ML20147E256

Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Environ Qualification at Facility.Forwards Documents Listed in App C.Documents Also Available in PDR

ML20147E256
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/15/1988
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Shared Package
ML20147E260	List: ML20147E256 ML20147E976
References
FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210053
Download: ML20147E256 (2)

Text

-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nac 704A aEovEst Ncvstmsi

,f* " %,.g

% p fD$k~$(9h$h TES4NSE TyeE 5 5 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM 01 I '*^' XL f'F^'

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQNEST

^

" ## M (e..e[

s DOCKET Nuv5ER 5: vf eapacem LEQUESTER S h R. Loa O PART 1.-RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checked bones)

No agency records subrect to the request have been located.

No adotoral agency records subiect to the aquest have been located.

Agency records subpect to the request that are ioentifed in Appendia are already avadable for public inspection and copymg in the NRC Pubiec Document Room, 1717 H Street N.W., Washegton, DC Agency records subtect to the request that are contifed in Appendia b are bemg tride avadable for pubhc espect.on and copying B the NRC Publc Document f;oom,1717 H Street. N W., Washington, DC. m a foeder under tNs FOl A numcer and requester eame -

The nonpropnetary vers *on of the proposa41s) that you ag eed to exept e a tetepmoae conversaton uth a member of rny staff is now being made avadable for pubhc inspect on and coyog at the NRC Publ.c Document Room,1717 H Street. N W , WasNngton, DC. m a fok3er under thrs Fora number and requester name.

Encioned e information on how you rnay obtain access to and t*e charges for copying records placed in tN NRC Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street, N W.. WasNngton, DC.

Agency records subect t ta t*e request are enclosed Any applicable charge fe copes of the records proveed and payment procedures are noted in the comments sectron.

Records subtect to the request have been referred to another Federal agencytes) for rewev -M direct respor'se to you.

In vow of NRC's response to the request, no further action e be ng taken on appesi letter da'ed PART ll A-lNFORMAT10N WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC OISCLOSURE Certain informaton m the requested recor 5)is being uthheid from put>l.c d sclosur e a rsuant to the FOIA esemptor's descnbod m and for the reasons stated m Part II. sec-tons 8. C, and O. Any re6 eased portioes of the documents for wNch only part of t record a be,ng uthheid are being made asadab'e for pubhc inspecton and copymg m the NRC Publ.c Document Room,1717 H Street. N W., Washegion, DC. m a folder under this FOIA t' umber and requester name Comments 8801210053 FOIA 880115 PDR PDR WEISge7-696 s'

$!G 8J p *E;TC* Dv5 ON 08 AES aqq- aOS f b fl / .4 C ,

,( [ ri ( 't L

/

NIC FORM 464 Pe i i aN. j

Re: F0IA-87-696 APPENDIX C RECORDS IN PDR UNDER REQUEST NUMBER Exhibits to 01 Report ROI, 1-84-021 Exh. 26 Ltr dated 12/10/82 to H. D. Hukill from John Stolz with two enclosures:  ;

(a) Safety Evaluation Report By The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation For GPU Nuclear Corporation.

• (b) Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (78 pages)

Exh. 27 Ltr dated 3/1/83 from H. D. Hukill to J. F. Stolz. (1 page)

Exh. 28 Memo dated 3/2/83 to N. C. Kozanas from P. B. Magitz, subject:

Corporate Quality Assurance. (3 pages)

Exh. 29 Meno dated 3/9/83 to Allgaier, Heil, Magitz and Wayne, subject: 2nd Meeting Minutes. (5 pages)

Exh. 34 Ltr dated 5/25/84 to D. Hukill frem D. Eisenhut. (12 pages)

• Please Note: This report, as contained in 01 files, is without the l Proprietary Information sections.

I l

l l

1 i

1 tJNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1616 e s- . w s.3io . w..si ,4e.. oc 2oo36 . <2o2,332.o,oo October 15, 1987

,. FREEDOM 0F INFORMATION Director, Division of Rules and Records ACT REQUEST Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[M -/7-d b Washington, D.C. 20555 - 3jd /N~/b 7 RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Director,

Pursuant to the federal Freedom of . Information Act, the Union of Concerned Scientists hereby requests the following:

1. Any report (s) done by the Office of Investigations related to the request by UCS that the NRC investigate whether GPU made material false statements relating to the environmental qualification of safety equipment at Three Mile Island, Unit 1.

2. Any report (s) done by the Office of Inspection and Audit related to UCS's request for an investigation into the staff's conduct in re-iterating without review GPU's unfounded claims regarding environmental qualification.

