ML20086T305
| ML20086T305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1984 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403060248 | |
| Download: ML20086T305 (33) | |
Text
-
d.
s t
~.,i '
DCLKETEO Unc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA R -5 P i :08 NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION 7
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO NEW CONTENTIONS PROPOSED BY E RIENDS OF THE EARTH ON ONSITE STORAGE OF UNIRRADIATED FUEL AND TRANSMITTAL OF PELATED CORRESPONDENCE -
Preliminary Statement On February 23, 1984, .intervenor Friends of the Earth
(" FOE"), by its representative Robert L. Anthony, served a
' motion seeking to litigate the June 1, 1983 application by Philadelphia Electric Company (" Applicant") to stcre new fuel at the Limetick Generating Station. In an Order dated
! February 27, 1934, the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") required Applicant and the NRC Staff to answer FOE's motion by service to each other and the Board by March 2, 1984, and to FOE by March 3, 1984.1I On February 28, 1984, Mr. Anthony submitted a 1/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , Docket Nos. 50-352-OL and 50-353-OL, " Order Scheduling Answers to FOE's Contentions Based on Part 70 Application to Store Fuel at the Limerick Plant" (February 27, 1984) (slip op. at (Footnote Continued) 8403060248 840301 PDR ADOCK 05000352 g PDR h bo
.e-3 document with additional matters he wished to raise regard-ing the storage of unirradiated fuel. I Applicant opposes admission of the proposed con-tentions. FOE has failed to address, much less satisfy, the criteria under 10 C.F.R. S2.714 (a) (1) for admitting late contentions. Under the Licensing Board's decision in Perry, no " good cause" exists for FOE's lateness inasmuch as "it has been apparent that (Applicant] would have to receive unirradiated fuel some time prior to low power testing."1/
Further, the contentions are extremely vague and entirely lacking in technical basis. There is no allegation that the application to store fuel at the Limerick plant fails to meet any ' requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 70 or, for that matter, any other regulation. Accordingly, the proposed contentions are either too vague for admission or, to the extent specific,- an unauthorized challenge to the Com-mission's regulations.O (Footnote Continued) 2). Applicant first received a copy of the motion from the Board's secretary on February 27, 1984.
2_/ .ihile a copy was transmitted via express mail to the Licensing Board, it was apparently sent by ordinary mail to the parties, depriving them of response time.
3/ Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440 and 50-441, " Memorandum and Order (Late Contentions:
Special Nuclear Material License Application)" (July 12, 1983) (slip op. at 2).
4/ Applicant believes that this Licensing Board's (Footnote Continued)
, - - , . , -- ----,,e , . , .e--- - .,,
o Argument I. FOE has not Satisfied the Requirements for Admitting Late Contentions.
In order to admit the late contentions proposed by FOE, the ' Licensing Board must find, on balance, that the five factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. S2.714 (a) (1) (i)-(v) weigh in FOE's favor. . Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).5/ FOE's failure even _ to address the governing criteria for late contentions alone warrants denial of its motion.6_/ From his (Footnote Continued) jurisdiction, which is limited to matters arising under the application for operating licenses under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, does not extend to contentions raising issues regarding the separate application under Part 70 for a special nuclear material license and the contentions should be" denied on that basis. Nonetheless, Applicant recognizes that other boards have found to the contrary, based upon the Commission's discussion in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-1, 3 NRC 73, 74 n.1 (1976) and the language of 10 C.F.R. 52.717(b). See The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), LBP-79-24, 10 NRC 226 (1979);
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power i Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322, " Interim Order Staying Shipment of Fuel" (May 24, 1982).
I '-5/ Preliminarily, FOE has not even met the threshold
- l. requirement of actually stating a proposed contention.
i The request should be denied on that basis alone. It is certainly not the Board's function to assimilate FOE's vague allegations into litigable contentions,
-especially at this late stage of the proceeding.
6,/ Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) , ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980). See also Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) , CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 331 (1983).
i I
e personal experience as a participant since the commencement of this proceeding, FOE's representative is well aware that
-the Licensing Board has discussed the consequences of a party's failure to discuss the factors for admitting late contentions on a number of occasions.
In any event, FOE's motion fails to meet an inter-venor's burden to " affirmatively demonstrate" that it has met the criteria for late contentions.7/ Although FOE presumably relies upon the January 24, 1984 amendment to the application for a special nuclear material ("SNM") license for Limerick Unit No. I as the alleged "new material," there
'is nothing in the amended application itself which FOE cites as a basis of its contention. It is clear from the Com-mission's decision in Catawba, supra, that the filing of an amended licensing document does not automatically give rise to a right to file related late contentions. The Commission held, approving the three-part test stated by the Appeal Board, that " good cause" for lateness would be shown only if the late-filed contention were " wholly dependent upon the content of t. particular document" and "could not therefore 7/ Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order (Denying Air and Water Pollution Patrol's Petition for Additional Intervention Contention)" (April 12, 1983) (slip op. at 3).
- - - - - e-
O r
be advanced.with any degree of specificity (if at all) in advance of the public availability of that document."8_/
Even a cursory review of FOE's proposed late con-tentions demonstrates that they are in no way dependent upon any information in the recent amendment to the June 1, 1983 application for the SNM license. To the contrary, the contentions relate to offsite accidents, Applicant's design verification program, overhead crane capacity, and emergency planning. Accordingly, the proposed contentions do not show that-any "new-information" not previously part of the record has only now become available to FOE.E! For the same reason, the Board in Perry rejected similar late contentions onsan application for a Part 70 license, stating:
~
8/
Catawba, supra , - CLI-83-19, 17 NRC at 1043-44. The Commission stated that the Appeal Board's three-part t'est " constitutes a reasonable and useful test of the
- ' good cause factor." I_d . at 1047. The third factor, promptness of filing once the document comes into
.cxistence, is not at issue.
