ML20197G776

Informs That Recipient 860212 & 15 Petitions for Stay of Effectiveness of Amend 1 to License NPF-39 & Requests for Hearing Referred to Staff for Response Per 2.206

ML20197G776
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/05/1986
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L.
Shared Package
ML20197G683	List: ML20197G676 ML20197G745 ML20197G776
References
2.206, NUDOCS 8605160397
Download: ML20197G776 (1)

Text

__

5--

. '*'o, UNITED STATES * . .

! 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 h

a  !

+, / March 5, 1986 I'90KETED

• .... 'li % c OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

• 50$55tN.'

u kt. n.m.

Mr. Robert L. Anthony Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065

Dear Mr. Anthony:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.772, I have referred your motion of February 12, 1986 to the NRC staff for response pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. In your motion you had requested the Commission to stay the effectiveness of License Amendment No.1 issued by the NRC staff to the Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Unit 1). Under the Comission's newly promulgated regulations relating to license amendments,10 CFR 9 50.58(b)(6), [these ainendments have been adopted by the Comission and are expected to be published in the Federal Register the week of March 3,1986] the Comission has made clear that it will not entertain requests to stay NRC staff decisions to make license amendments effective before conclusion of public proceedings on the amendments.

Accordingly, the only means available to challenge the staff's action is pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

On February 15, 1986, you filed with the Commission a pleading which contained the contentions that you propose be litigated in the Limerick operating license amendment proceeding. In the pleading you again requested a stay of the Limerick operating license. The contentions should have been filed with the Licensing Board presiding over the license amendment proceeding. Accordingly, I have referred your pleading to the Licensing Board. To the extent your pleading requests a stay, it has been referred to the NRC staff for response pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

Sinerely,q Samuel J. hilk Secretary of the Commission cc: Limerick License Amendment No. 1 Service List 8605160397 860513 PDR ADDCK 05000352 G PDR .,

a ct' s v w > t, -

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAIORY COMMISSION .

RI: PHILA.ELEC.CO. Limerick Gen. Sta. Units 1 & 2 Docket No: 50- 352,353 Feb. 12, 1986 l

l l

PETITION TO THE COMMISSION BY R.L. ANTHONY /F0E FOR REVIEW AND RE70(ING OF i AMENDKENT TO LICENSE NPF *39 TO PECO BY DIR. PROJECT DIR No 4, AND PETITION l FOR AN IMMEDIATE Stay ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS AMENDMENT l l

1 i

I Intervenor Anthony /F0E received today a notice of the issuance of l Amendment No. I to operating license NPF- 39 by Walter R. Butler, Dir. BTR ,

Div. of Licensing , on 2/6/86.  !

The application for this amendment was the subject of our petitions to the Commission of 1/30/86 and 2/5/86 in opposition to the granting of this ,

amendment and request for a hearing and leave to intervene. We repeat our peti- )

tion for the la,tter,and petition the Commission to suspend the effectiveness l of the amendment until a hearing and a decision based on the heaning.

l We petition the Commission for an immediate star on the effectiveness and implementation of the amendmen't. We petition the Comminaion to enforce the r e quirements of the Technical Specifications 4.6.3 4 ,and to require PEco to suspend op of Init I reactor on the date of the deadline for the required tests ubtil the tests have been carried out and the plant certified as safe to operate.

1 I

We assert that we have fulfilled the criteria for a stay with the specific statement of our vital interests and the threats to our financial interests, safety and health in our submissions of 1/30/86 and 2/5/76.

l I certify copies by mail to: Respectfully submitted >

NRC Gen, Counsel, Docketing Conner and Wetterhahn {

2// A/f d. [@t'e/[, [Q' B 8 M lan,Pa. 19 t

r> , < _a

(

i Q ( ) A ~_ <ff v v v \pt I

th j '/ . ,o f, t . .,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COGISSION. . . SECRETARY OF TIE COMMESSION //

es' PHILA. ELEC,CO. Limerick Gen.Sta. Units 1 & 2 IIOCKET NO. 50-352,353 Q-Feb. 15,1986 INTERTENOR R.L. ANTHONY / FOE REQUEST FOR A HEIRING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE LIGHT OF THEISSUANCE ON 2/6/86 OF AMENDMENT 1.TO LIC. NO.NPF-39 WITHOUT A HEARING,MID PETITION FOR STAT OF OPERATION AFTER 2/19/86, LIMIT FOR TESTS o AnthougFOR received an 2/12/86 a copy of Amendment No. I to operating lice nse NPF-39 issued. to PEco on 2/6/86 . Te call theSecretary's attention .

to our interest la this matter as evidenced by ourpetition for review and a stay directed to the Commission on 2/12/86, our amendment to our petition for a hearing and leave to intervene of 2/5/86, and our first letter to the Secretary request-ing a begring and the right to' intervene of 1/30/86.

