ML20236T178
| ML20236T178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1987 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236T163 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-85-19, OLA, NUDOCS 8712010059 | |
| Download: ML20236T178 (21) | |
Text
. _ - - - _ -.
J 4
]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket No. 50-352-OLA
)
(TS Iodine)
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LICENSEE'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS b
MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Preliminary Statement On October 9,
1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") issued a Memorandum and Order granting intervention to petitioners Robert L. Anthony and Air and Water Pollution Patrol, by its representative,
("AWPP").1!
In response to the Board's Frank R.
Romano Memorandum and Order,2_/ counsel for Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company (" Licensee") notified the Board that the Licensee would file a motion for summary disposition on the consolidated contention admitted on behalf of Mr. Anthony and AWPP.
1/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), " Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling on Contentions)"
(October 9, 1987),
2/
Id. at 9.
871201005987Mh52 PDR ADOCK O PDR 0
' i
.For the reasons discussed in the attached Affidavit of John Doering and John S.
Wiley in Support of Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition ("Af fidavit"), the accompany-ing Statement of Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists and the further discussion below, the motion for summary disposition should be granted and the consolidated contention should be dismissed.
As only a single contention was admitted, the proceeding should also be dismissed.
Procedural Background i
i On September 27, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion
(" Commission" or "NRC")
Staff issued Generic Letter 85-19 regarding the requirements for reporting iodine spikes during normal plant operation.
That letter requested licensees to file a request for amendment to their operating licenses to incorporate the NRC model Technical Specifica-tions relating to iodine spikes.
On August 19, 1986, in response to that request, Licensee filed an application with the NRC requesting changes to the Technical Specifications i
cr atained in Appendix A of Facility Operating License NPF-39 for Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1.
Notice of the proposed issuance of the requested amendment and opportunity for hearing was publi,shed with the Commission's finding of no significant hazards consideration
h.>'.
.s m
- 3.
concerning the proposed amendment.M The notice provided-7that any request for hearing.must be' received by April 13, 1987.M Although no request for hearing was received during the period-specified by the notice ~in the Federal Register, Mr... Anthony.had previously submitted.a petition requestingfa l.
- hearing on the amendment by letter to the Secretary dated August..'25, 1986 and AWPP had similarly submitted a petition
. on September-4, 1986~.
The Board held that the Secretary's actions in holding the prematurely filed pleadings and
-forwarding them to the-Board after the date for requesting a
- hearing had passed, did not violate the Commission's regu-lations.-
Licensee opposed each petition on the ground that the petitioner had~ failed to demonstrate the requisite interest in.the proceeding required by 10 C.F,,R. S2.714 and that each petition had not been filed in accordance with the terms of 10 C.F.R.
S2.105 and the formal notice of an opportunity for hearing in the Federal Register.- The NRC Staff opposed each petition on the first stated ground.
In two decisions, the Licensing Board rejected both arguments and provisionally 3/
52 Fed.
Reg.
- 7675, 7691-93 (March 12, 1987).
The finding of "no significant hazards consideration" was based upon the criteria in 10 C.F.R. 550.92(c).
Publication of this finding along with notice of the proposed issuance of the amendment is required by 10 C.F.R. 550. 91 (a) (1) (ii).
4/
52 Fed. Reg. 7675 (March 12, 1987).
l
' L I.
\\
l granted each petitioner leave to intervene, subject to 1
I 5/
allowance of at least one contention Following the submission of proposed contentions, all of which were opposed by both the Licensee and NRC Staff, the Licensing Board held a prehearing conference pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.751a, during which the petitioners were given repeated opportunities to supplement their written sub-missions.
The Board initially stated that, having reviewed the submissions, it agreed with the Licensee and Staff that each petitioner had failed to state an admissible con-tention.b The Board subsequently determined that, based upon their oral argument, each petitioner had stated an admissible contention.
The Board consolidated both con-tentions and restated a consolidated contention as follows:
Consolidated Contention.
The proposed amendment to the Licensee's technical specifications would downgrade reporting requirements for iodine spikes which would have an adverse effect on public health and safety.
Bases.