~
9/ As the Commission held in Catawba, supra, CLI-83-19, 17 E NRC at 1048, it is a " basic principle that a person who invokes the right to participate in an NRC proceeding alta voluntarily accepts the obligations attendant upon
^
^
such. participation, including "having accepted the obligation of uncovering information in publicly available documentary material."
The original application was available from the NRC's Public Document Room and could have been reviewed by FOE's representative or obtained by a request under. the
. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S552. Under
' Catawba, supra, ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 468 (1982), rev'd
.on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983), FOE EEd "an ironclad obligation to examine the publicly (Footnote Continued)
I.
9
, Although OCRE claims to have been ignorant -of the filing of the SNM application, we agree with staff that this ignorance is irrelevant. From the outset of this proceeding, in which applicant requests an operating license, it has been apparent that it would have to receive unirradiated fuel some time prior to low power testing. The Com-mission's procedural rules govern the way in which such an application is to be filed and the criteria governing that application.1_0_/
0 FOE's attempt to raise these late contentions at this advanced stage of the proceeding, given the full schedule of hearings already facing the Board and parties, is particu-larly unjus':ified.EI Inasmuch as FOE's contentions are late without good cause, it must make an especially " compelling showing" on the remaining four factors.EI FOE has clearly failed to do so. As to the second and fourth criteria for admitting late contentions, no particular showing has been made. Two of the four proposed contentions apparently relate to ongoing NRC Staff activities. The Staff's investigation of the (Footnote Continued) available documentary material . . . with sufficient care to enable it to uncover" this information.
10/ Perry, supra (footnote omitted).
M/ Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC (November 15, 1983) (slip op. at 8).
-12/ Mississippi Power & Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982).
matters alleged in these contentions will provide adequate assurance of the public health and safety and protect FOE's particular interest without litigation of these matters.
Another content. ion apparently relates to hypothetical accidents - now being litigated in FOE Contentions V-3a and V-3b. The fourth contention relates to the adequacy of offsite emergency planning, which is also the subject of
.pending litigation before the Board. Accordingly, insofar as its concerns are related to those matters, FOE can at least partially protect its interests by litigating its previously admitted contentions. The Board's final disposi-tion of these related contentions will ultimately provide reasonable assurance of the public health and safety. The
'second and fourth factors therefore weigh against inter-vention.
As to the third criterion, FOE has failed to demon-strate that it could assist the Board in establishing a sound record on this issue. In particular, FOE has not abided by the Appeal Board's instruction in Grand Gulf that
"[w] hen a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witness-es, and summarize their proposed testimony."13_/ FOE has 13/ Grand Gulf, supra, ALAB-704, 16 NRC at 1730. See also SPPSS, supra,, ALAB-747 (slip op, at 18); Long Island
~
(Footnote Continued)
4 failed to allege any expertise or even basic competence in the areas it seeks to litigate.
Finally, the fifth criterion for admitting late con-tentions weighs strongly against FOE. Admitting four more contentions at this advanced point of the proceeding will inarguably broaden the issues and delay the proceeding.
Given the already crowded schedule of conferences and hearings set by the Board for the timely disposition of admitted contentions, and the inevitable request for discov-ery and lengthy hearing preparation, admission of FOE's four late contentions would unavoidably cause serious delay prejudicial to the Applicant. Accordingly, FOE has failed to satisfy the requirements for admission of its four proposed late contentions.
II. The Proposed Contentions Lack Basis and Specificity.
In addition to not satisfying the requirements for admitting late contentions, FOE's four contentions lack the (Footnote Continued)
Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387, 399-400 (1983).
14/ Even more than delay of operating licenses for Limerick, delay in fuel loading is a very real possibility if these late contentions must be litigated. It is noted, however, that for Applicant to prevail on this factor,. it need only show that the proceeding, not operation of the facility, would be delayed. Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2) , ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1765-66 (1982); Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP-83-30, 17 NRC 1132, 1146 (1983).
t
, - . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . _ . , - . . ~ , . _ . ,,._
basis and s.p e c i f i c i t y r e q u i r e d by 10 C.F.R. 52.714 (b) .E It must be recognized . at the outset that unirradiated fuel does not present a potential radiological hazard comparable to the operation of the facility itself or similar to any hazard associated with irradiated fuel. It is relatively benign as evidenced by the fact'that it need not be stored or moved underwater and is physically handled by personnel during the inspection process. It is almost impossible to cause a criticality with unirradiated fuel. The radio-logical consequences of any conceivable accident would be M minimus. The four contentions must be viewed against this background. None of the proposed contentions allege that the governing regulations are not met or give any spect-ficity regarding an alleged lack of reasonabic assurance of the public health and safety.
