ML20148L198
| ML20148L198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6016 88-560-01-LA, 88-560-1-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8804010197 | |
| Download: ML20148L198 (134) | |
Text
- . _. . _ _ - . _ - _ - . _ . _
O ORl3l'\)h-UNITED STATES 3tUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
....... ........=.......................................,...
In the Matter of: )
) Docket No. 50-335-OLA FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ) ASLBP No. 88-560-01-LA
.OMPANY, St. Lucie Plant No. I
)
l l
i l
i 0
t Pages: 1 through 120 Place: Jensen Beach, Florida Date: March 29, 1988 8804010197 880329 PDR ADOCK 0500033S T PDR
[/ d b\ HERITAGE REPORTIP'G CORPORATION O onwatamarm 122e L Strwt, N.W., Sde 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (2e2) 628 4888 d
r---r-, --- - ,, ,a, -
- - - - - - - - .,,,-w ,r= r-, < . - - - - -
_. .. _. . ~ ._.. . . , _ . . . . _ _ _ . . ~ . . . _ . , . _ . . . . _. .. _ _ _ __._. . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ , _ . . _ _
g -UNITED-STATES'OF1 AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
O 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND: LICENSING BOARD 4
3.
i 4. In-the Matter-of: )
).
5 FLORIDA POWER.& LIGHT. ) Docket No.~50-335-OLA i . COMPANY, St. Lucie Plant ) _ASLPB No. 88-560-01-LA.
6 No. I. )
)
7
)
8 BEFORE: B. . PAUL COTTER, Chairman GLEN O. BRIGHT-9 DR. RICHARD F. COLE Judges Administrative 10 11 '
- Sheraton Beach Hotel f 12 Hutchinson Island 1 Jensen Beach, Florida I3 Tuesday, i 14 March'29, 1988 ,
4 l 15 16 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
]
4 17 pursuant to Notice, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
i a
1 18 3
19 Reporting:
i 20 1
21 JEFFREY A. ROESER ,
i 22 lO j 23
_ i e s k O
25
! 4 j Heritage Reporting Corporation :
! tmwane
. , , , , -..,--,,-_...___,._.,.-.,--_..,.,,.c..,__,,,-.. . _ . , , __m.__.___._,
.. . . - _ . . . - . . - . . _ ~ . . . .- . . . - __ .
2-
'g- APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf ~of the Petitioner:
3 MR. CAMPBELL RICH- l s MR. ANTHONY CANTIZARO 4
On behalf of the NRC:
5 J M S '. MITZI A. YOUNG l 6 _ Office of the General Counsel- l United States Nuclear Regulatory. Commission 7 Washington, D. .C. 20555 j (301) 492-7000 q 8
MR. BENJAMIN-H. VOGLER j 9 MR. E. G. TOURIGNY I 10 On behalf of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT:
11 MICHAEL A. BAUSER Newman & holtzinger, P. C.
12 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036 gggg 33 (202) 955-6669 14 MR. HAROLD F. REIS Newman & Holtzinger, P.'C. {
15 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20036 16 (202) 662-8411 17 JOHN T. BUTLER Steel Hector & Davis gg 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 g9 (305) 577-2939 20 EDWARD J. WEINKAM, III Florida Power & Light Company 21 P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 22 (305) 694-4429 23 f~\ 24 b
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (man
..~..,.,,,..-.-.---.,--.-,,.,,.---.,.,n,,,,
3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 JUDGE COTTER: Good morning, ladies 3 and gentlemen.
4 This is a proceeding to hear oral 5 argument on the Petition of Campbell Rich to 6 intervene in this proceeding and to consider the 7 positions of the parties concerning the 8 Contentions and the Contentions that he has asked 9 to be litigated during the course of it.
10 The proceeding involves, as you 11 know, the high density reracking of the spent 12 fuel pool of the St. Lucie Plant.
I gll 13 Our schedule today is to address 14 the oral argument concerns first, which we expect 15 to take at least most of the morning and possibly 16 Part of the afternoon.
17 We then hope to be able to take a la tour of the spent fuel pool itself, the Board 19 does, and finally if there is any time remaining, 20 we will entertain limited appearance statements 21 from those who wish to offer them.
22 If the time is not sufficient for 23 limited appearance statements, we certainly would 24 welcome written statements and we will reschedule 25 at a later date if it is appropriate and a period
r' i
3 4
1 of time to receive limited appearance statements.
2 At this point I ask those at the 3 head table here representing the parties in this 4 proceeding to enter their appearance.
5 If you would, please.
6 MR. BAUSER: Yes. My name is 7 Michael A. Bauser. I am appearing here today on 8 behalf of the Florida Power & Light Company.
9 I am accompanied by Mr. Harold F.
10 Reis and Mr. John T. Butler.
11 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you, Mr.
12 Bauser.
13 MS. YOUNG: Good morning. My name h
14 is Mitzi Young. I am here representing the NRC 15 Staff.
16 Also seated at counsel table is Mr.
17 Benjamin H. Vogler and also seated at the table is but not entering an appearance in this proceeding 19 is the Plants Project Manager, Ed Tourigny.
1 20 JUDGE COTTTER: Thank you, Ms.
21 Young.
22 Mr. Rich?
23 MR. RICH: My name is Campbell 24 Rich. I live here in Martin County and to my left is Anthony Cantizaro --
c
- - . n
c 5
1 AUDIENCE: Louder. We can't hear.
2 Speak slowly, too.
3 MR. RICH: My name is Campbell 4 Rich. I'm a resident of Martin County. Seated 5 to my left is Anthony Cantizaro.
6 AUDIENCE: We can't hear you.
7 Speak into the microphone.
8 MR. RICH: Can you hear me in the 9 back?
10 My name is Campbell Rich. I live 11 in Martin County. Seated to my left is Anthony 12 Cantizaro. He was one of the original gg h 13 signatories to the original letter requesting a 14 public hearing on this issue.
15 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you, Mr. Rich.
16 Are there any preliminary matters 17 that anyone wishes to take up at this point 18 before we turn to the Petition?
19 MR. BAUSER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
20 If I might, I would like to make a 21 few introductory comments on behalf of FPL.
22 JUDGE COTTER: To what point, Mr.
23 Bauser?
24 MR. BAUSER: I would like to a
25 discuss very briefly the nature of the proceeding
1 6
1 in terms of what is involved strict from what I 2 think is going to become a rather technical 3 discussion as we proceed, a And also, to outline, for the 5 benefit of the Board, our position with respect 6 to the Contentions involved.
7 JUDGE COTTER: Well, let me reserve 8 your position on the Contentions and proceed with 9 your introductory remarks.
10 Excuse me a moment.
11 AUDIENCE: Would you please give 12 the address of where we would address public ,
4 ggll 13 statements, written statements, for the record.
14 The public may not have an 15 Opportunity to speak at this meeting.
16 JUDGE COTTER: Yes.
17 They can be sent to me, and my name la is B, as in boy, Paul Cotter, Jr. I am Chairman 19 of this Board --
20 AUDIENCE: Cotter? C-O-T-T --
21 JUDGE COTTER: E-R.
22 AUDIENCE: Is that "B" Paul Cotter?
23 JUDGE COTTER: B, as in boy, Paul 24 Cotter, C-O-T-T-E-R, Jr.
25 I am Chairman of the Atomic Safety
7 1 and Licensing Board in this proceeding.
2 And the address is U. S. Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., 20555, 4 Does everyone who wants that have 5 it?
6 Yes, sir. Mr. Bauser, proceed.
7 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, Members 8 of the Board, I would like to emphasize a basic 9 point at the outset.
10 The factors pertinent to the 11 admission of Contentions and circumstances under 12 which the Commission will conduct a hearing are ggll 13 specified in technical and legal terms.
14 FPL's objections to Contentions and 15 to the conduct of a hearing are therefore 16 necessarily also framed in the same technical and 17 legal language.
18 This should not be interpreted, 19 however, as reflecting any lack of concern for 20 safety or the environment.
21 On the contrary, putting aside the 22 technical legalities, various Contentions to be 23 considered today have been addressed in terms of 24 the issues they raise and fully taken into 25 account on their merits.
8
! 1 In fact, the principle concerns 2 reflected in the Petition to intervene were 3 considered long ago either in connection with the 4 licensing of the St. Lucie Plants themselves, or 5 in connection with similar issues at other 6 plants.
7 For example, at the time the St.
8 Lucie r ants were constructed matters related to 9 future population growth, the threat of 10 hurricanes and possible earthquakes were all 11 considered.
12 The plant is essentially an island gglh 13 built on compacted earth, and all of its 14 structures are above the height of any 15 conceivable level the sea might reach as a result 16 of hurricanes or other natural pnenomenon.
17 With respect to those matters, 18 then, there is simply new in the Contentions.
19 So far as the increased spent fuel 20 capacity is concerned, which apparently is what 21 triggered this proceeding, again, there is 22 nothing new.
23 Such expansions have taken place at 24 numerous plants throughout the country without 25 difficulty.
~
8 l~
concerns In fact, the principle i tl to intervene were reflected in the Petition W 2 considered long ago either in connection with the or 3 themselves, licensing of the St. Lucie Plants with similar issues at other 4
5 in connection plants.
6 !:
For example, at the time the St.
7 matters related to constructed Lucie Plants were 8
the threat of population growth, earthquakes were all 9j flture i and possible 10 hurricanes 11 : considered. essentially an island The plant is 12 compacted earth, and all of its 13 built on are above the height of any 14 i
structures result level the sea might reach as a conceivable 15 natural pnenomenon. I or other 16 of hurricanes With respect to these matters, 17 Contentions.
i then, there is simply new in the 18 ! increased spent fuel So far as the j is what 19 which apparently i capacity is concerned, 20 again, there is 21 triggered this proceeding, nothing new. at 22 = have taken place Such expansions 23 the country without throughout 24 numerous plants 25 difficulty.
i 8
1 In fact, the principle concerns 2 reflected in the Petition to intervene were 3 considered long ago either in connection with the a licensir.g of the St. Lucie Plants themselves, or 5 in connection with similar issues at other 6 plants.
7 For example, at the time the St.
8 Lucie Plants were constructed matters related to 9 future population growth, the threat of 10 hurricanes and possible earthquakes were al.
11 considered.
12 The plant is essentially an island ggll 13 built on compacted earth, and all of its 14 structures are above the height of any 15 conceivable level the sea might reach as a result 16 of hurricanes or other natural pnenomenon.
17 With respect to these matters, 18 then, there is simply new in the Contentions.
19 So far as the increased spent fuel 20 capacity is concerned, which apparently is what 21 triggered this proceeding, again, there is 22 nothing new.
I 23 Such expansions have taken place at r eT 24 numerous plants throughout the country without
(
)
25 difficulty.
9 1 St. Lucie I has been in commercial 2 operation since 1976 at the same site as its 3 sister plant, St. Lucie II, which has been in 4 commercial operation since 1983.
5 FPL is proud of these facilities 6 and has been and will continue to be very careful 7 that they operate in a manner which does not 8 endanger the public.
9 These plants enjoy an enviable 10 reputation, not merely for their efficient and 11 economical production of electricity, but also 12 for overall operational excellence.
gll 13 For example, the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission reviews the operations of licensed 15 nuclear power plants during the preceding year on 16 an annual basis.
17 That review is detailed, critical 18 and covers many different functional activities, 19 including power plant operations, maintenance and 20 quality programs.
21 The most recent such examination 22 which was received as recently as January of this 23 year states in its overview that, am I'm quoting, 24 "St. Lucie continues to perform as one of the top 7- '^ ,
O' 25 sites in the reglon."
p- 1 3
10 1 FPL intends not merely to maintain I
- 2 its record at St. Lucie, but to improve it.
3 This is true with respect to all 4 plant activities, including the spent fuel 5 expansion at St. Lucie I.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chulrman.
7 JUDGE COTTER: Do you have any 8 opening comments?
f 9 MS. YOUNG: NJ, 650 Staff doec not.
l l
10 JUDGE C O T T E R ?, Mr. 91.5, ao you !
11 have any opening comments?
12 MR. RICH: Yes, I 40.
h 13 I would tirst lite to welc'rm; f.-
14 to Florida. You certain .t a v e ei ked a 15 beautiful spot in wnich to hold v. h i s h( jring. 16 The view from Fhis f .' o o r .'e v e a l s a 17 very lovely part of Florida. That natcral beauty 18 is, in fact, a large part of the attraction of 19 this area. 20 Our appreciation for our 21 environment and our struggles to preserse it i, s 22 what brings people here, which allows us '7 grow, 23 which allows our economy to thrive. i 24 We work very hard in this c o Nra u n . t y 25 to resist the short-sighted excesses that have
h i 1 11 1 spoiled so much of South Florida. 2 We make consistent effort to think 3 not of the most expedient means to a more 4 profitable end, but of what is best not only for 5 us, but also for our environment and for future 6 generations. 7 We are currently trying to preserve 8 the area directly across the river from us, known 9 as the Savannahs.
)
10 We are also encouraging the 11 acquisition of another nine hundred and some 12 undevelope' acres in the south part of the 13 County. 14 But all this effort would be 15 rendered meaningless by one accident in the spent 16 fuel pool, permanently contaminating most of this 17 area. 18 I must admit to some confusion 19 still concerning the difficulty we have had in 20 supposedly qualifying for the Board's attention. j 21 We are the ores, obviously, who
?? liv e hete, who own homes here, take our children I
23 to school here, pursue our livelihoods here and ji g 24 anjoy the many beautiful beaches on this island. 25 l! We are the ones who remain it m .
12 1 susceptible to the disasterous effects of any 2 accident, whether predicted or unforeseen, that 3 may occur at this plant. 4 This perpetual exposure qualifies 5 us on the most essential level for any 6 participation we may choose in these matters. 7 Long after you have made your 8 decisions and have gone back to Washington and 9 long after these plants have shut down and FP&L to has lost any positive motivation for maintaining 11 these pools; we, the members of this community, 12 ultimately, will bear the responsibility of llh 13 maintaining them. 14 We will suffer the perennial 15 exposure to and have the ever-present worry 16 concerning the safety of the hign-density storage 17 system. 18 Thus, our involvement in these 19 hearings need not be further qualified on 20 inadequate technical and legal basis and filed in 21 a timely manner. 22 The effort should not be to fool 23 the public or disqualify us on a technical g 24 matter, or to slip the situation and its import 25 past us unnoticed.
h l 4 ) 13 1 Rather, the effort must be to 2 inform us as best that is possible; to provide us 3 with the opportunity to understand the 4 responsibilities and significant hazards that 5 would accompany such a decision, and allow us to 6 make up our minds whether we want this in our 7 midst. 8 Our decision and that of the 9 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 10 and the Florida Office of Radiation Control and 11 both counties Emergency Management Teams must 12 play an important role in any decision that is to 13 be made. 14 The Federal Government must not be 15 in a position to unilaterally decide to create a 16 siteation that poses a clear and present danger 17 to the welfare of this community. 18 It is not up to us to prove that 19 the system is dangerous. We reject that burden 20 of proof. 21 Rather, the burden is clearly upon 22 FP&L and the NRC to demonstrate the 23 unquestionable reliability of the system and he 24 new and unproven technologies that are being g 25 developed to handle this material.
F~ 7 14 1 You don't get to make one mistake. 2 The system must be without fault, for clearly the 3 results of an error are much too deadly. 4 This is a risk our community is not 5 willing to take. 6 We have suffered through TMI, 7 Chernoble and other less-publicized nuclear and 8 other toxic-waster disasters. 9 The much-discussed high-level l 10 waster storage and/or reprocessing facility that 11 has been promised for decades has never been 12 realized, as evidenced P- the dismal failure of g ll 13 the West Valley, New York, site. 14 The temporary storage facility here 15 continues to increase its capacity and there is 16 no end in sight. 17 This same situation is occurring at 18 many different facilities around the nation and 19 these systems are being forced to store greater 20 and greater amounts of toxic waste. l 21 These are all temporary solutions 22 to an ongoing problem that can too easily create 23 a permanent disaster. 7
/m. 24 Make-shift technology is being i !
