ML20023C449
| ML20023C449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1983 |
| From: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305170341 | |
| Download: ML20023C449 (21) | |
Text
a May 10 3 ' 3D*>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA sj
'J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION
, ~ ',.
q;r,
- J o.
Eefore the Atomic Safety and Licensine Boarb Y;
5 IG.
Gg, k
In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
DocketNos.504.r 0
//
50-44 COMPANY, Et A1.
)
)
(Operating Licenste\\)\\)
2 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
mrION TO FILE CDNIENTIONS ON SNM LICENSE APPLICATICN.
I.
Background and Jurisdiction On August 30, 1982 Applicants, without the kncwledge of or notice to the Licensing Board and parties in this proceeding, filed an application for a license under 10 TR Parts 30, 40, and 70 for the possession and storage of unirradiated reactor fuel and associated radioactive materials.
~
Applicants request that the term of the license begin July 1, 1983 and remain in effect "until such time as it tray be supplanted by an operating license." (The application is not attached herewith because of its bulk.)
Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Pesponsible Energy ("OCRE") hereby rtoves to file contentions relating to this application. OCRE requests that the Licensing Board admit these contentions for litigation at an evidentiary hearing and deny the application.
While this proceeding is conducted for the purpose of deciding the
~
issues related to the application for a license under 10 TR Part 50, OCRE believes that it is within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board to decide issues relating to an application under 10 T R Parts 30, 40, and 70 for special nuclear Iraterial and associated materials, the purpose of which is for operating the Perry reactor. Since the Licensing Board has the pcuer to rule on the scope of its jurisdiction when it is in questien 8305170341 830510 p=
PDR ADOCK 05000440 G
)
(Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station), AIAB-321, 3 NRC 293 (1976)), OCRE is filing this m tion with the Licensing Board to afford it this opportunity.
One licensing board has ruled that it was within its jurisdiction to consider a motion relating to a SNM license. See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Zinmer Nuclear Power Station), LBP-79-24,10 NRC 226 (1979). This position is supported by the Comission in Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1.and '2), CLI-76-1, 3 NRC 73, 74, note 1 (1976). OCRE thus maintains that the Licensing Board has the jurisdiction to consider the contentions described below.
II.
Contentions A. Need for NEPA Cost / Benefit Analysis OCRE contends that the Comission must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC S 4321 et seq.) and prepare an environ-mental impact statement before granting the SNM license. OCRE further contends that if such an analysis is perforned, the application must be denied as the costs of this action far outweigh the benefits.
OCRE recognizes that 10 CFR 51.5 (d) (4) normally exempts the issuance of a materials license frcm the requirements of NEPA. Hcwever, OCRE believes that the circumstances of this case are so exceptional that com-l pliance with NEPA is mandated. First, there is absolutely no need for this action at this time. Applicants have stated that fuel load for Perry 1 will not occur until December 1984.
It should be recalled that the NRC's l
l Caseload Forecast Panel found that December 1984 is the earliest possible l
date for Unit 1 fuel load.
In actuality, fuel load may well be later.
Applicants have not indicated why fuel shipment in July 1983 is necessary nor have they examined any alternatives to this proposal.
~
--9
,m
--- w e
-w
Secondly, as shcwn below, there are no benefits to be gained by any party from this action, and there are substantial costs affecting the public.
1.
Applicants will be harmed by having to bear the financial costs of shipping and storing the unirradiated fuel.
That these costs are sub-stantial is shown by the letter of D. Davidson to A.W. Starr, dated August 4,1981 (Attachment 1), wherein annual fuel storage costs are listed as
$638,440. For the 18 nonth period frca July 1983 to December 1984, this cost would amunt to $930,160.
Applicants will also be financially harmed.by the decay of the neutron sources during the excessive length of tine them materials will need to be stored before they can be used. Applicants even anticipate this, as in S 3.2.2.4 of the application they request the authorization to return the sources should they experience " excessive decay... due to start-up delays.",
If this becomes necessary, Applicants (and, ultimately, the public) will face further unnecessaw costs. This problem is best pmvented by denying the SM4 license at this time.
Applicants (along with the public and the environnent) face possible harm due to the risk of vandalism or sabotage to the fuel during its long storage period at the plant which is still under construction. Acts of vandalism directed at the Perry facility's safety-related components have
.already occurred. See Attachment 2.
There is little reason to suspect i
that Applicants' security measures will prevent vandalism in the future.-1/
l The nuclear fuel may present a m re attractive target for such activities.
1/ The lack of success of nuclear licensees in preventing security-related problems has prorrpted the ACRS to e>: press concern about sabotage and security breaches posed by insiders. See NUREG-0963. See also IE Information Notice 83-27.
4 Since the application is unclear whether the fuel bundles are to be in-spected before loading into the core, damaged or vandalized fuel might be used, possibly causing or worsening an accident.
The harm caused by the exposure of Applicants' employees to the radioactive materials to be stored at the site for 18 months is yet another cost which must be evaluated under NEPA.
2.
'Ihe Nuclear Regulatory Conmission will be harmed by granting the SNM license. The receipt of fuel on the site of a nuclear power plant is a highly symbolic event signifying the certainty and inminence of the facility's 2/
~
operation.