Te are disturbed by the issuance of the amendment without a hearing because of the sever # aafety hazarde involved in granting the ortestion of time for essen-1ance tests. We protest this issuance. Ye assert that the NRC err-tialsurvei{7t$atthatnosignificanthazardswereinvolvedandfurthererred edinh$$ kin is not making"a final determination on the issue of no significant hasards con-sideration", after a hearing was requested by Anthony /F0E on 1/30/86 and 2/5/86.

NRC thereby failed to fogoghe published requirements from p. 52875 F.R.12/26/85 The " Safety Evaluatien"Awhich accompanied Amendment Ro.1 contains a mistaken con-olusion that so final determination regarding so significant hasards consideration is needed.( p. 2 para.3 0) " No publio comment on such finding within the time Provided" is sot the controlling factor. We assert that the Commission is obli-gated to follow the Fed. Reg. notice (p. 52875) and "If a hearing is requested,the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hasards consideration. The final dd,ermination will serve to decide when the heat.ing is held."

SUEMISSION OF CONTENTIONS Simoe we believe that the Commission intends te honor its instructions in F.R. notice 12/26/85, p. 52875, we expect to hear shortly when the date for the hearing will he scheduled.In preparation for this hearing we hereby suba'it the following contentions.

CONTENTION 1. The amendment is in violation of 10CFR 51.22(e)(9). It does not meet the elegibility criteria for categorical exclusion since it does sub-ject us and the public o Ee d*s$t'of significant increases in amounts,possible change in types in effluents released offsite,and significant increase in individ-ual and cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

CONTENTION 2. It is is violation of 10CFR 51.22(b) since based on #1,above,

.an environmental impact statement and for environmental assessment are required +

j' CONTENTION #.3. The postponement of surveillance tests required under Tech.

{t Speo. (T3).4.6 3 4 vitiates the maximum time limit set by NRC for the safe opera-y tion of the instrum nta e tion lines excess flow check valves,and there can be so j assurance during the added 14 weeks,of safe plant operation and protection of T the public and employees from failure of the valves and release of radioactivity.

-- 2 --

CONTENTION 4. The " extended startup program schedule" (Safety Eval .NRR, , f 2/6/86, p.1) reinforces rather than eliminat es the need for the surveillance l tests on schedule,since there could heve been more deterioration of the valves ,

without power operation than with it. Changes in cooling water pressure and starts and stops of the reactor could exert more str'ain that continuous operation.;

CONTEETION 5 The hasards from the malfunctioning of the valves is high-lighted by (p.2 Safe, Eval NRR):

This operation cannot be perFormes during normal power operation (because that)...would involve potential hasards to testing personnel upon opening of the line in the unlikely event that one of the valves fails to check and releases fluid that is both at a high temperature and radioactive.. . and...

would result in multiple engineered safety feature system and/or reactor pro-tection system actuations ...

The extreme danger from the malfunction of the valves (abovIn) proves the need for wear of faults the surveillance test on schedule sincerthese valves could precipitate disaster.

CONTENTION 6. The amendment does not spesify the number of valves or teste covered,but it does include (F.R. 52874) "(Primary Containment Isolation Yalves)

Table 3 6 3-1 Part B " Part B liste ,67 instrementation lines. Some of these include multiple valves. It is obvious that the amendment involves a large num-ber of valves operating in most of the plant's key systems, for example, Main Steam Line, Reoiro, Pump, HPCI, RPY ,LPCI, Jet Pump, Core Plate,RCIC,RFCU, etc.

The failure of one or more of these valves and instrument linee could cause radioactive releases and precipitate other failures,resultEng in catastrophy.

CONTENTION 7. The effects of faults for in the check valves or leaks in the lines could have severe consequesces g aany of the instrument lines listed in Part B (above) " since t'he line many serve as an instrumentation manifold with multiple transmitters.." (Safe.$ val.NRR,p.2.) .The check valves and lines,there-fore, in case of failure could precipitate other faults and even cut off the

' functions of instruments needed for safe shutdown.

