ML20246H825
| ML20246H825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Saporito T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246H829 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909010382 | |
| Download: ML20246H825 (5) | |
Text
_ - -
1.
pwcauq
., g *.,
fo UNITED STATES g
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e-n 7'
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
,,,,,,o!
August 16, 1989 l.
Mr~ Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
i 1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 33458
Dear Mr. Saporito:
This is in response to your Petition filed on July 5, 1989, with the Executive Director for Operations.
In your Petition, you request that action be taken to cause the immediate cold shutdown of Crystal River Unit 3 until the facility can be operated in full compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 4 (GDC-4).
As grounds for your request, you allege that Florida Power Corporation has installed modifications to safety related equip-ment which do not appear to be embraced within the high energy line break (HELB) requirements accepted by the NRC.
You state that there "is reasonable doubt that the granting of the exemption [to GDC-4] will [not] present undue risk to public health and saf w " because:
(1) the likelihood'of a HELB which could affect redundant safety e,tems required to mitigate that break is not
" reasonably low enough," (2) the contribution of seismic loads to the potential for HELBs was not appropriately considered, (3) reasonable doubt exists that existing manual capability to initiate safety functions may remain protected against a HELB, and (4) if a HELB were to occur, protection of the health and safety of the public could not be assured beyond a reasonable doubt because:
(a) the probability of a HELB which could affect public health and safety cannot be ccepletely discounted and (b) there is reasonable doubt that no loss of safety futction would occur and that the facility could be safely shut down.
You also assert that it appears that the Commission has reached beyond its authority in granting the licensee an exemption since it may not be authorized by law "because it presents an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is not consistent with the common defense and security." Finally, you allege that the Commission erred in determining that special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR 650.12(a)(2)(v), are present justifying the exemption because subsections (a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) appear not to have been met by the licensee and, therefore, the NRC did not grant the exemption pursuant to the " full and complete consideration of 10 CFR 50.12 in its entirety."
Your Petition has been referred to me for a response.
We have reviewed your Petition and find that you have presented no specific facts in support of your allegations, nor raised any new information which has not previously been considered during the staff's review of the licensee's application for exemption dated December 16, 1988.
The exemption (54 FR 24775, June 9, 1989) was issued on June 5,1989, and is enclosed for your information.
The exemption states the following and presents appropriate supporting information:
l l
The likelihood of a HELB not previously analyzed and protected against in an area which could affect redundant safety systems is low.
The contribution of seismic loads to the potential for HELBs in the stress analyses appears to be overstated because the facility is located in a
{
seismically inactive area.
[fhO$h
[
P 7
L ___
'.-l h
~,
Mr. Thomas J. Saporito. Jr. August 16, 1989 The original manual capability to initiate safety functions should,.in general, remain protected against a HELB.
Imposition of other criteria result in reduced likelihood that a HELB can cause-loss of safety function.
In the event of a HELB, decay heat could be removed.
In the exemption, the NRC staff concludes that:
(1) The probability of a HELB which could affect public health and safety is low, and (2) In the event of a HELB, it is likely that no loss of safety function would occur and that the facility could be safely shut down.
In determining that special circumstances were present justifying the exemption, the Commission determined that the requirements of 10 CFR 550.12(a)(2)(v) (temporary relief and good faith efforts) were met.
As stated above, no specific facts nor new information have been provided in the Petition which would warrant reconsideration of the staff's conclusions in the exemption.
Accordingly, it is not appropriate to consider the Petition pursuant to 10 CFR $2.206.
That regulation requires that the Petition " set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station. Units 1 and 2), DD 85-11, 22 NRC 149, 154 (1985).
Since you have not set forth the factual basis for your request with the requisite specificity, further action need not be taken on your request.
Furthermore, each of the issues, raised in the Petition was considered-and addressed in granting the exemption, as described above.
For this reason also, further action with regard to these issues is not warranted.
Nevertheless, two points warrant clarification with regard to certain statements made in your Petition.
