ML20203F235
| ML20203F235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1998 |
| From: | Silberg J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#198-18833 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9802270235 | |
| Download: ML20203F235 (29) | |
Text
lf[Y 00CKETED USHRC 98 FEB 26 P3 35bruary 23,1998 UNITED STATES @FAMERICA' 4
RJa 4 ' ;
NUCLEAR REGULATOEdUUh11'SSION #"
Hefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
l 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 UTAIUS REPLY CONCERNING LATLFILED CONTENTIONS EE AND GG 1.
INTRODUCTION On l'ebruary 11,1998, the State of Utah (" State") filed its Reply to the NRC Staff's and Applicant's Responses to State of Utah's Contention EE and GG, and Notice of Withdrawal of Contention FF (hereinafter " State's Reply"), in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") Memorandum and Order dated February 2,1998 (Memorializing Initial Prehearing Conference Directives), the State addressed its use of proprietary information in preparing Contentions EE and GG in an attempt to show good cause for its late filing of the contentions. Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
f fff;h }flf llf[llll 9802270235 980223 PDR ADOCK 07200022 yoy c
paa
4 1
e
]
(" Applicant" or "PFS") submits this response to the State's reply with respect to tne State's lack of good cause for the late Bling Contention EE and parts of Contention GG.'
llaving taken the State's reply into account, Applicant continues to believe, as stated in its Answer to State of Utah Contention EE and FF Died on January 9,1998 and its Answer to State of Utah Contention GG Died on January 20,1998, that the State lacked good cause to Ale these contentions late. As set forth below, the new arguments raised by State in its reply to overcome its lack of good cause e without merit.2 II.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH'S REPLY CONCERNING LACK OF GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE FILED CONTENTION EE A.
The State's Claim of Good Cause Relles on only Two Proprietary items At the outset ofits reply, the State claims that the representation in Applicant's Answer to EE and FF that "'[e]xcept for two appendices, one attaciunent and one Dgure, the infonnation contained in the non proprietary calculation packages... is identical to that cor.tained in the proprietary calculation packages'"(quoting from Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 2, emphasis in orig nal) is incorrect. State Reply at 3.
8 According to the State,12 proprietary items (listed at pages 3-4 ofits reply) are contained in the proprietary versions of the calculation packages which are not found within the
' Applicant does not respond to the substantive arguments made by the State in its reply because the Board's Order, as understood by Applicant. limits this response to the State's claim of good cause for the late filing of Contentions EE and GG.
- The Applicant also addresses the State's rephrasing ofits subcontentions for Contention EE and GG.
2 i
=.
b non proprietary versions. However, as is apparent from the full quotation from Applicant's Answer and its entire answer,' the reference to the two appendices, one attachment and one figure were with respect to the two calculation packages that were the subject of Contentions EE and FF. This is further confirmed by the fact that, although the State claims that proprietary items I through 9 formed the basis for Contention EE, the State identifies only the of those items in it good cause argmr.ent for the late filing of Contention EE. State's Reply at 7-9. These are items 1 and 3, the attachment and the figure referred to in the above quotation from Applicant's Answer to EE and FF.
Specifically, items 1,2, and 3 listed by the State at pages 3-4 ofits reply are proprietary items from Holtec's cask stability analysis for the Private Fuel Storage Facility ("PFSF"), the subject of Contention EE, which were three of the four proprietary items identified in Applicant's Answer to EE and FF. Item 10 is the proprietary item from Holtec's radiation shielding analysis for the PFSF, the subject of Contention FF, which was identified as the fourth proprietary item in Applicant's Answer to EE and FF.
Items 11 and 12 are part of the seismic cask stability analysis for the TranStor cask (the subject of Contention GG and not Contentions EE and FF).
' The sentence quoted from Applicant's Answer states in fullthat: "Except for two appendices, one attachment and one figure, the information contained in the non-proprietary calculation packagesfor seismic cask stabili.y (the subject ofContention EE) and radiation shielding (the subject ofContention FF) is identical to that contained in the proprietary calculation packages." Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 2 (omitted material in italics). As set forth it.:er in Applicant's Answer, the specific seismic calculation package was " Multi-Cask Seismic Response at the PSF ISFSI," Holtec Calculation No. HI 971631 (1997) and the radiation shielding calculation package was "Radiatioa. Shielding Analysis for the Private Fuel Storage Facility," Holtec Report HI-971645 (1997). Id. at 5-6.
