ML20154Q026

Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 6.*

ML20154Q026
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/23/1988
From:	Rich C RICH, C.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20154Q010	List: ML20154Q008 ML20154Q013 ML20154Q026 ML20154Q030
References
88-560-01-LA, 88-560-1-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8810030272
Download: ML20154Q026 (12)

Text

I e i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORit COMMISSION 4

BEF0FI THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00LKETED UiFC In the Matter of: )

) Docket No. 50-335 OLA '88 SEP 28 P4 :41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )

) ASLBP No. 88-560-01-LA, (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) ) L ,C -

INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENOR'S CONTENTION 6 I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Under both the Commission's and Federal Court Rules of Practim ,

"the burden of proof lies upon the movant foi summary disposition, who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact." Ad!. ekes v.,

Kress and Co., 398, U.S. 144, 157, Perry ALAB-443, supra, 6 NRC at 753.

Again under both NRC and Federal Rules, "the record is to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motior.." Dairyland Power Coopercttve, 15 NRC 512, 519(1982) citing: Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473(1962); Crest Auto Supplies Inc. v. Ero Manufucturing C& , 360 F. 2d, 896, 899 (7th Cir. 1966); United Mineworkers of America, Dist. 22 v. Ronoco, 314 F. 2d 186, 188 (10th Cir. 1963);

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Co-operative Inc.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1481); Feabrook, LBP-74-36, supra, 6 NRC, supra, 7 AEC at 8'73.

"Because the proponent of a motio. for summcry disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, it does not necesscrily follow that a motion supported by affidavits w!,11 automt' .cally preva4.1 over an opposition not supported by affidavits.

The Board must scrutini e the motion to determine whether the novant's 8010070272 000923 PDR ADOCK 0500033b.

O PUR

I .O burder has been met." Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Shearson Harris Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)

LBP-84-7, ASLBP No. 82-468-01-OL, 39 NRC 432 (1984).

Finally, for a contention to remain litigable, the Intervenors must present to the Board a sufficient f actual basis, "to require reasonable minds to inquire further." Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc., (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2)

ALAB 613, 12 NRC 317, 340 (1980).

II. INTERVENOR'S CONTENTION 6 l The purpose of this response is to address Intervenor's Contention l 6 which statos:

i Contention 6: Tne proposed use of high-density racks designed and fabricated by the Joseph Oats Corperation is utilization of an essentially new and unproven technology.

1. The Quad Cities' study identified mechanical restraint as one possible contributing cause of gap formation in Boraflex panels. However, there is no certainty to this conclusion as they are not sure that the adhet tve can even stand up to low level, radiation exposure. "From the outset it should be noted that the mechanisms for gap formation and gap growth described are preliminary as the extent of data currently available is limited.

As such, any conclusions drawn from this material are preliminary and may change is more data relati"o to Boraflex behavior under irradiation is documented.

w- experiments will probably be required to determine the causes for all ef fer ts noted." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-1).

2. In a testing program utilizing 2" x 2" Boraflex samples encapsulated in an essentially stress free manner the Point Beach study concluded,

-2

c. j "However, their(the Boraflex samples) physical integrity showed deterioration at doses of 1 x 10 10 rads gamma and greater." (Point Beach, pg. 1)

It should also be noted that the temperatures in the point Beach spent fuel pool were 70'-90' F. This is significaatly less than the te::.peratures predicted for the spent fuel pool at St. Lucie Unit No. I. The Quad Cities s'udy has indicated that water temperature may play a significant roic in degradation of Boraflex.

4. Experimental irradiat.lon programs conducted on Boraflex subsequent to the discovery of gaps at Quad Cites have shown that upon irradiation Boraflex undergoes shrinkage and hardens. As has been discusssed many times before, one, potential explanation for a contributing cause of gap formation may be mechanical restraint of the Boraflex panels. Many other factors are suspected as causing gap formation also.

5. The Quad Cities study clearly indicated that although there is no loss in Boron-10 content in the panels, "The shrinkage of Boraflex and subsequent formation of gaps in the Boraflex absorber panels resulte in a ,

redistribution of the neutron poison material in the spent fuel storage racks.

In the gap region, the absence of neutron absorber in one or more panels results in a n.t local increase in reactivity as well as an increase in the reactivity of the entire storage cell." (Quad Cities, pg. 9-0.) Also, all reactivity calculations in the Quad Cities study were done using a maximum fuel enrichment of 3.2 w/o U-235 and not 4.5 w/o U-235 or even 4.0 w/o 0-235 an is prtiently utilized in St. Lucie I.