Contention 1 merely speculates that storage of fuel onsite constitutes a hazard because of certain hypothetical
-accidents being litigated in Contentions V-3a and V-3b. No nexus is drawn between the Limerick structures and components for storage of fuel and any particular hazards from the offsite accidents hypothesized in F0E's other
~
15/ See e.g., Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1) , LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 183, 193 (1982); Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP-81-18, 14 NRC 71, 75 (1981) ; Of f shore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), LBP-77-48, 6 HRC 249 (1977).
o 9
contentions. .No basis has been shown to litigate whether the structures and components in which the fuel will be stored can withstand any overpressure and/or impacts from
. such hypothetical offsite accidents. Even assuming, arguendo, that FOE could make such a showing, it has given absolutely no basis for the allegation that any such over-pressure and/or impact upon an area of unirradiated fuel would result in an offsite radiological hazard from the storage of unirradiated fuel.EI In Contention 2, FOE seeks to litigate completion of Applicant's proposed design verification program. The verification addressed by the NRC Staff letter which will be afforded by this program is intended to assure that the "as built" construction of the Limerick plant conforms to the plant's original design in accordance with the Commission's regulations and Applicant's commitments in its Final Safety Analysis Report. FOE's apparent speculation that some aspect of the verification process might relate to the fuel storage area is wholly deficient in basis and specificity.
AWPP has provided no basis whatsoever for the assertion that I
construction of the facility does not conform to the origi-nal design. Neither has it provided a basis for the I
16/ One of the letters being transmitted with this pleading amends the application for the license to store fuel to permit storage in an outside secured area for a period l of several weeks. This fact was recognized in FOE 's second filing on this matter.
proposition.that the health and safety of the public would be affected by the storage of new fuel shoald there be some difference between design and construction.
Similarly, the generalized assertion in Contention 3 that the NRC Staff has raised questions about load factor capacity for the Limerick overhead cranes handling fuel assemblies presents no litigable issue. The letter to which FOE refers relates not to the acceptability of the overhead heavy load handling system for fuel loading, but only to ongoing information relating to satisfaction of commitments which will not be applicable until after the second refuel-ing outage.N The Staff has found the overhead heavy load handling systems adequate for fuel load.EI In any event, the cranes which will lift the new fuel are designated for lifts substantially in excess of the weight of the fuel bundles being lifted. For example, the reactor enclosure crane is designed for 125 ton loads.E Thus, tremendous margin exists. Even were it hypothesized that the new fuel bundles would somehow drop, FOE has failed to demonstrate that any radiological release in violation of any regulatory M/ See Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0991 at 9-11 (August 1983).
18/ Id.
19/ Id. at 9-10.
o
criteria weald occur. Thus, this contention lacks basis and specificity and should be denied.
Firially, FOE's proposed Contention 4 attempts to relate oasite fuel storage to approval of offsite emergency plans.
This contention is without merit as a matter of law.
Nothing in 10 C.F.R. Part 70 regarding the issuance of an SNM license requires that emergency plans be in place at the time of fuel loadinge Nor, for that matter, is there anything in 10 C.F.R. Part 50 or NUREG-0654 that makes
.onsite fuel storage contingent upon satisfaction of the .
Commission's emergency preparedness requirements under 10 C.F.R. S50.47. To the contrary, in Section 50.47(d) the Commission has expressly authorized fuel loading prior to the requisite determinations concerning the state of offsite emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and capability to implement State and local offsite emergency plans. In any event, FOE has completely failed to demonstrate any need for offsite emergency planning considering the negligible hazard associated with the storage of unirradiated fuel.
In its second pleading, FOE argues that the contem-plated storage in a secured outside area would cause some generalized safety concerns leading to " great risk."
However, the matters raised therein lack technical bases and specificity. For example, FOE argues that secured outside storage " violates the terms and, surely, the intention of the Commission safety requirements"; however, no specific reference to any regulation which is purportedly violated is
.. - - - = . .-. __ . _ .
given. Applicant affirmatively asserts that secured outside storage meets all NRC requirements.
FOE states that natural hazards such as tornadoes and electrical storms could affect the fuel; no specificity is given as to how the fuel would be affected or what the consequences of such " natural hazards" would be in terms of public health and safety. While FOE makes a generalized assertion about theft and sabotage, it provides absolutely no basis or specificity. These matters fail to meet the NRC standards for admissibility of contentions.
FOE asserts that the " moving requirements set forth in the application show that the fuel is highly dangerous";
however, no basis is given for this conclusion. This is not a matter which can be litigated. FOE next alleges that the storage location near the Reading Railroad "would subject it to a-fire or explosion on the tracks [which] has the pos-sibility to activate the fuel with disastrous consequences for the whole metropolitan area." It is unclear as to the meaning of the term " activate the fuel," as used here and elsewhere in the pleading means. If FOE is addressing a criticality accident, it has provided no basis for the
! assertion that such could be caused by a hypothesized i explosion or from an electrical cable as alleged in 20/ The NRC has previously permitted such storage for other nuclear plants.
M' L.
Paragraph 4. or that the health and safety of the public would be affected thereby. Paragraphs 3 and 4 do not present a litigable contention. b Transmittal of Associated Documents Because of the pendency of these contentions, Applicant is transmitting the following documents with this pleading to keep the Board apprised of developments in the area of materials licensing:
- 1. Materials License SNM-1926 dated September 23, 1983,
- 2. A letter dated February 16, 1984 from the NRC amending Materials License SNM-1926,
- 3. A letter from Philadelphia Electric Company to the NRC dated February 6, 1984 requesting amendment to License No. SNM-1926,
- 4. A letter from Philadelphia Electric Company dated February 27, 1984 supplementing the January 24, 1984 revised application for a special nuclear materials license.
