Text

Special Prehearing Conference Order Granting Great Lakes Energy Alliance Petition to Intervene,Adopting Preliminary Schedule for Discovery & Hearing & Denying Intervenor Request for Financial Assistance.Order Subj to Appeal
	ML18043B034
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/23/1979
From:	Bechhoefer C; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
References
	LLBP-79-20, NUDOCS 7909250321
	Download: ML18043B034 (28)
	v • d • e

1..

.. :,{

-~*

. i:.

f::;

e*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~. SSW.Ea

.J lJI 2 4 1979 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS"ING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. George C. Anderson, Member Dr. M. Stanley Livingston, Member In the Matter of

~

L-BP-79~20 -------*--

July 23, 1979 CONSUMERS POWER co~ ANY_...--'-"

~

Docket No. 50-J.5.5 SP (Palisades Nuclear Plant)

~

".. *--*~

)

SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER This proceeding concerns the application of Consumers Power Co. (hereinafter License~) for an amendment to its Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant, a pressurized water reactor located in Covert Township, Van Buren County, Michigan.

The Licensee is seeking permission to remove*~

and replace the plant's steam generators.

In response to the January 29, 1979Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (44 Fed. Reg. 5732), a timely petition. f()r leave to intervene was filed by the Great Lakes Energy Alliance (GLEA).

The Licensee and NRC Staff filed responses to the petition, opposing GLEA's intervention.

They each claimed that GLEA had not demonstrated standing to intervene and that it had not prof-fered a viable contention.

In our Memorandum and Order of March 30, 1979, we alluded to certain deficiencies in the GLEA

-~..

-- petition but, in accord with 10 CFR §§2.714(a)(3) and 2.714(b),

we permitted the Petitioner to amend* its petition and the other parties to respond. 'GLEA filed a supplemental petttion on April 20, 1979.

The Licensee filed a response; the NRC Staff elected not to do so.

We scheduled a special prehearing con-ference to consider the petition.

See 44 Fed. Reg. 23953 (April 23, 1979). :

~..:-:---o.e-At the conference on--May 9, 1979, GLEA, the Licensee and the NRC Staff all appeared.

The Petitioner was not represented by counsel but participated through one of its members.

GLEA pro-vided considerable additional information concerning its standing*

_:to participate in the proceeding but, after considerable question-ing by the Bearer, it became apparent that the lay representative had little idea of the requisites for a valid contention (Tr. 70-74, 78-79).

NRC rules mandate at least one valid contention as a condi-tion precedent to intervention (see 10 CFR §2.714(b)).

Therefore,

.....- *. r,.:,

. ~-7.*J' during the course of the conference, the Petitioner sought an

*i

-:... :::..:..-.*~_!.:3.J;:

}'._tI'"..-.:

-~

... :~-

tunity to reformulate its contentions, and we permitted it to

~

~ *.

.... ~....

'~.. t...

~

oppor-do so (Tr. 80-85, 94).

We discussed the amended contentions with.the r_ ~

.* --<""".(~.. --::-

parties and pe!'.'!Ilitted the Licensee and NRC Staff to respond in writing by May 30, 1979_ (Tr. 138).*.-.Both __ did _so.

And both

'I.

-.~

reite"rated their previously expressed pos_ition that none of

-~**

r j

the contentfons compo~rts *with the require.merits of 'the NRG-Rules

-~-..:~:-\\".: __ ~

~......,J:... *-.

of Practice.

The Licensee als<i...took-that -c:;pportunity to expand

~ 3 -

upon its earlier statements on standing, repeating its view that GLEA had failed to demonstrate that it has standing of right and that GLEA should not be granted discretionary standing.

For reasons hereinafter set forth, we conclude that GLEA has standing of right, that it has advanced three valid contentions and,.ac.cordingly, that it should be admitted as an. :i.ntervenor to this proceeding.

I.

1.

The first hurdle which a petitioner must pass in order to be admitted as an intervenor is a demonstration of its stand-

ing *to *p*articipate.

This requirement stems from the *terms *of

Section 189a. of-the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239(a), which provides--a-hearing only to those "whose interest may be affected"

. *~

by a proceeding.

0..........,

The Commi~sion **and *Appeal Board have ~st~blished that, in

. :.. :.... *:*:.~:*... _. *

. ~:***:,;~*~:r.. :.c~:;:: :**.-.: :..-.*

~:i-:..

~~-.. _.

.:*~:.;:.~ * '.

?.:~; __ :*

~-.r-~.;:::_-;:,,:J.:*

de~e~ini~g whether a petitioner has standing and may participate r *.*,-.*-*

.. ~-........... **:

~ ':..:*:-_*'*~*'.:'~-.~~.-:..::_;~--... ~:*:

~:__°~:-.'.

i:**~*;*:.:**,._...,.1*****1.,'<*;-:.*:*,.: **

as a matter of right, the governing test is the one utilized in the federal :*c~~;ts :* ::*-the---p~fiti;n~:~ -~~st *dem~n~-~~a~~*~"th~t *the

.:..~-::... * ~-

.' __ '._,~~ *. :>::*.:.

-~.*.... *.

\\ *'".

. *\\-**...

L*::r*:-s..

.-. *::.:::-:... __.-~:. *_

outcome of the proceeding threatens one (or.more) of its interests a~~ab-ly-p.rot~cte~ by ~~e s~~~ute :b~in~- ~adm~*ister~:cL I~. Hou~*ton

.! c.... :.:... ~ ~:--. **-

~:.*.'_:.,. ~~'. ~.... :~:~ **....

... : :. J.:~

-'~..

ALAB*-549

9 NRC Light.ing and Power Co. (South. Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),.

- ~.*}>-

~... ; -

(May 18, 1979) (slip op., p. 4), relying

l

~

~...

on Portland General E-lectric Co. (Pebble* Springs Nuclear Plant,

J.

