ML17338B040
| ML17338B040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | LUMER J V FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LUMER, J.V. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908290079 | |
| Download: ML17338B040 (76) | |
Text
cg UNITED STATES OF AMLRICA DUCT.,EAR REGUTATORY COl&IS S ION lhEFORE'Till'.'TOMIC SAFE'I'Y 6.LICL'NSING lfOARD Docket Nos.50'-250-SP 50-251-SP IN THE MATTER OF':)FLORIDA POWER g LIGHT COMPANY)(PROPOSED A."MNDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE TO'ERMIT Generating Units-Nos.3 and 4.),STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR)NOTICE OF APPEARANCE JOEL V.LUMER hereby enters his appearance as counsel for Petitioner, Mark P.Oncavage, 12200 S., W.110th Avenue, Miami, Florida.I CERTIFY that I am admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of Florida;District of Columbia Court of Appeals;the Supreme Court of Colorado;U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida and District of Colorado;and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Respectfully submitted,>>>>j,i/jg J.'.E Attorney for Petitioner Mark>>P.Oncavage 245 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134.(305)446-2837 77>8p>>7I
~I I+I UNITED, STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 6 LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP FLORIDA POWER'LIGHT COMPANY')(Turkey Point Nuclear (PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY Generating Units Nos.3 and 4.)OPERATING LICENSE'O PERMIT STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR)CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached Notice of Appearance were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first.class, properly stamped and addressed, on this 20th day of June, 1979.Elizabeth S.Bowers, E'sq.Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingto'n, D.C.20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.ST Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'on Washington, D.C.20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.2055S~4~c po c+(g Oslo~
Ol Ot Docketing and Service Section Of;f:ice oi.-Lhc Secretary U.S.Nuclear l<epu3.atory Commission Washinf'ton, D.C.20533 Guy Cunninpham, Esq,.S teveti (:.('o ldlierf.;, I scf.U.'S.Nuclea t f(r l.ula tory (.'uimtiiss ion Ol: f.'ice o f: the Executive Lef;a1 Direc tor Washing ton, D.C..20555 Norman A.Coll, Esq.STEEL, HECTOR&.DAVZS 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami,, Florida'33131 Harold F.Reis, Esq.LOWENSTElN, NEWMAN, REXS, AXELRAD&TOLL 10'25 Connecticut Avenue N.W.Washington, D.C.20036 JOEL,LUME Att'orney for Petitioner Mar'k P.Oncavage 245 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables,,FL 33134 (305)446-2837' 0 IQ[.
jp ga~r UNITED STATES OF M4ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 6 LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA'OWER
&LIGHT COMPANY In the Matter of))))'Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
)Units Nos.3 and 4))Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repair)LICENSEE'S RESPONSE.TO"SUPPLEMENTAL, SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER MARE P.ONCAVAGE" In large part the"Supplemental Submission of Petitioner Mark P.Oncavage" (Supplemental Submission) constitutes an effort"to satisfy the Board that the Petitioner has the ability to contribute to a hearing..." (p.2, n.1), i.e.,"to assist in developing a sound record." 10 CFR g 2.714(a)(1)(iv)It also contends that"[a]llowing the Petitioner to intervene will not cause serious delay.or broadening.of the proceedings." (p-8)For the reasons set forth.below, a hearing for the principal purposes suggested in the Supplemental Submission is most unlikely to develop"a sound record." The hearing will inevitably be lengthy.It would threaten substantially to delay issuance of the license amendment here involved and to deny FPL of the flexibility required for, the scheduling of the steam generator repairs.In addition, Petitioner has never established good cause for the extreme lateness of the petition to intervene or for additional contentions as they continue to accumulate.
Qt Develo ment of a Sound Record The substantive issues addressed in the Supplemental Submission can be classified into two main categories: "Occupational radiation exposure" (pp.2-3);and releases of radioactivity, either through the earth from stored steam generator assemblies or through liquid pathways, apparently primarily from leakage into or out of the Turkey Point.cooling canals, or overflow from those canals.(pp.2, 3-4)Both claims are expressed.
in extremely general terms and both ignore the substantial body of relevant publicly available information.
Neither explains why earlier judg-ments based upon such information are erroneous or should be addressed again in the context of the instant.proposed amendment; and neither seems to take serious issue with the underlying bases of, and the technical conclusions reached in, FPL's Steam Generator Repair Report (SGRR)and the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER).A.,Occu ational radiation ex osures.The Supplemental Submission (p.3)states that Professor Karl Z.Morgan"will address the occupational exposure problem created by the proposed repairs." Zt also refers to an article by Prof.Morgan in the April 5, 1979, issue of the periodical"New Scientist," pp.19-21, entitled"How dangerous is low-level radiation" (copy attached).The Supplemental Submission goes on to state(Zd.):
5>iy k)I' The recently prepared Safety Evaluation Report (SER)on Turkey Point Plants 3 and 4 apparently believes the licensee's"estimated 1300 man-rem" exposure is within tolerable bounds.See SER pp.2-9 through 2-11.Professor morgan's recent New Scientist.
article recommends a 500 man-rem limit.His testimony will explain his conclusions and also analyze the validity of the licensee's methods for determining the exposure level.Xt also states (p.7)that"by presenting testimony from Dr.Morgan concerning occupational radiation exposure, we have raised a'significant matter not considered by the staff.'" Zt is not clear from the Supplemental Submission pre-cisely what aspect of"the occupational exposure problem" the Petitioner intends to address.The various petitions for leave to intervene submitted by Petitioner prior to the prehearing.conference of liay 2, 1979, did not refer to occupational exposures at all.However, at the preheari.ng 1/conference Petitioner moved to supersede the earlier E contention with a new set of contentions.
Only one of these, Contention 5, might be interpreted as referring to 1/That motion has not yet been acted on.See Transcript of Nay 2, 1979, Prehearing Conference (hereinafter"Tr.")at pp.65, 87-90, 98, 108, 121.The new contentions are incorporated at the end of the transcript.
i' occupational exposures insofar as it raises the question whether the proposed steam generator repairs"comply with 2/10 CFR Part 20, NEPA, or the FNPCA?" Although the Supplemental Submission cites the SER, it does not indicate that, that report discusses occupational radiation exposure in considerable detail.(Section 2.6, pp.2-4 through 2-11)The discussion analyzes the operation and breaks it down into various elements, such as post shutdown repair preparation, steam generator removal, etc.It considers the relevant literature, including the recent Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories report,"Radiological-Assessment of Steam Generator Removal and Replacement." (NUREG/CR-0199)
It describes the procedures which will be followed in connection with each type of activity and the measures which will be taken to reduce occupational exposures.
It concludes that the specific limits on individual expo-sures pzescribed by 10 CFR Part 20 vill not be exceeded.It also finds acceptable FPL's efforts to comply with the direction contained in 10 CFR g 20.1(c)to make"every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures...as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA)~2/Contention 1 also raises the question of occupational exposures, but in the context of continued operation of the plant prior to shutdown for the steam generator repairs.See also Supplemental Submission, p.2, n.2.However, such operation does not require amendment of the Turkey Point operating licenses, and that issue is therefore outside the scope of this proceeding.
See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power~Cor.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974).
i I The Supplemental Submission nowhere indicates, whether it takes issue with any of the bases for the conclusions reached in the SER or even whether it actually does chal-lenge those conclusions.
Consequently it fails to frame any specific issue concerning compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.That failure makes it impossible to conclude that there is any likelihood that Petitioner will contribute to developing a sound record with respect to such an issue.However, to the.extent discernible, Petitioner's concerns as to, occupational radiation exposure seem to relate to something other than 10 CFR Part 20.Petitioner seems to be contending that"a 500 man-rem limit" of some kind should be imposed.Yet here too, Petitioner fails to frame an issue.The sole expla-nation of the limit sought is the reference to Professor Morgan's article, but the article refers only to a man-rem limit on normal operations.
