ML20147E517
| ML20147E517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210142 | |
| Download: ML20147E517 (22) | |
Text
-,
ORlGlNAL
~4
~
UN11ED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF BRUCE W. ALATARY 1
(
LOCATION:
PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PAGES:
1 - :5 4
DATE THURSDA?, MAY 2, 1985
,.:.2 fol R - D' b'l h
)
W 37 l
e s
C" 1
AG-FEDERr REPORiERS,1NC.
s 1~
Offi:ial Reporters
" ~, 7 444 North Canitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001
~~
8801210142 880106 A M7 3700 EM / /
bESG8 696 PDR 9%T10NWIDE COVIDAG
CR22966.2 1
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR 23GULATORY COM.'!ISSION l
3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 4
I 3
GPUN Headquarters 100 Interpace Parkway 0
Parsippany, New Jersey 7
Thursday, May 2, 1985 8
The Investigative Intetview convened at 1:28 p.m.,
9 Richard A.
Matakas, presiding.
10 PRESENT:
11 BRUCE W. ALATARY, Incerviewee 12 l
RICHARD A. MATAKAS, Investigator
[
13 Region I l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Id King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15 ROBERT G.
LA GRANGE i
Section Leader 16 EQ Branch Offic: of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 17 18 19 l
l 20
~
21 1
i 23 W.
. Roco.wa, tre, 2
25 l
I l
22966.2 2
(
BRT
[
l PROCEED I NGS 2
MR. MATAKAS:
The date is May 2, 1985.
The time 3
is 13:2E.
Present for this interview are myself, Richard 4
A. Matakas, U.S.
NRC; Bob LaGrange, section leader, EQ 5
branch NRR; and Mr. Bruce Alatary, QA engineering manager, 6
GPUN.
The purpose of the interview is to discuss facts 7
and circumstances leading to GPUN's submittals to the NRC 8
involving the qualification of electrical equipment at 5-TMI-1.
10 Mr. Alatary, do you have any objection to providing 11 this information under oath?
12 THE WITNESS:
No.
13 Whereupon, 14 BRUCE W. ALATARY 15 was called as a witness and, hsving been first duly sworn, 16 was examined and testified as follows:
17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MATAKAS:
19 Q
Mr. Alatary, would you give us your businest 20 address and telept.one number, please?
21 A
GPU Nuclear, 100 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, 22 New Jersey.
I'm at area code 291-299-2?20.
33 Q
When did you start with GPUN*:
24 A
I have been with GPUN since its inception in 25 1981, I believe.
I was with Jersey Central Power & Light
22966.2 3
.BRT
{
l previous to that point in time.
2 Q
During 1981, what was your position?
3 A
I was dyster Creek project engineer, working the 4
Oyster Creek projtet.,
5 Q
And what was your next assignment after that 6
within the organization?
7 A
I transferred over to the QA division, QA 8
department, in 1983.;
It was a promotion to supervisor, 9
which is the position that I'm in today.
10 Q
Are you familiar with the GPUN internal audit 11 81-02?
12 A
Very slightly.
13 Q
How about any of the responses, either from Tech 14 Functions or back to --
15 A
No.
Auditing is a separate function from QA 16 e ng inee r i ng.
It's under another management chain.
17 Q
What would your responsibilities be in your 18 current position as opposed to the actual auditing side?
19 A
Oka'.
Generally at the corporate locLtion, CA t
l 20 engineeri ng is reviewing modification packages composed of I
21 design criteria documents, varioLo specifications, t
l 22 procurement documents fcr compliance to the ;rogram.
23 Q
What interfcce d'a you have wish t.i -
24 e.,vironmental qualification program?
25 A
At wnat point in time?
I I
I
22966.2 BRT 4
1 Q
At any point in time.
Well, let's say from 1981 2
on, when Mr. Maus was the manager of EQ?
3 A
I personally didn't have any involvement -- any 4
reason to discuss things with those individuals.
5 Q
Do you recall a meeting that took place early 6
198 !, where Mr. Chisholm brought up the subject of 7
contracting for help in the area of environmental 8
qualification?
9 A
His contracting or me contracting?
10 Q
Brought up the subject of contracting?
11 A
I don't believe so.
12 Q
Did you bring up the subject?
13 A
I don't believe I was at the meeting.
f 14 Q
This would have been a meeting that you would 15 have taken notes from.
16 A
And that's -- I don't believe I was at that 17 meeting.
l 18 Q
Do you recall the subject of contracting o:st for 19 help in the area of EQ ever being brought up by anyone?
20 Brought to your attention?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Did you ever bring it up to anyone?
23 A
Yes.