4

- Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,

4 NRC 610, 613-14: (1976).and Edlow International Co.,CLI~76~6; 3 NRC S63, 569-70 (1976).

Stated another way; to establish standing a_ pe_titioner must ~J:iow (1)

.injury in fact, and (2) that the injury is arguably within the zone of interest_ protected by the relevant statute(s) -

in this proceeding, the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environ-mental Policy Act ~(NEP~- Pebble Springs, sup!a,.4 NRC at 613.

An organi~ation*-such as GLEA may meetthe injury-in-fact test in one of two ways.

It may demonstrate an effect either upon its organizational interest or*upon the individual

-~interest of at least one member.'

GLEA has chosen the latter

'course.

In so* electing to assert standing in a representative capacity, GLEA m'Clst icientify at least.one member whose interest may be affected.

Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nu~lear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-53~, 9 NRG ____, ____ _

(April 4, 1979) (slip op., pp. 24-33).-, The organization must also show that, either directly or presumptively, the identified*

member has authorized GLEA to represent his or her interest.

Id.

~.... *.....,....

(slip. op.,* pp.* 33-39); Allied-General Nu~lear Services at (Barnw_ell Fu~l Receiving and Stor~ge c Station)"°, ALAB*:..32s; 3 NRC 420, 422-23 (1976)~ Finally,*. where (as. here) an* organ:i.z~ti~n is represented by one of its me~hers, the group must demonstrate

~.*.

that the. membe~: has-- b~en*::~uthorized.to do. so.

. ~- -

Duke*Power Co.

I

. I!

,:. * ~ *

(Oconee-McGuir.e) ~

A:LAB...:52s", 9 NRC 146,

i51-52 (1979); Houston

~...

5 Lighting and Power Co. (South Tex,as Project, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-79-10, 9 NRC __,*: __ (April 3, 1979) (slip op., pp. 10-11),

affirmed, ALAB-549, supra.

-,.. ~

2.

As we pointed out in our Memorandum and Order of March 30, 1979'. _GLEA's statement of interest appearing in its February 27, 19~9 petition was "fatally defective." The group supplied a

~

~--~

general description of its organization and purposes.

It alluded to members of constituent:---groups who reside "in close proximity" to the plant and stated that the groups have a "special concern in regard to the enviroruriental and social iinpact of the replace-ment of defective steam generators." It also referred to certain groups which are ratepayers of the Licensee and who allegedly have an economic interest as well in the project.

But it failed to identify any-members or supply* any authorization for GLEA.to j

represent*them.

The person submitting the petition identified herself _only as a "duly authorized spok~sperson" who was.. :_:.

"authorized to sign" the petition on behalf of GLEA. ~~:>. *.

. '":"I"'-:...*-

.~........

~*--!..... *:-

GLEA's April 20, 1979 supplemental petition (which. Com-

--~~-

'._.... - **!.:::::--:-... ~-*--~--

~

-~ *:.:...

. mission-iules. pemii.. as-*a-m~tter. of right) added. on,e crucial 7

~-*

-~~:::.(.:

.:::~--~_::. ** :.....

~:

~--~-.

.:..:. *...:*::_;*... __ :-.~.'*:*....

element to the statement of interest:

the names and addresses

-~-

~.. :

... ~... -*... --

of seven members residing "itl. th~ vicinity" of the plant.

It

- .)"'<.-*,

't ::* :*.:**

.. ;:*"". *,..,__ ~:- -~-~

also referred to steam generator degradation as a serious safety l

'\\.. -._...

problem **and stated that the n~ed individuals are "deeply. con-cerned" about safety problems at the reactor.

Finally,. the GLEA

member* who signe4 bo.t_h the original and supplemental petitions identified herself as* a--Vice :P'resident of GLEA.

In. response,

' the Licensee co~tinued to find inadequate GLEA's statement of interest; because (1) it did not demonstrate that the named persons*

have interests within the ~ones of interest protected by the Atomic.Energy Act or NEPA; (2) it did ~ot indi~ate that.the mem-bers'. interest~ mar pe_;faf-fected by the r~sults of the pro~-eeding; (3) it failed to show that a member has authorized GLEA to represent

~

his or her*interests (both in terms of the members' authorization of their constituent groups to* represent them and the gr~µps' authorization of GLEA to represent their interests)_; and (4) the authorization of GLEA's representative to: represent the group

. ;; *.~...:_,. -.. '

~nd_.the constituent ~roups was not adequate.

At the prehearing conference, GLEA provided further

.J,j. *

~. ~-

.inf oma tiori on the last two of these subjects.

It turned out

.... f"'... -

that GLEA ha~; both ind.ividual members and constituent. group-mem-bers (Tr. 10).

Fo:ur; Gi.E:A.:~embers -~ho -:w~~~~':i)r~~e~t?::~t~-~h~::. db.nference indicated that th~y -~:fes-i~~d GLEA"*t:o r~-P~~'~;~~ 1:h*;;1~: i~t~~~""s-t:~ (Tr.

7-8) *.

Ea.ch of thos*~.. f;~ p~r;b~s wa1, am~rig.-the: se;,en wh~-~ h~d ff*

~

'been. listed in GLEA' s April 20 petitio"i'i. :* In addition, GLEA' s representative read into the record*a letter from another GLEA

member who* resides: -approxun:ate.ly 2 miles.* from *'the plant-and who sent the orgarti~-ation-a., -c*~~t;;:ibution -to *as*s'ist ~:*:its' endeavor to participate in this prc>>ceeding (Tr *. 9-10).

Furthermore.., the

./..

e..

. GLEA representative stated that, as Vice Presi~ent, she _w.as..

authorized to appoint herself the organization's representative

,L

in the proceeding and, in any event, GLEA had ~oted at its

. -. ~.. -

-~*

January meeting to designate her as -its spokesperson (Tr. 11).

~ith_this additional information, it is clear to us that GLEA has been adequately authorized to represent certain of its mem-

. bers' interests and its reJ>resentative has been satisfactorily

~~

.. des_ignated to act in that capacity.

