ML17193A750
| ML17193A750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1981 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Little L, Remick F, Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17193A751 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102250630 | |
| Download: ML17193A750 (20) | |
Text
- -=-=. = 'G-:.41.;,--==-.;;:=--===---~""""***-=--.
~~~~~
, a*.*
~*'*_ fl___ -- - ~--*... c
~---:~~'-(/-~------.. r;;L;., CZ.
- ~*;-
Distribution:
NRC Central File/
OELD FF (2)
Shapar/Engelhardt February 20 1981 Christenbury/Scinto
~lmstead/Karman.
Goddard/chron John F. Wolf, Esq., Chainnan
- 3409 ShepherdStr.eet P. O'Connor 314 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 E. Hamflton Avenue Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 State Col leg~, Pa.
1680 _1 __
Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Henflitage Drive Raleig~. North Carolina 27612 In the Matter of Conunonwea l th Edi son *company
- (Dresden Stat~its 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-237 & 50-249 (Spent Fu.el Poo Odification)
Dear Administrative Judges:
- Pursuant to the approval granted by this Atomic Safety atid L1cens*ing Board in our conference call of December 18, 1980, the NRC Staff submits its proposed findings of fact Dpartial) on issues litigated in the November 19-21, 1980 evident1ary hearings in the captioned proceeding.
As noted by Applicant and Intervenor in their submi"ttals, these findings are incomplete in that they do not 'address: (1) the issue of fuel channel bowing, which is the subject of. fµrther evidentiary presen-tation, -and which, of course, might necessitate modification of-certain
. findings proposed herein; (2) Applicant's connnitment to dummy fuel assembly testing, which, of necessity, was deferred pending resolution of the issue of fuel channel bowing; and f3) B9ard Question 2, wh1Ch was incorporated in*
the Board's Memorandum and Order, dated Jan~ary.26, 1981. Finally, proposed Conclusions of Law and a proposed Order are not s~bmitted at this time *
. Respectfully submitted, cc: Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
- Mary Jo,Murray, Es!=J. * *.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Richard J. Goddard Counsel for, N~C Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Gary N. Wright OFFICE~.
ELD o~
Lo suRNAME~ Goddard: 1 e WJ d
ECh i en bur*
~i... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ~ * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *******************
DATE *** 2./...~71.~U....:....... *:*?
P..~.l.,;*...... ~!.. /..*... '... :........................ ;............ **.. :...... *****************..................,....
NRC FORM 318 1101801 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD.~OPY
~ USGPO: 1980-329-824
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 February 20, 1981 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 E. Hamilton Avenue State College, Pa.
16801
- In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-237 & 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Pursuant to the approval granted by this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in our conference call of December 18, 1980, the NRC Staff submits its proposed findings of fact (partial) on issues litigated in the November 19-21, 1980 evidentiary hearings in the captioned proceeding.
As noted by Applicant and Intervenor in their submittals, these findings are incomplete in that they do not address: (1) the issue of fuel channel bowing, which is the subject of further evidentiary presen-tation, and which, of course, migh~ necessitate modification of certain findings proposed herein; (2) Applicant's commitment to dummy fuel assembly testing, which, of necessity, was deferred pending resolution of the issue of fuel channel bowing; and (3) Board Question 2, which was incorporated in the Board's Memorandum and Order, dated January 26, 1981.
Finally, proposed Conclusions of Law and a proposed Order are not submitted at this time.
cc: Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Mary Jo Murray, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Gary N. Wright
.i,
- ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Jn the Matter of
)
)
!:011MONl*IEAL TH EDI SON COMPANY
)
)
(Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (PARTIAL)
Richard J. Goddard Counsel for NRC Staff February 13, 1981
- i -
INDEX Page I. Prel ir.iinary Statement.............. ;....................
1 II.
Findings of Fact: Matters in Controversy................
2 A.
Board Question}: Current Status and Alternatives...
2 B.
Criticality.........................................
5 C.
Quality Assurance...................................
7 D.
Transportation Damage...............................
9 E.
Corrosion...........................................
10 F.
Radioactive Waste Treatment, Radiation Monitoring, and Health and Safety of Workers at Dresden Station..............................................
11 G.
Accidents...........................................
13 H.
Fuel Channel Bowing....... (To be supplied).........
13 I.
Board Question 2.......... (To be supplied).........
14 J.
Environmental Impact Appraisal and Safety Evaluation....................................... *...
.14 I I I.
Canel us ions of Law............ {To be supplied).. '.......
IV.
Order......................... (To be supplied)
. I
In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOf1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Matter of
)
)
COfitiON\\JEAL TH EDISON COt1PANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-237 (Dresden Station,
)
50-249 Units 2 and 3
)
(Spent Fuel Pool f1odification)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COliMI SS ION STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (PARTIA!j_
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
- 1.
[The NRC Staff (Staff) concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 1 through 6.]
- 2.
[The Staff would add the following findings after Applicant's proposed finding 6:]
After the time for filing of testimony by all parties had elapsed, Applicant indicated the existence of a potential issue regarding the bowing of fuel assembly channels, and possible interference of such channels due to minimal tolerances in some of the fabricated spent fuel storage racks.
Upon presenting this issue to the Licensing Board, Applicant requested a continuance of the evidentiary hearing to present testimony on this sole issue at a then undetermined future date.
Over the ob}~cti~? of Intervenor, the Licensing Board granted this riot 1on.-
ll Tr. pp. 79, 137-42.
- 3.
[A description of the evidentiary hearing on the issue of fuel channel bowing will be supplied subsequently.]
I I.
FINDINGS OF FACT: MATTERS I~~ CONTROVERSY
- 4.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findin9s 8 through 11.]
A.
BOARD QUESTIONS
- 5.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 12 and 13.]
~.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 14, but would add the following words to the final sentence thereof:
"but proposed to establish its case by cross-examination of Staff's and Applicant's witnesses."]
- 7.
Board Question 1 reads as follows:
A.
What is the current status of the spent fuel unfilled storage capacity at Dresden Station Units 2 and 3?
B.
When will full core discharge no longer be possible?
C.
When will nonnal refueling discharge no longer be possible?
D.
What alternatives, if any, exist to shutting dOl*m the Unit(s) when the.spent fuel pool(s) is (are) filled to capacity?
E.
Which, if any, of these alternatives would require subse-quent license amendments?
- 8.
[The Staff would replace Applicant's proposed finding 16 with the fo 11 ovli ng : J There are presently storage spaces for 1400 fuel assemblies in the Unit 2 fuel storage p~91 and for 1420 fuel assemblies in the Unit 3 fuel storage pool.-
As of November, 1980 there ~2re 668 and 760 fuel assemblies in3}he spent fuel storage pools for Units 2 & 3, respectively.-
An additional 224 spent fuel assemblies from Cycle 7 were scheduled to be dil9harged from Unit 2 to its spent fuel pool in January, 1981.-
This would leave 508 unoccupied storage spaces in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, with 660 ug9ccupied storage spaces remaining in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool.-
y y
!I
~/
Pickens, prepared testimony at p. 3, fol. Tr. 94.
Pickens, Id. at p. 4; O'Connor, prepared testimony at p. 1, fol. Tr. 117.
O'Connor, ~, at p. 2.
Pickens, prepared testimony at p. 4, fol. Tr. 94; O'Connor, prepared testimony at p. 1, fol. Tr. 117; O'Connor, Tr.
122.
- 9.
[The Staff concurs in and ~dopts Applicant's proposed finding 17, except for the last sentence thereof, for which it would substitute the following sentence:]
There was testimony that Dresden Unit 2 would lose full core discharge capability at ~?e time of the scheduled refueling outage in January, 1981.-
§j Pickens, prepared testimony at p. 4, fol. Tr. 94; O'Connor, prepared testimony at p. 2, fol. Tr. 117.
- 10.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 18 and 19.]
- 11.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 20, except that the word "evidence" in line 4 thereof should be deleted, and replaced by the words "testimony of Staff and Applicant."]
- 12.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 21 through 26.]
- 13.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 27, except for the last sentence thereof, which should be deleted, and the following sentences substituted therefor:]
Transshipment of spent fuel assemblies from Dresden to General Electric Morris would utilize a shipping technique which would entail some delay in reestablishing FCDC for Dresden Units 2 and 3.
Transshipment would utilize a Trans-nuclear 9 shipping cask capable of handling seven BWR fuel assemblies at a tim71 and each shipment of fuel would take three to five days.-
ll Pickens, Tr. 99.
- 14.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 28 through 32, except for the last sentence thereof, which finding cannot be 11ade prior to a satisfactory resolution of the issue of fuel channel bo1*,1i ng.]
- 15.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 33, except for the last sentence thereof, in which the words "the need to re-establish fCDC" should be deleted, substituting therefor the words "the existing lack of FCDC."]
- 16.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 34 and 35.]
B.
CRITICALITY
- 17.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 36.]
--.::--=----. -~-=-=---=- - 18.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 37, with the following modifications:
(i)
In the fifth sentence, the \\'/Ord "boron" should be deleted, substituting therefor the word "boron-10."
(ii)
In the fifth sentence, the word "boral, 11 being a pi~oprietary product, should be capitalized. This correction should be made wherever the \\'/Ord "boral 11 appears through Applicant's proposed findings of fact.
(iii) After the fifth sentence, by footnote, add the reference, See Commom*1ea 1th Edi son Co;:ipany (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-7, 11 NRC 245, 273, 279-80 (1980).
(iv)
Delete the sixth sentence thereof, and substitute the following sentence:
However, BWR fuel such as that used at Dresden is much smaller, contains fewer fuel pins, and has 8
~ lower enrichment than the PWR asse~blies used at Zion.-
§../
Wong, Tr. 468.
- 19.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 38 through 40.]
- 20.
[The Staff would delete Applicant's proposed finding 41, substituting therefor the following findings:]
Applicant's witness testified that a criticality event in the sp::nt fuel pool, though not analyzed, could only occur through poor
=-----: ~-**~*-;----=- quality manufacture, design and testing.-~/ However, he did not believ!oJuch accident credible because of the design of the proposed racks.-
Accordingly, the Board finds that, with the described commitment to neutron attenuation testing of the racks, and the quality assurance program for manufacture thereof, such a criticality event in either Dresden spent fuel storage pool is not a credible event, and the criticality analysis performed by Applica~t/provides reasonable assurance that Keff will not exceed 0.95.-
9 Ragan, Tr. 587.
lQI Id. at 588.
111 Intervenor's proposed finding 41 notes that the spent fuel to be placed in the pool may contain remnant burnable poisons.
It is also assumed in Applicant's criticality calculations that the fuel is clean, i.e., with no burnup nor burnable poisons.
Each of these factors is a conservatism, for which no credit had been taken and which, if factored into Applicant's compu-tations, would result in lower values for Keff" C.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
- 21.
Contention 2 reads as follows:
The Application does not show that the quality control and quality assurance programs of Applicant and its contractors are adequate to assure that tube and rack construction and the boron-IO loading of the Boral in the tubes will meet specifica-tions. (Cont. 26 and 27; Am. Cont. J).
- 22.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 42.]
.* i3.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 43, hut would add the following sentence at the end thereof:]
Additionally, the quality assurance programs of Applicant's contractors and subcontractors meet the applicable portions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as required by Applicant's commitment in t~2 1
commom\\lealth Edison CoJ11pany Quality Assurance Topical Report.~
11/ Topical Report at p. 2.
See also Belke, prepared testimony at 2, fol. Tr. 422.
- 24.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 44 through 61.]
- 25.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 62,
~ut would add the following words to the last sentence thereof:
"al though NSC rejected two tubes determined to have inadequate Boral content at the Brooks and Perkins plant," and adding to footnote 108 the references "Gilcrest, Tr. 510; See paragraph 65, infra."]
- 26.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 63 through 71~]
- 27.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 72, deleting the words "of quality" where they appear for the second time.]
- 23.
[The Staff would replace Applicant's proposed finding 73 with the foll mving:]
The Board finds that the Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures described by Applicant and Staff will assure that deficiencies in tube and rack construction and in boron-10 loading 1vi"1l be detected before any spent fuel storage racks which do not meet specifications might be placed in service at Dresden Station.
D.
TRANSPORTATION DAMAGE (9.
Contention 3 reads as follows:
The Application does not demonstrate that rack and tube packag-ing, transportation, and receipt inspections are adequate to prevent and detect transportation damage. (Cont. 26 and 27; Am.
Cont. J).
- 30.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 74 through 76.]
- 31.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 77, substituting the word "is" for the word "are" in line 9 thereof.]
- 32.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 78 through 86.)
---~~ -
~*
--~*~-
10 -
- 33.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 87, adding the following sentence at the end thereof:]
Applicant's proposed procedures will ensure that damaged racks not in conformance with specifications wf!} not be installed in the spent fuel pools at Dresden Station.~
11.I Intervenor's proposed finding 97 asserts that no witnesses from NRC's Region III were presented on transportation damage, apparently to bolster Applicant's witnesses on receipt inspection and storage and implementation of the quality assurance program at Dresden Station.
Staff witness Belke's testimony on this issue was based on verbal information he had received.
However, he testified that personnel of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III, were present in the hearing room and available to answer Intervenor's questions in greater detail.
Counsel for Intervenor did not avail herself of this proffered opportunity.
Belke, Tr. 424, 428.
Accordingly, Intervenor's assertion is not accorded substantive weight by this Board.
E.
CORROSION
- 34.
Contention 7 reads as follows:
The Application does not adequately assess the possibility of general corrosion and galvanic corrosion in the racks, in that:
A.
The life expectancy of the Boral tubes is unsubstantiated.
B.
Swelling of the Boral in the tubes and its effect on removal of fuel assemblies have not been analyzed.
C.
The corrosion surveillance program will not assure detec-tion of corrosion in the racks because the samples to be inspected will not be representative of the actual tubes in the racks, because the sample environment will not represent pool conditions in and near the racks, and because the program does not require a dummy fuel test shortly before placement of fuel in each tube.
~---==--- -- -- - D.
There is no plan for steps to be taken should corrosion be discovered in the racks.
- 35.
Contention 8 reads as follows:
The Applicant should develop criteria for the racks defining when their use to store fuel would be proscribed.
These cri-teria should be the acceptable amount of corrosion, limits on dimensional changes and strength tolerance.
- 36.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 88 through 96, correcting "John P. Weeks" in footnote 157 to read "John R.
Weeks."]
F.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT, RADIATION MONITORING, AND HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WORKERS AT DRESDEN STATION
- 37.
Contention 1 reads as follows:
"The application gives no assurance thatthe radioactive waste treatment system for the spent fuel pools is adequate for the proposed increase in spent fuel storage capacity.
11
- 38.
Contention 4 reads as follows:
Applicant has not provided adequate monitoring equipment in the spent fuel pool water to detect abnormal releases of radio-active materials from the increased number of spent bundles.
Absence of such monitoring and alarms could result in undue exposure to workers in excess of ALARA, specifically:
- --
- ::: -=-:--- ----.
--~
-* (A)
There is no description of monitoring devices, and there-fore no assurance exists that workers in each pool area will have adequate warning of possible hazardous condi-tions; (B)
The applicant should demonstrate that the radiation moni-toring equipment has *adequate range and sensitivity to indicate accurately the rates and magnitudes of radiation releases that could occur in the reracked pools.
