NUREG/CR-4891, Forwards Fr Notice on Denial of Committee to Bridge the Gap Petition & NUREG/CR-4891 in Final Form.W/O NUREG

Forwards Fr Notice on Denial of Committee to Bridge the Gap Petition & NUREG/CR-4891 in Final Form.W/O NUREG

ML20235Z256
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/13/1987
From:	Michaels T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Schweizer D BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-4891 NUDOCS 8710210050
Download: ML20235Z256 (8)

Text

n e

.'.r)

" ' ' ~

s

'31 l:~

. ; 0ctober;13 fl987 4

( ~

^

m 9(

.y (

o I' '

..DP. Donald H. Schweizer

'1

.Brookhaven Nation 31' Laboratory Associated Universities, Inc.

Department.;of Nuclear Energy-BLDG 830

/

N.%

. g' LUpton,-Long Island, New York 1i973

,,4 DearDoni

.,2 %,,,d 54 N

1. ' j

%g Enc 3cled for four informtiuh is the Federal Register Notice on the denial of.

~

Ge CBG petitta (52 FR 3732, October 6 1987) and a copy of your report,,

1 l.

- 'NUREG/CR-4891, in its' final. form.

I would like to take 'tMr apoortunity to:thank' you. for your, contribution to L

this; effort. 'Your findings mi conclusions on Wigner energy storage and'..

release, and graphite burning, pruiMed the basis in large measure, for. ths-denial of the petition.

I look forwar'd to working with you a pin in the future.

l or'iginal signed by'-

]

Theodore.S.' Michsels, Senior Project Manager

)

s

' Standardization aM Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects'III, IV, j

y,'N,%

L V.and Special. Projects

-l j

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatfom,2 i~

J

~ __

DISTRIBUTTONI"W' -

)

\\CentrahUledIj

'N

~1 NRC & Local PDR N~

PD5NP Reading

~.

l TMichaels

~1 EHylton

)

L LRubenstein l

FDSNP/M PDSNP TMichaels LRubenstein 10//g/87 10//$/87 0.

]

6 L

} Al-4" i.

. W [6?,-

/l /

4

/

i r

8710210050 871013 f)

PDR TOPRP EXIDNL y-3 C

PDR i

I y

_. - _ = - _ _ _

ys uo<i 4

UNITED STATES j

,pl. ' -

g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

{

I 4

y,

.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 October 13, 1987 Dr. Ocnald H. Schwei:'er i

Brockhaven N6tfonal Laboratory Associated Universities;, Inc.

Department of Nuclear Energy-BLOG 830 Upton, Long Island, New York 11973

Dear Don:

f '%._..,'

dmo;ed for your information is the Federal Register Notice on the denial of the CBG petition (52 FR 3732, October 6,1987) ar.d a copy of your report, NUREG/CR-4891, in fts final form, I would like tu take this opportuirity to thank you for your contribution to i

this effort. Your findings and conclusens on igner energy storage and release, ar.d graphite burning, provided the basis in large measure, for the rierial of the petition.

I look fornrd to working with yot, ageir,in the future.

,. Az.,,,

b)' h

^

Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

..s,

a4

'h.

As4

'*%g, J

l 1

-_.~~-___-n

.. g 4

Fedit:1 Registtr / Vol. 52. No.193 / Tursday, October e,1987 / Proposed Rules 37321 "The State of Montana."in alphabe:ical its potentialis essentially independent The NRC failed to required 'udsk:

l.

order.

of stored energy in graphite. Empirical

. safety measures that could help to 3

Done in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of measurements of stored ene gy in reduce the threet of such a fire, j

October. tsa7.

graphite are not needed to perform an Licensees whose reactors use graphite,

3. 0. p.m, evaluation of the releasable stored including dozens cf non-power reactors Acting Deputy Administrofor. Feferinary

• I'ctgy.Fu*thermnre. the requirement for knd one commercial power reactor. have Services. Anitroloadhr!Neo/thInspection such measurements could result m m: fir; mponse plans for combating Service.

personnel exposures that would be graphite fires in their reactors. Ner,-

i

}

(F1t Doc. 87-23108 Filed 104-87; 8.45 am) inconsutent w! h NBC's as low as is power reactor licensees do not have reasonably achievable (ALARA) adequate emergency plans to evacuate s w ocoac u, u.m

~

principle.

members of the public in the event of a Aconesses: Copies of the petition, graphite fire or other severe accident.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY public comments and abstracts of the For these reasons, the petitioner COMM!$SION comments received on the petition, and would require al!!iceru,ees whose the Brookhaven National Laboratory reactors employ graphite as a neutror.

moderator or reflector and whose 10 CFR Part 50 Report NUREC/CR-4981 are available IDocket No. PRW-50-44]

for inspection end copying under Docket licensed power is greater than 100 W to; i

No. pHM-50 44 in the NRC Public (a) Formulate and submit for NRC Committee To B idge the GAP; Denial Document Room,1717 H Street NW.,

epprosal fire response plans for of Petition for Rulemaiting Washington, DC. Copies of NUREC/CR-combating a reactor fire involving 4981 may be purchased through the U.S.

graphite and other constituent reactor ACEwev: Nuclear Regulatory Covernment Printing Office by calling parts (e.g., fuel) which might be invoimi (202) 275-2000 or by writing to the U.S, in such a fire, taking into consideration m usuon.