Indeed, the Licensee no l

-~

longer appears to que-stion~these elements of GLEA's standing (see May 30, 1979' brief and Tr~ 12-13).

Nor does the Licensee seriously contest that GLEA's

named members possess interests which may confer standing on the organization~ All of those members reside within 50 miles of the plant _(Tr. 12) ~ indeed, their reside~ces apparently are much closer, from approximately two to 15 miles from the plant.!... Jt is~.. ~~}..l s~~tl~_d _tJ1a~ :r:~siden~e a$.. far away as 40 or

_.. ::*.-2.

- - - - ~.:... : *-(

"~'**:*

. -... -.*~.** *..

.: 50 mil~s _from ? reactor ~ay provide a founda_~ion for.standing *

... -.' -~........... --:.... r.. :..

.* :.. ::~.;:..

.*.:.. ~: *

~

, Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Gen~rating

,,..... **-~.........

~~..............

.. _.....,,.,..... -:.*~*-.. -...

. Plant, :.Units l_ and.2), ALAB-107,_-6_AEC 188, 193 (1973) (40-miles);

.:.*:. __ ;:.._s._:.*.-* --

~-*..,:..,,,_.

.. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclea-r: Plant,. _Units.1 and

... -*~

.~. -

2), ALAB-413, 5. NJlC 1418, 1421 n. _4 (1977) (50 miles).*,~_,Where,

~-. -

"-~- :'

~.

~ "..... ***..

as here, the residences in question are loc~_ted_ within J5. miles

of the plant, it perforce follows that the requisite "interest" exists~. Virginia -Electric and* Power Co. (No:t:th Anna St~tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56."(i979); South Texas, ALAB-549, supra,,_ 9 NRC at __, fn. 8.

--e-e -*

Although the Licensee does not seriously question that GLEA may have an interest iri the proceeding, it claims that there is yet another test which must be satisfied:

a requirement that the petitioner delineate how its interest may be affected by the pro-ceeding-. *The Licensee recognizes that in North Anna, ALAB-522, supra, the Appeal Board stated that "close proximity has always been deemed to be ~n~u~~tanding alone, to establish the requi-site interest."* 9 NRC at 56.

But it claims that the authority l.

upon which the Appeal Board relied in ALAB-522 founded standing*

not only upon proximity but also upon the petitioners' "4sserted

- 1 concern that their physical_and economic well-being might be adversely affected by the operati~n of the facility." Gulf States

- *.. Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183., 7 AEC 222, 224 (1974). _According to the Licensee, such asserted concerns also were prese~t in ALAB-522, but they are _not;_ expre?sed

- ,.. *. ~--.. - *~... " '.

here with adequate particular,ity.::.:.:..:* :.~-:

.~ ::::..

-~ > "":.. <... :*.

-~~ i** *:"*'*:

We disagree~-._ To l:>eg;i.n with, we would tend to read the.*** --- *

- ........ ~..... -**-

..--*~ ~.., --*..

[..".. _

-... :*. ~*

~- -

Appeal Board decision in South Texas (ALAB-549),. supra, as holding

-_**-~---- :,,)':..... *~-

- - --*--*-~:.. _.*

-~-*-.. ~

"'.........,,~..

-~~-

r that there is a presumption of standing where an.organization

.:-~-.. :~.*:.. ~:..-.-.:,:.~. :: *. *::

-~*:.-.. *.. -..

.-: ,,... **...::~.:-~.... :-~---

~--.:*..._:.;;..;:..,.

raises saf~t)': -~ss1:1.e,~~-q~ behalf of a member or *members residing

.-:*_*_~*:*_.

"i"'..".'

..* *..... ~.*;..

- .*::**~!_.,l*.. ~-~- *..

in close proximity*to a facility.

Beyond that, it i~_clear_to

. -..:._*; ::~* -*. *,.. :... ":.. -~..,..

~

us that GLEA has set forth concerns with.respect to the health-

~--...

-*~-~..

... -:.~*~*"'*:-~::. _:

.:.~_.: ______ --*---"*.. *-* ~***-**--.~ *-..... :.~-....:: ___.

and-safety a~d eny_ironme!lt~l.. ~sp_e;:ts_... __ of the_. proposal U:ndei-:, __ r_eview.

-...,-~~..... -...,_,.-.-.--.. --***--*....

These concerns appear.both iI!_GLEA's statements-on standing and in

~

its c*o"htentions -

both of which. _may be_. t.!iken: into account

~..

- A in *ascertaining whether GLEA has satisfactorily complied with the interest ~equirements. We have earlier alluded to GLEA's state-

~ '....

~'. sup'ra).

In its conten-tions,- *as expres~ed bci'th *~fn 1t*s original '.*petition* and in its most recently revised version, GiEA. refers, int.er alia, -to ::;the somatic and genetic effects 'of radiation on both workers and the general public, the environmental impacts of construction, and the 'asserted lack of *an eri,;.ironm~ntal impact statement.

Some of these concerns may not prove to be vtl-i-:Uf but it has never been necessary "to establish; as a pre~onditi~n to intervention, that [a petitioner's]

~--

concerns are well-founded in fact." North Anna, ALAB-522," supra, 9 NRC at 56.

Some of GLEA's concerns may also prove. to be of

. little magnitude;. but the magnitude of asserted. harm is also not

. _. _controlling.

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 689 fn. 14 (1973).*. In fact, it appears to us that a statemerit'of asserted *injury which

~

.is insufficient to' 'found a valid contention _may weli be adequate*

to provide a basis for standing. -

Be that as it may;' GLEA' s -claim that an environmental

.. ~

~*

*... ~. * :;.. -

-~* :.:*~--:"~."\\* :. r.::.*i.;1;/~**, : ~ *..

~. * *.

..', ** ~ --:... _. -.

. *. ;~. :~

~

impact statement should be *-*issued in itself constitutes a showing Failure to produce

.. -... '.:~-......