The suggestion is not made in a context which could refer to the repair operation here 3/involved.To date, the man-rem concept has been used only for the I purpose of predicting or estimating collective radiological impacts upon some population group:~e.employees of a 3/The article (p.21)suggests that a limit of 500 man rem per 1000 megawatt (electrical) years might be set for pre-sently operating plants and those under construction, and 200 man rem per 1000 megawatt (electrical) years for plants now on the design board.
4~
plant or residents of a specific geographical area.It has been used by the NRC as a means of measuring environmental impacts and not as a limit upon an activity.or operation.
The NRC ordinarily protects against radiation by limiting the exposure of individuals in terms, of rems.Thus limits on radiological exposures of persons within an"exclusion area" or a"low.population zone" are imposed in 10 CFR Part 100 in terms of maximum individual exposures measured by rems.The limits on occupational exposures imposed by 10 CFR Part 20 also apply only to individuals in terms of rems.In addition, in 1976 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I was amended to impose numerical limits on radiological releases to the general population from normal plant operations.
However, this was done"only after a number of years of consideration and a lengthy rule making hearing...." Florida Power 5 NRC 1038, 1063 (1977), aff'd ALAB-435, 6 NRC 541 (1977), aff'd Hodder v.NRC, (Nos.76-1709, 78-1149)D.C.Cir.4/December 26, 1978 I Although the Supplemental Submission fails so to indicate, the Licensing Board in the St.Lucie 2 proceeding heard a substantial amount of evidence on the question 4/A petition for writ of certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court.Neither that petition nor any of the ad-ministrative or judicial appeals from the decision of the Licensing Board challenged that body's findings or con-clusions with respect to occupational exposures.
i~
whether a man-rem limit should be imposed on the normal operation of the plant there involved.The Licensing Board explained that, in part in response to testimony of Pro-fessor Morgan, it first imposed a 75 man-rem guideline dose limit for occupational exposures in a partial initial deci-sion.In response to a motion for reconsideration, it cancelled that action but directed that further evidence on the matter be submitted.
5 NRC at 1060-1061 Thereafter, , extensive hearings were conducted.
5 NRC at 1061-1064 As a result, the Licensing Board concluded:
Based on consideration of the extensive record on this matter, the Board con-cludes that it is not feasible at this time to set an in-plant occupational guideline dose limit in man-rems/year as a condition of the construction permit for St.Lucie Unit No.2 as an incentive to the Applicant to meet the Commission's criteria of keeping occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable.
The man-rem estimate is intended as a tool for comparison with other environmental impacts in the FES.Any particular value would not be specific to any plant or situation in any given year.5 NRC at 1064 I If the Supplemental Submission intends to suggest that this Board should reconsider the question of imposing a man-rem limit on normal operation, as the Morgan article sug-gests, it wholly fails to indicate why the findings of the St.Lucie Licensing Board should be reexamined.
If, on the.other hand, the Supplemental Submission intends to suggest Q>
that.a man-rem limit should only be imposed on the repair operation it fails to indicate why what has.been found not to be feasible for normal operations is feasible for a repair project.In sum, the regulations of the Commission do not now provide for the.imposition of man-rem limits upon occupa-5/tional activities.
It cannot be determined that a signi-ficant contribution to the record with respect to such a.radical change could be made by a petitioner who seems.to be wholly unaware of both the basic pattern of existing regu-lation and the record with respect to recent consideration and rejection of a similar proposal.B.Other radiation ex osure.Apparently in a hearing, Petitioner would also address radiation releases resulting from the storage.of steam generators upon an"earthen floor" (pp.2, 4)and from strong winds and tides.surging over the cooling canal system and escape from the canals.(pp.2, 3)Miscellaneous other matters might also be explored.{p.6)However, beyond I these generalities the bases for the concerns are not speci-fied;and, again, the Supplemental Submission does not 5/To do so would, we submit, constitute a deviation from the regulations which this Board could not require in the absence of an exception granted by the Commission under l0 CPR 5 2.758.
~i iO indicate that the relevant available material has been examined and with what part of that material, if any, issue is taken.1.Stora e of the steam enerator lower assemblies.
The Supplemental Submission expresses a concern for"the long-term on-site storage of steam generator lower assemblies in an earthen loor facility" and"the integrity of the stored steam generator seals..." and the possibi-lity of"leakage upon the earthen floor..." releasing radioactivity to the environment.(pp-2, 4)Nevertheless, except for the reference to the"earthen floor," the Supplemental Submission nowhere indicates why the planned storage scheme is inadequate.
FPL's plans for steam generator storage a e described in Sections 3.4 and 8 and Appendix D of the SGRR.The storage building performs the primary functions of shielding, weather protection and\control of access to the steam generators.
All openings to the interior of the steam generator will be welded shut in order to avoid releases of radioactivity within the storage building.(SGRR, Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.6, Appendix D, p.D-l-l)The continued integrity of these welds will be assured by a periodic monitoring program as described in Section 3.4.6 and Appendix D, p.D-2-l of the SGRR.Thus, the steam gene ato itself will perform the function of radioactivity containment.
i~>i 10 The external surfaces of the steam generators
~rill be decontaminated, if required, to acceptable levels.(SGRR, Appendix D, p.D-3-1)Finally, Section 3.4.7 of the SGRR reports that the majority of the radioactivity associated with the steam generator lower sections is found on the inside surfaces of'the primary side of the.steam generator in a"protective corrosive film of.metal oxides which is very adherent and very refractory." Consequently,.
as stated in Section 3.4.6,"the radioactivity within the steam generators is immobile...," and the.release of such radioactivity is"unlikely." These plans for on-site steam generator storage were reviewed and evaluated'y the NRC and the results reported in Section 2.6..6 of the SER, which concluded that the use of g6 ,the on-site storage facility, including the earthen floor"is in accordance with ALARA philosophy." (p.2-16)Thus Petitioner has had available technical information which describes a number of measures which will be taken to avoid radioactive releases.The sealed steam generator will prevent leakage;the radioactivity will be"adherent,"/and"immobile";
its release is therefore"unlikely";
water accumulation is unlikely;and there will be an effective monitoring program..Petitioner fails either 6/With respect to that floor the SER states: "No water accumulation is expected.since the roof i: s watertight and the generators will be drained prior to storage." g 2.6, p.2-16 i'
to refer to or to take serious issue with these measures.The judgment that he is likely to make a significant con-tribution to the record with respect.to this matter cannot be made.2.The coolin canals.The Supplemental Submission expresses a concern about the"escape of radioactive material from...the cooling canals...", and refers to"strong winds and tides surg-ing over the cooling canal system..." (p.4)and the dangers caused by such" tides and hurricanes (p.3).Accord-ingly, the Supplemental Submission indicates that at a hearing evidence would be submitted concerning a liquid radioactive pathway emanating from the cooling canals.The suggestion seems to ignore the basic fact that the present Turkey Point operating licenses limit all radiological releases, including any releases to the cool-ing canal system, in accordance with applicable NRC regu-lations.In other words, protection against such, liquid releases is effected prior to discharges from the plant to the canals and the canals are no part of the protective 7/system.7/The cooling canal system is a closed system in accordance with a 1971 Final Judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District.It is readily apparent from a review of this judgment that that system was required to be closed because of the thermal effects on Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, and not because of any radiological considerations.
