ML20106A874

Forwards Util Comments in Response to Friends of the Earth 841223 Petition Under 10CFR2.206 to Revoke Unit 1 OL & Issue Order to Show Cause Why License Should Not Be Revoked.Relief Request Unwarranted

ML20106A874
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/06/1985
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8502110408
Download: ML20106A874 (12)

Text

.

m.

LAW OFFICES CONNER & WETTERHAHN P.C.

174 7 PEN N SYLVA NI A AV EN U E. N. W.

TCOT B. CONN ER, JR. WASIIINGTON. D. C. 20000 E!EERTi."RIt R D3UOyS E OLSON J31SICA H. LAVERTY w LSa wiCHotS February 6, 1985

- A ACH A. MOORE. J R.* 1202)833-3500 EI$ CERT H. PURL C3 N H ARD G.- BECHHOEFER

• N'1T AD4f f 7ED IN D. C.

Mr.- Harold R. Denton Director -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Denton:

In response to the petition submitted to you by Robert L. Anthony.for himself and on behalf of Friends of the Earth

.(collectively " FOE"), dated December 23, 1984, requesting relief pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.206, I am hereby submitting comments of Philadelphia Electric Company. For the reasons.

stated therein, the matters raised by petitioners do not-warrant the relief requested. Accordingly, the relief.

requested by FOE should be denied.

Sincerely, Mark-.J. Wetterhahn Counsel.for the Licensee

-MJW:sdd Enclosure cc: ' Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.

! Robert.L. Anthony b

I eso211o40s 850206 k.

.PDR ADOCK 05000 o -

t

COMMENTS OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ON FOE'S REQUEST UNDER 10 C.F.R. S2.206 On. December 23, 1984, Mr. R.L. Antheny, for himself and

- as representing Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley

.(collectively " FOE" or " petitioner"), submitted a petition to the. Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to s

institute proceedings to revoke the operating license for Unit 1 and to issue an order to show cause why this license should.not be revoked.1! Petitioner claims that "PECO is in

. violation . of NRC regulations and is subjecting us and the public to the risk of extensive unauthorized health . and safety dangers by starting the nuclear reactor without the requised safety provisions. "2_/ - Petitioner also claims that Philadelphia

Electric Company ("PECO") has " willfully violated our-health, safety and interests and those of the -

public" and "is-. not qualified to operate this ' reactor safely."3/ As basis for these charges, petitioner cites-portions of. publicly available documents prepared-by'either 1/ " Petition -by Intervenor, R.L. Anthony / Friends of . the

- Earth,' Lto the '. . Director, 'Off. 'of - Inspection- andl Enforcement: to : Institute Proceedings -to - Revoke ~ License .

NPF-27,-Issued-to'PECO; and to-Issue an Order-to-Show Cause Why This'; License Should-Not;be Revoked"- (December 23, .1984) - (" Petition") .

2/ Petition at'l'.

.-~'

3/ cId.

4 lL dm _"-

2-

-PECO or the NRC Staff. Certain of these documents were made available directly to the representative of petitioner because of his participation in the Limerick operating license proceeding. As discussed in detail below, none of the; matters raised by petitioner, either examined alone or taken. collectively, supports the requested relief. FOE has

. failed to demonstrate that a proceeding should be instituted pursuant to S2.206 of the Commission's Rules'of Practice.

The Director,-upon receipt of a request to initiate a

~

proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.206, is required to make an inquiry _ appropriate to the facts which have been assert-ed. He is free to rely on a variety of sources of informa-

-tion including Staff analyses of generic issues, documents issued by other agencies and the comments of the Licensee or.

the -factual allegations in deciding whether further action is ' required. . See - Northern Indiana Public ' Service Company.

(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 432, :433 (1978) citing Consolidated Edison Company of'New York (Indian? Point, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175c (1975). _ In- reaching his determination, the Director-need not accord presumptive validity to _each -assertion of

. fact, irre'spective: of the degree of substantiation, : or : to.'

convene an adjudicatory proceeding- .in . order _ to determine

.whether an adjudicatory proceeding is warranted. Id.

FOE makes a number of accusations ~ regarding actions of.