Acnom. Denial of petition for Government Printing Office, P.O. Box the potential for explosive reactions.

rulemaking.

37082 Washington. DC Po013-7082.

Response plans shall identify precisely sundadaar: The Nuclear Regulatory Copies may also be pm".ased from the which rnaterials will be used to suppress Commission (NRC)is denying a petition NationalTechnice!Inf nr.ation Service.

8 fire without.tncreasing the risk cf for rulemaking submitted by the U.S. Department of Commerce,52A5 Port explosion, and shall indicate where and Committee To Bridge the Cap. The Royal Road. Springfield, VA 22161.

in what quantities these materials will petitioner requested that the con runTHu wOAMADON CCMTACT:

(b) Formulate and submit for NRC Commission amend its regulations to Theodoie G. Mi:.haels. S:andsr<lir ation appuh cuHo@ns fo3 e nactor require ailliceneces whose reactors and Non Power Reactor Project fire. Plans should inc4uue svmeCon out l

employ graphite as a neutron moderator Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor to a sufficient distance from the reactor or reflector and whose licensed power is Regulation, ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory such that no member of the public i

greeter than 100 W to: (1) Formulate and Commission, Washington, DC 20555, i

J'htrl' %r NEtrpr0 Val Em rasponsa Telephone (301) 49?At251, receives a dose to,the thyrM, g m iet l

. I plans for combating a reactor fire the 5 hawang a release to the

{

SW12WMTARY NonMAMOsc environment of 25% of the aqu!!!brium

) l!

involving graphite and other constituent radioactive iodine inventory.

i !

reactor parts (e.g., fuel); (2) formulate The Petidon and submit for NRC approval (c) Perfoten measurements of the evacuation plans in case of a reactor A peittion for rulernaking was filed by Wagner energy" stored in the graphite l

fire; and (3) perform measurements of the Committee To Bridge the CAP (CBC) of their reactor, and submit these l

the Wigner energy stored in the graphite on July 7.1986.The petition was measurements to NRC for review 1

l of their reactors and submit these docketed by the Commission on July 7 together with a revised safety analysis.

(

measurements to the NRC for review, 1996 and was assigned Docket No, which shall address the risks and I

together with a revised safety analysis PRM-50-44. A notice requesting consequences of a reactor fire. A that shall andress the risks and comments on the petition was printed in sufficient number of graphite samples consequences of a reactor fire.

the Federal Register on September 3.

shall be measured to identify the l

The petitioner believes these 1966 (51 FR 31341). The petition requests location of maximum stored energy, and 1

requirernents are necessary because the that the Cornrnission amend its to determine the maximum quantity of j

previous NRC safety evaluations of regulations, stored energy within 210%.

i these reactors allegedly were based on a Basis for the Request Public Comments on the Petition belief that graphite fires were not 1

credible and on an inability of the NRC The petitioner offered the following On September 3.1986, the and its contractors to properly calculate justification for the proposeod revision Commission published a notice in the l

Wigner er>ergy in the graphite. The of the regulations:

Federal Register (51 FR 31341) l j

Commission is denying the petition

• 'Ihe occurrence of a graphite fire at requesting comments on the petition.

because Fort St. Vrain Nuclear the Chernobyl plant in the Soviet Union The NRC received nine requests for an Generating Station and all NRC-licensed demonstrates that such fires are credible extension of the comment period. An researen and test (non. power) reactors events.The NRC and its licansees have extension of the comment period was

, ' ~ Ice >o.nroved plans for dealing with mistakenly dismissed graphite fires as granted, changing the closing date for emergencies ~1trucmytance with existing noncredible events.

the comments from November 3,1980. to regulations.The protectiht; tin.s en

• New experimental dats show that February 2,1987. A total of 27 comments based on conservative dose calculatford7RC's syneric analysis of stored energy were received, six of which supported consistent with those proposed by the in researcfNcte g*sphite significantly the peution and 21 of which opposed the petitioner.

underestimates the actualiiinounuf_ ' petition.Of the six commenters Graphite burntng is a very low-stored energy, and thus underestimates 6ttppwing.t_he patition, two were probability (i.e. noncredible) event and the associated risk of graphite fire.

Individust citYsnnntfour.were from

~,,""'*%=<,,,

1 i

c

1 37322 Federol Register / Vol 52, No,193 / Tuesday. October 6,1987 / Proposed Rules citizen's groups Of the 21 ccmmenters oppond to the petition.15 were unnecessary exposure of reactor personnet scientists at BNL consider 'he graphite universities or university.rciated

• CBC fails to pmvide a technical burning a secondary or corollary event orgamrations, fc.ur were cornpanien basis for any of the pemion's proposed resulting from the explosions that mvolved with the nuet ar industry, one requirements.

occurred as a resuh of c very rapid was a state gos cenment agency, and one was an individual citizen The comments opposing the pentiton reactivity insertion that overbcated the are too numerous to address fuel and cladding N exp'osion created i

Of the comments in support of the indwidually. However. each comment the cond tions necest.ory to initiate and petition. none offered any specific technical insights but rather etmply has been considered by the staff end its sustain graphHe buming te g,

endersed the information and basis of contractors in analyzing the petitten and fragmentatica of fuel and graphite, the pehhon. friese cemerda cwed in developing the NRC position.

rupture of the moderator inert gas I

\\

peneral concerns that include; Abmete of all c.omments received and boundary, admission of alt, a favorable

. The potential for graphite fires, the full text are available at the NRC ratio of graphite volume.to su: lace area, Miic Document Room in the Docket susmnsd hecHnpc from esphalt fires.