The change in the reporting requirements would eliminate or decrease Special Reports and Licensee Event Reports on iodine
- spiking, and thus i
would decrease the regulatory control I
exercised by the NRC, would permit a 1
i l
l l
5_/
Limerick, " Memorandum and Order (Provisionally Ordering l
a Hearing and Provisionally Granting Petitions for j
Leave to Intervene)" (July 28, 1987); " Memorandum and Order" (June 22, 1987).
l
~6/
See
- Limerick,
" Memorandum and Order (Memorializing
{
Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling on Contentions) "
j (October 9, 1987) (slip op. at 2).
)
l l
5,,
situation. where Licensee could release radioactive iodine in excess of the y
one-time-release limits,.and, in not l
requiring the reporting of such re-1 eases,'except-on an annual basis, would j
endanger the health and safety. of. the uninformed public.7/.
Legal Introduction
- Pursuant. to '10 C.F.R.
S2.749, the Licensing Board ' is authorized to grant summary disposition to a moving party.on the basis of a motion, with or without supporting affida-vits, which demonstrates that "the filings in the.. proceed-ing, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions l5 on file, together with the statements of the parties and.the affidavits, if.any, 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."SI Under the Commission's Rules, a party opposing summary disposition is obliged to respond to the motion with "a
separate, short and concise statement of the material facts' as to which it is contended that there. exists a genuine
. issue to be heard."AI It is well established that an opposition to a motion for summary disposition "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the [ opponent's]
i answer," but "must set forth specific facts showing that 7/
Id. at 8.
d 1
8/
10 C.F.R. S2.749(d).
J 1
9_/
10 C.F.R. S2.749(a).
I
._ ______________-_______ _ _ Q
there is a genuine issue of fact."E/
See Virginia Elec-tric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 453 (1980); Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-86-27, 24 NRC 255, 257, aff'd ALAB-848 24 NRC 434 (1986); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-30, 24 l
NRC 437, 445 (1986).
l The Commission has repeatedly emphasized the importance l
of summary disposition as a procedural mechanism for avoid-1 ing unnecessary and time-consuming litigation of issues I
which do not warrant an evidentiary hearing.
For example, l
in Prairie Island, the Commission emphasized that an inter-l l
venor has a burden of demonstrating "to the satisfaction of the Board.
that a genuine issue actually exists," and that summary disposition was particularly appropriate for
" marginally acceptable" contentions.EI More recently, the 10/
10 C.F.R. 62.74 9 (b).
Where an intervenor does not
~
oppose the proponent's statement of material facts, the Board may adopt the applicant's statement as its own.
General Electric Company (G.E.
Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility),
LBP-82-14, 15 NRC 530, 532 (1982).
Interpreting this particular aspect of the Rule, the Licensing Board in the North Anna proceeding granted summary disposition where the interenors' answer " offered no meaningful factual data of their own."
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-25, 10 NRC 234, 238 (1979), aff'd ALAB-Se4, 11 NRC 451 (1980).
M/
Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear (Footnote Continued)
.... ~.
_7_
Commission reiterated the desirability of this procedure in a Statement of Policy, directing its boards as follows:
In exercising its authority to regu-late the course of a hearing, the boards should encourage the parties to invoke the summary disposition procedure on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues.M/
As the Appeal Board itself has stated, a hearing on any inevitable."EI Whether a particular contention "is not hearing "will be necessary wholly depends upon the ability of the interveners to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact respecting any of the issues they previously raised.
. "E Similarly, the Appeal Board in the Allens Creek proceeding has emphasized that the Commission's summary disposition procedures
" provide in reality as well as in
- theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on (Footnote Continued)
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), aff'd sub. nom. BPI v.
AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C.
Cir.
1974).
See Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-17, 15 NRC 593, 596 (1982); Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-10, 3 NRC 209, 220 (1976).
M/
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981).
M/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-654, 14 NRC 632, 634 (1981).
14/
Id.
1 i
' I I
. El In upholding demonstrably insubstantial issues.
summary disposition of a contention proposing a
marine biomass farm as an alternative to a nuclear power plant, the Appeal Board in the same proceeding stated that this proce-j dure can and should be utilized to resolve contentions a
which, while purporting to demonstrate some factual basis for a hearing, are entirely devoid of substance as a practi-cal matter.E The decision of the licensing boards are consistent with these standards.