3
Items 4 through 9 are pan of a " Seismic Scoping Analyses" that was done for the i
l lil STORM cask u %g frelimirery" data for a " Western Area ISFSI" site. S.cc 1
" Scoping Seismic Analyses of Hi Storm on a Western Area ISFSI, Holtec Report HI-961574"(1996). This preliminary scoping analysis was superseded by the PFSF site-i specific seismic cask stability calculation in HI 971631. The preliminary scoping analysis ir. HI 961574 is ncycr referenced by the State in Contention EE, nor are any of the items 4 through 9, which are part of that analysis, ever referenced by the State in Contention EE. Although the State now claims that "[p]roprietary documents 1 through 9 formed the basis for Contention EE"(State's Reply at 4), the State never explains how items 4 through 9 " formed the basis for Contention EE Indeed, when it explicitly discusses
" Good Cause to File Contention EE,"it neye-mentions the preliminary scoping analysis, HI-961574, or items 4 though 9. See State's Reply at 7-9.
Moreover, the final Holtec cask stability analysis performed for PFSF, HI-971631, redid the preliminary scoping analysis in HI-961574 using PFSF site-specific data.' Further, each of the items 4 through 9 of the preliminary scoping analysis in HI-961574 has a counterpart in the final Holtec cask stability analysis performed for PFSF in t
- In addition, the final Holtec cask stability analysis performed for the PFSF, HI-971631, was a multi-cask analysis whereas the preliminary scoping analysis performed in HI-961574 was a single cask analysis.
4 J
Hi-971631/ Thus, items 4 through 9 provide no new information, or in some cases even 1
releviu,t information, since those documents were preliminary.
In short, the State's suggestion that the Applicant mischaracterized the scope of the pi prietary information unavailable to the State is simply mistaken. The proprietary information relevant to the Holtec seismic cask stability calculation unavailable to the State until November 1997 were itene 1,2, and 3 from the State's list, all of which were identir d by Applicant, and none of which were cited by the State in its Contention EE.
te Indeed, even now, the State seeks to ju;tify its late filing on only two of these items, I and 3. Tims, the State's supplying a longer list of proprietary documents in support ofits Reply is simpie puffery lacking any substance? The additional proprietary items listed
' Items 4 and 5 (part of the preliminary scoping calculation Hi 961574) are analogous to items 1 and 3, Figure 4.1 and the equations of motion, of the final site specific calculation, HI 971631. Number 6, part of HI-961574, is analogous to number 2 of HI-971631, the listing of files, except number 2 is updated to be specific to the PFSF (nonetheless, neither is mentioned in the State's Contention or its reply). Numbers 7 and 8 of HI 961574, are analogous to the non-proprietary Appendices B and C in Hi-971631, except Appendices B and C are non-proprietary and use PFSF-soecific data. Number 9 of Hi 961574 is a collection of miscellaneous calculations of cask dimensions and mass analogous to the information in the non-proprietary text of HI-971631 (acc HI 971631 (non-proprietary) at 5-6,9), a work-request letter from PFS's contractor to Holtec, and three minor computer codes to calculate cask mass, spring fiks, and plot data which are irrelevant to the calculation in HI 971631.
- Similarly, the State is incorrect in its implication (State's Reply at 7-8) that Applicant misportrays the non proprietary and proprietary calculations in stating that "[t]hu text of non-proprietary and proprietary versions of the calculation, including the methodology, assumptions, input data, analyses, results, and conclusions, are identical" (quoting from Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 12, emphasis in original).
The text of the proprietary and non-proprietary calculations is identical and the State does not claim otherwise. Moreover, the Applicant clearly identifies in the preceding sentence the differences between the proprietary and the non proprietary versions of the calculatior., which states that "[the proprietary version of] [t]his report is identical to the non-pronrietary version. HI 971631-Non-Proprietary, except that 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) Attachment A, hand written equations of motion for a single storage cack, is deleted." Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 12 (emphasis in orir,inal).
5
t by the State are i.at inconsistent with Applicant's earlier representation, and indeed have no bearing on the State's Contention EE.
B,
- The State Falls to Show Relevance or Necessity of the two Proprietary items The State's argument to show good cause for the nontimely filing of Contention EE rests on two proprietary items from HI 971631, Figure 4.1 and Attachment A (the equations of motion).' S.ec State's Reply at 7-9. Though neither one of these items is ever cited in Contention EE, the State now claims that " Figure 4.1" and " Attachment A, Equations of Motion... set forth critical parts of Holtec's methodology..." (ii at 8) which the State argues were relevant and necessary to its development of Contention EE, such that the entire contention had to be nontimely filed. The State's claims are, however, simply poorly disguised backfitting because either the same information was imambiguously available in the non proprietary version of the calculation, or the State's claim is simply factually incorrect.
1, Figure 4.1. Drawing of Canister nnd Canister Overnack Proprietary Figure 4.1 shows the three axes of the coordinate system for the canister and the canister overpack (i.e., cask) and identifies the degrees of freedom associated with each axis. The State makes three arguments for why it needed this Figure to develop Contention EE, none of which has merit.