'ail **environment"ai -~p*a~*t :~t-.~.t~:~erit':irt 6ir~~s~ances ~here one is required has b;~~ -h~l~:i'"-to constitute injury ~.indeed, irre,parable injury.

' Cir. 197~); -Env.iro-nme~t~l ne'fense Fund. '1_::' Tenness'e~ Vall~y Author-it-y,_<468 -F.id -li.64, 0

1184 (6,.th Cir. 1972); lza'ci~I{* Walto~ I~eague v.

Schles'inger_i-337-~F."Supp. 287, 295 (D.D.C.-1971); cf. Public

I

- Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-437, 6 NRC 630, 633 (1977).

Persons residing within close proximity to the locus o~ a proposed action, such as GLEA's members, constitute the very class which an impact state~

ment is intended* to benefit.

/

The Licensee relies on several decisionswhich appear to stress the specificify<y;;hich a petitioner's stat_ement of interested is arti(!u~ated __ ~nd which conclude that a *sufficient demonstration of standing p~*d not been-profferred..Those rulings are.all distinguishable from the present factual situatio~ and hence are not controlling. Virginia Electric and Power Co *. (North

. *~-~

Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC

'f

.. ~~

(April 5, 1979) involved the tardy claim* of an organization to participate as am.icus curiae on an issue which had been raised by another party.

The petition recited the names of certaiQ.members residing within 40 miles of _the site but i~ ~~parently made no claim that (or showing hbw) the individual interests of_ the mem-hers would be affected; rather, the petition was ~~uncled upon the

~.

~- r;_;. :-* -*... -

~..., :

~ -**._

~~ '....

~--

~=* *-.... --.. :*-

--~. ~~.. -

-...... ~-

~

organization's asserted concern with, and unique qualifications to address, a particular issue.

Standing was found lacking on the authority of Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U~ S. 727 (1972).

The same. conclusi:oi1. w~~ t'~~ched;:: for essential;ly the. same reason in Allied-General Nuclear -Services (Barnwelf FU.el* Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420_(1976).. _ There, in addition, the organization was essentially interested *in civil liberties

. A-*

matters.

Further specificity as to how an ind'ividual* member*' s

intere*sts would be affected was clearly warranted.

Finally, the po':'.'tion of the Allens Creek decision relied on by the Licensee concerns. only. the.. requirement that an organization seeking intervention in a representational capacity identify particular members whose interests might be affected -. -

a course of action which~ utilike--here, the organization in question there refused to follow.( Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek

~--

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC ~

. (April 4, 1979).

That decision has no bear_ing upon the question before us.

We recognize that GLEA's statement of interest might have been.more precisely drafted if it had been the product of an attorney skilled in the.conduc't of adnlinistrative 'proceedings rather than by a lay me~ber of.the o~g~iza.tion. We would be reluctant to' 'deny int~rv~ntfon:_;~~ ~that basis wh~'i*e,*. a~{ he're~ it

. ':' appear~- thafc.-th~ "organ:i~~tio~ h~~ indeed-* i.d*e~-f i£i.ed.. 'iht~r~'st's.

... : :*which. ~~y.. b'.~ aff~-cte~f liy.: a-~'proc.e'ecf'ing~: *:*A~ *{h'."~*-* Appe~i>B~ard has stated,-

s~;~~-

~,;; '

~.*... ~ -

~... *....

-~ *-* --

-~-....

,.. -.. -~..,...,,... ~---* ~--**--.-

~: *-.-

r.: :-..- *: -.. -

. It is neither congressional nor Commission policy to exclude parties because the niceties of pleading were imperfectly observed.. Sounder

practice is to decide.issues on their merit.s*, * *

.not to avoid them on technicalities.... -

~

.-::.. *--*~;,::..... -... -

South Texas, ALAB-549, supra, 9 NRC at *-- (slip op.," p. 11).

... -*e*

-- In ~hort, we conclude that GLEA has adequately set..

'¥"

forth hoY7 certain of its membe1:~' interests may be.a~fected.by the safety and envirol1lile1?'.tal -~pacts of the propo_sal.':1llder 1/

re.view*--:-_. and, according~y, that GLEA has demonstrated its standing to participate_in this proceeding *.

II.

The second hurdle which a petitioner must pass in order to

~

.\\.

be admitted as an intervenor is the setting.forth of at least one valid contention.

10 CFR §2. 714(b); Prairie Island, <<:ALAB-107, supra, 6 AEC at 194.

The bases for each contention must be set

- forth with reasonable specificity..

10 CFR §2.714(b).

In evalu-

.. : ating contentions, however, we may take into account the ci~cum-st~nce that the petitioner is not represented by counsel.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating S.tation,. *~

. *" - ~-..,:

~-.

... '.~.

~--- ;:.. *~*

1/, The **economic-*concem's of its mem'be.r's *set. forth hy GLEA.'are those of ratepayers and are not withi~.the zones of.interest arguably sought to be protected by.the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA.

Those concerns may not serve as a basis for.standing, and we accordingly have disregarded them in reaching our conclusion.

Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 (1977) *

~--..

1**.

-::-*;.,~

v -* -

. ' -.. '-.. ~:.

13 Units 1 and 2), ALAB-136,.6 AEC 487,' 489 (1973).

We also are aware *of our obligation to resolve"'"<:>>n their. merits fs*sues-.of.

potent.ial significanc~ to**the public. health *and safe~y and *the environment. which are present~d to us,. notwithstanding certain technical deficiencies in their statements.

South Texas, ALAB-549, supra, 9 NRC at ~~ (slip op~*, p. 11).

Furthermore, we may not

.at this stage reje~t~a_;;.J;~levant contention because it lacks merit.

Such *resolution ma1 occur only after an evidentiary hearing or,

~

where* appropriate, summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR §2.749.

With that in mind, we.have reviewed the contentions appearing in GLEA's initial petition, and the amended contentions 21 presented to us at the prehearing conference.

