ML18108A669

Letter Enclosing Applicants Response to Additional Testimony of Karl Z. Morgan Served Thursday, December 16, 1976

ML18108A669
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/21/1976
From:	Coll N Steel Hector & Davis
To:	Glaser M, Hetrick D, Hooper F, Luton E, Mann M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Univ of Arizona, University of Michigan
References
Download: ML18108A669 (11)

Text

WILLIAMC STCCL LOVIS J, HECTOR DARREY A. DAVIS DWIGHT SULLIVAN WILLIAM8. KILLIAN CRNCST J. HCWCTT JCRRV 8. CROCKETT WILSON SMITH TALSO'T D ALCMQCRTC JAMCS H,SWCCNYiTS JOHN EDWARD SMITH NORMAN *.COLL THOS. C, CAPPS SHCPARD KINO AROCN DOSS'R MATTHEW M, CHILDS SARRV R. DAVIDSON NOEL H. NATION SRVCE S.RVSSCLL ALVIN 8. DAVIS JANET RCNO JDSCPH P. KLOCKiJR RICARDO MAR'VINCE CID

'THOHAS R. McOVIOAN PATRICIA A. SCITZ DENNIS A.LARVSSA RICHARD C, SMITH PAVI. J. DONAVIA JOHN C. SVMSCRO JVOITH M. KORCHIN JOHN M. SARKCTT WILLIAML. RICH CY STEEL HECTOR

& DAVIS SOUTH CAST FIRST NATIONAL DANK BUILDING M IAMIt FLO R I OA 33 l31 December 21, 1976 0

WILL. M. PRESTON OI'OVNSCI, TCLCPHONC I305) 577 2800 DIRCC'I DIAL NVMSER Edward Luton, Esquire

Chairman, Atomic Safety IK Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Michael Glaser, Esquire Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor, Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona Dr. Frank F.

Hooper Chairman Resource Ecology Program School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Dr. Marvin M. Mann, Technical Advisor Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 RE:

In the Matter of Florida Power 6 Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant No.

2 Docket 50-389)

Dear Members of the Board:

Enclosed is "Applicant's Resp of Karl Z. Morgan served

Thursday, Dece o se to Additional Testimony m er 16, 1976".

Respe fully submitted, Norma A. Coll NAC/pv Enclosure cc:

See attached Certificate of Service

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONALTESTIMONY OF KARL Z ~

MORGAN SERVED THURSDAY g DECEMBER 1 6 /

1 9 7 6 Applicant objects to the testimony of Karl Z. Morgan served upon the parties and the Board, December 16,

1976, which consists of the following two documents:

A.

Two page typewritten document entitled "St. Lucie II Hearings-Miami, Florida Decem-I ber 16, 1976 Supplementary Testimony of Karl Z. Morgan, School of Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332" together with four page chart entitled "Table A Deficiencies of Table B.

.2 in the NRC Supplemental Testimony where Comparisons Are Made of Advantages of Various Sites".

(The two typewritten pages have already been stricken by the Board [Tr.

6122, 6137]).

Five handwritten pages entitled""Other Comments of K. Z. Morgan in reference to St. Lucie II December 16, 1976, Miami, Florida" with four pages of typed tables attached.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS ; UNTIMELINESS The offered testimony of Karl Z. Morgan was not served five days in advance of the hearing session at which it

was to be presented as required by 10 C.F.R.

g 2.743(b).

Intervenors waited until the morning of December 16,

1976, after the hearings had resumed December 15, 1976 to serve this testimony.

Intervenors have failed to demonstrate any substantial good cause why this most recent testimony was not prepared, filed and served in the interim between the last session of the hearing, December 4 and December 16, 1976.

(Tr'. 6076).

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TYPED TESTIMONY Applicant has the following specific objections to this testimony, which, after the Board's order, (Tr. 6122, 6137) now consists solely of Table A:

2.

Much of the material contained in the column of Table A entitled

."Comments of KZM" is not testimony.

In some instances it is simply a "comment" (See No. 9); in others, it consists of questions (See Sb and ll);

in still others it would appear to be an opinion that Dr. Morgan is not qualified by background and experience to furnish.

(See items 1, 2, 3, 4', 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14 and 15).

Item 1 is objectionable on the grounds that it purports to furnish a legal opinion which the witness is not qualified to give.

3.

Items 12, 13, 14 and 15 are objectionable on the grounds that each constitutes a challenge to regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is not permitted in this proceeding.

4.