' The State initially lists Appendix E of HI-971631, a listing of computer file names, but does not discuss or claim that it is in any way relevant to its development of Contention EE Scc State's Reply at 8, 6
4 Eirst, the State claims that Figure 4.1 "is essential to the understanding of the system's kinematics" because it " describes the locations and directions for each of the components motions" and " illustrates how the model degrees of freedom (ql, q2, q3, q4, 5
9, q6, q7, q8, q9, q10 and gl1) are related to each other in three dimensional space."
State Reply at 8 (emphasis in original), flowever, the State fails to acknowledge that all of the information shown pictorially on Figure 4.1 is clearly described in Section 4.0
(" Assumptions and Modeling of the Cask / Pad Simulation") of the non proprietary Holtec Calculation 111-97631. Indeed, the text is far more detailed in two and one half pages of technical description. The text clearly defines the location and directions with respect to the x, y and z axes for each of the degrees of freedom of the model, gl, q2,93, q4, q5, q6, q7, q8, q9, ql0, and ql1(page 3), and how they relate to each other as well as to the cask pad. The State fails to explain how the two and one-half pages of non-proprietary text describing the dynamic model was somehow inadequate and why a single figure, which added no new information, was essential to their review process (and required to develop l
Contention EE).
Second, the State argues that Figure 4.1 was " essential to understand and evaluate the methodology for determining coupling coefficients that relate to spring extensions and the ability to make a comparison of surface points on the pad with the velocity of the cask," claiming "[s]pecifically (that] the State could not evaluate how the methodology simulated the dynamic movement of the cask pad and casks in relation to each other and 7
the soil beneath the pad without reviewing Figure 4.1." State's Reply at 8. Figure 4.1, however, provides no information concerning the cask pad' and does not even show the I
soil beneath the pad. Nor does Figure 4.1 provide any information concerning -- nor does it even show -- any " coupling coefficients" or " spring extensions."' Accordingly, Figure 4.1 can not be used to tell the relationship between the casks and the cask pad and the so., as the State erroneously claims.
l Third, the State asserts that "[t]he figure allowed the State to conclude that dynamic loading such as bending, twisting, or torquing was not addressed"(State's Reply at 8-9), which presumably refers to the cask pad (and corresponds to the State's subcontention, subpart d (id, at 26) which claims that "[t]he assumption that the 30' by 64' pad will remain rigid is unreasonable and oversimplified"). Of course, this claimed need is erroneous because Figure 4.1 provides no information concerning the cask pad.
Sec HI-971631 at Figure 4.1. Moreover, the assumption that the pad is rigid and will not bend is expressly set forth on the bottom of page 3 of the text where it is stated that "[t]he characteristics of the pad are based on the assumption that the 30'x 64' section responds
- The analogous Figure 3.1 from the preliminary scoping calculation, Hi-961574, unlike Figure 4.1 shows the degrees of freedom for the cask pad. However, the degrees of freedom do not describe or provide any information on the relationship between the casks and the cask pad and the soil which the State claims to have gleaned from Figure 4.1 Moreover, the six degrees of freedom for the cask pad assumed in the model are explicitly defined at page 4 of the non-proprietary calculation, HI-971631, and therefore this information was rcadily available to the State prior to receiving the proprietary irformation.
' Moreover, the spring constants for the cask / pad interface and pad / soil interface are clearly defined in the non proprietary text describing the calculation at Section 5.3 (" Spring Constants").
8
to seismic excitation as a rigid body," HI 971631 (non proprietary) at 3 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7 ("the assumed rigid ISFSI pad"). Further, the same paragraph of the text (on top of page 4) explicitly defines the six degrees of freedom for the cask pad, which shows that model assurres that the pad will both rotate and be displaced on all i
three axes, but will not bend. See also id, at 2 ("six degrees of freedom establish the rigid body motion of the ISFSI pad relative to inertial space")(emphasis added).' Thus, the State clearly did not need Figure 4.1.to conclude that cask pad was assumed to be rigid 4
i and would not bend.
i 2.
Attachment A (the Equations of Motion) l Attachment A, the equations of motion, are generic equations developed by i
Holtec for describing the movement of a single cask and canister system on a pad for the respective degrees of freedom set forth in Section 4 of the calculation. Ssc HI-971631 at :
4 and at Attachment A. The State raises five claims why it required Attachment A in 1
order to develop Contention EE, none of which has any merit as set forth below.
Eitst, the State makes the general claim that " Attachment A... further defmes the
-l l
assumptions of cask / pad performance, and therefore is essential to a comnlete understanding and analysis of the cask system...." State Reply at 9 (emphasis added).
