ML20235W178
| ML20235W178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1987 |
| From: | Cole R, Morris P, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Anthony R AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL, ANTHONY, R.L. |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4593 87-550-03-LA, 87-550-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8710160034 | |
| Download: ML20235W178 (9) | |
Text
._
y WN SERVEb OCT 131981 i
e SGCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND~ LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges
[g@@)[Qyy A
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris i
In' the Matter of Docket No. 50-352-OLA (TSIodine)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 87-550-03-LA)
(Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
October 9, 1987
_)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling On Contentions)
I.
BACKGROUND n
The 10 C.F.R. 92.751a special prehearing conference was held on September 29, 1987, pursuant to this Board's Memorandum and Order of 4
July 28, 1987 and its Notice of Hearing of the same date.
In those two issuances, the Board had provisionally granted the two petitions for 1
leave to intervene and provisionally ordered a hearing. The Licensee's i
proposed amendment seeks to change the reporting requirements of its technical specification with respect to iodine spiking. The Licensee applied for this amendment on August 19, 1986, and the Comission published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 12, 1987 (52 Fed.
Reg. 7691).
8710160034 871009 DR ADOCK 050 2
e MIT!
JE C Od(iP8 BE 0% Ef T30 V8
-o.
I Ull. Special Prehearing Conference Proceeding Mr. Anthony orally moved that the NRC withdraw generic letter No.
85-19 dated September 27, 1985, wherein the request had been made that licensees apply for technical specification amendments to change the reporting requirements for iodine spiking, and that the instant licensee should withdraw its requested amendment. The Board denied the motion as being premature since the petitioner had no party status at that time.
(Tr. 6).
The Board stated that, having read the Petitioners' submissions and those of the Licensee and the Staff, the Board agreed with the Licensee and the Staff that the Petitioners at length had set forth only their generalized concerns about iodine releases, but had not particularized their contentions and had not set forth the technical or scientific bases for the contentions with reasonable specificity. The Board stated that the Petitioners now had the opportunity to specifically detail what their contentions were and to set forth with reasonable specificity the support of technical and scientific bases.
(Tr. 7-8).
Citing Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1
Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521, 524-25 (1979), the Board denied I
Attendees were: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. and Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq., counsel for the Licensee; Ben Vogler, Esq. and Robert M.
Weisman, Esq., counsel for the NRC Staff; Robert L. Anthony, pro se; and Frank R. Romano, representing Air and Water Pollution Control (AWPP).
i
' l 1
Licensee's' objection-to allowing Petitioners to have another opportunity to comply with 10 C.F.R. 92.714..(Tr.9-10).
In.that case, the Appeal j
l Board held that the proponent of previously filed contentions must be q
l afforded an opportunity to present oral argument in support thereof.
]
J' The Board proceeded to hear the arguments of the two petitioners and responses by the Licensee and the Staff.
(Tr. 10-85). The Staff advised that, as a policy matter, it would not issue a. final no i
significant hazards consideration determination until after the hearing, 1
if one is held, and after the Board's decision.
(Tr. 5, 64-68). At the conclusion of the conference, the Board stated that, after reviewing the submissions and.the transcript, it would issue a memorandum and order which would (a) memorialize what occurred during the conference, (b) rule on the admissibility of contentions, and (c) would schedule other actions to be taken if any contentions were admitted.
(Tr. 86).
III.
Ruling On Admissibility of Contentions i
The Board has had extreme difficulty in discerning whether in fact ithe Petitioners had proposed a contention and/or whether there was a basis set forth with reasonable specificity.
Rather than complying with
$2.714 which requires that "the petitioner shall file a supplement to his petition which must include a list of the contentions...and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity", each
1
_4 Petitioner's supplement referenced arguments advanced in earlier submissions.
Further, not only were the earlier submissions and the supplements unfocused, the Petitioners' oral presentations during the course of the special prehearing conference were unfocused as well.
A.
Mr. Anthony Apparently Mr. Anthony asserted that the amendment would downgrade the reporting requirements for iodine spikes in not only eliminating
\\
special reports but licensee event reports as well, and thus would increase the threat to the public health and safety. He noted, on the one hand, that the Commission's Notice of Opportunity states that "The immediate notification and reporting requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.72 and 50.73 will provide the NRC with adequate notification of and information on an increase in coolant activity which is indicative of significant fuel degradation". He noted, on the other hand, that the Notice reflects that the Staff's generic letter No. 85-19 stated that "the NRC Staff had determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking could be changed from a short term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report."
(Response of 7/2/87 at page 1; Tr. 16, 85). Relying upon this seeming conflict or ambiguity, Mr. Anthony argued that the proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for licensee event reports. Apparently,
2 See AWPP supplement dated August 21 and Mr. Anthony's supplement of
, August 26, 1987.
)
a:
J i he also contended that the-proposed amendment, in eliminating special reports, would increase the threat to public health and safety. This
-contention, as consolidated with a'somewhat similar contention advanced
'by AWPP and as reworded in the~ Order, infra, is admitted as an issue in controversy in meeting the requirements of 92.714.
' However, the remainder of Mr. Anthony's assertions and arguments do not meet $2.714 requirements. He alleged that any releases of radioactive iodine from Limerick, when added to the Chernobyl releases or to those from any accident in the world or to normal releases from other plants, would present a cumulative threat to public health and safety.
(Response of 7/2/87 at pages 1 and 2). Obviously, such an allegation has no nexus to any matter within the scope of the amendment under consideration.