25 improvised to deal with the myriad of problems
15 1 created by ever-higher density storage 2 requirements. 3 The literature available on these 4 problems is replete with phrases like 5 "insufficient data," and, "more work needs to be 6 done." 7 There is far too much uncertainty 8 about these technical matters. 9 A more realistic appraisal of the 10 situation would lead one to believe that this 11 facility will be loaded to its utmost capacity 12 and then remain there many, many years into the 13 future. 14 No engineering staff, no matter how 15 conscientious or competent will be able to safely 16 operate a grossly-over-burdened system for 17 thousands of years to come. 18 If this is what must be, then we 19 have every right to take all the time we need to 20 make sure that the storage system finally 21 achieved is the safest long-term solution to this 22 growing problem; to make sure that every 23 reasonable effort is made to mitigate the risks 24 to as great an extent as is possible. 25 What's the hurry, anyway? This
m 16 1 stuff's going to be around for 10,000 years. 2 JUDGE CCTTER: Thank you, Mr. Rich. 3 Let me correct an oversight. I 4 should -- 5 I've already introduced myself as 6 Chairman of the Board. 7 To my left is Judge Richard Cole, a who is a Doctor of Engineering and his g specialties range over quite a -- quite a range 10 of subject matters. 11 To my right is Judge Bright, who is 12 a physicist. Unless there are any further lh 13 14 matters, I think we ought to go directly into the 15 Contentions. 16 Let me mention one more issue. Do 17 I understand that both the Florida Power & Light 18 and the NRC have conceded Mr. Rich's standing in 19 this proceeding, insofar as his geographic 20 location and that sort of thing is concerned? 21 MR. BAUSER: As far as FPL is 22 concerned, his standing is not -- not in issue. 23 MS. YOUNG: The Staff concurs, c '"' 24 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank e w-' 25 you. 1 I l
17 1 Then we turn now to the contentions 2 which Mr. Rich has offered to be litigated in 3 this proceeding. 4 And if you would begin -- I would 5 caution the parties not to repeat their written 6 materials which they have offered. 7 If they have something to add to 8 what they have submitted in writing, which we 9 have read, now would be the time. 10 So, we'll begin with Contention 1. 11 Mr. Rich? 12 MR. RICH: You want me to start? h 13 JUDGE COTTER: Yes, sir. It's your 14 Contention. 15 MR. RICH: Okay. 16 Well, obviously, the No Significant 17 Hazards Consideration has been issued. 18 I would request that the Board 19 review the Staff's determination of No 20 Significant Hazard and consider suspending the 21 Amendment. l l 22 I feel the Staff did not adequately 23 consider the boraflex issue. 24 The problems with the boraflex 25 technology both increase the probability of an
r 1 f 18 i accident previously evaluated and it increases 2 the probability of an accident not 3 evaluated -- an accident such as the one 4 described in the Brookhaven National Laboratory 5 Report. 6 Could we figure out a way to refer 7 to this throughout the proceedings? 8 JUDGE COTTER: BNL. 9 MR. RICH: The B -- Okay. The BNL 10 Report. 11 Boraflex is an unproven technology 12 and, therefore, a significant hazard gll 13 consideration and a hearing must be undertaken 14 for this particular plant. 15 It says in the final No Significant 16 Hazard Consideration that, "No unproven 17 technologies and methodologies were utilized in 18 the analysis and design of the proposed high-19 density racks. 20 No unproven technology will be 21 utilized in the fabrication and installation 22 process of the new racks. 23 The basic reracking technology in
,/- 24 this case has been developed and demonstrated."
I J
- v. /
25 If you want me to go into this at
19 1 length, I could quote from the Quad Cities point is 2 Beach Report that speaks very directly to the -- 3 AUDIENCE: We c;nnot hear you back 4 here. 5 MR. RICH: Okay. ! 6 Would it be appropriate for me to 7 quote from the Quad Cities Report in support of a my Contention? 9 JUDGE COTTER: It's a little bit 10 far afield since it's a different reactor and a i 11 different proceeding. I 12 MR. RICH: However, I think the 13 Staff, NRC Staff, relied on FP&L's response to 14 their -- their question was: > 15 "Recent anomalies have been 16 identified in the Quad Cities and Point Beach 17 spent fuel pools due to boraflex shrinkage caused [ 18 by irradiation. 19 Based on this, provide 20 justification to demonstrate the continued 21 acceptability of boraflex for application in the 22 St. Lucie spent fuel pool." i 23 So they're asking FP&L to respond 24 specifically to the concerns brought up by that 25 report. ~M.
al 1 Mr. Tourigny asked -- An NRC 2 Information Notice went out containing -- 3 concerning boraflex. 4 "This Notice is to alert -- " Okay. 5 This is NRC Information Notice 6 8743, "Gaps in neutron-absorbing material and 7 high-density spent fuel storage racks," dated 8 September 8th, 1987. 9 "The purpose of this --
"This 10 Notice is to alert recepients to a potentially-11 significant problem pertaining to caps identified 12 in the neutron-absorber component of the high-gh 13 density spent fuel storage racks of Quad Cities 14 Unit I.
15 The safety concern is that certain 16 gaps might excessively reduce the margin of 17 nuclear subcriticality in the fuel pool." 18 It goes on to say, "The concern is 19 that separation of the neutron-absorber material 20 used in high-density fuel storage racks might 21 compromise safety. 22 Efforts to understand the gap 23 formation have revealed several topics on which g 24 information is needed. 25 The effeet -- "
r-l i 22 1 I mean, if this isn't a definition 2 of "unproven," I don't know what is. 3 "The effect of rack design and a manufacturing methods and the consequences of 5 stress, temperature and chemical environment to 6 irradiated boraflex is uncertain." 7 And yet here we use -- we hear FP&L a stating, for example, again in their response of 9 October 20th, "These tests indicating -- -- 10 referring to the tests done by Quad Cities, "that 11 boraflex maintains its neutron attenuation 12 capabilities when subject to an environment of gh 13 borated water and 1.03 times 10 to the lith rads 14 gamma radiation." 15 Well, that's true, except it's 16 clearly stated in the Quad Cities report, " -- l 17 except where there are gaps." ; 18 And I quote in the report, "Whereas 19 where gaps exist, the back scattered neutrons 20 un6 .go significantly less attenuation." 21 They also say, "In the gap region 22 -- This is in a subsection entitled, 23 "Reactivity effects of gaps in the fuel rack 24 neutron absorber." 25 "In the gap region the absence of
23 1 neutron absorber in one or more panels results in 2 a net local increase in reactivity as well as an 3 increase in the reactivity of the entire storage 4 cell." 5 So here we're getting an increase e in reactivity, so we're challenging the safety 7 standard of KF -- K effective. 8 JUDGE COTTER: Doesn't most of this 9 material relate to your Contentions on boraflex? 10 MR. RICH: Well, maybe they -- 11 Yes, they do, and we could either do it here or 12 later. ) g lh 13 But as to why the Board should 14 suspend the Amendment now, I would like to -- 15 JUDGE COTTER: What authority does 16 the Board have to suspend the Amendment? 17 MR. RICH: I feel the Board has 18 authority in this area. 19 JUDGE COTTER: Well, unfortunately, 20 the Board feels it has all sorts of authority, 21 but it's limited to what the Regulations grant to 22 us. 23 MR. RICH: Well, let me read this
- 24 25 AUDIENCE: Will all the i
1
23 i neutron absorber in one or more panels results in 2 a net local increase in reactivity as well as an 3 increase in the reactivity of the entire storage 4 cell." 5 S here we're getting an increase 6 in reactivity, so we're challenging the safety 7 standard of KF -- K effective. 8 JUDGE COTTER: Doesn't most of this 9 material relate to your Contentions on boraflex? 10 MR. RICH: Well, maybe they -- 11 Yes, they do, and we could either do it here or 12 later. But as to why the Board should h 13 34 suspend the Amendment now, I would like to -- 15 JUDGE COTTER: What authority does 16 the Board have to suspend the Amendment? 17 MR. RICH: I feel the Board has l l 18 authority in this area. 19 JUDGE COTTER: Well, unfortunately, 20 the Board feels it has all sorts of authority, 21 but it's limited to what the Regulations grant to 22 us. 23 MR. RICH: Well, let me read this-- 24 AUDIENCE: Will all the 25 Participants please talk. into a microphone?
) 24 i MR. RICH: Well, this is why I feel 2 it's imperative that this happen quickly. 3 Again, to quote the Quad Cities 4 report: "The rate of boraflex shrinkage is 5
'
- Y ~~
JUDGE COTTER: Excuse me, Mr. Rich. 6 7 The question is: What authority do 8 we have to do anything, so far as you know? g So far as we know, we do not have ig authority to act on the No Significant Hazard 11 findings of the Staff. 12 MR. RICH: You don't have the 13 ability to act on an Amendment that you issued? j4 JUDGE COTTER: We did not issue it. 15 The Staff issued it -- 16 AUDIENCE: You can make 37 recommendations -- 18 JUDGE COTTER: Excuse me. jg This is a formal proceeding and 20 there are parties who have obtained entry to it. 21 We cannot, if we're going to conduct our business 22 in an orderly fashion, have miscellaneous 23 comments from those who are observing it. 24 I would appreciate it if you 25 observe that, because we have a fair amount of
25 i ground to cover here today. 2 The question is jurisdiction 3 authority, Mr. Rich. a MR. RICH: You did not issue the 5 Amendment, the Staff did? 6 JUDGE COTTER: That's right. 7 Under the scheme of things -- Maybe 8 we better let the other parties respond to this. 9 But so far as I know, with this 10 Contention you have a major problem in that it 11 would appear on the face of it that this Board 12 does not have authority to reverse a No 13 Significant Hazards Consideration Finding....... h 14 MR. RICH: Even if there's -- it's 15 clea-1y established that the basis on which that 16 was issued is incorrect or inadequate in scope? 17 JUDGE COTTER: Well, we're not 18 taking evidence here at this point. l 19 But even so, I believe that's -- l 20 that may be the case. ) 21 MR. RICH: It seems to me you;re 22 saying that any evidence presented would not be 23 -- that would be senseless anyway, because -- 24 JUDGE COTTER: No, no, no. We're 25 talking about the No Significant Hazards Finding,
I i 26 i which is a finding made by the Staff which 2 authorizes the licensed applicant to proceed with 3 the license Amendment work that they have a requested. 5 So far as I know, my recollection 6 ff the top of my head, is that if that Linding 7 is to be reversed at this point -- 8 MR. RICH: Uh-huh. (Affirmative.) g JUDGE COTTER: -- the only avenues 10 that I know of are referred to in the Parties' 33 Pleadings, and one of them is to appeal directly to the Commission and say, "Will you -" -- ask 12 the Commission to exercise thel: discretionary lh 13 34 authority to reverse that finding. 15 MR. RICH: That's what I was 16 looking for. 17 JUDGE COTTER: And the second would 18 be to go directly to court and ask the court to ig reverse the finding. 20 MR. RICH: Well, would the -- 21 Would you allow me to submit a motion to that 1 22 effect, then? 23 JUDGE COTTER: Well, there wouldn't 24 be a ra y point in submitting it to us, because we
# 25 can't do anything about it.
1 27 i If you want *o submit something to 2 3 MR. RICH: Didn't you just indicate a that you had discretion to -- 5 JUDGF COTTER: No, no, no. 6 The Commission does. This is a 7 Licensing Board. MR. RICH: Oh, okay. 9 JUDGE COTTER: That means the five 10 Commissioners. 11 So, if you wanted to, you can file 12 a motion or a petition with the Commission itself f ll 13 asking them to reverse the finding. 14 Okay? 15 Responses. Mr. Bauser? 16 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, FPL is 17 in agreement with the Board. 18 We believe that Contention 1 is 19 addressed to a purely legal matter of argument. 20 Iu's detailed in our written filing. I w .11 not 21 burden the proceeding going through it again. 22 I would simply note that under 23 Informations Regulations Section 50.58b (6), the 24 Staff's determination is final subject only to 25 the Commission's discretion on its own initiative
28 i to review the determination. 2 We believe the law on this matter 3 is clear and has been addressed not only 4 specifically in the Regulations, but in a ntmber 5 f decisions. 6 I am also prepared to address the 7 technical matters to which Mr. Rich referred 8 Pertinent to boraflex, but as the Board 9 suggested, that matter is also raised with some 10 Precision in Proposed Contention 11 and I would 11 leave it to the Board as to whether they would 12 like to consider boraflex now or when we come to 13 that Contention. 14 JUDGE COTTER: I would prefer to 15 h ndle it when we reach Contention 11. 16 MR. BAUSER: Fine. 17 That's all I have on this 18 Contention, 19 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you, Mr. 1 20 Bauser. l l 21 Ms. Young? l 22 MS. YOUNG: Just as a summary, the 1 23 Staff's position still is that this Contention is l l 24 not acceptable for litigation. 25 The purpose of the Staff's No
\ l 29 l i i Significant Hazards Finding is determining the l 2 timing of any hearing held on the Amendment. l 3 And since the Staff on March lith, 4 1988, issued the Amendment with the Finding of a 5 final No significant Hazards Determination, no 6 request for hearing that is pending can stay the 7 effectiveness of that Amendment. 8 Therefore, there's no need for 9 there to be either a prior hearing or that the 10 effectiveness of the Amendment should be stayed. ij JUDGE COTTER: Anything further, 12 Ms. Young? lh 13 MS. YOUNG: No, that's all, sir. 14 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 15 Mr. Rich, Contention 2? 16 MR. RICH: It's my contention that 17 an environmental assessment is inadequate in this 18 hearing -- that the consequences of a zirconium 19 palladium fire accident in the spent fuel pool 20 are so severe that an environmental impact 21 statement is needed, not just an 22 assessment. 23 I think the problems at this site 24 make this more likely and thus that must be 23 evaluated.