See Final Judgment in United'States of America v.Florida Power 6 Li ht~Com an, Civil Action No.70-328-CA, S.D.Fla.September 10, 1971.The Final Judgment is reproduced as Appendix C of the 1972 Turkey Point Final Environmental Statement (FES).
Qi 12 Liquid radioactive releases from the plant, both during normal operation and the planned steam generator repair are controlled by Appendix A of the Turkey Point Operating Licenses (Technical Specifications, Section 3.9)as well as by written procedures.
Both quantity and concentrations are controlled.
The releases are required to and do meet the restrictions imposed by 10'FR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I, and those requirements are met whether or not, some of tne contents of the canal somehow reach Card Sound 8/or Biscayne Bay.Zn short, the existing regulatory documents disclose that radioactive releases from the plant to the cooling canals are so limited.and controlled that further dis-charges from the canals into another body of water is acceptable from a radiological point of view.For this reason the question whether there will be such discharges i as a result of storms or hurricanes is irrelevant.
This conclusion becomes even more significant since it was made in relation to normal operation.
The SGRR (Section 3.4 5.4)and the SER (Section 2.6.4)disclose that radioactive releases during the repair efforts will be significantly less than during normal operation.
See Tables 5.2-3 and 5.2-7 of the SGRR.For the foregoing reasons, the meteorological issues sought to be explored 8/The Supplement to the Turkey Point Environmental Report (November 8, 1971, Section 2.3.7)and the FES (pp.V-26 to V-27)make it clear that such radioactivity as might be found in the canals is acceptable..
Qt i 13 9/would not make a substantial contribution to the record.3.Other concerns.The Supplemental Submission states (p.6)we are concerned about various inconsistencies in the licensee's posi-tion which have occurred throughout their submissions.
Nithout belaboring the point, we note that Section 3.4.5.1(d) of the Steam Generator Repair Report says"90 days of radioactive decay assumed prior to cutting operations." Section 5.2.2.1(e) of the Report states"15 days of radioisotopic decay were assumed prior to cutting the reactor pipes,." Nh'ich statement is accurate?However, a careful reading.of the SGRR discloses that the 90 days referred to in Section 3.4.5.1(d) is an estimate of the man-rem exposures associated with cutting~u the 9/Footnote 2 on page 3 of the Supplemental Submission implies that, in analyzing the steam generator repair and subsequent storage of used lower assemblies, the licensee assumed only a 10.1 foot storm tide and that failure to consider more severe f looding constitutes a def iciency.This implication is.not correct.For the reasons discussed in the text above, storm tide height is irrelevant insofar as radiological releases are concerned.
Flooding will not result in unanalyzed, impermissible discharges to the environment, and neither the SGRR nor the SER refers to a"10.1 foot storm tide." Such flooding is only mentioned as part of an historical discussion of storms contained in Section 2.6.6 of the Turkey Point Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).The design of plant safety systems, however, is based on a predicted maximum flood stage, resulting for the maximum probable hurricane of 18.3 feet i4LN.See Supplement 13 to the Pre-liminary Safety Analysis Report, December 11, 1967;FSAR, p.2.6-13.
i' 14 steam generator for disposal off-site.It refers to an operation related to one ultimate disposal option.The 15 days of decay referred to in Section 5.2.2.1(e) is associated with an entirely different operation--cutting the steam generators from the reactor coolant system.Thus, the different decay times are both correctly used to estimate exposures from differen't activities.
There is no dis-crepancy;both statements are"accurate," and, we submit, this is not.an issue concerning which the Petitioner is likely to assist in contributing to the record.Similarly, it cannot be assumed that he will make a contribution with respect to the"various inconsistencies" which he has failed to identify at all.The foregoing review, of the Supplemental Submission may be summarized as.disclosing that Petitioner has enlisted 10/two witnesses, Professors Morgan and Goldberg.However,.the matters they will address are at best only generally 11/related to proposed contentions.
Pioreover, despite the I 10/Without.explanation, no mention is made of Dr.Raymond ricAllister who was characterized as a"firm" witness during the prehearing, conference.(Tr.67)11/In addition to the discussion above, see"NRC Staff Response to Board Order Relative to Petitioners Contentions," I4ay 23, 1979, p.3, where it is pointed out that most of the revised contentions submitted at the prehearing conference are inadmissible.
~i Qi 15 availability of both the SGRR and the SER, the Supplemental Submission hardly discusses those documents or specifi;c matters they address.Other relevant the many publicly available material is also ignored.Therefore nothing in the Supplemental Submission indicates that, the Petitioner is likely to make a contribution to a.hearing, should one be conducted.
Broadenin the Issue and Dela The foregoing discussion of, the subjects Petitioner wishes to address makes it quite clear that grant of the petition for the purposes suggested in the Supplemental Submission would"broaden the issues" with'in the meaning of 10 CFR g 2.714(a)(1)(v).
Assuming.it could be done in accordance with,l0 CFR 5'2.758, consideration of the impo-sition of a"500 man-rem limit" would broaden the issues since such a limit is not part.of the NRC's existihg regulatory system.In addition, Peti.'tioner'appears to desire that meteorological issues be discussed in detail even though such discussion is not required for the reasons set forth above.Grant of the petition will also substantially delay the proceedi;ng.
The first request for a hearing was sub-mitted more than a year after the time to do so had expired Q><Qi I 16 and after an extensive review of the proposal by the.NRC Staff was near completion.
In its various pleadings, FPL has emphas'i;zed its need for flexibility in initiating the steam generator tube repairs and that.the hearing requested by the Petitioner would create substantial delay and deprive 12/'t of needed flex'ibility in scheduling such repairs.Notwithstanding its statement to the contrary (p.8), the Supplemental Submission confirms these concerns and indicates that grant of the petition to intervene will cause serious delay.Thus it.states that Professor Morgan, Petitioner's radiological witness,"has.international tra-vel plans this summer." (p.7, n.4)Even if he did not, as is clear from the discussion above, imposition of a"500 man-rem limit" is not susceptible of expeditious treat-ment.We have noted tha't the suggestion represents a.radi-cal departure from existing, regulatory practice.It, therefore,.cannot be litigated in an abbreviated hearing.A,similar proposal required the St.Lucie Unit No.2 Licensing Board to consider an"extensive record on this matter....." 5'RC at 1064 Nor is it credible to assume that Petitioner, who"has not pursued.the meteorological side of this case until counsel recommended it...," and 12/See"Licensee's Response to Untimely Request for Hearing of'ark P.Oncavage," dated March 9, 1979';the attached affidavi.'t of H.D.Mantz, dated March 8, 1979;and Tr..77-78..
Qi 17 cannot now name witnesses (p.3, n.2)can prepare such a case without considerable additional delay.It is therefore clear that grant of the petition to intervene will both broaden.the issues, unnecessarily, and delay the proceeding.
Remainin Factors The remaining factors referred to in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1) can be discussed briefly.The second factor refers to the availability of other means of protecting the Petitioner's interests.
If it is assumed, as the Supplemental Submission does (pp.6-7), that the requested hearing is the only means by which the Peti-tioner's interests could be protected, then that factor must be decided in his favor-the only one which could be so decided.However, the factor must be appraised in the light of the contentions which have been made.As pointed out above, the principal contentions are either inadmis-sible or, at best, inappropriate for consideration in 13/the requested hearing.13/The Supplemental Submission (pp.6-8)seems to suggest that Petitioner has some kind of due process right to the requested hearing.This is simply incorrect.
