ML20032B825
| ML20032B825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8111060408 | |
| Download: ML20032B825 (80) | |
Text
_______
'*j;Y,ii. j i,'j ' l(\\
t NU N REGULATORY COMMISSICN <:,j\\
,flj,)h;k.t, 3.
i3
,x p
l+'.
i:
f,
~:
1" W
}'
Y Q
,1;;
i
,;,R%9
-\\
9
-2 Oy%
I I
MI ' CO In :be.%:::ar ef:
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NOS.30-250 SP 50-251 SP (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 3 and 4) l O
DA"I: November 4, 1981 PAGES: 1 thru 80 A;;
Bethesda, Maryland T2
/
,^ atroarm,p oae
.unetsox s
~
g
/
400 Vi.:r_nia Ave., S.W. Washd g =n, C.
C.
20024 O
e2.e=ac=e : c:o:) 5:4-2245 811106040G 911+ga PDR ADOCK 0 50 0 0, ".. ;
on
AR/ar a
1 1;
U1IITED ST.'.TES OF A!TRICA r
l Q
2 UUCLEAR REGULATORY CO'UtISSION 3
x O
4 In the matter of:
Dochet IIo. 50-250 SP in 5
TLORIDA FOWER & LIGHT CO!!PAUY 50-751 SP En 6
(Turkey Point Uuclear Generating g
Station, Units Nos. 3& 4)
R 7
.----------x 8
8 d
9 Fifth Floor Hearing Room, f
East-West Towers, g
10 4350 East-West Highway, z
Dethesda, Maryland 5
11 B
Wednesday, November 4, 1981 0
12 Z
~=
pd 13 ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD
\\._./ S l
14 g
The Appeal Board met at 3: 00 p.m.,
pursuant to 9_
15 5
notice.
j 16 ui PRESEUT:
d' 17 ALAN ROSENTHAL, Chairman, M
18 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Eoard.
~
~
f 19 DR.
W.
REID JOHNSON, n
?tember.
20
!'R. STEPHEU EILPERIU, 21 Member.
O 23 24 0
25(
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 2
1 APPEAPANCES:
O 2
u^aoto r arts, tsa-Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 3
1025 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 1214 Mashington, D.C.
20036 O
4
-and-2 5
El NORMAN CALL, ESQ.
j 6
Steel, Hector, Davis g
1400 Southeast 1st National Bank Building
{
7 Miami, Florida, 3l 8
On Behalf of the Applicant.
d d
9
[
STEVEN GOLDBERG, ESQ.
h 10 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Washington, D.C.,
1 l
(
12 On Behalf of the Regulatory Staff.
5 C i; i3 l
JOEL LUMER, ESO.
g 14 711 Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street g
15 M.t ari, Florida 33130, g
16 On behalf of the Intervenor Mark P. Oncavage as f
ti 17 s
Also Present:
h IS MARK P. ONCAVAGE
=
19 l
I 20 21 O
l.
23 O
25 ;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
3 I
C 0 17 T E N T _S O
2 Oral Argument on Behalf of the Intervenor, 3
by fir. Lumer.
6 O
4 Oral Argument on Behalf of the Applicant, p
5 by fir. Reis 46 R
3 6
g Oral Argument on Behalf of the Staff, R
7 by Mr. Goldberg.
62 3j 8
a d
d 9
- ie 10 a
g 11 m
d 12 z
9 13 Ogm E
14 w
2 15 w
M g
16 x
d 17 wiiw 18 3"
19 e
i M
i 20 l
l 21 i
' O 23,
t l
24j
' O 25 t
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
Dp i ev,
%s. 1.x an -a" -4 '==
p: cd a. =sechs of -h C-d
=d_
Sca ar 3"# ^=- Zacdans=7 C -
' *=1:n held s 11-4-81
~
is. ha Cc.;9rtJa1=n's offhas a: L7*.7 7. 5c=sec
- 3. W., 7e=* -===n, D. C.
h -ed r was apes :s public a :=d---
and casarra" n.
. "1a. er--'7 has =nc bear :sviasred, c===nc=ad,, or edi:ad, and 1,= =m7 c=g=212, 4-,,.
s..,
h ::ansc=1pc h i=-~ dad sola17 far sur.a=2L 1:.f===a==..M P:=EI. c ' ' :=al. :sen=d of hs.t =. of da =a==a:s ?.1.sc=saad.
N-M d--
dad. by '.0 CZ2. 9.102, t-e, :g: =a== 33 g,
,2 c=y===e,.. a*4 ss-
- ee"'""'" '***
- a s
- M C 4; 3CC 2aCS$a&d'7 ra_p.act f'=a.! / se=~ ~ = -d es or 3 7 4..,,
y= 35. ;s..,,,,
page= =ay :e. A '.a 21=h. -ha Com=xi.sa1=u. i= a=7 :::cand1=g as -Am rasui: Of er add =assed. :s a=7 s s---
- c; a..L;
- ==-,s-.;
= ~ ' - -
ezcape as h c-
- *s':n =ay av=he d:a 1
e b
O O
l l
l l
t l
1 O
O
.m..--_
-__,---,._,,..,,,_.___.,_f,
~m 4
4 1
P _R O_ C_ _E _E D _I N_ G _S O
2 Cas1P,1xn RosEsTast, 1 wom1d 11he to ape 1ogize for 3
tr
~ wt-minute change in timing for this argument.
I hope O
4
- did not occasion too much inconvenience to any of the c
5 j
6 We are hearing oral argument this afternoon on the R
R 7
consolidated appeals taken by fiark oncavage from two Licensing s
j 8
Board orders entered in.this license amendment proceedings d
=;
9 involving the repair of the steam generators at Units 3 and 4 xo 10 of the Turkey Point nuclear Facility.
E 11 The first of those two orders entered on May 28th 3
y 12 summarily disposed of the Intervenor's contentions in the 3i 13 Applicant's favor.
14 The second order entered on June 19 authori::ed 2
15 the Director of Muclear Reactor Regulations to issue the z
j 16 amendments in question, and the finding that the impact of a A
17 hurricane or tornado on low-level waste to be stored at 5
{
18 Turkey Point during the repairs would not endanger the public A
{
19 health and safety.
5 20 The argument is governed by the terms of our October 21 8 order as therein provided.
Each side has been allotted a 22 total of one hour for the presentation of argument.
The 23 Appellant may reserve a portion of his time for rebuttal.
24 I will now request counsel for the respective O
i 25 ;
parties to identify themselves formally for the record, and we i
}
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
i l
5 5
1, will start with Mr. Lucer.
l Q 2I MR. LUMER:
I am Joel Lurer of Miami, Florida, and I 3
am counsel for the Appellant-Intervenor, Mark P. Oncavage, and h
4 I am here today with Mark P. Oncavage.
5 g
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Lumer.
i 6
Mr. Reis.
A R
7 MR. REIS:
I an Harold Reis of Lowenstein, nj 8
Newman, Reis & Axelrad of Washington, D.C.
I represent Florida J
0; 9
Power & Light Company.
I am accompanied by Mr. Norman A. Call
?
10 of the Miami law firm of Steel, Hector & Davis.
3 II CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Reis.
3 I
12 Mr. C-oldberg.
=
G3h 13 MR. GOLDBERG:
I am Steven C. C-oldberg, representing
=
x 5
14 the Nuclear Regulatory Staff in this appeal.
N 2
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTEAL:
Do I assume correctly, Mr.
E y
16 Goldberg, that you and Mr. Reis are dividing the time on your
- ,5 17 side of the case equally?
5 G
18 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
=
i-
}
19 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
All right, Mr. Lumer, you may n
20 proceed.
21 1
22 l O
23 '
24j O
4 25 j i
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 6
1 1
ORAL ARGU? TENT BY JOEL LUMER, ON BEHALF OF O
2 ruz Iurcavruoa.
3 MR. LUMER:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oncavage and I would
()
4 like to divide the argument into the legal issues, and then 5
g followed by the factual issues.
Mr. Oncavage is much more l
3 6l knowledgeable on the factual issues than I am, and I would R
R 7
like the Court's permission for him to make a short statement K
j 8
following the --
d o;
9 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, may I address that question?
z O
g 10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Ya j
11 MR. REIS:
This is an administrative proceeding.
3 y
12 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
That we are aware of.
5 13 f f.t.
REIS:
I assume there is a great deal of
(])
=
5 14 flexibilits; about how parties participate in such a proceeding.
j 15 I will not object to any action the Board takes with respect to E
j 16 this request to divide argument.
w 17 '
I would like to point out, however, that the request
=
{
18 is quite unusual; that the request for oral argument was twice
}
19 ;
stated to be in order to give this panel an opportunity to n
l 20l address questions to counsel.
21 This is an appellate proceeding.
Presumably counsel 22 should be able to describe what is in the record.
And finally, 23l that the very late intervention that was permitted here at i
24 the outset was in large part based upon the availability of 1
25,
counsel to the Intervenor.
i h
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 7
1 MR. LUMER:
If I could respond.
Just that one
()
2 issue.
You asked us to discuss about the difference in the 3
Gould affidavit and the FES, and all the facts about the manrem
()
4 exposure, and about the quantity of low level waste.
Those g
5 are the issues Mr. Oncavage can address.
I will address the 0
6 overwhelming majority of the appeal.
R 7
CEAIRMAN ROSENTHAL It wasn't clear to me, Mr.
A j
8 Reis, as to whether you were formally obiecting to the d
c 9
participation of Mr. Oncavage, or whether you were just noting z,
O 10 for the record the, as you see it, unusualness of this request.
E 11 MR. BEIS:
I thought I had expressly stated, sir, I 3
y 12 was not formally objecting.
I thought it important to call theso 5
13 matters to the Board's attention, so that it could take them m
14 into consideration in deciding the question.
{
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTUAL:
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Reis.
m g'
16 I think that we will permit Mr. Oncavage to w
17 participate in the argument.
5
}
18 M*.
BUMER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
P 19 g
If I could just address each of the issues in 5
l 20 seriatim, I'll be as brief as I can.
I think they are covered 21 pretty much by the F-iefs.
22 The Atomic Safety Licensing Board decided that 7-V) 23 ;
it was not bound by the regulations of the Counci) on i
24 i Environmental Quality.
That's one of the issues we raised
< ()
25l on appeal I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
N
.n-
8 8
1 Executive Order 11992 speaks to that particular
(]}
2 issue and says that the CEO is to issue regulations for all 3
federal agencies and says that the head of federal agencies
(])
4 shall comply with the CEO regs.
g 5
There are no exceptions in that Presidential order, N
6' and somehow the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board read in an R
7 exception.
- j 8
The CEQ's own regs, 40 CFR 1500.3 says the CEO d
c 9
regs are binding -- uses the word binding -- on all federal
,ze 10 agencies.
Again, no exceptions are listed.
11 MR. EILPERIN:
Your brief, if I recall,didn't 3
I 11 specify the particular regulations that you assert the NRC is 5
(])g" I3 bound to follow.
Is that the scoping regulation and the l
14 record of decision that was referred to earlier on before 5
]E 15 the Licensing Board?
Are those the CEQ regulations you are
=
j 16 talking about?
w d
17 MR. LUMER:
Well, all the CEQ regs starting with 18 40 CFR Section 1500, and the ones that follow immediately g
P" I9 thereafter, both on the scoping and ths examination of g
l 20 alternatives, and the purpose of the alternative examination 21 and the depth into which the examination is made.
I think 22 j ()
they are pretty much spelled out in the fourth and fifth j
23 -
section.
We listed 1500.02 as one of the ones we are l
24 '
concerned with; 1500.
Those are the regs we are pretty much O
25l concerned with.
I l
\\
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN Y, INC.
2
9 9
1 The Atomic Safety & Licensing Board relies.on a
(]}
2 letter from Chairman Hendrie, and really to read the letter, 3
it never really says that the NRC takes the position that it's
(])
4 not bound by the CEQ regs.
It goes around the issue, but never e
5 says they're not bound.
An 3
6, Also, our position is that this is a unilateral R
7 declaration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and that Aj 8
the URC is not above the law, not above the President, and not dd 9
above the Congress, and that if the Presidential directive, io 10 the Executive Order, says that they are bound by the CEQ regs, 5
j 11 that until a court decides otherwise, the United States District 3
y 12 Court or the Court of Appeals; that they are bound by those
=
13 regulations and should have followed those regulations in l
14 reaching a decision in a memorandum and order.
2 15 I think the analysis would have been much different 5
g 16 if they had followed those regulations, and I think the analysis, w
d 17 they recognized, was different when they expressly said we are 18 not bound by the CEQ regulations.
5
{
19 DR. JOENSOU:
In what material way wouldithe M
20 environmental statement have been different, had particular CEQ 21 regulations which you referred to been followed?
i 22 MR. LUMER:
I think the particular regulation is 23 ;;
that they are supposed to examine all alternatives, even though 1
24 i those alternatives are outside their expertise and outside
()
25 :
the scope of their regulatory authority.
i t
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 10 10 1
DR. JOHMSON:
Well, I thought the particular CEQ
()
2 regulation you were referring to was the one on scoping and 3
one on a written decision, or something of that nature.
