ML17206A947
| ML17206A947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1979 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080056 | |
| Download: ML17206A947 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson os/vga Ol JQg] ),19',
ICp gag 6
oocketin
~ nggpe>;
8rancy In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.. 2)
'). ~~o
)
JQg ><.
)
g
)
Docket No. 50-389
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER July 11, 1979 (ALAB-553) l.
As part of our review of the Licensing Board's decision to allow the applicant to construct a second nuclear unit at the St. Lucie site, we have taken up the matter of the, stability of the applicant's electrical grid and the adequacy of the facility's emergency power systems generally.
This subject first came to our attention as a result of a letter that Robert D. Pollard (formerly a Commission staff member) had written-to the Attorney General of the United 1/
States.
On April. 5th of this year, we decided that this
(
~qotoboosb 0,
The merits of this issue remain before us; another aspect of it, involving the question of whether the boards had been kept properly informed of the facts, was handled and resolved by the Commission itself.
See ALAB-537, 9
NRC
, fn.
5 (April 5, 1979).
4 s
1
2/
safety matter could not be resolved without a hearing.
In that connection, we indicated that the staff and applicant, h
should be able to file their prepared written testimony (which was to include answers to certain questions we posed) within 3/
forty~five days, i.e.,
by May 21st.
Before that date arrived,. the staff asked for approxi-mately a month's extension of the filing deadline, to June 22nd.
In'routinely granting that unopposed
- motion, we made the h
extension. applicable to both the staff and applicant, as had been requested.
The applicant duly filed its testimony by H
June 22nd;
- indeed, a portion of it was filed well in advance of that date.-
The staff, however; did not file its testimony at that h
point.
Rather, it has-'requested a: furze'r'extension o'f 'n'inety
~da s duration..
This would move its filing time to September 21, 1979.
The staff's papers make clear that the cause of its inability to prepare its testimony in timely fashion has been (and will continue to be) its assignment, of a. higher priority to matters stemming from the recent accident at Three Mile Island, with the result that adequate manpower is not, being 4/
devoted to this proceeding.
2/
ALAB-537,
~au ra 3/
Id. at, text accompanying fn.
31 4/
See the staff 's letters of April 12 and June 13 and its motions dated May ll and June 21.
Upon receipt. of the staff's motion, the applicant advised us by telephone (in response to our inquiry) that it would not be filing any formal opposition.
However, it withheldiexpzessing-any-consent"'to'he';grant of...the'otion.
For their part, the intervenors have filed a paper opposing the relief sought by the staff.
They point'ut that the reactor in questio'n is now und'er construction 5/
(their stay request having been denied by us)..
- Thus, they say, there is reason to question the propriety of additional delay in the resolution of the still-outstanding safety issues concerning the facility.
And, while conceding that sufficient justification for some delay may eventually be found to exist, the. intervenors assert that thus far the staff's assignment of'easons has been inadequate for that purpose.
Then, referring to our decision in Offshore Power-
~S stems (Floating Nuclear power Plants),
ALAR-489, 8 NRC
- 194, 206-07 (1978),
the. intervenors go on to suggest that we hold a hearing to determine more precisely the reasons for, and reasonableness of, the extension of time now being requested.
2..
Notwithstanding the other parties'iscontent.
with the situation, we are not in position to second-guess the 5/
See ALAB-537, supra,,
9 NRC.at (slip opinion pp. 22-23);
see also ALAR-~15, 5 NRC 1435 T1977) and ALAB-435, 6 NRC
- 541, 546 fn.
18 (1977)
(refusing to halt construction pending our consideration of other issues).
6/
staff's ranking of priorities.
Perhaps if we were to hold'he hearing suggested by the intervenors, we could gain additional insight into how the staff decides which of its many safety-related tasks have the more urgent claims on its finite resources.
But we do not believe such.an undertaking would be worthwhile.. To th'e*-con-trary,.the sugg'ested,. collateral hea'ring w'ould'.furthe'r '-
tax the parties'esources; in the presen't circumstances, this would most likely result in putting off longer the 5
day on which we will finally rea'ch the"merits of the 7/
issues before us'."
Nonetheless,.
the intervenors'eference to Offshore Power was not inappropriate.
For we believe it fitting to do here what we there suggested that licensing boards might want to do in somewhat analogous circumstances.
Specifically,
'I we are noting for the record what has occurred.
And by this order we are calling the matter to the attention of the Commission, which has supervisory authority over the staff.
The Commission is more familiar than we are with how the Three Mile Island. accident has affected day-to-day agency 6/ But..see Pu et Sound Power 6 Li ht Co.
(Skagit Units 1 and 2), ALAB-552, 10 NRC July 9, 1979)(slip opinion, pp. 9-11), citing Duke Power Co.
(Cherokee Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-440, 6
NRC 642, 644 (1977).
7/
In this connection, no one has suggested that we ought to deny the staff's motion outright and proceed directly to a hearing on the merits of the applicant's testimony in the absence of the staff's independent evaluation of it.
In our judgment, it would be inappropriate to follow such a course here.
operations outside of the adjudicatory arena..
Xf the Commission believes that the manner in which the staff is allocating its resources is not prudent, it can deal with the situation.
Xf, on the other hand, the Commission is satisfied that its intercession is unnecessary or undesirable, its silence will leave undisturbed the full extension of time now allotted.
Staff motion granted.
Zt is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD C. Jea Bz.shop Secret ry to the Appeal Board Mr. Salzman participated in the preliminary consideration of this matter but did not review the final version of this memorandum.
Mi'ITED STATES OF K~KRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO&fISSION In the Matter of r~LORIDA POnrR.~'iD LIGHT COMPANY I
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit Ko. 2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE nereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document, (s) upon each pe son cesignated on the official service list compiled by the Office oi the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding 9n accoraoance vith tne requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Co~ission's Rules and
'Regulations.
Dazed ag Vashington, P C
this day of 4/
) <I<i gDJLP~y-Office'~the Secretary of the C~ssion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COKfZSSION In the <<Matter of J
)
FLORIDA POWER AK) LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering Tne University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr'. Prank F. Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, <<fichigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
- Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector
& David First National Bank Building, 14th F1r.
Miami, Florida 33131 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
<<'- chael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atonic Sa ety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Florida Power
& Light Company ATTY:
Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, V. Pres.
Advanced Systems
& Technology P.O.
Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. =.uclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Atonic Sa=ety anc Lcensing Appeal Boa-d U. S. iiuclear Re"ulato=y Cornission Washi..gton, D. C.
20555