ML19207C507
| ML19207C507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1979 |
| From: | Bowers E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120120 | |
| Download: ML19207C507 (55) | |
Text
_.
4 Mil s
)
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT Jtm
\\\\
j uN1TsD SmS OF usarCA 61373 y a.
NUCLEAR REGLMM 03EIE3 ION 9+
AUG
~
~ -
""* N
/
buum:; THE AMC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD g
O
~
A In the Matter of
) Dodcet Nos. 50-250 (SP)
)
50-251 (SP)
UE N b (Prsposed hammts to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
) W4 Meense to Mt Stean Generator Repain)
Units 3 and 4)
)
August 3, 1979 CRDER RULING ON THE m m 0N OF MARK P. ONCAVAGE On Dece::ber 13, 1977 the Nuclear Regulatory Camission noticed an anendment to the facility operating licenses of Florida Power and Light (FPL),
Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, relative to proposed stes:n generator repairs at Turkey Point Nuclear Generator Lhit Nos. 3 and 4, located in Dade County, F1br'da.
(42 Fed. Reg. 62569). The notice stated that petitions to inter-i vene should be sulzitted prior to the expiraticn of the thirty-day (30) period fran the date of the Notice, or January 13, 1978. No petitions to intervene were filed during the interventien period.
On February 9,1979, more than a year after the expiration of the intervention period, Mark P. Oncavage requested a " full hearing." He stated that the FFL letter of Septs::ber 20, 1977, referenced in the Federal Register notice, did not arrive at tha local docket rocxn until January 22, 1979 and that this fact established " good cause" for the late filing. Mr. Onc rage's letter expressed ervircrzaental and safety concerrs.
850 001 ha.9-C-C4 44p!
-uuy ~
7 909120 / R o G
On February 22, 1979 Mr. Oncavage requested that his letter of February 9 be ccmsidered a petiticn to intervene. On February 27, 1979 an AtaI:f.c Safety and Licensing Pctiticn Board was appointed to rule on the petiticn to intervene frcm Mr. Oncavage. (44 Fed., Reg.12120).
On March 1,1979 the NRC Staff responded to the petiticn, stating it should be denied because the petitioner did not make an adv_e showing of the factors to support an out-of-time b. ling set forth in 10 GR 52.714(a).
Staff said that Mr. Oncavage could have contacted tba NRC in a timely fashion if he had been genuinely interested.
On March 9,1979 FPL respcnded to the petiticn, saylng that the request for a hearing should be denied because it is untimely, fails to make a substerini ;,howing of good cause far failure to file on time, fails to caIply in fcrm and content with basic requiremmts imposed by the Cccmission's rules fer such requests, and fails to deconstrate any facts to support his standing to intervene. Further, the Licensee said that granting tba request for a hearing at this late date would severely prejudice FPL. Attached to tba filing were copies of the FPL letter of September 20, 1977, an affidavit of G. D. Eittier relative to a visit to the local library docket rocm, and an aM4 davit of H. D. Mantz relative to the scheduling of the steam generator repairs.
Shortly thereafter, in a conference call with the Board, the parties agreed that a prebaadng conference would be held in Miamf., Florida on
- May 2, 1979.
'Ihe Peti cner, also, p'articipated in the conference call.
a 850 002
. On March 19, 1979 a revised petiticn to intervene was filed by Mark P. Oncavage. The petiticn reiterated envirormental, health and safety, e d m d e concerns. It also responded to the factors justifying the granting of a late petiticn set forth in 10 GR $2.714(a). Petitimer stated that the absence of FPL's letter of Septenber 20, 1977 established good cause for his late f4 ling, that there is no other pedire, proceeding at th2 State level, that an effort will be made to assist in devaloping a sound record, that there are no other " existing parties" to reprasst his interest, and that any delay caused by his intervaticn would te core than offset by the value of a public hearing. An affidavit of Ms. Benee Daily, local docket librarian, and s aticn to coumence discovery are attached to the revised petition.
~
On March 30, 1979 EPL responded to the revised ~petiden. The filing repeated EPL's position that the Petitierer had not c:et the burden in 10 GR 52.714(a) for an untimely petitim. The Licensee asserted thac the initia-ticn of a hearing at this late date would disrupt careful planning and ccnsiderable effort and could deny Licensee the ability to ecumence repairs witicut delay. FPL further stated that the petition fails to establish
" interest" and does not ccntain an acceptable contenticn.
On April 6,1970 the NBC Staff filed its response to the revised petiticn.
It said that the petitioner had not established good cause for the late filing, but agreed with Pet'.tioner that his interest would not be protected cutside this proceeding. In additim, Staff said that Petiticner's claim cf being able to assist in developing a sound record is unsubstantiated.
850 003
. I rn nn 7,
e 1/
With regard to factor three7 Staff said that while its mandate is to protect the interest of the public at large, there is rocm for the advanceent of individualiW interests in these procev.ings. Staff agreed with Licensee that at evidanHary hearing at this date would have the potential for causing considerable delay in this proceeding. Final'y, Staff concluded that Petitioner had at least minimally satisfied the interest requirenent and had set forth at least one adequately pleaded ccntention.
Rhen the Board met prior to the Prehearing Conference, it was learned that only Dr. Hall had received a pleading frcm the Petitimer dated April 24, 1979, entitled " Petitioner Reply to Licensee Respcnse and "
3caff Response."
The pleading stated that Petiticner's " interest" would be affected and that this was sufficient to develop a somd record " irrespective of any expertise the Petitioner may or may not have."
During the Special Prehearing Conference on May 2, 1979 the Petitioner submitted a new list of contations to the Board and distributed copies to the parties. Both FPL and the NRC Staff protested that this filing was untimely and, therefore, not permitted by the regulations unless Petiticner was granted leave by the Board based on a balanMng of the sate factors which must be ccnsidered for an untimely petiticn for leave to intervme.
(Tr. 92, 96).
M actor three "(3)" under the 1977 rules was redesignated factor four F
"(iv)" in a revisicn of the rules that became effective in 1978.
9 850 004
+b,n 006 4
. On May 9,1979 the Board issued an Order requesting a response frcm FPL and the NRC Staff as to what the expecent ms are that the new contat4ma i
may contribute to a sound record. FPL respcoded on May 21, 1979 by stating that the notion to amend is untimely and that the new contentions indicate that the Petitioner still has not beccxne fami. liar with essential, available information. FPL also pointed out that the presentation of a direct case is unlikely since Petitioner's two "firnf' witnesses have expertiso. in areas not within the areas of the contentions. EFL stated that Petitioner's position at the Prehearing Conference was that an intervenor could present his case through cross-Mne4cn after discovery. FPL concluded that the Petitioner's participaticn would be unlikely to assist in developing a sound record, thar the petiticn and the moth a acend were late, and that the requirenents of Section 2.714(a)(1)(iii) and Secticn 2.714(a)(3) have not been met by the Petitione.t.
On May 23, 1979 the NRC Staff responded to the Board's Orda.r of May 9, 1979. The Staff stated that the Petitioner had been too vague in discussing the possibility of his contributing to a sound record so the Staff had n. drice but to assume that his participation would not make a ecntributicn. The Staff menticned that many of the contentions contained references to the Federal Water Pollution Ccntrol Act (nTCA). The Staff said since EPA issued a Naticnal Pollutant Discharge Elimiration System (NPDES) Permf.t (No. ELOO61562) for the Turkey Point facility on Jtne 14, 1978, pursuant to 5402 of ATCA, those porticns of tba contentions alleging ncn-ccx::pliance with the ETCA are inad=issible. The Staff contended that absent b
850 005 11A7 nn9
. information about the idatity and qun14fications of witnesses, it did not believe that the contations denenstrated that the Petitioner could reascnably be expected tc asaist in the development of the record in this proceeding.
On May 15, 1979 Staff issued the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the proposed stean generator repair at Turkey Point. In it Staff concluded:
"(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operaticn in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in cccpliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of these ammcbents will not be iniminal to the enmnn defmse and security or to the malth and safety of the public." (at 4-1).
On May 23, 1979 the Board received a telegram frcm Dean Bruce S.
Ro$ow, Nova Law School, Ft. Innbrdale stating that he and eight other Florida lawfers were cccmitted to represst Mr. Oncavage if he is permitted to inter-vme.
In additien, Dean Rogow requested seven (7) days after receipt of the filings by FFL and Staff in respense to the Beard's Order of May 9,1979, in which to respond to those filings. The contents of the telegran were con-firmed by a serviced letter frcm Dean Rogow dated Frf 24, 1979. Ilcensee responding by: letter dated May 29, 1979 expressed opposition to Dean Fogcs's request for leave to file a pleading 'To the extent *** that the letter and telegran ccustitute a request for delay of a decisicn cn the petition to intervme or for advance permissien to file still another tntimely petiticn 850 006 1147 010
. In the interest of expediting the proceeding, the Board held a conference call with the parties and Petitioner on May 31, 1979. During the call it was agreed that Dean Fogow would be allowed until June 7,1979 to file a response to the A WP that FFL md Staff had submitted in response to the Board's Order of May 9.
Rzrdwr, it was agreed that Licensee would be allcwed mtil June 20, 1979 to respond to Dear Rogow's filing and Staff would be allowed mtil Jme 25 to make a respcnse. In addition, a menber of the Board advised the parties that he had studied the SER in an effort to obtain answers to certain questions elicited by the list of contentions which Petitioner had sutxnitted during the Prehearing Conference en May 2,1979, but thist he was not satisfied with regard to the adequacy of scme of the information in the SER.
