ML20127G768
| ML20127G768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1993 |
| From: | Hull J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13535 OLA, NUDOCS 9301220066 | |
| Download: ML20127G768 (16) | |
Text
__
RELATED 06AREtPOWM2
,, g g 12,1993 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI,4 g 7, .3 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of .
)
)
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY ) Docket No. 50-336 OLA COMPANY, et. al. )
) (Spent Fuel Pool Design)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE COOPERATIVE CITIZEN'S MONITORING NETWORK'S DISCOVERY REOUESTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION By letters dated December 5 and 16,1992, which together contained 16 numbered discovery requests, the Cooperative Citizen's Monitoring Network (CCMN) requested information from the NRC Staff pertaining to the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool. These requests were submitted after the Licensing Board's September 30,1992 Order, LBP-92-28,36 NRC , admitted CCMN's Contention 1 regarding criticality concerns in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool. The Licensing Board's November 24,1992 Order (unpublished) established a discovery schedule under which initial discovery requests -
were to be filed by December 18,1992, with formal objections to those requests due by January 12, 1993, and with responses to those requests due by January 21,1993.
By letters to CCMN, dated December 29 and 31,1992, the NRC Staff identified and produced documents responsive to some of CCMN's discovery requests, and stated objections to many of the requests. The Staff's objections remain unresolved. In this -
9301220066 930112
{DR ADOCK 05000336 "" .
p
i filing, the Staff submits its formal responses and objections to CCMN's discovery requests, and produces additional documents as identified below.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS The NRC rules governing discovery are modelled on those found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-196,7 AEC 457,460 (1974). However, discovery against the NRC Staff rests upon a different footing than that which applies to other parties because, with limited-exceptions, final NRC records and documents are publicly available for inspection and copying at the NRC's Public Document Room. See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613,12 NRC 317, 323 (1980), citing 10 C.F.R. { 2.790(a).3 The availability of records also underlies the rule exempting the Staff from having i
to respond to interrogatories absent a finding by the Licensing Board that interrogatory answers "are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding" and that answers "are not reasonably obtainable from any other source [.]" See Susquehanna, supra,12 NRC at.
323, citing 10 C.F.R. Q 2.720(h)(2)(ii).i In this proceeding, Contention 1 was admitted based solely upon portions of the affidavit of Dr. Michio Kaku. See LBP-92-28, slip op. at 26-32. The Licensing Board's
' - The Staff has voluntarily- provided copies of final documents to CCMN in responding to its discovery requests. See 10 C.F.R. f 2.790(a).
2 The Staff has voluntarily answered CCMN Discovery Request Nos. 4,9,10 and 16, which are in the nature of interrogatories.
. A November 24,1992 ruling on discovery matters (unpublished), at 4-5, establishes the issue on which discovery will be permitted. This issue, as framed by the Licensing Board in its summary of Dr. Kaku's affidavit, is the adequacy of the criticality study performed for the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool's new design. Id. at 5. Dr. Kaku's questions in this regard concerning (1) "the actual state of the Boroflex [ sic] box degradation," (2) the use of benchmarking data, (3) the use of Monte Carlo calculations, and (4) the use of a vertical buckling term, form the basis for discovery in this proceeding. Id.
III. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES Discovery Request No.1:
To insure [ sic] enough time for review, we need the criticality calculations (to include all input and output, data and programs, and all source materials and other references *) that were done by NRC Staffin its review of the Millstone II spent fuel pnol redesign criticality analyses by NU, CE, ABB-CE, Holtec, Dr. Vernetson or the NRC Staffitself by January 5,1992.
- All references should be provided, especially in-house documentation or that of private or governmental entities whose work is not readily accessible in a typical Science & Engineering library.
Obiections to Discovery Request No.1:
The Staff objects to this request in part. The Staff need not, and cannot, produce materials not' within its possession or control. Documents "of private or [other]
- governmental entities" are not within the' general scope of discovery available against the NRC Staff under 10 C.F.R. 66 2.744(a) and 2.790(a) (which only require production of NRC documents).
i-
"All references" may be read to include all handwritten notes, internal memorandums, and draft documents, which are not discoverable under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.790(a).
