ML20198R086
| ML20198R086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1998 |
| From: | Gaukler P External (Affiliation Not Assigned), SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#198-18730 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9801230216 | |
| Download: ML20198R086 (71) | |
Text
4 0
k 00gg}0 s
Jan g, g'7.40 OFF]4%@?CI9Nd, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF G NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A p
- ' 'T FF Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22 -IfF(1
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO THE STATE OF UTAH'S REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LATE FILED CONTENTIONS EE AND FF Jay E. Silberg Ernest L. Blake Paul A. Gaukler SHAW PITTMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington,DC 20037 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
Il!llIlilllil!ll llIll 0
- ay=288aTen8822 03 C
g I
1 i
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
- P.ASC I.
INTR O DUCTI ON......................................................................................
II.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH'S CLAIMED GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS....................................................................... 3 III.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH CONTENTIONS EE AND FF.......... 8 A. Utah Contention EE Failure to Demonstrate Cask-Pad Stability During S eismi c Event................................................................................
B. Utah Contention FF: Inadequate Analysis ofRadiation Shielding................ 45 IV.
C ONCLU S I O N.......................................,.............................................. 66
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Sa'av and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO STATE OF UTAH'S REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LATE FILED CONTENTIONS EE AND FF L
INTRODUCTION On December 23,1997, the State of Utah (" State") filed a " Request for Consideration of Late-Filed Contentions EE and FF" (hereinafter " State's Request"). In its December 31,1997 Order (vranting Leave to File Response to Contentions and Schedule for Responses to Late-Filed Contentions). the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") ordered that responses to the State's late-filed contentions pleading be filed on or before knuary 9,1998. In accordance with the Board's Order, Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS") submits this Answer to the State's Request.'
l
The Applicant opposes the State's Request to file these late-filed contentions.
Although the State claims good cause for the late filing of Contentions EE and FF because it was unable to obtain and review proprietary information from Holtec until November 13,1997, in fr.t the State had the necessary information to develop Contentions EE and FF upon receipt of the non-proprietary versions of the calculation packages, which the State ecknowledges that it received in September 1997. State Request'at 2. Except for two appendices, one attachment and and one figure, the information contained in the non-precrietary calculation packages for seismic cask stability (the subject of Contention EE) and radiation shielding (the subject of Contention FF) is identical to that contr.ined in the proprietary calculation packages.
Accordingly, the State could easily have developed its Contentions EE and FF based on the information in the non-proprietary calculation packages together with the Safety Analysis Report ("SAR") for the Private Fuel Storage Facility ("PFSF"), which the Stt;e received in June 1997. The State therefore had ample time to prepare and file the contentions in a timely manner and its request that the Board accept late-filed Contentions EE and FF should be rejected.
Part U below sets forth the lega basis why the State's Request for the late filing of Contentions EE and FF should be denied. Part HI identifies the spec;fic lack of good cause with respect to Contentions EE and FF and sets forth additional reasons why Contentions EE and FF should be denied.
2
i i
l i
IL APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH'S CLAIMED GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(bX1), late-filed contentions are admissible only -
upon a balancing of the five factors listed at 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(aXI). See also.
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571, 576 (1982). Those factors, listed at Q 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v), are as follows:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v),
Although the balancing test must take into account all of the factors, there is no requirement that the same weight be given to each # actor, Houston Linhtina and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364,1367 (1982),
citing South Carolina Electric and Gas Comoany (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,895 (1981). Where a petitioner fails to show good cause for its nontimely submission of a contention, it must make a compelling showing on the 3
d 1
other four criteria'of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a). Cir 2;;; Gas' mad Riar*ric Camanav (William
~ H Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640, 663 (1983), citing Mississippi Power anri T i he Camanav (Goad GulfNuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982).
4 Furthermore, "where information is available to the public several months before a contention is filed and the contention is us. timely submitted, then good cause for the tardiness is negated." Commonwealth Ed son Comnany (Braidwood Nuclear Power -
Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-11,21 NRC 609,628 (1985), rev'd and remmadad on other aronntin CLI 86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986). See also. PM1=Aalahia Fimric Co.
(Limerick Generating Staticn, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,21 (1986),
Similarly, in determining the admissibility of a late-fded contention, the unavailability of the licensing documents upon which the contention is based does not constitute a showing of good cause "when the factual predicate for that contention is available from other sources in a timely manner," Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2); CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1043 (1983).-
Under the above principles, the State's request to file late Contentions EE and FF must be deniedc The State bases its " good cause" argument on its claim that it "was not able to obtain and review the proprietary information on which ContHons EE and FF are I based until recently." State's Request at 1-2, Specifically, it claims that "these contentions address issues raised by the vendor's proprietary reports on seismic stability and radiation shielding for the Holtec HI STORM cask, which the State received under a 4
o
.s%
-r-9-.M11
- mr Jm.ti4 w-mz:
-ws?s 7w W
m tfe-
4 '
r confidentiality agreement on November 13,1997." E at 1. Although the deadline for submitting contentions expired on November 24,1997, the State ar jes that these month.
overdue contentions should be admitted because the State has satis 6ed the 6 2.714(a)(1)(i) requirement of" good cause" for its late fihng &
The State has, however, not met its burden of showing " good cause" for its tardy filing because the factual predicate for its contentions was available from other sources in a timely manner. Speci6cally, the License Application itself and the non-proprietary versions of the Holtec Seismic and Radiation Shielding reports were made available to the State several months before it received the proprietary infonnation on which the State bases its lateness claim. The State axeived the License Application, including the SAR, l
June 25,1997' and acknowledges receipt of the non-proprietary versions of the Holtec reports in September 1997. E at 2.
l As developed further in Part III, a review of the State's contentions reveals that it could easily have developed its contentions using the SAR and the non proprietary versions of the Holtec reports, all of which were available to the State to file Contentions EE and FF in a timely manner. The non-proprietary version of Holtec's Seismic report,
" Multi-Cask Seismic Response at the PSF ISFSI," Holtec Calculation No. HI-971631 (Non-Proprietary) (1997), received by the State in September 1997, is found at Volume
'lig State of Utah's Motion for Extension of Time to File Contentions," Oct.1,1997, at 2.
5
?
y t
' III, No. 23 of the Calculation Packages.' The proprietarf version of the same report is found in Calculation Package, Volume IV, No.1, - The only difference between the proprietary and non-proprietary versions of this report is one appendix, one attachment t.nd one figure which are deleted from the non-proprietary version..-None of the State's assertions in Contention EE cite to the proprietary appendix, attachment or 6gure.
The non-proprietary version of the Holtec Radiation Shielding Report, (" Radiation Shielding Analysis for the Private Fuel Storage Facility," Holtec Report HI-971645 (Non--
Proprietary) (1997), which the State received in September 1997, is found at Volume III,-
.No. 25 of the Calculation Packages; the proprietary version is found at Volume IV, No. 3 of the Calculation Packages. The only difference between the proprietary and the non-proprietary and the proprietary versions is that the non-proprietary version is lacking one of the appendices of the calculations. As discussed in Part III below, the information contained in this appendix was not necessary for the State to develop its Contention FF, and indeed the State never expressly references this appendix.
Therefore, "the factual predicate for [the State's] contention [s] [were] available from other sources in a timely manner " Catawba. CLI-83-19,17 NRC at 1043. Since the facts necessary to sapport the State's contentions were made available at the latest in
' hhe Calculation Packages are on the docket in the prMag and, as acknowledged by the State, the _-
non-proprietary parts were physically prended to the State at its request in E = 4s. Jim, s&, letter to Denise Chancellor (State of Utah) from John L. Donned (Stone & Webster) dated %+ r 19,1997; letter to Mark Delhgatti (NRC) frorn J. L. Donnell (Stone & Webster) dated July 28,1997; letter to Mark Delligatti (NRC) from John D. Parkyn (PFS), dated July 14,1997.
6
2 f
t September 1997, the State has failed to_ meet its burden of demonstrating good 'cause for its failure to file on time. Therefore, in order to prevail on its motion, the State must meet -
~ the considerably greater burden of making a " compelling showing on the other four 9
i
. criteria. Zimmer, LBP-83-58,18 NRC at 663.
p The State manifestly fails to meet this burden.- It does nothing more than pay lip -
- service to the other four factors of S 2.714(aXI) and therefore fails to justify its untimely -
i filing. In support of the first of these other factors, the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected, f 2.714(aXIXii), the State merely asserts that it "has no means, other than this proceeding, to protect its in.terests in assuring the adequacy
- of the PFSF design with respect to earthquakes and radiation shielding." State Request at 2-3. This " analysis," completely devoid of any factual support, haroly meets the
" compelling" standard required by the cited case law. The State similarly gives lip service without meaningful analysis to the third and fomth factors.
4 With respect to the fifth factor, the extent to which the contentions if admitted will 4
broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, the State attempts to argue that broadening the issues is unlikely since "... the scope ofissues submitted by the State on November 23 is quite broad already, and... Contention EE is related to issues already submitted under
- Contention L." hL at 3. The State fails to explain, however, why adding additionalissues would not broaden the scope. Since the scope ofissues submitted is presumably finite, any addition to that scope results, by definition, in a broader scope._ The State's argument -
that, since the scope is already broad it cannot be buadened any further, is clearly 7
erroneous. Furthermore, by claiming that Contention EE is related to issua already submitted and ignoring Contention FF, the State tacitly admits that Contention FF is not related to any issues previously submitted, which it is not. As the State itself admits, "it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which the admission of the requested contentions can be expected to broaden or delay the proceeding...." 11 at 3. However, the burden of.
making that evaluation rests on the State, not the Applicant or the Board.
Thus, the State has failed to make a compelling showing to overcome its lack of good cause for its tardy filing and its request to submit its late-filed Contentions, EE and FF must, therefore, be denied.
III.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH CONTENTIONS EE AND FF A.
Utah Contention EE: Failure to Demonstrate Cask-Pad Stability During Seismic Event 1.
The Contention The State alleges in Contention EE that:
The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that storage casks and pads will remain stable during a seismic event.
Accordingly, the Applicant fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. Q 72.12;(b)(2) and 72.128(a).
State Request at 4. The asserted bases for the contention are set f arth in nine pages of discussion following the contention. In order to focus the analysis on whether the 8
l F
i
~..,
Is I
9 contention should be admitted, the Appi; cant proposes that the contention be restated as follows incorporating the speci6c allegations in its bases:
i The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that storage casks and pads will remain stable during a seismic event.
Accordingly, the Applicant fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. ((
-72.122(b)(2) and 72.128(a)in that:
a) Although the modelitselfused by Hohec appears to be adequate, the Applicant has not provided enough 1
information about the inputs to the model to support the
~
credibility of the analysis.
b) The Holtec analysis is not based on an adequate inquiry into site conditions and how they affect the stability of the casks. _One would expect to see more severe
" structural impacts" than those reported by Holtec.
c) Another PFS consultant, hired for the civil engineering part of the concrete pad design, calculated " consistently higher" results for the seismic analysis.
d) It is impossible to verify from the Holtec Seismic Report if the tirne histories used in the Holtec analysis were statisticallyindependent.
e) Applicant's cask-pad model oversimplifies the behavior of the dynamic lade of the PFS facility, by failing to sufficiently consider the potential for bending, structural deterioration of the concrete surface, translation, and rotation of the pad in that:
(i) There is no indication that Holtec has considered the effects of simultaneous rotation and translation of the Pad; (ii) The casks themselves may move in different directions and at different speeds from each other.
Holtec oversimplifies or ignores this phenomenon by assuming that the casks move uniformly in the same L--
9 i
I l..
l
+'d-q s, - - -w w
w 9-i
.. ~..-.. -.. -
T's L:t
)
7 l
direction;
- (iii) The results of the Stevenson analysis indicate 'the -
potential for casks to impact each other if they are not moving in a parallel direction - - the SAR is completely silent regarding this inescapable resuh; -
i l (iv) Hohec did not consider that tW9 efficient of friction may vary over the surface of tia pad; -
(v) Hohec's assumption that the concrete pad will 4
remain rigid is unreasonable and oversimplified; (vi) Hohec failed to provide sufficient information about the soil structure and characteristics at the PFS facility site to rule out the potential for differential upheaval and subsidence of the soil bere the concrete; -
(vii) Applicant failed to consider the effects of tension forces on the concrete pad, which could make the pad -
e bend, crack, and possibly spall; and (viii) Holtec failed to consider the effects of the emhadment of the pad in the soil on the site, f) _ Holtec gives inadequate consideration to site-specific soil characteristics in that:
. (i)- Hoh,:c uses generic values for soil characteristics based on preliminary soil samples taken for general site characterization; (ii) Holtec assumes that the wil beneath the concrete pad is a homogeneous re=agular block that will move together with the pad, which in turn will move together
~
with the casks; and.
