ML20092J763

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Partial Initial Decision Re Limerick Ecology Action Contention I-42 Concerning Environ Qualification of Electrical Equipment

ML20092J763
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/21/1984
From:	Mulligan M LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20092J760	List: ML20092J756 ML20092J763
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406270114
Download: ML20092J763 (13)

Text

.

m o

e IIllerien ecoio&y aceito1>

-~ w.--

(215) 328 9122

'., c,' '

BOX 761 POTTSTOWN, PA.194G4

'84 JT 25 Pi2:02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA'a' IN THE FORM 0F A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION RELATING TO LEA CONTi:NTION I-42 Limerick Ecology Action, lead intervenor in th'c above captioned proceeding, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 92.754 and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's" Order Scheduling Propoucd rindings" (April 27, 1984), hereby submits its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Iorm of a Partial Initial Decision Relating to LEA Contention I-42.

Respectfully submitted, June 21, 1984 MAUREEN MULLIGAN, L A V.

PRCSIDENT G

o, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (ON LEA CONTENTION I-42)

Preliminary Statement 1.

Limerick Ecology Action

(" LEA")

filed a petition to intervene in the Limerick Generating Station

(" Limerick" or " Station") operating license proceeding on September 21, 1981.

At a prehearing conference held January 6-8,

1982, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") found that LEA had standing to intervene and admitted, inter alia, its Contention I-42 concerning environmental qualification of safety-related equipment, subject to its further specifica-tion.1/

2.

In our unpublished " Memorandum and Order Confirm-ing Rulings Made at Prehearing Conference," dated October 28,.1983, LEA Contention I-42 was admitted as respecified.

Contention I-42 states that:

The applicant (sic) has not shown compliance with the Commission's rule, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants, Jan. 21, 1983, 48 FR 2729, 10'CFR 550.49.

Particularly, it has neither established a program for qualifying all of the electrical equip-ment covered by 550.49, nor performed an analysis to ensure that the plant can be safely operated pending completion of 1/

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating

~

Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1439, 1497-98 (1982).

i equipment qualification, as required by 550.49(i).

. Failure to comply will threaten the health and safety of the public.

The City of Philadelphia, which was admitted to the Limerick operating license proceeding as an inte res.ted governmental participant, also took part in the litigation of this issue.2/

Evidentiary hearings were held on April 9-10, 1983 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Introduction 3.

The Applicant presented the testimony of a panel of witnesses relating to Contention I-42.

The panel includ-ed William J. Boyer, leader of the Environmental Qualifica-tion Group of Philadelphia Electric Company's

("PECO")

Nuclear Generating Branch; Daniel Thompson, the electrical engineer responsible for the environmental qualification of

. Nuclear Steam Supply System ("NSSS") equipment at Limerick; Dennis Klein, sup<2rvisor of the.Bechtel Power Corporation

("Bechtel")

licensing group assigned to Limerick; Loren Stanley, President and' Principal Consultant of Zytor, Inc.,

i and formerly Quadrex Corporation Group Manager in charge of the Limerick Component Classification Program; Edward Sproat, Electrical Project Engineer, PECO; Thomas Shannon, engineer in charge of the NSSS Branch *of the Limerick Power Plant Design

Section, PECO; Wesley Bowers, supervising 2/

Id. at 1456.

q..'

'(PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO PAGE 3) 4-t engineer in charge of the Nucicar Contr61 Branch of the t

Control Engineering Section, PEC0; and John Doering, Limerick t

Operations Engineer and Senior Reactor Operator. PECO.

4.

The.NRC Staff presented the testimony of Armando l

t Masciantonio, Environmental Qualification Branch, NRC; and Robart LaGrange, Section Leader, Equipment Qualification Branch, NRC.

e

5. A representative of Limerick Ecology Action and the i

City of Philadelphia crosu-examined the Applicant's and Staff's witnesses on Aprtl 10, 1984. Neither LEA or the City of Phila-

[

delphin presented witnesses o r.

this contention.

i e

I f

[

P k

f I

L I

[

l

. _ -..., ~., _ -, _

5 3

SUMMARY

6.

