ML20199D482
| ML20199D482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1998 |
| From: | Gaukler P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#198-18755 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9801300219 | |
| Download: ML20199D482 (16) | |
Text
y I '\\ G b DOCKETED i
USHRC January 20,199g -
gg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFFICE OF :e3 :i 41
/
RULEMNGES ANDi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUD.CATGNS STAR Before the Atomic Safety and I icensing Board in the Matter of
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
Docket No. 72-22 I
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFS1 APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO STATE OF UTAH'S REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LATE-FILED CONTENTION GG I.
INTRODUCTION
-1 On January 8,1998, the State of Utah (" State") filed a " Request for Consideration of Late-Filed Contention GG"(hereinafter " State's Request"). In its January 12,1998 l
Order (Response Schedule for Further Supplemental Petition and Additional Late-Filed Contention), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board")
directed that responses to the State's late-filed contention pleading be filed on or before January 20,1998. 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.
The Applicant opposes the State's Request. Although the State claims good cause for the late filing of Contention GG in its entirety because it was unable to obtain and bok22 A
4 PDR a
review proprietary information from Sierra Nuclear until December 12,1997. in fact the State could easily have developed at least two subparts of Contention GG based on the information in the non proprietary calculation packages, Volumes I III, which the State received in September,1997, together with the Safety Analysis Report ("SAR") for the Private Fuel Storage Facility ("PFSF"), which the State received in June 1997. The State therefore had ample time to prepare and file a portion of the contention in a timely manner and its request that the Board accept the entire late filed Contention GG should be rejected.
Part 11 below sets forth t ; legal basis why a portion of the State's Request for the late filing should be denieds Pm t til identifies the specific lack of good cause with respect to portions of Contention GG and sets forth additional reasons why all of Contention GG should be denied.
l 11.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH'S CLAIMED GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b)(1), late-filed contentions are admissible only upon a balancing of the five factors listed at 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1). In response to the State of Utah's claim that there is good cause for late filing of Contention GG, Applicant relies on its discussion in response to Contentions EE and FF on the requirements that must be satisfied for admissibility oflate-filed contentions. Ssc Applicant's Answer to the State of Utah's Request for Consideration of Late Filed Contentions EE and FF dated January 9,1998 (" Applicant's Answer to Utah Contentions EE and FF") at 3-4, 2
Under the principles concerning the admissibility oflate-tiled contentions, the State's request to file a portion of Contention GG as set forth in Section til below must be denied. The State bases its " good cause" argument on its claim that it was not able to obtain and review the proprietary information on which Contention GG purportedly is based until December 12,1997. State's Request at 2. Specifically,it claims that "[t]he
' review of the complex technical information in the Sierra Nuclear reports, comparison with the SAR and other reports referenced therein, and the drafting of this contention, took experts and attorneys several weeks" and "that approximately 30 days was a reasonable timeframe for this effort." hl Although the deadline for submitting contentions expired on November 24,1997, the State argues that these overdue contentions should be admitted because the State has satisfied the @ 2.714(a)(1)(i) requirement of" good cause" for its late filing. hL at 1-3.
The State has, however, not met its burden of showing " good cause" for its tardy tiling because the factual predicate for some ofits contention was available from.cources available to the State in a timely manner. As developed further in Part 111, the State could easily have developed a portion of the contention using the SAR and the non-proprietary infonnation in the Calculation Packages that were available in ample time for the State to file Contention GG in a timely manner. The State received the License Application, including the SAR, on June 25,1997.' The Calculation Packages are on the docket in the
'Ses State of Utah's Motion for Extension of Time to File Contentions. Oct.1,1997, at 2.
3
proceeding and, as acknowledged by the State, the non proprietary parts in Volumes I,11 and til were physically provided to the State at its request in September 1997.2 Since the facts necessary to support a portion of Contention GG were available to l
the State at the latest by September 1997, the State has failed to meet its burden of-demonstrating good cause for admission of the entire contention. 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 criteria for admissibility oflate Bled contentions.
Srs Applicant's Answer to Utah Contentions EE and FF at 3.
The State manifestly fails to meet this burden. It does nothing more than repeat the justi6 cation it set forth as the basis for the late niing of Contentions EE and FF.
I Applicant again relies on its answer to Contentions EE and FF that demonstrates that the State did not satisfy its burden. Sec Applicant's Answer to Utah Contentions EE and FF at 7-8.
In sum, the State has failed to make a compelling showing to overcome its lack of
" good cause" for its tardy filing of portions of Contention GG as set forth below and its request to submit Contention GG must, therefore, in part be denied.