(iii) Holtec fails to take into account the potential for cemented and/or collapsible soil on the site.
- g) The Holtec analysis does not consider the impact of dynamic loads on the structural integrity of the pad.
10 4
1 i 4
>'we y
9 yay,m
+r y
r,r-m f
-w.
r'=
w
-yew-mrw'-
wr
' h) It does not appear that Hohec performed uncatainty or sensitivity analyses.
i) - Hohec's earthquake analysis for the Canister Transfr -
Building is inadequate, It does not contain_any and 's of the seismic response of the cask, transfer cask anu overhead bridge crane. Applicant must provide an analysis of earthquake impacts on this facility, under postulated accident conditions.
j) In numerous cases, no acronyms or other identifying information is given for the Hohec seismic computer i
code. In order to permit t.n evaluation of the adequacy of the codes and their application, they must be adequately identified to permit parties to obtain and review them.
2.
Aoplicant's Response to the Contention In Contention EE, the State challenges aspects of the storage cask stability calculation performed by Holtec for the PFSF. The storage cask stability calculations are summarized in Section 8.2.1.2, " Accident Analysis - HI-STORM Cask Stability Analysis,"
of the PFSF Safety Analyds Report ("SAR"). Hoitec's storage cask stability analysis is provided in one of the non-proprietary calculation packages prepared by the PFS and filed with the NRC (and made available to the State). The non-propriety Holtec rtorage cask stability analysis is in PFSF Calculation Package, Vol. III, No. 23, Multi-Cask Seismic -
Response at the PSF ISFSI. Holtec Calculation No. HI-971631 (Non-Proprietary) (1997)
'("HI-971631-Non Proprietary"). This calculation package in turn relied upon the Topical Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System ("HI-STORM TSAR") and the soil characteristics data develdped by Stone & Webster and included in Section 2.6.1,
" Geology and Seistnology" of the SAR.
I1 l
9
.e w
ew-m e
.=--P ri
- e m
t Contention EE also reaches issues in the storge pad structural integrity calculation performed by International Civil Engincedng Consultants (" CEC"i and provided in another one of the non-proprietary calculation packages prepared by the PFS and filed with the NRC (and made available to the State).' The non-proprietary CEC s;orage pad structural analysis is in PFSF Calculation Package, Vol. I, No. 3, International-Civil Engineering Consultants, Private Fuel Storane Facility - Storane Pad Analysis and Demign CalculationNo.05996.01-SC(pol 7)-1(1997)(hereinafter" CEC Analysis").
There is no proprietary version of the CEC storage pad structural analysis.
Holtec also provided a proprietary version ofits storage cask stability analysis in PFSF Calculation Package, Vol. IV, No.1, Multi-Cask Seismic Resoonse at the PSF ISESJ, Holtec Calculation No. HI-971631 (Proprietary) (1997) ("HI-971631"). This report is identical to the non-oroprietary version. HI-971631-Non-Proprietary, except that I'
in the non-proprietary version: (1) Figure 4-1, "HI-STORM 100 Dynamic Model" is blank; (2) Appendix E, " Directory Listing and Contents of ZIP Files," is deleted; and (3) l Attachment A, hand written equations of motion for a single storage cask, is deleted.
Compare HI-971631-Non Proprietary with HI-971631. The text of the non-proprietary and proprietary versions of the calculation, including the methodology, assumptions, input data, analyses, results, and conclusions, are identical Likewise, Appendices A, B, C, and 4
D, which include the listing of computer codes used, calculation of mass and inertia -
properties, calculation of spring constants, and the letter transmitting the results to the storage pad designer, are identicali Enne of the State's subcontentions in Contention EE j
12
\\
l
. -.1
cite information that is in the proprietary version but not in the non-proprietary version I
(.vigure 4-1, Appendix E and Attachment A). Dy the same token, none of the Applicant's responses refer to, or have any need to refer to, the information only available in the proprietary version. The entire content of State Contention EE and the entire Applicant's response to Contention EE rely only on the non-proprietary information in HI-971631 and could have been developed, written, and fded without ever referring to the proprietary version of the calculation.
Because the State's Contention EE relies only on the non-proprietary information in the calculation, and does not require any of the proprietary information in HI-971631, there is no good cause for the late filing of Contention EE. Consequently, the State's late-filed Contention EE should be dismissed in its entirety as discussed in Part II above for lack of good cause.
In Contention EE, th., State raises a number ofissues concerning Holtec's multi-cask seismic response calculation. In addition to the lack ofgood cause, Applicant addresses each of the issues tr.ised by the State in its late-filed conten+. ion in turn below.
a)
Eailgre to Provide Sufficient Information about the Inorts to the hiQdcl In this subcontention, the State alleges that the " Applicant has not prosided enough information about the inputs to the model... to support the credibility of the analysis." State Request at 5. Significantly, the State concludes that "the model itself used by Holtec appears to be adeauater <
- by placing the model itself outside of the scope of 13
s l
the contention.- E at 5 (emphasis added). Other than the seven "[e]xamples of,4 i
de6ciencies" (age E at 6-12) - each of which is addressed individually later in this ta response - the State provides no further support for its generalized claim that the License Appik.ation does not provide enouA information about the inputs to the model.' San E at 5-6.
The State's subcontention is mistaken' and fails to address p.O.ca: portions of the i
Applicant's License ApplicMion and Calculation P ekages that spa 9e=Hy adhm the :
inputs to the model. The calculation itsCprovides four pages of definition and explanation of the inputs to the model in Section 5.0, " Input Data." Sag HI-971631 at 5-
- 8. This section addresses the inputs to the model, including: seismic loads (' cluding time m
dependent ground response spectra and zero period accelerations); mass and inertia
' properties (nA, diameter, length, ocasity, center of gravity) for the canister, the HI-STORM overpack, and the ISFSI concrete pad; the spring constants for the interfaces between the canister and overpeck, overpack and concrete pad, and soil and concrete pad; and the soil characteristics surrounding the concrete pad. E Section 5.0 of the calculation also refers to appendices, other reports in the calculation package, and the HI-STORM 3lopical S 'ety Analysis Report (" TSAR"), all of which provide even more detail on the model inputs. See. e.g.. HI-971631 at 5 (referencing PFSF Calculation Package, Volume I, No. 4, Hohec International, 3-D Time i
Histories for Private Storane Facility. HI-%1556 (Rev. 2,1997)), d (referencing Holtec International, Calculatian Packmaa Sunnortinn HI-STORM 100 TSAll HI-971659 (Rev.
14 p.
=,
1 0,1997)), it at '6 (referencing Appendix B " Calculation ofHI STORM Cask Mass and
- Inertia Properties for PSF and Pad Mass and Inenia Properties"),11 at 8 (referencing 4
.I
? Appendix C " Calculation of Spring Constants for HI STORM Seismic Analysis in -
^
Storage Facihty").' Further, the text of the calculation shows the coefficients of friction between the cask base and ISFSI pad that were used in the calculation. HI-971631 at 10.
The State's generalized statement does not address Sese sections of the License Application or the calculation package, nor does it show how any of this detailed information on " inputs to the model" is de6cient. Such a conclusory allegation of dispute is not sufficient to admit a contention; the petitioner must show that " facts are in dispute,"
thereby demonstrating that an " inquiry in depth" is appropriate. Texas Utilities Electric Comnany (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-37, 36 NRC 370, 376 (1992). Because this subcontention contains no more than a conclusory, unsupported allegation, in addition to the lack of good cause, it must b rejected for failure to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(b).
b)
Inadequate Inquiry into Site Conditions and How They Affect the Stability of the Casks In this subcontention, the State makes a generalized claim that "the Holtec analysis is not based on an adequate inquiry into site conditions and how they affect the stability of the casks " State Request at 5-6. The State funher claims that "one would reasonably expect to see more severe structural imnacts than those reported by Holtec." 11 at 6 i
L(emphasis added). Neither of these assertions is supported with any information, 15
- - + ~
explanation, or basis (other than the seven speci6c " examples of the de6ciencies in'the i
Holtec analysis" listed by the State later in the contention which are addressed individually laterin tcis response).
The State's generalized assertions in this subcontention must be rejected for lack -
j of specificity and for mischaracterizing the' Applicant's calculation. First, the State as erts ?
1 that ths analysis "is not based on an adequate inquiry into site conditions and how they I
affect the stability of thr uks." 11 at 5-6. The subcontention does not explain how the L information on site conditions and their affect on cask stability in the Application is "not ;.
, adequate." In fact, the State's subcontention neither addresses these sections of the License Application nor challenges their validity. Sag 11 In fact, the s'te geology and r
seismology are discussed in 42 pages of text in the Applicant's SAR in Section 2,6, l
" Geology and Seismology." Sc.e SAR at 2.61 to 42. Furthermore, the information on
~
site conditions in Section 2.6 of the SAR is based on site speci6c surveys, tests, and calculations that are also included as Appendices to the SAR. SangSAR Appendix 2A ("Geotechnical Dsta Report"); see also SAR Appendices 2B-2D.
This detailed information on PFSF site conditions was used by Hohec as input to c
the cask stability analysis. Egg HI-971531 at 7-8. The Holtec analysis uses the information on PFSF soil conditions "to determine horizontal, vertical, rocking, and -
~
- torsion spring rates for the soil...." 11 at 8. Appendix C of the Holtec analysis,
" Calculation of Spring Constants for HI-STORM Seismic Analysis in Storage Facility,"
shows explicitly how the PFSF site conditions were incorporated into the cask stability I
e
,u r
-m.--
w.,
r.3.m.
r-.,
f,
analysis. ' li at C-4. The Holtec analysis determines the se'anic loads used in the cask.
- stability analysis "[b]ased on fmal ground response spectra provided by the PSF architect -
and engineering group (Stone & W6 ster],.." E at 5 _ This input on site conditions is.
developed into 3 D time histories of seismic loads in HI-%1556 (PFSF Calculation -
Package, Vol. I, No, 4; reference 3 in HI-971631) that are used as input to the cask stability calculation. E The State neither addresses these portions of the SAR and
, Calculation Package concerning " site conditions and how they affect the stability of the casks," nor challenges any of the information in this subcontention.' San State Request at 5-6.
Thus, the bread brush charges ofinadequacy in this subcontention must be rejected for ignoring pertinent portions of thc ' icense Application, including the SAR, and pertinent portions of the Holtec analysis, and for failing to proside a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(b). The specific examples of deficiencies will be discussed later in this response.
Second, the State asserts that given the relative severity of the magnitude 7 earthquake evaluated "one would reasonably expect to see more severe structural imoacts than those reported by Holtcc." State Request at 6 (emphasis added). The State both fails to provide any explanation ofwhat one would " expect to see" and to indicate why the Holtec analysis is deficient. Furthermore, the State's assessment that the Holtec analysis addresses " structural impacts" misinterprets the purpose of the Holtec analysis. The Hohec analysis specifically evaluates cask stability under a postulated seismic ev.ait; it 17 l+
. =
4 does not evaluate "strn+>eal ivaanda_" as the State apparently believes.8. Sag HI 971631 at 1. A petitioner's imprecise reading of a reference document cannot serve to generate :
the basis for an admissible contention. Geornia Instien** of T-haalanv (Georgia Tech -
Research Reactor), LBP-95-6, 41 NRC 281, 300.(1995).' Therefore,in addition to the -
lack of good cause, the State's subcontention that "one would reasonably _ expect to soe.
more severe suuctural impacts than those reported by Holtec" must be rejected both as 4
i
" imprecise reading" of the Hohee analysis and for failure to provide a sufBeient basis for --
^
1 an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b).
l L
c)
- Conaissantiv Hioher F=Its for Seismic Analysis of Concrete Pad Damian Caloilatad by CEC In this subcontention, the State implies that the Applicar.t's analysis is inadequate l
or incomplete in its statement that "... another PFS consultant, hired for the civil
[
engineering part of the concrete pad design, calculated ' consistently higher' results for the I
seismic analysis." State Request at 6. This subcontention must be dismissed as being i
L mistaken and for failure to provide a sufBeient factual basis for the assertion.