When I was turned on by my managehtent to 24 start reviewing EQ packages, I discussed with my 25 management the concept of bringing in contractor support.
I 1
22966.2 5
BRT I
1
,Q Who requested you to review these packages?
2 A
My management, Nick Kazanas.
3 Q
And what time period are we talking about?
4 A
Mid-May, I believe.
5 Q
Of?
6 A
1984.
7 Q
What did you find wher. you st'irted auditing 8
these EQ packages?
And when fou talk about EQ package,
l 9
are you talking about files for the individual 10 qualification of compone.
??
11 A
When tre started looking at the individual files 12 we found that engineering's perception of what was an 13 auditable piece of locumentation and our idea of an 14 auditable piece of documentation were very much seperate.
15 0
And when you say ' engineering," are you talking 16 about specifically the environmental qualification section, 17 wnich was headed by Mr. Maus?
10 A
The people that had the responsibility for that 19 function; yes.
29 Q
Do you feel the program could have been handled 21 with the amount of resources that was given to the program 22 f rom 1981 to the time you started looking at the packages?
23 A
I can't say.
I don't -- I don't know anything 24 about the reaources that they really had available.
25 Q
I would like to show you a coupi t of d oc ume n ts.
22966.2 6
BRT
/
1 They are letters, GPUN letters 3 one signed by Mr. Toole 2
for Mr. Hukill.
The second is signed by M':. Mukill >~ it 3
is dated May 29, 1983.
The GPU letter nueber is 5213-85-157, 4
and it is to NRR.
The second letter is also to NRR, dated 5
February 19, 1984, letter number 5211-84-2938.
6 I would like to show you thesti and ask you if you beva 7
evet seen theu before?
8 A
Okay.
I know I have never seen this one from 9
the date.
19 Q
The May 29?
11 A
Yes.
- 1983, 12 The format -- I nave seen this format before, but as 13 far as content I can't say I have ever seen this 14 particular letter.
15 Q
The subject, and what we are looking into, is 16 basically the May 20th letter states that the conclusion 17 that the components are in accordance with DOR guidelines 12 dated November 1979, &nd those components are the ones 19 listed on the SCEW sheets for environmental qualxfication 29 and they were attached to this August 28, 1981 letter.
21 That's in the May 20th document.
22 The February 10th document states that it is GPUN's 23 position that IMI-1 is currently in compliance with the 24 environmental qualification rule le CFR 59.49 as 25 applicable to TMI-1.
h..
22966.2 7
BRT j
1
.Are you familiat with DOR guidelines?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Are you familiar with 59.49?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
In effect, both documents state that they must 6
be -- there must be auditable files and documentation must 7
exist to show qualification of tra individual components.
8 Is that correct?
9 A
Yes.
It doesn't define, necessarily, le auditability, what that entails, but it does allude to 11 that.
12 Q
It does list the areas that cost be -- a 13 component must be qualified for?
14 A
Yes.
i 15 Q
Humidity -- whatever?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Based on your knowledge of the files, when you 18 started looking into this matter in, I believe it was May i
19 1984, were these statements true statements?
Would you l
l 29 have made these statements?
21 A
Please give me, again, what tne statements are.
22 Q
"The additional information we submit in our i
23 letters dated May 3, 1983 and May 16, 1983, support our l
l 24 conclusions that the components listed are qualified in l
25 accordance with DOR guidelines dated November 1979.*
l l
l l
l t
22966.2 8
BRT
[
l
.That's the May 2d statement.
2 The February 19 statement states:
"It is GPUN's 3
position that TMI-l is currently in compliance with the 4
environmental qualification rule 19 CFR 59.49, as 5
applicable to TMI-1."
6 A
In my opinion, those are not false statements.
7 Q
How so?
Why do you say they are not false 8
statements?
9 A
Because I haven't seen any real whole scale 19 (sic) changeouts of the equipment because it is 11 unqualified today.
12 C
I'm talking about in the area of documentation.
13 Not that the components were not qualified, but the fact 14 that in order to be qualified you must have documentation 15 and auditable files.
I'm talking about specifically in 16 that area.
17 A
And, it would be dif ficult for me to assess enat.
i 18 I'd have to go back and look at it.
19 I will say that I think it's fairly nebulous what 1
l 29 constitutes auditable documentation.
We have had a lot of I
l l
21 discussions in house, what constitutes auditable 22 documentation, and one can go to one end of the spectrum 1
23 and come up with one idea and go to the other end and come 24 up with reams and reams and reams of paper requirements.
