ML20044B699
| ML20044B699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Salem, Wolf Creek, Point Beach, Hope Creek, Seabrook, Surry, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Callaway, Vogtle, Duane Arnold, La Crosse, Zion, 05000077, Trojan, Bailly, Berkeley Research Reactor, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1992 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Gilinsky V AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290F683 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-011, SECY-A-80-013, SECY-A-80-030, SECY-A-80-032, SECY-A-80-043, SECY-A-80-044, SECY-A-80-046, SECY-A-80-051, SECY-A-80-052, SECY-A-80-059, SECY-A-80-061, SECY-A-80-066, SECY-A-80-070, SECY-A-80-071, SECY-A-80-074, SECY-A-80-083, SECY-A-80-087, SECY-A-80-089, SECY-A-80-101, SECY-A-80-102, SECY-A-80-103, SECY-A-80-105, SECY-A-80-11, SECY-A-80-112, SECY-A-80-13, SECY-A-80-135, SECY-A-80-138, SECY-A-80-155, SECY-A-80-30, SECY-A-80-32, SECY-A-80-43, SECY-A-80-44, SECY-A-80-46, SECY-A-80-51, SECY-A-80-52, SECY-A-80-59, SECY-A-80-61, SECY-A-80-66, SECY-A-80-70, SECY-A-80-71, SECY-A-80-74, SECY-A-80-83, SECY-A-80-87, SECY-A-80-89, NUDOCS 9303030137 | |
| Download: ML20044B699 (6) | |
Text
'
U.d. swVbLtten ru.uV L M O Un 8 bU'We ' *M 4 V !4 N % *yssahtUV1at N UVt't m a g
FOIA 92_m
[.g A [Q RoseON5t im j
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF l m^t lx l r^atiat
.{
INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST o^u
\\..... /-
NOV 2 51992 DOCK E T NUVBE R!s) M nwhcatue)
ItEQUESTE R Mr. Victor Gilinsky PART I.-AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checAedboxes/
No agency records subject to the request have been located.
No addit 6onal agency records subject to the request have been located.
Requested records are avaitab'e through another pubhc d:stribution program. See Commerts section.
Agency reco tts subject to the request that are identif>ed in Appendsx{es) are already available for pubhc inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L St eet. N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subject to the reouest that are identified in Appendixtes) are being made available for public anspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street. N.W.. Washington. DC,in a folder under this FO! A number.
The nonproprietary version of the proposaHs) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now bemg made available for pubhc inspection and copymg at the N RC Pubbc Document Room. 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this F OI A number, Agency records subject to the reavest that are identified in Appendix (es) may be inspected and copied at the NRC Loca! Pubhc Document Room identified in the Comments section.
Enclosed is sniormation on how you may obtam access to and the chargM for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Roorn,2120 L Street, N W. Washington. DC.
i Agency records subsect to the request are endosed.
Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agencylies) for rewew and direct response to you.
Fees You will be billed by the NRC for fees totahng $
You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of S in view of N RC's response to this request. ne further actvon is bemg teken on appeal letter dated
, No.
PART 15. A-INFORMATION nlTHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
.t Certain information in the requested records is being wWheld from public disclosure pursuant to the eEemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part it, B. C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public X
inspection and copying in the NRC eubhc Dament soom,2120 L street N w.. washington. DC in a voider under inis FOI A number.
s COMME NTS i
i I
t JN OF F REEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATION 5 5LtWICES
.w
,'J, stC E DIRE OR, D r' o
9303030137 921125 PDR FDIA Wwe a
pc
.s.o s-GILINSK92-436 PDR s
4 f
I j
wem u.w n to n
^
)
~
i' f Dia NWM R(ss D A t t.
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOIA -
^
92-436 N0y 2 51992 (CONTINUATION)
PART 11 B-APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendix (est b
re being sthheld in their entirety or in part under the Exemption No.ts) and for the reasontst given below pursuant to S U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CF R 9.17ta) of NRC regdations.
