ML20052F127
| ML20052F127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1982 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD) |
| To: | Foster R, Kelley J, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F128 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8205120140 | |
| Download: ML20052F127 (2) | |
Text
e I
f "%,'
l UNITED STATES
["
N<
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
g s
g
- E WASHW IQALD. C. 20555 8
py,CEiN p
18 Sppfl19W ek ! e 6
, ens l-N %
//
J'
.A Q' C g g,
9 N 20 m
./
ge\\e
=
/
- r. Peter A. Morris James L. Kelley, Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Foster ci Administrative Judge
+
P.O. Box 4263 g
Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Q
SECsNEO y,IAYj
~
-3 In the Matter of q
Commonwealth Edison Company qs, (Quad Cities Station, Units 1 & 2)
/
g Docket Nos. 50-254-SP & 50-265-SP N
cn (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed is the material which the NRC Staff provided to Intervenors prior to their determination to withdraw Contentions 5 (fuel channel bowing) and 6 (occupational exposures); the Staff deems each of these contentions to be non-meritorious and supports the motion for their withdrawal.
Also attached are Applicants proposed testimony and procedures regarding Contention 8 (reracking); these procedures have been reviewed by the NRC Staff, and changes will be made to them only with the concurrence of NRC's resident inspectors. Accordingly, the NRC Staff supports the motion to withdraw Contention 8.
Finally, the NRC Staff supports the withdrawal of Contention 2, dealing with alternatives to the proposed action, as no signift ant environmental impacts are involved.
Therefore, the Staff supports Intervenor's determination to terminate their pso7
(
s
$$f i$8cf oS$0 gj a
(
l "i
i intervention and withdraw their request for a hearing.
Sincerely, Richard J. Goddard Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: with enclosure Mr. Nicholas J. Chrissotimos Older Americans For Elderly Rights DS07 h.Grm';>
-- 1
_ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _7_f_f_ _' :_0 ELD UTt :0 ELD (,g NAME :D. Goddard /ls: E.Reis DATE :04/2t/82
- 04/ 24682
m f) f* "%),
)'J Q.//jsr.ac d UNITED STATES :
[ " y (/ :. j
- ),
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTOfi. D. C. 20555 g
s., * * * * //
March 30, 1982 Mr. Robert Romic Phillip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Quad-Cities Alliance for Safe Isham, Lincoln and Beale Energy and Survival One First National Plaza 1628 Grant Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Betten*orf,. Iowa 52722 Mr. Douglas Collins Citizens for Safe Energy
~
~
P.O. Box 23 Hillsdale, Illinois 61257 In the 11atter of Comonwealth Edison Company (Quad Cities Station, Units 1 & 2)
Docket Nos. 50-254-SP and 50-265-SP
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed is the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report input reference Contention 6 on Fuel Channel Bowing.
I would suggest your group review it and let me know if there are any unanswered questions remaining in regard to this contention.
Sincerely, D
y,1
.e
> A la n A j
ard J. G rd Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Older Americans for Elderly Rights Mr. Nicholas J. Chrissotinos Y $
BepSMLQ t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-254 50-265 (Spent Fuel Pool Modifications)
(Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2)'
)
AFFIDAVIT OF HORACE K. SHAW ON INTERVENOR'S CONTENTION ON FUEL CHANNEL B0 WING I.
INTRODUCTION I, Horace K. Shaw, do state as follows:
I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as a Senior Mechanical Engineer, Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Division of Licensing, Division of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This affidavit presents the results of the NRC Staff's review of the licensee's recent work regarding fuel channel deformation during service.
l This testimony updates the testimony I filed on the same subject in the Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pool modification proceeding.
II. DESCRIPTION My earlier testimony concluded that the concern raised regarding interference between walls of fuel assemblies and storage locations within the then proposed Dresden spent fuel racks would not represent a safety problem.
$h5lbA
^
1.
With an assumed maximum total deformation (bow plus bulge) of 0.500" in a channel side, the interference between walls of a deforned fuel assembly and the minimum-dimensioned storage space in the spent fuel rack will not cause the fuel assembly to become stuck.
- 2. None of the total deformation measurements taken from 1736 channel sides exceeded 0.500".
Only 15 measurements were greater than 0.300".
Thetwogreatestnumberswere0.43"(ence)and0.39"('once).
~
- 3. Improved heat treatment and fabrication procedures were adopted to build new channels. This will result in more dimensional stability for fuel assembly channel walls.
- 4. A screening process eliminating channels with large total deformation from further service has since been implemented et both Dresden and Quad Cities Stations.