C x 30 i The Staff did not even consider the 2 results of such an accident, ruling them highly 3 unlikely. 4 If you look at the Environmental 5 Assessment issued February 29th, -- Look at the 6 section entitled, "Radioactive Material Released 7 to the Atmosphere," I would say that this section 8 is inadequate. 9 They're relying on too high a -- 10 They're relying too much on the adequate 11 performance of the boraflex over extended periods 12 of time, h 13 I feel that clearly the boraflex is l 14 at issue, and that if the degradation of the 15 boraflex occurs, as we would predict, that these 16 releases will be far greater than predicted in 17 here. 18 In addition, in "Sever Accidents 19 Considerations, 5.0," they simply dismiss the 20 facts of such an accident by saying that the 21 Staff believes that the probability of this type 22 of accident occurring is very low. 23 In light of the B & L Report; in 24 light of their statements abaut the presence of 25 so many uncertainties regarding the initiating
iI 31 1 events that could cause such an accident, I feel 2 that to dismiss that out of hand is -- is 3 inadequate and that in light of the disasterous 4 environmental impact of such an accident, that 5 such -- that an Environmental Impact Statement 6 should be made. 7 JUDGE COTTER: I think the nature 8 of your response to your position that an 9 environmental impact statement is required is 10 essentially, again, a legal response and that the 11 parties have responded that there is no 12 requirement under the Regulations for an g lh 13 environmental impact statement in this situation 14 -- that an environmental assessment is 15 sufficient. 16 Do you have anything to add in that i 17 area? l 18 MR. RICH: I think an -- is l 19 sufficient because they're choosing -- an 20 environmental assessment is sufficient only l 21 because they're choosing not to assess the most 22 disasterous, you know, the most severe accident 23 that could occur. 24 Now, in light of the extensive 25 environmental damage that could occur as a result
r i 32 1 of an accident postulated by Brookhaven National 2 Laboratory resulting from exactly the kind of 3 situation that would be established -- in other 4 words, a high-density storage system -- that the 5 assessment is inadequate in scope. 6 JUDGE COTTER: All right. I think 7 we understand your position, then. 8 Mr. Bauser? 9 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, our 10 position is that this matter is a question of law 11 and that the law in this area is clear. 12 With respect to the matter of the h 13 BNL Report, the question has already been 14 addressed; most recently, I believe, by the 15 Appeals Board in Alab-880 where the Appeals Board 16 ruled that absent a mechanism which would take 17 the incident in question from the realm of being 18 remote and speculative to credible, 19 considerations of such incidents are not 20 appropriate. 21 That is our position. l l 22 This is discussed in some detail in l I 23 or written response to Contention 2, and I would 77's, 24 refer the Board, to wit, for further discussion 1 (%d') l 25 insofar as a boraflex issue is concerned, I would l l
) l 33 1 suggest that we address that with Contention 2, 2 also. 3 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 4 Ms. Young? 5 MS. YOUNG: The Staff has nothing 6 to add to the comments in its Pleading. 7 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 8 MR. RICH: If I could just add, it 9 seems that you're saying that I have to respond 10 the assertion that somehow I'm ignoring a 11 requirement that tne action significantly impact 12 the quality of the human environment. g lh 13 Brookhaven National Laboratory, the 14 BNL Report, has indicated, "A more sensitive 15 indication of the severity of a spent fuel pool 16 -- spent fuel accident is the interdiction area. 17 The area with such a high level of radiation that 18 it is assumed that it cannot ever be 19 decontaminated. 20 For these long-lived isotopes, the 21 interdicted area increases directly with the l l 22 release fraction and provides a convenient 23 measure of the societal consequences as indicated 24 in Table 4.7." 25 The worst --
j 34l 1 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Rich, the Board 2 is aware of the BNL Report. It's a public 3 document. 4 The difficulty that we have in 5 relating that into this specific instance is that 6 the BNL Report is a generic report, which is 7 based on specific accident scenerlos -- specific 8 initiators. And it's an attempt to model and 9 estimate the consequences if particular events 10 take place. 11 MR. RICH: I agree. Well, I don't 12 think it's unlikely or certainly impossible that gg h 13 we could have -- They say, "Accident initiate 14 events. Pool heatup due to loss of cooling water 15 circulation capability" -- is certainly not a 16 scenerio that we've all considered, and is a 17 possibility. 18 JUDGE COTTER: I know. But in this 19 kind of a proceeding, you have to specify exactly 20 how that might happen, not just say generally it 21 might happen. 22 MR. RICH: Well, if you want, I can 23 bring in -- 24 As I understood it, the hearing 25 was not evidentiarv.
o 35 1 JUDGE COTTER: No. I understand Wa 2 that. I'm not saying that you have to put on i 3 evidence of that fact. I 4 I'm saying that you have to suggest 5 a specific mechanism or event that would cause 6 that to -- something like, for example, a loss of 7 coolant to -- 8 11 R . RICH: Structural failure of 9 pool due to heavy load -- A cask could be 10 dropped into the pool, a full spent fuel pool. 11 JUDGE COLE: Well, you're getting 12 away from the specific Contention now, sir. g ll 13 I think the issue of this 14 Contention is that the probability of certain 15 kinds of accidents happening -- the probability, 16 if it's quite small is not required to be 17 considered in an environmental impact statement. I 18 MR. RICH: Well, I would -- , 1 19 JUDGE COLE: And is it your l 20 argument, sir, that certain kinds of accidents 21 are not in that category? 22 MR. RICH: I would say I am not 23 competent to address the probability of a 24 structural failure of the pool due to a heavy 25 load drop when the pool is fully loaded -- that
f 36 1 that would be -- That seems to me to be 2 evidentiary. 3 We need to assess the vergility of 4 the pool after the extended exposure to the 5 incredible weight of the storage rack assembly to 6 the excessive heat over long periods of time, and 7 that the experts would speak to the -- 8 I don't think we could decide 9 about the probability of that sort of accident 10 occurring. 11 I think the experts would have to 12 decide that. h 13 It seems to me to be clearly 14 evidentiary 15 I think we have to admit that -- 16 that BNL has said that that sort of incident 17 can initiate the disasterous accident as 18 described in this, and that it's not completely 19 out of the realm of possibility that that sort of 20 accident can occur. 21 In fact, it is likely -- l l 22 JUDGE COTTER: You've just stated 23 the range -- somewhere between likely and not 24 beyond the realm of possibility, i 25 And what Judge Cole is asking you
1 37 1 is if there's -- you have some specific way of 2 narrowing that range. 3 MR. RICH: The specific way would 4 be evidence, wouldn't it? 5 JUDGE COTTER: Well, yes, 6 ultimately. 7 MR. RICH: Well, ultimately that's 8 what -- Aren't we concerned with the ultimate 9 determination? 10 JUDGE COTTER: No, not at this 11 point. 12 MR. RICH: I would be happy to gh 13 present technical evidence concerning this matter 14 as b the likelihood of the structural failure of 15 a pool due to a heavy load drop. 16 JUDGE COTTER: Okay. All right. 17 I think we understand your position 18 on Contention 2. 19 Contention 3? 20 MR. RICH: I think we've been 21 discussing Contention 3 to some extent. 22 JUDGE COTTER: This is the cask 23 drop question. 24 MR. RICH: In fact, we were just -- 25 You know, you're asking me to
a F~ 38 1 provide certainty. 2 JUDGE COTTER: No, no. 3 MR. RICH: -- and yet -- 4 JUDGE COTTER: All we're asking is 5 for bases and specificity -- 6 MR. RICH: Okay. Even in the BNL 7 Reports, they say that for heavy load drops, 8 human error probabilities, structural damage 9 potentials and recovery actions are the primary 10 sources of uncertainties. 11 So, the BNL, Brookhaven National 12 Laboratory is itself injecting a great deal of gg h 13 uncertainty to our ability to p red ic t the likeli-14 hood of such an accident and the severe 15 consequences of such an accident. 16 To impose that burden on me here is 17 -- seems unreasonable. 18 Based on that uncertainty as 19 evidenced in this report, and we can find many 20 other examples of such uncertainty -- 21 There is uncertainty in the fission 22 product release estimates. 23 These uncertainties are due both to 24 uncertainty in the accident progression. 25 And the uncertainty in fission
39 l 1 product decontamination. There's a lot of 2l urcertainty here and yet the Staff. is saying that il 3 this is a conser"Ecive estimate of the results of 4 a cask-drop accident. 5 That seems a very unreasonable 6 assumption to make in light of those statements. 7 If you look at the Executive 8 Summary -- I think this was in the SER -- Am I 9 right in that? This was in the SER? 10 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Rich, why do you 11 think that the Florida Power & Light radiological 12 radiation release estimates are not conservative? g lh 13 MR. RICH: They are not 14 conservative because -- because there's too much 15 uncertainty surrounding the issue. l 16 I don't see how they can be judged 17 to be conservative when this document itself 18 indicates that there's a great deal of 19 uncertainty surrounding the issue still. 20 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 21 MR. RICH: And I'd also like to 22 quote from this -- 23 This was, again, the Brookhaven 24 National Laboratory looking at the facts, 25 consequences of a dropped fuel accident.
40 l 1 One, dropped fuel accident; two, 2 jammed fuel handling equipment. 3 They say, "The model was found to 4 be unconservative in calculating the pressure 5 buildup within a cell. 6 The model assumed that as a fuel 7 assembly -- or rack cell, all the water in the 8 cell is forced out through the base plates -- 9 MR. BAUSER: Excuse me, Mr. 10 Chairman, could we have a reference to -- 11 JUDGE COLE: What page or section 12 were you reading from? ll h 13 MR. RICH: I'm on page 20 -- 18. 14 JUDGE COLE: This is of the BNL 15 Report? l 16 MR. RICH: Yes. l l 17 JUDGE COTTER: Is this the final l 18 report or the draft report, Mr. Rich? 19 MR. RICH: Do you know that, 20 please? 21 MS. YOUNG: It appears it's not the 22 final. 23 MR. RICH: This was in back of -- 24 These two documents came -- 25 JUDGE COLE: Is that Appendix A to
41 1 the Safety Evaluation? 2 MR. RICH: It just says, "Executive 3 Summary." 4 JUDGE COLE: The page before that ; I 5 is identified as Appendix S? 6 MR. RICH: I don't -- I don't have 7 a -- I 8 JUDGE COLE: I want to make sure i I 9 we're looking at the same document. 10 MR. RICH: It's just entitled -- 11 It begins, "This report describes and presents ; 12 the results of the BNL Technical Evaluation of h 13 the Structural Analysis submitted by Florida 14 Power & Light." 15 JUDGE COLE: Yes. That's a -- l 16 That appears -- In the bottom line of that page, the 17 words, "environmental," and "normal loads," 18 appears? 19 The page that you just quoted. 20 JUDGE COTTER: The page captioned, 21 "Executive Summary," and -- 22 MR. RICH: Yeah, yeah. Yes. 23 JUDGE COTTER: Roman numeral four 24 and Roman numeral three. 1 25 JUDGE COLE: That's identified as
~. -
l 42 1 Appendix A to the NRC Safety Evaluation Report. 2 You were pointing out, Mr. Rich -- 3 MR. RICH: Okay. Actually, this is 4 applying to a fuel assembly drop and not a cask 5 drop, so -- 6 I'm sure FP&L would like to point 7 that out, that that's probably not appropriate in 8 this case. 9 I would concede that -- that I feel 10 it's adequate to rely on the uncertainty as 11 indicated so often in the BNL Report, and I feel 12 that the consequences of a cask-drop accident -- 13 cask-drop accident are not conservative because l 11 you have to -- the prolonged exposure of the pool 15 liner and pool structure to excessive heat will 16 increase the pool vergility and I contend this l 17 has not been taken into consideration, and thus 1 18 an accident will not meet the 10 CFR -- criteria. ' 19 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank l' 1 20 you, Mr. Rich, 21 Mr. Bauser? I l 22 Mr. Chairman, I refer MR. BAUSER: 23 the Board to the discussion of this Contention in l 24 our written response. 25 I would point out, though, that it
b l 43 I is obvious that there's a significant leap from 2 the existence of substantial uncertainty to the 3 conclusion that such uncertainty cannot be 4 provided for through the use of conservatisms, 5 and the leap is wholely inconsistent with both 6 engineering practice and the practice of -- 7 authorized by the Commission. 8 In fact, Section 5.3 of the Safety 9 Analysis Report accompanying FPL's request for 10 the Amendment is entitled, "Accident Evaluation," 11 and contains subsection 5.3.1.2.2 entitled, 12 "Radiological consequences." 13 A description of the methodology 14 applied by FPL for the calculation of 15 radiological consequences potentially resulting 16 from a cask-drop accident. 17 The analysis presented there is 18 consistent with the appropriate prescriptions of 19 the NRC Standard Review Plan and the relevant 20 Regulatory Guide. 21 In the circumstances, the sweeping 22 and unsupported statement that no estimate can be 23 determined to be conservative is insufficient to 24 establish a basis for the Contention. 25 As a minimum, the basis must
E l 44 1 contain an assertion as to why the calculational 2 methods employed are unsatisfactory. 3 Beyond our response in our written 4 reply, I have nothing to add, Mr. Chairman. 5 JUDGE COTTER: All right, thank 6 you. 7 Ms. Young? 8 MS. YOUNG: The Staff would just 9 reiterate what it said in its Pleading, that the 10 uncertainties in fission product estimates 11 associated with beyond design-basis accidents in t 12 spent fuel pools does not provide a basis for j h 13 applying the existence of those uncertainties to 14 analyses of cask-drop accidents, which are 15 design-basis accidents, in general, 16 So, therefore, the Contention lacks 17 sufficient basis and should not be admitted. 18 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank l 19 you. I I 20 MR. RICH: May I? l 21 I would agree, certainly, that the 22 ALAR principle does not apply here. 23 I would agree with Mr. Bauser, too, 24 that an unsubstantiated assertion that this is g 25 not conservative is not acceptable. L _ _ _ _ _
45 1 1 But I feel that to substantiate 2 that, again, is evidentiary. 3 I would be happy to provide the 4 Board with technical evidence relating 5 specifically to the inadequacy of those 6 calculations. 7 If you want me to get into that 8 now, I would have to bring forward witnesses. 9 I understood that that was not the 10 function of this meeting. 11 But to dismiss the issue out of 12 hand, I feel is to deny evidence that may be able h 13 to be presented relating specifically to that 14 issue. 15 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 16 I think we understand your 17 position. 1 18 We'll return to Contention 4, then. l 19 MR. RICH: My contention here is 1 20 that the Staff did not adequately consider all ' 21 the scenarios that can result from the presence 1 22 of the crane falling into the pool. 23 I think they've examined the g 24 effects of the hook falling into the pool, but I I 25 don't know if they've examined the effect of one l i l l
F 46 1 or more of the five individual pieces of the 2 crane falling into the pool. Or have they 3 examined a rack falling into the pool. 4 I don't think they've examined one 5 the effects of one of the new racks falling 6 into the pool. 7 They've also admitted that a cask 8 could be dropped onto the crane, and that's -- 9 And they said that in the case of 10 that, they would -- FP&L would remove the crane it from the building and examine it to make sure 12 that its integrit'/ was not damaged, h 13 So, I don't feel that they've 14 examined what happens if a cask is dropped onto 15 the crane, and the cask and part or all of the 16 crane falls into the pool. 17 Again, referring to the BNL Report 18 as a particularly significant aspect of the 19 report is, again, the uncertainty introduced by 20 the -- any recovery action that wotid have to be 21 improvised in order to deal with this unexpected l 22 situation. 23 As I said, BNL, again, says that 24 this is one of the primary sources of 25 uncertainty, so that -- l
l 47 1 To the Contention, the consequences 2 of an effect -- accident whose effects are 3 clearly undesirable are greatly increased is 4 based primarily on the large number of various 5 accidents that could occur because of the 6 presence of the crane and the unusual recovery 7 actions that might be have to initiated -- that a might have to be initiated in order to deal with 9 that. 10 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 11 Mr. Bauser? l l 12 MR. BAUSER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, gh 13 first of all, with respect to the drop of a cask 14 on the crane, I think it's important to clarify l l 15 something that seems to be a basic point of 16 confusion. l 17 There is no cask in the pool. There 18 is no cask at the site. FPL does not have a 19 cask. 20 There will be no cask on site, let 21 alone in the vicinity of the pool, let alone in 22 the pool, during the rerack proceeding. 23 Accordingly, it's impossible to g 24 drop a cask on the crane or anywhere, in fact, 25 because there is no cask on site and FPL does not
E 48 1 possess a cask anywhere. F~ ) L.J# 2 JUDGE COTTER: Will there be casks 3 on site after the rerack work is completed? 4 MR. BAUSER: There are no 5 currently-planned evolutions, :4 r . Chairman, that 6 would call for the use of a caek beyond eventual 7 removal of the spent fuel from the pool. 8 JUDGE COTTER: Then there would be 9 casks at the time that the pool -- the spent fuel 10 is removed from the pool to be put in a cask to 11 be shipped? Is that what you mean? 12 MR. BAUSER: That's correct. h 13 JUDGE COTTER: Would that be only 14 in the event of a shipment to something like a 15 permanent -- waste depository? 16 MR. BAUSER: That is what would be 17 currently enyisioned. 18 JUDGE COTTER: Would there -- Is l 19 there any possibility that there might be 20 shipment to another spent fuel pool -- 21 MR. BAUSER: That's -- 22 JUDGE COTTER: -- using a cask? 23 MR. BAUSER: That's a possibility, 24 but that is certainly not in the contemplations 25 of FPL, nor is it being planned for.
