ML20127H335

Responds to Re Ucs Petition to Show Cause on TMI-1 Emergency Feedwater Sys.Reasoning Provided for Denial of Ucs Request That Commission Take Jurisdiction Over Petition.Staff Will Provide Requested Info

ML20127H335
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/24/1984
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Shared Package
ML20127H260	List: IA-84-339, Requests That SECY-84-92 Re Ucs 2.206 Petition on TMI-1 Emergency Feedwater Sys Be Converted from Negative Consent to Notation Vote ML20127H256 ML20127H301 ML20127H335 ML20127H351 ML20127H381
References
FOIA-84-339 NUDOCS 8505210272
Download: ML20127H335 (2)

Text

. - . .. . - ._. . -. -. -

o,j UNITED STATES

=

c. c- - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.4w , I; wasmucTen.o.c.nosss t

T'Y April 24, 1934 CPFICE oF THE

• s SECRETARY i ,

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

General Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists

-1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW

-Suite 1101 Washington, DC 20036  :  ;

Dear.Ms. Weiss:

This responds to your letter of February 13, 1984 regarding the UCS petition for show cause concerning the Three Mile Island,-Unit 1-(TMI-1) emergency feedwater system. In that

-letter you inquired by what means the UCS request ttsat the

. Commission itself - take jurisdiction over the UCS petition was denied, and requested reconsideration of that daanial.

, - You. also set forth three categories of information which you

wished staff to provide.

Since the adoption of 10 CFR 2.206 in 1974 the Constii.ssion has regularly referred all correspondence requesting enforcement t action -- whether -or not denominated a 2.206 request and whether or not directed to the Commission -- to the : Executive

- " Director for Operations for further referral to the . appropriate

office director. See 39 Fed. Reg.12353- (April 5, I!.974) . 1 Only in rare cases, such as where the petition has raised broadbased or comprehensive challenges which may be teonsidered more akin to a request for rulemaking, ' has the Comm4sion l itself directly acted. E. . , Petition for Emergencyr and

. Remedial Action, CLI-78 , NRC 4 00 (1978) (fire protection requirements) ; Denial of Petition for Revoking Nucleear Plant Licenses, 46 Fed. Reg. 39573 (August 4, 1981) (health impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle).

The Commission does .neti believe the p3 ant specific. c:hallenges raised-in the UCS petition warrant direct Commissiosa action  !

in the first instfance. The NRC staff has both the resources and the relevant expertise to assess the UCS argumeznts, and will provide a reasoned assessment of whether furthair action

is warranted. The Commission will. then have the opportunity ,

sua sponte to review that determination. 10 CFR 2.206 (c) . i l

1

,= ,.,-w. v.- . - . . - ,.e-_+,- , . , , , . . . , , _%,. ,.__,._..r_._.,._,% y _,_ _ __ m y.q c gn,_,,,, ,_ p ww. ,m yym..cy, % w,y,my.y,----w-p,-%-m,, __,y,.

~

. 2 That-the staff has previously taken the position that no 1

~ additional actions are required prior to any restart does not mean that staff will be un21e -or unwilling to give the UCS petition a fair evaluation. See Porter County Chapter

v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 '(D.C. Cir. TI79) . If a member of the staWsaid that he . intended to " shoot down" the UCS petition, thatLstatement was wholly inappropriate and will .not reflect the treatment given the UCS petition.

The Commission has accordingly decided to continue to have staff respond to the UCS petition under 10 CFR 2.206. The Commission. is also directing staff in its 2.236 decision to respond to the three categories of information set forth in your February 13 letter.

The commission had also directed the staff on Tebruary 3, 1984, . to respond to the UCS petition within 60 days of that date. . Subsequently,.on March 22, 1984 and April 9,1984

--(letters attached) the staff advised the Consnission that the 60 day time frame could not be. met and the Counmission directed ,

the staff - to complete the action not later than May 30, 1984. Further, the Commission has directed t!be staff to ,

,, brief the Commission on the issues raised by the petition before restart of TMI-1.

