ML20034H249

Partially Deleted Secy Paper,Informing Commission of Directors Denial of 10CFR2.206 Petition in Matter of Ceco

ML20034H249
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	03/04/1981
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML18058B973	List: ML18058B972 ML20030B346 ML20031C827 ML20032A269 ML20033D367 ML20033D368 ML20033D369 ML20033D370 ML20033D371 ML20033D372 ML20034H176 ML20034H184 ML20034H207 ML20034H244 ML20034H247 ML20034H249 ML20034H251 ML20034H258 ML20034H273 ML20034H334 ML20034H484 ML20034H538 ML20034H550 ML20034J038 ML20034J051
References
FOIA-92-436 2.206, SECY-81-136, SECY-81-136-01, SECY-81-136-1, NUDOCS 9303160250
Download: ML20034H249 (16)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. ,p I h , f * *' %'c, / [ C-Q :;h, )3 i SECY-81-136_ 'Narch'4, 1981 4 ADJUDICk bRY ISSUE-(Notation Vote) n I For: The Commissioners 1 1 From: Martin G. Malsch' i' ~

Subject:

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 (IN THE MATTER OF COMMO!MEALTH EDISON COMPANY) Facility: Zion Station, Units 1 and'2 j (Jy I-To inform the Commiss of the denial of a

Purpose:

2.206 petition 3 ich, in our opinion, u Review Titne Expires: March 16, _1981. j Discussion: On' April 17, 1980, Ms. Catherine,Ouigg, on behalf of Pollution"and Environmental Problems, i Inc. (PEP), wrote-Lto the Commission requesting,' ' ; ~ ~ pursuant to 10 CFR ' 2. 206, l the ^immediate.. i suspension' of J.igense amendments authorizing the modification of the spent fuel pool ats - ce' j Zion Nuclear Generating Station,-Units 1 and i 2, increasing storage-capacity from 868 to' 2112 fuel' assemblies. -PEF requested NRC: i review of evidence presented to the-ASLB. l during the Salem Nuclear -Station spent fuel.. Information in this record was tSe c.! Pool modification hearings,regarding'1). the ef fect of a TMI-type' accident on the spent j in accordance with the Freedom of Infctmation g fuel pool, and 2) the dif ferences.in thej Act, exemptions effect of a gross loss of-water : accident F01A-91 - N involving the previous pool configuration- [ relative ' to the. expanded capacity pool.. PEP r also requested; the preparation of an environmenta t impact statement on the effect of the storage - i of high burnup nuclear fuel in spent fuel .{ pools. CONTACT: Richard A. Parrish, OGC

634-3224

~~ i I 'I 9303160250 921207 - L i -PDR FOIA -, i~ - -- - - - __. 7 _ OILINSK92-436 PDR-

c. 2 ~ On February 18, 19 81, dhe Director, NRR,- issued a decision denying petitioner's request in all respects. Staff consideration of the petition included review of the licensing and appeal board decisions in the Zion proceeding and the licensing board decision in the Salem proceeding. 1/ The first issue raised by the PEP request concerned the effect of a TMI-type accident on the spent fuel pool at Zion, an issue not directly addressed by eidler the licensing or appeal boards. The Salem ASLB had considered the issue on its own motion, _ however, and had determined that a TMI-type accident would have little, if any, impact upon the Salem - spent fuel pool. Upon review of.the Zion ASLB decision and the evidence presented ~ therein regarding pool boiling and pool draining, staff concluded th at radiation resulting from such an accident would not interfere with the maintenance. and operation of vital spent fuel pool cooling and purification systems. Thus, minimal impact from a TMI-type accident was foreseen. The location of r the spent fuel building' separate from the auxiliary building, the ~automati~cftontainment ' - ~ isolation valves, radiation monitoring and filtration systems, ~.and the. availability ~, ~~ of numerous sources of makeup vater were' cited in support of this determination. Staf f also concluded that increasing spent-fuel pool storage capacity at Zion ~ would not-af fect this analysis. PEP's second issue dealt with the difference in consequences of a gross loss of water accident in a standard spent fuel pool and in the increased capacity spent fuel pool authorized for Zion. The staff generally adopted the position of the Salem ASLB focusing upon the slight risk of such an accident and negligible 1/ Because of the length of these decisions, copies have not been enclosed. They are available upon request.