The State does not explain its statement or provide any factual support for its contention that the seismic results are " consistently higher" in the concrete pad design. E It is also abundantly cleer that the State has confused the applicability of two distinct _-
)
'" Structural impacts" for the storage cask s)*em are addressed elsewhere in the supportmg documents
- for the License Apphcation.' The structural integrity of the concrete storage pads is anal >2ed in Calculation Package, Vol. I, No. ? (05996-01-SC(pol 7)-1); structural integrity of the III-STORM storage overpack is addressed in the HI-STORM Topical Safety Analysis Report.
3
i s
calculation packages submitted by the Applicant.1 The concrete pad design which was cited by the State,11, CEC Analysis, mutta, was performed to calculate internal stresses in the concrete pad, to design the reinforcing steel and to verify that the concrete and rebar stresses are conservatively predicted 'when compared with an alternate calculation using a >
. separate computer code entitled System for Analysis of Soil Structure Interecdon
'("SASSI"). San CEC Analysis at 78,136. The seismic loading used in the CEO design package calculation for the casks was provided by Holtec from the cask stability analysis (Multi-Cask Seismic Response at the PSF ISFSI, Holtec Report No. HI-971631 (May 19, 1997)). However, the Holtec analysis was performed to determine cask stability and i
verify that the casks will not tip over or slide excessively to impact one another. San HI-971631 at 1-4, Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcentention must be dismissed because the State not only did not provide factual support for its assertion but mistakenly did not recognize that these calculation packages were involved and the results derived from one analysis (ir, cask stability) were actually used as input data for the other (11, concrete pad design), San SAR Section 4.2.3.5 lB and CEC Calculation No.
0599601-SC (P017)-1 Sections 4,4.6 (page 16) and 5.1.3 (page 37). Sgt Applicant's -
Answer,Section II,C.
19 s
t yy-,t--
my-y-g-'-
wt ev-mm_--
v-'Iwea y-g atyb5 g
- -wyt y
'D
'SVr T
+-
T
""F49'P
'"-*"**'~'-"f
-Pv*'r-
e'-C-P-'
"8' T'# * ' ' ' '"'--'* " " ' '" ' ' ' ' --'
a
j z.
d).
Iamhiliev to Dermi-if Time Fintaries Used in Analysis Were StatisticallyIndgn.ndent In this subcontention, the State contends that it is impossible to vedfy whether the
{
- three relevant seismic time histories used in the Holtec analysis were statisticrliy independent. State Request at 6-7. This subcontention must be dismissed as being mistaken and for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant.
i The se:smic time histories used in the Holtec analysis (HI-971631) were developed 4
separately in a different study (iA,3-D Seismic Time Histories for Private Storage i
Facility, Holtec Report HI-961556) which was submitted as part of the License
-Application Calculation Package (Vol. I, No. 4). This calculation package specifically discussed the statistical independence of the three orthogonal axes in detail (Vol. I, No. 4 at 4). IIence, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcontention must be dismissed
)
as being mistaken and for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant. Sec, Applicant's Answer,Section II.C.
e)
Failure of Cask-nad Model to Snhiantly Coneidar the Potential for Bendina. Structural Deterioration of the Concrete Surface.
Tram 1=* ion. and Rotation of the Pad
- In this subcontention, the State asserts that "[t]he Applicant's cask-pad model oversimplifies the behavior of the dynamic lads of the PFS facility, by failing to sufficiently consider the potential for bending, structural deterioration of the concrete surface,
' translation, and rotation of the pad." State Request at 7. The State suppoits this 20 4
4 x
s
.s
....----m.--
m
_ ~., _
I i
j generalized subcontention with three pages of text which inuude eight subparts, each of which is addressed individually below, a
'l 4
(i)
No Indir=* inn of f:onaidaratiori of the Rhtd Simultananus Rotatinn and Tranalation of the Pad l
The State alleges that "there is no indication that Holtec has considered the effects of simultaneous rotation and translation of the pad, in conjunction with the movement of the casks " E at 7 (emphasis added). The State provides no other explanation or support of any kind for this subcontention.
The State's allegation is simply mistaken and overlooks pertinent portions of the Holtec analysis. The Holtec analysis clearly establishes that the analysis includes six degrees of freedom of motion for the concrete pad, including simultaneous translation in three different directions (x, y, and -) coupled with simultaneous rotation about each of the three axes (x, y, and z). hi HI-971631 at 2-4. Following the description of the "cleven degrees of freedom" of motion assumed for each storage cask, the Holtec analysis l
clearly states that "to complete the model, six denrees of freedom establish tne rigid body I
motion of the ISFS1 pad relative to inertial space." E at 2 (emphasis added). The analysis then unambiguously identifies each of the six degrees of freedom used in the analysis for motion of the concrete pad, stating:
the dynamic model simulating concrete pad behavior is characterized by the 6 degrees offreedom qu.i to qm with j '.
l'.
21 h
1
-=
~
_ ~ _ - -
qw.3,qu2,qw.3 absolute displacements in x, y
=
and z directions ofpad centroid, respectively, J
rotations about axes through -
-qu.4,qu.5,qu.s
.=
pad centroid parallel to x, y, z =
axes, respectively.
HI-971631 at 4 (emphasis added).
i The State's subcontention fails to address these pertinent portions of the Holtec -
analysis, which demonstrate that the analysis considers both simultaneous translation and -
rotation of the concrete pad. San State Request at 7i Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, the State's subcontention that "there is no indication that Hol ec LJ t
considered the effects of simultaneous rotation and translation of the pad" is clearly mistaken and must be rejected for ignoring pertinent portions of the Holtec analysis and for failure to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. San Applicant's p
- Answer,Section II.C at 15 16.
- j. -
(ii)
Casks mav Move in Different Directions and at Different Speeds which Holtec Oversimpli4= or Iannres by Amanmina Cnah Move Uniformly in the Same Direction The State notes that "[a]s a result of the differences in the movement of the pad and casks, the casks themselves may move in different directions and at different speeds 4
from each other." State Request et 7. This general statement is not a mattei of dispute with the Applicant. The State's subcontention alleges, however, tit "Holtec oversimplifies or ignores this phenomenon by assummg that the casks move uniformly in 22 o
I
, --, ~
4
m i-
_ the same direction." E at 7-8. The State is simply mistaken; the Hohec analysis makes
]
no such assumption.' The State fails to indicate where this assumpt: n is made and ;
l 1
- [
_ provides absolutely no basis for its allegation. Sag 11 The State's unsupported and ;
mistaken allegation does not provide a basis for an admissible contention and must be
.f
~ rejected.
t The Holtec analysis clearly shows that the analysis does not "assum[e] that the casks move unifortaly in the same direction." The analysis clearly indicates that each cask is modehd separately using " eleven degrees offreedom so that eighty-eight (88) degrees of freedom are used to simulate the assemblage of casks for the case when the pad is assumed fully populated." HI-971631 at 2. Each overpack is assurred to have six degrees of freedom of motion including displacement in the x, y and z direction and rotation around the x, y, and z axes. E at 3. Each cask is modeled and analyzed as a separate, independent rigid body that is frw to move in any of the 6 degrees of freedom. E at 2.
4-There is no assumption that all casks are assumed to move in the same direction at the same time. The State does not make any attempt to point out where such an assumption is made. The State's mistaken assertion is at odds with the analysis and wholly unsupported.
The results from the Holtec seismic analysis show that the " motion of the entire assemblage (of storage casks] is generally in-phase." E at 11 (emphasis added); see also 11, Executive Summary (" cask motions are generally in-phase with each other") (emphasis added). ' This output of the analysis can also be seen in Tables 9.1 to 9.16 which 23 T
4 t
, e r e-a.2-r,i i-.+.rv
- - - - -e r
v wr+--
.---s-
,e-
-~
--*w-e-v w,w wr w
,w r w y wre er
+
4
" summarize the results obtained for each cask in each of the sixteen simulations" in the l
analysis.11 tt 11. - These tables show that the fmal coordinates of each cask have moved.-
in the name general direction in the x and y axes, although the absol te dialac+ ment is l
different for each cask. See. e.L,11 at Table 9.4 (cask 1 stops at x = -0.2%, y = 0.141; crsk 2 stops at x = -0.417, y = 0.374).
Thus, the report clearly shows that the general in-phase motions of the casks in response to a common seismic input is an output of the analysis. not an input assumption of the model ts the State claims. In fact, the input assumptions for the analysis clearly allow independent motion of each cask overpack in all six degrees of freedom. The State's subcontention neither addresses, not challenges the validity of, any of the sections of the analysis addressing inputs on complete freedom of motion for storage casks or outputs showing that the casks nenerally move in-phase.
In setting forth a contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b), a petitioner is tsguirsd to "tead the pertinent porCons of the license application, including the Safety Analysis Report and the Environmental Report, state the applicant's position and the petitioner's opposing view." Sts 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168,33,170 (1989). The State has not done so here. Furthermore, a petitioner's imprecise reading of a reference document
- cannot serve to generate the basis for an admissible contention. Geornia Tech. supra.
LBP-95-6,41 NRC at 300. Therefore, in addition to the lack ofgood cause, thc State's subcontention must be rejected for ignoring pertment parts of the Holtec analysis, as an 24 m
Ame-y-~
ya p
,a.--.y
--.,y
-r~---
w
='P-P 6-'
~
" imprecise reading" of the analysis, and, as a result, for failing to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b).
(iii)
Results of the Stevenson Analysis Indicate Potential for Casks to Impact Each Other if they are Not Movine in a Parallel Direction The State alleges that "an admittedly simplified two-dimensional analysis by Steenson indicates the casks may move far enough to impact each other... if they are not mang in a parallel direction " State Request at 8 (emphasis added). The State then charges that "the SAR is completely silent regarding this inescapable result of the Stevenson analysis." li(emphasis added).
The State is correct that the SAR is silent on this point, but the State's subcontention is mistaken in its assertion that the " analysis by Stevenson indicates" the casks may impact each other and that it is an " inescapable result of the Stevenson analysis." Sn ji To the contrary, the Stevenson analysis (discussed in the SAR) and the Holtec analysis indicate that the State's claim of potential casx-to-cask impact is att indicated by the Stevenson analysis and that is not an inescapable result from the Stevenson analysis. First, the more rigorous three-dimensional analysis by Holtec unambiguously concludes that:
No cask-to-cask impact [s] are indicated in any of the
- simulations; the cask motions are generally in-phase with each other.
25 1
.- _ ~.
~
4 HI-971631 at 14 (emphasis added). The Stevenson analysis, which the State notes is "an -
i admittedly simplified two-dimensional analysis" (anc State Request at 8), also concludes -
t that:
cask movements are within the clear distances between casks (47.5 inches) and will r,relada imam of ed -*at saakt.
SAR at 8.2 13 (emphasis added). The State does not explain how it draws from this its assertions that "the potential for casks to impact each other" is an " inescapable result of-the Stevenson analysis." San State Request at 8, What the State claims is an " inescapable result" is exactly the opposite of the actual conclusion of the Stevenson analysis. The
- State's imprecise readmg of the Stevenson analysis cannot serve to generate the basis for an admissible contentioniGeornia 1ech. supra. LBP-95-6,41 NRC at 300. See also Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at 14, The State also claims that the maximum displacement of 29 inches in the Stevenson analysis " indicate (s) the potential for casks to impact each other if they are not moving in a carallel direction." State Request at 8 (emphasis added). The State's assertion that the casks will"not mov[e] in a parallel direction" is directly opposed to the conclusion'of the more rigorous Holtec analysis which shows that "the cask motions are generally in-phase with each other." HI-971631 at 14, The State provides no facts or documents of any kind to support its allegation that casks will"not mov[e] in a parallel direction." San Stat: Request at 8. Nor does the State show that this conclusion of the Holtec analysis is deficient in any w y.11 Such a 26 l
L
conclusory allegation of dispuM is not sufficient to admit a contention; the petitioner must show that " facts are in dispute," thereby demonstrating that an " inquiry in cepth" is appropriate. Comanche Peak, supIg, LBP-92 37,36 NRC at 376. Therefore,in addition to the isck of good cause, the State's subcontention must be rejected for failing to proside
\\
a sufIicient basis for an admissible contention because it ignores relevant portions of the License Application and it draws conclusory allegations that are completely contrary to I
available infonnvion, and is wholly unsupported by the facts or documents. Su Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at Il 16.