Attachments:  :

.- As Stated j Sincerely, l f.

Samuel . hilk acretary of the crwa= 4 ssion i

. .r.

a -

7.

p>~eg\

+/ ~.. UNITED cTATES -

' $ ' . . s- (# $ NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

. 5.. ,,

f -

we sMmcTcu. o. c. 2csss .

5f -R.%g f,

h*.AR 2 213M

. Docket No. 50-289' .

MEMOP.ANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary FROM: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR SCHEDULE EXTENSION FOR STAFF ACT10N ON THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 2.206 PETITI0tG ON THI-1 EMERGENCYFEEDWATER(M840126C)

' Your memorandum dated February 3,1984 (enclosed) established! a March 23, 1984 <

suspense date for staff action on the sub.iect petition. This is to advise you that the Staff will require an extension of the suspense cdate for. the"

'following reason.

Of the five specific tech 5iCaFa'reai addressed in the .

petition, the issue.of environmental qualification is the pacing item at this time. The licensee provided new information by letter. dated iTebruary 22, 1984 and ati March 8 meeting and will be providing additional irrfEomation on -

March 23. As part of our evaluation, we are also conducting aan aud.it of environmental qualification records at the 1Teeniee'i faci 19tly. . - -

1

~

At the completion of o'ur evaluation of environdeital qu'lification a of the EFW system, now estimated by the end of April 1984, we will advise you of our schedule for the completion of the Staff action on the subjec:1 petition.

y - -

pes.

Wil tam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Chilk memorandum E .

. dated 2/3/84 ,,,

Contact:

J. Van Vliet X28213 ,

1. eC' .

e

, - , , - - , - - - - +

,,~s.-v ..--m---,m---- --,--..-..--_,--.,---m--, -, --- ,- , v, - - . , - - - , , - ,.

.., ,Y $ em;criv T c:'~1.5 Y:Y:*.MRT1. , f2:

. . i .. .

.- .; , . p.- . N . .,.., :.-. R n :.w U L m, -v r. Y. ,. O .. ... .. .e. .. l O N. -

c.s: =:. _. i: 4. . ,, . . .., ., t Q.g 'i -

- r. s* wor,. :.: 2:::: l

%. J;..n//f Ref: EDG-13998

? 50

- . . a. . ,. .,*:

.. **;4 ACTION - G;unnin9t.a=,

s s t:1 Os iwt iMDenton, HRR '

. st:u :"

Cys: Dircks

.. Roe

!*IMORANDUM

. TOR: Eerzel E.I. Pla.ine, Generfl Counsel *

,4

. Stello TROZ: 'Sa=uel J. Chilh, Secreta.:y.O. 'I L

DeYoung a vz. :. .. : . .- a...

s r :,.- :.:.,a. .. :.=. . ...,.....r a. ....

r : . :. , -

m.,./.:,.. a. CDs a. . C:s, r~s o. . \. , ,v.. :. , , : .,. 0 :. .. .. . . , .... .. :.:- - .-- o a. .r ,. .. .r .,..

2 a. ,

. ,.e..----.-

.. ... .  :. . . C.. .: .:.: . . , w..: =:.: s .: R .. w:..., u.C.

~a C:'.

C-': . O*. .*.h' '.O ":' *.*s-.s' ~a ~*r'.". ". :.'*s.~"r.'.w' : ".

I. SICY-E3-4 06 /4 06A - Review of ~ A*A3-729 -- 2n the Matter-of Me.repoltian Isisen Oc=,a.nv and Rev:.ew of A1.'._5- e 4 4

- (Oany:...- Recuas  := Reconsider '.2nerner Iss=e of I v:.:c . en:n.1 0:n. :. :.cs.::.== e1 iae::::.:a- .= en:.:=e=t is W:. .:. . Re s:t : P:c:eei:.ne ) ..

