ML20093A550: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:__        _ .      _.
U.S. NUC MAR REGULATORY COMMISSION          .  .  . ATOMIC SAICTY &.LICCNSING APPELL BOARD Philo. Eloo. Co. Nuclear gsnoratizg Station                    Dockot 8    5C- 352 & 353 Limerick Units 1 & 2.                                  July 3,1984.
APPEAL FROM ASLB'.S ORAL,SUWARY DENIAL ^ OF ANTHONT/F0E MOTION OF 6/18/84 VS SECO "RIMAINING PORTION OF THE LICENS3 "(part 70) AND MOTION VS PECO MOTION FOR EXPE-DITED DECISION AND LCW POWER LICENSE, BF ANTHONY /F0E            6/i9/84 .                  % -6 p2:30 On June 19,1984    H.L. Anthony submitted to the Atomic Safety a d Licensing                      l ER.qlq ' ,
Board in Philadelphia the above motions dated 6/18/84 and 6/19/84 The Board esnaidered them and summarily dimied both, and stated that no answers wottld be necessary. Tr. 12,058 -17                                                            ,
ASL3 Erior. The Appeal Board's decision of 3/30/84 and ASL3's decision, Memorandum and Order,    3/16/84, both en page 1 specify a Part70 license for PEco " to receive-c.ed store new, unirradiated fuel outdoors at the Limerick site"                  AS13 adds," for coveral weekay ASL3 adds,          "outside" instead of " outdoors ".        It is clear that both dscisions are limited to storage outside the plant buildings. Our present motions are concerned with the moving of the fuel into the # 1 reactor building, N
userating, inspecting , storing in the fuel pool and loading into the reactor for icw power operation. These activities            are requested in a letter Gallag ter/Kemper  5 to R.G.Page,NRC, with Attachment 1, revisions of the fuel license,6/7/84, and in PECe's 7/9/84 motion for Expedited Partial Decision and Lew Power License.
We assert that the Licens'ing Board erred in denying our motions since thpy deal with new matter concerning the fuel license and not with new fuel shipment to the site. Te disgree that the " previous order finding nb health and safety Tr.
er any other impact..." applies te our current motions.12 058 -19 to 23le ask t,he Appeal Beard to reverse theASLB decision and to grant the requested relief beginning with an immediate stay on any amendment of the license or moving of the fuel into the reactor building.
We set forth below the vi61stions in the license revisions and the threats to our health and safety from the moving indoors of the fuel, uncrating, jJ                                                                present status of unresolved safety i@g      storing issues and operating of the reacter under the zo .equipmeut and structures and incomplete procedures and personnel training.
I Although the Beard noteda question about i.ts jurisdiction,it obviously accepted
.[
, cu      jurisdictica in recording its denial' ef our motions. We note the Commission 3s fail-
. 48    ure to review LLA3 765 , Tr.12,062 -188 23,. as confirmed by S.J.Chilk's Memorandum k    of 6/15/a4. AIa3 765 concesned tranaterring fuel' and storing outdoors,only.
45                                                                                                    -
(Do.o COMTENT OF THE MOTIONS        .
We did not specify the violations included in the revis-ions requested in Attachment 1 for the fuel license in our 6/18/84 motion but we reserved the right to submit contenticas on these. We include thene contentions                        3 following the issues recorded below in our 6/19/84 motion.
tote ,however,that We ask the Board to 9 PECo's 6/7/84 letter and Attachment states ne docket or_licessej
 
