ML17266A070
| ML17266A070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1979 |
| From: | Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Hodder M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905240154 | |
| Download: ML17266A070 (94) | |
Text
Apri 1 17, 1979 Nar tin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1131 H.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33130 In the Natter of FLORIDA POWER 5, LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2)
Docket No. 50-389
Dear Nr. Hodder:
In response to your recent request, I enclose a copy of draf~
regulatory guide 1.XX "Lightning Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."
Sincerely, William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
(w/o encl.):
Hichael C. Farrar, Esq..
Dr. M. Reed Johnson Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Edward Luton, Esq.
Michael Glaser, Esq.
Dr. David L. Hetrick Dr. Frank Hooper Dr. Harvin N. Nann Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Norman A. Coll, Esq.
bIr. Samuel J. Chilk Atomic Safety 5 Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section DISTRIBUTION JTourtellotte WPaton Shapar/Engelhardt/Christenbury FF (2)
Reg. Cent.,
LPDR V905240 /
<Y'rrlcd~
SURNAMdW DATd~ fd-NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 4 Ul so oovdRNMRNT PRINTTNo DrricrisoTb edna%
I IP il'I I
-I
~
44 44 'll I
4
>>I 44 }
~
~
'I
~ >>
Il>>
I J
~
4 4.
>>'>>4 I
~ '
I I
4 It 4>>t I 4
I
'~4>>
~
>>4 4.
>>I e>>
4>>
4
>>l
~ I 4
'4 ~
~ 4
'I
~'
4
~
~
I 44
~ '4
~ P I f
li F I,'
4 Ok'~ BOGS I>>
II
>>4 ~
4 I
It 4
.e.-
}..4}4>>*4}4444>>'14)l>>>>Iffy 4/'.14-.
C
'4 I I>>,I" l>>5447 J'r
UNITED STATES OF NERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Joseph H. Hendrie, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T.
Kennedy Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne In the Natter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2)
[o(~
I 5 ORDER Docket No. 50-389 On November 8, 1977, the Commission directed its Office of Inspec-tor and Auditor to conduct a thorough investigation into allegations that members of the AEC staff had behaved improperly by not including the St. Lucie plants in their review of the stability of'lorida's power grid, and by not informing the St.
Lucie hearing boards about the power grid investigation.
On June 26, 1978, the Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor presented his report.
We have carefully reviewed its contents which are limited by the availability of documentation and the recollection of the individuals involved.
The available evidence does not disclose to us any wilful misconduct by staff in its consideration of the Florida grid
stability problem.
Staff's failure to inform hearing boards of poten-tial grid-related problems which might affect the St. Lucie units appears to us to have resulted from the confusion surrounding the characterization of the off-site power grid as a safety system.
Since the time of the St. Lucie proceeding, we have established formal board notification procedures which provide clear guidelines to staff.
We therefore believe that no further action is warranted regarding the allegation of staff misconduct during the St.
Lucie proceeding.
On July 31, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, which is reviewing the merits of the electrical grid stability question, entered an order in the St. Lucie proceeding stating its intention to await our instr'uctions on the course it is to follow in further con-sidering the allegations of misconduct.
For the reasons set forth above the Appeal Board is instructed to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commiss n
/
SAMUEL J.
ILK Secretary of th Commi ss ion Dated at Washington, D.C.
Ct this~
day of October, 1978.
~ Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plane, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Offl:ce of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear'egulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D~ C. this day of 07 197 @
ffic'e the Secretary of the mmission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona
- Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F.
Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 l
Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 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 Flr.
.Miami, Florida 33131 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF A~KRI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S. Salzman Dr.
07.
Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman
~
~O 0
In the Matters of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY ff (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMP2QJY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No..2)
CAROLINA POT'.ER AND LIGHT CO"O'A"JY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,2,3 and 4)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
Nos.
50-277 50-278 No. 50-320 Nos.
50-338 50-339 Nos.-
5 0-354 50-355 No. 50-389 Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Every Appeal Panel Member is on one or more of the Boards hearing the captioned proceedings;, their collective designation. is simply.-=a convenience-ix issuing,-this joint:-
order.
PUBLIC SERVICE COSH'ANY OF NEW HtQGSHIRE et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND KMSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.
1 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (WISCONSIN)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No.
1)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et, al.
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.
1)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-443
)
50-444
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
STN 50-482
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
STN 50-484
)
Docket No.
STN 50-485 DUKE POWER COMPANY (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POEsER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
4)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B)
)
)
)),
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
Nos.
STN 50-491 STN 50>>492 STN 50-493 Nos.
50-500 50-501 No. 50-513 Nos.
STN SO-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, 1NC.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-54(
)
STN 50-54;
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-553
)
50-554
)
)
MEMORANDUM'ND ORDER December 1,
1978 (ALAB-509
)
Earlier this year, the Commission hei'd incorrect the value it, had assigned in Table S-3 (10 CFR Part, 51) to the emissions of radon-222-expected to occur as a result of the 4
mining and milling of uranium.
43 Fed.
Reg.
15613 (April 14, 1978).
At that t~e, it told us to reopen the records in pending licensing proceedings "to receive new evidence on radon releases and on health effects resulting from radon releases."
Id. at 15615-16.
In implementing that directive in some seventeen separate proceedings (Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3), ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (1978)),
we decided'ft would he to the parties'nd boards'dvantage to begin with the record being made before the licensing
1/
board in yet another proceeding, Perkins.
Accordingly, we called upon the parties to frame their positions in terms of the'e~k'ins record and the Licensing Board's sub-
2/
sequent decision therein.
7 NRC at 804-06.
We have studied carefully the papers the parties have
'/
submitted.
They involve a variety of matters.
A number of parties are dissatisfied with either the record or the 4/
decision in Perkins, or both.
Intervenors in several proceedings wish us to consolidate those proceedings.
Under normal circumstances, the next step would be a prehearing conference at which we could explore with all the parties not only the best procedure to follow but also in order to clarify exactly what contentions the parties wish to 4
pursue -- the precise nature of the issues which are contro-3 vertex'.
1/
Duke Power Co.
(Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
STN 50-48
, 50-489, and 50-490.
2/
That decision is reported as LBP-78-25, 8
NRC 87 (1978).
3/
In one uncontested proceeding, which was also pending before a licensing board, we granted the parties'equest for a remand so that the board below could consider the radon issue.
It has since done so.
See our unpublished order of September 27, 1978 in Tennessee k
LBP-78-39, 8 ViRC'~lovember 24, 1978).
4/
Our use of the shorthand notation "Perkins" elsewhere in this order shoulo be tahen, unle~ss t. e context ecuires otherwise, as referring to both the record and the decision in that, proceeding.-
Owing to the number and scattered location of the parties involved, however, it is not practicable to hold a prehearing conference at this point.
- Instead, we will attempt to accomplish the same purpose by calling for the submission of further written memoranda.
In this connection, two areas seem to call for attention now.
- First, we need to clarify the extent to which particular parties are dissatis ied with Perkins insofar as it deals with rates of radon release or levels of radon concentration from either natural sources or nuclear fuel cycle activities (as distinguished from the health effects of any resulting exposure).
Second, if PerRins is accurate on emission rates and concentration levels, it seems appropriate to examine C
at the threshold the Licensing Board's de'inimus theory, i'.e., its conclusion that the nationwide health effects attributable to radon released in fueling nuclear power plants must be deemed to be insignificant because those emissions are extremely low in relation not only to natural radon back-5/
ground but also to fluctuations which occur in that background.
5/
Certain parties have emphasized in their papers the question of radon-induced health effects felt by those living close to uranium mines and mills.
Dif-ferent considerations may be relevant where nearby impacts are concerned.
See generally our recent decision in'ochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Sterling Unit 1), ALAB-507, 8
NRC November 1
, 1978).
1.
Radon'missions.
t"~ ~,.,
- In establishing the, format under'which P'erk'ins would be used as the starting point for con 'dering the radon issue in other proceedings, we observed that "toJbviouslv, non-participants in Perkins cannot be held bound by the record adduced in that proceeding."
ALAB-480, supra, 7 NRC at 805.
As it turned out, a number of parties filed objec-tions with us about one aspect or another of the Perkins record.
Host such objections,
- however, went to the adequacy of that record on the question of health effects.
That is, most parties seemed willing to accept without further ado
~ ~
I I =
botL the evidence and the decision in Perkins on the levels s
y
'V y
I
'I Iy y
of radon emissions and the resulting concentrations to which the population'"3.s exposed.
In those respects,
- then, as y.
e
'/
Intervenors in the Three-Nile Island and Peach Bottom discovery of unspecified staff documents concerning source terms.
As
~~e understand it, the current staff practice is to make much material available to the parties without the need for invocation of formal dis-covery procedures.
Having heard no more about the
- matter, we assume that the intervenors'epresentative, Dr. Chauncey Kepford, has been given any material he asked the staff for. If we are mistaken about the accessibility of staff material relevant to this point, or if the material in question does provide a basis for objecting to this aspect of.Perkins, any -affected parties are free to seek a speoiszo remedv from us.
was contemplated by ALAB-480, those parties could now be held
~7.
bound by the. Perkins. record.