~

The Cc:=.ission, by a. vote of 4-1 (Ocm=is sions:: Rcberts -

disapproving), app cved an c dar taking revier cf A1A3s

,. iss nna .1 ,. 4 . ,

(subseruantly., on January 27, 1984 the Se :stary sigpiiti thee [

Order.) . . .. - -

. Additionally, the Cem=issien subsequently ag=med to direct.

staff to ec=plete action on a Janca.-y 23,19E.4 2.2C6 petition filed by PCs as seen a.s possible fi0 days a.s an outside li.it). The Co:=tission a. iso re +sted -hat r:tif include.

the Jssues raised by UC5 .then staff briefs the Cem=ission prior *to TMI-1 restart. -

Ey ecpy of this memorandus, IDO staff is dire =ted te ec=plete th 3 abeve a: ion.

tif7H -(ELD /NRR) (SICT Suspense: 3/23/B4)

Oha.irman ?alla.iino ,

Com=issione: Gili'n$ky *  !

.Com:nissioner Roberts

.Cc=enissioner Asselstine b03 Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices Y EDO .

PDR - Advance '

DCS - 016 Phillips Rec'd 0:"

Dass /..,..4 --

ilnt.h .Y .

- , , -- - ,_.--.---w-_,,,.--, , , . . , + , , . . _,_ , - . - _ , , , . , , , , .~,..-n-., .-,,.,,-nmu . - _ - . - - - . .

(*(. . UNITED STATES y g , "e,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q j weamcTon, o.c.20sss

,, . / April 9, 1984 CFPact OF THE sacnrTAny -

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. - Dircks, Execut" e Director for Operations

]

FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR SCEEDULE f.Xm:.a.= ION FOR STAFF '

- ACTION ON TEE UNION OF C?r-drRMED SCIENTISTS 2.206 PETITION ON TMI'l EBCERGENCY FEEDWATER By memorandum-dated March 22, 1984 you informed the Conscission that the Director's Decision on the UCS 2.206 petition regarding Emergency Feedwater would not be conrypleted by the prescribed March 23 deadline.

The Conunission requests that you complete actiton-by April 20,

-1984 on the four areas addressed in the pej:ition that are not aff acted byqualification.

environmental the licensee's subsaquent subunittals concerning Additionally, the Comttission requests that, yaci c' emplet's -

action on the remaining portion of the petitienn -and issue a

.- final decision as soon as possible, b6ti not la.:.te'rf than May 30, 1984.

2 3-,e cc Chairman Palladino

' Commissioner Gilinsky Commissionar Roberts ,

. Commissioner Asseistine Commissioner Bernthal OGC OPE

\ '

/

f T h

's-- -_ ,, . , ...__.,-.-_ _ _. ..,_ , . _ , _ . . - , , , _ . . _ _ -

.!cg UNITED STATES

.g ,s4 p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh!

s - y wasmucTou. o.c. 20sss

. '% e

%,, ......f April 24, 1984

' cancs or THE SECRETARY' MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations FROM:- Samuel J. Chilk, Secre d

SUBJECT:

- JANUARY 23, 1984 UCS P. ': TION FOR SHOW CAUSE CONCERNING TMI-l D ERGENCY FEEDWATER '

SYSTEM \

On January 23, 1984 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCs) petitioned the. Commission to suspend the operating license for TMI-l because of concerns about the emergency feedwater system.- That petition was referred to staff for response j under 10 CFR 2.206.

On February 13, 1983, UCS requested the Comsmission to reconsider having staff respond to its petition. The Commmission has decided to deny that request. . UCS in that letter also

, requested-the Commission to direct staff to provide three categories of information regarding the TMI-l emergency feedwater system. The response to the January. 23 UCS petition should address those three categories of information.

