ML20081K842
| ML20081K842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1983 |
| From: | Hodder M CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, HODDER, M.H. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081K837 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311100282 | |
| Download: ML20081K842 (20) | |
Text
.
Before the 00CKETED UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS1gRC 83 DV -7 #1 :32 In the Matter of Florida )
Power & Light Company, )
(Application for Amentment ) Docket Nosff604250CAtin-to Licenses DPR-31 and ) ang0CbyggEFv!D DPR-41) )
)
Secretary of the Commission . .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .-
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Opportunity for Hearing in Federal Register, Oct. 7, 1983 Vol. 48, No. 196, Pege 45862.
Proposed Isspance of Amendments to the Facility operating licenses Nos. DPR -31 and DPR -
41 issued to Florida Power and Light Company for operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 in Dade County, Florida.
\
Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Interview Petitioners request a hearing and leave to intervene in these licensing amendment proceedings
- 1. The Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (Center) and Joette Lorion request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the above-captioned f acility operating license amendment proceeding as allowed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Commission or NRC) Rules of Practice
- 2. The Center for Nuclear Responsibility is a corpora-
,,t ion with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
The Center for Nuclear Responsibility is an environmental organization.
8311100282 831104 '- SNDUM TO CENTER AND LORION COMMENT PDR ADOCK 05000250 Q PDR
- 3. The Center's members live, use, and work and vacation in and other wise use and enjoy, a geographic area within the immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants and could suffer severe consequences if a serious nuclear accident occurred at those facilities. Thus, the Center and its members are significantly and adversely affected and otherwise aggreived by the firal agency action proposed in the captioned October 7, 1983 Federal,, Register Notice. The Center is an. appropriate party to represent the interests of persons similarly situated or whose interests might otherwise go unrepresented.
- 4. Joette Lorion is an individual who lives and works and owns property real and personal in and about the city of South Miami, Florida, approximately 15 miles from the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants, an otherwise uses and enjoys a geographic area within the immediate vicinity of those plants.
Her interests and those of her f amily could also be signifi-cantly and adversely affected if a serious nuclear accident occurred 'at the Turkey Point plants. She is an appropriate party to represent the interests of others similarly situated whose interests might otherwise go unrepresented.
- 5. If the Commission issues an order allowing issuance of the proposed license amendments in the manner sought by the utility, operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants Units No. 3 and 4 would:
a) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
b) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; and c) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
- 6. If permitted to intervene the petitioners would address, but not be limited to, presentation of the following contentions:
(a) The petitioners contend that the amendments re-hazard consideration, quested involve a significant because it might result in an increase in the authorized maximum core power level. There can be no lawful issu-ance of the proposed license amendments before the holding of a formal bearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
(b) Whether the entirely new computer model used by the utility, for calculating re-flood portions of an accident meets the Commission's ECCS Acceptance Criteria; i
l specifically, whether a 2.2% reduction in re-flood rate is misleading because a for a small decrease in re-flood
~
rate, there results a large increase in fuel temperature.
Re-flood rates are critical if below 1 or 2 inches per minute.
(c) Petitioners have been informed and believe amendment would increase the rod drop time from 1.8 to l
2.4 seconds (a 33% increase in rod drop time). That increase would s,ignificantly and adversely reduce the l
l l
l
- x.
\
safety margin and create the possibility for or proba-
\
bility of a new or different kind of accident or an accident whose occurrance or consequences have not been analyzed or which may increase the probability of an
, accident previously analyzed. Petitioners contend that Commission's tentative conclusion that safety limits "are met" is not Pupported by any evidence.
(d) The proposed depar,ture from the nucleate boil-ing ratio (DNBR) would significantly and adversely affect the margin of safety for operation of the reactors. As the amount of heat decreases, the difference in tempera-ture increases, driving heat flux higher. Then nucleate boiling may occur at the top of the active fuel rods at a time there existr the need to drive the same amount of heat throughout the system. The heat flux the Commission and utility compagy would take to DNB is 1.3 or 30% below the heat flux that would cause an increase in fuel temperature.
