ML20046B874
| ML20046B874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1993 |
| From: | Kelber C, Kline J, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046B868 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308060361 | |
| Download: ML20046B874 (12) | |
Text
p..
s.,
s LBP-93-12 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dr. Charles N. Kolber Dr. Jerry R. Kline In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Docket Nos. 50-336-OLA COMPANY FOL No. DPR-65 ASLBP No. 92-665-02-OLA)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
(Spent Puel Pool Design)
July 9, 1993 DECISION AND ORDER (Terminatina Proceedine By Summary Discosition)
SYNOPSIS Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), supported by the NRC Staff, moves for summary disposition of Concerned Citizens Monitoring Network (CCMN) Contention 1.
Both NNECO and the NRC Staff have submitted the affidavits of qualified experts demonstrating that contention 1 has.not raised a genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
CCMN has not answered the motion.
The Licensing Board grants the motion.
CCMN Contention 1 was the only contention accepted for adjudication.
Accordingly, the Board terminates this proceeding.
p$0eog@gIko$oo 6
U
l
-2 BACKGROUND This proceeding concerns the adequacy of the spent fuel pool criticality calculations performed for Millstone Unit No. 2's license amendment 158.
Egg LBP-92-28, 36 NRC 202, 215-16 (1992).2 This Licensing Board was established to consider intervention petitions filed by CCMN and others.
Based on CCMN's August 24, 1992 filing, its Contention 1 was accepted and CCMN was admitted as a party.
All other contentions were rejected Id.
Contention 1 was based solely upon portions of Dr. Michio Kaku's August 23, 1992
" Declaration" (affidavit).2 The adequacy of the criticality study performed for Amendment No. 158 and Dr.
Kaku's questions in this regard concerning: (1) the actual state of the Boraflex box degradation, (2) the use of benchmarking data, (3) the use of Monte Carlo calculations, and (4) the use of a vertical buckling term, were identified l
by this Board as the only issues to be litigated in this 1
"On April 28, 1992, a notice of opportunity for herring was published in the Federal Recister regarding the April 16, 1992 application by NNECO seeking authorization to change the design of the spent fuel pool at Millstone Unit 2 i
from a two-region to a three-region configuration.
57 Fed.
j Reg. 17934.
On June 4, 1992, the NRC Staff granted NNECO's j
request and issued Amendment No. 158 to the Millstone 2 i
operating license, notwithstanding CCMN's petition requesting tha Staff to deny NNECO's amendment request.
fbu: Memorandum and Order (Following Prehearing
)
2 Conference) November 23, 1992 (unpublished).
Egg also LBP-92-28, supra, at 217.
i
- 3 proceeding.
Id.
Egg page 4, infra, for the full text of the issues.
On May 7, 1993, NNECO filed its motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749, for summary disposition of CCMN Contention 1, on the grounds that the contention has not raised a genuine issue of material fact.
Accordingly, NNECO states, it is entitled to summary disposition in its favor as a matter of law and that the contention should be dismissed.
As support for the motion, NNECO asserts that the attached affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to CCMN's Contention 1 as that contention was characterized by the Licensing Board.
On May 28, 1993, the Staff filed its response, also founded on affidavits, in support of NNECO's motion.
In our order of May 3, 1993, we granted CCKN's request for an extension of time until June 29, 1993 to answer both NNECO's motion and any supporting response by the NRC Staff.
Id. at 2.
CCMN did not answer.
t i
FINDINGS As noted above, the issues of CCKN Contention 1 were summarized by the Board in LBP-92-28 from the August 23, 1992 affidavit of CCMN's expert advisor, Dr. Michio Kaku.
In our November 23, 1992 order we accepted for discovery
)
those issues:
l
-4 Licensee's belief that the rearrangement can only reduce the pool's storage capacity and hence make the pool less dangerous, represents premature optimism.
Affidavit, 1 4.2 More information is required.
Id.,
passim.
A reanalysis of the criticality study is needed and should address the following issues:
1.
What is the actual state of the Boraflex box degradation, and what is the corresponding cisposition of the water gaps?
Id., 1 8.
The licensee examined approximately half of the poisoned rack cells with a defect rate of 16% [ footnote omitted).If the sample is not representative, the gaps may be larger than expected, or locally concentrated.
A concentration of gaps would cause local enhancement of the neutron distribution with an effect of increasing ktu' 2.
To what extent are the benchmark data used by the Licensee representative of the arrangement of Boraflex boxes, fuel boxes, and water in the storage pool?
Id., 1 9.
