ML17338B202

Statement in Support of Admissibility of Proposed Contentions 7-14.Alleges That Issues Re Repair Project & Potential Health Hazards Are Clarified & Resolved in Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17338B202
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/15/1979
From:	Marshall R MARSHALL, R.A.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7910220494
Download: ML17338B202 (86)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CObRZSSION BEFORE THE ATONIC SAF TY AND LICENSlNG BOARD ~)( ~

In the l'liatter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250

)

FLORlDA PONER 5 LIGHT COI'jPANY )

) (Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) Operating License to Permit Units Nos. 3 and 0) ) Steam Generator Repair)

INTERVENOR 'S STATEMENT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF PROPOSED CONTENTIONS On August 30, 1979 pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's August 3, 19'79 Order, the parties in this action me for discussion on proposed contentions, possible stipulations and to devise a discovery schedule. One outcome of the meeting was that a revised list of 14 contentions was adopted 'oy Intervenor as the issues he chooses to 1'igate in this proceeding. Of the list o 14 the first 6 contentions are those ruled oy the Board as acceptable for lit'ation in its Order of August 3, 1979, and as sucn they are not included herein as subject fo this statement of admissibility. There was no complete agreement reached thus far between the parties as to either .he admissibility or form of the remaing proposed contentions

'7 through 14.

Intervenor's position is that Contentions 7 through 10 should be accepted by the Board o" li .igation. He subm's that these contentions clarify the scope of tne repa'r projec and resolve potential health hazards to the public and the repair work =orce. They are sufficiently specific as stated to give Licensee and the NRC Staff adeauate no .ice of the particular areas

Ii 0 of concern Intervenor desires to raise in this proceeding.

Regulation 10 CPR 2.714(b) does not envision that pr'or to Board acceptance of litigable issues In.ervenor must provide the ultimate factual predicate to these proposed contentions.

However for purposes of assisting the Board 'n determining the acceptability for litigation of the remaining contentions Inter-venor prov'es here a discussion of his factual analysis of the concerns framed by the contentions. The discussion is in no way meant to be all inclusive nor does Intervenor 'ntend to be in any way limited in his factual proofs in this proceeding to matters discussed. As to the Contentions numbers 7 through 14:

Contention 7. The Licensee and the NRC Staff nave failed to s ate the costs associated with the addition oz a "Condensate Polish'ng System". The only reference to this system is found in the "Safety Evaluation Report", i>lay 14, 1979, p. 3-1, "...the ins .allation and use of condensate polishers will essentially elimina e sludge." The Licensee has denied that ihe addition of this new system is in any way related to s .earn generator repairs.

In .he "Response of rlorida Power and L'ght to Board Order of i~Iay 19, 1979", p. 4, the Licensee states: "...installation of non-nuclear components not the subject of the proposed license amendments Nithin tne scope of NEPA, 42 USC sec. 43/2(C), the 3oard has jurisd'tion to approve all facets of the repair pro ject.

The isolat'on of .his one component is not compatible with s .atemen.s 'n the Licensee's r"inal Safe y and Analysis Repor., p.l-l:

"The nuclear power un's incorpora e a closed cycle pressurized water nuclear steam supply system and a.

turbine-generator system utilizing dry saturated steam

p~/

Oi Qt

-2A-Eouipment includes the radioact've waste disposal system, fuel handling system, main transformers, main condensers, and all auxiliaries, structures, and other on site facilities required to provide complete and operable nuclear power units."

The economic and environmental costs of this one component must be fully considered when the costs of repairs are calculated.

rl'!A 4> 4~

~

?.2 '..BC Ztc~ vio .@tee 'C C:-P. ~1.'-, e, 'tC no t inc uc, 1:.g ti c cvsts Qz il'2 cc~:.0'>vl'~c jec concezls8z po loeIS ln G cost/

LJ2Z;2- 1 t Cnh, yS 3 0 h

c... vni lI'On-2 lire.i 2DGC v L ci v~~ i 4

'lr ~ ~ uk 4 ~or t;-.2 '.C St~f ?zas v ol"t c 'C CrH .C. =,, (', (1 lr, one ( ~ v',

by not ev" lu~tin~ t?:2 acecuac" 0+ t.. str ctu" s"s or co o-..~nt to ."..ez QI~ its ntenced s~ et~ function. ~

one . 2 i".EiC ~t ff ? eve conc 2e.'c env on...ent L! '2 License i.pact in az .ation by t!:. fei~ure to cisclose ti;e cl;evict..l COL tpOSltlo i 0 t?;2 con62 .s2t 3 pof.isl " 2=="~u'nt, ?:e zzecuency 0-'lsc?Zc 9'~'S) volu e p=r disch z=.e, envizo".-enta~ imp" c on 0 is) P r~l.: .;V "-. g ~ 5'l.

?ii !Z 7 .q 11 ~l i 0::" ~~~%i

-~

- ~ 2' ivst+ t 0 v i~r "2CGI '~ . t 'I".'i+ S ) Cn(" 0+,".er PZ'Oce'2S 'I!~ic.'Vill c.1 ~ OVI ?Z2

~ c

.~ >>1 u~ni, to la".ipLct. i.u:.i:.n food C::Cln ~

Doz t 'n Bz t t'.1 s ln Qz zc.t ion vi'8 - ...cG2

'SuI'Iy ate L tenez c"-tQI'epc.ix0 'ect" ) p va vr.

~

r C ~

~

n(

] Tot 8.'i 8.8 t 2 vo y c1 1.ice

~ u:.".2 1s c".p px'0 zi=ateiy 2 ,6CG C viid v I ei.>~

~:)r 'vc viav ~ c c wni ~

1 1 0'n

(:---'- - t = %1 Di'r

( i~ /

~

'4 t 0 ~'

'EiC T.

I ~

p .

."'.c .~G, = ~~~~C' 1>>

Vv ww~ 4~ 'i ~e

~ '. g n~

0' o "~ Suspenc ~

Golics ( '~)

c ~ i.~n i>> i,'4so Duz l..p'onceL.s 2I 1i. le E 0 ~

t!.2;;2.'t vo3.u ~ co ~ a 'V') V'N ~

p Lgg M~ 9.C gf'

( ('50g Q Dw'

.'! c-.)aGg ~

cudc I

~

C

~t

r. ft g

) T cC cr vv ni

'4 i l

~ ~

i@i t vg

~ p v ~ jJ~

v/ gn QQG1 1Q t o 1ter- s 1 . -

<) t!~e . Q1 lo;;1ylF

't C gJ)lt ~ ~ iCG 71 l)P c ')P~ Ter

'DPI!I C'-

') P~~ C tJ 4C 4oo~

t t,)1~ ~ Co'-Cel ty c e 1 i t+e U. ' I -' ecse6 t '. i dcUg'n: DGj or CBy'c. 3QQ..O:..e I 2- ecse to i,

~)leSe

~

'eC t

eyCJ., c.t ~~ "VJGg ~ Zc ~e CCCO-0" 1a .eC ' Gs. ~

sto .

sI'y Q !lic . cg ! ye "cLi 1 e G1-= s" si>> "."ic ciy ect c1 sc!;Gz Ce io Ccy 6 GQIt ic vlt. t!I'e Csy c, 3QUa G CU 1t 1~

't"b1n~l Jut'.,~e;=ent of Civ1~ . c 1on 7C-"."""-C;<) p o!11"'t1n~

t.". c' c."." r ge o" coo.'in~;;-t r .nto i~ca'"..e "J contain~

gkvc 4 gp I Qs 4 avIi'I S PvrJ g PQCA ~ IVV C

~ ~ ~ e ~

I J t It ~ ~ ~ t V\t1 I~

~

exceed t~

tl 7 Disc.'.G.ries 't') t a.crCt't'C S ~;-Gl 3 ~.1:21ted io Q 1 C c.l I '-1 i vn (vi. c!. " ).rozi;.-.c I OU I 'O,)

exceot 1;i 18.. ~ t.tat. i. Sc. i.i )

t 1il I 1 i "e i c oo4 4

3...).