2 Sec. e.g., letter to Denise Chancellor (State of Utah) from John L. Donnell (Stone & Webster) dated September 19.1997; letter to Mark Delligatti(NRC) from J. L. Donnell(Stone & Webster) dated July 28, 1997; letter to Mark Delligatti(NRC) from John D. Parkyn (PFS), dated July 14,1997 4
111.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAll CONTENTION GG (FAILURE TO DE510NSTRATE CASK PAD STABILITY DURING SEIS511C EVENT FOR TRANSTOR" CASKS) 1, The Contention -
The State alleges in Contention GG that:
The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the TranStor m
storage casks and the pads will remain stable during a seismic event, and thus, the application does not satisfy 10 CFR s 72.122(b)(2) and 72.128(a).
State's Request at 4. The asserted bases for the contention are set forth in five pages of discussion following the contention, in order to focus the analysis on whether the contention should be admitted, the Applicant proposes that the contention be restated as follows incorporating the specine allegations in its bases:
The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the TranStorm storage casks and the pads will remain stable during a
[
seismic event, and thus, the application does not satisfy 10 C.F.R; @} 72.122(b)(2) and 72.128(a) in that:
a) The Sierra Nuclear site-specific analysis gives inadequate consideration to site-specific soil characteristics.
b) Insuflicient information is provided about the input to the model used by Sierra Nuclear to support the credibility of the analysis.
c) Sierra Nuclear's analysis aemonstrates there is a potential stability problem with the casks during a seismic event. Applicant's conclusion that the cask will not topple is inconsistent with Sierra Nuclear's recommendation that the possibility of tipover should be analyzed using the ANSYS firi e element code.
5 1
e
d) The conclusion reached in the Sierra Nuclear Report demonstrates that the Holtec analysis is not based on an adequate inquiry into the vertical acceleration of the =
casks, tipover analysis, site conditions and how these factors affect the stability of the casks.
e) Sierra Nuclear's consultant, Advent Engineering Services, Inc. did not consider that the coeflicient of friction may vary over the surface of the pad and did not consider the shift from the static case to the kinetic case when considering momentum of the moving casks.
2.
Aonlicant's Resnonse to the Contention in Contention GG, the State challenges aspects of the storage cask stability calculation performed by Sierra Nuclear Corporation (" Sierra Nuclear") for the TranStorm torage casks to be used at the PFSF. The storage cask stability calculations s
are summarized in Section 8.2.1.2," Accident Analysis," of the SAR, with a specific subsection addressing the "TranStorm Cask Stability Analysis," Ses SAR at 8.2-6 to 8.2-10 Sierra Nuclear provided two proprietary analyses in PFSF Calculation Package, Vol. IV,it Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Evaluation of TranStorm Storage Cask Seismic Stability, Sierra Nuclear Calculation No. PFS01-10.0A04, Rev. 0 (1997)
("PFS01-10.02.04") and TranStor Storace Cask Seismic Stability Analysis for PFS Site, Sierra Nuclear Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.05, Rev. 0 (1997) ("PFS01-10.02.05").
In Contention GG, the State raises a number ofissues concerning Sierra Nuclear's cask stability analysis. Applicant addresses each of the issues raised by the State in its late-tiled contention, by relying on both proprietary and non-proprietary materials available to the State.
6
a)
Inadequate Consideration to Site-Soecific Soil Characteristics in this subcontention. the State contends that "the Sierra Nuclear site specific analysis gives inadequate consideration to site-specific soil characteristics." State's Request at 5. No explanation whatsoever is provided by the State as to why the consideration of site specific characteristics by Sierra Nuclear was inadequate. The only support provided by the State in a one-sentence reference to its discussion concerning the Holtec analysis in Contention EE. E at 5. This subcontention must be dismissed for lateness, for failure to provide a sufficient basis and because it ignores relevant material submitted by the Applicant.
The Sierra Nuclear cask stability analysis is described in detail in SAR Section 8.2.1. Sec SAR at 8.2-6 to 8.2-10. The analysis set forth therein utilized the System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction (SUPER SASSI/PC - hereinafter, "SASSI")
computer program to account for soil-structure interaction by modeling the soil as 4
discrete layers. E at 8.2-8. The properties of these soit layers are based on actual soil conditions from the site geotechnical investigation that is described in SAR Appendix 2A. These properties for the soil are provided in the non-proprietary Calculation Package Volume I, Geomatrix Develonment of Soil and Foundation Parameters in Suonort of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, dated 3/31/97 (" Calculation No. 05996.01-G(P5)-l")
at Table 3.2 entitled " Dynamic Soil Parameters for SASSI model." The results obtained from utilizing the S ASSI computer program were then used as input to the final cask 7
stability analysis based on the ANSYS computer program,- Sec SAR at 8.2.9. Also, to the extent that the State has unspecifically relied on its discussion in Cor.tention EE, without explanation Applicant relies on its response to Contention EE. Sec Applicant's Answer to Utah Contentions EE and FF at 36-43,: Since all this information was-available to the State in non proprietary documentation well in advance of the contentions deadline, the State has failed to establish good cause for its delay; As noted above, the State did not reference or disagree with the analysis presented by the Applicant which addressed the site-specific soil characteristics. Moreover, the
. State did not recognize that the output from one calculation package was used as input for another. Specifically, Sierra Nuclear Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.05 utilized the output (in horizontal and vertical acceleration time histories) from Calculation No.