Ccnsequently, the Board requested Licensee to provide it with copies of th5 Steam Generator Repair Report (SGRR). Licensee agreed to ccuply and sert copies of the SGER to the Board on June 5,1979.
Dean Rogow submitted his Notice of Appearance on behalf of Petiticner and a filing entitled "Supp1 mental Subcf.ssion of Petitioner Mark P. Oncavage" (Suppletatal Submf.ssion) on June 5,1979. The Supple-nant:al Subnission identified two expert witnesses who are ccumitted to testify cn behalf of Petiticner, gave their credmtials, and indicated the ecntentics which their testinony would address. The three major areas to be addressed by these witnesses were identified as "(1) the larg tenn cn site storage of steam generator lower assecblies in an earthen floor facility; (2) the occupational radiaticn exposure; and (3) the release of liquid effluents containing radioamtivity into a closed cycle cooling canal" 850 007
,1147 011
e (Supplemental R '::sicn at 2). These three issues were focused on to show that Petitioner has the ability to contribute to a hearing, but cone einns addressing the safety of the present operation of the plant or the potential for c recurrence of a need to make steam generator repairs are not being abandoned.
(M. p_. 1). Petitioner argues that he has emplied with the need to provide information regarding witnesses and testimcny and has demi-strated the centributicn he can make to a sound record (Id. at 7). He says that ierious delay in the proceedings can be avoided by a prehaaring ccn-ferenca to narrcw and define the scope of the hearing, by stipulaticns, and by snhmiesicn of written matm4ala without live testirxxty, and he maintains that any small time savings that would be gained by denying his petition for leave to intern a would be far ourmighed by the benefit to be derived frcm ventilating his ccntentions ( M. at C.
Licensee indicated its intenticn to respond to Pctitioner's-Supplanental SnMissi:n by Ic.cer dated June E 1979 and filed its respense, entitled Licensee's Response to " Supplemental SnMission of Petiticner Mark P. Oncavage" (Licensee's Fespcxue to Supplanental Submission), on June 20, 1979. FPL still ccnten:h that a hearing would be unlikely to assist in developing a sound record,- would threaten to delay substantially the issuance of the license -%t, and would deny FPL the flexibility needed for scheduling the steam e,snerator repairs. With regard to the three areas of concern dealt with in the Supplemntal Submi.ssion, FPL argues that the first, relating to occupational dose, should be disallcwed because Pe'iticter ruld apparently haw this Board inpose a man-rem limit for the
- 850 008 11470)2
. repair operaticn. Licmsee claim that the enmdasion's regn1*f ans do not provide for the inposition of man-rem limits upon occupational activities.
With regard tt :he second issue, storage of the radioactive steam generators in an earthen floored facility on-site, Licensee maintains that Petitioner fails to take issue with the tachnical information ecntained in the SGRR ccncerning measures which will be taken to avoid release of radioactive m earin's frem the asses lies. Further, FFL says that Staff has found these measures to be in accordance with AIRA (as low as is raxonnbly achievable) philosophy. Finally, with regard to the release of radioactive materials frcm the cooling canals, Licensee argues that radioactive releases from the pimt Mng the repair will be controlled pursuant to the plant's operating licenses and will meet the requirements of 10 GR Part 20 and Part 50, Ap15endix I.
Licensee concluden 'nt the petitim to intervene should be denied because Petitioner has not denenstrated good cause for uneimHness nor established that he is likely to assist in developing a sound recoud, and because his participaticn will broaden the issues and delay the proceeding.
The NRC Staff advised the Board of its intenticn to respond to Petitimer's Supplemental Subnissicn by letter dated June 8,1979 and filed said response cn June 25, 1979. On the basis of Petitioner's _ identification of "two apparmely qualified witnesses" who could testify en matters relating to several contentions advanced by Mr. Chcavage, Staff said it now ' believes that Petiticner could reascnably be expected to contribute to the development of a sound record in this proceeding." Staff concluded that en balance the factors which cust be considered for a late petitiatg, weigh in favor of 850 009 1147 013
, gr=Hng Petitioner leave to intervene. Furthr, Staff urges that parties be allowed a limited but reascnable period of time to reach scue form of uniti-party agreement on the adc:f.ssibility of the contentions or to file positicn statements cn them, or both.
With this record before us we nust now determine detMr the tntimely petiticn of Mr. Oncavage should be granted, by balancing the five factors set furth in 10 GR 52.714(a)(1). In addition, w3. nust determine Wether Petitioner has an interest in the proc @hg pursuant to 10 GR 52.714(d) and Wether he has set forth at least one cognizable contenticn and stated the basis for that contenticn with reasonable specificity, pursuant to 10 GR SE.714(b). We nust also determine Wether the list of new conten-tions subnitted out of time m May 2,1979 should be admitted for ccnsideraticn pursuant to 10 GR 52.714(a)(3). We turn now to those tasks.
Ihn.xtST AND CDNIETCONS As we ir._..cated earlier, in addition to dete.6g whether Mr. Oncavage has satisfied the requirements for filing out of time, we uust also deter =ine dether he has shown that his interests may be affected by the curecxm of this proceeding, whether he has satisfied the requirements for filing tntimely amendments to his ccntentions, and whether he has advanced at least one cognizable contention and set forth the bases for that contention with reasonable specificity. We shall deal first with the matter of interest.
850 010 o
e Il47 014
11 Interest of Petitioner Mr. Oncavage has to'.d us that he and his wife and two year old scn live amAtely 15 miles fran the Turkey Point Station. He believes that his proxfzd.ty to the station and the prevailing winds during 8 months of the year would mean that rad 4mMve material which might be released as a result of the repair operaticn might pose a health hazard to him and his fanily.
(Revised Petiticn for Leave to Intervene).
In addition, Petitioner owns a sailboat and often cruises the waters of Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point and engages in fishing, crabbing, swinming, skin diving, and underwater photography.
He believes that a release of radioactive' material as a result of the repair operation mi;/it advernly affect his recreational use of this area.
(Ibid.)
Licensee argues that Petitioner has failed to set forth with suf-ficient parHe nladty how radioactive releases might affect his interests and argues that any injury to Petiticner, either directly or through inhibiting his use of recreational facilities, is purely speculative.
(Licensee's Answer to Motien of Oncavage, dated March 30, 1979). "he NRC Staff, cn the other hand, believes that Mr. Oncavage has satisfied the interest requirenent as set forth in 10 CER 62.714. Staff says " Petitioner's residence and ccn-siderable recreaticnci activity is in close proximity (within 15 miles) to the plant and egressed ccncern over the possibility of radiological releases due to the proposed acticn presents a cognizable interest in t e proceedirg" (sic).
(Staff Respcnse to Revised Petiticn at 6-7).
850 011 1147 015
The Appeal Board has held that residence within 16 miles is suf-ficient to establish interest of a petitioner d o raises safety questions.
Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Am.
3r Station, Lhits 1 and 2), AIAB-146, 6 AEC M1, 634 (1973). In addition, the D=f asion has ruled that a petit.cner t o alleges that his ep manity for recreational activity may be diminished by a nuclear facility possesses adequate interest to allow intervention.
Philadelphia Electric Canomy, et al. reach Bottcm Ataade Powr Station, Units 2 md 3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173.
With respect to Licensee's argument that any inju:y to Petitioner is purely speculative, ue can look to a recent ruling by the Appeal Board in North Anna. Virginia Electric and Peer Cmnany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Lhics 1 and 2), AIAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979).
There the Appeal Board reversed an order by a Licesing Board witch had denied a petition to intervece 2n a spent fuel pool codification proceeding; the Licensing Board's denial had been based cn the failure of the Petitioner to parHmlate a casual relaticnship betwen injury to its interest and the possible outcome of the proceeding.
(M.at56). The Appeal Board said that "close proximity has alwaya bem desned to be emugh, standing alone, to establish the requ ice interest," and "the question c" 2 ether (Petitioner's]
concerns are justified aust be left for consideraticn den the merits of the controversy are reached."
(Ibid.).
We conclude that Staff is correct. Mr. Oncavage clearly has satis-fled the Cccmission's requirenents with regerd to shcuing an interest pursume to 10 CFR 32.714(a)(2) and 52.714(d).
850 012 1147 016
Uneimly Sucolements to Petiticn to Intervene The supplensts to Petitioner s orf ginal petition which were sub-udtted at the Prehearing Conference and later, by Dean Rogow (Supplemental Suhnissicn), wer.a untimely pursuant to 10 CFR 52.714(b). According to paragraph (b) additional time for filing a supplement may be ted by a Board upcn a balanMng of the tactors in 10 CFR 52.714(a)(1)7 We proceed now to a discussicn of our ccnsiderat'cn with respect to the nam 4sion of these untimely supplements.
Factor (i), the extent to which Petiticner has thom good cause for filing the supplanents cut-of-time, weighs against adnitting the supplanents because Petiticner has failed to shcw any valid reascn for their lateness.
L We, observe in this cer:necticn, hcuever, that Petitioner was appearing pro se until just before the Special Prehearing Confermee, and we do nc t demand that his early pcrfor=ance adhere rigidly to the Ccumissicn's standards.
