ML20096C774

Discusses Gpu Announcing That Util Had No Comments on Ser,But Util Would Be Filing Revised Analysis W/Staff to Supercede Nuclear Analysis in Ser.Util Cannot Continue to Assert That Commission Obligated to Restart

ML20096C774
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Asselstine J, Bernthal F, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
SP, NUDOCS 8409050396
Download: ML20096C774 (2)

Text

d~

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS im C... tam me..e. s.w. . S. iioi . washi.st .. DC 2eo36. <2o2> 296.seoo SW

'84 SEP -4 Raida 31,1984 Nunzio J.' Palladino, Chairman ,,, ,

James K. Asselstine, Commissioner 7,* %,g i'f p -

Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner WO Thomas M. Roberts, Comissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr., Comissioner ~ -- ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission .

.S O.- .aRS S P Washington, DC 20555 RE: 'INI-l Restart; Waiver of Subcooling Criteria and Other Outstanding Issues Gentlemen:

By memorandum of the. Secretary dated July 27, 1984, you circulated to the parties SECY-84-237 with enclosed safety evaluation on the subject of GPU's proposal to reduce the applicable subcooling criteria for WI-l from 50 F incorporated in the Comission's August 9,1979, Order and Notice of Hearing to 1.6 F. 'Ihe NRC staff's safety evaluation is based almost entirely on calculations and analyses done by GPU. Since GPU's proposal would also violate a condition of operation set by the Appeal Board (SECY-84-237, p.1),

you solicited the coments of all parties arxl set a deadline of August 24, 1984 for response. UCS made detailed coments and subnitted them by the deadline.

I subsequently received a letter from GPU Counsel dated August 24, 1984, which announces that GPU has no coments on the staff's safety evaluation, but it "will be filing with the Staff shortly a revised analysis which supercedes the GMJ Nuclear analyses assessed in the Staff's Safety Evaluation." In other words, the staff's safety evaluation and the underlying detailed calculations which we have:: Cust spent days reviewing, evaluating and preparing written comments upon are about to be " superceded" shortly by GPU. Surely GPU knew of this before August 24, 1984, yet it proceeded to withhold the information until after the deadline had passed for comments. It would have taken only a simple telephone call to the Secretary and the parties to alert them to the fact that the analyses are being " superceded." Its astonishing failure to do so is illustrative of GPU's arrogance.

Perhaps nore importantly from the Comission's point of view, GPU does not ' shrink frm unequivocally asserting that the Comission is " obligated" to order the restart of mI-1 and claims that the plant is ready to restart.

Apparently, GPU is not reciprocally obligated to timely provide the Comission with the information necessary to reach a rational decision on a safety issue 8409050396 840831 PDR ADOCK 05000289 PDR g

5f ain Office: 26 Church Street . Cambridge,3f anachusetts o2238 . (617) 547 5552

e .

4 l

so basic and longstanding as the one in question. It is inexcusable that GPU still does not know the accuracy of the MI-1 subcooling meter when installation of this instrument is a short-term requirement dating from 1979.

In this connection, it is similarly remarkable that, when directed by the Comission in CLI-84-11 to certify the qualification status of MI-1 safety equipent for radiation only, the Staff has been unable to do so as of yet because GPU has been unable to provide it with the necessary data.

Considering that the Commission ruled on June 30, 1982 that the staff had data demonstrating that all plants, including mI-1, had either fully qualified safety equipent or had valid justifications for continued operation, and considering that radiation qualification is just a small part of overall

. environmental qualification, this data should clearly have been readily available two years later when requested by the Comission.

A final case in point is UGi's petition for show cause regarding the WI-l emergency. feedwater system. 'Ihe petition was filed in January,1984 and was based entirely on doctznents already in the possession of the NRC at that time. Yet the NRC has yet to resolve the issues raised therein, in large part because GPU cannot come up with the necessary information and analyses.

GPU cannot credibly continue to assert that the Comission is

" obligated" to allow restart nor can the Staff continue to state that the plant can safely operate when such fundamental safety questions, none of which are new, are not answered.

Sincerely, Ellyn R. Weiss General Counsel cc: 'IMI-l Service List -

l 9