ML19209A325
| ML19209A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1979 |
| From: | Goddard R, Goldberg S NRC Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A326 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030607 | |
| Download: ML19209A325 (18) | |
Text
-
EC PUBLIC DOCMfENT bha UNITED STATES OF A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8/3/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD II. r.o Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-295 s
~'
)
50-304
s (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
,J
/.l' A
.q.,
- /.
jj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S i-e, f
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
-j.
/
OF LAW IN THE FORM 0F AN INITIAL DECISION I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.
/_The NRC Staff (Staff) concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings
- /
1 throu p 17, subject to the following modification:-
In paragraph 14, "2(d)" should be deleted.7 II. FINDINGS OF FACT 2.
Contention 2(a) reads as follows:
The State of Illinois contends that approval of the proposed license amendment would be a major action of the Commission significantly affecting the quality of the human environment in Illinois. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, requires the Commission to submit an environmental impact statement with respect to the proposed license amendment.
- / Pursuant to Licensee's request, which was granted by the Licensing Board (Tr. 2059),
~
the Staff,where feasible,has adopted proposed findings submitted by the Licensee in this proceeding, in whole or in part, and, in some cases, with modification or supplementation.
1085 163
- 7910030 [ O 7 s
3.
/_The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 18 through 36 with respect to this contention, with the following modifications:
(i) cite Staff Exhibit 18,15.3.3, at the close of finding 27
~
(ii) change citation in finding 28 from "65.5.5" to "55.3.5" of Staff Exhibit 1B; and (iii) change citation in finding 32 from "15.3.8" to "95.3.9"
~
of Staff Exhibit 1B_7 4.
Contention 2(b) reads as follows:
Approval of the amendment request would be contrary to the NRC policy position on spent fuel storage which prohibits non-emergency licensing of any existing storage facility prior to the adcption of an official long term policy regarding the permanent storage of spent fuel. See " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," 40 Fed. Reg. 42801, September 16, 1975.
(1) There is no emergency need to rerack as the existing storage pool contains more space than is necessary to accommodate full core discharge.
(2) The existing pool is able to accomodate normal refueling discharges until 1981; therefore, failure to grant the application at this time poses no threat of imminent shutdown of the facility.
5.
,%e Staff would replace Licensee's proposed finding 37 with the following[/
Contrary to the claim in Contention 2(b), the Commission explicitly detennined in its Notice of " Intent to Prepare Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel" (GEIS Notice) that Iicensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel capacity should 1085.164 4
- not be deferred pending completion of the GEIS giver, its consideration of certain 1/
specified factors.
40 F.R. 42801 (September 16,1975). The Notice indicated that these same factors should be evaluated within the context of the environmental impact statement (EIS) or appraisal (EIA) prepared in connection with a particular action arising during this interim period to ascertain whether the Commission's general conclusion reached with respect thereto fit the factual circumstances of such action.
In its EIA prepared in the instant matter, the Staff reached such a conclusion.
(Staff Exh.18 at 68.4). Contention 2(b) effectively places in issue the fifth factor (public interest) specified in the GEIS Notice. Consideration of the balance of the specified factors falls outside the scope of contention 2(b) and they were not otherwise put into controversy by the parties in this proceeding.
Thus, the Board does not deem Board examination of the Staff's consideration of these factors necessary. g.10CFR52.760a. The Intervenor did not submit any evidence uith respect to either of these factors.
4
_lf Broadly stated, these factors are whether: (1) each licensing action of this type could have a utility that is independent of the utility of other licensing actions of this type; (2) other available alterna-tives might be foreclosed; (3) impacts could not be adequately assessed in the context of an individual proceeding without overlooking cumula-tive impacts; (4) technical issues might arise which could not be resolved in the context of the individual proceeding; and (5) a deferral or severe restriction on this type of action would substantially harm the public interest.
6.
/The Staff believes that Licensee's proposed findings 38 and 40-44 address matters outside the scope of the matters in controversy in the proceeding and recommends adoption of Licensee proposed finding 45 in their place with substitution of "1981" for "1982" in line 6.
Cite Staff Exh. 2B at 2.0; " Testimony of Gary G.
ZechonContention/l(bf/",followingTr.607at2(hereinafterZechTestimcny).