Therefore, we do not weight Factor (i) as heavily as we otherwise cight.
2_/ The semantics of 10 CFR 52.714(b) do not make it clear, in our view, that the provision for granting additional time is applicable to the circu= stances of this case. A reading of the Cccmissicn's Statecnne of Consideration for revision of $2.714, hcwever, convinces us that we may apply the rule to this case.
(43 Fed. g. 17798, April 26, 1978). Tm relevant language in the Statemene or Consideration is as follcus:
"Second, 52.714 is revised to specidcally provide that late filed contenticus (a con-tenticn or a::mded ccntenticn which is filed after 15 days prior to the special prehearing conference, ***) will be considered for admis-sicn under the clarified criteria set forth u50 01,7, in subparagraph (a)(1)."
1147 017
. Factor (ii), the availability of other means whereby the Petitioner's interest will be protected if the supplements.are not achitted, weighs in favor of allowing their adntission. Bere ete no other means whereby Peti-ticner's interest will la procected, and the supplements are essential to the adequacy of his petition.
Factor (iii), the ext.att to which the supplements may reasanably be e:xpected to assist in develvoing a sound record, weighs heavily in favor of their admissicn in the opin3 ri of Dr. Paris. The revised contentions and the bases thereof which are set forth in tba supplements advance tFa issues which are the s_ine aua ncn for his belief that participation by Mr. Qicavage can be expected to assist in developing a strong record. Dr. P zis finds that Factor (iii) weighs heavily in favor of admitting the supplanents for the same reascn that he finds that Factor (iii) weighs heavily in favor of admitting the Petitioner, infra, in.his Separate Opiricn. Mrs. Bcwers gives slight weight for the reasons stated on Factor (iii), infra, in Far Separate Opinien.
Factor (iv), the extent to which Petiticner's interests will be represented by existing parties if the supplements are not admitted, weighs in favor of admitting them. The supplanents are essential to his petition, and if his petition is denied there will be no hearing and no parties to represent his interests.
Factor (v), the extent to 411ch admitting the supplements will broar.si the issues or dalay the proceeding, weighs against adnitting then.
850 014 147 018
_ _ _.. - _ ~
_ - - _. Factor (v) again weighs lightly, however, because in our opinion the FPL schedule for de repair work is not fixed.
In conclusion, we find that Factor (i) weighs against acMttire the supplammts and Factor (v) weighs lightly against their adsf.ssicn. Factors (ii) and (iv) weigh in favor of their a M asion. Factor (iii) also weigh in favor of nMasicn, but we are not in agreement as to the weight it should receive (see our separate opinions, infra). On balance we find that the factors in 10 GR $2.714(a)(1) which cust be conddered for the acMssion of untimely supplanents to a petition, pursuant to 10 GR 52.714(b), weigh in favor of their a M asion. Ccusequently, the motions to ad=i.e the list of revised contentions submitted cn May 2,1979, and the Supplemental Subnission filed cn June 5, 1979, are granted.
INTIMELINESS Cause for Failure to File cn Time - Factor (i)
At the Special Frehearing Ccnference on May 2,1979 the parties and Petitioner were first given an opporttnity to present arguent with respect to showing good cause for the unr4maHnoas of the petition.
Petitiener argued that nothing concerning the proposed steam generator repair was published in local newspapers and that " mere notice in the Federal Register *** is inadequate notice ***." (Tr. 17-18). Mr. Oncavage first learned of the proposed repair through personal ccnversaticns in January 1979, after which he sought addirimni information in the public doctroent room at the library of Florida International University in Miami.
(Tr. 21-22).
850 gjq-1147 019
. It was then that he discovered that EL's letter to the NPC, dated Septenber 20, 1977, was missing frcm the public doctment room. A copy cf the letter was requested by the library and was received on January 22, 1979 (Affidavit of Renee Daily dated March 16, 1979). Petitioner argued that having this " crucial demnt" udssing from the public deant rocm for 13 ex:nths constituted good cause for his untimely filing of petition to intervene (Oncavage revised Petition dated March 18, 1979).
Staff indicated that press releases usually are not issued in connection with applications for license ametinmes.
(Tr. 18-19). But both Staff and Licensee pointed out that failure to read the Federal Regiseg does not ccustitute legal grotnds for a showing of good cause for untimeliness.
(Tr. 24, 29). On this gre nd they argue that the good cause factor weighs against Peticicner.
(Tr. 24, 30-31).
We have some sympathy for Petitioner's argtment that the 7ederal Register is, fran the point of view of many private citizens, an "cbscure publication" (Tr.18); as the Board observed during the Prehaaring Conference, the " Federal Register is hardly a best seller." (Tr. 19). Be that as it may, however, we are bound by the law in reaching our decisims. The law required that the Nuclear Regulatory en-mi<sion publish once in the Federal Register notice of its intention to act on an applicaticn for an amndrent to an operating license (Ihe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Sec.189).
The Appeal Board noted, in Jamescort, that "The Federal Register Act expressly prcvides that such publication constitutes notice to 'all persons residing 850 016 1147 020'
. within the States of the Unicn. ' 44 U.S.C. 1508." Img Island Lighting Ccnoany (Janesport Nnclant Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
AIAB-292, 2 NRC 631 (1975). Moreover, many years ago the U. S. Supreme Court ruleu that publication in the Federal Pagister gives legal notice to all citizens (Federal Croo Insurance Corp. v. lierrill, 332 US 380-388,1947).
For this reason we cust conclude that Mr. Oncavage was provided legal notice of the proposed steam generator repair.
Were there other factors which made. c i=possible for Mr. Oncavage to file cn time? We think not. He ir ; in residence in Miami, Florida in Decanhar 1977 wten the Federal Register notice was published.
(Tr. 42).
He also was residing in Miami in the spring of 1977, when articles concerning the proposed stes:n generator repair at Turkey Point were published in the MIAMI IERAID.
(Tr. 31, 33).
Moreover, in ccnnecticn with his studies as an envimrental sciences student at Florida Internaticnal University, Mr. Oncavage has been using the Public Document Rocm in the University's library since 1976.
(Tr. 22). Although the letter frcxn FPL to NRC dated Septenber 20, 1977 apparmely was not f11ed properly in the Docunst Room until January 1979, the Steam Generator Repair Report was properly filed there in October 1977 ard revisions to the report were filed subsequently in a timely fashicn (Affi-davit of G. D. khittier dated March 8,1979; Tr. 26). Presumably Mr. Oncavage was using the dm =t rocm after these doctmsts had been filed there, but.
he either failed to study them or to react to them teltil January 1979 when 850 017 1147 021
. he was " simply informnd by scxnecne that thtre is a problem with the FPL steam generators, ***" (Tr. 22). C msidering the facts that tb4 Repair Report was readily accessible to Mr. Onex
- age and there was newspaper coverage about the proposed rethirs in tha spring of 1977, we believe that his failure to act in a timely fashion resulted either from a lack of timely ccncern or a failure to be sufficiently alert. Neither expimation, in our view, pro-vides an adequata excuse for his tardiness. W find, therefvre, that Petitioner has not shown good cause for failure to file on time; this factor weighs against granting him leave to intervme.
Availability of Other Means Whereby Petiticner's Interest Will Be Protected - Factor (ii)
Counsel for Petitioner argued that "there is certain?y no other fonxn available to this Petitioner to voice his concerns and participate in the adjudicatory process, because State and local gov-mts are preecpted from performing functions that are exclusively those of the Nuclear Regulatory rmni ssial."
(Tr. 46). Licensee argued that a hearing was not necessary to protecc the interests of the Petitioner; in the opinion of Licensee the SGRR adequately accamodates Petitioner's interests by providing information which answers the questions he raised in his petition.
(Tr. 53). 'Ihe NRC Staff, en the other hand, took the position that it was not apparent that there would be other means, such as State proceedings, by which Petitiorar's radiological safety and enviremental interests could be protected (Staff Response to Revised Petiticn #: red April 6,1979, at 4; Tr. 58-59).
850 018 1147 022
- We agree with Petitier 2 and Staff. Apparently there is no other forun in which Petitioner could protect his interests.
In view cf these considaraHnns, we find that the second factor weighs in favor of Petitioner.
OPINICN OF Fr.T7ABETH S. BCW55 Extent to khich Petitioner's Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Develcoing a Sound Record - Factor (iii)
These cocments am not meant to be in any way derogatory to Fetir' ner, his counsel or his proposed witnesses. Time constraints and lack of specialized experience are often controlling factors.
It is a serious determination to weigh whether.a petition should beaccepted in a situation which would otherwise not require a hearing.
The detWmticn is iqmet to the Petitioner, FPL and the 13C Zuu.f and the Ecard.
My colleagues, Dr. Paris and Dr. Hall, have each written separate opinions on Factor (iii). As a meuber of a petiticn review board, I am very concerned about an untimely Petiticner's ability to develop a " sound record."
I do not share Dr. Paris' opinion tnat this factor should weigh heavily in the Petitioner's favor. Dr. Paris has taken essentially ncn-specific " bare bones" contentions and has enhanced them with rather elaborate scenarios by delving into docunents which are also available to Petiticner. He has put meat cn the bones. Recognizing that the Petitioner is not required to plead the evidence in draft.ing the correnticus, I think nere is required than 85]
017 1147 023'
'.) -
asking a series of questions without stating "the bases for each contention set forth with reascoable specimity." (2 CFR 2.714(b)). 'Ihis is the responsibil'.ty of the Petitioner.