{ 5. 49 1 With respect to the drop of -- 2 MR. RICH: Mr. Bauser, I'm sorry to 3 interrupt you, but I'm just wondering why the 4 Licensee committed to remove the temporary crane 5 and to perform a load test on it if a heavy load 6 is dropped onto it? 7 MR. BAUSER: Where -- Are you 8 reading from a document? 9 MR. RICH: This is from the SER, 10 Page 10, 5.0. 11 MR. BAUSER: Just a second. 12 Mr. Chairman, I would like to look gh 13 at that section a little bit later. 14 But, if I may continue addressing 15 the points that have already been raised. 16 With respect to the drop of the 17 crane into the pool, that has been considered. 18 It is addressed on Page 3-17 of FPL's Safety 19 Analysis Report associated with the Amendment and 20 it notes in the discussion that the consequences 21 of the postulated accident involving the drop of 22 the temporary construction crane in the pool are 23 bounded by the cask drop evaluations, g 24 The drop of a rack into the pool 25 has also been considered and is bounded by the
F~ 50 1 consequences of a drop of the spent fuel cask. 2 In particular, Mr. Chairman, with 3 respect to the drop of a cask -- excuse me, of a 4 spent fuel storage rack into the pool, that 5 matter was addressed in FPL's letter dated 6 December 22, 1987. 7 JUDGE COTTER: Do we have that? 8 MR. BAUSER: It's part of the 9 docket of record in this proceeding. 10 In particular, it's the response to 11 NRC's Question No. 2, that considers a drop of 12 the heaviest rack over the pool in the event of a 13 hook failure. 14 JUDGE COTTER: We don't have that 15 letter. 16 It may be in the docket in the -- l 17 with the Staff. l 18 MS. YOUNG: I don't believe it's 19 evidence in this proceeding. 20 MR. BAUSER: No. I didn't maan to 21 imply that it was evidence in the proceeding, but 22 it is FPL's position that it is a duty of the 23 Petitioner -- Where a matter has been considered in g 24 the record underlying the application in 25 question, it is his duty to consider that
51 1 information in formulating contentions and 2 address the information so that we might know, 3 among other things, precisely what error it is in 4 the analysis that the Petitioner feels exists. 5 JUDGE OTTER: Well, we know all 6 that, but we still don't have the letter. 7 MR. BAUSER: We'd be happy to 8 provide the Board with a copy of the letter. 9 SPEAKER: And the parties. I 10 MR. BAUSER: And the patties, too, 11 of course. 12 MR. RICH: What was that? h 13 MR. BAUSER: And the parties. You, 14 too, Mr. Rich. l 15 JUDGE COTTER: Anything further, ) 1 16 Mr. Bauser? l 17 MR. BAUSER: No, that's all I have. 18 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Young? 19 MS. YOUNG: The Staff has nothing 20 to add to its Pleading, but we just reiterate its 21 position that we feel that the Contention is 22 admittedly sufficient on the basis offered, and 23 the Staff does not oppose the admission of the 24 Contention. 25 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank
l [~ 52 1 you. 2 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, I would 3 like to address that comment. 4 Contention 4 takes the position 5 that the consequences of a cask-drop accident or a similar accident are greatly increased by the 7 crane installed in the spent fuel building and a used in connection with the reracking. 9 FPL has objected to the admission 10 of this Contention and the Staff has not. 11 The different positions on this ) 12 Contention manifest a basic difference between 13 the Staff and FPL. 14 This difference is evidenced not 15 only in connection with this Contention, but also 16 with respect to Contentions 5, 6, 9, 11 and 15. 17 We believe the differing positions 18 grow out of a difference in views as to what 19 constitutes "adequate basis" for a contention. 20 As you know, the NRC's Rules l 21 require the bases for each contention to be set 22 forth with reasonable specificity. 23 That prescription appears in i 24 Section 2. 714 ( b) of the Commission's Regulations. 25 This does not require the asserted ; l
53 1 bases be supported by evidentiary material. 2 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser, I've 3 written that several times in several decisions 4 and what's the point? 5 AR. BAUSER: I would like to 6 emphasize at this point and I think it will ceme , 7 up probably a number of other times in connection 8 with the contentions that I have just recited, 9 that there is a fundamental difference between 10 the Staff and FPL as to the need for a Petitioner 11 to examine the record material underlying the 17 application formulating his contentions, g ll 13 This duty is prescribed quite 14 clearly in the Catawba Decision, ALAB-687 (sic), 15 16 NRC 460. 16 That Decision states that an 17 intervenor, Petitioner to Intervene, has an iron-18 clad obligation to examine the publically-19 available documentary material pertaining to the 20 facility in question, with sufficient care to 21 enable it to uncover any information that could 22 serve as a foundation for a basic contention. 23 In its response to the Amended 24 Petition, the Staff simply ignored this 25 obligation, as articulated by the Commission and
I o 2 54 1 the Appeal Board in Catawba. 2 The Staff didn't argue, for some 3 reason, that the obligation was inapplicable or 4 that is overridden here by some other 5 consideration. It ignored it. 6 From the Staff's response to the 7 Amended Petition, there is no way of knowing that 8 the Catawba Decision even exists, or that FPL 9 relied upon it. 10 And I would like to emphasize for 11 the Board's benefit in considering these matters, 12 that the decisions do exist and FPL did cite and 13 rely upon them. 14 In eny decision considering the 15 admissibility of Petitioner's Contentions, this 16 Board should either apply the Catawba 17 requirement, or determine that i* As 18 inapplicable. 19 I also submit that the requirement 20 is applicable, dispositive and appropriate. 21 No application for a llconse or 22 amendment of a license can be granted unless the l 23 applicant demonstrates that the safety and 24 environmental r e q u i r e m e n t ;, imposed by the 25 Commission will be satisfied,
? ss 1 Those requirements are imposed and 2 interpreted by a body of Commission issuances, 3 including regulations, policy statements, 4 regulatory guides, Licensing Board decisions and 5 the like. I 6 The complex of material embodies 7 the norms against which the application is 8 measured. 9 The application itself, the safety 10 analysis supplied in support of the application, 11 the letters reflecting the dialogue between the 12 applicant and the Staff -- gh 13 JUDGE COTTER: Excuse me, Mr. 14 Bauser. 15 Is this a memo you're reading from? 16 MR. BAUSER: I have made some notes 17 here because I would like to address this matter 18 with some precision. 19 JUDGE COTTER: You don't think, 20 if that's not the f o r ra , you could simply submit 21 it? 2? MR. BAUSER: We could do that, but 23 I think that it might be more efficient for me to 24 provide a clear statement of our position and the 25 basic underlying law -- l
56 1 JUDGE COTTER: If you submit it, I 2 can read it faster than you c a r, say it out loud. 3 MR. BAUSER: Well, let me just -- 4 Let me just summarize at this point and say that 5 even with the Board's discretion to decide the 6 matters that we are considering here today, it is 7 our position that the Board cannot ignore an 8 fron-clad obligation. 9 And that particularly where a 10 number of contentions are copied virtually j 11 verbatim from another proceeding where they have 12 been extensively litigated, the obligation of -- JUDGE COTTER: ll h 13 Mr. Bauser, you know 14 that copying contentions from another proceeding 15 is not a ground for throwing them out of a second 16 proceeding. 17 MR. BAUSER: No, but the -- The 18 point is this, Mr. Chairman. 19 There is a reqairement under 20 Catawba that underlying record material, where it 1 21 exists, be addressed by a p e t i t i o r, e r in seeking 22 to inject a contention. 23 There's a very good, practical 24 reason for that. 25 Without a specification of what the
57 1 problems are with the solution developed by the 2 Staff, the Board will be unable to determine 3 whether or not the problems in the mind of the 4 Petitioner are within the proper scope to be 5 considered in a hearing; and all of us, both the 6 Board and the parties will be unable to determine 7 precisely what it is that the Petitioner finds 8 wrong with the existing analysis so that it might 9 be addressed. 10 This same logic applies to a 11 situation where contentions are simply copied out 12 of another -- from another proceeding, gh 13 Without a specification of why the 14 consideration given to that contention was 15 inadequate, you will be unable to determine what 16 it is the Petitioner is raising and, therefore, 17 judge whether or not it is within the appropriate 18 scope of the proceeding and, again, you and the 19 parties will be unable to determine precisely 20 what it is that they are to address. 21 I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, that 22 if a petitioner is to simply copy out, using a 23 Xerox machine -- 24 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser, I think 25 I understand your position, and, you know, I
58 1 don't think we need any further lectures on what 2 the law is and that sort of thin 3. 3 So, I think we ought to nio v e on to 4 Contention 5. 5 MR. BAUSER: Thank you. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Rich? 7 MR. RICH: I would just like to say 8 in leaving Contention 4, that if -- 9 JUDGE COTTER: It's a tough one to 10 leave. 11 MR. RICH: Yeah. -- if the Board 12 admits this Contention, I would be glad to I gh 13 provide !!r . Bauser with substantial technical 14 evidence to verify our assertion -- to verify our 15 assertions in that Contention; however, I didn't 16 think that the original Petition, nor this 17 hearing was the proper place for that. 18 I will admit here that my original 19 basis for this Contention is probably 20 inapplicable. 21 Basically what I would ask for on 22 this Contention now is that it appears to me that 23 the NRC requested that FP&L do an analysis. And 24 that was indicated on a document dated December 25 23rd, 1987, L-87-537.
59 1 Again, Page 13 of the SER -- It 2 says on Page 13, ,"In their December 23rd, ,'87, 3 submittal, the Licensee presented a conservative 4 analysis of the radiological consequences of the 5 boiling of the SFP water. 6 The Staff has reviewed the 7 Licensee's analysis of -- " 8 I would insist that FP&L -- I mean 9 that the NRC Staff do their own analysis, 10 considering the dangers of such an accident in 11 order to sort of error on the side of caution and 12 to verify all the assumptions and calculations gh 13 that FP&L did, rather than relying on their 14 analysis. 15 So, I guess in a way I'm amending 16 this Contention. 17 Have I made myself clear? 18 JUDGE COTTER: If I understand you 19 correctly, you're saying that in place of the 20 Contention 5 that you filed, you are now 21 restating the Contention to provide that because 22 you believe the FP&L analysis cites specific 23 radiologicel releases following a spent fuel 24 boiling event is inadequate, that you want the 25 NRC Staff to conduct a study and analysis.
60 1 MR. RICH: Yeah, that's a good one. 2 JUDGE COTTER: Yes. On what grounds 3 would you -- what grounds would the Staff have 4 for conducting such an analysis other than your 5 wn disatisfaction wi the FP&L analysis, which 6 PParently seems satistisfied the Staff? 7 MR. RICH: As I say, I see it as 8 erring on the side of caution. They need to -- 9 to do their own analysis and verify that the 10 results are within the guidelines. 11 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Rich, I'm looking 12 at Page 13 of the Staff Safety Evaluation Report h 13 and I believe the section that you quoted, in the la sentence -- two sentences after that, it says 15 that the Staff analysis differs only slightly. 16 That implies to me that the Staff 17 -- Staff did do an analysis. 18 MR. RICH: I agree. It's 19 confusing. 20 I'm not saying that I know for sure I 21 the Staff did not do it. l 22 As I indicated, there's two 1 23 documents. One indicates that the Staff 1 i g 24 requested the analysis and then this -- that they're 25 saying they reviewed the license -- l 1 I
61 1 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Rich, would you 2 be satisfied if the Staff did an analysis? 3 MR. RICH: Yes, certainly that 4 would satisfy that contention. j 5 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Young, do you l 6 know whether the Staff did an analysis? l 7 MS. YOUNG: It is my understanding 8 that they did. 9 The nature and extent of that, now, 10 I can't speak to. 11 And I'm not sure what Mr. Tourigny 12 would be testifying -- gglh 13 JUDGE COTTER: Well, Mr. Tourigny l 14 has said that the Staff did its own independent 15 analysis. I
?6 I take it, then, that you will be 17 satisfied with that. 4 1
18 MR. RICH: Is that available in the 19 public documentation? l l 20 MS. YOUNG: Give us a moment, 21 please, j 22 JUDGE COTTER: We will go off the 23 record for a moment. 24 (Off the record.) j 25 JUDGE COTTER: Back on the record. l l l l l
r~ l 62 1 If, in fact, an analysis has been N 2 done and it satisfies Mr. Rich, that would 3 dispose of the Contention, and satisfy all 4 parties. 5 MR. RICH: As long as that analysis 6 is made available. 7 MR. BAUSER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I 8 would object to amending the Contentions here. 9 There is a procedure for filing of 10 Contention -- 11 JUDGE COTTER: I u n d ', r s t a n d that, 12 Mr. Bauser. h 13 If I can get rid of this now and 14 everybody's happy, I'd just as soon do that. 15 MR. BAUSER: Well, I would be 16 interested in knowing, as would the Board, 17 whether or not this separate analysis has been l l 18 done. 19 But, I believe that we can address 20 the acceptability of this Contention without 21 delving into that. 22 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 23 Ms. -- Ms. Young? 24 MS. YOUNG: The Staff -- I'm 25 informed by Mr. Tourigny that the Staff has done
5 l 63 1 a separate analysis, the results of which are 2 reflected in the Safety Evaluation. 3 The Staff would be happy to submit 4 a more detailed summary of that to Mr. Rich at a 5 later date. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Okay. 7 Mr. Rich, on that basis, do you 8 want us to rule on Contention 5 and continue this 9 argument, or do you want to withdraw it? 10 MR. RICH: Well, do you want to 11 rule on it at this time, or -- 12 JUDGE COTTER: No, we do it in h 13 writing if we rule on it, but what I'm asking is 14 whether you want to withdraw it at this point, 15 based on the representations of the Staff. 16 MR. RICH: We will abandon that 17 Contention. 18 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank 19 you. 20 Let's go to Contention 6. 21 MR. RICH: Just a general l 1 22 inquiry. ) 23 As I understand it, the object of l 24 the pre-conference (sic) h e a r i r. g is to clarify
@ 25 the Contentions and that as a result of our 1
l l
64 1 discussions I am able to amend them at some point W 2 in time. 3 JUDGE COTTER: There's a specific 4 rule that governs amendment of Contentions, and 5 that's not precisely what we're doing at this 6 point. 7 We're trying to decide whether or 8 not what you've offered is -- is admissible as a 9 Contention. 10 MR. RICH: Okay. 11 JUDGE COTTER: At the conclusion of 12 this oral argument, we will go back and sit down gg h 13 and issue a written decision on what Contentions 14 are admissible and which are not. 15 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, FPL I 16 would request that the Staff provide it with a 17 copy of the analysis, i 18 MS. YOUNG: The Staff would be i 19 happy to, Mr. Bauser. 20 JUDGE COTTER: I'm sorry. I didn't 21 mean to overlook you on that. 22 MR. RICH: What are we on? Six , 1 23 here? l l 24 JUDGE COTTER: Six. d 25 MR. RICH: This -- My Contention 1 I l l l
h 65 1 is very -- is very simple here. 2 I feel there's little more I can 3 add at this point. 4 The basis for my Contention is 5 substantial to technical evidence showing that 6 the spent fuel pool liner, the spent fuel pool 7 itself and any components that are subject to 8 exposure to the spent fuel pool will suffer 9 severe degradation over time as a result of the 10 increased heat load which will occur as a result 11 of the number of greater assemblies. 12 We're getting into now some h 13 Contentions that begin to run together, but I 14 feel that FP&L's projections of water 15 temperatures that will be in the pool -- spent 16 fuel pool are inadequate; that higher 17 temperatures will occur on a normal basis and 18 that as a result much greater stresses will be 19 placed on the materials. 20 You've got -- I feel that concrete 21 is subject to severe degradation as a result of 22 these higher temperatures. 23 The pool liner itself, both the 24 temperatures again, and the radioactivity, the 25 concrete -- exposure to the radioactivity and
f~ l ) 66 1 simply the presence of all that material, the 2 weight, will add to the vergility. 3 Clearly inadequate calculations 4 have been made concerning those questions. 5 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank 6 you, Mr. Rich. 7 Mr. Bauser? 8 MR. BAUSER: With respect to 9 calculations of temperature in the pool, those 10 matters are raised with more precision in some 11 other Contentions and I would -- I would address 12 them there. gg h 13 Our position is outlined in our 14 written response. 15 Basically, again, the problem here 16 is that there has been consideration of matters 17 pertaining to the durability of materials in the 18 pool, including those specific items that Mr. 19 Rich has referenced. ! l 20 And he has failed to specify what 21 he views as deficiencies with respect to 22 consideration of those matters. 23 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you. 24 Ms. Young?