The general public, upon witnessing this event while hearings 3/
are being conducted on whether the Perry facility will indeed receive an OL T will conclude that the licensure of Perry is a foregone conclusion and that the proceedings conducted before this Licensing Board are only a pro forma exexise designed to prmote the appearance (while lacking the substance) of justice and objectivity. This will severely damage the credibility of the NRC, thereby hampering its ability to perform its functions. This action will cause the public to lose faith in the government as a whole, thereby lessening
- 4/
the effectiveness of denocracy7 l
2/ Recall the saying " possession is 9/10 of the law."
l
-3/ OCRE would disagree with the position of the Zinmer licensing board (10 NRC 232) that the OL proceeding is only conducted to resolve specific issues and not to consider the question of granting or not granting the license. The findings on the specific issues may be so grave as to require the denial of the OL.
4/ It has been suggested that voter apathy may be due to the numerous reports of scandal and corruption (e.g., Watergate, Abscam, etc.)
in the federal govern ent.
3.
'Ihe public will be hanned by the granting of the Sm license in 1983.
Tne public' will pay for Applicants' costs of shipping and storing this material. The public will suffer if fuel is vandalized or sabotaged and used in the reactor. 'Ihe public will suffer if the NBC creates the im-pression that its proceedings offer no fair forum through which they can air their concerns. The public will suffer by assuming the cost of medical care for Perry workers who ray contract radiation-induced diseases such as cancer because of their exposure to the radioactive materials. The public will suffer damage to the gene pool, as the Perry workers who may suffer radiation-induced genetic damage are a subset of the general population.
All of these costs will be accmpanied by no benefit whatsoever, as fuel load will not be possible until December 1984, at the earliest.
4.
OCRE, in addit. ton to incurring the harm affecting the general public, will suffer additional damage. OCRE's participation in this proceeding is rade possible by the generous contributions of its marbers and of sym-pathetic members of the public. These persons contribute because they perceive that this proceeding offers an opportunity to have their concerns addressed fairly. If the SNM-license is granted, these persons will feel that further support for OCRE's intervention is fruitless, as this proceeding will be viewed as a cruel charade which is merely an exercise in futility.
.This will have a deleterious effect on intervenor fundraising efforts. Without l
funds OCRE cannot effectively participate in this proceeding. Since OCRE believes that the public litigation of the issues in this proceeding will benefit the public generally, a decline in the level of OCRE's participation will harm the public as well.
5.
NEPA (42 USC S4332 (2) (C)) recuires federal agencies to prepare an environmntal impact state: rent for "every major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the hu an environment." It has been held that both I
both standards must be met before an environmental impact statemnt is required: the federal action to be taken must be major..and the_ quality of the htrran envimsant must be significantly affected. NAACP v. Medical Center, Inc., 548 F2d 619 (1978); Nodell Investment Corp. v. Colman, 396 F Supp 1341 (1975).
There can be no question that the SNM license meets both categories.
The receipt of the fuel on the site is, correctly, perceived as a Irajor and significant event by the public. The quality of the human environment will be significantly affected by this action, not only by physical hazards, but also by political and socio-econcmic factors, which, after all, are part of the human environment. OCRE must therefore conclude that the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA before granting the SNM license.
B.
Transportation Izras Applicants have not demostrated hw they or General Electric, their fuel supplier, will ccuply with state and local laws concerning the trans-portation of radioactive materials. The laws in question are S 4163.07 of the Ohio Revised Code and local ordinances such as Chapter 80 of the Mentor Code of Ordinances (Attachment 3). Similar legislation has been enacted by the follwing municipalities in Northeast Ohio:
Beachwood Berea Brooklyn Cuyahoga Falls Euclid Fairvied Park Garfield Heights Highland Heights lakemod Lyndhurst Mayfield Village Mayfield Heights Maple Heights Newbergh Heights Middleberg Heights North Olmstead North Royalton Oltrstead Falls Richmnd Heights Seven Hills Shaker Heights South Euclid Strongsville University Heights l
\\
The local ord.tnances are of the most interest. Section 80.02 of the Lntor onlinance requires all shipnents of various classes of radio-active material to be authorized by permit to be issued by an official of the city. Three of the 4. types of rraterials sought by Applicants are subject to this provision, specifically:
1.
the unirradiated fuel ~ falls:under 580.02(A) (6), as enriched uranium is classified as " Fissile Class III" by 10 T R 71 Appendix C, although the 92 bundles containing only natural uranium are not regulated by S80.02.
(The c.riched fuel also fa]ls under S80.03(A) (3).)
2.
the neutron source material, consisting of 19,600 curies of Sb-124 (SNM Application S 3.2.1) falls under S80.02 (A) (5), as Sb-124 is classified as Transport Group III by 10 TR 71 Appendix C, and, according to 10 TR 71.4 (f), any quantity of 200 curies or nore of a Group III radionuclide is considered a "large quantity."
3.
the irradiated neutron detector storage cask, consisting of 91 kg of depleted uranium (S 3.3.1 of l.he SNM Application) is not regulated by 580.02.
4.
the in-vessel neutron detectors containing U-235 (53.1.1 of the SNM Application) fall under 580.02 (A) (6).
S 80.04(A) (2) allows the issuance of such a permit only.if the shipnent l
l is necessitated by urgent public policy (educaticnal or nedical concerns) or l
national security' interests. Obviously, Applicants cannot claim that the 1
shipment of fuel and associated materials for PNPP involve educational, medical, or national security interests.: Nor can they in any claim that l
the need to ship these materials is urgent. Applicants therefore cannot i
receive these materials ' shipped through these ccruunities without violating the law.
