ML20114F728
| ML20114F728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1972 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210130281 | |
| Download: ML20114F728 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_. - _ _ - - ) L.. A': ) s ', H ;) 4 .'.I'!' /<. ,1 nf (l 0. I b U g...,, 1 h. h., ? r O ' ', ' C -.n. } GT Files .!~ g UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON 20$45 Date March 13, 1972 NOTE IVR TE COMMISSIONERS Ret CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO, (Indian Point #2) Docket No 50-247 The attached filing is for ym information. The matter is preaently before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. W. 3. McCool oeeretary of the Cct:=1ssion Attachment e t m 9210130281 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR i l
e 'N.. _6{AN T ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION C ) ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD: Algie A. Wells, Chairman lll3 O h' \\ ( Dr. John H. Buck N Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles - [' ,,2
- Q' '
i ,R /;S 't,. CAL. - ls ' d. IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. (INDIAN POINT #2) DOCKET NO. 50-247 ) ) tiEMORANDUM 4 On December 7,1971, the Atomic Safety and Licensi ng Board in this operating-license proceeuing certified two question both of which relate to the Commission's Interi s-to the Appeal Board, m Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water P ower Reactors.I[ (Interim Criteria). Brie fs on these questions were submit ted u d 1972, by the applicant, n er date of Janaary 11, the regulatory staf f, and the Clt Izens Com it for Protection of m tee the Environment ~(CCPE), an intervenor. lespons ive briefs were submitted on January 21, 1972 , by the applicant and intervenor. intervenor on January 24, 1972, additionall The y filed a supplement reply brief, and tne applicant answered th t to its a supplement by letter January 31, 1972. dated 1/ 36 F.R. 12247- (June 29,1971). ~ - _,- ~ 'y i ) v j u!
1. 9 e 7 The Appeal Board has carefully reviewed.the filings of. the parties and, for the reasons hereinaf ter described, has concluded that: (1)_ The issuance of the Commission's interim Cri'eria complied with applicaole statutory standards; and, accordingly, as long as they remain. 1 in ef fect,- the Criteria represent the' applicable guidance for licensing i s boards in evaluating the adequacy of an emergency core cooling system (ECCS), (2) Acceptance of the West inghouse 'eva lua t ion model under Sec t ion IV.B of the Interim Criteria obviates the need for further consideration by a licensing board of fuel ' clad _- swelling and _ rupture, and at tendant flow i i channel blockage, in evaluating the adequacy of a proposed -ECCS. ] As background to our. discussion of the bases for these conclusions, and to eliminate a misunderstanding which may exist, a brief comment on the standards on which we have predicated our analysis' of the certified quest ions is in order. The 'intervenor has-asserted t hat the Licensing Board "has dete rmiaed" that there--is a " substantial auestion presented on i I - the record as to the validi ty of a challenged regulat ion", within the scope of the doctrine set forth in the Commission's Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. Menorandum.2/ In our view, onlyl the.fi rst question certified.can be t _ construed as involving :the validity-of a Commission regulation and, as to 1 tnat que s t i on, we do no t find-the elements requi red by the so called Calvert-Cliffs-do c t r i ne.- Among other missing: elements is the absence of a finding -1/ i n t ne Ma t t e r o f - Ba l t i mo re Ga s & E l ec t r i c Comoa ny (Calvert Cliffs Nuc lear Powe r Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Commission Memorandum dated August 8,-1969. 1 r ,,,-,-,,e ---w ~
i i 3 4 1 by thef Board of.the existence _ of a subs tant ial-Quest ion, Nevertheless, 4 z while t he -basi s of t he ques t ion i s somewha t obscure, we-have dec ideo, in order to avoid delay by procedural-technicali t ies, ~ to igive the. Board auidance by answering the question in the terms we believe'I t was intended. 1 1 The first cert i fied quest ion' reads as-follows: "Is there reliable,L probative and substant'lal evidence, re flected in the policy statement on emergency. core _ cooling lsys tem cri teria,1 l wi thin = the requirements of the Administ rative Procedure Act which governs Atomic Energy l Commission _act ion, to just i fy the immediate ef fectiveness of thosencriteria without the receipt of evidence or cuanent f rom the public?"