(e) The increased fuel core temperatures generally would exceed safety margins and specifically would result in unacceptable swelling or bowing of fuel rods. During an accident, fuel' rod swelling due to higher temperatures displaces cooling water and impedes insertion of control rods by that physical phenomenon of increased size. This could result in a significant increase in the possibility and/or consequences of an accident.
_4_
O (f) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
("NEPA") imposes the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for this proposed major federal action.
(g) A NEPA cost-benefit analysis would probably establish that the preferred solution to the problem of pressurized thermal shock (PTV) and the impaired reactor pressure vessels could be better achieved by premature decommissioning or by derating the reactors power levels.
A full hearing is necessary to determine what, if any, percent of deration would achieve safe levels of oper-ation?
- 7. Although the Commission did not so state, the Notice of Proposed Action in the October 7, 1983 Federal Register must arise under 10 CPR 2.105. If so, then the Commission a has already made a determination a hearing is not required; thus, according to it there is no significant safety hazard.
- 8. The Petitioners believe that the rushing through to issuance of license amendments without hearing on issues that are so important to safe nuclear power reactor operation, as l
l~
these where higher fuel core temperatures are involved, is no't
' only a disservice to members of the public whose lives, health and property may be adversely affected; but is also a dis-service to members of the Commissions Staff who have the awesome responsibility of regulating the operation of nuclear plants.
- 9. Recently in the press, Congressman Edward J. Markey described the Commission as " lapdog" rather than a " watchdog" of the nuclear industry:
There's this coziness with the nuclear industry that's part of the problem, said Representative Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Interior Commit-tee's panel on Oversight and Investigations.
There's also an incompetence in-the N.R.C. and a mind-set that operates on the assumption that nuclear power is inherently safe. All these have combined to turn the Commission into a lapdog rather than a watch dog. ,-
The New York Times, pp. 1, 22, Sunday, October 16, 1983. In the N.Y. Times article, the Commission is reported to be applying undue pressures on its Staff for licensing approvals.
- 9. The Commission has known of the utility company's plan to change technical specifications and use the new fuel design since January 1983. It received the utility company's license amendment request June 3, 1983 with a request the amendment be available for use on December 1, 1983 refueling Unit 4. Yet notice was first given of the proposed action to the public on October 7, 1983. This is stampeding a change that involves a serious significant hazard consideration and requires technical scrutiny by the Commission's staf f regula-l l
tors and administrative law judges in a hearing process in l
l which adverse evidence and views may be presented. If the Commission permits, it deserves the epitaph " lapdog - not watchdog."
- 10. The petition for leave to intervene should be granted. The issues raised concerning issuance of .f acility operating license DPR-31 and DPR-41 to the Turkey Point 1
l l
Nuclear Power Plants Nos. 3 and 4 owned by the Florida Power and Light Company should be assigned to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for review in a formal hearing process before there can be issuance of any license amendments.
- 11. Petitioners have submitted comments in response to the same notice issued by the Commission [48 Fed. Reg. 45862 (Oct. 7, 1983)]. A copy of those comments are appended to this Request and Petition and, by,.this reference, incorporated herein.
Respectfully submitted,
]pn% 7 '
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
.6 ,
Before the DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATE 3 NTICLEid REGULATORY COMMISSION .. . . .
'83 NOV -7 All :32 j In the Matter of Florida )
Power & Light Company, ) C m rE 07 tecni *. '
(Application for Amentment ) Docket Nos. 5'0225D'.d.i[' H, i *' .
to Licenses DPR-31 and ) and 50-251*~'
DPR-41) )
)
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Opportunity for Hearing in Federal Register, Oct. 7, 1983 Vol. 48, No. 196, Page 45862.
Proposed Issuance of Amendments to the '
Facility operating licenses Nos. DPR -31 and DPR -
41 issued to Florida Power and Light Company for operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 in Dade County, Florida.
Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to In.terview Petitioners request a hearing and leave to intervene in these licensing amendment proceedings
- 1. The Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (Center) and Joette Lorion request a hetring and petition for leave to
-intervene in the above-captioned facility operating license amendment proceeding as allowed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Commission or NRC) Rules of Practice
- 2. The Center for Nuclear Responsibility is a corpora-tion with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
The Center for Nuclear Responsibility is an environmental l organization.
1
- 3. The Center's members live, use, and work and vacation in and other wise use and enjoy, a geographic area within the immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants and could suffer severe consequences if a serious nuclear accident occurred at those facilities. Thus, the Center and its members are significantly and adversely affected and otherwise aggreived by the final agency action proposed in the captioned October 7, 1983 Federal Register Notice. The Center is an appropriate party to represent the interests of persons similarly. situated or whose interests might otherwise go unrepresented.
- 4. Joette Lorion is an individual who lives and works and owns property real and personal in and about the city of South Miami, Florida, approximately 15 miles from the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants, an otherwise uses and enjoys a geographic area within the immediate vicinity of those plants.
Her interests and those of her f amily could also be signifi-cantly and adversely affected if a serious nuclear accident occurred at the Turkey Point plants. She is an appropriate party to represent the interests of others similarly situated whose interests might otherwise go unrepresented.
- 5. If the Commission issues an order allowing issuance of the proposed license amendments in the manner sought by the utility, operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants Units No. 3 and 4 would:
a) involve a significant increase in the probability I or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
. .. . . . _ - - - _ _ . . - . - = . . _ _ _ . .
4
+
~
,.; b) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; and c) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
- 6. If permitted to intervene the petitioners would ,
address, but not be limited to, presentation of the following contentions:
(a) The petitioners contend that the amendments re-quested involve a significant hazard consideration, because it might result in an increase in the authorized maximum core power level. There can be no lawful issu-ance of the proposed license amendments before the holding of a formal bearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
(b) Whether the entirely new computer model used by -
the utility, for calculating re-flood portions of an accident meets the Commission's ECCS Acceptance Criteria; l-I specifically, whether a 2.2% reduction in re-flood rate is misleading because a for a small decrease in re-flood rate, there results a large increase in fuel temperature.
Re-flood rates are critical 'if below 1 or 2 inches per minute.
(c) Petitioners have been informed and believe f
amendment would increase the rod drop time f rom 1. 8 to
! 2.4 seconds (a 33% increase in rod drop time). That I
L increase would significantly and adversely reduce the
O cafety margin and create the possibility for or proba-bility of a new or different kind of accident or an accident whose occurrance or consequences have not been analyzed or which may increase the probability of an accident previously analyzed. Petitioners contend that Commission's tentative conclusion that safety limits "are met" is not supported by any evidence.
(d) The proposed departure from the nucleate boil-ing ratio (DNBR) would significantly and adversely affect the margin of safety for operation of the reactors. As the amount of heat decreases, the difference in tempera-ture increases, driving heat flux higher. Then nucleate 1
boiling may occur at the top of the active fuel rods at a time there exists the need to drive the same amount of heat throughout the system. The heat flux the Commission and utility company would take to DNB is 1.3 or 30% below the heat flux that would cause an increase in fuel temperature.
(e) The increased fuel core temperatures generally would exceed safety margins and specifically would result in unacceptable swelling or bowing of fuel rods. During an accident, fuel rod swelling due to higher temperatures displaces cooling water and impedes insertion of control rods by that physical phenomenon of increased size. This could result in a significant increase in the possibility and/or consequences of an accident.
(f) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
("NEPA") imposes the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for this proposed major federal action.
1 (g) A NEPA cost-benefit analysis would probably I establish that the preferred solution to the problem of pressurized thermal shock (PTV) and the impaired reactor pressure vessels could be better achieved by premature decommissioning or by derating the reactors power levels.
A full hearing is necessary to determine what, if any, percent of deration would achieve safe levels of oper-l ation?