A citation to Zech Testimony at 2-3 should follow closing citation to Staff Exh.
18 at 8-5p 1085 165
. 7.
CThe Staff recomends that Licensee's finding 46 be deleted, and that the following sentence be added to paragraph 6 above:
The Licensee's evidence is in accord. TestimonyofGeorgeJ.Plim1,followingTr.677,at6]
8.
dhe Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed finding 392 9.
GheStaffconcursinandadoptsthefirsttwosentencesinLicensee'sproposed finding 47 and testimony reference. The Staff believes that the balance of the findingissurplusage]
- 10. GheStaffconcursinandadoptsLicensee'sproposedfinding48_/
- 11. Contention 2(c) reads as follows:
Should it be necessary to shut down the Zion facility, pending the development of an alternate, away from reactor facility, the Applicant has not shown that the community currently being served by Zion would be adversely affected economically or by experiencing loss of electricity.
(1) The Applicvit has not explored the possibility of meeting current demand by increased use of under-utilized fossil-fueled plants serving the Edison system.
(2) The Applicant has not considered curtailing the output from Zion in conjunction.with a conservation program and coordinated rate structure which would reduce the demand for electricity in the area served by Zion.
- 12. /_T,he Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 49 through 64 with respect to this contention with the addition of the following finding the concluding finding (finding 64)p
-1085 166
With regard to energy conservation, Staff witness Toalston testified that, since a nuclear unit serves the base load rather than peak load portion of the load cycle, a reduction in energy demand would not effect the demand upon a nuclear unit.
If conservation measures tend to shift load from the peak to the base, the existing nuclear unit becomes even b re importapt. At the same time, if base load is re-duced, additional energy generation will likewise be delayed or reduced so that the result is effectively the same. Tr. 862-63.
- 13. Contention 2(f) reads as follows:
There has been insufficient development of credible acciden'.
scenarios. For ex mple:
(1) there is insufficient documentation to' establish the methods by which the Applicant will positively prevent the movement of heavy objects, such as shipping casks or empty fuel rackT over the pool during modification; thus accidental droppings of such heavy objects, which could lead to unacceptable damage to spent fuel or the pool liner and consequent release of radionuclides, has not precluded.
(2) there is insufficient information regarding the methods-by which accidental damage to stored spent fuel assemblies will be preverted during the installation o.' the new poisoned spent fuel storage racks.
- 14. @e Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 65-72 and 75-8217
- 15. [The Staff encurs in and adopt: Licensee's prnposed finding 73, with-the following modificat!ons:
(1) Change "Tr. 1980" to "Tr. 1981," and "Tr. 1966-7" to "Tr. 1969";
(ii) Afterthesentence"Howevef,duringconstruction... leakage,"
insert "Zudans, Tr. 1967-68: Zech, prepared testimony at 2, Tr. 1958";
~
~
1085 167
(iii)
Replace last sentence with the following: "The Staff testified that the minor damage to the liner which might result from the drop of a fuel ccsk would be within the makeup capability of the various water sources that exist at the plant and would envelope the damage whiu: might result from a drop of a rack (Zech, Tr. 1980-81)."[/
~
- 16. [The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee proposed finding 74 with the following modifications:
(1)
Delete the phrase "There is no NRC acceptance criteria for this fuel assembly drop analysis"; and (ii)
Substitute the phrase "could tenpGrarily hinder" for "might temporarily prevent" in the last sentence./
17.
Contention 2(g) reads as follows:
The Applicant's discussion of spent fuel boiling is inadequate in that (1) there is no consideration given to the possibility that the pool might boil, and (2) there is no discussion of possible damage to fuel cladding or of the consequent release of radionuclides under such conditions; therefore, there is no assurance that public health and safety will not be andangered.
In addition, the heat removal capacity of the spent fuel pool cooling system has not been shown to be adequate to support the expanded pool capacity.
18.
fThe Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 83 through 108 with respect to this contention, with the following modifications:
(i)
" Btu /m" in finding 91 should read " Btu /hr,"
(ii)
" Lanz" in findings 83, 91, and 100 should read "Lant2.#[/
1085 168 4
e
. 19. Corrosion Contentions 2(e)(3) ~and (4) read as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not adequately discuss monitoring procedures.