21/ The last paragraph of the pleading raises no litigable matter.
I .
A
.p r i'b.:c
(' 57 l[
Conclusion
- For the reasons discussed more fully above, FOE's proposed late contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, .C.
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant March 1, 1984 -
9 l
?
t i
ak
. 3 k.
j G. E
$ E
- a WdbQ #ftt a g; Re .
g,g _ - .
_e ms m, ,,
3
_3 .......;.. -
, ' ce es.
Sf.Pf,d 4J t . ' M ATERIALS LICENSE I .
> cme.-Jea the E-e:2) Reorpruzatien A:t or Im(Pub.'t: Law 93-435) M Tide 10.
[ Purauarn te the Atom 3. Ettrs3 Ad ..< >n<4.
relan:e on sister ,ents ar.t. representst10nt j Code of Mers! RegAtica. Char cr I. NH 30 3h ~ 33 -
de by tre license:. 4 ;' % k*tb> ** *d d ' "i Ih' lI"'" '* "'#" i I' = ' y i $e.. ' ' ' }.P a~ .~ ..
I ial rmlear materlsf act4nattJ bela . tu att se.h matsnal f;r the purpsa.sl ad M the p'a:@ @mJ be!0i..to f
r of tran et such matenal tu retsons sathanted Ic re.e, c d in sesordaxe with the rep 12%nt of tht 2P ' ?
i M n sech t.yprode:t and smt. ma:er:9 Thh licers thst' be dremfJ 19 :cn!*:n the (0' U74 3r8;i'I'l
' f[2't'.
85d]O
, ,'At sic bergy Att of 1954. as mended. mJ n '$ 14 3 !" ^ -r76 8* f' * regA c. . erJer> of (L: w. er Resalam,
{ wission now or hereafie m c le;t ,nd to riy unJ4 tium spc.,0:J belo .
Luenset 1
1.Ph11adel shia Electric Company 3 LJ:eue number SNM-1926
- 2301 Marcet Street ;
P.O. Box 8699 '
- 2. Philadelphia, PA 19101 ld Erpiration date Septeder 30,1988 or*
i 5. Dxkst or Referense No.
70-2988 -
~ ~ ~
l 3. typsodat, source.anI[o ~'7. Chirru$al an[or phynca! 8 Maximum amount th.at k;e:3cc specselnuclear material form ,
may poses > at an one toe l
i <, vnder this hetnt: ,-
! U-235 isotope sources contained in uranita enriched to >90 w/o -
- U-235 i B. Uranium enriched in the B. Contained in sealed B. 60.0 trg of U-235 U-235 isot'90e sources contained in urani m
.' enriched tol21 w/o
{ ,
U-235 i'
- 9. Authorized Use:
l
^
l For use in accordance with statec:ents, representations and conditions specified in JI the applic tion dated June 1,1983 and its supplements dated Septentbar 14, 'I and 20,1983.
i 10. Authortzed Place of Use: j I
I
, The licensee's Li:nerick Generating Station, Unit No.1. I I
- 11. The Senior Health Physicist shall have the qualifications for " Radiation Protection' as specified in Section 4.4.4 of AhSI/AhS.3.1-1978, Werican National Standard h L;.
l for Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.*
- p
^
\
12.
The Reactor Engineer shall have the qualifications for "Aeactor EngineeringE as I specified in Section 4.4.1 of AhS1/ANS.3.11978, "hnerican National Standardi for I
, Selectio: and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel."
}
i : l I
- 1h v9
.c M = conversion of CPPR #106 to an operating license, whichever is earlier. ~. I 4
kl L f 2 E'y I l l
o lL
, =3. > - e . -
' SW-1926 .
<[ e MATERIALS UCENSE % u g,gggw
,wg 3 a .:po.- suMLElliNTARY SHEET 7pgggg t, ... -. ...
B. Operations personnel shall establish, maintain, and follow approved written pro-
- cedures when handling Ilcensed materials. The procedures and any changes thereto
[
shall be approved by the Plant Operating Review Cornittee in writing,
. '. i l
i i
l 1
i i
1 s
i i
l J
l . FOR THE h0 CLEAR RE6dLATORY C09(15510N M;I$N By:
Division or f%fl Cycle and :
l i Material Safety, ass l W shington, D.C. 20555 i
.l.
~-~MM- -=____
a Ok
/g% UNITED STATES
, 8\ 9,A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. $ .' WASHINGTON, D. C. 2005G
\ **"* / 'FEB 10 1984 FCUP:BLS 70-2988 SNM-1926, Amendment 1 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel Mr. Eugene J. Bradley Associate General Counsel 2301 Market Street P.O. Box 8699 -
Philadelphia , PA 19101 i
Gentlemen :
Pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulatioris, l' art 70, Items 6, 7, and 8 of Materials License No. SNM-1926 are hereby amended to read as follows:
- 6. Uranium enriched in the U-73S isotope
- 7. Contained in Sealed Sources
All other conditions of this license shall remain the same.
This amendment was discussed with your Mr. Robert Conti on February 16, 1984.
FOR l~llF NUCl.FAR RFGULAf0RY COMMISSION R. G. Pag hief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, HMSS
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101
, (215)841-4502 wect-entsotm?
e u...................
Mr. W. T. Crow, Section Leader FEE 6 MJ Urenium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Limerick Generating Stu..on, Unit No. 1 Special Nuclear Material License Application Refe:cnce: (1) Letter, Mr. E. J. Bradley (PECO) to Mr. J. G. Davis (NRC) dated January 24, 1984.