It is my opinicn that Dr. Paris' labor has advanced informatial which, if fully ventilated in an evidentiary hearing, would result in a unre detailed record than that existing at the present time and this would perhaps be in the public interest.
C aVering the present situation, I would lean slightly toward the petitioner in this nstter on the assuiption tnat Dr. Paris' conments should be of value to the petitioner if he is able to proceed with relevant direct testimony and cross-e h aticn.
The separata opinion of Dr. Oscar H. Paris on Factor (iii) is attached to this Order. Also, see dissenting opinion of Dr. David B. Hall.
'Ihis caicludes secarate coinion c ' Elizabeth S. Bowers.
850 020 1147 024
- The Extent to Rich the Petiticner's Interest Will be Represented Bv Existing Parties - Factor (iv)
With regard to factor four, the extent to which Petitiomr's interest will be represented by existing parties, Petitioner takes the position that his interest will not be protected if his petiticn is denied bemtse there are no existing parties nor other petitions for leave to intervene (Revised Petiticn to Intervene at 12). Licensee, on the other hand, takes the view that this factor is not relevant in this case because no hearing is being conducted and other parties do ncrexist (Licensee's Response to Supplemental Sihsicn at 18). Staff noted that Mr. Oncavage failed to explain why his interest, as well as that of the general public, will not be effectively served by the NRC, which has the statutory responsibility for ensuring the public health and safety and protecticn of the envircment. Nevertheless, Stafi recognized that there is room for the advancement of indivieb1hed interests in these proceedings, and concluded that the fourth factor weighs in favor of Petitioner.
(Staff Response to Revised Petiticn at 5).
The basic question to be answ red here, as we see it, is whether the fourth factor is applicable in a case in which no hearing will be held if the late petitioner is denied leave to intervme. If it is applicable, then logic leads inescapably to the conclusicn reached by Petiticter and Staff:
Petitioner's interest will not be protected by other parties and therefore the factor weighs in his favor.
If the fourth factor is not aoplicable, on the other hand, then it should receive zero weight.
850 021 1147 025
. Unfortunately, NRC practice has fsiled to provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the fourth factor is applicable when there are no intervening parties and no petitioners other than the latm.
Different licensing boards hsve decided this question in different ways based cn the total circestance in each case. In St. Incie and Turkey Point the Licmaing Board decided that the fourth factor was not directly applicable, but aevertheless it went on to note that witbout the petitioner's nMasion there would be no other party to protect petiticner's interest.
Florida Powr & Light Co., (St. Lucie Plants, Units 1 and 2 and Turkey Point, thits 3 and 4h LBP-77-23, 5 NRC 789, 800, April 5,1977 In Virgil C. Sucmer the Licensing Board acknowledged uncertainty as to the applicability of factor er (iv), but it said that if the factor were applicable it would be given nu zero weight because of the par @lar circumstances of that case (South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., et al., Virgil C. Sucmer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, LBP-78-6, 7 NRC 209, 213-214, February 3,1978).
In Kewaunee, on the other hand, the Board concluded that petitioner's interest would noi: be represented absent a hearing and decided that the fourth factor weighed in favor of adsf.tting them as intervmors.
(Wisconsin Public Service Corp.,
et al., Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, LEP-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 84, July 12,1978).
We are instructed to balance Factors (i) through (v), in addition to those set forth in subsection (d) of 52.714. W are not told to consider only applicable factors; we are instructed to consider them all. We believe that the Casicn intended that all of the fiveNP should be bala BSD 1147 026
in every case involving aa untimely petition.
In the circumstances where denial of a late petiticn would result in no hMng and no parties to pro-tect the petitiom's interests, the question, "To what extent will Petitioner's interest be repreaced by existirg parties?" nust be answered, "None".
'Ihe foregoing reasoning leads us to egree with Staff. Abset a hearing at least some of Petitioner's interests will be protected by no cne.
We find, therefore, that the fourth facter weighs in his favor.
The Extent to hhich Petitioner's Participation Will Broaden the
^
Issues or Delav t.he Proceeding - Factor (v)
'Ihe fifth, and Ir.st, factor to be considered for an mtimely petiticu for leave to intervene is the extent to which the Petitioner's pafticipation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Petitioner acknowledged that his participaticn would " create additional issues" but argued that "the benefit derived frcm hearing opposing ccntentions far out-waighs any small time savings gained by exclusion of Mr. Oncavage."
(Supple-mental Snhm ssicn at 8). In addition, Petiticner suggested several procedures which could serve to expedite a hear 2ng should one be ordered; we interpret these suggest.1.ons as offers to proceed in this manner if tim petition is granted.
(Ibid.).
Licensee argued that initiating a hearing at this late date wculd disrupt its " careful planning and effort and could deny Licensee the ability to m ee repaLm without delay." (Licensee's Response to Unti:mly % quest for Hearing, dated March 9,1979, at 9-10). Such a delay would result in 850 023 1147 027 increased costs to Licensee and potential for decreased syste reliability.
(Ibid. ; also, see Affidavit of H. D. Mantz, dated March 8,1979). Although originally EPL planned to repair thit 4 baginning in October 1978, it has changed its plans and does not expect to start that repair before tFa fall of 1979.
(SER at 1-1). In response to questions frcm the Board during i Special Prehearing Cmference, Licensee indicated its plans for initiating the work are inda % i e.
(Tr. 77-79). Mr. Coll stated, "We do not know at t
this time whm it will be required to make the repairs," and went cn to explain that the coopmy's objective is "to be ready to perform the repairs when it beccmes necessary or eccncmically desirable to do so."
(Tr. 78). According to Project Manager Mantz,
"*** the exact date of initiation of the repair progra will depend upcn FPL's analysis of the extent of degradation of the existing steam generators, maintenance schedules and unplanned repair outages, refueling schedules, the avail-ability of alternate oil fired generation, and other factors.
(Mantz Affidavit at 3).
'Ihe NRC Staff, which originally opposed the namission of Petitioner, said that the ummnemt of an evidentiary hearing at :.his stage has "the real potential for cmsiderable delay." (Staff Respcase to Revised Petition at 6). Later, when it concluded that Petitioner has set forth adequate justification for his tntimeliness, Staff reconnended certain acticns which could be taken to prevent unnecessary delay, should we grmt leave to intervene.
(Staff Respcnse to Supplemental Submission at 3).
1147 02B
~
f?n 3t
.-.. It will be useful at this point to su-Ize the history of this case. The licensee submitted its repair plan to the enmasion in September 1977, at which time it planned to start the repair of thit 4 in OctCoer 1978.
(SER at 1-1). 'Ihe Ccurission published the notice of amendment in Decenber 1977. Subsequently, FPL pushed its schedule back'at'least 12 eths; when the SER was issued in 1979 Licmsee had deferred initiating repair of thit 4 to the fall of 1979 or later.
(Ibid.). In May 1979 we were told at the Prehearing Conference that FPL still did not know when it would be necessary or ecm @ al to initiate the repair y1.us1.mu.
(Tr. 78). Finally, the NRC Staff issued the SER cu May 15, 1979 and the EIA on June 29, 1979.
In view of this h story, of what significance is the 13-mcnth delay atiributable to the tardiness of Mr. Oncavage in filing his petition? To begin with, we note that if Petiticner had filed cn time and had been admi.tted in 1978, we still could not have gone to hearing until scxm ti:m after Staff had isstrd the EIA. Potcrac Electric Power Ccroany (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-277,1 NRC 539, 546 (1975); also see New Fngland Pcuer Coccany, et_a_l. (IEP, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 292-294 (1978). The late issuance of the EIA resulted frcri Staff's uncertainty about whether an EIA or an Enviiuratal Impact Statenent (EIS) should be issued (Tr. 79-82).
Be that as it may, by early 1979 FFL was already 12 nrnths behind its original schedule through its om doing. Viewed in light of this ciretmstance, and considering the fact that a hearing could not have bem held tntil an wyivy1. late period of discovery had elapsed fol-lowing issuance of the EIA, Petiticner's delay of 13 mcnths wanes.
If 1147 029
(.o'.,r Petitioner had been timely and ind been admitted in 1978, as of this writing the parties probably would still be engaged in discovery.
ma'.: prejudice would accrue to Licensee if the petition of Mr. Oncavage were granted? Licensee has told us of the possible consegmnces of a delay in the repair work. Because it is unable to predict wher. the repair unst be init-4*ed, however, it is not at all clear that a hearing at this late date would, in fact, delay the work itself. Lic msee has said, further, chat its careful planning and effort would be disrupted by a hearing but it is silent with regard te the injury such disrupticn would cause. We presume that it would includa the expense and trc@le of a hearing, ccnditions which might be imposed by us as a result of a hearing, and the risk that we might deny its request for an amendment. Against this concern, of course, must weigh the interests of the general public.
In conclusion, we believe that the Petiticner's participatic.1 muld " create additional issues" and would delay the proceeding. The brnadming of issues, in our view, cot:1d be in the oublic interest for the reasons wa indicate in our separate opinicns en Factor (111).
With respect to the delay of the proceedings,1we believe that the effective delay of granting the petition would am:nt to a fcw cenths, at most. Finally, it is far from apparent that Licensee muld suffer any injury frcm a hearing other than the inconvenience of having to modify its plans, and we consider that less inpocuint than the public interest that could be served by ventilating scrae of the issues raised by the Petitioner.
