ML18018B593
| ML18018B593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1984 |
| From: | Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, NUDOCS 8403190025 | |
| Download: ML18018B593 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMHISSION ATONIC:- SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Admini s traM ves Judges:
James L. Keljey, Chairman Dr. James H. Carpenter
-Glenn 0. Bright
/
g g-pvlC2W
)
In the Hatter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY
)
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL
)
POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 ASLBP -No. 82-468-01 OL March 15, 1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Responses to the Memorandum and Order of January 27, 1984 Concerning Health Effects and Certain Other Matters)
Introduction.
The Board's. Memorandum and Order of January 27, 1984 has evoked a range of responses from the parties.
As we stated in the telephone conference call of March 8, 1984, Dr. Gofman will not be available as a voluntary Board witness in the. late spring-early summer time frame we had envisioned.
As we shall exj:lain, this development renders the bulk of the pleadings before us moot.
The A licants'otions for Reconsideration and Clarification.
The Applicants ask us to reconsider and grant. their motions for summary disposition of Joint Contention I.I(a) and (c).
Given Dr. Gofman's The other part of Mr. Eddleman's.response leads us to his statement that "I can't figure out their model.ing of dose commitments from Appendix C."
The Board notes that the NRC Staff took notice of this contention in preparing the FES.
In contrast to the DEIS that only referenced Yolume 3 of NUREG-0002 for the estimation of the dose commitments for radon-222, the FES references GESMO (NUREG-0002),
pages IV JA-20, 21 5
22 and several other parts of NUREG-0002 as being the basis for. the dose calculations.
Intervenor Eddleman fails to allege any deficiencies in the documents referenced in the FES.
The Board finds that adequate, detailed references for the dose computations are provided in the FES.
There is no basis for this contention and admission is denied.
Eddleman Contention 85.
In the original May 14, 1982 filing by Mr.
- Eddleman, Contention 85 was stated as "CPL has failed to take appropriate measures to prevent or minimize fish kills from the causes discussed below.
Contention 86 is incorporated herein by reference for its information."
Contention 86 stated that "the ES's consideration of fish kills due to hot water discharge into SHNPP reservoir (lake) is inadequate as (I) the upper lethal temperature limits at which significant fish mortality occurs have not been established for important fish species (ER 5. 1.3-2, amendment 1).
(2) the time for which any o
the ER 2.2.0 important fish species (or others found in the Harris reservoir (lake))
can tolerate the high temperatures in the discharge mixing zone is not established on the basis of experimental
- data, nor have periods such
13-species of fish (individuals of those species) are likely to spend in the mixing zone been established by actual study or experiment of those same species in lakes like the SHNPP reservoir.
(3) average, not peak, mixing zone temperatures have been used in the analysis of fish sensitivity to temperature in the mixing zone.
Actually, the peak temperature that can be expected during the time and period established by research per (2) above should be used in projecting the probability and numerical occurrences of fish k'ills from Harris cooling tower blowdown by temperature.
- Further, the addition of heat by coolino tower blowdown above the maximum temperatures of over 31'ecorded in the area (ER Ref. 5,1.3-5) or the actual highest temperature recorded in the reservoir without cooling tower blowdown, needs to be the basis in establishing the temperatures in the mixing zone and the areas over which these maximum temperatures can, be expected to extend for the time and periods as calculated above in this (3) and (2).
(4) the additional
- toxic synergistic effects of the presence of chlorine, hydrazine,
- ammonia, and other chemicals in addition to elevated temperatures per (3) above in cooling tower blowdown on fish kills in the miring zone must be considered on a conservative basis.
The sensitivity of important fish species per ER 2.2.0 and other fish species found in the reservoi r must be established accurately to these combinations of chemical and temperature conditions to be expected.
(5) the original FES did not consider the above accurately because then SHNPP was going to be once-through cooling with no cooling towers, thus cooling tower blowdown chemicals and the mixing zone were very different from the current plan, and plant.setup.