(2) Telecon between Mr. Crow (NRC) and Messrs. Pyrih, Conti and Payton (PECO) on January 26, 1984.
File: GOVT 1-1 (NRC)
Dear Mr. Crow:
Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECO) revised application for a Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License for Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Unit No. I was transmitted to the NRC via reference (1) letter. The revised application states that the first delivery of fuel to LGS Unit I would be in March 1984.
Subsequent to the transmittal of the revised application we were advised (in reference 2 telecon) that issuance of a complete SNM license for fuel would not be possible by March, 1964. However, to support a March fuel delivery it was suggetted that PECO request an amendment to its current SNM license (License No. SNM-1926) which would authorize the receipt, possession and storage of 764 nuclear fuel bundles which would remain within their shipping containers in the outdoor new fuel storage area at LGS until the issuance of the re:iainder of the license. Therefore we request that the NRC issue such an amendment to License No.
SNM-1926 by March 1, 1984.
. . ( (
k As discussed in reference 2 telecon we are providing PECO's current plans with respect to fuel relocation to the reactor enclosure. Our current construction schedule calls for the fuel to be moved from the outdoor new fuel storace area to the refueling floor on May 1, 1984. To support this schedule it is requested that the remainder cf the SNM license be issued by May 1, 1984.
The efforts and cooperation of you and your staff in the review of our revised license application is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, f
SFP/gra/0130841048 cc: E. J. Bradley E. C. Kistner /J. L. Allen L. B. Pyrih J. J. Clarey/R. T. Scott G. M. Leitch NES Chron File
.a February 27, 1984
-I Mr. U..T. Crou, A etin:. Lecder Urnnium Procer.: Licenr ng Section
[l1 Urcnium Puel Lire :ti ng Drnnch l, J -
Divirion cf Pue) Cycle . ..d !'.turia! Enfety
- U. S. Nuc3en
- Ju gul e : or; Cr ei ti n ri nn Watchington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Limorich Gener.* tirrg St.nti: n, Unit No. I Specini liuclear !!r.terial Licens"
References:
(1) Letter, J. S. Kemper to W. T. Crow
- - dated rebrunry'C, 1984.
(?) Telecon between N. Entclack (!!RC) and S. F. Payton (PECO) on February 10, 1904.
(3) Telecon betuonn B. Serini (NRC) a n f. R . J. Conti (PECO) on February 16, 1984.
Pi20 GW/ 1-1 (MPC)
Dear P.:
. t ..
> !:. D:fer m co L(1) Jetter Ve requerted that the !;RC ienue c n a::.c-ndr.e n t t c, License !*c . S!!M-19 2 6 that would authorice the receipt, pcsrencion and storage of 764 nuclear fuel Thundlet -Vithin their rhipping containers on-site at Lir.:e ri ch .
In re ference _ (2) telocon the !iRC unc informed that ue plan to store fuel differently than uhat we have indicated in paragraph 1.2.1.1 of the rovired application. We were '
adviced that i t. ordor to receivo the amendment to our
. current license we must submit a letter cupplementing the i revised ' application. which statec our change to
. paragraph 1.2.1.1. He have decided to include, for completeners, other changes to the revised application that have occurred nince its cubmittal on January 24, 1984.
he follouing is - a list of these changes:
- 1) Page 3, paragraph 1.2.1.1 lines 22 and 23 of the 4: revived epplication should be changed from
" . . ... five-sided bc: manuf actured out of treated no: - co:..bu t, t ibl e lumber."... to" ....five-rided
- bc
- : manufactured out of corrugated metal".
A revised page 3 ic attached.
6
+ + ew. - . _ - ., . - ---~m,w-. g. ...,%._.,.wg.,
(2) 1: . !! . Teylor, II has been repInced by R. W. Dubiel c .a Se .ior lieniti. Phycicict e f f ortivr.
e Februnty 20, 19 L /. . '"hu rt f ore , p 1 f:n F.P replacf" F igures 2.1. 3 (n) :.hrough 2.1. 3 (d) inclucive j with the- st.tached revised recuw.
(3) On paas: 25 of the reviced application, please delete t.h e us.nteneoc an indicated (copy nt.tached). The deleted itent: refer to phvalcal :.,ncu:.a ty uf nuclear inc tru:wnts .
These n6dit.iont.1 ne:.curec are not required because of t.hu c:.all quantity of natorial involved. The reviced page ?5 ir a l m) nttached.
Additionally as uno agreed II. the refurence (3) telecon, License lio. Cun-1926 w:.11 he amended oc folicus:
- 1. Item 6. ahe.ll rce.d : "ur:.r.iu:'. onriched in the U-2 3 5 isot. ope . '
- 2. I tera 7. chall read: "conti.ined i .) conled rourcon." ,
lor your in f o:.mic t.ic:. , 10 C' :ag of U-235 ir derived ne fcilews:
- 1. .1ia:'* .?CD detectort :: 0 . 2 ? .I.nn.
= 57.?O nos det.
- 2. m;': - 4 detectorc :. 2. 7 2 nJ. = 30.08 mg det.
l 3. Iidi's - 6 detectorn >: 0.75 r'.c = 6.00 mg.
act.