4 i
" Presumably the State at pages 8-9 of its reply uses the words " twisting or torquing" as being synonymous with " bending." If on the contrary, the State by using the words " twisting or torquing" means to contend that the pad will not rotate or move on its axes, then clearly the State is wrong as reflected by the six -
degrees of freedom that the model assumes for the pad as set forth at the top of page 4 of the calculation.
HI-971631 at 4.
9 I
The State does not, however, claim (nor could it) that it did not have an understanding of the analysis based on the comprehensive information in the non proprietary version of the calculation, only that its understanding would be "further[ed]" and more " complete." The non-proprietary report includes 14 pages of discussion ano equations in the main body of text,27 pages of detailed output data, and two detailed appendices with a combined ifi pages of data, equations, and text. See generally HI 971631 (non-proprietary)." The State's implicit admission that it understood the analysis based on the non proprietary report, and that the additional seven pages in Attachment A just made that understanding more " complete" reflects that "the factual predicate [s]" for its contention were available from the non proprietary information, analogous to the situation described in Duke Power Comnany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CU-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1043 (1983). Moreover, the discussion of the State's specific claims of need for Attachment A below confirms that the Attachment was not necessary for its development of Contention EE.
Second, the State claims Attachment A was necessary to understand that
" segments of the system are nonlinear sorings" and that an understanding of the analysis "is dependent on an understanding of the non-linearity of the system." State's Reply at 9 (emphasis added). The fact that " nonlinear springs" are used in the analysis is, however,
" Furthermore, the seven nages of generic equations in Attachment A are not -ven specific to the PFSF analysis. Ssc id, at 4.
10 i
d clearly stated in the non-proprietary text of the calculation. Ses Hi 971631 (non-proprietary) at 4 ("The system is characterized by... springs (linear and nonlinear) which are used to characterize contact and friction between components and to characterize underlying pad base mat properties"). Moreover, none of the State's subcontentions for Contention EE address the issue of"non linear springs" or "the non-linearity of the system." Thus, the State has failed to show how its assertedly improved understanding of 'the non-linearity of the system." was in any way material to its development of Contention EE as filed in this proceeding.
Ibird, the State claims "[t]he Equations of Motion [ Attachment A] also verified
. that it did not account for the variability of site specific soil characteristics." State Reply at 9. The State's claim is specious. Attachment A, as its title in the non-proprietary Table of Contents reflects, consists of" Theoretical Eauntions of Motion for a Single Cask." HI-971631 (non proprietary) at Table of Contents (empha is added). It is abundantly clear therefore that Attachment A does not address " site specific soil-characteristics," which is input data (not theoretical equations) specific to the PFSF site.
The State's argument that it could not develop a contention regarding " site specific soil characteristics" until it saw the " theoretical equations of motion" is accordingly meritiess.
To allow such an empty assertion to demonstrate " good cause" would make a mockery of the Commission's timeliness requirements.
I1
Fourth, the State claims that Attachment A was " essential" because a "[r]eview of the Equations of Motion also revealed that the unique aspects related to the Cack Transfer
}
Building. crane. and transfer encks had not been considered in the equations." State's 4
1 Reply at 9 (emphasis added). This claim by the State is equally without merit for the 1
l same reasons as the one above, it is clear from the non proprietary t :xt of the report that the only components modeled in the report are the casks and the related canisters placed j
l.
on the concrete pads, Notlung in HI-971631 purports to pertain to the seismic analysis of the " Canister Transfer B uilding, crane, and transfer casks." Indeed, the " Introduction" to the non proprietary version of HI 971631 states that L
in this analysis, the final three dimensional (3 D) time l
history set is applied to an array of casks on a 30' x 64' x 3' l
concrete pad....
HI 971631 (non-proprietary) at 1. The State's claim that it had to see Attachment A to realize HI-971631 did not analyze the Canister Transfer Building, crane, and transfer 2
casks is therefore spurious and should be summarily rejected.
l Eiflh, the State claims that both Attachment A and figure 4.1 were " essential" l
l because they " confirmed that the statistical independence of the time histories could not be verified by the proprietary information." State's Reply at 9. This assertion suffers l.
from the same infirmity as the previous two claims - a claimed need to review t
proprietary documents to confirm the lack ofinformation plainly beyond their scope. It is obvious that neither the generic equations of motion in Attachment A nor Figure 4.1 i
12 4
i l
l
provided any infonnation on " time histories" for seismic events because the proof of the
- " statistical independence of the time histories" is not part of HI 971631. Rather, as expressly noted in HI 971631, this topic is the specific subject of another (non-proprietary) calculation, HI 961556. Hi-971631 at 5. That report was specifically performed to develop the "3 D Seismic Time Histories for [the] Private Storage Facility,"
I and was made asailable to the State two months before the time filing deadline as part of l
the non-proprietary calculation package. Sec Applicant's Response to EE and FF at 20.
The State had available at that time the necessary information (seismic response spectra, etc.) to make judgments regardit g statistical independence. The State's claim is therefore spurious and should be s"mmarily rejected.
In sum, it is readily apparent that the " factual predicate" for Contention EE was available to the State at the tin-it received the non proprietary calculations in September 1997. Sse Catawba, CL183-19,17 NRC at 1043.- Nor has the State shown that the two proprietary items are a " trigger" justifying a later filing detailing new concems based on previously available information. Sgg Yankee Atomic Electric Comnany (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8,26 (1996).12 Accordingly, the State's -
" In Yankee the licensing board found " good cause" where a directly-relevant later document "provided the requisite ' puzzle piece'" to understand an earlier document, and thereby provided a "' trigger' for a filing detailing those concerns." Yankee, LBP-96-15,44 NRC at 26. However, the Board in Yankee also indicated that " good cause" will not be found where "there were any culier (relevant documents) that provided the requisite 'puzz!c piece' so as to warrant an earlier filing by the Petitioners on these matters."
id. (footnote omitted). As demonstrated above, earlier relevant documents provided "the requisite ' puzzle piece [s]' so as to warrant an earlier filing" of Contention EE by the State.
13
laim that Figure 4.1 and the equations of motion, Attachment A, justified the nontimely c
filing of Contention EE must be rejected.
C.
The two Proprietary Items are Neither Relevant Nor Necessary to Develop any of the Specific Subcontentions set forth by the State in Contention EE Beyond the lack of merit of the relevance arguments made by the State, the obvious lack of relevance and necessity of Figure 4.1 and Attachment A to the development of Contention EE is also revealed upon review of the specific subcontentions raised by the State.
1.
The Proprietar' Information Relied upon by the State Is Completely irrelevant tc Seven of the Eight Subcontentions of Contention EE Figure 4.I's depiction of the degrees of freedom for the cask and canister and Attachment n's equations of motion for cask, canister and concrete pad are clearly irrelevant to the alleged deficiencies raised in the State's subcontentions 1,2, and 4 through 8. Hence, the unavailability of the proprietary information cannot be used to establish good cause for the non-timely filing of these seven subcontentions." This is readily apparent from a summary review of these subcontentions.
The Star
.tst subcontention claims that the Applicant has not provided "enough information about inputs to the model..."(s@trt a) and that Holtec's
" Because the two proprietary items are not related to the topic of these seven subcontentions, clearly they cannot be said to be a " trigger" for a later filing detailing new concerns based on already available information. Ses Yankee, LBP-96-15,44 NRC at 26.
14
" analysis is not based on an adequate inquiry into site conditions and how they affect the stability of the casks"(subpart b). State's Reply at 25 (emphasis added). Both Figure 4.1 and the equations of motion concern 6e model itself and provide no information whatsoever about inputs to the model or site conditions.
Subcontention 2 addresses " independent components of the seismic time histories
..." for the PFSF site-specific seismic event. State's Reply at 25 (emphasis added). As already discussed above, the seismic time histories, which is also an input to the model, is developed in a separate calculation. Therefore, neither Figure 4.1 nor the equations of motion provide any information concerning the seismic time histories for the PFSF site.
Subcontention'4 addresses " site soecific soil characteristics..." for the PFSF site which is also an input to the model. State's Reply at 26 (emphasis added) Neither Figure 4.1 nor the equations of motion provide any information about the site-specific soil characteristics for the PFSF site. Nor, as discussed above, could the State reasonably conclude that such it. formation would be contained in these items.
Subcontention 5 addresses "the imnact of dynamic loads on the structural integrity of the nad which may cause damage to the concrete surface, including cracking. soalling.
andsrushing of the concrete...." State's Reply at 27 (emphasis added). Neither Figure 4.1 nor the t.,uations of motion discuss at all possible dynamic impact loads on the concrete pad or ey " cracking, spalling, and crushing of concrete." As discussed earlier, Figure 4.1 does not even include the pad, and Attachment A provides only generic 15
equations of motion and says nothing about the impact of dynamic loads of a cask on the pad or about performance of the pad's material of construction.
Subcontention 6 addresses whether or not "the Applicant performed uncertainty or sensitivity analyses on the soil md interaction aspects ofits seismic analysis." Str.;e's Reply at 27 (emphasis added). Neither the line drawing in Figure 4.1 nor the generic equations of motion in Attachment A provide any information at all about whether the Applicant performed uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, Figure 4.1 and Attachment A have nothing to do with " soil-pad interaction."
