ML19340B016

Decision Granting Variance Which Extends Date of Compliance W/Requirements of Interim Acceptance Criteria,From 740701 Until 740805

ML19340B016
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	06/28/1974
From:	Beck C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML19340B015	List: ML19340B014 ML19340B016
References
NUDOCS 8010170722
Download: ML19340B016 (5)

Text

,

~ __

/

$5?

1. N.

(g.-.

Gr m

==. m O

-=-

bh.....

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COSDilSSION

]..

s:h ~...

'""""55 In the' Matter of

)

)

.u :

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF

)

Docket No. 50-3 2:50 NEW YORK, INC.

)

M (Indian Point Station, Unit 1)

)

==..;.,.

)

=:g:

COLDIONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-10 tr (Dresden Unit 1)

)

3

)

DAIRYLAND POWER C00PERA!IVE

)

Docket No. 50-409

=""E9 (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)

)

M,

)

Ee.?is?

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-206

..... ~

.i'.

(San Onofre Unit 1)

)

DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO VARIANCES

-5 FROM Tile INTERIM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

[E=:=

=7 p:'

On May 24, 1974, the Director of Regulation. pt'hlished (39 F,R, 19757) WoHee of Request for Variance involving Provisional Operating License No. DPR-5 z =-

"], _

regarding Unit No.1 of Indian Point Station operated by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (licensee).

On June 12, 1974, and June 13, 1974, l

=in the Director of Regulation published sinilar Notices (39 F.R. 20834, j,,

g....

E..

39 F.R. 21003) regarding Unit No.1 of Dresden Nuclear Power Station h.I..

... g.

operated by Commonwealth Edison Company (licensee) and La Crosse Boiling

.=

. 2=;;3 Water Reactor operated by Dairyland Power Cooperative (licensee).

On E

June 12, 1974, the Director of Regulation published (39 F.R. 20835) Notice W E--i=

s =

of Consideration of Variance involving Facility Provisional Operating License

. :;;:s No. DPR-13 regarding San Onofre Unit 1 operated by Southern California

..gg ~

.===

Edison Company (licensee). The above Notices advise that the Director P -

Ei==

of Regulation is considering granting-for the above licensees a variance

==

h:

. := 2.

8010174 7. M i=

e i-

. _ ~

[: 7.;

4 g;

G...y I

r. a :n=

pu=:==:

• *MEs

?

E:.::~

.?... ::

from the July 1, 1974, requirement for schieving compliance with the Interim

=.E.g Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for light-water reactors 5.... J

==

]

set forth in the Co==ission's Interim Policy Stateent (36 F.R.12247, June 29, 1971).

The Notices requested the submission of views and comments by any i

interested persons. No comments have been received regarding the consideration

~

of variances for the above licensees.

=E=-

i

.==

l The Commission's Interim Acceptance Criteria (IAC) provide that reactors granted operating licenses prior to January 1,1968, are required to comply

.g.i with such citeria by July 1,1974. The IAC also provide for variances in

=E E

=:._=_:.

l certain circumstances.

Each of the above licensees received operating

'+tC licenses prior to January 1,1968. but have not yet comple.ted the necessary g.._....

I equipment modifications for compliance with the IAC. The Director of 7

.g c

Regulation is consider %g granting each of the above licensees a variance which would extend the July 1,1974, deadline for achieving such compliance.

~=1

=.;

Although compliance with the IAC was not required until July 1,1974, an

. UU analysis of the perfor=ance of emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) for id.

=

fN

~

these facilities was required to be submitted to the Commission by January 1,

[_..,

f:=n: xx 1972, and a program for improve.ments to their ECCS was required to be submitted f

. = =. =.

to the Commission no later than July 1, 1972.

In addition, requirements for

!=

p.:.

=:

immediate auge:ntation of the '.n service inspection and leak monitoring program

...}{jj.

for these facilities were aise imposed. Taking into account these steps and,

= =f

=-:

in particular, the relatively chort period of time involved between issuance of the IAC and July 1,1974, the Commission concluded that these requirenents t

provided adequate-protection to the public health and safety.

f

-iisisi=

g=&ss.=

l

..m.

(

"T

=

.r==

3-i= 3 I::"

)$5 It should be recognized that, as set forth in the Interim Policy Statement, lI.[5f protection against a highly unlikely loss-of-coolant accident has long been b!f).[.h 1:E==.u an essential part of the defense-in-depth concept used by the nuclear

=-E+h

"=gEg pwer industry and the AEC to assure the safety of nuclear power plants.