We will treat each of them here.

1.

One of the topics.of greatest concern to GLEA.is the total radiation exposure which will accrue from the project,

....... '.. --~** *-~-.* *-*- -* *-*~

primarily to workers but to some extent to the.public*generally.

.. --~* --* :

.. ( -**

.. ::,:* :Th*i~ -~~osur~ :i.s:.*the,.':f~undatio~~-for:two*\\;f*cw'.s amend~d conten-

r.

I** **'* f<< *.',

.,.* ~!* _-**.,:*

~-~ *

~

"~.)

petition~-* Ther~,* t*h~~-fi~~t * ~o~ten:tion st:~fed *that* th~~r* replacement

~

2/

...,.. "°' ';"'

~

-~. *-

- '* '*..... *~-. -

_:./._..

In referring to GLEA's amended contentions, unless otherwise noted,.. we will utilize the numbering and wording appearing in the retyped versi.on circulated by the NRC Staff along with.its "NRC Staff Further Response to Contentions Submitted at Prehearing Conference," dated May 29, 1979. *

(

-~*....

I *

.* i ~".

-- of the generators "will ~equi1:"e. expc;>s~g.-. workmen t_o hazardous levels. of -~~adi~tion." ::.-:J'h~~ ~~c'?:nil_ contention of. the. initial petition sought to raise.an *issue concerning the -"environmental

_and safety review procedure" which will be used "to prot;ec~ the public*duJ:'.ing the repair operations~"

At the prehearing conference, GLEA supplied further

~xplanation of these~ cen1:entio~s. When asked to provide addi-tional specific informati,pn about the safety hazards, *GLEA's

~--

spokesperson stated that the st~am generators are -"high_ly radio-active" and that "there will be*.-people in this area who are

.., workers. at the plant * *

that will be exposed to higher doses

_,. l_.._.

of radiation than is normal in an operating plant (Tr. 38,

~ :1 emphasis supplied).

This exposure assertedly would "impair

~*.. *-*

the workers' health and produce "genetic damage" (Tr. 38).

Further,* "the steam generators which are very radioactive will.

have.. to be reinoved *from the reactor. and there* is*.a* ~h~ri~e.::'of

~. "..

\\..'..

~ ~-

airborne'-emisiiiions" -which'. could affect '~people living very"-'close to that reactor" (Tr. 39).

~** ;.:.i:, : '*.f ~- :

;....: _t

. ---:*t*.. ;;'*

In addition, -*the* only way for ~NRC radiation standards to be. satisfied is assertedly "by having

~

~ '

many workers burnt out,:. ~s i~. were,'.'

in-9.-~IIIl:1~h as ____ '_'_th(i?)7 __,wil~ be in much higher_ levels.. ~E--~~di.:ltion_ exposure_ tI:an n,ormal plat?-t operation" (Tr. 58, emphasis supplied).

-.. _, "':' ~

As indicated ~~rlier,

at the preh~*ar:iTI:g. ~onference, we gave GLEA the opportunity it requested to re.formulate its

. e -*

- contentions. *We took this** action because of the GLEA rep~esent ative '*s obvious lack. of familiarity with the requirements for a valid contention, when viewed against.the background of the*

potentially serious safety and environmental questions which GLEA was-apparently attempting.to enunciate.

Th~ radiation exposure questions evolved into two amend~d* contentions (numbers 1 and 7).

For purpo~e~ our discussion, we here set them forth in full:

l.*

Total man rem exposure according to the applicants will be 7342 man rem.

When any federal agency contemplates an action having

this substantial human impact, there should be an Environmental Impact Statement (figure***

4, 3-3) to consider both the [somatic] and

genetic effects of this possibility *.- *

7. ' The appi.icant will vio:late *NRC *regulations

. requiring~ occupational exposures to __ be

kept as low as possible. *

.. ';,...... ~... ~*** *,.: :.

. *~

The basis of Contention 7 was said to be the same as for Conten-

... :. -.~*

-*~.:

~.~

~-- :.'

~:#*,:~:

,..:...~ ~*::""'........ _. _.,

. tion. 1 -*-. i.e., the alleged. total man-r.em exposure of 7342 man- *

.. *. r:m,(Tr ~:jo~ ~... 12t;2~ ~:. ~:.:;.":..*:~~* *'., /,.. :::~ *,, *'~.=::. :

* * *..., * * *

We ha:d s'ome -trouble' °locating.the ~oui.-ce *of *the alleged.

7342 man-rem.exposure~ It turned out that the source~was Table

4. 3. 2 *c,f* the Licensee's Steam Generatc:>"r Repair Report (SGRR).

(Tr~ 98, _103, 125).

GLEA claims to* have _added up the total repair p~oject (Tr_.

97..:~g~*.:... ~lthough we still have* difficulty

v.~

-~...

-- in ascertaining how the exact exposure of 7342 man-rem was reached, we note that*Table 4.3.2 does *indicate that, unde.r'the Lic~nsee's first-*mentioned r.eplacement ~ethodology, the* resulting exposure is said to be. 4993* ~an-reni (of which 4070 man.:..i*em results.from one work area alonef. **For purposes of. evaluating GLEA **s contention, we will utilize-the latter nurilbers which actually appear in the source cited.

This e~tflnatear;diation exposure to workers of about 5000 man-rem indicates th~t a ~arge number of workers would be required to be employed in the project to keep the exposures to individual workers below the maximum permissible whole body dose of}i}.. 25 rem

. '~per calendar quarter *. 10 CFR §20. lOl(a) )/

In addition, Commission A regulations provide that licensees shall "make every reasonable effort. to maintain radiation exposures * *

as low as is reasonably achievable" (AI.ARA).

10 CFR §20.l(c)~ The Licens~e here claims that personnel exposure will be maintained in accordance. with the Ai.ARA requirement throughout the repair program~ but to do so would likely still further increase the number of *workers**-reqtiii"ed to be used.