In other. words, we would now be free in most proceedings to go forward on the basis of the Perkins record alone insofar. as emission rates and 8/
concentration levels are concerned.
TTe cannot do so, however, in every proceeding:
inter-venors in ~gterlin and T~rone have sugcested that more evi-dence should be adduced on the auestion of emission rates 9/
and concentration levels.
Those suggestions reflect in general terms the topics in which the intervenors are inter-ested.
Before we can begin to decide whether to accept the Perkins figures as valid, we need to learn more about the objections to them.
7/
Any party who objects to this conclusion should tell us promptly why he believes it should not apply to'im.
See 10 CFR 2.752(c).
8/ It is not likely, however, that we will do so.
In each proceeding, the Board has sua sponte responsibility, that is, the obligation to review the record independently of the parties positions.
In light of that, it seems unwise to decide either Perkins or the uncontested cases knowing (see p. 8, infra) that additional evidence on this generic matter mightt>e forthcoming in other proceedings.
See Carolina Power
& Light Compan (Shearon Harris Units 1,2,3 and 4
, ALAB-490, 8
NRC August 23, 1978, slip opinion,
- p. 15); Vir inia Electric a Power Company (North Anna Units 1 and 2), ALP&-49 NRC August 5,
978, slip opinion,
- p. 9, fn. 12).
9/
As we understand their papers, the intervenors zn Marble Hill and 7.'olf Creek are essentially content, insofar as tltese toprcs are concerned, to have their proceedings governed by what transpires in Sterling and in the pro-ceedincs in which Dr. Kepford is involved, respectively.
As we have indicated, significant developments will, in any event, most likely have to be considered in all pro-ceedings (see yn..8,
~su ra).
Specifically, the intervenors in ~Sterlin and Tvrone Ecology Action of Oswego and Northern Thunder, respectively are to furnish us a particularized memorandum setting forth (1} not only the respects in which they believe the radon release data and concentration levels in Perkins are inaccurate or otherwise deficient, but also the basis for their assertions and the potential significance of the deficiencies (i.e., the degree of impact that any corrections might have upon the'erkins figures);
(2) whether, and if so why, they believe a hearing is necessary on those topics or whether some other procedure for considering the matter is appropriate; and (3} what evidence, either written or oral as the case may be, they are prepared to offer.
The inter-venors'emoranda are to be filed and served upon the other
~.
b y
d'*
- d'y ',
January 5,
1979.
After service of those papers, the other parties to those two proceedings will have thirty days to file responsive memoranda.
The responses should focus, inter alia, on whether a hearing is necessary or whether some other procedure is appropriate.
2.
H'ealth Effects.
As indicated by the preceding section, we are not now in a position to determine whether Perkins accurately
reflects the levels of exposure to radon.. If, however, at some future time we were to find the Perkins emission and concentration figures correct (or. reasonably close to being so),
we would have to come to grips with the Licensing Board's de minimus theory.
The P'e'rki'ns board took the approach that, whatever else might be said about the health effects of radon, Based on the record available to this Board, we find that the best mechanism available to charac-terize the significance of the radon releases associated with the mining and milling of the nuclear fuel for the Perkins facility is to compare such releases with those associated with natural background.
The increase in background associated wi,th Perkins is so small compared with background and so small in comparison with the fluctuations in background, as to be completely undetectable.
Under such circumstance; the impact cannot be
'ignificant".10/
If we were to subscribe to that view, there would appear to be no reason to con ider the auestion of health effects further.
Conseauently, we believe it appropriate to consider this aspect of the Board's decision at the outset.
Toward this end, any party in ~ny of the pending pro-ceedings who disagrees with the Licensing Board's approach 10/
LBP-78-25, supra,.8 NRC at 100.
10 should, brief us fully on why that Board's 'views are not
'.l/
12/
acceptable.
Those briefs should be filed and served 13/
within forty-five days of the date of this order.
Responses from any party in anv of the proceedings who supports the 14/
Licensing Board's approach will be due thirty davs thereafter.
In order that, those briefs be most useful to us, they should accept arauendo the levels of exposure set forth in Perkins.
If those levels prove to be significantly incorrect (in a direction favorable to the intervenors'osition),
then the Licensing Board's premise (relating to the disparity between natural and fuel-cycle-related concentrations of radon) would be faulty and its de minimus conclusion could not stand.
The briefs called for here should focus, therefore, on the validity of the conclusion, not of the premise.
The premise will be challenged in the memoranda called. for in section 1 of this order.
1~2 Zt will suffice for each party to serve only the other parties to its own proceeding.
We will see to it that the parties to all the other proceedings receive copies.
13/
Ne stress to the parties that they may not have another opportunity to file briefs before us on the correctness of the de minimus theory, and that our analysis of it may turn out to be crucial in shaping the future course of these proceedings.
14/ All parties should discuss whether-an analogv might be drawn to the Commission's Appendix I regulations.
10 CPR Part 50, App I., Sec. II.
Those regulations set limits upon radioactive releases during normal operation which are couched in terms of levels above background and whi.ch permit resulting doses which are small in relation to those caused by background (as is shown by 10 CFR Part 51, Table S-4, fn. 2).
11 Zt is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS Marga et E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Boards
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COI!21ISSION E""Eo 4'PR 2 6 1~7'TOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSII'1G APPEAL BOARDS~
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman c9
~gOc 7
0gb In the Matters of PHXLADFLPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Three Mile Island.Nuclear Station, Un-t, No.
2)
VIRGINXA ELECTRIC AND POWER COI4IPANY (North Anna Porkier Station, Units 1 and 2)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St.. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2)
CAROLXNA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Pos)er Plant, Units 1,2,3 and 4)
)
V
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-277
)
50-278
)
)
)
)
Docket, Nos.
50-320
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-338
)
50-339
)
)
)
)
Docket, Nos.
50-354
)
50-355
)
)')
)
)
Docket No. 50-389
)
)
Docket. Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Every Appeal Panel Member is on one or more of the Board hearing the captioned proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this joiqg order.
Dr. Johnson did not participate in the issuance>
of this order.
PUI3LIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEN EIAMPSEIIRE et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC CO."IPANY AND KANSAS CITY PONER AND LIGI:T COi'."~ANY (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.
1)
NORTHERN STAT S
PO,'1ER COMPANY (MI?sNESOTA)
AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (NISCONSIN)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No.
1)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.
1)
DUKE POi'TER CO&ZANY (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC PONER SUPPLY SYSTEM.
(NPPSS Nuclear Project No.
4)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, lB and 2B)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
),
)
)
Docket. Nos.
50-443 50-444 Docket No.
STN 50-482 Docket No.
STN 50-484 Docket, No.
STN 50-485 Do"ket IIos.
STN 50-491 STN 50-492 STN 50-493 Docket Nos.
50-500 50-501 Docket No. 50-513 Docket Nos.
STN 50-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-546
)
)
STN 50-547
)
)
) Docket Nos.
50-553
)
50-554
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER March 22, 1979 By inadvertence, our memorandum and order of March 1, 1979, transmitting certain papers to the parties to these proceedings, failed to include a one-page brief filed by 1/
David Caccia on January 3,
1979.
A copy of that brief accompanies this order.
One of the briefs which was served with our March 1st order was filed by Chauncey Kepford.
In that brief, Dr. Kepford asked that we excerpt well in excess of 100 pages from seven documents he had previously filed in the That brief was filed by the original due date.
By then, we had extended the filing date for all parties to February 19th; in later collecting the briefs filed on that date, we neglected the one filed earlier.
Three-Mile Island proceeding and serve them on all the parties.
In ight of the inquiry from the Minnesota Attorney General's office, we should say explicitly that we declined to honor Dr. Kepford,'s request.
Any party who wishes to obtain the documents may, however, do so from the Public Document Room.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS Margare E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Boards
~
~
BEFORE
.HE ATOl'iIC SAFETY k LICEI'lSIYG APPEAL BOADR '/3/79 Res Hope Creek Docket Nos.
50-354 4 50-355 Brief by David Caccia on Boards de minimus conclusions on radon.
e~ >@7
@gal, l2
~ 'g'laO Circe ~
g Sa~
I 'l~
lee Ooc 4 ~6al Peter Buchsbaum
. Public Advocate
- Trenton,
Ã.J.
Presuming that the Board's calculated levels of exposure for radon are correct, I question their de minimus conclusion.
This conclusion, as I understand it, states that there will be sqmewhere between 2 and 132 deaths per millenium from the radon released in conjunction with the Perkins reactor.
And, that this is an insignificant amount of deaths.
First, this number of deaths must be multiplied by the number of planned reactors in the country to see the radon impact from the entire nuclear program.
hese deaths may seem insignificant as a statis ic, but as actual people, perhaps members of the Board, how insign'icant are they?
- Second, the health effects of radon may seem acceptable when compared with the health effects of using coal instead of nuclear.