• Training oinre'ighters to manage file PRM-5044 as coled in the address and decay heat). Although the petition graphite fires.

• Evacuation of persons on site and section above.

considers the Chemobyl accident a demonstration of p aphite fire in nearby areas in the event of an Analyna,s of the Petition credibility, the acc;ident confttms that eccident-Highlights from the comments

0) The petitior,er asserts that "the initiation and custained burning of opposmg the petition are as follows:

occurrence of a graphite fire at the graphite require the existence of a

• CBC's comparison of research Chernobyi plant demonstrates that such complex combination ofideal reactors to the Chernobyl 4 (RBMK) fires are indeed credible ever:ts."

conditions, which are extremely difficult to achieve in any real situation and are fn p wer e el CBC filed its etition on July 7,1986' virtually inctedible in the reactors being ore si e f saio roduct Consequently, only fragmentary considerad veder thi petition. Th,e inventory operating temperature, reactor co'ntrol systems, and inherent information, mostly conjecture, wa, words credible e incredible have available before the petition was filed.

design characteristics.

More detailed and definitive ;nformation been used in many AEC/NRC safe analyses. As used by the skff, these I

+ CBG's inference that graphite fires was first made available, outside the words have a ways been a qualiative were the initiating events in both the i

Chemobyl and Windscale accidents.

Soviet Union, duritig a meeting held by statement of the likelihood or I

cannot be substantiated.

the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency probability of an event or condition 0AEA)in Vienr.a. Austria, on August 25 occurring. Accordirigly the arafTs

• The operating temperature of the to 29,1986. Without the benefit of the conclusion that sustained or self.

Chernobyl graphite (700*Cl dismis ses detailed Soviet report, the basis of the sustained graphite buming is not a CBC's contention that stored energy in Petititon is seriously flawed.

credible event in NRC li cased reactors the irrad;ated g spb4* played any role in respor.se to the CBG assertion is siihalid 0 e., the random in the Chemobyl accident, regstdi.ne the Chernobyl event, the NRC simultaneous occurrence of the severas

• CBG ignores the necessity for en selected Brookhaven National tc9 tim necessary for sustamed initiating event to raise the graphite Laboratory BNL), operator of the Brookhaven(Graphite Research Reactor, graphite bummg or seif+ustameo 1

temperature 50C',100C' a bove fts normal operating ternperature before whose staff it recognized internationally Brephite burning is an event wit small probability of occurring). The staff any Wigner (stored) energy in Fraphite for its renearth on reactor. grade thus concurs in the conclusion reached '

can be released,

• CoC ignues the fact that only the graphite end its properties, to review the m the BNL report: 'There is no new rdcasable stored energy, not the total published inbrmahon and determine its evidence esmeiated with the analyses stored energy. in graphite, in accordance relevancy to the use of graphite in NRC.

of either the Wmdscale accident or the licensed reactors. In addition. BNL Chernobyl accident that indicates a with the anneahng temperature, can contribute to a graphite temperature penennel revewed the Chemeby) er'd credible potenM br = grerhae burning Windstate acddents and the role,if accident in any of Ge reactors increase.

+ The conditions necessary for eny, of the grephne moderator in these considered in this te view. N5r is erre i

graphite buming do not exist nor can events.The rewuits of this review are any new evide.;e that detailed case.by-they be created by random events in contained in NUREC/CR 4901. "A cme 641ety analysis cf the role of Safety Assessment of the Un of

• The conditions necessary/m Grnphite in Nucleer Reactors Licensed graphile in NRC.licen ed reactors are non power reactors.

graphite buming do an6:st in the Fort by the U.S. NRC." july 1987. This report warranted." Accordingly, there has been

)

St. Vain reactor.

is available as noted in the address no change in the staffo assessment of

+ Operating temperatures of the section above, graphite buming. the Chernobyl graphite in the Fort St. Vrain reactor The staff has used the BNL report, accident notwithstant.ing. in NRC.

licensed reactors, and no changes are comments received from the public, and preclude the accumulation of any its own understanding of and expertis-required in the staffs previous findings significant quantity of stored energy in the safety evaluation reports prepared p.e., the graphite is self.annealin ).

relevant to the use of graphite in non.

for these reactort I

power reactors and Fort St. Vrsin to

+ NRC-approved emergency p ans evaluate and respond to the assertions (2) The petilbner states that "the NRC (required by to CFR Part 50, Appendix and proposed requirements of the CCB has failed to require basic safety E) are in place at all NRC-licensed reactors and are adequate and petition (PRM-5M).

aneswres to r acceptable.

in their evaluations of the Chemobyl 8'*Pg, g,,' educe the threat of a eccident, both Soviet and intimations!

