ML20234E048
| ML20234E048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/04/1988 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2.206, NRRL-600, NUDOCS 8801070400 | |
| Download: ML20234E048 (6) | |
Text
- po ucg'o,,
'q)[(
jY/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...../
JAN 4 1988 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
All NRR Employees i
FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 600 PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING REQUESTS UNDER 10 CFR s2.206 (DIRECTOR'S DECISIONS)
PURPOSE To establish procedures for ensuring prompt and appropriate notification and distribution of actions handled in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. This office letter supersedes NRR Office Letter No. 17, Revision 3, dated August 21, 1986.
DEFINITION A 2.206 petition is a request filed by any person, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or for such other action as may be proper. A person need not cite %2.206 in order for it to be treated as a %2.206 petition.
The petition must demand, essentially, license modification, suspension, revocation, or other enforcement actions. However, it is necessary to distinguish between a request to modify an existing license and a request to deny an initial license or a pending amendment. The latter type of request should be handled in connection with the relevant licensing action, not under 10 CFR 2.206.
Petitions must specify the action requested and set forth with specificity the facts that constitute the bases for taking that particular action. General opposition to nuclear power or a general assertion, absent supporting facts, should not be treated as a formal petition under 10 CFR 2.206. Such letters should be treated as routine correspondence.
1 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES Office of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
The Administrative and Correspondence Branch, EDO, is responsible for assigning a green ticket to all requests under 10 CFR 92.206 and forwarding them to the Office of the General Counsel (0GC) for initial review.
If such requests are inadvertently forwarded by the NRC Mailroom to any NRR Branch or Division, the recipient should immediately send the incoming request to the Administrative and Correspondence Branch, EDO.
giogoo go4
(
CONTACT:
l B. Dalrymple, PMAS PDR 49-29518
(
All NRR Employees JAt!4 1988 i
Office of the General Counsel (0GC)
The Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, 0GC, will review and determine the validity of a %2.206 petition. 0GC will prepare the draft letter of acknowledgement to the petitioner and the Federal Register Notice. These documents will then be forwarded to the Director, NRR, if OGC determines that NRR is the appropriate office to handle the petition.
Questions on the applicability of 10 CFR 2.206 to a particular letter or request should be addressed to OGC. Advice on all 10 CFR %2.206 matters should be obtained from the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, OGC, before drafting any response to the petition.
OGC concurrence is required on responses on all correspondence initiated in connection with the petition.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
The NRR mailroom personnel will determine which Division has the lead responsibility for the &2.206 action. The Director, NRR, will sign all documents pertaining to 2.206 action.
Division and Staff Lead responsibility for %2.206 actions is normally assigned to a Project Directorate. The lead Project Directorate is responsible for coordinating all 2.206 responses and for making proper copy distribution until the action is closed. The staff contact responsible for preparing the decision should coordinate the activity and work closely with the OGC case attorney.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS A letter of acknowledgement is prepared and sent to the petitioner upon receipt of a s2.206 request. The Director's Decision is prepared within a reasonable time thereafter.
(See enclosures for sample correspondence.)
A.
Acknowledgement of Request After its review for appropriate handling, 0GC will forward, by a memorandum to the Director, NRR, the original 2.206 request, and drafts of the letter of acknowledgement and the Federal Register Notice.
The lead NRR Project Directorate will issue final versions by the date specified on the green ticket. The final decision (Director's Decision) green ticket remains active until a is made.
The lead Project Directorate will ensure that the appropriate licensee is notified of the %2.206 request. Notification is made to the licensee via copy ("cc" of the letter of acknowledgement and a copy of the incoming
i All NRR Employees gt p%
0 s2.206 request). The licensee may be asked to respond to the petition; in the letter of acknowledgment the petitioner should be informed j
of this request for response.
)
J If the s2.206 request asks for immediate action by the NRC (e.g., immediate.
suspension of reactor operation pending final action on the request), the letter of acknowledgement must respond to the immediate action mentioned.
If such immediate action is denied, the letter of acknowledgement must explain the basis for the denial.
B.
pirector'sDecision
~
After receipt of the s2.206 petition, effort should begin innediately to evaluate the petition and prepare the Director's Decision. The project manager retains lead responsibility for coordinating all inputs required from other divisions or branches and working closely with the OGC case attorney. The Director's Decision is due 90. days from the issue date of the letter of acknowledgement. This date is the revised due date that is issued by the ED0's office.
If the petition is denied in whole or in part, NRR will prepare a
" Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206," explaining the basis for the denial and responding to all matters raised by.the petitioner.in support of the request. A letter is sent to the petitioner transmitting the Director's Decision along with a Federal Register Notice explaining that the request has been denied. The licensee is informed of the denial by' copy of the transmittal letter.
