ML20136A688

Oeld Cannot Concur in App H Exemption Until Concerns Are Resolved Re Safety Evaluation Discussion of Thermal Surveillance & NRC Finding Supporting 10CFR50.12 Exemption

ML20136A688
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/23/1976
From:	Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Ross W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20125B444	List: IA-96-207, Forwards Comments by NRC Re Proposed NRC Responses to Senator Schweiker & R Nader on Security Problem.Draft Responses Encl IR 05000289/1974015 IR 05000289/1976008 IR 05000289/1977013 IR 05000289/1977036 ML20125B442 ML20125B445 ML20125B450 ML20126M904 ML20127A093 ML20127A097 ML20127B890 ML20128F507 ML20128F533 ML20128F556 ML20128F571 ML20128F641 ML20128F668 ML20128F893 ML20128F895 ML20128F904 ML20128F922 ML20128F956 ML20128F977 ML20129F343 ML20129F351 ML20129F370 ML20129F474 ML20129F487 ML20129F516 ML20129G431 ML20129G460 ML20129G511 ML20129G571 ML20129G612 ML20129G638 ML20129G768 ML20129H076 ML20129H083 ML20129H089 ML20129H097 ML20129H105 ML20129H111 ML20129H114 ML20129H128 ML20129H146 ML20129H165 ML20129H188 ML20129H201 ML20132A345 ... further results
References
FOIA-96-207 NUDOCS 7904250181
Download: ML20136A688 (1)

Text

._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _

7 ......a.  ;,....... .

.3"j]).;,9 -f's C :','x.

' . o.. ..~n .g.-',ad *. ;'

[

Of 1 M. . . ,'; '.

f*g April 23,1976 i i NOTE TO: BIL1, ROSS l  ;

1 i RE: TMI, UNIT NO.1 - APPENDIX H EXEMPTION 4

! In accordance with our discussions you have agreed to make the changes j indicated in pencil. In addition, I have two concerns:

)  !

1. Concern Regarding the Safety Era 1uation Discussion of Thermal i

Surveillmce .

t l It is clear that the purpose d Appendiz H is to require monitoring of changes in the fracture toughness proputies of ferritic materials in the reactor vessel l

wall caused by (a) neutron irradetion and (b) the thermal environment. The i Staff's safety evaluation addresses its (a) only. The Staff's evaluation indi-cates that the surveillance capsules have, in essence, experienced neutron irradiation more than the vessel wall wd1 experience in the first three cycles of operation. The Staff's safety evaluation does not, however, address item j

(b), the thermal environment. OELD cannot concur in this package until l the Staff's safety evaluation addresses the following issue: Whether during

. Cycle 2 operation the vessel wa11 might es perience some thermal change

! (due possibly to some transient) that cou11 exceed the thermal exposure '

l

, i experienced _. ., . .

by the s.urveillance capsules.

.t - . - .,...~. ~

J

.i .. 2. Moncern Regar' ding the Staff't Fin 6.ng Supporting the 5' 50.12 i

. Exemption

[. .

l In addition. I believe that the Staff has not made the flading necessary to 1

support the granting of a l 50.12 saeraption. It is clear from the language of

j. this section that the Staff must find that operation of TMI, Unit No. I with the l

reactor vessel surveillance capsules removed is in the public interest and j l will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.

Until these concerns are satisfied, OELD cannot concur in this package.

, i

! i

i

}

~ilenry J. McGurren f . ,

. -j Y g ELD '.. .

l j 1 e~ HMcGurre -

l g sTgh 7

\m M o 493-9 g ' " %- '

/ t,rp ul M 8l yp /P ,

- -