ML20083P532

Discusses Util 840406 Response to Ucs Reply Brief on Review of ALAB-729 & ALAB-744.Staff Failure to Know Basic Info Re DHR Reliability Leaves Question Concerning Basis of Recommendations to Commission

ML20083P532
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/18/1984
From:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Asselstine J, Bernthal F, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ALAB-729, ALAB-744, NUDOCS 8404200057
Download: ML20083P532 (2)

Text

44 UNION OF EEEE D N CONCERNED mae SCIENTISTS me ce....ilL.w. . s. noi.. wa.si. .. Dc 2eo36. <2o2> 2*.5eoo

'84 APR 19 P12:24 April 18,1984

6 ;CE OF SECRtim.

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman t.u.r.EliNG & SERV!U James Asselstine, Commissioner BRANCH Frederick Bernthal, Comissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Thcmas Roberts, Comissioner U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

You were sent a letter dated April 6,1984, addressed to M . Chilk from counsel for GPU. The letter is, in essence, an impermissible reply to UCS' Reply Brief on Review of ALAB-729 and ALAB-744. The letter claims that UCS

" ignored" GPU's recent witMrawal of its position that IMI-1 is safe to operate with unqualified Bailey E/P converters for the emergency feedwater flow control valves because of reliance on feed .and bleed and/or asserted low probability of an accident.

Let me note at the outset that UCS ignored nothing. GPU's amended response to UCS' SMw Cause Petition on the IMI-1 EFW System, which witMrew the above argtments in favor of a promise to replace the defective equipnent, was dated March 26, 1984, aM was mailed to UCS Counsel at an address vacated on March 30, 1984. It was forwarded by the Postal Service and receivM after otr Reply Brief was fild with the Ccomission.

In any case, it is abmiantly clear that GPU witMrew its indefensible position only after it hM beccme obvious that it would not get away with it. .

The paint we attempted to make in our brief remains true: the fact that GPU  !

m uld advance such argtments as justification for safe operation when one )

unquestionably violates the criteria established years ago and the other is in .

direct conflict with the ruling of the Appeal Ibard indicates an unacceptable degree of intransigence and/or ignorance of the Commission's rules. See UCS' Brief on the Conmission's Review of ALAB-729, March'19,1984, at 9; Ugr peply Brief on Review of ALAB-729 and ALAB-744, April 3,1984, at 9 Mareover, it is only because of UCS' SMw Cause Petition on the TMI-1 EFW System that GPU has witMrawn its position, and " imp oved" its ' schedule for installing new converters. The fact is that GPU has known since 1981 that the converters were not environmentally qualified and muld have to be replaced.

See System Ccmponent Evalauation Worksheets for the EFW system (sutnitted in response to IE Bulletin 79-01), sheets 7 & 9 of 28. GPU claimed all this time that they had justification for ' continued safe operation , and the Staff acce'pted that claim mtil, solely because of UCS' show cause petition, the Staff began belatedly to review the basis for the claim. When presented with the Staff's p3sition at a meeting on March 8, 1984, that GPU would have to 8404200057 840418 PDR ADOCK 05000289

- [d 3 0 PDR Mai. Office: 26 Church Street . Cambridge, Massachusetts o2238 . (617) 547-5552

. a 2-l i

j provide a great deal of supporting infomation and analyses on feed and bleed in order to support a conclusion ,that that cooling mode can be relied upon for design basis accident mitigation (See UCS Reply Brief at 19-23), only then did GPU retreat from reliance on feed and bleed and fini the means to accelerate its schedule for replacement of the conve-ters, bowing to the inevitable. Pie history of this issue scarcely does credit to either GPU or the Staff. If anything this reinforces ou- belief that the only way these questions of environnental qualification will ever be properly addressed is in a hearing.

Counsel for GPU cites UCS' Reply &ief at 7-9 and 19-23, claiming that

these sections ignore GPU's anendM response. Pages 7-9 state facts which no party has contested. GPU's last-minute change in position is simply the coda.

Pages 19-23 of UCS' Reply &ief, also cited by GPU, deal with the

viability of fed and bleed, which the Staff has asserted will provide "further assurance" of safety. Even if GPU replaces the Bailey Ganverters with qualified converters (and they have simply asserted to this point that they will do so - no infonnation' has been supplied justifying a conclusion ,

that the replacements are, in fact, qualified) that would not make the EFW

, System safety grMe. For all of the reasons that we have discussed in our

! show cause petition, the EFW system fails to meet the single failure criterion, is not seismically qualified, and so on. Our cerraents on the viability of feed and bleed renain correct.

Finally, in December,1983, the NRC Staff urged the Connission to approve i restart of MI-1. In January, 1984, UCS filed its show cause petition i

doctmenting the deficiencies in the NI-1 emergency feedwater system. Only then, after being directed by the Gammission to respond expeditiously to the petition, did the NRC Staff seek to learn whether the system will meet NRC's safety regulations at restart.

. MR. VAN VLIET: Our principal concern with the [UCS show j cause] petition wauld be at the time of restart will the

{ plant meet the existing regulations?

Transcript of March 8,1984 meeting, p.142.

I We find this situation shocking. It is inconceivable to UCS that the NRC l Staff muld have taken the position that the decay heat removal systens at

} M I-1 are Mequate for fbil power operation without knowing Whether the energency feedwater system meets NRC safety rules or in what respects it fails to do so. Given the critical nature of decay heat removal reliability to the restart proceeding, and to overall plant safety, the Staff's failure to know this basic information makes one wonder what it based its recommendation to the Comnission upon.

Very truly yours, .

l Ellyn R. Weiss

. General Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists i ec: WI-1 Service List I I O

,* - - - - ,- - = ,w, .-.no-,+wr-,r=+-e(--+-ee-+ms--rte *--. .e-<-ee--%,--w.*--ys-w -,.,_-ry, 33,--- , - - - - , ,m-..m,m--~

e r-'