ML20151C580
| ML20151C580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1988 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6762 ALAB-897, LBP-88-12, OLA, NUDOCS 8807220044 | |
| Download: ML20151C580 (4) | |
Text
_
T f//,Z,i 03(,KE TED -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL-PANEL Administrative Judgest OFF!CE N i w D !
00CKLI A A W ICL 0
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman July 18, 1988 Thomas S. Moore (ALAB-897)
Howard A. Wilber SERVED JUL 191988
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-352-OLA
)
(TS Iodine)
(Limerick Generating Station, )
Unit 1)
)
)
DECISION Before us is the Licensing Boart's May 5, 1988 memorandum and order, authorizing the ipsuance of a proposed amendment to the technical specifications for the Limerick nuclear facility.1 The intervenor Air and Water Pollution Patrol ( AWPP) attempted to appeal that order.
Because of the failure of AWPP's representative to comply with governing provisions of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the Appeal Panel Chairman rejected the appeal.2 No other appeals having been filed, this Board has reviewed the Licensing Board's determination sua sponte.
That review has disclosed no error requiring corrective action.
I See LBP-88-12, 27 NRC 2 See June 15, 1988 order (unpublished).
The June 15 order noted that this failure continued even after AWPP's (Footnote Continued) 8807220044 000710 PDR ADOCK 05000352 C
'yf
\\
a 2
Insofar as challenged by the intervenors,3 the technical specification amendment in question is concerned with certain of the actions to be taken in the event of a temporary increase in the concentration of radioactive iodine in the reactor coolant.
This phenomenon, referred to as an "iodine spike," is occasioned by such developments as a change in the power level of the reactor that, because of fuel cladding defects, may cause the transitory release of additional radioactive iodine from the fuel rods.
The amendment would remove certain existing reporting requirements in the wake of an iodine spike.
In seeking the removal of these requirements, the utility applicant was following the suggestion of the NRC staff.
In a generic letter sent several years ago to all nuclear facility licensees and applicants, the staff had expressed the view that the reporting requirements were no longer necessary.
(Footnote Continued) representative received specific guidance from the Appeal Panel counsel respecting whtt need be done to perfect the appeal.
3 In addition to the Air and Water Pollution Patrol, Robert L. Anthony was granted leave to intervene in the proceeding.
Mr. Anthony did not endeavor to appeal from the Licensing Board's May 5 order.
- See Generic Letter No. 85-19 (September 27, 1985),
signed by Hugh L. Thompson, then Director of the Division of Licensing in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The l
letter was attached to the Licensee's Answer in Opposition l
to Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene by Air and Water Pollution Patrol (May 20, 1987).
l L
i
\\
3 The Licensing Board granted the applicant's motion for summary disposition of the intervenors' consolidated contention to the effect that the proposed amendment would "downgrade" reporting requirements for iodine spikes to the detriment of the public health and safety.5 In doing so, the Board concurred in the staff's conclusion that other reporting requirements, not affected by the proposed amendment, would ensure that the Commission is kept appropriately informed of iodine spike events having possible implications for the public health and safety.6 We agree with the Licensing Board's disposition of the issue.
The short of the matter is that nothing was put before the Board that raised a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the need to continue the specific reporting requirements that the technical specification amendment would eliminate.
The affidavits submitted in connection with the applicant's summary disposition motion and the staff's filing in support of that motion l
l 5 LBP-88-12, 27 NRC at (slip opinion at 3, 21).
6 Id. at (slip opinion at 20-21).
As the staff observe 3 in a Federal Register notice published on March 12, 1987 (see 52 Fed. Reg. 7675, 7692), these other reporting requirements are found in 10 CFR 50.72 (b) (1) (i),
50.72 (b) (1) (ii), and 50.73 (a) (2) (i).
In addition, the information regarding iodine spikes that formerly was to be contained in a special 30-day report must, as the result of the technical specification amendment, now be included in the utility's annual report to the NRC.
l
,... d- -
4 demonstrated that the retained reporting requirements will suffice.
That demonstration was not countered to any extent by the intervenors.
For the foregoing reasons, LBP-88-12, 27 NRC
, is affirmed.
It is so ORDERED.
TOR THE APPEAL BOARD C,
-=)b=wk C. Je(n SKoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board I
1
_.__.,_,.__.,,,_,._,,_m._
_....., _,... _