ML18079B087

Request by Intervenors Coleman That ASLB Reopen Record Re Contentions 2 & 6.Intervenor State of Nj Supports Motion. Experiences at Northern State Power Co Are Pertinent to Proceedings

ML18079B087
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello, Salem
Issue date:	08/01/1979
From:	Onsdorff K NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML18079B086	List: ML18079B085 ML18079B087
References
NUDOCS 7910110184
Download: ML18079B087 (13)

Text

MOTION Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.730, Intervenors, Coleman> hereby move for an Order reopening consideration of their Contentions Numbers Two and Sue for the limited purpose of including in the instant recor~ the NRC inspection report dated April 10, 1979, pertaining to the partially un-satisfactory results of venting of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station spent fuel pool racks, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

In support of the within motion, Intervenors shall rely upon the attached brief, exhibit and testimony of the parties hereto at the hearing held on May 3, 1979.

/ ' /' _..-

• -//*'*'.*_-~._,I.* -.* *,,//

. - - . ---- >],. -.}1_);_1."f-: _,-:--. ,,.:,_**~>'

.~- ,_/

.. '

KEITif A. ONSDORFF ~ .__

ASSISTANT DEPITTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE 79J01 l O I &'4

-

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ~mION Considerable time and attention in these proceedings has been devoted to the high density spent fuel pool racks recently installed at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, owned and operated by the Northern States Power Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Due to the nl.IlTierous similarities between the new racks at ~1onticello and those proposed for use at Salem, the experiences at this Northern States' plant are understandably deemed pertinent to what can be reasonably anticipated at this Public Service plant, if reracked. Tr.544-1 to 547-9 to 16. Of particular importance is the continued serviceability of vented cells for storage of fuel since the sole reason for installation of new racks is to increase the pool's storage capacity. Any substant~al loss in cell availability will likewise substantially undermine the justification for this license amendment.

It therefore becomes highly relevant to obtain the fullest record possib]_e on this issue which is crucial to the very efficacy of applicant f s proposal. This is especially so in light of the apparently incorrect assertion by Exxon's nuclear expert, Mr. Eckhart, that the Monticello cells were used to store spent fuel after venting. Tr. 708-20 to 21. The document which Intervenors are submitting herewith indicates that the Nuclear Regulatory Corrunission has recently inspected this Northern State's plant and detennined that several vented cells did not successfully accept a test gauge for installa-tion of fuel assemblies. This loss of serviceability of vented cells may not in and of itself present a safety concern, if the cells are eliminated from use. It does, however, present one more unknown factor undercutting the confidence with which it can be concluded that reracking Salem One's spent fuel pool is the most prudent course of action to extend this

facility's life span until away from reactor storage becomes available in the mid 1980's.

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be admitted as direct evidence on behalf of Colemans.' Contentions Two and Six.

Respectfully submitted,

-** .,

/: .'

~ *~ ,  ;

. i , ., - ,

,~ - ~ . / .*.*.;:./_-*.,*- ... :-j - ......

*-

:. .*

! .

KEITII A. ONSDORFF ASSIST.Ai\'T DEPUTY PUBLIC ADVOCATE DATED: August 1, 1979

.,

l UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill 799 ROOSEVELT A04D CLE"' ELLY"' ILL'"'0'5 60137 A?R 1 0 197~

Docket No. 50-263 Northern States Power Company ATT~: Hr. Leo ~achter

\'ice President Power Procuction anc System Operation 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, ~ 55401

entle::-:en:

!his refers to the inspection conducted b: ~essrs. !. L. P.ar?ster.

J. E. ~e~:"ling anc G. C. ~righc of this office on ~arch 19-:3, l~;;,

of acci~i:ies at ~=~:icello ~uclear Generati~g Pla~t aut~~r~ze~ ~?

XRC Operat~ng license ~o. D?R-22 an~ co the discussio~ c! c~r !i~~i~~s

~ith ~r. Eliason an2 ethers o! your sca!f at the conclus~o~ =! =~~

inspectio:'l.

The enclosed copy of our inspectio~ re?~rt ide~tifies areas exa~ined during the inspectio'-. ~ithin these areas, the inspe**ion ~onsisted of a selective exa~:nation of proce=~re~

anc r:;rese:"ltative records, observations, an~ intervie~s ~it~

person:iel.

No ite~s of nonco~pl:ance ~ith ~RC require~ants ~er~ icE~tifie~

during the course of this inspe~tio~.

In accordance *1,<fth Section 2. 790 of the ?-~RC's "Rt.:les o:

Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulatio~s. a copy of tt~~ letter a~d the enclosed inspection report ~il~

be placec i~ the SRC's Public Docu~ent Roo:, except as follc~s.