With irrele-vant exceptions, publication in the Federal Register is notice"to all persons residing within the States of the Union 44 U.S.C.5 1508.It is well established that all tnat due process requires is notice of the opportunity to be heard;publication in the Federal Register satisfies this requirement; and the denial of a nontimely intervention does not constitute denial'of due process.North American Pharm., Inc.v.HEN, 491 F.2d 546 (8th Cir.1973);Buckner Truckin , Inc.v.U.S., 351 F.Supp.1210 (S.D.Tex 1973)In situations such as are here involved, administrative agencies, including the NRC, have broad discretion to deny a hearing.~Dunlo v.Bachowski, 421 U.S.560 (1975);Peo le of.Illinois v.HRC, 591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir.1979).
i' 18 It is our view that the fourth factor, the extent to which the Petitioner will'be represented by exi.'sting parties, is not relevant here.This factor presumably refers to a.situation in which a hearing is-being conducted and other parties"exist."'inally, it must be reemphasized that Petitioner's request for a hearing was over one year late', and despite repeated opportunities, he has never been able to-make any showing, of good cause for his untimeliness.
See, Licensee's Response to Untimely Request for Hearing.of Mark P.Oncavage (Mar.9, 1979);NRC Staff Response for Leave to Intervene Filed by Mark P.Oncavage (Mar.1, 1979).Consequently,, Petitioner does not satisfy the first factor included in 10 CFR 5 2.714;(a)(1).
In such circumstances, he has a heavier burden with respect to the other factors than he might otherwise.
USERDA (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), RLRR-354, 4 NRC 383 (1976);Vircrinia Electric and Power Co.(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-289, 2 NRC 395, 398 (1975).IV Conclus'ion Since February of this year,.Petitioner has been afforded liberal opportunities to establish that the balance of factors set forth in 10 CFR g 2.714(a)favor grant of 4i e~
19'-his extremely late petition to intervene.
He has wholly failed to do so.In particular, the three most significant factors weigh heavily against him.He, has not demonstrated good cause for his extreme lateness;he has not established that he is likely to assist in-developing.a sound record;and it is clear that grant of his petition will both broaden the issues, and delay the proceeding.
Therefore, we submit, ,the petition to intervene should be denied.Respectfully submitted, HAROLD F.REIS MICHAEL A.BAUSER LOWENSTEIN'~
NEWMAN g RE I S g AXELRAD'&TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone:
(202),'862-8400 Norman A..Coll, Esp.STEELg HECTOR&DAVIS Southeast First National Bank'Building Miami, FL 33131 Telephone:
" (305)577-2864 Dated: June 20, 1979 Attachment i+i~~
18 New Scientist 5 April 1979 than onc thought.8ut.this need not restrict the future nf the nuclear industry-the medical ,proiess)on'is responsib)e for 90 per canr.of man-mad rai)at)on to which people are exposed.may be interactions (synergisms) between the events in the series.Bross has shown.for example.that children under four with al)ergic diseases such as asthma or hives have a 300 to 400 pcr cent increased risk of dying of leukaemia compared with other chi)dren.Allergic diseases throw one switch.Children who were exposed to diagnostic X-rays in the womb have,a 40 to 50 per cent incrcasc in risk of dying from leukaemia.
But children with two switches thrown (that is, in.utero exposure and later aller-gic disease)have a 5000 per cent increase in risk of dying frpm leuknemia.
Thus, because of genetic inheritance, various diseases, nge, sex, eating and smoking habits and, perhaps, many other individual characteristics, certain members of the general population have a higher risk of radiation-induced
.,ma)ignancies, than, others.The cancer risk from exposure to ionising radiation is much greater than was thought to be the case some years ago.Fol)owing the deaths of the Japanese survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from radiation sickness, many scientists believed that the only principal chronic risk from radiation exposure was an excess of cases of leu-kaemia, which reached a peak about six.years after the bombing and then s)ow)y declined.Unfortunately as the study of these survivors continued, other.forms of cancer (bone, breast, lung, salivary glard, prcstate, thyroid and so on)showed a significant increase.With the.passage of time we wi/1 probably find that this exposure has resulted in an increase in inany or most kinds of malignancies that are common among human populations.
Until 1960 almost everyone assumed that the genetic risk from low.)eve)radiation evposure far exceeded the ris!cs of chronic somatic damage such as cancer.But it has become increasingly clear that this assumption may be un-warranted.
In 1971 the International.
Commission on Radio logical Protection (ICRP)conc)udcd that: "the ratio of somatic to genetic effect after a given evposure is 60 times greater than was thought 15 years ago".Most of us now recognise that the risk, of inducing cancer at low doses oF radiation is far greater than we onc" thought and may be as great or greater than genetic risk Professor In the Grst years of the'"atomic i(Q t l Z~1 0 cavan age" many scientists accepted the is steely professor theory that there is a safe level of in the School of exposure to ionising radiation, and Nuclear Engineering ai that so)ong as a person does not exceed: this'threshold level no bann will result as any radiation~'damage will;.on the.averag,e,.be repaired as fast as it is produced.Prom 1960 to the present,.an overwhelniirg amount of data has accumulated to show that there, is no safe level of evposure nnd there is no dc"e of radiaticn so)ow that the risk of a malignancy is.zero.Therefore, the question is not: "Is there n risk, from low-level evposure?" or,"What is,a s'afe level'of e"p'osure?." Thc question is:,"How great is this risk?" or,t".How'nt may a particular radiation risk be'efore it~,exceeds-the expected benefits, such as those.from medical radiography or nuc)car power?" At least for some'types of radiation damage" and for some kinds of radiation exposure{especially from X, gamma and beta radiations) there is some repair of, the'adiation damage going on ia the body.The.diehards~for the threshold hypothesis, however, do not seem willing or able to accept the evidence that for man there is never a comp!ete repair of the radiation damage.Even at very'ow exposure leve)s there are many thousands of interac-tions of the radiation with the cells of the human body.For evample, the rclativeiy small dose of one rad of X-rays of 1 million electron volts corresponds to 2~2 bi!)ion pho-tons per square ccntimetre acting on the body.It is incon-ccivablc that a)l the billions of irradiated and damaged cells would be repaired complete)y or replaced.The most significant damage from low-level'xposure to radiation results-from the direct interaction of the stream of ions produced by radiation with the nucleus of onc of thc billions of irradiated cells.The cell may be killed, the radiation may produce no damage, or such damage as is caused may be repaired.But it is a fourth possibi)ity that concerns us: that the ce)l nucleus,may be damaged but the cell survives and multiplies producing, over a period of years.a clone of cells that is diagnosed.~as a malignancy.
It seems obvious that If the cell nucleus is damaged and some information is lost or if a similar series of events leads to the devc)opment of a malignancy, there can be i.o dose so low that the risk is zero.Thus the risk of induction of cancer from radiation increases more or less with the increase or accumulation of exposure.The risk is simply one of chance, just the same as the risk of an accident every time a trip is made in a taxi.It is also evident that all persons do not run the same risk of developing a ma)ignancy from a given radiation exposure and that thc risk of some types of canc:r is greater for cprtain people than it is for others.The final onset of a malignancy or other disease may require a series of events.For example, a given type of leukaemia may require as many as three successive events (like throwing three electrical switches connected in series).Some of these switches may be thrown by viruses, bm teria, chemicals, mechanical damage or radiation.
Studies by irwin Bross, of the Boswell Park Memorial Institute in New York, support this hypothesis of a series of swiic)!cs in discase proctsses and suggest that there No fcty fa~or Much of what has been said about the risks of exposure to low levels of ionising radiation wou)d have considerably less weight if it could be shoivn that the linear hypothesis
{which predicts that dose nnd e!Iect are directly related)provides a very)arge safety margin.nt low doses and dose rates.Unfortunately, in most cases of human exposure there is no evidence of a siifcty factor at low doses, if we assume that the linear re!ationship bctwecn radiation and cancer at high doses also applies at)ow doses.Yfe have a large amount of data-much of them humm-showing a statistically significant increase in malignancies as a consequence of exposure to low doses of ionising radia.tion and indicating that the number of malignancies in.creases progrcssivcly as thc dose accumulates.