The Staff is unable to tell what " work is not readily accessible in a typical science
& engineering library" and cannot fashion a reply under that direction.
Response to Discovery Ecquest No.1:
By letter dated December 31,1992, the NRC Staffidentified final documents in its possession or control relating to its review of Millstone 2 spent fuel pool criticality calculations done by or on behalf of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),
including input, output, and reference documents. Copies of documents that were in already in the possession of CCMN were sent to CCMN and to Dr. Michio Kaku.
Discovery Request No. 2: ,
f All the experiments and measurements done on Boroflex [ sic], under laboraory conditions, at all stages of use in spent fuel pools under conditions similar to Millstone II, and on materials in and from the SFP at Millstone II. This should include all assumptions, parameters of experiments, experimental data, summary of experiments, models and computer programs with all assumptions specified, input with all sources of.
data referenced, computer runs (output), and conclusions, Objections to Discovery Request No. 2:
The Staff objects to this request in part. The Staffis unable to determine what Boraflex experiments were done "under conditions similar to Millstone II," and documents cannot be identified on that basis. Production of documents pursuant to this request is made without waiver of this objection.
~ - _ -. - - - . _ _ . - . -. - . - . - --
5 Resnonse to Discovery Request No. 2:
By letter dated December 31, 1992, the Staff identified final documents in its possession or control evaluating the use of Borafle-x in spent fuel pools. Copies of documents that were not already in the possession of CCMN were sent to CCMN and to Dr Kaku. Three additional technical reports on Boraflex, prepared by Bisco Products, Inc. and dated August 12,1981, June 2'5,1987, and November 25, 1987, have sinw been located, as has a Combustion Engineering, Inc. document, High Capacity Spent Fuct Storage Rack Poison Material, dated December 4,1979.8 This latter document contains scattered references to "Boroflex." Copics of these documents are appended to the responses served on CCMN, Dr; Kaku, and NNECO's counsel. The documents identified and produced contain all information known to be in the Staff's possession which is sought by this request.
Discovery Request No. 3:
In the 1986 rerack of Millstone II the fuel assemblies were placed for the first time in such close proximity as to have a keff [ greater than] 1. We need to revisit those calculations with special attention to the data on reactivity of consolidated assemblies, and the information available at that time on Boroflex [ sic] and other materials in use in the pool to reduce keff. We understand from a NU letter that DOE was directly involved in that rerack design for incorporation of consolidated fuel assemblies. We request that
-you obtain from DOE these materials for our review. This is relevant to the current criticality analysis since it is our understanding that the current license permits consolidation.
i 3
This document is stamped "CE-Proprietary." Combustion Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the document and does not consider the information contained therein to be proprietary.
'.6-Obiections to Discovery Request No. 3:
The Staff objects to this request in its entirety. The- subject of the fuel consolidation program at Millstone 2 is outside the scope of this proceeding. Moreover, l
the first three sentences do not contain a discovery request and need not be answered.
Discovery Request No. 4:
The prevention of criticality in the pool relies in part on circulation of dissolved boron. We request information on post 1986-rerack concentrations of boron in the pool and concentration and circulation problems that have occurred.
Obiections to Discovery Request No. 4:
The Staff objects to this requestin part. The first sentence is not a discovery request and need not be answered. Moreover, the first sentence does not accurately reflect NRC requirements applicable to the prevention of criticality in spent fuel pools.
Criticality analyses to determine whether kaff will be at or below 0.95 in spent fuel pools do not take credit for the amount of dissolved boron in the spent fuel pool water.
Remonse to Discovery Reouest No. 4:
Specific boron concentrations in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool are required by the technical specifications issued with Amendment No.158, dated June 4,1992. Copies of the Technical Specifications were previously provided as attachments to Staff's July 1, 1992 letter to the Licensing Board. No change in the boron concentration requirements has occurred since 1986. To the Staff's knowledge, there have been no technical specification violations regarding boron concentrations in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool, and the Staffis unaware of any other boron concentration or circulation problems in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool.