3.
Have the Monte Carlo calculations incorporated enough iterations to provide a good estimate of the 1,
pool's reactivity?
Id., 1 10(d).
4.
If a vertical buckling term has been used, has it been used correctly?
Id., 1 10(c).
Id. at 5.
NNECO's motion directly addresses each of the foregoing I
issues and seeks a finding in NNECO's favor as to the following statements of material fact "as to which there is j
no genuine issue to be heard."
Motion at 20-21.
In the following paragraphs, we discuss in order each of the proffered statements.
As a preliminary matter, however, the Board rules that each of the experts whose affidavits attend NNECO's motion l
3 Affidavit references are to Dr. Kaku's " Declaration".
1 l
9 y
5-I (John R.
Guerci, George N.
Betancourt, and Dr. Stanley E.
Turner) and the Staff's response (Dr. Laurence Kopp and George Bidinger) are qualified with respect to their expert opinions and factual knowledge.
Statement No. 1 The actual state of Boraflex box degradation and water gaps is known and very conservatively modeled in the A=endment 158 criticality analysis.
a.
Boraflex boxes at Millste 9 Unit 2 have been subject to two extensive Blackness testing campaigns.
b.
This Blackness testing accurately characterized the condition of the Boraflex panels.
c.
The Blackness testing campaigns encompassed almost 70% of the Boraflex boxes subject to significant radiation and therefore most susceptible to gap formation (i.e.,
about 46% of the total Boraflex boxes).
d.
The Ei'ckness testing conducted provides assurance that actual state of Boraflex has been
- vely enveloped in the Amendment 158 cons..>:
critice&M.y analysis.
The conservative assumptions made in that analysis bound the observed degradation with respect to the number of gaps (100% panel defect rate assumed vs. 13%
defect rate observed), size of gaps (5.65 inch gaps assumed vs. average observed gap of 0.8 inches), and distribution of gaps (observed,as essentially random).
Board Findinc on Statement No. 1 Blackness testing is an established and accepted scientific method ci e.ermining the capability of material to capture neutrona Tr.e affidavit of Dr. Turne:r supports
l
- NNECO's proffered Statement No.
1.
Turner Aff. at 1 16.
The Staff's expert, Dr, Kopp, supports Dr. Turner.
Kopp Aff. at 11 7-15.
The Board finds that with respect to Statement No. I there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
Statement No. 2 The model used in the Amendment 158 criticality analysis was extensively benchmarked.
c.
The KENO model used for the criticality analysis was benchmarked against critical experiments chosen from the B&W critical experiments to be as nearly representative of the Millstone Unit 2 spent ruel racks as possible.
f.
These critical experiments included a geometric array of spent fuel boxes with thin strong neutron absorbers.
This benchmark data is representative of the arrangement of Boraflex boxes, fuel boxes, and water in the spent fuel pool.
g.
The KENO model, using 27 neutron groups, also was verified against an independent means of evaluation (CASMO-3).
Board Findine on Statement No. 2 The criticality calculations were carried out in accord with the provisions of the standard ANSI /ANS-8.1, Nucl' ear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors.
This standard has been incorporated by reference into NRC Regulations.
The affidavit of Dr. Turner suppor?.s NNECO's proffered statement No.
2.
Turner Aff. at 11 30-33.
Similarly, the Staff's expert, G. H. Bidinger,
\\
-l
^
-7 supports Dr. Turner, the support being based on both a review of Dr. Turner's work and independent calculations.
Bidinger Aff, at 11 7-16.
The Board finds with respect to Statement No. 2 that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
Statement Number 3 The Monte Carlo calculations have incorporated enough
" iterations" to provide a good estimate of the pool's reactivity.
h.
Monte Carlo analysis is an accepted and adequate technique for calculating K,,,
in the Millstone Unit 2 spent fuel pool.
i.
KENO is well-suited to analysis of complex systems containing thin, strong absorbers, such as in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool.
j.
The number of neutron histories used in NNECO's criticality calculations was at least 500,000.
k.
Convergence was normally achieved by 125,030 histories.
500,000 histories therefere was more than adequate to a;hieve convergence in the Monte Carlo calculations.
Board Findine on Stat 3 ment No. 3 Both the Licensee and the Staff performed studies of the effects of changing the number of histories on the precision of the Kano calculations.
Such parametric studies are an established and accepted scientific method of testing the capabilities of a computing code.
Dr. Turner cites specific results in supporting NNECO's proffered Statement i
i
. No.
3.
Turner Aff. at 11 34-37.
