ML20140C602

Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 Re Increased Fuel Enrichment.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Licensee Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20140C602
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	01/23/1986
From:	Frantz S FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20140C595	List: ML20140C591 ML20140C602 ML20140C618 ML20140C623
References
OLA-3, NUDOCS 8601280370
Download: ML20140C602 (12)

Text

s r i s g 1 ,

/ \

I~

/ , ,

Oll2 t, w, i 7 j

p ,

k. l- /

\- ,3

' U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '/

11, _ >\ h'b' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

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

)

(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) (Increased Fuel Enrichment)

Units 3 & 4) )

)

LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or Licensee) hereby files a motion for summary disposition of Contention 3 in the above captioned proceeding.

In support of this motion, Licensee L: 3 attached " Licensee's Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard With Respect To Cont-ntion 3" and the following affi-davit:

" Affidavit of Dr, Stanley E. Turner on Contention No. 3" (January 17, 1986) (Turner Affidavit).

As discussed below, the Licensee submits that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the matters set forth in the attached Statement and affidavit, and that the Licensee is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.

I e

+1 8601280370 860123 0 PDR ADOCK 05000 C

, 9 I. Backaround of Proceedina By means of a letter dated April 4, 1984, from J.W.

Williams, Jr. (FPL) to Darrell G. Eisenhut of the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission (NRC), FPL submitted a request to amend the operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in order to accommodate fuels of higher enrichments for possible use in future fuel cycles. In support of this request, FPL submitted a

" Criticality Analysis of the Turkey Point Plants Units 3 & 4 Storage Racks with Increased Enrichment" (Criticality Analysis).

A notice of FPL's request was published in the Federal Register at 49 Fed. Reg. 25350, 25360 (June 20, 1984). In response to this notice, Joette Lorion and the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as "Intervenors") filed a " Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" on July 12, 1984.

During its review, the NRC Staff submitted written questions to FPL regarding its request to expand the capacity of the Turkey Point spent fuel pools. FPL submitted written responses to these questions which supplemented the information in the Criticality Analysis. Following completion of its review, the NRC Staff determia?d that the requested amendments involved no significant hazards consideration, and it issued the amendments on September 5, 1984, accompanied by a Safety Evaluation (SE).

\

, i V

The Intervenors submitted an " Amended Petition To Intervene" on March 7, 1985, which listed four contentions that the Intervenors proposed be admitted for litigation in this proceeding. Following a prehearing conference on March 28, 1985, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order dated September 24, 1985, which accepted the Intervenors as a party to this proceeding and admitted Contention 3 for the purpoaes of liti-gation.

On October 28, 1985, the Licensee served interroga-tories upon the Intervenors. Intervenors filed "Intervenors'

-Response to Licensee's Interrogatoriep to Center for Nuclear i

Responsibility and Joette Lorion" (Intervenors' Response to

! Interrogatories) on November 27, 1985. No other discovery has

been conducted by any party in this proceeding.

II. Leaal Standards for Sn===ry Disposition Summary disposition of contentions in NRC proceedings is governed by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749. 1/

Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a), any party may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision in its favor as to all or any part of the matters involved in the proceeding. 2/

1/ The standards for summary disposition under 10 C.F.R.

$ 2.749 are similar to those standards for summary judgment

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

' Tennessee Vallev Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B, and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 NRC 15, 20 n.17 (1979);

Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co. (Perry Nuclear Power i Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977).

l 2/ We note in particular that NRC regulations permit the Board to grant summary disposition "as to all or any part of the i

i

1 $

Such a motion must be accompanied by "a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which . . . there is no genuine issue to be heard." 14 Any other party may support or oppose the motion. If it opposes the motion, a party must file its own statement of the material facts as to which it contends there is a genuine issue to be heard. Material facts are deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party. Id.

Under 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(b), when a motion for summary disposition is filed and is supported by affidavits, "a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer." Instead, the opposing party's " answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact." Id. Egg also Houston Lichtina & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-629, 13 NRC 75, 77-78 (1981); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-83-56, 18 NRC 421, 430 (1983). In particular', "[t]he opposing party's facts must be material, substantial, not fanciful, or merely suspicious." Gulf States Utilities Co.

(River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 NRC 246, 248 (1975) (footnotes omitted). A party may not oppose a motion for summary disposition "on the vague supposition that something may matters involved in the proceeding." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a).

