ML20030C425
| ML20030C425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Lefave W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030C418 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108260094 | |
| Download: ML20030C425 (11) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_q 4 In the Matt'eh of
)
~
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT C0.'
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 AND
)
50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM T. LEFAVE IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 11 William T. LeFave being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
1.
I am employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Senior Reactor Engineer in the Auxiliary Systems Branch of the Division of Systems Integra-tion, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my statement of professional qualifications is attached (see Attachment 1).
2.
I am responsible for the review and evaluation of those sections of the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for which the Auxiliary Systems Branch has primary responsibility. This responsibility includes review and evaluation of Section 9.1 " Fuel Handling and Storage" of the Susquehanna FSAR. The scope of my review is as described in Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 which also describe the acceptance criteria and their method of application.
e 8108260094 810824.
3.
The purpose of my affidavit is to address the portion of Contention Number 11 that~ddals with the safe onsite storage of spent fuel. Specifically u
that portion of Contention 11 claims that the applicants have failed to provide adequately for safe onsite storage of spent fuel for 10-15 years and therefore have violated the Commission's standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR 20.1 and 20.105(a). My affidavit will verify that the applicants' spent fuel storage facility meets the recommendations of Regula-tory Guides 1.13 and 1.29 and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2, 4, 61 and 63 and therefore is adequately designed for the safe onsite storage of spent fuel for periods in excess of 10-15 years.
4.
I have read the " Applicants' Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Cont.?ntion 11," the " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue to be Heard," the " Affidavit of D. W. James in support of Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 11," and the " Affidavit of Clair C. Herrington in Support of Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 11."
5.
In Section 9.1.2 of Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Susquehanna (NUREG-0776) dated April 1981, we concluded that the spent fuel storage facility was acceptable based on the design meeting the recommendations of Regulatory Guides 1.13 and 1.29 and the requirements of General Design Criteria 2, 4, 61 and 63.
Portions of the design evaluated and accepted in Section 9.1.2 e
of the SE4 included the spent fuel racks, the spent fuel storage pools, the criticality analysis of the spent fuel and the ability of the fuel racks i
l to withstand natural phenomena, pipe breaks, e.issiles and flooding events.
The bases for our conclusions are set forth in Section 9.1.2 of the SER.
.~;
~
6.
In Sect'fon 9.1.3 of our SER we concluded that the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system meets the recunmendations of Regulatory Guides 1.13 and 1.29 and the requirements of General Design Criterion 61. This section of the SER included a discussion of the spent.fue' pool cooling and cleanup system, the redundant seismic Category I makeup system, the backup seismic Category I fuel pool cooling system (residual heat removal system), the ability to keep the fuel covered with water and the dose rates resulting from fuel pool boiling. Section 9.1.3 of the SER describes how the system meets the Regulatory Guides 1.13 and 1.29 and General Design Criterion 61.
Section 9.1.4 of the SE' describes how the fuel handling system for the spent fuel meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.13, Branch Technical Position ASB 9-1, and the requirements of General Design Criteria 2 and 61.
7.
Ia NUREG-0575, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel," dated August 1979, the in-tegrity of the spent fuel was evaluated and it was concluded that the design of the fuel evaluated was adequate to withstand storage for periods well in excess of the 10-15 years referred to in Contention 11 without a loss of integrity. Since the Susquehanna spent fuel will be the same type as that evaluated in NUREG-0575, it is clear that it can withstand storage for more than 10-15 years without a loss of integrity.
i 8.
The Chejcal Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has reviewed the compatibility of fluids and i
= -.. - - -...
materials in the spent fuel storage system for the Susquehanna plant and has concluded that corrosion of the spent fuel rods will be of little
-~ a.
significince during the 40 year life of the plant (see Attachment 2).
s will appear as Section 9.1.2.1 in Supplement 2 to the SER that is scheduled to be issued during the first week of September 1981.
9.
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the design of the Susquehanna plant is adequate to provide for safe on-site storage of spent fuel for periods in excess of 10 to 15 years.