- i The words "... reliable, probative and substant ial evidence..." as used in the formulation of this. question have puzzled us. From our. l analysis of the Licensing Board's statements as to its reasons for the cert i ficat ion, however, we believe that the - Licensingf Boa rd is simply request ing our views as to whether the Commi ssl ion _ complied wi th' applicable i statutory requirements in issuing an immediately effective ruie~without-7 prior notice 1and opportunity for public comment. We conclude that the 1-commission did so. In that connection, there appears to be in the certified j question an assumption that immediate ef fect iveness of the regulat ion mus t i be justified by " reliable, probative and. substantial evidence". ' We~ find s-su:b_ an assumpt ion to _ be unj ust i fied. Issuance of the-Criteria is governed by the rulemaking provisions of. i 'Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended,L 5-U. S c. 553 i Although that Section generally requires a notice of proposed rulemaking 4 t 2 + w u y-e yw .g g yy9 y, v .,4oi +w-., g-mer*,-5,a+ w- - - - e % a-, ,y+++w+
~ 1; j i ^ L f .snd public procedures thereon as a requisite to rulemaking, except ions are provided for certain types of rules. (not here re levant i and al so "waen the agency for good cause finds (and ' Incorporates the finding and a brief statenent of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are imoracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." (5 U.S.C. B 553(b)(B).) S imi l a r l y', the Adminis trat ive Procedure Act - generally requi res pub- ? lication of a substantive rule at least 30 days before i ts effective cate i but provides exceptions for certain types of. rules (not here relevant) or i "as otherwi se provided by - the agency for good cause-found and published with the rule." (5 U. S.C ~. 553 (d) (3). ) j The Commission's June 29, 1971, notice outlined the history of studies by the AEC and i ndustry of ECCS design considerations,'and noted that much i new in formation had recent ly become available (including, speci fically, that resulting from the experiments in the LOFT Semiscale Blowdown System at t the Nat ional Reactor Test ing Station in.ldaho which showed deviat ions f rom the predictions of the codes,then in use). The notice also explained the AEC's emphasis on quality assurance an'd use of postulated improbable accidents, 4 ~ and that protection against a highly unlikely Icss-of-coolant accident had long'bcen an essential part of the defense-in-depth concept of assuring-safe ty of nuc lea r powe r plants. The notice further stated that, as a result of the new informat ion'available, the Commission-had reviewed and, as a result, reevaluated the basis previously used for accepting ECCS designs fur current types of light-water reactors. i t then concluded: I i = t -T-
- e a----.mp+
wrg e- ,w----p-.m., w gg. -4 y r+ y-sr-ga. M %-g 9 esh 2-ur %D-h- w g: -4e'-w to ye sp 3
5 "In view of - t he-public health and safety considerations discussed above, the Commiss ion has-- found that the interim acceptance criteria contained lherein should be promulgated without delay, that notice of proposed =lssuance_and publicz procedure thereon are impracticable,'and that good _cause exists for making the. statenent of policy ef fective upon publication in the Federal Reoister." in essence. the Commission by this notice found that application-of the revised Interim Criteria, which constituted a tightening of - { safety requi rements _not' only for facilities involved in pendlog or f ut ure licensing proceedings but also for operating-facilities, was necessary in the-interest of the public health and safety, and that delay would compromise the public health and -safety. This notice, in our opinion was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 5 553(b)(B) for a finding of " good cause" and brief statement of reasons for dispensing with notice of proposed rulemaking and public procedures thereon,- and the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 6 553(d)(3) for a finding of " good cause" for immediate effectiveness of the rule.}/ In this connec-tion, we note that the.Conmission, in the rulemaking notice, gave oppor-tunity for additional comments to be submit ted, and is also engage'd in extensive additional public rulemaking procedures on this subject.$/ 3/ Buckeye Cablevision. Inc. v. ' F.C.C., -387 F.2d 220 (D.C. C i r.- 1967), at p. 228, fn. 34; Harry H. Price & Son. Inc. v. Hardin, 299 F. Supp. 557. (N.D. Texas 1969); Allegheny Ai rlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, 132 F. Supp.' 871 (E. D. N. Y. 1955). b/ Cf. Pent-R-Books, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 328 F. Supp. 297, 312 (E. D. N. Y. 1971).
