ML20073R131
| ML20073R131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1983 |
| From: | Matthews B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8305030486 | |
| Download: ML20073R131 (13) | |
Text
l
~j, v
D v - - g'
!Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COFMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE'! SING BOAR 0J3 r " -2 71.23 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-261-OLA CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY)
)
(H.B. Robinson Steam Electric )
April 26, 1963 Plant, Unit 2)
)
)
THE IIARTSVILLC GROUP ' S ODJECTION TO ORDER FOLLOWING SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND MOTION FOR R1FERRAL I
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.751a(d) and the authorization of the Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order (Report on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751a),
ASLBP 83-484-01LA, dated April 12, 1983
(" April 12 Order"),
Intervenor The Hartsville Gtoup ("Hartsville") hereby objects to those portions of the April 12 Order disallowing and dis-missing Hartsville's Contentions 4, 5 and 9.
Should the Board determine that, in its view, revision of the April 12 Order with respect to Contention 4 is not warranted, then, in the alternative, Hartsvilln rec'u e s t s that, pursuant to 10 CFR Sections 2. 751a (d),
2.718(i) and 2,7 30 (f), this Board refer or certify its ruling to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
I 8305030486 830426 D
PDR ADDCK 05000261 G
PDR 9
II DISCUSSION f In its April 12 Order, The Licensing Board admitted Hartsville as an party intervenor to this proceeding, accepting into the proceeding Hartsville Contentions 1 (renumber la),
2, 3,
6 (renumbered Ib), and 8.
The Board disallowed and dismissed Contentions 4, 5,
7 and 9.
l Hartsville objects to those portions of the Board's April 12 Order disallowing and dismissing Contentions 4, 5 and 9 and, further, requests referral to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in the event that the Licensing Board determines not to revise its Order with regard to Contention 4.
l CONTENTION 4 s
The thrust of Hartsville's Contention 4 is that Part 20 ALARA rcquirements would be violated by the repairs in that a cost-benefit weighing would go against conducting the j
i replacement of the steam generator lower assemblies as compared to shutting Robinson 2 down.
In that the timely retirement of Robinson 2 is a " reasonable" alternative, then no worker exposures resulting from steam generator replacement or repair can be justified under the ALARA principles of Part 20.
In its April 12 Order, the Board decides, at page 13, that "under these rules [Part 20] no alternatives to the proposed ll c
action need be considered nor is a cost-benefit analysis required."
l The Board dismisses Hartsville's reference to an advance g
notice of proposed rulemiking, request for public comment
.i-published at 45 Federal Register 18023, because it "contains L
M'
i l
only a proposed list of subjects that a later rule could i
)
address" (April 12 Order, p.
13).
I' liartsville, in responding and objecting, would point first to the plain language of the regulation:
The term "as low as is reasonably achievable" i
means as low as is reasonably achievable taking i
(
into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to the public health and safety, and l
other societal and sociececonomic considerations, and in relation to the utilis:ation of atomic energy in the public interest.
10 CFR Section 20.1(c)
The regulation is clear that "the economics of improvements" l
l must be considered "in relation to the benefits to the i
public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations Plainly, a cost-benefit balance is to be struck.
And, there can be little doubt that such balances have been struck regarding specific projects and means of carrying them out. (See, e.g.,
Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Jnits 1 and 2),
LUP-77-55, 6 NRC 473 (1977).)
The Licensing Board asserts that "llartsville is not aided
" by its reference to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding Part 20 which asserts:
(1) No practice or operation involving exposures to radiation should be adopted unless its intro-duction produces a positive net benefit.
45 FR 18023, cited from NRC Rules and Regulation, Vol. 3, p.20-30 IIartsville cites this reference, not to suggest that-this I
i
r --- "-- "
i 4
- 4_
l r
?
i l
[
t t
proposed rule in in effect and controlling, but to suggest i
1 l
that this interpretation of the basic principles underlying l
I l
Part 20 is not beyond the realm of the thinkable.
i i
l In opposing Hartsville's Contention 4, neither the j
Applicant nor the NRC Staff was able to cito any precedent l
i 1
i supporting its position.