Please note that both UCS requests for investigations were

made as part of a petition filed by UCS pursuant to 10CFR 2.206, May 9, 1984. Harold Denton, then Director of NRR, stated on September 25, 1984, that GPU had made "invalid" statements and that the matter had been referred to OI. See "Director's

, Decision Under 10CFR 2.206, September 24, 1984, pp. 32-34." In j addition, Robert Pollard and I were interviewed by George Mulley i of OIA in the summer of 1984 in regard to the OIA investigation l of the NRC staff. Therefore, it is clear that both l investigations were at least begun.

I look forward to your response within ten days, as provided l by law.

l Very truly yours, ,

/

G' Ellyn .. Weiss General Counsel gMk D Cambridge Office: 26 Church Street Cambridge, %1as.achu cit 02238 16171.*> l ?.*> ~d2 l

[ 'o UNITED STATES E ' 3 .. 'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{g "i f 27 9 W ASHING ton, D. C. 20555 I~k '

%,..'. .' . / Dec ernber 10, 1982 V -

Docket N 50-289 Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President GPU Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057, ,

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT RE: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1

Dear Mr. Hukill:

This letter transmits the Safety Evaluation Report for the Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at your facility. This evaluation is based on your response to our previous Safety Evaluation Report, dated July 2,.1981 and subsequent submittals as referenced in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. This Safety Evaluation Report presents the results of the Environmental Qualification Review for safety-related electrical equipment, '

exposed to a harsh environment, in accordance with NRC requirements. We request that you provide your plans for qualification or replacement of the equipment in NRC Categories I.B, II. A and II.B (presented in the Technical Evaluation Report), and the schedule for accomplishing your proposed correttive actions to us within ninty (90) days of the receipt of this letter.

As indicated in the conclusion section of the Safety Evaluation Report, we request that you reaf firm the justification for continued operation and within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, submit inforrnation for items ir.

i NRC Catgories I.B. II. A and II.B (presented in the Technical Evaluation Report)

! for which justification for continued operation was not previously submitted to the NRC. We suggest that the clarification set forth in item 8 of Generic Letter No. 82-09, "Clarification Questions and Answers on Environmental Quali-fication Requirements," should be considered in your justification for continued operation.

The Technical Evaluation Report contains certain identified infomation which yochave previously claimed to be proprietary. We request that you infom us as indicated in the proprietary section of the Safety Evaluation Repo'rt

whether any portions of the identified pages still require proprietary protectior..

l l At your option, the staf f will be available to discuss the findings in the l Safety Evaluation Report as augmented by the Technical Evaluation Report.

l Questions regarding this letter should be directed through the NRC Project i Manager for your plant.

{cZ/}-W'/*bV$

.%WYhW* yi,

(

Mr. Henry D. Hukill The reporting and/ot:recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter I affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB Clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

. Sincerely,

.AA

• J"hh F. Stolz, Chi erating Reactors Branch f4 ivision of Licensing ,

Enclosures:

1. Safety Evaluation Report

2. Technical Evaluation Report cc w/o TER

Enclosure:

See next page e

S 4

. i

'. GPU Nuclear Corporation 50-289, TMf-1 Mr. R. J. Toole Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

Panager, TMI-l .

Fox, Farr and Cuoningham g

GPU Nuclear Corpor&ti'on ' . ?320 North 2nd Street -

P. O. Box 480 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Ms. Louise Bradford THIA Board of Directors' 1011 Green Street P.A.N.E. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 P. O. Box 268 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 m. Marjorie 11. Aamodt R.' D. #5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320

• Docketing and Service Section Earl B. Hoffm'an U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dauphin County Comissioner Washington, D. C. 20555 Dauphin County Courthouse Fmnt and Market Streets Chauncey Kepford Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101

. Judith H. Johnsrud .

Enviror. mental Coalition on Nuclear Power Union of Concerned Scientists .

433 Orlando Avenue

c/o - Harmon & Weiss. .

Stete College, Pennsylvania 16801' 1725 I S treet, N. W.

Suite 506 "

Washington, D. C. 20006

"~

, Mr. Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

J. B. Liebeman, Esq. Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101 Berlock, Israel & Lieberman Washington, D. C. 20036 26 Broadway "

New York, New York 10304 ~

I lir. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator

! U. S. N. R. C. , Region I l 631 Park Avenue I King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 l

l ANGRY /TMI PIRC l

1037 Maclay Street .

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 1

John Levin, Esq.

i Fennsylvania Public Utilities Co. mission Box 3265 -

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 l

l

. , - - -r - , , . - -

. i . , . . n v...o v s . ., ,, ., , . . . . . . , , , , . . ...m

, Bureau of Radiation Pro..ction 1725 I .Stree., NW

. Department of Environmental Resources

• Washington, DC 20472 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Karin W. Carter, Esq.