The litigation of the issue fccused en the basic issue of whether the EQ program at Limerick complies with 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.49.

The regulation, "Environmen al Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Saf ety 'or Nuclear Power Plants,"

was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 1983, and became effective February 22, 1983.

7.

Unlike NUREG-0588, Section 50.49 a; plies to electrical equipment important to safety and therefore includes both safely-related and nonsafety-related equipment.

The rule defines the scope of its coverage as follows:

(b) (1)

Safety-related electric equip c..t This equipment is I

that relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events to ensure (i) the integrity of the re-actor coolant pressure boundary, (ii' the capability to shut down the reactor and raintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and (iii) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that cculd result in potential of f-site exposures comparable to the 10 CFR, Part 100 guidelines.

( b '. (2)

Nonsafety-related electric equipnent whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions specified r

in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) of paragraph (b)(1) of i

this Section by the safety-related, equipment.

(b) (3)

Certain post-accident monitoring equipment [specified as " Category 1 and 2" in Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision Ills -

I

6 8.

It is the Applica6t'a position that the scope of equipment required to be considered for environmental qualification was unchanged by the adoption of 10 CFR 650.49 in January 19S3.

Tr. 9553 (Boycr).

9.

A verification program of equipment to be qualified was performed under contract to the Applicant by the Quadrex Corporation which was initiated in February 1982.

This program is referenced in the Environmental Qualification neport (10/83) as the Component Classificati :. Program.

Applicant's witnesses testified that the component classification program has covered all of the equipment that is required to be qualified under 10CFR 50.49. Tr. 9565 (Boyer); W.

Boyer, et al.,

ff. Tr. 9529 at 9.

10.

The Quadrex Component Classification Program (CCP) preceded promulgation of the new EQ Rule. Tr. 9566 (Doyer) 11.

Applicant's witness Mr. Stanicy testified that electrical equipment classified by the term "important to safety" used by Quadrex would have been coded "2E" or "3E".

The "4F" components are certain Regulatory Cuide 1.97 accident monitoring compor.en't s.

Tr. 9567 (Thompson).

12.

Mr. Stanley agreed that Items 2E and 3E correlated to important-to-safety components, and that it was his0 belief that these had been included in the scope of the program. lie stated that 2E, 3E, and 4F components were included in the CCP program, and that they corresponded to important-to-safety equipment defined in 10 CFR 8 50.49.

Tr. 9570, 9571, (Stanicy)

L.-

t L

e-F!NDINGS OF PACT i

15.

There are still a number of outstanding equipment qualification' P

records which are part.of Appendix E tha: need to be completed. PEC0 h

expects them to be completed by fuel load. PECO anticipates providing these records sometime in June.

Tr. 9577-9578 (Doyer).

?

16.

As of 4/10/84, Applicant's witness testified that PECO did not anticipate requesting justification for interim operation.

l Tr. 9561 (Boyer).

However, Mr. Boyer also testified that if for soue reason the work were not coupleted before fuel load, PECO vould anticipate requesting approval of justification for interim operation. Tr. 9561, (Boyer).

l 17.

Applicant's witnesses testified : hat all equipment raquiring qualification by 10 CFR6 50.4'9 will be q2alified by fuel load, and that as of 4/10/84 about 95% of that wor *e was completed.

Tr. 9560 (Boyer).

18.

(Mr. Boyer) testified that aa of 4/10/84 5% out of 1600 electrical items within the scope of the EQ rule (50.49) were not yet qualified at Limerick.

Tr. 9620 (W. Doyor).

19.

PECO is committed to installing and qualifying all nocessary post-accident monitoring equipment prior to fuel load.

P W.

Doyer, et al.,

ff. Tr. 9529 at 6.

This item is still incomplete.

h i

1 1

m

.m

l 9

t

20. "he NRC Staff's basic review of the Limerick EQ program l

f consists cf three steps.