These doses in some cases are considerably lo;ver than the present levels of maximum annual exposure permitted for the radiation worker.Indeed in some cases!he data show that the linear hypothesis actua))Y undcrcstimates thc risk.Tab)c 1 indicates the magnitude of the cancer risk and shows that this risk falls linearly with dec."easing dose doivri tn a very low val e.These low<!oses(0 6 to 6~5 rad!The risks of developing cancer because oi exposure to low doses or)onis)ng radiation are mucn greater
~i.ig New Scientist 5 April 1070 arc not doses below:,vhich the linear hypothesis brea!cs down.but thc lowest points on the human exposure cfzrvcs for the two malignan-c.s considered herc-leuk-acmia and thyroid cancer.Vr'e.have every reason to be-Lfcve that the linearity of.th~am es continues down to.-ero.dose and that there fs.-a;.'similar
'inearity for'ofh'-"r ty pcs'f cancer that~simply!mvc a longer inc'a.tiocc period or have not been studM over such a wide r mge of doses to a human popul<at!on:
A dose of 0~8-,.d is oniy 2 p.r cent of the~>2iad.persnittcd by the In-ternational Comm:ssion on.1{idio!0"ica1 P r o t e c t i o n (IG~~)to b accumulated 0" cn year in the active bone~m~w oi a radiation wor-ker.czwd 6 5 rad is only 13 per cent oi'hc I rad permitted each year to his thyroid.If a million children each received 1 rad from cvposure in the womb to X.rays we might evpect 300 to 3000 leu-kaemias.Less data are available on the eitccts of low-levcl exposure of adults than of children.Gut recent observations by Thomas CXIancuso and others on workers.at the Hanford rcproccssing plant in the US{Heailh Physics.vol 33.p 369)indicate that the risk of radiation.
induced malignancies other than leukaemia may be as great or greater for adults than for children (perhaps as high as 7 cancers for every 1000 people exposed to I rcm).Furthermore, other studies (Alice Stewart and George Encalc, Lcncet, 1970, vol'2, p 1185)indicate that thc inci-denc" of focal.cancers (such as central nervous system tumours)following in.utero exposure is about the same as the incidence of leukaemia.
So the total number of fatal malignancies mi ht be twice the number of leulcaemias given in Table I-600 to 6000 cancers for a million children exposed to only 1 rad.Data'on the survivors of the atomic'ombings who werc evposed in utero seem not to, support these conclusions.
On the basis of Stewart and Kneale's findings and the linear hypothesis,-we should expect 36 9 cxccss cancers among atomic bomb survivors during thc 10 years following exposure.but only one case-of-liver cancer was reported.As a consequence many people were quic!c,to'proclaim that there.mdiv-something wrong with the retrospective studies of cancer induction by in.utero X.rays as reported by Stewart, M..MacMahon and others and that we could relax about radiation-induced cancer.Unfortunately, this is not the case.There is little doubt that the Japanese studies'reatly undercstiinate this cancer risk.The.fetuses which were most likely to have developed into cases of radiation.
induced lcukaemias received such high doses and werc subject to so much traufna.t."xt'they failed to sunive.In fact, an unusual]y~hi"h incidencc'of abortions and high rate of infant mor.trinity, followed the atomic bombings."Pro!cssor".Joseph Rotblat recently confirmed the above.:cxplunatiofccof cvhy thc cancer risk as determined from movers.of Efiroshinta and iv'agasaki alomic bombings is ,.too.low (Ncffj Scientist, vol 75, p 475).Hc compared the;.*.cancer risk in two groups: onc that entered Iiiroshima nO a~are gab C7~efr a~C'..'.".ik".
: i=r",'"-'.'~.:~+'0 a,,~r+g~g V.'.T'-<f rr.edn 4 a~raion of ah araicf~aeaa r~aa Careered cn eence'n cf ahe learn 4 sc chc ccc,.':~~ea'Cr>BC:.r
~78~~%'j 2 f.'nÃAQP Fi'3L".3"4.6 rH:QV46 F"";-.-9g tCra~rriaezd7 Linearity of.1CIzlf per person Source of dose dose down to'per rad ,<10 nd 0 3-I~ox l&e Hiroslslms and Idsazzkl eom 0 5-'~7X I&e, bomb survivors 370 rad';'0 2-0 3 X IMe'.'rthrltis Of Spine (Snifylusine.
'~".."." spondylitis) patients 0:2-0 0 r.d 3X lo.",pelvimetry exposures c~~:.'-6x 10'4 abogt I 0 r:d 3-30X IMO~pelvlmecry exposures' 20 rad 0.5-I I x IW" X ray therapy,',...6 5 red I 2x Io'-ray therapy for riccewftrfn (ylneo re paul~~e rhli of feei aechfa" feral ni a er cancer cue of ah'froid cancer C~~'C~c e during thc first three days after th" explosion and werc: evposcd to the residual neutron-induced ac:ivity and radio-active contamination from the fallout;and the other group that entered Hiroshima at a later date an{I received neg-ligible radiation evposurc.Neither of these groups was subjected to thc trauma of blast, fire.burial under debris and so on.The leukaefnia risk to the first group exposed to residual radiation was 1 6x10-'eukaeinias p r person rad.This value for adults is in agreement with thc leukacmia risk estimate in Table 1 of 3X 10"'hich appiies to children that received in.utero exposure from medical diagnostic X-rays.Rotblat points.out that this risk estimate is eight times the estimate of IMP.Estimates of the risk of cancer.associated with exposure to radiation at the Hanford plant have created considerable controversy.
The average radiation dose of th'c 482 Han-" ford wor!ters who died of cmcccr between 19%and 1972 was only about I rem.Mancuso, Stewart and I<nude esti.matc that only 6 to 7 pcr cent of the cancer deaths (26 to 31 c"nccrs)were induced by this radiation.
Thc total num.ber of deaths in the study group was 3520 so their.cancer ris!c cvas 7 to 8X10-'r about 10 to 25 times the com-monly accepted total'risk of radiation.induced maliommces.
I believe that the controversy about these findings de--veloped because many people in the nuclear industry and in US Federal Agencies have been inadvisably proclaiining 4>el:
'20-.'eiv S<-'cnu t 5 April l%9 power p)ant probably wou!d go up from.0'15 o 5'p"r c~t and the primary risk would than become on<<f.ch-onic bronchitis and emphysema rather thm cult for this n:other to understand>>hy.she.sh u)d-+sk the life of her child so that tiic power o)-"nt em'e locked at a particu!ar river site or;as she may,:sationa)'aec.so the stockholders'can'expect a:better return:to thM: invcst-Many see the solution to this.p.oblem:in reducin~)ev'e)s of maximum permissible exposure (>L>E)<for occupationa) workers and for thc public by a factor',pj';.10.
A'nu'mber of citizens'rgan(sations in the US have petitioned safety agencies asking.for such redections.
However, although sympathetic, I.am not convinced this.would be an acceptable solution: it seems like putting a finger in the hole of a leaking dyke.I sec it this way primari)y for three reasons:.First,'our goal should be a radiation exposure" that approaches zero and especial!y one that reduces the popu-lation dose (manXrem dose)as low as reasonably achiev-able (ALABA).This is partly a matter of education and acceptance of moral obligation by those responsible for human evposure.Secondly, the real culprit for unnecessary popu)ation dose is not the nuclear industry bi)t rather thc medical profession.