Response of the NRC Staff to Proposed
?
I I,
Contentions of Hartsville Group and Concerned Fools of Darlington j
i i
County (March 18, 1983), p.
7; Carolina's Response to Hartsville l
Group Supplement to Petition to Intervene and Request for i
Hearing (March 14, 1983), pp.
5-6.
Again, at hearing, the 3
s l
Licensing Board specifically asked both Applicant and NRC Staff j
\\
\\
if they could cite any law supporting their position.
Neither
[
4 1
j could.
Tr.
And, the Licensing Board cites no precedent i
j for its position that Hartsvilln's reliance on 10 CFR 1
1 Part 20 in this contention is misplaced
." April 12 i
Order, p.
13.
In his concurring opinion in Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4),
j
~LBP-79-21, 10 NRC 183 (1979) at 208, Judge Oscar Paris notes I
the uncertainty which surrounds the issue of applying i
4j' the ALARA principle to occupational exposure l
-The issue at hand is:
if Carolina Power & Light Company-l 1 Transcripts have not been available to Hartsville at the Local Public Documents Room to assist it in preparing these objections.
1 4
~.
i 3
i i
i j I I
1 1
j can avoid exposing its workers to 2120 man-rems (Final Steam l
Generator Repair Report, pp. 59-60) and continue to provide 1
j needed electrical energy at no higher a cost, does not the i
i requirement that radiation exposure be kept "as low as reasonably i
achievable" require that this operation not be carried out?
Ilartsville maintains that this is a "significant legal or 1
policy question {s]
on which Commission guidance is 4
needed," and, therefore, falls within the Commission's guidance 4
for Licensing Board's referring issues to the Atomic Safety 1
and Licensing Appeal Board.
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedinas, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452,456 (1981).
See, also, Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units i
I and 2, ALAB-687, 16 NRC (August 19, 1982), slip op. at 7.
I Hartsville requests the-Licensing Board, should it not revise its April 12 Order with regard to Contention'4, to refer this j
question to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for
)
guidance.
i
~
j Applicants assert that a November 1983 repair date may i
j well be desireable for its purposes.
April 12 Order, p. 27.
Given the proposed schedule, which calls for hearings to
}
to commence in September (Id.), a successful appeal by Hartsville l
t of the Licensing' Board's decision and the many month delay which would follow on remand to hear Contention 4 following l
a September or October decision by the Licensing Board would
~
d' add an unusual burden of delay to Carolina in proceeding with repairs, assuming the Board,'s approval of the License Amendment.
4L N,.
1
.. _. r The Board may refer a ruling to the Appeal Board which would otherwise be prohibited, where:
. prompt decision is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense i
10 CFR Section 2.730 (f).
e Contention 5 The gravamen'of Hartsville's Contention 6 is that Carolina f
1 l
has failed to demonstrate that it can both meet the Commission's l
ALARA regulations and comply with Quality Assurance and Quality Control regulations at Part 50, Appendix B.
1 In dismissing the contention, the Board finds:
a 1
i There was no attempt at establishing the number of quslified workers available and how the doses I
would relate to them.
I, L
i April 12 Order, p.
6.
i 1
Hartsville has no way of determining the number of qualified 4
workers required for the replacement job except from CP & L.
t j
or the NRC Staff.
Hartsville finds no such-figure in the Finai
.?
Steam Generator Repair Report (FSGRR) and neither the Applicant i
nor the NRC Staff r'efers the Board to such a figure.
Carolina's l
]
t Response, p. 6; Response of the NRC Staff, p.
8.
Carolina argues that the task has been performed elsewhere. Carolina 1
Response, p.
