Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 13 Response To PEF Objection
April 13 Response To PEF Objection
_____________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA )
) Docket Nos. 52-029 COL
) 52-030 COL
(Levy County Nuclear Station )
Units 1 & 2) )
____________________________________ )
Progress Energy (the applicant) asserts in its April 6th 2009 filing that the co-
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
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
“The assumption is made that all dose limits in 10 CFR 20 and 50 will be met for
1
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
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.
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 workers – indeed the applicant does not currently have any
nuclear workers at the Levy County site – we stand corrected in expressing that
occupational exposure. This is in error, as the passage in question clearly states “public
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-
2
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
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
Respectfully Submitted,
________/s/______________
Mary Olson