J

~ ~~ t11

~

rCia~StY

>~

1 S Roy 9 ' .1t1..t". Qnd c'.n i+(i

~o

".z iod is r ecQ yec o Evo1G exceeC QSQ 1 1 ~ Il

C Qi

44

))Qs))) r)r v Or r. '1 e. 0)rre)rcV) e(~ion)L1 D.~v re..C")

Qv w ~

4 4 i. eZ r j j i, ) 44)> vcs v,it.". 4!:is -..el:; ~I'1 1 l 4.'1 4 SQUZ'Ce ~;:. r.eV' c!tlat:.c 1 . Olluti.nt Disc;.'- 9 fe 11~1..&t )Jn P 'Z) jt ~ru' Qe QUuri t tJ) ize I1CenSee t0 inc "UC I 4i lS souz c = 0 pollut'.) ~

144 C d )r)4') 1 1tel lvr4 0 cg stc 4e 8i t 0 4 ~

p v4 ~ )en44)rlorz 0 j sec+jon 511 0= tl )'['-C ~~ nc 'e s 0- 9/c =)ection vvC 44 S ~

<<3 )n>

t ..C.t C v'.y, I, I or

~q ~ Wr.~ )y ~ ~ )j not c ~ <<1 4 4. \ '14 ~ L S OZ 04;. 'Z' '(l'lZ v):"e.";4 C I. '4 0 rl roj

~

04).Z 41CU" GZ Pvr t (.Uestl 04 ~

7 v) C r )i iiv 14 l.ppz oveG

).

VI

~ 4I V )~C ~aC ilv4V 0 Z'922.t Ii

~ i

~

0P C Oi+4 al +0,0 ~ v~

Co; c I"..'= "f .u lc '~ f2 'url..~ Qpex tlon 0 ' Gs tox ci

~ i >

AL'~i c LC iavv(2 0 gal c Z~'OO c it 44 'sv P3U); 2( ) CQ ev v~ltfil:". i1;2 ~>UI lsc let 0;"; 0 QU c t'.Gt 1'3 -.ehL 1 . 11 t'~.tlon j

"'enOL c'tQZ I 2-81IS Qn Stcc.

@pi re" t" j) i",2 QVGL

~

I lcli z '+sou j 'e c.lz in( SteLZ ge".. ". ~. Qrs i .Uz<e;. oint is t0 0'iate tl'.G <: I'int- c.'.C.-..e Oui 4 i vI q~C l,i'~ i'IrsPq i . /1 s%C i

4'4c ~

~

c An

i. P i ~),rap iisv 14t pv't'ai'qg v i i al 4c z r h+0

'+$ 4C ow7 s j 4 v i04a ~ ~ ~

~

c.ere c..p DeeI's 0 Qe c 0 LtOUS SB Gtg PrO" - inVQ'; GC, .-.inCe ti.e ~ ic of Uclear . r.e ctor:.e;-U'~tion;::i t~'-G !.2 eras ic P1'.c scout 0 i,tlat;UI'.. : Ql .t Fe,cl 1

f.d CO'XO'0n CQ itlnUGS 1 2 CO-'3(.UG-'LCGS 0: C Iec-'C .Oi GCCLCO..t QCCUL:- CiuZ l..j nOZ c " OPGL "T O.i c:nC. ' Cgf'.v'" iGC ce J' ecti v stec; ~ GiieL 6 tOX s s 1 Bi c ZQI Iep2lz s) ~~~ oo ox k:i: 1'.8-t Gg, ltuc3 0 cilsc.s ez s ' e ".'L:C) 5'0$ 2 pz ii"c.rj ur..ose ~

1$ to CUGZl: iUd .'.Gcltl. fnc sefet~ of tl;G yUVllc, zust co-..slcer t .2 sc fet: px'0 'leiTS i"?Volvel v<'itfl c~~" G.spec i$ Qf, Ste82 tenez'GtQr rep;irs. '"V resicen s Qf South F'Qrida oes. rve assurcnce 0 safe oo. ration 0" stLQnr: "zotective .~easuI s, if tl:Glr s et.;

L.'QS v2 n CQ. PL Qi~ S'GG "n 2 lier Cc'Se ~

C I 2 - SQnGD12 2? P-c~ZGtiQn Oc c nggx s> Q Qpex'~~ Q re'tQZ'v t, (i. cilve sic~ i

~eneZ'c. iOrv $ 1LQU~ Q 0 cc Public.

i',/)

L ne ?fQC gtL. .ich C Y , <<+q pt C~ ..! gal),~i~~ +i i g0 q n ~i i. ~'ic +1 tu'.2$ p~u-""ec, +)

vis% g big >a4~ g ii04 4'J et%+ vv 4)A+'ill

~ 0'4 ~ i ~ iieut TX'C:;SZ GX C Wbf

0 ~ i 4G4v'..t a~(. j'C,41~i~<< 4i e 'CC:a44<<8 C.QC t.Cae . 5C J48..

'ou+ ii le"-res to. =.'~j c,u stio~s u~..".s:.Sr. c to be .e".ssur'nG.

o"rG should i

be 0'"s~tis~ ec ':,".t.'". --

Cr. G.. evasioa

<< ~

Lt[LC Zl~g ). CL}c I f QS t))3 GeC1Slo.a . g la~~ 3Ger 4 1 j(3.'<<ac j t ti 3 OV I 1G Il dui" 0 '

Ot ct Ll.= the '.U...'G.. e))7 '0 . 0:li t<<'.1 'C Ling f, ls 4 ceto Oz ta'ie siec2 Pe 1er c,40I I ej c 1I (eels oil al c'lokl

'I c, Ge '

0 Via.Ãl IOQGlr S veCO ae .at C3SSa rq' ir<<V-1 4i".= .-.'a:C g t~ I C 1~

de-ovstz'Gt-'s vij j ~Cr/ L ~

tulle s 1ut- ' D

~'03 l " sG -

~ j I 0 i .1 e . "I c

'QI t i;ls thI'est'.0 0-st~ ids P

c.vg) c

~

G 2 s ~ iieet a>o 4'.3 41" t'Z'j '.1d C'. I 'ldus ~

' ZIO, ZOO: =r. SiS t Lt ~\+ 0

)a4) ea' cilia,t 0 i QJ iao ta . O~f;.. '4 la~

). a L

4 Ly."4..)~ ~ e t ~

c.Z't~ c:. It c ~ 40 Z~1Cia V;hat per.=~4 rS tceco e UQco"s 'Ivotl' ~

.ill 1 tr"-ashier c.""a i~due 'I".::si I.ts?

2.

Qec

il" tr.".nsi. I

<<c,sed

,Ll 1 CeCI 3RS 'C t;...-.s="'r

" be =.OI'e li.

are'.-.c 'c" 1- Lo 'd to .<<a ~ i') i a t4 ~ ~

GCcis cecI 3ps-0 t L L asJ 4 gw v< ~ a1

~ a r,1i i') 4a ca r, L '1A)t Cac4 h ) L 4))4 or r "cti;:' to ~CC;;?

t IJ ~

Lti

'4 w Laa'La )

t.~44S 0~u- ! eG L t<<)<<')it j 4)

~ L44'ying i.l 1 ll t ZUD4U 4a e w4vv 1y

<<:.'".e.)

~

4 -4) 4 ~

0~ ~~ l '4)te OJD ' c.Ce tx.e I JO 41 '~

0: ) ltt .. I 4.CIA. tlo."I '-:;,.Qsu to d = cti ft) .t I a i v

'av ...C aa gp 34~ ~ ~ 4 t t j'v..C

~ .a ') .1 . 'OOL 74 )i 4 taw4) )Laa

~

~

~

a't

~ W C

1.1 S 03C ~ c ~

,C I+

Ii '.c>> C C Cr ~ ~ ZCC 2C C>> Ch> C '>>v C cr

' c v'g a

4)

\ ~

to G c'Oucct 0 It) Glcr't ' i I c L c'hse>> OL>>cl cr ) CQ 1."lg St -'Ca..; '30Z GtoZ'e 0).'l I s zouz c e s 0 I>> Qlc.'t3. >>P '".Qst l..c" QG 3 t.'.e o~er Gild(

ze-cto.", z~'ctor cullcl.".~s) ste "z,"".e.". I.ciors l.". tr-.".sit) f" S 0QS .. Ssio l CO;-,StIQCt30!i G" . r,.tlCQ t S coolir.'p c".lvl v:ai r, cecorlt4 J a 1 cuic =, licuid CorSiruCii i". a 'Z .".t, le 'dzc;;C teS) ~ric"CZ" COOl; St)

PZ OC S -v'C !:I ia. Qz'~'OO Cilt) Stor 6 rr". CZ" COO C'lt u c~oV ~ ae.'lt ) 0191s) f3.liez s) ru.l~J.: ) s'o"lcc.z; co c'."1 ) sc e"!t f!'el