CONTENTION 8. The hasards to toiling water plant safety from the interactio of systems failures are pointed out,with particular relevance to this amendment as set forth in PRA Insights,NUREG/CR-4405,BNL/NUREG-51931. Deo. '85, p.xtit, "In the two PRAs(Millstone and Seabrook) which specifically documented risk con-tribution by sequencess interfacing systems LOCA represents over 9e% of the total contribution to early fatalities."

The other study," Insights Gained from P.R.1,s", Sarah M. Davis, 9/20/84 cites chec) valves specifically, p.24, " 8. Interfacing systems LOCia .. .For many plaats, the l valves of concern are the check valvos in the RER or Low Pressure Injection liner Part B (above) lists a number of LPCI lines and valves. The amendment includes in-terfacing systems,therefore, with stresg likelihood for acoident interaction.

CONTENTION 9 As we pointed out in our letter to the Secretary,1/30/86, instruhentation lines were found to be vulnefable to jet impingement loads froa the rupture or whipping of adjacent pipes.(See Torrey P nes, i Independent Design

i

-- 3 --

Review of Limerick - Core Spray System, Nov. 1984, Executive Summary, Vol. l '.

p. 12. It is possible that many and perhaps most of the 67 instrumentation l lines ( Part 5) have this vulnerability and likelihood of sooident. As we stated i in our letter,1/30'/86, we have no assurance or indication that adequater pre-eliminate tective measures have been taken to these a accident prospects which were warned of in the Torrey Pines report. This further emphasises the necessity of test-ing the check valves and their lines within the original Tech.Spoo. time limit.

CONTENTION 10. (Amendment No 1, Soot.1. A. ,B. ,C. ,D. ,Ehhe amandment violates the requirements of,and intention of the A onio t Energy Act and the regu-i lations under 10 CFR Chap.1, including Part $1. To extend the time for essential j surveillance tests is not in keeping with the Act or the Regulations which were ,

designed to see that plaats operate is a way not to endanger health and safe.ty f of the publio. As thecontentionsaboveprove,theinstrumantagionlinesand i

check valves are at the center of safe operation of the plant anI[NEmeans for shutting down safely in case of seed. To postpone these tests amounts to playing Russian roulette with the safety and lives of the public and employees.

CONTENTION 11. It appears that in' a self serving move which s eems financial-ly motivated, PEco applied to out corners, on these tests and the NRC is ocaspir-ing to fall in with this unless it immediately determines that the plant must not operate beyondthe 2/19/86 limit without the tests being carried out.

Further evidence of bad faith asi betrayal of the public safety on PICo's part comes clear from the record of gotion of the reactor. For instamos in t

December the operation was at 10-15% the 19th to theOper.

.. tR.H.Logue 22ndReport and previo l f86f then 4

PECo was apparently testing bus temperature and the plant could ha,v/l e een shut down in connections withthese reductions is power for a long emengh period to carry'out the check valve tests. PEco thus seems willing to discount the safety of the public and employees for the sake of corporate convenience and profit.

PETITION FOR STAT. We petition the Commission to grant a stay of operation of the Limerick No.1 reactor to go into effect on 2/19/86 and continue in effect until all the requires tests under TECH. SPECS 4 6 3 4 have been satisfactorily carried out. In consideration of this stay we submits

~

(1.)To are likely to prevail on the merits because the test were included in the Specifications to assure that reactor operation would not pose 6 hasard by continuing beyond a predictable safe limit. An extention of 14 weeks gambles liv.

(2) We could be irreparably injured in a possible breakdown because of the neglect of these tests,and,also, further injury is threatened by such a precedent.

(3) PEco has had ample opportunity to complete the teste up to now,1f it had had the incentive to proteot the public and its employees; and they can new be carried out with minimum loss,which should be PECo's responsibility because of its n9g} eat of prior opportunities to carry out these tests. --

(41 There is no question that the public interest lies above all else in insuring safety and health and lives. Postponing the tests meane ~ a gamble with these to suspend the effectiveness and implementat' ion of We as,k the Commissiong this amendment which constitutes such a gamble.

I certify service by mail on:NRC-Commise, Legal Dir., es eotfully su sig ed Docketing & Serv. vg 4 t.uM4 Box 186 Moykan,Pa. 1906p Conner & Wetterbahn W.R. /pg utler,$(e

/ d , M ]_ - _- _