Further, he alleged that, having no faith in the Licensee's management and personnel because of certain deficiencies or violations which have occurred at the Licensee's Peach Bottom and Limerick Plants, he was concerned that iodine spikes would be ignored and unreported.
(Response of 7/2/87 at pages 1, 2; Supplement of 8/26/87 at p. 1; Tr. 12, 13). Such allegation has no nexus to the requested amendment, a% the short answer is that, if Mr. Anthony is aware of any operational violations at Limerick, he should proceed via I
52.206 to request a proceeding to modify, suspend or revoke the operating license.
Finally, Mr. Anthony asserted that the limits on routine releases of radioactive gases at the plant boundaries have been l
set'too high, and thus that the calculation of dosages at the plant
]
l boundaries, rather than at the closer river and railroad, was improper.
L________--__
i 1 (Supplement of August 26, 1987 at pages 1, 2; Tr. 17-19). A similar assertion had been made by Mr. Anthony in his motion to reopen the record in the operating license proceeding.
In ALAB-828, 23 NRC 13 (1986), the Appeal Board denied the motion because Mr. Anthony had failed to establish.the safety significance of the new matter sought to be raised. Thus, litigation of this proposed contention is barred by res judicata.
B.
AWPP In an argument somewhat similar to that of Mr. Anthony, apparently relying on the generic letter No. 85-19, AWPP asserted that, because the proposed amendment would either eliminate or decrease reporting via LERs and would require only an annual report, a high, unexpected iodine release could exceed the one-time limit and, being unreported except on a yearly basis, would have an adverse safety and health impact on the uninformed public which would not flee the area.3 (Answer of July 5, 1987 at pages 2, 3; Supplement of August 21, 1987 at page 1; Tr. 36, 56, 73-74). While the Licensee and the Staff argued that the proposed amendment does not change the requirements for submitting licensee event 1
reports and, while the Licensee argued that the Staff's generic letter has no legal significance (Tr. 59, 61, 63; Staff's Response of September l
16, 1987, at page 8), it is not the function of a licensing board to j
3 Apparently, unlike Mr. Anthony, AWPP only contends that the amendment would downgrade the reporting requirements for iodine spikes because it eliminates licensee event reports.
?
4 reach'the merits of any contention at this stage of the proceeding.
Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). This contention, as consolidated with the.somewhat similar contention advanced by Mr. Anthony and as reworded in the Order, infra, is admitted as' an issue in meeting the requirements of-62.714.
Basically, many of AWPP's assertions and arguments tracked those of Mr. Anthony and thus AWPP's alleged contentions are similarly rejected.
l In addition, AWPP urged that Licensee has not evidenced that it has tested the effect of increased radon and gross alpha, together with increased iodine spikes (Answer of July 5,1987, at page 4; Tr. 45).
Obviously, such a contention does not pertain to natters within the.
scope of the amendment under consideration and is rejected.
- Further, AWPP questioned (a) the sufficiency of the use of potassium iodide as an antidote for radioactive iodine, (b) the Licensee's position on the effect.of protein bound-iodine when the iodine is radioactive, and (c)
[the amount] of radioactive iodine in the body during its total decay time.
(Supplement of August 21, 1987, at page 3).
Even if we were to deem such wordage as being a contention, no bases were presented with reasonable specificity and, contrary to the Commission's Notice of Hearing, the matters raised were not within the scope of the amendment under consideration. Accordingly, the alleged contention is rejected.
Finally, during the special prehearing conference, for the first time AWPP contended that the Staff had neither performed any research nor 1
gave a basis for its conclusion in the proposed no significant hazards
{
1
)
i L........
l
f
(
I ;
1 I
consideration detennination that "The elimination of the cumulative 800-hour operating time limit in a 12-month period is based on consideration of improvements in the quality of nuclear fuel...."
(Tr.
j i
76-77). Contrary to 62.714, AWPP did not timely present this contention
]
and gave no reasons why the five factors should'be so balanced as to i
allow the untimely presentation. Accordingly, the contention is rejected.
ORDER 1.
Two somewhat similar contentions asserted by Mr. Anthony and AWPP are consolidated, and as reworded, the following contention is admitted as an issue in controversy:
Consolidated Contention. The proposed amendment to the Licensee's technical specifications would downgrade reporting l
requirements for iodine spikes which would have an adverse J
effect en public health and safety.
Bases, The change in the reporting requirements would i
eliminate or decrease Special Reports and Licensee Event Reports on iodine spiking, and thus would decrease the regulatory control exercised by the NRC, would pennit a situation where Licensee could release radioactive iodine in excess of the one-time release limits, and, in not requiring the reporting of such releases, except on an annual basis, l
would endanger the health and safety of the uninformed public.
l 1
2.
Mr. Anthony and AWPP are admitted as parties.
-____________________D
e--
i (o
l q.
o
-l i '
3.
The parties shall have until November 16, 1987 within which to initiate and conclude discovery, if any.
4.
Each party shall notify the Board in a letter whether
'I discovery will be conducted and whether.the party will file a motion for sumary disposition. Each letter shall be served, by personal delivery or express mail, in order that the Board and the other parties will receive the letter on or before October 21, 1987. Depending upon the contents of the letters, in a subsequent Order, the Board will set forth the due dates for the filing of summary disposition motions and answers, or will schedule a hearing.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD bdmNO Sheldon J. KoX fe, Ct airman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M
Dr. Peter A. Morris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
\\
Di'. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of October, 1987.
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _