ML20140D633
| ML20140D633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1986 |
| From: | Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, LORION, J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-531 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8603260395 | |
| Download: ML20140D633 (3) | |
Text
4
]f March 19, 1986 s
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/'
N
/
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/'
s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINo-BOARD
,(
In the Matter'of
)
Docket Nos."50-250-OLA-2
)
(.50-251-OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
s).j)
, 1 ; g,-
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) )
INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 3 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 sommary disposition, 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.
Acain under both NRC and Federal Rules, "the record is to ce reviewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion."
Dairvland Power Coooerative, 16 NRC 512, 519 (l'382) citing: Poller v.
Columbia Broadcastine 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 Allecheny Electric Cc-ocerative Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP 81-8,'13 NRC 335, 337 (1981); Seabrook, L3P-74-36, suora, 6 NRC, suora, 7 AEC at 879.
" Because the proponent of a motion for summary disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of 8603260395 860319
( }O PDR ADOCK 05000250 s_
g PDR
( 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 Comoanv and North Carolina Eastern Municinal 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."
Pennsv1vania Power and Licht Comoanv 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 3 The purpose of this response is to address Intervenors' Contention 3 which states:
CONTENTION 3:
That the calculation of radiological consequences resulting from a cask drop accident are not conservative, and the radiation releases in such an accident will not be ALARA, and will not meet with 10 C.F.R. Part 100 criteria.
BASES FOR CONTENTION:
The Florida Power and Light Company did not comply with the conservative assumption for a cask drop accident specified in the Standard Review Plan 15.7.5 and Regulatory Guide 1.25 (5), in that they used a radial peaking factor, rather than a 1.65 factor.
Thus, the potential offsite dose using the more conservative calculations Part 100 could cause FPL to exceed the 10 C.F.R.
criterion.
-t.
( 3) 1, Intervenors main concern in this contention is the fact 4
that.the Licensee did not use the 1.65 value recommended in
{
Regulatory Guide 1.25 for analyzing a spent fuel handling accident.
- 2. Both the Licensee and the Staff have used less conservative-
' figures, 1.0 and 1.2 respectively to calculate the consequences of a cask drop accident.
i.
- 3. Regulatory Guide 1. 25, Section C 1. e.
states that the minimum acceptable peaking factor for a PWR such as Turkey 4
Point is 1.65.
Intervenors continue to contend that the use of 1.0 radial peaking factor for Turkey Point is improper and nonconservative and that the radiation releases in an accident cculd exceed the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 criterion.
4.
Because FPL has not met their burden of-proof on this l
Contention 3, their motion for summary disposition of this contention must fail.
Respectfully submitted, i
M gh hb Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red rd #208 Miami, Fl. 33143 (305) 661-2165 Dated: March 19, 1986 F
,, ~.. - - _. -.. _ ~, -......
__,__....s,
... _. _ _ _ =. _.... _... - - _, -. _. _. _.. _ -. _. -.. -. - - - - _....