ML20137W842

Response Supporting Licensee 860123 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 Re Increased Fuel Enrichment. No Genuine Issue as to Matl Fact Demonstrated.Li Kopp Affidavit & Notice of Appearance Encl

ML20137W842
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/18/1986
From:	Wagner M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20137W848	List: ML20137W842 ML20137W850 ML20137W856
References
CON-#186-118 OLA-3, NUDOCS 8602200386
Download: ML20137W842 (6)

Text

lj[ rebruary 18, 1986 00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W FEB 19 Pl2:03 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD FICE C; i e g KEIlh6 c. LEiritt.1 In the Matter of ) BRANCH

) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-3 FLORIDA POVIER & LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-3

)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) ) (Increased Fuel Enrichment)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 3

1. INTRODUCTION On June 20, 1984 the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of amendments to the facility licenses for the Turkey Point Plant and offered an opportunity for a hearing on the amendments. 49 Fed. Reg. 25350, 25360. The amendments allow storage of fuel with increased enrichment, for use in future operating cycles, and include an additional k,ff (neutron multiplication factor) requirement for the existing new fuel storage racks under conditions of low density (optimum moderation). By Order of September 16, 1984, the Licensing Board admitted the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. and Joette Lorion (Intervenors) as parties to this proceeding, and admitted one of their proffered contentions, Contention 3.

On January 23, 1986 Florida Power & Light Company (Licensee) filed

" Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3" (Motion ) .

The Motion is accompanied by a statement of material facts as to which it is asserted there is no genuine issue to be heard, and an affidavit 8602200386 86021D PDR ADOCK 05000250 o PDR

~Dsc7

4 J

concerning the contention.

For the reasons set forth below, the Staff l~ supports the Licensee's Motion.

II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that summary disposition of any matter involved in a licensing proceeding shall be granted if the

! moving papers, together with the other papers filed in the proceeding, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 10 CFR 2.749(d). The use of summary disposition has been encouraged by the 1

Commission and the Appeal Board to avoid unnecessary hearings on 4 contentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Eg , Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981);

Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station , Unit 1), ALAD-590, 11 NRC 542, 550-551 (1980); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 2 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, i

242 (1973), aff'd sub nom, BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir.1974).

A material fact is one that may affect the outcome of the litigation.

Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Management Co. , 553 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977).

When a motion for summary disposition is made and supported by affidavit , a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of his answer but must set forth specific facts such f

I l

i-- - -r_._,.,.., _..,._,____,._-m_ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . , ,, _y....y_ ._,_,_._,,__.._.__._.__.7,__ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ , . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . , . . _ _ . _ , _ , ,

as would be admissible in evidence that show the existence of a genuine issue of. material fact. 10 CFR 2.749(b). All material facts set forth in the statement of material facts required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of material facts required to be served by the opposing party. 10 CFR the 2.749(a). Any answers supporting or opposing a motion for summary disposition must be served within twenty (20) days after service of motion. Id. If no answer properly showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is filed, the decision sought by the moving party, if properly supported, shall be rendered. 10 CFR 2.749(b).

B. The Staff's Affidavit Supports Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition Intervenors' Contention 3 rotates:

That the uranium enrichment amendments increase the chances of a criticality accident occurring in the fresh fuel pool and establishes a clear reduction in the safety margin of the fresh and spent fuel pool.

The Licensing Board in admitting Contention 3 stated that the contention should be read as " challenging the adequacy of [the}

acceptance criteria by alleging that k,gf of 0.98 is not adequately safe for fresh fuel exposed to abnormal, optimum moderation conditions and 0.95 is not adequate for fresh or spent fuel exposed to the abnormal condition of fuel flooding with unborated water " Memorandum and Order of September 24, 1984, at 7.

The Staff has read the Licensee's statement of material facts and agrees that those facts demonstrate that there are no genuine factual issues to be litigated as to Contention 3. See Affidavit of Laurence I.

Kopp Regarding Contention 3 (Kopp Affidavit) (attached). The Staff further

believes that Licensee's statement of material facts is supported by the Staff's Safety Evaluation, dated September 5,1984, which was prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

The NRC's acceptance criteria for criticality of new (fresh) fuel storage is found in Standard Review Plan (SRP) 9.1.1 (NUREG-0800),

which recommends that the storage racks be designed so that the k,ff for the racks fully loaded with fuel of the highest anticipated enrichment and fully flooded with pure (unborated) water be less than about 0.95. SRP 9.1.1 also recommends that the fresh fuel storage racks he designed so that k eff f r the racks fully loaded with fuel of the highest anticipated enrichment , and assuming optimum moderation, will be no greater than 0.98. Since the water density required for the maximum k eff under the optimum moderation assumption is a precise point which cannot be obtained uniformly throughout the entire storage area, the k eff criterion for optimum moderation establishes a conservative upper bound with the assurance that any realistically possible accident condition will be lower.

Kopp Affidavit T 8-9.

The Staff's acceptance criteria for criticality of spent fuel storage is found in SRP Section 9.1.2, which recommends that the storage racks be designed so that the k ggg for the racks fully loaded with spent fuel and fully flooded with nonborated water is no greater than 0.05. Kopp Affidavit i 11.

The calculation of k fr the accident condition of flooding of eff the normally dry fresh fuel storage racks, or assuming the absence of boron in the spent fuel pool water, requires inclusion of all known uncertainties. These uncertainties are always accounted for in the most

e adverse direction , yielding a conservatively high value for the k eff*

Additional confidence is provided by the, soluble poison (boron) normally present in the spent fuel water, since the Staff requires the criticality analysis performed by Licensee to assume a fully flooded unborated condition. Kopp Affidavit i 12.

As explained in the Kopp Affidavit , the low-density optimum moderation conditions were not identified until after the issuance of the license for Turkey Point's existing fresh fuel storage capacity. The Staff subsequently established the k eff criterion of 0.98 for these conditions and required all new applications or amendments relating to the storage of fresh fuel to analyze for optimum moderation conditions , meet the acceptance of criterion of k eff 0.98, and provide appropriate technical specifications. Therefore, with the request for an enrichment increase at Turkey Point, the Staff has imposed an additional requirement on the Licensee by requiring an analysis at optimum moderation conditions and including the new criterion of 0.98 in the Technical Specifications. This is an additional requirement over the original license requirements, for newly-identified conditions, and does not constitute an increase in the limiting criterion to prevent criticality for the fully flooded condition previously evaluated. The increased fuel enrichment at Turkey Point did not change the previous limiting criterion of k gff less than 0.95 for all other normal and accident conditions in both the fresh fuel storage area and the spent fuel pool. Thus, the margin of safety for conditions previously considered is not reduced. Kepp Affidavit i 13.

Based on the above, the Staff concludes that the amendments neither increase the chances of a criticality accident occurring in the fresh fuel

l l ,

pool nor reduce the safety margin of the fresh and spent fuel pool.

Accordingly, summary disposition of Contention 3 should be granted.

l l

III. CONCLUSION i

There being no genuine issue as to any material fact , as i demonstrated in Licensee's statement of material facts and the supporting affidavits of Licensee and Staff, the Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Contention 3 should be granted.

! Respectfully submitted, Mary . Wagner Couns for NRC Staff l

l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this gh day of February,1986.

l l

l l

_. - - - _ __ - - - . . __ __- -_ - _ - __ - - _ - - ,- , _ _ - _ _ - - - - . - - - _-- ., - -