ML20212M821

Memorandum & Order Granting Summary Disposition Motion Re Contention 3 & Terminating OL Amend Proceeding.Served on 860827

ML20212M821
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/25/1986
From:	Cole R, Lazo R, Leubke E, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
CON-#386-484 84-505-08-LA, 84-505-8-LA, OLA-3, NUDOCS 8608270194
Download: ML20212M821 (13)

Text

!

t

(

4e .

4 00tKETEP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: gfFI ,f y/p[

Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke ,$$1[ED gg y

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250-0LA-3

) 50-251-0LA-3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

) ASLBP No. 84-505-08 LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) (Increased Fuel Enrichment)

Units 3 & 4) )

) August 25, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Sumary Disposition Motion and Terminating Proceeding)

Before us is a motion by Florida' Power & Light Company (Licensee) for sumary disposition of Contention 3. Based upon our study of the motion, supporting documents and the pleadings filed in response' thereto, we grant the sumary disposition motion. Inasmuch as Contention 3 is the only contention admitted for litigation, no other issues remain in controversy. Accordingly, we close the record and dismiss this operat'ing license amendment proceeding.

I. Background of Proceeding On June 20, 1984 the Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of amendments to the facility bb$ o Me

T .;

i 2 11 operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and offered an opportunity for a hearing on the amendments. 49 Fed. Reg. 25350, 25360.

The amendments were requested to allow storage of fuel with increased enrichment,'for use in future operating cycles, and include an additional keff (neutron' multiplication factor) requirement for the existing new fuel storage racks under conditions of low density (optimum moderation). In support of this request, Licensee submitted a

" Crit.icality Analysis of Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Storage Racks with Increased Enrichment" (Criticality Analysis).

In response to the notice of opportunity for a hearing, Joette Lorion and the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (collectively -

referred to herein as "Intervedors") filed a "Requen for Hearing and' ,

~

Petition for Leave to Intervene" on July 12, 1984.

puring its review, the NRC Staff'(Staff) submitted written questions to Licensee regarding its request to expand the capacity of the Turkey Point spent fuel pools. ' Licensee submitted written responses to these questions which supplemented the %tcmation in the Criticality Analysis.- Following completion of it) t m e. the Staff determined that (;g.

the requested amendments involved no significant hazards consideration, and issued the license amendments on September 5, 1984, accompanied by a Safety Evaluation (SE).

?

3 The Intervenors submitted an " Amended Petition To Intervene" on March 7, 1985, which listed four contentions that the Intervenors proposed be admitted for litigation in this proceeding. Following a prehearing conference on March 28, 1985, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order (unpublished) dated September 24, 1985, which accepted the Intervenors as a party to this proceeding and admitted Contention 3 for the purposes of litigation.

On January 23, 1986 Licensee filed " Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3" (Motion). The Motion is accompanied by a statement of material facts as to which it is asserted there is no genuine issue to be heard, and an affidavit concerning the contention by Dr. Stanley E. Turner.

The Staff on February 18, 1986 filed a response in support of Licensee's Motion. (NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Cohtention 3). The Staff response was accompanied by an affidavit of Dr. Lawrence I. Kopp regarding Contention 3.

On March 19, 1986, Intervenors filed a response to Licensee's flotion together with "Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is a Genuine Issue to be Heard With Respect to Intervenors' Contention 3" and an affidavit by Joette Lorion.

4 II. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition Summary disposition of contentions in NRC proceedings is governed by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749.1 Under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(a), any party may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision in its favor as to all or any part of the matters involved in the proceeding. Such a motion must be accompanied by "a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which ... there is no genuine issue to be heard." _Id . Any other party may support or oppose the motion. If it opposes the motion, a party must file its own statement of the material facts as to which it contends there is a genuine issue to be heard. Mate' rial facts are deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing" party. _I d_.

Undpr 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(b), when a motion for summary disposition is filed and is s'spported by affidavits, "a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer."

Instead, the opposi,ng party's " answer by affidavits or as otherwise 1

The standards for sumary disposition under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749 are similar to those standards for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 18, and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 NRC 15, 20 n.17 (1979); Cleveland Electric Illuminatin Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 7E', g Co. (Perry Nuclear

/54-54(1977).

W

T 1 0

5 provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact." Id. See_also Houston Lighting &

Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-629, 13 NRC 75, 77-78 (1981); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-56, 18 NRC 4%I, 430 (1983). In particular, "[t]he opposing party's facts must ce material, substantial, not fanciful, or merely suspicious."

Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 NRC 246, 248 (1975) (footnotes omitted). A party may not oppose a motion for summary disposition "on the vague supposition that something may turn up" at hearings, id_.; nor may an opposing party rely upon general denials coupled with a claim that more information is needed for the party to evaluate the movant's analyses.

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 455 (1980).

Furtherinore'. Section 2.749(b) provides that "[a]ffidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to . testify to the matters stated therein." In such an answer is not filed, s'unmary disposition shall be granted, if eppropriate.

10 C.F.R. s 2.749(b).

Under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749(d), summary disposition shall be granted if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.

i i

i s

6 III. Discussion of Contention 3 Contention 3 and the bases for the contention state as follows:

Contention 3 That the uranium enrichment amendments increase the chances of a criticality accident occurring in the fresh fuel pool and establishes a clear reduction in the safety margin of the fresh and spent fuel pool.

Bases for Contention a) The U-235 loading of 52.40 grams per axial centimeter (SER of no greater pg2),isthemaximumloadingwhichcanassureak(ymarginsfor than 0.95, including uncertainties. Thus,the.saf8 f the enrichment of the fuel have been pushed to the limit and leave no margin of safety. ,

b) The increase of criticality from 0.95 to 0.98 for the fresh pool pushed the criticality of the pool closer to criticality, yhich is 1.0. This increases reactivity and increases the postibility of a criticality accident and/or loss of fuel cooling system flow., Thus, the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, criterion 62 will slot be met.

In admitting Conten' tion 3, we stated that "the contention should be read as challenging the adequacy of this acceptance criteria by alleging that k of 0.98 is not adequately safe for fresh fuel exposed to abnormal, eff optimum moderation conditions and 0.95 is not adequate for fresh or spent fuel exposed to the abnormal condition of full flooding with unborated water." Memorandum and Order (September 24, 1985), pp. 7-8.

4' 7

The material facts regarding the issues raised by this contention are not in dispute. These facts are summarized below.

The new fuel storage vaults and the spent fuel storage pools at Turkey Point are unrelated facilities and are physically located in separate areas of the plant. The new fuel storage vaults are intended for the receipt and temporary storage of fresh unirradiated fuel assemblies being shipped into the plant. These fresh fuel assemblies do not require any shielding or cooling and, under normal conditions, are stored in a dry condition in the Turkey Point new fuel storage vaults.

The absence of a moderator for the fresh fuel assemblies in the new storage vaults assures very low values of keff with a large margin to criticality during normal storage of these assemblies. Spent, fuel storage pools are designed and intended to store fuel discharged from the reactor core. The spent fuel assemblies are stored in borated water in tha Turkey Point spent fuel pools. The presence of boron in the spent fuel pool w)ter absorbs neutrpns and therefore assures very low values of k eff with a large margin to criticality during normal storage of these assemblies.2 Criticality analyses for fresh fuel storage areas and spent fuel pools are governed by General Design Criterion (GDC) 62 of Appendix A to 2

Turner Affidavit,15 8-10, Kopp Affidavit,116-13.

M

8 10 C.F.R. Part 50 of the NRC's regulations, which states that

"[c]riticality in the fuel storage and handling system shall be prevented by physical systems or processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations." The NRC Staff has issued guidance, in the form of Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 (NUREG-0800), for complying with GDC 62. SRP Section 9.1.1 states that the NRC Staff will accept storage racks for new fuel assemblies if the k

eff of the assemblies is less than 0.95 for flooded conditions and if the k will n t exceed 0.98 for conditions of optimum moderation. SRP eff Section 9.1.2 states that the NRC Staff will accept storage racks for spent fuel assemblies if the keff of the assemblies is not greater than 0.95 for flooded conditions with unborated water.3 The design basis k limits for the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage Taults and spent eff fuel pools conform with the keff criteria in SRP Sections

• 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.4 Intervenors are incorrect when they contend that the Turkey Point k limits are not adequate to pre' vent criticality. The Turkey Point eff k limits are less than 1.0, thereby assuring that fresh and spent eff ,

3Although the SRP does not have the force of regulations, the Appeal Board has held that "the staff guidance and acceptance criterion for spent fuel pool criticality is entitled to considerable weight."

Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-725, 17 NRC 562, 568 (1983).

Turner Affidavit, 51 12-15, Kopp Affidavit 1 13.

- ~

t 9

fuel will be stored in subcritical conditions. Further assurance is provided by the fact that: (1)k eff is calculated by methods which have been calibrated and checked (thereby assuring the calculated values of k

eff are highly reliable), (2) all known uncertainties are included in the calculated values of keff,and(3)thekeff limits apply to very unusual and highly improbable accident conditions (i.e., the presence of unborated water in the fresh fuel storage vaults and the absence of boron in the spent fuel pool water), and under normal conditions the fresh and spent fuel assemblies are maintained in a strongly subcritical condition by the absence of a moderator in the fresh fuel storage vault and the presence of borated water in the spent fuel pool. A criticality accident would be possible only if two independent and unlikely accident conditions were postulated to occur simultaneously. This possibility is not credible and is not required to be considen.d under NitC Staff and industry standards.5 Intervenors 'also are incorrect when they contend that the Turkey Point k eff limits " leave no margin of safety." The k eff limit of 0.95 applicable to the Tprkey Point fresh fuel storage vaults and spent fuel j storage pools under conditions of flooding with unborated water provides l

for a criticality safety margin of 0.05 Akeff. This margin is a factor of five times the usual uncertainty included in the calculated keff fr S

Turner Affidavit,1 16.

t i ,

t 10 fresh fuel storage vaults and a factor of two or more times the nonnal uncertainty included in the calculated keff for spent fuel storage pools. These safety factors are more than sufficient to assure that criticality will not occur. Furthermore, the existence of optimum moderation uniformly throughout a fresh fuel storage vault is not a credible occurrence and represents a theoretical and conservative upper bound condition. Consequently, the k eff limit of 0.98 for fresh fuel assemblies under conditions of optimum moderation provides a large criticality safety margin.6 Finally, Intervenors are incorrect when they contend that the increased fuel enrichment amendments reduced the margin of safety to criticality in the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage v'ults a and spent fuel pools. The amendments did not modify the pre-existing kef limit of 0.95 for the Turkey Point spent fuel pools and fresh fuel storage vaults under, flooded conditions. Consequently, the amendments did not reduce the margin of s'afety provided by these limits. Although the increased t ,

fuel enrichment amendments did establish a k eff limit of 0.98 for j

conditions of optimum moderation in the fresh fuel storage vaults, there i previously was no license requirement to consider optimum moderation in l

l 6

Turner Affidavit, 51 18, 21, and 24.

l -- -

O b

l 11 J

the vault.7 Consequently, the k,ff limit of 0.98 is a new and additional requirement, and not a reduction in safety provided by a previous requirement.0 Intervenors have set forth in five numbered paragraphs (two bear the number 3) statements which it is asserted are material facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be heard with respect to Intervenors' Contention 3. However, it is readily apparent on examination of these statements, that not one properly can be characterized as a specific fact showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.

IV. Conclusion The k limits for the Turkey Point fresh fuel storage vaults and eff spent fuel pools conform with the NRC Staff's acceptance criteria.

These. limits require that the fresh and spent fuel assemblies be maintained subcri'tical under postulated accident conditions, even when There is no k' criterion applicable to " optimum moderation" accidents in spent b l pools, since the presence of stainless steel plates between the assemblies in the spent fuel storage racks absorbs thermalized neutrons and therefore removes the conditions necessary for optimum moderation. (Turner Affidavit, 1 23). Additionally, the Appeal Board has ruled that the possibility of optimum moderation in a spent fuel pool need not be considered when reliable makeup is provided for the pool. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant),

ALAB-725, 17 NRC 562 (1983).

8 Turner Affidavit, 11 19, 22, and 25.

4 I

12 all known uncertainties are accounted for. Furthermore, these limits provide for margins of safety to criticality which are several times the normal uncertainties included in the calculated values of k eff' Consequently, the limits are sufficient to prevent criticality in accordance with the Commission's regulations. Since there is no genuine issue regarding any of these material facts, the Licens.ee is entitled to summary disposition of Contention 3 as a matter of law.

V. Order For all the foregoing reasons and upon consiceration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 25th day of August,1986 ORDERED 1 That the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (January 23,1986) is granted; and

2. No other , contentions having been admitted for litigation, the record is hereby closed and this operating license amendment proceeding is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760, that this Decision shall constitute the final decision of the Commission thirty (30) days from its date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in  ;

o

, . , . - ~ - - - . - - . _ , , ,

r t

13 accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.762 or the Commission directs otherwise.

See_ also 10 C.F.R. 96 2.785 and 2.786. Any party may take an appeal from this Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Decision. A brief in support of such appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the appellant is the Staff). Within thirty (30) days after the p riod has expired for the filirg and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any party who is not an appellant may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal of any other party. A responding party shall file a single responsive brief, regardless of the number of appellants' briefs filed.

THE ATOMIC SAFET AND LICENSING BOARD .

RMn1. L,<

Robert M. Lazo, Chairk()

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

?^ .,

, Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Enneth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, flaryland, this 25th day of August, 1986.