ML20010F502
| ML20010F502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1981 |
| From: | Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8109100296 | |
| Download: ML20010F502 (4) | |
Text
____-____-
s g
Y s.1 8
\\
C) os +
4
- ]I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p;o leeny (y
(
OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
efore Administrative Judges:
John F. Wolf, Chairman I-SEP 0 91981 >
EE SEP 4}g; h
E*Y" D
Fo e t b.
e ck y
t In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-237 OLA
)
50-249 OLA COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modifi-I (Oresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
c ation)
)
September 3, 1981 l
Transmitted herewith is a copy of Proposed Board Questions which the Board requests that the parties be prepared to respond to at the hearing to be held in the above referred to matter on Friday September 11, 1981 in the NRC Hearing Room, 5th Floor, East West Towers Building, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Marylano beginning at 10:00 a.m.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y
.w J
Jotip F. Wolf, Chairman I
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Copes to:
Richard Goddard, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director
$p 0
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
,9 gg 0109100296 810903 PDR ADOCK 05000237 G
Mary Jo Murray, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Philip P. Steptoe Isham Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza - 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Richard Hubbell MHB Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95123 e
1 PROPOSED BOARD QUESTIONS l
Dresden 2 and 3 Spent Fuel Pool Modifi. cation Board Question' 3:
What is the history and current status of.the. seismic issue which led to Board Notifi. cation BN'81-1'O dated 20 May 19817 BoardQbestiob4:
Is the current seismic question.related to Board Question 2 on Unresolved Safety Issue.s, or.is.it a separate. issue.related t6 the. Staff'.s Syst6matic Evaluation Program' (SEP)?
Board'00estion 5:,
What specifi.cally is being proposed for Board consideration?
For example:
(a) What size rack's are being proposed fo.r installation' (ile,., p x.Il or
' 9 x"13' a'r' ays)?
r (b) Are there any special risks associated with fuel.or rack'-(old or new)
~
movement which'are different ihan previously testified to?
(c) What will be the disposition of t'he removed racks?
Board 00estion 6:
Compare the relative accuracy of Method I and Method II for calculation of responses of the spent fuel pool and rack structures to seismic stresses.
'doard' Ouestion _7_:
What evidence, if any, al, ready received into the record in the context of replacing all racks should be revised, struck or otherwise modified in the context of the. proposed installation of.five racks?
J'
c
' Will Applicant's previous commitments and/or proposed l
Board 00estion 8:
k be applicable j
license condition,s, made in the context of r.eplacing all rac
.,s, f'
I For exasple:
in the context of the installation of.fiye' racks?
i Quality receipt inspection procedures (a) i Handling yrf loads over stored fuel.
(b)
Corrosion surveillance program (c)
~
In-situ neutron attenuation' tests (d) i ig Removal of rack if more than one Boral plate is found m ss n (e)
Plug gauge testing and lead-in. clip grinding
.p (f)
,,7 Is there any possibility that the resolution of the Board Question 9_:
d for removal of the currently unresolved seismic issue could result in nee i.e,.,
in,
5 high density racks and reinstallaticn of the current rack,s, reversal of the decision being sought?
What alternatives to the proposed installation of Board Question'10:
d full five racks are available to the Applicant to achieve the propose core discharge capability' (FCDC)?
P 0
8 b
i l