/~')
25 MS. YOUNG: The Staff does not
67 1 oppose the admission of this Contention, so long 2 as the Contention is limited in scope to the 3 period of storage authorized by this Amendment. 4 MR. RICH: And that storage period 5 is two thousand and -- eight or something? 6 JUDGE COLE: Something like 30 or 7 40 years, I believe, Mr. Rich. 8 MR. RICH: Is it that long? 9 So the Board need not provide a 10 specific date for the removal of the material and 11 yet argument can be limited to a essentially 12 arbitrary date sometime in the future, h 13 JUDGE COLE: Well, I think it's the 14 date when the operating license extends, and I 15 believe that's 30 or 40 years, or something like 16 that. 17 MR. RICH: When the operation 18 license expires, does that require that all 19 hazardous material be removed -- 20 JUDGE COLE: If they were to carry 21 it beyond the period of that license, they would 22 then have to reapply for a license to do that, at 23 which time the issues associated with prolonging
, r3 24 it would be --
I ) 25 MR. RICH: To simply store the fuel,
F~ l 68 1 they would need to renew the operation license? k_c# 2 JUDGE COLE: Yes. 3 MR. RICH: Good. 4 JUDGE COTTER: Contention 7. 5 MR. RICH: We do this reluctantly, 6 but we abandon this Contention. 7 This Contention deals with the 8 exposure of the workers during the reracking 9 process. 10 We wish them the best of luck, but 11 we just were not able to compile enough evidence 12 to feel competent to proceed with this 13 Contention. 14 JUDGE COTTER: Is that to say that 15 you are withdrawing it at this point? i 16 MR. RICH: We withdraw that , 17 Contention. 18 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 19 MR. RICH: My apologies to the 20 workers. They'll have to watch out for 21 themselves. 22 JUDGE COTTER: Contention 8. 23 MR. RICH: In this Contention, I'm 24 concerned with the capabilities and inadequate 25 capacities of an antiquated and deteriorating i
69 1 system. f 2 This basically comes down to 3 technical calculations. 4 I contend that the temperatures as 5 calculated by FP&L will not be met and that the 6 NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 9.1.3 7 guidelines will not be adhered to. 8 As a result of these higher 9 temperatures, there's a greater probability that 10 this could lead to a boilng accident, which could 11 cause a severe accident in the spent fuel pool. 12 We are more than willing to provide glh 13 substantial technical evidence to verify that 14 those calculations are inadequate and that those 15 temperatures will be exceeded. 16 JUDGE COTTER: As I understand it, 17 this is a loss-of-cooling accident Contention, 18 and you state in your bases that there's a 19 possibility of a delay in makeup water. 20 MR. RICH: Uh-huh. (Affirmative.) 21 JUDGE COTTER: What would cause the 22 delay in makeup water? 23 MR. RICH: We're also talking 24 about the time to boil calculations. 25 I feel their time to boil
70 1 calculations are too generous -- that the time to ) La 2 boil will be far less than they calculated, and 3 that therefore that the rate of makeup water 4 would be inadequate to compensation -- to 5 compensate for the boiling off. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Whether or not it's 7 delayed? MR. RICH: Whether or not it's -- 9 No. 10 Even at maximum capacity we feel 1 11 that there is a probability -- a great l 12 probability that it will be inadequate to l gh 13 compensate for the water loss due to boiling.
]
l 14 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 15 MR. RICH: So we're talking about, i 1 16 you know, two or three sets of calculations here. j 17 We're basically dealing with -- the normal lI 18 temperatures in the pool and then the time-to-l 19 boil calculations. 20 I don't know if they should be two 21 separate contentions, but I just put them 22 together. 23 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 24 Mr. Bauser? 25 MR. BAUSER: I agree with
71 1 Petitioner. We're talking about two or three 2 different things here. 3 The Contention pertaining to the 4 analysis of pool boiling has been withdrawn, and 5 I presume that as a result further consideration ) 6 of that matter here today is not pertinent. s 7 But, I would like to address Mr. 8 Rich's statement here that there is something 9 wrong with the analysis of loss of cooling that 10 has been provided. 11 First of all, the Contention 12 asserts facts crucial to its admission which are g ll 13 clearly incorrect and fails to address FPL's 14 relevant analysis. 15 We have reformed in Section 3.2.2.3 i 16 of the SAR submitted in conjunction with this 17 application. It shows that after reracking the 18 maximum bulk temperature of the fuel pool 19 following a normal discharge of fuel will be 20 133.3 degrees Fahrenheit. 21 And following a full core 22 discharge, the temperature will be no greater 23 than 150.8 degrees Fahrenheit. g 24 Under the NRC Standard Review 25 Plan, Section 9.1.3, the allowable temperatures
s 7-72 1 are 140 degrees Fahrenheit and below boiling. 2 Neither the Contention, nor its 3 bases undertake to demonstrate why FPL's analyses 4 and calculations are incorrect. 5 And without a specification of 6 where the Petitioner sees deficiencies, it's 7 impossible for me to either demonstrate why , 1 8 those deficiencies do not exist or to correct 9 them. 1 10 MR. RICH: I would certainly agree 1 11 with Mr. Bauser in that we need -- we certainly 12 need to present evidence as to why we feel j gg h 13 they're inadequate. 14 But again, I don't believe that 15 this is the proper forum for that presentation. 16 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 17 Ms. Young? 18 MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I'm 19 confused. 20 It appears that Mr. Rich is now 21 offering bases which would go to Contention 5. 22 MR. RICH: Yeah, I made a mistake 23 -- g 24 MS. YOUNG: Yes. 25 He's challenging the analyses of
73 1 spent fuel pool boiling with respect to the time 2 to boil and also, I guess, the rate of regaining 3 or makeup water, so I'm kind of con f tis ed how it 4 goes to this Contention. 5 MR. RICH: We have to go back to 6 five, and until we review the NRC Staff's 7 analysis I would ask that that Contention remain. 8 MS. YOUNG: I guess to complete my 9 remarks, the Staff had objected to this 10 Contention because he had not alleged any lack of 11 compliance with any safety standard or regulation 12 and he hadn't provided a credible scenario for why the single failure criterion and general ll h 13 14 design criterion 44 entitled, "Cooling water," 15 would be defeated. 16 So it was on that basis that the 17 Staff had objected to .e admission of the 18 Contention. 19 JUDGE COTTER: As I understand your 20 position now, Mr. Rich, you have withdrawn your 21 abandonment of Contention 5. 22 MR. RICH: Great. 23 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 24 But I'm still not clear. Are you 25 changing then the bases for Contention 87
{" l 74 1 MR. RICH: Am I changing it in what 2 way? 3 JUDGE COTTER: Well, you've talked 4 here about the temperature changes, I guess, 5 which is consistent with bases A for the 6 Contention. 7 But then on B I thought you also 8 heard -- I thought I also heard you say that 9 you're not so much concerned with the delay in 10 makeup, you're saying that the Contention is that 11 temperatures have been simply under-calculated 12 and there is going to be an accident as a result 13 of boiling away. 14 MR. RICH: Well, obviously, if we 15 feel that the ability of the system to provide 16 makeup water is inadequate when operating a its 17 full capability, a delay would only make such an l 18 accident progress more quickly and far more 19 likely. 20 I don't see -- 21 JUDGE COTTER: You're contending, 22 then, that one of the bases for the Contention is 23 that the makeup system is inadequate? 24 MR. AICH: Yes. Yes. 25 JUDGE COTTER: All right.
75 1 MR. RICH: The make-up system and 2 its attendant power supply. 3 JUDGE COTTER: I think we're 4 halfway through the Contentions at this point. 5 This might be a good place to take 6 a ten minute break. 7 MR. BAUSER: Excuse me, Mr. 8 Chairman. 9 Just to complete the Contentions to 10 this point. We did not address Contention 5 ji because it had been withdrawn and I would like to 12 respond briefly now to the merits of that, h 13 Not to the merits of that 14 Contention, but to the acceptability of that 15 Contention. 16 JUDGE COTTER: All right. 17 MR. BAUSER: Again, we have con-18 sidered the boiling of the pool. The results of 19 that analysis have been presented. 20 In addition, the make-up system for 21 that pool is a route from the discharge of the 22 intake cooling water pumps, up a standpipe and 23 into that pool.
,/^ 24 That is a Seismic Category I system
( -'. \ 25 and as a result, we feel that it is incumbent upon
{~ l 76 i the Petitioner to specify what he sees as a defi-2 ciency in the design of that system in terms of 3 causing this Board to address that matter. 4 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young, did you 5 want to add anything? 6 MS. YOUNG: I guess my only question to the Peti-7 tioner would be, in terms of his Contention 8 as g stated, is he providinn more specificities to the 9 Contention to *ue extent that the systems -- I'm 10 quoting from ;he Contention, ij The expression he has here is, "The 12 System is designed for decay heat and other resi-13 dual heat removal." 14 Is he now stating that the system ) that he's concerned with is megable. 15 16 MR. RICH: Well, we're talking -- 17 you know, there's A and B. 18 JUDGE COTTER: I don't think so. I ig think he said that there were two baces. 20 One, he's saying that the normal 21 temperature has been under-calculated and that 22 the time to boil has been under-calculated on the 23 one hand, to the point that the normal make-up 24 wouldn't maintain regulatory temperatures. 25 Then, secondly, that he's alleging l
77 i that the make-up system itself would be inade-2 quate anyway and there would be further delay. 3 Is that correct? 4 MR. RICH: That's corr -- And I'm 5 also alleging that just the normal temperatures 6 of the pool. 7 JUDGE COTTER: That's what I said 8 first. 9 MR. RICH: Yes, okay. 10 This Contention 8 then -- as I said 11 we're running -- a lot of these contentions are 12 running together, are trying to make the same 13 points. 14 But, I think you understand. 15 MS. YOUNG: I guess to the extent 16 that it tries to raise the same point as Conten-17 tion 5, maybe you are suggesting that it should 18 be rejected? l 19 MR. RICH: Well, I -- 20 MS. YOUNG: Or maybe I totally l 21 misunderstand your contentions. 22 MR. RICH: No, I withdrew my aban-23 donment of that Contention until we've had an 24 opportunity to look at the analysis. 25 You see, this is very similar to
78 1 temperature -- Contention 6 in a way. In that I 2 am alleging that the higher temperatures are 3 going to be increasing the spent fuel pool verg-4 ility, which could cause a loss of cooling 5 action. 6 And then I am also addressing the 7 issue of make-up water in the event of a pool 8 boiling accident. 9 So, maybe I'm trying to put two 10 contentions in one here and that's inappropriate, 11 but I guess we have to deal with them as they are 12 written. lh 13 Did I confuse you more, Mitzi? 14 MS. YOUNG: I hope not. 15 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, we now 16 perhaps have three contentions mixed together 17 here. 18 We have a pool temperature conten-19 tion as I understand it. 20 We have now the reassertion of 21 Contention 5 pertaining to pool boiling. 22 And I heard Mr. Rich just refer to 23 "increased temperatures affecting the vergility i 24 of the pool," which sounds to me like a materials 25 contention. l
79 1 JUDGE COTTER: That's six. 2 MR. RICH: Right. That's what I 3 was saying. 4 MR. BAUSER: I'd like to have -- I 5 guess I'd like to understand, first of all, if 6 we're reasserting Contention 5, because I also 7 heard Mr. Rich refer to subject to review -- 8 JUDGE COTTER: Clearly, Contention 9 5 is being reasserted. It is not being aban-10 doned. It is for us to consider as to whether or 11 not it can be admitted in this proceeding. 12 Secondly, I think to a certain gl 13 extent, we are hearing some ruminations out loud 14 from Mr. Rich about the fact that he's seeing 15 temperature as a factor in more than one of his 16 contentions. l l 17 MR. RICH: Yes. l 18 JUDGE COTTER: A ra d thirdly, we will 19 recess for ten minutes and be back here -- 20 (Off record) 21 JUDGE COTTER: Back on the record. 22 The next contention is Contention 23 9. And it deals with the cooling failure by 24 either a pump or electrical failure. 25 Mr. Rich? Do you have anything you
80 m 1 want to add to your written -- F' > i [_f 2 MK. RICH: I'm just reading it to 3 make sure. 4 I feel the Contention is adequate. 5 I want to just reinforce the notion that the the 6 electrical power supply is vulnerable; the ef-7 fects of humidity, wear, corrosion, elevated g temperatures, exposure to radiation on relays, g circuit breakers, electric meters -- electric 10 motors rather, and batteries makes this very ij likely. 12 And that we also agree with the h 13 Licensee's response that the mere assertion that 34 the cooling system will be unable to accomodate 15 the heat load in the event of certain failure is 16 insufficient. 17 We would hope that we w o i, J be 18 allowed to present our teranical data in this 19 case. 20 JUDGE COTTER: You agree only in l 21 the sense that you want to put on evidence I take ' 22 it, not in the sense -- 23 MR. RICH: That's correct. That's l l 24 correct. 25 JUDGE COTTER: Okay. Mr. Bauser? l
81 1 MR. BAUSER: I would suggest we do 2 not agree in that event. But, I will only refer 3 the Board to our written reply. 4 The analysis referenced in that 5 reply does assume electrical failure and the loss 6 of one pump. And the analysis referenced in our 7 written reply demonstrates that the results are 8 within regulatory safety requirements. 9 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you. 10 Miss Young? 11 MS. YOUNG: The staff has nothing 12 to add to his pleading. It d.d not opoose admis-g ll 13 sion of this Contention. 14 MR. RICH: I believe our specific 15 bases is that it will be in violation of 10 CFR, 16 Part 50, Appendix A. I believe that's one of the 17 criteria we contend will be violated. , l 18 JUDGE COTTER: What was that again, l l 19 Mr. Rich? 20 MR. RICH: 10 CFR, Part 50, Appen-21 dix A. 22 JUDGE COTTER: Is that referenced ; 23 in the --
- 7. /~S 24 MR. BAUSER: No, it's not.
(j-' 25 JUDGE COTTER: -- Contention?