25 Q
You mentioned earlier that there seemed to be a l
1
22966.2 9
BRT
[
1 wide variance in your idea of w!iat constituted 2
documentation and what existed at the time, when you 3
looted into the files in May 1984.
4 A
Right.
But I can't say that I was necessarily 5
right, either.
We had very high level management 6
discussioris about what adequate paper was, and QA 7
engineering couldn't always defend some of the points 8
raised.
9 Some points were weaker than others and we felt we le could give those weak ones up.
11 So there isn't black and white.
There's this big gray 12 area in the center and where do you finally end up in that 13 gray area is very much debatable.
14 C
You mentioned you had high level discussions 15 abt.c this?
High level management discussions?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
When were these discussions held and during what 1
18 time?
l 19 A
They were generally through June, July, and 29 August of 1983.
21 Q
19837 22 A
I'm sc?ry -- 1984.
1984.
We started on the l
l 23 review effort June 4, 1984.
That's really when I became t
l 24 involved.
25 MR. MATAKAS:
Bob, do you have any questions?
l 1
l
22966.2 19 BRT
(
l MR. LA GRANGE:
Yes.
2 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
3 Q
Bruce, the documentation that's in the files now, 4
would you say the files are substantially different than 5
they were at the time those letters were written?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Do you feel that the documentar. ion that's in 8
those files now is -- what do you f eel about the 9
documentation that's in there now, with regard to its 19 necessity to be there to demonstrate the equi' ment was 11 qualified?
12 A
I believe that it's necessary to have that 13 detail.
14 Q
Was thet detail in those files at the time those 15 letters were written?
16 A
No, those types of details weren't there.
17 Q
What would support those statements on those two 18 letters?
19 A
The responsible people's accountability that 29 they have reviewed certain test reports, have done 21 analysis -- maybe not formal analysis.
Tnat's about as 22 far as you can go, because there wasn't necessarily the 23 completeness of documentation that we have today.
24 0
Do those statements mean to you that -- as I 25 understand it to be, what you are saying, that because
22966.2 11 BRT
/
1 there vaa not wholesale replacement or modification of 2
equipment, that the equipment was shown eventually to be 3
qualified; however, it took a conciderable amount more 4
documentation to show that equipment was qualified?
Is 5
that what you are saying?
I 6
A Yes.
7 Q
So, when those statements were made, you would 8
agree that all the documentation necessary to support 9
those statements was not in the files at that time?
10 A
It didn't appear to be.
It didn't appear to be.
11 Q
When you talked, earlier, about consultants, you 12 hired any consultant?
13 A
I hired two individuals to provide manpower to 14 review the 50 or so files for TMI.
15 Q
Did they ever give you a written report on their 16 findings?
17 A
No.
They weren't hired to do an assessment or 18 provide a written report.
They were hired to provide an 19 in-line review function.
And generally their comments are 20 documented and closed out.
21 Q
And verbal feedback from them, wnat did they 22 indicate to you were the results of their findings?
23 A
That there were some spots in the files that 24 needed f urther refining; a little more depth of thought i
j 25 process.
h
2296602 12 BRT
{
1
,Q When did th.ty start looking at the files?
2 A
June 4.
3.
3 Q
June 4th?
4 A
1984.
5 Q
How were the results of their review documented?
6 A
We have an in-house review comment process, and 7
we use review comment sheets; and it's documented on those 8
sheets as a formal yet informal method of reviewing, 9
providing w;itten backup and close-out of comments.
10 Q
fou did not have anybody prior to June assisting 11 you in any kind of review of documentation?
12 A
We didn't look at the files prior to June.
13 Q
So basically you would characterize their 14 findings as there's maybe' a few pieces of documentation 15 that were lacking in the files?
Would you characterize it, 16 their finding, as no big deal, things were in pretty good 17 shape basically?
18 A
ch, we never said things were in pretty good 19 s h a pe.
We collectively felt there was a significant i
t 20 amount of effort that had to go into bringing the files up 21 to speed.
And I worked against the regulations, they l
22 worked against their outside experience, and comparison to l
f 23 other plants.
l 24 Q
Did they at any time tell you or imply that in 25 their opinion what was there would not have supported a
22966.2 13 BRT
[
1 statement such that the equipment has been shown to be 2
qualified in accordance with 50-49 or the DOR guidelines?
3 A
Repeat the question?
4 Q
Did they ever indicate to you, either verbally, 5
directly, or imply to you, that the documentation they 6
found in those files, in June, could not have supported a 7
statement that the equipment was qualified?
Any equipment?
8 A
Generally, yes.
Generally that is correct.