As the Licensing Board stated in Big Rock:
[T]he holding of evidentiary hearings is time consuming and expensive, and it is important that an agency with serious safety and environmental responsibil-ities not divert its attention from those seriour issues.
It is for these reasons that the Commission's summary disposition rule gives a party a right to an evidentiary hearing only when there is a genuine issue of material fact.
An important effect of this principle is that applicants for li-censes may be subjected to substantial expense and delay when genuine issues have been raised, but they are entitled to an expeditious determination, without i
i M/
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC
- 542, 550 (1980).
See also Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696, 16 NRC 1245, 1263 (1982).
M/
Allens Creek, ALAB-629, 13 NRC 75 (1981).
w 9'-
h.-
need for'an evidentiary hearing, on all issues which are not genuine.H/
l
.S m larly,. in Comanche Peak, the Licensing Board held:
ii Conclusions of law and mere arguments-
-are.not-sufficient.
The asserted facts:
~
mustL be material. and of a substantial ~
nature,.not fanciful' or merely suspi-cious..
A party cannot go to trial on the. vague supposition that "something may turn up,"
or on the mere hope that on
. cross-examination
.the movant's evidence will'somehow be discredited.1_8f.
The.same point was made by the Licensing Board. in Perry,'which interpreted ALAB-629 as follows:
The regulations do not require merely the showing of a '" material issue of fact" or an
" issue of fact."
They require a
genuine issue of material fact.
To be genuine, we believe that the factual record, considered in its
- entirety, must be - enough.in doubt so that there is a reason to hold a hearing to resolve the issue.
17/
Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant),
LBP-82-8, 15 NRC 299, 301 (1982).
H/
Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam l
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-17, 15 NRC 593, 595-96 (1982), quoting 6 Moore's Federal Practice 56.15(3)
(footnotes omitted).
See also Florida Power and Light Company, (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-86-27, 24 NRC 255,
- 257, aff'd ALAB-848, 24 NRC 434 (1986).
Similarly, the Licensing Board in Catawba held that a
movant's statement of material facts could not be successfully controverted by a counterstatement which amounted to "nothing more than a pro forma denial" because under the rules, "such denials are to be given no effect. "
Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
)
and 2), LBP-83-56, 18 NRC 421, 430 (1983).
l
i...
O i
In. this case,. we conclude that we I
would spend unnecessary hearing time I
trying to resolve the colorable differ-ence existing in our record.1_9)
']
Thus, the Licensing Board carefully distinguished between a
" colorable difference" between the parties and "a
genuine q
issue of material fact."
Under these precedents, a Licens-ing Board may grant summary disposition to a licensee, even where its statement of material facts is challenged, if the intervenor itself fails to present any material facts 1
establishing a genuine issue to be litigated.
l Argument i
As previously noted, on August 19, 1986, Licensee filed an application with the NRC requesting changes to the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A of Facility Operating License NPF-39 for Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1.
Licensee proposed to incorporate the NRC model Technical Specifications provided with Generic Letter 85-19, Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes, dated September 27, 1985 related to reporting of and long term operation with iodine spikes.
In Generic Letter 85-19, the Staff stated that "[als part of our continuing program to delete unnecessary report-ing requirements, we have reviewed the reporting 19/
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 2),
LBP-83-46, 18 NRC 218, 223-24 (1983) (emphasis in original).
_ _ _. requirements related to primary coolant specific activity
- levels, specifically primary coolant iodine spikes" and
" determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be reduced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report."
The Staff also stated that "to eliminate unnecessary Technical Specification requirements,"
it had determined that "the existing requirements to shut down a plant if coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in I
a 12-month period can be eliminated."
As the basis for this conclusion, the NRC stated that the " quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly improved over the past decade with the result that normal coolant iodine activity (i.e.
in the absence of iodine spiking) is well below the limit."
In the past, iodine' spiking had been considered an important indicator of significant fuel cladding degrada-tion.
