ML20140D793

Response Opposing Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 5 Re Spent Fuel Pool Expansion. Issues of Matl Fact Raised Demonstrate Sufficient Matl Based on Contention Raised.Motion Should Be Denied

ML20140D793
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/19/1986
From:	Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-529 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8603260495
Download: ML20140D793 (4)

Text

- -

E 1 March 19, 1986 3q Qf' ', i N i g\ 3 -

O s-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ll . n f

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Bd1RDe*O v, v.

) Docket Nos.\(50-250-OLA-2l/

In the Matter of ) 50-251-OLA-2

)

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) (Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 5 I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Under both the Commission's and Federal Court Rules of Practice, for summary disposition, "the burden of proof lies upon the movant who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact."

396, U.S. 144, 157, Perry ALAB-443, suora, Adickes v. Kress and Co.,

6 NRC at 753. Again under both NRC and Federal Rules, "the record favorable to the party opposing is to be reviewed in the light most Dairvland Power Coooerative, 16 NRC 512, 519 (1982) the motion."

, 368 U.S. 464, citing: Poller v. Col _umbia Broadcastine Svstem Inc.

v. Ero Manufacturine Co.,360 473 (1962): Crest Auto Sucolies Inc.

Dist.

F. 2d, 896, 899 (7th Cir. 1966); United Mineworkers of America, 22 v. Ronoco, 314 F. 2d 186, 188 (10th Cir. 1963); Pennsv1vania Power (Suscuehanna

& Licht Co. and Allechenv Electric Co-coerative Inc.

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1981); Seabrook, LEP-74-36, suora, 6 NRC, suora, 7 AEC at 879.

" Because the proponent of a motion for summary disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of 8603260495 860319

^ ')>

DR ADOCK 05000250 PDR

( 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

& Licht Comoanv and North Carolina Eastern Municinal Power Acencv (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LEP-84-7, ASLBP No.

, s

. 82-468-01-OL, 19NRC 432 (1984).

' Finally, for a contention to remain litigable, the Intervenors must present to the Board a sufficient factual basis "to require reasonable minds to inquire further." Pennsv1vania Power and Licht Comoany and Allechenv Electric Coooerative Inc., (Susquehanna Steam 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 motion for summary disposition of this contention must fail.

II. INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 5 The purpose of this response is to address Intervenors' Contention 5 which states:

CONTENTION 5: That the main safety function of the spent fuel pool, which is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe configuration through all environmental and abnormal loadings, may not be met as a result of recently brought to light unreviewed safety questions involved in the current rerack design that allows racks whose outer rows overhang the support pads in the spent fuel pool.

Thus, the amendments should be revoked.

BASES FOR CONTENTION: In a February 1, 1985, letter from Williams, FPL, to Varga, NRC, which describes the potential

i .

5 (3) i for' rack, lift-off under seismic event conditions. This is:

clearly an unreviewed safety question that demands a safety analysis of all seismic and hurricane conditions and their potential impact on the racks in question before the license amendments are issued, because of the potential to increase the possibility of an accident previously evaluated, or to create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident caused by loss of structural integrity. If integrity.is lost, the damaged fuel rods could cause a criticality accident.,M

\

1.Contentiord 5 is concerned with the fact that a February 1, 1985 letter from Florida Power and Light.to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission informed the NRC that Westinghouse had informed them that administrative controls on fuel loading were required for the new spent fuel racks. Westinghouse's concern was that loading the outer rowsHof the racks which overhang the support. pads c5uld cause rack lift-off in a seismic event. , s 2..Although there was some question-as to whether the lift-off potential consituted an-unreviewed safety question, it was decided that these racks could be used with administrative controls.

According to the Flanders affidavit at page 9, " Case 1 provides the'present basis for the spent fuel pool-expansion. The analysis

, assumes that administrative controls are in place to prevent the loading of the fuel assemblies into the overhanging locations first."

3. Intervenors do not agree with the NRC Staff decision to allow these fuel racks to be used without a 50.59 review. Intervenors believe that the conclusion in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report that allowed these amendments in Section 2.316 which states

.that the design of the rack satisfies the structural aspect of Appendix A requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (GDC 2, 4, 61 and 62) is no longer a valid' conclusion in light of the new information,

S-Q

( 4 )

because the racks themselves do not meet the criteria when the administrative controls are not in place.

4. Commission regulations require that potential loads from a seismic event will not result in failure to the racks or pool .

structures. Integrity of the racks must be maintained. Intervenors do not believe that the Licensee has sufficient data, nor have the performed an unreviewed safety question analysis that would allow them to state.with certainty that operation of the spent fuel pool with the new racks will not increase both the possibility and consequences of an accident.

5. For all the above reasons, including the belief that administrative controls should not be a substitute for spent fuel pool equipment meeting NRC criteria, Intervenors contend that Licensee's motion for summary disposition of this contention must fail. Quite simply, the new spent fuel pool racks do not meet GDC 2 and GDC 61 because without administrative controls on loading there is no assurance that they will withstand an earthquake or other seismic load. And, there is every indication that rack lift-off could cause a criticality accident by upsetting the geometrically safe configurations of the spent fuel stoage system.

Licensee's motion for. summary disposition of contention 5 should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, M N bM Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility Dated: March 19, 1986 7210 Red Rd. #208 Miami, Fl. 33143

.