ML20058K513
| ML20058K513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Monticello, Dresden, Nine Mile Point, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Quad Cities |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1973 |
| From: | Roisman A FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, ROISMAN, A.Z. |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058K490 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102110346 | |
| Download: ML20058K513 (15) | |
Text
_-
._._.1---
1 DEFORE Tile UNITED STATES OF AMURICA ATOMIC ENERGY CO:CISSION FRIENDS OF Tile EARTII,
)
)
~
Petitioner,
)
)
V.
)
}
i JERSEY CENTRAL P&L CO.MPA.'IY
)
. Docket Nos. 50-219 CO!C10Nh'EALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
50-2374249,254,265 NIAGARA MOHIO.'K POWER COMPANY
)
~5D-220 MILLSTOME POIST CCMPANY
)
'50:275 2
NORTl!ERN STATES POWER COMPANY )
50-263 BOSTON EDISCN COMPANY,
)
50-293
\\
)
" Respondents.
)
REQUEST FOR LECISION On July 12, 1973 Friends of the Earth filed a Petition seeLing an immediate derating of nine BNRS and implementation of procedures to be followed for consideration of any subsc-quent action relevant to the safety issue raisud and these plants.
The Comir.ission denied energency relief (su r: nary reversal denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.(!;o. 73-1066) August 24, 1973) but ordered the Director of Regulat. ion to promptly take action 5
I t
I N
a G.:
~-a:...-----
-- a on the request.
On August 22, 1973-the Director of Regulation ordered an emergency modification of Technical Specifications for these nine plants which had the affect of derating several of the plants and limiting operating flexibility at all of the plants.
38 F.R.
22998-23004.
In' a related' proceeding involving the identical issue the Appeal Board ordered that operation of Vermont Yankce Nuclear Power Station be similarly limited.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, ALAB-141, RAI-73-8,
- p. 576 ; Appeal Board Order, August 31, 1973.
No further formal action has been taken by the Director of Regulation or the Commission. ~-**/
- /
~
In its Order of August 6,
- /
On Novemoer 15, 1973, the Regulatory Staff approved a modification in the Technical Specifications of Vern.ont Yankee which authorized a higher maximum average planar linear heat generation rate than its previous orders.
The propriety of taking such action in the face of ALAB-141 is now under iniestigation having been challenged by intervenor in that pr0ceeding.
See letters to Appeal Board,from New England Coalition on Juclear Pollution's Counsel dated Novenber 21,
~
e a'nd November 26, 1973 and Staff letter to Appeal Board dated November 26, 1973.
- /
On October 31, 1973 the United States Court of Appeals
~. granted an extension of time until 30 days af ter further Commission action for the filing of Petitioners' main brief.
9
r 3
L
. '1973, the Commission deferred ruling on all other requests of
. Petitioners until afte'r the Staff had acted on or before September 4, 1973.
At this time there is no ruling on Peti-tioners' requestthat following an emergency derating, modifical tions to authorize less limited operations may be granted only after a hearing to resolve the fuel densification problem for these plants.
The purpose of this filing is to obtain prompt i
resolution of this issue.
~
Petitioners received yesterday (Decerber 12, 1973) copies of documents previously filed with and reviewed by the Staff.
The documents are General Electric's justification for use of l
L a higher gap conductance value for these plants than the Staff used in its August 22, 1973 Order.
By letters dated December 5, 1973, the Staff trcnsmitted a modification of the GE Model for Fuel Densification, requested further data fro:i GE and from the licensees and noted that it anticipated that with the neu GE model, as modified by the Staff, less restrictive' Technical O
Specifications could be allowed.
b 4
[
i
?
- L i
i 4
g n
i
_4 Undersigned Counsel has determined that within the next week (by. December 20, 1973) the requested information from GE and the licensees will be filed and that at least some plants will request Technical Specification modifications which will enabl % the plants to operate at higher power levels.
There
- is a present need for immediate Commission action to prev.ent a chaotic condition in which neither the Staff, the licensees or Petitioner have clear guidance from the Commission on the
. procedures to be followed.
Under the Commission regulations and the relevant cases th$e Commission has only one choice - it must issue an order
~
providing for an opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing, including the right to have a brief period of discovery,-*/
prior to any Technical Specification modification.
Brooks v.
Atomic Energy Cornission, F.2d
- (Court of Appeals v
for the District of Columbia, No. 72-2177) decided March 8, 1973) is directly on point.
Here the proposed modifications
- /
Such discovery is particularly essential here, where relevant data was withheld from Petitioners until scme time af ter it was seen and reviewed by the Staff.
Included in the data uithheld were the final GE reports on fuel densification
- and the minutes of naetings between GE and the Staf f.
The latter were withheld by the Staff because of GE's proprietary claims.
The formar were withheld by GE for no discernible reason.
The Staff bases for its present conclusicns have also not been disclosed to Petitioners.
If Petitioners had been nede a party to all negotiations and filings (formal or otherwisc) on this subject during the last four conths no period for dis-covery or study would be needed.
The Commission, which has (cont'd on pcge 5)
-5 will undoubtedly involve a signifiqant hazards consideration.
They relate to changes' in operation to accomodate fuel densifica-tion and possible non-compliance with the Interin Acceptance Criteria.
The Order of August 22, 1973, is conclusive evidence that Technical Specification modifications related to fuel densification do involve significant hazards consideration so significant that deratings were ordered without prior hearings.
- /
(cont'd from page 4)
~
expressed concern about delays in licensing approval, should look carefully to the pratices of vendors which front for applicants with the Staff and attempt to thereby avoid the obligation to keep interested members of the public inforced.
Such a practice assures that public review of the proposed action cannot begin until af ter the Staff, the vendors and the licensees have decided what to do.
Friends of the Earth will be pleased to meet with appropriate representatives of the Commission to evolve procedures to assure that during con-siderotion of matters by the Staff, members of the public are k6pt fully informed.
=
?
- /
There is some evidence that the Staff believes that only if the Staff believes the proposal would be unsafe is there a "significant hazards consideration".
See Determination Uith Respect To Further Action Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, pp. 5-6 (November 16, 1973) approving a proposed "fix" to the problem of fuel channel wall cracks by redistributing the flow of water in that EUR reactor.
Clearly flow distribu-tion in a BWR is a significant safety matter.
The fact that the Staff believes the particular distribution involved does t
not involve a safety oroblem does not mean it is not a signifi-j cant hazard consideration.
e b
a.
i
~
~..
\\
Of c'ourse therg must also be a referral of th'is matter to the 1
57 ACRS for its review.
10 CFR SS 50. 8 and 5 0.29'.
If the licensees are allowed to obtain approval of the proposed Technical Specification changes prior to resolution of the issue in hearings then they will be avoiding the intent and spirit of the August 22 Order.
That order declared that if a licensee wanted to be relieved of the Technical Specifica-tions it had to present more data, request a hearing and prove its case in th3 hearing.
The additional data has been and will
~
be presented by GE and the licensees and the reqcest for relief
[
will be made.
By not making it within the 30 day period, j -
licensees should not be permitted to avoid the effect of-the
~
Staff Order.
The Staff Order is a determination which limits operation '
It is no dif ferent than the imposition of 'the. "
of the reactor.
condition in an initial decision.~*/
The modification of a condition in an initial decision which authorizes higher powar
- j
' ~
Brcoks v. Atomic Enercy
-~
may be made only af ter a hearing.
l has occurred in Vermont Yankee by if In fact that is what the Appeal Board order of August 31, 1973.
i
- /
The Staf f may make a new determination that it is now less limited operation.
This does not ready to authorize abrogate the original Order any more than a Staf f determinati on to authorize higher power levels autcmatically permits higher power levels.
4 8
e Me m-
..-,n.-,r
~. - _ - - ~., - - -
--m f
_w.--nw.-.,,
g,,,
e w-
~7-Commission, supra.
Friends of" the Earth is mindful that in the current energy crisis there is a tendency to overlook procedural safeguards and plunge ahead without regard to the rights of the public.
For instance, in authorizing Verm'ont Yankee to begin operation af ter it was shutdown to analyze and repair the fuel channel wall crack problem the Staff relied in part upon'the "need to conserve energy resources" (Determination, supra, p. 4) as the basis for its immediate approval of the start-up without the
'his was a clear viola-right to a hearing or public comment.