=

T...""J:-

In this concept, the primary assurance of safety is accident prevention by correctly designing, constructing, and operating the reactor. NevertF.eless,

deviations from expected behavior are postulated to occur, and protective

= =.= I

+.+:.

systems are installed tio take corrective actions as required in such events.

==-

'-3 Notwithstanding all this, the occurrence of serious accidents is postulated,

.:_::.[:

..... =

in spite of the fact that they are highly unlikely, and engineered safety

.:i:F"~;

features are installed to mitigate the consequences of these unlikely events.

S.O 1000-Of-000lr! **00ide".! 1? !'.'ch

• pa"'.' ' a ta d 1ar mh=h'a a c c i da". Ih m

-E9=

f ECCS is one of the engineered safety features installed to mitigate its consequences.

i Each of the above licensees, for which a variance is now being considered,

..]

have subnitted the analyses required by the IAC and have provided a program N..k and schedule for effecting improvements to the existing ECCS for their

.. u facilities.

'Ihese facilities, which generally involve earlier reactor E

designs, required the development of an ECCS evaluation model, and accompanying j

ECCS performance analysis, which had to be tailored to each of the specific reactor desigas. This involved an extended period of time in order to USE EE-rarform and evaluate the various computations.

In addition, delivery and

=

installation time for-items and equipment necessary to provide full compliance y.::

s

• ~ Z:....T.-l-

=p =

l y

M[b

(.!:.3 (k.-

==

i.....

];;;

e::. "!.=

• R??h 4

with the IAC, including consideration of the single failure criterion, E?f :

F@ 7..?

extend beyond July 1, 1974. Each of the above licensees have indicated that, due to considerations such as the foregoing factors, application of 2

.:."1 the IAC to their facilities is not practicable by July 1, 1974.

ni:.

}

The Commission's acceptance criteria for evaluating the performance of

..=5

.r=

=.-

ECCS for reactors having zirconium clad fuel elements require compliance

x. 9-by August 5,1974 (39 F.R.1001, January 4,1974).

There are approximately 50

,.j

-N.?

i reactors which must comply with the modified acceptance criteria by the i=;

j above date unless an extension or exemption has been granted, including P

2:

y::::=e.

one of the subject facilities for which a variance from the IAC has been k

E: =+

raques ted.

L. L. i intaras t vi..uldinA unuccessary duulluai.ius In: Lhe administrative re riew process and permitting the consideration of all requests b=

Le for variances, extenaions or exemptions from applicable ECCS criteria at

(

E ::

the same time, the dete M nation of whether a further variance should be l.. ~-

i l

.=(

granted to the above licenaces should be made at the same time the determinations

5;;

are made for all other reactocs in order to permit a uniform and consistent 5

==

treatment.

==-

==-

[=u In view of the foregoing considerations, good cause exists for authorizing f

variances from compliance with the IAC until August 5,1974, for the above g$

.==_

~

licensees.

'. rear -

There is reasonable assurtlice that the operation of these facilities for an I6s =(

= y additional period of approximately one month will not adversely affect the F

health and safety of the public. Based on operating experience with these

~~

TY D"*D

• D g}

h u.. =

.r~

,m

_..,m

~

.... is"

.. : 7.

~

(:ll--

(:::5 i

i '

i Y==

facilities since promulgation of the IAC, primary reliance on the conservative 5:..:.

l design practices utilized for these facilities vill continue to afford I+4*}

suitable protection to the health and safety of the public.

In addition,

~

E+

the augmented inservice inspection requirement of the IAC, which will continue in effect, will provide further assurance during this interim g

period until August 5,1974. The likelihood of a loss of coolant accident during this period of time, based on operating experience to date, is so _

3+==:

4- :

small that it can be considered to be negligible..

In view of the foregoing, f*

there is reasonable assurance that the authorization of a variance until (l.;;.

August 5,1974, for the above facilities will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.

i E

Accordingly, based on the foregoing considerations, the Director of Regulatio.n L :=

y:

has granted a variance for each of the above-captioned f acilities which

!.[

i

[

~

extends the date for compliance with the requirements of the Interim Acceptance Criteria from July 1, 1974, until August 5, 1974.

.==

in.

l 55 2[yf

' day of f t,q /[M,

bf,[

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 4

FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY C0211SSION wi

)

l;f fp, M

/

Clifford K. Beck, Acting Director of Regulation

l.[~]

i j

e

=:...

=: ::

~

..