Thirdly, a smaller reduction of occupational maximum permissible exposure-for example, from 5 r m per'year to 2 5 rem per year rather than a reduction to 0.5 rem per year-probably could be accomplished without threatening the option of nuclear power.There have been examples (in thc US at least>of wanton disregard of the ALABA principle.
I am very much con.cerned, for example.about the growing practice of"burn.ing out" temporary employees:
the fact that many nuc)ear power plants arc Anding it necessary to solve the indi-vidual exposure problem of repair work in persistently high radiation exposure areas of the plant by hiring ter" porary employees to spread out the dose on".".ot" opera.tions.This has increased the man rem dose and thus the.overall cancer and genetic risks to tho population and I believe this is exactly what we should strive to avoid.I cannot be certain cf the effect of the proposal.in the US by a number of citizen's groups and scientists to lov cr.the occupational rnaximtun permissible exposure (VZF)to 10 per cent of its present)eve)(that is, down to 0 5 rcm per year).Certainly, it wculd reduce individuul exp"ser levels;but I fear in many instances it would just tn"'an the hiring of more people, each to receive smu))dose".of less than 0~5 rem per year with a marked increase in'.the total man rem dose.The man rcm dose would increase for the same radiation job because incxperiencA:.persons a)ways get more exposure and much of the cxliosure on a"hot" job is received going into and.awayfrom the'hct, Bic 1 w-rays The second reason for my hcsit tion on solving.this problem by simply loweriug thc.occupationd)iG~I'o.0 5 rem p r year.is because at prescrt the me<iical professions are evempt from the recommendations suggested'.bs the ICBP for the rrmvimum permissible exposure frora ionis.ing radiation-even though they arc delivering.
over 00 per cent of the man.madc dose.Thc dose delivered by.medical diagnostic X rays could be reduced to)0 pcr cent of its present value.at the sani<<time increasing
'.hc quality and amount of diagnostic information from medica!.radiography.
Those who are rcsponsib)c for over SO per cent of the man.made dose from ionising radiation igrorc almost completely thc pri:iciple u(ALABA.'4'hen we have s!opp<:d unner ssary medical exposure to ionis'.nc radiat on>>.which is!'0 p<r cent o: thc p:r:-~-Nagasahi<cancer ra<es among survivors are unreliable
/that there is no radiation risk at low doses.If the propo-nents of nuclear energy l.ad been morc reasonable in their c)aims about radiation safety, they wou)d not no.v be trying desperately to save face.Badiation biologists have conducted thousands of ex-periments with various types of animals in order to deter-mine thc dosmffcct relationships of radiation and in many cases have extrapolated these data to man (perhaps brazenly or at best with some misgivings).
Some ecologists and health physicists have warned that much of this ani<""1 data may not be applic"ble to man for many reasons.>The dose response of various kinds of animals can d!Der by orders of magnitude in going from onc species to an-other (for example, iiy to fish to mouse to mon!tcy to man).~<s Even slight diilerences in species or strains can cause,a marked change in dose resoonse.For examp)e, there are very large differences in)eukaemia induction and in life shortening between studies with dii<crent)cinds of mice.Yct, the standards are based on ob ervations of careful)y controlled inbred.healthy animals.But man is a ivild'or heterogeneous animal living in m ny types nf environment with various eating and drug habits.ivith many dis~~cs and eccentricities, of various ages, and so on.It is little consolation to a mother to know that the average risk to the persons living in hcr community is 3X)0-'ancers per man rcm (or 0 003 per cent)from an environmental dose of 100 mil'ircm accumulated over a 10year period from a nuclear power plant ivhcn shc learns that in fact her child with asthma has a risk of 50 times this (0 15 per cent chance)of developing cancer.!t helps very lit:lc to tell the mother that natural background radiation is!00 miliirem each year and this gives her child a 1~5 per cent risk of radiation.
induced cancer over the saine 10 year period.Neither does it he)p to tell her that if a coal.burning p<~cr plant (even an unusu J)y c!can one)i<<'rr>>to r(n!arr<hr:iueir:!r n>>;err;ii~q<,!."~r<-t frnrn iiie 4i i+i ,r
4~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY'&LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of))FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHTCOMPANY
))(Turkey Point.Nuclear Generating
)Units Nos.3 and 4))Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repair)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached"Licensee's Response to'Supplemental Submission of Petitioner Mark P.Oncavage,'" captioned in the above matter,'together with the attachment.
thereto, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and'ddressed, this 20th day of June, 1979.Elizabeth S.Bowers, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, NM 87501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory'ommission Washington, DC 20555 i'
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory
'Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr.Mark P'.Oncavage 12200 S.W.110 Avenue Miami, FL 33176 Docketing and.Service.Section Office of.the Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Guy Cunningham, Esquire Steven C.Goldberg, Esquire U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 Bruce S.Rogow, Esquire Dean NOVA Law School 3301 College Avenue Fort, Lauderdale, FL 33314 Norman A.Coll, Esquire Steel, Hector 6 Davis Southeast First National Bank.Building Miami, FL 33131 HAROLD F.IS LOWENSTE I N f NEWMAN g RE I S AXELRAD 6 TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone:
(202)862-8400 Dated:.June 20, 1979 ig>'g June 8, 1979 Elizabeth S." Bowers, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel'.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission llasbington, D.C.20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company: (Turkey Point.Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.3 and 4)Docket Nos.50-250 8 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facilit Operatin Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Re air
Dear Members of the Board:
This is to formally advise the Board that it intends to fi]e a response to the"Supplemental Submission of Petitioner Mark P.Oncavage" of June 5, 1979 in the above-captioned proceeding on or before June 25, 1979.Sincer ely,/s/cc: Mr.Hark.P.Oncabage Harold F.Reis, Esq.Norman A.Coll, Esq.Martin H.Hodder, Esq.Bruce S.Rogow, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licgnsing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.Panel.Docketing and Service Section Steven C.Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Internal Distribution:
, NRC Central'ile OELD FF (2)Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto GHCunningham, II.I/MKarman SCGoldberg/Chron (2)MGrotenhuis, 316 Phil.JMoore OrI ICC~CQNNAMCW OATC~OELD CGoldberg:jd 6/8/79 OELD GHCunning am~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6//.79~\~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R4RC HXRH SIS ($476)NECK 0243 Q U~OOVIEIINMCNC tNINTINO OPPICCI'I)10 tO~~70~
ih f I l'I I lt
,0 ROSCRT LOWCNSTCIN JACK R, NCWMAH HAROLD F.RCIS MAURICF.AKCLRAD DAVID R TOLI KATHLCCN H~SHLA J, A.SOVKNIOHT JR C ORCOORY SARNCS MICHACL A.SAUSCR DCSORAH L, SCRNSTCIN ALSCRT V, CARR, JR, ROSCRT H.CVLR FCTCR 4, FLYNN WILLIAM J, FRANKLIN FRCDCRIC S DRAY JOCL S WIOHTIADH CAIIFJ LAW OFFICCS LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, HEIS, AXELHAD 8: TOLL IO25 CONNECTICUT AVCNUC, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C.20036 202'62-8400 June 8, 1979 68 (l Elizabeth S.Bowers, Esq.Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Re'gulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, NM 87501 In the Matter of Florida Power a Light Company (Turkey Point Units Nos.3 a 4)Docket Nos 50-250-SP and 50-251-SP
Dear Members of the Board:
This refers to the"Supplemental Submission of Peti-tioner Mark P.Oncavage" which was served by mail on June 5, 1979, and received by counsel for Florida Power 6 Light Company (FPL)on June 7, 1979.In accordance with the Board's request, made during the conference call held on May 31, 1979, FPL hereby advises the Board and parties that, it.wishes to file a response to the Supplemental Submission.and, unless otherwise instructed by the Board, plans to do so on or before Wednesday, June 20, 1979.Sincerely, Harold F.Reis.Counsel for Florida Power Light Company cc: See attached Certificate of Service IQ[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY"&LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of))FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY))(Turkey Point.Nuclear Generating