It is imperative that extreme care be ta(en not to issue the' licensee's copy before the petitioner's copy has been dispatched.
If a portion of the petition is granted, the Director's Decision should explain the actions that the staff has taken or will.take to grant the petition.
If the petition is granted in full, no Director's Decision is issued. Generally, an Order under 10 CFR 2.202 or 10 CFR s2.204 will be issued.
It may be appropriate to cite the petitioner's request (for such an Order) in any Order tlat is issued.
If the request is granted by issuance of an Order, a letter is sent to the licensee transmitting the Order. Another letter is prepared for the petitioner which explains that the s2.206 request has been granted. A copy of that Order is also included with the petitioner's letter.
C.
Distribution
)
I A denial under 10 CFR s2.206 consists of a letter to the petitioner, the Director's Decision, and the Federal Register Notice. After issuance (when all signatures are obtained), the lead Project Directorate contacts-the OGC enforcement attorney responsible for that case to obtain a l
l
~
~
R
)
All NRR Employees,
{
Director's Decision' number (e.g., DD-YEAR-00). This number is assigned to each Director's Decision in numerical sequence. This number is typed I
on the letter to the petitioner, the Director's Decision, and the Federal Register Notice.
The following requirements are to be carried out on the day the Director's Decision is issued.
1.
Immediately HANDCARRY to the following:
Christine Cater, SECY, 5 copies of Director's Decision
.1 courtesy copy of entire Decision package 1 copy of incoming request Marty Malsch, OGC 1 copy of the Director's Decision (and other documents referenced in Decision) 1 copy of incoming request Lawrence Chandler, 0GC 16-D-19 WFI 1 copy of Director's Decision-2.
Telephone the following individuals to advise.them that the Director's Decision has been issued:
Marty Malsch, OGC Christine Cater, SECY, Emile Julian, SECY, It is imperative that these requirements are followed promptly, because, after filing the Director's Decision with the Office of the Secretary, the Commission has 25 days from the date of issuance to determine whether the Director's Decision needs to be reviewed.
The final version of the Director's Decision is then promptly transmitted electronically via the IBM 5520 system to Herner and Company, a contracting firm responsible for reproducing Commission and Board decisions in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Use node name'NRCADMP and local address NRCI when transmitting. Any corrections may be telephoned to the Policy and Publications Management Branch, ARM on x28925.
When transmitting data, opinions, footnotes, or partial information (errata), be sure to identify the opinion and month of issuance at the beginning of the transmission. Clearly identified-transmissions will he'p to avoid administrative delays and improve the technical production schedule for proofreading, editing, and composing the issuance.
i U
All NRR Employees g~ /
~4 After trarismission, two co!)ies of-the Director's Decision (and other documents referenced in the Decision), along with a completed NRCI Transmission Record Form, are forwarded to NRCI, Mail.Stop W-501. Forms-can be obtained from the stock room or from Vicki Yanez, Policy and Publications Management Branch x28925. The document should be archived-from the 5520 system to a floppy diskette and then deleted from the 5520 system.
Although %2.206 actions receive a green ticket control, use the following.
. guidelines when distributing copies internally and externally.
.The original 2.206 petition and any enclosure (s) will accompany the
' Docket / Central File copy of the first response (letter of,ac(nowledgement).
Copies are provided to the appropriate licensee and licensee's: service list, if deemed necessary by the lead licensing assistant. The Distribution List should include the following. individuals:
Distribution Docket or Central Files (w/ incoming C. Cater, SECY*
request and enclosures)
M. Malsch, OGC*
NRC PDR L. Chand19r, OGC-WFI*-
LOCAL PDR
,ASLAB EDO#
A$LBP EDO Reiiding File ACRS (10)
V. Stello, EDO V. Yanez, ARM (u/2 cys of M. Bridgers, EDO (ED0#
)
Director's Decision and
~
T. Murley, NRR NRCI~ Transmittal Form)
J. Sniezek, NRR F. Miraglia, NRR D. Mossburg, NRR (EDO#
)
Appropriate Project Direc~ tor Appropriate Project Manager j
Appropriate Licensing Assistant Other individuals listed on concurrence
'{
1 a
t
- Handcarry i
l 1
,O j
4 y
j
All NRR Employees
-6.