We find, therefore, that the fifth factor weighs against Petitioner, because 1147 030 c..
t
. his participation will broaden the issues and delay the proceeding. W believe, however, that in the circumstances of this case, Factor (v) weighs lightly.
Balance of the Five Factors We have fomd that Factor (i) weighs against the Petitioner; he has failed to show good cause for his unchHness. Factor (ii), cn the otbar hand, weighs in favor; there it no other forts in which his interests will be protected. Factor (iii) in Dr. Paris' opinion weighs heavily in favor of the Petitioner since he believes his participatim can reasorably be expected to assist in developing a sound record with regard to irportant issues which have been inadequately addressed, overlooked or ignored by FPL or the Staff or both. Mrs. Bowers believes that Factor (iii) weighs slightly in Petitioner's favor for the reasons stated, sucra. Factor (iv) weighs ia his favor, too; without his interventicn there would be no hearing, no augented record, and no parties to protect his interests. Finally, Factor (v) weighs against Petitioner, but in the ciretr: stances of this case we do not weigh it heavily; his participation will broaden the issues and delay the proceeding, btr a ham-Eng m the issues would now be in the best interests of the public and the delay attributable to Petitioner's failure to file on time is of nuh less significance than might appear at first glance. This evaluaticn leads us to agree with Staff (NRC Staff Response to Supplemntal Sn%sien).
On balance, the factors which nust be ccusidered for an untirely petition under 10 CFR S2.714(1) weigh in favor of our granting his petition.
850 027 1147 031 STANDIm To qualify for standing Petitioner unst, in addition to making a showing of interest and justifying his untimely petiticn, advance at least cne cognizable contenticn and set forth the basis for that contenticn with reascoable spac4 Writy. Of the nineteen contentions listed in the submission dated May 2,1979, we fM that numbers 5, 6, 7,12, and 18, whm considered together with the bases set forth in the Supplanental Sulcission of June 5, 3/
~
1979, are acceptable for litigaticn Ccntaticn 18 questions the adequacy of the method proposed for storing the steam generator assenblies t.rith regard to protecting the assemblies frcm storm floods. Contentions 5 and 12 question whether the occupational exposure during the repair, especia]'.y of transist wrkers, can be kept AIARA. Ccntentions 6 and 7 question whether the liquid effluent that will be dischaq,ed as a result of the repair will meet the requirenents of Parts 20, 50, 51 and NEPA. In addition, Staff believes that Contention 2, which anerts that an envircanental in: pact statenent should be issued in connection with the repair, is acceptable, and we agree. Finally, we do not at this tim rule on any of the other contenticus. kheth e any of then are acceptable remains to be determined in cur role as the Licensing Joard appointed to hear this case.
Ikving recognized the Petitioner's interest mey be affected by the outccrue of this proceeding anc' having accepted scrae of his contentions, we find that Mr. Cucavage has standing as an intervenor. Both the Intervenor M rs. Bowers is of the opinion that this situaticn has occurred primarily M
because of Dr. Paris' consideraticn of the contations.
850 028 1147 032
. and Staff have suggested that the parties sluuld meet to try to reach agree-mit on the other contenticos, in the hope of reaching agreement on aMasibility or meeting into a stipulatien. The parties should also try to agree on a realistic discovery sche M a.
We urge the parties to meet as prcx:ptly as possible and request the Staff to keep the Licensirg Board informed cn progress.
IliE ATOtIC SAFETI AND LICENSING BOARD C
1 I
2xcana. w Oscar H. ' Paris, Pecber
~
fAMJ. %
Elizabeta S. Bcuers, Chauran Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of August 1979..
The separate opinion cm.cerning Factor (iii) of Dr. Paris and the dissenting.
opinion of Dr. Hall are attached and are a part of the Board's Order.
850 029 1147 033
. O*/ INION OF DR. PARIS:
I am in agreement with the Chairman on all matters except the weight to be given Factor (iii), the extent to which Petitioner's participation in this proceeding may reascnably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
I weigh that factor heavily in striking a balance of the five factors to be considered for an untimely petition, because I believe that the Petitioner has advanced some important issues and set forth their bases with sufficient specificity to significantly challenge the record in this case.
Ms. Bowers, on the other hand, believes that Petitioner's contentions are ' bare bones' on which I have put the meat.
It is certainly true that the filings of Mr. Oncavage have been far less than perfect.
Nevertheless, in my view he did succeed in advancing certain issues, especially the one concerning the proposed method for storing the steam generator assemblies, that strike one forcefully with their importance.
Therefore, in dealing with the efforts of Mr. Oncavage, I have been mindful of a recent teaching of the /ppeal Board in South Texas:
It is neither congressional nor Commission policy to exclude parties because the nice-ties of pleading were imperfectly observed.
Sounder practice is to decide issues on their merits, not be avoid them on techni-calities.
[ Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
et al.
(South Texas Proj ect, Units 1 5 2),
ALAB 5E9, Slip Op. at 11 (May 18, 1979)].
To my mind the impt reance and immediacy of some of the issues raised by Mr. Oncavage override the deficiencies of his pleadings.
^'Q
"$1 nc-U l-1 4 7 0 3 4
. Be that as it may, I am less concerned now about his ability to assist in developing a sound record than I was prior to the Special Prehearing Conference.
While he came to us as a rank amateur, he has, I believe, demonstrated an ability and willingness to adapt to our procedural requirements.
In discussing the reasons that I assign a heavy weight to Factor (iii), I have, indeed, fleshed out some of the Peti-tiener's contentions; I cannot argue with the Chairman on that score.
My detailed discussion of some of the contentions was originally developed in an effort to show my fellow Board members the importance of some of the issues raised by Mr. Oncavage.
I am including those details in this separate opinion because
- wit [is] the general duty of licensing boards to insure that initial decisions and miscellaneous memoranda and orders contain a sufficient exposition of any ruling on a contested issue of law or fact to enable the parties,and [the Appeal] Board on its own review, readily to apprehend the foundation for the ruling.
[ Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-104, 6 AEC 179, fn. 2 (1973)].
Extent to Which Petitioner's Participation mav Reasonably be Expected to Assist in Develooing a Sound Record At the Special Prehearing Conference Petitioner argued.
that "he will be represented by counsel" and that "he probably will be able to present witnesses who have technical expertise and are able to address the issues presented for review before the Licensing Board."
(Tr. 47).
Licensee said that Petitioner 850 031 1147 035 has failed to show how he or expert witnesses that might be presented by him could assist in developing any record involving the revised contentions (Response of FPL to Board Order of May 9, 1979, dated May 21, 1979, at 10).
Licensee also claimed that commitments made to Mr. Oncavage by experts are tenuous and their areas of expertise do not coincide with matters which Petitioner wishes to litigate.
(Ibid.).
Staff said that, given the statut af the record (fol-lowing the Prehearing Ccnference), it did not believe that parti-cipation by Petitioner could significantly contribute to the development of the record (Staff Response to Board Order of May 9, 1979, dated May 23, 1979, at 1-2).
Staff went on to suggest, however, that if Petitioner were to identify and give qualifica-tions of persons committed to testify on his behalf, and to indi-cate the contentions they would address, it would be able to make an informed evaluation of this matter.
(Ibid.).
Petitioner responded to Staff's suggestion in his Supplemental Submission dated June 5, 1979, telling us that Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, Neeley Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, is committed to testify with regard to potential public health and safety dangers resulting from the possible escape of radioactive materials from the replaced steam generator lower assemblies, which are to be stored on the site, and also from the cooling canals, into which radio-active effluent resulting from the repair will be discharged.
(at 2-4).
Dr. Morgan is an internationally known health physi-cist with mcre than 300 publications in the field.
He is Past 850 032 1147 036
-.- President of the Health Physics Society and the International Radiation Protection Association, an emeritus member of the National Council on Radiation Protection, and a member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
(M. at 2).
In addition, Dr. Walter Goldberg, Associate Professor in the Department of Biology at Florida International University, is committed to present testimony with regard to possible consequences to marine life and the marine ecosystem of radioactive material which might escape from the stored replated steam generator assemblies or from the cooling canals.
( M. at 3-4).
Dr.
Goldberg, who specializes in the study of radioecology of the marine environment, received his Ph.D. in Oceanography and is a member of the Health Physics Society.
(Ibid.).
Petitioner implied that additional witnessee would be 2 made available to address meteorological matters but said that names of these witnesses were net yet available.
(M. a fn.
2,.
At the Prehearing Conference we were told that Dr. Raymond McAllister, Professor of Oceanography at Florida Atlantic Univer-sity, was also committed to present testimony on behalf of the Petitioner, but Dr. McAllister was not sentioned in the Supple-mental Submission of May 5, 1979.
(Tr. 51, 67).
Apparently Dr. McAllister could present testimony on the effect of hurricanes on water systems of the region.
(Tr. 51).
Finally, it is now clear that Petitioner will be represented by counsel.
At the Special Prehearing Conference he 850 033~
was represented by an attornef who appeared for the limited purpose of that conference.
(Tr. 5, 55).
Subsequently, Dean Rogow served his Notice of Appearance as counsel for Petitioner (see p. 6, supra) ; in addition, Joel V. Lumer and Richard A.
~
Marshall, Jr., filed Notices of Appearance on June 20 and July 25, 1979, respectively.