But if a cost-benefit balance was to be calculated between nuclear and the enerpy alterhatives of solar, co-generation, conservation,
'etc,,and if the nuclear was debited with the adon health effect, I
'hink the oalance
~ould be tipped against nuclear.
- Indeed, a r cen4 study in Califoria showed the cost-benefit balance to be against nuclear in such a comparison even w: shout including the radon cost.
I point this out, not to rai e a new issue, but
+o po'nt out that a valid cost-benefit comparison shculd compare the p= ""ess in question with the best alternative.
Recent studies show that the energy alternatives, and not coal is what nuclear should be compaed with. If such a study was to be done for Hope Creek, it might fir;0 the balance at exact equipoise.
In which case, any:number of deaths due to the radon would tip the balance against Hope Creek.'t the risk of poing beyond th'e radon issue, I wonder if the cost of de-commissioning Hope Creek has been factored into the cost-.benefit calculations?
. c Respectfully
. mitted, David Caccia Trov Conner Washington, D.C.
Atomic Safety 8c Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D,C.
Docketingh Service U.S.N.R.C.
Washington,D.C.
Richard Black NRC Staff Washington, D;C.
F 0i>484 Sar~~
p fgIC(rc gdFEY'Y A~CemSr<Cj-g<74A>
UNITED STATES OF At&RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~iSSION In the Hatter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s)W upon each person designated on =the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at2~ashington, D. C. this
'day of 197~
.4M/'. '(~O<.t>c<c Office 6'f t e Secretary of the Co
'ssion
~~~w~MtC ~i~ l~~~~~~
UNITED STATES OF ATKRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COKKSSION In the Matte" of
)
FLORIDA POLAR ~%3 LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721
.Dr. Frank F. Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 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 Flr.
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 "michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and.Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF 2Q<DRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPASSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S.
Salzman Dr. N. Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman 9<o...
ViAV... ~. ".'7g In the Matters of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et. al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
2)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Po~er Station, Units 1 and 2)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
~ (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,2,3 and 4)
Oy Av g~g 2 iBiB
<~ %le ga:don
<<a
).
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-277
)
50-278
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-320
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-338
)
50-339
)
)
~
)
)
Docket..Nos.
50-354
)
50-355
)
)
~)
)
Docket No.
0-389
)
)
)
)
Docket. Nos.
50-400
)
50-401
)
50-402
)
50-403
)
)
Every Appeal Panel Menber is on one or more of the Boards hearing the captioned proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this joint order.
Nr. Sharfman did rot pa ticipate in the issuance of this order.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEN HAMPSHIRE et al.
(Seabrook,Station, Units 1 and 2)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMP2QW (adolf Creek Generating'tation, Unit No. 1)
NORTHERN STATES PONER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (NISCONS IN)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No. 1)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1)
DUKE POKER COMPANY (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and.
3)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (lE'PSS Nuclear Project No.
4)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443
)
50-444
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
STN 50-482 Docket No.
STN 50-484 Docket No.
STN 50-485 Docket Nos.
STN 50-491 STN 50-492 STN 50-493 Docket Nos.
50-500 50-501 Docket No. 50-513 Docket Nos.
STN 50-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.
)
) Docket Nos.
STN 50-546
)
STN 50-547 (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
) Docket Nos.
50-553
)
.50-554 (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
pe lKVORANDUN AND ORDER March 1, 1979 In two orders issued last December (ALAB-509 and ALAB-512), we called for the filing by February 19th of additional papers in these radon proceedings.
Speci-fically, those who believed that more evidence than that presented in Perkins was needed on radon emission rates and concentration levels (as distinguished from health effects) were to file particularized memoranda on that score (see ALAB-509, Il).
Similarly, any party challenging the Perkins Licensing Board's de minimus theory was to brief us on that point (see ALAB-509, 52).
In our orders, we said that we would see to it that papers filed in one proceeding were served on the parties to all other proceedings.
Owing to last week's snowstorm,
we have waited until today to be sure we have received all papers filed on or shortly after the due date.
Those papers include only the following:
(1)
"Response of Ecology Action of Oswego and Northern Thunder, Inc. to ALAB-509," filed by counsel for Northern Thunder (the 1/.
Tyrone intervenors) on February 19th; and (2) the "Response to the De Minimus Theory and ALAB-509" filed by Dr C.hauncey Kepford (as representative of the Three-Mile Island and Peach Bottom intervenors) on February 19th.
When this memorandum and order is served upon the parties to all the ca'ptioned proceedings, it will be 2/
accompanied by copies of the two documents just mentioned.
The thirty-day period for responses to those documents shall therefore run from the date of service stamped on 1 /
By letter of February 23rd, Ecology Action's repre-sentative in the Sterling proceeding indicated that she joined in the falling.
2 /
Those documents challenge the Perkins record or decision and are thus of interest to the Perkins parties as well.
The applicant and staff z.n perkins will be receiving the documents by virtue of their participation, through the same counsel, in Cherokee.
Ne are sending copies to the Perkins intervenor for its information.
3/
this order by the Docketing and Service Section.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS
.iP'"
. '-i:- X.'
~~i Romayne N. Skrutskx, Secretary to the Appeal Boards 3/
The need to reproduce large numbers of the two documents may occasion some delay in the service of this order.
Docket No.(s) 50-389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Hatter of
)
)
FLORIDA,POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s)3t upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.
C. this day of 197~
ggP7 Offic '
Ithe Secretary of the.
mmission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
In the Matter of
)
,)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
'arold F. Reis, Esq.
Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.'0036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector 6 David First National Bank Building, 14th Miami, Florida 33131 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Flr.
Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
'Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T.
Kennedy Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne In the Matters of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
)
)
(North Anna Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
)
)
(Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1
and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-277 50-278 Docket No. 50-320 Docket Nos.
50-338 50-339 Docket Nos.
50-354 50-355 Docket No. 50-389 Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Docket Nos.
50-443 50-444
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (WISCONSIN)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No. 1)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.
1)
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 4)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2)
Docket No.
STN 50-482 Docket No.
STN 50-484 I
Docket No.
STN 50-485 Docket Nos.
STN 50-491 STN 50-492 STN 50-493 Docket Nos.
50-500 50-501 Docket No. 50-513 Docket Nos.
STN 50-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521 Docket Nos.
STN 50-546 STN 50-547 Docket Nos.
50-553 50-554
ORDER Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.772, the time within which the Commission may determine to review ALAB-509 is extended until January 12, 1979.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission Dated at Washington, DC, this W day of December, 1978.
SAMUEL J C
LK Secretary of he Commission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~MISSION In the Hatter of FLORIDA POSER AVD LIGHT COi~PAVY (St. t.ucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-389
)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s+
upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Date at Llashington, D.
C. this day of Qcb(iXc.
Offi e o the Secretary of th Commission
UNITED STATES Or A~KRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the;!atter of
)
FLORIDA PO'iKR AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Luc'e Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 SERUICE 'LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona
- Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Prank P.
Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.U.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector 6 David First National Bank Building, 14th Plr.
Miami, Plorida 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
'ashington, D.C.
20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coraaission Hashington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
>lashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. H. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Uashington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Jerome E.
Sharfman u I><
In the Matters of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
2)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPAViY (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPAVi Y (St. Lucie Plant, Unit iVo. 2)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,2,3 and 4) eo ya 'cy y94~ six"e~xW
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-277
)
50-278
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
50-320
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-338
)
50-339
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-354
)
.50-355
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
50-389
)
Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403
- Three members of the Appeal Panel constitute the Appeal Boards in the two proceedings in which the motions discussed herein were made.
Because of the order's impact on the other proceedings,
- however, each Panel member was consulted with regard to it; each one agreed that the proceedings on which he is sitting should be governed by it.
PUBLXC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (WISCONS XN)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.
DUKE POWER COMPANY TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.
1)
(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No.
1)
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.
1)
(Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)"
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
4)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-443 50-444 Docket No.
STN 50-482 Docket No.
STN 50-484 Docket No.
STN 50-485 Docket Nos.
STN 50-491 STN 50-492 STN 50>>493 Docket Nos.
50-500 50-501 Docket No.
50-513 Docket Nos.
STN 50-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating
- Station, Units 1 and 2)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-546
)
STN 50-547
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-553
)
50-554
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER December 21, 1978 (ALAB-512)
In ALAB-509 (December 1, 1978),
we called for the filing of certain papers in these radon proceedings.
We now have before us motions from the inteivenor in Terrene (which plans to join forces with the intervenor in ~sterlin
)
and the appli-cant in St. Lucie.
These motions seek modifications in the schedule and procedures we adopted but do.not challenge the basic format we laid down. For good cause
- shown, both 1/
motions are granted.
Because this action will affect the parties in other proceedings, we outline below what its impact on the original schedule will be.
3f Compare Public Service Com an of Indiana (Marble Hill Units 1 and 2
, ALAB-511, 8
NRC December 19, 1978).
The schedule we established in ALAB-509 gave the inter-venors in ~Sterlin and
~T roue until January 5,
1979 to file papers on the question of radon emission rates and concen-tration levels..