,r3.is) vcrvh>>c h~r t ".i ) S, QCts) '.G ""St Ql C3..':,.) CO. C c'i ) OolS)

C 0 c.!.1".li ) SC 0: 0 " C 1 clcc3 ) P I 0 t >>~ C -Ie S .. 3 3. ~

G= ) ~

clorhVCr

~ >>1S ct i1 rCr >>4) v+0 ~ C c l 'c.-zl BORS) ) .cC.',.OstulCteG c. CC-G 'Fits ~ Cc lcul>>~ tlo~s c:,I - >>0 ~ .'>>

L~ v v'

>-...eci;'l co:.sic I tian;JQ "t o J give~ 0 tke c<<aracteris ics 0 ,".Ozous lie sto..'OCR

~

Qac I l'::;";:.Qz.'.. ..'oi:;i cnc t'".e

'rv c ose ozoz':  ;.it" 0 ";..isca'.z" -a'. 'G C ': 1CC.1C) (c) s c es:

"( "j .,)eteoz'olo)".3.cc l c0Ãic3.tlo C cr tic>> S C C. Cri lc~~~ C.".QZ'c) C el i~t3.C>> 0:

er3. !Qi >>..e co!!sec Qe..c

87. ~I'lc " tjc

.')3c'Clc.l ))I 'CCQt3.0.".S Si.ou cr c )r c ~ i ~ i'>> G cJ - ec" C QT S i0 vc OC>>

I ~i'lvc=c ilia

'>>vC>> t C v

.'..Utez lc..l e

~ c>

h

'e !lt

('e>')ri S J.c sc3.J 3 C>> cl 3.,~!.t t I 3.!1C

) CC JC>> ~ Cr Q

' c 0:

~~ ri~J.

ar>>o Q.-.c 3z.-sou::c) <<.c er u'. le~. Ic

~i Contention 10.

(a) The SGRR, December 1977, p.2-2 indicates there is no.

present process to arrest tuoe and plate corrosion. The EIA issued June 29, 19'79 fails to consider this possibility. Such consideration becomes important in two ways: Arresting corrosion before 25/o of the tubes become plugged would oov'ia.e the necessity of costly steam generator repairs, and if, after repairs are completed, corrosion continues to occur there may still be no mechanism for preventing the degradation of tubes. Thus a new round o costly and dangerous steam generator repairs may have to be undertaken..

The NRR has voiced serious doubts aoout the ability of the re-designed steam generators to withstand corrosive attack. The SER p. 3-1 states:

"The Quatrefoil Plate design has led to some tube deg adation in the form of a type of erosion "

cavitation mechanism in once-through steam generators.

At page 3-2 the SER also states:

"In the event that denting reactions be initiated we would have some concern over the propensity of this ma.erial for stress corrosion cracking in a chloride environment."

(b) The alternative of sleeving degraded tuoes should be considered based on the experience of the sleeving project at the Palisades Nuclear Power Stat'on in b1ichigan.

(c) The Westinghouse Report, NCAP 9398, "Steam Generator Retubing and Refurbishment", describes a process vastly superior to the method proposed 'n the SGRR.

(l) Worker exoosure is estimated at 050-600 i~'lan-Rem per unit. This represents a saving of 1000 iran-Rem for 2 units over the Licensee's estimation of 2600 Wean-Rem.

(2) Work can be accomplished in a quarter (93.days) as stated on p.5-18 wnich represen s a saving o> 232 days outage time for the station.

4~

(3) Defective tubes will be cut and packaged for shipment to a licensed land disposal site. This removes the potential hazards associated with storing defective steam generators in an earthen floor build'ng onsite.

(d) Derating appears as an acceptable course of act'on when taken in conjunction with alternate methods.

The EiA, June 29, 1979 states that the 0/estinghouse re-tubing may take 2 years to win approval. Since the present projection of the commencement of repairs is the fall of 1980, there may be a delay of one year incurred if retubing is chosen as the best method. During that yea (Fall 1980 to Fall 1981) only Unit no. 4 would be derated at a cost of $ 4,380,000 while Unit no. 3 would run full power. Xn the fall of 1981, the Licensee could elect to repair Unit 0 or Units 4 and 3 in secuence. lf Unit 3 is kept running through 1981 to 1982 it would then be in its first year of derated operation and the cost would be $ 4,380,000 plus inflation.

(e-j) These may be discussed as one option. The derating formula allows oroad f exibili ~y in phasing 'n Bioconversion, conservation and solar techniaues while phasing, out the defective operation of 'Uni.s 3 and 4. Power interruptions and economic dislocation need not occur as conservation and renewable sources slowly expand.

Decomm'ssioning would 'oecome necessary if the safest and most economical option is fossil fuel generation o~ electr'c'y.

Economic savings would occu if componen.s used for Units 3 and 0 were converted to fossil fuel generation. The use o= coo 'ng canals, oarge acilit es, ex's 'ng grid, .ransformers, turbines and possibly reuse of .he reactor buildings can represent areas of great economic savings.

-ll-Contention ll. The Licensee has not provided a cost b'enefit analysis for steam generator repairs. One major factor is assessing costs that has been oofuscated is the time period estimated for accomplishing the proposed repairs. The steam generator repair report (SGRR) p. 2-5 projects an outage time of 207 days. The SZR, p. 1-1 s.ates an outage time from 6 to 9 months (183 to 274 days) and later, p.2-13, ment'ons a projection of a 300 day outage. While the Licensee and the NRC Staff allows a wide latitude in outage time for repairs, all stated replacement electricity costs are based on 207 days which is a very low end estimate. Were the actual outage time to exceed, 207 days many other projections become less credi'ole; (1) the costs of replacement electricity, (2) the costs of ma'ntaining a work force, (3) the costs of maintaining construction equipment, (4) the costs related to longer periods of worker exposure,

($ ) environmental costs of construction effluent (dust, liauid wastes, laundry wastes), and(6) environmental costs of eplacement electricity, e.g, thermal pollution from the possiole reopening of the Cutler, Riviera and Palatka fossil fuel plants.

(a) All benefits of steam generator repa'rs can oe negated if tube corrosion or other processes requiring tuoe plugging reoccur. Worker exposure rates will oe again elevated and the one time large estimated dose of 2600 i%an-Rem (3300 to 5SOO iVIan-Rem according to i%JR:"G-0199) will never show a pos'ive balance.

Unit no. 4 was put into commercial operation September 1973. The let er of Septemoer 20, 19'7'7 from PP%L to the hRC states that inspections and plugg'ng operations were initiated two years prior to the letter. Thus Un' 4 's tubes were deg aded wi .hin 2 years

of the commencement of commercial operation. It should also be noted that the economic cost of steam generator repairs will be passed on to the rate payers as pure inflation, since no additional generating capacity will be ouilt. If the redesigned lower assemblies fail to prevent reoccurance of tube degradation the economic burden on the rate payers considerably worsens.

(b') In the letter of June 8, 1979 to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, FPEcL states. "fossil fuel used to generate replacement electricity while Turkey Point is Off-Line will cost $ 300,000-$ 400,000 a day." This statement indicates that the flat $ 300,000 per day costs is an insufficient projection.

Another problem arising from. this statement is that replacement power may encompass many costs other than fossil fuel costs. In effect the most recent estimate on fuel costs may not be a total estimate of replacement power costs. The situation is further worsened if repairs su'ostantially exceed the 20'7 day outage period.

(c) When assessing costs to the Man-Rem area is should be noted that the research of Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, Health Physicist indicates that the statistical occurance of cancer may oe sig-nificantly higher than the FP&L es imate of 0.2 cancers for the 2600 Man-Rem project. In view of the ~r. A mandate to consider the degradation of the human environment the consideration of Dr. i>!organs analysis is within the jurisdiction of the Board.

40 C."R 1500.0. 10 CFR 50 Append'x I o=fers interim dollar amounts until better figures can be developed,'. In view of an increased cancer risk assessment and the skyrocketing costs of health care, under N".PA the Board may consider more realistic cos;s os a

!~lan-Rem other than $ 1,000.

~i (d) The Licensee has failed to state the final disposition of the defective steam generators. Merely delaying the decision process until the decommissioning of the reactor does not absolve Licensee from assessing the costs of using an irretrievable resource.

Until an environmental impact statement is written, questions about future land use cannot be answered. Reasonable questions are (1) when, if ever, will this land be safe for purposes other than storing wastes? (2) 'Ilhat are the costs associated with restoring the land to a higher use? (3) Mill the presence of this land, if contaminated pose a hazard to the human environment?