l L 3 5!. dif ference in-ef fect due to the increase - ] ~' storage..The additional fuell storage would be comprised' of older, - aged spent-fuel which i is ~ deemed. to ' pose no significant danger { relative to freshly spent fuel, - die amount of t which would remain unchanged. by the modification.2T, The staff found-no reason to differentiate r between'dhe Salem and Zion analysis, Land' therefore reasoned that there would. be no " great difference" between die consequences-of an accident at a standard pool and ;at the - ( expanded poo11at Zion._ o PEP's final request was for a license suspension d pending preparation of an environmental impact statement on the effects of high i burnup fuel-storage in spent fuel pools. { Such effects include increased heat and 4 radiation output from the ' stored spent fuel. l The licensee is at present licensed to burn' four fuel _ assemblies (2.1% of the core) 'for extended periods. 3/ Based upon an environmental impact appraisal and negative declaration l prepared pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5, it ; had. been l determined that an EIS was not warranted 9 because extended ~burnup and irradiation of-but four fuel assembilies would_not significantly' af fect the quality of the. human. environment.4/ -The :present request is treated as premature 7 2. i 2/ Of course, Zion would-continue to produce die same amount of spent fuel. Based on informal communication with the staff, it is our understanding that relatively fresh spent. fuel produced at. another facility could not be added to the Zion pool without additional licensing anendments. Therefore, the supply of freshly spent fuel would not exceed prior authorization. j -3/ Fuel at Zion is normally burned to.33,000 Megawatt days / metric-ton uranium. The high burnup fuel is ext. ended'to 55,000 MWD /MTU, an additional two fuel cycles beyond the standard three cycles. 4/ PEP submitted a similar 2.206 petition seeking preparation-of an EIS on April 27, 1979. It was similar1 enied on. March 13, 1980. DD-80-11, 11 NRC 41E. (19 80). C' recommended r-g . L [, d

m i .g

g..

by the staff, based-upon the fact' that the licensee has not requested an increase of-5 high burnup of fuel beyond these. four assemblies ~.. ' Staf f states that no 'such increase' will be. ( permitted-until an. adequate' data base-exists-i to-analyze the issue. Finally, PEP's generic concern over the use of high.burnup fuel is dismissed with a reference to a petition for. ~ rulemaking, also-filed by PEP, seeking preparatior; . of a. generic EIS on the use of_ high burnup = ' fuel..No indication of. the. status of this rulemaking-petition.'is given, however. r Recommendation: l Martin G. Malsch + Deputy General' Counsel i { Attachments : 1. Request letter. - ~~ ~ j 2. Director's Decision ~. ' Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by-c.o.b. Monday, March 16, 1981. Comission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to'the Comissioners NLT March 10,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper i t is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and conment,- the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expecte ; ~ DISTRIBUTION C0!NISS10NERS C0!NIDDIONER STAFF 0FFICES EXEC DIR FOR OPERATIONS -{ SECRETARIAT I ?

.n ra 2him;;to=, I>c W5:2 - ' ~ ~ s ~ FROEt Catherino quigg, roses.rch director g J ' Follutten & Environsetal Froblaca, Ince /. y F P.O. Bor 509. Palatine, IL 60067 I / (312/ 381-6695) b Et Docket 50-295. 50-304 rn v s./ s ' Under Section 2 206 of he Cbde of Federal Regulations, the members o. , fem 15n'h E=i&cn=iiEal Problems, Inc. (FIP), raquest tb U.S. Nuclee.r ~ t l Ecgulato:7 Co==issics (KRC) to 4W4te2y suspe=d the licanes iesped Februa:7 23,19f:0 by the NRC to Co=nnweahh Edien to rarack and compact its ipent fuel pool at the Zhn.telen r station to 2,112 spect fuel asee=bli.. t To ask that the licmse to rarack to stayed until the evidence curretly I beint va.ar.ted at tM Sele =, New Jersey s:ect fuel inte:v.=tien b. bee i _e s,=1 sed b r.- NEC reeiew tes.rn for it s a.pplicability to the Zion spect fuel case. Not to take this actie: a.t this ti=.e could re.21t is sericu 4 s -md irrev ersible har= to the citizes of nerther: Illinois and their c:. r i-:::e=t. The followi=g ec=tetiens co=stitute the ts31: fer FI7's petitics: 1. Mrkg tbe publie heer' i: i=to the :i== spest fue1 poo1 1serse.ee,.the ~ Atc=te hf ety & Licecaimg Board ( A;L3) made bcr: to a.ll parties tht it did : t ec sider e. lo se of water accident er lo sa cf coolisg water matter with

