ML17138B665
| ML17138B665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1980 |
| From: | Laverty J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138B666 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300053 | |
| Download: ML17138B665 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "etc 5
- P'g.
p"
" SAA 10 D00>0'Se b
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)
AND LIGHT CO.
)
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Electtic Station,
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 I
&1 NRC STAFF ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS'OTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 16 COOLING TOWER DISCHARGE I.
INTRODUCTION On October 27, 1980, Applicants filed "Applicants'otion for Summary Disposi-tion of Contention 16 (Cooling Tower Discharge)"
(Motion) in this proceeding seeking summary disposition in Applicants'avor of Contention 16 on the ground that there is no genuine issue of fact to be heard with respect to Contention 16 and that thus Applicants are entitled to a decision in its favor as.a matter of law.
The NRC Staff's answer to the Motion would have been due on November 24, 1980.
On November 20,
- 1980, however, the Staff requested an extension of time to answer Applicants'otion.
That motion was granted by the Board for good cause shown.
Thus, the Staff, together 1/
with all other parties, was given until December 5, 1980, to file an answer to Applicant s'otion.
gl Order npub ished, November 21, 1980).
2s0>g0 I
~
~>~'y l
l b
~
( (f' r
Contention 16 alleges that seventy million gallons of radioactive evaporated water will be vented daily from the two cooling towers of the Susquehanna
- facility, posing an economic threat to the dairy industry in eastern-central Pennsylvania.
The NRC Staff supports Applicants'otion which asserts that this contention fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
The Staff further con-cludes that Applicants'otion and its supporting documentation clearly demonstrate this failure.
The Board should, therefore, dismiss Contention 16 as a matter of law.
Section II of this pleading will discuss generally the law applicable to motions for summary disposition.
Section III will show that Contention 16 raises no genuine issue of material fact.
In support of its argument, the Staff attaches a supplement to Applicants'tatement of facts as to which there is no genuine issue.
II.
GENERAL POINTS OF LAW The Commission's Rules of Practice provide for summary disposition of certain issues on the pleadings where the filings in the proceeding show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.74S.
The party seeking summary judgment has "the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue
as to any material fact."~
To meet this burden, the movant must eliminate II~2 any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.
3/
In discharging this burden, the summary disposition rule provides that all material facts, set out in the statement mandatorily accompanying summary disposition motions, will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a).
Although the record and the affidavits both supporting and opposing a motion for summary disposition must be viewed in the light most favorable to an opposing party, that party must present 4/
facts in the proper form in order to defeat a summary disposition motion.
An opposing party's facts must be material and substantial, not fanciful or merely suspicious.
Summary disposition is desirable because it permits the prompt resolution of an issue on its merits without a formal hearing when no factual dispute Q2 dickes v. Kress
& Co., 389 U.S.
- 144, 157 (1970); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-433, 6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977).
Because the Commission's summary disposition rule is analogous to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal court decisions interpreting Rule 56 may be relied on for an understand-ing of the operation of the summary disposition rule.
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
g3 Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 368 U.S. 464, 468 (1962):
Sartor
- v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.,
321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944).
Q4 See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and YJ, LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
5/
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2)
LBP-75-10, 1
NRC 246, 248 (1975).
- 4 exists.+
The Staff submits that such a procedure is particularly appro-priate here as there is no factual basis for Contention 16.
I II.
STAFF ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS'OTION Applicants have attached to its Motion "Applicants'tatement to Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard (Contention 16)"
and the "Affidavitof Walter J.
Rhoades in Support of Summary Disposition of Contention 16 (Cooling Tower Discharge)."
The Staff has reviewed these documents as well as independently evaluated the issue raised in them and concludes that Contention 16 lacks a factual basis.
As part of its review of this operating license application, the NRC Staff has examined the source terms~
and effluent waste streams specified by the 8/
Applicants in its application.
Then, the Staff independently evaluated these source terms and effluent waste streams by comparing them to the source terms and effluent waste streams specified for a plant of a particular design and size by the BWR-GALE computer code.
(Affidavit of Charles Lee Miller at 2).
The water in the cooling towers consists of the return flow from the circu-lating water system (condenser),
the return flow from the service water system, I
Q7 Gelhorn and Robinson, Summary Judgment in Administrative Adjudication, 84 HARV. L. REV. 612 (1971).
8/
"Source terms" are the radionuclide species and their quantities that comprise the liquid and gaseous effluents from the plant during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
-5<<
and the makeup water to the system itself.
During normal plant operating conditions, the first two sources of water are protected by either physical barriers or operating pressures which exceed the pressures in the systems being cooled.
The third source of water is from the Susquehanna River.
Consequently, these sources of water are nonradioactive and there is no radioactivity released from the cooling towers in normal operation.
(Affi-davit of Howard B. Holz at 2.)
These water systems are not identified as effluent waste streams in the BWR-GALE computer code because historically the NRC Staff has not found the cooling tower evaporate to be radioactive in operating plants under normal conditions.
(Miller at 2.)
The BWR-GALE computer code is a mathematical model. which identifies the effluent waste streams in boiling water reactors and calculates the estimate of the quantities of radioactive effluents that will be released.
It is based on the best available data generated from operating reactors, field tests, laboratory tests, and plant-specific design features which are incorporated into plants to reduce the quantities of radioactive materials released to the environment.
(Miller at 2 - 3.)
Finally, although radioactivity is not expected in the cooling tower water, a service water monitor is located in the downstream side of the fuel pool heat exchangers prior to discharge to the cooling towers.
The monitor is a
scintillation detector with a range from 10 to 10 counts per second.
An
-I 6
alarm is sounded if the radiation level is above background.
In addi)ion,
the cooling tower blowdown will be sampled periodically for radioactivity.
In either situation, measures can be taken to prevent significant radio-active release.
(Miller at 4.)
Thus, the Staff concludes that the assertion that seventy million gallons of radioactive evaporated water will be vented daily from the Susquehanna cooling towers is without foundation in fact.
IV.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the NRC Staff believes that it is clearly demon-strated that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Contention 16.
Accordingly, the Staff believes that summary disposition in favor of the Applicants should be granted as a matter of law in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 3 2.749.
Respectful ly submi tted, Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of December, 1980 c ~wc&.
IJessica H. Laverty Counsel for NRC Staff