! (g ?gg EFFECTIVE DATE This office letter is effective insnediately.
h?nk Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
Samples: Letter of Acknowledgement and the Federal Register Notice Director's Decision (granted)
Director's Decirsion (denied)
NRCI Transmittal To,egister Notice and the Federa_1 R rm s.
cc:
V. Stello, EDO NRC Office Director.
NRC Deputy Office Dirbetors NRC Regional Administrators NRC Division Directors SECY OGC-MNBB M. G. Malsch, GC-H ST J. P. Murray, GC-MN9 L. J. Chandler, GC-MNB C. Cater, SECY M. Bridgers, ED0 V. Yanez, ARM NRC PDR i
.-ke vm os 1m-4
=
me v
w
)
,' ftp"<cg#g UNITED STATES j
y
- s W [ 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
r, t
,5 j
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 j
'*k June 30,1987 Docket Nos. 50-440 50-441 3
Terry Jonathan Lodge, Esquire 618 N. Michigan Street Suite 201 Toledo, Ohio 43624
Dear Mr. Lodge:
This.is to acknowledge receipt of (1) a " Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe l
Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Steven Sass and Susan B. Carter for Revocation, Modification or Suspension of Operating License per 10 C.F.R. 62.206," filed by you on behalf of the named Petitioners on June 5,1987, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and (2) " Sunflower Alliance's Motion to Reopen the i
Record and to Submit a New Contention," filed by you on behalf of Sunflower Alliance on June 5,1987, with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). Both documents have been referred to my Office for consideration pursuant to-10 C.F.R. 62.206. The documents will be jointly referred to as the Petition.
The Petition asked NRC to issue to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Licensees) an Order to Show Cause why the operating license for the Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Perry facility) should not be suspended pending an exhaustive review by an independent study group of the applicability of the Reed Report (a 1975 General Electric (GE) reactor study) and associated GE internal data to the design and operation of the Licensees' Perry facility. Pending the issuance of an-Order, the Petition sought imediate suspension of operation of the Perry facility. The Petition alleged that the Reed Report identified problems with the GE BWR-6/ Mark III containment boiling water reactor. Specifically, the Petition alleged that (1) technology to fix problems would not be available; (2) the design is unusually subject to earthquake hazards; (3) plant workers might be unusually subject to radiation exposures; (4) safety systems contained in the design had not been subjected to adequate testing; and (5) inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems.
With respect to the Petition's request that the Commission issue an immediate Order suspending operation of the Perry facility based on the Reed Report, I decline to take such action for the following reason.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Reed Report several times. As early as February 23, 1976, two NRC staff members reviewed the report at the GE offices in Washington, D.C., to detemine if the report expressed sifety concerns that NRC had not already identified and to detemine if GE had reported all significant safety issues, as required by Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
In its review, the staff did not identify ~any new areas of safety concern or any instances where significant safety concerns had not been reported to'the NRC. The staff reviewed the contents of the Reed Report again T'7,dM[ ' M M
_m_.________._._.____________._m_
in April 1978 at the GE offices in Washington, D.C., along with a member of the staff of Congressman John Dingell. This review was conducted in response to a request from Congressman Dingell for additional information on the report. The staff also reexamined the issues addressed in the Reed Report during the 1979 Black Fox licensing proceedings. And, most recently, the staff has undertaken a re-review of the Reed Report to assess from a 1987 perspective the safety significance of the issues raised in the report. On the basis of this review effort to date, the staff has concluded that there is no need to restrain operation of the licensed BWR-6 reactors. The results of this review are expected to be available this summer.
The NRC staff will continue to review the Petition, and I will issue a formal decision with regard to it in the reasonably near future.
I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
Sincerely.
OriEinal signed by, noms I. Earley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice cc w/ enclosure and incoming-J See next page Distribution Docket File G. Holahan NRC PDR OGC-Bethesda Local PDR V. Stello EDO #002934 ED0f002934/D. Mossburg w/ incoming EDO Rdg T. Colburn T. Murley/J. Sniezek R. Ingram F. Miraglia M. Virgilio PDf31 Green Ticket File w/ incoming A. Thomas D. Crutchfield A. B. Davis, RIII i
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PM:PD31:DRSP* LA:PD31:DRSP* ACTINGD:PD31:DRSP* ARM:PPMB*
OGC*
TCOLBURN: dim RINGRAM MJVIRGILIO ATHOMAS 6/25/87 6/25/87 6/25/87 6/26/87 6/26/87 h'.
AD/DRSP*
D:DRSP*
ADP*
R GMHOLAHAN DMCRUTCHFIELD FJMIRAGLIA IEZEK
/TE LEY 6/26/87 06/29/87 06/29/87-
/87 w/
7 t
i
?