itect is the tien sp ect fuel pocl to be a seriou s co:sequeces aff ecthg the public.

fhe 3>s.rd, therefore, ando ite, ~ deterskstic: to increisse the Zics pool's capacity with>ut serieus or . dfi d.r:t ec=sideratien of the :erioua h. a d e i=roIt ed is t.heee utmtial accidet s. It did net itself raise the ques *'on of there ._~ wid e:.t e o r their cen tee,uor.ce r. "";-7 'JL pt.A3. In tb heariry;s i. te the spct fuel heresno at the hie: ..u::aa.: Stat'en in bles. Nec Jersey (Dock:et f5C-272),. s bsequect to u i'm Zics heari.=g, the J,3LE, itee10, rai:ed the following que stions8 m) To what artet did the accidet at 72= ee X13e Island aff set the spat fuel pool at that sitet b) h the evet of s. gro es lo ss of water f:ce tha $03 spe=t fuel storage pool at E ecr-1, what would 5 l be the differsece in consequeces between ik se / ocessioned by the pc-ol with expanded,'atorage // / proposed by the Licceee a:4 th> ee o::ationed by the preact pool! 1.2 raisi.g these queetions, the AsL3 ks giv en, credibility to a reset:r .ccidet or Io es of cooli=g seeide=t in a s; ent fuel pool and has

.derte.ket a sericus deter ' stien cf the coneequecces of s ch eccide

te.,

u 1 1 l. a s:. -O m f .u;L- %.s / w ATTACHMENT 1

- t ')) y hformatica recedr ed f r== the 1GC d.ated March 13,19fc and published in the Federal Register March 19,19W(44FRid."C4), subsequent to the NRC's 2 favorable rulhg en ce=c vealth Edison's request, reveals tht the NRO-7 may, is the eature, aller utilities to se to fuel burs:p s as high as -l .5-60,0C0 EIQ4CU.- Too eviron=mtal i=act. study 1ms been prepared l cf.high bur:::p on fuel integrity in pool water storage cr the increased fissice gas relmses anticipated in spect, Paal Pj en the - aff ect s ~ with high buz::np spect fuele ,~ research on this $2bject was apps.rmt at the Lion' hearings. t CNCbslCNs ~= view ef the se cc:p elling' a gure:t s concerning matters ce erlocked, igno red.. 4 or disrecardei 17 the A313 locking 1:to the lies sp ent P.tel' heres se ast'. l

=pection. TEy appeals to the NRO to i==ediately s2 spend the licmse of Edis s to increa se and co= pact spect *uel at the Zion Naclear station pen

• _g.

1 s, th.-WEh review cf the crid e.ce preseted' during the 230-A513 6:uizy c i Mlic service El'eetrie and Gas Company's reque st f:r to:pt: tion at' the 3r.les. Ner J ersey nuclear statics, parti =alarly as it applie s to the int: 01: spe=t fuel pool. has a.=cu cod 1* s ht eth= s te sericut y cO sider the l

• hJ A'4 3 et Sale:

1 rea:ter c the g et i=pa.t cf a scrisce accid ent 5 es sdj z:e= :: '.ee.: of ::eling fus! Joel and the :cuseque :es of a h es =f water er b es:; et Pae1 pec1 a . :id :: is a lav-vc M e, =n-c:=pa:t hi;h c h se, ec: pact s=ect fuel pecl. It is etvious that all the s.:rvers

.m g-:t fue1 etor-ge a *e 30*. 6 y et.