6. I am glad that in the manufacture of the St. Lucio I storage racks care was exercised to avoid ev.cessive, mechanical restraint that might contribute to the formation of significant gaps in the Boraficx.

1 I

7. The neutron attenuation function at St. Lucie I will be achieved by the combired action of water and a widely used neutron absorbing material, Boraflex. However, the Quad Cities' study has shown that where gaps develop in the Boraflex a net loca' increase in r, activity results as well as an increase in the reactivity of the entire storage cell.

8. Doraflex is comprised of a polymeric silicone encapsulant entraining and fixing fine particles of boron carbide in a Fctogenous, stable matrix.

The carbides art inherently stable. The silico:..s are clearly unstable.

Quad cities' study cicarly detailed the scissivning of the polymer and the accompanying substitution of methyl groups resulting in two, different polymers. Both different from the first. The durability of these polymers j

when subject to long term, gamma radiation is unknown. Also, the carbon l

off gas reported in all studies is a result of the breakdown of the polymers.

9. The suitability of Boraflex as a long-term neutron absorber is hic questionable at this time. Much more information needs to be develc;ed.

t "The data which are currently available relative to changes in physical and mechanical properties of Boraflex with increasing irradiation are somewhat limited." (Quad Cities, pg. 7-7). "From the outsat it should be noted that the mechanisms for gap formation and gap growth described are preliminary as the extent of data currently available is limited. As such, any conclusions drawn from this material are preliminary and may change as more data relative to Boraflex behavior under irradiation is documented. Further experiments will probably be required to determine the causes for all effects noted."

(Quad Cities, pg. 8 4) . "Accordingly, it is possible that the rate of gap growth nay slow at higher doses. Unfortunately, there is not currently available low Jose data to support this contention." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-8)

b.

In concluding, the Quad Citics' study states unequivocally, "Thie report describes the results of a preliminary assessment of Boraflex performance in the Quad Cities spent fuel storage racks. The results are considered preliminary, since there are areas where data are r.ot available. This is particularly true with respect to Boraflex shrinkage over the intermediate range of gamma exposures to which the Quad Cities racks have been exposed as well as the long term stability in the spent fuel pool environment. Accordingly, as additional i

data becomes available, the conclusions developed as a result of the preliminary l assessment could change." (Quad Cities, pg. 10-1)

10. Radiation exposure tests of Boraflex at total equivalent doses of 2

10 rads were performed at the University of Michigan, Ford Nuclear Reactor during 1979-1981. It is important to note that this is a measure of a cumulative exposure to both gamma and neutron radiation. In the spent fuel pool environment the would be almost exclusively the more destructive garma radiation. This difference was also noted in the Quad Cities' study.

"Accordingly, it must be noted that differences in irradiation environment exist between the test experiments and the Quad Cities spent fuel pool."

(Quad Cities, pg. 6-1)

11. The results of these tests are brought'into question in the Quad Cities' study. "The data is variabic but the general trenlis about 2-3%

shrinkage in width and up to 8% in thickness. The accuracy of these measurements is not known but it is suspected that accurato dimensional measurements on small samples would be difficult." (Quad Cities, pg. 6-2) In evaluating the results of the Ford Nuclear Reactor Test, the Quad Citics' study further qualifies the data by saying, "Since the physical dimension data may not provide a reliabic indicator of the total extent of Boraflex shrinkage, the weight and specific gravity data from References 4,5, and 6 have becn evaluated." (Quad Cities, pg.6-3) 11.a. The Quad Cities study casts additional doubt on the relevance of i

the Ford Reactor study. "Furthermore, uncertainties ma,v be present owing to the extrapolation of test data from small test samples to a 152" length of Boraflex." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-6). Because of the difference bot',seen the test conditions and the pool environment, it is difficult to project long term integrity based on the test data. We have noted potential effects due to neutrons in the irradiation tests. As noted above, chemical effects may be important as well." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-10).

(LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

I'

s

12. Licensee's proposed surveillance program does not make sense in light of the results of the Point Beach study. Point Beach engaged in

, a surveillance program almost identical to the one proposed by the Licensee. However they stated, "We have concluded from the comparison i r

of the two programs that the samples are not representative of the full-length Boraflex inserts." ' (Point Beach, pg. 2) They are amending their surveillance program in the following manner. "Since the samples do not appear representative of the full length Boraflex sheets and have limited value in predicting the onset of Boraflex degradation in the spent fuel racks, we will terminate the Point Beach surveillance program in REI-25..."