- 4. TIPS - 5 detectort. .x 0.75 det.3 = 3.75 mg
- 5. Contingency' = 22.17 mg Total = 100 mg
- The contingency amount reflectc poccible additional spare detectors and raanuf acturing tole: ncen.
h
O s
e If you ihould roqui n: r.ny clarification of the a b ov +. -
in f or::,atier. contact S. F. I'n y ton ( 215-T141 - C 3 r 4 ) .
.9 1 :: ct t r 1 y 6 W 5. ,4y-
/
,fijf c / 7 Vf*
SFP/grc./0214E4415 Clarey/R. 'I' . Scott J. J.
cc: E. J. Brac21oy E. C. Kittner /J. L. lillen C. 11. Leitch L. ii . Pyrih P. J. Dentren *
- h. A. . l'ulfr d !!LS Chron Pilu t
A m-
/ f (
NAME: Richard W. Dubiel EDUCATION AND TRAINING 1971 Georgia Inst itu te of Technology, Atlan ta, Georgia Ma ste r of Scie nce Nuclear Engine e r ing 1970 Fa irfield Univers ity, Fair field, Connecticut Bachelor of Science Physics WORK EXPERI ENCE 1/84 to Senior Health Physicist / RPM /RSO-Limer ick Present Generating Station Duties:
- 1. Acts as Radiation Safe ty Of ficer for .
Type A board scope byproduct ma terial license.
- 2. Superv ise s Health Physics group.
- 3. Initia tes development and implementation of Radiation Protection programs.
- 4. Serves as a member of Plant Operations Rev ie w Cc=mitte e .
12/62 to 1/84 Professional Services Division Nuclear Support Services, Inc., Her shey, PA Duties: Involved in the marketing, sales, and pro jec t r.anag ement a spec ts of the division.
l 1. Specific services include the areas of professional health physics services, eme rgency planning services, chemistry l se rv ice s a nd training services, l pr imar ily to the co==ercial nuclea r indu s tr y.
l c .
l 2.2.3Isi DWised 2/37/E 4 -
l
- ... ..- , ,i .
I
( I 10/81 to 12/62 Senior Planne r , Emerg ency Consu ltan t, !nc.,
Ha rr i sbur g , PA Du t ie s : On-site Emergency Planning Group
- 1. Supervised the ac tivitie s of the Emergency Planning Specialist s in support of the f ull spec trum of emergency planning services to fixed nuclear facilities.
- 2. Developed emergency plans implementing p r oc edu re s a nd trhining programs to meet the current regula tory requirements.
- 3. Develcped scenarios and condac ted drills and exercise s to ensure workable emergency plans.
- 4. Eva lua ted the per formance of the on-site ,
emergency planning staff in the ir suppor t of programs being provided to nuclear facilities. .
- 5. Assigned emergency planning specialists fo specific tasks as necessary to suppor t client requirements.
- 6. Provid ed technical a ss is ta nce in the areas of health physics and nuclea r e n g i n ee r i ng t o a no the r g r ou p w i th i n the co rp a ny .
- 7. Per sonally developed and presented training programs for dose assesscent personnel, on-site health physics pe r sonnel, ene rgency d irec tor s, and emerg ency coo rd ina tors du ring accident s i tu a t i ons .
9/79 to 10/81 Radiolog ical Engine e r ing Ma..ag er - Ass ig ned following the Post-Accident Reorganization Du tie s :
- 1. Responsible for the AL ARA prog ram, effluent mon i to r in g , in-plant radiation mon itoring, re spira tory pro tec tion pr og r am, technician training program, GET program and rad nuclear training cou r se con te nt. =
e..t.a(td (Fedscd 2/17/84)
=
(
( '
- 2. Resp nsible for rewr iting all health physics rela ted procedures to make th em applicable to a single unit and close out of all audit findings resulting frc.-
the accident inve st ig a tion and subse uent inspections.
9/76 to 9/79 Supervisor - Radiation Protec tion and Chemistry for theI Two Un it Nuclear S ta tions (S ta tion RPM) a t W.
Duties: Responsible for all aspects of the heal th physics, chemistry, radwa ste, and industrial wa ste progracs, including:
AL A RA , in te rnal and ex te rnal dosime try, re spira tory pro tec tion, ef fluent monitoring, health physics field opera tions, radwaste packaging and
- shipping, radiochemis try, lab chemis try, plan t chemistry, chemistry con trol, industrial waste plant operations, and monitoring in accordarce with the sta tion NPDES.
- 1. Managed a sta ff of 40 full-time professional technical and clerical pe r sen nel .
- 2. Full h ea lth physics re sponsibilitie s during four re fueling ou tages (TMI-I) .
- 3. S ta r tup a nd te st te sponsibilit ie s for health physics and chemistry (TMI-II) .
P
- 4. Star tup and test responsibilities for L
- the sta tion industr ial wa ste trea tment l
system to accom.oda te both units.
S.
Upg r ading of the TMI-I emergency plan and procedures to incorporate the second unit.
i
- 6. Implemen ta tion of the se plan s as senior individual responsibile for all on- and off-site radia tion pro tec tion activitie s during March 28, 1979 inciden t a t TMI-II.
2.1. 3 (c) (re.ised 2 G,'W i
8
, . _ . . . - , ~ ... , w 7.m -
o .
. C (
t-9/74 to 9/76 Radiological Engineer, Three Mile Island Nuclea r Ge ne ra ting S ta tion, Middle town, PA Duties: Ass ig ne d to Health Physics Depar tment
- 1. Responsible for the development and pre sen ta tion of the general employee train ing , r ad worker training, and technical tra ining prograns.