- 1. The wthheld mformation s properiv classded pursvar t to Executwe Order. (Ememption 1)
- 2. The ethheld informat.ori rentes soleiv to the enternat personnel rules and p.otedures of NRC (Ememption 2) 3 Ihe wtthheld #rdoematton +s spec 8frCally eternpfed from pubhc disclosure t v statste mditated (E semption 31 Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, whech probtuts the desc6 osse of Restsicted Date or F orrneny Ree,cted Date 642 U.S C. 216121t5L
.q i*
Section 147 of the Atornic Ene gy Act, nNch prohituts the disclosme of Unclass.f.ed Safegaards irdarmation 142 U.S.C. 2167L 7@;
- 4 The ethheed information es a trace secret o, c omrne oal or fmanc.ei edonat.on that is t.eing wthheld fo. the reason'st mdicated. (E nemption el N
The mformation is cons dered to t e confioent ai busmess (p'poriete vi irdormation r
g i
The information is conside ed to t< pmp.etaw enformat.on pesvant to 1O O A : F.*Did a : i N,
The ofc,rmat.on was sutntied and r+c ewed in contece nce porbet to 10 C3 R !
*0'C n2 p
X !b The mthheid miom. ate cer.s sts cd ste ap,t, oe mt wer.c $ reaev u a, r u, <. a
...t a a. c.e, u ot svg if mempton U Apptque PrCepr Deht.eratwe Process Dratesse of p c&cesea' e % mat te wou'c trM to NtettN ^te aind h mM e=0 a"ge of 60ces essent.c' to the cebtie etwe proc ess
{
Where records a.c r,tc heic.n the.r erst,,ei, the f e,s a. - ine.i 4 at,4,, i,..r, a. t.
. 0,4 &on a g. 2-irer 1 e e so a,e no reaw.m.tm u yegory varivai
- portions tecause the reicase of the f acts wov d pe m.t en er.d. ret.t movo s.re the t e tien wa r-m eu ( + t+ e ag.mt,
e Attorne v *ca. p,ou t ; we ge 'Da em e
- 4 n t tw on o e* :+
X Attorney-chent priviiege, (Cor fide %al comrnurwcat.orn t;etween an attorney and h s ter chent.)
I If se+pt.on 61 E Tne.eberd intn-avom is ener: re 97 p.tm. d t. no te a
- cs
- r cvr 40 eu e:e a rewd w - ' pews on.#
1
_ ~ _ _ _ _ -. -. _ -.
7 The witnheid irdormation wr sests c.f ee:o m c on ened en,anere, e.. x ws m r s.,y. m 2 e eq
.,m v rw een (g.pn p en T; D soosee rowd easona:ry be e=perted to mie>*ere e tb so en*wo-t r mree te r row *ever nr step-denn and form to s
p C't15 T O t em t di't 'D'i t.~ e W F.r*0 T d' ^ ' 7'?D "G D' 4
- f f -
n' h N C 'eW oere r s enfo*Cerner*t e %rts, and tNs cod pos1#y awn r
j from mwest m, tors. tEuempt.cn 7 ( AU Disclosure would const fote an unmarranted rs es.c.n of pe'sor a ormacy (Emempton 71CH r
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. ~ _ _
The m'c renate cons +ts o* riames c' mome+ em w + ovne r 'i1s u
'C s e as cN ta e ow e > r i u i. cent i.n r.t b
cont.oentia; source' (Ememption 7 (DH
'07aEk
(
I PART 11. C-DENYING OFFICIALS r
Pu% ant to 10 CF R 975ttd and or 925tc) of the U S
.ir & Rega.atory Comm.ss ori regwat ora et has been dete m.ned that the mto mation w thheld n enempt from p o ext.on o' d1selosme and that t< p<oduct.on or d sc.os#.
contraev to er putAc mtevent The pewom respam tae 6 the tiema' a.e %or.e o'foa's cent ted t.eiow as denveng em r. ce" n 9 mv tre arva ett t &c E metswe D-et o?
eff.c.a!s and the Drecor, D us e c+ F reedor-ed in'a et on and PoM cv om Stw 09 a cf Aam n e,w for Ope adon$ dDOt DEtmNG OFFICIAL j
TITil /Of FICE Rf CORDS Of Vf D l
APPf t L AT E OF F8CIAL
+.