If this report *contains inf on::ation that you or yot:r contractcrs belie*. :~ to be proprietary, you must ap?lY in 'rritin£ to this office, ~ithin twenty days of your receipt of this letter, tc withhold such information from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons fo:

which the information is considered pro?rietary, and shoulc be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.

EXHIBIT A

-*

Northern States Power APR l O 1979 Company We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely, R. F. Heish=lan, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspectio7 Repcrc No~ 50-263/79-02 cc 'lde:i.cl:

Mr. L. R. Eliason, Plant Managt?r Jo~~ ~. Ferna~. Ph.D.

~uc lear Engineer, ?-~?CA Cer.-:ral Files Re?rocuction rnit ~RC 20:

PD?:

Local. PJF..

NSlC

!IC Anthony Reisman. Esq.,

Attorney

• '

u. s. NUCLEAR REGU1".~.TORY CO~r1ISsrm; OFFICE O? H:SPECTION A..\"D E~:O~C2-SN'f REGION III Report No. 50-263/79-02 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall

• Minneapolis, HN 55401 Facility Name: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At: Monticello site, ~onticello, ~

Inspection Conducted: ~23, 1979

.1Cd Inspectors: T. L. Harp ter .

/ __ , / *. ~~-

<':::::; :P

• I I .*

• if~

".'~-~/,_.*...._.

• • ~::::

A

"' t-~

t~* Men~*in_g

-.

/!.!(; {_;/~ .* "

. j  !

I

/* ,

/ -G. Wright *

-. ~1hiU

/////~ :.~:.,,.~-... ~ .. .l Approved By: . .R. F. ~\'arilick, c:;:\;hie*f r+*Rea~tor Projects Section 2 z -j )

Inspection Summarv Inspection on March 19-23, 1979 (Reoort No. 50-263/79-02)

Areas Insoected: Routine, unan~ounced inspection of design changes and modifications; design change and ~edification progra~; reviev of plant operations; cleanliness; followup on license 2..!nendment conditions; and followup of Bulletins, Circulars and LER's. this inspection involved approxbately 85 inspector ::12.nhours on site by three NRC inspectors.

Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified in any of the areas inspected.

• DETAILS

1. Personnel Contacted

• L. Eliason, Plant Xanager M. Clarity, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection

• W. Anderson,*Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance D. Anthony, Superintendent, Operations Engineering

• W. Shamla, Superintendent, Technical Engineering R. Fey, Superintendent, Radiation Protection R. Scheinost, Senior Quality Engineer E.. Earney, Training Supervisor D. Nevinski, Senior Nuclear Engineer A. Myrabo, Assistant Nuclear Engineer L. Nolan, Chemical Engineer

0. Iverson, Associate Production Engineer R. Goranson, Assitant Production Engineer G. Smith, Assistant Production Engineer S. Shurts, Engineer P. Tobin, Engineer S. Hammer, Engineer T. Overlid, Engineer D. Pedersen, Engineer R. Nelson, Quality Engineer, Corpo~ate

• Denotes those attending the exit inte~vie~.

2. Inoffice Review of Licensee Event Renorts The inspector conducted a review within the regional office of

~elected licensee event reports to ascertain ~hether additional reactive inspection effort or other response was warranted; Yhether corrective action discussed in the event reports ap?eared appropriate; and whether reporting require:n.ents ~ere sat~sfied.

The following events are considered closed as a result of the review:

M-R0-78-18 M-R0-78-27 H-R0-78-21 M-R0-78-28 M-R0-78-22 M-R0-79-01

• No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified.

3. Onsite Licens~e Event "Fr;"'..Jc-*'~~-.'.:'.l The inspector con::1'..:c ted ~ f c:. ~-:J-.;:_:'.) :".:1s~,2c ti.on of selected events to ascertain ~~ether ch2 ~-~c~~s~e's revlew, corrective action and reports of the ider:i.:*~:L~ci e~1e:*:t.s ::.:id e..ssoci.ated conditions are adequate and in conf ::.:-::1a.nce ;.;ith re.gulato-ry requirements, technical specifications, a~d.licensee procedures and controls.

The following events are considered closed as a result of this inspection:

M-R0-78-15 M-R0-78-23 M-R0-78-26 M-R0-78-19 H-RO- 7 8-* 2 4 M-R0-78-29 M-R0-78-20 M-R0-78-25 M-R0-78-30 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

4. IE Bulletin Folloi..-uo The inspector verified that 'for the follo\.ling IE Bulletins>>

the bulletins and responses were reviewed by appropriate onsite management representatives; info~tion discussed in tl:ie replies

~as accurate; any corrective actions taken were effected as described in the replies; and the replies were prompt and within

~he time periods requested.

'

The following Bulletins are considered closed as a result of this inspectioq:

IEB 78-09 IEB 78-14 No items of *:.ioncompliance or deviations were identified.