The Staff concluded, however, that the short-term reporting requirement for iodine spiking in plant Technical Specifications "is no longer considered necessary on the basis that proper fuel management by licensees and existing i
reporting requirements should preclude ever approaching the limit."
The Staff requested' licensees to seek an amendment based upon the model Technical Specifications provided.
The Licensee's application sought to amend Technical Specification 3/4.4.5 to eliminate the requirement to shut down the facility if the coolant iodine activity limits were exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in any 12 month period.
(Affidavit at 110)
The application also requented that the requirement to submit special 30- and 90-day reports if the Technical Specification iodine coolant activity of 0.2 microcurie per gram were exceeded be changed to require that such informa-tion be included in the Annua?.
Report required by the (Id.)
Section 6.9.1.5(d) was Technical Specifications.
d proposed to be added to implement this requirement.
In addition, the requirement to submit a Special Report within 30 days if the iodine coolant activity is exceeded for a period of 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> in any consecutive 6 month period was proposed to be eliminated as unnecessary.
( I_d. )
As discussed below, the requested amendment would not have an adverse effect on public health and safety because:
1 Recent experience indicates that the probability i
of iodine spiking at Limerick Generating Station
]
i is low.
j i
NRC Resident Inspectors continually monitor l
j activities at the Station.
l Iodine spikes exceeding Technical Specification i
i limits would be immediately reportable (within one hour) to the NRC under its regulations.
Written reports to the NRC discussing the causes of any iodine spikes and plans for corrective action which would be made available to the public are still required to be submitted to the NRC.
, i 1
Iodine levels'in excess of the Technical. Speci fication triggering value would require-implementation of the Station Emergency : Plan - and notification of the
- NRC, State and local authorities.
There.are no changes to plant radioactive effluent-limits or.. reporting requirements sought by the-amendment.
4 The requested amendment has no effect on calculat-ed accident doses for the facility, i
The. requested amendment' leaves unchanged the. require.
ments for specific activity. limits for iodine in the reactor.
l 1
coolant.
Under both the present and proposed. Technical l
Specifications, the reactor must be placed in a hot shutdown
)
condition with the main steam line isolation valves closed i
l within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> if the specific activity - of the primary
-)
coolant exceeds 4 microcuries per gram dose equivalent I-131' (hereinafter " microcurie per gram").
(M. at ill)
Both the original and revised Technical Specification allow operation to continue for only 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> if the specific activity in the primary coolant is greater than 0.3. microcurie per gram 1
but less than or equal to 4 microcuries per gram.
If within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> the iodine activity. level cannot be reduced to 0.2 microcurie per gram or less, the unit must be placed in a hot shutdown condition with the main steam line isolation valves closed within 12. hours.
(M. )
Importantly, the requested Technical Specification amendment contains no l
l
! i i
request-for any changes in station radioactive effluent
{
l release limits or in reporting requirements related to plant radioactive effluents.
(Id. at SS 11, 21).
The single admitted contention in this proceeding relates only to the alleged _ downgrading 'of reporting for iodine spikes which is stated to result in some unspecified-adverse effect.on public health and safety.
As discussed i
below, the proposed Technical Specification ~ change would not j
j decrease or delay the information available to the NRC concerning iodine spikes such that the public health and
)
safety would be affected by. Licensee 's requested Technical ~
Specification change.
The factual information utilized in support of this motion for summary disposition was supplied by John Doering and John S. Wiley of the Philadelphia Electric Company.
Mr.
Doering is a. graduate engineer from the University of Pennsylvania and holds a senior reactor operator license at the Limerick Generating Station.
He has extensive experi-ence in the operation of. boiling water: reactors.
He is responsible for management and oversight of plant op-erations, engineering and chemistry support and is knowl-edgeable regarding this amendment, the Technical Specifica-tions, the NRC's regulations and plant operations.
(Id. at SS 1 3)
Dr. Wiley also has extensive experience in the design and operation of boiling water reactors.
Dr. Wiley has a Ph.D.
degree from Iowa State University.
He was i
employed at the Station where he was in charge of the
- __ = _ - - -
, l l
chemistry department.
He is familiar with plant design, I
plant chemistry requirements and operation..
Qd..at SS 4-6)
]
Both of these individuals are well qualified to present the facts and opinions contained in their affidavit.
It is extremely unlikely that the triggering level for the specification in ' question, e.g.,
0.2 microcurie per gram, would even be reached during the life of the unit.
As pointed out in the Staff Generic Letter, high levels of-iodine coolant levels in the coolant were encountered by boiling water reactors operating in the early 1970's.
These high levels resulted from fuel cladding failures caused by moisture inside the fuel rod, pellet-clad interaction and crud-induced corrosion.
Improvements in the design of the nuclear fuel such as internal moisture getters, barrier fuel, improved clad manufacturing techniques, improved fuel management practices, and the replacement of'the older' fuel elements gradually eliminated the failed-fuel. and the resulting higher levels of iodine in operating reactors.
l (Id. at $12)
I l
Confidence in predicting that the 0.2 microcurie per I
-i gram threshold value would not be reached at Limerick is I
gained from a review of the experience to date in monitoring this parameter.
Since startup, Limerick has averaged only 8
-5 x 10 microcurie per gram of iodine in the reactor coolant I
for the first cycle of operation during Operational Condi-
~4 tion 1 ( > 75% power) with a maximum value of only 1.2 x 10 1
microcurie per gram.
(Id.
at 113)
The average for the
. l first fuel cycle is only 0.04% of the threshold value of 0.2 microcurie per gram.
(M. )
The average level of iodine in the reactor coolant for the second cycle through November j
-5 13, 1987 is 5 x 10 microcurie per gram.
The industry 1986
-3 median value for iodine coolant activity was 1.5 x 10 microcurie per gram, which is still only 0.75% of the threshold value.
(M. )
Thus,'the reliability of the fuel at Limerick is excellent.
l Sampling for iodine coolant activity is conducted in j
accordance with Technical Specification 4.4.5.
During l
operation, the frequency of iodine sampling is daily.
(Id.
I at 14)
The level of the iodine coolant value for Limerick is reviewed by the plant chemistry staff for trends and accuracy.
(M. )
The Station has established an administra-tive limit of 0.002 microcurie per gram, 1% of the Technical l
l Specification limit.
Were this administrative limit ex-ceeded, this information would be discussed at the daily chemistry meeting held at the Station, management notified and available courses of action considered.
The Director, Nuclear Plant Chemistry, reviews the data monthly for trends.
(M. )
There are a number of reporting requirements mandated by the NRC regulations to assure that the NRC would be given early notice and complete information regarding any high iodine coolant levels.
These reports are in addition to the continuing scrutiny of NRC Resident Inspectors at the site.
Periodic inspection reports which highlight Station L
l 1
j operations and any adverse trends are routinely prepared by
{
the Resident Inspectors -and forwarded to the ' Region and' Headquarters for analysis and evaluation.
Inspection j
Specialists also routinely inspect the facility and review, inter alia, plant chemistry operations.
Such inspections are similarly documented, reviewed and'made'public.
(Id. at
$15)
The first reporting requirement of interest is 10
]
C.F.R.
S50. 73 (a) (2) (1) which requires that a Licensee Event j
Report be filed following completion'of any plant shutdown l
required by the Technical Specifications.
Under.
the proposed (as well as the present) Technical Specifications should the iodine coolant activity exceed 4 microcuries per i
gram or 0.2 microcurie per gram for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, a plant l
shutdown would be required and a Licensee Event Report' i
submitted to the NRC.
In accordance with S50.73(b), such
)
l report must include details surrounding the event, its cause and corrective actions and provide a reference to previous similar events.
LERs are placed in the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C.
and the Local Public Document Room in Pottstown, Pennsylvania near the plant.
(Id. at $16)
Second, any plant shutdown required by the Technical Specifications would require one hour notification of the NRC pursuant to $50.72 (b) (1) (i).
Such notification would be to the NRC Operations Center by dedicated telephone from the Limerick control room.
The Operations Center would be l
~
s c.
_ _ :)
responsible for directing the NRC response and assuring that NRC management was informed.
( I_d,. at 117)-
The third means by which_the NRC and.the.public would be notified of the fact that iodine levels exceeded ' the level of 0.2 microcurie _per gram is via the initiation of
-i the Station Emergency. Plan.
The Company has designated;the j
0.2 microcurie.per gram' level as an' action levelLin accor-dance with 10. C. F. R. S50. 47 (b) (4) and NUREG-0654, Rev.'1, 1
Criteria for Preparation and Evaluatio'n of Radiological-
- i Emergency Response Plans and: Preparedness ~ in Support of
.i Nuclear Power
- Plants, Appendix 1,
page 1-5, Item 3.b.
Reaching such a level requires the declaration of an Unusual Event and implementation of the Station Emergency Plan.:
In I
accordance with.the plan and implementing procedures, State and local officials would be notified within 15 minutes and the NRC immediately thereafter.
The ' resources of the Licensee and the NRC would be brought to - bear on this problem.
( I_d. at 118)
- Thus, were the requested Technical Specification amendment to be granted, there are a number of overlapping mechanisms in place to assure that information relating-to fuel failures is available to the NRC and made known to the public.
Elimination of the special reports would not impede the flow of information to the NRC.
For example, inasmuch as the Technical Specifications permit operation at' iodine coolant levels between 0.2 and 4.0 microcuries per gram ~for at the' most 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> before shutdown, it would require ' a l
1 minimum of 10 declarations of an Unusual Event in accordance with the Emergency Plan, prior to reaching the 500 hour0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> mark
- which, under the present Technical Specifications, would require the submittal of a Special Report within 30 days.
)
As is obvious, the Licensee and NRC would have focused upon this matter long before the 500 hour0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> point was reached or I
the special report was due.
Similarly, the reporting i
requirements contained in the NRC Regulations would more l
than compensate for the elimination of the short-term 1
special reports.
(Id. at 119)
The bases for the contention as admitted by the Board contain certain erroneous statements and do not support the contention.
Initially, for Limerick, there are no Licensee Event Reports which are being sought to be eliminated by the j
1 proposed amendment.
(Id. at 520)
In any event, a Technical Specification change alone, as sought by Licensee, could not l
relieve a
licensee from complying with the regulations l
[
regarding reporting or the submittal of Licensee Event Reports.
Only an exemption granted pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
l S50.12, which is not being sought here, could relieve a licensee from compliance with a requirement of the NRC regulations such as the reporting requirements of 10 C.F.R.
I S50.72.
See Carolina Power & Light Company (Shearon Harris l
Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-86-24, 24 NRC 769, 773 (1986).
j i
- Moreover, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S50.34 (f),
the NRC may j
i request additional information regarding the licensed i
l activities at any time.
See generally GPU Nuclear l
l 1
1 j
1 l
l
i.
Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
DD-84-12, 19 NRC 1128, 1129 (1984).
The bases for the consolidated contention allege that a situation could be permitted under the new Technical Speci-fications where Licensee could release radioactive iodine in excess of the one-time release limits for the Station.
Reports related to offsite releases and the release limits themselves are governed by other Technical Specifications and the NRC regulations which are totally unaffected by the l
requested change.
Moreover, the releases from the facility are governed by 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I which could not be increased.
(Id. at 121)
In accordance with the Emergency Plan, any radiological release above regulatory limits would require initiation of the Plan l
l and immediate notification of the NRC and State and local authorities.
(ld, at 522)
The consequences of the design basis accident which is limited by the iodine level in the coolant, the failure of a main steam line, has been already calculated at the 0.2 and 4.0 microcuries per gram levels which are unchanged by the requested amendment.
Therefore, calculated accident doses would be unchanged by the grant of the amendment.
(Id. at 123) l Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendment does not downgrade reporting requirements for iodine spikes.
The grant of the amendment would not have an adverse effect on public health and safety.
There are no genuine issues of w-----_____.--._.-----
l
_:21 -
i fact which exist and Licensee's motion for. summary.disposi-y.
tion should be ' granted.
The~ consolidated contention 'and captioned proceeding should be dismissed'..
Respectfully submitted,-
.j l
l CONNER & WETTERHAHN,'P;C.
I Mark J.
etterhahn-Counsel for.the Licensee November 23, 1987 l
- _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _. _ - _ _ _ -.