3 1 82 1 MR. RICH: No, it's not. 2 JUDGE COTTER: Contertion 10 -- 3 Did you have something/ 4 JUDGE COLE: Yes. ! 5 JUDGE COTTER: I'm sorry. 6 JUDGE COLE: Isn't Appendix A a 7 listing of the general design criteria? Can you 8 be a little more specific than that? ( 9 MR. RICH: Maybe I should have men-10 ' tioned, because I actually lost that particular 11 document and been unable to find out -- I was 12 just trying to recall that from memory. It's not 13 there, I guess, 14 I probably shouldn't have thrown 15 that in. The Contention is adequate as it is. 16 JUDGE COTTER: All right, Conten-17 tion 10, again, deals with time to boil analysis 18 and differing assumptions. 19 Mr. Rich? 20 MR. RICH: Well, we were correct 21 that FP&L had utilized a different set of assump-22 tions in calculating time to Doll. 23 We contend that the time to boil _c 24 calculations are not conservative. And we ask
; /
2f that we be allowed to present technical data
831 1 relevant to this matter. Fa 2 We don't see why they used a diffe-l 3 rent set of assumptions. 4 JUDGE COTTER: Are you talking 5 about a difference between their -- 6 MR. RICH: Not a difference between 7 our calculations and their calculations, rather a 8 difference between the calculations as derived in g the original FSAR, and the calculations used to 10 provide data for the SER or SAR. 11 JUDGE COTTER: Then you're talking 12 about the difference between a draft FP&L report gh 13 and a final report? 14 MR. RICH: The draft document being 15 which one? 16 JUDGE COTTER: I'm not sure. I'm 17 trying to find out. 18 You said FP&L -- the Contention 19 reads: 20 "In calculating time to boil after 21 loss of cooling, after completion of full core 22 discharge, with the presence of the proposed 1706 23 assemblies, FP&L utilized a different set of 24 assumptions than in determining the original fi-25 gures for time to boil as indicated in the final
f~ j 84 i Safety Analysis Report for the St. Lucie Plant." 2 And then you reference a paragraph 3 and table. 4 MR. RICH: Right. I guess tr a -- 5 well, that was a draft document then. 6 Is that correct about my quote? Is 7 that from a draft document? 8 MR. BAUSER: I don't believe so. 9 Again, this illustrates the difficulty of failing 10 to address, with some specificity, the contents ij of specific documents so that we can see what 12 we're talking here, g ll 13 I interpreted this Contention to be 34 referting to the final Safety Analysis Report 15 pertinent to the operating license 16 for the plant, and referring on the other hand, 17 to the Safety Ans .ysis Report submitted by Flori-l 18 da Power and Light Company in connection with the 19 spent fuel pool expansion Amendment. l 20 MR. RICH: Right, i agree with 21 that. 22 JUDGE COLE: And what's wrong with 23 what they did, Mr. Rich? MR. RICH: I say those assumptions d 24 25 are not conservative. Those new assumptions are l
85 1 not conservative. 2 I'm not competent to address that 3 issue. That issue needs to be addressed by an 4 engineer. 5 JUDGE COTTER: You are saying both 6 assumptions. Both the one for the final operat-7 ing license report and the one for the spent fuel a pool expansion report -- 9 MR. RICH: I don't think it's that to I need to make an attempt to understand the ade-11 quacy of the original calculations, since those 12 calculations pertain to a pool configuration gh 13 that, well no 3 Jer exists. 14 Ce.tainly, what is of concern to us is is that the calculations used to determine the 16 time to boil in a pool with 1706 assemblies, the l 17 adequacy or inadequacy of those calculations sre i 1 18 what concern us. 13 JUDGE COTTER: It f. ands to me like l 20 you're modifying the Contention. 21 You're not so much concerned with 22 the discrepancy as you are with the adequacy or 23 the conservatism with the calculations offered in 24 support of the reracking of the spent fuel pool. 25 MR. RICH: Clearly we're concerned
)
86 1 with the inadequacy. I think the discrepancy 9 2 just served to point up the fact that a different 3 set of assumptions were being used in order to 4 generate more acceptable figures. 5 And that the discrepancy itself 6 would not serve to render invalid the latter 7 assumptions, or the latter calculations rather. 8 JUDGE COTTER: I am still a little 9 confused as to why you think -- I guess I 10 haven't heard why you think the assumptions un-
$: derlying the calculations for the spent fuel pool 12 expansion are inadequate?
gh 13 MR. RICH: I am not qualified to s speak to that -- 15 JUDGE COTTER: Well, for argumenta-16 tive purposes then, if you're not qualified then j 17 somebody else could say they adequate. 18 You have to give us a reason -- 19 MR. RICH: That's good, but I could 20 supply a person who has experience in that area 21 who would challenge the conservative natures of 22 those assumptions and say that they are inadequate 2J or inaccurate. 24 JUDGE COTTER: Well, that's okay. 25 What's his reason?
l h 87 1 Aside from going through the me-2 chanics of the calculations and the assumptions 3 and that sort of thing, why does he think they're 4 in -- 5 MR. RICH: I'm not prepared to 6 present that technical evidence. 7 JUDGE COTTER: It's not evidence, 8 it's a reason why we should go on and hear the 9 evidence. 10 JUDGE COLE: Are you saying that 11 you're prepared to bring someone forth to provide 12 testimony on the validity of the assumptions? gh 13 MR. RICH: Yes. 14 JUDGE COTTER: Okay. Mr. Bauser? 15 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, I think 16 our problem is the same as the Board's. j 17 I would again simply refer to our 18 response. He have listed the assumptions to 19 which we believe Mr. Rich is referring in the 20 Safety Analysis Report. 21 Those assumptions are clearly as-22 sumptions which are conservative to the extent 23 that they would give higher temperatures rather 24 than lower temperatures. 25 And it is our conclusion as a re-
E 88 l 1 sult of those analysis that the temperatures s - 2 pertinent to spent fuel pool are within safety 3 regulatory requirements. 4 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young? l 5 MS. YOUNG: The staff had opposed 6 admission of this Contention. And I think, as I 7 listen to Mr. Rich today, it appears he's offer-g ing a similar proposition that was stated in his 9 Contention 5, that is questioning the calcula-10 tions of time to boil and what-have-you. 11 To that extent, even apart from the 12 objections being set forth in our pleadings, this gh 13 Contention should be rejected as repetative. 14 JUDGE COTTER: Contention 11 deals 15 with the potential problems with the Boraflax and 16 the -- I'm sorry, boraflex -- in the Joseph Potes 17 (phonetic) fabricated storage rocks. 18 Mr. Rich? 19 MR. RICH: Okay. Clearly, we are 1 20 dealing with an unproven technology. 21 We are dealing with a technology 22 that has developed a number of problems, as evi-23 denced by the NRC information notice here, which 24 I read from previously. 25 It mentions, "The safety concern is
1 89 f 1 that certain gaps might excessively reduce the 2 margin of nuclear suberiticality in the fuel 3 pool." 4 Certainly an important issue. 5 "The concern is that separation of 6 the neutron absorbing material used in high den-7 sity fuel storage racks might compromise safety." 8 It's clearly pertinent. 9 And, again, if this is not a defi-10 nition of unproven, I don't know what is. 11 The NRC states in the information 12 notice, "The effective rack design and manufac-gh 13 turing methods on the consequences of stress, 14 temperature and chemical environment to irradi-15 ated Boraflexes are uncertain." 16 This was issued September 8th. I 17 find it hard to believe that between September 18 8th and even this date that substantial advances 19 have been made in boraflex technology to render 20 it safe and reliable on a long-term bases. 21 Clearly, it poses an increase in 22 the potential threat to the health and safety of 23 the public. 24 g If I can just, as an example of the 25 confusion that seems to reign concerning the
F~ c. 90 1 reliability of boraflex -- if I can find one 2 document I'll do a lot better. 3 I'd like to reveal the, either 4 incorrect or misstatements that were made in 5 FP&L's response to the NRC's request for a des-6 cription of corrective measures to be taken in 7 order to respond to the problems, myriad of pro-8 blems, that were described in the Quad Cities 9 Point Beach study. 10 Does everyone know what I'm talking 11 about? 12 MR. BAUSER: Is there a reference h 13 to the document from which -- 14 MR. RICH: Which one? l 15 MR. BAUSER: The FPL response that , 1 16 you've just referred to? l 17 MR. RICH: It was a document dated 18 October 20th of last year. 19 It was entitled "Re Spent Fuel Pool 20 Rerack boraflex and Pool Cleanup." 21 The question was: "Recent anomo-22 lies have been identified in the Quad Cities and 23 Point Beach spent fuel pools due to boraflex g 24 shrinkage caused by irradiation. 25 Based on this, provide justifica-
i 91 1 tion to demonstrate the continued acceptability im 2 of boraflex for application in the St. Lucie 3 spent fuel pool." 4 This is a three-page response -- 5 MR. BAUSER: Are you referring to 6 the attachment to the FPL letter dat'ed October 7 20th, 1987? 8 MR. RICH: It was attached too, 9 yes, 10 Thank you. MR. BAUSER: 11 MR. RICH: FP&L goes on: "boraflex 12 has undergone extensive qualification testing to l 13 study the effects of gamma and neutron irradia-14 tion in various environments and to verify its 15 structural integrity and stability as a neutron 16 absorbing material. 17 Yes, it has, but as we all know, 18 high level radiation testing over short periods 19 of time can produce dramatically different re-20 sults than continuous long term low dosage ex-21 posure. So, the results of many of these 23 studies are highly speculative and in fact they l will admit that. FP&L states that "These tests indi-
p- 1 l l o 92 I cated that boraflex maintains its neutron attenu-L 2 ation capabilities when subjected to an environ-3 ment of borated water and 1.03 times 10 to the 4 lith rads of gamma radiation." 5 As I quoted previously, "Quad City 6 says except where there are gaps," and they 7 clearly state that. 8 "In the gap region the absence of 9 neutron absorber in one or more panels results in 10 a net local increase in rack reactivity as well 11 as an increase in the reactivity of the entire 12 storage cell." gh 13 This is under Section, Reactivity. 14 "Reactivity affects of gaps. The net over-all 15 affect, however, is an increase in fuel rack 16 reactivity, which is a function of gap size, 17 number of panels per cell with gaps and actual 18 location of the gaps." 19 It seems to me that clearly that 20 statement is incorrect. 21 Additionally, "further tests have 22 recently been conducted" -- FP&L says again -- 23 "and p rel imi n a r y results indicate that some ) l shrinkage, a maximum of about two percent, can
# 24 25 occur in boraflex."
l i
93 1 1 That's incorrect according to Quad j 2 Cities. The Quad Cities report says: 3 "The measurements of physical di-4 mensions show in most cases a net shrinkage of 5 the samples after radiation. The data is vari-6 able, but the general trend is about two to three 7 percent." 8 Their figure of a maximum of two 9 percent is off by 50 percent. 10 "... shrinkage in width and up to 11 eight percent in thickness." Well, they didn't 12 oven mention that. 13 "The accuracy of these measurements f 14 is not know, but it is suspected that accurate 15 dimensional measurements on small samples would 16 be difficult." 17 There is many -- perhaps that data 18 is not even -- you know, could change drast-19 ically. 20 They go on, "Three plants, Point 1 21 Beach, Prairie Island and Quad Cities have re- l l 22 ported the results of their boraflex surveil-23 lance. 24 Of these three, boraflex used at l 25 Point Beach nuclear power has received the high-
F~ 94 1 est accumulated dose. 2 This material has been in use for a 3 total of five years and some of the boraflex 4 panels have received a 20 year equivalent radi-5 ation dose." 6 I would make the point there again 7 that that short term, high level exposure is not 8 an accurate demonstration of the long term r el i-9 ability. 10 They go on, again, to say, "That aa 11 a result of this exposure, the nuclear character-12 istics of the samples have not experienced any l 13 unexpected changes an3 the boron absorbing pro-14 perties of the samples met the acceptance criter- ; 15 ia." 16 I guess they didn't have any unex-l 17 pected changes, 'cause I guess they expected that l 18 when the SF -- this is Point Beach speaking -- I 19 conclusions: 20 "With gamma irradiation, the bora-21 flex polymers appear to change in a manner that 22 allows SFP water to permeate the boraflex along 23 the edges. When the SFP water does penetrate the 24 h boraflex, the material changes character, changes 25 in material of good integrity and retention to
S a 95 l I one that is friable and yields a particular like W 2 powder. 3 Once it has reached the gray state, 4 thining, weight loss and general degradation 5 appear to follow." 6 And another conclusion: "In either 7 case, when SFP water permeation occurs, the bora-8 flex material changes from a material of good 9 integrity, to one that is easily degraded." 10 So, I guess they just expected it 11 to degrade easily. So, we can call that unexpec-12 ted.
- 13 14 JUDGE COTTER: I take it essential-1 ly you're addressing really both Contentions 11 4 1
and 12. l 16 MR. RICH: Twelve being? l 17 JUDGE COTTER: That's the ft ling 18 of boraflex to the pool floor. 19 MR. RICH: Twelve is based on a 20 document that I read incorrectly, and that I 21 don't -- I can provide no evidence for the appea-22 rance of boraflex on the floor of the pool 23 It's not mentioned in either the
- ry 24
( ) Quad Cities or the Point Beach, so. 26 JUDGE COTTER: Does that mean
I 96 1 r- you're withdrawing -- L 2 MR. RICH: I withdraw that. 3 , JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank l 4 l you. l I 5 MR. RICH: Now, FP&L, in order to l l 6 l accomodate the supposed formation of gaps, which 7 we realize increases the reactivity clearly. 8 They say that it's mainly due -- okay. 9 "Gaps were noted in the boraflex 10 panels and a review of the size and number of 11 gaps was performed. This review indicated that 12 the gaps were attributed to a rack design and I 13 fabrication process which did not allow the bora-14 flex to shrink without cracking." 15 Yes, they agree that that is one of 16 the causes. It can also be caused by radiation. 17 Again, Quad Cities: "When a poly-18 mer such as boraflex is subject to irradiation 19 fields, changes in the atomic molecular structure 20 occur. Radiation results in the breaking of 21 atomic bonds and subsequent cross-linking between 22 atoms and the adjacent polymers -- " 23 MR. BAUSER: Excuse me. Mr. Chair-man, if Mr. Rich is reading from a document, I l 25 l would like to have that identified. l l
... _ _ _ . _ _ ._ .~ __ . _ _ . _ _ . _ .
I o- ! 95 l 1 one that is friable and yields a particular like I, m.) L_s' 2 powder. l 4 3 Once it has reached the gray state, thining, weight loss and general degradation i 5 appear to follow." 6 And another conclusion: "In either 7 case, when SFP water permeation occurs, the bora-flex material changes from a material of good-9 integrity, to one that is easily' degraded." 10 So, I guess they just expected it 11 to degrade easily. So, we can call that unexpec-12 ted. W 13 JUDGE' COTTER: I take it essential-14 ly you're addressing really both Contentions 11 15 and 12. 16 : MR. RICH: Twelve being? , 17 JUDGE COTTER: That's the falling ! l 18 I of boraflex to the pool floor. j 19 MR. RICH: Twelve is based on a 20 document that I read incorrectly, and that I 21 -l don't -- I can provide no evidence for the appea- l 22 I rance of boraflex on the floor of the pool 23 l It's not mentioned in either the l () 25 Quad Cities or the Point Beach, so. JUDGE COTTER: Does that mean i l l l l 1
{~ l 96 1 r- you're withdrawing -- L J 2 MR. RICH: I withdraw that. 3 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Thank 4 you. 5 MR. RICH: Now, FP&L, in order to 6 accomodate the supposed formation of gaps, which 7 we realize increases the reactivity clearly. 8 They say that it's mainly due -- okay. 9 "Gaps were noted in the boraflex 10 panels and a review of the size and number of 11 gaps was performed. This review indicated that 12 the gaps were attributed to a rack design and d 13 fabrication process which did not allow the bora-14 flex to shrink without cracking." 15 Yes, they agree that that is one of 16 the causes. It can also be caused by radiation. 17
- 7. gain, Quad Cities: "When a poly-18 mer such as boraflex is subject to irradiation 19 fields, changes in the atomic molecular structure 20 occur. Radiation results in the breaking of 21 atomic bonds and subsequent cross-linking between 22 atoms and the adjacent polymers -- " l 23 MR. BAUSER: Excuse me. Mr. Chair-l 25 min, if Mr. Rich is reading from a document, I would like to have that identified.
f 97 I MR. RICH: This is the Quad Cities, 2 Point Beach -- 3 JUDGE COTTER: Does it have a date? 4 MR. RICH: -- NRC document. June 5 15th of '87.