Diggyery Request No. 5:
Since studies done on Boroflex [ sic] and on assemblies and consolidated cans may include the amount and type of radiatiott exposure, where this information is used we need to be informed ifit is estimated or measured and by what methods and means. _;
Obiection to Discovery Request No. 5:
- The Staff objects to this request in part, insofar as it may be read as seeking information regarding radiation exposure of personnel, a subject which is outside the scope of the criticality concerns relevant here. The production of documents pursuant ,
to Request 2 is made without waiver of this objection. ,
Resnonse to Discovery Request No. 5:
The Staff is unaware of any such information other than what may be contained in the Boraflex studies and reports which have been identified and produced as described above in Response 2. -
Discovery Reauest No. 6:
Because much attention is being given to Region B, or the storage area for new fuel by NRC Staff, we request that the information they receive be shared with us.
Response to Discovery Request No. 6:
Copies of NNECO's license amendment application, dated April 16,1992, as supplemented on May 7,1992, were previously provided as attachments to NNECO's letter to the Licensing Board, dated July 1,1992, and Staff's letter to the Licensing.
Board, dated July 1,1992. NNECO mailed a copy of its November 24,1992 response to the Staff's November 20,1992 request for additional information (RAI) regarding-criticality analysis to CCMN by letter dated December 15,1992. Apart from information i
. 8-recently received from Oak Ridge National laboratory (see Response No. 9), the Staff has received no other information pertinent to this request.
Discovery Request No. 7:
The current storage in Region A is such as to be at almost maximum capacity, not considering the use of consolidation. Therefore we request allinformation necessary [ sic) for doing a complete criticality analysis of this region:
This information should include but not be limited to:
All'available data on the current condition and position (both experimental and actual) of the assemblies, racks, Boroflex [ sic] panels and metal panel holders, sample coupons, waste and damaged fuel, consolidated cans and other peninent stnictures.
A complete report on erosion and blackness testing (for both A and B Regions) describing the method utilized [and) any limitations of the procedure, All information used in any modeling and all computer programs and the output, conclusions, and assumed accuracy of this process.
The actual radioactive isotopes generated as a measure of burnup prior to 85%
burnup and the level of neutron activity as it relates to burnup and initial enrichment.
The flow rate and chemical composition of coolant liquid in [the] pool as it is, has been, and should be.
Objections to Discovery Request No. 7:-
The Staff objects to this request in part. The first sentence of this request is a statement and is not in the form of a discovery request and need not be answered.
To the extent the request calls for information regarding fuel consolidation, it is objectionable as it seeks information which is outside the scope of this proceeding. To the extent the request calls for information regarding radioactive isotopes, the Staff.
objects to the request insofar as it may relate to the consequences of accidents, which is i
4 e
a subject outside the scope of this proceeding. The production of documents pursuant to -
Requests 1,2 and 4 is made without waiver of these objections.
Response to Discovery Request No. 7:
Much of the information sought by this request forms a subset of the information sought by Request Nos.1, 2 and 4. Specifically, any Boraflex data in the NRC's possession has been identified and produced pursuant to Request No. 2. Information on crosion and blackness testing in the NRC's possession has been identified and produced pursuant to Request No. 2. Information on burnup factors, neutror. activity, and initial enrichment is cor.tained within the information produced pursuant to Request 1.
Information on the chemical composition of spent fuel poolliquid is contained within the information produced pursuant to Request Nos. I and 4. Response No. 9 identifies information regarding modeling and computer programs. The Staff has no other relevant information responsive to this request.
Discovery Request No. 8a:
Provide all EPRI and other Industry reports that have been or are currently being used or are under consideration by the industry or the NRC in the development and implementation of programs that are intended to maintain subcritical conditions in the storage of spent and new fuel under "high density" conditions. We define "high density" conditions to exist in the storage area when, based solely on planned or actual distances between new or spent assemblies or consolidated waste cans, Keff can be greater than
.95. .