The petitjoner did not identify the l

+ Measurement of stored energyis scientists argee that graphite burning

" basic measures" the NRC has failed to tiot consistent with the ALARA philo.ophy, since it requires the d!d occur duing this accident. However, anost of the experts, including the require and provided no basis for this statement. The staff considers that the j

.h.l.4pm,

,,s y

i

~... _... _ _...

• l I

rederal Register / Vol. 52. No.193 / Tuesdsy. October 0,1907 / Proposed Rules 37323 elements of the NRC regulatory and Protection Prodram for Nuclear Power (4) The petitioner asserts that "non-licensinF process represent the basic Focilitics Operating Prior to January 1.

power reactors do not have adequate

]

aafety measures required oilicensees to 1979 " sets forth fire protection features emergency plans to evacuate members ensure the safe design and operation of required to satisfy Criterion 3 of of the public in the event of a graphite i

their reactors as well as to provide Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. These fire "

specific plans and procedures for NRC requirements include the " basic Neither the petitioner nor any of the a

managing and responding to off. normal safety measures to reduce the threat of a citizens' groups or individuals conditions and accidents. Some

.. fire. '

supporting the petition provided a basis f

examples that are relevent in fire '

It is the staff a judgment that the NRC in support of this assertion.The staff

~

detection. protection, and mitigation are has required adequate basic safety has reconsidered the need to provide a hsted below:

mcasures to tudo the threat of fire as plan to evacuate members of the public i

+ Safety reviews of non-power weil as to mitigate the consequences of located off sitt in the very unlikely l

reactors include on assessment of the any fires that do occur. These measures eunt of a graphite fire and,in the -

fire protection systems at each facility-have been reviewed, approved, and course of esa!usting this petittpcC has

. ac d&ction, f, ire extinguishers, l're implemented for sil licensed reactors.

not identified any such need; alarms, fire preventkr.. fee fightin8 They generally apply to all fires and As stated in Regulatoyduide 2 6 traimng of facility personnel, and ontde have been found to provide acceptable gevis;cn 3:

f cnd offsite response to fire alarms are protection for 4.e hn!ib and safety of in the j. dgmydf the NRC siaff, the h

e u

typical areas included in the safety the public*

p '.antial rad!dogical hazards to d.c pubhc j

review, Inadequacies identified during the review must be corrected before a (3) The p titioner alleges that " licensees 8 8 mi*'.

M S operation of rtsearch and i

license is granted.

have no hre respanse plans for graphite

!"I'eawre are consnie4 tm Aan thn e 1

int 14d with nuclear power p! arts in

]

+ Each non. Power reactor licensee is fires."

addition. because there are many ddferent i

sequired by conditions of the license As discussed in item 2. above, all kinds of non. power reactors. the poi. nnat for (Technical Specifications) to provide a licensees have NRC approved emergency situa90ns ensing and the i

e r. sequences thereof vary from faciltiv to sciety review for expenments to be emergency plans in accordance with 10 I* 'D d'Iferences and vanahuns are inserted in their reactors and fur CFR 50 SHg) and 10 CFR Part 50.

expected to be reikcied reabstically in the I

changes in reactor operation. Among Appendix E.These plans pyvkie for emergency plans and procedores developed I

many other safety considerations, an msponse to fire, munar of fire for each research and iest reactor f adhty.

i assessment of fire potentiai e g.,

fighting personnel, and for periodic drills j

flammable materia 1s)is included.

to demonstrate proper operauon of the Accordingly. each non power reactor l

+ Each non-power reactorlicensee licensee has developed an emergency

% i has responded to the requirements of to plan in accordance with procedures plant based on the identified 9 'j developed for each facility. One g

g CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR Part 50,

[

opjosing t e e c

, gg e h era and assist licensaes in meeting the Appendi E,in submitting an eme ency

' g p

or review and opprove Al their supervisors were regularly trained requin' a=nts of 10 CR Part 50.

licensed nonipower r* actors now have Ap endix E. Regulatory Guide 2.6 3'

approved emergency plans and the m fire fighting procedures for their (ANSl/ANS-15.101982, Table 2) l s

facili!in and that the hre fighters were provides an" Alternate Method for I

[f ta cessary h;h:nn%g procedures.

confident that they were prepared t Determining the Size of an Emergency 1

j These plans were reviewed against j

ANSliANS-15.1%.l and Regulatory deal wius d.e type of Dres they could Planning Zone (EPZ)." Table 2 is based I

i encounter, including a fire involving s

n a doen calculations Guide 21 pegosed Revision 1. as

(

outlined in' NUREG-0649," Standard graphite. This is consistent with BNL that are generically applicable to non-research, which recommends a basic power reactors. These calculations j

f Review Plan for the Review and Evaluation of rmergency Plans for fire fighting technique for graphite fires, include the very conservancy Research and Test Reactors.-

that is, exclude att of oxy 2en and eccl assumption for'non-power reactors that Examples of the evaluationitems that the graphite. Success in using this basic 25% of the equilibrium radioactive are relevant to " basic safety measures cool and-amother technique was iodine is gaseous and will escape from to reduce the threat of... fire" are demonstrated during the Chernobyl the reactor building into the e

listed below:

accident. Gold nitrogen gas was pumped environment. It is the current and F

l (a)The { emergency] plan should also into the bottem of the reactor to standard practice of the NRC staff to use