At the time the Commission referred.the UCS petition to the staff, it direeted the staff-to respond to the petition within 60 days of that date. That was subsequently revised in the Commission April 9,1984 mano. The Commission has also agreed that the staff should brief the Commission on this isstte before restart of TMI-1. Those decisions stand. (See attached SRMs).

Attachments

As Stated cc: Chairman Palladino.

Commissioner.Gili"nsky Commissioner Roberts t

CommissioneF AsselstineI Commissioner Bernthal OGC  %

OPE 4

1

- . . , , - - ~ . ... . . . - - - - . , , _,,.-_------___m.-~~.-._4 r,--._~-

-A s. _

- , . . J*

1. . .

p . = -i  :

.Y' UNION OF i CONCERNED j SCIENTISTS no c.~,.a. . s. uot. ,%

._-q '

Februsary 13, 1984

.Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman .

Victor Gilinsky, Ccmissioner Thomas M. Roberts, Comissioner _

James K. Asselstine, Comissioner Frederick M. Bernthal, Comissioner -

Gentlemen: -

On January 20,1984, UCS petitioned the Commistsion for ".an order.

~

suspending the operating licen'se for Three Mile Islano teuclear Station Unit - "

No.1 ('TMI-l') unless and until the plant's Emerge'ncy Feerdwater ('EFW') System  :

complies with the NRC rules applicable to systems iimportant to safety ~

(including safety-grade, safe ty-rel ated , and engineeered safety feature systems)." Union of Concerned Scientists' Petition for 55how Cause Concerning TMI-1 Emergency Feedwater System, January 20, 1984, p. IL. UCS' petition was' -

( " lodged with the Comission directly because the NRC s taf' has recommended -

I restart of TMI-1 with tuli Knowledge of the EFW deficiencile: iscussed [in the

.pe.tition] and because the Commission now has under consicie- on action which would ~ allow TMI-1 to operate by lifting the 'imediate e.sff. ;iveness' of its crders of July and August,1979." 3., p. 2, emphasis add 4ed.

By letter dated January 27, 1984 Harold R. Denton itnformed me that UCS' petition "has been referred to [his) office for treatmeent as a request for action pursuant to Section 2.206 of the Comission's fregulations." I am

~

]

unaware of any Commission meeting or vote by which ther Comission . referred UCS' petition to the NRC staff. Therefore, I am writinsq ta inquire by what means UCS' request that the Comission itself take juri etion was denied

_and, if in fact it was denied, to request reconsideration c

nat denial.

The NRC staff was fully:adre of the deficiencies in. the TMI-1 EFW system .

(and the Main Steam Line Rupture Detection System) before UCS filed its '

petition. 'Every citatioh^to the EFW deficiencies discusssed in UCS' petition relies upon Licensing Board or Appeal Board decisions., documents which GPU provided to the NRC staff, or reports prepared by the mff's contractors or the staff itself. Thus, UCS' petiton contains no new factual information previously unavailable to the NRC staff. By virtue of f*s continued inaction,'

the staff has manifested its views on these subjects; Conmission delegation of -

the petition to the staff will simply delay resolution.

M With regard to the question of whether, given the d:ocumented deficiencies

~

in the EFW system, THI-1 should be allowed to operate, the staff has al, ready previced. an implicit answer. On December 5,1983, thse staff presented its prepcsal for TMI-1 restart conditions to the Comissic>n. The staff made no

l/ . .

7 . -

mention of the EW deficiencies acknowledged by EPU Nuclear in its letter to the staff of August 23, 1983. The staff als'e voiced no oppositiam to GPU s proposal to delay correcting the acknowledged EW deficienci,es until the first refueling after restart. H. D. Hukill, Director, TMI-1, to J F. Stolz, NRC staff, "TMI-I . . . Long Tem EW Mods," August 23, 1953. (Licensee!'s counsel sent this letter to the Commission by a cover letter dated September- 15, 1983.