N.
NN#
O John Hoyle Assistant _ Secretary _oL1hc
_._bPMndiX_B J.
Y i
Commi ssion i
i.
I.
y- _ __ a
.y PART 11. D-APPEAL RIGHTS The dema: by eacn denymg off.c.si.oentified in Part ILC may tie appealed to the Appeliste Off: cia! <dectit ed there. Arw such appeat enus' tic rnade m writmg ethm 30 davs of receipt of this response. Appeals must be adornsed as appropriate, to the E xecutse Director for Ope'ations. to the Secretary of the Commission, os to the Irispector Generaf, U.S. Nacteer Reguetory Commession. Washmgton, DC 205L5. and should ciearly state on the erwetep* and m the letter that it is an
- Appea? 1 rom an initial FOl A Derson."
NRC FORM 464 (Part 2) (191)
U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
I Re:
FOIA-92-436 l
APPENDIX B j
l RECORDS PARTIALLY WITIDIELD
.{
NUMBER DATE D_ESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION l
i 1.
1/23/80 SECY-A-80-11, Director's Decision Under l
10 CFR 2.206 (In the Matter of Virginia
}
Electric and Power Company) (3 pages) l EX. 5 2.
1/28/80 SECY-A-80-13,_ Director's Denial of 2.206 i
Relief (In the Matter of Petition Requesting Seismic Reanalysis) (51 i
pages) EX. 5 1
3.
3/4/80 SECY A-80-30, Director's Partial Denial
'j of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of 4
Catholic University of America) (41 pages) EX. 5 4.
3/7/80 SECY-A-80-32, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Kansas Gas &
Electric Company). (67 pages) EX. 5 i
5.
3/28/80 SECY-A-80-43, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Dairyland Power l
Cooperative) (100 pages) EX. 5 I
6.
3/31/80 SECY-A-80-44, Director's DecislorJunder j
10 CFR 2.206 (Commonwealth ~ Edison Company) (24 pages) EX. 5 7.
3/31/80 SECY-A-80-46, Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (Union Electric Company)
(21 pages) EX. 5 8.
4/8/80 SECY-A-80-51, Director's Denial of 2.206 l
Relief (Matter of Georgia Power Company) l (117 pages) EX. 5
)
9.
4/11/80 SECY-A-80-52, NRR' Director's Denial of a 10 CFR
.206 Petition to Require "Cryoge*ic Traps" Prior to Venting the TMI-2 C>ntainment (5 pages) EX. 5 10.
4/23/80 SECY-A-80-59, Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (Metropolitan Edison Company) (DD-80-14) (20 pages) EX. 5 i
4
.m
4 Re:
FOIA-92-436 APPENDIX B (continued)
BECORDS PARTIALLY WITHHELD NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION 11.
4/25/80 SECY-A-80-61, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company) (34 pages) EX.
5 12.
5/13/80 SECY-A-80-66, Review of Director's Decision on 2.206 Request (Public Service Electric & Gas Co.) DD-80-19 (17 pages) EX. 5 13.
5/16/80 SECY-A-80-70, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of the University of California at Berkeley) DD-80-15 (66 pages) EX. 5 14.
5/16/80 SECY-A-80-71, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company) DD-80-17 (56 pages) EX. 5 15.
5/23/80 SECY-A-80-74, Memorandum and Order, emotion to Quash Subpoenas Issued by-the Director, I&E (2 pages)' EX. 5 16.
6/11/80 SECY-A-80-83, Bailly 2.206 Request (Supplemental. Request of State of Illinois)-(3 pages) EX. 5 17.
6/23/80 SECY-A-80-87, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.) (2 pages) EX. 5 18.
6/27/80 SECY-A-80-89, Review of Director's Decision on 2.206 Request (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation) DD-80-20 (8 pages) EX. 5 19.
7/ 14/80 SECY-A-80-101, Director's Grant in Part and Denial in Part of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison-Company) (60 pages) EX. 5 20.