In Licensee's Response to Supplemental Petition, FPL argues at length to support its conclusion that "nothing in the Supplemental Submission indicates that the Peticioner is likely to make a contribution to a hearing, should one be conducted."
(at 15; also see 2-13).
Licensee focuses on the three major areas discussed in the Supplemental Submission: (1) on-site acorage of the steam generator lower assemblies in an earthen floored facility, (2) occupational radiation exposure, and (3) release of radioactive effluent into the cool'.ng canal system.
(Id. 2-13).
I turn now to a consideration of argument on these issues.
(1) On-site Storage of Steam Geaerator Assemblies With regard to its plans to store the steam generator assemblies, Licensee argues that Petitioner has failed to indicate why its plans are inadequate, other than to. point out that the assemblies will be stored in an earthen floored faci-lity.
FPL reviews the information contained in the SGRR and SER, including the facts that the facility will have a watertight roof and the steam generator assemblies will be welded closed so that 500 0 %
3;g] 0%
_- "the steam generator itself will perform the function of radio-activity containment."
(Id. 9-10).
Licensee says that since Petitioner failed to take issue with these measures, we cannot judge that he is likely to make a significant contribution to the record with respect to this matter.
(at 10-113 In the list of contentions submitted by Petitioner at the Prehearing Conference on May 2, 1979, Contention No. 18 questioned whether the " proposed floorless ateam generator dis-posal building" would be in compliance, inter alia, of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
but no basis for the contention was set forth.
In his Supplemental Submission, however, Petitioner says, "*** Professor Morgan's testi-many will deal with the potential radiation dangers stemming frca the method of on-site storage and release of radioactive effluent.
That testimony will be elicited afrar laying a predicate built on meteorological data reflecting unique South Florida dangers caused by the possiblity of surging tides and winds accompanying a major hurricane."
(Supplemental Submission at 3. footnote omitted).
With respect to Dr. Goldberg's testimony, Petitioner says, "ob-viously the integrity of the stored steam generator seals will be considered, s,ince leakage upon the eartnen floor, washed and drained by underground flooding resulting from strong storm acci-vity, could seriously damage Biscayne Bay and inland areas."
(Id. at 4).
In my view the basis for Contention 18 is adequately set forth in these statements which suggest that the integrity of the proposed storage facility and of the stored assemblies could 850 035 1147 039 be threatened by storm tides.
Moreover, Petitioner referred to "The Licensee's use of the 10.1 foot storm tide during Hurricane Betsy in 1965***" in his Supplemental Submission (at p. 3, fn. 2).
Licensee responded by pointing cut that the historical 10.1 foot storm tide was men-tioned in the FSAR. not the SGRR nor SER, and went on to indicate that the design of the plant safety systems is based on a pre-dicted maximum flood stage, resulting from the maximum probable hurricane of 18.3 feet MLW.
(Licensee's Response to Supplemental submission at 13, fn. 9; see Safety Evaluation for the Operating 1/
T' cense, dated March 14, 1972, Section 3.4).-
With a surge level of 18.3 feet, wave runup to above 22 feet is predicted.
' Ibid.).
The FSAR indicates that sustained winds exceeding hwricane fer c (75 mph) can be expected en an average of once every 7 years, ana winds greater than 100 mph can be expected once every 25-30 years 2/
(FSAR, Section 2.6.6). -
The proposed storage compound for the steam generator lower assemblies will be located in the laydown area at the plant.
(SGRR, App. A, " Responses to IMC Questions of 1/9/78" at A-46-1).
1/
At this stage of the proceeding, when the information on which we must base our opinion is not evidentiary, I believe that we may consider any of the information which is contained in the exisHng record on Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4.
2/
The chance of hurricane force winds occurring in any given yecr at Miami is 1 in 6, according to statistics presented in Cli-mates of the States, Vol. I (Gale Research Co., Detroit, 1Y78 ;
at 217 7TaBTe 2).
Miami is only 25 miles north of the site.
850 036 '
1147 040
- _ - - The elevation of the laydown area is 5.0 feet.
(FSAR, Fig. 1. 2-1).
The storage facility vill be const1.teted of reinforced concrete walls which are designed as radiation shields, and it will have a watertight concr2te roof.
One end of the compound will be left open, presumably to provide access, and this end is to be closed with interlocking "stop logs."
(SGRR, App. D, " Responses to NRC Questions of 12/15/78" at D-1-1 and Fig. D.1-1).
The dimensions of the facility will be 110 feet by 60 feet by 17 feet high.
(Id.,
Fig. D.1-1).
There is no indication that the storage compound will be watertight to floods or that it will be designed to withstand stresses of storm surge, wave runup, or the impact of floating debris such as logs and broken timbers.
Finally, I note that Licensee plans to store the stea_ generator lower assemblies for approximately 35 years before disposing of them off-site.
(SGRR, Section 3.4.4).
The foregoing information causes me to believe it reasonable to expect that the steam generator assembly storage compound with the enclosed radioactive assemblies would be sub-jected to hurricanes about five times during its functional life, and I would further expect at least one of those storms to have winds in excess of 100 mph.
Conceivably such a storm could pro-duce the proj ected 18.3 foot tidal surge with wave rumup to about 22 feet.
The scenario generated by these considerations is that the storage compound would be inundated in 13 feet of moving water with waves possibly breaking over its roof.
This scenario brings many questions to mind.
Would the storage compound be watertight, 850 037 1147 041 or would the assemblies also be immersed in 13 feet of sea water?
Would the walls withstand the stre.m imposed mo' ng water and wave action?
Would the walls withstanu toe impact of floating debris thrown against them hv waves?
P
.souyant woulc' the sealed 3/
steam gsnerators by?-
Might they move and consequently impact the wall from within the compound?, If the walls should collapse, could the wind driven water move the assemblies away from the com-pound?
The ability of the steam generator storage comoound to withstand stresses imposed by hurricanes is not addressed in the
_4_/
SGRR, the SER, or the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA).
Although the SGRR, SER, and EIA do not address the type of severe hurricane-caused accident just postulated, the SGRR and EIA do consider a breach of a steam generator seal while the assemblies are in the storage building (SGRR, Section 3.4.7; EIA, Section 4.4).
This issue was raised by Petitioner in his Supple-mental Submission where he discussed Professor Goldberg's testi-many.
(at 4).
Presumably such a leak could result from corro-sion caused by sea water coming into contact with the assemblies during a storm flood.
Moreover, on the basis of the information available to this Board, it appearc to me that the assemblies 3f A rough calculation, based on the scaled dimensions of the steam generatcr assemblies illustrated in Figs. 3.2-4 and A.6-3 of the SGRR and the eatinated weight of 100 tons for an assembly given on p. 3-1 of the SGRR, yields an estimated specific gravity of about 0.9.
If this value is reasonably accurate, the assemblies could float.
4/
~
NRC Staff issued its Environmental T.mpact Appraisal (EIA) on June 29, 1979 [negativa declaration pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(c)].
350 038 1147 042
.- might become wet even absent a flood.
They are to be stored on bare earth which almost certainly will contain moisture.
In the enclosed compound I would expect the moisture content of the air to be high enough to cause dew point to be reached from time to time as temperature fluctuated.
Consequently I would expect moisture to condense on the assemblies.
It is common experience C
rsons who live and work in the vicinity of large bodies of sea water that salt spray in the air causes rapid and extensive corrosion of unprotected metal, even if the metal does not come into direct contact with sea water.
Apparently the steam genera-tor storage compound will not be airtight.
(See SGRR, D.1-1).
It
.seems reasonable to expect, therefore, that the seal welds of the assemblies may begin to corrode very soon after they are placed in the storage compound and that they could continue to corrode more or less continuously thereafter.
The stored assemblies will be surveyed quarterly.
(SER at 2-16).
It seems reasonable to postulate, therefore, that a breach of an assembly could occur and go undetected for many days or weeks.
Licensee says that breaching the lower assembly need not be considered because it is highly unlikely that "= ore than an insignificant amount of radioactivity would be dislodged from a primary side surface" of an assembly (SGRR at 3-22a).
It points out that the majority of the radioactivity in an assembly is on
~/
5 The steam generator assemblies are fabricated from steel which is highly susceptible to corrosive attack by chloride ions in sea water and salt spray.
\\\\41 043 p > "o the surfaces of the primary side in the form of a film of metal oxides which is very adherent and very refracec.
(Ibid.).
For a leak to occur, not only must an assembly be
.eached, but this radioactive film must be dislodged.
(Ibid.).
According to the SGRR, the three mechanisms which could dislodge radioactive mat-erial within the assemblies are: (1) thermal shock, (2) chemical /
corrosive attack, and (3) mechanical shock.
(Ibid.).
FPL dis-misses thermal shock because temperature changes vould occur too slowly to produce it, chemical / corrosive attack because the assemblies will be seal welded, and mechanical shock because they will be surrounded by the walls of the storage compound.
(Ibid.).
Licensee concludes, therefore, "that there are no radiological accident cc.tsiderations associated with onsite storage."
(Ibid.).
Apparently Staff was unwilling to reach such a conclu-sion.
In the EIA it did analyze the environmental impact of a postulated breach of the seal of one steam generator assembly during storage.
(Section 4.4).
In the analysis Staff assumed that the radioactive material on the primary side of the assembly would be dried in place so that any that might be dislodged would come loose in flakes or pieces.