9
[7590-01)
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET N05. 50-440, 50-441 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, UNITS 1 & 2 RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 62.206 Notice is hereby given that, in a Petition pursuant to 10 CFR S2.206 dated June 5, 1987, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Susan B. Carter, Sunflower Alliance, Inc. and Steven Sass (Petitioners) requested that operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plants (Perry facility) of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al., (Licensees) be suspended immediately pending full consideration of certain issues raised in the Reed Report prepared in 1975 by a team of General Electric engineers. The Petition alleged that the Reed Report identified problems with the General Electric BWR 6/ Mark'III containment boiling water reactor, specifically:
(1) technology to fix problems would not be available; (2) the design is unusually subject to earthquake hazards; (3) plant workers might be unusually subject to. radiation exposures; (4) safety systems contained in the design had not been subjected to adequate testing; and (5) inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems.
.. 937Wl4I N
r-__--_.
2 Inadditiontoseekinganimmediatesuspensionoffacilityoperation,the Petition requested an exhaustive review by an independent study group of the applicability of the Reed Report and associated General Electric internal data to the Perry facility's design and operation.
The Petition, as well as an accompanying Motion to Reopen the Record, are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 52.206 of the Comission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on the request within a reasonable time. With respect to Petitioner's request for an imediate suspension of the operation of the Perry facility, the Petitioner was notified by letter dated June 34 1987 that, based on the staff's review of the Reed Report, there is no need to take such action. Copies of the Petition and Motion are available for inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant located at the Perry Public Library, l
3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.
30 thy of une,1987 J
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, thi!,
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
]
WaWCMe@MLD i
Docket File 1
R. ;. Plant Gray File PD3
.ncram T. Cofburn 3
M. Virgilio l
DOCKET NO.
l Rules and Procedures Branch MEMORANDUM FOR:
Division of Rules and Records f
Office of Administration FROM:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
SUBJECT:
RECEIPT OF PETITIO'i FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.200 i
i One signed original of the FederalRegister Notice identified below is enclosed for your transmittal to the Off 6ce of the Federal Register for publicatio'i. Additional conformed copies (
0
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit (s)and Operating License (s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit (s)and Facility License (s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
Notice of Consideration of issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
~
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License (s); Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of issuance of f acility License (s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availability of NRC Draft / Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availability of Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of issuance of Construction Permit (s).
Notice of lasuance of Facliity Operating License (s) or Amendment (s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
f
~
@ Other.
RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III.
IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated
Contact:
R. Ingrar
"" "5 ' 49-23075 LA:PD31:DRSP RINGPAM:dla
~/!/87
%,m.____,:__,___.-.----------
i c
JUN 28 583 Richard Ihrig. Esq.
Sadger safe Energy Alliance 875 Sux.it Avenue St. Paul. Minnesota 55105
Dear Mr. Ihrig:
Your petition of August 15, 1979, en behalf of the Badger Safe Energy Alliance requested that the ecs truction permit held by Northern States Power Company g_t.g.1 for construction of the Tymne Energy Park be revoked becaus~e of the Ticensees' stated decision to cancel the pro.iect. Your petition was noticed in the Federal Recister on September 14.1979(44FR55256).
Enclosed is the Order which I have issued to Northern States power Company,
,t.t i why their license should not be revoked.The Order requires the licensees to sh al. today.
day If the Itcensees fail to show cause within the ellotted time or consent to the entry of an order, an order will be issued revoking the construction permit. The licensees or any person who has an j
interest affected by the Order any request a hearing within the twenty-five days.
1 A copy of this grant of your petition will be placed in the Consission's Pub 11c Docur.an't Roce at 1717 H 5 tree,t. N.W., Washington. D. C.
20555.
Sincerely.
.eg..nlsYns'.%1'
, p,L Desus !
1 Narold R. Denton. Director Office of Nuclear Reactar Regulation Enciosure:
As Stated cc: MSPC 4
ELD h
N.l dnA - C ~~ 2
.),e f/
W U TI T1 I
MI ilk A
/
.n.
- "*c >l DL Jg 0 phRg:;r L + -
ta
.e
.. - >rMaus. g
-.skHwad nfdw
........P.,..;;.;.. t g.g
,. Mt
....I...x.........
a r..
.y........
.. /i. ;
........g..............
y /80 np onn, &.-..t..t..././../.80 80
t October 7,1987 1
Decket Nes.
50-440 DISTRIBUTION GHclahan GPA/PA and 50-441 d)ocket File RIngram ACRS (10) hRC/ Local PDR 0GC-Beth JResner (?)