[

describe non-radiological monitors or successfu!!y cool the graphite and fuel the 25% lodine source term with regard indicators * * * (2)F;te detectors * *

• debris while excluding oxygen (

to 10 CPR Part 20 recommended dose (b) The emergency plan should smother any burning. Also at Chernobly' considerations in its safety evaluanons describe an initial training and periodic graphite blocks were successfully of non power reactors. Table 2, which is i

retraining program designed to maintein quenched using water (NUREG-1250, pp.

based on power level. recommends that j ;;

the ability of emergency response 4-12,6-21, and 7-23). Since this basic reactors with power levels less than or 3

personnel to perform assigned functions cool and smother technique is effective I to 2 W use their operations l

t for the following for most fires, the staff has concluded boundry" for their EpZs. which

• *

• f. Pohce security, ambulance, that the licensee ex] sting emergency essentially recognizes that a reactor of -

and fire bghting personnel * *

• plans provide an adquate response for this power level will only need to (NURFIM849, Sections 8.0 and 10.0) graphite fires as well as any other type initiate protective actions for members The !!censee for Fort St. Vrain has of fire.

of the general public on site and will not satisfactorily met the requirements of 10 pose an unacceptable radiological l

CFR Part 50.48 and 10 CFR part 50, s n.w. po,eit, n.4. g,yet. md R.c. Bourd**u.

hazard to members of the public off site, i 4 Appendix R. Appendix R," Fire Struesure edashon EHects in a CrsphHe Reactor There are only five licensed non-power "ComuntR Procredmits e/the Second United l }

Nooam inamor,ono/ ce/mm on the p. ace /u/

reactors containing graphite that have I..

' covm ati types of firn. including nr phne fires u.a. of Asoime enerry. vus. 7, sesa p. ret power levels greeter than 2 MW.Three o'

s I

-37324 Federal Register / Vol. $2. No 193 / Tuesday. October 6.1987 / Proposed Rules i

d of the reactors have power levels less information that demonstrates that.

paper by Ashbaugh Ostrander, and than 10 MW, one has a power level of 10 cven in the remote case of graphite Pearlman 8 at the American Nuclear MW.and one has a powerlevel of 20 burning. there is a need to modify any Society annual meeting in June 198G.

Stored energy decreases with MW. Table 2 recommends an EPZ of100 existing emergency plans.

increasing datance from the fuel reF on i

meters of non. power reactors with (5) The petitioner sta'tes that "NRC's b g,5.01 cal /gm at 18 inches.1.34 cal /

power levels greater than 2 MW and generic analysis of stored energy in gm at 22 inches. and an unmeasurable equal to or less than 10 MW. and 400 research resetor graphite significantly amount at 20 inches).

meters for those with power fevels underestimates the actual amount of

+ Within the graphite island. stored greater than 10 MW and equal to or less stored energy and thus underestimates energy decreases from 33.3 cal /yn at the than 20 hiW.The liccenee for each of the associated risk of graphite fire?.

fuel box graphite interface to 19.2 cal /

these reactors has an NRC approved emergency plan that takes into The conditions necessary for stored gm about 3 inches from the fuel box consideration the specific energency releases in graphite are toward the center of the graphite island.

characteristics of each reactor (e g.,

described in section 3 of the BNL report.

These results illustrate the principles fision product inventory and engineered The staff agrees with the methodology associated with the proposed safety features)in the development of derived for estimating the stored energy requirement to measure the Wigner the action levels, procedures and that can be released from graphite and energy stored in the research and test protective actions necessary to protect in the analysis applied to the estimation reactor graphite.The significant changes all members of the public within its EPZ.

of stored energy releases in Section 6 of in stored energy with relatively small l

Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 the BNL report.

differences in location demonstrate the recommerd ee use of the 25%

In section 2 of the BNL report, the difficulty in selecting the locations and radioactive lodme wea term in necessary conditions for graphite to the number of samp:es needed to determining the compliance of rwer burn are discussed in detail. A characterize the " maximum stored reactors with the siting containment, reassessment of the literature on the energy and to determine the maximum cnd dose guidelines of to CFR Part 100.

c@riments previously parformed at quantity of stored energy to within ne staff believes the cunent regulatory BNL and 6:e eported details of the goy practices are s#able to ensure that the Windscale and Ch"nobyl accidents are The bases fore storage and release of basic statutory requireme.t. for included in the BNL stu. y. The Wigner energy in graphite are i

adequate protection of public health and conclusions reached as a resa of these delineated in the BNL report, which aafety. is met, analyses are:

shows that there is no unique

[

Rese emergency planning (Tlhe potential to initiate or maintain a connection between total stored energy considerations are appropriate for graphite burning incident is essentially and the releasable energy. Thus, reactors utilizing graphite components.