(e) The 1'censee has attempted to obscure the true scope of the repair project. The SER p.3-1 states:

"Along with the aosence of phosphates, planned condenser retubing and the installation and use of condensate polishers will essen.ially eliminate sludge."

Under NEPA, the Board is cha ged with the duty of reviewing the enti e repair project.

( f) The economic estimate used in the ZiA was originally puolished in the SGRR Rev. 2 December 1977. These estimates have not been revised to account for inflation occuring since 1977. if the target date for repairs 's the Pall of 1980 accurate estimates must be provided to arrive at a valid cost benefit analysis.

Contention 12. The L'censee in the SGRR has not made a strong commitment to the ALARA p inciple. The L'censee in the SGRR 7-6 states:

"PP8cL subscrioes to the precept of maintaining exposures ALARA. This principle must take into account the s .ate of technology and the economics

Qt associated with any reduction in Man-Rem exposure, One overriding considera ion is the duration of the Unit outage. Since each day of Unit unavailabil'ty is worth about $ 300,000, any alan-Rem reduction measures must result in savings of al least 300 Man-Rem per day of increased downtime."

Thus the overriding principle appea s to be that any Man-Rem exposure is acceptable if the economic considerations are reasonably hign.

l.

monitoring of radioactive releases zrom Turkey Point. if the monitoring is insufficient NRC effluent standards may be exceeded and the pu'olic health may be endangered and may degenerate.

Accurate monitoring is central to all NRC effluent standards which in turn- impac ~ on the state of the state o~ the human environment and the accuracy of NEPA related decisions.

Monitoring procedures that are performed infrequently are immediately suspect. The proposed swipe tests on steam generator seals at quarterly intervals demonstrate a callous disregard for the ALARA principle. The storage of radioactive wastes demands the isolation of these wastes f om .he environment.

Having information on the movement of radioactivity only four times a year g:eatly compromises accurate monitoring on the integrity of the sealwelds. Continual monitoring under some conditions may even prove to be inadequate, .but 'f such a procedure ' the sa es . alternative it must be pursued.

The monitoring procedure for laundry was .e water in the SGRR presents the pass'bility ='or g eatly'underestimating .he radiation released to the coo ing canals. Rel'ance on a taole of estimated releases may have a measure of accuracy for to .al

41 ezfluent release, out day to day concentrations oz activity can only be measured on a day to day, sample by sample basis. The SGRR sampling procedure does not conform with the laundry waste water procedure outlined in the FSAR. All liquid wastes will be held up in tanks, analyzed then disposed properly. FSAR p. ll, 1-9.

Dosimetry on workers emains suspect. Badges only record doses that strike the badge. Varying. radiation fields may produce exposures far higher than recorded when a worker is confined to a cramped space in high radiation fields such as the interior of a steam generator.

A NEPA mandated decision should be oased on the most accurate of information. if monitoring procedures are insufficient the NEPA decision may not sufficiently calculate the dangers to the public health and the impact on the environment.

The reports of accidents a ~ the Three Mile island plant and Rocky Flats show that monitoring procedures dur'ng accidental releases were grossly inadequate.

Contention 4. The Licensee is violating NRC Fire Protection Guidelines specified in Manpower Requirements ""or Operating Reac .ors", June 5, 1978. The NRC Staff recommends a fire brigade of 5 men. The Licensee insists on 3 men. The 1 1/2 inch nose is a two man operation in a windowless room. An occurance oz simultaneous fires could not be handled by a 3 man crew.

Against the recommendations o the NRC, the Licensee will not

'nstall a firewater standpipe system in containment.

The consequences of a f're are grave. Norkers will 'oe in a containmerit build'ng with on y one exit. Cutting and we'ding opera.ions in conjunction wi h solvents, sca olding, and

( t 0

protec .ive shields can produce a fire risk much higher than normal reactor operations. The consequences of a fire in the area of radioactive materials will compromise normal isolating devices such as HERA filters, protective shields and protective clothing.

In addition radioactive material may volatize under fire conditions allowing .an uncontrolled release of radiation.

Another objection raised by the NRC Staff and Licensee as to various of Intervenor's Contentions, both accepted for 1'igation and proposed, questions the applicabil'y of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act (FNPCA) to this proceeding.

It is intervenor's position that FURCA applies in at least the follow'ng ways. 33 USC Sec. 131k (a) imposes the requirement on Licensee of amending their current NPDES permit in order to obtain authorization for changes in their effluent d'scharges which will occur as.a result of new proposed systems such as the condensate polisher demineralizing system and, from construction effluents. Both the NPDES permit and the state certification reauired. by 33 USC Sec. 1301 (1978) are requisites for issuance of amendments to Licensee's operating license by the iRC. Section 1341 is unamoiguous: there shall be no federal approval of any private act'vity which results in the release of any water pollutants unless .he appropriate state has been duly not'ed and given an opportunity to hold hearings or conduct other proceed'ngs inciden. to the issuance or den'al of certification.

The NRC under this provon of FMPCA is legally powerless to grant the license amendments unt'1 the certification is in hand.

41 FMPCA also applies with rega d to any potential discharge of high level radioactive effluent into naviga'ole waters.

33 USC Sec. 1311(f). The Board in weighing the viability of Licensee's proposed repairs must consider pur suant to this provision whether or not there is inhe ent in the proposed plan a substantial risk for the release of highly radioactive effluent.

FtIPCA standards are further involved by reference to the NEPA cost benefit analysis which must be required before NRC decision on the proposed amendments. t&en considering the impact on public health and the environment of this complete repair project some reference to already promulgated standards such as F'<PCA must be performed in order to accurately assess the potential harm that may accrue as a result of the repai s.

For these stated reasons and all that maybe forthcoming intervenor respectfully requests the Board to accep for litigation his proposed contentions '7 through 14.

Respectfully submitted, BRUCE S. ROGO'i'1 JOEL V.

A. 5'lARSHALL, JR.

LUNER'iCFARD Counsel for inte venor 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310

{305) 587-6660 sy JP~cf A~

Richard A ..Narshall, Jr.

18050 S.'I. 212th S.rect Miami, Florida 33187 305-233-8104

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY &: LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250 50-25l FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY (Proposed Amendments to

,(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Facility Operating License Units Nos. 3 and 4) to Permit Steam Generator Repair)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I EKREBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached Intervenor's Statement of Admissibility of Proposed Contentions were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed on Septem'oer lg, 1979.

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris c Atomic Safety 8c Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'on 4@~

'ashington D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 'o lo Atomic Safety 4 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Steven C. Goldberg, Esa.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington D.C. 205/5

.4> 4l Norman A. Coll, Esp.

STEEL, HECTOR 8c DAVIS 1400 .Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 3313l.

Harold F. Re'-s, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad 4 Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.N.

iilashington D.C. 20036 RICHARD A. NARSHALL, JR.

18450 S.'A. 212th Street Miami, Florida 33187 (305) 233-8104

(

4i 4i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION over.x>a

< RI94g

~8 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (

SEP 19 l87sSP c(~

0+~0,-- x sech(

In the Matter of s~

Docket No . 50-250 ~ y I FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Operating Licenses to Permit Unit Nos. 3 and 4) Steam Generator Repair)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO'DOPT PRE-HEARING SCHEDULE AND TO SCHEDULE FINAL HEARING On September 4, 1979, the Licensee filed a motion to adopt a prehearing and hearing schedule in the captioned proceeding. The proposed schedule includes commencement of a hearing on December 4, 1979. The NRC Staff agrees with the proposed schedule with respect to the contentions already admitted, namely, contentions 1 through 6. The Staff ability to proceed to hearing on admitted contention 6 on the proposed schedule assumes the timely acquisition of additional pertinent information from the Licensee.

Several additional contentions have been proposed by the Intervenor and briefed by all parties on September 14, 1979. Due principally to the lack of clarity in the proposed contentions, the Staff is unable to ascertain the extent of testimony preparation necessary to address the underlying issues. Therefore, the Staff is unable to agree to a hearing date(s) on the proposed contentions until, at least, the Board's formal ruling thereon.

Respectfully submitted, (J

Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at 'Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of September, 1979.

Qi UNITED STATES OF A ER ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE %HE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 'COMPANY 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Operating Licenses to Permit Unit Nos. 3 and 4) Steam Generator Repair)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO ADOPT PRE-HEARING SCHEDULE AND TO SCHEDULE FINAL HEARING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, ad indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s internal mail system, this 17th day of September, 1979:

• Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman *Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Or.. Erixoeth A. Luebke ~Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ~Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr..flark P. Oncavage 12200 S. W. 110th Avenue Norman A. Coll, Esq.