- 2. Developed the station dosimetr effluent monitoring programs. y and 9/73 to 9/74 Radia tion Physicist, US Navy, Naval Regional Medical Cen te r , Cha rle ston, Sou th Carolina Duties: Assigned to Radiology Depar tment
~
- 1. Responsible for health physics program for the depar tment, including x-ray, fluro scopy and nuclea r medicine lab facilities.
- 2. Responsible for maintenance of the
, hcapital radiation energency plan for suppor t of the Cha rleston Naval Shipyard.
1/72 to 9/73 Rad ia t ion Health Of fice r , U.S. Na vy , U.S.S . Orion (AS-18) .
Du tie s :
- 1. Responsible for dosimetry program for t
the submarine te nder suppor ting ten l nuclea r powered submar ine s.
- 2. Pre sen ted radiation nuclear training program for tender per sonnel assigned to radiclogically controlled repair work.
_ LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES Quali fied Radia tion Pro tec tion Manag er in Accorda nce with l Regula tory Guide 1.8 l
Cer tified Power Reac tor Health Physicist by the Amer ican Board of Health Physics Member of Health Physics Society and the Delaware Valley l Society for Rad ia tion S a fety
- l 2,3,3(d) (recist.rd 2/2';/64)
?,
permit night surveillance of the fuel. The first core'of fuel for Unit 1 (764 assemblies) will be stored -in three (3) piles with sixty-four (64) containers in each pile stacked four (4) high and sis: teen (IC) across; and four (4) piles with forty-eight (48) containers in each pile stacked four (4) high and twelve (12) across. A spacing of
- twenty-five _ (25) feet will be maintained between any two piles and between each pile and the !iew Fuel
~ Storage Area fence. The fuel will be stored in the outer wouden Reactor Assemblies (RA) containers and each pile of fuel wil] be covered by a five-sided box manufactured out of corrugated metal. As a further l precaution against fire, sufficient hose line will be
-available such that water can be directed to the fuel from two different locations. Lightning protec" ion will be provided by an overhead transmission line.
The weight of each pile ~of fuel is sufficient to withstand windstorms of 100 year mean recurrence interval. .
~
1.2.2 Activities in Adjacent Areas In the areas adjacent to the ! Jew Fuel Storage Area thcre exist perir,anent buildings. In addition there is a permanent building that will be used for offices or a~ change house. There is also a substation od% tent to the liew Fuel Storage Area on the north
- . /wtivitier in adjacent areas will be of a
, .uce such that the safety of the fuel will not be
..ifected.
1.2.3 Indoor ?torage Facilities and Equipment The Spent Fuel _ Pool, as illustrated in Figure 1.2-14 of the Limerick Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),
is anL intergral structure within the Reactor Encicsure. The fuel storage facilities _and handling
-equipment are.. designated (Revised 2/17/84)
L - A_ __ __
umd .C2 vc U-234 ((.T vp tetsi). wit h a us ight ps cent cowpet it len of 20.6% U-235, 77.61 U-23' and 1.82 U-238.
d) Treversing-In-Cora rrobw iTIP): It d6t6ctors ($
. p6e unit) at t.75 up U-235 ssch (7.5 pp t otal), >
$21 U 235.
i
-j. 3,y tiece , o-? He-H1 f r e C ea di t ie*1 1
6 Upon receipt. t hs LPRH't ull! be teken t o t ha rofueling
-; i1 eor. A c c t a 4:41.is - .r4 s ul.l.1 1c-c :.n t..~.-lhd. a.:,
vcu44- As--4L:- iL,a n.2 : hm 14r- i.:u. ' - Ls..11.:n 1, 4--44-;pf,4 L;+444 2 -) . In cost of ununticipet90 s c he dul ing pret!ar s whe r s t hs LPF.M', c6nnet b6 stored on t h: refueling flecr, th, L P F M 's w i l l bs u c v,w d t o 11.;
5tcrs: Ua a he v i s. uhc i-; --::.-u c t :6 .-.4:---:4-: t :.: u d-.4+
trl-w,- ,rt,--%s--4-M ata . --w4..-a-- 44.4+:+.4: s >4-: L t.d--;, ;s
< :4, ;4+4 SRM, IRM cnd Tir det setors uill bs rocciv6d and initisily stcred on t ha tiuerick Os,ntrating Stution "
sits in u- rse leccted ir. t he S t c r ;, 3 Ucr c he u v u .
Qmt41-.,--.s4 4L:4 ~ --
- ..dr z.:2:..ik * ' ~ '- e a .
I r. e-ca 5, r. Isval 253' in i he sout Msst :,aetion of I ha Unit 1 F o: tor Eric ! c s r 6 uill bc t t-w ;s c r a - i l y established l icr t h: s t : r .,9 0 p-ice io r ;. . c l e - Iced e f SRM, IRM und p:ssibly IIt d o ! . : t o r :. . In ced i t i c,r.a l arrea en level l 253' i,. t i .. ...ih.,.st curr ir of t he Un i t 1 Ecector
'r u i l d i r. ., .: 1. .. i . .. r.c r r i l i . i 1.ta l i s ht d for i hs 31 o r e.g t ui 1JI d.i.: t, , o rior le rcatior load. I t4A-W4+
1,.s &';!:'- . . :.--u= ; h s 44--.%-..L;r L.:12.-:-. L - t-m * ' - 1
. :.: g E.14--,n : i r_.s r.ie r b --a; 7 -:.,.J.A.: r12 : d , - - - -
i n; final location t ha t t ho SRM's IRM's and LPRM's will bs stcred is in t he rsector vessel. The f inal storage locatien of t he TIP detectors will be within t he TIP sechinos and associets.d tubing. 5 peres and defective sq;ipront (if any) will be storod as described abcve.