(iv)
Failut e to Consider that the Coeflicient of Friction May Varv over the Pad Surface o -
Tha State alleges that the Holtec analysis did not consider "that the coeflicient of friction (i.e., the resistance of the surface of the pad to movement by the casks) may vary over the surface of the pad." State Request at 8. The State also contends that "[t]here h no indication that Holtec considered the shift from the static case to the kinetic case." 11 The State's claim that Holtec did not consider varied coeflicients of friction over the pad in the analysis is mistaken and overlooks pertinent portions of both the Holtec analysis and the SAR. The Holtec analysis conservatively assumes bounding coefficients of friction for the analysis and evaluates rask stability for all cask scenarios for both the highest and lowest coefficients of friction representing both the worst case for sliding (the lowest coefficient of friction) and the worst case for tipping (the highest coefficient of friction). En HI 971631 at 10. The analysis clearly states that:
27
t
[
l Simulations are performed for interface coemeients of l
friction (between cask base and ISFSI pad) of 0.8 and 0.2 to i
emphasize either tippirns or sliding characteristics.
j s
id. This is also clearly identified in Section 8.2.1.2 of the SAR," Accident Analysis HI-STORM Cask Stability Analysis," which states:
4 t
The cask stability analysis was performed by computer methods using cask to pad coemeients of fkiction equal to j
0.2 (emphasizes sliding potential) and 0.8 (emp)asizes tipping potenCal) to bound the maximum sliding and tipping 4
behavior of the cask. T'.) results of the site speci6c analysis i
j show that the storage casks will not tip over or slide to the extent ofimpacting adjacent cask during the site specific DE l
[ Design Earthquake).
SAR at 8.2-5.
These enveloping assumpti',ns produce the maximum displacement from sliding or
.i tipping, and none of the simul.aons showed any cask-to-cask impacts at any time during i
L i
any of the simulations. Coefficients of friction between these two bounding cases would I
produce a mix of sliding and tipping that would result in a lower total displacement of the l
cask than the two bounding cases. Even if one assumes that one cask experiences the j
maximum coefficient of friction for lipping and the cask immediately adjacent to it experiences the maximum coefficient of friction for sliding (a hypothetical worst-case),
the casks would still not impact with each other because the nydanun displacement for
,v
. tipping,13.0 inches (HI 971631 at 17),' and the maximum displacement for sliding, 8.5 i
- Which is for the case of only one cask on the pad, where there are, in actuality, no other casks on the pad j
to impact Sag HI 971631 at 17. All other maximum tipping cases show much leur maximum combined diV-ts. Sag kl at 19-43.
28 i,
i m
c'g--wW4m e-u e w,uwe y 9
-e---
e-em%9 etw,-*v& mg e4e w
a'e*ur'os=Lg 3"rp--w-y
-3a'-sy-M tw e.y_-- er y3 y in e-dMg.,-emng T
-p--em--g-e-c.sc,g,i.igum-er' mig,a--it- % vww-umiqm p-- w rtm-ruir-W^eegisi-w.-g 4 3 gyypNiMitw-s--ytw mm99 -w-wy
--~
r inches (ii at 39),s combined are only 21.5 inches, far less than the 47.5 inches separating storage casks on the pad. Sea SAR at 8.2 4. The value of 21.5 takes the worst case i
displacement from tipping and the worst case displacement from sliding, and combines '
them together.
The State's contention neither addresses, nor challenges the validity of, the pertinent pmtions of the Holtec analysis and the SAR which discuss how the coefficient of--
Aiction is varied in the analysis to envelope worst case conditions The State's contention.
i does not address any of this information nor does it explain why the bounding methodology used in the Holtec analysis is inappropriate. A contention that mistakenly claims that the applicant did not address a relevant issue in the License Application must be dismissed. San Applicant's Answer, Section H.C at 1516.
The State's additional assertion regarding "the shift from the static case to the kinetic case" is unsupported by any explanation of what the State means and must be rejected for vagueness and lack of speci6 city. San State Request at 8. Furthermone, the State's claim is unsupported by any facts or references that would indicate there is any i
deficiency in the Holtec analysis and that the broad range of coefficients offriction analyzed by Holtec does not envelope the pheaomenon identified by the State,11 The i
State's unsupported subcontention fails to provide sufficient infonnation and basis to establish a material dispute on a genuine issue of fact or law with the applicant, and, in 5
' Tor the case c(eight casks on thepad.
29 m
-. - ~
i f
l addition to the lack of good cause, therefore fails to meet the Commission's requirements l
t for an admissible col.tention. 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(b).
l 1
(v)
Amaamation that the Caaerete Pad Will Ramnia Blaid Is Unreasonable and Oversimpli6ed The State contends that Holtec's assumption that the " concrete pad will remain
- i 2
rigid" is " unreasonable and oversimplified." State Request at 8. The State supports this f
subcontention with the statement that " concrete is not necessarily rigid when exposed to i
the dynamic forces of a major earthquake." Id. This subcontention must be dismissed for lack ofgood cause forlate filing.
i i
{
(vi)
Fallare to Provide Sumetant Inform =*ian al=>* the Soil Structure and Charactariatica to Enla out Potantini for Differential Unhaaval and Subaidanatonhe_SnilRannath the Cnnerete
- l. '
The State alleges that "Holtec has failed to provide sufficient ' fonnation about the m
s soil structure and characteristics at the PFS facility site to rule out the potential for such differential upheaval and subsidence of the soil beneath the concrete." State Request at 9.
The State's subcontention must be rejected because it is mistaken, it ignores relevant portions of the License Application, and it is wholly unsupported. Besides this single l
statement, the State provides no other explanation, facts, documents, or any other basis to support its allegation. Nor does the State address the pertinent portions of the License
_ Application which provide extensive information about soil structure and characteristics at f
- the PFS facility." Sm id at 9. The Holtec analysis uses the soil data "obtained by the PFS 30 y
,,-,,,.r.we-,-
-,.,-.,w-,-,-%
w-c.e--,-.
.r -
wm. y r-
-,-r-<-v---,--~-r+,---
=,--r
=--
---+-,-w,,wm.-
-n,<=
- -. -*--, -~-- + - * - - ' -
F architect and engineering group [ Stone & Webster)....[and) transndtted to Holtec.
determine horizontal, vertical, rocking, and torAn spring rates for the seil" tha' mW.
as inputs to the Holtec analysis. HI 971631 at 7 8. Section 2.6.1.11 of the SA% "$%
and Dynamic Soil and Rock Properties at the Site," and Section 2.6.2.1 of the EAK,
" Engineering Properties for Seismic Wave Propagation and Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses," provide information on the ausveys, laboratory tests, and analyses of soil structure and characteristics at the PFSF facility that result in the soil input data used in the Holtec analysis. Sec SAR at 2.6-19 to 28; see also SAR at Tables 2.6-1 to 3. In fact, the soil properties and values identified in Section 2.6.2.1 of the SAR (e.g., Young's modulus = 1,91S,000 lb./sf; Shear modulus = 688,000 lb/sf; and Poisson's ratio = 0.433)
(SAR at 2.6 28) are identical to the soil characteristics used in the Holtec analysis. HI-971631 at 8. The State's subcontention does not address these sections of the SAR and the Holtec analysis and provides no indication whatsoever of why this soil information is deficient.
The S AR specifically determines that "[d]ynamic settlements [e.g., subsidence) due to the DE [ Design Earthquake) are not expected to occur at the PFEF site because of the nature of the subsurface materials." SAR at 2.6-39. In Section 2.6.4 of the SAR,
" Stability of Subsurface Materials" in a Design Earthquake, based on an analysis of the soil structure and characteristics in the event of a seismic event, the SAR concludes that The subsurface conditions at the PFSF site are suitable for support of the proposed structures; therefore, no special 31 l-
t I
{
j construction techniques are required for improving the l
subsurface conditions.
li at 2.6-41. The State neit!.or addresses, nor challenges the validity of these conclusions i
in the SAR that discuss the soil data used in the Holtec analysis. The State provides no i
explanation to indicate that these fmdings,5 hich undermine the State's subcontention, are 4
- de6cient in any way. The State's subcontention is unsupported by any explanation, facts, or documents, and it ignores the relevant portions of the License Application and the l
1 Holtec analysis. Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, the State's subcontention must be rejected for failing to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible i
contention. 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(b).
i (vii)
Esi[ge to Consider the FEects of Tension Forces on the Concrete Pad. which Could Make the Pad Band Craele and Possibly Spall The State contends that the Applicant failed to consider the ef!'ects of tension forces on the concrete pad, and that "[u)nder conditions of tension, it is reasonable to expect that a pad of such a size will bend, crack, and possibly spall." State Request at 9.
The subcontention states that "[ajlthough concrete is very strong in response to compression, it is not nearly as strong in response to such tension forces." 11 This is 1
certainly true, and does not establish a dispute with the Applicant. However, the State's T
subcontention is mistaken because it ignores the fact that precisely for this reason (low tensile strength of concrete), the design of the PFSF uses steel-reinforced concrete in the 32 4
.--,.,..._r
,.L--,
,,.,..,,..n.
6 -.
,.--,-.--n.,
a.-
-..,, -.,-..,4, -, =_,i.,,,,,.,.-.
~
PFSF storage pads. The use of reinforcing steel in the morage pads is unambiguously identi6ed in Section 4.2.3.4 of the SAR, which states:
The components of the cask storage pads consist of the materials of construction, which include concrete with a mirdmum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and r:EnfGidna steel with a minimum vield stranath of 60.000 MIk-SAR at 4.2 41 (emphasis added). See also SAR at 4.2 46 (identifyt ing the type and spacing of reinforcing steel bars in the storage pad); SAR st Figure 4.2.7 (" Cask Storage Pads" explicitly showing the use of reinforcing steel bars in the concrete pad).
The contribution of these steel reinforcing bars to the tensile strength of the cask storage pad is explicitly evaluated in another PFSF Calculation Package (non-proprietary).
San CEC Analysis, PFSF Calculation Package, Vol. I, No. 3. This 184-page calculation in support of the License Application explicitly presents "the analyses and detailed calculations required for the design of the reinforced-concrete spent fuel cask storage pads i-to be constructed at the PFSF project site " id. at 1 (emphasis added). This analysis clearly indicates that the storage pad uses " ASTM A615 Grade 60 deformed bar" steel for both " Horizontal (Flexural) Reinforcement" and for " Vertical (Shear) Reinforcement." Id.
I at 2-3; see also id. at 12 (material specifications for steel reinforcing bars). This analysis c
explicitly evaluates the effect of all design loads for the cask storage pad, including ground motion loading from an earthquake. Ses id at 15-17.
The State's subcontention neither addresses, nor challenges the validity of, any of these sections of the License Application and Calculation Packages clearly indicating that 33 l
1
=_. _,,....-
. ~..
1 c
id the cask storage pads use steel reinforcing bars to provide tensile strength in the concrete i
pad. In addition to the lack of good cause, a contention that mistakenly claims that the Applicant did not address a relevet issue in the License Application must be dismissed.
l San Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at 1516.
t (viii) Fahre to Con =We the R& acts of the Embadmant of the Pad in the Soil on the Site I
The State alleges that "Holtec also fails to consider the effects of the embedment of the pad in the compacted granular soil on the site." State Request at 9. Again, the
{
State is mistaken and overlooks pertinent portions of the License Application.
The Holtec analysis itself clearly indicates that the effects of embedment of the pad 4
in the soil on the site were explicitly considered in the cask stability analysis. As discussed 1
earlier under subcontention (e)(i), "the dynamic model simulating concrete pad behavior i
(in the Holtec analysis) is characterized by the 6 degrees of freedom" which include
(
movement in the x, y and z directions and rotation about each of these axes. See HI-971631 at 4. The model uses " soil spring constants... to reflect the characterization of
[
the underlying base mat supporting the concrete pad." 11 at 6.
If the model had ignored the embedment of the storage pad in the soil at the site (and ignored friction between the soil and the pad), the spring constants for the x and y direction would be zero, that is, the pad would be unrestricted by soil springs from moving in those directions. The Holtec analysis, however, clearly indicates that the analysis -
includes " horizontal vertical, rocking, and torsion spring rates for the soil.,." and uses t
34-i f
. -,u e.