Philddelphia Electric: Company;and the NRC. For example', it asserts ~ that "PECO is -- in violation 'of NRC _ regulations,"

4

. L s..

m- 7<

JJ ~

x

-"PECO has. willfully violated our health safety and interests

' andfinterests and those of the public," "PECO is not qual-

~

ified to operate this reactor safely," and there exists a

" deliberate, willful neglect- of public safety. "O These

-- assertions are unfounded and entirely without basis. The

~ entire request . is conclusory and without factual or legal r-- ,

foundation. It merely notes various publically available reports'and filings 'with the NRC made by PECO and various

NRC reports and evaluations. In each instance, petitioner

! concludes without more that the evaluations in each document

.-are inadequate. When such documents discuss why the public health and safety is not affected, FOE merely takes the lg conclusions-of-such documents which are based upon; lengthy evaluation and discussion andi simply states that they.are

unfounded.~. Petitioner' then, without basis, merely o states p .the! negative of the conclusions which had.been substantiated-p in: ' Licensee's . presentation.. 'This- lis'E insufficient ~ as discussed above to ' require the-- institution of a proceeding r.

! --  ; pursuant.to_S2.206 1 .

, ~ '

+

. A - \

4 O ' Initially, FOE claims- thati PECO's -applications!Lfor r: .

exemptions :from ~ the re,quirements of : '10) C.F.R. :Part ._5 0 -

x - ,- 1

, . . , a .-

'" constitute willful ~ sacrifice.'of public safety." E FOE '

~ ~

, ] >fdils ito : state Janyf reason whyf it1 waited untilSnow to raise

_ 4f; : Petition ati'1,(2k i' >- 4

5/!

Id.Jat91. I x

? -

s '

'?; ,

W1 .-.  ?<  ? =_=_2-___- :__________-_,_ _________'_._-

' these matters. The latest of these exemption requests was requested in October. FOE fails to appreciate that matters discussed in the first exemption request it discusses related to modifications to the Remote Shutdown System, and others filed by the Company, address the legal standard contained in the NRC's own. regulations, in particular 10.

C.F.R.- S50.12. Such standards have recently been - endorsed

- and ratified by the Commission.5I Section- 50.12 requires 1that a request for exemption must not endanger- life or

.. property or the common defense and security and be otherwise in the public interest.U The FOE petition cites various phrases from this exemption request _and baldly concludes without anything further that this shows "a-casual attitude toward the loss of the control room and- ability to shut down. the plant in case' of accident." I_d,. Reference to the October 25, 1984:

request demonstrates that. this accusation is entirely

~

' 6 / -- IMississippi Power-& Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear

~

' Station, Unit 1) , CLI-84-9, 20 NRC. .(slip'op..at 7,.

-n.7) (October _ 25, 1984).

7/

~

FOE mischaracterizes-portions of Mr. Kemper'.s letter of October -25, 1984. FOE attempts to argue. that.~the.

Company; is minimizing -public health and safety. .The

-portion of the _ letter quoted a t n .1, Petition at 2, states--that.only the-potential impact on public health

~

~

-and. safe'yJis'at-issue. It was: contrasting this to the-l previous. sentence which concluded that the- c o m m o n '-

, . defense :and security - was - not affected and ~.therefore -

J < need^not be discussed:insthe exemption request. . It_is-certainly' not' 'any ~ . degradation of the importance.4of

-public-health'and safety.

A

7

' ~

without basis. After discussing the ability of the control room to provide safe shutdown capabilities and the capabil-ities of the existing Remote Shutdown Panel room, it is explained that procedures will be available to provide redundant remote shutdown capability using equ'pment pres-

ently installed in the plant in conjunction with temporary

( jumpers. It further explains that these procedures will be reviewed, approved and in place prior to exceeding five

, percent power. It also explains that prior to exceeding

'five ' percent power, only minimal decay heat requiring

. removal will ' exist. As a result, substantial time is available to take mitigative actions. The NRC has already

~ reviewed this matter and determined that this exemption, as well-as all others, was warranted. In NUREG-0991, Supple-ment No. 3, Safety Evaluation Report Related to zthe Opera-tion E of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Section 7.4.2.3 -and Sections 7.1.4.4 and -7.4.2.3' of NUREG-0991, - the NRC- Staff found that these actions were t.cceptable.. Thus, FOE has failed to : demonstrate that this matter.provides-any basis for the convening of a hearing.-

Similarly, the other examples of exemptions requested and granted 'by the NRC do not'give rise to anything:which would : require the institution ' of' proceedings . pursuant ~ to..