A--w++-e-.-4: t ; ' ! : d d ; ; ; -: - t4-e,*-4-4--4 Ae-e+4-: - : : : : -d p*h4-w 54-c' -
' - - tJ s-p A r64c44-pr-c-44-&44&c.-a-i---4-4+-Mre*c
- *
- :i : ::, : ' - - ' h: '. : : : : Hb,+4.e44.r. g ! ". : ! : - - .
- N- * ;: !: I t , "!:" !:* D - :-k-C i
- O - - :-f-- I p.GGd4 '# ;CM.- *'
MM, .: ef '-
!i :i:54 ! 2 ;- ' ' ? r,+* t-+ .,M e,+.-- e+ f n5 ***cd tC *': - M* -e r-sci ::$ e : t ---c.G e r .
4 .
with a weight percent (6.9 mg total),
77.Ci U-234 and 1.81 and 02 rg U-236 cct: position of 20.01 U-235, U .236.
Probe (T!P): 10Lotal), detectors 9 0 't(5U-235.
per d) Traversino-In-CoreU-2 3 5 each 7. t ing unit) at 0.75 ra j r 3.2 Stcrage and Handlina Conditions refueling
' where receipt, the of LPRn'r will bescheduling unanticipated taken to the problerns t
i Upcn I n c a s's stored on the refueling floor,IRM SRM, theand floor. ,
the I
the LPPJ?'s Cannot be inoved be to the Stores Warehouse. the LPid4' r w: 13 will be .eceived and initial]y storea locatedon in TIP detectors LimericP. Generating Station site in an area Stores Warehouse. section of the in the "outhwert s
temporarily established A:. area on level 253' Enclosure will be for 1the Unit Reactor storage prior to reactor load area on levelof 253' SRM, An additionalReactor Building will possibly TIP detectors. 1 corner of the Unitstorage of TIP detectors in the northeast for the be temporarily established prior to reactor locd. IRM's and LPRM's will be The final storage c
The fir.a1 location th.t the SRn's, the reactcr vessel.
stor_f .s cfanthe TIP detectors will be within the TIP Spares and defective f location .u.c r. v P. .c i a t e d tubing.
any) . 11 be stored as described above.
'- a
.t t (
t L
I l
L
- 25 - (Revised 2/17/64) l l
l l
l i
i
i .
~,
m m tr y
+
'84 MR -5 P1 :08 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi COMMISSION , . .
am
- c
- .O u.u u SERVh I.
BRANCH In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to New Contentions Proposed by Friends of the Earth on Onsite Storage of Unirradiated Fuel and Transmittal of Related .
Correspondence," " Applicant's Response to FOE's Motion to Strike Applicant and Staff's Structural Analysis Testimony,"
Cross Examination Plan Regarding Testimony of P.T. Kuo and Norman D. Romney,"* Cross Examination Plan Regarding Testimony of William T. Lefane,"* Cross Examination Plan Regarding Testimony of Charles W. Ferrell"* and " Cross Examination Plan Regarding Testimony of Rex G. Wescott,"*
dated March 1, 1984, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 1st day of March, 1984:
- Lawrence Brenner, Esq. (2) Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Office of the Sacretary Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 i Commission Washington, D.C.- 20555 ** Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Office
- Dr. Peter A. Morris of the Executive Atomic Safety and' Legal Director Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Cross Examination Plans are only being provided to the Licensing Board
- Hand Delivery l
1
g Atomic Safety and Licensing Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
Board Panel Community Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Services, Inc.
Commission Law Center West North Washington, D.C. 20555 5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19139 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Angus Love, Esq.
Vice President & 107 East Main Street General Counsel Norristown, PA 19401 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano Ardmore, PA 19003 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Sugarman & Denworth Suite
- Mr. Robert L. Anthony 510 North American Building Friends of the Earth of 121 South Broad Street the Delaware Valley Philadelphia, PA 19107 -
106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Basement, Transportation 6504 Bradford Terrace and Safety Building Philadelphia, PA 19149 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phyllis Zitzer, Esq. Martha W. Bush, Esq.
Limerick Ecology Action Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
P.O. Box 761 City of Philadelphia 762 Queen Street Municipal Services Bldg.
Pottstown, PA 19464 15th and JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Brose and Postwistilo Spence W. Perry, Esq.
1101 Building lith & Associate General Counsel Northampton Streets Federal Emergency Easton, PA 18042 Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. Washington, DC 20472 Assistant Counsel j Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Thomas Gerusky, Director Governor's Energy Council Bureau of Radiation 1625 N. Front Street Protection Harrisburg, PA 17102 Department of Environmental Resources 5th Flocr, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Third and Locust Streets l Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Federal Express
~ ~ ,- , .--
&> z- + w A, j .
3-Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Rt,gulatory Commission ,
Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 James Wiggina Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
, Commission-P.O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 -
Mdtk J. Wetterhahn l
l r
k T
=
d l
, . , < - . . . , . . , . , _, .- . . . . , . . , , . , . - . . - - _ . - ,