6.
r r
But, that it has been performed elsewhere goes to-the merits of the contention.and not to its admissability.
The 1
o 1
3 Licensing Board cannot go to the merits at this stage of the proceeding.
Mississippi Power & Light-Company (Grand
. Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973);
e
L
.. ~. - - - -. ~. -. - - _ -. -... -
- ~. - - - - - - - - -
g O
h :
l' 1
}N.
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Y[
Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13,-20.
j-Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has addressed this issue in any publicly available documents known to Hartsville.
i Nor is Hartsville aware of any studies of available qualified workers available to it.
How, then, can Hartsville be charged 2
t with being any more specific than it has been in raising this issue?
Hartsville would direct the Board to Dr. Oscar Paris f.
concurring opinion cited above:
The time period within which the steam generator l
repair [at Turkey Point] is to be carried out, 6 to i
9 months, and the foregoing requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 will make it necessary for Licensee to hire l
a large number of workers to complete the repair.
Will it be possible for Licensee to recruit'the.
l number of skilled workers required for the iob so as to be assured of complying with the standards
~
~
i set forth in 10 CFR 20.10l?
I believe that this l
question should be addressed by Licensee and Staff.-
Florida Power & Light, op. cit., p.
209, emphasis supplied.
Therefore, Hartsville objects to the Board's dismissal.
of Contention 5.and requests that the Board to reconsider i
j' h
i t at port on-of its April 12 Order.
I i
i' i.
r b
i I
f
{.
t-
-.. -~-----.. -
.. %-w e-ire r
..wes
4 l
t l ;
-r l
Contention 9 5
l The thrust of Contention 9 is that by replacing the Westinghouse Model 44F steam generators with essentially equivalent steam generators, CP & L is unable to meet General 1
4 Design Criterion 14 (10 CFR Part 50, App, A).
I f
In dismissing Contention 9, the Board asserts that-
{
Hartsville must demonstrate that the existing steam generators 1
J did not meet Design Criterion 14 and some reason or basis L
for asserting that the proposed changes set forth in the FSGRR i
j uill "be insufficient in some manner".
April 12 Order, pp. 22-24.
t j-Hartsville asserts, in general, that Westinghouse has proven incapable of designing a steam generator that will not degrade.
1 Shippingport was the first Westinghouse reactor to require replacement of steam generator tubes - some 20 years ago..Nunzio J. Palladino, Response to Congressman Markey's Questions to j
Chairman Palladino in January 21, 1983 Letter, March 21, 1983, l
page 1.
They continue,to build bad steam generators as evidenced 1
by the design defects in the Model D2 and D3 steam generators i
which have required substantial modification to permit operation I
j.
at more than 50% power.
The Board finds that Hartsville has failed to adduce evidence
]
that the Model 44F steam generators do not meet Design Criterion 14.
Hartsvillc~would direct the-Board's attention to. Table 2, Steam Generator Tube Leakage since' November:1981," Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, April-June 1982, NUREG 0090, Vol. 5, No.2, p.
22.
Hartsville referred'the Board to this document during j
the Special Prehearing Conference.
,T r.
There, nine
l 1
t l
_9 _
r cteam generator tube leaks in a seven month period (February through August 1982) are identified at Westinghouse reactors, I
including Robinson 2.
Design Criterion 14 requires:
i The reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be designed, fabricated, erected,and tested so as t'o have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, and of gross rupture.
g l
10 CFR Part 50, App.
A, Criterion 14.
l This record scarcely constitutes "a low probability of 4
abnormal leakage."
Therefore, the existing steam generators 1
l do not meet Design Criterion 14.
1 The Board finds that liartsville f ails "to come forward i
G hh some reason or basis that these improvements [ set out in the FSGRR) will fail or be insufficient in some manner, and that the result will constitute some hazard to public health and safety."
April 12 Order, p.
24.
