ML20235G544

Forwards NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision Re Licensee Amend Request to Expand Spent Fuel Pools at Plant

ML20235G544
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/08/1987
From:	Vogler B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bright G, Cotter B, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#387-3969 OLA, NUDOCS 8707140290
Download: ML20235G544 (45)

Text

r

)

3T67 i f # "*% UNITED STATES

/

k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o. C. 205$5 yg,b y.? y

'87 JUL 10 N1 :30 July 8,1987 (,rn D0ch p,

B. Paul Cotter, Jr. , Chairman Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA and 50-323 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool)

Dear Administrative Judges:

Pursuant to the direction of this Board at the conclusion of the hearing on this matter on June 18, 1987 enclosed is the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law in The Form Of An initial Decision Relating i To The Licensee's Amendment Request To Expand The Spent Fuel Pools At J The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. A disk, with these findings, in ASCll, is also enclosed.

In addition, the Staff would note that the professional qualifications of its witnesses, Messrs Ashar, Fishman, DeGrassi, Brooks and. Singh, although provided to the reporter, were not incorporated into the transcript as di-rected by the Chairman of the Licensing Board at transcript page 51.

However, copies of their professional qualifications were previously provided 8707140290 070708 PDR ADOCK 05000275 0 PDR

\ 6

- - _ --- _ J

to the Board and Parties on June 4 1987 in connection with the filing of Staff's testimony.

Sincerely, f#

Benjamin H. Vogler Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ Findings: Service List l

l l

I July 8,1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1

. 1 In the Matter of ) I

)

l PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA COMPANY ) 50-323 OLA

)  ;

(Diablo Canyon Nucitar Power Plant ) (Spent Fuel Pool) "

l Units 1 and 2) )

l NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF AN INITIAL DECISION RELATING TO THE LICENSEE'S I AMENDMENT REQUEST TO EXPAND THE SPENT FUEL POOLS AT THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

l. SCOPE OF DECISION This initial Decision addresses the contentions proposed by the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) in connection with the Pacific Cas and Electric Company's (Licensee) request for an amendment to perform a high density reracking of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools l in order to increase their capacity. The Sierra Club alleged that the Licensee in its report submitted to the NRC entitled "Reracking of Spent l l

Fuel Pools , Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2" and in other public communications failed to contain data regarding the expected velocity and displacement during the postulated Hosgr! earthquake (PHE) and thus significantly underestimated the impact forces on the spent fuel pools and the proposed racks therein. The Sierra Club alleged that in fact, during a PHE, collisions between the racks, groups of racks and pool walls are 1

expected to occur causing the release of large quantities of heat and l 1 l

. l 1

I radiation resulting in the radioactive contamination of the nuclear, plant, the environment, human and other living things in the vicinity thereof.

In other contentions, the Sierra Club asserted that the Licensee's Reports fall to consider alternatives for new or additional on-site storage facilities or the acquisition of modular or mobile spenh nuclear fuel storage equipment including spent nuclear fuel storage casks in place of the proposed reracking.

The Board has reviewed the record compiled at the hearing on all of the Sierra Clu b's admitted contentions. On the basis of all of the evidence presented, th'e Board finds that Licensee's Report, the Staff's review thereof as set forth in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and related testimony accurately portray the events that may take place during the PHE and further, that no large releases of heat and/or radiation is expected to occur as alleged. In addition, the Board finds that the Staff has reviewed the Licensee's amendment request with' regard to alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The Board concludes that, with respect to those matters in controversy, it has been demonstrated that the proposed amendment compiles with all I applicable regulatory requirements.

11. BACKGROUND On October 30, 1985, the Licensee requested amendments authorizing it to increase the spent fuel pool storage capacity from 270 to 1324 storage locations for each unit, by reracking the spent fuel pools with a combination of high-density, free-standing poisoned racks and nonpoisoned racks in a two-region arrangement. On January 13,1986 the l

. 1

l Commission published in the Federal Register its notice of " Consideration i of issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and ,

1 DPR-82 for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Respectively, and I l

Proposed No Sig'nificant Hazards Consideration Determination and

~

Opportunity for Hearing." 51 Fed. Reg. 1451. In this notice the Commission made the following determination:

On the basis of the foregoing discussion of the elements of 10 C.F.R. 50.92 and because the proposed reracking technology has been well developed and demonstrated, the Commission proposes to determine that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does no involve a significant hazards consideration. Id,. at 1455.

In response to the above Commission notice, separate comments, J i

requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene were filed by the Sierra Club, Mothers for Peace and the Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety (CODES). An Atomic Safety and so Licensing Board was established on February 21, 1986 to hear argument and to consider the petitions for leave to intervene, in a Memarandum and Order issued on March 28, 1986, the Licensing Board admitted the Mothers for Peace as a party to the proceeding subject to the subsequent submission and acceptance of at least one i contention. The Board therein initially denied the petitions filed by the  :

)

Sierra Club and CODES subject to reconsideration upon the filing of amended petitions and the submission and acceptance of at least one contention. Thereafter, timely amended petitions were filed by the Sierra Club and CODES including croposed contentions; proposed contentions l were also timely filed by the Mothers for Peace.

l On May 13,1986, a prehearing conference was held in Avila Beach, California to consider the respective petitions and proposed contentions.

I i

On June 27, 1986, O the Board issued a Memorandum and Order, l

LB P-86-21, 23 NRC 849 (1986), admitting both the Slerra Club and i CODES as parties to the proceeding and ruling on contentions; at least 1

i

-1/

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.91, the Commission, on May 30, 1986, approved the proposed amendments on the basis of its Safety Evaluation and made them immediately effective, prior to any hearing on the proposed amendments, having made a final determination that the proposed action involved no significant hazards consideration.

51 Fed. Reg. 20,725 (June 6,1986). An Environmental Assessment supporting the license amendment, which found that the amendment entailed no significant environmental impacts, had also been issued on May 21, 1986, and notice. thereof given in the Federal Register, j 51 Fed. Reg.19,430 (May 29,1986).

On June 16, 1986 the interveners Mothers for Peace and Sierra Club jointly filed an Application for a ' Stay of the Commission's May 30th action amending the license. Two days later, on June 18, both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board dismissed the Interveners' stay request. On June 19, the Commission denied Interveners' request for expedited consideration of their stay application and set down a briefing schedule for responses. Also on June 19,1986, the **

Interveners filed Emergency Motions and a Petition for Review before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. - On July 2,1986 the Court , after briefs and oral argument, granted a partial stay and ordered expedited consideration of the interveners' petition for review. On July 22, 1986, the Commission denied interveners' appilcation for a stay except to the extent that it prohibited the Licensee from storing more than 270 spent fuel assemblies in either of the spent fuel pools and subject to those restrictions previously imposed by the Court of Appeals. C LI-86-12, 24 NRC 1 (1986).

On September 11, 1986, the Court issued an Order that concluded:

The NRC failed to comply with its own regulations in denying petitioners a hearing prior to making the Diablo Canyon reracking license amendments effective.

Accordingly, the existing stay of those amendments is continued. PGSE shall not deposit any spent fuel rods in the pool for Unit 1 and shall not rerack the pool for Unit 2 until hearings have been held in compliance with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986); dissent, 804 F.2d 523 (9th Cir.

1966). j (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PACE) l

l 4 l one good contention was found to have been submitted by each intervenor. E A complete list of all contentions admitted by the Board is appended to that Memorandum and Order as Appendix A.

On August 28, 1986, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order establishing a schedule for completing discovery and proceeding to hearing. on the Licensee's spent fuel pool expansion request, setting alternate dates for the submission of prefiled testimony and commencement of the hearing to accommodate the possibility that a party might file one or more motions for summary disposition - If no motions for summary dispositon were filed by December 29, 1986, the hearing would commence on January 15, 1987 and if motions were filed, the hearing would begin on March 26, 1987. As a consequence of discovery disputes, the i schedule established in the August 28 Memorandum and Ordor was q 1

modified by the Board in a Memorandum and Order issued on December 1, j l

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

On September 16, 1986, Interveners Sierra Club and Mothers for Peace jointly sought a further stay from the Commission.

