ML20093N551

Reply to Licensee 840611 Response to Suppl to Ucs Petition to Show Cause Re Emergency Feedwater Sys.Util Response Evinces Continuing Ignorance & Evasion of Substantive Requirements.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093N551
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/31/1984
From:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2.206, NUDOCS 8408020040
Download: ML20093N551 (10)

Text

v.

]

o s

d UCS 7/}.l/84

s,y ,

~

,SI UNITED STATFS OF MERICA .

NUCIEAR REGJLATORY CCMHISSION M y

'I/ ,y,,_

~)

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION A

In the Matter of )

) +

METROIDLITAN EDISON C04PANY ) Docke t N; . 50-289

) (10 CFR 2.206)

("Ihree Mile Islard Nuclear )

Station, thit No.1) )

)

UNION OF COICERNED SCIENTISTS REPLY TO LICEtGEE'S RESP' ;NSE TO SUPPLEMENT 'IO UNION OF COPCERNED ECIENTIS'IS PETITION ,

FOR SHOW CAUSE CONCERNING TMI-l EMERGENCY FEEDMTER SYSTEM e

GPU's Positions are Inconsistent With the Environmental Qualification Rule, Disingenuous and Internally Contradictory.

4 Licensee's Ibsponse- of June 11, 1984 evinces its continuing ig rn rance and/or . evasion of the substantive requirarents o f the NBC's erwironaental

. qualification rule as well es an attittxie 411ch virtually precitdes reliance n

on the accuracy of GRJ's factual assertions.

~ GPU 's first general defense is that the. deficiencies were in "docunentation"gonly ard -' that "the Cecmission itself has stated that strh doctmentation deficiencies 'do rn t necessarily mean that the equipaent is tngtiali t ied . ' " Licensee's Resp >nse, p. 5. 'Ihe qtoted statanent appears in the (bmmission's decision in CL 21, rendered in early 1E60. Since then,

-as a result of an cruironnental qualifications progran orgoing s nce i 1977, the

^

8408020040 84073'1

^

. PDR ADOCK 05000289

-g PDR S

\.

7-'.-

4 -

_ situation has altered in a crtclal respect: all licensees, incitding GPU were required to denonstra te as to each ' _- cover ed component either a) that the coSpnent is fully qualified (and that docunentation exists to support that claim) _ or b) that - a valid j usti fication for continued operation exists

. pending full qualification. Each licensee, incltding GPU, was determined, on the basis of its own claims, to have met -this requironent as of June 30, 1982.

s te 8 compnents atdited by the staff wre not covered by justifications for continual coo peration , but were instead consistently claimed to be fully

~

qualified by GPU.~ We ald it , howver , fo tnd incdequate support for this claim

.in 8 out of 8 cases.

• GPU's response- show that it still fails to comprehend the requirenents of the erwironnental qualification rule; the time has passed when licensees could hide behind the argunent that their deficiencies wre only ' lack of

' "docunen ta tion." he rule itself explicitly requires detailed docunentation to be in the qualification file to fully support claims of qualification. 10 CER 50.49(d) . We only exception is in cases where a valid justification for continued operation las been presented and JCO's were not presented for these canponents, which were instead claimed to be qualified.M Wus , when LCS characterized the atdit as dia: losing that vital safety compnents "are not qualifial as required by 10 CFR _50.4 9. . . ," we were f ully correct. Irdeed, the staff now agrees; on May 25, 1S64, _ D. Eisenhut , Director of the Division of Licensirg, sent a ' letter to H.D. Hukill, Director, T4I-1, statirg:

We have therefore been tnable to conc 1tde that you are presently in canpliance with 10 CFR 50.49, as stated'in pur

- letter of Febrtary 10, 1564 (as modified) .

GPU fails to aention this letter.