Another copy is enclosed for your convenience.) I The NRC staff's intention to ignore the EW system deficiencies (or, at best, to " decouple" ~ these issues from restart) was disclosed expticitly on January 27, 1984. Imediately after the Comission meeting that dayt regarding TMI-1, an individual approached Robert D. Pollard in my presence and identified himself as a member of the NRC staff. The individual comgratulated Mr. Pollard on the quality of the technical content of UCS' petiition even though he "would probably be the one assigned to s, hoot it down."

This is only the most recent example of an attitude camsistently exhibited by the NRC staff, which I most recently discussed with you during the Comission meeting on November 17,'1983. As UCS told the Commission:

No matter how technically credible an intervenor may be nor what -

l 1egitimate issues it raises, the Staff makes virtually no attempt to meet with intervenors, to seriously consider whether their tectnnical concerns have validity and what if.any corrective action shouild be taken. Instead, the Staff's imediate knee-jerk response is t:o find some justification for opposing the intervenor's positions am all substantive and procedural issues, a stance which continues ciuring.

the entire licensing process. 'The State of the Nuclear Industrty and '

l the NRC: A Critical View," UCS, November 17, 1983, p . 15.

j., -

The ' fact that a member of the ' WRC staff expressed his belief,, one week

, after UCS mailed the Comission its petition, that the purpose of tthe staff's ,

I review of UCS' petition is to " shoot it down," illustrates that tr.he staff's f knee-jerk opposition to even legitimate safety issues is deeply ingrrained. It also demonstrates the utter futility of referring UCS' petition to tihe staff l In sumary , we repeat our request tha't the Countission itsel f take l jurisdiction of UCS' Petition for Show Cause Concerning TMI-1. Emergency Feedwater System. In making this request, we do not mean to impTy that the staff should have no role.

By letter dated January 27h1984, the staff asked GPU Nuclear to " submit a response in writing under ' oath or af.fimation that addresses each of the issues identified by the" petition as related to Three Mile' Islamd Nuclear Station Unit 1 and provide a response to [the staff) as soon as practicable, but no later than February 22, 1984." UCS requests the Counission to direct the licensee to submit its response directly to the Commission. )le also request the Comission to direct the NRC staff to provide a simila:r response, in writing under oath or affimaion by the individual staff member or members who prepare the response. In addition, we recomend that the Commission direct the NRC staff to provide the following infomation:

e

,, ,/ -3 .

~

/.

1. Identify each specific aspect of the THI-1 EFWi system which does not l comply or is not known to comply with the regulations applicable to systems  ;

imperant to safety (including safety-grade, safety-rel ated, and engineered I safety feature systems).

l 1

2. For each deficiency or potential deficiency identified in response to i item 1 above, explain whether and why the staff believes that TMI-1 can be ..

' operated without undue risk to public health and safet;y before correction of the deficiency or potential deficiency.

3. For each deficiency or potential deficiency which the staff believes need not be corrected before the first refueling outage after restart, explain why that deficiency ever needs to be corrected. In ottner words., if the staff b211 eves that the plant can be operated without undue risk to public health and safety until the first refueling, why would modifications be needed to assure public health and safety after the first refuelirag?

Finally, UCS requests-the Comission to direct the staff to provide UCS with copies of GPU's, the staff's and any other response:s to UCS' petition.

' ~

SincereTy, -

s I t.

f ,_

v J $-,f" A ,\_

Eiiyr R Weiss Gener[alCounsel' .

Union of Concerned Scientists

Enclosure:

As stated. -

ce w/ enclosure:

Docketing and Service, NRC cc w/o enclosure:

Herzel Plaine, Esq.

L General Counsel, NRC l

l hen 1d R. Denton, Director

• Office. of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. Henry D. Hukill n

Director of.TMI-1, GPU NucTe . ar Corp. '

Maxine Woelfling, Esq.

PA Dept. of Environmental Resources ,

~

Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Counsel for Licensee i

I .

_ _,_ _ - - . ._