Staff believes that such dis-lodged material would tend to remain trapped within-the steen generator because of the complexity of the assembly's internals.
Any fluxes or pieces that might escape would, in Staff's view, tend to remain on the surface of the earthen floor of ti'e com-pound, so that they "could be removed if necessary."
(Id. at 4-13).
850 040 1147 044
- For the purpose of its assessment, Staff assumed that only 0.1%
of the total activity (1400 di) estimated to be in one assembly would escape through a breach.
If this ame'.".t of activity were released to surface water by flood?.ng, Staff believes that it would be diluted by the flood waters to within the maximum allow-6/
able concentration of Co-60 in waterT-Further, the contaminated flood water would eventually be carried to Biscayne Bay where it would be diluted still more.
If, on the other hand, tne released radioactivity entered ground water via the floor of the compound, it would migrate downws.rd until it reached the Biscayne aquifer.
(Ibid.).
It would then migrate seaward with the hydraulic gradient.
Staff says that some of the radioactive material would become fixed by ion exchange as it dispersed through the soil and notes 7/
that the radioactivity would be diluted by ground water.
(Ibid. ). --
I do not agree with Licensee's conclusion that the Board cannot make the judgement that Petitioner's pseticipation in this proceeding will be likely to make a significant contribution to the 6/
No explanation was offered by Staff for not considering the other corrosion products expected to be on the primary side of the steam generators (see Table 5.2-1 in the SGRR).
Pre-sumably it selected Co-60 because it will be the most abundant long-lived radionuclide present.
7/
Only radioactive material in solution could undergo ion exchange, and presumably most of the material released from a steam generator would be insoluble.
Fine particles could, of course, become fixed in the soil by adsorption.
v.
I147 045
. record (Licensee's Response to Supplemental Submission at 11).
Petitioner has alerted us to the fact that apparently neither Licensee nor Staff has considered the effect of a severe hurri-
~
cane on the stored steam generator assemblies and suggested that a storm surge could cause radioacts.ve material to be released to ' 'te environment from the storage compound.
Staff's e'nviron-mental assessment did address the Lapact of leakage from one of 7
the stored assemblies, but there will be six assemblies in the compound when repairs have been completed on both units.
If more than one assembly leaked, would the total amount of radioactivity released still fall below the maxLawn allowable release permitted by 10 CFR Part 20?
Staff's analysis leaves other, related, ques-tions unanswered, in tiy opinion.
Could sea water or salt spray, or both, cause corrosion of the assemblies to occur more or less con _tinuously after they are placed in the earthen floored compound?
If so, could a leak or leak.e go undetected for days, weeks, or months, in view of he fact that Licensee proposes to conduct surveillance on a quarterly schedule?
Is Co-60 the only radio-nuclide that could be dislodged from the primary surface and leaked from the assemblies?
If not, what justification is there for dis-regarding the others?
I believe that these questions should be addressed by Licensee and Staff.
The foregoing consideration has convinced me that the existing record is inadequate.
By raising the issue of whether the proposed plan for storing the steam generator assemblies will 1147 046 850 042
-- provide adequate p itection of them from storm tides, Petitioner has, in my view, shown that his participation in this proceeding can reasonably be expected to contribute significantly to the record.
(2)
Occupational Radiation Exposure With regard to Petitioner's contention that Licensee has not shown that it will comply with the ALARA requirement of 10 CFR S 20.l(c), Licensee argues that the ALARA concept "has been used by the NRC as a means of measuring environmental impacts and not as a limit upon an activity or operation."
(Licensee Response to Supplemental Submission at 6).
To support this arg-nent, Licensee cites Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Proj ect, Unit Ib. 2, 3 NRC 1038), in which the Licensing Board reversed its own earlier decision to impose an in-plant occupational guideline dose limit in man-rems /yr as a condition of the construction per-mit.
FPL's argument appears to stand on a statement by the St.
Lucie Board saying, "The man-rem estimate is intended as a tool for comparison with other environmental impacts of the FES."
(Id. at d
1064; see Licensee's Response to Supplemental Submission at 7).
The Board, however, went on to provide a detailed explanation of why it found the establishment of a man-rem /yr limit as a condi-tion of the construction permit inappropriate, and concluded that by requiring the Applicant to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 8.8, Staff coula assure that the Applicant's occupation doses during operation were ALARA.
(M. 1062-1064).
850 043
^1147 047 Thus, the St. Lucie decision murt be interpreted in terms of the contents of Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Rele-vant to Ensuring That Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)."
There one' finds the following statement of policy: "Merely control-ling the maximum dose to individuals is not sufficient; the col-lective dose to the group (measured in man-rems) also must be kept as low as is reasonably achievable" (p. 3; emphasis added).
Clearly FPL's claim that only individual dose in rems is used as a measure of occupational exposure for limiting activity, and that the man-rem concept is used only for measuring environmental impacts, is in error (Licensee's Response to Supplemental Submission at 6).
Indeed, the Commission's regulatory practice requircs the Licensee to take measures to assure that the man-rem dose to the population 8/
of workers who carry out the repair be ALARA.
Moreover, I doubt that it is FPL's intention to practice at Turkey Point what it preaches in this proceeding, for the SGRR says, " Personnel exposures will be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) in accordance with 10 CFR S 20.l(c) and the guidance pro-vided by Regulatory Guide 8.8****"
(Section 3.3.5); also, Section 3.3.7 of the SGRR provides a man-rem assessment of the activities
--8/ For the record, I also believe that Licensee erred in telling us that we could not impose a man-rem limit on occupational activities absent an exception granted by the Commission under 10 CFR S 2.758 (see Licensee's Response to Supplemental Sub-mission at 8, fn. 5).
An extension of that argument would prohibit Licensing Boards from imposing any condition not explicitly provided for in the regulations.
850 044 1147 048-
u
, associated with the proposed repair.
Licensee recognizes only one of the contentions submitted by Petitioner at the May 2, 1979 Prehearing Conference as referring to occupational exposure, namely No. 5, which asks "Whether the steam generator repairs proposed by the utility (will] comply with CFR Part 20 (or] NEPA****?"
(Licensee's Response to Supplemental 9/
Submission at 3-4.)F-I agree with FPL's interpretation of this contention, but I also read Contention 12 as referring to occupa-tional exposure (Appendix to Transcript of May 2, 1979 Prehearing Conference at 4).
That contention asks, "whether the use of tran-sient workers with unknown radiation exposure histories is in con-pliance with 10 CFR Parts 20, 51 or NEPA?"
A basis for this con-cention is set forth by Petitioner on p. 3 of his Sugglemental Submission where he tells us that Staff's acceptance of FPL's
~ estimated 1300 man-rem exposure per unit as tolerable will be challenged by the testimony of Dr. Morgan, who Petitioner says recommends a 500 man-rem limit.
The NRC Generic Estimate of collective occupational whole body dose expected from a steam generator repair is 3380 man-rem.
9/
Licensee also observes that Contention 1 raises the question of occupational exposure in the context of continued operation of the plant.
(Licensee's Response to Supplemental Submission at 4, fn. 2).
I agree with Licensee that this matter is outside the scope of this proceeding because it does not deal with an issue related to the proposed steam generator repair.
850 045 1147 049
. (SER at 2-9, EIA at 4-2).
The difference between FPL's estimate, 1300 man-rem, and the generic estimate results from (1) the use of lower dose rates measured at Turkey Point than those used in the generic estimate and (2) the use by FPL of more dose reducing measures than were considered in the generic estimate.
Staff believes that the FPL estimate is more realistic for the Turkey Point steam generator repair than the generic estimate.
(EIA at 4-3).
Staff reviewed Licensee's documentation of the considera-tion given to the guidance provided by Regulatory Guide 8.8 and concluded that FPL's effert to maintain occupational doses ALARA are acceptable.
(SER at 2-10 and 2-11, EIA at 4-2).
With regard to Petitioner's Contention No. 12, which raises the question of whether the use of transient workers with unknown radiation exposure histories will be in compliance with 10'CFR Part 20, I am prompted to take notice of the publication on June 6, 1979, by the Commission of an amendment to Part 20 which is designed to control the radiation exposure of transient workers.
(44 FR 32249).
That amendment becomes effective on August 20, 1979.
It will require Licensee to obtain information from each prospective employee as to the occupational dose received by the person during the current calendar quarter from sources outside Licensee's control,1f there is a chance that the prospec-tive employee may receive a dose in excess of 25% of the standards 10/
specified in 10 CFR 5 20.101(c).--
If a worker has received any ly That threshold dose to the whole body would be 25% of 1-1/4 rem, or about 0.31 rem.
1147 050 1350 046
. occupational dose during the quarter, then the total occupational dose to the whole body which the prospective employer could permit would be deter =ined by the limits set forth in 5 20.101(a) and 5 20.101(b).
Thus, the maximum total whole body dose that a worker could receive in one calendar quarter would be 3 rems.
The time period within which the steam generator repair is to be carried out, 6 to 9 months, and the foregoing requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 will make it necessary for Licensee to hire a large number of workers to complete the repair.
(See SER at 1-1).
If, to be conservative, one assumes that one unit can be repaired in 6 months and that the total group exposure will be 1300 man-rems, Licensee would have to be able to hire a minimum of 217 workers, all of whom report to work with (1) zero exposure during the calendar quarter in which the repair job is initiated and (2)'an accu =ulated occupational whole body dose which is at least 6 rems less than the limit calculated according to the formula 11/
set forth in S 20.101(b) (2).--
Licensee has estimated that the repair will require about 300 workers (SGRR at 6-1, Section 6.3).
