ML18079A196
| ML18079A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1979 |
| From: | Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905030020 | |
| Download: ML18079A196 (21) | |
Text
.... -*- **-** *-***** -----*- -*------ -----*-,.*--**-**-----*-- -----.-~-----*~-------- **********-** -- -*-
--~--- _______ _. ____ -.. -* --**-*-*-* -. ---****-- **-
- ---*-------~---~
"'/ '
t.. l_.. -*!"'II UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4/2/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50~272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY
)
)
)
).
~
Proposed Iss~ance of Amendment to.Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARCH 29, 1979
- ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE The Board in its March 29, 1979, Order Following Prehearing Conference (Order) directed the Staff to file its written testimony *jn" the above-captioned matter on April 2, 1979. The Order also directed the parties to state the "order of proof,. describe all exhibits, list all documents, specifying those which the parties wish to have officially noticed, and make all requests for stipulation concerning admissibility." This is a response to that Order.
The Staff intends to introduce into evidence the Safety Evaluation Report (Staff Exhibit No. l) and the Environmental Impact Appraisal (Staff Exhibit No. 2) relating to the modificatipn of the spent fuel pool at Salem Unit No. 1 prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. These documents will be introduced by Mr. Gary G. Zech,. Project Manager for Salem Unit No. l, who is responsible for the overall evaluation of the proposed amendment.
- These 79 0503 OCJW
l
-~~~~~~~-----------------------.. __ ______ _... ----~----_-__________________________ ___,,
- 2 documents contain the Staff's evaluation tf the proposed amendment. They are being offered only to support the contentions admitted in this proceeding.
These documents were served on the Board. and part-ies on January 19, 1979~
The Staff filed on March 30, 1979, a ::.response in support of the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition.. *Included with the response were several II' affidavits arid attachments,. including Statements of Professional Qualifications.
- l-t; i's*'the Staff's* intent;ion...to* *utilize these. affidavits: and attachments as its direct testimony_* and exhib~ts1",if :the* Licensee*s Motion. for Summary Disposition is denied. Accordingly, we.are not filing additional copies today.
,*'.' --=*.
/. I r*
The'Staff**s wi~nesses wiH.: be:ca}lei:l:*following-the*direct.test.imony and cross-examination of the Licensee's and Intervenor's witnesses on each contention.
The Staff requests that the parties stipulate to the admissibility of all testimony and exhibits.
The specific order of proof for each contention is found below.
I. Consolidated Contention l of Lower Alloways Creek Township and Contention 9 of the Colemans (a) Direct Case: Staff Exhibit No. 2, Environmental Impact I*
o Appraisal (EIA) sections: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 4.3, 7.0 through 7.8, Table 7.0.
. t
- -**-* --~-
{b) Testimony of GaryG. Zech relating to storage of spent
- fuel outside the United States.
{S~e G. Zech 1s affidavit relating to LACT Contention No. 1 filed with NRC Staff Response to Licensee's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Disposition /NRC Response/.
(c) Wi:.tnesses:
Gary G. Zech, T. Jerrell Carter, Argil Toalston.
II. Lower Alloways Creek Township Contention 3.
Direct Case: Testimony of Gary G. Zech relating to movement of spent fuel from Salem Unit No. 2 to Salem Unit No. l and from Hope Creek Units N9. 1 and No. 2*to Salem Unit No. 1 (See
. affidavit of Gary G *. Zech relating to LACT Contention* 3 filed with NRC Staff Response.)
Staff Exhibit No. 3 - Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9, including Amendment No. 42.
Staff Exhibit No. 4 - Section 9.4 of the Safety Evaluation of th~ Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. l and No. 2, issued October 11, 1974.
I.
LACT contends in Contention No. 3 that the spent fuel storage capacity at Salem Unit No. l is not limited to storage of fuel from Salem Unit No. 1.
Therefore, an analysis of potential accidents a~sociated with transferring spent fue.l from Units located on and off Artificial Island should be performed.
The Staff will argue as a matter of law that the licensee cannot accept spent fuel from other units without an amendment to its Part 30 and 70 License.
