ML20140D786
| ML20140D786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1986 |
| From: | Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, LORION, J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-532 OLA-3, NUDOCS 8603260488 | |
| Download: ML20140D786 (5) | |
Text
- ~
Maren is, uou p
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CMETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USMC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
16 MM? 24 R2:29
)
Docket Nos'. 50-250-OLA-3 In the Matter of
)
yhdy'0y251-OLA-3 T-FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
a (Increased Fud[~NNrichment)
)
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )
INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE's MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 3 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION I.
Under both the Commission's and Federal Court Rules of Practice, the burden of proof lies upon the movant for summary disposition,
~
who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact.
Adickes v.
Kress and Co.,
398, U.S. 144, 157, Perry ALAB-443, supra, "the record
.Again under both NRC and Federal Rules, 6 NRC at 753.
favorable to the party opposing is to be reviewed in the light most 16 NRC 512, 519 (1982) the motion."
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.
368 U.S.
- 464, citing: Poller v.
Ero Manufacturing Co.,360 473 (1962): Crest Auto Sucolies Inc.
v.
?
United Mineworkers of America,'Dist_.
F. 2d, 896, 899 (7th Cir. 1966);
22 v.
Ronoco, 314 F. 2d 186, 188 (10th Cir. 1963); Pennsylvania Power (Susquehanna and Alleahenv Electric Co-operative Inc.
& Licht Co.
Units 1 and 2) LBP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 Steam Electric Station, (1981); Seabrook, LBP-74-36, supra, 6 NRC, supra, 7 AEC at 879.
" Because the proponent of a motion for summary disposition a genuine issue of-has the burden of demonstrating the absenc. vt 8603260408 860319 C' b 3
3 PDR ADOCK 05000250 O
PDR l
pp wH+=
g
.m,-tvc r
y--
p + meg y
.#y--s
=
~.
( 2 )
material fact, it does not necessarily follow'that a motion supported by affidavits will automatically prevail over an opposition'not supported by affidavits.
The Board must scrutinize the~ motion to determine whether'the movant's burden has been met." Carolina Power L
& Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency-U'its 1 and 2) LBP-84-7, ASLBP No.
(Shearon. Harris Nuclear Plant, n
4 82-468-01-OL, 19NRC 432 (1984).
J Finally, for a contention'to remain litigable, the Interve'nors must present to the Board a sufficient _ factual basis "to require reasonable minds to inquire further."
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Alleaheny Electric Cooperative Inc., (Susquehanna Steam J
Electric Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB 613, 12 NRC 317,. 340 (1980).
The issues of material fact raised in the Intervenors'
. Response to Florida Power-& Light's Motion for Summary Disposition of the foregoing contention demonstrate that a sufficient material basis on the contention has been raised; and that-the Licensee's L
motion for summary disposition of this contention must fail.
II. INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 3 Intervenors' Contention 3 states:
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.
1.
This contention is concerned with the possibility that I
operation of the spent fuel pool with a higher keff caused by the storage of more highly enriched fuel with a greater burn-up will increase the probability that a criticality accident will occur in the pool.
t J
l
~...
~
( 3 )
- 2. The Staff's SER of Septemebr 15, 1984 states on page 10 that the acceptance criteria for spent fuel pool storage is that the is always less than 0.95 including all uncertainties at keff a 95/95 probability confidence level in fully flooded conditions in both the new fuel storage facility and in the spent fuel
-pool.
3.
The optimized fuel assemblies that will be stored in the Turkey Point spent fuel pool are more reactive.
In addition the U235. loading of 52.40 grams per axial centimeter is the maximum which can assure a keff of no 9reater than 0.95 including uncertainties.
4.
In order to allow fuel with a maximum enrichment of 4.5 weight percent to be stored in the spent fuel pool racks, the pool was divided into two regions.
5.
The Licensee's consideration'of the required calculational uncertainties, conservative assumptions and worst case design f 0.9403 for basis accident resulted in a predicted keff Region I and a keff of 0.9304 for Region II.
Kopp affidavit-10 at 5.
6.
GDC 62, "Pr;vention of criticality if fuel storage handling",
states that criticality in fuel storage handling shall be prevented by physical systems or processes.
The NRC acceptance criterion for assuring GDC 62 is met is found in SRP, Section 9.1.2, which requires maintaining a stoage array neutron multiplication factor (kerf) less than 0.95 in spent fuel pools
( 4-).
during normal and accident conditions.
7.-Intervenors contend that storage of the more highly enriched spent fuel at Turkey Point raises the k gf for the spent fuel g
pool to a.nonconservative level and increases the chances ~that a criticality accident will occur in the spent fuel pool.
Intervenors also contend that storage of this fuel with a higher burn-up also increases the inventory of radioactive poisons that would be relaes into the environment in such an accident.
8.
Thus, Intervenors conclude that because the adoption of the new values of k gg decreases the safety margin of k gg for the e
e spent fuel pool and increases the possibility and consequences of an accident it should not be allowed.
As the accident of the space shuttle Challenger has shown us that ons*can only erode safety margins so much before he meets disaster.
A criticality accident at Turkey Point must be avoided at all costs.
9.
Therefore since the Licensee has not met the burden of proof of showing that safety margins in the spent fuel pool have not been eroded, Intervenors contend that their motion for summary disposition must fail.
Respectfully s,bmitted, Ch - (% -
Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Rd. #208 Miami, Fl. 33143 Dated: March 19, 1986
.q.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C0f.pE E; y
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket ob dd-l%;3%A-3
)
50-251-OLA-3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
0Fric _.
(IncrkT5bff{%"
nel E'nrichment)
)
Turkey Point Plants, Units 3 and 4
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Intervenors' Response to-Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention 3", and "Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There is a Genuine Issue To Be Heard With Respect to Intervenors' Contention 3",
and " Affidavit Of Joette Lorion", have been served on the following parties by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on the date shown below:
Dr. Robert M.
Lazo, Chairman Norman A.
Coll, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 4000 SE~ Financial Center Washington, D.C.
20555 Miami, F1. 33131-2398 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Michael A.
Bauser, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Newman and Holtzinger, PC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L. Street NW Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Richard F. Cole m
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board N ODAIL
'v' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joette Lorion, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Center for Nuclear Responsibility Mitzi A.
Young, Esquire 7210 Red Rd. #208 Office of Executive Legal Director Miami, F1. 33143 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dated: March 19, 1986 I
~ -
_