The following items from Table A are repetitious, having been included and addressed by Dr. Morgan in prepared written testimony served initially on December 2,

1976 and introduced into evidence December 16, 1976.

(Follows Tr. 6192):

TABLE A.

DEC.

2 TESTIMONY Item 6

I'tern 7

Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Paragraph 1

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 8

Paragraph 8

Paragraph 2

Item 15 Paragraph 6

10 C. F. R.

g 2. 743 (c) provides that only relevant,

material, and reliable evidence "which is not unduly repetitious" will be admitted; To the extent that this testimony has been previously re'ceived from Dr. Morgan, it should not again be received.

SPECIFIC OBJECTION HANDWRITTEN TESTIMONY Applicant has the following specific objections to this testimony:

A.

The Paragraph entitled "A.

Doubling of Popula-tion Dose" questions the propriety of putting two units on a single site. It also states that "If St. Lucie II were built on Hutchinson Island, the dose permitted to the neighboring population (in accordance with NRC's own rules) would be doubled."

This appears to be an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations, including 10 C.F. R.

5 100.11(b)(3).

This testimony is also a reiteration of Para-graph 6 of the December 2 testimony, which has been previously offered.

To the extent B.

that it is repetitous, it should not be admitted.

pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

g 2.743(c).

Subparagraph 1 entitled "Routine Populations" appears to be a general attack by the witness on an alleged failure of the NRC to require reactor redesign and new operating techniques to reduce in-plant exposure.

It, mistakenly assumes but argues that the NRC "believes its task is to promote nuclear power".

This

entire portion of the testimony is unrelated to St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2, is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case

-about alternative sites, and should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c).

Subparagraph 2 entitled "Accidental Situations" concludes that the consequences of an accident, on Hutchinson Island would be greater than one at the Hartin Plant site in the event of an unspecified, but presumably class nine, "nuclear accident".

The consequences of such an accident need not be considered in a NEPA cost/benefit analysis.

Carolina Environmental

~Stud

~Grou

v. United States, 510 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

To the extent that the con-clusion in this paragraph is also premised on population density and difficulties of egress, it is a reiteration of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the December 2 testimony.

Consequently this testimony's repetitious, immaterial,

.and irrelevant to the issues in this case and should be stricken pursuant to Rule 10 C.F.R. 2.743(c).

Paragraph C entitled "Consequences of Low Doses to Population" purports to demonstrate certain "consequences" which could occur if the linear hypothesis. is incorrect.

The analysis is entirely unrelated to St. Lucie Plant Unit No.

2, except for the last sentence in the second full paragraph, on page 4, which assumes that by locating two plants on a site, the permissible population dose increases from 5 man-rems.a year to lO man-rems a year.

This assumption is not supported by the record, and is directly contrary to the testimony in the record in this pro-ceeding concerning compliance with Appendix X.

Testimony of Walton A. Rodger relating to Appendix I follows Tr. 3638, page 6,

13; Testimony of.Michael A. Parsont, follows Tr. 4562, page 6,

8, Tr. 4575.

Con-sequently, the remainder of the testimony, which purports to show a variation from the linear hypothesis which is based upon the erroneous premise of an increase from 5 to lO man-rems per year, is totally unrelated

to St. Lucie Plant Unit No.

2, is irrelevant and immaterial, and should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

g 2.743(c).

Respectfully submitted, STEEL HECTOR 6 DAVIS Co-counsel for Applicant 1400 S.E. First National Bank Miami, Flo u3.1d3.ng ida 33131 (577-2863)

BY:

N N A.

COLL

~

~

~

~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that.

a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by mail, this u7/+ day of

December, 1976, to the following:

Edward Luton, Esquire

Chairman, Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Michael Glaser, Esquire Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety

& Licensing Board Panel 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Dr.. Marvin M. Mann, Technical Advisor Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor, Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Chairman Resource Ecology Program School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Local Public Document Room Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450

~

Mr. C.

R.. Stephens, Supervisor Docketing and.Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Mr. Roger S.

Boyd Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Alan'S.

Rosenthal,

Esquire, Chairman, Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Edward G. Ketchen, Esquire Richard K. Hoefling, Esquire William D. Paton, Esquire Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.,20555 Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Harold F. Reis, Esquire Co-counsel for Applicant LOWENSTEINg NEWMAIJg -REIS 6 AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1214 Washington, D.C.

20036 STEEL HECTOR

& DAVIS Co-counsel for Applicant 1400 S.E. First National Bank B ilding Miami, Flo ida 33131 (577.-2863)

BY:

NO AN A.

COLL