EDO # @M} T/51 VSte115 ASLAB/ASLBP Terry Jenathan Lodge, Esquire EDO Rdg File DMossburg w/ine JL4eber,w c 616 N. Michigan Street TMurley/JSniezek TColbufn Suite 201 FMiraglia MVirgilio Toledo, Ohio 43624 PD 31 FT File w/ine DHagan DCrutchfield EClements
Dear Mr. Lodge:
AThomas ABDavis, PIII This is in response to the two subrittals of June 5,1987, filed by you on behalf of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc.,
Sust.n B. Carter and Steven Sass. Specifically, these subnittels were (1) a
- Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc.,
Steven Sass and Susan B. Carter for Revocation, Modification or Suspension of OperatingLicenseper10C.F.R.62.206,"and(2)*SunflowerAlliance'sMotion to Reopen the Record and to Submit a New Contention". The submittels alle that the Reed Report (a 1975 General Electric Company (GE) Reactor Study) ged identified pretlens with GE nuclear facilities such as the Perry facility of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. Specific deficiencies were alleged and a suspension of facility operation was requested pendir.g an exhaustive review of the issues raised in the Reed Report. On June 30, 1987 I infonned you that these submittels had been referred to my Office for con-sideration pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and that a formal decision would be issued in the reasonably near future.
]
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.2CE, your request has been denied. A copy of the Decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
j for your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice regarding this Decision filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, Original signed by 7bccas E. Murley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1 1.
Director's Decision 2.
Federal Recister Notice cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
- See previous concurrence sheet i
PM/PD31:DRSP* LA/PD31:DRSP* D/PD31:DRSP*
ARM:PPMB*
AD:DRSP*
OGC*
TColburn:lt RIngram MJVirgil o RS GHolahan LChandler 9/21/87 9/21/87 9/ 1/8 9/21/87 9/25/87 9/30/87 D:DRSP*
ADP D-R
/
DCrutchfield FNi
. ia k
H urley 9/28/87 g///'/87 g
87 N/I /87 i
0 FICIAL RECORD COPY L n T A m e-.p,.
gma o - ' Q Nf' O,r
,, f
- DD-87-16 1
/
l, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Thomas E. Murley, Director-In the Matter of
)
~
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, ET AL-
)
and 50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
}
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2,206 INTRODUCTION On June 5, 1987, Terry Jonathan Lodge submitted on behalf of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Susan B. Carter and Steven Sass (hereaf ter jointly referred to as the Petitioners) (1) a
" Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc.,
Steven Sass and Susan B. Carter for Revocation, Modification or Suspension of Operating License per 10 C.F.R. 62.206," filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and (2) " Sunflower Alliance's Motion to Reopen the Record and to Submit a New Contention," filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Both documents were referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for consideration pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The documents will be jointly referred to herein as the Petition.
The Petition asked the NRC to issue to the Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Company, et al. (Licensees) an order to show cause why the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Perry facility) should H
not be suspended pending an exhaustive review by an independent study group Y Y.
b y
-. ~.
s 2
of the applicability of the h6d Report (a 1975 General Electric (GE) reactor study) and associated GE internal data to the design and operation of the Licensees' Perry facility. The Petition alleged that the Reed Report identified 3
I problems with GE BWR-6 Mark III containment boiling water reactors (BWRs) such as the Perry facility.
Specifically, the Petition alleged that (1) technology to fix problems would not be available; (2) the design is unusually subject' to earthquake hazards; (3) plant' workers might be unusually subject to radiation l
exposures; (4) safety systems contained in the design ha'd not been subjected to
~
adequate testing; (5) inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems.
The Petition alleged that the NRC has been aware of the Reed Report, but has refused to apply or analyze its conclusions to a re-evaluation of Mark III l
design reactors including the Perry facility. The Petition.further alleges that no licensee-sponsored analysis or NRC regulatory review has taken place at the Perry facility in response to the Reed Report conclusions.
It is on this basis that the Petition requested a review by an independent study group of the applicability of the Reed Report and associated GE internal data to the Perry facility design and operation.
Further, the Petition requested that the NRC issue an immediately effective order restraining the Perry facility from further operation pending resolution j
of the issues raised in the Petition.
With respect to the Petition's request that the Commission issue 'an order immediately suspending operation of the Perry facility based on the Reed Report, I declined to take such action for the reasons expressed in my letter to the Petitioners of June 30, 1987.
I noted there that the NRC 1
l t &
F sh
_________u_
_m____
l-i
.I staff has reviewed the Reed Report several times.
Based on NRC review efforts at that time, including an on going NRC re-review of the Reed Report, I concluded that there was.no adequate bases to suspend operation l
of the Perry facility.
The NRC staff re-review of the Reed Report is now complete and my.
3 formal decision in this matter follows.
i l
BACKGROUND' 1
The Reed Report was a self-critical study performed by the staff of l
GE in 1975 with the stated objective of determining the basic requirements-.
{
for implementing the GE Nuclear Energy Division's quality strategy through continuing improvements in the availability and capability.of boiling water
'f 1
reactor plants.
