ML19270E842

Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.Intervenors Alfred & Eleanor Coleman Are Represented by Public Advocate of Nj. Questions Are Based on Licensee'S Application for Increased Capacity Fuel Racks.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19270E842
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	11/21/1978
From:	Potter R NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7901020244
Download: ML19270E842 (8)

Text

&

NRC PUBLIC DOCU.'dEliI RQOM o a gyn D connLsN:iD12C3 e O 9

~ CN q$N 7 .[ .

LNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR FIGLUTCRY CCeNISSICN 5

S Mg@NA

• BEFCRE TEE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICE'; SING ECARD g *>Yo**I Q e#

, Gae 3 In the Matter of ) ~

)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC 5 ) Docket No. 50-272 GAS CCMPN N ) Proposed Issuance of Amendment

) to Facility Operating License (Salem Nuclear Generating ) No. DPR-70 Station, Unit No.1) )

INTER'2NCPS' FIPST SET OF INTERRCGATORIES TO THE LICENSEE The intervenors, Alfred and Eleanor Coleman, represented by the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey, respectfully request the licensee, Publi.c Sertice Electric and Gas Ccenany, to an.wer fully, in writing, under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories. In answering each interrogator /,

please provide the following:

a. The direct answer to the question.

b. The fact (s) and reasoning that sunport your answer.

c. hhere the interrogatory requests a response which requires or suggests a numerical answer, please give the calculations which support your response.

d. Identification of all documents and studies, and the particular parts thereof, relied ucon by you in answering the interrogatorf.

e. Identification of the person or persons you rely on to substantiate your answers.

f. Identify the expert (s), if any, you intent to have testify on the subject matter questioned.

790102 M'

~

Please note that the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission,10 C.F.R. 2.740b require you to answer in full and under oath within fourteen (14) days after service of these interrogatories. In addition, please note that the definitions provided by the licensee in your interrogatories to the Colemans (dated June 28, 1978) are intended to apply here as well unless noted othenvise.

INERRCGATORIE The follcwing questions are based on the licensee's Aonlication for Increased Cacacity Fuel Racks No.1 Unit, Salen Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No.

50-272 and the Attachment 1 Descriotion and Safety Analvsis Snent Fuel Storage Rack Replacement, (hereinafter referred to as the " Safety Analysis") .

1. At p. 2 of the Safety Analysis, the licensee described the altematives which were considered and "detemined to be unsatisfactory" for a variety of reasons . Picase describe the changes, if any, which have taken place in the status of spent fuel reprocessing and the availability of the facilities of the General Electric Ccananv and Nuclear Fuel Sen' ices available insofar as they relate to away from reactor ("AFR") alternatives. For example, have the facilities applied for expansion of snent fuel storage? Will these facilities be available for reprocessing or AFR storage? If so, when? If not, why not?

1(a). Please explain the basis for the statement (bottom of p. 2) that

" storage in the existing racks is possible, but only for a short period of time."

Mcw long? hhat factors and assumptions underly the tine of availabili* (e . g. ,

fuel burnun, capacity factor of the unit, transshipment, etc.)?

1(b). Has the licensee considered the altemative in the intenrenors' contention 9(D), " ordering the generation of spent fuel to be stopped or restricted" 3 ,

(e.g., operation of the unit with existing racks until an offsite AFR alternative is availabic.) If so, please describe in full. If not, why not?

2. Please describe why the alternative of transshipment to other reactors is not considered a potential alternative. hhat reactors have been considered for transshipment?

3. Please provide a full update of the licensee's plans for discharge of spent fuel, the first batch of which is planned for discharge in January,1979 (p. 3) .

4. Please provide the basis and all calculations underlying the licensee's statement that "the additional cost to our custcmers for purchase of replacement power is estimated to be approximately $500,000 for each day the reactor is not operating."

5. lias the licensee evaluated the effect, if any, of a recommendation by the Generic Environmental Imoact Statement on the IIandling and Storage of Spent Fuel, NUREG-0404 infavor of (AFR) facilities? If so, please describe; if not, please state the reasons. -

6. hhat increase would occur in radiation levels in the storage water of the spent fuel pool in the event that the licensee's application is granted?

(see p. 7) 6 (a) . hhat increase in radioactive materials and in radiation levels would occur in the coolant water filters? hhat increase would occur in the screens, traps, drains, and pipes? Please provide all relevant calculations and the basis therefore.

6 (b) . Please explain the statement at p. 8 that "the anount of corrosion products released into the pool during any year would be the same regardless of the storage capacity of the pool," assuming increased compaction and several years of discharged fuel?

7. If the quantity of spent fuel is increased by a factor of four (4) how would the crud release rate be affected? Sinilarly, how would the total quantity of radioactive eaterials released into the snent fuel pool be affected?

(see p. 9)

8. Please quantify the amount of corrosion products which would be present in the spent fuel pool as a result of increased cccpaction.

9. Please explain why the " resin replacement frequency will not be significantly altered by the increase in spent fuel storage capacity" (p. 9).

Please describe how reliance on the " differential nressure increase" differs frem the " loss of capacity to remove radioactive contaminants" in detemining resin replacement (p. 8) . Show calculations for predictions in each case.