- 39.
Contention 5 reads as follows:
There is no assurance that the health and safety of 1*101*kers in the spent fuel pool areas will be adequately protected during rack removal and installation, in that:
(A)
The Application does not supply adequate infonnation to assess the occupational radiation dosage to workers involved in removing and installing racks and rearranging spent fuel in the pools, and to other workers \\'/ho may be in the pool areas.
(B)
There is no consideration of the occupational radiation hazards from accidents that may occur as a result of rack removal and installation,~' flooding of the pool area and water spraying on workers.
- 40.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 97 through 109, with the following corrections:
(i) the testimony of Don Adam should be cited as following Tr.
550 in fns. 188 and 189; (ii) "Malafeew" is misspelled in fn. 185.
.- 41.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 110, except for the last sentence thereof, for which it would substitute the following sentence:]
Although the proposed method of disposal results in slightly higher doses than the disposal of the racks intact, the Board is satisfied that the proposed method is nevertheless acceptable under the ALARA criterion embodied in 10 CFR Part 20~
~2. [The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 111 through 118.]
G.
ACCIDENTS
- 43.
Contention 6 reads as follows:
The application inadequately addresses the increased conse-quences of accidents considered in the FSAR, SER, and FES associated with the operating license review of Dresden Units 2 and 3 due to the increased number of spent fuel assemblies and additional amounts of defective fuel to be stored in the spent fuel pool as a result of the modification.
- 44.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 119 through 129.]
H.
FUEL CHANNEL BOWING
{To be supplied)
I.
BOARD QUESTION 2 (To be supplied) J.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL AND SAFETY EVALUATION
- 45.
Intervenor, in its proposed findings of fact (Section II.C) submits that the Environmental Impact Appraisal and Safety Evaluation should be accorded no weight, absent record testimony from the reviewers who pre-pared each individual section of those documents.
However, these docu-ments were received in evidence, after testimony of the NRC Staff's project manager, Mr. Paul O'Connor, indicated his knowledge of the staff members who prepared the document, and that he had discussed portions of it with them. 14/ He testified that, in his capacity as a project manager, he had interacted with the reviewers who had participated in the prepara-tion of the documents, and had gone to them with questions subsequent to the issuance of the documents.
Upon cross-examination, he named the reviewers I
who prepared various sections, and indicated that, in his capacity as project manager and sponsor of the two documents, he adopted the sumnary and conclusions set forth in the Safety Evaluation as his own.
See 10. CFR Part 2, App. A, V(d)(2) and 10 CFR § 51.52(b)(l); cf.
Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor oration (Vennont Yankee Nuclear ower Station, ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 179 fn. 33 (1974); Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-83, 5 AEC 354, 369 (1972}.
'*t.,:.. Mr. O'Connor was available for cross-examination on relevant portions of the document, as were the witnesses presented by the Staff on each ad-mitted contention and board questions. 151 No requests were made during the evidentiary hearing for additional witnesses who had been identified as Staff reviewers by Mr. O'Connor.
Accordingly, the objections which Intervenor poses, after the closing of this portion of the evidentiary record, are lacking in merit.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of February, 1981.
See O'Connor, Tr. 129-36.
The NRC Staff witnesses were Mr. O'Connor
(.Board Question 1), Messrs. Malafeew and Block (Contentions 1, 4, and 5), Mr. Belke (Contentions 2 and 3), Mr. Wohl (Contention 6), and Dr. Weeks (Contentions 7 and 8). Their status as expert witnesses upon the subject matters of their respective testimony was not questioned by Intervenor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPA~Y (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (PARTIAL) in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 20th day of February, 1981.
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 E. Hamilton Avenue State College, Pa. 16801 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale One First National Plaza Chi ca go, I 11. 60603 Gary N. Wright Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Marv Jo Murray, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2315 Chi ca go, I 11. 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
~~~~
hlard J. o dard Counsel.for NRC Staff