The principal author of the report was Dr. Charles E. Reed, a Senior Vice-President of GE.
Contributors included technical and professional personnel from a variety of GE departments. Two products resulted from their efforts. One was the Nuclear Reactor Study, referred to as the Reed Report. The se foo was a fet of 10 subtask reports that provided the detailed technical information used to develop the Reed Report.
The Reed Report was intended to be an internal documer.t. not one for public disclosure. As claimed by GE, it contained information and comments that could have an adverse effect on GE's market position with respect to its competitors.
On February 23-24, 1976, two NRC staff members reviewed a copy of the Reed Report in GE's Washington, D.C. of fices. The NRC wanted to determine (1) if the report identified any new safety concerns of which
---m__---____
____.___m____m._-.s--.
.m.m._
m
e
~
4 the NRC was not aware, and (2) if GE had met the requirements of Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 with regard to the reporting of significant safety items.
On the basis of their review, these NRC staff members did not identify any new safety concerns or any evidence that significant safety concerns had not been reported to the NRC. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy also concluded a Congressional inquiry into this matter.
In December 1977, Congressman John D. Dingell asked the NRC to provide information on the Reed Report to him. The Chairman of the NRC responded in a letter dated February 9,1978, which described the staff's earlier j
a J
review and its conclusions. To provide further information to the Congress-man, on March 6,1978, the NRC asked GE to provide either a copy of the Reed Report or a list of the safety issues it addressed.
GE responded by a letter dated March 22, 1978, which contained a list of 25 issues identified as having some safety significance.
On April 11, 1978, two members of the NRC staff and one member of Congressman Dinge11's staff reviewed the Reed Report at the GE otiices in Washington, D.C.
And, on May 26, 1978, GE sent a letter to NRC that gave a status report on each of the 25 items. GE's status report concluded that all items either were not a licensing problem, were closed out by GE as a licensing issue or were under review by the NRC.
On November 9, 1978, the NRC staff gave the Commission the results of its review of the Reed Report. The staff review concluded: "[there is] no substantive disagreement with the summary status provided by GE."
The staff clarified its conclusion by stating that GE's characterization that some of the items were not licensing problems could be misunderstood since
5 the staff was interested in all of the items.
The staff added that although acceptable solution to each of the issues were available such that continued licensing was justified, these items had been and in some cases continued to be the subject of licensing actions reviews.
On June 2,1987, following the appearance of newspaper stories with controversial accounts of the contents and safety implications of the Reed Report and the receipt of inquiries from Congress, NRC established a special task group to re-evaluate the issues raised in the Reed Report.
The results of the staff's re-evaluation of the issues is documented
~
in NUREG-1285 "NRC Staff Evaluation of the General Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Study (" Reed Report")," which issued in July,1987 and a copy of which is attached to this decision.
DISCUSSION i
As noted above, in July 1987 the NRC staff completed its re-review of issues raised in the Reed Report.
In the process, the NRC established a special task group to re-evaluate the issues raised in the Reed Report, taking into account the increased knowledge and understanding of nuclear power issues gained in the 12 years since the Reed Report was written.
This review, documented in NUREG-1285, produced three separate conclu-sions:
(1) The Reed Report does not identify any matters that would support a need to curtail the operation of any GE boiling water reactor plants now licensed.
i 6
(2) The Reed Report does not identify any new safety issues of
.which the staff was unaware.
(3) While certain issues addressed by the Reed Report are still j
being studied by the NRC and industry, there is a basis for permitting continued plant operations while these issues are being resolved.
j l
To the extent then that the Petition sought an exhaustive review of t
,i the Reed Report, the NRC staff has just completed such a review and its findings support continued operation of affected GE facilities.
The NRC Staff's recent review also responds to the specific problems arguably based on the Reed Report and raised in the Petition. These are (1) that the technology necessary to fix design problems was prospectively not going to be available; (2) that the GE design was believed to be unusually subject to earthquake hazards; (3) that plant workers might be unusually subject to radiation exposure; (4) that safety systems contained in the GE design had not been subject to adequate testing; and (5) that inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems.
Specific issues reviewed by the NRC staff which appear to relate to the Petitioners' allegations are discussed below.
With respect to the Petitioners' concern that the technology to fix design problems was prospectively not going to be available, the Reed Report did identify a number of concerns regarding the merits of the 1
BWR-6 Mark III design.