In our opinion, the exposure of. large numbenof workers to "significant fi;~ei;';~~i~;adi~~i~~-:*~~;{ria~'~-- ~~'le f~~~d~tTo~ for the

.' :... *~:.

~-

.~~ _,...

,.........,.. -~.i.....t.

Even were the Licensee to use workers whose dose~ are computed under 10 CFR §20.lOl(b),.a substantial number of workers never-theless will be required to be utilized... The Commission has issued new regulations, effective August' 20, 1979, which impose new requirements with respect to the application of the standards of 10 CFR §§20.lOl(a) and (b).

44 Fed. Reg. 32349* (June 6, 1979).

These new regulations are applicable to this proceeding.

Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), AlAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 82-83 (1974).

e --

17 -

11

Petitioner's contention* that the Lic_~risee' s *pr:of>o~al would expose..

such a _large number of.w?rkers. to ra.diatio~ _approac~ing.

the maximum permi~sible dosage that.it will produce a significant impact o~ the general public~ 4 /

Such exposu:r:~ furth~:r provi_des

. adequate. foundation for GLEA~ s claim that the proposal "violates" the AI.ARA.requirements.

GLEA' s amencled' Contention 1 claims* that the referenced radiation exposures ~~e sufficient to require the issuance of an environmental impact statement.

At the prehearing conference, the Licensee appeared to defer to the Staff* as to whether issuance of such a statement is required *(Tr. 121-22).

The Staff indicated

'tha't 'it. pre'seritly planned to issue an environmental impact appraisal

(tr~ 112).~./

Under Commission rules, an impact appraisal *nrust be issued in situations where an impact statement is not called for.

. *~

10 CFR §51.7.

The Licensee in its May 30 response to the* amended

.-----...,-,. ~......

~-.

-~*. ;

t

~-..

~* *. -~.-".,.._.

.'. ~

.. ::;..._*:~... *~:-..:

~.*:::.:r~::.~

~: ~:-:!.~:t'"..:~_;*:~

- _ ~

~-.::.

":*..... :.*... )::...:.. ~~--

4/ We.disagree with the Licensee.' s claim that adding together

.*:.man-rem doses which will be. received in different phases of the project does not produce a meaningful number.. Such num-bers have been relied upon by the Licensee in *its P:t:"Oject proposal.

~~e,.p*, SGRR Table 4. 3. 2; §§8. 5, 8 *.7 and Tab le. 8. 8-1,.. § 9.

___.. :... :.... *. *

--*--~----"*,......... -*----**---.. - -.- r.,.,~.

5/

The Staff 'did not discuss the impact statement issue in_

its May 29,* 1979 "Further Response To Contentions Submitted

at Prehearing Conference." ~- * *.. :~~*_ ~ - * *.. :. * * * - ~.: * * ;

~~-

0 :~

0: _;*

~-.*:_,,*:.t. ~:* :~ 0

', ~:~

L 0 ~-:. _:;~

~-

~

. *:.:......;....;'le:_ *.*

)

e --

18 -

contentions flatly took the position that an impact statement is not required, but its sole ba,~is for this. __ pos~tion was the Staff's action in Virginia Electric and Power Co. -(Surry Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281, where it issued an impact appraisal rather than a statement.

The Staff's *action in the Surry case, or its proposed action here, is not dispositive of the question raised by GLEA.

~In the first place,. w~. ha:Ve ~ncYr'dea wh~ther.th~.impacts,.at Su.rry ar~ at all comparable to those ~ere-,Furthermore, the Surry proceeding did not involve an adjudic.atory hearing, so tha~ the. Staff's determination not to issue a statement has never been rev-iewed in an adjudicatory

. context. 61 Although the determination whether to issue an impact "statement falls initially upon the Staff, that determination ~y be

. made an issue in-an adjudicatory proceeding.

Northern States. Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generat*i~g-Pl-~nt, Units 1 *and 2), et al., i~J:

ALAB-455-, 7 NRC 41 (1978).

_GLEA has. raised. just such an **issue* ~~d,

~1:

..... : ~-.. -- --

~.'; :~. '....

as we have seen, has provide_d a r_easonable basis for it. In the

~

1- *:. *- -

,,:-~***,,;*.":.--,

~.. -:::*:.'" *.. *

,T:--*~.**.

last analysis, the significance of the impact of the.project -

in

.!,,... ~_,.;

~~ *... :.::.:...~;:: ( -~*

large part an evidentiary matter -

will determine whether a

.. :.:.~.!...: :_:...;... :,..

'../

"1.1

--~ [_ :.: **

f.;**1*......

** -*.. ~...

..!.'.* '.r

~

\\ -

§_/

The NRC has been asked for the third time to suspend further action on the Surry project pending preparation of an environ-

. mental impact statement.

We understand that the -Staff is looking again at its determination not to issue such a state-ment in that proceeding.

See 44 Fed. Reg. 36522 (June 22, 1979).

The Commission has postponed its review of two previous Staff rulings determi~ingthat an impact statement was not required.

See-, 9

~ g-.-;*_*_~oi:om:ission Orders dated Ma!.... 15, 1979 and June. 22, 197.

~ -.. *~... _:

.~

.f~

19

statement must be issued.

10 ~~R §§51.5(a)(l0"), 5{~5(b)(2)..Z./

~*.....

Although Contention* 7 is phrased in terms of "as low I~

ll as possible," it became clear at the prehearing conference that GLEA was focusing upon the Commission's A~ requirements (Tr.

~8-59, 124-26).

'rhe Licensee and Staff each.claim that the con-tention lacks spec~ficity!_ And the Licensee refers to* s*everal 1

~~

AI.ARA measures which it is proposing to follow (SGRR §§4.3, 4.4,

~

4. 9, 7.6, 8.7 and Table 4;3.2).

But as we have stressed, the proposal~ and particularly Table 4.3.2, upon which GLEA is relying ~ does nothing to indicate that each worker will not be exposed to the maximum levels permitted under 10 CFR §20.lOl(a).