)Units Nos.3.and 4))Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repair)CERTIF ICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached letter of this date to the Members of the Licensing Board, cap-tioned in the above matter, were served on the follow'ing by deposit in the United States mail, first, class, properly stamped and addressed, this 8th day of June, 1979.Elizabeth S.Bowers, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris.Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, NM 87501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ol~i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr.Mark P.Oncavage 12200 S.W.110 Avenue Miami, FL 33176 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC.20555 Guy Cunningham, Esquire Steven C.Goldberg, Esquire U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 Bruce.S.Rogow, Esquire Dean NOVA Law School 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Norman A.Coll, Esquire Steel, Hector 6 Davis Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, FL 33131 HAROLD F.REIS LOWENSTE IN f NEWMAN g REIS AXE LRAD 6 TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036'elephone:
(202);862-8400 Dated: June 8, 1979 ig>sl e,
~(/s PUHITED STATES OF A.K~ICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COt""HSSIOH BEFORE THE'TOHIC SAFETY&LICEHSIHG'BO'ARD Tn the.Hatter of FLORIDA POWER 6c TIGHT COMPAHY)(Turkey Point Huclear Generating
)Units Hos.3 and 4)Docket Hos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Fac9.lity Operating License to Perau t Steam Generator Repair)00CK~VSNILC JQ N Q fgsS 5ygJccC~diag a SUPPLEHEHTAL SUBNISSIOH OF PETITIOHER HARK P.ONCAVAGE Hark P.Oncavage, by undersigned counsel, requests he be.granted intervenor status in this matter based on his previously submitted contentions and this"Supplemental Submission" authorized by the Board during the conference call held-on May 31,, 1979.1 A.'HE IDE'..TITY AHD QUALIFICATIOHS OF PROSPECTIVE MITHESSES P~iD THEIR RELEVANCE The i!ay 23, 1979 HRC Staff Response and the Li:censee's Response vo ced concern over the Peti.tioner's fa9.lure to exp1i-...citly inform the Board of"...the identity and qualifications of prospective witnesses, what commitments he has received from such persons to testify in.this proceeding and the precise issues which they could address." HRC Staff Response p.2 (footnote I omitted).V no~.-provide that information.
Three major areas of concern far public health and safety are rai.sed by the P'etitioner's contentions:
(1)the long term on site storage of steam.generator, lower'ssemblies in an earthen floor faci.li.ty,;
(2)the occupational radLation exposure;and (3)the release of liquid effluents containing radioactivity into a closed cycle cooling canal.i iThe witnesses set forth below will testify with regard t:o those issues.-1/IQ<RL Z.MORGAN Profe sor Karl Z.Morgan is Neeley Professor in the School of Nuc.Lear Engineering at: the Georgia Institute of Tech-nology, Atlanta, Georgia.Ele r'eceivedt his Ph.O.at Duke University.
~'rofessor Morgan was the first: president:
of the Health Physics'Society and tjhe International Radiat:ion Protection Association.
-He is an eineriCus member of the National C'ouncil.on Radiati.on Protec'tion and Measurement and a z'~ember ,'of t".he International 1 Commission on RadLologica'.L Protection.
He was awarded a gold medal by the Royal Academy of.Sweden for his work in Radiation.
Pro tee tion..-1/We do not abandon the issues raised by cont:entions addressing the safety of the present operation at Turkey Point or the potential for recurring steam generator repairs.However,'his submission, focuses on the, three enumer'ated.
areas in order-to satisfy t'e Board that: the Petitioner has the ability to contribute to a hearing.
~~One of the more recent of the'300 articles published by Professor Morgan is an April 5, 1979 Hew Scientist article entitled"How Dangerous Is Low Level Radiation?" Professor Morgan will address the occupational radia-tion exposure problem created by the proposed repairs.The re-cently prepared Safety Evaluation Report (SER)on Turkey Point Plants 3 and 4 apparently believes the licensee's"estimated l300 man-rem" exposure is within tolerable-bounds.See SER pp.2-9 through 2-11.Professor Morgan's recent New Scientist article recommends a 500 man-rem limit.'His testimony will explain his.conclusions and also analyze the validity of the licensee's methods for determining the exposure level.Moreover,.
Professor Morgan's test'imony wi,ll deal with the potential radiation dangers stemming from the method of on-site storage and release of radioactive effluent.That testimony will be elicited after laying a predicate built on meteorological
\data reflecting unique South Florida dangers caused by the possi-bility of surging tides and winds accompanying a major hurricane.
WALTER GOLDBERG Walter Goldberg is an associate professor at Florida International University.
He received his Ph.D.in Oceanography from the University of Miami in 1973 and curre'ntly specializes in radioecolog cal studies, evaluating the impact of radionucleoids on marine organisms and marine environments.
2/The meteorological data is presently available from various published sources and reflects analyses of South:<<lorica storms.The licensee's use of the 10.1 foot storm tide dur'n~Hu ricane Betsy in 1965 fails to consider the potential dange=s posed by more serious hurricanes.
Since the Petitio..er nas not pursued the meteorological side of his case until counsel recommended it, the names of any.witnesses are no-.oresent;availab e.
~i Professor Goldberg i.s a member, o the Health Physics Society and served as a consultant:
t:o the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to a.si.st: in the review of the Florida Power and Light s:Lte certification applicatior~
f: or tXe St.Lucie No.2 plant.He has some expertise in.Iouth Plorida weather conditions.
Building on'that expertise and the,ixeteorological data to be submitted,'.Professor Go'.Ldberg will examine the poss:Lble consequences of escape of.radLoactive
~material from the, on-site waste facility,and the cooling canals..Obvious.Ly the integrity of the stored steam generator sea.Ls will be ceo.idered, since leakage upon the.earthen floor, washed and dry~ned by underground flooding resulting from strong storm activity, could seriously damage Bi,scayne Bay and inland areas.Similarly, strong winds and, tides surging over the cooling canal system could cx'cate a sim'ilar effect.Prozessor Goldberg will focus on the marine d~ange~rsi; Professor morgan will focus on the risk to human health and safety causec.by such eventualities.
3/The NRC Staff Response of Hay 23, 1979, p.3, intimates that Petitioner'"environmental" cl aims'are resolved by the de-cision in U.S.A.v.F.P.6L., No.7'-328-CA'S.D.
Fla.1971).The admonition against Turkey Po~>nit discharges into Biscayne Bay contai.ned in that decision wou d be small consolation to'human and marine.life accidentally destroyed as.a result, of a serious s t:or~.The thrus t oz the Petitioner.'
case is the danger to li;fe.proposed by the, suggested repairs;an issue the NRC is supposed'o consider..
~HRC staff misses the point when it seeks to¹ismiss Pe.titioner,'s, env ronmental claims as be-yond the jiurisdi.ct:ion of this Board.,
B.THE 10'CFR 52.714 (a)1 STANDARDS Resolution of this Petition to Intervene is governed by the several factors enumerated in 10 CFR 52.714(a)(l)(ii)-(v).
We address those factors in light of the material submitted above.THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER MEANS WHEREBY THE PETITIONER'S INTEREST WIL'L BE PRO-TECTED AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH PETITION-ER'S INTEREST WILL BE REPRESENTED BY EXISTING PARTIES.Unless the Petitioner is permitted to.participate, the public safety and health issues presented by the Turkey Point repairs will be determined primarily by NRC staff.'e do not denigrate the ability and commitment o that staff., but=in matters which vitally affect the health and safety of thousands of South Florida residents,.it is not unfair to ask that those xesidents have a chance to be heard on a subject which is critical to their future.The NRC staff's understanding of the unique environ-mental problems here is remote and the Commission is even more removed from South Florida safety considerations.