Subcontention 7 addresses the adequacy of"the Applicant's earthauake analysis for the Canister Transfer Building" including the " seismic response of the cask. transfer cask. and overhead bridge crane." State's Reply at 27 (emphasis added). As discussed above, the scope of Holtec's calculation 971631 does not include the seismic response of the Canister Transfer Building" or the " cask, transfer cask, and overhead bridge crane."
Therefore, Figure 4.1 and Attachment A have nothing to do with " earthquake analysis for the Canister Transfer Building" or the " cask, transfer cask, and overhead bridge crane" in the Building.
Subcontention 8 addresses the "adeaunte[] identifi[ cation]" of"the computer codes used in the Holtec analysis." State's Reply at 27 (emphasis added); see also State Petition on EE and FF at 12. Neither the line drawing in Figure 4.1 nor the generic equations of motion in Attachment A provide any information about the identification of 16
j the specific computer codes used by Holtec. Figure 4.1 obviously says nothing about computer code names, and the equations of motion in Attachment A are just generic equations, not a computer code, nor do they reference any computer code.
2.
The Proprietary Information Relied upon by the State Is irrelevant or Unnecessary to the Suboarts of Subcontention 3 of Contention EE Subcontention 3 concern Holtec's " cask pad model" to which the two proprietary items, Figure 4.1 and the equations of motion, do relate generally (unlike the other seven subcontentions as discussed above). However, as demonstrated below, each of the subparts (a)-(e) of subcontentian, as defined by the State, could have been developed, as is, without ever seeing the eight pages of proprietary material in HI-971631 that the State claims now to have been important.
Subpart (a) of Subcontention 3 alleges that "the Applicant has not considered the eft cts of simultaneous rotation and translation of the pad, in conjunction with the movement of the casks in the Holtec report." State's Reply at 26. Figure 4.1, however, has no relevance to this subpart because it does not show the movement of the pad or the cask-pad interaction. Furthermore, as shown in the Applicant's Response to EE, the text of the a roprietary calculation (see HI-971631 at 2-4) specifically addresses this issue and shows that the movement of the pad, and cask pad interaction, was included in the non proprietary calculation. See Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 21-22.
Additionally, the equations of nation in Attachment A add nothing that is not already discussed in the text of the non-proprietary calculation. The Commission established in 17
Catawba that the State had the responsibility to file a contention that it can make with information that is available to it in a timely manner, which the State has failed to do hre Catawba, CLI 8319,17 NRC at 1043.
Subpart (b) of Subcontention 3 alleges that "the Applicant [] assum[ed] that the sasks move uniformly in the same direction...." See State's Reply at 26 (emphasis added). Figure 4.1 has no relevance to this subpart because it shows only a single cask, and says nothing about assumptions on multiple cask movement. Similarly, the equations of motion in Attachment A are only for a single cask." The multiple cask modeling that was done in 111-971631 is reflected in the methodology, the assumptions and modeling, and the results described in the text of the non proprietary calculation, as well as in the detailed output files showing the movement of each individual cask in the array as a function of time in Tables 9.1 through 9.16. See HI-971631 (non-proprietary) at 1-5,11-13, Tables 9.1-9.16. Not only did the proprietary information add nothing with respect to subpart (b), the information necessary to develop this subcontention was provided at length in the non-proprietary calculation available to the State over two months prior to the deadline for timely filing.
3
" This should be expected since the equations of motion were taken out of the generic scoping calculation, HI-961574, which only modeled a single cask. The site-specific calculation, HI 971631, improved on the scoping anahsis by explicitly considering the interaction of multiple casks. Sie HI-971631 at I ("The amu of casks.. is treated as a system of free standing rigid bodies restmg on a concrete pad...). See also id, at 4.
I8 4
Subpart (c) of Subcontention 3 alleges that "the Applicant did not consider that the coefficient of friction... may vary over the surface of the pad" and there is "no indication that the shift from the static friction case to the kinetic case was considered."
Sec State's Reply at 26 (emphasis added). Neither Figure 4.1 nor the equations of motion are relevant to the State's claims in suopart (c). Figure 4.1 has no relevance to this subpart since it does not address the cask-pad interface. The generic equations of motion in Attachment I are only general equations for a single cask and say nothing about either input data on coefficients of friction or how different casks in a multi-cask analysis might assume different coe"ficients of friction at different positions on the surface of the pad.
Not only do the proprietary items not provide any information for subpart (c), as shown in the Applicant's Response to EE and FF, the relevant information on coefficients of friction used for the site specific multi-cask analysis is clearly provided in the non.
proprietary version of HI 971631 as well as the PFSF SAR, both of which were available to the State long before the timely filing deadline. Src Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 27-30.