Obiections to Discovery Request No. 8a:
The Staff objects to this request in part. The request for "all EPRI and other Industry reports . . . of programs that are intended to maintain suberitical conditions in the storage of spent and new fuel" is overbroad, and covers documents regarding neutron
absorbing materials other than Boraflex. The Staff would not, to the best of its knowledge, have in its possession or control all EPRI and industry reports on Boraflex, .
let alone all such reports on every neutron absorbing material used in spent fuel pools.
Any reports that are "under consideration," to the extent that they are not final
- reports, are not subject to discovery under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. ( 2.790(a).-
l l The Staff objects to CCMN's definition of "high density," because NRC regulations require that all spent fuel be stored under conditions such that the 0.95 keff l
criterion will not be exceeded. Documents cannot be identified based on CCMN's definition of "high density." The production of documents pursuant to Request 2 is made without waiver of these objections.
Response to Discovery Request No. 8a:
All Boraflex reports in the NRC's possession have been identified and produced pursuant to Request 2.
,- Discovery Request No. 8b:
Specify where it is not immediately apparent from the particular spent fuel suberiticality maintenance program, what special fuel loading patterns, locations, or other practices are or have been used, or are under consideration that rnay cause an otherwise -
unexpected variance in the exposure of the neutron absorbing materials. ,
Objections to Discovery Request No. 8b:
The Staff objects to this request in its entirety. The Staff is unable to determine what is "not immediately apparent" and what "may cause an otherwise unexpected variance in the exposure of the neutron absorbing materials " These phrases are not self-defining and are too vague to provide a basis for discovery.
a Digovery Request No. 9:
For those programs utilized to assess the criticality of the Millstone Il spent fuel pool, we ask that you provide all algorithms that were utilized, describe what runs were done, give the input and output, and derribe how these programs are benchmarked.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 9:
The NRC Staff and its consultants at the Oak Ridge National laboratory (ORNL) used the BONAMI, NITAWL-II, and KENO V.a criticality programs in assessing the criticality of the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool. The KENO V.a algorithms are contained in the copy of the KENO V.a criticality program which was previously mailed to CCMN by NRC letter, dated October 20, 1992. Copies of the BONAMI and NITAWL-II algorithms are enclosed. The input and output for the work performed by ORNL in assessing the criticality of the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool are described in the enclosed ORNL report, dated January 1993. Ccpie: of the ORNL computer runs done for its January 1993 report (13 sets) are also enclosed. The criticality programs were benchmarked by ORNL as described in the enclosed ORNL document, Validation of
~
SCALE-4for a Reference Problem Set. Copies of the documents described above are appended to the responses served on CCMN, Dr. Kaku, and NNECO's counsel.
Discovery Request No.10:
How much to the overall reactivity of the spent fuel pool does each of the following contribute:
- a. each of the currently stored spent fuel consolidated cans.
b, a typical proposed consolidated can,
- c. each of the assemblies that has been in the reactor for one, two, and three fuel cycles, respectively.
- d. all other currently stored materials in the pool.
Specify if reactivity contribution is measured or calculated, and provide both where available.
Objections to Discovery Request No.10:
The Staff. objects to this request in part. Insofar as the request seeks information regarding fuel consolidation, it seeks information which is outside the secpe of this proceeding. Additionally, the contributors to reactivity referred to in this request are not assessed individually by the NRC Staff in the manner set forth, so that this discovery request cannot be responded to on the basis of the request's categories.
Besponse to Discovery Request No.10:
Without waiving these objections, the Staff states that the maximum permissible reactivity in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool as presently designed would occur only if the spent fuel racks in Region B were fully loaded with unirradiated (fresh) fuel of 4.5 weight percentage U-235 enrichment, and the spent fuel racks in Region A were fully-loaded with irradiated fuel having the minimum allowed burnup requirements shown in Figure 3.9-4 of the Technical Specifications. Consolidated fuel and fuel assemblies that have gone through one or more fuel cycles in the reactor are -less reactive than unirradiated (fresh) fuel and low-burnup fuel.
Discovery Request No.11: ,
Provide accident records of all previous criticality accidents, beginning in 1945, for both commercial and weapons industries. Include descriptions and complete records.
