ML20140D558

Response Opposing Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Ctr for Nuclear Responsibility Contention 7 Re Spent Fuel Pool Expansion.Licensee Has Not Proven ALARA Estimated Calculated Dose of 59 Person/Rem for Rerack

ML20140D558
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-#186-527 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8603260346
Download: ML20140D558 (6)

Text

,

's j '} March 19, 1986 a yb ~k g '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,22' 7

' "~

c .

, ',/

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD', c

\.

s

/

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.'50-250-OLA ,2-

) 50-251-OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )

) (Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 7 I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Under both the Commission's and Federal Court Rules of Practice, "the burden of proof lies upon the movant-for summary disposition, who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact."

Adickes v. Kress and Co., 398, U.S. 144, 157, Perry ALAS-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) citing: Poller v. Columbia Broadcastine System 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, l'963); Pennsylvania Power

& Licht Co. and Allechenv Electric Co-ocerative Inc. (Suscuehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) LEP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1981); Seabrook, LEP-74-36, suora, 6 NRC, suora, 7 AEC at 879.

" Because the proponent of a motion f or summary disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of 9603260346 B60319 ]f)}6 );

PDR ADOCK 05000250 g PDR

.\

4.

( 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 t

& Licht Companv and North Carolina Eastern Municioal Power Acency (Shearon Harris Nuclear 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." Pennsv~lvania 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 I

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 7 The purpose of this response is to address Intervenors'

. Contention 7 which states: .

CONTENTION 7: That there is no assurance that the health and safety of- the workers will be protected during spent fuel pool expansion, and that the NRC estimates of between i 80-130 person-rem will meet ALARA requirements, in particular those in 10 C.F.R. Part 20.

BASES FOR CONTENTION: FPL's estimates of between 80-130 person / rem are much higher than the NRC's estimate for reracking of 40-50 person / rem, and much higher than exper-ience at other nuclear plants. Thus, their estimates are

, not ALARA.

rym sgw vvr y ever-wW* P* y-*ng m g*, _ - eew %

[t

( 3 )

1. This contention is concerned that the dose received

'by workers in the reracking of the spent fuel pool will.not'be as low as reasonably achievable or ALARA. Intervenors base their concern on'the fact that the Licensee's projections for 1

r collective worker dose of 59 rem per unit is higher than experience I

at other plants who have reracked their spent fuel pools, and

. on NRC information that shows performance in the spent fuel pool area and in radiological contro1s is declining.

~

4 Intervenors .

also-base this contention on the fact that certain systems that '

{

FPL said would be operable during rerack and would help them meet-ALARA are not operational during the process.  !

2. While part 20 of the Commission's regulations does not

)

impose quantitative limits on collective radiation dose exposures, i Section 20.1 (c) provides, in pertinent part that persons engaged in activities under licenses issued by.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should in addition to complying witn requirements of Part 20, make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures...as low as reasonably achievable. The term i "as low as reasonably achievable"'means as low as is reasonably achievable taking into account the state of 3

technology,~and the economics of improvements in relation

+ to benefits to the'public health and safety, and other j societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in-relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public

! interest. Minns affidavit, page 2.

3. It is clear that FPL's dose estimate of 59 person / rem p

L does not meet ALARA. This dose is much higher than other plants.

For instance, in SAI Report No. SAI-84-221-WA-Rev. 1, Review 4

and Evaluation of Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Potential Hazards ,

Consideration,.page 12, they state that typical occupational i

4 1

~w,m-*%~ . rm - ---+-+-e,.---nnee-w , n p.,w..g,-,g.,qm.p.~- -w-,-cv..e,,r-m m - w .u-arv ,-w-,,. -4.,-. .w,mm.n w-,-,+-m.--,n,,,.en n-..- ..m.-ng e ,-v--

\

' '( 4 )

i exposure for rerack is 15-40 man / rem.

In addition in a letter from NRC to FPL dated August 22, 1984, the NRC told-FPL that their original dose of 130 person / rem was much greater than other

. plants.

"Similar operations performed by other Licensees during t

i their SFP modifications have shown a much lower collective dose +

equivalent.for this operation (e.g. 25 person / rem for two units).

4. ,

Intervenors are aware that FPL has stated that they have completed the rerack of Unit 3 with a 13.2 person / rem collective dose. Intervenors are not prepared to accept this assertion based on the brief charts and mrm/hr dose estimates.

in the Danek affidavit. Intervenors also wish to point out that an NRC Staff health physicist has not examined this data and that acceptance of this figure in the affidavit of Minns of the NRC Staff was based on second hand information from the resident -

1 NRC it.spector who is not a health physicist.

i For the purpose of this response, e

Intervenors will continue to rely on the 59~ person /

rem estimate because there is not enoagh information, independently verified, to accept the FPL 13.2 figure.

5.

Intervenors continue to insist that the memorandum dated March 15, 1986, from P.

Bemis to H. Thompson in which Regior. II i

. expressed concern-that the clean-up and leakage detection systems would not be operational during rerack, which was stated by FPL as reasons that the worker dose would be ALARA, indicates that the dose the workers receive will be higher than originally anticipated.

6.

i Intervenors are also concerned that a report issued on February 5, 1985, t

" Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance",

l

-,r, * , , ..-,v.,. .n. . - - , ~ ~ , , - - - , , . , . , , - , , - - , , , , , - - . - , , , , , , ~ - - , ,

---.-v,--r-,,,-,,-,---rw--,, - - - , - - - - - ,

\

( 5 )

July 1, 1993 through October 31, 1984, points out that Licensee performance in the areas of radiological controls and in spent fuel pool activities has declined. On page 21 of that report it states, " Spent fuel rerack safety analysis submittals for a license amendment assumed operability'of the systems described in the submittals and the FSAR. However, many of the systems assumed to be operable required refurbishment and maintenance schedules had not oeen determined."

7. A third report, Inspection Report 50-250/85-23 and 50-251/85-23, dated August 14, 1985, point to other areas of concern outlined in a section entitled Inadequate SAR Review:

(b)"FSAR sections 9.3, 9.5 and 11.2 state that temperature, level and radiation indicators in the control room will be monitored to warn of malfunctions (SFP), ~the level floats have stuck in the normal level position causing level alarm in the control to be inoperable.. The temperature' alarms were such that, with higher than normal temperatures caused by operating.the sytems as described above, they were continually alraming and provided no meaningful indication, and radiation detectors have recuired larce amounts of maintenance and are not reliable". pg 5. Ernhasis sueelled.

(c)" FSAR sections 9.5 and 11.2 state assumptions for radiation levels and shielding for minimizing radiation exposures and spread of contamination. However, increased activity in the SFP building and in the water has made radiation readings at the surface nominally 100 millirem per hour with readings of 10 mrm/hr at five feet above the surface... SFP water levels have not been maintained per the analysis for opersonal shielding." page 5.

8. Because Licensee performance in the area of spent fuel pool performance has declined and because Licensee's estimated

s

( 6 )

^~

ALARA dose estimate is based on equipment that will not be operational and is higher than dose rates experienced in other reracks, Intervenors contend that Licensee should not be allowed to rerack unit 4 until they have proven that the radiation dose to' workers will be ALARA and within 10 C.F.R. Part 20 criterion.

Thus, for all the above reasons-Intervenors contend that the Licensee's motion for summary disposition of contention 7 must fail because they have not proven that the estimated calculated dose of 59 person / rem for rerack is ALARA.

Respectfully submitted, e- ,  : .

yLW Q %-v Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Rd. #208 Miami, F1. 33143 March 19, 1986

.