ML20126E050

Outlines Position on Sys Necessary for Fuel Loading & Precritical Testing.View Expressed in Encl Jensen Affidavit Appears Inconsistent W/Use of Tech Specs Written for Modes 3,4,5 & 6 to Govern Fuel Loading & Precritical Testing

ML20126E050
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date:	12/05/1984
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Bernero R, Eisenhut D NRC
Shared Package
ML20126D950	List: IA-84-942, Forwards Rev to Proposed Draft Order in SECY-84-393A Based Upon Commissioner Comments.Additions to Draft Order Underlined,Deletions Lined Out.W/O Encl ML20126D947 ML20126D998 ML20126E023 ML20126E050 ML20126E062 ML20126E065 ML20126E068
References
FOIA-84-942, FOIA-85-A-5 NUDOCS 8506150279
Download: ML20126E050 (8)

Text

,

['  ;

7 l ik " ~

v., ~ ~ ~.

(g42 l

Note to ' D. Eisenhut R. Bernero December 5,1984 #

d 1/

' Joe Sci From l _N [ l

\

Re: Staff Position on Systems Relevant to Safety During Fuel Loading and '

-Precritical Testing (Comanche Peak)

In Comanche Peak the Staff is called upon to apply the Commission recent guidance in Shoreham (CLI-84-21) concerning application of Comission regulations to fuel loading and other phases of low power operation. In Shoreham the Comission held that GDC-17 was not intended to apply to fuel loading.and precritical testing phases, in light of testimony that AC power was not needed during fuel loading and precritical testing (phases I and II) to permit functioning of structures, systems and components important to safety. The Comission went on to indicate that '

each regulation must be examined to determine its application and effect for fuel loading and for each phase of low power operation, and that i

"[s]imple logic and comon sense indicate that some regulations should, by their own tems, have no application to fuel loading or some other phases of low power operation."

i In Comanche Peak the situation is different but related. The contention in litigation relates to design and construction QA under App. B. This l issue concededly has a very wide scope and does apply to some of the systems involved in fuel loading activities. The relevant question

, raised by Applicants' fuel load motion is what systems are necessary for s fuel loading and precritical testing. Cast in Shoreham terms, if the ~

reason for the regulations application to a given system is not applicable during fuel loading and precritical testing, then " simple '

logic and common sense" would indicate that a finding of compliance for

'such system is not necessary for (and thus not applicable to) a fuel loading and precritical testing license.

Thus for Comanche Peak it becomes necessary to take a position on what systems are necessary for fuel loading and precr.itical testing -- safety related, important to safety, or whatever term or concept we wish to use.

OneviewisthatexpressedintheJensenaffidavit(attached)which indicates that the only systems "necessary to be functional" to protect public health and safety are the principal and backup systems needed to prevent or mitigate inadvertent boron dilution: specifically, the RWST and the CVCS, the source range. instrumentation, the portions of the RPS ,

which detect loss of shutdown margin, signals the correct position for i the CVCS valves and sounds the control room alarm, and the electric power  :

system.[ Note, this listing leaves out the pressure vessel and the RCS, '

even though the precritical testing is hot and at pressure] l However this view appears inconsistent with the use of Technical Specifications written for Modes 3,4,516 to govern fuel loading and '

precritical testing. If only the 5 systems identified by Jensen are g615g9850319 p

BELAIR85-A-5 PDR l

I.,' f., .

l . .

necessary to be functional during fuel loading and precritical testing, it would appear that imposing Technical Specifications on other systems does not conform to 10 CFR 50.36 [SLs - necessary to reasonably protect s the integrity of certain of the physical barriers; LSSS - settings for those_ variables having significant safety functions; LCOs - lowest performance levels required for safe operation of the facility.]

I need your consideration of this issue at a policy level -- whether we take a very narrow view of the systems necessary for safe operation during fuel loading and precritical testing -- which would entail conceding, if the issue is raised, that the Tech Specs for precritical testing licenses could.be cut down dramatically or whether we take a broader view and if so what that broader view is.

While the specific judgements made for precritical testing could be different than the judgements made for low power operation, the policy detennination on whether we take a narrow view or a broader view would affect the Staff position on low power operation.

Unfortunately, I need your advise on.this matter very promptly:-- beforea the Staff. can take:a position on. Applicants' -

Motion fota fuel-lo~ading

~ ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

and precriti, calat,esting-license. n

~- cc: Noonan Treby

/ -;

a N0"T"IT"I'0N V0TE KE5PON5E5HENT T0: SAMUEL J'. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION s

~

FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE

SUBJECT:

SECY-84-344 - REVIEW OF ALAB-777 AND ALAB-779 (IN THE MATTER OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY)

APPROVEDE ~ DISAPPROVED. x ABSTAIN' NOT PARTICIPATING" REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: .

I would take review of ALAB-777, but not ALAB-779.

With regard to'ALAB-777, as I Y1 ave indicated in previous dissents, I would

~

impose a slightly higher standard of conduct for licensing 4 board members. That is, I would disqualify if the board member's conduct, when viewed as a whole, creates the

- .- ' ~

appearance of impropriety. 'Ilso, as I have indicated on previous occasions, I would have replaced t.his Board on other grounds in order to assure the appearance of integrity 1

.- to our, process.

, w 4

}

- , yk ,

516NA UKt WS

/ DAlt 4

SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO-RESPOND TO.AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -

O#

4 ..

OPENING REMARKS  !

EXEMPTION POLICY MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1984 2:00 PM GOOD ~AFTERN0ON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

TODAY'S-MEETING WILL ADDRESS SECY-84-356, THE DRAFT PROPOSED RULE PREPARED BY THE NRC STAFF ON THE REGULATORY CRITERIA WHICH GOVERN THE REVIEW AND DECISION ON SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS UNDER 10 CFR 50.12(A).

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE

- SHOREHAM OL PROCEEDING IN MAY 1984, THE NRC STAFF INFORMED THE COMMISSION OF A NEED FOR GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SHOREHAM DECISION TO OTHER' STAFF EXEMPTION PRACTICES. IN RESPONSE, AND AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT

- THE STAFF SHOULD CONTINUE THE EXEMPTION PRACTICES WHICH PREDATED THE_SHOREHAM DECISION, PENDING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE BROADER QUESTION OF WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE TO THOSE PRACTICES.-

THE STAFF WAS TASKED TO REEXAMINE THE EXEMPTION PROCESS AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. SECY-84-356 IS, IN EFFECT, THE STAFF'S

- REPORT.

LET ME NOTE THAT SECY-84-356 IS A NOTATION VOTE ITEM. TODAY, I PROPOSE THAT WE HEAR THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT P//s

..R

.9' , ,

PROPOSED RULE, ADDRESS COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, AND

&W W-SEErTO RCACli AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DRAFT PROPOSED RULE. COMMISSIONERS MIGHT THEN, IN THE NEXT WEEK OR S0, SUnMIT THEIR SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE IN V0TE SHEETS ON THE DRAFT PROPOSED RULE.

IF THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THIS APPROACH, I WILL TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVES TO LEAD OUR DISCUSSIONS.

FIRST, HOWEVER, ARE THERE OTHER OPENING REMARKS?

~

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COPNISSIONER ASSEL

. l I support- the Comission's Order as far as it goes .

I strongly agree with the Commission's decision, as set forth in, this order that 10 CFR section 50.57 (c) cannot be used as a basis to pennit a the issu i

license authorizing low-power operation of theout Shoreham a

pla qualified onsite electric power system, as is required by Gener  !

I Criterion 17. esign [;

However, I believe the Commission's Order is deficient because it fails to address a series of procedural questions associated with the conduct of this proceeding.

These questions involve procedural '

irregularities associated with certain actions by the Chairm an of the Commission which are related to this case, ande the conduct of th Licensing Board Chairman, including his decision to institute disciplinary action against an attorney for oneesoftothe the parti .

proceeding.

Taken together, these procedural questions create the appearance of impropriety in the conduct of this proceeding

, and call for prompt and effective corrective action by the Commission .

The Commission should have directed the establishm w Licensing '

Board to consider any modified motion submitted cant'under by the Appli 10 CFR section 50.12.

The establishment of a new Licensing Board would have done much to restore the appearance ofa rness objectivity to and f i this proceeding.

Moreover, it would have eliminated many of the procr dural deficiencies that could call into questionythe validit of any subsequent decision of the Licensing Board and the Commission o D///

~~

,,,.c 2

-issuance of an exemption under 10 CFR section 50.12. By now, it should  ;

' be clear to everyone involved with this proceeding that procedural short-cuts and irregularities serve no one's interests. The perception of procedural unfairness in this proceeding has already led one United States District Court' judge to take the unprecedented step of issuing a temporary restraining order halting the Licensing Board's hearing on the applicant's previous low-power motion. And it is certain that any I future Comission decision in this case will be closely scrutinized.

The establishment of a new Licensing Board would do much to reduce remaining uncertainties regarding the procedural adequacy of this proceeding Bu there is a more' fundamental principle involved in this proceeding that transcends the outcome in this particular case. That principle is the Comission's comitment to fairness and objectivity in its licensing proceedings. For a second time now in this proceeding, a majority of the Comission has refused to take actions that would have demonstrated to the participants in all of the Comission's licensing proceedings, and to the public at large, that the Commission is committed to assuring that its licensing' proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The consequences of the majority's inaction are enormous and far-reaching. By its inaction, the majority undermines the credibility of our licensing hearings and the integrity of our entire regulatory program.

l l

1 l

-  : 3 m ,

fi I also. agree' with Commissioner Gilinsky's connents regarding the role of the NRC staff .n this proceeding. t k

9

• *e a w .

I e-t D

e L_