' 1_/ tese requiranents of course, apply to all licensees. %us, this is not a case-where GPU can claim it is beiry treated more strictly than others.

q=

h f ;,:

' "; 'ii if

~

GPU 's . secord general defense is equally revealing. It claims that t " licensees of operatirrj reactors have been provided with only va3ue guidance k

as to. the . mope . of docunenta tion and deg ree of detail

~

~

required to be

+

maintained in the- erwironnental qualification files. . . ." Licensee's respnse at 6 It then cites a '1979 IE ' Bulletin W11ch it claims is illustrative of the m vag ueness. GPU fails to mention, except in a footnote discussed below, that a component-by-compnent 'mchnical Evalm tion Tbport on N I-l envirorinental qualification was prepara! in 1982 by Franklin Tbsearch Center which unanbig-uotsly 'docunented many of the precise deficiencies Wiich were fomd in the atdit to persist 1-1/2 years later. LCS pintcd these out in our May 9,1984 supplenent. See Supplanent to Union of (bncerned Sc ientists' Petition fo r Show Cause Concernin] WI-l anergercy . Feedwater Syston, May 9,1984, at 3, 4,

5. -It is therefore disingentnto in the extrane for GPU to claim that "it ms not mtil the Staff's recent atdit that licensee had a complete urderstarding

'o'f the exact nature and detail of the docunentation Wiich the Staff jtdges to

'be required to be maintained irf the' EQ files."- Licensee's respnse at 7.

GPU implies that it could rot have mderstood that its claims of quali-fIcation' wuld: be found to be msupported in the docunentation. Besides T having been specifically told m in the - 1982 TER, a reasonably competent utility muld have. known' without being told that the docunentation sinuld at

~1 east establish similarity between the N I-1 component and the tested com ponent , : a 'de ficiency no ted - repea tedly. for a ntsnber o f the a ud i ted components.

Moreover, even ~if one believes GPU's latest assertions (UCS has not been provided 'the'- docunentation necessary to evaluate them) , at least one set of Ecompnents amory the eight atdited is mqualified (the terminations on the TW

-.(.L

_ 1

n .

.4:

k _

- motors) and will' have to be replaced. One out of eight is over 12% and does

~ not inspire great confiderce in the status of the renairder of the unaulited compnents.

GPU's final defense is that its claim to the NRC to have "resprded to the outstarding concerns raised by the Staff SER ard the Franklin Ibsearch ER" 'is not false because the adequacy of the response is a matter of " opinion and j ud3enent ." Licensee's Response at 8-9. GPU claims that the fact that it

= did respord,- adequacy aside, is "massailable." Id. at 9.

liere, GPU has caujht itself in a contraliction. In the earlier prtion of its respnse to UCS, when it t. les to deny culpbility for failing to correct the ' deficiencies identi fied in the aulit which track deficiencies

' fomd in the 1982 TER, GPU argtes that the ER "did rot serve to commmicate to the licensee anything -more than FIC's [ Franklin Ibsearch Center's] final j tdgmen ts." Licensee's Ibsponse n.4 at 7. In other wrds, GPJ admits that it did not accept the judgnents containcd in the TER and did not act on then.

1he fact that GPU did rot act on the ER is "massailable," since the same

deficierries were roted in the audit.

It follows ineluc tably then, that GPU d id not " respo nd to the outstarding corcerns" - rai sed in the TER, contrary to its written statanents, miess igrnring those concerns qualifies as a response. LCS reiterates our request that OI inmediately irvestigate whether GPU has made material false statements to N1C in connection with the envirormental qualification progran.

See Supplenent to LCS Petition, p.11.

- EFW Purnp Motors With respect to the itstingrouse EFW punp motors, CPU again reveals its misurvierstardirYJ of the obligations of any licensee order the ervirormental qualification Irog ran. It admits that the sta f f identi fied to GPU many

deficiencies in the qualification data fo r these moto rs in early 1 931 and called upon GPU to review the deficiencies anr1 their ranifications and to determine, considering these, whether the plant could safely operate. GPU claims that it undertook an "ergineerity evaluation," (Licensee's Ibspnse at 12), althotgh it provides no docunentation of such an evaluation, and claims further that it determined that the plant co uld operate sa fely because analyses were "mderwy" and because there existed qualified equipnent capable of mitigatirg the failure of these punp motors. Id. at 13. GPU does not stggest dat this substitute equipnent could be, presunebly because there is ro_ qualified, safety grade, rodurdant equipnent at T4I-l capable of performing the safety function of the EFW pump Wile preserving the single failure criterion. 'Ihus, GPU's " determination" ms fallacious.