152.206.- Initially, as with-the previous example, FOE. -.f ails

to recognize . the .. necessity for - discussing - the . criteria 'of -

$50.12 in: exemption ' requests'. Secondly, it would impose a

~

criteria ' that ;would. ; require a : " guarantee _" of the public 3

..i

-)

hea'lth and safety.EI This is simply not the licensing stan-

.dard which is required for utilization facilities.EI Moreover, as noted above, the exemption requests cited by FOE are even earlier than the October 25 example discussed above. There is absolutely no reacon why FOE has waited this long to' raise these~ matters. Finally, aside from general assertions where it states the negative of all matters discussed by Licensee in detail, it presents no reason at all why a hearing must be convened. Pursuant to

.S2.206 it had the opportunity to submit affidavits or other technical material supportive of its request for relief, but

' did not choose to do so. It has produced' absolutely nothing which would call' into question the analyses presented by Applicant or ~ the Staff in approving each of the exemptions.EI In summary, the institution of a proceeding is not warranted based upon the material ~ presented.

The next section of the petition discusses Licensee

- Event Reports that have been submitted by Philadelphia-8/ . Petition at 3.

-9/ . Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396,

'414 (1961); Carstens v. NRC, -742 F.2d 1546,-1557 (D.C.

Cir. 1984).-

s fl0/

The = citations to the portions of - the . Safety Analysis.

Report in which the NRC.' Staff has reviewed and approved

'- each of the. exemption requests granted are contained in

. Section D of' Facility Operating License, NPF-27, issued

October 26, 1984.'

p_g  ;<;

, ' .y '

t .

-7_

Electric Company to the Commission concerning the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.73.EI While it is alleged that " practically all of [the cited LER's] could have endangered the public with a serious accident affecting safety systems at the plant, and consequent involvement of the reactor and the threat of radioactivity to the environment," petitioner fails to discuss any instance wherein the public health and safety was affected or even where it was even remotely

.y threatened. It fails to show any any sighificance or pattern ' associated with these reports. Sone, such~as LER 84-002, show that a scram occurred and thus that the safety systems were functional during the time. See also - LER 84-005.

FOE also cites two inspection reports regarding a fuel

-bundle' hitting the spent fuel pool wall while it was being positioned for placement into the spent fuel pool.N ~ While FOE : claims there'was " willful deceptiveness" . involved, it

- points, to no specific deficiency. The" discussion of this

. matter in NRC Inspection , Report 84- 43 at' 27 clearly' discuss-es the reasonable steps that were taken to determine'if~any damage resulted from this . matter. FOE " fails to raise any 4 matter requiring further review. In sum, none- of the LM/L Petition at'4-5.

il2/- Id. at 5.

. . .- . e

_g_ l y ,

s -Licensee' Event Reports or the other matters raised in this section warrant the. institution of a proceeding.

In its next section, FOE lists a number of open items a-

~

from . NRC-~ inspection reports and a ' number of pieces of

-'+-. correspondence between-the NRC Staff and Applicant.13/ It-

~ ~

s does not analyze these matters in any detail whatsoever, a merely concluding-that thel license should"be revoked based

~

upon a listing of--these matters.

open items are matters which have been found not to be atviolation of the NRC requirements but which an inspector

[- :may wish to follow up. N Thus, while unresolved items may 1

1 exist,:it does.not mean that the. Applicant _has not fulfilled

i. ,

-all, requirements. In any event many of the items noted-by.

3Mr. Anthony- have .already been closed.- FOE does' not recognize .this- even though open items from' previous-Linspection1 reports were closed ' iniinspection reports which JFOE cites,ce.g., unresolved ~ Item. 84-24-01 referenced on p. 5 of the. FOEi Petition was closed in. Inspection Report .84-60,

'also referenced-by FOE onLthe same'page.-

213/ Idi, at:5-6.

x- 214/L 03.06: O?en' Item. Mattersi thatf require' further review and:eva:.uation by'thelinspectors.' Open-items:are used

' ~

. to d o c u m e n t , t r a c k ,9 7and ensure - adequate ' followup.~_ on

-matters; ofi concern to the - -inspector.