5. IE Circular Follow-UP The inspector verified that the following IE Circulars -were re-:

ceived by licensee management; a review for applicability was performed; and for circulars applicable to the facility, action taken or planned is appropriate.

The following Circular is considered closed as a result of this inspection:

IEC 78-16

-Nq items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

3 -

6. De~iEn

• Changes and ~odif ications Program

• Tne inspector reviewed the licensee)s design change and modi-fication progra~ to ascertain whether the progr~~ is in con-.

f ornance with regulatory requirements> con::iitment:s in the application and industry guides or standards.

As part of this review, the.i"nspector reviewed the following_

procedures:

l ACD 3.3 (Rev. 3, 10/12/~7) 3 AWI 5.3.4 (Rev. 2, 11/6/78)

Design Change Control Ne'i.* Drawings 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5, 12/8/78) 3 AWI 5.3.6 (Rev. 1> 11/6/78)

Design Change Control Drawing Deletions 3 ACD 4.2 (Rev 3, 11/4/77) 4 ACD 3.11 (Rev. 4, 8/12/78)

Design Change Installation Procedure Procedure Review and Approval 3 ACD 4.3 (Rev. 3, 11/4/77) 4 :\CD 3.10 (Rev. 2, 3/ 8/77)

Design Change Preoperational/ Document Control Operational Testing 3 ACD 5.3 (Rev. 4, 11/6/78) 4 ACD 4.8 (Rev~ 5, 3/18/77)

Drawing Control Bypass Control I

3 AWI 4.1.1 (Rev. 1, '3/25/75) Document Control Procedure IX-I Safety Evaluations (Rev. 0, 12/30/77)

Plant Controlled ~r2~ing :iles 3 AWI 5.3.4 (Rev. 3, 11/6/78) Docuoent Co~trol Procedure I-3 Drawing Revisions (Rev. l 11/10/76) Blank Fonr.s and Procedures Prir.ting, Distribution and Control No items of noncompliance or deviations ~e~e identified.

7. Design, Design Changes, and Mod~ficatfons The inspector reviewed the documentation for selected design changes to ascertain ~hether the changes were nade in accordance ~ith the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.

The inspector initially reviewed the licensee's annu~l report of changes, tests, and e~1leriments which were carried out pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 in 1978. The following three activities '..'ere then selected for detailed review:.

a.

• ATWS Hodif ica tion. Design Change r:o. 77Z024.

b. Core Spray Isolation Valve Bypass Switch. Design Change No. 78 H075.

c. Increase Allowable Number of Reactor Vessel Startup/Shutdown Cycles to 208. Safety Review Item No. 181.

In conducting the design change reviews, the inspector noted that design change pack.ages for the following four cocpleted activities were not closed out and available in the plant files:

a. Load Mitigating Spargers. Design Change No. 78 M012.

b. Shorten Torus Vent Header Downcomers. Design Cha~ge No.

78 M014.

c. Installation of Torus Vent Header Deflector. Design Change No. 78 HOlS.

d. Main Steam Line Manifold. Design Change No. 78Z028.

Investigation revealed that these design changes were under the cognizance of the licensee's Plant Engineering and Construction Department and that related installation ~ork ~as perforned during the most recent refueling outage. Failure to have these four desig~

packages closed out at the ti~e of this inspection appeared to be in violation of the licensee's procedure 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5, 12/8/78)~

Design Change Control, ~hich requires that design changes be closed out three months after installation. This inconsistency ~as sub-sequently discussed with the Plant Superintendent Engineering and Radiation Protection "Who related. that a significant back log of open design change packages existed. Since the revision to 3 ACD 41. which established the three-nonth close out requirement was fairly recent (12/78), the inspector did not consider the failure to have these four design packages closed out to be an item of noncompliance. However, the inspector did encourage the licensee representative to institute the controls necessary to ensure the tir;iely close out of design change packages. !"he ins?eC-tors 's concerns in this area were reiterated during the e.xit interview.

No items of noncompliance or deviations ~ere identified.

8. License Amend'l!lents Nos. 34, 35 and 36 The inspector revie~ed the implerzientatio~ of license a!:lendm~nts 34, 35 and 36 to verify compliance with coi:!Illitments oade therein.

• Amendment 34; High Densitv Fuel Storage System (HD?SS)

The inspector reviewed procurement documents, receiving ins?ection reports, install~tion procedures, special test procedure an~ modi-fication procedure for the four High Densitv Fuel Storage Rac~s no..., installed to verify compliance with cotmr.i tments made: in thE-license amendment.

The revie.,.. of the procurement documents v.erified that; B?pro?ria re-product quality certification documents froc the designer/vendor were available; analysis of the boral sheets used in the fue:l racks were available; and that certificates of compliance fro~

tqe assembler were available.

Receiving inpsection reports .including; inspection for clea:-..liness, dimensional checks and confirmation of poison plate instal!atio~ :~

neutron source/detection were revie.,..ed for coc?leteness a~~

conformity with conm:itments.