                                          ~~  ~~
                                                                          .s. The id L0il POWER REQUEST. 72 filed a mot 5.co with ASL3e on 5,iS/84 egainct PEco'o motinn for erpedited initial decision and issuance of a low pow ~e r license.        We include o copy of our 5/18 motion here and submit the /,+ffa,s e e,en  contentions in the motion
  .      cs evidence that PECe is met presently prepared to safely move fuel into the plant or to take it through the process te reacter leading and operaties. Additiemal ovidence of essential lacks in PECe's equipment, procedures and personnel are set forth below in further inspection reports and documents. . In relattom to our c e m-tontion (5/18/84)    10, the security plan for Limerick is incomplete because there has been me prevision for county participation.          At the public meeting of the Mcutgomery County Commissiemers em 6/28/84 I a ked  s    the Commissioners whether PECe had made such a security plan with the County.          Mr. Paul Bartle ,Ce= mission Chair-man said that he had me knowledge of any approach to the County by PECe en this.
The NRC repeated that this county participation is required under the NRC regulation (
in a discussion of the Shoreham plant duriig the 4/24/84 Commission meeting Tr.
35-17 to 36- 1.
With respect to PECo's application for a low power license the operation rcquested is entirely contrary to 10CFR 50 57(e) as shown in our motion (6/19/84),
para. 5. Te,therefore petities the appeal Board to declare PECe's low power appli-
{
cation void (6/19/84,p2, para.l.).
UN2SSOLVED SAFETY ISSUES. und.. ASL3 allowed a hearing om our two motions me would have provided    further evidence  to back up (6/19/84, p.2 para 3 and 4)thatopeu inspee-tion items and other hazards to safe operation must be cared fer,before fuel is orought inside and handled and any license to operate is granted. We list these items oefos.
Imadequate radiation monitoring: 2/16/84 Insp. 84-02 ;        3/2/84  Insp. 84-03 6/15/84 Insp. 84-20 Control Roem: 5/21/84 Insp. 84-19        4/16/84Schweneer-Bauerreportofaudit.
Diesels: 5/21/84 Insp. 84-19 : 4/19/8484-07;6/4/84Insp.84-16:              .
Seismies 5/31/84 Martin report of 1/17-20/84 review audit.
Secondary containment: 1/16/84      83-23-05 unresolved.
Suppreseien Poola 6/11/84 Schwencer- Bauer. Hydrodynnsio load reconciliation.
                                    ~                      "
Operating Staff and procedures: 1/5/84 hsp.83-17          5/31/84 Eisenhut-Bauer oper-ating sniff staffing.                      ,
Hi?.iRDS IX ATTACEMENT 1 (Gallagher/Kemper to Page 6/7/84 )
* P.8. Sec 1.2 4 2  In the event of Pipeline er Railroad acciddats,a's establish-od in' hearings en Cententions    7- 3 a a44 b,an erplesien muld cellapse the cool-ing towers and the men-saf ety pump house would be damaged and both fire pumps cculd be disabled. Therefore, fire protecties cannet be assured "eperative" until citigating measures s'  g atast these explosien hazards have been carried out.
 
s  ,
  .                                        --3--
P. 21 Soc 2.2.2 Thore 10 no ecchnaieni prsvioico to accure 5 feet copar ation b0 tween open shipping containers on the refueling floor ci- the 23 feet vertical                                                  ;
distance to separate 'these from spent fuel racks.
Sce. 2.2 5 4 There is ne qualification for auxiliarr hoist er cherry picker for handling fuel in FSA> 7able 2.1"Neuezempt heavy load handling system.."
P. 24 Sec. 2 3 2 PECe takes the option of either dry or wet st'orage of the new fuel in the fuel peel. Dry storage is not a safe opties against accidental crit-icality.      Sterage in borated water is required. Is addities a water thickness of (approximately 10 in'c hes) is required in paragraph 1,te guarantee against
      " adverse reactivity effect".
RIQUEST FOR A STAY.      In requesting that the Appeal Begrd grant a stay of new revisions of PECe' Part 70 fuel license, a stay en moving.new fuel into the re-cater building,and a stay en a low power license, under 10CFR .2a788 (e), we assert the threats to our health and safety from PECe's lack of readiness to bring new fuel into the plaat as set forth above.
{1) To believe that the evidence we have presented adds up to a strong showing andgwill prevail.                                                                                      \
(2) Without a stay we will be subjected to the risk of operation. ef the                                          ..
reacter as well as accidental criticality from the handling of fuel under unsafe conditions.
(3) A stay will met hara PECe but will prevent it from the less of personnel,
      =ensy,and credibility if there were te ,be an accident from unsafe equipment and handling processes at this time with new fuel.
(4) The public interest lies in the preservaties of health and safety for residents as well as the safety of PEco's personnel and investment.
RELIEF .        We petition the Appeal Beard to reverse the ASLB denial of our two motions on 6/19/84 and we specifically request:
: 1. PECe's motion for a low power license of 5/9/84 be declared veid.
: 2. The revisions of PECe's fuel license Attachment 1, 6/7/84 be stayed.
: 3. The moving of new fuel into the building be stayed,and uncrating be stayed until there has .been a hearing on-the cententions we have raised en new                                              !
fuel handling and the readiness of' the plant and processes and personnel,and a decision rendered.                        ,
l Cc: Judges Brenner, Cole,Merris KRC Staff. M.J.7etterhahn                                Res ectfully submit ed.
Others on Serv'. List.                                                              [, ,
Ber 186                Moylan,Pa.19065
                        -  -                    -      - - . _ . - -  . . - - - - _ _ ,        ,-  . - - - - - . . . - - . ,      .}}

Latest revision as of 20:01, 12 May 2020

Motion to Reverse ASLB Denial of 840618 Motion Re Part 70 & 840619 Motion Opposing Util Motion for Expedited Decision
ML20093A550
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/03/1984
From: Anthony R
ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8407100624
Download: ML20093A550 (3)
v • d • e


Text

__ _ . _.

U.S. NUC MAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . . . ATOMIC SAICTY &.LICCNSING APPELL BOARD Philo. Eloo. Co. Nuclear gsnoratizg Station Dockot 8 5C- 352 & 353 Limerick Units 1 & 2. July 3,1984.

APPEAL FROM ASLB'.S ORAL,SUWARY DENIAL ^ OF ANTHONT/F0E MOTION OF 6/18/84 VS SECO "RIMAINING PORTION OF THE LICENS3 "(part 70) AND MOTION VS PECO MOTION FOR EXPE-DITED DECISION AND LCW POWER LICENSE, BF ANTHONY /F0E 6/i9/84 .  % -6 p2:30 On June 19,1984 H.L. Anthony submitted to the Atomic Safety a d Licensing l ER.qlq ' ,

Board in Philadelphia the above motions dated 6/18/84 and 6/19/84 The Board esnaidered them and summarily dimied both, and stated that no answers wottld be necessary. Tr. 12,058 -17 ,

ASL3 Erior. The Appeal Board's decision of 3/30/84 and ASL3's decision, Memorandum and Order, 3/16/84, both en page 1 specify a Part70 license for PEco " to receive-c.ed store new, unirradiated fuel outdoors at the Limerick site" AS13 adds," for coveral weekay ASL3 adds, "outside" instead of " outdoors ". It is clear that both dscisions are limited to storage outside the plant buildings. Our present motions are concerned with the moving of the fuel into the # 1 reactor building, N

userating, inspecting , storing in the fuel pool and loading into the reactor for icw power operation. These activities are requested in a letter Gallag ter/Kemper 5 to R.G.Page,NRC, with Attachment 1, revisions of the fuel license,6/7/84, and in PECe's 7/9/84 motion for Expedited Partial Decision and Lew Power License.

We assert that the Licens'ing Board erred in denying our motions since thpy deal with new matter concerning the fuel license and not with new fuel shipment to the site. Te disgree that the " previous order finding nb health and safety Tr.

er any other impact..." applies te our current motions.12 058 -19 to 23le ask t,he Appeal Beard to reverse theASLB decision and to grant the requested relief beginning with an immediate stay on any amendment of the license or moving of the fuel into the reactor building.

We set forth below the vi61stions in the license revisions and the threats to our health and safety from the moving indoors of the fuel, uncrating, jJ present status of unresolved safety i@g storing issues and operating of the reacter under the zo .equipmeut and structures and incomplete procedures and personnel training.

I Although the Beard noteda question about i.ts jurisdiction,it obviously accepted

.[

, cu jurisdictica in recording its denial' ef our motions. We note the Commission 3s fail-

. 48 ure to review LLA3 765 , Tr.12,062 -188 23,. as confirmed by S.J.Chilk's Memorandum k of 6/15/a4. AIa3 765 concesned tranaterring fuel' and storing outdoors,only.

45 -

(Do.o COMTENT OF THE MOTIONS .

We did not specify the violations included in the revis-ions requested in Attachment 1 for the fuel license in our 6/18/84 motion but we reserved the right to submit contenticas on these. We include thene contentions 3 following the issues recorded below in our 6/19/84 motion.

tote ,however,that We ask the Board to 9 PECo's 6/7/84 letter and Attachment states ne docket or_licessej

~~ ~~

.s. The id L0il POWER REQUEST. 72 filed a mot 5.co with ASL3e on 5,iS/84 egainct PEco'o motinn for erpedited initial decision and issuance of a low pow ~e r license. We include o copy of our 5/18 motion here and submit the /,+ffa,s e e,en contentions in the motion

. cs evidence that PECe is met presently prepared to safely move fuel into the plant or to take it through the process te reacter leading and operaties. Additiemal ovidence of essential lacks in PECe's equipment, procedures and personnel are set forth below in further inspection reports and documents. . In relattom to our c e m-tontion (5/18/84) 10, the security plan for Limerick is incomplete because there has been me prevision for county participation. At the public meeting of the Mcutgomery County Commissiemers em 6/28/84 I a ked s the Commissioners whether PECe had made such a security plan with the County. Mr. Paul Bartle ,Ce= mission Chair-man said that he had me knowledge of any approach to the County by PECe en this.