Independent of the stored energy in the estabSthing the magnitude of the stored l

Because the graphite contains no fission graphite, and depends on other facton < st energy n non. power reactor graphite by are unique for each research reactor and for empirica. : measurements would not products and very few activation Fort St. Vrain. In order to have self sustained provide d e information needed to i

products, even the remote possibility of rapid graphite oxidation in sny of these J'.

the graphite burning would not reactors. certam necessary conditions of evalu6 tl.is potential. Because the l

contribute to the red ological source geometry, temperature. oxygen supply.

rPhsable stored energy sa! Urates, an l

term.Therefoie, a grephite fire in and of rucuon product remos.t and a fsvorsb!c

- epper bound on the stored energy that 9

i itself presents essenta.lly no htat balance must be nialntsv i TMis 'no can be released to 700*C can be~

c.

new evidence associeeN. sher the determined from existing data.

radiological harard to the pubb.

Because of the major differences in hdsM 9.m.. or the Chernobyl Therefore.no measurement of stored design, power level, core sirm f+

u. cent that indicates a credible potential energy is required.

I0f a graphite buming accident in any of Ine gb

~ ~~produd N.LJ Wattor control 3

system?..bewa%.._, ducton considered m this te iew, ro ditjpn required o n iate graphite neutronics compenson of the Chernobyl On the basis oTits review olineT)t;L burning in addition to a graphite occident and its consequences v sth report. the literature on BNI.

temperature of B50*C. the potential to uccidents and the resulting experiments, and the information on the initiate or maintain a graphite. burning conwquences for non-power reactorn is Wmdscale and Chernobyl events, the incident is esentially independent of not appropriate, nor is it meaningful.

staff finds that the conclusions reached stored energy in the graphite. This Many of the comments receivedin by BNL are correct and adopts them as further supports the conclusion that no opposition to the petition speak of the its own.

measurement of stored energy is impropriety of comparing NRC-licenned

" actual needed.

on powe rea a with the Chernobyl empirical measurements of Wigner Many of the commenten who f

energy will be required to assess the opposed the petition cited a violation of MM cMush Wm M h

dd magMe oW eg Hod M I

pr io e in the ergency research reactor graphite.a energy measurements would not provide d i orms but uld incur plans for non. power reacioicCMe-besie of a review of the guldence for

'* Lim:mmtwia_tored energy in its

$'di9 g emergency planning conta,ned in research reactor grapnitiN;merk.hywLeudjeality of taking the samples and i

Regulatory Guide 22 and ANSI /ANS the University of California. Los making 62rtW:;im*'.azr, elan 15.16-1142 and the requirements of10 Angeles, in,the course of pointed out. For example. sampl:ng tne i

CFR Part 50. Appendix E, the staff has decommissioningits Argonaut research graphite reflector pieces in the ends of a i

i concluded that the emergency plans reactor. Several things learned from its previously approved by NRC are still program of earnpling and rr.easuring j

.j appropriate and adequate. Neither the stored energy were reported by a c,$',ggg@Q"gnQPo asat I

petitioner not the commenters commenter who opposed the petiffon.

n,,ew, p.,,,,,,,,,f,A, Ans, vot. 62. teso. p l

supporting the petition hve supplied This information was also reported in a sn I

l

5

,l F:d:rel Regis:er / Vol. 52, No.193 / Tuesde, October 0,1987 / PropuscJ Rules 37325 TRIGA fuel pin would require breaching in response to en NRC request Public organization, plans, and procedures lo i

the fuel pin cladding as well as Service Company of Colorado privide the necessary protection of the g

providing shieldirtg against the fuel pin's addressed the implications of the health and safety of the public even in radioactivity. Similar challenges would Chernobyl accident for the Fort St.

the very unhkely event of a graphite fire.

4 be associated in taking a sample from Vrain. The licensee submitted a final Basis for Denial Y

q graphite reflector components clad with report entitled " Design Differences. Air t

metal. In addition,it was pointed out Ingress and Graphite Oxidation, and The NRC denies the petitioner's 1

that numerous samples would be Steam Ingress and Water Gas request to amend 10 CFR Part 50 to i

required to establish the true magnitude Generation"(p-86M1, December 4, require licensees whose reactors employ of stored energy in the various graphite 1960). The staff has reviewed the report graphite as a r,eutron moderator or components.

and concludes that the only significant reflector and whose licensed power in The staff has considered the relevant similarity betwun Chernobyl end Fort greater then tro W to:

BNL findings and the cornments St. Vrain reactors is that they both (1) Formulate and submit for NRC received and how concluded that contain a large amount of graphite approval bre response plans for empirical measurement uf stored energy moderator. There are design differences combating a reactor fire involving in non. power reactor graphite between these reactors that preclude an graphite and other constituent reactor components is not practical nor is it accident similar to the Chernobyl parts (e g., fuel),

necessary to ensure the health and accident at Fort St. Vrain.

(2) Formulate and submit for NRC safety of the pubhc.

