. LED CORRESPOND DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA April 12, 2002 (3:00PM) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDA RULEMAKINGSAND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of: ) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC ) ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel ) Storage Installation) ) April 1, 2002 STATE OF UTIAH'S, PREFILED TESTIMONY ON UNIFIED CONTENTION UTAH L/QQ - GEOTECHNICAL Enclosed for filing are the following: 1. Key Determinations. 2. Preface to and testimony of Barry Solomon (Geologic Setting) 3. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Steven F. Bartlett (Soils Characterization) 4. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Steven F. Bartlett & Dr. Farhang Ostadan (Dynamic Analysis) 5. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Mohsin Khan and Dr. Farhang Ostadan (Cask Stability). 6. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Walter J. Arabasz (Seismic Exemption) 7. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Farhang Ostadan & Dr. Steven F. Bartlett (Lack of Design Conservatism) 8. Preface to and testimony of Dr. Marvin Resnikoff (Radiation Exposure) 9. List of Exhibits for Unified Contention Utah L/QQ (State's Exhibit 91 to143). Xe rp late - S 6ey-Co SCY- OQ2 As a precautionary measure, the State is filing its Exhibit 107 and Answer No. 9 to the Cask Stability testimony as proprietary pleadings. By so doing, however, the State makes no claim as to their confidentiality. DATED this 1st day of April, 2002. Respect submitted, Denile Chancellor, AssisTaint Attorney General Fred ;G Nelson, Assistant Attorney General Connie Nakahara, Special Assistant Attorney General Diane Curran, Special Assistant Attorney General Laura Lockhart, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for State of Utah Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South, 5th Floor, P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake Gity, UT 84114-0873 Telephone: (801) 366-0286, Fax: (801) 366-0292 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of STATE OF UTAHIS PREFILED TESTIMONY ON UNIFIED CONTENTION UTAH L/QQ - GEOTECHNICAL was served on the persons listed below by electronic mail (unless otherwise noted) with conforming copies by United States mail first class, this 1St day of April, 2002: Rulemaking & Adjudication Staff Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Secretary of the Commission Catherine L. Marco, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington D.C 20555 Mail Stop - 0-15 B18 E-mail: [email protected] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (an~gnaland tzwo apies) Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: [email protected] Michael C. Farrar, Chairman E-Mail: clniynrc.gov Administrative Judge E-Mail: pfscasetnrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnmission JayE. Silberg, Esq. Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq. E-Mail: mcfgnrc.gov Paul A. Gaukler, Esq. Federal Express Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N. W. Dr. Jerry R Kline Washington, DC 20037-8007 Administrative Judge E-Mail: [email protected] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E-Mail: emestblake~shawpittman.com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-Mail: paul_gaukler~shawpittman.com Washington, DC 20555 E-Mail: [email protected] John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq. E-Mail: kjerry~erols.com David W. Tufts Federal Express Durham Jones & Pinegar 111 East Broadway, Suite 900 Dr. Peter S. Lam Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Administrative Judge E-Mail: [email protected] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joro Walker, Esq. Washington, DC 20555 Land and Water Fund of the Rockies E-Mail: psl(nrc.gov 1473 South 1100 East, Suite F Federal Express Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 E-Mail: utah~lawfund.org 3 Larry Echol-awk James M. Cutchin Paul C. Echol-awk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mark A. Echoliawk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminission Echol-awk Law Offices Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 151 North 4th Street, Suite A E-Mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 6119 (elecvniC copy only) Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 E-mail: paul~echohawkcom Office of the Commission Appellate Adjudication Tim Vollrnann Mail Stop: 014- G- 15 3301-R Coors Road N.W. # 302 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albuquerque, NM 87120 Washington, DC 20555 E-mail: tvollmann~hotmail.com 01 -1 De ise Chancellor Assistant Attorney General State of Utah 4 STATE OF UTAH'S KEY DETERMINATIONS - UNIFIED CONTENTION UTAH L/QQ I. The standards PFS must meet to obtain a Part 72 license. A. Burden is on PFS to show it meets all the following regulations pior to license issuance. 1. Site specific soil stability investigations and laboratory analyses to demonstrate adequacy of foundation loading. 