ML20205C508
| ML20205C508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1986 |
| From: | Edgar G FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-283 0LA-2, NUDOCS 8608120341 | |
| Download: ML20205C508 (9) | |
Text
_
Ria DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 gg _g p4 g4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Wha UF SEut rAny 00CMETINU 4 SEPVicr' BRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
50-251 OLA-2
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)
Units 3 & 4)
)
)
i LICENSEE'S ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF THE PERSONNEL EXPOSURE PORTION OF CONTENTION 4 On July 14, 1986 the NRC Staff submitted "NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Personnel Exposure Portion of Contention 4" (hereinafter " Staff's Motion").
Florida Power
& Light Company (FP&L or Licensee) hereby submits its answer in support of Staff's Motion.
I.
Background
contention 4 and the basis for the contention state as follows:
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 personal [ sic] exposure limits will not be exceeded in allowing the pool to boil with makeup water from only seismic category 1 sources.
hggeijDgg{$$o$
0 Q
Z) Sol Bases for Contention FPL used calculation [ sic) 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 differ-ences between the two plants which could be critical.
For example, the saturation noble gas and iodina inventories could be greater for the Turkey Point plant as a result of fuel failure cnd increased enrichment; more than 1% of the fuel rods may be deffec-tive [ sic) at Turkey Point because of the
[ sic] fuel failure; and the gap activity asme of noble gases, such as krypton 85, and fis-sion products, such as radioactive iodine may also be greater for Turkey Point.
The Licensing Board accepted Contention 4 "provided that personnel and offsite dose limits are specified as those in Parts 20 and 100 and litigation is limited to the factual basis provided."
Memorandum and order of September 16, 1985 at 13 (emphasis added).
On January 23, 1986, Licensee filed " Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions" (hereinafter
" Licensee's Motion") requesting summary disposition of each conten-tion admitted in this proceeding, including Contention 4.
Licensee's Motion explained that onsite dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 are not applicable to accident conditions and that the offsite dose guidelines in Part 100 are the appropriate criteria for determin-ing the acceptability of radiological doses resulting from postu-lated accident conditions.
Licensee's Motion, p. 13 n. 12.
Licensee's Motion also demonstrated that the Licensee had performed a plant-specific spent fuel pool boiling analysis and that the offsite doses calculated in this analysis were a small fraction of the applicable guidelines in Part 100.
Id., pp. 13-17.
On February 18, 1986, the NRC Staff filed "NRC Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions" (here-inafter " Staff Response").
The Staff Response supported summary disposition of each contention, except for one aspect of Conten-tion 4.
With respect to Contention 4, the Staff agreed that there was no genuine issue that doses from a spent fuel pool boiling accident would meet Part 100 guidelines.
Staff Response, pp. 8-10.
However, because the Licensee's Motion did not address protection of plant personnel from radiation releases during such an accident, and because the Staff was not then " prepared to demonstrate on its own Motion that Summary Disposition of this portion of Contention 4 is appropriate," the Staff asserted that "[s]ummary disposition should be denied with respect to this aspect of Contention 4."
Id,.,
- p. 10.
On March 19, 1986, the Intervenors filed separate responses to the Licensee's Motion on each contention.
Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention 4 (hereinafter "Intervenors' Response") concluded that summary disposition of Contention 4 should be denied because it did not " prove that onsite doses to workers resulting from a spent fuel pool boiling event will meet the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 limits."
Intervenors' Response, p.
- 4. 1/
On July 14, 1986, the NRC Staff filed NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Personnel Exposure Portion of 1/
Intervenor's Response also stated that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the appropriateness of using Regulatory Guide 1.25.
l l
l l
Contention 4.
The Staff explained that the Staff initially opposed summary disposition of Contention 4 "because the Staff believed that the contention, in essence, raised an issue concerning the general safety and protection of onsite personnel from exposures associated with spent fuel pool boiling, and not just whether personnel exposures would exceed certain limits."
Staff Motion, p.
4.
However, as the Staff stated, Intervenors' Response "in-sist[ed] again that those exposures must meet Part 100."
Id.
The Staff noted that Part 100 dose guidelines "are not applied to onsite worker exposures" and therefore Intervenors' " assertion in Contention 4 that exposures must meet Part 100 is without merit and summary disposition with regard to personnel exposures meeting Part 100 exposure limits should be granted as a matter of law."
Id., p. 5.
The Staff further demonstrated that, "[e]ven assuming that Intervenors' contention focuses on the broader question of protecting personnel from the releases associated with spent fuel pool boiling," personnel can be adequately protected.
II.
Discussion Contention 4 and its basis focus on dose limits.
Neither the Contention nor its basis mentions the broader matter of radio-logical protection of workers. 2/
Accordingly, since the Licensing 2/
Despite its clear language, the Staff initially construed Contention 4 as encompassing protection of workers and, as a result, opposed summary disposition of Contention 4.
