ML20117N866
| ML20117N866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1985 |
| From: | Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-031, CON-#285-31 SP, NUDOCS 8505200218 | |
| Download: ML20117N866 (2) | |
Text
oil 00CCT !!UM3Eit
-[IO
+
PROD. & UTIL FAC..g~~~ ~
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.. S. I101. Washington, DC 20036. (202) 296-5600 DCCXETED USNRC May 16,198E5 My 17 All :53 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, Comissioner
[0C E7 t G 5 SIPfl[I~
James K. Asselstine, Comissioner BRANCH Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Comissioner U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:
On April 26, 1985, UCS received a copy of a letter dated April 9, 1985 from John Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #4, to lenry D. Fukill, Vice President and Director
'IMI-1.
This letter contains the staff's conclusion that all pertinent equipent has been identified and is environmentally qual-ified for the radiation levels associated with a large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
The staff's letter encloses a Safety Evaluation Report.
khile these documents are not denoted as the certification to the Comission required by CLI-84-11, we assume that they may be treated as such.
In CLI-84-11, the Comission narrowed the scope of the issues concerning enviromental qualification of 'IMI-I safety equipent to one question:
the qualification of certain electrical equipent (that needed to respond to small break LOCA and loss of main feedwater accidents) to the radiation levels for a large break WCA specified by the EOR guidelines.
The staff was directed to certify this information to the Comission by mid-August 1984.
It has, however, taken the staff ten months longer to accomplish the task.
UCS is at this point entitled to review and coment on the data and analysis used by the staff.
The ability of this safety equipent to survive an accident was a UCS contention properly raised and pursued within the scope of the restart proceeding.
It may not legally be resolved on the basis of one party's extra-record subnissions to the Comission, even if that party is the' NRC staff.
As the Appeal Board recognized in this ~ proceeding, if a matter goes beyond the implementation of a -Board decision and involves the resolution of disputed matters, "such determinations must be made by an adjudicatory body, not the staff."
AT.AB-729, 17 NRC 814, 888 (1983).
An adjudicatory tribunal may not delegate its fundamental decision-raaking functions, particularly not to a party in the case.
Nor may agerry employees engaged in investigative or prosecuting functions " participate or advise in the decision."
5 U.S.C.
554 (d).
See Trans World Airlines v.
C.A. B., 254 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1958);
F.T.C. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 567 F.2d 96, 102 (D.C. Cir. 1977); King v.
Caesar Rodney Sctcol District, 380 F. Supp.1112,1118 (D. Cel.1974).
8505200218 850516 PDR ADOCK 05000289 C
PDR 51ein Office: 26 Church Street. Cambridge,5fassachusetts 02238. (617) 5 87-5552
4-
, Nor can the Comission resolve a factual issue in the proceeding by fiat, without allowing participation. See Minnesota v.
N.R.C., 602 F.2d 412 (D.C.
Cir. 1979). The law requires at least a basic opportunity to review the data and respond, putting aside for the time being the separate question of whether the law also requires an adjudication.
We have read. the ' staff's April 9 letter and the attached SER.
As. to the two fundamental questions here, those documents are singularly uninformative.
First, we are not told what equipnent was determined to be within the scope of -
the Order (i.e.,
required for a small break LCCA or loss of main feedwater) and.the criteria used for this determination.
Second,. there is no indication of how it was determined that this equipnent was qualified for the appropriate radiation levels.
Reference is repeatedly made to letters, oral discussions and repeated audits which are not provided.
Therefore, as a first necessary step, UCS asks the Comission to direct the staff to provide us innediately with the underlying data and documentation concerning the SER conclusions, including but not limited to all docunenta-tion, analyses, letters, subnittals, notes of oral discussions and test results.
Considering GPU's remarkably poor history regarding claims of envi-ronmental qualification, UCS believes that a review is more than warranted.
Very truly yours, 4z CJ
\\
Ellyn R. Keiss General Counsel cc: 91I-1 Service List 4
5-b
'