8/14/2019 April 13 Response to PEF Objection

1/3

1

April 13, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

_____________________________________In the Matter of )

)PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA )

) Docket Nos. 52-029 COL) 52-030 COL

(Levy County Nuclear Station )Units 1 & 2) )

____________________________________ )

RESPONSE TO PROGRESS ENERGYS ANSWER OPPOSING NEW BASES FORCONTENTIONS 7 AND 8 BY THE GREEN PARTY OF FLORIDA, THE ECOLOGYPARTY OF FLORIDA AND NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

Progress Energy (the applicant) asserts in its April 6th 2009 filing that the co-

petitioners March 17 response to the applicants answer (March 3 to the original

February 6 Petition to Intervene) that Petitioners have introduced new bases for

contentions 7 and 8 contained in our Petition. Petitioners hold that the text in question is

merely a succinct, forceful restatement of the same points contained in contentions 7

and 8 of our Petition to Intervene.

The text is not an attack on regulation, but exactly the reverse. It should go

without saying that a plan presented in a COL application is designed to meet NRC

regulations. The statement in our March 17 filing:

The assumption is made that all dose limits in 10 CFR 20 and 50 will be met for

8/14/2019 April 13 Response to PEF Objection

2/3

2

public releases and worker exposures is an affirmation of the intent of the applicant

to meet those regulations. Petitioners however are pointing to the deficiency in the

application to account for extended and cumulative possession of wastes that could

impact its ability to meet those dose limits. We are withholding our attack on the limits

themselves precisely because we are intervening in a license proceeding. Because the

possession of these materials is not accounted for, the statement in the March 17 filing

is pointing to the fact that the ability to meet these dose limits while in possession of this

accumulated waste is also not accounted for. This is not a new base for the contention.

The text of contention 7 clearly states that:

PEFs environmental report does not address the environmental, environmentaljustice, health, safety, security or economic consequences that will result fromlack of permanent disposal for the radioactive wastes generated

Our reply is merely a restatement of the safety and health concern. Petitioners

concede that our concern for workers is reflexive. Since we do not at this time represent

any members who are workersindeed the applicant does not currently have any

nuclear workers at the Levy County site we stand corrected in expressing that

concern inside the pages of pleading in this intervention.

The applicant attempts to categorize our concerns as solely directed to

occupational exposure. This is in error, as the passage in question clearly states public

releases as well as occupational exposure as our concern. Indeed, our combined

members who live, work, play and consume water and foods from the area could be

impacted differently by the accidental (or other) release of a 30 year accumulation of so-

8/14/2019 April 13 Response to PEF Objection

3/3

3

called low-level source-term than if there were only (ever) one year or at most one

cycle of non-fuel-rod operational waste on the site at the time of such a release.

The applicant states that the planned storage system is designed to meet the

design objectives of 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. In our reply we merely

clarify that the design and the analysis that anticipates meeting the objectives have

not been informed by the situation our contention is pointing to: that PEF may, in fact

have no off-site options for so-called low-level waste generated during the operation of

Levy County Units 1 and 2.

Co-petitioners affirm that the bases that the applicant is discussing were present

in the original contention as filed on February 6, 2009, though perhaps not as forcefully

stated. Our contention stands as submitted.

Respectfully Submitted,

________/s/______________

Mary Olson

NIRS Southeast Regional CoordinatorNuclear Information & Resource ServicePO Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802nirs@main.nc.us www.nirs.org828-675-1792new cell -- 828-242-5621 (no signal at my office)

Nuclear Information & Resource Service6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340,Takoma Park, MD 20912tel: 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477);fax: 301-270-4291nirsnet@nirs.org www.nirs.org

http://www.nirs.org/http://www.nirs.org/