Even after the Staff's Response was filed, the Intervenors merely asserted that FPL's motion for summary disposition of Contention 4 had not proven that onsite doses to workers would not exceed Part 100 limits and did not raise any issue i
l
. Board limited Contention 4 to its factual basis, protection of workers is not encompassed within the scope of Contention 4, and the only issue with respect to Contention 4 is whether applic-able dose limits will be satisfied.
The Licensee's Motion and the Staff's Motion demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Licensee is entitled to a decision as a matter of law on the question of whether the dose limits in Parts 20 and 100 will be exceeded during a spent fuel pool boiling accident.
Both the Licensee and the Staff have demonstrated that the dose limits in Part 20 (which include dose limits for onsite personnel) are not applic-able to accident conditions such as the spent fuel pool boiling accident.
See Licensee's Motion, pp. 9-10 n. 6 and p. 13 n. 2; Staff Response, Affidavit of Millard L. Wohl on Contention 4,
- p. 2; Staff Motion, p.
4.
The Staff's Motion, p. 5, explains that the dose guidelines in Part 100 (which apply to accident conditions) do not contain any requirements regarding onsite personnel exposures.
Additionally, the Licensee's Motion, pp. 13-17, demonstrates that the offsite dose guidelines in Part 100 are satisfied during a spent fuel pool accident.
Therefore, to the extent that Contention 4 pertains to offsite dose limits, the Licensee's Motion and the Staff's Motion demonstrate that (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED) regarding the broader quistion of protection of workers.
Intervenors' Response, p 4.
Based upon this response, the Staff has apparently reconsidered its previous interpretation of Contention 4 and now concludes that Contention 4 does not address protection of workers.
See Staff Motion, pp.
4-5.
If the Intervenors' now seek to raise an issue regarding protection of workers, they must satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714(a)(1) for untimely contentions.
y
~w Part 20 is not applicable and that the Part 100 guidelines are satisfied; to the extent that Contention 4 pertains to onsite dose limits, the Licensee's Motion and the Staff's Motion demon-strate that neither Part 20 nor Part 100 is applicable.
Conse-quently, summary disposition of Contention 4 is appropriate.
The Staff's Motion also demonstrates that onsite personnel will be adequately protected in the event of a spent fuel pool boiling accident.
As is discussed above, the Board need not (and should not) address this matter since it is outside the scope of Contention 4. 3/
Nevertheless, if the Board decides to the contrary, the Licensee concurs in the Staff's " Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be 3/
I.t should be noted that issues pertaining to protection of workers during accidents are not cognizable by a licensing board in an adjudicatory proceeding.
The Commission is currently considering a proposed rule regarding " Standards of a Protection Against Radiation", 50 Fed. Reg. 51992 (Dec.
20, 1985), which specifically deals with protection of workers during emergency and accident conditions (the Commission is considering whether to require, as part of the licensing process, licensees to develop contingency plans for accident and emergency conditions).
See 50 Fed. Reg. at 52010 and 52028 (proposed 10 CFR S 20.9).
As the Appeal Board has noted "[L]icensing Boards should not accept in individual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about-to become) the subject of general rule making by the Commission."
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974); Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655, 14 NRC 799, 816 (1981).
Thus, even if Intervenors had raised this issue, the Licensing Board would not have the authority to consider it in this proceeding.
Heard" and submits that this Statement and the acompanying affida-i vits form a sufficient basis for summary disposition of this matter. 4/
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Licensee submits that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding any issue in Conten-tion 4 and that the Licensee is entitled to a deci-ion in its favor as a m'atter of law.
In February, the NRC Staff was not then " prepared to demonstrate on its own Motion that Summary Disposition of a portion of Contention 4 was appropriate.
The Staff has now demonstrated, by its Motion, which Licensee fully supports, that Licensee is entitled to a decision in its favor as to all aspects of Contention 4.
Accordingly, both the Licensee's Motion and the NRC Staff's Motion for summary disposition of Contention 4 should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, MW DATED:
August 8, 1986 Beor(p/L. Edgar
Harold F. Reis CO-COUNSEL Steven P.
Frantz Norman A.
Coll Steel Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Center 1615 L Street, N.W.
Miami, FL 33131-2398 Washington, D.C.
20036 (305) 577-2800 (202) 955-6600 4/
Although not material to the Staff's Motion, the Licensee would like to clarify a statement in the Affidavit of John L.
Minns Regarding The Personnel Exposure Portion Of Contention 4, 5 5.
The spent fuel pools do not now have a normal water level line painted on the pools.
l 00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~0 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFICE OF SECFt lAit y 00CMETWG & SERVICE BRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
50-251 OLA-2
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)
Units 3 & 4)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Licensee's Answer In Support Of Motion For Summary Disposition Of The Personnel Exposure Portion Of Contention 4 in the above captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.
Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Original plus two copies)
Joette Lorion 7269 SW 54 Avenue Miami, FL 33143 Mitzi A. Young Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Norman A. Coll Steel, Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2398 Geordf( L.
Edgar L/
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, C.C.
20036 Dated:
August 8, 1986