I
()
4 thought they were the ones you were complaining about.
g 5
MR. LUMER:
Well, one we're expressly complaining 0
j 6
about is 1502.14, I believe, and that deals with examination of R
7 alternatives, and I think that's one of the ways they got j
8 around not examining the alternatives of alternative energy d
o; 9
sources, of productive conservation, is to say that they were g
10 outside the expertise of the NRC, outside the regulatory E
j 11 authority.
M
- j 12 DR. JOHNSON:
Is that what the Licensing Board said a
13
{)
with regard to that?
m 5
14 MR. LUMER:
Well, I think that's what they at least s=
15 implied.
They said it's not relevant to the decision.
They j
16 said it's something that's been replowed before.
A d
17 DR. JOHNSON:
What vou're saving is that it!sa CEQ 5
{
t
{
18 regulation that we look at those things, and we don' t have to
}
19 abide by those regulations.
The Licensing Board didn't say that, n
20 did it?
Or where did they say that?
21 MR. LUMER:
I don't have the opinion right in front 22 of me, but I think the Licensing Board said, "We don't have 23 to make a rigorous" 24 DR. JOHNSON:
What authority did the Licensing Board
();
l v
25 rely upon when it said that?
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
11 11 1
MR. LUMER:
Chairman Hendrie's letter to the --
(])
2 DR. JOHNSON:
Is that what the Licensing Board said 3
in making its determination that --
(])
4 MR. LUMER:
In part.
I understand what you're g
5 saying.
I think that was part.
9 j
6 DR. JOHNSON:
What was the other part?
R 7
MR. LUMER:
Well, the other part said that they A]
8 said that we have no need to reevaluate -- and I'll get to that d
=;
9 issue later -- the need for power in the area because we have zo 10 already evaluated that when we issued the initial application.
11 They also said that it's irrelevant because we're n
I 12 not concerned in this proceeding with anything other than 5
13 alternative ways of making this repair.
l 14 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Those nuestions really are not aj 15 addressed, are they, in the CEQ regulations?
The Licensing x
16 g
Board may be right or they may be wrong in those conclusions, M
N 17 i but I don't see anything in the CEQ regulations you rely upon 8
18 that specifically addresses and answers that matter.
C t'*
19 g
MR. LUMER:
Okay.
Well, in part -- and I think it n
20 colors the way an examination of alternatives are to be made.
21 The CEO is saying that the alternatives are the heart of an 22 EIS.
They're saying that you've got to discuss all the O
23 reasonable alternatives.
They're saying nothing to do with 24 alternative ways of performing this repair.
They're saying O
25 l all reasonable alternatives, and they're also saying even no l
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 12 12 1
action.
2
(])
What we're saying is that they consider a 3
reasonable alternative as defined in the CEO regs, they
(])
4 could reach conservation, they could reach alternative energy e
5 sources.
E j
6 DR. JOHNSON:
Well, how do you deal with the fact R
7 that the FES said that the alternative of not replacing this
- j 8
power was unacceptable?
d c;
9 MR. LUMER:
Well, I don't know if they said it's E
10 unacceptable.
_E j
11 DR. JOHNSON:
I'm not talking about the Licensing 3
N 12 Board, I'm talking about the FES.
The first page on "Alterna-
,=
13 tives" has to do with the various alternatives of not replacing x
5 14 the power and citing, for instance, references 11, 39, 40 and Ej 15 41, which I suppose go to the fact that there is a need for
=
g 16 power as far as the Southern Florida region.
A E
17 '
Now that seems ro me to deal with whether or not 6
{
18 conservation and solar power are going, which are speculative, C
n g
19,
and I don't know that the NRC has any way to assure that there
=
r 20 l will be conservation, so that the alternative of not having 21 I power, removing this power plant from service, was certainly l
22 dealt with, and the fact that not having it was an impracticable I ()
23 '
alternative based on these four references that I am just 24 4 cited, dealt with.
(2) 25 j Now, what more would CEO have us do?
a N
i j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I t
13 1
MR. LUMER:
Okay.
I would like to respond.
O 2
sesice11y whee we ere trying to get et -- end I 3
don't want to harp on CEO for my whole hour -- but what we are O
4 ervine to set et is e1so this was e summery diseosition.
This g
5 was something where we thought that they resolved this on R
6 summary disposition, it was not after a hearing.
This was R
7 something where they decided there was absolutely no far.t 8
8 issue, that it was impractical, it was not reasonable.
That's d
q 9
why we offered the affidavits, the professors that we did.
2o 10 And what we're saying is they decided this on a E
h 11 very superficial basis, where the CEQ says they've got to go in I
12 into detail.
They decided this just basically saying ~there nas 5
13 no factual issue at all, and without a detailed analysis that h
I4 would be req ' red by the CEQ regs.
{
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What do you do with this
=:
if 16 Board's decision in Prairie Island?
I'm sure you're familiar us
!i 17 with it, and Irore particularly Footnote 4.
5c 18 MR. LUMER:
I'm not, your Honor, but I'll answer 3
C" 19 the Court's cuestion if I know the particulars.
g n
20 CHAIRMAN"ROSENTHAL:
Well, we'll pass on that.
2l MR. EILPERIM:
Forgetting whether or not the 22 Commission is or is not bound by the CEQ regulations, how is 23 your argument different from the argument that the Commission 24 has a statutory obligation under NEPA to look into reasonable 25 alternatives?
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 14 1
MR. LUMER:
Not at all.
The CEQ regulations flesh
()
2 out the deepness of the analysic, the importance of the 3
alternatives part.
It stresses that the alternatives is the
()
4 heart and soul of an EIS.
5 MR. EILPERIN:
The courts have said that under NEPA, e
34 6
without CEO.
R 7
MR. LUMER:
I agree with your Honor a hundred percent, s
j 8
The same argument could be --
dd 9
MR. EILPERIN:
The argument is essentially the io 10 same, whether the Commission is bound or not bound by CEQ g
11 regulations,you findi the same obligation arising from NEPA 3
g 12 itself.
E
/~T d 13 MR. LUMER:
VS But we find a tone of the Board say_ng, l
14 "We don't have to deal with those CEQ regs."
2 15 MR. EILPERIN:
I'm asking whether you see the same 5
j 16 obligation flowing from the statute that ycu see flowing w
d 17 from the CEO regulations.
"=
18 MR. LOMER:
I see the same obligation, because I 5
{
19 see the CEQ regs consistent with the statute.
I just see the n
20 CEO regs emphasizing what the statute said.
21 If I could jurap on to my next issue.
I've got 22 limited time here.
()
l 23!
The Board said one of the reasons why they didn't
()
24l have to reach these alternatives was it was a replowihg of 25,
what had already been decided in the '72 EIS, and if you look F
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 1
at the '72 EIS, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of
(])
2 alternative energy sources, or conservation.
Technology has 3
changed since 1972.
(])
4 The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in Vermont 3
5 Yankee.
0 6
What we are saying is, this is not a replowing, R
6 7
and that the Board was factually wrong, and if they had examined n
8 8
the '72 EIS they would have seen it was not present at that d
d 9
- time, i
C 10 MR. EILPERIN:
Do you think there is any difference i
11 arising from the fact that the Vermont Yankee case arose 3
y 12 on the context. of the construction permit, and that this E
O $
13 arises in the context of an amendment to an operating license?
=
mg 14 MR. LUMER:
Not really, because I don't think the
$j 15 United States Supreme Court in that later part of the opinion
=
16 was speaking to the particular technicalities of the construc-g M
h 17,
tion permit or an operating license.
They were giving a e
3 18 general statement, that the technology of the United States P
19 l
g has improved since 1972, and this is something we are now n
20 concerned with, since the oil embargo, and something that is now 21 reasonable.
They were talking about what was reasonable 22 and what was speculative.
()
23l They were basically saying back in ', the analysis 24 that reaches into these issues could be considered'not 25,
reasonable and speculative, but now that our technology has L
l' i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 4
l t
16 1
advanced since '72, it becomes more reasonable, less speculative
(])
2 and it's something we now have to start looking into.
3 I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court was concerned
()
4 with any technical difference between an operating license g
5 or a construction permit.
O j
6 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
NEPA is subject, is it not, R
R 7
according.to the courts, to a rule of reason?
Al 8
MR. LUMER:
Yes, i'c is, your Honor.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
How do you think a rule of io b
10 reason applies to the consideration of alternative energy j
11 sources whereswe're dealing with a completed plant, in contrast 3
y 12 to a proposed plant, which would be the case if we were dealing
5
(^g d 13 with a construction permit application?
Do you think that vm 14 there might be something to be said that for the proposition E
2 15 that under a rule of reason, to be talking about alternate wx 16 energy sources in the context of a completed plant would be j
e d
17,
unreasonable?
E 18 MR. LUMER:
I'm not going to come down on the side C
19 of unreasonableness, and I think the Chairman is absolutely 5
20 correct, and I think in analyzing this issue, you should 21 apply the three-part test they applied in Vermont Yankee:
22 Is the technology reasonably available?
O 23!
In the aggregate, will it curtail demand fer 24 f electricity?
()
f 25l And is it susceptible to a reasonable degree of i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
17 1
proof?
O 2
And what you have to decide is if we take these 3
resources we are going to invest, and we invest them in O
4 repairing the plant, or we take these resources and invest them 5
in derating the plant a certain percentage and applying them 9
6 to alternative energy sources and productive conservation, R
7 and let's analyze -- just analyze, I'm not even asking for
- j 8
that alternative to be done.
I'm merely asking to analyze d
c 9
those alternatives.
Y 10
- )R. JOmTSON:
I see that.
Why is that environmentally
?
11 better than the repair?
What is the environmental benefit to is I
12 be gained from gradual deregulation, and assuming that by some 3::: 13 means unknown to me the utility can assure itself that l
14 conservation was going to take over this excess need for
$j 15 power?
What's the environmental benefit?
m:
y 16 MR. LUMER:
That gets to the crux of the whole thing.
A
$5 17 The Intervenor at this point didn't even have to show that it 5
18 was better.
The Intervenor at this point on summary disposition r"
19 g
merely had to show that there was an issue to which he could n
20 get to a public hearing to present evidence.
21 This was not decided at a public hearing where 22 the Board could weigh facts and decide either way.
This was O
t e
23 merely at a summary disposition level to create an issue.
l 24 That's why the affidavits were offered.
4 25 One minute.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. ~ -.
18 1
We think it's better based on the affidavits of
(])
2 Roger Massinger and John H. Parker phere they havespelled out P
3 the savings in dollars, the savings in natural resources, and
()
4 the ravings in the environmental protection for South Florida e
5 for exposure to workers, for disposal of waste, that would 0
j 6
be avoided if their particular procedures were followed.
R 7
We think all we had to do at this stage was to sj 8
create an issue that reasonable minds would inauire further, d
y 9
That's the standard under Vermont Yankee; not that we had to zog 10 show it was better.
And I think that's a very important issue 5
Il for the Board to realize.
B j
12 DR. JOHNSON:
How do you deal with the argument
=
^T 13 (J =
in Midland that an alternative has to be determined to be 14 environmentally more attractive before we have to consider
{
15 it under NEPA?
i
=
g 16 I still haven't heard you tell me why the environ-A 17 ment would be benefited if instead of repairing these leaking
$w 3
I8 steam generators, we were to continue to operate the plant
=b 19 g
in an imperfect condition, in a continually worsening n
20 imperfect condition, and that is somehow supposed to be 21 environmentally more favorable?
22 You've got to show me that before we have to
)
23!
consider it, under NEPA, and under our previous opinion.
i 24 MR. LUMER:
Well, I'm not really sure if that's 25 '
the standard that was given by the United States Supreme Court; I
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
l 19 1
but even given it.--
(])
2 DR. JOHNSON:
I don't think the United States Supreme 3
Court has dealt as thoroughly with these issues as we have.
(])
4 Now you're appearing before a board of the Nuclear Regulatory 5
g Commission.
We have dealt with a lot of these issues before, n
j 6
Are you familiar with the Midland decision?
l R
R 7
MR. LUMER:
I'm not familiar with the Midland Nj 8
decision.
I would only say, though, that the benefits would be d
9 the benefits of not having the waste stored in these burials; E
10 not having the steam generators store'd on site -- these are E
11 the environmental benefits of following the alternative 3
g 12 course - 'and not having the workers exposed to the radiation 5
Og that they are going to be exposed to during the repairs, would 13
=
z 5
14 be the benefits, the environmental benefits.
$j 15 DR. JOHNSON:
I thought the record showed that
=
]
first of all the amount of waste generated by the repair was 16 s
17 comparable to the amount generated by normal operation, and 5c 3
18 certainly the record says that there is a great deal of cs 19 g
worker exposure incurred during the inspection and repair of n
20 the steam generator, which is part and parcel of your proposal, 1
21 and that must continue at a constant rate while the plant 22 derates itself.
23 i
MR. LUMER:
We feel there was a conflict of the
\\
24 i evidence on that.