~ ..., E. The citizi:.s cf :orthe=- Illheis ' sad their. Yepreestativ e s~, vis : s). eier-spct hel incre_ se, deserv s the' j 2 a rir'.. gly eppe ned the 213: c! se-iou;, accidet c: eequen:ee a s the residents cf Enlam Nec f erse;-( A te=:crary 5:spes1= =f Edict's li:c se to :::ach =ay have 13:g ter: en the health s..3 saf ety of all Illhais res11ctsi if tene"icial eff e ts u sed to consider new hfer:ation raisoi at Jale:. .hc ti=e is license shnld be suspended, pedhg the Thally, we believe the tic: l r:::Sletias of a f.rli envir:. err.al 1: pact state =ct es high 5:r=:p :r.ac ee.:T P.:al is spct fuel stcrage peols. sansid eratio:s i= dete-'**--g spent fuel poci ther:al heat s.d radiaties cutput, =ajor factors 6 a le ss cf rat er accidst in the poc!l It =ay i The A313's decisic: is rerack ties sh:uld be based on . : i. ".cr=ed judgerec' '

• s :atter, since a naticevide s<pplicatics of

'7 vater storage. reacter s appears 1:=inct.

'i;h bcr= p'in ec=ercial lighwater su:ler.:

4I hih t t r e t i 6 . ~.

7-_ J; n 0D-81 _2 l r 1. -f UNITED STATES ^ 0F AMERICA [ 'l ' ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p - q-q l l OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTOR In the Matter of' ) ) Docket Nos. 50-295 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )- and 50-304 I (Zion Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2) ) t DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 I By letter dated April 17, 1980, Ms.' Catherine Quigg, on behalf of Poll.ition and Environmental Problems, Inc. (PEP), transmitted a request. i pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 for the immediate suspension of the license. j 1 to permit reracking and compaction of the Zion Unit Nos.1 and 2 spent l fuel pool because of issues raised in a spent fuel pool modification hearing for the Salem Nuclear Station which petitioners believed should be considered in the lion case. Notice of receipt of PEP's request was published in the Federal _ Register enVune 23,1980 (45 F.R. 42095). l I I.

Background

l On February 28, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Amend-I ment Nos. 52 and 49, to Facility Operating Licenses Hos. DPR-29 and DPR-48, respectively, to revise the Technical Specifications and licenses for Zion j i Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2.l/ These-amendments would allcw modifications of the spent fuel pool to increase the storage capacity from 858 to 2112 i l r fuel assemblies. 1/ Amendment Nos. 52 and 49 are attached as Appendix A. ATTACHMENT 2 3 i

s L - ~ 2 i The issuance of the amendment was preceded by eight days of evicentiary i hearings and supplemental affidavits filed by the parties in resoonse to a request for additional infor nation by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( ASLS ). 2/ The Board's Initial Decision authorizing issuance of the Itcense amencment was issued on February 14,1950. 3f The petitioner here, Ms. Quigg, did not petition to intervene in that proceeding, but did make a limited appearance statement. Ey Memorandum and Order dated February 22, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on a requested license amendment to permit modifications of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 spent fuel pool, directed the parties in that proceeding to ans er the following questions: To what extent did the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affect the a. spent fuel pool at that site? d. In the evert of a gross. loss of_ water from the storage pool, what would be the difference in consequences between those occasioned by the pool with the expanded storage and these occasioned by the i present pool? PEP has requested "e suspension of the license authorizing modification of the Zion spent fuel pool pending examination of the evidence presented in-the Salem case on the Board's questions, particularly as it applies to the Iion spent fuel pool. PEP contends that the Salem Board has.given credibility to a loss of cooling accident in a spent fuel pool and, therefore, these issues l 2/ ine boarc's recuest for further evidence was triggered by a Board Notifica-tion entitled " pipe Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water Systems at pWRs" dated ~~ August 14, 1973. '/ The lion ASLB Initial Decision dated February 14, 1960 is attached as Appen-dix B. The ASLB's decision was affirmed by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Aopeal Board (ASLAB), Comm0nwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 15 2), ALAB-616,12 NRC (October 2, l oan', attached as Appendix C. The i Appeal Board's decision became the final agency action on this matter on l November 24, 1 980, with the Commission declining to review the decision on its own motion under 10 CFR 2.73 6. i