l PFS01-10.02.04 (which described the site-specific soil parameters used in the SASSI -
analysis) as input to the ANSYS computer analysis for performing the final cask stability analysis. PFS01-10.02.05 at p. I of I and p. 2. Therefore, this subcontention must be
- dismissed because, in addition to the lack of good cause, it fails to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention,10 C.F.R. { l., i.(b), and ignores relevant material submitted by the Applicant. Sec Applicant's Answer to Petitioner's Contcntions dated
- December 24,1997 (" Applicant's Answer") at Section ll.C.
8 i
b)
Insufficient Information is provided about Innut to the Model to Sunnort Credibility of the Analysis in this subcontention, the State asserts that not enough information about inputs to the cask stability model analysis is provided by Sierra Nuclear to support the credibility of the analysis. State's Request at 5. The State provides no support for its bald assertion but, using an example, states that "there is insufficient information about the transmission of seismic energy based on the characteristics of the site, the performance of the pad, and the design of the casks." hl. This subcontention must be dismissed for lateness and for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant.
As discussed in Applicant's response to subcontention a) above, the TranStor m cask stability analysis is described in detail in the PFSF Safety Analysis Report. See SAR at 8.2-6 to 8.2-10. The " transmission of seismic energy"(State's Request at 5) is included in the relevant analysis by considering the desi n earthquake and soil structure g
- nteraction. SAR at p. 8.2-6 to 8.2-10. Specifically, the site-specific design earthquake identified in SAR Appendix 2D at 49 as horizontal and t rtical response spectra are used as input to the cask stability analysis. Also, the soil structure interaction is considered by using the site specific soil design parameters provided in non-proprietary Calculation No.
05996.1-G(PO5)-1 at Table 3-2. The " performance of the pad"(StMe's Request at 5) is modeled using three-dimensional solid elements and is analyzed in the non-proprietary Calculation Package Volume I at Tab 3. Sec SAR at 8.2 8 and International Civil Engineering Consultants Storage Pad Analysis and Design Calculation No.
9
{
c.
4.
05996.01 SC(pol 7) 1 dated June 20,' 1997 (" Calculation No. 05996.01-SC(Pol 7)' 1").
Finally, the " design of the casks"(State's Request at 5) is provided in the non proprietary Sierra Nuclear Cornoration Safety Analvsis Renort for the TranStorm Storace Cask Ssstem (SNC 96 72SAR. Revision B, Docket 721023).- Since all this information was available to the State in non proprietary documents well in advance of the contentions deadline, the State has failed to establish good cause for its delay.
The State did not reference or disagree with the analysis described above that was presented by Applicant as input to the cask stability model analysis. Moreover, further details of the model and the cask analysis methodology were provided to the State in the two proprietary Sierra Nuclear documents provided in Calculation Package, Volume IV, in Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.04 and Calculation No. PFS01 10.02.05. Again, the State prevides no explanation or basis for its concern and fails to identify any specific, problems with these analyses.- Therefore, in addition to the lack of good cause, this subcontention must be dismissed as it ignores relevant material submitted by the Applicant.~ S.cc Applicant's Answer,Section II.C.
c)
Potentini Stability Problem with the Cash i
In this subcontention, the State contends that Sierra Nuclear's analysis
" demonstrates that there is a potential stability problem with the casks during a seismic event." State's Request at 6. In support of this contention, the State asserts that the Applicant's conclusion that the cask will not topple is "at odds" with Sierra Nuclear's 10
recommendation in Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.04 that the possibility of tipover should be analyzed using the ANSYS linite element code analysis. State Request at 6-7. This subcontention must be dismissed for failure to provide a sufficient basis and for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant.
The Sierra Nuclear cask stability analysis is described in detail in Section 8.2.1 of the PFSF Safety Analysis Report and two Sierra Nuclear calculations provided in Calculation Package, Volume IV at Tabs 4 and 5. Se, narticularly, SAR at 8.2-7 to 8.2-8. Applicant acknowledges that Calculation No. PFS01 10.02.04 recommends that the possibility of tipover of the cask should be analyzed using the ANSYS finite element code analysis. Ilowever, the State fails to acknowledge that this analysis was in fact done in Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.05 which utilized the ANSYS computer program to calculate cask movements and verify stability under the PFSF site conditions. The results of this calculation indicate that the casks are stable and will not tip over during a seismic event. Su SAR at 8.2-9 and Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.05 at 14. All this information is set out in the documents which the State has available. The State does not reference or quarrel with any of this information. Hence, this subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring that the recommended analysis was performed as described in relevant material submitted by the Applicant. Se Applicant's Answer,Section II.C.