In the light of the proposed modification and long term storage of nuclear spent fuel the Applicant should clarify the following:
(3) Methods for detecting the loss of neutron absorber material and/or swelling of stainless steel tubes in storage racks.
(4) Details of a corrosion test program to monitor per-formance of materials used in the construction of racks.
Contention 2(h) reads as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation have not analyzed the long term (including storage during the operating lifetime of the reactor) electrolytic corrosion effects of using dissimilar alloys for the pool liners, pipes, storage racks and storage rack bases, such as the galvanic corrosion between unanodized aluminum as is used in Brooks and Perkins storage racks, and the stainless steel pool liner.
Contention 2(i) reads as follows:
The Applicant has not discussed whether the proposed modification and long term storage may cause the following effects on the stored fuel: accelerated corrosion, micro-structural changes, alterations in mechanical properties, stress corrosion, cracking, inter-granular corrosion, and hydrogen absorption and precip-itation by the zirconium alloys.
Contention 2(j) reads as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not give sufficient data to fu?4 essess the durability and performance of the Boral ' Snibss steel tubes which form the spent fuel storage Mci -t (1) there is inac s,Jat.6 ulysis of the corrosion rate of the tubes. '
1085 169
- (2) there is no calculation of the effect of water chemistry on the Boral within the stainless steel.
(3) there is no mention of the possible swelling of Boral within the stainless steel tubes, a condition which could effect, among other things, removal of fuel assemblies from the racks.
Contention 2(k) reads as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not consider possible degeneration of the Boral density due either to generic defects or to mechanical failure which would diminish the effectiveness of Boral as neutron absorber, thus leading to criticality in the spent fuel pool.
- 20. (The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 109 through 133, subject to the following modifications:
(i) The second sentence of finding 111 should be replaced with the following sentence:
"Of these dissimilar materials, the stainless steel, Inconel, and Zircaloy h' ave nearly indentical electrolytic potential and therefore can be coupled without significant electrolytic or galvanic effects."
(ii)
In the secQad sentence of finding 120, " porosity" is misspelled]
- 21. Quality Assurance Contention 2(k) reads as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not consider possible degeneration of the Boral density due either to generic defects or to mechanical failure which would diminish the effectiveness of Boral as neutron absorber, thus leading to criticality in the spent fuel pool.
Contention 2(1) reads as follows:
The Applicant has not described the procedures it intends to employ to prevent the installation and use of damaged
~and defective racks.
~ * -
1085 170
22.
/The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensae findings 134-151 with respect to these contentions with a change in the citation to Mr. Zech's testimony in finding 145 from '"Tr.1984" to "Tr.1994.[/
- 23. Board Question 4(a) reads as follows:
Will the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool and/or the operation of the Zion Station with increased spent fuel pool storage capacity:
(1) increase the potential risk of threats to special nuclear material or to Station facilities?
(2) increase the potential risk of theft of special nuclear material from the Station?
(3) increase the potential risk of industrial sabotage to the Station or to the special nuclear material?
(4) decrease the level of physical protection of the facilities or special nuclear material at the Station?
Board Question 4(b) reads as follows'(relating to security matters):
As a result of the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool and the proposed operation of the Station with increased spent fuel storage capacity, will it be necessary to modify the Physical Security Plan, Safeguard, Contingency Plan... for the Station?
- 24. /_The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 153 through 161.7
- 25. Board Question 4(b) reads as follows (relating to emergency planning):
As a result of the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool and the proposed operation of the Station with increased spent fuel storage capacity, will it be necessary to modify the... Emergency Plan for the Station?
IUUS lil
. 26.
/jThe Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee proposed findings 162-164 with respect to this question with the following modification:
Replace the sentence stating "The Board ruled... into evidence" in finding 162 with "The Board upheld the motions of the Licensee and Staff to strike Mr. Cleary's testimony on the grounds that he was-not qualified to offer an expert opinion on Question 4(b) and further ruled that his prepared testimony was not responsive to Question 4(b); thus, it re-fusedtoreceiveitintoevidence.j/
- 27. Accident Analyses Board Questions 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), and 4(f) read as follows:
(c) What postulated accidents, which might affect the safety of plant operati-ng personnel in the spent fuel storage building or which might result in the release of radiation or radioactive materials from the spent fuel storage building, were specifically analyzed in the FSAR, SER, ER and FES utilized in the CP and OL licensing reviews of Zion Units 1 and 27 (d) Which, if any, of the postulated accidents in (c),
above, will be increased in probability, magnitude or consequence (to personnel, to the general public or to the environment) if the proposed spent fuel pool modifications are carried out?