The General Electric fuel facility is located in Wilmington, NC l
l
(SNM Application 51.2.4.5). The fuel is to be shipped to PNPP by truck.
The nest direct shipping route would probably involve Interstates 77, 271, and 90 and State Route 2, which pass directly through many of the listed cmmunities. Applicants could perhaps-find alternate routes, but this would increase shipping costs, thereby resulting in further harm to the public.
580.04 (A) (2) (b) allows the permit to be issued if the Department. of Transportation or other appropriate federal or state agency authorizes in writing, inter alia, that the interest involved justifies the risks involved in such transportation. OCFE believes that this responsibility must ultimately fall upon the NRC, as no other agency is entrusted with deternuning questions of radiological safety and the balancing of risks and benefits resulting from the use of radioactive materials, particularly for the use Applicants request, i.e., the generation of electricity from nuclear energy. Obvioutly the NRC cannot make such an authorization without first conducting a detailed cost /
benefit analysis. As stated in Contention A, above, OCRE subnits that the costs so far outweigh the benefits that such approval of Applicants' request cannot be granted.
C.
Training and Experience 10 GR 70.23(a) (2) requires that, before granting a license under 10 CFR Part 70, the Camission must find that the applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience to use the material for the purpose requested in accordance with the regulations of IC GR Chapter 1.
OCRE contends that Applicants are not qualified to use the SNM since they have insufficient training and experience; therefore, the license should not be granted.
Applicants request a license under 10 GR 70 for the receipt, possession, inspection, and storage" of SNM. However, they also expect.the S101 license to be supplanted by an OL. Thus, the "use" referred to in 10 GR 70.23 can be interpreted to mean both storage and eventual utilization of the SNM.
i
-:s-Applicants have not demonstrated that they possess the training and experience. to handle or use these Iraterials. CEI has never operated a nuclear power plant or used these materials. Training and experience of Perry personnel was singled out by the ACRS as a serious concern. ACRS Chairman Ray stated that " plant personnel have very little conmercial, nuclear canraercial, operating experience. In fact, I would estimate that it is among one of the lwest levels of any of the OL reviews that we have had in the last several years." Transcript of the ACRS 267th General Meeting, July 8, 1982, p. 11.
It is apparently conmon knwledge within the NRC that future problem plants are easily spotted. At W NRC official is quoted in Public Citizen's Nuclear P wer Safety Recort: 1981 (pp. 5-6); as saying to look for utilities that never managed a similar (suze, design, or type) facility. CEI has never operated any nuclear reactor, let alone a 1200 MWe B W 6.
Applicants as a whole (CAPCO) have operated 2 other nuclear plants, Davis-Besse and Beaver Valley. The performance of these plants does not inspire confidence that Perry will be run safely or efficiently. The cuaular.ive capacity factors for these plants are anong the lowest in the country: 39% for Davis-Besse and 33% for Beaver Valley. These 2 plants also have questionable safety records; they were responsible for 10% of the LERs subnitted in 1980 (Nuclear Safety, Vol. 23, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 320-329).
According to the Public Citizen study. (p. 8), the NRC rated Davis-Besse and Beaver Valley as "far belm average" in safety in 1981. The experience gained by Applicants through the operation of these facilities has not profited them; thus, such experience cannot be counted as meeting the l
requirenents of 10 CFR 70.23(a) (2), but rather as evidence that Applicants are not qualified to use the materials requested in the SNM application.
l l
D.
Financial Qualifica.tions 10 TR 70.23(a)(5) reauires an applicant to be financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities under.10 GR Part 70. It should be noted that 10 GR 70.1 establishes the scope of 10 GR Part 70; specifically, the issuance of licenses to receive title to, cwn, acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, and initially transfer special nuclear material (emphasis added).
Thus, Applicants' financial qualifications to receive, store, and use the ShM can be exani.ned under 10 GR Part 70.
The Licensing Board will recall that a financial qualifications contention (Issue #2) was admitted following the Special Prehearing Conference.
'Ihis issue.was dismissed only because the Ccmnission amended 10 GR Part 50 so as to preclude the consideration of financial qualifications for electric utilities under 10 G R Part 50. However, the financial qualifications requirements of 10 TR Part 70 were left intact.
Since the concerns about Applicants' financial qualifications advanced by intervenors are still valid (no evidence to the contrary has been subnitted; indeed,. Applicants have attributed the delays in the construction dcropletion date of PNPP to difficulty in obtaining funds), the Board should read: nit Issue #2 to be litigated under 10 TR 70.23(a) (5) in connection with the Sm application.
E.
Criticality Hazards In 52.2.6 of their SNM application, Applicants request an exemption from the requirements of 10 GR 70.24 since they claim that a criticality accident involving the storage and handling of the fresh fuel is "not credible." Applicants give no evidence supporting this opinion; in fact, 52.2.3.1 states that the new fuel storage racks are not designed to prevent criticality under optism nederation. Applicants claim that this condition is precluded because of the " solid watertight aaver" provided for the storage vault and because of " administrative controls." That the NRC Staff has
-11 '
found these assurances insufficietit is shown by the letter to Applicants dated March 29,1983 (Attachment 41. OCRE thus contends that the requested exemption from 10 G R 70.24 not be granted.
III. Late Filing Paquirements Under 10 TR 2.714 Since these contentions are late-filed, the criteria of 10 CFR 2.714 nest be addressed.