T tion of the Commission'ssingular cbligation to protect the public health and safety and involved a cost-benefit analysis with ej
. respect to safety which is c1carly illegal.~
See Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., ALAB-163, RAI-73-ll (November 30, 1973, Slip Op. p. 19).
We are hopeful that no similar errors will.
3 pervade action in this proceeding.
Nonetheless we feel that procedures can be developed to protect our legitimate interes ts and to be responsive to the present problems.
'*/
To conduct such an L.nalhsis properly the Staff would also Eave to consider plant reliability to determine whether autho-rizing operation would produce any net benefit.
Plants such as Millstone, Indian Point Nos. 1 and 2 and Palisades are examples of the unavailability of plants which are authorized to operate.
e a
n m
v
4 We propose that a hearing be scheduled to commence four
- weeks after the Staff has made its determination regarding the proposed changes.
By the time of the Staff determination, the i
Staff, the licensees and GE should have produced all documents,
- /
memoranda, minutes, etc. relevant to the proposed action.~ The hearing would begin,with a pre-hearing conference at which any party contesting the action would be required to present con-tentions, proposed testimony and proposed cross-examination of the proponents' testimony.
The hearing. board would rule on the contentions and proposed cross-examination [ An evidentiary hearing would follou and the board would reach its decision.
n
. If no legitimate contentions were raised the board would decitie the case on the testimony of the proponents and the arguments of all parties without the need for an evidentiary hearing (unless the board had questions of witnesses)'.
c
- /
As noted earlier if the data had been made available when it came into existence the period for review would be un-necessary.
The public should certainly have as much time as the Staff to conduct the necessary review of the underlying
~ data.
Mr. Edson Case han offered to provide a briefing for FOE on the Staff action to expedite their review.
This is appreciated and may reduce the review time required.
Until all relevant data has been received and briefly reviewed by FOE, it is not possible to state what time savings, if any, Will result.
FOE is committed to commence an evidentiary hearing, if it believes one is required, as soon as possib]e and in no event later than four weeks.
i l
e
9 Petitioner urges the Commission to act promptly on this request and to ' reach a decision on the procedural issues which have been outstanding for several months.
Respectfully submitted,
~
.fG,
M un
. new Anthony Z.,Roisman Counsel for Friends of the Earth l
t Dated:
December 13, 1973 h
k S
f e
9 G
4 O
e
4 s
1.
Handout at 8/30/73 Meeting 2.
Ezndout at 9/7/73 Meeting 3.
Handout at 10/2 and 10/3/73 Meeting 4
Handout at 11/9/73 Meeting i
t i
I
{
L t
3
?
f 6
i 1
e 4
4 f
I f.
i e
/
. i
i AUTHOR TO DATE SU3 JECT COM."ENT5 R. Lobel D. F. Ross 11/15/73 GESAP-III R. Meyer
~ ~ V. Stello--
9/26/73 GE Dens. MIT V. Stello.
J. A. Hinds 6/27/73 GE Dens.- Quest.
. Sent to PD5 R. Meyer D. F. Ross 9/12/73 GE Dens. Meeting On 11/30/73 V. Stello S. Goldsmith E/07/73 GE Dens. Reports V. Sthllo S. Goldsmith
. -3/24/73 GE Dens.. Reports ent to M
~~
V. Stello" ~
.S. Goldsmith 10/25/73 GE Dens."Peports on 11/30/73 1-
. ~ ~ ~
_EI--t
.. f ;. ~.
. g %; A -
~
' I-f.*-
s
.~,,
.l-W -.
=,...
,j;;.4 q-y-
. ~.'. ?.?h.
-~.
t=
. ;y -
'._..w.
s e-
-~
QR
- .M-
- -M a.
~~
I e
1 f
... ~. -
?---
^ ' ~
n~.w
, w,_ y.
_,mn
_.w
1
- N AZh0?.