Furthermore, on the basis of its approval evacuation plans in case e! u reviews, the staff concluded that the reactor fire; and

"" #YTd on er I po er rea i icating that it has no fire response plans for peesd concrew mador usM

%ner enem M M b g@A d combating graphite im. The petitioner w uld be maintamed dunng and after their reacic,rs, and submit these also states that graphite is used as a assumd g&nt mass.

meamremy W de E b mW q

moderator in the Fort St. Vrain nuclear Although the mitiating events are together with a revised safety an, dye power plant in Colcrado..

beyond the plant's original design basis.

that shall address the rir,k and p

the plant design appears to have an consequences of a reactor fire.

l Other than the lack of graphne fire adequate margin of safety to withstand This denialis a based on the response plans. the petitioner does not these events.

following:

identify specific concerns related to Fort The staffs ccmments and conclusions (1) Each licensee of a non-power St. Vrain. Flowever,it is implied that all can be found in the NRC Public reactor has submitted an emergency reactors using graphite components are Document Room under Docket No. 50-plan that has been approved as meeting subject to CBC's concerns and 267,in a letter dated April 1,1987, the requirements of10 CFR Part 50 assertions. In reality, the petition and Accession No. 8704090248.

Appendix E. The petitioner has not i

l~

requirements are really directed at NRC-The petitioner's assertion that demonstrated that these plans do not j

licensed non-power reactors.

graphite burning and oxidation were not provided an appropriate level of

, b Fort Si. Vrain is e high-temperature included in the staffe evaluation for Fort protection of the health and safety of the l

i 3 gas cooled reactor (FfTGR) owned and St. Vrain is in error.This subject was public.

p operated by Public Service Company of thoroughly reviewed in both the (2) The licensee for Fort St. Vrain has d

Colorado. its design capacity is 330 construction permit and operating an approved emergency plan that meets

}

MWe. !t uses a ceramic fuel particle license safety evaluations. These staff the requirements of10 CFR Part 50, (uranium and thorium carbide) clad with evaluations may be found in the Public Appendix E, as well as an approved fire j

silicon carbide and multiple layers of Document Room in the 50-267 docket protection program that meets the i

pyrolytic carbon. The fuel parceles are file.The licensee's updsted Fort St.

requirements of to CFR Part 50, compacted into small rods and installed Vrain Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix R. In addition, at the request in fuel holes in the hexagonal graphite section 14. contains much of the of the NRC, the licensee has submitted a fuel blocks. Including the reflectors there information and analyses submitted for report addressing the implications of the are 500 tons of reactor graphite in the NRC review.The staff concluded that Chernobyl accident for Fort St. Vrain.

f core. The reactor coolant is helium with significant graphite oxidation at Fort St.

The report h : been reviewed and 4

an average inlet temperature of 762* F Vrain was not credible. (Note:In approved by the staff. The petitioner has 7

(405*C) and an outlet temperature of addition to the previously discussed not provided a technical basis thet 1445'F (785'C). The a verage graphite conditions necessary for graphite would show that an additional fire enoderator temperature is 1380*F (749'C).

burning. Fort St. Vrain must suffer response plan would enhance the These characteristics are far different simultaneous independent structural protection provided for the health and than those of the non power reactors.

failures resulting in the release of the safety of the public by the existing BNL has reviewed Fort St. Vrain inert helium and the subsequent supply emergency plan and fire protection 4

parameters in relation to graphite stored of an adequate air / oxygen flow).The program.

energy and concludes in section 7 of its staff finds no basis for changing its (3J Measurement of maximum stored report," Fort St. Vrain operates at previous conclusions.The licensee for energy in non-power reactors are not i

temperatures that preclude Fort St. Vrain has met the requirements necessary to ascertain the releasable accumulation of stored energy. There of10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R (which stored energy ~in graphite components are no know problems associated with sets forth fire protection features below 650'C. Existing knowledge M

&nd,,egrey in straphite for operating required to satisfy Criterion 3 of to CFR provides this information which is temperatur'eWaMM.w&.W6-4.ct,#Am&fA@mERp_ adeouste for a safety evaluation,ophe__

The staff agrees with BNI.s conclusion approved emergency plan tr>at meets to eneci us atureu ems.y un we poues I

and can find no resson to empirically 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F The Fort St.

for grapMie burning and the associcted rnessure the stored energy in Fort St.

Vrain fire protection program and danger to the health and safety of the Vrain's graphite components.

emergency plan specify the necest nry public. Additionally, such measurements A

, t

[,q 37326-Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.193 / Tuesday, October 6.1987 / Propoacd. Rules are contrary lo the NRC's ALARA encyclope ins and retaled products and Regulatory Commission. 825 North d

principle, since unneeded knowledge services di et to the consumer by Capitol Stree NE., Washington. DC would be sought at the expense of mearis of in ome, over the-counter, 20426,(202) 3 -8293.

i unnecessary personnel exposun.

direct rnail d telephone sales sUPPLEAsENT Y INFORMATION:

Accordingly, the Commission denies solicitation. he order modification the petition.

request is ba d on claimed changes of I. introduch,on

- Dateds at Bethesda, Maryland, this 23 fact and law, he supplemental petition Pursuarit to Pprt 37 of its regulations, day of September 1987.

was placed o the public record on the Federal Enegy Regulatory For the Nuclear Reguimiory Commission.

September 22. 987 Commission (Cdynmission) hereby Victor Steue,lt.