Factor (i) of 10 CPR 2.714(a) (1) concerns the good cause for failure to file on time. OCRE does have good cause for this filing. Until late March of this year, OCRE was unaware of the existence of the ShM application.
Only the Staff-Applicant correspondence (Attachment 4). alerted OCRE.to the application. OCRE then requested a copy of the application frcm Applicants, who provided same on April 15. The delay from that date until ncw was necessary to conduct the research needed to file this motion.
Factor (ii) concerns the availability of other means by which to protect OCRE's interests. OCRE knows of no other means for protecting these interests, which, as indicated in the motion, are substantial. Also, since the license is to commence July 1,1983, time is of the essence in addressing this matter.
If other forums exist, it is doubtful that they could be found before the license is to begin.
Factor (iii) concerns the extent to which OCRE's participation will
. assist in the develognent of a sound record. The answer to this is affirmative, as OCRE has de:tonstrated its ability to contribute in this manner on other issues.
Factor (iv) addresses the extent to which OCRE's interests will be represented by other parties.
OCRE knows of no other parties raising these issues.
Factor (v) questions whether the notion will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. khile some delay and broadening of the issues may occur, this is of little importance, since Applicants cannot load fuel
u~
before December 1984 anyway, Thus, OCRE concludes that these factors favor the admission of these contentions into this proceeding. OCRE believes that the litigation of these issues will show that the SAM license should be denied unless and until an operating license is granted for the Perry facility and PNPP is ready to load fuel.
Respectfully submitted, M
Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.
Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 L%rGH.LCATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing MOTION TO FILE CON-TENTIONS ON SNM LICENSE APPLICATICN were served by deposit in the U.S. Fail, first class,' postage prepaid, this
/[
' day of May 1983 to those on the service list.
WhiO 4
Susan L. Hiatt e
l
._=
4'.
' [b.'.C I, [ C I.I I I f. l2. O_
E l C C J Ds{ {. II I_ I'[.l'l*'.[.*;i (.,, C_
{FII# C, /. l.,!
' I; s.7
/
1 1,
s l
- [
P o Ecr $000 e CL EVEL Af;D caso 4:10
- T ELEPHoNE #7'fi E22 92CD e ILLU'.'IN AT t*;G EL OG e $$ P,BLIC $ 0s,e A A[
%:s Serving Tr= Eest Lo:e: ion or ?,e I.5:icn fe' sfo~gf3 August 4, 1981 MM b.
sysitu tsomtrams Aso confraucisos AjiAr-6-3b a s.- w s J
Mr. A. W. Starr Chief, Source Technology and Economics Branch Division of Power Supply and Reliability Lepartnsat cf Energy Washington, D. C.
20!61
Dear Mr. Starr:
Enclosed is the inforcation you requested on th'e Ferry Unit
- 1 nuclear unit with respect to costs due to delay in issu-ance of operating License.
The information is based on Total Unit costs unless other-r'.se noted as CII share only.
We vill update our response as required.
Sincere 4 yours,
/
i Dalsyn Davidson Vice President System Engineering and Construction DRD: dip y-
-y-n n,
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 IA Descriptive Information I(A)(1)
Percentage Complete Unit #1 + 1/2 Common - 75.3% as of 6/30/81*
I(A)(2)
Capacity Design Electrical Rating:
1252 MW Net Rating:
1205 IN I(A)(3)
NRC Projected Operating License Issuance Date May 1983 I(A)(4)
Construction Completion Date May 1983 I(A)(5)
Ownership (Ultimate)
J Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 31.11%
Duquesne Light Company 13.74%
Ohio Edison Company and its Subsidiary.
Pennsylvania Power Company 35.24%
Toledo Edison Company 19.91%
IB Replacement Power I(B)(1)
Source of Replacement Energy and Capacity 1
Energy Capacity Self-Generated 99%
Self-Generated 100%
Purchased 1%
Purchased 0%
I(B)(2)
Fuel (For Self-Generated Portion)
Nuclear
.5%
Coal 71.8%
Oil 27.7%
I(B)(3)
Firm or Interruptible Purchase Purchases would be interruptible I(B)(4)
Capacity Charge (If Purchased)
None
- Physical progress delineated in this report represents the Unit and one-half of common facilities. When Unit I goes into service, common facil-ities will be required and included.
Physical progress of Unit I and e n"*nn 3 % 11 9X..
k I(3)(5) Energy by Tree of Fower (IGE / Month)
Nuclear 2,476 Coal.
346,097 Oil 133,282 Nrchase (E= erg) 5,063 Total 486,918 1(B)(6) Total Cost Per Month (by types of power) 3
($ y. 10 )(193i g) 4 Type Fuel & OB:
Nuclear 35.50 Ccal 17,812.10 Oil 26,048.75 Purchase.(Energ) 1,339 00 Total 45,235 35 IC Special Costs Due to Delay I(C)(1) Abnormal operating costs for year Fuel Storage:
748 Assemblies Storageat$50/ Assembly /Mo 448,800 0
134,640 Insurance e.t $15/ Assembly /:
Transportation Fee 55,000 Total Abnor=al Annual Fuel Costs 638,440 Other:
Unknown at present I(C)(2) Abnormal financing costs (i.e., increment above nor=al carrying costs if plant had not been delayed.)
