ML17338B201

Discusses 790830 Meeting Among Parties in Miami Per ASLB 790803 Order,Re Contentions,Stipulations & Discovery Schedule.Attached Contentions Supersede Prior Contentions. Certificate of Svc & Proposed Schedule Encl

ML17338B201
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/31/1979
From:	Coll N STEEL, HECTOR & DAVIS
To:	Bowers E, Hall D, Paris O AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7910220417
Download: ML17338B201 (40)

Text

xVgg zk004 STEEL H EGTQ R 6c DAY I s SOUTHCAST flRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING f

MIAMI, LORIOA 3313I WILLIAH C STCCL THOH*$ lt, HcOUIOAN LOUIS J. HCCTOR OCHNIS A,LAIIVSSA OAIIRCY

• DAVIS PATRICIA A, 5 SITZ OWIOHT SULLIVAH PAUL J SONAVIA WILL H PRCSTON 5 KILUAN 'ILU*H JUDITH H, KORCHIH DCHNIS P COYLC CRNCST J, HCWCTT JOHN H, SAIIKCTT Ol COUHSCL JCltRY 5 CROCXCTT ROS CRT J, IRVIN WILSON SHITH JCPTRCY I. HVLLCHS TCLCPHOHC TALSOT O VANCC C,5ALTCII ALCI4SCIITC'AHCS H SWCCHYiIE DONALD H I4IOOLCSROOKS I305) 577-2800 JOHH COWAIID SI4ITH HCNRY J,WHCLCHCL TCLCX 5I 5758 HORHAN A COLL OCIIRY S,OISSON THOS C,CAPPS SltlAH A HART 5 H SPAR 0 KINO HATTHCW I4,CHILDS SAIIRY R DAVIO5ON SH*RYL L POULSON RICHAIIO J, LAHPCN'OSC L ASTIOARRAOA August 31, 197 OIRCCT DIAL NVI4SCR HOCL H NATION SRUCC 5,IIUSSCLL ALVIN S,OAVI5 JOSCPH P KLOCK,JII RICHARD C SI4ITH DCHPSCY'L THOI4AS J I4ATKOV OCAN C COLSOH KATHLCCN P, PATTtRSOH JCPPRCY 5, SCRCOW W, OLCHN Elizabeth, S. Bowers, Esp. Dr. Oscar H. Paris Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic. Safety and Licensing. Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S'. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. David B. Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, NM 87501, the, Matter of Xn Docket Nos. 5'f-250-

~'s.

Florida. Power & Light Company (Turkey Poi 3 & 4) and 50-251-SP

Dear Members of the Board:

The purpose of this letter is to report to the Board on the meeting between all parties held August 30, 1979, in Miami, Florida, pursuant to the Board's Order of August 3, 1979. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss proposed contentions and possible stipulations, and to attempt to set a realistic schedule for discovery.

Prior to the meeting, counsel for the Licensee and counsel for the Zntervenor exchanged proposed refined contentions. At.

the meeting, counsel. for Intervenor indicated that the contentions Intervenor wished to litigate in this proceeding would consist in part of those contentions identified by the Board in its Order of

Qi l

STEEL H ECTOR G DAVtS Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel August 31, 1979 Page- 2, August 3, 1979 (Contentions: 2,. 5,. 6, 7; 12 and 18 submitted. May 2,,

1979).. Xn addition, counsel for Intervenor indicated that cer-tain contentions which had been, refined'rom the original May 2, 1979 submittal,. as well as certain other contentions which the Licensee had, refined and. to which additions had been made by Intervenor should also be litigated. Taken together, these con-tentions now supersede all. pri;or contentions and contain all of the matters which. Intervenor wishes to litigate in this proceeding.

They are contained in Attachment A to this letter..

The parties are. unable to reach complete agreement as to the admissibility or form: of these:proposed. contentions. Counsel for the, NRC Staff understands the Board to have admitted the conten-tions, identifi'ed by the Board in its Order. of August 3, 1979 (Contentions 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and" 18), but reserves the right to submit that certain statutes and. regulations referenced therein are inapplicable. The NRC'taff counsel also expressed the other contentions lacked specificity and basis, or otherwise view'hat-contained matters beyond the scope of'his proceeding. Counsel for Licensee expressed the view that the contentions identified by the Board in its Order, of August 3, 1979 need further refine-ment, in particular the elimination of references to statutes and regulations wnich are inapplicable. Zn addition, counsel for Licensee believes certain of the proposed contentions in Attach-ment A are beyond the scope of this proceeding and the jurisdic-tion of this Board, and others require further refinement, parti-cularization and specificity. The parties agreed that each would file a statement with the Board no later than September 14, 1979 setting forth its position concerning these matters.