9 Q
Your direct involvement in EQ really didn't 10 start until Juno, did it?
11 A
That's correct.
12 MR. LA GRANGE ?
Let's go off the record for a 13 minute.
I'm done.
14 (Discussion off the record.)
j 15 BY MR. MATAKAS:
l 16 Q
Mr. Alatary, are there any comments that you 17 would like to make or anything that you would like to say 18 before we close the record?
19 A
Generally, I would like to say that I think that 20 there was a large disparity in-house between engineering 21 and QA engineering, the depth of evidence required in the 22 files.
We have spoken to our f riends f rom the Staff, the i
23 EQ people, and they feel that there is clear -- clear 24 direction was required l
25 I still continue to think that much of what the depth l
l
22966.2 14 BRT
/
1 of,what is required, the definition, is judgmental.
2 If we had come this path again, we would have run into 3
.he same problems, because we didn't have clarity in what 4
exactly is required in the files to show qualification.
5 Q
How is it that when you stepped in in June 1982, 6
that, you know, you immediately saw things that had a big 7
disparity between what you felt was needed for 8
qualification and what, obviously, Tech Functions did not 9
feel, who had been working on this for three years?
le A
Two individuals who had seen a lot of other 11 files and saw what other people we:e doing and were using 12 that as an example.
13 Q
You were seeing other --
('
14 A
No, the two individuals that were assisting me, 15 the two contractors.
16 Q
Basically was your understanding -- your 17 understanding was f rom what they were telling you and not 18 what you were observing?
19 A
Yes.
They were my experts.
29 Q
Okay.
Have you appeared here voluntarily here l
l 21 today?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Have any promises been made?
24 A
No.
i 25 Q
Have any threats been made to you?
j l
l l
l i
-= -
2296602 BRT 15 1
,A No.
2 Q
Is there anything else you'd like to say?
3 A
No.
4 MR. MATAKAS:
Okay.
Time is 13:50.
This will 5
conclude the interview.
6 (Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the interview was 7
concluded.)
8 9
le 11 12 13 i
14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 t
24 25 i
i
i CERTIFICATE CF CFFICIAL REPORTER f
i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDI.iG:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF:
BRUCE W. ALATARY DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY
(
DATE:
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof fcr the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/r"(7 7
/
(sigt) bw.// br W (TYPED) 6 Joel Breitner Official Reporter P.eho0tiEN#EhfbI[aEkon, s
nc.
s i
I
'4 N
J
}
5 TAH equipmeiit libdits notec
~}
GPE ' difficult,'l 6HC O
~
~ c ~. ;,. U u.,-
=.. m:.. '...
.a::.'..:..'. M '
' ","By MlCK ROOD
'the~ staff proceed on the Unit I em'effeincyfee'd? ?
% ashington Bureau water equipment stand or review the recom-WASHINGTON - There is "no question" mendation itself.
GPU Nuclear Corp. has proved to be "the most Further, an NRC request in May that the '
difficult" utility to work with in some cases..
- utility certify components in the remainder of federal regulators said yesterday.
the plant has gone unanswered, leaving the !
The point in question involves whether the.i larger judgment "an open question," Noonan :
firm can verify that equipment at Three Mile said.
l Island in Londonderry Twp. near Middletown.'
An example of environmental qualification Pa.. can withstand accidents.
I The utility has improved its ability to verify.
of egulpment, according to Robert Pollard of the Lnion of Concerned Scientists,a group that '
equipment quality at TMI Unit I and that originally challenged GPU Nuclear about egu,ie_m e n t ehted in the obnt's emerce::ev equipment, would be:!! the Unit I main steam Leeewate svstem is "envitenmentaav euaW line were to rupture, would nearby electrical Led" encurb to allow resta t the t' 5 Ngar equipment driving the emergency feedwate RegWt"y Comm'st+n off ha_s concludec system withstand the steamy environment!
4 but %ncent S. Noonan, chief of the NKC There are dozens of other possmhties in a equipment qual:fications branch. to!d the com-nuclear plant where the failure of a piece of rnissioners at a meeting yesterday that it took equipment could prevent a safety system from fis e staf f audits since March to reach that con-functioning.
clusion A GPU spokeswoman noted af ter the meet-He said files to demonstrate Unit l's emer-ing that the NRC had not found any unquahined.
genev feedwater system equipment was sound equ;pment She alto called attention to the,
simply "werer/t there." Until late srmg.
NRC staff observatio9 that improvements had Swan md the GPU Nuclea ecu emen: qu'-
been made.
ificat:te su" "c.cn1 rea::y know wra: they Dunng the meeting, other reactor regala-I we e ertf tion officials said GPU Nuclear chose, in the,.
