ML19267A306
| ML19267A306 | |
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901040030 | |
| Download: ML19267A306 (9) | |
Text
.'
~
12/18/78 MC PUDL:C Lugt z;,
~
v-s ft UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A
7 %T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 47
@ 4' O Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g
[
g In the Matter of
)
f r.t,
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
Motion for Summary Disposition ot 3C Contention 7a(iii) 1.
Suffolk County (SC or County) contention 7a(iii) was accepted by the Board only for purposes of discovery because it was insufficiently particularized.
Tr. 73, 121-22.
This con-tention reads as follows:
7a.
Intervenors contend that the Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately demonstrated that the Shoreham nuclear system meets the require-ments of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General De-sign Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, with re-gard to the design adequacy of the following system and response characteristics and/or criteria:
control design to [ assure] quires the reactor core iii.
Criterion 10 re appropriate margin of the fuel cladding be maintained as one of the multiple barriers.
Lack of fine motion control of the control rod drives, and its potential to cause cladding damage.has not not [ sic] been demonstrated to be in compliance with this require-ment.
SC's Amended Petition to Intervene at 10 (Sept. 16, 1977).
2.
SC alleges in this contention, as amplified in its Particularized Contentions at 7-4 (Nov. 30, 1978), that Shore-790104003o
[
. ham does not comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 10 because it will use GE's standard six-inch increment control rod drive sytem.
The County claims that this system will cause a high fuel failure rate.
3.
Contrary to the County's allegation, the Shoreham design meets Criterion 10, as demonstrated by the analyses in FSAR Appendix 15A.
See Affidavit of William J. Tunney at 1 2.
4.
Furthermore, an extremely low fuel failure rate is expected at Shoreham.
GE has developed two methods to minimize fuel failures.
The first is a preconditioning program, which limits the initial rate of ascent to power after new fuel is installed.
The second is GE's 8 x 8 fuel bundle design, which replaced the older 7 x 7 design.
When these two methods are used together, they have virtually elim-nated fuel failures at operating plants.
See Affidavit. of Robert S. Blackman.
LILCO plans to use the 8 x 8 fuel in Shoreham and will follow GE's preconditioning program, or one similarly designed to minimize fuel failures.
See Affidavit of William J. Tunney at i 3.
The extremelf low fuel failure rate expected at Shoreham confirms that the plant complies with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 10.
5.
For the above reasons, SC contention 7a(iii) raises no genuine issue of fact.
Accordingly, under 10 CFR $ 2.749,
- it is ripe for sun:=ary disposition in favor of the Applicant.
We request that disposition.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY F. Case Whittemore W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 18, 1978
SC 7a(iii)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina 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 Company.
A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
2.
General Design Criteria 10 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appen-dix A requires that:
The reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified ac-ceptable fuel design Ibnits are not exceeded dur-ing any condition of normal operations, including the effects of anticipmted operational occurrences.
For boiling water reactors, such as Shoreham, the NRC has imple-mented this criterion by establishing a minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) for anticipated operational occurrences at each plant.
For example, the MCPR for GE's standardized plant is 1.07.
NUREG-0151, " Safety Analysis Report on GESSAR 251-NSSS Standardized Design, page 15-1 (March 1977).
The MCPR safety limit for Shoreham is 1.06.
FSAR Table 15A.1-3.
The analysis in FSAR Appendix 15A demonstrates that this limit is met for all
anticipated operational occurrences.
The most severe antici-pated operational occurrence involving control red movement is the Continuous Control Rod Withdrawal during Pcwer Range Operation.
The MCPR during this occurrence is 1.16,b! which is above the MCPR safety limit of 1.06.
Therefore Shoreham's control rod system complies with General Design Criterion 10.
3.
To further reduce the chance of fuel failures, LILCO has purchased GE's 8 x 8 fuel for use in Shoreham.
During opera-tion of this reactor, LILCO will follow the GE fuel precendition-ing program or one similarily designed to minimi::e fuel failures.
s William J. Tunney 4
Subscribed and sworn to before me this cm day of December 1978.
.--(
Ia
. c _ ! c.
~. cn.dLL!CN
- s. 3 :
Notary dublic n:: ry Pu :::. s:2:e et New Yeric
'::. 20,:GC2227 Qua,,g m n2s:2a ::u-ef r
h" * " I~"'32SIL My Cc= mission Expires b/ This value is derived by taking the '!CPR operating limit of 1.29, FSAR Table 15A.1-3, and subtracting rhe AMCPR for this occurrence of 0.128, id. at 15A-37, to yield the MCPR value c.,.,.., o.
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 am responsible for nuclear fuel design and 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-ranga 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.
SC 7a(iii)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Scfety and Licensing Board In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT S. BLACKMAN ROBERT S. BLACKMAN, being duly swern, states as follows:
1.
I am Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Operations Engineering Unit of the BWR Engineering Department of General Electric Company (GE). A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
2.
GE has developed a fuel preconditioning program that, when used by utilities, has virtually eliminated fuel cladding failures at reactors using GE's standard six-inch increment control rod drive system.
In late 1972 and early 1973, GE conducted a series of tests in the GE Test Reactor using early production fuel rods. These experiments demonstrated that a slow ascent to power would not only substantially reduce the rate of fuel failures, but that the slow ramp " preconditioned" th'e fuel to withstand subsequent rapid power changes to all levels up to that attained during the initial slow power increase.
From this test program, GE developed and introduced in mid-1973 a fuel preconditioning program, entitled " Interim Operating Management Reconinendations for Fuel Preconditioning," to provide utilities with recommendations for and limitations on control rod withdrawal.
In January 1976, GE issued procedures to simplify implementation of the preconditioning program.
3.
The effectiveness of the preconditioning program has been demonstrated by a substantial reduction in the incidence of cladding failures in the earlier 7 x 7 fuel bundles.
In addition, GE has designed the newer 8 x 8 fuel bundles, which have redesigned pellets, higher clad annealing temperatures, and lower local power levels during operation.
Operating experience at plants using both the 8 x 8 fuel design and the preconditioning program has demonstrated that these two methods have virtually eliminated fuel failures.
m
(\\a
\\s c.
.s '.
_ u.
. ~
Racert 5. Blackman Subscribed and sworn to before me this /J* day of December 1978.
L fn./b u w w Notary Public My Comission Expires: 'dwi #7 80 DR:pab/136-137
.. ~ _ _
r
_ CFFICIAI. SEAL _
y pg M.
RUTMI is K!NN A.'.O N
)i 3 g;y_g *:0'A.Tr F.SUC - CA:.:T: W A r.s u m e -.
. <r,e, n:. r.een ;'x n
- ~-
~. -,.
OUALIFICATIONS OF ROBERT S. BLACKMAN My name is Robert S. Blackman.
My business address is General Electric Company, 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, California 95125.
I am currently Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Operations Engineering Unit of the BWR Engineering Department.
As such, my primary responsibilities have been implementation and management of GE's fuel preconditioning program.
I graduated from the State University of New York in Buffalo in 1971 with a Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engi-neering.
In 1973 I received a Masters of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley.
In 1972 I joined General Electric Company as a Start-up Engineer.
In 1975 I assumed my current position.
.