- 5. An operating procedure describing actions to be taken in case a fuel assembly is stuck in a storage location has been icplemented.
Since then, 745 and 724 additional channel sides were measured at the Dresden and Quad Cities Nuclear Stations, respectively. The greatest total deformations found were 0.445" (once) and 0.455" (once) at Dresden, and 0.462" (once) at Quad Cities.
No other measurements were above 0.400".
New evidence indicated that irradiation is not the only cause for channel grcwth.
In addition to the fast neutron flux gradient, the non-uniform metallurgical properties in channel sides nay be the major factor in causing the deformation. Current fabrication procedure eliminates this nossibility, and guarantees more dimensional stability.
Dresden and Quad-Cities Stations, have both adopted a screening process by which channels with total deformation greater than 0.300" will not be reinserted into the reactor core and they will not be subjected to
' further irradiation.
Procedures describing actions to be taken when a fuel assembly is stuck in a storage location have been implemented.
~
III. CONCLUSION The bases f'or the original conclusions in the Dresden case are reinforced by the subsequent studies.
It is the opinion of the NRC Staff that no safety concerns result from the possibility of interference developed between walls of fuel assemblies and storage cells in the spent fuel racks.
~
Based on the foregoing considerations, the NRC Staff concludes that the issue of fuel channel bowing in the Quad Cities spent fuel storage racks modification is not of any safety concern, and therefore does not constitute a significant risk to the health and safety of the public.
It is the NRC Staff's position that the proposed contention of Intervenors dealing with this subject is non-meritorious.
The above statements and opinions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
l s
Ho e K. Shaw Senior Mechanical Engineer Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Subscribe'd and sworn to before me this30 day,of March, 1982.
9'VJa/ d M otary Public My Commission E'xpires: WA /, /9 7 1/
V V
p r. reg c
s y
h, UNITED STATES y y') e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- U"
'e E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
' tt t
February 16, 1982 l'.r. Robert Ronic Robert G. Fitzgitber.s, Jr., Esq.
Quao-Cities Alliance for Safe Isham, Lincoln and Beale Energy and Survival One First flational Plaza 1628 Grant Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Bettendorf, Iowa 52722 lir. Douglas Collins Citizens for Safe Energy P.O. Box 23 Hillsdale, Illinois 61257 In the Matter of Connonwealth Edison Company (Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-254-SP and 50-265-SP
Dear Doug:
Enclosed is the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluttien Peport input reference Contention 6 on occupational exposures.
I would suggest your group review it and let me know if there are any unanswered cuestions remaining in regard to this contention.
Sincerely, I
,1 ? ! $i--
n Richard J. -cc'c'e rd Counsel for liRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Older Ar.ericans for Elderly Rights Mr. Nicholas J. Chrissotimos 30/55~
c
[
UNITED STATES
! *?.,[ i.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2,.
W ASHING T O N. D. C. 20555
\\;.g.a,j Mj FEB 0 91982 Docket No:
50-254 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director ;?I for Radiation Protection, DSI F
SUBJECT:
QUAD CITY UNIT 1 - SPENT FUEL P0OL MODIFICATION SAFETY EVALUATION INPUT ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE (TAC #43759)
PLANT NAME: Quad City Unit 1 DOCKET NUMBER:
50-254 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: ORB #2; R. Bevan. PM DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE:
SER Input REVIEW STATUS:
Complete The Radiation Protection Section of the Radiologica~i Assessment Branch has completed its review and evaluation of the August 10, 1981 and January 27, 1982 letters from Commonwealth Edison (the licensee) which contains information on the proposed expansion of the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool (SFP) at Quad City Unit 1 Station.
Our evaluation includes information on occupational radiation exposure due to the proposed pool modification. The enclosure is suitable for inclusion in the Safety Evaluation. The input for the Environmental Impact Appraisal will be provided at a later date.
It should be noted that, in accordance with the Eisenhut to Tedesco memorandum of October 26, 1981 that deals with contentions in the safety evaluation report, Contention (6) from the Quad City SFP modification intervenors, is answered di-rectly by the SER. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the SER be drawn up as a Summary Disposition to be sent to the intervenors as the staff's response to Contention (6). By so doing, this contention may be dropped by the intervenors, thereby eliminating the need for a witness from RAB from attending the hearing to testify.
Contention 6 is stated as follows:
"Intervenors contend that poten-tially excessive occupational exposure will occur due to removal, dismantling, and disposition of the present racks and installation and routine maintenance of the proposed high density racks, in violation of 10 CFR Part 20."
This review was performed by S. Block, RPS/RAB.
R'. Jayne Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection h
Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
K stated cc: See next page
-