-,_., _..-. m.~, _. _ _,,,,,
-m _. m _ -., _.,_., _.,_,. _....__-
1 4
)
1 very large spring rates to model the constraint of the movement of the storage pad in the horizontal x and y directions ftom the embedment of the pad in the soil (6,990,720 lblin i
i
]
and 6,641,190 lb.hn, respectively). Id, at 8 (emphasis added); see also id (spring constant for rotation of the pad around the vertical axis, which is restrained by the amhadmant of the storage pad in the soil).
l Again, the State's subcontention neither addresses, nor challenges the validity of, any of these sections of the Holtec analysis which clearly indicates that the analysis i
considered the embedment of the storage cask in the soil at the site. Furthermore, the State provides no indication whatsoever of the basis for its allegation that this is not i
i' considered in the Holtec analysis. Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, the i
State's subcontention that the Holtec analysis " fails to consider the eff'ect of the i
embedment of the pad in the... soil on the site" (State Request at 9) is clearly mistaken i
and must be rejected for ignoring the pertinent portions of the analyNs and for failing to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b).
f) jaadeguate Consideration to Site-Spgsi6c Soil Characteristics In this subcontention, the State asserts that "Holtec gives inadequate consideration to site-specific soil characteristics." State Request at 9. The State supports this generalized subcontention with two pages of text which include three subparts, each of i
_ which is addressed individually below.
2 L
i 35
i (i)
Use of Generic Values for Soil Charactaristics Based on i
Preliminary Soil Samples Taken for General Sits Characteriaation i
The State alleges that "Holtec uses generic values for soil characteristics, based on prali'=laarv anil mamples taken for ganaral site characterization. SAR Chapter 2." State t
Request at 9 (emphasis added). The State claims that "[t]his very preliminary and i
incomplete level of soil investigation in inadequate to_ support a reasonable seismic
[
analysis." 11 The State also claims that:
[
In order to be reliable, a seismic analysis should be based on more comprehensive knowledge of soil types; soil features, such as rtratigraphy; and measurements of each soil type's ability to respond to dynamic loading, such as dynamic passive resistance, damping, Young's modulus, and the Poisson's ratio.
11 at 9-10. The State provides no regulatory basis, facts, or documents whatsoever as a j
basis for its " laundry-list" of requested information.
i The State's assertion that the soil characteristics data reported in the SAR are based on " preliminary soil samples" that were taken for " general site characterization" ignores both the SAR and the Holtec analysis. The Holtec analysis states that the soil data a
it uses is "[b]ased on Anal soil measurements." n01 Preliminary soil samples. San HI-971631 at C-4 (emphasis added). Section 2.6.1.11 of the SAR, " Static and Dynamic Soil and Rock Properties at the Site," provides data the characteristics of soils at the PFSF site baain on "(g]eotechnical laboratory tests., performed on samples obtained in the borings
{
of the upper layer of silt, silty clay, and clayey silt.,.." at the site. SAR at 2.6-19. The _
i 36 i
+, - -,,,.
,,,---r'7,kM',.<.,,.w
- - + -, -, - -
y.
. -,h r. r,r,
-.,.r
- --w-~
~ ' + -
e e
-=
- ~- -- -'
t dynamic soil properties for the soils at the site (including, inter alia, shear modulus and Poisson's ratio) are summarized in Table 2.61 of the SAR for different stratigraphic layers of soil below the site. SAR at Table 2.6-1. Tables 2.6-2 and 2.6-3 provide the i
dynamic soil parameters developed for the storage pad, and the dynamic toil parameters i
for the design of the concrete storage pads, respectively. SAR at 2.6-28, Tables 2.6-2 and 2.63.
This information on soil structure and characteristics at the PFSF site is used in the design of the facility (cA, design of the storage pad) and the analysis of the facility's capability to comply with the regulations (eg, the cask stability analysis in HI-971631).
)
Nothing in the S AR indicates that this soil characteristics information is " preliminary data" or isjust for " general site characterization," as the State claims. See generally. SAR Section 2.6 (" Geology and Seismology"). Nor does the State's subcontention indicate anywhere in the SAR that indicates this, or anything else in the SAR that supports the State's allegation. Sec State Request at 910. Furthernore, essentially all of the specifically-defined items in the State's " laundry-list" of recommended data for a " reliable seismic analysis" is explicitly provided in the SAR, including stratigraphy, damp'mg ratio, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio. The State's subcontention ignores this information I'
in the SAR.
' In setting forth a contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(b), a petitioner is required to " read the pertinent portions of the license application, including the Safety Analysis Report and the Emironmental Report, state the applicant's position and the 1
37
... _.. _..~
1
~
petitioner's opposing view." Ses 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170. Therefore, in addition to the lack ofgood cause, the State's subcontention that "Holtec uses generic values for soil i
characteristics, based on preliminary soil samples taken for general site characterization" is l
i clearly mistaken and must be rejected for ignoring pertinent portions of the SAR and the i
Holtec analysis and for failing to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention.
i See Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at 15-16.
l i
A=-motion that Soil Banaa*h Cancrete Pad is (ii)
Homonananus and Moves Toomther with Pad i
The State contends that "Holtec assumes that the soil beneath the concrete pad is a 1
l homogeneous rectangular block that will move together with the pad, which in turn will move together with the casks.- Holtec Seismic Report, Appendix B at B3." State Request 1
at 10. The specific section cited by the State, " Appendix B at B3," speaks only of the P
assumption that the " soil moves with the pad," and says nothing about the pad moving with the casks.
The first statement in the State's subcontention, that "Holtec assumes that the soil t
e beneath the concrete pad is a homogeneous rectangular block that will move together with
- the pad," is thus correct but the State fails to provide any basis to show that this will affect i
the cask stability analysis. The State first asserts that "[t]his assumption is not based on l
reaser.sbly detailed knowledge of the stratigraphy and characteristics of the soil, but on simplified preliminary data." State Regaest at 10l This allegation regarding the nature of I
the site soil characteristics data is already responded to in subpart (fXi), auma l
J 38
+
l l
l
..u.
--.-.a.
_,. a._ _ _ _. a _u,. _.
.~_._._-.__,-.--__a----
}
l i
The Stat e fbrth - l charges that the assumption that the soil and pad move together
" fails to take into account the differences in strata beneath the pad, or the impacts on the cask / pad system of different acceleration rates and directional movements for each of the different strata." 11 The State provides no facts or documents of any kind to support its allegations that the assumption that the soil and pad move together " fails to take into account the differences in strata beneath the pad" and will have an impact on the results of the cask stability analysis.11 Further, this subcontention provides no basis to indicate that the " differences in strata beneath the pad" would have any effect on the movement
+
between the surficial soil surrounding the storage pad and storage pad itself. Such a conclusory allegation of dispute is not sufficient to admit a contention; the petnioner must show that " facts are in dispute," thereby demonstrating that an " inquiry in depth" is appropriate. Texas Utilities Electric Comogy gipa, LBP-92 37,36 NRC at 376.
Furthermore, the assumption that the " soil moves with the pad" (HI 971631 at B-
- 3) is based on the guidance of the ASCE (American Society of Cisil Engineers) standard for performing seismic analyses of safety related structures that is included as Reference 7
. in the Holtec analysis. Sm 111971631 at 15 (reference 7, A[SCE) Standard," Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Structures and Commentary,,. " Approved by A[SCE), Sept.
1986 at Tables 3300-1 and 2, and Figure 3300-1). The State does not indicate any way in which the ASCE standard is de6cient or the application of this standard to the Holtec analysis is inappropriate. This part of the subcontention must be dismissed because it fails 39
s to establish a genuine dispute with the applicant and it faile to provide a Went basis for an admi:-ihle contention 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(b).
The State's second assertion under this subcontention is that in the Holtec analysis "the pad [is assumed)... to move together with the casks Hohoc Seismic Report, Appendix B at B3." See State Request at 10. This assertion is mistaken, ignores the relevant information in the Holtec analysis, and must be rejected for lack of basis. First of all, as noted above, the section cited by the State, "Holtec Seismic Report, Appendix B at B3," says abaalatalv nothine about how the pad moves with the ~4= and discusses only the assumption that the " soil moves with the pad."- See HI 971631 at B 3. The State does not explain this oversight, and fails to reference anywhere in the Holtee analysis that indicates any assumption that "the pad... move [s] together with the casks." Sec State Request at 10. Once the State's erroneous citation is recog&.ed, it becomes clear that the State provides no support in fact or document for its allegation that the Holtec analysis assumes "the pad... move [s] together with the casks." E Moreover, the State ignores relevant portions of the Holtec analysP. which explicitly show that its allegation is incorrect. Section 4.0 of the Holtec analysis,
" Assumptions and Modeling of the Cask / Pad Simulation," clearly r, hows that the casks I
and the pad are modeled as independent bodies that each allowed to move in any direction (translation in the x, y and z direction, and rotation about the x, y and z axis),
- unconstrained by, an/ wpendent of, all the other bodies in the system, Sec HI 971631 at 2-4. Based on thm assumptions for the analysis:
l 40 I
u
l The dynamic model of each of the HI STORM casks, i
therefore, has eleven degrees of freedor.: so that dghty eight (88) degrees of freedom are used to simulate the assemblage l
of casks for the case when the pad is assumed fully populated. Finally, to complete the model, six degrees of freedom establish the rigid body motion of the ISFSI pad l
relative to inertial space.
{
li at 2. The eighty eight degrees of freedom of motion for the storage caskt are not constrained by the decrees of freedom of motion for the storage pad, as can be seen from the deAnitions of each of these degrees of freedom in the analysis. Sag 11 at 3-4. There is no assumption anywhere in the Holtec analysis that the pad is assumed to move together with the storage casks. See generally, HI 971631.
The State does not address these sections of the Holtec analysis, nor does the State provide any information to indicate that such an assumption was made. Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, this part of the State's subcontention must be e
rejected for ignoring the relevant sections of the Holtec analysis and for failing to proside a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. Sec Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at I l-16.
(iii)
Failnre to Take into Account Potentini for Cemented and/or Collannible Soil on the Sitt The State alleges that "Holtec also fails to take into account the potential for cemented and/or collapsible soil on the sit e, which may have an affect on the rate and direction of movement of the cask / pad system." State Request at 10. The State references Utah Contention L (Geotechnical) in support of this contention.11 However, i
41 s
i the State provides no facts or documents of any kind to support its allegation that
" cemented and/or collapsible soil" will have an impact on "the rate and direction of movement of the cask / pad system." Su id. The State's subcontention provides no basis for believing that such a connection exists. Such a conclusory allegation of dispute is not sufficient to admit a contention; the petitioner must show that " facts are in dispute,"
thereby demonstrating that an " inquiry in depth" is appropriate. Texas Utililies Electric Comp 1By, spa, LDP 92 37,36 NRC at 376. Because the State provides no more than a conclusory, unsupported allegation, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcontention must be rejected for failing to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b).
g)
Failure to Corisider the Impact of Dynamic Loads on the Structural Intecrity of the Pad In this subcontention, the State contends that the IIoltec analysis does not consider the impact of dynamic loads on the structuralintegrity of the pad. State Request at 10-11.
This subcontention must be dismissed for being mistaken and ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant.
The Applicant acknowledges that some earthquake-generated pad / cask movement may cause the casks to tip up and then slap down on their full bases, with a vertical force in excess of 1,600,000 pounds (Holtec Seismic Report,1I1971631 at Figure 9.1). The state fails to recognize, however, that the Applicant did consider these dynamic loads in its calculation for the concrete pad design. Sn, CEC Analysis, spn. The pad was 42
?
i speci6cally designed with reinforcing steel to resist dynamic loads if the casks should slap l
4 down on the pad. Sea SAR Section 4.2.3.5.lB and CEC Analysis at Section 5.1.3. Nor i
i does the State provide any factual basis to support its contention that should spalling, j
cracking and localiM surface cracking of the concrete occur that these phenomena would
- adversely.*Eect the stability of the casks._ Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, j
this subcorn emion must be dismissed for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant ani for lack of ba:Is. See Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at 11-16.
l i
h)
Failure to Perform Uncertmia+v or Sannitivity Analvals on Soil Pad l
In this subcontention, the Stste contends that Holtec apparently did not perform i
" uncertainty or sensitivity analyses on the various soil pad interaction aspects ofits seismic analysis." State Request at 11. The State, however, cites no regulatory or other requirmnent as a basis for its contention that a sensitivity analysis is required. Nor does it t
come forward with any factual bases why such and;ses should be done here. Moreover, 4
the State ignores that the independent analyses already performed by Holtec and 1
Stevenson have shown similar results with respect to cask stability. Hence, in addition to e
the lack of good cause, tids subcontention must be dismissed for advocat'mg stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations and for lack of basis. San Applicant's Answer,Section II.B. at 5;Section II.C at Il-13.
i 5
+
t 1
43 w
ay-v.,,.r,
,,--r--e-.~.-
,,,,,,e-v
.m-.