Commissioner Galinsky, testifying before the special panel appointed by President Carter to investigate the Three Nile Island accident'aid: "Safety is still the number 1 area for the Commission, there's no ques-tion of that.But it has not delved as deeply, I think, into the details of tha t area o f deci s i on-making as it has in other areas." Miami Herald, June 2, 1979, p.2A.
Leavin, he resolution of t: he li<<!se.e's application only to the HRIC staff and the licensee;wi,ll prevent the"deeper delving" which can only occur when crit:ical or opposing viewpoints
~.are aired.Hearings after an accident, come t:oo late..Hearings before the repairs are made cannot irjxsiprq t: he safet:y and hq.alth of South Florida residents; but they'~n'uarantee that.-'~de<<:i-sion made by this Board or the NRC-is based on a3.l relevant;.
inf ormation.For example, w'e are concerned about various ingots j.sz tencies in the licensee's positi'on which have occurred'throughput their submissions.
Without belaboring the pIoii~t, we note that.Sect:ion 3.4.5.1(d) of the Steam Gen!er!atqr!
Repair, Report srays"'90 days-of radio'act:ive decay assumed~pr~io~r,to cutting operations."'ection 5.,2'.2., 1(e)of the Report stat:es"15 days of'adioisotopic:
decay were assigned-pri.or to cutting, the react:or pipes." Whi'ch statement is accurate'eraztting the Petitioner to par.icipate would allow these queries to be.raised and resolved.The essence of Pet:itioner's position is-that he is entitled to an opportune'y t:o, be heard.HRC staff does,not,speak for him.', The licensee: does not speak.for him.Therefox"e his in-'erests cannot be protected by those paz;ti.es.
Vobis attempt to., intervene has a cionstitutiona.L foundation.
The Fifth Amendment provides protection agains.t deprivation of life, liberty, qr property without due p ocess of law.The regu,I.atory authorization-for in-tervention is an effort to,provide.,due pr'ocess for inte~estqd,and affected c" tizens.Armstron~v.Nanzo, 380 U.S.545, 5fi2 (l9fj5')defined due process this way:
A ndamental requir ement o e process is'he opportunity to be'eard'rannis v.Ordean, 234 U.S.385., 394.Zt is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.Granting Mark Oncavage a hearing prior to permitting the steam generator repairs is the only meaningfu1 time for protecting the life and property of all South Florida residents.
TEE EXTENT TO WHICH=PETITIONER'S PARTI<<CIPATION MAY REASONABLY
'BE EXPECTED TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPIHG A SOUND RECORD AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PETITION WILL BROADEN OR DELAY THE PROCESSING By telephone conversations on June 0, 1979, undersigned counsel has obtained commitments from Professo-s Morgan and Goldberg to testify in the manner proffered above.~~hopefully this representation alleviates the licensee's concern over the Petitioner's failure to present evidence on the nature, scope and relevancy of the testimony.
May 21, 1979, p.6.Florida Power and Ligh~~Response, Similarly, we have addressed the NRC staff's request for the identity and qualifications of Petitioner.'s witnesses.
In addi-tion, by presenting testimony from Dr.Morgan concerning occupationa1
..radiati;on exposure, we have raised a"significant matter not con-sidered by the staff." NRC Staff Response of Ray 23, 1,979, p.Compare also the NRC Staff Response of April 6, 1979, which may.fairly be read as supporting Petitioner's intervention if he became more specific regarding witnesses and testimony.
He has now pro-vided that information and demonstrated the contribution he can make to a sound record.4/The only caveat to those coma'ments regards the date of the hearing, should one be set..Dr.Morgan has international.travel plans this saner.
0,...Oi Alloi.-ing the Petitioner to iqterverxe will not cause serious delay or b=oadening of the proceedings.
lHhile it;is;true that another party creates additional issues, the'benefit derived~rot: hearing opposing ccntentions far outweighs axe small tixae savings gained by exclusion of Mr.Oncavage.A pre-hearing conference will serve to narrow, and define the scope of the hearing, thereby eliminating redundant ance irr'elevant testi-mon'y.Stipulations can save time.Submission of written materials I without live testimony may expedi,te, the proceedings-.
Ilumerous devices aie available to the Board for insuring the integrity of the hearing piocess.Finally, to the extent that'he pre+ence of counsel enhances a fact finding proceeding,, the, commitment cf c.ounsel to this case also helps insure the ability oE che Peti tioner to present a sound record.5/5/Undersigned counsel has submitted a Notica of'ppearance pursuant to 10 CFP.52'..713(a) and'ill serve as lead counsel in this matter;He has commitmenes from several other South Florida lawyers to assist in ehe preparation of this case if 1't-.Oncavage.,does become an intervenor~
Ho m~e ul puzpose would(be served by submitting additional Notices of Liipearance until Mr.Gncavage'interventi on status=-.;dete=~.ned.
CONCLUSION'or the foregoing reasons,, MARK P.ONCAYAGE's Petition to Intervene should be granted.Respectfully submitted, RUCE S.ROGOM Nova University Center r the Study of Law 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 (305)587-6660
~i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE T1M ATOMIC SAFETY,'&L1CENSIHG BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER 6c LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.3 and 0)Docket Hos.50-250-Sl?-
50-251-S1P (Proposed Amendments to Facile'y Operating License to]?eon:i.t Steam Generator Repair)NOTICE OF APPEA1~<CE BRUCE S.ROGO'b7 hereby cacti rs.his Notice of Appearance as counsel for Petitioner MQE.P., ONCAVAGE, 12200 S.M., 110th Avenue, Miami, Florida.I certify that I.am admitted to practice by the 1 Sup2.'erne Court of Florida;the United States District Courts~for the Southern md Middle Districts of 1lorida;the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circu.t and the.Supreme Court of the United States.Respect)ugly submit ted, JUN 83 137='9pi 3~f t.'CE, S.ROGOM Nova University Center f p the Study of La'~3301 College Avenue For't Xa'ud'erda3.e, Florida 33314 (305)587-6660
~0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PmGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY 6 LICENSING'OARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POLTER 6c LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.3 and 4'))))Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-25l-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repair)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I H:"REBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached Supple-mental Submission to the Members of the Licensing Board and'otice of Appearance were served on the follo~wng by deposit in the United S tates mail, firs t,class, properly s tamped and addressed,, this 5th day of June, 1979.C Elizabeth S.Bowers, Esquire Chairp er s on Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclea Regulatory Commission washington, D.C.20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic'Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.David B.Hall 400 Circle Drive Santa Fe, New Hexico 87501 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S: Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C.20555 CQC.".KTL)
USMC (6 JuN 8 lG Oeas 8 W~+I Seh5 Atonic Sa etv and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.Nuclea" Regulatory Commission Uashiagton, D.C.20555 Docketing and Semn.ce Section Off ice of the.Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission Washington, D., C.20555 Guy Cunningha:e, Esquire Steven C.Goldberg, Esquire U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D,.C.20555 Horman A.Coll, E.quire STEEL, HECTOR'c DAV:ES 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Hiami, Flori da 33131 Harold.F.Reis, Esquire-.Lowens tein,-He~nan, Rei.-,.Axelrad 6 Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N;W.klashington, D.C.20036 h I~I EKU(r WW<WOWOJ Nova Univer.i ty Center o" the Study of Law.3301 College Avenue Fort LauderdaleE lorida 33I31A.(30.>)587-6660"