It was observed that the BWR-6 Mark III design i
.._---__a
7 was incomplete and several technical problems were unresolved, that the overall design was not well integrated, and that potential problems in the. areas of
~
fuels management, operational limitations, licensing and component replacement had not been anticipated. The NRC reviewed these issues in Section 3.1 of NUREG-1285. M It was there noted that, to some degree, these issues may derive from the fact that NRC may issue construction permits for facilities before detailed and complete design information is available. The detailed review for the BWR 6 Matk III design was conducted by the NRC at the operating license In some cases, licensing problems resulted because information was stage.
unsubstantiated. The end result was added NRC review effort and delays in licensing with associated economic impacts.
No safety issues were outstanding prior to issuance of an operating license.
In certain cases, the BWR-6 Mark III design may result in economic penalties due to poor design including poor anticipation of future operational problems.
Such design problems could result in operational constraints, plant unavailability or plant derating.
See, for example, Section 3.2 (Margin Between Core and Operating Limits), Section 3.4 (Impact of End of Cycle Scram Re-activity Insertion Rate on Core Full Power Life), Section 3.6 (Accuracy of Transient Design Methods). These examples, and others, are areas where design problems could limit plant performance and affect economics. They are not unaddressed safety issues. Where specific safety issues have been identified, the NRC had already in place generic or plant-specific safety reviews to
{
J resolve the concerns and ensure protection of the public health and safety.
1 1/
All section references are to NUREG-1285 i
L ___ _ _
8 At present, all issues have either been resolved, or have final rgsolution pending ar.d include interim positions which. provide an adequate basis 'for continued operation of affected plants.
With regard to the Petitioners' concern that the Reed Report concluded that the GE reactor design was unusually subject-to earthquake hazards, the NRC staff's re-evaluation of the Reed Report categorized several issues as having seismic-related concerns. These included the long-term effect of radiation on core internals, the effect of sloshing of the suppression pool of the Mark III steel containment structure and the seismic capabilities of the 8 X 8 fuel. spacer. The suppression pool sloshing and fuel spacer issues have been resolved.
(See Sections 3.13 and 3.21). While long-term radiation effects on some core internal structures such as the top guide and the shroud make it unlikely that they would last the entire 40 year. life for which the reactor is licensed, current monitoring, surveillance and inspection programs will identify any incipient failures of core internals before failure, and radiation levels associated with plant operation are not likely to result in reactor. safety
~
problems from material failures in BWR core internals.
(See Section.3.5).
With regard to the Petitioners' concern that the Reed Report concluded that plant workers might be unusually subject-to radiation.
exposures, the staff's re-evaluation of the Reed Report categorized several issues as related to worker radiation exposure. These included the high radiation levels associated with replacing core internals, personnel radiation exposure from fuel failures induced by pellet-cladding interaction, radiation exposure from removal of the steam dryer / separator
=
w
9 assembly, presence of detectable plutonium inside the'BWR turbine, radiation-exposures as a result of the fuel transfer accident in Mark III containments, and radiation levels outside the biological shield and
'drywell.
Concerns related to these potential radiation exposures to workers have been resolved.
Fuel conditioning and operational limits have resolved fuel integrity concerns.
(See Section 3.7).
Underwater transfer of the dryer / separator assembly has resolved that-issue.
(See Section 3.10).
Analysis has shown that the levels of plutonium in reactor water are less than 1% of permissable drinking water levels and what does exist is removed by the purification system. This resolves the issue of detectable plutonium in the turbines.
(See Section 3.12). The fuel transfer accident has been evaluated and the staff has concluded that the use of the inclined fuel transfer system will' not result in any significant increase in exposures to plant personnel.
(See Section 3.14).
Licensees-have also conducted startup radiological surveys to confirm radiation levels and identify unexpected levels.
Licensees have eliminated radiation pathways identified during these surveys and have implemented acceptable programs to reduce worker radiation exposures to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).to ensure that worker exposure conforms to NRC established limits. (See Sections 3.5 and 3.23). While replacement of core internals could result in significant radiation exposure to workers, the ALARA programs, including the use of decontamination and shielding, would minimize radiation exposure to' the extent practical and help ensure conformance to NRC-established limits.
10 With respect to the Petitioners' concerns that the Reed Report concluded that safety systems contained in the design had not been l
subject to adequate testing, the staff's re-evaluation categorized several issues as testing or analysis related. These include the degree of proof i
l of accuracy of transient design methods (Section 3.6), impact of hydrodynamic phenomena ori containment designs (Section 3.9), level of testing of Mark III containment (Section 3.11), effect of sloshing of the suppression pool on Mark III steel containment structure design (Section 3.13), evaluation of the fuel transfer accident in Mark III containment (Section 3.14), consistency of degree of verification of calculational models (Section 3.18), seismic capabilities of 8 X 8 fuel spacer (Section 3.21),
combination of LOCA-induced loads and safety relief valve actuation loads for Mark III containment (Section 4.1), and flow-induced vibration in jet pumps (Section 4.5).