Presumably this estimate did not account for the recent mmendment to Part 20 which controls the tocal occupational dose of transient workers and therefore the total number of workers that will be required could be greater than 300.
Will it be possible for Licensee to recruit the number of skilled workers required for the 11/
This section of Part 20 sets the limit for accumulated whole body dose at 5(N-18), where "N" equals the individual's age in years.
850 0A7 1147 051
. job so as to be assured of complying with the standards set forth in 10 CFR S 20.10l?
I believe that this question should be addressed by Licensee and Staff.
Is the estimated group exposure, 1300 man-rem, ALARA 12/
pursuant to 10 CFR S 20.1(c) ?-~
Staff believes that it is.
(SER at 2-10 and 2-11).
Petitioner has indicated his disagreement (Supplemental Submission at 3).
Is this issue litigable, and, if so, has Petitioner shown that it can be reasonably expected that his participreion will contribute significantly to the record?
First, I note that any decisions with regard to whether occupa-tional exposure is ALARA, whether Staff's, Petitioner's, or this Board's, must be ree:hed subj ectively.
There are no guidelines for evaluating occupational exposure such as the guidelines for evaluating radiation exposure to the general public that are set forth in 10 CFR Part 50.
In Prairie Island and Vermont Yankee (Northern States Power Co. and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.,
ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 57-59) the Appeal Board looked at this problem and in conclusion said,
~.n sum, whatever might be the merit of simply carrying over the Appendix I mone-tary values into Part 20, it cannot be done unless and until the Commission sanc-tions it.
Our point here, once again, is tha, whether or not that course is fol-lowed, there appears to be manifest 12/
-~
Licensee believes that the group exposure could range from 650 to 1450 man-rem per unit, because of uncertainties with regard to man-hoar requirements and radiation fields.
(S GRR, Section 3.3.7.1).
850 048 1147 052
. justification for providing utilities, the Staff, the concerned public, and the adjudicatory boards with considerably more pidance than is now contained in Part 20 with respect to how the ALAPA standard should be applied for the pur-poses of occupational exposure.
(Id. at 59).
Given the uncertainty which surrounds the issue of applying the ALARA principle to occupational exposure, I believe that the issue deserves litigation.
In. addition, I believe that the testimony which would be developed in connection with Peti-tiener's Contention Nos. 5 and 12 can be expected to contribute significantly to the record with regard to whether the radiation exposure of transient workers and the total occupational exposure of the group of workers will comply with the Standards contained in 10 CFR Part 20.
I conclude, therefora, that there is reason-able expectation that Petitioner's participation will assist in developing a sound record with regard to occupational exposure.
(3)
Release of Radioactive Effluent Into the Cooling System In Contentions 6 and 7, Petitioner questions whether primary coolant and laundry waste water which must be stored or discharged as a result of the steam generator repair will comply with the requirements of Parts 20, 50, 51, or NEPA (Appendix to Transcript of the May 2, 1979, Prehearing Conference at 3).
Fur-ther, in the Supplemental Submission Petitioner contends that hurricane tides surging over the cooling canal system could result in the escape of radioactive materials into the currounding 1147 053 as0 049 v
environment.
(at 3-4).
Licensee responded by telling us that any liquid effluent released into the canal system -ill be controlled so as to meet the Turkey Point Technical SpecificatLns under the
~
plant's Operating Licenses.
(Licensee's Response to Supplemental Submission at 12).
According to the SER, the projected releases due to the repair program are expected to be wall within the plant's Technical Specification limits.
(at 2-13).
Staff added, however, that it had not completed its evaluation of the Appendix I informa-tion provided it by Licensee.
(Ibid.).
To the extent that Staff has not determined whether the current Technical Specifications will be reduced as a result of its review of the Appendix I evaluation, it appears that ventilation of the issues raised by Contentions 6 and 7 would contribute to the soundness of the record.
If that situation has changed, this matter could be settled by stipulation or summary dismissal.
I conclude that the record with regard to the release of radioactive material to the cooling canal system is incomplete.
Therefore I find that there is reasonable expectation that Peti-tiener's participation with respect to his Contentions 6 and 7 would assist in developing a sound record.
Conclusion with Regard to Factor (iii)
Based on the foregoing considerations, I conclude that the participation in this proceeding by Mr. Oncavage can reasonably be expected to contribute significantly to the development of a sound record.
Accordingly, I find that the third factor weighs heavily in his favor.
850 050 1147 054-
Dissent by Dr. David B. Hall The question before this Board is not should the peti-tioner be admitted to a hearing, but rather should a hearing be convened to resolve contentions advanced by the petitioner.
I submit that an affirmative finding en the latter question requires a stronger showing than has been put forth by Mr.
Oncavage.
I believe the request for a hearing by Mark P. Oncavage should be denied.
The petition for a hearing is admittedly very late.
The sole justification for lateness is that crucial documents were missing from the local Public Document Room.
The crucial document to which Petitioner refers is a letter from FPL to NRC transmitting a proposal for replacement of deteriorating steam generator assemblies.
Petitioner does not explain the " crucial" nature of the letter nor why it was needed to initiate his petition for a hearing.
Petitioner has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that his participation in a hearing will make a useful contribution to the record.
He has not controverted any fact, statement or conclusion made by the Staff in its SER or by the Licensee in its SGRR. ' In his original (revised) petition to intervene and 1147 055 850 051
, in subsequent submissions, Petitioner has posed questions ask-ing for informatior without claiming that the information sought was not available to him or that' there were omissions in the Staff or Licensee documents.
Many of the questions posed by the petitioner as his
" list of contentions" have reference to the compliance, or lack thereof, with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and, as such, is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Other questions imply that an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared for the proposed action.
No basis is given by the petitioner for such a requirement.
At the time of the prehearing conference, the Staff counsel discussed the status of the environmental eveluation (Tr. 79).
Although a determination as to the form of its appraisal was not available at that time, the Staff subsequently (June 29, 1979) published an Environmental Impact Appraisal and a deter-mination that an EIS need not be prepared.
This conclusion was challenged by the petitioner in advance during the prehear-ing conference (Tr. 61, 84).
The Staff ambivalently concludes that "... contention 2, which asserts that an environmental impact statement should issue in connection with the proposed action, forms the basis for an acceptable contention...."
I do not agree.
There is nothing in the record to support a 850 052 1147 056
H
. conclusion of major impact on the environment within the meaning af 10 CFR 51.5 (a)(10).
The supplemental submission of petitioner Mark P.
Oncavage" informs us that Professor K. Z. Morgan will address the occupational radiation exposure problem created by the proposed repairs.
In this submission, Petitioner compares an estimated 1300 man-rem exposure with Professor Morgan's recom-mendation of 500 man-rem conts.ined in a recent New Scientist article.
This is either a cr.reless misquotation or a deliberate distortion.
Dr. Morgan, in the cited article, proposes "500 man-rsn gg 1,000 megawatt (electrical) vears" (emphasis added].
Licensee has estimated (and the Staff has accepted the esti-mate) that the repair of the steam generators will allow the occupational dosage to be reduced from its present experience of 500 man-rem per year to 100 man-rem per year.
Professor Morgan is a well known authority on the effects of low level radiation, but that is not at issue here, nor is the effect of radiation on marine life, the specialty of Professor Goldberg.
The regulations in 10 CFR 20 give the Commission standards for protection against the effects of radiation.
Licensee has stated its intention to comply with the requirements of the Commission Regulations including the provisions to maintain exposures as low as reasonably achieva-ble (ALARA).
Absent a specific challenge, I see no reason to n "- ' nR}
1147 057
- question the full compliance on the part oi the Licensee with the applicable Regulatory Guides and Commission Regulations.
In considering the criteria for granting untimely peti-tions for intervention, as promulgated in 10 CFR 2.714(a), my analysis of the record before us can be sunmarized as follows:
(i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
Petitier.er has not given any good cause for his untimely filing.
(ii)
Availability of other means of protecting interest.
Petitioner has no other forum to protect his interests.
(iii)
Extent to which petitioner may be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
The principal documents comprising the record of this proceeding, viz.,
the SER, SGRR and EIA, give evidence of the concern on the part of the Licensee and of the Staff for protection of the environment and for limiting occupational exposure in accordance with 10 CFR 20.l(c)(ALARA).
It is obvious that the record can be expanded but nothing which han been submitted by the petitioner convinces me that his participation will improve the record.
In my opinion, the record as it stands is sufficient to support the con-clusion arrived at by the Staff in its Safety Evaluation (p. 4-1).
850 054 i\\47 00
(iv)
Representation of petitioner's interest by existing parties.
This is not applicable since there is no hearing yet, thus no parties.
(v)
Broadening the issues or delaying the proceeding.
If a hearing were granted, the Board would have discretion to admit only those contentions it re-gards as valid, thus the extent to which the issues are broadened will ultimately rest with the Board.
It is possible that a hearing may result in a delay of the Licensee's current schedule but, as of August 1, 1979, that schedule is not known to the Board.
I would deny the late petition to intervene by Mark P.
Oncavage as being without substance or merit.
CMd GLid David B. Hall August 3, 1979 1147 059 o.s a.en 055