Tb NTE SU3 JECT
- 7. 5 ailo (AEC)
J. A. Hinds (GE) 11/15/73 Creep Calcilatiens F.Ccif.an (AEC)
D. F. Ross (AEC) 11/14/73 Evaluation of GE Creep.u del o
R. O. Mayer (AEC)
D. F. Ross (AEC) 11/16/73 Evaluation of GE Peller Densification r5
-,,Ae
, rip Report.or GE
. 2.;ter.s ein(AEC)
V. 3:21,to ( m /
'e 13 i
Plant Visit M. Ta'er ( ALC)
L.."M:enstein(AEC) 5/C6/73 Cc: rents on GE Sintarirn Practice.
R. D. Meyer (AEC)
D. F. Ross (AEC) 12/10/73 Justification of Constraints on GE Densification fedeL
~,
- .n
~ ~'
.....~.4-i.--
^
. - e -. -
. L; :..y. ~,,
$h
- g..
~ * *' ** *
' ^
.e.
- e 9
-. -,,..., r y" *
. _ _ _. -j
.~;
..2-
.~,
.s.
a.-
. ' Q :- *;' *,-; _,;.,
~~*5t*
_.'.~':-
.?~
, ",k.? % '..:
..y_..-.u..,'
.,;r-
,a g,-
2
.v_,
- ~ ~.'.=
~ v
.g o
-~
.l
\\
4 3
a J
~
t 1
o
+
s.
I j
1.
"Iechnical Report en Densif t:stion of li;ht 'Jacer Reac:or Feels,"
l Regulatory Staff, U.S. Ato=ic Inergy Cc mission, Nove=cer 14, 1972.
l 2.
D.C. Dit= ore and R. 3. Ilkins: "Dansd.fication Considerations in I' I Fuel Design and Perfor=ance," : 1D510735, Dece:bar 1972.
~
l I
3.
" Responses to AIC-Questions - NID &l0735." NIDH-10735, Supplement 1, l
t april 1973 (?reprie:ary).
l t
4.
"Rasponses to AIC Questions - NIDS10735, Supplement 1," NID&10735, Se:plement 2, May 1973 (?reprterary).
5.
"Rasponses to AIC Questions - NID510735, Supplement 1," NZD&l0735, i
Supple =ent 3, Juan 1973 (? oprie:ary).
i 6.
Rasponsas to.2.IC Questions - NID 910735, NIDS 10735, Se:pi m nt 4*
l 1
July 1973 (?roprietary).
I i
7.
"Densification Ccusiderations in 3'.R Fuel," NID&l0735, Supplement 5 l
July-197,3 (Proprzetary).
.4 L " Technical Report en Densification.f General Electric Reactor Fuels,"
~. Regulatory Staff,;;U.S. Atomic Inergy cce ion, August 23,.1973.
s y
. a.i a g::-
m,,
.s n.
..c.
.... a orm..,..__.
_m_-
...s a
.4c. -..
.-._y _-
m e
.m. p
_s._
a
.n 9
,f
__m
.,u.
,.,2_ %.
. if. G,--W@-h ^-~.-P'--]V. oore. AIC, Plant-Evaluatica for-GIGAP-IIIi. Dec 1LJ
- h. -_
lo;; La '*;er:J'.JEinds. GI' to;
. e,..' w
.x->--....
3 : ;-:...-.n,..
.._=.;....
-.=z.:. -
. 11 M.0;-Marlove, "In-reacter Densification Schavior:of UO ". NIDO-12440.-.-..
2
. __.,....._ _ y,y7 1973; L r.,.
7
,,,V_.,7g.
.L..
r.y 12; R. L. Coble and T. I;' Gupta f' Inter =ediate. Stage Sintering," in. Sintering.c and Related Phenc=ena, G. C. Kue:ynski, N. A. Ecoten, and C. F. Gibbcu, It..!
(Gordon and Breach, New York),1967....
- ... ~.-
s-....__...
13.
R. L. Coble, " Sintering Crf'talline Solids. II. Ixperimental Tests of Diffusion :Cdels in P:wder Cc: pacts," J. Appl. Phys.
--32.,
1961, 793.
J l's.
J. 3alle, " Oxygen and Urnnium Diffusion 4-
"~4em Dioxide," J. Nuclear
- a-30, 1959, 3.
i 233 15.
D. K. Rei : ann a.d T. S. Lundy, "Dif fusion of U in CO, "J. Amer.
2 Ce-am. Soc. 32_, 1959, 311.
I I-:
l l
I d
)
4
' "_ "*4AL.UI 5-T T((#> 3__* M,-Md[.*^, _, ~[f'_*$f. *4*J*2~.[- B Z d.[
.- *-]*[n'.=L
. Dh1
'I_
ffA.$._"f b-
~
,{e, [p.;
I
- =
l 16.
M. O. Marlove, "Fissi:n 5._:2 ring and Irradiatior. Induced Dif fusion in UC2 Bull,.L e r. Car an.. Soc.
- 5_1_,
1972, 157.
4 17.
A. Ech and Hj. Mat:ke, " Fission-enhanced Self-diffusion of Uranius in ~0.3 and UC," J. Nucl. Ma:ar. _l.3, 1973, 157.
y 15.
A. Ianevik, P. Arnesen, anc K. D. Knudsen, "In-reac:or Measure =ents of 7uel 5 tack Shor:aM g,"? aper No. 39 presented at 3E.S Nuclear Fuel Perfornance Conference, London, October 15-19, 1973.
19.
M. O. Marlove, "Qualificat.:ns of ? el Densification Model with Halden i
In-reae.or Da:a," (Handeu: f:r GI/AIC neering Septancer 7,1973.)
.. O. Marlove, "Qualificati:ns of Dif fusion Controlled Fuel Densification l 20.
Mccel with Ealden In-rese:or Data Using Inoroved Grai Size Measurenent Da_a,"
(Handou f or GI/AIC neeting Neve=cer 9,19 73.) (?roprietary) i 21.
J. M. H el ' =. e t al, "T el Jessift:ation Ixperinen:al Rasults and Model for Reac:or Application," 2CAF-3219, oc:ober 1973.
t i
l 22.
M. O. Marlove, General Electric Co., telephone and telecopy co=:unicarica '
Nove=ber 13, 1973.
. 23.
D. En::klacher and W. Dienst, " Creep and Densification of CO2 Under Irradiation," Paper No. 60 preocnted at ENES Nuclear Fuel Performance i
Conference London. October 15-19, 1973.
24.
" Pellet-to-cladding Gap Closure from Pellet Cracking, Data. and Analysis,"
}
IN-73-17, August.1,.1973.. _
?.-
,.z 25.
C. R. Fnnn, C E. Zeyer and L. J. Prachen: Candon Thernal-L:- A Conouter Procram for Calculating the Gap Condue:ance in Oxide Fuel Pins INWL-1778, Sente=ber 1973.
.---.,2 u-l
- 26.
A. M. Ross, R. L. S tonte, Heat Transfer Coefficients Between UO* and.
i Zirealov 2, CTED-1075 June 1972.
27.
J. P. Hoffman,.D. E. Copin The Release of Fission Gas frem UranEun Dioxide Pellet Fuel Ooerated at High Te peratures GEA? 4596, Septenber 1954 l
28.
Fuel Densification Eff ects en General Electrin Boiling Water Reactor Fuel NEDM-10735 Supple =en: 5, August 1973.
i
\\
l l
5
^
,.....,-J 4
e.. ?o"
~
e.
,t'.~.
.f* '-5.*b5 2.*.
~._ ' ~
- b..t. l'..l. 5:
~*
~
i 29-
- ass-A s4 5 F.c
- , "TI 2 In-Reactor Creap of Cold-worked 7. ire 21oy-2
_fr:oniu: 2.5 v:,; :lioloius Pressure Tubes," JE?A, Vol 2J.1968.
o,s.
__-: Develop en: Anal 73 s and Plsr.ning Memorandum #!.5, "Leng:h arevth or 3' A Fuel Ila:en:3" R A ?roebsthe, Oc:ober 1,1973. (?roprie:ar.
- 31. ge::er D. S.<ovhol:.GC :o J. Hinds, G.E., " Modified GE Model for ruel Densifica: ion," Oecember 5, 1973.
e O
t we e i
ee--
e 6
w 2
is
- L.;
W w
4 L
i
- l 4
- - - - - ~, - - -
e.
m'*. - *
- a, e-s e
a a
thggg
.me..
9 9