Miami, Florida 33176 Steel, Hector E Davis Southeast'irst National Harold F. Reis, Esq.. Bank Building Lowenstein, Neiman, Reis, Miami, Florida 33131 Axelrad E Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

f ig P i

Martin H. Hodder, fsq.

1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.

Nova Law School 3301 College Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 teven C. o erg u Counsel for NRC Staff

~ i < 'I 0

f//>/7p o~<"

UNITED STAT"S OF AMERICA sG'p gag~.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPEIISSION P~gl~ ~

BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In tne Piatter of ) Docket Nos. -2

) -251 FLORIDA PONER &: LIGHT COMPANY )

) (Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) Operating License to Permit Units iVos. 3 and 0) ) Steam Generator Repair)

INTERVENOR 'S STATEMENT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF PROPOSED CONTENTIONS On August 30, 1979 pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's August 3, 1979 Order, the parties in this act'on met for discussion on proposed contentions, possible stipulations and to devise a d'covery schedule. One outcome of the meeting was that a revised list of 14 contentions was adopted 'oy intervenor as the issues he chooses to 1'igate in .his proceeding. Of the list of 14 the first 6 contentions are those ruled by the Board as acceptable for litigation in its Order of August 3, 1979, and as sucn they are not included herein as subject for this statement of admissibility. There was no complete agreement reached .hus far between the parties as to either the admissibility or form of the remaing proposed contentions 7 through 10.

intervenor's posit'on is that Contentions 7 through for litigation. submits tha't 1L'hould be accepted by the Board He these contentions clarify the scope of the repair prospect and resolve potential health hazards to the publ'c and the repa'r work =orce. They are sufficiently specific as s.ated to give L'censee and the NRC Staf adecua.e no.ice of the particular a eas

0 I of concern intervenor desires to raise in this proceeding.

Regulation 10 CPR 2.7i4(b) does not envision that prior to Board acceptance of'itigable issues intervenor must provide the ultimate factual predicate to these p oposed contentions.

However for purposes of assisting the Board in determining the acceptability for litigation of the remaining con.entions inter-veno provides here a discussion of his factual analysis of the concerns framed by the contentions. The discussion is in no way meant to be all inclusive nor does intervenor intend to be in any way limited in his factual proofs in th's proceeding to matters" discussed. As to the Contentions numbers 7 through 14:

to state the costs associa'ted with the addition of a "Condensate Polishing System". The only reference to this system 's found in the "Safety Evaluation Report", i>lay 14, 1979, p. 3-i, "... the installation and use of condensate polishers will essentially eliminate sludge." The Licensee has denied that the addit'n of

-'his new system is in any rvay related to steam generator epai=s.

in the "Response of rlorida Power and Light o Board Order of biay 19, 1979", p. 0, the Licensee states: "...installation of non-nuclear componen.s not the subject o the proposed license amendments Nithin the scope of NEPA, 42 USC sec. 4332(C), the Board has jurisdiction to approve all facets of the repair pro ject.

The isolation of this one component 's not compatiole with statements in the Licensee's Final Safety and Analysis Repo"t, p.l-l:

"The nuclear power units incorporate a closed cycle pressurized water nuclear steam supply system and a turbine-generator system utilizing dry saturated steam

-2A-Equipment includes the radioactive waste disposal system, fuel handling system, main. transformers, main condensers, and all auxiliaries, structures, and other on site facilities required'o provide complete and operable nuclear power units. "

The economic and environmental costs of this one component must be fully considered when th'e costs of repairs are calculated.

Qi

~

he ..Jig ~tc.' Ilolc teC i nv C P. vl C

~ ~C r Gr J.v ."lot lnC QC in/.

t?1C Costs Or th2 Cca!.0'.'r' CgeC coc 'Lse DO ls'"'s 1 1 G cost/

benefit Gnat j sls 3 6... ~n:ir'o.Bent&1 zDGct stet <<4 r.4 nt t . Qz'th. r'x'

.",C St~ff has viol"tee lC C:2 .C.',, ( ),, (1 1), one ( ~ v',

by not evclu~ in- the acecuacy of the str cture s.:ste or co'~Donent tO Der'r2 its 1 ZenCe<<d SG. et~ fU .Cilon ~

The Licensee 'nG he i'I~C ~t- f hcve conc eleG environ-r.entcl i 'cct or c' ion by th failure to G'c 0 s2 the cheRi ct

~ l covaposltion 0 tn2 ConG2 .Sete Dollshe- 2:: i Qent r the "'uenc j' GiSChcr~n2S, volu e per disch r.-.e, enviro".-ental i~Dec on 4 cte(~i bio ter D vl J s v hich;til'l30; 2 f'u 'nt to enter

.'ecercl ..!.-t ~n Sr en< 0t .er DI'oce'2s vI lc Dr'l c llorr'/ 2  ?

Uent t 0 lr avf C <<r tall i ur ar' fOOC C-".Cln ~

Or tlo!! 0: !1' lrl OZ~" t O. "'6-,.' ggli goi 2 the

"'rr- StecY..:ener Gt0r'~Dc lr'~(3 >r'<<C r P rr ~

C C > ~

ions fo S -".,rOzl aiel" =,6! C ose c't,ion v r Or -'r n ~ Jc hr vl<<c

'i c ~

t! 2 r".e,ste Vo Q78 Consl vr 4 nD

. 0 ~

~

~ tt,

( lr ~ !<<r l n<<rrJg C D 7 Ce r'n.DC t r r xC o "i SusD'nG' C so 1CS ( '.i')

t;ur i;.~r COnC'.: ns r

t. cons. -. is 0-:

l/4 ~ <<OC 9.C

(--l t Q.'-4 aO nQ

~ 4r r<<V ~ .

DD'lrvrr<<rGg r

Il gnn 4G ":)~I. ( 4 VV 4 OJ.

V /r

~ r. ~

1 I' ~I + " + 1I C 1 4 I r) >nlln 1 C!; )"'3.C' 5 j 'O ) I) Vi.Ce.".t:

I C rr ~ iCC 130 P g.ii 1

op~ Try P Pl!1 10 p" CC-4G oo~

1= gpss 2-EJECT' yU~:lt I,i~ 1 co:ic-':-tl etc i-.. t". Ceo~ i."1C C4~gl spill I oii. 9--I u;.. ' l. es 0 to: i~c1yn - g o- Cere! 3OU.".d. ,')v I i \ >$ 4 lro ii'.I)SQ 'C 4 circe 'r sc g vc I vcr) v 'e,vv wA '. v'g +ee.Cc 1 ~l rrre)a

~~

~

1 stoy:. sUI g i.ic . >'I I 'ch tl:I) ci e s'st~)~) 'ic c' ec I Gy SC'-'CyC'-) to i'c-' zoUylC V'-e tla8 Cey C 3OU..C Ce:lc " e 1 JUC I G.. BPt Of CiVll ~c  ; 0 l )v vc w fl vjh) Pa O)12 i 4e

)r re 1eII ke j CLGC O COG. 1PI " t"r '.itO 1 OC4 I ee'4 j~ C JQlr4) ))e) r 'I

.. ) vyge) 4 4'v

~

II 1 -C a.l. r." '5 t3 I.:IC 'rl I...GrL'r'.C~ 5 ro:. CLI G )QU'.1C s.".C 1 ~ ~

4! I var I L. vt z

' .r CI C )34))~ vc l. ~

II C ill + eI ctUr ) s .c i

~

e)O )y CI) II 1A 1 nnn I vv C 4

be~ II /(Culle1

~

C

+) )), ")8Z $ 8CG..C I "7 ~ 3'C izit 'd t tice 1 r '.i-.v,r. (vi. c!. "~..y.oz e) I ClrveI ~

1)a)

~~ iY 1.OUr olrj )

BY.C 9 j ~

Ie@

~ .

3. il COn r rJ

'Ce) lr) s)C C ~ 5 ~ v 4l

~ I ri I 4 4 )I t.'iGU$ ~ ".'1C i '."." i

)I

, ~

I

'v e.lc c'.~ ec o

~ r OBI 1 ol's r) cU yacc t~ evozc eXC )QCi e i) ~ t).o so ~3cay.Ir&) II

ig il cr

~

I ~ 1111 1 '1

~ <<J 0.";c.'Q e re fp')rcc, I e) Wig Lgl e e C.e<<CC ~

')ac +OZ c

e.'C~ I 0 rL ~ ee ~ Li~ ) ~) <gpss +I ) I )i1 +)1

-,,Ubllc 0: col:r='red s i. e <<J ei'c 4J L t ~ c I)

I 31

@i)i'\

vA

'vi'e J

c 10z '0 ov ez otl;er sou"c s

?

