ML20136J334

Submits View Re Possible Restart of Facility Prior to Completion of Seismic Design Improvements Required by NRC 820811 Order

ML20136J334
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/20/1984
From:	Bell N NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE
To:	Asselstine J, Bernthal F, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FOIA-84-885 NUDOCS 8508200684
Download: ML20136J334 (2)

Text

H I I f

^(. _

~ = .-

g - r = w- ,

\ucear n"ormation anc Resource Service 1346 Connecticut kenue irl!. 4:n Roor. Washing:0n. D.C. 20036 (2;h 295 7552 November 20, 1984 Commissioner Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Commissioner Frederick Bernthal Commissioner James Asselstine Commissioner Thomas Roberts Commissioner Lando Zech

Dear Corr.missioners:

It has come to our attention that the Commission will be considering on Wednesday November 21, 1984 the possible restart of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (SONGS-1) prior to completion of seismic design improvements which were required by a 1982 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) order.

The August 11, 1982 " Order Confirming Licensee Commitments on Seismic Upgrading" made, future opera, tion of SONGS-1 contingent upon upgrading of the facility to meet a 0.67g (modified Housner Spectrum) ground motion input. The plant has been,, shut down since February 1982, when NRC apparently determined that SONGS-1  ;

no longer fully complied with the 0.5g standard incorporated into the original operating license.

In our view, operation of this facilty prior to full compliance

, with the terms of the 1982 NRC order would require a license smendment, with the attendant opportunity for public participation and the making of a "No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination" by the Staff. It is our understanding, however, that the licensee, Southern California Edison Company, has requested that the Commission treat the 1982 order as an enforcement action that could now be modified at the discretion of the Commission. We do not agree with this approach. Should the Commission consider supporting such a discretionary action with a finding that the public health and safety would be adequately protected, than it should also attempt

~to make a formal "No~Significant Hazards Consideration l Determination." If, in fact, the Commission cannot make such a l finding, it has no business whatsoever deciding this important safety issue in a " discretionary" fashion. Moreover, however

, inelegantly crafted', the 1982 Order clearly states on its face --._

that the facility shall be maintained in a shutdown condition  % :

until the modifications are completed a.nd NRC approval is \ ,

obtained for restart. .A departure from these requirements i previously imposed by NRC calls for a license amendment both in  :

l principle and in fact. O 8508200684 841120 i NLB 5 PDR

e b

Congress mandated the process for treating license amendments, known as the "Sholly provision," for the very purpose of making changes such as this: the present move to vary from the terms of tne 1982 Order is one which would result in operation of the plant in a less safe condition than previously required. There is simply no question that a facilty designed and built to meet 0.67g ground motion input is safer than a facility built to withstand 0.5g. That, in fact, is the basis for the Staff's original decision to keep the unit shutdown, a decision that might appear somewhat frivolous should the modifications now be deemed by the Commission co be unnecessary. The Sholly procedure ensures that the Staff is able to make a technically supportable finding on the safety significance of the proposed change in operation in lieu of some sort of " seat of the pants" judgment.

Additionally, we are troubled by the circumstances under which this matter has come before the agency. The Commission has been advised by both its own staff and the licensee that the sole reason for any proposed restart of SONGS-1 at this time is because of a ruling by the California Public Utility Commission.

Relaxing a previously required safety standard because of the financial predicament of a nuclear licensee is contrary to the strictures of the Atomic Energy Act.- -NRC's own General Counsel has previously advised the Commission of the limited consideration of economics in licensing actions tha't is permitted by the Act.

Further it is not clear to us whether the NRC Staff has done any truely independent and original verification of the licensee's claims that those systems not presently designed to meet 0.67g are capable of withstanding 0.5g. Given the NRC Staff's previous disagreements with the licensee regarding the seismic design of SONGS-1, and the outstanding investigation by the Office of Investigation of this matter, it seems particularly ill advised to uncritically rely on the licensee's calculations and claims.

Finally, in view of the circumstances discussed above, such an action by the Commission would appear to be a deliberate attempt <

to circumvent any public participation in this decision.

'Sincerel ,

Nina Bell

" Assistant Director l

l

i  ;

i Q $ (&.Y =-l

\ucear n"ormation anc Resource Service 1346 Ccanect c ;l,,n,e NW J:n Floor. Wamngton D C 20036 (202:296 7552 November 28, 1984 James M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Adminstration FREEDOM OF INFORMATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACT REQUEST

[O7A -// [/g i

Washington, D.C. 20555 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REOUEST SC h //~d f-/

Dear Mr. Felton:

l I

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, as amended, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service regeests the following documents regarding San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS-1). Please consider " documents" to include reports, studies, test results, correspondence, memoranda, meeting notes, meeting minutes, working papers, graphs, charts, diagrams, notes and summaries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forms of written communication, including internal NRC Staff memoranda. The documents are specifically requested from, but not limited to, the Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD); Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR); and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).

Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to:

1. The legal and technical questions, analyses and opinions of the NRC Staff and NRC attorneys in OELD and OGC regarding the restart of SONGS-1, in particular documents which address the matter of restart prior to 100% completion of seismic upgrades;

2. The Commission's November 21, 1984 decision to allow the restart of operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 including particularly all memoranda, draft and final, written by the OGC; and

3. Communications (written or oral) of Southern California Edison Company, the licensee, with the NRC Staff and the Commissioners prior to the Commission meeting on November 21, 1984 that concern restart of construction prior to 100% completion of seismic upgrades.

In our opinion, it is appropriate in this case for you to waive search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (4) (A) "because

furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public." The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a non profit organization serving local organizations concerned about nuclear power and providing infor-mation to the general public. Information required by 10 CFR 9.14a was provided by letter dated August 3, 1984. NIRS is requesting this legal and technical analysis done by or for the NRC Staff and the Commissioners for the purpose of assessing the legality of the Commission's decision to allow restart of SONGS-1. The documents requested will be provided to concerned citizens and interested media. If there are any questions regarding a fee waiver in this case I request immediate notification of same.

Sincer w Nina Bell Assistant Director cc: File i

l l

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