1 5. i "In view of the public health and safety considerations discussed above, the Commission has found that the interim acceptance criteria contained herein should be promulgated without delay, that notice-of. proposed issuance and public procedure thereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making the statenent of policy ef fective upon publicat ion in the Fede ral Regi ster." In essence, the Commission by this notice found that application 3 i of the revised Interim Criteria, which' constituted a tightening of safety requirements not only for facilities involved in pending or i future licensing proceedings but also for operating f acilities, was necessary in the interest of the public health and safety, and that delay would compromise the public health and safety, This-notice, in i our opinion was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of-5 U.S.C. 9 553(b)(B) for a finding of " good cause" and brief statement of reasons for dispensing with notice of proposed rulemaking and public procedures f thereon, and the requirenents of 5 U.S.C. 5 553(d)(3) for a finding of 4 " good cause" for immediate ef fectiveness of the rule.}/ In this connec-tion, we note that the Commission, in the rulemaking notice, gave oppor-tunity for additional comments to be submitted, and is also engaged. in i extensive additional public rulemaking procedures on this subject.4/ 1. I 3/ Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.
- v. F.C.C., 387 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1967),
at p. 228, fn, 34; Harry H. Price 6-Son. Inc. v. Hardin, 299 F. Supp. 557 (N.D. Texas 1969); Allegheny Ai rl ines v. Village of Cedarhurst, ]' 132 F. Supp. 871-(E.D. N.Y. 1955). N/ Cf. Pent-R-Books, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 328 F. Supp. 297, 312 2 j' (E. D. N. Y. 1971).
6 intervenor; int its briefs, has urged 1 at the Criteria be.found i 1 inva lid because "{n]o detailed s tatement of ' reasonb or disclosure of' 4 [ evidence upon which the criteria were based -was provided"' CCPE easons 3 that i "in reaching f ormal pos i t i ons adminis t rat ive.went ies mus t ? demonstrate that they have considered all the material f actnrs involved in a manner. free from prejudice, and on;that basis. the agency mus t produce an' art iculate and reasoned decis ion which relates it$ general. conclusions to the eVldrntiary j -record before it.... The extent of'the public record will' vary-f rom one si t uation to another, but it must certainly contain. ,a l l the material and docunents on which the og ency relled in il reach ing i t s. de te rmina t ion." (Emphasis-supplied)- in the first place, it is not clear to_ us whether these_ contentions relate to the substance of the rule, or to its adoption by:the Commission j. without public rulemaking proceedings and without at'icas'tJ30 days' notice, j Only the latter are included in the genera l ques tion ce rt ified to us, and we accordingly are limi ting our answer the reto. 4 i With respect to the ques tion of,the suf ficiency' of _the st at men't l t supporting immediate issuance wi thout public rulemaking proceedings,-we find, as we have previously indicated..that'the assumption that immediate effectiveness must be s upported by "reliab le, probat ive and subs tan t i al evidence, reflected in the policy s tatement" is unjus t i fied. While such 1,. evidence may be-requi red (to s upport-adjudicat ive de terminations,b or }_ determinations in proceedings such as comparative licensing hearings where - 2 1 e i' -5/ Pub li c Se rvi ce Commiss ion of New. York v. F.P.C., 436 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ; E.D. F. v. Hardin. 428 F 2d 1093 (D.C. Cir 1970); Medical Commi t tee f or Human Rights v. 5.E.C., 432 F.2d 659 (D.C. 1 Cir. 1970); E.D.F. v.. Rucke lshaus,. 439 F.2d 584 ~ (D.C. Ci r - 1971); e w s m __..,1-... .. ~.,.
4 7 mat ters of particular applicability are in Issue or other deter-minat ions where s uch evidence is requi red by statute.7/ it is not requi red t o mee t the si:mdard of a brie f s tatement of reasons required-to support the imnediate ef fectiveness of a regulation.8/ We are not, t therefore, requi red to decide whether the Commiss ion's June 29, 1971, not ice included " reliable, probat ive and subs tantial evidence" as ~ reasons for imnediate e f fect i venes s. it is only necessary to decide whether the-s tatement met the speci fic requi rements of the Adminis trative Procedure l Act. As stated earlier, we conclude that it did. il The second certified question reads as follows: "Does accept ance of the Wes t inghouse evaluat ion model unde r Section IV of the interim criteria without exception to the 6/ Grea ter Bos ton Televis ion Corp. F.C.C., 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. v. ~ Cir. 1970). ~7/ Moss v. C.A.B., 430 F.2d 891 (D.C. C i r. 1970) (hol ding - tha t criteria and procedures of the Federal Aviation Act had not been'follosed in a ratemaking proceeding). ~8/ See cases cited in footnote 3. We note, additionally, that courts. appear to have drawn a clear distinction between the findings based on the record which are required for adjudicative determinations, and the concise s tatement of reasons -required for rulemaking determinations. See, e.g., Amer ican Ai rlines, Inc.
- v. C.A.B..-
359 F.2d 624, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Courts have also dis tinguished between the findings requi red for formal rulemaking proceedings under 55 7 and 8 of the Adminis trative Procedure Act, and for informal rulemaking proceedings under h 4 Automotive Parts & Accessories ' Assoc., Inc. v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 330 (D.C. C i r. 1968)'. p
8 i i t reatnent of fuel clad' swelling and rupture and flow channel blockage signify that this phenomenen need not be considered further in evaluating the perfor~mance of : the emergency-core cooling systems for Westinghouse PWRs, or i s it intended that fuel clad swelling and~ rupture and' flow channel blockage shall be considered in depth on a case-by-case basis in determining whether there is compliance with Criterion 3 of Sect ion IV of the interim criteria?" We view this ques t ion, in contrast to the fi rs t ques t ion, as a for interpretation of the ECCS Interim Criteria. request The Licensing i Board, in essence, is inquiring whether acceptance of the Westinghouse evaluation model under Section-IV of the Criteria obviates-the necessity for considering fuel clad swelling and rupture and flow channel blockage in licensing proceedings involving Westinghouse PWR reas tors. We conclude 4 that it-does. At the outset, we note that the Interim Criteria were ef fective on June 29, 1971, and are appilcable both to facilities previously licensed and those licensed, or scheduled for-licensing Subsequent to that date.- Although~ designated as Interim Criteria, these rules are the ones which licensing boards are required to follow until they are superseded by a later issuance. The rulemaking hearing -in progress 2/ may result in modi-fication or in affirmation of the Interim Criteria.10/- Until a change is s/ 36 F.R. 22774 (November 30, 1971). 10/ if modification of the Criteria should resul t .in additional safety requirements being imposed on licensees, those licensees will, of course, be required to meet the modi fleo cri te ria. PRDC v. Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961); 10 CFR 6 50.109. ,ws-W 9 r t- =+ ++-' - e e -u-
r 4 9 e made, however, the Interim Criteria are to be applied in licensing proceedings, including this'one.ll/ The. Interim Criteria include ~ four general requirements (9 IV.A) to be used with the appropriate evaluation model (6 IV.8). If an ECCS reets these requirements, the Conmission has judged it to be acceptable.
- Thus, if the Etre
. tnis proceeding meets these Criteria, including conformity: 4 i wi th _ the evalua t ion node l, the ' icens ing. Board need gi ve no furthe r-con- } sideration to any of the aspects of the ECCS which are covered by the Criteria. i. One of the models which the criteria denotes as acceptable is the West inghouse eva luat ion made l (Appendix A, Part 3). This model incor-porates, by reference, seve ra l Wes t inghouse - reports which themsel ves rely upon certain nuclear codes. Those codes are, t he re fo re, incor-4 porated as elements of the interim Cri teria. As we construe the Criteria, the results of evaluation nodels, including the Westing-house model, c&a be used di rectly to demonstrate compliance wi th the fi rs t two Criteria and, with certain additional' information not covered T by-the interim Criteria.,can be used to show compliance with Interim Criterion 3, which concerns the amenability of the core geometry to cooling.}2/ 1 jjf in its supplenentary notice concerning the rulemaking hearing, the Commission pointed out tha t the hearing "wlli-not a f fect the orderly resolution, under the Commission's existing regulations of the matter of emergency core cooling, in hearings... pending before. atomic. safety and licensing boards." (37 F.R. 288, _289, Janua ry 8, 1972. ) 12/ Interim Criterion 3 assunes that the core geomet ry is not s igni fican t ly. disturbed by the blowdown forces-and it requires that the ECCS be capable of terminat ing the temperature t ransient following the blowdown while the core is still acenable to cooling and before - the cladding is so embrittled as to fail during or af te'r quenching. A 4 4 4 + ~ ~ - r wr e-r , = = - -*e-3 e, ,mm--p.r-. g-my-,- yae p. m euy., -w -y13,.n-r e,g 9r.. m y - V-3 p.se y +y-way v v.*- +i 9+-