First is the identification of the equip-l ment which has to be qualified and this is defined in 10 CFR 50.49.

i t

I The second step is the determination that the environments which are i

postulated for the plant are correct and reasonable.

This is done t

by different branches and by the Staff in general.

The third stop is verifying that the equipment which has to be qualified is indeed i

qualified for the conditions that it is required to operate.

And i

the third item is basically a review of summary sheets which are pro-vided.

In the case of Philadelph'a Llectric, it would be Appendix E of their submittal.

Each sheet is reviewed individually and tabulated in the Safety Evaluation Report. Tr. 9649-9650 (Masciantonio).

21. In addition, the NRC S aff has recently requested additional information concerning severn1 items under Section 3.11 of the FSAR, I

which indicates that more information is needed to demonstrate compliance with NUREC 0588, Appendix E.

t L

I I

I,.,

9 "' %g,4 t

p UNITI.ti h! ATES e

E'T '/)'%

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. 5.

,,i wassmotoN. n. c. rosss

'*,..... /

JUN 171982 I

I Docket Nos. 50-352/353 Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Vice President & General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - Limerick Equipment Qualification The Equipment Qualification Branch has reviewed FSAR Section 3.11 concerning qualification of safety-related electrical equipment. The staff will complete its review after you submit the information requested in Appendix E of NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment." In addition, you will be required to update Section 3.11 to include the environmenta1' qualification of mechanical equip-ment in the harsh environment as well as electrical and mechanical equipment located in the mild environment so that the extent of compliance with GDC #4 x

can be evaluated. The current status of the review is reflected in the EQB Draft SER (see Enclosure 1).

Please provide us. within 7 working days from receipt of this letter, with the date(s) on which you plan to respond to the above. Any questions concern-ing this information request should be directed to Dr. Harvey Abelson (301) 492-9774, the Licensing Project Manager.

I Sincerely,

/

l

/*

Jhfd(%Q

• /

A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated t

cc: See next page REFER TO LCA FINDINGS OF FACT paho 9, item #21 m

I l

11 --

f f

22. On 4/10/84 the NRC Staff's witness testified that the Staff's audit of the Limerick EQ prosrau is not complete and that j

several items are still unresolved.

They include:

1.

Clarification of how PECO will perform some surveillance of equipment outside of containment to account for unanticipated' age-related degradation.

2.

Verification from PECO that all the equipment is qualified at the time it does become qualified.

3.

Containment profile approval (being reviewed by Containaient S y d t t ue s lhanch) 4.

Approval ol' ttmperaturo profile.

5. nesponse to Information Notice 79-22.

Tr. 9651-9652, (Masciantonio)

Tr. 9700-9701

()ta s cianto nio) r

23. Once these itoms have boun addressed, !!r. !!asciantonio tes-tified that acceptability could be ascertained by the Staff.

Tr. 9701, (Masciantonio).

24.The NRC Staff's review of PECO'J response to IC Notico 79-22 is not completo. Witness LaGrange testified thst he did not know how long it would take to couplate the review, and that it may tako months or years. Tr. 9686 (LaGrange)

25. Witness LaGrango wan unable to adequately justify the NRC Ir.strumentation and Control Systems Branch's judgement that compliance with Regulatory Culde 1.75 and an acceptable response to 1E tiotice 79-22 st.pported a conclusion that thure is no equipment undur category 50.49 category (b)(2). T r.

'# 6117 - 9 6 8 0.

l

12 26.

Furthermore, the NRC Staff has not yet addressed design issues involving systema interaction impacts that.could affect category (b)(2) aquipment under 10 CFR S 50.49. Tr. 9680 (Lacrange) 27.

Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.09 is still in draft form and has not yet been published.

Tr. 9690 (LaGrange).

28.

Resolution of generic unresolved safety issues A-47 and A-17 may show that there in other equipwont that al.ould be included under (b)(2). Tr. 9693 (LaGrange).

29.

