ML20207B623

Motion to Grant Summary Disposition of Contention 4 Re Personnel Exposure Based on Encl Statement of Matl Facts Showing No Issue of Matl Fact Re Exposure Portion of Contention.Ml Wohl & Jl Minns Affidavits Encl

ML20207B623
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/14/1986
From:	Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20207B627	List: ML20207B623 ML20207B631 ML20207B641
References
CON-#386-998 OLA-2, NUDOCS 8607180134
Download: ML20207B623 (10)

Text

P

<TC b Julyld',1986 s ED .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATGRY COMMISSION N g 73 P2;;p BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EED ekfh' $N In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-2

)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) ) (SFP Expansion)

NRC STAFF NOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF THE PERSONNEL EXPOSURE PORTION OF CONTENTION 4 I. INTRODUCTION On June 7,1984, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of the issuance of amendments to the facility licenses for the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on the amendments. 49 Fed. Reg. 23712. The amendments allow the expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity. By Order of September 16, 1984, the Licensing Board admitted the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. and Joette Lorion (Intervenors) and seven of their proffered contentions (Contentions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10) .

On January 23, 1986, Florida Power & Light Company (Licensee) filed a motion for summary disposition of each contention raised by Inter-venors accompanied by a statement of material facts as to which it is as-serted there is no genuine issue to be heard and affidavits concerning each contention. The Staff response to the motion supported Licensee's motion for summary disposition of each contention except Contention 4.

NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of 8607180134 860714 A PDR ADOCK 05000250 //

G PDR Ac0/-

JJ

(

Contentions, February 18, 1986. Therein, the Staff stated that it agreed that Licensee's motion had established that there was no genuine issue to be litigated as to Contention 4 with respect to whether the offsite dose guidelines in 10 C.F.R. Part 100 were met. Id. at 9. The Staff noted, however, that plant personnel safety in the event of spent fuel pool boil-ing, an issue which the Staff believed to be raised by the contention, was not addressed by the Licensee and that the Staff was not prepared (at that time) to pursue its own motion for summary disposition of that issue. Id. at 10. For the reasons set forth below and in the attached affidavits, the Staff believes summary disposition of Contention 4 should also be granted concerning the issue of worker exposures. II

11. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that summary disposition of any matter involved in a licensing proceeding shall be granted if the moving papers, together with the other papers filed in the proceeding, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 10 C. F. R.

5 2.749(d). The use of summary disposition has been encouraged by the

-1/ In a filing dated October 15,1985 (Motion to Establish Schedule for Hearings) , the Licensee informed the Board that the parties had agreed to a proposed schedule for this proceeding which provided that motions for summary disposition be filed by January 23, 1986. ,

Because the Board did not adopt the proposed schedule and there is no Board-imposed deadline for sumt.ary disposition in this proceed-ing, the Staff is filing this motion without seeking leave from the Board. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a) .

o Commission and the Appeal Board to avoid unnecessary hearings on con-tentions for which an intervenor has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See, g, e Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981);

Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550-551 (1980); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC.188,194 (1973), aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), aff'd sub nom, BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir.1974).

A material fact is one' that may affect the outcome of the litigation.

Mutual Fund Investors Inc. v. Putnam Management Co., 553 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977) .

When a motion for summary disposition is made and supported by affidavit, a' party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allega-tions or denials of his answer but must set forth specific facts such as would be admissible in evidence that show the existence of a genuine is-sue of material fact. 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(b) . All material facts set forth in the statement of material facts required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of material facts required to be served by the opposing party. 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a). Any answers supporting or opposing a motion for summary disposition must be served within twenty (20) days after service of the motion. Id. If no answer properly showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is filed, the decision sought by the moving party, if properly supported, shall be rendered. 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(b).

l l

B. Summary Disposition of Contention 4 Should be Granted Conterition 4 Contention 4 asserts:

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 sels-mic Category 1 sources.