The Staff by its testimony and exhibits No. 3 and No. 4 will demonstrate that the transfer of spent fuel from Salem Unit No. 2 to Salem Unit No. 1 is an unreviewed safety question which* requires staff review prior to shipment between these two units. The Staff will also prove that shipment of spent fuel from Hope Creek Units No. 1 and No~ 2 to-Salem Unit No~ l is an unreviewed safety questjon requiring Staff review.
- III.* Colemans Contentions 2 and 6 Direct Case:
- 1. Testimony of John Weeks (See NRC Staff Response.)
- 2. Staff Exhibit No. 5 Corrosion of Materials in Spent Fuel Storage Pools, J. R. Weeks, BNL-NUREG-23021 (July 1977)
(See NRC Response).
- 3. Staff Exhibit No. 6. Corrosion Considerations in the Use of Baral in Spent Fuel Storage Pool Racks, J. R. Weeks, BNt NUREG-25582 *(January 1979) (See NRC Response).
- 4. Staff Exhibit No. 1.
SER~ sections 2.4.1 (Material considerations),
2.4.2 and 2.4.3.
Colemans Contention 2 alleges that the spent fuel storage cells and the racks supporting the cells will not retain their structural integrity during. the design life of the plant.
- Contention.6 alleges that the Baral material con-tained in the spent fuel storage cell, due to protracted exposure to the spent fuel pool en~ironment, will not retain its ~bility to pre~ent ~ccident~l criticality.* The testimony of John Weeks and the_ accompanying exhibits will o
I o
prove that there is reasonable assurance that:* (1) Baral material and rack structure will not experience significant corrosion and (2) Baral will retain its neutron absorption properties in the spent fuel pool environment during the design life of the plant.
IV.
Colemans Contention 13 (a) Direct Case - EIA (Staff Exhibit 2) section 5.3.2.
{b) Witness - Jack Donohew, Jr.
-- /1
~
Colemans Contention i3 alleges that the Staff and Licensee did not give adequate consideration to the cumulative environmental impacts of expanding Salem Units No. l and No. 2 spent fuel storage capacity. The Staff will offer Mr. Donohew, Jr. to support section 5.3.2 of the EIA which demonstrates that the Staff did give adequate consideration to the cumulative impacts.
~
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of April, 1979.
Respectfully submitted,
,~If'.~
I Barry H:.. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff
- .~
.. -. *-=--=-=. -..,...,.
c-c-. ***=* =****=-**=* =** =**
.,...-,.=-***=--~-... - - - ---* **-*--
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
- ).
Docket No. 50-272
- . PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY
)
Proposed Issuance of Amendment
). to Facility Operating License
- .)*
- No. DPR-70 *
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station~ Unit No. l)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r° he~eby certify that c*apies of 11 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARCH 29, 1979 ORDER FOLLOWING. _pREHEARING CONFERENCE", in the above-captioned proceeding have been served* on** the fo 11 owing by deposit in the United States ma i 1,
. first class, or, as indicated by an* asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system,_,this 2nd day of April,. 1979:
- Gary* L. Mil hol l in, Esq., Chairman f815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin _53711 "1w1r. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
- Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Solicitor Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber l.747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Washington, D.C.
20006
{;l:z:ir**valare, Jr., Esq.
535. tt-1 ton Road No rt hf i el d, N. J. 08225 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Michael H. Facernyer, Clerk Municipal Building Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038
e*
Mr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr~
Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman 35 "K" Drive Pennsville, New Jersey 08070
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington*, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing*
Appeal Board
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-..
Washington, D.C.
20555
~
--: ~.. - :.-
Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh M.H.B. Technical Associates 366 California Avenue, Suite 6 Palo Alto, California 95306
...._._.,...,.,,.,_,,.. -..,... *:- *-.. -... : -~*.:_ ::.
_*Richard M. Hluchan, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
- state of New Jersey 36 West*state Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Department of the Public Advocate 520 East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 June D. MacArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney Genera 1 Tatnall Building P. 0. Box 1401 Dov er, De 1 aware 1 9901
(},;vz,-.,., iJ1vJ{
Barry"'H. STiiith Counsel for*NRC Staff
-;-_*-~---------.. ------- -
- e 9-5 The component cooling system is an engineered safeguards system a~d is required for post-accident removal of decay heat from the reactor and:
as such, is designed to meet the single failure criterion with two com-pletely independent,. parallel trains _avnilable, each containing one pump and one component cooling heat exchanger.
The applicants presented the results of a failure mode and effects analysis of" the system pumps, heat exchangers, and *valves and we found the results acceptable in that the system can withstand the effects of a slngle failure.
We have reviewed the system design, component classifications and the design codes used for the component cooling system and have con-eluded that they are acceptable.
Fuel Handling System Fuel handling and storage facilitie~ are provided for storage and transfer of new and spent. fuel.
Spent fuel will be stored under water in the spent fuel storage pool and new fuel will be stored dry in the new fuel storage area.
The new and spent fuel storage racks are designed so that it is impossible to insert assemblies in other than prescribed locations.
The new fuel storage rack accommodath; one-third of a core and the spent fuel pool accommodates one and orw-thi.rd cores.
Borated water will be used to fill the spent fuel storage ?~.,,:il at a concentration to match that used in the reactor cavity and refuc*ling canal during refueling operations.
The fuef is stored in a vertical array 'with sufficient center-to-center distance between assemblies to :tssure Keff of 0.90 even if
\\.
' i
r 9-6
/I unborated water is used to fill the pool.
Both the spent fuel pool and the new fuel storage pit are outside of the area over which a spent fuel shipping cask may travel. In the unlikely event of a cask drop in the transfer pool that results in the loss of water from the pool, the* stored spent fuel will still be covered.by a depth of water at least one foot above the top of the fuel. Additionally-, the cask handling crane has a trolley travel limit switch and a "mechanical stop" which will prevent movement of the shipping cask over the structural wall separating the spent fuel pool and.the transfer pool.
These design features preclude a cask from acidentally being dropped into the spent fuel pool and dama-ging stored fuel.
We have considered, in our review, the design safety features for all*
the *fuel handling equipm~nt. The applicants will p~rform preoperat~onal tests of the overhead handling system in accordance with the requirements of industrial standards, manufacturing recommendations, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.
On the basis of our review, we have concluded that acceptable measures have been taken by the, applicant to preclude significant r_adiological consequences during fuel handling operations and therefore, the fuel handling system is acceptable.
9.5 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System The spent fuel pool cooling system is designed to remove from the spent fuel p~ol, the heat generated. by stored fuel assemblies.. A ma wwcwwwz z *. sJ.. F... '- i.
....... 4.
4
. ?.
.4. u a
/~-
\\
9.7 FUEL HA.ING 'SYSTEM.
The Fuel Handling System provides a safe, effective means of transporting and handling fuel from the time it reaches the
.if plant in an unirradiated condition until it leaves the plant after post-irradiation cooling.
Each unit has a completely independent Fuel Handling System.
The following description is for one unit with the second unit having an identical sys-tern.
The system is designed to minimize the p6ssibility of mishand-ling or of mal-operations that could cause fuel damage and potential fission product release.
The Fuel Handling System consists basically of:
a)
The reactor cavity, which is flooded only during plant shutd_own for refueling.
b)
The spent fuel pool, which is kept full of water and is always accessible to operating personnel *
. c)
The Fuel Transfer System, RCC changing fixture, fuel handling crane, manipulator crane and cask handling crane.
SNGS-FSAR Units 1 & 2 9.7-1 P77 110 65 Amendment 42
D~tailed ins.actions are available for lae by refueling personnel.
These instructions, safety 1 imi ts** and conditions*
and th~ design of the fuel handling equipment incorpo~a~ing built-in interlocks andd. safety features, provide assurance that no incidents occur during the refueling operations that result in a hazard to public health and safety.
9.7.1.2 Fuel Storage Decay Heat Reliable decay heat removal systems shall be designed to prevent damage to the fuel in storage facilities that could result in radioactivity release which results in undue risk to the health and safe~y of the public.
The refueling wat~t provides reliable and adequate cooling medium for spent fuel transfer.
The spent fuel storage pool is provided ~ith a Spent Fuel Cooling System which is dis-cussed in Section 9.A.
9.7.1.3 -Fuel Storage Radiation Shielding Adequate shielding for radiation pro~ection shall be pro-vided. in the design of spent fuel storage facilities.
Adequate shielding for radiation is provided during reactor refueling by conducting ~11 spent* fuel transfer and storage operations under water.
This permits visual control of the operation at all times while maintaining low radiation levels, SNGS-FSAR Units 1 & 2 9.7-3 P77 110 67 Amendment 42
conditions that might result in loss of capability to re-move decay heat and to detect.excessive radiation levels.
A controlled ventilation system removes gaseous radioacti-vity from the atmosphere in fuel and waste treating areas of the fuel handling and auxiliary buildings and discharges it to the atmosphere via the plant vent.
Radiation moni-tors are in continuous service in these areas to actuate high-activity alarms in the control rooms as described in Chapter 11.
9.7.2 SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATION 9.7.2.1
System Description
The reactor is refueled with equipment designed to handle the spent fuel under water from the time it leaves the re-actor until it is placed in a cask for shipment from the site.
Underwater transfer of spent fuel provides an effec-tive, economic and transparent radiation shield, as well as a reliable cooling medium for removal of decay* heat.
Boric acid is added to the water to ensure subcritical con-ditions during refueling.
In the reactor cavity, fuel is removed from the reactor ves-sel, transferred through the water and placed in the fuel SNGS-FSAR Uni ts 1 & 2.
9.7-4a P77 110 69 Amendment 42
\\
is provided at the top of each storage cell.
This transition 42 is designed to assure ease of entry and to preclude fuel as-sembly hang-up and damage.
After a sufficient decay period the fuel may be removed from storage and loaded into a shipping c~sk for removal from the site *.
- The new fuel assemblies are received and stored in racks in the new fuel storage area, located in the Fuel Handling Building (see. Figure 9.7-2).
New fuel is deliveced to the reactor by lowering it into the transfer pool and taking it through the transfer system.
The new fuel storage area is sized for storage of the fuel assemblies and control rods normally associated ~ith the replacement of one-third of a core.
The fuel.for *the initial cor~ lo~ding is tempo-rarily stored in the spent fuel pool.
The pool is kept dry during this period.
The spacing between fuel assemblies will maintain a subcri-tical array even if the pool is flooded with unborated de-mineralized water.
This applies to both new.and spent fuel.
The new fuel storage racks have been designed in accordance with the 1963 AISC Code.
Seismic loads as well as dead SNGS-FSAR Units 1 & 2 9.7-4c P77 110 71 Amendment 42 42
/
The spent fuel storage racks are designed such that keff is limited to a value of less than 0.95 under normal circum-stances when the pool is flooded with demineralized water.
The reactor cavity, refueling canal and spent fuel storage pool are reinforced concrete structures with seam-welded stainiess steel plate liners.
These Class I (seismic) structures are designed to withstand the anticipated earth-quake loadings and to prevent liner leakage even in the event the reinforced concrete develops cracks.
42 SNGS-FSAR Units 1 & 2 9.7-4e P77 110 73 Amendment 42
9.7.2.2 Refueling'Operation The refueling operation follows a detailed procedure whic? provides a safe, efficient refueling operation.
The following significant points ar~ assured by the refueling procedure:
- 1)
The ref~eling wate+ and the reactor coolant will contain approximately 2,000 ppm boron.
The concentration together with the.control rods is sufficient to keep the core approximately 5% ok/k subcritical during the refueling operations. It is also sufficient to maintain the core subcritical if all of the RCC assemblies were removed from the core.
- 2)
The water level in the refueling. canal will be high enough to keep the radiation levels within acceptable limits when the fuel assemblies are being r~inov~d from th~ core.
This water also provides adequate cooling for the fuel assemblies during transfer operations.