(Point Beach, pg. 2) It should be noted that Point Beach plans to examine full-length Boraflex sheets on a periodic basis. St. Lucie Unit I spent fuel l

pool racks would not be able to be subject to this type of recommended l surveillance.

13. Licensee's ascertion that Boraflex may not rsceive a cumulative i dose that exceeds 10 12 rads gamma may be true. However, that is well past  !

I it.a point at which degradaticn of the material may occur according to both  !

the Quad Cities' and Point Beach sudies. This degradation leads to gap formation and thus, increased reactiv*ty. "However, their(Boraflex samples) physical integrity showed deterioration at doses of 1 x 1010 rads gamma and greater." (Point Beach, pg. 1) In addressing the concerns of Contention 3, Intervenor cites numerous other sources that indicate that severe degrada- ,

tion of the Boraflex material can occur prior to a cumulative exposure of 1 x 10 10 rads gamma. In addition, Quad cites raises the substantive issue l that the greatest cemical degradation of the polymer may occur at low level - l l

I e

l

f-exposures. Lack of extar.*. data on this issue makes any conclusion difficult.

14. We know that the Licensee is utilizing a new and different rack design in order to ameliorate the hypothesized effects of stress due to rack design. He admits as much in paragraph 27 of his Motion for Summary Judgement in discussing Contention 6. Licensee, in his original application for wxpansion of the spent fuel pool dated 12 June 1987, on page 6 of Attachment II, states that tho vendor has constructed only 10 other racks of slallar , not identical, design. We have no information on where these racks ars in service or the leng"h of time they have been in service and the performance of the racks and Boraflex in service.

15. Jospeh Oats Corporation has extensive experience in the manufacture of spent fuel storage racks using Boraflex panels. Unfortunately, their rack design and fabrication are considered significant causes of degradation in the neutron absorbar in Quad Cities.

16. Intervenor wonders at what point an admittedly, ". . . direct adaptation of established technology...", becomes a new technology. Intervenor contends that if, as Licensee contends, that the method used to affix the Boraflex to j the racks is the primary cause of gap formation, then a new method designed to

, avoid inflicting those same stresses on the panels is an essentially new method of affixing the panels and putting them in service. Where is the proof that this now method will not cause stress on the panels leading to l gap formation? If I own an axe. The handle breaks and I buy a new plastic i

Then the head breaks and I buy a new head. Do I still own the same handle.

axe?

l l

t

I

17. Intervenor has extensively discussed the overwhelming lack of certainity that is revealed by the Quad Cities and Point Beach studies as to the exact cause of gap formation. The restraining effect of the adhesive may act as one contributing cause. "The long term r,tability of the dimethyl polysiloxane matrix which contains the B 4C powder; in Boraflex cannot be projected at this time. The qualification program conducted by BISCO examined radiation effects and long term exposure to an aqueous environment separately. The combined effects after crosslinking saturates and scissioning predominates may likely depend on such factorg as pool water chemistry, water temperature, and local flow conditinns around the Boraflex panels." (Quad Cities, pr. 10-6). Obviously, other factors are also at work here.

18. If the Boraflex panels are allowed to undeigo total, in plane shrinkage, this may tenito promote isotropic shrinkage. Isotropic shrinkage is si-q acted of causing even largacgap formation in the Boraflex panels.

"If for the moment it is assumed that volume changes are isotropic, this would correspond to a change in any dimenreion of the Boraflex sheet of 6.66%. ,

For a sheet of Boraflex 152 inches long, this would correspond to a maximum gap of approximately 10 inches." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-5) However, this conjecture itself is qualified by introduction of a new variable that may effect

! Boraflex degradation. "hhother the Boraflex is isotropic or not may depend on I the procass used to manufacture the sheet material." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-8)

19. St. Lucie I storage racks are designed to provide complete, in-plane

dimensional changes to the Botaflex. Whether they can achieve this remains to I

be proven. Intervenor contends that the Quad Cities racks were designed to l

hold the Boraflex panels in place without any degradation due to stress.

The manufactur.ar's best intentions are no guarantee of a satisfactory result.

ihey are.cortainly no substituto for proof.

