ML20244D213
| ML20244D213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | Davis A PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904210217 | |
| Download: ML20244D213 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_-_- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA'NIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PE N N 5YLVA NI A Post Office Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 APR131989 i The Secretary (717)f787-2814 l Thomas E. Murley, Director Office-.of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Murley:
I have received your March 29, 1989 letter which responds to the recently' signed agreement between the Commonwealth. of' Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo). -The agreement-addresses the Commonwealth's concerns regarding PECo's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ~which the NRC ordered shut-down 1 March 31, 1987.- While the suggestion of a meeting to discuss.the agreement and our request for the NRC's approval would be appropriate..under certain circumstances, I have serious reservations concerning-this approach in' light of your statement
- that~several key sections of the_ agreement should be deleted.
The sections in question, 0 15 and 0 16, were the focus of lengthy discussions at the meeting held on January 3, 1989, between the Commonwealth, PEco and the NRC. In general, these provisions describe how certain PECo commitments can be enforced and the duration of the commitments. The purpose of the January meeting was to informally present the agreement to the NRC for review and comment before it was officially submitted. The Commonwealth and PECo wanted to secure a pre-submittal assessment from the NRC about the suitability of the agreement. Bruce Bogar, from your office, was in attendance at the meeting. No representative of the-NRC indicated that there were any major problems. While a number of items were discussed, the main issue coming out of the meeting was whether the NRC would prefer to have the agreement embodied in a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) or in l an amendment to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). At the January meeting the NRC did indicate some concerns regarding its enforcement of etandards not found in its regulations or policies. However, the Commonwealth clearly stated that the provisions currently embodied in Sections Q.15 and-Q.16 were vital to the agreement and that without this type of provision, which provides long-term assurances for the Commonwealth, there could not be an agreement. Because they were fully discussed, the NRC had full knowledge of their existence and O' f /i M: W A b d4 7 '3 8904210217 890413 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P PDC
.d if Thomas E. Murley Page 2' the Commonwealth's position at the meeting. After the meeting and an opportunity.for additional internal discussions within the NRC, the NRC was to contact the Commonwealth and PECo to provide additional guidance on several items. The primary issue remaining l I was.the NRC's preference for a CAL or FSAR vehicle to embody the. agreement. In the interim, the Commonwealth and.PECo committed to make several changes to the agreements which were requested at.the January meeting.' A number of changes were in fact made following the meeting to address NRC comments. During a conference call following the meeting, Jay Gutierrez, Region I Counsel, provided the Commonwealth and PECo with the information which had been promised at the January meeting. Mr. Gutierrez indicated that it was the NRC's preference for an FSAR vehicle..The Commonwealth agreed to this option, I although we recognized that it was and is a substantial q concession. The concession was made in the spirit of cooperation and accommodation with the NRC. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth's need for the type of language currently embodied in Section Q.15 and 0 16 was thoroughly discussed with Mr. Gutierrez at this time. Mr. Gutierrez clearly stated that it was appropriate to include these provisions as part of the FSAR submittal. The Commonwealth is now frustrated to be faced with an issue that appears to reflect disagreement or miscommunication between NRC Region I and NRR. It appears to the Commonwealth that we have heard two different positions from the NRC. The Commonwealth is committed to maintaining the projections afforded by Sections Q.15 and 0 16, and would be strongly opposed to any substantial modifications to, let alone the deletion of, these Sections. We believe, therefore, that further discussions which did not consider this position would be fruitless. At the same time, the Commonwealth does not wish to preclude further discussions with the NRC, in which the Commonwealth's position with-regard to Sections Q.15 and 0 16 is properly recognized..Should you wish to pursue such discussions, please contact my Office or alternatively Richard D. Spiegelman (717-787-9340) or Richard Mather (717-787-7060). Sincerely, Q4lC G. I J Arthur A. Davis Secretary Department of Environmental Resources cc: C. A. Mdieill, Jr. Nicholas DeBenedictis =______-_______:__.}}