We are granting to both the 'equeste'd.
extension to February 19, 1979.
In addition, we are acting favorably on the St. Lucie applicant's suggestion that, upon receipt of those papers, we serve them upon the parties to s
all the other proceedings.
That applicant is correct in pointing out that this will enhance the opportunity for others {if they wish to do so) to seek at an early stage to participate amicus 'curiae on. the Sterling-Tyrone issues -- an oPtion that ALAB-509 was in no way intended to foreclose.
In a discrete
- step, ALAB-509 also called upon all the parties in all proceedings to brief us on the de minimus question.
The first briefs were to be due on January 15, 1979.
The T~rone intervenor has requested that that date also be extended to February 19, 1979.
In granting that request, we are making it applicable to all the proceedings; that is, all parties challenging the Perkins Licensing Board's de minimus approach will have until February 19th to file their briefs.
The thirty-day time for responses set out in ALAB-509 will, of course, not begin to run until then.
2/
lt is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Ma aret E; Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board 2/ Just before we were ready to release this opinion, we received from the Sterling intervenor a motion formally joining in the Tyrone intervenor's motion for an exten-sion of time.
F~olowing close on its heels came an opposition from the Sterling applicant.
That response correctly notes that the Sterling motion itself supplies insufficient reason for the requested extension.
How-
- ever, the
~T rona motion in which it joins -- hut which the Sterling applicant apparently had not seen gives ample justa.fication for the requested delay.
And, as our opinion indicates, we had already decided that in the circumstances the Tyrone extension should apply as well to the papers due from the Sterling intervenor on the first issue involved, and tuinal parties on the de minimus issue.
Ne can think of no reason at this point to discourage those intervenors from filing a joint presentation of their views if they so desire.
Cf.
10 CFR 2.715a and ALAS-509,
~su ra8iVRC,at Zn.
8.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Xn the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFXCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated t Washington, 9,
C. this L day of D~ZC'97@
7 j
gpss'i'd Offic'he Secretary of the; ommission g/Sg>
6 /~ /5
%LINC
UNITED STATES OF AiKRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J-
)
FLORIDA PO'iKR AND LIGHT CO~iPANY
)
)
(St.
Luc" e Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona
- Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Prank P.
Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold P. Reis, Esq.
Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.'iJ.
Uashington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector
& David Pirst National Bank Building, 14th Plr.
Miami, Florida 33131 Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Miami, Plorida 33138 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. U. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety. and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S.
Salzman D'r.
W. Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman In the Matters of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)"
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
Docket Nos.
50-277 50-278 Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
2)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.
(Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-338 50-339 Docket Nos.
50-354 50-355 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al..
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
) Docket No. 50-389
)
Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Docket Nos.
50-443 50-444
"/
Every Appeal Panel Member is on one or more of the Boards hearing these proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this joint order.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~RPQQ,',
~v,.0:e "pr>
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
. )C4)
Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W. Reed Johnson
)
In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-389
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit No.
2)
)
)
Mr. Martin Harold Hodder, Miami, Florida, pro se and as counsel for zntervenors Rowena E. Roberts et al.
Messrs.
Harold F. Reis, Washington, D. C.,
and Norman A. Coll, Miami, Florida, for the applicant Florida Power a Light, Company.
Messrs.
James R. Tourtellotte and William D. Paton for the Nuclear Regulatory Commissar.on staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER May 3, 1979 (ALAB-543),,
Last month we called for a hearing in this construc-tion permit proceeding on an issue that had been troubling us for some time, i.e., the stability of the applicant's electrical grid and, ultimately, the general adequacy of this facility's emergency power systems.
ALAB-537, 9
NRC
(April 5, l979).
Our order has triggered disparate action by the parties.
The applicant was heard from first. It moved that we reconsider our decision and call off the hearing; in support, it asserts that the inquiry we wish to conduct is forbidden by Commission regulations.
Alternatively, it wants us at least to convene a prehearing conference
-- in substance an oral argument -- to consider its motion further.
At nearly the same time, the intervenors submitted their own motion.
Obviously wanting the hearing to go forward, they have asked us to enter an order allowing them to conduct certain broad classes of discovery against the applicant.
The applicant opposes the motion on a variety of grounds.
For its part; the staff has taken no position on the discovery request, pointing out that (as is now the case) the intervenors are seeking material only from the appli-cant.
For a different reason, the staff has not 'responded to the substance of the applicant's motion.
Rather than brief the merits, the staff has simply supported the sug-gestion that we all gather together to discuss the point
1/
orally.
We deny both motions.
1.
The applicant's motion rests almost entirely on its understanding of the so-called "single failure" stan-dard.
See 10 C.F.R.
Part. 50, Appendix A, "General Design Criteria."
The application of that standard,
- however, requires careful judgment.
What is involved here is the likelihood that diesel generators will not start on command.
Generally speaking, the staff will permit this circumstance to occur as often as once in a hundred times during tests.
It is far from certain that the single failure standard extends to, or was ever intended to extend to, a situation arising that frequently.
In other words, it is not clear to us that a diesel engine's refusal to start is at all analogous (within the contemplation of the "single failure" standard) to, for example, the refusal of an electrically operated valve, pump, switch or relay to function on command.
In any event, the single failure standard appears in Commission criteria which, according to their own introduc-tory terms; (1) are incompletely developed, (2) establish only minimum requirements, and (3) reflect the expectation 1/
In doing so, the staff did not inform us of the position it-was likely to take on the merits of the applicant's motion.
that "additional or different criteria" will have to be "identified and satisfied in the interest of public safety" 2/
in "unusual" situations.
In addition to what we said
- above, the peninsular configuration of the south Florida electrical grid and the attendant system power failures which have therefore been encountered seem to us to present an "unusual" situation precisely within the explicit 3/
contemplation of the regulation itself.
The short of it is that the matter cannot be resolved as a question of law.
At most from the applicant's point of view, it may prove to be a mixed question of law and fact.
As such, it is best resolved after a hearing, not on the papers before us or on lawyers'rguments at a prehearing conference.
2.
The intervenors 'iscovery motion is somewhat ambiguous.
It is not clear whether they are seeking the 2/
See 10.C.P.R.
(1978 rev.) at 349.
.3/
Similarly, if. the applicable regulations did clearly bar our inquiry, the facts we have noted would provide the "special circumstances" necessary to justify us in asking the Commission itself to waive the bar and to:let us proceed.
See 10 C.P.R.
12.758.
In view of the exception already built into the regulations, how-
~ver, there is no need to invoke the "special circum-stances" procedure here.
Thus we do not set out the full reasoning which we,would furnish the Commission if that procedure were involved.
To some extent, however, that reasoning already appears in ALAB-537.
requested order because they think that (1) no discovery would otherwise be permitted in
~an proceeding before us a
(as opposed to one beforeglicensing board);
(2) no dis-covery at all can take place in this particular proceeding without our first opening the door; or (3) in all proceedings each discovery measure employed must receive advance appro-4/
val.
We need not pause, however, to divine their in-tentions.
Xn all the circumstances, including the timing and extent of the intervenors'articipation on this matter thus far, and our own role in fashioning the way that the issue has been developed, we believe that the following 5/
course is appropriate.
The applicant and staff should continue to prepare their written direct testimony.
Pos-sibly, much of the material sought by the intervenors will be reflected in that testimony.
Or, to the extent that the applicant and staff begin now to make such material available6/
informally -- as has been done in other similar situations 4/
The first and last of these theories do not comport with Commission practice.
5/
Whenever we conduct a hearing as part of our appellate review function, we must fashion time periods and procedures for discovery different, from those contem-plated by the Rules of Practice, which are structured in terms of licensing board hearings.
6/
See Public Service Compan of New Hampshire (Seabrook Units 1 and 2), ALAB-488, 8
NRC 187, 193 (1978);
and our unpublished order of April 9, 1979 in Vircrinia Electric and Power Com an (North Anna Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos.
50-338 and 50-339 (copies are being sent to counsel; the comments we made there-might well guide the parties here).
any need for formal discovery may be obviated.
In any event, after the testimony of those two parties is filed the intervenors will be in a better position to make any
~s ecific formal requests to the parties then thought warranted.
And, by the same token, if it then becomes necessary for us to referee any disputes, we will be in a better position to do so.
In the interim, cooperation among the parties will do much to reduce the scope of the discovery matters that may eventually have to be brought before us for resolution.
Motions denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Marga et E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman Sg,p(/Q gpp r l~
rp 7p go+gb
'Ql'e W In the Matters of 4/ized 7$
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et, al..
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRXC AND GAS CO.
(Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,
3 and 4)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et, al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
)
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No.
2)
)
)
)
)
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1
and.
2)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2)
)
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
)')
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos'.. 50-277 50-278 Docket Nos.
50-320 Docket. Nos.
50-338 50-339 Docket Nos.
50-354 50-355 Docket No.
50-389 Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Docket Nos.
50-443 50-444
"/ Every Appeal Panel Nember is on one or more of: the Boards p hearing these proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this joint order.
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No.
STN 50-482 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (WISCONSIN)
Docket No.