,w-r-
-e.,,vm,,mr-rw-
,w-wwe
,-nw nee er
.,w,,
s.
-w w.-r----
--,w.a
-m-.,-w,m,s-,.m.,,,_--e-.-,,--.,,
--we-me-s,-t
p.
}
i i) 3-q.. n
- u. ah W for the c..a., rr > u uag l
In this subcontention, the State contends that Holtec's earthquake analysis for the l
Canister Transfer building is inadequate. State Request at 11. Speci6cally, the State asserts that the Holtec Seismic Report does not contain any analysis of the seismic i
response of the cask, transfer cask and overhead bridge crane and the " Applicant must i
provide an analysis of earthquake impacts on this facility under postulated accident conditions." Id. at 11. This subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring relevant i
material submitted by the Applicant.
The cranes in the Canister Transfer Building wili be constructed from a single-failure-proof design to preclude a cask from being dropped in the event of extreme environmetal conditions, including an earthquake. Sac SAR Sections 3.2.10.2.10, 3.4.3, l
and 4.7.2 at Table 3.6-1. Also, the crane vendors will be required to perform the design in 4
l accordance with all appropriate engineering standards (eg, ASME NOG-1 and NUREG-0554) referenced in Section 4.7.2.1 of the SAR. The crane seismic analysis also includes consideration of an earthquake when a cask is hanging from the crane. San SAR Table l
3.6.1. The building itself will be a Category I building (important to nuclear safety) and designed to withstand all extreme environmental conditions, including earthquake loads.
Sac SAR Sections 3.4 and 4.7.1 and Table 3.6 1. Hence, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring relevant material submitted by i
the Applicant. San Applicant's Answer, SectionII.C at 1516.
j)
F=Hme to Identib Commatar C~iae p
44
..,--+
,errm--
e n._n...,,w-
,.n
. -,, -...-,e,,-
w--
, -.,,, - - - -., -,--.m-.>,n-,w
...-,eNw.--ww-,e--
y, -,,
a v4 -
4 4 p-..,
e-
.m,s- - m ee
-w.,w
=
I t
In this subcontention, the State contends that it is impossible to identify the P
computer codes used by Holtec based on the information provided. State Request at 12.
This subcontentle i must be dismissed as seeking discovery to overcome a lack of sufficient basis in its pleadings. The State's effort to get discovery of the computer codes i
in the contention phase is inappropriate. As stated by the Commission in the 1989 statement of consideration to the amended rules:
[A] contention is not to be admitted where an intervenor has no facts to support its position and where the intervenor i
contempletes using discovery or cross-examination as a fishing expedition which might produce relevant supporting facts.
$4 Fed. Reg. 33,168,33,171 (1989). Accord. Catawba. ALAB 687,16 NRC at 468.
(Rules of Practice do not permit "the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or staft").
Hence, in addition to the lack of good cause, the State's request to have Holtec identify the computer codes must be dismissed as not being a proper contention.
B.
Utah Contention FF: Inadequate Analysis of Radiation Shielding.
1, The Contention The State alleges in Contention FF that:
PFS has not demonstrated satisfaction of NRC dose limits at 10 C.F.R. { 72.104, because its analysis of radiation shielding for the proposed PFS facility is inadequately docuinented or explained.
45
,_.,_,,..m.
,, _.... _._-. - _.,-_~.-.
\\
1 t
State Petition at 13. The asserted bases for the contention are set forth on pages 13 17.
in order to focus the analysis on whether the contention should be admitted, the Applicant l
proposes that the contention be restated as follows incorporating the specific allegations in l
I its bases:
i i
PFS has not demonstrated satisfaction ofNRC dose limits at 10 C.FA { 72.104, because its analysis of radiation shielding for the proposed PFS facility is inadequately l
i dommented or explained in that:
i i
a) The source term used in the Holtec radiation shielding i
analysis isinadequate m that:
(i) Ther-is no indication that the analysis considers transur:Jes and alpha n reactions as a source for neutrons.
5 i
(ii) There is no evidence that the analysis considers the subcritical multiplication eff'ect on the neutron source term of an array of multiple casks.
b) The dose calculations, and the supporting documentation, for the horizontal and vertical components of radiation transport we insufficient in that:
i (i) Unexplained modeling inconsistencies exist in that some doses are modeled out to $50 meters while others i
are modeled out to 1,050 meters. It is not clear where the peak dose occurs, or how Holtec integrated the inconsistent calculations into a single dose calculation.
' (ii) Holtec's extensive use of extrapolation in lieu of actual modeling is not consistent with fundamental principles of shielding analysis. Further, Holtec does
[
not provide sufficiat data on the assumptions used in the analysis to support its high use of extrapolation.
L I:
46 b
-_-._._n._.-._,__...-_.___
... _ _ _ _ _. ~ _ _ _
l i
(iii) Holtec fails to demonstrate that it adequately takes l
into account the efect of doses of a large array of casks i
at the PFS facilityin that:
l I
(1) The analysis neglects the efects of small angle.
scattering firom a large number of casks by using the single cask data, together with the ratios of shielded j
to unshielded casks contribution.
(2) The analysis does not identify the contribution i
of those particles that emerge from the upper i
portion of the side of a cask in an upward direction, which avoid shielding by a4lacent casks (3) The analysis fails to address the radiation
[
streaming effect of a 150 foot wide gap that bisects the center of the storage facility in both east west and north-south directions.
l (iv) Holtec fails to show that all potentially relevant contributors to skyshine doses are considered in that the
{
data is difficult to interpret and thus the reasonableness l
and conservatism of the assumptions cannot be evaluated. Specifically, Holtec combines the neutron and gamma doses into total doses for side and top contributions even though they exhibit different rates of i
decrease with distance c) The Holtec radiation shielding analysis is inadequate in that it fails to include a sensitivity or uncertainty analysis l
on the calculations and fails to support the repeated claim that the calculations, including the extensive use of extrapolation, are conservative.
t 2.
AanHe='it's Paaannae to the Cnntantian In Centention FF, the State challenges aspects of the dose rate calculation i
perfumed.by Holtec for the PFSF, The dose rate calculations are summarized in Section 47 t
.-._,.-.rw,,,,,,_m.,,...,,.__,_,,~,,,.,-_..m.
,._..- m
..w,.,.--,,m,,v_-
-~
7.3.3.5 of the SAR for the PFSF. Ifoltec's calculations and methodology are set forth in one of the calculation packages prepared by IIoltec Report: HI 971645 (" Radiation Shielding Analysis for Private Yuel Storage Facility") fded with the NRC (and made available to the State)("lil 971645"). This calculation package in turn relied upon Topical Safety Analysis Reports for the HI STORM 100 Cask System ("HI STORM TSAR") and Topical Safety Analysis Report for the lil STAR 100 Cask System ("HI-STAR TSAR").
The State received the non proprietary version of the calculation package in September 1997. State Request at 2. The non proprietary version included the entire text of the report, complete copies of Appendices A, ("Near Dose Rates"), I) (" Single Cask Dose Rate veaus Distance") and C ("Results of Various Overpack Configuration Analyses") to the report and the cover page to Appendix D (" Final Dose Rate Calculations"). The only materials not included in the non-proprietary version were the calculations set forth in Appendix D. As set forth in the discussion below, each of the State's contentions could have been developed without the Appendix D calculations.
The applicable regulatory requirement is 10 C.F.R. Q 72.104 which provides that
"[d]uring nonnal operations and (on) anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to any other organ...." Holtec calculated the highest annual dose rate at the site boundary, which at its closest point is approximately 650 meters from the array of casks, to be 3.88 mrem, almost an order of 48
4 i
- -M lower than the regulatory limit of 25 mrom. PFSF SAR at 7.3 15. Holtec also calculated the done rate at the security fence, which at its closest point is 150 feet kom the array of casks, and estimated the dose to the nearest resident, which is approximately 2 l
miles kom PFSF 11 at 7.313,15 and 16.
i In Contention FF, the State raises a number ofissues concerning Holtrc's dose rate calculation, wluch, in addition to the State's lack of good cause for late Bling, the Applicant addressesin tum pelow.
e a)
Inadaa'ia** 1t adi=+ian Rhialdian Analvais (i)
Fallare to Caa=idae Trna-armaie= and Aloha-Neutron f
Ranctions 8
The State alleges that Holtec's radiation shielding analysis is inadequate because there is no indication that Holtec evaluated transuranics and alpha-n reactions as sources of neutron radiation. State Request at 13. The State claims that the failure to consider I
these reactions indicates that the source term may be underestimated and, as a resuh, calculated doses mcy be underestimated. The State also notes that the claimed failure to consider these reactions would be contrary to the guidance provided in NUREG-1536 (Standard Review PM for Dry Cask Storage Systems).
T'Js subcontr.ation must be dismissed for lack of good cause. The radiation source terms are discussed on page 5 and Section 7.1 ofHoltec's Report, which are non-proprietary, and not in Appaadix D. Accordingly, the State had the information necessary I
49 i
. ~,., - -
.n
i t
to develop this subcontention by September 1997 and no good cause for the late Sling of.
i thi< subcontention exists.
i i
Further, this subcontention must be dismissed for failure to consider relevant l
information in the license application. Contrary to the State's claim, Holtec followed the l
guidance in NUREG 1536. The NUREG states that:
Generally, the applicant will determine the source terms using ORIGEN S (e.g., as a SAS2 sequence of SCALE),
ORIGEN2, or the U.S. Deps... sat of Energy (DOE)
Characteristics Data Base.,,.
NUREG-1536 at 5 3. Holtec calculated the source items using these exact codes referenced by the NRC in the NUREG. San HI 971645 at 5. ("The radiation source terms were calculated using the SAS2H and ORIGEN S modules &om the SCALE 4.3 code syste:n from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.") See alog PFSF SAR at 7.2 1.
Further, both the PFSF SAR and HI STORM and HI STAR TSARS reflect that t
Holtec's calculation of the source terms included neutron radiation from transuranics and -
alpha / neutron reactions. The PFSF SAR sta' st:
(N]eutrons are produced in the active fuel region by spontaneous fission sources from various actinides and alpha / neutron reactions. The primary neutton source is the
- spontaneous Assion of Cm 244. HI STORM neutron sources for the PWR and BWR fuels, determined using the i
SAS2H and ORIGEN S codes, are shown in HI STORM SAR Tables 5.2.16 through 5.2.20 SAR st 7.2 9 (emphasis added). Further, the text in the HI STORM TSAR preceding the tables referenced in the above quotation shows that the neutron sources summarized in 50
.~
.---l.-.--..-~.
.~
_.-._.t
._..m..
._._m..m.
..a
,_e T
f r
I i
those tables include neutrons from transuranics as well as alpha / neutron reactions. It states:
It is well known that the neutron source strength increases as enrichment decreases for a constant burnup and decay time. This is due to the increase in Pu content in the fuel i
Which incres its the inventory of other tranwanium mirna
=>% a cm.
l L
The neutron source calculated for the design basis fuel assemblies are listed in Tables 5.2.15 through 5.2.20 in neutrons /s. [Cuarium 2441 accounta for approximatalv 96%
of the total number of neutrons prodard with aliehtiv over 2% oriaination from (ctni reactions with the UOsfud. The remaining 2% derive from spontaneous fission in various Pu and Cm radionuclides.
HI STORM TSAR at 5.2-3 (emphasis added).
Thus, contrary to the State's contention, both the PFSF SAR and the HI STORM TSAR reflect that Holtec considered transuranics and alpha-neutron reactions as sources of source neutrons in performing its dose calculations. Because the State ignored relevant information in the Application and mistakenly claims that the Applicant failed to address a relevant issue in the Application, this subcontention must be dismissed. San Applicant's 3
Answer,Section II.C at 15-16.