Further, it strongly suggests that large numbers of workers will

.i.

be exposed to radiation intensities approaching the maximum

?.

permissible levels. In addition, Table 4.3.2 summarizes the*

~-..

man-rem exposures for three alternate methods; of which the sum

...... 1.

_,;~.. :~.:: ~~::: :;..

,e,.:.: :::... -~-: :::._.**

.S..:'. >::...

~.

.',.. B :.

for the first-mentioned method.is greater than for the two alter-

--" : ~-.>.

.;."" :*..,-~-

~:* ~:'.

- ~;t-:::--:~; ~~: :.:.:~.::. -i:*.;3..:_**.

~:, ~

-;: ~*ct*=;**.: :;. ~:

_ ** *~ * :*.-:-

~ r{ ::;.

-_~*._:.. :.: -~-:~::.. -.... :: *:: _~

natives.

(No cost information with regard to the alternatives

-:~

-~~*:?:~:*.~:-~.:.~'.;

-~--

L: *.

_:*:.~~-'~.T-~--~~:-<...

--~.:.. ::~~ ------

~*:::.*:::;~_... _

~*-.:*.:;*~.;~...,:.:*r ~~~*.Y~--~~'.*** ";_:.:.

.,... ~~""*.:*1~.. ::

is provided.) Finally, GLEA alluded.peripherally (initiai petition par. 4, 5, 6; Tr.* 39, 83, 120) to the method of trans-

-*~**.....

'.... ~

--y~ *.

~*.. *' :,..

~-:.. **

~**t.... -.. :.*,,.~...*,.. ~

!:*1.... ~*-.

portatio~ '*or the storage* of the radioact~:'-7e

gene_:J:'.ato_rs ~-._,_,Selection II

-*.,~-----*~*.

'.'.'_._ ":<'!'°.<.::.:: ~

.*... ;-;~:*.-:_...

~._....,.... '." ': '""" ;

--~.~-**.. *-.

~

/,..:.:.... ('::.~--*. ~.:

If,th~ St~ff. ~hould * *de~i.de t.o isst;e_ ~n e~vi~onme~tal impact statement, GLEA's contention_ might be ripe for dismissal pur-suant to 10 CFR §2.749; new information raised in the state-ment _might, of course, serve as a 'f?_a~is for additional contentions.

I' I

20.. -

of a meth?d of transport~tion or storage is subject to AI.ARA consi~~rations. See, ~'

SGRR~ * §§4:~_.4, 4.4*.6, 4.4.8~ and

Table 4.4-2.

Several transportation and/or storage methods are identified, but the proposal does notspecify which of them will be utilized, despite the dramatic differences in man-rem exposure which they entail.

These*. matters are sufficiently specific to constitute an adeqµate_j)asi.s* for GLEA's contention on the ALARA re.quirements.

~-.*

In that context, w:e note that at the present time the Commission has issued no regulations which *delineate the*\\'nanner

~.in which a Licensee may conform to the AI.ARA requirements

'~governing occupational exposures.

There is no occupational

*exposure equivalent o_f 10. CFR Part 50, Appendix I, which prescribes

standards for evaluatirig whether e_~q:>o*s~res of the general public conform to AI.ARA requireme_~t_5-_.~.. On at least :~ne occasion'; the Appeal Board has pointed *t6-:*the*' n.e.ed for the Commission to prom-

~-*..

...... ~ -.....:...

..,, ~..

ulgate furthe:r. -~id-~nce* -cm: :h'~ompii.ance -with the* AI.ARA requirements

- ~...

-*-..-J-.. **--

-**"-.;..;._. ______ _, -*--~* *, ***-

~.... **-

~..;

~

for OCC':f>~~i~n~~ _exposur.~s:, Prairie Is land, A~-455' supra' 7 NRC at 57-59*, 60, but thus* far th~**"6:)IImiissfon:.has not done so

_; c.:......,*.J.;*-'*-... '*-:""'-**** J*.,!

Evaluation whether *~~ occ~patic>nal* 'expc)s:U:~e co~forms to the AI.ARA requirements req~~::.~~-~~-c~n~_i.~~r~~.i.~n... of both the total amount of the. expos:tlre. and the f iriancial aspects of lowering

-.::~---. *..

~....... '.

....., -~~,.**

that exposure, but the Commission.has' not spelled out the amount which it may* require. a Licensee to e?CP_~~d to achieve lowered

(

. A*-*

c_

'\\ 11

I radi~t-ion exposures. -In* dealing *with ::the Al.ARA co~t~nt1on which we are admitting, we expect the p~rties to.address such questions.

In sum, we admit GLEA's two contentions which raise questions about the man-rem impacts of the project, _in terms of (1) the necessity of an environmental impact statement and (2) the conformance of the project with Al.ARA occupational exposure

~.:...----:-

requirements.

The two contentions stem from amende-d Contentions l

1 and 7 (as well as origi"Iial Contentions 1 and 2) and are to be construed in accordance with the foregoing' discussion.

They will be renumbered, respectively, as Contentions 1 and 2 and are reworded as follows:

(1)

The total man-rem.exposure resulting.

from the steam generator replacement '

project, as set forth in Table 4.3.2 of the Licensee's SGRR, is of such

significance,_ particularly with respect to the somatic and genetic

. __ impacts. on lai::ge numbers of workers..

- - -~ *-

_ and***the resultant.- impact on* the

-~-* ***:--*-

community, as to call for the issuance.. *

of a NEPA environmental impact* state.uient ~--.-**-~:~>-;.*

-** r -

-~.:.

c2Y

The tic:e*n.-see's~- propos'af ts 1ncoris-!s*t*en:t*-- * - "'"- -

.with the Commission's requirement.that_*

. occupational exposures be kept as low' as is reasonably achievable, in __ that

... i::.:...~;. -

.,._,.*-~-.:..... _....... -..~---****....... **-*-~-*...