He was responc!rg to questions from Co r '
case of four cornponents chaSengec by V miss;oner James Asse.stine. who was shakas NRC staff. to replace equ:pment at'..
than his teac in obv:ous distleasure subject it to scrutin '
Noonan cid say af ter the meeting tnat "Why in the world would we at TMi.of all many utihties have proc: ems with cauipment pistes. have to hase UCS [ Union of Concerned comphance. an area in wh)en the agency r.a5 Scientists] assist us'" Cemmissioner Frecenck
, set to esutlish expbcit guidehnes Bernthal asked But ne confirmed his view. backed by other Answering for the staf f, reactor regulatten NRC technical staff memoers at the meeting.
deputy director Case said begrudgingly, "I that GPU Nuciear had been the f arthest behind don't know that we needed their help
,We-in compliance.
ma'y hase apprecia.ed their help "
I Leson G Case, deputy director of the NRC The NRC staf f began discussions with GPU Nucitar Reactor Regulation Office said re-Nuclear about er,uipment quahfication in Octs rmhat GPU o!!iaa!5 misrepresented the ber 1%). UCS filed its comp:aint in January out.ts Ercu:: ment at TM1 Unii T~ha;. been 19 9
/
rHU$tilo de UNe OUns e*'TIW9 ~
UCS wants the commission to suspend GPU NRC Cha:rman Enno Paaalno sa:d the Nuciear's beense until equipment questions are comm:ssion soon must dec1Je whether to le' answered l
l s: :r yr-:-, ::ve-c e r " W., Fa. e n f
Fo.c s- ??- %
8/Yf
)
m ur j u
u
s f' "
UNITED STATES I * %' iI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
t t
j' OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I s
S.,,,,*
631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 Tel. 315 13L6330 No.
I-84-127 November 19, 1984 a
Contact:
Karl Abraham Brian Norris NRC REVISES RULES ON ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
%dauclear teguhtety4CommissionJs amending its aegulations ao 41st.e 4 ggy.t rement.s a 44 can se s -for -muelea r e r Plants 4ha t dafag-nela ted.e lectr,1 ca l eguipment installed -4m Abe glents musts dWne.2 L.1982. #
eeienvironmentauy g ujifAad A L
The term environmentally qualified" refers to the capability of electrical equipment to perfore its safety related functions in an environment which sight exist following a serious accident in a nuclear power plant--steam, heat and radiation for example.
f After the Comission incorporated the 1982 deadline into individual licenses for operating nuclear plants, mutrittalsW4&censeesh thath MC And rhst4eeted 4he ertenef-4he eMert-eeoeosevy Ato +4therestabLiv St.an v t roneesta 1-gua 1i f Aca t inc.a fA agu 1 pean t..o r. eep lece =nepaa l 1 ( 4 ed giuipment, The Comission subsequeltly determined--based on the staff's evDuation of each operating plant licensee's justification for continued operation pending completion of the equipment qualification program--that continued operation of the plants under these conditions would not present undue risk to the public health and safety.
In reviewing each licensee's justification for continued operation, the NRC staff looked at whether (1) redundant equipment is available to substitute for the unqualified equipment, (2) another system is capable of providing the required function of the system with unqualified equipment, (3) the unqualified equipment will have performec its safety function prior to failure or (4) the plant can be safely shut down in the absence of the unqualified equipment.
The amendment to Part 50 of the Comrission's regulations deleting the 1982 date from licenses will become N t i M.u-N aAs a gesult, most utilities licensed deMrate Auclear_ power +1 ants er.w will 4 ave togamply with the environmental qualifications requii-- 4M/-the end.cf mL.
\\
F o 7. A - 7 1 - H G 8/V7 i
La.u p
gm; l
6*
//.W f 4 Inside N R.C M
f An emeln.sive report on the U.5, Nuclear Regulatory CommLaaton
- p Vol. 6, No. 23 - Deweber 10,1964.
y )<
~
VERMONT YANKEE ALLOWr.D TO SUB ACTUAL EVENT FOR EMERGENCY EXERCISE NRC has allowed the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp 's Yankee plant to substitute a June 15, 1984 event that reached the alert level for its annual emergency exercise. "This event adequately substitutes for the planned on site cAercise," the h7C stas concluded in responding to the utihty'6 re-quest for an exemption from the c2eresse.
During the event, the plant's traversing incore probe (tip), a neutron flu monitor, moved beyond its shielded position and got stuck outside the reactor core, becommg an caposed radiation source in the unit's secondary containment. "Itis resulted in local high radiation readings substantially above ba:kground.