7/16/80 SECY-A-80-102, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (Iowa Electric Light &
Power Company) (24 pages) EX. 5
\\
Re:
FOIA-92-436 APPENDIX B (continued) l RECORDS PARTIALLY WITHHELD l
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION 21.
7/17/80 SECY-A-80-103, Director's Denial of i
2.206 Relief (Virginia Electric Power l
Company), DD-80-23 (44 pages) EX. 5 l
22.
7/18/80 SECY-A-80-106, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire) (91 pages) EX. 5 23.
7/30/80 SECY-A-80-112, Director's Denial of-2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Wisconsin Electric Power Co.) (47 pages) EX. 5 24.
9/10/80 SECY-A-80-135, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities) (25 pages) EX. 5 25.
9/15/80 SECY-A-80-138, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company) (42 pages)_ EX.
5 26.
9/24/80 SECY-A-80-144, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Public Service company of Indiana, Inc., Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.) (Marble Mill) (26 pages) EX. 5 27.
10/15/80 SECY-A-80-155, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company) (4 pages) EX. 5 28.
10/24/80 SECY-A-80-162, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (11 pages) EX. 5 29.
12/9/80 SECY-A-80-193, Review of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (Matter of Florida Power and Light Co.) (21 pages)
EX. 5 30.
2/26/81 SECY-81-126,... Motions to Suspend NRC's Enforcement of 40 CFR 190 at Uranium Mills (2 pages) EX. 5
~
Re:
FOIA-92-436 APPENDIX B i
(continued)
RECORDS PARTIALLY WITHHELD NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION 31.
6/3/81 SECY-81-345, Review of Director's Denial j
of 2.206 (In the Matter of Portland
{
General Electric Co.) (21 pages) EX. 5 l
32.
6/4/81 SECY-81-349, Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (Indian Point Units 2 and 3) (4
'l pages) EX. 5 l
J l
I i
h
)
j l
U t
l i
e d
=
l
VICTOR GILINSKY August 25, 1992 FREEDOM Of INFORMATION Samuel Chilk ACT RrQUEST Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ok-fd- //,f d, Washington, DC 20555 Ec tz' f-2 7- $P2
Dear Sam:
I am writing to follow up, af ter long delay, on our i
discussions over my collection of NRC papers at the Hoover Library.
As you know the papers have been opened to the public with the exception of a set of about 700 or so whose public release gave concern to the General Counsel.
4 It seems to me that the best way to resolve the question of public availability of these remaining papers, and to do it in an amicable and fair manner, is for the General Counsel to formally apply to them the strict standards of the Freedom of Information Act.
I The papers are a well-defined category and there should be no problem in identifying them.
No doubt ithe -
General Counsel has a list. 'I expect the' papers ar'e all neatly stacked in a corner somewhere.
In order to trigger the formal review, I therefore request the papers in question be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
l Sincerely, f
1j.
/mi j
N-h j
i m.
i UNITED ST ATES NUC'.iAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
W A$HINGTON. D. C. 20555
~
INFORMATION REPORT Srcv-^-8o-28 ADJUDICATCfRT October 24, 1980 For:
The Cocmissioners i
From:
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel j
I Director's Denial of 2.206 Relief (In the Sub*ect:
Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority)
~-
Facility:
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 To inform the Conmission of the denial of a l
Pu rr>o s e :
requ e s t to revoke the Sequoyah Lcw-Pever Test License because of concerns related to hydrogen generation in ice-condenser containcents.
r Review Time.
Expires:
!!ove=be r 12, 1980 Escussion:
On Pay 28,1980 the 1:uclear Regulatory Corcission (TURC, a ot.71 cal group) requested that the Coc-i mission revoke the license authorizing TVA to.
a Icw power test proeram at the Sequoyah conduct
=
facility.
Petitioners arguel that the ice-condenser pressure suppression containnent systec employed at Sequoyah could not withstand a TMI-2 type accident that produced large arounts of hydrogen.