If the Board identifies some issues within Contention 3 in i this proceeding which must be tried, we request that the Board grant summary disposition as to the other issues.

turn up" at hearings, idz; nor may an opposing party rely upon general denials coupled with a claim that more information is needed for the party to evaluate the movant's analyses. Virainia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 455 (1980). Furthermore, Section 2.749(b) provides that "(a]ffidavits shall set forth such facts i as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." If such an answer is not filed, summary disposition shall be granted, if appropriate. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(b).

Under 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(d), summary disposition shall i

l be granted if the filings in the proceeding, deposi- l

~

tions, answers to interrogatories, and admis- I sions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, 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.

4 The Commission has encouraged the use of the summary disposition procedure "so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily i

devoted to" issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, l CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981). The Appeal Board has also endorsed the use of summary disposition as "an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues." Houston Liahtina and Power l

i l l

I

~ . , . _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ . - - _. _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - . , . , _ . - , - _ _ - _ _ _

i.

.- i C2 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550 (1980); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 228 (1974).

III. Discussion of Contention 3 Contention 3 and the bases for the contention state as follows:

Contention 3 That the uranium enrichment amendments increase the chances of a criticality accident occurring in the fresh fuel pool and esta-blishes a clear reduction in the safety margin of the fresh and spent fuel pool.

Bases for Contention a) The U-235 loading of 52.40 grams per axial centimeter (SER pg 2), is the - timum loading which can assure a k of no - Tter than 0.95,includinguncefbkinties.inus, the safety margins for the enrichment of the fuel have been pushed to the limit and leave no margin of safety.

b) The increase of criticality from 0.95 to 0.98 for the fresh pool pushed the criticality of the pool closer to criticality, which is 1.0. This increases reactivity and increases the possibility of a criticality accident and/or loss of fuel cooling system flow.

Thus, the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, criterion 62 will not be met.

In admitting Contention 3, the Licensing Board stated that "the contention should be read as challenging the adequacy of this acceptance criteria by alleging that k,gg of 0.98 is not ade-quately safe for fresh fuel exposed to abnormal, optimum moderation conditions and 0.95 is not adequate for fresh or spent

i

_7_

fuel exposed to the abnormal condition of full flooding with unborated water." Memorandum and Order (September 24, 1985), pp.

I 7-8.

The material facts regarding the issues raised by this contention are not in dispute. These facts are summarized below.

The new fuel storage vaults and the spent fuel storage pools at Turkey Point are unrelated facilities and are physically located in separate areas of the plant. The new fuel storage vaults are intended for the receipt and temporary storage of fresh unirradiated fuel assemblies being shipped into the plant.

These fresh fuel assemblies do not require any shielding or cooling and, under normal conditions, are stored in a dry 4

condition in the Turkey Point new fuel storage vaults. The absence of a moderator for the fresh fuel assemblies in the new storage vaults assures very low values of k,gg with a large

! margin to criticality during normal storage of these assemblies.

! Spent fuel storage pools are designed and intended to store fuel I

discharged from the reactor core. The spent fuel assemblies are stored in borated water in the Turkey Point spent fuel pools.

The presence of boron in the spent fuel pool water absorbs neutrons and therefore assures very low values of k,gg with a large margin to criticality during normal storage of these assemblies. 3/ l l

4

3/ Turner Affidavit, 11 8-10.

I

. i i

Criticality analyses for fresh fuel storage areas and spent fuel pools are governed by General Design Criterion (GDC) 62 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 of the NRC's regulations, which states that "[c]riticality in the fuel storage and handling

~

system shall be prevented by physical systems or processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations." The NRC Staff has issued guidance, in the form of Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, for complying with GDC 62. SRP Section 9.1.1 states that the NRC Staff will accept storage racks for new fuel assemblies if the k,gg of the assemblies is less than about 0.95 for flooded conditions and if the k,gg will not i exceed 0.98 for conditions of optimum moderatiAn. SRP Section 9.1.2 states that the NRC Staff will accept storage racks for I

spent fuel assemblies if the k,gg of the assemblies is not

! greater than 0.95 for flooded conditions with unborated water. 4/

The design basis k,gg limits for the Turkey Point fresh fuel ,

storage vaults and spent fuel pools conform with the k,gg criteria in SRP Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2. 5/

Intervenors are incorrect when they contend that the Turkey Point k,gg limits are not adequate to prevent criticality.