STN 50-484 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit No.
1)
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.
)
)
Docket No.
STN 50-485
)-
(Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1)
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2 6 3)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et. al.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
Docket
)
)
Nos.
STN 50-491 STN 50-492 STN 50-493 Nos.
50-500 50-501 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.
4)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
TENNESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No. 50-513 Docket, Nos.
STN 50-518 STN 50-519 STN 50-520 STN 50-521 Docket Nos.
STN 50-546 STN 50-547 Docket Nos.
50-553 50-554 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER April 25, 1979 (ALAB-54 0)
1/
1.
For reasons previously explained, we must determine the consequences of radioactive radon gas releases attributable to the mining and milling of uranium fuel and factor the result into the NEPA cost benefit analysis for the nuclear power facilities in-volved in the captioned proceedings.
To recapitulate briefly, we resolved against ordering the issue tried separately in each of the cases.
We also decided not to consolidate them into a single proceeding for that purpose.
- Instead, we attempted a middle course.
A record on the radon issue had already been made before a licensing board in a contested proceeding involving the Perkins facility and a decision by the Perkins board was imminent.
We therefore directed incorporation of the Perkins record on radon into these cases and asked the parties for comments on the adequacy of that record and, when rendered, on the soundness of the 2/
Perkins decision.
3/
In due course that decision was handed down.
The Perkins board found that, the radon exposure generated by the uranium mining and milling processes, when compared 1/
See ALAB-480, 7
NRC 796, 799 (1978).
2/
Id. at 805-06.
3/
Duke Power Co.
(Perkins Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
LBP-78-25, 8
NRC 87 (July 14, 1978).
s to the fluctuating background of naturally occurring
- radon, was so low as to be de minimis and ruled that significant health or environmental consequences could n v not fairly be attributed to it.
After'ereviewed that.
decision.and.,the,c'o~en'ts.--.we had'licited<. certain
.intervenors'wer'e'asked to elaborate on their objections by setting forth (1) not only the respects in which they believe the radon release data and concen-tration levels in Perkins are inaccurate or other-wise deficient, but also the basis for their assertions and the potential signific'ance of the deficiencies (i.e., the degree of impact that any corrections might have upon the Perkins figures);
(2) whether, and if so why they believe a hearing is necessary on those topics or whether some other procedure for considering the matter is appropriate; and (3) what evidence, either written or oral as the case may be, they are prepared to offer.
4/
h'e then called upon the applicants and t'e staff to ls c
~
~
'I \\
respondins, tructing tliem to "focus,'nter~ al'ia," on whether a hearing is necessary or whether some others pro-s i~5 cedure is appropriate" to-;zesolve any disagreement, We also invited "any party in
~an of the pending proceedings who disagrees with the [Perkins] Licensing 4/
ALAB-509I 8
NRC 679 I 683 84 (1978).
4 ~
5/
Id. at 684.
Board's approach" to discuss the validity of the Perkins rationale on the health effects of the radon emissions, instructing them to assume the correctness of the board's emission level determinations for the purposes of their 6/
discussion.
Our reason for this approach, we explained in ALAB-509, was that if the Perkins figures were correct and the ~e mini'mis rationale
- sound, there would be no 7/
further need to explore this question.
We thereby sought to learn what (if any) contentions remained to be heard in light of Perkins.
In response to ALAB-509, the'sterlin and ~Trone intervenors jointly filed a number of generalized and twenty-six'pecific objections to the adequacy of the Perkins record; they also criticized the validity of the de minimis rationale.
The Three Mile Island, Peach Bottom and Hope Creek intervenors also challenged the soundness of the de minimis rationale and urged its rejection.
~.i8/
The applicants in eleven of the captioned cases 6/
Ibid.(emphasis in original).
7/
Ibid.
8/
We received no responses from applicants in the North Anna, Shearon Harris, Wolf Creek and Davis-Besse proceeds.ngs.
The Seabrook zntervenors pre-viously indicated that they were not going to participate in this phase of the case and the Seabrook applicant also has not responded to ALAB-509,
and the staff replied to those responses.
In general; they supported the adequacy of the Perkins record on the radon issue and approved the employment of the de minimis rationale to decide the issue before us.
2.
Our review of the papers has satisfied us
- that, except as to a few matters which we address shortly, issue is properly joined on the radon question and it is ripe for disposition. either at trial or,
9/
- possibly, summarily under 10 C.F.R. 52.749.
Before 9/
This section of the Commission s Rules of Practice, as amended a year ago (43 Fed.
Reg.
17798, April 26, 1978), provides:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON PLEADINGS. 52.749
'uthorit of r'e's'idin
'offic'e'r t'o 'dis ose of certain issues on the 1'ea'dan s.
(a)
Any party to a proceeding may, at least forty-five (45) days before the time fixed for the hearing, move, with or without sup-porting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that party's favor as to all or any part of the matters involved in the proceeding.
There shall be annexed to the motion a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard.
Any other party may serve an answer opposing the motion, with or without affidavits, within twenty (20) days after service of the motion.
There shall be annexed to such answer a separate, short:and concise statement of the material facts as'o which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
All material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
we turn to this, however, 'we.again address the question of consolidation.
9/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served.
by the opposing party.
(b)
Affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.
The pre<
siding officer may permit affidavits to be supple-mented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or further affidavits.
When a
motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this section, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact. If no such answer is filed, the decision sought, if appropriate, shall be rendered.
(c)
Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the. motion that he cannot, for reasons
- stated, present by affidavit facts essen-tial to justify his opposition, the presiding officer may refuse the application for summary decision or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or make such other order as is appropriate and a determination to that effect shall be made a matter of record.
(d)
The presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 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.
However, in any proceeding involving a construction permit, for a production or utiliza-tion facility, the procedure described in this section may be used only for the determination of specific subordinate issues and may not b'e used to determine the ultimate issue as to whether the permit, shall be issued.
C.e (a)
One reason underlying our decision against consolidating all these cases into one proceeding was the belief that some intervenors were less concerned with the radon question than others.
Were this so, the possibility existed that we might be able to avoid some of the problems of scheduling and expense inherent in cases with more than two dozen litigants.
This has proven true
'Only '~St1r'a,"i ~Tarn+,i ThereMi'le
~
1 h
up the laboring oar.
Intervenor groups in the remaining n
- cases, either expressly or by their inaction, have.
allowed the course of our radon proceedings to be 10/
charted without them.
Accordingly, we have decided to consolidate and hear first the cases where inter-venors are actively participating and to hold the re-11/
mainder in abeyance for the time being.
Our decision to proceed in this fashion rests on a balancing of many considerations, of which three are perhaps paramount.
First, the radon issues are largely 10/
See BLAB-509,
~eu ra, 8
NRC at 683 fn. 9.
We note that on October 3, 1978, the ~Sterl'in inter-venors sought to consolidate their case with the
~T rone, Wolf Creek, Marble Hill'and Seabrook pro-ceedings.
As appears from this memorandum and order, their motion is in effect, granted in part.
generic; that is, they apply equally in all cases.
Nothing in the location of a nuclear power reactor affects the quantity of radon emissions generated in the course of mining and milling uranium fuel for it.
(Whether the environmental consequences of those uranium fuel cycle activities, when added to other environmental costs of an individual facility, tip the balance against it, will, of course, have to be decided separately.)
- Second, consolidating only five cases leaves us with a manageable number of litigants.
Only three law firms are involved on the applicants'2/
side and all are located in Washington, D. C.
~he intervenors are also jointly represented, at least 13/
in part.
Finally, moving along in the actively contested cases first will help insure against our overlooking relevant considerations when we come to review the remaining proceedings on our own initiative, (b)
With certain exceptions, the issues have been sufficiently crystalized in the responses to 12/
Messrs.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 6 Trowbridge represent applicants in
~T roue and Three Mile Island;
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby a MacRae those in ~Stezlin
- and Conner, Moore 6 Corber the Pea'ch Bo't'tom and Hope Creek applicants.
13/
Mr. Richard Ihrig represents both the
~T rone and
~Sterlin intervenors for purposes of the radon z.ssues; Dr. Kepford speaks for those in Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom.
Mr. Caccia is active only
ALAB-509 to warrant their acceptance as litigable contentions, The exceptions involve three contentions jointly raised by the ~sterlin and
~T rone intervenors:
14/
numbers 8 and 19, which go to the cost of nuclear 15/
- fuel, and number 25, concerning radon released from the fly ash of coal.
The instant proceedings,
- however, are limited to considering the consequences of radon emitted in the course of mining and milling uranium for nuclear fuel.
ALAR-480,
~su ra, 7
NRC at 799.
Because neither uranium fuel costs nor radon emitted by other fuels are material to those considerations, those contentions must be rejected as beyond the matters now before us.
(c)
The next step would normally be fixing a 16/
time and place for the commencement of hearings.
The responses of the staff and the
~T rona applicants to ALAB-509, however, raise the suggestion that issues respecting not oddly the level but also the consequences 14/
At. pp.