505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Judge Gary L.11ilhol.lin - -

.Harrisburg, Pe~nnsylvania 17120 4412 Greenwich Parkway, fM Uashington, D. C. 20007 G. F. Trowbridge, Esq. i Dauphin County Office Emergency Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Preparedness 1800 M Street, N.W. Court House, Room 7 -

Washington, D. C. 20036 Front & Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Mr. E. G. Wallace Licensing Manager

• GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkw2y Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 WU11es.S'. Jordan,"III,Esq..

. ' . .. .- . . . : ..e.,- - .. a

• ys. Lennie Prough Harmon & Weiss . U. S. H. R. C. - Till Si te ',

. .- 17251 Street, HY, Suite SOS - -

p, o, gox 311 -

• Washington, DC 20005 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Hs. Virginia Southard, Chainnan Citizens for a Safe Environment -

264 Walton Street Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 8

Mr. Robert B. Borsum .

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodront Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20S14 Mr. David D. Maxwell, Chairman Board of Supervisors Londonderry Township ,

RFDfl - Geyers Church Road Middletown, Pennsylvania. 17057 Mr. C. W. Smyth Supervisor of Licensing TM1-1 GPU Nuclear Corporation l Regional Radiation Representative P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 EPA Recion Ill Curtis Building (Sixth Floor) 6th and Walnut Streets

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Governor's Office of State Planning Mr. Richard Conte and Development Senior Residen: Inspe::or (7g;.1) ATTN: Coordinator, Pennsylvania U.S.N.R.C. Slate Clearinghouse l P. O. Box 311 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 P. O. Box 1323 l

- Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1712C l

- i .

• l

. 1 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION '

, FOR GPU flVCLEAR CORPORATION

( TMI-1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 1

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT  !

INTRODUCTION General Design Criteria 1 and 4 specify;that safety-related electrical equipment in nuclear facilities must be capable of perfodning its safety-related function under environmental conditions associated with all I normal, abnormal, and accident plant operation. In order to ensure compliance with the criteria, the NRC staff required all licensees of operating reactors to submit a re-evaluation of the qualification of

~

safety-related electrical equipment which may be exposed to a harsh environment. -

BACKGROUND

~ '

l On February 8, 1979, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) i issued to all licensees of operating plants (except those included in the

(

l systematic evaluation program (SEP)) IE Bulletin (IEB) 79-01, "Environ-mental Qualification of Class IE Equipment." This Bulletin, together l with IE Circular 78-08 (issued on May 31, 1978), required the licensees to perform reviews to assess the adequacy of their environmental qualifica-tion programs.

l On January 14, 1980, NRC issued IE Bulletin 79-01B which included the 00R guidelines and NUREG-0588 as attachments 4 and 5. respectively.

Subsequently, on May 23, 1980, Comission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21 l

was issued and stated the 00R guidelines and portions of NUREG-0585 forr the requirements that licensees must meet regarding environmental l

l

2 si 3

aa a

a qualiMcat, ten of safety-related electMeal equipment in om to satisfy ]

tasse espects of 34 CPR 50, a,pendia A, General Design CHteden (EDC) 4.

legplements to 133 ?>gg unre tasaed for fureer cleMNcattaa en o ,. ., w g ,

.s g,. .

e,

'*;* _,l.,,

,r.o 4,

4

~b ' q .

E g

a;? n

^ gs;r.> g. .

~

o y2.)g;-

sa

~

19m n . ...,;,. j b -

. ,. , y * .. ; 4 .

=o

'i.G $ 5 Y h- '

D 0. t }

.F *W '^ ~ H N'h h f' $

b%%wgen

a. .

w.;;%a W QQf w.&h.%- $.f I .L:.*Y v N n%;#p4

• u  % b2fQ W a$n?.*  ?:lv , w .a O- .  % B .

c m, 7- A ,.N.e. ;h L e;.:;\6:. :.h.;p hy My.gp4 49%\; du-b.g d y i.f,.I.d

?. e$v. .<

[p',[.

g- M.1- ,l 3,;. M<.:, .p 4::w.qy; 4g i

%~ W' .r4,k T Ij_/ gaw:?fI l' .

3' '

[MD

, - . .z.

,4.-  : r. '

e #. ~'

, ' * %' . ' ..{'q

. %-,. .i; '+ .1 . , :; ;'- ^;

& y ,;. n

• _ . _; ; :fl .4 N Af',4t.q' y 6 f' ;W' v-Y.

-3 m '

.;1. .l ' ' 2

[,E; ~.( .'<.([*[

[. ,.W.g u...f[,bE.(i

f. 'f ) , ' '.[ - 3.[:U lh,., ,' ,- 3.' - 3 't (. 80 f;- i

.k .,4;  : } h'jt s n.f.. . na/; . .n : .. :

~

v : ' &:  :

w ..: ,: v v '.s

&:J2. .N'I .; i.'.;/.: . :,L .L.y:. ?,f We

.' ' ~

~$ < y, . !