See, Interveners' Application for an Order Prohibiting Onsite Storage of Radioactive Spent Fuel at Unit 1, Diablo Canyon I and for Public Hearings, dated September 16, 1986. The l Commission directed that this request be treated as a petition for enforcement action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, to be resolved expeditiously by the Staff and declined to issue the  :

emergency stay sought. Order dated September 18, 1986 (unpublished). This matter was appropriately resolved by the Staff outside the hearing process.

2/ Although invited by the Board's June 27 Memorandum and Order,

~

LB P-86-21, supra, 2? NRC at 873, no party sought to invoke the -

hybrid hearing procedures provided in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1101 et seg,

i l

1 1966, to permit some additional discovery and to provide for the commencement of the hearing on February 2,1987. $I I On December 15, Interveners Mothers for Peace 4l - and the Sierra /

Club filed a joint motion for summary disposition before the Licensing Board EI alleging that, as a matter of law, the libense amendment sought ]

must be denied because the Staff failed to file an environmental impact ,

statement and because the amendment request failed to comply with the Commission's requirements, specifically the Standard Review Plan, N U REG-0800. Following the submission of answers by the Staff and the Licensee in accordance with the Board's January 2,1987 Memorandum and Order, bI the Licensing Board, in a Memorandum and Order dated I

l 3/

~

On December 10, 1986, CODES filed a statement with tne Board indicating that it would no longer participate in the proceeding.

4! Subsequently, on January 13, 1987 the Intervenor, Mothers for Peace filed a statement with the Board indicating that it would no longer participate the proceeding.

5/

Also on December 15, 1986, Interveners filed a Motion to Allow Filing of Summary Disposition Motion and for Reinstatement of Original Schedule, with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, premised on their interpretation of the Licensing Board's December 1 Memorandum and Order as foreclosing the opportunity to file a motion for summary disposition. Interveners therein requested that they be permitted to file such motion and that the schedule originally established by the Board's August 28, 1986 Memorandum and Order be reinstated. In a Memorandum and Order issued on December 19, 1986 (unpublished), the Appeal Board denied interveners' Motion observing that there was no reason to believe that the Licensing Board would reject their motion for summary disposition out of hand and until the Licensing Board had acted, their motion was premature.

~

6/ See, NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club / Mothers for Peace Motion for Summary Disposition, dated January 15,1987, and, Answer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition, dated January 14, 1987.

January 28, 1987, denied the motion for summary disposition pending before it. U in a telephone conference call with the Board and parties on February 23, 1987, the Staff informed the Board that, as a consequence

~

l of recent developments regarding its evaluation of multi-rack impacts {

(raised initially by Brookhaven National Laboratory as concerns in the context of the review of Commonwealth Edison Company's application to rerack the Byron facility's spent fuel pool), it would be unable to file its testimony on February 24, 1987. as required and would be unable to present testimony on this matter at the hearing commencing on March 9.

The multi-rack impact issue is discussed in more detail subsequently in the Findings of this initial Decision. The Board agreed to delay the start of the hearing and to extend discovery so that the parties could consider these recent developments. Thereafter, following a conference call among the Board and parties on April 8, the Licensing Board, in a Memorandum j and Order issued on April 9,1987, ordered discovery to end on May 27, and the hearing to start on June 16, 1987. -

-7/ In its Memorandum and Order the Licensing Board also accepted the withdrawal of CODES and Mothers for Peace from the proceeding and dismissed their remaining contentions. The Board also granted the Sierra Club's January 13, 1987 motion for continuance of the hearing, setting March 9, 1987 as the new date for its commencement.

-8/ The Board also provided that limited appearance statements ,

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715, would be received on June 15, 1987.

)

A hearing on the Sierra Club's Club's contentions EI was held as j

ordered on June 16-18, 1987 10,/ at Avila Beach, California.

FINDINGS OF FACT

)

111. l introduction

1. To address the Sierra Club, Contentions f(A)3, and 4; l(B)2, B; il(A)1-9 and li(B)1-9, the Staff presented the testimony of Hansraj G.

Ashar, NI a Structural Engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), NRC, Howsrd Martin Fishman, Section - Head, Structural Engineering Section, Engineering Department, Franklin Research Center (FRC) SI , Dr. Walter L. Brooks, a Nuclear Engineer in 9/

~

Sierra Club Contentions 1(A)1, 1(A)2,- l(A)5 and l(A)6, were voluntarliy withdrawn by the Sierra Club by their Report to the Board dated August 15, 1986, and were not further considered in this proceeding. Contention f(B)9 was voluntarily withdrawn by the Sierra Club at the hearing. Tr. 174. In light of this, the Staff's testimony on this contention was withdrawn (Tr. 512) and the Licensee's testimony will not be considered in this decision.

~

10/ On June 15, 1987, the Board received oral and written limited appearance statements from interested individuals in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715(a). T r. 1 -13, Additional written statements were invited by the Board. Tr. 62A.

~

11/ The principal staff reviewer with regard to the structural aspects of l Licenset's amendment request initially was Mr. Frank Rinaldi. Due to Mr. Rinaldi's hospitalization, Staff witness Ashar, who was assigned to replace Mr. Rinaldi, has reviewed the Staff's Safety Evaluation and has adopted the conclusions therein regarding the structural integrity of the high density racks during a Postulated Hosgri Earthquake.

~

12/ The FRC, as consultants to the Staff, prepared a technical evaluation report (TER) entitled, Evaluation of Spent Fuel Racks, Structural Analysis, Pacific Cas & Electric Company, Diablo Canyon l Units 1 and 2. This report, dated April 30, 1966, is identified as j (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l

l i

the Reactor Systems Branch, NRR, NRC, and Amarjit Singh, a Reactor Operations Engineer, inspection, Licensing and Research Integration Branch, Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff, NRR, NRC. To address the limited area of multi-rack impacts, the Staff presented the testimony of Mr. Giuliano DeGrassi, a Research Engineer in the Structural Analysis Division, Department of Nuclear Energy, i Brookhaven National Laboratory. Messrs. Ashar, Fishman, Brooks, Singh and DeGrassi were presented by the Staff as a single panel of witnesses, b To address the Sierra Club Contention 1(B)7 concerning alternatives to the prdposed amendment, the Staff presented the testimony of Donald P. Cleary, Senior Task Manager, R.eactor and Plant Safety (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) **

l TER-C5506-625 and is Attachment A to the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report of May 30, 1986. (Staff Exhibit 1). The purpose of the FRC Analysis and report was to determine the structural adequacy of the high density spent fuel racks and spent fuel pool as proposed by the Licensee in its report entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, September 1985. (PG6E Ex. 2) In '

I essence, the FRC Peport supported the Licensee's amendment request for an expansion of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools. A revised TER was issued by FRC on May 28, 1987 tc account for its further evaluation of the Licensee's multi-rack impact analyses.

(Staff Exhibit 1-A). A TER was also prepared. by Brookhaven National Laboratory to address this same matter. (Staff Exhibit 1-B). .

l The principal author of FRC Report TER-C5506-625, Mr. R. Clyde l Herrick, is deceased. Staff witness, Mr. Fishman, who replaced Mr. l Herrick, has thoroughly reviewed the evaluations in the report and is the principal author of the revisions to the FRC Report (Staff Exhibit 1-A).

13/ The direct prefiled testimony sponsored by this panel will be referred to throughout these findings as "Fishman, et al. ff.

~~

Tr. 519 at .

_ _ _ _ __ ___________-_______ _ ____ _ A

Issues Branch, Division of Reactor and Plant Systems, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.  ;

The Licensee presented, as a single panel of witnesses which.

addressed all of the Sierra Club's contentions, J. D. Shiffer, Vice President of Nuclear Power Generation at PGandE; K. P. Singh, President of Holtec International; S. Bhattacharya , Senior Civil Engineer at PGandE; S. E. Turner, Consultant and Project . Manger at Black and j Veatch; E. E. DeMario, . Advisory Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and W. H. White, Chief Civil / Structural Engineer at Bechtel Western Power Corporation. OI The Sierra Club presented as its sole witness Dr. Richard B.