11 and 15 of the joint Res onse of Ecolo Action and Northern Thunder to ALAB-509.
15/
Id. at pp.
16-17.
16/
We dealt with 'the need for formal discovery in ALAB-509, 8
NRC at 683 fn. 6.
We have received no specific requests for discovery in the interim.
11 of the radon emissions may be amenable to summary dis-17/
position.
We agree that it is appropriate first to eliminate the need for a hearing on any question not involving a genuine issue of material fact.
Accordingly, before fixing a trial date, we shall allow the parties thirty days for the filing of motions for summary 18/
d3.sposit3.on
~
In this regard, however, applicants other than those in ~Trone may also be contemplating filing such 19/
a motion.
We direct all applicants to do so jointly.
We are confident that counsel can formulate one set of pleadings and supporting documents.
Doing so will relieve the intervenors (and ourselves) of the burden of analyzing 20/
repetitious papers.
In a similar vein, we encourage intervenors to respond jointly to any filing by applicants, and to act 17/
See in.
8,
~su ra, and Clevel'and Electric 'Illuminatin Co.
(Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 752-57, and ALAB-449, 6
NRC 884 (1977).
18/
See 10 C.F.R. 92.711(a).
19/
See 10 C.F.R.
%2.715a.
20/
See T rone A licants 'emo'r'andum in response to ALAB-509, pp, 10-69, and'terl'in Ap licants'esponse to the< same pp.
6-65, both dated Aprz.l 9, 1969.
12 together if they move for summary disposition them-selves.
In recognition, however, that intervenors are not all represented by counsel and are geographically dispersed, we do not insist on joint filings on their part.
The staff may file its own motion, join in the motions of either side, or otherwise respond as it deems appropriate.
Finally, we remind all parties that the Perkins record is now a part of each case and we have a copy in hand.
Consequently, there is no need to reproduce that record in order to rely upon it as support for a motion for summary disposition.
Any party electing to do so, however, will be expected to give explicit references to the precise portions of the Perkins record it is relying upon.
For purposes of hearing and deciding the radon issues:.
(1) the proceedings in Docket Nos.
50-277 and 278 (Peach Bottom); 50-320 (Three Mile Island);
13 and STN 50-485
(~Sterlin
) are consolidated; (2) parties in the consolidated cases have until May 25, 1979, to file motions for summary disposition under Rule 2.749; if such motions are filed, opposing parties may have thirty days to respond;
{3) proceedings in the remaining cases are held in abe ance pending our further order.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS Marga t E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Boards
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POHER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)-
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in, this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Hashington, D.C. this day of CZ&C/
197 1 Offic f'he Secretary of the 0 mmission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COÃfISSION
)
FLORIDA POMER AND LIGHT CO>PANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F.
Hoopex School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Hichigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Newman, Reis and Axelrad, 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.M.
Mashington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCaxthy, Steel, Hector 6 David First National Bank Building, 14th Flx.
Hiami, Florida 33131 Hartin Haxold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street 1fiami, Florida 33138 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nucleax Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555 Kichael C. Farrax, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D AC.
20555 Dr. M. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Richard S.
Salzman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson
- SQR g/CQ In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.
2)
>qL.
4
+g ipevee C.
/wej f APR 9 3/9
)
)
)
)
Docket No.
50-389
)
)
)
)
Mr. Martin Harold Hodder, Miami, Florida, pro se and as counsel for z.ntervenors Rowena E. Roberts, et al.
Messrs.
Harold F. Reis, Washingt.on, D. C.,
and Norman A. Coll, Miami, Florida, for the applicant, Flora.da Power s Light Company.
Mr. William D. Paton for the Nuclear Regulatory Commxssxon st:aff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER April 5, 1979 (ALAB-53 7 )
Two issues remain open in this construction permit proceeding.
One concerns the soundness of the St. Lucie 2
steam generator tubes; the other involves the stability of the applicant's electrical grid and, ultimately, the adequacy ot the facility's emergency power systems generally.
We completed our review of other matters some time ago, affirming in ALAB-435, 6
NRC 541 (1977), the Licensing 1/
Board's decision to authorize construction of a second pressurized water reactor at the Hutchinson Island site on 2 /
Florida's east coast.
Review undertaken on our own ini-tiative led us at that'time,
- however, to retain jurisdiction over the steam generator tube issue.
6 NRC at 544-46.
Three weeks later, we took up the second question now before us, on the basis of certain allegations that Robert D. Pollard (formerly a Commission staff member) had included in a letter to the Attorney General of the United States.
Mr. Pollard's charges dealt, inter alia, with the reliability of the 3 /
offsite electrical power system serving the St. Lucie facility.
In ALAB-435, we instructed Florida Power and Light to submit a memorandum addressing several aspects of the steam generator tube integrity issue.
It did so, and the 1/
LBP-77-27, 5
NRC 1038 (1977).
2/
3/
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.786(b) (5), the Commission denied intervenors'etition for review of our decision as it pertained to alternative site analysis.
See the letter from the Secretary of the Commission to counsel for the intervenors dated December 23, 1977.
Our decision was ultimately upheld upon judicial review.
Hodder v.
NRC, D.C. Cir. Nos.
76-1709 and 78-1149, December 26, 1978 (unpublished).
See our order of October 28, 1977.
Since that time, we have also taken up here the radon-release issue which is pendinq in a number of other proceedings as well.
That a.ssue is being handled separately and 'is not dealt with in this opinion.
NRC staf f responded.
Because a review of their submissions left us with a number of additional questions, on March 10, 1978 we directed the applicant to provide us with still further information.
At the same time, we took a similar step in connection with the grid stability issue.
Previously, the staff had voluntarily filed a number of documents that it 4/
in response to Mr. Pollard's letter.
As with had compiled the steam generator tube matter, the submissions prompted us to pose a number of questions to the applicant (and, in one instance, 5/
the staff).
4/
5/
Specifically, the staff submitted on October 25, 1977 "A Further Evaluation of the Florida Power and Light Company Electric Power System,"
and on November 3,
1977 ten documents it had referred to in that evaluation.
Mr. Pollard's letter had led to action on another front as well.
By order of November 8,
1977, the Commission directed the Office of Inspector and Auditor to investigate the allegations that NRC em-ployees had improperly failed to notify the Board below of relevant information.
We therefore did not pursue a similar inquiry.
See our order of November 25, 1977; see also our order of July 31, 1978.
After reviewing the report that came out of that investigation, the Commission found that the lack of notification resulted from confusion, not from willfulmisconduct, on the part of the staff. It therefore held that further action was unwarranted and instructed us to proceed accordingly.
Commission order of October 20, 1978.
We, of course, are abiding by its conclusion and giving the matter no further consideration.
The March 10th order set a schedule for the filing of replies by the staff and intervenors.
We there also requested that. those parties discuss whether they believed that further formal proceedings were necessary.
By June 12,
- 1978, we had received the materials sought from the applicant and reply memoranda from the staff cover-ing both topics.
The intervenors had submitted no similar 6/
papers.
- Rather, on August ll, 1978, they filed a "Motion for a New Contention" on the offsite power grid and a
"Motion for Stay" requesting suspension of the construction permit pending completion of the hearing they sought on the new contention.
The applicant and staff opposed both motions.
On September 20, 1978, Martin Harold Hodder (who is counsel for all the intervenors as well as an intervenor himself) notified us by telephone'hat he wished to file additional pleadings.
At Mr. Hodder's request, we infor-mally agreed to delay any action pending receipt of his papers.
Nothing more was heard for several months until, on January 29, 1979, intervenors filed a response to certain matters contained in Florida Power 6 Light's earlier papers.
The response was accompanied by a motion (which the other 6/
See our order of July 31,
- 1978, paragraph 2.
parties have opposed) for leave to file it and to do so out 7/
of time.
Ne are therefore now able to address the pending substantive issues and the intervenors'otions as well.
STEAM GENERATOR TUBES As explained in ALAB-435, we retained jurisdiction over the steam generator tube issue primarily as a result of concerns raised by information on additional instances 8/
of tube "denting" that we had received in the Prairie 9/
Xsland proceeding.
To recapitulate, denting -- which has been particularly prevalent at seawater-cooled plants but had been thought to be a legacy of the phosphate method of secondary water treatment -- was reported for the first time at two plants that had always used "all volatile" secon-10/
dary water treatment (AVT).
Because of relevant similarities 7/
Just before filing these latest papers, the intervenors advised us by telephone that they would be submitting them.
8/
X.e., pinching due to growth of corrosion products zn the crevices between the tubes and their support plates.
9/
See Northern States Power Com an (Prairie Xsland Units 1 and 2), ALAB-427, 6
NRC 212, 216-18 (1977).
That decision supplemented ALAB-343, 4
NRC 169 (1976),
our first in-depth consideration of questions relating to the soundness of steam generator tubes in pressurized water reactors.
10/
The affected facilities were Maine Yankee and Millstone 2.
between those plants and the proposed St. Lucie Unit 2 i.e.,
Combustion Engineering Company design, seawater cooling and use of the AVT method -- we were unable to complete our review of the matter without further study.