Although we have not specifically calculated the 'hb-normal costs,"
a delay could result in additional
" short-term borro -ings and/or per: anent financings, placing the Conpany in the position of having greater interest costs, possibly not being able to attain adequate interest coverage.
This could result in the lowering of credit ratings, which would ultimately increase costs to consuners.
I(C)(3)
Incremental construction or eouinnent costs Unknown at present I(C)(4) Legal Fees _
Unknoun at present
=
q I(C)(5) Specini Cost Due to Delay It is not antici;sted that any nuclear produced energy would be sold to a utility outside of the CAPCO Group.
~
ID Soecial Savings Due to Delav I(D)(1)
Savings due to not operating nuclear plant:
3 j
1934 (1984 $ x 10 )
Fuel 53,127 O&M 17,436 70,923 = $8,865/mo.
o Total 70,923 I(D)(2) There are no other special savings anticipated to result from the delay of Perry Unit #1.
- 18. linuncit.' > = ct of Lelay-il(A)(1) Total Cost of Plant to Date (100% basis - with AWDC)
$899,950,000 (paid as of 6-30-81)
II(A)(2) Total A WDC
$182,987,000 (booked as of 6-30-81) g II(A)(3) Total Carrying Cost Not Available j
IIB Fxpected Cost to Completion,* ("as disbursed" dollars)
(100% basis - s.th AWDC)
II(B)(1) Construction
$315,040,000 1
II(B)(2) Interest (AWDC)
$293,556,000
[
IIC Financial Burden II(C)(1) Ixnected dates of inclusion in rate base 1982 1
- Unit costs delineated in this report represent the Unit and one half cc=cn facilities in accordance with the owners fia*ncial arrangements - subject to final cost accounting, k' hen Unit 1 goes into service, co=on facilities sH11 be required and included.
i _ _ _ _ _.
II(C)(2)
Traction of ulant ::osts already in rate base Hone II(C)(3)
FUDc throuch date of inclusion in rate base Not Applicable II(C)(14) Cost to ratepayers of fraction included in rate base Not Applicable II(C)(5) Total conthly capital carrying cost of ec=pleted plant
$22/p-II(C)(6)
Inch ental cacital cott of clant that vill be added to rate base as a result of delay.
If tne plant is delayed for one-year, the incremental cost that would be added is approximately 10%.
Tnis is
, additional lJUDC.
/
III Effect of Delay on pevenue Recuiremants The Perry Unit No.1 generating station is scheduled to be placed in-service in May 19314'vith the first full year of operation in 1995.
If this unit were to be delayed, the Conpanf would have to rely on less efficient and more costly power sources (i.e., oil and purchased
~ power) to meet the load and energy needs of customers.
The cost of such replacement power (energy-co=pont.nt) during the delay period is estimated to be 6# per IWH (198!4 price-1cvels).
Tne annual energy cost of a delay would be e.pproximate2y $125-million.
O O
2 ma q=
.-) -
n%CMmmY z
)
'"Tm.t= TOP OF THE NEWS /A2 Reports of vanda: ism increasing security a: Perry nuc:. ear 1.an; ByStephen Sawield
- g..c.fg> ' < ' yt,. g yj
.w.ad so m.,
ao
.s De 54 bilhon North Perry Village W4..R h
Although Cleveland f.! [
1-L
@p Electric illuminating
%ph.-M'.g nuclear power plant has expenenced at
? -,Q q, 4*
- Co. spokeamen say i
ieast five cans of mahcious vandaham in the last rune months, causing an s
piant, ne News-Herald has learned, l 'f
% j.'
J most of the van.
4:7 $s increase to i<curity paucis withm the 1
t.4 dgllgm appears to be d TM, $ N'j
' il4EI,
i minor and at random, b,f IlM,0.t,.h h."IM.
- eome of the reported omwer of the plant, and several f.,g ;
damage has been In contractors have had to repair cut
.i% c h ' M*4(
M 7-
.. g safety roISted areas.
wires and cables and darnaged piping.
f,.
Although I spokasmas say most g%[q,,P*.sy p$.$.f i f
. a dN Safety related is a of the andahsm appears io be nunor J
d,'i term used to describe and at random, some of the damage has been m safety-related areas.
h e9U!pmenI needed Io
(!". f'[*,Y)f.
Safety-related is a term used to safeoperanonof theplant.
W' W~ rN.s i ensure safs operation descobe equipment needed to ensure of the plant.g
,e' The fonowmg came have been
- @ ' g%,,
p< 3
^
dacovered:
8
[
a
- On Dec. l. CEI officials found a r
- A.
1,,9 j. -
)
water d spiaced dures a " scram." of f i " g, ' j, y.M. a handful of metal filmgs in the scram M 41-J
/.
escharge pipmg. The pipmg. =bch is safe'y-related, serves as an outlet for y
y J.1;[h(g: f' 'M the rapid shutdown of theitector.
4 gt i "*
- On Dec. 29, non-safety-related 3'
w j
.p k
(}" 4 s g ].f, copper tubing hading to *wluuda tha,
" g
%d*N e m @N'T A Radwaste Buddmg was found cnmped.
BleJt L. olldner of the Nuoleer Regulatory Com he buil&ng will be used to store
- y h;e.
- h I..,8@adeelen eeld he le unaware of eegantaed groups ir T y,y.y. 9.h dp nuclear waste.
ly h 3. d.:
d - l14 1
P*rry that would dame,e d;mt and vandallae
- On Feb. 19, quality assurance 7.;C M projects to detsy completten.