The NRC staff, the ACES, and the Commission examined this issue in soee depth l
before the Cocnission issued its order on Septem-ber 17, 1980 directing the NRC staff to issue a full-power cperating license for the Sequoyah facility, subject to several conditions relating leform:.;i:n in ibis re erd v:n defe:ed to hydrogen control ceasures.
in a::stdance wnh the freedm M IMarmation In light of this recent NRC examination of the 41.ctem;tsn, f
issues raised by TFRC, the Director, NRR, on F0t"* -_24 - FJg October 8, 1980, denied the T:!RC 7etition.
He stated that'the NRC reviews and the placement of licenso conditions on the operating license ade-quately address the concerns TURC raised.
CO!; TACT:
Trip Rothschild, OCC 4-1465
-86ll09W p
,,, s
~.
- -,n,..
r---~-
i a
he Corr.i s s i on e r s 2
<c-
? Y. b
/
S Y.5 f
Reccc=endation:
l
~
l f,/., g
/V Martin G. Malsch Deputy Ger.eral Counsel Attachments:
1.
Director's denial 2.
2.206 petition cy S
1 i
DISTRIBUTION Con::.i s sione rs Comission Staff offices Exec Dir for operations Secretariat 4
D e
w l
r,-
Y
wax
-r _ a a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA10RY C05N15510N OFFICE OF ffdCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTCR DD 31 In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50 -327 (10CFR 2.206)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
-(Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, October 8, 1980 Unit 1)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION (LNDER 10 CFR 2.206 By petition dated May 29,1980, "The Nuclear Regulatory Comission" (TNRC, a five-tceber musical group) requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) revote the lice 1se issued to cotuct the low pcwer test progrr. at the Sequoyah facility in o-der to protect the public health ar.d safety.
The petition also requested such other action as may be proper. This request has been considered j
Notice of under the provisions of 10 CFR,2.206 of the Cccrnission's regulations.
receipt of the petition was pubitsbed in the F deral Register on July 3, 1980 (45 3
FR 45429).
THRC's concern with respect to low power operation was based upon the potential failure of the ice-condenser pressure suppressior containment system employed at the Sequoyah facility.
Containment integrity is not a safety concern cering the conduct of low power testing.
The issue of contatrnent integrity during lcw powr testing was examined by the NRC staff.
The staff considered whether a loss-of-coolant accident fr:ra low power optrations would likely leed to significant metal-water reaction (and hydrogen generation) even under severely degraded ECCS It was concluded that there is tir.e available to take corrective action cnnditions.
\\
.._.c n-.-_.
1 l
> to cool the core before there is any substantial hydrogen generdtion.I Also, the potential for the release of radioactivity, should the containment fail, is virtually non-existent since the pcwer levels during low power testing do not exceed five percent of full power and the one-weet test program would produce insignificant amounts of radioactivity. This program has been cmpleted at the Sequoyah facility without
~
"eodangering the public health and safety.
TNRC also expressed a cencern in its petition that the Sequoyah containment building could provide inadequate protection in the e.ent of a TMI-2 type incident.
A THI-2 type incident could produce large amounts of hydrogen in the Sequoyah s
t c ontainment. Should a combustion presscre spike of the magnitude experienced at l
TMI-2 occur, the Sequoyah containment pressure rating could be exceeded resulting in a loss of contair. ment.
TNRC noted in its petition that, in light of operating 1
experience obtained at TMI-2, a multiple-failure accident sequence with significant i
core damage, hydregen liberation and combustion, and major retal-water reactions, l
mat be regarded as a plausible occurrence.
This concern was intensively studit4 by the NRC staff, the Mvisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and the Comission prior to the issuance of the Sequoyah
]
full power license which eccurred on Septeder 17, 1980.
Specifically, the Comission i
had before it:
1.
SECY 80-107, Proposed Interin Hydrogen Control Requirements for Small Contain-rents, dated February 22, 1960.
2.
SECY 80-107A, Mditional Information Re:
Proposed Interim Hydrogen Control i
Requirements, dated April 22,1980.
l I
T1)suppicoent80. 1 to safety tvaluation Report related to operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Page 11.B-1 l
?
i
t 3.