Contention 4, as admitted by the Licensing Board and in view of the bases provided , alleges that Licensee has not provided a site-specific analysis of a spent fuel boiling event which demonstrates that onsite and offsite exposure limits in 10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 100 will not be exceeded '

because Licensee extrapolated from an analysis done for the Limerick plant. Memorandum and Order of September 16, 1985, at 13. The Li-censee's motion for summary disposition of this contention established that (1) the Turkey Point analysis was not an extrapolation, but was per-formed using a methodology similar to that employed for the Limerick plant and appropriate site-specific and generic assumptions, (2) Part 20 does not contain limits which are applied to doses resulting from acciden-tal onsite releases and (3) the offsite dose guidelines of Part 100 are met.

The Licensee's motion, however, did not address the issue of personnel exposures from spent fuel pool boiling. Consequently, the Staff 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 cer-tain limits. Intervenors also argue in their response to Licensee's motion l for summary disposition that personnel exposures have not been ad-dressed, but insist again that those exposures must meet - Part 100.

l l

l 1

j l

I Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention -4, March 19,1986 (Intervenors Response), at 3-4, 2_/

As indicated in the attached " Affidavit of Millard L. Wohl on the Personnel Exposure Portion of Contention 4" (Wohl Affidavit), Part 100 dose guidelines are for the protection of the public from offsite releases and are not applied to onsite worker exposures. Wohl Affidavit at 13.

Thus, since there is no requirement that personnel exposures meet Part 100, the assertion in Contention 4 that exposures must meet Part 100 is without merit and summary disposition with regard to personnel expo-sures meeting Part 100 exposure limits should be granted as a matter of law.

Even assuming that Intervenors' contention focuses on the broader question of protecting personnel from the releases associated with spent fuel pool boiling, the Wohl Affidavit and the attached " Affidavit of John L. Minns Regarding the Personnel Exposure Portion of Contention 4" (Minns Affidavit) demonstrate that personnel safety can be protected.

The Licensee's emergency procedures, health physics program and radio-activity and water level! temperature monitoring systems are adequate to protect personnel before boiling occurs due to the extended period of time (7.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />) it takes for the pool to commence boiling. Minns Affidavit at i 17. Monitoring systems, including vent radiation monitors, airborne radioactivity and area radiation monitors, and water temperature and level

-2/ Because Intervenors do not argue in their response that 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits should be met , they apparently now concede that Part 20 is not pertinent to accidental releases. See Intervenors Re-sponse at 3-4.

. indicators, provide plant personnel with early warning of abnormal condi-tions and shable the plant's health physics staff to assure minimum radia-tion exposures to workers. Minns Affidavit at 11 5-10. The area radiation monitors are set to alarm when airborne radiation just exceeds normal operating levels and the pool temperature indicators have alarm setpoints activated at 2" from normal pool water level. Also, there is a local pool temperature readout in each pool area, a normal water level level line painted on each pool and a control readout of the water level in each pool. Id. at T 5.

In addition, the Licensee's emergency plan and procedures for re-sponding to abnormal conditions include a radiation protection program which is in accordance with NRC guidance and has onsite exposure and re-entry guidelines which would serve to minimize radiation exposures if there is a loss of pool cooling. M.atif11-14,17. Health physics per-sonnel will take appropriate protective measures, including evacuation, in order to prevent or minimize radiation exposures to personnel and to en-sure personnel safety. M.at1113,16.

Similarly, in the unlikely event that the various radiation and tem-perature monitoring systems and alarms, as well as the visual indicators, fail to alert worker to abnormal pool conditions and the pool were to com-mence boiling, the health physics program, plant monitoring systems and plant emergency procedures are sufficient to protect personnel. M. at TV 14-17; Wohl Affidavit at 11 5-6. The emergency plan has an onsite radiation protection program which is applicable to actions taken l' re-sponse to abnormal conditions including pool boiling and contains person-nel exposure guidelines. The lowest exposure guideline listed therein l

1

p- .

sets forth doses of 5 rem whole body or 25 rem thyroid. If re-entry into the pool area is necessary to manually provide makeup water (either with a hose from a firetruck or other water sources onsite), the Licensee could meet this most stringent exposure guideline either through the use of a single worker, or a number of workers if necessary, to provide makeup water to the spent fuel pools. Wohl Affidavit at 115-6. As the attached statement of material facts shows, there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the personnel exposure portion of Contention 4.