Ferguson. E

2. The Staff's and Licen:,ee's witnesses are highly qualified in so their respective fields of endeavor and were of invaluable assistance in developing the record of this proceeding. The qualifications of these  !

individuals were not challenged, l

On the other hand, Dr. Ferguson is not expert by virtue of either education or experience in any of the disciplines associated with l

1

)

l 1

i

~

14/ The direct prefiled testimony sponsored by this panel will be referred to throughout these findings as "Shlffer , et al., ff.

Tr.179 at .

-15/ Dr. Ferguson's direct prefiled testimony will be referred to throughout these findings as "Ferguson, ff. Tr. 423 at .

i i

issues in this proceeding. Ferguson, . Tr. 424-435, 501, 504-505. His testimony thus is entitled to little weight. b Contention 1(a)3 Sierra Club Contention 1( A)3 provides:

it is the contention of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter (Sierra Club), that the report submitted to the NRC entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and other communications between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGSE) and the NRC, which are avaliable to the public on the same subject l

! (the Reports), fall to contain certain relevant data nec-essary for independent verification of- claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment. In particular, the Reports fall to con-tain data regarding:

(3) The expected velocity and displacement of the spent fuel pools (pools) as a function of time in three 4 dimensions during the postulated Hosgri earthquake (PHE).

3. The velocity and displacement nf the spent fuel pool is not used explicitly in the Licensee's reracking analysis because the dynamic input for the analysis only requires the spent fuel pool's floor acceleration time

--16/ The Board notes that Dr. Ferguson's prefiled direct testimony was  !

not presented in a fashion which readily permits its association with  !

any particular contention. Moreover, in several cases, for example with respect to Contention 1(B)7, we note that the testimony is beyond the scope of the admitted issues and will not be considered in this decision. Further, it appears from the Sierra Club's " Final

[ Proposed] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" that it has abandoned Contentions i(A) and 1(B) in their entirety. See, Sierra Club, Final [Prrposed) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, June 29, 1987. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co., (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) L B P-82-48, 15 NRC 1549, 1568 (1982).

history. Earthquakes develop inertia forces on structures and these forces may be computed from the well known relationship of force equals mass times acceleration Fishman, et al., ff. Tr. 519 at 5. Shlffer, et al., ff. Tr.179 at 24. Accordingly, since only pool acceleration is explicitly required for purposes of the Licensee's method of analysis which the Board finds acceptable, this contention is without merit.

4. Moreover, Sierra Club's witness Dr. Richard B. Ferguson, had contended that the spent fuel pools could be expected to undergo displacements of up to 3 feet in the north-south direction and up to 8 feet in the east-west direction. On the basis of the evidence submitted, and for the reasons sent forth below , the Board finds that Dr. Ferguson's conclusions with regard to the displacement of the spent fuel pools are not valid.

For the purpose of structural analysis any earthquake, including the PHE, is usually represented in two .3rms. The first form relates to response spectra wherein acceleration is presented in terms of frequency and the second is where acceleration is presented as a function of time. For a postulated earthquake, such as the PHE, the response spectrum is usually prescribed from which an artificial time history may be mathematically derived. The artificial time history is developed as the superposition of sine waves with different amplitudes, frequencies and I random phase-sh!fts. The vibratory characteristics of an earthquake which are simulated by these artificial time histories do not allow the development of large cumulative values of acceleration, velocity or displacement as these motion quantitles tend to oscillate about zero. See, Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 7.

I y

The artificial acceleration time histories for the PHE were com-puted by the Licensee using a modified version of the computer program SIMQKE. The primary purpose of SIMQKE is to simulate earthquake mo-tions with artificial time histories that correspond to the applicable re-

~

sponse spectra. For an appropriate earthquake simulation there is a branch of SIMQKE that performs a baseline correction on the acceleration time history so that the corresponding velocity would tend to oscillate about zero, thus representing the vibratory characteristics of a real earthquake. Using the acceleration time histories provided by the Licens-ee, Staff witness Mr. Fishman performed the baseline corrections in ac-cordance with SIMOKE and developed acceleration velocity and displacement time histories. The Board agrees with Mr. Fishman's posi-tion concerning acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories which he considered more appropriate. It is concluded therefore, that there is no significant difference between original and corrected acceleration time histories and that displacement oscillatt., about zero for the baseline corrected solution. Fishman et al., ff. Tr. 515 ; See, Figures 1, 2 and 3.

Using the figures attached to Mr. Fishman's testimony, it can be seen that the final displacement from PHE would be 4,83 inches in the cast-west direction (Figure 3) as compared to Dr. Ferguson's uncorrected value of 79.98 inches; the maximum displacement amplitude found by Mr. Fishman would be 16.21 inches at 16.1 seconds. Based upon Mr. Fishman's calculations, this Board concludes that since the rates of change for both the baseline corrected and non-corrected displacements are nearly identical, the magnitude of the spent fuel pool displacement

__U

I i

)

would not significantly alter the results of the nonlinear dynamic analysis for the racks performed by the Licensee. See, Fishman, ekal., ff.

Tr. 519 at 7-9.

Contention 1( A)4 Sierra Club Contention f(A)4 provides-i lt is the contention of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia I Chapter (Sierra Club), that the report submitted to the J NRC entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and other communications between Pacific Gas and Electric. Company (PG6E) and the NRC, which are available to 'th.e public on the same subject (the ReportsT, fall to contain certain relevant data nec-essary for independent verification of claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment. In particular, the Reports fall to contain data regarding:

4) The expected maximum velocity and displacement of the racks obtained from computer modeling of rack behavior during the PHE;

5. This contention by the Sierra Club is not factually accurate because the Licensee's reracking report does contain references to maxi-mum displacement. However, the report does not refer explicitly to maxi-mum velocities. In the Licensee's computer analysis, instantaneous values of displacement and velocity are calculated for all degree's of freedom and .

for each integration time step during.the period of mathematical represen- I tation of the PHE. These values are then used to compute design forces.

Fishman, et al, ff. Tr. 519 at 6. Shiffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 24-25.

As noted earlier (Finding 3) velocity and displacement are directly related I to acceleration and therefore the only dynamic input analysis necessary l

l l

l

f.

i for the Licensee's Rerack Report is the spent fuel pools floor acceleration time history. Id.; See also, Fishman et al. ff. Tr. 519 at 5. ,

1 Contention 1(B)2 Sierra Club Contention 1(B)2 provides:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fall to include consideration of certain relevant condi-tions, phenomena, and alternatives necessary for inde-pendent verification of claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the envi-ronment, and with federal law. In particular, the Re-ports fall to consider: -

2) the resonant behavior of the spent fuel assemblies in response to the PHE and the consequences of i such behavior;

6. While it is true that the Licensee's Reracking Report does not

.o consider resonant behavior of the spent fuel assemblies, the Board finds'  !

for the reasons set forth below, that the concept of resonance is not ap-i plicable to the Licensee's analvsis of its spent fuel assemblies. The con-cept of resonance in which large vibrations are induced by a small stimulus vibrating at a natural frequency is generally applicable to linear systems. The interaction between a spent fuel assembly and its cell walls as modeled by the Licensee with gaps, impact springs an~d hydro-dynamic

]

coupling are all nonlinear. The possibliity of a fuel assembly interacting with a cell wall and rebounding with increased impact force with each cycle is appropriately considered in the Licensee's analysis. The Licensee's analysis shows that this phenomenon (resonant behavior) does not occur during a PHE. Fishman, et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 9-10: Shiffer, et al., ff. Tr.179 at 26-28, PGSE Ex. 2, (Licensee's Rerack Report),

Section 6.2.1. The Board notes that this contention was not addressed by the Sierra Club in its testimony or by cross-examination of Staff's witnesses. Therefore, the Staff's testimony on this contention is uncontested and is ' adopted by the Board.