10 The structure of the core, of course, must be such as 'to assure that a coolable geometry is maintained for the core at the end of the blowdown. + 3 The various forces operating during the course of the blowdown (without blow-down there is no need for the ECCS) are phenomena which must be considered in a di f ferent manner. -Accordingly, i f a. contention is made that-- the core l st ructure of any given reactor is inadequate to withstar.d blowdown forces.- this contention should be considered by. a licensing-board as a matter t separate and apart from the-ECCS.1)/ d The intervenor seeks to have the Licensing-Board consider on a case-1 by-case basis the phenomena of fueI ciad swe11Ing and rupture and fIow channel blockage, to ascertain whether Cri terion 3. (concerning the amen-ability of the core geometry to cooling) has been satisfied. Intervenor reasons that the Westinghouse mdel calculates peak rod. temperatures wi thout regard to flow blockage; that flow blockage will increase peak clad tempera-i ture; and that accordingly the temperature of 23000 F. specified by Cri terion 1 (wbich it views as an " upper temperature lim!t" the meeting of which is ' requisite to satisfy Criterion 3 as well as Crl;erion 1) may be exceeded in certain ci rcumstances. Intervenor alternatively asserts that ~ red swelling and bursting is an important source of distortion of core geometry and, since it is not included in the Westinghouse model, must be evaluated to show compliance: with Cri terir.n 3 i M/ Similarly under interim Crite,rion 4 the evaluation mdels for Pressurized Water Reactors and Boiling Water Reactors require that the calculation of the d_ecay heat be based on the proposed ANS standard plus 20% but do not-specify any particular method for removing this heat. If a contention 3 is made in any given reactor licensing hearing concerning the method of after-heat removal, this also should be considered by the licensing board.
~ 4 J 11 4 1 The 2300* F. requi remen t of C ri te rion 1 is, of course, not fan i absolute maximum but a standard to be satisfied under speci fied, cal-culated condi t ions. For the Wes tinghouse model, under applicable nuclear codes, f ull flow of coolant is assumed. Under this condition of full fl ow the 2300'F. limit will not be exceeded. In. establishing i the evaluation nodel for Westinghouse reactors, the Commission had 4 before It data from.the FLECHTdI/ experiments which indicated the probability that some fuel clad mel ting and rupture would occur, thera-by causing some c.hannel blockage. However, the same experiments indicated that the cladding temperature would not be raised much, if any, by the swelling and partial-blockage. That experimental data reinforces 4 our conclus ion that in accepting the Westinghouse evaluation model with full cooling flow for use with the Inte rim C ri teria, the Commis-sion intended to obviate the need for further case-by-case considera- } tion by a licensing board of the phenomena of.fuelfclad swelling 1 I 14/ FLECHT refers to the Full Length Emergency Core Heat Transfer experiments performed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (! under contract to the AEC. See Westinghouse Electric Corp., PWR FLECHT Final Reoort, WCAP-7665 -( April 1971). I J e 4 -,a ,r a m a-m,,- m
p 19 and rupture, and attendant. flow channel blockage,.In evaluatin'g_the adequacy of an ECCS.15] _ Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we ' conclude that -the Licensing-Board need not receive' or consider test imony on these - phenomena.' -- By the Atomic Safety and Licensing -Appeal ~. Board 1 William L. Woodard: - Executive Secretary Dated: O ~M {J5_/. intervenor addi tionally asserts that the Interim Criteria did not - supersede the more - general-requi rements of-- 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A -{ . (" General Des ign Cri teria for Nuclear-_ Power Plants") ; ;that,. Inl orde r to determine - compliance:wi th Cri terion 35,-_I t L is l' relevant" toL inves-a tigate the ef fect-of rod swelling an(burstingLand flow blockage;-and that Criterion 35 " requires ~ the analysis.'of.. rod swelling and bursting and flow blockage which lwe urge' in _ this proceeding." Criterion: 35_is, of course, a general guideline which incorporates performance -specifl-cations but does not defineJ the manner in 'which - an - appl icant: mus t - demonstrate compliance with_those-specifications. It certainly:-does not preclude the Commi ss ion. f rom-' defining on a ' generic basis _ the-standards which 'an. applicant must meet.. in order to satisfy ' the requi re~- ments of-the. General ' Design Cri teria. We agree.with CCPE's assertion that Criterion 35 -Is still in ef fect. but' find that adequate compliance with at least one aspect of:that Criterion will'have taken place.--if~an- ~ ECCS ls shown to conform to the-~lnterim Criteria,yincluding the evalua-tion model. A case-by-case evaluation of the mechanical effects of. blowdown forces and the _long-term heat removal capability should be consldered by a 1icensing board if content'lons concerning these_ items are-raised, as we have -indicated in the -text of this Memorandum. _3}}