F inspectors for LK. Comstock a Co.,
c ;m u l'
4w
't*
the plant's rrajor electrical contractor, p.me.esrae stunos found a cut wtre bundle in a safety-related Ernergency Shutdown Panet in negadve publicity h mIght create, a should be alert to the posalbility of acts major accident. It orily takes just a the first of two reactors.
Newwllerald photographer would not of this nature."
small, tiny thing to go wrong."
- On June 14, hydraulic, electric and be permitted to take pictures of the If the piping were to be clogged, a Man ! Gddner, NRC mspector a air lines were found cut, totaty vandahzed areas, nuclear shutdown could be slowed, the site, saad he has heard of cases a disabhns a Mkivest Industries crane Dinan said the five cases of Diaon said.
other nuclear pianu sn wtuch "sems being used by Supenor Erecuen.
vandaham appear to be unrelated All caus are under investigation and organized" groups known as "f'.cas'
'Oo Aug.10 Comstock workers rather than any attempt to slow no arrests have becn made nor would damage equipment and van escovered three non-safety-related construction of the first of two daciplinary action taken, Bailey said.
dahze the projects to delay comp letion cabies cut in the Intermediate Bui!&ng reactors, which is about 33 complete.
He added that the Perry p; ant was He sasd he is unaware of any suct wtuch connerts the control room and "My personal opinion is that we expertenems retadvely fewer vandahsm group at Perry.
the reactor. On Aug. 25, a thermostat don't have a vamial who's attempting problems than a normal construction gg;,, y, Ward, director of fick wtre for the build ng's elesstor room to delay us or is trymg to sabotage us,"
protect might.
operauons in the NRC's Off ce o was also found cut.
he sad "We have had cases of Bailey said he did not beheve the live ns nh Nd Charles R.
Dinan, engineerms malicers vandahsm, just like the rest cases mark an increase in vandalism.
id m
n supervisor.. at the p' ant,. said the of society.
I would say no because I think
'I
- '0"'M equipment involved in each case wou:d *
- I don't think what goes on itere is'mavinnat instances of etndahsm are La n projects. parucularly w hen s job s have been tested several tunes before any different"
- than anf' other mot uncommon. We don't bke them.
"'*""8' the p; ant begins generatir's e!ccincity construction project. Dtaan said. "If But a riut I don't think so."
m May 1984 this was a fossil plant, I would expect Although vandahsm has been found He said electricians are ofte Total cost of the damage could not to find the cuact same thmss occurt; at sanous nuclear plants scras the involved io varda'am because curtirt be readdy esumated, he added. He said in g."
nation, Jan Strasma, a pubhc affairs. wires is usually camer than damas n, that repairs to most of the damage Dunns the investigation of metal spokesman for the hRC's Chicago concrete or heavier er.atena.s.
=cre comp lcted in a few hours or less.
fdmgs in the scram dacharge piping, office, said he "would not call in Thomas Woodman, project inanas CEI has increasaf its own security however, a CEI niemorandum fded common."
er for Comstock. Se pant's rnac patrols wit.'un the plant although with the Nucicar Regulatory Com-e. He said few vandals are caught, electnca! contractor, catis the Perr ad&tional secunty officers have not mission stated that Wdharu Wright of. making h ddficult to esplain theu vandahsm "petry."
been hired as a result of the vandalism, CEI's Nudcar last Sectaca bdieved ahnars. Reasons could range from ' - lie said : those. who damaga Dtxon added.
that case "could tv a sophisticated act "maalicious atischief to a worker electrica! wiring wcra not necessarJ After the filings were-found, of vandalisnt that would, if.un-bems angry at a foreman, he added, electncaans. Much of the pWit, 4 tamper-proof seals were put on the detected, ha ve senous consequences.".. Amy Hubbard, a member of North added, as olxn to a variety of peop'e scram dtscharge piping, said J. Lee "Beyond th! single act is the
- Shors Alert, a loa! antFnuclear group, inclu&as craft warkers, trupectori anr Basey, a CEI pubhc reladons repre. possb&iy that a ktnwiedgeableperson said the vandahant should bc stopped. ofI' ace workers..
sentauve.
or persons may be detennined to 1"My g:ners! reaction is that if people The first reactoe b espected to beius Rona:J V. Rose, a CE! security vandahze equipn.ent in a manner that are (co:nnutung vmium) out of generstes electray in 1%4 n Perg, second reactor, w!ach is about 4
specta%st, refused to comment on the could hase serious enplicatnons," it. ambivalence of working at pcreent cunpicte, wou!J 33 on hr.c a cases.
read. "IndivtJuals chna sed wtth the, thars northe thing to do... It on.y Ba. ley said that because of, the mspection and test of cntacal systems tales a minor malfunction to create a 1953.
llT7?f&//}YbV[ 3 CHAPTER 80 TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS Section 80.01 Purpose and definitions 80.02 Permit required 80.03 Notice 80.04 Issuance of permit Penalty 80.05 Penalties 6 80.01 Purpose and definitions.
(A) The purpose of this Chapter is to provide minimum standards and regu-lations insuring the safe shipment and transportation of radioactive materials through the City of Mentor.
(B)
For the purpose of this Chapter the following terms, phrases, worcs, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein.
When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words used in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number.
The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory.