List of Subject 'n 16 CFR Part 13 institutes its fough annual proceeding to Executive Directorfor Opemtions determine:(1) Artestimate of the Encyclopedia) sales. Trade practices.

average cost of common equity for the (FR Doc. 87-23o73 Fded io-54h 14 45 em)

M R Rock. {

jurisdictional operations of public swwo coot nwonas SectorY-s' utilities for the ye9r ending June 30 IrR Doc. 87-23014 (ted to-15-8B 8 45 em]

1987; and (2) e quarterly indexing FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION swwo coos arwe'}6' procedure to estayish benchmark rates 1

m-

- of return on comm9n equity for use in 8

16 CFR Partf 3 individual rate casys.

(DockIt D-890'81 DEPARMENT O ENEW The berahmark rites of return Prohibited Trade Practices; Federal Energy Rtgulatory resulting from the fikst three, annual i

4 Commission Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., et al.

g f

benchmark rotes of turn established Federah Trade Commission.

18 CFR Part 37 A3ENCY:

ACT11N: Notice 6f period for public (Docket No. RW87-3$-000)

II. Discussion

!s comment on petibon to reopen the proceeding and mcdify the order.

Generic Determination of Rate of e

Return on Com

. qutty for Fuklic A. Base Year A verugg Cost of Common f

CUMMARY:Encycidpaedia Britarmica, a Utilities Equity: Market Requged Rate of Return corporate respondent in the order in g

f Docket No. D-3908,4js prohibited from issued September 301987 The Commission priposes to adopt y

ent7ti e

[*"*

'd'h'c' Ene Regulatory O der No 2A kd 461 l

e rec tn es rep A-Commission believes th(t the method promoting merchandlae or services, or ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakin,,.

adopted in those prior orders has attempting to collect (ebts, and filed a

'\\

petition on April 2.1967 requesting that suuuARY:ne Federa} Energy received a fu i airing of ty issues and determ,nts the most reasonable way toine the ben represe the Commission reopen the proceeding Regulatory Commission her6y and either set aside the, order.now or at institutes a proceeding'u.oer Part 37 o(

Therefore, the Commisslor(proposes to f

a fixed future date, or rdodify the order.

Its regulations.The pu' ose of this rely on the foHowing constant growth A nuppicmental request jo reopen the proceeding is to dete ne an estimate proceeding has been filed on September of the averaFe cost of ammmon equity for discounted cash flow (DCF)',model,to determme the average mark)t required 22,1987.This document gnounces the the jurisdictional opera $ons of public rate of return for electric utih!ies for the public comment period o4the utilities for the year encEng June 30,1987 year ending june 30,1987: p supplemental petition.

t and a quarterly indexin ' procedure in DATE:The deadline for filihg comments establish benchmark to s of return on k = (1 +.5sl y + s 1

l on this matter is October 31; 1987 common equity for use i individual rate where:

U ADonss: Comments should be sent to cases. it is proposed tha t)these k =merket required rate of return the Office of the Secretary, Federal benchmark rates of retur( remain y = current d vidend yield (current'pnnual Trade Commission. 6th Streeland advisory only.These ben'ghmark rates of dmdend rete divided by curretit market Pennsylvania Avenue NW., W,ashington, return on equity establish)d as the price)

{

DC 20580, I.,

result of this proceeding. spould be used g = dividend growth rate y

Requests for copies of the parition as e guide to companies a interveners g

l should be sent to Public Refetche in individual rate cases an as a e in the third annual benchmark rete proceedins

]

Dranch, Room 130 reference point for the Co ission in its the NOPR proposed to presumptively set the f

F30 FURTHER INFORMAT60N CoM ACT:

deliberations.The Commigion may g*,dy'*f "ga,*gmoaguHr,'l!,r, lock K. Chung. Enforcement Divi' on, take official notice of them p individual m enect ei the nine o emnpeny w w Nonce g i

Bureau of Consumer Protection, detal rate proceedings.

(

p, poe.d Rutemskins. cenerse o.termmenon of Trade Commission. Washington, DC DATE: Comments addressi the issues Rew of Retum an Commoe Equhy for Pu@c 20580,(202) 326-2984,

)

in this proceeding are due o November Qg@$23 s1 Uuly

, n,,

sVPPLEMtN rANY lp0FORMATIOss:Th '

0 1967+

commente Aled. ellowed the benchmark retes of ceder in Docket No. D-mos was Acomass: All filings should erence niurn to renale adviewy only.s.e Ordef No. #1.

g jg[*Q,m G'

published at 41 FR17884 on April Docket No. RM87-35-000 an she Id be 1978. A correction to the order was b addressed to: Office of the

.ery, g,,,,,, 2, 3,,g, P iched M 4WR19301 on May 12, %

Federal Energy Regulatory Cossmission, e Order No, em Cenerte Determinetiove of Raw of N

1' 1976. The original request to reopen tjip 825 North Capitol Street NE.,

• Renarn en Comma squh> fee Pubhc Uuisen, so rm We shington, DC 20426, l'

• 1sar (May ausee Order No. 648-AMener6c proceeding was published at 62 FR 12430 on April 16,1967.The petitioner,I FOR runTveER nNPORMA1"tel CONTACT:

3 g

Encyclopatdie Britannica, sells k Ronald L. Rattey, Federal Energy order No. est. eee surro in. t 4

l 1

1

.