20. The driving mechanism of any Boraflex degradation is radiation indt ced changes in the chemical structure or the structural integrity of t'te Boraflex. Changes in Boraflex's chemical structure or structural integrity are significant only to the extent that they cause or result in the loss of boron e cause the formation of gaps and hence, reduce the ef fectiveness of the Boraflex in attenuating the reactivity. Intervenor finds Dr. Turner's statement in paragraph 39 of his affidavit wholly inadequate in light of the Quad Cities study.

21. Tests have confirmed no significant loss of boron in samples suffering exposure up to 10 12 rads. However, the Quad Cities study clearly shows the changing of the essential, chemical structure of the polymer into two, new l polymers long before a cumulative exposure of 101 0 rads. Data f rom gas evolution measurements as well as calculations of the dose required to crosslink all available sites suggests the crosslinking (and hence shrinkage) ,

,robably complete at an exposure of 1 to 2 x 10 10 rads." (Quad Cities, pg. 8-5)

This crosslinking leads to degradation of the Boraflex, which loads to 10 rads),

gap formation. "Long before the accumulation of this dose (10 the po*ymer will probably be severely changed and the G(XL) value will have changed." (Quad Cities, pg. 7-6).

22. The testimony and calculations of William Boyd at the Turkey Point proceedings indicate that with an initial enrichment of 4.5 w/o U-235 and with the presenco of gaps in four panels of approximately four inches, the

_ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - --.____J

i.

l I limiting reactivity of 0.98 would be exceeded. See Figure 2 of attachment A.

1 The Turkey Point racks in Region I had a center-to-center spacing of 10.6 inches and a Boron-10 density of 0.020 gm/cm2 . The racks at St. Lucie I have a conter-to-center spacing of only 10.12 inches and a Boron-10 density of 0.020 gm/cm2 Thus the calculations of Mr. Boyd would be relevant to these proceedings.

23. The conclusions of the Quad Cities study are quite clear. Very little ir. formation concerning the perforrance of Boraflex in service is available and many more questions remain. "Projections of the overall service life of Boraflex in a spent fuel pool environment are not possible at this time.

The results of a larger program in which data from surveillance coupons from several U.S. plants is gathered and evaluated may provide some answers."

(Quad Cities, pg. 8-11). There remains confusion as to the maximum, potential gap size. "The magnitude of the maximum gap size is difficult to project owing to primarily two factors. First, there is a lack of volume change data in the exposure range of 108 to 10 10 rads. Second, it is not known whether the Boraflex manufacturing process causes shrinkage to be anisotropic."

(Quad Cities, pg. 10-5).

l l

24. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their decision of 28 July 1988, regarding the Turkey Point raracking noted that, "The testimony of witnesses for both the applicant and the staff cited the Boraflex degradation that had occurred in the sp?nt fuel storage racks at the Quad Cities nuclear facility. That degradation brought about, among other things, gaps (i.e.

holes) in the Boraflex sheets incorporated into those racks. Whether such gaps will be e**perienced at Turkey Point remains to be seen. Should gaps develop, l .

f . I however, they would have an effect upon the neutron absorption efficacy '

[

l of the Boraflex sheets." (Attachment B, pgs. 8-9) The Board went onto state further that, "But, should the enrichment level be 4.5 weight percent, l

there will be much less room for confidence that any gaps at Turkey Point-will not occasion the violation of the limit." (Attachment B, pg. 9).

25. The Board also made note of the testimony of staff witnuss, James Wing. "According to s'caff witness, Dr. James Wing, the mechanism causing gap i

j formation remains undetermined." (Attachment B, pg. 9).

26. In conclusion, Intervenor contends that the Licensee has not met I

their burden of proof on this contention and that several issues .22 material fact remain on this contention. One, what is the anticipated service life of the Eoraflex. Two, what are the essential mechanisms for gap formation.

Three, has it been proven that no gaps will develop in the St. Lucie I panels. Four, what is the maximum gap size thet can be expected. Five, what process of gap formation will allow criticality to exceed the required limits in either Region I or Region II. Six, if the construction method 1

is different from previously used methods of construction, is it different enough that it constitutes a new and untested method of fabrication. If not, is it different enough that it will not cause the same problems that have been identified at Quad Cities.

Re e fully submitted,

' fh C bell Ri h Pro Se Litigant 4626 S.E. Pilot Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 407 286 5724