'Ihe fact is that GPU never even requested until March, 1984, written material from Westinghouse demonstrating similarity between the T4I-l components and those tested and Wen it did come, it was inconsistent with GPU's previous claims.

0A Review GPU disputes 'CS's assertion that it represented to the Staff that its

" independent" 0A review of the EQ files " fully supprted GPU's claims of qualification." Licensee's Ibspnse at 14. We simply repeat the pertinent quote:

MR. W [NRC]: Any deficiency identified in this [TER] , page by page, we expect that you have answer to those deficiencies.

_ hen the inspector goes out there, the TER will serve as a W

guide to inspect.

MR. MAW [GPU): That has been our premise. That is what we tried to do, to be sure we had the information in the file.

MR. W: Did you make that conrnitment? I f you made that conunitment, then we will procecd.

p ~-

t )

l 1

MR. MALE; We even had a trial assessment on our file by our own QA to make sure that this kind of information is in there.

We had independent verification if you will. l M R. HARDING [GN }: I m not sure h3w irdeperdent.

MR. MAtB: It is independent, believe me. We even had a trial rm to make sure. We might say yes, we have it, but we are gejtdiced m we let somebody else take a look at it, saying bey, do they really have it. Okay?

Transcript of March 8,1584, Meeting with GPU, 'P1I-l Erwironnental Qualification, pp. 26, sphasis added.

zIt is obviotc from this lang mge that GPU represented that it had answered the TER deficiencies, page by page, that the answers were in its EQ files, and that an "idependent" QA review had confirmcd this.E 'Ihe PRC staff member stated clearly that the NRC would only proceed with the atdit if given GPU's assurance that it had "made that commitment." GPU responded affirma-tively ard the atdit did, in fact, take place, at which time it was revealed that the files did not approach adequacy. 'Ihus, the persons responsible for the EQ progrm, the OA. personnel ard GN managment are all implicated in this failure of cmpetence.

Relief Requested by UCS GPU _ argues that ICS's request for independent staff verification of the qualification of all EFW cmponents Ms already been fulfilled. Licensee's Response at .15. _ It states that "supp1mer.tal atdits" were condteted on May 2f GPU 's claim that it "could not have meant to convey the substance of the final QA firdirgs ... because the firdirgs were not empleted" (Licensee's Response at 14), is specious. Mr . Maus stated : "vb even had a trial assessnent on our file by our own QA to make sure that the kird of infor-mation is in there. We had indegndent verification if you will. *

• kh even had a trial rtn to make sure." Id., sphasis added. 'Ihe use of the pst tense tnambigtously conveys that the review ms done and that Mr.

Maus ' knew that the results were favorable. Given the context of the conversation, it is absurd to imagine that he muld have trgcd tRC to come to do the audit if the results were negative- or incmplete.

7--8 and 24 and in June and implies that these satisfy the request. In fact, it is our information that the "supplanental" atdits cover the sane cantonents as the original audit, with only a few additions, primarily cable, where deficiercies similar to thase already identified were noted by the staff. 'Ihe four days of supplanental atdit (ano ther is expected in July) consist of reviewirg the sane files over ard over again with GPU. It is astonishing that it . has taken this level of staff effort to achieve compliance of so few equipnent itens with the erwironnental qualification rule - ard the task is still not done! (bntrary to GPU 's assertion, this situation is far from reassurirg with respect to all safety-related canpanents outside the scope of the atdit. Indeed, one need rot have a crystal ball to predict that the level of canpliance of sich equipnent is very low irdeed. .

GPU responds to LCS's call for an ' investigation of Wiether it has made material false in' claimirg to have resporded to all outstardirg erwironnental

. qualification issues. It argtes that the staff asked for "more" after it had resporded ard that i t's statenents reflected "disagreenents" of " technical j tdgment and opin io n . . ." Licensee's Ibsponse at 16. Neither defense is corvincing. 'Ihe staff has not asked for "more;" the requirenents for a denonstration of environmental qualification have been kno m since at least CLI-80-21. GRJ's lack of urderstardirg approaches the wilfull, especially its attitude tourds the 1982 TER. As discussed tove, the' deficiencies in the EQ files were f und amental ones which a compe tent utility that too k its obligations seriotsly should have recognized.