III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and for the reasons set forth in the attached Staff affidavits and statement of material facts, summary disposition of the personnel exposure portion of Contention 4 should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, Mit . Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of July,1986.

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-2

)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4) ) (SFP Expansion)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD 4

1. The dose guidelines in 10 C.F.R. Part 100 address the protec-tion of the public from accidental releases that extend offsite and are not applied to onsite worker exposures. Affidavit of Millard L. Wohl on the Personnel Exposure Portion of Contention 4, July 14, 1986 (Wohl Affida-vit), at i 3.

2. The Licensee's emergency procedures, health physics program and systems that monitor radioactivity, pool water level and pool water.

temperature can adequately alert and protect onsite plant personnel before boiling occurs because of the extended time (7.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />) it takes for the pool to commence boiling. Affidavit of John L. Minns Regarding Person-nel Exposure Portion of Contention 4 July 14,1986 (Minns Affidavit), at i 14.

3. The Turkey Point monitoring systems that can alert workers to a loss of spent fuel cooling are the pool temperature indicators which have an alarm setpoint of 1250F; the pool water level indicators with alarm setpoints activated at 2" from normal water level, a local pool

i .

4 . ,

temperature readout in each pool area, a normal water level line painted ,

on each po61, and a control room readout of the water level in each pool.

Minns Affidavit at 15.  !

I

4. Area radiation monitoring systems monitor radiation levels in ar-l eas where personnel ~ are present, alarm locally and in the control room when radiation levels exceed normal operating levels to warn of increasing i

i radiation levels to assure prompt evacuation, and provide a continuous 1

record of radiation levels in the spent fuel pool area. Id. at 11 7-8. In I

addition, the Unit 3 spent fuel pool building vent monitor and the plant's l vent monitoring -system (which includes the Unit 4 pool building output),

! via the control room operators, can alert workers to abnormal radiation ,

levels in the pool buildings. M. at i 6.

l 5. Licensee has state-of-the-art monitoring systems and portable l j radiation detection equipment which enable the plant's health physics per-

! sonnel to continuously evaluate and review the radiological status of the 4

l plant. Id. at 11 9-10. In emergency conditions, the health physics per- l l

sonnel will take immediate action including evacuation, if necessary, to l

j ensure personnel safety, based on the radiological hazard posed. Id.

i j at i 13, 16.

9 l 6. The emergency plan for Turkey Point includes a program for I

i radiological exposure control to minimize radiation exposure to individuals i

- both onsite and offsite during emergency conditions. The program in-cludes guidelines which contain limits for emergency workers ranging from I

l a 5-75 rem whole body dose depending on the need for the emergency action and a 25-125 rem thyroid dose which may be exceeded for lifesav-

! ing actions. M.at1111-12.

1 I

l

7. The emergency plan also has guidelines concerning re-entry into an evacuated area by emergency teams to perform a variety of activities, including operations which may mitigate the effect of the emergency or hazardous condition. These guidelines will aid in the protection of work-ers from unnecessary exposures if workers have to re-enter the pool ar-eas after evacuation in order to manually provide makeup water, d. at 1514-15.

8. The Licensee's onsite plant emergency plan and procedures, health physics program, and plant monitoring systems are sufficient to protect onsite personnel even if spent fuel pool boiling occurs and re-en-try into the pool area is necessary to manually provide makeup water.

Id. at 1 14. If boiling occurs, makeup water could be provided to the pool without exceeding the lowest exposure guideline in Licensee's radia-tion control program for actions taken in response to abnormal conditions or emergencies either by a single individual or by using multiple workers, i

if necesary, to perform the necessary actions. Wohl Affidavit at 115-7.

i

+

.i w -

,- -- - - - - - -