t. l r should be considered in the Zion case. 3 PEP has requested that the amendment be suspended for a second reason. PEP contends that the NRC may in the future " allow utilities to go to fuel' burnups as high as 55-60,000 MWD /MTU ". It believes tnat since " fuel burnup is one of the most important cc: siderations in determining spent fuel thermal heat and radiation output, major factors in a loss of water accident in the pool", the Zion license should be suspended pending completion of an environ-mental irpact statement (EIS) on high burnup nuclear fuel in the spent fuel storage poois. We have reviewed the information submitted in PEP's request. In addition, we have reviewed the testimony presented in the Zion spent fuel pool modifi-I cation procteding, the decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in the Zion and the Salem proceedings,4/ and the decision of the ASLAB in the Zicn For the reasons set forth below. PEP's request that Amendments Nos. 52 case. and a9 to Facility Cperating Licenses Nos. CPR-39 and DPR-43, respectively, = F-e = : - z = -- ..+...r be suspended, is denied. II. Consideration of !ssues Raised in Salem Proceeding i The first portion of the PEP request addresses the Salem Board's questions concerning the accident at TMI and hew that accident wccid affect the spent fuel pool. The Salem ASLB soecifically examined the status of the TMI spent fuel pool and found (page 27, paragraph 43 of the October 27, 1980 Initial Dect-sion) that even if there had been fuel in the TMI pool at the time of the acci-t i I a/ The Initial Decision in the Salem spent fuel pool modification proceeding was issued on October 27, 1980. It is attached as Appendix D. An appeal ~ on portions of that decision is currently pending before the ASLAB. t i

The pool remained acces-cent, the accident would not have affected it. f sible despite levels of radiation which were higher than norcal, and the i sible at l . equipment for cooling the pool and purifying its water was acces The Salem ASLB further found (pages 30 and 31, TMI after the accident. paragraph 46 of the October 27, 1980 Initial Decision), upon close examina-f tien of the Salem spent fuel pool and its cooling, purification, alarm, and ventilation systems, that if an accident occurred at Salem similar to the one at TMI, little, if any, impact would occur on the Salem spent fuel pool. i We have compared the findings of the Salem ASLS and the Zion ASLB (the l February la,1960 Initial Decision), and have further reexamined the hearing record of tne Zion ASLB to determine if any isst;e considered in the Salem pro-ceedings raises questions about the conclusions reached in the Zion procee We have also reviewed the Zion ASLAB Decision (ALAB-615) dated Ocotber 2, 19R0 for any bearing it may have on conclusions aoout the poss'ible impact o TMI type accident on the I1on spent fuel pool. i The Zion ASLB in its Initial Decision addressed contentions dealing primarily with pool boiling (pages 29 25) and pool drainage accidents (pag In addressing these contentions, the Board reviewed testimony on Ea-85). the spent fuel pool in many of the areas discussed at the Salem hearing on This testimony included the fo11 ewing information: the TMI type accident. The fuel building is separate from the auxiliary building where most radiation level increases from a TMI type accident would be expected to occur The containment isolation valves are automatic at (outside containment). .The auxiliary building radiation Zion and will not reopen automatically. levels would be expected to increase as the recirculation phase began on the long term cooldown following a LOCA and some increase in the radiatio levels of the spent fuel pool building would be expected. The spent fuel pool has been analy:ed for a number of accidents that could increase the radiation levels in that area. But in any of these events, a TMI type accident or fuel hancling accident, the levels of radiation in the spent fuel pool building would not prevent operation r and maintenance of vital systems in that area. The water cooling and purification system for the spent fuel pool is located in an adjacent room shielded from the spent fuel and at:essible by the railroad doorway if direct access to the pool is prevented. There are ample sources of makeup water to the spent fuel pool. including the demineralized flushing water systems, refueling water storage tank, fire protection systems in the spent fuel pool building, and fire hoses which can draw water from the primary water storage tank, secondary water storage tar.k. and tne service water system. 3 i The spent fuel pool area has three area radiation monitors. Two monitors have fixed setpoints and are read ~directly in the control' room. All have alarms. There is an area particulate monitor which also has an Iodine-133 cartridge ferietecting fodine. Theventi1ationijstem ~ ~ ~ ~ j for the spent fuel pool area combines with ventilation st eams from other-areas and is monitored for particulates and fodine. An indication from this monitor would automatically divert the effluent from the HEPA filters to the charcoal filters. A fuel cooling accident with high humidity might damage the HEPA filters but they could be replaced even with high ^ radioactivity within the fuel building. The charcoal filter booster fan is manually started from the control room.

