ML19263B002

Motion for Summary Disposition of Suffolk County Contention 7a(vi).No Genuine Issue of Fact Re Insp & Testing of Facility'S Spent Fuel Racks Raised.Contention Is Ripe for Summary Disposition in Favor of Applicant

ML19263B002
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/18/1978
From:	Whittemore F HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:
Shared Package
ML19263A941	List: ML19263A958 ML19263A964 ML19263A985 ML19263B002 ML19263B005 ML19263B022 ML19267A293 ML19267A306 ML19267A308
References
NUDOCS 7901040033
Download: ML19263B002 (7)

Text

,

12/18/78 t . , ,

'I t

sNY ff'?l, <

')

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[o#"g,) *lQ'p

if NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board {

. 'N In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

} Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

Motion for Su=marv Discosition of SC Contention 7a (vi)

1. Suffolk County (SC or County) contention 7a(vi) was ruled by the Board to be adequately particularized, Tr. 63, and reads as follows:

7a. Intervenors contend that the Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately demonstrated that the Shoreham nuclear system meets the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, with regard to the design adequacy of the following system and response characteristics and/or criteria:

vi. Criterion 61 requires fuel stor-age systems shall be designed "with a capa-bility to pernit appropriate periodic in-spection and testing of components impor-tant to safety." Given the current uncer-tainty regarding reprocessing and long term disposal of irradiated fuel, ccmpliance of Shoreham fuel storage facilities with this requirement has not been adequately demon-strated.

SC's Amended Petition to Intervene at 10-11 (Sept. 16, 1077),

2. In order er better understand the issues raised by 7901040033 b

this contention, the Applicant asked the County to:

describe the specific features of the Shore-ham fuel storage facilities which allegedly prevent " appropriate periodic inspection and testing of components important to safety,"

if any.

Second Set of Applicant's Interrogatories to Suffolk County at 9 (Dec. 8, 1977). SC's answer was not responsive to this interrogatory, but it did stateb!:

This condition results from the current back up of spent fuel in operating reactors due to the lack of a reprocessing facility or permanent disposal site, resulting in the fuel storage pools becoming overloaded with discharged fuel.

More recently, the County alleged that, although the spent fuel storage racks are " designed for short-term service," the current backlog of spent fuel would require that they be used "almost indefinitely." SC claimed that this would violate the inspection requirements of Criterion 61. SC's Particularized Contentions at 7-9 (Nov. 30, 1978).

3. This contention, as clarified by the material quoted in paragraph 2 above, raises no material issue of fact for the following reasons:

a. Contrary to the County's allegation, Shoreham's spent fuel racks are designed to be in service, that is installed in 1/ SC's Response to Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories at 21 (Jan. 31, 1978). The County also alleged that the Shore-ham Technical Specifications had not been issued, and used this as an excuse for not more fully answering the Applicant's in-terrogatory. Id. But this argument is without merit because Shoreham's proposed Technical Specifications have been available since June 30, 1977 -- seven months before SC's nonresponsive answer.

. the fuel pool and available to hold spent fuel, for at least the 40-year life of the plant. See Affidavit of William J.

Tunney at 1 2.

b. Although the present lack of reprocessing or dis-posal facilities will cause more spent fuel to be stored in the Shoreham fuel pool than had originally been intended, that will not affect Shoreham's compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 61. Because Shoreham's spent fuel racks do not contain any neutron poison material other than that which is inherent in the racks' structural members, there will be no required inspec-tions or tests of the racks. See id. at 1 3.

c. But in the unlikely event that there were a reason some time in the future to inspect or test the spent fuel racks, the capability to perform these operations would not be affected by how full the racks were. This is because the operations could either be done in place or, if a rack had to be removed from the pool, any fuel in the rack could be temporarily moved to another vacant rack. See id. at T 4. There will be vacant racks in the Shoreham f2el pool well into the 1990's, see generally id. at i 2, by which time a method of spent fuel disposal will surely have been implemented.

4 For the above reasons, SC contention 7a(vi) raises no genuine issue of fact concerning inspection and testing of Shoreham's spent fuel racks. Accordingly, under 10 CFR s 2.749, this contention is ripe for summary disposition in the Applicant's

favor. We request that disposition.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPATI jbWe F. Case Whittemore W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 18, 1978 4

~

SC 7a(vi)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station )

Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM J. TUNNEY William J. Tunney, being duly sworn, states as follows:

1. I am Manager of the Nuclear Fuel Division in the Nuclear Engineering Department of Long Island Lighting Com-pany. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.

2. A description of Shoreham's spent fuel storage system is contained in FSAR S 9.1.2. The spent fuel assem-blies will be stored in a vertical position i,n stainless steel boxes welded into a large honeycomb structure (rack) that will hold 96 assemblies. These racks, mosc of which will be installed in the fuel pool before the start of operations, are designed to store spent fuel for at least the 40-year life of the plant. There will be sufficient racks to accomo-date 2,176 fuel assemblies, which is approximately 3.9 ccm-plete cores. One fourth of the core, 140 assemblies will be replaced each year and the discharged fuel will be stored in the fuel pool. Thus, Shoreham will have sufficient capacity to

store all of the spent fuel produced during twelve years of operations and still have room to unload the entire core in-to the fuel pool. It could operate for an additional four years with a progressively diminishing discharge capability.

3. Criterion 61 requires that the spent fuel racks be designed "to pemnit accreoriate periodic inspection and testing" (emnhasis added) . Based on the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.13, Standard Review Plan 9.1.2, and ANSI Standard N18.2, it is not necessary to require periodic inspections or tests of fuel racks such as Shoreham's, which do not contain any neutron poison material other than that which is inherent in the structural members. This is con-firned by the fact that the NRC does not require periodic in-spections or tests of spent fuel racks si=ilar to Shoreham's that are installed at operating plants.

4 If there were a reason some tr=e in the future to inspect or test the spent fuel racks, this could be accom-plished with underwater techniques. Or spent fuel in the rack to be inspected could be transferred to a vacant rack which could then be removed from the pool for inspection.

William J._ Tunney Subscribed and sworn to before ne this -

day of December 1978. , ., y [0 ],[- '-

.:. .: ::: r

. .. ca. :c ..-  ::_ _ n .. - : .

Notary Fuclic

~ ' ~~

My CcenibsicA25xpfhes.E '

. ~

QUALIFICATIONS OF WILLIAM J. TUNNEY My name is William J. Tunney. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicks-ville, New York. Since February 1978, I have been Manager of the Nuclear Fuel Division and report to the Manager of the Nuclear Engineering Department. I as responsible for nuclear fuel design anc' performance, long range planning and scheduling, as well as technical and economic direction for the various com-ponents of the nuclear fuel cycle.

I graduated in 1962 from Worcester Polytechnic Institute with a Bachelor of Science degree in physics. I have completed training courses in BWR and PWR technology.

From 1962 to 1970 I was employed by Brookhaven National -

Laboratory in the position of Physics Associate. During this period I conducted independent research in the area of experi-mental reactor physics. I have been employed by LILCO since 1970. In the period 1970-1973 my responsibilities were to provide technical support for the licensing efforts on the Shoreham Station. From 1973 to the present I have been responsi-ble for nuclear fuel management, including long-range planning, fuel contract evaluation, fuel economics, and development of the fuel management capabilities necessary to support the safe and economic operation of LILCO's nuclear plants.

I am a member of the American Nuclear Society.