Secord, puttirg aside the question of the content of the requironents, GPU claimai to have responda3 to all outstanding a)ncerns contained in the 'IER

and ~ this _ it manifestly did not do. It naw attenpts to explain this by

. differentiating betmen the IRC contractor's view and the staff's view and

3 i

,-u-

-B -

- arguing that it never knew dut the staff's views were mtil the a td it.

Licensee's Response , n.4 at 7. %is excuse is a feeble post-hoc rationaliza-tion W11ch, even if accepted, does not aid GN. We fact is that it claimed in writirg . to the NP.C to have resprded to the " concerns" identi fied in the

'IER and that it did rot. At best, GN is now providing an explanation for its non-response; that does not rebut the fact that its claim to have resprded to the 'IER concerns ms mtrue.

GPU attaches its formal response to. the staff's March atdit.2! We docunent contains _little that can be meaningfully reviewed , since it is campsed trimarily of generalized mdoctmented assertions that cannot be verified. As to the three generic concerns, GPU essentially states that it is in the process of addressing them. We claim is not even made that they are resolved. _ W are intrigued by GN's response to the staf f's generic concern over failure of the handwritten material to contain indication that it has "ever been verified. . . . or approved." GPU states that it is in the process of

. having that - material "sig ned , dated and approved ." Licensee's Ibspnse ,

enclosure l'at 1 -1. It should be noted that no ccmnittment is made to "ver ify" it, but only to " approve" it. *Ile this could be an mintentional anission, one cannot be sure, given GN's practice of interpretirg its commitments narrowly. (See - the discussion supra, pp. 3-4, 7-8 ) .

LCS has requested fran the staff the results of the May and June atdits.

Until these can be - evaluated , GPU's claims cannot be ver ified and are certainly entitled to no prestnption of accuracy given the inaccuracy of its prior claims.

3] Rirther, GPU criticizes (CS for making its supplanental filing without waitirg for GN's Ibsponse to the atdit. Licensee's response at 4. Ibr

- one thing, GN does not send (CS its EQ submittals to the staff and did not serd this one mtil it cane as an attachnent to the pleedirg. Havirg read it, we see nothing to have been gained by waiting a month.

L

-CONCLUSION GPU 's - response is ' wholly inadequa te . Ind eed , it rein fo rces the necessity for the relief regmsted by UCS.

Respectfully submitted, a

Elly1 R. Weiss General (bmsel

[

Union of (bncerned Scientists s Hannon, Miss & Jordan 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 430 Mshirgton, D.C. 20039 Dated: July 31,1984

.1

~.?,-

1 0

N s*

(NITED STATES OF MERICA NLCLFAR REGULATmY cot 4ISSION

' In the Matter of )'

)

ME'IROEOLITAN EDISCN C04PANY ) Docket 16 . 50-289

) (10 CFR 2.206)

(7hree Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " UNION OF COtCERNED ECIENPISTS REPLY TO LICE!EEE'S RESPONSE 70 SUPPLEMENT 'ID INION OF CONCERTED SCIENTISTS PETITION FCR SHOW CAUSE COICERNING T4I-l IMERGE!CY FEE 0 WATER SYSTEM" have been served on . the .following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class

. postage' prepaid, this 31st day of July 1984.

Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Ibcketirg and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washing ton, D.C. 20555

Janes' Asselstine, Ccmnissioner U.S. M.iciear Regulatory (bmmission Herzel P1aine, Esq.

. Mshirg ton, D.C. ~ 20555 General Qmsel U.S. Mac1 ear Regulatory 00mmission Frederick Bernthal, commissioner wishirgton, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washing ton, D.C.- 20555 Thomas A. Bax ter Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 7hanas Roberts, Ccanissioner - 1800 % Street, N.W.

. U.S. Maclear Regulatory Cbamission Washing ton, D.C. 20036

- Mshirg ton, D.C. 20555 y Mr. Henry D. Hakill Iando ' Zech,' Cbmmissioner Director of 7%I-l U.S. Nuclear Regulahry Cmmission GPU Nuclear (brporation Washing ton, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 480 Middletnwn, PA 17057 Harold ,Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washing ton, D.C. 20555

..