Tbc stas said the event adequately substituted for the planned Noven oer on-site exercise because the utibty identined the nature and cause of the high radiation condition and took immediate ution to protect personnel, correctly classi6ed the emergency acoon level, activated and sta5ed all emergency fa-cilmes to the alen level, used the emergency resporsse centers and resources to evaluate the problem, determined the best course of accon, and noe f>ed NRC and aD three ernergency planrung zone states Nes Hamssmre and Massachr.etts sent representatives to the emergency operations facihty, aM the h7C reudent inspector observed activity in the emergency facihties.
The alert level is the second of four progressively amore serious esmergene) daarMentions. The utib-ry "acted in a manner which adequately provided protective sneasures for the health and safety of the pubbe in that it was deterr tined that there were no releases of radioacove matenal cJ site," NRC stat.
t ed in its dects>on.
A utihty spokesroman said that "there's no ws) to calculate" bn mtch mor.cy the company saved b) substituting the actual event for the emergen:) exerm The Federa] Emergency Management Agency (FE.MA) did not evaluate the event, but it wouki not have evaluated the caercise either be-cause a new FE.MA regulanon alloss states full parteipation m exercises every two years, and thu would hav: been an of year, she said-Dmah Wucaberg, Wedungton LATEST TESTS DO NOT CHANGE NRC STAFF VIEW ON HYDROGEN CONTROL RULE The NRC commission is expected shortly to a&pt its long. delayed bydrogen control rule follow-ing staf analysis of apparent cable or,,13dation in test bydrogen burns. The tests were to reflect large
. dry containments, wheb are 1,oi oovered by the rule. The commission has been 3aiting for a staf ana]-
ysis of the NRC/Dectrea] Pow:r Research Institute (EPRI) conducted tests, but that has been com-pleted, and the source predsted the rule would be adopted soon without change.
b7C stafers found that the tests did not warrant a change in the proposed rule, the source said, mbkh appbes only to Mark It! BWRs and PWRs with ke condenser contamments (INRC,23 Jan., 5)
Mark I and 11 plants are already required to have inert atmospheres, and PWRs with large dry con-tamments are consadered able to handle hydrogen burtu Utder the proposal, utibties ostung Mark lits and we condensers must provde bydrogen control systems that can hanar large amounts of by-droger, demonstrate the surwvabthry and quahfeation of contamment and safety systems dunns and followmg a bydrogen burn, and perform and submit analyses oorsernmg bydrogen control and quah6 cation of contamment and safety systems, according to the source. In stating its continued suppon of the rule as is, the stas suggested that a dectsson on large dry contamment bydrogen control be deferred and based on other programs-mcludmg the proposed Severe Accident Pobey Statement-currently INSIDE THIS ISSUE,..
NRC QA esbeutste pact staamd kg Numart
-p2 Unngee shutdown p4ans cou6d pve Dde edge with NRC - pi pota y to kne= arvore acchleat decanas to future
-p)
Backflt ruhr seguires 'o= ear safety tacriese
-p4 Catamba,5bcrehar.,hatariced bcrases pvogress
-p4,3,1 )
Federal psad jury probes D.C. CocA Sri status
-pt:
Hwas acrors sai to plant elsey chanenses
-p3 OtA finds Sandes ' pressure' data vate!
-pt)
Capacd IE stafters decans sphmag NRC
-pe
$as Omotre sessart hects stLrnalnated spgrades
-pts
'f, 0,-
Fowfr'2-Gf t yS,y i
8/ W
r gpropnate." The NRC staE b currently consMenng "what, if any, further acDon should be takee" on thaf matter, a spokcaman said Respon&ng on November 14 to the appeal board's request for opmions on Hantears pcsaible confbet NRC stafen sam "that e en if one suumes that Mr. Mantend violated the techrucal lega) standards governing confbets of interest, any sueb conkt ofinterest is unlikely to have an efect vpon the appeal board's deliberatians in thu proceedmg and no further act)on by the c,neal board in thn re-g gard is twe=muy " LPAL sam "that Dr. Marstead wu not in violation of the..hs and that the factu-1, aj situation should have no efect on matten before the appea) board in this p oceeding " Intervenon Oystenbell Alhance and Save Our Wetlands Inc., however, said, "It is clear that Gunnar Hantead-f
~has a cons 2ct of interest mith respect to studies he conducted on the Waterford 3 basemat." The in-
/
tervenori contend that "a truly independent study still must be performed on the basemat to assure it j
is structural!y safe for the operation of the facility."