First, you allege that neither "the licensee nor the NRC staff can assure beyond a reasonable doubt that the health and safety of the public will in protected during the occurrence of a HELB." The standard asserted in your Petition of assurar.ce "beyond a reasonable doubt" is erroneous.
The statutory standard which governs the Commission's issuance of operating licenses for production end utilization facilities is found in Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Specifically, the Commission must find that the operation of a facility must provide adequate protection g the health
[
and safety of the public.
This standard, with judicial sanction, - has been carried over into the regulations in 10 CFR 550.57(a)(3)(i), which requires l
-1/
Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union, 367 U.S. 396, 407 (1961).
{,.
Mr. Thomas J. ~ Saporito, Jr. August 16, 1989 that there must be reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public. This same standard of reaconable assurance applies to the issuance of exemptions to the regulations and was determi.vd to have been met in this case. Second, with regard to your assertion that the Commission erred in granting the exemption because 10 CFR $50.12(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) appear not.to have been met and, therefore, the NRC did not grant the exemption pursuant to the " full and complete consideration of.10 CFR 50.12 in its entirety," 10 CFR' $50.12(a)(2) specifically provides that special circumstances are present whenever any one of the subparagraphs (1 vi) are met.
In this instance, the requirements of subsection (v) were met, (i.e., temporary relief.
from the regulation and good faith efforts to comply with the regulation on the part of the licensee).
Based on the above, I have concluded that you have presented no facts or other new information which has not already been considered and addressed by the staff in the issuance of the referenced exemption. Therefore, there is no basis to take action to cause the cold shutdown of Crystal River Unit 3.
Sincerely, Original signed by James H.Sniezek Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page Florida Power Corporation
[ GREEN TICKET 0004625]
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE LA: PDII-2 PM-D:
4-2 Tech Ed.
AD:0RP
. i[
- DMiller H 1 er d
HB zw
- RSanders
- GLainas S
0 [ga 08/03/89
/h/8
/ 0 / y/89 08/3f89 08/07/89
/89 h
OGC P:
b RR JPj/;4/89 08/f89 8///89 ow
/ezek ur ey 08// /89 s
Crn a } Mk
DISTRIBUTION FOR GREEN TICKET 0004625 DATED:
August 16, 1989
^?Ncket"F110(50-302);
GPA/PA NRC'& LocaT PDRs" "
DMossburg, PMAS (EDO #0004625)
EDO #0004625 PDII-2 Reading EDO Readir.g JTaylor EDO TMurley/JSniezek CCater, SECY JPartlow MMalsch, OGC SVarga LChandler Glainas ASLAB l
HBerkow ASLBP l
HSilver ACRS(10)
MSinkule, RII DMiller i
I I
l I
i l
l CFoi
'. i l
I
)
l' I
t.
-r --
1.
Mr. Thomas J. 'Saporito, Jr.
Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant cc:
Mr. A. H. Stephens State Planning and Development General Counsel Clearinghouse Florida Power Corporation Office of Planning and Budget MAC - A50 Executive Office _of the Governor P.:0. Box 14042 The Capitol Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Tallahassee, Florido 32301 Mr. P. F. McKee, Director Chairman Nuclear Plant Operations Board of County Commissioners Florida Power Corporation Citrus County P. O. Box 219-NA-2C 110 North Apopka Avenue Crystal River, Florida 32629 Inverness, Florida 32650 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Mr. Rolf C. Widell, Director Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Operations Site Support Nuclear Power Generation Division Florida Power Corporation 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 P.O. Box 219-NA-21 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Crystal River, Florida 32629 Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Gary L. Boldt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President, Nuclear Production 15760 West Powerline Street Florida Power Corporation Crystal River, Florida 32629 P. O. Box 219-SA-2C Crystal River, Florida 32629 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. W. S. Wilgus 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Vice President, Nuclear Operations Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Florida Power Corporation ATTN:
Manager, Nuclear Operations Mr. Jacob Daniel Nash Licensing Office of Radiation Control P.O. Box 219-NA-21 Department of Health and Crystal River, Florida 32629 Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
___