ML17340A951
| ML17340A951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1981 |
| From: | Luebke E, Mark Miller, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8104100283 | |
| Download: ML17340A951 (6) | |
Text
DOCKErey usNRc'.
01
'APR g )98l. I Office of the SecmteOf Oocketmg & Sgyfce Branch UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
f1arshall E. Miller, Chairman Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris
'"@'>~op Docket Nos 50-250-S
~
9 boa (P'roposed Amendments to F
ty Operating License t Steam Generator R
April 7, 1
f In the Matter of (Turkey Point Nucl ear Generating, Units 3 and 4)
)
FLORIDA POAER AND LI'GHT COMPANY '"
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Extendin Time to Answer Motion for Summar Dis osition The Staff filed a motion pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.749 on Mare
" 1981, seeking summary disposition of Contentions 2-and 6.
On March 30, 1/
2/
1981, the Intervenor filed a motion pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.749(c) requesting the Board either to deny the Staff's motion for summary disposition, or in the alternative to continue the time within which a response would be required to 25 days following completion of the Intervenor's site inspection granted by our Memorandum and Order of April 2, 1981.
The Staff responded to this motion on April 6,
- 1981, opposing its allowance or requesting that a
continuance not exceed 10 days beyond completion of the site inspection.
Contention 2 asserts in substance that occupational exposures cannot be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) during the proposed
- repairs, and that a sufficient work force cannot be obtained to perform the repairs without violating the limits on individual exposures under 10 CFR Section 20.101.
Contention 6,
now renumbered 4(A), asserts that radioactive releases to 2/
unrestricted areas will occur during onsite storage of replaced steam generators in violation of 10 CFR Parts 20 or 50, due to hurricanes, corrosion, or leakage.
@$0~
51(
f
'h P
t gJ r ~ "~CO
,'T,
~e g
g
)~>as l e
Ci I
Under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.749(a),
responses by the Intervenor to the Staff's motion for summary disposition are due by April 17, 1981.
Applicant FPL, in complying with the Board s order for site inspection, recommended that such inspection take place on Sunday, April -5 or 12, 1981.
A prehearing conference to consider summary disposition motions, among other
- matters, has been scheduled on April 27-28, 1981.
The Commission's Rules of Practice permit a party opposing a
summary disposition motion 'to obtain a continuance if it appears "from the affidavit....
that he cannot, for reasons
- stated, present by affidavit facts essential.to justify his opposition..."
(10 CFR Section 2.749(c)).
The Intervenor's.
motion is not supported by an affidavit as required by the rules, nor does it indicate what relevant information is expected to be obtained by the proposed site inspection.
Because of the urgencies of time in completing discovery and commencing the evidentiary hearing on June 2,
- 1981, we will treat the Intervenor's motion on the merits.
However, in the future it is expected that procedural rules will be complied with.
The Appeal Board has held that we may "afford the parties the oppor-tunity for discovery prior to acting upon a motion for summary disposition" if deemed appropriate.
In spite of the probable inadequacy of its 3/
showing regarding potential discovery by site inspection, the Intervenor will be granted a short continuance to file its answer to the Staff's summary disposition motion.
However, the Intervenor should start preparing its answers promptly and got wait for completion of the site inspection.
Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1
and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 fn.
10 (1973).
i(
~ ~
I S
When these contentions were originally fil,ed there was no reason to assume that site inspection would be granted, nor has any showing now been made that data so obtained are the sole bases of these contentions.
We.also remind Intervenor of the admonition in our Memorandum ynd Order dated April 2, 1981, that the proposed inspection "shall not interfere with the established trial schedule."
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 7th day of April, 1981, ORDERED That the Intervenor shall have 10 days from the completion.of the, plan.-,
ned site inspection in which to answer or otherwise respond to the'taff's motion for summary disposition of Contentions 2 and 4A, except in the event that any samples collected during the site inspection are found upon survey by FPL to contain radioactivity levels above the release limits established by 10 CFR Part 30 and the Technical Specifications of FPL's OL. If any of the samples are found to exceed those limits and if, as a consequence, they must be shipped to.a licensed laboratory for analysis, then the Intervenor shall have 10 days from receipt of the results of the laboratory analysis in
'which to supplement by that data his previously-filed answer to Staff's motion for summary disposition of Contentions 2 and 4A.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
, PGAfv.
Dr. Oscar H. Par i s ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Marshal E. Miller ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
I 4l.