King took one position, and the experts,
()
1 25]
Gould, took the other, took a different position.
.h ti ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 1
MR. EILPERIN:
On worker exposure?
O 2
MR. LUMER, Pardon?
3 MR. EILPERIN:
On worker exposure from repairs?
O 4
MR. tUMER:
No, noe on worker exeosure, I don e 5
think there were any affidavits offered by us on worker 3
3 6
exposure from repairs.
I don't think we offered any affidavits.
R 7
MR. EILPERIN:
To worker exposure?
Al 8
MR. LUMER:
No, not to worker exposure, but as to d
- n 9
the danger to the environment.
I think the affidavits offered zo 10 a
by King would show that we thought there was a greater danger i
j lI to the environment, more manrem exposure to the environment 3
y 12 in general, than if the repairs had been made.
5 d
13 MR. EILPERIN:
The King affidavit, I thought, was E
14 submitted after the Licensing Board reached its decision?
{
15 MR. LUMER:
No, the first King affidavit that was g
16 submitted with the motion for summary disposition.
u5 D'
I7 MR. EILPERIN:
He didn't quantify anything, did he, 5
5 18 in that affidavit?
P 19 MR. LUMER:
No, he didn't.
g n
20 I think also that if one generator is up and 21 operating, and the other generator is being repaired, depending 22 on whose estimate you take -- if you take the Battelle estimate, 23 ;
especially, that the total low level waste produced will be 24 greater during the repairs than during the normal operation of O
25 i the plant.
It depends on whose estimate you take.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 21 1
I think even if you take the Staff's estimate,
()
2 the low level waste produced during repairs will be greater.
3 It's only when you take Mr. Gould's estimate, the FPL estimate,
()
4 that it becomes less.
g 5
!!R. EILPERIN:
Nhy didn' t you start relying on E
3 6
the Battelle materials at the time the motion for summary R
7 disposition was supposed to be decided?
K j
8 MR. LUMER:
I don't have the response, but I think 0
q 9
I would assume to be part of the record, the Battelle E
10 record is part of the general NRC.reeond produced for the E
11 NRC, it's my understanding.
3 I
12 MR. EILPERIN:
You didn't put in any statements of 5
13 material facts in issue based upon the Battelle study, did z
14 you?
$j 15 MR. LUMER:
No, we did not, you're correct.
=
g 16 Our main argument in the briefs for summary a
y' 17 j disposition on this appeal is that review of the 5
3 18 alternatives we presented was reasonable; that the EIS did ch g
19 l not consider them; and that the EIS didn't live up to its a
20 requirement as the environmental full disclosure law statement; 21 and that looking at that EIS, the government official who has 22,
to make the decision could not make a fully-informed and
()
23 responsible decision; that the EIS did not permit the public 24i to comment on these particular alternatives, which is under 25 ;
the case law the purpose to open this uo to the public; did not n
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 I
sustain debate.
n
(_)
2 The purpose of an EIS as defined by the courts --
3 I think the case is Grazing Fields Farm vs. Goldschmitt, cited
()
4 in the briefs -- is to publicize the environmental issues; to 5
promote the propagation of information on these issues, and 0
6l to sustain debate, to open up the decision to the public, and R
7 let the public have comments and knowledge on the issue.
A j
8 And if you look at this particular EIS, it doesn't e
9 really open up the debate on these alternatives.
It doesn't zog 10 give the public more information on these alternatives.
It 3
j 11 doesn't give the public the kind of participation that Congress a
I 12 wanted them to have.
5 13 MR. EILPERIN:
How many members of the public
( m 5 14 commented on the absence of. energy conservation as an w M 15 alternative to the repairs? Doesn't the public have that x y 16 opportunity by looking at the DES and seeing what it covers? A d 17 And it has an opportunity to see what thu deficiencies are? Ec g 18 MR. LUMER: The burden isn't supposed to be on the P 19 g public to comment. It's supposed to be on the agency to M 20 l encourage the public to comment; en promote debate and 21 questioning and criticism of the agency's action, before 22 anybody could have written it in, even before NEPA was 23l promulgated. 24 But that's not what NEPA and the CEO regs are 25 i about. They are to switch this whole process around. That's l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 23 I just what that whole mindset -- that's just what NEPA was () trying to defeat, about was the public interested. No. NEPA 3 is let's get the public interested, let's open it up to them, (~T 4 N_/ let's not keep it in this cloistered atmosphere, and that's e 5 g really the central issue of this appeal, is that that's 9 3 6 exactly what the EIS didn't do. e 7 DR. JOHNSON: Wait a minute. You keep saying the n 8 8 a EIS. d = 9 MR. LUMER: The Final FES. g cH 10 j DR. JOHNSON: There was a Draft Environmental = E 11 g Statement that was published. There was in fact even before d 12 3 that an Environmental Impact Assessment that was made available = rNd 13 Vj to the public, as I recall. Then there was a Praft Environ-E 14 y mental Statement made available to the public and to local e 9 15 G government agencies as well. = 16 g Now how is the Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory 17 i Commission, not living up to its requirement that it put these cw 18 = things before the public? s" 19 j The Final Environmental Statement includes a number 20 of pages of responses to comments that were received from the 21 public who had seen the Draft Environmental Statement. []} I don't know what more you can say that a particular 23 issue in the Draft Environmental Statement was inadequate, (]) but certainly the public was given an opportunity. I don't know 25 what more you think -- I would like to hear what more you think i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 24 1 the Commission should do, other than publish a Draft (]) 2 Environmental Statement, first, and then having received the 3 responses from the public, issue a Final Statement. (]) 4 MR. LUliER: I don't think that the Commissiod) the e 5 Staff, should be able to rely on the public's comments in E j 6, fulfilling its obligation to explore to the fullest extent R 7 possible all reasonable alternatives.
- j 8
The burden is not on the public to put these in d d 9 3, the record and dhen for the Staff to publish it. The burden 10 is on the Commission Staff to make a Zull investigation of all 3 h 11 reasonable issues. These issues were brought to their attention I 12 at the beginning of the intervention when the contentions were 5a 13 first raised. They had full knowledge. They made absolutely (v~g s = m 5 14 no independent evaluation and analysis of these alternative { 15 energy issues and these productive conservation issues. = y 16 We had to provide the affidavits. The Commission l ( 17 l Staff should have gone out and they should have made their E y 18 own independent investigation. The case law says they are not P" I9 g to rely on what the Licensee-utility does, they are not to n 20 rely on what the Intervenor does. Thoy are supposed to do it 21 themselves, and encourage others to do it. And the Commission 22 abdicated their responsibility to do this. O 23 ! DR. JOHNSON: Wait a minute. Would you like to 24 reflect on what you just said? You say it's not to rely on v 25j the Intervenor. The intervenor community encompasses the a ii i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 25 1 entire public, I would imagine, any individual can intervene. (]) 2 MR. LUMER: On the particular person who was granted 3 permission to intervene. () 4 DR. JOHNSON: Carry on with your argument. 5 MR. LUMER: My position you think is extreme. That e Ee 6 is what we are trying to get, is a commitment from the R { 7 Commission to do this kind of investigation. Ml 8 MR,. EILPERIN: Well, the Commission is supposed to d [ 9 look at alternatives, I gather, or any federal agency under zog 10 NEPA is supposed to look at alternatived in order to avoid 3 h 11 environmental impacts. Isn't that the name of the game? 3 y 12 That's the reason you look at alternatives, is to see if you 5 13 can in some fashion mitigate or avoid environmental impacts. m 5 14 Do you agree with that? 4 y 15
- 12. LUMER:
To come up with the best alternative. m j 16 Also, the cases say to weigh the merits and demerits of the ~ A d 17 proposed action, and the merits and demerits of all alternatives 5 { 18 including no action at all, to present to an informed decision-p 19 g maker all the facts to decide which decision is tr.e correct n 20 decision. 2l MR. EILPERIN: It's still my understanding that 22 you're looking at the alternatives for what you are concerned Os 23 l about is the proposed action has some environmental impacts 24 that you might want to either mitigate, if you can, or avoid 25 i if there's something better. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 1 MR. LUMER: That's to be decided by the decision-() 2 maker, not the Staff. I think the standards for the Staff -- 3 MR. EILPERIN: So far you have pointed out at the () 4 beginning of your argument, as far as I can tell, three e 5 environmental impacts: E j 6 One, worker exposure. And as to worker exposure, R { 7 there was no contrary affidavit put in by the Interrenors ~ j 8 in the case, d q 9 Second environmental impact that you mentioned was ze 10 ~ storing the steam generator lower assembly onfsite, and the ~ ! Z 11 impacts from that, and as I understand the record in that case, a N 12 there was an unopposed motion for summary disposition dealing = (v~)h 13 with the contentions -- dealing with that contention. What = m 5 14 would be the impact from storing the steam generator lower E 15 assembly on the site? = y 16 MR. LUMER: I think we are permitted to choose A g 17 which contention we want to go under. Just because we didn't 5 5 18 go under that one, we still have the alternative. P" 19 g MR. EILPERIN: I am just trying to get some n 20 understanding of what you are arguing is the environmental 21 impact, and what you are adducing before the Licensing Board 22 to show that there is some environmental impact. 23 As far as I could see, there was nothing offered 24 on worker exposure or on storing steam generator lower 25 assemblies, and the crux of your case, then, was devoted to the i i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 27 1 impact of hurricanes or tornadoes, a. storm scattering low (]) 2 level waste on site. 3 As to that, there was no quantification or further (]) 4 analysis about what that impact might be. g 5 MR. LUMER: I think it's fairly reasonable ? 3 6 that if the zepairs weren't done, then there would be no need R E 7 to store the lower assemblies on site. I mean that's an N j 8 obvious reduction in exposure. d d 9 MR. EILPERIN: But there's no contest about a i C g 10 factual issue of storing the steam generator lower assemblies 3 h 11 on site would have no environmental impact. 3 y 12 MR. LUMER: Well, I think it's in the record from 3 (%s ="}g 13 even the Staff and in the FES that there is some radiation m 5 14 exposure from storing the steam generator lower assemblies on { 15 site. I think it begs the question, almost, as to whether or x g' 16 not there is an environmental impact on that. There's going A d 17 to be. I mean, everybody admits that there is going to be N u 3 18 some kind of environmental impact from having a low level n 19 g storage facili'y on site. It might be small, it might be n 20 great, but there is some. I don't think anybody says there is 21 none. 22 DR. JOHNSON: Don't I remember from UEFA the 23 l word "significant" somewhere? i 24 MR. LUMER: Yes, definitely. 25l DR. JOENSON: Does anyone say that there is a i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i
28 1 significant environmental impact from putting the steam (]) 2 generators -- storing them on site? there anyone that 3 points to a significant environmental impact from storing the () 4 steam generators on the site? e 5 MR. LUMER: I think that the statute says that if N 6 there is a significant environmental impact, then they are to R 7 prepare Environmental Impact Statements. I think implicit in s] 8 the decision of the Staff to prepare -- firs t they prepared J 0; 9 an analysis, which implies that there is no significant impact. zo b 10 Once they prepare a statement, it is implicit in E h 11 that decision by the Staff that they have decided there is a 3 12 significant environmental impact. 5 (~s} y 13 MR. EILPERIN: Well, now, wait a moment. The Ftaff = ~ m 5 14 says that is not implicit in their decision, they are g 15 following guidance from the Commission in the Surrey case, x f 16 and in that case the Commission specifically said that they w 5' 17 could not determine whether or not worker exposure was EC 3 18 significant, and that was the only impact the Commission s 19 g pointed out. M 20 CHAIRMAN ROSEUTHAL: What is there in this record 21 that specifically establishes or raises a cuestion with 22 regard to the significance of the environmental impact 23 : attendant upon the steam generator repair? 24 What is there in the record that establishes that 25l this is a significant impact? 4 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
29 1 MR. LUMER: I think the exposure to the environment () 2 of the low level waste to the land and sea and water. 3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: What does the record show with () 4 respect to what that impact is/ in terms of the significance? e S MR. LUMER: I think the Battelle study has -- and A9 6 I think that's got to be considered part of the record -- R 7 because everyone understood it when this was argued to the Rl 8 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, and because it was included dd 9 in the FES, and I think when all the members of the Atomic io 10 Safety & Licensing Board at the time had all referred to it E h 11 at the public hearings and when they talked about the case, M I 12 all were cognizant of it. I mean they weren't closing their 5gj 13 ("i n mind to it, it was part of their mindset when they made the w h 14 decision. $j 15 MR. EILPERIN: Is there any obligation on counsel's = y 16 part to point out what it considers are material issues of fact w d 17 in a case? Are we supposed to take a look at all the E { 18 references in the FES, in spite of the fact that counsel P { 19 doesn't allude to them by saying those are material facts 5 20 in the case? l 21 MR. LUMER: Let me just pull my motion for response 22 to the motion for summary disposition. I just want to refer () l 23, to my file for a second. 24 (Pause.) 25 ; Well, in addition to the ones that I tried to i I h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l L