The Turkey Point k,gg limits are less than 1.0, thereby assuring 1

l 3

that fresh and spent. fuel will be stored in subcritical condi-4/ Although the SRP does not have the force of regulations, the Appeal Board has held that "the staff guidance and accep-tance criterion for spent fuel pool criticality is entitled to considerable weight." Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-725, 17 NRC 562, 568 (1983).

5/ Turner Affidavit, 11 12-15.

j <

l tions. Further assurance is provided by the fact that: (1) l k,gg is calculated by methods which have been calibrated and i checked (thereby assuring the calculated values of k,gg are highly reliable), (2) all known uncertainties are included in the j calculated values of k,gg, and (3) the k,gg limits apply to very l unusual and highly improbable accident conditions (itg., the presence of unborated water in the fresh fuel storage vaults and the absence of boron in the spent fuel pool water-), and under normal conditions the fresh and spent fuel assemblies are maintained in a strongly subcritical condition by the absence of a moderator in the fresh fuel storage vault and the presence of i borated water in the spent fuel pool. A criticality accident would be'possible only if two independent and unlikely accident conditions were postulated to occur simultaneously. This t

possiblity is not credible and is not required to be considered under NRC Staff and industry standards. 6/

Similarly, Intervenors are incorrect when they contend that the Turkey Point k,gg limits " leave no margin of safety."

i The k,gg limit of 0.95 applicable to the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage vaults and spent fuel storage pools under conditions of flooding with unborated water provides for a criticality safety margin of 0.05 ok,gg. This margin is a factor of five times i

the usual uncertainty included in the calculated k,gg for fresh

! fuel storage vaults and a factor of two or more times the normal uncertainty included in the calculated k,gg for spent fuel 6/ Turner Affidavit, 1 16.

1 l

i

• _ 10 _

storage pools. These safety factors are more than sufficient to assure that criticality will not occur. Furthermore, the existence of optimum moderation uniformly throughout a fresh fuel storage vault is not a credible occurrence and represents a i theoretical and conservative upper bound condition. Conse-quently, the k,gg limit of 0.98 for fresh fuel assemblies under conditions of optimum moderation provides a large criticality safety margin. 7/

Finally, Intervenors are incorrect when they contend that the increased fuel enrichment amendments reduced the margin of safety to criticality in the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage vaults and spent fuel pools. The amendmentf-did not modify tne 4

pre-existing k,gg limit of 0.95 for the Turkey Point spent fuel pools and fresh fuel storage viults under flooded conditions.

Consequently, the amendments did not reduce the margin of safety provided by these limits. Although the increased fuel enrichment

{ amendments did establish a k,gg limit of 0.98 for conditions of

! optimum moderation in the fresh fuel storage vaults, there previously was no license requirement to consider optimum

.i 7/ Turner Affidavit, 11 18, 21, and 24.

moderation in the vault. 8/ Consequently, the k,ff limit of 0.98  !

is a new and additional requirement, and not a reduction in safety provided by a previous requirement. 9/ i

, IV. Conclusion l The k,gg limits for the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage vaults and spent fuel pools conform with the NRC Staff's accep-

! tance criteria. These limits require that the fresh and spent

' fuel assemblies be maintained subcritical under unlikely 1

postulated accident conditions, even when all known uncertainties are accounted for. Further,more, these limits provide for margins of safety to criticality which are several times the normal uncertainties included in the. calculated values of k,gg. Conse-quently, the limits are sufficient to prevent criticality in accordance with the Commission's regulations. Since there is no d

8/ There is no k criterion applicable to " optimum moderation"a$bfdentsinspentfuelpools,sincethe

presence of stainless steel plates between the assemblies in the spent fuel storage racks absorbs thermalized neutrons and therefore removes the conditions necessary for optimum '

moderation. (Turner Affidavit, 1 23). Additionally, the

! Appeal Board has ruled that the possibility of optimum

! moderation in a spent fuel pool need not be considered when ,

4 reliable makeup is provided for the pool. Consumers Power l CE. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-725, 17 NRC 562 (1983). i 9/ Turner Affidavit, 11 19, 22, and 25.

l l

1

genuine issue regarding these material facts, the Licensee is entitled to summary disposition of Contention 3.

Respectfully submitted, M '

Harold F. Reis Steven P. Frantz Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6600 CO-COUNSEL Norman A. Coll Steel Hector'& Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2396 (305) 577-2800 January 23, 1986 l

_ .- _