...'.': 0 c"1G av;i'i'0~

~

T l; i~t io ~

40 su; I.."y i 4, 4

Ow I I f.. 4 3. LL/ ).III ov3.8. )0 3.il <<licls L lna 4UG e..cent s.".a1' 01'.c "I '1

.rn s Bound, 'i:t'e Ccrc 3ouno, Caz'G Bound) gouiic lscQ;; ..e GI q Biscayne ."..cy aze a'1 intezconnectec insiloz ~ 1c i-,oons.

UI'Su~cnt 40 tf L) 84 liilty Uno clss01veG sol's SpeCIL 1Cc i3.0 is ln tllc ') na1 UL-. ie;-ent, Lic -:.se r~il 1 1 a1 0" e) c l' C e 2 ~8 ) LI 4 'Lc-r<<L'<<l.c c.vv C S s.L1 1. ~ t';e Cdi.ceiisc'Ye) I'3.SC':c pv 1 sl'.ez "U" ~ 4 stecc il" co. c 'tz'c. es t "e sc'n'yp I

.e C l S C."LC,Z Qe Lcr4 1"l11 lnicz Qcslni 1v ezceed ii.e) 1~. c.'~cI C

~c.8 1 3. ~ Llt e d,.oi;rc s, ou1G concez.i tl e-s, 1 vc g,,iiw isis>>ev':"1U -1 SOLi Ce ~ - n<<Vr'IP 4)d.cc 0 11"L 4c n4 ~I Sci.<<c.rent. r ~l..c 4 c'n .iJ'~ <<<<~

p<<z Lli zu<<s z oe sou~cllt hg <<lie '.ce.lsee to lllc Uc<< il;ls i O'Il SOUZ C 0 1.01 1uiilo i ~

1v C I( 4v >

ii)iel 1L 0 .lc j sic te-8~ i 0 c ...p <<-iei14f 43.0n ox section <<1 cJ 1 OJ 4LL L" II'-Cii is~ 'V.CZe .. S 0 19 (c.>, )eC 3.0n 4 .)L .L4c s S

<<vc 1 d '4 1. 'r1' 'V'.y, OI

~q ~

Cr ~ Jr

~ cZ.t

'I'

~~

1 iw 4<< i ~ 4 cr ~ LS QZ Qi . ~ ~

0 4L 4

~ 1".v rVcr J 4

~ tc 04cec) 4 's p pl r11 vl C r

v

~

~ sC34 c. PPI OVec S.

4~ C L' c ):lse e ILL3 4 ~

Ik C Qc+4 ~ st J 4a 0 ~ 4 ~

Conc ez ".' "c.. Gi CUX'3..G QPccI c i~'On 0 a I GhCiOZ'

')VS. ~

Ll a 1 c'c.. GZ C ': v(G 0 pI c=c Z~c COO c n t 7uc S pluj,'.;" (. ) CO""

Vc17za .a ~.'.2 'UI iscicizon 0 ~ewe Qcz c l.at -'s '.ehz lng " tiQc'lvn OZl StGK"c Cc 2 I "tOZ I e.'.83. S ~

..pp re:;t'q., t!.2 ovezricin~, I'ason ='I re" izini, t~e siec."c penz ~tor s i .Urqe .. Oint is tg o~v'ia=e J J i.e CGI atinp sc.'.c=.e r, al vu ~

c. i c.~c c.} q a c

'p+

5C/1 >l Pc JIB@~ I sea~ vL s Jssvi'aa c ulcc

-i;ere .-p=ars .0, 'oe c -o.= ntous sa Gt" pro' invo" v'c, -.ince ti.e i ico Of . Ucleer . e~ctoI':e>, T.aC$ 1 + '0 co'I 3'on cont3.nuc)s, r

i 2 co '. Uo'es 0- a I Gee ~ QI' cci.do OCCUZ - du l..g nvZ c 0 v.'1 ~"7.20n anc ' Cg~c"Ic.Voted ce ectlv .s728 ~ Gnez 6 7oz s s 1 Bi' IQI I~~palz s) z~g uo QI

'c:i: }'.est "a~nit d ~ 0 c';is siezs. ~

be '..'z:C, l'!lose pziz.r- pur.".0" ~

~ s to Qdazd tile i". a3.tl. end afet~ Qf tile publ=.c) zust co.".s1cer

.2 Gc fet: Dz 0 'lees involved "iltfl a1 1 aspec s oz ster genera I "Ue residents of South 'orida des rve assurance o Qz'ep;irs.

safe operation o" stzona "zot ctiv .~ea"UI's '1~ ir sc

~2 ';l co.c.<I'Qi~'ed. ':1 2'iler cc.'se a I ecsonadle 2? P1a etio l Gt'."'s o tile can.cer.s, of oper "ting a re ctoI '.nit.. de ective ste ..

ce iGI'c- c Ors Slloul d Oe ZaC 'ubl ~C ~

.ac='b C- c pc.-Cc .. f ~ c.c v-0 n ~c.v ~, () pc

~~cc ac Clc c v I

tuves p1U~ ec) tccGZ 2 ~ a'lot Lcc 4\ +v

~ 4 9 hi trod 4J C~Doc to 0< 2ZC tG Sa 2 1 '

Qi

L<18 stcL '.e..t 'jT s tls )  !.' lc )ns 'e c..c tLe

zC '

~

~t&,

'=ut it le-'res to ...n~. eau stions una.".s:;.-.ed to be Ieassu inc.

bOaIG Sa".OI'~C be 0 S"tlSfleC:rlt'. -- Cn an eraS On 0 s.lf) ~ pro )~ of suc!.... gnituce.

7!LQ I'.W) Z) CliaI f QS tka>> GCciSlo.a a a)rlan vQeI 4 1;i~ence )

o'r IIicin~ Cut- o" ".;rot c 'n,- tW. liu."..o.". en.ri" un.=o:it. Cn ~ 0.

'l I a f ~ .)aIr<<l. 0 C'v I +<acv Ste~~ E e leI Crtol +ej:P1Z decl<<)l Oan ls C, Gete )C t2on 0: v;."aen I "irs > 'co-.=- nec -s'I". '.ntil t!. !.!',C ~t" ff ci "Il)

'0'>> Oi cvtI at S Vlfg a Ir r 4 cl 3e a) g u,v'0 a>>v IJ v Sari v Ir<'l Ob ea aaaG

~ c a tlir silo)G of 2~..'3<: ox 2"-;!, t!;- s thI) !ionic

~I'~ t aI j ic. cc,'pl g.clJu- ~ 'o C pI00 =g,ists) a.) a4) r4C )+<<J 0

~

I ~

~ ac C a

~ I e 'i" 10 0 aao lr 'cr]'Ir

,yv)rc ~

Pa

)car>

1 vc cr t 'cr va>>IJgravc

+va 4 a

c. Iapril >i'r'c) ca

~; 1 vO

"..Dial)i Val!iat PaI'I'L)teI"S I ecol)ac unCo. aS 'I cr tlat

~ ~,

.))3.~ 1 t'evCI e)C.S>>)C c I c; ls+eI'.

~ il + tICaaslviilrS L>> IOTe to ~cad t 0 l.c 'C,'?

cr ~ a ea i.".Cuc" 'GC"s?

8 ~ cec's 0 tI".n;. er aI'e a ~=)AII4 av>>A )~

a I ) .- ~

)alv>>a ~ '<<L I OI I eaCtl'ail to L ~CC )?

C V~

4 Ql a

I

~

~,

ruler v'---

r ec

~ 1('J Iup

<<a v A rl uE'<<d I

v Irl cr 4

~ \ rl C>>lan ~ 4 C Ir J ~I a't

'I ~

' OSt) ha ~ )q vCav G>>l

" <>r a 0 + Qu'3 1 1C Ce t!.e lro;IS1

'u

~ c

~ ~~ c.