Subpart (d) of Subcontention 3 addresses the " assumption that the 30' x 64' p.ad will remain rigid." See State's Reply at 26 (emphasis added). As already discussed above, the fact that the Applicant assumed the pad was rigid for the seismic calculation was unambiguous from the non-nroprietarv text of the calculation.
19
4 Subpart (e) of Subcontention 3 alleges that "the Applicant failed to consider the effects of embedment of the nad in the compacted granular soil on the site or its destabilizing effect on the casks." See State's Reply at 26 (emphi. is added). Since Figure 4.1 neither shows the pad nor the underlying soil, it has no relevance to subpart (e). The generic equations of motion in Attachment A are not site-specific and say nothing about PFSF-specific soil characteristics such as " compacted granular soil on the site." While the equations of motion might arguably be relevant to the assumptions regarding the cask soil interaction ("embedment of the pad"), these assumptions are made far more clearly (ud on a PFSF specific basis) in the non proprietary discussion of
" Assumptions and Modeling" and " Spring Constants" in the text of the non-proprietary version of HI 971631, as wa: demonstrated in the Applicant's Response to Contention EE. Sec Applicant's Answer to EE and FF at 34-35 (citine HI 971631 (non-proprietary) at 4,6, 8).
Thus, the proprietary infonnation in Figure 4.1 and the equations of motion were not needed by the State to develop the five subparts of subcontention 3 and to file them in a timely manner. The State could have timely developed each of subparts of Subcontention 3 based on the information available to it in a timely manner. See Catawba, CLI-83-19,17 NRC at 1043.
20
D.
The State's Rephrasing of the Subcontention of Contention EE The Applicant objects to the State's rephrasing of certalii of the subcontentions to Contention EE, specifically subcontentions 2,4 and 8, but intends to discuss the matter with counsel for the State to see if agreement can be reached on the language of these subcontentions. The Applicant will immediately notify the Board if sucn an agreement is reached.
Ill.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO UTAH REPLY CONCERNING LACK OF GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE-FILED CONTENTION GG In its Answer to the State of Utah's Contention GG, Applicant explained in detail how the State could have easily developed at ieast two subparts of this contention based on the information in the nonproprietary 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.
Applicant's Answer to GG at 7-10. The State attempts, ineffectively, to refute these explanations in its Reply. The Applicant addresses below each of the State's arguments to demonstrate once again why the State has not met its burden of showing good cause for its untimely filing of portions of Contention GG.
A.
Inadequate Consideration of Site-Specific Soil Characteristics The State asserts it was unable to determine "how the information" about soil properties was used in evaluating cask stability based on the non-proprietary information available 7 tate's Reply at 10. At the outset. *.he State is attempting to revise the basis of 21
its contention in order to establish good cai :. The original contention simply stated as follows regarding the adequacy of the Sierra Nuclear's consideration of site specific soil characteristics:
Like the Holtec site specific analysis, the Sierra Nuclear site specific analysis gives inadequate consideration to site-specific soil characteristics. Ses discussion under the Basis for State of Utah's Contention EE, at item 3, pp.9 10 which is incorporated herein by reference.
I Utah Contention GG at 5. There was no issue raised as to "how" or in what " manner" the input information selected by the Applicant was used, either in Contention GG or item 3 1
of Contention EE referenced in the above quotation. The Board should not allow the State to revise its arguments at this stage to avoid the consequences ofits untimely filing ofcontentions.
Nevertheless, as explained in its Answer, Applicant believes that "how" and in what " manner" this information used to evaluate cask stability is clearly described and referenced in SAR Section 8.2.1.2. Specifically, the SAR describes step-by-step the procedures used in the cask stability analysis. The SAR also references ASCE-4 for additional information on the principles used to analyze soil structure interaction effects.
Id. at 8.2-7. ASCE-4 gives a very thorough description of how the site-specific soil properties are incorporated into the dynamic analysis. The SAR also references the SUPER SASSI/PC computer program that was used for modeling soil structure interaction. Id. at 8.2-8.
22
The State, therefore, had ample opportunity to review both the SAR text and the references cited as to "how" and in what " manner" the information used to evaluate cask stability. As a result, the State has failed to demonstrate good cause why this subpart of the contention should be admitted and it should be rejected.
B.
Insufficient Information on Inputs to Support Credibility of the Analysis The State acknowledges Applicant's position that the TranStor Cask Stability Analysis is described in detail in the PFSF SAR, that the performance of the pad is analyzed in the non proprietary Calculation Package Volume I and that the design of the casks is provided in the TranStor SAR. State's Reply at 10-11. However, the State now asserts that "these documents merely report data and results of analyses without providing any details about the input or assumptions that went into the analysis," Id. at i1. The State further contends that, in order to evaluate whether the results in the SAR are valid, it is necessary to evaluate the " nature of the actual inputs and assumptions that were used,"
as well as the " equations and formulas,"it, model, that were used to evaluate them.11 This purported need is again a shift in focus of the contention to support the State's good cause argument why the contention was late and the contention must be rejected as such. Indeed, the original contention expressly acknowledged that "the model itself used by Sierra Nuclear appears to be adequate...." Utah Contention GG at 5.
