ML20140D552

Response Opposing Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 4 Re Spent Fuel Pool Expansion.Burden of Proof Not Met & Two Genuine Issues of Matl Fact Remain. Contention Should Be Denied

ML20140D552
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/19/1986
From:	Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-530 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8603260313
Download: ML20140D552 (4)

Text

= . _ . _ _.- . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _

i March 19, 198b

. . 30

,,-' /

QP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c',N -  ??

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 g;? -r Yl\  :

' s/ ,gt- ,4' L}

c BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING $h-jD , o '

L

. eS c, q y3,%.,p?I6 i~

~'

c. y.;4' , e In the Matter of' ) Docket Nos' 50-250-OLA-2(Q 0

) \509251-OLA-2'  !

FLORIDA POWER AN'D LIGHT COMPANY )

) (Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)

'Q(( ,

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 4 s

l-I '. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR.

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION i 2

Under both the Commission's and Federal Court Rules of Practice, i

"the burden of proof lies upon the movant for summary disposition, 1

who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact."

Adickes v. Kress and Co., 398, U.S. 144, 157, Perry ALAB-443, suora, 6 NRC at 753. Again under both NRC and Federal Rules, "the record is to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the party. opposing the motion." Dairvland Power Coocerative, 16 NRC 512, 519 (1982) i citing: Poller v. Columbia Broadcastino Svstem Inc. , 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1962): Crest Auto Sucolies Inc. v. Ero Manufacturine Co.,360

- F. 2d, 896, 899 (7th Cir. 1966); United Mineworkers of America, Dist.

22 v. Ronoco, 314 F. 2d 186, 188 (10th Cir. 1963); Pennsylvania Power

& Licht Co. and Allechenv Electric Co-ocerative Inc. (Susquehanna

' Steam Electric Station, Units l' and 2) LBP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1981); Seabrook, LEP-74-36, suora, 6 NRC, suora, 7 AEC at 879. i

~" Because tne proponent of a motion for summary disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of B603260313 B60319 PDR ADOCK 05000250 O.

0 PM

, 4 , . _ - , _ . _ . . . , . _ , ~ , . . - , _ _ _ _ _ , , - _ . . - . _ . . . , . _ , . . . _ . _ . . - , , . _ _ _ . . _ . - , _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ .

6

( 2 )

material fact, it does not necessarily follow that a motion supported

'by affidavits-will automatically prevail over an opposition not supported by affidavits. The Board must scrutinize the motion to determine whether.the movant's burden has been met." Carolina Power

& Licht Cormany and North Carolina Eastern Municioal Power Acenev (Shearon. Harris Nuc. ear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-84-7, ASLBP No.

82-468-01-OL, 19NRC 432 (1984).

Finally, for a contention to remain litigable, the Intervenors must.present to the Board a sufficient factual basis "to require reasonable minds'to inquire further." Pennsvlvania Power and Licht Comoany and Allechenv Electric Coooerative Inc., (Susquehanna. Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB 613, 12 NRC 317, 340 (1980).

The issues of material fact raised in the Intervenors' Response to Florida Power & Light's Motion for Summary Disposition of the foregoing contention demonstrate that a sufficient material basis on the-contention has been raised; and that the Licensee's motion for summary disposition of this' contention must fail.

II. INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 4 The purpose of this response is to address Intervenors' Contention 4 which states CONTENTION 4: That FPL has not provided a site specific radiological analysis of a spent fuel boiling event that proves that offsite dose limits and personnel exposure limits will not be exceeded in allowing the pool to boil with. makeup water from only Seismic Category 1 sources.

BASES FOR CONTENTION: FPL used calculations performed for the Limerick plant to prove that they would not exceed radiological limits in a spent fuel pool boiling accident.

FPL should not be allowed to extrapolate Limerick's study for their own, because there are many differences between

4 s

( 3 )

the two plants which could be critical. For example, the saturation noble gas and iodine inventories could be greater for the Turkey Point Plant as a result of fuel failure and increased enrichment; more than 1% of the fuel rods may be defective at Turkey Point because of.the same fuel failure;.and the gap activity of noble gases, such as krypton 85, and fission products such as radioactive iodine may also be greater for Turkey Point.

1 l 1. Contention 4 contends that the offsite dose limits and onsite dose limits to personnel that would result from a spent' fuel boiling event will not meet the 10 C.F.R. Part 100

, criterion.

2. Intervenors contend that the use of Reg. guide 1.25 to evaluate offsite do'ses is not appropriate because this regulatory guide is generally used for evaluating dose releases of damaged fuel assemblies with burn-up less than 38,000 mwd /

i MTU. Intervenors contend that this guide should not be used to calculate offsite doses for the Turkey Point fuel which is allowed to have 50,000 mwd /MTU for the allowed burn-up of 4

the assemblies.

3. In a letter from J.W. Williams (FPL) to Steven A. Varga, (NRC), L-84-264, Oct. 5, 1984 and in response to a request. from

~

the NRC for a Licensee analysis to show that no offsite dose

, limits and personnel exposure limits would be exceeded by allowing ,

the pool to boil with make-up water from only tne Seismic Category 1 Sources, FPL responded that the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 limits for offsite doses would not be exceeded. FPL appeared-to ignore the request for information on personnel exposure limits.

4. In addition, neither the affidavit of Rebecca Carr or 4

-, .,, ,r., . . . . ~ , _ , , + , . , _ , . , _ . , . . - , . . . - - - , - - - , . , . _ - , _ _ , , , _ _ _ . . - - , , - . - - + ~ - . , . , - - - . . >-

4 1

(4)

.r

• or that of Millard Wohl address onsite dose to plant personnel that would result from a spent fuel pool boiling event.

5.

In the NRC Staff Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary disposition, on page 10. the NRC Staff addresses this lack of data "Unlike Contention 3, a basic concern of contention 4 is that.the plant personnel cannot be protected from the radiation releases associated with a spent fuel pool boili ng event.

The Licensee's motion has not addressede,this nor issu is the Staff at present prepared to demonstrate on it

~

s motion that summary disposition of this portion of contention 4 is app ropriate.

Summary.

disposition should be denied with respect to this ect asp of contention 4."

6. In conclusion, Intervenors contend that the Lice? nsee has not met their burden of proof on this contention and that two at least two genuine issues of material f act remain on this contention.

The first having to do with the appropriateness of using Reg. Guide 1.25 to analyze offsite doses , and the second which concerns the lack of data available to prove a th t onsite doses'to workers resulting from a spent fuel pool boili ng event will meet the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 limits. ,

, Respectfully submitted, Mijl hT"W%

Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Rd. #208 Dated: March 19, 1986 Miami, Pl. 33143.

a

+

. - . . - m.__, , _ _ , . , - ___y. , _ . , _ _ . , , , , _ , , , .,__ m ., , ,_,_,,,_,.c__..,,._.,-,#, , , . _ - .m -,,,,7- , . . , ,