The NRC Staff has not yot completed its Limorick EQ review. No approval of the Limerick EQ program has bcon issued. A safety evalu..tl.n will b.

l.. s u. d in the nuxt few months.

Pla h i. l a n t o n t o, 11.

'I r. 9 6 ie u, ii 30.

Th. SER won't be closed oot until rull compliance with the final rule 10CFR 50.49 han boon demonstrated.

A few outstanding items attil have ty se resolved, but full compliance with the rule must be domanstrated.

Tr. 9698 (!!asciantonio) 31.

Staff must coc.plete itu review of 79-22 to verify that there is no category (b)(2) equipment.

Tr. 9706 (ita sc ia ntonio).

32.

NCC Staff han not yet coup 1vted its review of the design philosophy documentation relating to an interaction cnalysis betwcon non~ qualified equipuont and nufety related systems. Tr. 9580 (Sproad).

33.

Completion of NRC Staff approval of the Limerick EQ ProAram is ne.:casary to conatitute comp 1ction of on'.troninntal qualificatton. Tr. 9621 (Doycr)

i 13 l

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 34 We find in f avor of Limerick Ecology Action on Contention I-42 because there is no basis in the present record for a finding that Limerick is in compliance with 10 CFR Part $0 Section 50.49.

Further, we retain jurisdiction of this matter, and we identify in our detailed findings severn1 actions which munt be taken by PECO and by the Staf f as pror:onditions fnr a fliedtug of meh compliance.

35.

Although PECO orgen i.a to. find in its fawir on this Con-tention and to rely on Staf f eeview to assure proper resnlution of these open items, we are unabic to do so.

As a licensing board, wc have a duty to make findings on critical issues of health and estaty prior to issuance of an operiting license.

k'e a re no t em-powered to delegate that obilnation to the S t a f f.1/ A. t h,'

Commission has stated:

An a otrnoral propvitfon, i* v n h o u *. " be. dealt with in the hearingn anti r.ot ;^t'.

over for later (and pomnibly metr i nforn.i t ) resniution.

(T)he mechma sm of poet.-heoring ronolution nunt not be employad to obv sato the basic findings prerequisite to an ctorating 11conse --

including a reannnablo assuranco that the facil-ity can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public.

10 CFR 550.57.

In short, the " post-hearing" approach should be employed sparingly and only in clear ca:en.

In doubtful cases, the matter should be resolved in an adversary framework prior to issuance of" 31 censes..

2/

1/

Cleveland F.lectric T11uminatinn_ Company (Perry Nuclear Power J

Plant, Units ! and 27. ALA3-29A, NRC 730,737 (1975).

Sco also, Wanhington Public Power Rupply System (llAnf ord No. 2 Nuc1 car l

Power Plant),

ALAD-ll3, 6 AEC at f3T, 232 (1973).

2/

See butiom page 14

t-I 14 26.

Although certain minor matters may properly be icft to the i

Staff for post-hearing resolution, such instances are limited to minor procedural deficiencies or issues where on-the-record proceedinst would not'be helpful for resolution of the issue. 3/

In this case, howcyor, the unresolved lasue before us is neither minor nor pro-cedural PECO admittedly has not yet complied with a Commission regulation dealing with equipment qualification, a critical safety issoa.

Promises or expectations of eventual compliance are not sufficient.

We would violato our obligation as a licensing board

. were we to terminate our consideration of this matter given the l

present state of the record, i

37.

Accordingly, we must retain jurisdiction of this issue l

I pending completion of the actions wo identify in uur findings and submission of the results thereof to un and to the parties.

We i

will again review this issue and make a detcraination as to whather Limorick complies with Section 50.49.

l I

j/

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), CLI.74 23, 7 AEC at 947, 951-952.

See Also, Public Service Company of Indtana, (Marblo lilli conorating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 461, 7 NRC 313, 318 (1978).

3/

Southern Californic_Edinon Co.

(San Onotro Nuclear Generating Station, Units : and 3), luP 82-39, 15 NRC 1163 (1982).

l ir-

__.-_.__m.,___

.