Xn addition, the parties attempted to establish a tentative pre-hearing schedule. Depending upon the Board's schedule, the Licensee, and the Intervenor have agreed to a tentative December 4, 1979 hearing commencement date. A. procedural schedule keyed to that date is attached to this letter as Attachment B..

41 ~i STEEt.. H ECTOR & DaV>S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane1 August. 31, 1979 Page 3 d'ates, Counsel.

to for the file proposed NRC Staff believes it is premature to project testimony or for commencement of a hearing..

With respect. to the date for commencement and. cut-off of discovery on those issues identi;fied by the Board in its August 3 order, counsel. for the. Licensee and NRC Staff agree. to the dates specified in the schedule.. Counsel for the, Intervenor agrees to those dates, subject to the undexstanding that the hearing is to be held in December 1979.,

In, order to'esolve. the question of scheduling. the date for filing proposed. testimony toandfile the commencement of a hearing, L'icensee. intends shortly a. formal motion with the Board requesting that it. adopt a. proposed sche ule..

Very ruly yours, No A. Coll jb Attachments cc: See attached Certificate of Service

Qi Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U;S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC. 20555 Mr. Mark P. Oncavage 12200: S;W. 110 Avenue Miami, FL 33176 Docketing and Service Section Office: of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington,. DC 20555 Steven C. Goldberg, Esquire U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 Bruce S'. Rogow, Esquire NOVA Law School 3301, College. Avenue Fort:. Lauderdale,. FL, 33314 Harold F.. Reis, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 N RMAN A., COLL STEEL HEC OR 6 DAVIS 1400 Sout east First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-2863 Dated: August 31, 1979

~ ~

l~

UNITED STATES OF AFRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIC4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMXC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD

) Docket Nos. 50-250-SP

) 50-251-SP FLORIDA. POWER &, LIGHT COMPANY )

) (Proposed Amendments to.

(Turkey. Point'uclear Generating ) Facility Operating License to Units. Nos. 3 and 4) ) Permit Steam Generator Repair)'ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. HEREBY'ERTIFY tnat copies of the attached letter- of this date'o the- Members of. the. Licensing Board, captioned in the above matter,, were, served'n the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, this 31st day of August, 1979.

Elizabeth. S. Bowers, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris.

Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20055 Dr. David B. Hall.

400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, NM 87501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

4~

INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS AUGUST 30, 1979 Whether pursuant to requirements of. the National Environmental, Policy Act (NEPA), 10 CFR Parts- 50, 51/.

the. Commission must prepare an Environmental. Impact Statement, on, tne. proposed operating license=-(OL) amendments, with specific references to 10 CFR 50.90?

a.. Whether the requirements of the, FWPCA are met in; the form of-inclusion .in a NEPA cost/

benefit analysis?

(Contention 2 May 2, 1979)

ATTACHMENT A

41 whether the steam generator repairs proposed by the utility comply with 10 CFR Part 20, NEPA, or the BECCA?

(Contention 5 May 2, 1979)

gi Nhether the handling, processing, storing, or discharging of. primary'oolant. is in conformance with requirements

'f 10 CFR Parts 20,, 50, 51, 100, NEPA or, FWPCA?

(Contention 6 May 2, 1979)

ii Whether the discharge of untreated laundry waste water complies with, 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 51, NEPA or FWPCAP (Contention 7 - May 2, 1979)

li 4~

Whether the use, of. transient workers with unknown radiation exposure histories is in compliance with 10 CFR Parts 20, 51 or. NEPA?

(Contention 12 May 2, 1979)

it Whether the creation of a long-term nuclear waste storage facility at Turkey Point is. in compliance with 10 CPR Parts 50, 51,, NEPA, FWPCA, or any laws protecting Biscayne Bay or Biscayne National Monument,, their surroundings, and their delicate life forms, with. particular attention being drawn to'he proposed, floorless steam generator disposal building?