... *~.-:-::.:~~:-~~!,".".. ~.:~:.*:*;

a *.

it fails to specify that the_

alternatives outlined in SGRR

. Table...4:.. *.~-~ _2 which_ prod~c~- _the...,

lowest man-rem exposures will--*

be employed; L

... f~~~~.. ~~c'.-.. -....,

.t O -* *

~

b~ it will result in a situation where large numbers.of workers will be

. -~

I 1

22 exposed to maximum permissible levels of radiation; and

c. it fails to specify which trans-portation* and/or storage method.

will be used or whether the method producing the lowest level of radia-tion exposure will be employed.

2.

The only other contention we find acceptable is amended Contention 4, whic~,-~ayulimitted,. sts.-tes:

4.

The ifnp~ct of.the construction such as

. noise,.dust, etc., on _the surrounding environment which is a prize resort area has not been*considered.

This area is used by people to rest and rec*over from work--to maintain and improve tpeir heal~h.

This activity will seriously affect tne public health and safety of the surrounding area from construction activities alone.

The Licensee would reject this contention on.the ground that the impacts of construction (such as noise and dust) on the.-

surrounding area are considered in SGRR § § 7. 4, 7. 4.1, f. 4. 2.,

and 7.4.3.* It, as well as the Staff;asserts_that there is-no_.*

basis for the contentiori.

{*::0*:

"0

_.,.o\\M** "*

.Qur examination of the SGRR indicates that, although construction impacts* are.. treated, there is no consider.at;io.g ___ _

of the effects,* if any" of s*uch impacts on the are~.*-~... r.esort*

. **¥... * *

1-'

~

~.;.-~-

activities. That *even'standard construction activities* might

-*::.;... :" _-. -..; : 1 :::.. *_ ::*;:

' *':;.;,S.:

. ~ *"\\, ***: :-.. ~-.

prove inimicable to a vacation area scarcely requires discussion.

-~......

~**

~.. *-.~..... **...

. -~.

~-"'*~**.

\\

GLEA'is focusing primarily on the implications of a major con-struction activity on a resort area.

For that reason, it has

.'\\

~*

.e --

-- provided an adequate basis for its contention.

We admit the follo~ing con.ten.tion~ renumbered as Con-

. t*.:.

tention 3:

3.

The Licensee's SGRR does not adequately consider the impact of the construction (such as noise, dust, etc.) on the sur-round~ng *envisonment, which is a "prize"*

resort area=-

~*

c

~

3.

We have reviewed '(;LEA' s other contentions and find none of them to be acc~ptable, 8 / for the following reasons:

a.

Amended Contention 2.raise_s questions concerning the Palisades Plant's quality control record,_and the plant's "history of frequent breakdowns and malfunctions." It also s*eeks examination of *plant shutdo*wn as a.projec*t alternative.

- - c-

.*' -~:... **-........,* *-..* -.... ~..

GLEA,_ however, fails to point to any deficiencies

.~,,*

. in the: _propos~d.quality asstira~ce program~ for t.his *project, which are. des~ribed in §4.7.of the SGRR.

It claims therefore has no relevance.to. this project. *

-~--.. *:..

~--

...,..'.~.-~:...:.~.. ~.::::

--~-;~--~.:~-::.**.;;.ri:r*--: ~*; *.. ~*-:::2{-.~-;-.. ;.*.:*z:.:::::~-~=- *--**,.r-.

§_/

". \\..

rr-:~ ~ :;.";; ;.-~.. :.~ :~ *-.

"'~ ~: 7 '. **

I Contentions 3-9 of GLEA' s initial petition do:_not appear to us to be contentions at all but, rather, areas in which GLEA*has an interest.

Some of the matters dealt with therein are included.in the. amended contentions.... with *which we are. dealing speci.fically."

In* any event," :these* contentions are not.set forth.with sufficient specificity to comply with the requirements of. 10 CFR §2. 714(b). *

....... *. ~*.

i* *. --***

e

~.

24 -

I I

1\\

Furthermore, plant shut~own is an alternative which

'I. is beyond our jurisdiction to co~sider. See Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nucl~arGenerating Plant, Units 1 and 2),

. ALAB-455, supra, 7 NRC.at 46-_47 _n~ 4.

That case involved an appli'.'9.

cation for a license amendment seeking expansion of the facility's spent fuel pool. If the amendment were not granted, the plant would have bee~* re~u(r~o *be shut down:. Nevertheless, plant shutdown was held to be an alternative which could not be considered.

t

~

That same holding is even more called*for in this case.

For, if we should determine that the~ license amendment. should be :~enied, the plant could continue to operate.under its existing license

--&sing the presently installed* steam generators.'l/

b.

Amended Contention 3 claims* the SGRR is deficient for failing to discuss ','how meteorological conditions w.ill affect the

. *~

population through airborne emissions, the local usage o.f grourid

and surfac_e water,.. and ot11,er., _local. _conditio11s.~"

Th~se xru;tters are

. dealt with in_ SGRR §§6.2.2.l~. 6.2.2.2,_ 6.2.2.3, 6.2~2~4", and in

~ ""'*...

~--

-~

-* ;..V**,*

~*V*o**'

,,~.... **

.So..,\\.

Tables.6.2-2 *and 6.2-5, and:GLEA hasf~iled _to point t6 any, defi-ciencies in that analysis.

In any event, airborne.emissions of.*

~.

interest to GLEA (Tr. 110) are in part comprehended by Contention

,,,. r*-*-***.-.

2, which we have ad.mi tted." *...:...:.. ::: -~~ -:.* * ----*- *----** -- --*... :..:.::* *

~'.:.:....,. *......:, -~

~ -

.* *'.:*~ ~

'l.I

At some time in.. the future, the plant might have to be derated if its current steam generators.remain in service.

SGRR, &1.0.

Attachment:

Notice of Hearing THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/

,..,..

ML18043B034

Text

Attachment:

Navigation menu

Search