(1) " Radioactive Material" means any material or combination of materials, which spontaneously emits ionizing radiation. Materials in which the estimated specific activity is not greater than 0.002 micro-Ouries per gram of material, and in which the radioactivity is essentially uniformly distributed, are not considered to be radioactive materials.
(2) "Large Quantity Radicactive Materials" means a quantity the aggregate radioactivity of which exceeds that specified in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) P.irt 71 entitled " Packaging of Radioactive Material for Transport", Section 71.4(f).
(3)
" Curie" means an expression of the quantity of radiation in terms of the number of atoms which disintegrate per second; a curie is that quantity of radioactive materials which decays such that 37 billion atoms disintegrate per second.
(4)
"Millicurie" means one thousandth of a curie.
(5)
" Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle defined as a " motor vehicle" in Section 70.01(Y) of the Mentor Code of ordinances, 1969, as amended.
(6)
" Persons" means any individual, partnership, or corporation engaged in the transportation of passengers or property, as common, contract, or private carrier, or freight forwarder, as those terms are used in the Inter-state Co=merce Act, as amended.
S 80.02 Permit recuired.
(A) A permit issued by the Safety Director or his designated representative shall be required for the shipping or transportation of the following radioactive materials by motor vehicle into, within, through, or out of the City of Mentor.
6 80.02 MENTOR CODE OF ORDINANCES 2
6 80.02 Permit recuirnd (continued).
(1) Plutonium isotopes in any quantity and form exceeding two grams or twenty (20) curies, whichever is less; (2) Uranium enriched in the isotope U-235 exceeding twenty-five (25) atomic percent of the total uranium content in quantities where the U-235 content exceeds one kilogram; (3) Any elements with atomic number eighty-nine (89) or greater, the activity of which exceeds twenty (20) curics; (4)
Spent reactor fuel elements or mixed fission products associated with such fuel elements, the activity of which exceeds twenty (20) curies; (5) Large quantity radioactive materials; (6)
Any quantity, arrangement and packaging combination of fissile material specified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a " Fissile Class III" shipment in 10 CFR Part 71 Entitled " Packaging of Radioactive Materials for Transport", Section 71.4(d)(3); or (7) Any shipment or transportation of radioactive material that is required by the appropriate regulating agency to be accompanied by an escort for safety reasons.
(B) This section shall not apply to radioactive materials shipped or trans-ported by or for the United States Government for military or security purposes or which are related to national defense.
6 80.03 Notice.
When those radioactive materials requiring a permit as specified in this Chapter are to be shipped or transported into, within, through or out of the City of Mentor, the shipper or carrier, or person otherwise responsible, shall first notify the Safety Director or his designated representative, in a form provided, two (2) weeks prior to the date of shipment. The form shall include the date of shipment, type and quantity of radioactive materials involved, method of trans-portation, route, starting point, destination and such other information as the Safety Director or his designated representative may reasonably require.
Any in-formation which cannot be supplied two weeks prior to shipment or transportation, shall be supplied promptly by the person responsible for such shipment or trans-portation when such information becomes available to him.
Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the disclosure of any defense information or restricted data as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization l
Act of 1974, as amended.
6 80.04 Issuance of permit.
t
[
(A) The Safety Director, or his designated representative, shall not issue a permit to any person for the shipment or transportation of those radioactive 4
materials specified in this Chapter, unlese:
(1)
The~e is a showing that the radioactive material has been or r
will be containerized and packaged, and all warning labels affixed to the outer container holding the radioactive material and the motor vehicle l
3 TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
$ 80.04 6 80.04 Issuance of permit (continued).
transporting such material, in conformity with the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation, United States Nuclear
. Regulatory Commission or other related federal or state agencies regard-
'ess of whether the shipment is being made intracity, intrastate or interstate; and (2) There is a showing that the shipment or transportation of radioactive materials is necessitated by urgent public policy or national security interests transcending public safety and health concerns of the City of Mentor.
For the purposes of this section:
(a)
An " urgent public policy" shall include medica,1 and educational interests.
i (b) An " urgent public policy" shall not include interests
{
other than medical and educational interests, unless expressly authorized in writing by the United States Department of Trans-portation, or by any other appropriate federal or state agency which may be required by the Safety Director or his designated representative.
Such authorization shall state that the parti-cular interest involved is, in the opinion of the agency, permitted by federal or stato regulations pertaining to the shipment or transportation of radioactive materials, and that the interest involved justifies the apparent risks resulting from such shipment or transportation.
(
(B) Radioactive materf als which are permitted to be shipped or transferred through the City of Mentor pursuant to this Chapter shall be shipped or transported through the City over such route or routes, or at such time or times of the day, consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare and the convenience of the i
shipper or carrier, as the Safety Director or his designated representative may direct.
6 80.05 Penalties.
i Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(Ordinance 78-0-139, passed 12/19/78) l l
~
l i
i Run:
12/78 i
.---w
-,, -. - - -, -, - - -, -y,, - -, - -.,, - -,, - - - - -
y-.m --, - -
,,,n er.%e,i,,-.w,-w---r
.v-m-.
m
lpum I
je UNITED STATES y,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g 3
- f WASHINGT ON. D. C. 20553
\\..s/
MAR 2 91993
+
Wf$$$W? Y Docket Nos.:
50-440 and 50-441 Mr. Murray R. Edelman Vice President - Nuclear Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101
Dear Mr.,
Edelman:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Regarding New Fuel and Containment Fuel Storage Areas (M. H. Killinger Letter Dated March 25,1983)
The subject letter (copy enclosed) was inadvertently mailed.directly to CEI.