Discovery Request No.12:
Provide any and all studies done by anyone in NRC or Industry of what happen's or can be expected to happen when a spent fuel pool goes critical.
4 Discovery Request No.13:
~
Provide any and all plans devised or under consideration by NU or the NRC for the disposal or storage of Millstone Il spent fuel generated in the past and to be generated with resumed operations for:
- a. The current licensed operational plant life.
- b. The expected extended plant life with its new steam generators,
- c. The current redesign limit of the spent fuel pool, with and without fuel consolidation.
- d. The next decade,
- e. The period of time prior to the currently anticipated startup date of a federal repository for this waste.
Discovery Request No.14:
Provide any and all plans under the redesign for continuing or ceasing NU's stated l corporate and engineering practice of having full-core offload capacity in its : pent fuel ,
pool.
Discovery Request No.15: ,
Since the issuance of the current redesign amendment, how many refuelings can occur before the Millstone II spent fuel pool is:
- a. Without designated space for an emergency full-core offload?
- b. Without space for spent fuel unconsolidated assemblies?
Objections to Discovery Request Nos.11-15:
The Staff objects to these requests in their entirety. These requests concem matters which are outside the scope of discovery in this proceeding, and the requests are overbroad. In addition, for Request No.15, CCMN has made no showing that the information sought is necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding. See 10 C.F.R.
Q 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
L
Discovery Request No.16:
Under what condition a Region B be utilized for storage of anything other than new fuel without first obtaining a license amendment?
Response to Discovery Request No.16:
Region B is designed so that in case an off-load from a freshly refueled reactor is required, there will be sufficient space to safely accommodate the low-burnup fuel without violating the 0.95 keff criterion. Assuming the term "anything other than new fuel" is limited to fuel and other material normally used in the reactor, no license amendment would be required to store such material in Region B. Because Region B is designed to safely accommodate fresh fuel enriched up to 4.5 weight percent U-235, which is the most reactive material that would properly be in the Millstone 2 spent fuel pool as presently licensed, it follows that any less reactive material from the reactor can be safely stored in Region B. In practice, NNECO would likely store material which is less reactive in Regions A or C to maximize the space available in Region B.
Respectfu submitted, AT ohn T. Hull Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of January,1993
BELATED CORRESPONDENCE
, $.f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 g g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ekhi 1 '.';, j [
In the Matter of ) w,
)
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY ) Docket No. 50-336 OLA COMPANY, et. al. )
) (Spent Fuel Pool Design)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 2) ) _
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"NRC STAFF RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE COOPERATIVE CITIZEN'S MONITORINO NETWORK'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 12th day of January,1993:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Nicholas S. Reynolds Administrative Judge John A. MacEvoy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Winston & Strawn Mail Stop: EW-439 1400 L Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20555 Mary E. Marucci i Dr. Jerry R. Kline* 104 Brownwell Street Administrative Judge New Haven, CT 06511 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: EW-439 Richard M. Kacich, Director
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Licensing Northeast Washington, DC 20555 Utilities P.O. Box 270 Dr. Charles N. Kelber* Hartford, CT 06101 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cooperative Citizen's Mail Stop: EW-439 Monitoring Network U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1491 Washington, DC 20555 New Haven, CT 06506 I
Professor Michio Kaku Department of Physics Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City College of New York Panel
- 138th St. and Convent Avenue Mail Stop: EW-439 New York, NY 10031 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
- Office of the Secretary * (2)
Mail Stop: 16-G-16 OWFN Attn: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 16-G-16 OWFN Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File * (2)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: EW-439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Iijhh 't. Hull 7/
Counsel for NRC Staff
_ _ _ _ . . . _ . . - - - - - - " ' - ~ ' -
Professor Michio Kaku Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Physics Panel" City College of New York Mail Stop: EW-439 138th St. and Convent Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, NY 10031 Washington, DC 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Secretary * (2)
Adjudication
- Attn: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: 16-G-16 OWFN Mail Stop: 16-G-16 OWFN U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regu'.atory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File * (2)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: EW-439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ,
i_.N Jjhh T. Hull Counsel for NRC Staff P