(Contention. 18 May 2, 1979)

it The Licensee has not considered in its, cost benefit analysis in violation of 10'FR Parts 50 and 51, and NEPA-

a. the cost, of a. full-flow condensate polishing demineralizing system; b.. the effluent release from a full-flow condensate .polishing demineralizing system; or-e., the: environmental degradation caused by a ful'1-flow~ condensate poli;shing demineralizing system.

0 Qi The continued operation of Turkey'oint Units 3 and 4 should be: suspended because:

a. the, impaired condition of the steam generators poses the possibility of'ccidental loss of coolant;;

b.. the. impaired condition of the. steam generators

'subjects onsite workers to unacceptable levels

,of radiation. exposure;,

c.. the. impaired. condition of the steam generators poses the; possibili;ty of'ffsite radiation,.

I releases endaggeri.'ng the public, health and.

environment and violate. the Federal Hater Pollution Control, Act by the discharge of primary coolant.

~ >

The cumulative offsite radiation releases as a result of all activity at Turkey Point, during the proposed repairs, .are contrary to 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 51, 100,. and'he National Environmental Protection Act.

~I ~ >

10. The Commission's NEPA Analysis is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the following alter-native procedures:

a; arresting tube support plate. corrosion;

b. in-place tube restoration ('sleeving);

c. in-place steam generator tube replacement (retubing);

d., d'crating;

e. decommissioning; f:.. bioconversion;

g. conservation;.

I

h. -solar energy.;

i. natural gas; or j .. coal

4> Qi ll. The. utility has failed to provide an accurate cost:/benefit analysis contrary to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51, and the National, Environmental Policy Act, and. the FNPCA because:

a0 it, has failed'o consider the cost of future recurring, steam generator repairs;

b. it. has used the inaccurate figure of. $ 30Q',000 per day per unit for replacement. power costs for reactor outage; C'e. the use of a radiation exposure value guideline of

/

$ 1.,000'er: man-rem for plant workers is inaccurate:

d.. it has. failed. to provide a cost/benefit analysis for an additional commitment of land resources for the creation of a nuclear waste storage facility.

e., it has failed'. to consider the costs of addition of

a. full flow condensate demineralizer and of condenser retubing; it has failed to consider the additional costs caused by inflation and delay.

~I ~i

12. The programs and procedures proposed. to be followed by the Licensee in making the steam generator repairs demon-strate. that it will. not. make every reasonable effort to maintain occupational, radiation exposures at a reasonably safe level and at a. level within 10 CFR Parts 20 and 51.

II ~i

13. The proposed, method of'adiation monitoring during repair'f the steam, generators is inadequate in that. it, fails. to comply with 10 CFR Parts 20, 50,. 51, 100., NEPA, and FNPCA.

4l

14. The measures proposed to be taken to protect against fire hazards associated with the steam generator repairs are inadequate to protect against radioactive releases in violation. of 10 CPR Parts 20, 50,. 51,. 100, NRC: guid'elines, and NEPA.

Qt PROPOSED SCHEDULE TURKEY POINT STEAM GENERATOR REPAIRS LICENSING HEARING Thursday 30, 1979 Parties meet in Miami to discuss contentions, possible stipulations, and set a= schedule for discovery.

Friday August 31, 1979 Parties report to Board (ASLB) on, meeting of August 30. All parties commence discovery on contentions ruled admissible by Board in Order of August 3, 1979. (Contentions 2, 5',. 6, 7', 12 and 18) ..

Friday Tuesday,-'ugust September 14, 1979 Parties simultaneously file and serve statements concerning admis-sibility of Intervenor's. conten-tions filed with Board with report, of August 31,. 1979.

• / October 30, 1979 Cut-off for discovery requests on contentions ruled admissible by the Board in Order of August 3, 1979.

Friday **/ November 16, File prepared'estimony.

Tuesday 1979'*/

December 4, 1979 Commence hearing.

"/ All parties agree that discovery on any other contentions ruled admissible by the Board may commence upon issuance of the Board's order so ruling.

Assuming it is consistent with the Board's schedule,. both Licensee and Intervenor agree to the proposed December 4 hearing date. The NRC Staff believes it to file testimony or commence a hearing.

is premature to project dates ATTACHMENT B

4~ ~ I