Of I >>=.C la tlo"i ):;IrosuI to c "ctire .~")r. I aab

~ gf9

.aiaIJ 4 Lv

~

r4 L ~

C araac laCaaa

~ ~

I 0 vc 1 ~ 3QavrLc calr

~ w+,crcr ' )+ii

. IrI ~

~

IL v C )v

~ .QC'r v v 1S

P>>

II+I 0

gr <) q 5P ~+, e r rg <<r q 1.pr +ra r q+,)~ i g +)

-0 <<G c.'...Ou.ai 0 ~C<<C Jilo.x I"it. 'GSi<<o). ilv-) QDZ 3.."lg S i-'c.'i., '.1 I C ~or X Da'.3. IS ~ >OQX C 3 S 0- I <<03.c-t <<P. '-".QSt J 1..C QC'.'.~ O~~-'t 1 "lf..

zecctor) z~"ctor 'cuilcir)~s) size=i;-;e".. Ictors i.". trs.".Sit)

<'.SBOQS =--..'Ssio"..s, co.--.stzuctior; c'.Qsi) .".'r,. rticu:tss) coolir.p c-:;el v:ai ~r, cecollt~.=i".."ti -.. licuic =, icuid COI'.s ucii 'Il Oi "Q...i 1GQ..QZ" Gs\ e ) 8 il GZ Coo

<<I OC'- S<<<<C '.:- 3.a GX'" COO3 Cilt ) Stor<<C YACC )rrl.<<CI'3 Coo, C iat ) ~

QB i~oVJ-aGIlt ) rss3.91s) f3.it~I s) I'Q.1~~ z ) s'o".lcc.'I>> co c 1 ) Sc-."lt +us 1

~il 'IrS) st r t tc...vis) <<QCtS) XGCV:USt- <<Ql Cl.'1'~.) COasCX i't<<) <<00 3)

C Ot tl( ) sec= olcl::~l) pIot cil:r~ s".. ~z.les, C ='-'c..l I BO~S) c .M.. OSiu Ct3G 0 'I tS ~

O'"iql"tlo'ls

~ ~~ cX 2 to ..'C O<<ls~o' <<C C<<)o 01' C<<V t L, ig 4 << ~<<OX a Q C8 J e C<< ~

C'"i CJ . 3C 'I' .1 .." ",1 . 3 i1; 'CG GC ~

I'1S 1C-

~ OI'OQS libel'to~'1 VC+ Q 1C

' l':.'g. '.QX'.8'l' Cl1C i'.e c'osa . I OZi;;.it':..'CC 13 V

G'o '. l C C lC (C) SiGt~s 30I'Olop lcGl covicltlo ls ct tl'as O' 'r'c Elk 'wl ~

uf Ice. c...c ! ~'cz 0 . 0",lc~- c".Qrsc -

31 1st c . 0 V~

S's' LG'r .c'7'i 03&rl .'.Q Oli ~10 CO:)S ~(uc~..c c'z 'Sijto C c-.

<<Cc;0 c'..CXOC,C VO 87 )I" ~ 11 0'.....<<X~.cl

.Pc)C3.c.l 'c".Qtio:"s s'.ou <'a pic,',"..Oc i: G s loc~ j ' . ".i<< c S' "!'.GI 8 S' 3.X 3.C'" < QG:1 0:

I uu <<G<< i ..'t'

~1 Qr

<<C S'l G;.".S <<I I ':<<I S OZ::1, i I 1'lC '~Q . ucc 'S

.r OQ::C'; <<.G ~r t"'."e

iol Contention 10.

(a) The SGRR, December 1977, p.2-2 indicates there is no present process to arres tube and plate corrosion. The ElA, issued June 29, 1979 fails to consider this possibility. Such consideration becomes important in two ways: A resting corrosion before 25fo of the tubes become plugged would obviate the necess'ty of costly steam generator repairs, and if, after repairs are completed, corrosion continues to occur there may still be no mechanism for preventing the degradation of tubes. Thus a new round o cos.ly and dangerous steam genera. or repairs may have to be undertaken.

The NRR has voiced serious doubts aoout the ability of the re-designed steam generators to withstand corrosive attack. The SER p. 3-1 states:

"The Quatrefoil Plate design has led to some tube degradation in the form of a type of erosion cavitation mechanism in once-through steam generators. "

At page 3-2 the SER also states:

"in the event that denting reactions be initiated we would have some concern over the propensity of this material for stress corrosion cracking in a chloride environment."

(b) The alternative of sleeving degraded tubes should oe considered based on the expe ience of the sleeving project at the Palisades Nuclear Power Station in blichigan.

(c) The Nestinghouse Report, WCAP 9398, "Steam Generator Retubing and Refurbishmen ", describes a process vastly superior to .he method proposed in the SGRR.

(1) Worker exoosure is estimated at 450-600 Man-Rem per unit. This represents a saving of 1400 iVlan-Rem ="or 2 units over the Licensee's estimation of 2600 'Zan-Rem.

(2) Work can oe accomplished in a auarter (91days) as stated on p.5-18 wh'h represents a saving of 232 days outage time for the s .ation.

f <i

-l0-(3) Defective tubes will be cut and packaged for shipment to a licensed land disposal- site. This removes .he potential hazards associated with storing defective steam generators in an earthen floor building onsite.

(d) Derating appears as an acceptable course of action when taken in conjunction with alternate methods.

The EZA, June 29, 1979 states that the Nestinghouse re-tubing may take 2 years to win approval. Since the present projection of the commencement of repairs is the fall of 1980,

.here may be a delay of one year incurred if retubing is chosen as the best method. During that yea (Fall 1980 to Fall 1981) only Unit no. 0 would be derated a ~ a cost of $ 0,380,000 while Unit no. 3 would run full power. Zn the fall of 1981, the Licensee could elect to repair Unit 0 or Units 0 and 3 in sequence. Zf Unit 3 is kept running through 1981 to 1982 it would then be in its first yea" of derated operation and the cost would be $ 4,380,000 plus inflation.

(e-j) These may be discussed as one option. The derating formula allows broad flexibility in phasing 'n Bioconversion, conservation and solar techniques while phasing out the defective operation of Units 3 and 4. Power interruptions and economic dislocation need not occur as conse vation and renewable sources slowly expand, Decommissioning would oecome necessary if the safest and most economical option is fossil fuel generation of electricity.

Economic savings would occur if components used for Un's 3 and' were converted to oss'1 fuel generation. The use o= cool'ng canals, barge facilities, existing kaid, .rans ormers, .urbines and possibly reuse o .he reactor bu'ldings can represent areas of great economic savings.

~ il

Contention 11. The Licensee has not provided a cost b'enefit analysis for steam generator repairs. One major factor '

assessing costs that has been obfuscated is the time period estimated for accomplishing .he proposed repairs. The steam generator repair report (SGRR) p. 2-5 projects an outage time of 207 days. The SER, p. 1-1 states an outage time from 6 to 9 months (183 to 274 days) and later, p. 2-13, mentions a projection of a 300 day outage. While the Licensee and, the NRC Staff allows a wide latitude in outage time for repairs, all stated replacement electr'city costs are based on 207 days wh'ch is a very low end estimate. Mere the actual outage time to exceed 207 days many other projections become less crediole; (1) the costs of replacement electricity, (2) the costs of maintaining a work force, {3) the costs of maintaining construction equipment, (0) the costs related to longer periods of worker exposure, (5) environmental costs of construction effluent (dust, liauid wastes, laundry wastes), and(6) environmental costs of replacement electricity, e.g. thermal pollution rom the possible reopening of the Cutler, Riviera and Palatka fossil uel plants.

(a) All benefits of steam generator repairs can oe negated if tuoe corrosion or other processes requiring tube plugging reoccur. Worker exposure rates will oe again- elevated and the one t'me large estimated dose of 2600 Man-Rem (3300 to 5SOO iulan-Rem according to NURZG-0199) will never show a pos'tive balance.

Unit no. 4 was put into commercial operation Septemoer 1973. The le ter of Sep.ember 20, 19'77 =rom PPEcL to the NRC states that insaections and plugging operations were initiated two yea s prior to the letter. Thus Unit 0's ~ubes were deg aded within 2 years

i ll of the commencement of commercial operation. It should also be noted that the economic cost of steam genera:tor repairs will be passed on to the rate payers as pure inflation, since no additional generating capacity will be built. If the redesigned lower assemblies fail to prevent reoccurance of tube degradation the economic burden on the rate payers considerably worsens.

(b) In the letter of June 8, 1979 to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, FPZci states "fossil fuel used to generate replacement electricity while Turkey Point is Off-Line will cost $ 300,000-$ 400,000 a day." This statement indicates that the flat $ 300,000 per day costs is an insufficient project'on.