- G- .From our examination of the Initial Decision by the Zion ASLB and - the testimeny presented in relation to pool boiling and pool draining, we. havt deter.ined that the Zion spent fuel pool should be no more affected: by a TMI type accident than would the Salem spent fuel pool. 5] We believe- .j >l the Zion spent fuel pool would receive only minimal impact from a TMI Type accident. We have also concluded, as did the Salem ASLS, that there would be l little, if any, effect on the pool with expanded storage capacity, because any effect on the pool from a TMI-type accident would not depend on whether ~ 1 the pool containec additional spent fuel assemblies. Rather, the concern i is continued accessibility of the pool and its supporting equipment. As i stated above, operation and maintenance of vital systems could continue -j follcwing an accident. The second issue considered in the Sales proceeding which PT.P l sought to have examined for the Zicn f acilities, dealt with the poten-tial for gross loss of water from the spent fuel pool and the effect 1 y such a loss of water would have o a pool with expanded storage capa-city. The Zion ASLB in its Initial Decision noted that it had posed the question to the applicant and staff to describe any design and/or engineering safety features incorporated in the Zion spent. fuel storage ] pool to decrease the likelihood of a severe pool drainage accident (Ini-L tial Decision at 84). The testimony presented included discussionr 'of y the cause of such an event and the features available to mitigate the j

i consequences of such accidents. The ASLB specifically found that there

-l J 5/ In its review of tne Initial Decision, the ASLAB rejected the State of j Illinois' appeal and affirmed the Licensing Board's findings that. equipment and controls to assure adequate access to makeup water in the event of a severe accident were accessible under any circumstances. ALAS-615, Slip Op. at 11-12. l

r are adequate design and engineered safety features incorporated into the Iion Station spent fuel pool which would reduce the likelihood of a severe pool drainage accident, and that those features should preclude the possibility of a severe drainage accident in the Zion Station fuel pool (Initial Decision at 85). i P The questions posed by the Licensing Board in the Salem proceeding focused on the differences in consequences between a gross less of water The Salem ASLB findings accident at an unexpanded and an expanded pool. 27, 1980) were based (pages 31-29 of its Initial Decision dated October on testimony dealing with zirconium fire and propagation, dispersion of fission products, increased risk due to the expansion, clad oxidation and fuel melting, and the relative release potential from old versus new fuel in the spent fuel pool. In general, the Salem Board Initial Decision for this particular issue was that: (1) while further analysis might more precisely define oxiia'tf on propagation, it was' not needed to convince the Board that there would not be significant releases from the older fuel in comparison to the releases from the newer fuel, (2) gross loss of water is in itself an event of very low probability, and (3) there would not be a great difference between the consecuen:es occasioned by the proposed con-figuration and those occasioned by the present one. We have reviewed a number of proposed spent fuel pool modifications, We as well as those for the Zion / Salem fuel and design of modification. find little difference between the If on and Salem modifications that wo The make any difference in the results of a gross loss of water accident. impacts on the expanded pool at Zion have been principally limited to those from of the older fuel which will remain in the pool and the releases from those elements are not significant when compared to releases from the recently discharged fuel. t