(e) What provisions have been made or procedures developed to protect the workmen and/or plant personnel from the consequences of such postulated accidents during the period when the proposed spent fuel pool modifications are being performed?
(f) Which, if any, of the postulated accidents in (c), above, will be increased in probability, magnitude or consequence (to personnel, to the general public or to the environment) as a result of the completion of the proposed spent fuel pool modifications and the proposed subsequent usage of the increased spent fuel storage capacity.
1085 172 k
e e
g
. 28.
/_The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 166-174, with the following modifications:
(1) In finding 165, line 4, correct spelling of "Donohew;"
(ii) Change the last sentence of finding 169 to read as follows:
"Until a review of the radiological consequences of a cask drop accident is completed..."
(iii) In finding 170, line 3, add the work "significant" after the word "no;"
(iv)Infinding17[1 line 12, add the word "significant" after the word "be. /
29.
Board Question 4(g) reads as follows:
The Applicant and Staff are asked to describe any design and/or engineered safety features incorporated in the Zion spent fuel storage pool to decrease the likelihood of a severe pool drainage accident.
- 30. /_The Staff concurs in and adopts Lice 6see's proposed findings 175-180, with the following correction:
Infinding178,line11,correctspellingof"Zech.f/
- 31. Board Question 4(h) reads as follows:
The Applicant and Staff are asked to provide a history of the apparent leak in the liner of the spent fuel pool.
Specifically, the following should be addressed:
(1) Has the leak intensified with time?
(2) What is being done with the water leaking from the pool?
'(,3)Arethereanytechnicalspecificationswh.ichlimitthe permitted leakage rate?
(4) Why has the leak not been repaired?
~
1.085 173
. (5) How will possible future leaks be located and repaired if the proposed increase'in storage capacity if permitted?
- 32. @eStaffconcursinandadoptsLicenseefindings 181-188]
- 33. Board Question 4(i) reads as follows:
The Applicant and Staff are asked to address the contention made during limited appearance statements that the component cooling system has had a number of leaks which have not been repaired.
- 34. /_The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 189-191 with respecttothisquestion]
- 35. /_TheStaffproposestheadditionofthefollowingfinding[/
Mr. Kohler testified on behalf of the Staff regarding Board Question 4(i). Mr.'Kohler testified that, based on a discussion with the principal NRC inspector previously assigned to the Zion facility,on one occasion the prior year or two some boric acid had apparently leached onto the component cooling water pumps from boric acid tanks s.ituated on the floor above. This did not affect the operability of the pumps and was subsequently cleaned up and maintained in a clean condition. Aside from this incident, neither he nor the previous inspector knew of any actual leakage in the component cooling water system past or present (Kohler, Tr. 805-09).
- 36. /_The Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed finding 1922 1085 174 4/.
?oard Question 4(f) reads as follows:
~
The Applicant and Staff are asked to report on the increased fuel burnup tests from the standpoint of the extent to which these subsequent spent fuel assemblies have been considered in the various analyses performed as part of this proceeding.
- 38. @eStaffconcursinandadoptsLicensee'sproposedfindings193through197, with the following corrections:
s (1) In finding 194, last line, the citation "Lobel,' Tr. 1802-1805" should read "Zech, Tr. 1802-1805;"
(ii) In finding 195, line 4, add "(peak rod average burnup)"
after the word " ton;" and (iii) In finding 195 line 9, add "(bundle average)" after the word "burnup._g/
- 39. Board Questions (formerly Contentions) 2(e)(1), 2(e)(2) and 2(e)(5) read as follows:
The amendment request and supporting documentation do not adequately discuss monitoring procedures.
In the light of the proposed modification and long tem storage of nuclear spent fuel the Applicant should clarify the following; (1) The monitoring equipment that is used and the ranges of sensitivity.
(2) The method by which incremental airborne radioactive emissions created by the spenc fuel pool expansion will be measured.
