ML20127J348
| ML20127J348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Monticello, Dresden, Nine Mile Point, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Quad Cities |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1973 |
| From: | Grant G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211190296 | |
| Download: ML20127J348 (6) | |
Text
$-l W l,cta V 9
t 7
-- c %,A b
UlllTED STATES Of /.ftEP.lCA h.
4 l
AT0ltlC EllERGY C0ll:115510ll C0lilll 5Sl0NERS:
f- (~' f$
Dixy Lcc Ray, Chairman Clarence E. Larson niilllan 0. Doub llililem C. Kriegsnan t
PETITION FOR DEPATl"G OF CERTAlli
)
Dochet Hos. 50-219,50-237l50-249, B0lllllG WATER REACTORS
)
50-254, 50.-265, E0-220, 50-245, 50-263,150-253
\\
liElt0RAfl0Ull All0 ORDER 0n July 12, 1973, F.riends of the Ear.th filed a petition seeking, Inter alla, cmercency derating of nine nuclear power plants.
By notice in the Federal P.colster dated July 24,1973 (38 F.R. 19355), the Cc mission re-quest cd cements on the petiticn by July'31,1973, frem th'c offccted licensees, the regulatory staf f, and 'or.y other interested persons.
Comments were received f rorn the retltioners, the regulatory staf f, the Ce'ncral Electric Cenpany, llorthern States Pcwcr Company, Niagare l'chdek
, Power Corporation, Pos ton Edi son Company, Commchaealth Edison Co. pony, llaroo Jenes, John Pringle,'and a censolidated submission by Connecticut Light and Pc.rcr Cenpany,liartford Electric Light Cempany,l!cstcrn liassa-chusettsElectric.Cerpeny,andflillst$nePointCcopony.1/
t' The nine fccilitics in issue were all lic:nsed between Ap.ril 1969 and June 1972, af ter preccedings during which compilence _ulth applicable; Cen-mission regulaticns was demonstrated, including Inter alia, the interim-4 Acceptance Critorie for Ettergency Core Cooling Systems. '(36 F.R. 12247; l/
Soen ec
- ntr., includins :etit ler,er's, uere e. ailed, and arriv:.d
- rieir
'the perlod, August 1 - 6 ~.
s 9211190296 730806 PDR' ADOCK 05000263-0 PDR u
~
"e
~)
7 8
.g 2
D 36 f.R. 2h082.)2/
in 1972., staff review of nther fac.111 tics rev,c a l e d the phenomenon ci "fuci densification," and determined that further :tudy was necessary to determine he.i this matter might affect existing cnd proposed operating facilitics.
The progress of this study with respect to the nine facilitics here in issue is surdarized in the affidavit of Hr. Victor Stello, attached as Appendix A to the.staf f's co=ents.
As Mr. Stello indic5tes, the staff in late 1972 requested the licensees to submit analyses and data necessary to determlnc the ef fects of fuel dens t-fication en norr al plant operation, operation during various plant noneuvers and transients, and postula'ted accident situations, including design bcsis loss of ccolant accidents.
In their responding submissiens, each of t:a
.'p licensecs referenced the General Electri,c Ccepony report !!ED!t-10735, "Dcosification Ccnsiderations in 8tR fuel Design ond Perfornance",
Decer.ber 1972.
The staf f has been reviewing this report and, s'ince
' December 1972, five additional supplemunts to that report have been sub-m.Itted by General Electric Company in response to qccsticns raised by the
.f.
staff as a result of its revicw.
The latest of these supple. Tents.-as s,
subaltted in July 1973 Following its review of all these submissions, the staff has neu re-quested that cach of the licenscos for these facilitics furnish additienal
- analyses regarding calculcted peak cladding temperatercs during postul m d 2/
For plants already in operation at the time the IAC were adopted, a sub-sequent de castrstion of cenpliance was made.
~
O m,
e.
f
,i
)
t P
3 i
n loss-of-coolant accidents, applying r cdl.ftcotions that have been recor endsd h
by the staf f to the densif,1 cation calculational.redels previously sulaitted.
l The staff has requested that these analyscs be submitted within thirty days from the date of the letters, or by about August' 15, 1973, and that prcposed 1
operating limitations be included along with the analyses where the f
enalyses indicate,that changes in operating conditions are necessary to maintain required safety rnorgins.
The staff states titat review of the Information subnitted by the licensees for the nine plants will be cca-pictedonorbeforeSeptember4,1973 The submissions by the respondents reflect an apparent dispute c:.n-O corning the details of the scope of the Commission's' interim Acceptance Criteria.M Looking through form to the substance of the, dispute, the real questien posed by the request far emergency relief -- and the cnly matter which we neu address'-- Is whether continued operatic,n of the
' plants at full pcuer, periding imminent completien of staf f revicu, pt:es undue risk to p6blic health and safety.
On this record we find that i.t' v.
(
does not.
~~
Petitioner's request rolled solely on two affidavits of ltr. Victor Stello, P.cDuit:tery Staf f Assistant Director for P.eactor Safety, filed in
~
a licensing proceeding not involving the sub, ject plants.