These chanaes must be addressed (as set forth above, e.g.) in the striking of the environmental balance under HEPA for SHNPP operating license issuance."
The Board deferred ruling on Contentions 85 and 86 (September 22, 1982), pending the availability of the environmental statement.
The DES was served on May 11, 1983 and Mr. Eddleman responded on June 20, 1983 with the principal point being that "the DEIS fails entirely to document or lay out Staff's analysis" with respect to fish kills.
The Board issued a t/emorandum and Order on August 18, 1983 that further deferred our ruling on this contention until after the issuance of the FES.
In that order (page 14),
a typographical error in which the contention was numbered 85B was missed by the Board.
Me acknowledge that oversight and require that all parties use the correct designation of "85" or "85/86".
In our August 10, 1983 Order, the Board took the position that "the Staff's sole function is to factor the impacts previously determined by the EPA (and the State of North Carolina) into the NRC's cost/benefit analysis.
- However, we further took the position that the Staff analysis should be understandable and demonstrably accurate.
The FES for the Harris plant was issued in October, 1983 and Mr.
Eddleman responded on December 16, 1983.
He continues to raise a number of issues that may or may not be important in the cost/benefit analyses
15-and states that he can't quite figure out how the Staff did the ana lysis.
The Board cannot resolve these issues with the materials before us and, therefore, the contention is admitted.
- However, we speculate that these issues can be resolved in an off-the-record meeting between the Applicants'echnical staff and Mr. Eddleman.
We also suggest that a
working hypothesis that might be pursued is that:
1.
Construction of cooling towers is a major thermal impact mitgation measure that denies part of this contention, i.e., that CPL has failed to take appropriate measures.
2.
The exact area that will be warmer than the North Carolina regulatory standards is not known for certain but both Staff's and Applicants'nalyses indicate that it will be smaller than the 200 acres specified in the NPDES permit.
3.
While the NRC Staff has yet to make an explicit statement, it is not unreasonable to consider that the Staff view is that 200 acres in a 4000 acre reservoir is 5" of the surface area and the "off-standard" waters will be found approximately in the upper 5 feet of the reservoir, so that the volume in ques ion is 1 to 2~ of the total volume.
Such numbers may be the basis for the Staff conclusion on page 6-2 of DES that damage to aquatic resources will be "small."
4.
The existence of a limited area of "off-standard" waters would have the impact of denying a small part of the potential habitat to the
fish populations of the reservoir.
Consideration of the above magnitude of such an effect may suggest that an,Gndiscernable effect on the fish I
production of the reservoir may be anticipated.
5.
Based on observations in other reservoirs in North Carolina that receive heated water discharges, it may be demonstrable that the effect of 'the limited "off-standard" waters will be avoidance of such areas by fishes, rather than fish kills as postulated in this contention.
Following the specified conference, the Board would expect that if specific, focused issues
- remain, such issues would be identified and the present broad statements would be replaced with litigable issues.
The above suggestions by the Board are made in conformance with 10 CFR 2.759.
Rulin s on SER Contentions.
In the telephone conference of March 8,
1984, the Board ruled on Mr. Eddleman's contentions on the SER on the bases of his responses to January 17, 1984 filing and the Applicants.'nd Staf<'s it.
At that point, we had forgotten that we had granted Mr. Eddleman extensions of time to reply to the responses.
He received fir. Eddleman's reply shortly after the conference-call.
lie have reconsidered each of our rulings cn the SER proposed contentions in light of Mr. Eddleman's reply.
1Jhile we agree with some of the points Mr. Eddleman makes--e.g.
that his TDI diesel generator conten.'.ons are
C
~
17-not untimely--Mr. Eddleman's reply does not cause us to change any of our rulings, and those rulings are reaffirmed.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD enn 0. Bright ADMINISTRATIVEJUDGE D
James
. Carp er IINISTRATIYE JU GE
- Bethesda, Maryl and March 15, 1984.
/,
(.
///g~g~
(J//J Joins L.
e ey, Chai n
A6MINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~.
S,
~
~
4~
I H
I U
t
~
W