30 1 1 list before, I just found two additional ones, and that is the i () 2 overall expense of the fuels and the cost of the repairs, it's 3 been alleged, is lower if the alternative energy sources are () 4 followed. e 5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: You are not, I think, familiar 3936 with our Midland decision which Dr. Johnson referred to. R 7 We held there that we are not concerned per se with economic 8 costs, that NEPA is a statute designed to protect the environ-d o; 9 ment, not to protect ratepayers. zo 10 MR. LUMER: Okay. Then one additional one would be 11 the reduced use of fuel, the saving of fuel is -- when you use B I 12 less fuel, that's less fuel taken out, I would assume, of the 5 13 environment. out of the ground, would be one additional one. (]) m 5 14 I just reviewed the motion real quickly that's listed in the g 15 motion. z g 16 I think the main one is the exposure to the Dade M N I7 County envir?nment of the stored waste on site, both in the $u 3 18 steam generators and barrels and boxes and the low level waste P I9 exposure, the number ot uries, and the total volume that M 20 that implies. 2I MR. EILPERIN: Well, your statement -- this is you. 22 eg filing on May 19th, and it says whether the Final (_/ l 23 ' Environmental Statement adequately addresses the alternatives, 24 derating, conservation, solar power and the other issue of 25 fact, is whether the repairs will result in radioactive releases t ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 4
31 1 to unrestricted areas as a result of the storage of radioactive (]) 2 waste. That's what I see. 3 MR. LUMER: One other issue that we felt that it (v~) 4 did materially alter the site, because this has to be viewed e 5 in conjunction with everything else that was ccming and M9 3 6 happening in Dade County. There's a new public law, the Low R 7 Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, which gave to the states a j 8 theauthority to control low level waste, and at the same time d d 9 the state of Florida was negotiating to enter into a compact io 10 with six other southern states to determine how low level waste El 11 was to be disposed of in Florida. M g 12 Barnwell was running out of space, and we tried -- = q: 13 your Honor, I'm sorry -- this attempt to create a temporary Vmm g 14 storage facility -- I think we raised this in the brief -- was $j 15 just part of a vtole ongoing process to decide where the next = y 16 permanent waste storage facility was to be, and it appears that A d 17 if you have a temporary facility in Dade County, that the next 18 obvious alternative is that if Barnwell can't keep this stuff, P 19 that the permanent facility is going to be placed in Dade A 20 County. 21 In October we had public hearings in Dade County 22 where they vere trying to promote this seven-state compact, and ! () 23 the Licensee made a public statement saying that it approved 24 l the seven-state compact, and the whole implication of the () 25 seven-state compact is that, yes, Florida is -- you can see it a J ,Y i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
32 I coming down the line, that Florida is going to be the next (]) 2 Barnwell, Dade County is going to be the next permanent storage 3 facility. (]) 4 When you try to view this proceeding in conjunction 5 g with everything else that's happening, our position was once h 6 you start to create a temporary facility for these barrels R 7 and these lower assemblies, that the permanent facility for s j 8 tae barrels and lower assemblies and everybody else's d o; 9 assemblies in the other seven southern states, becomes Dade zog 10 County, and this is just one step. E h 11 We said that this did materially alter the a g-12 environmental impact on that site right there. 5a 13 ng MR. EILPERIN: Are you saying that somehow the ss = m 5 14 Commission's options now are -more restrictive in determining { 15 where to include the low level waste disposal site as a = j 16 result of this action? A N 17 MR. LUMER: I'm saying it at least materially is Nw l 3 18 going to alter that site, because the Commission just can't l P 19 g look at it with blinders. It's got to look at all the facts n 20 that exist in our society, and it's going to materially alter 2I that site to allow a temporary site for storage, because it's 22 just going to lead to a perranent site. O 23l That's one of the arguments that was made. One 24 other thing I thought of as to why we thought it altered the o v 25 environment of Turkey Point and Dade County. b i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. f
33 1 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr. Lumer, you have taken ({} 2 approximately 40 minutes of your time. Now, I didn't know how 3 much time you wished to allow for Mr. Oncavage, or reserve for (]) 4 rebuttal, one or the other. g 5 MR. LUMER: Okay, I'll give the rest of my time to 0 j 6 Mr. Oncavage. I know I have gone over my time. R 7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Do you wish to reserve some s j 8 time for rebuttal? d d 9 MR. LUMER: Well, if Mr. Oncavage can finish before Y 10 4:00 o' clock, we'll reserve that few minutes. But if not, E j 11 then we'll obviously have to waive rebuttal. 3 j 12 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr Oncavage. E )g 13 MR. ONCAVAGE: My name is Mark Oncavage. I am the E 14 Intervenor in this case, and I am from Miami, Florida. 2 15 The Atomic Safety & Licensing Board has approved 5 y 16 the repairs for Turkey Point. In so doing, the people of A b' 17 i Florida will suffer for this inadequate performance by the i w= M 18 Board. 5[ 19 ; We now learn that the Turkey Point reactors are M 20 also suffering from severe embrittlement. This is a problem 21 where the copper welds in the reactor core, in the reactor 22 pressure vessel, become brittle due to neutron deterioration, 23 i and the thermal shock of the ECCS water can cause a vessel 24 rupture. 25, This concern is not new to the MRC. This concern i. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 4 34 I has been present since 1962. () 2 In 1978, the Rancho Seco accident reinforced the 3 concern, and now Turkey Point 3 with its reference temperature (]) 4 of 290 degrees is a candidate for permanent shutdown. g 5 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Atomic 0 6 Safety & Licensing Board had a duty to study this type of R 7 deterioration in the Final Environmental Statement for the n j 8 repairs, but their performance was totally inadequate. d q 9 On February 26, I commented to the Draft Environ-g 10 mental Impact Statement that the DEIS, and I'm reading: E h 11 "The DEIS fails to address the other serious a i 12 impairments that the Turkey Point Plant will face 5 13 (]) in its remaining operating life. These impairments h 14 must be calculated as negative costs in the cost-y 15 benefit analysis. Problems such as crack contain- = j 16 ment welds, cracked feedwater piping, cracked s d 17 l borated water piping, cracked primary coolant l h 18 piping, cracked supports, pump failures, cracked P" 19 g re. actor head and vessel, or the buildup of excess n 20 radioactive crud such as Dresden can totally negate 21 any benefit that repaired steam generators may 22 I offer." 23 : The DEIS is deficient for not considering all the 24 likely disabling impairments that can shorten the life of the 25 l Turkev Point reactors. That was the extent of mv comment in 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 1 the DES comment period. (]) 2 The Final Environmental Statement, out in March of 3 1981, did not even contain my comments. They were not published C 4 in there. 5 g There was an oblique reference to my comment found 4 6 on page 8-22. It says: R 7 "When balancing all these factors, the Staff A j 8 concluded that the cost-benefit was definitely d q 9 weighed in favor of the repair. It is assumed zoy 10 that the life of the repair is the remainder of 3 h 11 the plant life or about 30 years." B y 12 This underlying assumption is now bankrupt. As =3 13 Og the entire foundation of the FES is bankrupt. The reactor = m 5 14 vessel is deteriorating and no amount of steam generator repair s g 15 will resuscitate the reactor vessel. = g' 16 The FES's economic tabulations do not really stand a d 17, up under scrutiny. The costs of the repair would be $567 { 18 million, from whic." we will recoup 1330 megawatts of capacity. A N 19 g This works out to $426 of capital per kilowatt. But Turkey n 20 Point only operates at 72 percent MVC capacity. So the cost 21 is now $592 per kilowatt. 22 The Florida Power & Light conservation plan, 23 submitted to the Florida Public Service Commission, estimates 24 l a saving of 1874 megawatts, at a cost of $380 per kilowatt, (~) J 25 a savings to the public. if you do not repair, of $202 million. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i.
36 1 The people of Florida will suffer great pains (]) 2 because the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board did not do its job 3 in 'his case. What has to be done is an Environmental Impact () 4 Sta.ement that clearly demonstrates that embrittlement e 5 deterioration can be reversed. It must calculate the radio-An 6I logical consequences, the economic burden, the shortened life-R 7 span for the derating of the plant, the impact on the environ-3 8 8 ment, and the human mortality, and add these costs to all the d c; 9 steam generator repair costs. 2o 10 Right now, the Final Environmental Statement is 11 foundationless. The Board ruling is bizarre. The people of 3 Y I2 Florida are being punished with unjustified, outrageous =3 13 high costs, unjustified contamination of their air, soil and (^g 5 \\_i nm 5 14 water and food, the unjustified killing of workers from $[ 15 occupational radiation, and the establishment of a nuclear dump = g' 16 on senstive estuarine land. A d 17 Is there any wonder why the people of Florida h 18 consider the NRC and the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board to P" I9 g be the handmaident of the utility? n 20 Cititans have never been given a public hearing 21 on this tragic situation. The citizens have never been given 22 a hearing on the Final Environmental Statement. The document O 23l was ramrodded through. The safety hearing summarily cancelled. 24 The public was damned and the utility was satisfied. ,,bg 25 Mr. Chairnan, there is no reliable technological fix I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 37 1 to dhe embrittlement problem. The repairs must be stopped. (]) 2 The public must be protected from any further harm in this 3 tragic situation. () 4 Now, talking about the problems with the discrepancy n 5 between the Gould affidavit and the Final Environmental E 6 Statement's information, I as an Intervenor am troubled by R 7 the-ihformation in the Gould affidavit as it conflicts with %j 8 the FES, but our aoility to obtain information was cut off d o; 9 when the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board vacated our notice zo g 10 of taking depositions on June 8th, 1981, even though the Board i j 11 directed us to provide detailed information of low level solid M "j 12 waste at Turkey Point. Ea 13 (s"/ =)5 We want to know more about the dynamics of the m 5 14 Licensee's shifting waste estimates from 27,400 cubic feet $j 15 in the Environmental Impact Appraisal, June 1979, to 38,800 m y 16 feet in the FES, March of 1981, down again to 22,335 feet in w d 17 l June of 1981. 18 The lesson from the first Surry repair is that C 19 g the VEPCO estimate of 26,236 cubic feet actually turned out to n 20 be 57,790 cubic feet; only 220 percent higher. 21 MR. EILPERIN: Where is that information? i 22 MR. ONCAVAGE: That's in the Report No. 6, Progress 23, Report No. 6 by VEPCO on Surry No. 1. 24 Those figures are without the inclusion of the steam () i 25, generators. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
38 1 We fail to understand how the estimates of solid () 2 waste decrease when the sources of solid waste increase. 3 MR. EILPERIN: Is that for one unit or two units? O q,/ 4 MR. ONCAVAGE: One unit. g 5 Since the EIA in June of 1979, the Licensee in their S j 6 affidavits has sworn to use galvanized steel work envelopes R 7 instead of plastic sheeting, angle iron scaffolding instead of s 8 8 wood, and the addition of a grid blast decontamination of each d q 9 of the six channel heads to be repaired; where before there zo 10 was no decontamination. E 11 As the critical factors concerned with the repair 3 y 12 increase, the solid waste somehow manages to decrease. Manpower 5 i (]) estimates have jumped from a few hundred to a thousand. Costs 13 m 5 14 have escalated 244 percent. Repair time has jumped 130 percent. { 15 MR. EILPERIN: Where does this information come from? x .] 16 MR. ONCAVAGE: This information is in the FES. M N 17 j DR. JOHNSON: On what page? E h I8 MR. ONCAVAGE: Excuse me. Part of theinformation is P "g 19 in the FES. Other parts were in the steam generator repair n 20 report, and the Environmental Impact Appraisal back in 1979. 21 These are comparisons between the two. This is what has happened 22 in the intervening time. ) 23 MR. EILPERIN: This is from the first environmental i 24 ('J) appraisal to the final FES? N t 25 : MR. ONCAVAGE: Yes. l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I i 39 1 With all these increases, the solid waste estimates (]} 2 have been downscaled 56 percent. These figures demonstrate 3 tha' the Licensee's estimates in these critical areas are () 4 highly suspect. g 5 As the Gould affidavit points out on page 2, only 0 6 66 percent of the container is filled with dirt due to weight R 7 limitations. These same limitations will most likely apply sj 8 to the repair wastes. When you have high density waste such as 0 o; 9 concrete, riprap, slurry, sand, dirt and lagging, the shipping zo 10 volume may be much higher than the actual waste volume. z= 11 Also, wastes such as piping, tools, angle irons, 3 ( 12 reinforcement rods, and the other high density wastes are not 5 05 compactable and require that much of an LSA container space 13 = m 14 be wasted. 5 { 15 It is also doubtful that much of the repair wastes = g 16 will be compactable. Tne Intervenor would appreciate the w l Q-17 l Appeal Board reopening discovery cn these important issues. x= { 18 What percentage of the repair wastes are compactable? F 19 And of those compactable wastes, what percentage of compaction M 20 can be achieved? 2I Another problem area not mentioned by the 22 Licensee is the use of solidifcation agents for resins, 23 evaporator sludge filters, and dewatered drip glass slurry. 24 r,.he use of solidifcation agents will exacerbate the waste C:) 25 ;: di.sposal problems the Licensee is encountering. h 1 i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