The Board rejects llartsville's reliance upon the 1
Staff's Steam Generator Status Report, SECY 82-72, February 1982, because the Staff finally concludes that system integrity can be met through a number of devices.
But 11artsville maintains that it may properly rely upon the Staff's findings there that problems remain and some solutions have only led to other problems.
i Further, the Board ignores IIartsville's reliance upon i
i the Staff's assertion in Report M Congress, cited above, I
that "It is anticipated that tube degradation will continue _.
3 1
O_E. cit., p. 13.
j i.
..~...
l
-- r I
The Board has placed too heavy a burden on Hartsville at this stage.
The pleadings as supplemented at the prehearing l
conference put Carolina on notice as to what it must defend against.
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).
Contrary to the Board's finding that "there is no concrete issue to litigate (April 12 Order, p.
24), there is a clear and concrete issue.
Doubtless, it will be difficult for Carolina to defend against it, but that is because of the weakness of their position.
And Carolina bears the burden of proving that these steam generators will meet the laws j
and regulations.
Hartsville has met its burden of presenting g
sufficient basis to cause reasonable minds to inquire further.
III i
CONCLUSION i
j For the reasons set forth above, Hartsville:
- 1) objects to the portions of the Board's Order of l
April 12, 1983, disallowing and dismissing Contentions 1
l 4,
5 and 9; j
- 2) requests the Board to reconsider those. portions of its Order and admit those content' ions; and, l'
- 3) should the Board determine not to revise its Order 4
with regard to Contention 4, requests the Board to l
refer that ruling to the Appeal Board.
l l
f i ~
I
'k._...._.,_.,-.-_-
. ~.
i
1 i
, Respectfully submitted, B.A. Matthews Authorized Representative for The liartsville Group P.O. Box 1089 liartsville, South Carolina 29550 DONE this 7/ / day of April 1983 at llartsville, South Carolina.
9 l
l l
r 4
/WPIDAVIT OF SERVICE PERSONALLY appeared before me B.A. flattheus who does did this @_klay of April 1983 serve copics affirm that he of the att ached Tile IIARTSVILLE GROUP 'S OIUUCTIONS TO ORDER POLLOUIllG SPECIAL PRCi!PAPING CONFCitEtJCE AND f.iOTION FOR ltCPERRAL on the belou-nan:ed persons by placing them in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
Administrative Judge llorton B.
Hargulies Chairuan, Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
!!uclear Regulatory Co nca i s c io n Uachington, D.C.
20555 Adainistrativs
.2udc.
Jerry it,. Kline Atonic Safeiy. aid Licent ing Board U.
S.
11u c l e a r h e r a l.. t o r y C o n u i:. s i o n Uachington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge David L.
lietrick Atonic Safety and Licensing board Profencor of 11uclear Engin ering University of Arizona Tuccon, Arizona U5721 Docleting and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Conuiccion Washington, D.C.
20555 Myron Karuan, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Coucicsion Uachington, D.C.
20555 George F.
Trowbridge Shau, Pittaan, l'o t t c and Troubridge 1800 M Street, U.U.
Uachington, D.C.
20036 Sanantha Francic Plynn Carolina Power 6 Light Company Pont office box 1551 Paleigh, North Carolina 27602 i
\\
l
Atonic f.a f e t y and I. i c e n r. i n g Board Panel U.
S.
!!u c l e a r R.,, u.t.. t c r y Cemuiscion lia s h in g t o a.
D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 15 o a r d Panci U.
S.
!!uclear Regulatory Conniscion liashington, D.C.
20555 II. A. ?!attheG5 DO!!C before me this _Q6_
clay of AI)ril 1983 at
' ilart sv il 10, Sou th Ca r' >l i na.
- h. m,(.,, ; ; (,, j8 4
, d^?
h'(41'Aif.* d'd,2,1 C l' Ole,
',r,i1;n (L,g,)
~
()
6, 6J
)
Ik' aamp g
g me Er
%