The follo~ing procedures were reviewed for each of the fo~~

modules installed.

a. HDFSS  ?-!odule Inspectio;. a:ic Preparatio~ Procec:.:-:-e

b. HDFSS Boral Test Equipment Setup Proce:ure

c. HDFSS Module Boral verif icaticn Proce~ure

d. HDFSS Drilling and Re-sizing Procedu~e

e. HDFSS Module Installation Procedure

f. Hn::ss Xodule Re-installation Procedure

g. HDFSS Module Lnloading Procedure

!: ..... **- :c -- ...... -

Dimensional checks, ;.;ith a 5.960" go/no-g~ gauge, afte:- ir:::L::

installation revealed that 11 of the 676 fuel stora~e loca:io~s would not accept the gauge and that t~~ of th~ 11 locatic~s vo~:=

not accept a dum;":"\' fuel ele!!lent.

After re=io\*al of the modules, drilling of 3/lf." holes i:1. t:.e t:::=

adjacent corners of each boral tube, re-sizing of eac~ tube ~y vacuum and mechanical means, and re-installatio~ of the roo=~les into the fuel pool, six of the original 11 tube locario~s ~~~:c still not accept the 5. 690 gauge hoveve:r, all locatior!s ~::- . . .:

accepted the dut:r.\' fuel element.

The licensee instituted a special test prograc to test each bora:

tube, in each module, after 60 days and again after 90 days prior to storing fuel in the modules. The results of the 60 dav tes:

- 6 .;.

\. . ' .

revealed that ~evyn of the original 11 locations would not acce?t the go/no-go gauge and the results of the 90 dav test reveale:

that eigh_t:._of _;__h~ orig}na~_~_ocatio~~ould not accep~_!-.c go/no-go gauge. ln all cases the dumr.iy fuel element could h(-

inserted with no proble~.

The license is presently storing fuel in both boral tubes a~:

~~j a_c~~_a_c-e_s ~-E~-:=_t}ie _e~~~..£~ i ~n~~f ;he_ ~_i_gh_t __ ~-?-~_a ~js>Io.?__j._~ e"-

t if i ed during the 90 daY test. These eight locations ha\'e, c-~~-:

Red'_'_flagged-~~dt~:i.~~-~s-ee stated they would not be use~

unless absolutely necessary.

At the time of the inspection the test specimens, both stainless steel boral and boral alone configurations, had not been installe:::!.

The material certifications had just been received and pla~s tc install the specimens are in progress.

In addition the inspector reviewed the Safety Evaluatio~ Re?~:-:

pertainin£ to the Hig~ Density Fuel Storage Syste=.

~o ice:s of noncocpliance er deviations ~ere ide~:ifie~:

9. Revie~ of Plant Opera:ic~s The inspector concu:::tec a re\'ie._- of pla::t ope:-atio:ls tc as:::e:-:a:-.

.,..hether facility operatio~ \.:as i:-: cor:!orr.:ance \.-i ti": te:::!1.ni::a.! s?e:::i-fiactions, resulatcry req~~-e~e~:s, ad=inistrative procedures, C:"

ocher co~~itments.

The inspector revie~e~ selectec O?e:-a:ing records for the peri~~

January 1 - March 21, 1979. These included: Control ~00= 0?erac~rs Daily Logs, ~~ift Su?erviscrs Dai!y Lo£, Ju~?er a~c Bypass Leg, Nigh: Order Book, Hold anc Secure Care Log.

The inspector conducted a tour cf the control roo~ anc other a~:::es sible plant areas to observe ins:rurnentation; raciatio~. !ire pre-vention, and equip~ent tagging controls; and status of seleccec plant syste~s and equi?~ent. In addition, housekeeping ~as observed on t...,..o separate tours throug:-: the reactor builci:-:~ a~::

found to be completely acce?ta~le at this tiQe.

No items of nonco~pliance or deviations Yere ide~tifiec.

10. Exit Intervie . . .

At the conclusion of the inspection on ~arch 23, 1979, the inspectors met with Station Management personnel (Denoted in Paragra?r. 1) and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.

- i -

_J

.. ' ....

• UNITED STATES OF Af'lERICA NUCLEAR REGUIA10RY CCM1ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and licensing Board .

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC DCXl<ET NO. 50-272

& GAS CO.

(Salem Generating Station Unit ifal)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenors ' Colernans , Motions to :.

Reopen Contentions 'l\vo, Six and Thirteen in the above captioned matter have been served upon the,.parties hereto by deposit in the United States mail at the post office in Trenton, N. J., with proper postage thereon, this 2nd day of .August, 1979.

I , *1;.f /7('/j

/ . e. * . l (/ ~-L--£)c>tjz KEITH A. ONSOORFF ASSISTANT DEPUTI PUBUC