Consequently, 11/
in ALAB-435 we directed the applicant to prepare a memorandum containing a full, current description of (1) the steam generators.;
(,2J the components of the condensate and feedwater systems; and (3) the method by which the secondary cooling water is to be treated.
In each instance, the submission should emphasize those aspects of the plant's design and operating procedures which will be directed toward avoidance of steam generator sludge formation, tube corrosion and denting; and the provisions, if any, which are being made to cope with denting should it nevertheless occur.
In its memorandum and affidavit of November 4, 1977, Florida Power
& Light first identified three conditions that it said must exist simultaneously before tube denting will occur:
(1) an area near the tube where impurities can become concentrated; (2) a rigid carbon steel support plate; and (3) impurities historically present due to inleakage of condenser cooling water able to produce an acidic environment.
The applicant asserted that the "eggcrate design" tube support structures to be used at St. Lucie 2 would eliminate the tube-to-support-plate ll/
6 NRC at 546 (footnote omitted).
gaps that could create the first condition and be flexible enough to avoid the second condition if corrosive products nevertheless developed.
The applicant, went on to say that, it planned to avert the third condition through condenser 12/
design features and strict operating procedures.
Addi-tionally, it indicated it was supporting industry programs seeking solutions to the denting problem.
With respect to elimination of tube corrosion and steam generator sludge formation at St. Lucie 2, the company described a number of features and plans; these included polished and heat-treated lnconel 600 tubes, feedwater recirculation and cleanup, deaeration of the condensate storage
- tank, and high steam generator blowdown.
The NRC staff 's assessment (submitted on November 29, 1977) was that the applicant's "proposed design modifications are likely to improve the integrity of the steam generator systems."
The staff said it would give further consideration to the steam generator tube integrity issue at the final (i.e., pre-operating license) safety review stage.
After reviewing the responses to ALAB-435, we asked (in our order of March 10, 1978) several questions that focused more specifically upon the particular plans that 12/
The company did note also that St. Lucie 2 could accom-modate demineralizers if that sort of hardware were to be deemed necessary to maintain secondary water purity.
the applicant had described.
At the end of that month, Florida Power a Light again submitted a detailed affi-davit; three weeks later the staff again endorsed the proposed
- system, saying it "represents the state-of-the art design and is sufficient to establish the level of assurance of safety requisite at the construction permit stage."
The intervenors have not addressed the question in any of their papers.
To date, our treatment here of the steam generator tube issue has been much the same as it was in Seabrook--
i.e.,
a series of questions prompted by information received in Prairie Island, and responses from applicant and staff.
We find the papers thus far submitted are adequate for a decision; there is no need for further formal proceedings.
The decision we reach follows our approach in Seabrook.
As 13/
we said there:
[W]e have analyzed the proposed steam generator and condenser design modifications within the framework of the general conclusions reached in ALAB-343 and ALAB-427 pertaining to the
=
causative mechanisms of tube corrosion and denting.
On the basis of that. analysis, we are satisfied both (1) that. the applicants are taking positive measures to deal with the problem of maintaining steam generator tube integrity; and (2) that these measures are appropriate ones given the present understanding of the nature and root of the problem.
13/
Public Service Com an of New Ham shire (Seabrook Units 1 and 2), ALAB-442, 6
NRC 728, 729-30 (1977).
Of course, our analysis here also reflects our review in Seabrook.
See also Kansas Gas and Electric Com an (Wolf Creek Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7
NRC 320, 337 (1978).
In Seabrook, we stressed too the importance of con-tinuing industry and governmental study of the problems of corrosion and denting.
As mentioned
- above, in this proceeding applicant and staff have assured us that they are keeping abreast, of developments in this area.
We went, on to indicate in Seabrook that the staff should not only scrutinize current research but also at the earliest pos-sible date give effect at "all * *
- pressurized wa'ter reactors in possession of construction permits" to any 14/
important new disclosures in this field.
We emphasize here the continuing pertinence of those remarks.
Finally, we remind all parties that a permit to construct this plant is not a license to operate it.
In the event, that the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, a further opportunity to examine the question at a hearing will occur when an application for an operating license j.s filed.
14/
~d. at 730.
10 ELECTRICAL GRID STABILITY AND EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEMS The applicant and staff have filed a substantial amount of information pertaining not only to the physical features of the company's electrical grid but also to certain system occurrences and generic concerns.
They prepared some of their descriptions, explanations and assessments pursuant to our order of March 10, 1978; other documents were submitted as a result of either recent grid disturbances or Mr. pollard's allegations (see
- p. 2,
~su ra).
After reviewing these extensive submissions, we still have unanswered questions concerning the stability of Florida Power s Light's electrical grid and, consequently, the reliability of AC power for Unit 2.
In this connection, we note that the staff is of the opinion that there is 'less overall assurance that St. Lucie will have electric power available from the external grid than there is for the general population" of nuclear 15/
sular geographical
- areas, and pensating augmentation of the plants located in nonpeni-that there has been no com-16/
onsite emergency power system.
15/
Fitzpatrick Affidavit of 'June 12,
- 1978, p.
5.
16/
Id. at 6. Although these circumstances vere known to tEe staff at the time the Safety Evaluation Report was'repared, through confusion they were not mentioned there.
See fn.
5 ~
'~su ra.
Because of the questions we have, further formal proceedings are necessary.
We do not pause to set forth at this juncture the full reasoning which leads us to call for an evidentiary hearing; the recitation of questions which follows will serve as sufficient explanation for the parties.
Of course, our final decision in the case not only will give the rationale for the result we reach, but also will provide the background information necessary for a full understanding of the problems involved.
We reach the conclusion that a hearing is required on our own analysis of the applicant's and staff's papers.
That result,
- however, comports with the intervenors'elated 17/
motion to introduce a new contention.
In the totality of circumstances, the following course is appropriate.
The intervenors'otion to introduce a new contention is denied as moot, as the matter of electric grid stability and electric power reliability is to be explored on our 17/
As indicated earlier in this opinion, our order of March 10th (a year ago) gave the intervenors the explicit opportunity to comment on the applicant's submission on electrical grid stability.
They did not do so within the time prescribed, but more than three months later sought to raise a new contention on this issue.
own motion.
As we indicate later in this opinion (see p. 22, infra), the intervenors will be provided the opportunity to 18/
participate in that exploration.
Before scheduling and conducting the evidentiary
- hearing, however, the staff and applicant are (1) to prepare answers to the questions set forth below and (2) to submit those answers as part of an inclusive, self-contained package of prepared testimony containing all information relevant to the adequacy of the facility's emergency power systems.
We adopt this course for the same reasons which led us recently to take a similar 19/
approach in the North Anna proceeding.
The parties
- here, too, should focus primarily on the areas covered by our questions,
- but, as we said in North Anna, "their prepared testimony must be broader in scope."
In both 18/
We deal with the intervenors'tay motion later in this opinion.
In that connection, we have given due consideration to the latest set of papers they sought leave to file.
19/
Vir inia Electric and Power Com an (North Anna Units 1 and 2), ALAB-529, 9
NRC (February 28, 1979)(involving different substantive issues).
l3 proceedings, this must be done because, "while we already have before us a wealth of material", it "has come before us in somewhat informal fashion."
Additionally, here as there "the information is somewhat disjointed in the sense that it is necessary to locate and peruse a large number of varied documents to obtain a full picture. * * *."
20/
Therefore, we can repeat our North'nna instruction:
In order to create a formal record which will lend itself to ready review by higher tribunals, we request the parties to make their prepared testimony reasonably self-contained.
In other words, the prepared testimony should itself contain significant background information and references and be structured so that it can be understood with minimal reliance upon documents filed at earlier times.
If that is done,
- then, at the conclusion of the upcoming hearing, all the evidence necessary to understand and decide the issues will be found in the formal record made before us.
The testimony should,
- then, be in the format. just indicated.
Our principal concerns, which should receive the parties 'rimary attention, are as follows:
20/
Id. at (slip opinion, pp. 2-3)(footnote omitted).
14 21/
A.
General Desi n Criterion (GDC)17 1.
This criterion, entitled "Electric Power Systems,"
requires in its third paragraph (emphasis added):
Electric power from the transmission network to the onsite electric distri-bution system shall be supplied by two physically independent circuits (not necessarily on separate rights of way) designe'd and located so as to minimize to the extent ractical the likelihood of thea.r simultaneous failure under operating and postulated aces.dent and environmental conditions.
A switchyard common to both circuits is acceptable.
22/
All three transmission lines connecting the St. Lucie station to the applicant's grid originate at the Midway Substation.
The May 14, 1978 incident, in which all power at that substation was lost despite redundant in-coming sources, demonstrates that these circuits are 23/
indeed susceptible to simultaneous failure.
The testimony should address whether the St. Lucie station nonetheless meets this GDC-17 requirement.
21/
See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A ("General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" ).
I 22/
As we now view it, subject to being persuaded other-wise, the "common switchyard" provision refers to the switchyard at the site and not to a distant facility (such as, in this instance, the Midway Substation).