10. hhat other gases besides Kr-8" may be released frca the spent fuel storage area (p. 10)? Please identi; and quantify.

10(b). hhy is there intended to be no senarate nonitoring device to measure radioactive gases released from the spent fuel storage area? Identify any innediments to such a monitoring system, if any.

11. Please describe how the Table 2.0-1 (p. 39) relates to the detemination of expected radioactive gases released frca the spent fuel storage area during the period of storage.

11(a) . hhat is the purpose of Table 2.0-1?

11(b) . hhat is the icwer limit of detection applicable to Table 2.0-1?

11(c) . hhat techniques are available for measuring below this linit?

12. At p.14, you describe the "B-10 loading of 0.025 gm/cn2 ." Please explain this value in light of Table 3.1-1 which refers to 0.05 gm/ca, as minimum and Table 3.1-4 which shows 0.025 gm/cn2 as ninimum.

12(a). hhat are the correct values and the B-10 loadings?

12(b). hhat is the uncertainity in the value of the expected loadings?

13. Please describe why the licensee believes that the increased spent fuel compaction and storage will not affect the consequences of a spent fuel pool accident? /see p. 21) Explain how the consequences of an accident would be affected by acts of sabotage.

14 Please describe how the fuel cask would be handled and the basis for the chosen method. Also, please describe the specific controls to be employed to assure that the cask handling does not encroach upon the pool area.

15. Please descrioe the basis for the statement at p. 22 that "there is r;o o deterioration or corrosion of stainless stee.1 in this environment." (emphasis added) Please describe the variables which affect the rate of deterieration or corrosion, if any. hhat assumption underly the detemination that no deterioration or corrosion will occur.

16. Please describe the "non-destructive testing of the cells." -

16(a). What would be the consequences of a less than 100 percent leak tightness? -

16 (b) . Describe the basis for the 95 percent confidence level, including any calculations and methodologies.

17. If in-pcol surveilance finds problems requiring repair of spent fuel rods or racks, what are the licensee's contingency plans for removal and repair?

18. Does the page 28 reference to "two phase flow" signify that local boiling can occur? If so, how many bundles and for how long would such boiling have to occur to reduce the water level to the top of the fuel?

18 (a) . Please describe the. circumstances or situations which would lead to two phase flow.

18 (b) . Please provide a worst case analysis and an average or t>mical case analysis for the coolant mass ficw rate for each fuel assembly.

19. Regarding spent fuel cooling capacity (at p. 30) please provide the basis for the licensee's detemination that "the spent fuel cooling system can provide the necessary cooling for the normal annual discharge as early as 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> af ter reactor shutdown."

19M). hhat is the minimum delay between a shutdcwn and full core discharge?

19 (b) . Assuming a full spent fuel pool (but with full core discharge space available and after shutdcwn) when could the core be discharged to the spent fuel pool and still receive adeauate cooling from the spent fuel cooling system?

19 (c) . hhat are the volumes, masses, heat rates , ficw rates, temperatures, and all other pertinent variables calculated and plotted as a function of time after shutdown? Show the calculations.

20. Please describe the allowable distortion or danage for fuel storage cells. (see p. 33) hhat is the sensitivity of the K eff to damage or distcrtion of the cell dimensions?

21. hhat are the results of the seismic non-linear analysis and structural analysis described at the bottom of p. 34? Please provide a ccpy of the relevant analysis and study.

21(a). Similarly, please provide the results and a copy of (1) the analysis described on p. 36 (" Time history analysis"), (2) the postulated dropped fuel assembly accidents (p. 36), (3) the cases to be evaluated regarding fuel assemblies dropped inside de storage cell, and (4) the fuel assembly dropped from above the racks but with the assumption that the assembly rotates as it drops and impacts a rcw of storage cells. (see p. 37)

22. The calculated K eff values for ORNL Critical Lattices (p. 46) cases four and five sets forth central values which are outside the range of values for the 95 percent confidence level. Please explain hcw it is possible for the central value and K eff to be outside the range of values provided in the table.

Respectfully submitted, STANLEY C. VAN NESS -

PUBLIC ADVCCATE OF NEW JERSEY b

By:

R. WILLIN1 FOTTdR Deputy Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy Date: is/G'/ )3

_7_

' = -- O CO w rf w ,. - ,'NI'% /,9 .

. -h g* j?. (. ..*_

UNITED STATES OF MERIG [97 .

Oq =,1 j< ** p 7 '"

-~

NUCLEAR .EGULATORY COD'lSSICN . q .

1

" j" f d BEFORE EE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIGNSING BOARD k"9 In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVIG ELECTRIC 5 ) Docket No. 50-272 GAS CCf!PA.W ) Proposed Issuance of Amendment

) to Facility Operating License (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1)

)* No. DPR- 70

)

GRTIFICATE OF SERVIG I hereby certify that copies of "I.NTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF I.NTERRCGATORIES TO EE LICENSEE" in the above-cactioned nroceeding have been served unon persens listed on service list 'oy deposit in the United sr States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this al day of November, 1978.

s

/ ., ~ r/

l f % '. / d W R. hi1LLIRt FOI'fER Deputy Director Division of Public Interest Advocacy c-