulat~ory~ -

Commission _. ~ ~

Washington, DC 20555 Washington , ~ DC~ ~2'05 5 5' Atomic Safety and Licensing ~

Dr. Richard F.' Col'e

Appeal Panel Administrative Judge . -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission __

~~ ~ ~ '

~

Washington,~DC'20555' Docketing ind' Service Section Office of the Secretarv Dr. Peter A.' Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission

~

Administrative Judge Washington,.DC 20555 .

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;. -

.. - . Thomas Y., Au,; Esq.  :

Washington, DC 20555 Commonwealth of PA .

-Department of Environmental Resources Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. '505 Executive House Office of the Executive P.O. Box 2357 Legal Director Harrisburg, PA 17120 i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Wersan, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of the Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square l

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Conner and Wetterhahn Harrisburg, PA 17120 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

, Washington, DC 20006 Director PA Emergency Management Agency Phila. Electric Company Basement, Transportation and ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Safety Building VP and General Counsel Harrisburg, PA 17120 2301 Market St.

Phila., PA 19101

• Express Mail l

i

, , . . ,,- -.-------,.-,e , . , . ,,r+ , - - - e- , , , . -

? .

Thomas Gerusky, Director , ,

_ Spence W. , Perry, Esq.

, Bureau of Radiation Protection Associate General' Counsel Department of Environmental FEMA Resources Room 840 -

Fulton Bank Building, 5th fl. 500 C St., SW Third and Locust Sts. ' Washington, DC 20472 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Martha W. Bush, Esq. Angus Love, Esq.

Deputy City Solicitor 101 East Main St.

City of Philadelphia Norristown, PA 19401 Municipal Services Building 15th and JFK Blvd.

Phila., PA 19107 Robert Anthony . . . .

~~~~

~~~

103 vernon Lane, Box'-18~61~ ^----. -

~~ --

Moylan, RA--19065 il ..

n ::,  :

^

. . - . . 2. _' .f5

'E ~

~

Marvin Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace-Phila., PA 19149 2

Jacqueline I.-Ruttenberg Keystone-Alliance 3700 Chestnut St.

Phila., PA 19104 Frank Romano 61 Forest Ave. --

Ambler, PA 19002 Joseph H. White III 8 North Warner Ave.

Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Robert Suge: man, Esq.

Sugarman and Denworth Suite 510, North American Building 121 S. Broad St.

Phila., PA 19107 L [94Wf4/

August 9, 1983 JUpITH A.

DORSEY

[ - _ , _