Moreover, the State's purported need is also incorrect. The major details of the input and assumptions for the Sierra Nuclear Cask Stability Analysis are included in SAR Section 23
8.2.1.2 at pages 8.2-7 to 8.2-10. The SAR describes step by step the procedures used in the cask stability analysis, including the design basis earthquake, the cask / pad system, the method of analyses, computer programs, and conclusions. Further, the soil properties used in the initial Sierra Nuclear Cask Stability Analysis (using the SUPER SASSI/PC computer program) are generally described in Section 8.2.1.2 and specifically provided in Calculation 0599601-G(PO5)-01, Table 3 2. These soil values are based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation described in SAR Appendix 2A, The State also asserts that the " documents do not provide information about the analytical formulas that were used to evaluate the pad performance, or the precise infonnation about pad performance that was used in the calculations." State Reply at 11.
As described in SAR Section 8.2.1.2 at page 8.2 8, the pad is modeled in the SUPER l
SASSI/PC computer program using three-dimensional solid elements. The State apparently failed to recognize that the purpose of SAR Section 8.2.1.2 is to evaluate cask stability and to verify the casks will not tip over or slide excessively. The calculation is not intended to analyze or design the pad or the casks. The pad design is contained in Calculation No. 05996.01-SC(pol 7)-1, and the cask design is contained in the Sierra Nuclear Safety Analysis Report for the Transtor storage cask.
In sum, the " factual predicate" for the first two subparts of Contention GG (subparts a and b as phrased by Applicant and subparts I and 2 as phrased by the State) was available to the State at the time it received the SAR in June 1997 and the various 24
non proprietary calculations in September 1997. See catawba, CL183-19,17 NRC at 1043. Moreover, the State has not shown the existence of any proprietary information to
" trigger" justifying a later filing detailing new concerns based on already available information. Sgg Yankee, LBP 96-15,44 NRC at 26. Accordingly, these two subcontentions of Contention GG must be rejected for being filed nontimely.
C.
The State's Rephrasing of the Subcontentions of Contention GG The Applicant does net object to the State's reph 6 of the subcontentions of Contention GG.
IV.
THE STATE'S REPHRASING OF THE SECURITY SUBCONTENTIONS The Applicant does not object to the State's rephrasing of the subcontentions for Security Contentions E, H and I. Applicant does object to the State's rephrasing of l
Security Contention F.
25
V.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Applicant respectfully submits that Utah Contention EE and the first two subparts of Utah Contention GG must be rejected for being filed nontimely.
Respectfully submitted, w
Jay $(Sij berg '
~
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: February 23,1998
$$8065 26
4 DOCKETED USNRC
% FEB 26 P3 55 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFF!C
-w Run y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUO 'J/C
.,J F Before the Atomic Safety. and I icensine 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 State of Utah's Reply Conceming Late-Filed Contentions EE and GG" dated February 23,1998, were served on 1
the persons listed below (unless otherwise noted) by e-mail with conforming copies by l
l U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of February,1998.
G. Paul Bollwerk 111, 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: JRK2@nrc. gov Dr. Peter S. Lam
- Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Bcard 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
Caserine L. Marco, Esq.
- Charles J. Haughney Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Office Office of the General Counsel Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Mail 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;CLM@nrc. gov I
Denise Chancellor, Esq.
Jean Belille, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Ohngo 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.0, Box 140873 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Salt Lake City, Utal. 84114-0873 e mail: landwater@lawfund.org e-mail: dchancel@ state.UT.US John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.
Danny Qv.ntana, Esq.
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Skull Va' ley Band of Goshute Indians Reservation and David Pete Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.
1385 Ya:e Avenue 50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 e-mail: jihn@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 e4147-0019 (original and two copies) e-mail: karenj@pwlaw.com Diane Curran, Esq.
Richard Wilson Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &
Department of Physics Eisenberg, L.L.P.
Harvard University 2001 S Street, N.W.
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Washington, D.C. 20009 e-mail: wilson @huhepl. harvard.edu e-mail: DCurran.HCSE@zzapp.org 2
Martin S. Kaufman, Esq.
Senior Vice President / General Counsel Atlantic Legal Foundation 205 E. 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 e mail: mskaufman@ yahoo.com
- By U.S. mail only Paul A. GaukleI
~
55:06s 3
-