23/
See the applicant's May 25, 1978 "Report on System Disturbance, May 14, 1978."
2.
For its part, the first paragraph of GDC-17 appears to establish an unattainable set of conditions for electrical power systems generally.
It reads as follows (emphasis added):
An onsite electric power system and an offsite electric power system shall be provided to permit functioning of struc-
- tures, systems, and components important to safety.
The safety function for each system (assumin the other s stem is not capacity and capability to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a
result of anticipated operational occurrences and
- 2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated acci-dents.
This paragraph requires that an assessment of the sufficiency of the offsite power system start with the assumption that the onsite system is not functioning.
That assessment must then consider the effect of "anticipated operational occur-rences."
But loss of the offsite power system itself may 4
reasonably be considered to be such an occurrence.
The parties should, therefore, explain how the St. Lucie plant can comply with the literal requirements of this paragraph as written. If it cannot, they should attempt to justify the situation in terms of the purpose of the requirement.
16 B.
Failure of Offsite Power with Simultaneous Onsite Power Failure In our order of March 10, 1978 (p. 5),
we directed the applicant to discuss the consequences of the fol-lowing sequence:
(1) failure of offsite power (and a presumption of resulting loss of the power generated by the station) followed by and combined with (2) failure of onsite power sources (i.e., the emergency diesel generators) to start on demand.
The focus was to be on safety related events that might occur be-tween the loss of all AC power and the eventual res-toration of an electric power source.
Both the applicant and staff responded that this
- sequence, which supposes the simultaneous failure of two onsite emergency power sources, is not a "design basis event" and thus had not been studied in detail.
24 )
Nevertheless, both briefly discussed its consequences.
24'pplicant suggests that the first safety related failure encountered would be excessive core heating due to the loss of water from the condensate storage
- tank, and that this would occur about 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> after the loss of AC power (Flugger Affidavit of March 31,
- 1978,
- p. 3).
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE).
17 1.
As we see it, the likelihood of loss of all AC power at St. Lucie may be expressed as the product of two factors:
(1) the probability that there will be an offsite power failure involving the FPL network generally or the Midway substation in particularly and a resulting loss of station power which probability seems, based on historical events, to lie in the range 1.0 to O.l per year; and
'(2) the probability that neither of the two onsite AC power systems (diesel generators) will start.
The probability that any one diesel generator will fail to start on demand is taken by the staff to
-2 25/
be one per hundred demands, i.e.,
10
. If these figures are accurate, then the combined probability for the "loss of all AC power" scenario is in the range 24/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
The staff's judgment is that the first failure would be that of a primary pump seal, at about one hour after the loss of AC power -- resulting in a small loss of coolant accident.
(Fitzpatrick Affidavit of June 12,
- 1978,
- p. 11).
25/
Fitzpatrick Affidavit of June 12,
- 1978, p.
4.
Also see Regulatory Guide 1.108, Section B.
18 26/
10 to 10 per year.
In this regard, the staff's Standard Review Plan for Nuclear Power Plants sets forth numerical guidelines for determining whether an event "resulting from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in the vicinity of the plant" should be con-sidered in designing the plant (i.e., whether it is a
27/
"design basis" event).
Under these guidelines, events with a realistically calculated probability value Qf
-7
-6 least 10 per year (or 10 per year for a conservative calculation) must be so considered.
The "loss of all AC power" sequence is not precisely within the category of events contemplated by the Standard Review Plan.
However, its ultimate result assuming that power is not timely restored -- is an unprotected loss of coolant accident, the consequences of which are likely to exceed the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.
We 26/
This conclusion further assumes that the failure of two diesel generators to start would be statis-tically independent
- events, an assumption which leads to the lowest likelihood of combined failure, and which might be nonconservative if there exists the potential for common failure modes for the on-site systems.
27/ NUREG 75/087, Section 2.2.3, paragraph II.
19 do not understand why this sequence of events (i.e., loss of offsite power combined with failure of diesels to start),
which appears to have a probability well above the guideline values, should not be taken into con-28/
sideration in the design of the plant.
The parties are to address this point, setting forth their reasons for adhering (if they do) to a contrary position.
2.
In line with the above discussion, the testimony is to analyze events that would occur between the "loss of all AC power" and the violation of either the fuel design limits or the design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (or any portion thereof}.
In particular, the parties should, if possible, reconcile their differing responses to question B.l(b) of our 29/
March 10, 1978 order, or, if not, point up precisely where the disagreements lie.
28/
We have accepted the Standard Review Plan guideline values as'reasonable in another case.
Public Service ALAB 429 6
NRC 229 I 234
( 19 77) 29/ See fn.
24, supra.
20 3.
The testimony should contain a discussion, sup-ported by such data as is available, related to the time that might be required to start a diesel generator assuming it failed to respond to the initial, auto-start signal.
4.
Finally, in the light of the discussion of points 2 and 3 above, the parties are to review possible measures for decreasing the likelihood of exceeding de-sign limits on the reactor fuel and pressure boundary under the assumption that there is some time available to activate an auxiliary power source subsequent to a total loss of AC power.
C.
System Reliability During Alert Status, According to the staff, the applicant is being re-quired to define conditions in which it will put its 30) power distribution system in an "alert status".
At such times, loss of offsite power would presumably be more likely than normal.
We wish to be advised as to the existence of measures that might be taken to assure, or at least to increase, the reliability of the onsite power systems during an "alert status" period.
/ Fitzpatrick Affidavit of June 12, 1978, Enclosure.3.
21 D.
On ping Improvement of System Reliabili'ty.
The testimony should provide a concise, up-to-date discussion of existing measures, or those planned for the near future, by which the reliability of the applicant's system may be enhanced.
Particular attention should be paid to the seemingly excessive number of personnel errors which appear to have led to the May 14, 1978 outage and to have contributed to the May 16, 1977 disturbance.
Some of our questions may require information more readily available to one party than to the other, or involve issues more appropriately addressed in the first instance by one rather than the other.
We leave it to the combined judgments of the applicant and staff to allocate principal or sole responsibility for such topics and also to identify those that both will cover.
We suggest,
- however, that. they confer to make sure that the prepared testimony as a whole deals thoroughly with'll subjects.
Because they have already given considerable attention to the grid stability issue, the applicant and staff should be able to file their prepared testimony within 45 days
22 31/
from the date of this opinion.
If the intervenors wish to participate in the upcoming hearing, they are to advise us within that same time period of the nature and extent. of their planned participation; we will then give them the opportunity to file prepared testimony in response to that of the applicant and staff.
The applicant and staff will also have a chance to respond on subjects that were within the other's principal responsibility (see the preceding paragraph)
After all prepared testimony is in hand, we will confer with the active parties and establish a definite hearing schedule.
It is our present intention to hold the hearing in the south Florida area.
As we have already pointed out, the course that we are following renders moot the intervenors'otion to admit a new contention on the grid stability issue.
Beyond
- that, we deny their motion for suspension of the applicant's construction permit pending resolution of that issue.
The reliability of Florida Power 6 Light's electrical grid is an issue that is not intimately bound up with the nature I
of the construction in progress; it will come to the fore when the time arrives to consider whether to license opera-tion of St. Lucie 2.
This does not eliminate the matter 3l/ If this proves insufficient, the parties will be free to seek an extension of time.
23 from consideration at the construction permit stage, but it does mean that allowing construction to continue during our review of this question will not. harm intervenors'nterests; on the other hand, suspending construction surely 32/
would harm applicant's.
In accordance with the foregoing, the jurisdiction over the issue of steam generator tube integrity retained in ALAB-435 is terminated; intervenors'Notion for a New Contention" is dismissed as moot; the stay motion is denied; and the parties are directed to file re ared testimon as specified.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Marga t E.
Du Flo Secre ary to the Appeal Board 32/
See 10 C.F. R.
B2. 788 (e), which embodies the criteria for granting a stay set forth in Vir inia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v.
- FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Czr.
1958).
See also the Derrickson Affidavit of August 23, 1978.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Natter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COiPAVZ
)
)
(St.'ucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the.official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accoradance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D. C. this
'r
~e7 +/
Officd 6g'he Secretary of the C mmission
UNITED STATES OF A~fERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~LfISSIO'n the Natter of
)
)
FLORIDA PO'rKR AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-389 SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David L. Hetxick Professor of'uclear Engineering The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper School of Natural Resources University of Iiichigan Ann Arbor, 1fichigan 48104 Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Newman, Reis and Azelxad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.kl.
Uashington, D.C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
1'icCarthy, Steel, Hector
& David First National Bank Building, 14th Flr.
Hiami, Florida 33131
'tfaxtin Harold Hodder, Esq.
1130 Northeast 86th Street Hiami, Florida 33138 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~Kchael C. Farrar, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
'U.S. Nuclear"Regulatory Commission Llashington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing, Appeal Boqrd U.S. Nuclear'Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C.
20555
.Dr. U. Reed Johnson
.Atomic Safety and 'Iicensing "Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LJashington, D.C.
20555