F Wihon said the NRC staf does not anticipate any problems with the 23 responses Waterford will probably be becmed for full power operation two months after receiving ita low-power hoense, Wil-son said. Waterford is 100% complete and is ready for fuel load as soon as NRC issues.n operstmg b-ceme for it, company spokesman Bill Tregre sam LP&L anticipates starting commercia] operation of the plant during the second quarter of 1985, Tregre said.
UCS TAKES NRC BACK TO COURT OVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUFICATION DEADUNE As expected, the NRC commiuionen are back in court over de*Ane= for requinns that aD no-clear plant equipment needra for safe shutdowo be able to operate in the beat, steam, and radiation of an accMent emironment The Union of Coacerned Sciennsts (UCS), which irst raised the issue in 1977 and woo a previous court decision that the commmion had iDega!]y suspended a June 30,191L2 compliance d>*AHne; is askmg the U.S. Court of Appeah for the District of Columbia Ctreuit to vow the commission's latest don to surgnd that desdhne. This tzme, however, UG has one comm ennner agreems that NRC hu no basis for,:oncluding operating plants present "no undue ruk" by operstmg
- 1thout quahfied equrpent.
The commmion ongmally chmirutted the June 30,1982 deadhne oo June 24,1982 aAer faihng to agree on a final enytronmentaj quah5 canon rule. The fmaj rule, which supeneded a 1980 regulation, was not passed until January 1983. UCS told the appeah court that the commmion had not fonowed legal procedure to ehminnia the deadhne. The ehmiurion was based on sta5 fmdings that aD plants could keep operating safejy though their equipment was not fuDy quali$ed, UCS said, and UCS main-tained the pubbe had to be given a chance to comment on those fmdmgs. In June 1983, the appenh court agreed, and in March 1984, the commmion proposed ehmmating the dendhne again aAer a pob-lic comment penod. In September, the commmioners voted 4-1, with enmmWer James Aurk me opFned, to drop the June 1982 demmme in favor c( the March 1985 deadhoe that is in the January 1983 fma] rule (INRC,11 Sept.,15) Exemptions to that desmme have alreMy been granted, but the.
commmionen said they would have to okay any exempoons beyond Nounber 1985.
4 In that forma] decision published last month, the errnmtenoo majority sam comments oc enri-l ronmenta) quah6canoo status at individua) plants were being handled as enforcement requesto Lengthy l
comments were flied by UCS and two other commenten claimmg de6acacies at six spectfi: plants, but l
the majority sam spectfx problems abould vat afect a genene demihne The ma)arity sam the appenh court was 370o3 in findmg the commissaor had "made a generic safety FMmr"in changing the com-l pliance de*Ahne "Plant 4pect6c safety fmdi.-gs are not required for these proposed bcense amendments l
because these amendments do not have the efect of authonnng any plant operanon not previously au-thonzed," the majonty wrcte. "Ibe dendhne was not set as a safety matter or as a cutos date beytmd which reacton couM no koger operste if aD of their equipment wa.< not quah5ed. Rather, the purpose of the de=Mhne was to urge beensee comphance.*
'F Deadlines have been extended, the unafority wrote, because H6r*+a has proven "a much more difficult and exte sive task than orismally thought," with some esorts "at the edge of modern technol ogy and matenal scaence." The majonty said if quali5 cation were as simple as UCS contended, "the comnussion and its hermre= would not have been strugghng for socne 6sc yean to complete the pro-gram "
In his wncten dmeet. Asselstme said the majority decision wits based co three conclunons that the purpcse of the ongmal dendhne, "motnatmg bcensees to pursue efectne equipment quah6catoc programs," has been a:haeved. that extended operation beyond the dendhne poses "no undue risk," and l
that "there is no genen: egwpment quah6 cation problem coutman to many plants " Wrote A=>Mme "More than two yean after the expiration of the June 30,1982 dendhne, it appean tha: the comnm sion does not have an m$ equate factual basis for any of these conclusions" The endenx mstead shows "continums mstances of bcenace r-cakstrame and... burned and su-t 14 miom.c. - o.=% in, im
i pertesal(staff) miews of plant 4pecsAc dencienem"identi6ed by UCS and othen, Asselsdne said ll "Tbc stars ingwry has largeJ) accepud the auertens made by utibties eithout detatled mmina-tions, he said, even though "a the very few cases chere staf has begun such in depth mien, the en.
dence indsatcs that bcemee aforts have been inadequate."