Inspection i and -

. . - Enforcement; > Manual, Chapter 0610-03 " Inspection

Reports," Definitions. . Issue Date

1/27/84.

n J'

- ' m- _ . _ . _ _.____m_ - - _ . _ _ . ,_1_. _____m..m __m.__w_m2____m_ __

.~

g n FOE-points to a number of other letters and gives their y- 1 general ! subject matter, but fails to discuss how NRC re-I

quirements.have not been met. FOE has failed to demonstrate 1that anything in these letters rises to a matter which warrants the institution of a proceeding for the revocation

'ofithe' operating' license.

The .last paragraph of this section discusses the i potential for damage to the ultimate' heat sink from tornado missiles.EI FOE complains that the Idaensee's letter does i

-not include a discussion of the threat to safe shutdown from

. the . design railroad explosion which could simultaneously collapse the cooling towers and disable- the water intake structure . at the river. " There are several . problems with ,

.this argument. Initially, this matter of the. design rail-

- roa'd-explosion'was the subject of a contention filed by-FOE.

< :Itkwas . rejected by 'the - Licensing . Board.16/ FOE did not t

appeal such; denial.h The 52.206 process.may not..be1used as 1a vehicle for. c re'onsideration- of- issues- previously; decided.: Consolidated Edison of - New York, Inc. (Indian i

15/f.Id.,at16'.

116/{ -"Orderi (Concerning < Proposed FOE Contentions ) on -Hazards '

from' Industrial. . Activities) ," (November . 22, 11982) 7(unpublished).-

l'7/ 'See,IR . L~. ' Anthony / FOE ' Brief in Support: of Appeal to -

s Appeal - Board . of 710/23/84 / fromSecond ' Partial Initial

- Decision,-iLBP.-84-31;-Lon Contentions' .V ' '3a: and V 3b (November 23,.1984). .

1 e

i <

16- ,

~i- .

J-

1. 1 ,

g . -

6@ '

~

1. g ,

a; 'V-ll . -'. Point, Unit Nos. 1, .2 and 3) , CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 177 l'  : (1975) ; : Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear. Power Plant, Units 1- and 2) , CLI-81-6, 13 NRC 443, 446 l(1981)'. See also Texas Utilities Generating' Company .

s J(Comanche Peak: Steam . Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),

- DD-83-11',- 18 NRC 293,' 295- _ (1983) . -

Second, FOE is factually.

incorrect in its assertion. Assuming arquendo that the

~

design- railway explosion collapsed the cooling towers and disabled the water intake structure on the Schuylkill, the ultimate-heat ~ sink'which is' independent of these two could 4 ' shut?down'both reactors and keep them in a safe condition.

This is contemplated. by .the design - bases of the ultimate i heat sink and. fully discussed in the application M

~

i FOE next claims it has never be'en1given at final report ofEthe Torrey Pinesfcorporation. By ' letter dated . December' ,g J <

12, 1984-- to Philadelphia Electric Company from Torrey, Pines *

~ '

Technology,< the " Independent Design' Review lof: Limerick-GeneratingLStation,; Unit 1,-No'. 1' Spray System" was trans-L v . . . . . . , ..

mitted. . Mr. Anthony 11s indicated aschaving.been sent a copy- ,

Jof1this~ document-with its. enclosure.. FOElhas shown:nothing; Lwhich - would ' require the institution of 'a. proceeding -

t'o~

.' consider the-independent design verification program..

- In : conclusion, inothing fin. ' the petition, :taken :indi-T

-vidually . ori collectively,' warrants the institution of a

.s ..

P 318/- FSARf59.2.6.1. \ I

,7 e*

< - g g p  %

4 m .. , ,

l> ~

-1

1-

~ *

. 11. _

n -

-proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 for the revocation

!of. the - operating license for: Limerick, Unit 1. Therefore, the. relief requested by FOE should be denied.

f t.

Er "e

i

[

-L 4 e

t i a r .

a k