Petitioner views
, these Stello af fic'avits as demonstrating that beccuse of the ef fccts ci fuct densi ficat ion, th.: Co:'miss ion's s taf f cannot conclude that the niac F
~
3/
Whether t!. ele Criteria shculd be retained or nedified is the subj
.t c.f exhco.tive ru h -*
'ing h2arir". row cer:c l e.'s.:.
A 0 :: i '. i rm.c r.
,3 ro r.t. i v e r e co rt" t!.cre assenaled is anticij'ated by :h" (nd of thi?.
nr.
o-t-
o l
~
s D
k
\\l
\\
plant,s ccmply with the Ccrnission's Inter'im Acceptence Criterla for I
..\\
Emergency Core cooling Systems, in its respense, supported by two I
i i
affidavits, including a new one of lir. Stello, the staff argued that fuel densification, like several other raatters relating to ECCS systcms
't
'and loss of, coolant accidents, is not covered.by the Interin Criteria, l
and, in any event, the separate treatt ent of the matter does not pre-clude a conclusion as to safety of operation pending the imminent ccm-piction of the staf f revica.
Whatever the ultimate resolution of,the dispute regarding the detailed scope of the Interim Acceptance Critoria, the present rccord, in cur vic./,
O fals for short of establishing either nonecmpliance with them, or tbc l
need for crcrgency relief.
The manufceturer of the e;uipncnt argues that,
in its vieu, the matter of fuel densification is circady accounted for, and that there is plainly no dcnger to public health and safety.h/
I n, i t s subn,ii s s i en, the staff points out that cach of the subject facilitics has been found to ccr. ply with the Interin Acceptsace Criteria (IAC); the i5af f further states that during the limited period needed to ccepletc its review of the fuel densi ficction matter (i.e., by Septe.Ther 4, Ic73), cperat icn of the facilities at their present pe..'er levels pre'ents no undue risk to public s
health cod scfety, in light of the extrc:aly icw likelihood of a sev r ee loss of coolant eccident in cny of the nine plants -- less than one in a rillica --
F b
The two scrbers of the public to recpend to the Fc-urni fpc,7is'or.
ice i
piso orfose petit ioner!s requ:s t.
6 4
.ao. l
-e.
-,..e
t l
i i
-5 p
5 end the subst.,nti.,1 cafety margine inherent in the IAC. / The two stello l
affidavits relled upon by, petitioner, and the th rd StcIlo affidavit filed I
l In the instant proceeding, censistently so state.
The petitioner, it should be emphasized, relles solely on the Stc11o affidavits and makes r.o showing of danger to public health and safety.
Accerdingly, there is no I
basis for a conclusion,en presently availableilnformation,that operation of the plants at' present power levels for the brief period pending cem-piction of staf f,revleu presents unduc' risk to public health and safety or contravenes regulaticns.
, j liindful of our priraary responsibility to safeguard the public interest, our present denial of emergency relief,is without prejudice to the ri;5t of. petitioner (or any other 1.nterestad r.cnber of the public) to submit'any additional technical evidence in written form, bearing upon the need for cmcrgency derating to protect pubile health and safety.
The Cornissten s
\\ fill prceptly review any such subraissions and take whatever'acticn rey be
/-
pppropriate'.
z.
bl In cc.TT.ents flied in respense to the Ccrnissien's Fedarcl Reci n er notice, petiticners a rgue that Supple?cnt !!c. I to the stafi's l
Safety Evaluatica of the Ccocer !!cc!cor Station (Occket flo. 50-U E) supports their ccrating recues t.
Uc disagree.
Contrary to peti-t' a t cccucent - decs not contain a recouranda t ica tioncr's statem nt, c
for derating cf cny kind.
Rathar, the staf f recites the history of Its fuct densification reviea of GE-designed facilitics,. and s ctes that if final revicw is not cc nleted prior to fuel loading, "c:n-sideratica uill be given to licensing at partial _po..er... until the issue is fully resolved."
(p. 8) 1 e
i t
i p
(, :
I,!.
'\\
Finally, I t should be er:phasized that this ruling relates only to the 1
i brief pericd until the staff concludes its fuel'densification revicw.
The i
Commission hereby orc'crs the licensecs for these nine plants to submit all Information al. ready requested so that it is roccivcd by the staf f on c>r before August 15, 1973 l'o delays will.be tolerated.
The staff is directed I
to complete its review and take appropriate cction -- Including cny derating which may be wccranted -- on or before September 4,1973 Af ter such cction
'Is effcetuated, apprcpriate opportunity for hearings will be offered.
The, request for crergency relief is denied.
In all other respects, ruling en the petition is deferred pending the staff actions which will O.
occiir on September 4,1973 It is so ORDECED.
By t he C c,1 s s i n\\.
y
,,y
- W w#
s D
Q
~,
lUQ1'?]h / D i:or9n n. arcnt -
i
)
i Acti g Secretarf of the C4rmissien 4
Dated at Germante.en, Marylcnd thl's N day of August, 1973 1
e y
k a
e