While one unit is being refueled,. there will be no restrictions on the operation of the other unit.
Refueling of one unit will not affect the safety aspects of the other unit.
9.7.2.3 Refueling Procedure Preparation a)
The reactor is shut down, borated to refueling concentration, and cooled to ambient conditions.
b)
A radiation survey is made and the containment is entered~
c)
The c.ontrol rod drive mechanism (CRDM) *missile shield is removed to storage.
d)
- CRDM cables and cooling air ducts are disconnected and removed to storage.
e}
Reactor vessel flange area head insulation and instrument leads are removed except for part-length rod control cables.
SNGS-FSAR Units 1&2 9.7-5 Amendment 42
,~.
I Refueling The refueling sequence is now started with the manipulator crane.
The sequence for fuel assemblies in non-control positions is as follows:
a)
Spent fuel is removed from the center region of the core and placed into the Fuel Transfer System for removal to the spent fuel pool.
b)
Partially spent fuel is transferred from the intermediate region of the core to the vacated positions in the center region *
. c)
Partially spent fuel is transferred from the outer region of the core to vacated positions in the intermediate region.
d)
New fuel assemblies are brought in from the spent fuel pool through the transfer system and loaded into the outer region.
e)
Whenever new fuel is added to the reactor core, a reciprocal curve of source neutron multiplication is recorded to verify the subcriticality of the core.
The refueling sequence is modified for fuel assemblies containing rod cluster control (RCC) elements, as required. If a transfer of the RCC elements between fuel assemblies is required, the assemblies are taken to the RCC change fixture to exchange the RCC elements from one assembly to another.
Such an exchange is required whenever a spent fuel assembly containing a RCC element is removed from the core and whenever a fuel assembly is placed in or taken out of a control position during refueling rearrangement.
SNGS-FSAR Units 1&2 9.7-7
/
n)
Electrical leads and cooling air ducts are reconnected to the CRDM's.
o)
Vessel head insulation and instrumentation leads are replaced.
In-core flux *thimbles are inserted back into core area.
p)
The reactor vessel to cavity seal ring is unclamped.
q)
A hydrosta~ic test is performed on the reactor vessel.
r) *
-Control roq,* drives are checked.
s)
The CRDM-missile shield is picked up with the plant crane and replaced.
t) -
Equipment access door-is closed and sealed.
u)
Pre-operational tests-are performed.*
9.7.2.4
.Major Structures Required for Refueling Reactor Cavity The* reactor cavity is a reinforced concrete structure that forms a pool above the reactor when it is filled with borated water for refueling.
The cavity is filled to a depth* that limits the radiation at the surface of the water to 2.5 milliroentgens per hour during those brief periods when a fuel assembly is transferred over the reactor vessel flange.
The reactor vessel flange is sealed to the bottom of the reactor cavity by a. clamped, gasketed seal ring which prevents leakage of refueling water.
. from the* cavity. :* This seal is fastened and closed after reactor cooldown
- =
but prior to flooding the cavity for refueling operations.
SNGS-FSAR Units 1&2 9.7-9
(----:-._.
-~
\\
\\
- C i
/
I 1*. /
I
\\ I
- ,\\..
. \\
\\.
\\
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
- 1
- ~~
~B!
., z:
.,.0 Ill
. a.~t.,.
.. )... *.*.
\\
~.. :...
- ~ :.....
POISON SPENT FUEL S'l'ORAGE CELL FSA R - Amendment 42 FIG. 9. 7-4
(
MODULE INTER-TIE MODULE BASE RESTRAINT
- e
~
i : '.
SPENT FUL:l POOL LiNER PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
.;p*
. CEVEL~* mr
~ACJl:l.IABLE REMOTELY j COOLANT FLOW HOLES H.1:GH DENSITY' POISON SPENT FUEL S'IORAGE MODULE F SAR - Amendment 42 FIG. 9.7-3
I I L ___ '~"---J g
'il T
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION r14. 'i:?-z.
A*'fl'NP*"""r 1~
FUEL llANOLUJ~ ARlfA JUl-Ufllll£11 4'l flC. 9.7*2