Contention 1(B)8 Sierra Club Contention l(B)8 provides:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fall to include consideration of certain relevant condi-tions, phenomena, and alternatives necessary for inde-pendent verification of claims made in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the envi-ronment, and with federal law. In particular, the Re-ports fall to consider: '

8) the use of anchors, braces, or other structural members to prevent rack motion and subsequent *d damage during the PHE.

7. The Licensee's reracking analysis is based on a free-standing configuration and does not consider any structural constraints to prevent rack motion. In this regard, the Board agrees with the conclusions of the Franklin Research Center Report that the Licensee's Rerack Report demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the codes, standards and practices for the spent fuel pool modifications. Fishman et al. , ff.

Tr. 519 at 11, Table 1. Shiffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 31. Therefore, the Board concludes that an analysis by the Licensee of the use anchors, braces or other structural members to prevent rack motion during a PHE is not necessary in order to demonstrate comp!!ance with the applicable codes, standards and requirements or to prevent rack motion and subse-quent damage during the PHE. This contention was also not addressed

s by the Sierra Club in its testimony or in its cross-examination of Staff's witnesses. The Staff's position on this contention is therefore uncontested and is adopted by the Board.

Contention ll(A)1 Sierra Club Contention ll(A)1 provides:

it is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub-lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:

A) during PHE, collision.s between racks and the pool i

walls are expected to occur, resulting in:

1) impact forces significantly larger than those estimated in the reports  :

8. Based upon all the evidence submitted on this aspect of the Sierra Club's Contention, the Board finds that collisions between adja-cent racks and between rack and wall were appropriately considered by the Licensee and further, that the analysis was based upon well estab-lished engineering principles that included the following modeling l

considerations:

The simultaneous consideration of three orthogonal selsmic ac-celeration time-histories (3-dimensional analysis)

Elastic flexibility of the rack module impacts of the spent fuel assemblies oscillating in the clearance space of the rack storage cells o The effects of impacts with an adjacent rack or the pool wall Off-center partial fuel loadings as well as full fuel load A documented range of friction coefficients between the mount-ing pads and the pool liner

o The hydrodynamic effects of water (i .e. , fluid coupling) be-tween rack and fuel assemblies, and between rack and adjacent racks and walls Fluid damping between rack and assemblies, and between rack and adjacent racks, is conservatively neglected The form drag opposing the motion of :the fuel assembiles and fuel racks are neglected.

The subject of hydrodynamic effects i.e. , fluid coupling, noted above, was extensively pursued at the hearing. Based upon its review of the record, including testimony offered by the Staff, Licensee and Sierra Club, the board is satisfied that fluid coupilng effects were derived based on the fundamental theories of hydrodynamics, known for well over 100 years, in terms of Lagrange's equations of motion and continuity for frictionless fluid s . In the derivations for various rack-to-rack ,

i rack-to-wall and fuel-to-cell wall configurations, the kinetic energy of the l

l fluid flowing between the components was computed , using calculation l

l methods that linearize the fluid coupling coefficients and underestimate l

l the fluid kinetic energy. Since the seismic energy must be balanced by the kinetic energy of the fluid in the pool and rack components, the dynamic motion of the components is overestimated. The calculation methods employed other conservative assumptions including, that adjacent  !

rows of racks are an infinite distance away, reducing " cross-coupling" effects. Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 21, Fishman, Tr. 597, DeGrassi, Tr. 598, Shlffer et al., ff. Tr.179 at 21, Sing h , T r . 2 61, Ashar, Tr. 599.

9. With respect to the impact forces reported in the initial Reracking Report (PCSE Ex. 2), the Board agrees that, in a literal sense, the forces reported are lower than those later reflected in PCSE

1 1

documents submitted in support of its rerack . application and which are part of the record of this proceeding (see PGGE Exs. 3-8). The forces ultimately calculated by POSF were not challenged by the Sierra Club.

Therefore, in terms of the technical acceptability of the Licensee's 'rerack proposal, that the impact forces initially reported were lower than those ultimately calculated is not of concern. In view thereof, the Board concludes that impact forces were not underestimated by the Licensee in its Reracking Report and subsequent related communications, which we consider to supplement the Rerack report. Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 12-13, DeGrassi, Tr. 526-28; see also, Shiffer, et al., ff. Tr. 179 at 34-35, Singh, Tr. 191-94, 196-98, 204-05, 227-228.

Contention !!( A)2 )

l Sierra Club Contention il( A)2 provides: I It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub-lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:

A) during PHE, collisions between racks and the pool walls are expected to occur, resulting in:

i

2) impact forces on the racks significantly larger than those expected to damage the racks;

10. The Board finds this contention to be without merit. The Li-censee and staff witness Mr. Fishman have reviewed this matter using conservative assumptions and the computations set forth in our Finding 8 above. In addition, the basis for the computations of allowable impact forces on the girdle bars is incipient plasticity. Between this allowable impact force and the force required to cause large permanent deformation,

there is a large reservoir of energy absorbing capacity in .,the rack modules. Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 13-15; DeGrassi, Tr. 526-28.

Shlffer, et al., ff. Tr.179 at 34-39, PGSE Ex. 2, Singh, Tr. 204-05, 210-11, 213, Section 6.9. PGS E Exs. 3-7.

During the course of the hearing a considerable amount of testimony was received concerning the Staff's OT position as set forth in "NRC OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications, April 14, 1978, Supplemented, January 18, 1979 "

See, PCSE Ex . 12. The section in dispute is entitled " Structural Acceptance Criteria: an'd is found at Section IV(6) page IV-5.

Basically, the Sierra Club maintainec,1 that the OT position prohibits sliding, tilting or impacts between adjacent rack modules or between a rack module and the pool walls. See, e.g. , Ferguson Tr. 495, 506-512. However, the Staff maintains that sliding and tilting of the racks are permitted under Section IV(6)(a) of the OT paper provided that the factor of safety against tilting permitted in Section 3.8.5.11-5 of the Standard Review Plan is met. Moreover, impacts between adjacent racks and racks and pool walls are permitted under Section IV(6)(b) of the OT position paper, provided the racks are designed to withstand such 1

impacts. Ashar, Tr. 541-557, 591-592, 595-596, DeGrassi, Tr. 555-557; i accord, Bhattacharya and Singh, Tr. 351-355, Singh, Tr. 356.

Based upon the above cited Staff testimony and our review of i

the OT position paper, the Board is of the opinion that the OT position j as promulgated by the Staff does permit sliding , tilting and impacts between racks and racks and pool walls provided the racks and impacted structures are designed to withstand such impacts, in the opinion of the l

i

4 q

Board, when the Licensee's maximum computed impact loads are compared to the allowable impact forces , ample safety . margins are found in all 1

cases. Id. Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 13-14; . DeGrassi, Tr. 526-28. l Shiffer, et al., ff. Tr.179. at 34-39, PGSE Ex. 2, Singh, Tr. 204-05,

~

I 210-11, 213, Section 6.9. PGSE Exs. 3-7. Therefore, the Board finds )

that the design of the Licensee's proposed racks, which includes explicit provisions to withstand impacts according to accepted engineering I procedures, is well within the criteria set forth in the Staff's OT Position paper. j 1

I Contention ll(A)3 Sierra Club Contention ll(A)3 provides:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed {

reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub- *u l lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons I which include the following:

A) during the PHE, collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:

3) significant permanent deformation and other damage to the racks and pool walls:

11. A review of the testimony and evidence submitted clearly indi-cates that the contention is incorrect. The Board believes that signifi-cant, permanent deformation and other damage to the racks and walls will not occur as a result of the PHE. The basis for this conclusion is based i upon the testimony of Staff's Mr. Fishman and the Licensee's Reracking Report, Sections 6.9.1 and 6.9.2, including Tables 6.8.1 and 6.8.2.

Allowable impact loads were compared to the calculated maximum corre-sponding impact loads during the PHE, and the evidence submitted clearly

\ .

indicates that in all cases no significant permanent deformation or corresponding damage at the impact locations was shown. From Licensee's Table 6.8.2, it can be determined that the largest calculated-Impact force between a storage ' cell and a fuel assembly is 249,900 lbs. or 28 percent of the allowable 883,000 lbs. Similarly, the maximum calculated impact force between racks is 105,000 lbs., which is 60 percent of the allowable . l 175,000 lbs. Therefore, as noted above, the Board finds that significant, permanent deformation and other damage to the racks and pool walls will not occur as a result- of the PHE. Fishman et al., ff. Tr. 519 at 14-15; S hiffer , et al., ff. Tr.179 at 35-39, PGSE Ex.2, Sections 6.9.1 and 6.9.2, Tables 6.8.1 and 6.8.2, PGSE Exs. 3-7, Singh, Tr. 211, 213.

Contention ll( A)4 Sierra Club Contention ll(A)4 provides: *O lt is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub-lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:

A) during the PHE collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in: i

4) reduction of the spacings between fuel ,

assemblies; j

12. For the reasons set forth in our Finding 11 supra, that no sig-nificant permanent deformation of the racks at any impact location will occur, the Board is of the opinion that there will be no' permanent 1 l reduction in spacing between fuel assemblies as the result of computed impact forces. Id. , See also, Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 16, Shiffer, l

l elal. , ff. Tr.179 at 39-41.

l

c Contention il(B)

Sierra Club Contention ll(B) provides:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub-lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:  :

I B) during the PHE, collisions between groups of racks with each other and/or with the pool walls are ex-pected to occur with results similar to those de-scribed in li( A) above. i 1

13. It appears that the Sierra Club's main concern in this conten-l tion is that despite random excitation during the 'PHE several fuel racks could move in unison and collide with another rack or the spent fuel pool wall. The Sierra Club maintains that basic physical principles predict that the forces generated in a collision with two racks would be twice as large as for single racks, three times for three racks etc. In its initial evaluation (Staff Exhibit 1) the Staff concluded that the probability of multiple racks making contact with each other without rebounding and j then sliding as a single unit towards another rack or the spent fuel pool wall during the PHE would be extremely low because of the variations in the size, mass and stiffness of each individual' rack as well as the spacing and friction. Thereafter, as a result of questions. raised by the Crookhaven National Laboratory in the context of its review of the Com-monwealth Edison Company application to rerack the Bryon spent fuel pool, the Licensee was requested by the Staff to perform a number of analyses to demonstrate the conservatism of its single rack model. In particular, the Staff was concerned that the impact . forces due to multi-rack impacts could exceed the forces computed by use of the single l _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -

rack model. Fishman, et al., ff. Tr. 519 at 23-24, DeGrassi, T r. 526-28. Singh, Tr. 329-33, 335-36.

The Licensee submitted additional analyses. (PGSE Exhibits 3-8). These analyses were reviewed by the Staff and its consultants FRC and DNL, as reflected in their respective TERs. (Staff Exhibits 1-A and l 1-B). The Staff concluded , on the basis- of its review, that the 1

rack-to-rack, fuel s.sembly-to-rack and rack-to-wall impact loads were '

within the respective allowable impact loads. The Board finds that the Staff's review confirms the acceptability of the proposed rack design.

Fishman et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 24, Ashar, Tr. 598-99.

Contentions ll( A)6, 7, 8 and 9; il(B)6, 7, 8 and 9 Sierra Club Contentions ll( A)6, 7, 8 and 9 and ll(B)6, 7, 8 and 9 provide: i it is the contention of the Sierra Club that proposed l reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub- J lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following:

A) during the PHE, collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:

6) release of large quantities of heat and radiation;

7) radioactive contamination of the nuct' ear power plant and its employees above the levels per-mitted by federal regulations;

8) radioactive contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above l the levels permitted by federal regulations; and c'

9) radioactive contamination of humans and other living things in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by fed-eral regulations.

I

., - - - - . , , . . - - . . ,. - - , , . -. .. . ..n. - . . . . . . , .  :- .

4 (B) during the PHE, collisions between groups of racks with each other and/or with the pool walls are ext pected to occur with results similar to those described in ll( A) above.

14. With regard to Contentions ll( A)5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; il(B)5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the Board notes at the outset of its di~ scussion that the Sierra Club offered no testimony in support of these contentions and no cross-examination of the Staff's witnesses, Dr. Walter L. Brooks and Amarjit Singh presented by the Staff in support of its position on I

criticality. Therefore, the Staff's testimony on criticality is uncontested and as set forth below is adopted by the Board. The Board finds that the consequences of criticality in the spent fuel pools at Diablo Canyon need not be specifically considered because deneral Design Criterion (GDC) 61 requires that fuel storage facilities be designed so that adequate safety margins under normal and postulated accident conditions is assured. Further, CDC 62 requires that criticailty in fuel storage and handling systems be prevented. Because compliance with these General Design Criteria is required, and has been demonstrated (see, Staff Ex.1 at 3-6) the Board agrees with the testimony of Staff witness Dr. Brooks and concludes that no analysis of the consequences of a criticality event in the spent fuel pool is required. Fishman, et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 18-19. .

In order for the parties to better understand the development of criticailty in a spent fuel pool, the Board refers to the testimony of staff witness Dr. Brooks, who was asked to assume that conditions in the spent fuel pool support its occurrence. Dr. Brooks advised:

If one postulates that the k-effective value of ' the fuel-rack-water combination (the system) in the pool becomes greater than unity (i.e. , becomes supercritical) the neutron population would rise at a rate which de-pends on the amount by which k-effective is greater

1 I

than unity (i.e. , the reactivity of the system). The fission rate would increase and the temperature of the fuel would rise. The temperature rise in the fuel would act to reduce the k-effective of the system (i.e., will  !

introduce negative reactivity). At some high T0eT e tem-perature the net reactivity will be zero and the fission rate increase would cease (after some _over-shoot) and  ;

begin to fall. If the initial value of the k-effective is  !

greater than about 1.005, the events described above i would occur before a significant amount of heat is con-ducted from the fuel to the surrounding water. As heat l is lost from the fuel its temperature would fall and the k-effective value would begin to rise again. The cycle described above would repeat itself until enough heat has been generated and deposited in the pool water to create sufficient volds t.o offset that part of the initial reactivity that is not offset. by the steady state fuel tem-perature rise. A final state would be reached in which l the power oerierated in the pool is just enough to main-  !

tain the void content of the water. The heat generation rate of the final state (where the heat generation rate remains constant) will depend on: -

1. The assumed initial reactivity insertion,

2. The void coefficient of reactivity (i.e. what void fraction in the water is required at the steady j state),

3. The thermal-hydraulics characteristics of the core which determines the amount of water that must be  !

converted to steam per unit time. Meaningful esti- l mates of the amount of heat generated are not pos-sible. However, it is clear that with sufficient initial excess reactivity (k-effective greater than 1 by a large amount) large amounts of heat, and therefore, radiation may be generated. Fishman et al. ff. Tr. 519 at 19-20.

In explaining the term k(eff) Dr. Brooks advised:

In a multiplying system (one which contains fission- i able mat erial, such as the loaded spent fuel storage l racks) three processes involving neutrons may be identified. These are neutron production, neutron absorptiore, and neutron leakage. The sum of the neutron absorption and neutron leakage is the neu-tron loss. Given an initial neutron population in j the system, if the production rate is greater than j the loss rate, the population will increase. Con- j versely, if the production rate is less than the loss i rate the population will decrease. if the two rates 4

l 1

are equal the population will not change and the system is said to be Just critical. The k(eff) value for the system is defined as the ratio of the pro-duction rate to the loss rate. Id. at 20-21.

The Board agrees with the above explanations of Dr. Brooks. See also, Shlffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 40-42, 44-47. ,.

