ML17340A986
| ML17340A986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17340A987 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104160343 | |
| Download: ML17340A986 (10) | |
Text
04/15/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMHISS ION BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e <<1atter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COl1PANY
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4)
)
Docket Nos.
50-25 (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating'icenses to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO. APPLICANT'S tiOTION FOR SUt81ARY DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS 5 AND 7 INTRODUCTION On April 2 and 6, 1981, the Applicant filed a motion for summary disposition of contentions 5
and 7 ~, respectively, pursuant to 1/
2/
Ql Contention 5 states:
In evaluating the steam generator repair;-'the following has not been considered a
~
b.
c
~
the cost of a full-flow condenstate polishing demineralizing system; the effluent release from a full-flow condensate polishing demineralizing system; or the environmental degradation caused by a full-flow condensate polishing demineralizing system.
g2 Contention 7 states:
5 The Steam Generator Repair Report is inadequate because:
(a)
It has used the inaccurate figure of $300,000 per day per unit.J i for replacement power costs for reactor outage; (b) It has failed to provide an analysis for an additional commitment of land resources for the storage of the defective steam generators; (c)
It 'has failed to consider the costs of addi tion of a full-flow condensate demineralizer and of condenser retubing; and (d) It has failed to update costs from December 1977 due to inflation.
<)
ar
~
Q~')+,i g
10 CFR g2.749.
On the basis of the HRC Staff updated Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
(HUREG-0756), dated
- Oecember, 1980, Final Environmental Statement (FES)
(HUREG-0743) dated March,
- 1981, and the attached affidavits, the Staff supports the present motion.
As noted in the Staff's February 20, 1981 summary disposition motion, once a motion for summary disposition has been made and supported by affi-
- davit, a party opposing the motion may not rely on mere allegations, but instead must demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise that a genuine issue exists as to a material fact.
10 CFR 52.749(b); ~Vir inia Electric and 1 1 NRC 451, 453 (1980).
DISCUSSION Contention 5
Contention 5 challenges the cost of, anticipated effluents to be released from, and the extent of environmental degradation caused by, the full-flow condensate poli shing demineralizing system.
The statement of material facts accompanying
'the present motion accurately summarize the material facts not open to dispute.
See Staff affidavits of Oarrell Nash, Hichael T. tlasni k, and Chandu P. Patel on Contention 5;
- SER, A)2.2 and 3.2.4;
- FES, A(4.2 and 4.3.3.
The cost of the polishing demineralizing system is estimated at
$9,000,000 for both units.
Nash affidavit, FES, There is no radioactive non-radiological effluent 4/
g4. 2.
effluent + nor any significant released from the demineralizer during its g3 Patel affidavit.
g4 Nasnik affidav it.
4r
.installation and,
- hence, during the repair itself.
The Staff has considered both the radiological and non-radiological ~ effluent 5/
~6~
releases and environmental degradation occasioned by operation of the demineralizing system.
The radiological effluents from operation of the demineralizer were considered as an incidental part of the Appendix I
SER in which it was concluded that radiological effluent releases to unrestricted areas would be well within the design dose objectives of Appendix I.
Patel affidavit.
The effluent release from this system will not significantly change the radiological effluent release from normal plant operations nor increase the environmental degradation therefrom.
Id.
The function of the full-flow condensate polishing demineralizing system is to purify the condensate water by filtration and demineraliza-tion to assure high quality feedwater to the steam generators.
It is anticipated that the removal of suspended solids and ionic species from tne condensate water will reduce corrosion related phenomena.
Hasnik affidavit;
- FES,
$4.3.3.
'With regard to non-radiological
- releases, the replacement of spent resins in the full-flow condensate polishing demineralized vessels will result in the periodic discharge of a waste stream into the Turkey Point cooling canal system.
This waste stream will be released at a rate of less than 0.0009 m
sec (15 gpm) from the discharge structure to the 3/
g5 Patel affidavit; Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 27, 1981 regarding conformance to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix I SER).
Q6 Masnik affidavit, SER, 552.3 and 3.2.4, FES, 54.3.3.
41
!I l
I
discharge canal that leads into Lake Warren, a receiving
- pond, and then into the canal cooling system.
Id.
The small amount of resins that..may fail to be removed from the waste water prior to discharge pose no environmental threat and no biological'mpact on species known to inhabit or utilize the Turkey Point cooling canal system or surrounding water bodies is anticipated.
Id.
Contention 7
Contention 7 questions the costs, attributed to various matters associated with the proposed repair and other operational expenses.
The statement of'aterial facts accompanying the, April 6, 1981 summary disposition motion accurately summarize the material facts not open to dispute.
i<ash affidavit; FES, 54.2.
Replacement power costs for the uni t 4 outage in 1981-1982 is estiamted at
$ 756,000 per day and
$809,,000 per day for the unit 3 outage in 1982-1983.
Id.
The estimated cost of the full-flow condensate polishing demineralizing system is
$9,000,000 for both units.
Consenser retubing performed between 1976 and 1980 cost approximately
$8,000,000 for both units.
Id.
The cost estimates of the proposed repair have been revised since December 1977.
The present estimated total project cost if $459,000,000.
This combines the
$ 136,000,000 cost of purchasing and 'installing the new steam generators and disposing of the old steam generators and the
$323,000,000 cost for replacement power for both units.
This does not include the
$9,000,000 cost of the condensate polishing demineralizing system.
Id.
There are two options proposed and considered for storage of the replaced steam generators:
onsite storage in a compound within the site
4t ji boundary or shipment to the Barnwell low-level waste site for burial.
Gortenhuis affidavit; FES, 55.5.
The plant site is already committed to nuclear generation and the Barnwell site to waste disposal, therefore, neither storage option entails the additional commitment of land resources.
Id.
CONCLUSION As demonstrated
- above, no genuine issues of material facts remain to be resolved with respect to contentions 5 and 7.
Accordingly, the Board should grant summary disposition and dismiss contentions 5 and 7 from this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Haryland this 15th day of April, 1981.
f P
F