10 CFR § 72.102 (c) ("Sites other than bedrock sites must be evaluated for ... other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion") and (d) ("Site-specific investigations and laboratory analyses must show that soil conditions are adequate for the proposed foundation loading"). 2. SSCs designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes 10 CFR § 72.122(b)(2) (SSCs must be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes without impairing their capability to perform safety functions. The design bases for these SSCs is the most severe reported natural phenomena. The ISFSI should also be designed to prevent massive collapse of building structures or the dropping of heavy objects as a result of building structural failure on the spent fuel or SSCs) 3. Exemption from Part 72 is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. 10 CFR § 72.7. II. All of the State's witnesses are well qualified experts A. Expert witnesses are well qualified based on their education, training and experience. III. Geologic Setting A. PFS is located in a seismically active area: the Basin and Range physiographic province, the Intermountain seismic belt, and the Bonneville lake basin. B. Capable faults are found in the area of the PFS site: Stansbury Fault 6 miles to the east, East Cedar Mountain fault 10 miles to the west; East fault 0.6 miles to the east; and the West fault 1.2 miles west of the PFS site. C. Earthquakes in the range of magnitude 6.0 to 6.5 can occur in Skull Valley, even where no geologic evidence exists for Quaternary surface faulting. IV. Characterization of Subsurface Soils (Unified Utah L/QQ - Section C) [Bartlett] A. The Issue: Should PFS be required to conduct additional sampling and analysis as well as physical property testing for engineering analysis to demonstrate that the soils (and soil-cement), have an adequate margin against potential failure during a seismic event. B. Findings of Fact for the Board to Make 1. Soil conditions are not adequate for the proposed foundation loading. 2. Sliding, overturning and bearing capacity are the failure modes for the pads and CTB. 3. PFS must meet a factor of safety against sliding of >1. 1. 4. PFS has not met the 1.1. factor of safety against sliding for foundation failure modes. 5. PFS has not accounted for variation of shear strength properties across the pad area. 6. PFS has not taken soil variability into account in selecting design soil properties 7. Upper Lake Bonneville sediments are of critical importance because PFS relies on the shear strength of this layer to provide resistance to sliding. a. There has been extreme undersampling of the upper Lake Bonneville sediments and 1 PFS has not continuously samples/characterized depth of those sediments. 8. PFS's analysis is deficient because it has not conduced soil structure interaction and cyclic triaxial tests and triaxial extension tests. C. Summary of conclusions: 1. Based on PFS's design values, the upper Lake Bonneville sediments have inadequate shear strength to resist earthquake loading 2. PFS has not demonstrated acceptable factors of safety against seismic sliding and bearing capacity failure for the pads or the CIB during a seismic event. V. PFS's Proposed Use of Soil-Cement (Unified Utah L/QQ, C.3/ D. 1 .c)[Bartlett/Mitchell] A. The Issue: Has PFS proven its soil-cement (cement-treated soil) design concept through qualified physical property testing and engineering analyses such that the CTB and storage pads can meet the 1.1. factor of safety against sliding by relying on soil- cement to provide dynamic stability to the CTB and storage pads foundation systems from a design basis earthquake? B. Findings of Fact for the Board to Make 1. Unique application of adding cement to soil to provide additional seismic sliding resistance and stability to shallowly embedded foundations from strong ground motions. 2. No prior precedent for PFS's proposed use of soil-cement concept 3. No site specific analyses and testing to verify that the design concept will perform as intended 4. No analysis of the impact to the critical underlying native soils from the impact of construction and placement of cement-treated soil 5. PFS's proposed post license soil cement program will not prove the design concept and there will be an inadequate and arbitrary basis for a licensing decision. C. Summary of conclusions: PFS has not shown that use of soil cement will provide an acceptable seismic design for storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley site. VI. Seismic Design and Foundation Stability (Unified Utah L/QQ, D) [Ostadan/Bartlett] A. The Issue: Do the storage pads, the CTB, their foundations systems, and the storage casks have adequate factors of safety to sustain the dynamic loading from the proposed design basis earthquake? B. Findings of Fact for the Board to Make 1. PFS has a one-of-a kind design that is unprecedented and unproven, which results in an unconservative design, primarily due to the following design features: a.