Another problem arising from this statement is that replacement power may encompass many costs other than fossil fuel costs. In effect the most recent estimate on fuel costs may not be a total estimate of replacement power costs. The situation is further worsened if repairs substantially exceed the 207 day outage period.

(c) When assessing costs to the Nan-Rem area is shoul'd be noted that the research of Dr. Karl Z. ivlorgan, Health Physicist indicates that the statistical occurance of cancer may be sig-ni 'cantly higher than the FPhi estimate of 0.2 cancers for the 2600 Man-Rem project. In view of the iA mandate to consider the deg adation of the human environment the consideration of Dr. i%organs analysis is wi .hin the jurisdiction of the Board.

40 CFR 1500.4. 10 CFR 50 Append'x I of ers i..terim dollar amounts until oetter figures can be developed. In view of an increased cancer risk assessment and the skyrocketing cos .s of health care, under NZPA the Boa d may consider more realistic costs of a Zan-Rem o.her han $ 1,000.

il i5 (d) The Licensee has failed to state the final disposit'n of the defective steam generators. iVlerely delaying the decision process until the decommissioning of'he reacto does not aosolve Licensee from assessing the costs of using an irretrievable resource.

Until an environmental impact statement is written, questions about future land use cannot be answered. Reasonable questions are (1) when, if ever, will this land be safe for purposes other than storing wastes? (2) Nhat are the costs associated with restoring the land to a .higher use? ('3) Mill the presence of this land, if contaminated pose a hazard to the human environment?

(e) The licensee has attempted to obscure the true scope of the repair project. The SER p.3-1 states:

"Along with the aosence of phosphates, planned condenser retubing and the installation and use of condensate polishers will essentially eliminate sludge."

Under NEPA, the Soard is charged with the duty of reviewing the enti e repair project.

(f) The economic estimate used in the EIA was originally puolished in the SGRR Rev. 2 December 1977. These estimates have not oeen revised .o account for inflation occuring since 1977. lf the target date for epairs 's the rail o 1980 accurate estimates must be provided to arrive at a valid cost benefit analysis.

Contention 12. The Licensee in the SGRR has not made a strong commitment to the A~~A principle. The Licensee in .he SGRR

p. 7-6 sta.es:

".PAL subscribes .o the precept o= maintaining exoosures ALARA. This pr'nc'pie must take in o account the state of technology and'he economics

~Q associated with any reduction in Man-Rem exposure.

One overriding consideration is the duration oz the Unit outage. Since each day of Unit unavailability is worth aoout 4300,000, any iHan-Rem reduction measures must result in savings of al least 300 Man-Rem per day of increased downtime."

Thus the overriding principle appea s to be that any Man-Rem exposure is acceptable if the economic considerations a e reasonably high.

of radioactive releases from Turkey Point. if the *'onitoring monitoring is insufficient NRC effluent standards may be exceeded and the public health may be endangered and may degenerate.

Accu ate monitoring is central to all NRC effluent s .andards which in turn impact on the state oz the'tate of the human environment and the accuracy of NEPA related decisions.

Monitoring procedures that are performed infrequently are immediately suspect. The proposed swipe tests on steam generator seals at quarterly intervals demonstrate a callous disregard for the ALARA principle. The storage- of rad'oactive wastes demands the isolation of these wastes from the environment.

Having information on the movement oz radioactivity only four times a year g."eatly compromises accurate monitoring on .he integrity of the sealwelds. Continual monitoring under some cond'tions may even prove to be inadeouate, but if such a procedure 's the sa es alternative it must 'oe pursued.

The moni .oring procedure for laundry waste water in the SGRR presents the possibility for g"eatly underestimat'ng the radiation released to the cool'ng canals. Reliance on a table of est'mated releases may have a measure oz accuracy for total

I

~ I

effluent release, but day to day concentrations of activity can only be measured on a day to day, sample by sample basis. The SGRR sampling procedure does not conform with the laundry waste water procedure outlined in the FSAR. All liquid wastes will be held up in tanks, analyzed then disposed properly. FSAR p. 11, 1-9.

Dosimetry on workers remains suspect. Badges only record, doses that strike the badge. Varying radiation fields may produce exposures far higher than recorded when a worker is confined to a c amped space in high rad'ation fields such as the interior o a steam generator.

A NEPA mandated decision should be based on the most accurate of information. if monitoring procedures are insufficient the NZPA decision may not sufficiently calculate the dangers to the public health and the impac ~ on the environment.

The reports of acc'idents at the Three Nile island plant and Rocky Flats show that monitoring procedures during accidental releases were grossly inadequate.

Contention 10. The Licensee is violating iGC F're Protection Guide'nes specified in "Manpower Requirements For Operating Reactors", June 5, 1978. The NRC Staff recommends a fire brigade of 5 men. The Licensee 'nsists on 3 men. The 1 1/2 inch nose is a two man operation in a windowless room. An occu ance of simultaneous fires could not oe handled by a 3 man crew.

Against the recommendations of the NRC, the L'censee will not install a firewater standpipe system in containment.

The consequences of a fire are grave. Workers will oe in a containmerit build'ng with only one exit. Cutting and welding operations in conjunction vith solvents, scaf olding, and

I i)

pro .ective shields can produce a fire risk much higher than normal reactor operations. The conseauences of a fire in the area of adioactive materials will compromise normal isolating devices such as HERA filters, protective shields and protective clothing.

in addition radioactive ma'terial may volatize under fire conditions allowing an uncontrolled release of radiation.

Another objection raised by the 0

NRC Staff and Licensee as to various of Intervenor's Contentions,, ooth accepted for 1'igation and proposed, questions the applica'oility of the Federal '<later Pollution Control Act (F~<VPCA) to this proceeding.

Et is intervenor's posi ion that FNPCA appli.es in at least the following way's. 33 USC Sec. 1311(a) imposes the equirement on Licensee of amending their current NPDES permit in order to obtain authorization for changes in their effluent discharges which will occur as.a result of new proposed systems such as the condensate polisher demineralizing system and from construction 1

effluents. Both the NPDES permit and the state certificat'on reouired by 33 USC Sec. 1341 (19'78) are reauisites for 'ssuance of amendments to Licensee's operating license by the NRC. Section 1341 is unambiguous: there shall be no federal approval of any priva.e act'vity which results 'n the release of any water pollutants unless the appropriate state has been duly not'fied and g'ven an oppo tun'y .o hold hearings or conduct other proceed'ngs incident to the issuance or den'al of certification.

The NRC under this prov's'on of F'<LPCA is legally powerless to g ant the license amendments until the certification 's in hand.

~ i

FNPCA also applies with regard to any potential discharge of high level radioactive effluent into naviga'ole waters.

33 USC Sec. 1311(f). The Board in weighing .he viability of Licensee's proposed repairs must consider pursuant to this provision whether or not there is inherent in the proposed plan a substantial risk for the release of highly radioactive effluent.

FNPCA standards are further involved by reference to the NEPA cost benefit analysis which must be reauired 'oefore NRC decision on the proposed amendments. Nhen considering the impact on public health and the environment of this complete repair project some reference to already promulgated standards such as Fk/PCA must be performed in order to accurately assess the potential harm that may accrue as a result of the repai s.

For these stated reasons and all that maybe forthcoming intervenor respectfully reauests the Board .o accept for litigation his proposed contentions 7 through 14.

Respectfully suom'ted, BRUCE S. ROGO'il JOEL V. LUujER RiCFARD A, bVLRSHALL, JR.

Counsel for Intervenor 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 (305) 587-6660 By/P~Cf 4~

Richard A. Marshall, Jr.

18050 S.'l. 212th Street Miami, Florida 33187 305-233-8< 04

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY S LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250 50-251 FLORIDA POlI'ER 5 LIGHT COMPANY (Proposed Amendments to (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Facility Operating License Units Nos. 3 and 0) to Permit Steam Generator Repair)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ~EBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached Intervenor's Statement of Admissibility of Proposed Contentions were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed on September 15, 19'79.

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashin'gton, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety 4 Licensing Boa d Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ylashington D.C, 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission lNashington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety 4 Licensing Boara. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Steven C. Goldberg, Esa.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off'ce of the Executive Legal Director

'>/ashington D.C. 20555

i' Norman A. Coll, Esq.

STEEL, HECTOR Zc DAViS 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Nliami, Florida 33131 Harold F. Re', Esp.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll

.1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.A.

Washington D.C. 20036 RiCHARD A. iMRSHALL, JR.

18450 S.W. 212th Street i>liami, Florida 333.87 (305) 233-81'00

I O'P", t g

I(