40 1 MR. EILPERIN: Could you tell me what discovery (~) 2 efforts you undertook back in January 1981, when you agreed v 3 upon a schedule that called for discovery some time in -- (]) 4 MR. ONCAVAGE: Excuse me. What was the question? s 5 MR. EILPERIN: I wanted tc know -- at one point 6 in the proceeding, I believe-it was in January 1981, the R 7 parties negotiated, if I recall, a schedule dealing with n j 8 pretrial proceedings. One aspect of which governed the d c; 9 discovery proceeding. And set a date for theconclusion of z Og 10 discovery, and for the conclusion of discovery requests. 11 My question is, what discovery did you undertake 3 j 12 during the time period that you had negotiated and agreed to Ef ivi the discovery section? O = 13 z 5 14 MR. ONCAVAGE: The crucial item that occurred was { 15 an on-site visit by myself and by Douglas King and by George z d 16 Swenson and by Dr. Barry Levin. s 6 17 MR. EILPERIN: You couldn't ask questions without Ew 3 18 going on the site about the amount of low level waste that P 19 would be generated? l 20 MR. ONCAVAGE: I'm getting to that. I i 21 This led to our recognition of the low _ level waste 22 problem. Two more thiggs entered into this, pertaining to g-)s 23! your discovery question. 24 MR. EILPERIN: Let me interrupt you one second. 25 But if I recall your comments on the DES dealt in ?> l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 1 l
41 1 part with the low level waste and the problems arising from (]) 2 low level waste, so that you were aware of the low level waste 3 problem before you undertook this site visit some time in (]) 4 April. g 5 MR. ONCAVAGE: We are not aware of the extent of n 3 6 the low level waste problem, and the site visit turned the R 7 corner on this. Ml 8 The other important thing that occurred is that d d 9 the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board invited the Intervenor to io g 10 restructure Contention 4 and add Contention 4.B at a late date. 3 j 11 The other thing pertaining to discovery is that 's y 12 the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board directed the Intervenor, as 5 13 ) with all the other parties, that detailed information should be l 14 given to the Atomic Safety & Ltcensing Board concerning low 2 15 level waste. E y 16 At this time the horse was out of the barn, and s 6 17 discovery was over. 5 18 MR. EILPERIN: That's because the Board didn't think 6 { 19 it came within the scope of the contention. M 20 MR. ONCAVAGE: I don't know what the Board was 21 thinking. f 22 MR. EILPERIN: I don't think I' follow you when you () r ( 23 say your visit to the site and seeing low level waste there 24l sort of triggered things for you. The low level waste on site 25 at that point had nothing to do with the steam generator repairs, i l i l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. t
42 1 did it? () 2 MR. ONCAVAGE: Except that since that waste wasn't 3 going an:/where, the steam generator waste would be piling on (') 4 top of that. Had there been an orderly manner of relieving g 5 the Turkey Point site of their wastes, I'm sure Contention 4.B 0 j 6 never would have been written. R R 7 DR. JOENSON: I don't recall Contention 4." s 8 8 mentionirg low level waste. Do you have a statement there? d d I MR. ONCAVAGE: Excuse me. i O 10 DR. JOHNSON: I found a statement of it, if you would E 11 like me to refresh your memory. M I 12 MR. ONCAVAGE: I'll read it. Contention 4.B states: 5 (])f13 "There are likely to occur radioactive releases x 5 14 from the steam generator repair to unrestricted areas s 5 g 15 which violate 10 CFR Part 20, or are not as low as = f 16 reasonably achievable within the meaning of 10 CFR v. N 17 Part 50, as a result of a hurricane or tornado { 18 striking the site during repairs." P" 19 g It's more general than saying low level waste is n 20 all that we're talking about. 2I DR. JOHNSON: Well, I would be hard put to infer 22 (x a problem associated with low level waste from reading that 'd 23 particular contention. It sounds to me like it's talking 24 about radioactive releases during the repair. I mean if you 25 look at the significant words in there, the plain meaning of i i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
43 1 that particular contention. ({) 2 MR. ONCAVAGE: It doesn't exclude it, either. 3 DR. JOHNSON: Well, it doesn't exclude lots of ([) 4 things, but it certainly does not pertain to low level waste. g 5 I mean it doesn't exclude -- well, okay. O j 6 MR. ONCAVAGE: Our problem is that we are concerned R 7 with the radioactive releases of any source coming from the s j 8 plant due to a hurricane or tornado, and we find that the low d o; 9 level wastes lying around the site fit in that category rather zog 10 nicely. E 11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr. Oncavage, you have four M y 12 minutes. I don't know whether you want to save those four = 13 (-)) minutes for your counsel's rebuttal, or not. Q, = x s 14 MR. ONCAVAGE: I'd like to finish my statement. $j 15 Thank you. = j 16 Admittedly, the wasted space, the unused space w d 17 in the solidification agents don't add radioactivity to the E 18 containers, but they do slow down the process of disposing of P 19 g radioactive wastes. More wastes will be poorly stored on site 5 20 for longer periods of time because the Licensee did not take 21 into account these factors, but the real problem is the Turkey 22 Point site itself. 23 It is part of a fresh water system that permeates i 24 em South Florida. Our fresh water system starts about 200 miles
- ()
j 25l north of Miami in the Kissimmee River Basin. It flows on and i l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. t [
l l 44 1 just under the land surface into Lake Okeechobee. From there Q 2 it fans out into South Florida. 3 In the immediate vicinity of Miami and Turkey Point, () 4 the water enters the Biscayne Aquifer, which has been recently g 5 designated by the EPA as the sole source of Miami's drinking 0{ 6 water. R R 7 DR. JOHNSON: I assume you are citing from some A j 8 affidavit or other document in the record? d 9 MR. ONCAVAGE: About what? $g 10 DR. JOHNSON: What you are talking about right now. E h 11 MR. ONCAVAGE: I'm giving you a general characteriza-3 g 12 tion of the hydrological problems at Turkey Point. = (m)y 13 DR. JOHNSON: But is it in the' record before us at x_/ = l 14 any point, in any other form than just your statement? E 2 15 MR. ONCAVAGE: It's in part in my comments to the 5 y 16 Environmental Impact Statement. Is that sufficient? W g 17 DR. JOHNSON: Well, I suppose. Go ahead. E 18 MR. ONCAVAGE: Right on Turkey Point site, the fresh =H[ 19 water mixes with the salt water and forms a very fragile n 20 estuarine area, the habitat of several endangered species. 21 This area has been upgraded from a national monument to a 22 national park status because of its fragility, and now we have a 23 ; nuclear waste dump in the estuarine area. 24 Adjacent to Turkey Point in Biscayne Bay is a v3 f-25 j Florida lobster breeding sanctuary. The actions of the h I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i t
45 i Licensee, the NRC and the ASLB have been crude and have been () 2 in total disregard for the population in Miami and the fragile 3 surrounding environment. (]) 4 I ask you, the members of the Appeal Board, to n 5 justify the siting of a waste dump in an estuarine area. The 9 6 food chain in that estuary leads directly back to human R R 7 consumption. M[ 8 The Final Environmental Statement is deficient. d 9 The Nuclear Regulatory Cor.tmission and decisions of the zo 10 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board are equally. deficient for 3 j 11 allowing the establishment of the nuclear dump in one of the 3 l 12 worst possible locations in the country. 5 13 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Your time has expired. (]) 14 MR. ONCAVAGE: Thank you very much, sir. 2 15 CEAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: We will take a 10-minute j 16 recess, and then we will hear from the Applicant, and I request A d 17 that everyone he back in 10 minutes. x 5 s 18 (Recess.) ~ [ 19 i 5 n 20 21 () 23 ; l I t 24 i () 25 l l } i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
46 I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr. Reis. O 2 ORAL iRouMEsT og MR. REIS, on BEaste or 3 THE APPLICANT. O (_/ 4 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, g 5 the fact that I did not object to Mr. Oncavage's addressing 0 3 6 the Board does not mean that I do not find what he said to R 7 be highly objectionable. M j 8 Most of it was testimony. I cannot answer it here. d q 9 I am bound by a record. My failure to answer it does not zo 10 mean that I can subscribe to, admit to, or assume the Board _E 11 can admit to some of the extreme things that Mr. Oncavage said: 3 12 the references to waste dumps, to the killing of workers E (])f 13 where he particularly himself agreed to summary disposition of = 5 14 a contention on occupational exposure. { 15 MR. EILPERIN: I'm sure we'll treat you like = y 16 Thomas Moore and not treat your silence as an admission. A 6 17 l MR. P_EIS: Thank you. N I } 18 I'd first like to try to respond to the Appeal P" 19 g Board's memorandum of October 19, in which it points to an n 20 apparent discrepancy between the FES and the June 12, 1981 2I affidavit of Allen Gould concerning the amount of low level i 22 radioactive waste to be generated by the Turkey Point steam ) 23l generator repairs. 24 "g The memorandum refers to an FPL estimate contained (V 25 in the FES of 1100 cubic meters, or approximately 38,000 cubic O il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
47 1 feet, purportedly not including the steam generator assemblies. (]) 2 But it points out that if the steam generator lower assemblies 3 are excluded from the addition contained in Table 1 of the (]) 4 Gould affidavit, you get a figure of 22,335 cubic feet. g 5 I do not think there is a discrepancy. The FES E 6 estimate, despite the caption reference, clearly intended to R 7 include the steam generator lower assemblies. This is demon-3 j 8 strated by the fact that the section of the FES referred to, d d 9 4.1.2.2, bases the 1100 cubic meter figure upon Reference 22, ic 10 a letter to the NRC Staff fron FPL, dated November 4, 1980. E h 11 MR. EILPERIN: This the public is supposed to figure B j 12 out, is what you're telling us, then? E 13 MR. REIS: If you're suggesting, Mr. Eilperin, ) m 5 14 that we should have put the assumptions into the Gould { 15 affidavit more clearly, I agree with you. x g 16 MR. EILPERIN: Or to the FES. M b^ 17 MR. REIS: Well, perhaps so. I think that really 5 { 18 all that happened in the FES is that they mixed up some E I { 19 caption references. I think the subject matter is fairly 5 20 clear. But you are asking me to see if I can square the 21 discrepancy. I think I can. I think the question you asked l gS 22 is not the question asked in the memorandum. [ L) 23 : Reference 22 expressly states that the total volume 24 l of solid wastes which are to be disposed of, including the I~) l v 25 steam generator lower assemblies, is approximately 39,200 cubic i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. L
48 I feat per unit. ({} 2 Now after you subtract the volume of the six 3 lower assemblies, the principal remaining difference between f]) 4 the Gould estimate and that referred to in the FES results y 5 from Mr. Gould's taking into account the procurement and 0 6 subsequent to the Reference 22 figure, the putting into use R 7 of a new and more efficient compactor. Aj 8 Now, with respect to the underlying assumptions d [ 9 for Table 2 and 3 of the Gould affidavit, which is th eother z O g 10 matter addressed in the memorandum, I think the basic assump-3_ 11 tions are as follows, and I do think that it was our error a p 12 and not the Staff's, as the FES may have been, for not having = p ! 13 stated them more expressly: %.J n m 5 14 First, Tables 2 and 3 do not include the SGLAs, 15 the lower assemblies, y 16 Second, FPL has, and expects to continue to have, a A N 17 total allocation from Barnwell wh2ch it in turn prorates l l 5 h 18 among its nuclear units with operating licenses. They are l9 9 now two units at Turkey Point, and there is one in operation R l 20 l at St. Lucie. 21 For purposes of the Tables here, it was assumed 22 that a second unit is expected to go into operation there 23 l around January of 1983. That assumption is made simply for 24 l purposes of this table and I think it's a conservative fg (_/ 25 i assumption. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1 I