I w
William T. LeFav'e
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of August, 1981.
s']?$d ll}
$P/
UNDA M. EYLE9 NOTARY PUBUC STATE CF /AAP.Yi.AtJD My Coveminion Eme:.es Lif 1,1952 i
i 5
1 I
ATTACHMENT 1 i
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF WILLIAM T. LEFAVE AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH DIVISION OF SYSTEF6 INTEGRATION
~~ T OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I am a Senior Reactor Engineer in the Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In this position I perform technical reviews, analyses, and evaluations of reactor plant features pursuant to the construction and operation of reactors.
l EDUCATION I received an Associate cf Science Degree in Electronic Engineering from Massachusetts Bay Community College in 1964.
From 1964 to 1966 I received two years of Naval Nuclear Power Training for a reactor operator.
In 1973, I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering from Lowell Technological Institute. Since 1973 I have taken courses on PWR and BWR System Operation, Reactor Safety, System Reliability and Fire Protection.
EXPERIENCE My experience includes six years in the U. S. Navy, foui of which were spent as a reactor operator aboard a nuclear submarine, and included two years at the Newport News Shipyard during pre-core loading operations, pre-operational testing and power range testing.
I joined the Auxiliary Systams Branch of the Commission in 1973. Since joining ghe Commission I have performed safety evaluations on many PWR and
}
1 BWR plants, most of which included high density spent fuel storage either by expansion or by original design.
I was also involved in writing the
__. a.
Standard. Review Plans pertaining to fuel storage and handling, including all revisions thereto. I am presently responsible in the Auxiliary Systems i
Branch's review area for three BWR plants actively involved in a licensing action (two 0Ls, one GP). plus the three GESSARs which are NSSS Standard i
Plants.
I am also presently responsible for one active PWR plant (0L) and the three Westinghouse Standard NSSSs. I also have' responsibility l
for seven operating plants which are undergoing active reviews of their fuel handling systems.
l 8
E l
4 i
l
ATTACHMENT 2 SL'PPLEMENTAL SAFETV EVALUATION REP 0RT PEN'.SYLVI.':I A P0JER A':D LIGHT CO.
SUSQ'JEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 CHEMICAL ENSINEERING BRANCH 9.1.2 Spent-Fuel _ Storage Nuclecq reactor plants include stcrage facilities for the wet storage of spsyt fuel ?ssa-klins. The safety function of the spent fuel pool and storage ra:ks is to reintain the spent fuel assemblics in a sub-We have reviewed critical array during all credible storage conditions.
the compatibility and chemical stability of the materials (except the fuel assemblies) wetted -tyr the pool water.
~The spent fuel racks are fabricated of aluminum except for the stainless steel pads attached to the aluminum leveling screws. -A 4 inch ABS plastic material is captured between the stainless steel pad and the aluminum The racks contain a neutron-absorbing medium of natural boron screw.
The carbide in an aluminum matrix core clad with 1100 series aluminum.
neutron-absorber is marketed under the trade name of "Boral". The spent fuel pool is concrete lined with stainless stee,1. The pool is filled with demineralized, low-conductivity, oxygen-saturated water.
The The Boral is sealed within two concentric square aluminum tubes.
storage modules are assembled so that the aluminum tubes (poison cans) are placed in a checkerboard pattern thus assuring that adjacent storage cavities are separated by a Boral slab. Each module is bolted to another The periceter modules have seismic bracing bolted to embedments module.
in the pool wall.
Evaluation _
The seismic restraints from the racks to the wall embedments consist To reduce the rassibility entirely of welded stainless steel construction.
of galvanic corrosion. Inconel pins are used between the wall restraints Galvanic couples between stainless steels, Inconel and the aluminum racks.
and aluminum do not appear to give rise to any localized corrosion in BWR spent fuel pool environments since these materials cre protected by highly passivating oxide film and are therefore at similar potentials in pure
[
water [ The aluminum fuel racks are further protected by an anodized Though the potential for galvanic corrosion is very small, the surface.
applicant has elected to further reduce the possibility by the use of ABS i
plastic tc isolate the stainless stcel pads from the aluminur leveling screws in the rack leveling legs.
~
In this $nvironment of cxygen-saturated, high purity water, the antici-
~
pated cofrosion of the aluminum alleys located in the pool is negligible in water of this quality at temperaturcs up to boiling point of water.
At 125 C (257 F) a corrosion rate of 1.5 X 10-4 mils / day has been measured 0
0 for aluminum in water pH 7.2 This corresponds to a total corrosion of 1.1 mils in twenty years'. Since the oxidation rate will continue to At decrease slightly over this period, this estimate is conservative.
lower temperatures as is expected, the rate will be lower.