All of these issues have been resolved through a combination of improved analysis techniques using better calculational models, increased surveillance and testing and, in some cases, hardware modifications.
With respect to the Petitioners' concern that the Reed Report concluded that inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems, the staff's re-evaluation identified items falling into this category as mainly associated with the phenomenon of radiation-induced stress corrosion cracking in core internals, control rods, and stainless steel piping (Sections 3.5, 3.24 and 4.6, respectively). Ongoing surveillance and monitoring programs, coupled with improved control rod designs, pipe replacement where appropriate, and measures to minimize the operational effects of the plant as a contributor to stress corrosion cracking, have provided acceptable interim solutions to
)
1
yy this phenomenon.
The staff believe's that cracks will be detected well in J
advance of incipient failure in piping or core internals and analysis shows that loss of reactivity worth associated with control rod cracking would be revealed by shutdown margin tests before the loss could affect the shutdown capability of the reactor.
CONCLUSION l
The Petitioners seek the institution of a show cause proceeding pursuant 5
to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify or revoke the operating license for the Perry 2
facility. The institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 is appropri-ate only where substantial health and safety issues have been raised.
See Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2 and 3),
CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,175 (1975) and Washington Public Power System (WPPS-Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7, 19 NRC 899, 923 (1984). This is the standard which I have applied to the concerns raised by the Petitioners in this decision to determine whether enforcement action is warranted.
For the reasons discussed above, I find no substantial basis for taking the actions requested by the Petitioners.
Rather, based upon the lengthy review efforts over the years by the NRC staff, licensees and the General Electric Company to resolve the issues identified in the Reed Report, including the recent staff evaluation of the issues contained in the Reed Report and in the subtask reports associated with the Reed Report, I conclude that rio substantial health and safety issues have been raised by the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Petitioners' request for
I 12 l
I action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied.
As provided in 10 CFR,2.206(c),
a copy'of'this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review.
1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
q ynte g Thomas E.-Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 7thday of October 1987 9
h I
i
.)
(7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-441 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2 ISSUANCE OF FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206-Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision concerning a Petition dated June 5, 1987, filed by Terry J. Lodge on behalf of the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Susan B.' Carter and Steve Sass (Petitioners). The Petitioners requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issue an order to show cause why the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, should not be modified.or revoked pending full consideration of certain issues raised in the 1975 General Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Study (" Reed Report") prepared by a team of General Electric engineers. The. Petition alleged that the Reed Report identi-fied problems with the General Electric B&6 Hark III containment boiling water reactor, specifically:
(1) technology to fix problems would not be available; (2) the design is unusually subject to earthquake hazards; (3) plant-workers might be unusually subject to radiation exposures; (4) safety systems contained in the design had not been subjected to adequate testing; and"(5).
inadequate or undertested metals could create defectively performing systems.
n,w ga e M-
f 9 -
The operating license for Unit 1 of the Perry facility was issued o,,n November 13, 1986 to th: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.
On June 30, 1987,
~
the NRC notified Petitioners that this matter would be considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
The Director has determined that the Petitioners' request should be denied for the reasons set forth in the " Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-87-lQ, which is available f'or inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the local Public Document Room for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant at the Perry f
Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary for Commission review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c),
the Decision will become the final action of the Commission twenty-five (25) days after issuance unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of the Decision within that time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, Dir Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 7thday of October 1987 d
-__.______-___._a__.
1 NRCITRANSMISSION RECORD Slip Opinion, pp.
Opinion / Decision Date Headnote Date Date Dir. Decision Transmitted to Trans-Transmitted Trans-Transmission or Errata No.,
IBM 5520 by mitted to IBM-5520 mitted Received:
1 I
Name/ Organization by Name/Org.
Confirmed by NRC Contractor s.$:
W
- 4; unsummummmuus6m
-e
.......e
.....l
.l s
e 1,
A
^
a NRC FORu 234 U.S. NUCLE A R REGULATOR Y COMMISSION f
BLUE BAG MAIL 3: i.
(s 76)
BLUE BAG MAIL SERVICE i
Y. " ~
Cornplete this Portion and Give to Mail Person with Material Being Mailed.
! a:
DER'S RECEM I
TO:
SENT SENT DATE j
DATE TIME m
TIME BY:
t RECEIVED
,o To:
tj FRoM:
DATE
'E j
TIME
'i$
BY: ISognature) g g O
i DD NOT KEEP BLUE EAG - Return it to th? MailPerson NRCFORM 234 (6 76)
~.-.
"'M'.MMwr'4
~-y 6
w a
e m ayay
,,my,,,,,,
_______ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.