I1
m.g.__..__._.
4 t
d) lloltec Analysis not Adeaunte In this subcontention, the State contends that Sierra Nuclear's conclusion (in
{
Calculation No. PFS01 10.02.04) demonstrates that the Holtec site-specific analysis is
--not " based on an adequate inquiry into the vertical acceleration of the casks, tipover g
_' analysis, site conditions and how these factors affect the stability of the casks." State's l
Request at 7. This subcontention must be dismissed for failure to provide a sufficient L factual basis and because it ignores relevant material submitted by the Applicant.-
As explained in Applicant's response to subcontention c), the State has l
- misinterpreted the results of Calculation No. PFS01-10.02.04 and, again, ignored another calculation, PFS01-10.02.05, which was performed by Sierra Nuclear. Also, to the extent
~ he State is challenging Holtec's analysis in this subcontention, the Applicant herein.
t relies on its response to Utah Contention EE.
L llence,'this subcontention must be dismissed because the State has failed to provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention,10 C.F.R. 2.714(b), and ignores -
- relevant material submitted by the Applicant. Ses Applicant's Answer, Section ll.C.-
4 i
e)
Coefficient of Friction Over Surface of the Pad The State contends that Sierra Nuclear's consultant, Advent Engineering Services.
A
- Inc. (" Advent Engineering") did not' consider that "the coefficient of friction may vary
= over the surface of the pad" when it performed its analysis. State's Request at 7 (footnote omitted). Also, the State contends that Advent Engineering "did not consider the shift i
12 4
from the static case to the kinetic case when considering the momentum of the moving casks." E at 8. This subcontention must be dismissed as it ignores relevant material submitt. I by the Applicant.
The State is correct that Advent Engineering did not consiuer that the coefficient of friction may vary over the surface of the pad and did not consider the shift from the static to the kinetic case. is explained plainly in the documents the State evaluated, Advent Engineering, which performed Calculation No. PFS01 10.02.05 for Sierra Nuclear, took a much more conservative approach by performing the tipover analysis assuming no sliding of the cask in its analysis. The " assumptions" stated in its analysis include the fact that sliding between the cask and the pad is not allowed in order to conservatively favor the tendency for the cask to tip over. E at Sheet 8. Indeed, the cask edge is analytically pinned to the pad. See TranStorm SAR Section at i1.2.5 and Figure I
11,2 2. Also, the " analysis" section states that there is no need to address the extent of sliding and the action of friction at the cask base because the cask is nel free to slide.
PFS01-10.02.05 at 9. It is, therefore, clear that the State failed to consider the assumptions and analysis sections of this calculation, which was provided as part of Calculation Package Volume IV (Tab 5).
This subcontention must be dismissed for ignoring relevant material submitted by the Applicant. See Applicant's Answer,Section II.C.
13 l
o t
.[
IV,-
CONCLUSION -
~
- For the reasons set forth above with respect to each of the contentions, the i
l Applicant respectfully submits that Utah Contention GG be denied.-
Respectfully submitted, b
EIL
)
-Ja[E. Silberg
~ ~ ~
Ernest L.~ Blake, Jr.
Paul A.Gaukler
[:
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE I
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 -
(202) 663 8000-Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
F Dated: January 20,1998
$41185 h
4 4
3 f
f' 4
d-i 14
.i ~
-0 DOCKETED USNRC
& 22 PS :19-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
f]{
igqf NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-UDOAl0% STAFF t
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 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 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 Contention GG," dated January 20,1998, were i
served on the persons listed below (unless otherwise noted) by e-mail with conforming copies by U.Si mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 20th day of January 1998.
G. Paul Bollwerk 111. Esq., Chairman -
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Liccasing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555 0001.
L e-mail: GPBfnrc. gov e-mail: JRK2@nrc. gov Dr. Peter S. Lam
- Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Boara Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C,20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555 0001 e-mail: PSL@nrc. gov
Catherine L. h1 arco, Esq.
- Charles J. llaughney Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Office Office of the General Counsel Office of Nuclear hiaterial Safety and N1 ail Stop O 15 B18 Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 e-mail: SET @nre. gov; CLN1%nrc. gov Denise Chancellor, Esq.
Jean Belille, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Utah Attorney General's Office Land and Water Fund of the Rockit.s 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 of Goshute Indians l
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: johngkennedys.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 (original and 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 only '
Q kb di Paul A. Gaukler" 54l185 2
l 1
a
_ _ _ _ _ =