Subject:
"Board Notification re-6 garding Anomalies in Boraflex Neutron Absorbing 7
Material. BN-87-ll." 8 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you. 9 MR. BAUSER: The Board notifica-10 tion, what case was that? 11 MR. RICH: Dockets number 50-250, 12 OLA-2 and 50-251, OLA-2. Do you know, Mitzie, l 13 MR. BAUSER: 14 do both documents fall under this title page. 15 MS. YOUNG: I think it's Turkey 16 Point. This Board notification that was made in i 17 Turkey Point and appended to that notification is I 18 the Quad Cities report. i 1 19 MR. RICH: No, there are two re-l 20 ports -- 21 MS. YOUNG: And the Point Beach 22 report. 23 MR. RICH: They come under this one 24 title page. 25 MS. YOUNG: But, you were reading
98 3 1 from the Quad Cities report. 2 MR. RICH: Well, I read from the 3 Point Beach and the Quad -- that's what I'm ask-4 ing. Do they both come under the same -- 5 MS. YOUNG: They're attachments to 6 the -- 7 MR. RICH: Okay, 8 MS. YOUNG: Yes, you're fine. 9 MR. RICH: Again, FP&L claims the 10 construction, how the boraflex is assembled into 11 the racks is the primary cause. Clearly, that is 12 incorrect according to the Point Beach, Quad 13 Cities rather -- 14 okay, radiation. It can be caused 15 by radiation. It can be caused by temperature. 16 Equation 7.5 also indicates that 17 the elastic modulus is a function of temperature. l 18 There they are talking about the ability of the 19 material to withstand. 20 or it can be -- the gaps can be 21 caused by cool chemistry. At some point the pool 22 chemistry may be an important factor in influenc- ) 23 ing the rate of degradation with irradiation and 24 exposure to the aqueous pool environment. 25 Schizogening might cause specific i
99 1 atoms to be released from the polymer matrix 2 resulting in highly localized voys pits (phonet-3 ic) microcracking. This in turn would introduce 4 porosity, allowing the material to absorb water." 5 Well, it seems I'm getting eviden-6 tiary here. Let me just summarize what they're 7 saying. 8 Owing to the lack of specific data 9 for boraflex at low dose, as well as lack of 10 knowledge of the condition of the silicone adhe-11 sive, the discussion presented is only qualita-12 tive. 13 It does, however, suggest a mechan-14 ism by which local stresses could exceed the 15 yield stress of boraflex leading to the inception 16 of tears. 17 It also provides one potential 18 explanation of the observed actual distribution l j 19 of gaps observed in the special task conducted by 20 the National Nuclear Corp. 21 "The long term stability of the 1 22 dimetholpolycilioxare (phonetic) matrix which 23 contains the B4C powder in boraflex cannot be 24 projected at this time. 25 The qualification program conducted
F~ E 100 by Visco (p ho ne t ic) examined radiation effects on 1 h long term exposure to an acqueous environment 3 separately. 4 The combined effects after cross-5 linking saturates and schizogening predominates 6 may likely depend on such factors as pool water 7 chemistry, water temperature and local flow con-8 ditions around the boraflex panel." 9 Clearly, to state that simply, by 10 changing the construction process of the boraflex 11 panels is going to solve the problem, is not 12 taking into consideration the evidence as provid-gh 13 ed in these studies. 14 Also, the Quad Cities determined 15 that in a statement in the K-effective guide-16 lines, and yet their fuel is only -- what is -- 17 their fuel is -- 1 18 I'm going to have to find this; if l 19 I could take a minute. I l 20 "The fuel regions contains 3.2 21 weight percent U235." 22 And clearly, so that their calcula-23 tions which FP&L relies on to assure that the K-24 effective standard will be met, it's not applic-25 able, because in FP&L we're dealing with 4.5
h I i ' 101 1 1 percent U235. 2 So, certainly those K-effective 3 calculations would seem to be inadequate. 4 I'm a little confused, I must ad-5 mit, by the last paragraph in this response. 6 Their contention is that the boraflex develops 7 gaps because of stresses created by the assembly 8 process. In other words, it's holding it in 9 place, it allows it to shrink. 10 So, they say that they're --
"The 11 boraflex sheets in FP&L's case will not be glued 12 or clamped in place but instead are supported by l k 13 the stainless steel cell walls, stainless steel 14 cover sheets -- "
15 MR. BAUSER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair-16 man, could I have a reference to the page from 17 which -- l 18 MR. RICH: I'm continuing to read I 1 19 from the response, which was the attachment to l l 20 the letter of October 20th. 1 21 I'm on page -- this doesn't have a i 1 22 page. I'm sorry. 23 JUDGE COTTER: How many pages after 24 the attachment cover sheet. 25 MR. RICH: I don't have the cover l l l
(= > j 102 1 sheet. It's 0093L/0017L. 2 JUDGE COTTER: They all have that 3 at the bottom. 4 MR. RICH: It's "Response contin-I 5 ued, Question No. 1." The one with the footnote. 6 MR. BAUSER: I think I have it. ) 7 MR. RICH: Footnote two. 8 MR. BAUSER: Yes. 9 MR. RICH: All right. "This ar-10 rangement allowc the boraflex sheets to contract 11 freely." So, it is their feeling they are going 12 to be able to avoid these stresses, gh 13 But, then at the bottom they say: 14 "The boraflex is similarly allowed to contract 15 without restraint, unless and until the potential 16 boraflex shrinkage is sufficient to result in l 17 contact between the boraflex cut-outs and the l 18 cell wall to cover sheet spot welds. 1 19 Should she spot velds act as a 20 restraint on the boraflex, it would effectively 21 pin the boraflex in place, preventing formation 22 of any large gaps due to further shrinkage of 23 boraflex." 24 On the one hand they seem to say 25 that they need to eliminate any restraint on the l
1 D 10h 1 boraflex in order to eliminate the cause of the 2 gaps, and yet here they are saying that by provi-3 ding restraint on the boraflex they are going to 4 prevent the formation of any large gaps. 5 Maybe I'm not seeing it and it's 6 something there, but that was just very confusing 7 to me. 8 I tnink why the boraflex is so 9 important is summed up in one paragraph. This 10 is, again, in the Quad Cities report. I'm on 11 10.6: 12 "The rate of boraflex shrinkage is ll h 13 likely to be greatest at low doses when there are 14 many sites available for cross-linking. As 15 cross-linking saturates, the rate is likely to ' 16 diminish. Accordingly, the boraflex in the Quad 17 Cities racks may have experienced the greatest , 1 18 rate of gap growth during the first two refueling l l 19 outages and rate of growth with increasing dose 20 may diminish during subsequent outages. l 21 In order to prove this hypothesis l 22 data in the exposure range of 10-8 to 10-10 rad 23 is needed." 24 In other words, the greatest poten-(/] 25 tial for gap formation, which would promote ex-
(~ 8 : 10 4 i cessive criticality, may occur with the initial 2 higher density refueling. 3 And these are just a few of the 4 quotes. I don't want to go on and on. 5 But, in light of all that uncer-6 tainty, in the light of the possibility that that 7 gap formation may occur in the initial refueling, 8 I would say it's essential that the Board make 9 every effort to insure that the betaflex is bet-10 ter understood and the causes of the gaps are 11 bctter understood. 12 If those quotes don't indicate an j h 13 unproven technology, I don't know what does. And 14 as far as new, I'm not aware of any other facil-15 ity that has used the assembly methods that FP&L 16 is proposing tc use for the boraflex panel that 17 has had them in place for any length of time. 18 So, that would indicate to me that 19 this is new. 20 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser? 21 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, I would 22 simply refer the Board to our written response. 23 Essentially, we have addressed the 24 issue of boraflex perfornance in a letter dated 25 October 20, 1987, which is in the docket of this
105 1 proceeding and an additional letter dated Decem-2 ber 23rd, 1987. 3 We have demonstrated that with a respect to the experience at other plants which 5 have resulted in gaps, FPL has employed an im-6 proved design which will preclude the formation 7 of gaps. 8 We will, as described in our sub-9 mittals, monitor the performance of boraflex 10 material, using sample coupons, which will be 11 withdrawn periodically. This is also described 12 in our submittals. gh 13 And, in addition, if any degrada-14 tion is observed, we have d e s c r i b e <' in our sub-15 mittals the remedial actir13 which can be taken to 16 address that degradation. 17 As a result, we believe that the 18 Petitioner's failure to specifically identify 19 deficiencies in our response to quastions raised 20 in connection with boraflex performance render 21 this Contention unacceptable. 22 In addition, we have heard consid-23 erable reading today from reports having to do 24 with Quad Cities and Point Beach. And to the 25 extent that in the process Mr. Rich has amended
f l 106 1 the bases for his Contention, we would object to 2 that here today. 3 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young. 4 MS. YOUNG: The staff would not 5 oppose admission of this Contention. And in 6 light of Mr. Rich's remarks today, would maintain 1 7 that position. It does not oppose the Conten-8 tion. , 9 MR. RICH: I would like to add 10 Judge Cotter that a -- 11 JUDGE COTTER: Why don't you quit 12 while you're ahead. ! gh 13 MR. RICH: Well, just a comprehen-14 sive surveillance program does not warranty the 15 long term integrity of the material itself. I 16 That's quite a different matter. i I 17 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Conten-l 18 tion 13. That Contention provides: "That Licen-19 see has not analyzad the affect a hurricane or 20 tornado could have on the spent fuel storage 21 facility or its contents. 22 And that the SER, safety evaluation 23 report, neglects certain accidents that could be 24 caused by such natural disasters." 25 MR. RICH: Clearly, they have con-
9 E 107 i sidered a tornado and hurricane, other natural 9 2 disasters. 3 -I would be concerned about the 4 consequences of'a fully fueled Grumman jet slam-5 ming into the spent fuel pool building,. which is. 6 not an'unlikely event at all considering 'the 7 proximity -- 8 JUDGE COTTER: Do you consider that 9 a natural disaster? t 1C MR. RICH:- No. 11 JUDGE COTTER: There is no mention 12 of anything like that in here to date. Are you
,) 13 saying that you are amending the Contention?
{?% 14 MR. RICH: Yes. 15 JUDGE COTTER: Are you abandoning 16 the natural disasters? 17 MR. RICH: No. 18 JUDGE COTTER: Why don't you start 19 with the natural disaster and then go to the 20 jets. 21 MR. RICH: Well, I'll let the Con-22 tention speak for itself in that case, and simply 23 add the jet. 24 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser? 25 MR.-BAUSER: .I would simply refer
103 1 the Board to discussion in our written response 2 to Contention 13 and I would also object to the 3 addition of a Contention at this point absent the a required showings. 5 ;;.! JUDGE COTTER: What kind of show-6 ings did you have in mind? 7 MR. BAUSER: Those that are perti-8 nent to late filed Contention -- 9 JUDGE COTTER: To late filed Con-10 tentions? 11 MR. BAUSER: Yes, sir. 12 And let me just mention for the gh 13 benefit of the public here that what I'm refer-14 ring to in terms of our written response is the 15 discussion therein which describes the considera-16 tion which was given to hurricanes, tornados and 17 other natural events such as seismic events, 18 during the licensing of St. Lucie facilities. 19 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young? 20 MS. YOUNG: I am surprised by the 21 reference to the jet. But, I would just reiter-22 ate the conclusion in our pleading that the ef-23 fect of natural disasters was analyzed at the 24 operating license stage. 25 To the extent that Mr. Rich is con-
F~ ' f 109 cerned about-potential impacts from~over-flying s 2 aircraft -- 3 MR. RICH: Fully loaded. 4 MS.. YOUNG: Fully loaded,_right. 5 MR. RICH: Fully fueled. 6- MS. YOUNG: I l a rc not sure that
- 7 there is a bases within the scope'of this pro-g ceeding for assuming- that potential'for that 9 event is related at'all to the expanded storage 10 authorized by this Amendment.
11 So, to that extent, that concern I 12 should be rejected for lack of nexus to this 4 h 13 proceeding.
- 14 JUDGE COTTER
- Contention 14 pro-15 vides: "That FP&L.has not proparly considered or ;
je evaluated the radiological consequences'to_the l 17 environment and surrounding human population in I 18 an accident at the spent fuel pool." i l 19 MR. RICH: I would point out the 1 20 inadequacies of the site analysis at the time of l i 21 licensing. They certainly did not consider or R l 22 project the present population density. l I 23 That would obviously create a more i 24 severe impact from any accident. I 25 JUDGE COTTER: Do you-know roughly l i l
E 110 1 what the difference in the population was from 2 the -- 3 MR. R I C li : I do not have those 4 specific figures. I can make them available to 5 you in a fairly short period of time though. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Well, can you tell 7 me something about order of magnitude between 8 1976 and today? 9 MR. RICH: No. 10 The staff did not consider the 11 effects of a severe accident in the spent fuel 12 pool as described in the BNL Report, but we have gh 13 challenged and continue to challenge that assump-14 tion as not conservative. 15 As far as an accident initiated I 16 event which would cause such an accident to oc- l 17 cur, again we refer to the BNL Report in which is they describe an accident initiating event that 19' could cause such an accident, being the "struc-20 tural failure of a pool due to a heavy load drop; 21 pool heatup due to loss of cooling water circu-22 lation capability." 23 Both these events being within the 24 realm of possibility. 25 JUDGE COTTER: How might they
[~ l i 111 1 occur? 2 MR. RICH: How might a heavy load 3 drop occur? 4 JUDGE COTTER: Uh-huh (affirma-5 tive). 6 MR. RICH: A fuel assembly may be 7 dropped being loaded; casks may be dropped in a removing some of the fuel for some reason. 9 As I understand it, they're going 10 to have to -- well, this goes to the next Conten-ij tion -- but they'll be moving the fuel, isolating 12 the most recently discharged fuel in Region 1, I gh 13 believe, and then they move it into Region 2 when 14 it's cooled down thermally and radioactively. 15 So that there will be a -- spent 16 fuel pool assembly will be moved over. So there 17 will be a pool heatup through the loss of cool-18 ing water circulation capability, and I think we 19 addressed that in a previous Contention. 20 JUDGE COTTER: Anything further, 21 Mr. Rich? 22 MR. RICH: No. 23 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser? 24 MR. BAUSER: T would refer the 25 Board to our written response to this Contention.