- S-Sased en a consideration of the above facts and an extensive review of the record of the Zion proceeding, and the decisions of the Zion and Salem Licensing Boards, we find no factual justification to suspend the licenses or amendments at the Zion Station. III. Recuest fer an EIS The last PEP request is to suspend the license amend.4nts pending the completion of a full environmental impact statement on high burnup nuclear fuel in spent fuel storage pools. On April 27, 1979, PE? made a similar 10 C.F.R. 2.206 recuest. Fo11cwing issuance of a license amendment pemit- ~ ting extended burnup of four fuel assemblies in the 2 ion Station Unit 2 to a burnup of apprcximately 55,000 MWD /MTV (the usual Zion fuel is irradiated to 33,000 MG/MTU), PEP requested preparation of a full EIS on high burnup fuel, both in the reactor and as a spent fuel waste. After careful considera-tion of the concerns raised by PEP over use of the higher burnup fuel, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied PEP's request on March 13, ice. 6f The bases of that denial were conclusions that the po-tential consequences of the accidents given in the-Safety Evaluation Reports-supporting the Facility Operating Licenses and the amencents for modification of the spent fuel pool, will-not change due to four fuel assec11es in the core I being irradiated to burnup to 55,000 MWD /Mni. 7/ In its current petitien, PEP requests that the license amend ents at issue here be suspended pending completion of a full EIS on high burnup fuel in spent fuel storage pools because: (1) fuel burnup is one of the most impor- [ tant censiderations in determining spent fuel pool thermal heat and radiation 6/ Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 & 2, DD-80-11,11 NRC 1 !.95 (1980). A Copy of the Director's Decisicn is attached as Appendix E. l 7/ By License Amendment Nos. 59 and 29 dated December 31, 1980, the NRC approved perfomance of the.last cycle of irradiation of the four assemblies in Zion Unit No.1 on the basis that the safety analysis for the last two cycles of i irradiation is directly applicable to either unit. The change of unit would also not' change the previous environmental impact determinatien.

. c. O P ~ output, major factors in a loss of water accident in the pool and (2) a c contention that in the future, the NRC may allcw utilities to go to fuel I burnup as high as 55,000-60,000 MWD /MTV. We have no request from the i licensee for the Zion Station to extend the fuel burnup of the four assem-blies beyond the 55,000 MWD /MTU target. The need for further data to support such a request and the existing confidence to allow the lead test assem-blies to operate for two cycles in nonlimiting core positions was pointed out in our March 13,1cEO denial. We also stated our requirement that a full 1 reload of a new fuel design wculd need a detailed safety review and approval by the NRC and that review would depend upon the cata from the Zion and Until such time as the test program results are available other test programs. to extend the data base for higher burnup fuels and lion applies for approval i of extended use of such fuels, no further use cf high burnup fuels is con-templated or permitted. Thus, no action has been taken or is contemplated for the Zion plants for which an environmental impact statement or appraisal such as is sought by EP should be prepared. Consequently, the lack of ~ 72I such a document cannot serve as the basis for suspension of the amendments p to the Zion licenses. FEP has also filed with the NRC a petition for ruleteiing, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.802, requesting preparation of a generic EIS for a ;otential future nationwide program of using high burnup fuel in nuclear reactors (Docket No. l s P RM-51 -6). Any generic aspects of PEP's concerns over use of high burnup fuel will be dealt with in the Cc=missien's response to that petition. i IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, ' have cetermined that the informa-tion submitted by PEP does not alter my conclusion nor call into question the conclusions reached by the Zion Licensing Board that Amendment Nos. 52 and h

a9 will not significantly affect the health and safety of the public or the cuality of the human environment. Suspension of the amendments is not warranted. Therefore, the request of PEP is denied..

1. ccpy of this decision will be placed in the Comission's Public 20555 and at the Local Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Public Document Room for the Zion Station located at the Zion-Benton Public Library, 2600 Ecuaus Avenue, Zion. Illinois 60099. A copy of this docu-ent will also be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for its review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c) of the Comission's rqulations. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c) of the Comission's Rules of Practice, this decision will constitute the final action of the C3 mission 25 days after the date of issuance, unless the Comission on its own motion institutes the review of this decision within that time. r# m. A Haroic R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18 day of February,1981. Attachments: Appendix A - Amendment Nos. 52 and a9 Appendix B - Zicn ASLB Initial Decision dated February 14, 1980 Appendix C - Zion ALAB Decision (ALAP-616) October 2,1980 Appendix D - Salem ASLB Initial Decision dated October 27, 1980 Appendix E - KRC Denial of PEP's April 27, 1 979 request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206}}