SECY 8C-1078 Additional Infomation Re:
Proposed Interim Control Requirements, dated June 20, 1950.
4.
Supplement No. I to Safety Evaluetion Report Related to Operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Page ll.B-1), dated February 1980.
(NUREG-00ll) 5.
Supplement No. 2 to Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of Sequoyah 1
Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Page 22.2-27), dated August 1980.
(NUREG-00ll) 6.
Supplement No. 3 to Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, dated September 1980.
(NUREG-00ll) 7.
ACRS letter on Stquoyah N clear Plant, dated Septerter 8,1980.
Copies of these doeur.ents tre ettached.
These documents and reports ertrace the concerns raised by TNRC in its petition.
The conclusion reached by both the NRC staff and the ACR$ was that full power licensing of Sequoyah facility need not ewait completian of ongoing work related to hydrogen control reasures for the Seq.cyah-type of containment.2 After due consideration of this issw, t'e Comission approved on Septec6er 17, 1980 the issuance by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of a full-power facility operating license for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
- subject, hcw <er, to the following conditions relative to hydrogen control measures:
(a)
By Janaury 31, 1981, TVA shall by testing and analysis show to the satisfac-tion of the NRC staff that an interim hydrogen control system will provide with reasonable assurance protection against breach of containment in the event that a substantial quantity of hydrogen is generated.
i (b) For operation of the facility beyond Janaury 31, 1982, the Comission sust f
i confirm that an adequtte hydrcgen control system for the plant is installed j
(2) Supplecent 3 to Safety Evaluation Report related to operation of Sequoyah kuclear Plant (Page 22.2-1) and ACRS letter of September 8,1980
. -. _ _.. ~._
4 and will perfort, its intended function in a manner that provides adequate I
safety margins.
(c) During the interim period of operation, TVA shall continue a research program on hydrogen control measures and the effects of hydrogen burr.) on safety functions and shall submit to the MC quarterly reports on tw
. 4c%h program.
In my judge ent, the analyses perforred by the EC staff and accepted by the Ccerission, as described in the documents referenced above, in conjunction with the license conditions imposed on the Sequoyah facility l adequately address the concerrs raised in your petition and, on these bases, I deny your petition.
A copy of this Decision and its attachments will be placed in the Ccmission's Public Dc.sent Rocrn at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and the Local Public Docu'nent Room for the Sequoyah facility, located at the Chattanooga Hamilton County Bicentennial Library,1031 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.
A copy of this Decision will also be filed with the Secretary for the Ccmission for its review in accordar,ce with 10 CFR 2.205(c) of the Cortnission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFP 2.206(c) of the Comission's regulations, this Decision will constitute the final action of the Comission twenty (20) days after the date of issuance, unless the Ccroission, on its own motion, institutes a review of this
)
i Decision within that tire.
Dated at Bethesda, Nryland 2
this 8 day of October,1980 i
Harold R. Centon, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Resulation i
Enclosures:
As Stated i
I
,
- resrwwr=*- - -u, m e-M MErgry
-,-~ ~.~
.-- c3 -,.r-m t.
m meramw w -
.i
._.... _. ~ __ _.
?
6 i
t i
h i
I t
I i
h e
i l
\\
t N
t
/
i l
i t
I t
b I
l e
ei.e y
6 I
f
.i i
l I
~
l l
1 J
1 k
l j
~. -
La.2ou e9[
s B/s UNITro sTATrs er wraIcA
'l j
noctrAR arcULA7ony coMx2ssioN occqw f
t MAY 2 9@ >
y.
stroar Tar ccMxIssion Petition by v
g C
(n
/
TEr NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Fet$tioner, the Nuclear Pegulatory Co:=issien (TNEC),
t 3
a fin-member cusical group located at 156 Drakes Lane, f
Su rertevn, TN 38463, requests under 10 CrR 85 2.206, 2.202, 5 0. 35, and 55. 4 0 that the United states Nuclear Regulatory f
s l
Cc mission (USNRC) revoke the limited Operating License of
(
f the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) t,o perform low power testing of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (sCNP) because public health and safety is endangered by e ren limited operation of this facility.