~
Asselstme also takes issue with the commimon majority's decision that supportag A=wnta-tiock submitted by utihties to the Frankhn Resenich Center (FRC), should not be made pubbc. FRC, an NRC o'ntractor, prc4ided reports that mere the basis of NRC stas reports that plants could contin-ue to operate safej without full environmental quahncation. The majority said it rebed ce the FRC y
and staf reporu, not the supporting documentation, in deciding that utibties were diligently punuing quah5 cation and that there were no generic problems. As a result, the majority sad, the underlying documentation daes not have to be pubhc. Anselstine said the situatioo arose only because NRC med a contractor, and denying the pubbe "an opportunity to inspect that information and challenge the bues for FRCs and the stars conclusions hardly amounts to a fair opportunity to comment."
Anselstine said be would have retained the 1982 Mime as an enfor,xment tool, and said the comminion "ought to be more diligent in conducting in depth revien of becmee documentatioc so that plants do not coatinue to operate for extended periods of time with the state c( their equipment basically indetermmate."
The other four comminioners wrote that Aaselstine's views are not so far of theirs Asselsune wants to retain the deadhne as an enforcement tool, they said. They believe there is some doubt co-forcement action using that rimilme could sweeed after two years, they mdzated, but they also want to ensure utihty "diligence" in comp]>ing with the quah6 cation rule They said they differ with Ansel-stine over whether one instance in which a utihty "required additional proddmg" undercuts the generic findmg that mest utihties are complying.
UCS is petmoning the appeals court to renew the latest decision, claimmt it once spin is proce-durally ddective. Elj n Weiss, UCS general counsel, said UCS is maintammg that jusufwation for coo-y tinued operation of every plant beycod the 1982 rieaAlme is needed since the rLadime was part of all plant operaung lxxnses The latest riendime rule shon, she said, that the commimm "miD go to any lengths not to have to make those safety imdmgs."-Margaret L han, WasMagnon SAN ONOFRE 1 RESTARTS AFTER CAUTIOUS LEGAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION f
After two years and $150-milhoo in neumic upgrades, Southern California Exhsoo's (SCZ) San Onofre 1 went back on line November 28. The restart-shich promtses to acve the utihty milhans by aDewing it to meet a California Pubbe Utihties Comminion (PUC) da*Alme for operatico c(the plant (INRC,26 Nov.,4)-is a victory for those who f:ared NRC might lock itself into a posmoo that would dacourage voluntary u;pdes by treating such agreenents as beensms smennments.
In a rarns] cleanup of the lepily mens) issue of whether a 1982 conftrmatory order shuttmg ckm San Onofre-I should be treated as a freneng amendment or an enforrwnent order, the errunn-su opted 4-1, ce November 21 for the *enferrwnent flexibihty" that orders permn--espa:aaD) be-cause the delays for pubhc hearmas that can accompany amendments "will thacarrage the prac xe of makmg Imwe trenmitments legaD) bmdmg
- The errnmianon also gave specsal W= in its deci-sion-mnhnf to the fact that SCE had volunteered to meet a 0.67 ground accelerata (s) maMed Housner Spectra Safe Shutdown Earthquake standard, matand of merely ofering proof it met its 0.5g design basis. That 1982 utihty offer fchwed NRC quesuons about whether the plant met its desap to-sd.
While many NRC sources say they beheve it is impely that NRCs actm wiD be chaDenged in court, Nuclear Informatica & Resource Servxe's Nm' a Bell says "they would have to be crary" to be-heve that. She said she fully expects a lawsuit to be brought, shbough the tammg fer such scoac a s:it unclear. A conhtion now renewing the case includes the Orange County branch of the Une for Sarm-al, the Seetra Oub Legal Ddense Fund, and several indmduah. "Money is being ruined at thh very unment," she said, addmg that a mgor issue in the case is the commtesum tr==dersuco of fmard issues affectma the plant.
Lmdar er vwns were exprised by Cr-n==arr James A==>Waa in a memo foDowing the de-cision In that memo be said be was "troubbd" by evenmineon rehance on the PUC agreement as a be-sis for relaxing safety requirements. He aho said be agreed with a November 5 memo of the cr nmn sion's legal 06:e-spaeNy that *caanges to the opersuco and denp of the plant were ao substantial that they must be tr==Aered an amendment to the 1-w "
SimGar, though less pra-a--,=4 neen) Am=h was r Sected at the cr nm=d'o meetmg, al-though the Oke of General Counse!(OOC) ulumately failed to recommend a courne for the errnmn-aion. Inctand Deputy Genera) (%,rel Marte Malsch told the commimac that the oike's "mtetive gut fechng" was that the courts might categorue the onginaj shutdown crder as a kenne amendment-DGIDE N.R.C.. N='- 10,1964 t3
-