51
.. y t
(ii)
Failure to Consider Suberitical Muhiplication Effect on Arrav of Ma j
The State contends that "there is as evidence that Hohec's analysis took into i
considerr'on the suberitical mukiplication effect on the neutron source term of an array of j
multiple casks.". State Request at 14. The State contends that since the analysis is based
[
l on a single cask source, the suberitical multiplication of an array of casks has not been considered.
This subcontertbn hke the one above must be dismissed for lack of good cause, because suberitical multiplication applies to the source terms, which as stated above, are -
discussed in the non proprietary portions of Holtec's Report, Further, this subcontention must be dismissed for failure to consider relevant a
information. The suberitical multiplication tbr an array of cesks was explicitly considered in the criticality analysis for both tim HI-STAR and the HI-STORM 100 systems set forth in Section 6.4.2 of both TSARS. This criticality analysis shows that the subcritii multiplication factor (k-effective) of an array of casks is identical to that of a single cask.
[
4
. i As concluded in the HI STORM TSAR:
The thick steel-concrete-steel wall of the HI STORM overpack is more than sufficient to preclude neutron coupling between casks in the array...."
- HI STORM TSAR at 6.4 3. Therefore, a single cask is neutronically isolated from a4jacent casks and the only suberitical muhiplication which must be considered in a radiation shielding analysis is the multiplication within a single cask.
r 52 1
4
~w
,,+. - - *
,,~,+,,..,,..-,,,--,,e-6-
--- i in-,;.-- m
-n-
-,n.
,n,,,,-n.-,
,r,c.-,,n,.
i A
Nowhere in its contentions or the referenced affidavit does the State address or provide a basis to challenge the conclusion set fonh in the HI-STORM TSAR.
Accordingly, in addition to the lack of good cause, the contention must be rejected for mistakenly claiming that the Applicant failed to address a relevant issue in the application and for lack of basis. Sm Applicant's Answer Section II.C at 11 16.
b)
Insufficient Analysis and Doce.an'**lon of Dose Calmtations
- The State claims that Heltec provides " insufficient analyses and documentation to demonstrate the adequacy ofits dose calculations for the horizontal and vertical components ofradiation transport" State Request at 14. Sp(cifically the State claims that "Holtec's analysis consisted of modeling doses out to 550 and 1,050 meters from the i
center of the cask, and extrapolating doses from that point." 11 According to the State,
"[t]his method is inadequate to support a reasonable dose calculation in [four) respects" (ii), to which the Applicant responds in turn below (i)
Inconsistency in MoMino First, the State claims that Holtec "does not explain the inconsistency in modeling some doses out to $50 meters and others out to 1,050 meters." 11 According to the i
State, "[ijt is not clear where the peak dose occurs, or that Holtec's calculations include the region of peak dose." 11 Further, the Stete claims that it is not " clear how Holtec integrated the inconsistent calculations into a single dose calculation." li 53
+ - - -
e-gnn-o n s-
,-v sm-g-,v.,,-,y n
---e w
n,.
-,e a,-
,,_ _ -. ~
w -,
tm~y r
-r s-
i l
P This sub-contention, like the ones above, must be rejected for lack of good cause i
forlate Aling. The muleling of a single cask surrounded by 1050 meters of air l
i
("conHguration 1") and the modeling of multiple casks (configurations 2-6) surrounded by l
'550 meters of air are described in the non-proprietary version of HI 971465, Section 7.6 at 913. The calculations for configuration 1 are set forth in Appendix B of the report and i
calculations for configure.tions 2-6 are set forth in Appendix C, both of which are also non proprietary, Appendix D, the proprietary portion the Holtec repon, integrates the i
4 above calculations in calculating the final dose rates. The State obviously did not use Appendix D to arrive at this contention, for if the State had re'.iewed Appendix D, it would have known how the various calculations were integrated into a single dose calculation.
This contention must also be rejected for the State has set forth no basis to 1
challenge the adequscy of the modeling or its results. Although the Holtec report sets forth both the rnethdology and the calculations, the State does not (except for its claim that it is not clear where peak doses occur discussed below) identify any purported deficiencies. For example, the State simply alludes to the inconsistency of modeling some
{
doses out to 1050 meters and others out to 550, but it identifies no deficiencies in the calculation or alleged errors in the calculated dose rates that occur as a result of this purponed inconsistency.
Funher - with respect to the sole deficiency asserted by the State - the
- calculations do reflect where the peak dow occurs. The calculation for the single cask 54 J
--wv'w-we
.-+wwere.r e,vmor -er **v e
e--- ve w. 5,=.
,w ru,.,,ur y-ww'*-e
-e%+*
e
- e e n-=--wr
- e e--w-~r
-w+-
%r-=w-e+ p e i
- tv+-*-ew,-
+-
-t v sie w am"e
--e-m
-t r
=T-tww ' ar
--'ve---
--ve w
-re--
F
configuration reflects that the dose decreases as a function of distance. hs HI-971645, Appendix B. This is true for all doses - top doses, side doses, and doses from neutrons, photons, and cobalt. R Farther, the dose calculation for each of the multiple cask configurations shows that the doses decrease as a function of distance from casks. Sag &
at Appendic C. In this regard, the calculah.d dose rates at the security fence at 150 feet from the casks were greater by approximately three orders of magnitude than the dose rate calculated at the boundary approximately 650 meters from the casks. PFSF SAR at 7.3-
- 13. Thus, it is clear that the maximum doses occur within 150 feet of the pad boundary, the point of the closest calculation. Neither the contention nor the referenced affidavit set forth any basis on which to claim that dose rates do not decrease as a function of distance or that the maximum peak dose occurs beyond 150 feet.
Thus, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring relevant informaticn in the Application and for lack of basis. he Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at Il-16.
(ii)
Use of Extrapolation in Lieu of Modeling The State also claims that "Holtec's extensive use of extrapolation in lieu of actual modeling is not consistent with fundamental principles of shielding analysis" and that Holtec does not provide " sufficient data on the assumptions used in its analyses to support its high use of extrapolation." State Request at 15. This contention must be dismissed for lack of good cause as the others above. Although the actual calculation extrapolating 55 l
?
T
. doses out to two miles based on a power curve is included in Appendix D of Hohec's -
report at page 49 and is proprietary, Holtec includes an explanation of how the two mile t
dose was extrapolated on page 13 of the report which is non proprietary, The State could have arrived at its contention based on the non-proprietary discussion, without the need to review the extrapolation calculation in Appendix D.
Addhionally, the subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring ' formation in the m
license application and for lack of basis. The Holtec report describes the basis and assumptions used for this extrapolation as follows:
The dose at a distance of 2 miles was estimated by extrapolation using a power curve. This curve was calculated by fitting the data from the total dose rate versus distance for a single cask for distances between 100 and l
n 1000 m. The curve adara=*im=*a= the dose rate at digstces less than 700 matars and overestimataa the dose at distances arenter than 700 meters. Since the distance in guani2n is 2 miles. this curve will be conservative. The i
curve was then normahzed to the maximum site boundary dose rate from the facility at a distance of 650 meters from the first cask. Using the newly normalized curve, the dose at 2 miles was calculated.
[
HI-971645 at 13 (emphasis added). See also PFSF SAR at 7.3-15 and 16.
Other than to make the bald assertion that Holtec does not provide " sufficient data
. on the assumptions used in its analyses," the State sets forth no basis to challenge the estimation of the dose calculated at two miles. S.ca State Request at 15. The State ignores completely how Holtec performed this calculation as described in HI-971645 as
- well as the PFSF SAR. It neither identifies any asserted deficiencies in the methodology b
56
,-e.
e e----,
e, v
.e-
.r
-e
,v..,-
g
,em.
ar r-.
n v
.-r
--,, - -,ut.+
e r-
, e.
?
- used for this estimation 'nor does the State identify any akernate methodology which it -
claims would better estimate the doses. Nor does the State set forth any basis to challenge I
' Holtec's conclusion that the method 'of extrapolatiori" overestimates the dose at distances
. greater than 700 meters and therefore the extrapolation of doses beyond the site boundary' "will be conservative." HI-971645 at 13.
. Accordingly,'in addition to a lack of good cause, this contention must be dismissed
- for ignoring relevant information in the Application and for lack of basis. San Applicant's..
4 Answer,Section II.C at 11-16.
(iii)
Larne Array of C==len
~
The State also claims that Holtec does not deinonstrate that it has adequately taken into account the effects on doses of a large array of casks at the PFS facility in three respects to which Applicant responds in turn below. State Request at 15.
(1)
Small Anale Scatterinn The State first claims that "the use of single cask data, together with the ratios of shielded to unshielded casks contributions, neglects the effects of small angle scattering from a large number of casks." State Request at 15. According to the State, "[t]his scattering adds particles that would then stream through the gaps between the casks."
This subcontention must also be dismissed for lack of good cause. Both the use of single cask data and the ratio of doses for shielded versus unshielded casks are discussed in Section 7.6'of the Holtec report (non-proprietary). The actual ratios are set forth in the
-57 1
1 4
.w-e.
y.ge-y m.
g-*
-wm
4 Appendix C computations (also non-proprietary). Thus, the State did not need Appendix D to develop this subcontention.
Further, this subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring information in the Application and for lack of basis. The ratios of doses from shielded to unshielded casks accounts fr>r particles that scatter between casks and therefore necessarily does account for the "small angle scattering" as well as other scattering which may go through the gaps between the casks. For example, Configuration 3, one of the configurations used to calculate a ratio of doses for shielded versus unshielded casks, is described on page 11 of HI 971645. This configuration is represented by two inSnite rows of casks equally spaced with a radiation source in both casks. Accordingly, it is clear that radiation streaming from the second row through the front row, either directly or scattering off the casks in the front row, to the dose location is accounted for. Further, Appendix D reflects that such scattering was considered throughout the entire array of 4000 casks. Page 37 of the report shows that 80 casks were considered in each of 50 rows along the East and West faces and 50 casks were considered in each of 80 rows along the North and South faces.
Pages 38 and 39 of HI-971645 present the contribution to the final dose from each individual row facing the North and South faces. Pages 41 and 42 of HI-971645 present the contribution to the final dose from each individual column facing the East and West faces.
The State also claims that "[b]ecause these particles are essentially collimated and have a strongly forward peaked angular distribution, they are likely to have a smaller rate 58
of decrease with distance than those coming from either a single cask or the ratios from one, two, or four infmite rows of casks." State Request at 16. This assertion has no basis for it violates basic laws of physics. The radiation leaving a cask situated behind another cask will undergo more attenuation than radiation leaving a cask surrounded by air.
Although the attenutted radiation that passes between casks will be slightly collimated as the State claims, this radiation will have lost energy, not gained energy, because of the attenuation. Tnerefore, it will not exhibit a smaller rate of decrease with distance as the State contends, but in fact a larger rate of decrease.
In short, this contention must be rejected in addition to a lack of good cause because the State ignores information in the report which shows that the analysis does account for scattering and because the contention lacks any scientific basis.
(2)
Contribution of Side Doses to Skyshine Dosej The State contends that "there is a large contribution to the dose effects of shielded casks, from those particles that emerge from the upper portion of the side of a cask in an upward direction that allows them to avoid shielding by adjacent casks" which are " contributors to the skyshine doses." E According to the State, Holtec "does not explain, nor is it clear, how much radiation dose these factors might contribute in a full array of 4000 casks." E This contention must be rejected for lack ofgood cause because the Holtec report discusses top doses and side doses at pages 9-10 (non-proprietary). Accordingly, the State did not need Appendix D to develop this contention.
59 l
l
=
c This contention must also be rejected because it is vague and unspecific. It is unclear whether the State's contention is that Holtee failed to take into account in
' calculating total doses particles emerging from the upper portion of the side of a cask in an upward direction or whether it simply failed to identify the fraction of the total doses
- attributable to this effect.
To the extent the State claims that Holtec failed to account for " particles that emerge from the upper portion of the side of a cask in an upward direction," the
. contention must be rejected for ignoring relevant information and for lack ofbasis. As set forth in HI-971645, Holtec used "a state of the art Monte Carlo code" with " full three-dimensions geometry" for its modeling and the HI-STORM overpack was "modeled in full-three dimensional detail" using this code. HI-971645 at 5, 8; see also SAR at 7.3-10.