15. Based upon the testimony of Staff witness Amarjit Singh and the information contained in the Staff's Safety Evaluation (Staff Exhibit 1), the Board concludes that the Diablo Canyon spent fuel cooling systems for both units have the capability to remove decay heat under both maximum normal and maximum abnormal heat load conditions. Stan-dard Review Plan (SRP), NUREC-0800 (Section 9.1.3) specifies that a single cooling train be able to maintain water temperature in the pool at or below 1400F. This calculated maximum normal heat load was determined by the Licensee and verified by the Staff to be 2.28 x 10 (rounded) 9 BTU /HR. The Board finds that the Licensee's calculations are more con-l servative than the Staff's acceptance criteria expressed above. With re-i gard to abnormal heat load conditions, the Licensee calculated, and the Staff has verified, such conditions to be 4.38 x 10 BTU /HR. This abnormal heat load results in a maximum pool temperature of 1740F which {

l meets the SRP acceptance criteria of no bulk pool boiling for this condi- )

tion. in addition, each of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pool cooling sys-tems can remove a maximum heat load of 5.9x10 BTU /hr. and maintain the water temperature in each pool below the boiling point. Therefore, the Board finds that each of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pool cooling systems have the capability of removing decay heat beyond the maximum normal and maximum abnormal heat load conditions. Fishman et al. , ff. i l

Tr. 519 at 21-22. l l

l l

Contention ll( A)5 and II(B)5 Sierra Club Contentions il(A)5 and ll(B)5 provide:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed I reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub- f lic health and safety, and the environment, for reasons i which include the following:  :

A) during the PHE, collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:

5) increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient, 3 k(eff) above 0.95 B) during the PHE, collisions between groups of racks j with each other and/or with the pool walls are ex-pected to occur with ' results . similar to those de-scribed in 11( A) above.

16. As noted earlier in Finding 14, by adherence to GDC's 61 and 62 the integrity of the spent fuel racks is assured during the PHE.

That is, deformation of the racks is limited to transient oscillation with insignificant permanent deformation. In this situation, the edge-to-edge spacing between the storage cells of each of the racks is not permanently reduced and the fuel assemblies remain intact. Under these conditions, if credit is taken for dissolved boron in the water the k(eff) value remains well below the NRC acceptance criterion of 0.95 and the k(eff) system is subcritical. In connection with our analysis and conclusions regarding )

these two contentions, the Board refers to and incorporates herein its findings and conclusion set forth in Finding 14 supra, wherein the k(eff) values of spent fuel pool water is explained. See, especially, . the testi-mony of Staff witness, Dr. Brooks. Based upon the information contained in these Findings, the Board concludes that in the event of a PHE there will not be an increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient k(eff) above 0.95. Fishman, et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 19-21, 24-26, 29.

1

a The Board further finds, based on the testimony of Staff wit-ness Dr. Brooks, that even if there were permanent deformation of the racks during the PHE, a condition the Board does not expect to occur, and goes beyond th'e bounds of the required NRC safety analysis, criti-cality would not occur in Region 2 of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools even if the fuel cells were distorted to the point of contact with each other. The Board further finds that only if the fuel cells in the racks of Region 1 were distorted to the point of contact would criticality be a pos-sibility and then only in this Region. In this regard, Dr. Brooks' rea-soning, which the Board hereby adopts, is as follows:

1. Generic studies of criticality in spent fuel racks have been performed. One such study has been published in the proceedings of the 4th National Conference, ASME, June 19-24, 1983 at Portland, Oregon. This study con-tains an algorithm by which the k-effective value of a multiplying system (i.e., spent fuel racks with fuel) as a function of fuel enrichment, water gap thickness (space between storage cans) and boron loading (fixed boron on the racks) may be obtained. This algorithm was used by me to examine the k-effective value for the Region 1 and Region 2 racks at Diablo Canyon. If one assumes that no boron is present in the pool water (which is not the case) the algorithm predicts that for both regions criticality (k-effective of 1.0) would occur at a water gap thickness of about 0.85 inches. The design water gap thickness for Region 1 racks is 1.79 inches and for Region 2 racks is 1.9 inches.

(Figures 4.2 and 4.3 of the Reracking Report).

2. The algorithm was derived from a data base tha't did not include a water gap thickness less than 0.78 inches.

However, a curve of k-effective as a function of gap dimension may be drawn and extrapolated to zero gap thickness. This results in a k-effective value of about ,

1.2 for both types of racks at zero gap thickness.

Again, this for the case assuming there is no boron present in the pool water (which is not the case).

3. The effect of dissolved boron on the reactivity (k-effective) of the rack may be obtained for Region 2 racks from the Licensee's Reracking Report page 4-6 where it is reported that reduction of the boron

concentration by 800 parts per million (ppm) increases the k-effective value .by 0.1. The boron worth in the water is thus 0.01/80 ppm. A boron concentration of 2000 ppm (the concentration in the pool water at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools) would j therefore .be expected to reduce the k-effective value by ,

0.25 relative to the value without boron in the water.

Thus, Region 2 would be expected to remain subcritical j (1.2 .25 = .95 kcff) vven when the storage cells are in contact (a gap of zero) if the water is assumed to be i borated to 2000 ppm. )

l

4. No value for boron worth is given for the Region 1

]

racks. It would be expected to be smaller than that for i Region 2 due to the presence of the fixed boron on the I racks which reduces the . impact of the poisoning effect of boron in the water gap. If the boron worth is as low as )

0.01/100 ppm (which is 'possible), then these racks j would be just critical at contact in the borated water.

Thus, we cannot conclude . that criticality would not occur in the racks if it is postulated that the racks are distorted to contact (a gap of zero). However, as the testimony of Mr. Fishman indicates, such distortion will '

not occur. See, Fishman, et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 26-28.

17. As noted throughout these Findings, the Board does not antici-pate that there will be any significant permanent deformation of the racks resulting from the PHE. Therefore, there will not be any contacting of the fuel cells of the Diablo Canyon spent fuel racks as alleged. See, e.g., Fishman, et al. , ff. Tr. 519 at 14-17, 24-26, 28 and 29. Shiffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 40-42, 43, 44-47.

Contention 1(B)7 Sierra Club Contention 1(B)7 provides:

It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fall to include consideration of certain relevant condi-tions, phenomena and alternatives necessary for indepen-dent verification of claims made 1 the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with public health and safety, and the environment, and with federal law.

In particular, the Reports fall to consider:

. 7) alternative on-site storage facilities including:

i*

(i) construction of new or additional storage facill-ties and/or:

(ii) Acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear l fuel storage equipment, including spent nucle-ar fuel storage casks; -

18. On the basis of the evidence received, it is clear that during the early planning stages for the spent fuel pool expansion, the Licensee considered a number of alternatives and on the basis of the information available at that time decided to proceed with its present plans for the spent fuel pool expansion. Shlffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 9-10, 28-29, Shiffer, Tr. 365, 367-371, 378-379, 396, PGSE Ex. 2, Chapter 9. Some i

of the alternatives actively considered by the Licensee at that time were J the use of dry cask modules for storage , Shlffer, Tr. 369-370, 396, trans-shipment of the spent fuel, Shlffer, Tr. 365, on-site storage, S hiffe r, Tr. 365, and the construction of an additional spent fuel water pool . Shlffer, Tr. 384. After due consideration of all of the alternatives the Licensee found that its proposed high density reracking was superior to the alternatives. Id. , Shlffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 28-30. On the l basis of all of the above, the Board finds that the Licensee duly considered alternatives to its proposed high density reracking including the construction of new or additional storage facilities and the acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment, including storage casks. In addition, the Board also finds that the Sierra Club failed to present any credible evidence that the Licensee failed to

" seriously" consider alternatives in support of its Contention 1(B)7.

Ferguson, Tr. 443-444. Indeed, the Sierra Club's only witness advised that in his opinion the Licensee did consider alternatives to its proposed

I I

reracking although not " seriously". Ferguson, Tr. 443-444. The,refore, the Board finds the premise of Sierra Club Contention 1(B)7 to be l l

factually unfounded.