It is requested that you provide the additional information ' requested con-cerning the FSAR Sections identified in the enclosure by Mr. Killinger's letter of March 25, 1983, and that your responses be addressed tc me.
The
~
Questions numbered 1 thru 8 should be numbered 910.1 thru 910.8 respectively for identification in a future amendment to the FSAR, and for the listing in the Q&R volume of the FSAR.
Please affvise the project manager, John J. Stefano, when we may expect to receive your responses within 7 days after receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, f
SOW B.
.Y ngbloo, Chief Li ensi'ng Bran h No. 1 Division of Licensing Ericlosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: See next page w
-s
Mr. Murray R. Edelman Vice President, Nuclear. Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Clevel.and, Ohio 44101 cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2
1800 M Street, N. W..
Washington, D. C.
20006 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
e The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's' 0ffice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parmly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 c
- 0. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiok Mr. Janes G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center
. Painesville, Ohio 44077 Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.
P. O. Box 08159 Cleveland, Ohio 44108 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 e
l Terry lodge, Esq.
915 Spitzer Building
~
Toledo, Ohio 43604 3
' John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney,
Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 i
w
-nn
IdAR 2 51983 FCUP:MHK 70-2968
~
.p..,..
The C1.eveland Electric Illuminating Co.
ATT!h Dalwyn R. Davidson Vice President - System Engineering and Construction P. O. Box S003 Cleveland, OH 44101
Dear Mr. Davidson:
We have reviewed your August 30,1982 application for a ifcense for storage only of unirradiated reactor fuel and associated r Goactive material
. at Perry Unit 1.
Enclosed is a request for additional _information which is-necessary for us to. complete the. review.
We will continue our review upon receipt of the information.
Sincerely, Mart' H. Killinger Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Eranch Division of FueT Cycle and Material Safety, INSS
Enclosure:
As stated f
cc:
X. M. Warnock l
f ee o
e mm%
l
REQUEST FOR ADDTTf0NAL TNFORMATXON
',; p" ~
- ' p' n -
/
REGARDTNG PERRY UNIT 1 A.
NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY
'Because we are unable to confirm that low density moderators will be precluded from entering the New Fuel and Containment Fuel Storage Areas, we ran XENO calculations with mist in place.
As noted in Sections 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.3, these storage areas would go critical under conditions of optimum moderation. As for the Spent Fuel Pool, the Application contained insufficient information for us to accurately model the neutron absorbing material.
Our calculations indicate the Boral is essential to achieve subtriticality.
For these reasons, we require the following information:
New Fuel Storace Vaults l.
Section 1.2.4.5 (#7 on Page 21) states that inundation by low density moderators will be precluded by a " fire retardant material" which will cover the vault whenever' the solid watertight cover (discussed in Section 2.2.3.1, Page'26) is removed.
Accordingly, we. request the following information:
A description of the fire retardant material and the design features a.
to preclude inundation by. low density moderators.
b.
A description of the administ'rative controls referenced-in Section 2.2.3.1 (Page 26) that will be used to preclude low density moderator @
from entering the vaults during movement of fuel (mentioned in
~
Section 2.2.3.1 Pages 26-27).
A description of the design features.of the watertight cover which c.
ensures the exclusion of mist.
Section 2.2.3.1 (Page 26) refers to the cover as being " solid," whereas Section 1.2.4:1 (Page 14) mentions a "gasketed checker plate, and a 3-hour fire rated cover and steel grating." Does the cover have doors which allow the movement of a few assemblies without removing the entire cover?
Soent Fuel Pool 2.
Our understanding of Section 1.2.4.2 (Page 15) is that neutron absorber cannisters will surround every other fuel assembly in a checkerboard
~
fashion.
This means that each assembly would be separated from an adjacent assembly by one sheet of Boral.
Is this the correct geometry?
If not,' please describe the actual situation.
3.
More detailed dimensions are needed on the storage racks.
Please provide plan view drawings of the' racks which show the thickness and placement of the Boral sheets, and the edge-to-edge spacing between assemblies.
4.
Provide the chemical composition, including weight percent, of the B C and other materials in the Boral sheets.
4 density of the sheets.
Also provide the overall B.
Describe the quality assurance activities to ensure,the presence and contin ~ued effectiveness of the neutron abscrber material.
~ s. ::
a 2
4 Containment Fuel Storace 6.
Section 1:2.4.3 (Page 19) states that a fire retardant covering w~ill be placed over the fuel whenever fuel handling is not.:Enderway.
In addition, Section 2.2.3.3 (Page 29) mentions that the containment spray system will be cut whenever fuel is stored dry in the racks.
a.
Describe the fire retardant material and the design features-which enable it to preclude inundation by low density moderators.
b.
Describe the administrative controls that will be used to ~ preclude sources of low density moderators other than containment spray (e.g., spray from fi.re hose nozzles and broken water pipes) from entering the storage area during movement of fuel B.
RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY 7.
Identify committe.e members (by titles) who will approve health physics procedures.
8.
Confirm that the retention period for radiation safety records, not otherwise specified in 10 CFR Part 20, shall be a minimum of two years or the expiration date of the license, whichever comes first..
e e
0 9
4 O
9 e
t O
9
,