49 1 MR. EILPERIN: This is St. Lucie 2 you're talking (]) 2 about now? 3 MR. REIS: Yes, sir. Table 2 refers to all the () 4 low level wastes, other than the lower assemblies, expected to g 5 be generated at Turkey Point over a two-year period. The 9 h 6 period estimated for the repair of both units. R 7 Therefore, the table includes both the low-level A j 8 waste expected to be generated as a result of the repairs d o; 9 and the icw level waste expected to be generated as a result z C g 10 of operation during that two-year period. j 11 Another assumption is the monthly allocation expected 3 ( 12 from Barnwell during the 24-month period. It is assumed = 13 (]) again that FPL will prorate its Barnwell allocation among m 5 14 the units with operating licenses, and that until St. Lucie 2 5 { 15 comes on line, Turkey Point will receive two-thirds of the = 16 Barnwell allocation, and St. Lucie one-third. dA d 17 The tables also assume that the allocation will be { 18 divided evenly after St. Lucie 2 comes on line. P 1 19 l g Finally, the assumption underlying Table 3 is 5 t 20 that inly FPL's regrlar allocation at Barnwell will be avail-21 able during ti.o whcle or part of any 24-month period. CE) 22 ; In fact, the assumption has been proven to be 23 l overly conservative. We have obtained additional allocations 24l f rom Barnwell's first-come, first-served pool, and we have l () l 25 been permitted to ship low level waste to Hanford, a burial site i ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
50 1 in Richland, Washington. l () 2 Consequently, all of the wastes from the 13-12 3 drums referred to in the Gould affidavit have now been shipped () 4 offsite, and I might mention that all of that waste was, of e 5 course, the production of operation, not the product of the S 6 repairs. R 7 And finally, none of the low level waste generated A j 8 during the repairs has had to be retained on site. d d 9 MR. EILPERIN: What was that last comment? Of the -- i O g 10 MR. REIS: Low level waste. None of the low level j 11 weste on site has had to be -- we have been operating a plant 3 12 and generating other waste, too. Nothing has had to be 5 13 (]) retained on site, except what's shipped off regularly now. m 5 14 In other words, except for between pickups, there $j 15 is no low level waste lying around at this alleged dump. = j 16 MR. EILPERIN: This isn't in the record, this is M y 17 subsequent? l ? E 18 MR. REIS: Yes, it's subsequent. P r I9 g Now, I don't have a great deal more to add to what n 20 we argued in our briefs. I would like to add the following, l 21 though: l 22 Dr. Johnson asked a series of questions which () 23 make it important to emphasize that with respect to the 24 so-called solar derating alternative, the Intervenors were 25 ' not offering an environmentally preferable alternative as i f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
51 1 required by Midland, and North Anna. (]) 2 And, in fact, Intervenor's counsel recognized 3 the necessity for doing this initially, but simply never met (]) 4 it. In its May 12 response to the objections to the proposed g 5 amendments to Contention 1, the Intervenor expressly stated 0 6 at page 4 that he would, and I quote, " demonstrate that a R 7 genuine issue of fact e7ists respecting the environmental s 8 superiority of any one of the suggested alternatives." d c; 9 However, when he filed his answer opposing the zo g 10 motion for summary judgment, he merely suggested that the NRC 11 Staff should have considered investing the money saved from a j 12 not performing these repairs in various methods of reducing = \\_gh 13 r~ demand for electricity. He never addressed the environmental s= m 5 14 considerations pointed out by the Staff in the FES; that u y' = 15 the personrem cost of inspection would continue if the plant = y 16 operated in a derated mode. es 17 According to the FES, this would annually 5w 3 18 average from 335 to approximately 600 rem per year from '76 P h l9 to '79, and derating over a period of 10 to 20 years would 5 20 clearly create a problem of exceeding the estimated manrem 21 cost of the repairs. 22 And if you look at the initial brief of the gg v 23 Intervenor, he again reiterates all that he was suggesting i 24 ! was an alternative way of spending the money. ~g J l 25 j MR. EILPERIN: Could I also gather the Intervenor ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I
52 1 war suggesting that there would be much less low level waste (]} generated if Turkey Point were simply derateu with tubes plugged 2 3 and the energy conservation, solar alternative adopted? (]) 4 MR. REIS: You would have to read that into the e 5 response for summary disposition. I don't find it there. M9 j 6 MR. EILPERIN: I don't think it's very hard to read R 7 Intervenor's papers to argue that one impact from the repairs j 8 is the production of low level waste, and that that result d c; 9 would not be generated if the repairs were foregone. z Og 10 MR. REIS: Then he would also have to make ar. net.t 3 j 11 calculation as to the net override as between operation and 3 l 12 the generation from the low level waste. E f gj 13 MR. EILPERIN: He just has to suggest that there V=m 5 14 is some environmentally preferable alternative, and that's g 15 what he is suggesting by saying that if you look at the energy = y 16 conservation alternative and you adopt that to get rid of this W 17 low level waste problem -- 18 MR. REIS: You may perhaps read it into it. I don't P { 19 think he said so, and at this point there is no reason for the 5 20 Board to read it into it. It seems to me the situetion here 21 was rather similar to the situation in Zion some years back 22 when the Licensing -- where this Board said that it's not () 23j necessarily the job of the Licensing Board to craft a i 24l contingent or an objection or a position for a party, () j 25 particularly when that party is represented by counsel. 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I
53 1 MR. EILPERIN: No, but Intervenor's comments on (]) 2 the Draft Impact Statement clearly pointed to low level waste 3 as a problem. It clearly pointed that that was one of tb (]) 4 aspects of the repair that they thought had an adverse impact, 3 5 and they clearly pointed out that they thought that for that N 8 6 reason, as well as -- I agree with you, primarily it seemed to R 7 me that the argument was addressed to the economic preference K j 8 that energy conservation would have over the repair, but I d q 9 don't think that was to the total exclusion of saying that zoy 10 the repairs would have no environmental impact. j 11 MR. REIS :: It may well be that you could read that 3 j 12 from Mr. Oncavage's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 5 pgj 13 Statement. But the problem with doing that is Mr. Oncavage u)=z 14 included in his comments many, many things which he decided $j 15 he was not going to litigate. = j 16 He included in his comments not only solar, this A i 17 derating suggestion, but he included a suggestion that the E } 18 plant be 'osed down. P 19 g Now you can't derate and close down. M j 20 MR. EILPERIN: Okay. He may have abandoned some 21 things, but one it seems to me that has not been abandoned 22 is Mr. Oncavaga's claim that the Commission should have looked ) ~ r s i 23, at the solar and conservation alternative to the repairs 24 because, among other things, the repairs would have an impact 25 on low level waste. 1 I I il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
54 1 Assuming it's properly raised, why do you think () 2 it's unreasonable for the Commission to look at solar and 3 energy conservation in connection with this? () 4 MR. REIS: Well, I think Chairman Rosenthal has g 5 indicated why, because of Prairie Island, which determined 0 6 that there was a need for a -- I'm sorry, there was'a prior R { 7 determination in this proceeding, in the licensing proceeding, s] 8 that there was a need for the block of power which iy to be 4q 9 produced by the Turkey Point plants during the period of E 10 their licenses, or to the extent that it is predictable in a E 11 licensing proceeding. 3 ( 12 That matter was expressly dealt"Gith in the 5 (~}y 13 original FES. We point out where it was in our brief. Prairie s/= 5 I4 Island seems to me to indicate that this is not a natter that { 15 is reviewed again in an amendment proceeding. = y 16 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Does that depend, Mr. Reis, A d 17 upon whether the activity proposed under the sought amendment x= { 18 has itself environmental impacts of some significance? A" 19 g In other words, in Prairie Island, where we were n 20 dealing, as I recall, with steam -- excuse me, a spent fuel 21 pool expansion, we concluded that the spent fuel pool expansion 22 sought activity had no environmental impact of any significance. 23 Was it not in that context that we determined I 24 (-)s that the Commission did not need to replow the ground of the ( i 25 ; continued necessity for the plant? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. (
4 55 l Now, if the activity involved does have (]) 2 independent environmental impact -- in this instance, the 3 generator repair -- then does the Prairie Island conclusion ([) 4 still follow? 5 MR. REIS: Well, there is nothing in Prairie Island g 9 j 6 which says it does not. If I may say so, it seemed to me a R 7 rather carefully crafted opinion which suggests that nothing s! 8 in NEPA or in the judicial decisions to which our attention d c; 9 had been directed, dictates that the same ground be wholly z O 10 replowed in connection with the proposed amendment to those 3_ j 11 40 -year operating licenses. B g 12 I read that as not suggesting that each time a Ea 13 ('35 sgnificant amendment -- (>= j mg 14 MR. EILPERIN: Well, now, wait a second. { 15 Wouldn't it be plain that if there are no adverse environmental = g" 16 impacts of any significance from a course of action, you W N I7 l don't have to hunt out alternatives to that course of action? z= { 18 That seems to me sort of implicit in NEPA, and it's also in P h 19 the CEQ regulations, that if the action itself doesn't have 5 20 great significance, you don't have to churn your wheels 21 trying to figure out, well, what other course of action could 22 I adopt. r l 23 ' But it seems to me it follows from that, and it 24 also follows from the statutory scheme of UEPA that if the ' x )g 25l action itself his significant environmental impact, an agency t I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
56 1 is under more of an obligation to search out alternatives to g 2 that action. Isn't that general proposition true? 3 Mn. REIS: Yes, I think that general proposition is 4 not one I would quarrel with, 5 g On the other hand, I would say that even in such 3 6, circumstances the question is whether the amendment itself R 7 would bring about a significant environmental consequence Kl 8 beyond those previously assessed, and those previously assessed d C; 9 included a cost-benefit balancing of the energy to be produced. 10 The alternative to what you are suggesting is that j 11 you get a license for 35 years or 40 years, and that every time is g 12 you make a substantial -- environmentally substantial change --
- 3 13 and I assume that that can be fairly frequently, that one is l
14 going to reassess the need for power during the 35-year period. 15 Now, however you may justify that under NEPA, you 16 g create a situation which is intolerable under the Atomic Energy 21 6 17 Act. E { 18 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: No, I don't think it's that i P 19 at all, if I may say so, Mr. Reis. Because of some 20 unanticipated circumstance, it becomes necessary to undertake l 21 a major repair, let's say, which has of itself substantial l 22 environmental impact, I don't see why in that circumstance O 23 i in determining whether to authorize that major repair, to 24 f assume that large environmental impact, one does not have to O t 25l consider the alternatives to assuming this new unanticipated i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
57 1 impact. Q 2 One of the alternatives being that you derate 3 the plant or shut the plant down entirely, and that's a O 4 different question, it seems to me, than the one in Prairie i e 5 Island, where th, activity involved, the expansion of the 9 6 spent fuel pool, had no environmental impact particularly,- R 7 and the argument was, "But, well,~if you do this, you expand s y, 8 the pool, you are going to allow this plant to continue to e l C 9 operate which it would not otherwise be able to do, because it ,z O 10 would have no place to store its spent fuel, and therefore in j 11 giving the green light to the spent fuel pool, you have to 3 y 12 reassess the entire environmental impacts of operation." = 13 Now, those are two entirely different questions, l 14 it seems to me. $j 15 MR. REiS. Assuming that you so hold, there still x j 16 rem > ins the question whether even through you do assess the us d 17 impact, you are required by NEPA to reanalyze a cost factor 5 { 18 benefit which you have previously adjudicated for an extended 19, term. And I submit again that I think -- R 20 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, let me ask you this: 21l Is it your position that on this record, it can be i 22 fairly said that there is no genuine issue of material fact 23 ' on whether the steam generator repairs would be 24 l accompanied by sianificant environmental impact? i 25 MR. REIS: Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 1
58 1 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: The activity. The activity (]) 2 which is the subject of this license amendment, which is 3 repairing a steam generator. Is that correct? () 4 MR. REIS: Yes. g 5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Is there anything in this 8 3 6 reentd that would give rise, as you said, to a genuine issue G E 7 of materiel fact on whether that activity is going to be A] 8 accompanied by a significant environmental impact? d 4 } 9 MR. REIS: That's a question which I don't think is z C 10 susccptible of a clear yes or no. You will recall that in z i j 11 Surry, the sommission did not determine that -- it stated t { 12 the only possible significant impact it could see would be 5 15 (]) the manrem exposures, the occupational exposures, and in this ag 14 case the Staff decided to issue, to prepare an FES. 'Inhthe g 15 circumstances we never did litigate whether there was a = y 16 significant impact or not, so I really have difficulty with 1 A i d 17 that. h 18 But let me go on to -- l ( A" 19 g DR. JOHNSON: May I question here? There's something n 20 I'd like to get clear, perhaps, before you finish. 21 Did the Licensee prepare an Environmental Report 22 prior to the issuance of, in this case? 23 MR. REIS: No. We prepared a steam generator repair 24 report, which we submitted to the Commission. It was our 25 position, we never applied for an amendment. We advised the 1 l l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l t
