ML19305A217
| ML19305A217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1979 |
| From: | Luton E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902050324 | |
| Download: ML19305A217 (11) | |
Text
-
pss
.s NRC PUBLIC DOCUMESI #
6 Y
'f ? :
,3 g@ '-
l--
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^ a 9 y, ".. V l,
NUCLEAR REGULAIORY COM41SSION 54 k
BEFORE THE AIU4IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.
(f f
d #os l
x In the Matter of
)
't s.
CQtGEALTH EDISON CQ4PANY (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER FOLLG7 DIG P M iG CONFERENCE A prehearing ccnference in this matter was held on November 20 and 21, 1978, at Waukegan, Illinois. The Licensing Board makes the following deterninations regarding outstading matters:
(1) A public hearing in this matter will be held at a future time. The State of Illinois is hereby admitted to this proceeding as m inter-vening party.
(2) The following contentions, submitted by the State of Illinois, are hereby admitted as issues in controversy:
(a) The State of Illinois contends that approval of the proposed license amendmnt would be a major action of the Comission significantly affecting the quality of the human environment m otof*FGY C1
. in Illinois. The National Environtratal Policy Act of 1969, as a: rended, requires the Comission to submit an environmental inpact staterrent with respect to the proposed license anendment.
(b) Approval of the amendment request would be contrary to the NRC policy position on spent fuel storage which prohibits ncn-emergency licensing of any existing storage facility prior to the adopticn of an official long term policy regarding the permanent storage of spent fuel.
See " Intent to Prepare Generic Envircomental Impact Statement of Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel", 40 F.R.
42801, September 16, 1975.
(1) There is no acrgency need to rerack as the existing storage pool contains nere space than is necessary to acconmodate full core discharge.
(2) The existing pool is able to acccnnedate normal refueling discharges until 1981; therefore, failure to grant the application at this time poses ne threat of iminent shutdcxm of the facility.
, (c)
Should it be necessary to shut down the Zion facility, pending the development of an alter-nate, away frcra reactor facility, the Applicant has not sban that the ccrnunity currently being served by Zicn would be adversely nffected econanically or by expericncing loss of electricity.
(1) The Applicant has not explored the possibility of meeting current demand by increased use. of underutilized fossil-fueled plants serving the Edison system.
(2) The Applicant has not considered curtailing the output fran Zion in conjunction with a conservation program and coordinated rate structure which would reduce the derand for electricity in the area served by Zion.
(d) The amendmmt request and supporting documentation do not address all reasonable alternatives for ranaging the spent fuel problem in the short tenn.
Such alternatives include:
(1) physical expansion of the spent fuel storage pool; (2) development of an away frce reactor storage facility by Applicant; and (3) shirment to a federal repository.
. (e) The amendment request and supporting doctnen-tation do not adequately discuss acnitoring procedures.
In the light of the proposed rodi-fication and long term 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 incr& ental airborne radioactive emissions created by the spent fuel pool expansion will be measured.
(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 nunitor perfornnnce of materials used in the constructica of the racks.
(5) Procedures to monitor groundwater nuvecent in the vicinity of the plant to detect leakage fran the spent fuel pool.
(f) There has been insufficient developmmt of credible accident scenarios. For exarple:
(1) there is insufficient doctrentation to establish the methods by which the Applicant
B uill positively prevent the novement of heavy objects, such as shipping casks or crpty fuel racks, over the pool during nudification; 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 been precluded.
(2) there is insufficient information regarding the methods by which accidental damage to stored spent fuel assecblies will be prevented during the installation of the new poisoned spent fuel storage racks.
(g) The Applicant's discussion of spent fuel boilig is inadequate in that (1) there is no consideratica given to the possibility that the pool c:ight 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 endangered.
In addition, the heat removal capacity of the spent fuel pool cooling systen has not been shcr.m to be adequate to su:p3rt the expanded pool capacity.
3
, (h) The amendment request and supporting documen-tation have not analyzed the long tem (includirg storage during the operating lifetime of the reactor) electrolytic corrosion effects of using dissirilar alloys for the pool liners, pipes, storage racks and storage rack bases, such as the galvanic corrosion between unanodized aluminita as is used in Brooks and Perkins storage racks, and the stainless steel pool liner.
(i) Tne Applicant has not discussed whether the proposed modification and long tem storage may cause the following effects on the stored fuel:
accelerated corrosion, micro-structural changes, alterations in mechanical properties, stress corrosion, cracking, intergranular corrosion, and hydrogen absorption and precipitation by the zirconitrn alloys.
(j) The amendment request and supportire doctrmntation do not give sufficient data to fully assess the durability and perfomance of the Boral-stainless steel tubes which fem the spent fuel storage racks:
(1) there is inadequate analysis of the corrosion rate of the tubes.
(2) there is no calculation of the effect of water
F t chemistry on the Boral within the stainless steel.
(3) there is no rention of the possible swelling of Boral within the stainless steel tubes, a condition which could affect, among other things, rarval of fuel assenblies from the racks.
(k) The amendrent request and suoporting documentation do not ccnsider possible degeneration of the Boral density due either to generic defects or to rechanical failure which would diminish the effectiveness of Boral as neutron absorber, thus leading to criti-cality in the spent fuel pool.
(1) The Applicant has not described the procedures it intends to enploy to prevent the installation and use of damaged and defective racks.
(m) The Licensee's criticality consideration is based solely on the theoretical calculations using various systens such as CHEEIAH and CITATION to 05 arrive at K The Licensee should be required eff to submit substantial data using actual test data
- '5 0
so that true K is arrived at.
eff
, (n) There is insufficient informaticn regarding the occupational radiation dosage to workers who will be engaged in rearranging stored spent fuel, installing new spent fuel racks and disposing of contaminated racks and additional radwaste to assure that occupational exposure levels will be "as low as reasonably achievable" as required by 10 CFR Part 20.
(3) The following contentions are not admitted as issues in controversy for the reasons stated (the nt= bering is the same as that contained in the State of Illinois' statement of " Amended Contentions," dated November 1, 1978):
(a) Contention 6.A. (as amended at the prehearing conference) - the contention fails to state a litigable issue.
(b)
Contention 6.D. - this contention, seeking to raise matters "not directly caused by the pool modification," is irrelevant to the spent fuel pool nudification proposal at issue here.
(c) Contention 16. - the contention fails to demon-strate any reasonable connecticn bettmen the
e spent fuel pool tredification and the anti-sabotage and security plans that the contention questions.
(4) The Licensing Board propounds the following questions to each of the parties, with the request that evidentiary showings en each of the questions be nnde at the forth-cmiing public hearing in this case:
(a) Will the proposed modifications 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?
e (b) 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, Safeguards Contingency Plan or the Emergency Plan for the Station?
(c) khat postulated accidents, which might affect the safety of plant operating personnel in the spent fuel storage building or which might result in the release of radiation or radioactive materials fran 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 Lhits 1 and 2?
(d) khich, 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 nodificaticns are carried out?
(e) khat provisions have been made or procedures developed to protect the workmen and/or plant personnel fran the consequences of such postulated accidents during the period when the proposed spent fuel pool modifications are being perfor: red?
t (f) khich, if any, of the postulated accider.ts in (c),
above, will be increased in probability, magnitude or consequence (to personnel, to the general public or to the envirormat) as a result of the ccupletion of the proposed spent fuel pool modifications and the proposed subsequent usage of the increased spent fuel storage capacity.
SO ORDERED.
THE A1UEC SAFETY AND LICE:3ING BOARD Edward Luton, Chaircan Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of January 1979.