19. As previously noted, an Environmental Assessment (EA), which, ,

- l among other matters, evaluated both the impacts attributable to the pro- I posed action and alternatives to it, was prepared and issued. b (Staff Exhibit 2). The EA fully complies with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 5 51.30. b On the basis of all the evidence submitted, the Board finds l

l

-'-17/ A notice of no sigrifficant impact was also prepared and published in the Federal Register. 51 Fed. Reg.19,430 (May 29,1986). There is j no admitted contention that directly challenges the finding of no sig-nificant impact, the only admitted environmental contention going to 4 the adequacy of the consideration given to two specific alternatives. 1 Evidence regarding this matter was presented by the Staff and Licensee in the context of consideration of alternatives. As noted earlier, the Sierra Club's testimony did not address the specific )

matters in controversy, but rather was well outside the scope of the  ;

contention. The Board, not finding any serious environmental i matter which would otherwise warrant further inquiry see, 4 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760a, or give reason to modify the finding of no significant impact, therefore affirms this finding with respect to those matters in controversy. To the extent of such matters, the i finding of no significant impact previously . published thus is final.

See, 51 C. F. R. 5 51.34(b). The Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall prepare and publish a Federal Register notice consistent with the foregoing prior to issuance of the license amendment.

--18/ The Board also rejects, for the lack of supporting evidence, the Sierra Club allegation that the Staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) is based upon an outdated Generic Environmental impact Statement (CEIS) and therefore its summary conclusions concerning environmental impacts for this proceeding are equally out of date.

Sec. e.g., Ferguson, ff. Tr. 442 at 38, Ferguson, Tr. 502.

FEwever, no evidence was submitted by the Sierra Club to establish  :

or support its allegation that the Staff's EA improperly relied upon  !

l the GEIS for its conclusions. The Board points out that the status of the Sta f f's GEIS was not raised by the Sierra Club as a contention and is therefore not an issue in this proceeding.

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

I  !

( )

that the NRC staff hos reviewed the Licensee's spent fuel pool amendment with regard to. alternatives. Testimony of Donald P. Cleary, ff. Tr. 604 at 2 (hereinafter "Cleary ff. Tr. 604 at "); Shlffer, et al., ff.

Tr.179 at 9-10, 28-29, PGSE Ex. 2, Chapter 9, Cleary, Tr. 606, j 610-611.

20. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Board also finds that the proposed reracking of the spent fuel pools .at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has both an environmental and a financial advantage over the asserted alternatives of wet or dry, independent on-site spent fuel facilities. As noted below, the Licensee's proposed reracking will have no significant environmental impacts, whereas the Sierra Club's as-serted alternatives will have specific, although - not significant, environ-mental impacts. The Licensee's proposed reracking also has clear i finecial advantages over the asserted alternatives. **

21. The Board concludes that the proposed reracking will have no significant non-radiological environmental impacts because the reracking will take place within the confines of the fuel pool buildings, thereby presenting no source of non-radiological environmental impacts to the Diablo Canyon site and environs. Further, there will be no significant (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

Nevertheless, a review of Staff Exhibit 2 at pages 13-14 establishes j that the Staff utilized seventeen references in addition to the GEIS l In analyzing the Licensee's proposed reracking. A review of these references also establishes that the Staff considered a number of  !

documents directly related to the Licensee's proposed reracking. In-view thereof, the Board concludes that the Staff did not rely upon the GEIS to the extent alleged by the Sierra Club, but instead used the GEIS as just one of many references in drafting the EA.

l radiological environmental impacts attributable to the proposed reracking j modification because the potential for accidents having offsite consequenc-es and the potential for radioactively contaminated wastes generated from reracking having offsite consequences is small. Fotential reracking acci- i 1 .

dents are bounded by the fuel handling accident which would have no  !

significant environmental consequences. Radioactive contaminated waste l

generated from wet reracking will be disposed of in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 71 " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material" and 10 C. F.R. Part 61 " Licensing '. Requirements for Land Disposal of Ra-dioactive Waste" and therefore will have no significant impact on the envi-ronment. Operating impacts of the reracked fuel pools on the environment were considered in the Environmental Assessment (Staff Ex-hibit 2, Section 3 for radiological impacts and Section 4 for s t) non-radiological impacts. ) The primary environmental pathway associated 1

with storage of spent fuel assemblies is Kr-85 plume shine. incremental doses to the general public were estimated to be very small relative to doses incurred during normal operation and to natural background radia-tion exposure. The only source of potential non-radiological impacts is an insignificant increase (less than 0.1%) in waste heat discharged to the Pacific Ocean. No impact on aquatic biota is anticipated. Cleary; ff.

i Tr. 604 at 3-4. l

22. On the other hand, the Board finds that construction of either of the asserted alternatives, that is , construction of a wet or dry independent on-site spent fuel storage facility would produce environmen-tal impacts that would not be produced by the Licensee's proposed reracking. First, additional land would be needed for the structures and

1 .

supporting utilities. In addition, a separate new spent fuel pool building with the storage capacity of the two present fuel pools would disrupt at least one acre of land plus the additional land required for an access road, water pipes and electric lines. Further, if dense storage regions of spent fuel is not allowed there will be an additional requirement for a number of on-site spent fuel pools over the next fifteen years. Other potential impacts of such construction include erosion, dust, increased traffic over local . roads, noise and a decrease in the aesthetic quality of the site. In addition, further development of the Diablo Canyon site may be complicated by the presence of numerous Indian burial sites in the area and the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Approval of development plans by the California Coastal Commission

]

will also be required. '

Finally, a larger workforce would be required to operate and maintain additional facilities and to handle and move spent fuel from the original poofs to the new pools requiring additional piping to remove waste heat, increased use of chemicals to control biofouling would also be neces-sary. Therefore, incremental environmental impacts due to operating in-dependent on-site spent fuel pools would be greater than operating the reracked existing pools. Cleary ff. Tr. 604 at 4-5. Shi,ffer, et al. , ff. i Tr.179 at 9-10, 29.

l

23. With regard to the dry reracking proposal, the same approach has been used to compare the relative environmental impacts of reracking for the dry storage alternative as it used in the case of the wet storage alternative discussed above. The Board finds the environmental impacts of dry storage would be less than for the new spent fuel pools but would l

. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ = _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ __- -

still be. greater than the Licensee's proposed reracking. There are basi-cally three technologies which could be used for dry storage. These are:

(1) metal storage casks; (2) drywells (below grade); and (3) concrete modules above grou'nd. The Board notes that pursuant to the National Waste Policy Act, the United States Department of Energy has entered into cooperative agreements with Virginia Power Company to demonstrate dry cask spent fuel storage technology and with Carolina Power and Light Company to demonstrate that dry cask spent fuel storage and storage in a concrete horizontal module, are viable storage options that are licensable by the NRC.

In the case of dry cask and concrete horizontal storage mod-ules, environmental assessments were performed for their use at the Surry Power Station and the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, re-spectively. Both assessments resulted in a Finding of No Significant im-pact. Because of the relative simple and passive operation of these technologies, their environmental impacts at the Diablo Canyon site would be slight and, in the Doard's opinion, would not differ much from those ,

I (environmental impacts described for Surry and H. B. Robinson. '

The Board finds that the major differences in environmental impacts would be associated with the differing topographic characteristics of the sites and their implications for construction. The Board concludes that it is likely that a dry cask storage area at Diablo Canyon would re-quire at Icast 15 additional acres as was required at Surry, Because l additional relatively level land is limited at Diablo Canyon the amount of I

excavation will be increased, complicating the design and construction.

Because of the additional commitment of land required with no offsetting l l

benefits, these alternatives are considered by the Board to be less desir-able than the proposed reracking of the existing pools. C!cary, ff.

Tr. 604 at 5-6. Shiffer, et. al., ff. Tr. 179 at 9-10, 29-30. In addition, the Board finds that the dry cask storage module in use at 1 -

l Surry is not designed for transport. Therefore, additional handling of the spent fuel will be required before it can be moved offsite to a 1

permanent waste repository. Cleary, Tr. 627, Shiffer, Tr. 396.

24. The Licensee estimates that the reracking effort will cost $13 million per unit. Because the new racks have already been purchased and are a sunk cost, the incremental cost from this time forward is some-thing less than $13 million per unit. In the absence of detailed engineer-ing design and firm commercial commitments there is considerable uncertainty as to the likely cost of any of the asserted alternatives.