59 4 1 Commission that -- of what we were doing through the device []} 2 of filing the steam generator repair report. 3 DR. JOHNSON: All right. Let me then ask you what ({} 4 the basis for the company's decision'to make this repair was. e 5 Was it purely an economic basis? 6 Do you recall? G H 7 MR. REIS: I have difficulty understanding the s] 8 question. There were a mix of considerations that went into d d 9 this, of course. Economics were part of it; reliability was b 10 part of it. The cost of the -- the manrem cost of inspections, 3 h 11 ahd with it the increased year'ly manrem cost of operation. B j 12 Does that answer your question? E d 13 DR. JOHNSON: Well, these are the reasons that are Ol 14 stated in the FES, which I presume reflected the Licensee's C 15 position on this. I just wondered if the Licensee considered 5 y 16 the safety of operation with a corroded steam generator in any w d 17 report that is in evidence in this record. Are you aware of 5 18 that in the repair report? ? ? 19 MR. REIS: Well, I'm not sure whether there's n 20 anything in evidence, but -- 21 DR. JOHNSON: Well, if there's nothing in evidence, 22 let's not get into it. 23 l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr. Reis, you have two minutes 24 left. O 25 l MR. REIS: Okay. l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
60 1 I'd like to poitn out cuickly that the issue Q 2 of conservation and derating, it is true, was in their 3 comments, but they dropped many things that were in their (] 4 comments. e 5 The Licensing Board decided this cuestion of 8 6 derating conservation on at least two grounds, and I think R 7 upon the ground that Dr. Johnson suggested, too. A j 3 One arm of the decision was that it was not d o; 9 properly raised, and if you look at the history of what went 10 on -- 11 MR. EILPERIN: You mean as part of their proposed is y 12 amendment to Contention 1, they put in two affidavits on the 5 ( g 13 issue? = m 5 14 MR. REIS: The transcript shows they expressly { 15 agreed that that Contention 10, which I believe you're talking y 16 about. A d 17 MR. EILPERIN: I'm not talking about Contention 10, E y 18 I'm talking about the 17 subparts to the new Contention 1. P 19 g MR. REIS: Not one of those used the word n 20 " conservation, solar, derating." 2I MR. EILPERIN: We h-1ve a dif ferent recollection. 22 MR. REIS: Well, the ones that they referred to O 23 are 10, 11 and 13, are the only ones which could conceivably 24 refer to it. They don't address the problem of conservation, O 25 f they don' t even use the word. No place in there. i j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r 61 i MR. EILPERIN: Well, they talk about the analysis () 2 of alternatives being inadequate under NEPA, and then they put 3 in two af fidavits dealing wi', energy conservation. (]) 4 MR. REIS: That's true, but when we criticized 5 g these as being not specific, they went back and said, e 6 "We really meant conservation all along," just as you said, R 7 and the Board said, "My god, I gave you a chance to tell me. M] 8 You agreed." They agreed to file soecific contentions d q 9 because Contention 1 was so unspecific, and assuming that this ~ i 10 o was the basic issue that they wanted to address, I can't for E 11 the life of me understand why they didn't say so, and the 's Y 12 answer is that they preferred to play the Vermont Yankee game, E {])f13 and that is of using generalities. m 5 14 Certainly, had they filed an affidavit or had $j 15 they expressly. indicated conservation was an issue, we would = 16 g have filed a supporting motion showirg whv it didn't work. w d 17 But they never did. 5 E 18 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Mr. Reis, your time has P 19 expired. 20 Mr. Goldberg. 21 22 () 23{ (2) 25, l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 62 1 ORAL ARGUMENT BY STEVEN GOLDBERG, ON BEHALF ,,() 2 OF THE STAFF. 3 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Chairman, members of the (m) 4l Appeal Board: ( g 5 Before I proceed with my direct remarks, let me A 6 clarify that the figure of 1100 cubic meters in Section 4.1.2.2 R 7 of the FES doe.9 include the steam generator low assembl.1es, s j 8 which of each consists of 90 cubic meters; without the three d c; 9 generators per unit that figure would be 830 cubic meters. 2 O b 10 The mistake is the Staff's and it is one in transcription. E h 11 The reference is in tM Noveiaber 1980 letter from M N 12 the Applicant to the Staff which does include the waste from 5 (~)g 13 the lower assemblies. s~ = m 5 14 The present appeal arose from a Licensing Board $j 15 decision granting the final Staff motion for summary disposition = j 16 of Contentions 1 and 4.B. The balance of the contentions had w 17 been dismissed on prior unopposed summary disposition motions. e i 3 18 This is not th first proceeding to be terminated A 19 g in its entirety on summary disposition. Moreover, the n i 20 I Commission has recently emphasized the importance of summary 21 disposition as a vehicle for the elimination of unnecessary 22 ; litigation. (~s) \\/ i 23 ' CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: You dr,'t need to go into that 24 73 at any length. We have emphasized that ourselves. The \\-) 25 question here is whether summary disposition was appropriate ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
63 1 in this record. (]) 2 MR. GOLDBERG: For the rea,ons given in our 3 appeal brief, we believe the summary decision of Contentions (]) 4 1 and 4.D was mandated by Section 2.749 and the operative law e 5 and facts. E9 3 6 I will give a brief discussion of the merits of R 7 the summary disposition on both Contentions 1 and 4.B. N j 8 MR. EILPERIN: Let me ask you a question: d q 9 How is the Bc:rd supposed to decide what is or is zo 10 not reasonable to look at with MEFA? Mr. Reis says it is j 11 wholly unreasonable for the Commission to look at any of the 3 g 12 conservation and solar alternatives in connection with this E /~Sy 13 steam generator repair. I Vm zg 14 On the other hand, Mr. Oncavage says, well, it's { 15 plain it's absolutely reasonable for the Commission to look at x j 16[ this, and the Supreme Court, since Vermont Yankee, says W d 17 energy conservation was a real alternative whose time had come { 18 and certainly something at that point the Commission should !e P 19 g duty-bound to start looking at. M 20 How is this Board supposed to judge what is and is 21 not reasonable alternative? 22 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, in the first instance, this 23 Board has had occasion to consider the scope of a license 14 f amendment proceeding, from the standpoint of the environmental C) i 2E' f review required, and that is in the Prairie Island iecision i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
b l 64 1 and those that followed. (]) 2 The Commission is under an obligation to consider 3 reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The proposed ({) 4 action here is to repair the steam generator assemblies which 5 have been operating in a degraded condition. The repairs are e 29 6 not necessary, unlike the spent fuel pool expansion cases, R 7 for the continued operation of the facility, although -- Aj 8 MR. EILPERIN: It may be necessary that they will a 9 be necessary for the continued operation of the facility at a zog 10 power level the Licensee wants to operate at. 11 MR. GOLDBERG: Correct. It is anticipated that at a p 12 some point in time the continued degradation of the steam E 13 ) generator tubes will necessitate derating. The Staff has eg 14 considered alternatives to the proposed repair that include $j 15 not taking any action at all, and we considered that in order x y 16 that the replacement power necessary for the amount of w 17 energy lost as a result of derating would be excessive. = { 18 Now, energy conservation is not an alternative to P h 19 operation. It is an aAcernative not -- let me make it clear. M 20 It is not an alternative to the repair. It is an alternative 21 to operation. l 22 MR. EILPERIN: It's a material issue of f act, then. ! () 23 i The Staff says that there is a need for power and the Intervenors 24l say that there isn't that need for power, because you can have () i 25 i energy conservation which will lessen the need for power. l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
65 1 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, under the Appeal Board's Q 2 decisions in Prairie Island and the cases that follow, we are 3 not to re-explore the need for power issue in a license amend-O 4 = eat proce aias, aa I entax enet ent riaa u9eore ia receae e 5 proposed amendments to Part 51, which would explicitly remove h j 6 need for power and alternative energy issues from license R 7 proceedings. sl 8 The Commission has not adopted those, but the d 9 license amendment proceeding is one step removed. !y 10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I suggested to Mr. Reis, Mr. E j 11 Goldberg, that our observations in Prairie Island might have is j 12 been in the context of a proposed activity, to wit the expan-Ei 13 sion of spent fuel pool capacity which of itself had no 1 g"f) 14 significant environmental impact. x { 15 Do you read Prairie Island that way, or do you read z j 16 it as meaning that even if the proposed activity which is us 17 sought to be licensed has significant environmental impact, 18 that one does not need to consider alternatives such as P { 19 not doing the activity, which would eliminate that environmental n 20 impact? 21 MR. GOLDBERG: In the first instance, I don't 22 believe there's any evidentiary basis for the proposition 23 ; that the proposed repairs will have a significant impact on t 24 l the environment. O 25 In fact, the final statement comes to the opposite i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 1 conclusion. The Final Environmental Statement, by the way, () 2 was issued as a matter of discretion and not because the Staff 3 ascertained that this was a major federal action with () 4 significant impact. e 5 So that in that regard, it is not dissimilar from 9 3 6 the spent fuel pool expansion cases. But I don't feel that R S 7 the princ_ple in the spent fuel pool case can be eviscerated Aj 8 by the differences that we have taen discussing. d C[ 9 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I don't know what you mean z O 10 by eviscerated. The point there was, was it not, that the j 11 argument of the Intervenors was that whether or not the ? . N 12 proposed activity of the expansion of the fuel pool capacity 5 (]) would have an environmental impact, that that activity would 13 z 5 14 allow the plant to continue to operate and therefore the $j 15 environmental impacts of continued plant operation had to be = j 16 considered. w b' 17 That's what we said did not have to be done, because 5 18 the whole matter of the environmental impact of continued P { 19 plant operation had already been explored and the balance M 20 struck. 2I Now why is it that gutting that principle we said 22 in Prairic Island to say that it doesn't apply, where the ) 23 environmental impact is being focused upon is the impact 24 associated with the activity which is thought to be licensed 25 l by this a.aendment? a i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
67 1 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we don't see any factual 2I distinction between this and the spent fuel pool modification (]) 3 case. That is, the absence of any significant environmental () 4 impact, I think -- e 5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: On this record, you are 0 j 6 prepared to say that there is no issue of material f act, R 7 could not be an issue of genuine material fact with respect j 8 to the existence of significant impact? d d 9 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's particularly i 10 true when you regard the remedial effect that the repair will 3 11 have with respect to the existing conditions at the Turkey Point t
- j 12 site which, as the record indicates, entails the periodic 4
Csg steam generator inspection for plugging, for which there is 13 = m 5 14 considerable occupational commitment. 2 15 MR. EILPERIN: That may show that on a cost-benefit 5 j 16 basis, the repair is worth it, but that doesn't show that the A i 17l repair itself doesn't have a significant environmental impact. I 18 MR. GOLDBERG: It shows that when compared with 5 19 the present mode of operation in the, resent environment at 5 20 the station, that it's more benef4.cial than adverse. i l 21 l DR. JOHNSOM: In this line, Mr. Goldberg, Reference 22 ; 41 in the FES is a letter from Mr. Uhrig at FP&L to Mr. () 23 l Eisenhut at the NRC, the subject of which is requesting an 24 extension of the Unit 3 operating period. O 25 Are you familiar at all with that particular i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 1
68 I document? (]} 2 MR. GOLDBERG: Not explicitly that document, but I 3 believe that arose in connection with the periodic authoriza-(]) 4 tions for continued operation between steam generator inspec-g 5 tions, which has been a condition that the plant has found itseld 9 3 6 in. R R 7 DR. JOHNSON: Why is there such a condition? Kl 8 There has been a condition on that plant, that it has to be d 9 reauthorized to operated periodically; is that correct? z O g 10 MR. GOLDBERG: Not reauthorized to operate, but to 'j 11 cperate without steam generator inspections for a period of s j 12 intervals of six months. 5 13 DR. JOHNSON: And what's the basis for that? h 14 MR. GOLDBERG: The basis for that is that the $j 15 condition has been generally improving, and the Staff believes = g 16 that a six-month inspection interval is reasonable. A d 17 DR. JOHNSON : What's the basis for the inspection? 5 { 18 MR. GOLDBERG: The basis for the inspection is P { 19 the steam generator denting phenomenon which arose several n 20 years ago, and has led to the necessity for upwards to 25 21 percent of the tubes in the generators of separate units to 22 require -- O 23l DR. JOHNSON: But if that is only an economic i 24 and reliability problem, why does it concern the Commission at () 25 ; all? I ALDERSON AEPORTING COMPANY,INC.