Because the model is three dimensional, the side dose computation necessarily encompasses all" radiation... leav[ing] the sides of the overpacks, HI-971645 at 9,
- including radiation emerging from the upper portion or the side of the cask in an upward direction and scattering in the air to contribute to skyshine dose. The State both ignores
~
this information and provides no factual basis to claim otherwise.
Similarly, the State's contention that Holtec does not make " clear how much
- radiation dose these factors might contribute in a full array of 4000 casks" lacis any basis.
San State Request at 16. Ahhough the State is correct that the report does not identify the fraction of total dose that is coming from this effect, the State sets forth no basis why -
this fraction must be identified. For the purposes of the report, properly accounting for 60 y
e y
4 3
g7 '
4 mr
. ~...-.
- the effect was required - which was done - but identifying the fraction of total dose from this effect, while it may be tehale=Hy interesting, was not required for an accurate
- analysis. Because the State fails to set forth any basis why the fraction of the total dose attributable to this effect must be identified, ths contention must be rejected.'
(3)
Effect of150 Footwide Gan The State claims'that "Hohec does not evaluate the radiation streaming effect of a 2
150 foot wide gap that bisects the center of the storage facility in both east-west and north-south directions." State Request at 16.
e
- This contention must be dismissed for lack of good cause. The State could have developed this contention based solely on the non proprietary sections ofHoltec's report
- that describe the methodology, Sections 7.6 and 7.7 (pages 9-13), since the discussion in these sections does not address the 150 foot gap in question, which is clearly reflected on the layout of the concrete pad arrangement (page 16 also non-proprietary).'
(iv).
Failure to Show that all Potentially Relevant Contributors to Skynhine Are Con =idered
- The State claims that "Holtec has failed to show that it considered all potentially relevant contributors to skyshine doses (i.e.," top-dose")." State Request at 16.
According to the State, because of skyshine, doses tend to peak at intermediate distances
+
-' Appendix D ' reflects that the detailed calculations do not account for the 150 foot gap that runs towwd
- the detector location, though they do explicitly mention and account for the 150 foot gap that runs WH4r to a line between the storage pads and the detector location.
4 h
y y.,
w e
w v---
- -***. =
- +
~
d
- ' ~
....m m
_.___m_.
~ ~.,.m m,.
i before they monotonically decrease at the larger distances and that "this may be significant in determining the point ofmaximum occupational dose rate, because the peak dose
~ occurs at about 200 to 300 meters from the cask, which is within the array ofcasks " E The State claims that the " data is difficult to interpret, and thus the reasonableness and conservatism of assumptions" cannot be evaluated. E at 17. Specifically, it claims that "ahhough neutron and gamma doses exhibit different rates of decrease with distance,-
Holtec combines them into total' doses for side and top contributio.;a." E '
This contention must be dismissed for lack of good cause. Top doses versus side doses are discussed in Section 7.6 of Holtec's report (non-proprietary). Further, Appendix B (non-proprietary) includes the calculations that sum the side and top dose l
rates to arrive at total dose rates for a single cask dose rates vs. distance. Accordingly, the State did not need Appendix D to develop this contention.
Further, this contention must be dismissed because it ignores information in the Application and for lack of basis. The calculations for the single cask dose rates show that the total, side and top doses from a single cask decrease as a function of distance.
Specifically, this calculation shows that the top dose rates for neutron and gamma 1
radiation, as weil as for the other types of top dose radiation, decrease as a function of distance. Sec HI-971645, Appendix B at 24-27. In addition, this appendix shows that the individual dose components were calculated separately as a function of distance and then 4
combined to calculate the total dose. Finally, the data in Appendix B (doses from 150 feet 62 q.
+
e a
w,-
e.
-.y awi.
p.
=. -
.s' to 1000 m) also shows that -- since all the doses decrease as a function of distances - the peak dose location is nearest to the cask, not at 200 to 300 meters as the State contends.
The State both ignores this information in Appendix 3 and provides no factual basis to challenge the correctness of this calculation. Accordingly, in addition to lack of good cause, this contention must be dismissed for lack of basis and for ignoring relevamt
- information. See Applicant's Answer,Section II.C t 11-16.
c)
Lack of Uncertainty Analysis or DemonstrataA Conservatiam The State contends that "[t]here is no evidence that Holtec performed any sensitivity... analysis on its calculations...." The State also contends that "Holtec fails to support its repeated claim that its analysis, including its extensive use of extrapolation, is conservative." State Request at 17.
l This subcontention must be dismissed for lack of good cause. Both the description of Appendix D included in Section 7.7 (non-proprietary) and the first page of Appendix D (non-proprietary) describe the calculations to determine the dose rate at the security fence, e the site boundary and at two miles from the site boundary with no mention of an uncenainty analysis. Therefore, the State did not need to review Appendix D to reach its conclusion that Holtec's report contains no uncertainty analysis. It is clear that the proprietary pages of Appendix D are a calculation and not text supporting the calculation as being conservative. Information to support the reasonableness of the analysis is in the non-proprietary body of the report and other non-proprietary sources discussed below.
Finally, as noted previously, the extrapolation of dose rates to 2 miles past the fence is 63
t
. i
- adequately described in Section 7.7 for the State to develop its contention. Therefore, the i
State could have arrived at this contention without the need to review the proprietery Appendix D calculation.
Further, the contention that Holtec failed to perform any sensitivity analysis must.
be dismissed for lack of an adequate regulatory basis and for advocating stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations, thereby amounting to a'. collateral-attack on the Commission's regulations. Section 3.0 ofHI-971645 notes that "[t]he acceptance criteria for [the radiation shielding) analysis are dictated by 10 C.F.R. 72.104 and 10 C.F.R. 72.106." hL at 5. The State does not challenge this assertion that 10 C.F.R. {$ 72.104 and 72.106 define the applicable acceptance criteria.
Neither of these regulations contain a requirement to perform a " sensitivity analysis." The State cites no other regulatory requirement for a " sensitivity analysis." Nor 3
does it cite any other basis other than its bald assertion for claiming that a sensitivity analysis must be done. -Accordingly, the State seeks to impose stricter requirements than those dictated by the applicable regulations and this contention must be rejected as an P
- impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's rules. Sec Applicant's Answer at
- Section II.B at 5-7.
Further, the State's claim that Holtec fails to support its claims that its analysis is conservative must be rejected for ignoring relevant information in the application and for lack'of basis. For example, the HI-STORM TSAR sets forth some of the highly conservative assumptions used by Holtec in developing the source terms as follows:
R N
.t r-a M
e-dc.*
-v
-r
.@tyl-F
?
9
3 The fuel assemblies used to generate the source terms _"are the assanblies.
1 eo that produce the highest neutron and gamma sources and the highest decay -
- heat load from the fuel assemblies types...." M-STORM TSAR at 5.2-
-1. See also PFSF SAR at 7.2-2.-
_ In performing the source term calculations "a single full power cycle was a
used to achieve the desired burnup. This assumption, in conjunction with the above-average specific powers in listed Tables 5.2.1. 5.2.2, and 5.2.3,-
resuhed in conservative source term calculations." HI-STORM TSAR at t
5.2-1.
. "The primary source of activity in the non-fuel regions of an assembly arise from the activation of(cobalt 59 to cobah 60]. The primary source of
[ cobalt 59] in a fuel element is impurities in the steel structural material of-r the fuel.... Reference (5.2.2] indicates that the impurity level in steel is 800 ppm or 0.8 gm/kg - Conservatively, the impurity level of[cobelt 59]
was assumed to be 1000 ppm or 1.0 gm/kg Inconel and stainless steel are both conservatively _ assumed to have the same 1.0 gm/kg impurity level."
HI-FTORM TSAR at 5.2-2.
J "It is well known that the neutron source strength increases as enrichment o
decreases for a constant burnup and decay _ time.... Because of this enrichment effect, and in order to obtain conservative source terms, an initial fuel enrichment of 3.4 w/o [ uranium 235] was chosen for the BWR design basis assembly, and 3.7 w/o [ uranium 235] for the PWR design basis fuel assembly. These enrichments are below the normal average enrichments used to obtain the burnups analyzed. Therefore, the source term calculations are conservative." LL at 5.2-3; See also PFSF SAR at 7.2-2.
-In addition, conservative assumptions were made in the modeling of the geometry as set forth at pages 5.3-1 and 5.3-2 of the HI-STORM TSAR.
Additionally, the analysis used the extremely conservative assumption that all 4000 casks are positioned simuhaneously and contain design basis fuel cooled for only ten
- years. The PFSF SAR summarizes the conservatism involved with respect to this L
assumption as follows:
o 65 L
L
~
The spent fuel basis for ihese calculations is that all 4,000 casks contain 40 GWd/MTU burnup and 10-year cooled
- PWR fuel, with a low initial enrichment assumed for this burnup.... [The choice of 10-year cooled fuel] is based on the following:- (1) the majority of the nuclear power plant spent fuel currently available to be stored at the PFSF is over 10 years old; (2) the vendors' minimum cooling time -
tequirement for transporting 40 GWd/MTU PWR fuel is 10 years for the Holtec HI-STAR shipping cask system and 7 years for SNC's TranStor shipping cask system; and (3) the anticipated maximum storage cask loading rate at the PFSF is one cask per operating day or about 200 casks per year, which at this rate would take 20 years for PFSF to be filled.
Therefore, a 10-year cooling time is considered to be conservative for the 4,000-cask PFSF array since the actual average cooling time is expected to be much greater than 10 years.
PFSF SAR at 7.3-9 and 10.
The State in its contention and referenced affidavit coupletely ignores these conservatisms set forth in the Application and related materials. It fails to challenge the conservativeness of the assumptions discussed above and fails to explain why other assumptions used in the calculations are nonconservative. The State simply makes the bald assertion that Applicant's analysis is nonconservative without providing any basis for its assertion. Thus, in addition to a lack ofgood cause, this subcontention must be rejected because it ignores relevant information in the Applicant's application and because
.it fails to set forth a sufficient basis for an admissible contention. San Applicant's Answer,Section II.C at Il-16.
IV.
CONCLUSION 66 a.-
~.,--
..e-
For the reasons set forth above with respect to each of the contentions, the Applicant respectfully submits that Utah Contentions EE through FF be denied.~
Respectfully submi,tted,
(
h Jayt. Silber'g Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Paul A. Gaukler SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington,DC 20037 (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
Dated: January 9,1998 535334 01 a
1 -
67
O 00CKETED USNRC 16 JAN 12 PS :40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFRCE OF SECREv\\RY RULEMAKJNGS AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICAh0NS STAFF Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinn Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATB FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Applicant's Answer to the State of Utah's Request for Consideration of Late-Filed Contentions EE and FF," dated January 9,1998, were served on the persons listed below (unless otherwise noted) by e-mail with conforming copies by U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 9th day of January 1998.
G. Paul Bollwerk III, Esq., Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: GPB@nrc. gov-e-mail: JRIG@nrc. gov Dr. Peter S. Lam
- AdjudicatoryFile Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: PSL@nrc. gov
?
- o 1
I Catherine L. Marco, Esqc
- Charles J. Haughney Sherwin E; Turk, Esq.
. Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Office Office of the General Counsel Office ofNuclear Material Safety and Mail Stop O-15 B18 Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 e-mail: SET @nrc. gov; CLM@nrc. gov.
Denise Chancellor, Esq.
Jean Belille, Esq.
Assistant AttorneyGeneral.
Ohnso Gaudadeh Devia Utah Attorney General's Office Land and Water Fund of the Rockies-160 East 300 South,5* Floor 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 P.O. Box 140873 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0873 e-mail: landwater@lawfund.org e-mail: dchancel@ state.UT.US John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.
Danny Quintana, Esq.
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute.
Skull Valley Band ofGoshute Indians Reservation and David Pete Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.-
1385 Yale Avenue-50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 e-mail: john @kennedys.org e-mail: quintana @xmission.com Clayton J. Parr, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Castle Rock, et al.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 185 S. State Street, Suite 1300 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications P.O. Box 11019 Staff Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-0019 (originaland two copies) e-mail: CJP@pwlaw.com
' Diane Curran, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 e mail: dicurran@aol.com
- By U.S. mail caly l
Paul A. Gaukler 33333401 i
2
.