(5) Procedures to monitor groundwater movement in the vicinity of the plant to detect leakage from the spent fuel pool.
- 40. @e Staff concurs in and adopts Licensee's proposed findings 198 through 212./
1085 175
, III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- 41. /_The Staff adopts the Licensee's proposed conclusions of law, with the following modification:
In conclusion (2), line 11, delete the word " Board,"
substitutingtherefor" Staff [/
IV. ORDER
- 42. /_The Staff adopts the Licensee's proposed Order, with the following modifications:
(i) In condition (3), line 4, add the word "of" after the word " completion;"
(ii) Add to the final paragraph of the Order the following three sentenc ':
Exceptions to this Initial Decision may be filed within ten (10) days after service of this Initial Decision. A brief in support of the exceptions shall be filed within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff).
Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of th Appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
APPENDIX C - COMMITMENTS MADE BY LICENSEE
- 43. /_The Staff adopts and concurs in Licensee's proposed commitments, with the following modifications:
(1) In comitment (4), line 4, correct the spelling of the word " attenuation;"
1085 176
15 -
(ii) In commitment (4), line 6, the word " plates" should replace the word " places;"
(iii) Add to commitment (4): "(The amended technical specifications for Zion Station will provide that nominal center-to-center spacing of spent fuel assemblies will be 10.35 inches, to assure-a K effectivenottoexceed0.95.]/
- 44. Add as " Appendix D - Transcript Corrections" the following:
W h
9 f
m' e
10813 177 G
. NRC STAFF PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS The NRC Staff proposes the following transcript corrections:
November 20, 1978 Page Line Correction 4
2 Change "may" to "will" 9
1 Change " contention" to " contentions" 10 17 Change " statement" to " appraisal" 22 23 Change " set aside" to " satisfied" 22 24 Change "they" to "there" h
23 6
Change "NEPA" to " legal" 23 7_'
Change "in" to "and" 50 13 Change "prefiled" to "brief filed" 50 16 Add "it" after " failure" 53 6
Change " operating"' to " operator" 53 8
Change " interest" to " interested" 62 23 Change the first " office" to " function" 66 13 Change " bombers" to " bomb throwers" 68 7
Add "of" after "one" 68 9
Add "way" after "any" 68
~ 23 Change "and" to "in" 71 3
Change " jointed" to " joined" 99 10 Change "Bradford" to "Radford" 107 16 Change "Rassmussen" to "Rasmussen" 107 19 Change "Rassmussen" to "Rasmussen" 1
1085 178 Page Line Correction 107 21 Change " Louis" to " Lewis" 108 3
Change " Louis" to " Lewis" 108 7
Change " Louis" to " Lewis" 141 s 14 Change "Maxie" to "Maxey" 176 14 Change " Rockey" to " Rocky" 177 13 Change "Ellerton" to "Allerton" 177 15 Change "Ellerton" to "Allerton" 185 21 Change " Defence" to " Defense" 195 15 Change "Mel t" to " Mil k" 196 17 Change Ferme" to " Fermi" 197 2
Change "Ferme" to " Fermi" 203 14 Change " leak" to " link" 205 15 Change, " fourth" to " fortieth" 219 15 Add " Division of" befori " Naval" 263 14 Add " don' t" af ter "I" June 11, 1979 296 18 Change " Miner" to " Minor" 296 21 Chance "probitive" to " probative" June 12, 1979 553 24 Eliminate " pool" 641 22 Insert "of" after " independent" 657 15 Change "EIA" to "EIS" 1085 179 J
. June 13,1979 Page Line Correction 747 20 Change " " to "is" 801 25 Change " full" to " pool" 804 14 Change " initial" to " initiate" Remove quotation mark and place after "page 435" 805 14 Change "it" in "if" June 15,1979 1259 24 Change " mills" to " mils" June 21, 1979 1637 6
Change "regards" to " disregards" 1723 21 Delete the second "in" June 22,1979 1963 14 Change " restricting" to " restriction" 1975 1
Change " core" to " fuel" 2060 21 Change "give" to " waive" spectfully submitted, C
l :,,J-?
?A u_t hichardJ.G(fdafd Counsel for NRC Staff
- ~-d 4
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 1085 180 this 3rd day of August, 1979.
%