ML17193A752
| ML17193A752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17193A751 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102250638 | |
| Download: ML17193A752 (18) | |
Text
.*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
l:Qf1MONHEAL TH EDISON 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 81 0 2 2 5 0 ~3?,"
- i -
INDEX Page I.
Prel ir.1inary _Statement...................................
1 II.
Findings of Fact: Matters in Controversy................
2 A.
Bbard Question 1: Current Status and Alternatives...
2
- .B.
Critica_l ity......................... :_..................
5 C.
Quality Assurance....................................
7 D.
Transportation Damage...............................
~
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 Evaluati<;:>n.. ;.................... '.' *. ~.................
14
- III. Conclusiohs of Law............ (To be supplied).........
IV.
Order......................... (To be supplied)
/
UNITED STATES OF AMER! CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BE FORE THE ATDr1I C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CDrit*mm:EAL TH EDISON CDr1PANY
)
)
{Dresden Stati-0n, Units 2 and 3.
)
Do~ket Nos. 50-237 50-249
{Spent Fuel Pool. 11odification)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COliMISSION 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 motion.-
ll *Tr. pp. 79, 137-42.
- 3. *
[A description of the evidentiary hearing on the issue of fuel channel bowing will be supplied subsequently.]
II.. FINDINGS OF FACT: MATTERS I~ CONTROVERSY
- 4.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findin9s 8 through 11. J A.
BOARD QUESTIONS
- 5.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant~s propo~ed findings 12 and 13.]
- o.
[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 es tab 1 i sh its case by cros*s-exami nation of Staff's and Applicant's witnesses."]
- 7.
Board Question 1 reads as follows:
A.
Hhat is the current status of the spent fuel unfilled storage capacity at Dresden Station Uni ts 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 do1*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 1) owing: r There are presently storage spaces for 1400 fuel assemblies in the Unit l fuel storage p~71 and for i420 fuel assemblies in the Unit 3 fuel storage pool.-. As of November, 1980 there 1;2re 668
~nd 760 fuel ass~mblies in 3}he spent fuel storage pools for Units 2 & 3, respectively.-
An additional 224 spent fuel assernbl ies from Cycle 7 were scheduled to be di~7harged from Unit 2 to its spent fuel pool in January, 1981.-
This 1-JOuld leave 508 unoccupied storage spaces in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, with 660 ug7ccupied storage spaces remaining in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool.-
y
]./
Pickens, prepared testimo~y at p. 3, fol. Tr. 94.
Pickens, Id.. at p. 4; O'Connor, prepared testimony at p. 1, f o 1. Tr. 117.
- ii *O'Connor, J!h., 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 adopts Applicant's proposed finding 17, except fo~ 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.-
§/
Pickens, prepared testimony at p. 4, fol. Tr. 94; O'Co~nor, prepared testimony at p. 2, fol. Tr. 117,
- 10. [The Staff concur*s in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 18 a.nd 19.]
11;
[The Staff concurs-in and adopts Applicant's proposed finding 20, except that the word "evidence" i~.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 ~enten~e thereof, which should be deleted, and the following sentences substituted therefor:]
- Transshipment of spent fuel.assemblies from Dresden to General Electric Morris wo~ld uttlize 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 BHR fuel
.Z.*..
- assemblies at a tim,1 and each shipment of fuel wotild take three to five days.-:-
ll Pickens, Tr. 99..
- 14.
[The Staff concu~s in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 28
- through 32, except for the last sentence thereof, which finding cannot be 1nade prior to a satisfactory resolution of the issue. of fuel channel bo1*1i ng.]
- 15.
[The Staff concurs.in and adopts Applicant's propos~d finding 33, except for the last sentence thereof, in which the ~ords "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 cci~curs in and adopts Applica~t's proposed finding 37,
\\'lith the following modifications:
( i) In the fifth sentence, the word "boron" should be deleted, substituting therefor the word "boron-10.".
(ii)
In the fifth sentence, th~ word "boral," being a proprietary produet, should be capitalized.
This
. correction should be made wherever the word "boral 11 app~ars through Applicarit's proposed findings of fact.
(iii) After the fifth sentence, by footnote, add° the
. refer~nce, See Commonwealth Edison Co~pany (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-7, 11 NRC 245, 273, 279-80 (1980).
(iv)
Uel~te.the sixth sentence ther~of, and substitute the..
following sentence:. However, BWR fuel such as that used at Dresden is much smaller, contains fewer fuel
. *pins, and has 81 lower enrichment than the PWR assemblies used at Zion*.-
§./
Wong, Tr. 468.
- 19.
[The Staff concur~ in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 38 through 40.]
- 20.
[The Staff would delete Applicant's proposed finding 41, substituting therefor the following findi~gs:]
- Applicant's witness testified that a criticality *event in the sp2nt fuel pool, though not analyzed, could only occur through poor
~
- quality manufacture, design and testing.21 However, he did not believe0such accident credible betause of the design of the proposed racks.-
1 /
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 ~erformed by ApplicaH1provides reasonable
- .assurance that Keff will not exceed 0.95.-.
9 Ragan, Tr. 587.
. lQI Id. at 588.
11! Intervenor's proposed finding 41. nptes that the spent fuel to be placed i.n the pool may contain remnant burnable poisons.* It
. is als.o assumed in Applicant's criticality calculations that the fuel is clean, i.e., with no burnup nor burnable poisons.
Each of these factorsis 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 ASSU~ANCE
- 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-10 loading of the Baral in the tubes will meet specifica-
. tions. (Cont. 26 and 27; Am. Cont. J).
- 22.
[The ~taff concurs i~ 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 prograr.is of Applicant's contractors and s~bcontractors meet the applicable portions ()f 10 C~R Part 50, Appendix B, as required by Applicant's cor.iinitment in tr21commonwealth Edison Co111pany Quality Assurance
.. Topical Report.-..
..!.Y Topical Report at p; 2.
See also Belke, prepared testimony
. at 2,. fol. Tr. 422.
24 *. [The Staff concurs in ~nd 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 word~ to the last sentence thereof:
. "al though NSC rejected two tubes detennined 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 App1icant's proposed finding 73 with the following:]
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 will. 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.
Contentioh 3 reads as follow~:
The Application does not demonstrate that rack and tube packag-ing, tiansportation, and receipt inspections are ~dequate to
- prevent and detect transportation damage. (Cont. 26 and 27; Am.
Cont. J).
- 30.
[Th~ Staff concurs in and adopts Applicant's proposed findings 74 through 76;]
- 31.
[The Staff concurs in and adopts Applicantis proposed finding 77, substHuting the word "is" for the word "are" in line 9 thereof.]
~2.. [The Staff ~oncurs.in.and adopts *~pplicant's proposed findings 78 through 86.]
- .?.?. __
- 33. {The Staff ~oncurs 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 confonnance with specifications wf3} not be installed in the spent fuel pools at Dresden Station.-
1lJ Intervenor's proposed finding 97 asserts that no witnesses
- from NRC 's Region I II were presented on transportation damage, apparently to bolster Applicant's witnesses on E.
. receipt inspection and storage and implementation of the quality assurance program at Dresden Station. Staff witness B~lke's testimony on this issue was base9 on verbal infonnation 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.
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 1 i fe 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 wil 1 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.
- 11...
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 sto.re fuel would be proscribed.
These cri-
. teria should be the acceptable amount of corrosion, limits on dimensional ~hanges and strength tolerance~
- 36.
[The Staff concurs ~n 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 that the radioactive waste treatment system for the spent fuel poo 1S is adequate for the *
- proposed increase in spent fuel storage capacity."
- 38. -Contention 4 reads as follows:
Applicant has not provided adequate monitoring equipment in the spent fuel pool water to detect abnonnal releases of radio-active materials from the increased number. of spent bundles~
Absence. of such monitoring and aTanns could result in undue
. exposure to workers in excess of ALARA, specifically:
{A)
There is ~o 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)
Th~ applicant should demonstrate that the radiation moni~
tori rig equipment has adequate range an.d sensitivity to indicate a~curately the rates and magnitude~ of radiation releases that.could occur in the reracked pools~
- 39, Contention 5 reads as fol lows:
There is no assurance that the health and safety of \\*10rkers in the spent fuel pool are~s will be adequately protected during rack removal and installation, in that:
(A)
The Application does not supply adequate infonnation to assess the occupati9nal radiation dosage to workers involved in removing and installing racks and rearranging spent fuel in. the pools, and to other workers \\'lho 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 9i 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.
v
- 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 reiults 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 ~riterion embodied in 10 CFR Part 20. *
~2. * [The Staff concurs in and ad6pts Applicant's proposed findings 111 through 118.]
G. *
- ACCIDENTS
- 43.
Contention 6 reads as fol lows:
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 tp 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 who prepared various sections, and indicated that, in his capacity as project manager and sponsor of the two documents, he adopted the summary and conclusions set forth in the Safety Evaluation as his own.
See 10. CFR Part 2, App. A, V(d)(2) and 10 CFR § Sl.52(b}(l}; cf.
Vennont Yankee Nuclear*Power*cor oration (Vennont Yankee Nuclear*
ower Station, A B-179, 7 AEC 59, 179.fn. 33 -(1974); Boston Edison.Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-83, 5 AEC 354, 369 (1972}.
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. Qtfully submi~""T'
~
... ~~"~
A
- Ri~hard J. G ard
- Counsel for ~aff
- Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day ()f 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 COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-237
)
' 50-249 (Dresden Station, Units.2 and 3)
)
(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 ~erved 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 Carblina 27~12 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 E. Hamilton Avenue State Co 11 ege, Pa. 16801 Philip P. Steptoe Esq.
- Isham, Lincoln anJ 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, 11.linois 62704 Mary Jo Murray, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2315 Chicago, Ill. 60601 Atom1c 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 ColTITlission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555