To provide added assurance that no unexpected corrosion or degradation of the materials will compromise the integrity of the racks, the applicent The has committed t'o an inservice inspection and surveillance program.
surveillance samples are in the form of shortened production-type cans similar to that in the pool rack. Four sheets of Boral are encapsulated between an outer and inner tube can. The welding and anodizing of the aluminum is similar to that in the racks. These specimens are examined periodically during the life of the spent fuel racks.
Conclusion From our evaluation as discus:,cd above, we conclude that the corrosion that will occur in the spent fuel storage pool environment should be of Corponents little significance during the 40 year life of the plant.
in the spent fuel storage pool are constructed of alloys which (1) are not in contact, i.e., galvanically isolated, or (2) have a low differential galvanic potential between them, or (3) have a high rs.istance to general corrosion and localized corrosion.
We further conclude that the environmental compatibility and stability of the materials used in the spent fuel storage pool is adequate based on test data and actual service experience in operating reactors.
We havd reviewed the surveillance program and we conclude that the monitor,
ing of M.he m.1terials in the spent fuel storage pool, as proposed by the licensee, will provide reasonable assurance that the Boral material will i.
E
3 I
a continue to perform its function fcr the design life of the pool.
1:e therefore find that the imple:. ntation of a conitoring program and -the selection cf appropriate materials of construction by the lice,ns,ce r. acts the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix.%
Critcr' ion 61, having a (7 ability to penait appropriate periodic
~
insp5ction and testing cf co poner.ts, and Criterion E2, prcycr. ting criticality by raintaining structural integrity of cocponents and of tl.e borer. pcM...
)
R_eferences_
1.
J. R. Weeks, Corrosion of Materials in Spent Fuel Storage Pools, Bf;L-liUREG 23C21, July 1977.
2.
J. E. Draley and W. E. Ruther, Report No. ANL-5001, February 1953.
4 1
I I
O e
I e
o 0
f.
=
g g
i Au 7
o r.
t
.,y-e' e
- "---~-4v-n---s--------
-r+rm
- - - - - * ~ ~ + -
~-~v-~~,
e~v-
~--~=*ww.v-m,r~-~w w
^* * * ~ ~
~v-~+-
n'
-~
%=~r-~w-
-~ e
<-r-e--
'w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a e4
'0 BtFUKt iht AIUiill., 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
't In the Matter of
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT..CO.
Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
50-388 (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER SUPPORTING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SU!'RARf DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 11" dated August 24,1981 and
" AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIA" T. LEFAVE IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 11" dated August 21, 1981 in the above captioned proceeding, have been served on the follow *ng by deposit in the United States mail, or as indicated by an asterisk thr-ugh deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 24th day of August,1981:
James P. Gleason, Cnairman Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Administrative Judg.i Co-Director 513 Gilmoure Drive Environmental Coalition on Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue i
Mr. Glenr 0. Bright State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director U.S. Nucl ea-NC"'" cry enmP.sion fareau of Radiation Prote tion Washington. D. C.
20555 Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dr. Paul W. Purdom P. O. Box 2063 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 245 Gulph Hills Road Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 538A, RD#4 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 17120 i
Jay Silberg. Esq.
Mr. Thomas J. Halligan Shaw, Pittoan, Potts and Trowbridge Correspondent:
CAND 1800 M Strett, H.W.
P. O. Box 5 Washington, D.C.
20036 Scranton, Pennsylvania 18501 Bryan A, Snapp, Esq.
Pennsylvania Power A Light Company Two North Ninth Street e
Allentown, Per.r.sylvania 18101 N
P
r l
l i
- ::-.*l
~.. *
- Richard S.' Salzman, Esq., Chairman, Susquehanna Environmental Administrative Judge Advocates Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1560 Washington, D.C.
20555 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703
- Dr. John H. Buck, Administrative Judge Mr. Robert M. Gallo Atomic-Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 52 Washington, D.C.
20555 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655
- Mr. Thomas S. Moore, Administrative Judge Robert W. Adler Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dept. of Environmental Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
- Atomfr, Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Ituclear Regulatory Commission Mr. DeWitt C. Smith, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Pennsylvania Emergency Management igency Transportation and Safety Building
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTU: Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20555
(
- ___.. w..._ N % L v James M. Cutchin, IV Counsel for NRC Staff b
6
- - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _