ML20081K840

Comments on Issuance of Amends Re Higher Fuel Temp.Full Review by ASLB & Commission Prior to Issuance Requested

ML20081K840
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/04/1983
From:	Hodder M CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, HODDER, M.H.
To:
Shared Package
ML20081K837	List: ML20081K832 ML20081K840 ML20081K842
References
NUDOCS 8311100280
Download: ML20081K840 (6)

Text

.. . . .- -- . .. . - _ - - - - _. - _ - __-

a e.

l OOCKETED USilRC November 4,.1983

'83 NOV -7 M1 :31 Secretary of the Nuclear .

Regulatory Commission CFFR'C OF fil36:7' United States Nuclear Regulatory DCDT7.l MD ' -

Commission "'

Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch (Ref. Docket Nos. 50-250.and 50-251)

Re: Comments on Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating .Liceneses Nos.

DPR-31 and DPR-41 issued to Florida Power and Light Company for operation of the Turkey Point Plant Units No. 3 and 4 Submitted in Response to Request published at 48 Fed. Reg. 45 862 (October 7, 1983).

l The Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (" Center")

and Joette Lorion oppose the issuance of amendments to Facil-ity Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power and Light Company for the operation of the Turkey Point Plant Units Nos. 3 and 4, located in Dade County, Florida, before full review by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and further review in accordance with the Commis-sion's Regulation and federal law. Further, the Center and

-Ms.

Lorion are opposed to the " Proposed No Significant Hazard-Consideration Determination" repported in that notice as i

l being, if done, improper and unlawful informal agency action reviewable in the federal ' district courts. [Se'e Lorion d/b/a Center for Nuclear Responsibility v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission, 712 F. 2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1983).]

The Commission's staff has previously identified Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey Point Plant Units Nos. 3 and l 8311100280'831104 PDR ADOCK 05000250-G PDR-

, - , ,w..m..,,.,,e-----. - - ,

,w,, ,,-,.,,..--,n,,.-...-,,-..,,.,...,n,.n.. ,,nn. ..,,,_ _-,,.n.n.__.-n,,, ,,-w,- -,

4 as having two of the most seriously impaired reactor pres-sure vessel shells in the country. The embrittlement that has occurred, the enhanced probability that thermal shock might cause a crack in the pressure vessel shells, and the disas-trous consequences likely to occur have been acknowledged.

See NRC Staff Evaluation of Thermal Shock (Draft Report, Sept.

13, 1982).

The Commission's customary remedy, if it authorizes con-tinued operation, has been to derate the affected unit to reduce maximum operating temperature and, thereby, reduce the potential for temperature change; retard radiation of the shell; and increase the margin between the maximum operating temperature and the temperature likely to produce a Class 9 event. FPL, however, has asked the Commission to grant license amendments that would permit FPL to operate these units at higher fuel temperature. In lieu of derating, FPL seeks to use a newly designed fuel assemby in conjunction with a new type of rod which has never been installed or tested under field operating conditions. In so far as we can deter-mine, the staff has not published a proposed safety Evaluation Report that the Commission could review to determine whether the new Westinghouse fuel design or the accompanying Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) computer model comply with the Commission's safety Standards and Criteria, including especi-ally the standards for an Emergency Core Cooling System.

Against this background, FPL has asked permission to ex-periment in one of the most densely populated and ecologically

i sensitive metropolitan areas in the country. The Commission has blithely announced that, in a case of first impression l

involving one of the most serious operating problems identi- I fled, that it has made a proposed determination that this experiment with untested - technology poses No Significant Hazards Considerations. The Commission has suggested, even if a hearing is afforded, it might issue the license amendments before the' proceedings are complete. Basically, we believe the proposed determination is substantively unfounded and clearly erroneous and that the procedures suggested are ,

improper, illegal, and designed to deny interested parties rights . the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other federal laws and regulations sought to guarantee.

Ms. Lorion and the Center wish to participate in a

< meaningful hearing beihre the ASLB on the issuance of the requested license amendments. The Center and Ms. Lorion have submitted and are prepared to litigate those issues and any others that ought be addressed, whether before the commission or the federal courts. In any event, the Center and Ms.

Lorion believe the proposed issuance of the amendments to the facility operating license before the actual completion of a proper hearing and decision proceedings would be unlawful and anomalous and not in accordance with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2239) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and other pertinent federal law. (Sy , e g , Hodder v. NRC, ALAB-335, 3

i-NRC 830 (1976) and (Salzman dissent); decision stayed, Hodder

v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 76-1709 D.C. Cir. 1976)

(unpublished per curiam order staying issuance of Limited Work Authorization until necessary determinations made.)1 The proposed. amendments would involve a change in the technical specifications which is an appendix to and basis for the plants operating -license and which constitutes an element of that license. Implementation of these proposed changes to the plant's technical specifications which are the conditions of the operating license would narrow the safety margin of the plants operation without the reviews required by federal law.

The specific changes requested are:

1. Increase the hot channel F 3A H limit from 1.55 to 1.62;

2. Increase the total peaking factor F4 limit from 2.30 to 2.32; ,

3. Change the overpower AT setpoints and thermal hydraulic limit curves and;

! 4. Delete restrictions and limits restrictions placed on i the old steam generators to allow for operation with tubes plugged in excess of five (5) percent.

The Commission improperly proposes the determination that the amendments requested involve no significant hazards consideration under the criteria of the Commissions regula-tions. Yet, the Commission concedes, as it must, that.

"the' increase in the hot channel FA,n limit'and the total l

1. We have submitted a Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Interview in response to the same Commission notice (48 Fed. Reg. 45682, (Oct. 7, 1983)). A copy of that Request and Petition is appended to this comment and, by this refer-erce, incorporated herein.

peaking factor Fq ...(is) ... a change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident, or reduce in some way a safety margin ....... but argues that the changes are "small" and "within all acceptable criteria". The referenced criteria relied upon by the Commission is the Standard Review Plan.

This document, unlike the Technical Specifications previously approved by ASLB, is a contrivance of the Commission's staff.

It is an informal guide to the review and licensing of all nuclear plants. It is not a product of a formal agency proceeding and as such cannot be relied upon as authorization for agency action that would otherwise be considered arbitrary and capricious.

Little Abner, Al Capp's famous comic strip character used to be fond of saying, when confronted by printed texts, "effen hits in printin' it mus' be so," and he would dutifly comply with the written word he had then encountered, usually to his ultimate. dismay. A federal regulatory agency charged with the awesome. responsibility of regulating nuclear power cannot arbitrarily create staff guidelines and then rely upon cri-teria as the " written word ," which they have just informally created, as a proper-basis for a license amendment and which members of the public dispute, in an uncontested and star-chamber proceeding.

The Westinghouse nuclear division and the FPL, out of economic considerations, are experimenting with the problem of

-s-l l ~ - - , , _ . - . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ,

how - to compensate for an old and severely impaired nuclear power reactor pressure vessel while risking the health, safety, and environment of the people of Dade County. Federal law and fairplay dictate that they complete their experimenta-tion in the laboratory. The Commission should abolish any field use of technology until the Commission has completed a full review and afforded interested parties, whose life, health, and environment are at stake, an opportunity to challenge the licensee's claims and fully assert their rights and interests though the specified procedures for administra-tive adjudications and review. <

Respectfully submitted, i

O Martin H. Hodder 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Tel. 305-751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc. and Joette Lorion

~.

t

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