The NRC repeated that this county participation is required under the NRC regulation (

in a discussion of the Shoreham plant duriig the 4/24/84 Commission meeting Tr.

35-17 to 36- 1.

With respect to PECo's application for a low power license the operation rcquested is entirely contrary to 10CFR 50 57(e) as shown in our motion (6/19/84),

para. 5. Te,therefore petities the appeal Board to declare PECe's low power appli-

{

cation void (6/19/84,p2, para.l.).

UN2SSOLVED SAFETY ISSUES. und.. ASL3 allowed a hearing om our two motions me would have provided further evidence to back up (6/19/84, p.2 para 3 and 4)thatopeu inspee-tion items and other hazards to safe operation must be cared fer,before fuel is orought inside and handled and any license to operate is granted. We list these items oefos.

Imadequate radiation monitoring: 2/16/84 Insp. 84-02 ; 3/2/84 Insp. 84-03 6/15/84 Insp. 84-20 Control Roem: 5/21/84 Insp. 84-19 4/16/84Schweneer-Bauerreportofaudit.

Diesels: 5/21/84 Insp. 84-19 : 4/19/8484-07;6/4/84Insp.84-16: .

Seismies 5/31/84 Martin report of 1/17-20/84 review audit.

Secondary containment: 1/16/84 83-23-05 unresolved.

Suppreseien Poola 6/11/84 Schwencer- Bauer. Hydrodynnsio load reconciliation.

~ "

Operating Staff and procedures: 1/5/84 hsp.83-17 5/31/84 Eisenhut-Bauer oper-ating sniff staffing. ,

Hi?.iRDS IX ATTACEMENT 1 (Gallagher/Kemper to Page 6/7/84 )

  • P.8. Sec 1.2 4 2 In the event of Pipeline er Railroad acciddats,a's establish-od in' hearings en Cententions 7- 3 a a44 b,an erplesien muld cellapse the cool-ing towers and the men-saf ety pump house would be damaged and both fire pumps cculd be disabled. Therefore, fire protecties cannet be assured "eperative" until citigating measures s' g atast these explosien hazards have been carried out.

s ,

. --3--

P. 21 Soc 2.2.2 Thore 10 no ecchnaieni prsvioico to accure 5 feet copar ation b0 tween open shipping containers on the refueling floor ci- the 23 feet vertical  ;

distance to separate 'these from spent fuel racks.

Sce. 2.2 5 4 There is ne qualification for auxiliarr hoist er cherry picker for handling fuel in FSA> 7able 2.1"Neuezempt heavy load handling system.."

P. 24 Sec. 2 3 2 PECe takes the option of either dry or wet st'orage of the new fuel in the fuel peel. Dry storage is not a safe opties against accidental crit-icality. Sterage in borated water is required. Is addities a water thickness of (approximately 10 in'c hes) is required in paragraph 1,te guarantee against

" adverse reactivity effect".

RIQUEST FOR A STAY. In requesting that the Appeal Begrd grant a stay of new revisions of PECe' Part 70 fuel license, a stay en moving.new fuel into the re-cater building,and a stay en a low power license, under 10CFR .2a788 (e), we assert the threats to our health and safety from PECe's lack of readiness to bring new fuel into the plaat as set forth above.

{1) To believe that the evidence we have presented adds up to a strong showing andgwill prevail. \

(2) Without a stay we will be subjected to the risk of operation. ef the ..

reacter as well as accidental criticality from the handling of fuel under unsafe conditions.

(3) A stay will met hara PECe but will prevent it from the less of personnel,

=ensy,and credibility if there were te ,be an accident from unsafe equipment and handling processes at this time with new fuel.

(4) The public interest lies in the preservaties of health and safety for residents as well as the safety of PEco's personnel and investment.

RELIEF . We petition the Appeal Beard to reverse the ASLB denial of our two motions on 6/19/84 and we specifically request:

1. PECe's motion for a low power license of 5/9/84 be declared veid.
2. The revisions of PECe's fuel license Attachment 1, 6/7/84 be stayed.
3. The moving of new fuel into the building be stayed,and uncrating be stayed until there has .been a hearing on-the cententions we have raised en new  !

fuel handling and the readiness of' the plant and processes and personnel,and a decision rendered. ,

l Cc: Judges Brenner, Cole,Merris KRC Staff. M.J.7etterhahn Res ectfully submit ed.

Others on Serv'. List. [, ,

Ber 186 Moylan,Pa.19065

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093A550&oldid=2800546"