. . - ; . . . , , p. r w$ y L;.;' g + ...:

..  :'$f.?e ); s. f X. k.c.r.: .(.

^

. .'. , . u, , -%. '. e . ' ' . .  ;;  ; . . '_

E

<- a

. s .:

. : . . .: ,' - . .n . 'J'; m... .. m;. v. m,?,,., .. .; i-..M,:: w' . ,.. ,,;' $lu.r.u , a.r.:. , . a..y

.3X : gws.

- ~,

a. -

a .

. . %92 ..  ;

. ,  : . j gig y .1 -

M; . . J ;1 : . .. . . e A 1 . '.  : A.  ; . ,  : . ' i . . p.

%,1., $ 1,, s S , .

.l-l , [_ '~.: [,]. .f_ f: ,d. , ..k; f . ??

~

'^

h.?;N . .

Y ; M.

_an

x. .-

+ .g. .

. a.. xW

. ,?'.%* L M ?smam. w r w; c n 5.m ,p ?. w.i&;% .. y n.?n%ja :2.g: .w ..

3

~. k 4 ::# s @= i UM:% iJiG>.Mw.V

.gUi;:. - : E.T Q .% .nnR:. gf.M..g;#yA.}qq n%n..f:  !. s; =

..~.. .

4 . > . .. , .,

i-d [.

+ .E .

?* -' .

)

]^

g

. . ' . ' '., R .

' ' ~

.. ~ .

>y _

wman n ,

+ _'.a_1

..~.

~.

..-l - *.

f. :. . _ ..

4 t..

.t .

.Y'[. .*.'..,. _n

., ^g e;

,' El p,-

t t .

~~

EVALUATION The acceptability of the licensee's equipment environmental qualification program was reviewed for the Division of Engineering by the Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of the NRR Technical Assistance Program in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The consultant's review is documented in the report "Re' view of Licensee". Resolutions of Outstanding Issues from NRC Equipment Environmental Qualification Safety Evaluation Reports," which is attached.

We have reviewed the evaluation performed by our consultant contained in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report (TER) and concur with its bases and findings. Our review has also revealed certain discrepancies in the TER which are being corrected by this SER as follows:

- o Delete the third paragraph on page 1-9 of the TER.

o Delete the second paragraph on page 1-10 of the TE,R. .

The staff has also reviewed the licensee's justification for continued l

l operation regarding each item of safety-related electrical equipment l

l identified by the licensee as not being capable of meeting environmental qualification requirements for the service conditions intended.

CONCLUSIONS l

l Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report l

and the licensee's justification for continued operation, the following l

conclusions are made regarding the qualification of safety-related elec-trical equipment.

l

e 1

• e ,

'. 1. Continued operation until completion of the licensee's environmental qualification program has been determinea to not present undue risk to the public health and safety. Furthertnore, the staff is contihutng to review the licensee's envirorrnental qualification program. If any additional qualification deficiencies were identified during the course of this review, the licensee would be required to reverify the justification for continued operation.

The staff will review this information to ensure that continued operation until completion of the licensee's environmental qualification program will not present undue risk to the public health and safety. ,

The major qualification deficiencies that have been identified in the enclosed FRC TER (Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4) must be resolved by the licensee. Items requiring special attention by the licensee are sunnarized below:

o Submission of infonnation within thirty (30) days for iterns in NRC categories 1B, 2A and 2B for which justificItion for continued operation was not previously submitted to NRC or FRC.

Section 4.3.3 of the FRC TER identifies a concern regarding incontainment environmental service conditions. The staff has reviewed this concern and concludes that the containment temperature / pressure profiles for the worst case LOCA given in Figures14-63A and 14-66 of the FSAR are '.

acceptable for use in equipment environmental qualification.

The licensee cust provide the plans for qualification or replacement of the unqualified equipment and the schedule for accomplishing its prop 0sec correction action.

( f. .

~~

PROPRIETARY REVIEW Enclosed in the FRC Technical Evaluation Report (TER) are certain identified pages on which t'he information is claimed to be proprietary, i During the preparation of the enclosed TER, FRC used test reports and other documents supplied by the licensee that included material claimed to be proprietary by their owners and originators. NRC is now preparing to publicly release the FRC TER and it is incumbent on the agency to seek review of all claimed proprietary material. As such, the licensee is requested to review the enclosed TER with their owner or originator and notify NRR within seven (7) days of receipt of this SER whether any portions of the identified pages still

• require proprietary protection.

If so, the licensee must clearly identify this information and the .

specific rationale and justification for the protection from public disclosure, detailed in a written response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this SER. The level of specificity necessary for such continued protection should be consistent with the criteria enumerated in 10 CFR 2.790(b) of the Commission's regulations.

l l

l