Prior to the March 28, 1979 accident at the Three Mile s
Island Nuclear Pla.nt (TMI), SONP Unit 1 was constructed to s
?
withstand a pressure on the contain=ent vessel of only 12
[
pounds per square inch (p s i), based upon Westinghouse and
}
)
TVA belief that the icc-condenser pressure-suppression system 3
}
would be adequate to keep temperatures of small amounts of I
hydrog en, as well as steam, '>elow potentially explosive levels.
Neither TVA nor USNRC anticipated a hydresen explosion of the
{
magnitude experienced at TMI when SONP was constructed.
l
-(
r
L
, 'j '.:
4 I
wpmm 'Enwxmitwa-xwwmmve~~~~~~ ~ ---
4 1
, (
i j '
At 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />, 50 minutes into the accident at TMI, there was a sudden pressure spike of 2B to 120 psi to the containment l
building of TM* Unit 2 caused by hydrogen combustion. The l
j l
estimated quantities of hyd.rogen produce $ during the TMI l
accident inply oxidation of 45 to 50 percent of the available f
zirconium cladding. This degree of oxidation is consistent j
i i
t j
y with an estimated 40 to 50 percent of core damage obtained j
i by ceasurercats of cesium and iodine in TMI primary coolant.
I 1
Prior to IMI, liberation of hydrogen in these quantities, i
400-450 kilograns, was thought to be very unlikely by USNRC.
f 9
}
5 A hydrogen combustion pressure spike of the cagnitude l
4
- I s
l experienced at THI would exceed SONP containment pressure l
i 4 i
}.
~ "
rating as built and could result in a, loss of containment
)
vessel integrity, an essential barrier to the environ =ent.
l i
l f
Under so=e circumstances, actual structural material f
i strengths will withstand pressure loads which exceed design j
l specifications. These: circum ~stancesidepend upon the particular i
and unique strees pattern created by the single-occurrera l
event causing pressere to exczed design limits, which is not f
predictable. Scfety dictates therefore that (.esign specifications
(
should not be regarded as 'exceedable."
s t
l In light of operating experience obtained at TMI, j
a j
f multiple-failure accident sequence, significant core da. age, l
y l
f hydrogen liberation and combustion, and major cetal-water j
{.
reactions must be. rsgarded ar. plausible occurrence in large, f
j pressurized-water reactors. The containment building at i
N Sequoyah Unit 1 could provide inadequate protection in the a
? $$$ ?$ $$5? W i$ h N $$$ $ W N 5 W tR$ 8 4%?K $ $
1
t.$
i c (,.[
A nultipic.~.ailure accident y
event of a TMI-type accident.
h even the
.f sequence and fuel damage could occur within SONP at
{
Icw pewer levels currently generated. SONP Unit 1 as built f..
vould provide even less protection from an accident of this N
Il l type than did TMI Unit 2.
that a license to operate will p
1 10 CTR 8 50.35 provides Ij not be issued until the final design provides reasonable h
(>f h
assurance that the health end s 'fety of the public will not 10 CTR E 55. 4 0 (b) be endangered by operation of the facility.
p h
+
prevides that e.ny license may be revoked because conditions p! !
i l revealed by any means vould have warranted the Comission to f;
a license cn the origine.1 application.
a refuse te grant g:[,,,, g_
Therefore the petitioner requests that the limited w.-
h 1 be revoked in order to C@erating License of Sequoyah Unit
.n p
and for such other protect the public health and safety, action as ay be proper. This revocation should be cade g
hi effective ir=ediately.
)h Dated this 26th day of May, 1980.
M; q.
l
~
_2 J41 e
Thomas T>otzlei-
~ ~
~
2 The Nuclea.r Regulatory Co= issionl Chairman e<
n
~
The Fer=
I
~,i Su::=ertown, Tenne s s e e 384 8 3
?
(614) 964-3574 d
6 3_
t U t-ad i's ay 5
- -