From available information however, the Board finds that the asserted siternatives would be significantly more expensive than the proposed wet reracking.

Costs associated with reracking relative to new storage were explored in an I AEA Advisory Group / Specialist Meeting, November 17-21, 1980, and reported in DOE-SR-0009, " Spent Fuel Storage Alternatives."

Capitol costs for reracking a single pool were in the range of $5/kg to

$15/kg, in 1980 dollars. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's estimate of

$13 million to rerack each pool represents about $21/kg in 1987 dollars.

The Board finds that adjusting for escalation, this is consistent with the 1980 estimate for reracking, in addition, capital cost reported in the 1980 IAEA Advisory Group / Specialist Meeting for new fuel pools for a two reactor unit was

. l $52/kg. A more current but incomplete estimate of capital cost foh a new pool is from the Energy Economic Data Base Program maintained by United ,

Engineers and Constructors, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The median cost of constructing a fuel storage building in conjunction with construction of a 1139 MWe pressurized water reactor was $12.8 mil-tion in 1986 dollars. Cleary, ff. Tr. 604 at 7-8.

25. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that construction of an independent fuel pool building would involve additional direct costs not  ;

included in the $12.8 million. These additional direct cost are for site preparation and excavalion, and for separate ventilation, heating, and water supply systems. There are also indirect coi ts which should also be included. These indirect costs are engineering and services associated with design and construction management. These would bring the 1987 capital cost to wc!! over $13 million per pool projected for Diablo Canyon.

If high density racks were not allowed in the new pools at Diablo Canyon, the additional storage capacity would be exhausted by the mid-1990's after approximately the fifth refueling. To provide total storage capacity for 1324 fuel assemblies in on-site fuel pools comparable to the licensee's cur-rent proposal would require a multiple of $13 million. Cleary, ff. Tr. 604 at 8.

Finally, the Board concludes that the capital cost of providing dry on-site storage for 1324 fuel assemblies is greater than reracking the existing fuel pools. Dry storage is in the demonstration stage and no -

commercial cost baseline exists. The Board notes that the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy has, however, made estimates of the likely cost of con-structing and operating three types of dry storage facilities: storage

cask, drywell and concrete silo. The range of capital costs for storage capacity of about 1000 fuel assemblies is around $50 million, in 1983 dol-lars, for these three methods. The DOE estimates are reported in DOE /S-0023, "Faderal Interim Storage Fee Study for Civilian Spent Nucle-ar Fuel: A Technical and Economic Analysis," luly 1983. Cleary, ff.

Tr. 603 at 8-9. Shiffer, et al. , ff. Tr.179 at 29.

CONCLUSION

26. Based on the evidentiary record before us, this Board con-cludes that the License'e's proposed amendment requests to expand its spent fuel pools by reracking at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, with respect to those matters in controversy, complies with all of the Commission's requirements, ed IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In reaching this decision, the Board has considered all the evidence of the parties and the entire record of this proceeding including all pro-posed findings of fact and conclusions of law presented by the parties.

All issues, arguments to or proposed findings presented by the parties but not addressed in this decision have been found to be without merit or unnecessary to this decision. Based upon a review of that record and the foregoing Findings of Fact, which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, the Board, reaches the following ) l conclusions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760a:

The Licensee's proposed amendment request to expand its spent fuel pools by reracking at its Diablo Canyon Nuclear i

t 4

Power Plant , with respect to those matters in controversy, complies with all of the Commission's requirements; with re-spect to these matters there is reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without endangering the public health

~

and safety; and, upon making those findings necessary with respect to matters not in controversy, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may issue the license amendments requested.

V. ORDER WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Atomic-Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Rules of Practice of the Commission, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED that: ,,

Pursuant to 10 C. F. R. 5 2.760(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, this Initial Decision will constitute the final deci-i sion of the Commission forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762 or the Commission directs otherwise. See also 10 C.F.R. 66 2.764, 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 the service of this decision. Each appellant must file e brief supporting its po- <

sition on appeal w'lthin thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant).

Within thirty (30) days after the per!od had expired for the l

i i

filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) l days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an appel-lant 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 nuElber of appellant briefs filed. See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.762(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Glen O. Bright ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

Jerry Harbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 1

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland l this day of , 1987 l

i

, APPENDIX A NRC Staff's Exhibits Introduced into Evidence

1. The Safety Evaluation By The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Reracking of the Spent Fuel Pools At the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 As Related to Amendment No. 8 to Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-80 and Amendment No. 6 to Unit 2 Facility Operating License Noc DPR-82, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323; 1-A Evaluation of Spent Fuel Racks, Structural Analyses, Pacific Gas &

Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, TER-C5506-625.

Revised May 20, 1987; 1-D Evaluation of ne Structural Adequacy of the Diablo Canyon High '

Density Spent Fuel Racks in Accommodating Multiple Rack Impact During the Postistated Hosgri Earthquake, May 1987; and, j i

2. The Environmental Assessment by the Office of Nuclear Reactor  !

Regulation Relating to the Expansion of Spent Fuel Pools Facility i Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Pacific Gas and Electric '

Company , Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323.

Licensee Exhibits introduced into Evidence

1. PGandE Letter DLC-85-333, October 30, 1985; License Amendment Request 85-13, Peracking of Spent Fuel Pools.

2. PGandE Letter DLC-85-306, September 19, 1985; Reracking Report. ,

3. PGandE Letter DLC-86-019, January 28, 1986: Additional Information -  ;

Spent Fuel Pool Reracking. l

4. PGandE Letter DLC-86-067, March 11,1986; Response to Questions on Spent Fuel Racks.

5. PGandE Letter DLC-87-022, February 6, 1987; Rack Interaction Studies.

6. PGandE Letter DLC-87-072, April 9, 1987; Additional Information on Rack-to-Rack Interactions (Proprietary and Nonproprietary).

7. PGandE Letter DLC-87-082, April 23,1987: Three-Dimensional Studies.

I 1 1 8. PGandE Letter DLC-87-115, May 18, 1987; Additional Information - l Reracking Analysis. '

9. Seismic Analysis Report, Rev. 3, September 3,1986.

10. NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 9.1.2., NUREG-0800.

1 1 1

APPENDIX A

11. NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D, NUREG-0800, i'

12. NRC "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," April 14, 1978 (Supplemented January 18, 1979).

13. Distribution of Job Estimate, PGand E, N PG-041, February 14, 1984.

Sierra Club Exhibits introduced into Evidence

1. Doard Notification 87-05, March 27, 1987. (Marked for it'entification only)

2. NRC Letter to PCandE on Boraflex June 2, 1987. (Marked for identification only)

3. Wisconsin Electric Letter to NRC on Boraflex, June 11, 1987. (Marked i for identification only)

4. Affidavit of R. Clyde Herrick Regarding the Intervenor's Application for a Stay, June 30, 1986. (Marked for lderitification only) l

5. Meeting Summary - Structural Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Expansion, i Byron Station Units 1 and 2, USNRC, January 12, 1987.

6. USNRC, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0800, Revised July,1981

("SRP") l

7. A.i. Soler and K. P. Singh, " Seismic Response of a Free Standing Fuel Rack Construction to 3-D Floor Motion", Nuclear Engineering and Design 80 (1984), pp. 315-329 (" Seismic Response")

8. A. I. Soler and K. P. Singh, " Dynamic Coupling in a Closely spaced Two-Body System Vibrating in a Liquid Medium: The Case of Fuel Racks", Proc. of the Third Conf. on Vibration in Nuclear Plants ,

British Nuclear Energy Soc., (1983), pp. 815-834

9. R. J. Fritz, "The Effect of Liquids on the Dynamic Motion of immersed Solids", Jour, of Eng. for ind. , February 1972, pp.167-173 ("Fritz")

10. F immary Notes, Meeting of December 5, 1985, PCandE and the NRC

-al. , Enclosure 6 I

11. Summary, Diablo Canyon Project Teiephone Calls, March 8, 1985 -

June 30,1986.

2