The Staff's expert, G.
H.
Bidinger, also brings to bear the results of an independent analysis of the spent fuel pool criticality and supports NNECO's stauement.
Bidinger Aff. at 11 10-11.
The Board therefore finds that with respect to Statement Number 3 there exists no genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
Statement Number 4 A vertical buckling term was not used in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool criticality analysis.
Board Findine On Statement No. 4 Dr. Turner points out, in support of NNECO's statement, that the calculations involved all three dimensions of the spent fuel and thus there was no need for a vertical buckling term.
Turner Aff. at 1 49.
The same point is made by the Staff's expert, G.
H.
Bidinger.
Bidinger Aff. at 1 8.
The use of a vertical buckling term is appropriate only as an approximate method of treating a missing spatial dimension in diffusion theory analyses.
There are no such missing dimensions in the problem under discussion.
'Hence, the Board finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Statement Number 4.
-9 DECISION AND OR' DER The Board has found and decided in favor of NNECO with respect to each proffered statement as to which NNECO asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard.
Consequently, all issues raised by CCMN Contention 1 and the contention itself are decided in NNECO's favor.
No issues or contentions remain before the Board.
Accordingly, this proceeding is terminated.
FINALITY AND REVIEW 1.
This decision and order will constitute the final decision of the Commission 40 days from the date of its issuance, unless the Commission takes review or directs otherwise.
Egg 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.760, 2.786.
2.
Any party may seek review of this decision and order i
with the Commission by filing a petition for review within fifteen days after its service.
The petition for review may be granted in the discretion of the Commission.
The filing of such a petition is mandatory for a party to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial review'.' 593, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.786.
- 3. A petition for review shall be no longer than ten pages and shall contain the information set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.786(b) (2).
Any other party to the proceeding may, within ten days after service of a petition for review,
A' i
10 >
i file an answer no longer that ten pages and, to the extent appropriate, should concisely address the matters specified~
in Section 2.786(b) (2).
Except as permitted by the Commission, the petitioning party shall have no right to reply.
10 C.F.R. S 2.786(b) (3).
l
+
THE ATOMIC SAFETY l
AND LICENSING BOARD
,l' M ferry R./Kline ADMIl4STRATIVE JUDGE
- ~
Otfarles C.
Kelber ADMII/ISTRATIVE E
$$f l j Ivan W.
Smith," Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland July 9, 1993 s
-,-v-.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-336-OLA (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB DECISION & ORDER (LBP-93-12 have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Ivan W. Smith, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Charles N. Kelber Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 John T. Hull, Esq.
Richard M. Kacich Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Director, Nuclear Licensing Office of the General Counsel Northeast Utilities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 270 Washington, DC 20555 Hartford, CT 06101 Patricia R. Nowicki Mitzi S. Bowman Associate Director Coordinator EARTHVISION, INC.
DON'T WASTE CONNECTICUT 42 Highland Drive 97 Longhill Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 New Haven, CT 06515 i
r..
~
BbCI bN&ORDR LBP-93-12 Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esq.
John A. MacEvoy, Esq.
Mary-Ellen Marucci Winston & Strawn 104 Brownell Street 1400 L Street, N.W.
New Haven, CT 06511 Washington, DC 20005 Michael J. Pray, AIA Frank X. Lo Sacco 87 Blinman Street 4 Glover Place, Box 1125 New London, CT 06320 Middletown, CT 06457 Joseph M. Sullivan Rosemary-Griffiths 17 Laurel Street 39 South Street Waterford, CT 06385 Niantic, CT 06357 i
Professor Michio Kaku Department of Physics City College of New York 138th Street and Covent Avenue New York, NY 10031 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 9 day of July'1993 j/
A<-&'
L Office of the Secretary of the Commiraion l
e i
e l
l CONGRESSIONAL CORAESPONDENCE SYSTEM DcCUMENT PREPAAATION CHECKLIST j
Chis checklist is be submitted with each docu=ent (or group of 23/As) sent for e
'ing into the CC3.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DO,CUMENT(S) b/'
(/
2.
TYPE OF' DoctDMN2"*
/'- Correspondences.
Kaaringse(Qs/Aab 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subecmmittas t
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
I (b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name
\\/
(b)
/'
Scan.
(c)
Attachments (d)
Rakey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATER (t)
Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CCS receivees documant (c)
Data returned te oCA for additional information (d)
Data resubmitted by-oCA to CCS
~
(a)
Date entered into CCS by l
(f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.
CCxxENTs 05003D
-