- 7. Although the Commission did not so state, the Notice of Proposed Action in the October 7, 1983 Federal Register must arise under 10 CFR 2.105. If so, then the Commission a has already made a determination a hearing is not required; thus, according to it there is no significant safety hazard.
- 8. The Petitioners believe that the rushing through to issuance of license amendments without hearing on issues that are so important to safe nuclear power reactor operation, as these where higher fuel core temperatures are involved, is not only a disservice to members of the public whose lives, health and property may be adversely affected; but is also a dis-service to members of the Commissions Staff who have the awesome responsibility of regulating the operation of nuclear plants.
i' 9. Recently in the press, Congressman Edward J. Markey described the Commission as " lapdog" rather than a " watchdog" of the nuclear industry:
There's this coziness with the nuclear industry that's part of the problem, said Representative Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Interior Commit-tee's panel on Oversight and Investigations.
There's also an incompetence in the N.R.C. and a mind-set that operates on the assumption that nuclear power is inherently safe. All these have combined to turn the Commission into a lapdog rather than a watch dog.
The New York Times, pp. 1, 22, Sunday, October 16, 1983. In the N.Y. Times article, the Commission is reported to be applying undue pressures on its Staff for licensing approvals.
- 9. The Commission has known of the utility company's i plan to change technical specifications and use the new fuel design since January 1983. It received the utility company's license amendment request June 3, 1983 with a request the amendment be available for use on December 1, 1983 refueling Unit 4. Yet notice was first given of the proposed action to the public on October 7, 1983. This is stampeding a change that involves a serious significant hazard consideration and requires technical scrutiny by the Commission's staff regula-tors and administrative law judges in a hearing process in which adverse evidence and views may be presented. If the Commission permits, it deserves the epitaph " lapdog - not we.tchdog."
- 10. The petition for leave to intervene should be granted. The issues raised concerning issuance of facility operating license DPR-31 and DPR-41 to the Turkey Point
1 Nuclear Power Plants Nos. 3 and 4 owned by the Florida Power
. and Light Company should be assigned to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for' review in a formal hearing process before there can be issuance of any license amendments.
- 11. Petitioners have submitted comments in response to the same notice issued by the Commission [48 Fed. Reg. 45862 (Oct. 7, 1983)]. A copy of those comments are appended to this Request and Petition and, by this reference, incorporated herein.
Respectfully submitted, l
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 l
l l
l 1
I DOCKETED USNRC l November 4, 1983 l
'83 NOV -7 M1 d2 :
Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission GFFICE OF SECUM United States Nuclear Regulatory 00CKEimG a.SERVit.i.
)
Commission BRANCH 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 DPRL41 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).
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, i s s u e d to Florida Power and Light Company for the operatio;. 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-i 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
' being, if done, improper and unlawful informal agency action reviewable in the federal district courts. [See Lorion d/b/a Center for Nuclear Responsibility v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss. ion, 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 ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITON TO INTERVENE
. - = - - -aw.+ -y7 *-n---g et P y 8--- --
1 .
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 Cominission'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
. . , . - - . - . --.. . - - - ..-.~.. - .-.,.. . - - ..
sensitive metropoliter areas in the . country. The Commission 1
has. blithely announced that, in a case of first impression involving one -of the most Lerious operating ' problems identi-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 partfes rights the Atomic - Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other federal laws and regulations sought to guarantee.
Ms. Lorion and the Center vish to participate in a meaningful hearing before 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. (See, e.g., Hodder v. NRC, ALAB-335, 3
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 B limit from 1.55 to 1.62;
- 2. Increase the total peaking factor FQ 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 the old steam generators to allow for operation with tubes plugged in excess of five (5) percent.
The Commission improperly 1.roposes 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, chat
^
"the increase in the hot channel FAR limit and the total
- 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-ence, 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 l
n -
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,
,. m I /
h Martin H. Hodder 1131 N.E. 86th Street Mir.mi, Florida 33138 Tel. 305-751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc. and Joette Lorion l
- .- . . - - . - . . . -,. . . - . - - - , - - . - . - . . .. ..- - . _ . ..-.. .-.