69 1 In other words, the FES states as the purpose for 1 (]) 2 this repair that it's ar. economic problem and it mentions worker 3 exposure to do these repairs, but there is worker exposure to (]) 4 do the replacement of the steam generator as well. But why e 5 is there a requirement for the inspection of these tubes? E 6i MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we want to see that the situation R 8 7 has not become degraded and presents a problem for the public Al 8 health and safety. There is occasional leakage from these d o; 9 tubes as a resuic of the corrosion and denting, and we want E g 10 to ascertain that this is arrested to the extent possible. E j 11 The subject of steam generator tube degradation a f 12 is a generic problem industrywide, and in fact there is a task 5 13 force looking into the matter right now, h 14 DR. JOHNSON: Well, when you are preparing an { 15 environmental statement regarding the repair of a degraded m j 16 steam generator, and you are informing the public of something, e d 17 which is the purpose of the environmental statement, why is the 5 { 18 fact that operation with a degraded steam generator represents P 19 g some problem to the public health and safety not anywhere n 20 mentioned? 21 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I believe that it is mentioned. 22 DR. JOIIUSON: Can you cite the page on which it is () I 23l mentioned in the FES? 24 I will direct your ettention, for starters, to page fgG 25 l 1.1 where w e fir c' the purpose of this environmental statement. l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 70 .1 MR. GOLDBERG: I want to also remind the Board that O 2 the Seaff review as e1so,.ccomganied by e Sefeey Eve 1uation 3 Report which went into more detail in the safety problem C 4 experienced as a result of the steam generator tube degradation. g 5 DR. JOHNSON: Are you quite sure of that? Because G 6 I searched that report in vain to find anything other than an R { 7 evaluation of the steam generator replacement, rather than j 8 any discussion of the associated problem and safety-related d c} 9 problem of operating with a degraded steam generator. 2 h 10 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, one must recognize that the j 11 objective of the environmental and safety evaluation is not 3 i 12 to review the operating experience of four or more years with i j 13 continued tube degradation. That has been done in successive l 14 license amendments which I have referred to, which have g 15 permitted six-month interrals to pass between steam generator z 16 tube inspections. j as 17 i Those have described quite clearly what the ii
- c 18
.:ontinuing nature of the problem is in its develegnental stages. P[ 19l DR. JOHNSON: Yes, but in the Draft -- n 20 MR. EILPERIN: If the FES is going to deal with a 21 no-action alternative, one thing it might point out is what 22 safety iqblications does the Staff see of not undertaking repairs., O Il 23 c. MD GOLDBERG: Well, certainly it explicitly points 24 out the occupational commitment in periodic inspections and 25 repairs. Now, whether it explicitly indicates what risk there i f i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l 71 1 has been to the general public, I'd have to review the (]) 2 document a little more explicitly to see if it does that. 3 I think,'4however, one reason it doesn't do that is (]) 4 because in fact, notwithstanding the fact that the tube 5 g degradation has been a problem, it has not been one that has e 6, had a significant effect on the general environment. Its R d 7 primary effect has been in the occupational exposure experienced K j 8 during these periodic inspections in tube plugging. d c; 9 I don't think we have ever ascertained a problem to 10 the public at large. 11 DR. JOHNSON: Then why all of this worker exposure M j 12 as a result of inspection? E 13 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you're talking about the ) mg 14 mechanics of the inspection that requires -- 2 15 DR. JOHNSON: No, I know why the workers get y 16 exposed. I'm saying why does the Commissien require frequent W g 17 inspections? } 18 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the Comm!.ssion operates, at 9 19 g least the Staff does, in a conservative mode. There is a M 20 well-known problem of stern generator tube degradation. It 21 has been more extreme at some facilities than at others. 22 Turkey Point is among the more extreme. () j 23 ; I think it's a precaution to make sure that it 24 doesn't present a risk to the health and safety of the public. fg U 25 It is prudent to see that the condition is arrested, and we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
72 J l believe that the tube inspection and plugging effort is the best (]) 2 way to arrest it, pending some alternative mode of repair, 3 such as the replacement of lower assemblies, I believe, we (]) 4 feel is the preferred alternative here. g 5 MR. EILPERIN: I know this has nothing to do with E 3 6 this case, but I am just curious if you know why it was that R 7 the utility did not apply for a license amendment to effect 3 8 8 the steam generator repairs? d c; 9 MR. GOLDBERG: I think, Judge Eilperin, that in zog 10 their view this constituted an -- this did not constitute an E 11 unroviewed safety question. Therefore, they believed that they 3 g 12 were allowed to do it under their license. E 13 ) The Staff came to the opposite conclusion and mg 14 noticed the action in the Federal Register. 15 Contention 1 as originally advanced alleged an j 16 environmental statement should issue. In March 1980 the Staff W d 17 announced its intention to prepare a statement. In December E } 18 a draf t statement was prepared, and in March 1981 a final E 19 g statement. n 20 At the final prehearing conference in March 1981, 2I the Licensing Board permitted the Intervenor the opportunity 22 to seek to amend Contention 1, then moot by virtue of the 23 : Staff publication of the final statement, to plead with base 24 l and specificity any respects in which the environmental state-O 1 25 l ment was deficient, either legally or factually. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 73 I In April of 1981 the Intervenor filed a proposed O 2 amenemene eo conteneien 1, containing 1, a11eged def1..ncies. 3 This pleading lacked any semblance to basis or spucificity C 4 and the Staff opposed it c.. chat ground. g 5 However, given the exigencies of time, th e Staff 8] 6 moved in the alternative for summary disposition of Contention R 7 1 as amended. The Staff pleading indicated that the proposed K 1 0 8 amendment ignored the limited legal scope of a license amendment d c; 9 p roceeding, particularly with regard to the consideration of g 10 alternatives. 11 The Intervenor opposed the Staff motion for summary -s j 12 disposition of Contention 1. It did not, however, controvert E 13 any of the material factsppleaded in the Staff motion. l 14 Accordingly, they are deemed admitted under Section 15 2.749. The only material fact allegedly in dispute was y 16 whether the Final Environmental Statement gave adequate s ( 17 consideration to the alternatives of derating, energy conserva-5 { 18 tion and solar power, and their pleading was accompanied by P h 19 two affidavits which contained merely a generalized discussion n 20 of energy conservation. 21 As I explained before, energy conservation is a 22 lO .aeans of energy reduction and is not an alternative to operation 23! They supplied no information regarding the alternative of solar 24 power which would have enabled the Staff to compare the potential 25 i for replacement power in the event the steam generator had to l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
74 1 be -- in the event the plant had to be derated, as they Q 2 did with the fossil fuel alternative. 3 And, in fact, I think it's well known in the C 4 expertise of the agency and the Staff that there is no solar g 5 facility as such. There are individual collectors that are 9 6 capable of generating some electricity for individual users, R 7 but as we estimate in the final statement, this plant could sj 8 face the risk of 3 percent derating per year and there is d =; 9 just no evidentiary basis to believe that some kind of solar z Og 10 station could supply that power. E j 11 MR. EILPERIN: I thought there were affidavits is j 12 that the Intervenor submitted on energy conservation, which 5 13 went to their contention that that could make up for derating x 5 14 the plant. 15 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, but energy conservation j 16 asks us to assume that there is no need for that power. That us 17 need was already established at the operating license stage, 5 { 18 so really it is not an alternative to operation. The only i: } 19 alternative to operation is solar power, and we know, quite n 20 apart from the legal precedent, that it would be beyond the l l 21 scope of an amendment proceeding to consider. We know that 22 that is simply not a feasible alternative, to supply even 3 23 ; percent of a 680 megawatt station, because there is no solar 24 station. So it's purely speculative. O t 25, There are coal and fossil units available, and that's I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
75 1 why we considered the replacement alternative, using those ] 2 alternate fuels. 3 Contention 4 was admitted over the objection of ] 4 the Staff at the final prehearing conference. It alleged g 5 that impermissible levels of radiation would release to the 0 j 6 environment in the event a hurricane or tornado struck the site R 7 during the repair. Aj 8 The Staff summary disposition motion was accompanied d
- i 9
by an affidavit which demonstrated the absence of any such 10 risk. E j 11 The Intervenor opposed summary disposition of is f 12 Contention 4.B. Signi ficantly, however, it did not controvert 5 13 any of the statement of material factr completed in the Staff l 14 motion. Hence, they are deemed admitted under Section 2.749 b 2 15 and a decision in the Staff's favor warranted. j 16 Instead, for the first time in the proceeding, 25 6 17 they indicated that their concern -- in fact, the gravamen of 5 { 18 their concern -- was one over the impact of a hurricane or { 19 tornado on the low level waste storage drums then on site. n 20 MR. EILPERIN: It wasn't quite the first time in 21 the proceeding, because those were comments that the Intervenor 22 had submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and I O 23 must say that I didn't see any response to those comments in 24 the Final Impact Statement. o 25 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there was a response regarding i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
76 I the low level waste,. and it was recognized that first of all ({} the Final Environmental Statement contained a discussion of 2 1 3 the low level waste. (]) 4 MR. EILPERIN: It did not ccntain a discussion of 5 g the impact of a hurricane or severe storm on low level waste 9 6 storage for extended periods at Turkey Point. R 7 MR. GOLDBERG: I would have to refresh my recollec-3 ) 8 tion as to whether that was the nature of the Intervenor's d d 9 comment on the DES. 10 MR. EILPERIN: I can assure you that that was one j 11 of their comments. 3 g 12 MR. GOLDBERG: Was a concern over the effect of a 5 13 hurricane? z 14 MR. EILPERIN: And the Final Environmental Statement { 15 didn't speak to that at all. = 16 -d MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the Final Environmental Statemenu e d 17 certainly spoke to the concern over the ef fect of a hurricane 5 { 18 on the steam generator assemblies, both during their passage ?j 19 to the compound and when they are in the compound. n 20 Obviously we had a great deal of comments. There 2I were some certain time constraints, and without reviewing 22 the record on the development of the final statement, I don ' t k-) j 23 know. But one has to realize that as we demonstrated in our i 24 ' statement of position provided to the Board, that in both
- ()
25 ' quantity and curie content, the low level waste generated from ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
77 1 the repair of one unit.is comparable to that generated from Q 2 the normal operation of one unit, and, in fact the curie content 3 is anywhere fron 130 to 270 curies per unit depending on the C 4 effectiveness of the decontamination of the channel head. 5 g Now this is not a large amount, when you compare it e. 6 as the FES does, with the entry in Table S-3 for the reference R 5, 7 reactor year of solid low level waste, which is 9100 curies. j 8 Now that is a figure that is used in the evaluation d =; 9 of license applications. So it is really not a significant E 10 figure when compared with that which the Commission uses as a 11 licensing basis. is y 12 But apart from whether or not the Final Environmental = 13 Statement may haveconsidered the Intervenor's comment, let me .= l 14 say that clearly after the suhmission of statements of position 15 and affidavits in response to the Board's ordsr, that there was y 16 an adequate record to decide this on the merits. us 6 17 In fact, the Licensing Board id solicit information. s 5 18 The Staff supplied an affidavit which demonstrated that even C 19 g in the event a hurricane or tornado were to strike storage R 20 l containers with the maximum amount of solid low level waste 21 from repair of one unit, that the resultant offsike releases 22 would be within Appendix I levels, which are applicable t.o l O 23 normal operation and not to accidental conditions such as a 24 hurricane or tornado striking the site. 25 j The Staff obviously acknowledged the general ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
78 1 generic concern with the sufficiency of offsite, low level O 2 wasee availah111ev. 3 MR. EILPERIN: I know this isn't part of the record, O 4 hue do you know whether in fect surry has exeerienced esoue g 5 twice as much low level waste from these repairs as they 6 estimated? R 7 MR. GOLDBERG: I do not. A j 8 MR. EILPERIN: You don't kn.sw one way or the other? d 9 MR. GOLDBERG: I don't knew one way or the other. IO CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: You have five minutes. i 11 MR. GOLDB2RG: On the basis of the affidavit 3 j 12 supplied by the parties in" response to the Board's order 5 13 directing that they supply information on low level waste, l 14 the Board determined that the impact of a hurricane or tornado { 15 on the site would not result in an undue risk to the public = g 16 health and safety. us d 17 The factual underpinnings for this determination 5 { 18 are uncontroverted on the record. P h 19 Accordingly, the Licensing Board decided that no 5 20 further consideration of this low level waste matter was 21 warranted, and reaffirmed itu summary decision of the ::ase. 22 Now, as was alluded to here, there had been 23 several events which have arisen since the rendition of that 24 final decision in June of 1980 which have virtually rendered 25 Contention 4.B moot: i I i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. \\
79 I Number one, the Applicant has been successful in (]) 2 obtaining additional waste storage capacity at the Richland 3 facility, thereby virtually eliminating any likelihood that (]) 4 there will be an accumulation of repair-generated wastes. 5 g And second, the hurricane season has elapsed in n j 6 Florida without any incident. R 7 MR. EILPERIN: Well, there's going to be another N j 8 repair. d q 9 MR. GOLDBERG: There will be another repair. It og 10 is estimated that Unit 3, which is now under repair, will be 11 back in operation in April of 1982. There will be some pre-k I 12 operational tests before that. It is estimated that the 3 13 {) repair of Unit 4 will begin in October of 1982, which also is l 14 outside of the hurricane season, although I want to emphasize 15 here that the Staff review and' approval of the proposed repair j 16 was in no way contingent on its coincidence with the hurricane w 17 season. 2 3 18 In summary, with regard to Contention 1, the Board P h 19 correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of c1 20 material fact with regard to the legal or factual sufficiency 2I of the Final Environmental Statement. 22 With regard to Contention 4.D, the Licensing Board O 23 ; correctly found that there were no genuine issues of material 24 fact with regard to the likelihood that impermissible levels (I i 25 ; of radiation would be relea",ed to unrestricted areas in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
80 1 event a hurricane or tornado struck the site. O 2 According1y, this decision was ehorough1y 3mstified 3 and should be upheld on appeal. Q 4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: On behalf of tL entire 5 g Board, I wish to thank the participants in the argument this a j 6 afternoon for their assistance, and note the two consolidated R 8 7 appeals will stand submitted. ) 8 (Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the hearing was d c; 9 adjourned.) i g 10 a 5 11 f 12 s Oi l 14 m 2 15 j 16 us d 17 !E 18 = 19 e 20 21 22 23, i 24 0 25 l n I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 1 NUC2.AR REGULATCRT CO.SeCSSICN c'OTais is Oc certify tha: :he attachec proceedings before :he Appeals Board @o'i in the sa. er c f:. Florida Power & Light Co., (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 3 and 4)
- Date-cf ?rectedi:g:
November 4, 1981 Deckee Nu=ber: 50-250 SP and 50-251 SP ? lace of ?receeding: Bethesda, Maryland wort held as herein appears, and. Cha: this is the criginal transcript therecf for the file af the Cocsission., Ann Riley Cf ficial.Tepertar (Typed) 30 >>J Cfficial Reporter (3ignature) O ~ g O 3}}