) 112 1 With respect to population, it's 2 not clear to me what the nature of Mr. Rich's 3 Contention is, to the extent that it raises an a objection to the siting of the facility at its 5 present location. It's beyond the scope of this 6 proceeding and it's not related to the expansion 7 of spent fuel storage pool. 8 But, this matter of population and 9 population projections was considered in great 10 detail during the licensing the St. Lucie facili-11 ty. 12 As a result of that consideration, h 13 there was a spectrum of possible population 14 growth identified and that was addressed in the 15 decision allowing for the licensing of St. 16 Lucles, Unit II. 17 In addition, with respect to the 18 drops of heavy loads lato the pool, these have 19 all been considered, including the drop of a 20 spent fuel assembly into the pool. 1 21 And the result of the analysis 22 which have been performed have indicated that all l l 23 regulatory safety requirements have been met and c w 24 in fact the radiological results of drops of
/ l 25 spent fuel a ssembl ies , spent fuel storage racks ,
1
F~ j 113 1 and spent fuel casks are all significantly less 2 than allowable regulatory limits. { 3 JU9GE C0TTER: Miss Young? 4 MS. YOUNG: The staff had objected 1 5 to this Contention because it did not put forth, 6 or was not supported by an adequately specific 7 bases for consideration of beyond design bases 8 design accidents. 9 And Mr. Rich's comments today do 10 not further enlighten the staff on that point. ii I might also add that Mr. Rich has ; 12 expressed a concern about heavy loads which would j k 13 include fuel assemblies. 14 At least as indicated on page nine 15 of the staff's safety evaluation supporting the 16 issuance of this Amendment, fuel assembly is not 17 considered a heavy load. It's more appropriate-- 18 MR. RICH: Casks. 19 MS. YOUNG' . -- to address that term 20 to casks and storale racks. 21 JUDGE COTTER: Anything further? l 22 MS. YOUNG: No, that's all. 23 MR. RICH: I believe I mentioned l 24 the possibility that casks would be transported 25 over the pool. l l l
) 5 114 1 JUDGE COTTER: You did. 2 All right. Contention 15 states: 3 "That the increase of the spent fuel pool capac-4 ity which includes fuel rods which have experi-5 enced fuel failure in fuel rods that are more 6 highly enriched, to oppose the requirements of 7 ANSI N16 1975 not to be met and will increase the 8 Probability that a criticality accident will 9 occur in a spent fuel pool and will exceed 10 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix -- or is that A62 cri-li teria." 12 Mr. Rich? gh 13 MR. RICH: I would simply amend 14 that Contention to exclude: "....which have 15 experienced fuel failure...." 16 JUDGE COTTER: You are deleting 17 that from the Contention? l
'A MR. RICH: Yes. And I btlieve the 19 Contention speaks for itself.
20 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser? l 21 MR. BAUSER: I would simply refer 22 to our written response to this Contention and I 23 would object also to amending the Contention here 24 without following the necessary procedures perti-25 nent to late filing of contentions.
m . i 115 1 JUDGE COLE: Well, it's not really 2 an Amendment. He's just deleting a section. It 3 makes it less of a Contention. 4 MR. BAUSER: The problem that I'm 5 having is, again, without reference to the anal-6 ysis that we have performed, which is cited in 7 the response we have filed, it is difficult for 8 me to tell exactly what he is doing by deleting 9 various aspects or adding to them with resnect to 10 his Contention. 11 MR. RICH: I think the point is 12 that there will not be rods that have e :c p e r i e n c e d 13 failing the pool, as I understand it. Or. I 14 don't know that to be a fact. 15 .9 u t , certainly we know that he 16 fuel rods that tre more highly enriched wi;l be 17 present, in fact will dominate i r. the pool 18 MR. BAUSER: Well, then I wculd 19 simply again refer to our referenced analysis 20 which considers reactivity as a result of .he 21 storage of 4.5 percent enriched fuel in the spent 22 fuel storage pool. 23 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Miss 24 Young? 25 MS. YOUNG: Without addressing the
h x 116 1 merits of the Contention as proposed, tr e staff 2 did not object to its admission so long as it was 3 modified along the lines that Mr. Rich has done 4 today. 5 JUDGE COTTER: All right. Conten-6 tion 16 provides: "That EP&L has not responded 7 to the concerns as presented by the NRC by out-8 lining a loading schedule for the spent fuel pool 9 detailing how the most recently discharged spent to fuel will be isolated from other recently dis-11 charged fuel, and/or a full core discharge in 12 order to mitigate potential risks from fires in gh 13 the spent fuel pools resulting n releases of 14 radioactivity into the environment in excess of 15 10 CFR 100 criteria." 16 Mr. Rich? 17 MR. RICH: My vague reference to 18 NRC concerns was those concerns as expressed by 19 the BNL Report. I may have mistakenly attributed 20 them to the NRC, as it was the NRC that published 21 the document. 22 I'm not sure of how the responsi-23 bility works in that area. But, that was what I 24 was talking about. 25 They have, as I have read, detailed
{~ 3 117 i a loading schedule; however, I feel it does not 2 fully respond to the concerns as presented by the 3 BNL Report. 4 I don't believe that recently dis-5 charged fuel will be isolated by a foot or more 6 fr m the rest of the fuel; nor do I believe that 7
-- B&L recommended that such isolation last for 8
as long as two years and I don't believe that 9 FP&L plans to isolate the most recently dis-10 charged fuel in that manner for that period of p time. 12 So, I would say although they have h 13 made a cursory attempt to respond to the concerns ja as presented in this Contention, that it does not 15 address the concerns as presented in the BNL 16 Report and that it is therefore inadequate. 17 Okay. 18 JUDGE COTTER: Mr. Bauser? l 19 MR. BAUSER: I would refer to our i l 20 written response with respect to the Contention l 21 16. 22 That response discusses the natore 23 of the BNL scenario. It indicates that the BNL 24 scenario involves a complete and rapid loss of 25 water in the pool.
113 1 The Petitioner has not provided any 1 l 2 credible mechanism that has not been fully ana-3 lyzed for that result to occur. 4 And, consequently, the Contention 5 is wholey without bases. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young? 7 MS. YOUNG: The staff had opposed 8 admission of this Contention because it failed to 9 state an adequately specific bases to support the 10 proposed that a beyond design bases accident 11 could occur in the spent fuel pool. 12 MR. RICH: Well, we're back to the gh 13 BNL Report. And again they address the probabil-14 ity or they don't address the probability. 15 But, they indicate that an acci-16 dent, due to pool heatup, due to loss of cooling 17 water circulation capability or a structure fail-18 ure of pool due a heavy load drop can initiate an 19 event, as they later describe, and permanently 20 contaminating 224 square miles. 21 JUDGE COTTER: The problem here, 22 Mr. Rich, is that the BNL Report is sort of a 23 generic analysis.
# 24 25 Unless you can specify a specific mechanism or initiating event at St.
Lucie which t 1 l \
119 i would cause or gi7e reason for us to think that 2 there is reason to look further into the possib-3 ility of a beyond-design-bases accident occuring, a unless you give us that nexus, then there is ( 5 little grounds for us to do that. 6 MR. RICH: I understand -- our 7 concern, of concern is based on the fact TMI was 8 a beyond-design-bases accident; you know, such 9 accidents can occur. And, therefore, in our eyes 10 this Contention must be considered. 11 You are asking me to predict speci-12 fically, detailing a' specific mechanism how an gh 13 accident can occur, how it will progress and the 14 reaction of the pool to that accident. That's 15 very complicated. l 16 JUDGE COTTER: It is. And the 17 problem that we're dealing with here is that 18 we're dealing with litigation. I 19 MR. RICH: That's right. 20 JUDGE COTTER: And you can't ask us 21 to go off on a speculative tack in dealing with ) 22 these i s s u e r,. 23 MR. RICH: Well, I would urge the f~'s 24 Board to err on the side of caution here. That [ ,I l
~
25 you're asking me to speculate as to the cause -- l l
T 5
}
12D 1 JUDGE COTTER: No, I'm asking you 2 to give us a -- 3 MR. RICH: No, you're -- go ahead. 4 JUDGE COTTER: - reason why such 5 an accident, a beyond-design-bases accident might 6 occur at St. Lucie. 7 MR. RICH: And I say a low drop in 8 the pool could cause structural failure of the 9 pool. And, I would add, the uncertainly evi-10 denced by BNL again for heavy load drops. 11 Human error probabilities, structu-12 ral damage potentials and recovery actions are j h 13 the primary sources of uncertainty. 14 MR. BAUSER: Mr. Chairman, I would 15 like to address this in some specifics. 16 There are uncertainties, certainly. 17 One of the uncertainties depends upon the config- I l 18 uration of spent fuel pool in question, a fact 19 that is specifically noted in the BNL Report. 20 One of the mechanisms hypothesized 21 for draining of the pool is the failure of an 22 inflatable seal. St. Lucie I does not have an 23 inflatable seal, the failure of which will cause
,f"x,' 24 a loss of water from the pool.
x - 25 These are the types of --
I" } 12: 1 JUDGE COTTER: You are not going to 2 try and prove the negative on me, Mr. Bauser. 3 MR. BAUSER: I am simply trying to 4 illustrate the nature of uncertainties here. 5 The nature of uncertainties does 6 not mean the worst can happen. Uncertainties 7 will also encompass the spectrum to include acci-8 dents that cannot happen b cause of the physical 9 configuration of the pool. 10 MR. RICH: We are dealing with the 11 potential to permanently contaminate this area. 12 Those are not -- that is not my conclusion, g 13 that's the conclusion of the Brookhaven National 14 Laboratory in a report that you sponsored, I 15 would imagine, or that you certainly -- 16 JUDGE COTTER: It's a research that 17 the NRC staff requested. 18 MR. RICH: Right. 19 JUDGE COTTER: But, I do not recall 20 anything in that report which mentions St. Lucie. 21 MR. RICH: As you say, it's a ge-22 neric study of spent fuel pools. We have a spent 23 fuel pool here that may have indicated that acci-24 dent initiating events -- I don't believe I men-
~}
25 tioned the pneumatic seal failure one in this
122 1 hearing at any time. I 2 It is not beyond the realm of pos-l 3 sibility that the pool will heatup due to loss 4 of cooling water circulation capabilities. 5 In fact, we've asked to address 6 those issues. 7 And it is not unlikely that struc-8 tural failure of the pool through a heavy load 9 drop will occur. 10 We have asked to address that spec-11 ifically. 12 JUDGE COTTER: Yes, but you just g 13 mentioned two different standards. 14 You said "not beyond the realm of 15 possibility." That's not what we're here to look 16 at, the beyond the realm of possibility. 17 Then you said "not unlikely." 18 That's a much stiffer standard or a tighter stan-19 dard. 20 MR. RICH: Then I would adhere to l 21 the stiffer standard; it's not unlikely at all 22 l that a heavy loaa drop can occur at that pool - j i 23 compounded with human error probabilities and f 24 recovery actions that may aggravate the situa-gp 25 tion.
I 12% 1 It just seems odd to me that we're 2 trying to limit the scope of accident probabil-3 ity, when the results are so catastrophic. 4 The effort should be made to under-5 stand the effects of any likely accident. 6 JUDGE COTTER: Well, that is done. 7 I mean, for example, you have one of those pro-8 ducts right there in your hand in the BNL Report. 9 That is an effort to understand 10 what the potential problems are. 11 MR. RICH: Right. 12 I think we're going back to Conten-l 13 tions that I have introduced earlier, in that wo 14 are willing to devise scenarios that will show 15 how a pool heatup due to loss of cooling water 16 circulation capability can occur. 17 And we are willing to devise a 18 scenario to show you how a structural failure of 19 the pool due to a heavy load can occur, in light l 20 of the increased vergility of the pool. I 21 So, some of the former Contentions, 22 in my mind, lead up to justifying Contention 16. l 23 JUDGE COTTER: All right. I think )
,f'} 24 we understand your position.
l 25 That completes the Contentions.
124 1 Let's go off the record here for a 2 moment. 3 (Off record) 4 JUDGE COTTER: Back on the record. 5 We have completed oral argument on 6 the 16 Contentions offered by the Intervenor, 7 Campbell Rich. And we have had a somewhat far-8 ranging discussion off the record relating in 9 part to the Board's desire to tour the facility 10 while we are here so that we can have that exper-11 lence with us in ruling on these Contentions. 12 That tour will take place 2 o' clock l 13 this afternoon. Mr. Rich has indicated that he 14 will accompany us. 15 We consequently are not able to 16 receive oral limited appearance statements at 17 this time. We will receive written limited ap-18 pearance statements now and continuing through 19 the course of the proceeding, whenever people 20 want to make their views known to the Board. 21 I should point out, with respect to 22 limited appearance statements, that they are not 23 evidence in the proceeding. 24 They are expressions of the con-25 cerns and thoughts of those living in the commun-
125 1 ity, and they have historically in rare occa-2 sions, but on certain occasions led Boards to 3 initiate inquiry further into particular areas of 4 proceeding -- the subject matter of the proceed-5 ing. 6 We have also had some discussion 7 briefly off the record on the possible automation g of this proceeding if it goes forward, which will 9 be pursued with the parties later. 10 Is there anything anyone wants to ji add at this point? 12 Mr. Rich? 13 MR. RICH: May I make a closing ja statement? 15 JUDGE COTTER: I don't think we 16 need closing statements. I think everybody's 17 position has been pretty well aired. 18 Mr. Bauser? 19 MR. BAUSER: Just one or two house-20 keeping matters, Mr. Chairman. 21 Earlier this morning I c o mn. i t t e d to 22 provide to the Board and parties with copies of a 23 letter dated December 22nd, 1987. And I have !,/^xl 24 those here and I will distribute them.
~~
25 In addition, Mr. Rich referred to a l
I 126 1 number of potential load drop accidents which are 2 referenced on page ten of the NRC staff's safety 3 evaluation in this proceeding. 4 Those potential load drop accidents 5 are discussed in the letter which I will be dis-6 tributing. 7 One final matter. I would like to 8 suggest that, should the Board find any Conten-g tions suitable for litigation, the Board might f 10 impose or offer an opportunity for the parties to 11 submit a proposed schedule. 12 My thoughts here are really two. gh 13 One, to the extent that an agreed 14 upon schedule can be developed among the three 15 parties, that might be helpful to the Board in 16 giving them the benefit of the conveniences of 17 the parties. 18 And, secondly, setting a ochedule 19 will allow the parties maximum advance notice of 1 1 20 what they'll be looking forward to over the re- ; 1 21 mainder of, for example, this year. j l 22 JUDGE COTTER: I appreciate the l 23 suggestion, and I would expect after we've made a decision if a Contention is admitted, that we
# 24 25 will probably hold a conference call to get the 1
l l l
127 i parties view on that and then we ultimately will 2 issue an order. 3 MR. BAUSER: Thank you. 4 JUDGE COTTER: Miss Young? 5 MS. YOUNG: Just one small matter. 6 To reiterate a statement or a commitment the 7 Staff made earlier today, it will provide a dis-8 cussion of its analysis of the boiling of the 9 spent fuel pool water, which is indicated in the 10 second full paragraph on page 13 of the staff's n safety evaluation. 12 And we will provide that discussion gh 13 to both Licensee and the Petitioner, Mr. Rich. 14 Unless the Board wants a copy too. 15 JUDGE COTTER: No, that will be 16 fine as you described it. 17 MS. YOUNG: Okay. 18 JUDGE COTTER: All right. I want 19 to thank all of you for a careful and tho ug ht f ul 20 presentation. It has made this an efficient pro-21 ceeding. 22 And I would hope to issue a deci-23 sion -- the Board will issue its decision approx-24 imately two weeks from the close of today's hear-25 ing.
.----------yo-l There being nothing more to con-i sider, we will adjourn. Thank you.
2 (Whereupon the proceedings were 3 concluded at 12:35 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l 16 17 l i 18 19 l 20 l 21 i l 22 l 23 24 25
) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE-0 2 DOCKET NUMBER: 50-335-OLA, ASLBP No. 88-560-01-LA 3 ' CASE TITLE: In the M'atter of: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 4 COMPANY, St.-Lucie Plant No. I.
5 HEARING DATE: March 29, 1988 6 LOCATION: Jensen Beach', Florida 7 8 I hereby certify that the~ proceedings;and 9 evidence herein are contained fully and accurately on 10 the tapes and notes repo'rted by me at the hearing in 11 the above case before the NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMIS-12 SION, B. PAUL COTTER, GLEN O. BRIGHT, DR. RICHARD F. 13 COLE, and that this is a true and correct transcript 14 of the same. 15 16 Date: March 30, 1988 17 18 YMNN ' M JgFREY [.ROESER-Notary public State of Florida at 19 Large. 20 Ettory Public $fof e ei flori/s ' 21 h C-inion tipires Dec 16,1991 m . m uar r u . w m. g , O 23 0 24 25 Heritoge Reporting Corporation (300) M4000}}